¹ See Bouehé-Leclercq, A., Hist, des Lagides, vol. iv. p. 316Google Scholar.

² Griech. Gesch. iii. 2, § 174.

³ Delamarre, J., Rev. Philol. xxvi. (1902), p. 321Google Scholar; Garofalo, F. P., Rendic. delľ Accad. dei Lincei (cl. di sc. morali) ser. 5, vol. xi. (1902), p. 147Google Scholar; Dürrbach, F., B.C.H. xxviii. (1904), p. 108Google Scholar, n. 3; Cardinali, G., Riv. di Storia Antica N. S. ix. (1904–1905), p. 93Google Scholar; Costanzi, , Bollettino di Filol. class, xi. (1904–1905), p. 156Google Scholar; Roussel, P., B.C.H. xxxi. (1907), p. 360Google Scholar; Holleaux, M., B.C.H. xxx. (1906), pp. 60, 61Google Scholar; xxxi. (1907), pp. 94, 104 (very emphatic).

⁴ Antigonus (4) in Pauly-Wissowa.

⁵ Gesch. d. Gr. -u. Mak. Staaten, ii. 150.

⁶ Histoire des Lagides, 1, 256; iv. 316. It will be seen that Prof. Bouehé-Leclercq is the only writer who, writing since Dr. Beloch, supports this theory.

⁷ Hellenismus,² iii, 405.

⁸ Atti della R. Accad. delle Scienze di Torino vol. 39 (1904), pp. 629 seq.

⁹ Ibid. vol. 40 (1905), pp. 805 seq., 814, n. 2

¹⁰ Most recently in Klio ix. (1909), pp. 1 seq

¹¹ Klio v. (1905), p. 391.

¹² The latest list of instances is that of de Sanctis in Klio ix. 1, who remarks that to collect them is to carry vases to Samos. Beloch's, words are in Gr. Gesch. 3, 1, 638 n. 5Google Scholar: ‘wenn im Inhaltsverzeichnis zu Trogus' 26 Buch erst der Krieg zwischen Antigonos und Alexandras, dann die Befreiung von Sikyon erwähnt wird, so beweist das bei der Art, wie dieses Werk disponiert war, chronologisch nicht das geringste.’ (italics mine.)

¹³ Atti d. R. Accad. d. Scienze di Torino, xxxix, p. 635; Klio ix. (1909), p. 1.

¹⁴ l.c.

¹⁵ Plut., De seips. laudando, p. 545 BGoogle Scholar; Apophthegm. regum, p. 183, C.

¹⁶ Ath. v. 209 E.

¹⁷ Gr. Gesch. iii. 2, p, 431.

¹⁸ I need hardly say that the reference to Monophthalmos as ‘old’—᾿Αριδαῖος ἦν νέος γέρων δ᾿ ᾿Αντίγονος- in Plut., An seni resp. ger. sit, 791Google Scholar E, has nothing to do with the phrase ὁ γέρων

¹⁹ Plut., de Alex. M. fortuna aut virtute, Or. 1. p. 330 EGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ Plut., de Is. et Osir. p. 360Google Scholar C, D: ῾ἡλίου παῖδα καί θεόν.᾿ I have never seen this quoted.

²¹ Ap. Ath. vi. 253^d. 1. 9. σεμνόν τι φαίνεθ᾿, οἱ φίλοι πάντες κύκλψ ἐν μέσοισι δ᾿ αὐτός ἤλιος δ᾿ ἐκεῖνος One recalls the mantle made for Demetrius which was left unfinished and which no future king dared wear (Plut., Dem. 41)Google Scholar; it was ἔργον ὐπερήφανον, εἴκασμα τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τῶν κατ᾿ οὐρανὸν φαινομένων doubtless the sun among the stars; was the Sun a portrait of Demetrius? We do not of course know if the song referred to the mantle or vice versa.

²² Gladstone.

²³ C.R. Acad. Inscr. 1907, pp. 335 seq.

²⁴ Paus. x. 7. 8.

