¹ For this identification of Anth. Pal. 6.171 see Benndorf, O., ‘Bemerkungen zur griechischen Kunstgeschichte’, Mittheilungen des deutschen archaeologischen Institutes in Athen 1 (1876), 45–66Google Scholar, at 45–8. It has been accepted by most scholars, with only two exceptions known to me: Accame, S., ‘Alceo di Messene, Filippo V e Roma’, RFIC ns 25 (1947), 94–105Google Scholar, and the present study. F. Frhr. Hiller v. Gaertringen, Historische griechische Epigramme (Bonn, 1926)Google Scholar, 36, in his apparatus suggests that Wilamowitz also doubted whether the inscription was authentic, though he does not cite the location of the objection. The statue's completion date and the dedication's composition date are commonly assigned to the 280s based on Pliny's statement (HN 34.41; cf. Polyb. 5.88.1) that the Colossus stood for either 56 or 66 years before being destroyed by an earthquake in the 220s b.c.

² ‘To thy very self, O Sun, did the people of Dorian Rhodes raise high to heaven this colossus, then, when having laid to rest the brazen wave of war, they crowned their country with the spoils of their foes. Not only over the sea, but on the land, too, did they establish the lovely light of unfettered freedom. For to those who spring from the race of Heracles dominion is a heritage both on land and sea’ (tr. W.R. Paton, Loeb, vol. 1).

³ ‘Heighten thy walls, Olympian Zeus; all is accessible to Philip: shut the brazen gates of the gods. Earth and sea lie vanquished under Philip's sceptre: there remains the road to Olympus’ (tr. Paton, Loeb, vol. 3).

⁴ For the text of Philo of Byzantium see Brodersen, K., Reiseführer zu den Sieben Weltwundern: Philo von Byzanz und andere antike Texte (Frankfurt am Main, 1992)Google Scholar.

⁵ Gow, A.S.F. and Page, D.L., The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1965), 2.588Google Scholar.

⁶ Anth. Plan. 82 (Gow and Page: Anon. LVIIIB):

‘Laches of Lindus made the Colossus of Rhodes, eighty cubits high’ (tr. W.R. Paton, Loeb, vol. 1 — adapted by present author). The Planudean version, like that preserved by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, but unlike the version in Strabo, incorrectly records the height of the Colossus as eighty (ὀκτάκις) rather than seventy cubits. It also erroneously attributes the Colossus to Laches rather than Chares.

⁷ Strabo 14.2.5: ἄριστα δὲ ὅ τε τοῦ Ἡλίου κολοσσός, ὅν φησιν ὁ ποιήσας τὸ ἰαμβεῖον, ὅτι ‘ἑπτάκις δέκα Χάρης ἐποίει πηχέων ὁ Λίνδιος’ (‘The best of these are, first, the Colossus of Helius, of which the author of the iambic verse says, “seven times ten cubits in height, the work of Chares the Lindian”’, tr. H.L. Jones, Loeb, vol. 6).

⁸ Const. Porph. De admin. imp. 21.57: καθὼς μαρτυρεῖ τὸ ἐπίγραμμα τὸ πρὸς τὴν βάσιν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ γεγραμμένον, ἔχον οὕτως· τὸν ἐν Ῥόδῳ κολοσσὸν ὀκτάκις δέκα Λάχης ἐποίει πηχέων ὁ Λίνδιος (‘As witness the inscription written on the base of its feet, running like this: “The Rhodian colossus, eight times ten cubits in height, Laches of Lindos made”’, tr. Jenkins, R.J.H., Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperio, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 1 [Washington, DC, 1967], 89Google Scholar).

⁹ For discussion and bibliography see Cameron, A., The Greek Anthology from Meleager to Planudes (Oxford, 1993), 294–5Google Scholar. The three items are the two errors mentioned in n. 6 above and the opening words of the first line (τὸν ἐν Ῥόδῳ) which would be unnecessary on a statue base in Rhodes. The fact that Strabo omits these words raises the possibility that Cephalas or his source derived the epigram from the geographer. If this is true, then Constantine's testimony that the epigram was inscribed on the statue's base might have no independent value. On these items see also Gow and Page (n. 5), 2.589–90.

