^{page 27 note 1} It cannot be decided whether the first line of the inscription begins in the same way as I.O.S.P.E I² 347 with ἀγαθῆι τύχηι.

^{page 28 note 1} Most scholars differ in their opinions as to the date of Caesar's dictatorship. So far as I know Groebe was the last to deal with the matter (Drumann-Groebe, Gesch. Roms etc. iii, 735 ff.) and his arguments in regard to the time of Caesar's third dictatorship are in my opinion well grounded.

^{page 28 note 2} Plut. Caes. 48; Strabo, xiv, 2, 15, c 656; Cic. ad Att. xiii, 7, 1. The attitude of Theopompus in connexion with the above event will be dealt with later. Pursuing Pompey, Caesar probably passed through Cnidus (App. B.C. ii. 116). Cf. the Delphian decrees of 48–47 B.C. in honour of Callistus, another friend of Caesar, a native of Cnidus and Theopompus: Dittenberger, Sylloge ³, 761.

^{page 29 note 1} Luc. ix, 961 f.; Strabo; xiii, i, 27 c 544-5. Brückner comparing fragments of an edict dealing with the freedom and immunity of Ilion (Dörpfeld, Troia and Ilion, 457 ff. no. xvi, xvii) thinks that these might possibly belong to Caesar's edict; the words ἐλϵυθέραν and [ἀλϵι] τούργητον are still to be found (Cagnat, Inscr. gr. ad r. r. p. iv, 199).

^{page 29 note 2} Dio, xlii, 6, 3; Plut. Caes. 48; App. B.C. ii, 89, 24; Cic. fam. xv, 153. It is possible that Caesar had by this time visited Ephesus, see Caes. B.C. 105, cf. the inscription of Ephesus Dittenberger Syll. ² 347 (48 B.C.) = Syll. ³ 760 and those of Pergamon, Ath. Mitth. 1908, 410; Ann. ép. 1909, 40; Inscr. gr. ad res r. p. iv, 303 and 307; Inschr. von Pergamon, 377 and 378; Drumann-Groebe, iii, 477; Judeich, Caesar im Orient, 61 f.

^{page 29 note 3} C.I.Gr. 2215; Inscr.gr.adr. r.p. iv, 928 (48 B.C.). Another inscription was set up in honour of Caesar in Chios, in all probability in 47 B.C. on his return to Italy from Asia, see Inscr. gr. ad r. r. p. iv, 929 (the second dictatorship and evidently the second consulate). Chios very likely wanted Caesar to confirm its freedom, granted during the campaign of Sulla, see the letter of Antistius Vetus (proconsul of Asia A.D. 4-14), Dittenberger, Syll. ² 355; Inscr. gr. ad. r. r.p. iv, 943, where Antistius, tracing the relationship between Chios and Rome, deals firstly with the s.c. of Sulla's time (80 B.C.) and almost directly refers to a letter from Augustus. Therefore it is unlikely that the freedom of Chios was confirmed by Caesar in writing.

^{page 29 note 4} I.G. xii, 5, 556. The Olympian inscription, Inschr. v. Olympia 365 does not refer to Caesar, see ibid. p. 800.

^{page 29 note 5} See Ant. Jud. xiv, 10, 1 ff. 185 ff. ‘Caesar's era’ is undoubtedly to be connected with the actions of Caesar, mentioned in B. Alex, in the following Syrian towns (see Judeich, Caesar im Orient, 110; Kubitschek in P.W. R.E. i, 650, xlviiGoogle Scholar): Antiochia (from 49 B.C.), Laodicaea-on-sea (from 48 B.C.), Gabala (47 or 48 B.C.) and Ptolemais Ace (49-47 B.C.). Laodicaea received its autonomy chiefly through Theopompus who also did a great deal for Cnidus, see Hirschfeld, G., Journ. of Hellen. St. vii (1886), 288Google Scholar. Further particulars on this matter will be given later.

^{page 29 note 6} In the reconciliation of Rome and Rhodes the above-mentioned agent for Greek towns, Theopompus of Cnidus, played a considerable part, see the inscription in his honour, I.G. xii, 1, 90. Caesar passed through Rhodes while pursuing Pompey (App. B.C. ii, 89; Caes. B. Civ. 106).

^{page 30 note 1} Inscr. gr. ad r. r. p. iv, 30, cf. I.G. xii. 2, 25; Inscr.gr. ad r. r. p. iv, 27, and also I.G. xii, 2, 24; Inter, gr. ad r. r. p. iv, 26. Concerning Potamon see Pros. imp. Rom. iii, 92, N. 675; Dittenberger, Syll. ³ 764, n. 1 and 2.