²⁵ The Delian inventory of Demares, , B.C.H. vi. p. 1Google Scholar = Dittenb., Syll. ²588, 1. 181Google Scholar, Πτολε μαῖος Λάγου Μακεδὼν ᾿Αφροδίτει. The same phrase again in 1. 112 of a new fragmentary inventory published by Dürrbach, F., B.C.H. xxix. (1905), p. 509Google Scholar, No. 167.

²⁶ Paus. vi. 3. 1.

²⁷ Implied in 1. 167 of Callimachus' Hymn to Delos; οὐκ ἀέκουσα Μακηδόνι κοιρανέεσαι

²⁸ ᾿Εφ.᾿Αρχ 1905, 91 = Rev., Ét. Gr. 1907, p. 47Google Scholar; a marble exedra from Thermos in Aetolia, supporting the bases of eight bronze statues of Ptolemy III., Berenice, their five children, and an unknown, perhaps a sixth child; the inscriptions remain, and give all eight the title Μακεδόνα or Μακέταν erected by the Aetolian league.

²⁹ Dittenb., O.G.I. 239Google Scholar (from Delos).

³⁰ Dittenb., Syll ²178Google Scholar.

³¹ ᾿Αντίγονος Φιλίππου Μακεδών from a decree of Priene dated shortly before the end of 334 B.C.; von Gaertringen, Hiller, Inschriften von Priene (1906)Google Scholar, No. 2. I regret that I have been unable to see this book, and take the title from Rev. Ét. Gr. 1907, p. 78.

³² B. 1. 21 of this inventory (No. lxxvii, in the list in Homolle, Les Archives de ľ Intendance sacrée à Délos) gives Φιἁλη ἐπὶ Καλλία βασιλεὺς ᾿Αντίγονος βασιλέως Δημητριόυ Μακεδὼν Παν[ί (See Schulhof, E. in B.C.H. xxxii. (1908), p. 490Google Scholar, n. 2.) It is a vase of Gonatas' foundation Paneia, of which more presently.

³³ Instances collected by Holleaux, , B.C.H. xxxi. (1907), p. 97Google Scholar.

³⁴ Polyb. vii. 9. 1 Φ. ὁ βασιλεὺς Δηυητρίου ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ καὶ Μακεδόνων καὶ τῶν αυμμάχων Cf. vii. 9. 5 and 9. 7.

³⁵ Polyb. xviii. 46. 5 καταπολεμήσαντες βασιλέα Φίλιππον καὶ Μακεδόνας

³⁶ B.C.H. 1897, p. 621. Aimilius, L.Google Scholar L. F. Inperator De Rege Perse Macedonibusque cepet.

³⁷ B.C.H. ii. (1878), p. 78, No. 31, and B.C.H. iv. 1880, p. 215, No. 8: βασιλεὺς Μακεδόνων Φίλιππος βασιλέως Δημητρίου ᾿Απόλ λωνι I have not seen the paper by H. Gaebler in Num. Zeit. xx. in which I am told that he proves conclusively that the smaller silver and bronze coins of Macedonia with Μακεδόνων belong to the reign of Philip V.

³⁸ Published by Holleaux, M., B.C.H. xxxi. pp. 94seq.Google Scholar As completed by Holleaux, it runs as follows:— βασιλεὺς ᾿Αντίγο[νος βασιλέωσ] Δημητρίου κα[ὶ Μακεδόνεσ] καὶ οἱ σύμμαχοι [ἀπὸ τῆς περὶ] Σελλασίαν μά[χης ᾿Απόλλωνι]

³⁹ For instance, the two inscriptions from Crete which record treaties of Eleuthernae and Hierapytna with King Antigonus καὶ Μακεδόνας (B.C.H. xiii. 47; Delamarre, J. in Rev. Philol. xxvi. (1902), pp. 301Google Scholarseq. Nos. 7 and 8) certainly refer to Doson (so Delamarre, against G. Doublet in B.C.H. l.c.): while the inscription from the Asclepieion at Epidaurus, I.G. iv. No. 1419, ᾿Αντίγονον[Δημητρίου Μακεδ]όνα should refer to Gonatas, and not to Doson, to whom Fraenkel assigns it.

