¹ This article continues—and in some measure corrects and supplements—my ‘Seleucus and Theodoras’ (Opusc. Ath. i (1953) 130 ff.), which in effect is a study of Cyprus under Euergetes II. It has been read in typescript by Mr. T. C. Skeat, Deputy Keeper of Manuscripts in the British Museum, and by Mr. P. M. Fraser, Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford: I feel that anything which has passed the scrutiny of these two scholars must be both accurate and sensible, and to them for this and for their comments and criticisms my sincere thanks are due. Nevertheless, for the views which I express and for the mistakes which are still outstanding I am solely responsible. I am grateful also to my friends, Mr. A. H. S. Megaw, Director of the Cyprus Department of Antiquities, and Mr. P. Dikaios, Curator of the Cyprus Museum, for their invitation to publish the inscriptions of the ‘Marble Forum’ at Salamis, now being excavated by their Department under the direction of Mr. V. Karageorghis; thus giving me access to our no. 6 below. My abbreviations are in the main those of Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum x. But I also use:

LBW for Le Bas et Waddington, Voyage archéologique, etc.

Prosop. Ptol. for Peremans, W. and Dack, E. van 'T, Prosopographia Ptolemaica. Louvain, 1950.Google Scholar

And I cite by the authors' names the following:

Bengtson, H., Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit, i–iii (München, 1944 and 1952).Google Scholar

Bevan, E., A History of Egypt, The Ptolemaic Dynasty (London, 1927).Google Scholar

Cohen, D., De Magistratibus Aegyptiis externas Lagidarum regni provincias administrantibus (Diss. Leiden, 1912).Google Scholar

Corradi, G., Studi Ellenistici (Torino, 1929).Google Scholar

SirHill, George, A History of Cyprus i (Cambridge, 1940).Google Scholar

Launey, M., Récherches sur les Armées hellénistiques, i and ii (Paris, 1949, 1950).Google Scholar

Lesquier, J., Les Institutions militaires de l'Égypte sous les Lagìdes (Paris, 1911).Google Scholar

Meyer, P. M., Das Heerwesen der Ptolemäer u. Römer in Aegypten (Leipzig, 1900).Google Scholar

Mitford, T. B., ‘Seleucus and Theodorus’ in Opusc. Ath. i (1953) 130 ff.Google Scholar

Otto, W., Zur Geschichte der Keit des VI Ptolemäers (München, 1934).Google Scholar

Otto, W. u. Bengtson, H., Zur Geschichte des Niederganges des Ptolemäerreiches (München, 1938).Google Scholar

Peristianis, I. K., Γενικὴ Ἱστορία τῆζ νήσου Κύπρου (Nikosia, 1910).Google Scholar

Strack, M. L., Die Dynastie der Ptolemäer (Berlin, 1897).Google Scholar

² JHS lvii (1937) 36. There, however, I supported Dittenberger (as against Otto, , RE vii 2847f.Google Scholar) in ascribing Helenos' strategia to the reign of Euergetes II. But I was then able to read the first three lines only of the inscription I was editing, our no. 9 below.

³ By letter to Sir George Hill: Hill, 201, 202. These are substantially the views I still hold. Cf. further my note, Arch. Pap. xiii (1938) 38 n. 6.

⁴ T. B. Mitford, 147 f., 165 n. 118.

⁵ In the course of excavations conducted by the Kouklia Expedition of the University of St. Andrews and the Liverpool Museum, under the direction of Mr. J. H. Iliffe and myself.

⁶ Hombert, M. et Préaux, C., Chron. d'Égypte xiii (1938) 139 ff.Google Scholar (SB 8035).

⁷ Hill, 202 n. 1.

⁸ Cf. the comments of Glanville, S. R. K. and Skeat, T. C., JEA xl (1954) 57 f.Google Scholar Mlle. Préaux herself writes (in a letter to Mr. Skeat, dated April 13, 1954): ‘Cette question me laisse trés perplexe et M. Hombert, que j'ai consulté, partage cette perplexité. La planche annexée à la Chronique d'Égypte est très fidèle et l'inspection du papyrus lui-même ne m'a donné aucune certitude supplémentaire. Je ne vois pas ce qui autorise une résolution en 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.

⁹ Thus Professor E. G. Turner observes (in a letter dated January 28, 1956): ‘… abbreviation by omission of an important element of the word, above all in a name which it is important to distinguish from other similar names, is unexampled; moreover it is not used later on in the same text, for in l. 9 there are two names ending in -δώρου written out in full. Moreover what lies between the λλ and the undoubted termination in ου does not seem to bear a mark of abbreviation. … I imagine the editors supposed it might stand for a monogram, but I do not recollect one like it. … I think therefore that we are bound to suppose that the scribe wrote out the name in full. … In 1. 6 one can see the ductus perfectly … and interpretation of it would lead to a reading 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.

^9a But Mr. Fraser (who introduces Apollodotos as a possible alternative to Apollodoros and Apollonios) would reject Ἀπολλιξον, since elsewhere in this papyrus (e.g. lines 1–2) xi is rendered thus: 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.’ Peremans, and Dack, van 'T, Prosopographica in Studia Hellenistica ix (1953) 11 ff.Google Scholar (JEA xli (1955) 133), however, accept Apollodoros without demur, identifying Helenos' father with the Apollodoros of SB 1568—but it may be that they are unaware of this controversy.

