^{page 216 note 2} Polyb. xv. 16. 6: ἐσθλὸς ἐὼν ἄλλου κρείττονος ἀντέτυχεν.

^{page 216 note 3} Polyb. xv. 6. 4–8. 14.

^{page 216 note 4} Herzog-Hauser, G., RE vii. A 2 (1948), 1643–89Google Scholar; Nilsson, M. P., Geschichte der griechischen Religion, ii (Munich, 1961), 201.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 5} Fisch, M. H., AJP lviii (1937), 59–82Google Scholar; Tarn, ii. 298 ffGoogle Scholar. For criticism of Tarn's views see the references cited in Diodorus Siculus, vol. viii of Loeb Classical Library (1963), 8, n. 1, and further Gitti, A., Athenaeum, N.S., xxxiv (1956), 39–57Google Scholar; Pearson, L., The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great (1960)Google Scholar; Hamilton, J. R., Historia, x (1961), 448–58.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 1} De Alexandri Magni Fortuna out Virtute (Moralia, 326D–345B)Google Scholar. The judgement of Aristides (Or. 14. 356 flf.) is much less favourable, but clearly prejudiced.

^{page 217 note 2} Tarn's analysis of the sources in the volume cited on p. 216, n. 5 is the fullest, but propounds a number of theories which have found little or no acceptance. See the references above on p. 216, n. 5.

^{page 218 note 1} The subject still awaits a full-length treatment. See Goodenough, E. R., YCS, i (1928), 55–102Google Scholar; Straub, J. A., Vom Herrscherideal in der Spätantike (1939Google Scholar; non vidi); Van Groningen, B. A., Βασιλεύς. De Alleenheerscher op het tragische Tooneel der Grieken (1941)Google Scholar; Delatte, L., Les Traités de la Royauté d'Ecphante, Diotogène et Sthénidas (1942)Google Scholar; Gorteman, Claire, CE, lxvi (1958), 256–67.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 2} As contemplated by Isocrates, cf. v (To Philip), 119–23.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 1} For Tarsus, Welles, C. B., Mél Univ. St. Joseph, xxxviii. 2 (1962), 43–75Google Scholar. For Hierapolis-Castabala, Robert, L., La Déesse de Hiérapolis Castabala (Bibl. Arch. et Hist, de l'Inst. Fr. d'Arch. d'Istanbul), xvi (1964), 17–100Google Scholar. For Hanisa, idem, Noms Indigènes dans l'Asie Mineure Gréco-romaine, i (ibid, xiii, 1963), 457–522. For Oxyrhynchus, Turner, E. G., JEA, xxxviii (1952), 78–93Google Scholar. Estimates of Alexander's worth occur in atl histories of the great Macedonian, and these need not be listed. The problem of Alexander and the East seems rather one of influence rather than achievement, and I do not treat it here. See Tarn, W. W., The Greeks in Bactria and India (Cambridge, 1951)Google Scholar; Altheim, F., Weltgeschichte Asiens im griechischen Zeitalter, i (Halle, 1947), 117–217Google Scholar; Alexander und Asien: Geschichte eines geistigen Erbes (Tübingen, 1953).Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 1} The general nature of Macedonian kingship is well known, but the precise legal definition of it is controversial. See Hampl, F., Der König der Makedonen (Diss. Leipzig, 1934)Google Scholar; Zancan, Paola, Il Monarcato ellenistico nei suoi elementi federativi (1934)Google Scholar; and the criticism of Momigliano, A., Athenaeum, N.S., xiii (1935), 3–21Google Scholar. See further Aymard, A., iii (1950), 61–97Google Scholar; Ehrenberg, V., The Greek State (Oxford, 1960), 158–205.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 2} Geyer, F., RE xiv. 1 (1928), 697–771Google Scholar; Makedonien bis zur Thronbesteigung Philipps II (1930).Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 3} The sole exception was Antigonus if, as I believe, Cleomenes had been called to Babylon in 323 (A. vii. 26. 2).

^{page 220 note 4} The latest instance may be the grant of tax-rights to Dicaearchus, see Westerman, W. L., Upon Slavery in Ptolemaic Egypt (New York, 1929)Google Scholar, (P. Col., Inv. No. 480, of ca. 198/7 B.c.). None is mentioned in Bikerman, E., Les Institutions des Séleucides (1938).Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 5} D. xviii. 4.

