^{page 173 note 2} Ferrabino, A., ‘La battaglia d'Azio,’ Riv. fil., lii, 1924, p. 433.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 3} Kromayer, J., ‘Kleine Forschungen zur Geschichte des zweiten Triumvirats, VII. Der Feldzug von Actium und der sogenannte Verrath der Cleopatra,’ Hermes xxxiv, 1899, p. 1.Google Scholar References to ‘Kromayer’ are to this article unless otherwise stated. Kromayer's, ‘Nachtrag zur Schlacht von Actium,’ in Antike Schlachtfelder, iv, 1931, pp. 662–71Google Scholar, which appeared just as this was going to press, and to which Mr. H. M. Last kindly called my attention, adds little to the views the author had previously expressed. It is a criticism of Ferrabino.

^{page 173 note 4} Holmes, T. Rice, The Architect of the Roman Empire, 1928, pp. 255–8.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 1} Variants ad bunc, ad hoc; for the present question the reading is immaterial.

^{page 174 note 2} I quote from the 3rd edition, 1728.

^{page 174 note 3} He concludes, ‘Ut Antonii aliquot naves ab co deficientes retrorsum in puppem remigando fugam capessiverint et in portum aliquem Actio propinquum ad sinistram se receperint.… Quare, aut valde fallor, aut melius est de parte classis Antonianae: quae ab illo transfugerit aut pugnam detrectaverit, verba haec accipere.’

^{page 174 note 4} ‘At dices fortasse, quis Historicorum memoriae id tradidit ? Nemo quidem, qui nunc extat.… Satis est, si verba ipsa, quae jam excutimus, eo nos recta via ducunt ut defectionem talem intelligamus.’

^{page 174 note 5} Boettiger, C. A. in Koeppen's, J. H. J.Erklärende Anmerkungen zu den … ausgewählten Oden und Liedern von Horaz, ii, p. 322.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 1} Third edition by Baiter, 1850. The quotation from Boettiger is on p. 700.

^{page 175 note 2} Friedrich, G., Q. Horatius Flaccus, Philologische Untersuchungen, p. 26. Leipzig, 1894.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 3} Olivier, Frank, Les Épodes d'Horace, p. 96. Lausanne—Paris, 1917.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 4} Faltin, G., Jahrbücher f. klass. Philol., xxxi, 1885, pp. 621–2.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 5} Wickham, E. C., The Works of Horace. Third ed., 1896.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 6} Kolster, W. H., Erklärung der neunten Epode des Horaz, p. 16. Meldorf, 1861.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 7} Cartault, A., Rev. de Phil., xxiii, 1899, p. 249.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 8} Q. Horatius Flaccus, Oden und Epoden, erklärt von Lucian Müller, ii, p. 447. St. Petersburg and Leipzig, 1900.

^{page 175 note 9} In a note on p. 39.

^{page 175 note 10} In Drumann-Groebe, , Gesch. Roms, I, p. 354Google Scholar, n. 3.

^{page 175 note 11} Nachtrag, p. 666, n. 1. The one point is that Kromayer has abandoned his former correct view about the 2000 Galatian horse and now calls the matter ‘eine Kleinigkeit.’ An analysis of Antony's cavalry figures tells a different story; I shall have something to say about this elsewhere (C.Q. 1932).

^{page 175 note 12} ‘Horatiana,’ J. of Philol. x, 1882, p. 193.

^{page 175 note 13} I gather from Ferrabino, p. 435, that this view is shared by Pasquali, , Orazio lirico, 1920, p. 38.Google Scholar I have been unable to see this work.

^{page 175 note 14} Servius on Aen. vi, 612, ‘per quos est victoriam consecutus.’

^{page 176 note 1} Maximowa, M., Rev. arch., xxx, 1929, p. 64.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 2} See in the last place E. Groag, Maecenas in P–W, XIV, i, col. 210. So Gardthausen, , Augustus und seine Zeit, I, i, p. 365.Google Scholar The contrary view rests only on the Elegia in Maecenatem, of uncertain date; Baehrens, , Poet. lat. min, I, p. 128.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 3} Porphyry on Epode I, i. 7: ‘dicitur enim Caesar Augustus dedisse Horatio militiae vacationem cum aliis negasset.’ By aliis I understand the senators and others whom Octavian compelled to accompany his expedition in 32.

