674 Lassen on the History traced [No. 103. 



I infer from this discussion^ that none of the passages cited 

 necessitate our considering Menandros as a Bactrian king, and 

 still less ApoUodotos. It is only certain, that Menandros made 

 great conquests in India ; we must therefore h^ve recourse to 

 the coins. 



Thirdly ; these coins always exhibit Cabulian letters as their 

 symbols, and their places of discovery, moreover, refer to an 

 Indian empire, and we may justly assign Menandros and Apol- 

 lodotos to the history of the Indo- Grecian kingdoms.* 



Now as to Heliokles : — 



This king, mentioned by no author, must have his place as- 

 signed him on numismatological grounds alone; but different 

 conclusions have been drawn from them by different writers. 

 Visconti, and M. Raoul-Rochette think him earlier than Eukra- 

 tides ; in this case he might be the very same who removed the 

 Euthydemides from the throne, and the epithet, ^^ the just,'' 

 might allude to his retributive justice towards the family of the 

 usurper Euthydemos. M. Mionnet takes him for the successor, 

 and even for the murderer, of his father Eukratides. In this 

 case he was perhaps the last Greco- Bactrian king. The numis- 

 raaticians may settle this dispute among them. There is ample 

 room for him, as well before as after Eukratides, if even two 

 Eukratides be adopted, f 



• See Mr. Mueller, p. 208. 



t Visconti. Icon. TIT. p. 253. R. R. II. p. 20. p. 26. Mionnet VIII. p. 470. 

 M. R. R. concedes (p. 20) that Heliokles was coeval with his Eukratides 

 II. ; but supposing now, that there were two Eukratides, or say even, there 

 were only one, how can Heliokles, who has no claim whatever to having 

 possessed any empire save Bactria, have been coeval w ith Eukratides, un- 

 less he were his immediate predecessor or successor ? The numismatologi- 

 cal reason for assigning to Heliokles an earlier era, seems not to be very 

 evident, as M. R. R. does not mention anj^ certain fact. Visconti's inference, 

 drawn from the epithet, is w holly inconclusive. But how can we reconcile, 

 that in vol. II. p. 20, M. R. R. should make Heliokles a contemporary of 

 Eukratides, while in vol. I. p. 33, he is considered the successor of Deme- 

 trius, predecessor of Antimachos, and pre-predecessor of Eukratides I ? M. 

 Mionnet explained the epithet of Heliokles, by the passage of Justin, 

 in which he prides himself on the murder of his father as of a good deed. If 

 he were indeed the son and successor of Eukratides, this interpretation of 



