DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4679#0377
ADDENDA. 351
32. P. 155, no. 57. Pausanias VIII 10, 4 has the form 'Oycoa (in one
MS. 'Oy<3z<a); but the inscriptions have 'Ocroyco.
33. P. 233, no. 83 lis. Published BCH 1893 p. 251. On the two
inside pages of a leaden diptych, found in a grave near Kaklik by
Mr. Walker, engineer O.R.C. ypdufiw Trdvras robs ep.ol curia ttolovvtcis
fxera tS>v [a]a>pa>v, 'Eirdyadov, 2a/3ivav, EvTtpmqv, Tepevriov, , Avrioyov,
Teprtov, 'AppdXiov, 'AiroWdviov tov ' AppaXiov tov Noaaov (?), ^Ovrjcripov
tov ANTIONANINI • ■ ACI. An imprecation of untimely death on the
persons named. MM. Legrand and Chamonard showed delicate skill in
cleaning and deciphering these tabettae, which I saw shortly before them
and shrank from cleaning, in fear of causing injury. They mention that
the diptych was found in a vase with some bones. The inscription is
written from right to left.
34. P. 190. Apelles, apostle and first bishop of Herakleia (cp. Up.
Rom. XVI id), must be connected with Herakleia ad Latmum. An early
monologion however formally asserts that he was not bishop of Herakleia
but of Smyrna. See Anal. Holland XI p. 32 and Act. Sand. Apr. 22, p. 4.
35. P. 113 n. I. The term ovcrTripa yepovTiKov, or r&v yepovrcov, is
an argument (as in Benndorf Lykia I p. 72) that o~vaTT]p.a twv irpeo-pv-
Tepcav has the same sense.
36. P. 285 n. 2. We see from Livy XXXVII 54, 11, and Polybius
22, 5, 14, that, in the treaty of 190, Lycaonia and Chersonesus were at
the disposal of the Romans; and the Rhodians proposed that these coun-
tries should be given to Eumenes.
Again, it is clear from Livy XXXVII 55 and Polybius 22, 7, 7 that
the treaty did not enumerate the districts which were assigned to Eumenes,
but summed his shaxe up in the words, ratv em rdbe tov Tavpov kotoikovv-
tcqv o(toi p.ev vtt' 'AvTioyov eraTTOvro ttXtjv AvKias (cat Kaptas kt\., cis Taurum
montem quae intra regni Antiochi fines fiussent praeter Lyciam Cariamque
&c. This general description was left to Cn. Manlius to interpret; and
his interpretation is given in Polyb. 22, 27, 10, Livy XXXVIII 39, 16,
as <£>pvy£av, ^pvyiav, Mvaovs, AvKaovCav, MtXvdba, Avbiav kt\., Lycaoniam
omnem, et Phrygiam utramque, et Mysiatn, et Milyada, et Zydiam, &c. The
question raised p. 285 n. 2, whether (AvKao)vCav should be taken as a cor-
rupt adj. defining the part of Milyas that was actually handed over to
Eumenes, practically means this—were Lycaonia and the whole of Milyas
given to Eumenes ? It is not easy to answer that question. As to
Lycaonia, it would appear that, if it was assigned to Eumenes, the
Pergamenian lordship was only a name. We know that Phrygia Magna
was Pergamenian, was left to Rome in 133, and was sold to Mithradates
in 129 by M'. Aquillius (Add. 1);' but there is no record that Lycaonia
32. P. 155, no. 57. Pausanias VIII 10, 4 has the form 'Oycoa (in one
MS. 'Oy<3z<a); but the inscriptions have 'Ocroyco.
33. P. 233, no. 83 lis. Published BCH 1893 p. 251. On the two
inside pages of a leaden diptych, found in a grave near Kaklik by
Mr. Walker, engineer O.R.C. ypdufiw Trdvras robs ep.ol curia ttolovvtcis
fxera tS>v [a]a>pa>v, 'Eirdyadov, 2a/3ivav, EvTtpmqv, Tepevriov, , Avrioyov,
Teprtov, 'AppdXiov, 'AiroWdviov tov ' AppaXiov tov Noaaov (?), ^Ovrjcripov
tov ANTIONANINI • ■ ACI. An imprecation of untimely death on the
persons named. MM. Legrand and Chamonard showed delicate skill in
cleaning and deciphering these tabettae, which I saw shortly before them
and shrank from cleaning, in fear of causing injury. They mention that
the diptych was found in a vase with some bones. The inscription is
written from right to left.
34. P. 190. Apelles, apostle and first bishop of Herakleia (cp. Up.
Rom. XVI id), must be connected with Herakleia ad Latmum. An early
monologion however formally asserts that he was not bishop of Herakleia
but of Smyrna. See Anal. Holland XI p. 32 and Act. Sand. Apr. 22, p. 4.
35. P. 113 n. I. The term ovcrTripa yepovTiKov, or r&v yepovrcov, is
an argument (as in Benndorf Lykia I p. 72) that o~vaTT]p.a twv irpeo-pv-
Tepcav has the same sense.
36. P. 285 n. 2. We see from Livy XXXVII 54, 11, and Polybius
22, 5, 14, that, in the treaty of 190, Lycaonia and Chersonesus were at
the disposal of the Romans; and the Rhodians proposed that these coun-
tries should be given to Eumenes.
Again, it is clear from Livy XXXVII 55 and Polybius 22, 7, 7 that
the treaty did not enumerate the districts which were assigned to Eumenes,
but summed his shaxe up in the words, ratv em rdbe tov Tavpov kotoikovv-
tcqv o(toi p.ev vtt' 'AvTioyov eraTTOvro ttXtjv AvKias (cat Kaptas kt\., cis Taurum
montem quae intra regni Antiochi fines fiussent praeter Lyciam Cariamque
&c. This general description was left to Cn. Manlius to interpret; and
his interpretation is given in Polyb. 22, 27, 10, Livy XXXVIII 39, 16,
as <£>pvy£av, ^pvyiav, Mvaovs, AvKaovCav, MtXvdba, Avbiav kt\., Lycaoniam
omnem, et Phrygiam utramque, et Mysiatn, et Milyada, et Zydiam, &c. The
question raised p. 285 n. 2, whether (AvKao)vCav should be taken as a cor-
rupt adj. defining the part of Milyas that was actually handed over to
Eumenes, practically means this—were Lycaonia and the whole of Milyas
given to Eumenes ? It is not easy to answer that question. As to
Lycaonia, it would appear that, if it was assigned to Eumenes, the
Pergamenian lordship was only a name. We know that Phrygia Magna
was Pergamenian, was left to Rome in 133, and was sold to Mithradates
in 129 by M'. Aquillius (Add. 1);' but there is no record that Lycaonia