Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T16:45:31.573Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Egypt's Loss of Sea Power

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

William Scott Ferguson
William Scott Ferguson
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

That Rome's victory at the Aegates insulae in 241 B.C. put a definite end to the sea power of Carthage has long since been recognized, for subsequently the Italian fleets sailed unmolested wherever they pleased in the Western Mediterranean. It has not, I think, been realized with equal clearness that thereafter Rome was the only first-rate naval state in the entire world of ancient politics, for the more complex relation of the eastern powers has obscured the fact that after 241 B.C. Egypt, hitherto the Carthage of the Orient, followed the example of her African neighbour and rival in the West, neglected her fleet, and left it to her garrisons and money to maintain the empire and protect the commercial interests which the navy and diplomacy of the first two Ptolemies had won. The fall of Egypt, moreover, as I shall try to show, was the result of a coalition of Rhodes and Macedon, which left the control of the eastern Mediterranean in the possession of a group of second-rate naval states. This condition Philip V. sought to end in the year 201 B.C., but Rome at once interfered and prevented him from carrying out his plans; nor did she allow Antiochus III. and Hannibal time to reopen the question of maritime supremacy. The sea-fights won at Side and Myonnesus in 190 B.C. with the aid of Rhodes and Pergamum over the extemporized and disunited fleets of Asia settled it once and for all that no new first-class naval power was to arise in the East. The events of 241 B.C. were thus decisive for the unification of the ancient world into a single state. I shall try in this paper to establish with some precision what they and what their antecedents were.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , 1910 , pp. 189 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1910

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Mr.Tarn's, W. W. treatment of this same general problem in J.H.S. xxix. 264 ffGoogle Scholar. came to hand after my own conclusions had been reached. The chief points of difference between us are discussed at the end of this paper. For my use of Mr. Tarn's second article see below, p. 204, note 66.

la Griech. Gesch. iii. 2, 428.

2 Holleaux, , B.C.H. 1904, 408 ffGoogle Scholar.

3 Beloch, iii. 2, 131.

4 Lehmann-Haupt, , Klio, 1905, 389Google Scholar, n.l.

5 Diog. Laert. iv. 39; (Arcesilaus)

6 iii. 2, 523; cf. 428 ff.

7 Archives, 104; cf. 58 ff.

8 B.C.H. 1908, 472 ff., and especially 478 f.

9 Homolle (cf. also P.-W. iv. 2501 f.) puts the Delian archon Alcimachus, whose term began with the month Lenaion (Gamelion: January) and hence coincided with an entire year B.C., in 169 B.C. This is the last archon extant, but six hieropoioi remain, who belong either to three or, as the practice of mentioning four hieropoioi in each year regularly followed after 179 B.C. (B.C.H. 1890, 470; P.-W., iv. 2486 f. [Tarn, J.H.S. 1909, 276 f.]) permits, to two years. Assuming that four (two) of them belonged to 167 B.C., the other pair (two pair) may be assigned to the part of the Delian year 166 B.C. which elapsed prior to the arrival of the Athenian officials who took their place in the course or at the end of the Attic year 167–6 B.C. When this is done Alcimachus may be assigned to 168 B.C. [As Mr. Tarn points out (loc. cit., 277), this change is commended by the donation made to Delos by C. Livius in 191 B.C., and the crown awarded by Delos to L. Hortensius in 170 B.C.; cf. below p. 193, n. 23.] The consequence of the alteration is that Cosmiades is put in 197 instead of 198 B.C., and that three places instead of two are left free between Cosmiades and Anectus for the new archons whom Schulhof has discovered. Since five must be provided for at this point, we must, accordingly move Anectus back, not to 228 as Schulhof proposes, but to 227 B.C. where Homolle all but placed him in the first instance.

The Delian year 166 B.C. is of course identical with the second half of Ol. 153, 2, and with the part of the Attic archonship for 167–6 B.C. which began with Jan. and ended with July. This scheme of equations I have adhered to throughout; so that, for example, the death of Arsinoe, which took place in May-July 270 B.C., is put in the Delian archonship for 270, where it clearly belongs, in the Attic year 271–0 B.C., and in Ol. 127, 2. Of course the Delian year 166 B.C. also corresponds with the first half of Ol. 153, 3 and the part of the Attic year 166–5 B.C. which began with July and ended with Jan.; and, in fact, it is difficult to say whether an event, which, like the death of Arsinoe, occurred in May July, belongs to 271–0 (Ol. 127, 2) or to 270–69 (Ol. 127, 3) B.C. (cf. however Kaerst, ii. 1,416). What has determined me to equate 166 B.C. Delian with 167–6 B.C. Attic (Ol. 153, 2) and so throughout, is that 166–5 B.C. Attic lies beyond the period of Delian independence altogether; and that the Ptolemaea, with which I have to deal so frequently, occurred before March 24—in the winter seemingly— (Klio, 1909, 339), hence in the first half of the Delian year and the first year of each Olympiad.

