Greco-Buddhist Relations in the Hellenistic Far East: Sources and Contexts 1032193026, 9781032193021, 2022053059, 2022053060, 9781032193007, 9781003258575

Citation preview

GRECO-BUDDHIST RELATIONS IN THE HELLENISTIC FAR EAST

This book provides the first comprehensive and interdisciplinary view of the relationship between the Greeks and Buddhist communities in ancient Bactria and Northwest India, from the conquests of Alexander the Great to the fall of the Indo-­ Greek kingdom circa 10 AD. The main thesis of this book is the assumption that, despite the presence of mutual relationships and interactions between the Greeks and Buddhist inhabitants of the Hellenistic Far East, the phenomenon known conventionally as “Greco-Buddhism” never truly occurred. The individual chapters of this book provide an analysis of the main sources for Greco-Buddhist relations, mainly textual, but also archaeological and numismatic. The methods of philological and historical research are used in combination with postcolonial approaches to the study of the Greeks in India drawing from sociological research on ethnicity and intercultural relations. It is a rich source of information for anyone interested in Greco-Buddhist relations and is a great starting point for further research in this area. This volume is a valuable resource for students and scholars working on the Greco-­ Bactrian and Indo-Greek kingdoms, both classicists and those working on early Indian history, as well as those working on cultural exchange in the Hellenistic world. Olga Kubica is Lecturer of Classics at the University of Wrocław. She has finished her PhD in Ancient History as part of the international PhD project “The Eastern Mediterranean from the 4th C. BC until Late Antiquity” at the University of Wrocław, with internships at the University of Liverpool and Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi.

“Olga Kubica provides a most authoritative survey of the interactions of the Greeks in India with their Buddhist contemporaries. Her work is an invaluable guide to the historical and philological problems and to the scholarly controversies surrounding this period of ferment in the history of ideas.” Richard Stoneman, Honorary Visiting Professor, University of Exeter, UK

GRECO-BUDDHIST RELATIONS IN THE HELLENISTIC FAR EAST Sources and Contexts

Olga Kubica

Designed cover image: Buddha, third century, Pakistan, KhyberPakhtunkhwa province, possibly Takht-i-bahi monastery, ancient region of Gandhara. Acc. no.: 2014.188. Purchase, Denise and Andrew Saul Gift, in honor of Maxwell K. Hearn, 2014. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. First published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 Olga Kubica The right of Olga Kubica to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Kubica, Olga, author. Title: Greco-Buddhist relations in the Hellenistic Far East : sources and contexts / Olga Kubica. Description: New York : Routledge, 2023. | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2022053059 (print) | LCCN 2022053060 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032193021 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032193007 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003258575 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Indo-Greeks—History. | Greeks—Bactria—History. | Greeks—India, Northwestern—History. | Buddhists—Bactria—History. | Buddhists—India, Northwestern—History. | Bactria—Ethnic relations. | India, Northwestern—Ethnic relations. | Bactria—Antiquities. | India, Northwestern—Antiquities. | India—Civilization—Greek influences. | India—History—324 B.C.-1000 A.D. Classification: LCC DS451 .K797 2023 (print) | LCC DS451 (ebook) | DDC 305.800939/6—dc23/eng/20221206 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022053059 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022053060 ISBN: 978-1-032-19302-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-19300-7 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-25857-5 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003258575 Typeset in Bembo by codeMantra

CONTENTS

List of Figures and Tables Acknowledgements

ix xi

vi Contents

The Greek edicts of As´oka from Kandahar  78 Yavana-raˉja Tu∙saˉspa 90 The cultural relations between the Greeks and As´oka in the context of modern theories  92 3 Between As´oka and Menander: A few notes on the Greco-Bactrian kingdom A glance at the history and culture of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom  105 Ai Khanoum as a lieu de mémoire 107 The inscription of the son of Aristonax  112 The Sophytos inscription  114 The Heliodotus inscription  118

105

4 Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom To whose history does Menander belong? A reflection on the state of research on Menander and the Milindapañha 129 The Greek sources on Menander  131 The archaeological sources on Menander  132 Bajaur reliquary inscription  133 Reh inscription  136 Menander’s coins  138 The Indian literary sources on Menander  141 Yuga Puraˉn ․a 141 Ks․emendra’s Bodhisattvaˉvadaˉnakalpalata 143 The Milindapañha 144 Milindapañha and the question of Greek influence  145 The Chinese versions of the Milindapañha 148 Gandhaˉra in the time of Menander  151

129

5 Gandhaˉ ra Gandhaˉra and greater Gandhaˉra  164 Gandhaˉran art as Greco-Buddhist art?  169 Anthropomorphic images of the Buddha  169 Vajrapaˉn∙i as Heracles  176 Gaˉndhaˉrıˉ 183 The Gaˉndhaˉrıˉ Dhammapada and the Prˉakrit of the Northwest  184 The British Library fragments and the origin of the Dharmaguptaka school 186 Greek papyrus as a model for the Gaˉndhaˉrıˉ scrolls  188 Hellenistic influence on the formation of Buddhist religiousness?  188

164

6 Late Greek Sources about Buddhism in India Apollonius of Tyana  196 Bardaisan 201

196

Contents  vii



FIGURES AND TABLES

Figures 1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3

2.4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2 4.3

Silver tetradrachm of Alexander the Great. Head of Heracles in lion’s skin. Courtesy: Εφορεία Αρχαιοτήτων Καβάλας As´oka tree (Saraca asoca vel indica). Photo: Deependra Kumar Bilingual Greco-Aramaic inscription of King Piyadassi. Kabul Museum; today disappeared. Source: Pugliese Caretelli et al. (1964) Ruins of Old Kandahar citadel. Source: “Bellew Collection: Photograph album of Surgeon-General Henry Walter Bellew”; photo by Sir Benjamin Simpson taken ca. 1881 Kandahar Greek inscription of King Piodasses. Photo of the stamp: M. Clair. Source: Schlumberger (1964) High-relief of a naked man wearing a χλαμύς. Ai Khanoum, second century BC. Courtesy: Musée Guimet Inscription of Kineas. Ai Khanoum, second century BC. Courtesy: Musée Guimet The inscription of the son of Aristonax The Sophytos inscription The Heliodotus inscription (a section) Shinko․t casket inscription segments A, A1, and C Reh inscription of Menander Silver coin of Menander I from Pu․skalaˉvatˉı (Garstang Museum in Liverpool, no. 286). Denomination: drachm. Standard: Indian. Weight: 2.47 g. Diameter: 17.5 mm. Obverse: Draped bust of Menander, facing right, wearing a crested helmet with diadem. Legend around in Greek: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ ΜΕΝΑΝΔΡΟΥ. Courtesy: Garstang Museum in Liverpool

32 63 79

81 81 109 110 113 115 118 133 137

139

x  Figures and Tables

4.4 here Reverse: Helmeted and draped Athena Alkidemos, advancing left, viewed from behind, holding shield on outstretched left arm, and hurling thunderbolt with right. Legend around in Kharos․․t hıˉ script: MAHARAJASA TRATARASA MENAM ․ DRASA. Courtesy: Garstang Museum in Liverpool 140 5.1 Map of Gandhaˉra 165 5.2 Standing Buddha. One of the first representations of the Buddha, Kus․aˉn․a period, first–second century AD, Gandhaˉra (Tokyo National Museum). Source: ColBase: Integrated Collections Database of the National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, Japan. URL: https://colbase.nich.go.jp/collection_ items/tnm/TC-733?locale=en 170 5.3 One face of a fence-rail from Bhaˉrhut: Worship at a Stuˉpa, early second century BC. Credit: Freer Gallery of Art; Purchase – Charles Lang Freer Endowment. URL: https://asia.si.edu/ object/F1932.26/ 171 5.4 Vajrapaˉn ․i attends the Buddha at his First Sermon, ca. second century AD, Gandhaˉra. Credit: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.; Gift of Daniel Slott, 1980 177 5.5 The universal ruler or cakravartin (possibly a representation of As´oka), Amaraˉvatıˉ relief, Andhra Pradesh, first century BC/AD. Courtesy: Musée Guimet 181 5.6 Vajrapaˉn 182 ․i with Heraclean club. Courtesy: Musée Guimet

Table 5.1 The family of S´uˉrasena 180

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I was able to complete this study thanks to the financial assistance in the form of scholarships and prizes from various institutions. I would like to express my appreciation for this to the Foundation for Polish Science and European Union, Regional Development Fund (for the grant in the project “The Eastern Mediterranean from the 4th Century BC until Late Antiquity”), to the Faculty of Historical and Pedagogical Sciences of the University of Wrocław (for an internal grant for a research project titled “Menander I Soter and Buddhism”), and to the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies and the Leventis Foundation (for a full bursary for the conference “Dialogues Between Greece and the East”). I have been assisted during the course of my research by various scholars and colleagues. I would like in particular to thank Prof. Gos´ciwit Malinowski, Prof. Thomas Harrison, and Prof. Himanshu Prabha Ray for their guidance and help throughout the period of my writing of this book. I wish to acknowledge my gratitude to Prof. Krzysztof Nawotka and Dr Agnieszka Wojciechowska for conducting the project “The Eastern Mediterranean from the 4th Century BC until Late Antiquity”. My thanks are also due to the Hellenistic Central Asia Research Network, especially to Prof. Rachel Mairs as the founder, for the friendly community of researchers in which this book could ripen like a fruit in the sun. Among my colleagues, I would like to express my appreciation especially to two who are like a mast of the Gandhaˉran studies ship: Prof. Luca Maria Olivieri in the field of archaeology and Dr. Stefan Baums in the field of language studies. I wish to express my gratitude also to my family: my mother, my sister, and my son, without whose support and patience the writing of this book would not be possible.

INTRODUCTION

When on various occasions I am asked what topics I deal with in my research work and I reply that I am exploring the relations between the Greeks and Buddhism in the areas of the so-called Hellenistic Far East (HFE), corresponding to ancient Bactria1 and India, especially Northwest India, in the time from the conquest of these areas by Alexander the Great until the end of the Indo-Greek kingdom (around 10 AD), I usually encounter a great surprise on the part of my interlocutors followed by a series of questions. Therefore, let me introduce the reader to the reading of this book by answering the most frequently asked questions. At the same time, I am asking for forgiveness from those readers for whom these issues are obvious. Since this book covers an extremely rich subject and each chapter could be developed as a separate monograph, perhaps researchers who study particular topics and sources more deeply will not find very insightful considerations here. This book is a rather brief introduction for people who would like to learn about the complex issues of Greco-Buddhist relations, also as a starting point for their own research. However, for my own justification, I would like to add that here and there the former will also find interesting new proposals for interpreting known sources. So, the first question I am faced with is whether the Greeks were even in these lands at that time. The answer is of course yes. Otherwise, this book would not exist. It all started with Alexander the Great and his conquest in the 30s and 20s of the fourth century BC in Central Asia, in the areas of today’s Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. With the conquest, immigrants from the Mediterranean world, including soldiers left in garrisons, settled in these areas, which fell to Seleucus after Alexander’s death. In the mid-third century BC, Diodotus I, satrap of Bactria, seceded from the Seleucid Empire and created an independent state. This event is described by

DOI: 10.4324/9781003258575-1

2 Introduction

Strabo 11.9 and Justin, Epitome 41.4. The state he founded, known today as the “Greco-Bactrian” kingdom, survived until about the mid-second century BC. Around the turn of the third–second centuries BC, the Greco-Bactrians invaded the areas of southern Afghanistan, Pakistan, and northern India and established their dynasties there. This event is described by Strabo 11.11.1. Their reign in these lands, known today as the ‘Indo-Greek’ kingdom, lasted until around 10 AD. A more detailed history of these kingdoms in the context of Greek relations with Buddhism will be presented in individual chapters. For those interested in getting acquainted with the research on the topic of those kingdoms, I recommend a comprehensive study edited by Mairs, entitled “The Graeco-Bactrian and Indo Greek World” (2021). The second question I encounter is whether the Greeks had any contact with Buddhism. Of course, this entire book is an attempt to answer that question in more detail, but it is worth making a short introduction to it here. The Greeks probably had contact with Buddhism a bit earlier than the time period discussed in this book. Buddhism may have influenced the development of the philosophy of Pyrrho of Elis, who accompanied Alexander the Great to India and came into contact with Indian sages, so-called “naked philosophers” or gymnosophists. This topic has been raised many times in such publications as: Frenkian’s Scepticismul grec ¸si filozofia indiana˘ (1957), Flintoff’s “Pyrrho and India” (1980), Bett’s Pyrrho, His Antecedents, and His Legacy (2000), Kuzminski’s Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism (2008), Halkias’ “When the Greeks Converted the Buddha: Asymmetrical Transfers of Knowledge in Indo-Greek Cultures” (2014: 73 ff.), Neale’s Madhyamaka and Pyrrhonism (2014), Beckwith’s Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia (2015), Stoneman’s The Greek Experience of India. From Alexander to the Indo-Greeks (2019: 346–357), and Kuzminski’s Pyrrhonian Buddhism: A Philosophical Reconstruction (2021). Because this topic has been discussed by so many eminent scholars, and because it is only the context for the relations of the Greeks living in the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kingdoms with Buddhism discussed here, it will only be briefly discussed in Chapter 1 as the context for the main sources. Here we come to the third question, which arises: what, then, are these sources? The first thing, which may come to mind, at least to people who know anything about Greco-Buddhist relations in the Hellenistic Far East, is the socalled Greco-Buddhist art of Gandhˉa ra, the term used first by Foucher in his book L’art gréco-bouddhique du Gandhâra: étude sur les origines de l’influence classique dans l’art bouddhique de l’Inde et de l’Extrême-Orient (1905–1951), to describe the classical influence on the Buddhist art of India and the Far East. It should be noted, however, that the art of Gandhˉa ra is dated to later times than the IndoGreek kingdom, namely the times of the Ku․sˉa n․ a Empire. Therefore, in this book, it will be discussed, but with the proviso that it goes beyond the timeframe of the main topic of the work. So what sources do we have from the time between Alexander and the Ku․sˉa n․ as? Well, we have a lot of written evidence of Greco-Buddhist relations, which can be dated to the times of the Greco-Bactrian

Introduction  3

and Indo-Greek kingdoms. These sources are a bridge connecting with later times. The influence of Greek art on the art of Gandhˉa ra is undeniable, but it did not arise out of a void. And it is this gap in research that this book fills. This book embraces the study of both, written and archaeological sources, but while previous research on Greco-Buddhist relations was focused primarily on archaeological sources, especially the art of Gandhˉa ra, my research seeks to redress the balance by concentrating mainly on written sources. This is partly because of my philological training, but mainly due to the lack of any comprehensive treatment of these sources from the perspective of the study of Greco-Buddhist relations. Therefore, the main sources are inscriptions, mainly Greek inscriptions, among which a mention should be made of the Greek versions of the Edicts of Aśoka, the inscription of the son of Aristonax, the inscription of Sophytos, the inscription of Heliodotus, and inscriptions from Ai Khanoum, as well as Indian inscriptions, for example the Edicts of Aśoka or the inscription of Heliodorus. Equally important are literary texts, the most important text being Milindapañha (The Questions of king Milinda). I also discuss several Greek texts found in Ai Khanoum. Furthermore, I analyse a number of sources, which provide a context for the subject under examination, for example, references in Greek sources to the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kingdoms and their respective rulers and to particular aspects of Indian history. Furthermore, I analyse the references to the so-called Yavanas in the Indian sources. With regard to archaeological sources, the majority of my research is limited to presenting major research problems and results of previous research. In the case of Gandhˉa ran art, I concentrate on the presentation of the main problems without entering into the details of the interpretation of individual sculptures. The relevant literature is very wide and a detailed analysis would go beyond the capacity of this book. With regards to other archaeological sources, they are selectively applied in relation to the subject of study. Perhaps many valuable archaeological sources shedding light on the Greco-Buddhist relations have been omitted due to the vastness of the material, which makes it impossible to examine every stuˉ pa, every reliquary, and every coin. Alongside the traditional philological method of reconstruction of the original text and its context on the one hand, and the archaeological method (for example in the case of the art from Gandhˉa ra) of reconstruction of the original appearance of finding and determining its function and context on the other, I use the method of critical evaluation of these sources to determine whether the individual sources are biased or reliable and to what extent, and to demonstrate how these sources may be useful in the reconstruction of related events. Moreover, I utilize several anthropological theories for a better understanding of the processes, which took place at the crossroads of cultures. It should be noted at the outset that the work involves two complex and not equiponderant concepts. One of them is an ethnic designation, the Greeks, the second refers to Buddhism, which is widely understood as a religious movement, philosophy, and Buddhist culture and art. Both terms may refer to the concept of identity, ethnic, and

4 Introduction

religious identity, respectively, which may or may not be intertwined. We also have to deal with the phenomenon of conversion and its sociological and psychological background. Therefore, the book draws on a range of anthropological theories concerning ethnicity and ethnic identity, which will be discussed in more detail further in this introduction. The theories which have proved particularly helpful in understanding the complex relations between the Greeks and the conquered peoples are the concept of the so-called middle ground by White and the concept of the so-called lieu de mémoire by Nora, which I use in Chapters 2 and 3, respectively. It is worth adding that it has long been customary among the few people, who have any awareness of the topic of the Greco-Buddhist relations in antiquity, to use the inadequate term Greco-Buddhism, coined by analogy to GrecoBuddhist art of Gandhˉa ra. The term Greco-Buddhism denotes the supposed cultural syncretism between Classical Greek culture and Buddhism. However, this term cannot be applied here, because religious or philosophical syncretism in fact denotes a reconciliation or union of differing systems of belief, which does not occur here. Buddhism emerged much earlier than the beginning of Greek domination in Bactria and Northwest India, it was subject to various influences, and even if some elements can be explained by the Greek influence, still, the balance should be maintained and the Greek element in Buddhism should not be overestimated in exuberant terminology. Therefore, as a counterweight to such simplified formulations, in this book, I re-analyse the available data in the context of modern theories, as well as broad historical, cultural, and religious contexts. I do not exclude the possibility that some phenomena within Buddhism may be interpreted as a manifestation of syncretism between Greek and Buddhist elements, but the term Greco-Buddhism applies only to certain aspects and not to the entirety of Greco-Buddhist relations. One more question arises, namely, has anyone taken up this topic before? The subject of Greco-Buddhist relations was only relatively recently developed in separate publications, among which a mention should be made of two articles, Vassiliades’ “Greeks and Buddhism: Historical Contacts in the Development of a Universal Religion” (2005) and Halkias’ “When the Greeks Converted the Buddha: Asymmetrical Transfers of Knowledge in Indo-Greek Cultures” (2014). This latter work is particularly commendable because it presents in a concise form the majority of available sources. Halkias represented “the fusion of Hellenism and Buddhism” as “the side effect of an asymmetrical recreation of religious and cultural horizons neither exclusively Indian nor uniquely Greek” (Halkias 2014: 66). He addressed the phenomenon of cultural conversion among the Indo-Greeks to Buddhism and of Buddhism to Hellenism using Kroeber’s theory of stimulus diffusion (1940) “defined as a set of dynamic correspondences between cultures that encountered no visible resistance to their spread” (Halkias 2014: 109). The author of the article showed an incredible knowledge, but, unfortunately, the fact that the huge amount of material is concluded in ca. fifty pages does not serve it best. Some of the issues mentioned by the author would

Introduction  5

require a separate development. Moreover, the theory by Kroeber has not been duly explained and properly linked to the presented material. In addition, the closing formulation “the coming together of the civilizations of East and West and the enduring legacy of the Greeks in Asia as the first Europeans ever to be converted to Buddhism” (Halkias 2014: 109) does not match the pattern of “asymmetrical recreation of religious and cultural horizons neither exclusively Indian nor uniquely Greek”, but rather fits into the scheme of colonial rhetoric, as discussed further in the present introduction. Moreover, the diffusionist models of culture must be treated with suspicion because of their German-nationalist connotations (cf. Kossinna). Some issues related to the relationship between Greeks and Buddhism have been addressed in the broader context of cultural contacts between the East and the West in such works as Bentley’s Old World Encounters: Cross-Cultural Contacts and Exchanges in Pre-modern Times (1993: 43 ff.), Boardman’s The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity (1994: 99 ff.), McEvilley’s The Shape of Ancient Thought. Comparative studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies (2002), Beinorius’ article “Buddhism in the Early European Imagination: A Historical Perspective” (2005), or Foltz’s Religions of the Silk Road (2010: 37 ff.). The notion of Central Asia as a “melting pot” of traditions has been adopted in many studies dedicated to the contacts and influences between Eastern and Western cultures. However, it should be remembered that the term “melting pot” has its historical and cultural freight, since it was created during the colonization and immigration leading to the formation of the United States of America, as a metaphor for an idealized process of creating a new society by combining different nationalities, cultures, and ethnicities. There are a few works devoted to the spread of Buddhism westwards, such as Scott’s “The Iranian Face of Buddhism” (1990), presenting the spread of Buddhism to the Mediterranean along the Persian Gulf and across the Iranian plateau, Webb’s “The Early Spread and Influence of Buddhism in Western Asia” (1993), and Seldeslachts’ Greece, The Final Frontier? The Westward Spread of Buddhism (2007). Of the works devoted to the expansion of Buddhism eastwards, I will mention Zürcher’s The Buddhist Conquest of China (2007). In this context, the more surprising is the lack of a monograph on the relations between the Greeks and Buddhism in the phase of their closest interactions, except for Scott’s article “Ashokan Missionary Expansion of Buddhism among the Greeks (In N.W. India, Bactria and the Levant)” (1985). Many particular issues of Greco-Buddhist relations have been developed separately, but a bibliography for individual topics and sources will be presented in relevant chapters. The study of Greco-Buddhist relations has its origin and the wider context in the study of the Greeks in Bactria and India. Therefore, the most important turning points, which have shaped our current approach to the historiography of that region and which led me to adopt some concepts of how the Greeks’ relationship with the world around them can be perceived, e.g. through the prism of the aforementioned middle ground or lieux de mémoire theories, are worth presenting.

6 Introduction

In order for the reader to better understand these concepts, it is necessary to go back a bit in time and present their origins in a broader context. We live in a post-colonial world, where advancing globalization may be perceived in every field of human activity. Also, in the field of history, the old approaches have been superseded by new trends, focused on completely different values and definitions. But it seems that historiography has reached a critical point and made a circle around its own axis. It became critical of its own criticism, and in connection with this, a certain pessimism with regard to further research can be observed.2 This is particularly evident in the studies of Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kingdoms, because their history is shrouded in a particularly thick fog of speculation, conjecture, and uncertainties. This is due to the scarcity of sources and because of the geographical location and political conditions of the region, which has long been at the centre of many conflicts. As Garton noticed in his essay “‘Wild Follies and Ostentations Displays’: Reflections on Alexander the Great in India and the Question of Collective Memory” published in the book Memory as History: The Legacy of Alexander in Asia, “there is a rich historiography on how late eighteenth and early nineteenth century British orientalist and utilitarian writers, while often in sharp disagreement with each other on matters of detail and emphasis, crafted pervasive discourses about Indian culture and character that sanctioned and shaped British rule in India” (Garton 2007: 1). This sentence shows at once the whole complex problem of nineteenth-century historiography of India and at the same time its essence. Namely, the approach of Western scholars to study the history of this country was too one-sided and ideologically oriented, focused too much on the details, while ignoring the whole composite picture of reality. But one thing is missing in this statement. While the influence of British scholars on the formation of colonial image of India cannot be undermined, it nevertheless must not be forgotten that the whole process of the adoption of imperial rhetoric by historians began in Prussia, pioneered by the German scholar, Droysen. Droysen in his Geschichte des Hellenismus (1878) being under the influence of Hegel’s historicist and idealist account of reality was the first to define Hellenization and present Hellenism as an Epochenbegriff, an epochal term, which found its practical realization in the “historical developments of the period” (Parker 2007: 177). Droysen’s point of view was based on Prussian imperialism. It underestimated the role of local histories and presented the history as a sequence of events leading to the establishment of the monarchy and Christianity. Droysen was a statesman and an ideologist of imperialism, so his account of Hellenism is to some extent devoid of objectivity. According to Green (1990: 312), the civilizing and missionary aspects of Hellenization have been exaggerated by those, who wished to find some “moral justification for imperialism”. As further noticed by Wolski (1969: 255), the adoption of Droysen’s view on Hellenism has led to a general agreement that the collapse of Seleucid rule in Iran in the third century BC belongs almost exclusively to Hellenistic history, with the indigenous peoples of that country, the Iranians, not considered at all. Therefore, in this book,

Introduction  7

the emphasis is placed on seeing a wider perspective and a more complex picture of reality, showing the multiculturalism of the studied area and the multidimensionality of certain phenomena. A successor to Droysen in presenting the “missionary role of dissemination of Hellenism” (Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993) was Tarn with his famous work The Greeks in Bactria and India (1938), who represented the old colonial British Empire view. According to Parker (2007: 177), the importance of Tarn’s scholarly contribution should not be denied because he was the first scholar to integrate the coin finds of Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kingdoms into a narrative history and thus gave an impulse for further studies of those areas. But on the other hand, he depicted too simplistic and one-sided a picture of colonialism by presenting the spread of Hellenism as what he calls a “march state”. The purpose of that vision was clearly to sanction British rule in India. As Parker noticed (2007: 178), in Tarn’s work “we may detect a modern colonial intertext – that the Bactrian Greeks seem to be really a disguised version of the British in India” (cf. de Angelis 1998). It seems that he was writing neither Greek history, nor Bactrian (Afghan) or Indian one, but another chapter of British history. Sherwin-White (1993: 186) enlisted the colonial British Empire view represented by Tarn among the two main schools of thought in approaching the question of Hellenization, as opposed to the view of such scholars, as Préaux (1978) and Briant (1982), who point out the “colonial and exploitative character of Macedonian rule”. Neither of those schools is correct in its attitude. The colonial view is obviously unacceptable, because, as Parker noticed, “the historical phenomenon that may be termed encounter or interaction is entirely underdeveloped in Droysen and Tarn, in favour of the celebration of Hellenism” (Parker 2007: 178), whereas Préaux and Briant see “social and cultural relations in terms of separation and segregation” (Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 186), so they also tend to underestimate the role of encounter and interaction. As Parker noticed, it is “not surprising that several scholars have spoken of Afghanistan’s past within a broad sweep” (Parker 2007: 174), because the history of that country presents an extremely complex picture of political and social relations. Moreover, the sources are very scanty and the dangers posed to scholars, like “the grand narrative that overlooks smaller-scale histories” or “the trap of environmental determinism”, seem very difficult to avoid, even if historical research is conducted in a very self-conscious way. But at least recognizing the impact of colonial and imperial rhetoric on the view of Hellenism marked the boundary for more self-conscious and more self-critical historiography. The next question, which arose as a reaction to the imperialistic views expressed by Tarn, was that of the “property rights” to the history of the IndoGreek kingdom, posed by Narain in his book The Indo-Greeks (1957). His famous statement that “Their history is part of the history of India and not of the Hellenistic states; they came, they saw, but India conquered” (Narain 1957: 18) opened a dispute between him and Tarn “over the nature, extent and influence of Greek culture” and “the lasting impact of Alexander’s campaigns and the ancient Greek

8 Introduction

settlements that arose thereafter in Bactria and surrounding regions on the development of Indian culture and economy” (Garton 2007: 1). It is explicitly evident that the views represented by both scholars are over-simplistic. But no less simplified perhaps are some critiques of that dispute, for example the representation of the parties of that controversy by Garton (2007), where Tarn is described as the “Eurocentric apologist for Western colonial expansion” and Narain as “the nationalist critic of European colonisation”. In my opinion, Mairs (2014: 13) was right when she concluded that the conflict between Tarn and Narain is only apparent, because they were both right each in their own way, for a different region and chronological period. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider the possibility of replacing the question “whose history” by the question “whose memory”? Because history is in fact objective and critical, and the collective memory is a phenomenon applicable to certain groups of people. As Garton suggested in his essay, “One way of conceptualising the spread and perpetuation of Alexander legends is to see them as a form of collective memory” (Garton 2007: 5). He based his study on the concept of memory developed in social sciences from Durkheim’s concept of collective consciousness. His starting point is inspired by Durkheim’s essay by Halbwachs (1992). As Garton wrote, “Here Halbwachs sought to explain how events, customs, and structures were carried forward by specific social groups in the form of shared memories, constantly revived and revitalised in particular historical moments, to help shape the present” (Garton 2007: 3). Garton’s case study are the reflections on Alexander, which are not directly within the scope of our interest, but the conclusions drawn by Garton about the mechanisms at work in the shaping of collective memories are of relevance for the present study. What is extremely interesting from the point of view of research on culture and social life is the division of memory into public memory, aptly defined by Garton (2007: 4) as the “efforts by those in power to create certain types of meaning that sustain their social position” and popular, which “often runs in parallel or even in opposition to an official public memory”. This distinction points to the “conflict within cultures, between official or high culture and popular or plebeian cultures”. Another important feature of memory is the fact that it is dynamic. It can be shaped, reshaped, changed, or even denied. According to Garton, “memory is not just a recovery of things past but an active construction of the past in the context of present concerns – it is dialogic, as Dominick La Capra has argued – a conversation between past and present to create new types of meaning” (Garton 2007: 5). And thus it is not objective, like history, but subjective, concerning particular group of people. Thus, awareness of these processes can help to acquire more critical insight into historiography. Garton (2007: 4) also noticed the perspectives for interpreting the archaeological evidence and the written sources from the point of view of the studies of public memory. In the context of the division of the memory on the public and the popular one, these sources can show quite new ways of understanding social and cultural relations.

Introduction  9

In order to properly understand the problem of collective memories and to explore its possible prospects for Greco-Buddhist studies, it will be reasonable to look at the views presented by Halbwachs. The starting point of his reflections in the essay On Collective Memory (1992) is a story of a girl found in France, who was taken from the Antilles and did not remember anything, at least until she was shown the pictures from Eskimo country. The conclusion of that story is the fact that people normally acquire, recall, reorganize, and localize their memories in society. The most important point of this theory is the notion that a single man cannot have memories without the reference to the group, because “the individual remembers by placing himself in the perspective of the group” and “the memory of the group realizes and manifests itself in individual memories” (Halbwachs 1992: 40). One important point in Halbwachs’ theory follows from the fact that aphasiacs have reduced capability for constructing memories. So, Halbwachs drew a conclusion that “No memory is possible outside frameworks used by people living in society to determine and retrieve their recollections” (Halbwachs 1992: 43). It is the language that gives a structure to memory, and a consciousness of social networks that gives it a meaning. This observation about the importance of language for shaping memories has momentous implications for our understanding of oral and written traditions about the past. In the present study, it finds its application for example in considering the Greek translations of Indian notions. Moreover, it should be noted that every language, including artistic means of expression, such as sculpture or architecture, carries with it the baggage of the collective memories of its users, and thus the theory by Halbwachs may also highlight some of the issues of the so-called Greco-Buddhist art. Subsequently, Halbwachs presented a case of the book from childhood, by reading which we hope to recall the mental state, in which we found ourselves at the time of reading it last time, but it seems like we are reading a new book, or some changed version, which lacks pages, developments, or details, which were there before. This image proves that the past cannot be precisely reconstructed, because the memories are being reproduced on the basis of the present. Our identity is perpetuated by a continual relationship with our memories. And, “however convinced we are that our memories are exact, we give them a prestige that reality did not possess” (Halbwachs 1992: 51). Moreover, the memories are located in the collective memory of the group, and, “as people are members of many different groups at the same time, so the memory of the same fact can be placed within many frameworks, which result from distinct collective memories” (Halbwachs 1992: 52). This observation shows how complex can be the study of the transmission of the memory in the context of the various groups, which transmitted this memory. This demand is perfectly formulated in the following sentence: “We can understand each memory as it occurs in individual thought only if we locate each within the thought of the corresponding group. We cannot properly understand their relative strength and the ways in which they combine within individual thought unless we connect

10 Introduction

the individual to the various groups of which he is simultaneously a member” (Halbwachs 1992: 53). Therefore, in this book, emphasis is placed on presenting the broadest possible context for the researched sources and seeing their creators as representatives of a multicultural environment. In the context of the religious collective memory, which is particularly important for the present considerations, Halbwachs argued (1992: 92) that new religion can be established only if it is a continuation of past beliefs. He showed that religious memory is different from other memories in so far as it tries to remain unchanged and protects its dogmas and rituals from influences from the outside. As an example of that, he showed the Catholic Church, which tries to preserve its character formed at the beginning of its history intact by the influences of the modern society. But whereas “in its beginning, the cult was immersed in the present and was in part conflated with the thought and spontaneous life of contemporary groups” (Halbwachs 1992: 97), nowadays it is reduced to the rigorous observance of certain dogmas and practices and it does not anymore correspond to the current of contemporary popular memory of modern global society, which would call for a global religion. By contrast, living evolving global religion, based on the social group’s collective memory, can be established either through revelation or by the means of syncretism. These reflections on the religion of global society may shed light on religious relations in Bactria and Northwest India, which may be considered in the context of the process of globalization initiated by the conquests of Alexander the Great, and thus we can see many examples of religious syncretism emerging in these areas. In this book, I am trying to find a golden mean between history and collective memory. Especially helpful for this purpose is the essay written by Nora “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire” (1989) about the relation of memory to history. The author presented here his extremely pessimistic view that “We speak so much of memory because there is so little of it left” (Nora 1989: 7). He argued that there are no longer “milieux de mémoire, real environments of memory”, but only some “lieux de mémoire, sites of memory” left. According to Nora, the “process of interior decolonization has affected ethnic minorities, families, and groups that until now have possessed reserves of memory but little or no historical capital” (Nora 1989: 7). The real memory was stored by archaic societies, while history is universal. “At the heart of history is a critical discourse that is antithetical to spontaneous memory. History is perpetually suspicious of memory, and its true mission is to suppress and destroy it. […] History’s goal and ambition is not to exalt but to annihilate what has in reality taken place. A generalized critical history would no doubt preserve some museums, some medallions, and monuments – that is to say, the materials necessary for its work – but it would empty them of what, to us, would make them lieux de mémoire” (Nora 1989: 9). According to Nora, historiographical consciousness is the agent, which divided the memory from history. The memory passes the tradition intact, while the history interrogates it. Currently, there are only some remains of the memory. As one of such modern substitutes for memory Nora constructs his vision of the

Introduction  11

“lieux de mémoire – moments of history torn away from the movement of history, then returned; no longer quite life, not yet death, like shells on the shore when the sea of living memory has receded” (Nora 1989: 12). This description can to some extent show the situation of the ancient Greek city in Bactria, modern site of Ai Khanoum, which is in the words of Nora “forever open to the full range of its possible significations” (Nora 1989: 23 f.). So capturing the elusive memory of this ancient city is, in my opinion, possible if we treat it as a lieu de mémoire, and “lieux de mémoire only exist because of their capacity for metamorphosis, an endless recycling of their meaning and an unpredictable proliferation of their ramifications” (Nora 1989: 19). Therefore, Nora’s essay was chosen as the theoretical framework for the reflections on Ai Khanoum in Chapter 3 of this book. Another significant problem that should be considered is the problem of the so-called Hellenization. Once the idea of the missionary aspect of spreading the Greek culture was abandoned by most of the scholars and the voice came on behalf of India against the notion of its history through the prism of the West, some scholars recognized the need to determine the extent of Greek influence on India and called into question the existing conceptions of Hellenization and its character, as being “derived from European imperialism” (Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993). Green in his book Alexander to Actium: The Hellenistic Age (1990) stands in sharp opposition to the view of Hellenization presented by Tarn. He provided some literary evidence to demonstrate the approaches of the Greeks towards the so-called barbarians. His starting point for the discussion is the description of two contrary attitudes, one of them being that of the imperialists, and the other that of the wandering Cynic philosophers, “citizens of the world” (κοσμοπολῖται), proclaiming equality based on the common nature (φύσις) of all human beings. They were interested in Indian philosophy as having some common features with their own philosophy, but they were not representative of the Greek approach in relation to other cultures. The general attitude of the Greeks towards the barbarians is expressed by Green (1990: 312) in the not-too-flattering, but true statement that the “Greeks had long assumed in themselves, partly on environmental grounds, a cultural superiority over all alien societies”. According to him, Greeks laughed at the barbarians, as can be seen in Aristophanes’ comedies, but they never thought about educating them. As proof of that, he gives the example of Isocrates, who, despite the fact that he argued that Greekness is a matter of attitude and can be obtained through education (παιδεία), still supported the crusade against the barbarians. According to Green, “Curiosity about the rest of the world undoubtedly existed, but was not, perhaps mercifully, accomplished by any inclination to improve it” (Green 1990: 313). In the case of India, this curiosity was initially targeted rather at the so-called wonders, and not at a real Indian culture as such (cf. Romm 1992). In conclusion, Green noticed one important point about the nature of the Hellenization, that it was not, in any case, an intentional and conscious action, but rather incidental and unorganized (Green 1990: 313).

12 Introduction

Soon after Green, the new methodological approach to the problem of Hellenization was formulated by Sherwin-White and Kuhrt in their previously cited book From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire (1993). The main factor for the development of this approach was “the modern experience of decolonisation”, which has shown that the older methodology was unfounded because it assumed that there was a deep cultural interchange between the different cultures. The new approach was based on the assumption that the communication between them was limited (Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993; cf. Préaux 1978; Briant 1982). Moreover, the Greek impact on the culture of the inhabitants of the conquered areas was quite inconsiderable, “the culture of the rulers inevitably had its attractions for elements among the ruled, but often in a quite superficial and temporary way” (Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 186). Another feature of the new methodology was a broader cultural perspective. As Sherwin-White and Kuhrt rightly stated, “It has long been customary to search the Middle East microscopically for any evidence of something Greek – almost to the exclusion of the existing cultures” (Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 141). By this assertion, they did not deny the value of looking for Greek influences, but they noticed the need “to try to recognise the evidence of the influences that various cultures external to a particular area may have, not privileging Greek culture” and “to try to reconstruct and understand the culture(s) of a particular place, which, in the case of the ancient near east, have often been open to manifold foreign cultural influences literally for centuries” (Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 141). The methodological assumptions of the new approach find their most essential formulation in the following sentence: “The age-old difficulty is to hold in balance and recognise (and learn about) the characteristics of each culture relative to its members and context; and also escape the cultural imperialism that classical scholarship itself has in the past propagated” (SherwinWhite and Kuhrt 1993: 141). Another problem was highlighted by Parker in his article “Hellenism in an Afghan Context”, which was published in the above-mentioned book Memory as History: The Legacy of Alexander in Asia (2007). In response to defining Ai Khanoum as an example of “pure Hellenism”, he presented hazards arising from the perception of the phenomena, such as Hellenism, as monoliths and he recommended avoiding the monolithic views of traditions. He showed that the simplified picture of Ai Khanoum as an expression of “pure Hellenism” is due to the methodological problem of reification, “the making of a historical process into a thing, a monolith whose salient features by definition do not undergo change”. In this respect, “Hellenism seems to be as concrete a reality as the gymnasium” (Parker 2007: 178 f.). He called it “satellite Hellenism”, “the static picture of Hellenism, which overlooks the possibility of interaction between various parties” (2007: 184). According to Parker (2007: 185), Ai Khanoum presents a very complex picture and it cannot be so easily pigeonholed, so the archaeological record of that site must be seen “as means of negotiating social differences”. The author highlighted the importance of encounter and interconnectedness, as well as the

Introduction  13

dynamic processes in identity. According to him, “What is especially problematic is the assumption of cultural purity, and with it the effective denial of the possibility of hybridity” (Parker 2007: 184). Similarly to Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, Parker showed how the historians tend to read the data “too closely with the grain” in their “haste to celebrate the spread of Hellenism” and at the same time, they neglect some “more nuanced ways of understanding the encounter” (Parker 2007: 185). Therefore, he recommended studying the sources in context and in different perspectives. In the case of Ai Khanoum, it should be seen not only as a city in the context of Hellenism, but also as a plain in the context of Bactrian and Central Asian history. Parker showed that the history of that plain began well before the foundation of the Greek city, as evidenced by the results of the excavations in Shortugai, which proved that the settlement and the irrigation go back to the Harappan period (cf. Lyonnet 1981). Another problem relevant to the examination of Greek relations with Buddhism in Hellenistic times is the question of ethnicity or ethnic identity.3 Some researchers who have studied the ethnicity of the inhabitants of Bactria pointed to the fact that their Greekness has been exaggerated (Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 102; Mairs 2008: 22 f.). Mairs in her book The Hellenistic Far East. Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia (2014) focused on several case studies, such as the city of Ai Khanoum and the Greek inscriptions from the region, and analysed them in the context of the anthropological theory concerning the problem of ethnicity by Barth. Barth, in his introductory essay to the book Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference (1969), gave impetus to research on ethnicity by presenting his theory, which differed from the primordial position and was opposed to the notion of ethnic groups as bounded entities with stable cultural characteristics. His theory was based on the notion of the interdependency of ethnic groups. Barth did not present any constitutional theory of ethnicity, that is, no ethnic group, in his opinion, has a set of internal features, which constitute its continuance. The continuity of ethnic units depends solely on the maintenance of a boundary understood as “continuing dichotomization between members and outsiders” (Barth 1969: 14). In Barth’s opinion, “it is clear that boundaries persist despite a flow of personnel across them” (Barth 1969: 9).4 It is hard not to notice the progressiveness of Barth’s theory in comparison to the primordial model of the understanding of ethnicity. He denies the culture-bearing aspect of ethnic groups with its implications for the classification of persons and local groups as members of an ethnic group dependent on their exhibiting particular traits of a given culture. And, in fact, the classification on the basis of manifestations of culture in the case of Greco-Buddhist studies might lead to duplicating the primordial model of Kossinna’s Siedlungsarchaeologie and demand the inclusion of the areas of present-day Afghanistan and Pakistan under the rule of Greece (or perhaps Macedonia) on the basis of the discovered traces of Greek culture. This example is perhaps somewhat exaggerated and absurd, but it is worth remembering the fateful consequences of certain theories.

14 Introduction

The book by Jones on The Archaeology of Ethnicity (1997) provides a very good theoretical basis for archaeological research on identity. The author presented here the historical development of research on this issue in the humanities. Jones did not give any ready answers to some fundamental difficulties in creating a coherent theoretical basis for research on ethnicity. But she presented some important conclusions about the non-existence of “bounded, monolithic cultural entities”. She also presented findings on the possible interpretation of material culture. According to her, “culturally specific meanings with which material culture is endowed as a result of former practices influence successive practices and interpretations” ( Jones 1997: 118). Moreover, Jones assumed that stylistic patterns are aimed at, inter alia, communicating identity. If this is so, then they can constitute an important argument in the research on identity. It is also worth looking at the research on ethnic identity in the context of colonization. Hall, in his essay “Cultural Identity and Diaspora” (1990), similarly to Barth, based his reflections on identity on the idea of the “other”, opposing his view to the primordial model. But, whereas Barth deals with the collective ethnic identity of the group, Hall (1990: 223) referred to two different ways of thinking about cultural identity, one of which is as a sort of collective “one true self ”, hiding inside the many other, more superficial or artificially imposed “selves”. Moreover, the emphasis here is put on the “others”, who build their identity in opposition to the notion of being the “other”. According to Hall, “this idea of otherness as an inner compulsion changes our conception of ‘cultural identity’. In this perspective, cultural identity is not fixed essence at all, lying unchanged outside history and culture” (Hall 1990: 226). What is important in the theory of Hall for our further deliberations is moving the centre of gravity from “us” to the “others”5 and realizing the suppressing experience of colonization. He also opened the field to reflect on identity not as something essential or pure, but a hybrid. Hall’s theory on cultural identity is based on historical assumptions and on the theory of positioning (putting in context). In his opinion, “identities are the names we give to the different ways we are positioned by, and position ourselves within, the narratives of the past” (Hall 1990: 225). Amselle, in his book Mestizo Logics (1998), showed likewise, how complicated are the relations in the colonized area between the subdued groups and the dominating power. These relationships are never obvious from the point of view of an observer. He based his theoretical reflections on the field work undertaken amongst the Fulani, Bambara, and Mandingo chiefdoms of Southwest Mali and Northeast Guinea. The basic assumption of his theory is the notion of identity conceptualized in terms of “originary” syncretism. Amselle claimed that the mixture is “originary”. The main terms in this theory are such words as English mestizo (“a person of mixed blood”) or French métissage (“the crossing of two races”). According to Amselle, “the analysis in terms of ‘mestizo logics’ allows one to escape the question of the origin and to hypothesize an infinite regression. It is no longer a question of asking which came first, the segmentary or the state, paganism or Islam, the oral or the written, but to

Introduction  15

postulate an originary syncretism, a mixture whose parts remain indissociable” (Amselle 1998: 161). In my opinion, realizing this inherent mixture in all phenomena may help us to avoid many unnecessary theoretical difficulties, as well as a tendency to look for the beginnings of ethnic groups in the mythical past, which leads to neglecting or depreciating certain groups in relation to others. According to Amselle, “The rise of ethnology thus correlates with the rise of nationalisms, ethnicisms, and culturalisms. To move beyond this point of view, one must consider culture as a ‘reservoir’ – in other words, as a collection of practices internal or external to a given social arena that the actors mobilize as a function of one or another political conjuncture” (Amselle 1998: 4). Amselle to some extent undermined the authority of anthropology, or rather, certain practices of researchers in this field, as the “comparatist” or “butterfly collector” approach, which supposes “the existence of elements separable from their inter-social fabric” (1998: 10). The theory of mixture or mestizaje is connected with the concept of hybridity, “one of the emblematic notions of our era” (Kraidy 2005: 1) coined by Bhabha (2004). Kraidy in his book Hybridity, or the Cultural Logic of Globalization (2005) presented the theory of critical transculturalism, which is based on the concept of hybridity and mestizaje. Kraidy outlined the development of this idea from the theory of miscegenation in biology and its racist background, through the theory of syncretism in religion and its negative connotation in the context of Christianity, the theory of mestizaje and transculturation, creolization in language and culture, to the post-colonial theory, where hybridity became a “fundamental dimension of intercultural relations” thanks to such scholars, as Bhabha, and to the “anti-hybridity backlash” due to realizing theoretical uselessness and “neocolonial” rhetoric of this theory. According to Kraidy “hybridity is a discourse with a particular geopolitical directionality, and as a result should be treated with suspicion” (Kraidy 2005: 68). Thus he proposed to see cultural relations between different groups in terms of transculturalism: The prefix ‘trans-’ suggests moving through spaces and across borders, not merely between points. I use ‘transculturalism’ to reflect my vision of culture as a synthetic, not holistic, entity. Unlike cross- or intercultural communication that tends to study contacts between individuals from different cultures that are assumed to be discrete entities, transcultural communication believes all cultures to be inherently mixed. It seeks to understand the depth, scope, and direction of various levels of hybridity at the social – not individual – level. Critical transculturalism integrates both discursive and politico-economic analysis in the study of international communication and culture. (Kraidy 2005: 14) As an illustration of his thesis, Kraidy describes the habits of the Maronites in Lebanon, who have no deeper sense of identity, because their life presents a

16 Introduction

mixture of Lebanese, Arab, and Western cultures. They imitate the Westerners through so-called mimicry, another term coined by Bhabha, which is an imitation of a different culture or lifestyle. In light of this theory, we may see Greco-Buddhism as a phenomenon, which evolved as an example of critical transculturalism, in response to the need of a new society and its hybrid cultural identity. These theories were used also by Mairs in her article “Greek identity and the settler community in Hellenistic Bactria and Arachosia” (2008). According to her, “Pertinent issues, such as intermarriage and elite acculturation, can be vividly illustrated with recourse to case studies with which a modern audience can be expected to have a certain familiarity, even if this familiarity derives largely from the mass media or fictional accounts” (Mairs 2008: 24). Obviously it is hard not to notice certain advantages of this approach. Above all, it makes the history even of the most distant lands and times more tangible and understandable for the modern reader. A similar approach may be recognized in the present book in applying the theory of the so-called middle ground, wherein comparandum are examples associated with the colonization of America. It may be particularly revealing in terms of how, in practice, the intercultural relations between the conquered and the conqueror occur. The theory of middle ground was developed by White (1991) on the basis of the theory of de Certeau, who in his book The Practice of Everyday Life (1984) investigated “the ways in which users – commonly assumed to be passive and guided by established rules – operate” (de Certeau 1984: xi). This theory is based on two interdependent terms, that of strategies and that of tactics. Strategies are the operations of the producers, whereas tactics are “uses”, the actions of the consumers. One of the examples of such tactics may be that of la perruque, “the wig”, which is defined as “the worker’s own work disguised as work for his employer”. It is no profit work based on the idea of “gift” (profit is produced by work done for the factory). In de Certeau’s theory, users are presented as active; they “make (bricolent) innumerable and infinitesimal transformations of and within the dominant cultural economy in order to adapt it to their own interests and their own rules” (de Certeau 1984: xiii f.). They are weak, so they need to use tactics to support their individual interests in opposition to the strong. De Certeau compared these tactics to Greek μῆτις, but he traced the roots of this action in “the immemorial intelligence displayed in the tricks and imitations of plants and fishes” (de Certeau 1984: xx). Of particular relevance for our studies may be the example used by de Certeau to illustrate the “use” of the culture imposed by the colonizers-producers on the subdued consumers, who prove to be not so passive as generally supposed: For instance, the ambiguity that subverted from within the Spanish colonizers’ ‘success’ in imposing their own culture on the indigenous Indians is well known. Submissive, and even consenting to their subjection, the Indians nevertheless often made of the rituals, representations, and laws

Introduction  17

imposed on them something quite different from what their conquerors had in mind; they subverted them not by rejecting or altering them, but by using them with respect to ends and references foreign to the system they had no choice but to accept. (de Certeau 1984: xiii) Another important point of the theory of de Certeau is his statement about the impossibility of the identification of the user on the basis of the product, which he uses. Because in the theory of de Certeau there is a gap between the products and the way the consumers use them, we cannot infer on the basis of the product of the imposed culture about the user of that product. This observation may have momentous implications for our understanding of ancient material culture. To what extent can the identity of the user be identified on the basis of a preserved artefact? I think that we can draw conclusions concerning the strategy applied by manufacturers of culture as well as about the tactics used by the users of those products, that is, how these items were used in everyday life. White, in his book The Middle Ground (1991), developed the theory of de Certeau about strategies and tactics. On this basis, he built his view of accommodation instead of acculturation in the context of colonization. He examined this process as taking place on what he called the middle ground. The basic foundation of White’s theory is the statement that people belonging to different cultures are utilizing cultural characteristics of the second group in order to achieve certain goals of their own, such as an agreement with the other group. In other words, they try to use the cultural code of the second group to achieve their own objectives, but often do not fully understand the characters of the code, and so they distort it. However, they may give the impression that they adopted the culture of the other group or at least some of its components. On the middle ground diverse peoples adjust their differences through what amounts to a process of creative, and often expedient, misunderstandings. People try to persuade others who are different from themselves by appealing to what they perceive to be the values and practices of those others. They often misinterpret and distort both the values and the practices of those they deal with, but from these misunderstandings arise new meanings and through them new practices – the shared meanings and practices of the middle ground. (White 1991: x) The case study used by White is the relationship between French colonizers and the American tribes of the Algonquians. It is interesting to observe how Native Americans tried to compose Europeans into their own worldview. They treated the French as manitou, “an other-than-human person, a spiritual being capable of taking manifold physical forms” (White 1991: 25). Because Europeans provided iron, the Algonquians hunted the beavers to trade with them. But Europeans

18 Introduction

realized that they cannot satisfy all the needs of the Algonquians, so they tried to turn them to worship Christ and not them. The result of that was startling. The Algonquians started worshipping Christ, but as a Manitou, “heads of animals once offered to the manitous at feasts were now offered to Christ. Public offerings went to the cross and to the Christian God, the ‘Great Manitou’. Indians were not so much being converted to Christianity as Christ was being converted into a manitou” (White 1991: 26). This example shows that they were not at all acculturated, but Christianity was accommodated to their needs and beliefs. Another amazing example of the use of Christianity for the sake of preserving Algonquians’ own cultural traits is the example of Aramepinchieue, earnest Christian. Her father Rouensa told her to marry Michel Accault to strengthen the relationship between Kaskaskia tribe and the French. But she refused to marry him and father Gravier, Jesuit missionary, supported her saying that she has the right to do what she wants. He did this because Accault had a bad reputation as a libertine and an enemy of the faith. He thus appealed to the desire of Algonquian women to return to their ancient culture, which gave them unrestricted sexual freedom. Gravier, who sought to subvert traditional Illinois sexual practices because they contradicted Catholicism, and Aramepinchieue, who used Catholicism to maintain the values that supported those same practices, thus found themselves allies. (White 1991: 72) Aramepinchieue manifests the traits of hybrid identity of an Algonquian woman, who could not anymore live freely, as she did before, because of the strategy of French colonizers, so she used a tactic of the apparent adoption of Christian identity to maintain her original freedom. This story shows that one should be cautious about the problem of conversion and consider different motivations, and the impact of the strategy and tactics on the decision of the individual. Therefore, in the present study, it will be shown what tactics and strategies were used in the Greco-Buddhist relations, and what could be the motivations of these two groups. White’s research shows also that one should pay attention to the ephemeral quality of cultural influences between colonizers and indigenous people, as well as to the impact of colonizers on shaping the image of indigenous people as the “others”, savages, people deprived of their own culture, which was subsequently supported by the actual ignorance of Europeans about these peoples. There are no real monolithic entities, to which we could refer as to “us” or “them”, because the mixture (hybridity) seems to be the basic feature of every group. It seems, however, that this mixture does not deny the existence of a sense of ethnic identity among the various groups. But this sense of identity seems to result rather from the strategy adopted in order to bond the group, protect its integrity, demonstrate its superiority, and protect its interests. From the perspective of the group, the identity is established by maintaining the boundaries between

Introduction  19

“us” and the “others”. But these boundaries are somewhat arbitrary. It is enough to move the centre of gravity to other values and it appears that the boundaries may as well be elsewhere. Then the “other” becomes our ally, and the apparent otherness becomes an expression of our needs. So, it is worth looking at the relationship with the “other” in an unorthodox way, and realizing that orthodoxy has been immortalized in a certain socio-political context. Thus, in the present book, I avoid looking at history in a monolithic, dualistic6 way, and I draw attention to the inherent mixture of all cultures and identities. As Hopkins wrote in his book A World Full of Gods: We read ancient sources with modern minds. And if we report what we do know in quasi-objective, analytical terms, then inevitably our whole language of understanding and interpretation is deeply influenced by the modern world, and who we are in it. We cannot reproduce antiquity. And in religious history there is necessarily subjectivity. We know from experience that other writers, and readers, are very likely and fully entitled to disagree. So why then don’t we incorporate this empathetic wonder, knowledge, pseudo-objective analysis, ignorance, competing assumptions, and disagreements into the text of the book? (Hopkins 1999: 2) Therefore, this book presents the relationship of the Greeks with Buddhism in a broad context, departs from the approach of looking for signs of Greekness in the East, but tries to give a deeper understanding of the nature of interactions, drawing on the above theories.

Notes

20 Introduction

this perspective, ethnic identity is a social strategy, one’s identity is flexible and may be changed (cf. Siapkas 2003: 13). However, the instrumental perspective also has its weaknesses, such as neglect of the cultural and psychological dimensions of ethnicity, the reduction of ethnicity to economic and political relationships, and the fact that human behaviour is presented as essentially rational and directed towards maximizing self-interest ( Jones 1997: 77). Thus, the next stage of the development of research on ethnic identity was the establishment of processual archaeology, which sought to reconcile the primordial and the instrumental perspectives. It conceptualized culture as a system and shifted the emphasis from description and classification to the functionalist explanation and interpretation of social process and cultural evolution ( Jones 1997: 26). The research on ethnic identity also began to be based on Bourdieu’s concept of habitus (cf. Bourdieu 1977; Bhabha 2004). 4 However, Barth did not mention what happens to the ethnic identity of the “flowing personnel”. He concentrated on the ethnicity of the group, which is preserved on the basis of maintenance of the boundaries between self and “others” and not on the individual identity, which can transcend the boundaries of the ethnic group, and therefore seems more hybrid. 5 Siapkas in his book Heterological Ethnicity (2003) postulated making space for the “other”, neglected in the dogmatic scholarship. He defined his heterology as a variant of post-processualism. He showed how different views about ethnic identity shaped the way in which we approach to the study of antiquity. His “fundamental argument is that theoretical assumptions have a determining effect on our image of the past” (Siapkas 2003: 1). As the case study to demonstrate the erroneous approaches and assumptions, Siapkas used the Messenian history. Also, Vlassopoulos in his book Unthinking the Greek Polis (2007) pointed to the fact that Greek history has been written as a history of the torchbearers of Western civilization. He further showed how such an approach resulted in silencing of certain alternatives and forming modern orthodoxy. Vlassopoulos advocated looking at the history of Greece not from the perspective of the imagined West, but from the point of view of the Eastern Mediterranean, where this history belonged. 6 The West and the East, Christianity and paganism, Hellenism and backwardness of Eastern culture, Occidentalism and Orientalism (cf. Said 1995).

References Amselle, J.-L. (1998) Mestizo Logics: Anthropology of Identity in Africa and Elsewhere; translated by Claudia Royal. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press (Mestizo spaces). Barth, F. (1969) “Introduction”, in Barth, F. (ed.) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organziation of Culture Difference. Boston: Little Brown, pp. 9–38. Beckwith, C.I. (2015) Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. Oxford: Princeton University Press. Beinorius, A. (2005) “Buddhism in the Early European Imagination: A Historical Perspective”, Acta Orientalia Vilnensia, 6(2), pp. 7–22. Bentley, J.H. (1993) Old World Encounters: Cross-cultural Contacts and Exchanges in Premodern Times. New York: Oxford University Press. Bett, R. (2000) Pyrrho, His Antecedents, and His Legacy. 1st edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bhabha, H.K. (2004) The Location of Culture; with a New Preface by the Author. London: Routledge (Routledge classics). Boardman Sir, J. (1994) The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity. London: Thames & Hudson (A.W. Mellon lectures in the fine arts: 1993). Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice [by] Pierre Bourdieu; Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge studies in social and cultural anthropology: 16).

Introduction  21

Briant, P. (1982) Rois, tributs et paysans: études sur les formations tributaires du Moyen-Orient ancien. Paris: Les Belles Lettres (Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon: 269; Université de Besançon. Centre de Recherches d’Histoire Ancienne. Publications: 43). de Angelis, F. (1998) “Ancient past, imperial present: the British Empire in T.J. Dunbabin’s The western Greeks”, Antiquity, 72(277), pp. 539–549. de Certeau, M. (1984) The Practice of Everyday Life; Translated by Steven Rendall. Berkeley: University of California Press. Droysen, J.G. (1878) Geschichte des Hellenismus. Zweiter Theil. Geschichte der Diadochen. 2nd edn. Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes. Flintoff, E. (1980) “Pyrrho and India”, Phronesis, 25(1), pp. 88–108. Foltz, R. (2010) Religions of the Silk Road. Premodern Patterns of Globalization. 2nd edn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Foucher, A. (1905–1951) L’art gréco-bouddhique du Gandhâra: étude sur les origines de l’influence classique dans l’art bouddhique de l’Inde et de l’Extrême-Orient. Paris: E. Leroux. Frenkian, A.M. (1957) Scepticismul grec s¸i filozofia indiana˘. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romane. Garton, S. (2007) “‘Wild follies and ostentations displays’: Reflections on Alexander the great in India and the question of collective memory”, in Ray, H.P. and Potts, D.T. (eds.) Memory as History: The Legacy of Alexander in Asia. New Delhi: Aryan Books International, pp. 1–15. Green, P. (1990) Alexander to Actium: The Hellenistic Age. London: Thames & Hudson. Halbwachs, M. (1992) On Collective Memory; Edited, Translated, and with An Introduction by Lewis A. Coser. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (The Heritage of sociology). Halkias, G.T. (2014) “When the Greeks converted the Buddha: Asymmetrical transfers of knowledge in Indo-Greek cultures”, in Wick, P. and Rabens, V. (eds.) Religions and Trade. Religious Formation, Transformation and Cross-Cultural Exchange. Leiden – Boston: Brill, pp. 65–115. Hall, S. (1990) “Cultural identity and diaspora”, in Rutherford, J. (ed.) Identity: Community, Culture, Difference. London: Lawrence & Wishart, pp. 222–237. Hopkins, K. (1999) A World Full of Gods: Pagans, Jews and Christians in the Roman Empire. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Jones, S. (1997) The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. London – New York: Routledge Press. Kraidy, M. (2005) Hybridity, or the Cultural Logic of Globalization. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Kroeber, A.L. (1940) “Stimulus Diffusion”, American Anthropologist, New Series, 42(1), pp. 1–20. Kuzminski, A. (2008) Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism. Lanham: Lexington Books. Kuzminski, A. (2021) Pyrrhonian Buddhism. A Philosophical Reconstruction. Oxford: Routledge. Lyonnet, B. (1981) “Etablissements chalcolithiques dans le Nord-Est de l’Afghanistan: leurs rapports avec les civilisations du bassin de l’Indus”, Paléorient, 7(2), pp. 57–74. Mairs, R. (2008) “Greek Identity and the Settler Community in Hellenistic Bactria and Arachosia”, Migrations & Identities, 1(1), pp. 19–43. Mairs, R. (2014) The Hellenistic Far East. Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Mairs, R. (ed.) (2021) The Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek World. London: Routledge. McEvilley, T. (2002) The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies. New York: Allworth Press/School of Visual Arts.

22 Introduction

Narain, A.K. (1957) The Indo-Greeks. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Neale, M.J. (2014) Madhyamaka and Pyrrhonism: Doctrinal, Linguistic and Historical Parallels and Interactions Between Madhyama Buddhism and Hellenic Pyrrhonism. Oxford: University of Oxford. Nora, P. (1989) “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire”, Representations, 26, pp. 7–24. Parker, G.R. (2007) “Hellenism in an Afghan context”, in Ray, H.P. and Potts, D.T. (eds.) Memory as History: The Legacy of Alexander in Asia. New Delhi: Aryan Books International, pp. 170–191. Préaux, C. (1978) Le monde hellénistique: la Grèce et l’Orient de la mort d’Alexandre à la conquête romaine de la Grèce (323–146 av. J.-C.). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (Nouvelle Clio: 6). Romm, J.S. (1992) The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought: Geography, Exploration and Fiction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Said, E.W. (1995) Orientalism. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Scott, D.A. (1985) “Ashokan Missionary Expansion of Buddhism Among the Greeks (in N.W. India, Bactria and the Levant)”, Religion, 15, pp. 131–141. doi:10.1016/ S0048–721X(85)80007-5. Scott, D.A. (1990) “The Iranian Face of Buddhism”, East and West, 40(1), pp. 43–77. Seldeslachts, E. (2007) “Greece, the final frontier? The westward spread of Buddhism”, in Heirmann, A. and Bumbacher, S.P. (eds.) The Spread of Buddhism. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, pp. 131–166. Sherwin-White, S. and Kuhrt, A. (1993) From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire. London: Duckworth. Siapkas, J. (2003) Heterological Ethnicity: Conceptualizing Identities in Ancient Greece. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Boreas 27). Stoneman, R. (2019) The Greek Experience of India. From Alexander to the Indo-Greeks. Oxford: Princeton University Press. Tarn, W.W. (1938) The Greeks in Bactria and India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vassiliades, D. (2005) “Greeks and Buddhism: Historical Contacts in the Development of a Universal Religion”, The Eastern Buddhist, 36(1–2), pp. 134–183. Vlassopoulos, K. (2007) Unthinking the Greek Polis: Ancient Greek History Beyond Eurocentrism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Webb, R. (1993) “The Early Spread and Influence of Buddhism in Western Asia”, Buddhist Studies Review, 10(1), pp. 57–82. White, R. (1991) The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650–1815. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wolski, J. (1969) “Die Iranier und das griechisch-baktrische Königreich. Wege der Forschoung. Band XCI”, in Altheim, F. and Rehork, J. (eds.) Der Hellenismus in Mittelasien. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchges, pp. 255–274. Zürcher, E. (2007) The Buddhist Conquest of China. The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. 3rd edn. Leiden: Brill (Sinica Leidensia: v. 11).

1 CONTEXTS FOR SOURCES

This chapter presents a broader context for the studied subject, which allows one to look at the relationship of the Greeks with Buddhism in the so-called longue durée of contacts between the East and the West. First introduced is the theory by Karl Jaspers of the so-called “Axial Age” (Achsenzeit), which is regarded here as an intellectual challenge rather than a real phenomenon documented in sources. Then, the early relations between the Greeks and India are shown with an emphasis on the role of the Achaemenid Empire as an intermediary in these relations. In this context, the example of Scylax of Caryanda is carefully studied in order to show the role of Greek historiography in shaping the image of India. Subsequently, the first direct contact of the Greeks with India during the expedition of Alexander is presented with an emphasis on two issues: the cultural baggage of Alexander and his entourage, and his encounters with the “naked philosophers”. As regards the Indian context, the state of Indian philosophy before Alexander is presented with an emphasis on the characteristics of Buddhism from its origins to the time of As´oka, and the presence of the term Yavana in Indian sources.

Longue durée In order to better understand the Greco-Buddhist relations from the time of Alexander’s conquest, it is important to show the circumstances underlying the direct contact between the Greeks and Buddhists. Therefore, it is important to present the Greco-Indian contacts in the so-called longue durée, i.e. the long term, characteristic of changes in social structures and the history of civilization, in which the subject of research is observed from the perspective of a long period of time, even several centuries. The term longue durée was introduced by Braudel

DOI: 10.4324/9781003258575-2

24  Contexts for sources

(1902–1985) in his La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II (1949), and is associated with École des Annales (The Annales School of Historiography), which grew out of the transformations of French historiography at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries from contestation of German historiography. The main methodological postulate of the Annales School was to put emphasis on the use of the methods and achievements of social sciences in research, abandoning classical political history in favour of the processes of the longue durée. The present book also takes this broader research perspective: it does not focus on political events, but on social, religious, and civilization changes, and draws comparative material from the social sciences. That being said, in this chapter, we go back in time to around 500 BC, to the so-called Axial Age.

Early contact Axial Age Anquetil-Duperron noticed already in 1771 epochal simultaneity between Zoroaster, Confucius, Laozi, Buddha, the prophets of Israel, and the Greek philosophers (cf. Metzler 2009: 169). The Axial Age or Axial Period (in original German form Achsenzeit) is a term coined by Jaspers in his book Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte first published in 1949 (cf. Jaspers 1965) for this revolutionary period in human development. In his opinion, around 500 BC, in the spiritual process which occurred between 800 BC and 200 BC, “Man, as we know him today, came into being” ( Jaspers 1965: 1) by becoming conscious of Being as a whole. According to Jaspers, similar processes occurred almost simultaneously in China, India, and the West, which is reflected in the events and products of this period, for example, Confucius and Laozi in China; Upani․sads and Buddha in India; Zoroaster among the Iranians; prophets of the Old Testament among the Jews; and Homer, philosophers, and tragedians in Greece. According to Jaspers (1965: 3), the “overall modification of humanity”, which occurred in this period, may be termed “spiritualization”. In his opinion, all kinds of philosophers appeared as an expression of human capacity to contrast themselves inwardly with the entire universe. These changes also had an impact on the debate on the best form of government. But no model worked well in the long run, and thus, great empires arose by conquest almost simultaneously in China (the Qin state), India (the Mauryan Empire), and the West (the Hellenistic kingdoms and the Roman Empire). I do not intend to go into the details of this theory, because, as historical fact documented in sources, it has some obvious drawbacks (cf. e.g. Metzler 2009). First, famous people referred to by Jaspers did not operate in a vacuum. Obviously, we can compare, for example, Homer to Laozi, but it will be merely an intellectual challenge. A real in-depth analysis of their work must be done on the basis of tradition, in which they were rooted, Homer must be seen as Greek ἀοιδός, and Laozi as a Chinese philosopher and poet. Secondly, the

Contexts for sources  25

incompleteness of our knowledge of antiquity should be noted, namely the fact that only what later generations have found worthy of preservation or what was accidentally immortalized, survived. The oral tradition should also be taken into account in this context. Moreover, we do not know exactly to what extent the cultures communicated with each other, and direct or indirect influence cannot be completely ruled out, at least in some cases. However, one interesting observation can be drawn from the theory of Jaspers, namely, that indeed there were some similarities in the development of the cultures of China, India, and the West. Of course, they can be explained in several ways, by influence, by a common pattern of development, or by a common root element of these cultures. However, the most important from the point of view of the present study is the impact of this situation on further contact between these cultures. Thanks to these surprising similarities people living in such distant places as Greece and India must have had a common ground. The “other” was not so unfamiliar after all thanks to some shared elements of culture. Also, Ray used the term coined by Jaspers in the context of Buddhist studies in her article “The Axial Age in Asia: The Archaeology of Buddhism (500 B.C.A.D. 500)” (2006). However, her article is confined to the study of the expansion of Buddhism across the Indian Ocean, interesting in itself, but loosely associated with the term Axial Age.