^{page 177 note 1} Kromayer in his Nachtrag has done exactly the same thing; p. 665, treachery is ‘eine ebenso neue wie unmögliche Erklärung,’ and p. 666, sinistrorsum means ‘nach Süden.’

^{page 177 note 2} Hist. rom. reliquiae, II, p. 62 = Malcovati, Caesaris Aug. Imp. operum fragmenta, ed. 2, p. 69 = Plut. Ant. 68.

^{page 178 note 1} Philol., LVI, 1897, p. 465.

^{page 178 note 2} Ib., p. 462; see p. 184, n. 1.

^{page 178 note 3} See Tarn, , Hellenistic military and naval developments, 1930, p. 140.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 4} On the number of troops carried in the Roman Civil Wars see Kromayer, ib., pp. 481, 491.

^{page 178 note 5} As does Kromayer, , Hermes, xxxiii, p. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 6} Philol., LVI, p. 465.

^{page 178 note 7} Ferrabino gave Antony 400 in the battle; his method is not mine, but he did base his argument on Octavian's figures. So, unlike most writers, did Gravière, Jurien de la, La marine des Ptolemées, 1885, vol. i, p. 70.Google Scholar Rice Holmes's criticism of Ferrabino, though justified on some other points, does not touch this, the real matter; for, as he naturally could not square Octavian's figure with those of the epitomators of Livy, which he believes in, he merely discards the former with the remark that Plutarch must have misunderstood Octavian (pp. 257, 152, n. 6).

^{page 179 note 1} Tarn, op. cit., p. 148.

^{page 179 note 2} Obv., Victory on prow of galley with wreath and palm branch; rev., Octavian in triumphal quadriga. Struck in 29 B.C. Grueber, H. A., Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum, 1910, vol. ii, p. 13Google Scholar; Hill, G. F., Historical Roman Coins, 1909, nos. 83, 84Google Scholar; Mattingly, H., Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, I, 1923, p. 101.Google Scholar

^{page 179 note 3} List given, Tarn, Hellenistic Civilisation ², p. 282, n. 2.

^{page 179 note 4} W. Klein, Vom antiken Rokoko, p. 106.

^{page 179 note 5} JDAl, xxxviii–ix, 1923–4, p. 125; cf. Tarn, Hell. Civ. ², p. 285.

^{page 179 note 6} Vol. viii, pp. 675–6.

^{page 179 note 7} Pro Samothrake, pp. 21 seqq.; Wien. S.B. 212, 1930, Abh. 1.

^{page 179 note 8} I outlined the reasons in CAH, vii, p. 714, n. 2. Cf. Thiersch, op. cit., p. 50.

^{page 180 note 1} Anth. Pal., ix, 553 (explicitly); Verg. Aen., viii, 704; Octavian's enlargement of the temple and games at Actium, Dio LI, 1, 2, Suet. Aug. 18; Apollo on the coins of Nicopolis; denarius of Augustus, showing Apollo on platform ornamented with prows and anchors, and legend ‘Apollini Actio’ (Mattingly, op. cit., p. 18); epigram on the battle addressed to Apollo of Actium (Kenyon, F. G., Rev. de Philol., xix, 1895, p 177Google Scholar). Compare the stories of Octavian playing Apollo, Suet. Aug. 70. But the cup with a figure of Augustus-Apollo as victor of Actium (Deonna, W., Rev. arch., xi, 1920, 112Google Scholar) seems to be of doubtful genuineness (E. Norden, Die Geburt des Kindes, p. 157, n. 3).

^{page 180 note 2} Tarn, , JHS, xxx, 1910, p. 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Propertius IV, 6 (7 Richmond), 11. 25 sqq., actually makes the Delian Apollo aid Octavian.

^{page 180 note 3} Plut. Mor. 676 D; see Tarn, JHS, xxx, p. 219.

^{page 180 note 4} Studniczka gave ‘a wreath’ only. That it must have been the Isthmian wreath (my own conjecture, first given in Hellenistic Civilisation ¹, p. 262) is inevitable, seeing that after the battle the name of Antigonus' flagship was changed to Isthmia.

^{page 180 note 5} Dio LI, i, 2, Strabo vii, 325; other references collected in Gardthausen, Augustus II, i, pp. 206–7. The only previous festival entirely isolympic had been the Ptolemaieia at Alexandria, which is instructive.