10 This we learn from I.G. ii. 5, 614 b (Ditt., Syll. 2192Google Scholar). Cimon was archon in 237–6 B.C. (Priests of Asklepios, 158; cf. Berl. Phil. Woch. 1908, 880). In this year as well as in the year that followed Aristophanes was general ἐπ’ Ἐλευσῖνος; in 238–7 B.C., the year in which the war began, he was the holder of some unknown epimeleia; in 239–8 B.C. he was phylarch, and in 240–39 B.C., the year in which the Demetrieia—the space, together with the intentional excision, makes the restoration absolutely certain—was first celebrated, he was gymnasiarch.

11 Demetrius reigned ten years, and died in the winter of 230–29 B.C., not, as Beloch puts it, in the winter of 229–8 B.C.; for the juncture of Argos to the Achaean League, which was a direct consequence of his death (Polybius, ii. 44), took place while Lydiades was general (June 230–June 229 B.C.), and the revolt of Athens, another consequence, took place in the archonship, for 230–29 B.C. Polybius (ii. 42, 2) dates his death ‘at about the time of the first crossing over of the Romans into Illyricum,’ which occurred in the consulship of L. Postumius and Cn. Fulvius (229 B.C.). Besides, Porphyrius (Beloch, iii. 2, 76), whose assignment of Olympiad years for the reigns of the Macedonian kings is, as I think it can now be shown, flawless, dates the death of Antigonus and the accession of Demetrius in Ol. 135, 1 (240–39 B.C.).

12 The fleet of Ptolemy which entered the Aegean in 288 B.C. had, of course, more important things to do in this year and the next than to take possession of Delos. It had, apparently, withdrawn when Poliorcetes sailed to Asia in the summer of 287 B.C. It was only when the fleet of the sea-king had been dispersed, and the Cyclades had been ceded to Egypt by the ‘Secret treaty’ made on his father's abdication by Antigonus Gonatas in 286 B.C. that Ptolemy could begin a series of annual dedications on Delos.

13 Klio, 1909, 339 f.

14 The documents by which alone this conclusion can be tested properly were found over twenty-five years ago by M. Homolle, and have not yet been published. But it appears from the scrap vouchsafed to us in the Archives, p. 130, that Parmenion and Eidocritus form an inseparable pair.

15 B.C.H. 1891, 149 ff.

16 xix. 68.

17 Ditt., Syll. 2313Google Scholar, 10 ff.

18 That the Delia was celebrated in the fourth century B.C. in the mouth Hieros (February) of the second year of each Olympiad is shown by von Schoeffer, De Deli insulae rebus, 59 f.

19 B.C.H. 1891, 149 ff.

20 von Schoeffer (op. cit. 87) has already concluded that the Delia was omitted in 322 B.C.

21 He had been hipparch once and general three times prior thereto. He was, doubtless, hipparch before 317–6 B.C. He had then been general in 317–6, 316–5, and 315–4, and was probably again general in 314–3, at the beginning of which year the inscription was apparently set up.

22 Homolle, , Archives, 115Google Scholar; Dürrbach, , B.C.H. 1905, 439Google Scholar. The accounts for what is probably the first year of this decade are published in B.C.H. 1905, 434 ff.

23 B.C.H. 1903, 79, 136 ff. The decades were evidently disturbed in the early part of the second century B.C. Thus in the archonship of Menecrates (190 B.C.), Homolle, (Archives, 141)Google Scholar notes a renouvellement des baux à ferme, and two years earlier, in the archonship of Polyxenus (192 B.C.), the same thing occurred, if I have interpreted correctly Holleaux's, remark (C.R. Acad. Inscr. 1908, 184)Google Scholar that a new document modifiera les opinions admises sur la durée des baux de location au commencement du IIe siècle. Are we to connect the leases of 192 B.C. with the occupation of Delos by Antiochus III. and those of 190 B.C. with his expulsion? Or have we to recognize for this time a two-year period? Or are we to leave Polyxenus in 193 B.C., where Homolle placed him, and confine the irregularity to what in that event would be 191 B.C.? In this case space for the five new archons who belong after Anectus must be found between 227 and 198 B.C. in some way not yet clear—possibly by regarding one of the archons assigned to this period as a doublet.