¹⁰ Twenty-one pedestals of Old Paphos belonging to the reigns of Philometor, Euergetes II and Ptolemy Alexander are sufficiently undamaged for their height to be accurately measured. This varies from 0·215 to 0·33, with the average c. 0·27.

¹¹ Thus I note in seven undamaged occurrences of dating, ranging in time from Euergetes I to So ter II, one instance only (unpublished, of the mid-second century) where the numeral has been over-scored; in eleven funerary inscriptions which give the age of the deceased again one only. The ceramic texts of Kafizin, (AJA xxx (1926) 249 ff.Google Scholar; CQ xliv (1950) 97 ff.; Dan. Arkaeol. Kunsthist. Medd. iv (1953) 1 ff.—but the vast majority of these is still to be published), which belong to the eighth and ninth decades of the third century, have out of approximately fifty-two dates a mere five with the numeral thus distinguished. But this stroke over the numeral becomes fashionable in the Roman period.

¹² The stone, here much damaged, preserves traces of the tops of four letters. These can readily be reconciled with ΕΝΕΣ, save that nu has seemingly a horizontal stroke at the top of it, while there is no convincing vestige of its slanting hasta. This horizontal, however, is very probably casual, since it is somewhat tilted and erratic, while flaking of the surface may have removed the latter.

¹³ Or indeed for a very possible abbreviation of the title used by our no. 3.

¹⁴ I am not aware of any exception to this rule. Thus Theodoros serving, admittedly in important capacities, under his father Seleukos, enjoys the rank τῶν πρώτων φίλων (T. B. Mitford, nos. 1, 9, 10 and 11). Theodoros' son in Theodoros' own strategia is in our no. 1 likewise a Chief Friend, in ibid. no. 21—by a restoration—an 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 Friend, Chief (Mnem. vi (1938) 118Google Scholar), another a Captain of the Body Guard (unpublished)—once more without mention of any office. Finally, an adult grandson serves Ptolemy of Megalopolis, Governor of Cyprus, with the lowly rank τῶν διαοόχων (Arch. Pap. xiii (1938) no. 12). It is clear that the sons of a strategos of the island were entitled, irrespective of office, to a high court rank, usually immediately below that of the father. We may compare at a lower plane the case of the 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.

¹⁵ In T. B. Mitford, 165 n. 115 are discussed briefly both formula and title, and the seven occurrences known to me of the Priesthood of the Paphian Aphrodite are listed.

¹⁶ JHS ix (1888) nos. 97 and 114, respectively IGR iii 954 and 955. These were associated by me in BSA xlii (1948) 216 no. 6, and record the erection of the statue of an? Antonine proconsul, one D. Felix Plautius Julianus.

¹⁷ To the third century belong five of six instances of the dedication to Aphrodite simpliciter—the sixth being JHS ix (1888) no. 73 of the early second. Ἀφροοίτημ Παφίαι occurs for the first time in LBW 2798, seemingly of the reign of Euergetes I, once again at the turn of the century (JHS ix (1888) no. 118), and thereafter regularly throughout the remainder of the Hellenistic era, invariably throughout the Roman. In passing, we may note that Παφίαι by itself is never found at either Old or New Paphos, four apparent occurrences being due to the fact that an adjoining block which carried Ἀφροόίτηι has been either lost or not associated; further, that the term Aphrodite has not as yet been attested in the syllabic epigraphy of Classical and Archaic Paphos, where we hear only of Vanassa, the Lady. For the Priesthood of Paphian Aphrodite at Old Paphos, cf. comments in T. B. Mitford, 165 and notes 115, 116.

¹⁸ In Hellenistic inscriptions the dedication to Paphian Aphrodite concludes an inscription on three occasions: JHS ix (1888) no. 36 (twice) and JHS ix (1888) no. 70= OGI 126 (A. Wilhelm, S. B. Ak. Wien ccxxiv (1946) 14 ff.). The latter is certainly, the former seemingly, of mid-second century date. Aphrodite simpliciter occurs five times in this position.

¹⁹ I am indebted to Mr. Karageorghis for this information. I have myself noted (Byzantion xx (1950) 140) a floruit in Cyprus during the latter part of the fifth and the sixth century of our era, as attested by the excellence with which certain inscriptions of that period were engraved.

²⁰ Otto, W., S.B. Bayr. Ak. 1939. 3Google Scholar, Ptolemaica 13 and n. 3. Otto in this note thanks his colleague for a ‘gemeinsame Prüfung der Abklatsche’. These I was prompted to send by Otto's severe strictures of my reading (Arch. Pap. xiii (1938) 38 n. 6), conveyed in the Nachträge to W. Otto and H. Bengtson, 220.

²¹ Thus Otto himself speaks of the ‘ungewöhnlich schlecht erhaltene und daher auch sehr schwer lesbare Inschrift’. He offers no reading for the end of 1. 5.

