¹ Polyb. 5.43.2. Diod. 19.43.2 confirms that Mithridates, son of Ariobarzanes (almost certainly Mithridates Ctistes) came from the Seven Families. The source here is generally agreed to have been Hieronymus of Cardia (cf. Hornblower, J., Hieronymus of Cardia [Oxford 1981] 236 n.5, 244Google Scholar). The late compilation, De vir. illustr. 76.1, also claims that the Pontic house was descended a septem Persis.

² Sail. Hist. 2.85; Just. 38.7.1; Tac. Ann. 12.18.2. All claim that the Pontic house had Achaemenid lineage, descended from both Cyrus and Darius (Justin, here quoting Trogus verbatim). Flor. 1.40.1 agrees with Sallust that ‘Artabazes’ founded the royal line (see below, p. 159), but makes him a descendant of the Seven, not an Achaemenid proper.

³ Reinach, Th., Mithridate Eupator: roi du Pont (Paris 1890) 3–5Google Scholar. For recent restatements of the position see Walbank, F.W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius 1 (Oxford 1957) 573Google Scholar; McGushin, P., Sallust. The Histories 1 (Oxford 1992) 252Google Scholar.

⁴ The first authoritative discussion was in Eduard Meyer's early work, Geschichte des Königreichs Pontos (Leipzig 1879) 31–8, esp. 35Google Scholar: ‘die Vorfahren der pontischen Könige … die Städte Kios (an der Propontis in Mysien) und Arrhina (unbekannt) als erbliches Fürstenthum besassen’. Once enunciated, the theory became canon, and was reinforced by Reinach (n.3, 1 n.1: ‘les résultats s'imposent’). For typical formulations see F. Geyer, RE 15.2157-8; Hornblower (n.1) 243-4; Corsten, T., Die Inschriften von Kios, IGSK 29 (Bonn 1985) 26–30Google Scholar; McGing, B.C., The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator King of Pontus (Leiden 1986) 13–15Google Scholar; id. ‘The Kings of Pontus: some problems of identity and date’, RhM 129 (1986) 248–59, esp. 248-53Google Scholar; Billows, R.A., Antigonus the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State (Berkeley 1990) 278, 308, 403–5 nos. 72-3Google Scholar; id. Kings and Colonists: Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism (Leiden 1995) 82-4, 104–5Google Scholar.

⁵ Diod. 15.90.3; 16.90.2; 20.111.4.

⁶ During this period Demetrius Poliorcetes had landed at Ephesus and moved directly to fortify the Hellespont. He continued along Alexander's old route to the Propontis, recovering Lampsacus and Parium on the way (Diod. 20.111.3; Polyaen. 4.12.1; cf. Arr. 1.12.6-7), and continued to the Bosporus. Cius lay directly in his path, and it was an opportune moment to dispose of Mithridates. Earlier in the year Lampsacus and Parium had defected to Lysimachus when he crossed to Hellespont (Diod. 20.107.2), and Mithridates may well have negotiated with him. However, Diodorus states that Mithridates was suspected of shifting allegiance to Cassander, and the negotiations may have been with Cassander's general, Prepelaus, who marched through Mysia via Adramyttium before forging south to Ephesus (Diod. 20.107.4; cf. Billows (n.4) 175-6; Lund, H.S., Lysimachus [London 1992] 72–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar). It is hard to see how Mithridates could have avoided making overtures to the invaders, and any negotiations might have been viewed as treasonable when Demetrius was re-establishing Antigonid control.

⁷ On this see the classic exposition of Eduard Schwartz, RE 5.665-9 (=Griechische Geschichtschreiber [Leipzig 1959] 38–45Google Scholar).

⁸ άνηιρέθη περὶ Kίον τῆς Mνσίας, ἅρξας αντῆς καὶ Άρρίνης (RX: Μαρίνης F) ἕτη τριάκοντα καὶ πέντε· τὴν δὲ δυναστείαν διαδεξάμενος Mιθριδάτης [ό νίὸς αὺτοὺ] πολλοὺς προσɛκτήσατο, τῆς δέ Kαππαδοκίας καὶ Παϕλαγονίας ήρξεν ἕτη τριάκον–τα ἕξ. The words in square brackets are found only in the fifteenth century codex Florentinus (on which see Goukowsky, P.'s, Budé of Diodorus XVIII [Paris 1978] xxxix–xliiGoogle Scholar), and are rightly expunged as a scribal gloss. Mithridates Ctistes, the founder of the Pontic kingdom, is elsewhere firmly attested as the son of Ariobarzanes (see below pp. 161-2).