^{page 30 note 2} For particulars as to destruction see B. Alex. 70, 5-6; Dio, xlii, 46, 3; App. B.C. ii, 91; Mithr. 120. Concerning liberation see Dio, xlii, 48, 4 (in which the reforms effected by Caesar after the battle of Zela are dealt with): τούς τϵ ' Αμισηνοὺς έλϵυθϵρίạ ἠμϵίψατο (cf. Strabo, xii, 3, 14, c 547).

^{page 31 note 1} See Dittenberger, Or. 435; Foucart, Mém. de l'Acad. xxxvii (1903), 317; Hepding, l.l. 339.

^{page 31 note 2} See B. Alex. 13; Dittenberger, Syll. ² 348 = Syll. ³ 763, concerning the African expedition.

^{page 31 note 3} See Hasluck, , Cyzicus (Cambridge, 1910), 132Google Scholar; also his article in Journ. of Hellen. St. (1903), 90.

^{page 31 note 4} I.Gr. iii, 428; Dittenberger, Syll. ² 346= Syll. ² 759 (Athens); I.G. vii, 62(Megara); vii, 1835 (Thespiae), cf. Drumann-Groebe, iii, 473, 3.

^{page 32 note 1} Dio, xlii, 20, I: καὶ πολέμων καὶ εἰρήνης κύριον, προφάσει τῶν ἐν Ἀφρικῇ συνισταμένων, πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ἀπέδειξαν αὐτόν, κἂν μηδὲν μήτε τῷ δήμῳ μήτε τῇ βουλῇ περὶ αὐτῶν κοινώσηται.

^{page 32 note 2} I.G. xii, 2, 35; Inscr. gr. ad r. r. p. iv, 33; one part of the document; Dittenberger, Syll. ² 548 = Syll. ³ 764, cf. Mommsen, Sitzungsb. d. Berl. Akad. (1895), 887 ff.; Täubler, Imperium Romanum, 56, 456.

^{page 33 note 1} Schürer, Gesch. der Juden im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, i, 251, 22, cf. 344 foll, v, 345, 1; Mommsen, Ges. Schr. iv, (Hist. Schr. i), 146 n; Drumann-Groebe, iii, 397, 1.

^{page 33 note 2} Compare e.g. I.G. xii, 2, 35, v. 28 ff. and Fl. Jos. Ant. Jud. xiv, 25.

^{page 34 note 1} Cic. ad Att. xiii, 2; Niese, in P.W. R.E. ii, 820.

^{page 34 note 2} Schol. Gron, in Cic. p. 421 (Or.) c 298 (Stangl); Cic. Deiot. 38; Phil. ii, 93 ff.; ad Att. xiv, 12, 1; 19, 2; xvi, 3, 6; Niese, in P.W. R.E. iv, 2403Google Scholar.

^{page 34 note 3} Schmidt, Der Briefwechsel, 259.

^{page 35 note 1} He is dealt with as a mythologist in Susemihl, Gesch. der gr. Lit. der Alexandrinerzeit, ii, 52, cf. 689.

^{page 35 note 2} Plut. Caes. 65; App. B.C. ii, 116; Dio, xliv, 18; cf. Inscr. in the Br. Mus. iv, 787, and Lebas-Waddington, 1574.

^{page 35 note 3} Journ. of Hellen. St. vii (1886), 286 ff.; cf, Dittenberger, Syll. ³ 761 c and Strabo, xiv, 2, 13 c 656; Cic. ad Att. xiii, 7, 1.

^{page 36 note 1} Suid. Θέων 'Αλεξανδρεύς, ϕιλόσοϕος Στωικός, γεγονὼς ἐπὶ Αủγούστου μετὰ "Αρειον. Diels, Dox gr. 84, 85; Susemihl, Gr.Lit. ii, 236; Zeller, 586f; he was a pupil of Stratokles, who was pupil of Panaetius, Susemihl, ibid. 239.

^{page 37 note 1} I.O.S.P.E. i², 672 cf. 325; Count Tolstoi, I., The White Isle and Taurike on Pontus, Petrograd, 1918, 43Google Scholar ff.; see my criticism of this book in Bull. de la Comm. Arch. 65 (1918), 190; see also the inscription of Tomi in Arch.-ep. Mith. aus Oest. xiv. 22. The dangers of a sea-journey are illustrated by the fears of ambassadors sent by the city of Lampsakos to Greece, Gaul and Rome in 196 B.C. Dittenberger, Syll. ³ 591.

