^{page 92 note 1} Robert, , Hellenica, vi, 1948, pp. 24 ff., No. 4Google Scholar.

^{page 92 note 2} Zweite Reise, pp. 101–2, No. 200; reproduced by Robert, loc. cit.

^{page 92 note 3} Sardis, vii. 1, No. 79 c, 1. 22Google Scholar.

^{page 92 note 4} Quoted by Robert, loc. cit., p. 25, n. 4.

^{page 92 note 5} In the Sardian inscription the spelling is Σελευκε⋯ου; in that of Delphi Ἀελεύκιον, v. note 6 below. Robert gives [Ἀλεξα]νσρε⋯ν Σελε⋯κιον. Professor Robert kindly tells me that only these two words survive on the stone.

^{page 92 note 6} The inscription referred to in note 4 is not dated by Robert, but the form σελεύκιον suggests an imperial date. The same itacism is found in the inscription quoted in note 2. Robert's Lydian inscription has Ἀελενκέω. These orthographical discrepancies due to itacism do not point to more than one form: the true form was undoubtedly σελεύκειοσ (as in the Sardian inscription and in the documents quoted below). Genitives with intrusive iotas in adjectival forms, such as σαμΠтρείωσ in I.G. i². 1063, 1. 2, are perhaps an earlier stage in the process which ultimately produced Ἀελεύκειοσ. Cf. Meisterhans-Schwyzer, , Grammatik, pp. 46–49 (5)Google Scholar, for further examples of the genitive termination in -είωσ. In the Gurob papyrus (Chrest. i = F.Gr.H. 160), col. ii, 1. 8, the form Σολείων occurs, but there is nothing to suggest that the nominative singular was Σολεῖοσ rather than Σολε⋯ς. In this passage, Wilhelm, , Z.f. Öst. Gymn, 1894, p. 912Google Scholar, followed by Holleaux, , B.C.H. xxx, 1906, p. 333 = Ètudes, iii, p. 284Google Scholar, read Σελ(ευκ)ε⋯ων and compared ⋯ερε⋯ων = ⋯ερ⋯ων ibid., col. ii, 1. 23. Wilcken, Chrest., loc. cit., said, however, that the reading Σολε⋯ων was certain and that the alleged iota in ⋯ερ⋯ων ‘gehört wohl nicht zur der Schrift’. (Holleaux rejected his former reading in R.Èt.A. xviii, 1916, p. 153, n. 1 = Études, iii, p. 279, n. 2.) It may be noted, however, that the alternative form ⋯ερε⋯ων is not uncommon in Egypt: in addition to P. Strass. 83, ll. 2 and 9, quoted by L.S.⁹, s.v. ⋯ερε⋯ς, v. Chrest. II B, Fr. a, 1. 2 (123 B.C.); P. Grenf. i. 25, 1. 2 (cf. Preisigke, , Berichtigungsliste, p. 180Google Scholar) (114 B.C.); P. Adl. 3, col. ii, 11. 2, 8 (112 B.C.); ibid., No. 9, ii, 1. 2 (104 B.C.). (Why the editors of P. Adl. 18 and 21 should put as a note to 1. 2 of each papyrus ‘1. ἱερ⋯ων’ I do not understand, since they have omitted the note in the other papyri here referred to.)

^{page 93 note 1} Hoffmann, O., Die Makedonen, 1905, pp. 174–175Google Scholar: Hoffmann equates Σ⋯λευκος with Ζ⋯λενκοσ.

^{page 93 note 2} Solmsen, v., B.P.W. xxvii, 1907, col. 272Google Scholar, referred to by Robert, op. cit., p. 25, n. 3. The most recent work on the Macedonian language, that of Russu, I.I., R.I.G.I. xix, 1935Google Scholar, has a wholly different derivation. He says, ibid., p. 100 (after having discussed the derivation from the root -λενκοσ): ‘Se invece separiamo Σέλενκοσ in Σελε/νκοσ (il gruppo εν non formando originariamente un dittongo) ne risulta un nome composto in cui la prima parte … trovasi in ΣελεΠῖνισ in Tebt. Pap. i. 9043 [read 90, 43], Σελεβοθσ (persiano), ibid., i, 110 ecc., e la seconda … è frequente nell' onomastica tracofrigica etc.…’ (cf. id. Eph. Dac. viii, 1938, pp. 121, 215). This derivation sounds more plausible than that of Hoffmann; if correct it makes a literal interpretation of Ζεύσ Σελεύκειοσ very difficult.

