² B.C.H. 34 (1910), p. 363, No. 10, decree of Delos in honour ῾Ερμίαν Δ. . . . ου ῾Αλικαρνασσέα (circ. 260), who may perhaps be the nesiarch. His title nesiarch from Demares B. 1. 71 (Dittenb., Syll. ²588)Google Scholar.

³ Schulhof, E., B.C.H. 32 (1908), pp. 106Google Scholar, 114.

⁴ Hypsocles, , A. 1. 31 (B.C.H. 14 (1890), p. 389Google Scholar, seq., Michel 833): see Homolle, , Archives, p. 45Google Scholar.

⁵ Decree of Cyzicus, Michel, 534.

⁶ Rev. Phil. 20, p. 112.

⁷ Homolle, , B.C.H. 15 (1891), p. 120Google Scholar, Archives, p. 45, No. 1; see Roussel, P., B.C.H. 33 (1909), p. 480Google Scholar.

⁸ Hypsocles B. 1, 12, a vase: mentioned again in Acridion (240), 1. 33; see Homolle, , Archives, p. 45Google Scholar.

⁹ Dittenb., Syll. ²202Google Scholar=I.G. xii. 7, 506 (where there are references to its literature).

¹⁰ I.G. xii. 5 (ii), 1065.

¹¹ B.C.H. 1894, p. 400, with Holleaux' commentary.

¹² I.G. xii. 5 (ii), 1004=Dittenb. O.G.I. 773.

¹³ von Prott, H., Rhein. Mus. 53 (1898), p. 460Google Scholar; see Bouché-Leclercq, , Hist. des Lagides, vol. iv., add. to vol. i. 155Google Scholar. See further as to date, Werner König, l.c. 20: and it may be noted that offerings both of Philocles and Bacchon at Delos appear in the inventory of Hypsocles, 279.

¹⁴ See Graindor's, commentary, B.C.H. 30 (1906), p. 92Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Werner König, l.c. p. 70, See also Ferguson, W. S., Klio, 5, p. 178Google Scholar, n. 1.

¹⁶ Καταλειφθεὶς ὑπὸ Βάκχωνος means just ‘left,’ and not ‘the delegate of’; see Dittenberger, ad loc. Unnecessary difficulty has been caused by the introduction of the idea of delegation.

¹⁷ Known from a decree of Thera, , I.G. xii. 3, 1291Google Scholar. The name is not certain.

¹⁸ Heerwesen, p. 20.—Philotheros, is I.G. xii. 5 (ii), 1066Google Scholar; Dikaios, , C.I.G. 2267Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Dittenb., O.G.I. 26, 27Google Scholar.

²⁰ Discovered at Maamourah by Prince Omar Pacha Toussom, and published by Breccia, E., Bull. de la Soc. archéologique d'Alexandrie, 1905, p. 107Google Scholar: ὑπὲρ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου καὶ βασιλίσσης ᾿Αρσινόης τὸ ίερὸν ᾿´Ισει ᾿Ανούβει Καλλικράτης Βοϊσκου Σἀμιος ναυαρχῶν ἔδωκεν Πασιτῆ(ι) ίερεῖ I can see no distinction between ναυαρχῶν and ναύαρχος and Breccia admits that his attempt to distinguish them is over-subtle.

²¹ Dittenb., O.G.I. 29Google Scholar.

²² Ib. Add. et Corr. ii. p. 539.

²³ Paus. i, 1, 1.

²⁴ Hibeh Pap. 1 (1906), No. 99: B.C. 270 (269). That the Patroclus son of Patron, here mentioned is the future nauarch seems certain. Patroclus is not a common name at this time; and though there are several other instances of Patron, the conjunction of the two is most unlikely to be a coincidence. This priesthood was held by persons of importance, even by members of the royal house; Menelaos, son of Lagos, brother of Ptolemy I and his general in Cyprus in 306, held it for 5 years; Hibeh Pap. 84 a, Elephantine Papyri (1907) No. 2 (p. 24), with O. Rubensohn's commentary.