The Achaemenid Empire Another key element in the proper understanding of Greco-Indian relations is the mediation of the Achaemenid Empire founded in the sixth century BC by Cyrus the Great. According to the Behistun inscription (DB §6),1 twenty-three satrapies (dahyaˉva) were subordinate to Darius the Great, when he became king in 522 BC, among which also Baˉkhtriš 2 (Bactria), Sugda (Sogdiana), Gandaˉra (Gandhaˉra), Harauvatiš (Arachosia), and Thataguš, which can be identified with Herodotus’ Sattagydia (Cook 1985: 244 f.) or territory around modern Multan (Vogelsang 1990: 98). Some other Achaemenid sources, for example, the Persepolis Fortification tablets, mention also satrapy called Hinduš, which might have been located in modern Sind (Bivar 1988: 202 ff.; Vogelsang 1990: 101 ff.; cf. Magee and Petrie 2010: 504). And thus, this Persian empire stretched from the Mediterranean to India. Therefore, early contacts of the Greeks with India were held via the Persians. The so-called Oxus Treasure (cf. Curtis 2012), which may have originally been a part of offerings at the temple excavated at Takht-i Sangin in southern Tajikistan (Litvinskiy and Pichikiyan 1981; Zeymal 1997; Wood 2011), proved strong connections between Bactria and Persia. Moreover, many early Greek coins were found in Afghanistan (cf. Curiel and Schlumberger 1953; Guillaume 1991). As noted by Holt, “The circulation of Greek coins in Bactria before Alexander suggests that long-distance commercial contacts were fostered right through the Persian period” (Holt 1988: 28). However, as Holt added in the footnote, “This does not mean direct exchange, but rather Achaemenid support

26  Contexts for sources

of an imperial economy (based largely on Greek coinage) which provided for ‘middle-men’ all across the Iranian plateau between Greece and Bactria” (Holt 1988: 28, note 66). The nature of interactions with the Achaemenid heartland was complex and differed depending on the region, as shown by the archaeological data presented by Magee and Petrie (2010). Of particular interest are the results of the excavations carried out in Gandhaˉ ra, at the Bala Hissar at Charsadda (Skt. Pu․skalaˉvatˉı), and at the Hathial and Bhi․r mounds at Taxila (Skt. Tak․sas´ilaˉ ). They have revealed the existence of cultural and economic interaction between these two major centres (Pu․skalaˉ vatī and Taks․as´ilaˉ ) from the beginning of the first millennium BC onwards. However, as suggested by Magie and Petrie (2010: 515), during the mid-first millennium BC, Puskalaˉ vatˉı was drawn within the limits of the Achaemenid Empire, while the area east of the Indus, including Taxila, remained free of Achaemenid control. The Gangetic orientation of Taxila is clear from the remains excavated at Bhi․r Mound, which was established in the fifth century BC. It is worth adding here that the Indians came to Greece in the fifth century BC. They fought in the Second Persian invasion of Greece (480–479 BC), in the army of Xerxes, e.g. in the Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC) and the Battle of Platea (479 BC), as reported by Herodotus (books 7–9). The Persian mediation is also evident in the fragmentarily preserved Greek literature on India from this period. I do not intend to discuss here in detail early Greek fragments on India, since they have been previously discussed by renowned scholars, for example, Karttunen (1989). I will confine myself to present some observations on Scylax of Caryanda as the first known Greek,3 who wrote about India, and on the extent, to which has our concept of history affected the way in which we think about Scylax and his description of India and what impact has this had upon how we write Indian history. It may be questioned, whether Scylax of Caryanda, as well as any other Greek author before Herodotus, can be called a historian from our point of view. Not much is known about him and even less about his works. Probably, the situation looked similar in antiquity. And unfortunately, there is no conclusive evidence to determine the real cause of a small readership of that author. Although Milns (1989: 354 f.) suggested that a “possible reason may be that the work was brief and contained little useful information for later writers”, still this explanation seems to me unfounded. Rather I would suggest revisiting the rejected long ago possibility that he wrote his report from the expedition for the royal administration in Aramaic. It has been accepted that he wrote his work in Greek on the basis of the fact that there was no trace of translation in the preserved fragments of his work. But taking into account how these fragments are insignificant, and that we have no direct tradition, the possibility of the Aramaic original should not, in my opinion, be excluded. At all events, Scylax’s description of India was written for Darius I and on his command. In general, there may not have been any written original, only Scylax’s report from the expedition for the king in

Contexts for sources  27

Aramaic on one hand, and separately some stories in Greek heard from Scylax. But, on the other hand, the fact that the original work is lost should not surprise us. It is worth citing an analogous fate of the works of Demodamas and Patrocles, Seleucid officials (both fl. third century BC), who wrote about Central Asia and India, but only small, though valuable, fragments remained. There are only a few short testimonies and fragments preserved that mention Scylax or his work, which was probably entitled Periplus (“Circumnavigation”) if it ever existed.4 They are gathered by Jacoby (1958: 587 ff.; cf. Kaplan 2011), FGrH 709, in volume 3C among the authors writing the history of individual countries, and not, for example, among the geographers (in unaccomplished volume 5). Scylax appears here as the first Greek author to write about India. Two of the testimonies concern his hometown, Caryanda, and he is simply mentioned as a famous citizen of that town. In the first of those fragments, written by Strabo (14.2.20), Scylax is called ὁ παλαιὸς συγγραφεύς, an ancient writer, whereas, in the second one, written by Stephen of Byzantium, he is called ὁ παλαιὸς λογογράφος, an ancient logographer,5 which puts him on a par with Hecataeus of Miletus. While the tenth-century book of Suda (s.v. Σκύλαξ) defines Scylax as μαθηματικὸς καὶ μουσικός and lists the titles of his works. However, this testimony is likely a confusion with Scylax of Halicarnassus (cf. Kaplan 2011). It is also published separately in volume 4, FGrH 1000 T1 (cf. Schepens 2011). The most important fragment is preserved in Herodotus (4.44). It describes the research expedition of Scylax as a sea captain sent by Darius I to explore a sea route down the Indus river towards the Arabian Peninsula (cf. Rawlinson 1937: 54). According to Herodotus, the purpose of that expedition was to investigate the route of the river Indus, which is inhabited by crocodiles, to the sea.6 Scylax’s fleet set off from Caspatyrus, which could have been located on the Kabul river, which flows eastwards into the Indus, and from the Pactyic country. What may seem surprising is the fact that Herodotus wrote that they went down the river Indus to the sea flowing in an easterly direction (ἔπλεον κατὰ ποταμὸν πρὸς ἠῶ τε καὶ ἡλίου ἀνατολὰς ἐς θάλασσαν), while it is known that Indus flows to the sea in the southwestern direction. But perhaps the journey in an easterly direction applies to the section traversed down the mentioned river Caspatyrus (Kabul). Whatever the details of this expedition, they are unknown to us today. One thing is certain: after that journey, Darius I conquered those areas and made use of the sea (μετὰ δὲ τούτους περιπλώσαντας Ἰνδούς τε κατεστρέψατο Δαρεῖος καὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ ταύτῃ ἐχρᾶτο). However, Rapson (1922: 336) disputed this order of events claiming that Darius had to first conquer the territory by force of arms to enable the research expedition. Herodotus presented very laudable goals of this expedition at the beginning of his relation to culminate the story with a short statement about the conquest of the Indus valley by Darius, which destroyed the idyllic picture of that dynast as an explorer of the distant lands. In order to understand how perceiving Scylax’s account through the prism of Herodotus affects our perception of that author, we should look at the ways in

28  Contexts for sources

which Herodotus constructed his story, namely, what narrative structure he gave to it. As H.V. White wrote in his work on the narrativity, “The events must be not only registered within the chronological framework of their original occurrence but narrated as well, that is to say, revealed as possessing a structure, an order of meaning, that they do not possess as mere sequence” (White 1987: 5). Thus, the author is the one who gives the events their structure and their meaning. And what governs any storytelling is according to White “the impulse to moralize reality”. In the context of this theory, it is difficult not to notice that in every history there is a certain degree of subjectivity. Even if the provided facts are true, the meanings assigned to them by the author and the very structure can be a tool of manipulation. What should be noted about Herodotus is the fact that he was not an eyewitness in his accounts about India. He had to base his story on previous works. As Milns argued, “His (sc. of Herodotus) main written source of information, as with his account of Egypt, was almost certainly Hecataeus, who himself had used Scylax, Herodotus may never have read Scylax at first hand” (Milns 1989: 356). As I mentioned, it seems to me probable that there has never been a report written in Greek by Scylax from his expedition. Because otherwise why Herodotus did not bother reading the work of Scylax personally and why would Hecataeus convey so unreliable information? But this is only a hypothesis that will probably never be settled unless there appears some surprising new discovery. What is important for our understanding of how the work of Scylax and India was seen through the prism of Herodotus, and are somewhat seen today, is the way in which Herodotus weaves the story of India into his history. As Milns noticed, “His account of India occurs in his description of Darius’ reorganisation of the empire into twenty nomoi or satrapies, each contributing a fixed sum of tribute is the twentieth and last satrapy, whose tribute is assessed at 360 talents of gold-dust each year. This is equivalent to 4680 silver talents, or almost onethird of the total tribute of the empire, and makes India by far the richest of the satrapies” (Milns 1989: 356). India, therefore, in Herodotus’ account, is a symbol of wealth. It is also significant that the Greeks knew India via Persia. This is not the same India we are talking about today, but only a small northern part of it and modern-day western Pakistan being a Persian satrapy until the Achaemenid Empire was conquered by Alexander the Great. The story of sending Scylax by Darius on the expedition to India fits into the pattern of Herodotus’ describing the rulers as discoverers. According to Christ, “Herodotus’s inquisitive kings represent for him a powerful, but ambiguous, driving force in the human quest for information and knowledge. Through his depiction of them, the historian not only explores the character of autocrats but also holds up a mirror to his own activity as inquirer. Once we recognize the metahistorical dimension of Herodotus’ representation of inquiring kings, we can better understand the scenes in which these figures appear and the historian who sees his own enterprise reflected or distorted in their efforts” (Christ 1994: 167). Herodotus to some extent identifies himself with the kings-explorers, but, on the other hand, he criticizes their motives and approach as being ethically

Contexts for sources  29

and intellectually incorrect. As Christ argued, “The historian’s superiority arises from the fact that he observes rather than spies; asks questions rather than makes demands; draws inferences cautiously and self-consciously, and not simply to confirm his own assumptions; and seeks knowledge as an end in itself rather than as a means to power or self-glorification” (Christ 1994: 199). This is how Herodotus seems to perceive the work of Scylax, as a means to achieve the goals of a despotic ruler. By undermining the purpose of this expedition, Herodotus depreciates also somewhat the value of the work of Scylax. We look at India presented by Scylax from the perspective of Herodotus, which is an obvious problem. Through this approach, we see India as a rich Persian satrapy, whose value is the proverbial wealth. We do not see the whole of India, only a very small piece of it, and we see it as an area of possible expansion to the east, which is all the more tempting if the quest for the “unknown” is a typical human trait, which is also a characteristic for the rulers. What in this vision of India is from Scylax and what is from Herodotus, is difficult to determine. Nevertheless, interesting in this perspective will be the comparison of Scylax to Megasthenes, who was sent by Seleucus I to Paˉ․taliputra to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. The motives of Seleucus I, and hence of Megasthenes, can be considered similarly unscientific as the motives of Darius I and of Scylax. And yet the relation of Megasthenes is considered to be the “best knowledge of inner India yet received” (Filliozat 1981), while Scylax’s work is barely preserved. Perhaps this is due to Herodotus’ relation and its anti-Persian character, which casts unfavourable light on the work of Scylax. Among other fragments of Scylax’s work, we can find some descriptions of the plant called κινάρα preserved in two fragments by Athenaeus, some mentions of the Indian political system, namely the superiority of the rulers over the ruled, quoted by Aristotle in his Politics, and descriptions of Indian wonders, such as Τρωγλοδύτες (“Cave Dwellers”), preserved in Harpokration, Σκιάποδες (“Shade-Foots”) and Μακροκέφαλοι (“Large-Heads”) in Philostratus, and Σκιάποδες (“Shade-Foots”), Ὠτόλικνοι (“Fan-Ears”), Μονόφθαλμοι (“OneEyed”), and Ἑνοτίκτοντες (“peoples, who only produce one offspring”), preserved in Tzetzes. These fragments show a second important characteristic of the ancient Greek historiography on India, which shaped the subsequent thinking about that country, namely the interest in its wonders. As Milns rightly noticed, “In Scylax we can already see the existence of the belief, common in later Greek writers that India is a place full of wonderful, strange and unnatural phenomena, due perhaps to its location at the very end of the inhabited world” (Milns 1989: 355). Also, Rapson drew attention to the fabulous character of Scylax’s relation by pointing that he “probably did not tell much of his own experiences in descending the Indus, or we should have heard of his book in connexion with the voyage of Alexander. He probably preferred to astonish his countrymen with travellers’ tales […], with which the Greek tradition about India thus started and which it retained to the end” (Rapson 1922: 394). According to Romm (1992: 85), Scylax addressed his work to the Greeks, who were “delighted in marvellous

30  Contexts for sources

tales”, in contrast to the Persians, “who were doubtless interested in more practical information”. This assumption is, in my opinion, quite difficult to corroborate. Especially that Scylax wrote his reports for the Persian ruler. In our fabulous image of India, we can also see the impact of Herodotus, who saw in the marvels of India a kind of blessing.7 But what is significant is Herodotus does not cite any miracles described by Scylax about India, though elsewhere in his work he does not avoid this type of unbelievable relations, like for example the story of the gold-digging ants (cf. Hdt. 3.97–106).8 Maybe it is due to the fact that he undermines the veracity of Scylax. In later ancient historiography about India, it can be observed how historians were determined to present their position in relation to these fables. So, unfortunately, a large part of the extant sources regarding India is criticism and ridiculous disputes about who of the previous historians writing about India should be considered the biggest liar and who a smaller one (cf. e.g. de Jong 1973: 121). It is difficult to estimate whether the stereotype about India was the result of the works of Scylax or any later writer, but one thing is sure that it very strongly influenced the subsequent perception of that country and in fact most people even today, having little idea about India’s real culture or history, still share this view of India as a land of wonders. Those observations indicate that our concept of history, shaped, among others, by Herodotus, is focused on a one-sided presentation of history from the standpoint of the party winning the military conflict. This position depreciates and distorts history. It takes away voice from the representatives of the opposing versions of events. Its task is to convince the audience to the “only correct version” of history and the “only right approach” to it. The work of Scylax, who was serving the Persian ruler, probably stumbled across this wall of nationalism. It was probably not completely accepted neither by the Persians nor by the Greeks. In any language it was written, it probably retained the Greek character to some extent, but nevertheless, it was not widely read among the Greeks. The true value of the work was buried along with its almost total loss. However, preserved fragments gave historiography on India its specific character. India has now begun to be seen as the land at the end of the inhabited world full of riches and wonders and an area of possible territorial expansion of the future world’s empire and a playground for the rulers relentless in their desire for new conquests. In my opinion, this was a hotbed for future imperialist views on India, which in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries penetrated the European historiography about India, and especially the history of Alexander and his conquests, thus legitimizing British rule in India (cf. Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993).

Alexander the great and the beginning of direct contacts Cultural baggage of Alexander and his surroundings This book is not dedicated to Alexander; therefore, I will confine myself to mention only a few of the most important (from the perspective of the present

Contexts for sources  31

study) elements of the cultural baggage of Alexander and his surroundings. Because Alexander came from Macedon, it should be asked whether Macedonians were ethnically Greeks. This issue, due to current political reasons, evokes a lot of emotions. Even quoting all the arguments and researchers who have spoken on this issue could provide enough material for a separate book. Therefore, I will not enter into the discussion. However, the following statement by Nawotka to some extent answers the question: Analysis of all extant sources unequivocally shows that in the 5th and 4th centuries the Greeks did not regard Macedonians to be part of their ethnic group nor did the Macedonians themselves ever claim to be Greek. It was only in the Hellenistic epoch that Macedonians became fully Hellenised and it was only with the growing dominance of Rome in the Balkan Peninsula that a sense of affinity developed between the Macedonians and Greeks. (Nawotka 2010: 7) Alexander the Great was a descendant of the Argead dynasty, which claimed its descent from Temenus, the great-great-grandson of Heracles.9 Alexander the Great also often emphasized his affinities with Heracles. This fact is very important for understanding why the Greeks, who remained in Bactria after the conquests of Alexander, frequently used the images of Heracles (Figure 1.1). As is commonly known, Alexander the Great was educated by Aristotle, famous Greek philosopher and polymath. He received standard Greek education based on reading Homer. Aristotle also taught him ethics, politics, and medicine. However, Alexander did not share his teacher’s vision of the hegemony of the Greeks over the “barbarians”. On the contrary, as noted by Halkias (2014: 73), “Alexander aspired to ethnic integration”. He strived to achieve this by employing foreigners, by training Persians in Macedonian fashion, and finally by promoting intermarriage. He himself married Bactrian princess Roxana, daughter of Oxyartes,10 and encouraged his soldiers to take Persian women to wives. Moreover, Alexander was open to foreign religious cults, for example, Egyptian or Babylonian. Furthermore, the fact that he travelled with many learned men may indicate his open-mindedness. Among his mobile entourage were architects, artists, writers, engineers, scholars, philosophers, and scientists.

Meetings with the “naked philosophers” The topic of the meetings with the so-called “naked philosophers” or gymnosophists has been developed in more detail by me in the article “Meetings with the ‘Naked Philosophers’ as a Case Study for the Greco-Indian Relations in the Time of Alexander” (Kubica 2021). Thus, the following presentation of the issue is synthetic and focused on highlighting the conclusions relevant to the main problem of this book. The main emphasis is put on the analysis of one passage by Diogenes Laertius about Pyrrho of Elis, who drew inspiration for his philosophy

32  Contexts for sources

FIGURE 1.1

Silver tetradrachm of Alexander the Great. Head of Heracles in lion’s skin.

Courtesy: Εφορεία Αρχαιοτήτων Καβάλας.

from his meeting with gymnosophists. This fragment is important for the present study because it prompted some researchers to prove the influence of Buddhism on the formation of Pyrrhonism. Who were the gymnosophists? The name γυμνοσοφισταί was given by the Greeks to “naked philosophers” or “naked wise men”, some groups of ancient Indian ascetics,11 who practised nudity and abstained from some foods, especially meat. The main group of texts presenting the meetings with gymnosophists are the accounts of Alexander’s historians, in which we find a description of two separate events, which probably occurred in succession: Alexander asking riddles to a group of sages, the so-called riddle contest (cf. Bosman 2010), and meeting with Calanus and Dandamis, two most respected among the gymnosophists. These accounts are preserved in Strabo,12 who quoted Aristobulus, Onesicritus, and Nearchus as his sources. Aristobulus and Nearchus described the customs of the Indian sages, while Onesicritus, who was sent by Alexander to talk to the naked sages, reported his conversation with Calanus and Dandamis (Μάνδανις). This meeting took place at the outskirts of Taxila. It is worth noting here that Taxila

Contexts for sources  33

was a very important centre for the development of Buddhism, and it will be presented in more detail in Chapter 5 of the present book, devoted to the specifics of Gandhaˉra. Returning to Onesicritus, he found there fifteen naked men standing, sitting, and lying motionless in unbearable heat. He met Calanus, who wanted to encourage him to undress and lie down to hear his teachings. However, Onesicritus hesitated, and so Dandamis, who was the oldest and wisest of them, joined the conversation and ordered to call the king. They discussed the similarity of their doctrines to those taught among the Greeks, e.g. by Pythagoras, Socrates, and Diogenes. Dandamis concluded that he would have regarded the Greeks as sound-minded if they did not prefer custom (νόμος) to nature (φύσις). Onesicritus responded by arguing that the Greeks also attach great importance to nature. According to another story preserved by Plutarch,13 Alexander personally met with ten gymnosophists. He asked each of them a question or rather a riddle threatening to kill the person who first gave incorrect response. In the end, however, Alexander liked their answers, and therefore he let them go with gifts and ordered to kill the judge, who misjudged them. Subsequently, Alexander sent Onesicritus to converse with Calanus and Dandamis. Onesicritus during this meeting learned that Calanus’ real name is Σφίνης, while Καλανός is a name given to him by the Greeks, who misunderstood his greeting (καλέ). This anecdote is significant for our understanding of the Greco-Indian relations and the communication problems, which occurred between the Greeks and the Indians and probably often led to misinterpretations. One should bear in mind the problem of mediation of many translators. As Dandamis stated in Onesicritus’ account, discussed above, communicating what is profitable (ὠφελεία) through three interpreters is like expecting pure water to flow through mud. So, we know that three interpreters participated in the conversations with gymnosophists. According to Tarn (1951: 429, note 1), the first stage of the translation was from Praˉkrit to Sanskrit, the second from Sanskrit to Persian, and the third from Persian to Greek. According to other researchers, the first stage was the translation from the local Indian dialect to Bactrian or Sogdian (Brown 1949: 44), then to Persian or more probably to Aramaic (Pédech 1948: 105, note 4), and finally to Greek. Since the conversations took place in the vicinity of Taxila, it may be suspected that the original language used by the naked philosophers was a Praˉkrit called Gaˉndhaˉrˉı , which will also be discussed in Chapter 5. In the account preserved by Arrian,14 we find an anecdote about stomping sages who, when asked by Alexander why they stomp their feet, replied that in their opinion man had only that much land as much was under his feet, and although Alexander came so far from his own land, he would soon die and his only property would be the piece of land where he would be buried, and also the famous anecdote about Diogenes of Sinope,15 and the story of how Calanus was induced to join Alexander. The Alexander Romance contains information about letters, which Alexander received from the philosophers, reports on Alexander’s visit to them and his

34  Contexts for sources

ten questions or riddles, and finally his meeting with the philosophers’ leader Dandamis. According to Stoneman (1995), both Romance and historians reflect a common source. In his opinion, “the detailed content of this episode originated in Greek philosophical circles. It represents an encounter of a type beloved of Cynic writers, and it incorporates a paradox of a kind that fascinated the Megarian philosophers” (Stoneman 1995: 114). Although the Cynic origin of some aspects of this episode cannot be excluded, Winiarczyk (2007, 2008, 2009) denied that Onesicritus was himself a Cynic philosopher, one of the fellow students of Diogenes (ὁ δὲ Ὀνησίκριτος ἦν φιλόσοφος τῶν Διογένει τῷ κυνικῷ συνεσχολακότων). But, one also cannot deny completely the veracity of the story about the naked sages of India. Because, in India, there are actually many wandering ascetics. Therefore, it is likely that such a meeting really took place, but it is possible that the real debate has been altered by Onesicritus. As noticed by Winiarczyk (2008: 99), he probably recorded the Indian views, which he expressed in the concepts of the Cynic philosophy familiar to him. From the account of Onesicritus, we can conclude that in Alexander’s time some similarities were noticed between the philosophy of Indian ascetics and the views of Greek philosophers, such as Diogenes of Sinope. Perhaps Onesicritus used the real event of the meeting to present considerations on favourite Cynic topics. It is worth looking at this situation in the context of the so-called middle ground, a theory discussed in the introduction to the present book. One can talk about the meeting of two cultures, a certain kind of misunderstanding between their representatives, and the resulting accommodation, i.e. including typical Cynic riddles in the report from the meeting with Indian ascetics. The most interesting from the perspective of the main subject of the present book is the account preserved by Diogenes Laertius,16 who reported that Pyrrho of Elis, while travelling to India with Alexander, met with the gymnosophists, who inspired him to adopt the philosophy of agnosticism (ἀκαταληψία) and suspension of judgement (ἐποχή). Therefore, it is a direct proof of the influence of Indian philosophy on Greek philosophy. This problem has been discussed by many distinguished scholars, listed in the introduction to this book. Some of them saw this passage from a broader perspective, as an expression of the influence of Indian philosophy on Greek sceptical thought, but most researchers see it as an evidence of the influence of Buddhism on the philosophy of Pyrrho. However, the identification of the gymnosophists with the Buddhists is not so obvious. It seems that they cannot be identified with Buddhists, because, as the Buddha says (Mahaˉvagga 8.28.1), the bhikkhus (ordained Buddhist monks) should not be nude like Titthiyas (i.e. heretics from Buddhist perspective); the nudity is referred to by him as improper, crooked, unsuitable, unworthy of a Saman․a (or S´raman․a, i.e. ascetic), and unbecoming. However, it is possible that the term γυμνοσοφισταί was used here by Diogenes Laertius for the Buddhists by mistake because he did not distinguish between the groups of Indian ascetics. Moreover, as pointed out by the listed researchers, there are many astonishing similarities between the Buddhist philosophy and the philosophy of Pyrrho.

Contexts for sources  35

We do not know much about Pyrrho’s own philosophy. We have a short passage from the lost dialogue Πύθων by Timon of Phlius, who was Pyrrho’s disciple. This passage is preserved as a quotation from Aristocles of Messene (fr. 6) in Eusebius (14.18.1–5). It should be noted that such a multi-stage transmission process could have affected its fidelity. However, it is worth taking a closer look at it. Firstly, according to Pyrrho, we should not rely on our sense perceptions (αἰσθήσεις) and opinions or judgements (δόξας), but remain free from opinions (ἀδοξάστους), lending to neither side (ἀκλινεῖς) and unshaken (ἀκραδάντους). This resonates with the Buddhist approach to the “self ” (Skt. aˉtman), which should not be treated as a source of true knowledge (cf. Halkias 2014: 75). Secondly, in Pyrrho’s tetralemma (the fourfold negation: one cannot say of any one thing that “it is”, or “it is not”, or “it both is and is not”, or “it neither is nor is not”) we can see a reflection of Buddhist catu․sko․ti,17 the genesis of which may be sought in the early Indian sceptical thought. Also, Pyrrho’s ἀταραξία may be seen as a reflection of Buddhist nibbaˉna (Skt. nirvaˉn˙a), and πράγματα characterized by Pyrrho as ἀδιάφορα, ἀστάθμητα, and ἀνεπίκριτα as dhammas (Skt. dharmas) characterized as anicca, dukkha, and anatta (Skt. anitya, du․hkha, and anatman) (cf. Beckwith 2015: 28 ff.). Stoneman also pointed to the fact that even in Pyrrho’s lifestyle, we may see a reflection of the Buddhist practice (2019: 354). Thus, the theory of the influence of Buddhism on Pyrrhonism is not at all unfounded. However, since the topic has been quite thoroughly researched, and also due to the fact that the present study is devoted to Greco-Buddhist contacts in the post-Alexander times and deals more with the social and cultural aspects of this meeting, a more in-depth analysis of this issue will be omitted here. It is only worth emphasizing that the Greeks could see the convergence between their native philosophical thought and the philosophy of Indian ascetics from various groups and sects.

State of Indian philosophy before Alexander The subject of Indian philosophy in pre-Alexandrian times could very well be a separate book. Therefore, I will limit myself to a few of the most important issues from the point of view of the present study. Firstly, it is necessary to answer how we understand philosophy in the Indian context, and how philosophy appeared in India. These issues were discussed by Bronkhorst in his essay entitled “Why is there Philosophy in India?” (1999). He argued that, contrary to the typical western vision of India as a land of spirituality and wisdom, India has also a long tradition of rational inquiry and debate.18 He also stated that the traditions of inquiry and debate existed only in Greece and India.19 As he noted, “It is perhaps no coincidence that both in ancient Greece and in ancient India, soon after traditions of rational inquiry had established themselves, thinkers appeared who put unlimited confidence in the power of reasoning” (Bronkhorst 1999: 6 f.). Moreover, he claimed that reason in India and Greece could be used to challenge tradition and other sources of authority.

36  Contexts for sources

Bronkhorst further outlined how Brahman and Buddhist philosophers tried to make the karmic retribution intelligible through various means, for example by reference to God creator (Pras´astapaˉda) or idealism (Vasubandhu). Of the two main schools of early Braˉhman․ical philosophy, Saˉm ․ khya and Vais´e․sika, the first had its roots in the pre-systematic period, while the second was created as a coherent system sharing many fundamental positions with the Buddhist philosophy of the first centuries AD. And therefore, Bronkhorst suggested that “the original impulse for the development of Indian rational philosophy came from Buddhism” (Bronkhorst 1999: 19). He further showed how different schools of Buddhism tried to make sense of Buddha’s words. For example, the Sarvaˉstivaˉda school implemented in their Abhidharma Pi․taka (“the basket of things relating to the teaching”) a new way of ordering and classifying the dharmas called pañcavastuka, which brought some amount of reason and coherence into Sarvaˉstivaˉda scholasticism. This method is absent in the Abhidharma Pi․taka of the Theravaˉda school. As noted by Bronkhorst (1999: 20), the Sarvaˉstivaˉda school of Buddhism, which belonged to the region of Gandhaˉra and the surrounding regions, underwent a process of rationalization, while the Theravaˉda school, which belonged to Sri Lanka and Vidis´aˉ, did not undergo any such development. And thus, Bronkhorst proposed “that the Buddhists of Northwest India adopted the method of rational debate and inquiry from the Greeks” (Bronkhorst 1999: 23 f.). It needs to be stressed that Bronkhorst discussed only the tradition of rational inquiry and not Indian philosophy as such and that his conclusions relate to the Indo-Greek period, and not the early period of Buddhism before As´oka. I will not present here all the philosophical currents in India before Alexander. Suffice it to mention that various schools of Indian philosophy have been identified as orthodox (aˉstika) or unorthodox (naˉstika) depending on whether they regard the Veda as an infallible source of knowledge. Today, six orthodox schools of philosophy are distinguished, namely Nyaˉya, Vais´es․ika, Saˉm ․ khya, Yoga, Mıˉ maˉm sa ˉ , and Veda ˉ nta, and four main heterodox schools, namely Bud․ dhism, Jainism, Caˉrvaˉka, and Ājˉı vika. This division is later, but the roots of these schools date back to very early times. It should also be noted that in this division the determination “unorthodox” or “heterodox” is relative since it is imposed by the dominant group, in this case, the Brahmans. Another important point is contextualizing the Buddha. Siddhaˉrtha Gautama Buddha, known also as S´aˉkyamuni (“the sage of the S´aˉkyas”)20 or Tathaˉgata (“one who has thus gone”), was not the only Buddha. According to Buddhist tradition, each kalpa has 1,000 Buddhas. After Gautama, the next Buddha will be Maitreya. Moreover, Buddha with his philosophy belonged to a much wider ascetic tradition, the so-called S´raman ․ ic culture. According to Joshi (2008; cf. Crawford 1972), this culture was non-Aˉryan, and thus non-Vedic, with its roots going back to pre-historic times. It was world-denying, and thus it stood in sharp opposition to the Braˉhmaṇical religion, which was world-affirming, with no interest in morality, and focused on the doctrine of sacrifice (yajña) and the doctrine of four castes (varnas). When the Aˉryans arrived in India, they brought ․

Contexts for sources  37

with them the Vedic religion, which soon evolved into the Braˉhman․ical religion, and became the dominant Indian religion. Whereas the ascetic tradition was repressed, but it managed to survive and about the fifth century BC (during the so-called Axial Age), it gave an impulse for the “new” philosophies to ˉ jˉı vikism, and Buddhism.21 In the passage in the Sam arise, namely Jainism, A ․ yutta Nikaˉya (12.65), the Buddha explained that he had seen “an ancient path, an ancient road, travelled along by fully Enlightened Ones of former times” and that this ancient path is the “Noble Eightfold Path, that that is to say, right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration” (transl. Ireland 1981: 18). This passage served as the basis for the theory by Kane (1962: 1004 f.) about the influence of the Upani․sads on the formation of Buddhism.22 However, despite the fact that the in̥ ˉ ran․yaka Upani․sad, on the fluence of some of the Upani․sads, most notably the Brhada development of Buddhism is unquestionable (cf. Gombrich 2006: 31 ff.), it must be noted that “the Noble Eightfold Path” (Paˉli: ariyo a․t․than˙giko maggo, Sanskrit: 23 aˉryaˉ․sta ․ˉ n˙ gamaˉrga) mentioned in this passage is not a part of the philosophy of the Upani․sads, but it is a Buddhist doctrine, while “the Enlightened Ones of former times” are usually identified as the previous Buddhas. Thus, Siddhaˉrtha Gautama rediscovered the teachings proclaimed by these ancient ascetics. As noted by Pande (1957: 317), Buddhism was not a “Protestant Vedicism”, but it evolved out of the pre-Vedic tradition.24 It should be noted here that Buddhism is not easy to define and escapes all categories. As Gombrich stated in his book How Buddhism Began: “Buddhism is not an inert object: it is a chain of events” (Gombrich 2006: 7). This is due to the fact that “over the vast aeons of time the dharma is repeatedly rediscovered and repromulgated – only in due course to be forgotten again” (Gombrich 2006: 5). Thus, according to the Buddhists, the teaching of a Buddha begins to degenerate as soon as it is promulgated and its degeneration is progressing until the next Buddha appears. It is worth adding here that Gombrich defines dharma as “the product of argument and debate, the debate going on in the oral culture of renouncers and brahmins (sama․na-braˉhma․na), as the recurrent phrase has it, in the upper Ganges plain in the fifth century B.C.” (2006: 13). Therefore, although Buddhism is not a “Protestant Vedicism”, the Buddha is still referred to the religious debate of the time, e.g. in his opposing the Upani․sadic theory of the soul (aˉtman) as an unchanging essence. Moreover, Buddha in his teachings often used the so-called “skill in means” (upaˉya-kaus´alya), that is, he spoke to the interlocutor in the latter’s categories, referred to the values the latter professed and the concepts he understood (cf. argumentum ad hominem); in other words, he was looking for a common ground between himself and his opponent. It is worth citing Gummer’s article (2014) here, in which she shows that certain stereotypes about Buddhist rejection of the sacrificial rituals central to Brahmin tradition cannot be repeated arbitrarily, because there are examples of Mahaˉyaˉna suˉtras (the Suvar․na(pra)bhaˉsottama, the Saddharmapun ․darıˉ ka, and the Vimalakıˉ rtinirdes´a), which reverse this opposition, by substituting themselves (i.e. the words) for both the fire and the food of sacrificial ritual.25 Therefore, reconstructing

38  Contexts for sources

ancient cultural perspectives, especially when those perspectives are religious in character, is not that straightforward. In Gummer’s words, “The elaboration of sacrificial tropes in these Mahaˉyaˉna suˉtras certainly has historical implications for our understanding both of the development of Buddhist thought and practice and of its relation to Brahmanical tradition” (Gummer 2014: 1119). It remains only to note one important thing. We do not know exactly what was the original teaching of the Buddha. It is known to a large extent from later sources, for example, parts of the Nikaˉyas may contain the original teaching and even the original words spoken by Buddha. It is worth noting, however, that since the Buddha’s teachings were initially transmitted orally, we can never be completely sure of their original content. This topic was analysed in more detail by Bhikkhu Anaˉlayo in his recent book Early Buddhist Oral Tradition: Textual Formation and Transmission (2022) and concluded in the following words: Although comparative study of parallel texts from different reciter lineages has a remarkable potential to shed light on the evolution of early Buddhism, it is impossible for it to yield access to the original or Ur-text. The nature of oral transmission is such that, even though the parallel versions now extant must have had a common starting point in the past, this initial oral expression is forever beyond reach. The actual words spoken by the Buddha can no longer be determined with certainty. What can definitely be determined are later developments, whose identification requires a comprehensive coverage of all relevant sources. (Anaˉlayo 2022: 117) Nevertheless, some argue that the policy of dhamma of As´oka could be similar to the original Buddhist teachings. It is also worth citing here the statement by Beckwith that “The earliest attested philosophical-religious system that is both historically datable and clearly recognizable as a form of Buddhism is Early Pyrrhonism” (Beckwith 2015: 53).

The Greeks in the Indian sources One more factor is necessary to contextualize the Greco-Buddhist relations in the post-Alexander era, namely, understanding who the Greeks were to the Indians at that time. One could believe that in India there were no documents about the Greeks: because no one has ever brought them all out from the Indian texts, either by negligence or by aversion to the hopeless effort.26 Such was Lévi’s opening remark to his dissertation entitled Quid de Graecis veterum Indorum monumenta tradiderint, published in 1890. But this statement about the lack of comprehensive study of Indian sources concerning the Greeks was only partially true. Mitra in his earlier article “On the Supposed Identity of the Greeks with the Yavanas of the Sanskrit Writers” (1874) enumerated Colebrooke, Prinsep, Wilson, Schlegel, Lassen, Weber, and Müller among the scholars, who wrote previously

Contexts for sources  39

on the subject of the so-called Yavanas, who may be identified with the Greeks. Unfortunately, the work of these researchers cannot be seen as a comprehensive development of the topic. But certainly, the subject was often raised and aroused much controversy from the beginning of European Indology.27 And although Lévi quoted in a few sentences the views of Mitra, Müller, Alwis, Lassen, Weber, and Kern, still their efforts were certainly underappreciated by him. It is worth looking at the main issues highlighted by these researchers28 because they are the beginnings of European Indology and they set the lens through which successive generations looked at Greco-Indian relations. The first mentions of the Yavanas by European Indologists date back to the late eighteenth century. Colebrooke in his essay “Enumeration of Indian Classes”, first published in 1798 in Calcutta, cited a passage (1837b: 184 f.) from the Rudrayaˉmala Tantra, a mysterious text, the original of which is not available,29 where the Yavanas are among the degraded classes called mleccha,30 who eat the flesh of the cattle, utter forbidden words, and do not perform the prescribed ceremonies. They are mentioned next to Caˉn˙․daˉla, a caste of people who deal with the disposal of corpses, and thus their touch should be avoided. So, by associating with these untouchables one falls from his class, by approaching their women he is degraded from his rank, and by bathing or drinking in wells or pools built by them he is impure and must be purified by the five productions of cattle (Colebrooke 1837b: 184 f.). This passage is very interesting in itself, although Colebrooke did not explain here who these Yavanas are. Interesting in this passage is a reference to the wells and pools built by the untouchables, among them the Yavanas, which may remind us of the RE II of As´oka, where the Buddhist emperor states that wells have been dug and trees planted along the roads for refreshment of men and animals. This edict will be discussed in Chapter 2. In another essay, “On the Philosophy of the Hindus”, first published in 1823, Colebrooke mentioned Paˉrasica, Yavana, Raumaca, and Barbara as barbaric tongues enumerated in Kumaˉrila Bha․t․ta’s Vaˉrttika (Colebrooke 1837a: 315). It is noteworthy that Kumaˉrila was a Mˉımˉam ․ sˉa scholar, who strove to prove the superiority of Vedic scripture over Buddhist scripture on the basis of the grammatical lapses in the latter. From these references, it is already clear that the Yavanas were in Brahman sources treated as degraded, barbaric people, living on the northwest border of India. The first researcher, who identified Yavanas with Ionians or Greeks, was Jones in his essay “On the Chronology of the Hindus” (Teignmouth 1807: 40 f.). Shortly thereafter this identification was confirmed by Wilson (1827: 64), who also added that, in modern times, this term generally applies to Muslims. Wilson also identified the Yavanas with the Macedonian or Bactrian Greeks, and he did this on the basis of their position and the fact that they are usually named in many Indian sources in concurrence with the northwest tribes, such as Kaˉmbojas, Daradas, Baˉhlˉı kas, or S´akas (1840: note 194: 144). However, he was not the first to see Bactrian Greeks in the Yavanas. Two years earlier Prinsep, who in 1837 deciphered the Braˉhmˉı script and identified Piyadassi with As´oka, also identified

40  Contexts for sources

Amtiyoka Yona raˉja from the Girnaˉr inscription from Junaˉga․dh with King Antiochus the Great (Prinsep 1838a, 1838b), and thus gave “a stronger reason”, as Sykes has rightly noticed (1841: 437), for identification of the Yavanas with the Bactrian Greeks. In his article, Prinsep also explained the attractiveness of tracing connections “between the legends of India and the rational histories of Greece or Rome”. It is worth quoting this passage in its entirety because of its value for understanding the motives of the Indologists in the nineteenth century and their understanding of Indian history: As long as the study of Indian antiquities confines itself to the illustration of Indian history it must be confessed that it possesses little attraction for the general student, who is apt to regard the labour expended on the disentanglement of perplexing and contradictory mazes of fiction, as leading only to the substitution of vague and dry probabilities for poetical, albeit extravagant, fable. But the moment any name or event turns up in the course of such speculations offering a plausible point of connection between the legends of India and the rational histories of Greece or Rome, – a collision between the fortunes of an eastern and western hero, – forthwith a speedy and spreading interest is excited which cannot be satisfied until the subject is thoroughly sifted by the examination of all the ancient works, western and eastern, that can throw concurrent light on the matter at issue. (Prinsep 1838a: 15) It is remarkable that already in 1838, Prinsep so consciously presented the attitude of Western scholars. Unfortunately, subsequent generations did not seem to notice this conclusion and continued to zealously browse the sources in search of points of connection between the East and the West. The first more comprehensive development of the issue of the Yavanas, comprising the meaning, etymology, and development of the term, was undertaken by Lassen in his Indische Alterthumskunde (1847). According to him, the name Yavana among the Indians referred to the remotest nations of the West and changed the specific meaning in different periods after their acquaintance and their intercourse with the West. It first described the Arabs and probably also the Phoenicians, as they, not only but most commonly, came from the West to India as sailors and merchants, and because the incense comes from Arabia, it is called yaˉvana. Another example given by him is contained in yavanaˉnˉı , which means the writing of the Yavanas and may be related, in his opinion, to the Kharo․s․thıˉ script,31 which was known to the Indians and in As´oka’s time, it must have been in the use in Gandhaˉra to the west of the Indus, because he issued one of his inscriptions in this script. This issue will be discussed in Chapters 2 and 5. As far as the great epic is concerned, only in some individual passages, we can assume that the Greeks could be called by that name, e.g. when they are praised for their bravery and their knowledge.32 Probably, therefore, as Lassen concluded, the

Contexts for sources  41

fame of their bravery in the battles against the Persians and their science and the arts were known as far as India. However, a direct contact of Indians with the Greeks for this earliest period cannot be proved (Lassen 1847: 861 f.). In As´oka’s inscriptions and the Buddhist scriptures, the word pertains certainly to the Greeks. To confirm his identification, Lassen further provided evidence from other areas, such as Darius’ inscriptions, where Yauna is used for the Ionians and the Greeks from the islands.33 Also, for the Hebrews, Yawan means, like for the old Egyptians Yunan, the Greeks (Lassen 1847: 729 f.).34 Weber (1856), who criticized most of Lassen’s conclusions, claimed that the word Ἰάονες was of Semitic origin, and it has come to the Indians either by mediation of the Persians or the Semites for the designation of the Greeks. Although the Greeks in Alexander’s time have apparently already been called Ἕλληνες long time since, the unacquaintance of the Indians with this name can probably be explained by the fact, that the Persian interpreter, whom the Greeks had to use, called them with the familiar name Yavana. I have already drawn attention to the problem of mediation of the Achaemenid Empire in shaping the image of India among the Greeks. An analogous problem appears here of the perception of the Greeks by the Indians through the Persian prism. Mitra (1874), in turn, deduced the etymology of the word Yavana from Egyptian Uinim (presently transcribed as jwn(n)’). According to Mitra, this “term or group of symbols was used to indicate foreigners settled in Egypt, the bulk of whom were maritime people from the Ionian isles and the sea-board of Asia Minor, i.e., Greeks, Phoenicians, and others” (Mitra 1874: 247). In his opinion, “to apply the term exclusively to the Greeks, it would be necessary to show that at the early period of Egyptian history when the term was used, the Greeks themselves bore the name of Uinim, or else the explanation would be against such a deduction” (Mitra 1874: 247 f.). But this conclusion is, in my opinion, a vast oversimplification. In the light of contemporary research on ethnic identity, we see that the groups may be defined differently by others and by themselves (etic, as opposed to emic, ethnic identity). Thus, the Greeks could be named Ionians by others and Achaeans, or Argives, or Hellenes by themselves. As Lepsius has rightly noticed (1855), only the Greeks themselves restricted the use of the name Ionians to a particular tribe, while among the Egyptians, Hebrews, Arabs, and other Eastern nations, all Greeks (Hellenes) were called Ionians down to a late period.35 After more than thirty years after the time of publishing his first article about the Yavanas, Weber wrote again on the same subject. In his booklet Die Griechen in Indien (1890), he tried to collect evidence for the presence of the Greeks in India. Weber pointed to the fact that the first chronologically firmly fixed mention of the Yavanas is made in the RE XIII of Piyadassi As´oka in the middle of the third century BC, where Yona (Yavana) kings: Am ․ tiyoka, Turaˉmaya, Am ․ tikini, and Maka are listed as his vassals. This is a well-known fixed point, from which the oldest Indian chronology is established backwards and forwards. It is a

42  Contexts for sources

noteworthy fact that the date which orders Indian history is the date linking that history with that of the West. As if European researchers were just waiting for such a tangent point to impart objective characteristics to Indian history. Would the history of India have no place without the link with Western chronology? Of course, it would, especially nowadays, when historical research is shifting away from great narratives in favour of more subjective forms and smaller-scale histories. It is worth stopping for a moment, turning the map over, and seeing history from a different perspective. Weber’s booklet shows the tendency, typical of early European Indology, to search sources for traces of mutual influences between the East and the West. From the point of view of this book, the most important are his conclusions concerning the Buddhist influence on the development of Christian worship and ritual.36 In his opinion, the Buddhist influence may be seen in the Christian Gnosis; Manichaeism; the Catholic rosary (from Indian japamaˉlaˉ);37 the legend about Barlaam and Josaphat; the dogma of the Trinity from Avestan triad: Ahura Mazda, Zoroaster and the community, or from Buddhist Three Jewels: Buddha, Dharma, and Sam ․ gha. A rational researcher will certainly notice the similarities here, but since these issues are practically undecidable, he will not be concerned with proving such influences. In general, the work of Weber may be interesting for someone who has never heard of the Greek presence in India, but in the present state of knowledge, it is largely unacceptable. However, already at this point, a tendency is visible to search through Indian and Greek sources to find evidence of mutual (with an emphasis on Greek) influence. It is often done using a magnifying glass, which makes it impossible to look at the sources in their completeness and context and often leads to misinterpretation. The practice of seeking influence between the West and India was criticized by Wecker, who in his article about India in “Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft” (Pauly et al. 1916: 1314 ff.) recommended extreme caution and restraint in proving any influence between the two such different worlds. According to him, the Greek rule in India following Alexander’s campaign was too short to give any permanent results. From the above overview, it is already clear that the previously cited opinion of Lévi was greatly exaggerated. However, it does not change the fact that his thesis (Lévi 1890), written in Latin, is even today one of the most precise works devoted to the issue of the Yavanas in the Indian sources, because he was the first to aim at completeness of his development. Remarkable in itself is the fact that he undertook this pioneering task, which has been omitted by other researchers, as he noticed, either by negligence or by aversion to the hopeless effort. Whereas the fact that this versatile Parisian Orientalist at the beginning of his scientific career in the nineteenth century completed this daunting task of wading through Indian sources without the help of modern technology, and its performance is satisfactory even for contemporary researchers, is in fact admirable! Lévi presented his main conclusion in the chapter entitled “Yavanos esse Graecos ostenditur”, where

Contexts for sources  43

he claimed that the Greeks should be understood under the name Yavana; however, the proper and primary meaning of the word is questioned.38 Quite recently a prevailing view has been established concerning the term Yavana. It is represented, among others, by Ray in her article “The Yavana Presence in Ancient India” (1988), whose statement, although rather dogmatic, I shall quote in full: The word Yavana is a back-formation from the Prakrit term Yona which is in turn derived from the old Persian form Yauna originally denoting the Ionian Greeks who were conquered by Cyrus in 545 BC. It first occurs in the Behistun inscription of Darius I dated to 519 BC. As the Ionian Greeks were the first to have come into contact with India, the term was initially used for them. It was gradually extended to include not only the Greeks of West Asia but any group of people coming either from West Asia or the eastern Mediterranean. In medieval Indian literature the word yavana was used as a synonym of mleccha and indicated any foreigner. (Ray 1988: 312) Karttunen quite recently undertook two re-developments of the issue of the term Yavana (1997: 316–320, 2015). His work can be defined as collection and summary of the material. He presented the etymology of the word from Greek Ionian, through Old Persian form Yauna, Middle Indo-Aˉryan (MIA) Yona to ­ ˉ ryan Yavana. According to him, the term Yavana means Greek or Old Indo-A somebody considered Hellenized, at least for the early period of contacts between India and the West. It was used for Bactrian Greeks, as well as any other Greeks, and later for all westerners, especially Arabs.

Notes

44  Contexts for sources











Contexts for sources  45



References Anaˉlayo, B. (2022) Early Buddhist Oral Tradition: Textual Formation and Transmission. Somerville: Wisdom Publications. Beckwith, C.I. (2015) Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. Oxford: Princeton University Press. Bivar, A.D.H. (1988) “The Indus lands”, in Boardman, J. et al. (eds.) The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 4. Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean, c.525 to 479 BC. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 194–210. Bosman, P.R. (2010) “The Gymnosophist Riddle Contest (Berol. P. 13044): A Cynic Text?”, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 50, pp. 175–192. Braudel, F. (1949) La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II. Paris: Librairie Armand Colin. Briant, P. (2002) From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of The Persian Empire; translated by Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Bronkhorst, J. (1999) Why is there Philosophy in India? Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Brown, T.S. (1949) Onesicritus. A Study in Hellenistic Historiography. Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press. Champollion, J.-F. (1836) Grammaire égyptienne: ou, Principes généraux de l’écriture sacrée égyptienne. Paris: Firmin Didot frères. Christ, M.R. (1994) “Herodotean Kings and Historical Inquiry”, Classical Antiquity, 13(2), pp. 167–202. Colebrooke, H.T. (1837a) Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. I. London: Wm. H. Allen & Co. Colebrooke, H.T. (1837b) Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. II. London: Wm. H. Allen & Co.

46  Contexts for sources

Cook, J.M. (1985) “The rise of the Achaemenids and establishment of their empire”, in Gershevitch, I. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. II: The Median and Achaemenian Periods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 200–291. Crawford, S.C. (1972) “Review of Brahmanism, Buddhism and Hinduism by Lal Mani Joshi”, Philosophy East and West, 22(1), pp. 114–116. Curiel, R. and Schlumberger, D. (1953) Trésors monétaires d’Afghanistan. Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan; t. 14. Paris: Impr. nationale. Curtis, J. (2012) Oxus Treasure. London: The British Museum Press. de Jong, J.W. (1973) “The discovery of India by the Greeks”, Asiatische Studien: Zeitschrift der Schweizerischen Asiengesellschaft = Etudes asiatiques: revue de la Société Suisse – Asie, 27(1), pp. 115–143. Filliozat, J. (1981) “La valeur des connaissances gréco-romaines sur l’Inde”, Journal des savants, 2(2), pp. 97–135. Gombrich, R.F. (2006) How Buddhism Began. The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings. 2nd edn. New York: Routledge. Guillaume, O. (1991) Graeco-Bactrian and Indian Coins From Afghanistan. Delhi: Oxford University Press (French studies in South Asian culture and society: 5). Gummer, N. (2014) “Sacrificial Suˉtras: Mahaˉyaˉna Literature and the South Asian Ritual Cosmos”, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 82(4), pp. 1091–1126. Halkias, G.T. (2014) “When the Greeks converted the Buddha: Asymmetrical transfers of knowledge in Indo-greek cultures”, in Wick, P. and Rabens, V. (eds.) Religions and Trade. Religious Formation, Transformation and Cross-Cultural Exchange. Leiden – Boston, MA: Brill, pp. 65–115. Holt, F.L. (1988) Alexander the Great and Bactria: The Formation of a Greek Frontier in Central Asia. Leiden: Brill (Mnemosyne: bibliotheca classica batava. Supplementa: 104). Ireland, J.D. (1981) Sam ․ yutta Nikaˉ ya. An Anthology. Part I. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society. Jacoby, F. (1958) Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker; Dritter Teil; Geschichte von Staedten und Voelkern (Horographie und Ethnographie); C Autoren ueber einzelne Laender Nr. 608a-856 (Zweiter Band: Illyrien-Thrakien Nr. 709–856), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Edited by F. Jacoby. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Jaspers, K. (1965) The Origin and Goal of History. Translated from the German by Michael Bullock. 3rd edn. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Joshi, L.M. (2008) Brahmanism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. An Essay on their Origins and Interactions, The Wheel Publication No. 150/151. Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society. Kane, P.V. (1962) History of Dharmas´aˉ stra, Vol. V. Part II. 1st edn. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Kaplan, P. (2011) “Skylax of Karyanda (709)”, in Worthington, I. (ed.) Brill’s New Jacoby [Brill online]. Grand Valley State University. Available at: (accessed on 05 August 2011). Karttunen, K. (1989) India in Early Greek Literature. Helsinki: The Finnish Oriental Society. Karttunen, K. (1997) India and the Hellenistic world. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society (Studia Orientalia: vol. 83). Karttunen, K.J. (2015) Yonas and Yavanas in Indian Literature. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society. Kubica, O. (2021) “Meetings with the ‘Naked Philosophers’ as a Case Study for the Greco-Indian Relations in the Time of Alexander”, Studia Hercynia, 25(1), pp. 72–81.

Contexts for sources  47

Kuhrt, A. (2002) “Greeks” and “Greece” in Mesopotamian and Persian Perspectives. The Twenty-First J.L. Myres Memorial Lecture. Oxford: Leopard’s Head Press. Lassen, C. (1847) Indische Alterthumskunde 1. Bonn, London: H.B. Koenig, Williams & Norgate. Lepsius, K.R. (1855) “Über den Namen der Ionier auf den ägyptischen Denkmälern”, Bericht über die zur Bekanntgabe geeigneten Verhandlungen zu der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, pp. 497–512. Lévi, S. (1890) Quid de Graecis veterum Indorum monumenta tradiderint. Paris: E. Bouillon. Levman, B.G. (2014) “Cultural Remnants of the Indigenous Peoples in the Buddhist Scriptures”, Buddhist Studies Review, 30(2), pp. 145–180. Litvinskiy, B.A. and Pichikiyan, I.R. (1981) “The Temple of the Oxus”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland (New Series), 113(2), pp. 133–167. Magee, P. and Petrie, C.A. (2010) “West of the Indus, East of the empire: The archaeology of the pre-Achaemenid and Achaemenid periods in Baluchistan and the NorthWest frontier province, Pakistan”, in Curtis, J. and Simpson, J.S. (eds.) The World of Achaemenid Persia. History, Art and Society in Iran and The Ancient Near East. Proceedings of a conference at the British Museum. London: I.B.Tauris, pp. 503–522. Metzler, D. (2009) “Achsenzeit als Ereignis und Geschichte”, Das Ereignis. Geschichtsschreibung zwischen Vorfall und Befund, hrsg. von M. Fitzenreiter = Internet-Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie (IBAES), 10, pp. 169–173. Milns, R.D. (1989) “Greek Writers on India before Alexander”, Australian Journal of Politics and History, 35(3), pp. 353–363. Mitra, R. (1874) “On the Supposed Identity of the Greeks with the Yavanas of the Sanskrit Writers”, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 43, pp. 246–279. Morta, K. (1998) “Indyjskie mrówki”, in Głombiowska, Z. (ed.) Cognoscere causas: człowiek a natura w cywilizacji starożytnej Grecji i Rzymu. Gdan´sk: Studia Classica et Neolatina 3, pp. 183–196. Nawotka, K. (2010) Alexander the Great. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Pande, G.C. (1957) Studies in the Origins of Buddhism. Allahabad: Department of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology, University of Allahabad. Parasher, A. (1991) Mlecchas in Early India. A Study in Attitudes Towards Outsiders Upto AD 600. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt Ltd. Pauly, A.F., Wissowa, G. and Kroll, W. (1916) Real-encyklopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft IX. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzlersche Buchhandlung. Pédech, P. (1948) Historiens compagnons d’Alexandre. Callisthène, Onésicrite, Néarque, Ptolémée, Aristobule. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Prinsep, J. (1838a) “Discovery of the Name of Antiochus the Great, in Two of the Edicts of Asoka, King of India”, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 7, pp. 156–166. Prinsep, J. (1838b) “VII.—Examination of the Inscriptions from Girnar in Gujerat, and Dhauli in Cuttack, Continued”, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 7(76), pp. 334–356. Rapson, E.J. (1922) The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I, Ancient India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rawlinson, H.G. (1937) India: A Short Cultural History, ed. C.G. Seligman. London: The Cresset Press. Ray, H.P. (1988) “The Yavana Presence in Ancient India”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient/Journal de l’histoire economique et sociale de l’Orient, 31(3), pp. 311–325.

48  Contexts for sources

Ray, H.P. (2006) “The Axial Age in South Asia: The Archaeology of Buddhism (500 BC–500 AD)”, in Stark, M.T. (ed.) Archaeology of Asia. 1st edn. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 303–323. Romm, J.S. (1992) The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought: Geography, Exploration and Fiction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Schepens, G. (2011) “Skylax of Karyanda (1000)”, in Schepens, G. (ed.) Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker continued Part IV [Brill online]. Grand Valley State University. Available at: (accessed on 05 August 2011). Sen, A. (2005) The Argumentative Indian. Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity. London: Penguin Books. Sherwin-White, S. and Kuhrt, A. (1993) From Samarkhand to Sardis: A New Approach to the Seleucid Empire. London: Duckworth. Stoneman, R. (1995) “Naked Philosophers: The Brahmans in the Alexander Historians and the Alexander Romance”, The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 115, pp. 99–114. Stoneman, R. (2019) The Greek Experience of India. From Alexander to the Indo-Greeks. Oxford: Princeton University Press. Sykes, W.H. (1841) “Notes on the Religious, Moral, and Political State of India Before the Mahomedan Invasion, Chiefly Founded on the Travels of the Chinese Buddhist Priest Fa Hian in India, AD 399, and on the Commentaries of Messrs. Remusat, Klaproth, Burnouf, and Landresse”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 6(12), pp. 248–450. Tarn, W.W. (1951) The Greeks in Bactria and India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Teignmouth, Lord (1807) The Works of Sir William Jones With the Life of the Author, Vol. IV. London: Stockdale. Vogelsang, W. (1990) “The Achaemenids and India”, in Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. and Kuhrt, A. (eds.) Centre and Periphery. Proceeding of the Groningen 1986 Achaemenid History Workshop. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, pp. 93–110. Weber, A. (1890) “Die Griechen in Indien”, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 2, pp. 901–933. White, H. (1987) The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Wilson, H.H. (1827) Select Specimens of the Theatre of the Hindus, Vol. III: The Mudra Rakshasa or the Signet of the Minister a Drama Translated from the Original Sanscrit by Horace Hayman Wilson, Esq. Calcutta: V. Holcroft. Wilson, H.H. (1840) The Vishnu Purana. London: John Murray. Winiarczyk, M. (2007) “Das Werk Die Erziehung Alexanders des Onesikritos von Astypalaia (FGrHist 134 F 1–39). Forschungsstand (1832–2005) und Interpretationsversuch”, Eos. Commentarii Societatis Philologae Polonorum, 94, pp. 197–250. Winiarczyk, M. (2008) “Spotkania Onesikritosa i Arystobulosa z me¸drcami indyjskimi w Pendz∙abie”, Meander, 63(1–4), pp. 89–107. Winiarczyk, M. (2009) “Die indischen Weisen bei den Alexanderhistorikern”, Eos. Commentarii Societatis Philologae Polonorum, 96, pp. 29–77. Witzel, M. (1997) “The development of the vedic canon and its schools: The social and political milieu”, in Witzel, M. (ed.) Inside the Texts, Beyond the Text. Cambridge: Harvard Oriental Series, pp. 257–345.

Contexts for sources  49

Wood, R. (2011) “Cultural convergence in Bactria: The votives from the temple of the Oxos at Takht-i Sangin”, in Kouremenos, A., Chandrasekaran, S. and Rossi, R. (eds.) From Pella to Gandhara: Hybridisation and Identity in the Art and Architecture of the Hellenistic East. Oxford: Archaeopress (BAR international series: 2221), pp. 141–152. Zeymal, E. (1997) “Coins from the excavations of Takht-i Sangin (1976–1991)”, in Tanabe, K., Cribb, J. and Wang, H. (eds.) Studies in Silk Road Coins and Culture. Papers in Honour of Ikuo Hirayama on his 65th Birthday. Kamakura: The Institute of Silk Road Studies, pp. 89–110.

2 THE DHAMMA OF AS´OKA IN THE CONTEXT OF GRECO-MAURYAN CONTACTS

This chapter covers the relationship of the Greeks with the Mauryas, especially with the most famous Mauryan Emperor, As´oka, known from his edicts as Piyadassi. The policy of the Dhamma, which As´oka proclaimed in his edicts, addressed also to the Greeks living on the frontiers of his kingdom, is analysed here. This policy is explored in the context of drawing As´oka’s character, both in history and in memory. Of major importance for the topic of the present book is historical As´oka, the author of the edicts, but it is also important to notice the lasting memory of legendary As´oka, which survived among the Buddhists and was shaped in the context of anti-Brahman and anti-S´un˙ga Buddhist-Mauryan propaganda. Later in this chapter, it is shown how As´oka’s policy could appeal to the Greeks. Helpful here is the earlier presented theory of the middle ground.

The Greeks and the Dhamma Let us begin the study of Greco–Buddhist relations after the conquests of Alexander with As´oka,1 one of the most eminent Indian rulers, ruling in the third century BC, grandson of Chandragupta, the founder of the Mauryan dynasty, under whose rule large areas of the Indian subcontinent were united. Why is As´oka so important for the study of the Greco–Buddhist relations? Because he declared in his Rock Edict (RE) XIII that he has gained the victory by Dhamma “on all his frontiers to a distance of six hundred yojanas [i.e. about 1500 miles], where reigns the Greek king named Antiochus, and beyond the realm of that Antiochus in the lands of the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonus, Magas, and Alexander” (transl. Thapar 2012: 383). Many questions arise in connection with this declaration of As´oka, especially since also the Greek version of the same edict was found in 1964. By far the most important question from the point of view of this book is why As´oka addressed his message to the Greeks. But, in order to be DOI: 10.4324/9781003258575-3

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  51

able to answer this question, it is necessary to see the REs of As´oka in a broader context. Therefore, one should first look at the history of the Mauryan Empire, especially its contacts with the Greeks. One of the main subjects of dispute among scholars seems to be the reason for the fall of the Mauryan Empire. Some researchers blame it on As´oka’s allegedly pacifist policy, which, according to them, caused weakness and effeminacy of the state. Another very important issue is the distinction between the historical and the legendary As´oka. Once you get to know this broad context, you can look at the inscriptions themselves and the policies they contain. The main problem faced by the researchers dealing with the inscriptions of As´oka is the answer to the question, what is the meaning of the Dhamma of As´oka and what is its relation to Buddhism? Directly from this problem follows the next, namely, what is the relation of As´oka to Buddhism? Question also arises concerning the historicity of As´oka’s conversion and its character, namely, what entailed the adoption of Buddhism in this epoch?

Contacts between the Mauryas and the Greeks The Mauryan Empire was undoubtedly the first empire covering virtually the whole of the Indian subcontinent. It was founded by Chandragupta Maurya 2 (the first regnal year between 316/303 BC)3 and later expanded by his son Bindusaˉra Amitraghata and his grandson Piyadassi As´oka (the first regnal year between 285/267). But while we have a lot of information in Greek and Latin sources (such as Plutarch,4 Strabo, Arrian, Megasthenes, Diodorus, Ptolemy, or Pliny) about Chandragupta (in Greek Σανδρακόττος) and Bindusaˉra (in Greek Ἀμιτροχάτης5), the Greeks did not tell us about their successor, Piyadassi As´oka. This lack of mention in the Greek sources of one of the most powerful rulers of India remains one of the greatest mysteries. On the other hand, we are also in the possession of some Indian sources giving an account of the time of the Mauryas, namely the lists of the Mauryan kings in the Puraˉ․nas and the Arthas´aˉstra of Kaut․ilya, which, according to Thapar, should be dated to the Mauryan period (2012: 338 ff.), as well as some artefacts, such as coins, northern black polished ware and several art remains. Also, the drama Mudrarak․sasa by Vi․sakhadatta narrates the ascent of the king Chandragupta to power. In the second act, it is said that his forces, composed of Yavanas, S´akas, Kiraˉtas, Kambojas, Paˉrasˉı kas, and Baˉhlˉı kas, attacked Kusumapura (Paˉ․taliputra). To better understand the inscriptions of King Piyadassi in the context of transculturalism, we should look first into the relations between the Greeks and the Mauryan Empire.6 Long before the conquests of Alexander, areas between Greece and India were occupied by the vast and mighty Achaemenid Empire, whose satrapies stretched from the lands bordering the Mediterranean to as far afield as the distant Bactria, Sogdiana, Gandhaˉra, and Arachosia, acting as the rampart of India (cf. Behistun inscription of Darius the Great). To hold their far-flung empire together, the Achaemenids introduced Aramaic as an official language of the chancellery. It was influential to the extent that even Piyadassi

52 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

was using it in his edicts. In Persian times, Greek contacts with the residents of India were likely to be limited, although there are traces of Greek settlements in Bactria and Sogdiana, established as a result of the resettlement by the Persians of groups of population. The so-called Barkaioi were settled by Darius in Bactria (cf. Amitay 2010: 42 f.) and Branchidae by Xerxes in Sogdiana (cf. Beal 1880; Tarn 1922; Brown 1978; Parke 1985; Pichikyan 1991; Panchenko 2002; Kubica 2016). In 326–325 BC, Chandragupta is supposed to have met Alexander. Soon after, the Mauryas uprooted the Nandas, probably with the help of mleccha forces composed of Yavanas, S´akas, Kiraˉtas, Kambojas, Paˉrasˉı kas, and Baˉhlˉı kas, and established the Mauryan dynasty. On the death of Alexander in 323 BC, the Greek control over the Indus valley weakened, the northern kingdoms were slowly disintegrated, and it gave an impulse for Chandragupta to extend his domination in the north-west direction. However, in the time of the Diadochi, Greco-Indian relations seemed more or less friendly, at least in so far as we can tell from the sources available to us. There is no mention of any battles, while the military campaign of Seleucus I Nicator (ca. 358–281) undertaken to recover the lands conquered by Alexander and lost to the emerging Mauryan Empire, ended in 303 BC with the conclusion of a treaty between Seleucus and Chandragupta (cf. Strabo 15.2.9; Appian, Syr. 9.55), which established an alliance of friendship (φιλία; pactio) and of connubium (ἐπιγαμία or κῆδος). According to Scharfe (1971: 217 f.), “These friendly relations were never interrupted – on the contrary, they were carefully cultivated.” Seleucus ceded Gandhaˉra, Arachosia, and Paropamisadae to Chandragupta in exchange for 500 elephants. As Scharfe wrote in his article “The Maurya Dynasty and the Seleucids” (1971: 217), “Some historians have concluded that Seleukos must have suffered a military defeat, others that the pressures in western Asia forced a hurried return. They all overlook the fact that the treaty between Seleukos and Chandragupta is more or less a copy of that between Alexander and Poros”. Scharfe argued that Chandragupta was conquered by Seleucus and lost his sovereignty to the Hellenistic ruler. As evidence to support his theory, he cited the title Devaˉnaˉm ․ piya (Devaˉnaˉm ․ priya) attributed to the Mauryan rulers, which, in his opinion, is a translation of the Hellenistic court title φίλος τῶν βασιλέων “friend of the kings” (1971: 215), whereas φίλος τοῦ βασιλέως was one of the groups called ἑταῖροι at the time of Alexander, replaced by φίλοι under his successors. However, I think there is no sufficient evidence to support his thesis. Why, moreover, do none of the Greek sources mention the alleged victory of Seleucus over the Indian ruler? Was it not a sufficiently glorious accomplishment to boast of in front of compatriots? While the issue of the sovereignty of the Mauryan Empire remains open and awaits further consideration, Greco-Indian relations were essentially good. This is evidenced by the fact that ambassadors were sent to the Indian court: Megasthenes to Chandragupta7 and Deimachus to Bindusaˉra (cf. Strabo 2.1.9). Legates were also sent by Piyadassi to the Western kings: Antiochus II Theos of Syria

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  53

(261–246 BC), Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (285–247 BC), Antigonus Gonatas of Macedonia (276–239 BC), Magas of Cyrene (ca. 283–250 BC)8, and Alexander of Corinth (249–245 BC) or, more probably,9Alexander of Epirus (272–255 BC).10 And gifts and letters were exchanged by Greek and Indian rulers, as shown by von Hinüber in his article “Did Hellenistic Kings Send Letters to As´oka?”, where he concluded that “the royal correspondence of the Hellenistic kings would be another minute stone in the very fragmentary mosaic that must be put together if it is intended to trace relations between India and the West from direct evidence in ancient monuments and not only from equally fragmentary literary sources. This allows us to recover not only Iranian models suspected long since to be present in the inscription of As´oka but also stimulating thoughts perhaps derived from the then contemporary Hellenistic Greek culture” (2010: 266). However, the approach presented here by von Hinüber, which seems to me to be nothing more than the passion of a “butterfly-collector”, is something which I would like to avoid. I am presenting this evidence for the sake of a deeper understanding of the processes taking place between the two empires. A very important insight into the cultural relations between the Mauryan and the Seleucid rulers is provided by the well-known anecdote of Hegesandros preserved in Deipnosophistae by Athenaeus, where Bindusaˉra (Ἀμιτροχάτης) asks Antiochus to send him grape-syrup, dried figs, and a sophist, to which Antiochus replies that the grape-syrup and the figs he will send, but it is not lawful to buy a sophist.11 This story was, probably already in antiquity, an opportunity to discuss cultural differences. That may constitute evidence that such differences were noticed and at least, in this case, treated with a playful wink. But was this true in other cases also? We cannot forget that Athenaeus was a grammarian and a collector. Also, his work was a dictionary in a form of a dialogue taking place at a sumptuous banquet, gathering information from many works on various topics. But it is not excluded that, in other cases, these differences could have been discussed in less tolerant and liberal circumstances. According to von Hinüber, this “well-known anecdote mirrors the fact that there was some memory among the Greeks of close contacts between the Hellenistic world and India some four hundred years before the time of Athenaios or of the slightly older Hegesander. The correctness of the Indian name Ἀμιτροχάτης allows us to put a certain trust in the quality of the memory” (2010: 265). However, this anecdote was rather based on a written source and not a memory. On the other hand, if we assume that this anecdote is at least partially based on a true conversation between the Mauryan ruler and Antiochus, then it shows Bindusaˉra’s interest in the discussions. Similar inclination towards the debates is manifested by Menander in the Milindapañha, which will be discussed in Chapter 4 of the present book. One of the most important, if not the most important, factors in Greco-Indian relations was the development of trade routes between the East and the West. As Pugliese Caratelli shows in his article “Asoka e i re ellenistici” (1953), trading was already carried out between Seleucid Syria and Central Asia, the great route was marked out in part by Alexander and later by the trade with China: the way

54 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

to Bactria and the Kabul valley, evangelized by missionaries of Piyadassi, reached Taxila. Piyadassi himself recalls how his charitable initiative found its implementation even in the furthest realms. Everywhere in his empire and also in the neighbouring lands up to Taprobane (Ceylon), and to the lands of Antiochus the Yona (Yavana) king and the neighbouring kings of this Antiochus the king has set up two medical points, relief for men and animals. Medical herbs and roots and fruit trees useful for men and animals have been planted. Along the roads, wells have been dug and trees planted for refreshment of men and animals (cf. RE II). However, such favourable conditions for contact between the two empires did not last long. Around 250 BC, Bactrian Greeks, under the command of satrap Diodotus, revolted against the Seleucids and so cut off the Mauryan Empire from direct contact with the Greek world. Although, in 206 BC, Antiochus III renewed the alliance with Subhaˉgasena (Greek Σοφαγασῆνος), probably a later Mauryan king, and again received war elephants (cf. Polybius 11.34), still this situation was changed rapidly. In 185 BC, the last Mauryan king B․rhadratha was assassinated by Brahman Pu․syamitra and the S´un˙ga dynasty was established. Soon the Seleucid Empire also collapsed in confrontation with the Roman power. Thus two great empires ceased to exist, and it is difficult to determine, how the history of India would turn, were it not for this fact.