^{page 93 note 3} J.H.S. xlviii (1928), p. 42Google Scholar.

^{page 93 note 4} Ibid., p. 42, n. 115.

^{page 93 note 5} B.G.U. 1228.

^{page 93 note 6} Baillet, Inscr. grecs et lot. des tombeaux des rois, i (Mém. de ľinst. franç, du Caire, tom, xlii, 1926), No. 31. No. 1274, ibid., may be either Σελεύκειοσ or Σελενκεύσ; only -λενκε is visible.

^{page 93 note 7} e.g. Λαοδίκειοσ Πόλεμοσ, I. von Priene, 37, 1. 134, so called from Queen Laodike and not from a city called Laodikeia; Χρεμωνίδειοσ Πόλεμοσ (Hegesander ap. Athen. 250 F); the common festivalnames such as Σελεύκεια and Ἁνтιόχεια; οί Σελεύκειοι ‘Seleucid troops’, in App. Syr., § 125; the months Σελεύκειοσ and Εύμένειοσ at Ilion (O.G.I.S. 212, 1. II) and Pergamon (O.G.I.S. 338, 1. 2) respectively; the coins such as Ἁνтιόχειοι (sc. тέтραχμοι), v., e.g., I.G. xi². 203 B, ll. 40, 46; and the numerous κοιν⋯ named after their founders and benefactors, all of which end in -είων (gen. pl.); Pugliese-Caratelli, v., Annuario, N.S. i–ii, 1942, pp. 176 ff.Google Scholar, for a list of the Rhodian κοινα, many of which have this termination.

^{page 93 note 8} Dittenberger, v., Hermes, xli, 1906, pp. 168 ff.Google Scholar, esp. p. 173: ‘Und dazu kommt eine grosse Anzahl Ethnika, von denen überhaupt keine andere Form bekannt ist, wie Μαντινε⋯ς, Κορωνε⋯ς, Λεβαδε⋯ς, Ἀντιοχε⋯ς, Ἀπαμε⋯ς, Κασσανδρε⋯ς, Λαοδικε⋯ς, Σελευκε⋯ς u.a.’ Mention may be made here of the numerous valuable studies on ethnic forms by Robert, L.. See, most recently, Hellenica, ii (1946), pp. 65–93Google Scholar. (For earlier discussions v. ibid., p. 66, n. 3, where for R.E.G. 1935, read R.E.G. 1933.) Robert here notices several alternative forms to ethnics in -εύσ, but the particular form of variant with which we are concerned is not noted.

^{page 93 note 9} Suidas, S.V. Ἀλεξ⋯νδρια: ⋯ πολ⋯της Ἀλεξανδρε⋯ςκα⋯ Ἀλεξ⋯νδρειος (a reference I owe to Mr. C. H. Roberts); Baillet, op. cit., No. 619. In S.B. 5249, 1. 4, Ἁλεξ⋯νδρειοσ may be from Ἁλεξανδρεύσ or Ἁλεξανδρεῖοσ: cf. above, note 6.

^{page 93 note 10} s.V. Ἁνтιόχεια.

^{page 94 note 1} Baillet, op. cit., No. 1028. Note also the variant ήρ⋯κλειοσ for ήρακλεὠтησ in Durrbach, Choix, Nos. 151, 157.

^{page 94 note 2} Cook, , Zeus, ii (1925)Google Scholar, Index i, s.v. ‘Seleukia Pieria’, and, most recently, Seyrig, H., Syria, xx (1939). PP. 296–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 94 note 3} Strab. 751–2.

^{page 94 note 4} Levy, v., Rev. Hist. Rel. lxi, 1910, pp. 169–177Google Scholar; Roussel, , Syria, xxiii (1942–1943), pp. 26–27Google Scholar, discusses the slight evidence for the dispersion of Egyptian cults in the Seleukis.