²² I long favoured the name Ἑρμείας. What remains, however, of the first letter resembles rather sigma than epsilon. The second is seemingly iota. The upper part of the right hasta of mu may survive, but for the rest this letter is represented by a defaced rectangle. What I originally took to be the upper most horizontal of epsilon, a bold stroke, slightly tilted, I now believe to have been caused by the defacer's chisel. It overrides a very faint triangular area, so marked as to suggest rather alpha than lambda. It is followed by a similar triangular area. Omicron and the final sigma conform to certain vague traces. Σίμαλος, I am convinced, is the easiest reading of this, the most difficult passage of the entire inscription.

²³ In W. Otto and H. Bengtson, 56 n. 1, April–May 131 B.C. is given as the date of the outbreak of revolution. Cf. further T. B. Mitford, 158.

²⁴ W. Otto and H. Bengtson, 99, place the recapture of Alexandria between August 127 and August 126 B.C. E. R. Bevan, 312, gives the traditional date offers 129 B.C. There is, however, no compelling reason why the flight of Kleopatra II to Syria should coincide with the fall of the city. Otto's reasoning is accepted by Rostovtzeff, , Hellenistic World 921.Google Scholar

²⁵ But this, the traditional view, which I myself favour, is rejected by Otto and Bengtson (167 ff.) for their own somewhat tortuous reconstruction: Ptolemy Alexander, strategos of Cyprus from 114–113 B.C. was in 110 B.C. briefly restored to Egypt to share his mother's throne. On his expulsion and return to Cyprus, not merely did he keep the royal title, but he extended his reign retrospectively to include the years of his strategia. I shall discuss Otto's arguments below, p. 115; but I must here warn the reader that they can still claim the weighty support not only of Bengtson in his Strategie but of T. C. Skeat and others.

²⁶ Cf. my ‘Seleucus and Theodorus’ in Opusc. Ath. i (1953) 130 ff.

²⁷ Ibid. 166 I consigned this strategos to the first years of that second sojourn of Soter II in Cyprus which began in 106–105 B.C. We shall, however, find him in our no. 4 above to be none other than Helenos himself: p. 110 below.

²⁸ These are: (i) OGI 156 + 158 = Mitford, T. B., no. 16. (2) JHS ix (1888)Google Scholar no. 12b = T. B. Mitford, no. 17. (3) OGI 157 = T. B. Mitford, no. 18. (4) OGI 162 = T. B. Mitford, no. 19. (5) JHS ix (1888) no. 82 = T. B. Mitford, no. 20. (6) JHS ix (1888) nos. 12a + 45 = T. B. Mitford, no. 21. And to these from its failure to mention the royal house in its motive-formula OGI 145 = T. B. Mitford, no. 23, is very probably to be added.

²⁹ OGI 143 = T. B. Mitford, no. 29, discussed below, p. 111.

³⁰ In the first of Theodoros' inscriptions, cited in n. 28 above, he is 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.

³¹ The nauarchia is discussed in T. B. Mitford, 147 ff. Cf. also below, pp. 115 and 124.

³² T. B. Mitford, 144 and n. 26.

³³ For this Seleukos, cf. Prosop. Ptol. no. 330. He occurs in BGU viii 1826, 1827 and 1828 (52–51: B.C.); 1761 (51–50 B.C.); 1847 (at the earliest 51–50 B.C.). I am not aware that there was in Ptolemaic Egypt any point in adolescence fixed for a ‘coming of age’. This is discussed by Otto, 44 f., with reference in particular to the πρωτοκλιοία and ἀνακλητἠρια of Philometor, but he can only conclude that these festivities were staged at dates which were politically opportune. However, if ‘Seleukos’ was (shall we say) 12 when his statue was set beside that of his father, by the middle of the following century he was more than 80 years of age.

³⁴ For the stemma of the house of Bithys, T. B. Mitford, 170, with additions made by Glanville, and Skeat, , JEA xl (1954) 56Google Scholar (Ariadne and Theodoris—for Krateia and Polykrateia are presumably identical—daughters of Theodoros, priestesses in 116–115); 51 (Artemo d. of Theodoros, , kanephoros in 177–176Google Scholar). The inscription under Olympias' statue is, I believe, OGI 162 = T. B. Mitford, no. 19. Onto the left-hand margin of her stone the end of Theodoros' inscription seemingly in its turn trespassed.

³⁵ Cf. n. 17 above.

³⁶ Helenos would not erect the statue of a subordinate without a reason which he would be at pains to state. If, on the other hand, we consider his equals in rank, I would point out that in the epigraphy of Cyprus before the reign of Soter II there are precisely four occurrences of 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.

³⁷ In the decree, JHS lv (1935) 75 ff., of Philometor's reign we find proof that the Aphrodite temple of Old Paphos was the senior ἱερόν of the new city, for it was there that the Senior Gunners were to offer sacrifice, while their juniors were relegated to a shrine of Leto at New Paphos—doubtless the regimental chapel of these Lycian mercenaries. On the transfer of the capital of Cyprus from Salamis to New Paphos, cf. the remarks in T. B. Mitford, 152 n. 71.