⁴⁰ Holleaux, M. in C.R. Acad. Inscr. 1908, pp. 163Google Scholarseq.

⁴¹ Dittenb., O.G.I. 216Google Scholar; βασίλισσα]ν Φίλαν [νασολέωσ] Σωλωύκου [θυγατέρα, βασιλέ]ως [δ]ὲ ᾿Αντιγόνου [γυ]ναῖκα - - - - -

⁴² The conclusive arguments of Holleaux, in this connection in B.C.H. 1907, pp. 94Google Scholarseq., referring to the Sellasia inscription, are equally applicable to Phila's statue: I need not repeat them. A good instance of the formalities connected with the grant of a τόποσ is supplied by the decree of Histiaea, Dittenb. Syll. ² No. 245, to which is appended the Delian decree granting the τόπος.

⁴³ B.C.H. xxxii. (1908), pp. 97 seq. (part 2 of No. 21).

⁴⁴ We used to know it as Euergesia; but the new reading is said to be absolutely certain; Schulhof, l.c. p. 116, n. 3. Schulhof remarks that it is certainly formed from the singular, θεοῦ εὐεργέτου

⁴⁵ Dittenb., O.G.I. 54Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Dittenb., Syll. ²202Google Scholar; Delamarre, J., Rev. Philol. xx. 104Google Scholar; I.G. xii. 7, 506. It belongs to the early years of Philadelphus.

⁴⁷ Dittenb., Syll. ²209Google Scholar. Near in time to the Nicourgia decree, and therefore after the fall of Demetrius.

⁴⁸ 1. 14. τάς τε πόλεις έλευθερώσας

⁴⁹ 1. 27. προ[σήκ]ει πᾶσι τοῖς νησιώταις τετιμηκόσιμ πρώ[τ] οις τ]ὸν σωτῆρα Πτολεμαῖον ἰσοθέοις τιμαῖ[ς

⁵⁰ 1. 47. ἐν] Δἡλ[ωι] παρὰ ρὸν βωμὸν τοῦ σωτῆρος [Πτ]ολε[μαί]ου

⁵¹ 1. 57. For the usual form, see e.g. the dedication by the Islanders, Dittenb., O.G.I. 25Google Scholar, and a decree of the League (Dittenb., O.G.I. 67Google Scholar) as completed by Roussel, P. in B.C.H. xxxi. (1907), p. 340Google Scholar, No. 3, 1. 25.

⁵² In Rev. Philol. xx. 104. Followed by von Gaertringen, Hiller, Thcra, 1, 163Google Scholar.

⁵³ On this last point, Dürrbach, F. in B.C.H, xxxi. pp. 208Google Scholarseq.

⁵⁴ 1, 23. καὶ [θῦσα]ι σωτήρια ὑπὶρ Φιλοκλέους ἐν Δήλωι ᾿Απόλλ[ωνι καὶ ᾿Αρτέμιδι καὶ Λητοῖ] καὶ Δὴ Σωτῆρι ἐν ᾿Αθήναις

⁵⁵ Rh. Mus. 29 (1874), p. 36.

⁵⁶ Monnaies Grecques, pp. 128–130.

⁵⁷ Apart from the marine symbol, the trophy would seem to preclude a reference to the recovery of Corinth; for as far as we know there was no fighting. Antigonus merely rapped on the gate of his daughter-in-law's castle.

⁵³ Figured Head, H.N. p. 203Google Scholar. It will be considered in the second paper.

⁵⁹ So far as the coins and fêtes alone go, it is conceivable that both coins and both fétes (Soteria and Paneia) refer to Cos. But even were this so, we know that Andres was fought against the generals of Ptolemy III., and on this ground alone there is no other possible place for it, if Cos falls in Xenocrates' year, than just before Cos; for I hope my second paper will show clearly that it cannot fall after Cos. The reference in Diog. Laertius 4, 39 to ‘Antigonus’ sea-fight' cannot of course be pressed, as against all the other evidence, to show that he fought but one at this time; but two falling in one campaign might well become one in the perspective of a late writer on quite another subject.

