de l'abréviation supposée. Mais la résolution 
ne s'impose pas non plus. Il nous avait semblé voir dans le groupe? les éléments d'un δ et surtout d'un ρ (voyez le ρ de Θεοδώρου a la ligne 9) et c'est cela qui nous avait amenés a considérer comme sûre la résolution 
dont aujourd'hui nous doutons, sans pourtant admettre comme sûre ou seulement plus probable la résolution 
L'abréviation même est insolite dans ce texte qui n'en comporte pas. … Lire le mot sans supposer d'abréviation serait bien difficile aussi. … La seule chose qui m'apparaisse certaine, c'est qu'aucune lecture ne parait s'imposer.’ I make no apology for quoting extensively from this admirable exposition.
I imagine others have hesitated to accept this because it is not a known Greek name, and I feel the same hesitation. But I cannot read it as a known name, and other possibilities (Ἀπολλφου, etc.) seem even wilder.’ I am very grateful to Professor Turner for this suggestion which Mr. Skeat assures me he finds attractive.
The disputed sign he considers to be a compendium; and ‘Ἀπολλ(οδώρ)ον more attractive than Ἀπολλ(ωνί)ου, because if the sign is indeed a compendium there should presumably be an element in it corresponding to the nu—but there isn't. On the other hand, the expansion Ἀπολλ(οδότ)ου seems quite likely. Omicron, delta and tau (the latter consisting mainly of the long tail below the line) can all be identified in the group.’ 
a very possible abbreviation of the title used by our no. 3.
We may ask whether in this last inscription 
should not now be rejected in favour of τῶν πρώτων φίλων. Be that as it may, in neither is this son of Theodoros credited with any office. Some sixty years earlier and seemingly after the father's strategia had ended, one son of Polykrates of Argos, apparently the younger, was a 
of Amathus, an ἀρχισωματοφύλαξ, whose three sons, although they hold no office, are, by virtue of their father's position, διάδοχοι (LBW 2821a). I have occasion to discuss these Ptolemaic court ranks below on p. 108.
(Arch. Pap. xiii (1938) 38 n. 6), conveyed in the Nachträge to W. Otto and H. Bengtson, 220.
I have argued that this is the earliest document of Theodoros' strategia, since the term 
is best explained as a survival from the period of civil war, when the strategos Krokos had viceregal powers. Soon, however, Theodoros' titulary has reverted precisely to that of his father Seleukos. If this argument is valid, we have a further indication that our nos. 1 and 2 do not belong to the very outset of Theodoros' command.
who were not στρατηγοί. These are: (1) Lochos, s. of Kallimedes, 
and 
(OGI 147 = T. B. Mitford, 156 no. 24; very probably also JHS ix (1888) no. 71 = T. B. Mitford, 160 no. 28); (2) Diasthenes (OGI 146); (3) Aristokrates, the 
(OGI 163); (4) Isidoros, s. of Helenos, of Antioch, the 
(OGI 181). All, however, are to be ascribed to periods when there was a king and his court in Cyprus. Thus I believe that Lochos served Euergetes during the civil war as his ‘Secretary of State’ in the island, and that Diasthenes was then a prominent courtier. Aristokrates and Isidoros would seem to have played respectively the same parts under Ptolemy Alexander. These last two I discuss below.
In a discussion of the name Thauborion—Thaubarion, 
Further instances are (1) P. Tebt. 254: Asclepiades, 
in 113 B.C.; (2) Grenfell and Hunt, New Classical Fragments, etc. 23, 1: Hermonax, in 108 B.C.; (3) OGI 177: Pantaleon, in 96–95 B.C.; (4) Prosop. Ptol. no. 267: name lost, but datable between 80 and 57 B.C.; (5) BGU viii 1772, 22, 31: Iatrokles, of 57–56 B.C.; (6) To these I add from 
from the presence of this mantiarch (of Aphrodite) the inscription cannot, I believe, be earlier than the reign of Soter II in Cyprus.
