¹ I am much indebted to Mrs. M. I. Henderson, Professors H. T. Wade-Gery, Hugh Last, Felix Jacoby, E. Fraenkel, and Paul Maas for criticism and suggestions. I would also express my gratitude to the Oxford institutions whose generosity is making possible the research of which the present paper is a by-product. While this article was in the press, Mr. F. W. Walbank, who is publishing a full study of Alcaeus of Messene, sent me many suggestions and criticisms. I regret that they reached me too late to be utilised in full.

² Rossbach, O., Jahrb. f. class Phil. 143, 1891, 97n.Google Scholar; R. Reitzenstein, P-W s.v. ‘Alcaeus’; W. R. Paton, Loeb Library, ad loc.; Sanctis, G. De, Storia dei Romani iv, 1, 9Google Scholar; Brecht, F. J., ‘Motiv- und Typengeschichte des griech. Spottepigramms,’ Philologus, Suppl. 22, 1930, 7–8Google Scholar; F. W. Walbank, Philip V of Macedon, 1940, 120; Roebuck, C. A., A History of Messenia from 369 to 149 B.C., (Chicago, 1941), 84, n. 86Google Scholar.

³ Ditt. Syll.³ 573 βασιλεὺσ Μακεδόνων Φίλιπποσ βασιλέωσ Δημητρίου ἀπὸ τῶν κατὰ γῶν ἀγώνων Ἀπόλλωνι. Cf. Treves, P., Les Études classiques ix, 1940, 151 n.Google Scholar

⁴ Th. Bergk, , Philologus 32, 1873, 678Google Scholar; Susemihl, Fr., Literatur der Alexandrinerzeit ii, 543Google Scholar; H. Stadtmüller, Teubner ed., ad loc.; Wilamowitz-Möllendorf, U. v., Hellenistische Dichtung i, 1924, 224Google Scholar.

⁵ For the motive of the road to Heaven cf. Rhianus 265 F 60 Jac. = Powell, Coll. Al. p. 90, the famous passage in Athenaeus 6, 250 f. τἄλλα μὲν πάντα είναι κοινὰ τῶν ‘Ελλίνων, τὴν δ’ ἐπὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνθρώπουσ ϕὲρουσαν ὁδὸν Ἀθηναίουσ εἰδὲναι μόνουσ, and Ennius’ epigram for Scipio, of which Professor Wade-Gery reminded me:

A sole exoriente supra Maeotis paludes nemo est qui factis me aequiperare queat.

Si fas endo plagas caelestum ascendere cuiquam est

mi soli caeli maxima poirta patet.

Did Ennius know the epigram for Scipio's friend, King Philip? On the roads of the gods cf. Cameron, A., Harv. Theol. Rev. 33, 1940, 107–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. also Juven. i, 3, 78 (E. Fraenkel's suggestion).

⁶ Anth. Gr. vii, 247; cf. xvi, 5 and Plutarch, Titus 9.

⁷ ix, 519.

Πίομαι, ὦ Ληναῖε, πολὺ πλέον, ἤ πίε Κύκλωψ νηδὺν ἀνδρομέων πλησάμενος κρεάων.

πίομαι ὡς ὄφελόν γε καὶ ἔγκαρον ἐχθροῦ ἀράξας βρέγμα Φιλιππείης ἐζέπιον κεφαλῆς,

ὅσπερ ἑταιρείοιο παρὰ κρητῆρι φόνοιο γεύσατ᾿ ἐν ἀκρήτῳ φάρμακα χευάμενος.

⁸ Walbank, , Philip V 79, n. 2Google Scholar, who connects the epigram with the murder of Chariteles (Livy 32, 21, 23).

⁹ Anth. xi, 12.

Οἶνος καὶ Κένταυρον, Ἐπίκρατες, οὐχὶ δὲ μοῦνον ὤλεσεν, ἠδ᾿ ἐρατὴν Καλλίου ἡλικίην.

ὄντως οἰνοχάρων ὁ μονόμματος, ᾦ σὺ τάχιστα τὴν αὐτὴν πέμψαις ἐξ ᾿Αἰδεω πρόποσιν.

If the Callias here named is the Callias of Nisyros of IG xii, 3, 91, he was alive in 201 B.C.