¹⁰ Gow and Page (n. 5), 2.588–9 accept the epigram as the authentic dedicatory inscription based on its appearance in Strabo, whose citation of the lines suggests, in their opinion, that he had seen the inscription at Rhodes.

¹¹ Accame (n. 1); Edson, C.F., ‘The Antigonids, Heracles, and Beroea’, HSPh 45 (1934), 213–46Google Scholar; id., ‘Philip V and Alcaeus of Messene’, CPh 43 (1948), 116–21Google Scholar; Momigliano, A., ‘Terra marique’, JRS 32 (1942), 53–64Google Scholar; Walbank, F.W., ‘Alcaeus of Messene, Philip V, and Rome’, CQ 36 (1942), 134–45Google Scholar; cf. id., Philip V of Macedon (Cambridge, 1940)Google Scholar and ‘Alcaeus of Messene, Philip V, and Rome’, CQ 37 (1943), 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar. As I shall refer to these works repeatedly in the text and notes that follow, I shall cite them by author's name and publication date.

¹² Edson's (1934), 221, conclusion is worth repeating: ‘But if this final distich is taken as a taunt aimed at Demetrius, the point becomes clear. “You, Demetrius, pretend to be a Heraclid (as an Argead), but we Dorian Rhodians are the true Heraclids, as we have decisively shown by defeating you in battle; for only to those who are truly descended from Heracles does lordship on land and sea belong.”’

¹³ The bulk of the evidence for a connection between the Antigonids and Heracles comes from the reigns of Philip V and his son, as we shall see.

¹⁴ There are three parallels, two verbal and one thematic, that place a connection between the poems beyond doubt. The common theme binding the two poems is the claim to rule over land and sea (Anth. Pal. 6.171.5, 8; 9.518.3–4). The most striking verbal parallel is the appearance of some form of the verb μακυνᾶσθαι in the first line of both poems. A rare word to begin with, it is found in the middle voice only in these two texts; indeed LSJ s.v. μηκύνω cites Anth. Pal. 6.171 as the sole example of the middle. The final parallel is the appearance of the phrase πρὸς Ὄλυμπον in the first line of the Rhodian epigram and the last line of Alcaeus' poem.

