^{page 107 note 1} Essential bibliography includes: Niebuhr, B. G., Kleine Schriften, i. (1828), 297Google Scholar;Droysen, J. G., Gesch. d. Hellenismus, iii (1877), 406Google Scholar; De Sanctis, G., Klio, ix (1909), 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tarn, W. W., J.H.S. xxix (1909) 264Google Scholar; id. xxx (1910), 209; Ferguson, W. S., J.H.S. xxx (1910), 189Google Scholar; Tarn, , Antigonos Gonatas (1913), 461Google Scholar; Pozzi, E., ‘Le battaglie di Cos e di Andros’ Memorie Accad. Torino, S. ii, lxiii (1913), 319Google Scholar; Beloch, K. J.Griech. Gesch. iv. 2 (1927), 506Google Scholar; Tarn, , C.A.H. vii (1928), 862Google Scholar; Fellmann, W., Antigonos Gonatas, diss. Würzbuig, 1930, 66Google Scholar; Bikerman, E., Rev. Ét. Anc. xl (1938), 368Google Scholar. The most recent essay known to me is Peremans, W., (L'Antiquité Classique, viii (1939), 401)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who restates against Bikerman the views expressed in Rev. Beige de Philol. et d'Hist. xii (1933), 49.

^{page 107 note 2} Euseb. I. 239 Schöne=112 Karst. Notice that Άντ⋯γονος ⋯ γ⋯ρων in Plut. De fortuna Alex. I. 9, p. 330 E, is almost certainly Gonatas (Tarn, Antigonos 251)Google Scholar.

^{page 108 note 1} The reading Antigonum instead of Antigonus in old editions of Trogus is difinitely disproved by F. Ruehl, ap. Pozzi (quoted in n. I), p. 352, and is not even mentioned in O. Seel's edition (1935). Unfortunately, Ruehl's statement contains some confused notion about the cod. Ashburnhamensis, formerly Montepessulanus, which prevents us from seeing clearly how the reading Antigonum spread. The agreement between Plutarch and Trogus makesit certain that Antigonos carried the day at Andros. We do not know what, if anything, the letter of Aristeasmeant in 180: συν⋯τυχε γ⋯ρ καἰ κατ⋯ τ⋯νν⋯κην ⋯μῖν (Ptolemy II) προσπεπτωκ⋯ναι τ⋯ς πρ⋯ς Άντ⋯γονον νανμαχ⋯ας. This is admittedly an annoying piece of evidence, but if it is not a mistake, it must refer to a battle different from Andros. Beloch, iv. 2. 507 dismisses Aristeas with a contempt that betrays some uneasiness. For another interpretation, Otto, W., Phtiologus, lxxxvi (1931), 409Google Scholar.

^{page 108 note 2} F.H.G. iii. 710; cf. ibid. i. 339 (fr. 23) and F.Gr.H. 81 F 24.

^{page 108 note 3} Beloch, iv. 1. 678 n. 2.

^{page 108 note 4} De Sanctis, , Klio, ix. 1Google Scholar; Tarn, , J.H.S. xxix. 266–7Google Scholar.

^{page 109 note 1} Cf. especially Lambertz, M., Glotta, v (1914), 120–1Google Scholar, and Calderini, R., Aegyptus, xxi (1941), 246–7Google Scholar. Signorina Calderini gives nine instances out of 2,400 double names in Egypt. The following three instances seem to have passed un-noticed: Lysias, , C. Agor. (xiii), 19Google Scholar Θε⋯κριτον τ⋯ν το⋯ Έλαφοστ⋯κτου καλο⋯μενον (καλουμ⋯νου is modern conjecture); modern conjecture); Pap. Oxyrh. 2,222 Nεμεσα⋯ων Έπικλ⋯ν (read ⋯π⋯κλην) Πανετβ⋯ως, if Πανετβ⋯ως is a genitive; Pap. Oxyrh. 2,222 Άλεξ⋯νδρος Άλεξ⋯νδρον ν⋯⋯ς ⋯ ⋯πικληθεἰς κατ⋯ πατ⋯ρα.