²⁵ The first, given Ath 7, 318 b, is well known. The other, from a papyrus, is not so often quoted; I therefore give the material lines. (Published by Weil, H. in Monuments Grecs for 1879, p. 31)Google Scholar. The temple speaks:—

1. 4. Ενθα με Καλλικράτης ίδρύσατο καὶ βασιλίσσης

ίερὸν ᾿Αρσινόης Κύπριδος ὠνόμασεν.

᾿Αλλ᾿ ἐπὶ τὴν Ζεφυρῖτιν ἀκουσομένην ᾿Αφροδίτην

῾Ελλήνων ἁγναὶ βαίνετε θυγατέρες,

οἴ θ᾿ ἁλὸς ἐργάται ἄνδρες ὁ γὰρ ναύαρχος ἔθηκεν

τοῦθ᾿ ἱερὸν παντὸς κύματος εὐλίμενον.

Poseidippos was a contemporary of Zeno and Cleanthes, living at Alexandria. What πρῶτος ὁ ναύαρχος θήκατο Καλλικράτης (in No. 1) means is obscure. It cannot mean that Calicrates only began the temple, seeing, that he named it (No. 2, 1. 5). Perhaps it means, that it was the first temple erected to the worship of Arsinoe.

²⁶ Cited by Homolle, , Archives, p. 38Google Scholar, n. 5.— Hypsocles (279), Michel, 833 = B.C.H. 1890, p. 389Google Scholar. Sosisthenes (250), B.C.H. 1903, p. 62. Charilas (269), unpublished; will be I.G. xi. 203, as Professor P. Dürrbach kindly informs me.

²⁷ Diod. xx. 21, 1.

²⁸ Dittenb., O.G.I. 20Google Scholar. This inscription cannot fall before 306, as Ptolemy is βασιλεύς From 306 to 295 Cyprus belonged to Demetrius; it is therefore later than 295. At the same time Berenice is not yet βασίλισσα as she must have got the title when her son was recognised as heir, it cannot be very long after 295.

²⁹ Roussel, P. and Hatzfeld, J., B.C.H. 1909, p. 480Google Scholar.

³⁰ Notes to Syll. ² 223 and O.G.I. 26–27.

³¹ Plin., N.H. 34, 138Google Scholar; 36, 68; 37, 108. See Beloch, , Griech. Gesch. iii. 1, 374Google Scholar, n. 1.

³² Wilamowitz defended it; Antigonos von Karystos, 87, n. 3. Schwartz, E. (Hermes, 35, pp. 106, 128Google Scholar) cannot believe it, and would read πρώτου for τρίτου with Mallet, (Hist. de l'école de Mégare, 1845, 96Google Scholar). Natorp, (Euphantos in Pauly-Wissowa, , vi. (i), 1907)Google Scholar inclines to follow Schwartz and Mallet, saying that it is hardly possible, as a matter of chronology, that Euphantos could mention anyone at the court of Ptolemy III. With this last I agree; but I note that Schwartz' argument, that Euphantos ought to have been born before 348, being called an Olynthian, will hardly do; Olynthus was in existence again by 300, see Perdrizet, P. in B.C.H. 1897, p. 118Google Scholar (=S.G.D. I. 2768), citing I.G. ii. 611 (300/299 B.C.). References to Olynthians become common in the 3rd century. See, too, I.G. ii. 963, a list of mercenaries which includes ᾿Ολύνθιοι somewhere about 300. The real point seems to be, that Euphantos was Eubulides' pupil.

³³ B.C.H. 24 (1900), p. 225, No. 5, 1.

³⁴ Meyer, P. M., Heerwesen, p. 17Google Scholar; Bouché-Leclercq, , Hist. des Lagides, iv. pp. 11Google Scholarseq.

³⁵ B.C.H. 15, 136; Diod. 19, 79; (under Ptolemy I.). Dittenb., O.G.I. 84Google Scholar, under Ptolemy IV. Often later.

³⁶ The ‘amicus Antiochus’ of Jerome on Dan. xi. 8.

³⁷ Refs. in Meyer, l.c.

³⁸ Dittenb., Syll. ²221Google Scholar.

