Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COMMENTARY ON
POLYBIUS
BY
F.W. WALBANK
RATHBONE PROFESSOR OF ANCIENT HISTORY
AND CLASSICAL ARCHAEOI.OGY IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL
VOLUME I
COMMENTARY ON BOOKS I-VI
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
!957
ISBN-10: 0198141521
ISBN-13: 978-0198141525
CONTENTS
:POLYBIUS (By permission of the Staatliche Museen, Berlin) frontispiece
LIST OF MAPS xii
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SHORT TITLES xiii
INTRODUCTION
I. Polybius' Life and journeys I
COMMENTARY
Book I 39
Book II I5I
Book IV 450
BookY 538
Book VI 635
INDEXES
1. General 747
2. Authors and passages 769
3· Inscriptions and Papyri 773
4· Greek 775
xi
LIST OF MAPS
I. THE BATTLE OF ECNOMUS 84
2. LILYBAEUM 106
9· ALIPHEIRA 530
xii
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
OF SHORT TITLES
AA = Archaeologischer Anzeiger (incorporated in JDAJ).
Abh. Bay. Akad. Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
phil.·hist. Abteilung.
Abh. Berlin. Akad. Abhatldlungen der PreujJischen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften, Berlin, phil.·hisl. Klasse.
Abh. Heidelb. Akad. = Abhandlungm der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissm-
schaftm, phil.-hist. Klass e.
Accame, Lega aleniese = S. Accame, La lega ateniese del secolo IV a.c. Rome, 1941.
Acme = Acme: an naZi della facolta di filos'?fia e lett ere dell' U niversita slat ale di
.Milano.
Aa. arch. = Acta archaeologica.
Act. lnst. Rom. Suec. Acta inslituti romani regni Sueciae (Skrifter utgivna av
Svenska b1stitutel i Rom).
AEl'v! = Archeiologisch-epigraphische Miueilungm aus Osterreich-Ungarn.
AIPhO = Annuaire del' lnstitul de philologie et d'histolre orientale de l'Universite
libre de Bruxelles.
A]P = Ameritan journal of Philology.
Altheim, Epochen = F. Altheim, Epochr:n der romischen Geschichte. 2 vols.
Frankfort, I934-5·
AM = Mitteilungen des deutschen archtiologisthen lmtituts, athenische Abteilung.
Annales du Service Annales du service des antiquitis de l'Egypte.
Annuario = Annuario deUa R. Scuola archeologica in Atene e delle lvfissioni
italiane in Oriente.
Anth. Pal, Anthologie grecque, ed. P. Waltz. 6 vols. Paris, 1928-44,
Arangio-Ruiz, Storia dir. rom. V. Arangio-Ruiz, Storia del diritto romano.
Ed. 5· Naples, 1947.
)Jpx. 8.>..,.. = Jl.pxcuo>..oyu;dv lltATlov.
)Jpx. i¢>. = J4.pxato>..oy•~<~ £frlp.tpls.
Arch. Pap. Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung.
Arch. Zeit. Archiiologische Zeitung.
Arnim, SVF = H. von Arnim, Stoicorum veterum fragmenta. 4 vols. Leipzig,
1903-24-
Arnold, Oorzaak =C. J. C. Arnold, Oor:r.aak m Schuld van den tweedetr punischen
Oorlog. Amsterdam, I939·
Atti Ace. Torino = Atti della R. Accademia delle Scimze di Torino.
Alii I st. Vmeto = Atti dell' lstituto Veneto di Scienze, Leitere ed Arti.
Aymard, ACA A. Aymard, Les assemblies de la confederation achaimne.
Bordeaux, 1938.
Aymard, PR = A. Aymard, Les premiers rapports de Rome et de la amjidiration
achaienne (.r98-189 av. f.-C.). Bordeaux, I938.
Dabelon = E. Babelon, M onnaies de la ripublique romaine. 2 vols. Paris, I88s-6.
Barber = G. L. Barber, The Historian Ephorus. Cambridge, I935·
lkumeister, Denkmiiler = A. Baumeister, Denkmiiler des klassischm Altertums.
3 vols. Munich-Leipzig, I885-S.
xiii
A BBitEVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
JI..J,.,·J. K. 1. Bcloeh, Griechische Geschichte. Ed. 2. 4 vols. Strassburg-
ltc·oliu ,,.,;1 Leipzig, 1912-27.
J!..J.,do, Ji,.,,,;fkrrung = K. J. Beloch, Die Bevolkerung der griechisch-romischen
It'd!. Leipzig, 1886.
It,.],wll, /JJ ·- K. J. Beloch, Der italische Bund unter Roms Hegemonie. Leipzig,
.x~o.
xxvH
INTRODUCTION
A FULL-LENGTH picture of Polybius will not be attempted in this introduction, which is intended merely to
survey a number of problems relevant to the study of his text. Because his upbringing and political fortunes
played a part in determining the sort of book he was to write, the first section is concerned with his life and the
places he visited. The second deals with his views on history and the writing of it. These views reflect external
influences and the literary traditions of the Hellenistic age, but even more the innate disposition of the man. The
impression he makes is of a somewhat crude and utilitarian rationalist; but this attitude is not without its
inconsistencies. No one, for example, can read many pages in the Histories without running into difficulties
raised by Polybius' references to Fortune, Tyche. Belief in Tyche, a characteristic ingredient of the popular
philosophy of Polybius' time, is not easily reconciled with either his rationalism or his moral purpose; section
three is devoted to an analysis of this central problem. The fourth section contains a brief survey of the sources of
which Polybius availed himself in the different parts of his work; and a short final section outlines the
chronological system which forms the framework of the Histories. In all sections discussion has been kept to a
minimum, with frequent references forward to the commentary for particular examples and details of
bibliography; for in a work of this kind it is in close association with the relevant passages that detailed problems
are most profitably discussed.
[1]
1
The date is uncertain. Beloch (iv. 2. 228), following Mommsen (RG, ii. 449; Röm. Forsch. ii. 538 f.) in the view
that Polybius took part in Manlius Vulso's Galatian expedition of 189, dates it to 208; Susemihl (ii. 80 n. 2c) puts it
as early as 211/10. Against this is the reference in iii. 39. 8 to the measuring of the Via Domitia (see ad loc.),
which certainly suggests that Polybius lived until 118. If any trust can be placed in the statement of Ps.-Lucian
(Macrob. 23) that Polybius died from a fall off a horse at the age of 82, this would suggest a date round about 200
for his birth; but the author of the Macrobioi may be inaccurate, and in any case we do not know how long after
118 he may have lived, so that attempts to be more precise are somewhat hypothetical.
2
See ii. 40. 2 n.
carry the ashes of Philopoemen to burial,1 and some time later he wrote his life.2 The boy's upbringing was shaped
by the family's position as rich landowners. His interest in military matters is shown by his lost book on Tactics,3
and by many digressions in the Histories;4 he was also much given to riding and hunting.5 His knowledge of
literature was not extensive;6 the occasional quotations from the poets frequently suggest the use of a
commonplace-book rather than first-hand acquaintance,7 and his philosophical studies too were of a limited
character.8 Despite his use of the word ἀφιλόσοφος as a term of abuse,9 and despite references to Heracleitus,10
Plato,11 Aristotle,12 Demetrius of Phalerum,13 and Strato of Lampsacus,14 he shows little evidence of deep study of
any of these writers; and the philosophical background in book vi seems to lie mainly in recent or contemporary
popular writers rather than in the original minds of the fourth and third centuries.15 On the other hand, he had
obviously read closely and critically the historians of his own and preceding generations, such as Timaeus,
Phylarchus, Theopompus, and Ephorus.16
[2]
1
Cf. Plut. Philop. 21. 5 τοῦ στρατηγοῦ τῶν Ἀχαιῶν παῖς Πολύβιος; the phrase would fit a birth-date about 200,
but hardly one much earlier.
2
x. 21. 5 f. The Life of Philopoemen was probably an earlier work. Against the view of P. Pédech (REG, 1951,
82–103) that it was written at Rome for Scipio Aemilianus see Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios', cols. 1472–3 n. It was
Plutarch's source for his Philopoemen.
3
Cf. ix. 20. 4; Arrian, Tact. 1; Aelian, Tact. 1, 3. 4, 19. 10.
4
e.g. iii. 81. 10, 105, v. 98, x. 16. 1–17. 5, 22–24, 32. 7–33, 43–47, xi. 25. 6; but Polybius' detailed description of
military matters throughout his Histories reveals the technical skill and passionate eye of the professional.
5
xxxi. 14. 3 (boar-hunting with Demetrius of Syria), 29. 8 (hunting with Scipio); other references in von Scala, 24
n. 3.
6
So, rightly, Ziegler, op. cit., col. 1465, against von Scala, 65 ff.
7
Cf. Wunderer, ii, passim.
8
Cf. Ziegler, op. cit., cols. 1467–71, drawing on and modifying the conclusions of von Scala, 86–255.
9
e.g. xii. 25. 6 (Timaeus), xxxvi. 15. 5 (Prusias).
10
iv. 40. 3, xii. 27. 1.
11
Cf. iv. 35. 15, vi. 5. 1, 45 (mentioned with Ephorus, Xenophon, and Callisthenes), vii. 13. 7, xii. 28. 2; on the
theory of Friedländer (AJP, 1945, 337 ff.) that Polybius based his account of his own early relations with Scipio on
the pattern of Socrates and Alcibiades in the Greater Alcibiades see xxxi. 23–30 n.
12
See Ziegler, op. cit., col. 1470, criticizing von Scala, 127 ff. Susemihl (ii. 81 n. 4) and Niese (GGA, 1890, 892)
are agreed that von Scala has not proved that Polybius was acquainted with such rare works as the Poetics,
Politics, and Nicomachean Ethics.
13
Especially xxix. 21; but this does not imply an extensive knowledge of Demetrius.
14
Polybius shows a first-hand acquaintance with Strato's theories on the silting-up of the Black Sea; cf. iv. 39–42
nn.
15
See the commentary to this book, passim.
16
See i. 5. 1, ii. 16. 15, viii. 10. 12, xii. 3–15, 23–28 a, xxxiv. 10. 5, xxxix. 8. 4(Timaeus); ii. 56. 1-63. 6, v. 35-39 n.
(Phylarchus); viii. 9-11, xii. 4 a 2 (reference in Timaeus), 25 f 6, 27. 8, xvi. 12. 7 (Theopompus); iv. 20. 5, v. 33. 2,
vi. 45. 1, ix. 1. 4, xii. 4 a 3 ff. (reference in Timaeus), 22. 7, 23. 1, 23. 8, 25 f 27. 7, 28. 9-12, xxxiv. 1. 3.
Of Polybius' career between Philopoemen's death and the Third Macedonian War only a little is known. In
181/0 the Achaean Confederation designated him one of three ambassadors to visit Ptolemy V Epiphanes in
Egypt, νεώτερον ὄντα τῆς κατὰ τοὺς νόµονς ἡλικίας,1 but the trip was cancelled when the king suddenly died,
and he next appears as Hipparch of the Confederation for the year 170/69.2 This was a critical moment in his
country's history. Involved in an irksome war with Perseus of Macedonia, the Romans were carefully watching all
Greek states for signs of disloyalty. Polybius has left a detailed defence of his behaviour;3 but his family tradition
was one of maintaining an independent, if friendly, attitude towards Rome, and in 170 independence among
Greeks was a quality little respected by the Senate. In the purge which followed the downfall of Perseus Polybius
found himself one of a thousand eminent Achaeans who were summoned to Rome, ostensibly for examination,
and subsequently detained there without any pretence of justice.4
Once at Rome, Polybius was more fortunate than most of his colleagues. Soon after his internment began, and
while he was still in the city, he had the good fortune to attract the attention of the 18-year-old Scipio
Aemilianus. The acquaintance, which took its origin 'in the loan of some books and conversation about them',5
quickly ripened into friendship, and when shortly afterwards the other internees were distributed into custody
among the municipal towns of Italy,6 Polybius received permission to stay on in Rome, where he became Scipio's
mentor and close friend.7 His position was now highly ambiguous. Technically a foreign internee, he enjoyed
friendship on equal terms with men like Aemilianus, his brother Q. Fabius,8 and the whole of their brilliant circle.
In this company he made the acquaintance of the Seleucid prince Demetrius, and did not hesitate to encourage
and support his plans to escape from Italy.9
[3]
1
xxiv. 6. 5. Polybius will have been little more than twenty at this time; see above, p. 1 n. 1.
2
xxviii. 6. 9.
3
xxviii. 13. 9–13, xxix. 24. 1–4, 7–8.
4
xxx. 13, 32. 1–12; Paus. vii. 10. 11; Livy, xlv. 31. 9.
5
xxxi. 23. 4; the books may well have been lent from the library of Perseus, which had fallen into the hands of
Scipio's father, Aemilius Paullus (Plut. Aem. Paul. 28. 8; Isid. Orig. vi. 5. 1). See von Scala, 176; and above, p. 2 n.
11.
6
xxxi. 23. 5; Paus. vii. 10. 11.
7
xxxi. 23 ff.; Diod. xxxi. 26. 5; Vell. i. 13. 3; Plut. Mor. 659 F; Ps.-Plut. Mor. 199 F.
8
xxx i.23. 5.
9
Cf. xxxi. 11-15 for his own account of the incident, probably written shortly afterwards, but reserved for later
incorporation in the Histories, when its publication could no longer harm him. See discussion ad loc. for Ziegler's
view (op. cit., col. 1452) that Polybius was acting with the connivance of Scipio, and virtually in the role of 'eines
geheimen politischen Agenten im Dienste dieser Partei'.
Cuntz has argued1 that until the remnant of the internees was amnestied in 150, Polybius will have been
restricted to Latium under pain of death; but there was all the difference in the world between allowing him to
return to Greece, where he could exercise political influence, and letting him leave the boundaries of Latium and
even Italy in responsible company in order to make journeys in the west.2 As De Sanctis points out,3 Polybius is
known to have visited Epizephyrian Locri several times,4 and by his influence to have secured the immunity of its
citizens from military service 'in the Spanish and Dalmatian campaigns'. Since Schweighaeuser this Dalmatian
campaign has been identified with that of 156/5;5 Cuntz's argument6 that the reference is to the war of 135 against
the Ardiaei and Pleraei,7 is unconvincing, for these peoples were not Dalmatians.8 On balance, then, it may be
assumed that Polybius was allowed as far as Locri during his internment. In that case why not also outside Italy?
It seems in fact probable (though it is a hypothesis not susceptible of complete proof) that the journeys which
Polybius made 'through Africa, Spain, Gaul, and on the ocean that lies beyond',9 are to be dated in part before his
release from internment. The evidence is discussed in the relevant notes. Summarized, it suggests that Polybius
accompained Scipio to Spain in 151, when he acted as legatus to the consul Lucullus, that during his stay in Spain
he went with Scipio to Africa, where he met Masinissa, and that he crossed the Alps on his way back to Italy.10 In
150, thanks to the influence of Scipio and the acquiescence of Cato,11 the internees were released, or at least the
three hundred of them who still survived. Polybius had barely had time to reach Arcadia when a request arrived
from the consul
[4]
1
Cuntz, 55–56; this penalty seems implied by Paus. vii. 10. 12, ὑποσχεῖν δίκην.
2
His parole would have afforded sufficient security, especially when underwritten by Scipio, who, though
certainly still young, must have carried weight by reason of his family connexions.
3
iii. 1. 209–10.
4
xii. 5. 1–3.
5
Cf. xxxii. 13; Livy, ep. 47; Flor. ii. 25; Zon. ix. 25; App. Illyr. 11; Strabo, vii. 315; auct. de uir. ill. 44; Zippel, 130
ff.; De Sanctis, iii. 1. 210.
6
Cuntz, 46–49; accepted by Ziegler, op. cit., col. 1461. Cuntz also makes the Spanish War that of D. Iunius
Brutus in 138/7 (Strabo, iii. 152) rather than that of 153 (xxxv. 1), the usual view.
7
Livy, ep. 56; App. Illyr. 10; cf. Zippel, 132. The Dalmatian War of 119 (App. Illyr. 10; Livy, ep. 62) is certainly
too late.
8
Cf. De Sanctis, iii. 1. 210.
9
iii. 59. 7.
10
Cf. iii. 48. 12 n.; 57–59 n.
11
xxxv. 6; Paus. vii. 10. 12. Unsuccessful attempts had been made in 164 (xxx. 32), 159 (xxxii. 3. 14–17), 155
(xxxiii. 1. 3–8. 3), and 153 (xxxiii. 14).
for149, M'. Manilius, to proceed to Lilybaeum ὡς χρείας οὔσης αὐτοῦ δηµοσίων ἕνεκεν;1 he readily obeyed,
but when at Corcyra he received reports which suggested that the Carthaginians had accepted the Roman terms,
he returned home.2 After the war again flared up, however, he joined Scipio at Carthage and was present at its
fall.3 It was probably in 146, shortly afterwards, that he undertook the voyage of exploration in the Atlantic,
which carried him both down the African coast and some way up that of Portugal.4 Ziegler5 would date this
voyage to 147 before the fall of Carthage; but Polybius will scarcely have left Scipio during the siege,6 and there is
no chronological difficulty in placing his voyage of exploration after the fall of Carthage and before his return to
Greece. He is known to have been at Corinth shortly after its destruction; but this event cannot be dated with
accuracy,7 and an Atlantic voyage may have been a welcome distraction from the embarrassment of being in
Achaea at the headquarters of a Roman general operating against the Confederation.
The Histories enable us to follow Polybius' movements for the next two years. He spent the rest of 146 and
part of 145 working to secure as favourable a settlement as possible in Greece,8 and he visited Rome once more in
the course of these negotiations.9 After that it becomes impossible to attach dates to his journeys. He was at
Alexandria sometime during the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes II (Physcon),10 but whether in the company of
Scipio11 or not cannot be determined. At some equally uncertain date he was at Sardes, where he met the Galatian
Chiomara,12 and he may have visited Rhodes.13
[5]
1
xxxvi. 11. 1.
2
Ibid.
3
xxxviii. 19–22.
4
See iii. 57–59 n.; xxxiv. 15. 7.
5
Op. cit., col. 1455.
6
Cf. Cuntz, 53.
7
xxxix. 2; cf. De Sanctis, iii. 1. 211.
8
On the honours paid to Polybius see xxxix. 3. 11; Paus. viii. 30. 9. Other statues were erected according to
Pausanias at Megalopolis (Paus. viii. 30. 8), Tegea (Paus. viii. 48. 8), Pallantium (Paus. viii. 44. 5), Lycosura (Paus.
viii. 37. 2;
cf. IG, v. 2. 537) and Mantinea (Paus. viii. 9. 1; IG, v. 2. 304). There is also epigraphical evidence for dedications
at Cleitor (IG, v. 2. 370; see Frontispiece) and Olympia (Syll. 686).
9
xxxix. 8. 1.
10
Strabo, xvii. 797 = P. xxxiv. 14. 6. Physcon reigned 170–163 and again 145–116; Ziegler seems right in dating
Polybius' visit to the second of these two periods; he stresses the elimination of the Greek element from the city
(op. cit., col. 1461).
11
Scipio's embassy to the east was probably in 140 (Broughton, i. 480–1, with references); fg. 76 neither supports
nor contradicts the view that Polybius accompanied him on it. Mioni (15) connects Polybius' visit to Alexandria
with his reorganization of Greece, but there is no evidence for such an assumption.
12
xxi. 38. 7 = Plut. Mar. 258 E. Chiomara was probably young when the incident of 189 took place; and there is
no necessity to date Polybius' meeting with her before 169 rather than after 146, though of course the earlier date
cannot be excluded.
13
xvi. 15. 8 refers to archives in the Rhodian prytaneum; but Polybius had not necessarily consulted these in
person (see below, p. 31 n. 8). Nor can it be deduced from xvi. 29 that he had visited Sestus and Abydus (so
Mioni, 125); and had he seen Byzantium (iv. 38), he would almost certainly have said so. Valeton (190-3) assumed
that Polybius had visited Media (v. 44) and Ecbatana (x. 27); here again silence seems to suggest the opposite.
During these years he undoubtedly spent some time in the company of Scipio. Cicero1 makes Laelius say that
Scipio, Polybius, and Panaetius had frequently discussed together problems of the Roman constitution; but when
such conversations are to be dated—whether at Carthage or on some subsequent occasion, such as Scipio's eastern
embassy—remains quite obscure.2 It is often assumed that Polybius accompanied Scipio to Numantia;3 but his
personal acquaintance with New Carthage,4 and Scipio's inquiries in Gaul (probably incited by Polybius),5 can
equally well date to the earlier Spanish journey of 151/0, for the composition of a monograph on the Numantine
War6 is no evidence that Polybius himself took part in it, when approximately seventy years old. Another work
by Polybius, Περὶ τῆς περὶ τὸν ἰσηµερινὸν οἰκήσεως, on the habitability of the equatorial region, is recorded by
Geminus;7 it has been conjectured8 that this was in fact merely part of book xxxiv of the Histories, but Ziegler9
rightly argues that Geminus is quite explicit in his statement, and that there is no reason to think that Polybius did
not write a separate monograph on a topic for which Strabo consulted only the general historyThe date when this
monograph was written is quite unknown. Pédech (Reg, 1948, 439; Méthode, 588–90) argues that the work Περὶ
τῆς περὶ τὸν ἰσηµερινὸν οἰκήσεως was written after P.’s voyage along the coast of Morocco and utilized the
results of that voyage.
Polybius died, according to the author of the Macrobioi,10 from a fall off a horse at the age of 82; the authority
is not impeccable, but the statement would fit reasonably well into the other data on Polybius' life,11 and may be
accepted.12
1
De rep. i. 34.
2
On the date of Panaetius' arrival in Rome see Pohlenz, RE, 'Panaitios', col. 424 f.; Brink and Walbank, CQ,
1954, 103 n. 3. The evidence is not adequate to determine when it took place, and views fluctuate between a date
before 149 and one as late as 132.
3
e.g. Cuntz, 16 ff., 56–59; Mioni, 16; Ziegler, op. cit., cols. 1458 f.
4
x. 11. 4; cf. De Sanctis, iii. 1. 112.
5
xxxiv. 10. 6–7 = Strabo, iv. 190; cf. Class. et med., 1948, 161.
6
Cic. fam. v. 12. 2.
7
Geminus, 16. 12. (*p. 628.)
8
Cf. M. C. P. Schmidt, Jahrb. cxxv, 1882, 113.
9
Op. cit., col. 1474.
10
Ps.-Lucian, Macrob. 23.
11
See above, p. 1, n. 1, for the evidence suggesting that Polybius lived after 120.
12
How the composition of the Histories fits into the above chronology is a subject enveloped in controversy. It is
fully discussed in the commentary at iii. 1–5 and vi introduction; see also Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 98–102.
13
i. 1. 2.
politician, and at the same time to teach the reader how to bear the vicissitudes of Fortune, by describing
those that have befallen others. Throughout the Histories both aspects are repeatedly stressed. The discussion in
book iii1 on the distinction between causes, pretexts, and beginnings is specifically directed towards the
statesman,2 and it is as something essential for statesmen as well as students that he includes his account of the
Carthaginian treaties.3 The description of the Gallic invasions of Italy is designed especially to teach those who
direct the fortunes of the Greeks how to cope with such attacks.4 It is, in particular, statesmen who can correct
their own conduct by a study of the change in character displayed by Philip V,5 and statesmen (as well as students)
who will profit from the account of the Roman constitution.6 The moral lessons of history, though useful to
πραγµατικοί ἄνδρες (for indeed they are often bound up with the practical lessons),7 are frequently aimed at a
wider public. Thus the fate of Regulus, which illustrates the unexpected element in history and the success that
can be achieved by determination,8 is recounted 'in order to improve the readers of this History';9 and these
readers are invited in their turn to pass moral judgement on the government exercised by Rome.10
Usually, however, it is not clear to what particular audience Polybius is directing his frequent didactic
observations on the advantages that will accrue from reading his work, for, as he himself admits,11 many of these
hammer at ancient themes; and the constantly repeated antithesis between τὸ χρήσιµον and τὸ τερπνόν12 and
their synonyms smacks of the schools and rhetorical communes loci. Both aims, pleasure and profit, are
admissible; but the scale comes down very sharply on the side of profit. The criterion of utility is repeatedly urged
whether the point in question be great or trivial. It may be the claims of history in general13—usually implying
[7]
1
iii. 6. 6 ff.
2
iii. 7. 5, ἀνδρὸς πραγµατικοῦ µὴ δυναµένου συλλογίζεσθαι πῶς καὶ διὰ τί καὶ πόθεν ἕκαστα τῶν
πραγµάτων τὰς ἀφορµὰς εἴληφεν; iii. 31 develops the theme as it concerns both statesmen and others.
3
iii. 21. 9–10; for the distinction between statesmen and students see the note ad loc.
4
ii. 35. 5–10, especially 35. 9 for the reference to Greeks.
5
vii. 11. 2.
6
iii. 118. 12. In ii. 61. 11 Polybius implies that it is especially statesmen who will profit from reading of the loyal
and courageous behaviour of the Megalopolitans.
7
e.g. the study of Philip's metabole (above, n. 5), the factor of morale in meeting a Gallic tumultus (above, n. 4).
Polybius regarded both right conduct and morale as ultimately paying practical dividends.
8
The same lesson is drawn from the Gallic tumultus: compare ii. 35. 5–10 with i. 35. 1–5.
9
i. 35. 6.
10
iii. 4. 7.
11
i. 1. 2.
12
Cf. i. 4. 11, vii. 7. 8, ix. 2. 6, xi. 19 a 1–3, xv. 36. 3, xxxi. 30. 1.
13
e.g. ii. 56. 10, v. 75. 6, xii. 25 g 2, xxxix. 8. 7.
'political history'1—which Polybius is pressing; it may be the study of a particular topic, geography,2 causality,3
the biography of some selected individual (provided this is not treated as encomium),4 or even so practical a
matter as the principles of fire-signalling,5 perfected by Polybius himself. What matters is that the reader shall gain
advantage from his reading. To this end Polybius draws a clear distinction between political (and military)
history, πραγµατικὴ ἱστορία,6 on the one hand, and, on the other, forms of history written with different objects
in view and other criteria in the writing. Thus genealogies may interest τὸν φιλήκοον, and accounts of colonies,
foundations of cities, and relationships τὸν πολυπράγµονα καὶ περιττόν; but the πολιτικός is interested in the
affairs of nations, cities, and rulers, and it is for him Polybius writes. This kind of writing is ὁ πραγµατικὸς
τρόπος,7 and it is austere in character (though it can include contemporary developments in art and science).8 In
this austerity it stands in contrast to the sensational and rhetorical writing of so many of Polybius' immediate
predecessors. Phylarchus, for example, confuses the categories of history and tragedy;9 and this is true of many
other writers, whose names are not always mentioned,
[8]
1
Cf. ix. 2. 4, where ὁ πραγµατικὸς τρόπος is preferred διὰ τὸ πάντων ὠφελιµώτατον αὐτὸν . . . ὑπάρχωιν.
On the meaning of πραγµατικὴ ἱστορία see below, n. 6.
2
iii. 57. 9.
3
vi. 2. 8 (hence the study of the Roman constitution, a prime cause of Roman success), xi. 19 a 1–3; see below, p.
11 n. 8.
4
x. 21. 3; cf. xv. 35: in discussing great men one should add appropriate remarks on the role of Tyche together
with any instructive reflections one can.
5
x. 47. 12–13.
6
Polybius often uses the phrase πραγµατικὴ ἱστορία as a mere synonym for ἱστορία, 'serious history'; in ix. 1–2
it distinguishes a political and military narrative from the more mythical studies of genealogies, or of the
foundations of cities, colonization, and ties of kinship. It never means 'history which investigates causes'. This is
ἀποδεικτικὴ ἱστορία. Thus in ii. 37. 3 Polybius calls his main history, contrasted with the summary account in
books i and ii, ἀποδεικτική (cf. iii. 1. 3 µετ’ ἀποδείξεως ἐξαγγέλλειν); and in iv. 40. 1 his account of the Black
Sea is ἀποδεικτική, being based on the principles of natural science, in contrast to the unsupported assertions of
other writers; in x. 21. 3 he admits that writers on the foundations of cities—a branch of history which is
specifically contrasted with πραγµατική (ix. 1–2)—may give an account of these topics µετ’ ἀποδείξεως, though
in the same chapter (x. 21. 8) he contrasts his own history, written impartially and µετ’ ἀποδείξεως, with the
encomium, which is both κεφαλαιώδης and exaggerated (cf. viii. 8. 5–9); and in xviii. 33. 6 Polybius claims to
have recounted Philip V's metabole and the actions involved in it (τὰς ἐν ταύτῃ πράξεις) µετ’ ἀποδείξεως,
inasmuch as he has described πότε καὶ διὰ τί καὶ πῶς ἐγένετο. Cf. CQ, 1945, 15–16; Gelzer, Hermes, 1954, 347.
Pédech (Méthode, 21–32) stresses three elements in πραγµατικὴ ἱστορία, (a) the account of public events and
political actions, (b) the narrative part of a historical work, (c) concern with contemporary history in contrast to
κτίσεις (cf. ix. 2. 4 n.); on ἀποδεικτικὴ ἱστορία see Petzold, Studien, 16 ff. and Walbank, Polybius, 57 n. 153; n.
9: on 'tragic history' see Meister, Kritik, 109–26.
7
ix. 1. 4–5, 2. 4.
8
x. 47. 12–13, a concession to his own interest in fire-signalling; cf. above, n. 5. πραγµατικὴ ἱστορία can also
properly include an account of the anacyclosis (vi. 5. 2), since it is relevant to an understanding of the growth of
the Roman state.
9
ii. 56. 10-13. On 'tragic history' see Bull. Inst. Class. Stud., 1955, 4-14.
among them historians of Hannibal's Alpine crossing,1 others (perhaps Timaeus is meant)2 who include fables
about Phaethon in their accounts of the Po valley,3 and writers about Hieronymus of Syracuse,4 Agathocles of
Alexandria,5 the wonders of Ecbatana,6 or the miracles of Iasus.7 Zeno of Rhodes is given to such sensationalism;
Polybius singles him out for special criticism.8 In general, exaggeration—τὰ µὲν µικρὰ µεγάλα ποιεῖν—and the
rhetorical elaboration of such matters as descriptions of places and accounts of sieges Polybius considers more
likely to be found in the work of historians whose theme is limited (ἁπλᾶς καὶ µονοειδεῖς λαβόντες ὑποθέσεις)
than in that of universal historians like himself.9
In several places Polybius expatiates upon the superior merits of universal history. None of his
contemporaries10 and virtually none of his predecessors11 had attempted history of this sort. Yet it is only from
universal history that one can gain a proper notion of cause and effect and estimate the real importance of events,
and so understand and appreciate the work of Tyche.12 It is true that universal history acquires a special
significance from the hundred and fortieth olympiad, since from that date events themselves had taken on a
universal character, and the history of the various parts of the inhabited world had coalesced into an organic
whole;13 but Siegfried is hardly right in thinking14 that universal history is proper only to the period with which
Polybius is concerned, otherwise he would not have praised Ephorus as τὸν πρῶτον καὶ µόνον ἐπιβεβληµένον
τὰ καθόλου γράφειν.15 The position is rather that universal history, while always preferable, had now become the
only form capable of treating the period which opened in 220; and it is the type of history which is at once
universal and πραγµατική that Polybius especially commends.
[9]
1
iii. 48. 8; elsewhere Sosylus and Chaereas, writers on Hannibal, are criticized for retailing the gossip of the
barber's shop (iii. 20. 5; see below, p. 28).
2
Timaeus is accused of sensationalism in xii. 24. 5, 26 b 4 ff.; but cf. ii. 13–15 n.
3
ii. 16. 13–15.
4
vii. 7. 1–2.
5
xv. 34. 1–36. 11 (probably aimed at Ptolemy of Megalopolis).
6
x. 27. 8.
7
xvi. 12. 3.
8
xvi. 18. 2.
9
xxix. 12. 4–5; cf. vii. 7. 6, making the same point in criticism of historians writing special histories, which give
over-sensational accounts of the downfall of Hieronymus of Syracuse.
10
i. 4. 2.
11
ii. 37. 4.
12
iii. 32; cf. ix. 44, viii. 2. 1–11; see below, p. 11 n. 8.
13
i. 3. 4–5; cf. iii. 1. 4, iv. 2. 1 ff.
14
Siegfried, 21; on pp. 20–25 Siegfried has an interesting survey of the works of Polybius' predecessors.
15
v. 33. 2; on the limitations of Ephorus' universal history see Mioni, 23, who points out that Ephorus did not
write a history of the whole world, but welded into a whole the separate histories of the Greek states; the
conception of a worldhistory could hardly precede the career of Alexander.
In the course of his work Polybius succeeds in conveying a fairly comprehensive picture of what he regarded
as the prerequisites for the writing of πραγµατικὴ ἱστορία. In an elaborate comparison between the career of
medicine and that of the historian,1 he defines the latter's task as the study and collation of memoirs and other
documents, acquaintance with cities, districts, rivers, harbours, and geographical features generally, and finally
experience of political activity; and of these the last two are essential, for one can no more become an historian by
studying documents than one can become a painter by looking at works of former masters.2 The essential thing is
to see the sites, so that one can, for example, test out the account of a battle on the spot,3 and as far as possible to
interview those who actually took part in important events4—ὅπερ ἐστὶ κυριώτατον τῆς ἱστορίας. Equally, no
one can write about fighting and politics who has not had some experience as a soldier and as a practical
politician.5 It is on personal experience that Polybius lays his main emphasis, αὐτοπάθεια,6 and above all on
personal inquiry, πολυπραγµοσύνη.7 'It will be well with history', he writes,8 adapting Plato's famous words
(Rep. v. 473 C–E), 'either when statesmen undertake to write history . . . or when those proposing to become
authors regard a training in practical politics as essential to the writing of history.' He could put forward this thesis
with the greater confidence because he had himself made many voyages,9 and played an active part as a politician
and a general.
The object behind this programme of restless activity was to get at the truth. 'Truth is to history', Polybius
writes,10 'what eyesight is to the living creature.' If history is deprived of truth, all that
[10]
1
xii. 25 e.
2
xii. 25 e 7; the analogy is a false one, for Polybius' arm-chair historian does not study memoirs as a model, as the
painter studies his predecessors, but as a source.
3
Cf. xii. 25 f 5.
4
xii. 4 c 3, τὸ περὶ τὰς ἀνακρίσεις µέρος; this like so much else was scamped by Timaeus. The main period of
Polybius' history fell within the lifetime of people who could be questioned (iv. 2. 2–3), and he made full use of
his opportunities; see below, pp. 33 f.
5
xii. 25 g 1–2.
6
xii. 25 h 4 ff.; such personal experience would give among other things the ability to appreciate the economic
problems which arise in history; cf. ii. 62. 2.
7
xii. 27–28, 28 a.
8
xii. 28. 3–5.
9
Cf. iii. 59. 7; see iii. 57–59 n. and above, § 1, for discussion of the chronology of Polybius' journeys in the west.
He was famous as a traveller, and on a stele at Megalopolis, Pausanias records (Paus. viii. 30. 8), γέγραπται δὲ καὶ
ἐλεγεῖα . . . λέγοντα ὡς ἐπὶ γῆν καὶ θάλασσαν πᾶσαν πλανηθείη. For his role as αὐτόπτης cf. iii. 4. 13.
10
i. 14. 6, quoted again at xii. 12. 3; cf. xxxiv. 4, if indeed this passage of Strabo is from Polybius.
remains is an idle tale, ἀνωφελὲς . . . διήγηµα.1 One of the main objections to the sensational history of such
writers as Phylarchus is that it obscures the truth and so prevents the reader from benefiting by what he reads;2
and it is a great fault in Timaeus that he puts out false statements.3 What would be permissible in panegyric is
quite out of place in history;4 and Polybius contrasts his own treatment of Philopoemen in his encomium on the
hero with that in the Histories, where he has tried to apportion praise and blame impartially.5 In general, only
absolute truth is to be tolerated in history;6 and the problem of securing it Polybius sees partly as one of scale. As
the writer of a 'universal history'7 he is critical of those who work on a smaller canvas. The fault of the special
study, the monograph, is that it puts things out of perspective, and does not allow the reader to see events in their
proper proportions, and so to appreciate the continuous nexus of cause and effect;8 it is also an incentive to its
author to exaggerate the importance of his own topic and material.9 On the other hand, the very magnitude of his
task perhaps renders the universal historian more liable to the occasional factual slip or misstatement; if this should
unfortunately happen, it is excusable,10 and such errors should be treated, not with the bitterness and virulence
displayed by Timaeus in his attacks on Ephorus, Theopompus, and Aristotle,11 but with the kind of charitable
good nature which led Polybius himself to write to Zeno pointing out his errors χάριν τῆς κοινῆς ὠφελείας12—
unfortunately after the book was already published and so too late for Zeno to correct them.
In two situations Polybius was prepared to allow exceptions to his general rule. Certain historians had reported
miraculous happenings in connexion with the statue of Artemis Cindyas at Bargylia
[11]
1
i. 14. 6.
2
ii. 56. 12 (cf. 56. 2); the same point is made in iii. 47. 6 of the historians who describe Hannibal's Alpine crossing.
3
xii. 7. 1.
4
viii. 8. 5–9.
5
x. 21. 6–8.
6
xxxviii. 4. 5, συγγραφέα δὲ κοινῶν πράξεων οὐδ᾽ ὅλως ἀποδεκτέον τὸν ἄλλο τι περὶ πλείονος ποιούµενον
τῆς ἀληθείας; here in fact the assertion is intended to justify Polybius in haranguing his Greek audience in a
rhetorical rather than an historical fashion (ἐὰν παρεκβαίνοντες τὸ τῆς ἱστορικῆς διηγήσεως ἦθος
ἐπιδεικτικωτέραν καὶ φιλοτιµοτέραν φαινώµεθα ποιούµενοι περὶ αὐτῶν τὴν ἀπαγγελίαν.
7
See above, p. 9.
8
Cf. iii. 32. Polybius is saying the same thing in a slightly different way in viii. 2, when he argues that it is only
from general histories that one really appreciates the grandeur of the great achievement of Tyche in reducing the
world to the dominion of Rome. On the importance of establishing causes see iii. 6. 6 f. (and especially 6. 14–7.
3), iii. 31, v. 21. 6, vi. 2. 8, xi. 19 a 1–3, xii. 25 b 1, xxii. 18. 6, xxix. 5. 1–3, xxxvi. 17. 4. For the problem of
causality and Tyche see below, § 3.
9
vii. 7. 6.
10
xxix. 12. 11.
11
xii. 4 a 1, 7. 6, 8. 1, 11. 4, 12. 1–4.
12
xvi. 14. 7–8, 20. 8.
and the temple of Zeus in Arcadia. 'To believe things which are beyond the limits of possibility', comments
Polybius,1 'reveals a childish simplicity, and is the mark of a blunted intelligence.' On the other hand, such
statements may contribute towards sustaining a feeling of piety towards the gods among τὸ πλῆθος, and if so
they are excusable, provided they do not go too far; τὸ δ᾽ ὑπεραῖρον οὐ συγχωρητέον. This admission may seem
shocking, but it hardly affects Polybius as an historian, since he was little concerned with miracles and not in any
case writing for the common people. More dangerous is his concession to patriotism. 'I would admit', he writes,2
'that authors should show partiality towards their own country (ῥοπὰς διδόναι ταῖς αὑτῶν πατρίσι), but they
should not make statements about it which are contrary to the facts.' The concession is carefully hedged about;
but it is clear that Polybius availed himself of it in his own work. The extent of his bias can easily be exaggerated.
It has, for example, been alleged3 that Polybius' picture of Philip V is distorted in order 'to motivate and thus to
excuse the Achaean League's declaration of war on Philip in 198 B.C.'; and the fragment 'on traitors and
treachery' (xviii. 13–15) has been quoted as evidence for the violent controversy which surrounded the Achaean
decision. The digression on treachery was, however, evoked by the handing over of Argos by Philip to Nabis of
Sparta in the winter of 198/7.4 Certainly there is a hint at Aristaenus' decision to have the Achaean League declare
war on Macedon: Polybius wishes to make it quite clear that this was not treachery according to his definition.
But there is no evidence for a storm of controversy. Polybius needed to provide no elaborate apologia for the
Achaeans, since only an insignificant minority queried the wisdom of the official policy.