⁶⁰ Archives. In this section I distinguish Homolle's dates by the letter H.

⁶¹ l.c.

⁶² But not certain. The name comes in the inventory of Stesileos, most of which is in no kind of order, chronologically; consequently he might be identical with the Mantitheos of 245 (H.).

⁶³ l.c. p. 479, n. 1.

⁶⁴ κανὼν βασιλειῶν commonly called the ‘Canon of the Kings.’ On the translation, see Bouché-Leclercq, Hist, des Lagides, ii, Appendix.

⁶⁵ See Beloch, , Gr. Gesch. iii. 2, p. 72Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ I mean wrong by a year or more. It is well known that it takes no count of fractions of a year; e.g. where two reigns divide a year, the whole year is reckoned to the later reign.

⁶⁷ Even if the Theuergesia were founded in the king's honour by some one else, and Theuergesia were not the original name (just as Hermias' foundation was called Philadelpheia), the Ptolemaieia of the same year show that it must have been the year of the accession.

⁶⁸ Hibeh Papyri i. p. 331, No. 171, see p. 369.

⁶⁹ Ibid. p. 328, No. 145.

⁷⁰ Supposing that Bouché-Leclercq (l.c. iii. 77) be right in connecting the origin of the title with the bringing back of Cyrene under the crown of Egypt: the best suggestion yet made.

⁷¹ Homolle, , B.C.H. x. (1886), p. 9Google Scholar; B.C.H. xvii. (1893), p. 164.

⁷² Homolle, , Archives, pp. 26Google Scholar, 27.

⁷³ Homolle, , B.C.H. v. (1881), p. 25Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ That is, the period between the laying down of office by the Delian archon of 166 and the assumption of office by Poseidonius, one Hekatombaion 165.

⁷⁵ ‘16 phiales, don des trésoriers Phérécleidès et Polyxénos, (archonte) Xénon.

4 phiales, don des trésoriers Phérécleidès et Polyxénos, (archonte) Xénon.

2 phiales, don des hiéropes Phokaieus et Ményllos, (archonte) Xénon.

Agrafe ďor, don de Lucius, Romain. Couronne ďor, don de Titus, Romain, poids: 110 dr.

Couronne ďor, don ď Aulus, Romain, poids: 100 dr.

Couronne ďor, don de C. Livius, Rom., poids: 100 dr.

16 phiales, don des trésoriers Démostratos et Pachès, (archonte) Ménecratès.

1 phiale, don des Thyestadai, (archonte) Xénon.

20 phiales, don des trésoriers Philonicus et Diactoridès, (archonte) Aristarchos.

1 phiale, don des Thyestadai et des Okyneidai, (archonte) Ménécratès.'

Here follow other objects of Menecrates year. Phokaieus and Menyllos are the hieropes of Xenon's year. I have filled in words where M. Homolle with his wide page gives dittomarks.

⁷⁶ Archives, p. 76.

⁷⁷ Ibid. pp. 94, 95.

⁷⁸ See Homolle, in B.C.H. vi. p. 58Google Scholar, and B.C.H. xiv. p. 417; von Schoener, Delos, in Pauly-Wissowa, IV. ii. col. 2486.

⁷⁹ Sehulhof, l.c. p. 114: a view already suggested by Homolle, , Archives, p. 60Google Scholar, n. 5.

⁸⁰ Bouché-Leclercq, , Rev. Philol, xxxii. (1908), pp. 129Google Scholarseq., on Rubensohn's papyri from Elephantine.

⁸¹ Archives, p. 77, from the number of years' interest owing on a loan.

⁸² Schulhof, l.c.; it does not follow that all the intermediate years are owing.

⁸³ Dürrbach, F. in B.C.H. xxix. (1905), p. 441Google Scholar, on the date of the archon Sosisthenes.