^{page 37 note 2} As I have already stated, Mithradates of Pergamon, partisan and deliverer of Caesar, played a similar part to the above-mentioned commanders of allied fleets. The friendship of Caesar with Callistus of Cnidus may be explained by the help which Callistus gave to Caesar's legatus Fufius during his operations in Greece; see Caes. B. Civ. iii, 56; Dittenberger, Syll. ³ 761 A and B, p. 445, n. 14.

^{page 38 note 1} See the inscriptions of Theophanes of Mytilene, I.G. xii, 2, 163Google Scholar; Dittenberger Syll. ² 338-341=Syll.³ 752-755; Cic. pro Archia, 24; Strabo, xiii, c 618. Cf. the case of Pompeius Trogus, Just. xliii, 5, 11.

^{page 38 note 2} Cic, Phil, i, 10, 24; v. 4, 11 Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, iii, 135, 4.

^{page 39 note 1} See the inscription in honour of Syriscus, who was appointed by the magistrates of Chersonesus to write the history of Chersonesus composed in the style of the so-called ‘ἀρϵταλόγοι’ (see Reinach, , Cultes, mythes et religions, ii (1908), 293Google Scholar; Count Tolstoi, I., The White Isle and Taurike, Petrograd, 1918Google Scholar). Considerable attention is paid by Syriscus to the miracles (ἐπιπἀνϵιαι) of the Virgin-goddess (θϵà παρθένος) (cf. the so-called Chronicle of Lindos published by Blinkenberg, Oversigt over del Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskkabs Forhendlinger, 1912, 5-6, and separately in Lietzmann's Kleine Texte, 1915; cf. Dittenberger, Syll. ³ 725), but at the same time he dealt with historical facts and gave ample material illustrating the international treaties between Chersonesus and its neighbouring kings, in particular with the kings of Pontus and Bosporus. The inscription is published by Löper, Bull, de la Comm. arch. 45, 44 ft.; Latishev, I.O.S.P.E. i², 344; see the critical analysis of the inscription in my article ‘Syriscus, the historian of Chersonesus of Tauris,’ Journ. Ministeretva Narodnago Prosviescenija, 1915, 151 ff.

^{page 39 note 2} Löper, Bull. de la Comm. arch. 45, 23 ff; I.O.S.P.E. i.² 402, cf. my article ‘Amaga and Tirgatao’ in Zapiski Odesskago Obscestva Istorii i Drevnostej, xxxii.

^{page 39 note 3} Polyb. xxv, 2, cf. xxvi, 6 fl.

^{page 40 note 1} See my article ‘On the history of Chersonesus during the period of the early Roman empire,’ published in the volume dedicated to the Countess P.S. Uvarov, Moscow, 1916.

^{page 40 note 2} App. Mithr. 113.

^{page 40 note 3} App. Mithr. 120: Φαρνάκης διεθολιόρκει Φαναγορέας καὶ τὰ περίοικα τοῦ Βοσπόρου, μέχρι τών Φαναγορέων διὰ λιμὸν ἐς μάχην προελθόντων ἐκράτει τῇ μάχῃ, καὶ βλάψας οὐδὲν ἀλλὰ φίλους ποιησάμενος καὶ λαβὼν ὅμηρα ἀπεχώρει.

^{page 40 note 4} Dio, xlii, 47, more particulars in App. Mithr. 120 cf. B. Civ. ii, 91; Strabo, xi, 2, 17 c 498; Eutrop. vi, 22, 3.

^{page 40 note 5} Dio xlii, 48; App. Mithr. 121; B. Alex. 78, 2, cf. Strabo ll.

^{page 40 note 6} Dio xlviii, 26, 5.

^{page 40 note 7} Strabo, xiii, 4, 3, c 625.

^{page 41 note 1} See the inscription in honour of Acornion, Dittenberger, Syll. ³, 762, dealing with the facts connected with the struggle of Rome against the powerful king Boirebistas.

^{page 41 note 2} Strabo, xii, 3, 11, cf. xii, 3, 6 (Heraclea): ἐδέξατο ἀποικίαν ‘Ρωμαίων ἐπì τῆς πόλϵως καὶ τῆς χώρας Plin. Ep. x, 21Google Scholar; Plin. Nat. Hist. vi, 2Google Scholar; App. Mithr. 120, 121; Robinson, , Ancient Sinope (Baltimore, 1906), 255 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 42 note 1} Strabo, xii, 3, 14 c 547.

^{page 42 note 2} App. B. Civ. v, 75 (39 B.C.).

^{page 42 note 3} Strabo xii, 3, 14 c 547.

