The Greeks in Bactria and India c12.132

c12.132

Now nobody can say that Ptolemy II may not at some time have conversed with some Jewish Elders; but those he is represented as conversing with are fictitious. Nobody can say that Menander may not at some time have conversed with a Buddhist sage; but the one he is represented as conversing with is fictitious. We can now see that Pseudo-Aristeas chose Ptolemy II as his protagonist because there was already in existence a document, the Questions of Ptolemy II, which made Ptolemy II converse with Jews; and the author of the Questions had chosen Ptolemy II because, for the Jewish world of that day, he was the greatest king of the time and the Alexander-questions showed that it was proper for great kings to converse with foreign sages. Let us suppose, in the same way, that the Buddhist author of Part 1 of the Milinda chose Menander as his protagonist because there was already in existence a document which made Menander converse with a Buddhist, and that the author of that previous document had chosen Menander because he was the greatest king of the time to the world about him and the Alexander-tradition showed that it was proper for great kings to converse with Indian sages. This would imply that the story of Alexander’s conversation with Indian sages was, in some form or other, known in India; but if any Greek literature or tradition found its way to India at all, as it certainly did,¹ stories about Alexander in India certainly would. But if the author of Part 1 of the Pali Milinda had such knowledge of a previous document as Pseudo-Aristeas had of the Questions of Ptolemy II, that means that there was once in existence a Greek Questions of Menander based, like the Questions of Ptolemy II, on the Alexander-tradition—did not an eastern Greek, Apollodorus (pp. 143 sq.), compare Menander’s conquests to Alexander’s?—and conceivably also on some real conversation of Menander’s, just as the Alexander-tradition goes back to a real conversation of Alexander’s.