^{page 110 note 1} Mr. C. H. Roberts, who checked the photographs of the papyrus with me, inclines to query the reading κε…λιον of 1. 7. κα⋯νον would make good sense, if possible. But see below Appendix.

^{page 110 note 2} Athen. xiii.593a Πτολεμαῖος τε ⋯ τ⋯ν ⋯ν Έφ⋯αῳ δι⋯πων φρουρ⋯ν, υ⋯⋯ς ⋯ν το⋯ Φιλαδ⋯λφουβασιλ⋯ως, Eἰρ⋯νην ɛἴχε τ⋯ν ⋯τα⋯ραν, ἤτιε ὑπ⋯ Θρακ⋯ν ⋯ν Έφ⋯σῳ ⋯πιβουλευομ⋯νουτο⋯ Πτολεμα⋯ου καἰ καταφυγ⋯ντος εἰς τ⋯ τ⋯ς Άρτ⋯μιδος ⋯ερ⋯ν συγκατ⋯φυγεν καἰ ⋯ποκτειν⋯ντων αὐτ⋯ν ⋯κε⋯νωνκτλ. Segre, in the article to be quoted later in the text, suggested the following supplements tolines 11–13 of the papyrus καταστασιαθεἰς ὐπ⋯τ⋯ν [Θρακ⋯ν μισθοφ⋯ρων] ⋯ν Έφ⋯σῳ κατεσφ⋯γη δα[μ⋯ζειν οὐ δυνηθε⋯ς τ⋯ν] ⋯πιβουλ⋯ν συστησαμ⋯νην.

^{page 110 note 3} Ditt. O.G.I.S. 222. Cf. Beloch, iv. 1. 593; iv². 2. 341. The date of Eumenes' war is certain: cf. Strabo, 13. 624.

^{page 110 note 4} Trog. Prol. 26 ‘Ut in Asia filius Ptolomaei regis socio Timarcho desciverit a patre’.

^{page 110 note 5} App. Syr. 65. Cf. Ditt. O.G.I.S. 226.

^{page 110 note 6} Ibid. 225 = Welles, C. B., Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period, 1934Google Scholar, no. 18. Cf. I.G. xi. 2. 114; 116 (for 255 as a year of peace).

⁷ For another suggestion, going back to Mahaffy, see especially Pridik, A., ‘Der Mitregent des Königs Ptolemaios II Philadelphos’ in Acta et Comment. Univ. Dorpatensis, v (1924), 32Google Scholar, restated in Klio, xxv (1932), 72Google Scholar. The identification of the co-regent Ptolemaios with Ptolemaios of Telmessos can now be con now be considered disproved. See Segre, M., Clara Rhodos, ix (1938), 188Google Scholar, which superseded his earlier statement in Atti IV Congresso Int. Papir. 1935 (Milan 1936), 359Google Scholar. Also the identification with the son of King Lysimachos seems now unlikely. But nothing turns on this point here. The question is clearly stated in Welles, C. B., Royal Correspondence, 75Google Scholar. Cf. Roos, A. G., Mnetnos., iv, 3 (1950), 63Google Scholar.

^{page 110 note 8} I am not utilizing the Miletos inscription published by Rehm, A., Milet, i. 3, n. 139Google Scholar= Welles, , Royal Correspondence, n. 14Google Scholar, because Rostagni, A., Poeti Alessandrini (1916), 374Google Scholar and Tarn, (J.H.S. xlvi (1926), 158Google Scholar; Hermes, lxv (1930), 446Google Scholar; J.H.S. liii (1933), 62 n. 1)Google Scholar have made a case for the date c. 276–275 against Rehm's date c. 262–261. They persuaded Beloch, iv. 2. 619 and were not entirely refuted by Otto, W., Philol. lxxxvi (1931), 400Google Scholar. Yet I must admit that the date c. 262, though not philologically demonstrable, seems to me more probable on general grounds. It would agree with Bikerman's date for the battle of Cos and with what I am here saying on Ptolemaios the son of Philadelphos.