^{page 180 note 6} Not expressly stated, but no other course was possible, as Gardthausen i, 1, p. 393, rightly says.

^{page 180 note 7} Strabo, vii, 325; cf. Dio. li, i. 2; note the definite article—the δεκαναΐα was something unique.

^{page 180 note 8} Tarn, , BCH, xlvi, 1922, p. 473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See, however, Thiersch, op. cit., p. 37, n. 82, for a possible objection. The last word on these dedicated ships is far from having been said.

^{page 180 note 9} Besides Tarn, , JHS, xxx, 1910, p. 209CrossRefGoogle Scholar, see Couchoud, P. L. and Svoronos, J., BCH, xlv, 1921, p. 270Google Scholar; Tarn, , BCH, xlvi, p. 473Google Scholar; Couchoud, ib., p. 476.

^{page 181 note 1} Plut. 65, ἐν πλοίῳ; Vell. 11, 85, Agrippa was in command and Caesar went wherever he was wanted. Octavian had done the same in his battle with Sextus Pompey: App. v, 463, others commanded, but Octavian Λιβυρνίδος ἐπέβαινε καὶ περιέπλει. Cf. Philip v at Chios; Polyb. xvi, 2, 8.

^{page 181 note 2} Gardthausen 11, 1, p. 204, following Mommsen.

^{page 181 note 3} Antipater, , Anth. Pal., ix, 553Google Scholar; Strab. vii. 325; x, 450; Paus. v, 23, 3.

^{page 181 note 4} IG., ix, ii, 1109; Strabo, ix, 436. That the whole of Magnesia was included is certain on geographical grounds from Strabo's account.

^{page 181 note 5} Hill, op. cit., pp. 134–5; Mattingly, op. cit., pp. cxxiii, 100.

^{page 181 note 6} E. T. Newell, The Coinages of Demetrius Poliorcetes, 1927, plates VII–XVI.

^{page 181 note 7} Douris ap. Athen. xii, 536a. This globe appears on other coins from Octavian's eastern mints of the years 31–29, see Mattingly, op. cit., pp. 99 sqq., nos. 602–4, 622, 631, and on the Hermitage cameo commemorating Actium, Rev. arch., xxx, p. 64; it belongs to the East.

^{page 181 note 8} Dio xliii, 14, 6; 21, 2. The globe on Caesar's coins (Grueber, op. cit., I, pp. 529, 543, 546, 551) might be connected with this; I do not know what connection, if any, it has with the representation of Demetrius.

^{page 182 note 1} On Hieronymus as Plutarch's source here see Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas, p. 449.

^{page 182 note 2} Plut. Mor., 545 b.

^{page 182 note 3} Diod. xx, 49, 2 and 50, 2: 108 against 140.

^{page 182 note 4} Dio l, 18, 4–5; 19, 4.

^{page 182 note 5} Livy's number for Octavian's fleet (Florus 11, 21, 5) was ‘over 400’; see p. 191, n. 3.

^{page 182 note 6} Dio l, 35, is plain enough, whatever has been said to the contrary. I say ‘general,’ not ‘complete’; I do not mean that he intended to convey that not a ship or a man survived.

^{page 183 note 1} Tac. Ann., iv, 5. cf. Strabo, iv, 184. Fiebiger, ‘Classis’ in P-W, col. 2636, gives their subsequent history so far as known.

^{page 183 note 2} Mon. Ancvr., 2: ‘et postea bellum inferentis reipublicae [the Liberators] vici bis acie.’

^{page 183 note 3} Stein, A, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Verwaltung Aegyptens unter römischer Herrschaft, 1915, p. 43, n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 4} App. B.C., v, 501, 503; Dio, xlix, 10, 2.

^{page 184 note 1} This might be true. Apart from this, Kromayer's contention (Philol., lvi, pp. 462–3) that of the 600 ships captured by Octavian during his wars (Mon. Anc., 3) 300 were taken from Sextus is certainly wrong. Sextus had 155 ships at Mylae (App. v, 435–7), the larger part of his fleet (437), which therefore did not exceed 300 (490, a campaign total); he lost 30 at Mylae (447), and at Naulochus 17 escaped (503) while an unknown number were destroyed and burnt (501). If Octavian got 200 he was lucky; and the 300 ships not captured at Actium include those of Sextus, Lepidus, and Cleopatra (in 30); some of Sextus' may have been smaller than triremes.