^{page 42 note 4} I quite agree with Gardthausen (Augustus und seine Zeit, i, 244) who refers the strengthening of Asandrus to the period immediately after the death of Caesar, i.e. 44 B.C. His authority was probably confirmed by Antonius, and no doubt cost him a large sum of money. The intricate question about Asandrus' coins has been greatly confused owing to the tendency to decide it on the ground of the likeness of the portraits on the coins to some Roman rulers (likeness to Caesar, Octavianus and Antony has been found), see Giel, Kleine Beiträge, 10 f.; Oreshnikov, Ann. de num. 1888, 5 f.; Wilcken in P.W. R.E. ii, 1517; Minns, Scythians and Greeks, 592. In the history of Bosporus during the period of Caesar and chiefly that of Augustus I deal in detail in my article, ‘The Bronze Bust of a Bosporan Queen and the history of Bosporus during the rule of Augustus,’ Moscow, 1914 (Drevnosti, xxv), cf. my article ‘The copper coinage of Dynamis and Aspurgus,’ Izvestija Tavriceskoj Archivnoi Commissii, 54 (1918Google Scholar).

^{page 43 note 1} See Minns, Scythians and Greeks, 521.

^{page 43 note 2} On Amisus, which had already received its freedom in 32 B.C. see Cumont-Anderson, , Studia Pontica, iii, 1, 2Google Scholar; Babelon-Reinach, , Recueil, i, 1, 44Google Scholar; G. Hirschfeld in P.W. R.E. i, 1839. Amisus being a Roman provincial town—a distinction which Chersonesus had been striving for in first and second cent. A.D.—still held the greatest part of its freedom and autonomy. As an exception the town was even allowed to coin silver.

^{page 43 note 3} I.O.S.P.E. i², 354 and 419.

^{page 43 note 4} Agrippa's policy is dealt with in my book, ‘Scythia and the kingdom of Bosporus,’which is still in the press. I will only point out that Agrippa settled the position of Cyzicus, Lampsacus and other towns closely connected with the kingdom of Bosporus and with Chersonesus. During his supreme command in Asia he settled the affairs of Bosporus and was ready to start a campaign against the usurper Scribonius, if circumstances made it necessary. However, the war was avoided (Fl. Jos. Ant. Jud. xvi, 16 f.; Cass. Dio. liv, 24) and the affairs of Bosporus, handed over to Polemon I. It is not precisely known how Agrippa ordered the state of affairs in Chersonesus, but the two inscriptions of Chersonesus dealing with Polemon and made just at that time show that the suggestion made in the text is more than likely. Let us not forget that one of these inscriptions mentions the συμμαχία and an armed force sent by Chersonesus to Polemon, and the other contains the beginning of a lengthy document also dealing with Polemon. At this same period or a little later a mission sent to queen Dynamis of Bosporus is dealt with (I.O.S.P.E. i², 354). This is a matter of great importance, that all these rulers of Bosporus are mentioned in Chersonesus just at this time, which is not done either before or after. Agrippa during his stay in Sinope actually subjected Chersonesus to Polemon, which probably did not affect the formal freedom of the town. This event took place in 14 B.C. during the stay of Agrippa and Herod of Judaea in Sinope. Strabo, whose information concerning Asia and Pontus goes as far as A.D. 17-18, could only consider the state of affairs caused by Agrippa, which as I have proved in my above-mentioned article (p. 40, n. 1) did not alter even after the death of Polemon and during the reign of Dynamis and Aspurgus According to Strabo, Chersonesus remained for a considerable time a subordinate σύμμαχος and a part of Bosporus, while the latter was a vassal of Rome and was obliged to provide soldiers for the Roman army. See the most ancient mention of a cohors Bosporanorum in the recently published Latin inscription from Antiochia in Pisidia discovered by Sir W. Ramsay. This inscription probably refers to 8-7 B.C. and the praefectura cohortis of C. Caristanius evidently took place a little earlier or later. Evidently the obligation of providing troops for the Roman army must have been inflicted on Bosporus by Agrippa, see Cheesman, Journ. of Rom. St. 1913, 252. It is interesting to note that Agrippa's scheme contained a certain autonomy for the towns of Bosporus, which has been proved by the independent copper coinage of Phanagoreia and Pantikapaion.

^{page 44 note 5} See my articles in Zurnal Ministerstva Narodnago Prosviescenia, 1900, March, 140 ff; Klio, ii, 30; Bull, de la Comm. Arch. 10, 4 ff; 23, 1 ff.; 27, 55 ff.; 32, 1 ff.; 40, 1 ff.; 58, 1 ff.; Christianskij Vostok, i and iii, and also my preface to the inscriptions of Ai-Todor (Crimea) in I.O.S.P.E. i². All the above-mentioned works deal with the history of the Crimea and the South of Russia in connexion with the occupation of the Crimea and Olbia by the Roman camps which took place during the Roman empire.