^{page 111 note 1} Rev. Ét. Anc. xl. 383. I do not see why the Oprona who lost the battle of Andros ought to be the Sophron governor of Ephesos. But the governor was an enemy of Laodice—that is a supporter of Berenice (F.Jacoby, F.Gr.H. 81F 24). If he was the admiral who lost the battle of Andros, he might have passed to the service of Syria when Berenice married Antiochos Theos in 252.

^{page 112 note 1} Maas, mentions his suggestion in the survey on Greek literature, in The Year's Work in Classical Studies, 1939–1945, p. 2Google Scholar.

^{page 113 note 1} Ptolemy III honoured Chremonides' brother Glaucon alone in Olympia (Ditt. Syll. ³ 462). Teles, who must have written about 240 B.C., takes Chremonides and Glaucon as his contemporaries, but does not necessarily imply that they were both alive: ‘Ιππομ⋯δων Λακεδαιμ⋯νιος ⋯ ν⋯ν ⋯πἰ Θρᾁκης καθισ⋯μενος ὑπ⋯ Πτολεμα⋯ον, χρεμων⋯δης κα⋯ τλαὑκων ο⋯ Άθηναῖοι οὐ π⋯ρεδροι κα⋯ σὐμβουλοι; (π. φυγ⋯ς ed. Hense², p. 23). I do not utilize the mention of a war between Rhodes and Egypt in the Chronicle of Lindos xxxvii, because Ch. Blinkenberg in his latest edition (Lindos ii, Inscriptions, 1941, p. 179) insists on the point that the dedication of the Rhodians to Athena Lindia alone (without Zeus Polieus) dates the war before 273 B.C. I confess that I am not convinced, but nothing turns on it. On the Rhodian admiral at Ephesos, see Ditt. Syll. 455 and Lindos, ii, n. 88. The text of Polyaenus conveys to me, as it did to Beloch, iv. 1. 597, the impression that Ephesos had already been occupied by the Syrians when the battle happened. But others (De Sanctis, ap. Pozzi 347, n. 1; Tarn, , C.A.H. vii. 713)Google Scholar are of a different opinion. Here again, nothing turns on it. Finally, I confess that I cannot place Ampelius, Lib. Mem. 35. 4 ‘Ptolomaeus Soter qui ingenti classe Rhodios vicit’.

^{page 113 note 2} Athen. 5. 209 e. On the coins Gaebler, H., Die antiken Münzen von Makedonia und Paionia, ii (1935), 187Google Scholar.

^{page 113 note 3} Paus. 1. 1. 1. Cf. 1. 7. 3; 1. 35. 1; 3. 6. 5; Hegesandr. ap. Athen. 14. 621 a = F.H.G. iv. 416; Inscr. Cret. i. 22 (Olus) A, 35; Inscr. Cret. iii. 4 (Itanos), 2–3; I.G. xii. 5. 1061. Cf. also Ditt. O.G.I.S. 45=Schwyzer, 201; S.E.G. ii. 512. Pausanias calls Patroclos nauarchos. This is challenged by Launey, M., Rev. Ét. Anc. xlvii (1945), 33Google Scholar, who would call him strategos. The point is immaterial, as Patroclos commanded the fleet.

^{page 114 note 1} Athen. 8. 334 a = F.H.G. i, p. 334 (fr. 1) = F.Gr.H. 81 F 1. Cf. Tarn, , J.H.S. liii (1933), 68Google Scholar. Antigonos' words were: ἦ ϒàρ θαλαττοκρατεɩν ήμας ϕησɩ πατροκλος, ἦ τ⋯⋯ σύκων τρώϒεɩν.