24 Homolle, , Archives, 115Google Scholar.

25 Ibid. 68.

26 Plut., Demetr. 53Google Scholar; cf. Beloch, iii. 1, 245.

27 The Delia ceased altogether in 314 B.C. and did not reappear till the time of the second Athenian administration. It seems to me probable that every fourth Apollonia was of more than parochial importance. That it was called Delia is an altogether improbable hypothesis, since in that case we hear of the annual agon repeatedly, but have no single instance in our records of the international fête.

28 Hieronymus, on Daniel, xi. 8Google Scholar. In 254–3 B.C. Ephesus, Miletus, Sardis, Ilium, Cyzicus, and Samothrace, were Seleucid (Ditt., O.G.I.S. 225)Google Scholar. Eumenes of Pergamum must have had trouble in preserving the independence he had gained by his victory at Sardis in 263–1 B.C.

29 This date, which is inferred from the ability of Philadelphus to devote his energies to Greek affairs in 251 B.C., suits the other conditions admirably. Hieronymus, on Daniel, xi. 6Google Scholar says: Antiochus autem Berenicem consortem regni habere se dicens et Laodicen in concubinae locum, post multum temporis amore superatus Laodicen cum liberis suis reducit in regiam. An interval of four years is doubtless sufficient. On the other hand, we have word of only one child of Berenice; but her husband seems to have abandoned her before his death. Berenice, it may be remarked, need not have been more than 23 or 24 in 252–1 B.C. In 253 B.C. prior to October (Ditt., O.G.I.S. 225)Google Scholar, Antiochus sold certain crown-lands situated near Cyzicus in Hellespontine Phrygia to Laodice for thirty talents. Laodice, who is not named ‘sister’ or ‘queen,’ has her own oeconomus and her personal property. It is seemingly taken for granted that she is to obtain the purchase-money from the lands bought, apparently by the sale of at least part of them; since otherwise the arrangement that the thirty talents be payable in three quarterly instalments is unintelligible. In any case, Laodice was short of ready money. The payments are to be made This stipulation shows, I think, that what we have to do with is the raising of extraordinary war funds, the sale to Laodice— who is regarded as a private person (Haussoullier, , Études sur l'histoire de Milet et du Didymeion, 86 ff.Google Scholar)—being only a way of alienating the private property of the king without confessing financial embarrassments. That Laodice obtained substantial advantages from the transaction is, of course, not denied; and it is hardly an accident that subsequently the divorced queen, together with her oeconomus, took up her residence at Ephesus in Asia Minor and thence regained the kingdom for her son. A similar sale of crown-lands to the city of Pitane by Antiochus Soter—probably for a similar reason—is attested by Ditt., O.G.I.S. 335, 132Google Scholar.

We observe, accordingly, that in 253 B.C. the Second Syrian War was still in progress; that Laodice, despite the lack of the titles is still queen of Syria; but that the king's need of money was even then so great that the bargain struck with Philadelphus about a year and a half later is intelligible.

30 It cost him, in addition, his possessions in Pamphylia, Cilicia, Ionia, Thrace, and— providing he had any there—on the Hellespont, which Antiochus, having conquered, retained. The price paid for the peace, as well as the price paid for Aratus (150 talents), shows how seriously Egypt was injured by the navy of Antigonus.

31 See below, p. 197. I still think, despite Beloch (iii. 2, 426 ff.), that the expulsion of Alexander, king of Epirus, from his realm accompanied the siege of Athens and occurred between 263 and 261 B.C., but admit that definite proof is impossible. Of course, in this event the restoration may have taken place prior to 256–5 B.C.; but the discussion of this topic—as the combination of Justin with the Prologue to xxvi. shows—led Trogus to the war between Alexander and Antigonus (251 ff. B.C.); hence it seems best, since it is clearly possible, on this view as well as on that of Beloch, to regard the restoration of the king of Epirus as another of Ptolemy's enterprises in 252–1 B.C. As is well known, the Aetolians, Antigonus's allies, continued the war against Epirus after Alexander's death (ca. 246 B.C.).

