410 Bactrian and Indo-Scythic Coins. (Aue. 
after terminating this war, he was assassinated by his son. Bayer thinks that 
this DemErRrivs is the same who in his youth negociated the peace for his father 
EvTHYDEMUS with AntTiocHus. However, the great age to which he must have 
attained is a staggering objection. One may reconcile probabilities by supposing 
that a son of the same name had succeeded to DEMETRIUs’s throne, 
“* The existence of the parricide of Eucratipas is well established ; but his name 
is unknown, and it is uncertain whether he enjoyed the fruits of his crime. King 
Evcrartipas II. therefore,in BayER’s catalogue, rests only on a double conjecture. 
“Thus end the Bactrian kings hitherto known. The latter history of the dynasty 
is enveloped in darkness yet thicker than the rest. Justin attributes its destruction 
to the Parthians; the author of the summary of Trogus-Pompertius to the Scythi- 
ans ; both quoting the same authority. It appears then that both these nations 
took part in it, but that the Scythians remained in possession. 
“In a fragment of Dioporus, or rather in an extract by Puortus,it is said, that 
one of the Arsacide (no doubt the Sixth, Mirnrrparess I.) penetrated as far as In- 
dia and seized the kingdom of Porus, i. e. of the country between the Hydaspes and 
the Acesines. BAyeER says with reason that the Greeks, wherever they allude to 
India, imagine a Porus ;—but in this case the historian seems justified, for we see 
that the Bactrians possessed not only that province but even beyond it. By Bay- 
BR’s calculation, Mirariates L., king of Parthia,must have survived EucratTipAs 
by seven years,but these dates are purely conjectural. At any rate, it is after Evcra- 
TIpAS’ death that these conquests must have been made : the war between him and 
Demetrivs would not have taken place had the Parthians occupied the intervening 
provinces. EvucRATIDAS was assassinated when in the height of his power :—it is 
then after his death that the decline of the empire commenced. M. Decuicnes, 
from the Chinese historians, fixes the epoch of its destruction in the year 125, B. C. 
The king or kings who may have reigned in the interim are yet unknown—perhaps 
they may be brought to light by Col. Top’s discoveries.”’ 
The above condensed and critical sketch of the latter Bactrian kings 
contains all that is known of them, and leaves us to fill up blanks only 
as fresh matter may be elicited through the labours of the antiquarian 
in this fruitful field. M.Scutecen felt pride in adding two cogno- 
mens to his two kings: Dr. Swiney’s coins have already increased 
their majesties’ titles; giving to Menanper the common appellation 
«* saviour ;’’ and to his predecessor, in addition to the same title, the 
respectable appellation of Pxizopartor, ‘‘ loving son.” This latter title 
is of more consequence than might at first be suspected, for unless his 
father were of kingly dignity, he would not have been mentioned : and 
it is more than probable that his son succeeded him peaceably. But we 
have no knowledge who the father was, since Demerrius is the only 
recorded son of Euraypemus. We may suppose him to be sure a bro- 
ther—perhaps a younger one,—a favorite—‘* a gift of the gods,” as 
his name implies; and this might account for the deputation of the 
rightful heir to a distant province : but it is wrong to hazard conjec- 
tures upon points of such remote diplomacy ! 
