162 Discovery of the name nf Antiochus the Great, [Feb. 



to a hundred and fifty* ; he then recrossed the Indus and returned 

 homeward through Arachosia, Drangiana, and Carmania, settling in 

 all those countries due order and discipline. " The boldness of his at- 

 tempts and the wisdom of his conduct during the whole course of this 

 long war, gained him the reputation of a wise and valiant prince, so 

 that his name became formidable to all Europe as well as Asia, and well 

 deserved the addition of < Great' which was given himf ." 



In all, save the name of the Indian monarch, do these circumstances 

 agree with the terms of our inscription. We may readily imagine it to 

 have been a provision in the treaty, that the Buddhist king of India 

 should be allowed to establish his religious and humane regulations 

 among those of the same faith who resided under the rule of Antio- 

 chus' generals, that is, in JBactriaand perhaps Sinde. We see an ac- 

 knowledgment of fealty to him in the very wording of the sentence, and 

 it is curious that, while the Cuttack inscription calls the Greek princes, 

 Sdmantd his generals — the other edict names them Sw amino J, * lords.' 



With regard to the name of Sophagasena I should not have much 

 hesitation in asserting that it was a palpable corruption of Asoka sinha or 

 sena, the first two syllables transposed^, — but that I am saved the trou- 

 ble by that more daring etymologist Col. Wilford, who long ago pro- 

 nounced Sophagasena to be nothing more than Sivaca-sena, a term 

 equivalent to Asoca-sena, ' one whose army is clement,' — and which was 

 another name for Asoca-verddhana the third in descent from Chan- 

 dragupta in the Pauranic lists ||. 



Mr. Turnour fixes the date of Asoka's accession in B. C. 247, or 

 62 years subsequent to Chandragupta, the cotemporary of Seleucus. 

 Many of his edicts are dated in his 28th year, that is in B. C. 219, or 

 six years after Antiochus the Great had mounted the throne. The 

 medical edict is not absolutely dated; we however perceive that there 

 can be no positive anachronism to oppose the conclusions to which other 

 powerful considerations would lead. 



* The words of Polybius are: — 'TTrepjSaAc^Se tov Kabxaarov, teat Kardpas els 

 ti)v 'IvSiktjv, r'fjv tov (piXiav dveveuxraTo t}]v Trpos 2,oipayao~r}vov tov fiao~i\ea twv 

 'lvUGiv, Kai Xafiuv i\4<pavras, &se yeveaQat robs Hiravras ets eKwrbv koX TrcvrrfKovra, 

 crt 8e ffiTOfierprjaas iraAiv cvravda rjfv Svva/xtv, avrbs pev ape£*ey|e fxtra T7j? sparias. 

 'AvSpoadevr) 8e tov Kv^iKrjvbv iirl rrjs avaKOjxi^ris a7r4\nre rr)s yafys, ra 5jAo\oyr)- 

 6c(o"ns auT<J -jrapa tov fZaariXews. Pol. Histor. lib. xi. 



T Universal History, vol. VIII. p. 157. 



X The last letter is however doubtful (more resembling pharn) and I feel very 

 certain that re-examination will prove the reading to he Sdmantd. 



§ Just as the natives persist in calling Ochterlony, Loni-akter ; — many 

 such whimsical perversions might be quoted. 



(1 Asiatic Researches, V. 236. 