32 iii. 2, 133 ff.; cf. iii. 1, 620, 640 ff.

33 Catullus, lxvi. 8 ff.

34 Cardinali, , Riv. di Filol. 1905, 519Google Scholar.

35 Alexander of Corinth had forced Attica and Argos to buy peace from him prior to 248 B.C. That this gave him a free hand in 248 and 247 B.C. for a struggle by land and sea against Antigonus is obvious. That the Aetolians took sides actively with Macedon before 245 B.C. is doubtful; so that it was not till the death of Alexander of Epirus, with whom the Aetolians had co-operated for the spoliation of Acarnania (Ἐϕ. Ἀρχ, 1905, 55 ff.), that Antigonus was free from danger from that quarter. Hence in 247 B.C. Macedon must have been in hard straits. That Antigonus was cognisant of Laodice's plan from the start—her sister was the wife of Antigonus's son, her mother was Antigonus's sister—needs no demonstration, and in 243 B.C. there were 400 Syrians in the Macedonian garrison in Corinth (Plut. Aratus, xxiv.; cf. also xviii.). These he can hardly have secured after the success of Euergetes in the campaign of 246 B.C. He may have got them at the opening of the year in exchange for Macedonian troops in whom Laodice could trust—hence conceivably their disloyalty to Antigonus. Beloch's conjecture (iii. 1, 639, n. 1) that Antiochus had sent them to Alexander's aid, is doubly objectionable: Antigonus would hardly have left Nicaea's troops in the garrison at Corinth, and, so far as we know, Antiochus did not fight Antigonus after his treaty with Egypt in 252–1 B.C.

36 This is clear from the coinage of Antigonus as well as from the Hymn to Pan which Aratus of Soli wrote for the marriage festivities at Pella, in 277–6 B.C. (Vita Arati, iv. 10, p. 60, Westermann; cf. iii. 19, p. 58, aud i. 86). [For the allusion to the god in the well-known epigram from Cnidus, which Usener, (Rhein. Mus. 1874, 23 ff.Google Scholar, and especially 42f.; cf. B.C.H. 1904, 408 ff.) brought into connexion with Gonatas, see Mr. Tarn's observations below, pp. 212 ff., 221.]

The silver coins issued by Gonatas (Imhoof-Blumer, , Monnaies Grecques, 123 ffGoogle Scholar.) now admit of pretty definite chronological classification. His first series is that with a Pan in the boss of a Macedonian shield on the obverse, and an archaized Athena of the Panathenaic vase sort brandishing a thunderbolt on the reverse. The device is to be brought into connexion with the victory gained with Pan's aid over the Celts at Lysimachia in 277 B.C. and with the lordship over Athens acquired in 276 B.C. This type of coin was being issued in 261 B.C., when Macedon, took over the Athenian mints (Priests of Asklepios, 147 fGoogle Scholar.), but on the coins struck thereafter in Athens a kalathos, which is found elsewhere only on Attic coins (Köhler, , Sitzb. d. Berl. Akad. 1896, 1092)Google Scholar, was inserted in the field of the reverse. We may therefore affirm the continuation of this series till some time after the fall of Athens. Then came the series with a head of Poseidon on the obverse, and a naked Apollo seated on the prow of a trireme on the reverse, the connexion of which with the victory at Cos is made as certain as anything of the sort can be by a passage of Athenaeus (v. 209 e) [and by the clever combinations of Mr. Tarn (below, pp. 212 ff.), which, with some reservations, however, in the case of § C, I find acceptable]. Hence the battle of Cos took place at some time after 261 B.C. The political position held by Macedon after 256–5 B.C. explains sufficiently why the coins of this series are the finest struck by Gonatas. The connexion of the device with that of the coins of his father Poliorcetes is obvious and intelligible. That fewer specimens of this series than of the first are extant—Imhoof-Blumer (129) suggests the ratio 6:12 or 13—accords closely with the periods for which each was coined, the first covering 21 and the second 16 years at the most. Had the battle of Andros occurred earlier in the reign of Gonatas than 242–1 B.C. we should have expected to find examples of a third series of silver coins. As it is, the only other pieces which can be connected with any safety with Gonatas are certain bronze coins (Imhoof-Blumer, 128 ff.; Macdonald, , Greek Coins of the Hunlerian Collection, i. 341Google Scholar [Tarn, , J.H.S. 1909, 273f.Google Scholar]) with a Pan erecting a trophy on the reverse and with what seems to be a naval symbol of some kind or other in the field. These may be reminiscent of the establishment of the Paneia in 246 B.C. We can easily imagine the panic which ensued on the appearance of the Macedonian fleet in the Aegean after the death of Philadelphus and the withdrawal of the Ptolemaic ships and troops for the war with Laodice.