It is much more in the hostile treatment he accords to opponents of the Achaean League that Polybius' ῥοπαί
appear. His venom towards Aetolia has long been noted and needs no illustration;5 and if the hostile picture of
Cleomenes of Sparta and the distorted account of Aetolian machinations in the decade before the Social War go
back to Aratus' Memoirs, Polybius must shoulder the responsibility for swallowing his version uncritically, as well
as for many anti-Aetolian obiter dicta.6 Recently it has been demonstrated7
[12]
1
xvi. 12. 3–11.
2
xvi. 14. 6.
3
Edson, AHR, 1942, 827.
4
See Aymard, REA, 1940, 9–19; probably inaccessible to Edson.
5
See Brandstaeter, 199 ff.; J. V. A. Fine, AJP, 1940, 129–65. But the case should not be overstated. Thus
Brandstaeter makes a long and eloquent defence of the Aetolian claim to be considered true Greeks; but the
accusation that they were not comes in a speech of Philip V, which may well record his actual words (xviii. 5. 8),
and does not therefore necessarily commit Polybius.
6
e.g. ii. 46. 3, iv. 3. 1, ix. 38. 6 (but this is in a speech of Lyciscus of Acarnania).
7
Feyel, passim; for detailed discussion of his thesis see the commentary on xx. 4–7.
that political prejudice has also produced a completely false picture of conditions in third-century Boeotia; the
account of social decadence in xx. 5–7 can be refuted from the evidence of contemporary coins and inscriptions,
and is to be interpreted as a reflection of Achaean hostility. Frequently, too, Polybius' assessment of a situation is
determined by the attitude of those concerned in it towards Achaea or Rome.1 How far in all these instances the
bias is consciously applied it is difficult to say; but Polybius' willingness to grant something to patriotic prejudice
probably rendered him less alert to the risks he was running.
Another field in which practice fell short of theory was in the speeches which, following Greek tradition,
Polybius included at intervals throughout his Histories; some thirty-seven survive, and several times Polybius
makes it clear that such speeches should represent the actual words of the speaker. It was the custom of Hellenistic
historians to set rhetorical compositions in the mouths of their characters, and Polybius condemns this
wholeheartedly in Timaeus. 'A writer who passes over in silence the speeches made and the reason (sc. for their
success or failure) and in their place introduces false rhetorical exercises and discursive speeches, destroys the
peculiar virtue of history.'2 Similarly Phylarchus tries3 'to imagine the probable utterances of his characters' instead
of 'simply recording what was said, however commonplace'; and both Chaereas and Sosylus4 are roundly
condemned for setting down versions of rival speeches made in the Senate on the question of war with Carthage,
when they had no access to a reliable source. There is certainly a proper place in historical composition for
speeches 'which, as it were, sum up events and hold the whole history together';5 but they must give what was
actually said, τὰ κατ᾽ ἀλήθειαν λεχθέντα.6 In fact Polybius does not always come up to the standard he sets. The
long report of the speeches delivered by Flamininus, Philip V, and the other participants in the conference held in
Locris in the winter of 1987 has all the marks of being derived from a verbatim account of the meeting, and may
be accepted as authentic. But once he went outside the scope of Achaean and Roman records, Polybius is unlikely
to have had access to much reliable material for speeches, and must have drawn largely on earlier literary accounts
or the
[13]
1
See below, p. 24.
2
xii. 25 b 4.
3
ii. 56. 10.
4
iii. 20. 1, 20. 5.
5
xii. 25 a 3. Polybius here classifies speeches as δηµηγορίαι (addresses in public assembly), παρακλήσεις
(exhortations, usually to soldiers), and πρεσβευτικοὶ
λόγοι (ambassadors' speeches); in xii. 25 i 3 δηµηγορίαι are called συµβουλευτικοὶ λόγοι. For an analysis of
Polybius' surviving speeches according to these three categories see Ziegler, op. cit., cols. 1525–7.
6
Cf. ii. 56. 10, xii. 25 b 1, 25 i 8, xxxvi. 1. 7.
7
xviii. 1–10; cf. Walbank, Philip, 159 ff., and references there quoted.
uncertainties of an oral tradition; this probably helps to explain why many of his speeches, and especially such
pairs as those of Hannibal and Scipio before Zama,1 read like a series of commonplaces. But he never concedes to
the historian the right to improvise,2 and it would be unjust to assume that he consciously composed rhetorical
exercises for inclusion in his Histories. Set occasions are apt to produce commonplaces, and people's speeches, like
their actions, are often governed by prevalent attitudes and traditions.3 Polybius is therefore entitled to our
confidence that he made a determined effort to discover what was actually said καθ᾽ ὅσον οἷόν τε
πολυπραγµονήσας,4 and that any failure here and there is due to practical shortcomings rather than a deliberate
betrayal of principle.
There is, however, another field in which Polybius sometimes appears to fall short of the standards implied in
his criticisms of others. His attacks on various of his predecessors—Timaeus, Phylarchus, and others—for a style of
presentation that is inaccurate, sensational, and full of expressions of wonder, has already been mentioned.5 But it
was so deeply rooted a feature of historical writing in the Hellenistic period that Polybius allows it to influence his
own presentation to a greater degree than his professions would suggest; indeed the principle of adducing the
περιπέτειαι which have befallen others in order to encourage the reader to endure the vicissitudes of fortune,
τύχης µεταβολάς, was in itself an invitation to dwell on such events. The clearest example of this is his treatment
of the downfall of the royal house of Macedon;6 but the use of the word παράδοξος fifty-one times in books i-iii,
apart from various
[14]
1
xv. 6. 4–8. 14, 10. 1–7, 11. 6–12.
2
Ziegler (op. cit., col. 1527) asserts that for a great many of his speeches Polybius must have either drawn his
material from literary sources or 'followed the formula indicated in xxxvi. 1. 6, not εὑρησιλογεῖν καὶ διεξοδικοῖς
χρῆσθαι λόγοις, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ τοῖς ἁρµόζουσι πρὸς τὸν ὑποκείµενοv καιρόv and to give τὰ καιριώτατα καὶ
πραγµατικώτατα of these'. But here Ziegler confuses two things, the behaviour proper to a politician and that
proper to an historian; it is the former who should avoid discursive talk and restrict himself to what the occasion
demands; the latter must find out as carefully as possible τὰ κατ᾽ ἀλήθειαν ῥηθέντα, and then report only the
most vital and effectual part of this. There is a similar error in my observations in CQ, 1945, 10 n. 4 (rightly
criticized by Balsdon, CQ, 1953, 158 n. 4), where the argument in xii. 25 i 4 ff. is misrepresented; in that passage,
as in xxxvi. 1. 6, it is the statesman, not the historian, who is required τοὺς ἁρµόζοντας καὶ καιρίους (sc. λόγους)
ἀεὶ λαµβάνειν. The misunderstanding (shared by Wunderer, ii. 11) arose through the sudden changes of point of
view, which cause Polybius to speak now as an historian (xii. 25 i 6) and now as a statesman profiting from the
reading of history (xii. 25 i 8).
3
See below, pp. 19–20.
4
xxxvi. 1. 7.
5
See above, pp. 8–9, and for general observations along these lines, iii. 58. 9.
6
xxiii. 10–11; cf. Livy, xl. 3. 3 ff., drawing on Polybius. For discussion see JHS, 1938, 55–68; Ullman, TAPA,
1942, 25–53; cf. Warde Fowler, CR, 1903, 448.
synonyms like παράλογος, ἀνέλπιστος, ἀπροσδόκητος,1 clearly indicates the part played by the unexpected
in his narrative. An example of this tendency towards a sensational presentation can be seen in Polybius' battle-
pieces. Thus Hannibal's crossing of the Rhone, with the enemy on one side and the Carthaginians on the other,
gives scope for a vivid picture.
'With the men in the boats shouting as they vied with one another in their efforts and struggled to stem the
current, with the two armies standing on either bank at the very brink of the river, the Carthaginians following
the progress of the boats with loud cheers and sharing in the fearful suspense (συναγωνιώντων), and the
barbarians yelling their war-cry and challenging to combat, the scene was in the highest degree striking and
thrilling (ἦν τὸ γινόµενον ἐκπληκτικὸν καὶ παραστατικὸν ἀγωνίας).'2
This account may go back to some eyewitness such as Silenus; but one cannot but observe a certain affinity with
similar passages such as that in which the feelings and behaviour of the people of Lilybaeum are described as they
stand on the walls to watch the trierarch Hannibal run the Roman blockade,3 or in particular the description of
the clash at Cynoscephalae. 'As the encounter of the two armies was accompanied by deafening shouts and cries,
both of them uttering their war-cry and those outside the battle also cheering the combatants, ἦν τὸ γινόµενον
ἐκπληκτικὸν καὶ παραστατικὸν ἀγωνίας.'4 The two rival armies, and the third group shouting—the parallel is
complete, and suggests the influence of rhetorical elaboration which may ultimately draw on Thucydides' famous
account of the battle in the Great Harbour at Syracuse. Nevertheless, in such passages as these Polybius does not
develop the situation at length nor with the resources of emotional and tragic writing necessary to elicit the pity
of his readers and to thrill them with sensation for its own sake. He feels no obligation to omit everything that
savours of τὸ τερπνόν,5 but he draws a contrast6 between the sieges and battle-scenes of the 'tragic' historians and
his own accounts, αὐτὸν τὸν ἀληθῆ καὶ κύριον . . . λόγον, and asks the reader's pardon if he appears to be
λήµµασι χ ρώµενοι τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἢ χειρισµῷ πραγµάτων ἢ τοῖς τῆς λέξεως ῥήµασι— which would seem to cover
the kind of instance just mentioned. In short, the degree of rhetorical embroidery which appears in these examples
is something very different from that displayed in the works of the 'tragic' writers. If Polybius seems often to lay
special stress on the unexpected, it is because he regards it as objectively present in the fabric of events, and
necessarily to be stressed if the historian is to fulfil his true function as a moral historian.7
[15]
1
Lorenz, 11–12; cf. CQ, 1945, 8–10.
2
iii. 43. 7–8.
3
i. 44. 4–5.
4
xviii. 25. 1.
5
Cf. i. 4. 11.
6
xxix. 12. 7–10.
7
See below, § 3.
A slight concession (in principle) to politic piety and (in practice) to local patriotism, a limited success in
retailing the real contents of some of his reported speeches, a readiness to embrace the terminology (but not the
emotional attitudes) of 'tragic' history in the interest of τὸ τερπνόν or moral edification—these probably represent
the sum of what a critic of Polybius' truthfulness can assemble. They amount in total to very little, and leave the
overwhelming impression of a reliable and conscientious writer, with a serious theme and a determination that at
all costs his readers shall comprehend and profit by it.
§ 3. Tyche
The role in history which Polybius assigned to Tyche is notoriously hard to define. He regarded the study of
the past as essentially a means of attaining practical ends by learning lessons;1 but the value of such lessons is
seriously reduced if the sequence of cause and effect is at the whim of some incalculable and capricious power.2
On the other hand, the lessons of history were moral as well as political, and one important moral lesson lay in
learning how to meet those vicissitudes which demonstrably occurred in every man's life.3 To have left these out
of his Histories would have falsified the observed course of human events. It would also have deprived Polybius of
much of his purpose in writing at all. Unfortunately in discussing these vicissitudes he made use of a word familiar
to his contemporaries, but to us (and probably to them too) exceptionally ambiguous because of the variety of its
meanings and the difficulty of deciding which is present in any particular passage.
It is clear that in many places the word Tyche is used quite loosely, where a tense of τυγχάνω would have
served as well.4 When, for instance, the Mamertines took possession of the wives and families of the men of
Messana, ὥς ποθ᾽ ἡ τύχη διένειµε παρ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν τῆς παρανοµίας καιρὸν ἑκάστοις,5 the sense is simply 'as they
happened upon them'. Such examples6 can be neglected; they reflect current colloquial usage, and have no special
significance. Elsewhere, however, the introduction of Tyche seems to mean something rather more, and
fortunately a passage survives7 in which Polybius discusses the
[16]
1
See above, pp. 6 ff.
2
Cf. Erkell, 140.
3
Cf. i. 1. 2, stressing the two purposes, political and moral, and describing history as ἐναργεστάτην . . . καὶ µόνην
διδάσκαλον τοῦ δύνασθαι τὰς τῆς τύχης µεταβολὰς γενναίως ὑποφέρειν.
4
These passages are conveniently assembled in Hercod, 100–1; cf. Warde Fowler, CR, 1903, 446 ff.; P. Shorey,
CP, 1921, 281.
5
i. 7. 4.
6
There are similar examples at v. 42. 8 and x. 33. 4–5; they are common throughout the Histories.
occasions when Tyche may properly be invoked. 'In the case of things of which it is difficult or impossible for
mortal men to grasp the causes,' he writes, 'one may justifiably refer them, in one's difficulty, ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν . . . καὶ
τὴν τύχην’; such things are heavy and persistent rain, drought destroying the crops, outbreaks of plague, in short
what would today be termed 'acts of God'.1 When a cause is to hand, as for example in the case of the
contemporary depopulation of Greece, οὐχί µοι δοκεῖ τῶν τοιούτων δεῖν ἐπὶ τὸ θεῖον ποιεῖσθαι τὴν
ἀναφοράν;2 'but where it is impossible or difficult to detect the cause, διαπορητέον᾽. One example of such an
aporia is the Macedonian rising behind the false Philip, a wholly incomprehensible movement, which can only be
termed δαιµονοβλάβειαν . . . καὶ µῆνιν ἐκ θεῶν3. But in general one should not be prompt to ascribe to Tyche4
events for which a cause can be found.
This passage reserves for the workings of Tyche the area which lies completely outside human control and
those events of which the causes are not easy to detect or for which there are apparently no rational causes at all.
Clearly 'acts of God' and irrational or fortuitous acts of men are not identical; but they have this in common, that
they stand outside the sphere of rational analysis. Consequently they can both be described in terms of τύχη, or
θεός τις , or the θεοί who nurse their µῆνις, or (elsewhere) τὸ δαιµόνιον or ταὐτόµατον (for all these phrases
seem to be roughly synonymous).
It is well known that Polybius' concept of cause and effect is somewhat one-sided, and fails to allow
adequately for the interaction of events and the dynamic and dialectical character of almost any train of
causation.5 This may help to explain why happenings which are external to the particular sequence of cause and
effect with which he is concerned are often attributed to Tyche, though there may be a perfectly rational
explanation of them in their own context. Thus the early fortunes of the elder Scipio in Spain received a great
fillip from ταὐτόµατον6 when the Spaniard Abilyx persuaded Bostar to release the Spanish hostages, and promptly
handed them over to the Roman; for this act of Abilyx, though based on reason and calculation (cf. iii. 98. 3,
συνελογίσατο παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ), was extraneous to Scipio's plans and unforeseeable on the Roman side.7 Tyche can
also
[17]
1
For an example see xi. 24. 8; at Ilipa Hasdrubal would have been driven from his entrenchments but for the
intervention of θεός τις; in short, a storm of unprecedented magnitude forced the Romans back into their camp.
2
xxxvi. 17. 4 ff.
3
xxxvi. 17. 15.
4
xxxvi. 17. 1, where, however, the words τοῖς τὴν τύχην καὶ τὴν εἱµαρµένην ἐπιγράφουσιν appear to be those of
the excerptor.
5
See the notes to iii. 6 ff., discussing Polybius' account of the causes of several wars.
6
iii. 97. 5; cf. 99. 9 ἐκ τῆς τύχης.
7
Similarly, in iv. 3. 4, the Aetolian aggression in the Peloponnese was assisted by τα?τ?µατον, since the home
authorities did not foresee the relations between Dorimachus and the brigands; and in v. 34. 2 Ptolemy IV
contrasts his own action in ridding himself of domestic dangers with the help given him δι? τ?ν τ?χην in the
deaths of his two rivals, Antigonus and Seleucus, abroad. Here the concept of synchronism (see below, n. 2) also
comes in. Hannibal's attack on Rome foundered (ix. 6. 5) because γ?νεται παρ?δοξ?ν τι κα? τυχικ?ν σ?µπτωµα
πρ?ς σωτηρ?αν το?ς ?ωµα?οις; by a pure coincidence an abnormally large number of troops happened to be
present at Rome and could be led out against the enemy. Rhodian feeling against Philip was exacerbated by the
action of Tyche (xv. 23. 1); for at the moment when his representative was expatiating on his magnanimity, a
messenger arrived with news of the enslavement of the Cians.
manifest itself in the simultaneous occurrence of similar events within separate and independent fields. The
fact that the Romans defeated the Boii at Lake Vadimo only five years before the destruction of the Gauls at
Delphi1 suggests that 'Tyche, as it were, afflicted all Gauls alike with a sort of epidemic of war'; and Polybius
chose the date at which he begins his main narrative2 διὰ τὸ καὶ τὴν τύχην ὡς ἂν εἰ κεκαινοποιηκέναι πάντα τὰ
κατὰ τὴν οἰκουµένην, for by a series of coincidences new figures were then active in almost every part of the
world.
Within the field thus assigned to Tyche it might logically seem that events of any kind might be regarded as
her handiwork; but in practice she is restricted to certain contexts. In particular, events of a sensational and
capricious character are attributed to her.3 Often she will decide great issues by a narrow margin; thus the Illyrian
invasion which compelled Antigonus Doson to march north came just too late to save Cleomenes.4 Or a great
general, Epaminondas or Philopoemen,5 having risen to success on his merits, may be defeated through no fault of
his own, τῆς τύχης ἥττων. In such cases, Tyche may justly be censured.6 Her caprice is especially liable to
precipitate a sudden reversal of men's lot. Thus Tyche caused Hannibal to be crucified on the very cross on which
Spendius had died, apparently for the sake of ironical contrast.7 At Medion the Aetolians debated in whose name
they should dedicate the spoil
[18]
1
ii. 20. 7.
2
iv. 2. 4. Similarly the Roman defeat in Cisalpine Gaul just after Cannae occurred ὥσπερ ἐπιµετρούσης καὶ
συνεπαγωνιζοµένης τοῖς γεγονόσι τῆς τύχης (iii. 118. 6; on the chronology see the note).
3
These will frequently be disasters; but in such cases one must be careful to distinguish the occasions when they
are due to lack of judgement rather than to Tyche (i. 37. 4, ii. 7. 1–3).
4
ii. 70. 2.
5
ix. 8. 13, xxiii. 12. 3. A few stout-hearted men make headway τῆς τύχης ἀντιπιπτούσης, but they are few (xvi.
28. 2).
6
xv. 20. 5–8, xvi. 32. 5, xxxii. 4. 3. Tyche turns against Sparta so that her constitution deteriorates and after being
the best becomes the worst (iv. 81. 12); and Athens and Thebes in turn decline ὥσπερ ἐκ προσπαίου τινὸς τύχης
(vi. 43. 3–5).
7
i. 86. 7; contrast rather than a specific pleasure in cruelty (so Erkell, 140) is what Polybius associates with Tyche.
they were going to win; but Tyche showed her power inasmuch as they were themselves obliged to concede
spoils to the Medionians.1 Sometimes this reversal of fortune is vividly illustrated, as on the occasion when
Callicrates' portraits were carried away into the darkness on the same day that those of Lycortas were brought out,
so that people observed that 'it is the characteristic function of Tyche to bring to bear in turn on the lawgivers
themselves the very laws they originated and passed'.2 This capricious and irrational force allows no one to
prosper indefinitely; and recognizing this Demetrius of Phalerum was able to foretell the downfall of Macedon, a
prophecy which greatly impressed Polybius, who witnessed its fulfilment.3
One of Polybius' main moral lessons is the need for moderation in success, in the light of this instability of
fortune, and the certainty that no prosperity can last.4 The events at Medion,5 the fate of Achaeus6 or Perseus,7 the
contrast of the pictures of Lycortas and Callicrates,8 and the fate of Hasdrubal at Carthage9 evoke the same trite
homily with monotonous regularity; sometimes it comes from Polybius' own mouth, sometimes in the words or
behaviour of some historical figure—Antiochus weeping at the downfall of Achaeus, remembering the
inconstancy of Tyche10 (just as Scipio Aemilianus was to weep over the sight of burning Carthage, and for the
same reason),11 Scipio himself pointing to the wretched Hasdrubal12 exactly as his father Aemilius Paullus had
moralized over the vanquished Perseus,13 the Punic envoys before Zama urging moderation on the Romans,14
Hannibal begging the elder Scipio to remember ὡς εὐµετάθετός ἐστιν ἡ τύχη καὶ παρὰ µικρὸν εἰς ἑκάτερα
ποιεῖ µεγάλας ῥοπάς, so that it behoves all men ἀνθρωπίνως βουλεύεσθαι15 Scipio accepting these premises in
his replies both to Hannibal and to the Punic envoys who came after the battle,16 Syrian ambassadors making a
similar plea after Magnesia.17 It is the mark of a great man to have learnt this lesson;18 both Scipio19 and Hannibal20
came up to this test, whereas Philip V,21 and the Spartans after the Peloponnesian War,22 failed.
[19]
1
ii. 4. 3. Tyche likes to dash reasonable expectations by lifting a man up and then suddenly (παρὰ πόδας) casting
him down (xxix. 22. 1–2).
2
xxxvi. 13. 2.
3
xxix. 21.
4
Cf. xxiii. 12. 4–7 (on Philopoemen's death): ἀλλά µοι δοκεῖ κατὰ τὴν κοινὴν παροιµίαν εὐτυχῆσαι µὲν
ἄνθρωπον ὄντα δυνατόν, διευτυχῆσαί γε µὴν ἀδύνατον; ii. 31. 3.
5
ii. 4. 3.
6
viii. 21. 11.
7
xxix. 20. 1–4.
8
xxxvi. 13. 2.
9
xxxviii. 20. 1.
10
viii. 20. 10.
11
xxxviii. 21. 1–3, 22; cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 104.
12
xxxviii. 20. 1.
13
xxix. 20. 1–4.
14
xv. 1. 8.
15
xv. 6. 6–7. 6. Mioni (141 n. 13) thinks that Tyche is here equivalent to Providence (see below, p. 22); but the
passage is exactly parallel to the others quoted.
16
xv. 8. 3, 17. 4–6.
17
xxi. 16. 8.
18
Cf. vi. 2. 5–6.
19
x. 40. 6, 40. 9, xxxviii. 21. 1–3.
20
xv. 15. 5.
21
xviii. 33. 4.
22
xxxviii. 2. 7; shortly afterwards ἀπέβαλον τὴν ἡγεµονίαν.
Polybius implies that the reversal which is bound to follow upon prosperity will come because that is the way
things happen, the way of Tyche, regardless of any steps we may take.1 It is in the nature of prosperity that it does
not last; and the reason for behaving moderately is not to avert the blow, but simply that moderate conduct is
more fitting to a man and may help to secure mitigation of one's lot when misfortune comes.2 There is one
exception. After a minor success, Perseus' friends urged him to offer terms to the Romans;3 the latter, they
thought, might be disposed to accept them as a result of their set-back, and if they rejected them, νεµεσήσειν τὸ
δαιµόνιον, whereas the king by his µετριότης would win over τοὺς θεοὺς καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. Now it is true
that Polybius' views often coincide with those expressed by his historical characters;4 but on this occasion he
immediately makes it clear5 that Perseus' friends were quite wrong in their views about how the Romans would
behave, and Perseus' fate shows equally well that they were wrong about the behaviour of τὸ δαιµόνιον. Polybius
did not believe that heaven could be moved by a politic exhibition of µετριότης or indeed that arrogance in itself
drew divine vengeance upon it.6 It is the instability of fortune which he makes his theme; and indeed it was
morally more edifying to have men behave with moderation in prosperity because it could not in any case last,
than to have them moderate because they were afraid lest arrogance might precipitate disaster.
Slightly different is the concept of Tyche as a power which punishes wrongdoing. For example, she punished
the Boeotians for the unhealthy state of their public affairs, ὥσπερ ἐπίτηδες ἀνταπόδοσιν . . . ποιουµένη.7 The
Spartan ephors, who had been bribed to make Lycurgus king, were murdered by Cheilon, Tyche thus exacting
τὴν ἁρµόζουσαν . . . δίκην.8 This phrase is also used of Philip and
[20]
1
In xxxix. 8 Polybius says that Tyche is ἀγαθὴ φθονῆσαι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις; on the personification of Tyche see
below, p. 25.
2
For public opinion will then operate; and this is a powerful force; cf. xxxviii. 3. 2.
3
xxvii. 8. 4.
4
See above, p. 19.
5
xxvii. 8. 8 ff.
6
Cf. above, n. 1, where it is prosperity which arouses the jealousy of Tyche, not arrogance. In several passages
(e.g. xxvii. 6. 2, 15. 2, xxxi. 11. 3), where Polybius is believed with good reason to be his source, Diodorus
introduces Tyche in a form which (as in Polyb. xxvii. 8. 4) penalizes arrogance. It does not, however, follow that
the same nuance was in Polybius, for in the case of Regulus Diodorus has the concept of divine nemesis (Diod.
xxiii. 15. 2–6), which is wholly absent from Polyb. i. 35; see the note on the latter passage.
7
xx. 7. 2.
8
iv. 81. 5. A parallel case is that of the Carthaginian mercenaries, who had broken every law and to whom τὸ
δαιµόνιον gave τὴν οἰκείαν ἀµοιβήν, forcing them to eat each other.
Antiochus,1 who after their nefarious plot against the dominions of the infant Ptolemy, were led on by Tyche
to attack the Romans, and so met ruin and defeat; their dynasties perished, while that of Ptolemy was revived. The
action of Tyche against Philip is developed at length.2 As if to punish him, she sends against him a host of furies,
which lead him into a succession of acts culminating in the destruction of his own son, a sign of divine wrath.3
Here Tyche takes on a purposive character, which is also evident when the sacrilege committed by Antiochus
Epiphanes and Prusias meets speedy vengeance in the form of death or disaster.4
Close in attitude to this are several passages in which Tyche seems to approximate to something like Fate or
Providence.5 'Tyche', writes Polybius,6 'is for ever producing something new (καινοποιοῦσα) and for ever
playing a part (ἐναγωνιζοµένη) in the lives of men, but in no single instance has she ever put on such a show-
piece as in our own times', with the rise of Rome to world-dominion in fifty-three years. In this passage, as
Warde Fowler observed,7 the use of such words as σκοπός (i. 4. 1), οἰκονοµία, and συντέλεια (i. 4. 3) suggests
that Tyche is here conceived as a power working to a definite goal, the domination of Rome. It is this Tyche
which Hirzel compares with the Stoic πρόνοια,8 and Fowler with the φύσις of book. vi;9 it appears again when
the Gallic invasions, interludes in the main drama, which contribute nothing to its development, are described as
τὰ ἐπεισόδια τῆς τύχης.10 It does, of course, create a difficulty, on Polybius' definition of Tyche as a power which
restricted its activity to that
[21]
1
xv. 20. 5–8.
2
Cf. JHS, 1938, 55–68.
3
xxiii. 10. 14.
4
xxxi.9. 4 τοῦ δαιµονίου, xxxii. 15. 14 ἐκ θεοπέµπτου; cf. xviii. 54. 11 (Dicaearchus). See below, p. 25 n. 5.
5
Cf. Warde Fowler, CR, 1903, 446–7.
6
i. 4. 5. The metaphor of Tyche as a producer of plays appears elsewhere. Thus a Rhodian ambassador tells the
Aetolians that the evil effects of their Roman alliance are now manifest, τῆς τύχης ὥσπερ ἐπίτηδες ἐπὶ τὴν
ἐξώστραν ἀναβιβαζούσης τὴν ὑµετέραν ἄγνοιαν (xi. 5. 8); and Polybius makes the same remark (xxix. 19. 2; cf.
fg. 212) of the Rhodians themselves after their left-handed diplomacy during the war between Rome and Perseus.
It links up with similar metaphors making Tyche an umpire (e.g. i. 58. 1) or the stager of a contest (ii. 66. 4), and
reproduces the vocabulary of popular philosophy; see the examples from Diogenes and Lucian quoted by Herzog-
Hauser, RE, 'Tyche', cols. 1668–9.
7
CR, 1903, 446.
8
Hirzel (862–9, Appendix VII) suggests that, where it is not a purely verbal echo of popular usage, Polybius'
Tyche is equivalent to the Stoic πρόνοια; but if this were so, there seems no good reason why he should not have
used the technical term, rather than a word like Tyche, which is so fraught with ambiguities (cf. Hercod, 76–103;
Mioni, 199 n. 32; Erkell, 140–1).
9
CR, 1903, 446–7; Fowler suggests that Polybius avoids the word φύσις in this context, because in book vi it
describes á recurrent process, whereas the rise of Rome is a unique problem, soluble only in the course of his
history. He therefore preferred the word τύχη to one which might imply that the growth of Rome was the result
of natural law.
10
ii. 35. 5; see the note ad loc.
sphere which is not amenable to reason;1 for the whole of his history is based on the assumption that Roman
success can be explained in rational terms. 'By schooling themselves in vast and perilous enterprises', he writes,2 'it
is perfectly natural that they not only gained the courage to aim at universal dominion, but executed their
purpose'; and the sixth book is written mainly in order to analyse the role which the Roman constitution played
in Roman success.3
There are other passages in which this stress on rational explanation is given great prominence. The
achievements of the elder Scipio had been attributed by most people to Tyche; in fact, Polybius replies, it is those
who are incapable of taking an accurate view of opportunities, causes, and dispositions who attribute εἰς θεοὺς
καὶ τύχας what is really due to shrewdness, calculation, and foresight.4 Both Eumenes and Hiero owed their
success entirely to their merits, and had no help at all from Tyche.5 Flamininus,6 like the younger Scipio,7 was
helped a little by ταὐτόµατον, but in the main prospered through his own innate qualities. When men act
foolishly they must take the responsibility, and not try to make Tyche the scapegoat.8 Nor must the rise of the
Achaean League be attributed to Tyche: φαῦλον γάρ αἰτίαν δὲ µᾶλλον ζητεῖν χωρὶς γὰρ ταύτης οὔτε τῶv κατὰ
λόγον οὔτε τῶv παρὰ λόγον εἶvαι δοκούvτωv οὐδὲv οἷόν τε συντελεσθῆναι.9 Roman success in battle has its
specific causes; only the superficial will attribute it to Tyche.10 These passages do not deny the existence of Tyche;
but they clearly limit the area within which one may legitimately use it to account for historical events.
Consequently, in attributing Roman success both to calculation and rational causes and, simultaneously, to the
overriding power of a Tyche which comes close to 'providence', Polybius raises a problem which has stirred up
much debate and evoked many attempts at a solution. One answer has been to postulate a development in his
beliefs: beginning as a believer in the capricious Tyche of Demetrius of Phalerum, he later came round to the
view that τύχη was merely
[22]
1
See above, p. 17.
2
i. 63. 9; on this passage, which clearly belongs to the same order of thought as i. 3. 7–10, see the note ad loc.
3
Cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 97–122.
4
x. 5. 8; cf. 2. 5, 3. 7, 7. 3, 9. 2–3, and (in general terms) fg. 83. But in x. 40. 6 and 40. 9 Polybius speaks without
hesitation of Tyche's having favoured Scipio.
5
xxxii. 8. 4, vii. 8. 1.
6
xviii. 12. 2.
7
xxxi. 25. 10, 29. 2, 30. 1–3; probably fg. 47, which, Ziegler (op. cit., col. 1534 n. 1) thinks, refers undoubtedly to
the younger Scipio.
8
Cf. ii. 7. 1–3 (Epirotes), xv. 21. 3 (people of Cius), i. 37. 4 (the Roman commanders at Camarina; but in i. 59. 4
the disaster at Camarina is included among τὰ ἐκ τῆς τύχης συµπτώµατα).
9
ii. 38. 5; here, as at Rome, the cause lies mainly in the constitution.
10
xviii. 28. 5; and cf. i. 63. 9, quoted above (n. 2).
a convenient label to cover a gap in our knowledge,1 and, in Cuntz's opinion, ended up a complete rationalist
who would allow nothing to be without its cause;2 alternatively, he began by attributing Roman success to
prowess, but subsequently came to belive in a Tyche which meant rather different things at the different stages of
the ideological development which this theory postulates.3 The fatal objection to such views is that they not only
build up a preconceived system by an arbitrary division of passages, but that in each case they are obliged to
separate passages which despite apparent contradictions can be shown to be closely linked together. For example,
the ideas of Tyche as a capricious, and as a just, retributive power are fundamentally contradictory. But Polybius
can write without any feeling of awkwardness: 'Who of those who reasonably find fault with Tyche for her
conduct of human affairs, will not be reconciled to her when he learns how she later imposed on Philip and
Antiochus the fitting penalty, and exhibited to those who came after, as a warning for their edification, the
exemplary punishment which she inflicted on the above-named kings?'4 Clearly it is the same Tyche which is
now just and now capricious; and it is consistent with this that the metaphor of Tyche as the play-producer is
applied both in contexts where mere change and sensational incident are uppermost, and in those where the
concept is that of providential design.5 Since the same Tyche operates on both occasions, her characteristics are
the same; thus it is a mark of the capricious power of Demetrius of Phalerum's Tyche that she is always
καινοποιοῦσα, but this is also true of the providential Tyche which seems to stand behind the rise of Rome,6 and
is not inconsistent with a rational nexus of causation.7 This simultaneous application of both Tyche and rational
causation itself has its parallel in the incident of Regulus,8 whose failure is on the one hand attributed to two
straightforward causes, viz. his error in demanding unconditional surrender and the arrival of Xanthippus,9 and on
the other used as an illustration of the caprice of Tyche.10
This absence of well-marked divisions between the various uses of a word which, by its very history, had
become singularly illadapted to the conveying of clear and precise thoughts11 is against
[23]
1
von Scala, 159 ff.; his views were adopted by Bury, Ancient Greek Historians (Cambridge, 1909), 200 ff.
2
Cuntz, 43–46.
3
Laqueur, 249–60.
4
xv. 20. 5–6.
5
Cf. xi. 5. 8 (Tyche as it were deliberately brings the folly of the Aetolians on the stage), i. 4. 5 (the show-piece of
Tyche, the rise of Rome to world-dominion), xxix. 19.2 (Tyche brings the folly of the Rhodians on the stage).
6
xxix. 21. 5; cf. i. 4. 5.
7
Cf. i. 63. 9; above, p. 22 n. 2.
8
i. 30–35.
9
Cf. Balsdon, CQ, 1953, 159 n. 2.
10
Cf. i. 35. 2; the contradiction is noted by Siegfried, 67 n. 119.
11
Cf. Erkell, 146.
any theory which would assign these different usages to different periods of Polybius' mental development. It
is equally against the theory of Siegfried,1 who sees Polybius as a man 'with two souls in his breast', switching
easily and without inner conflict from a scientific, rational, view of a universe subject to the law of cause and
effect, to a religious attitude which sees history as the working out of a plan by an external power of Tyche. This
bisection is not plausible as a psychological account of Polybius, as one comes to know him in his work; nor is it
adequate as a treatment of the evidence, for the contradictions in Polybius' account of Tyche are not one but
several. The various conceptions merge one into another; and it often appears as if the particular aspect of Tyche
which Polybius invokes in any instance, no less than the extent to which he allows Tyche to be introduced into
the situation at all, depends in part at least upon his own sympathies in the matter, and upon how far he is
removed from the incidents he is describing. When, for example, the Macedonians rallied behind Andriscus with
such will and vigour that they even defeated the Romans, their perversity placed them outside the range of
comprehensible conduct, and Polybius dismisses it as what might be called a heaven-sent infatuation,
δαιµονοβλάβειαν . . . καὶ µῆνιν ἐκ θεῶν.2 The same word, δαιµονοβλάβεια, is used of the folly which led
Perseus to ruin his hopes of Genthius' help by his niggardliness;3 and when Philip V, whose end is portrayed in
the form of a tragedy, murders his son,4 Polybius comments: 'Who can help thinking that, his mind being thus
afflicted and troubled, it was the wrath of heaven (θεῶν τινων . . . µῆνιν) which had descended on his old age,
owing to the crimes of his past life.'5 One of the most notorious of these crimes was the compact made with
Antiochus to partition the domains of the infant Ptolemy Epiphanes; and this outrage was doubly avenged by
Tyche, at once when she raised up the Romans against the two guilty kings, reducing them to tributaries, and
again later, when she re-established Ptolemy's dynasty, while those of his enemies sank in ruin.6 In all these
cases—Philip, Perseus, and the Macedonian people—Polybius' own sympathies were heavily engaged, and he uses
a terminology which represents a fundamentally anti-Roman policy as divinely inspired infatuation.7
This does not necessarily imply that δαιµονοβλάβεια was the work of an objectively existing power. On the
contrary, most progress has been made in the understanding of Polybius' attitude towards
[24]
1
Op. cit., passim.
2
xxxvi. 17. 15.
3
xxviii. 9. 4.
4
See above, p. 14 n. 6.
5
xxiii. 10. 14.
6
xv. 20; cf. xxix. 27. 11–12 (Tyche arranges that the fall of Perseus shall involve the survival of Egypt).
7
Where Tyche is not specifically mentioned, the word δαιµονοβλάβεια, like τὸ δαιµόνιον, has the same
implications.
Tyche and its synonyms by those scholars—Shorey, De Sanctis, Mioni, and Erkell—who have stressed the
verbal and rhetorical elements in his formulation.1 It has been correctly pointed out that he is not unwilling to
draw his colours from the palette of the tragic historians 'wenn es möglich ist, ohne die Wahrheit zu verletzen'.2
Ziegler has drawn attention3 to the fact that in several passages Polybius modifies his references to Tyche with
some such words as ὥσπερ or ὡσανεί.4 Similarly, of the two instances where sacrilege seems to be followed by a
swift, retributive punishment, it is significant that that of Antiochus Epiphanes was the result of divine anger, ὡς
ἔνιοί φασι, while Prusias' fate was such ὥστε παρὰ πόδας ἐκ θεοπέµπτου δοκεῖν ἀπηντῆσθαι µῆνιν αὐτῷ.5
These qualifications suggest a real and prolonged doubt about the existence of an objectively active Tyche; and
this impression is confirmed by what Polybius has to say about religion in general, in a passage6 which stamps him
as fundamentally a sceptic, and by his definition of Tyche as the convenient label with which one distinguishes
acts of God and the irrational or fortuitous interventions of men.7
To a large extent, therefore, the personality with which Polybius invests Tyche is a matter of verbal
elaboration, helped by current Hellenistic usage, which habitually spoke of Tyche as a goddess; and this helps to
explain many of the inconsistencies, for consistency is not essential to a rhetorical flourish. With regard to his
main theme, however—the work of Tyche in making Rome mistress of the world in fifty-three years—one must
allow for at least the possibility that as he looked back on this startling and unparalleled process Polybius jumped
the step in logic between what had happened and what had had to happen, and so in a somewhat muddled way
invested the rise of Rome to world power with a teleological character; in so doing he probably fell a victim to
the words he used and to his constant personification of what began as a mere hiatus in knowledge. Certainly the
use of teleological expressions8 in i. 4. 1–3 points in that direction. But if this is so, it remains equally true that
Polybius had neither the clarity in philosophical thought nor a sufficiently fine sense of language to enable him to
isolate the contradiction in his ideas. The word 'Tyche' was already corrupted
[25]
1
Shorey, CP, 1921, 280 ff.; De Sanctis, iii. 1. 213–15; Mioni, 140–7; Erkell, 140–6.
2
Erkell, 145; see above, pp. 14–15.
3
Ziegler, op. cit., cols. 1538 f.
4
e.g. ii. 20. 7, xxiii. 10. 2 καθάπερ . . . ἂν εἰ . . ., 10. 16 ὥσπερ ἐπίτηδες ἀναβιβαζούσης ἐπὶ σκηνήν, xx. 7. 2
ὥσπερ ἐπίτηδες ἀνταπόδοσιν . . . ποιουµένη, xxix. 19. 2, xxxviii. 18. 8; and in iv. 2. 4 the word
κεκαινοποιηκέναι is qualified with ὡς ἂν εἰ.
5
xxxi. 9. 4, xxxii. 15. 14.
6
vi. 56. 6–15.
7
xxxvi. 17.
8
See above, p. 21 n. 7. That τύχη here means simply 'the course of events' (so Nilsson, Geschichte der
griechischen Religion, ii (Munich, 1950), 194) is hard to reconcile with 4. 4.
when he adopted it; as Erkell observes,1 it covered all the gradations in sense between a sharply defined
philosophical concept and a hazy, outworn cliché, and Polybius was not the man to find a lonely way across the
morass. Consequently, to the question whether he believed in an objective power directing human affairs, the
answer cannot be an unqualified 'No'; but in so far as it is a qualified 'Yes', his belief was neither sufficiently
strong nor sufficiently clear for him to recognize any inconsistency with his normal, rational formulation of the
character of Tyche.