^{page 184 note 2} Horace, of course, may have written this before they were brought to Italy.

^{page 184 note 3} The numbers of the ships in the Imperial standing fleets are generally unknown, but certainly Augustus did not keep anything remotely approaching 300 ships in commission at Forum Julii, a place which did not even remain a permanent fleet-station.

^{page 184 note 4} Kromayer, , Philol. lvi, p. 457Google Scholar, made it some 600, which is Appian's figure (v, 127); perhaps too high (n. 1 ante).

^{page 184 note 5} Dio, li, 19, 2, cf. 22, 2.

^{page 184 note 6} Dio, li, 1, 3; Anth. Pal. vi, 236.

^{page 184 note 7} At Naulochus both fleets carried and used fire as a matter of course, App., v, 498, 501, 503. But then Appian, unlike Dio, knew something about naval matters.

^{page 185 note 1} Cf. App. v, 233, αἱ ναυαρχίδες ἐκ τῶν σημείων ἐφαίνοντο.

^{page 185 note 2} Plut. 66, πάντων ὲκλαθόμενος καὶ προδοὺς καὶ ἀποδράς.

^{page 186 note 1} Aristot., HA, 11, 14; Aelian, HA, 1, 36; Oppian, Halieut, i, 212; Pliny, NH, ix, 79; Suidas s.v. ἐχενηίς; Plut., Mor., 641 b. The name must originally have meant ‘holding on to a ship,’ not ‘holding a ship.’

^{page 186 note 2} H. Peter, Die geschichtliche Literatur über die römische Kaiserzeit, 1, p. 459.

^{page 186 note 3} Pliny, NH, ix, 79.

^{page 186 note 4} The creature was a love-charm (Pliny, ib., Aristotle, l.c.); Cleopatra bewitched Antony with charms (Plut. 60; Dio l, 5, 3 and 26, 5); therefore what stopped Antony was his infatuation for Cleopatra. It would be very far-fetched.

^{page 186 note 5} Lysimachus' ship in Keraunos' victory over Gonatas, Memnon 13; Gonatas' Isthmia at Cos, Tarn, JHS, xxx, p. 209 (on both these ships see now my Hellenistic military and naval developments, pp. 133–8); Agathocles' royal enneres, Diod. xxii, 8, 5; Pyrrhus' royal hepteres, captured by the Carthaginians and used as their flagship at Mylae, Polyb. 1, 23, 4; Philip v's dekeres at Chios, ib., xvi, 3, 3, cf. 7, 1; both, consuls had hexereis at Ecnomus, ib. I, 26, 11; Scipio's hexeres in 205 B.C., Livy xxix, 9, 8, compared with xxviii, 45, 21 sq.; Sextus Pompey's bexeres, App. v, 297. These illustrations should suffice.

^{page 187 note 1} i.e. κωπήρης, a row-boat; not a warship, Thucydides, iv, 118.

^{page 188 note 1} P. 43, ‘die Front dreht sich nach Norden statt nach Süden.’

^{page 188 note 2} Dio l, 15, 4; 30, 4. Plut. 67 implies the same.

^{page 188 note 3} The aureus with the lion holding a sword (Grueber, op. cit., ii, p. 505) shows Antony with his foot on a prow. The various series of Antony's fleet-prefects of 38–5 B.C. show galleys under sail, or Antony and Octavia as Poseidon and Amphitrite in a quadriga drawn by hippocamps (ib. pp. 510 sq.). The long series of the ‘legionary’ denarii of 32–1 B.C. (ib., p. 526) all figure his flagship.

^{page 189 note 1} This is a necessary deduction from the position. But Dio, though I am not here using him, in fact gives Antony's two plans. Dio mixes up two versions: (a) l, 15, 1; 30, 3; 31, 1: Antony means to break through to Egypt; (b) 1, 15, 3: he means to fight, with a break-through as an alternative; they are to sail out ὡς ἐπὶ νανμαχίαν, ἵν᾿ ἅμα, ἄν τι ἀνθίστηται, βιάσωνται τὸν ἔκπλουν. The word ἅμα, which Kromayer, p. 33, neglected, shows that two plans are meant, and consequently that ὡς is not ‘as if,’ but is the other common Silver-Greek use of ὡς, and means simply ‘for a sea-fight,’ as it obviously does in 30, 3. Victory will mean (Dio l, 19, 5) that Octavian will be besieged ὡς ἐν νησιδίῳ τινί and starved out. Dio's version (b) then, wherever he found it, was: ‘we shall try to win and that wil settle everything; at the same time, if anything goes wrong (ἀνθίστηται, cf. Thuc. v, 4, 5), we will then force our way through to Egypt.’ Ἀνθίστηται does not, of course, mean ‘if we meet with resistance’; it was certain that Agrippa would fight.