¹⁰ Eusebius, Praep. Evang. x, 2, 23 = F Gr H 70 T 17.

¹¹ On Theopompus and Philip V see Photius ap. Jacoby F Gr H 115 T 31. On Demosthenes see Polybius xviii, 14 and Cloché, P., L'Antiquité classique 8, 1939, 361CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹² Theocritus xvii, 91–2. θάλασσα δὲ πᾶσα καὶ αῐα

καὶ ποταμοὶ κελάδοντεσ ἀνάσσονται πτολεμαίῳ, Callimachus, , Hymn iv, 166–8Google Scholar. ᾧ ὑπὸ μίτρην ἵξεται οὐκ ἀέκουσα Μακηδόνι κοιρανέεσθαι ἀμφοτέρη μεσόγεια καὶ αἵ πελάγεσσι κάθηνται κτλ. Melinno (Diehl, Anth. Lyr. ii, 315Google Scholar). σᾶι δ' ὐπὰ σδεύγλαι κρατερῶν λεπάδνων στέρνα γαίασ καὶ πολιᾶσ θαλάσσασ σϕίγγεται. Oldfather's opinion (P-W s.v. ‘Melinno’) that the ode to Rome was written about 270 B.C. seems hardly defensible. The poem presupposes a long period of Roman supremacy. I follow Wilamowitz, Timotheos, 1903, p. 71 n. (‘vor Mithradates’) and compare Ps.-Scymnus 11. 231–3, which were probably written about 130–115 B.C. (L. Pareti, Saggi offerti a G. Beloch 1910, 133; Fr. Gisinger, P-W s.v. ‘Skymnos’, 661); Rome is ἄστρον τι κοινὸν τῆσ ốλησ οἰκουμένησ. Mrs. M. I. Henderson further-more reminds me of the peculiar monument described in I Maccabees 14, 29: καὶ ἐποίησεν ἐπὶ τοῖς στύλοις πανοπλίας εἰς ὄνομα αἰώνιον, καὶ παρὰ ταῖς πανοπλίαις πλοῖα ἐπιγεγλυμμένα, εἰς τὸ θεωρεῖσθαι ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν πλεόντων τὴν θάλασσαν. If this is a celebration of the Rule over Land and Sea, the formula had become cheap indeed. Professor Beazley suggests for comparison with this monument K. Humann and O. Puchstein, Reisen in Kleinasien und Nordsyrien 1890, 212: at p. 213 note the quotation from Homer, Od. 24, 83: ὦσ κεν τηλεϕανὴσ ἐκ ποντόϕιν ἀνδράσιν εἴη κτλ. Cf. also the IV Hymn to Isis by Isidorus (I cent. B.C.) 1. II (SEG 8, 551).

¹³ Cf. Edson, Ch. F., Harv. Class. Stud. 45, 1934, 220Google Scholar. For the thalassocracy of Rhodes in the Rhodian historians cf. Strabo p. 654 (see also Polybius iv, 47, I). For Rhodes and liberty see Rostoytzeff, M., CAH viii, 623Google Scholar. For Helios and liberty cf. IG iv, I, 424–5; Pausanias ii, 31, 8; Macrobius, , Sat. i, 18Google Scholar, 18; Valens, Vettius, Anth. i, I (Kroll)Google Scholar; Artemidorus, , Onirocrit. ii, 36Google Scholar, p. 133 Hercher and, among others, F. J. Dölger, Die Sonne der Gerechtigkeit 1919, 90 ff.; J. Bidez, ‘La cité du monde et la cité du soleil chez les Stoiciens,’ Bull.Acad. Belg. 1932, 276; Rostovtzeff, M., Soc. Econ. Hist. Hellen. World iii, 1523Google Scholar; Dudley, D. R., JRS 31, 1941, 98Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Polybius 23, 8, 4–7; Livy, 39, 53, 12–13.

¹⁵ Poetae Lyrici Graeci iii, 196. To Bergk's explanation there is only one alternative forcibly presented to me by Professor Wade-Gery: that the poet was helping in the bolstering up of Macedonian morale in the last period of Philip V. I do not think that this view explains away the difficulty of the two first lines (πάλιν of 1.6 is, of course, no argument for any theory), but I would not deny that a case can be made.