This is perhaps unsatisfactory; but Polybius' lack of clarity can be paralleled in other writers. Shorey2 quotes
the hesitations of Plato, who in the Laws attributes a great role to Tyche yet insists on the control extended by
Providence over the minutest details, of Julian the Apostate, of Dante, and of Renan, all of whom at times
admitted Fortune illogically into their philosophical schemes. This discussion may conveniently close with an
extract from a contemporary historian. 'The putsch would have succeeded if Hitler had not been saved by what
can only be regarded as a miracle. It was mere chance that on 20 July the midday conference should have been
held in a flimsy wooden hut, and not in the usual concrete bunker, where the explosion would have been
deadly.'3 The author of this passage was habitually a clear and factual writer. The equivocal and contradictory
terms in which he comments on an incident sensational in itself and fraught with fatal consequences are perhaps
not without relevance to the problem of Tyche in Polybius.
§ 4. Polybius' Sources
The vast literature which exists on Polybius' sources4 is perhaps disproportionate to the results it has achieved;
and the chief reason for this is that for the main part of his work Polybius has used a great variety of material,
much of it no longer identifiable, and has woven it into a close and homogeneous fabric in which the separate
threads are not now distinguishable. Both the character of this material and Polybius' method of dealing with it
are alike described in the course of his work with complete and typical frankness. In a passage in book xii, already
quoted,5 the preparation of the historian is defined as the study and collation of written sources, acquaintance
[26]
1
Erkell, 146.
2
CP, 1921, 280–1.
3
Chester Wilmot, The Struggle for Europe (London, 1952), 421.
4
There is a sensible survey in Mioni, 119–27; see also the useful summary in Ziegler, op. cit., cols. 1560–4, with
bibliography in cols. 1441–4; among older works those of von Scala and Valeton are still worth consulting,
though neither recognizes the limit of what is possible and useful in studying this problem. More detailed
references and bibliography will be found in the commentary.
5
xii. 25 e; see p. 10 n. 1.
with relevant sites, and political experience; but in the same book1 Polybius explains that the most important
activity, at any rate for recent and contemporary history, is the questioning of as many as possible of those who
participated in the events. Indeed, one reason for his choice of 220 as the opening date for his main history was
the fact that συµβαίνει τοῖς µὲν αὐτοὺς ἡµᾶς παραγεγονέναι, τὰ δὲ παρὰ τῶν ἑωρακότων ἀκηκοέναι;2
evidence for events of an earlier date would be mere ἀκοὴ ἐξ ἀκοῆς and would serve as a safe foundation neither
for judgements nor for statements.3 From this it follows that the introductory books i and ii must necessarily fall
into a different category from the Histories proper. They are admittedly derivative, and based wholly on written
authorities. Here, to an extent unnecessary for the later books, Polybius finds it important to discuss the merits of
these authorities and to explain what amount of confidence he places in them. On the other hand, neither his
inclination nor ancient historical practice led him to indicate how closely he followed them nor the points at
which he passed from one to another.
Four historians receive special mention in books i and ii. They are Aratus and Phylarchus on Greek events,
and Fabius Pictor and Philinus for the First Punic War.4 Aratus is explicitly given as the source for the
Cleomenean War, though Polybius does not conceal the omissions which are to be found in his Memoirs;5 the
rejection of Phylarchus is justified at length, but he appears nevertheless to have been used occasionally in default
of other evidence.6 In contrasting Fabius and Philinus, Polybius' sympathies are less closely engaged; he
recognized both to be honourable men, and uses their accounts to check each other.7 That Philinus was also his
source for the Carthaginian Mercenary War is improbable;8 but Fabius is likely to have been used for the account
of the Gallic Wars in book ii9 as well as for later events.10 These four writers, however, cover neither the whole of
the contents of the introductory books nor yet the many digressions in the main part of the work which draw on
incidents taken from earlier periods in Greek history. For the preliminaries of the First Punic War, including the
rise of Hiero of Syracuse, Polybius probably followed Timaeus;11 and Timaeus was very probably his
[27]
1
xii. 4 c 2–5; see p. 10 n. 4.
2
iv. 2. 2.
3
iv. 2. 3.
4
Cf. i. 14–15 (Fabius and Philinus); iii. 26. 3–4 (criticism of Philinus); ii. 56. 2 (Aratus and Phylarchus).
5
ii. 56. 2 (source), 47. 11 (omissions); see in general ii. 40. 4 n.
6
Cf. ii. 47. 11 n., 70. 6 n. On the probable use of Phylarchus for the account of Cleomenes' death see v. 35–39 n.
7
See i. 14. 1 n. for discussion of these two authors and criticism of recent attempts to minimize or even to deny
the use of Fabius and Philinus by Polybius.
8
i. 65–88 n.
9
ii. 18–35 n.; no source is specifically mentioned.
10
See below, p. 28 n. 11.
11
i. 8. 3–9. 8 n.; cf. 6. 2 n.
source for the digression on the Pythagoreans in south Italy as well.1 This is not rendered less likely by the
violent and even malevolent attacks on Timaeus in book xii and elsewhere,2 for criticism of an author by Polybius
did not exclude use of his works. Callisthenes, for instance, is severely attacked in book xii,3 but Polybius uses him
for a digression on early Messenian history,4 and probably for references to the Spartan seizure of the Cadmea in
382 and the peace of Antalcidas.5 Ephorus too was both criticized and used. Though he is the object of polemic in
several parts of book xii,6 he is mentioned with approval on various occasions,7 and Polybius may have used him
in book iv for the passage dealing with the wealth and neutrality of Elis.8 Theopompus is also criticized,9 but there
is no evidence that Polybius used him as a source.
These are in general10 the authorities to which Polybius turned for his account of events before 220. When he
comes to his main narrative in book iii, written sources are still very important, though here—and no doubt
increasingly in the later books—they are supplemented by other material. For the Hannibalic War Fabius
continues to be used.11 But it seems reasonable to assume12 that in addition Polybius read as widely as possible
among writers on both the Roman and the Carthaginian sides. Of these he mentions two, as usual censoriously;
they are Chaereas, and Sosylus of Lacedaemon, who retail 'the gossip of the barber's shop'.13 But there were
others, too, writing about the Hannibalic War in Greek, and mainly from the Carthaginian side: Silenus of
Caleacte, who like Sosylus accompanied Hannibal on his expedition, and may well be Polybius' source for the
Carthaginian campaigns in Spain before Hannibal set out for Italy,14 Eumachus of Naples, and Xenophon. The
latter two15 are
[28]
1
ii. 39. 1 n.
2
See i. 5. 1–5 n., ii. 16. 15, viii. 10. 12, xii. 3–16, 23–28 a.
3
xii. 17–22.
4
iv. 33. 2 n.
5
Cf. iv. 27. 4–7; alternatively the source may be Ephorus. See the note ad loc.
6
xii. 22. 7, 25 f; see also vi. 45–47. 6 n.
7
For references see iv. 20. 5 n.
8
iv. 73. 6–74. 8 n.
9
viii. 9–11; cf. Mioni, 119.
10
The account of early Roman history in book vi presents a special problem. The half-dozen fragments which
survive do not allow anything very useful to be said about the sources of the section as a whole. See vi. 11 a n.
11
11 Cf. iii. 8. 1 for his view of the causes of the war; for his career during the war see i. 14. 1 n.
12
Cf. Ziegler, op. cit., col. 1562: 'Im ganzen darf man als sicher annehmen, daβ P. alles, was es an Literatur über
den 2. Punischen Krieg gab, sich verschafft und mit dem ihm eigenen kritischen Scharfsinn die verläβlichsten
Nachrichten herausgesucht und verarbeitet hat.'
13
iii. 20. 5; see discussion ad loc.
14
See iii. 13. 5–14. 8 n., discussing the relationship with Livy, who probably went back to Silenus via Coelius.
Ziegler (op. cit., col. 1562) hazards a guess that Polybius may have introduced the works of Silenus to Coelius—an
hypothesis not in the nature of things susceptible of proof.
15
On them see i. 3. 2 n.
no more than names; and from such references as iii. 47. 6 it is apparent that there will have been others, of
whom not even names now survive.1 On the Roman side we are rather more fully informed. L. Cincius
Alimentus, who was praetor in Sicily in 210/9, and was taken prisoner by Hannibal,2 wrote a history of Rome
from the earliest times which helped to fix the senatorial tradition for the Hannibalic War; like that of Fabius it
was in Greek. He will hardly have been overlooked by Polybius. The histories (also in Greek) of C. Acilius will
perhaps have been used for the later part of the Hannibalic War; but if they were published about 142, as seems
likely,3 they must have appeared too late for Polybius to use them for the years down to Cannae. Also available,
and equally certain to have been read by Polybius, was the πραγµατικὴ ἱστορία of A. Postumius Albinus, the
consul of 151, whom he censures sharply for his vanity, loquaciousness, indifferent Greek, and love of pleasure.4
There is, however, no indication in the text of how Polybius used these or other Roman historians writing in
Greek;5 nor is it clear whether he drew on Cato's Origines, for, as De Sanctis points out,6 if books i to xv were
written before 146,7 he will scarcely have been able to utilize for this part of his work Cato's later books, which
were in all probability published after their author's death.8 Another possible Latin source is L. Cassius Hemina,9
who may have published his first three books before 150; but almost nothing is known about him or the contents
of his work. Ennius Polybius may have read—Annales ix and x dealt with the Second Punic War—but there is no
evidence for use of him in the Histories.10
For his account of the Greek East, Polybius' written sources are even more obscure. For events round about
the end of the third
[29]
1
There were for instance the writers of epitomes of the Hannibalic War (v. 33. 2 n.), among whom Meyer would
include Menodotus of Perinthus, known only as a writer of Hellenica.
2
Livy, xxi. 38. 3.
3
Cf. Livy, ep. 53, accepting Madvig's emendation C. Acilius. Acilius wrote a history of Rome going down at least
to 184 (Dion. Hal. iii. 67. 5).
4
xxxix. 1, retailing Cato's witticism in reply to Postumius' attempt to excuse his Greek. Cicero (pr. Acad. ii. 137)
on the contrary calls him 'doctum sane hominem, ut indicat ipsius historia scripta graece'.
5
Ziegler, op. cit., col. 1562. Mioni (122) suggests that one of these authors was P. Cornelius Scipio, the son of
Africanus Maior, the author of 'historia quaedam Graeca scripta dulcissime' (Cic. Brut. 77); but nothing is known
of its contents, though Graeca historia can mean 'history written in Greek' (cf. Cic. de diu. i. 49, where Silenus'
work is called Graeca historia).
6
iii. 1. 203.
7
See Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 98–99.
8
Cf. R. Helm, RE, 'Porcius (9)', cols. 160–1; there seems to have been a gap between the publication of books i–
iii and iv–vii. It is of course not impossible that Polybius had access to the manuscript, but not particularly likely.
9
Cf. De Sanctis, iv. 2. 66.
10
Cf. Scullard, Scip. 9.
century he quotes the Rhodian historians Antisthenes and Zeno1 as typical of writers of 'particular histories'
covering that period, and deserving special regard because they were Rhodian statesmen. Zeno was the author of
a history of Rhodes, but this probably contained wider material used by Polybius; he is likely to be the source for
the events in Crete and Sinope in book iv,2 and for the chapters on the earthquake of 225 in book v.3 Polybius
criticizes his accounts of the battles of Chios and Lade,4 of Nabis' attempt on Messene,5 and of the siege of Gaza
and the battle of Panium,6 and relates with satisfaction his own letter to Zeno correcting them.7 But for other
names one has to fall back on conjecture. There were, for example, writers of monographs on Philip and Perseus
and their wars with Rome;8 they included a certain Strato, and the Poseidonius mentioned by Plutarch in his Life
of Aemilius Paulus.9 As Mioni observes,10 there were many local historians, whom Polybius' general contempt will
not necessarily have precluded him from using. The writers on Hieronymus who are criticized at vii. 7. 1 may
have included Baton of Sinope, who was probably his contemporary and wrote Περὶ τῆς τοῦ Ἱερωνύµου
τυραννίδος.11 Polybius mentions the public career of Ptolemy of Megalopolis;12 he may have made a limited use
of his anecdotal and scandalous history of Ptolemy Philopator for Egyptian events, including the death of
Cleomenes.13 But the complicated picture of the use of sources which seems to emerge from a comparison
between the treatment of the events associated with Cleomenes' death in Polybius and in Plutarch14 shows how
little can be ascertained about the literary sources for the greater part of the Histories.15
Moreover, Polybius' written sources were not limited to published histories. He is the more ready to criticize
historians of Scipio Africanus' achievements16 in Spain and Africa, who attribute his
[30]
1
xvi. 14. 2; he will direct his criticism οὐ πρὸς ἅπαντας, ἀλλ’ ὅσους ὑπολαµβάνω µνήµης ἀξίους εἶναι καὶ
διαστολῆς. It seems probable that Polybius knew Antisthemes only through Zeno; he is never quoted as an
independent authority.
2
iv. 53–56.
3
v. 88–90.
4
xvi. 14. 5–15. 8.
5
xvi. 16. 1–17. 7.
6
xvi. 18. 1–19. 1.
7
See above, p. 11 n. 12.
8
viii. 8. 5, xxii. 18. 5; cf. iii. 32. 8 n. They will include the writers mentioned by Livy, xl. 55. 7 (following
Polybius) for their accounts of the fate of Philocles, Demetrius' murderer.
9
Diog. Laert. v. 61; Plut. Aem. Paul. 19.
10
Mioni, 123.
11
Athen. vi. 251 E; see Polyb. vii. 7. 1 n.
12
xv. 25. 14, xviii. 55. 6–8.
13
von Scala, 263–5; see v. 35–39 n. On the possible use of Ptolemy Physcon see xxvi. 1 n.
14
See v. 35–39 n.
15
For some suggestions on the type of source which seems to have been used for the revolts of Molon and
Achaeus and the Fourth Syrian War see v. 40. 4– 57. 8 n.
16
x. 2. 5 ff., 9. 2.
success to Fortune and the gods, because he had had the advantage of drawing directly on the evidence of his
friend and close companion C. Laelius—though whether C. Laelius composed memoirs on the subject or merely
talked to Polybius is conjectural.1 Still more valuable, he had at his disposal a letter sent by Africanus himself to
Philip V of Macedon, in which he apparently dealt with his Spanish campaign and in particular his capture of
New Carthage.2 Polybius also used an ἐπιστόλιον written πρός τινα τῶν βασιλέων3 by Scipio Nasica on the
campaign against Perseus in the Third Macedonian War; but it is significant for his critical attitude towards his
sources that he did not accept Nasica's figures for the forces involved.4 Such material as this, similar in genre to
Aratus' Memoirs, and leading on to the memoirs and commentaries of the first century, may have been available
to a wider extent than can be ascertained. It will have been supplemented by published speeches, such as that of
Astymedes of Rhodes,5 which Polybius appears to have read, or Cato's famous speech on the Rhodians,6 which he
inserted in the fifth book of the Origines.
Written material was also to be had in official archives, and Polybius made some use of these. He supports his
polemic against Zeno and Antisthenes, who represented Lade as a Rhodian victory, by an appeal to the dispatch
sent by the Rhodian admiral to the Council and Prytaneis 'which is still preserved in the Rhodian Prytaneum'.7
This may imply that he consulted the document himself; on the other hand, he does not say so, and it is equally
possible that Zeno quoted it, but tried to draw from it conclusions unacceptable to Polybius. Schulte discusses a
number of passages for which he is inclined, in the main following Ullrich, to see a source in the Rhodian record
office.8 There is not one of these, however, which
[31]
1
x. 3. 4–6; for the theory that Laelius' Memoirs were an important source for Polybius' account of Africanus see
Laqueur, Hermes, 1921, 131 ff., 207–25. But his information to Polybius is generally thought to have been oral;
cf. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 427 ff. In either case, despite many faults in the tradition going back to him, he will have
been a most valuable source of information (cf. Scullard, Scip. 10–12).
2
x. 9. 3; according to Cicero (off. iii. 4) 'nulla . . . eius ingenii monumenta mandata litteris, nullum opus otii,
nullum solitudinis munus exstat', which suggests that the letter was no longer extant; cf. Scullard, Scip. 10.
3
xxix. 14. 3.
4
Cf. Plut. Aem. Paul. 15. 5; see Ziegler, op. cit., col. 1562.
5
xxx. 4. 10–11.
6
Livy, xlv. 25. 3; Gell. vi. 3. 7.
7
xvi. 15. 8.
8
Ullrich, 27 ff., 39, 44, 59, 73; Ullrich considerably reduces the number of passages which, according to Valeton
(213–16, 221–2), had drawn on the Rhodian records, and his own list is yet further reduced by Schulte (36–39),
who leaves only iv. 52. 5 ff., 56. 2–3, v. 88. 5 ff., xvi. 7. 1, xviii. 2. 3 ff., xxxi. 31. 1. See ad locc. for discussion of
these passages. Mioni (123 n. 38) has a much longer list, and has apparently reverted to the more credulous
attitude of Valeton.
could not equally well have drawn on some other source, such as Zeno, and a direct use by Polybius of the
Rhodian records has yet to be proved. For the Achaean records at Aegium1 the case is altogether stronger and
more likely. It is conceivable that Polybius owes to a memorandum kept here his detailed account of the
conference between Philip and Flamininus in Locris in 198.2 But it is no longer possible to assign passages to
sources deriving from the Achaean record office with any degree of certainty.3 A similar use of Aetolian and
Macedonian royal records has been alleged;4 neither source seems very likely. Indeed Polybius' main access to
public records was at Rome, where there would be official accounts available of embassies sent or received by the
Senate.5 Whether he himself consulted the Carthaginian treaties in the 'treasury of the aediles'6 or merely saw a
version privately circulated7 is uncertain. But such passages as those giving the senatus consultum relative to the
peace with Philip,8 or the terms of the peace with the Aetolians9 or Antiochus10 clearly go back to a documentary
source, for which a Roman origin seems plausible.11 Another official source available at Rome was the annales of
the pontifex maximus. It now seems established12 that the annales maximi were first published by P. Mucius
Scaevola, who was pontifex maximus from 131/0 to a date between 123 and 114; but the material then published
will have been available in the form of inscriptions on the original wooden boards in the regia at an earlier date
for any historian who wished to consult it, including Polybius. M. I. Henderson argues (JRS, 1962, 277–8) that
there was only a single board, the entries on which could be erased with a sponge; if this is so there was no
accumulation of boards within the regia. It seems doubtful, however, if the records of magistrates, elections, and
commands, and the sacerdotal details which made up the contents of the annales will have been of great interest
to him. Finally, mention should be made of the inscription on a bronze
[32]
1
This seems to be implied in xxii. 9. 10, προφεροµένου τοῦ στρατηγοῦ πάσας τὰς συµµαχίας (contra Schulte,
40).
2
xviii. 1–11; see above, p. 13 n. 7.
3
Cf. Schulte, 40, 'inritum esse puto in Polybii historiis tabularii Achaici
reliquias indagare'. Valeton (206–13, 222) has a fanciful list of passages, and Mioni (123 n. 37) is equally
unconvincing. Details of Achaean embassies at Rome can have come just as easily from a Roman source.
4
Schulte (40–41) attributes the treaty between Philip and Hannibal (vii. 9) to the Macedonian records; but the
Romans captured the first version sent and Polybius can have seen this in Rome. Mioni (123 n. 39) attributes xi. 5
to the Aetolian records; but the general reference to the Romano-Aetolian treaty carries no such implications.
5
Cf. Ziegler, op. cit., col. 1564, 'nicht zu bezweifeln ist, daβihm das römische Archiv zugänglich gewesen ist'.
6
iii. 26. 1 n.
7
Cf. iii. 21. 9–10.
8
xviii. 44.
9
xxi. 32. 2–14.
10
xxi. 43. 1–27.
11
See also n. 4, above, for the treaty between Philip and Hannibal.
12
For the most recent discussion of the problems connected with the annales
maximi and bibliographical references to earlier work on the subject see J. E. A. Crake, CP, 1940, 375–86. (*p.
628.)
tablet, which Polybius himself discovered on the Lacinian Promontory,1 giving full details left by Hannibal of
his numbers and troop formations. The use which he made of this shows that not too much attention need be
attached to his gibes at Timaeus for his discovery of 'inscriptions at the back of buildings and lists of proxeni on
the jambs of temples'.2
Literary sources, official documents, and archives provide the framework of Polybius' history; but, as the
passages quoted above3 make clear, the real business came in the questioning of eyewitnesses. It seems fair to
assume that Polybius' insistence on this is not mere talk, and that he had in fact mastered and habitually used this
specialized technique in order to ascertain what he wanted to know; indeed on occasion he appears to have
enlisted his friends to make inquiries for him.4 Of the hundreds of informants who must in this way have
contributed to Polybius' material and share the anonymous responsibility for a fact here and a mark of emphasis
there few can still be identified. If C. Laelius gave Polybius his information orally,5 he was not the only
representative of an older generation to be questioned. Whether the men 'present at the occasion' (τῶν
παρατετευχότων τοῖς καιροῖς) of Hannibal's crossing of the Alps6 were Gauls, Greeks, or Carthaginians, we
cannot say; but if Polybius met them after he came to Italy, they must already have been men of 70. He certainly
talked to Carthaginians who had known Hannibal,7 and supplemented his information from Masinissa,8 who
(probably in 151/0) discoursed on Hannibal's avarice as a particular illustration of a fault common to
Carthaginians in general. Masinissa's son Gulusa is also mentioned as an informant, specifically on the use in parts
of Africa of elephants' tusks as door-posts and palings, but almost certainly also for events connected with the
Third Punic War.9
Polybius' detention at Rome was no handicap in carrying out his interrogations. It was if anything an
advantage; for, apart from the great concourse of internees and resident Greeks, there was a constant stream of
ambassadors and other visitors from all parts of the Mediterranean, to whom it cannot have been difficult for
Polybius to gain access. Thus he mentions Perseus' friends as informants on the negotiations between Perseus and
Eumenes, which broke down
[33]
1
iii. 33. 17–18, 56. 1–4.
2
xii. 11. 2; in any case the gibe is rather that a man who claimed to make such search for accurate information
should be as unreliable as he claims Timaeus is.
3
See p. 27 nn. 1 and 2.
4
xxxiv. 10. 6–7; Polybius probably had Scipio question the Massaliotes about Britain and north-west Europe (cf.
p. 6 n. 5).
5
See above, p. 31 n. 1.
6
iii. 48. 12; this is clearly not a reference to Silenus, as Mioni (121) seems to think, but to oral informants.
7
ix. 25. 2.
8
ix. 25. 4.
9
xxxiv. 16, xxxviii. 7–8; cf. von Scala, 269.
through the avarice of the two kings;1 one of these was probably Pantauchus, the son of Balacrus, one of
Perseus' πρῶτοι φίλοι,2 who played an important role in the approach to Genthius. Both he and Hippias
surrendered to the Romans after Pydna,3 and it seems certain that they and many other eminent Macedonians will
have been brought to Rome. It was no doubt to some member of this group that Polybius owed intimate
knowledge of affairs at the Macedonian court during the last years of Philip's reign.4 Besides Macedonians, there
were assembled in Italy internees from most of the states of Greece. Since the thousand Achaeans fell in number
to three hundred in sixteen years,5 they were evidently for the most part elderly men in 167, and so valuable
informants on earlier events. Aetolians, too, like Nicander of Trichonium,6 could supplement the Achaean version
from the opposite camp. von Scala7 has many suggestions on informants both in Rome and elsewhere—Praxo of
Delphi,8 Menyllus of Alabanda,9 Stratius the doctor of Eumenes,10 and a source for the affairs of Athamania and
Zacynthus dependent on the close connexion between Amynander and Philip of Megalopolis;11 the case for some
is plausible, but more often von Scala presses the details in a way which testifies only to his own fertile
imagination. In any case a list of names is without significance. One has only to consider the multitude of highly
placed informants who will have found themselves in Rome at some time or other during the years 167 to 150,
and the host of others whom Polybius will have met and talked to during the years 145 to his death, when we
know virtually nothing of his movements, to realize that the identification of half a dozen names means next to
nothing. Faced with the anonymity of almost all his informants, Polybius' readers can only take on trust his facts
and the exercising of his critical judgement in selecting them.
The above account of Polybius' use of his sources neglects two special problems—books vi and xxxiv.
Following a tradition of old standing, which was to be maintained by ancient historians long after his time,12
Polybius treated geography as an essential part of
[34]
1
xxix. 8. 10.
2
xxix. 3. 3; cf. xxvii. 8. 5.
3
Livy, xliv. 45. 2.
4
Cf. JHS, 1938, 64–65.
5
Paus. vii. 10. 12. von Scala (274–5) suggests that Stratius of Tritaea, who is mentioned as a fellow internee, and
later resumed political life in Achaea, may have given Polybius information on the assemblies at Corinth in 146
(xxxviii. 12. 5–13. 7, 17. 1–18. 6). So he may; but so may dozens of others.
6
Probably a source for Philip V's invasion of Thermum in 218 (v. 6–14) and for events in the Syrian War (xx. 11,
xxi. 25). On Nicander see further xxvii. 15. 14, xxviii. 4. 6 (deportation to Rome); cf. Woodhouse, 258 n. 1; von
Scala, 275.
7
von Scala, 270–8.
8
Cf. Livy, xlii. 15 ff.
9
xxxi. 12. 8; cf. Livy, xliii. 6. 5. von Scala thinks he is meant in xxxix. 7. 2.
10
xxx. 2. 2–4.
11
Livy, xxxv. 47. 5–8, xxxvi. 14. 7.
12
See Class. et med., 1948, 156–7.
historical studies. References to geographical details occur throughout the Histories. In book iii. 57. 3, for
example, there is criticism of writers who gave fantastic accounts of the Spanish mines—almost certainly
Dicaearchus, Eratosthenes, and Pytheas;1 and book iv contains a highly technical discussion of the merits of the
site of Byzantium and the hydrography of the Bosphorus and the Pontus.2 In the main, however, Polybius
reserved questions of geography for special treatment in book xxxiv; it is consequently more convenient to deal
with the sources there used as part of the commentary to that book. Book vi likewise stands by itself. Polybius'
sources for the discussion on the Roman constitution present a complicated and perhaps ultimately insoluble
problem; they are treated in detail in the commentary to vi,3 along with the problems of Polybius' sources for
other parts of this book, such as the archaeologia,4 and the chapter on the constitutions of Crete and Sparta.5
§ 5. Chronology
In default of any universally accepted era such as we use today, Polybius adopted as a chronological framework
for his Histories a system based on 'Olympiad years'. It had probably originated with Timaeus;6 but whether in
the meantime other historians had taken it over is unknown.7 As the basis of a narrative largely concerned with
military history the Olympiad system, calculated from a festival which took place each fourth year in late July or
early August, was far from ideal. Without adaptation it would have involved dividing each campaign into two
halves, recounted under separate olympiad years; and naturally no military historian was prepared to accept a
limitation so irrational. Consequently Polybius used a 'manipulated'8 olympiad year, which allowed him to treat a
single season's campaigning as a whole. The occasions on which he gives precise chronological data are few; the
main passages are iii. 1. 11, 16. 7, 118. 10, iv. 66. 7–67. 1, v. 105. 3, 111. 9.9 Hence there has been much
controversy about his system, and a variety of attempts to formulate the principle which allowed him to divide up
his campaigns in the way he does. The best solution, and almost certainly the right one,
[35]
1
See the note ad loc.
2
iv. 38–45; see the note to iv. 38. 1–45. 8 for the special source-problem.
3
See in particular notes to vi. 3. 5, 3. 7, 4. 7–9. 14.
4
See above, p. 28 n. 10.
5
Cf. vi. 45–47. 6 n.
6
Cf. xii. 10. 4, 11. 1 f.; whether Ephorus had preceded him in this is not known (so Unger, Phil., 1881, 49 ff.). See
Kubitschek, RE, 'Aera', cols. 627–8.
7
Cf. Ziegler, op. cit., col. 1565.
8
Ibid.
9
iv. 14. 9 is probably an insertion by some later reader, which has been incorporated in the text; see the note ad
loc.
is that of De Sanctis,1 which assumes a certain flexibility in Polybius' methods. Polybius wrote, he argues,
without any consistent and rigid chronological scheme. Normally he closed his olympiad years with the end of
the year's campaigning and the retirement of the troops into winter quarters; this meant that its end coincided
roughly with the autumn date of the Aetolian new civil year and, for the greater part of the period of the
Histories with that of the Achaean.2 However, this system was capable of modification. The third book, for
instance, ends virtually with the battle of Cannae, for obvious reasons; and such incidents as are appended in iii.
1183 are selected to confirm the impression of overwhelming disaster, despite the fact that the revolt of Tarentum
did not take place until 213, and the defeat of Postumius Albinus was probably not sustained until the end of
winter 216/15. On the other hand, many of the events which followed on the defeat of Cannae, including the
revolt of Capua, which opened up a new series of actions, were reserved for book vii4 (which nominally covered
Ol. 141, 1. 2 = 216/14) though many of them may have occurred before the end of the campaigning season of
216. Similarly in book xv, which contained the events of Ol. 144, 2 = 203/2, Polybius included the peace
negotiations after Zama,5 because, though they belonged to the end of 202 or even early 201, they rounded off his
account of the battle and the war. In this way Polybius was ready to modify his olympiad system for dramatic or
other reasons. But as a rule a year would be reckoned from the beginning of the campaigning season subsequent
to its nominal opening. Thus Ol. 140 covers 219–216 (though in book iii Polybius includes Hannibal's
preliminary campaigns in Spain for 221 and 220),6 Ol. 141 the years 215–212, and so on; in short an olympiad
year was equated for practical purposes with the Julian or consular year coinciding with its second half.7
For indicating dates during the period before his main history opens Polybius uses various methods.
Frequently he gives synchronisms based on olympiad years for the convenience of his Greek
[36]
1
iii. 1. 219–23; accepted by Ziegler, op. cit., cols. 1564–7. For earlier discussion see Unger, Phil., 1874, 239; S.-B.
München, 1879, 119 ff.; Nissen, Rh. Mus., 1871, 244 ff., 1885, 349 ff.; H. Steigemann, De Polybii olympiadum
ratione et oeconomia (Diss. Breslau, 1885); O. Seipt, De Polybii olympiadum ratione et de bello Punico primo
quaestiones chronologicae (Diss. Leipzig, 1887).
2
See v. 106. 1 n.
3
See notes ad loc.
4
Cf. De Sanctis, iii. 1. 222; Ziegler, op. cit., col. 1566.
5
xv. 17–19.
6
iii. 13–14.
7
The general problem of the relationship between Polybius' olympiad year and the plan of the history as a whole
will be discussed in the second volume, since it is one immediately relevant to the assembling of the fragments
and the assigning of them to their books. (*p. 628.)
readers;1 and having thus established a date he works forwards or backwards from it.2 It has been argued3 that for
his earlier Roman chronology, including the lost parts of the archaeologia in book vi,4 he made use of a
synchronized table with olympiad years as its basis. But this has not been established, and it seems more probable
that for these earlier periods lying outside his main history, Polybius drew largely on his sources, and that, for
example, his account of the Gallic Wars was based on consular years, and his chronology of the early development
of the Achaean Confederacy on Achaean strategos years running from May to May.5 For the view that P. sticks
closely to the Olympiad year see R. Werner, Die Begründung der römischen Republik (Munich, 1963), 46 ff., 68
f.; H. H. Schmitt, Antiochos, 194 n. 1. P.'s chronological method is also discussed in Pédech, Méthode, 449 ff. His
chronology for the earliest Roman history, including the regal period, constitutes a special problem, which is
discussed in its proper place.6
[37]
1
See for example i. 3. 1, 6. 5, ii. 20. 6, 41. 1, 41. 11, 43. 6, iii. 22. 1–2.
2
e.g. i. 6. 1, ii. 18–35 (Gallic Wars), ii. 41. 11–15, 43. 1–8 (early Achaean history).
3
Leuze, Jahrzählung, 105–209.
4
See notes on vi. 11 a.
5
See references in n. 2.
6
See vi. 11 a 2 n.
BOOK I
1-5. Introduction
The purpose of this introduction is to arrest the reader's attention,
and to outline the contents of the work and the author's reason for
composing it. There are many precedents (e.g. Hecataeus, FGH,I
F I; Herod. i, prol.; Thuc. i. I ; Eph. FGH, 70 F 7--9) and the same
practice is found at Rome (e.g. Sail. Hist., fg. I. I 1\1.; Livy, praef.;
Tac. Hist. i. I; Ann. i. I); on the principle see Lorenz, 73 nn. I-2,
who analyses P. i. I-5 in detail. P.'s prooemium falls into two sections
of approximately equal length: I. I-3· 6 is a general introduction
and discusses the nature of history, 3· 7-5. 5 is a particular introduc-
tion to books i and ii.
3. 1-6. The 1rp#n> of the 14oth Olympiad (220-216 B.c.) are (r) the
Social War (cf. iv. 3-37,57-87, v. 1-30, gr-106), (2) the Fourth Syrian
War (v. 31-87). (3) the Second Punic War (iii, relevant parts of
vii-xv, extending down to 202). The Social War began in 220, the
other two in 219. Cf. ii. 37· 2, 71. g, iv. 2.
1. ov 1rpwTov i~..]vEyKe: i.e. it was Philip's first war.
2. ov o~ 1TAE'i:aToL vpoaa.yope6ouaw ~vvL~La.K6v: i.e. most Greek his-
torians, who wrote mainly from the Punic point of view and round
the personality of Hannibal. Examples are Sosylus of Lacedaemon
(FGH, 176), Chaereas (FGH, 177; cf. iii. 20. 5), and perhaps Silenus
of Caleacte (FGH, 175), Eumachus of Naples (FGH, 178: cf. Athen.
xiii. 577 A) and Xenophon (FGH, 179: cf. Diog. Laert. ii. 59). The
Romans from the annalists downwards spoke of the bellu.m Puni-
cum secundum (Coelius Antipater (HRR, i. 158) fg. 1 ( = Cic. orat.
6g, 229) ; (HRR, i. 177) fg. 66; Cic. de re pub. i. 1. 1; de diu. i. 35· 77;
Sall. Jug. 5· 4, 42. 1; Livy, xxi. 1. 2, xxxi. 1. 1, 3; also the epitomators
of Livy, the elder Pliny, etc.). However, in iii. 6. 1 a reference to the
writers on Td., KaT' Yl.wtfiav 1rpat"'" is probably to Roman historians
(see note); and P.'s phraseology is perhaps due to the fact that he
has Greek readers in mind (cf. 3· 3-7, ii. 35· g, iii. 59· 8; and for
special explanations of Roman institutions iii. 87. 7. 107. ro ff., x.
4· g, xiv. 3· 6, xxi. 2. 2, 13. n). See von Scala, 288 ff.; Susemihl, ii. 95;
Lorenz, 13, 81 n. 66; and on the Hannibal-historians E. Meyer, Kl.
Schr. ii. 338; Scullard, Scip. 6 ; Lorenz, 84-85 n. 84.
TTJS vap' ~paTou ••• auvTa~ews: cf. ii. 40. 4 n., iv. 2. 1. The Achaean
42
INTRODUCTION I. 3· 4
statesman composed memoirs (ii. 40. 4, iJTTofLVTJfLanap.otf~; 47· u,
vTTofLv~fLaTa, so Plutarch) in over thirty books: FGH, 23I; Walbank,
Aratos, 6--8. In making himself Aratus' continuator P. followed an
established tradition. Among Thucydides' continuators were Xeno-
phon (Hell. i. I), Theopompus (P. viii. n. 3), and Cratippus (Dion.
Hal. Thuc. 16); and Xenophon anticipates a continuator (Hell. vii.
5· 27). Further examples (not all certain) in Lorenz, 85-86 n. 85. In
his introductory books P. also continues Timaeus (5. r, xxxix. 8. 4);
and he was in tum followed by Poseidonius (FGH 87 T I and 12 b:
iaTopla ~ fLETa IIo>..uf1tov, beginning 145{4) and by Strabo (FGH, 91
T 2: Ta fLETa IIo>.vf1w~·). The same practice was followed at Rome;
for example Ammianus continues Tacitus.
3. <daavet 0'1Topa8a.s • • • nl.s Tfjs oh<ou!J.EVTJS ""Page,s: perhaps
suggesting a parallel between the separate, scattered life of indivi-
duals, which preceded the establishment of the first communities
(d. vi. 5· 6; and elsewhere, e.g. Plato, Protag. 322 A; Isoc. Paneg. 39;
Arist. Pol. i. 2. 7. 1252 b 23; Diod. i. 8. I, iii. s6. 3; Dion. HaL i. 9· 2;
San. Cat. 6. r), and the change over in the political sphere from
separate national states to a single unit, the object of an organic,
interwoven (cf. awfLaToHoij, O'VfL7TAl«ea6m), universal history. See
Taeger, 19; Lorenz, 86-87 n. 91.
4. otovei O'WflllTOIIi:~Sij ••• TTJV [aTop(av: cf. xiv. 12. 5 : with his account
of the whole of the latter history of Ptolemy IV, P. can depict his
character oiovd awfLa'To£toij, i.e. as a unified whole (not 'a life-like
picture' (Paton)). Similarly Tyche concentrates events from all over
the World in an organic unity (cf. 4· I, 6. 3 Where avvavfr;at!> iS a
1
4. 1. TOV xe~pLC1flO\I Tfj<.; TOXTJ'>• KTA.: viz. the historical process, 1TW')
Kai T{vL y€vlf:L r.o.\mdas (cf. I. 5, viii. z. 3). Tyclze has worked her
purpose with Rome; cf. 4· 3, 1ron Ka~ 1ro8Ev ri.lpp.~OTJ Kai r.ws €ax• T~v
auVTl.\Ewv (see above, p. 25 n. 8). On the comparable roles of Tyche
and the historian see 3· 4 n. Furthermore, no contemporary historian
has undertaken a universal history (Ephorus, praised in v. 33· 2, is not
a contemporary). aVvTafts (§ 2) alone means 'historical composition'
(not 'universal history', as Lorenz, 22): d. 3· 2 (Aratus' Memoirs),
viii. 2. IT (d. z. s). ~ TWJJ KaT<i fdpos aVVTafLs.
3. Tou<.; fLEV KMa fl£po<.; 'lrOAEflOVS KTA.: examples of such contem-
porary writers of particular histories are the Hannibal-historians
(3. 2 n.), Phylarchus, who wrote the Seleucid history of 222-187
around the figure of Antiochus HI (FGH, 81 T I), Mnesiptolemus of
Cyme (FGH, 164 T r) and Hegesianax of Alexandria Troas (FGH,
45 T 3; cf. xviii. 47· 1). For Zeno and Antisthenes, who ·wrote local
histories of Rhodes (FGH, so8 and 523), see xvi. I4. 2 ff., for Ptolemy
of Megalopolis, who wrote a court history of Ptolemy IV (FGH r6I),
44
I~TRODUCTION I. 4· 6
47
I. 6. 2 ITALY AN"D SICILY UP TO
there in December 28r (cf. Be]och, iv. 2. 108~) must therefore be regarded as
anachronistic (Sachs and Wiseman, op. cit., 205).
50
THE FIRST PTJNIC WAR L 6. 6
2. Size a_{ garrison. Dion. Hal. xx. 4 gives 1,2oo, and later at xx. r6
makes it 4,5oo. Livy (ep. 15; xxviii. 28. 3) and Orosius (iv. 3· 4) speak
of a legio, which can hardly be taken literally. However, legio is often
used in early Latin of 'a body of troops', and P.'s 4,000 may spring
from a misunderstanding of the word in an original Roman source.
Cf. Beloch, iv. 2. 484. (But it does not follow that Dionysius' 1,2oo
therefore deserves any credence (so Beloch, and Bung, 132 n. 4).)
The alternative explanation that the 4,ooo are a confusion with
forces sent by the Romans to Rhegium in 278 to prevent Pyrrhus'
crossing into Sicily seems improbable; for Diod. xxii. 7· s. the
source for this incident, speaks only of soo men. Hcurgon (204-6)
argues that the Campanians are a band of irregulars in Roman employ.
l1i~ews: Decius Vi belli us (Livy, ep. r2), a member of a famous Capuan
family (d. Syme, CP, 1955, 129). Livy (xxviii. 28. 4) calls him a military
tribune. App. Samn. 9· 2 has a romantic story of his blinding by a
Rhegine refugee doctor, called in to treat his eyes. Other sources for
the dispossessing of the Rhegines are Dio, fg. 40. 7-12; Dion. Hal.
xx. 4-5; Diod. xxii. r. 2-3.