³⁸ P. Brux. gr. 7155, lines 6 and 7. Further evidence of Kleopatra's regard for Theodoros is given by the fact that in 116–115, the first effective year of her joint reign with Soter II, three daughters of Theodoros are among the eponymous priestesses of Alexandria, (JEA xl (1954) 56).Google Scholar

^38a Since Apollo was the patron of Cyrene, Apollodoros and Apollonios occur freely in the prosopography of that city. But the name of Helenos' sister, Thaubarion, known to us from the same Brussels papyrus as priestess of Kleopatra III in 107–106 is puzzling. It is not obviously Greek. Professor Cerny (as Mr. Skeat informs me) believes that it is not Egyptian. Can it be of Libyan origin? In the epigram Anth. Pal. v 184 of c. 300 B.C., a slave is instructed to buy his other flowers elsewhere in the market but roses only In a discussion of the name Thauborion—Thaubarion, Zucker, F. (Philol. xcix (1954) 97 f.)Google Scholar, who is likewise convinced that it is not Egyptian, notes that Cyrene was famous for its roses.

³⁹ Dittenberger, , under OGI 177.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ UPZ 161, 20; 162, 12 and 14: Hermias, 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 Cyprus, JHS ix (1888) no. 27Google Scholar, where I restore from the presence of this mantiarch (of Aphrodite) the inscription cannot, I believe, be earlier than the reign of Soter II in Cyprus.

⁴¹ The five occurrences are: (1) Arch. Pap. v (1913) 160 of Philae: 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 (ibid. 227 no. 120). It would appear that the editor's tentative date should be appreciably reduced. (4) P. Ryl. 253: 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.

⁴² In the inscription, Schubart, W., Klio xii (1912) 365 f.Google Scholar = SB 5021, Theagenes describes himself as Clearly this denotes actual as opposed to titular service at court.

⁴³ UPZ 12 and 13 of 158 B.C.: Poseidonios

⁴⁴ In UPZ 122 and 123 of 157 B.C. this same Poseidonios is an 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

⁴⁵ Cf. n. 42 above: Theagenes was a Chief Friend.

⁴⁶ For the complete absence of motive-formula in a private document, we may compare our no. 9, in which Helenos is honoured on terms of equality by a friend. Under the statues of kinsfolk the formula is regularly omitted, but the relationship to the dedicator is invariably stated. For Cypriot motive-formulae, cf. my remarks in Opusc. Arch. vi (1950) 9 n. 1; Opusc. Ath. i (1953) 146 n. 34; further, below, p. 130, for the deductions which may fairly be drawn from failure to include the royal house in the formulae of official inscriptions.

⁴⁷ For the 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.

⁴⁸ Cf. n. 36 above. Cyprus, in short, had for the second century a definite establishment. When persons of high rank occur outside this establishment, we must ask ourselves what they were doing in the island. Under Epiphanes and Philometor soldiers and military specialists, thereafter either courtiers or ministers of the crown, fall into this category.

⁴⁹ Cf. n. 11 above.

⁵⁰ Cf. n. 11 above.

⁵¹ Thus in the κοινή of Hellenistic Cyprus in 64 dates 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.

⁵² OGI 166; JHS xii (1891) 170 no. 4 (as revised by myself).

⁵³ Ptolemy Eupator had three Cypriot statues to our knowledge: OGI 125, 126 (Wilhelm, A., S. B. Ak. Wien ccxxiv (1946) 14 ff.Google Scholar) and 127. I believe that JHS ix (1888) no. 17 concerns Neos Philopator before his elevation to a share of his father's throne.

⁵⁴ Memphites admittedly resided in Cyprus at the outset of the civil war of 131 B.C.—as a prisoner, however, in the hands of his father and half-sister, to be murdered at the age of 12 or 13. Otto and Bengtson have convincingly argued that Memphites was indeed the nominal dedicator of a statue of Kleopatra III set up at Delos, (OGI 144)Google Scholar as part of a propagandist campaign against his own mother (W. Otto and H. Bengtson, 62 f.). Our no. 4 could serve no such purpose; nor could any governor of Cyprus honour Memphites in his own right. OGI 144 has indeed been re-edited as Inscr. Délos 1530. For Otto's justifiable mistrust of the new reading, W. Otto and H. Bengtson, 220. Cf. n. 69 below.

⁵⁵ T. B. Mitford, 164 no. 30.

⁵⁶ OGI 105, which is to be ascribed with certainty to Ptolemy ‘Makron’, strateges in the earlier part of Philometor's reign, is the last Cypriot inscription to give a governor's ethnic. That Pelops s. of Pelops and Ptolemy s. of Agesarchos were respectively of Macedonian and Arcadian origin is known to us only from extraneous sources. Mr. Fraser, however, observes ‘that there was a general levelling going on everywhere, exemplified also by the abandonment of patronymics. As their cities sank into obscurity, people were less concerned to advertise their origin.’

⁵⁷ OGI 163, 181.

⁵⁸ JHS ix (1888) 228 no. 11 = T. B. Mitford, 131 no. 2.

