________________
SEPTEMBER, 1905.)
ASOKA NOTES.
201
proxenos. The date of this inscription is uncertain, being placed by Kirchhoff as early as Olymp. 45 (= 600-597 B. C.), while Franz assigns the record to the beginning of the fourth century. The paucity of records of propenia assignable to the Roman period suggests the inference that the institution gradually fell into disuse as the Greek cities ceased to be autonomous, and their relations with one another were regulated by the imperial power. Most of the extant decrees appointing proxenoi, which probably exceed three hundred in number, may be referred to the period between the accession of Alexander the Great and the time of Augustus, extending from 336 B. C. to 14 A. D.
The proxenos was usually a citizen of the state in which he exercised his functions, and not of the state whose citizens he was appointed to protect. His duties were “partly "diplomatic and partly consular; the citizens of the state by which he was appointed could "always claim his hospitality, his protection, and his general good offices in legal proceedings. "He ransomed prisoners in war, provided a suitable interment for those slain in battle, and, "in case of a demise, administered the state, and transmitted the effects to the heirs. "Thus far the duties of the proxenos corresponded with those of an ordinary modern consul. "But his diplomatic functions were of a higher character, approximating to those of a modern "ambassador. It was his duty to present to the autaorities and public assembly of his native "city the envoys who were sent from time to time from the State which had made him their "proxenos, and to promote the objects of such missions by his personal influence with his " fellow-citizens. In Greek cities the inns were generally indifferent, and the claims on the "hospitality of the proxenos must have entailed heavy and constant expense, while from the "nature of his office he must have been constantly obliged to advance money on account of "distressed travellers, much of which was probably repaid at the Greek Kalends."
In return for the perform..nce of these onerous duties the proxenos received certain privileges and immunities of high material valae, in addition to honorary distinctions. But I need not detail these, as nothing is known concerning the way in which the astynomoi of Chandragupta Maurya were remunerated for their trouble. Probably they were paid salaries by the Indian Government, which may be assumed to have borne all their official expenses. The officers of Chandragupta, while closely resembling their Greek prototype in so far as consular duties were concerned, would naturally be free from the diplomatic responsibilities of the proxenoi, who were the nominees of the states, the subjects of which were entrusted to their protection, while the astynomoi of the Indian monarch were administrative officials appointed by him.
v. - Persian Influence on Maurya India. In the preceding article (No. IV.) I have alloded to the indications of Persian influence upon the Indian institutions of the Maurya period, and it may be of interest to bring together the proofs that such influence was a reality. Up to the time of Alexander's invasion the Indus was regarded as the frontier between India and the Persian empire, and even if a particle of positive evidence did not exist, we should still be compelled to believe that the rulers of India must have felt the attractive force of the great Achæmenian monarchy on their borders. But a certain amount of positive evidence exists, and, scrappy though it is, suffices to prove that the Maarya sovereigns and their subjects were open in many ways to the inflaence of Iranian polity and civilization.
The Persian affinities of Maurya architecture, as exemplified in the Asoka pillars and the bas-relief soulpture of the period, are too obvious and well-known to need illustration.
The use of the Kharoshthi script, that of Persian officialdom, - in the provinces on the north-western frontier of India is an equally familiar fact.
1 Newton, Essays on Art and Archaology (London: Macmillan & Co., 1883), pp. 104, 121.