The Roman reduction of Rhcgium (cf. 6. 8) is in 270; Dionysius
(xx. 16) and Orosius (iv. 3· 3-6) attribute it to the consul C. Genucius,
but his colleague Cn. Cornelius Blasio triumphed de Rcgineis [act.
tr.). According to Zonaras (viii. 6), Hiero sent Syracusan troops to
help the Romans (accepted by DeSanctis, iii. r. 95; Stauffenberg, 8:
it may well be true). There is evidence that the Romans took action
against the troops in Rhcgium only when they spread their activity
to seize Croton (Zon. viii. 6) and destroy Caulonia (Paus. vi. 3· 12);
then their punishment was represented as retribution for their breach
of 1Tl07<>. Rhcgium joined the Roman federation as an autonomous
member of the socii nauales (Philipp, RE, s.v. 'Regium', cols. soo-r).
8. 3-9. 8. This digression on the rise of Hiero, with its clearly marked
53
I. 8. 3 ITALY A~D SICILY UP TO
beginning and end (cf. 8. :2 and ro. r), seems to follow a west-Greek
source (cf. the use of f3ripf3apoL of the Mamertini), who is most
probably Timaeus; so Meltzer, ii. sso-I; De Sanctis, iii. I. 225;
Beloch, iv. 2. II; RG, I4I; Stauffenberg, 19 n. 15, Bung, 128 n. r
(criticizing Laqueur's attribution to Philinus).
8. 3. xpovo~s ou 1TOAAois 1Tp0Tepov: the chronology of the early part
of Hiero's reign cannot be established with certainty. According
to 9· 8 he assumed the title of king after the battle of the Longanus.
But in vii. 8. 4 P. states that on his death, in 215 (DeSanctis, iii. 2.
329), he had been king (f3arnAevaas) fifty-four years. This would imply
that the Longanus was in 270{69; and this view is defended by some
scholars (e.g. Niese, ii. 179 n. 5; Pais-Bayet, 2r8; Gelzer, Rom u.
Karthago (ed. Vogt, Leipzig, 1943), 182; Thiel, Hist. 145 f.). On the
other hand, ro. r-2 closely relates the Longanus to the Mamertine
embassy to Rome; and the battle described in Diod. xxii. r,), which
is almost certainly the Longanus (Diodorus calls it Ao[mvos), appears
to be about this time. Hence, if P. is correct in dating the assumption
of the royal title to after this battle, the fifty-four years of Hiero's
'reign' must be reckoned back to a seizure of power in 27o{69, and
must include five years of autocratic control during which he was
not yet called ,Baaw\eus- (so Lenschau (RE, 'Hieron (r3)'. col. 1505),
who would place his coup in autumn 270, in time for help to go to the
Romans besieging Rhegium; Beloch (iv. 2. 279) makes the coup 269/8,
since he dates Hiero's death to 214); or, alternatively, one must re-
ject P.'s statement that Hiero took the title of king only after the
Longan us. In favour of the second solution is the following evidence:
r. There is a unanimous tradition (probably from Timaeus) in
Iustin. xxiii. 4· I, and Zon. viii. 6 that Hiero's rise to power
was after the departure of Pyrrlms from Sicil:r; and since it was
connected with his achievements against the Carthaginians, it
would seem to be about 275/4, a date actually given by Paus.
vi. I2. 2 (01. 126, 2).
2. Wilamowitz, Textgesch. der gr. Bukoliker (Berlin, r9o6), 153 ff.,
has shown convincingly that Thcoc. I d. xvi in honour of Hiero
is to be dated before I d. xvii in honour of Ptolemy Phila-
delphus; since the latter poem must be before 270, and is
probably 273/2 (cf. Gow, Theocritus, ii (Cambridge, 195o), 3os-6),
Id. xvi will have been composed about 275{4, which fits
Pausanias' date for Hiero's coup.
3· Hiero's son was called Gelo: and it is perhaps more likely that
he received this significant name after Hiero became king,
though this is not an argument to be pressed. vii. 8. 9 makes
Gelo over so on his death, which preceded his father's: hence
he was born before 265. This would favour an assumption of the
royal title in 27oj69 rather than after Longanus.
54
THE FIRST PUNIC WAR l. 9· I
(Diod. xvi. 72. 3, 5) was probably the son of this union, and the
grandfather of Hicro's father-in-law. The latter is most likely not
Agathocles' general Leptines (Diod. XX. s6. 2-3, 62. 3-s). See Beloch,
iv. 2. 283-4 for the reconstructed family tree; Holm, Gesch.. Sic. ii.
28i ff., 491 ff.
3. KUXEKT<1S ovTaS Kd.l KL\IT]TIICOIJS: KaXEF<ITf:> in P. has usually a
political sense, 'male animatus ciuis, non contentus praeseuti rerum
statu' (Schweighaeuser); cf. xxii. 4· 3 (of Boeotia) : 8td ,-c) rrAEiov:::
dva.t Toti<: KUXEKTa<; nov drr6pwv; and, for the conjunction with
KLI!TJTLKO{, :XXViii. 17. I2 COntrasting ol uyta{VOVTffS With oi KLilTJTUt Kat
Ka.XEKTa.t (at Rhodes). See also i. 68. 10; and§ 6 below.
4. 11'€pi KevTopL1t'a: modern Centuripe lies on the high ground south
of the Cyamosorus (modern Fiume Salso). Hiero was following the
inland route west of Etna, perhaps hoping to take over some of the
forts in this neighbourhood (Diod. xxii. 13). The phrase o~<: . . •
crVfLf.d!wv may point to the tactics of the battle, viz. to make a flank
or rear attack with the citizen troops (Stauffcnbcrg, r8-19). If the
abandoning of the mercenaries was forced on Hiero by the fortunes
of the battle, P.'s story will Timaeus' infelice apologia
(De Sanctis, iii. r. 94 n. 8). Since this battle was among Hiero's
7Tpwm Jmvo~1w.:ra (8. 5) it WaS probably fought shortly after 2i5/4.
It was followed by a period of military inactivity (g. 6: du,Pa'Aws ...
8tE!fjy"); this is, however, concealed in P.'s narrative, which in 8. 7
goes straight on to the Longanus campaign, immediately preceding
the First Punic War (8. 3 n.).
7. 1l'Epl Tov Aoyyo.vov ••• 1TOTO.tJ-OV: the campaign is more fully
described in Diod. xxii. 13 (source uncertain: cf. Reuss, Phil., 19or,
104 (Philinus); Laqueur, RE, 'Philinos (8)', col. 2181 (Timaeus)).
After a preliminary attack on Messana, and a diversion during which
he took Mylae (if the coastal town, it was soon back in .Mamertine
hands: Stauffenberg, 95) and Ameselon (its garrison joined Hiero,
and its territory was divided between Agyrium and Centuripa).
Hiero advanced north, was joined by Halaesa, Tyndaris, and A ba-
caennm on the north coast, and with ro,ooo foot and r ,soo horse
met the :\1amertini near the R. Longan us (AolTavos: Diod.), probably
in the coastal plain to the west of Mylae (Stauffenberg, 20, 96). The
issue was decided when 6oo of Hiero's picked men took the enemy
in the rear.
8. Twv Tjy€tJ-ovwv ~YKPUTTJS: one, named Klws, let himself bleed to
death (Diod. xxii. 13. 6).
T~v ••• TWV (3ap(30.pwv Ko.n\1Taua£ TOAtJ-av: the phrase conceals a diplo-
matic setback; for Hannibal, the Punic admiral, who was off
Lipara, after congratulating Hiero accepted the Mamertine invitation
to garrison Messana (xo. r, II. 4) by sending troops under Hanno on to
the acropolis (Diod. xxii. IJ. i ; De Sanctis, iii. I. ; Stauffen berg,
56
THE FIRST PUNIC \VAR T. 10. 3
11. 1. To f.Lkv auv€Sptov ooo' d.s TEAos eKupwaE TTJV yvwp.TJv: 'the
Senate did not sanction the proposal at all'. (On the meaning of
Els- reAos see Schweighaeuser, Lex. Polyb. T/.)..or;.) The issue was
clearly one of admitting :\lcssana as an ally, not one of war with
either Hiero or Carthage; d. iii. 26. 6; Florus, i. r8. 3, 'cum de
Poenorum impotentia foederata Siciliae ciuitas .Messana quereretur';
Livy, xxx. 31. 4· Some difticulty has been felt about this account of
an ovcrscrupulous Senate referring the decision to a war-weary but
easily converted people; and Livy, e:rh. r6, 'auxilium Mamertinis
ferendum serratus censuit, cum de ea re inter suadentes, ut id f1eret,
dissuadentcsque contentio fuissct', suggests that the Senate in fact
took the decision, a view which might appear to be supported by
rr. 3, Kvpw8l!nos St roD 86ytto:ros- {;rro roD 3~ttov. It is true that 86ytta
is the normal Greek translation of (senatus) consultum; but it is also
used in Res Gest-ae, 12, to translate (senatus) auctorilas, i.e. a resolution
of the Senate which is invalid on formal g~ounds. It is not impossible
that P. may have used it here to describe a measure which the
Senate had neither approved nor rejected; and it would not be
illegal, if it was unusual, for a consul (rr. 2 n.) to bring such a
measure before the people (:'<lommsen, St.-R. iii. 345 n. I, n7o ff.).
P.'s account clearly derives from Fabius Pictor, who sought to put
any odium for a dubious policy upon the people; but this does not
mean that it is untrue and that we should follow De Sanctis' s version
of a war-weary people led to acquiesce in a senatorial war-policy
after assurances that it did not really mean war (iii. r. 99). If the
issue that divided the Senate was, as P. says, whether interest or
morality should prevail (1o. 3, 10. 9), they might well accept the
suggestion of an eager consul that the people should decide; and in
the assembly arguments of a very different character would naturally
6o
THE FIRST PUNIC WAR !. II. 4
be used (u. 2). The popular decision may well have received sena-
torial approval in retrospect, for there is no evidence that there was
strong political opposition to the policy of the .M:amertine alliance.
2. ot Se 1To>.>.oL: the striking of a Jaedus was normally a matter for
the tribal assembly (cf. Livy, xxix. r2. r6, xxx. 43· 2, xxxiii. 25. 6),
whereas a war-motion must have gone to the comiHa centuriata
(Mommscn, St.-R. iii. 344) ; and since the approach was made by the
consuls (aTpaTTjyo{, § z), the comitia tr1:buta is indicated (not thr~
concdimn plebis: so Frank, C AH, vii. 671-2). Several scholars (in-
cluding Paton) render aTpaTTjyol 'military leaders': but it is difficult
to see who these would be, and in any case, though P. occasionally
uses aTpa:TTj'JH)s for commander, where the meaning is unambiguous,
or where (as in § 3; d. 59· 8) the commander is the consul, his normal
meaning for the word in Roman contexts is 'consul'. (E. Meyer
(Kl. Schr. ii. 376) points out that as M. Fulvius Flaccus was operating
at this time against Volsinii (he triumphed hal. nozt.), only Appius
Claudius can in fact have brought the matter before the people.)
No account need be taken of .Meyer's view that the initiative came
from the equites, a complete anachronism for 264 (cf. Hill, 45).
w<jlt:Xda.s '11"po8Tj>.ous KCli j1Ey0.Xas: the reference is to booty, pure and
simple: d. ii. 29. 9· imo TOV AVO"LT€AOVS t:l:rr{oos ayop.EvaL, 3I. 4 (also
from Fabius).
3. J\.1T1TLOv KXa.u8Lov: Ap. Claudius C.f. Ap.n. Caudex, cos. A.U.c.
490 = 264/3 B.C. (his colleague was M. Fulvius Flaccus). Neither his
family connexions (he was too young to be the brotl1er of Caecus,
as auct. de uir. 1:/l. ,n. 1) nor the origins of his cognomen are known.
Munzer, RE. 'Claudius (1o2)', cols. 26•)2-4; 'Fulvius (ss)', col. 239.
4. Tov j1~V Twv KapxTJ8ov£wv 1npa.TT]Yov •.. €s€~a.Xov: his name was
Hanno (Zon. viii. 9; above, 9· 8 n.). "Whereas P. attributes his ex-
pulsion to the :\lamcrtines (probably following Philinus), the
annalistic tradition in Dio, fg. 43· 7-ro and Zon. viii. 8 has an
account of a tribune C. Claudius, who made several trips across the
straits and played a prominent and not wholly honourable part in
the expulsion of the garrison ; this exploit is preceded by a sea-
battle (cf. Diod. xxiii. 2; AmpeL 46. 3). Much of this is clearly
fabricated; whether it conceals a core of truth, and a tribune C.
Claudius in fact crossed ahead of the consul, is probably past knowing.
De Sanctis (iii. r. ro4, 236) and Thiel (Hist. T49 ff.) accept his exis-
tence; Beloch (iv. r. 647 n. 2), followed by Hcuss (HZ, r69, r949-50,
483-4), is wholly sceptical. There is, however, no trace of him in P.,
despite attempts to discover him (Miinzer, RE, 'Claudius (r8}', col.
26&); DeSanctis, iii. r. I05 n. 22.: Bung, I4o). It has been argued that
the words Tov 8' J1mTwv • • • €vexdpL'(,av must refer to an earlier
occasion than the crossing described in § 9· In fact, the imperfects
are to be given their full force, 'they invited Appius over, and were
6J
J. II. 4 ITALY AND SICILY UP TO
for placing the city in his hands' (for this meaning of the imperfect
see the examples quoted at iii. 21. I n.); having described this
decision P. then passes on to the Carthaginians and Syracusans,
and finally comes back to relate Appius' arrival in § 9· Conse-
quently there is no need to assume two expeditions and two separate
Claudii.
5. TOV ••• crTpaTT)yOv ••• aveaTaOpwcrav: i.e. Hanno: cf. Zon. viii. 9·
A Roman general with limited powers and precise instructions could
rely on the backing of the Senate; a Punic commander had greater
authority for decisions, but might always be sacrificed in a crisis.
See De Sanctis, iii. I. I03 ff. Here P.'s narrative suggests Hanna's
immediate crucifixion (by his soldiers?) : but the account is com-
pressed and he may have been recalled and then executed.
6. 1l'Epi ner,wp~a.sa crTpaT01l'ESeocravn:s: modem Capo di Faro, the
north-east promontory of Sicily; cf. 42. 5· TheL'JvEts- (Diod. xxiii. 1. 3,
Evvas-) are unknow-n: but the description in Zon. viii. 9 suggests that
the spot lay near the coast to the north of Messana, and De Sanctis
(iii. 1. 108 n. 26) locates it 'fra Ganzirri e Faro inferiore'. The topo-
graphical details in §§ 6-8 are also in Diod. Joe. cit. and will be from
Philinus.
7. Tl9ETm 1l'pos To(Js KapxTJSovlous cruv9..]Kas: with Hanna, son of
Hannibal, according to Diod. xxiii. 1. 2. Hiero's motives must be
conjectural. His readiness to sink past disputes may signify that he
realized the full significance of the present situation (De Sanctis,
iii. 1. 105-6: but this is only true if he knew the Romans had been
invited in). Alternatively, he was moved by sheer pique at the
ingratitude of the Romans, whom he had helped at Rhegium. But
what P. says is that he now saw a chance to combine with Carthage
to expel his old enemies, the {3ap{3apot in Messana; the Romans are
not mentioned.
8. 11'Epi TO XaAKLSLKOV opos: evidently to the south of Messana, 'nell'
interno verso mezzogiorno, forse tra la citta e il Forte Gonzaga'
(DeSanctis, iii. 1. 108 n. 26).
9. vuKTOS ••• 11'Ep~LW9els Tov 11'op9JLov: despite which he was attacked
by the Punic fleet: i. 20. I4. See further Zon. viii. 9; Frontin. Strat.
i. 4· 11; auct. de u£r. £ll. 37; on the date, above 5· I-5 n. 7rapa{36Aws
'at great risk' or perhaps (cf. 23. 7) 'in a remarkable fashion'.
11. SLE1l'p(O"~E0ETO 11'p0S a~OTEpous: d. Diad. xxiii. I. 4 (the envoys
conveyed friendly messages to Hierc, who replied justifying his
attack on the Mamertini, and accusing the Romans of concealing
their ambitions under a false cloak of fides). In Diodorus Appius
sent envoys to both Hiero and the Carthaginians from Rhegium,
before crossing the straits ; and the Carthaginians sent a return
embassy to Rhegium (Diad. xxiii. 2. I). An embassy from Rhegium
was also implied in Philinus' account, vvhich made Appius attack
62
THE FIRST PUNIC WAR
as soon as he was in Messana (rs. z). Since the Roman embassy was
followed by an attack, it presumably delivered the indictio belli;
probably the revised procedure was employed, by which legati went
armed with a conditional authorization from Senate and People, so
that if the rerztm repetitio were rejected, there need be no delay in
legitimizing hostilities (d. 88. 8 n.). This is recorded by Ennius, 223
Vahlen 2 : Appius indixit Karthaginiensibus bellum (cf. Naevius, 3I
Mor.; Cichorius, z6-z7); and, as we have no reason for assuming that
Appius declared war on his own responsibility, the original decision
to accept the Mamertine alliance must since have been followed by
an appeal by the new ally for assistance, and a war-motion in the
Senate and the Comitia Centuriata. That the embassy went from
Rhegium is on the whole more probable (De Sanctis, iii. I. ro8; for
discussion see Stauffenberg, 28 n. 21: Heuss, HZ, r69, 1949~5o, 48I
n. I; Thiel, Hist. 149 ff., who accepts three embassies).
11-15. This account (probably based on Fabius) Appius the
victory over Hiero, and is in contrast to Philinus' version (IS. r-u)
of the battle as a H.oman defeat; similarly the victory over the
Carthaginians in 12. 3 is contrasted with Philinus' version in the
same chapter.
17. 1. SUo tt6vov <M'pnTI1rreoa.: 'only two legions'. In fact two consuls
and four legions were sent (§ 6), perhaps after the Punic preparations
(§ 3) became known (Meltzer, ii. 27o). This information may come
from Fabius (Gelzer, Hermes, 1933. 139), but the reference to Car-
thaginian reinforcements is probably from Philinus (Bung, 82). On
the Carthaginian use of mercenaries see Griffith, 207 ff.
5. TTJV Twv ~Kpa.ya.vTivwv 'll'OALV: with fewer and inferior forces the
Carthaginians restricted themselves to holding strong points, as in
the war with Pyrrhus. Acragas (Agrigentum), lying midway on
the south-west coast, was the second city of Sicily: cf. ix. 27. Diod.
xxiii. 4· :z, 5 supplements P. with details of further Roman activity
after the peace with Syracuse: Segesta and Halicyae came over
voluntarily (and became 'ciuitates sine foedere immunes et Iiberae',
Cic. Verr. iii. 6. 1.3; on the Segestan claim to kinship with Aeneas
(Zon. -..iii. 9; cf. Cic. Verr. iv. 33· 72) see Frank, CAH, vii. 676). The
Romans took several unknown places, but were repulsed from
Adranum and Macella (see 24. 2 n.); on Camarina see r6. 3 n.
6. ot p.€v ••• 0'1'pa.T11 yol ••• l!.vnKEXwpfjKELO"a.v: M'. Valerius Maximus
I. 17. 6 THE FIRST PUNIC WAR
triumphed, 17 )larch 262, 'de Poenis et rege Siculor. Hierone' (Act.
tr.), having returned to Rome otd r6v xetp.Wva (Zon. viii. ro): ava-
xo.lpef:v = decedere. The new consuls for A.U.c. 492 z6z/1 B.C. are
L. Postumius L.f. L.n. Megellus and Q. Mamilius Q.f. M.n. Vitulus.
17. 7.-19. 15. The capture of Agrigentum. It seems likely that this
account goes back to Philinus, the historian from Agrigentum, who
is the basis of Diodorus' account in xxiii. 7~8, tl>tAtva;; 8€ o }~xpa
yavrf~·os lcrroptKOS" avEypdtfoa-ro. But Diodorus' account survives only
fragmentarily, and it is clear that P. has rejected some of his
statistics (e.g. the exaggerated figure of roo,ooo Roman troops). The
detailed comparison of the two versions in Bung, 84-85, is therefore
not very enlightening; but the complete rejection of Philinus as
P.'s source (Pcdech, REA, 1952, 252-3) is over-sceptical.
17. 8. ev o~<:T~ crTa8(o~~: i.e. c. mille passt,s. In xxxiv. 12. 3-4 a mile
is 8! stades, in iii. 39· 8 the looser equivalent is employed. The
approximation to a Roman measurement here is no proof of the use
of Fabius: for Fabius, >vTiting in Greek, probably used stades (cf.
Dion. Hal. i. 79· 4).
Topography. Agrigentum lay about z! miles from the coast, on
a height sloping steeply to the north and east, and gradually to
the west. Its natural defences were strengthened by the rivers
Hypsas (F. Drago) to the west and Acragas (F. S. Biagio) to the
east, which almost surround the town and meet just below it. Cf.
Hiilsen, RE, 'Akragas', cols. II87 ff. (with sketch-map); Holm,
Gesch. Sic. iii. 345-6; De Sanctis, iii. r. rzo n. 49· Below, ix. 27. I-{).
There is a convenient sketch-map in J. B. Bury, History of Greece3
(London, I95I), 636.
9. &.tcJ.La~ouo-11~ ••• TTl~ Toll crtTou cruvaywyfj~: i.e. the month was
June. Since the consuls proceeded with haste (§ 8: cfo€pwres} they
could easily begin the siege within six weeks of entering office on
r .May. Beloch (iv. 2. 287) argues that the siege of Agrigentum began in
June z6r (cf. Heuss, HZ, 169, 1949-_o;o, 490 n.); but it seems improbable
that z62 passed without any significant action, and P.'s chronology
offers no difficulties on the assumption that the calendar was running
roughly equinlent to the Julian: DeSanctis, iii. r. 254.
11. ij Twv MhcrJ.LwV lhacpopO.: 'the excellence of their institutions': cf.
vi. 56. 6 o~acpopdv ... rrp6;; T(j f3l>..nov. These reflections are paralleled
in vi. 37· u-r2, and arc probably P.'s own, not from Fabius (so De
Sanctis, iii. 1. 225). In such cases as P. here mentions, death was
inflicted by tvAo~<:orrla,Justuarium (vi. 37. 9).
13. 3crov oorrw lho.cnrwVTO.S TOV xO.po.tc(l.: 'when they were about to
tear Up the Stockade' (whereaS in§ IO xapa{; lS 'camp'); cf. iii. 102. 4,
v. i3· 10. The Carthaginian error on this occasion is reprehended by
the tenth-century Anonymus de obsidione toleranda, uo-r2 (ed.
70
THE FIRST PUNIC WAR I. rg. II
20. 1-2. oOK iiJ.EVov l,-l. TWV E~ O.pxfis Aoy~criJ.wV KTA.: the capture of
Agrigentum leads the Romans to aspire to the expulsion of the
Carthaginians from Sicily; and their failure to take the sea-board
towns then motivates the building of a fleet (§§ 7-8). This account is
accepted by Frank (CAH, vii. 678): 'This decision could only mean
that Rome had determined to rule subject-peoples, and therefore
had frankly adopted from her foes the policy of imperialism from
which Sicily had already suffered too severely.' But comparison
with the similar motivation attributed to the Romans after the battle
of Telamon (ii. JL 7) suggests that the schematic development of
Roman ambitions may in fact be the interpretation of P.; for the
annalistic tradition (which perhaps reproduces Fabius) attributes
the decision to build a fleet to an earlier stage in the war, since it
figures in the reply of Ap. Claudius' envoys, and M'. Valerius Messalla
72
THE FIRST PUNIC WAR I. 20.9
strongly favours such a policy (Diod. xxiii. 2; ined. Vat. 4). Further,
Diodorus (xxiii. I . 4) shows Hiero reproaching Ap. Claudius with
concealing imperialistic ambitions under a pretence of aiding those
in trouble. In making the adoption of a naval policy the turning-
point of the warP. is undoubtedly right; but he may exaggerate the
importance of the capture of Agrigentum. That the consuls received
no triumph for its capture (Eutrop. ii. 19. 3 may be neglected; cf.
Bung, 88 n. 3) is not without significance; and there is a good deal
to be said for the argument of Heuss (HZ, 169, I949-5o, 488 ff.), that
what really inspired the Roman naval policy was alarm at the
Carthaginian reinforcement of the forces in Sardinia in z6z before
the assault on Agrigentum (Zon. viii. ro), and at the ravaging of the
Italian coast by Hannibal (Zon. viii. ro; cf. Oros. iv. 7· 7) and
Hamilcar (Zon. viii. 10). These attacks on Italy are confirmed in § 7,
and suggest that Roman motives, though no doubt mixed, were
concerned more with defensive measures than P.'s version implies.
2. I'Eyci>."lv ~'ll'£8o<7\v a.\nwv AYJijsE0"6a.~ TO. trpayl'a.Ta.: for the imperialist
note cf. Diod. xxiii. 1. 1, LLKeAla 1raawv Twv n]awv Ka.MlaTTJ !J1Td.pxe,, W>
p.ey&.Aa OVVafLeVTJ avp.f3&JJ...ea8aL 1Tpos: a~eTJO'LV 1,yEp.ovlar;. On the Helle-
nistic use of nl 1rpd.yp.aTa = 'the State' (usually of a kingdom: cf.
ii. 4· 7) see Holleaux, Etudes, iii. zzs-{j; Bickermann, Gnomon, I9JZ,
426 ff.
4. AEOKLos Oua.>.£p,os tca.1 Thos 'OTa.tci>.tos: L. Valerius M.f. Ln.
Flaccus and T. Otacilius C.f. M'.n. Crassus, coss. A.U.C. 493 =
z6rfo B.C. Their predecessors (17. 6) had wintered in Messana (Zon.
viii. ro).
6. tro>.>.a.t I'EV tro>.ns trpooul0EVTO KTA.: the details of this year,
dismissed by P. in §§ 3--7, are mainly lost, since Diod. xxiii. 9· z-5
compresses several years' activity together. The destruction of 4,ooo
unreliable Gallic mercenaries by a trick of Hanna (Frontin. Strat.
iii. r6. 3: cf. Diod. xxiii. 8. 3) belongs to this year (though Zon. viii.
10 attributes it to Hanna's successor, Hamilcar); and the surrender
of a Roman force (Frontin. Strat. iv. I. 19) may also go here (De
Sanctis, iii. I. 124 n.; contra Meltzer, ii. 564).
9. 'll'EifTTlp~tc&. l'~v itca.Tov, Eftcocn S£ TpL1\pns: the nature of the war-
ships known to the Greeks as triereis, tetrereis, and pentereis (and
usually translated in their Latin forms as triremes, quadriremes, and
quinqueremes} is still hotly disputed. Since ]HS, 1905, IJ7 ff. Tarn
has argued that a trireme had three groups of rowers at the same
level, one man to an oar, viz. 8po.v£nu. aft, {t1ytot amidships, and
8a.Aap.tol fore; but this view has been successfully challenged by
J. A. Morrison, who argues for oarsmen at three levels, thranites
rowing over an outrigger, zygii over the gunwale, and thalamii
through oar-ports. The controversy can be followed in Tarn, CR,
1906, 75: Mariner's Mirror, 1933, 52-74, 457-6o; CR, 1941, 89-90;
73
I. 20. 9 THE FIRST PUNIC WAR
75
I. 20. 15 THE FIRST PUNIC WAR
incident, which represents the irrational side of Roman success;
for this is due to a combination of rational and irrational factors:
d. 6. 7-8, yEVVa.lws- ••• 1Tapa36ews-, 24. r, wapa36Gw> •.• Jmrp-
pwaBT)rrav. Cf. 1. 4 n.
22. 1. r cuov BthlOV TOY i]yoVfLEVOV Tii~ TrEtf\s 5uvafLEWS: Duilius has
already taken over his command in Sicily, and accordingly leaves
his legions in charge of military tribunes (23. 1); whereas the
annalistic version brings him news of Scipio's catastrophe while still
at Rome, and accordingly he hands over to the praetor urbanus
(Zon. ·viii. u. 1). For the possibility that the praetor took over from
the military tribunes see Cichorius, 32 f.; Thiel, Hist. 81 n. 58. For
other variants in the tradition see 24. 2 n.
3. Tou~ iwLKATJ9€VTa.s ••• KOpo.Ko.S: d. 27. I z. Tarn has argued that
the cor1Uts (Frontin. Strat. ii. 3· 24; Flor. i. 18. 9; au ct. deuir. ill. 38. 1;
Zon. viii. n), which is not heard of again after Ecnomus, is due in
its traditional form to Fabius Pictor, and that it is no more than an
1mproved form of the grapnel used by the Athenians in 413 (Thuc.
vii. 41. z; Aristoph. Eq. 762, with scholia; Pliny, Nat. hist. vii.
209), and commonly employed in the Second Punic War; the t<6pat<E~
used against Sex. Pompeius at Mylae in 36 were likewise grappling
irons (App. Bell. ciu. v. Io6) and Agrippa's apTTat at Naulochus was a
mere extension of these (App. ibid. n8). F.'s coruus, then, is a 'pure
myth', and must have overturned a quinquereme. Against this there
is the very circumstantial nature of F.'s description; and Thiel has
pointed out that the Roman ships at this time were heavier and
slower than they were later (<f>a:u>.wv ••• Kal cvat<t~Twv, cf. 51. 4),
when the model was improved (59· 8). Hence the coruus could be
employed now, but not later; and this explains why it disappears
from the tradition after Ecnomus. For a full discus,1.on of the problem
see Fiebiger, RE, 'corvus (3)', col. 1665; Lammert, ibid., 'korax (4)',
col. 138r; De Sanctis, iii. I. 128 n. 72; Tarn, ]HS, 1907, SI n. r9;
HMND, tn-12, 149-so; Holland Rose, The Mediterranean in the
77
I. 22. 3 THE FIRST PUNIC WAR
23. 2-10. Battle of Mylae. Mylae (modem Milazzo) lay on the neck
of a promontory on the north coast of Sicily about 25 miles west of
Pelorus (Capo di Faro): cf. 9· 7, To Mul\afovmrOiov. The battle occurred
in summer 26o. The 130 Punic vessels were probably a nonnal com-
plement prior to the war with Rome (Tarn, JHS, 1907, 49, comparing
earlier statistics in Diodorus: the latter's figure for Mylae (xxiii.
ro. r) viz. 2oo, may be neglected; De Sanctis, iii. r. IZj n. 7o). The
Punic losses were 5o (§ ro) ; whether 30 or 31 of these were captured
depends on whether ativ ats (§ 7) means 'including' or 'as well as'.
(The annalistic tradition offers no help, since Eutrop. ii. 20. 2 gives
31 taken and 14 sunk, Oros. iv. 7· 1o gives 31 taken and 13 sunk, and
auct. de w:r. ill. 38. r gives 3o taken and 13 sunk. The columna rostrata
inscription (cf. 21. 4 n.) has a lacuna at the vital point: u[ique
nau[ eis cepe ]t cum socieis septer[esmom unam quin-] f [queresmos]que
triresmosque navels x[..... ) The Punic flagship was a hepteres,
a galley with a single bank of oars, seven men to an oar: Tarn,
HMN D, 136; it is mentioned on the columna rostrata inscription
(above) and probably was taken from Pyrrhus in the naval battle
recorded by App. Samn. r2. P. omits the total of Roman ships;
reckoning allied auxiliary ships, it probably came to about 140 (Thiel,
Hist. 84-86).
1
24. 2. n)v T AtyEaTa.iwv . • • 'll"o:>uop..:&a.v: Zon. viii. rr records a
Roman defeat before Segesta under a C. Caecilius, apparently about
the time of Scipio's disaster; but like P. he puts the raising of the
siege of Segesta after Mylae. The columna rostrata inscription men-
tions both this and the capture of Macella before the naval action:
[Secest]ano)que .............. op-]
[sidione]d exemet lecione[sque Cartaciniensis omnis]
[ma]ximosque macistr[a~tos l[uci palam post dies]
Lno]uem castreis exfociont, Macel[amque opidom ui]
[p:ucnandod cepet. enque eodem mac[istratud bene]
[r]ern nauebos marid consol primos c[eset copiasque]
Lc]lasesque nauales primos ornauet pa[rauetque], etc.
Likewise the act. tr. record Duilius' triumph de Sicul. et clas. Poenica.
79
I. 24. 2 THE FIRST PUNIC WAR
It is quite possible that Duilius' land campaign in fact preceded
Mylae (De Sanctis, iii. 1. 127): it included the capture of Macella
(perhaps Macellaro, near Camporeale, about 15 miles east of Segesta:
Ziegler, RE, 'Makella', cols. 772~3), on which the Romans had made
one vain assault after the peace with Hiero (17. 5 n.; Diod. xxiii. 4· z),
and perhaps an unsuccessful attempt on Mytistratum, which
eventually fell in zs8 (Diod. xxiii. 9· 3-4): De Sanctis, ibid. For a
defence of the order of events given in P. see Thiel, Hist. I87--9, who
argues that both Duilius' inscription and the act. tr. follow the order
terra marique.
3. :A.fLtAK«!; ••• oTn«yfLevos £,.\ Twv 1TEtucwv 8uv6.f1twv: this Hamil-
car, who succeeded Hanno after the fall of Agrigentum, and defeated
C. Caedlius (24. z n.), later plays an important role in the war. An
ancient tradition identified him with Hamilcar Barca; but in s6. I
P. introduces the latter as a new figure, and the identification (cf.
Cic. off. iii. 99; Zon. viii. 10) is to be rejected: Meltzer, ii. 570; De
Sanctis, iii. I. 124 n. 59; and (less certain) Lenschau, RE, 'Hamilkar
(6) ', cols. zJo2-J.
O"TUO"t6.tovms Tou<; aUfLf16.xous: probably Sicilians, not Italian socii
(Meltzer, ii. 282; Niese, ii. 185 n. 3). On the ensuing Carthaginian
victory see Diod. xxiii. 9· 4· Despite his figure for the Roman losses
(6,ooo)-which may well be unreliable in our abridged version-it
seems likely that P. and Diodorus have the same source; and this
will be Philinus, who is more likely than Fabius to report the dis-
creditable quarrel between the Romans and their allies (Leuze,
Klio, xgiO, 438; Bung, 1oo f. against De Sanctis, Hi. I. 133 n. 85, and
others). Paropus (a town, not a river, as Paton) is perhaps to be
identified with ruins on the R. Roccella, just west of modern
Collesano (Holm, Gesch. Sic. i. 71). The battle was probably in the
coastal plain east of Thermae (modern Tennini); its date is 26o/59.
and probably spring 259 (Duilius has apparently returned to Rome,
where he triumphed, February 259). According to Diodorus Hamilcar
followed up his success by taking a fortress called Md.,apcv (perhaps
Mazara between Selinus and Lilybaeum; Meltzer, ii. 566-7).
5-7. Hannibal in Sardinia. These paragraphs are fully discussed by
Leuze (Klio, rgro, 406-44). P.'s purpose, he points out, is not to
recount the Roman action in Sardinia so much as to round off the
story of Hannibal : hence his neglect of chronology and return to
259 in § 8 (~<cml -rov (~fj;; Jvtal)'Tov). After his return to Carthage-for
a worthless anecdote on how he avoided punishment for his defeat
see Diod. xxiii. ro. I ; Val. Max. vii. 3 ext. 7; Dio, fr. 43· 18; Zon.
viii. II; auct. de uir. ill. 38--Hannibal crossed to Sardinia, probably
in 258; the arrival of his squadron will have caused the return to
Rome of L. Scipio, who triumphed 'de Poenis et Sardin. Corsica
V id. mart'. (act. tr.): his achievements are celebrated in his verse
So
THE FIRST PUNIC WAR J. 24. 10
elogium (CJL. i 2 • 2. 8 and 9 = ILS, 2 and 3):
Hec cepit Corsica Aleriaque urbe,
dedet Tempestatebus aide mereto[d].
Scipio, who was consul in 259, is omitted by P., who is almost cer-
tainly following Philinus. Hannibal's defeat was at the hands of
C. Sulpicius Paterculus, consul in 258 (24. 9 n.), near Sulci, Zon.
viii. 12. On his crucifixion see Livy, ep. 17 (he was stoned to death
according to Orosius (iv. 8. 4)).
8. otJ8Ev a~LOV • • • Myou: Mylae had made no fundamental change
in the situation in Sicily, and the dispersal of forces to include
Sardinia had caused some deterioration. Of the consuls for A.u.c.
495 = 259{8 B.c., L. Cornelius L.f. Cn.n. Scipio and C. Aquillius
M.f. C.n. Florus (Munzer, RE, 'Cornelius (323)', cols. 1428-31; Klebs,
RE, 'Aquilius (zo)', col. 327), the former was sent to Sardinia, the
latter to Sicily, where the Carthaginians recovered Enna and
Camarina (§ 12) and, in the west, fortified Drepana and transferred
to it the population of Eryx (Diod. xxiii. 9· 4). This latter step
Zonaras (viii. u) dates just prior to Florus' wintering in Sicily,
259{8 (an innovation deemed necessary to prevent Hamilcar's re-
ducing the whole island!). On the Roman disaster at Thermae see§ 4·
9. 1Tpoa8E~af1EVot Tous E1TtKa.9EUTcif1EVous lipxovTa.s: the consuls for
A.U.c. 496 = 258(7 B.c., A. Atilius A.f. C.n. Caiatinus and C. Sulpicius
Q.f. Q.n. Paterculus (Klebs, RE, 'Atilius (36)', cols. 2079-81; Munzer,
RE, 'Sulpicius (81)', cols. 816-17)· But Sulpicius' triumph de Poeneis
et Sardeis (act. tr.) confirms Zonaras' statement (viii. 12) that he was
sent to Sardinia. In Sicily Florus appears to have been joined by
Caiatinus in the summer, where consul and proconsul attacked
Panormus together. Florus triumphed as proconsul de Poeneis IV
non. oct. (258). In Klio, 1910, 431 ff., Leuze argued unconvincingly
that 1Tpoa'fu;fdp,c:vot means 'awaiting', that Florus operated alone
until he was relieved by Caiatinus in September, and that ot arparrryot
(§ 10) can refer to a single general. Clearly P. is wrong, and his error
may well go back to a failure in his source (probably Fabius: Bung,
103-4) to distinguish consul and proconsul.
Sta To . . . 1ra.pa.xufla~ELV: since the attack was after Caiatinus'
arrival, i.e, ] une at the earliest, the expression cannot be pressed;
evidently the Carthaginians had made no move from their winter
quarters of 259/8.
10. 'I1T1rava.v: identical with .Etrni.va, the capture of which the abbre-
viated Diodorus (xxiii. 9· 5) puts after that of Camarina, i.e. in 259.
Holm's identification (Gesch. Sic. iii. 347-8) with Mte Castellacio near
Termini is wholly hypothetical; but a coin showing a dolphin and a
mussel, with the legend lrANATAN, suggests thatitlayon the coast
(Holm, ibid. iii. 6o3 no. 122). Cf. Ziegler, RE, 'Hippana', col. 1662.
4866 G
I. 24. It THE FIRST Pl:NIC WAR
11. MuTT(aTpaTov had twice before been besieged by the Romalls
(§ 2 n.); it was now burnt, and its population enslaved (though the
Punic garrison escaped) (Diod. xxiii. 9· 4; Zon. viii. II). Coins in-
scribed MYTI have been found near Marianopoli (near S. Caterina
Villarmosa, 30 km. west of Enna), which probably belong to this
town. Pliny, Nat. kist. iii. 91, mentions the Mutustratini as stipen-
dian:·i. Ziegler, RE, '.Mytistraton', cols. ; Holm, Gesclt. Sic.
iii. 663.
12. "Evvav KTA.: see above § 8 n. Auct. de Hir. ill. 39 describes the
recovery of Enna with much fantastic detail. Of the other noAt(fp.dma
Diod. xxiii. 9· 5 mentions Camicus and Erbessus, both in the territory
of Agrigentum.
13. Amapa£ous eTrExelp'!}aa.v 1To1uopKEiv: evidently a failure; cf. Zon.
viii. I2, VVJmk OE J\a8wv npoKaT€(1')(€11 a~n}v (i.e. Amdpa.v) ••• Kat
im£g€A06.Jv alqwtS!wc; noMotk OLI.!/>8€tp€.
25. 1. r&Los J\TLALoc;: the consuls for A.U.c. 497 257/6 B.c. were
C. A til ius M.f. M.n. Regulus and Cn. Cornelius P .f. Cn.n. Blasio
(Klebs, RE, 'Atilius (47)', cols. 2084-5; Munzer, RE, 'Cornelius (73)',
cols. 1271-2). Again the Romans concentrated all their forces on
Sicily. Blasio probably joined Caiatinus, who stayed on as praetor
(or proconsul: cf. Thiel, Hist. 2oi n. 446): Blasio's failure (cf. § 6)
explains why he had no triumph, that celebrated by Caiatinus being
for his achievements in 258 ('ex Sicilia de Poeneis XIIIl k.f[ebr.]'