⁵⁹ In OGI 155 = T. B. Mitford, 138 no. 11. Theodoros is at once the commandant of Salamis and γραμματεύς of the island's garrison.

⁶⁰ I discuss at some length in Opusc. Ath. i (1953) 149 ff. the unpopularity of Euergetes in Cyprus. To the statues of his strategoi, their children and their wives which I there enumerate, our nos. 1, 2 and 3 are now to be added.

⁶¹ Cf. discussion in T. B. Mitford, 147–56.

⁶² For Soter as Alexander priest, P. Teb. iii 810; as and cf. W. Otto and H. Bengtson, 46 n. 2; 169 f.

⁶³ Dittenberger ascribes OGI 159 (T. B. Mitford, 138 no. 12), as is now known, incorrectly, to the close of Euergetes' reign, when he supposes Kleopatra II to be already dead. The inscription in fact precedes the outbreak of civil war in 131 B.C., while Kleopatra II outlived her husband. Otto and Bengtson do not, I believe, discuss either the priesthood of this inscription or that of the papyrus, Grenfell, , An Alexandrian Erotic Fragment, etc. 30Google Scholar, no. xii of c. 148 B.C. On the plinth of a terracotta cock, published by A. P. di Cesnola, Salaminia 206 f., but of unknown though presumably Cypriot origin, is an inscription (Strack, 174) 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.

⁶⁴ Cf. W. Otto and H. Bengtson, 12 n. 6: ‘von 142–141 v. Chr. … an mit dem Titel Euergetis zu rechnen ist’.

⁶⁵ Arch. Pap. xiii (1938) no. 12.

⁶⁶ Otto and Bengtson demonstrate (136 ff.) that Kleopatra II vanished from the scene between December 116 and March 115, no doubt through some act of violence. Their reasoning is accepted by Skeat, , Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung xxxix (1954) 35.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Otto and Bengtson find (p. 156) that the worship of Kleopatra III as Aphrodite occurs for the first time in the year 107–106; and there is every reason to suppose that it was indeed an innovation of that year to inaugurate her joint reign with Ptolemy Alexander and to advertise her recovery of Aphrodite's island.

⁶⁸ Under eight royal statues or groups of statues no parents are named. But I here concern myself with inscriptions which give either one or both. Six of the sixteen inscriptions in the second category have still to be published.

⁶⁹ P. 62 and n. 2. Since this discussion OGI 144 has been revised by Roussel, and Launey, , Inscr. Délos 1530Google Scholar, where (possibly under the influence of Dittenberger's restoration) in l. 1 is read 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 ProfessorOtto's, suspicion (Nachträge 220)Google Scholar of this new reading, based as it is upon the vestiges of two letters.

⁷⁰ OGI 99, now in the Museo Egizio in Turin, of unknown provenance, datable to the last years of Epiphanes. Dittenberger considers the 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.

⁷¹ Pausanias i 9.1:

⁷² Inscr. Délos 1531 attests the construction by Soter of a 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. Durrbach, , Choix d'inscriptions de Délos 203Google Scholar; Inscr. Délos, in the commentary to no. 1531.

⁷³ Ath. xiii 550 B.

⁷⁴ Pages 112 ff.

⁷⁵ Ibid. 147 ff. Bengtson, , Die Strategie iii 139 n. 4Google Scholar, still adhered in 1952 to Otto's general chronology of these years.

⁷⁶ A diffidence shared by Hill, who is content (A History of Cyprus i 200 f.) with a more conservative interpretation of these events: Alexander began his strategia in the second half of 116, from 114–113 reckoned himself king, had no excursions to Alex andria until his recall in 108–107. My diffidence is encouraged by the fact that Soter seems to have held the Alexander priesthood throughout the whole of his reign, with the exception of a few weeks in the autumn of 112 (JEA xl (1954) 57).

⁷⁷ P. 146: ‘Natürlich kann man es nicht ohne weiteres als ausgeschlossen bezeichnen, dass ihre Verstossung durch Soter II schon ein Teil jenes Kompromisses gewesen ist. …’

⁷⁸ Strabo Frag. 3 (FHG iii 491).

⁷⁹ But Skeat, T. C. observes (Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung xxxix (1954) 36)Google Scholar that Otto and Bengtson ‘have convincingly demonstrated that on at least two previous occasions Soter II had been temporarily dethroned in favour of his younger brother for short periods’. Cf. further Bengtson, , Die Strategie iii 139 n. 4.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Oliverio, , Documenti antichi dell' Africa Italiana ii 259 ff.Google Scholar (SEG ix 5)—the letter of Soter and Kleopatra Selene to Cyrene. Further, the dedication of Stolos of Athens at Cyrene to the and the decree of Cyrene in favour of these deities.

