¹ The standard treatment of Amynander's career is S. I. Oost, 'Amynander, Athamania and Rome', CPh 52 (1957), 1–15. See also K-W. Welwei, Könige und Königschaft im Vrteildes Polybios (1963), pp. 118–22 and id.‘Amynanders ὂυομα τ⋯ς βασιλε⋯ας und sein Besuch in Rom’, Historia 14 (1965), 252–6; cf. E. Rawson, JRS 65 (1975), 152. Also valuable are F. W. Walbank, Philip V of Macedon (1940 repr. 1967) and N. G. L. Hammond, Epirus (1967) passim.

Our earliest reference to Amynander is often taken to be Pol. 4. 16. 9, whence it is deduced that he was in a position of power in Athamania, if not king, as early as 220 B.C. and was related by marriage to Scerdilaidas of Illyria: thus, most notably, R.E. Bd. 1(1894), col. 2004, Oost, art. cit. 3, J. Briscoe, A Commentary on Livy Books xxxi–xxxiii (1973), p. 127. However, there seems little to recommend the view. The Athamanian king named at Pol. 4. 16. 9 is called ‘Amynas’, not ‘Amynander’; ‘Amynas’ is taken to be a shortened form of the latter, but elsewhere in Polybius and our other sources Amynander always appears with his full name. Further, Pol. 4. 16. 9 apart, Amynander does not appear in our sources until 209 B.C., some eleven years later (Livy 27. 30. 4). The sole support for the identification of Amynas and Amynander seems to be that both are called kings of the Athamanians and have similar names. As Walbank has observed, it is quite possible that Amynas was a predecessor of Amynander on the throne of Athamania: F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius I (1957), pp. 463–4. Given the balance of the evidence it seems preferable to regard him as such.

² The letter is printed as C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period (1934), no. 35; for other replies, see D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950), p. 942 n. 39. The formulation ‘King Theodoras and Amynander’ has proved baffling. The central difficulty resides in the fact that our literary sources consistently describe Amynander as king of the Athamanians, but fail to mention Theodoras at all. Welles' objection to the notion that Theodoras and Amynander were co-regents on the grounds that Amynander had been king since 220 and that a co-regency of some 15 years is improbable is undermined once we reject the identification of Amynas and Amynander at Pol. 4. 16. 9, as he himself allows: see above note 1. On this crux see especially Welles, RC, p. 154, Oost, art cit. 13 n. 9 and Briscoe, loc. cit.

³ For the legend of Athamas, see W. H. Roscher (ed.), Ausführliches Lexikon der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie I (1884–90), cols. 669–75. The immediate family is set out particularly clearly by H. J. Rose, OCD ² s.v. ‘Aeolus (2)’. On the notion of kinship in inter-state relations, see D. C. Braund, CQ 30 (1980), 421 n. 8.

⁴ With Pausanias compare Pherecydes, FGH 3 F 102, and Roscher, op. cit. col. 675 s.v. ‘Athamas (2)’. Strabo observes that Anacreon, himself a native of Teos, refers to his city as ‘Athamantis’ (14. 633).

⁵ For a similar use of φιόστоργоς in the context of dealings between ‘related’ cities, see L. Robert, Op. Min. Sel. i (1969), p. 311 n. 2, quoting IPEi I² 357. We may observe another legendary link between Athamania and Teos. One of the wives of Athamas, son of Aeolus, was Ino: she was the aunt and nurse of the young Dionysus. Dionysus must be central to any interpretation of RC no. 35, for in this letter the city and land of Teos are recognised as sacred to Dionysus: in fact, the letter was inscribed on a wall of the temple of Dionysus at Teos. For the legend of Ino, see Eitrem, R.E. Bd. 12 (1925), cols. 2297–300. We may note that Ino, as Leucothea, had a festival at Teos, amongst other places: see Eitrem, art. cit. cols. 2293–7 for a survey of the evidence.

⁶ On Nobilior's campaign, MRR i 360. On Amynander's expulsion, see Pol. loc. cit., Livy 36. 14. 7–9, App. Syr. 17, Walbank, Philip V, pp. 203–4. He took back his kingdom shortly before his exploits at Ambracia with the support of the Aetolians (Pol. 21.25. 1–2). On the whole affair, Oost, art. cit. 11.

⁷ On Ennius at Ambracia, see H. D. Jocelyn, ‘The Poems of Quintus Ennius’, ANRW 1. 2 (1972), 993; O. Skutsch, Studia Enniana (1967), pp. 18–20. F. Skutsch, RE. Bd. 5 (1905), col. 2591 sets Ennius‘ role at Ambracia in its Hellenistic context.