As´oka in memory and in history Most researchers today agree as to the connection of As´oka with a considerably voluminous collection of Indian inscriptions, the so-called Edicts of As´oka.12 But until the nineteenth century, As´oka was known mainly from legends. The situation has changed in 1837 when Prinsep deciphered the Braˉhmˉı script, in which the edicts were inscribed in the third century BC. It is not entirely clear when the Braˉhmˉı alphabet was forgotten. Xuanzang (Hsuan-tsang),13 in the seventh century AD, certainly could not understand it, because what he relates does not correspond to the actual content of the inscriptions. Faxian (Fa-hsien),14 in the fourth century AD, probably also did not understand it, as he gives the same reading of the inscription found near Paˉ․taliputra as Xuanzang. This coincidence may indicate the existence of some oral tradition, to which they both refer, or plagiarism, to which the artists in antiquity had a more relaxed attitude than nowadays. The discussion on this topic is presented by Strong in his book The Legend of King As´oka: A Study and Translation of the As´okaˉvadaˉna (1983: 6 ff.). According to him, the Chinese pilgrims read and interpreted the Edicts of As´oka in light of what they knew about As´oka from the legends (Strong 1983: 9). Anyway, it should not come as a surprise, as a similar approach is also customary among the contemporary researchers, who read and interpret the Edicts of As´oka in the light of the legends and vice versa. Few centuries later, probably in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries AD, also the association of the pillars with the name of As´oka was forgotten. The pillars were re-used, perhaps for historical legitimacy (cf. Thapar 2012: xxx ff.), e.g. by Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq (1309–1388), who

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  55

transported two pillars from Topra and Mirat to Delhi as his trophies. One may say that his admiration for these columns was as deep as his misunderstanding of their meaning. Prinsep (1837b) initially identified Devaˉnampiya Piyadassi raˉja from the Braˉhmˉı inscriptions with a Sri Lankan king, Tissa, who also took the title Devaˉnampiya. But later the same year (1837a, 1837c), he associated the title Devaˉnampiya with As´oka. He accomplished this with the help of Turnour, who, together with him and Smith, began to decipher the inscriptions on the first discovered pillar of As´oka. Turnour, who translated the Mahaˉvam ․ sa (1837b), turned Prinsep’s attention to the fact that the two Paˉli Sinhalese chronicles: the Dıˉ pavam ․ sa (cf. Oldenberg 1879) and the Mahaˉvam ․ sa, also attribute the title Devaˉnampiya to As´oka (Turnour 1837a). This identification does not raise any objections, as As´oka is known from the legends as the Indian ruler, and therefore his authorship of the Indian edicts is fully justified, while in the case of the Sri Lankan king, it would be extremely problematic. The definitive confirmation of the identification of Devaˉnampiya Piyadassi raˉja from the Braˉhmˉı inscriptions with As´oka came with the Maski edict, published in 1915 (cf. Falk 2006: 81 ff.), where the name As´oka is used. The name As´oka appears also in the Gujarraˉ edict, published in 1955 (cf. Falk 2006: 75 ff.). It would be sensible to ask a question about the reasons for the oblivion of the Braˉhmˉı script, but the answer is not so clear-cut. First of all, the question about the origin and function of the Braˉhmˉı script should be addressed. Thapar in the first edition of her monograph on As´oka and the Mauryas wrote that it is probably the earliest Indian script used for the writing of Sanskrit and Praˉkrit, and that As´oka used this local script to address his edicts to all his literate subjects. The language, which he used, is the As´okan Praˉkrit with regional variations, the language commonly spoken by the people, and not Sanskrit, the language of culture (cf. Thapar 2012: 9 f.). But in the Afterword to the third edition of her book, Thapar adds that according to a recent study, the earliest forms of Braˉhmˉı might have been influenced by the Greeks and thus the script may be dated to the first Mauryan ruler (Thapar 2012: 284). Indeed, most of the recent studies agree in assigning the origin of Kharo․s․thıˉ and Braˉhmˉı scripts to the early Mauryan era. The previously dominant view on the origin of Braˉhmˉı was that represented by Bühler, who in his treatise On the Origin of the Indian Braˉhma Alphabet (1898) argued for an early origin of writing in India (eighth-century BC for the Braˉhmˉı script) and derived it from the Phoenician script. But, at present, his view is refuted by such prominent scholars as Fussman (1989), von Hinüber (1989), Falk (1993), and Salomon (1995). They agree that Braˉhmˉı was a pan-Indian script, influenced by an older local Kharo․s․thˉı script and that it originated in the Mauryan period. Fussman attributes the development of the Braˉhmˉı script to Chandragupta, while von Hinüber and Falk attribute it to As´oka. They are also sceptical about the presumed literary evidence for the writing in India before As´oka because there is no conclusive empirical proof for that (not mentioning the writing of the proto-historic Indus

56 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

Valley civilization). Von Hinüber argues (1989: 20) that the statement by Megasthenes, who declared that the Indians have no writing at all,15 should be regarded as authentic. Von Hinüber and Falk follow to some extent Goyal’s (1979, see also 2006) “invention theory” of the origin of Braˉhmˉı , according to which the Braˉhmˉı script was invented at the time of As´oka for the purpose of writing his inscriptions and the idea of writing came from the West (cf. Salomon 1995: 273). However, this view is rejected by Norman (1993), who argues for the origin of Braˉhmˉı around the fifth century BC. The most interesting from the point of view of the present book is the study by Falk, which is arranged in the form of a comprehensive review in chronological order of all the scholarly literature on issues relevant to the origin and early development of writing in India. Salomon expressed his appreciation for Falk’s effort saying that he “has obviously taken the trouble to locate, read, and understand all of the literature, rather than relying on what others have said about it, and thus has succeeded in clarifying authoritatively, for once and for all, who said what and when. Just for this, we are much indebted to him” (Salomon 1995: 275). In his book, Falk emphasizes the influence of Greek on the development of the Braˉhmˉı script. According to him, the left-to-right direction of the record of As´oka’s inscriptions was inspired by Greek script. Also, the anomalous form of Braˉhmıˉ tha, for which it is difficult to find a prototype in late Aramaic, in his opinion, resembles the Greek Θ (theta), and thus, it is possible that the Greek letter influenced the formation of the Braˉhmˉı letter. Moreover, Falk suggests that the introduction into Braˉhmˉı of diacritics for short and long vowels was inspired by Greek script. However, according to Salomon, “the notation of vowel quantity in Greek operates on entirely different principles” (Salomon 1995: 277). So, Falk perhaps overemphasizes the Greek influence. In the context of the latest research on the origin of the Indian script, the conclusions can therefore be as follows: after the oblivion of the writing of the proto-historic Indus Valley civilization, there is no evidence for the existence of any pre-Mauryan script. The Kharo․s․thˉı script probably evolved as a regional script of the far Northwest after the collapse of the Achaemenid dominance and its Aramaic bureaucracy. The Braˉhmˉı script was invented probably by As´oka for the announcement of his policy. Its characters cannot be explained on the basis of a single prototype, because Kharo․s․thˉı , Greek, Aramaic, and Phoenician can provide models only for some individual characters, but not for all of them. Salomon (1995: 278), in his revision of the previous study by von Hinüber, Falk, Fussman, and Norman, asks a very significant question of whether one can imagine the times of the Nanda dynasty and of the Buddha and Mahaˉvˉı ra as completely illiterate? In my opinion, they could sufficiently get around by using Aramaic for official purposes and memory for the transmission of ideas, legends, stories, and beliefs. Similarly, Thapar’s initial optimism about the wide reception of the Edicts of As´oka is balanced by her statement that the literacy at the time of As´oka was limited to some Braˉhma․nas, Buddhist scribes, merchants, officials, and some other professionals, and so the edicts could not have been read by ordinary

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  57

people (2012: 286). If in fact, the situation of Indian readership in the Mauryan times was as Thapar presents it, then it is not surprising that the script, which was not cultivated by any particular group, became illegible. And, indeed, the Brahman domination after the fall of the Mauryan Empire may have contributed to the later supremacy of Sanskrit and the Devanaˉgarˉı alphabet. As already mentioned, until 1837, As´oka was known only from legends, especially As´okaˉvadaˉna (the legend of As´oka),16 which forms a part of the Divyaˉvadaˉna. It begins with the presentation of Upagupta, a Buddhist monk, and of his past life, enlightenment, and conversion of Maˉra. Next, As´oka is shown in his previous life as a boy named Jaya, who offered the “gift of dirt” to Buddha. As As´oka, he is born as a son of Bindusaˉra and a daughter of a Brahman of Campaˉ. He is called As´oka because his mother, on giving birth to him, became “without sorrow” (a-s´oka). He is sent unarmed by his father, who did not like him because of his rough skin, to Tak․sas´ilaˉ (Taxila) to put an end to the revolt. On Bindusaˉra’s death, As´oka is crowned by the gods. He is first depicted as Ca․n․daˉs´oka (“As´oka the Fierce”), who cuts off the heads of 500 ministers, burns alive 500 concubines of his harem and builds a prison at Paˉ․taliputra for the purpose of torturing people and carrying out executions. Then he becomes a Buddhist convert, thanks to one prisoner, an ex-merchant Samudra, who had become a monk, and by his miraculous powers had saved himself. As´oka impressed by his miracles becomes a devotee of Buddhism, Dharmaˉs´oka (“As´oka the Righteous”) and performs some religious acts, such as building 84,000 Dharmaraˉjikaˉs (stuˉpas), converting his brother Vˉı tas´oka, going on a pilgrimage with Upagupta, and giving a generous donation to the Buddhist Order on his deathbed. But, on the other hand, as Dharmaˉs´oka, he is also guilty of killing 18,000 Nirgranthas (heretics) and, by mistake, also his brother, Vˉı tas´oka. As´oka dies with half an aˉmalaˉ (myrobalan?) in his hand, as he gave all his money to the Order. The As´okaˉvadaˉna also tells a story about As´oka’s son Kunaˉla blinded by queen Tissarakkhaˉ (Ti․syaraks․itaˉ in the Sanskrit sources) and about the last Mauryan king Pu․syamitra, vehemently persecuting Buddhist monks and trying to destroy the Buddhist religion, eventually killed by a Yak․sa K․rmis´a. According to Strong (1983: 18), this episode is included as a “lesson in impermanence” showing that nothing will last forever. There are also other versions of the legend of As´oka, most importantly the Dıˉ pavam ․ sa (compiled between the third and the fourth centuries AD) and the Mahaˉvam ․ sa (written in the fifth century AD); the Thuˉpavam ․ sa, being a chronicle of the great Ruvanvaˉli stuˉpa in Sri Lanka; and the Dˉı gha Nikaˉya. Among the major differences between those texts mention should be made of a different date of As´oka counted from the Parinirvaˉ․na of the Buddha in the Mahaˉvam ․ sa and in the As´okaˉvadaˉna. In the Mahaˉvam sa, there is also an account of a Third Bud․ dhist Council and about Moggaliputta Tissa and the dispatch of missionaries, e.g. As´oka’s son Mahinda is sent to Sri Lanka. This difference can be explained by the desire to enhance the prestige of the Theravaˉda Buddhism of Sri Lanka. In the As´okaˉvadaˉna, some local influences may also be noticed, such as praise of Mathuraˉ. In the Dˉı gha Nikaˉya, we can find the concept of the cakravartin. The

58 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

reports of the murder of the brothers by As´oka are also divergent. According to the Mahaˉvam ․ sa, As´oka had his eldest brother Susˉı ma (or Sumana) slain (5.150) or killed his ninety-nine brothers (20.40), which is also confirmed in the Dıˉ pavam ․ sa (6.21–22). In the Mahaˉvam sa (5.33), we also read that only the youngest brother ․ Tissa (Vˉı tas´oka, Vigataˉs´oka) remained alive. While according to Taˉranaˉtha, As´oka killed only six of his brothers. There are several possible ways to explain this discrepancy. In my opinion, this story, in its original version, bears some features of a legend, such as the number one hundred for the brothers of As´oka, and therefore can be considered fictional, or at least exaggerated. Taˉranaˉtha perhaps tried to give it more historical features by providing modest numbers, but it is rather doubtful whether he could have based his account on some other, more reliable source. Also, the story of the conversion of As´oka is presented differently in various sources. The story about a monk from the Divyaˉvadaˉna is repeated by Xuanzang, but according to another Buddhist source, As´oka was converted by Nigrodha, the posthumous son of Sumana. Both of these sources differ from the declaration of As´oka’s conversion because of noticing the atrocities of war during the Kalin˙ga war (RE XIII). It is clear from the presented discrepancies that these records should be interpreted with extreme caution, taking into account the cross-evidence and the purpose of the legend. Moreover, scholars unanimously agree to the superiority of the genuine inscriptions issued by the ruler over the legends. According to Bloch, we are now in possession of authentic documents about a king, whose legend only attested his glory without really justifying it,17 and he adds that the real man is not only much more alive but more impressive than the legend.18 As Kern has rightly noticed, if we did not know As´oka except from the Buddhist sources, from North and South, we would conclude that he was a sovereign of rare insignificance, remarkable only in so far as he was half monster, half idiot. His fellow believers have handed down not a single good deed on his part, not a single high feeling or a striking word. To get to know his character as a man and as a prince, we do not have any other resource apart from his own moral exhortations, which he had engraved on rocks and stone columns.19 However, Kern’s conclusion about the absence of other historical sources on As´oka besides his inscriptions is only partially true. Kalhan ․a’s history of Kashmir, the Raˉjataran˙gi․nıˉ , written in the twelveth century AD presents As´oka as a king of Kashmir, son of king S´acˉı nara’s great-uncle and S´akuni’s great-grandson, ruler over the earth, free from sins and a follower of Buddha (Dutt 1879: 8) or Jaina (Stein 1900: 102). He caused many stuˉpas to be built. He also built S´rˉı nagara. When the mlecchas invaded the country, his son Jalauka, who was given to As´oka by S´iva Bhuˉtes´a, is said to have chased them off the country. As Stein has rightly noticed, the fact that the name of As´oka has survived in Kashmir tradition may indicate “that the sovereign power of historical As´oka was acknowledged also by Kashmir” (Stein 1900: 101 f.). According to Thapar, “The author, although not a Buddhist, seems to have been familiar with the Buddhist accounts and approves

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  59

of the king. It reflects an attempt to reconstruct the past from local records and traditions” (2012: xxix f.). Interesting from the point of view of the present book is the reference to As´oka’s son Jalauka (Kunaˉla) expelling the mlecchas. He ruled over Kashmir and Gandhaˉra, and later his kingdom comprised also considerable parts of North India. The mlecchas are most probably referred to the Bactrian Greeks and other foreigners on the Northwest border, who, during the Bactrian revolt against the Seleucids under Diodotus I and Diodotus II, began to harass the people on the borders of Gandhaˉra, and so the latter might have asked for stronger Mauryan protection. This suggestion is supported by another legend, the Kunaˉlasuˉtra, according to which Kunaˉla was sent to Taxila to suppress a revolt. According to Thapar (2012: 244), the empire of As´oka was divided between his son Kunaˉla (blind, as the As´okaˉvadaˉna says), whose kingdom comprised the Northwest province, Gandhaˉra, and Kashmir, and his grandson Das´aratha, who ruled over the eastern part. This partition, which took place either just prior to As´oka’s death or at his death, was probably the primary cause of the fall of the Mauryan dynasty and the expansion of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom on the northern part of the disintegrating Mauryan Empire, which subsequently led to the establishment of the Indo-Greek kingdom. As´oka appears also in the already mentioned history of Buddhism written by the Lama Taˉranaˉtha in the sixteenth century, and in the lists of the Mauryan kings in the Puraˉ․nas from the fourth century AD. In the Mahaˉbhaˉrata (1.61.14), we find a reference to a certain raˉjaˉ As´oka, a great conqueror (mahaˉvıˉ ryaparaˉkrama), who was an incarnation of the mahaˉsura Asva. According to Thapar, this statement is ironic and the raˉjaˉs thus created are generally hostile to the heroes of the epics (2012: xxvi). Yudhi․s․thira’s pronouncements against violence and the dilemmas faced by Arjuna and Yudhi․s․thira may also reflect the discussions related to the announcement of the Dhamma policy by As´oka. As Thapar remarked, “The insertion of the Bhaˉgavad-Gıˉ taˉ would have been necessary to counter the questioning of the morality of violence and to argue that where it involved the destruction of evil there it was justified” (2012: xxvii). This theory could be valid, if the policy of As´oka actually involved non-violence, as is traditionally believed. However, a deeper analysis of the inscriptions shows that there is no mention of absolute non-violence. It seems obvious that the sources mentioned so far do not constitute the basis for the current fame of this ruler as one of the greatest Indian emperors. Greek sources are also silent about him. Had it not been for the inscriptions, he would have remained no more famous ruler than his father, Bindusaˉra, and certainly less known than his grandfather, Chandragupta. And, had it not been for the invention of writing, namely, the Braˉhmˉı script, which was, at least in part, inspired by the Greek alphabet, he would not have written his edicts. In the history of mankind, we have already observed great cultures and figures which have disappeared in the mist of centuries, because tangible traces of their existence have not been preserved, and the most eloquent trace is the writing in which one can express very personal thoughts. It is enough to look at the history of the Polish

60 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

nation, which, despite the fact that it disappeared from maps as a separate state for about a hundred years, because it had a very strong literature, people could always return to this imaginary “homeland”. This shows that literature has a very strong identity-creating function. As´oka in his inscriptions referred to himself by the title Devaˉnampiya Piyadassi raˉja (in Greek version Πιοδάσσης). As has been mentioned before, only in Maski and Gujarraˉ edicts, the name As´oka is used. So, if As´oka was the proper name of the Emperor, then why would he use the title Devaˉnampiya Piyadassi raˉja in his inscriptions? To answer this question, it is worth looking at this title, its meaning, its importance, and its use in ancient India, as well as re-examining the function of this title in the inscriptions of As´oka. The first exploration of this topic is presented by Hultzsch (1925: xxviii ff.), who collected the references to the components of this title from the Indian literature and presented its meaning. However, he did not try to explain certain inconsistencies, contrary to Scharfe, who in his article (1971) made an attempt to reconcile the various meanings attributed to this title by different sources. The first component of this title, the word Devaˉnampiya (Devaˉnaˉm ․ -priyah․), may be translated as “the Beloved of the Gods”. It is composed of a genitive plural of the noun deva (“a god”) and an adjective/noun priya (“loved, dear, favourite or beloved”). Interestingly, according to Paˉn․ini (4.3.21), the genitive ending in the first word of a compound is preserved only in abuses (․sas․․thyˉa aˉkros´e). However, Kaˉtyaˉyana, in his Vaˉrttika, includes as an exception to this rule the word Devaˉnaˉm ․ priya. Patañjali, in his Mahaˉbhaˉ․sya on Paˉn․ini 2.4.56 and 5.3.14, indicates an honorific use of this title (similar to bhavaˉn, dˉı rghaˉyu, and aˉyu․smaˉn), but in the former fragment, he seems to have used Devaˉnaˉm ․ priya in an ironical sense. Kaiyat․a, in his Pradıˉ pa, eleventh-century commentary on Patañjali, as well as Bha․t․toji Dıˉ k․sita, in his Siddhaˉnta Kaumudˉı , seventeenth-century commentary on Paˉn․ini, refer to another meaning of the Devaˉnaˉm ․ priya as “fool or idiot” (muˉrkha). According to Scharfe, late commentators “did not understand the ironic use of this address and assumed that the word meant ‘fool’” (Scharfe 1971: 212). However, according to Thapar, “This may have been due to a hostile recollection among brahmans of the unorthodox Mauryan dynasty” (Thapar 2012: 348). The honorific use of this title is also attested in Jaina literature (Devaˉ․nuppiya). In Scharfe’s opinion, it is possible that the title Devaˉnampiya was an official title of the Mauryan kings. However, as Thapar noticed, we have no evidence of it being used by As´oka’s predecessors (2012: 348). It was used by his voluntary vassal, Ceylonese king Tissa (cf. Dıˉ pavam ․ sa 11.14) and by various Ceylonese kings after him, as well as by As´oka’s grandson Das´aratha (in three inscriptions in the caves in the Naˉgaˉrjunˉı Hills). According to Thapar, it might have been a royal name. In my opinion, it was a royal title associated with the religious affiliation of the ruler. Therefore, its use was continued by the rulers of Sri Lanka, where Buddhism was allegedly promulgated by Mahinda, son of As´oka. Scharfe’s conjecture that this title is a translation of the Hellenistic court title φίλος τῶν βασιλέων has been discussed before.

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  61

The second component of the title of As´oka in the inscriptions, the name Piyadassi (Priyadars´in), is usually translated as a qualifier meaning “with a friendly look”. But if it was a qualifier, then the signature of As´oka would lack the proper name of the author. Thus, I agree with Benveniste (1964), who argued that the name Piyadassi is in reality a proper name, not a qualifier and that it was the personal name of the king, while As´oka was his nickname, which “may well have been a name taken by the king after he came under the influence of the Buddha’s doctrine” (Singh 2012: 134). The name As´oka subsequently became established as a proper name by the Buddhist legend, after the Braˉhmˉı script became unreadable and the historical figure of the Mauryan Emperor vanished. I do not preclude the possibility that the opposite is true, but on balance, the authentic edicts of King Piyadassi should be given preference. The second plausible explanation is that presented by Thapar (2012: 349), who argued that As´oka was a personal name of the king, and Piyadassi was a throne name, an official name, which As´oka probably began to use after his coronation. But I do not see any justification for the tendency of some scholars to translate the titles of the king, as did Festugière, who even went so far as to compare the name Piyadassi, rendered as au regard amical or gracieux, to Greek ἱλαρός and the title Devaˉnam ․ priya, translated as ami des dieux, to Greek proper name Θεόφιλος (Festugière 1951: 33). Festugière’s entire article “Les inscriptions d’Asoka et l’idéal du roi hellénistique” focuses on a comparison of the policy of Piyadassi expressed in his edicts to the ideal of the Hellenistic ruler. The starting point for the comparisons is the description of Alexander as an ideal ruler by Diodorus, borrowed from Tarn’s book on Alexander (1948: 66). Festugière traces the parallels to the precepts of Dhamma in the moral prescriptions (παραγγέλματα) and characteristics given to good monarchs in Greek sources, such as φιλανθρωπία, “the benevolence and kindness towards the subjects” or πόνος, concluding the argument with the statement that Greece and India are two entirely different worlds.20 So one might ask, what is the purpose of such a comparison? A more likely interpretation is that similar processes occurring simultaneously in both cases led to the emergence of similar but probably independent concepts. The role that Stoicism served in Greece, Buddhism had to fulfil in India. As Festugière said of Stoicism, it justified reasonably the mixture of peoples which was the result of the conquests of Alexander.21 It is interesting to note that the name Priyadars´in for As´oka was used by Indian writer Sachchidananda Hirananda Vatsyayan (1911–1987), known as Ajneya, in his play Uttar Priyadars´ˉı about the torture chamber built by As´oka at Paˉ․taliputra, which is depicted as the Buddhist hell and becomes the cause of Emperor’s suffering. Ajneya shows As´oka’s conversion, which is accomplished through liberation from exaggerated Self. This play shows an interesting combination of the legendary image of As´oka with the historical one. The name Priyadars´in suggests the connection with historical As´oka as shown in his edicts. His remorse and conversion also refer to historical facts, namely RE XIII showing As´oka’s adoption of the policy of the Dhamma as a result of acknowledging the sufferings

62 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

caused by the war with Kalin∙ ga. While the torture chamber theme is based on the As´okaˉvadaˉna. This play and the legendary and historical themes it contains are described in the article by Mia˛z∙ek (2021). As already mentioned, the importance of the name As´oka in Buddhist legends and traditions confirms that the name might have been used as a nickname by the Emperor after his conversion. In order to examine the significance of that name in the legends, I present a comparison of the etymology of the name of As´oka’s father Bindusaˉra with that of the name of As´oka. According to the legends, Kaut․ilya added each day small quantities of poison to Chandragupta’s food to make him resistant to its effects. But one day, the queen, who was then pregnant, tasted his food. In order to save the life of the child, Kaut․ilya severed the head of the queen and placed the embryo in the womb of a goat. For this reason, the child was born covered with spots and was therefore called Bindusaˉra (bindu “spot”, saˉra “essence or effusion”). When he grew up, Bindusaˉra had sixteen women and hundred and one sons, the eldest of whom was Sumana (in Sinhalese sources) or Susˉı ma (in Sanskrit sources), and the youngest was named Tissa. Tissa’s mother, who became the first queen by a stratagem, had another son, whose birth had not caused her pain, and thus he was called As´oka (from Paˉli soka, Sanskrit s´oka “pain or grief ” and “a” privativum). The king hated this child, whose body was rough to the touch, so that the mother had to save him by carrying him away. When he had grown up, the king sent him to suppress a revolt in Taxila, but gave him insufficient means in order to get rid of him. But through divine support, As´oka won the hearts of the people and the rebellion subsided without a fight. On the death of Bindusaˉra, an oracle against his will designated As´oka as his successor. It is clear from these accounts that Bindusaˉra, about whom we know that he favoured the Aˉjˉı vikas, is shown in a negative light by the Buddhist sources. The etymology of his name and the story of his birth reflects his later character and deeds. In opposition to him stands As´oka, who despite the fact of being Bindusaˉra’s son, is not recognized by him and becomes a king by deception. What is spoiled by Kaut․ilya’s efforts, is repaired by the cunning of As´oka and his mother. The As´okaˉvadaˉna provides also a connection between the name of As´oka and the Buddhist symbol of the as´oka tree (Saraca asoca vel indica) (Figure 2.1). As shown by Strong (1983: 128), As´oka is clearly identified with this tree in several instances. The first example concerns the episode in the garden, where As´oka went for a walk with his harem. He came across a flowering as´oka tree and at the thought that this tree is his namesake, he became very affectionate. But because his body was rough-skinned, the concubines did not enjoy caressing him. And so, when he fell asleep, they chopped all the flowers and branches off the as´oka tree and for that they were punished by being burned alive. This legend shows the emotions, which overwhelm As´oka because of the as´oka tree, first – affection, and then – rage. This story of As´oka and his harem resembles the ritual connected with the as´oka tree, the so-called dohada ceremony, where dohada means “the desire of plants at budding time”.22 This ceremony involves touching

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  63

FIGURE 2.1

As´oka tree (Saraca asoca vel indica).

Photo: Deependra Kumar.

the tree by a bare foot of a dancing maiden, which was supposed to accelerate the blossoming of the tree. As´oka, just like the as´oka tree, longs for the touch of young women. Another example concerns the death of As´oka when he again is compared to the as´oka tree, as is evident from the following fragment translated by Strong: Once he ruled the earth under a single umbrella of sovereignty, destroyed the haughty enemy hosts, consoled the distressed and the poor. But he lost his support, fell from his position, and today this wretched king no longer rules in glory. Just like an as´oka tree when its flowers are cut off and its leaves have shrivelled and fallen, this king is drying up. (Strong 1983: 289)

64 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

The third example from the As´okaˉvadaˉna concerns the birth of the Buddha.23 The tree goddess appears and tells As´oka of queen Maˉyaˉ, who gave birth to the Buddha at Lumbinˉı , while holding onto the branch of a blossoming as´oka tree. It is worth mentioning that usually in the Buddhist tradition, the tree at Lumbinˉı is said to have been a s´aˉl tree (Shorea robusta), and not an as´oka tree, as in the As´okaˉvadaˉna. As Strong has noticed, “There is a curious set of interconnections here between the as´oka tree, King As´oka, the tree goddess, the Buddha’s mother, and the Buddha himself. It would be wrong, of course, to claim that they are all one and the same; but it is part of the richness of our text and its tradition and the many-faceted appearance of As´oka in his relationship to the Buddha that these homologies suggest themselves” (Strong 1983: 130). Also, in the eleventh century, Bodhisattvaˉvadaˉnakalpalata by K․semendra the greatness and the prosperity of the reign of As´oka are portrayed by the flowering as´oka trees (cf. Vaidya 1959: II 346). It follows from the above examples that in the Buddhist tradition the as´oka tree was connected with fertility, sexuality, and prosperity. Such a connection is also attested by Buddhist art, for example by the figure of Yak․sˉı under the as´oka tree at the railing figure at Bhaˉrhut stuˉpa from the second century BC. The dohada ceremony and the cult of Yak․sˉı are connected with the Indian folklore, which was closer to the spirit of Buddhism than to Braˉhman․ism. It is clear that the as´oka tree played an important role in the Buddhist tradition. And, on the other hand, there is a remarkable connection between that tree and king As´oka. Therefore, it seems reasonable to say that Piyadassi used the name As´oka in connection with his religious affiliation. Another curious link to the as´oka tree is provided by the drama of Kaˉlidaˉsa entitled Maˉlavikaˉgnimitram. This drama is a love story telling about the affection of king Agnimitra to Maˉlavikaˉ. The action of the play is entwined with the story about the as´oka tree, which blossoms at the end under the influence of the dohada ceremony performed by Maˉlavikaˉ. When the queen invites the king to admire the as´oka tree in its blossom, Maˉlavikaˉ is also there in a wedding dress. Two captive maidens tell that Maˉlavikaˉ is the princess, who was supposed to be given to king Agnimitra as wife but was kidnapped on the way. In the background of the play is shown the horse sacrifice, the so-called as´vamedha, which was nearly interrupted by a cavalry squadron of the Greeks (Yavanas), who wanted to carry off the horse wandering on the right bank of the Indus river. However, it was prevented by Vasumitra, who was appointed to defend the horse. We learn about these events from a letter from Pu․spamitra (or Pu․syamitra) to his son Agnimitra. At the end of the play, the queen allows the king to marry Maˉlavikaˉ. And so all ends happily, the king’s longing is satisfied, the kingdom is secure, and the as´oka tree blossoms. Because Maˉlavikaˉgnimitram is a literary text, it can be variously interpreted. Perhaps, it suggests a symbolical victory of Braˉhman․ism on several fronts – Brahman ritual prevailed over the Buddhist symbol, just like Vasumitra over Yavanas. But we have to be careful here because of at least two reasons, pointed

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  65

out by Tawney in his introduction to the translation of the text. Firstly, Agnimitra, presented in the drama as a persecutor of Buddhism, in fact, was probably in opposition to his father in this respect. Thus, the historicity of Kaˉlidaˉsa’s work is quite doubtful. Secondly, the author might not have accurate information about the time of the S´un˙ga dynasty (cf. Tawney 1891: iv f.). However, if we assume the historicity of the text, and hence, hostility of the S´un˙gas towards the Greeks, as well as hostility of the S´un˙gas towards Buddhism, it may follow that the Greeks supported Buddhism in opposition to the S´un˙gas. Pus․yamitra S´un˙ga (Pus․pamitra in Kaˉlidaˉsa’s drama) was of Mauryan lineage. In the Puraˉ․nas and other Braˉhman․ical sources, he is said to have killed the last Mauryan ruler – B․rhadratha during the review of the army. Most probably, it was a palace coup d’état (Thapar 2012: 252), which led to the establishment of the S´un˙ga dynasty. Some scholars, who see the policy of As´oka as the main reason for the fall of the Mauryan Empire, maintain that the coup of Pu․syamitra was a manifestation of the Brahman reaction against that pro-Buddhist policy. ´ ˉ kala (Paˉli Saˉgala), later the capital of Pus․yamitra’s realm extended as far as Sa Menander’s kingdom, beautifully described in the second chapter of the first book of the Milindapañha, which will be described in Chapter 4 of the present book. In the conclusion of the As´okaˉvadaˉna (cf. Strong 1983: 292 ff.), there is a story about Pu․syamitra, according to which he asked his ministers what he should do to gain eternal fame. They advised him to emulate his ancestor As´oka, who became famous for building 84,000 Dharmaraˉjikaˉs (stuˉpas), but one wicked Brahman priest told him that his name will endure even longer if he demolishes all those stuˉpas. Pu․syamitra following his advice decided to destroy the Buddhist religion. In the Kukkut․aˉraˉma monastery (in Paˉ․taliputra), he summoned the monks and asked them whether they want to keep the stuˉpas or the monastery, and on their response that they want to keep the stuˉpas, he destroyed the monastery and killed the monks. In S´aˉkala, he proclaimed that he would give a hundred dıˉ naˉra reward to whoever brought him the head of a Buddhist monk, but one Arhat outwitted him by creating heads by means of his supernatural powers. Pus․yamitra was killed by a Yak․sa K․rmis´a, who promised to Dam ․․straˉnivaˉsin to protect the Buddhist religion in return for his daughter’s hand. In the account in the As´okaˉvadaˉna, Pus․yamitra is described as a ruthless persecutor of Buddhism. However, it has been pointed out by Elst (2002) that in the same text As´oka is described as similarly cruel even after his conversion. But there is a certain difference: As´oka defends the purity of Buddhism, while Pu․syamitra is persecuting Buddhism in order to achieve eternal fame in the likeness of As´oka. In my opinion, one should not compare these two passages, since their didactic aim is different. However, this did not prevent Elst from drawing conclusions denying the historicity of the persecution of Buddhism by the Brahmans. According to Lamotte, “To judge from the documents, Pu․syamitra must be acquitted through lack of proof ” (Lamotte 1988: 109). Also, Thapar (2012: 251) argued that the archaeological evidence suggests a rather pro-Buddhist

66 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

disposition of Pu․syamitra. However, it must be noted that the archaeological material, for example, the destroyed Deokothar or Sanci stuˉpas, suggests intensified persecution of Buddhism in the time of Pu․syamitra. According to Marshall, the Sanci stuˉpa might have been vandalized by Pu․syamitra and then restored by his successor Agnimitra (Marshall 1990: 38). Therefore, in my opinion, there is enough evidence to suppose at least partial historicity of the legend about Pu․syamitra contained in the As´okaˉvadaˉna. But how does this picture relate to Kaˉlidaˉsa’s drama Maˉlavikaˉgnimitram, where Pus․yamitra and his son Agnimitra are presented in opposition to the Yavana force? According to Salomon, “Here we have, if not necessarily the report of an actual historical event, at least a symbolic presentation of a struggle for power between the early S´un˙ga successors of the Mauryans in the north Indian heartland and the Greek interlopers from the west” (Olivelle et al. 2012: 221). Salomon further argued that Pu․syamitra perhaps used the instability caused by the incursions of Greek kings from the northwestern borderlands, which may have caused or at least promoted the collapse of the already-tottering Mauryan Empire (Olivelle et al. 2012: 222). But maybe the opposite is true. Maybe Pu․syamitra and later the S´un˙ga dynasty promoted the collapse of the Mauryan Empire and the Greeks only used the chance to invade Northwest India? Whichever version is true, one thing is certain: as the evidence suggests, the Greeks had a role to play in these clashes for supremacy over the vast pan-Indian empire. Perhaps suppressing the threat from the Northwest was the trump card in this game. Sovereign had to demonstrate his power through the suppression of the riots at the border, just as in the case of As´oka or Kunaˉla, who were sent to Tak․sas´ilaˉ (Taxila) to put an end to the revolt.

As´oka as half-Greek? Before moving on to the Edicts of As´oka and his policy contained therein, it is worth looking more closely at one theory associated with his birth, according to which, either his grandmother or his mother was a Greek princess. Such a suggestion is based on the interpretation of the passages in Strabo and Appian 24 concerning the aforementioned peace concluded between Seleucus and Chandragupta, which established an alliance of friendship and of connubium. If we assume that Appian’s version mentioning κῆδος (“connection by marriage”) is more authentic than Strabo’s version about ἐπιγαμία (“the right of intermarriage”), then it is possible that Seleucus provided a princess for the Mauryan family. However, Thapar indicates the lack of mention about As´oka’s relationship with his alleged cousin Antiochus II in the RE XIII, but she does not dismiss completely the possibility of some relationship, which, in her opinion, “may account in a small part for the eclecticism of As´oka” (Thapar 2012: 26). Parker in his article “As´oka the Greek, Converted and Translated” explained that “According to an earlier generation’s textbook on Indian history, As´oka was the grandson of the Seleucid princess given by Seleucus in

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  67

marriage to Cadragupta. This seeming improbability is based on ancient Greek sources which vaguely mention dynastic marriages involving these two rulers” (Olivelle et al. 2012: 310). The “textbook”, to which Parker refers, is The Cambridge Shorter History of India, where we read that “It is not quite clear whether a matrimonial alliance formed part of this treaty, or whether the right of marriage between the two families was simply recognised. If the usual oriental practice was followed and if we regard Chandragupta as the victor, then it would mean that a daughter or other female relative of Seleucus was given to the Indian ruler or to one of his sons, so that Asoka may have had Greek blood in his veins” (Allan et al. 1934: 33). Thus it is not written here that As´oka was the grandson of the Seleucid princess, as Parker argues, only that such a possibility exists. However, beyond that somewhat exaggerated introduction, which at least attracts the attention of the reader from the first words, the article by Parker is important insofar as it attempted to answer a very reasonable question, namely, in what ways do As´oka’s two Greek inscriptions from Kandahar resonate with the self-presentation of contemporary Greek rulers. He compared the Edicts of As´oka with the Kineas inscription from Ai Khanoum and he concluded that they have a feature in common, namely the focus on ethics (Olivelle et al. 2012: 316), which in As´oka’s edicts is “a central element in a king’s self-presentation, and, through missionary activity, the supposed basis of his contacts with neighbours” (Olivelle et al. 2012: 318). This feature distinguishes this inscription from Seleucid epigraphic practice. Parker quoted Bickerman’s statement that “the Seleucids did not try to convert anybody – either to the true religion or good plumbing. They left people as dirty and blissful as they had been before the Macedonian conquest” (Bickerman 1966: 97). Parker presented also Alexander as a counterexample for As´oka insofar as the former was not converted, despite his debates with Dandamis and other naked philosophers, while the latter is famous for his conversion. On the other hand, Parker pointed to the similarity between As´oka’s multilingual inscriptions and Akkadian inscription by Antiochus I, where he presents himself as a king of Babylon. According to Parker, this multilingualism was “useful in ruling over groups of people of different cultural traditions” (Olivelle et al. 2012: 321), and does not necessarily indicate an imitation. At the end of his article, Parker also emphasized the fact that probably few people could actually read the Edicts of As´oka, and thus they were inscribed to give all the onlookers an impression of power.

The inscriptions of As´oka The corpus of As´okan inscriptions25 includes two groups of inscriptions. The smaller group consists of the declarations of As´oka to the Sam ․ gha. While the larger group consists of Major Rock Edicts (REs), Minor Rock Edicts (MREs), Separate Edicts (SEs), and Pillar Edicts (PEs), in which As´oka concluded his policy of the Dhamma. Inscriptions have been found in various areas of the Indian subcontinent

68 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

from Kandahar (in present-day Afghanistan) in the west to Dhauli (in Odisha, India) in the east, and from Mˉansehrˉa (in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan) in the north to E․r․ragud ․i (in Andhra Pradesh, India) in the south. In the present book, only the Greek edicts from Kandahar (ancient Arachosia) will be discussed in detail, namely the bilingual Greco-Aramaic Edict and the Greek version of the XII and XIII RE. The translation of these edicts is provided in Appendix I (Greek inscriptions of As´oka from Kandahar). But first, for a better understanding of Greek versions of the Edicts of As´oka, his policy of the Dhamma will be discussed. To better understand the meaning of the term Dhamma as used in As´oka’s edicts, it is worth looking at the meaning of the word in general and its historical development. Paˉli Dhamma or Sanskrit Dharma is a main concept in Indian religions and philosophy (both being inseparable). It has many meanings, depending on religion or philosophy. But it has no English equivalent, and so, in the present book, it is left in its original Indian form. The Sanskrit word dharma is derived from the root √dh․r,26 in the Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary (1899: s.v. dh․r) translated as “to hold, bear (also bring forth), carry, maintain, preserve, keep, possess, have, use, employ, practise, undergo”. On the contrary, the first meaning of the word dharma given in the same dictionary is “that which is established or firm” (Monier-Williams 1899: s.v. dharma). The precursor of the Dharma in the Vedas is ․rta. In Hinduism, Dharma represents the right actions, meaning the actions in accordance with the cosmic order. Therefore, it has a moral significance. But the etymology of the word would indicate that at the beginning it had a more ontological significance. It represented the cosmic law and order. This meaning is attested by the R ․ gveda (a collection of hymns, one of the four Vedas), where the myth concerning the creation of the world out of chaos by the gods is presented with the use of the root √dh․r for describing the actions of the gods. This led Horsch (2004) to the conclusion that the word Dharma arose from those myths. Thus, in the original sense, Dharma should be understood as the cosmic order established by the gods, which results from the act of creating the world out of chaos. Therefore, following the Dharma is sticking to the limits and rules imposed by the gods. In the Upani․sads (the most recent part of the Vedas), the Dharma has more philosophical meaning, it is equated to sat “truth”. While in the Dharmas´aˉstra (texts on law and conduct), it can be understood as a duty. Such diversity of meanings should not be surprising. It is the same concept after all but at different levels. While in the Upani․sads the concept is more sophisticated, in the Dharmas´aˉstra, it has been used in a more mundane sense. But for both, authors and recipients of these texts, probably these levels of meaning were not as distant as they are now. The laws laid down by people were a natural consequence of the divine order and were sanctioned by the gods. Also, the modern concept of Indian secularism embodying the equality of all religions, the so-called Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava “all Dharmas are the same”,27 reflects the ambiguity of the term Dhamma and its importance up to the present times. The question remains how this concept was understood by As´oka? Horner in her article “Early Buddhist Dhamma” (1948), in which she examines the

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  69

doctrinal position and character of the Dhamma as found in the Paˉli canon, presents the teachings of the Buddha on the Dhamma. It follows from this article that according to the Buddha, the one who fully knows Dhamma, becomes Dhamma (dhammabhuˉta), and the Dhamma is to some extent identified with Brahma.28 And so the Buddha is the Dhamma, and at the same time he is the Brahma, and he is also a teacher of the Dhamma. From this, it is already apparent that As´oka’s Dhamma differed from Buddha’s Dhamma, because As´oka in none of the known edicts identifies himself with the Dhamma, which he proclaims. But the question of the relationship between the Dhamma of As´oka and the Dhamma in the Paˉli literature requires a separate development, and therefore, this issue must remain open at present.29 More important for the present study is to investigate how Dhamma has been translated into Greek. In the Greek inscriptions of As´oka from Kandahar, the word dhamma is rendered in Greek as εὐσέβεια, which according to LSJ (Liddell and Scott 1940: s.v. εὐσέβεια) may be translated as “reverence towards the gods or parents, piety or filial respect”. This translation perfectly captures the word dhamma as it appears in the Edicts of As´oka, where the followers of the Dhamma are described as ἐνήκοοι πατρὶ καὶ μητρὶ καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων “obedient to their father and mother and to the elderly people”. But it completely fails in rendering the meaning of the word dhamma in its ambiguity. Thus, it seems that the Greek translator of the edicts was not familiar with this term beyond the policy of As´oka. If he was aware of the depth of the concept of the Dhamma, I suspect that he would have used a different Greek word to translate it. It is also worth mentioning that, according to Brereton (2004), the word dhaˉrman, a version of the word Dharma, which appears in the R ․ gveda, is semantically similar to Greek ἦθος. However, the word ἦθος has a completely different meaning. According to LSJ (Liddell and Scott 1940: s.v. ἦθος), it may be translated as “an accustomed place” and “custom, usage”, and in the plural “manners, customs”. It is derived from the verb ἔθω30 “to be accustomed, to be wont”, and the habitual element is clearly emphasized as the basis for the behaviour. While the Indian Dharma, as I have already argued, results from the divine order. Some variants of translating the concept of the Buddhist Dhamma into Greek and Latin are listed by Carter in the following passage of his article: Perhaps a Western historian of religions might begin to grasp the profundity of dhamma for Sinhalese Theravaˉda Buddhists by drawing upon the heritage of Greece and considering the Platonic notion of agathon (ἀγαθόν) or the comprehensive Greek notion of logos (λόγος). Were the Western scholar a Christian, he might ponder notions drawn from his Christian tradition to assist him in catching dimensions held by Sinhalese Theravaˉda Buddhists in the concept dhamma: Kerugma (κήρυγμα), ‘preaching’, didache (διδαχή), ‘instruction’, dikaiosune (δικαιοσύνη), ‘righteousness’, aletheia (ἀλήθεια), ‘truth’, are all available. Further, as an academic who sees himself within both the academic tradition and the Christian tradition one

70 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

might propose that dhamma means something like hagia sophia (ἁγία σοφία), sancta sapientia, ‘holy wisdom’, or salvifica veritas, ‘salvific Truth’ with a conviction that Truth, when known, is liberating, freeing, salvific. (Carter 1976a: 670 f.) According to me, among those concepts mentioned by Carter, only the Greek λόγος can to some extent be regarded as equivalent to the Buddhist Dhamma. It is equally ambiguous and has a similarly long and complex history of development. While the term Dhamma is derived from the Vedic tradition and has been used by the Buddha as a substitute for the supreme deity of the Brahman religion, similarly the concept of λόγος is derived from Greek philosophy and has been used to define Christ. Both terms have soteriological as well as ontological meanings. Both Dhamma and λόγος contribute to the creation of the world and organize the world, in terms of both – nature and morality. They also have similar educational importance; they are identified with both the teacher and the teaching. However, the word λόγος could not have been used by the Greek translators of the Edicts of As´oka, because in the third century BC, it did not have yet that range of meanings as in later Christian writings.31 Moreover, the translators would have to have a deep understanding of the concept of Dhamma in Buddhist teaching to translate it in this way. To conclude, in my opinion, at the time of the Edicts of As´oka, there was no Greek counterpart to translate the word denoting both the divine order and the laws established by the people, as well as the moral duty of an individual. However, the use of the word εὐσέβεια indicates a rather narrow understanding of the term Dhamma by the Greek translators of these edicts. What was, therefore, the Dhamma proclaimed by As´oka in his inscriptions? What were its tenets? As´oka defined Dhamma as good deeds, mercy, charity, truthfulness, and purity (PE II), and, on the other hand, as recognizing and avoiding sin, such as cruelty, harshness, anger, pride, and envy (PE III). However, besides that general characteristics, the policy of the Dhamma of As´oka involves specific recommendations relating to the gentle treatment of living beings, respectful relationship towards other people, taking care of the welfare of the entire state, and the like. Presented below are the main recommendations of As´oka as written in his edicts. For this purpose, As´oka’s edicts have been examined in translation (Thapar 2012: 376 ff.), and therefore, one needs to be aware of the shortcomings of the following overview. But, for the purpose of the present book, the examination of these edicts in the original does not seem necessary, except for the passages concerning the Greeks. With regard to the treatment of living beings, As´oka banned animal sacrifice (RE I), ordered to reduce the number of animals killed for palace feasts (RE I), recommended restrained behaviour towards living beings (RE IX), non-injury to living beings (RE IV), and abstention from killing living beings (RE III, RE IV, RE XI, Kandahar Bilingual RE). In the Kandahar Bilingual Edict, he also emphasized his success in elimination of hunting and fishing. Elsewhere, he, in turn, introduced a ban on killing certain species (PE V). But it seems that it was

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  71

dictated by environmental considerations. From this overview, it follows that As´oka’s goal was by no means vegetarianism, but rather ahim ․ saˉ (non-injury), and not complete ahim ․ saˉ, but rather a limitation of killing animals for the sake of the welfare of the state. As regards the relationship towards other people, As´oka recommended obedience to mother, father, and elders (RE III, RE IV, RE XI, RE XIII, Kandahar Bilingual RE), obedience or deference to friends and relatives (RE III, RE IV), deference to Brahmans and S´raman․as (RE IV, PE VII), generosity towards Brahmans and S´raman․as (RE III, RE IX, RE XI), as well as towards friends, acquaintances, and relatives (RE XI), obedience to teachers (RE XIII) and respect for them (RE IX), good behaviour or regard for slaves and servants (RE IX, RE XI, RE XIII, PE VII), as well as for the poor and the wretched (PE VII). It can be seen from this overview that As´oka cared for mutual respect, generosity, and obedience. No one was excluded from the right to respect and good treatment on the basis of class divisions or economic status. But also a clear hierarchy based primarily on natural rights is evident. Other recommendations include such practical constraints as limitation of property (RE III) or restrictions on festivals (RE I), as well as some more ethical precepts, such as self-control (Kandahar Bilingual RE), especially control of one’s speech as the basis of the progress of the essential (RE XII). According to As´oka, all sects are alike in the search for self-control and purity of mind (RE VII). The king honours all sects (RE XII), and thus they should show mutual respect and learn from one another (Kandahar Bilingual RE). Moreover, all beings should be unharmed, self-controlled, calm in mind, and gentle (RE XIII). All these precepts are closely related to the public good, which is the overarching goal of As´oka and his policy. He agreed to take care of public affairs at any time and in every situation for the sake of the welfare of all beings (RE VI). But according to Fussman (1974), the translation slightly deforms the sense of the text. The expression janasa athe, which Bloch translates as “public affairs”, actually means “material affairs, material happiness of the people”. In other words, As´oka did not mean to personally supervise all affairs of the state, but he proclaimed that he devotes his time and efforts to the good and happiness of his subjects. As´oka explained that it is his debt to the people (RE VI). All men are the king’s children and he wishes for their welfare (SE I and II, PE VI). And thus he obligated the magistrates to aid him in discharging his debt (SE I and II). Welfare is also achieved by such practical means as building medical services for men and animals (RE II), importing and planting medical herbs, roots and fruits (RE II), digging wells, and planting trees along the roads (RE II, PE VII). From these improvements introduced by As´oka, it is evident that he supported the trade. If such were the tenets of this policy, then it may be asked, whether As´oka proclaimed Buddhism at all. Although he emphasized his interest in Buddhism and in Buddhist Sam ․ gha (e.g. in Bhabra Edict, Rummindei PE, Nigalisaˉgar PE, or Schism Edict), his policy of the Dhamma is not a proclamation of the teachings of the Buddha. It should be noted that Gombrich in his book How Buddhism

72 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

Began (2006) distinguishes between dharma and saˉsana, where the former concerns the eternal truths experienced and promulgated by Buddha, which “point towards release from the round of rebirth, liberation from empirical existence” (Gombrich 2006: 5), and the latter – the Buddhism as an empirical, historical phenomenon, which is impermanent and subject to degeneration and disappearance. But the dharma is rediscovered and repromulgated by another Buddha. In this perspective, As´oka’s Dhamma can be considered a saˉsana. A considerable portion of the edicts is dedicated to the praise of Dhamma. As´oka emphasized that Dhamma is for everyone (RE V). And he announced that the progress in Dhamma will last until the end of the world (RE IV, RE V). He presented the actions related to the promotion of Dhamma as the greatest: the ceremony of Dhamma as more effective than other ceremonies (RE IX), fame and glory from spreading Dhamma as the only value for the king (RE X), victory of Dhamma as the utmost victory and a source of pleasure (RE XIII). Moreover, thanks to the Dhamma, endless merit is produced in the afterlife.32 According to As´oka, there is no happiness without the love of Dhamma (PE I). Some edicts may indicate the reasons for such devotion of the king to the Dhamma. In RE XIII, where the reference is made to conquering the Kalin˙ga, As´oka confessed that participation of all men in suffering is distressing for him. And, therefore, the king devoted himself to promoting the Dhamma, e.g. he exchanged the past pleasure tours for the tours connected with Dhamma (RE VIII). It is also stressed that the advancement of Dhamma is achieved by As´oka through the means of legislation and persuasion, mainly the latter (PE VII). As has already been mentioned, As´oka sent his officers to instruct people in Dhamma, e.g. the rˉajuˉkas (RE III, RE V, PE IV, PE VII). In his instructions to the officers and city magistrates at Tosalˉı /Samaˉpa, As´oka encouraged them to practice impartiality and give fair judgements (SE I). They were also entrusted with the king’s message to the unconquered peoples on the borders (SE II). This message is cited in full because of its usefulness for the present considerations: […] the king desires that they should have no trouble on his account, should trust in him, and should have in their dealings with him only happiness and no sorrow. They should understand that the king will forgive them as far as they can be forgiven, and that through him they should follow Dhamma and gain this world and the next. (Thapar 2012: 386) As regards the border peoples, there is not much choice as to their identity, because the empire of As´oka occupied virtually the entire Indian subcontinent. In his RE XIII, As´oka mentions his frontiers in the following passage, which is essential for the present book: And moreover the Beloved of the Gods has gained this victory on all his frontiers to a distance of six hundred yojanas [i.e. about 1500 miles], where

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  73

reigns the Greek king named Antiochus, and beyond the realm of that Antiochus in the lands of the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonus, Magas, and Alexander;33 and in the south over the Co․l as and Paˉn ․d․yas as far as Ceylon. Likewise here in the imperial territories among the Greeks and the Kambojas, Naˉbhakas and Naˉbhapanktis, Bhojas and Pitinikas, Andhras and Paˉrindas, everywhere the people follow the Beloved of the Gods’ instructions in Dhamma. (Thapar 2012: 383 f.) Apart from a short sentence concerning the southern boundary, the whole passage is important due to the double reference to the Greeks. First, mention is made of the Greek king Antiochus and four other kings: Ptolemy, Antigonus, Magas, and Alexander. They may be identified with the Hellenistic kings, contemporaries of As´oka, respectively: Antiochus II Theos of Syria (261–246 BC), the grandson of Seleucus Nikator; Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (285–247 BC); Antigonus Gonatas of Macedonia (276–239 BC); Magas of Cyrene (ca. 283– 250 BC); and Alexander of Epirus (272–255 BC). Mention of the same Antiochus is also made in the RE II. Other information on the Greeks in the same passage concerns the Greeks living “in the imperial territories”, listed together with other peoples, such as the Kambojas, Naˉbhakas and Naˉbhapanktis, Bhojas and Pitinikas, and Andhras and Paˉrindas. All these peoples are coupled, among which the Kambojas constitute a pair for the Greeks (Yavanas). Similarly, in the RE V, the Greeks are linked with the Kambojas, the Gandhaˉras, the Ri․s․thikas, and the Pitinikas. These names concern the peoples on the northern border of India, and therefore, these Greeks are also counted as northern peoples included “in the imperial territories”, unlike the Greeks inhabiting the lands included in the realms of the mentioned Hellenistic rulers. Interestingly, in the same Edict (RE XIII), the Greeks are mentioned also third time, prior to the quoted passage. This third reference relates to the lack of religious orders of Brahmans and S´rama n ․ as among the Greeks. But it is difficult to judge whether the reference concerns the Greeks outside the Mauryan Empire, or the Greeks “in the imperial territories”, or perhaps both.

The secularism and heterodoxy of As´oka’s Dhamma Thus, as is apparent from the RE XIII, the Greeks living in the territories of As´oka’s empire followed the instructions of the Dhamma. A question should therefore be asked, what could be attractive to them in this policy? In my opinion, the main elements, which could attract not only the Greeks, but also other foreigners, were secularism and heterodoxy of the policy proclaimed by As´oka in his edicts. In the RE XII, as well as in its Greek version, As´oka expressed his respect to all sects and encouraged members of different sects to conduct their disputes with restraint in regard to speech, mutual respect, and willingness to learn from

74 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

one another. What is more, he not only recommended such behaviour but also justified it dialectically: “Again, whosoever honours his own sect or disparages that of another man, wholly out of devotion to his own, with a view to showing it in a favourable light, harms his own sect even more seriously” (Thapar 2012: 382). The message of this edict has led some researchers, particularly a famous Indian economist and a Nobel Prize winner, Amartya Sen (2005: 18), to see in As´oka a precursor of Indian secularism.34 However, when talking about secularism in the context of As´oka’s Dhamma, this concept should be understood not in the Western sense, as prohibition of religious associations in state activities, but as its Indian counterpart, focusing on neutrality between different religions, in which there is no requirement of separation between religion and state. In other words, As´oka could manifest his religious affiliation, as long as it did not cause unequal treatment of his subjects on the basis of their religious affiliation. But while As´oka’s policy seems quite remote from Western secularism in its modern development, still it has some points in common with the same concept at an early stage, as defined by Holyoake: Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: 1 2 3

The improvement of this life by material means. That science is the available Providence of man. That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good. (Holyoake 1896: 35)

Comparing this definition with the policy of As´oka, it can be concluded that his Dhamma may to some extent be understood as “a code of duty”, but, on the other hand, it did not pertain to this life only, as As´oka many times refers to the afterlife. Furthermore, we cannot state clearly whether As´oka considered “theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable”, because it is not explicit how far the Dhamma of As´oka should be understood in religious terms, and how much of it was a reaction to the traditional superstitious religiosity, what is manifested, inter alia, in the RE I, where As´oka prohibited certain festivals. Of the essential principles of secularism from the above definition by Holyoake, the Dhamma of As´oka shares the first (“the improvement of this life by material means”), which is manifested in As´oka’s striving for welfare of all subjects. The second (“that science is the available Providence of man”) finds no equivalent in the Edicts of As´oka unless we consider that in the place of science, Dhamma may be regarded as the “Providence of man”, and if we take the Dhamma as a knowledge of world order. As regards the third principle (“that it is good to do good”), it partially agrees with As´oka’s policy; but not exactly, because as already mentioned, As´oka often refers to the reward for doing good or following the

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  75

Dhamma, such as the afterlife or the temporal consequences of one’s deeds. Thus, speaking of the Dhamma of As´oka as an expression of secularism, one should keep in mind the differences between its global variants, as well as the limitations resulting from projecting quite modern terms many centuries back and many miles away. However, if we consider the policy of As´oka as an expression of ancient Indian secularism in its initial form, still more interesting is to investigate what was unique in the secularism of As´oka and what were the circumstances of its formation. As´oka was born at a time when India was full of different sects and religions. Even in his family, there was no continuity of belonging to one religion. His grandfather, Chandragupta is said to have been a follower of Jainism, a religion ordering non-violence and self-control, while his father, Bindusaˉ ra, favoured the philosophy of the Aˉjˉı vikas, who acknowledged the determinism of fate and destiny (niyati). According to Thapar (2012: 4), these sects were unorthodox and antagonistic to Brahman ideas. No wonder that As´oka during this period of a general denial of Brahman ideas also joined the “unorthodox” religion. Interestingly, the teaching of the Buddha was to some extent similar to that of R ․․sabha and Mahaˉ vˉı ra. But, on the other hand, both Buddhism and Jainism stood in opposition to the Aˉjˉı vika philosophy, which we know only from their hostile descriptions. It is also unclear what were the actual relations of As´oka to the Aˉjˉı vikas. It is impossible to determine how much truth is contained in the legend in the As´okaˉ vadaˉ na, according to which As´oka allegedly ordered to kill the Aˉjˉı vikas in Pun․d․avardhana because of one Nirgranthaˉ , who drew a picture of the Buddha bowing down before his master (cf. Strong 1983: 232). However, hostility of As´oka towards this group seems to be contradicted by the fact that he donated to them two caves in the Baraˉ bar hills (cf. Bloch 2007: 156). Whatever the relations of As´oka to these sects, it is clear that Buddhism was not the only “unorthodox” movement at that time, which questioned the teachings of the Brahmans. One should also keep in mind that the attribute “unorthodox” in the context of Indian religion and philosophy in the third century BC should be understood as unorthodox in terms of Braˉhman․ism 35 or questioning the values and the way of thinking imposed by the influential Brahmans.36 Brahmans indeed had great importance in Indian society of the time, but there were also many groups of ascetics who were equally influential, as is apparent from the Edicts of As´oka, where the S´raman․as37 are listed together with the Brahmans. According to Joshi (2008), Buddhism has its closest affinity to the S´raman․ic tradition. Therefore, if we see Buddhism as one of the religions arising from the tradition, which was perhaps the indigenous Indian tradition which co-existed with the Vedic tradition in India since ancient times, it is difficult to call it “unorthodox”. As Joshi has rightly emphasized: The future of Buddhist studies in India will remain quite doubtful so long as Indian scholars continue to study Buddhism as a ‘heretical system’ and from the ‘orthodox’ standpoint. Buddhism should be studied from

76 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

the Buddhist standpoint, and its relations with Braˉ hman․ism and Hinduism should be studied from the historical standpoint and on scientific lines. ( Joshi 2008: 4) Summarizing these considerations, the secularism and heterodoxy of As´oka’s Dhamma need to be re-examined taking into account the outlined theory about the beginnings of Buddhism and the limitations resulting from the use of these modern terms. But due to the complexity of the problem, these considerations need to be omitted in the present book, and for clarity and precision, the term “secularism” should be replaced by the formulation “respect for other religious groups”, while the term “heterodoxy” should be understood in relation to the Brahmin “orthodoxy”. However, this does not change the fact that the Greeks may have seen Buddhists and other S´raman ․as with their “respect for other religious groups” as allies against orthodox Brahmins.

S´ramanas ∙ in the Greek literature The S´raman․as of the Indian tradition are also mentioned by the Greek authors. As has already been noted, Megasthenes is the first Greek historian to mark the differences between the Braˉhman․as (Βραχμᾶναι) and the S´raman․as (Γαρμᾶναι or Σαρμᾶναι). In the passage preserved in Strabo,38 we read that “Megasthenes makes a different division of the philosophers, saying that they are of two kinds – one of which he calls the Brachmanes, and the other the Sramanes” (McCrindle 1928: 98). Interestingly, according to Megasthenes, the Braˉhman․as enjoy a better reputation, because “they are more consistent in their opinions” (McCrindle 1928: 98) or perhaps more concordant, depending on the interpretation of the verb ὁμολογεῖν.39 Another passage attributed to Megasthenes is handed down by Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata,40 where we read that “There are two sects of these Indian philosophers – one called the Sarmaˉnai and the other the Brachmaˉnai” (McCrindle 1928: 104). Further in the same passage is a reference to the Buddha (Βούττα) and his followers, who may be either the Hylobioi or a distinct group of Indian philosophers, depending on the interpretation of the sentence: εἰσὶ δὲ τῶν ᾿Ινδῶν οἱ τοῖς Βούττα πειθόμενοι παραγγέλμασιν, which according to McCrindle may be rendered either as: “among the Indians are those philosophers also who follow the precepts of Boutta”, or as: “They (the Hylobioi) are those among the Indians who follow the precepts of Boutta” (McCrindle 1928: 105). I agree with the second interpretation, according to which the followers of Buddha should be identified with the Hylobioi. However, I suggest the following change in the punctuation: instead of οὐ γάμον, οὐ παιδοποιίαν ἴσασιν, ὥσπερ οἱ νῦν ᾿Εγκρατηταὶ καλούμενοι. εἰσὶ δὲ τῶν ᾿Ινδῶν οἱ τοῖς Βούττα πειθόμενοι παραγγέλμασιν this passage may be read as: οὐ γάμον, οὐ παιδοποιίαν ἴσασιν. ὥσπερ οἱ νῦν ᾿Εγκρατηταὶ καλούμενοι, εἰσὶ δὲ τῶν ᾿Ινδῶν οἱ τοῖς Βούττα

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  77

πειθόμενοι παραγγέλμασιν (“They neither marry nor have children. Like those at present called Encratites,41 among the Indians are those philosophers who follow the precepts of Buddha”). In this version, the sentence about the Buddha added at the end of the description is not so blatant, because it directly follows from the previous sentence. Moreover, the followers of the Buddha cannot be identified with a group distinct from the Braˉhmanas ․ and the S´raman․as, because the Indian philosophers were divided only into two groups, as mentioned by the author. They cannot also be identified with a group belonging to the S´raman․as, but distinct from the Hylobioi, because the Greeks knew only few groups of the S´raman․as apart from the Hylobioi, the physicians (ἰατρικοί), the diviners (μαντικοί), the enchanters (ἐπῳδοί), and adepts in rites and customs relating to the dead (τῶν περὶ τοὺς κατοιχομένους λόγων καὶ νομίμων ἔμπειροι),42 who are impossible to identify with the Buddhists. The proposed interpretation implies that the readers of the works of Clement of Alexandria were aware of the equivalence of the Hylobioi and the Buddhists. Otherwise, the comparison of the followers of the Buddha to Encratites added at the end of the description would be unclear. Just before the considered passage, Clement of Alexandria also made a mention of the Samanas among the Bactrians (Σαμαναῖοι Βάκτρων). This version of the name of the S´raman ․as is also attested in the works of Origen (184/185– 253/254  AD) and Porphyry (ca. 234–305 AD) quoting Bardaisan (154–222 AD).43 However, the work of Clement of Alexandria is the first preserved reference to the Samanas. It is significant that the name S´raman ․as (Σαρμᾶναι) relates to the Sanskrit S´rama․na, while the Samanas (Σαμαναῖοι) to the Paˉli version Sama․na. Thus the inconsistency between those two versions of the Greek rendering of that name may be explained by the existence of two Indian versions: in Sanskrit and in Paˉli. The Greek version based on the Sanskrit is earlier (Megasthenes, Strabo), while the Greek version based on the Paˉli is later (Clement of Alexandria, Bardaisan, Origen, Porphyry). Clement of Alexandria used the older version based on Sanskrit only when citing Megasthenes. Thus, in the interval between Strabo (64/63 BC–24 AD) and Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215 AD) occurred the transition from the Sanskrit to the Paˉli version of the term. It can therefore be concluded that in the first/second century of our era, there was a breakthrough. Indian culture began to reach out to the Greeks from the Mediterranean in its Paˉli version and therefore associated with the expansion of Buddhism. The evidence of the relationship between Buddhism and the Western world is the relation of Bardaisan on Indian envoys to the emperor Elagabalus handed down by Porphyry (De abstinentia 4.17), which will be discussed in Chapter 6. Clement of Alexandria listed the Samanas among other barbarian peoples, who practised philosophy before the Greeks, such as the prophets among the Egyptians; the Chaldeans among the Assyrians; the Druids among the Gauls; the philosophers among the Celts; and the Magi among the Persians. The Samanas are among the Bactrians (Σαμαναῖοι Βάκτρων). Buddhism was probably introduced to Bactria around the first century AD and at the time of Clement of Alexandria, it flourished under the reign of the Ku․saˉn․a rulers. As we read in Mkrtychev’s

78 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

“Buddhism and Features of the Buddhist Art of Bactria-Tokharistan” (2007), included in the volume “After Alexander: Central Asia before Islam”: There exist various points of view on the date of Buddhism’s penetration as far as Bactria. A number of scholars consider that this could have taken place as early as the time of Ashoka (Bagchi 1955) or the GraecoBactrian kingdom (Rtveladze 2000), but there are no concrete arguments to verify these assertions. Probably the Bactrians might have found out about the existence of Buddhism and acquainted themselves with the Buddhist doctrine at a superficial level during the maximum expansion of the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom into India (second century BC). Yet we can only speak of the actual spread of the teaching from the time when Buddhist monuments began to be erected in Bactria. Al’baum suggested, but without any evidence, that the early stupa of the Buddhist monastery at Fayaz Tepe might be dated to the first century BC – the earliest date proposed for a Buddhist site so far (Al’baum 1982, 60). Finds of soter megas coins in stratigraphic contexts, however, suggest that the erection of Complex E at Kara Tepe, of Airtam, and possibly the monastery at Fayaz Tepe dates to the second half or end of the first century AD (Stavinsky & Mkrtychev 1996, 220; Rtveladze 1995, 76; Al’baum 1982, 60). This was during the reign of the second Kushan King, Wima Takto, when Bactria was joined with northern India as part of the Kushan state. The formation of a united state would have considerably eased the task of spreading Buddhist teachings beyond the confines of India. (Mkrtychev 2007: 475 f.) In particular, Kani․ska the Great (ca. 127–151 AD) contributed to promoting Buddhist religion and art. He also had contact with the Greeks, because he was controlling the trade routes running through the Bactrian territory. Thus, the Greeks of the Mediterranean came into direct contact with Buddhism and hence began to use the Paˉli name for the Indian ascetics.

The Greek edicts of As´oka from Kandahar As already said, there is not even one mention of As´oka preserved in Greek sources. There are also hardly any mentions of As´oka’s relations with the Greeks in the Indian literary sources (apart from the previously discussed drama of Kˉalidˉasa – Maˉlavikaˉgnimitram). Why, then, discuss the Greeks and their relations with the Buddhist emperor As´oka? The answer is simple, because he himself declared in his inscriptions that his policy reached as far as the Greek kings: Antiochus II Theos of Syria (261–246 BC), Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (285–247 BC), Antigonus Gonatas of Macedonia (276–239 BC), Magas of Cyrene (ca. 283–250 BC), and Alexander of Epirus (272–255 BC). Moreover, two inscriptions representing the Greek versions of the Indian edicts of As´oka have been found in the present-day Kandahar

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  79

(ancient Arachosia). Therefore, all previous considerations in the present chapter are only a broad context for understanding the significance of these inscriptions. One of the main questions which begs the answer from the researcher of these inscriptions is the question of why As´oka concluded his policy in the Greek language. However, in order to answer this question, one should carefully examine these inscriptions in terms of their discovery, location, date, quality of performance, language, content, and subsequently one can evaluate their purpose and their reception.44 In 1958, the Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan (DAFA mission) announced the discovery in Shar-ˉı -Kuna near Kandahar (Alexandria in Arachosia) of a bilingual Greco-Aramaic inscription of King Piyadassi (Robert 1958; Schlumberger et al. 1958; Pugliese Caratelli et al. 1964), which included precepts of the policy of Dhamma preached in Aramaic and in Greek (Figure 2.2).

FIGURE 2.2

Bilingual Greco-Aramaic inscription of King Piyadassi. Kabul Museum; today disappeared.

Source: Pugliese Caretelli et al. (1964).

80 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

The inscription was discovered accidentally by a teacher from Kandahar. It is impossible to say whether the block containing the inscription was in situ, or if it slid down the slope. But anyway, it is a rock inscription, similar to other rock inscriptions issued by As´oka. It contains 14 lines of Greek text and 8 lines of Aramaic text. It may be dated to 259/258 BC. This inscription was kept at the Kabul Museum but is unfortunately now lost. According to Robert, it is one of the jewels of Greek epigraphy, because of its uniqueness and its position at the crossroads of two such different cultures.45 According to Pugliese Caratelli (Pugliese Caratelli et al. 1964: 18), the choice of such a site for the Edict was not accidental: it was a part of a well-defined plan. Like all the REs and the majority of the MREs, it was placed on the outskirts of the Empire in order to mark its confines. The formulation of Dhamma concluded in the Edict fulfilled the requirement of a propaganda programme. The Edict was placed at the entrance to an important city, which saw a great movement of people and traffic, and on a trade route as well: that is, the southern branch of the great caravan route, which linked the Hellenistic Far East with Persia and the Mediterranean, which became known to history owing to the conquest of Cyrus, and was trodden by the army of Alexander. Moreover, in Pugliese Caratelli’s opinion (Pugliese Caratelli et al. 1964: 21), the identification of Alexandria in Arachosia with Ghazni proposed by Tarn is unacceptable. Soon after that surprising discovery in 1964, DAFA published another inscription, this time entirely in Greek, which corresponds in large part to the content of the XII and XIII RE of King Piyadassi (cf. Benveniste 1964; Schlumberger 1964). It was discovered in 1963 among the ruins of Old Kandahar (Alexandria in Arachosia) (Figure 2.3) by a German physician Seyring, who donated it to the Kabul Museum. The inscription (Figure 2.4) is on porous limestone, which was a part of a bigger monument, a building on which fourteen REs of As´oka were inscribed. According to Merkelbach and Stauber (2005: 27 ff.), it is not a rock inscription, because it is engraved on a clean-hewn block. The Greek text of the RE XII ends in the middle of the eleventh line and starts without any sign of interruption on the same line as the text of the RE XIII. It may be dated to the second quarter of the third century BC (most probably between 261 and 255 BC), the time when the kings mentioned in the RE XIII reigned in their empires. As Benveniste rightly noticed (1964), it is extraordinary that epigraphic discoveries resulting from a series of coincidences seem to follow a logical sequence. At the time of their discovery, both edicts gave us the farthest and most eastern46 Greek inscriptions, which had been discovered.47 No wonder that Robert expressed his enthusiasm in the following words: What a thrill to decipher at the stamping these phrases of Buddhist morality, which king As´oka had engraved himself for the Greeks, and to reach this trace of Hellenism beyond the confines of the Greek world, with all that implies concerning the stonemasons, the secretaries, and the translators!48 As regards the translators of these edicts, they demonstrated a high level of artistic performance. If they were to be assessed as translators according to the known maxim by Yevtushenko, according to which “Translation is like a

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  81

FIGURE 2.3

Ruins of Old Kandahar citadel.

Source: “Bellew collection: Photograph album of Surgeon-General Henry Walter Bellew”; photo by Sir Benjamin Simpson taken ca. 1881.

FIGURE 2.4

Kandahar Greek inscription of King Piodasses.

Photo of the stamp: M. Clair. Source: Schlumberger (1964).

82 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

woman. If it is beautiful, it is not faithful. If it is faithful, it is most certainly not beautiful”, their translation would certainly be compared to a beautiful but not very faithful woman. But if they were evaluated according to the saying by Burgess, according to which “Translation is not a matter of words only: it is a matter of making intelligible a whole culture”, the assessment of their artistry would not be so simple. Because it would be difficult to assess how far the Greeks living in Arachosia could understand Buddhist culture of the time with its main principle of the Dhamma as preached by As´oka, rendered in its Greek translation as εὐσέβεια. In my opinion, the translators themselves did not understand the complexity of the term (cf. the considerations about the Dhamma). However, to balance this rigorous evaluation, it should be added that “Translation is one of the few human activities in which the impossible occurs by principle” (Rato). As regards the language of the translation, Schlumberger noticed (Schlumberger et al. 1958: 4) that the inscriptions of As´oka, found in the most diverse regions of India, are usually engraved in the language of the area. However, it is striking that in Kandahar the king does not use the language of the Iranians, which would be one of the native languages, but two foreign languages: Greek and Aramaic. It can be concluded that the local language was not written or was insignificant. The languages used by the king are the administrative languages of the two large states, to which the Kandahar region had belonged earlier: the Achaemenid Empire and the Greco-Macedonian rule. Robert (Schlumberger et al. 1958: 7 ff.) was the first to analyse the style of the Greco-Aramaic edict of As´oka. According to him, rock inscriptions are not common in Greek countries, so this form is due to eastern influence (Iranian in the present case). In his opinion, the style of this inscription is monumental. He compared the bilingual edict from Arachosia with the inscriptions from Susa, Laodicea, Persepolis, Pergamum, Lyndos, and Egypt, which led him to the conclusion that it demonstrates a certain pan-Hellenistic character of lapidary writing and its evolution. Thus, already from the point of view of this material, we can draw an important conclusion about the Hellenism of Arachosia: it took a part in the general life of Hellenism, it was not confined to a remote corner without any relations, where it shrunk and multiplied itself; stonemasons there followed the modes which run through all Hellenism.49 Robert further noticed (Schlumberger et al. 1958: 12) that the language of the Greek translation is not a language of chancellery as Aramaic, dead in daily use, but a language carried by a medium, by the Greek colony and the natives, who have been Hellenized. Moreover, it is not a servile translation, a calque of a foreign model, but la langue vivante. Robert also pointed to an important linguistic peculiarity of this inscription, namely the so-called “style καί” (all sentences are linked by καί). It cannot be explained by the Semitic influence here, because it is less apparent in the Aramaic version than in the Greek version. But this style is well suited to the religious proclamation of this kind, as well as to praise of the deity, to an aretalogy, and to the stories of miracles (cf. Trenkner 1960: 1115 ff.).

