________________
242
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[JULY, 1891.
there has always been recognized, in them, a Ptolemy, an Antigonus, a Magas, and an Alexander. One is immediately tempted to seek for them, at least for the two last, in the countries which would not be too inaccessible to Hindis and to their sovereign, but the royal qualification, which is expressly attributed to them, forms an obstacle even if we could (which has not. been done) find these names as those of governor's or Satraps in a region somewhat in the neighbourbood of India. We have no knowledge of Greek kingdoms of which they could have been the sovereigns.
It is certain that the relations of Piyadasi with the Greek world were not posterior to the l'evolt of Diodotus, and to the creation of the Greek kingdom of Bactriana (about 255 B. C.); for he would have found this prince on his way, and would have mentioned him; and the proposed identifications, which have, hitherto been Duiversally accepted agree with this postulate. Antiochus II. of Syria (200-247), Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247), Antigonus Gonatas of Macedonia (278-242), Magas of Cyrene (d. 258), and Alexander of Epirus (d, between 262 and 258),35 were all alive and reigning contemporaneously between 260 and 258 B.C. On the other hand, the efforts of Piyadasi, whatever may have been their exact extent, to spread abroad his mural and religious ideas, must, as Lassen (loc. cit.) justly remarks, have been posterior to his conversion, - we can now add, to his active conversion, that is to say, the second one at the end of the eleventh year after his coronation. As the 2nd Edict belongs to the thirteenth year, we are inevitably led to conclude that his twelfth year corresponds to one of the years 260-238 B, C., say, to take a mean, to the year 259. This calculation would fix his coronation at about 239, and his coming to the throne at about 273 B. C.
If we add to these figures the period given for the reigns of his predecessors, Bindusara and Chandragupta, even by the authorities which prolong them the most, i.e. 28 and 24 years, we come to the date 325 B. C., as that of the usurpation of pover by the latter. This date is in no way incompatible with the statements of classical writers : we do not know the precise year in which Chandragupta assumed the title of king, and if we accept the tradition related by Justin36 to be correct, he should have been in a position to do so from the moment when, having escaped from Alexander's camp, he commenced to collect bands of men around him. The statements of the Hindus regarding the two reigns agree too little amongst themselves, to counterbalance the anthority of the synchronism which we derive from the evidence of inscriptions. If we take as a basis of calculation the period of only 24 years given by several Puranas37 to the reign of Chandragupta, we come to 322 as the year in which he seized his power. At any rate, in my opinion, the calculation which would be the most arbitrary and the most venturons one, would be to suppress the interval of four years between Asôka's coming to the throne and his coronation, which is borne witness to by the Sinhalese chronicles. I have already shown my reasons for this. As for Lassen's procedure, which commences with giving, without any positive proof, the commencement of Chandragupta's reign in the year 315, in order to calculate the date of our inscriptions, and thereupon to charge Piyadasi with alleged inaccuracies, 38 - it is evidently the reverse of a sound method.
Unfortunately we get no information regarding the details of the relations which Piyadasi held with the kings of the Grecian world. It is probable that they were specially close with Antiochus, bis neighbour of Syria. The connection between the two kingdoms had been traditional since the time of Chandragupta and Seleucos. Although ancient evidence has preserved for is the name, Dionysius, of an ambassador, or at least of an explorer, sent to India by Ptolemy Philadelphus, - tbe Ptolemy to whom Piyadasi alludes, - it may be doubted if this allusion refers to direct relations, which appear hardly probable any more than with Magas, or with
# It may be romarked here that, as feeble exchange for the light which its history receives from Greece, fadis, by its monumenta, londs bere a useful indication to Greek chronology. It becomes, in fact, certain that the doubtful date of the death of Alexander, the son of Pyrrhus, is not anterior to 260. Justin, XV, 4.
# Wilson, Vishnupur., Ed. F. E. Hell, IV, 186, note & . Ind. Alterth, 1, 264
