Leiden conventions rendered as EpiDoc: restorations as supplied(reason=lost), gaps as gap, abbreviations as expan(abbr+ex), omitted letters as supplied(reason=omitted), surplus as surplus, corrections as corr. Critical apparatus as listApp. The facing translation is div type=translation; the historical commentary is div type=commentary.
… they performed the customary rites and conducted the sacrifices and the games. When they were through with this they came to us, and having spoken at length about the temple and the city they asked us to confer a grant of inviolability upon those who come to the Asclepieia and upon the temple itself. We praised your people because they reverenced the gods and made clear their feelings toward us, and we approved Diogitus because in both word and deed he saw what was in all cases best for the city. We recognize the inviolability as you have asked, and for the future we shall try, while our affairs remain peaceful, not to disappoint you in your requests. Farewell.
… [who made friendship and alliance with you] for all time, [whom] they said also [to have aided you], conferring a favour on the people by helping to establish the inviolability. We for our part, both for the god's sake and for the city's, have accepted it as you thought right, and we shall instruct those subject to us to regard the temple as inviolable within the boundaries you have set. Farewell.
Too broken for translation: the surviving line-ends mention 'the rest(?)', 'the cities', a request (ἀξιῶν), a sacrifice(?), 'the inviolability of the temple', 'chiefly for the god's sake … and for yours', a statue that 'stands' (ἡ εἰκὼν ἕστηκεν), the games(?), and the closing ἔρρωσθε. Herzog reconstructed a full Attalus I letter from these scraps; Robert (BCH LIV 1930) judged the reconstruction 'as a whole unconvincing' and Welles concurs — even the letter's ROYAL character rests only on the script's identity with the prism. Presented here as scraps, with Herzog's attribution recorded as inference.
The fullest of the three opens mid-narrative, the prescript lost: the Coan envoys 'performed the customary rites and conducted the sacrifices and the games', then came to the king and 'having spoken at length about the temple and the city' asked inviolability both for those who come to the Asklepieia and for the temple itself. The king praises the people for their piety toward the gods and 'because they made their feelings toward us clear', and singles out the ambassador Diogeitos — 'because in both word and deed he saw what was in all cases best for the city'. This is the same Diogeitos who led the Coan embassy to Ziaelas of Bithynia (the companion edition, RC 25): one man's circuit through the courts. The king grants the asylia 'as the people have asked', and promises future goodwill with a candid hedge — 'while our affairs remain peaceful' (τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς ὄντων ἐν ἡσυχίαι): Seleucus II was locked in the War of the Brothers. Herzog's assignment to Seleucus II rests on the Diogeitos link and the date; recorded as '(?)' (Welles 1934, 125-127).
Ptolemy III answers in thirteen surviving lines (the opening lost; Herzog restores the envoys reminding the king of his father's friendship with Cos — Ptolemy II had been born on the island). The king accepts the inviolability 'both for the god's sake and for the city's, as you thought right', and — like Attalus I at Magnesia — undertakes to extend it through his hegemony: 'we shall instruct those marshalled under us (τοῖς ὑφ’ ἡμᾶς τασσομένοις) to hold the temple inviolable, as you have set the boundary-stones'. It is the corpus's first securely-named letter of Ptolemy III Euergetes — the last major Hellenistic king to enter the collection (Welles 1934, 127-129).
The third stone survives only as the line-ends of its right-hand edge — 'the cities', a request, a sacrifice(?), 'the inviolability of the temple', 'chiefly for the god's sake … and for yours', a statue that 'stands', the games(?), the closing 'Farewell'. There is too little for a continuous translation; Herzog reconstructed a full letter of Attalus I from these scraps, but Robert judged the reconstruction 'as a whole unconvincing' and Welles agreed, noting 'no sure indication that it was a royal letter' — its royal character rests only on the script's identity with the prism. It is given here honestly, as scraps, with the attribution left as inference: the disclosed floor of the graded model.