37 Ditt., O.G.I.S. 54Google Scholar.

38 Plutarch (Aratus, liii.) dates the surprise of Sicyon on the fifth of Daisios (Anthesterion, May); at least he says that in his time the Sicyonians still celebrated on that day a fête commemorative of the expulsion of the tyrant. Polybius (ii. 43) dates the entrance of Sicyon into the League eight years before 243–2 B.C., or in 251–0 B.C. Hence the decision to join the Achaeans was taken after June 252; so that it was only in June 251 that the old Sicyonian régime ceased to exist, and the Sicyonians voted for Achaean officials. The fifth of Daisios must accordingly have been in May 252 B.C. The year that followed was taken up with the establishment of a liberal government and orderly circumstances in Sicyon, which was a matter beset with difficulties, chiefly financial, and which the receipt of twenty-five talents from Gonatas by no means removed (Aratus, ix. and xi.). Accordingly, Aratus turned to Alexandria and sailed in the stormy autumn season for Egypt. It needs no proof that had he fallen into the hands of the Macedonian commandant at Andros while on this mission to Antigonus's enemy his career would have come to an abrupt end. That the Roman ship which rescued him changed its destination from Syria to Caria on his account shows that the peace between Antiochus and Philadelphus had not yet been negotiated. The adjudication of claims, which followed the return of Aratus, consumed the remainder of the year (xiv.).

39 Plut. Aralus, xv. Antigonus Gonatas was thus in Corinth in the winter of 252–1 B.C. His neighbourhood was evidently so menacing that Aratus completed his arrangements with the Aehaeans (Aratus, ix.–xi., out of its chronological order), and on the departure of Antigonus, with whom a definite breach had now been established, he made an attempt to surprise Corinth, in which Alexander had been installed as Macedonian governor.

40 Plut. Aratus, xviii:

41 iii. 2, 428 ff.

42 Klio, 1909, 1 ff.

43 Plut., Aratus, xxiv. A theoria from the Achaeans was in Alexandria in 242 B.C.Google Scholar (Amer. Jour. Arch. 1909, 407, No. 14). As is well known, they also obtained the assistance of Sparta, then under Agis, while Antigonus and the Aetolians agreed to divide Achaean territory between them (Polybius, ii. 43). The Aetolians attacked the Achaeans and their allies repeatedly in 242–1 and 241–0 B.C. (Niese, ii. 255 ff.; Beloch, iii. 1, 649 ff.). What was Antigonus doing at this time?

44 That this was spoken in Megara in 239 B.C. and that Teles, whom the peace of this year allowed to cross from Megara to Attica, spoke the discourse in Athens during the war of 238–235 B.C., is to me so self-evident that to argue the case is sheer waste of time. From the text it is clear that Lycinus no longer governed Megara though his rule was still fresh in the minds of the to whom Teles was speaking he was of course ejected by Aratus in 243 B.C. Hippomedon had just been put in charge of Thrace He was exiled from Sparta at the end of 241 B.C. In 242 B.C. Ptolemy captured and executed Adaeus in Thrace (see below, p. 201). The expedition of Chremonides was already at an end A whole group of illustrations was thus chosen from the immediate past, just as Teles remarks, and just as an audience of boys demanded.

45 Revue de Philologie, 1902, 324 f.; Wilhelm, , Oesterr. Jahreshefte, 1905, 1 ff.Google Scholar; Holleaux, , B.C.H. 1907, 104 ffGoogle Scholar. The view of M. Holleaux as to conditions in the Cyclades after 228 B.C. seems to me correct. I differ only in dating the elimination of Egypt fourteen years earlier, and in making Demetrius, not Antigonus Doson, responsible for the decline of the Macedonian, navy. The Aetolian, Bucris of Naupactus (I.G. ii. 5Google Scholar, 385 c) seems to have been the pirate scourge of the Aegean in the thirties, though the Cretans were also active. Had Doson lived to enjoy the fruits of Sellasia the Macedonians would, doubtless, have rebuilt their navy and patrolled the Aegean. Since Philip did not get rid of land wars till 205 B.C., the Rhodians had to assume the task of establishing order on the sea; to them, accordingly, as is well known, Rome gave the hegemony of the Cyclades—with Tenos and not Delos as the centre—after the end of the Second Macedonian War.