⁹ Palmerius suggested Myrina, a small Aeolic city due south of Gryneium, which paid one talent in tribute to the Athenian Empire. Gronovius opted for the more obscure Carina (Kαρί-νης), a small Mysian polls between Atarneus and the plain of Thebe around Adramyttium (Hdt. 7.42.1; Ephorus, FGrHist 70 F126; Craterus, FGrHist 342 F2).

¹⁰ Thuc. 1.138.5 with Hornblower's commentary ad loc. and Lewis, D.M., Sparta and Persia (Leiden 1977) 53–4, 122Google Scholar; cf. also Athen. 1.29F; Diod. 11.57.7; Plut. Them. 29.11; Nepos Them. 10.2-3.

¹¹ Cf. Diod. 16.36.2, 69.2 (Hecatomnids); 17.93.1, 102.5; 18.6.2 (Indian princes).

¹² Diod. 15.90.3 (βασιλείας); 16.90.2 (βασιλεύσας). The Indian ‘dynasts’ are also termed kings (Diod. 17.86.4, 87.1, 3, 89.6, 91.1; 18.3.2-3 etc.).

¹³ See the convenient table in Meiggs, R., The Athenian Empire (Oxford 1972) 544–7Google Scholar. Brylleium and Cius are nos. 31-2, Cyzicus no. 27 and Lampsacus no. 15.

¹⁴ Plut. Phoc. 18.7; Ael. VH 1.25. On the historicity of this anecdote see Corsten, T., ‘Zum Angebot einer Schenkung Alexanders an Phokion’, Historia 43 (1994) 112–18Google Scholar, rebutting the hypercritical scepticism of Sir Tarn, William (Alexander the Great [Cambridge 1948] 2, 222–7)Google Scholar.

¹⁵ On Elaea see Meiggs (n.13) 542-3, no. 31, and on Mylasa Meiggs 554-5, no. 34. The other poleis mentioned are Gergithus in the Troad (? Plutarch only) and Patara in Lycia (Aelian only).

¹⁶ For Billows, Kings and Colonists (n.4) 84, n.12, Diodorus is not to be taken seriously; ‘it is simply anticipation of the family's later rise to royal status’. But the terminology is consistent and presumably goes back to Diodorus’ source, which must have been aware of the minuscule size of the family's earlier dominions.

¹⁷ Corsten (n.4) 76-8, nos. 1-2; cf. Tod, M.N., Greek Historical Inscriptions 2 (Oxford 1948) no. 149Google Scholar: [έν κνρίαι] ὲκκλησίαι, Κόνων έκκλησίαι, Kόνων έπρυτάνευε, | γνώμη [τῶν άρχόν]των καί τῶν στρατηγῶν. This latter decree honours Athenodorus of Athens, and commits the Cians to assist him ‘with all speed’ in case of emergency. If Cius was under the direct control of the Persian Ariobarzanes, it is surprising that he does not authorise the vote in some way.

¹⁸ See, for instance, SIG ³ 167 = Tod (n.16) no. 138. As with the Cian decrees, it comprises motions passed by a sovereign assembly. Each enactment, however, is prefaced by the regnal year of the Persian monarch and the satrapal titulature of Mausolus. See further Hornblower, S., Mausolus (Oxford 1982) 68–75Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Waddington, W.H., Recueil général des monnaies grecques d'Asie Mineure 1.2 (Paris 1908) 313–14, pl. XLIX, 28-35Google Scholar; cf. Head, HN ² 513; Corsten (n.4) 27, 30. Similar issues are on record from Amastris, founded by the Persian wife of Lysimachus (Head, HN ² 505-6).

²⁰ Diod. 14.20.2: πορευθεὶς είς Tάρσον, μεγίστην τῶν ὲν Kιλικίαι πολέων, τάχεως αύτῆς ὲγκρατὴς ὲγένετο.

²¹ Xen. Anab. 1.2.23-6. The city was evacuated and defenceless. After it was occupied, the incumbent ruler of Cilicia offered his surrender to Cyrus.