¹⁶ Gesch. d. griech. und. maked. Staaten ii, 571.

¹⁷ Daughter Europe: Athen. 13, 557 e. Theopompus: fr. 27 Jac. διὰ τὸ μηδέποτε τὴν Εὐρώπην ἐνηνοχέναι τοιοῦτον ἄνδρα παράπαν οἰον τὸν 'Αμύντου Φίλιππον: fr. 256 εἰ βουληθείη Φίλιπποσ τοῖσ αὐτοῑσ ἐπιτηδεύμασιν ἐμμεῑναι καὶ τῆσ Εὐρώπησ πάσησ βασιλεύσει. Cf. Riv. Fil. Class. 61 1933, 477Google Scholar, ‘L'Europa come concetto politico in Isocrate e gli Isocratei.’ On Demetrius Poliorcetes: Plutarch, Dem. 41, 6; cf. Athen. 12, 535 f., and Tarn, CAH vii, 80. On the strategos of Europe, Bengtson, H., Die Strategic in der hellenistischen Zeit, i, 1937, 12Google Scholar. Cf. also Diod. 18, 4, 4 and Tarn, W. W., AJPh. 60, 1939, 59Google Scholar; and the very remarkable line of the third hymn to Isis by Isidorus (I cent. B.C.) οὗτοσ καὶ Ἀσίασ τε καὶ Εὐρώπησ τε ἀνάσσει (SEG. viii, 550, 13; Vogliano, A., Primo rapporto degli scavi condotti dalla missione archeologica della R. Univ. di Milano nella zona di Madinet Modi, Milano, 1936, 37Google Scholar.)

¹⁸ Polybius 5, 10, 10, and above n. 11.

¹⁹ See above p. 54, n. 9, and, possibly, n. 7. For Philip II and the Cyclops Didymus 12, 55 ff.

²⁰ Cf. the summary of the opinions in Waltz's edition (Les Belles Lettres) ad l.

²¹ xvi, 5

Αγαγε καὶ Ξέρξης Πέρσαν στρατὸν Ἑλλάδος ἐς γᾶν καὶ Τίτος εὐρείας ἄγαγ᾿ ἀπ᾿ Ἰταλίας.

ἀλλ᾿ ὁ μὲν Εὐρώπᾳ δοῦλον βυγὸν αὐχένι θήσων ἦλθεν, ὁ δ᾿ ἀμπαύσων Ἑλλάδα δουλοσύνας.

I may perhaps recall another curious text: Eusebius i, 238, Schöne (Demetrius II) γήμας δέ τινα τῶν αἰχμαλώτων καὶ χρυσηἶδα προσειπών, Φίλιππον ἐξ αὐτῆς ἔσχε τὸν πρῶτον πολεμήσαντα Ῥωμαίοισ καὶ κακῶν αἴτιον Μακεδόσι γενόμενον. The passage, with its obvious Homeric allusion, was explained by W. W. Tarn, Athenian Studies presented to W. S. Ferguson, 1940, 494, but gains in poignancy if the Romans are the new Trojans.

²² Wilamowitz, , Hellenistische Dichtung ii, 143Google Scholar (cf. also his De Lye. AL commentatiuncula, Greifswald 1883); G. Pasquali, Encicl. Italiana s.v. ‘Roma’ 907–8. Recent valuable literature in a conservative sense includes Corssen, P., Rh. Museum 68, 1913, 321Google Scholar; Rollo, W., Mnemosyne 56, 1928, 93Google Scholar; E. Griset, Licofrone e Tolemeo, Pinerolo 1927 (cf. Boll. Fil. Class. 35, 1929, 54Google Scholar) Cf. also Frank, T., CAH vii, 653Google Scholar. The allusion to Pyrrhus (as I am reminded by Professor Last) was first discovered by H. G. Reichard in his commèntary (Leipzig, 1788, p. 225). J. Potter (1702) still thought ‘non posse ex historiis, quae hodie extant, explicari hunc locum’. Among the commentaries, I am especially indebted to Holzinger, C. v., Lykophron's Al., griechisch und deutsch, 1895Google Scholar, who dates the Alexandra in 274 B.C. (p. 61). E. Ciaceri's (Catania, 1901) and A. W. Mair's (Loeb Library 1921) editions are, too, very valuable.