This is subsequent to the marriage of Euergetes and Kleopatra III in 142 B.C. But here 
may be the correct supplement, Mr. Fraser suggests, citing SB 5021. (2) JHS xii (1891) nos. 2 + 21, two fragments of a Salaminian pedestal which I associate, to give 
On palaeographic grounds I ascribe this to the end of the second century. (3) P. Ryl. 66: 
of the year 34 of Philometor?, 148–147 B.C.? This fragment, too mutilated for publication, is described by its editor as a ‘document addressed to a high official, probably the 
of the Thebaid, of whose title only 
is preserved, containing as an enclosure a copy of another petition previously sent 
and mentioning Boethos who is perhaps to be identified with the eputrategos of that name. The identification is likely enough on palaeographic grounds and is not inconsistent with a reference inx the enclosing document to the 34th year, i.e. of Philometor’. But Boethos, 
of the Thebaid at the close of Philometor's reign, was 
a decade later (Bengtson iii 226 no. 119; 228 no. 124); while Paos was seemingly his immediate successor (
This is repeated with, above 
the correction 
The editor suggests that this is part of a writing exercise. On the back is a property sale, dated κ′ = 143/142 B.C. (5) P. Wurzb. 4: Pankrates, 
The date is given as c. 145 B.C. for reasons which are mainly prosopographical. This evidence does not, in my opinion, exclude the possibility that the institution of the 
like that of the 
is to be ascribed to Euergetes. The former, indeed, appear to belong to the same generation, and it may be that after Euergetes no further 
were created. But the 
continue to occur until the middle of the following century.
Clearly this denotes actual as opposed to titular service at court.
but there is no further mention of 
we may suppose either that he had relinquished this title or that on his promotion he no longer cared to proclaim it. We have the same alternative with Helenos in our nos. 3 and 4 above. The second may seem to us preferable in view of the diversity of rank permissible in an 
of Cyprus and his γραμματεία, cf. observations in T. B. Mitford, 136 n. 14. There are four occurrences, from the reigns of Epiphanes, Philometor and Euergetes II. In only one instance is the rank of this official pre served: Theodoros in OGI 155 is a Chief Friend. Admittedly, as son of a strategos, such may have been Theodoros' rank regardless of the office he held. On the other hand he would not have held a position inferior to his dignity; while there is good reason to suppose that the γραμματενς of the Cypriot forces was senior to the various city commandants, whose rank (with the sole exception of the important Salamis in OGI 155) was that of the 
Against this, however, is the failure of the office to appear in the numerous inscriptions cut after 131 B.C.: indeed, it is suggested below, p. 127, that with the decline of the Cypriot garrison towards the close of Euergetes' reign it was subsumed in the strategia. That Helenos' first inscription should provide an exception is improbable.
is written twice only; 
in RA xxvii (1874) 89 no. 1 and 
in JHS ix (1888) no. 67. In both the somewhat more complex phrasing would render the presence of the symbol L incongruous. Mr. Fraser observes that ‘a desperate man could restore 
’ This indeed might suggest 
[e.g. 
]. But, apart from those of Citium and Lapethus, there existed in Hellenistic Cyprus no local eras; nor did these two outlive the close of the third century.
and 
cf. W. Otto and H. Bengtson, 46 n. 2; 169 f.
This clearly should be emended to 
with the text beginning and ending on the sides of the plinth. I imagine this likewise can be referred to Kleopatra II. I do not wish to stress this evidence, but am content to observe that alike in Cyprus and in Egypt there existed seemingly a cult of Kleopatra II, the Sister, as queen and goddess.
Since no son of Euergetes and Kleopatra II can have reigned either in Cyprus or in Egypt (unless indeed it can be argued that Memphites' co-regency was confined to Delos and was purely propagandist), I share 
to be a high court functionary, concerned with venationes quas rex animi causa habebat; and doubtless this view in general is correct. It should, however, be noted that all epigraphic occurrences of the title (in contrast to the humble 
of the ostraca) are from the Ptolemaic empire. Cyprus has now three instances; while I suspect that OGI 99 is Lycian in provenance. For here Lycians thank Ptolemy, a Chief Friend and Master of the Chase, through the person of his son, Ptolemy, a Captain of the Bodyguard and Master of the Chase, for services which he continues to render to the Lycian κοινόν. We may conjecture that these men were military ‘experts’ or ‘attachés’, who, being incidentally 
in Dittenberger's sense, were able in Lycia to indulge their sporting tastes. But the Cypriot 
comes some sixty-five years later, and gives every indication of being an improvisation to meet a temporary local situation. Cf., however, REG xliii (1930) 361 f., where Roussel argues that the title 
is essentially military; further, M. Launey, 1016 f.