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  83

In the summary, Robert assessed that the language and the style of the translation are authentically Greek. For example, the Indian sequence “obedient to their mother and father” is turned over to restore the Greek hierarchy: “obedient to their father and mother” (ἐνήκοοι πατρὶ καὶ μητρί). The universal conversion and total morality are flavoured with the Hellenistic belief in relativism and wise realism by adding κατὰ δύναμιν. The term εὐθηνία (here: πάντα εὐθηνεῖ) is one of the terms, by which the Greek priest indicates that the taxation year of the priesthood or the office has been blessed by the gods and marked by abundance and all the goods (peace, εἰρήνη; wealth, πλοῦτος; health, ὑγίεια; good deal, εὐωνία; abundance of crops, εὐετηρία, καρπῶν εὐφορία).50 The phrase: ἀπέχεται βασιλεὺς τῶν ἐμψύχων is a Greek terminus technicus to denote vegetarianism (cf. Haussleiter 1935). While the phrase: λώϊον καὶ ἄμεινον is a traditional response of the Greek oracle to the person consulting it, known from a variety of literary and epigraphic examples: λώϊον καὶ ἄμεινον ἔσται (εἶναι) for the one (or the ones) who does this or that (sacrifice to the divinity, establishment of a cult, etc.); and the question was asked in the same manner: what should be done for it to be λώϊον καὶ ἄμεινον? (cf. Parke and Wormell 1956, especially the sixth and seventh periods). Moreover, the translator used the current philosophical vocabulary, but specific to the religious proclamation of the Indian king. According to Robert, this indicates the presence in Arachosia of Greek stonemasons, translators and philosophers, among other groups of immigrant intellectuals and artists.51 Dupont-Sommer, who compared the Greek and the Aramaic translation (Schlumberger et al. 1958: 19 ff.), concluded that there can be found two distinct versions, fairly closely parallel, but independent of one another. The Aramaic version is clearly closer to the Indian text, which must have served as a model for both: Greek and Aramaic translators. The Greek translator respected the order of the various sections of the model and the essential content of each of them, but he very sensibly adapted this model and added quite marked Hellenistic features to its style, expressions, and even to its ideas. The Aramaic translator, whose version was destined for the Iranian people living in the region – perhaps the Kambojas – probably also adapted the message of As´oka, although to a lesser degree than the Greek translator, to religious conceptions of the recipients. For example, it is remarkable that the Aramaic text used the term qšit․ʼ mhqš․t translated as “Truth” (la Vérité) for rendering the Dhamma, which may be a trace of the Mazdean thought. However, it needs to be noted that the same form qš․tʼ (substantival adjective, but with different spelling) appears also in the Aramaic version of the Behistun inscriptions (11.71). Unfortunately, this passage is reconstructed. However, if we assume that this form was originally used in these inscriptions, then perhaps the term qšit․ʼ mhqš․t in the Aramaic version of the Edict of As´oka is associated with the term used in the Aramaic version of the Behistun inscription. As Benveniste noticed further in the same publication (Schlumberger et al. 1958: 37 f.), the difference between the Greek name Πιοδάσσης and the Aramaic Prydrš shows already that the two texts do not depend on one another. This difference demonstrates two distinct dialectical traditions. The Greek form

84 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

Πιοδάσσης is modelled on the MIA form Piyadassi with a phonetic peculiarity, the middle o. While the Aramaic Prydrš agrees with those edicts (including the one of Shaˉhbaˉzga․rhˉı ), which have quasi-Sanskrit form Priyadras´i (Skt. Priyadars´i). Benveniste also revised the opinion by Tarn, according to which the name Yona/Yavana had been given to all kinds of Iranian foreigners. He expressed it clearly saying that we are facing a fact: the message of As´oka was translated into Greek in order to spread it in the region of Kandahar. For whom would this text be intended if not for a Greek-speaking population? And what population could it concern otherwise if not the Yonas, who are called by that name? It is worth noting that in fact, the Greek inscription has all the features of a foreign language. The author of this version has cleverly simplified it by omitting the difficulties which bother the Aramaic translator and he accommodated the Indian model to the Greek mind by stripping it of its exoticism. He used Greek with ease and as an educated man.52 Benveniste also noticed that the expression: λώϊον καὶ ἄμεινον can be found in Xenophon and in inverse sequence in Plato. While the hapax forms are, in his opinion, proof of a living language: the word ἐνήκοος was created in a local Greek from the form ἐνακούω,53 like ὑπήκοος from ὑπακούω; while the form πληρη[θέντ]ων is due to the standardization of the morphological relationship between the adjective form πλήρης and the present denominative form πληρόω in the classical Greek. To the adjective πλήρης, a new present form of the verb was created: x πληρέω, according to such models as εὐθαλής : εὐθαλέω, (σιτο) μέτρης : (σιτο)μετρέω. However, in my opinion, this hypothesis should be further demonstrated. The fact that certain forms are rare does not mean that they were created in Kandahar. Perhaps they are simply not preserved in Greek texts known to us. In conclusion, Benveniste argued that in the region of Kandahar, there were people, who could write and understand Greek, which was native, of good quality, and with provincial features. The simplest hypothesis is that the text referred to the Yonas living in the empire of As´oka and that they formed at the confines of India a community of Greek language and culture.54 According to Scerrato (Pugliese Caratelli et al. 1964: 5), although the two redactions of the Edict are remarkably similar and correspond in their meaning, still they are independent of one another, and the Greek one at least shows that it is not a mere servile translation of the Praˉkrit original. They were adapted to the cultural needs of the people they were addressed to, and are consonant with the spirit of tolerance and understanding, which characterized the Dhamma of As´oka, inspired by the precepts of the Buddha himself. As Scerrato further noticed (Pugliese Caratelli et al. 1964: 7), under the Seleucids, Greek began to replace Aramaic as the language of the imperial chancellery; but in his opinion, the use of such a language in the As´okan Edict is due to the fact that the inscription was intended for a Greek-speaking community. Since the edict cannot have been intended as evidence of As´oka’s religious propaganda for peoples outside his empire, the Greek text was obviously meant for the Greeks living within the borders of his empire. According to Scerrato (Pugliese Caratelli et al. 1964: 7 f.), this

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  85

As´okan inscription is the most substantial testimony of the presence of the Greeks in these regions, a presence which was formerly attested solely by abundant series of coins apart from a few ambiguous historical references. He also noticed (Pugliese Caratelli et al., 1964: 8) that, on the basis of the bilingual inscription, we can identify Arachosia with the region of the Yonas referred to in the RE V and the RE XIII because of its markedly Greek character, which is attested at a later period by Isidore of Charax, who described Alexandropolis, a metropolis in Arachosia, or some other city in Arachosia (depending on the interpretation of the passage), as being Grecian (Ἑλληνίς) in appearance (cf. Müller 1882: 254). In Scerrato’s view (Pugliese Caratelli et al. 1964: 11), the bilingual inscription stresses the importance of the Greek element in the Mauryan Empire and shows indirectly that, at the end of the fourth century BC, the Greeks had a social status of fallen Ksatriyas and not impure S´uˉdras. He confirmed the theory ․ by Bouché-Leclerc (1913: 29 f.), according to whom the ἐπιγαμία introduced by Chandragupta in his treaty with Seleucus I was equal to ius conubii, and so it authorized mixed marriages between the Greeks and the Indians. Thus, it was an important measure reflecting the concern about overcoming the obstacle of the pervasive caste system. It would enable the Greeks to participate actively in the life of the Mauryan Empire and to have an established social position. Worth mentioning is also the view represented by Fussman (1974), according to whom, the Greco-Aramaic inscription found in Kandahar and the Aramaic inscription found in Laghman are not As´oka’s proper edicts. In his opinion, the Greco-Aramaic one is a propaganda text written in Kandahar by the king’s officers and summarizing the contents of the first eight REs. While the Laghman text begins with a kind of summary of the Aramaic part of the Kandahar bilingual inscription. As regards the inscription, including the Greek version of the RE XII and XIII, it is probably the most important inscription from the point of view of European Indology, because it provides a common point for Greek and Indian history. As Schlumberger rightly noticed about the post-Vedic India, we were informed only by undated texts about the Mauryan Empire only by foreign and late texts, whereas this inscription projected suddenly sure and direct light.55 He further expressed his joy of having these oldest original documents of both the history of India and the history of Buddhism, beautiful documents, not transmitted by copyists, not deformed by the historians, of which date, author, and recipients are known, and of which nature and purpose are clear.56 Schlumberger also pointed to the differences between the inscription published in 1958 and the one published in 1964. The first difference is that the inscription of 1958 was bilingual, and the one of 1964 is in Greek only. But according to him, this difference may be only apparent. It is quite conceivable that the second inscription has included, too, an Aramaic text, which soon may reappear. The second difference is that the inscription of 1958 is engraved on a rock, while the one of 1964 is engraved on a block, which surely belonged to a building. Moreover, the text of 1958 was a brief proclamation, which is complete in

86 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

its two versions, while the text of 1964 is significantly longer and it is incomplete at the beginning and at the end. That is to say, it is only a fragment of a much larger text, which would extend over adjacent blocks. Because it is an abbreviated Greek version of the RE XII and XIII, which is normally included in the group of fourteen Major REs, which were recorded as a whole in four locations (Shahbaˉzga․rhi, Maˉnsehraˉ, Kaˉlsi, and Girnaˉr), it follows that the new inscription from Kandahar is likely to be only a piece of a Greek paraphrase of the fourteen REs. Unfortunately, Schlumberger omitted the comprehensive commentary of the inscription on the grounds of lack of competence (in terms of comparison to the Indian corpus) and time (the need to quickly make the text available to the public). He confined himself to two brief remarks, the first concerning the double Greek expression for the “sect” (paˉsam ․ ․da) of the original text: διατριβή (“philosophical school”) and οἱ πέλας (“one’s own sect”) / οἱ λοιποὶ (“other sects”). According to him, in both expressions, the concept of sect, with what it includes religious or sectarian, is absent. In its place, we have the notion of different schools (διατριβαί), or simply the opposition between self and others. Also, Chantraine briefly noticed in the same publication (Schlumberger 1964) that the word διατριβή was the best possible equivalent for the word paˉsam ․ ․da, because in other contemporary texts the word σοφιστής and γυμνοσοφιστής “philosopher” corresponds to the term Brahman, so it follows that the Greeks regarded Brahmans as philosophers. No wonder, then, that the religious groups were identified with the philosophical schools. Interestingly, as Norman noticed (1972), savapaˉsam ․ ․daˉnam from the RE XIII was translated in the Greek version as κατὰ πάσας τὰς διατριβάς, while am ․ ne paˉsam ․ ․daˉ was translated as ἄλλοι τινὲς οἱ περὶ τὴν εὐσέβειαν διατρίβοντες. This further demonstrates that the Greek translator understood the term paˉsam ․ ․da not as a sect, but as a philosophical school. Schlumberger’s second comment is an archaeological observation that the inscription is on a rectangular block, which certainly formed a part of a constructed building; not known whether a temple, a stuˉpa, a palace, a wall, or simply a support of some terrace or of some utility building. Other inscriptions of As´oka are engraved on rocks, and the rest on the pillars (monolithic columns of pink sandstone), all taken from the same quarry near Benares. Interestingly, in Kandahar, the fourteen REs were engraved on a building, either built by As´oka (as Schlumberger suggested) or an already existing one. Unfortunately, the remains of this construction, and the inscriptions it wore, still have not been found under the ruins of Old Kandahar. According to Renou (Schlumberger 1964: 134), the discovery announced by Schlumberger confirms the extension of the empire of As´oka up to Arachosia and l’implantation hellénique in those countries in the middle of the third century BC. He also hypothesized that the Greek version was based not directly on the MIA version, but on a Sanskrit original of the As´okan chancellery, because only Sanskrit had a philosophical vocabulary – little or not at all imbued with Buddhism – which could compete with the philosophical terminology of the high Hellenistic period. The concern for elaboration on the part of the Greek

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  87

translator would be hard to understand if the translator had before him quite an awkward and poor (gauches et pauvres) Buddhist MIA version. However, such a hypothesis needs further evidence. Robert, at the outset of his commentary of the Greek version of the RE XII and XIII (Schlumberger 1964: 134 ff.), explained that he cannot discuss the text at length harassed by the danger of scientific insensitive covetousness (harcelés par le danger de convoitises scientifiques indélicates), so he shared only few impressions. According to him, the style of the letters is that of the high Hellenistic period. He also noticed the similarity to the Greek inscription from Hyrcania and to the papyrus of the third century (inscription written in columns on the wall imitating a papyrus scroll). In his opinion, this new inscription of As´oka shows the unity of the Greek Hellenistic civilization up to the furthest confines, because the Greek inscriptions from Arachosia are not affected by any phenomenon of degeneration, isolation, or “barbarism”. According to Robert, the whole vocabulary is borrowed from the Greek literary tradition and especially from the philosophers and the sophists. For example, a Pythagorean essential expression: ἀποχὴ τῶν ἐμψύχων, ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν ἐμψύχων, which appeared in the bilingual inscription, also reappeared here. The notion of ἐγκράτεια and ἐγκράτεια γλώσσης, the opposite of ἀκράτεια of the bilingual inscription, is a terminus technicus, which provides the title of a treatise for Xenocrates. The verb ἐπασκεῖν is the philosophical concept, which will provide the vocabulary for the Christian and monastic asceticism. With the notions of διδάσκαλος, παραδέχεσθαι, and παραδιδόναι, we are in the exact vocabulary of Greek παιδεία; the word δίδαγμα is attested in Plato and Xenophon; the πολυμαθία is a term of Plato, Xenophon, and Isocrates. The phrase κενὸν γάρ ἐστι is a condemnation of “vanity” of controversy, as κενoλογεῖν of Aristotle, or the κεναὶ δόξαι. According to Robert, even words which are not “philosophical” should be studied by looking for parallels in Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon, and Isocrates. The phrase οἱ περὶ τὴν εὐσέβειαν διατρίβοντες has its parallels in Isocrates (περὶ ταῦτα or λόγους or φιλοσοφίαν), in Philo (τὰ μαθήματα), in Plutarch (τὴν φιλοσοφίαν), and in Diodorus 3.61 (οἱ περὶ τὰς τῶν θεῶν θεραπείας καὶ τιμὰς διατρίβοντες). The connections of words (iuncturae verborum) show that the inscription is not written in a style of translation. For example, the pair ἔλεος καὶ οἶκτος can be found in Diodorus and even later; while the pair σπουδὴ καὶ σύντασις is present in a passage of Plato’s Symposium in a definition of the ἔρως. Also, some examples of Greek political vocabulary of the third century BC can be found in the Greek inscriptions of As´oka, as τὰ τοῦ βασιλέως συμφέροντα, which was a mandatory commonplace of the style of the Hellenistic chancelleries, in the royal courts, and in the Greek cities in relation to the kings. Robert asked very sensibly, who were these Greeks of Arachosia for whom it was considered necessary to prepare a Greek version of the doctrine, which was called among them the doctrine of “the Piety”? The general proclamation engraved in fourteen lines seemed not enough, and thus this time a series of edicts was engraved. This confirms and strengthens the hypotheses about the Greek

88 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

colony of Arachosia, with a considerable number of settlers, some possessing homesteads transmitted from father to son without interruption under the Mauryan rule, or large domains once given to the officers. But according to Robert, even assuming that there was a Greek colony of Arachosia, and even supposing a relatively high density in the city, still the Greeks formed a nucleus in an alien world. But they were Greeks of quality and of culture, as we see by the work of their secretaries and philosophers translating the ideas from a different culture. They were in contact with the Greek world, which is clear from the language and writing of the inscriptions. And they were the ones who informed As´oka about the Greek world, where are the five Hellenistic kings. Benveniste, in his article, published in the same year (1964), pointed to the fact that just like the rock inscriptions found in Shahbaˉzga․rhi and Maˉnsehraˉ reveal by diverse features (for example by the use of the Kharo․s․thˉı script), the nearby presence of a population of Iranian language and culture, similarly the Greek version of the RE XII and XIII reveals the presence of a Greek population in Arachosia. Thus, Iranians and Greeks lived there in close vicinity and they were to some extent associated communities. This is clearly corroborated by the composed ethnicity Yonakamboja, which suggests as if they were one people, the Greek (Yona/Yavana) and Iranian (Kamboja). This explains why the text found in 1958 in Kandahar is bilingual, Greek and Aramaic (an Aramaic, which contains a high proportion of Iranian words), and why people described as Yavana in Sanskrit tradition had Iranian names, as for example the Yavana-raˉja Tu․saˉspa. In his opinion, it appears that the Greco-Iranian area must be located in the region of Kandahar, but this theory requires further evidence. Also, Gallavotti confirmed that Kandahar was an area of Greek and Iranian culture, which was inhabited by the Yonakamboja, called by that common name in the RE V and XIII.57 It is also worth mentioning that in the Greek inscriptions, the administrative actions contained in the last line of the Indian text, namely the nominations of the “superintendents of the Dhamma” (Dhamma-mahaˉmattas) and other officials, are omitted. According to Benveniste (1964), it seems that only the moral content of the proclamation was made known to the Greeks and that this inscription deliberately ignores the desire of the king to personally see these precepts followed everywhere, as well as the practical steps which were taken to enforce them. However, I agree with Fussman (1974), according to whom, if these agents of royal power are not mentioned in Kandahar, it is likely that they did not exist in these areas, or their activity among the Yonas and the Kambojas was more discreet than in the rest of the empire. Thus, it would be an exaggeration to speak of administrative centralization in these border regions. The RE XIII is considered to be the most important text of As´oka. According to Merkelbach and Stauber (2005: 27 ff.), it tells about a great revolution in his life, his conversion to the religion of the Buddha. In their opinion, As´oka himself was brought up far from the government and military activity, and so the military expedition against Kalin˙ga was apparently the first war, which he experienced. As´oka was horrified seeing the untold suffering resulting from

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  89

this campaign, and so he reacted in his own way (auf seine Weise in Schneider’s words), by the study of sacred books and teaching the people to conduct a pious life in accordance with the civic virtues and to gain fame by the conquest of the Dhamma. In their opinion, As´oka had a deep sympathy for the unfortunate people, on whom the war was falling, and so he decided not to allow the war to come to his land again. However, this romantic vision is counterbalanced by the view represented by Gallavotti, who argued that the Edict should be understood as an expression of repentance of the king, whose conversion took place before the conquest of Kalin˙ga,58 and the act lay in conflict with the ideals previously adopted by the king. In Gallavotti’s opinion, the text says that the religious and ascetic and pious men, who escaped the massacre of Kali n˙ga (oἱ λοιποί “the rest”), were able to reflect on the actions of the king, which were contrary to his preaching. On account of this discontent, and presumable protests, As´oka regretted, and he showed it in the rest of this Edict XIII (the Greek version is silent on this), and also in other manifests: on the one hand, he claimed to be repentant, and on the other hand, he formulated a new general statement of his Dhamma, inviting to moderate the words and to forgive the offences, that is, (it should be also understood) the offences brought by the king to the people.59 This explanation of the RE XIII, however, is unfounded, since the reference to the war in Kali n˙ga appears in multiple locations, but in Kalin˙ga itself (in Dhauli and Jaugada) ․ the RE XIII (as well as RE XI and XII) is missing. If As´oka wanted to appease the survivors of the Kalin˙ga war, he would have engraved the proclamation of his repentance in Kalin˙ga in the first place. Canali de Rossi (2004: 185 ff.) in turn drew attention to the consonance of the texts of both inscriptions with the philosophy and the moral precepts of the Hellenistic world. For example, the obedience to parents (in the bilingual inscription), the notion of ἐγκράτεια (in the Greek version of the RE XII), and the love towards friends (in the Greek version of the RE XIII) can be attributed to the maxims of Sosiades, propagated also in the inscriptions from Ai Khanoum as: γωνεῖς αἰδοῦ, ἡβῶν ἐγκρατής, φιλίαν ἀγάπα, etc. (Canali De Rossi 2004: 225 ff.). It is worth mentioning that according to Canali de Rossi, the fifth king listed among the Hellenistic rulers in the RE XIII might be identified with Alexander, Seleucid viceroy of Sardes, known from few inscriptions (OGIS 229; Syll3 426; I. Tralleis 25) and from the literary source (Porphyry60). In his opinion, other identifications (Alexander II of Epirus or Alexander of Corinth) are less probable. As regards the Greek redaction of the RE XII and RE XIII, it has been noted by Canali de Rossi that the different writing of the word διαπράττω (διαπράτονται in the Greek version of the RE XII and διαπρασσομένων in the Greek version of the RE XIII) suggests the existence of at least two different translators, and so of a considerable ufficio di traduzione in greco, which has its right to be only in the existence of Greek population relatively numerous and important (Canali De Rossi 2004: 191). The existence of two different translators can be seen also in the use of the particle δέ in both inscriptions. In one of them (Greek version of RE XII), this particle is used a number of times and exactly where needed, while

90 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

in the other (Greek version of RE XIII), only once and erroneously. Probably, therefore, one of the translators was Greek, while the other only knew Greek. It is also worth recalling here that the considerations on the interpreters used by Alexander in his contacts with the gymnosophists as presented in the previous chapter. Summarizing these views represented by different scholars, it seems that the region of Arachosia (modern Kandahar) in the third century BC was an area inhabited by considerably numerous Greek and Iranian populations, the so-called Yonakamboja from the Indian sources. These areas formed a part of the Mauryan Empire (given in a treaty to Chandragupta by Seleucus I), but they were loosely associated with the central administration. As´oka addressed his message to the foreign inhabitants of this region but allowed them to translate it into a language comprehensible to them, and left to them a high degree of freedom in translation, freedom which they used diligently. They managed to find a whole lot of common points between this message and Greek philosophy and adapted the translation to the Greek recipients. They adapted this proclamation to the extent that there was almost nothing left in it, which would be manifestly Buddhist, nor even suggesting a relationship with the policy of the Dhamma of As´oka.61 If not the exotic-sounding title of the king and the mention of the Kalin˙ga war, and if the inscriptions were found in Greece, it would be difficult to guess that these are not genuinely Greek inscriptions.

Yavana-ra ˉja Tus∙ a ˉspa In the context of the Yonakamboja, one more inscription is worth discussing, namely the Sanskrit inscription of Rudradaˉman from Junaˉgad․h in Kaˉthiaˉvad․,62 in which the already cited Yavana king (Yavana-raˉja) Tu․saˉspa is mentioned. It is located near Girnaˉr, where the fourteen edicts of As´oka are recorded, indicating the great importance of this region in the times of the Mauryan dynasty. It reveals the existence of a lake Sudars´ana and a dam first built by the Vais´ya Pus․yagupta, the provincial governor of Chandragupta. As Prinsep observed, it is the first record of the name Chandragupta Maurya on an authentic ancient monument (1838: 343). As we read further in the inscription, the dam was later provided with conduits by Tu․saˉspa, a governor of As´oka. As Prinsep noticed, the fact that As´oka is not even called a king (raˉja) suggests little appreciation for that ruler by the population of Suraˉ․s․tra. However, Prinsep justifies it by the fact that As´oka was a Buddhist ruler, while the population of Suraˉ․s․tra was in his opinion Braˉhman․ical, which is not entirely true, as will be further demonstrated. Tu․saˉspa is described as a Greek (Yavana), but his name is clearly Iranian (from asp “a horse”, Skr. as´va). Prinsep suggested that if the name was recorded as Tushasva, it could be read as a translation of the Greek name Φίλιππος. However, Prinsep immediately distanced himself from his imprudent deductions and also presented other no less fantastic readings of that passage, e.g. As´okasya toyavanaraˉjena (“by As´oka lord of the floods and forests”).

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  91

There is no consensus among the scholars as to Tu․saˉspa’s ethnic identity. According to Shastri (1993: 59, 65), Tu․saˉspa was a Greek with a Persian name. According to Thapar (2012: 162), Tu․saˉspa’s family may have been of Indo-Greek or Indo-Iranian descent. In Thapar’s opinion (2012: 62), the reference to Tu․saˉspa in the inscription of Rudradaˉman indicates a possibility of foreign settlement of Persians or Greeks in western India. Moreover, in the Afterword to the new edition of her book, Thapar added (2012: 282) that Tu․saˉspa may have been a member of a family sent by the Achaemenids to administer the territory of the Indus river delta. According to Singh, this inscription “suggests that during As´oka’s time Greek or Persian officials were appointed even in areas other than the northwest” (Singh 2012: 133). Karttunen, in turn, attempted to answer the question of why the Iranian official was designated as Yavana-raˉja. In his opinion, this title should perhaps be translated as “a Greek official”, or more specifically, “a member of the Greek (originally Macedonian) local administration of the Mauryan Yavana land in Arachosia or Paropamisadae” (Karttunen 1997: 268). So according to this theory, Tu․saˉspa would be of Iranian origin, but holding a Greek (Yavana) office. However, the main part of the inscription is devoted to the eulogy in favour of the author of the inscription, Rudradaˉman, who had restored the dam around 150 AD (cf. Hultzsch 1905–1906: 41) with the help of his minister Suvis´akha, a Pahlava. Similarly as his grandfather Ca․staˉna, he is designated as mahaˉk․satrapa. This led Prinsep to the erroneous conclusion that mahaˉk․satrapa Rudradaˉman may be regarded as “a scion of the old dynasty replaced on the throne after a temporary subjugation of the province by the Maurya sovereigns of India proper” (Prinsep 1838: 344). The title k․satrapa suggests a link with the Greek σατράπης, Old Persian xšaçapaˉvan, and Western Iranian xšaθrapaˉ(van), denoting the governor of the province of the Achaemenid Empire. According to Lassen (1842: 165), this is certainly a Persian title, which was retained by Alexander, and also the Bactrian rulers gave it to their city governors.63 However, here, this title refers to the so-called Western K․satrapas (Satraps), S´aka rulers, who ruled in Suraˉ․s․tra and Malwa at the time of the Ku․saˉn․a Empire (in the north) and the S´aˉtavaˉhana Empire (in central India). Claudius Ptolemy in his Geographia (7.1) describes the Western Ksatrapas as Indo-Scythians,64 whose territory covered ․ the areas of Patalene (Παταληνή), Abhira (Ἀβιρία), and Suraˉ․s․tra (Συραστρηνή), with such cities as Ujjain/Avanti (Ὀζηνὴ βασίλειον Τιαστανοῦ “Ozene, capital of king Ca․staˉna”) in the east and Bharuch (Βαρύγαζα ἐμπόριον) in the south.65 The Western K․satrapas were probably vassals of the Ku․saˉn․as. In the inscription, Rudradaˉman mentions his victory over the Yaudheyas and the S´aˉtavaˉhanas and sparing the life of Saˉtakarni due to family ties. It is not certain where was the capital of Rudradaˉman’s kingdom, and the fact that Ptolemy mentions his grandfather, Ca․staˉna, instead of him does not deny the fact that it could be Ujjain, because Ptolemy could base his account of these areas on some older source. Interestingly, Rudradaˉman as portrayed in his inscription is endowed with qualities of a Buddhist ruler, who abstains from killing and shows compassion.

92 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

This may indicate that although Rudradaˉman did not recognize the former rule of the Mauryan dynasty, however, he was probably greatly influenced by the inscriptions of As´oka. Also, the coins of Rudradaˉman’s dynasty bear rather Buddhist symbols (e.g. caitya) and pseudo-Greek legends.66 The inscription of Skandagupta (around 450 AD) from the same area mentions repairs made to the same reservoir by the son of the governor of Suraˉ․s․tra. The presence of these three inscriptions – the fourteen edicts of As´oka, the inscription of Rudradaˉman, and the inscription of Skandagupta near Junaˉgad․h – points to the importance of that place in the times of the Mauryas and later. It is also worth mentioning that according to the theory by Lassen, the name Junaˉgadh ․ is derived from the name of an ancient fortress Yavanagad “the defence of the Yavanas” (1842: 150).

The cultural relations between the Greeks and As´oka in the context of modern theories Since the inscriptions of As´oka are the expression of relations between the two different cultures, the following conclusions reached by different scholars concerning intercultural relations have been adopted as a starting point for our considerations: firstly, the assumption by Jones (1997) about the non-existence of “bounded, monolithic cultural entities”; secondly, the theory of critical transculturalism by Kraidy (2005), based on the concept of hybridity, mestizaje, the theory of mixture, developed among others by Amselle (1998) or Bhabha (2004); and finally, the theory of the so-called middle ground by White (1991). All those theories have been discussed at length in the introduction. If one accepts that there are no “bounded, monolithic cultural entities”, then all cultures are inherently mixed, hybrid. And thus we cannot speak about Hellenism as a monolith (cf. Parker 2007), and similarly, we cannot speak about Buddhism as a monolith. As indicated earlier, there were two main religious cultures in India: the S´raman․ic and the Braˉhman․ical culture, but after many centuries of co-existence, they began to interact and influence each other. The Upani․sads arose as a result of this interaction. The policy of the Dhamma of As´oka was also not as strictly ascetic, as one could imagine the original teachings of the Buddha. And so, the relations between two cultural entities, in this case, Hellenism and Buddhism, were rather transcultural than intercultural. One could ask whether it is justified to speak about the relations between Buddhism and Hellenism because the former of these phenomena is religious, while the latter has a broader meaning, covering religion, art, and philosophy. But as demonstrated above, the Greeks understood the policy of As´oka as a philosophy rather than religion. Moreover, we are talking about Buddhism, in this case about the Dhamma of As´oka, as a very broad cultural phenomenon, which covered all spheres of human life: private beliefs, philosophy, social and cultural life, and the artistic sphere. Thus, the policy of Dhamma of Piyadassi is seen as a phenomenon, which

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  93

evolved as an example of transculturalism, in response to the needs of a new society and its hybrid cultural identity. As´oka could address all people living in his realms and speak to them about Buddhism because it represented a kind of hybrid (or transcultural) religion. This is illustrated perfectly by the social, economic, and political conditions, which gave rise to the policy of Dhamma as presented by Thapar (1960, 2012). In Thapar’s opinion, As´oka accepted this policy not only because of his private beliefs, but also under the influence of his immediate environment (nonorthodox traditions in his family discussed above) and the atmosphere of the times, which was characterized by a general questioning, vigorous debate and discussion, and the emergence of a variety of sects. Brahman values, such as privileges of priests or caste system, were being criticized, and the groups less privileged in the Brahman system favoured the new sects, among which Buddhism also “demanded a relaxing of the social rigidity encouraged by the caste system” (Thapar 1960: 46). Another reason for accepting this policy by As´oka was the economic changes in North India, namely the change of a semi-nomadic pastoral economy into a settled agrarian village economy, which was associated with the introduction of taxes, state supervision, opening up of trade 67 on an extensive scale, and increasing importance of traders and merchants (Vais´yas). According to Thapar, The volume of trade along the overland routes across modern Afghanistan and Persia to the Mediterranean ports, increased greatly. For the many Greek settlers along these routes, who were deserters from Alexander’s army and others, this east-west trade became a highly lucrative business. Regular trade was also conducted between Broach on the west coast of India, and Babylon. The communication of ideas must also have accompanied the trade in spices, textiles, precious stones and gold. (Thapar 1960: 48) The last reason for selecting this policy by As´oka was, according to Thapar, the nature of the Mauryan Empire, which extended over vast areas and included a variety of peoples and cultures. As she argued: It would seem that the people of the Mauryan empire needed a focus or some common stand for all these conflicting or divergent forces, something that would draw them together and give them a feeling of unity. Such a focus would naturally have greater success if supported by the emperor, since the structure of Mauryan India invested control in the ruler at the centre. In fact the emperor himself was the author of a movement which aimed at this very object. In seeking a group of unifying principles, As´oka concentrated on the fundamental aspects of each issue, and the result was his policy of Dhamma. (Thapar 1960: 48)

94 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

As´oka, therefore, understood perfectly the requirements of the time and all the complex processes taking place in his empire and could take advantage of the message of the Dhamma as a bonding agent suited to the diverse needs of his people. While the Greeks for their part in the policy of As´oka probably saw an opportunity to strengthen their position in Indian society, to benefit from the development of trade, which provided them with a livelihood, and to avoid being degraded by the relentless caste system imposed by the Brahmans. The relationship between those two cultures took place on the so-called middle ground, which I define as an imagined space of negotiations of relations between the two culturally different entities, in this case between Buddhism and Hellenism. In the introduction, I described the processes of accommodation taking place in the middle ground, as analysed by White (1991), as well as the theory of de Certeau (1984), about the strategies “of the strong” (dominant power) and the tactics “of the weak” (dominated people). In light of this theory, we can see in the Greek versions of the Edicts of As´oka an example of accommodation, as opposed to acculturation. The Greeks seemingly might have become fervent followers of As´oka’s policy, but in fact, it was not the policy of the Dhamma, but its Greek version, the philosophy of εὐσέβεια, which they followed, with all the values involved, such as ἀποχὴ τῶν ἐμψύχων, ἐγκράτεια, and ἐγκράτεια γλώσσης, or obedience to parents and love towards one’s friends, which in the Greek translation were confusingly similar to the moral precepts known from the Greek philosophy. They accommodated the Dhamma of As´oka to their own cultural premises. In White’s words (1991: 52), they “sought out congruences, either perceived or actual, between the two cultures”. And actually, the Dhamma of As´oka and the Greek εὐσέβεια had many points in common, but both concepts also differed significantly, and thus we can say that the Greeks did not fully understand the Indian phenomenon. This situation is similar to the case study presented by White in a relationship between French colonizers and the American Indian tribes of the Algonquians, who tried to compose Europeans into their own worldview and treated the French as Manitou, “an other-than-human person, a spiritual being capable of taking manifold physical forms” (White 1991: 25). Because the French provided iron, the Indians hunted the beavers to trade with them. But Europeans realized that they cannot satisfy all needs of the Indians, so they tried to turn Indians to worship Christ and not them. The result of that was startling. The Indians started worshipping Christ, but as a Manitou, “heads of animals once offered to the manitous at feasts were now offered to Christ. Public offerings went to the cross and to the Christian God, the ‘Great Manitou’. Indians were not so much being converted to Christianity as Christ was being converted into a Manitou” (White 1991: 26). This example shows perfectly that Indians were not acculturated at all, but instead that Christianity was accommodated to their needs and beliefs. Similarly here, the Greeks were not acculturated, but the policy of the Dhamma was accommodated to their philosophy.

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  95

Another possible example of accommodation may be the mysterious title Δορσάνης· ὁ Ἡρακλῆς παρ’ Ἰνδοῖς (“Dorsanes: Heracles among Indians”) in the Lexicon of Hesychius of Alexandria (cf. Gray and Schuyler 1901: 197 f.), identified by Eggermont (1986) with As´oka (Priyadars´in). If we accept the theory of Eggermont that Dorsanes is a Greek appellation for As´oka, then a similar accommodation could have occurred here. Namely, the Greeks accommodated the Indian ruler to their personal beliefs and treated him as a deity called Heracles Dorsanes. Conclusions from such assumptions can be far-reaching and point to the superstitious and backward nature of Greek beliefs in relation to the sublime philosophy of king As´oka. If we assume that the Greeks indeed sympathized with Buddhism, which is confirmed by archaeological sources, we have to ask about the reasons for this sympathy. In this case, it may be helpful to look at the theory of de Certeau (1984) about the strategies “of the strong” and the tactics “of the weak”, and the story presented by White about an Indian woman Aramepinchieue, who used Christianity for the sake of preserving her own cultural traits. As has already been told in the introduction, her father told her to marry Michel Accault to strengthen the relationship between the Kaskaskia family and the French. But she refused to marry him and the Jesuit missionary supported her saying that she has the right to do what she wants. He did this because Accault had a bad reputation as a libertine and was an enemy of the faith. He thus appealed to the desire of Algonquian women to return to their ancient culture, which gave them unrestricted sexual freedom. Gravier, who sought to subvert traditional Illinois sexual practices because they contradicted Catholicism, and Aramepinchieue, who used Catholicism to maintain the values that supported those same practices, thus found themselves allies. (White 1991: 72) It can be asked, what was the identity of Aramepinchieue? In my opinion, it was a hybrid identity of an Indian woman, who could not anymore live freely, as she did before, because of the strategy of the French colonizers, with the result that she used a tactic of apparently adopting a Christian identity to maintain her original freedom. We can try to look in the same way at the cultural relations between the Greeks and the natives in ancient Bactria and Northwest India. Maybe we will find that the Greeks assumed Buddhism for similar reasons to Aramepinchieue, because it was their tactic to achieve some goals in Indian society against the strategy of powerful Brahmans who established a system of four var․nas and probably treated all foreigners as outcasts. For a short moment in the history of India, the supremacy of Braˉhman․ism was supplanted by the tolerant policy of Dhamma. Maybe if the Mauryan Empire had lasted longer, Indian society would have looked completely different today.

96 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

Notes

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  97

14

15 16

17 18 19

20 21 22

23 24 25

26 27

28

to cross the Pamir Mountain to Badakhshan. Crossing the Hindu Kush, he reached Gandhaˉra. He spent fifteen years in India. The account of his journey, Great Tang Records on the Western Regions (Dà Táng Xˉı yù Jì) contain descriptions of the countries of Central Asia, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Ceylon. Ca. 337–422 AD; Chinese Buddhist, famous for his pilgrimages. In 399–413, he travelled around India, which was then under the Gupta Dynasty. His Record of Buddhist Kingdoms (Foguo Ji) is the most important source of information about the history and culture of India and Buddhism in the fourth and fifth centuries. Strab. 15.1.53: οὐδὲ γὰρ γράμματα εἰδέναι αὐτούς, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ μνήμης ἕκαστα διοικεῖσθαι. The legend of As´oka (As´okaˉvadaˉna) as developed in the Indian and Chinese sources is most extensively presented by Przyluski in his book La Legende de l’Empereur Açoka (1923). Later Mukhopadhyaya developed a new edition of the As´okaˉvadaˉna (1963). This edition has been used as the basis of a study and translation by Strong (1983). “Nous voilà donc en possession de documents authentiques sur un roi don’t la légende seule nous attestait la gloire sans vraiment la justifier” (Bloch 2007: 18). “l’homme réel est-il non seulement plus vivant, mais plus imposant que sa légende !” (Bloch 2007: 40). “Si nous ne connaissions Açoka que par les sources bouddhiques, celles du Nord aussi bien que celles du Midi, nous devrions en conclure qu’il était un souverain d’une insignifiance rare, remarkable seulement en tant qu’il était moitié monstre, moitié idiot. Ses coreligionnaires ne nous ont transmis de lui ni une bonne action, ni un sentiment élevé, ni une parole frappante. Afin de connaître son caractère comme homme et comme prince, nous n’avons donc d’autre resource que ses propres exhortations morales, telles qu’il les fit graver sur des rochers et des colonnes de pierre” (Kern 1903: 335). “Ce sont deux mondes entièrement divers” (Festugière 1951: 46). “justif ìa en raison le mélange des peuples qui fut la consequence des conquètes d’Alexandre” (Festugière 1951: 306). The first meaning of dohada is “any morbid desire or wish for” or “pregnancy” or “craving of pregnant woman”. In its compounds: e.g. kaˉntaˉn˙ ghridohada, kaˉntaˉcara․nadohada “having a longing desire for contact with the foot of a beautiful woman” (to hasten its blossoms). It is worth mentioning the article by Derrett (1992) about the influence of the Homeric Hymn of Apollo on the account of the birth of the Buddha. Strab. 15.2.9: Σέλευκος ὁ Νικάτωρ Σανδροκόττῳ, συνθέμενος ἐπιγαμίαν; App. Syr. 9.55: καὶ τὸν Ἰνδὸν περάσας ἐπολέμησεν Ἀνδροκόττῳ βασιλεῖ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν Ἰνδῶν, μέχρι φιλίαν αὐτῷ καὶ κῆδος συνέθετο. The inscriptions of As´oka were comprehensively published in 1925 by Hultzsch (1925) and in 1950 by Bloch (2007). It is also worth referring to the “Guide to the As´okan inscriptions”, which has been developed in a concise form by Allchin and Norman (1985), as well as a very useful work by Falk (2006), collecting material concerning the sites and artefacts connected with the inscriptions of As´oka. From Proto-Indo-European *dher, cognate with Latin firmus (“stable, strong, firm”). Here the term Dharma is usually translated either as “truth” or as “religion”, but I prefer to leave it intact, with all its historical, cultural, religious, philosophical, and other possible connotations. After all Gandhi, who is credited with this phrase, could have used other word denoting “truth” or “religion”. According to Geiger and Geiger (1920), the Dhamma for the Buddhist system is analogous to the Brahman (understood as an absolute) for the Braˉhman․ical philosophy. The Buddha has intentionally replaced the concept of the Brahman with that of the Dhamma. The opposing view is represented by Joshi, who argued that “The word brahma was not a monopoly of the Vedic braˉhman․as; it was a word of common usage among the people in the age of the Buddha” ( Joshi 2008: 17).

98 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts















The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  99

53 54

55

56

57 58 59

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

être revisée. Nous sommes devant un fait: pour répandre dans la région de Qandahaˉr le message d’Asoka, on l’a traduit en grec. A qui aurait-on destiné ce texte sinon à une population de langue grecque? Et de quelle population pourrait-il alors s’agir sinon des Yonas, de celle qui se réclamait par son nom d’une origine grecque? Il vaut la peine en effet de remarquer que le grec de notre inscription a tous les caractères d’une langue vivante. L’auteur de cette rédaction a su habilement la simplifier, en omettant les difficultés où s’embarrasse le traducteur araméen, et il a accommodé à l’esprit grec le modèle indien en le dépouillant de son exotisme. Il manie le grec avec aisance et en homme cultivé” (Schlumberger et al. 1958: 45). However, we know from Justin Martyr from the second century the adverb ἐνηκόως, which must have been created from some adjective. “Bref, pour autant qu’on en peut juger sur ce court monument, il y avait dans cette région des gens capables d’écrire et apparemment de comprendre un grec qui est natif, de bonne qualité, avec des touches provinciales. L’hypothèse la plus simple est que ce texte visait les Yonas de l’empire d’ Asoka, et que ceux-ci formaient, aux confins de l’Inde, une communauté de langue et de culture grecque. Nous n’en dirons pas plus sur ce sujet” (Schlumberger et al. 1958: 46). “Sur l’Inde post-védique, dont nous n’étions informés que par des textes sans âge, sur l’Inde maurya, dont nous n’étions informés que par des textes étrangers ou par des textes tardifs, ces inscriptions ont projeté soudain des lumières sûres et directes” (Schlumberger 1964: 127). “Documents originaux qui sont les plus anciens à la fois de l’histoire de l’Inde, et de l’histoire du bouddhisme. Documents magnifiques, qu’aucune transmission par des copistes, aucune utilisation par des historiens n’est venue déformer, documents dont la date, l’auteur, les destinataires sont connus, et dont la nature et l’objet sont clairs” (Schlumberger 1964: 127). “La regione era una zona di cultura greca ed iranica, cioè abitata da Yona-kamboja, così nominati insieme ai Gandhara negli editti V e XIII del re maurya” (Gallavotti 1992: 40 f.). Eggermont (1956: 69 ff.) also argued that the conversion took place before the Kalin˙ga war. “Il testo dice che i religiosi e gli asceti e gli uomini pii, scampati agli eccidi del Kalinga (oἱ λοιποί, i restanti), hanno potuto riflettere sulle azioni del re, che sono risultate contrarie alla sua predicazione. Di tale malcontento, e delle presumibili proteste, Piodasse si duole, e lo dimostra nel séguito di questo editto XIII (la redazione greca è mutila), ed anche in altri manifesti: da una parte dichiara di essere pentito, e d’altra parte formula una nuova sentenza generale del suo dhamma, invitando a moderare le parole e a perdonare le offese, cioè (si deve anche intendere) le offese arrecate dal re alla popolazioneˮ (Gallavotti 1992: 47). FGrH 260 F 32, § 6; 8. Regarding the relation of the Greek thought to the Buddhist thought in the Edicts of As´oka cf. Schlumberger’s article “De la pensée grecque à la pensée bouddhique” (1972). The Rudradaˉman inscription was first edited by Prinsep (1838: 338 ff.); this edition is discussed by Lassen (1842: 146 ff.), later by Kielhorn in the Epigraphia Indica, Vol. VIII (Hultzsch 1905–1906: 36 ff.), and more recently by Sircar (1965: 169). Cf. Strab. 11.11.2: οἱ δὲ κατασχόντες αὐτὴν Ἕλληνες καὶ εἰς σατραπείας διῃρήκασιν. Πάλιν ἡ μὲν παρὰ τὸ λοιπὸν μέρος τοῦ ᾿Ινδοῦ πᾶσα καλεῖται κοινῶς μὲν ᾿Ινδοσκυθία (“whereas the whole area beside the remaining part of the Indus river is generally called Indo-Scythia”). Cf. Periplus Maris Erythraei 41. This issue is very interesting, but it goes beyond the scope of the present book. For the connections between Buddhism and trade cf. Ray (1998) and her overview of the social millieu of trade in peninsular India from the fourth century BC until the fourth century AD (2006), as well as an excellent book by Neelis (2011).

100 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

References Allan, J., Dodwell, H.H. and Haig Sir, W. (1934) The Cambridge Shorter History of India. 1st edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Allchin, F.R. and Norman, K.R. (1985) “Guide to the As´okan Inscriptions”, South Asian Studies, 1(1), pp. 43–50. Amitay, O. (2010) Hellenistic Culture and Society, Volume 52: From Alexander to Jesus. Berkeley: University of California Press (Hellenistic culture and society: 52). Amselle, J.-L. (1998) Mestizo Logics: Anthropology of Identity in Africa and Elsewhere; Translated by Claudia Royal. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press (Mestizo spaces). Beal, S. (1880) “The Branchidae”, The Indian Antiquary, 9, pp. 68–71. Beckwith, C.I. (2015) Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. Oxford: Princeton University Press. Benveniste, É. (1964) “Édits d’Asoka en traduction grecque”, Journal Asiatique, 252, pp. 137–154. Bhabha, H.K. (2004) The Location of Culture; with a New Preface by the Author. London: Routledge (Routledge classics). Bickerman, E.J. (1966) “The Seleucids and the Achaemenids”, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 76, pp. 87–117. Bloch, J. (2007) Les Inscriptions d’Asoka / Traduites et commentées par Jules Bloch. Paris: Les Belles Lettres (Collection Emile Senart: 8). Bouché-Leclerc, A. (1913) Histoire des Séleucides, 323–64 [B.C.]. Paris: Ernest Leroux. Brereton, J.P. (2004) “Dhárman in the Rigveda”, Journal of Indian Philosophy, 32(5–6), pp. 449–489. Brown, T.S. (1978) “Aristodicus of Cyme and the Branchidae”, The American Journal of Philology, 99(1), pp. 64–78. doi:10.2307/293869. Bühler, G. (1898) On the Origin of the Indian Braˉ hma Alphabet, Indian Studies, No. III. 2nd edn. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner. Canali De Rossi, F. (2004) Iscrizioni dello estremo oriente greco: un repertorio / a cura di Filippo Canali de Rossi. Bonn: Habelt (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien: 65). Carter, J.R. (1976a) “‘Dhamma’ as a Religious Concept: A Brief Investigation of Its History in the Western Academic Tradition and Its Centrality within the Sinhalese Theravaˉda Tradition”, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 44(4), pp. 661–674. Carter, J.R. (1976b) “Traditional Definitions of the Term ‘Dhamma’”, Philosophy East and West, 26(3), pp. 329–337. Chamoux, F. (1956) “Le roi Magas”, Revue Historique, 216(1), pp. 18–34. Cribb, J. (2017) “The Greek contacts of Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka and their relevance to Mauryan and Buddhist chronology”, in Sheel, K., Willemen, C. and Zysk K. (eds.) From Local to Global, Prof. A.K. Narain Commemoration Volume, Papers in Asian History and Culture (In Three Volumes). Delhi: Buddhist World Press, pp. 3–27. de Certeau, M. (1984) The Practice of Everyday Life; Translated by Steven Rendall. Berkeley: University of California Press. Derrett, J.D.M. (1992) “Homer in India: The Birth of the Buddha”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, Series 3, 2(1), pp. 47–57. Dittenberger, K.F.W. (1960) Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae Supplementum Sylloges inscriptionum Graecarum edidit W. Dittenberger. Hildesheim: Olms. Dutt, J.C. (1879) Kings of Kashmira Being a Translation of the Sanskrita Work Rajataranggini of Kalhana Pandita. Calcutta: Stanford Press. Eggermont, P.H.L. (1956) The Chronology of the Reign of Asoka Moriya. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  101

Eggermont, P.H.L. (1986) “Heracles-Dorsanes and Priyadarsín-As´oka”, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica, 17, pp. 159–168. Elst, K. (2002) Ayodhya. The Case Against the Temple. New Delhi: Voice of India. Falk, H. (1993) Schrift im alten Indien: ein Forschungsbericht mit Anmerkungen. Tübingen: Narr. Falk, H. (2006) As´okan Sites and Artefacts: A Source-Book with Bibliography. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Festugière, A.-J. (1951) “Les inscriptions d’Asoka et l’idéal du roi hellénistique”, Recherches de science religieuse, 39, pp. 31–46. Fussman, G. (1974) “Quelques problèmes àsokéens”, Journal Asiatique, 262, pp. 369–389. Fussman, G. (1989) “Les premiers systèmes d’écriture en Inde”, Annuaire du Collège de France, 1988–1989, pp. 507–514. Gallavotti, C. (1992) “I testi greci di Piodasse in Afghanistan”, Rivista degli studi orientali pubblicata a cura dei professori della Scuola Orientale della Universita di Roma, 66, pp. 35–47. Geiger, M.G. and Geiger, W. (1920) Paˉ li Dhamma: vornehmlich in der kanonischen Literatur. Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: München. Gombrich, R. (1992) “Dating the Buddha: A red herring revealed”, in Bechert, H. (ed.) The Dating of the Historical Buddha/Die Datierung des historischen Buddha. Part 2. (Symposien zur Buddhismusforschung, IV,2). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 238–259. Gombrich, R.F. (2006) How Buddhism Began. The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings. 2nd edn. New York: Routledge. Goyal, S.R. (1979) “Braˉhmˉı: An invention of the early Maurya period”, in Gupta, S.P. and Ramachandran, K.S. (eds.) The Origin of Brahmi Script. Delhi: D.K. Publishers, pp. 1–52. Goyal, S.R. (2006) Braˉ hmˉı Script: An Invention of the Early Maurya Period. Jodhpur: Kusumanjali Book World. Gray, L.H. and Schuyler, M. (1901) “Indian Glosses in the Lexicon of Hesychios”, American Journal of Philology, 22(2), pp. 195–202. doi:10.2307/288837. Haussleiter, J. (1935) Der Vegetarismus in der Antike, Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten. Berlin: Verlag von Alfred Töpelman. Hiltebeitel, A. (2011) Dharma: Its Early History in Law, Religion, and Narrative. New York – Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holyoake, G.J. (1896) English Secularism. A Confession of Belief. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company. Horner, I.B. (1948) “Early Buddhist Dhamma”, Artibus Asiae, 11(1/2), pp. 115–123. Horsch, P. (2004) “From Creation Myth to World Law: The Early History of Dharma”, Journal of Indian Philosophy, 32(5–6), pp. 423–448. Hultzsch, E. (1905) Epigraphia Indica and Record of the Archaeological Survey of India, Vol. VIII. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing. Hultzsch, E. (1925) Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum. Vol. I. Inscriptions of As´oka. New Edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Jaeger, W. (1947) The Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers. Translated for the Gifford Lectures from the German Manuscript by Edward S. Robinson. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Jaini, P.S. (2001) Collected Papers on Buddhist Studies. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. Jones, S. (1997) The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. London – New York: Routledge Press.

102 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

Joshi, L.M. (2008) Brahmanism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. An Essay on Their Origins and Interactions, The Wheel Publication No. 150/151. Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society. Kalota, N.S. (1978) India as Described by Megasthenes. Delhi: Concept Publishing Company. Karttunen, K. (1997) India and the Hellenistic World. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society (Studia Orientalia: vol. 83). Kern, H. (1903) Histoire du Bouddhisme dans l’Inde, Tome Deuxième. Paris: Ernest Leroux. Kraidy, M. (2005) Hybridity, or the Cultural Logic of Globalization. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Kubica, O. (2016) “The massacre of the Branchidae: A reassessment. the post-mortem case in defence of the Branchidae”, in Nawotka, K. and Wojciechowska, A. (eds) Alexander the Great and the East: History, Art, Tradition. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 143–150. Kubica, O. (2021) “Milindapañha and the Role of Buddhism as a Catalyst for Public Communication and Discussion”, Academic Journal of Modern Philology, 14, pp. 237–245. Lamotte, E. (1988) History of Indian Buddhism: From The Origins to The Saka Era; Translated From the French by Sara Webb-Boin Under the Supervision of Jean Dantinne. Louvainla-Neuve: Université Catholique de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste (Publications de l’Institut orientaliste de Louvain: 36). Lassen, C. (1842) Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Vol. IV. Bonn: H.B. Koenig. Liddell, H.G. and Scott, R. (1940) A Greek-English Lexicon Revised and Augmented Throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones, with the Assistance of Roderick McKenzie. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lubin, T. (2013) “As´oka’s Disparagement of Domestic Ritual and Its Validation by the Brahmins,” Journal of Indian Philosophy, 41(1), p. 29. Marshall, S.J.H. (1990) A Guide to Sanchi. Patna: Eastern Book House. McCrindle, J.W. (1928) Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink & Co. Mehendale, M.A. (1948) As´okan Inscriptions in India, A Linguistic Study, Together with An Exhaustive Bibliography. 2nd edn. Bombay: University of Bombay. Merkelbach, R. and Stauber, J. (2005) Jenseits des Euphrat: Griechische Inschriften: ein epigraphisches Lesebuch / zusammengestellt, übersetzt und erklärt von Reinhold Merkelbach und Josef Stauber. München: K.G. Saur. Mia˛∙zek, T. (2021) “The Legend of Ashoka’s Hell and References to the Torture Chamber of the Mauryan Emperor in Ajñeya’s Play Uttar Priyadars´ˉı ”, Academic Journal of Modern Philology, 14, pp. 257–274. Mkrtychev, T. (2007) “Buddhism and features of the Buddhist art of Bactria-Tokharistan”, in Cribb, J. and Herrmann, G. (eds.) After Alexander: Central Asia Before Islam. New York: The British Academy, pp. 475–485. Monier-Williams, M. (1899) A Sanskrit-English Dictionary: Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to Cognate Indo-European languages. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Available at: https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.unikoeln.de/scans/MWScan/2020/ web/webtc/indexcaller.php. Mukhopadhyaya, S. (1963) The As´okaˉvadaˉna. Sanskrit Text Compared with Chinese Versions. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi. Müller, K. (1882) Isidori Characeni Mansiones Parthicae, Geographi graeci minores. Paris: Firmin Didot frères (Didot’s bibliotheca scriptorum graecorum). Neelis, J. (2011) Early Buddhist Transmission and Trade Networks. Mobility and Exchange Within and Beyond the Northwestern Borderlands of South Asia. Leiden – Boston: Brill Academic Publishers.

The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts  103

Norman, K.R. (1972) “Notes on the Greek Version of As´oka’s Twelfth and Thirteenth Rock Edicts”, The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 104(2), pp. 111–118. Norman, K.R. (1993) “The Development of Writing in India and its Effect upon the Paˉli Canon”, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens, 36(Supplementband), pp. 239–249. Oldenberg, H. (1879) The Dıˉ pavam ․ sa. An Ancient Buddhist Historical Record. London – Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate. Olivelle, P., Leoshko, J. and Ray, H.P. (2012) Reimagining As´oka: Memory and History. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Panchenko, D. (2002) “The City of the Branchidae and the Question of Greek Contribution to the Intellectual History of India and China”, Hyperboreus, 8(2), pp. 244–255. Paranavitana, S. (1971) The Greeks and the Mauryas. Colombo, Ceylon: Lake House Investments Ltd. Parke, H.W. (1985) “The Massacre of the Branchidae”, The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 105, pp. 59–68. Parke, H.W. and Wormell, D.E.W. (1956) The Delphic Oracle, The Oracular Responses. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Parker, G.R. (2007) “Hellenism in an Afghan context”, in Ray, H.P. and Potts, D.T. (eds.) Memory as History: The Legacy of Alexander in Asia. New Delhi: Aryan Books International, pp. 170–191. Pichikyan, I.R. (1991) “The City of the Branchidae”, Vestnik Drevnie Istorii, 2, pp. 168–180. Prinsep, J. (1837a) “Further Elucidation of the Lat or Silasthambha Inscriptions From Various Sources”, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 6(69), pp. 790–797. Prinsep, J. (1837b) “Interpretation of the Most Ancient of Inscriptions on the Pillar Called Lat of Feroz Shah, Near Delhi, and of the Allahabad, Radhia and Mattiah Pillar, or Lat Inscriptions Which Agree Therewith”, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 6(67), pp. 566–609. Prinsep, J. (1837c) “Note on the Facsimiles of the Various Inscriptions on the Ancient Column at Allahabad, Retaken by Captain Edward Smith, Engineers”, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 6(71), pp. 963–980. Prinsep, J. (1838) “VII—Examination of the Inscriptions From Girnar in Gujerat, and Dhauli in Cuttack, Continued”, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 7(76), pp. 334–356. Przyluski, J. (1923) La Legende de l’Empereur Açoka (Açoka-Avadaˉ na) dans les textes indiens et chinois. Paris: Paul Geuthner. Pugliese Caratelli, G. (1953) “Asoka e i re ellenistici”, La Parola del Passato. Rivista di Studi Classici, 8, pp. 449–454. Pugliese Caratelli, G., Garbini, G., Tucci, G. and Scerrato, U. (1964) A Bilingual GraecoAramaic Edict by As´oka: The First Greek Inscription Discovered in Afghanistan. Text, Translation and Notes by G. Pugliese Carratelli and G. Garbini; Foreword by G. Tucci; Introduction by U. Scerrato, Serie Orientale Roma. Roma: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente (Serie orientale Roma, 29). Ray, H.P. (1998) The Winds of Change: Buddhism and the Maritime Links of Early South Asia. New Delhi: Oxford University Press (Oxford India paperbacks). Ray, H.P. (2006) “Inscribed Pots, Emerging Identities. The Social Milieu of Trade”, in Olivelle, P. (ed.) Between the Empires. Society in India 300 BCE to 400 CE. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 113–144. Robert, L. (1958) “L’inscription bilingue du Vieux-Kandahar (Afghanistan)”, ComptesRendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 102(2), pp. 189–191.

104 The Dhamma of As´oka in the Context of Greco-Mauryan Contacts

Sachse, J. (1981) Megasthenes o Indiach. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Salomon, R. (1995) “On the Origin of the Early Indian Scripts”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 115(2), pp. 271–279. Scharfe, H. (1971) “The Maurya Dynasty and the Seleucids”, Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung, 85, pp. 211–225. Schlumberger, D., Robert, L., Dupont-Sommer, A. and Benveniste, É. (1958) “Une bilingue gréco-araméenne d’Asoka”, Journal Asiatique, 246, pp. 1–48. Schlumberger, D. (1964) “Une nouvelle inscription grecque d’Açoka”, Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 108(1), pp. 126–140. doi:10.3406/ crai.1964.11695. Schlumberger, D. (1972) “De la pensée grecque à la pensée bouddhique”, Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 116(1), pp. 188–199. Sen, A. (2005) The Argumentative Indian. Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity. London: Penguin Books. Shastri, A.M. (1993) “Yavanas in Western Indian Cave Inscriptions”, Yavanika, 3, pp. 58–66. Singh, U. (2012) “Governing the State and the Self: Political Philosophy and Practice in the Edicts of As´oka”, South Asian Studies, 28(2), pp. 131–145. doi:10.1080/02666030. 2012.725581. Sircar, D.C. (1965) Select Inscriptions Bearing on Indian History and Civilization. 2nd edn. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. Stein, A. (1900) Kalhana’s Raˉ jatarangini: A Chronicle of the Kings of Kas´mˉır, Volume 1. Westminster: Archibald Constable. Strong, J. (1983) The Legend of King As´oka: A Study and Translation of the As´okaˉ vadaˉ na. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Tarn, W.W. (1922) “The Massacre of the Branchidae”, The Classical Review, 36(3–4), pp. 63–66. Tarn, W.W. (1948) Alexander the Great. II Sources and Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tawney, C.H. (1891) The Malavikágnimitra. A Sanskrit Play by Kalidasa. 2nd edn. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink and Co. Thapar, R. (1960) “As´oka and Buddhism”, Past and Present, 18, pp. 43–51. Thapar, R. (2012) As´oka and the Decline of the Mauryas. 3rd edn. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198077244.001.0001. Trenkner, S. (1960) Le style καí dans le récit attique oral, Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire. Assen: Van Gorcum. Turnour, G. (1837a) “Further Notes on the Inscriptions on the Columns at Delhi, Allahabad, Beliah, etc.”, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 6(72), pp. 1049–1064. Turnour, G. (1837b) The Mahawanso in Roman Characters with the Translation Subjoined, and an Introductory Essay on Pali Buddhistical Literature, Vol. I. Ceylon: Cotta Church Mission Press. Vaidya, P.L. (1959) Avadaˉ na-kalpalataˉ of K․semendra. Darbhanga: Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning. von Hinüber, O. (1989) Der Beginn der Schrift und frühe Schriftlichkeit in Indien. Franz: Steiner. von Hinüber, O. (2010) “Did Hellenistic Kings Send Letters to As´oka?”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 130(2), pp. 261–266. White, R. (1991) The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650–1815. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Studies in North American Indian History).

3 BETWEEN AS´OKA AND MENANDER A few notes on the Greco-Bactrian kingdom

This chapter is to demonstrate that the policy of As´ oka, which was discussed in the previous chapter, did not have such a huge impact on the propagation of Buddhism among the Greeks, as it might seem from the edicts of the Emperor. Secondly, this chapter bridges the chronological gap between the times of As´oka and the Indo-Greek kingdom and contextualizes the following chapter. And finally, it illustrates the situation of the Greeks in Bactria and India. Because most of the material from the Hellenistic Far East, which can be regarded as uniquely Greek, comes from the areas of ancient Bactria, thus these areas give us the opportunity to better understand how the Greeks functioned in the East. For this purpose, two case studies will be examined in more detail, first, Ai Khanoum as a lieu de mémoire, and secondly, several inscriptions from the Hellenistic Far East, such as the inscription of the son of Aristonax, of Sophytos, and of Heliodotus.

A glance at the history and culture of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom1 In the present book, there is no place for accurate recapitulation of the history of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom, including its rise, subsequent rulers, and their chronology, which was a subject of research by many distinguished scholars.2 Therefore, it is sufficient that I present here some of the most important facts, which are relevant to the present chapter. The history of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom is reconstructed mainly on the basis of coins, but there are also a few literary and epigraphic testimonies. As we read in Justin, 3 Diodotus, the governor of the thousand cities of Bactria,4 defected and proclaimed himself king, and thus he established an independent Greco-Bactrian kingdom. According to Wolski (1969: 267), this rebellion, which has so far been interpreted in a very superficial way as a symptom of DOI: 10.4324/9781003258575-4

106  Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom

personal ambition, can be regarded as the expression of defensive tendencies of the Iranian and Greek populations against the nomadic threats, as a result of the Seleucid failure in the western part of their empire. Strabo5 also referred to a revolt in Bactria, but he did not mention Diodotus by name. Thus, we know that the Greeks in Bactria since around the mid-third century BC constituted a separate independent state, to some extent cut from the direct contacts with the Greek world by the rising Parthian Empire founded by Diodotus’ enemy, Arsaces. Diodotus I, founder of the Diodotid dynasty of Bactria, was succeeded by his son, Diodotus II, who was subsequently killed by Euthydemus from Magnesia, founder of the Euthydemid dynasty. In Polybius 11.34, we read about his conflict with Antiochus III and the siege of Bactra, which ended around 206 BC with a conclusion of a treaty, under which Euthydemus was recognized as a ruler of Bactria, while his son, Demetrius, was offered one of Antiochus’ daughters in marriage. After the fall of the Mauryan Empire, Demetrius used the chance to extend his dominion to Northwest India. He probably gained control over Arachosia and Gandhaˉra, and he began the conquest, which led to the rise of the Indo-Greek kingdom. In the meantime, Eucratides, who had overthrown the Euthydemid dynasty in Bactria, was killed by his son on his way back from India,6 and subsequently, the Greek state in Bactria gradually fell apart due to internal conflicts and threats from the Parthian Empire and the nomadic tribes, leaving only minor ephemeral statelets existing for some time in North India. Mairs, in the chapter of her book The Hellenistic Far East. Archaeology, Language and Identity in Greek Central Asia entitled “Waiting for the Barbarians” (2014: 146 ff.), described this process as slow bleeding to death. In her study, she compared Greco-Roman and Chinese narratives with the archaeological data concerning the mobility of Xiongnu and Yuezhi nomadic confederacies and concluded that there was no single, sudden, and decisive nomad invasion, but rather a long series of incursions. Before proceeding to a more detailed analysis of several case studies, such as Ai Khanoum as a lieu de mémoire, the inscription of the son of Aristonax, the Sophytos inscription, or the Heliodotus inscription, it is worthwhile to mention few important characteristics of the cultural life in the Greco-Bactrian kingdom. Because the present study focuses mainly on written sources, most of which are inscriptions, it is worth characterizing briefly the epigraphic remains from that region. As noticed by Rougemont in his article “Les inscriptions grecques d’Iran et d’Asie centrale. Bilinguismes, interférences culturelles, colonisation” (2012c), most of the Greek inscriptions currently known in Iran and in Central Asia are dated to the Hellenistic period (from the end of the fourth to the first century BC; mainly the third and especially the second century BC). In total, they are few: a little more than 160 texts. The author of the article pointed to several problems related to the analysis of these inscriptions, which should be noted at the outset, such as bilingualism, code switching, and inferences about ethnicity on the basis of personal names. In another article, “Hellenism in Central Asia and the North-West of the Indo-Pakistan Sub-Continent: The Epigraphic Evidence”

Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom  107

(2012a), Rougemont observed that it immediately catches the eye of an “Aegean” epigraphist that there is no evidence of civic life in the Greek inscriptions from Central Asia, such as decrees, honorific inscriptions, or collective discussions. The inscriptions, however, show that the Greeks living in the Greco-Bactrian kingdom proudly emphasized their cultural identity, traces of which survived long after their domination in Bactria disappeared.

Ai Khanoum as a lieu de mémoire The term lieu de mémoire (site of memory) refers to Nora’s Les Lieux de Mémoire (1984–1992), three volumes dedicated to the places and the objects, in which the national memory of the French is incarnated. According to Nora “There are lieux de mémoire, sites of memory, because there are no longer milieux de mémoire, real environments of memory” (Nora 1989: 7). Memory is living, inseparable from living societies, permanently evolving, unconscious, susceptible to deformation, manipulation, and appropriation. The more memory is threatened, the more people strive to preserve and protect it, and thus the term lieux de mémoire refers to this desire to preserve the memory. But when preserving memory becomes a self-conscious act, it is not a memory anymore, but only lieu de mémoire. In Nora’s words, “lieux de mémoire are fundamental remains, the ultimate embodiments of a memorial consciousness that has barely survived in a historical age that calls out for memory because it has abandoned it” (Nora 1989: 12). Lieux de mémoire are in opposition to generalized critical history, which empties them of what makes them sites of memory. Nora’s work is also associated with the theory by Halbwachs (1992) about the collective memory, because lieux de mémoire are most frequently related to the memory of entire groups trying to preserve their memory by referring to the lieux de mémoire. Ai Khanoum may be analysed as a lieu de mémoire in two different ways, firstly, as a contemporary site of memory, and secondly, as a lieu de mémoire for the ancient founders and inhabitants of this city, presumably Greeks.7 From the perspective of the present book, the second aspect is more important. However, it is also worthwhile dedicating a few words to the first aspect. Doubtless, this site, identified with Alexandria on the Oxus,8 excavated in Afghanistan at the confluence of the Oxus (Amu Darya) and the Kokcha rivers between 19659 and 1978 by a French DAFA mission10 and Soviet scientists, would be impossible to consider as an Afghan lieu de mémoire, because it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find a group of Afghans, who nourish the memory of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom as their own collective memory. Also, for the contemporary Greeks or Macedonians, these areas are too distant to be an important pillar of their memory. However, an interesting exception to this is the polytheistic Kalash (Καλάς) people living in the Chitral District in Pakistan, who are quite popular in Greece. They are also closely related to the Kaˉfirs (“non-believers”) of historical Kaˉfiristaˉn (today Nuˉristaˉn Province of Afghanistan).11 According to the Kafir legend, they are descendants of Alexander

108  Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom

the Great. However, genetic studies have shown no connection (Ali and Rehman 2001: 153 ff.). In a surprising way, the memory of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom was appropriated by the “conquerors of distant lands” in the era of colonization. By their conquests, they referred to the memory of Alexander the Great and other famous conquerors. As noted by Nora, memory is “vulnerable to manipulation and appropriation, susceptible to being long dormant and periodically revived” (Nora 1989: 8). Ai Khanoum, therefore, can be considered as a lieu de mémoire for the “conquerors of distant lands”, whether rightly, it is hard to tell. In a sense, conquest of unknown territories is inscribed in human nature, not only military conquest but also symbolical. The development of the human race depends on the conquest of “the unknown”. And, therefore, Ai Khanoum as a trace of memory about the Greeks, who left their homeland and went into the unknown, may be regarded as a symbolic lieu de mémoire12 for the entire human race. In this aspect, we see lieu de mémoire as “forever open to the full range of its possible significations” (Nora 1989: 24). As regards the second aspect, in which Ai Khanoum may be analysed as a lieu de mémoire, namely as a site of memory for the ancient founders and inhabitants of this city, known is the answer to the question: whose memory? But it is necessary to clarify the motives for trying to preserve this memory and to explain, in what sense Ai Khanoum may be regarded as a lieu de mémoire for its Greco-Bactrian inhabitants. It is not difficult to figure out the possible motivation of the Greeks for trying to preserve their memory by building a living lieu de mémoire. Residing in distant lands, detached from their roots, and separated from their homeland by the vast areas inhabited mostly by foreign peoples, the Greeks certainly felt the need to preserve the memory of Greece. As noted by Nora, “Paradoxically, distance demands the rapprochement that negates it while giving it resonance” (Nora 1989: 17). And so the Greeks created this makeshift Greece as a lieu de mémoire of their homeland. In Nora’s words, they built a lieu de mémoire, site of memory, because there was no longer milieu de mémoire, real environment of memory; they sought the decipherment of what they were in the light of what they were no longer. They were no longer the Greeks living in Greece, and therefore they built a living monument to their life in Greece in order to experience their ethnic identity. This desire is reflected in the architectural, sculptural, and epigraphic remains found in Ai Khanoum, as well as artefacts.13 Among the architectural remains of Ai Khanoum, at least a few should be mentioned. One is a Greek theatre, which could accommodate around 4,000– 6,000 people and was the easternmost of its kind. The second is a gymnasium, one of the largest gymnasia in antiquity, with a herm bearing a dedication in Greek from Triballos and Strato to Hermes and Heracles.14 Another is ἡρῷον or tomb of Kineas, probable οἰκιστής of the city. The palace, originally identified as the “administrative quarter”, also had many Hellenistic features, such as Corinthian columns or Doric porticoes. The main temple was adorned with pillars

Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom  109

with ionic capitals. The material found in the main temple, the so-called temple with indented niches, does not indicate clearly, which deity was worshipped there. A marble fragment of a sandaled foot of a large acrolithic statue may be a trace of a male deity, perhaps Zeus, as further indicated by a thunderbolt motif on the sandal. However, as noted by Bernard, “the unmistakably Eastern character of the building suggests a syncretic deity of mixed Greco-Asian parentage, probably a Zeus-Mithra” (Hiebert and Cambon 2011: 93). But traces of other deities were also found, for example, bronze Heracles, pieces of male and female cult statues, or local fertility goddess figurine made of painted bone. The temple itself, as noted by Mairs (2014: 85), is “one of the most strikingly non-Greek sections of the city”. Other clearly Hellenistic sculptural remains include, for example, a limestone statue of a young man with a crown in the style of Lysippus, found in the main temple, a marble herm with a statue of an old man with a beard, perhaps a teacher, found in the gymnasium, a water-spout representing a theatre mask, found in the fountain on the Oxus, or a limestone statue of a young man wearing a χλαμύς found in the mausoleum of the necropolis outside the city walls (Figure 3.1).

FIGURE 3.1

High-relief of a naked man wearing a χλαμύς. Ai Khanoum, second century BC.

Courtesy: Musée Guimet.

110  Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom

Among the epigraphic remains from Ai Khanoum,15 the most famous is the inscription of Clearchus,16 being an epigram accompanying the exposition of the Delphic precepts copied by Clearchus in Delphi and placed in the τέμενος of Kineas (Figure 3.2). These precepts are preserved in two consecutive inscriptions, one containing 143 precepts17 and the other containing five precepts.18 Some of these precepts may be found in the list of 147 Sayings of the Seven Sages, collected by Sosiades and preserved in Stobaeus (3.1.173), for example, the inscription from Bactria containing five precepts related to the stages of human life corresponds completely to the five final Sayings of the Seven Sages (143–147).19 According to Robert (1968), the author of this inscription should be identified with Clearchus of Soli, Aristotle’s pupil, but this identification is unprovable in the current state of knowledge. Worth mentioning are also economic inscriptions (cf. Rapin and Grenet 1983; Lerner 2011) and a few funerary epigrams of a small girl and a small boy,20 of Lysanias and Isidora 21 and of Kosmos.22 Especially the inscription of the pair of children might be helpful in understanding the Greeks, who lived in Ai Khanoum. Funerary inscriptions are all the more interesting as a lieu de mémoire that merely by their intrinsic nature they say: stop and remember! The library of the palace at Ai Khanoum contained some literary works, for example, an unidentifiable Greek dramatic text, a tragedy written in iambic trimetres around the third century BC.23 It is remarkable that this tragedy does not match any previously known tragedy. According to Hollis (2011: 108), the subject matter of this text might have been Dionysus’ claim to divinity as a son of Zeus and the text could have been even a local product, as further indicated by the importance of Dionysus in Bactria.

FIGURE 3.2

Inscription of Kineas. Ai Khanoum, second century BC.

Courtesy: Musée Guimet.

Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom  111

Worth mentioning is also the Ai Khanoum philosophical papyrus dated to the period between the middle of the third century and the middle of the second century BC (Lerner 2003: 45).24 It is a fragment of a dialogue, which resembles Platonic dialogues in its form and subject matter. In the preserved columns, we find several responses in the affirmative, such as φαμὲγ γὰρ, εἶπεν; ἀναγκαῖον, εἶπεν; δικαῖως, or πανυ γε, εἶπεν. The two interlocutors speak about “the way sensible objects participate in ideas and the way ideas participate in each other” (Lerner 2003: 50). This problem of the μεθέξις of the ideas is also discussed in Plato’s Sophist. The main argument of the Ai Khanoum dialogue is the immobility of the supreme cause. Therefore, this text may be a polemic against the theory of Plato, perhaps by Aristotle,25 or by a member of his school, for example, Heraclides Ponticus (Privitera 2011: 132), but not necessarily. It might have been of local origin (Lerner 2003: 50). Whoever was the author of this text, it is clear that the inhabitants of Ai Khanoum, at least some of them, were interested in Greek philosophy. As Hollis concluded, “despite the geographical remoteness of Bactria, it was not cut off intellectually from Egyptian Alexandria” (Hollis 2011: 107). Apart from the inscriptions and literary works, Ai Khanoum also provides us with a Greek document,26 probably a tax receipt (cf. Rea et al. 1994; Hollis 1996), dated to the second century BC, exceptional insofar as it is written on prepared skin, the first such example from this area. However, as noted by Rea (Rea et al. 1994: 261), parchment at this time was the predominant writing material at Dura Europus, so perhaps this inscription may be an evidence of trade relations with the West. Also interesting is the reference to the joint reign of Antimachus Theos, together with Eumenes and another Antimachus. This information may indicate a division of Bactria into smaller states before the second century BC and allows us to distinguish two rulers of the name Antimachus, who ruled around the same time, or at the same time, as co-regents.27 As noted by Bernard, “The various types and styles of script (cursive for handwritten documents on papyri, parchments, and vases; capitals for inscriptions in stone) reflect a linguistic development similar to that found in the documents from the Mediterranean” (Hiebert and Cambon 2011: 95). It should be kept in mind that not everyone could afford to have a statue erected, a castle built, or an inscription incised; thus in order to examine the life of the less affluent and influential people, it is important to explore the small artefacts of everyday use, such as metal objects, ceramics, and precious stones. Among the artefacts found in Ai Khanoum, a mention should be made of a “Plaque of Cybele”, a silver gilt repoussé depicting Cybele on a cart driven by two lions, a votive sacrifice and Sun (Helios), moon, and a star in the sky. The motif of Cybele on a cart driven by lions was popular in Rome, where the cult of this Anatolian mother goddess was introduced in the late third century BC and remained popular until early Christian times.28 Other objects of Hellenistic character include ceramic busts and heads of women, a ceramic handle of a vase depicting the head of Alexander wearing the lion skin, a clay seal depicting the

112  Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom

abduction of Ganymede by Zeus in the form of an eagle, a miniature Greek stool or two alabaster vases with the inscription KINN 29 (abbreviated form of κίνναμον, cinnamon) found in the ἡρῷον. But, on the other hand, in Ai Khanoum, there is also a lot of material of mostly Iranian, but also Indian characters, for example, an inlaid shell plaque on champlevé with encrustation of coloured glass depicting the legend of S´akuntalaˉ, which is also known from the story in the Mahaˉbhaˉrata and from Kaˉlidaˉsa’s drama Abhijñaˉnas´aˉkuntala. In the presented material, many traces of Greek lifestyle cultivated in this city may be detected. Therefore, the popular trope describing Ai Khanoum as an outpost of Hellenism (Wheeler 1968: 75 ff.), a Greek city in Central Asia (cf. Bernard 1967, 1982), does not seem at all exaggerated, because most of the material found here is indeed strikingly Greek. Thus, despite the astonishment caused by the view of a Greek city in Afghanistan, it does not seem legitimate to ask, if it is real. One should rather ask how this strange phenomenon occurred. And in my opinion, at least part of the explanation can be provided by Nora’s theory. Ai Khanoum may have been occupied by the Greeks and indigenous people until 146–145 BC (Tissot 2006: 23), or even later, until 110 BC, as suggested by Lerner (2010, 2011). It was probably destroyed during the S´aka invasions. According to Mairs, “Ai Khanoum was attacked and its territory occupied by populations whose material culture may […] be linked to that from kurgan cemeteries such as Ksirov, in the Qizil Su region of southern Tajikistan” (Lyonnet 1998; Rapin 2007: 51; Mairs 2014: 171). These invasions resulted in the disruption of the lieu de mémoire created by the Greeks in Bactria, the interruption of memory. The Greeks, who stayed in India, had no longer any “Greek homeland” to refer to. They were mostly natives with mixed Greek ethnic origin, but not yet Indians.

The inscription of the son of Aristonax30 Then from Ai Khanoum, which is located in the north, we move south towards Kandahar, an area where the Indian influences are pronounced. But we find a purely Greek inscription here, the inscription of the son of Aristonax (Figure 3.3), which antedates the times of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom, but it serves as a context for the remaining two inscriptions discussed, because it may point to a Greek cultural continuity in the areas of Northwest India regardless of the reign and dominant religion. It is a Greek epigram on a statue base, found by the British Institute of Afghan Studies at Shar-ˉı-Kuna (later Old Kandahar) in 1978, and it is dated to the time between 300 BC and 275/250 BC, most probably around 275 BC. So it is possible that this statue was erected a little earlier than the bilingual edict of As´oka, which was carved on a rock merely a few hundred metres from where our inscription was found. The inscription was heavily damaged because the stone was re-used as a threshold of a Hellenistic house. Nevertheless, the text could be identified “as

Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom  113

FIGURE 3.3

The inscription of the son of Aristonax.

consisting of at least two elegiac couplets, and as forming a metrical dedication of a statue-group of some sort” (Fraser 1979: 9).31 The statue was erected in the sacred precinct (τέμενος). Oikonomides, in his article “The τέμενος of Alexander the Great at Alexandria in Arachosia (Old Kandahar)” (1984), argued that this τέμενος was used for the cult of Alexander the Great, who was the founder of Alexandria in Arachosia. In his theory, Oikonomides supported the identification by Wheeler (1968: 65) of the site in Old Kandahar with Alexandria in Arachosia founded by Alexander. Although the identification of Alexandria in Arachosia is generally acknowledged, there is no clear evidence that this τέμενος was affiliated with the cult of Alexander. The inscription is a dedication of a statue by the son of Aristonax, whose name is unknown. The word ΘΗΡΟΣ may be a part of this name, but more probably it is a genitive of a noun θήρ, denoting a wild animal. ΘΗΡΟΣΑ can therefore be reconstructed as θηρὸς ἄ[γαλμα], sculpture of a wild animal. So, perhaps the statue commemorated the rescue from a wild beast and represented both, the animal and the saviour of the son of Aristonax (σωτῆρος ἐμοῦ). The name of the son of Aristonax would therefore need to be reconstructed from ΑΛΕΞ, which is not possible due to a large number of Greek names starting with this stem. Oikonomides, on the contrary, reconstructed the name of the dedicator from the third line, which, according to him, should be read: καὶ σωτῆρος ἐμοῦ τ’ [οὔνομα ἔχων…] etc. and thus the son of Aristonax would be a namesake of his rescuer, allegedly Alexander. The end of the second verse (ἀστοῖς, citizens or fellow citizens) is, according to Rougemont (2012b: 166), the proof of the existence on the site of Old Kandahar of an important Greek community, probably a real city with its sanctuaries, that of the high Hellenistic period. On the basis of this inscription, Fraser (1979: 12) argued that the area of Arachosia was never in the hands of Chandragupta Maurya, contrary to what the Greek sources say about his treaty with Seleucus I. In his opinion, this territory was gained only by As´oka, as evidenced by his bilingual inscription. However, he rightly concluded that “Whatever chronological and geographical limits we

114  Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom

set to Seleucid and Maurya rule respectively, in the third century, there can be very little doubt that at one stage the two religions, Olympian and Buddhist, existed side by side at Kandahar, and in part at least expressed themselves through the medium of the same language” (Fraser 1979: 12). But he further concluded that “As´oka, in the fervour of his faith and his desire for conversion, is likely to have suppressed or discouraged the Olympian cults”. However, the inscription of Sophytos, found in Kandahar and dated at much later times, discussed in the next section, denies the possibility of the alleged persecution of the Greek cults by As´oka.