²³ Griech. Gesch.² iv, 2, 566Google Scholar. Niebuhr's article (Rhein. Mus. I, 1827, 108Google Scholar) is in Kleine Historische and Philologische Schriften i, 1828, 438–450Google Scholar.

²⁴ P-W s.v. ‘Lykophron’ 1927 (an admirable study). Cf. Sudhaus, S., Rh. Museum 63 (1908) 481Google Scholar. W. W. Tarn, Hellenistic Civilisation² 241 accepts Ziegler's thesis. In JHS 59, 1939, 128Google Scholar, Dr. Tarn stresses a fact which may implicitly be considered another argument for the later date (though discussing it for quite a different purpose). Lycophron 1. 1361 καì σαλπíων … ὀχθηρῶν πάγων is said to allude to the Alps, which Apollonius Rhodius still ignored (iv, 627–9) and the source of Ps.-Scymnus (11. 188–190) as well as Timaeus (fr. 36 Mueller, cf. Diod. 5, 21, I) knew only very vaguely. But the point is whether Lycophron did allude to the Alps at all (see Holzinger's comment) and, if he did, whether his knowledge must be considered precise enough to contradict what Timaeus or somebody else may have known in the early third century B.C. I am grateful to Professor F. Jacoby for an illuminating letter on this subject: he is, however, not responsible for the view expressed in this note.

²⁵ Gnomon. 1927, 320. Cf. his highly instructive paper on Eustathius, in Byz. Zeitschrift 35, 1935, 299Google Scholar; 36, 1936, 27.

²⁶ Fr. 50, p. 203, Nauck, 1848; for the parallel tradition see E. Miller, Mélanges de litt. grecque 1868, 428, note 1. Cf. L. Cohn, P-W, s.v. ‘Eustathios’, 1476; 1482. As Cohn says, ‘die Exzerpte des E. [Eustathius] sind aber grösstenteils viel reichhaltiger als die des Athous [published by Miller l.c.].’ To my mind, therefore, the omission in the Codex Athous is not a sufficient argument against the authority of Eustathius. The doubts cast on the authenticity of Aristophanes' passage discourage arguments based on it. But it must be said that, if the quotation is authentic, as I believe it is, further sweeping conclusions are legitimate. In fact, Aristophanes thought he had discovered a Chalcidism in the Alexandra, but Athenaeus three times quotes the tragic Lycophron as the Chalcidian Lycophron (2, 55 c; 10, 420a; 13, 555a). It follows that the author of the Alexandra is identical with the author of the tragedies, and that the author of the tragedies is not a son of Lycus of Rhegium, whatever the explanation of the notice of Suidas s.v. Λ;ύκοσ (cf. also Λυκόϕρων) may be.

²⁷ Incidentally, the six generations (whatever the underlying chronological system) seem to be a mystical number. For later (first century B.C. ?) speculation whether Rome represented the seventh age see Lactantius vii, 15. Cf. especially Windisch, H., ‘Die Orakel des Hystaspes,’ Verhand. Akad. Amsterdam 28, 3, 1929Google Scholar, and Bidez-Cumont, , Les mages hellénisés i, 1938, 215Google Scholar. But compare Ennius 493 V: septingenti sunt paulo plus aut minus anni augusto augurio postquam inclita condita Roma est.

(on which see Swain, J. W., Class. Phil. 35, 1940, 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar). The Sibylline books do not help much: the best analogy is perhaps iv, 49. On their reckoning Alexander, , Oracula Sibyllina ii, 1856, 441Google Scholar. For the unlikely interpretation of γέννα = ‘year’ see Holzinger's commentary.

²⁸ On the embassy and the Roman answer (Livy per. 14; Justin 18, 2, 9; Valerius Maximus 4, 3, 9; Eutropius 2, 15; Dionysius 20, 14; Dio Cassius fr. 41 and Zonaras 8, 6) the earlier literature in E. Ciaceri, Processi politici e relazioni internazionali 1918, 1. Cf. M. Holleaux, Rome, la Grèce et les monarchies hellénistiques 60 ff.; Tarn, W. W., JEA 14, 1928, 251Google Scholar; A. Heuss, Die völkerr. Grundlagen d. röm. Aussenpolitik 1933, 28 n.; Rostovtzeff, M., Soc. Econ. Hist. Hellen. World i, 395Google Scholar, who writes : ‘Egypt and Rome had no political interests in common, and even the failure of Pyrrhus to humiliate Rome is not a satisfactory explanation of the dispatch by Philadelphus of a political mission to that city.’ I substantially agree with Frank, T., CAH vii, 653Google Scholar, and think that the relations between Alexandria and Carthage now illustrated by Rostovtzeff give the clue to Alexandria's interest in Rome.