(act. tr.): see Broughton, i . .:208). Munzer, loc. cit., argues that Blasio
remained at Rome: but see Meltzer, ii. z87, 567; Luterbacher, Phil.,
1907, 409; De Sanctis, iii. I. I36. Thiel (Hist. 2oo-1) argues that he
was maintaining a strict defensive on the Senate's instructions;
preparations were concentrated on the next year's expedition. As
P. records, the fleet was under Regulus; the Carthaginians were
conunanded by Hamilcar (cf. 27. 6).
1Tpos TuvSa.pl8a Ka9opll-La9eis: C. Tyndaris lies about 15 miles west
of .Mylae (modern C. Tindaro). P. seems to have used Philinus here;
the engagement only just escapes being indecisive, whereas 'for an
annalist an indecisive battle is always a Roman victory' (DeSanctis,
iii. r. 226). :.\Ioreover, P.'s account differs from the Roman tradition;
Zon. viii. 12 puts both consuls in charge of the fleet; and though the
figures in Polyaen. viii. 2o (2oo Roman triremes against 8o Punic
ships) are exaggerated, it is likely that Atilius had a superiority-
Tarn (]HS', 1907, sz) thinks he may have had ISO ships in alL He
subsequently triumphed: 'cos. de Poeneis naualem VIII k .. .'
(fragmentary notice in act. tr.).
7-9. The rz'val fleets, sz,mmer zs6. P.'s figures, 330 Roman and 350
Punic warships, are accepted by Gelzer (Hermes, r935, 275 n. 1),
as based on official sources: but their acceptance is not without
8z
THE FIRST PUNIC WAR I. 25. 7
-~
~,r-
/
I
f
\
'-----~----- 1...,.1 I
~· I I
:...(---.:------~ , ~31 14
' I I
~
--~'.(I
r
l
\
',,_2. . __>-
lVI_) -- .... _ 2
-------- ,..,....,,.
"'
m. 1000 0 ·· 1 km.
1.2.3.4. Rornan Fleet. I. II. ill. IV. Carthaginian Fleet
26. 1-28. 14. The battle of Ecnomus. P.'s detailed account suggests
that either his source or ultimate source was an eyewitness; the
intimate knowledge of the Carthaginian dispositions points to
Philinus. In addition, however, P. appears to have used Fabius
(cf. 26. 6 n.). The Roman order has been criticized as improbable
(Tarn, HMND, 149-51; De Sanctis, iii. r. 141 n. 102; Thiel, Hist.
u9): the wedge fonnation, with the third and fourth squadrons
along the base, would have been beyond the skill of the pilots: 'no
captains, let alone Roman captains, could have kept station' (Tarn).
The essence of the formation appears to be to protect the third
squadron, which is towing the horse transports; and this would be
secured if the first two squadrons advanced ahead, slightly in
echelon, with the flanks overlapping the ends of the third squadron.
If, encouraged by the Punic tactics, the joint centre of squadrons
one and two raced ahead, a Punic observer may well have gained
the impression of the closed wedge which P. describes (Scullard,
Hist. r63; Thiel, Hist. 120). P.'s account is accepted as it stands by
Kromayer (Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abt., col. 5) and Frank (CAH,
vii. 68r). The Carthaginian tactics are not wholly clear. Thiel (Hist.
u7) argues that Hamilcar's plan was to draw the Roman first line
forward and envelop it in the rear out of reach of the corui, before
the second line (P.'s third squadron) could come up; but he has to
admit that the independent action of the two wing-commanders is
not consistent with these tactics.
26. 6. Tp~ap~o~ . . . wvo11atovTo: on the four categories of troops,
enrolled in the uelites, the hastati, the principes, TOV> o€ rrpea-{JvTUTOV>
el> Tov> Tpw.p{ov>, see vi. 21. 7-ro. These categories are distinguished
in age and, to some extent, in income and prestige, a distinction
which did not apply to the four squadrons at Ecnomus, who were all
picked troops (26. 5). It therefore seems probable that the name
triarii was a popular nickname given by troops to whom the sea
and its ways were still novel; and though the fourth squadron may
ss
I. zr,. 6 THE FIRST PUNIC WAR
have called themselves 'the tried veterans', it is perhaps more likely
that their comrades dubbed them 'the old men'. The source here must
be Roman, i.e. Fabius. See, for fuller discussions and parallels for
such military slang, CR, 1950, 1o-1I.
7-8. Roman and Carthaginian numbers. P.'s figures of 14o,ooo
(Roman) and 15o,ooo (Carthaginian) seem to be calculated from the
numbers of ships, and probably derive from Fabius. Three hundred
rowers (which, allowing for the inclusion of officers and sailors,
would imply rather less than 30 oars per side) is acceptable as the
complement of a quinquereme (Tarn, HMND, 14o); and 120 soldiers,
raising the total complement to 420, is also reasonable-certainly
not an exaggerated figure, for we hear of 4,ooo soldiers transported
in 15 warships {Livy, xxvii. 32. 2) (cf. Thiel, Hist. :269 n. 681). P.'s
four aTpaTom:oa provide a problem. Presumably arpaTo'lT£Ooll here
translates legio (though cases occur where arpaTim£Ooll is half
a legion, i.e. two OTpaTo'lTEOa form one legion with its ,
cf. 88. 7 n.); but it looks as if these four legions are calculated from
the 39,6oo marines implied in a fleet of 330 quiuqueremes, each
canying 120. This is indeed the basis of Meltzer's figure (ii. 290) of
4o,ooo. But, as Thiel (Hist. :w9) observes, four legions cannot have
been selected out of four legions, which is the most that can have
been in Sicily at this time; and since the quinqueremes will have had
their permanent garrison of 40 proletarians (vi. 19. 3. if indeed this
passage refers to marine service, and not to rowers; Kromayer, Phil.,
1897, 485 f.) from the Italian port, and since the real total for the
fleet was not 330, but 230 (25. 7-9 n.}, the number of forces embarked
at Ecnomus (25. 8, 26. s) will not have exceeded r8,4oo, i.e. 230 x 8o.
This is equivalent to a consular army of two legions at fullest strength.
These calculations assume that P.'s figure of 120 soldiers to a ship
is reliable; possible, though less likely, is the hypothesis that he or
his source got it by assuming an army of four legions of maximum
size, i.e. 4o,ooo including socii (vi. 20. 8) and dividing it among 330
ships. Regulus was later left behind in Africa (:zg. 9) with rs,ooo foot
and soo horse. De Sanctis (iii. r. n. 3) takes these to be the bulk
of the army originally embarked in Sicily, and this view seems
substantially correct {see 29. 9 n.); Sicily cannot have been left
without troops.
The Punic figures are derived from the number of ships (§ 8) ; they
assume the presence of marines in the same proportion as on the
Roman side, which seems unlikely since the Carthaginians were not
planning an invasion (DeSanctis, iii. I. 139 n.
11. Tao; . . . f:~l)pt:lS: 'sixes', i.e. large decked, with a single
bank of oars, six men to an oar (not 'six-banked galleys' (Paton)).
ot O'TpanlYo(: the consuls for A.U.c. 498 256/5 B.C., M. Atilius M.f.
L.n. Regulus (suffectus in place of Q. Caedicius) and L. Manlius A.f.
86
THE FIRST PUNIC WAR LzJ.II
P.n. Vulso Longus (Klebs, RE, 'Atilius (sr)', cols. zo86-92; Munzer,
RE, '11anlius (10r)', col. 1225). Regulus was probably brother of the
consul of 257.
12. Ka.TO. J.L~a.v va.uv: 'in single file', cf. § 13 lrrl p.lav vauv, 'in line one
deep'.
Ta.ts S£ trpwppo.ts ••• ElxEv: 'the ships were ranged one behind the
other with their prows pointing outwards'; but tgw must in fact
mean 'towards the open sea' and not towards the ship in front
(which would have involved a converging rnovement)-so Paton,
correctly. The ships were in fact in echelon.
13. lv J.1£TW1T"!!: 'facing the front', i.e. in contrast to the first two
squadrons; cf. v. 8z. ro, where cavalry are placed lv p.HdJrr<p in con-
trast to elephants iv hnKap.rr{<p (on this phrase cf. 27. 4 n.).
16. KoiAov .•• O"TEpEbv: 'hollow ... compact', i.e. the front part of
the formation enclosed an area of empty sea, whereas the base con-
sisted of two lines, with horse-transports between.
at Ecnomus (on the horse see Thiel, Hist. 216-I7). Probably between
2,ooo and 3,ooo marines went down in the 24 ships lost at Ecnomus
(28. 14) ; and the original total of soldiers on board was c. 27 ,6oo (i.e.
9,2oo permanent garrison from Italy and c. I8,4oo embarked in Sicily
from the legions there). Since 40 ships remained behind in Africa, the
210 which returned (for the total of 250 see 25. 7--9 n.) would require
8,4oo marines and the 40 at Clupea some I,6oo, as permanent garrison,
i.e. Io,ooo in all. This figure, taken from the c. 25,ooo which survived
Ecnomus, gives almost exactly Regulus' rs,ooo. Manlius' return is
dated to autumn (256) by Zon. viii. I3· He triumphed: 'cos. de
Poeneis naualem egit VIII k .. .' (act. tr.).
31. 4. aywvtwv ••• J..L~ O'UJ..L~TI KTA.: the motivation here contradicts
that in the rest of the tradition. Here l~egulus takes the initiative
'With peace terms, lest he be superseded; elsewhere it is unanimously
stated that the Carthaginians took the initiative from weariness
(Oros. iv. g. r; Zon. viii. 13; Diod. xxiii. r2. r), and that Regulus' com-
mand was prolonged against his wishes (Livy, ep. r8; Frontin. Strat.
iv. 3· 3; Val. Max. iv. 4· 6). The latter statement is probably part of
the Regulus saga; but the harshness of the terms offered by Regulus
suggests that the Carthaginians did in fact make the offer, and this
version, which is in Diodorus, \.\'as probably that of Philinus. P.'s
stress on Regulus' fear of supersession may come from Fabius (De
Sanctis, iii. 1. 227; Gelzer, Hermes, 1933, 140 n. :2, who compares
ii. 27. 5, 34· r (not a good parallel), and Livy, viii. 30. 9), or may
indeed be a general deduction from similar situations of which he
was cognizant (e.g. that of Flamininus, xviii. rr. z); Zon. viii. I7
attributes the same motives to Catulus in 24r; and indeed the situa-
tion was inherent in a system of annual commands. T. Frank
(CAH, vii. 683) offers a pretty example of compromise: 'he announced
his readiness to receive offers of peace.' On the phrase rrJV Jmyparf;ijv
rwl' 1Tpayparwv see ii. 2. 9 n.
5. -rb j30.pos Twv emTay!J-0.-rwv: according to Dio, fg. 43· 2:2~23 (who
alone records them), they required the payment of an indemnity,
the surrender of Roman and ransoming of Punic prisoners, and also
the evacuation of Sicily and Sardinia, the signing of a foedus in-
iquum, the surrender of the whole Punic fleet but for one ship, and
an undertaking to furnish a squadron of fifty vessels for Rome at
any time upon demand. This version is accepted by Meltzer (ii. 299,
570-1), Arnold (Oorzaak, 71), and Frank (CAH, vii. 683, 'Dio's account
may be correct, and as such a fair commentary on the consul's
stupidity'); but (a) it is not clear by what channel Dio could have
obtained a faithful record, (b) if the annexation of Sardinia was en-
visaged in 256, its omission from the Treaty of Catulus is odd (62. 8~
63. 3). Hence Dio's account is probably to be rejected. The harsh
terms are also mentioned by Diod. xxiii. r:2. r5; Eutrop. ii. 2r. 4;
Oros. iv. 9· I; Zon. viii. IJ. In fact a successful outcome at this stage
was mled out, since the Romans were bound to demand, and the
Carthaginians bound to reject, the evacuation of Sicily.
90
THE FIRST PUNIC WAR 1.32. 9
8 . .ivSpwSws •.. Kat yevva~ws: this praise of the Carthaginian aw-
{8pwv (on which see 21. 6 n.) reveals the source, Philinus (d. 14. 3).
before sunrise'. By the setting of a star (cf. iii. 54· r) P. means the
date at which it first sets before sunrise, having hitherto become
inv1.sible while still above the horizon. This is Ptolemy's third
O'X.TJJl.anap.<k (loc. cit.), described as 6 KaAoVp.Evos 1Tpwrv6s Ali/J, lhav Tov
~>.lou J7Ti TOV 7TpOs avaTOAas dpl,oVTOS ()VTOS 6 aO'T~p fJ i1Tt TOV 1TpD<;
3uap.ds, and defined as lc.{;a 11po3uats if>atvop.,vTJ, 'the morning appear-
ance of the setting before sunrise'. Strachan-Davidson (15-zr) dis-
cusses the relationship between these two axryp.aTtap.ot and appends
calculations of the dates of the rising of the Pleiades, of Orion, and
of Sirius, for P.'s date and the latitude of Rome. The rising of Orion
he makes 4 July, of Sirius z8 July (Gregor.): other scholars (e.g. De
Sanctis, iii. r. 258) vary by a day or two. dates-July for
Sirius and December for Orion-make nonsense of the passage; and
Luterbacher's interpretation of rising as the 'sunset rising' (Ptolemy's
seventh 'aspect') is equally impossible, since it would set the Roman
voyage in December (Phil., 1907, 412).) Ps.-Aristotle (Problem. z6.
13. 941 b) also associates the rising of Orion with uncertain weather;
and (ibid. rz. 941 a-b) associates the rising of Sirius with the south
wind.
7-10. Criticism of Roman headstrong behaviour: this follows P.'s con-
sistent interpretation of the return of this expedition (cf. 37· 4-6),
which, as we saw, seems based on an anachronistic judgement on
the consuls. The didacticism recalls that of 35, and there is the same
stress on v{3pts, which turns good qualities such as ToAp.a (cf. 20.
n-r3) into vices. The repetition of such words as {3ta (§§ 7 and IO),
8p!L7J (§ 7), ToAp.a (§ IO), {3tawp.ax.dv (§ 9) is noteworthy, but need not
indicate the use of specifically Stoic terminology (so Lorenz, 45).
P. is especially interested in Roman naval policy, and in vi. 52 he
assesses the Roman performance at sea more favourably; Laqueur's
view that his criticism here is taken straight out of Philinus (RE,
'Philinos', col. zr87) is neither proved nor probable.
C.n. Cotta and P. Servilius Q.f. Cn.n. Geminus (Klebs, RE, 'Aurelius
(94)', cols. 2481-2; Munzer, RE, 'Servilius (6z)', cols. 1795-6).
10. Tijs ••. Oo.XaTTTJS ••• ~'II"Etcpa.Touv: echoing Philinus: on the true
picture cf. 38. 1-4 n. On this occasion the Romans sent reinforce-
ments with a convoy of only sixty ships (§ 8) ; and for whatever
reason their enemy made no effective moves against them.
12. £'ITt So' evLo.u·mvs: apparently the two years following the wreck
off C. Palinurus, viz. 252 and 251 (De Sanctis, iii. r. r65 with n. 46,
who, however, is surely wrong in speaking of 'consul years' (cf.
39· IS n.}: for the source is Philinus). ~!eltzer (ii. 574-6) dates the
two years from Hasdrubal's arrival in Sicily to the battle of Panormus
(2s2-june zso); but the change seems to date from the resumption
of a naval policy (§ IS), the thing P. is interested in.
13. 0Eplla.v ••• KaL A.mapav: so too Diod. xxiii. 19. 20, who also
mentions an unsuccessful attack on Heirkte. On Lipara see zr. 5,
24. 13; on Tbermae (of Himera: c£. Zon. viii. 14) see 24. 4· Zon., ibid.,
dates the capture to the consulship of Aurelius and Servilius (252/1),
and this is confirmed by the coins struck in imitation of those of
Lipara by L. Aurelius Cotta, consul in 65 B.C. Aurelius triumphed
'cos. de Poeneis et Siculeis idibus apriL' (z51).
15. r aLOV J\T0..LOV tca.i Aeotuov MaXLOv: the consuls for A.U.C. 504
zso/49 B.C. were experienced in naval warfare-C. Atilius Regulus,
the victor of Tyndaris (25. In.) and L. Manlius Vulso, ·who shared
in that at Ecnornus (26. I I n.). The building of tbe fleet will ob-
viously have begun before 11ay, as an integral part of the policy
..........~.,_,.,,"'"' in the election of these two men; but the words Ka:ra-
crn}crai!TES' crTpaTY)yous mean simply 'electing as consuls'; and De
Sanctis (iii. r. 263) is forcing the Greek when he translates 'appointing
as commanders of the fleet', i.e. after their entry into office (crTpetTY)y&>
is used in this sense only when there is no ambiguity, e.g. II, 3.
59· 8; but for a parallel to this passage cf. 52. s). DeSanctis is misled
by his desire to postpone Roman activity till after the end of the
two 'consul years' 2s2/1 and 251/o (39· 12 n.).
'ITEVT~tcovTa. aK6.<fTJ: having lost over ISO of their 220 ships off C
Palinurus (39· 6 n.), they had manned only 6o (§ 8) of the approxi-
matel.y 70 surviving. The present so bring their fleet up to rzo,
which is the number in commission this year (cf. 41. 3 n.).
40. 1. J\aSpou~o.s: cf. 38. 1-4 n. P.'s main source now becomes
Philinus: the regular naming of consuls ceases, and we have two refe-
rences to the 'year of the war', appropriate to a monograph (14. r n.).
T<lV 11~v l1va. TWV aTpa.TT]ywv ••• TOv OE Ka.ltclXLOv: i.e. Furius and
Caecilius, the consuls for 251/o; in 39- rs P. has anticipated zso/49
(from Fabius}. Furius left Caecilius with two legions at Panormus:
on the date see the next note.
IOI
I. 40. I THE FIRST PUNIC WAR
G1Cjla.too1711s TllS auy~eojlLS-i)s: d. 17. 9; it was June: but of which year?
The battle of Panormus is variously dated to 251 (Mommsen, Holm,
Reuss (Phil., r9or: less certainly 1909)) and 250 (Meltzer, Beloch, De
Sanctis, Frank, Luterbacher, Scullard). Furius' departure would
naturally point to 25o: but against this it has been argued (r) that
Caedlius fought as consul; so Florus, i. r8. 27; Eutrop. ii. 24; Oros.
iv. 9· 14; and less definitely, Frontin. Strat. ii. 5· 4; Pliny, Nat. hist.
vii. 140; Diod. xxiii. 2r; (z) that there is a tradition of peace negotia-
tions after the battle; but that as Caecilius triumphed in early
September 250, his successors must have left Rome no later than the
end of July, thus leaving no room for such negotiations in 250. De
Sanctis (iii. I. 262-3) has shown that the tradition that Caecilius
fought as consul derives from Livy, who elsewhere confuses consuls
and proconsuls at this time; and the peace embassy is part of the
Regulus myth, and quite worthless (35 n.). Moreover, the 251 dating
has its own difficulties, best set out by Leuze (Phil., 1907, 137-9;
but his own dating of the battle to April or early May zso involves
translating dKp.a{ovmy; ri)s avyKop.tSijs 'when the time of harvest
should be at hand', op. cit. 145-6). The date of the battle, then, was
June 250, probably after the entry of the new consuls into office
(though this is not to be deduced from 39· 15).
4. StO. TWV an:vwv El$ TTjv na.vopjltTw: d. Diod. xxiii. 21, S"t Tfjs
1J£1ttvomJTws Svaxwp{as ~lt8£v Els 'T(J II&.vopp.ov. Probably the route via
Iaitia (modern S. Giuseppe, 15 miles south-west of Palermo) over
into the valley of the Orethus (modern Oreto, Tdv 7Tpb Tijs 1TDA£ws
7ToTap.ov), which reaches the sea through the plain of the Conca
d'Oro, just south of Palermo.
6-16. The battle of Panormus. Diod. xxiii. 21 records how the
Carthaginians' Celtic mercenaries contributed to the disaster by
their drunkenness; Zon. viii. 14 gives the Punic fleet a sensational
but ineffective part in operations (accepted by Thiel, Hist. 261-2),
and describes how Metellus eliminated a potential fifth column, and
later transported his captured elephants across the Straits of Messana
{cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. viii. r6; Frontin. Strat. i. 7· r). Eutrop. ii. 24 and
Oros. iv. 9· 15 give Punic losses as 2o,ooo (out of 3o,ooo: Orosius); and
Orosius records that Hasdrubal was condemned to death.
10. Toi<; <i~epo~oA~OjlEVOLS: the Ev~wvot of § 6 ; the £~KtVTJTOt (§ 7), who
were stationed before the trench and wall, and appear in § 12 as
dKEpawL 'fresh troops', are quite distinct.
12. OO'O'Ot$ ICO.t , , • ypoa,Pms: i.e. pita and hasfae Uelitares: cf, Vi, 22.
4 n., 23. 8-II n., for a description of these weapons.
15. uuv a.1hois ••. 'lv8ol<;: 'Iv8ol is used by P. as a generic term for
mahouJs, whether Indian or not: cf. iii. 46. 7, 46. H, xi. I. 12; Gowers
and Scullard, NC, 1950, 271 ff. Caecilius Metellus offered freedom and
immunity to any prisoners who brought them in the number; taken
102:
THE FIRST PUNIC WAR I. 41. 4
is variously given as 142 or qo (Pliny), r2o (Livy, Seneca, Zonaras),
104 (with 26 killed: Orosius), roo (Florus), and 6o (Diodorus). They
were butchered in the circus; and henceforth coins of the Caecilii
Metelli frequently display an elephant; cf. B.M.C. Rom. Rep. i.
xss-6, ii. 3S7 J 570.
to6
THE FIRST PUNIC WAR L 42. n
69-71; and, for the topography, J. Schubring, Phil. xxiv, 1866, 62 ff.;
Freeman, History of Sicily, iv. 93 ff. (map on p. 74). Diod. xxiv. I-4
precedes his account of the operations with the statement that at
some unspecified date (but evidently recently: cf. 39· 12) Selin us
had been destroyed by the Carthaginians and its population trans-
ferred to Lilybaeum. On the operations here P., like Diodorus, seems
to follow Philinus; but not exclusively (cf. Bung, 57-58). The dis-
crepancies between P. and Diodorus (cf. Pedech, REA, I952, 258-62)
are explicable on the assumption of a different selection of material
and the correction of Philinus' figures from Fabius in P.
Tcici>p'l.J !3a.llEL4: 6o cubits wide and 40 deep (Diod. xxiv. 1. 2) ; a cubit
is about 1! ft.
T£vaymw EK lla.AciTT1)S: cf. 46. 9· The ancient harbour had an artificial
mole north of the town (the modern one lies south of Marsala); on
the shoals cf. Virg. A en. iii. 706, 'uada dura ... saxis Lilybeia caecis'.
£LS To(,s ALp.tvo.s: 'into the harbour' (not plural): cf. Schweighaeuser,
Lex. Polyb. s. v. ALJ.L~v.
8. 1Tpoucnpa.T01T£8£0uo.vTE<; ••• oi 'Pwp.a.'LoL: their numbers are a
problem. Philinus (Diod. xxiv. 1. I) made them 11o,ooo, of which at
least 84,ooo were no doubt ships' crews and marines (he assumed a
:fleet of 240 ships: 41. 3 n). In addition there were the land forces
(41. 4), which Orosius (iv. Io. 2) not unreasonably reckons at four
legions. On the other hand, the fleet was in reality only 120 ships
strong. In 45· 8, where the defenders are reckoned at 2o,ooo, the
attackers are only €-n 7TA<'lov>. This would appear to rule out Thiel's
belief (Hist. 263) that they came to 3o,ooo. The probability is that P.
is not including oarsmen in his purview. Four legions of 3,ooo gives
32,ooo men; 1oo marines for I20 ships another I2,ooo. But both figures
may well have been smaller, and the effective soldiers (excluding
ships' crews) outside Lilybaeum probably came to 35,ooo-4o,ooo
men. For Roman losses see 42. 12 n. The Roman fortifications are
mentioned by Diod. xxiv. I. I, -.Yjv J.LEV yijv am) 8a>..d.cra'1]> tl> 80.>..aaaav
7dfpo/ U7TtoT£fxwav.
9, 1TpOUKnTnUK£UatovTE<; • , , a£l TOlS li'TTOKELj.LEVOL<;: 'constantly
adding something to what they had already constructed' (Shuck-
burgh). (In xxi. 11. 6 :rrpoaKa-raaK£Vd,£tv means 'to create new (kings)
in addition to those already existing'.) Paton's translation, 'gradually
advancing from the base thus acquired', gives the false impression
that the southern tower 7Tp6> -ro At{3vK6v m£>..ayo> fell; the fall of the
six adjacent towers suggests that this was not so.
11. T~JV j-1-Lullocpopwv elc; p.up£ouc;: 'about Io,ooo', partly Greeks, partly
Celts (43· 4, 48. 3), under Himilco (who is otherwise unknown).
Diod. xxiv. 1. I gives 7,ooo foot and 7oo horse, later reinforced by
4,ooo under Adherbal (Diod. xxiv. I. 2; below, 44· I n.); P. probably
rounds off these u,7oo to 1o,ooo (Thiel, Hist. 263-4).
107
I. {2. 12 THE FIRST PUNIC "\VAR
12. ouS€v 1TO.pEAEL1T~ TWV SuvaTWV: P.'s UVTotKOOop.wv is expanded in
Diod. xxiv. 1. 2 (cf. Zon. viii. 15), which records the building of a
second wall (behind that linking the six towers) ; Diodorus gives the
exaggerated figure of 1o,ooo Roman casualties, and attributes a
further 1o,ooo deaths (§ 4) to an epidemic caused by an exclusively
meat diet.
43. Alexan saves the Carthaginians from the treachery of their mer-
cenaries. This incident, which is described at quite disproportionate
length, is clearly from Philinus (that 43-48 are taken from this source
is generally admitted; De Sanctis, iii. 1. 228; Gelzer, Hermes, 1933,
141; Bung, 56: contra Pedech, REA, 1952, 258 ff.). The loyalty of a
Greek in Punic service, who had helped Agrigentum, naturally
appealed to the historian of that city; and the Achaean historian was
sufficiently interested to allot this digression to a fellow-country-
man. The story occurs, with slight variations, in Zon. viii. 15. The
identification of the incident at Agrigentum has caused difficulties.
The 'mercenaries of Syracuse' are apparently the Mamertini (7. 2 n.)
who, either before or after seizing Messana, made several similar
plundering expeditions; cf. Diod. xxiii. 1. 4 (destruction of Gela and
Camarina). It has been suggested, however, that the incident here
mentioned is that in ii. 7· 7, where Gallic mercenaries in Carthaginian
pay plunder Agrigentum (which became Punic shortly after Pyrrhus'
departure): De Sanctis, iii. 1. 91-92; Kirchner, RE, 'Alexan (1}',
col. 1471; Beloch, iv. 1. 558 n. 2. But P. speaks definitely of Syracusan
mercenaries, and he says that Alexan saved Agrigentum (whereas
the Gallic mercenaries plundered it). Consequently, the two inci-
dents must be distinct. The present one is linked with the death of
the tyrant Phintias, c. 28o, by "Meltzer (ii. 544); and Holm (Gesch.
Sic. ii. 487} puts it even earlier, before the Mamertini broke away
from Syracuse, i.e. before 288-283. But a date before 280 would
perhaps make Alexan rather old for a mercenary captain.
2. 1ra.pa0"1TovSe~v: used by P. to describe the seizure of Messana and
Rhegium by mercenary garrisons: cf. 7· 2, 7· 8, 10.4,43· 7, iii.26. 6. But
it can also refer to any treacherous onslaught; cf. ii. 7. 6, 46. 3, 58. 4,
6o. J, xxxiii. 10. J, xxxviii. 7· 10. Reuss, Volk. Grund. 71 n., '1Tapa-
a1Tovoefv • • • ist im allgemeinen ein Ausdruck fiir ein unredliches
Verhalten'; cf. Hesselbarth, 86.
4. >\vv(~av TOV utov TOU >\vv(~ou: 24. 5-7 n.; cf. 18. 7 n. Nothing
further is known of the son.
8. To us voflous Kat -nlv EA~u9Epta.v: suggests a time when Agrigentum
was independent.
44. 1. >\vv£!3o.v, Ss ~v 1l.fltAKou ••• u~o<; KTA.: from Oros. iv. 10. 2,
'Hannibale qui Hamilcaris filius fuit uicti' (where uicti evidently
I08
THE FIRST PUNIC WAR I. 45· 9
refers to Ecnomus (26. r) and Adys (3o. 5}), this Hamilcar is clearly
the commander in these battles {24. 3 n.}, who since Regulus' defeat
had been active in reducing the revolted Numidians and Moors
(Oros. iv. 9· 9). Diod. xxiv. r. 2 mentions 4,ooo reinforcements under
Adherbal; and the name cannot be a copyist's slip; cf. Zon. viii. 15,
JtpS€f3a.v Q't)v vava11T/..El(TTatS: ••• atmv dyoJaa.~s: Kat XP~fl.a.Ta {and Dio's
source was not Diodorus). The discrepancy can be explained in
various ways. There may have been two separate expeditions; or
P. may have 'corrected' Philinus from Fabius (though this is un-
likely for a detail of this kind). But the most likely explanation is
that Adherbal was in charge of the expedition, but went on to
Drepana (46. r), leaving Hannibal (Tp•~pa.pxos: Ka1 <f>l/..os: Jt--rdpf3ov
1TpwTos:) at the Aegates Islands to run the blockade of Lilybaeum.
Cf. De Sanctis, iii. r. 232-3. The phrase 1TpWTo:; <f>l,/..os: is normally used
of the intimate circle round the king in a Hellenistic court; Biker-
man, Sileucides, 40-42; Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 220 ff. = BCH, 1933,
31 ff.; its use here suggests the importance of Adherbal, and Hanni-
bal's position of trust relative to him.
2. ~v Tnl:s ••• Atyoucrall~S: the Aegates Islands lie off the west tip
of Sicily between Drepana and Lilybaeum, and include Aegusa
(modern Favignana) and Phorbantia (modern Levanzo), and in some
writers Riera Nesos (modern Maritima), 15 miles farther west (cf.
6o. 3; Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 92). That they lie 'between Lilybaeum and
Carthage' is true only on P.'s bearings (42. 1-7 n.); Biittner-Wobst's
explanation, that P. means simply that Hannibal's course was via
the Aegates Islands (Klio, 1905, 94), is unconvincing.
E1TET1'JpE~ Tov 1TAouv: 'he waited for favourable weather'; for this
sense of 1r'Aoiis d. iv. Si· 2, 57· 6.
4-5. Reaction to Hannibal's action. The contrast between the reaction
of the Romans and the besieged population, with Hannibal between,
creates a picture which is reproduced else·where; cf. the scene at
Hannibal's crossing of the Rhone (iii. 43· 7-8), or the clash at
Cynoscephalae (xviii. 25. 1), which show the same rhetorical influence
and stress on the sensationaL The ultimate forebear may be Thucy-
dides' famous description of the battle in the Great Harbour of
Syracuse (Thuc. vii. 71). In xxix. 12. ro P. shows himself to be
conscious of such repetitions.
47. 2. E1TE~T· ll.v ••• emrrpoa6et:v O.rra.a~: 'coming from the direction
of Italy he would keep the sea-tower on his bows, so as to cover the
whole line of the city's towers in the direction of Africa'. The words
dm~ -rwv • •. fLEpwv can hardly go with -rdv 7Tllpyov (as Paton). The sea-
tower is not that mentioned in 42. 8, but another at the western
extremity of the fortifications (Meltzer, ii. 577). Hannibal sailed in
along a line which kept this tower covering other towers on the south
side; he came 'from the Italian direction', i.e. from the north (for
the sake of the manceuvre; that the Aegates Islands were north-west
of Lilybaeum (so Cuntz, 69) is irrelevant). Though P. does not say so,
at some point Hannibal must have swerved left from the above
course to enter the harbour: the use of the towers as sights was to
evade the shoals (Twv 1rpof5paxiwv). lumpoolhrv, 'to cover one thing
by another', is Schweighaeuser's certain emendation.
3. XWVVUEW ••• errexECp'J0'<1V: cf. Diod. xxiv. I. z; the Romans had already
sunkrs cercuri in the entrance (r. r), but without completely blocking it.
7. eK Ka.Ta.~oXfjs: either 'anew' (cf. 8), i.e. after the Romans had
for some time made no attempt to take him (Paton and Shuck-
burgh) ; or 'from the start', i.e. starting the moment he left harbour
(Reiske); or 'deliberately' (so LSJ, quoting xxiv. 8. 9, where, how-
ever, the sense 'from the outset' is equally in place). Schwcighaeuser,
in Lex. Polyb. Ka-raf5ol.:r], finally comes down in favour of a most
forced interpretation: 'uidensquadriremem,quaeolim simul cumipso
(et cum ipsius naui) primum e statuminibus in mare excurrerat (cui us
structura adeo probe ei nota erat)'. Reiske's interpretation seems the
most likely; but there are probably overtones from the other two.
IIO
THE FIRST PUNIC WAR I. 48. 2
10. KUPLEOC1<LVTE!) ••• TllS VEW!): Zon. viii. IS, who calls Hannibal
'Hanno' (perhaps through confusion with the incident of 264, cf.
20. IS n.), puts his capture after the arrival of Claudius Pulcher
(49· 3) ; he adds that 'Hanno's' ship was used as a pattern by the
Romans (cf. 59· 8).
48. 2. y(vETa.l TL!) aVE!J.OU Q'TaO'L!): cf. 75· 8, ix. 25. 3. v. 5· 3. TWV
'ETY}alwv ifo7J araa£V Jx6vrwv. Paton and Shuckburgh translate a stormI
----
tt!JliH!!j I
Roman flflet
Carthag/nian flee/;
Il2
THE FIRST PUNIC WAR I. 49· 6
5. TlJV ... vo~l]v Tau 'n'Upos: 'the action of the flames' (Paton). For
this metaphor of grazing cf. xi. 4· 4·
8. E-rr! TE Taus ~oTJBouVTGS KGi T~v TWV ~pywv 8Ln+Oop4v: 'against the
rescuers and to secure the destruction of the works'. i7Tt is used in
two different senses.
9. Ta aT\J1TTJ Twv ~<ptwv: MS. T07T1J corrected by Scaliger; 'the beams
of the rams', to which the battering-tip was affixed; arietum trabes,
Schweighaeuser. Less likely is Paton, 'the posts that supported the
battering-rams'.
10. Telxos 'JTpo~aM~evot: on the previous Roman siege-works see
42. 8. It is difficult to believe that their own camp was not fortif1ed
until now, vi. 34· r; and P. may perhaps have exaggerated a reference
in Philinus to some reinforcement of the defences. Similarly for the
circumvallation of the town (Meltzer, ii. 578); the discrepancy be-
tween this passage and 42. 8 is underestimated by Bung, 56.
49. 2. ets ~up{ous: allowing only 250 rowers per ship instead of the
normal 300 (26. j), this number would man only 40 ships; and the
Roman fleet came to 120 ships (41. 3 n.). Hence the statement (§ r)
that most of the crews had perished seems exaggerated. Thiel (Hist.
273-4) suggests that Claudius may have pressed legionaries into ser-
vice as rowers; but P. (§ 5) speaks only of their volunteering as
marines.
3. noTrALOS KXa~Stoc;: one of the consuls for A.U.C. 505 = 249/8 B.C.:
they were P. Claudius Ap.f. C.n. Pulcher and L. lunius C.f. Ln.
Pullus (Munzer, RE, 'Claudius (3o4)', cols. 2857-8; 'Iunius (rJ.))',
cols. ro8o-r). Cic. de diu. i. 29, makes Claudius the son of Ap. Claudius
Caecus, but his father was more probably the consul of 264 (II . .1 n.):
De Sanctis, iii. 1. 170 n. 62. Diod. xxiv. 3 describes his headstrong,
bullying character, his criticism of his predecessors, and his own
mistakes. But by mentioning his conference with the xJ..iapxo~,
tribuni militum, P. stresses against the tradition that his plan found
general support (§ s).
50. 5. eAa.~E T~v du.:wu1-1ov ••• Ta~LV: Drepana lies on a small penin-
sula extending to the west and prolonged in a south-westerly direc-
tion by rocks and small islands: see the maps in Kromayer, AS,
iii. I, and in Enc. it. s.v.; there is a map of the battle in Kromayer-
Veith, Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abt. i, Blatt r. The harbour opens to
the south and is covered by the island of Colombaia; having cleared
it Claudius reformed his line with the right flank hugging the coast
south of the harbour mouth, and himself on the left. But Adherbal's
five ships succeeded in getting between him and the open sea.
9. JLEyaAa. , •• ~AMTw9fjva.L: the Roman fleet had been mana:uvred
into the situation of the Punic left at Ecnomus, 28. Ion.
53. 1. Ka'Ta ••• Touo; all'Tou<; KaLpou~: a loose link; but here correct,
for Iunius cannot have reached Sicily much later than the battle
of Drepana (52. 5 n.).
2. Kap90.Awva: in 254 Carthalo had relieved Drepana, after sacking
Agrigentum (Diod. xxiii. I8. 2-3): 38. 7 n., 38. Ion. Diodorus (xxiv.
1. 6-7) dates his arrival at Drepana in 249 (with 70 ships and supplies)
after the naval battle; between the two he relates the dispatch of
Hannibal (cf. 44· I) to seize a Roman convoy off Panormus. Carthalo
appears to be Aclherbal's subordinate.
Sou~ TpLaKOVT11 vau<;: the size of Aclherbal's fleet at this time is not
recorded; but it seems likely that the Punic fleet at Drepana was
smaller than the Roman, though in view of its success perhaps not
very much smaller (cf. Tarn, JHS, I9o7, 54-55). It is possible that
Claudius attacked when he did in order to forestall the arrival of the
70 reinforcements, fearing that he would then be outnumbered (Thiel,
Hist. 272; above, 52. 3 n.). Hence Tarn's figure of Ioo (before the
arrival of Carthalo) is likely to be about right (Thiel, Hi st. 266 n. 667).
7. oA[ya •.• Ta flEV a1I'OO"TI'a0'11<;, Ta OE O'UVTptljia~: 'contented himself
with either towing off or breaking up some few of the vessels'
(Shuckburgh). Schweighaeuser omits dMya from his translation,
Paton takes it with a1roamiaas- only; the point is that the total
Roman loss was small. Diod. xxiv. 1. 7 gives some sunk and five
dragged off.
10. 1rp6<; n 11'0ALu!-lnnov: according to Diod. xxiv. I. 7 the fleets
II6
THE FIRST PUNIC WAR
sighted each other near Gela, and this roadstead was off Phintias
(modern Alicata), east of the river Himera, and opposite Mt
Ecnomus. Diodorus puts Carthalo's fleet at 120 ships.
13. bMyu Twv ••• TrAOt{)JV 6.Troamia!lvT£i: according to Diodorus
(loc. cit) the Carthaginians sank so transports and I7 warships, and
put 13 warships out of action. P. omits these Roman losses (which
were probably not in Fabius), evidently because he mistrusts
Philinus; cf. De Sanctis, iii. I. 233-4. Thiel argues that they should
be accepted (Hist. 285 n. 731); but P.'s account of the quaestors
falling back on shore fire from catapults to defend their ships is
plausible, and would explain Carthalo's failure .