^{page 221 note 1} See Aymard, A., REA, 1 (1948), 232–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 221 note 2} So Isocrates, , v. 107Google Scholar; vi. 20–21. See Adcock, F. E., ‘Greek and Macedonian King ship’, Proc. BA xxxix (1954), 163–80.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 3} Head, B. V., Historia Numorum ² (Oxford, 1911), 228Google Scholar, cites coins of Philip III but not of Alexander IV. Kuschal, B., JNG, xi (1961), 9–18Google Scholar, however, cites coins of Philip III and others marked βασιλέως ᾽Αλεξάνδρου, in a numbered series, and it raises the question whether these may not have been of the young Alexander, although this may not have been understood by the public.

^{page 221 note 4} Nilsson, , op. cit. (p. 216, n. 4), 132–85Google Scholar, where full discussion and bibliography.

^{page 222 note 1} In addition to the well-known instance of Lysander and the Samians, there is the case of Agesilaus (Plutarch, , Moralia, 210C/D)Google Scholar, offered worship by the people of Thasos. Some instances of persons impersonating gods may be cited: Zeus: Clearchus of Heracleia (Plut. Mor. 338B)Google Scholar; Pluto: a soldier of Pericles (Front. Strat. i. 11. 10)Google Scholar; Dionysus: Antheas of Lindus (Athen. x. 445 a/b); Heracles: Nicostratus the Argive general (D. xvi. 44. 3) and Dioxippus the friend of Alexander (D. xvii. 100. 5); Athena: Phye (Hdt. i. 60. 4/5) . It is only in the last case that the procedure occasioned unfavourable comment.

^{page 222 note 2} For the evidence, if not necessarily for the explanation, see Tarn, , ii. 347–74.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 3} For the circumstances see Volkmann, H., RE, xxiii. 2 (1959), 1623.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 4} The evidence has never been collected completely. For the Seleucids see Rostovtzeff, M., JHS, lv (1935), 56–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bikerman, , op. cit. (p. 220, n. 4), 236–57Google Scholar; Robert, L., Hellenica, vii (1949), 5–29Google Scholar. For Egypt see Plaumann, G., RE, viii. 2 (1913), 1424–557Google Scholar; Peremans, W. and Van, E.'t Dack, Prosopographia Ptolemaica, iii (Louvain, 1956), 3–46Google Scholar. See also P. Oxy. xxvii. 2465Google Scholar, recently (1962) published by E. G. Turner.

^{page 222 note 5} See Welles, C. B., Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period (New Haven, 1934), No. 15, 1. 22, and commentary, pp. 81 f.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 6} Oates, J. F., E. Pap. ix (1964), 55–72.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 1} As he fails to on the coins, normally (Head, , op. cit. 226Google Scholar), as if ᾽λεξνάδρου were dis tinction enough; and so it may well have been. On the gradual growth of Alexander's titles see Pfister, F., Historia, xiii (1964), 37–79.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 2} Welles, C. B., Historia, xi (1962), 271–98.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 3} Pippidi, D. M., Stud. Clas. vi (1964), 105–18Google Scholar. For the spread of the cult of Sarapis in general see the excellent survey of Fraser, P. M., Opuscula Atheniensia, iiiGoogle Scholar (Acta Inst. Athen. Reg. Sueciae, 4 to series, vii, 1960), 1–54.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 1} For Alexander's fiscal structure see Serve, i. 314–16Google Scholar. The later situation is more obscure. For the offices at Sardes see Welles, , op. cit. (p. 222, n. 5), No. 18Google Scholar, and the activity of Boulagoras of Samos, , SEG i (1923), No. 366Google Scholar. Regional commands of some sort were held notably by Achaeus (Wilcken, U., RE, i. 1, 1893, 206 f.)Google Scholar and by Zeuxis (Robert, L., Nouvelles Inscriptions de Sardes, 1964, 9–21)Google Scholar. In the East, Molon seems to have been something more than satrap of Media (Polyb. v. 40. 7; Fr. Stähelin, , RE, xvi. 1, 1933, 10–12)Google Scholar as the equally unfortunate Parmenio had been in 330.

^{page 224 note 2} Bikerman, , op. cit. (p, 220, n. 4), 21–24.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 3} e.g., OGIS 13, 11.Google Scholar 6/7; 219, 11. 9/10, 21–24. For Rome, see, e.g., IGLS, iii. 1. 718, 11. 4/5 (Rhosos).Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 4} Dem. i. 4; xviii. 235/6.