On the Fides of Locri, BMC Italy 365, comnos. 15 ff.; Oldfather, P-W s.v. ‘Lokroi’ 1338. The Hannibalic date is, however, preferred again by Mattingly, H. and Robinson, E. S. G., Proc. Brit. Acad. 18, 1932, 246Google Scholar, on the basis of Diodorus 27, 4, 1. W. Giesecke, Italia Numismatica 1928, 112–13, summarizes the reasons pro and contra Pyrrhus' time, but a new full discussion is to be desired. The new Callimachus in Papiri della R. Università di Milano, 1, 1937, 37Google Scholar. I follow the theory that the aes grave is not earlier than 289 B.C., but cannot accept Mattingly's, H. corollary (JRS. 19, 1929, 24Google Scholar) that the prow type is later than the beginning of the first Punic War. I am grateful to Dr. J. G. Milne for information on this topic.

²⁹ I am not convinced by the acute observations of R. Laqueur P-W s.v. ‘Timaios’ 1200, neither do I think it necessary to believe that Timaeus could attribute the same date to the foundations of Rome and Carthage only after the beginning of the first Punic war. I am glad to agree also on this point with Pasquali, G., St. Ital. Fil. Class. 16, 1939, 97–8Google Scholar, although his explanation is still too complicated. The synchronism may indicate friendship rather than hostility.

³⁰ Cf. especially Tarn, W. W., JHS 27, 1907, 49CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and also Holzinger, op. cit. p. 62.

³¹ Hellenistic Military and Naval developments 1930, 143.

³² Cf. Bollett. Filologia Classica 34, 1928, 250, ‘Note sull' Alessandra di Licofrone.’ Holzinger p. 382 wisely wrote: ‘Unter welchen speciellen persönlichen Umständen Lykophron diese Verse schrieb, is leider ebensowenig bekannt, als sein Charakter.’ His relation to Lycus of Rhegium, if better established, might help to explain his outlook. On Egypt and Italy notice also the ‘Roman’ in the army of Philadelphia revealed by Bell, H. I., Arch. Pap. 7, 1926, 17Google Scholar, and the observations by Milne, J. G., JRS 28, 1938, 72Google Scholar n. Another point may be stressed briefly here. If Cleitarchus, who wrote under Ptolemaic influence, really spoke of Rome's embassy to Alexander, as Pliny says (NH iii, 57, fr. 31 Jacoby), Rome's reputation in Alexandria even before 283 B.C. would, in my opinion, sufficiently explain why he could have been tempted to interpolate her name. But I incline to agree with Tarn, , JHS 41, 1921, 13Google Scholar, that Pliny is not trustworthy. Anyway one has to choose between Pliny's blunder and Cleitarchus' falsification (preferred by F. Jacoby, P-W s.v. ‘Kleitarchos’ 636 and commentary to F Gr H 137 F 31). The theory that the embassy is authentic has attracted the great names of Niebuhr, Droysen, and De Sanctis, but, I am afraid, little else is to be said for it; recently it has been defended by E. Mederer, Die Alexander-legenden bei den ältesten Alexanderhistorikern 1936, 108.

³³ It is enough to quote Arist. Ach. 195; Thucydides iv, 118; v, 18; v, 47; IG i² 86 = Tod 72; Xenophon, Hell, ii, 2, 20Google Scholar; Ditt. Syll. ³ 147; 229, etc., etc. Among other fifth century texts cf. Ditt. Syll. ³ 37 = Schwyzer 710 and the epigram in Diod. xi, 62 = Anth. vii, 296 (on which Wade-Gery, H. T., JHS 53, 1933, 82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Friedländer, P., St. Ital. Fil. Class. 15, 1938, 89Google Scholar; W. Peek, Athenian Studies presented to W. S. Ferguson 1940, 97; I follow Friedländer and therefore by implication De Sanctis, G., Riv. Fil. Class. 21, 1892, 97Google Scholar, whose solution was independently presented by Meyer, E., Forsch. z. alten Gesch. ii, 1)Google Scholar.