²² Xen. Anab. 1.9.14; 2.5.13; 3.2.23; Mem. 3.5.26; cf. Hell. Oxy. 21.1. On the Mysian problem see Lewis (n.10) 55-6; Weiskopf, M., The So-called “Great Satraps’ Revolt”, 366-360 BC (Stuttgart 1989) 72–4Google Scholar.

²³ Diod. 15.90.3: Όρόντης μὲν τῆς Μυσίας σατ–ράπης. This is a most contentious passage; see the overlapping discussions of Osbome, M.J., “The satrapy of “Mysia”’. GB 3 (1975) 291–309Google Scholar; Naturalization in Athens 2 (Brussels 1982) 61–72Google Scholar; Weiskopf (n.22) 74-91.

²⁴ OGIS 264 = FGrHist 506 F1.

²³ Troxell, H., ‘Orontes, satrap of Mysia’, SNR 60 (1981) 27–37Google Scholar; Weiskopf (n.22) 79-80.

²⁶ Xen. Hell. 1.1.25-6; 1.4.7. On Pharnabazus’ actions during this stage of the Ionian War see Bosworth, A.B., “The emasculation of the Calchedonians”, Chiron 27 (1997) 297–313Google Scholar.

²⁷ On Orontes’ lineage and background see Osborne, M.J., ‘Orontes’, Historia 22 (1973) 515–51, esp. 517-22Google Scholar; Weiskopf (n.22) 19-22, 70-6. Both these scholars consider that Orontes was demoted after the campaign against Euagoras of Cyprus, as Diod. 15.11.2 explicitly states. That has been contested by Simon Hornblower (n.18) 177-8 and in CAH 6².86, arguing that Orontes retained his satrapy in Armenia. If so, the grant of estates in Mysia might be seen as a distinction. It gave Orontes a presence in the west of Asia Minor, and was a blow at any separatist ambitions which the local satraps might have entertained. In that case the appointment might have been one of the factors which triggered the revolt of Ariobarzanes in Hellespontine Phrygia.

²⁸ Diod. 15.91.1; cf. Osborne (n.27) 537-41; Weiskopf (n.22) 90-1,97.

²⁹ Dem. 14.31. Orontes is bracketed with the Egyptians, who were the most successful rebels in 354/3; and there is no reference to Artabazus, whose revolt was still in progress. It is most plausible that Demosthenes was referring to two theatres in which Greek mercenaries had fought for the Great King in the immediate past and which would be fresh in the minds of his audience (so Hornblower, CAH 6².90). Given the paucity of alive sources for the period, it is no counter-argument that Orontes’ ‘second revolt’ is not mentioned elsewhere in a datable context (contra Osborne [n.27] 542-51; Weiskopf [n.22] 79).

³⁰ Just. 10.3.1; Curt. 10.5.23; Schol. Dem. 4.19.

³¹ Polyb. 5.43.2: ό δὲ Μιθριδάτης εϋχετο μὲν ὰπό–γονος είναι τῶν ὲπτὰ Περσῶν … διατετηρήκει δὲ τὴν δυναστείαν άπὸ προγόνων τὴν έξ άρχῆς αύτοῖς διαδοθεῖσαν ύπὸ Δαρείον παρὰ τὸν Εϋξεινον πὸντον.

³² App. Mithr. 8.25-8. Ariarathes was son of Ariaramnes, and he too boasted a royal pedigree (Diod. 31.19.2). His line went on to establish the kingdom of Cappadocia (south of Pontus) in the mid-third century, and was quite distinct from the house of Pontus. The two dynasties later intermarried (App. Mithr. 9.29), but in the fourth century they had separate lineages.

³³ Diod. 20.111.4: τὴν δέ δυναστείαν διαδεξάμενος … πολλοὺς προσεκτήσατο. Cf. App. Mithr. 9.28; Strab. 12.3.42 (562). See below, p. 164.

³⁴ The region Mariandynia is first attested in the fragments of Eupolis (fr. 302 K-A), and is noted by the geographical authors. The tribal name Mariandyni is far more common, and attested repeatedly from the time of Aeschylus (Pers. 938-9).

³⁵ Athen. 6.253c-d (= Poseidonius, FGrHist 87 F8); Strab. 12.3.4 (542). Cf. Burstein, S.M., Outpost of Hellenism: The Emergence of Heracleia on the Black Sea (Berkeley 1976) 28–30Google Scholar; A.J. Graham, in CAH 3².3.124.