⁸¹ Six inscriptions testify to the use in Cyprus of the title Soter between 106–105 and Soter's death in 80 B.C.: (i) Arch. Pap. xiii (1938) no. 17 (statue at Salamis), (ii) Unpublished inscription of Old Paphos, attesting the erection of a statue by the Aphrodite priesthood, (iii) CIG 2615 (T. B. Mitford, 165 n. 115)—statue at New Paphos. (iv) Arch. Pap. xiii (1938) no. 16 (altar at Citium in honour of Soter and his children), (v) OGI 172—a priest of Ptolemy Soter. (vi) Arch. Pap. xiii (1938) no. 18—priest of Ptolemy Soter. Exceptions are confined to documents which concern Berenike, Soter's daughter, wife of Alexander, co-regent of Soter after 88 B.C. These, OGI 174 and JHS xii (1891) no. 20, I shall discuss elsewhere.

⁸² P. 175 n. 2: ‘der 9. Ptolemäer den blossen Soterbeinamen nur in jener Zeit gefuhrt hat, in der er mit seiner Mutter nicht vereint gewesen ist.’

⁸³ Paus. i 9.2.

⁸⁴ Cited by Dittenberger under OGI 181 from Notices et extraits des manuscrits, xviii 2 (1865) 130 no. 5 col. 1.

⁸⁵ OGI 257 (Welles, C. B., Royal Correspondence nos. 71 and 72)Google Scholar—a grant of freedom to Seleucia in Pieria, advertised both in Cyprus and in Rome. I would add that OGI 257 is remarkable as the only foreign inscription of a public character to be found at Old Paphos. The Aphrodite temple, for all its fame, was no cosmopolitan centre like Delos or Delphi, either in Classical or Hellenistic or Roman times. Its importance for the dissemination of propaganda was confined to the Ptolemaic empire.

⁸⁶ Dittenberger under OGI 169. Cf. further Inscr. Délos 1534; Oliverio, , Documenti Antichi dell' Africa Italiana i 71Google Scholar no. 9. The 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.

⁸⁷ So Strack under his no. 149; Dittenberger under OGI 181.

⁸⁸ The name is best known in Helenos, son of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus. As an indication of its rarity, I would point out that it occurs neither in Launey's exhaustive lists of the mercenaries and military cleruchs of the Hellenistic world, nor in the volumes of the Prosopographia Ptolemaica which are concerned with civil administration, army and police, nor again in the list of Alexandrian citizens in E. Vissar's Alexandrinische Kulte. Cf., however, Eirene d. of Helenos, kanephoros of 204–203 B.C. (JEA xl (1954) 47).

⁸⁹ But it might be argued that Isidore as a citizen of Antioch owed his high rank to Seleucid service. Again, if the father of Isidore of Antioch was Helenos of Cyrene, we would certainly expect some mention of Helenos' rank and office. Such was the invariable practice with Theodoros when serving under the command of his father. But, against this, we may note (1) that the rare name Helenos, if used without qualification in the confined circle of Alexander's Cypriot court, could not fail to suggest the strategos of the island; (2) that Isidore may deem that he has sufficient dignity to need no reflected glory from his father; alternatively, that his father was of such distinction as to require, like the strategai of the third century, no mention of their titles. Mr. Fraser observes that Isidore, if the son of Helenos of Cyrene, should ‘in a document outside Antioch call himself 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.

⁹⁰ JHS ix (1888) no. 94 (BCH li (1927) 145)—a decree of the Dionysiac Artists, dated by the style of their title (cf. n. 93 below) either to Euergetes II or Ptolemy Alexander, in honour of an Isidoros, whose patronymic, rank (if any) and office are lost to us. That this decree and OGI 181 concern the same man is accepted by Strack under his no. 149.

⁹¹ T. B. Mitford, 162 and n. 102.

⁹² Ibid. 160 f.

⁹³ Within the Ptolemaic empire the Dionysiac Artists were closely connected with, the ruling dynasty and played a propagandist role (ibid. 136 n. 14). Thus with Dionysus were regularly associated the parents of the reigning sovereign. Under Euergetes I we have for example the (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).

⁹⁴ T. B. Mitford, 148–53.

⁹⁵ The sole exception is provided by the title of the OGI 155.

⁹⁶ For Lycians and their neighbours serving in Paphos before the time of Euergetes: (1) JHS ix (1888) no. 103 (Launey, 470, 1222), an Aspendian, probably a soldier, of the mid-third century; JHS ix (1888) no. 15 (Launey, 462, 849, 1221), eight mercenaries, of whom seven are Lycians; JHS lv (1935) 75 ff. (Launey, 465, 957, 1015, 1061, 1220), a native of Patara, a high-ranking officer, honoured by troops who, from their worship of Leto, are themselves doubtless Lycians. For Salamis, the evidence is both later and very much less conclusive: S. B. bayr. Ak. 1888, 317 no. 6 (T. B. Mitford, 136 n. 14), seemingly of the reign of Philometor, concerns a native of Hierapytna; OGI 154 (T. B. Mitford, 169 n. 133) names a certain 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.