^{page 224 note 5} Welles, , op. cit. (p. 222, n. 5), 361Google Scholar; Bikerman, , op. cit., 40–46.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 6} The most sympathetic treatment of the later cities is that of Jones, A. H. M., The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian (Oxford, 1940)Google Scholar; see also Tarn, W. W., Hellenistic Civilization (Cambridge, 1952Google Scholar; G. T. Griffith), ch. iii. The subject is a large one, however, and well repays further study, as Professor Robert is constantly demonstrating (see above, p. 219, n. 1). What is called for is intensive study of individual cities, with due account of chronology—for neither the cities nor their environment remained constant.

^{page 225 note 1} Professor Turner's discovery of Alexandrian πρυτάνεις in a fragment of Satyrus, (P. Oxy. 2465)Google Scholar may seem to have settled the question, which has been long agitated in connexion with the ‘Boulé Papyrus’ and Claudius' letter to the Alexandrines, together with some literary references (see most recently Musurillo, H. A., S. J., The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs [Oxford, 1954], 84–88)Google Scholar, but Turner is commendably cautious. Officials of the same title appear in Alexandria in the second century of our era, although the city in that period had no βουλή before Severus (Jones, A. H. M., The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces [Oxford, 1937], 304 f. and 471)Google Scholar. I should expect that πρυτάνεις in the third century B.c. did indicate a βουλή, while their introduction in the Roman period did not; at the beginning Alexandria was strongly under Athenian influence (below, p. 226, n. 3), but elsewhere in the ancient world the title was applied to a variety of officials.

^{page 225 note 2} Tarn, ii. 232–59Google Scholar, which supersedes Tscherikower, V., Hellenistische Städtegründungen von Alexander den Grossen bis auf die Römerzeit (Leipzig, 1927)Google Scholar, for this purpose.

^{page 225 note 3} A. iv. 4. 1, for example.

^{page 225 note 4} D. xviii. 7.

^{page 226 note 1} This much is clear, although the precise legal and constitutional relation of Alexander to the cities has been much debated—fruitlessly, perhaps, for there is no reason to expect it to have been uniform. For the bibliography see Rostovtzeff, M., Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World (Oxford, 1941), 1343, 1347.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 2} Plut. Mor. 328E.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 3} The evidence, which is not unimpeachable, is from the ‘Acta Athenodori’ (P. Oxy. 2177 = Musurillo, , op. cit. (p. 225, n. 1), No. x)Google Scholar: τοῖς γὰρ αὐτοῑς νόμοις χρῶνται ᾽Αθηναῖοι καί᾽Αλεξανδρεῖς, in a comment attributed to Trajan. The evidence of P. Hal. 1 is better, but not entirely clear.

^{page 226 note 4} The effects of Alexander's campaigns, especially the release of great quantities of monetary metals, were certainly enormous (Rostovtzeff, , op. cit. (n. 1 above), 129).Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 5} Bellinger, A. R., Essays on the Coinage of Alexander the Great (1963).Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 1} Rostovtzeff, , op. cit. (p. 226, n. 1), 1025–134.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 1} See Webster, T. B. L., Hellenistic Poetry and Art (London, 1964)Google Scholar, for the essential bibliography. The art has been inadequately studied; see, however, Bieber, Margarete, The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age (New York, 1961)Google Scholar. The major problem is the shortage of accurately dated monuments and such a guide as Pliny provides for the classical period, on the one hand, and the identification, dating, and accuracy of Roman copies on the other. Hellenistic literature has always been popular, especially as the papyri continued to furnish new material, but perhaps less for its own sake than for its bearing on the origins and history of Roman literature of the Golden Age—the only time in antiquity, seemingly, when it was respectable (Steinmetz, P., Hermes, xcii [1964], 454–66)Google Scholar. This facile cliché about Stoicism has been frequently repeated. For a more intelligent point of view see Tarn, , Hell. Civ., 307–35Google Scholar; Nock, A. D., CAH x (Cambridge, 1934), 503–11Google Scholar (who discusses its close relation to popular religion).

^{page 228 note 2} There have been many discussions of Alexander's battles, and they are treated elsewhere in this volume (pp. 140–154). I have sketched my own interpretation in Propyläen-Weltgeschichte, iii (1962), 407–21Google Scholar, and in the appropriate footnotes to my Diodorus, Loeb, vol. viii (1963).Google Scholar