The Sophytos inscription The Sophytos inscription (Figure 3.4) was discovered quite recently, but it has received a lot of well-deserved attention.32 It apparently comes from Kandahar (ancient Alexandria in Arachosia), where three other Greek inscriptions were also found, namely the above-mentioned epigram of the son of Aristonax and two edicts of As´oka. But because the Sophytos inscription was purchased in the antiquities market, its provenance cannot be clearly determined. However, the technical characteristics of the block of stone, on which the inscription is engraved, give further confirmation of this provenance (cf. Bernard et al. 2004: 264). It can be dated to the late second century BC. The authenticity of this epigram has been questioned due to a fault in versification (cf. Bernard et al. 2004: 234, note 5). But most researchers recognize the authenticity of this inscription because it is easier to explain one mistake in versification than the entire production process of such a skilful fake. This inscription is a funerary epigram in verse, composed of ten elegiac couplets.33 As noted by Rougemont (Bernard et al. 2004: 233), the use of this metre is not surprising: the poet wrote in elegiac couplets, just like many other authors of Greek epigrams, which were written on stone. The vocabulary of the inscription to some extent coincides with the vocabulary used by Callimachus in his Hecale, for example, such rare words as κοκύαι or τυννὸς, or by Homer (cf. Hollis 2011: 114). As we read in the epigram, it was composed by the deceased himself during his lifetime. The author introduced himself as Sophytos, son of Naratos. According to Pinault (Bernard et al. 2004: 249 ff.), his name and patronymic (Σώφυτος Ναρατιάδης) betray Indian origin. In Pinault’s opinion, the name Σώφυτος may be derived from the Indian name Subhuˉti. The hypothesis of the Indian origin of this name was first put forward by Bernard (1985: 160, Addenda)34 as a plausible explanation of probably the same name (ΣΩΦΥΤΟΥ),35 which was found on legends of coins from the turn of the fourth and third centuries BC.36 Pinault argued that the new inscription, as well as onomastic data, confirms this identification. Whereas name Νάρατος, in his opinion, phonetically most closely resembles the Indian name Naradatta, and it could be a simplified version of *Ναράδα(τ)τος, formed by the expulsion of one syllable on the model of Greek

Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom  115

FIGURE 3.4

The Sophytos inscription.

hypocorisms (like Ἄλκιμος compared to Ἀλκίδημος). However, in his opinion, this explication is not entirely satisfactory, because it concerns the formation of diminutives belonging to the Greek language, and by definition, this condensation cannot be easily applied to foreign names, the constituents of which evoke no meaning. So, as an alternative explanation, Pinault suggested that the name Νάρατος may be derived from the Sanskrit name Naˉrada (or rather from the reconstructed MIA form *Narada). Pinault also noted (Bernard et al. 2004: 255) that the form Ναρατιάδης by adding the luxurious patronymic suffix -ιάδης (responsible for the prestige of Homeric denominations) to a name of non-Greek origin, marks the will of definitive Hellenization of originally Indian lineage, several members of which, at least the author of the epigram, had acquired and mastered Greek culture. On the other hand, regardless of the name, it is difficult

116  Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom

to unambiguously specify the ethnic and cultural affiliation of the author. As summed up by Rougemont (2012c: 21), Sophytos introduces himself to us in Greek costume, and if his costume is a disguise, this disguise is perfect; he wears a mask, which we cannot take away. Sophytos, in his funerary epigram, recounts the story of his life and his deeds (ἔργματα). When he was still small (τυννός), his family fortune had been wrecked due to a sudden misfortune, which he attributed to the three Fates (Μοιρῶν τριάδος). Deprived of everything, he received a Greek education in poetry (Apollo and the Muses) and practised prudence. After that, he decided to leave his homeland and acquire wealth through foreign trade. After a long absence, once fortune was earned, he returned and reconstructed his family house and tomb, which both lay in ruins. He died having his worthy of emulation deeds recorded on a stone and leaving his property to his sons and grandsons. If we consider that Sophytos with all his family was actually Indian, his Philhellenism and Greek erudition is in fact astonishing. The poem, which was probably written by himself, according to Bernard and Rougemont, reveals his passionate attachment to Greek culture, as evidenced by the literary qualities of the poem, in which he used all of the Greek epigrammatic resources. 37 Most awe-inspiring is the fact that Sophytos used in his inscription the form of an acrostic poem. According to Pinault (Bernard et al. 2004: 257 f.), the use of the acrostic is an Indian element referring to the figurative methods used in classical Indian poetry (kaˉvya) known as citra.38 However, in my opinion, there is no need to recourse to the Indian models, because the Greek model in this case is sufficient to justify the use of this form of expression by the author, who after all declared himself his Greek education. Mairs paid much attention to this inscription. In her article “Sopha grammata: Acrostichs in Greek and Latin Inscriptions from Arachosia, Nubia and Libya” (2012), she gave another example of the use of the form of an acrostic in a Greek verse by non-Greek, Paccius Maximus, Roman cavalry officer, who dedicated two Greek acrostic inscriptions at Kalabsha in Lower Nubia.39 Mairs argued that both Sophytos and Paccius Maximus, who lived at the fringes of the Greco-Roman world, used sophisticated Greek verse and acrostics to claim and defend their identities, of which Greek high culture was an important element. According to her, Sophytos repeated the acrostic in a separate column in order to draw the attention of the passers-by to his erudition. In her opinion, Sophytos is appealing to an audience, which strongly identifies itself with Greek culture. If we keep in mind the fact that Alexandria in Arachosia was one of the cities founded or renamed by Alexander the Great, and that it is the place, where edicts of As´oka were inscribed in Greek language, we can easily come to the conclusion that the Greek language and culture were highly influential in this area. In another article “The Hellenistic Far East: From the Oikoumene to the Community” (2013), Mairs proposed to view the inscription and its author as products of a local community at Alexandria in Arachosia, formed in the course of changes in governments, between Persian, Greek, and Indian overlords.

Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom  117

However, she concluded that Arachosia, as opposed to Hellenistic Bactria, was geographically, culturally, and politically most associated with India. Indeed, the five excavation campaigns conducted from 1974 to 1978 by an English team, which allowed them to set major chronological phases of the history of the site, failed to discover any major buildings from the period of Greek dominance in this city. And, therefore, they concluded that the Greeks probably did not build a new city, but only imposed their dominance on the existing one, which was founded by the Achaemenids (cf. McNicoll and Ball 1996: 394 ff.). However, the conclusion about Indian affinities of Alexandria in Arachosia does not seem so unambiguous, at least in the light of the presented epigraphic evidence. In the chapter of her book The Hellenistic Far East. Archaeology, Language and Identity in Greek Central Asia, which is dedicated to the inscriptions of Sophytos and Heliodorus (2014: 102 ff.), Mairs also drew attention to the problem of the position of the Greeks in the var․na and jaˉti systems of ancient India and its implications for the study of ethnicity in the Hellenistic Far East (HFE). In her opinion, the treaty between Seleucus and Chandragupta and the granted right of ἐπιγαμία may have been designed to guarantee the civic rights of the Greeks in Arachosia under the Mauryan rule. This is a major issue from the point of view of the present book because it reveals the everyday concerns faced by the Greeks in India. As shown in Chapter 1, section on the term Yavana, the Greeks in India were recognized as outcasts, which could constitute the cause not only of a lack of esteem, but also problems in dealing with some vital activities. As already mentioned, the name Sophytos (or Sophytes) appears also on a series of Greek coins from the Hellenistic Far East, from the turn of the fourth and the third century BC, and thus a century and a half earlier than the discussed inscription. These coins are a series of silver coins of various standards. Early emissions of these coins imitate Athenian owls, also with an eagle instead of an owl. Later emissions with the name in the genitive (ΣΩΦΥΤΟΥ), a cock and a caduceus engraved on the reverse, and a helmeted head of Athena or a male head in the helmet on the obverse, often imitate the coins of Seleucus I. Some early scholars associated these coins with Greek settlers in Bactria under the Achaemenid Empire before the conquest of Alexander the Great,40 and others with Indian Prince Sopeithes, a contemporary of Alexander41 (cf. Bopearachchi 1996: 19 ff.). However, Bopearachchi, in his article “Sophytes, the Enigmatic Ruler of Central Asia” (1996), argued that these coins were struck towards the very end of the fourth century BC by a governor of a satrapy in the Oxus valley, who benefited from the period, which followed Alexander’s death, and became independent ruler. In his opinion, these coins were precursors of the Bactrian issues of the Seleucids. But to me, it seems little justified that the coins of Indian satrap were to be precursors of Seleucid coinage. The location of this satrapy in the Oxus valley was also questioned by Bernard (Bernard et al. 2004: 289 ff.), who argued that these coins were struck south of the Hindukush. He considered two possible locations, namely, Alexandria on the Caucasus (satrapy of the Paropamisadae), where Sophytos could have succeeded Oxyartes, and Alexandria in Arachosia,

118  Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom

which is more likely taking account of the Indian origin of Sophytos and his Greek-style coinage. As a proof of this thesis, Bernard quoted inter alia, the peace concluded between Chandragupta and Seleucus I, under which Arachosia was ceded to the Mauryas. He suggested that Sophytos might have been the representative of the Mauryan ruler in Kandahar, who struck his Greek-style coinage inspired by the Greek population in Arachosia, a remnant of the garrison left there by Alexander.42 He further argued that both, Sophytos the satrap and Sophytos the merchant, belong to the same family of Indian notables in Kandahar. However, in my opinion, Greek or mixed descent of both cannot be completely ruled out. After all, both, Sophytos the satrap and Sophytos the merchant, express their Greek affinities, one by his coinage and the other by his inscription. What is more, we know that the Greeks and the Macedonians were present in Arachosia and that they intermarried with Indian women.43 Moreover, the fact that the Greek coins of Sophytos imitated the coins of Seleucus I gives witness rather to his relationship with the Greek ruler than with the Mauryas. Also, Hollis (2011: 114) noticed that the name Sophytos “certainly has a Greek air”. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that Sophytos the satrap was at least half-Greek. He may have owed his Indian name to one of his parents. Perhaps Sophytos the merchant was his relative, but not necessarily. This name could become popular in the region of Arachosia. Thus, the image of this region, which emerges from the inscription analysis, shows complex Greco–Indian relations and a lack of clear cultural boundaries. We can see that the Greek culture was very strong, but the ethnic boundaries were not so clear.

The Heliodotus inscription44 With the inscription of Heliodotus (Figure 3.5), we move again north, thus returning to the area of Ai Khanoum from which we started this chapter and thus closing the brace. This Greek inscription45 was most probably discovered in the neighbourhood of Kulob (one hundred kilometres northeast of Ai Khanoum) in

FIGURE 3.5

The Heliodotus inscription (a section).

Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom  119

Tajikistan on the Yakhsu river (a right tributary of Panj). It is dated to ca. 200 BC. It is engraved on a block of stone, which was probably a part of an altar erected in a sacred grove (ἄλσος) dedicated to Zeus. It is a dedication of this altar by Heliodotus to the goddess Hestia. Heliodotus built this altar and honoured it with sacrifices to ensure the safety of Euthydemus and his victorious son, Demetrius.46 This dedication is written in Greek verse, namely in trochaic tetrameters. As noted by Rougemont (Bernard et al. 2004: 336), this metre was used rarely by poets after the fourth century, and very sporadically in poems engraved on stone, while it is often found in tragedy and especially in the classical Attic comedy. As noticed by Rougemont (Bernard et al. 2004: 335), this inscription is important as a future possible chronological point of reference for the history of lapidary writing in the HFE, because it mentions two easily identifiable GrecoBactrian rulers, Euthydemus and Demetrius. From the last three verses of the inscription, it can be concluded that Euthydemus was still alive and reigned at the time of its execution. According to Rougemont, the expression πάντων μέγιστος βασιλέων, used here to describe Euthydemus, irresistibly evokes the title βασιλεὺς μέγας given to Antiochus III, and hence this epithet might look like a response, somewhat flattering, to the Greco-Bactrian ruler. Also, Holt (2012: 125) argued that this title is related to Euthydemus’ success over Antiochus in 206 BC after the siege of Bactra.47 As is clear from the inscription, Demetrius has also already achieved some glorious victories, and thus he is called καλλίνικος, which is a simple laudatory epithet, and not an official royal title, because it differs from the title Ἀνίκητος assigned to Demetrius on Agathocles’ commemorative coins (cf. Holt 2012: 125). The epithet καλλίνικος is often associated with Heracles. In this context, it is indeed striking that Heracles appears on the coins of both, Euthydemus and Demetrius. However, according to Bernard (Bernard et al. 2004: 348), this epithet may refer to historical reality, namely, to the beginning of the conquest of India by Demetrius acting as a crown prince in this early phase concerning the re-conquest by Demetrius of Paropamisadae and Arachosia being a preliminary step in the penetration of the Greek armies in the Indus basin. However, it has to be stressed that Demetrius probably never crossed the Indus and therefore he cannot be regarded as the conqueror of India. This problem will be discussed in more detail in the following chapter. Another hypothesis concerning the epithet καλλίνικος put forward by Bernard (Bernard et al. 2004: 354) is that it was the headquarters of Bactria, where Demetrius as a young man earned this title. Because the real motives are difficult to guess, at this point, it should be concluded that the epithets of the rulers used in this inscription can be read in two ways, as a reflection of historical reality, or as a grandiloquent tone of the dedicator, who equated Euthydemus with the greatest of all kings, and Demetrius with Heracles. The inscription of Heliodotus is also important as proof of the existence in the neighbourhood of Kulob around 200 BC of a Greek-speaking community. There had to be some Greeks, who attended the shrine of Zeus, burned their

120  Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom

sacrifices at the altar of Hestia, and could read this dedication. As noted by Rougemont (Bernard et al. 2004: 336), the images, the language, and the syntax of the inscription of Heliodotus are less scholarly than those of Sophytos, but they reveal a strong Greek culture, usually shared between the poet and his readers. In his opinion, this culture is probably more “classic” than the culture of the poet from Kandahar. This inscription might very well have been engraved in any Greek city of the Eastern Mediterranean.48 As concluded by Bernard (Bernard et al. 2004: 356), with the inscription of Heliodotus, we learn that in the royal courts and among the elites of colonial society Greek poetry was practised with a mastery of scholarly language equal to that found at this time in the centres of Hellenistic Mediterranean. This inscription, together with other texts found in Ai Khanoum, where readers could find manuscripts of theatrical plays and philosophical dialogue, bears witness to the literary culture of the Bactrian Greeks. Also, the presence of Hestia in the inscription of Heliodotus is significant, because this goddess represents the unity of the family and of the state gathered around the fire, and thus, indicates the Greek community gathering at sacrifices. The Greek presence in this area is also confirmed by compelling archaeological evidence (Bernard et al. 2004: 341). The excavations in the vicinity of Kulob (e.g. Saksanokhor near Farkhor) revealed some Greco-Bactrian architecture and ceramic similar to that found in Ai Khanoum. Also, a treasure of more than 800 silver coins, covering all reigns of the kings, who ruled in Bactria from Alexander to Eucratides I, was assigned to this provenance by Bopearachchi (1999: 34  ff.). As argued by Bernard, this evidence suggests the existence of a Greek settlement, both an administrative centre and a fortified point of support, an outpost of the great military base of Ai Khanoum, in charge of monitoring the route into Bactria provided by the valley of the Qizil Su to the nomads. This also strengthens the theory of constant threat from the nomads, as opposed to the theory of a sudden attack of barbarian hordes. It remains to say a few words about the dedicator of the inscription. According to Bernard (Bernard et al. 2004: 352), Heliodotus was a royal officer, belonging to the entourage of the sovereign, one of his “friends”. Probably at the time, when he dedicated the altar, he occupied a high position, such as governor of the Province of Kulob or of the Province of Ai Khanoum. Also, Holt (2012: 124) noticed that Heliodotus’ concern about Euthydemus and his son suggests that he was apparently strongly associated with the royal family and enjoyed considerable significance. Certain king Heliodotus is also known from a unique bronze coin found in Jammu, Kashmir (Holt 2012: 125). This square bilingual coin shows the same type Heracles, as on Demetrius’ coins. According to Holt, perhaps this coin belongs to one of the descendants of the author of our inscription, who established a small, ephemeral Indo-Greek kingdom near Kashmir. Otherwise, the name Heliodotus does not occur in the HFE. It should not be mistaken with the name of Heliodorus, who dedicated a pillar near Besnagar in Vidis´a to the god Vaˉsudeva (Salomon 1998: 265 ff.). This Heliodorus, son of Dion, from

Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom  121

Taxila, was a Greek ambassador (yonaduˉta) of the Indo-Greek king Antialcidas to the court of the S´ un˙ga king Bhaˉgabhadra. This inscription is discussed at length by Mairs with a comparison to the inscription of Sophytos (2014: 117 ff.). It was engraved on a Garud․a pillar of Vaˉsudeva, which was erected in central India in the times of the Indo-Greek kingdom. The inscription is written in central-towestern epigraphic Praˉkrit, in Braˉhmˉı script. It provides an interesting comparandum to the inscription of Heliodotus, because we see here a Greek (Yona), who calls himself bhagavata, a devotee of Vi․sn ․u. We cannot conclude on the basis of the inscription, whether Heliodorus was a sincere Vai․sn․avite convert. The inscription could be a purely political move dictated by the need to obtain an ally for Antialcidas. Mairs (2014: 11), in her analysis of Heliodorus’ motives, pointed to the so-called code switching. In her opinion, Heliodorus is most likely to have been able to switch fluently between languages and cultures for professional reasons. In another place, Mairs (2014: 128) suggested that Vaˉsudeva-K․r․sn․ a might have been familiar for Heliodorus, because this deity was perhaps identified with “Indian Heracles” of Megasthenes’ account. However, the problem of the identification of the “Indian Heracles” is far from settled and it will be discussed in Chapter 5, devoted to Gandhaˉra. Regardless of the motives of the author, this inscription may serve as a proof that in India the dominant language, culture, and religion was Indian and that it was somewhat irresistible for the newcomers. It was advantageous for them to switch on their “Indian” identity. The obvious conclusion is that while the Greeks in Bactria tried to preserve their ethnic distinctiveness: cultural, linguistic, and religious, in India we find only traces of Greek names, and besides, nothing particularly Greek. Perhaps, this was due to the fact that the Indo-Greek descendants of Greeks and Macedonians from Bactria had lost regular contact with the Greek world in the West. Probably some contact was maintained, but rather sporadic and mainly commercial. Whereas the substitute of Greece, created by their ancestors, was no longer living milieu de mémoire, but less compelling lieu de mémoire. Moreover, the Greek domination in Bactria was quite stable, while in India rather doubtful and evanescent. Perhaps the Indian culture was so strong that while in Bactria it was easier to find a space for the creation of the Greek world, India was too deeply rooted in its own culture. This disparity was also noticed by Mairs (2014: 13), and, as she rightly suggested, it explains the apparent conflict between Tarn and Narain, who were both right in their own way, for a different region and chronological period. Tarn might have perceived the history of Greco-Bactrian kingdom as a “lost chapter of Hellenistic history” (Tarn 1938: xiii), because “The Greek kingdom of Bactria developed along the same lines as the other nascent states of the Hellenistic world: its ruling population, politic rhetoric, language, culture, and sense of its own origins are overtly and avowedly Greek” (Mairs 2014: 13). But, on the other hand, Narain was also entitled to conclude that “their history is part of the history of India and not of the Hellenistic states; they came, they saw, but India conquered” (Narain 1957: 18), because “In the northern Indian territories that Greco-Bactrian kings subsequently conquered, over

122  Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom

time, Greek states ceased to exist as political entities, and the Greek language and culture disappeared” (Mairs 2014: 13). This is an important difference, when we consider the Greco–Buddhist relations, because it may explain the susceptibility or apparent susceptibility of the Indo-Greeks to the teachings of the Buddha, in contrast to the inhabitants of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom, who evinced rather Greek cultural and religious affinities.

Notes 1 There is no need to submit a detailed bibliography for the study of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom, because it has been collected by Mairs in her continuously updated (8 Supplements so far) survey entitled The Archaeology of the Hellenistic Far East: A Survey. Bactria, Central Asia and the Indo-Iranian Borderlands, c. 300 BC – AD 100 (Mairs 2011–2022). This invaluable source, originally being written as a bibliography for a PhD thesis, published as The Hellenistic Far East. Archaeology, Language and Identity in Greek Central Asia (Mairs 2014), has now become a separate project, of which purpose is to gather a complete bibliography for the study of the Hellenistic Far East (HFE); the term was coined by Haussoulier as Extrême-Orient grec (1903) and popularized by Canali de Rossi as Estremo Oriente greco (2004). Apart from the bibliographical survey consisting of general publications, as well as positions relating to individual archaeological sites and written sources, Mairs provides a brief overview of the available historical tradition and presentation of several approaches to culture and identity in the HFE. 2 For a detailed account cf. e.g. Tarn (1938), Sykes (1940), Narain (1957), Woodcock (1966), Holt (1988, 1999, 2005, 2012), Kalita (2005), and Coloru (2009), to mention only a few. 3 Just. 41.4.5: “Eodem tempore etiam Theodotus, mille urbium Bactrianarum praefectus, defecit regemque se appellari iussit, quod exemplum secuti totius Orientis populi a Macedonibus defecere.” Cf. also Trogus Prol. 41. 4 For the thousand cities of Bactria cf. Leriche (2007). 5 Strab. 11.11.1: τῆς δὲ Βακτρίας μέρη μέν τινα τῇ Ἀρίᾳ παραβέβληται πρὸς ἄρκτον, τὰ πολλὰ δ᾽ ὑπέρκειται πρὸς ἕω· πολλὴ δ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ πάμφορος πλὴν ἐλαίου. τοσοῦτον δὲ ἴσχυσαν οἱ ἀποστήσαντες Ἕλληνες αὐτὴν διὰ τὴν ἀρετὴν τῆς χώρας ὥστε τῆς τε Ἀριανῆς ἐπεκράτουν καὶ τῶν Ἰνδῶν, ὥς φησιν Ἀπολλόδωρος ὁ Ἀρταμιτηνός […]. 6 Just. 41.6.5: “Unde cum se reciperet, a filio, quem socium regni fecerat, in itinere interficitur, qui non dissimulato parricidio, velut hostem, non patrem interfecisset, et per sanguinem eius currum egit et corpus abici insepultum iussit.” 7 I discuss here only the “Greek” Ai Khanoum, because this site may be dated to much earlier period (cf. Lerner 2003). 8 Cf. Ptol. Geogr. 6.12.6; cf. Lerner (2013). 9 The site was discovered much earlier, in 1926 by Barthoux from DAFA (Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan). 10 For the history of the Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan cf. Mairs (2014: 16 ff.). 11 Kipling’s novel “The Man Who Would Be King” (1888) takes place in Kaˉfiristaˉn. It was adapted into a movie released in 1975. 12 According to Nora, “There can be lieux in three senses of the word – material, symbolic, and functional” (Nora 1989: 18 f.). 13 Cf. Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum II-VIII (Guillaume 1983; Francfort 1984; Bernard 1985; Leriche 1986; Guillaume and Rougeulle 1987; Veuve 1987; Rapin 1992); Bopearachchi’s article “Contribution of Greeks to the Art and Culture of Bactria and India: New Archaeological Evidence” (2005); catalogues, e.g. Catalogue of the National Museum of Afghanistan (Tissot 2006), Afghanistan: Crossroads of the Ancient World (Hiebert

Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom  123

14

15 16

17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31 32

33

and Cambon 2011); for a broader archaeological perspective cf. Allchin and Hammond (1978), The Crossroads of Asia: Transformations in Image and Symbol (Errington et al. 1992) and several articles in After Alexander: Central Asia before Islam (Cribb and Herrmann 2007). IK Estremo oriente 381: Τριβαλλὸς καὶ Στράτων Στράτωνος Ἑρμῆι, Ἡρακλεῖ. Cf. Robert (1968), Canali De Rossi (2004: 20 ff.), and Merkelbach and Stauber (2005: 7 ff.). IK Estremo oriente 382: ἀνδρῶν τοι σοφὰ ταῦτα παλαιοτέρων ἀνάκει[τα]ι ῥήματα ἀριγνώτων Πυθοὶ ἐν ἠγαθέαι· ἔνθεν ταῦτ[α] Κλέαρχος ἐπιφραδέως ἀναγράψας εἵσατο τηλαυγῆ Κινέου ἐν τεμένει. IK Estremo oriente 383. IK Estremo oriente 384. IK Estremo oriente 384: παῖς ὢν κόσμιος γίνου, ἡβῶν ἐγκρατής, μέσος δίκαιος, πρεσβύτης εὔβουλος, τελευτῶν ἄλυπος. IK Estremo oriente 360: τοῦ μικροῦ καὶ τῆς μικρᾶς. IK Estremo oriente 361: Λυσανίου Ἰσιδώρας. IK Estremo oriente 362: Κόσμου. First published by Rapin et al. (1987) and later by Canali De Rossi (2004: 270, no. 458). It was also discussed by Hollis (2011). First published by Rapin (Rapin et al. 1987), with the second revised edition in Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum VIII (Rapin 1992). For images and further bibliography cf. Rapin’s website: . Parente (1992) attributed this text to Aristotle’s Sophist. In this context it is interesting to note the existence of administrative texts of the fourth and fifth centuries AD written in the Bactrian language, in an alphabet based on the Greek script. As noted by Sims-Williams, “The conquest of Bactria by Alexander the Great in the 4th century B.C. had an enduring influence on its culture and administration and later on by the use of the Greek alphabet for writing Bactrian” (Sims-Williams 2002: 228). Cf. also Sims-Williams (1996). For the confirmation of the place of Greek language in early Ku․saˉn ․a Bactria cf. Burstein (2010). According to Hollis (Rea et al. 1994: 275), both Eumenes and the second Antimachus were the sons of Antimachus Theos. Cf. bronze statuette of Cybele on a cart drawn by lions, second half of the second century AD, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. IK Estremo oriente 368. The inscription of the son of Aristonax was first published by Fraser (1979), later in SEG 30:1664, by Merkelbach & Stauber (1998–2004: IV 470), and by Rougemont (2012b: 165 f.). Greek text and the English translation of this inscription are given in the Appendix II. Before publishing editio princeps of this inscription a brief summary together with French translation were given by Bernard and Rougemont (2003). The inscription was first published by Bernard (Bernard et al. 2004) together with the inscription of Heliodotus, later in SEG 54:1569, by Merkelbach & Stauber (2005: 17 ff.), and recently by Rougemont (2012b: 173 ff.). Greek text and the English translation of this inscription are given in Appendix II.

124  Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom





Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom  125

Bernard, P. and Rougemont, G. (2003) “Une nouvelle inscription grecque de l’Afghanistan”, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 147(3), pp. 1159–1161. Bivar, A.D.H. (1950) “The Death of Eucratides in Medieval Tradition”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 82(1–2), pp. 7–13. Bopearachchi, O. (1996) “Sophytes, the Enigmatic Ruler of Central Asia”, Nomismatika Chronika, 15, pp. 19–32. Bopearachchi, O. (1999) “La circulation et la production monetaires en Asie Centrale et dans l’Inde du Nord-Ouest (avant et apres la conquete d’Alexandre)”, Indologica Taurinensia, 25, pp. 15–121. Bopearachchi, O. (2005) “Contribution of Greeks to the Art and Culture of Bactria and India: New Archaeological Evidence”, Indian Historical Review, 32(1), pp. 103–125. Burstein, S.M. (2010) “New Light on the Fate of Greek in Ancient Central and South Asia”, Ancient West & East, 9, pp. 181–192. Canali De Rossi, F. (2004) Iscrizioni dello estremo oriente greco: un repertorio / a cura di Filippo Canali de Rossi. Bonn: Habelt (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien: 65). Coloru, O. (2009) Da Alessandro a Menandro. Il Regno Greco di Battriana. Pisa – Roma: Fabrizio Serra editore. Cribb, J. and Herrmann, G. (2007) After Alexander: Central Asia before Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Errington, E., Cribb, J. and Claringbull, M. (1992) The Crossroads of Asia: Transformation in Image and Symbol in the Art of Ancient Afghanistan and Pakistan. Cambridge: Ancient India and Iran Trust. Francfort, H.-P. (1984) Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum. III. Le sanctuaire du temple à niches indentées. 2. Les trouvailles. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard (Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan: 27). Fraser, P.M. (1979) “The Son of Aristonax at Kandahar”, Afghan Studies, 2, pp. 9–21. Guillaume, O. (1983) Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum. II. Les propylées de la rue principale. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard (Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan: 26). Guillaume, O. and Rougeulle, A. (1987) Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum. VII. Les petits objets. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard (Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan: 31). Halbwachs, M. (1992) On Collective Memory; Edited, Translated, and with An Introduction by Lewis A. Coser. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (The Heritage of sociology). Haussoulier, B. (1903) “Inscriptions grecques de l’extrême-orient grec”, in Naville, E. and Perrot, G. (eds.) Mélanges Perrot: recueil de mémoires concernant l’archéologie classique, la littérature et l’histoire anciennes, dédié à Georges Perrot à l’occasion du 50e. anniversaire de son entrée à l’École normale supérieure. Paris: A. Fontemoing, pp. 155–159. Hiebert, F. and Cambon, P. (2011) Afghanistan: Crossroads of the Ancient World. London: The British Museum Press. Hollis, A.S. (1996) “Addendum to J.R. Rea, R.C. Senior and A.S. Hollis, ‘A Tax Receipt from Hellenistic Bactria’, ZPE 104, 1994, 261–280”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 110, p. 164. Hollis, A.S. (2011) “Greek Letters From Hellenistic Bactria”, in Obbink, D. and Rutherford, R. (eds.) Culture in Pieces: Essays on Ancient Texts in Honour of Peter Parsons. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 104–118. Holt, F.L. (1988) Alexander the Great and Bactria: The Formation of a Greek Frontier in Central Asia. Leiden: Brill (Mnemosyne: bibliotheca classica batava. Supplementa: 104).

126  Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom

Holt, F.L. (1999) Thundering Zeus: The Making of Hellenistic Bactria. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. Holt, F.L. (2005) Into the Land of Bones: Alexander the Great in Afghanistan. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Holt, F.L. (2012) Lost World of the Golden King: In Search of Ancient Afghanistan. Berkeley: University of California Press (Hellenistic culture and society: 53). Kalita, S. (2005) Grecy w Baktrii i w Indiach. Wybrane problemy ich historii. Kraków: Historia Iagellonica. Leriche, P. (1986) Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum. V. Les remparts et les monuments associés. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard (Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan: 29). Leriche, P. (2007) “Bactria, Land of a Thousand Cities”, in Cribb, J. and Herrmann, G. (eds,) After Alexander: Central Asia Before Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, pp. 121–154. Lerner, J.D. (2003) “The Aï Khanoum Philosophical Papyrus”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 142, pp. 45–51. Lerner, J.D. (2010) “Revising the Chronologies of the Hellenistic Colonies of SamarkandMarakanda (Afrasiab II–III) and Aï Khanoum (Northeastern Afghanistan)”, Anabasis. Studia Classica et Orientalia, 1, pp. 58–79. Lerner, J.D. (2011) “A Reappraisal of the Economic Inscriptions and Coin Finds From Aï Khanoum”, Anabasis. Studia Classica et Orientalia, 2, pp. 103–147. Lerner, J.D. (2013) “Alexandria Oxiana”, in The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Lyonnet, B. (1998) “Les Grecs, les Nomades et l’indépendance de la Sogdiane, d’après l’occupation comparée d’Aï Khanoum et de Marakanda au cours des derniers siècles avant notre ère”, Bulletin of the Asia Institute, 12, pp. 141–159. Mairs, R. (2011–2022) The Archaeology of the Hellenistic Far East. A Survey. Bactria, Central Asia and the Indo-Iranian Borderlands, c. 300 BC–AD 100. Oxford: BAR: British Archaeological Reports International Series 2196. Mairs, R. (2012) “Sopha Grammata: Greek Acrostichs in Inscriptions from Arachosia, Lower Nubia and Libya”, in Kwapisz, J., Petrain, D., and Szymanski, M. (eds.) The Muse at Play: Riddles and Wordplay in Greek and Latin. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde. (305). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., pp. 277–304. Mairs, R. (2013) “The Hellenistic Far East: From the Oikoumene to the Community”, in Stavrianopoulou, E. (ed.) Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period. Narrations, Practices, and Images. Leiden – Boston: Brill, pp. 365–388. Mairs, R. (2014) The Hellenistic Far East. Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia. Oakland: University of California Press. McNicoll, A. and Ball, W. (1996) Excavations at Kandahar, 1974 and 1975: The First Two Seasons at Shahr-i Kohna (Old Kandahar) Conducted by the British Institute of Afghan Studies. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum. Merkelbach, R. and Stauber, J. (2005) Jenseits des Euphrat: Griechische Inschriften: ein epigraphisches Lesebuch / zusammengestellt, übersetzt und erklrt von Reinhold Merkelbach und Josef Stauber. München: K.G. Saur. Merkelbach, R. and Stauber, J. (1998–2004) Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten. Stuttgart: B.G. Teubner. Narain, A.K. (1957) The Indo-Greeks. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Nora, P. (1989) “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire”, Representations, 26, pp. 7–24.

Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom  127

Oikonomides, A.N. (1984) “The τέμενος of Alexander the Great at Alexandria in Arachosia (Old Kandahar)”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 56, pp. 145–147. Parente, M.I. (1992) “Il papiro filosofico di Aï Khanoum”, in Olschki, L.S. (ed.) Studi su codici e papiri filosofici. Platone, Aristotele, Ierocle. Firenze, pp. 169–188. Privitera, I. (2011) “Aristotle and the Papyri: The Direct Tradition”, Quaestio, 11, pp. 115–140. Rapin, C. (1992) Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum. VIII, La trésorerie du palais hellénistique d’Aï Khanoum: l’apogée et la chute du royaume grec de Bactriane. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard (Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan: 33). Rapin, C. (2007) “Nomads and the Shaping of Central Asia: From the Early Iron Age to the Kushan Period”, in Cribb, J. and Herrmann, G. (eds.) After Alexander: Central Asia Before Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, pp. 29–72. Rapin, C. and Grenet, F. (1983) “Inscriptions économiques de la trésorerie hellénistique d’Aï Khanoum. L’onomastique iranienne à Aï Khanoum”, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, 107(1), pp. 315–381. Rapin, C., Hadot, P. and Cavallo, G. (1987) “Les textes littéraires grecs de la Trésorerie d’Aï Khanoum”, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, 111(1), pp. 225–266. Rea, J., Senior, R.C. and Hollis, A.S. (1994) “A Tax Receipt From Hellenistic Bactria”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 104, pp. 261–280. Robert, L. (1968) “De Delphes à l’Oxus, inscriptions grecques nouvelles de la Bactriane”, Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, (3), p. 416. Rougemont, G. (2012a) “Hellenism in Central Asia and the North-West of the IndoPakistan Sub-Continent: The Epigraphic Evidence”, Ancient Civilizations From Scythia to Siberia, 18, pp. 175–182. Rougemont, G. (2012b) Inscriptions grecques d’Iran et d’Asie centrale, Corpus inscriptionum Iranicarum, Part II: Inscriptions of the Seleucid and Parthian Periods of Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. I: Inscriptions in Non-Iranian Languages, 1. London: School of Oriental and African Studies. Rougemont, G. (2012c) “Les inscriptions grecques d’Iran et d’Asie centrale. Bilinguismes, interférences culturelles, colonisation”, Journal des savants, 1, pp. 3–27. Salomon, R. (1998) Indian Epigraphy. A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages. New York – Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sims-Williams, N. (1996) “Nouveaux documents sur l’histoire et la langue de la Bactriane”, Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 140(2), pp. 633–654. Sims-Williams, N. (2002) “Ancient Afghanistan and its invaders: Linguistic evidence from the Bactrian documents and inscriptions”, in Sims-Williams, N. (ed.) IndoIranian Languages and Peoples. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 225–242. Sykes, P.M. (1940) A History of Afghanistan, Vol. I. London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd. Tarn, W.W. (1938) The Greeks in Bactria and India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tissot, F. (2006) Catalogue of the National Museum of Afghanistan, 1931–1985. Paris: ­UNESCO Publishing. Veuve, S. (1987) Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum. VI, Le gymnase: Architecture, Céramique, Sculpture. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard (Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan: 30).

128  Between As´oka and Menander: Notes on the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom

Wheeler, M. (1968) Flames Over Persepolis: Turning Point in History. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Wolski, J. (1969) “Die Iranier und das griechisch-baktrische Königreich. Wege der Forschoung. Band XCI”, in Altheim, F. and Rehork, J. (eds.) Der Hellenismus in Mittelasien. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchges, pp. 255–274. Woodcock, G. (1966) The Greeks in India. London: Faber and Faber Ltd.

4 MENANDER AND THE INDO-GREEK KINGDOM

The following chapter is devoted to Menander, the most famous Indo-Greek ruler and at the same time, the most famous Greek who converted to Buddhism. He is the main character in the Buddhist dialogue Milindapañha. This fact consistently surprises the researchers. Therefore, this chapter is mainly devoted to an examination of the dialogue and the role of Menander in it. In addition, the issue of Menander’s conversion to Buddhism is considered in the context of the analysis of other extant sources on Menander, such as the Bajaur reliquary inscription, the Reh inscription engraved on a lin˙ga, and Menander’s coinage – among the archaeological sources; Yuga Puraˉ․na and Bodhisattvaˉvadaˉnakalpalata of K․semendra – among the literary sources. The chapter ends with a description of Gandhaˉra (a key region for Greco-Buddhist relations) in the time of Menander.

To whose history does Menander belong? A reflection on the state of research on Menander and the Milindapañha The bibliography on Menander I Soter is very difficult to compile because of its scattered character. There is no single monograph devoted to this ruler. The lack of a monograph on Menander may perhaps be justified by the fact that Menander cannot be unambiguously classified either as a Greek or as an Indian ruler. Indian researchers passionately write monographs on As´oka, while European researchers focus their efforts on the study of the history of Alexander. While the Indo-Greek ruler, about whom Apollodorus of Artemita (cited in Strabo)1 said that he conquered more peoples than Alexander, remains in the shadow of these great figures. The biggest problem in writing a coherent history of Menander and his kingdom lies in reconciling the conclusions from many different types of sources: numismatic, archaeological, and literary: Greek, Indian, and Chinese. Specialists DOI: 10.4324/9781003258575-5

130  Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom

of one field may draw valid conclusions from one type of sources but may face problems trying to reconcile these findings with information from other fields. Therefore, in many respects, the history of the Indo-Greek kingdom is a history shrouded in the mist of speculation. Although the existence of the Indo-Greek kingdom is confirmed by many independent sources, still the exact time and circumstances of its creation, as well as its geographical scope are not conclusively established. The object of the greatest interest among the researchers is the Buddhist dialogue Milindapañha. Because Milinda, the title character of this dialogue, has been identified with the Indo-Greek ruler Menander, the text has been interpreted by some researchers in the context of Hellenistic influence. Weber (1890: 927) suggested that the text may be associated with the Platonic dialogues. However, the inventiveness of early European researchers found its climax in the theory by Tarn (1938) postulating an existence of a short Greek text entitled Questions of Menander, which supposedly constituted the original version, on which the preserved Paˉli text is based.2 Tarn based his hypothesis on a comparison of the text of the Milindapañha with the Letter of Pseudo-Aristeas. In his opinion, the similarity between the two texts can be justified only by proving a common prototype. But, currently, most of the researchers depart from such comparisons and interpret the text in the context of the Asian milieu (cf. Kubica 2014). After the announcement by Specht and Lévi (1892) of the existence in Nanjio’s Catalogue (1883) of the Chinese version of the text,3 which seems to be independent of the preserved Paˉli version, it became clear that both versions are translations from a common original, which must have been written in some Indian language. Because the preserved versions of the text are not the original, the researchers tried to draw conclusions about the original text on the basis of the comparison of the extant versions. Currently, it is believed that the original was written in Gaˉndhaˉrˉı , a northwestern Praˉkrit from the Middle Indo-Aˉryan group, and can therefore serve as proof of the great importance of the region of Gandhaˉra for the propagation of Buddhism. The first researcher, who set for himself the task of comparing the Milindapañha with other Buddhist texts, was Rhys Davids. In the Introduction to the first volume of his translation of the text, he enumerated the passages from the Tripi․taka quoted by the author of the Milindapañha (1890: xxvii ff.) and concluded that the Paˉli canon, namely the Vinaya Pi․taka (without the Parivaˉra), the Sutta Pit․aka (the four great Nikaˉyas, or collections), and the Abhidhamma Pi․taka, were certainly known to the author; and from the Khuddaka Nikaˉya (the minor collection), it is only clear that he knew the Khuddaka Paˉ․tha, the Dhammapada collection of sacred verses, the Sutta Nipaˉta, the Theragaˉthaˉ and Therigaˉthaˉ, the Gaˉtakas, and the Kariyaˉ Pit․aka (Rhys Davids 1890: xxxix). The only passage, which disagrees with canonical representation, is the location of Avˉı ki hell outside the earth, but according to Rhys Davids (1890: xl, 9), it is an interpolation. In the Introduction to the second volume, he admits that he failed to finish the task because of his illness,4 and so he limited his comparison to one text, namely the Kathaˉvatthu. Despite

Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom  131

this apparent failure, he was able to interest a broader group of researchers with the text of the Milindapañha and its position in relation to the Buddhist canon, as well as with the comparison between the preserved versions of the text. French researchers have the greatest achievements in this regard. Demiéville (1924) described the history of the Chinese versions of the dialogue, made a more accurate comparison of the Pāli and the Chinese versions, gathered the information about Menander and Naˉgasena as preserved in other Indian sources, made an assessment of the doctrinal value of the work, and translated the Suˉtra of bhik․su Naˉgasena5 into French. Later, Fussman (1993), inspired by Demiéville’s “meticulous work”6, summed up his conclusions in the context of Greek literary evidence, as well as Indian literary, epigraphic, and numismatic evidence. The Milindapañha also found its development in the history of Pāli literature, first written by Law (2000: 359 ff.)7 and later by von Hinüber (1996: 82 ff.). Law included the dialogue in the “extra-canonical works”, which, by von Hinüber, are referred to as “para-canonical texts”. However, it is worth mentioning that Salomon in his book entitled Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandhaˉra (Salomon et al. 1999) suggested the existence of a Gaˉndhaˉrˉı canon. If we assume the existence of such a canon, then perhaps Milindapañha was a part of it. As before, the text of the Milindapañha continues to attract the attention of researchers looking for evidence of Hellenism in Asia. Riddle of the presence of the Indo-Greek ruler in the Buddhist dialogue never ceases to amaze. But nowadays, thanks to much greater knowledge of Buddhist literature, the hypotheses drawn by these researchers are more reasonable and based on the analysis of many types of available sources. In my opinion, some Greek influence on the text of the Milindapañha cannot be unequivocally excluded, as will be demonstrated later in the present chapter. But it should be noted that this dialogue is a text of Buddhist literature, and it should be interpreted as such.

The Greek sources on Menander Although the Milindapañha is an Indian work and should be analysed as such, Menander himself has also found his place in some Greek sources, which cannot be said for example about As´oka, as already mentioned in the chapter devoted to that ruler. The references to Menander are few, but still more numerous than those devoted to any other Greco-Bactrian or Indo-Greek ruler. Thus, we can conclude that he was a very prominent and famous figure. The first reference is preserved in Strabo, who described Bactria and the conquests by Greco-Bactrian rulers who grew powerful thanks to the fertility of the country.8 He quoted Apollodorus of Artemita who stated that they subdued more peoples than Alexander and that Menander had the greatest merit here. However, it should be noted that Apollodorus expressed his uncertainty as to this statement, adding a conditional sentence starting with εἴ: if he (sc. Menander) actually crossed the Hypanis (Beas) river towards the east and reached Imaus (Himalayas). And further, the author of τὰ Παρθικὰ explained that some

132  Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom

territories were subdued by him personally and others by Demetrius (τὰ μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸς, τὰ δὲ Δημήτριος), the son of Euthydemus, the king of the Bactrians. They took possession of Patalene and the rest of the coast, which is called the kingdom of Saraostus (Surastrene, modern Suraˉ․s․tra) and Sigerdis (probably the delta of the Indus river, modern Sindh) and they extended their empire as far as the Seres (silk merchants, here probably Chinese or Tocharian tribes)9 and the Phryni (probably located in the eastern part of the Tarim Basin). Elsewhere, Strabo10 stated that the eastern parts of India were described by those who, after Alexander, advanced beyond Hypanis to the Ganges river and Palibothra (Paˉ․taliputra, modern-day Patna). The author of the Geography does not speak explicitly of conquest, but the tone of the text and a reference to Alexander (μετ᾽ ἐκεῖνον, after him, sc. after Alexander) indicate a military expedition. Also, the Indian text Yuga Puraˉ․na (section of Gaˉrgıˉ Sam ˙ hitaˉ), which will be discussed further in the present chapter, describes the attacks of the Greeks (Yavanas) on Pañcaˉla, Mathuraˉ, Saˉketa, and Paˉ․taliputra (cf. Sircar 1963). However, there are not many reasons to believe that this expedition ended in permanent conquest. The main source for Menander which has survived to this day is his coins. Based on them, we can conclude that he ruled over a vast multicultural area for a long period of time (165/15511–130 BC). There is a mention in Periplus Maris Erythraei12 about Menander’s coins found in Barygaza (Bharukachcha, modern Broach in Gujarat), which was known in antiquity as a very significant port for overseas trade, and also as a part of the so-called Southern Route.13 But this reference does not testify to the expansion of the Indo-Greek kingdom in the area of today’s Gujarat, because the presence of these coins in the commercial port simply shows that these coins were used even 200 years after Menander, and therefore they were coins of good quality and minted in large numbers. Plutarch in his Praecepta gerendae reipublicae14 also mentioned the death of Menander in a camp and the distribution of his ashes among several cities which sought the right to the honour of possessing them. This anecdote ends with a description of building μνημεῖα (probably stuˉpas) commemorating the Indo-Greek king and thus fits in with the Buddhist legend of a Holy Man because similar stories are told about Buddha or about Piyadassi (As´oka). This anecdote indicates the great importance of Menander and his legend, which probably survived long after his death.

The archaeological sources on Menander Apart from a large quantity of coins among the archaeological sources on Menander, we have the Bajaur reliquary inscription and the Reh inscription engraved on a lin˙ga. A careful analysis of these sources allows us to verify some hasty assumptions of the researchers reading the dialogue Milindapañha. As I showed in the chapter entitled “Reading the Milindapañha. Indian historical sources and the Greeks in Bactria” (Kubica 2020) in the volume The Greco-Bactrian and Indo Greek World, it is not at all certain that the protagonist of the dialogue was Menander

Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom  133

I Soter and the suggestion that there were two rulers of the same name should be reconsidered. These sources have been discussed in the mentioned chapter; therefore, some details will be omitted here.

Bajaur reliquary inscription15 Probably the most important source that bears a reference to Menander and helps to date his reign is the steatite (soapstone) casket (Figure 4.1), discovered by tribal people digging the foundations of a fort in Shinko․t, in Bajaur territory, which is situated twenty miles west of the confluence of the Pañjkora and the Swaˉt rivers, on the Pakistani-Afghan border. It is said that the steatite casket contained a casket of silver, which in turn contained a casket of gold with some ashes inside. However, there is no trace of silver and gold reliquaries. And thus, Konow (1947) argued that the statement about silver and gold caskets and ashes encased in the steatite casket cannot be trusted and it may be a reflex of what has been told about other relic caskets. The only preserved item is a flattened round casket of dark steatite, which contains seven inscriptions in Kharo․s․thˉı script, typical for this area. Majumdar in his editio princeps (1937) divided the inscriptions into two groups on the basis of differences in the style of the letters. According to him, inscriptions16 A, A1, A 2, and B can be dated to the time of Menander, while inscriptions C, D, and E were engraved some fifty years later. In his opinion, the first group (A, B) refers to the establishment or consecration of the corporeal relic of the Buddha in the reign of Menander by his vassal Viyakamitra, while the second group (C–E) refers to the damage of the relic and its re-establishment by Vijayamitra, who, in his opinion, must have been a descendant of Viyakamitra. The

FIGURE 4.1

Shinko․t casket inscription segments A, A1, and C.

134  Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom

last inscription (E) mentions the scribe named Vis´pila. However, Sircar (1942) disagreed with Majumdar, who claimed that the gap between the two groups is around fifty years. In his opinion, both dates provided by the inscriptions belong to Menander’s reign. He denied the rightness of Majumdar’s palaeographical observations and his division of the inscriptions into two groups, and he also suggested some modifications of Majumdar’s translation of inscription D speaking about re-establishment of the relic by Vijayamitra. In his opinion, Viyakamitra (read by him as Vˉı ryakamitra) was Vijayamitra’s father, and he died soon after the first establishment of the casket. In turn, according to Konow (1947), the inscriptions A, A1, and A 2 are from the time of Menander, while the remaining ones are not older than the first century BC. He agreed with Majumdar and Sircar that the relic suffered some kind of damage and that it was subsequently re-established. But he argued that the establishment and re-establishment of the relics were effected by one and the same person, because, in his opinion, Vijayamitra must be identified with Viyakamitra. In his opinion, the two different spellings of the name may result from the fact that the inscription B is a later addition by an officer of Vijayamitra, who wanted to make the date clear and thus entered the name of the ruler above the date in his own orthography. His suggestion is confirmed by Brough (1962: 91, note 2), who argued that the two forms (Vijayamitra and Viyakamitra) are alternative spellings of the same name. Konow also noticed the difficulty of writing on a rounded surface, which may account for the palaeographical differences and irregularities. More recently, Fussman (1993), just like his predecessors, distinguished two different groups of inscriptions, although he dated them differently. In his opinion, the first inscription is the oldest, while the following inscriptions are later because they bear signs of frication. In his opinion, these inscriptions are problematic and there is as yet no satisfactory translation. However, aside from the issues of dating and dividing the inscriptions into groups, more important from the point of view of the present book is the problem of feudal relations between king Menander and Vijayamitra/Viyakamitra and the relationship of the Indo-Greek ruler towards Buddhism. As already mentioned, the inscription (A) refers to the reign of Mahaˉraˉja Minedra,17 identified with king Menander. As noticed by Majumdar and Sircar, this version of that name differs from other versions, such as Paˉli Milinda, Menadra on his coins, and Min․am ˙ dra on a relief from Gandhaˉra (Konow 1929: 134, LXX). It is generally accepted that A is the oldest preserved inscription on the casket. Hence, it follows that the first installation of the relics took place in the time of Menander and was made at his request (cf. Konow 1947: 56). This fact may confirm the tradition linking Menander with Buddhism (cf. Konow 1947: 54), which finds its fullest confirmation in the dialogue Milindapañha. Of course, it would be erroneous to explicitly argue on the basis of this reference that Menander was a Buddhist. Because he could establish the relics as a Buddhist sympathetic ruler to show his positive attitude toward his Buddhist subjects in support of his interests. However, the opinion by Fussman that the reason for the reference to Menander

Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom  135

was merely respect towards his person is unsustainable in the light of the fact that the inscription was most probably issued at the request of the ruler himself. Thus, Menander probably requested the establishment of the reliquary, but Viyakamitra was the person, who actually ordered it. Vijayamitra was either the same person (cf. Konow 1947: 57; Fussman 1993: 106) or his descendant (cf. Sircar 1942: 321; Lamotte 1988: 422). Both were referred to as apraca-raja. This title should be understood as “king of Apraca” (Fussman 1993: 105).18 The Apraca dynasty ruled the territory of Bajaur from the first century BC to the first century AD. As noted by Fussman (1993: 111), we are dealing here with a paramount power or feudal-type pyramid of rulers in which the king of Apraca, Vijayamitra, was subordinated to Menander. An Apraca king named Vijayamitra is also attested in the Kharo․s․thıˉ inscription found on a Buddhist reliquary, the so-called Rukhuna ․ reliquary (CKI 405 in Catalog of Gaˉndhaˉrˉı Texts). Due to the reference to an era of Azes and an era of the Yonas, we can date this inscription to around 15 AD (cf. the new dating of the era of Azes: Falk and Bennett 2009) or 26/27 AD (Baums 2018a: 66). And therefore Vijayamitra is dated to much later times than Menander I. This fact is perhaps proof of the existence of Menander II, a Buddhist ruler, who probably was also the main character of the Milindapañha. It is worth adding here that some coins found in Sirkap (Taxila) bear the name of Vijayamitra in Kharo․s․thˉı and Braˉhmˉı together with some Buddhist symbols, such as triratna and caitya (Marshall 1951; cf. Lamotte 1988). One interesting remark by Lamotte (1988: 422 f.) is worth noting here, namely, that some of the vassal kings under the Indo-Greek rule were meridarchs19 of Greek origin, as follows from the Swaˉt relic vase inscription of the Meridarkh Theodotos (CKI 32 in Catalog of Gaˉndhaˉrˉı Texts), and that they also showed evidence of their Buddhist inclinations. There is one more interesting reference in the reliquary pointing to the Greek presence in this area, namely, the last inscription mentions the scribe named Vis´pila, who is described as an ․ am ․ kaya (in the instrumental case: an ․ am ․ kaye․na in the inscription), which may be an Indian transcription of the Greek word ἀναγκαῖος, used in Hellenistic times for king’s counsellors; while the name Vis´pila was an Iranian name, most probably a Parthian (Konow 1939, 1947: 58). It is worth noting after Konow that “the Parthians played a great role in the preservation and evolution of Greek notions and especially of Greek art in the Indian borderland” (Konow 1947: 58). Indo-Parthian Gondopharid dynasty ruled parts of present-day Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Northwest India from 19 AD. And thus, the Parthian name indicates also the later dating of this reliquary and is further evidence that this inscription does not concern Menander I, but some later ruler, perhaps Menander II. Also from the times of the Indo-Parthian rule in the Bajaur territory comes the seal of Theodamas, dated by Senart (1889) to the time of the rule of an Indo-Parthian ruler Abdagases (ca. 46–60 AD). The inscription on the seal reads su․theuˉdamasa, where ․theuˉdamasa stands for a Greek name Theodamas, and

136  Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom

therefore this object further indicates the Greek presence in these areas; and su may stand here for ΣΥΡΟΣ (“Syrian”). However, it is worth noting that such an interpretation of ΣΥ is based on the interpretation of the legend on Kadphises’ coin imitating that of Hermaios (ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΤΗΡΟΣΣΥ ΕΡΜΑΙΟΥ). However, the error on this coin (ΣΤΗΡΟΣ) calls into question the reading of ΣΥ as an abbreviation for ΣΥΡΟΣ, implying that it might also be an error. However, if we follow Senart’s opinion that su stands here for “Syrian” and that this term could be a substitute for Hellen, then his conclusion that Theodamas wanted to confirm his nationality by adding su to an inscription written in a foreign alphabet, seems valid. The preserved inscriptions show that the territory of Bajaur was a multicultural region with a complex feudal structure. There seems to be no distinct ethnic, religious, or political divide. Yona-Kamboja is on the joint list in the Indian sources (cf. Chapter 1) for a reason, as the Greeks and Iranians seem to have equal influence in what is now western Pakistan and Northwest India. It is also worth mentioning that according to Fussman, one of the inscriptions seems to attest that these reliquaries were objects of cult for the Hindus as well. And this conclusion brings us to another possible reference to Menander, namely, the Reh inscription.

Reh inscription Reh inscription (Figure 4.2) is a Braˉhmˉı inscription engraved on a pillar from Reh, which is situated east of Mathuraˉ (in Uttar Pradesh). It was discovered in 1979 by D.P. Sharma. At the time of the discovery, it was used as an object of cult – the so-called lin˙ ga. The pillar might have been unearthed before and originally it could have had a different function. Some scholars have argued that the resemblance of the pillar to the S´iva-lin˙ ga may be purely coincidental (Bivar 1985: 95). But other researchers, misled by the modern function of this pillar, call this inscription an inscription on a S´iva-lin˙ ga (cf. Gupta 1985; Fussman 1993). But the reference to Menander on a lin˙ ga would be surprising because lin˙ ga is a symbol associated with the worship of the Hindu deity S´iva. The cult of that deity has its roots in the times of the Vedic religion. S´iva was identified with the Indo-European deities, such as Rudra, Agni, or Indra, and therefore perhaps S´iva’s worship has an Indo-European origin, although Marshall considered the Mohenjo-daro seal as “proto-S´iva” figure, and thus shifted the origin of S´iva’s worship to the times of the Indus Valley civilization. However, this identification has been criticized by some modern scholars, such as Flood. I am also of the opinion that the seal represents an ascetic rather than a deity. The inscription is written in Praˉkrit, in Braˉhmˉı script, and it reads “1 mahaˉraˉjasa raˉjaraˉjasa | 2 mahaˉm˙ tasa traˉtaˉrasa dhaˉmmi- | 3 kasa jayam˙ tasa ca apra-”. The fourth verse, in which there is an alleged reference to Menander, is uncertain. It was reconstructed by G.R. Sharma (1980: 7 f.), tutor of D.P. Sharma, as “4 ( jitasa)

Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom  137

FIGURE 4.2

Reh inscription of Menander.

Minaˉnada [de?] rasa”. He also stated that this text is a Praˉkrit translation of the Greek original: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΝ ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΥ ΝΙΚΗΤΟΡΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΑΝΙΚΗΤΟΥ ΜΕΝΑΝΔΡΟΥ. However, this reconstruction is questioned by most of scholars, who refer to these titles rather as one of the Indo-Scythians (Mukherjee 1981: 245; Bivar 1985: 95; Gupta 1985: 200; Holt 1999: 177). G.R. Sharma, in his book “Reh Inscription of Menander and the Indo-Greek Invasion of the Gan˙gaˉ Valley” (1980), used this fourth verse, reconstructed by himself, as evidence that the mention of the Yavana invasion of Magadha in the passage from the Yuga Puraˉ․na was true, and, on the basis of this supposition, he built the whole story of a violent attack of the Greco-Bactrian forces led by Menander, “the scourge responsible for the holocaust” (1980: 11). It is clear that the author’s imagination carried him in this reconstruction rather towards the historical novel than sound history. However, as argued by Fussman (1993), although it is strange to find Menander’s name on a S´iva lin˙ ga, one cannot unequivocally reject the attribution of this inscription to that Indo-Greek ruler. As already mentioned, the original function of this pillar may not have been related to the cult of S´iva. However, if we assume that the original function of that pillar was the worship of S´iva and that the inscription refers to Menander I Soter, it turns out that Menander “probably supported a wide array of religious groups seeking his support, just like any other South Asian ruler”, as rightly noticed by Neelis (2011: 106). However, it should be remembered that we do not have sufficient palaeographic evidence to acknowledge that the reconstruction by D.P. Sharma of the fourth line with a reference to Menander is correct.

138  Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom

Menander’s coins20 As already stated, Menander’s coins were of high quality and widely distributed, which may be indicated by the reference in the discussed above passage in the Periplus Maris Erythraei 47 about the coins of this ruler found in Barygaza. But what do the archaeological data say about this? Well, Menander’s coins have been found in large numbers in Kabul valley, Swaˉt and Gandhaˉra, Taxila, and east of Mathuraˉ. Many of the found coins are minted from silver, and thus we can conclude that Menander was a very powerful ruler. As for the extent of Menander’s reign, which to a certain degree can be reconstructed on the basis of the distribution of his coins, it is not easy to define, taking into account the chronology of other rulers. Especially his reign in Bactria raises doubts. According to Fussman (1993: 94), Menander and Eucratides, whose coins’ dating partially overlaps, probably were at war, and Menander won and temporarily regained the Bactrian territory. It is worth noting that many problems with the dating of rulers on the basis of coins can be resolved if we allow the possibility that the Greek coins had a symbolic value, and that the conquerors of the area could have allowed them to maintain the symbolic power at the same time exercising territorial control. This problem was illustrated by Fussman in the appendix to his article (1993: 120 ff.) on the example of explaining the presence of Greco-Bactrian coins in the Kunduz treasure after the Yuezhi invasion of Bactria. However, the political history of the Greco-Bactrian and then the Indo-Greek kingdom is too complex to settle certain questions regarding, for example, the chronology of the rulers. More important from the perspective of this book is the image of the ruler, which Menander wanted to shape on his coins, through the deities, symbols, standards, and languages he alluded to. As for the legends on Menander’s silver coins, most of them have the obverse Greek legend ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ ΜΕΝΑΝΔΡΟΥ (“Of King the Saviour Menander”), and on the reverse Kharo․s․thˉı legend MAHARAJASA TRATARASA MENAM ․ DRASA (“Of great King the Saviour Menander”). However, there are also a few where the epithet ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ is replaced by ΔΙΚΑΙΟΥ (“of the Just”) and on the reverse TRATARASA by DHARMIKASA (“of the follower of Dharma). Especially the Kharo․s․thˉı version of this epithet evokes the Edicts of As´oka and the Dhamma policy contained therein discussed in Chapter 2. As noted by Rhys Davids, “The use of this epithet is very probably the foundation of the tradition preserved by Plutarch, that Menander was, as a ruler, noted for justice; and it is certainly evidence of the Buddhist influences by which he was surrounded” (Rhys Davids 1890: xxi). However, the suggestion by Bopearachchi (1990: 72 ff.) that Menander I Soter and Menander II Dikaios were two different homonymous rulers seems more likely, especially in the light of the discussed earlier Bajaur reliquary inscription, which is dated to 15 or 26/27 AD, and therefore, the reference to Menander contained in it must point to some ruler later than Menander I Soter (165/155–130 BC). It should also be noted that the coins of Menander II show more Buddhist character than the coins of Menander I.

Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom  139

FIGURE 4.3

Silver coin of Menander I from Pu․skalaˉvatˉı (Garstang Museum in Liverpool, no. 286). Denomination: drachm. Standard: Indian. Weight: 2.47 g. Diameter: 17.5 mm. Obverse: Draped bust of Menander, facing right, wearing a crested helmet with a diadem. Legend around in Greek: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ ΜΕΝΑΝΔΡΟΥ.

Courtesy: Garstang Museum in Liverpool.

Regarding the symbols used by Menander on his silver coins, they corresponded to the image of Menander presented in the literary sources, because they are mainly war symbols (cf. Fussman 1993: 86). The obverse with the Greek legend shows a bust of Menander: with a diadem or in a helmet, throwing a javelin or without it (Figure 4.3). However, more interesting from the point of view of the current considerations is the reverse with Gaˉndhaˉrˉı legend in Kharo․s․thıˉ script showing Athena Alkidemos (“defender of the people”) in a helmet and draped (Figure 4.4). As for Menander’s motives for adopting this symbol, most researchers agree with Tarn’s view that it was a reference to Alexander, who used this symbol as one of the three regular deities on his coins (Tarn 1938: 261). It is possible that Menander wanted to emphasize his Greek/Macedonian affinities and at the same time introduce himself as the “defender of the people” and therefore referred to this Macedonian epithet of Athena. Since the sources for the Greek presence in India are relatively few, one would like to squeeze out every available scrap of information, but in my opinion, one should not draw too far-reaching conclusions from the symbols on the coins. The theory by Blair introduced in his article “Answers for Milinda: Hellenistic Influence on the Development of Gandharan Buddhism” (2009) may serve as an example of cautioning against this. The author of that article stated that Menander, by presenting Athena Alkidemos on his coins, wanted to introduce himself as the husband of the goddess, because the representation of

140  Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom

FIGURE 4.4

Here reverse: Helmeted and draped Athena Alkidemos, advancing left, viewed from behind, holding shield on outstretched left arm, and hurling thunderbolt with right. Legend around in Kharo․s․thˉı script: MAHARAJASA TRATARASA MENAM ․ DRASA.

Courtesy: Garstang Museum in Liverpool.

Athena on Menander’s coins resembles his wife Agathocleia, whose coins also depict the queen in the company of Athena. This example led Blair to conclude that Menander wanted to be worshipped like a god in Hellenistic fashion and, moreover, that Menander’s worship inspired the worship of the Buddha as a god. However, this theory has so many gaps that it can be compared to a sieve through which historical truth seeps like water. Beginning with the first link of this theory, namely the connection of the symbol of Athena Alkidemos with Agathocleia, it is uncertain whether she was the wife of Menander; she could have been a later ruler. And even if we accept that she was the wife of Menander, his coins are earlier and therefore cannot bear a reference to the later coins of Agathocleia. As for the second link, namely the theory of Menander’s desire to be seen as a god, it does not follow directly from the image of Athena on his coins, because the representation of Athena on coins was not unusual in Hellenistic times. It cannot be ruled out that the Indo-Greek rulers wanted to be or were seen as gods in India, but such a theory needs further evidence. For now, let it remain in the sphere of fictional considerations, such as the novel by Parnicki Koniec »Zgody Narodów« (The End of the »Concord of Nations«). As for the last link, it is clear that Blair distorted the sources according to an agenda to prove that worship of Buddha as god is a phenomenon which has Greek origins. And I do not rule out the possibility that the author’s intuition as to this final conclusion was correct here. Regardless of whether or not this was the case, adding unfounded evidence is unjustified here.

Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom  141

In addition to the silver coins, some bronze coins, which imitate the Indian punch-marked coins, have also been preserved. However, they are hard to interpret and moreover – eclectic and ambiguous, as noted by Fussman (1993: 88). As for the symbols used on these coins, they are not Buddhist, apart from one coin, which represents an eight-spoke wheel on the obverse and a palm leaf on the reverse. However, even the wheel is not an exclusively Buddhist symbol, because it may denote “the universal kingship” (cf. Bernard 1994: 112). According to Rhys Davids, “none of Menander’s coins show any decisive signs of his conversion” (Rhys Davids 1890: xxiv). It is worth asking whether the conversion of the ruler can be determined on the basis of his coins. As noted by Bernard (1994: 112), although the official state pantheon represented on the coins of the Greco-Bactrian rulers was so purely Greek, we do not find any Greekstyle temples in Bactria. Neelis concluded that these comments by Bernard “may help to reconcile differences between depictions of deities on Menander’s coinage and his reputation as a Buddhist patron in Buddhist literary traditions” (Neelis 2011: 105, note 114). Therefore, it does not seem justified to infer the ruler’s religious status on the basis of his coins. Rather, more reasonable seems to be the statement by Fussman who argued that Menander’s coins show the will to adapt Greek politics to the Indian linguistic and economic realities.

The Indian literary sources on Menander Yuga Puraˉn.a We have already touched on the text of the Yuga Puraˉ․na and the alleged Greek invasion of Magadha twice in this chapter: the first time when discussing the Greek source, namely Strabo (15.1.27), who reported the arrival of the Greeks as far as the Ganges river and Paˉ․taliputra (προελθόντες μέχρι τοῦ Γάγγου καὶ Παλιβόθρων21), and the second time when discussing the Reh inscription and the reconstructed fourth verse, according to G.R. Sharma (1980) alluding to Menander and the invasion of Magadha around 150 BC. As already mentioned, the passage in the Yuga Puraˉ․na 47 (Mitchiner 1986: xvii, 91) reports a prophecy that Yavanas having approached Saˉ keta together with Pañcaˉ las and Maˉ thuras will reach Kusumadhvaja (Paˉ․taliputra; other names: Pu․spapura, Kusumapura, in Megasthenes’ account Palibothra, modern-day Patna). The next verse says that once Pu․spapura has been reached and its mud-walls cast down, all the realms will be in disorder (Mitchiner 1986: xviii, 91). Also, Patañjali in his Mahaˉ bhaˉ․sya (on Paˉ n ․ ini 3.2.111) provides a reference to the Yavana invasion of Saˉ keta. When examining the historicity of this passage, attention should be paid to the character of the Yuga Puraˉ․na text, which is the last section of the Gaˉrgıˉ Sam ․ hitaˉ, a Sanskrit astrological text, which presents historical events in the form of a prophecy. These events are arranged in the structure of a chronicle. The presentation of historical events in the text of the Yuga Puraˉ․na is subordinated to the

142  Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom

didactic, philosophical aim, namely, it depicts moral degradation over the course of the four ages or yugas (the so-called Catur Yuga, encompassing: K․rta/Satya, Tretaˉ, Dvaˉpara, and Kali Yuga). As rightly noted by Mitchiner in his edition and translation of the text “[…] a degree of caution is necessary when looking at the sources of Indian historical tradition, not least because the writing of ‘history’ in the generally-accepted Western sense of an objective account of past events was most usually subordinated by classical Indian writers to a concern with the philosophical or religious patterns which were seen as underlying such events. Thus in the case of the Yuga-Puraˉ․na, the main concern rests not so much with the events in themselves which transpired in each of the four Yugas, but rather with the declining state of dharma or righteousness which gave rise to such events” (Mitchiner 1986: 49). Sircar (1963) and Mitchiner (1986: 49 ff.) point out that the manuscripts of the Yuga Puraˉ․na differ from one another and are therefore very difficult to interpret, especially given the prophetic nature of the text. Both scholars recognize the Yavana invasion of Pu․spapura (Paˉ․taliputra) as a historical fact. In their opinion, it should be dated between the reigns of S´ aˉlis´uˉka (ca. 200 BC) and Pu․syamitra (185 BC). However, Fussman believes that the verses relating to the Yavana attacks on Paˉ․taliputra cannot be dated, because the existing versions of the Yuga Puraˉ․na are certainly later and the manipulations and corrections of various editors and commentators according to their views blur the picture. In Sircar’s opinion, there is a reference to Dhamamıˉ ta, which suggests that the Yavanas, who invaded Paˉ․taliputra, were probably led by Demetrius. However, as Mitchiner noted, the expression dharmabhˉı tatamaˉ in verse 55c does not apply to Demetrius. Also, Fussman (1993: 84) stated that no Greek name, neither of Menander nor of Demetrius, appears in the passage, not even in a disguised Sanskrit form. In support of the thesis about the historicity of the fragment about the Yavana attack on Paˉ․taliputra, Mitchiner cited the fragment of Kaˉlidaˉsa’s drama Maˉlavikaˉgnimitram (discussed in Chapter 2 of the present book), the pillar of Heliodorus (discussed in Chapter 3), the Haˉthˉı gumphaˉ inscription of king Khaˉravela from Udayagiri Caves (in Odisha) about the Yavana king D ․ imita sent back to Maˉthura, and Pañcaˉla “Mitra” coins in Paˉ․taliputra. It is worth adding here that in Vi․sakhadatta’s drama Mudrarak․sasa (Act II), there is a mention of the forces of Chandragupta, composed of S´ akas, Kiraˉtas, Kaˉmbojas, Paˉrasˉı kas, and Baˉhlˉı kas, who attack Kusumapura (Paˉ․taliputra). Paˉ․taliputra (Greek Παλίβοθρα) was well known to the Greeks because, as discussed in Chapter 2 of this book, it was likely that Megasthenes was sent there as an ambassador to the Indian king Chandragupta Maurya. According to Megasthenes, Prasii or Palibothri were the most powerful Indian people, while Paˉ․taliputra was the most famous and largest city founded by Heracles in India (see Diodorus Siculus). According to Pliny,22 it was a very large and wealthy city (amplissima urbe ditissimaque). While according to the description preserved in Strabo23 it was surrounded by a wooden palisade. Patna’s excavations confirm the existence of this palisade, although not all researchers accept this evidence.24 The

Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom  143

presence of these fortifications suggests that the city may have been frequently attacked, but it certainly does not prove that the Greeks attacked the city. Each of the texts discussed separately raises doubts: the Yuga Puraˉ․na is a later, prophetic text with a clear didactic aim, the Mahaˉbhaˉ․sya of Patañjali is a grammar book, the dramas of Kaˉlidaˉsa are poetic texts, and Strabo’s passage does not clearly prove a military campaign. But they all show that there must have been a reason why several independent sources refer to similar events. However, it is difficult to date these events. Perhaps they refer to the time of Demetrius I, although personal references to this ruler are not confirmed, and the Greeks probably had a good relationship with the Mauryan dynasty, as shown in Chapter 2, and therefore, it seems to me more likely to place these events during the reign of the S´un˙ ga dynasty, as evidenced by the drama of Kaˉlidaˉsa.

Ks. emendra’s Bodhisattvaˉvadaˉnakalpalata As stated by Takakusu (1896), two Cambridge manuscripts of Bodhisattvaˉvadaˉnakalpalata by K․semendra mention incidentally the name Milinda. Although Bodhisattvaˉvadaˉnakalpalata is a late source, from the eleventh century from Kashmir, still it is of great value, as noted by Demiéville.25 However, it was so neglected that the French scholar felt it is worth highlighting. The most important here is the Chapter 57 entitled the Stˉupaˉvadaˉna, which tells a story of a missionary journey of the Buddha, who liberated people from ignorance and managed the construction of new stuˉpas. Analogous journeys are referred to in the Divyaˉvadaˉna, various editions of the As´okaˉvadaˉna, and Xuanzang, and reported in detail in the Vinaya of Muˉlasarvaˉstivaˉdin school. The reference to Menander is contained in verse 15, where we read that “The Blessed One said to Indra, come to this place to see: A king named Milinda build a stuˉpa in the country”.26 The preceding chapters are also described by Demiéville (1924: 36 f.). Chapter 54 contains a jaˉtaka of the Blessed One incarnated in the person of Sattvau․sadha, son of king Mahendrasena, ruling in the city of Mahendravatˉı , who healed the sick by touching them. As stated by Demiéville, this legend probably belongs to the cycle of As´oka, because the Buddha predicted at the end that As´oka will build a caitya, where the body of Sattvau․sadha will be preserved. Chapter 55 is devoted to Sarvandada, king of the city of Sarvaˉvatˉı , who gave his flesh to save a dove. As Demiéville reported, under these names, more or less fanciful can be recognized the famous jaˉtaka about the king of S´ibi, commemorated by one of the four great stuˉ pas from the Northwest of India, ruins of which have been identified in Giraˉrai, at the foot of the mountains, which separated Gandhaˉra and Udyaˉna. Chapter 56 is entitled Gopaˉlanaˉgadamanaˉvadaˉna (Avadaˉna of the submission of naˉga Gopaˉla), which is also a legend of the Northwest of India. The Buddha after converting Gopaˉla met the Yak․sa Vajrapaˉn ․i, his travelling companion in the Northwest, according to the narrative of the Vinaya of Muˉlasarvaˉstivaˉdin, and his “bodyguard” present in the Greco-Buddhist iconography (see Chapter 5).

144  Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom

One can see, therefore, that the text of those Avadaˉnas is based on a variety of tales and legends. The Stˉu paˉvadaˉna is in relationship with the Vinaya of Muˉlasarvaˉstivaˉdin. However, reading of a parallel Vinaya text allows us to expect the prophecy of the Kani․ska, not of Milinda stuˉ pa (Demiéville 1924: 43). According to Demiéville, if this replacement had been made by K․semendra who might have known Milinda from some version of the Milindapañha, the stuˉ pa would be in S´aˉkala. So it seems easier to assume that K․semendra was using an ancient text changing for the benefit of Menander the prediction on Kani․ska. The fact that the reference to Menander (Milinda) is found in such a work, and in a very significant place, is evidence of a strong connection of this ruler with Buddhism, and perhaps also of his conversion. It is worthwhile to raise one more issue here, namely the reference to the country of Vaˉlok․sa in the passage preceding the reference to Milinda. In verse 6 of the Stˉu paˉvadaˉna, we read “Then the Tathaˉgata won the country called Vaˉlok․sa; there was worshiped by Kuvera (a rich man), a leader of the guild Suprabuddha”.27 Demiéville (1924: 40), following Das, identified the country of Vaˉlok․sa with Bactria.28 As a proof of this, he cited the legend of the merchants Trapu․sa and Bhallika,29 the first converts from Bactria, born in the north (Uttaraˉpatha), and coming from the south (Dak․sinaˉpatha). These merchants met the Buddha, who gave them hair and nail clippings to build stuˉ pas for them. So they built the stuˉ pa of hair in a city called Vaˉluk․sa (which resembles that of Vaˉlok․sa), and the stuˉ pa of nail in a place called s´iluk․sa. The location of the “cities of Trapu․sa and Bhallika” with the Trapu․sa and Bhallika stuˉ pas near Bactria is also confirmed by Xuanzang. The text of the Bodhisattvaˉvadaˉnakalpalata by K․semendra not only shows that the memory of Milinda-Menander survived in India until the eleventh century (Rhys Davids 1894: xvii) and that it was strongly associated with Buddhist traditions, but there are many other interesting issues here, and therefore the text requires a separate elaboration.

The Milindapañha Probably the most important source on Menander is the Buddhist text Milindapañha or The Questions of Milinda. Under this title is meant a Paˉli version30 of the text, the original of which was probably written in Gaˉndhaˉrˉı , one of the Praˉkrits. The oldest surviving manuscript of this Paˉli text is dated to 1495 AD (cf. von Hinüber 1987). However, Buddhagho․sa, a Buddhist Theravada commentator and scholar, around the beginning of the fifth century AD, mentioned four times The Questions of Milinda; hence, it may be inferred that the text was also known in India in ancient times. We also know the Chinese versions of this text, which will be discussed later in the present chapter; and Waddell, who was a Scottish explorer, collector, and amateur archaeologist, probable precursor of Indiana Jones, in his article (1897), also mentioned a Tibetan version, which is currently unavailable, if it ever existed (see further in the present chapter).

Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom  145

The Paˉli text of the Milindapañha contains a form of dialogue between king Milinda and the elder (Thera) Naˉgasena. The first book opens with a beautiful and idealizing description of Saˉgala, the capital of Milinda’s kingdom. Then, as a preparation for the proper dialogue, it follows the story of previous births (Paˉli Pubba-yoga) of the future disputants. Subsequently, king Milinda, who is undefeated in discussions, looks for a proper interlocutor, who would be able to satisfactorily answer his questions concerning the teachings of the Buddha. However, several interviewees do not meet his expectations. Only Naˉgasena, sent by Assagutta, is able to answer his questions. In the following books, Milinda discusses with Naˉgasena various issues concerning Buddhist teachings. The conversation with the sage dispels the king’s doubts, and thus he converts to Buddhism. The title character Milinda is identified with Menander. It is commonly believed that he should be identified with Menander I Soter. However, in my opinion, he could just as well be identified with Menander II Dikaios (cf. Kubica 2020). Anyway, the main character of this Buddhist dialogue is a Greek king named Menander. This surprising Greek presence in the Buddhist dialogue constantly amazes the researchers. According to Salomon, Milindapañha is “the earliest explicit testimony of the encounter of Buddhism with the cosmopolitan cultures of Gandhaˉra” (Salomon et al. 1999: 5).

Milindapañha and the question of Greek influence Although the first translator of the text of Milindapañha defined it as a historical romance with a primarily didactic aim and stated that Milinda plays a subordinate role in the dialogue (Rhys Davids 1890: xvii), still this text has attracted the attention of European scholars of classical education, who have focused their attention mainly on the presence of a Greek ruler in the Buddhist dialogue. Weber was the first to suggest a Greek influence. He put forward a hypothesis of a connection with the Platonic dialogues.31 But this hypothesis was not met with approval among the researchers studying the text. On the contrary, Garbe, in his book Beiträge zur indischen Kulturgeschichte (1903), published an article on the Milindapañha, in which he defined the text as a cultural-historical novel (ein kulturhistorischer Roman), but he stated that it could also be well described as a didactic novel (Garbe 1903: 107). He noted also very sensibly that since the work treats about a fantastic character like most Buddhist books do, and besides, it contains some imitation of representations from older works, one cannot expect from here a considerable increase of our historical knowledge.32 Garbe also posed the question of whether Greek ideas can be recognized in the speeches of king Milinda. And, answering this question, he said that he red through the Milindapañha with attention and he must answer negatively. The Greek world of ideas is apparently completely unknown to the author. The speeches in the mouth of the king are quite Indian in character. The king is not characterized otherwise than by his Greek (Yonaka) companion, and also by his talking and acting like Indians.33 Also, Winternitz, whose second volume of The History of

146  Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom

Indian Literature was first published in English in 1920,34 agreed with Garbe. In his opinion, Milindapañha has enough models in the Upani․sadic dialogues, in the ascetic poetry of the Mahaˉbhaˉrata, and in the Tripi․taka, so there is no need to look for a Greek model. Moreover, according to Winternitz (1983: 170, note 4), there is no trace of Greek language and ideas in the dialogue. Lamotte in his History of Indian Buddhism (1988),35 like Garbe and Winternitz, denied the Greek influence on the Milindapañha. In his opinion (Lamotte 1988: 424), the problems discussed during the dialogue are identical to those in the canon in general, and in the Kathaˉvatthu in particular. In his opinion, only the question of the usefulness of religious life could be of interest to the Indo-Greek king. Also, von Hinüber argued that “although Milinda is Greek, there is no traceable Greek influence on form or content of the purely Indic dialogue, derived from Upani․sadic traditions” (von Hinüber 1996: 83). However, not all researchers agreed with the views presented by Garbe and Winternitz. Finot (1923) concluded that Milindapañha resembles the Socratic dialogues rather than the Indian ones. In his opinion, one might even be inclined to recognize in this original and almost unusual form a Greek influence.36 However, the theory of Greek influence reached its climax in the views presented by Tarn, who, in his book The Greeks in Bactria and India (1938), published an excursus about the Milindapañha, in which he argued that this Buddhist dialogue is adapted from a Greek original entitled The Questions of Menander. In his opinion, there are certain Hellenistic Greek elements in the text,37 which cannot be justified on the basis of any other existing theory (Tarn 1938: 416). Therefore, he concluded that formerly there had to be a short Greek text, in which the king questioned an invented figure, the Buddhist sage Naˉgasena. Tarn used that theory of the Greek original to explain certain resemblances between the Milindapañha and the Letter of Pseudo-Aristeas, which tells the story of 72 Jewish elders invited by Ptolemy II to Alexandria to translate their Scriptures into Greek, being the account on which the legend about the origin of the Septuagint was based. Tarn tried to show that both texts referred to the tradition of Alexander’s conversation with the Indian “naked philosophers” (γυμνοσοφισταί, cf. Chapter 1). He argued that “Alexander’s questions showed that it was proper for great kings to converse with foreign sages” (Tarn 1938: 432). But in my opinion, it does not prove the Greek origin of The Questions of Milinda. Popularity of the discussions between monarchs and sages in the Hellenistic countries could indeed be inspired by Alexander, but we must not forget that these kinds of debates were also very popular in India. I personally think that one should see here independent development instead of influence (cf. Kubica 2014). Tarn also suggested that there may have been a broader corpus of Menander literature. He cited as evidence the presence in the avaˉdana about the king Nanda of two sentences resembling Greek ἀπορίαι (seemingly insurmountable difficulties in logical reasoning, offering contradictory or opposite solutions). Moreover, he rejected the theory of the common origin of the Paˉli and the Chinese versions without due justification. As he stated, “This supposition does not commend

Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom  147

itself to me” (Tarn 1938: 416). Interestingly, Tarn knew about the conclusions reached by Garbe and Winternitz, but according to him, they had insufficient knowledge from the Greek side. Perhaps he was right, but on the other hand, he lacked sufficient knowledge from the Indian side. However, he announced that he was not concerned with the Buddhist doctrine and that his aim was rather to examine the relation of Part I of the Milindapañha to Greek rule in India (Tarn 1938: 415). That theory was refuted by Gonda (1949), who contradicted Tarn’s arguments about the Greek elements in the text of the Milindapañha. He also argued that Menander’s aim at dialectical victory was common in India. As an example, he gave, inter alia, the second discourse of the Dˉı gha Nikaˉya entitled the Saˉmaññaphala Sutta, often compared to the Milindapañha, which contains the story of Ajaˉtasattu’s discussion with the Buddha about the fruits of living as a recluse (Gonda 1949: 56). In the summary, Gonda rightly pointed out that “Buddhism was inclined to internationalism, intent on missionary propaganda, and eager to win the favour and the support of mighty men” (Gonda 1949: 58). And in my opinion, this conclusion draws attention to a very important, if not the most important aspect of the development of Buddhism, namely, the system of patronage. To determine the function of the Greek king in this Buddhist dialogue, a new research question should be addressed, namely, whose patronage did the author of the Milindapañha seek making Menander its main character? The answer to this question seems obvious. There must have been a group of influential Greeks living in the area, where the dialogue was first written, that is in Gandhaˉra, which will be discussed later in this chapter. Many years later, Sick in his article “When Socrates met the Buddha: Greek and Indian Dialectic in Hellenistic Bactria and India” (2007), summarizing the debate between Tarn and Gonda, stated that they “do not or cannot, because of their distinct training, speak to the claims of one another, and, moreover, their ideas are not mutually exclusive. Any element of a cultural product can be multiply motivated, and we would expect multiple influences in a multi-cultural environment” (Sick 2007: 256). According to the author of the article, one cannot either prove or deny the influence, because “In order to prove a cross-cultural influence, one is also asked to prove the absence of the quality in the indigenous cultural background” (Sick 2007: 256). In my opinion, this conclusion is not so obvious, as can be seen from the rest of the article, in which Sick compared the Milindapañha with the Saˉmaññaphala Sutta and argued that while Ajaˉtasattu behaves with restraint, Milinda behaves in a stereotypically Greek manner (Sick 2007: 275). So, the author of the article believes that this Greek behaviour of Menander is a Greek element in this Indian dialogue. Sick, therefore, tried to prove the Greek influence on the dialogue, although he previously denied the possibility of proving the influence. It seems that the wheel has come full turn and one should look for another explanation of the presence of the Greek ruler in dialogue than by postulating a Greek influence. A completely different type of influence is suggested by Blair in his article “Answers for Milinda: Hellenistic Influence on the Development of Gandharan

148  Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom

Buddhism” (2009), who argued that around the beginning of the first century AD, Hellenism had influenced Buddhism, which is also reflected in the Milindapañha, and “the work’s attempt to explain Buddhist teachings provides an invaluable insight into the beliefs of the peoples of the region, including Indo-Greeks” (Blair 2009: 2). In Blair’s opinion, “Hellenistic culture significantly changed the conception of the Buddha, promoting belief in an anthropomorphic, divine Buddha in a region of Pakistan and Afghanistan then known as Gandhaˉra” (Blair 2009: 1). However, the problem of the Greek influence on the perception and representation of the Buddha as a god will be presented separately in the present book (see Chapter 5).

The Chinese versions of the Milindapañha There are two texts associated with the dialogue between king Milinda and bhik․su Naˉgasena, referred to by Nanjio in his catalogue of the Chinese translations of the Buddhist Tripi․taka (1883): Naxian bi qiu jing (Skr. Naˉgasenabhik․susuˉ tra, No. 1358 in Nanjio’s catalogue), written in the time of the Eastern Jin dynasty, around 317–420 AD, being a dialogue between king Milan and bhik․su Naxian; and Zabaozang jing (Skr. Sam ․ yuktaratnapi․takasuˉ tra, No. 1329 in Nanjio’s catalogue), written in 472 AD, being a tale (avadaˉna) about king Nanda and bhik․su Naˉ-ka-ssuˉ-na. These texts show that the original Milindapañha must have been written before 317 AD. Of particular interest to the present book is the dialogue Naxian bi qiu jing, which exists in two different versions (cf. Specht and Lévi 1892; Takakusu 1896), one incorporated into the Korean edition of the thirteenth century, the other in the Chinese editions of Song, Yuan, and Ming dynasties 38 (Demiéville 1924: 1). Takakusu and Demiéville recounted the plot of the Naxian bi qiu jing, which contains a story about an elephant and the Buddha, followed by a story of two Brahmans: one reborn in Qibin (Kashmir) as Naxian (Naˉgasena) and ordained as a S´ rama․na (in Paˉli version Sama․na), the second reborn in a country bordering on the sea as a crown prince Milan (Milinda), who is searching for a disputant. Then follows the description of Shejie (Saˉgala) in the country of the Yonaka (Daqin), a conversation with Yeheluo (Aˉyupaˉla), and the arrival of Naxian to Shejie. The text of the Naxian bi qiu jing is undoubtedly connected with the text of the Milindapañha. According to Demiéville (1924), both these versions present a common foundation (un fonds commun). But because there are significant differences between them, researchers have tried to determine the interrelationships between the Paˉli and the Chinese versions of the dialogue. Because the Chinese version omitted Books IV–VII of the Paˉli version, most researchers concluded that these books are later additions. The opposite view is represented by Rhys Davids, who, in the introduction to the second part of his translation of the Milindapañha (1894), suggested that the original version was longer than the Chinese version, and thus it supposedly included the second part of his translation. However, most researchers do not share this view, but rather agree

Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom  149

with Winternitz (1983: 171), who argued that only a small part of the first book and the second and the third book (with some exceptions) are original, the rest being later additions, as evidenced by their absence in the Chinese text from 317–420 AD. Demiéville also posed the question of whether the alterations and additions result from the inventiveness of the translators, or whether the translators of different versions worked on different original texts.39 In order to answer this question, Demiéville carefully analysed the Paˉli and the Chinese text (1924: 25 ff.), trying to determine which parts were original and which were later additions and interpolations. He concluded that certain episodes and books of the Milindapañha were added in Sri Lanka, after the time of Buddhagho․sa, whose quotes are consistent with the second and the third book. So, these books existed in the fifth century, the first in the current form and the last in a different edition. According to Demiéville, the original text included an introduction reduced to the following elements: a description of the places (e.g. Saˉgala), a brief biography of Naˉgasena tracing stages of his religious life with some traditions about the monastery and its masters, a presentation of Milinda, the story of his fruitless controversy with a religious Buddhist, and the meeting between Milinda and Naˉgasena. This part of the text reached us almost intact in both, Paˉli and Chinese, versions. It was followed by the stories about the dispute between Milinda and Naˉgasena, which appear to have undergone ancient additions. Also, later, avaˉdanas of both heroes were added to the introduction, and the biography of Naˉgasena was remodelled and expanded. This resulted in two different versions, one of which was translated into Chinese around the fourth century AD and the other existed in Paˉli in the fifth century AD. The Chinese version was transmitted in two editions, one complete and the other incomplete, both a bit altered, whereas the Paˉli version suffered heavy retouches. Significant passages of the pre-liminary part were interpolated in Sri Lanka after the fifth century AD. The legend of Menander suggests reminiscences of those of Ajaˉtasattu and As´oka. As for Books IV–VII, it is likely that they were successively added in Sri Lanka, where the first of them existed in the fifth century AD. It is also worth noting that all the citations in the fragments of the Paˉli edition, which correspond to the Chinese version, apart from one, are borrowed from Nikaˉya, whereas the citations in the Chinese editions cannot be so clearly identified in the Chinese Aˉgama. Fussman (1993), who declared that he based his study on the work of Demiéville, concluded that both texts, Milindapañha and Naxian bi qiu jing, are translations of one originally written in Gaˉndhaˉrˉı . He ignored Demiéville’s hypothesis of two versions of the original text. He also considerably simplified the conclusions reached by the Swiss-French sinologist, when he stated that the original text consisted of the first three books, while Books IV–VII are later additions, later than the middle of the fifth century AD; and that all common points of both translations are probably consistent with the original, while all differing points are probably additions.

150  Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom

According to von Hinüber (1996), the original Milindapañha consisted of verses 2,23–89,17 and contained the story of the previous births (Pubbayoga), seven sections (Vaggas), and a brief conclusion. The second part, called Me․n․dakapañha, consisted of verses 90,1–328,16 and contained the introductory verses and eight sections. It was followed by the third part, called Anumaˉnapañha (verses 329,1– 347,20), another part of the Me․n․dakapañha (verses 348,1–362,27), and the fifth part, called Opammakathaˉpañha (verses 363,1–420,22). The Chinese version contains only the first part, which is the original Milindapañha, in von Hinüber’s opinion, composed between 100 BC and 200 AD. As already mentioned, another Chinese text associated with the Milindapañha is the avadaˉna about king Nanda and bhik․su Naˉ-ka-ssuˉ-na entitled Zabaozang jing (Skr. Sam ․ yuktaratnapi․takasuˉ tra). As noted by Takakusu, “This suˉtra, having a comparatively early date, shows us that the memory of the story of the King Nanda-Milinda and the sage Naˉgasena still survived in the time of the author of the Original Avadaˉnas (which was translated into Chinese in 472 AD), and induced him to bring their famous discussion in his tales” (Takakusu 1896: 17). He also drew attention to the fact that the different translations of the name of Menander (Milinda/Milan/Nanda) in different versions of the legend “show that the original was not a native name” (Takakusu 1896: 16). The avadaˉna contains some part of the introductory book of the Milindapañha, e.g. the episode of the controversy with Yeheluo (Aˉyupaˉla). It is also worth mentioning the article by Waddell (1897), in which the author argues that in the Tantric section of the Kaˉlacakra encyclopaedia, there exists one manuscript with a Tibetan version of the Milindapañha telling about a conversation between Naˉgasena and king Ananta. Based on the analysis of the text of the Milindapañha, the avadaˉna of king Nanda and the Tibetan version, Waddell drew a far-reaching hypothesis, according to which the dialogue “was probably founded upon a simpler story or traditional tale of dialogues held between the quasi-historic sage Naˉgaseˉna and a king of Bengal or of South-Eastern India” (Waddell 1897: 237). He based his theory on such alleged evidence as an identification of Milinda with king Nanda of Magadha, an identification of Alasanda-dˉı pa with Sanda-dˉı pa of the Sundarbans, references to the northeastern monsoon, to Gaˉyaˉl (Bos frontalis), which is an animal restricted to the Northeast, or to wood-apple (Feronia elephantum), which does not occur in the plains of Punjab, etc. However, as noted by Winternitz, Waddell “has tried to make it appear, on the basis of very doubtful Tibetan dates, that this Chinese Avadaˉna is closer to the original work and that originally not Milinda but a king Nanda of Magadha was the hero of the book. But ‘Nanda’ is certainly only a Sanskrit version of the Greek Menandros40” (Winternitz 1983: 171, note 1). Winternitz is certainly right that the hero of the dialogue should be identified with Menander, as evidenced by the version of his name in the Chinese edition of the dialogue, which has been completely neglected by Waddell. However, it is a shame that the Tibetan version is currently unavailable, if it ever was. But even if it ever existed or exists somewhere in one of the Tibetan monasteries, still I believe it is nothing more than a late echo of the avadaˉna of king Nanda.

Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom  151

From the above comparison of the Milindapañha with its Chinese versions, it is clear that the core of this work was very old, perhaps dating back to the turn of our era, and that the main character was a ruler with a name which sounded foreign to the translators of individual editions of the work. In addition, I am convinced that the original dialogue was written in the region of Gandhaˉra, as evidenced by the description of a city called Saˉgala (Shejie).

Gandhāra in the time of Menander The kingdom of Gandhaˉra lasted from the first millennium BC. It was located along the Swaˉt and Kabul river valleys (the areas of present-day North Pakistan and Northeast Afghanistan). Its main cities were Puru․sapura, Taks․as´ilaˉ, Pu․skalavati, and S´aˉkala. During the reign of Darius the Great Gandhaˉra was a satrapy of the Achaemenid Empire (cf. Behistun inscription). In 327/6 BC, it was conquered by Alexander the Great. In 305 BC, Seleucus I Nicator ceded under the treaty Gandhaˉra, Arachosia, and Paropamisadae to Chandragupta Maurya in exchange for 500 war elephants (cf. Strabo 15.2.9; Appian, Syr. 55). Later, it was ruled by As´oka. The subsequent decline of the Mauryan Empire has enabled the expansion of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom and the establishment of the Indo-Greek kingdom with its cultural and political centre in the region of Gandhaˉra. Menander is presented in the Milindapañha as a king of the Yonakas reigning at Saˉgala (S´ aˉkala).41 This city is also known from Arrian’s relation about the expedition of Alexander the Great,42 who is said to have razed the city to the ground, killing many of the Kathaeans,43 who had entrenched themselves within the city. Later, Saˉgala was rebuilt and incorporated into Alexander’s empire, forming its easternmost outpost. Upon the death of Alexander the Great around 322 BC, Chandragupta Maurya regained the northwestern Indian territory, including S´ aˉkala. Subsequently, Pu․syamitra overthrew the Mauryan dynasty and established the S´ un˙ ga Empire, reaching as far north as S´ aˉkala. As mentioned before, in the As´okaˉvadaˉna (cf. Strong 1983: 292 ff.), there is an account about Pu․syamitra’s visit to S´ aˉkala and his granting a hundred dıˉ naˉra44 reward to anyone, who brought him the head of a Buddhist monk. In the second chapter of the Milindapañha, Saˉgala is described as a city of trade: There is in the country of the Yonakas a great centre of trade, a city that is called Sagala, situated in a delightful country well watered and hilly, abounding in parks and gardens and groves and lakes and tanks, a paradise of rivers and mountains and woods. Wise architects have laid it out, and its people know of no oppression, since all their enemies and adversaries have been put down. Brave is its defence, with many and various strong towers and ramparts, with superb gates and entrance archways; and with the royal citadel in its midst, white walled and deeply moated. Well laid out are its streets, squares, cross roads, and market places. Well displayed are the innumerable sorts of costly merchandise with which its shops are filled. It is richly adorned with hundreds of alms-halls of various kinds; and

152  Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom

splendid with hundreds of thousands of magnificent mansions, which rise aloft like the mountain peaks of the Himalayas. Its streets are filled with elephants, horses, carriages, and foot-passengers, frequented by groups of handsome men and beautiful women, and crowded by men of all sorts and conditions, Brahmans, nobles, artificers, and servants. They resound with cries of welcome to the teachers of every creed, and the city is the resort of the leading men of each of the differing sects. Shops are there for the sale of Benares muslin, of Ko․tumbara stuffs and of other cloths of various kinds; and sweet odours are exhaled from the bazaars, where all sorts of flowers and perfumes are tastefully set out. Jewels are there in plenty, such as men’s hearts’ desire, and guilds of traders in all sorts of finery display their goods in the bazaars that face all quarters of the sky. So full is the city of money, and of gold and silver ware, of copper and stone ware, that it is a very mine of dazzling treasures. And there is laid up there much store of property and corn and things of value in warehouses—foods and drinks of every sort, syrups and sweetmeats of every kind. In wealth it rivals Uttara-kuru, and in glory it is as Aˉlakamandaˉ, the city of the gods. (Rhys Davids 1890: 2 f.) This beautiful description has all the features of idealization. However, one can see, which features of the city were desirable from the point of view of the Buddhist author of the text, and perhaps also associated with the Greek presence in the area, namely, natural and architectural beauty of the city, peace from wars, safety, high-quality streets and markets, wealth, abundance of goods, including luxury goods, and crowds of people of different conditions and creeds, including the teachers and the leaders of each of the different sects. Astonishing is the fact that in the Buddhist dialogue so much emphasis is put on showing the wealth of the country of Menander, and its diversity. The description of Saˉgala (Shejie) in both Chinese and Paˉli versions of the Milindapañha is clearly based on the same source, and although this banal description has all the appearance of being a long cliché, Demiéville (1924: 25) argued that it was a part of the original work. This description provides evidence for the relationship between the development of Buddhism and commercial, urban, and intellectual development. Because, as demonstrated by Neelis in his already mentioned book (2011), the possibility of the development of the Buddhist Sam ․ gha was closely connected with the patronage of the wealthy merchants and with the surpluses associated with urban development and economic changes. And, on the other hand, Buddhist leaders and teachers stimulated the intellectual development of the urban elites. Another place mentioned in the Milindapañha in connection with Menander’s life was his birthplace, Kalasi gaˉmo (village) in Alasanda dıˉ pa (island), which is distant 200 yojanas from Saˉgala. In the Chinese version, it is called Alisan, and is distant 2,000 yojanas from Saˉgala. According to some scholars, who give priority to the Paˉli version, Kalasi should be identified with Alexandria on the Caucasus (Skt. Kaˉpis´ˉı , later Kapisa, modern Bagram45). Among these researchers, a

Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom  153

mention should be made of Rapson (1922: 550), according to whom dıˉ pa should be understood as “the land lying between two rivers – the Persian duaˉb”46 and not as “island”; and of Foucher (1941), according to whom dıˉ pa here means “district”. Foucher also drew attention to the relationship between the name Kalasi and the form “Kavisi”, which appears on a coin of Eucratides,47 and is also identified with Alexandria on the Caucasus. Also, Tarn (1938: 421) argued that the Paˉli version should be considered as original, and not the Chinese, and he expressed his regret that some French scholars championed the Chinese against the Paˉli version, and that they believed that Alasanda originally meant Alexandria in Egypt and that the Paˉli translator changed 2,000 into 200. However, even now certain French researchers stick to this opinion. According to Fussman (1993: 79), dıˉ pa cannot mean “doab”, but it always means “island”, and denotes “most distant lands, which the mind can imagine” (les terres plus lontaines que l’esprit puisse imaginer), and it should be understood thus in the present work, so, in his opinion, it pertains to Alexandria in Egypt. But in my opinion, the conclusion reached by Fussman about the identification of Alasanda with Alexandria in Egypt is hard to sustain. Because, if Menander actually came from Alexandria in Egypt, we would expect references to his birthplace in Greek sources. Moreover, claiming that dıˉ pa cannot mean “doab”, Fussman ignored the arguments presented by Rapson (1922: 550), who listed S´ aˉkala-dvıˉ pa as an example of such use of the word dıˉ pa (Skt. dvıˉ pa). Anyway, Menander was not born in the region of Gandhaˉra, but either in Egypt, which is harder to justify, or in Alexandria on the Caucasus, which is easier to prove, taking into account the fact that in 329 BC after crossing Hindu Kush Alexander had built this city at the foot of the mountain and he had settled there either 7,000 natives and in addition the soldiers, to whom he commissioned the construction of the city,48 or 7,000 natives, 3,000 of the camp followers, and volunteers from among the mercenaries.49 Menander could therefore be a descendant of a veteran from the army of Alexander. Alasanda is also mentioned in Mahaˉvam ․ sa 29.39. The Sinhalese chronicle recounts the story of Yona Thera Mahadhammarakkhita, who came from Alasanda to Sri Lanka with 30,000 bhikkhus for the foundation ceremony of the Great stuˉ pa in Anuradhapura. The name of the city Alasanda may be identified either with Alexandria on the Caucasus or Alexandria in Arachosia, and so the passage indicates the presence of a large group of Buddhists, numbering at least 30,000 in one of these Greek cities. This story also shows that Greek sages were active proselytizers of Buddhism during the time of Menander. These two factors combined may indicate that the Buddhist culture flourished in the city under the Greek rule. Many of Menander’s coins have been found in an ancient site Pu․skalavati, which corresponds to Greek Peucelaotis,50 and to modern-day Charsadda. However, Greek city was situated at a distance of one kilometre from the earlier centre called Bala Hisar. Pu․skalavati was the capital of Gandhaˉra from the sixth century BC, when Gandhaˉra became an Achaemenid satrapy, to the second century AD. It was situated in Peshaˉwar valley in Pakistan, at the confluence of

154  Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom

Swaˉt and Kabul (Cophen) rivers. This valley is located near the eastern end of the Khyber Pass, which is a mountain pass connecting Afghanistan and Pakistan, an integral part of the ancient Silk Roads. According to Arrian,51 Hephaestion and Perdiccas had been sent into the region of Peucelaotis with orders from Alexander either to take over by force or to bring to terms all the places along their way. Hephaestion defeated Peucelaotis in thirty days, suppressing Astis’ rebellion and appointed Sangaeus to take charge of the city. In another passage,52 Arrian reported that Peucelaotis was taken over by Alexander after the Assacenian campaign. However, it would mean that Hephaestion and Perdiccas did not follow the instructions. According to Eggermont (1970: 69), the surrender of that town to Alexander meant only an official act. Other hypothesis was suggested by Badian (1987), who, in response to the explanation provided by Eggermont, concluded that all the non-compliance in Arrian’s reports results from his confusion of directions and misunderstanding of sources. Whether Hephaestion or Alexander took over Peucelaotis, anyway it was in Greek hands for some time, at least until Chandragupta got Gandhaˉra from Seleucus I. Later, this area was conquered by Demetrius. 53 According to Raˉmaˉyan ․ a, Pus․kalaˉvatˉı was founded at the same time as Taks․as´ilaˉ (Taxila), another ancient city in Gandhaˉra connected with Menander. Both cities, Pu․skalaˉvatˉı and Taks․as´ilaˉ, were ruled by sons of Bharata, Pu․skala and Taks․a, respectively. Presently, Taxila is a small town situated in the Punjab province of Pakistan. As far as the archaeology of the ancient city of Tak․sas´ilaˉ is concerned, it is associated with the person of Sir Marshall, who led the excavations in Taxila for twenty years. He presented the results of his research in three volumes entitled Taxila. An Illustrated Account of Archaeological Excavations (1951). Therefore, it is worth dwelling for a moment on the results of his research. As noted by Marshall, the earliest remains from Taxila are dated to about the sixth century BC. The earliest settlement was excavated on the so-called Bhi․r Mound and may have been founded by the Persian conqueror. The streets of this settlement were irregular and there was no visible urban planning. Later, king Aˉmbhi (Latin Omphis, Greek Μῶφις?), who was at war with the Paurawa king Porus, surrendered Taxila to Alexander in order to get his protection.54 Alexander left Philip as a governor in the city together with a garrison of Macedonians, mercenaries, and invalid soldiers. In 324 BC, Philip was killed by his own mercenaries and soon later, after Alexander’s death, there were no Greek forces left in Punjab. In the times of the Mauryan dynasty, a subsidiary seat of government was established in Taxila. As already mentioned, As´oka and later his son, Kunaˉla, were sent here as viceroys in order to suppress rebellions, which, according to Marshall, were caused by the harsh character of the Mauryan government, as evidenced by Arthas´aˉstra of Kaut․ilya. As is clear from the excavations, in the times of As´oka Taxila was an important centre of the Buddhist faith. One of the remnants from the time of Buddhist heyday in these areas55 is the so-called Dharmaraˉjikaˉ stuˉ pa, which was originally one of the stuˉ pas founded by As´oka for the relics of the Buddha. As stated by Marshall, “if the strength and vitality of a religion can

Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom  155

be gauged from its monumental remains, no one seeing this vast galaxy of ruins can doubt the overwhelming success which ultimately rewarded As´oka’s efforts in this part of India” (Marshall 1951: 25). However, this state of affairs did not last long, because soon Buddhism had to face violent Brahman reaction. Its proponent, Pu․syamitra, is blamed by history for the devastation of many Buddhist monuments and temples (cf. Marshall 1951: 24). But politically, after the death of As´oka Taxila was probably independent until the invasion of Demetrius. The Indo-Greeks founded a new settlement in Taxila, in Sirkap. As Marshall argued, “In contrast with the irregular, haphazard planning of the older city on the Bhi․r Mound, this new city was laid out on the symmetrical chess-board pattern characteristic of other Hellenistic cities of this period” (Marshall 1951: 39). He opposed the theory by Havell (1918), according to whom this “chess-board pattern” indicates Indo-Aˉryan inspiration. However, Mairs, in her article “The ‘Greek Grid-Plan’ at Sirkap (Taxila) and the Question of Greek Influence in the Northwest” (2009), contradicted Marshall’s conclusion that the layout of the city is a supposed proof of Hellenistic influence. She justified her view by demonstrating that the regular pattern excavated by Marshall cannot be dated to the times of the Indo-Greek kingdom, but to the times of its successors, and moreover, the “grid-pattern” was neither exclusive to the Greek world nor universal within it (Mairs 2009: 137). She concluded that the influence of Greek urban planning in Sirkap cannot be fully excluded, but it needs further evidence. Mairs also stated that a city plan cannot be treated as an unambiguous evidence of the city’s “Greekness”; but a city can be identified as “Greek” by its civic features, such as theatre, gymnasium, and public inscriptions. However, although Ai Khanoum provided all this evidence of “Greekness”, one should not be misled by always expecting similar results. Perhaps other factors may account for the fact that these elements of the “Greek” lifestyle were not cultivated in Taxila. Mairs also posed a wider question of relating the visible traces of Greek influence in the Northwest, such as material culture, to the people who created this material culture, and their social and ethnic identities. For this purpose, however, in her opinion, a more detailed cultural context is required (Mairs 2009: 143). Marshall, in his account, also mentions other examples of Greek influence in Taxila, such as “the use of schist and other soft stones for the manufacture of the carved dishes, cups, goblets, toilet-trays and the like which are found in such abundance in Sirkap” (Marshall 1951: 40), the introduction of bronze and lead alloy, copper, and nickel alloy (“packtong” bronze), and possibly also copper and zinc alloy (brass). The Greek objects found in Taxila also include earthenware amphorae, handled jugs, metal inkpots, embossed and black varnished ware, etc. As noted by Behrendt, “The earliest remains from Gandhara, dating from the second century BC to the first century AD, are mostly luxury goods found in urban centres such as Sirkap […]. Significant among these are a number of stone dishes, which likely had a domestic ritual function, that provide strong evidence of Gandhara’s contacts with Hellenistic, Alexandrian, and Parthian trading partners” (Behrendt 2007: 4).

156  Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom

As regards the Buddhist art, according to Marshall, “At Taxila, there is no contemporary evidence to prove whether the Greeks had any share in the evolution of Buddhist architecture and sculpture during the second century BC” (Marshall 1951: 42). However, the problem here goes much deeper. In the Buddhist art of Gandhaˉra, indeed very pronounced Greek influence can be seen, but unfortunately, the fact that the so-called Greco-Buddhist art starts much later than the time of the Indo-Greek kingdom is hard to explain. And unfortunately, so far, no satisfactory explanation was found for this gap. Marshall also drew attention to the position of Taxila as an important academic centre, as suggested by the reference in the Jaˉtaka tales. In his opinion, “This pre-eminence of the city as a seat of academic and practical teaching was a natural outcome of her geographical position at the Northwest gateway of India56 and of the peculiarly cosmopolitan character of her population” (Marshall 1951: 43). As Marshall further suggested (1951: 43), the educational system at Taxila might have changed with the advent of the Greeks. An interesting point was made by Havell (1918: 137), namely, that the great schism in the Sam ․ gha was caused by the loosening of discipline in the Buddhist Order associated with the rise of Hellenistic influence and the transference of Buddhist political power in the North from Paˉ․taliputra to Taxila. And indeed, from what we know about Taxila from the time of Menander, emerges a picture of a particularly cosmopolitan city, open to all currents of thought, a place, where no one is afraid to ask questions, and where there are many willing to reply. Thus, it seems possible that the atmosphere of the place could affect the movement of thought in the Order and the resulting differences of opinion regarding the explanation of Buddha’s teaching. It is also worth mentioning that according to Philostratus, Apollonius of Tyana visited Taxila. As claimed by Marshall, his description of the city and its buildings corresponds to the result of excavations. In Marshall’s opinion, the visit of Apollonius to Taxila should be dated to the middle of the first century AD: after the great earthquake, but before the Ku․saˉn ․ a invasion. Thus, Marshall (1951: 64) considered the source, on which the Life of Apollonius of Tyana was based, namely the notebooks of Damis, to be reliable, and expressed his regret that Philostratus put so much creativity in writing instead of quoting the source accurately. However, it is difficult to consider this as an objection to the writing of Philostratus. Moreover, it is not even sure, whether the notebooks of Damis ever existed. Perhaps they were merely an invention of Philostratus? However, this issue will be discussed in Chapter 6, devoted to the late Greek sources about Buddhism in India.

Notes 1 Strab. 11.11.1: ὥς φησιν Ἀπολλόδωρος ὁ Ἀρταμιτηνός, καὶ πλείω ἔθνη κατεστρέψαντο ἢ Ἀλέξανδρος, καὶ μάλιστα Μένανδρος. 2 For the polemic against Tarn cf. Gonda (1949). The discussion on this controversy will be presented further in the present chapter.

Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom  157











158  Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom





Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom  159

















160  Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom

imperium, in quemcumque transiret”; Diod. 17.86.4: Ταξίλου γὰρ τοῦ βασιλέως προτετελευτηκότος υἱὸς αὐτοῦ Μῶφις διαδεξάμενος τὴν ἀρχὴν διεπέμψατο μὲν καὶ πρότερον πρὸς Ἀλέξανδρον ἐν τῇ Σογδιανῇ διατρίβοντα, ἐπαγγελλόμενος αὐτῷ συστρατεύειν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀντιταττομένους τῶν Ἰνδῶν καὶ τότε πρέσβεις ἀποστείλας ἔφησεν αὐτῷ παραδιδόναι τὴν βασιλείαν. 55 Cf. Xuanzang’s mention of a thousand monasteries in Gandhaˉra. 56 Taxila together with Pu․skalaˉvatˉı and Kaˉpis´ˉı formed part of the great royal road from Paˉ․taliputra to Bactra, Hekatompylos, and the west, as related by Megasthenes (cf. Foucher 1942–1947). Neelis (2011) also confirms the importance of the city as a major hub of the Northern Route (Uttaraˉ patha).

References Badian, E. (1987) “Alexander at Peucelaotis”, The Classical Quarterly, 37(1), pp. 117–128. Baums, S. (2018a) “A framework for Gandhaˉran chronology based on relic inscriptions”, in Rienjang, W. and Stewart, P. (eds.) Problems of Chronology in Gandhaˉ ran Art: Proceedings of the First International Workshop of the Gandhaˉ ra Connections Project, University of Oxford. Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology, pp. 53–70. Baums, S. (2018b) “Greek or Indian? The questions of Menander and onomastic patterns in early Gandhaˉra”, in Ray, H.P. (ed.) Buddhism and Gandhara. An Archaeology of Museum Collections. 1st edn. Oxford, New York: Routledge, pp. 33–46. Behrendt, K.A. (2007) The Art of Gandhara in the Metropolitan Museum of Arts. 1st edn. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Arts. Behrsing, S. (1934a) “Beiträge zu einer Milindapañha-Bibliographie”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, 7(2), pp. 335–348. Behrsing, S. (1934b) “Beiträge zu einer Milindapañha-Bibliographie (Continued)”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, 7(3), pp. 517–539. Bernard, P. (1994) “The Greek kingdoms of Central Asia”, in Harmatta, J. (ed.) History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Vol. II. The Development of Sedentary and Nomadic Civilizations. 700 B.C. to A.D. 250. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, pp. 96–126. Bivar, A.D.H. (1985) “Review of Reh Inscription of Menander and the Indo-Greek Invasion of the Gan˙gaˉ Valley”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, 117(1), pp. 94–96. Blair, S. (2009) “Answers for Milinda: Hellenistic Influence on the Development of Gandharan Buddhism”, TCNJ Journal of Student Scholarship, 11, pp. 1–11. Bopearachchi, O. (1990) “Ménandre Sôter, un roi indo-grec. Observations chronologiques et géographiques”, Studia Iranica, 19(1), pp. 39–85. Bopearachchi, O. (1991) Monnaies gréco-bactriennes et indo-grecques: catalogue raisonné / Osmund Bopearachchi ; [préface par Georges Le Rider]. Paris : Bibliothèque Nationale, 1991. Bopearachchi, O. and Pieper, W. (1998) Ancient Indian Coins. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols (Indicopleustoi. Archaeologies of the Indian Ocean: 2). Brough, J. (1962) The Gaˉ ndhaˉ rˉı Dharmapada, Edited with An Introduction and Commentary by John Brough. London – New York: Oxford University Press. Cagnola, G. (1923) Dialoghi del re Milinda / versione dall’inglese di G. Cagnola. Milano: Casa Editrice Isis. Demiéville, P. (1924) “Les versions chinoises du Milindapañha”, Bulletin de l’Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient, 24, pp. 1–258. Eggermont, P.H.L. (1970) “Alexander’s Campaign in Gandhara and Ptolemy’s List of Indo-Scythian Towns”, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica, 1, pp. 63–123.

Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom  161

Falk, H. and Bennett, C. (2009) “Macedonian Intercalary Months and the Era of Azes”, Acta Orientalia, 70, pp. 179–216. Finot, L. (1923) Les questions de Milinda: Milinda-Pañha. Paris: Bossard. Foucher, A. (1941) “Le lieu de naissance du roi indo-grec Ménandre”, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 85(6), pp. 541–557. Foucher, A. (1942–1947) La vieille route de l’Inde: de Bactres à Taxila. Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan; t. 1. Paris: Les Éditions d’art et d’histoire. Fraser, P.M. (1996) Cities of Alexander the Great. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Fussman, G. (1993) “L’Indo-Grec Ménandre ou Paul Demiéville Revisité”, Journal Asiatique, 281(1–2), pp. 61–138. Garbe, R. (1903) “Der Milindapañha, ein kulturhistorischer Roman aus Altindien”, in Garbe, R. (ed.) Beiträge zur indischen Kultürgeschichte. Berlin: Gebrüder Paetel, pp. 95–140. Gonda, J. (1949) “Tarn’s Hypothesis on the Origin of the Milindapañha”, Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, 2(1), pp. 44–62. Gupta, P.L. (1985) “Kushaˉ․n, as in the Yamuno-Gangetic Region. Chronology and Date”, Annali dell’Università degli studi di Napoli “L’Orientale”. Rivista del Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici e del Dipartimento di Studi e Ricerche su Africa e Paesi Arabi, 45(2), pp. 199–222. Havell, E.B. (1918) The History of Aryan Rule in India From the Earliest Times to the Death of Akbar. London: Georg G. Harrap & Company Ltd. Holt, F.L. (1999) Thundering Zeus: The Making of Hellenistic Bactria. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. Horner, I.B. (1963–1964) Milinda’s Questions. Translated From the Pali, by I.B. Horner. Vols. I–II. London: Luzac. Karttunen, K. (1997) India and the Hellenistic World. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society (Studia Orientalia: vol. 83). Konow, S. (1929) Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. II, Part I: Kharos․․thˉı Inscriptions with the Exception of Those of As´oka. Calcutta: Government of India, Central Publication Branch. Konow, S. (1939) “A Greek Term in an Indian Inscription”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland (New Series), 71(2), pp. 265–266. Konow, S. (1947) “Note on the Bajaur Inscription of Menandros”, Epigraphia Indica, 27(12), pp. 52–58. Kubica, O. (2014) “Beyond Influence: A Reflection on the History of Research on the Milindapañha with a Comparison of the Text to the Kitab al Khazari”, Eos. Commentarii Societatis Philologae Polonorum, 101, pp. 187–206. Kubica, O. (2020) “Reading the Milindapañha: Indian historical sources and the Greeks in bactria”, in Rachel, M. (ed.) The Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek World (The Routledge Worlds). London, New York: Routledge, pp. 430–445. Kubica, O. (2021) “Milindapañha and the Role of Buddhism as a Catalyst for Public Communication and Discussion”, Academic Journal of Modern Philology, 14, pp. 237–245. Lamotte, E. (1988) History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Saka Era; Translated From the French by Sara Webb-Boin Under the Supervision of Jean Dantinne. Louvainla-Neuve: Université Catholique de Louvain, Institut Orientaliste (Publications de l’Institut orientaliste de Louvain: 36). Law, B.C. (2000) A History of Paˉ li Literature. 2nd edn. Varanasi: Indica Books. Mairs, R. (2009) “The ‘Greek Grid-Plan’ at Sirkap (Taxila) and the Question of Greek Influence in the North West”, in Fröhlich, C. (ed.) Migration, Trade and Peoples. Part 2: Gandharan Art. London: The British Association for South Asian Studies, p. 135.

162  Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom

Majumdar, N.G. (1937) “The Bajaur Casket of the Reign of Menander”, Epigraphia Indica, 24(1), pp. 1–8. Malinowski, G. (2012) “Origin of the Name Seres”, in Malinowski, G., Paron´, A. and Szmoniewski, B.S. (eds.) Serica – Da Qin: Studies in Archaeology, Philology and History of Sino-Western Relations (Selected Problems). Wrocław: GAJT, pp. 13–21. Marshall, S.J.H. (1951) Taxila. An Illustrated Account of Archaeological Excavations Carried Out at Taxila Under the Orders of the Government of India Between the Years 1913 and 1914. In Three Volumes. Cambridge: The University Press. Mitchiner, J.E. (1986) The Yuga Puraˉ․na. Critically Edited, with An English Translation and a Detailed Introduction. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society. Mukherjee, B.N. (1981) Mathuraˉ and Its Society: The S´ aka-Pahlava Phase. Calcutta: K.L.M. Private Limited. Nanjio, B. (1883) A Catalogue of the Chinese Translation of the Buddhist Tripi․taka. The Sacred Canon of the Buddhists in China and Japan. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Neelis, J. (2011) Early Buddhist Transmission and Trade Networks. Mobility and Exchange Within and Beyond the Northwestern Borderlands of South Asia. Leiden – Boston: Brill Academic Publishers. Pelliot, P. (1914) “Les Noms propres dans les traductions chinoises du Milindapañha”, Journal Asiatique, 11(4), pp. 379–419. Pesala, B. (1998) The Debate of King Milinda: An Abridgement of the Milinda Pañha. Rev. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers (Buddhist traditions: 14). Rapson, E.J. (1922) The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I, Ancient India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rawlinson, H.G. (1912) Bactria, the History of a Forgotten Empire. London: Probsthein & Co. Rhys Davids, T.W. (1890) The Questions of King Milinda Translated From the Pali by T.W. Rhys Davids. Oxford: Clarendon Press (Sacred books of the East, 35, 36). Rhys Davids, T.W. (1894) The Questions of King Milinda Translated From the Pali by T.W. Rhys Davids. Part II. Oxford: Clarendon Press (Sacred books of the East, 35, 36). Salomon, R., Barnard, M. and Allchin, F.R. (1999) Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandhaˉ ra. The British Library Kharos․․thıˉ Fragments. London: The British Library. Schrader, F.O. (1905) Die Fragen des Königs Menandros. Berlin: P. Raatz. Senart, E.C.M. (1889) “Notes d’épigraphie indienne. II. Sur quelques pierres gravées provenant du Caboul”, Journal Asiatique, 7(13), pp. 364–375. Sharma, G.R. (1980) Reh Inscription of Menander and the Indo-Greek Invasion of the Gan˙ gaˉ Valley. Allahabad: Abinash. Sick, D.H. (2007) “When Socrates Met the Buddha: Greek and Indian Dialectic in Hellenistic Bactria and India”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 17(3), pp. 253–278. Sircar, D.C. (1942) “A Note on the Bajaur Casket of the Reign of Menander”, Epigraphia Indica, 26(46), pp. 318–321. Sircar, D.C. (1963) “The Account of the Yavanas in the ‘Yuga-Puraˉn ․ a’”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 95(1–2), pp. 7–20. Specht, E. and Lévi, S. (1892) “Deux traductions chinoises du Milindapañho”, in Delmar Morgan, E. (ed.) Transactions of the Ninth International Congress of Orientalists (Held in London, 5th to 12th September 1892). Vol. I. Indian and Aryan Sections, London: Printed for the Committee of the Congress, pp. 518–529. Strong, J. (1983) The Legend of King As´oka: A Study and Translation of the As´okaˉ vadaˉ na. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Takakusu, J. (1896) “Chinese Translations of the Milinda Pan˙ ho”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, pp. 1–21.

Menander and the Indo-Greek kingdom  163

Tarn, W.W. (1938) The Greeks in Bactria and India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trenckner, V. (1880) The Milindapañho: Being Dialogues Between King Milinda and the Buddhist Sage Naˉ gasena. London: Williams and Norgate. von Hinüber, O. (1987) “The Oldest Dated Manuscript of the Milindapañha”, Journal of the Pali Text Society, 11, pp. 111–119. von Hinüber, O. (1996) A Handbook of Paˉ li Literature. Vol. II. Berlin – New York: Walter de Gruyter. Waddell, L.A. (1897) “A Historical Basis for the Questions of King ‘Menander,’ from the Tibetan, etc.”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, 29(2), pp. 227–237. Weber, A. (1890) “Die Griechen in Indien”, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 2, pp. 901–933. Winternitz, M. (1983) A History of Indian Literature Vol. II: Buddhist Literature and Jaina Literature. Revised. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

5 ˉ RA GANDHA

This chapter concerns the region of Greater Gandhaˉra. The theories on three types of Greek influence on the culture of Gandhaˉra – in art, language, and Buddhist religiosity – are examined here. As regards Greek influence in the art of Gandhaˉra, the views of Foucher, who coined the term l’art gréco-bouddhique du Gandhâra to determine the Greek impact on the creation of the anthropomorphic representations of the Buddha, are presented together with the polemic by Coomaraswamy. The motive of Heracles – Vajrapaˉn ․i serves to illustrate this problem. Regarding the Greek influence in the language of Gandhaˉra, the origin and development of the dialect Gaˉndhaˉrˉı , as well as the works preserved in this dialect, are discussed here. These passages show that the dialect Gaˉndhaˉrˉı was created during complicated transcultural processes. A theory of the establishment of the Dharmaguptaka sect by a Greek monk and the theory of the impact of the Greek papyrus on the adoption of scroll form for Gaˉndhaˉrˉı texts are also presented here. As for Greek influence on Buddhist religiosity, views of Blair about the impact of the Greeks on the perception of the Buddha as a god by the Buddhists are discussed.

Gandha ˉ ra and greater Gandha ˉ ra When talking about Gandhaˉra, one must distinguish between ancient Gandhaˉra and the so-called Greater Gandhaˉra, a term proposed by Salomon (Salomon et al. 1999: 3). Ancient Gandhaˉra, also known as Gandhaˉra proper, was limited to the plains of the Peshawar basin, sheltered by natural boundaries: Hindu Kush Mountains to the west, high foothills to the north, and the Indus river to the east. Nowadays, these areas are located in Northwest Pakistan (Figure 5.1). As regards the term Greater Gandhaˉra, it was created for the purpose of distinction between Gandhaˉra proper and Gandhaˉra understood as the larger cultural sphere, DOI: 10.4324/9781003258575-6

Gandhaˉra  165

FIGURE 5.1

Map of Gandhaˉra.

including neighbouring regions, such as the Swaˉt, Kabul, and other river valleys, eastern part of the present-day Afghanistan (e.g. Had․d․a, Nagarahaˉra), region around Taxila, and Kashmir. This distinction is clarified by Behrendt (2004: 2). It should be noted that the Greater Gandhaˉra covers very diverse areas, which are sometimes separated by natural barriers in the form of mountains or large rivers. Therefore, the specificity and chronology of some of these areas deviate from the general pattern, as in the case of the Swaˉt valley. Buddhism was introduced to Gandhaˉra around the middle of the third century BC by As´oka, what is attested by his REs (Major Rock Edicts) written in Kharo․s․thˉı script, located at Shaˉhbaˉzga․rhˉı and Maˉnsehraˉ, and by the legend preserved in the Sinhalese chronicle, Mahaˉvam ․ sa (12.3) about As´oka’s missionary Majjhaˉntika (Madhyaˉntika) sent to Gandhaˉra and Kas´mˉı ra (Kashmir) in order to convert these areas. However, almost no physical remains of this early period of Buddhism in this region, neither stuˉpas, nor figural and narrative sculpture, not even Buddhist ritual and dedicatory inscriptions, have yet been found. Only one sanctuary from the third century BC was found by the Italian archaeological mission in Butkara I, but it is an isolated case. The heyday of Buddhism in this area may be dated to the time of the Ku․saˉn ․as, from the first to the third century AD. From that time, Gandhaˉran monks were instrumental in the expansion of Buddhism beyond India. As Salomon asserted, “Gandhaˉra’s strategic location enabled it to play a pivotal role in the cultural history of Asia” (Salomon et al. 1999: 6). Until the fifth century AD, the Peshawar basin held a key position on a trade route connecting the West (the Mediterranean) with the East (China) and the South (India) via Karakoram and Khyber passes. This strategic position tempted

166 Gandhaˉra

waves of invaders to attempt to gain control over these areas. However, this constant warfare did not affect the Buddhist communities, which somehow were able to thrive, thanks to the benefit of the trade. As Behrendt sensibly noticed, “It is possible that Buddhism flourished specifically because its religious institutions were not pillaged during times of war and thus provided stable way stations for the transient merchant communities” (Behrendt 2004: 23). Thus, prosperous trade went hand in hand with the development of Buddhist patronage, which flourished in the third to fifth centuries AD, giving the greatest number of surviving architectural material dated to this period. However, as suggested by the accounts of the Chinese pilgrims, around the sixth century AD, the Peshawar basin lost its position because of the increasing popularity of other branch of the Silk Routes, leading through ancient Nagarahaˉra (cf. Chavannes 1903; Beal 1905; Chandra 1977: 171). At the same time, the decline of patronage in Peshawar can be observed, pointing to the relationship between trade and the development of Buddhist art. Also, Xuanzang bears witness to the decline in patronage around the fifth century AD. But the Swaˉt valley followed a different chronological pattern, because of the isolation of this area. Therefore, the decline of patronage may be observed here later. Another effect of trade was the multiculturalism of the region due to such factors as the changing waves of invaders, the increasing number of foreign traders trafficking luxury goods, and the attractiveness of the region for other newcomers looking for goods, either material, or intellectual, or even spiritual. According to Behrendt, “it is this mix of different people and ideas that makes the study of Gandhaˉra both complex and intriguing. […] The people who lived in Gandhaˉra embraced this multicultural hybrid and over time creatively re-contextualized outside forms and ideas to suit their own needs and interests” (Behrendt 2004: 12). This last statement by Behrendt is perhaps the most essential in the context of examining not only Buddhism in Gandhaˉra but also the whole relations between the Greeks and Buddhism. This multicultural region of Gandhaˉ ra was the place, where the earliest anthropomorphic images of the Buddha were found. Because these sculptures were reminiscent of the Mediterranean sculptural style, therefore, the art of Gandhaˉ ra was termed by certain scholars, following Foucher, as Greco-Buddhist art. According to Behrendt, “The British understood the Gandhaˉ ran sculptural style as a regional product of the Greco-Roman world and saw in the classically dressed Buddha image the perfect emblem of the west giving shape to the east” (Behrendt 2004: 16). However, this issue will be discussed in a separate section. Gandhaˉra is a region abounding with Buddhist archaeological sites (cf. Litvinsky 2000). In Gandhaˉra proper itself, covering areas of the Peshawar basin, there are several sites, among which Takht-i-baˉhˉı , Jamaˉl Ga․rhˉı , or Sahrˉı -Bahloˉl should be named. In Greater Gandhaˉra, most important sites are located in Taxila (e.g. Dharmaraˉjikaˉ complex, being a focal hub of more than a dozen smaller sites) and in the Swaˉt valley (e.g. Butkara I and Barikot).

Gandhaˉra  167

The archaeological exploration of these areas began with collecting the artefacts, such as coins or reliquaries, by military officers and even deserters, as in the case of Masson (cf. Errington 2002, 2007: 11). However, this collecting could be compared to plunder rather than to a research. Subsequently, in 1861, the Archaeological Survey of India was established by Cunningham under the British colonial administration. Its function was not only to excavate and explore the antiquities but also to conserve, preserve, and protect them. A turning point in the archaeological exploration of Gandhaˉra was the digs at Taxila carried out in the years 1912–1937 by Marshall. These excavations were the first more scientific exploration of this region, however, far from present-day standards. As noted by Behrendt, “While Marshall’s archaeological methodology might seem inadequate when compared to modern practices, his activities mark a turning point for our understanding of the Gandhaˉran architectural tradition” (Behrendt 2004: 19). Subsequent partition of these areas into Pakistan and India, and the accompanying turmoil hindered the explorations. Later on, Tucci initiated the Italian Archaeological Mission in the Swaˉt valley (ISMEO, formerly IsIAO),1 while Mizuno initiated the Japanese Archaeological Mission in the Peshawar basin. In the years 1922–1982, French excavations were carried out in Afghanistan under the auspices of the Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan (DAFA).2 After an interruption of research, during World War II work resumed in 1946–1947 until its closure by the pro-Soviet government of Afghanistan in 1982. After the Soviet invasion, Afghanistan has never been a peaceful place. The frictions between several parties have caused irreparable damage to the cultural heritage of that country, the saddest expression of which is the destruction by the Taliban in March 2001 of the Baˉmiyaˉn Buddhas, being sixth-century monumental statues of standing Buddha carved into the side of a cliff (cf. Leoshko 2011). 3 Also, the Kashmir conflict made this region inaccessible to archaeological exploration. Chronology of Gandhaˉra was developed by Behrendt (2007: ix). As already mentioned, various regions of Greater Gandhaˉra followed different chronological patterns. But at least several events and turning points should be mentioned referring to the region of ancient Gandhaˉra. In 326 BC, Alexander the Great invaded Gandhaˉra, conquered Taxila, and arrived at the Indus river. The first Buddhist sites were founded in Gandhaˉra around 200 BC, but no religious imagery is known from this period. In the period from the second century BC to the first century AD, some carved stone dishes and secular luxury objects were produced, which were found in urban centres such as Sirkap. They probably had a domestic ritual function and they provide evidence of trade relations between Gandhaˉra and the Mediterranean. However, the first sculptures in the Buddhist sites appeared no sooner than the first century AD. From the first to the third century AD, much of Greater Gandhaˉra and North India fell under the control of the Ku․saˉn․as. The second century AD was the zenith of both, the Gandhaˉran art and the Ku․saˉn․a power under such kings as Kani․ska and Huvi․ska. In this period, many Buddhist sites were founded and most of the Gandhaˉran Buddhist narrative sculpture was produced. From the third century AD, devotional non-narrative

168 Gandhaˉra

figures of the Buddha and bodhisattvas appeared, which later evolved to enormous sizes (cf. Baˉmiyaˉn Buddhas). As already mentioned, around the sixth century AD, Gandhaˉra proper lost its position on the major trade route. But in the part of Greater Gandhaˉra lying in present-day Afghanistan, on the contrary, the period from the fourth to eighth centuries AD may be regarded as a period of greatest prosperity, due to the shift of the trade routes in favour of Afghanistan. At this time, Buddhism thrived in this region as evidenced by the monumental Buddhas constructed at Baˉmiyaˉn in the sixth century AD. In the eighth to ninth centuries AD, Buddhist traditions nearly vanished in the region of Greater Gandhaˉra, partly due to the decline of patronage, and perhaps partly due to the Muslim invasions.4 Until recently, Gandhaˉran art had been dated on the basis of styles or motifs. The chronology thus obtained was based on the supposed Mediterranean stylistic influences. Certain scholars had assumed that Gandhaˉran art was created roughly at the same time when similar Greek art first appeared in the Mediterranean region. As Behrendt described it, “essentially the more classical an object looked, the earlier the date assigned to it” (Behrendt 2007: 4). But later, the chronology of Gandhaˉran art was postponed, attributing the main phase of Gandhaˉran sculptural production to the Ku․saˉn ․a period. In the present book, the four-phase chronological sequence proposed by Behrendt was adopted, which, in his opinion, “provides a general sequence that seems more reliable than a chronology based on supposed Greco-Roman stylistic influences on Gandhaˉran art” (Behrendt 2004: 7). The dates adopted in this chronology depend on the date of Kani․ska’s accession, for which year 120 AD was accepted by Behrendt as conventional. The first phase, dated to the period from around 200 BC to around 50–100 AD, relates to the origin of early Buddhist sacred areas and temples in and around the city of Sirkap, the earliest remains of Dharmaraˉjikaˉ complex, as well as the first structures from Butkara I in Swaˉt. During the second phase, dated to the period from around 50–100 AD to around 200 AD, the Dharmaraˉjikaˉ complex and Butkara I were expanded, and some distinctly Gandhaˉran features appeared, such as veneration of relics and narrative reliefs depicting biography of the Buddha, as well as anthropomorphic images of the Buddha. According to Behrendt, “This form of Gandhaˉran art developed as a direct outgrowth of an earlier narrative tradition seen in other places on the Indian subcontinent, such as Bhaˉrhut, Saˉñci, and the Andhra region. However, evidence of the Gandhaˉran practice of recounting large sections of the Buddha’s life sequentially in multiple relief panels, to be read in the process of circumambulation, is not found in other parts of India” (Behrendt 2004: 8). As noted by Olivieri in his new publication, “An important point that needs making is that we find no evidence of a sculptural tradition or art (neither local nor imported) in Swat and Gandhara before the development of Gandharan Buddhist art” (Olivieri 2022: 34). The third phase, from the third to fifth centuries AD, was a period of great prosperity.

Gandhaˉra  169

Narrative art gave way to devotional icons, which were housed in shrines. At the end of this phase, these icons and shrines took monumental sizes. The last, fourth phase, is characterized by monumentality and iconographic complexity in some areas, such as Baˉmiyaˉn or Ajan ․․taˉ, as well as the decline of patronage in others, for example in Peshawar valley. However, in Swaˉt valley, patronage seems to have endured. The beginning of this phase coincides with the invasion of the Hephthalites (White Huns) around 450 AD. This period is quite poorly understood and abounds in mysterious phenomena, such as cruciform stuˉpas (cf. e.g. the Bhamala Stuˉpa).

Gandhˉaran art as Greco-Buddhist art? Anthropomorphic images of the Buddha At the beginning of the twentieth century, Foucher published his famous work L’art gréco-bouddhique du Gandhâra: étude sur les origines de l’influence classique dans l’art bouddhique de l’Inde et de l’Extrême-Orient (1905–1951), in which he coined the term Greco-Buddhist art. He argued that, since early Buddhist art was aniconic, representing elements of the Buddha’s life instead of depicting the Buddha himself, the first sculpted images of the Buddha must have been influenced by Greek artists. He further clarified his opinion in an essay from 1911, which was translated from the French original as The Beginnings of Buddhist Art (1917). At the outset of this paper, he noted that there are no surviving sculptures or buildings from the pre-Mauryan period, and thus he raised the question of the origins of Indian art as such. He asked rhetorically, whether the absence of pre-Mauryan art means that the entire Indian art was created by a decree of Emperor As´oka. And he answered at once that it would be absurd to believe this. In his opinion, the problem can be explained by the substitution of the reign of wood that of stone during the third century BC (Foucher 1917: 3). Subsequently, pre-Mauryan wooden art and architecture were destroyed by the Indian climate, leaving no traces for the archaeologists. Foucher further distinguished the so-called native school of Central India, which flourished in such centres as Bhaˉrhut, Saˉñci, Amaraˉvatˉı , or Mathuraˉ, characterized by “representing the life of Buddha without Buddha” (Foucher 1917: 4). According to Foucher, the reason for creating this aniconic art was neither incapacity of the artists nor prohibition, as there is no clear prohibition in Buddhist scriptures to represent Buddha. In his opinion, “If they did not do it, it was because it was not the custom to do it” (Foucher 1917: 7). Instead of Buddha, they portrayed the tree, the wheel, or the stuˉpa. These symbols were connected with four stages of the Buddha’s life (Nativity or Vocation, Acquisition of Omniscience, First Sermon, and Final Decease) and hence with popular places of pilgrimage (Kapilavastu, Bodh Gayaˉ, Benares, and Kus´inagara). In these places, pilgrims could acquire souvenirs in the form of moulded or stamped clay balls

170 Gandhaˉra

with symbols of the tree, the wheel, and the stuˉpa, which were a kind of memento and ex-voto at the same time. Foucher then suddenly went on to present the transition from native art to Greco-Buddhist art. He described it in such words as artistic cataclysm, revolution, wonderful innovation, revelation from Gandhaˉra, or emancipation of the native tradition, which, in turn, he represented as an ancient régime in Buddhist art and the magic charm which had weighed upon the ancient Buddhist school. In his opinion, “The Hellenized sculptors of the Northwest, strangers to the native tradition of Central India, satisfied to the full, and even outwent, the wishes of their Buddhist patrons by creating for their use the Indo-Greek type of Buddha” (Foucher 1917: 24) (Figure 5.2). Foucher further analysed the bas-reliefs of Bhaˉrhut as the representations of the Jaˉtakas, thus proving that early Buddhist art, as opposed to the so-called Greco-Buddhist art, was consistent with the Buddhist scriptures (Figure 5.3). In the next section, entitled “The Greek Origin of the Image of Buddha” (Foucher 1917: 111 ff.), Foucher argued that the uniformity of all anthropomorphic images of the Buddha proves the existence of a common prototype and that

FIGURE 5.2

Standing Buddha. One of the first representations of the Buddha, Ku․saˉn․a period, first–second centuries AD, Gandhaˉra (Tokyo National Museum).

Source: ColBase: Integrated Collections Database of the National Institutes for Cultural Heritage, Japan. URL: https://colbase.nich.go.jp/collection_items/tnm/TC-733?locale=en

Gandhaˉra  171

FIGURE 5.3

One face of a fence-rail from Bhaˉrhut: Worship at a Stuˉpa, early second century BC.

Credit: Freer Gallery of Art; Purchase – Charles Lang Freer Endowment. URL: https://asia. si.edu/object/F1932.26/

this prototype must have come from Gandhaˉra, whence the oldest known Buddha images come. Indeed, it must have been striking for Foucher and other art historians of his time that actually the oldest preserved images of Buddha come from the Northwest. And thus the conclusion seems obvious that it was exactly this “melting pot” that was the place of origin of all these images. Subsequently, Foucher argued on the basis of esthetical impression that anthropomorphic images of the Buddha were created under the influence of Greek artists. As a case study served one of the Buddha statues found in Mardaˉn, about which he wrote that technical details, as well as the harmony of the whole, indicate Greek influence. In his opinion, “you cannot fail to be struck by its Hellenic character” (Foucher 1917: 119). He described the statue of Mardaˉn as “a kind of compromise, a hybrid work, which would not in any language have a name, had not the no less heteroclite term of ‘Greco-Buddhist’ been forthwith invented for it” (Foucher 1917: 120). He further called this statue either “Hellenized Buddha” or “Indianized Apollo”. Foucher also tried to answer the question of how the Greek influence reached Gandhaˉra. And in response, he recounted the most important facts from the history of Greeks in the region of Gandhaˉra, such as the treaty between Seleucus and Chandragupta, As´oka’s edicts from Shaˉhbaˉzga․rhˉı , and Menander’s

172 Gandhaˉra

reign. On the other hand, the legend preserved in the Mahaˉvam ․ sa about As´oka sending Madhyaˉntika to Gandhaˉra and Kashmir to convert these areas proves, in his opinion, that the Greek domination and the introduction of Buddhism in Gandhaˉra coincided in time. Foucher concluded that “we are on the whole well informed as to the where and when, from the rencontre of the two inverse expansions, that of Hellenism towards the east consequent upon the political conquests of Alexander, and that of Buddhism towards the west by favour of the religious missions of As´oka, was born once for all the Indo-Greek type of Buddha” (Foucher 1917: 130). According to Foucher, the Indo-Greek type of Buddha was first created during Menander’s reign, when the circumstances were most favourable. In his opinion, the Buddhist donors utilized the talent and resources of the Greeks, who were “strangers, more artists than theologians” (Foucher 1917: 134). And thus Gandhaˉran images of the Buddha are in many respects contradictory to the scriptures (e.g. long hair). As Foucher described it, “Indian material was poured into a western mould” (Foucher 1917: 130). However, at the end of his argument, Foucher emphasized his appreciation for both Greeks and Indians in creating this model. As he rightly concluded, “It would be childish to associate ourselves, in a partisan spirit and turnabout, with the exaltation or the contempt, whether of Europe or of Asia, when so fine an opportunity offers for saluting in the Eurasian prototype of Buddha one of the most sublime creations wherewith their collaboration has enriched humanity” (Foucher 1917: 137). Shortly thereafter, Coomaraswamy, in his article “The Origin of the Buddha Image” (1927), entered into polemics with Foucher’s theory. He began his article with bitter words describing the alleged European standpoint, according to which “the creative genius of Greece had provided a model which had later been barbarized and degraded by races devoid of true artistic instincts, to whom nothing deserving the name of fine art could be credited” (Coomaraswamy 1927: 287). This last statement is, however, not reflected in Foucher’s own arguments, who, as already mentioned, expressed his appreciation for both Greeks and Indians in creating this model. Perhaps it is worth mentioning at the outset that Coomaraswamy was involved in the defence of the traditional culture of Ceylon from westernization. His attitude could be responsible for his miscomprehension of Foucher’s intentions. Subsequently, Coomaraswamy clarified what he meant by the Buddha image, and he included here all Buddhas and boddhisattvas, of Buddhist, Jaina and Braˉhman․ical origin. It is worth mentioning that Foucher, on the contrary, analysed only images of the Buddha S´aˉkyamuni and warned his readers not to throw all the Buddhas into one pot. Coomaraswamy (1927: 290) tried to prove that the anthropomorphic images are much earlier than the Greek presence in India. While the early symbolic ˉ ryan origin, the anthropomorphic images are representations of deities are of A 5 in fact aboriginal (Dravidian ). Traces of this folk iconolatry remained in the form of figures of Yak․sas and Yaks․ˉı s, as well as of images of Naˉgas. Later, these popular cults of Yak․sas and Naˉgas were probably absorbed by Buddhism and

Gandhaˉra  173

Jainism. According to Coomaraswamy, due to the idolatry of simple folk, who made no distinction between the statues of Yak․sas and Buddhas, worship of a personal deity (puˉjˉa) entered Indian religions, not only Buddhism but also Jainism and Hinduism. If we assume that Coomaraswamy was right and that the anthropomorphic images were indeed of pre-Aˉryan origin, their relationship to the discussed earlier in the present book S´raman․ic culture should be examined. Perhaps before the Vedic period in India, the popular cult of Yak․sas coexisted with the ascetic traditions of Indus Valley origin and subsequently became its integral part, as seen in Jainism and Buddhism. Subsequently, Coomaraswamy asserted “that Buddha figures were first made in Mathuraˉ and afterwards copied in Gandhaˉra” (Coomaraswamy 1927: 313). However, all the elements of the later anthropomorphic images, such as meditating monks, standing figures, us․․nıˉ․sa,6 curly hair, radiance, and turban, were already present in early Indian art and literary descriptions, before they appeared either in Mathuraˉn or in Gandhaˉran art, and their presence can be explained without supposing foreign influence. However, Coomaraswamy did not completely rule out the Greek influence. He distinguished between the Indian (Mathuraˉn) types and the Greek (Gandhaˉran) types, which are characterized by realism and idealism. In his opinion, “We are dealing, in fact, not merely with two different kinds of art, but with two arts in entirely different stages of their development; the Greek already decadent, the Indian still primitive” (Coomaraswamy 1927: 316). He also noticed that there are no Greco-Jain sculptures, but there are a few sculptures from the third century AD, which may be called Greco-Hindu. The weak point of this theory is the lack of dating of Mathuraˉn and Gandhaˉran art. Coomaraswamy summarized his discourse stating hastily that “if the Gandhaˉra Buddhas could be proved older than any Mathuraˉ ones, this would not alter the admitted fact that the conception of the figure is Indian, nor the equally obvious fact that the earliest Indian Buddha figures are in stylistic and iconographic continuity with the older indigenous art. Nor, on the other hand, if priority could be proved for the Mathuraˉ types, would it alter the fact that the Gandhaˉra types are Hellenistic in style” (Coomaraswamy 1927: 319). It should be kept in mind that both Foucher and Coomaraswamy assigned the art of Gandhaˉra to an earlier period than present researchers usually do. In the context of presented in the previous section chronology of Gandhaˉran art, proposed by Behrendt, it is difficult to explain Greek influence on art created in the Ku․saˉn․a period. However, it is not impossible. It seems reasonable to conclude that Greek artists did not suddenly disappear from the Indian territory after the conquest of these lands by the Ku․saˉn․as.7 This discourse shows also that several stylistic, religious, and social influences may be traced in the art of Gandhaˉra. Also, Hellenistic art had an undeniable impact on the statues of the Buddha. However, its extent is difficult to determine. Therefore, suffice it to summarize after Behrendt, who stated that: Many scholars in the 19th and 20th centuries were preoccupied with tracing Greco-Roman influences that they believed shaped Gandhaˉra. This

174 Gandhaˉra

line of inquiry has produced inconclusive results in terms of dating and characterizing the nature of Gandhaˉran culture. It did serve to identify the many foreign groups that came into contact with the people of Northwest India, but the nature of these interactions remains unclear. Perhaps this is because the people in Gandhaˉra were actively filtering foreign ‘influences’ and selectively appropriating forms and ideas coming from abroad. Gandhaˉra’s art, architecture, and religious traditions cannot be seen as a pastiche of Mediterranean, Parthian, Chinese, and south Asian influences. The view of Gandhaˉra as a passive recipient obscures and denies independent development and has led to interpreting this culture as one that was polluted – or ennobled – by the Classical tradition. (Behrendt 2004: 50 f.) And, therefore, it is a gross simplification to look at the art of Gandhaˉ ra as a result of syncretism between Buddhist philosophy and Hellenistic art. The term Greco-Buddhist art, proposed by Foucher, does not reflect reality, ignores the chronology, and overlooks the complex processes taking place between the two cultures on the so-called middle ground. Moreover, as argued by Filigenzi, “definitions such as ‘Hellenised Orient’ or ‘Gréco-bouddhique’ […] contain an implicit, though mostly unintentional, notion of civilising influence” (Filigenzi 2012: 112). Due to a lack of data on the production of these sculptures, it is impossible to accurately investigate these processes and the actual impact of the Greeks on Gandhaˉ ran art. It cannot be excluded that the Greeks took an active part in the manufacture of these sculptures, but it is difficult to assess their role accurately. And, therefore, in my opinion, it is safer to avoid speaking about the art of Gandhaˉ ra as a Greco-Buddhist art. It is worth noting that before Foucher formulated his theory, Della Seta, in his early work La genesi dello scorcio nell’arte greca (1906–1907), wrote about “Graeculi’ vaganti” (wandering “Graeculi”) and “scuola greco-orientale” (Greco- oriental school) (Della Seta 1906–1907: 133). According to Olivieri (2022: 55), Della Seta “brings into the matter two fundamental elements that are often forgotten, namely ‘technique’ and ‘school’”. As Olivieri further explained, “‘technique’ and ‘school’ are closely bound up with the human component, for there is no transmission over distance in the artistic tradition. Everything is mediated by the human component, from master to pupil, and from pupil to pupil over time and space. When the distance from the origin of the movement is truly great, what makes the ‘school’ lasting is the ‘technical’ component, which is a matter of technical manipulation made possible by particular tools and models that are handed down. This, I believe, is the background that gave rise to the sudden artistic revolution from which what is known as the art of Gandhara sprang in the period of the allied principalities of the Saka in the first half of the first century CE.” In Olivieri’s opinion, the rapid maturing observed at the Saiduˉ Sharˉı f Stuˉpa in Swaˉ t, particularly the mastery of the execution of the Frieze by the “Master of Saidu”, as he is called

Gandhaˉra  175

by Faccenna (2001), is an evidence of “profoundly Hellenised regional ‘schools’ acquainted with the use of techniques – geometrical perspective, in the first place, with its conventions and formal illusions – have repertories of models available, and have no problems in handling the new tools of the trade, beginning with the drill. The schools soon took root in Gandhara, evidently benefiting from the contribution of the Indian tradition both in sculpture (from Mathura above all) and in construction.” Until recently, interest in the art of Gandhaˉra was concerned almost exclusively with Buddhist sacred art. There was not much interest in pottery and craft production. The exception here is, however, Callieri’s work and his excavations at Barikot (Bˉı r-ko․t-ghwan․d․ai, Bazira conquered by Alexander). He had a different approach, more focused on artefacts. In his article “Buddhist Presence in the Urban Settlements of Swaˉt, Second Century BCE to Fourth Century CE” (2006), he tried to explain the discrepancy between the Gandhaˉran landscape dominated by Buddhist centres and the adjacent urban settlements, where no traces of Buddhist religiousness can be found until the second century AD.8 Instead, the urban space is pervaded by small images of local deities. Most common artefacts dated to this early period are terracotta female figurines. According to Callieri, “They continued the proto-historic tradition, even though from the first century BC they took on new, Hellenistic forms” (Callieri 2006: 65). There are also some ubiquitous symbols, such as svastika, which cannot, however, be clearly identified as Buddhist. This prevalence of local cults is also confirmed by the artefacts found in Taxila. Some terracotta figurines of male and female deities were excavated in Bhi․r Mound, while the stucco fragments from the Apsidal temple in Sirkap, which perhaps should be attributed to Naˉga cult, display remarkably Hellenistic forms, and no specifically Buddhist motifs. As Callieri concluded, “If we leave aside the preconception that Taxila is a centre where Buddhist art grew in its initial phase, the archaeological evidence shows us a town where the main religion was a local one. The small amount of specifically Buddhist art that does appear is concentrated in the Ku․saˉn ․a period” (Callieri 2006: 76). Callieri also observed that from the second century AD the amount of terracotta figurines present in Swaˉt decreased dramatically, probably due to the increasing diffusion and importance of Buddhism among the lay town dwellers. It seems reasonable to conclude that the Ku․saˉn ․as had a greater impact on the spread of Buddhism than their predecessors, the Greeks (not mentioning the S´akas). Perhaps the Greeks willingly accepted all native Indian cults, not limited to Buddhism, either popular cults of Naˉgas and Yak․sas, or Braˉhman․ical cults, the latter being evidenced by the images of Balaraˉma and K․r․sn․a Vaˉsudeva appearing on Indo-Greek coins of Agathocles, and the goddess Ekaˉnam ˙ s´aˉ on a coin of Pantaleon, both being among the most ancient examples of anthropomorphic images of gods in India. On the coins of Apollodotus, in turn, S´iva is often represented in his animal form as a humped bull. Interesting in this context is also the testimony of Hesychius, according to whom S´iva, in the form of a bull, was known

176 Gandhaˉra

to the Greeks as Gandaros, a god of Gandhaˉra.9 According to Callieri, “During the Indo-Greek and S´aka periods, a Hellenistic fashion in artistic production slowly penetrated and took root in the Northwest, giving birth to local artefacts such as toilet trays, seals, and metal objects. It is at this time that the first stone sculptures appear that are commonly called ‘Early Gandhaˉran’, even though their Buddhist character is purely hypothetical. At this stage, Buddhism was still a marginal belief, despite the relevant patronage of the S´akas shown by their dedicatory inscriptions” (Callieri 2006: 78). This evidence once again proves that there was no such thing as Greco-Buddhism. On the contrary, the material from the time of the domination of the Greeks in these areas suggests that Buddhism was not the dominant religion among the laity and that the Greeks had contributed equally or more to the production of artefacts, which can be regarded as secular, or belonging to popular cults, or to Braˉhman․ism. If such a thing as Greco-Buddhism ever existed, why do not we speak about Greco-Shaivism or Greco-Braˉhman․ism? It does not change the fact that, as shown by Pons in her article “From Gandhaˉran Trays to Gandhaˉran Buddhist Art: The Persistence of Hellenistic Motifs From the Second Century BC and Beyond” (2011), Gandhaˉran art abounded in Greek motifs, such as a sea monster motif, Dionysian scenes,10 and the figures of Vajrapaˉn․i-Heracles. However, as noted by Filigenzi, the process of Hellenization of Buddhist art “is not a simple question of fashion or ‘influence’ but rather of an adoption of models that, though maintaining some semantic tie with the original sources, are transformed and integrated into a coherent artistic syntax, where they acquire new and specific meanings” (Filigenzi 2012: 137). And thus we can speak of an accommodation of Hellenistic models. Moreover, as rightly noted by Olivieri (2022), adopting these models was an element of the self-representation of the elites. As he rightly argued, “In that historical moment, the Swat elites found in that classical and Hellenistic baggage the most expressive language to render what they perceived as their special religious identity – Buddhism – and their political role, which they felt increased by it” (Olivieri 2022: 176). Furthermore, in the light of the fact that most of the specifically Greek material from Gandhaˉra is dated to the times of the Ku․saˉn․as, perhaps more adequate than the term Greco-Buddhist art was the term “Greek Iranism in Buddhist sculpture” (Griechischer Iranismus in buddhistischer Bildnerei) used long ago by Strzygowski (1930–1932).

