The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c26.300

v1.c26.300

Obviously the situation which Eucratides would have had to face in Bactria, had he ever returned from his last Indian campaign, would have been peculiarly trying. It is not surprising that his successor should have failed to make headway against the oncoming tide. The numismatic evidence shows that this successor was Heliocles. In all probability he was also the parricide. Cunningham, it is true, was of a different opinion, holding that the unnatural murder was the work of Apollodotus, another king who has left a considerable number of coins, mostly of a strictly Indian character¹. But the idea that there was any blood relationship between Apollodotus and Eucratides is purely hypothetical. It is more probable, indeed, that Apollodotus belonged to the rival family of Euthydemus. He may have been contemporary with Eucratides, but there is nothing whatever to suggest a closer connexion². On the other hand, it will be remembered that Justin (XLI, 6) lays the crime to the charge of the heir apparent. And according to Greek custom the eldest son of Eucratides would normally be called Heliocles after his grandfather. If he had any brother, there is a stronger claimant for the honour than Apollodotus. In describing the coinage of Eucratides, no mention was made of a small group of silver pieces, which are usually believed to represent his earliest issue. They are mainly tetradrachms, the drachms being of semi-barbarous execution. The obverse bears a diademed head within a bead-and-reel border; on the reverse is a draped figure of Apollo standing to left, holding an arrow and a bow, the inscription being ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΕΥΚΡΑΤΙΔΟΥ (Pl. IV, 9). It may be that the view generally taken of these coins is correct. But there are two serious difficulties in the way of accepting it. In the first place, it would be unusual, if not unprecedented, for a Bactrian king to use more than one distinctive type for his Attic silver, and the characteristic type of Eucratides was, as we know, the group of the Dioscuri. In the second place, the style of the obverse has the closest possible resemblance to that of the obverse of some of the tetradrachms of Heliocles. A comparison of Plate IV, 9, with Plate IV, 8, for instance, reveals a similarity that is almost startling. It forces one to ask whether Heliocles may not have had a younger brother, who had the same name as his father and who was proclaimed king after the latter's murder. When ancient states were on the verge of ruin, kings were apt to multiply. Nor is it a valid objection to urge that no second Eucratides is known to the literary texts. The name of Heliocles himself has been rescued from oblivion by his coins.