•
54. The shipwreck off Caman:na. According to Diod. xxiv. I. 7-9,
Carthalo retired to the R. Halycus (modern Platani) near Heraclea
Minoa to attend to his wounded. Iunius advanced to Phintias,
where he was joined by the remnants of the first convoy, but on
sighting the Punic fleet burnt the r3 damaged vessels and set off
back for Syracuse; overtaken near Camarina o;l, T~v yfjv Ko.Tlcjwyt£
7tpos T(l1TOt!S' Tpax£i:s Kat vif;a/..wSets. A storm got up, Carthalo rounded
Pachynus and was saved; Iunius lost all his transports, and all but
2 of his ro7 warships. P.'s account is quite different. Here, too,
Carthalo puts into a river, unnamed; but as he hopes to prevent
a union between the two Roman squadrons (§ 2), this can hardly
be the Halycus, about 45 miles north-west of the scene of the
disaster. After Iunius has anchored off the dangerous coast (§ 3),
Carthalo gains a cape from which he can watch both squadrons
(§ 5) ; the storm breaks and Carthalo escapes as in Diodorus. The
discrepancy is clear; and since the Carthaginian standpoint in P.
prevents our assuming that he is giving Fabius' version, the likeli-
hood is that he has merely 'corrected' Philinus, Diodorus' source,
and that his version is a contamination with Fabian tradition. In
fact, he must have felt Philinus' account to be less probable on
comparing the two; and his refusal to identify the scene of the first
disaster with Phintias, and the river whither Carthalo retired as the
Halycus, is probably deliberate. We are not justified in rejecting P.'s
considered account in favour of an abridged version of Philinus
(certainly abridged: e.g. Diodorus has no reference to Iunius' putting
in at Syracuse, xxiv. r. 8). Thiel (Hist. 287 n. 734) defends Diodorus'
version from Philinus against P.'s on the assumption that the latter
gives an account contaminated with Fabius (which may well be
true) and that Fabius has concealed the Roman losses in the quae-
stars' squadron at Phintias; and he deduces all the other variants in
P.'s account from this 'original sin' of Fabius. Carthalo must have
tried to destroy some of the Roman ships; and 'it is absurd to
suppose he could not destroy them'. In fact, he did not-thanks to
II7
THE FIRST PUNIC WAR
the catapults (53· IJ n.). P. is therefore to be followed. Cf. Meltzer,
ii. 33I-2, 579; and for the topography, J. Schubring, Phil., I873,
504 ff., especially 526; Rh. Mus., I873, 137 f. Schubring thinks Iunius
took refuge in the harbour of Caucana, a little south-east of Cama-
rina, while Carthalo anchored off the promontory of Bucra (modern
Braccetto). Other sources for the shipwreck are Eutrop. ii. 26. 2;
Oros. iv. ro. 3; Zon. viii. 15; Iunius was said also to have disregarded
the auspices, and subsequently to have committed suicide: Cic. nat.
deor. ii. 7; de diu. ii. 7I; Val. Max. i. 4· 4; Minuc. Felix, 7. 4, 26. 2.
The date cannot be fixed with certainty; Meltzer (ii. 33o) makes it
July, like that of 255 in the same waters (37· I), but this is not
compelling, since storms are not limited to that month.
2. O'TJJLTJVavToov Twv aKo1Twv •.• TTJV &m4>6.veLa.v: this seems to exclude
the view that Carthalo was at the Halycus.
6. 1TEptaTaaEOOS ••• oAoaxepEaTepa.s! 'a peril of some magnitude';
contrast 32. 3 and 35· ro, where 1T£pfarar:ns = 'situation, Circum-
stances'. On this word see Strachan-Davidson, II.
phrase 1rpos Tds 1T£Aa.yEovs 1rlloLas Ell</>vw> KdJ-Lello> (§ 4), though usually
taken (since Schweighaeuser) as 'well placed to receive the breezes'
(and regarded as an example of P.'s belief that climate affects men's
characters; cf. Class. et med., r948, 178-8r), probably means 'lying
well-protected against the sharp sea-winds' ; and this applies far
more to Mte Castellacio than to Mte Pellegrino. Frank (CAll, vii.
6go) puts the choice between Mte Pellegrino and Mte Billiemi (a col
and slope 2 km. east of Mte Castellacio); but Kromayer's identifica-
tion seems in all respects the most satisfactory.
11. va.pa.aTpa.TovEOEuaciv1'wv ••• tv 'Laws vivTE aTa.8(o~<;: the Romans'
position cannot be located; nor is one to suppose that they main-
tained the same camp for three years.
57. The fighting romzd II eircte. The details of this protracted struggle
are compressed into this general characterization, whereas P.'s
sources no doubt emphasized details; some fragments of these are
preserved in Diod. xxiv. P. uses metaphors taken from athletes
elsewhere, perhaps ii. 65. rr, xvi. 28. 9 (runners in the stadium),
xxvii. g. 2 (boxing), xxxix. r. 8 (pancration or boxing); shorter
examples, xxix. 8. s. 8. g, 17. 4. xxxviii. 18. 8. They clearly reflect his
own interests, and it is unnecessary to assume Isocratean or Stoic
influence (so von Scala, 22; and, with reservations, Wunderer, iii. rr2).
2. T(;'w vuv AeyotJ-EvWv aTpa.ntywv: P. has mentioned only Hamilcar
and L. Iunius Pullus; but Iunius had probably left the scene before
Hamilcar arrived (55· Ion.). In fact Hamilcar's activity on Heircte
coincided with a succession of consuls in Sicily, L. Caecilius Metellus
and N. Fabius Buteo (247/6), M'. Otacilius Crassus and M. Fabius
Lidnus (246/5), M. Fabius Buteo and C. Atilius Bulbus (245/4). That
P.'s metaphor has led him into a careless expression is more likely
than a fault in the text (aTpaTwv, aTparWJ-LaTwv, and a-rparo1riDw11
have been suggested: but AEyoJ-Levwll is against such an emendation,
and the language of 57 is more appropriate to two individuals than
two armies; the comparison of the two sides begins in 58).
6. a.t ••• 8uvcitJ-ElS ••• E;JlcitJ-~).o~: Kromayer (AS, iii. I. ron. r) esti-
mates Hamilcar's force on Heircte at 15,ooo-zo,ooo men.
TU TE Ka.Ta TOU<; xd.pa.Ka.<.;: 'their camps' (not 'trenches'. Paton).
59. 1. Ofl-o{ws S€: 'similarly', i.e. to the cocks. The parallel is stressed
(cf. 58. 7 n.), and Paton is wrong in following Casaubon's emendation
Of-LW'i.
ET1'J crxeSov ~bYJ 'II'EVTE: from the shipwreck off Camarina in 249. to the
new decision (of winter 243/2) is in fact six complete years. P.'s error
is due to his identification of the period of land activity with Hamil-
car's command in Sicily, i.e. 247-243; and this identification is made
easier because P. imagines Iunius Pullus to be Claudius' successor,
and hence dates his shipwreck to 248 (52. 5 n.). P.'s view that the
Romans had envisaged finishing the war by land fighting is dismissed
by Thiel (Hist. 333 n. 85r) as nonsensical.
2. ou 'll'poxwpouv auTo'Ls Toupyov: the motive alleged is the same as
that which led to the change of policy before Drepana (39· 14; cf.
41. 2 n.).
4. er~avTEs Tois ~I( TTJS TUXYJS aufJ.'II'TWJJ.aaw: i.e. the shipwrecks off
Camarina (255) and C. Palinurus (253), 37· r-2, 39· 6-7.
~AaTTw9evTEs TU 1repi Ta Api'll'ava vaut:J.ax£~: in 249; 49· 7 f. But an
equal motive was the second shipwreck off Camarina the same year
(SS· r-2); its omission here helps P. to make a rhetorical distinction
between the blows of Fortune and the blows of the enemy.
6. ~v Se ••• To 1rAeiov o/uxot:J.ax(a: 'in this undertaking resolution
had to supply for the most part the want of material resources'
(Strachan-Davidson). ifivxof-Laxla means fighting by the aid of the
psyche, not to save it (as Paton, who translates 'a struggle for
existence'). The source for this characterization may well be Fabius;
but the concept appears elsewhere in P., e.g. ii. 30. 7 (on the Celts),
iii. 9· 7 (on Hamilcar): cf. Gelzer, Hermes, 1933, 141.
T~v n7.1v 1rpoeaTwTwv O.vSpwv ••• <JitAOTL(J-tav I<TA.: the account of this
loan (perhaps compulsory), and the implied praise of the 'leading
men' will also be from Fabius (doubts in Bung, 71). See De Sanctis,
123
I. 59· 6 THE FIRST PUKIC WAR
iii. I. :z:z8 (d. 184 n. 87, where he observes that P.'s account of this
'sacrifice' on the part of the senators is much exaggerated; 'in fact
the sacrifice of the Athenian trierarchs at the end of the Pelopon-
nesian \Var was proportionately much heavier'), and Thiel, Hist.
303, who points out that P.'s words do not exclude an interest-
bearing loan.
8. Suucoalwv 1TAOlwv: probably Fabius' figure. The annalistic tradi-
tion gave 300 (Eutrop. ii. 27. I; Oros. iv. ro. 5; auct. de uir. ill. 41);
also Diod. xxiv. II. I, adding 700 transports. Tam (]HS, 1907, s6)
estimates the total Roman fleet (including the ships surviving after
Drepana) at about 220; but the Romans probably did not include
the 20 survh'ing ships built on a heavier model than their new fleet
(Thiel, }fist. 93, 305 n. 786).
1Tpos TTjv ToG 'Polilou va.Ov: cf. 47. 1o n. This new fleet of lighter vessels
was necessarily committed to Punic tactics (d. Thiel, Hist. 304).
raLOV AuTaTLov: 'appointing c. Lutatius to the command', cf. 6o. 3,
II. 2 n., 39· 15 n. The consuls for A.U.c. 512 =- 242/I B.C. were C.
Lutatius C.f. C.n. Catulus and A. Postumius A.f. L.n. Albinus
(Munzer, RE, 'Lutatius (4)', cots. zo68-71; 'Postumius (3o)', col. 902).
The plebeian pontifex maximussecured the command for the plebeian
Lutatius by forbidding Postumius, as flamen Martialis, to leave Rome
(Livy, ep. 19, xxxvii. 51. r-2; VaL Max. i. r. 2; Tac. Ann. iii. 71;
Munzer, Adelsparteien, 261); the command was shared by Q. Valerius
Falto, the praetor urbanus (Val. Max. ii. 8. :z; Zon. viii. 17), who
celebrated a naval triumph pro praetore ex Sic::lia in 241/o (act. tr.).
9. 1TO.VTOS O.vo.I<£XWPTJKOTOS Ets TTjv ot~eEio.v ToG ••• vo.uTLKOu; the
reasons behind this policy can only be the object of speculation.
Frank (CAli, vii. 691-2) attributes it to the ascendancy of Hanno
and the anti-Barcan faction, De Sanctis (iii. 1. 185) to Hamilcar
himself, who 'had let himself become so engrossed in his guerilla
warfare around Eryx and Heircte that he lost sight of the primary
importance of controlling the seas'; against the latter view see
Thiel, 1list. 306.
62. 1. Ta.~s flEV opfla.L's Ka.l TaL's 4nAonf11a.~s KTA.: 'as far as resolution
of mind and will to conquer went, they were still ready to fight on'.
Paton's translation, 'had they let themselves be guided by passion
and ambition', introduces a critical note absent from a phrase which
echoes Philinus' defence of the Carthaginians' courage. Similarly
P. gives full credit to Hamilcar (§§ 3-5; d. 6o. 8, iii. 9· 7, and Diod.
xxiv. 5· r-2); whereas to the Roman annalistic tradition Sicily was
nimis celeri desperatione rerum concessam (Livy, xxi. r. 5); Reuss,
Phil., 1901, 147; DeSanctis, iii. 1. 229.
7. '1Tpo9uflws o.-;:~a.flivou Ta 'ITa.pa.Ka.AOlJj.L€Va.: according to Diod. xxiv.
13 Lutatius demanded the surrender of arms and deserters, according
to Nepos, Ham. r. 5, the laying down of arms; the source is probably
Philinus. But when Hamilcar refused, Lutatius seems not to have
pressed these demands, perhaps because he wished to anticipate his
successor's arrival in concluding terms (Zon. viii. 17; the demand,
here mentioned, that Hamilcar and his forces should pass under the
yoke, is improbable).
TOLO{IT(oJV nvwv uuv9YJKWV: F.'s source for the text of this preliminary
draft treaty is unknown. The words TowvTwv nvwv are no indication of
a literary source (so Thommen, Hermes, 1885, 203: d., however, iii. 22.
4, 24. 3, where the source is documentary) ; but the general absence of
hiatus (Hultsch, Phil., 1859, 288-319) indicates that P. is not repro-
ducing any document uerbatim (see Schulte, 19 f.). Probably the
account goes back ultimately to a document, but through Fabius;
though in view of the probable origin of F.'s account of the Punic
treaties in iii. 22 ff., direct access to a documentary source is possible
(De Sanctis, iii. I. 229). N aevius, fg. 49 and so Mor. are concerned
with this treaty (d. Cichorius, so-52; Taubler, Hermes, 1922, 156 ff.;
E. Fraenkel, RE, 'Naevius', Suppl.-B. vi, col. 639) but do not
necessarily derive from the same source as P. See further iii. 27.
1-6 nn. for the emended treaty. Meltzer, De pace a.u.c. SIJ inter
I:Z6
THE FIRST PUXIC WAR L 63.4
Romanos Poenosque constituta (Festschr. des \Vettiner Gymnasiums
zu Dresden, r884); Ttiubler, r88 ff.; Vorgesch. 108 ff.
8. M.v Kal T~ OTJIJ-<tl TWV 'Pwj.Lalwv <TuvSoKij: cf. Zon. viii. 17. On this
clause see iii. 29. 3· The people had the right to ratify all treaties,
vi. 14. u-rz; but that the comitia demanded a revision of the terms
(63. r) is proof that the Senate had not yet achieved its later prepon-
derance in the constitution (Frank, CAH, vii. 696).
1-LTJ TroA~:j.L~:'Lv 'IEpwv~ KTA.: the formula recognized Hiero's hegemony
over his allies; Stauffenberg, 85. The same prohibition must have
been extended a fortiori to the other Roman socii.
9. xwpls A6Tpwv UTrGVTGS TOO<;; alxj.LaAwTOUS: d. Zon. viii. 17. There
was apparently a restoration of Punic prisoners too, 83. 8 n.; Eutrop.
ii. 27. 4·
tv h~:<TLV eiKOO'~ OL<TXLALa Ka.t OlO.KOO'~(I. TUAC1VTO. Eu~o'it<6.: the hiatus is
exceptionaL Other figures (App.Sic. 2. 2, 2,ooo talents; Oros. iv.u. 2,
3,ooo talents) may be neglected. In xxi. 42. 19 (d. xxi. q. 4; Uvy,
xxxviii. 38. r3) a Euboic-Attic talent is equated with 8o Roman
librae; and as the libra weighs 327'45 grammes, the talent will be
zs·8 kg. of silver. On a gold : silver basis of rst : I, this comes to just
over £2Jo; and Catulus' proposed indemnity is rather over £soo,ooo.
Such calculations, however, take no account of relative purchasing
power.
64. 1. olJ-r' O.v 1TA1]pldaa.a ••• ou-r' avt:mAEuaa.a ..• 0UV1]9E~ev: the
promised discussion has not survived among our fragments of book
vi, but the difficulty appears to be in assembling the crews rather
than in building the ships. The passage is of interest as an indication
that at the very outset of his history P. was awake to signs of
deterioration at Rome after her acquisition of world dominion, i.e.
after 167 (KtrKpa.T7JICO'T€S 'TWV oAwv).
3-4. Twv 1TEpl a.1hfjc; uuyyEypo.cjll)-rwv: who these authors were,
whether Greeks or Romans, is not known. For the utilitarian
criterion applied to their work (uMws- dvw¢f.Mj) see 1. In.
6. Tous ye JlTJV O.vSpa.s: 'individual soldiers'. P. here puts his finger
on an essential factor in the Homan victory, the quality of the
citizen troops compared with the mercenaries of Carthage.
~lltAKa.v ••. Tov BapKa.v (mKa.AoullEvov KTA.: the full description both
identifies Hamilcar and prepares the ground for the later discussion
of the causes of the Second Punic War; cf. iii. 9· 6, where the
description recurs in that context. The phrase KaTa ¢va'" is used by
P. (I) in contrast to Ka.Ta (Um.v, 'natural' as opposed to 'adoptive'
(e.g. iv. 2. s, cf. iv. 25. 6 (Philip V of .l\facedon, natural son of
Demetrius II, but adopted son of Doson), xviii. 35· 9, xxxi. 25. Io,
26. I {Scipio and Fabius the natural sons of L. Aemilius Paullus));
(z) to express genuine relationship where it is called in question, i.e.
'natural' as opposed to 'supposititious' {without reference to legiti-
macy) (e.g. xxx. 2. 6, Eumenes' successor his son K!ua ¢Jaw, though
not as yet recognized as such (dva.oeoe,yptf"o>)). But in the case of
Hannibal and Hamilcar P. frequently uses the phrase {iii. 9· 6, 12. 3,
cf. xi. 2. 2, Hasdrubal is Hannibal's brother Ka'Ta ¢6a~v), though there
was never any question of adoption or doubt concerning Hannibal's
direct descent from Hamilcar. Hence the meaning (as in xxxi. 13. 3)
seems to be no more than 'own'.
but elsewhere (e.g. § 6; xi. 25. ro, 28. 3; SyU. 421, l. 38) it is the
equivalent of &,Pwvtol', 'pay'; and in v. so. r f. it is uncertain whether
it means pay, ration-allowance (cf. 52. s), or both. There was no
technical expression for the whole of a soldier's allowance (wages+
rations) ; hence the use of the part for the whole. Griffith, 2j4--6;
Launey, ii. 725 ff.
4. ixottEvo~ Tc.uTTJ'i Tfj~ ivvo(c.s: the validity of this motivation,
presumably from P.'s source, can no longer be tested. Meltzer (ii.
370 ff.) argues that Gisgo had no choice but to convey 2o,ooo men in
detachments (so, too, De Sanctis, iii. 1. 383 n. 4); and this seems
likely, despite the argument of Veith (AS, iii. 2. 527 n. r) that the
provision of sufficient transports would have constituted no diffi-
culty for Carthage.
6. I(KKc.v: Sicca Veneria, a Roman colony under Octavian, lay a
little over roo miles (the itineraries made it r22 miles) south-west of
Carthage, on the site of the modern El Kef, at the terminus of the
road from Tunis through Medjez el Bab. El Kef is still known
locally as 'Shikka-Benar'; Dessau, RE, 'Sicca Veneria', col. 2187.
Here Carthaginian matrons prostituted themselves in the temple of
Venus (Val. Max. ii. 6. rs, who attributes the custom to Cirta);
no doubt a licentious atmosphere prevailed.
xpuaouv: sc. O'Ta.-n]pa. This payment was evidently as ration-money.
The gold stater normally weighed the same as the silver didrachm,
and the Carthaginians used a Phoenician standard independent of
those current in Greece. Head (877-8o) gives examples of Punic coins
of this period, on the standard of a drachma of 59 gr.
7. Ta<; t:ivoaKeuO.s: cf. § 9; 68. 3· Literally 'baggage', the word be-
comes a technical term in the Hellenistic age, and covers a soldier's
private possessions, including persons, e.g. wife, mistress, servants.
Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 15-26, especially 19 ( = REG, rg26, 355--66).
ll. TTJ'i eaoll~""l'> .•• ivc.vop9waew~: 'the gain that was due to them';
cf. v. 88. 3, xxvii. 7· 12, xxx. r6. 2, for this sense of brav6p8wats, which
is missed by Paton and omitted by LSJ.
67. 1. :&.vvwva: called 'the Great' by App. Hisp. 4 and Zon. viii. 22;
leader of the anti-Bardne faction. He survived the Second Punic
War. Lenschau, RE, 'Hanna (r4)', cols. 2355-7·
To j30.pos TWv +opwv: i.e. the tribute due to Rome (cf. Gsell, iii. roz;
Schweighaeuser, grauitatem. tributorum caussatus: Paton and Shuck-
burgh both translate incorrectly 'taxes'). In xviii. 44· 7 (s.c. dealing
with Macedonian tribute after Cynoscephalae) Ka'Ta cfo6povs means
'by instalments', and the plural here may carry a similar meaning.
6. li.1To9"lpLoua9a,: 'be rendered savage'. A favourite word; cf. 70. r,
79· 8, 8r. 5, 8r. 9, iii. 6o. 6, vi. 9· 9, xv. 22. 5·
11'apaaTC.TLKTJV .•. 8u~9eaw: 'a desperate state of mind'.
I. 67. 7 THE CARTHAGINIAN MERCENARY WAR
7. f.u;€A.A.f)VES: Tarn (Bactria, 38) discusses the word (he finds only
three other examples: Plut. Crass. 31. r; Hellanicus, FGIJ, 4 F
7I a; Syll. 495, 1. 114): it implies a type of half-breed no longer felt
to be Greek, and so despised. Cf. Gsell, ii. 389. The linguistic con-
fusion was an important factor (cf. So. 5). But the sending of Hanno,
who had been responsible for the heavy taxation in Libya and the
suppression of the recent revolt and capture of Hecatompylus (72.
r-3, 73· r), was even more decisive in causing disaffection; for Hanno
was known as Hamilcar's opponent (d. 55· 2 n.). Veith, AS, iii. 2. 528.
A£(3ut:s: cf. Diad. xxv. 2 (who adds (/>olvtK<S, i.e. Libyphoenicians, by
error). Here the Libyans appear, not as subject-allies, but as mer-
cenaries. The reference to increased taxation (72. r ff.) perhaps sup-
ports Griffith's suggestion (219-20) that before or during the First
Punic War the Carthaginians had substituted a cash tribute for
compulsory service among their Libyan subjects, thus leaving the
Libyans free to enlist as mercenaries.
13. hrt T<e ••• TuVfJTL: cf. 30. 15, xiv. ro. 5· The mercenaries were
encamped near the town (cf. 73· 3), at a point identified by Veith
(AS, iii. 2. 530) v:ith Belvedere Park, north of the city. The number
of mercenaries is also given by Nepos, Ham. z. z.
70. 3. Twv AL~vwv ooo€1rw KEKOJlLCYJlfvwv ,.Q.s uLTa.pxla.s: the fact that
the o!/JWVLOV had been paid (6g. 3) SUggestS that atTapxJa~ are here the
'ration-allowance' : so Griffith, 289; and cf. 66. 3 n. On the other hand
it is possible that there is some ground for Spendius' allegation that
135
I. 70. 3 THE CARTHAGINIAN MERCENARY WAR
the Carthaginians were trying to drive a wedge between the Libyans
and the rest, and that the Libyans had not yet received their pay.
This would imply a degree of Carthaginian treachery which F.'s
source has obscured.
M6.9w ToY ITrpUTT}yov: ironical. There is no basis for Meltzer's view
(ii. 374) that Gisgo's answer was meant to be conciliatory. See De
Sanctis, iii. I. 385.
6. 1rnpO. TO. KOLVU Twv 6.v8p6nrwv (9'1: such €67] included respect for
heralds (ii. 8. 12), and those who surrendered in battle (xxxviii. 8. 2).
From similar references it is possible to reconstruct F.'s conception
of international law and a natural ius gentium; see von Scala, 299-324.
What oaths the mercenaries swore is left vague.
7. il ... AL~UI<:os ~mKA118Ets -rroAEJ-LOS: P. prefers the form At{:lvKO>
1Tollt:JJ-o>, IJ. J, 88. 5, ii. r. 3, iii. 27. 7; cf. Diod. xxvi. 23; App. Hisp. 4·
Livy uses the phrase Africum bellum, xxi. I. 4, 2, r, 4I. 12.
9. Tftv 'ITuKT}V ••• Tous 'I'II''II'UKpha.s; Utica lay on the (then) coast,
c. zo miles north-west of Carthage, on the outer spurs of a hill
running south-west to north-east, the modern Djebel Menzel Roul
(or Ghoul); it was subject to Carthage, but enjoyed special privileges
(Meltzer, ii. 75 ff.). The Hippacritae are the inhabitants of Hippo
Diarrhytus (modern Bizerta), which was earlier known as Hippou
Acra (Diod. XX. 55· 3; Ps.-Scylax (GGM, i. 89). III gives both e lmrov
aKpa and" l1T1TOU (' 11T1TciJV Muller) 1TOIIt>); cf. Step h. Byz. "11T1TOU aKpa,
1r6Ats At{.M7]s· J trot..lT7]S 'lmraKp{T7]>· P.'s circumlocutions (cf. 82. 8,
88. 2) suggest some embarrassment about the name of the town.
The name Hippo Diarrhytus is not attested before the Roman
period. From 77· I it appears that Spendius besieged Utica, and
Mathos Hippou Acra.
71. 1. Tous ••• KUT' tSiuv ~£ous ••• 8uga.yny6vns: 'support life
individually' (cf. iii. 4· 6, vi. 48. 3, 48. 7); hardly, with Paton, 'depend
for their private supplies'. For y~:vJn)JJ-aTa, 'harvests', see the interest-
ing note in Welles, 323, s.v. yiv7]JJ-a.
6. va.uTLKfJ Sova.1.uc;: 'a naval force, sailors', cf. 41. z.
ou 1rAo£wv Ka.TUc::rKeu-rl: in 21. 1, 22. 3 (and elsewhere) ~ TwJJ 1rAolwv
KaTaaKt:v~ is 'the construction of ships'. Here Schweighaeuser argues
that, as in ii. 23. IO (where MSS. vary between trapa<:rKE:tnJv and
KaTaaKw~v), KaTaaKw~ means 'supply', and he translates 'they had
no supply of ships'. This seems preferable to Paton, 'nor the material
left to construct (a fleet)'.
o6Se xopT}yLWv 8L6.8£c::rLs: 'no arrangement for supplies' (Strachan-
Davidson). This seems satisfactory; Paton translates 'no means of
providing supplies', and Shuckburgh 'no store of provisions ready'.
75. 1. :AtJ.tXKa.v ••• Bap~<a.v: cf. 66. r. Hamilcar had been out of
favour since the end of the war with Rome, perhaps because of his
concessions to the Roman commission, and his repeated promises to
the mercenaries (66. I2, 67. 12; App. Hisp. 4. cf. Sic. 3, Lib. 5), but
more likely on political grounds; for he persisted in an intransigent
attitude towards Rome, and rejected Hanno's policy of extending
Punic influence in Libya. It is possible that the story of his being
brought to trial after the Libyan War {App. Hisp. 4) really falls in
this interim period. See DeSanctis, iii. I. 387-8 n. I6.
2. ets JlUptous: largely composed of cavalry. This is the only figure
given for a Punic force in this war.
4. Twv yewMcpwv Twv £r.tteuyvuvTwv tcTX.: 'the chain of hills joining
up ... ' ; cf. iii. 49· 7. where lm~eryvvp..t is used of hills forming the
base of a triangle of which the two arms are {probably) the Rhone and
the Isere, and of the sea forming the base of the Nile Delta between
the two outer mouths. Meltzer (ii. 158) identifies these hills with the
Djebel Ahmor, a range lying well to the west in the direction of the
R. Medjerda (Bagradas), and rising to r ,coo ft. But more probably P.
is referring to the Djebel Naheli, to the east of the Djebel Ahmor,
for it is this range (rising to 6ooft.) that blocks the roads to the lower
river and the ford; Veith, AS, iii. 2. 533 ff., and map r2 c, g. On the
mlx~v d. 7.J. 4-.5 n.
Tous r.ept TOY MCi.Ow: Mathos is mentioned as the main leader (d.
73· 3); but as he later appears at Hippou Acra (77- r), it is likely that
Spendius was in charge of operations between Carthage and Utica.
Meltzer, ii. 590.
5. Tou '11'pocra.yoptuoll£voo Ma.Kcpa. r.oTa.Jlov: cf. 86. 9, xv. 2. 8; better
known as the Bagradas (modern Wadi Medjerda), of which this is
a by-form. Silting and land accretion have forced the river mouth
farther and farther north, so that today only an artificial channel to
THE CARTHAGINIAN }'!ERCENARY WAR I. 75Jl
the east prevents it debouching in (and silting up) the shallow har-
bour of Porto Farina. In the third century B.C. it skirted the north
flank of the Djebel Ahmor and Djebel Naheli, to enter the Gulf of
Tunis in an east-north-east direction at a point just north of the
modem salt lake, Sebka er Riana (then open sea). The mouth was
thus about u miles south of its present position. Gsell, ii. 143-4.
1nos ••. y~cj>upo.s: its situation is controversiaL If the road from
Carthage to Utica ran over the Djebel Naheli and through La
Sebbala (which lies in the north entrance to the gap between the
Djebel Naheli and Djebel Ahmor}, it must have crossed the Bagradas
about a mile north-west of La Sebbala, and about 5 miles from its
mouth. The modern Tunis-Bizerta road follows the same route
(though of course it crosses the river much farther north, owing to
the shift in the river's course). However, this assumption raises
difficulties (cf. Gsell, iii. III n. 2). Presumably Hamilcar started up-
stream immediately after crossing the river (§ ro); but before he
reached the mercenaries' bridge-head he was met not only by troops
from there, but also by those who had come 12 miles from Hippou
Acra, after hearing of the crossing from a messenger who had himself
covered those 12 miles. Yet Veith's position for the bridge-head (as
described above; cf. AS, iii. 2, map u, c, g) is only two hours' march
upstream. Hence Gsell locates the bridge-head farther south, near
Henchir Bou Djaoua, west of Djebel Ahmor, and about 12 miles
from the river mouth. The battle he places north of Sidi Tabet,
about 4-5 miles due west of La Sebbala. This hypothesis implies
that the bridge lay, not on the Utica road, but on one leading south-
west to the xwpa or the upper waters of the Bagradas towards Sicca
Veneria, and hence that the important Utica road crossed the river
north of La Sebbala by a ford or ferry-which is hard to believe. A
possible explanation is that P.'s pro-Barcine source has exaggerated
the surprise element in Hamilcar's crossing, and that the insurgents
from both Utica and the bridge-head were in motion long before
it was completed; but the nearer troops (whose numbers P. exag-
gerates, 76. r n.) may have hesitated to act alone against a superior
force. On this hypothesis Veith's topography can be reconciled with
the course of the battle.
11'0AlV rn' O.UTfji ~K080j.l"lKbTCI.S: cf. Gsell, iii. IIO, 'les cantonnements
constituaient une sorte de ville'. According to 76. r this camp acted
as headquarters for an army of about ro,ooo. For P.'s use of the word
1TOA£s for something much smaller than a city see Poseidonius'
criticism in xxv. r (Strabo, iii. 163) ; cf. 72. 2 for the m)A,.,,s of Libya.
8. Ka.TO. TLVa.<; aVEj.lWV OTQaU~: cf. 48. 2 n. Probably the east ·winds;
Gsell, iii. uo, on the authority of Bernard, Bull. de geog. historique,
I9II 1 213.
9. To'Ls lv Tfi 1roA~l tent Tots U11'Eva.vT{oLS: which city? Schweighaeuser
r ..p
l.tS-9 THE CARTHAGINIAN MERCENARY WAR
and Paton leave this undetermined, but Shuckburgh translates with
some probability: 'to the surprise of the citizens of Utica as well as
of the enemy'. That the news reached Utica quickly is clear from the
arrival of forces from there (76. 1).
left, to meet the two insurgent forces. All these theories go beyond
what P. records. The feigned retreat seems certain. It was a difficult
manceuvre, which Hannibal later used to great effect in conjunction
with such outflanking as De Sanctis postulates for this battle. In
fact the last stages of the battle of the Bagradas may have contained
the germs of the tactics Hamilcar's son later perfected; but the text
does not enable such a hypothesis to be proved.
2. U1Tou8fi 1TUpTJyyuwv &f1a 1TapaKaAouVTES a~as aihous! 'they
eagerly passed on the watchword for battle, at the same time ex-
horting each other.' 1rapt:yyvav is 'to pass the word along the line';
d. vii. IS. 4·
9. ot 8' €1rl. TTJV 1rpos 'lniKn 1Tapef1{3oAt]v: this suggests that Spendius
(who subsequently took the greater part of his army from the camp at
Tunis, not at Utica, 77· 4) did not abandon the siege of Utica; and
the defection of the town (82. 8) points to continued pressure. Hence
the statement (75· 3) that by the present action Hamilcar :D\vat: T~v
Tfj> 'Inlwq> 1TOALopKlav seems to be part of the pro-Barcine exaggera-
tions of P.'s source.
11. TTJS ••• 8uaeAmaT(as: d. 71. 2.
79. 1. KaTa . . . Tous auTous Kalpous: that the revolt of the Sar-
dinian mercenaries occurred at the time of the second battle between
Hamilcar and Spendius is confirmed by the story of the letter (§ 8).
2. Tiw ••• ~o~8apxov Bwcnapov: a Punic captain of foreign auxiliaries
(72. 3 n.); on which acropolis he was shut is not clear.
3. 'Avvwva: it is improbable that he is the Hanna who secured a
victory in Sardinia in 258 (Zon. viii. 12) and had fought earlier in
Sicily {18. 8), as De Sanctis (iii. 1. 397) suggests. That Hanno is
unlikely to have long survived Ecnomus, 6o. 3 n.
5. ~~E1TEaov ••. ElS TTJV 'ITaXiav: see 83. 11, 88. 8. The date of this
expulsion, and of the appeal to Rome, is not certain, for in 83. 11 it
is mentioned in a digression. It seems not unlikely, however, that the
appeal to Rome was in 239, after Hamilcar had destroyed Spendius
(85. 5 ff.) and the mercenary cause was declining in Africa; De
Sanctis, iii. 1. 398.
6. TTI 1ToAuav9pw1TL~ ••• Sla+.Epouaa: an exaggeration (cf. Beloch,
Bevolkerung, 445), perhaps copied from Timaeus, the main source
for the early history of the island (J. Geffcken, Timaios' Geographie
des Westens (Berlin, I892), 52 ff.); cf. Paus. x. 17. I, p.iydJos .•• Ka~
EfJOmp.ovW.v • .. op.of.a Tats p.cf)..,ara d1Tatvovp.lvats (from Timaeus). The
other \\•ri.ters to whom P. refers cannot be identified, unless one is
Myrsilus of Methymna (cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 85), whom Sallust
probably used for details in book ii of his Histories; Philipp, RE,
'Sardinia', cols. 2481-2.
8. M0.9ws: not evidence that the insurgents had abandoned the siege
of Hippou Acra (so Meltzer, ii. 381). The site of the meeting is not
known (though it was not in the camp near Tunis, 79· 14) ; but
Mathos may well have come over to it from Hippou Acra, if indeed
he was present. Veith (AS, iii. 2. 543 n. I} thinks that he was not
(the plural Elm}yayov in § 9 could include Spendius and Autaritus) ;
and he certainly did not speak at the meeting.
9. tils a1TEaTaX.Uvov tJ1To Twv ••• atpEncnwv: P. alleges that he was
a fake; cf. § 14· The arrest of Gisgo and those with him is related
Ill 70. 4·
14. 1rapa1rA,ala • . . Staaa+wv: 'bearing a dispatch containing
similar warnings' (Shuckburgh). For Otaaa4>dv 'to give instructions'
(especially by letter) cf. § IO, iv. 26. 3·
81. 5-11. Reflections o·n the brutality of the mercenaries. The soul can
have diseases comparable to ulcers and tumours (Twv •.• Du<:iiw ~<a~
<fovp.&trwv) in the body. Such diseases are caused partly by a bad up-
bringing, and partly through giving ear to violent and greedy
leaders. For the metaphor cf. xi. 25. 2, fg. 41; the comparison of ills
in the community to diseases of the body goes back through the
Stoics, especially Chrysippus, and through Plato, to Solon: TofiT' ~STJ
7raafi 7TO/.<;t epx~:Ta£ (,\Kos il.<fovKTOV (J. 17 Diehl) ; Wunderer, iii. 108.
The word (1ho)8rJp•ofi(]8a, has the meaning 'to become malignant':
cf. Theoph. Char. 19. 3, €AKrJ ••• iiiaa• 8rJptw8fjvat; and P. here uses it
in reproducing the Academic analogy between sickness of the body
and soul. In his Il€p~ 1riv8ovs the Academic philosopher Crantor had
attacked the Stoic idea of arr&O~:ta, arguing that if we must be sick,
it was better to retain our feeling, even if we were losing a limb;
freedom from pain could be bought only at a great cost: Tc:8rJp•wa9at
yap <tKOS €KH~ fLEll <lWp.a T0£0VT01-' el-'TUV
, • , • • - A • -ea QE
"' 't'VX!JV
·'· ' (PlUt . M Or. 102 C;
cf. Cic. T·usc. iii. 6. u). (The malignant tumour itself, 'quod fJr/Plwp.a
Graeci uocant', had no feeling; 'prurigine tantum mouetur: at circa
dolor est et inflammatio'; Celsus, de med. v. 28. 3.) In adopting this
Academic analogy P. does not of course commit himself to its philo-
sophical implications (and in xii. 26 c he attacks the Academic
paradoxes).
7. W!7TE 1-'-TJSEv ai1Ej3EtrTEpov ••• TWV ~~wv: in vi. 9· 9· this degeneration
is treated as the last stage of political decline.
9. aov K~Act> Tdl€1-1-EVOt TTJV TOtG.UTTjV TOA!-'-~V: 'imagining that such
recklessness is to their credit'.
10. Tpoq,T)v EK 1T~(8wv K~Kt}v: on the importance of education for the
civilizing of manners cf. iv. 20-21 (on music and the men of Cynaetha).
In vi. I I a 7 Tarquin was successful p.a).wTa Sta T~v iK 1ra£8wv dywyr/JJ;
and in xxiv. 7· I Chaeron of Sparta is criticized as 8r]p.on;c:fjs aywyfj~
T€Twxws. Prusias' faults are due to a lack of 7Tat8c:la~ Kal <fotl.oaofj>{as
(xxxvi. 15. 5). Finally, education at Rome was the thing 'in qua una
Polybius, noster hospes, nostrorum institutorum neglegcntiam ac-
cusat' (Cic. de re pub. iv. 3; cf. P. Friedlander, A]P, 1945, 345 ff.).
82. 1. Tov 1-1-ev 1a.vvwv~ 1Tpos ~a.uTov EKaAH: this union of the two
armies was a vital step in the campaign; De Sanctis, iii. 1. 390 n. 21.
6. EK Twv ••• 'EJ41Top(wv: Emporia was the district around SyTtis
Minor, the modern Gulf of Qabes; cf. iii. z:;. 2, xxxL 21. I; Livy, xxix.
25. 12, on the fertility of this area, the granary of Carthage (Pliny,
Nat. hist. v. 24, xvii. 41, xviii. 94). Gsell, ii. 127-8.
L
I. 82. 7 THE CARTHAGINIAN MERCENARY WAR
7. Ta S€ Ka.Ta T'i-Jv Ia.pSova.: 79· I-7· The loss is mentioned here again
partly to reinforce the story of the sudden 7Ta>.lppota Twv 7TpayfLaTwv
(§ 3), and partly because it made the loss of supplies from Emporia
doubly disastrous.
8. Tous Ka.T' >\ya.9oK}..Ea. Ka.Lpoos: Diod. xx. 54-55 describes the long
resistance of Utica; but both towns fell to Agathocles in 307/6,
whereas others held out (DeSanctis, iii. 1. 44 n. 12o).
TTJV 'Pw...,a.twv E~oSov: there is no suggestion elsewhere that Regulus'
expedition threatened Utica or Hippou Acra.
10. TOUS ••• 1TO.pa.~E~OTJ9TJKOTO.S ••• a1TOKTE~VO.VTES: Veith (AS, iii. 2.
543) places this massacre at Utica: but P. leaves the matter open.
12. >\vv(~a.v: perhaps the friend of Adherbal, who ran the Roman
blockade at Lilybaeum in 250/49 (44· I ff.): but the identification is
quite uncertain.
85. 7. TOV npLova. KaAOOJlEVOv: cf. App. Jllyr. 25, lllyrian peaks JeErs
ota 7rplovEs; and the Spanish 'Sierra'. This 'Saw' is no longer identifi-
able. Veith (AS, iii. 2. 545--54) locates the surrounding and massacre
of the mercenaries in a valley north of the Djebel el Jedidi, c. 10 miles
due west of Hammamet, on the road to Zaghouan. But as Harnilcar
was concerned to cut off food and reinforcements from the insurgents
at Tunis, it is not clear what either he or Spendius could have been
doing so near the Gulf of Hammamet (De Sanctis, iii. 1. 392 n. 27).
The narrative here suggests a version very favourable to Hamilcar.
The mercenary leaders who ventured into his camp and agreed
to the surrender of 'any ten he might choose' must have known the
implications of their action. The subsequent massacre of the army
for whom they had given their lives looks very much like Punica fides.
86. 1. TT)v xwpav E1TtlEL KO.L Tci.S 'll'OAELS: 'he proceeded against the
countryside and the towns' (i.e. of Libya, 72. 2). For this sense of
bruwa' cf. iv. 83. 5·
I. 86. 3 THE CARTHAGINIAN MERCENARY WAR
87. 3. -rpul.tcov-ra -rij~ y£pouuia~: cf. 2r. 6 n. Perhaps the smaller body
is here indicated, and all its members visited Hamilcar (Meltzer,
ii. 40). Clearly this move represents a growth in the power of Hanno's
faction (for his previous dismissal, cf. 82. r2), probably since the set-
back before Tunis, for which Hamilcar must have been held respon-
sible: Meltzer, ii. 386; Veith, AS, iii. 2. 556-7; De Sanctis, iii. r. 394·
The metaphor of olov €axa-r'r)v -rp€xovus -rav-r'rJ" (from the games)
occurs also at xviii. 49· r.