^{page 189 note 2} Mediterranean Pilot, iii, pp. 13–14 (Imbatto), p. 20 (Maestro). Plutarch clearly describes the Imbatto; and the deserter's narrative (Plut. 66) shows that the wind was NW after the battle began, for Cleopatra's ships, with sails set, are seen τῷ πνεύματι χρωμένας.

^{page 190 note 1} Plut. 66; Ἀγρίππον δὲ θάτερον κέρας εἰς κύκλωσιν ἐκτείνοντος ἀντανάγειν Ποπλικόλας (i.e. Antony) ἀναγκαζόμενος ἀπερρήγνυτο τῶν μέσων.

^{page 190 note 2} I note here that Ferrabino has a very different conception of the battle, which I cannot follow: Antony tries to turn both ends of the enemy line (p. 453), while Cleopatra (p. 469) is to pass through and attack the centre (why ?). Now a second turning movement by Antony's left is quite impossible, whatever Plutarch says, for three reasons: (a) the wind (b) to drive Octavian north, i.e. toward his camp, was the last thing Antony wanted; (c) tactical considerations. Given anything like equal numbers, a fleet could not turn both ends of the enemy line. It was tried just once in history; the Carthaginians tried it at Ecnomus because they despised their opponents, and deservedly got their centre broken. Antony was admittedly a good tactician; he would not have made that kind of blunder.

^{page 190 note 3} JHS, xxviii, 1908, pp. 228–30. See J. A. R. Munro, CAH, iv, p. 274.

^{page 191 note 1} There is some evidence (Tarn, , JHS, 1908, p. 230 n.Google Scholar) for a 50-ship squadron as the basis of the Roman fleets of the Punic wars; but there was no connecting link between the old Roman navy and the navies of the Civil Wars.

^{page 191 note 2} My estimate of 400–415 was, of course, ships of the line only, as it was based on Octavian's figures and those for Cleopatra's squadron, which both omit light ships; for Octavian, see p. 192, n. 1.

^{page 191 note 3} In the same way Orosius vi, 19, 8, gives the total of Octavian's Brundisium division, 230+30, as being the total of his whole fleet (Kromayer); Livy, therefore, gave the separate totals of the Brundisium and Tarentum divisions, which together came to ‘over 400,’ correctly reproduced by Florus ii, 21, 5.

^{page 192 note 1} Mon. Anc. 3, ‘naves cepi sescentas praeter eas si quae minore[s quam trir]emes fuerunt.’ Mommsen's [trir]emes is right beyond any question. Bergk's [bir]emes, adopted by Kromayer (Philol., lvi, p. 462), is impossible; it does not fill the gap, and there are extremely few mentions of biremes in either literature or inscriptions before the Roman Empire. What Augustus meant is ‘counting ships of the line only.’

^{page 193 note 1} If we take the maximum, 15 sunk and the flagship captured, and if his personal squadron was at full strength, he saved 44 ships of the line, which would give him, on the reckoning, p. 178, 420 ships of the line in the battle, i.e. 7 squadrons at paper strength. But Livy's 170 shows that the 3 squadrons of the right were 10 ships of the line below paper strength; Octavian's 300 is, therefore, not exactly 300, but a round figure for 5 squadrons of the line; and what Antony saved is best expressed as ‘about 40,’ and what he had in action as ‘about 400’; ships of the line in each case.