³⁴ For instance Plut. Arat. 24 (Ptolemy iii and the Achaians); IG ix, 1, 2nd ed., 4, 11. 17 ff. (the Aetolians and Magnesia on the Maeander; Rostovtzeff op. cit. 1362); Ditt. Syll. ³ 581, 1. 55 = Schwyzer 288 (treaty between Rhodes and Hierapytna). But the instances are too numerous. Cf. especially Graetzel, P., ‘De pactionum inter graecas civitates factarum ad bellum pacemque pertinentium appellationibus formulis ratione Diss. Phil. Halenses vii, 1886Google Scholar.

³⁵ For instance Appian, Lyb. 54, 237Google Scholar (treaty with Carthage 201 B.C.) on which Sanctis, De, St: d. Romani iii, 2, 619Google Scholar; I Macc. 8, 23; 32 (treaty with Judaea 161 B.c;); IG xii, 3, 173 = Viereck, , Sermo Graecus 21 = IGR iv, 1028Google Scholar (treaty with Astypaleia 105 B.C.). For the formula ‘terra marique’ cf. for instance Plaut., Poen. 105, and, in general, the material of the Thesaurus L.L. s.v. ‘mare’.

³⁶ The three most important texts I take to be Herodotus vii, 157 ff.; Ps. Xenophon, Ath. Respubl. 2 ff.; Thucydides ii, 62 (cf. viii, 46). But the theory underlying much of Herodotus and Thucydides deserves further analytical discussion. The best observations perhaps in K. I. Gelzer, Die Schrift vom Staate der Athener 1937, 16 ff. (A. W. Gomme ‘The Old Oligarch’ in Athenian Studies presented to W. S. Ferguson 211 does not examine this aspect of Ps.Xenophon). I hope to discuss elsewhere the relations between Thucydides and Ps. Xenophon. On Herodotus vii, 157 ff., cf. now also Treves, P., Class. Phil. 36, 1941, 321CrossRefGoogle Scholar (with whom I agree only partially). A case for the fifth-century origin of the list of thalassocracies in Eusebius was made by Myres, J. L., JHS 26, 1906, 84CrossRefGoogle Scholar (cf. ibid. 27, 1907, 123; A. R. Burn, ibid. 47, 1927, 165), but cf. Aly, W., Rh. Museum 66, 1911, 584Google Scholar, and Helm, R., Hermes 61, 1926, 241Google Scholar: the question should be re-examined. [Cf. my forthcoming paper, Sea-power in Greek Thought.]

Among the texts of the fourth century B.C. I quote: Xenoph., , Hellen. vii, 1Google Scholar; Isocrates v (Phil.) 60 πεισθέντεσ γὰρ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ τῆσ κατὰ θάλασσαν δυνάμεωσ ἐπιθυμῦσαι καὶ τὴν κατὰ γῆν ἡγεμνίαν ἀπὠλεσαν (the Spartans); viii (De Pace) 102; ix (Euagor.) 54; xii (Panath.) 103, etc., and Demosthenes (III Phil.) 47; xv (Lib. Rhod.) 22; xix (De falsa leg.) 264 ἲστε γὰρ δή;που τοῦθ ὅτι γῆσ καὶ θαλάσσησ ἤρχον ὡσ ἔποσ εἰΠεἴν Λακεδιμόνιοι κατ’Ẻκείνουσ τοὺσ χρόνουσ. Xenophon, Oec. v, 17, is curious. Cf. also Arist., Pol. 1274 a 12; 1304 a 22; Ἀθ πολ. 41, etc.; and especially the discussion between Plato Laws, book iv, and Arist. Pol. 1327a 11 (an echo in Cic, . Rep. ii, 4, 7Google Scholar from Dicaearchus: cf. ad. Att. vi, 2, 3Google Scholar.) For the end of the Athenian ideal of hegemony see the striking epigram Anth. xii, 55 (of about 200–150 B.C.: see W. S. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens 287, n. 2: I owe the reference to Professor Wade-Gery), 11. 5–6 ἡ δ’ ἀνὰ κῦμ’ ἄρξασα καὶ ἐν χθονὶσ Ἀθήνη νῦν κάλλει δούλην Ἑλλαδ'ὑπηγὰετο