⁸ On Amynander's journey to Rome, Walbank, HCP II (1967), p. 561; Briscoe, op. cit. 24. Rawson, loc. cit. (n. 1) and Oost, art. cit. p. 8 observe that to be impressed by Amynander's royalty was to be easily impressed. M. Holleaux, Études d‘Épigraphie et d’Histoire Grecques v (1957), p. 70 n. 4 in making this observation holds that Amynander was the first king to have visited Rome; he was certainly one of the first, but Hiero II had already visited Rome in 237 B.C.: Eutrop. 3. 1–2, set in its broader context by A. M. Eckstein, ‘Unicum subsidium populi Romani: Hiero II and Rome, 263 B. C – 215 B.C.’, Chiron 10 (1980), 196.

⁸ Jocelyn, art. cit. 1005–6 on the place of Ambracia in the Annales. On the Ambracia, see F. Skutsch, art. cit. col. 2599. The fragments of Ennius are to be found collected in J. Vahlen, Ennianae Poesis Reliquiae ² (1903).

⁹ For the single extant fragment of the Athamas, see H. D. Jocelyn, The Tragedies of Ennius (1967), fr. 52, with commentary, ibid. 267–70. The fragment concerns the worship of Dionysus: see above n. 5. For other plays entitled Athamas, ibid. 267. On Ennius‘ predilection for Euripides and Athamas, ibid. 45 and Jocelyn, art. cit. 1001.

¹⁰ 10 Pol. 30. 18. 1–5; Livy 45. 44. 19: Dio 20, fr. 69; App. Mithr. 2; F. W. Walbank, HCP III 441. The material on Prusias II is collected and discussed by C. Habicht, R.E. Bd. 23 (1957), cols. 1107–27.

¹¹ HCP III 441. Evidence on the embassies of this period is conveniently available in MRR 1.

¹² Though kings in Rome's orbit are sometimes referred to as slaves by those hostile to them: Sail. Hist. 4, fr. 69. 8; Jos. BJ I 132; Tac. Hist. 2. 81; Ann. 2. 2; 11. 16; 14. 26.

¹³ See, most recently, R. Seager, ‘The Freedom of the Greeks of Asia: From Alexander to Antiochus’, CQ n.s. 31 (1981), 106–12, and the literature he cites.

¹⁴ On Prusias and Apame: Livy 42. 12. 3; 29. 3; App. Mithr. 2. On his neutrality, Livy 42. 29. 3; App. Mithr. 4. On Prusias in 169: Livy 44. 44. 8. In 167: Livy 45. 44. 8. The standard history of the kingdom of Bithynia remains G. Vitucci, Il Regno di Bitinia (1953).

¹⁵ Despite Strabo, Cicero (‘Daphitas’) and Valerius Maximus (‘Daphnites’), the name is conventionally given as ‘Daphidas’, after the Suda and Hesychius.

¹⁶ The Loeb translates: ‘Purpled with stripes, mere filings of the treasure of Lysimachus, ye rule the Lydians and Phrygians’. We should note that the Greek says something nearer: ‘Purple stripes, filings of the treasure of Lysimachus, ye rule Lydians and Phrygia’. Strabo 14. 647.

¹⁷ 17 Val. Max. 1. 8. ext. 8.

¹⁸ Suda s.v. ‘Daphidas’. Hesych. Onom. 14 (iv 160 M.).

¹⁹ J. Fontenrose, ‘The Crucified Daphidas’ TAPhA 91 (1960), 83–99. The most recent treatment of Daphidas is by J. Hopp, Untersuchnngen zur Geschichte der letzten Attaliden (1977), pp. 119–20: Hopp is to be read with the important review of E. Badian, JRS 70 (1980), 200–3. In addition, Fontenrose has himself recently collated the story of Daphidas with other stories relating to the oracle at Delphi: J. Fontenrose, The Delphic Oracle: its Responses and Operations (1978).

²⁰ Fontenrose's most notable supporter is perhaps Hopp, loc. cit. E. V. Hansen, The Attalids of Pergamori ² (1971), pp. 144, 151 is more cautious. F. Carrata Thomes, La Rivolta di Aristonico e Le Origini delta Provincia Romana d'Asia (1968), p. 29 observes: ‘A parte l’identificazione del personaggio Dafida, che resta incerta, ogni dubbio sull ‘epoca del distico sembra oggi superata dopo la recente analisi operata dal Fontenrose’.

²¹ Carrata Thomes pp. 29–30 points out that the sources not only provide no support for this suggestion but tend to contradict it. Contra Fontenrose (1960), 99.

²² Fontenrose (1960), 85–7 for the argument. On purple in the Hellenistic World, see M. Reinhold, History of Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity (1970). pp. 29–36.

²³ Fontenrose (1960), 85–6. For an historical account of the beginnings of the Attalid kingdom, see Hansen², pp. 14–21.

²⁴ Fontenrose (1960), 86.

²⁵ ibid. 87.

²⁶ Diod. 33. 15. 1. On Attalus II's war against Diegylis, Hopp, pp. 96–8.

²⁷ See note 21 above.

²⁸ On Aristonicus and Eumenes II, Hansen², pp. 150–1.

²⁹ Contra Fontenrose (1960), 93–4.