^{page 193 note 2} Plut. 66, διὰ μέσου τῶν μαχομένων, implies that the two sides were at grips; it cannot mean ‘down between the two lines,’ as Ferrabino took it, p. 459. Gardthausen i, 1, 382, 384, I think, understands it as I do, as does Ihne, , Röm. Gesch., viii, p. 386.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 3} Drumann-Groebe i, p. 355, ‘ein schnell-fahrendes Schiff’; Gardthausen i, 1, p. 383, ‘ein schnelles Schiff’; Bouché-Leclercq it, p. 311, ‘un aviso rapide.’ Ferrero, Even, Grandezza e Decadenza, iii, p. 536Google Scholar, calls it a quinquereme ‘in waiting,’ ‘una quinqueremi preparata apposta.’

^{page 193 note 4} Livy, xxviii, 30, 5, ‘tardior quam triremis.’

^{page 193 note 5} Oros. vi, 10, 8—30 ‘open’ triremes as fast as Liburnians–shews that the Liburnian was normally the faster.

^{page 193 note 6} The difference between Livy's two figures for his right wing represents the Liburnians attached to that wing.

^{page 193 note 7} Polyb. xvi, 2, 9; 4, 2; 4, 8.

^{page 193 note 8} Roman authors wrote up Octavian's Liburnians as though they had won the battle simply because Octavian himself was on a Liburnian (p. 181, n. 1) and Antony had previously charged him with cowardice (Suet. Aug. 16); in fact these light ships had little effect in a fleet action, even if numerous, Polyb. xvi, 2–7. Octavian used the same heavy fleet (Dio l, 19, 3 τὰ αὐτά) which had defeated Sextus Pompey (heavy, Dio xlix, 1, 2; 3, 2; App. v, 439; Florus ii, 21), though possibly he had more Liburnians attached to it; and those modern writers who have reproduced the Augustan propaganda which made Actium a battle between big and little ships have not seen what it would imply. It would imply (a) that Octavian, having some 500–600 ships and no money, built a new fleet to fight Antony (no building is known to the tradition); and (b) that in building it he discarded his own victorious methods and experience and adopted the methods of the defeated Sextus. Really, Octavian and Agrippa were not fools.

^{page 194 note 1} Ferrabino made Sosius the traitor; the obvious misinterpretation on which this rests has been sufficiently exposed by Rice Holmes (p. 256). When ships were crowded with troops, the troops were the masters.

^{page 194 note 2} See the just remarks of Appian (v, 68–71) on mass desertions in the Civil Wars; they read like a forecast of Actium.

^{page 194 note 3} I explained this. CAH vi, pp. 467–8.

^{page 194 note 4} The worst of all the objections to Kromayer's view is that he is forced to believe that they would have done so.

^{page 195 note 1} I, 1, pp. 418 sqq.

^{page 195 note 2} Dio li, 8, 2. Dio greatly dislikes Antony; if then he records anything to his credit, it is probably true.

^{page 196 note 1} Plut. 63; Jos. c. Ap. ii, 59.

^{page 196 note 2} It cannot well be the deserter's narrative, for Dio has the same stories at Alexandria but does not make her a traitor at Actium and therefore did not use that narrative.

^{page 196 note 3} (1) Plut. 74; Dio li, 9, 6. (2) Plut. 76; Dio li, 10, 4. (3) Plut. 76; Dio li, 10, 5–6. (4) Dio li, 12; Florus ii, 21, 9.

^{page 196 note 4} Plut. 73; Dio li, 6, 6.

^{page 197 note 1} Odes I, 37, 1. 22, ‘nec muliebriter Expavit ensem’.

^{page 197 note 2} Klio xiv, 1915, p. 60.

^{page 197 note 3} Martial, xi, 20.

^{page 197 note 4} Her treachery at Alexandria has been examined by FrBlumenthal, . Wiener Studien xxxvi, 1915, pp. 92–7Google Scholar, on different lines from mine; he concludes that probably none of it is true. I may add that the first two stories presuppose that there was an ‘Alexandrian war’; it is certain that there was not, because Octavian was not hailed Imperator when he entered Alexandria.

^{page 198 note 1} His navy list, deduced from Callixenus and Appian: Tarn, Antigonos Gonatas, pp. 456–7. The 336 ships of Callixenus (Athen. 203 D) is 112 + twice that number, and is therefore not an exact figure; it undoubtedly means 5 squadrons of the line plus their light vessels.

^{page 198 note 2} Combining Polybius' statements in v, 62, 3; 68, 4; 69, 8.

^{page 199 note 1} See Bouché-Leclercq, , Hist. des Lagides ii, pp. 198, 203.Google Scholar