⁸⁴ A difficulty met by Homolle, , Archives, p. 61Google Scholar, by supposing that the foundation might have been made by Philetairos' nephew and successor Eumenes. But the phrase in the inventory of Sosisthenes, quoted by Schulhof, l.c., φιάλη Δηλιάδων χορεία ἐπιδόντος Φιλεταίρου hardly seems consistent with a foundation ὑπὲρ Φιλεταίρου For the date of Philetairos' death, Beloch, , Gr. Gesch. iii. 2, p. 158Google Scholar; it is probable that Eumenes came to the throne in 263, as Homolle, takes it (Archives, p. 58Google Scholar), but not certain; and it is possible that Philetairos was still alive in 262 and could have founded the Philetaireia in that year.

⁸⁵ The questions involved are discussed by Beloch, , Gr. Gesch. iii. 2Google Scholar, § 48 and refs.; Grenfell, and Hunt, , Hibeh Papyri, i. (1906)Google Scholar, App. II.; Bouché-Leclercq, , Hist, des Lagides, vol. ii. (1904)Google Scholar, App., and vol. iv. (1907), App. I.

⁸⁸ Dittenb., O.G.I. 56Google Scholar, 1. 7.

⁸⁷ Hib. Pap. i. App. II. p. 363.

⁸⁸ l.c. § 49.

⁸⁹ From the table given by Bouché-Leclercq, Hist. d. Lagides iv., App. I., it follows that at this time 1 Phaophi was 23 Nov.

⁹⁰ l.c. p. 364.

⁹¹ Archiv für Papyrusforschung iv. (1908), 284, 295.

⁹² Hist, des Lagides iv. p. 295.

⁹³ e.g. ἔτους ια ὡς δ᾿ αἱ πρόσοδοι (ἔτους) ιβ (Hib. Pap. i. p. 338).

⁹⁴ See Grenfell and Hunt l.c., and rather more positively Bouché-Leclercq, l.c. iv. p. 295. This would lead logically to Prof. Smyly's view (Hermathena x. p. 432) that from 1 Thoth next following a king's accession to the anniversary of the accession we get regnal year 1, fiscal year 2; only then we should have to show that all double-dated papyri in a given reign fall in that portion of the year, which it seems cannot be done.

⁹⁵ I desire, however, to note that, while this seems likeliest at present, the future may shift them a year either way; to 247, on the ground that the ‘Canon’ is a year wrong, or to 245 on the ground that other arrangements can be made for one of Schulhof's archons and that the first section of Homolle's list need only go back one place, Euergetes consequently coming to the throne early in 246. But neither result could affect the conclusions of this paper more than to this extent, that two seasons might be allotted to the campaign to which I allot one.

⁹⁶ If Agathostratos' victory (see post) falls at this time.

⁹⁷ I cannot attempt to summarise here the voluminous evidence for this latter statement about Delos. See in particular the review by Homolle, , B.C.H. vi. pp. 152–162Google Scholar; and B.C.H. xv. 168.

⁹⁸ I have been convinced by Dürrbach, , B.C.H. xxxi. (1907), p. 208Google Scholar, that the League was founded between 315 and 308 either by, or under the auspices of, Antigonus I. In the face of his arguments I do not see how the view formerly accepted, that Ptolemy I. founded the League in 308, can possibly be maintained.

⁹⁹ This follows, not only from his general control of the sea, but from the specific fact that the use of his money in the Cyclades implies his political domination, on which see Delamarre, J., Rev. Philol. xxviii. (1904), p. 81Google Scholar, No. 1. The Delian inventory of Lysixenos refers to him simply as ὁ βασιλεύς Homolle, , Arch. p. 67Google Scholar, n. 1.

¹⁰⁰ He had never recovered from his great defeat at sea, about 280, by Keraunos, Ptolemy; Memnon in F.H.G. 3, 534Google Scholar, xiii., xiv. In 272 the Achaeans could even capture the ship that brought Nicaea from Naupactus to Corinth, Liv. xxxv. 26. See next note.