⁹⁷ To consider inscriptions from Cyprus only, in the former category we have: OGI 108 (T. B. Mitford, 151 n. 68), 143, 145, 146, 147 (ibid. no. 24), 153, 157, 159 (ibid. no. 12), 162; JHS ix (1888) no. 11 (T. B. Mitford, no. 2), no. 12b (ibid. no. 17), no. 44, no. 71 (ibid. no. 28); JHS lvii (1937) no. 11 (T. B. Mitford, no. 26); ibid. no. 3, no. 21; Arch. Pap. xiii (1938) no. 13 (A. Wilhelm, Klio xlviii Beiheft 1943, 53 ff.). To the latter category belong: OGI 152, 155, 160, 161; JHS ix (1888) no. 1 (T. B. Mitford, no. 30), no. 30, no. 92 (ibid. no. 25); SEG vi no. 809 (ibid. 146 n. 33), no. 813 (ibid. no. 10); ibid. no. 7, no. 9, no. 16 (OGI 156 + 158); our inscriptions nos. 1, 2 and 4 above.

⁹⁸ The proportion in official documents datable to the period between 163 and 145 B.C. is eight military to some five civil. In 163 Philometor became effectively the master of both Egypt and Cyprus; but in that same year the island was ‘given’ by Rome to Euergetes then in possession of Cyrene. Philometor's defiance of this gift coincided with his reinforcement and reorganisation of the Cypriot garrison: T. B. Mitford, 150.

⁹⁹ The three military inscriptions of Soter's Cypriot reign are: Arch. Pap. xiii (1938) no. 16; JHS ix (1888) no. 67; JHS xii (1891) no. 20 (Strack no. 137).

¹⁰⁰ The Lycians: JHS ix (1888) no. 12b (T. B. Mitford, 17); OGI 162; JHS ix (1888) no. 45 (T. B. Mitford, no. 21). The Cilicians: OGI 157. The Ionians: OGI 145 (if, as I now suspect, this inscription concerns Theodoros).

¹⁰¹ OGI 143, 145.

¹⁰² T. B. Mitford, 152. Throughout the Hellenistic period Citium was clearly, alike from the military and the administrative aspect, the third city of Cyprus. From the reign of Epiphanes and the minority of Philometor two military inscriptions survive (CIG 2623; IBM 388) in addition to the epitaph of an officer (CIG 2613). Thereafter we have nothing to suggest that Citium had any share in the military activity of the later years of Philometor and of Euergetes. The presence of the Amnesty, Larnaka (Arch. Pap. xiii (1938) no. 14)Google Scholar, like the Larnaka Altar of Soter's day (ibid. no. 16), is perhaps to be ascribed to abnormal circumstances. I believe that Citium lost the standing garrison which, with the other cities of the island, it had possessed since the outset of the Ptolemaic period, when at the beginning of Euergetes' reign the was suppressed here as elsewhere in Cyprus—with, however, the temporary exception of Salamis.

¹⁰³ For Theodoros, cf. OGI 155. For the position of Salamis in this matter, cf. the preceding note.

¹⁰⁴ 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.

To Mr. Fraser I owe a valuable note on ‘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.

¹⁰⁵ Opusc. Ath. i (1953), 147.

¹⁰⁶ A similar precedence of over in JHS ix (1888) no. 92 (T. B. Mitford, no. 25) I ascribe to confusion caused by Krokos' abnormal titulary.

¹⁰⁷ It is noteworthy that the Priesthood of Paphian Aphrodite (above, n. 15) and the Dionysiac Artists (above, n. 93) make a simultaneous entry upon the Cypriot scene at the outset of Euergetes' reign. Euergetes, to combat his unpopularity (above, p. 112), clearly made drastic concessions to both these bodies.

¹⁰⁸ Soter's reconquest of Cyprus followed closely upon his ejection. How closely, however, we do not know. Otto and Bengtson do not commit themselves on this point (p. 186): ‘Soter ist die Rückkehr nach Kypem geglückt, und verschiedene Versuche der Königin in den folgenden Jahren bis 103 v. Chr. die Insel zurückzuerobern sind misslungen’; and the Altar, Larnaka (Arch. Pap. xiii (1938) no. 16)Google Scholar is set ‘frühestens im Jahre 107–106’ (Nachträge 223). But the date is very probably given by the inscription OGI 166, wherein one Kallippos (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.

¹⁰⁹ P. 157: ‘Man könnte sogar vermuten, dass Kleopatra … der neuen Regierungsära eine besondere Weihe durch Schöpfung eines neuen Priester-tums hat geben wollen.’

¹¹⁰ JEA xl (1954) 47–51: her priesthood extended from 199–198 to 172–171 B.C. and very possibly embraced the year 171–170 likewise. The same priesthood was enjoyed by Artemo, daughter of Seleukos, from 141–140 to 116–115, her last recorded appearance. In like manner Soter occupied the priesthood of Alexander seemingly throughout his reign-with one brief interruption (n. 76 above); and there is reason to think that Alexander did like wise. In fact, by the year 107–106 the eponymous priesthoods of Alexandria had lost their chrono logical significance to political expediency; and the scribes do not bother with them after precisely this year.