Vajrapaˉ ni ∙ as Heracles The most frequently discussed motive of the so-called Greco-Buddhist art is the motive of Vajrapaˉn ․i. The character of Vajrapaˉn ․i, in reliefs being a figure carrying a weapon near the Buddha (Figure 5.4), has been diversely interpreted (cf. Zin 2009: 74). However, in the present book, two interpretations are important, first by Lamotte (1966), according to whom Vajrapaˉn․i is a Yak․sa or a protecting deity, and the second by Tanabe (2004), who identified Vajrapaˉn․i with Heracles,

Gandhaˉra  177

FIGURE 5.4

Vajrapaˉn ․i attends the Buddha at his First Sermon, ca. second century AD, Gandhaˉra.

Credit: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.; Gift of Daniel Slott, 1980.

being a guide and protector of the traveller. In my opinion, both these theories are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, we should see each image at several different levels. Perhaps the donors of these reliefs commissioned execution of an image of a Buddhist deity called Vajrapaˉn․i. On the other hand, the artists executing the order, maybe the Greeks or students of Greek masters, gave these images characteristics of the Greek Heracles, such as, for example, lion skin while also maintaining the typical attributes of the Indian deity, such as vajra instead of the club.11 While lay people might have identified these images with the images of the popular protecting deities, Yak․sas. However, it is truly amazing how the Greek god was similar in its function to the Indian deities. Perhaps these connections were perceived by both Greeks and Indians, either Buddhist members of the Sam ․ gha or lay followers (Figure 5.4). In Vajrayaˉna Buddhism, vajra (Tibetan: dorje) is a sceptre-like ritual object, which has a sphere at its centre and a variable number of spokes at each end of the rod. According to Konow (1930: 316), the vajra is the Indian equivalent of the thunderbolt. Vajra as thunderbolt is a weapon and divine attribute made of indestructible substance, such as adamant or diamond. As argued by Das Gupta (1975), the form of the vajra as a weapon or a sceptre probably has its origin in the single or double trident, which became a symbol of the thunderbolt or the lightning in many ancient civilizations. As thunderbolt, vajra is primarily

178 Gandhaˉra 12 attributed to Indra. In the R ․ gveda, we find a description of Indra killing V․rtra with the use of his vajra made by Tva․s․t․r, and liberating the rivers imprisoned by this firstborn of the dragons. This legend finds its counterparts in the mythology of Mesopotamia, Greece, and Scandinavia. In the Babylonian creation myth, Enûma Eliš god Marduk killed Tiamat, probably a dragon or a serpent-like creature, embodiment of primordial waters and chaos. Marduk used a similar set of weapons as Indra: a thunderbolt, a bow, and a net. However, Tiamat was killed by a spear. Thunderbolt was used by Greek god Zeus, who killed Typhon, “Father of All Monsters” with a hundred serpent heads on his shoulder.13 The Scandinavian (Norse) thunder-god Thor also fought a serpent, known as Jörmungandr or Midgardsorm (“World Serpent”). The weapon used by Thor was not a thunderbolt, but a hammer, which is, however, associated with the thunder. The relationship between Marduk, Indra, and Zeus is also evident in astrology, where these gods in Babylonian, Hindu, and Greek astrology, respectively, are connected to the planet Jupiter. However, in Buddhism, vajra is not used as a weapon, but symbolically. It rather denotes a diamond than a thunderbolt, and it represents firmness of spirit and spiritual power. Therefore, it cannot be compared to Heracles’ club. But the traces of Heracles in India go back to much earlier times. In a famous eleventh-century collection of Indian legends, fairy tales, and folk tales, known under the title Kathaˉ saritsaˉ gara translated as Ocean of the Streams of Stories (1.3), there is a story about certain Putraka, protégé of the god S´iva, who won in the running competition with two sons of Asura Maya three magic items: magic shoes, a magic stick, and a magic bowl. Wearing the shoes he could fly; whatever he wrote with the stick, came true; whatever he wished to eat, appeared in the bowl. On the banks of the Ganges river, he created with his magic stick a city, which became a home of wealth and learning. It was called Paˉ․taliputra after him and his wife, Paˉ․talıˉ .14 According to another tradition, around the year 490 BC Ajaˉ tas´atru, son of Bimbisaˉ ra, who was Buddha’s friend, a king of the Magadha empire in north India, shifted his capital from Raˉ jag․rha to Paˉ․taliputra (or Paˉ․taligrama), and thus by some he is considered to be the founder of the city, which is one of the oldest cities of India. As has already been said, it has been known by various names, such as Paˉ․taligrama, Paˉ․t aliputra, Kusumapura, Kusumadhvaja, Azˉı maˉ baˉ d, and the present-day Patna, the capital of the state of Bihaˉ r. Megasthenes, who was an ambassador of Seleucus I to Chandragupta Maurya in Paˉ․taliputra (cf. Chapter 2), ascribed the foundation of the city known by the Greeks as Παλίβοθρα to Indian Heracles. The story about Indian Heracles related by Megasthenes is preserved, among others, by Diodorus (2.39.1–4) and Arrian (Ind. 8.4–13). However, it is worth noting at the outset that already in antiquity the tales of Indian conquests of Heracles and Dionysus raised serious doubts as to their credibility. According to Strabo (15.1.7), Eratosthenes criticized these stories as untrustworthy and fabulous (ἄπιστα καὶ μυθώδη), and according to Arrian (An. 5.3.1–4), he considered them to be exaggerated to please Alexander

Gandhaˉra  179

(πρὸς χάριν τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρου ἐς τὸ ὑπέρογκον ἐπιφημισθῆναι). Arrian’s conclusion that “the truth lies somewhere in between” (ἐν μέσῳ κείσθων) seems to be the most reasonable. In Diodorus’ account, Heracles is presented as a native Indian ruler, husband of many wives, father of many sons and one daughter, and a founder of many cities, among others Paˉ․taliputra (Παλίβοθρα), which is described as the most famous and largest of them (ἐπιφανεστάτη καὶ μεγίστη). He died before the conquests of Alexander, gained immortal honour (ἀθανάτου τυχεῖν τιμῆς), and handed over the possession of the country to his descendants. As reported by Diodorus, the Indians attribute to him a club (ῥόπαλον) and a lion’s skin (λεοντῆν). Because Megasthenes stayed in Paˉ․taliputra, it seems that he should have solid knowledge about this city. So how does this Greek version relate to the story in Kathaˉ saritsaˉ gara about Paˉ․taliputra, founded by a mythological king Putraka, or to the tradition about king Ajaˉ tas´atru? By no means. Although there is one common point between the legend of Putraka and the story about Heracles, namely, god S´iva, who treated Putraka as his protégé, is commonly presented in the images with tiger/lion/panther skin: either sitting on it, wearing it, or walking with it wrapped around him. However, there is no mention in the Indian sources of the god S´iva acting as the founder of Paˉ․taliputra. Therefore, it seems that any attempt to reconcile Megasthenes’ account with Brahmin sources is a methodological mistake. As noted by Skurzak (1979: 71), the country, where Megasthenes resided, had nothing in common with Western India and with Br aˉhman ․ ism, being isolated ethnically, socially, and religiously. Magadha was the heir of a distinct civilization. In his opinion, everything seems to indicate that Magadha may have its origins in the civilization of the Indus cities. Therefore, Skurzak (1979: 72; cf. also Sachse 1981: 52) identified Heracles, described in Megasthenes’ account, with hero-god worshipped in the Indus civilization. This hero was already worshipped in Mohenjo- daro, as evidenced by a seal coming from this era, which according to Wheeler (1968: 105), “shows a standing human figure with knobbed hair and outstretched arms holding back two rearing tigers: a composition recalling one characteristic of the Sumerian Gilgamesh and his lions, with which it is doubtless related”. This hero is identified also with a hero taming wild beasts from Cretan and Egyptian art. Thus, Greek Heracles is identical with a hero-god worshipped in Sumer, in India, in Egypt, and on the Crete. It is probable that this cult is derived from much earlier civilization serving as a starting point for the others. Another problem appears when we encounter the second version of the story about Indian Heracles ascribed to Megasthenes, preserved by Arrian. According to this version, Heracles was honoured mainly by Suraseni (Σουρασηνῶν, Skr. S´uˉrasena), in whose country were the cities of Methora and Kleisobora (Μέθορά τε καὶ Κλεισόβορα) and a navigable river Yobares (Ἰωβάρης). Arrian also relates after Megasthenes that Heracles’ only-begotten daughter was called Pandaia (Πανδαίην) and that Heracles married her when she was only seven years old, and

180 Gandhaˉra TABLE 5.1  The family of S´u ˉ rasena

S´uˉrasena Vaˉsudeva Kr․․s n․a (Vaˉsudeva)

Kuntıˉ Pandavas

Vicitravıˉrya/Vyaˉsa (niyoga) Paˉn․d․u

Ambaˉlikaˉ (Pandaia?)

hence the Pandaia family arose.15 All these names may be connected with the lineage of Kr․․sn․a. S´uˉrasena was the Yadava ruler of Mathuraˉ, after whom the clan of S´uˉrasenas was named. His son Vaˉsudeva was the father of Kr․․s n․a (Vaˉsudeva), while his daughter Kuntıˉ was the wife of Paˉn․d․u (son of Vyaˉsa, who conceived offspring for Vicitravıˉ rya with his wife Ambaˉlikaˉ16 through niyoga) and the mother of Pandavas (Table 5.1). Heracles, in this account, has been variously identified as Balaraˉma, Vyaˉsa, Kr․․sn․a, or even Indra.17 According to Tod (1873: 36, note 1), Kr․․s n․a and Balaraˉma are Apollo and Heracles. In his opinion, the title “Harikula” would apply to either, because both are lords (es) of the race (kula) of Hari (Hari-kul-es), although Balaraˉma (Baladeva) has the attributes of “god of strength”. In Tod’s opinion, the Greeks might have made the compound Heracles of Hari-kul-es. However, it needs to be noted that the name of Heracles is certainly Greek (Ἥρα-κλέος = “fame of Hera”) and the resemblance to the Indian Hari is purely accidental. In another place, Tod (1873: 37) argued that this account should be identified with a legend contained in the Puraˉ․nas about Vyaˉsa, who was lord of the race of the Pandavas. Bryant (2007: 5) in turn identified Heracles in this account as referring to Hari Kr․․sn ․a, Suraseni to S´uˉrasena, Methora to Mathuraˉ, Kleisobora to Kr․․sn․apura (“the city of Kr․․s n ․ a”), and Jobares to Yamuna, the famous river in the Kr․․sn․a story. None of these interpretations fully reflects this Greek description of Indian Heracles. It seems that it applies to one or more members of the family of S´uˉrasena, but the Greeks might have confused several traditions. The Greeks determined Heracles not as one but as several Indian heroes/gods. However, it is possible to attribute the origin of the myths underlying the two descriptions to certain regions, namely, the myth described by Diodorus belongs to the region of Magadha, and the myth described by Arrian to the region of S´uˉrasena. Because Magadha was the heir to the cities of the Indus civilization, the beginnings of the myth should be sought there, and also some parallels in the Mesopotamian civilization, such as the myth about Gilgamesh, should be taken into account. The comparison of both descriptions of Indian Heracles indicates that the Greeks used interpretatio Graeca. They interpreted, what they heard about the Indian cult, in terms of their own religion. On the other hand, as is clear from the sources, the Indians accepted the Greek perception of their local deities. And thus, the Greeks and the Indians found a common language. This phenomenon may be termed accommodation – a term coined by White (1991) for describing mechanisms working on the so-called middle ground, as presented in the introduction.

Gandhaˉra  181

We also find numerous manifestations of the cult of Heracles among the Greeks settled by Alexander the Great in Bactria. Alexander was a descendant of the Argead dynasty, which claimed its descent from Temenus, the great-greatgrandson of Heracles.18 Alexander also often emphasized his affinities with Heracles. For example, in the account of capturing the rock of Aornos, it is said that Alexander accomplished, what even Heracles failed to achieve.19 Alexander, as the alleged son of Zeus, deemed himself worthy of competing with Heracles. This fact is very important for understanding why the Greeks, who remained in Bactria after the conquests of Alexander and who in the mid-third century BC rebelled against the Seleucid rule and established the Greco-Bactrian kingdom, frequently used images of Heracles. Among the architectural remains of Ai Khanoum, we encounter a gymnasium, one of the largest gymnasia in antiquity, with a Hermaïc pillar with the bust of a bearded old man (probably Strato, father of Triballos and Strato the Younger), inserted in a high pedestal bearing an inscription in Greek from Triballos and Strato to Hermes and Heracles commemorating the dedication of the new building 20 (cf. Hiebert and Cambon 2011: 126). Moreover, in the sanctuary of the temple of indented niches, the bronze Heracles statuette dated to the second century BC has been found (cf. Hiebert

FIGURE 5.5

The universal ruler or cakravartin (possibly a representation of As´oka), Amaraˉvatˉı relief, Andhra Pradesh, first century BC/AD.

Courtesy: Musée Guimet.

182 Gandhaˉra

and Cambon 2011: 113). This type of standing Heracles is represented also on the coins of Demetrius I, however, the style of the statuette is rustic and heavy, whereas the style of the coins is masterly and a lion skin suspended over the left arm is added. Heracles was also found on the coins of Euthydemus. It is also worth reminding the inscription of Heliodotus, already discussed in Chapter 3, where Demetrius is referred to as καλλίνικος, the epithet often associated with Heracles. But Demetrius was apparently not the only ruler compared by the Greeks to Heracles. As already discussed in Chapter 2, the mysterious title Δορσάνης· ὁ Ἡρακλῆς παρ’ Ἰνδοῖς (“Dorsanes: Heracles among Indians”) in the Lexicon of Hesychius of Alexandria (cf. Gray and Schuyler 1901: 197 f.) was identified by Eggermont (1986) with the Mauryan Emperor As´oka. It is interesting that the relief from Amaraˉvatˉı from the first century BC/AD, representing probably As´oka as cakravartin (a universal ruler, “through whom the wheel of the Dharma is turning”) (Figure 5.5), reminds the relief of Heracles in the same function (Figure 5.6). The images of Vajrapaˉ n․i cannot be unambiguously identified with Heracles. It seems reasonable to suppose that the artists carving these images gave them some Greek flavour, but preserved the Buddhist content. Also, Indian Heracles in Megasthenes’ accounts does not seem to be identical with any Indian god or hero. On the basis of the passage preserved by Diodorus, it seems reasonable to associate him with a hero-god of the Indus civilization. However,

FIGURE 5.6

Vajrapaˉn․i with Heraclean club.

Courtesy: Musée Guimet.

Gandhaˉra  183

this identification is not confirmed by the second passage preserved by Arrian, where Indian Heracles is connected to the family of S´uˉrasena, and hence could be identified either with Balaraˉ ma, Vyaˉ sa, or K․r․sn․a. However, none of these identifications is fully satisfying. Certainly, Euthydemus and Demetrius I used the image of Heracles on their coins, due to the popularity of the cult of that hero in Bactria, which might have been the result of the importance of Heracles for Alexander the Great. Perhaps, also, As´oka might have been associated by the Greeks with Heracles, but it cannot be clearly proven. It is possible that in all these cases similar processes of interpretatio Graeca and accommodation occurred. Perhaps, when the Greeks encountered the Indian heroes and deities, they interpreted what they saw and heard as referring to a god familiar to them. Only in the case of Diodorus’s account, Megasthenes probably actually encountered worship of the same hero-god, who was known in Greece as Heracles and in Sumer as Gilgamesh.

Ga ˉ ndha ˉ rıˉ Gandhaˉra was a very specific region and thus had a specific language, namely ˉ ryan (MIA) languages. As noted by SaloGaˉndhaˉrˉı , one of the Middle Indo-A mon, “the distinct flavour of the Gandhaˉran culture, which, though very much part of the greater Indian cultural sphere, always retained a separate and special identity within it” (Salomon et al. 1999: 4). Since Gandhaˉra was conquered by the Persians (sixth century BC), it was a fairly isolated and distinct region, linked to the Iranian administration. During the Achaemenid Empire, the Aramaic script was used in this region, so the local language, Gaˉndhaˉrˉı , was written in the Kharo․s․thˉı script, which was adapted from the Aramaic script. This feature distinguishes this language from other Indo-Aˉryan languages, which were written in the Braˉhmˉı script and its local derivatives. There are also some Iranian loanwords in Gaˉndhaˉrˉı , such as administrative (e.g. k․satrapa “satrap”, erzuna “prince”) and calendar terms (e.g. k․sun ․a “date”). Then Gandhaˉra was conquered by the Macedonians (327–326 BC). Hence, in Gaˉndhaˉrˉı , one can also find Greek administrative (e.g. stratega “leader” from Greek στρατηγóς, meridarkha “district governor” from Greek μεριδάρχης, sa(dera) “standard coin” from Greek στατήρ) and calendar terms (e.g. Macedonian month names, such as avadunaka from Macedonian Αὐδυναῖος). According to Salomon, “These events set the stage for the succeeding series of cosmopolitan kingdoms whose diverse ethnic origins seem to have made them particularly receptive to the Buddhist religion, which was ever ready to accept sympathizers, converts, and patrons regardless of their ethnic and cultural backgrounds” (Salomon et al. 1999: 5). Also, Norman, in his article “Paˉli and the languages of Early Buddhism” (2002), in which he studied the development of MIA dialects, noted that these dialects were less hermetic and more susceptible to various influences (including foreign ones) than Sanskrit, which according to the Brahman theories, was the exclusive property of the Braˉhma․nas, incomprehensible to the lower castes. On the other hand, the languages of the

184 Gandhaˉra

Buddha and the Jina were the root languages understood by all beings. Therefore, they posed a threat to the domination of Sanskrit and the latter stood in opposition to it. Gaˉndhaˉrˉı studies have accumulated substantial bibliography, compiled and constantly updated by Baums and Glass in their invaluable, available online Bibliography of Gaˉndhaˉrıˉ Studies (Baums and Glass 2002-). Salomon distinguished three stages of the development of Gaˉndhaˉrˉı : early stage, attested in Shaˉhbaˉzga․rhˉı and Maˉnsehraˉ REs of As´oka; middle stage, from the first century BC to the middle of the second century AD; and late stage, of the later second and early third centuries AD, characterized by re-Sanskritization of the written language. Gaˉndhaˉrˉı sources include over 500 Kharo․s․thˉı inscriptions; manuscripts on birch bark scrolls or palm leaves, including the Khotan Dharmapada scroll (known also as Gaˉndhaˉrˉı Dharmapada), the British Library collection, the Senior collection (twenty-four birch bark scrolls), the Schøyen Kharo․s․thıˉ fragments (around 250 palm leaf manuscripts), and the Pelliot Kharo․s․thˉı fragments (eight small pieces of palm leaf manuscripts); legends on coins; and wooden tablets from Loulan Kingdom (Kroraina) in the Southeastern Tarim Basin (Xinjiang, China) containing almost 1000 legal and administrative documents. The bibliography of these sources is provided by Salomon (2002).

The Ga ˉ ndha ˉ rˉı Dhammapada and the Pra ˉ krit of the Northwest The text of the Dhammapada, being one of the best-known Buddhist scriptures, is a collection of Paˉli ethical verses. The original version of the Dhammapada is in the Khuddaka Nikaˉya. However, in 1898, Senart, in his article “Le manuscrit kharo․s․thˉı du Dhammapada. Les fragments Dutreuil de Rhins” (1898), announced the existence of a Praˉkrit edition of the Dhammapada written in Kharo․s․thˉı script on a birch bark manuscript found by Grenard in Kouhmaˉri mazaˉr, twenty-one kilometres of Khotan, in the Karakax valley, during Dutreuil de Rhins mission in 1897.21 It is known as the Parisian Fragment or as Dutreuil de Rhins MS. But Senart also mentioned about the other preserved version, from Petrovsky’s22 collection from Khotan, published by Oldenburg in 1897, known as Petersburg Fragment. Senart analysed the Parisian manuscript verse after verse on more than 100 pages. In the same year, Bühler, in his article “On the Origin of the Indian Braˉhma Alphabet” (1898: 122 ff.), wrote a few words about the Petersburg Fragment, which he had seen on a photograph. He argued that it is the oldest Indian manuscript, perhaps written in the first century AD in Gandhaˉra, and carried by some Buddhist monk into Chinese Turkestan. Later scholars generally agreed with Bühler’s view, as stated by Konow in his article “Bemerkungen über die Kharo․s․thˉı -Handschrift des Dhammapada” (1914). According to Konow, the date provided by Bühler is certainly true (sicher richtig), and moreover, Chinese sources confirm that a colony of Northwest India came in early times to Khotan (Konow 1914: 95). In this context, it is also worth mentioning the Kharo․s․thˉı inscriptions

Gandhaˉra  185

discovered in 1900–1901 by Stein in Chinese Turkestan at the ancient site beyond the Niya river, being 427 documents from several ruins, preserved mainly on tablets, but also some on leather (cf. Boyer et al. 1920). Subsequently, certain scholars on the basis of these findings have tried to examine the dialect of the Northwest. Bloch, in his article “Le dialecte des fragments Dutreuil des Rhins” (1912), based on Senart’s transcription, tried to settle the question about the origin of the dialect on the basis of certain phonetic features. And he concluded that the only region, which admits all the characteristic features of the dialect, in which Dutreuil de Rhins fragments are written, is the Western Punjabi and the Northwestern highlanders’ dialects. In his opinion (Bloch 1912: 337), only the dialects of the Northwest, isolated by the mountains and the desert, protected by the political state of the people, who spoke them, escaped the perilous honour (périlleux honneur) of being incorporated into the common literary language and were able to maintain clearly the features, which distinguished them at the beginning of our era. However, according to Brough (1962: ix), Bloch’s discussion is nowadays in many respects inadequate. Later, Konow, in his Note on the Ancient North-Western Prakrit (1936), argued that Gaˉndhaˉrˉı Dhammapada is a translation from an older version in a different Praˉkrit, made before Sanskrit was adopted as the sacred language of the Buddhist school of the Northwest. Moreover, in his opinion, Gaˉndhaˉrˉı Dhammapada and Niya documents represent “two forms of one and the same dialect, one normalized as a literary language, the other developed in a foreign country by the descendants of an ancient Indian colony, under the influence of more than one alien tongue” (Konow 1936: 603 f.), and Dardic is also derived from a Praˉkrit of the same kind (Konow 1936: 611). Konow’s hypothesis about translation from another dialect does not seem justified, however, his palaeographical achievement, concerning the distinction between n and ․n (in all cases transcribed by Senart as n), as well as between t and d, should be recognized. These early efforts were culminated in the work of Brough The Gaˉndhaˉrıˉ Dharmapada (1962), which was the first edition of the text on the basis of all known extant parts (around 60% of the entire text), namely the Leningrad/ Petersburg Fragment (unpublished 23) and the Parisian Fragment. In the commentary, Brough included a number of parallels from other versions (Paˉli version and Sanskrit Udaˉnavarga).24 In his opinion, some of the verses were composed as patchworks of clichés and fragments of other verses (“bricks”). And thus, according to him, the Gaˉndhaˉrˉı Dhammapada does not represent any high poetic or moral value, as is commonly believed. Brough suggested that this Dhammapada may be “the only remainder of a much more extensive Buddhist literature, possibly a complete canon” (Brough 1962: 1). But he also rejected the possibility of a primitive canonical Dharmapada,25 from which the three texts, Paˉli, Gaˉndhaˉrˉı version, and Sanskrit Udaˉnavarga, could be derived (1962: 26). In his opinion, there are also no conclusive arguments on the affiliation of the Gaˉndhaˉrˉı text with any of the Buddhist schools.

186 Gandhaˉra

Later, Fussman, in his article “Gaˉndhaˉrˉı écrite, Gaˉndhaˉrˉı parlée” (Fussman 1989), where he analysed the relation of the language of Gaˉndhaˉrˉı Dhammapada to the spoken Gaˉndhaˉrˉı attested in Kharo․s․thˉı inscriptions, stated that the research after 1962 has confirmed almost all Brough’s analyses. However, he made a few remarks on the views presented by Brough. Firstly, he clarified his opinion concerning the date of the Dhammapada arguing that it cannot be dated more precisely than to the times between the end of the first century AD and the end of the third century AD, preferably second century AD. Secondly, he also said that it is by no means certain that this manuscript is the oldest manuscript now extant of any Indian text. Fussman also stated that it is very fortunate that the suggestion by Bailey (1946) to replace the designation “Prakrit of the Northwest” by “Gaˉndhaˉrˉı ”, was immediately adopted because, according to Fussman, this term is more concise, more precise, and more suggestive. However, he distinguished three different linguistic realities in Gandhaˉri: the language of the Niya documents of Kroraina (administrative); Gaˉndhaˉrˉı of Central Asia (literary, foreign, and dead language); and Gaˉndhaˉrˉı of Northwest India (literary and living language, evolving in the course of its history). Fussman (1989: 440 f.) also drew attention to the influence on Gaˉndhaˉrˉı of various substrates or contacts with various languages: Greek, which provided easily detectable loans, and influenced phonology and syntax; Iranian dialects or of later invaders (S´akas, Ku․saˉn ․ as), whose influence has been more profound; and now extinct languages or those, which cannot be restored (Burushaski in Hunza-Nagar and Gilgit Districts). Fussman (1989: 464 f.) also concluded that the language of Gaˉndhaˉrˉı Dhammapada corresponds to the state of evolution of spoken Gaˉndhaˉrˉı attested in Kharo․s․thˉı inscriptions during the second half of the first century BC. And therefore, in all probability, the text of Gaˉndhaˉrˉı Dhammapada has been fixed by the middle of the first century BC or even earlier, because writing always reflects delayed innovations of spoken language. Fussman (1989: 498 f.) also noticed that at the end of the first century BC, some people had problems in understanding sentences or words in written Gaˉndhaˉrˉı texts, and thus Sanskrit words began to creep into Gaˉndhaˉrˉı Buddhist inscriptions. The trend was much greater after Kanis․ka, and thus many words, which look like true Gaˉndhaˉrˉı words, are in reality Sanskrit words. From these studies, it can be seen that similar to the art of Gandhaˉra, the language of the region was formed in the course of complex transcultural processes. The Greeks also had their share here, but in this case, fortunately, it did not lead the researchers to refer to Gaˉndhaˉrˉı as to the Greco-Buddhist dialect.

The British Library fragments and the origin of the Dharmaguptaka school The next group of Gaˉndhaˉrˉı texts are the British Library fragments, which are probably the oldest known Buddhist manuscripts. They come from eastern

Gandhaˉra  187

Afghanistan, probably Ha․dd․a area. They are scrolls, which were originally stored in a pot and transferred to a modern glass jar. They contain various texts, for example, suˉtras, treatises and commentaries, verse texts, and outlines of stories (avadaˉnas). According to Salomon, most probably these scrolls “are a collection of old, worn-out or damaged texts that had been recopied and then ritually buried like dead monks” (1999: 82). They represent probably the pre- or protocanonical stage of the development. As argued by Salomon et al. (1999: 9 ff.), they come from the early phase of the transition from a primarily oral tradition to what became a largely written one, and they contain local Gandhaˉran lore and traditions and a considerable amount of unfamiliar material. These manuscripts, therefore, appear to be a very important source for our understanding of the original Buddhist teachings. And, what is interesting, they contain almost no traces of Mahaˉyaˉna ideas. This fact contradicts the theory about the existence of the Urkanon, being defined as a single collection, in a unified language, approximating the structure and contents of later canons, and accepted by all Buddhists before the different schools began to separate. The British Library scrolls belonged to the Dharmaguptaka school, which was supported by the Indo-Scythian rulers,26 and played a major role in the dissemination of Buddhism into China (cf. Heirman 2002: 400). Some scholars argued that the Dharmaguptaka sect was founded by a Greek monk. Such a notion follows from the identification of Yonaka Dhammarakkhita with Dharmagupta, the founder of the Dharmaguptaka school (cf. Frauwallner 1995). As argued by Sujato (2012: 120 ff.), this identification is confirmed by other evidence as well. For example, in the Chinese translation of the Sinhalese Vinaya commentary, being historically more reliable than the Paˉ li text and perhaps closely connected with the Dharmaguptaka school, the name Dhammarakkhita is phonetically recorded as Dharmagupta (曇無德). 27 Moreover, extensive Dharmaguptaka presence in Greek-influenced Gandhaˉ ra provides, in Sujato’s opinion, further confirmation for this connection. Sujato also drew attention to the presence in the Paˉ li version of the Milindapañha of an episode of Naˉ gasena’s journey to the east to the As´okaˉ raˉ ma in Paˉ․taliputra in order to receive teachings from certain Dhammarakkhita. In Sujato’s opinion, “the insertion of the Dhammarakkhita episode is probably also to make the connection with the ‘Greek Dhammarakkhita’ – who better to teach the teacher of the Greeks, Naˉ gasena?” (Sujato 2012: 130) However, in my opinion, all this evidence provided by Sujato, is inconclusive. The names Dharmagupta and Dhammarakkhita might have been popular Buddhist names, and thus the identification of the founder of the Dharmaguptaka school with Yonaka Dhammarakkhita cannot be regarded as certain. Moreover, certain scholars, such as Lamotte (1958: 575), consider Dharmagupta to be a legendary person. The Dharmaguptaka presence in Gandhaˉ ra also does not prove the connection. Similarly, the Dhammarakkhita present in the Milindapañha could be a Greek, but not necessarily identified with Dharmagupta.

188 Gandhaˉra

Greek papyrus as a model for the Gaˉ ndhaˉ rˉı scrolls First Hoernle (1900: 126) and later Kaye (1927: 8), who continued Hoernle’s work, suggested that the Gaˉndhaˉrˉı Dhammapada scroll seems to imitate the shape of a Greek papyrus. This theory was rejected by Janert (1955/56: 73, note 57) on the basis of differences in format between the Gaˉndhaˉrˉı Dhammapada, where the text is written parallel to the narrower dimension of the scroll, and Greek papyrus, where the text is written in columns parallel to the longer dimension. However, in my opinion, this difference may be explained by accommodation of a Greek model to Indian standards. Other researchers, such as Konow or Schlingloff, suggested that the model for the Gaˉndhaˉrˉı Dhammapada scroll was provided by Chinese books. However, according to Salomon (Salomon et al. 1999: 102 f.), the new discoveries of numerous birch bark scrolls from the greater Gandhaˉra region weaken the hypothesis of a Chinese background for the scroll format and support the argument for a Hellenistic source. In his opinion, “the Gandhaˉran scrolls arose as an imitation, or rather an adaptation, of the Greek papyrus scrolls” (Salomon et al. 1999: 103). In support of his thesis about the Hellenistic origin of the scroll format, Salomon describes the depiction of similar scrolls in Gandhaˉran sculpture, for example, a relief from Swaˉt kept in the British Museum (OA 1904.12–17.43–4), which is compared by Tissot (1985: 109) to a similarly composed mosaic from Hadrumentum, depicting Virgil with a scroll. According to Salomon, the Swaˉt relief imitates the western model, but the arrangement of the scroll is adapted to local custom (the text is written parallel to the narrower dimension of the scroll). According to Kaye, “the reason for this direction of the writing is that the bark tends to split in the same direction”28 (Kaye 1927: 8). It, therefore, seems reasonable to affirm that the form of Gandhaˉran manuscripts was modelled after the Hellenistic scrolls. However, the model has not been imitated blindly, but due to the nature of the material from which the scrolls were made, it was adapted to the local custom. Summarizing these reflections, it seems obvious that the Greeks had an impact on the development of the Gaˉndhaˉrˉı , at least in such aspects as loanwords, or the form of the scroll. However, the impact model observed here is not one of a blind imitation, but rather of an accommodation. Indians used the elements, which were absent in their native environment, but they actively transformed and adapted them to their own needs and requirements. Such behaviour is typical for the so-called middle ground, as discussed in the introduction to the present book.

Hellenistic influence on the formation of Buddhist religiousness? Blair, in his article “Answers for Milinda: Hellenistic Influence on the Development of Gandharan Buddhism”, argued that “Hellenistic culture significantly changed the conception of the Buddha, promoting belief in an anthropomorphic, divine Buddha” (Blair 2009: 1). In support of this assertion, the author of the

Gandhaˉra  189

article tried to show how Buddhism evolved from philosophy to religion, and in art from depicting scenes of the Buddha’s past lives to anthropomorphic representations. In his opinion, these changes, reflected in the Milindapañha and in the archaeological evidence,29 occurred for several reasons, such as the need to attract more lay patronage, new religious fervour in India in the early centuries AD, as well as Hellenistic influence. According to Blair, “it is clear that the IndoGreeks from the time of Menander viewed the Buddha as a god” (Blair 2009: 3). In support of his argument that Buddha was deified due to a Greek influence, Blair cited examples of the deification of Hellenistic rulers. He also argued that Menander I Soter viewed himself as a god, which, according to him, is reflected in Plutarch’s account of Menander’s death and in the coins of Menander and Agathokleia depicting Athena. As already discussed, in his opinion, “The depiction of Athena on Menander’s coins resembles his wife, which means the king may have hoped to imply he had married Athena” (Blair 2009: 3). Blair further claimed that emphasizing the miraculous powers of the Buddha and his intervention in everyday life is also a Greek innovation, as visible in Gandhaˉran art. However, these symptoms of deification and emphasizing the miracles of the Buddha can also be associated with the popularization of Buddhism. While the monks may have time and adequate preparation to study the philosophy of the Buddha, the common people gladly seek help in everyday life from an all-powerful deity. Among the aspects, in which Hellenistic culture influenced Gandhaˉran Buddhism, Blair also enumerated the importance of images, Buddhist iconographic images in unusual contexts, mixing elements of Greek and Indian culture in the scenes depicting the Buddha, focus upon miracles performed by the Buddha, focus on Buddha’s life, depicting the Buddha as a dying man surrounded by mourners, no interest in reincarnation (past lives of Buddha are not depicted), hair (because baldness was considered unattractive by Hellenistic artists), and Buddha’s halo. According to Blair, the depiction of Saˉgala in the Milindapañha suggests that “Buddhist monks considered the Indo-Greeks to be a prosperous and civilized people” (Blair 2009: 8). However, one should pay attention to the fact that it is a conventional description of a city, and therefore, it should not be considered as evidence of the perception of the Greeks by the Buddhist monks. As further evidence of Hellenistic influence on Gandhaˉran Buddhism, the author of the article gave Apollonius’ of Tyana account of Gandhaˉran king, who knew Greek and practised javelin tossing, one inscription of Kani․ska, as well as Gandhaˉran scrolls. Most of these examples cited by Blair are discussed at length in various parts of the present book. Therefore, suffice it to conclude that the Greeks could, but did not have to have an impact on the perception of the Buddha as a god by the Buddhists. In any event, the evidence cited by Blair is by no means conclusive, because it can be variously interpreted. However, Blair also noticed one of the problems with the hypothesis of Hellenistic influence on Gandhaˉran Buddhism, namely the gap of almost two centuries between the time of the Indo-Greek kingdom and the first Buddha images.

190 Gandhaˉra

He explained that gap by the strong impact of earlier aniconic beliefs, which might have prevented the creation of Buddha images. However, it needs to be stressed that the gap between the political event, namely the collapse of the IndoGreek kingdom, and the beginning of the so-called Greco-Buddhist art does not have to imply the disintegration of the Greek community living in the area. It is hard to say what factors have contributed to the fact that this art was created at this specific time, and not before. Perhaps the trends in Indian art were one of the reasons. It cannot be excluded that the patterns have sprung up in the course of trade with Rome, which does not exclude the Greek contribution to the whole process.

Notes 1 Cf. Faccenna’s article “At the origin of Gandharan art. The contribution of the IsIAO Italian Archeological Mission in the Swat Valley Pakistan” (2003). 2 Cf. Bernard’s article “L’oeuvre de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan (1922–1982)” (2002). 3 Cf. the UNESCO’s response to the destruction of the Baˉmiyaˉn Buddhas (Manhart 2001, 2003, 2004). 4 However, it needs to be noted (as I was made aware of by Jason D. Browning in a private communication) that the Islamization of the region was a very gradual process. The Arab conquest naturally led to the flourishing of Islam over the course of centuries, but conversion wasn’t widely forced in the seventh through early-tenth centuries. It also doesn’t seem that the Arab conquest had any agenda of disrupting Buddhism, except insofar as targeted political centres (such as the Nava Vihaˉra, modern Nawbahaˉr) also happened to be Buddhist institutions. Perhaps the decline in patronage would be due to the centres of power and wealth changing over to Muslim control and local Buddhist leaders converting (as with the Barmakids of Balkh, for example). ˉ divaˉsˉı (e.g. Vedda people) are con5 However, not the Dravidians but the so-called A sidered the aboriginal tribes of India. 6 Three-dimensional oval at the top of the head of the Buddha. 7 Aldrovandi and Hirata explained the use of Greco-Roman decorative patterns in the art of Gandhaˉra by the policy of the Ku․saˉn․as, who wanted to “reinforce the integration of society using common recognisable patterns, and avoiding inner ethnical conflicts”, to allow the so-called Pax Ku․saˉ․na (Aldrovandi and Hirata 2005: 314). 8 “as far as Barikot is concerned, only after the second century AD is a Buddhist urban presence clear” (Callieri 2006: 66). 9 cf. Hesychius, s.v. Γάνδαρος: Γάνδαρος· ὁ ταυροκράτης παῤ Ἰνδοῖς. 10 For Buddhists and Dionysus cf. Carter “The Bacchants of Mathura: New Evidence of Dionysiac Yaksha Imagery from Kushan Mathura” (1982); Brancaccio & Liu “Dionysus and drama in the Buddhist art of Gandhara” (2009); also in Muˉlasarvaˉstivaˉdin Vinaya Buddha describes how to produce wine (Halkias 2014: 105). 11 Cf. stucco sculpture from Ha․dd․a from the second century AD, found in Tape Shotor, in the niche V2, during the excavations conducted by Tarzi in 1974–1976 (cf. Tarzi 1976: 394 ff., figs. 10 and 11). 12 R ․ gveda 1.32.1–4: indrasya nu vˉı ryaˉ․ni pra vocam ․ yaˉni cakaˉra prathamaˉni vajrıˉ | ahannahimanvapastatarda pra vak․san․aˉ abhinat parvataˉnaˉm || ahannahim ․ parvate s´is´riyaˉ․nam ․ tva․s․taˉsmai vajram ․ svaryam ․ tatak․sa | vaˉs´raˉ iva dhenava․h syandamaˉnaˉ añja․h samudramava jaghmuraˉpa․h ||

Gandhaˉra  191

13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20

21

22 23 24

25

26 27 28 29

v․r․saˉyamaˉ․no.av․r․nˉı ta somam ․ trikadruke․svapibat sutasya | aˉsaˉyakam ․ maghavaˉdatta vajramahannenam ․ prathamajaˉmahˉınaˉm || yadindraˉhan prathamajaˉmahıˉ naˉmaˉn maˉyinaˉmaminaˉ․h prota maˉyaˉ․h | aˉ t suˉryam ․ janayan dyaˉmus․aˉsam ․ taˉdıˉtnaˉs´atrum ․ na kilaˉ vivitse || Hes. Th. 825: ἑκατὸν κεφαλαὶ ὄφιος, δεινοῖο δράκοντος. Other etymology: from plant called paˉ․tali (Bignonia suaveolens). Cf. Polyaen. Strateg. 1.3.4. According to Tod (1873: 35 f.), her name was Pandaia. Cf. Dahlaquist’s whole chapter “Megasthenes’ Heracles Passages in the Light of the Older Indian Literature on Indra” (Dahlaquist 1996: 94 ff.). Hdt. 8.137.1: τοῦ δὲ Ἀλεξάνδρου τούτου ἕβδομος γενέτωρ Περδίκκης ἐστὶ ὁ κτησάμενος τῶν Μακεδόνων τὴν τυραννίδα τρόπῳ τοιῷδε. ἐξ Ἄργεος ἔφυγον ἐς Ἰλλυριοὺς τῶν Τημένου ἀπογόνων τρεῖς ἀδελφεοί, Γαυάνης τε καὶ Ἀέροπος καὶ Περδίκκης, ἐκ δὲ Ἰλλυριῶν ὑπερβαλόντες ἐς τὴν ἄνω Μακεδονίην ἀπίκοντο ἐς Λεβαίην πόλιν. Arr. An. 4.28.1: καὶ λόγος ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς κατέχει οὐδὲ Ἡρακλεῖ τῷ Διὸς ἁλωτὸν γενέσθαι τὴν πέτραν. IK Estremo oriente 381: Τριβαλλὸς καὶ Στράτων Στράτωνος Ἑρμῆι, Ἡρακλεῖ. Worth mentioning is the mysterious discovery of the MS. Parts of it were probably acquired in Khotan in 1892 by Dutreuil de Rhins and Grenard, and reached Paris (here in 1897 shown to Senart and published in 1898). Parts were acquired by Petrovsky and reached Petersburg (here in 1897 published by Oldenburg, but only thirty lines). The remaining part of the MS might have also been sold to some other foreigners, and today it is either disintegrated or still kept by the ancestors of the unknown third purchaser. For interesting biography of Petrovsky (the Russian consul-general in Kashgar) cf. Hopkirk (1980) and Meyer and Brysac (1999). In 1897 Oldenburg presented only thirty lines of the Russian Fragment to the Congress of Orientalists. He did not manage to prepare the complete publication, and thus it remained virtually unknown. Cf. a mention about unpreserved Dharmapada translated by a man from the country of the Yuezhi. “It is not impossible that it was the Gaˉndhaˉrˉı text, but the rather vague indication of a Central Asian connexion is scarcely enough to support any positive belief that it was” (Brough 1962: 38). Where “primitive canon” means “no more than an early body of potentially canonical (i.e. authoritative) prose and verse compositions, without allowing the use of the term to suggest any implications of the fixation or codification of the texts” (Brough 1962: 33). The second important school in the Northwest, the Sarvaˉstivaˉda sect, was supported by the Ku․saˉn․as. Mandarin Tanwude; Cantones Taam mou dak; Hanja Korean Dam mu deok. I.e. horizontally. E.g. Swaˉt relic vase inscription of the Meridarkh Theodoros; Bajaur reliquary inscription of Vijayamitra/Viyakamitra.

References Aldrovandi, C. and Hirata, E. (2005) “Buddhism, Pax Kushana and Greco-Roman motifs: Pattern and Purpose in Gandharan Iconography”, Antiquity, 79(304), pp. 306–315.

192 Gandhaˉra

Bailey, H.W. (1946) “Gaˉndhaˉrˉı”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 11(4), pp. 764–797. Baums, S. and Glass, A. (2002–) Bibliography of Gaˉ ndhaˉ rˉı Studies. Available at: . Beal, S. (1905) Si-Yu-Ki: Buddhist Records of the Western World Translated from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang (A.D. 629), by S. Beal. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. Ltd. (Trubner’s Oriental Series). Behrendt, K.A. (2004) The Buddhist Architecture of Gandhaˉ ra. Leiden – Boston: Brill. Behrendt, K.A. (2007) The Art of Gandhara in The Metropolitan Museum of Arts. 1st edn. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Arts. Bernard, P. (2002) “L’oeuvre de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan (1922–1982)”, Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 146(4), pp. 1287–1323. Blair, S. (2009) “Answers for Milinda: Hellenistic Influence on the Development of Gandharan Buddhism”, TCNJ Journal of Student Scholarship, 11, pp. 1–11. Bloch, J. (1912) “Le dialecte des fragments Dutreuil des Rhins”, Journal Asiatique, 19, pp. 331–337. Boyer, A.M., Rapson, E.J. and Senart, E.C.M. (1920) Kharos․․thˉı Inscriptions Discovered by Sir Aurel Stein in Chinese Turkestan. Part I. Text of Inscriptions Discovered at Niya Site 1901. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Brancaccio, P. and Liu, X.R. (2009) “Dionysus and Drama in the Buddhist Art of Gandhara”, Journal of Global History, 4(2), pp. 219–244. Brough, J. (1962) The Gaˉ ndhaˉ rˉı Dharmapada, Edited with An Introduction and Commentary by John Brough. London – New York: Oxford University Press. Bryant, E.F. (2007) Krishna: A Sourcebook. Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press. Bühler, G. (1898) On the Origin of the Indian Braˉ hma Alphabet, Indian Studies, No. III. 2nd edn. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner. Callieri, P. (2006) “Buddhist Presence in the Urban Settlements of Swaˉt, Second Century BCE to Fourth Century CE”, in Brancaccio, P. and Behrendt, K. (eds.) Gandhaˉ ran Buddhism: Archaeology, Art, Texts. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press (Asian Religions and Society Series), pp. 60–82. Carter, M.L. (1982) “The Bacchants of Mathura: New Evidence of Dionysiac Yaksha Imagery from Kushan Mathura”, The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 69(8), pp. 247–257. Chandra, M. (1977) Trade and Trade Routes in Ancient India. New Delhi: Shakti Malik Abhinav Publications. Chavannes, E. (1903) “Voyage de Song Yun dans l’Udyaˉna et le Gandhaˉra”, Bulletin de l’Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient, 3(3), pp. 379–441. Coomaraswamy, A.K. (1927) “The Origin of the Buddha Image”, The Art Bulletin, 9(4), pp. 287–329. Dahlaquist, A. (1996) Megasthenes and Indian Religion. 2nd edn. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Das Gupta, T.K. (1975) Der Vájra, eine vedische Waffe. Wiesbaden: In Kommission bei F. Steiner. Della Seta, A. (1906–1907) “La genesi dello scorcio nell’arte greca”, Memorie della Regia Accademia nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di Scienze morali, Storiche e Filosofiche, Serie  5, 12, pp. 122–242. Eggermont, P.H.L. (1986) “Heracles-Dorsanes and Priyadarsín-As´oka”, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica, 17, pp. 159–168.

Gandhaˉra  193

Errington, E. (2002) “Discovering Ancient Afghanistan, The Masson Collection”, Minerva, 13(6), pp. 53–55. Errington, E. (2007) From Persepolis to the Punjab. Exploring Ancient Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. London: The British Museum Press. Faccenna, D. (2001) Il fregio figurato dello Stuˉpa principale nell’area sacra buddhista di Saidu Sharif 1. (Swat, Pakistan). Roma: IsIAO, Reports and Memoirs, 28. Faccenna, D. (2003) “At the Origin of Gandharan Art. The Contribution of the IsIAO Italian Archeological Mission in the Swat Valley Pakistan”, Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia, 9(3), pp. 277–286. Filigenzi, A. (2012) “Orientalised Hellenism Versus Hellenised Orient: Reversing the Perspective on Gandharan Art”, Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia, 18(1), pp. 111–141. Foucher, A. (1917) The Beginnings of Buddhist Art and Other Essays in Indian and CentralAsian Archaeology. Revised by the Author and Translated by L.A. Thomas and F.W. Thomas. Paris – London: Paul Geuthner – Humphrey Milford. Foucher, A. (1905–1951) L’art gréco-bouddhique du Gandhâra: étude sur les origines de l’influence classique dans l’art bouddhique de l’Inde et de l’Extrême-Orient. Paris: E. Leroux. Frauwallner, E. (1995) Studies in Abhidharma Literature and the Origins of Buddhist Philosophical Systems. Albany: State University of New York Press. Fussman, G. (1989) “Gaˉndhaˉrˉı écrite, Gaˉndhaˉrˉı parlée”, in Caillât, C. (ed.) Dialectes dans les littératures indo-aryennes. Paris: Collège de France, Publications de l’Institut de Civilisation Indienne, fasc. 55, p. 433. Gray, L.H. and Schuyler, M. (1901) “Indian Glosses in the Lexicon of Hesychios”, American Journal of Philology, 22(2), pp. 195–202. Halkias, G.T. (2014) “When the Greeks converted the Buddha: Asymmetrical transfers of knowledge in Indo-Greek cultures”, in Wick, P. and Rabens, V. (eds.) Religions and Trade. Religious Formation, Transformation and Cross-Cultural Exchange. Leiden – Boston: Brill, pp. 65–115. Heirman, A. (2002) “Can We Trace the Early Dharmaguptakas?”, T’oung Pao, 88(4/5), pp. 396–429. Hiebert, F. and Cambon, P. (2011) Afghanistan. Crossroads of the Ancient World. London: The British Museum Press. Hoernle, A.F.R. (1900) “An Epigraphical Note on Palm-leaf, Paper and Birch-bark”, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 69(2), pp. 93–134. Hopkirk, P. (1980) Foreign Devils on the Silk Road: The Search for the Lost Cities and Treasures of Chinese Central Asia. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press. Janert, K.L. (1955) Von der Art und den Mitteln der indischen Text-weitergabe: Bericht über mündliche und schriftliche Tradierungsmethoden sowie die Schreibmaaterialien in Indien. Köln: Jahresarbeit zur Diplomprüfung für den Höheren Dienst an wissenschaftlichen Bibliotheken. Kaye, G.R. (1927) The Bakhshaˉ lˉı Manuscript: A Study in Mediæval Mathematics. Calcutta: Government of India Central Publication Branch. Konow, S. (1914) “Bemerkungen über die Kharo․s․thˉı-Handschrift des Dhammapada”, in Kuhn, E.W.A. (ed.) Festschrift Ernst Windisch zum seibzigsten Geburtstag am 4. September 1914. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, pp. 85–97. Konow, S. (1930) “Note on Vajrapani-Indra”, Acta Orientalia, 8, pp. 311–317. Konow, S. (1936) “Note on the Ancient North-Western Prakrit”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London, 8(2/3, Indian and Iranian Studies: Presented to George Abraham Grierson on His Eighty-Fifth Birthday, 7th January, 1936), pp. 603–612.

194 Gandhaˉra

Lamotte, É. (1958) Histoire du Bouddhisme indien, t. I: Des origines à l’ère Sâka. Louvain: Publications Universitaires [et] Institut Orientaliste. Lamotte, É. (1966) “Vajrapaˉn․i en Inde”, in Mélanges de sinologie offerts à Monsieur Paul Demiéville. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1966–1974 (Bibliothèque de l’Institut des hautes études chinoises, v. 20), pp. 113–161. Leoshko, J. (2011) “On the Buddhist Ruins of Bodh Gaya and Bamiyan”, Third Text, 25(6), pp. 667–674. doi:10.1080/09528822.2011.624339. Litvinsky, B.A. (2000) Buddhism iv. Buddhist Sites in Afghanistan and Central Asia, Encyclopædia Iranica, online edition. Available at: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ buddhism-iv (accessed on 22 December 2022). Manhart, C. (2001) “The Afghan Cultural Heritage Crisis: UNESCO’s Response to the Destruction of Statues in Afghanistan”, American Journal of Archaeology, 105(3), pp. 387–388. Manhart, C. (2003) “UNESCO’s Mandate and Activities for the Rehabilitation of Afghanistan’s Cultural Heritage”, Museum International, 55(3), pp. 77–83. Manhart, C. (2004) “UNESCO’s Role in the Rehabilitation of Bamiyan in Afghanistan”, Landslides, 1(4; 4), pp. 311–314. doi:10.1007/s10346-004-0033-1. Meyer, K.E. and Brysac, S.B. (1999) Tournament of Shadows: The Great Game and the Race for Empire in Central Asia. Washington, DC: Counterpoint. Norman, K.R. (2002) “Paˉli and the languages of early Buddhism”, in Sims-Williams, N. (ed.) Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 135–150. Olivieri, L.M. (2022) Stoneyards and Artists in Gandhara. The Buddhist Stupa of Saidu Sharif I, Swat (c. 50 CE). Venice: Edizioni Ca’ Foscari – Venice University Press. Pons, J. (2011) “From Gandharan trays to Gandharan Buddhist art: The persistence of Hellenistic motifs from the second century BC and beyond”, in Kouremenos, A., Chandrasekaran, S., and Rossi, R. (eds.) From Pella to Gandhara: Hybridisation and Identity in the Art and Architecture of the Hellenistic East. Oxford: Archaeopress (BAR international series: 2221), pp. 153–176. Sachse, J. (1981) Megasthenes o Indiach. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego (Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis No 587. Classica Wratislaviensia VIII). Salomon, R. (2002) “Gaˉndhaˉrˉı and the other Indo-Aryan languages in the light of Kharo․s․thˉı manuscripts”, in Sims-Williams, N. (ed.) Indo-Iranian ­ newly-discovered Languages and Peoples. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 119–134. Salomon, R., Barnard, M. and Allchin, F.R. (1999) Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandhaˉ ra. The British Library Kharos․․thıˉ Fragments. London: The British Library. Senart, E.C.M. (1898) “Le manuscrit kharo․s․thˉı du Dhammapada. Les fragments Dutreuil de Rhins”, Journal Asiatique, 12, pp. 193–308. Skurzak, L. (1979) “En lisant Mégasthène. Nouvelles observations sur la civilisation indienne”, Eos. Commentarii Societatis Philologae Polonorum, 67, pp. 69–74. Strzygowski, J. (1930–1932) “Griechischer Iranismus in buddhistischer Bildnerei. II (Fortfetzung)”, Artibus Asiae, 4(4), pp. 185–191. Sujato, B. (2012) Sects & Sectarianism. The Origins of Buddhist Schools. Originally published by The Corporate Body of the Buddha Education Foundation, Taiwan, 2007. Revised edition published by Santipada. Tanabe, K. (2004) “Why is the Buddha Shaˉkyamuni Accompanied by Hercules/Vajrapaˉn․i?: Farewell to the Yak․sa-theory”, Chuˉˉo daigaku, Seisaku bunka sˉg o ˉo kenkyuˉjˉo nempoˉ, 7, pp. 111–137. Tarzi, Z. (1976) “Hadda à la lumière des trois dernières campagnes de fouilles de Tapaè-Shotor (1974–1976), communication du 25 juin 1976”, Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 120(3), pp. 381–410.

Gandhaˉra  195

Tissot, F. (1985) Gandhâra. La Vie Publique et Privée dans l’Inde Ancienne. 2e série. Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et dé Orient. Tod, J. (1873) Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, Or, The Central and Western Rajput States of India, vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wheeler, M. (1968) The Indus Civilization. 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. White, R. (1991) The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650–1815. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Studies in North American Indian History; Online access with purchase: Cambridge Books Online). Zin, M. (2009) “Vajrapaˉn․i in the narrative reliefs”, in Fröhlich, C. (ed.) Migration, Trade and Peoples. Part 2: Gandharan Art. London: The British Association for South Asian Studies, p. 73.

6 LATE GREEK SOURCES ABOUT BUDDHISM IN INDIA

This chapter no longer concerns the Greeks living in India, but the Greeks who lived in the Mediterranean world. Two sources, which will be discussed here, namely Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii and Bardaisan’s Ἰνδικά are dated to the time long after the fall of the Indo-Greek kingdom, and therefore they do not constitute a primary object of study but concern the aftermath of the direct GrecoBuddhist relations. Both these works were written in the third century AD, but Vita Apollonii supposedly concerns earlier times, namely the first century AD. However, as will be shown, the state of knowledge about India represented in this work relates rather to the times of Philostratus than of Apollonius. Thus, these works are analysed for the presentation of the image of India in the eyes of the Greeks in the third century AD. Particularly valuable is the account of Bardaisan, who most probably got a first-hand information about India and a Buddhist Order.

Apollonius of Tyana Lucius Flavius Philostratus, a Greek sophist and rhetorician, in his work Life of Apollonius of Tyana (Vita Apollonii = VA), which was written in the third century AD for Julia Domna, wife of Septimius Severus and mother of Caracalla, wrote about one of the most controversial and mysterious figures of antiquity, Apollonius of Tyana, who lived in the first century AD and was roughly1 a contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth. He was also often compared with Jesus both in antiquity (cf. Euseb. C. Hier. 7–44) and in modern times. The strangest of these theories relied on revelation, namely on the alleged communication received from the ancient spirits (Roberts 1892). Apollonius was often treated as an example of a typical θεῖος ἀνήρ, being a paradigm upon which the first Christians constructed their image of Jesus. However, the entire θεῖος ἀνήρ hypothesis has DOI: 10.4324/9781003258575-7

Late Greek Sources About Buddhism in India  197

been criticized by Koskenniemi in his article “Apollonius of Tyana: A Typical θεῖος ἀνήρ?” (1998). What is important for the present book is the fact that Philostratus narrated, inter alia, Apollonius’ journey to India.2 De Beauvoir-Priaulx, who recounted this journey in his book The Indian Travels of Apollonius of Tyana (1860), noticed that contrary to other Greek visitors of his time, who visited India for military, political, or commercial purposes, Apollonius was inspired by the desire to make himself acquainted with Indian rites, discipline, and doctrines. According to de Beauvoir-Priaulx, he “had every opportunity of familiar intercourse with all classes of its population, and of thus acquiring much and accurate information on matters beyond the reach of ordinary travellers” (de Beauvoir-Priaulx 1860: 70). Philostratus, in his account 3, professed to have drawn his information from the notebook of Damis, who is said to have joined Apollonius in “Old Ninos”, which according to Jones (2001) should be identified with Syrian Hierapolis. Philostratus explained that a member of Damis’ family had brought the tablets (δέλτους), containing the memoirs of Damis to Julia Domna, who entrusted to Philostratus, a member of her circle, the task of transcribing these notebooks taking care over their style. However, the existence of Damis was disproved by certain scholars following Meyer (1917). Bowie, in his article “Apollonius of Tyana: Tradition and Reality” (1978), argued that Damis was invented by Philostratus, who in his biography of Apollonius consciously evoked a novelistic tone and setting (Bowie 1978: 1665). The same opinion is also supported by Dzielska in her book Apollonius of Tyana in legend and history (1986), and by Bernard, who in his article “L’Aornos bactrien et l’Aornos indien. Philostrate et Taxila: géographie, mythe et réalité” (1996) described the account of Philostratus as an invention nourished by literary reminiscences.4 Later, Jones, in his article “Apollonius of Tyana’s Passage to India” (2001), discussed several stages of Apollonius’ journey to India from “Old Ninos”, where Apollonius met his companion through Zeugma, Ctesiphon, and “the borders of Babylon”, where he met king Vardanes, to Cissia, where, urged by a dream, he decided to search for Eretrians settled there by Darius 500 years before and still speaking Greek. Jones has made some interesting observations from this sample of the text and he concluded that just as Philostratus invented Damophyle, perhaps he also invented Damis. In his opinion, Philostratus was “playing with literature”, he switched between sources and so many confusions arose. Therefore, his biography of Apollonius may be seen as “a compound made up of Philostratus’ wide reading, rather than his transcription of Damis’ travel account”. And, therefore, Philostratus’ account “should not be taken as ‘an interesting sidelight’ on this region in the mid-first century, but rather as a travel romance, with homage to Herodotus, as well as lost authors, such as Ctesias.5 Though this can never be proved, Damis is surely a vehicle originally invented to carry this part of the work; not a lost author, but one conjured into existence by Philostratus” ( Jones 2001: 198 f.). The opposite view is represented among others by Puskás, who in his article “Myth or reality? Apollonius of Tyana in India” (1991) argued that Apollonius of

198  Late Greek Sources About Buddhism in India

Tyana had really visited India and that Philostratus was a very intelligent editor (Puskás 1991: 123), or by Bivar, who, in the chapter of the book Age of the Parthians dedicated to “Gondophares and the Indo-Parthians” (2007), stated about Philostratus’ account that “one should not be too hasty in dismissing his story as fantasy” (Bivar 2007: 26). As evidence of this, he gave the example of δράκων in the dragon hunt described by Philostratus,6 which, according to him, should be identified with a king cobra, and so the story can be considered as true. However, I am of the opinion that, whether Damis actually existed, or whether he was invented by Philostratus, most of the elements in the biography of Apollonius are taken from earlier sources, and therefore the reliability of the information depends on the source. Thus, each element of the story should be separately considered in terms of its source and credibility. Francis expressed a similar view in his article “Truthful Fiction: New Questions to Old Answers on Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius” (1998), where he sought to reconcile the two positions by specifying the work of Philostratus as a truthful fiction. The most important element from the point of view of the present study is the description of the city of Taxila and of the σοφοί (“wise men”) with whom Apollonius met. One of the frequently asked questions is whether they were Brahmans or Buddhists. The answer is not so simple, as it turns out. Before Apollonius reached Taxila, he crossed the Caucasus, as it seems, without any special effort, as his description focuses on the myths recounted by the barbarians about Prometheus and Heracles. Next, he crossed Cophen (Kabul) river, where he met Indians, who gave him and his companions some date wine. However, Apollonius refused to drink it. At Mount Nysa, they visited a sanctuary of Dionysus7 with laurel, ivy, and vine trees growing all around it, and a marble statue looking like a youthful Indian. On this occasion, Philostratus presented differing opinions of the Indians and the Greeks about this Dionysus. Approaching the Indus, they observed elephants and discussed some issues related to riding these animals and their nature. On the Indus, thanks to the letter they received from Vardanes, they were provided with an Indian guide, and a ship and boats to cross the river. After crossing the Indus, they observed many hippopotamuses and crocodiles and heard from the Indians about the king’s sacrifices of black bulls and horses on the banks of the river. From there, they were led straight to Taxila, the seat of the king ruling Porus’ domain. The city is described as similar in size to Ninos (Syrian Hierapolis, not Nineveh), and built symmetrically like a Greek city with streets laid out orderly like in Athens (ἀτάκτως τε καὶ Ἀττικῶς τοὺς στενωποὺς τέτμηται). As already discussed in Chapter 4, according to Marshall (1951), Apollonius’ description of the city and its buildings correspond to the results of excavations. For example, some of the excavated streets in Taxila are in fact orthogonal and symmetrical. However, some elements of Philostratus’ description are not supported by archaeological sources. For example, there is no evidence that the shell stone (κογχυλιάτης λίθος), which appears in the description of the temple found in front of the walls, was used at Taxila ( Jones 2005: 177, note 21). According to Philostratus, inside of

Late Greek Sources About Buddhism in India  199

this temple was a shrine (ἱερόν) with bronze panels illustrating the deeds of Alexander and Porus, with visible effects of shadow, verisimilitude, and perspective (τὸ ἔμπνουν καὶ τὸ ἐσέχον τε καὶ ἐξέχον), used also in their paintings by Zeuxis, Polygnotus, or Euphranor. This description was again an incentive for Philostratus to present an excursus about Porus and the discussion between Apollonius and Damis about painting. Subsequently, Apollonius was accepted as king’s guest for three days, because it was not lawful for strangers to stay in the city longer. The palace was modest and thus Apollonius addressed the king as a philosopher. The king of Taxila in Philostratus’ account is the otherwise unknown Phraotes. A similar name, Phraates, appears on a poorly preserved coin (Alram 1986: 268, n. 1215). However, nothing is known about king Phraates, a contemporary of Vardanes I. Coins of a king “Prahat” or “Prahara”, thought to be Phraotes, have been found in the area of Taxila. The name of the king read as “Prahat” instead of “Prahara” was suggested by Jenkins and Narain (1957: 25). It is interesting that Gondophares, who ruled at Taxila between 20 and 46+ AD (Bivar 2007: 31), is not mentioned by Philostratus. He is known from the Kharo․s․thˉı inscription from Takht-i-baˉhˉı dated to the 26th year of Mahaˉraˉja Guduvhara (Gondophares), probably 46 AD. This inscription mentioned also erjhuna Kapa identified with Kujula Kadphises. According to Bivar, “The situation attested by the inscription is likely to be that after the expulsion of Kujula from Taxila, he remained in possession of the Indus west bank, acknowledging the suzerainty of Gondophares, whose influence was for a time dominant there” (Bivar 2007: 30). Gondophares also appeared in the Acts of Thomas,8 one of the New Testament apocrypha recounting the story of Thomas’ journey to India, which is currently dated to 30 AD (Bivar 2007: 197). The authorship of this work will be discussed in the next section devoted to Bardaisan. Initially, the conversation between Apollonius and Phraotes was held through the interpreter. But later the king taking Apollonius’ hand, and ordering the interpreter to leave, asked him in the Greek language to receive him as his drinking -companion and explained his modest behaviour in front of Apollonius stating that “wisdom is more kingly” (βασιλικώτερον σοφία ἔχει). Later on, after some Greek-style exercises, a bath, and a dinner, Phraotes described how one becomes a philosopher in India, namely, that at the age of eighteen he goes across the river Hyphasis (Beas) to the men, whom Apollonius is seeking, and after declaring that he wants to become a philosopher (φιλοσοφεῖν), he is first inspected for being “pure” (καθαρός), together with all his family up to the third generation. This description can be compared with Bardaisan’s description of Σαμαναῖοι. Phraotes also explained that he received Greek education from his father till the age of twelve and then he was sent to the “wise men”, who brought him up as their own son, because they love more those who know the Greek language, as akin to themselves in the same habits (ὡς ἐς τὸ ὁμόηθες αὐτοῖς ἤδη προσήκοντας). From his story, we also learn that he read Heracleidae of Euripides, and that the “wise men” met by Alexander were Oxydracae, who only claim to be philosophers, but they do not know anything useful (σοφίαν τε

200  Late Greek Sources About Buddhism in India

μεταχειρίζεσθαί φασιν οὐδὲν χρηστὸν εἰδότες). Whereas the true “wise men” (ἀτεχνῶς σοφοί) live between the Hyphasis and the Ganges, where Alexander never reached. Being holy and beloved of the gods (ἱεροὶ καὶ θεοφιλεῖς), they have miraculous powers of hurling thunder and lightning at their enemies. Thus they chased out of the country the Egyptian Hercules and Dionysus. Here, the epithet θεοφιλής strikingly resembles the title used by As´oka, Devaˉnampiya. After staying at the king’s palace for three days, Apollonius, with his companions, set off to meet the “wise men”. On the way, they saw two gates commemorating the meeting of Alexander and Porus after the battle, and at the Hyphasis river, they saw the altars with a dedication to father Ammon, brother Heracles, Athena Pronoia, Olympian Zeus, Cabiri of Samothrace, Indian Helios, and Delphic Apollo (ΠΑΤΡΙ ΑΜΜΩΝΙ ΚΑΙ ΗΡΑΚΛΕΙ ΑΔΕΛΦΩΙ ΚΑΙ ΑΘΗΝΑΙ ΠΡΟΝΟΙΑΙ ΚΑΙ ΔΙΙ ΟΛΥΜΠΙΩΙ ΚΑΙ ΣΑΜΟΘΡΑΙΞΙ ΚΑΒΕΙΡΟΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΙΝΔΩΙ ΗΛΙΩΙ ΚΑΙ ΔΕΛΦΩΙ ΑΠΟΛΛΩΝΙ), and a bronze tablet stating that Alexander stopped there (ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ ΕΝΤΑΥΘΑ ΕΣΤΗ). In Paraka, they saw the dragon hunt discussed above. When they reached the “wise men’s” citadel, they realized that the people feared them more than the king, because the king consulted them as an oracle. As it turned out, they knew Greek and had the gift of clairvoyance (e.g. their leader, Iarchas). Philostratus also described a well and a crater, which were regarded as the well of proof (φρέαρ ἐλέγχου) and the fire of forgiveness (πῦρ ξυγγνώμης), respectively. Interestingly, this description is also similar to the description contained in the work of Bardaisan. Apollonius and his companions are also said to have come across some of the earliest Greek statues of Athena Polias, Delian Apollo, Dionysus Dimnaios, and Amyclaean Apollo. The “wise men” also claimed to inhabit the centre of India and they worshipped fire obtained from the sun’s rays. What is interesting is that, according to Philostratus, they wore long hair and walked barefoot. They had white woollen tunics, and they carried a rod and a ring, both endowed with great powers. Moreover, they could walk in mid-air. Apollonius asked them about the soul and Iarchas replied that they held the opinions of Pythagoras. Iarchas also told Apollonius about his own past lives, as Ganges and Palamedes, and about Apollonius’ past life as a pilot of an Egyptian ship. Subsequently, king Phraotes also joined their discussion. His arrival was followed by the description of a splendid feast full of drinks. During the conversation, the king expressed his critique of the Greeks and described the Athenians as the slaves of Xerxes. But soon he regretted his prejudices, which he attributed to the tales and falsehood of Egyptian visitors. In the morning, Iarchas discoursed on the five elements, of which the universe consisted, namely, water, air, earth, fire, and ether, which is considered the origin of the gods. Iarchas further cured several people from demonic possession and diseases. He also had secret discussions with Apollonius on astral divination, foreknowledge, and sacrifices and invocations pleasing to the gods. According to Iarchas, a man who can predict the future is equal to the Delphic Apollo.

Late Greek Sources About Buddhism in India  201

Next, Apollonius inquired about wonders, which he had heard about India, for example about the man-eaters (μαρτιχόρας) and a fountain of liquid gold. Iarchas told him in reply that he had never heard about those things, but he told him about a stone called παντάρβη (“ruby”), about the pigmies, who dwelled across the Ganges and underground, but he said that the creatures described by Scylax never existed. He also described the gold-digging griffins (γρῦπες, instead of gold-digging ants from Herodotus’ account), who were sacred to the Sun and the phoenix, born of the sun’s rays and shining with gold. He confirmed the Egyptian account of this bird. It seems that Apollonius introduced here some kind of evaluation of sources. Namely, he supported his theories regarding the reliability of certain accounts of India on the authority of the Indian sage. Apollonius and his companions stayed for four months with the “wise men”. But who were these σοφοί? Were they Brahmans or Buddhists? It is hard to tell. As de Beauvoir-Priaulx concluded (1860: 102 f.), both Buddhists and Brahmans pretend to have the powers which Philostratus ascribed to them. Their mode of election is Buddhist, but their long hair and the worship of the sun are rather Brahman. However, their doctrines and opinions are those current in Athens. They worship Greek gods, speak Greek, and think Greek. In fact, they seem to be more Greek than Indian. Perhaps de Beauvoir-Priaulx was right, when he concluded that “Apollonius certainly pretended to have travelled through and made some stay in India, but that very possibly he did not really visit it; and that if he did visit it, our Damis never accompanied him; but, if we may judge from the cinnamon and pepper trees, the mangosteen, the trade in pearls, and the frequent reference to Egypt and Egyptian travellers, fabricated this journal perhaps from books written upon India, and tales current about India, which he easily collected at that great mart for Indian commodities, and resort for Indian merchants – Alexandria” (de Beauvoir-Priaulx 1860: 104 f.). It is worth adding here that the presence of Bactrians and Indians at Alexandria is attested by Dio Chrysostom (ca. 40–115 AD) in his Discourses 32.40.