³⁶ Burstein (n.35) argues that all the Mariandyni were subjugated during the latter fifth century. That seems unlikely, and is impossible to establish, given the fluidity of the boundaries of Heracleia, as attested in the sources. In 424 the mouth of the R. (Bolu), the later Cales lay within Heracleot territory (Thuc. 4.75.2; cf. Arr. Peripl. 13.3); but there is no evidence how much further west the city's lands extended. We do not believe that Xen. Anab. 6.2.17 can be pressed to prove that the boundary lay at the R. Sangarius, the eastern frontier of the Bithynians. On the other hand Xenophon (Anab. 6.2.1) describes Heracleia as ‘lying in Mariandynian territory’. That suggests that the city only occupied part of the land of the Mariandyni. It was presumably the coastal strip, and did not extend far into the mountains.

³⁷ The evidence for Claudiopolis is very late (Constant. De them. 6, lines 22-3), but it is described as the metropolis of the Mariandyni. Callisthenes (Strab. 12.3.5 [= FGrHist 124 F 53]) was interested in the Caucones of Homer, who had allegedly occupied the territory between Heracleia and the River Parthenius. He clearly identified the Homeric Caucones with the native peoples of Anatolia between the Mariandyni and Cappadocia. Alexander was represented accepting the surrender of the erstwhile allies of Priam, his remote ancestor. The ‘Caucones’ like the neighbouring Eneti (Curt. 3.1.22-3) had fought for Priam and were the natural allies of his descendant (Pearson, L., The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great [New York 1960] 43–4)Google Scholar.

³⁸ Just. 16.4.1-10; ‘Suda’ s.vv. Κλέαρχος, ἕϕοροι. The outline of the story is given by Aen. Tact. 12.5 and Polyaen. 2.30.1. For detailed discussion of the political background see Burstein (n.35) 48-54.

³⁹ Just. 16.4.3-4. These overtures presumably belong to 365 and 364, immediately before and during the naval expedition of Epameinondas. Clearchus’ seizure of power belongs to 364/3 (Diod. 15.81.5; 16.36.3).

⁴⁰ ‘Suda’ s.v. Κλέαρχος· ἕρχεται πρὸς Μιθριδάτην καὶ στρατοπεδενόμενος παρ' αύτῶι έπηινεῖτο.

⁴¹ Just. 16.4.7: primo tacitus cum Mithridate, ciuium suorum hoste, colloquitur, et inita societate paciscitur ut reuocatus in patriam, prodita ei urbe, praefectus eius constitueretur.

⁴² Burstein (n.35); McGing (n.4) 14 (neutral); Weiskopf (n.22) 51-2. The most favoured identification is with Mithdrates, son of Ariobarzanes, the insurgent satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia. Reinach (n.3) 4-5 more adventurously suggested Mithridates, son of Orontobates (?), who allegedly sent a statue of Plato to the Academy (Favorinus, ap. Diog. Laert. 3.25).

⁴³ Memnon, FGrHist 434 F1 (1.4).

⁴⁴ Hdt. 3.90.2. They make a brief appearance earlier in the list of Croesus’ subjects (1.28).

⁴⁵ Hdt. 7.72.1. The Paphlagonians come under the command of Dotus, son of Megasidrus.

⁴⁶ Hdt. 7.69.2. On the Fortification Tablets see Lewis, D.M., ‘Persians in Herodotus’, in Jameson, M. (ed.), The Greek Historians: Literature and History (Saratoga, Cal. 1985) 101–17, esp. 110Google Scholar; Brosius, M., Women in Ancient Persia (559-331 BC) (Oxford 1996) 97, 126Google Scholar. Artystone has three estates there on record, Arsames one (Brosius, 126, 127 n.19). Gobryas too must have had extensive domains granted by his father.

⁴⁷ Sail. Hist. 2.85 (= Ampel. 30.5): Artabazes … quern conditorem regni Mithridatis fuisse confirmat Sallustius Crispus; cf. Flor. 1.40.1.

⁴⁸ Hdt. 7.66.2; 8.126-9; 9.41-2. At 9.41.1 Herodotus stresses the high favour Xerxes accorded him (έν όλίλοισι Περσέ–ων … δόκιμος).

⁴⁹ Thuc. 1.129.1, 132.5.