7. '11'£pi ••• -rt,v AE'II'TLV: Leptis (or Lepcis) minor, the Phoenician town
c. 20 miles south-east of Sousse, where Hannibal landed in 203 (Livy,
xxx. 25. 12). The war of movement had recommenced, and evidently
Mathos had abandoned Tunis.
8. EKKU~£U£LV U'II'Ep TWV oXwv: for this common metaphor cf. ii. 63.
2 n., iii. 94· 4·
9-10. The last battle. Neither the site nor the numbers involved are
known. Veit.h (AS, iii. 2. 565ft.) gives the Carthaginians 4o,ooo, the
insurgents 3o,ooo; see his table, p. 57r.
3. l. Ka.86.1rep ~Bos icnlv AiTwXoi:s: cf. iv. 67. 1 for the taking of office
immediately on election.
1rpos rqv MeSua~v£a.v: though Medion is not a coastal town (xviii.
40. 5; Livy, xxxvi. n. 10), its territory may well have reached the
Ambracian Gulf between that of Thyrrheum and the valley of
Limnaea. The 'part nearest to the city' is probably the bay of
Loutraki, about 7 miles from the town.
3. 2. Ka.Ta a1Te(pa.s: i.e. in small companies (d. ii. 66. 5, iii. rg. 5),
probably kinship groups, like those envisaged in Homer, Iliad, ii.
362-3, where Agamemnon is advised
Kpiv' avllpa> Ka"Ta <fovAa, Ka.nl. <fop~7pa.>, JJ.ycff-LEf-LVOV,
w> <fop~TP'f <fop~TP'f<fo'v ap~y!). <fovAa. S€ <fov.\.o,,.
Likewise among the German tribes 'non casus nee fortuita conglo-
batio turmam aut cuneum facit, sed familiae et propinquitates' (Tac.
Germ. 7· 3). In recent times the Albanians, descendants of Agron's
Illyrians, fought in tribes and 'bairaq'( smaller kinship groups), and
the Montenegrin Slavs in 'bratstva' (brotherhoods).
5. T~ 1rXT)8el KO.t T~ ~dopEL TTJS O'UVTdo~EWS: the Illyrian armour was
heavy; cf. 66. 5, where Illyrian troops alternate with bronze-shielded
Macedonians; 68. 5, g, for the weight of their arms and formation
(uVvTa{L,;).
6. 1. 1rpos Tous AtTwAou; tCat To Twv J\xa«7lv ~vos: Epirus had per-
haps established relations with the two confederations (which were
still allied against Demetrius II of Macedon) shortly after the fall
of the royal house (cf. 2. 5 n.), but there is no evidence for a treaty
before now (so Beloch, iv. 1. 635). The expedition now sent to relieve
Epirus will be dated summer 230.
2. 'EM~<pavov: this otherwise unknown spot is located by Philippson
(Thessalien und Epirus, fig. 4) north-west of Delvino and south-east
of Gjinokastra, between the hamlets of Vrysi and PavliavH; but
this is very uncertain. The presence of Scerdilaidas shows that the
Epirote force had come too late to hold Antigoneia and the pass into
Atintania.
4. To.:,s Aap8a.v£is: an Illyrian people, whose western frontier was
the point where the Drilo (Drin) became navigable (Strabo, vii. 316),
and whose main territory lay on the upper Axios (Vardar), and
north as far as NiS. See Patsch, RE, 'Dardani', cols. 2155-7;
S.B. Wien, 214. I, 1932, 10 ff. Strabo (loc. cit.) says that they are
so wild that they live in holes in the ground under dung-heaps, but
are devoted to music of all kinds. On their constant raids on Macedon
see Walbank, Philip. 27o-1. At xxviii. 8. 2 they are called Llap8av£ot,
and other forms are found.
8. ESYJv8po1ToSU7!lE"TJ": not 'enslaved' (cf. § 6), but 'plundered,
devastated', as in xxxii. 5· II, nvv T£()v£wTwv ~g1)vOpa1Too{craTo Tous:
f3lovs:. P. exaggerates the importance of Phoenice at this time.
157
II. 6.9 THE FIRST ILLYRIAN WAR
9. aUj.Lj.LO.XlO.V ••• t-Ln' )\Ka.pvcivwv 1rpos Tous 'IXXupious: on the
Acarnano-Illyrian alignment see 2. 5 ff. The date of this Epirote
treaty, which will have pleased Demetrius II of Macedon, was sum-
mer or autumn 230. As its price the Epirotes seem to have ceded
Atintania to Teuta (from whom the Romans took it the next year, II.
n; cf. vii. 9· IJ); Holleaux, Rome, non. I; Beloch, iv. 2. 384; Busolt-
Swoboda, ii. I476 n. 4· Ambracia and Amphilochia may now have
broken away from Epirus and joined Aetolia; cf. iv. 61. 6; Beloch,
ibid.; Flaceliere, 252. P.'s didactic digression (6. 9-7. I2) is clearly
prompted by his irritation, as an Achaean, at the desertion from the
Achaeans (the Aetolians matter less) to the Illyrian side.
10. 1. 1T€pl TOUS Ka.Aoup.Evous na.€ous: there are two islands, Paxos
and Antipaxos, lying 5 miles south of Corcyra, opposite the Acheron
mouth; cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. iv. 52. See Johanna Schmidt, RE,
'Paxoi', cols. 2437~8; Hammond, ]HS, 1945, 27 and map (Pl. I).
3. t~ru~a.vTES To us • • • AEJ.I~ous O.vO. Tena.pa.s: lashed together in
fours, the light lembi (i. zo. 13 n.) gained in bulk and stability, and
once the enemy's beak was embedded in the side of one of the outer
ships, boarding became possible. The manreuvre is significant for the
general change over to boarding tactics about this time, and points
to considerable naval adaptability on the part of the Illyrians. Tarn
(HMND, 145) observes that in the First Punic War 'the Roman
sword beat the Carthaginian ram'; the Illyrian victory at Paxos
underlined the same lesson.
5. trAoiwv •.• TETp'l")plKwv: on these ships see i. 20. 9 n.; so too for
the quinquereme.
MO.pyos o Ka.puvEos: on his earlier career see 41. 14 (assassination of
the tyrant of Bura, 27 5/4), 43· 2 (first holder of the single generalship,
255/4). Later overshadowed by Aratus, he is only mentioned again
here, dying a hero's death at an advanced age. As commander of the
160
THE FIRST ILL YRIAN WAR II. I I. 5
12. 1-1. q,oAouLos rls T~v •pWfLTJV ciw.E1rAeuae: because Fulvius cele-
brated a naval triumph pro cos. ex Illurieis on zr June 228, De
Sanctis (iii. r. 297 n. 89) suggested that P. has confused the two
consuls, and that it was Postumius who returned to Rome in 229.
But Holleaux, who was first inclined to reject the reference in the
act. tr. (Rome, 102 n. 6), and later accepted De Sanctis's thesis
(CAH, vii. 835 n. z), has shown (Etudes, iv. x. 22 ff. REG, I9JO,
258 ff.) that postponed triumphs are relatively common, and may
spring from a variety of causes-illness, political opposition, etc. ;
164
THE FIRST ILLY RIAN WAR II. 12. 4
in such cases there was a precedent for the late consul's taking a
purely formal proconsulship for his triumph, like L. Scipio in 189
(Livy, xxxvii. 59· 6; A. M. Colini, Bull. comm. Rom., 1928, 269-74).
Postumius received no triumph at all, though P. gives him the
greater credit. Had his losses been too heavy? So Munzer (RE,
'Postumius (4o)', col. 913); but there is no evidence that he rather
than Fulvius was responsible for the losses in n. IJ.
3. Sla.1TpEaj3Euaa..,.€v1J 1rpos Taus 'Pw.,.a.(ous: i.e. to Postumius at
Epidamnus (§ 4).
Peace terms with Teuta. P.'s source was assumed by Valeton (:zo6) and
von Scala (:z68) to be the Achaean record office; Schulte (4o) thought it
was the Roman records. It is indeed possible, though not very likely,
that the Achaeans filed the report made to them by Postumius (§ 4;
Bauer, AEM, r895, 137). But it is improbable that P. carried out
detailed research for these introductory books, and in any case be
is unlikely to have had access to the Achaean record office when he
was writing them. His most probable source is Fabius Pictor.
(r) 4>opous ••. olanv: probably an indemnity, payable in instal-
ments, like that imposed on Carthage after the First Punic War
(i. 62. 9); cf. Beloch, iv. I. 666 n. 1; Holleaux, Rome, 105 n. 5· The
amount is not recorded. Livy, xxii. 33· 5 probably refers to a new,
but similar, indemnity imposed in 219.
(2) 1Ta0'1'JS T' 6.va.xwp~anv '~'il'> 'l>.>.upt8os 1TA~v b>.(:ywv Tlnrwv:
according to Appian, Ill. 7, the Romans permitted Pinnes T'i]v a'M:'lv
i4ypwvos dpx~v ;X"'v, and Teuta accepted these terms. Probably this
means that Teuta agreed to surrender the regency (to Demetrius)
and withdraw to a 8vva.a-rda. (as P. here implies). Cf. Dio, fg. 49· 7,
'ITaVTeAws Ka-r€SEuJE Jcal T~v tipx~v &.<f>fjKI£JJ. Badian (BSA, 1952, 8o)
suggests plausibly that her ouvaaTda was around Rhizon.
(3) .,.1) trA£uaELV 1TAEov f) 8ual. AE.,.~o~s ~sw Toil 1\iaaou: cf. iii. 16. 3·
Lissus, modern Lesh or Alessio (cf. Fluss, RE, 'Lissos (2)', cols.
731-3; J. M. F. May, ]RS, 1946, 54) lay on a fortified hill near the
mouth of the Drilo (Drin). It is generally assumed that Illyrian land
forces were required to respect the same frontier (cf. Holleaux,
Rome, 105 n. 4); but this is not certain, as Badian (BSA, 1952, 79;
cf. Oost, 12) shows-though with the Parthini and Atintanes both
included in the Roman protectorate, Illyrian access to lands south
of the Genusus must have been very restricted. This clause secured
the freedom of the Ionian Sea for Italian and Greek shipping. P.
mentions the latter especially in the general 'philhellenic' context
of the sending of envoys to the Greek states(§§ 4-8); it will have been
stressed by Fabius, and in any case most of the Italian traders were
Greeks from southern Italy.
4-8. Roman embassies to Greece. The results and importance of these
have been exaggerated by both ancient and modern historians.
165
II. 12. 4 THE FIRST ILLYRIAN WAR
Zonaras (viii. r9) records how at Athens 77oAtTdas atf>wv Twv ,..,
p,vanJPlwv JhET~axov. De Sanctis (iii. z. 438 n. 98) would reduce this
to a grant of 77potevla; but it should probably be rejected outright
(d. Niese, ii. 285 n. 4; Taubler, i. zr6; Ferguson, 21o n. 3, 256 n. 2;
Holleaux, Rome, II7 n. r). There is no reason to regard these em-
bassies as anti-)facedonian. Those to Achaea and Aetolia were a
purely formal exchange of courtesies, without any political sequel
(Holleaux, Rome, II3 ff.); and those to Corinth (an Achaean city,
not competent to engage in independent political exchanges) and to
Athens will have been motivated by the prestige and perhaps the
commercial power of these two cities (Beloch, iv. 1. 667). Moreover,
there was little to fear from Macedon in 228, when the regent Doson
(guardian to Philip since Demetrius II's death in spring 229 (44. z n.))
was facing a Dardanian invasion and the Aetolian seizure of much
of Thessaly (cf. Walbank, Philip, Io-n). In fact, our sources have
no reference to Macedon in this context.
4. -rrpos n ·TOu<; Ahw?.ou<; Ka.i. To Twv :A..xa.lwv (8vo<;: who had sent
help to the Corcyraeans at Paxos (9. 8 ff.). Since the death of
Demetrius II their alliance had been dissolved de facto, if not openly
denounced (below, 45-46 nn.). The purpose of the Roman visit was
partly formal, partly propagandist; Roman policy in lllyria was
portrayed as defending the ius gentium against Illyrian 11apavop,la
(n. 5)· Cf. Gelzer, Hermes, H)33· I32.
7. €n S' rnmAoKt, p.t:TU -rrpE:O'~ELCl<;: this statement contradicts
Iustinus' account (xxviii. 1. 5 ff.) of an Acarnanian appeal to the
Senate, and a Roman demarche in Aetolia, c. 239, which was
brusquely rejected. Iustinus' story is accepted by De Sanctis (iii.
I. zj8 n. I), Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 382 n. r), Kolbe (S.-B. Heidelberg,
1933/4, 4. 26), and Beloch (iv. r. 634 n. 3, 'P. kann seine Grtinde
gehabt haben, den diplomatischcn MiBerfolg der Romer zu ver-
schweigen'). Gelzer (Hermes, 1933. 144) suggests that Fabius, P.'s
source, was reluctant to spoil his picture of the First Illyrian \Var
with an earlier story of Roman interference and failure; but Iustinus'
account is vague and inaccurate, and the arguments against its
authenticity are strong; cf. Holleaux, Rome, 5-22; Treves, Rend.
Line., 1932, 196-7. P. is thinking of political contacts, and this
passage does not bear on the authenticity of the tradition of a fifth-
century embassy to Greece to gather materials for the Twelve
Tables (Livy, iii. 31 ff.; Dion. Hal. x. 52, 54).
8. -rrpos KopwEILou<; Kal. -rrpos ;t!.STJva.(ous: here 'Pwp,aio£ means 'the
Senate' ; Holleaux, Rome, I r4 n. 2. On the purpose of the visit see
12. 4-8 n. That the Romans made a formal proclamation at the
Isthmian Games (De Sanctis, iii. r. 303) is an assumption not war-
ranted either by this passage or by Zon. viii. r9 (which merely
confirms the admission of the Romans to the festival, adding that
166
THE FIRST ILLYRIAN WAR II. 13.2
Kat aTa8wv Jv airr<f! 6 ll>.airros- £vtwrp£). This recognition by the
Greeks is naturally stressed in P. since it was tantamount to accept-
ing the Romans into the comity of civilized (Greek) peoples; cf.
Wilamowitz, Staat und Gesellschajt der Griechen und Romer 2 (Berlin,
1923), rso; Holleaux, Rome, I29· Reference to the Isthmia dates this
embassy to the spring of an 'even' year, and probably to 228 (nl8iws-),
when Athens was concerned with her freedom (44. 2 n.); but the
failure of the Senate to follow up the embassy shows that it had no
political background.
(Otto, HZ, 145, 1932, so1). The second error is, however, to be found
in P.'s own discussion (in iii. 15. s. 30. 3, and perhaps iii. 61. 8 and
iv. 28. 1). Examples of these distortions are App. Hisp. 7; Hann. 2;
Lib. 6 (Saguntum and 'other Greek [sic] towns in Spain' appeal to
Rome; the Senate sends envoys to Carthage and makes an agreement
which lays down the Ebro as the frontier between the two empires,
but guarantees that Saguntum and the Greek towns shall be free
and autonomous. This version also puts Saguntum north of the
Ebro); Livy, xxi. z. 7, ' . . . Saguntinisque mediis inter imperia
duorum populorum libertas seruaretur'; cf. 44· 6; Zon. viii. 21,
£~atp€TOvs £1rmot~Kwav. Though important as contributions to the
arguments which began soon after the Hannibalic ·war and reached
their climax shortly before 150 (iii. zg. 1 ff.), these versions are
irrelevant to the treaty itself. The bearing of the treaty on the
question of responsibility for the war is discussed below (iii. 21. 1 n.).
(f) Bibliography. See the works quoted in CAH, viii. 724-5, and
Scullard, His!. 197 n. 1; add: G. De Sanctis, Riv. ji.l., 1932, 426-7;
W. Kolbe, S.-B. Heidelberg, 1933/4, 4 (cf. E. Bikerman, Rev. phil.,
1936, 284-8; P. Treves, REA, 1935. 136-7); C. J. C. Arnold, Oorzaak
en Schuld van den Tweeden Punischen Oorlog (Amsterdam, 1939);
G. Giannelli, Roma nell' eta delle guerre puniche (Bologna, 1938) (cf.
J. Vogt, Gnomon, 1940, 16-17); F. Altheim, Epochen, ii. 51 ff.; J.
Carcopino, REA, 1953, 258-93; F. M. Heichelheim, Historia, 1954,
211-19.
e1rt 'II"OAEI-1~: stressed by Taubler (Vorgesch. 61 f.) as evidence that
only military expeditions across the Ebro were meant; but this
thesis is not sufficient to reconcile the treaty with the Saguntine
alliance (above (d)). The phrase £1ri 1roMp.ftJ occurs frequently in
treaties of this period; cf. Schulte, 72-73.
But for most of the second century, probably till 133, the political
175
II. 14. II ROME AND THE GAULS
boundary of Italy was the R. Aesis, between Sena and Ancona; for
the change to the Rubicon see iii. 61. 11 n. Here P. reckons the dis-
tance from Sena to the head of the Adriatic (Aquileia?) as about
2,5oo stades (c. 28o miles} ; for a closer estimate in milia passuum
see xxxiv. II. 8 n.
-TYJV 1r<i.aa.v 1repl\ieTpov: his total comes to 8,3oo stades (c. 925 miles).
18-35. The Gallic Wars. 18-:20 cover the earlier conflicts (390-282),
:21-35 those from 237 to :2:2r including the tumultt~s of 225. The source
for most of this is probably Fabius Pictor (cf. i. r4. 1 n.), who himself
took part in the war of :225 (cf. Oros. iv. IJ. 6, qui eidem bella inter-
fuit); consequently P. reproduces Fabius' tendency to depict the
Romans as the victims of aggression, and acting in self-defence. See
DeSanctis, iii. r. 305 n. 103; Leuze, Jahrziihltlng, 142-5; Beloch, RG,
139-40; Gelzer, Hermes, 1933, 147; Bung, 151 ff. (who, however, argues
for the use of other sources besides Fahius).
18. 1. Ta<; 6.pxns: i.e. the first invasion of Cisalpine Gaul, in the
second half of the fifth century.
184
ROME A~D THE GAULS II. 18.6
2. 1-uml. 8€ Twa. xpovov KT)..: on F.'s date (387/6) see i. 6. 1-2, and
below, 22. 5 n.; and on the Gallic catastrophe in general Meyer
(Kl. Schr. ii. 307 ff.), L. Homo (CAH, vii. 554 ff., with misleading
remarks on F.'s sources), F. Schachenneyr (Klio, 1930, 277-305), and
Altheim (Epochen, i. 163 ff.). F.'s account, based on Fabius, heads
the tradition. Diodorus (xiv. IIJ-I4) probably gives the early annal-
istic tradition (but not Fabius, as Mommsen (Rom. Forsch. ii. 297 ff.)
argued). The later versions in Livy (v. 33-55), Plutarch's Camillus,
and Dionysius, Appian, and Dio, build up the figure of Camillus,
who is unimportant in Diodorus, and wholly omitted by Polybius
(cf. Momigliano, CQ, 1942, III ff.).
Tous I'£T<1 TooTwv wa.pa.Ta.~a.l'evous : no other source mentions allies
at the Allia, but later tradition may well have preferred to mitigate
the disaster by stressing Roman isolation. On the battle of the Allia
(I8 July, a dies nefastus) see Homo (CAH, vii. 561 ff.), and De
Sanctis (ii. x66 ff.). To Homo's bibliography on the problem of the
battle-site (ibid. 920) add Kromayer (AS, iv. 449 ff.) and Schacher-
meyr (Klio, I9JO, 277 ff.), both favouring the left bank.
TpLat rijs l'a.XTIS ~p,epa.ls uO'T£pov ~ so too Diodorus (xiv. us: with
exclusive reckoning), Plutarch (Cam. 22) and Verrius Flaccus (in
Gell. v. 17. 2). Only Livy (v. 4I. 4) enlivens the story by making the
Gauls reach Rome the next day. Later legends elaborated the defence
of the Capitol (Livy, v. 43· r ff., 47· Iff.); but perhaps no serious
attempt was made against it (DeSanctis, ii. 175-6).
3. T~v 0ll£v£Twv E:l'f3a.MvTWv: the authenticity of this attack, other-
wise unattested, has been questioned; and Livy (v. 48. I) makes a
pestilence among the Gauls play a similar role in drawing them
off. But such an· attack is quite plausible, and no more of a
coincidence than the Illyrian invasion which drew Antigonus Doson
north after Sellasia (below, 7o. 1). Whether true or not, the story
belongs to an earlier layer of the tradition than that which em-
phasizes Camillus' last-minute rescue (cf. Livy, v. 49).
wot,a6.1'£VOL auv&'Y]Ka.s wpos 'Pwl'a.(ous: cf. i. 6. 3 n. for the ransom.
which was probably paid; for the Gallic claim see below, 22. 5·
4. 9c;wpouvns tK wapa.9£a£ws: 'observing from close at hand' (d.
17· 3) or 'witnessing in comparison with their own' (cf. i. 86. 7 and
passim); a small distinction since proximity encourages comparison.
5. TO. K(lTcl Tovs AaTlvous a09Ls wpciyl'aTa. auvt:O'Tftaa.VTo: see i. 6.
4-6n.
6. ~T£L TpLa.KoO'T~: the chronology of the fourth-century Gallic wars
is difficult. It may perhaps be assumed (though not with certainty)
(a) that F.'s intervals refer to consul years (not Olympiad years, as
Leuze, ]ahrzahlung. 125, argues), (b) that, as in i. 6. 2, l'. is here
making 387/6 the date of the seizure of Rome, (c) that he identifies
the Attic year 387/6 with the consul year 386 (cf. De Sanctis, i.
185
II. 18. 6 ROME AND THE GAULS
13 n. z). The intervals listed between the Gallic debacle and Sen-
+
tinum in 295 (19. 5), viz. 30 I2 add Up to only 89 years,
whereas from 386 to 295 should be 91 years. The problem is therefore
twofold, (a) to account for the two missing years, (b) to reconcile
P.'s date of 386 for the Gallic attack with the Varronian 390. For
discussion see Niese (Hennes, 1878, 401-r3), L"nger (Hermes, r879,
77--92), Seeck (ibid. Mommsen (Rom. Forsch. ii. 297-38r),
Leuze (]ahrzahlung, r2o--45), De Sanctis (ii. 259-6o; cf. i. r3 n. 2),
Beloch (RG, 132-43, 314). The four years' discrepancy between the
Polybian and Varronian dates for the capture of Rome may be due
either to the omission by Polybius' source of the four years in which
dictators and their magistri equitum appear as eponymous in the
Fasti, viz. 333, 324, 309, and 301 (Livy omits these years), or to the
expansion of one year's 'anarchy' to five in the annalistic account of
the Licinio-Sextian rogations (viz. 375-371, cf. Livy, vi. 34-42; De
Sanctis, ii. 214). Diodorus (xv. 75· r) records only one year's O.va.pxta;
but there is no reason to associate his version of the annals with
Fabius. Consequently either explanation must be regarded as pos-
sible. The two missing years are explained by Beloch on the assump-
tion that the date 387/6 for the capture of Rome came from Timaeus
(d. i. 6. 2 n.), but that Fabius put it in 384. In fact, Fabius' date is
not known for certain; but if he dated the first plebeian consul (366)
twenty-two years after the Gallic capture (Gell. v. 4· 3, duouicesimo),
he can hardly have put the latter in 384. In 19. 5-7 P. reckons the
interval between Sentinum and the appearance of the Gauls at
Arretium as ten years; it was in reality eleven (295-284). This sug-
gests that P.'s figures may in some cases represent a round number,
or be based on a reckoning which excludes both terms; but if so, he
is not himself awake to the discrepancy, and no distinction is to be
made between such phrases as lnt rptaKocrr(j> (r8. 6) and lrYJ Tptd.KoV"Ta.
(r9. r) (so Leuze, ]ahrzahlung, 125). Correlation with Livy and the
triumphal Fasti is of little use, since Livy at least contains frequent
doublets and improvisations. In these circumstances the following
table is merely one possible arrangement of the data:
Reference
Capture of Rome r8. 2
Gauls before Alba 18. 6 ~T€L TpLaKOCfT{j>
Gauls invade and retire 18. 7 <TEL 8wDEKO.Tlfl
Peace made 331 r8. 9 rpLaKalD<Ka eTYJ
Successful invasion 299 19. I ETYJ rpHiKovra. (a round
figure?)
Sentinum . 295 19. 5 ET<L T<Taprlfl
Gauls at Arretium 284 19. 7 Jrwv SlKa (sic)
Livy records no Gallic invasion in 356; but the ravaging of the
ager Albanus in 36o (Lh'Y, vii. rr. 3) is thirty years after his date for
r86
ROME AND THE GAULS II. I9. 5
the seizure of Rome, and may refer to this expedition if P.'s chrono-
logy has omitted the four 'dictator-years'.
7. t~ ~TrL~oA.1ls ~TEpa.s: 'making another attempt'. This third in-
vasion, forty-two years after the capture of Rome, has nothing
corresponding in Livy. However, Livy (vii. 23-24) records an in-
vasion in 350, and the act. tr. assign a triumph to the consul M.
Popillius Laenas [de G]alleis; and Beloch has suggested (RG, 137-8)
a confusion with Popillius' next consulship in 348 (Beloch prefers
Diodorus' date, 347) for the invasion. If the four 'dictator-years'
are omitted, 348 becomes 344, which would fit P. But this is highly
hypothetical.
9. Tpmt<a.£8et<a. ••• ~TTJ T~v ftO'ux£a.v ~O'xov: viz. 344-331. Livy has no
record of the peace which was now concluded; and attempts to link
this date with the reports of a tumultus in 332 and 329 (Livy, viii.
I7. 6, 20. 2) are unsuccessfuL The growth of Roman power resulted
from the Latin War (J40-JJ8) and the dissolution of the Latin
League (i. 6. 4 n.).
19. l. ~TTJ TpL6.t<ovTa. jLE£va.vTES E1!1TE8ws: the attack which ended this
peace was four years before Sentinum (§§ 2-5), and this was in 295.
In 299 Livy (x. ro. 12) speaks of ajama Gallici tumultus which came
to nothing. \Vhether or no this is a distorted reference to the Gallic
campaign which P. here describes (so Beloch, RG, IJJ), it seems
likely that 299 is the date of the latter, and that here P.'s thirty
years represent a round number.
3. 1repi T~v Twv ELATJ!LilEvoov 1rAeove~£a.v: 'for the larger share of the
spoils'. DeSanctis (ii. 350) suggests that the destruction of the Gallic
forces and their spoils is a Roman version designed to point to the
action of Nemesis; but Gallic indulgence in drinking was a well.
known trait (cf. Jullian, i. 342).
5. Tr6.Aw ~TEL TET6.pn~,>: in 295, the decisive year of the Third Samnite
War. Cf. Livy, x. 20 ff.
Ia.uv'i:Ta.L t<a.1 r a.A6.Ta.L: on the Samnites see i. 6. 4 n. If Etruscans and
Umbrians took part in the coalition (Diod. xxi. 6), it was on a very
small scale: see Adcock (CAH, vii. 612). The view of Beloch (RG,
421 ff.), followed by Philipp (RE, 'Sabini', coL 1579; 'Samnites', cols.
2147-8), that the Sabines, not the Samnites, took part in this move-
ment, is contradicted Duris (in Tzetzes, and Lycophron, Alex.
IJ78), P., and Livy, to be rejected.
Ev TTI Ka.11epT£oov xti!p~: faced by the risk of a Samnite break-through
to the north to join the Gauls, and the uncertainty whether the
united force would then advance through Etruria gaining or
march directly on Rome, the Romans split their forces, and sent an
advance force ahead under L. Cornelius Scipio Barbatus, while the
main army moved on Camerinum, a likely rallying point for Gauls
187
II. 19.5 ROME AND THE GAULS
and Samnites on the east slope of the Apennines in south Umbria.
It was the advance-party which was defeated. Livy (x. 25. u,
26. 7 ff.) has transferred this battle to Clusium in Etruria, qtwd
Camars olim appellabant (25. n); but his account, which contains
other inaccuracies, cannot stand against that of P. Cf. De Sanctis
(ii. 355 n. 2), Beloch (RG, 440) and Adcock (CAH, vii. 6r2).
6. TrpoatlAovuc-ljaa.V"rES 1rpos -ro ••• EAa-r-rw11a.: 'displaying a victorious
spirit in the face of the reverse'.
~v -rfi -r<71v IEV"rWO.TWV xwp~: Sentinum lay on the eastern slope of the
Apennines on a tributary of the Aesis, about 30 miles north of
Camerinum. The Romans employed the two consular armies of
Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus and P. Decius Mus, four legions in all
(1riic~ -rofs- a-rpa-ro'tTtOots), some JO,ooo-J6,ooo men. This victory over
the 'last resistance of Italian particularism' (De Sanctis) became
famous in popular tradition, especially for the deuotio of Decius Mus
(cf. Munzer, RE, 'Decius (16)', col. 2284).
7. lha.yEvo!L~vwv 8e TraAlv ETwv 8~Ka.: the Fasti and Livy (ep. 12; cf.
Oros. iii. 22. 13) agree in making L. Caecilius MetellusDenter consul in
284, but attribute his death to a praetorship in 283. Mommsen (Rom.
Forsch. ii. 365-77) analysed the tradition and showed how the events
of Caecilius' consulship were transferred to a supposed praetorship
in 283, in the interest of a patriotic compression. This analysis
(which is not superseded by a brief and misdated reference in St.-R.
ii. 195 n. r) has persuaded both De Sanctis (ii. 376 n. 2) and Beloch
(RG, 133) to reject Livy; and indeed rrrpa:rr;yos is consul in P. (see
Lex. Pol_vb. s.v.). Against the annalistic version is the unusual
appointment ofM'. CuriusDentatus as what would be praetor suffectus
(§ 8), if in fact Caecilius was praetor, whereas in P.'s account his
appointment will be as consul suffectus (see further§ 8 n.). (In itself,
Caecilius' military command as praetor would not be unparalleled
at this date; cf. Broughton (i. r88-9), adducing the case of Ap.
Claudius Caecus, who held a military command as praetor in 295.)
That P. took Caecilius to be consul in 284, and not praetor in 283,
is shown by the present reference to ten years, which can be applied
to the period 295-284, by the exclusion of both terms, but hardly
to 295-283.
r a.XO.-ra.l • . • TrOAlOpK~O"OVTES Ti]v :A.pp"lTLVWV 11'0AlV: the Senones,
as the later narrative shows. On Arretium see 16. 2 n. Avoiding
Umbria, the Senones had traversed the Apennines to win allies in
Etruria.
8. AeuK£ou ••• -rEAEU'I'Tjaa.V"ros: he had two legions (Oros. iii. 22. IJ-
I4) and lost seven military tribunes and IJ,ooo men. The defeat
was followed by a general revolt of Etruscans, Samnites, Lucanians,
and Bruttians (Livy, ep. 12; Oros. iii. 22. 13-14; Augustine, CD, iii.
I7)·
188
ROME AND THE GAULS II. 2.0. I
the Boii (on the latter see r7. 8 n. and 20. 4 n.); and if the
Boii suffered so severely in 283, it is hard to comprehend their con-
fronting the Romans again in 282 (2o. 3). The probability is that
P.'s Fabian account, having destroyed the Senones in 284 (19. u),
required a new foe for Dolabella's victory in 283. See Sahnon (CP,
1935. 24 ff.).
1ra.pa.tmAiaa.VTES T uppTJvous: Beloch (RG, 451) argues from the site
of the battle that these were primarily from Volsinii; but the
Gauls may well have attracted allies from a wider area, as they
advanced south, and in 28o the consul Ti. Coruncanius triumphed
over Vulci as well as Volsinii, and in 281 Q. Marcius Philippus
de Etrusceis, which suggests a wider coalition.
2. T-ijv 'OO.S11-ova. ••• ALjlVTJV: Lake Vadimo (V adimonis lac-us, the
modern Laghetto di Bassano) lies on fiat ground west of the Tiber,
some 42-43 miles due north of Rome. For a description see Pliny,
ep. viii. 20; Nissen, It. Land. ii. 342.
4. T~ Ka.T.i ,...68a.c; tvmuT~: viz. 282, in the consulship of C. Fabricius
Luscinus and Q. Aemilius Papus. It is recorded in Frontinus (Strat.
i. 2. 7) that 'Aemilius Paulus [sic] consul bello Etrusco apud oppidum
coloniam' fought against the Boii; and the reference is probably to
this campaign. Beloch (RG, 454) would emend coloniam to Vetu-
loniam or Statoniam, others to Populoniam; but Salmon (CP, 1935,
26-2i) suggests that the colonia is Sena Gallica, and locates the
battle on the fringe of Cisalpine Gaul, a possible interpretation, even
if Sena was founded not one but eight years previously (19. 12 n.).
Aemilius' campaign is also mentioned by Dionysius (xix. 13. r), who
places it in Etruria; and this is perhaps less easily reconciled with
a Roman (presumably offensive) action in the north-east.
6. Synchronisms : see i. 6. 5 n. Pyrrhus' crossing was in 01. 124, 4 =
281/o (in fact May 28o), the Gallic destruction in 01. 125, 2 = 2i9/8
(probably autumn 279). On the reasonable assumption that consul
years are equated with the Olympiad year in which they begin, the
peace with the Boii in 282 was, by inclusive reckoning, three years
before Pyrrhus' crossing and five years before the Gallic rout at
Delphi.
7. AotjlLKTJV TWa. ••• StMeatv: 'epidemic', a medical term; cf. 31. ro,
(used literally). For this sense of Stci8mt> cf. jo. 6, viii. 12. 3. and the
examples quoted by Welles, 324-5. In afflicting the Gauls thus Tyche
is playing the role of capricious deity; cf. CQ, 1945, 6; above, p. 18.
8-10. General observations on the Gallic campaigns. The long duel
(§ 8, .iyc.)vwv), drawn out for over a century, had toughened the
Romans psychologically and physically; they could be neither
daunted by horrors nor worn out by hardships. This fitted them to
contest Italy with Pyrrhus, and to struggle with Carthage for Sicily;
cf. i. 6. 6 (Italy), and the parallel reflections (i. 63. 9) on the schooling
190
ROME AND THE GAULS II. 2I. 5
of the First Punic War, which led the Romans to aim at universal
dominion, and accomplish that aim. Here too P. is again stressing
the function of his introduction (d. i. 3· 9-ro) in explaining the basis
on which Rome advanced to world-domination. For the phrase
&.B>.TJTa.i TEA~:tat y~:yov6T~:s- cf. i. 6. 6 (and, for the metaphor, i. 59· 12).
The Gallic and Etruscan wars take their place in the steady, fated
advance of Rome to world-empire; and this phase in the reduction
of the Gauls is rounded off with the words T~v ••• TOAfLa.V •.• Ka.Ta.-
7rA7)~&fL~:vot, which recalls (and reverses) the words Tfj T6AfLTI Ka.Ta.-
TrmA7)yfLlvm with which it opened (18. r).
Reference
Gauls at Arretiurn 284 19. 7
Vadimo . :z83 20. r-2 interval omitted
Defeat of Boii. peace 282 20. 4, 6 TijJ KaTd. Troaas Jv,avTij!
Gauls at Ariminum . 237 2 I. I, 4-5 €T7) 1TWTE Kal TET'Tapa·
KOV'Ta
Division of Ager Gallicus 232 21. 7 €-r~:t 7rEf.L1t'To/
Gallic tttmultus 2 25 23. I l-rn ... oyoocp (sic)
i. 14. 7); cf. U. Ewins, BSR, 1952, 54· Zonaras (viii. r8) adds details
suggesting that the dispute of the Gauls, ending in a pitched battle,
was the direct result of a policy of delay and temporizing on the part
of the consuls. The Fabian account in P. is very different. Fear of
the Gauls ensured the dispatch of a legion from Rome; but on
learning of the Gallic broil it returned. Yet clearly the same occasion
is meant; and if the date is 237, Zonaras' error may derive from some
confusion between the consuls L. Cornelius Lentulus Caudinus (237)
and P. Cornelius Lentulus Caudinus (236).
7, iTEI 1!'€f1VT'e , , , KO.TEKATJpOUXT)O'U\1 • , , T~\1 nu(E\IT~\IT)\1 , , , xwpa.v:
the reference to the consulship of M. Aemilius Lepidus fixes the year
as 232. Cicero (de sen. II; cf. acad. ii. 13), drawing on Atticus, makes
it 228, perhaps confusing the second consulship of Q. Fabius Maximus
with his first, during which Flaminius entered office (Niccolini, F asti
dei tribuni della plebe (Milan, 1934), 88-89); in any case, it is agreed
that P.'s date is preferable; d. DeSanctis (iii. 1. 333 n. 181); Mommsen
(Rom. Forsch. ii. 401 n. 23); and other authorities quoted by Aymard
(REA, 1943, 219 n. 1). Cicero describes Flaminius' bill as the 'lex de
agro Gallico et Piceno uiritim diuidundo' (Brut. 57). On the ager
Galticus between the Aesis and Ariminum see 17. 8 n.; the Senones
were completely expelled after Vadimo (or, according toP., the year
before; cf. 19. n). It is described by Cato (fg. 43 Peter): 'ager
Gallicus Romanus uocatur, qui uiritim cis Ariminum datus est ultra
agrum Picentium.' The ager Picenus, as this quotation indicates, is
normally placed south of the Aesis; but it also indicates that
Picenum in this sense was excluded from Flaminius' distributions.
Nor is there any evidence for the expulsion of the Picentes (on
Strabo, v. 251 see Beloch, RG, 475). Moreover, it appears from Livy
(ep. 15, Ariminum in Piceno) that P. was not alone in identifying
the ager Gallicus and the ager Picenus. The likelihood is therefore
that, despite Cicero's formula, Flaminius' bill dealt only with the
ager Gallicus; cf. Frank (ES, i. 61) and Beloch (RG, 475-{)); contra
De Sanctis (iii. I. 333 n. 184); on the geography, Nissen (It. Land.
ii. 377).
8. r a.tou .ACI.JJ-LVlou TC.UTT)\1 TTJ\1 8TtJJ-a.ywy(a.v dO'T)YTJO'UJJ-EVOU: c.
Flaminius was a plebeian and a nouus homo. His land measure
was designed to restore the firm link between the Roman prole-
tariat and the land, and therein foreshadowed the work of the
Gracchi. It met with strong opposition from the senate, which had
profited by the occupation of public land, and was eventually carried
by Flaminius as tribune in the popular assembly (Cic. de inu. ii. 52;
Livy, xxi. 63. 2; VaL Max. v. 4· 5). On Flaminius see Munzer (RE,
'Flaminius (2)', cols. 2496ff.), and on his land bill Frank (CAH, vii.
8o6-7; ES, i. 6o-{)I), De Sanctis (iii. 1. 332-4), Meyer (Kl. Scltr. ii.
39o-3), Fraccaro (Athen., 1919, 76 ff.), K. Jacobs (Caius Flaminius
ROME AND THE GAULS II. zr. 9
24. Roman and Italian forces in 225. P.'s figures evidently go back
through Fabius to the actual Ka-raypa¢at, and are mainly reliable (d.
§§ u-r2 nn.):
Infantry
With the consuls (four legions} 20,8oo I,200 IJO,OOO 2,000
Sabines and Etruscans lso,ooo+ 4,ooo
Umbrians and Sarsinates 20,000
Veneti and Cenomani 20,000
In Sicily and Tarentum (two
legions) 8,400 400
Reserve at Rome (four legions) 20,000 z,ooo
ROME AND THE GAULS II. 24
(b) Men capable of bearing arms (§§ ro-12, 14)
-
I
Infantry
250,000
Romans
Cavalry
23,000
Infantry
..
Allies
Cavalry
..
Latins .. . . !! 8o,ooo 5,000
Samnites .. .. ]0,000 ],000
Iapygians and Messapians .. .. 50,000 r6,ooo
Lucanians . .. .. 30,000 3,000
Marsi, Marrucini, Frentani,
Vestini .. .. I
20,000 4,000
Total
I 250,000 23,000
···--·
250,000 35,000
For discussion see Mommsen (Rom. Forsch. ii. 382-4o6; St.-R. iii. 575
n. 2), Beloch (Bevolkerung, 355-70; I B, 93 ff.), Strachan-Davidson
(22-32), De Sanctis (ii. 385 n. I, 462; iii. 330), T. Frank (CAH, vii.