¹⁵ For bibliography of the debate over Alcaeus' intentions see Momigliano (1942), 53 n. 2, 54 n. 4; Walbank (1942), 134 nn. 3–4; more recently, Mauro, F., ‘Alceo di Messene e la lirica arcaica’, Acme 61 (2008), 243–59Google Scholar, at 245 n. 20, notes – but opts not to take sides in – the debate. Edson's (1948) case for Alcaeus' sarcasm rests principally on his observation that the threat of Philip's assault on heaven is not an appropriate aspiration for a mortal and hence the poem cannot be sincerely laudatory. He bolsters his argument with an appeal to Alcaeus' use of the rare adjective ἀμβατά featured prominently in the second line of the epigram. The adjective shows up only twice in Homer. In the Iliad (6.433–4), Andromache beseeches Hector not to return to battle, instead recommending that he station his men at that part of the city's wall most open to assault (ἔνθα μάλιστα | ἀμβατός ἐστι πόλις καὶ ἐπίδρομον ἔπλετο τεῖχος). Pindar (Ol. 8.30–48) tells the story of Aeacus' participation with Apollo and Poseidon in the building of Ilium's walls. Apollo prophesied that the section entrusted to Aeacus would be the key to the capture of the city. The word also shows up in the Odyssey during Odysseus' narrative of his time in Hades, where among other personages he saw the mother of Otus and Ephialtes. Odysseus (Hom. Od. 11.315–16) recalls how the two had once piled up Ossa, Olympus and Pelion in their attempt to make heaven scalable (ἵν᾿ οὐρανὸς ἀμβατός εἴη). This connection between ἀμβατός and οὐρανός shows up also in Pind. Pyth. 10.27 and again in Lucian, Charon 4, the latter of which is a direct reference to the passage from the Odyssey. Edson judged Pindar's joining of ἀμβατός and οὐρανός to be decisive in his interpretation of the epigram on Philip, namely that Alcaeus used the word ἀμβατά to construct a parallel between the Aloadae and the Macedonian king. Edson's point is overstated. Leaving aside the passage from Lucian which was composed long after the Rhodian epigram, Pindar's description of οὐρανὸς ἀμβατός on its own need not require that the adjective was forever automatically associated with heaven. It is worth noting that Alcaeus does not describe heaven as ἀμβατός. Alcaeus may just as easily have had the passage from the Iliad in mind. The point of his warning to Zeus is that the fortifications of Olympus are insufficient to ward off Philip. Zeus is advised to build them up to make them an adequate defence. Andromache's point is much the same: Ilium's wall is deficient at one point and Hector must take special precautions to defend it. It is quite possible, of course, that Alcaeus had both passages in mind. As to Edson's general point that heavenly aspirations are taboo for mortals, another poem comes into play, namely Alpheius of Mytilene's epigram (Anth. Pal. 9.526) on Rome's greatness. The latter epigram is obviously dependent on Alcaeus' Philip epigram. There is, however, no doubt about the sincerity of Alpheius' praise, though it contains the notion that heaven is the only thing left for Rome to conquer. Alpheius clearly took Alcaeus' epigram as a serious expression of praise for Philip and reapplied the imagery to his own epigram celebrating Roman power. Momigliano (1942), 53–4, appealed to Alpheius in support of his reading of Alcaeus' sincerity. Walbank (1942), 135, also accepted this argument though he cautioned that Alpheius, writing at a remove of some centuries, might have missed Alcaeus' irony. Edson (1948), 116–17, goes a bit too far when he cites Walbank's admonition as justification for completely dismissing the testimony of Alpheius. One point is missed by all three scholars. Whether Alpheius correctly interpreted Alcaeus or not, he obviously did not think that such imagery was incompatible with poetic flattery of his subject. The notion that such imagery would be in bad taste, a notion which lies at the heart of Edson's interpretation of Alcaeus, is undermined by Alpheius', and presumably Rome's, comfort with the idea. Ultimately, the question is not of enormous importance for the interpretation of Anth. Pal. 6.171 being argued in the present study. If Alcaeus meant the flattery of Philip to be taken seriously then the Rhodian epigram exposes it for its underlying hubris. If Alcaeus was being sarcastic, either the author of the Rhodian dedication missed the point or wrote his own epigram to further underline the hubris detected by the Messenian in Philip's character by recasting the most striking expressions of the Macedonian's pride as an advertisement of Rhodian piety to Helios.

¹⁶ Gow and Page (n. 5), 2.9.

¹⁷ Given its root, it would seem more natural to understand the word μακυνᾶσθαι to have a meaning of lengthening. To do so would strengthen the poem's connection with Andromache's words to Hector regarding Ilium's walls.

¹⁸ One need look no further than the sixth book of the Palatine Anthology, which also contains the Rhodian epigram, to find many examples: 6.50: ἱδρύσαντο (the dedication for an altar celebrating the victory at Plataea attributed to Simonides); 53: ἀνέθηκεν (for a temple to Zephyr attributed to Bacchylides); 138: ἱδρύσατο (for a gravestone attributed to Anacreon); 143: καθέσσατο (for a statue of Hermes also attributed to Anacreon); 144: ἀνέθηκας (for another statue of Hermes attributed to Anacreon); 145: ἱδρύσατο (for altars dedicated by Sophocles and again attributed to Anacreon); 197: ἀνέθηκα (for Pausanias' dedication of a tripod at Delphi attributed to Simonides); 343: ἔθεσαν (for statues on the Acropolis set up after wars with Boeotia and Chalcis; cf. Hdt. 5.77).

¹⁹ We might expand this line of the argument even more by comparing the intentions of the two poets. Alcaeus' warning to Zeus and his implied threat of Philip's invasion of Olympus border on the hubristic. This is not to say that Alcaeus cannot have intended the flattery to be serious, though this must ultimately remain an open question. The Rhodian poet has taken these two statements and has redirected the potential hubris into an expression of piety. Whereas Alcaeus' Zeus was raising his walls to prepare for an onslaught against Olympus, the Rhodians were raising a statue toward Olympus (i.e. heaven) in honour of Helios. The same can be said of Philip's boastful claim to dominion over land and sea in Alcaeus' epigram. Whereas the Macedonian king had subjected land and sea to his sceptre, the Rhodian claim to rule is that of the liberator. This line of argument turns, of course, on the question of Alcaeus' intentions for his praise of Philip. Even if Alcaeus were being sarcastic, it does not preclude a Rhodian poet from turning Alcaeus' hubristic statements on Philip's behalf into an expression of pious devotion to Helios to bring further odium on to the Macedonian king.