¹⁰¹ Phylarchus, ap. Ath. viii. 334Google Scholara, Patroclus sends Antigonus fish and figs, which Antigonus interprets to mean ‘No fish for dinner till we rule the sea.’ It reminds one of the Carthaginian admiral declaring that without his leave no Roman should even wash his hands in the sea. The story implies that at the beginning of the war Antigonus' fleet was negligible.

¹⁰² This fête cannot have been founded by, or for, the younger Stratonice, on her marriage, as there must then have been a Demetrieia also; besides, the proceeding would have been pointless.

¹⁰³ A comparison of Stratonice's offerings in the inventory of Hypsocles, (279 H. = 281, B.C.H. xiv. pp. 389Google Scholarseq.) with those in the inventories of Sosisthenes, (250 H.= 252, B. C.H. xxvii, pp. 62Google Scholarseq.) and Demares, (180, B.C.H. vi. p. 1Google Scholar = Dittenb., Syll. ²588Google Scholar), shows that many of her offerings are later than 281, i.e. long after her marriage. The description βασίλισσα Στρατονίκη βασιλέως Δημητρίου is not found in the earlier inventory but only in the two later ones, in connection with offerings not found in the earlier inventory. She uses the same de scription in the inscription of unknown pro venance in honour of Arsinoe, Dittenb., O. G. I. 14Google Scholar, which, judging by the Delian inventories, can hardly be as early as Dittenberger puts it. The connection between Demetrius and Delos is further illustrated by the silver models of a trireme and quadrireme dedicated by Seleucus at Delos, doubtless in celebration of his marriage with the sea-king's daughter. (The τριήρης first in Hypsocles 1. 409; the τετρἡρης in a fragment of an inventory published by Dürrbach, , B.C.H. xxix. p. 543Google Scholar, No. 182, and p. 563. Homolle called the τριήρης a vase; but though Dürrbach also calls the τετρἡρης a vase, no vase of that name is known, and I cannot agree with him that there is no doubt that a τετρἡρης of 1700 drachm, is the same as a τριἡρης of 1544 drachm. To call them ‘vases’ misses the whole point of these offerings.)

¹⁰⁴ Schulhof, l.c.; in the inventories of Sosisthenes and Acridion the formula is χορεία ὑπὲρ βασιλίσσης Στρατονίκης

¹⁰⁵ Plut., Dem. 51Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ where Holleaux, places it, C.R. Acad. Inser. 1907, p. 338Google Scholar. M. Holleaux is a strong follower of Beloch for this period.

¹⁰⁷ I follow Beloch here, as against de Sanctis in Klio ix. 1.

¹⁰⁸ There is no evidence whatever that Antigonus at this time conquered some Cyclades, which Philadelphus afterwards reconquered. The supposed Macedonian possession of Andros about 250 (Homolle, , Arch. 65Google Scholar; Beloch, , Gr. Gesch. iii. 2, 433)Google Scholar is based on nothing but the arbitrary alteration of a proper name in Plut. Arat. xii., a chapter whose problems still await solution. But of course Antigonus may have fought a sea-fight of some kind in 254. Many such must have dropped out of our mutilated tradition: e.g. Leucas, , B.C.H. xxviii. 164Google Scholar, No. 56, 1. 22, which cannot be placed.

¹⁰⁹ Sokolow's, date, Klio iii. 119Google Scholar. Quite apart from the fact that Antigonus must have regained Corinth before he could undertake the naval campaign of 246, I agree with de Sanctis, , Klio, ix. p. 7Google Scholar, that the words attributed to Antigonus in Plut., Arat. 15Google Scholar must have been spoken, or supposed to have been spoken, before Euergetes' successful land campaign; and Antigonus in Arat. 15 already has Corinth.

¹¹⁰ The Paneia would suppose a ‘panic’ victory.

¹¹¹ Dittenb., Syll. ²224Google Scholar; Polyaen. 5, 18.

¹¹² She fought in turn against Demetrius I., Antiochus III., Philip V., always with the same object.

¹¹³ The stories in Plutarch (see §B) show that Egypt was numerically superior in at least one of the battles; and the course of events naturally suggests Cos rather than Andres.