³⁹ Elephant-transports, ἐλεφαντηγοί Petr. Pap. ii. n. 40 (a). Grenfell, Pap. i. n. 9 (239/8) μισθοφόροις πληρώμα[τος ἐπ᾿ ῾Ερ]υθρᾶι θαλάσσηι Bouché-Leclercq, l.c. iv. p. 63, n. 1, has some doubt if these really belonged to the navy; but if they were a gang of ‘galériens’ working on land, why the phrase ‘on the Red Sea’?

⁴⁰ Dittenb., Syll. ²221Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Paus. i, 1, 1.

⁴² Dittenb., O.G.I. 45Google Scholar.

⁴³ Cf. the proxenia conferred on him by Oloos, , B.C.H. 24 (1900), p. 225Google Scholar, No. 5, 1.

⁴⁴ Decree of Carthaea for Hieron son of Timokrates of Syracuse, , I.G. XII. 5Google Scholar, ii. 1061.

⁴⁵ Phylarchos, ap. Ath. 8, 334Google Scholar a; Hegesander, , ap. Ath. 14, 621Google Scholar a.

⁴⁶ Dittenb., O.G.I. 44Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Though we are not actually told that Patroclus commanded any land forces, this must follow from his being strategos of Thera: for the later nauarch Hermaphilos, as strategos of Thera, disposed of the troops in that island, I.G. XII. 3, 1291.

⁴⁸ Decree of Carthaea, , I.G. XII. 5Google Scholar, ii. 1065.

⁴⁹ Nikouria decree.

⁵⁰ Dittenb., Syll. ²209Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Polyaen. III. 16.

⁵² In Arsinoe, ; I.G. XII. 5Google Scholar, 2, 1061. In Thera; Dittenb., O.G. I. 44Google Scholar. Arsinoe must be in Ceos; Graindor thought Koresia, (B.C.H. 30, 1906, pp. 95Google Scholarseq.), Wilamowitz Poiessa (note in I. G. ad loc.); anyhow it was in the League. Mentioned again, Dittenb., Syll. ²261Google Scholar. It has nothing to do with Arsinoe-Methana.—Hieron, the epistates of Arsinoe, came to Ceos with Patroclus, having been τεταγμένος ὑπὸ τὸμ βασι[λέα] Πτολεμαῖον i.e. he was a ‘royal official,’ generally speaking (Graindor, ad loc.), but with his sphere not marked out; thereupon Patroclus appoints him epistates. Apollodotos the epistates of Thera (Dittenb., O.G.I. 44Google Scholar) seems to have been chosen entirely by Patroclus; he may, like the arbitrators, have been from Iulis in Ceos; the text leaves it uncertain.—On the office of epistates in the Macedonian kingdoms, see Holleaux, in B.C.H. 1893, p. 52Google Scholar: the appointment of these magistrates or governors by the king, to represent him, was the regular method in the Macedonian monarchies of administering newly acquired territory, autonomous or otherwise.

⁵³ Dittenb., O.G.I. 44Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ It is a question whether the words τῶι ναυάρχωι in the broken part of the decree of Delos for Philocles, Dittenb., Syll. ²209Google Scholar, refer to Philocles or not; that is, whether he was in actual command of the fleet, as was Patroclus, or not. His headquarters at Samos, and the fact that he seems to have power to enforce his awards (the Carthaea decree), incline one to take the common view that he was himself the nauarch; but the evidence would be consistent with the name not yet being attached to Philocles' new office, and with Philocles (not a young man) having under him an actual fleetleader or praetectus classis. It is a matter of names rather than of things.

⁵⁵ Dittenb., O.G.I. 29Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ von Gaertringen, Hiller, Thera, 1, 169Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Dittenb., O.G.I. 140Google Scholar, 143, 145, 151, 152, 153, 155 to 162.

⁵⁸ Dittenb., O.G.I. 102Google Scholar. (The Aristippos here mentioned as ὁ τεταγμένος ἐπὶ Θήρας is not necessarily the strategos of this strategia.)

⁵⁹ Meyer, P. M., Heerwesen, 65Google Scholar; Dittenberger ad loc.