²⁰ For a critique of Momigliano's central thesis, especially in its application to the dating of the Alexandra, see K.R. Jones, ‘Lycophron's Alexandra, the Romans, and Antiochus III’ (forthcoming).

²¹ Melinno's poem can be found also in Lloyd-Jones, H. and Parsons, P. (edd.), Supplementum Hellenisticum, Texte und Kommentare 11 (Berlin, 1983), 268–9 (no. 541)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²² Theoc. Id. 17.86–90 lists the lands and peoples claimed by Ptolemy outside Egypt: Syria, Phoenicia, Libya, Arabs, Ethiopians, Lycia, Pamphylia, Caria, Cilicia and the Cyclades.

²³ For Philip's Aegean expedition, see Walbank, F.W., ‘Sea-power and the Antigonids’, in Adams, W.L. and Borza, E.N. (edd.), Philip II, Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Heritage (Washington, DC, 1982), 213–36, at 228–33Google Scholar.

²⁴ Lade and Miletus: Polyb. 16.15.1–8; cf. 16.10.1, 14.5; raid on Pergamum: Polyb. 16.1.1–9; App. Mac. 4; Diod. Sic. 28.5; raid on Rhodian territory: Polyb. 16.11.1–12.1; 18.2.3, 8.9, 44.4; App. Mac. 4; Livy 33.18.1, 18.19–20; 34.32.5. Polyb. 16.2–9 declares Chios as a loss for the Macedonians, though Philip claimed it as a victory; Polybius' account here may be influenced by Rhodian sources.

²⁵ Momigliano (1942), 54–5, argues against the necessity of dating Alcaeus' epigram to the context of his Aegean campaign, but only on the grounds that the land and sea formula need not have any correspondence with reality – a rather circular argument. Walbank (1942), 136–7, maintains the more common dating, appealing in part to two inscriptions (IG xi.4.1100 = Syll.³ 573; IG xi.4.1101) celebrating Philip's dedication to Delian Apollo of spoils taken during engagements on land and sea. Alcaeus' choice of the land and sea theme may have been suggested by Philip's own presentation of the war.

²⁶ Gow and Page (n. 5), 2.589.

²⁷ ‘The bull that bellowed erst on the heights of Orbelus, the brute that laid Macedonia waste, Philip, the wielder of the thunderbolt, the destroyer of the Dardanians, hath slain, piercing its forehead with his hunting-spear; and to thee, Heracles, he hath dedicated with its strong hide these horns, the defence of its monstrous head. From thy race he sprung, and it well becomes him to emulate his ancestor's prowess in slaying cattle’ (tr. Paton, Loeb, vol. 1). There is some dispute over the authorship of Anth. Pal. 6.115. It and the preceding and following epigrams (6.114 and 116) all treat the same theme, namely the dedication to Heracles of the horns and skin of a bull killed by Philip. For a detailed discussion see Gow and Page (n. 5), 71–2. The manuscripts attribute 114 to Simias, a chronological impossibility. The Palatine Anthology attributes 116 to Samius, while the Planudean assigns it to Simias. All manuscripts assign 115 to Antipater of Sidon. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Hellenistische Dichtung in der Zeit des Kallimachos, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1924), 1.112Google Scholar, suggested that all three be assigned to Samius on the basis of their shared theme. Argentieri, L., Gli epigrammi degli Antipatri, Le rane Studi 35 (Bari, 2003), 214Google Scholar, seems to accept Wilamowitz's arguments and places 115 in the category of epigrams attributed to Antipater about which there is some doubt. Edson (1934), 214, also followed Wilamowitz. Gow and Page (n. 5), 71–2, champion the manuscript attribution of 115 to Antipater while assigning 114 and 116 to Samius, on the grounds that, although all three poems deal with the same matter, 115 does not otherwise resemble the other two. White, H., ‘Ten epigrams by Antipater of Sidon’, in ead., New Essays in Hellenistic Poetry, London Studies in Classical Philology 13 (Amsterdam, 1985), 53–86, at 55–9Google Scholar, accepts Antipater's authorship and does not refer to the debate in her discussion. I have adopted the position of Gow and Page, though the true authorship of the epigram is not important to the arguments of the present study.