⁵⁰ For the evidence on ‘Parnakka’ and the connection with the Hellespontine dynasty see Lewis (n.10) 7-10 with his postscript to Burn, A.R.'s Persia and the Greeks (2nd ed., London 1984) 592, 601Google Scholar. The argument is cogent and convincing.

⁵¹ Hdt. 7.2.1, 97. Gobryas for his part had married a daughter of Darius (Hdt. 7.5.1), and Mardonius was the offspring of the union, named after his paternal grandfather (cf. Lewis (n.46) 110; Brosius (n.46) 51-3.

⁵² On this hypothesis there is a definite generation gap. Artabazus belonged to the generation of Darius I, and any daughter of Gobryas the younger could have been his granddaughter. However, Gobryas’ brother, Arsames, was adult by 498, and Gobryas might well have had a daughter who was of marriageable age by the 470s.

⁵³ Diod. 15.90.3: Άριοβαρζάνης μὲν ό τής Φρνγ–ίας σατράπης, ὅς καὶ Μιθριδάτoν τελεντήσαντος τῆς τούτον βασιλείας κεκνριενκὼς ἥν.

⁵⁴ On the background of Ariobarzanes see the somewhat differing accounts of Hornblower, in CAH 6².85-6 and Weiskopf (n.22) 27-31, 37.44.

⁵⁵ Ariobarzanes’ betrayal was notorious, the subject of censorious comment through the ages (Xen. Cyrop. 8.8.4; Arist. Pol. 5.13.12a-15-16; Val. Max. 9.11 ext.2). The execution by crucifixion is mentioned only by Harpocration (s.v. ′Aριο–βαρχάνης); but the statement is explicit, and there is no reason to doubt it.

⁵⁶ For the hypothesis of conflation see Beloch, K.J., Griechische Geschichte 3.2 (2nd ed., Berlin 1923) 150Google Scholar; Weiskopf (n.19) 30.

⁵⁷ Arr. 2.4.1. Curtius (3.1.22-3; see n.36) explicitly mentions the surrender of the Eneti, a Paphlagonian people between Cappadocia and ‘Mariandynia’, whom Alexander chose to identify with the Eneti of Homer's ‘Trojan Catalogue’. This was very close to the domains of Mithridates, perhaps even part of them. The delegation, it should be noted, achieved confirmation of the non-tributary status the region had enjoyed under the Achaemenids. Such a grant is consistent with a hereditary fiefdom vested in the family of a royal favourite.

³⁸ Curt. 4.1.34; cf. Briant, P., Antigone le Borgne (Paris 1973) 63–6Google Scholar; Billows (n.4) 43-5.

⁵⁹ Curt. 4.5.12; Memnon, FGrHist 434 Fl (12.4). Cf. Berve, H., Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage (Munich 1926) 2, n.397Google Scholar; Habicht, RE 10A.448-9.

⁶⁰ Memnon, FGrHist 434 F1xs (4.1-3); cf. Burstein (n.35).

⁶¹ Plut. Eum. 8.5; cf. Just. 14.1.6-7.

⁶² Eumenes spent the winter of 320/19 in the satrapal capital of Celaenae. Cf. Plut. Eum. 8.8, and for the background Bosworth, A.B., ‘History and artifice in Plutarch's Eumenes’, in Stadter, P.A. (ed.), Plutarch and the Historical Tradition (London 1992) 56–89, esp. 73-5.Google Scholar

⁶³ Just. 13.2.7 (at Pergamum in 323); Diod. 20.20.1 (310/9).

⁶⁴ Plut. Eum. 1.7; cf. Arr. 7.4.6. On the family and the liaison with Alexander see Brunt, P.A., ‘Alexander, Barsine and Heracles’, RFIC 103 (1975) 22–34Google Scholar, contra. Tarn (n. 14) 2,330-8.

⁶⁵ Heracles was born around 327. Diod. 20.20.1 claims that he was 17 at the time of the summons in 310/9 (Just. 15.2.3 less convincingly states that he was 14; the passage blatantly confuses Heracles with his half-brother, Alexander IV). For the suggestion that he and his mother returned west after Alexander's marriage with Rhoxane see Berve (n.59) 2, no. 206.

⁶⁶ Plut. Demetr. 4.1: Diod. 20.111.4.

⁶⁷ Meyer (n.4) 36. McGing, RhM 129 (1986) 250 argues that the Mithridates who fought at Gabiene was in fact Mithridates of Mysia and that he subsequently sent his son ‘as a pledge to Antigonus’ court’.