¹¹¹ For the view that the nauarchia extended to the entire empire, cf. Tarn, in JHS xxxi (1911) 256 ff.Google Scholar; JHS liii (1933) 61 ff. Tarn (who was not concerned with the nauarchia in relation to Cyprus) was further of opinion that the tenure of this office was for ten years: an opinion which cannot now be sustained. Cf. in this connexion Sanctis, De, Riv. Fil. lxi (1933) 541.Google Scholar It must be conceded that Tarn's conception of the nauarchia has not been well received. It is criticised by Strack, , RE xvi 1894Google Scholar and recently by Bengtson, , Die Strategie iii 143 f.Google Scholar There can indeed be little doubt that strategoi of Cyprus, at least for those two well-documented generations which pre cede 142 B.C., did in fact command warships based on Cypriot ports: firstly, these cannot have been numerous, for throughout the period references to ships would be entirely wanting—were it not for the 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 Paphos, Old (JHS ix (1888)Google Scholar no. 99 = Meyer, 19, n. 67, an inscription unknown to Launey): this neither names the dedicator, nor gives his motive—it is content to acclaim Kallikrates simply as ναύαρχοζ. The implication is that his command included Cyprus.

¹¹² Cf. n. 47 above. Hombert, and Préaux, are mistaken in their assertion, Chron. d'égypte, xiii (1938) 145Google Scholar, that a governor of Cyprus added to the other titles he enjoyed under Euergetes that 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.

¹¹³ Justin xxxix 4.2.

¹¹⁴ In connexion with its governor's title Cyprus within the island is invariably 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; Holleaux, , Arch. Pap. vi (1920) 9Google Scholar; with the comments of Hill, 192 n. 2). In contrast, Euergetes' ethnic κοινά are invariably composed save in those dedications made in foreign parts (OGI 151; Inscr. Cret. i Lebena 33 = Rev. Phil, xiii (1939) 153 f.).

¹¹⁵ P. 185.

¹¹⁶ OGI 165 indeed concerns one Potamon s. of Aegyptos, 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.

¹¹⁷ Hill, 201, n. 1.

¹¹⁸ Inscr. Délos nos. 1533, 1534.

¹¹⁹ OGI 118, dated by Dittenberger approximately to 170 B.C.

¹²⁰ Cf. Roussel and Launey under Inscr. Délos no. 1533.

¹²¹ To this the poet, Antisthenes of Paphos, proceeds to add: 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.

¹²² T. B. Mitford, 154 ff.

¹²³ But Salamis under Philometor possessed at least three gymnasia: LBW 2756 (Strack, 99).

¹²⁴ Cf. n. 108 above; and in general, Launey, ii 813 ff.

¹²⁵ Inscr. Délos 1534, an inscription which I ascribe to Soter's reign in Cyprus, a view which I shall defend elsewhere.

¹²⁶ Thus Meyer, 93: Ptolemy Alexander II. M. L. Strack, under his no. 149: Helenos, being the father of the Isidoros of OGI 181 (Strack, 149) who served Ptolemy Alexander II, to be ascribed with probability to Alexander I. Lesquier, 334: either the first or the second Alexander. Dittenberger, ad OGI 148: towards the close of Euergetes' reign, the king to whom Helenos was τροφεύς being that familiar ghost, a son of Euergetes who reigned as co-regent in Cyprus. Lefèbvre, G., Ann. du Service ix (1908) 236Google Scholar f. agrees with Dittenberger. Kiessling, E., RE vii 2847, 1935, 1894Google Scholar: Epiphanes. Otto, , RE vii 2847Google Scholar, Helenus: Epiphanes. Cohen, 6 n. 1: Epiphanes to Euergetes 11.

¹²⁷ Under, JHS lvii (1937) no. 10Google Scholar I supported Dittenberger's dating.

¹²⁸ Communicated to Hill (q.v. 201 ff.).

¹²⁹ W. Otto and H. Bengtson, 12, n. 6; 17 n. 5; and, in particular, Nachträge 220. Further, , S. B. bayr. Ak. (1939)Google ScholarPtolemaica 13 n. i. While Otto is not to be shaken in these opinions, I observe that in these same Ptolemaica 14 n. 1 he takes out an insur ance policy against the possibility of being (as it is) the correct reading of Kleopatra III's cult-title in our no. 9 above. Cf. further Zucker, F., Philologus xcviii (1954) 98.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ But I must confess to the same measure of uneasiness with regard to all but the third of these periods, as I feel with the vicissitudes with which Otto enlivens the joint reign of Soter and his mother (n. 76 above).

¹³¹ Die Strategie iii 233.

¹³² Chron. d'Égypte xxv (1938) 143 (following Otto, , RE vii 2847Google Scholar).

¹³³ W. Otto and H. Bengtson, 17 n. 5. But Otto is firm in his denial that the father of Helenos can be the Apollodoros of the Koptos, inscription, Rev. Épig. i (1913) 109 ff.Google Scholar, which Otto's own treatment (pp. 1–22) has rendered famous.

¹³⁴ Glanville, S. R. K. and Skeat, T. C., JEA xl (1954) 57 f.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Cf. T. B. Mitford, 144 n. 25.

¹³⁶ 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. Otto, , Geschichte der Zeit des VI Ptolemäers 3Google Scholar n. 1.

¹³⁷ Cf. W. Otto and H. Bengtson, 50 n. 5 for a discussion of the seniority of Kleopatra's five children.

¹³⁸ JEA xl (1954) 58.