Bardaisan9 With Bardaisan we apparently move to the Syrian Christian reality, but not entirely, because Bardaisan knew perfectly both the Syriac and Greek languages. In addition, in his work can be seen the so-called Syrian syncretism and many different influences, including pagan.10 Bardaisan (Greek Βαρδησάνης, Syriac Bardai․saˉn, the son of the river Dai․san, Greek Σκῖρτος) was named by Hilgenfeld in the title of his monograph der letzte Gnostiker, “the last Gnostic” (1864). He was a Syrian astrologer, historian, philosopher, and poet, not less controversial than Apollonius, but less frequently discussed, perhaps due to the fact that his works have survived only in fragments, which can be explained by the fact that his teachings were considered heretical, and therefore they did not survive in the face of the subsequent censorship of the Church. Bardaisan’s biography was written among others by two medieval Syrian chroniclers, Michael the Syrian

202  Late Greek Sources About Buddhism in India

and Bar Hebraeus. These sources are given by Nau in his edition of Bardaisan’s Liber Legum Regionum in Patrologia Syriaca 1.2 (1907). However, Drijvers (1966: 190 f.) denies the credibility of Bardaisan’s biography by claiming that it bears the hallmarks of an ecclesiastical legend designed to show heresy in stark comparison with orthodoxy. An important source for the reconstruction of Bardaisan’s image is also the references in Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius of Caesarea (4.30), and several other individual references from various writers. Bardaisan was born in 154 AD in a pagan aristocratic family near Edessa, an ancient city in North Mesopotamia, and from the second century BC capital of Osroene, which was an important centre of Christianity in the East. According to the tradition, Christianization of this region took place in the first century during the reign of Abgar V (cf. Barnard 1968; Drijvers 1997). Bardaisan, converted to Christianity together with Abgar VIII the Great, was baptized by the bishop of Edessa Hystaspes, and soon was ordained a deacon, but bishop Aggai condemned his views11 and excommunicated him. He died in 222 either in Edessa or in Armenia. In the works of Bardaisan, one can observe certain characteristics of Gnosticism, for example dualism in the cosmic and anthropological sphere, esotericism, and the demand for the liberation from the power of fate (εἱμαρμένη) by obtaining knowledge (γνῶσις), which can be seen especially in his work Liber Legum Regionum, known also as Περὶ Eἱμαρμένης. Guenther, in his article on this work, wrote about Bardaisan: partly Christian, partly philosopher of nature, partly Gnostic, and partly astrologer, thus the opinion about him changed.12 It should be remembered that Bardaisan was also, and perhaps primarily, an astrologer. He relied on traditional Babylonian astrology; however, as in other cases also in this field, he showed great independence and created his own view far from the astrological determinism. He also had associations with hermetic literature, the so-called Corpus Hermeticum, Alexandrian treaties attributed to Hermes Trismegistus (Ἑρμῆς ὁ Τρισμέγιστος). This diversity of inspirations in Bardaisan’s worldview is associated with the so-called Syrian syncretism, which combines Greek elements (the so-called “Babylonian Hellenism”) with Iranian-Semitic elements. Bardaisan’s works are preserved only fragmentarily. Liber Legum Regionum, until the nineteenth century known only from the fragments quoted by Eusebius (as Περὶ Eἱμαρμένης), in 1855 was discovered in a Syrian manuscript by Cureton and Nau.13 In addition, Porphyry assigns to Bardaisan a book about India (Ἰνδικά), for which the information was derived from the account of the members of the Indian embassy sent to the emperor Elagabalus. Bardaisan was also a talented poet, considered to be the father of Syriac hymnology. However, only a few verses are preserved, quoted by Ephrem the Syrian in his collection Carmina Nisibena, usually for polemics with the views of Bardaisan, but often also to present the orthodox principles of faith using the poetic form of hymns. In addition, the authorship of the Acts of Thomas, an apocrypha written in the first half of the third century in Edessa, is attributed to him. This work refers to the legend of Thomas, who went on a Christianizing mission to India. However, the authorship of Bardaisan is doubtful. At present, some researchers believe rather

Late Greek Sources About Buddhism in India  203

that he was only the author of lyrical poems contained in this work, for example, the famous Hymn of the Pearl.14 For the present book, the most important is the account of Bardaisan about India. In the extant sources, there are two long passages of Ἰνδικά quoting Bardaisan’s account of the meeting of the members of the Indian embassy with the emperor. The first one is a quotation from the work of Porphyry Περὶ Στυγός and was transmitted by Stobaeus (Flor. 1.3.56). It contains, inter alia, descriptions of the ordeal of water and the ordeal of door, and a cave with an androgynous statue inside. The second of these fragments is preserved in the work of Porphyry De abstinentia 4.17 (cf. Jerome Adversus Jovinianum 2.14) on abstaining from eating meat (vegetarianism), and it relates to the specificity of the two groups of Indian theosophists (θεοσόφων), the Βραχμᾶνες and the Σαμαναῖοι. Before proceeding to a more detailed commentary on the various issues concerning the descriptions contained in both passages, it is worth looking into the circumstances of the meeting and the possible motivations of the author to write an account of this meeting. The emperor mentioned here is identified with Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, also known as Elagabalus, who was the son of Julia Soaemias from the royal family of Emesa. He was a priest of the god Elagabal (“the God of the Mountain”), worshipped in the form of a black stone (Baetylus). The cult of that deity was introduced to Rome through that emperor. He also adopted the title Elagabal, the Greek spelling of which as Ἡλιoγάβαλος gave a new reference to the Greek Sun god (Ἥλιος). The meeting probably took place in 218 AD in Edessa, which was a very important communication point on the route linking the East with Rome: two major trade routes in luxury goods crossed here, and it was the place from which, according to tradition, the mission of the Christianization of India started. To investigate the possible reasons why Bardaisan wrote an account of the meeting with the Indian embassy, one should pay attention to the author’s tendency to syncretism. Bardaisan had a remarkable ability to synthesize a variety of phenomena belonging to different cultures. He was probably generally much interested in foreign peoples and their customs, which is particularly evident in his work Περὶ Eἱμαρμένης, in which he presented a variety of laws to deny determinism and to prove the fact that a man acts according to free will. Perhaps also in the case of Ἰνδικά, the aim of Bardaisan’s account was to compare the phenomena from Indian culture to a known culture, both Syrian and Greco-Roman, and thus to present his views on the general situation of a man in relation to God and the world around him. Therefore, while analysing these fragments, one should note a high probability of occurrence of the so-called interpretatio Graeca. As regards the first fragment, Bardaisan described here the trials by ordeal of water and by ordeal of door. It is worth recalling here the description in Philostratus’ work of the well of proof (φρέαρ ἐλέγχου) and the fire of forgiveness (πῦρ ξυγγνώμης). Further, Bardesanes provided a description of the place, where these trials took place, namely, in a naturally formed cave in the highest mountain near the middle of the earth. This mountain can perhaps be identified with

204  Late Greek Sources About Buddhism in India

Jambudvˉı pa, which was said to be located in the centre of the earth. In Western ancient literature, it was identified with Mount Meros located near Nysa.15 It is again worth recalling that the “wise men” in Philostratus’ account occupied the central place in India. Bardaisan also described an androgynous statue located inside the cave, which is usually identified with S´iva Ardhanaˉrˉı s´vara,16 however, without clear evidence. Although according to Rawlinson, “There is little doubt, that we have in this passage a description of one of the great Hindu rock-temples of Deccan-Elephanta, Ajantaˉ, or Kaˉ․nheri” (Rawlinson 1916: 146). However, the statue described by Bardaisan does not correspond to any currently known Indian statue. Most problematic in this description is the passage, where Bardaisan describes the statue as a visible model (θεατὸν παράδειγμα), which is handed by the god to his son (δημιουργός), who has to re-create the world. Winter (1999: 77 ff.) suggested the interpretation of this παράδειγμα in the context of the philosophy of Plato, who in his dialogue Τίμαιος provided a description of cosmogony, in which the universe was created as an imperfect reflection of the perfect, eternal archetype (παράδειγμα), looked at by the δημιουργός during the creation of the world. This dialogue has played an important role in late antiquity, and also in Gnosticism. However, in my opinion, the possibility of reading the description in the context of Indian sources should be revisited. It is possible that Bardaisan’s tendency to synthesize made the deity represented by the statue difficult to identify. Besides, Indian deities are also very often syncretic. As regards the ordeal of water, any relationship seems difficult to prove, because the so-called trial (δοκιμαστήριον) motif is a very common theme in many texts. Therefore, it seems unwise to attempt to prove unequivocally Bardaisan’s dependence on any particular author or text, as the convergence of certain descriptions and procedures of trial do not prove anything in this regard, showing only the universality of the phenomenon and its similarities in different cultures, both Greek and Roman, and Indian. However, it is worth looking again at all the elements in Bardaisan’s description in the context of an observation made by de Beauvoir-Priaulx (1862: 289, note 1), who drew attention to an interesting passage in the Raˉjataran˙gi․nˉı ,17 describing Kapa․tes´vara Tˉı rtha,18 which combines the elements of the cave, the water, and the wooden statue motif together with the motif of the trial. It is also worth noting that kapaˉ․ta means “a door, the leaf or panel of a door” while ˉı s´vara means “a master, a lord, God” and is often used as a synonym of S´iva, and thus kapa․tes´vara means “a master of the door”, or perhaps “S´iva, master of the door”. Therefore, we find other elements of Bardaisan’s account, namely the door and perhaps the androgynous statue, since it is possible that S´iva was presented together with his wife, who is also mentioned in the description. Tˉı rtha means “a passage, a ford, a shallow water that may be easily crossed, place of pilgrimage on the banks of sacred streams”, but also “advice, instruction, counsel”, so it denotes places of pilgrimage associated with sacred water and perhaps with the trial. It would be interesting to find out that Bardaisan’s description is related to a real place described in the late chronicle of Kashmir.

Late Greek Sources About Buddhism in India  205

Regrettably, unambiguous identification will never be possible, because, as we read in Pandit’s translation of Tohfatu’l-Ahbab by Muhammad ʽAlıˉ Kashmıˉ rıˉ in Chapter 4 Mission in Kashmir, part two Araki’s19 mission of destroying idols and temples of infidels, “A temple stood in Kuther20 by the side of the spring. Araki dispatched a group of sufis to demolish it. Arrangements were made for five-times congregational prayers in that mosque. A mulla was appointed to look after these duties” (Pandit 2009: 276).21 Interestingly, as noted by Handa (1994: 103), until the ninth century AD, Buddhism and Shaivism in Kashmir remained very close to each other, despite apparent differences, as a result of Ku․saˉn ․a legacy, and Shaivism was strongly influenced by Buddhism. It is also worth noticing the connection of tˉı rtha with the Jain concept of Tˉı rthan˙kara (“creating a passage”), being a person who has conquered Sam ․ saˉra, acquired mok․sa, and now helps others to cross Sam ․ saˉra by creating a tˉı rtha. Mahaˉvˉı ra, the founder of Jainism, was the twenty-fourth and last Tˉı rthan˙kara. It is hard not to notice the similarity of this concept to the Buddhist concept of Tathaˉgata (“one who has thus gone”), denoting Buddha, who was a contemporary of Mahaˉvˉı ra and like him, an ascetic, a S´rama․na.22 It, therefore, seems that the different religious currents strongly intermingled in North India in ancient times, influencing one another. The second fragment in Bardaisan’s account raises social issues, and more specifically the description of two groups of the so-called theosophists, or ascetics engaged in the exploration of knowledge of the divine laws. At first glance, this is a very well-known topic in Western literature on India, where similar descriptions for the most part come from the work of Megasthenes. But it is too hasty a conclusion since the present Σαμαναῖοι are not the same as those in the Greco-Roman literature and in Megasthenes. In the beginning of this section is included the introduction by Porphyry, in which he speaks of the division of Indian society into many groups. This information is probably taken from another Greek writer. Megasthenes, for example, in his book about India, writes about the division into seven groups (νενέμηται δὲ οἱ πάντες Ἰνδοὶ εἰς ἑπτὰ μάλιστα γένεα), and then proceeds to describe each of these groups, which include: φιλόσοφοι, γεωργοί, ποιμένες/ νομεῖς, γένος δημιουργικόν, πολεμισταί, ἔφοροι/ἐπίσκοποι, βουλευόμενοι/ σύμβουλοι. Bardaisan mentioned as one of the groups the so-called theosophists (θεόσoφοι). He distinguishes them as a separate group on the basis of their education, thus moving away from the denotation of Indian terms: var․na (literally colour, one of the four groups) or jaˉ ti (occupational group). Instead, he pays attention to their wisdom, as indicated by the ending of their ­determination –σόφοι. The Βραχμᾶνες, according to Bardaisan, unlike Σαμαναῖοι (who recruit from the whole Indian nation), come from one family, “one mother”, and “one father”. At first glance, this view does not agree with the Puru․sasuˉkta of the R ․ gveda (10.90), according to which the Brahmans were created from the head of the cosmic giant Puru․sa, because there is no mention of “father” and “mother” in

206  Late Greek Sources About Buddhism in India

this hymn. However, there is no discrepancy here, because this hymn, in contrast to the account of Bardaisan, concerns cosmogony. Another explanation of this passage was suggested by Lassen (1858: 362), who claimed that it describes Brahma and his wife Sarasvatˉı . But there is no confirmation of this theory in other sources. Winter (1999: 106), in turn, drew attention to the possible identification of the second group, the Σαμαναῖοι, with the Buddhists, the most important theory in the context of the present study. As a consequence of this theory, this section can be regarded as a representation of the contrast between the two groups: on the one hand are Σαμαναῖοι, who are identified as λογάδες (elected), and on the other hand, the Brahmans, who pass their θεοσοφία in their lineage from generation to generation. In this context, the “wise men” of Philostratus could also be identified with the Σαμαναῖοι. Another issue concerning the Brahmans is the issue of sovereignty. According to Bardaisan, they are independent of the king and do not pay taxes. The case is similarly presented in Megasthenes regarding the whole group called φιλόσοφοι. This is also confirmed in the Indian texts presenting the Indian social system. The Brahmans were therefore the most privileged group in Indian society. However, their lives were very modest. According to Megasthenes, they lived in the mountains (the so-called φιλόσοφοι ὀρεινοί) and near the river Ganges (the socalled φιλόσοφοι πεδιάσιοι, who again remind us of the “wise men” of Philostratus, making things more complicated). As for the food, Bardaisan highlights the fact that the Brahmans do not eat meat. In this context, it is worth noting that originally ahim ․ saˉ was not a part of the Buddhist ethical system. It was promoted by various ascetic groups, and Buddhism took it over. Vegetarianism grew in India as a Brahman custom (visible for example in the Mahaˉbhaˉrata) and was passed on to other groups. Regarding the lifestyle of the theosophists, according to Bardaisan, they lived in seclusion and spent time exploring the words about the deity. But more important for this study is the second group, the so-called Σαμαναῖοι. Surely they are not the same as the Samanas of Western literature on India, or the Σαρμᾶνες, whom Megasthenes listed next to the Brahmans as the second group of the so-called φιλόσοφοι. The name Σαρμᾶνες derives from the Sanskrit term S´raman․a, “an ascetic”, as already mentioned in the chapter devoted to As´oka. As Karttunen (1997: 58) noted, formerly it had been debated whether Σαρμᾶνες should be identified with Buddhists or Brahmans, but now it is simply assumed that the name refers to different groups of wandering monks. In contrast, the researchers have long agreed that the Σαμαναῖοι in Bardaisan’s account are the Buddhists. Another question arises when trying to determine the etymology of the word Σαμαναῖοι. According to Karttunen (1997: 57), this name refers to the Paˉli form Sama․na. And the ending -αῖοι, according to Dihle (1964), may derive from the Aramaic intermediate level or might have arisen by analogy to the Greek adjectives formed from nouns belonging to the “a” declination (as, for example, the adjective ἀρχαῖος formed from the noun ἀρχή), or as an exception (as in the word

Late Greek Sources About Buddhism in India  207

ἐπιστολμαῖος), or similarly to the Semitic determination of groups of population (for example Ἰουδαῖοι). Since Bardaisan was a Syrian, it is possible that the first hypothesis is right, namely that it is of Aramaic origin. The validity of this theory is further indicated by the mention of the Samanas preserved in other Western writers: Clement of Alexandria and Cyril of Alexandria (not mentioning the fragment in the work of Jerome Adversus Iovinianum 2.14, for which Bardaisan was a direct source). These texts show that Σαμαναῖοι are connected with Bactria, or the Iranian-Indian frontier, which, in the first centuries of our era, was the place of residence of the Ku․saˉn ․as, who had a major impact on the promotion of Buddhism, as well as on the maintenance of the influence of Western art and culture throughout Central Asia, and above all, along the so-called Silk Routes, which were then gaining importance. As already mentioned, Σαμαναῖοι are elected (λογάδες) from all the people of India, from among those, who want to sacrifice their life to theosophy. Therefore, they are in opposition to the Brahmans, who are of one family and their theosophy is passed down from generation to generation. Similarly, in Megasthenes, we find information about becoming σοφιστής.23 The problem here concerns the Buddhist postulate of rejection of caste barriers as a protest against the exclusivity of salvation for the chosen, namely the Brahman priests. This is one of the main points of Buddhist propaganda. According to Buddhists, not by birth but by deeds, one can really be considered a Brahman. The locus classicus on this subject is the text of the Dhammapada 393, according to which, “A man does not become a Braˉhmana by his platted hair, by his family, or by birth; in whom there is truth and righteousness, he is blessed, he is a Braˉhmana” (Müller and Fausbøll 1881: 91). Thus, Buddhism in opposition to Braˉhman․ism aims to democratize and disseminate the philosophy, to make the liberation (mok․sa) accessible for all social groups. This feature made Buddhism more open to different groups, including foreigners. The next section in Bardaisan’s account describes the procedure for the admission of new adepts to the Order. Now, to join the group of the Σαμαναῖοι, one must go to the authorities of the village and get rid of all goods, have his body shaved, and abandon his wife and children, who thereafter do not legally belong to him. According to Indian texts, joining the Order is a two-step process. The first stage (pravrajyaˉ) involves liberation from all things binding a man to this world. This is a necessary requirement to become a bhik․su. Whereas the second stage (upasam ․ padaˉ) involves profession of vows. Bardaisan here describes the first stage, during which according to the Paˉli canon adept passes “from his homeland to exile” (agaˉrasmaˉ anagaˉriyam pabbajati). Also, in the Upani․sads, it is presented as a stage of the sam ․ nyaˉsa, because attaining liberation (mok․sa) is possible only in isolation from everyday life and in the lonely quest to focus on the ultimate goal, to reject everything else (sam ․ ni-aˉs means “to reject”). This process is very clearly visible in Bardaisan’s account. In the beginning, there is a mention of shaving unnecessary hair and putting on new robes. This information is confirmed in the text of the Mahaˉvagga 1.12.3, where we read about cutting off hair

208  Late Greek Sources About Buddhism in India

and beard, putting on yellow robes, and where we find a description of the three robes (tricˉı vara), which the monks wore: a bottom robe (antaravaˉsaka), top robe (uttaraˉsanga), and a cloak (sanghaˉti). Bardaisan then proceeds to describe the abandonment by an applicant of all his possessions. According to the text of the S´atapatha Braˉhman․a 14.7.2, possessions are like fetters. In Bardaisan’s account, liberation from possessions also concerns the family of the adept. The participle κεκτημένος indicates that the family is one of the so-called κτήματα, or “things owned”. After joining the order, the adept does not consider having a family (πρὸς αὐτὸν νομίζων). This aspect of the abandonment of the world plays an important role in Buddhism. The wife, whom the monk has abandoned, is called “old comrade” (puraˉna dutiyikaˉ) and so he appoints her “sister”, just like other women. In the text of the Mahaˉparinibbaˉ․na Sutta 5.23 (Sutta 16 of the Dˉı gha Nikaˉya), we find a description of a conversation between Ananda and the Buddha, where the Buddha instructs the student how he should behave in relation to women. Namely, he advises not to approach them, but if he approaches them, not to talk to them, but if he talks to them, to be extremely careful. The monk, who had abandoned his life in society, had the status of a person legally dead (cf. Olivelle 1987: 52). Thus, his former wife was considered a widow (vidhavaˉ), which led to her very difficult situation in Indian society, because a woman had to be under the care of a man, as we read in Manu․sm ․․rti 5.147. Thus, left by her husband, the wife passed under the care of her son, and if she did not have a son, then a male relative of her husband, and if the husband had no male relatives, she returned to her father. In contrast, the children were taken care of by the king, who provided such care also to the sick, crippled, pregnant women, widows, and the elderly. With regard to the information provided by Bardaisan on monastic life, we need to verify it in the Chinese sources speaking on this subject, for example, Xuanzang, Faxian, and Yijing. Useful for this purpose is the description of the Naˉlandaˉ monastery (cf. Beal 1888, 1905; Slaje 1986). The first issue is the role of the king in the construction of new monasteries. According to Bardaisan, the king was the founder of the residential quarter (οἶκοι) and the sacred precincts (τεμένη). This is confirmed by the data provided by Beal (1888: 110) on the construction of the Naˉlandaˉ monastery, which was built by the king of this country. It may be added that the largest contribution to the building of new monasteries was made by kings As´oka and Kani․ska. It should be noted that the Buddhist monasteries also had economic functions. As for the daily life in the monastery, the description by Bardaisan also seems to be confirmed in the sources. For example, κώδων (“a bell”) corresponds to Indian ghan․․taˉ (“a gong”), and it seems to play an important role; namely, it gives a signal to the monks to begin their activities, it is a part of their daily ritual. The text of the Cullavagga 5.11.5 provides a description of the material used to make the gong: silver or gold. Remarkable is also Bardaisan’s mention of the vessels. The beggar’s bowl (paˉtra) was something that Buddhist monks had from the beginning (cf. Lamotte 1958: 786). Interesting is also the presence of the laity

Late Greek Sources About Buddhism in India  209

in the monastery, which is evident from the statement that those, who were not Σαμαναῖοι, had to leave. Also, the mention of the administrators of monasteries (οἰκονόμοι) is confirmed in the sources (cf. Lamotte 1958: 59). The final issue discussed by Bardaisan in this fragment is the attitude of the Σαμαναῖοι towards life and death, and more specifically towards suicide. It is interesting that the majority of scholars interpret αὐτοί in this passage as pertaining to both groups: Σαμαναῖοι and Brahmans. However, I accept Jacoby’s conjecture that the phrase τε καὶ τῶν Βραχμάνων is Porphyry’s later addition, and therefore the rest of this description should be treated as referring only to Σαμαναῖοι. Suicide is a known τόπος concerning the monks in Western literature on India. This τόπος had its origins in the story about Calanus24 and Zarmanochegas,25 who committed suicide by burning themselves at a stake. These examples show that suicide was practised in India. Perhaps it was not the rule, but it was certainly a well-known phenomenon. In the Indian dharma literature, suicide was often mentioned as prohibited. For example, Manu․sm ․․rti 5.89 prohibits pouring libations of water (udakakriyaˉ) to those, who have committed suicide (aˉtmanastyaˉgina․h). According to Karttunen, “what was not occasionally done was not forbidden. Actually it (sc. a suicide) must have been practised in ancient times, and there are also direct references to it” (Karttunen 1997: 65). Hillebrandt (1917) gathered references to committing suicide at a stake in Indian literature. The first text on the subject is Vasi․s․thadharmasuˉtra 29.4, where it is clearly written that by entering a fire (agniprave․saˉd) the world of Brahma (brahmaloka․h) is gained. According to Thakur, “The practice of religious suicide prevailed long before the 4th century BC” (Thakur 1963: 110). Other references to suicide are also found in such texts as Raˉmaˉya․na, Mahaˉbhaˉrata, Kathaˉsaritsaˉgara, Mudraˉraˉk․sasa, or Das´akumaˉracarita. As far as Buddhism is concerned, suicide is more common in the Chinese tradition, but there are also some cases in the Indian sources (cf. Karttunen 1997: 65). As noted by Rawlinson (1916: 144), the popularity of suicides among Buddhist monks increased over time, although it was banned by the Buddha. Thakur stated that “A monk or follower is explicitly told that he would not commit suicide in order to reach nirvana” (Thakur 1963: 139). This prohibition is very clearly expressed in the text of the Paˉ․timokkha 3. Similarly, some Western writers described the attitude of Indian ascetics to the matter of life and death. In their view, life was regarded by them as building a bridge to a better life beyond this world. This is evident in Megasthenes’ passage26 relating to the Brahmans, where he writes about their contemptio mortis. On the other hand, there are also texts confirming cases of recognition of suicide as a religious act of high value, such as Milindapañha (cf. Thakur 1963: 107). It is worth remembering that Buddhism consists of many sects, which recognize different paths to liberation, and therefore it is possible that some Buddhists considered suicide as a way to liberation, although the first of the so-called Five Buddhist Precepts (pañcas´ˉı laˉni) is the prohibition of killing, which is associated with the previously mentioned principle of non-violence (ahim ․ saˉ), the main Buddhist ethical standard.

210  Late Greek Sources About Buddhism in India

From the above overview, it follows that Bardaisan indeed based his description on the relation of the envoys, who had visited the emperor. I am inclined to argue, despite the lack of conclusive evidence, that the description of the cave, the statue, and the ordeals also refers to the description of the actual place, perhaps Kapa․tes´vara Tˉı rtha in Kashmir. Also, the description of the Σαμαναῖοι, who should be identified with the Buddhists, is confirmed in Indian sources. Therefore, Bardaisan has provided very accurate information about the Buddhists and about India in general. Unfortunately, because he was considered a heretic from the Christian point of view, his works have survived only in fragments. Moreover, if we assume that Vita Apollonii was written after 218 AD and that it was mostly based on literary sources, there is enough reason to suppose that Philostratus drew some information also from Bardaisan’s account.

Notes 1 Apollonius was approximately fifteen years old when Jesus was crucified, and lived in the time of Domitian, and so longer than most of the apostles. 2 Philostr. VA 1.19–3.58. For English translation cf. Jones (2005). 3 Philostr. VA 1.3. 4 “une invention nourrie de réminiscences littéraires” (Bernard 1996: 512). 5 As well as Onesicritus. 6 Cf. serpents in Pliny 8.11.13. 7 Cf. Arr. An. 5.1 and Strab. 15.1.9; cf. Lassen (1849: 133). 8 For the text and commentary cf. Klijn (2003). 9 Parts of this section were submitted by the author of the present book for publication in “Archäologie in Iran und Turan” as an article entitled “Bardaisan’s Account of Indian Religious Practices and the Identification of the Described Phenomena on the Basis of Textual and Archaeological Sources”. 10 For example, he learned pagan hymns from a pagan priest Anuduzbar in Hierapolis (Manbij). 11 According to Michael the Syrian he inclined towards Valentinianism, according to Bar Haebreus he turned to Valentinus and Marcion, according to Eusebius of Caesarea to Valentinus and the Ophites (Ὀφιανοί). However, some researchers deny that he had any connections with Valentinus (cf. Rudolph 1977; Ramelli 2009). 12 “Teils Christ, teils Naturphilosoph, teils Gnostiker, teils Astrologe, so schwankt Meinung über die ihn” (Guenther 1978: 15). 13 I have discussed this work elsewhere (cf. Kubica 2013). 14 I will not mention here about the other, not preserved Bardaisan’s works. 15 Arr. An. 5.1.6: Νῦσάν τε οὖν ἐκάλεσε τὴν πόλιν Διόνυσος ἐπὶ τῆς τροφοῦ τῆς Νύσης καὶ τὴν χώραν Νυσαίαν. τὸ δὲ ὄρος ὅ τι περ πλησίον ἐστὶ τῆς πόλεως καὶ τοῦτο Μηρὸν ἐπωνόμασε Διόνυσος; Curt. 8.10.12: “Sita est urbs sub radicibus montis, quem Meron incolae appellant”. 16 For example by Schlegel, Lassen (1858: 350), de Beauvoir-Priaulx (1862: 292), or Majumdar (1960: 448). 17 Raj. 1.32: “There [worshippers] touching the wooden image of the husband of Umaˉ at the Tˉı rtha of Pˉapasuˉdana, obtain comfort [in life] and final liberation [thereafter]” (Stein 1900: 6 f.). 18 This Tˉırtha was known also by al-Bˉıruˉnˉı and Abu’l-Fazl (cf. Stein 1900: 6 f., note 32). 19 Šams-ad-Dˉın Muh․ammad Araˉkˉı, born in 1424, was a founder of Nurbakhshiyyeh sufi order in Kashmir. 20 Modern name of Kapa․tes´vara, elsewhere also Koˉtheˉr.

Late Greek Sources About Buddhism in India  211



212  Late Greek Sources About Buddhism in India

Handa, O.C. (1994) Buddhist Art and Antiquities of Himachal Pradesh upto 8th Century A.D. New Delhi: Indus Publishing Company. Hilgenfeld, A. (1864) Bardesanes, der letzte Gnostiker. Leipzig: T.G. Weigel. Hillebrandt, A. (1917) Der freiwillige Feuertod in Indien und die Somaweihe. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse 8. München: Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Jones, C.P. (2001) “Apollonius of Tyana’s Passage to India”, Greek, Roman & Byzantine Studies, 42(2), p. 185. Jones, C.P. (2005) Philostratus. The Life of Apollonius of Tyana. Books I–IV, Edited and Translated by Christopher P. Jones. Cambridge – London: Harvard University Press (Loeb classical library: 458). Karttunen, K. (1997) India and the Hellenistic World. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society (Studia Orientalia: vol. 83). Klijn, A.F.J. (2003) The Acts of Thomas: Introduction, Text, and Commentary, 2nd edn. Leiden: Brill (Supplements to Novum Testamentum: v. 108). Koskenniemi, E. (1998) “Apollonius of Tyana: A Typical θεῖος ἀνήρ?”, Journal of Biblical Literature, 117(3), pp. 455–467. Kubica, O. (2013) “Pogla˛dy Bardesanesa na temat wolnej woli i przeznaczenia na podstawie fragmentów Ksie˛ gi praw krajów (Liber Legum Regionum), znanych jako dialog De Fato (Perì Heimarméneˉs)”, in Biernat, J. and Biernat, P. (eds.) Granice wolnos´ci w staroz∙ytnej mys´li greckiej. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellon´skiego, pp. 41–62. Lamotte, É. (1958) Histoire du Bouddhisme indien, t. I: Des origines à l’ère Sâka. Louvain: Publications Universitaires [et] Institut Orientaliste. Lassen, C. (1849) Indische Alterthumskunde 2. Bonn, London: H.B. Koenig, Williams & Norgate. Lassen, C. (1858) Indische Alterthumskunde 3. Bonn, London: H.B. Koenig, Williams & Norgate. Majumdar, N.G. (1960) The Classical Accounts of India. Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay. Marshall, S.J.H. (1951) Taxila. An Illustrated Account of Archaeological Excavations Carried Out at Taxila Under the Orders of the Government of India Between the Years 1913 and 1914. In Three Volumes. Cambridge: The University Press. Meyer, E. (1917) “Apollonios von Tyana und die Biographie des Philostratos”, Hermes, 52(3), pp. 371–424. Müller, F.M. and Fausbøll, V. (1881) The Dhammapada. A Collection of Verses Being One of the Canonical Books of the Buddhist. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Narain, A.K. (1957) The Indo-Greeks. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Nau, F. (1907) Patrologia Syriaca. Paris: Didot. Olivelle, P. (1987) “Sam ․ nyaˉsa”, in Eliade, M. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: MacMillan, pp. 51–53. Pandit, K. (2009) A Muslim Missionary in Mediaeval Kashmir (Being the English Translation of Tohfatu’l-Ahbab). New Delhi: Eurasian Human Rights Forum. Puskás, I. (1991) “Myth or Reality? Apollonius of Tyana in India”, Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis, 27, pp. 115–123. Ramelli, I. (2009) Bardaisan of Edessa: A Reassessment of the Evidence and a New Interpretation. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. Rawlinson, H.G. (1916) Intercourse Between India and the Western World. From the Earliest Times to the Fall of Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roberts, J.M. (1892) Antiquity Unveiled: Ancient Voices from the Spirit Realms Disclose the Most Startling Revelations, Proving Christianity to be of Heathen Origin. Philadelphia: Oriental Publishing co.

Late Greek Sources About Buddhism in India  213

Rudolph, K. (1977) Die Gnosis, Wesen und Geschichte einer spätantiken Religion. Leipzig: Koehler & Amelang. Slaje, W. (1986) “Naˉlandaˉ, Ein buddhistisches Kloster Altindiens als Kulturelles Bildungszentrum”, in Galter, H.D. (ed.) Kulturkontakte und ihre Bedeutung in Geschichte und Gegenwart des Orients. Beiträge zum 1. Grazer Morgenländischen Symposion. Graz: Verlag für die Technische Universität, pp. 111–126. Stein, A. (1900) Kalhana’s Raˉjatarangini: A Chronicle of the Kings of Kas´mˉı r, Volume 1. Westminster: Archibald Constable. Thakur, U. (1963) The History of Suicide in India. An Introduction. New Delhi: Munshi Ram Manohar Lal. Winter, F. (1999) Bardesanes von Edessa über Indien: ein früher syrischer Theologe schreibt über ein fremdes Land. Thaur bei Innsbruck: Druck- und Verlagshaus.

CONCLUSION

Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise. (Buddhist proverb from S´uˉran˙gama Suˉtra) Could a Greek in antiquity be a Buddhist? It depends on how we understand what Buddhism was. In this book, I tried to show that there are no monoliths, which could be termed as Hellenism or Buddhism, and therefore there is no such phenomenon as Greco-Buddhism. In the longue durée, Buddhism was one of many ascetic religious currents, which were part of the S´raman ․ic culture. Siddhaˉrtha Gautama, known as Buddha, simply rediscovered the teachings proclaimed by these ancient ascetics. However, the teaching of the Buddha was for a long time not more popular than the teaching of other sages of the time, e.g. Mahaˉvˉı ra or Makkhali Gosala. Chandragupta is said to have been a Jaina; his son, Bindusaˉra, ˉ jˉı vikas; it is only, thanks to his grandson, As´oka, that Buddhism favoured the A was propagated all over India and beyond. As´oka believed that he has gained the victory by Dhamma “on all his frontiers to a distance of six hundred yojanas, where reigns the Greek king Antiochus, and beyond the realm of that Antiochus in the lands of the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonus, Magas, and Alexander; and in the south over the Co․las and Paˉn ․․dyas as far as Ceylon. Likewise, here in the imperial territories among the Greeks and the Kambojas, Naˉbhakas and Naˉbhapanktis, Bhojas and Pitinikas, and Andhras and Paˉrindas, everywhere the people follow the Beloved of the Gods’ instructions in Dhamma” (Thapar 2012: 383 f.). However, despite this optimistic proclamation, Buddhist inclinations of the Greeks in the time of As´oka are not confirmed in any sources. Although it is possible that the Greeks supported the Mauryas for political reasons. They had good relations with them, as evidenced by, inter alia, the envoys sent by the Greeks to the Mauryan rulers. In addition, certain elements of the policy of As´oka, such as the promotion of trade, religious and social inclusiveness, and tolerance DOI: 10.4324/9781003258575-8

Conclusion  215

for differing views, could correspond to the needs of the Greeks. The Greeks probably supported Buddhism in opposition to Brāhman ․ism. This is indicated by, inter alia, the mention of a skirmish between the Greeks and the S´un˙gas in the drama of Kaˉlidaˉsa entitled Maˉlavikaˉgnimitram. Therefore, even if there were cases of genuine conversion of the Greeks to Buddhism in this early period, what cannot be ruled out, since the sources we have are very scarce, still they should be considered in the context of the processes taking place on the so-called middle ground. The Greeks did not convert to Buddhism but to what they thought Buddhism was. With regard to the times of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom, the preserved sources indicate a rather strong and influential Greek culture. Ai Khanoum revealed many traces of Greek architecture, art, and literature, which may indicate a desire by the Greeks living there to create a living lieu de mémoire, a site of memory for the founders and inhabitants of this city, who thus tried to preserve the memory of Greece. Also, the inscription of Sophytos shows that the Greek culture was so influential that Subhuˉti, son of Naˉrada, received Greek education and decided to write his funerary epigram in Greek, showing off his erudition. On the other hand, a comparison with the inscription of Heliodorus, son of Dion, from Taxila, a Greek ambassador of the Indo-Greek king Antialcidas to the court of the S´un˙ga king Bhaˉgabhadra, who calls himself bhagavata, a devotee of Vi․sn․u, shows that such adaptation to the dominant culture could operate in both directions. This comparison also shows that while in Bactria Greek culture could dominate over the indigenous cultures, and thus we find many traces of Greek ethnic distinctiveness, in India we find only traces of Greek names, and besides, nothing particularly Greek, because the culture in India was so pervasive that the Greeks were barely able to add anything of their own there. The most famous Greek, who converted to Buddhism, was Menander. In the present book, I followed the theory of the existence of two rulers of that name. The existence of Menander II is indicated by the current dating of Vijayamitra, whose name appears together with that of Menander on the Bajaur reliquary inscription. It is possible, therefore, that the text of the Milindapañha does not refer to Menander I, but to Menander II. But regardless of which Menander the dialogue concerns, the fact remains that it speaks of a Greek ruler, who in the course of the discussion with the Indian sage is converted to Buddhism. I showed how this sensational piece of information affected the European interpretation of the Milindapañha, for example as derived from a Greek prototype. I demonstrated that this text must be interpreted in the context of Buddhist literature, especially the Chinese versions of the dialogue. Subsequently, I presented the main cities of Gandhaˉra in the time of Menander and earlier. This section provides an introduction to the next chapter, which is devoted to the region of Gandhaˉra, or rather Greater Gandhaˉra. This chapter relates directly to the previously discussed phenomenon of Greco-Buddhism because it was in Gandhaˉra, where the so-called Greco-Buddhist art was established. I presented the specificity of this region and I discussed several theories concerning the Greek influence in certain

216 Conclusion

fields, in Gandhaˉran art, in Gaˉndhaˉrˉı language, and in Buddhist religiousness. As for the Greco-Buddhist art of Gandhaˉra, apart from the motif of HeraclesVajrapaˉn․i, I did not introduce an analysis of individual Greek motifs occurring here, such as Dionysian motifs, sea monsters, the Trojan horse,1 Cupids, Boreas, Atlas, Atalanta, Tyche-Haˉrˉı tˉı , etc. Such a thorough analysis of Greco-Buddhist art would require a separate work. The last chapter is dedicated to the late Greek sources about Buddhism in India. I confined my discussion here to two sources, namely Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii and Bardaisan’s Ἰνδικά. I have shown that the work of Philostratus is not based on the diaries of Damis, but on a variety of sources, and therefore, the reliability of the information provided by the author depends on the relevant source. I argued also that Philostratus could draw some information from Bardaisan. While the credibility of the information provided by Bardaisan seems to be supported by the Indian sources. As a result, we can say, with a high degree of certainty, that the Indian envoys talked with the emperor Elagabalus around 218 AD in Edessa. We can thus conclude by citing RE XIII of As´oka “Even where the envoys of the Beloved of the Gods have not gone […],” Indian envoys have come almost 500 years later during the reign of Vasudeva I (ca. 191–225 AD), the last great Ku․saˉn․a emperor. Other examples could also be discussed here, such as the Christian legend of Barlaam and Josaphat, which has its roots in the legend of the Buddha,2 the Acts of Thomas, or the connection between Gnostic thought and Buddhist ideas, most evident in the views of Basilides.3 However, these issues are not directly related to Greco-Buddhist relations. Moreover, they refer to another huge topic, which is not addressed in the present work, namely the relationship between India and particularly Buddhism on the one hand and Christianity on the other.

Future research perspectives The current book partly answered the question of why the Greeks were interested in Buddhism and its promotion. Unfortunately, it has not been able to clearly answer a number of specific dilemmas, but they have been presented and are waiting for future developments, which will be easier insofar as the current work provides a good starting point and a lot of reference material. In the future, it will be useful to re-examine the Greek contribution to the art of Gandhaˉra. To answer the question of whether and to what extent the art of Gandhaˉra was Greek, all preserved pieces of evidence should be reconsidered in terms of their context (where possible) and relevant models. Perhaps it would be helpful to create a chart imaging the development of Buddhist art. The practical side of this development and the exact character of the Greek involvement should also be taken into account. Before our eyes, the perspective for further research on this topic is changing, thanks to the excavations carried out, very professionally, by the Archaeological Mission in Pakistan (ISMEO, formerly IsIAO, now ISMEO-Ca’ Foscari) in the Swaˉt valley. In the conclusion to his recent book,

Conclusion  217

Olivieri (2022: 221 ff.), Director of ISMEO, announced that at the end of October 2021 the Italian Mission excavated in the ancient city of Barikot, in the trench named ‘BKG 16’, a monument, which may date to the Indo-Greek period (ca. 150–50 BC), what is confirmed by coins and pottery assemblage. This monument was built upon an earlier structure, a chambered monument or perhaps a ‘womb-stupa’, which may be earlier than the mid-second century BC. These new discoveries can revolutionize our thinking about Buddhism in Gandhaˉra, as they point to much earlier dating – to Indo-Greek or even Greco-Bactrian period. Thus, the relationship of the Greeks with the expansion of Buddhism could have been closer than is currently assumed on the basis of the lack of archaeological data from the Indo-Greek period. In addition to archaeological research, it might be interesting to study the entire Buddhist literature in the context of possible Greek influence. However, contrary to Blair’s article (2009), which tried to prove that the worship of Buddha as a god is a phenomenon which has Greek sources, it is worth looking into Buddhist literature as a whole, but not with the intention of proving influence, but to see whether any of the elements, which cannot be explained on the indigenous ground, may be due to some external influence, perhaps Greek, but other influences, most importantly Iranian ones, should not be disregarded. As I have tried to show in this book, the areas where the Greeks entered into direct relations with Buddhism from the Hellenistic times to the Ku․saˉn․a period were multicultural areas, where different influences mingled to give an eclectic picture. This book also opens perspectives for further research on the Greeks in India in the context of research on ethnicity. In particular, I tried to prove the usefulness of the theory of the middle ground and the study of memory (e.g. the socalled lieux de mémoire), which allows one to avoid the question “whose history” by maintaining multiple points of view. I hope that the present book will contribute to a lively discussion in the spirit of tolerance for dissenting views, as promoted by Piyadassi As´oka.

Notes 1 About the so-called Tabula Iliaca from Gandhaˉra, cf. e.g. Allan (1946) and Dognini (2001). 2 Cf. e.g. Almond’s article about the Christian Buddha (1987). 3 Cf. e.g. Kennedy’s article “Buddhist Gnosticism: The System of Basilides” (1902).

References Allan, J. (1946) “A Tabula Iliaca from Gandhara”, The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 66, pp. 21–23. Almond, P. (1987) “The Buddha of Christendom: A Review of the Legend of Barlaam and Josaphat”, Religious Studies, 23(3), pp. 391–406. Blair, S. (2009) “Answers for Milinda: Hellenistic Influence on the Development of Gandharan Buddhism”, TCNJ Journal of Student Scholarship, 11, pp. 1–11.

218 Conclusion

Dognini, C. (2001) “La «Via del Corallo» e l’Iinfluenza dell’Eneide di Virgilio sulla Tabula Iliaca del Gandhaˉra”, Aevum, 75(1), pp. 101–109. Kennedy, J. (1902) “Buddhist Gnosticism, the System of Basilides”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 4(1), pp. 377–415. Olivieri, L.M. (2022) Stoneyards and Artists in Gandhara. The Buddhist Stupa of Saidu Sharif I, Swat (c. 50 CE). Venice: Edizioni Ca’ Foscari – Venice University Press. Thapar, R. (2012) As´oka and the Decline of the Mauryas. 3rd edn. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198077244.001.0001.

APPENDIX I

GREEK INSCRIPTIONS OF AS´OKA FROM KANDAHAR

A bilingual Greco-Aramaic edict of King Piodasses (As´oka) Arachosia – Alexandria in Arachosia (Kandahar) – 259/258 BC

Greek text (source: SEG 20:326)

Translation

Ten years having been completed, king δέκα ἐτῶν πληρη….ων1 βασιλεὺς Piodasses showed his piety [i.e. Dhamma] Πιοδάσσης εὐσέβειαν ἔδειξεν τοῖς ἀνto the people, and from this moment he θρώποις, καὶ ἀπὸ τούτου εὐσεβεστέρους had made men more pious and everything τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐποίησεν καὶ πάντα 5 5 flourishes throughout the whole earth; and εὐθηνεῖ κατὰ πᾶσαν γῆν· καὶ ἀπέχεται the king abstains from [killing/eating] βασιλεὺς τῶν ἐμψύχων καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ δὲ living beings and other men [do the ἄνθρωποι, καὶ ὅσοι θηρευταὶ ἢ ἁλιεῖς same], and whoever [were] the king’s βασιλέως πέπαυνται θηρεύοντες, καὶ huntsmen or fishermen, have ceased from εἴ τινες ἀκρατεῖς πέπαυνται τῆς ἀκραhunting; and if some [were] incontinent, they have ceased from their incontinence, 10 10 σίας κατὰ δύναμιν, καὶ ἐνήκοοι πατρὶ as far as it lies in their power, and [became] καὶ μητρὶ καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων παρὰ obedient to their father and mother and to τὰ πρότερον, καὶ τοῦ λοιποῦ2 λώϊον the elderly people, in contrast to what was previously the case, and thenceforward, καὶ ἄμεινον κατὰ πάντα, ταῦτα by doing so, they will live more agreeably ποιοῦντες, διάξουσιν. and better overall. 15 {²followed by the Aramaic text}² {²eight verses.}²

220  Greek Inscriptions of As´oka from Kandahar

Greek version of RE XII of King Piodasses (As´oka) Arachosia – Alexandria in Arachosia (Kandahar) – mid-third century BC

Greek Text (source: IK Estremo oriente 291)

Translation

[εὐ]σέβεια καὶ ἐγκράτεια κατὰ πάσας τὰς διατριβὰς· ἐγκρατὴς δὲ μάλιστα ἐστιν ὅς ἂν γλώσσης ἐγκρατὴς ἦι. καὶ μήτε ἑαυτοὺς ἐπα[ι]νῶσιν, μήτε τῶν πέλας ψέγωσιν περὶ μηδενός· κενὸγ γάρ ἐστιν· καὶ πειρᾶσθαι μᾶλλον τοὺς πέλας ἐπαινεῖν καὶ μὴ ψέγειν κατὰ πάντα τρόπον. ταῦτα δὲ ποιοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς αὔξουσι καὶ τοὺς 5 πέλας ἀνακτῶνται· παραβαίνοντες δὲ ταῦτα, ἀκλεέστεροι τε γίνονται καὶ τοῖς πέλας ἀπέχθονται. οἳ δ’ ἂν ἑαυτοὺς ἐπαινῶσιν, τοὺς δὲ πέλας ψέγωσιν φιλοτιμότερον διαπράτονται, βουλόμενοι παρὰ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἐγλάμψαι, πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον βλάπτου[σι] ἑαυτοὺς πρέπει δὲ ἀλλήλους θαυμάζειν καὶ τὰ ἀλλήλων διδάγματα παραδέχεσθα[ι]. ταῦτα δὲ ποιοῦντες πολυμαθέστεροι ἔσονται, παραδιδόντες ἀλλήλοις ὅσα 10 ἕκαστος αὐτῶν ἐπίσταται. καὶ τοῖς ταῦτα ἐπ[α]σκοῦσι, ταῦτα μὴ ὀκνεῖν λέγειν, ἵνα δειαμείνωσιν διὰ παντὸς εὐσεβοῦντες.

[…] piety [i.e. Dhamma] and self-control in all religious communities; selfcontrolled is especially the one who controls his tongue. And they shall neither praise themselves nor criticize one’s neighbours for anything; it is indeed vain; and rather try to praise the neighbours and not to criticize in any way. Doing so they exalt themselves and 5 gain the favour of the neighbours; but transgressing that they become less respected and are hated by the neighbours. In fact, those, who praise themselves and criticize the neighbours, act too ambitious, wanting to be distinguished above others, they rather harm themselves. It is fitting to honour each other and receive each other’s instructions. Doing so, they will become much wiser, transmitting to each other, what 10 each of them knows. And for those, who practise those [things], one should say it without hesitation, may they continue to act piously throughout [the time].

Greek Inscriptions of As´oka from Kandahar  221

Greek version of RE XIII of King Piodasses (As´oka) Arachosia – Alexandria in Arachosia (Kandahar) – mid-third century BC

Greek Text (source: IK Estremo oriente 292)

Translation

ὀγδόωι ἔτει βασιλεύοντος Πιοδάσσου κατέστρεπται τὴν Καλίγγην. ἦν ἐζωγρημένα καὶ ἐξηγμένα ἐκεῖθεν σωμάτων μυριάδες δεκαπέντε καὶ ἀναιρέθησαν ἄλλαι μυριάδες δέκα καὶ σχεδὸν ἄλλοι τοσούτοι ἐτελεύτησαν. ἀπ’ ἐκείνου τοῦ χρόνου ἔλεος καὶ οἶκτος αὐτὸν ἔλαβεν· καὶ βαρέως ἤνεγκεν· 5 δι’ οὗ τρόπου ἐκέλευεν ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν ἐμψύχων σπουδήν τε καὶ σύνταξιν πεποίηται περὶ εὐσεβείας. καὶ τοῦτο ἔτι δυσχερέστερον ὑπείληφε ὁ βασιλεὺς· καὶ ὅσοι ἐκεῖ ωἴκουν βραμεναι ἢ σραμεναι ἢ καὶ ἄλλοι τινὲς οἱ περὶ τὴν εὐσέβειαν διατρίβοντες, τοὺς ἐκεῖ οἰκοῦντας ἔδει τὰ τοῦ βασιλέως συμφέροντα νοεῖν, καὶ διδάσκαλον καὶ πατέρα καὶ μητέρα ἐπαισχύνεσθαι καὶ θαυμάζειν, φίλους καὶ ἑταίρους ἀγαπᾶν καὶ μὴ διαψεύδεσθαι, 10 δούλοις καὶ μισθωτοῖς ὡς κουφότατα χρᾶσθαι, τούτων ἐκεῖ τῶν τοιαῦτα διαπρασσομένων εἴ τις τέθνηκεν ἢ ἐξῆκται, καὶ τοῦτο ἐμ παραδρομῆι οἱ λοιποὶ ἡγεῖνται, ὁ δὲ [β]ασιλεὺς σφόδρα ἐπὶ τούτοις ἐδυσχέρανεν καὶ ὅτι ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν εἰσιν.

In the eighth year of the reign of Piodasses, he subdued for himself the Kalin˙ga. One hundred fifty thousand men were captured and deported from there and another one hundred thousands were killed and about as many died. From that time, the compassion and pity seized him; and he hardly endured it;

5 in this way he commanded to abstain from [killing/eating] living beings and made the effort and arrangements around piety [i.e. Dhamma]. And those [things] king interpreted as even more disagreeable: and how many lived there Brahmans or S´raman․as or any others concerned about piety, those who live there have to think [about] what is profitable for the king,3 and show shame and respect towards the teachers and father and mother, love friends, and companions and not deceive them, 10 handle the slaves and servants as gently as possible, if of those there, who carry out these [orders], one is killed or abducted, and the others consider that as irrelevant, the king was very displeased about these and that they are in other nations.

222  Greek Inscriptions of As´oka from Kandahar

Notes

APPENDIX II

SOME GREEK INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE HELLENISTIC FAR EAST

Inscription of the son of Aristonax Provenance: Alexandria in Arachosia (Kandahar) – ca. 300–250 BC Greek text (Source: SEG 30:1664) ΘΗΡΟΣΑ –□– στῆσα τόδε εἰς τέμε[ν]ος υἱὸς Ἀριστώνακτος ΑΛΕΞ—□– ἐ[ι(?)]ν ἀστοῖς καὶ σωτῆρος ἐμοῦ τ—–□□ –□□—ος {—ας (?)} Translation This statue of the wild beast […] set up in the sacred area the son of Aristonax Alex- […] among the citizens and of my saviour […].

Inscription of Sophytos Unknown provenance, probably near Alexandria in Arachosia (Kandahar)—late second-century BC Greek text (Source: SEG 54:1569) Σωφύτου στήλη Δ Ι Α Σ Ω Φ

δηρὸν ἐμῶγ κοκυῶν ἐριθηλέα δώματ’ ἐόντα ἲς ἄμαχος Μοιρῶν ἐξόλεσεν τριάδος· αὐτὰρ ἐγώ, τυννὸς κομιδῆι βιότοιό τε πατρῶν Σώφυτος εὖνις ἐὼν οἰκτρὰ Ναρατιάδης, ὡς ἀρετὴν Hεκάτου Μουσέων τ’ ἤσ(κ)ηκα1 σὺν ἐσθλῆι φυρτὴν σωφροσύνηι, (τ)ῆμος2 ἐπεφρασάμην

224  Some Greek Inscriptions from the Hellenistic Far East

Υ Τ Ο Υ Τ Ο Υ Ν Α Ρ Α Τ Ο Υ

ὑψώσαιμί κε πῶς μέγαρον πατρώϊον αὖθις· τεκνοφόρον δὲ λαβὼν ἄλλοθεν ἀργύριον, οἴκοθεν ἐξέμολον μεμαὼς οὐ πρόσθ’ ἐπανελθεῖν ὕψιστον κτᾶσθαι πρίμ μ’ ἀγαθῶν ἄφενος· τοὔνεκ’ ἐπ’ ἐμπορίηισιν ἰὼν εἰς ἄστεα πολλὰ3 ὄλβον ἀλωβήτως εὐρὺν ἔληϊσάμην. ὑμνητὸς δὲ πέλων πάτρην ἐτέεσσιν ἐσῖγμαι νηρίθμοις τερπνός τ’ εὐμενέταις ἐφάνην· ἀμφοτέρους δ’ οἶκόν τε σεσηπότα πάτριον εἶθαρ ῥέξας ἐκ καινῆς κρέσσονα συντέλεσα αἶάν τ’ -ὲς τύμβου πεπτωκότος ἄλλον ἔτευξα, τὴν καὶ ζῶν στήλην ἐν ὁδῶι ἐπέθηκα λάλον. oὕτως οὖν ζηλωτὰ τάδ’ ἔργματα συντελέσαντος υἱέες υἱωνοί τ’ οἶκον ἔχοιεν ἐμοῦ.

Acrostic: ΔΙΑ ΣΩΦΥΤΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΝΑΡΑΤΟΥ Translation4 Stele of Sophytos Long had the house of my ancestors flourished when the irresistible force of the three Fates destroyed it utterly; nevertheless, I, being so small and completely deprived of the wealth of my ancestors, Sophytos, pitiable breed of Naratos,5 having cultivated the excellence of the Archer and the Muses together with noble prudence, thereupon did consider, how I might elevate the house of my father again; obtaining from another source money for profit, I left home, determined not to return before I had acquired the highest abundance of goods; therefore, for commercial purposes going to many towns I carried off, without any dishonour, a vast fortune. Having become sung of, after countless years, I am back to my fatherland and I appeared as a joy to my well-wishers; at once the paternal house, which had dilapidated, I forthwith restored and made it greater than before, and, as the tomb was lying collapsed on the ground, I made another, and during my lifetime I have placed on the way this loquacious stele. When I have thus accomplished the deeds worthy of emulation, may my sons and grandsons possess this house of mine. Acrostic: By the care of Sophytos, son of Naratos.6

Inscription of Heliodotus Provenance: Kuliab, Tajikistan – ca. 200 BC Greek text (Source: SEG 54:1568) 1 τόνδε σοι βωμὸν θυώδη, πρέσβα κυδίστη θεῶν 2 Ἑστία, Διὸς κ(α)τ’ 7 ἄλσος καλλίδενδρον ἔκτισεν 3 καὶ κλυταῖς ἤσκησε λοιβαῖς ἐμπύροις Ἡλιόδοτος,

Some Greek Inscriptions from the Hellenistic Far East  225



INDEX

Note: Italic page numbers refer to figures and page numbers followed by “n” denote endnotes. accommodation 17, 34, 94–95, 176, 180, 183, 188 Achaemenid Empire 23, 25–30, 41, 51, 56, 82, 91, 117, 151, 153, 183 Acts of Thomas 199, 202, 216 Afghanistan 1–2, 13, 19n1, 25, 68, 79, 93, 97n13, 107, 112, 122n9–10, 135, 148, 151, 154, 165, 167–168, 187 Agathocleia 140 Agathocles 119, 175 Ajneya 61 Agnimitra 64–66 ahim ․ saˉ 71, 206, 209 Ai Khanoum 3, 11–13, 67, 89, 98n47, 105–112, 120, 122n7, 122n13, 123n24, 124n47 Ajan․․taˉ 169, 204 Aˉjıˉvika 36, 62, 75, 214 Alexander of Epirus 53, 73, 78, 89 Alexander Romance 33–34 Alexander the Great 1–2, 6–8, 10, 25, 28–38, 41–42, 50–53, 61, 67, 80, 90–91, 93, 107–108, 111, 113, 116–118, 120, 123n26, 124n41, 129, 131–132, 139, 146, 151, 153–154, 167, 172, 175, 179, 181, 183, 199–200 Alexandria in Arachosia 79–80, 113–114, 116–117, 153, 219–221, 223; see also Kandahar Alexandria on the Caucasus 117, 152–153, 159n45

Amselle J.-L. 14–15, 92 anthropomorphic images of the Buddha 148, 164, 166, 168–173, 175, 188–189 Antigonus Gonatas of Macedonia 53, 73, 78, 214 Antiochus I Soter 67 Antiochus II Theos of Syria 52, 66, 73, 78 Antiochus III the Great 40, 51, 53–54, 73, 106, 119, 214 Apollodorus of Artemita 129, 131 Apollonius of Tyana 44n11, 156, 189, 196–201, 210n1 Appian 52, 66, 151 Apraca dynasty 135, 157n18 Arachosia 25, 51–52, 68, 79, 82–83, 85–88, 90–91, 106, 113, 116–119, 151, 219; see also Alexandria in Arachosia Aramaic 26–27, 33, 51, 56, 68, 79–80, 82–85, 88, 183, 206–207, 219 Aristobulus 32 Aristotle 29, 31, 87, 110–111, 123 Arrian 33, 51, 151, 154, 178–180, 183 Arsaces 106 ascetic 32, 34–37, 75, 78, 87, 89, 92, 98n41, 136, 146, 173, 205–206, 209, 211n22, 214 As´oka 3, 36, 38–41, 45n31, 50–105, 112–114, 116, 129, 131–132, 138, 143, 149, 151, 154–155, 165, 169, 171–172, 181, 182–184, 200, 206, 208, 214, 216–217, 219–222

228 Index

as´oka tree 62–64 As´okaˉvadaˉna (the legend of As´oka) 57, 59, 62, 64–66, 75, 97n16, 143, 151 Athenaeus 29, 53 aˉtman 35, 37 Axial Age (Achsenzeit) 23–24, 37 Bactria(n) 1–8, 10–11, 13, 25, 31, 33, 39–40, 43, 51–52, 54, 59, 77–78, 95, 105–128, 131–132, 137–138, 141, 144, 151, 158n28–29, 181, 183, 201, 207, 215, 217 Baˉhlıˉ kas 39, 51–52, 142, 158n29 Bajaur (Shinkot․) reliquary inscription 129, 132–136, 138, 215 Baˉmiyaˉn Buddhas 167–169, 190n3 Bardaisan 77, 196, 199–213, 216 Barikot 166, 175, 190n8, 217 Barth, F. 13–14, 19n3, 20n4 Barygaza 132, 138 Beas river see Hyphasis Behistun inscription 25, 43, 51, 83, 151 Bhabha, H.K. 15–16, 20, 92 Bhabra Edict 71 Bhaˉrhut 64, 168–170, 171 Bharuch (Barygaza) 91, 132, 138 bhikkhu 34, 38, 153; see also bhiks․u bhiks․u 148, 150, 207 Bhir․ Mound 26, 154–155, 175 Bindusaˉra Amitraghata 51–53, 57, 59, 62, 75, 214 Brahma 69, 206, 209 Brahman(s) 36, 39, 50, 54, 57, 60, 64–65, 70–71, 73, 75, 86, 93–95, 97n28, 98n29, 98n35, 148, 152, 183, 198, 201, 205–207, 209, 221 Braˉhman․ical 38, 97n28 Braˉhman․ism 98n35, 179, 215 Braˉhmıˉ script 39, 55–57, 59, 61, 121, 136, 183 Brahmin 37, 44n24, 76, 96n1, 179 Branchidae 52 Buddha 56–58, 61, 64, 69–72, 75–77, 84, 88, 92, 96n2, 97n23, 97n28, 122, 132– 133, 140, 143–145, 147–149, 154, 156, 164, 166–173, 176–178, 184, 188–190, 205, 208–209, 211n22, 214, 216–217 Buddhaghos․a 144, 149 Buddhism 1–5, 13, 16, 19, 23, 32–38, 44n21, 44n24, 45n37, 51, 57, 59–61, 64–66, 71–72, 75–78, 85–86, 92–95, 96n13, 97n14, 99n67, 105, 129–130, 134, 144–148, 152–153, 155–156, 165–166, 168, 172–173, 175–178, 187, 189, 190n4, 196, 205–209, 214–217 Butkara I 165–166, 168, 217

cakravartin 57, 181, 182 Calanus 32–33, 209 Caˉrvaˉka 36 Chandragupta Maurya 29, 50–52, 55, 59, 66–67, 75, 85, 90, 113, 117–118, 142, 151, 154, 171, 178, 214 Charsadda see Pus․kalavati Clearchus inscription 110 Clement of Alexandria 76–77, 207 coins 3, 7, 25–26, 51, 85, 92, 105, 114, 117–120, 124n40, 129, 132, 134–136, 138–142, 153, 157n20, 159n44, 167, 175, 182–184, 189, 199, 217 collective memory 6, 8–10, 107 colonization 5, 14, 16–17, 108 colonizers 16–18, 94–95 connubium 52, 66 Coomaraswamy, A. 164, 172–173 Ctesias 197 Cynic philosophers 11, 34 Cyrus the Great 25, 43, 80 DAFA see Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan Damis 156, 197–199, 201, 216 Dandamis 32–34, 67 Darius I the Great 25–29, 41, 43, 51–52, 151, 197 Das´aratha 59–60 de Certeau, M. 16–17, 94–95 Deimachus 52 Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan 79–80, 107, 122n9–10, 167 Demetrius I 106, 119–120, 124n46, 132, 142–143, 154–155, 182–183, 225 Devaˉnampiya Piyadassi raja 55, 60, 96 Dhamma 35, 38, 50–51, 61, 67–76, 79–80, 82–84, 88–90, 92–95, 97–98, 99n59, 138, 214, 219–221 dharma 35–37, 42, 68–69, 72, 97n27, 98n29, 138, 142, 182, 209 Dharmaguptaka school 164, 186–187 Dharmaraˉ jikaˉ 57, 65, 154, 166, 168 Dıˉ gha Nikaˉya 57, 147, 208 Diodorus Siculus 51, 61, 87, 142, 178–180, 182–183 Diodotid dynasty 106 Diodotus I 1, 54, 59, 105–106 Diodotus II 59, 106 Diogenes Laertius 31, 34 Diogenes of Sinope 33–34 Dionysus 110, 178, 190n10, 198, 200 Dıˉ pavam ․ sa 55, 57–58, 60 Droysen, J.G. 6–7

Index  229

Edicts of As´oka 3, 50, 52, 54–56, 59–61, 66–78, 80, 84–85, 87, 90, 92, 94, 96n1, 99n61, 105, 114, 116, 138, 165, 171 Elagabalus 77, 202–203, 216 Enûma Eliš 178 era of Azes 135 era of the Yonas 135 ethnic identity 4, 13–14, 18–20, 41, 91, 108 ethnicity 4, 13–14, 19–20, 88, 106, 117, 217; see also ethnic identity Eucratides 106, 120, 138, 153 Eusebius 35, 202, 210n11 Euthydemus 106, 119–120, 132, 182–183, 225 Eythydemid dynasty 106 Fa-hsien see Faxian Faxian 54, 208 Foucher, A. 2, 153, 164, 166, 169–174 Gandhaˉra 2–4, 25–26, 33, 36, 40, 44n25, 51–52, 59, 73, 97n13, 106, 121, 129–130, 134, 138, 143, 145, 147–148, 151–156, 160n55, 164–195, 215–216 Gaˉndhaˉrˉı 33, 45n31, 130–131, 135, 139, 144, 149, 164, 183–186, 188, 191n24, 216 Ganges river 132, 141, 157n13, 178, 200–201, 206 Girnaˉr 40, 86, 90 Greco-Bactrian kingdom see Bactria(n) Greco-Buddhism 4, 16, 176, 214–215 Greco-Buddhist art 2, 4, 9, 156, 166, 169–170, 174, 176, 190, 215–216 Gujarraˉ edict 55, 60 gymnosophists 2, 31–35, 44n11, 90 Halbwachs, M. 8–10, 107 Hecataeus 27–28 Heliodorus pillar 3, 117, 120–121, 142, 215 Heliodotus inscription 3, 105–106, 118– 121, 123n32, 124n44, 182, 224–225 Hellenism 4, 7, 12–13, 20n6, 80, 82, 92, 94, 112, 131, 148, 172, 202, 214 Hellenistic Far East 1–2, 80, 105, 117, 122n1, 223 Hellenization 6–7, 11–12, 115, 176 Heracles 31, 32, 95, 108–109, 119–121, 142, 164, 176–183, 198, 200, 216 Hermaios 136 Herodotus 25–30, 43, 197, 201 heterodoxy 36, 73–76 HFE see Hellenistic Far East Hsuan-tsang see Xuanzang Huvis․ka 167

hybridity 13, 15, 18, 92 Hylobioi 76–77 Hyphasis river 199–200 imperialism 6, 11–12 Indo-Greek kingdom 1–3, 6–7, 59, 105–106, 120–121, 129–132, 138, 151, 155–156, 189, 190, 196 Indus river 26–27, 29, 40, 52, 64, 91, 99n64, 119, 132, 164, 167, 198–199 Indus Valley civilization 56, 136, 173, 179–180, 182 Iranian(s) 5–6, 24, 26, 44n20, 53, 82–84, 88, 90–91, 106, 112, 124n34, 135–136, 157n18, 183, 186, 202, 207, 217 Isidore of Charax 85 ISMEO see Italian Archaeological Mission in the Swaˉt valley Isocrates 11, 87 Italian Archaeological Mission in the Swaˉt valley 165, 167, 190n1, 216–217 Jaina 58, 60, 98, 172, 214 Jainism 36–37, 75, 172–173, 205, 211 Japanese Archaeological Mission in the Peshawar basin 167 Jaspers, K. 23–25 Jones, S. 14, 19–20n3, 92 Junaˉgad․ h see Girnaˉr inscription Justin 2, 105 Kabul river 27, 54, 138, 151, 154, 165, 198 Kaˉfirs 107, 122n11 Kalash 107 Kalhan․a Raˉ jataran∙gin․ˉı 58, 204 Kaˉlidaˉsa Maˉlavikaˉgnimitram 64–66, 78, 142–143, 215 Kalin∙ga war 58, 62, 72, 88–90, 99n58, 221 Kambojas 39, 51–52, 73, 88, 90, 136, 142, 214 Kandahar 67–68, 78–82, 84–86, 88, 90, 112–114, 118, 120, 219–223 Kanis․ka the Great 78, 144, 167–168, 186, 189, 208 Kapat․es´vara Tıˉrtha 204, 210 Kashmir 58–59, 120, 143, 148, 165, 167, 171, 204–205, 210 Kathaˉsaritsaˉgara 178–179, 209 Kaut․ilya Arthas´aˉstra 51, 62, 154 Kharos․․thıˉ script 40, 45n31, 55–56, 88, 133, 135, 138–139, 140, 165, 183–184, 186, 199 Kineas inscription 67, 108, 110 Kossinna, G. 5, 13 Kraidy, M. 15, 92

230 Index

Kr․․sn․a 175, 180, 183 ks․atrapa 91, 183 Ks․emendra Bodhisattvaˉvadaˉnakalpalata 64, 129, 143–144 Kulob 118–120 Kunaˉla 57, 59, 66, 154 Kunduz treasure 138 Ku․saˉn․a 2, 77, 91, 123n26, 156, 165, 167–168, 170, 173, 175–176, 186, 190n7, 191n26, 205, 207, 216–217 Kusa ․ˉna ․ Empire see Kusa ․ˉna ․ Letter of Pseudo-Aristeas 130, 146 lieu de mémoire 4–5, 10–11, 105–112, 121, 122n12, 215, 217 longue durée 23–24, 214 Lumbinıˉ 64 Magadha 44n20, 137, 141, 150, 157n21, 178–180 Magas of Cyrene 50, 53, 73, 78, 214 Mahaˉ bhaˉrata 59, 112, 146, 206, 209 Mahaˉvagga 34, 207 Mahaˉvam ․ sa 55, 57–58, 153, 165, 172 Mahaˉvıˉra 56, 75, 205, 214 Mahinda 57, 60 Major Rock Edicts 67, 80: Greek version of RE XII 73, 80, 81, 85–89, 220; Greek version of RE XIII 80, 81, 85–86, 88–90, 96n10, 221; Kandahar Bilingual RE 68, 70–71, 78–79, 82, 85–86, 88, 98n44, 112–113, 219–223; RE I 70–71, 74; RE II 39, 54, 71, 73; RE III 70–72; RE IV 70–72; RE V 72–73, 85, 88; RE VI 71; RE VII 45, 71; RE IX 70–72, 98n32; RE X 72, 98n32; RE XI 70–72, 89, 98n32; RE XII 71, 73; RE XIII 41, 50, 58, 61, 66, 71–73, 88–89, 96n10, 216 Maˉnsehraˉ 68, 86, 88, 165, 184 Marshall, S.J.H. 66, 136, 154–156, 167, 198 Maski edict 55, 60 Mathuraˉ 57, 96n7, 132, 136, 138, 169, 173, 175, 180 Mauryan Empire 24, 51–52, 54, 57, 59, 65–66, 73, 85, 90, 93, 95, 106, 151 Mauryas 50–52, 55, 92, 96n1–3, 96n6, 118, 214 Megasthenes 29, 51–52, 56, 76–77, 96n7, 98n37, 121, 141–142, 160n56, 178–179, 182–183, 191n17, 205–207, 209 Menander 53, 65, 105, 129–163, 171–172, 189, 215 Menander II 135, 138, 145, 215 mestizaje 15, 92; see also mestizo mestizo 14

MIA see Middle Indo-aˉryan ˉ Middle Indo-Aryan 43, 84, 86–87, 115, 130, 183 middle ground 4–5, 16–17, 34, 50, 92, 94, 174, 180, 188, 215, 217 Milinda 130, 134, 143–150, 158n31, 158n33 Milindapañha 3, 53, 65, 129–135, 144–152, 158n30–31, 159n41, 187, 189, 209, 215 Minor Rock Edicts (MREs) 67, 80, 96n12 mleccha 39, 43, 52, 58–59 Mohenjo-daro 136, 179 Muˉlasarvaˉstivaˉdin Vinaya 143–144, 190n10 Naˉgaˉrjunıˉ Hills caves 60 Naˉgasena 131, 145–146, 148–150, 157, 159n37, 187 naked philosophers 23, 67, 146; see also gymnosophists Nearchus 32 non-violence 59, 75, 209; see also ahim ․ saˉ Nora, P. 4, 10–11, 107–108, 112, 122n12 Northwest India 1, 4, 10, 36, 56, 59, 66, 91, 95, 106, 112, 135–136, 143, 151, 155–156, 170–171, 174, 176, 184–186 Onesicritus 32–34, 210n5 Origen 77 Oxus river 107, 109, 117 Oxus Treasure 25 Pahlava 91 Paˉli 37, 55, 62, 65, 68–69, 77–78, 98n29, 130–131, 134, 144–146, 148–149, 152– 153, 158n30, 184–185, 187, 206–207 Paˉnini ․ 60, 141 Parker, G.R. 6–7, 12–13, 22, 66–67, 92 Paropamisadae 52, 91, 117, 119, 151, 159n45 Parthian Empire see Parthian(s) Parthian(s) 106, 135, 155, 174, 198 paˉsam ․․da see sect Paˉ․taliputra 29, 51, 54, 57, 61, 65, 96n7, 132, 141–142, 156, 157n21, 160n56, 178–179, 187 Patañjali Mahaˉ bhaˉ․sya 60, 141, 143 PEs see Pillar Edicts Periplus Maris Erythraei 99n65, 132, 138, 157n12 Peucelaotis see Pus․kalavati Philostratus Life of Apollonius of Tyana 156, 196–201 Pillar Edicts 67, 70–72: Nigalisaˉgar PE 71; PE II 70; PE III 70; PE IV 72; PE V 70; PE VI 71; PE VII 71–72; Rummindei PE 71

Index  231

Piyadassi 39, 41, 50–52, 54–55, 60–61, 64, 79–80, 84, 92, 96, 132, 217 Plaque of Cybele 111 Plato 69, 84, 87, 111, 130, 145, 204 Platonic dialogues see Plato Pliny 51, 142, 210 Plutarch 33, 51, 87, 96, 132, 138, 189 Polybius 54, 106 Porphyry 77, 89, 202–203, 205, 209 Praˉkrit 33, 43, 55, 84, 121, 130, 136–137, 144, 184–186 Prinsep, J. 38–40, 54–55, 90–91, 99n62 Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt 53, 73, 78, 146 Puraˉn․as 51, 59, 65, 180 Pus․kalavati 26, 139, 151, 153–154 Pus․pamitra see Pus․yamitra Pus․yamitra 54, 57, 64–66, 142, 151, 155 Pyrrho of Elis 2, 31–32, 34–35 Pyrrhonism 32, 35, 38 Reh inscription 129, 132, 136–137, 141 REs see Major Rock Edicts R ․ gveda 68–69, 178, 190n12, 205 R ․․sabha 75 Rudradaˉman inscription from Junaˉgad ․h 90–92, 99 Rukhun․a reliquary 135 Saˉgala 65, 145, 148–149, 151–152, 189 Saiduˉ Sharˉı f Stuˉpa 174 ´ Saka(s) 39, 44n20, 51–52, 91, 112, 142, 174–176, 186 ´ ˉ l tree 64 Sa Samanas 77, 206–207 Sam ․ gha 42, 67, 71, 152, 156, 177 Sanci stuˉpa 66 Sanskrit 33, 37, 55, 57, 62, 68, 77, 84, 86, 88, 90, 96, 98, 115, 141–142, 150, 158n29, 183–186, 206 Sarvaˉstivaˉda 36, 191n26 ´ ˉtavaˉhana Empire 91 Sa Schism Edict 71 Scylax of Caryanda 23, 26–30, 43n4, 201 SEs see Separate Edicts sect 71, 73–76, 86, 93, 152 secularism 68, 73–76 Seleucid Empire see Seleucid(s) Seleucid(s) 1, 6, 27, 53–54, 59, 66–67, 84, 89, 106, 114, 117, 181 Seleucus I 1, 29, 52, 66–67, 73, 85, 90, 113, 117–118, 151, 154, 171, 178 Sen, A. 44n18, 74 Separate Edicts 67: SE I 71–72, 98n32; SE II 71–72, 98n32

Shaˉhbaˉzgar․hıˉ 45n31, 84, 86, 88, 165, 171, 184, 222n3 Sirkap 135, 155, 167–168, 175 Sogdiana 25, 51–52 son of Aristonax inscription 3, 105–106, 112–114, 123n30, 223 Sophytos inscription 3, 105–106, 114–121, 124n35, 124n44, 215, 223–224 ´ Sraman ․as 34, 71, 73, 75–77, 98n36–37, 148, 205–206, 211n25, 221 ´ Sraman ․ic 75, 92, 173, 214 Sri Lanka 36, 55, 57, 60, 149, 153 Strabo 1–2, 27, 32, 51–52, 66, 76–77, 106, 129, 131–132, 141–143, 149, 151, 178 ´ ∙ ga dynasty 54, 65–66 Sun Suraˉ․s․traˉ 90–92, 132 Swaˉt river 133, 135, 138, 151, 154, 165–169, 174–176, 188, 216 syncretism 4, 10, 14–15, 174, 201–203 Taks․as´ ilaˉ 26, 32–33, 54, 57, 59, 62, 66, 121, 135, 138, 154–156, 160n56, 165–167, 175, 198–199, 215 Taˉranaˉtha 58–59 Tarn, W.W. 7–8, 11, 33, 61, 80, 84, 98, 121, 130, 139, 146–147, 153, 156n2, 159n37 Taxila see Taks․as´ ilaˉ tetralemma 35 Theodamas seal 135–136 Theravada 144, 158n30 Tissa 55, 57–58, 60, 62 transculturalism 15–16, 51, 92–93 Trapus․a and Bhallika 144 Udyaˉna 143 Upanis․ads 24, 37, 44n22, 68, 92, 98n37, 146, 207 vajra 177–178 Vajrapaˉn․i 143, 164, 176–177, 182, 216 Vaˉloks․a 144, 158n27 var․na 36, 95, 117, 205 Vatsyayan, S.H. see Ajneya Vedas 36, 68 vegetarianism 71, 83, 203, 206 Vijayamitra 133–135, 157n15, 191, 215 Viyakamitra 133–135, 191 Western Ks․atrapas 91 Xenophon 84, 87 Xerxes 26, 52, 200 Xuanzang 54, 58, 143–144, 160n55, 166, 208

232 Index

Yaks․a 57, 65, 143, 172–173, 175–177 Yauna see Yavana Yavana 3, 23, 39–45, 51–52, 54, 64, 66, 73, 84–85, 88, 90–92, 98n52, 117, 121, 132, 137, 141–142, 145, 148, 151, 153, 158, 159n37, 187

Yavana-raˉ ja Tu․saˉspa 88, 90–91 Yona see Yavana Yonaka see Yavana Yonakamboja 88, 90, 99n57, 136 Yuezhi 106, 138, 191n24 Yuga Puraˉ․na 129, 132, 137, 141–143