²⁸ According to Plut. Aem. 19, Perseus also drew attention to his connection with Heracles through his sacrifice to the hero at Pydna.

²⁹ The monument's inscription reads: [Βασιλεὺς Ἀντίγονο]ς βασιλέως Δημητρίου Μα[κεδὼν | ἑ]αυτοῦ προγόνους Ἀπόλλωνι; Durrbach, F., Choix d'inscriptions de Délos avec traduction et commentaire, 1.1–2 (Paris, 1921–3), no. 36Google Scholar. For a description of the monument see Courby, F., Délos 5. Le portique d'Antigone ou du nord-est (Paris, 1912), 74–83Google Scholar, who gives the number of statues as fifteen, though he entertains a conjecture that there were originally twenty-one; see also Bruneau, P., Recherches sur les cultes de Délos (Paris, 1970), 552–3Google Scholar, who gives a number of at least nineteen; and Hammond, N.G.L. and Walbank, F.W., A History of Macedonia. Volume III 336–167 B.C. (Oxford, 1988), 292, who report at least ten statuesGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ I am indebted to the comments of this journal's anonymous reader for directing my attention to the following evidence.

³¹ It should be noted that Satyrus implicitly rejects the rumours of Ptolemy Soter's descent from Philip II. In Satyrus' treatment, which probably reflects the official court version of the dynastic genealogy, Ptolemy Soter's mother Arsinoe is a Heraclid in her own right. This led Dittenburger, OGIS 54 (p. 84 n. 5) to reject Pausanias' testimony on this point as it conflicted with the evidence of Satyrus and partially with the Adulis inscription (see below).

³² SEG 38 (1988)Google Scholar, 1476.40–2, cf. 47–9, 75–6, 109–10. For the text, translation and discussion see Bousquet, J., ‘La stèle des Kyténiens au Létôon de Xanthos’, REG 101 (1988), 12–53, esp. 39–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the historical context of the embassy see Walbank, F.W., ‘Antigonus Doson's attack on Cytinium (REG 101 (1988), 12–53)’, ZPE 76 (1989), 184–92Google Scholar. The inscription was originally described and partially transcribed in J. and Robert, L., Fouilles d'Amyzon en Carie, Tome 1: exploration, histoire, monnaies et inscriptions (Paris, 1983), 162–3 n. 31Google Scholar.

³³ Fraser, P.M., Ptolemaic Alexandria, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1972), 1.201–8Google Scholar.

³⁴ For discussion of the speech and an English translation see Downey, G., ‘Libanius' oration in praise of Antioch (Oration XI)’, PAPhS 103 (1959), 652–86Google Scholar.

³⁵ Lib. Or. 11.57 also explains the presence of the Argives and Cretans among the founding settlers of Antioch. For discussion of Antioch's legendary Greek roots see Downey, G., A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest (Princeton, 1961), 50–1Google Scholar.

³⁶ Diod. Sic. 20.53.2; Plut. Dem. 17.5; App. Syr. 54; Just. Epit. 15.2.10. For discussion see Gruen, E.S., ‘The coronation of the Diadochoi’, in Eadie, J.W. and Ober, J. (edd.), The Craft of the Ancient Historian: Essays in Honor of C. G. Starr (Lanham, MD, 1985), 253–71Google Scholar, esp. 256–7; Billows, R.A., Antigonus the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1990), 155–60Google Scholar.

³⁷ The conclusion of Gruen (n. 36), 256, bears repeating: ‘Novelty rather than tradition stands out here. Antigonus made no appeal to the past, relied on no fixed conventions, called upon no predecessors to legitimize his ascendancy. Only his own accomplishments counted. In particular, the most recent accomplishment. The victory at Salamis broke the stalemate and shot Antigonus to a position of clear superiority … Modern assumptions to the contrary, Antigonus did not project himself as heir to Alexander the Great or continuator of the Argead dynasty. This monarchy would take on a new character: a “personal” or “charismatic” monarchy, as it is often called.’