³⁷ Cf. especially Hesiod Theog. 412–13 on Hecate (on which Wilamowitz, , Glaube der Hellenen i, 172Google Scholar, against Kern, O., Röm. Mitteil. 50, 1925, 157Google Scholar, and Pfister, Fr., Philologus 84, 1929, 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar) and Pindar, Olymp. 12 on Tyche. But also the famous line Il. 8, 24 αủτῇ κεν γαίῃ ἐρύσαιμ’ αὐτῇ τε θαλάσσῃ for the fortune of which, cf. J. Amman, Die Zeusrede des Ailios Aristeides 1931, 76. Somewhat interesting is fr. 5 of Timocreon (Diehl, Anth. Lyr. ii, 122Google Scholar) probably imitated by Aristophanes, Acharn. 534; Equ. 609 (P. Maas, P-W s.v. ‘Timocreon’ 1271).

The influence of the parallel Persian conception of the γῆ τε καὶ ὔδωρ asks for no comment. Cf. the text of Arist. Equ. 1086 ff. (E. Fraenkel's suggestion.)

To my regret I am unable to consult the great new history of Greek Religion published by M. P. Nilsson in 1940.

³⁸ Cic, Pro Balbo 6, 16, ‘cuius res gestae omnis gentes cum clarissima victoria terra marique peragrassent.’ Cf. De imper. Cn. Pompei 19, 56.

³⁹ Athen. 6, 253 d. Cf. Ehrenberg, V., Die Antike 7, 1931, 279Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Ditt. OGIS 56, 12Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Ditt. Syll. ³ 751 = ILS 8776. Cf. ILS 9459. Xen. Vect. 5, 10 is a forerunner of the formulaGoogle Scholar.

⁴² Appian, BC 5, 542Google Scholar.

⁴³ IBMus. 894 (new text and date in Buckler, W. H., Rev. Philol. 61, 1935, 182)Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ The principal texts are: Res gestae 13; Livy i, 19, 3; Suetonius, Aug. 22; also Nero's coins ‘Pace P.R. terra mariq. parta Janum clusit S.C.’ (BMC Roman Empire i, 229Google Scholar ff.). Cf. Gagé, J., Mél. Écol. Rome 53, 1936, 70Google Scholar, and my forthcoming paper, The Peace of the Ara Pacis in Journ. Warburg Inst. It is a pleasure to acknowledge my great debt to Gagé's illuminating pages.

⁴⁵ For Augustus, cf. the cameo published in Rev. archéol. 30, 1929, 64; IGR i, 901 (Phanagoria) τὸν Πάσησ γῆσ καὶ Πάσησ θαλάδδησ ἅρχοντα; iii; 719 (Myra); iv, 309, 315 (Pergamum); Propertius iv, 6, 39; Horace, , Sat. ii, 5, 62Google Scholar, etc. Also Suetonius Aug. 98 ‘Per ilium se vivere, per ilium navigare, libertate atque fortunis per ilium frui’. Cf. Statius, Theb. i, 31Google Scholar, ‘undarum terraeque potens’; IGRI i, 772 (Severus Alexander); Ditt. Syll. ³ 906 A (A.D. 361–3)τὸν γῆσ καὶ θαλάσσησ καὶ παντὸσ ἀνθρώπων ἔθνουσ δεσπότην Φλ. Κλαύδιον Ἰουλιανόν, and, to a certain point, Nero's speech Ditt. Syll.3 814 = ILS 8794. Very significant (for Arrian) the passage of Arrian, Anab. vii, 15, 5, καὶ τότε μάλιστα αὐτὸν τε αὑῷ Ἀλέξανδρον καὶ τοῑσ ἀμϕ’ αὐτὸν ϕανῆναι γῆσ τε ἁπάσησ καὶ θαλάσσησ κύριον (on which Tarn, W. W., JHS 59, 1939, 132)Google Scholar.