⁶⁸ Diod. 19.40.2; Plut. Demetr. 4.1.

⁶⁹ See n.8.

⁷⁰ Plut. Demetr. 4; cf. Mor. 183A; App. Mithr. 9.27-8; [Luc] Macrob. 13.

⁷¹ See (e.g.) Hornblower (n.1) 245; Billows (n.4) 404-5. For similar anecdotes concerning Seleucus see Hadley, R.A., ‘Hieronymus of Cardia and early Seleucid mythology’, Historia 18 (1969) 142–52Google Scholar; Grainger, J.D., Seleukos Nikator (London 1990) ch. 1Google Scholar. The locus classicus for such material is Herodotus’ story of the prophetic dream of Astyages (Hdt. 1.108-13).

⁷² For representative views see Meyer (n.4) 37; Reinach (n.3) 6-7; McGing (n.4) 15 and RhM 129 (1986) 249-50; Billows (n.4) 404-5 and Kings and Colonists 104-6; Grainger (n.71) 184; Lund (n.6) 82.

⁷³ Jacoby, FGrHist 2D (Kommentar) 546 and Hornblower (n.1) are aware of the problem, but draw no conclusions.

⁷⁴ Plut. Demetr. 4.1: τοῦ μέντοι καὶ ϕιλάνθρωπον ϕύσει καὶ ϕιλεταῖρον γεγονέναι τὸν Δημήτριον έν άρχῆι παράδειγμα τοιοῦτόν έστιν είπεῖν. There is perhaps some slight ambiguity in the Greek, έν άρχῆι could conceivably be taken as a compositional note (‘this is my first example’), but it reads far more naturally as a reference to the start of Demetrius’ career; Perrin's Loeb translation probably hits the mark (‘In proof that in the beginning Demetrius was naturally humane and fond of his companions, the following illustration may be given’).

⁷⁵ See, for instance, Demetr. 1.7; Comp. Demetr. Ant. 4.2-3, 5.2,6.2. The anecdote makes an effective contrast with passages such as Demetr. 40.2, 42.1-4.

⁷⁶ Plut. Demetr. 4.5: ταῦτα μὲν ούν εύϕν ίας δείγμ–ατα τοῦ Δημητρίου πρὸς ὲπιείκειαν καὶ δικαιοσύ–νην. Compare Demetr. 4.1 (cited n.74 above).

⁷⁷ Plut. Mor. 183A: συμπεριπατῶν παρὰ θάγατταν ὲν τῶι αίγιαλῶι κατέγραψε. At Demetr. 4.3 it is simply stated that the message was written on the ground.

⁷⁸ This dating follows the ‘high’ chronology under which the siege of Tyre begins in 315 and lasts for 15 months (Diod. 19.61.5). See further, P.V. Wheatley, ‘The Chronology of the third Diadoch War, 315-311 BC’, Phoenix (1997), contra Errington, R.M., ‘Diodorus Siculus and the chronology of the early Diadochoi, 320-311 BC’, Hermes 105 (1978) 478–504Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Diod. 19.29.4, 40.1. On Demetrius’ early charisma see Diod. 19.81.

⁸⁰ Diod. 19.40.1-2 (Demetrius and Mithridates stationed against each other). Hieronymus, who was present at the battle, perhaps noted their proximity, and ironically stressed Mithridates’ distinction, implicitly looking forward to his future vicissitudes. See also Hornblower (n.1) 245.

⁸¹ The rare exceptions are late 311 to 310 during the reoccupation of Phoenicia and Syria; late 308 to early 307 after Antigonus’ return from the east; autumn 306 to early 305 during the abortive invasion of Egypt; and possibly early 304 after the siege of Rhodes.

⁸² The anecdote at Plut. Demetr. 19.6, in which Antigonus alludes ironically to Demetrius’ relations with Lamia, must come after Salamis, where the celebrated courtesan was captured (Demetr. 16.5).

⁸³ There are anecdotes which illustrate Antigonus’ supervision of his sons early in life; e.g. Plut. Demetr. 23.5, 28.10; Mor. 182B; cf. Billows (n.4) 9-10, 419-21.

⁸⁴ Mithridates cannot have remained with Antigonus while Demetrius was abroad, or the anecdote makes no sense. For it to be intelligible Demetrius must be in close proximity to his father.