at Delos ‘for Apollo and the People of Athens’ in (it is generally supposed) the year 111–110. Soter's friendly relations with that city, maintained throughout his Cypriot reign, are strikingly mani fested by his subventions after the sack of Athens by Sulla. In contrast the Athenian 
suppressed on the accession of Euergetes, remained in abeyance for fifty years. Cf. 
and the decree of Cyrene in favour of these deities.
was 
‘son service (observes Durrbach) s'étendit … à tout le service de la maison royale’. I would add that the four occurrences known to me are later than the death of Euergetes II.
that he is 
only is prima facie a conclusive argument that he was not directly related’. And yet Seleukos, who was a citizen of both Rhodes and Alexandria, in Cyprus, far from giving both, gives neither.
(OGI 50, 51); while in SEG vi 813 (T. B. Mitford, no. 10), seemingly the earliest Cypriot Dionysiac text, of the first years of Euergetes II, the Artists would appear to have named the 
After 142, however, with three sovereigns on the throne of Egypt, two the children of the 
one of the 
they preserved a discreet silence. Nor did the death of Euergetes lessen the Artists' embarrassment: early in 115 B.C. to suppress the memory of the second Kleopatra the cult of the 
was banned, so that the 
thereafter appears alone. Alexander as king in Cyprus complied with his mother's will: Soter after 106–105 was at some pains to flaunt it. Hence the presence of die 
in the Artists' title in OGI 164, 166 (discussed below, n. 108) and LBW 2794 (Strack, no. 121).
OGI 155.
who may be a Cretan. Both men, however, were honoured as 
and not as soldiers: their presence does nothing to establish the existence of Cretan troops at Salamis before Euergetes.
was suppressed here as elsewhere in Cyprus—with, however, the temporary exception of Salamis.
cf. OGI 155. For the position of Salamis in this matter, cf. the preceding note.
is not recorded in Preisigke's Wörterbuch. Cf., however, Lysias xix 21; Demosthenes iii 5, etc. Further, IG ii2 1629, 1. 243 (Syll.3 305, lines 85–6), of 325–324 B.C.
‘In the inscription 
is very little different from 
Boeckh translates this “bis die Flotte abgegangen ist” (Urkunden 171), which gives the right sense. So also in the Orators. Lysias speaks of 
and Demosthenes iii 5 
I find this meaning of departure or equipment of a fleet hard to combine with 
unless it refers to ships despatched from Egypt…. It is worth recording that according to Hesychius 
also equals 
We may then suppose that these ships were originally sent to Cyprus from Alexandria to enhance the power of Alexander's somewhat unstable kingdom, deprived as this was of the nauarchia.
over 
in JHS ix (1888) no. 92 (T. B. Mitford, no. 25) I ascribe to confusion caused by Krokos' abnormal titulary.
(n. 93 above) and 
of the city of Paphos, has as his culminating distinction a successful year as gymnasiarch, 
L. The year 12 is correctly referred by Dittenberger to Soter, and accordingly falls between September 19, 106, and September 17, 105 B.C. His further comment eo anno hie titulus exaratus est is, however, inaccurate: the date qualifies only the aorist participle which immediately precedes it, while the presence of the definite article in the accusative case can only denote that throughout the year in question Kallippos comported himself as gymnasiarch to the satisfaction of his native city. OGI 166 was thus cut after, but in all probability very shortly after, 106–105 B.C. The gymnasiarch of the Hellenistic age was an official, we have noted, of much political and social influence, in particular with troops either stationed or settled in his city; and Kallippos' city was the capital of Cyprus. By the excellence of his performance, I take it, it is meant that he played a prominent part in the successful restoration of Soter—for this surely was the particular significance of the year 12. He is congratulated by Paphos after, but not long after, the conclusion of his year of office; for the queen included in the 
is, I imagine, the second and not the third Cleopatra: Soter was doubtless eager to revive forthwith, as a mark of his independent sovereignty, the cult of his old ally, suppressed in Egypt since 115; whereas towards his mother, even after her death in 101, he can have felt no piety. I thus find no argument in the 
of OGI 166 for placing that inscription after this last date. If a chronology of this difficult period may be hazarded on the testimony of OGI 166, it would seem (a) that Soter was in the island from the beginning of November 107 until in the following spring an expedition could be mounted against him from Egypt; (b) that the remainder of the year 106 may be allotted (to anticipate our conclusions) to the triumph of Helenos; (c) that Soter's return belongs possibly to the winter of 106–105, probably to the spring of 105 B.C.
