1840.] from Bactrian and Indo- Scythian coins 753 



Pantaleon, with whom this Greco-Indian empire terminated, 

 must have succeeded Agathokles, whom I therefore hold as 

 king of Nagara Dionysopohs. Both of them have only Indian 

 letters on their coins, and with them too Dionysos disappears. 



If we thus have correctly determined the empire of Aga- 

 thokles and Pantaleon, it must he one of the districts of which 

 Eukratides took possession on his Indian expedition ; for after 

 the victory over Demetrios, he carried his arms against the 

 Indus and Hydaspes. We have already noticed, that he pro- 

 bably did not reign there for a long time. 



I have above explained my idea, how by the division of 

 Demetrios^ power the independent Grecian dominions of Dran- 

 giana and Arachosia, referred to by historical authority, had 

 been formed ; the Indian empire, mentioned by the same autho- 

 rity, was, if not actually formed, yet first consolidated after the 

 murder of Eukratides. At least the conjecture is natural, that 

 the abhorrence of such a deed must render it easy to an enter- 

 prising governor to find ready assistance in a revolt against the 

 parricide. The first Greek king of this Indian empire was certainly 

 Menandros, let the various dates given for his era and his ac- 

 cession differ as they may from mine. Here conjecture must be 

 set against conjecture, and I do not think myself the supposition 

 sound, that Menandros may have acquired the title of deliverer, 

 peculiar to this country, by delivering it from the hateful domi- 

 nion of the son of Eukratides. 



On these three Indo-Grecian empires we may make the 

 following conjecture. We assigned to Antimachos an empire 



he would have called himself in this case Sujazas, and not Agathuklajo. 

 But if Agathokles deprived the Indian Subhagasena of the provinces 

 on the Indus, and in the catalogues of kings was mentioned as his 

 CO temporary under the name Sujazas, he might be easily confounded with 

 the name of the Indian king, especially as the son of Az6ka had at 

 least two names, a Brahmanical and a Buddhist, like his father, and 

 perhaps his grandfather (Zeit-schrift I. 109.) This explanation is not 

 quite satisfactory to me ; the coincidence of both names, above mentioned, 

 is however, hardly accidental; and it is scarcely an objection, that Panta- 

 leon, who probably reigned but a short time, has not left a similar trace 

 in the Indian annals ; he must be looked for in Dazaratha, which is 

 impossible. 