⁸⁵ Plut. Demetr. 4.1: καθ' ήλικίαν συνήθης.

⁸⁶ See Wheatley, P.V., ‘The lifespan of Demetrius Poliorcetes’, Historia 46 (1997) 19–27Google Scholar.

⁸⁷ [Luc] Macwb. 13 (= FGrHist 154 F7): ὲτελύτησεν βιώσας ἕτη τέσσαρα καὶ όγδοήκοντα, ὥσπερ Ίερ–ώνυμος λέγει καὶ οί ἅλλοι σνγγραϕεῖς.

⁸⁸ Plut. Lys. 22.4 (Leotychidas); Agis 10.1 etc. (Agis IV); Ant. 33.2 (Octavian). The highest age for a νεανίσκος in Plutarch seems to be that of Piso Licinianus, who was murdered in his 31st year (Plut. Galb. 19.1, 27.4).

⁸⁹ Compare Plut. Ages. 13.3, where Plutarch has imposed his own interpretation upon Xen. Hell. 4.1.40. On this see Bosworth (n.26) 14-15.

⁹⁰ [Luc] Macwb. 10; cf. Hdt. 1.163.2; Anacreon, PMG 361.

⁹¹ FGrHist 75 F5 (Demochares); FGrHist 566 F123 (Timaeus: the figure of 72 comes from Diod. 21.16.5).

⁹² App. Mithr. 9.27: Άντίγονος μὲν ήρχε ∑υρίας, Λαομέδοντα έκβαλών.

⁹³ For full discussion of the chronology and circumstances see Wheatley, P.V., ‘Ptolemy Soter's annexation of Syria, 320 BC’ CQ 45 (1995) 433–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁴ App. Mithr. 9.28: καί ό μέν αύτόν έπι τῶιδε σνλλαβῶν έβούλετο αποκτεῖναι, ό δ′ έξέϕνγε σύν ίππεῦσιν έξ. We take σνλλαβων closely with άποκτεί–ναι. H. White's Loeb translation (‘He … arrested him, intending to put him to death’) implies that Mithridates was actually arrested. That, to put it mildly, would have complicated his escape, and is at variance with Plutarch.

⁹⁵ App. Mithr. 9.28: ϕραξάμενός τι χωρίον τῆς Καππαδοκίας, πολλῶν οί προσιόντων έν τῆιδε τῆι Μακεδόνων άσχολίαι….

⁹⁶ See (e.g.) Billows (n.4) 405.

⁹⁷ Strab. 12.3.41 (562). The primary discussion is now that of Marek, C., Stadt, Ära und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynien und Nord-Galatia, Istanbuler Forschungen 39 (Tübingen 1993) 122–4Google Scholar.

⁹⁸ On the location see Strab. 12.3.40 (562) with Robert, L., À trovers l'Asie Mineure (Paris 1980) 213–15Google Scholar. One of the shrines which, according to Strabo, dotted the mountain has recently been identified (cf. SEG. 33.1114).

⁹⁹ Kaygusuz, I., ‘Kimistine'den Yazitlar’, Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 26.2 (1983) 111–45Google Scholar; EA 4 (1984) 69–72Google Scholar (=SEG 33.1097): [oί] γεραιοὶ καὶ ό δῆμος | Κιμιστηνῶν. Kaygusuz himself is disinclined to see Cimista as Strabo's Cimiata, but the textual transmission in Strabo is clearly faulty. For the regional name the manuscripts read Kινιστηνή. This Corais ‘emended’ to Kιμιατηνή in conformity with the transmitted name of the fortress. But it is equally possible that Κιμίατα is itself corrupt; the region should be Κιμιστηνή and the specific location Κίμιστα. So Marek (n.97) 124.

¹⁰⁰ Diod. 20.109.7; Memnon, FGrHist 43 4 F1 (4.4,9). For the strategic background see Lund (n.6) 74-7; Billows (n.4) 178-81.

¹⁰¹ Diod. 20.112.2-4.

¹⁰² Diod. 20.109.6: έν τῶι καλονμένῶι ∑αλμωνίας πεδίѽι. This is clearly the area described by Strab. 12.4.7 (565), which he terms the region περὶ ∑άλωνα (∑αλώνεια in Steph. Byz.). Strabo adds that its cheeses were famous (cf. Plin. NH 11.241; Robert (n.98) 134 n.15).