¹¹⁴ Arsinoe in the Peloponnese, , I.G. xii. 3Google Scholar, 466, if the identification with Methana in the Argolid be correct; the name points to Philadelphus' time. Methana was still Egyptian under Philometor, Dittenb., O.G.I. 115Google Scholar. See Beloch, , Gr. Gesch. iii. 2, p. 283Google Scholar; Dittenb., Syll. ²261Google Scholar, n. 11. It may of course have been lost to Egypt, and recovered again later.

¹¹⁵ Egyptian from Philadelphus onwards. von Gaertringen, Hiller, Thera, passim, and esp. vol. i. pp. 162–165Google Scholar. It is more than doubtful if it ever belonged to the League.

¹¹⁶ C.I.G. ii. 2492; the Euergetes is doubtless Ptolemy III.

¹¹⁷ Headquarters of the Egyptian Aegean fleet under Philadelphus, Dittenb., Syll. ¹202Google Scholar (the Nicourgia decree), and under Philopator, Polyb. v. 35; doubtless also under Euergetes. If lost in the revolt of the younger Ptolemy, it must have been recovered on his death.

¹¹⁸ The Adulis Inscription shows that the conquests in the Hellespont and Thrace were made by Euergetes, but at what period of his reign is uncertain. Polyb. v. 34. 7–8, though put generally, refers merely to the reign before Philopator; it has no bearing on the history of the Gyclades, to which it does not allude.

¹¹⁹ There is no further trace of Egyptian Cyclades. The two cases quoted by Beloch, , Gr. Gesch. iii. 2, p. 282Google Scholar, Siphnos and ‘perhaps’ Keos, are now placed earlier. The Siphnos decree in honour of Perigenes, , I. G. xii. 5, 481Google Scholar, Arch, für Pap. ii. 545, n. 23, Dittenb., O.G.I. 730Google Scholar, has been shown by Holleaux, , B.C.H. xxix. (1905) p. 319Google Scholar, not to refer to Philopator's admiral, but to belong to the reign of Philadelphus; and a further part of the decree of Carthaia in Keos in honour of Philotheros, , I.G. xii. 5, 1, 533Google Scholar (.C.I.G. ii. 2356), has been discovered by Graindor, M. Paul (Musée Belge xi. 1907, p. 98)Google Scholar, who shows from the lettering of the new fragment that the decree goes back at least to the period of Philocles. I may note that I am entirely omitting here the interesting question, whether, and if so, how far and in what shape the League still existed after the Macedonian conquest.

¹²⁰ Further as to this in my subsequent paper.

¹²¹ Poeëssa in Keos. See Graindor, in Musée Belge xi. p. 104Google Scholar, no. 5 on I.G. xii. 5, 570. Seealso as to Demetrius II.'s position at Delos the decree of Delos in honour of Hierocles, (or Autocles), B.G.H. xiii. (1889), p. 232, n. 2Google Scholar; Holleaux, in Revue des Études Ane. v. (1903), p. 209, no. 5Google Scholar; Roussel, P. in B.C.H. xxxi. (1907), pp. 362–3Google Scholar. The non-recognition of the position of Demetrius-II. in the Aegean is to some extent responsible for the Doson heresy.

¹²² Inscr. of Gortyna; Halbherr, F. in Amer. Journ. Arch. 1897, p. 188Google Scholar, no. 17.

¹²³ Treaties with Eleuthernae, and Hierapytna, , B.C.H. xiii. p. 47Google Scholar, nos. 1, 2; Rev. Philol. xxvi. (1902), p. 301, nos. 7, 8. See n. 39.

¹²⁴ Delamarre, J., Rev. Philol. xxvi. 301Google Scholar, nos. 1–6 inclusive. The decree of Cos, no. 6 (= Newton, , Gr. Inscr. B.M. 247 = Collitz Bechtel, 3611)Google Scholar, seems almost certainly Doson. Good discussion of Doson's position by Holleaux, , B.C.H. xxxi. pp. 94Google Scholarseq.