to whom the royal letter appended to the Larnaka Amnesty of (it is generally thought) 144 B.C. addresses itself—and then presumably the conditions were thoroughly abnormal, since Euergetes had just reduced by force a hostile island (Arch. Pap. xiii (1938) no. 14); secondly, the strategos' authority was in every sphere of Cypriot life, military, religious and economic, so overpowering that it is difficult to admit an exception in naval affairs. At the close, however, of Philometor's reign Egypt evacuated her Aegean bases, Itanos and Thera; and I believe that squadrons stationed at these were now withdrawn to Cyprus, their command added to the functions of the strategos, his enhanced authority in these matters now made explicit. In support of the contention that the nauarchia of Cyprus from its inception in 142 B.C. (cf. T. B. Mitford, 147) embraced the Mediterranean, if not indeed the entire empire (as the Brussels papyrus attests for the year 107–106), are these considerations. Firstly, at no period is the nauarchia attested at Alexandria; and, secondly, it would seem that the nauarchos of the mid-third century, although based indeed upon the Aegean, included Cyprus within his province, and therefore in effect controlled all those waters. This last contention is based upon the inscription cut beneath the statue of Kallikrates son of Boiskos, the celebrated admiral of Arsinoe Philadelphos (cf. Launey, i 237 n. 6) in the Aphrodite temple of 
‘Les fonctions de secrétaire des forces d'infanterie et de cavalerie de l'île semblent s'être ajoutées, au cours du règne d'Evergète II, à celles que cumulait déjà le gouverneur de Chypre' is the conclusion they base upon this mistake. The inscription OGI 154 does not in fact concern a strategos of the island (T. B. Mitford, 169 n. 132); while in OGI 155 it is the son of the strategos, who is secretary to the forces. It is indeed conceivable that the strategos, as his forces diminished in importance, assumed the 
but this is neither stated nor suggested by any Cypriot text: it is a conjecture, which may be of service in explaining Helenos' title, 
in the Brussels papyrus.
in foreign inscriptions which concern him (OGI 117, 140, 151; SGDI iv 1036; Inscr. Cret. i Lebena 33) only Κύπρος is to be found. The Brussels papyrus regards the titulary of Helenos in this particular not from the Egyptian but from the Cypriot angle. In this connexion, it is noteworthy that the Dionysiac Artists (n. 93, above) speak of their Cypriot secretariat only— because theirs was an organisation notoriously inter national. The δννάμειζ of Philometor's ‘new model army’ (T. B. Mitford, 150) are stationed 
to remind us that many of Philometor's garrison troops were of recent importation, in particular from Crete (OGI 116; 
save in those dedications made in foreign parts (OGI 151; Inscr. Cret. i Lebena 33 = Rev. Phil, xiii (1939) 153 f.).
who has no rank and is gymnasiarch of Paphos. The title 
is unparalleled, and this inscription I shall discuss elsewhere. Here we may note that it gives little support to any suggestion that Cyprus could be governed by a strategos resident in Egypt. I note above (p. 129) that Soter dispersed in 106–105 the accumulated powers of the strategia, retaining for himself that which was essential to his kingship of the island. Routine administration, and in particular direction of the revenue-producing mines, he was prepared to entrust to a native Cypriot, strengthening his hand with the title of deputy governor.
We must not press the poet too closely on his meaning; and I take it that these datives are dependent rather on 
than on 
Simalos, like his master, Soter, was care ful to be on good terms with Rome and with Athens.
being (as it is) the correct reading of Kleopatra III's cult-title in our no. 9 above. Cf. further 
however, is a term which has not as yet occurred in Ptolemaic Egypt. For these 
cf. Bevan, 123. For the terms τροφεύς and τιθηνός, cf. 
Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Stavrou, Dorothea
2020.
The Hellenistic gymnasia of Cyprus and Ptolemaic propaganda.
Journal of Greek Archaeology,
Vol. 5,
Issue. ,