It is not generally realized that to speak of Antiochus III—the Antiochus who makes a figure in Roman History—as Antiochus the Great is strictly speaking incorrect, although, as a popular form of speech, it goes back to the time of Polybius, and is even found on some monuments. Other monuments give us the form which is obviously the more correct, the official, form. The Seleucid kings had, it is well known, official surnames. We find them on their coins or in inscriptions along with their title Βασιλεύς The three elements of their designation have their regular order—title, personal name, surname, e.g.Βασιλεύς Σέλευκος Φιλοπάτωρ But in the case of Antiochus III the inscriptions of most authority, which give his designation in full, have notΒασιλεὺς ᾿Αντίοχς Μέγας That is to say, Μέγας is not really a surname at all: but Antiochus III is distinguished by a modification of his title: he is not simply ‘King’ but ‘Great-King.’ The popular form is especially misleading to us who have the way of calling kings the Great to imply vaguely some sort of personal preeminence, as when we speak of Alfred the Great, Frederick the Great, &c. The title ‘Great-King’ has quite a definite significance.