³⁸ See Berthold, R.M., Rhodes in the Hellenistic Age (Ithaca, NY, 1984), 102–46Google Scholar, for analysis of Rhodes' place in the politics of the eastern Mediterranean during the first decade of the second century.

³⁹ Livy 31.15.8; cf. Polyb. 16.26.10; Berthold (n. 38), 129 and 135.

⁴⁰ Berthold (n. 38), 142 provides discussion of and sources for the extent of the league's membership.

⁴¹ Polyb. 18.2.3; Livy 32.33.6; Berthold (n. 38), 134.

⁴² Livy 33.18; Berthold (n. 38), 138–9. Only the city of Stratonicea eluded recovery by the Rhodians, who had to wait a few years for help from Antiochus III, as we shall see below.

⁴³ Polyb. 18.2.3–4; Livy 32.33.6–7; cf. App. Mac. 8.1; Berthold (n. 38), 134 and 137–8.

⁴⁴ Polyb. 18.44.1–7 records the details of the senatus consultum which included the guarantee of freedom and autonomy for Asia and Europe, the surrender of cities in Greece held by a Macedonian garrison and the liberation of the cities of Euromus, Pedasa, Bargylia, Iasus, Abydus, Thasos, Myrina and Perinthus.

⁴⁵ Polyb. 18.1.14; cf. 16.34.3; Livy 32.33.4. Ultimately these Ptolemaic possessions came under Rhodian influence, as we shall see below.

⁴⁶ Livy 33.20.1–10; Berthold (n. 38), 141.

⁴⁷ Polyb. 30.31.6; cf. App. Mith. 4.23; Berthold (n. 38), 141.

⁴⁸ Livy 33.18.22; Berthold (n. 38), 84.

⁴⁹ Polyb. 18.52; Berthold (n. 38), 148.

⁵⁰ Berthold (n. 38), 144–5 summarizes Rhodes' position vis-à-vis Antiochus well: ‘As leverage against Antiochus, Rhodes had its navy and its friendship with Rome, which was already in 196 challenging some of the king's conquests. That Antiochus was wary of Rhodes and cognizant of the benefits of its friendship is amply demonstrated by his calm reaction to the Chelidoniae injunction and his subsequent honoring and advancement of Rhodes’ interests in Caria … Antiochus' demonstration of Seleucid goodwill, such as the referral of the Lampsacus-Smyrna case to Rhodian arbitration, also benefited Rhodes by strengthening its position with regard to the Romans, who in their fear of a war with the Syrians were surely loath to lose the Rhodian fleet to him.'

⁵¹ The summary of Berthold (n. 38), 142 is worth quoting: ‘Rhodes emerged from the Second Macedonian War a stronger and more influential power than it had been at the outset. Territorially, it had not only recovered the Peraea but also incorporated into the state the island of Nisyrus and brought a number of Ptolemaic possessions under its control, forestalling their seizure by Antiochus. More important, the Cyclades, which had hitherto informally recognized Rhodes’ leadership, were now officially organized under Rhodian suzerainty in the form of the resurrected Nesiotic League.' On Nisyrus see IG xii.3.91 = Syll.³ 673.

⁵² Polyb. 21.24.7–8, 45.8; Livy 37.55.5, 56.5–6; 38.39.13; App. Syr. 44; Diod. Sic. 29.11; Eutr. 4.4; cf. App. Mith. 62; Berthold (n. 38), 163–5.

⁵³ The line of argument adopted here was first proposed and elaborated by D.V. Sippel, ‘Rhodes and the Nesiotic League’, (PhD Diss., University of Cincinnati, 1966), 105–19; id., ‘The purpose of the Rhodian Alexander-type tetradrachms’, AncW 12 (1985), 61–8Google Scholar. See also Kleiner, F.S., ‘The Alexander tetradrachms of Pergamum and Rhodes’, ANS MusNotes 17 (1971), 95–125Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ The coins are nos. 1154–67 in Müller, L., Numismatique d'Alexandre le Grand, 3 vols. (Paris, 1855)Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Sippel (n. 53 [1966]), 115–19; id. (n. 53 [1985]).