46 Kirchner, , P.A. 3019Google Scholar, 15572.

47 iii. 1, 619, n. 2. The position taken by the fleet of Ptolemy in 256–5 B.C. at Cos presupposes the friendliness of Rhodes to Egypt at the time.

48 Polybius, xxxi. 7, 6; cf. Beloch, iii. 2, 456, n. 1

49 After the death of Gonatas (Polybius, ii. 44, 1; cf. Plut. Aratus, xxxiii.). That Macedon was included is obvious from the fact that it was in a time of peace—with Macedon of course—that Aratus attacked Athens (Plut., Aratus, xxxiii.), as well as from the fact that 238–7 B.C.Google Scholar is designated in an Athenian inscription as the year in which the war was resumed (I.G. ii. 5, 614 b; cf. above, p. 191, n. 10).

50 Amer. Jour. Arch. 1909, 407 f., Nos. 21–23.

51 After having learned that the Demetrieia was actually instituted on Delos in 239 (240–39) B.C., in addition to the Antigoneia established sixteen years earlier, the conclusion seems hardly avoidable that to parallel fêtes organized simultaneously by the League of the Islanders the decree published by Dürrbach, in B.C.H., 1904, 93 ffGoogle Scholar. alludes, especially since there seems to be no reference to Demetrieia in the earlier Delian documents (Antigoneia appears there as early as 299 B.C.). The alternative is that for which Dürrbach, contends in his second article (B. C.H., 1907, 208 ffGoogle Scholar.) on the subject—to connect the fêtes with Antigonus I. and Demetrius I. Against this, for which much that deserves serious consideration has been said, nothing clearly decisive can be urged; but I see no reason for the substitution of Demetrieia in, let us say, 306–5 B.C. for biennial Antigoneia established in, let us say, 314–3 B.C., since there were many ways of rendering honours to Demetrius without abrogating those of his father. On the other hand, since biennial Antigoneia established in 256–5 B.C. must collide in 240–39 B.C. with biennial Demetrieia, which the accession of Demetrius II. in this year necessitated, the substitution, in the initial year, of the new fête for the old one—with subsequent alternation — was the easiest way out of the difficulty.

52 Reinach, A. J. (Revue Celtique, 1909, 59 ff.)Google Scholar has shown that those scholars are wrong (for the literature see Cardinali, , Il Regno di Pergamo, 17 ff. 114 ff.)Google Scholar who in the face of an imposing tradition have tried to argue away the war waged by Attains against the Celts at the opening of his reign.

53 In the place of Adaeus Euergetes installed the Spartan Hippomedon, who had fled to him in the autumn of 241 B.C. And at approximately the same time—not long before February, 240 B.C.—he put Ptolemy the son of Lysimachus in charge of Telmessus in Lycia. The new governor received the city the one with Gonatas and the earlier war with Seleucus—and proceeded to conciliate the Telmessians by remissions of all kinds of taxes (Ditt., O.G.I.S. 55Google Scholar). Hippomedon, too, was obliged to make commercial concessions to the cities put under his control (Ditt., Syll. 2221)Google Scholar, and to govern with mildness and consideration for the weal of his subjects. This he did in accordance with The battle of Andros thus made itself felt in the Ptolemaic Empire: Euergetes had now to be sure of the loyalty of his governors; these, of the good will of those under them. Against foreign assailants, moreover, now that the great fleet was gone, the coast defences had to be strengthened. Hence Hippomedon took extra precautions for the safety of Samothrace, ἀποστέλλων τοὺς διαΦυλάξοντας ἱππεῖς [τε καὶ] πεζοὺς καὶ βέλη καὶ καταπάλτας καὶ χρησομένους τούτοις.

54 iii. 2, 428 ff.

55 Plut. Aratus, xli.

56 Ibid. xiii.

57 xx. 5, 7 f.

58 Trogus, Prologue, xxviii.

59 v. 35.