^{page 114 note 2} This seems to be proved by the famous story about Arcesilaos ap. Diog. Laert. 4. 6. 39 μετατε τ⋯⋯ Ἀντɩϒόνου ναυμαχɩαν πολλ⋯⋯ προσɩόντων κα⋯ ⋯πɩοτόλɩα παρακλητɩκ⋯ γραφ⋯ντων αὐτ⋯ς ⋯σɩώπησεν. The allusion to Cos seems to be fairly evident. For the date of the occupation of Athens, Apollod. fr. 44 (Jacoby, F.Gr.H., n. 244): cf. Beloch, iv. 2. 508. If the story told by Plut. Quaest Conv. 676 D refers to the flagship of Cos, the battle may have happened during the Isthmian Games (Tarn, , C.A.H.. vii. 862Google Scholar compared with J.H.S xxx (1910), 218)Google Scholar, which would confirm the date 262 (Bikerman, , Rev. Ét. Anc. xl. 371)Google Scholar. But cf. Beloch, iv. 2. 506, n. 1. The ship mentioned Paus. 1. 29. 1 may well be identical with the flagship of Cos (Tarn, , J.H.S. xxx. 215)Google Scholar notwithstanding Bikerman's acute remark, p. 379. it cannot imply (as Tarn argued in 1910) Andros was earlier than Cos. The inscription of the original dedication (if Pausanias' text can give a clue to it) would have said that the ship had never been conquered (οὐδένα πω νɩκήσαντα), not that she had been victorious more than once.

^{page 115 note 1} Cf. Breccia, E., Il diritto dinastico nelle monarchie dei successori di Alessandro Magno (1903), 94Google Scholar; Bikerman, E., Les Institutions des Séleucides (1938), 236Google Scholar; Hug in art. ‘Spitznamen’, P.-W. iii A, 1821. To be compared also Judeich, W., ‘Politische Namengebung in Athen’ in Epitumbion H. Swoboda, 1927, 99Google Scholar.

^{page 115 note 2} Momigliano, , Riv. Fil. Class., N.S. xi (1933), 487 n. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 115 note 3} Paus. 1. 8. 6.

^{page 115 note 4} Luc. Zeuxis 11.

^{page 115 note 5} App. Syr. 65.

^{page 115 note 6} Ibid. 1.

^{page 115 note 7} Just. 27. 2. 8.

^{page 115 note 8} The practical necessity of distinguishing the Ptolemies by nicknames was obvious.

^{page 115 note 9} Inscr. de Délos, n. 298. On the Delian calendar cf. the literature quoted by Dinsmoor, W. B., The Archons of Athens in the Hell. Age (1931), 694Google Scholar. On the margin of error Tarn, , Antigonos Gonatas, 352Google Scholar, and Bikerman, , Rev. Ét. Anc. xl. 371Google Scholar n. 7. The Pan coins in Gaebler, , Münzen von Mdkedonia, ii. 186–7Google Scholar.

^{page 115 note 10} Plut. Arat. 17. For the uncertain chronology Tarn, , J.H.S. xxx. 223Google Scholar and Antigonos Gonatas, 374 (he prefers 247–246 B.C.) and Beloch, iv. 2. 522 (who defends 245 B.C.). Walbank, F. W., Aratos of Sicyon (1933), 178Google Scholar reinforces Beloch's thesis. Cf. also I.G. ii². 774 (S.E.G. iii. 98) with Meritt, Pritchett-, The Chronology of Hellenistic Athens (1940), 99Google Scholar; and the commentaries on Plutarch's, Aratus by Koster, A. J. (Leiden, 1937), p. lxiiiGoogle Scholar and by W. H. Porter (Cork, 1937), p. xliv.

^{page 115 note 11} Kolbe, W., G.G.A. (1916), 456 n. 2Google Scholar.

^{page 116 note 1} The literature is quoted by Rostovtzeff, , Social and Econ. History of the Hellenistic World (1941), 1348 n. 27Google Scholar(instead of Guggenmeier read Guggenmos).

^{page 116 note 2} Durrbach, F., Choix d'inscriptions de Délos, 39Google Scholar (I.G. xi. 4. 596).

^{page 116 note 3} Tarn, , Antigonos, 466Google Scholar; id. J.H.S. xliv (1924), 140; Pozzi (quoted n. 1), 369; but cf. Bikerman, 380.

^{page 116 note 4} C.A.H. vii. 840.