Cf. also the following texts Nic. Dam Vita Caes. 20 (FGrH. 90 F 130); Livy i, 23, 8; 38, 48, 4; Dionys. Hal. i, 2, 4; 3, 3; 9, 1; Fronto, p. 241 Naber (Epist. Graec. 1); Luc. Macr. 9 (on which Gallavotti, C., Riv. Fil. Class. 58, 1930, 149Google Scholar, with whom I do not agree entirely). Mr. Walbank adds Juven. 1, 4, 83. On the relation of Suet. Aug. 98 cit. to Verg. Georg. i, 29 ff. E. Norden, Geburt d. Kindes, 71, n. 2.

Here, too, of course the parallelism with the gods or, rather, Zeus (ἐκ δὲ Διὸσ βασιλῆεσ, Callim. Hymn, i) is evident. Cleanthes' hymn 15–16(Wilamowitz, , Hell.Dicht. ii, 257Google Scholar; Powell, Collect. Alex. 227; cf. Neustadt, E., Hermes 66, 1931, 387Google Scholar, and M. Pohlenz, ibid. 75, 1940, 117); the prayer to Zeus of Ditt. Syll. ³ 985, iv, 63 (cf. Weinreich, O., SB Heidelb. Ak. 10, 1919, Abh. 16Google Scholar); Plautus Rud. I ‘Qui gentes omnis mariaque et terras movet’; Cic. Pro Sex. Roscio 45, 131; Thesaurus L.L. s.v. ‘mare’, 386. Cf. also Plutarch, Sept. Sap. Conv. 161 f. ἐπισκοπεῐ κύκλῳ ὁ εὸσ τὰ πραττόμενα περὶ γῆν τε καὶ θάλατταν.

⁴⁶ The loci classici are, as is well known, Res. gestae 25–6; Philo, Leg. ad Gaium 144 ff.; Pliny, Paneg. 29; Epictetus, Diss. iii, 13, 9Google Scholar; Aelius, Aristides 14, 67. Dio Cassius attributed to Antony the description of Caesar as εỉρηνοπιόσ (44, 49, 2), which may or may not be authentic. But Commodus εỉρηνοποιὸσ τῆσ οỉκουμένησ (Dio 72, 15, 5) is certainly authentic: cf. for instance ILS 400. Among the other texts notice ILS 8870 = IGR iii, 481, in honour of Valerius Statilius Castus προσνοησάμενον τῆσ εỉρήνησ κατὰ θάλασσαν καΙ κατὰ γῆν (middle of the third century A.D.; cf. Domaszewski, A.v., Rh. Mus. 58, 1903, 382Google Scholar, and Forsch. Ephesos iii, 38).

This terminology shows the significance of Lucretius i, 29–30, ‘effice ut interea fera moenera militiai per maria et terras omnis sopita quiescant: nam tu sola potes tranquilla pace iuvare mortalis.’ of course I do not aim at any complete collection of texts. In general, cf. Gagé's comment on Res gestae l.c. and texts and bibliography there quoted.

⁴⁷ J. Vogt, Orbis Romanus 1929; Alföldi, A., Röm. Mitt. 49, 1934, 30Google Scholar; 50, 1935. 36; L. Berlinger, Beiträdge zur inoffiziellen Titulatur der römischen Kaiser 1935 42–67 (an excellent collection of evidence). Cf. also Procopius, , de aedificiis i, 2, 11Google Scholar (equestrian statue of Justinian) καὶ φέρει μὲν χειρὶ τῇ λαιᾷ πόλον παραδηλῶν ὁ πλάστης ὅτι γῆ τε αὐτῷ καὶ θάλασσα δεδούλωται πᾶσα. (A. Grabar, L'empereur dans l'art byzantin 1936, 46; Downey, G., Trans. Am. Phil. Ass. 71, 1940, 68Google Scholar). I am not concerned here with the idea of Oikumene, to which F. Gisinger, P-W s.v. ‘Oikumene’ 2138; 2166 gives the best introduction. Cf. Weinreich, O., Jahrb. f. Liturgiewissenschaft 10, 1930, 142Google Scholar (on δωτὴρ τῆσ οỉκουμὲνησ).

⁴⁸ Windisch, H., Z. f. neutest. Wiss. 24, 1925, 251Google Scholar; Theol. Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testam. s.v. εỉρήνη; cf. also H. Fuchs, Augustin und der antike Friedensgedanke 1926, 207.