60 Plut. Aratus, xli.

61 Polybius, ii. 51, 1; cf. Beloch, iii. 1, 733 n. 1.

62 Niese, ii. 342.

63 The interdependence of these events, which was, doubtless, quite clear in the Mémoires of Aratus, is still recognizable in the report of Plutarch (Aratus, xxiv.):

64 For Glaucon see the inscription from the base of a statue erected in his honour by Euergetes at Olympia (Ditt., Syll. 2222)Google Scholar, where also Euergetes's statue of Cleomenes, was dedicated, Inschr. von Olymp. v. 309Google Scholar. So far as I know we possess no record of a dedication, made by or for Euergetes at Delos, while those Delian statues, of which the inscription was mutilated or excised completely, concern Philadelphus or his admirals, Bacchon, and Calibrates, (B.C.H. 1909, 480)Google Scholar.

65 This is inferred from the omission in the Prologue of Trogus of a reference to it. Cos is also omitted there. It was easy for Trogus, on looking back from the end, to see that the battle of Andros was of first-rate importance, since with it the maritime greatness of Egypt ceased.

66 xxix. 264 ff. I have, of course, recast my material with reference to Mr. Tarn's article. Moreover, through the courtesy of Mr. G. F. Hill and of Mr. Tarn himself I have been able to see the proof of the latter's second paper (pp. 209 ff.) before sending my MS. to the printer. I owe it to this circumstance that I have not launched a baseless hypothesis as to the Theuergesia.

67 The Ptolemaea was bound to be celebrated, if celebrated at all, in the late winter or early spring of the first year of each Olympiad, (Klio, 1909, 339 f.)Google Scholar; hence the reëndowment of the fête—which we have spoken of as the foundation of the third Ptolemaea—in 247 B.C. cannot be brought into connexion with the death of Philadelphus and the accession of his son, which occurred in Ol. 133, 2 [see Tarn, , J.H.S. 1909, 279Google Scholar; cf. below, p. 222]. Nor was the Ptolemaea, to my knowledge, an accession fête. The occasion of its inauguration is clearly indicated in the following and other similar passages from Ditt., Syll. 2202Google Scholar It marked the consecration of the deceased Soter and his acta. For its character in what is either 275 or, more probably, 271 B.C., see Athen, v. 196 a sq., and Otto, , Priester und Tempel in hellenistischen Aegypten, i. 145Google Scholar ff. By that time the Ptolemaea had become the consecration of all the traditions—religious, dynastic, and imperial—of the Ptolemies as well as of Alexander, the founder of Alexandria. No new Ptolemy came to the throne in 275 or 271 B.C., or in 251 B.C., when the so-called second Ptolemaea was inaugurated on Delos. How for that matter could a penteteric (Athen, v. 197 d, 198 b), isolympie agon possibly be an accession fête?

68 When Ptolemy entered Antioch, (B.C.H. 1906, 330 ff.)Google Scholar Laodice was still in Ephesus. She had left it with Danae her confidante and Sophron, Danae's husband, who was commandant of Ephesus, when she planned to put the latter to death. This we infer from the fact that it was to Ephesus that Sophron fled (Phylarchus, , xii. frg. 23Google Scholar in Athen, xiii. 593 b). Since the fleet of Callinicus which the storm destroyed was fitted out in Ionia, Ephesus cannot have been a place of safety for a refugee, nor could Laodice have easily abandoned it, till after this disaster, and the appearance in 245 B.C. of Ptolemy's fleet in Aegean waters (Beloch, iii. 1, 700). Hence the probability is that the flight of Sophron took place in 245 B.C.

69 See B.C.H. 1906, 330 ff. Naturally, little weight can be placed upon this argument.

70 Plut. Aratus, xvi.; Polybius, xx. 4; cf. de Sanctis, , Klio, 1909, 7Google Scholar.

71 Priests of Asklepios, 147; Meckler, , Acad. phil. index Hercul. 75Google Scholar.

72 Ditt., O.G.I.S. 54Google Scholar.

73 Plut. Aratus, xv.

74 Eutrop. iii. 1; cf. Beloch, iii. 2, 453, n. 1. It may be remarked that whether the offer of the Romans to help Euergetes be historical, as I believe, or invented by later Roman writers, as Niese (ii. 153, n. 4) alleges, makes no difference as regards the chronology. The peace between Euergetes and Seleucus must belong to 243–2 B.C. in either case.

75 108, p. 283.

76 For this reason, perhaps, the Demetrieia was not organized in 256–5 B.C., though I am inclined to think, with Mr. Tarn, that the lady honoured was Antigonus's sister. It is possibly significant for what happened in 240–39 B.C., or the year before, that Stratoniceia was not inaugurated then.