8U-I2; ES, i. sB-59), Veith (Heerwesen, J05-7L Gelzer (Hermes, I935·
273 ff.), and earlier works quoted by Liebenam (RE, 'dilectus',
cols. 6o8 ff.).
The main problem is whether the troops in arms are included in,
or additional to, those capable of bearing arms. On the assumption
that the latter is the case, the sum of the separate items adds up to
P.'s total, viz.
Infantry Cavahy
Romans: in arms 49,200 3,100
not summoned 250,000 23,000
Allies: in arms I50,000 8,ooo
not summoned 250,000 35,000
__T_o_ta_l____________________~__6_9_9_,2__
o~~9,IOO
Whether or no any addition be made to allow for allies with the
legions in Sicily, and for cavalry of the Umbrians, Sarsinates, Veneti,
and Cenomani (omitted by P.), clearly these totals correspond closely
to P.'s 7oo,ooo infantry and 7o,ooo cavalry. On this assumption,
which is M:ommsen's, the whole levy of north Italy was called out,
and therefore did not figure under (b); and the contingents actually
serving from south Italy are included in the figures of allies with
the consuls or in reserve at Rome (§§ 4 and 9), since these forces
197
II. 24 ROME AND THE GAULS
represented contingents from all parts of Italy in addition to the
levee en masse in the north.
On the other hand, the phrasing of §§ IO and I4 (KaTo:ypa<{;ai. s·
&.v-ryv€x01JG'O.V ••• , 'Pwttalwv o€ I(O.t Kattrravwv f] 7TA1J0vs ••• ) suggests
that P. is recording the full muster for the areas in question, not
that muster less troops already serving; and the round figures
(25o,ooo Roman and Campanian infantry, 25o,ooo south Italian in-
fantry) look like a maximum based on the Ko.Ta:ypap~ rather than
such a maximum less a specific number already serving. Further,
it is improbable that the figures under (a) represent a roo-per-cent.
turn-out, for instance, the 54,ooo Sabines and Etruscans who
marched to Rome (§ 5). Consequently Strachan-Davidson supposes
the figures in (a) to be included in (b), but suggests that P. has
omitted those from north Italy who were liable to serve but not
actually on service; by subtracting the 558,ooo Romans, Campanians,
and south Italians from P.'s total of no,ooo, he reaches a figure of
2rz,ooo north Italians liable for service. 1
The truth seems to be that P. has been less logical than either
Mommsen or Strachan-Davidson demands. His totals must represent
the sum of his individual items- the correspondence is too close for
any other assumption; but what he has given is this. For the north
Italians who fought as national armies (Sabines, Etruscans, Um-
brians, Sarsinates, Veneti, and Cenomani) he records the numbers
actually fighting {probably a high percentage of the whole) ; here
he has drawn no distinction between the number fighting and the
possible maximum. He also the number of Romans serving
in the legions, and of the allied auxiliaries attached thereto, whether
from north or south Italy (§§ 3-4, 9, IJ). Further he gives the total
number of Roman adult male citizens (§ 14), perhaps from the
census lists. But for south Italy, which had to be included in a
picture of the full strength of Italy at the time of the Second Punic
War(§§ I-2), his only figures were those of the Kamypa.pal, and these
he gave unaltered (for he cannot have known how many of these
were serving as auxiliaries with legions). Finally, P. added up all
these figures to give a grand total for Italy. This total omits all
north Italians not on service and counts south Italians acting as
auxiliaries with the legions twice over; it also counts twice over
those Romans and Campanians actually serving in the legions, and
' One may ignore Orosius 7) who gives the number of Roman and
Campanian infantry as i.e. 348,200. Mommsen emends this to
CCLXXxxvmrcc, i.e. Z99,2oo, which exactly fits his calculations. But Beloch
(Bevolkeru~tg, 363) follows Niebuhr (RG, ii'. 8r) in emending to ccxxxxvmcc,
which on the assumption that (b) includes (a) is perhaps a more accurate veTsion
of P.'s zso,ooo. And indeed Orosius' figure of 23,6oo Roman cavalry is closer to
P.'s 23,000 than the 26,roo required by Mommsen's theory.
I-<)8
ROME AND THE GAULS II. 24. 3
the Sabines may also be counted twice since they were full citizens
(24. 5 n.).
Can the real total be recovered? There are the following basic
figures:
Infantry Cavalry
Romans and Campanians
available 250,000 23,000
South Italians available 250,000 35,000
500,000 58,ooo
North Italians on service . 9o,ooo+ S,ooo (estimating the cavalry
for Umbrians, etc., at
4,000)
59o,ooo+ 66,ooo
····-------·
Against Mommsen's view that these are figures for iuniores only,
i.e. men between r8 and 46 (Rom. Farsch. ii. 398 f.; St.-R. ii. 411 n. r)
see the arguments of Strachan-Davidson (28 ff.) and Beloch (Bevol-
kerung, 3IZ ff., 343 ff.). Beloch discusses other theories, and recently
Schultz (Mnem., 1937, 161 ff.) has argued that the figures excluded
men over 6o. But the most probable view is that they include all
adult male citizens. The likelihood is that P.'s figures here are on the
same basis, and include both smtiores and iuniores (unlike those for
the allies: 23. 9 n.); but whether the ciues sine suffragio (Campanians,
Hernicans, etc.) were included in the census is not certain. Clearly
P. has given a round figure, and it is possible that he (or his source)
has adjusted the census figure to allow for ciues sine suffragio and
202
ROME AND THE GAULS II. 25. 6
men serving abroad (and so excluded from the census). But these
would probably more or less cancel out the number of men over
military age included in the census figures, which is what P. most
likely gives. His total would fit very well into the list of figures for
the third century, 273,000 compared with 270,713 in 234. See Frank
(CAH, vii. 8n; ES, i. 58-59), Beloch (op. cit., supra; IB, 96), De
Sanctis (ii. 463 n. r), Gelzer (Hermes, 1935, 27,3). On Orosius (iv. 13. 7)
see footnote to 24 n.; clearly it must be omitted from consideration
in this context.
15. To Kco+6.Aa.Lov T~lV !lEY trpoKa.9"1J.Livwv Tijs 'Pw!ll]S 5uv6.f1Ewv: how
these 15o,ooo+ foot and 6,ooo horse 'stationed before Rome' are to
be calculated is not clear ; and on any method this figure for thecavalry
seems too small. Beloch (I B, 94) argues that the 15o,ooo are a reduction
of the twelve legions with their auxiliaries which P. found in Fabius
(assuming two under the praetor in Etruria: see 24. 6 n.); but (a)
the total of twelve is only achieved by a forced reckoning, (b) P.
speaks of over 15o,ooo foot, (c) Beloch himself admits 6,ooo horse to
be too few. Mommsen (Rom. Forsch. ii. 38g-go) observed that these
figures are not relevant to an account of the strength of the forces
facing Hannibal; hence they are best regarded as a gloss (with
Hultsch, Blittner-Wobst, and Strachan-Davidson). The words to be
bracketed are [K£</J(l.Aawv ... T6 8"1 or (with Strachan-Davidson) [waT'
£lvat . .. €taKwxtAlov>].
17. €AaTTous .•• 5uY!lup(wv: on Hannibal's numbers see iii. 35· 1 n.;
cf. iii. 33· r8. Here P. neglects his 6o,ooo cavalry.
aa.+iuTEpov EKtrmf)uEL Ka.Ta.voEiv: 'it will be possible to win a clearer
understanding'; for the impersonal use of EK7TOt£'i cf. xxix. 8. ro.
for battle' (d. v. 69. 7); § 10 suggests that the second is the meaning
here (Schweighaeuser).
26. 1. AEuK,oc; AiJ.LiAtoc; ••• 1Ta.pfjv ~oTJ8wv: having come through the
Cales gap into the upper Tiber valley (zs. 3 n.). His arrival ~:ifrvxws
ds- oiovra Katpov dramatically foreshadows the approaching peri-
peteia of T elamon.
2. O.vo1TAouc;: 'to facilitate their progress and mitigate their situation
in the case of capture' (Treves).
5. To Twv o-WJ.LclTwv Ka.i 8pEJ.LJ.Lchwv 1TATj8oc;: 'the number of prisoners
and cattle'. Paton translates awJ.tam 'slaves'; but in P. it is more
often used of prisoners, whether free or slaves. Cf. 6. 6,awJ.taTa oov-
AtKa and €AEv8~:pa, and Schweighaeuser, Lex. Polyb. s.v.
7. Ka.Ta T~v ~VTJpoia-Tou yvwJ.LTJV: Fabius no doubt had information
of this conference from Gallic survivors after Telamon. But either
he, or possibly P. abbreviating his account, has failed to appre-
ciate the extent to which the Gauls still controlled events. Their
present camp was well to the north of Clusium ; they next appear
marching north up the Etruscan coast towards Telamon, which lies
on a latitude approximately 40 miles south of Clusium. They had
thus made a vast sweep to the south-east, perhaps to avoid central
Etruria (DeSanctis, iii. r. 309), but certainly with scant respect for
Aemilius, who could do little more than hang on their heels in anti-
cipation of 'Fabian' tactics (§ 8).
1Tpofjyov 1TO.pa 86.Aa.TTO.V s,a. TTJS T uppTJVWV xwpa.c;: 'they advanced
through Etruria along the sea-coast.' The point at which they
reached the coast can only be surmised; De Sanctis (iii. 1. 309) sug-
gests the mouth of the Albegna near Orbetello, but they may have
gone farther south. Eventually they would have returned through
Liguria or up the Arno valley.
27-30. The battle of Telamon. The source is Fabius (d. Bung, 172).
Conflicting details occur in Zonaras (viii. zo) and Orosius (iv. 13. 8),
both of whom make Atilius perish in a separate struggle. Whether
certain votive offerings discovered at Telamon are connected with
the battle is not certain: cf. DeSanctis (iii. 1. 312 n. 1n).
28. 7. Ta<; O.va.~up(Sa.<; : 'trousers', Latin bracae. They were the typical
barbarian garment, worn loose and fastened close at the ankles: they
are so represented on Trajan's Column. Cf. Strabo, iv. 196; Diod.
v. Jo-JI; Mau, RE, avatvptliEs, cols. 2IOQ-I.
Tous EU'II'ETE'i:<; Twv uciywv: 'their light cloaks'. The Gauls wore the
cloak known in Latin as sagum.
8. ot 8~ r a.~aaTa.l ••• YU!lVOL: these wild men from beyond the Alps
still maintained the Celtic custom of fighting naked; cf. iii. II4. 4;
Diod. v. 29. 2, 30. 3 (Poseidonius); Livy, xxxviii. 21. 9, 26. 7 (from
P. on the Galatians of Asia Minor). Germans, too, occasionally fought
naked; Tac. Germ. 6. 2; Hist. ii. 22. See P. Couissin, Annates de la
faculti des lettres d' Aix, 1928--9, 65-89, 'La nudite guerriere des
Gaulois'; M. Launey, REA, 1944, 222 n. 4·
Toi<; f.q,cip.JLa.O'L: !J.rr. >u:y. l<foa.f.LILa seems to include both sagum and
lrracae; Suidas, quoting this passage, calls it a rr~ptf3>.."7f-La, however,
equating it with e.f,>a7TT{';;, a Soldier's Upper garment (cf. XXX. 25. 10).
11. rslOv ••• Kal. lla.u!lO.O'TOV: cf. 29. I t€vryv Ka.l. 7TUp'I')MayfLEV'Y]V, zg. 7
eK7T>..'I'}KTtK~. The stress on the sensational in P.'s narrative may be
imported from Fabius; cf. CQ, 1945, 12; above i. r. 4 n.
30. 1. To us d.KovnaTas: cf. iii. 65. 3 ff., 69. 8; they are iaculatores,
javelin-throwers, whom P. often mentions as ypoa,Pof-Laxo~. the
equivalent of uelites (cf. i. 33· 9 n.) .
.EvEpyo'Ls Ka.i 'II'UKvo'Ls: 'thick and fast' (not, as Paton, 'well-aimed').
3. TOU ra.Xa.nKOU 8upEou: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 21. 4 (of the Galatians),
scuta tonga ... et ... plana. The oval Gallic 8vpEo<; is frequently
represented on ancient monuments; cf. P. R. von Bienkowski, Die
Darstellung der Gallier in der hellenistischen Kunst (Vienna, 19o8),
figs. ro4, ro7, 109, nr, IIJ, 121; and other works quoted by Launey
(REA, 1944, 222 n. r). It was too narrow to cover the massive bodies
of the Gauls; cf. Plutarch (Philop. 9) on the Achaean shields, prior
to Philopoemen's reforms: dnnoTim 8ta T~v AE1rTDT'1JTa Kal aTEvwTipot<;
Tov 1TEpurriX\nv TU adJj.LaTa.
7. E'll'' !aov Ta.'Ls !Jruxa.'is: for the factor of morale cf. 35· 8, i. 59· 6
(where, in the rfroxoJLaxla which ended the First Punic War, the
Romans had also a worthy opponent), and iii. 9· 7·
8. Schweighaeuser fills the lacuna exe·m.pli gratia: . . . JLEya>.~v
Otatfoopav [ifxovaL 'PwJLalw;;, OLa TO TOVTWV JLiV TOV 8vpEOV oAov TO (JWJLU
aKE1TEtV, Tov 8€ Ta>.aTLKov {JpaxvTEpov Elvat, Kai Dta TO T~v 'PwJLatK~v
JLEV (Kal T~v JLEV 'PwJLULK~V Hultsch) J.Ldxatpav Kal TO KlVTIJJLU 8uJ4>Dpov
KaL Kamrf>opdv N; dJL,Po£v Toi:v JLEpofv {Jlawv] lxnv, KTA. For the sub-
stance of this see 33· 5, iii. 114. 2 ff., vi. 23. 7, fg. 179. J.Lq6.X1Jv is to
be taken with fna<fopdv, not with 1rpfii;w (as Treves): 1rpu~tv, 'offence',
balanCeS aa,P£\naV, 'safety', KUTU,Popa lS 'cutting-edge' (cf. iii. 114. 3,
vi. 23- 7); elsewhere (e.g. 33· 3· 33· 5) it means 'cutting-stroke'.
31. 1. Gallic losses. The 4o,ooo dead appear in other sources (cf.
Diod. xxv. 13; Eutrop. iii. 5; Oros. iv. 13. ro); the ro,ooo+ prisoners
are not mentioned elsewhere. Together they account for over 5o,ooo
of the 7o,ooo with which the Gauls set out (23. 4 n.).
KoytcoXmivos: according to Diodorus (xxv. 13) he was subordinate
to Aneroestes (Tov JLEYWTov aV"Twv {JaatMa).
2. a.uTte Ka.i To'Ls O.va.y~ea.(ms: the dvayKai'ot are here the king's en-
tourage, perhaps including his wives (cf. Caesar, BG, i. 53· 4 on
Ariovistus); so Treves, ad loc. For the hysteron proteron to avoid
hiatus see 2. 2 n.
3. Ta !lEV cr~eu>..a. ••. T1)v o€ Xt:la.v: the former is the plunder and tro-
phies talcen from the Gauls, the latter the booty they had assembled
during their expedition. o[ 1TpomJKDVTE<; are 'the owners' (a sense not
listed in LSJ).
4. ds T~\1 TCl\1 Bolwv ..• xtilpa.v: i.e. into Emilia (r7. 8); on the
expedition see Diod. xxv. 13; Zon. viii. 20. Aemilius will hardly have
returned tv o>.lyat> ~f-Llpat>. Since he triumphed 'III non. mart.' (224),
and will not have campaigned in winter, evidently he crossed the
Apennines in September-October 225, and returned along the line
206
ROME AND THE GAULS II. 32. I
33. The battle against the Insubres. The account follows the anti~
Flaminian tone of 21. 7--9 and 32. 3· The innovation of the military
tribunes, which is never heard of again, seems invented to contrast
with Flaminius' incompetence. On P.'s picture of 1<1aminius, which
remains consistent down to his death at Trasimene, see Gelzcr
208
ROME AND THE GAULS II. 33· 9
(Hermes, 1933, 152-3); and on this passage De Sanctis (iii. 1. 315).
P. omits the sensational prodigies, and the letter of recall sent by the
Senate to Flaminius, and left unopened until after the battle, which
adorn the Livian tradition; cf. Plut. Marc. 4; Fab. 2; Zon. viii. 20;
Oros. iv. 13. 12-14; Livy, xxi. 63. z, 63. 7, 63. 12, xxii. 3· 4, 3· r3. See
DeSanctis, iii. 1. 314 n. 115.
3 • .,.o.is t<Q.TO.O't<t:uo.1s: 'from the way they are made' (Paton), cf.
30. 7-9· The long Celtic swords of the middle La Tene period, such as
the Insubres will have used, are well kno"'11 from excavations, and
of excellent quality, though suited only to slashing because of their
blunt points (Dechelette, M anuet d' arcMologie, ii. 3 (Paris, 1914),
II09 ff., II29 ff.). P.'s story of the swords that bent reads like 'one
of those tales told by soldiers to while away idle moments in camp'
(DeSanctis, iii. 1. 315). and also, one may add, to reassure the teller
and his audience. A modern parallel might be the story, popular in
England in the winter of 1939{4o, of a German tank which unex-
pectedly proved to be made of cardboard. On the Gallic sword see
Plut. Cam. 41 (about Brennus); Polyaen. viii. 7. 2 (drawing on
Plutarch). One may neglect the theory of S. Reinach (Cultes, mythes
et religions, iiiz (Paris, 1913), 152 ff.) that the story grew out of a
Celtic sepulchral rite of burying a dead man's bent sword with him.
4 . .,.a, TWv Tplo.p(wv SOpo..,.o.: instead of pila, the triarii (vi. 21. 7-10)
carried hastae,long spears. Since the triarii had only half the strength
of the other classes (vi. 29. 4), these spears suffi.ced, not for all the
hastati, but only for their TTpCinat <J7TEipat, the maniples in front.
EK fLETo.At)l(iEws: i.e. after taking up their swords instead of their
spears.
5. cl.+EAOfLEVOL TTJY Et< liLO.puEws ••• fLO.XlJ": 'depriving them of the
power of raising their hands and cutting' (Paton). The Romans got
close in, so that the Gauls had no space to use a slashing action; cf.
iii. 114. 3, ~ ?ie Ta>.an~ 1-'d:x.mpa 1-'{av elxff XPfflav T~v tK I<CLTa,Popiis, Kat
-raV'T-rjv ;g a7Torrn:i<JEWS'.
6. Et< lho.Xt)+Ewc;: bp9o.is X~flEVOL To.ic;: fL«xa.(po.~c;:: £K Sw.A'lj,PEws,
punctim, 'with a thrusting stroke', see Schweighaeuser's long note
ad loc. By dp6ats P. may mean that the swords were kept straight,
i.e. that the movement, punctim, was along the line of the sword, or
alternatively that the Roman swords did not bend.
7 . .,.c, .,.Tjc;: 'PwfLO.i:t<"lc;: flGXlJi 'llhov: room to manreuvre in all directions,
including backwards, was essential to manipular fighting; cf. xviii.
25. 4 for the retreat of the Roman left £7Tt TToi'la at Cynoscephalae
(Meyer, J(l. Schr. ii. 214 n. 3). The tactic of retiring in battle against
the Gauls is discussed by Kromayer (AS, iii. I. 368 ff.).
9. €va.vfiADov Eic;: TT)v 'PwfL"lv: Flaminius triumphed by a popular
vote VI idus mart. (222) de Galleis, and "Furius Jill t"dus mart. de
Gatleis et Liguribus (act. tr.). Their victories were celebrated on coins
4866 p 209
H. 33· 9 ROME AND THE GAULS
(see B.M.C. Rom. Rep. ii. zj8, z83); and according to Livy (xxiii.
14. 4) the spoils were sufficient to arm 6,ooo men.
35. 1. mivTa. •.• hrhptljlav TOL'i 'Pwp.a£oto;: by deditio; how far miv
7TOt1Ja€LI' vmaxvovp./vwv (34• 1) had fallen Short of readineSS to Carry
this out is not clear. But obviously both consuls and the war-party
were bent on a military demonstration.
2-10. The importance of the Gallic wars. P. underlines the lesson for
the benefit of Greek readers (§ 9). It is (a) that in such incidents
Fortune and the unexpected play a large part (§§ s. 8). cf. 4· s. (b)
that a policy based on courage and reason will outmatch one based
on passion (§§ 3, 8). Such digressions are a regular feature of P.'s
method; d. i. 65. 5-9 (lessons of the Mercenary War), 84. 6----9 (lessons
of Hamilcar's success), iii. 21. 9-10 (reasons for surveying the
Romano-Carthaginian treaties in full) ; these examples could be
multiplied.
2. TWV .•. lmoAXufL£vwv tca.L 11'a.paTa.TTOfL£vwv: hysteron proteron to
avoid hiatus; cf. 2. 2 n.
oliSEvos Ka.Ta.SE£aTEpos TWV ~aTOPTJfL£vwv: this is a common To7To:> of
ancient historians; cf. Thuc. i. 1. 2, 21. 2 (the Peloponnesian vVar
the greatest and most memorable). P. uses it repeatedly; cf. i. 63. 4 f.
(comparison with the Persian and Peloponnesian wars), 88. 7 (the
Mercenary War the cruellest ever fought), iii. 1. ro (the period of
fifty-three years, 22o-167, more packed with serious events than any
other); on its usual character see v. 33· I. Lorenz (99 n. 228) quotes
examples from later historians.
3. 9ufL~ fLO.AAov ~ AoytafL~ ~pa.~E..)Ea9a.t: cf. 30. 4, V7ro ToiJ 8vp.oiJ Kal
ri}> .i.\oytaT{as-, 35· 8. The sentiment is very typical of P. For the
metaphor of the umpire in {Jpa{J€!Jw8at cf. i. 58. 1.
4. a.uTous .•• €€wa6£vTa.'i: Cisalpine Gaul was pacified in the two
decades following the peace of 201; but details are not contained in
the surviving parts of P. The Boii were defeated in 191 (Livy, xxxvi.
38. s-7). and Strabo (v. 213, 216) records their expulsion to the
Danube area; but according to Livy (xxxvi. 39· 3) they merely had
to cede Bononia and half their land, and Strabo's story may be a
false deduction from the presence of Boii in Bohemia. Strabo (ibid.)
also records the annihilation of the Senones and Gaesatae; but the
Insubres (who were defeated in 197, Livy, xxxii. 30-31) continued,
he says, to inhabit their own lands. Pacification was assisted by
colonization. In 190 the Latin colonies at Cremona and Placentia
(iii. 40) were reinforced (Livy, xxxvii. 46. 9-47. 2), a Latin colony
was sent to Bononia in 189 (Livy, xxxvii. 57· 7-8), and two citizen
211
11. 35· 4 ROME AND THE GAULS
colonies were established at Mutina and Panna in r83 {Livy, xxxix.
55· 7-8). Roads too were built, the Via Flaminia from Arretium to
Bononia, and the Via Aemilia from A.riminum to Placentia, both in
187. P., like Strabo, has, however, exaggerated the extent to which
the Gauls were physically expelled. When Strabo (v. 247) says that
the Samnites £g£Trmov from Pompeii, he is apparently referring to
their ejection from political control; and J. Whatmough would save
F.'s credit with the argument (Harv. Stud., 1944, 8z-8s) that £g-
wa8l!'r«s has a similar meaning here. But when P. writes avv8w;p1}-
aavus .•. lgwafl£vms, there can be little doubt what he means. He
is, however, incorrect. Hundreds of tombstones with Celtic names
dating mainly from imperial times are only the most striking of the
evidence proving that the Gauls were not expelled, but romanized;
cf. Chilver, 71-8.), and on the settlement in general, De Sanctis,
iv. r. 41o-17; T. Frank, CAH, viii. 326 ff.
1TA-i]v b'Alywv T61Twv ••• ICELfl~vwv: P. will be thinking especially of the
tribes at the head of the Po valley, the Salassi (xxxiv. ro. r8), who
were only partially subdued in 143, and perhaps the Taurini (r5. 8 n.);
see DeSanctis, iv. r. 417·
TTJV -~ cipxfts i~oSov ••• nis J.lETci TauTu 1Tpa~ELS ••• '~'TJ" TEAEuTutuv
t~uvuaTuow: three interpretations are possible: (a) the invasion of
387, the intervening events, the final tumultus of 225 (giving lgava-
O"TaaLs this sense with Schweighaeuser); (b) the invasion of 225, the
loss and recovery of Cisalpine Gaul, and the final expulsion of the
Gauls (£gavaO"TaaLs as in 2r. 9: so Casaubon, Paton, Treves, LSJ, etc.);
(c) the invasion of 387, the intervening campaigns (including 225),
and the final expulsion. The last seems most probable, since it in-
dudes the whole story of the Gauls in Italy (as P. did in this section
and the later lost parts together). Against (a) is the improbability
that £gavci.O"TaaLS means tumultus, and against (b) the improbability
that the invasion of 225 would be called~ £g dpxf}s lcpoSos immediately
after a survey going back to the capture of Rome.
5. Tu TmuiJ,-' ~1TELa6SLu Ti)ll TUXTJS: lusus jortunae, Schweighaeuser
(cf. Hor. Od. ii. I, 3, ludumque Forttmae), 'such episodes in the drama
of Fortune', Shuckburgh. In his commentary Schweighaeuser sug-
gests that P. means an interlude, dravm from the material provided
by Fortune, and inserted as a digression by the author in his history.
But it is improbable that P. admitted any part of his work to be with-
out relevance to his design (which he had already (i. 4· r) identified
with the design of Tyche). The 'episodes' are rather the interludes
provided by Fortune herself in her role as play-producer {on which see
i. 4. 4 n. and CQ, I945, 9 n. I; to the passages there quoted add fg. :nz).
Strachan-Davidson (ad loc.) suggests that 'the incident of the Gallic
invasion is looked upon as a sort of by-play coming between the
great Acts of the Punic tragedy, which is the main business of TvxrJ
212:
ROME AND THE GAULS II. 35· 9
at this period'. But the episodes include the whole series of Gallic
invasions of Italy from 387 to the expulsion from the Po valley. They
are interludes because they interrupt the direct development of
Roman power, to which (despite such a passage as 31. 8) they con·
tribute nothing; and yet they are the work of Tyclre, since in their
ups and downs, their paradoxical and sensational features, they
reveal her typical handiwork. Such interludes, irrelevant interrup·
tions, must be faced and mastered; how to meet them is P.'s lesson
here (§ 8).
7. 'I"OU'ii 'ri}v nc:pawv ~cJ>o&ov ••• 1((1,' r a.Aa.'!"WV ••• O.ya.yOv'!"a.'ij: Hero-
dotus (cf. i. 63. 8 n.) and Ephorus (praised in v. 33· z) both dealt with
the Persian Wars, though Ephorus' work has survived only in the
popular abridgement of Diodorus. \Vhom P. has in mind for the
Gallic attack on Delphi (cf. i. 6. 5 n., ii. zo. 6) is uncertain, for all our
accounts are secondary (Diodorus, Iustinus, and Pausanias), and
their sources are not determined. Timaeus may have touched on the
subject (so A. Schmidt, Abhandlungen zur alten Geschichte (Leipzig,
r888), 3 ff.); and Demetrius of Byzantium, who wrote thirteen books
on 'the crossing of the Galatians from Europe into Asia' (Diog. Laert.
v. 83) may have included the attack on Delphi. Pausanias' source
is especially good (Tarn, AG, 439-42) and may be either Timaeus
or, as Segre thought (Historia, r927, r8-4z), Hieronymus of Cardia.
1'0U'ii inrEp Tfjs Kowfls 1'WV 'EAA.t1vwv ~AEu9Ep(a.s O.ywva.s: the old
catchword of 'Greek freedom' was as popular and as elastic in the
second century as in the fifth; since P. has no difficulty in reconciling
it with Macedonian domination in the fourth century and Roman in
the second (cf. xviii. 14. 6; CQ, 1943, 7-13), his argument here is
perhaps 'singularly frigid and rhetorical' (Treves, ad loc.). Laqueur
(275) argues that this passage (35· 4 ff.) is anti-Roman in implication:
not so, for throughout the Romans are clearly the civilized element
repelling barbarism, not barbarians themselves.
8. TJ ••• a.ipEats Ka.~ liuvnJ.ltS: 'devotion and might'; alternatively
a.tp~a<;; may be 'resolve' (consilit~m, Schweighaeuser). Schweighaeuser
takes Svvap.t;; to mean 'ability', sollertia (d. i. 84. 6). But the phrase
there is crrpa77JYLK~ Svvap.LS'; alone, ovvap.LS' seems to require the more
usual meaning. For the stress on reason cf. § 3·
9. c) &' a'ITO r a.Aa.1'WV cJ>6l3os .•. Ka.8' TiJ.lii'ii ••• E~~'ITATJ~E TOUS EAATJVCI.S:
8
method in these chapters see Lorenz, 3I; but the argument of Sieg-
fried (Io2 ff.) that P. regards the union of the Peloponnese under
Achaea as the realization of a Stoic ideal ('ein verkleinertes Abbild
der stoischen Kosmopolis') is unconvincing.
39. 1. tea.Tel. T~v Mey6.A'f}V 'E).).6.8a.: Magna Graecia signified the Greek
cities of south Italy from Locri to Tarentum (Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 95)
or even as far as Terina on the west coast (Ps.-Scymn. 303 ff.),
or Sicily (Strabo, vi. 253). It was in use by the fourth century (cf.
Timaeus, FGH, 566 F 13, if the phrase there goes back to him), and
here P. seems to associate it with the influence of the Pythagoreans
(cf. Val. Max. viii. 7, ext. 2), which would bring it back to the late
sixth or early fifth century. See E. Meyer, Phil. xlviii, r889, 274;
E. Pais, Storia della Sicilia e della Magna Grecia, i (Torino, 1894),
513-26; \Veiss, 'Graecia Magna', cols. 169o-r.
tca.9' oi:l; tca.tpou; • • • ~YE1Tpl]a91} Tel. O'UYEOpta. TWY nuaa.yopdwv:
222
THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II.39.I
the influence of the Pythagoreans in south Italy began with Pytha-
goras' migration from Samos to Croton about 530 (von Fritz, 92;
Minar, 133; Dunbabin, 359). Despite opposition, members of the
association obtained positions of influence in many of the cities,
where they established governments based on the philosophical and
religious teachings of their leader. The general complexion of these
governments seems to have been aristocratic; but the sources are
so worked over, and indeed contradictory, that little agreement has
been possible about their real character. It is difficult to ascertain
how far Pythagorean government was co-ordinated between the
various cities, and how far its existence outside reflected the domina-
tion of Croton (Minar, 38), which is attested by the evidence of
coinage (Kahrstedt, Hermes, 1918, 180-7) for the early half of the
fifth century. Pythagorean rule has been compared to the 'commer-
cial theocracy' of the Calvinists at Geneva (Thomson, Aeschylus and
Athens (London, 1941), 213 ff.; Aeschylus' Oresteia (Cambridge, 1938),
ii. 350-1), and to the role of the Freemasons in the eighteenth century,
who took part in politics as individuals rather than as a society
(von Fritz, 96 f.). Burnet (EGP4, 87-91) is inclined to regard them as
democratic in so far as they had any political colour. By the date
of the rising mentioned by P., however, they were certainly a reac-
tionary group (von Fritz, 97--98). The burning-down of the avv€Bp~a.
or club-houses (for the expression cf. Plut. Mor. 583 A; Dicaearchus
in Porph. VP, 56), is also described in Iamblichus (VP, 249), who,
however, restricts it to the 'house of Milo' at Croton; and the subse-
quent visit of the Achaean mediators(§ 4) is also in Iamblichus (VP,
263). Of these two passages, Iamblichus follows Aristoxenus in the
former; and it is probably Aristoxenus' desire to minimize the extent
of the rising, which restricts it to Croton (d. von Fritz, 30-31). In
the latter, Iamblichus' source is ultimately Timaeus, via Apollonius
of Tyana (von Fritz, 33 ff.; Minar, 6o-65); but it is Timaeus in a
much worked-over and distorted form. P.'s source is also likely to
be Timaeus. He uses him elsewhere for western affairs (e.g. i. 8. 3-
9· 8 n.), and like Iamblichus he has the record of Achaean intervention.
On the other hand, Iamblichus makes this intervention lead to a re-
conciliation between the citizens of Croton and the Pythagorean exiles,
of which P. says nothing; and the similarity is therefore not sufficient
to allow P.'s source to be identified with certainty (cf. Minar, 76
n. 86), though Timaeus remains most probable. Delatte's argument
(Essai, 224) that P. has also used the popular version of Dicaearchus
depends on his view that it was from here that P. took the reference
to disturbances in cities other than Croton; but this may well have
been in Timaeus himself. Timaeus' account was probably based on
inquiry, but he is likely to have used also documents such as the
V1TOfLV~JLa'Ta KpoTWVLa'T(ijj) and the opKO£ deposited at Delphi after the
223
II. 39· I EVENTS IN GREECE
reconciliation between the Pythagoreans and their opponents (Iamb I.
VP, z6z-3); his version, which also survives in part in Iustinus
(xx. 4), Diodoms (xi-xii), and Porphyry's L~fe of Pythagoras (von
Fritz, 33-67; cf. Minar, so, 54 ff.), seems to have been free from politi-
cal bias and to have set the events within the general framework of
southern Italian history.
The date of the attack on the auv~8pta is disputed. But Aristoxenus
(Iambl. VP, z48-sr) describes how Lysis, Epaminondas'later teacher,
escaped from the holocaust; and from this, taken in conjunction with
Epaminondas' age (he was born not later than 4ro-4os), von Fritz
{78-79. 97-98) deduces that the revolt took place about 445; but the
material for this deduction is tenuous, and Minar (77-78) may well
be right in placing the fall of the Pythagoreans before the rebuilding
of Sybaris in 453, a view which would fit Kahrstedt's findings on the
basis of the coinage, which points to a collapse in the power of Croton
about this time. For though P. makes it clear (against Aristoxenus)
that the revolt was in many cities, the centre of Pythagorean influ-
ence and most likely the core of the revolt were at Croton (von
Fritz, 8o ff.). Iustinus' version (xx. 4), putting these events in Pytha-
goras' lifetime, though also derived from Timaeus, is a doublet of
the events of c. 454. inspired by the common tendency to associate
all Pythagorean details with the master (von Fritz, 87 ff.}.
2. tuvf).,.a:ro; bf.oo-xEpou;: this did not last long, and P. exaggerates
the destruction of the leaders, for while Lysis and Archippus emi-
grated to Greece, where they set up centres at Thebes and Phlius,
others remained active in south Italy, especially at Rhegium (Aristo-
xenus ap. Iambl. VP, 248-sr).
4. !A.xaw"l; ••• o-uv~>xp'l\uav-ro: the Achaean mediation is a consider-
able time after the burning of the avvi8pta, for this is followed by
a period of crrcfrns in the cities (§§ 2-3). In 417 the Spartans set up
oligarchies in Achaea (Thuc. v. 82. I; Xen. Hell. vii. I. 43); and it is
a reasonable supposition (Unger, 5.-B. Munchen, r883, r78 ff.) that
the establishment of the League of Croton, Sybaris, and Caulonia,
with its imitation of Achaean democratic institutions, antedated
their destruction at home (§ 6 n.). But there can well have been an
interval between the Achaean mediation and the formation of this
League. von Fritz (73-74} dates the mediation to c. 445, associating
it with the founding of Thurii. in which the Achaeans shared (cf.
Diod. xii. II. 3, one of its cpv>..al called i1xats-}; but Minar (83-84)
points out that according to Iamblichus (VP, 263: Timaeus via
Apollonius) Achaean mediation led to a reconciliation, and that this
points to a longer passage of time. He therefore prefers c. 430, a date
adopted by Delatte (Essai, 224 n.), who rightly emphasizes the lack
of precision in P.'s indications. The Achaean mediation may have
had something to do \>vith Lysis' stay in Achaea, on his way from
224
THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II. 39.6
Croton to Thebes (Iambl. VP, 248-sr: from Aristoxenus); but more
likely it connects with the ancient bond between Magna Graecia and
the people which founded so many of her cities, including Croton.
Strabo (viii. 384) also records these events, following P.; Lenschau
(Klio, 1944, 209-10) has argued for a common source in some .:4xaiK~
for this early history of the Achaean League, but Strabo need not
have used the same source for the mythical history as for these
events, on which he gives nothing not in P. For a convenient sum-
mary of earlier suggestions for the chronology of the Achaean media-
tion see Delatte (Essai, 223 n. 1).
5. 4!i.'!TES~£a.vTo TYJV a.tpEm.v TWV )\xa...Wv: 'approved the Achaean politi-
cal system' (rather than 'their character', Strachan-Davidson, 8):
P. is concerned with Td rijs 1roAm:las lf>twp..a.
6. auJ.Lcjlpov~aa.vTES KpoTwv~O.-ra.~, Iu~a.p~-ra.~, Ka.uAwvLaTa.L: the date
of this confederation, set up in imitation of the fifth-century Achaean
League (38. 10; cf. Herod. i. 145), is uncertain. It has been associated
with the union of ol T~v 'ha),Lav KaTott<:oilvT~;;; (Diod. xiv. 91) against
the threat from Dionysius of (Oldfather, RE, 'Kaulonia',
col. 74; Philipp, RE, 'Kroton (r)', col. 2024); and from Diodorus
(xiv. ror) E. Meyer (v. 8o4) concludes that it was earlier and against
the Lucanians. But the form of the alliance suggests that it was
made before 417 (§ 4 n.). There is also the problem of Sybaris. Croton
destroyed Sybaris in 510 (Philipp, RE, 'Sybaris (ro)', col. Ioo8). It
was rebuilt in 453 (Diod. xi. go. 3, cf. xii. ro), probably following on
the fall of the Pythagorcans at Croton (§ 1 n.); and its destruction
once more in 448 may signify a turn in their favour at Croton (Minar,
8o). Thurii, founded as successor to Sybaris in 446 or 445, for a time
bore its name (V£t. X arat.: Lysias, 835 D; Herod. v. 45; evidence
from coins, cf. von Fritz, 70); but the Sybarites, who shared in its
foundation, soon quarrelled, and left to form a new settlement on
the Traeis, from which the Bmttians subsequently expelled them
(Diod. xii. u, 22. I; cf. Strabo, vi. 263). The Bruttians only became
important about the time of Dion's expedition against Dionysius
in 357 (cf. Strabo, vi. 255-6; Iustin. xxiii. r); Diodorus (xvi. 15)
describes how they overran Terina, Hipponium, Thurii, Ka~ 1roAAd;;
aAt\n;;, probably including Sybaris on the Traeis. To which Sybaris
does P. here refer? It is true that Sybaris on the Traeis was founded
in feud against Thurii, in the setting up of which the Achaeans had
shared (§ 4 n.); but this is no real obstacle to its having taken part
in the present alliance, if this was considerably later than the
Achaean mediation at Croton and elsewhere. von Fritz (74) is in-
clined to identify this Sybaris (of the confederation) with Thurii,
and quotes Diodorus' reference (xii. rr. 2) to an alliance between
Croton and the newly-founded Thurii, when it must still have been
called Sybaris. But on the whole it seems more likely that P. is
Q
II. 39· 6 EVENTS I::-< GREECE
referring to Sybaris on the Traeis, and that the confederation is to
be dated about 420, perhaps to the time of the war of Croton against
Thurii (Iambl. VP, 264); cf. Minar, 82-8.4, 139. It is far more difficult
to assume that P. is referring to events of about 400 (Oldfather and
Philipp, locc. citt.; Beloch, ii. I. zoo; De Sanctis, ii. r8g n. 4), with
the implication that Achaean institutions were copied after 417.
Diodorus (xiv. 91) dates the League to 393; but this inconsistency
disappears if an original confederacy of Croton, Sybaris, and Caulonia
was subsequently joined by other cities such as Heraclea, Metapon-
tum, Elea, and Tarentum, during the years preceding 393, under
the threat from Dionysius and his Lucanian allies (Diod. xiv. 91. r).
See Glotz-Cohen, iii. 398 ; E. Ciaceri, Storia della magna Grecia, ii
(Milan, 1927),4o8f.,4I3 f.; and, on Thurii, Ehrenberg, AJP, 1948, 149-
70. 0.1reSeL~o.v ALos ·o.,.a.p£ou ~~:owov U.pov ~~:o.t T61rov: cf. v. 93· ro. The
sacred cult centre of the Achaean League was the enclosure of Zeus
Homarios, near Aegium. On its situation see Aymard, ACA, 277~93,
resuming the arguments (d. Melanges offerts a M. Octave Navarre
(Toulouse, 1935), 453-70) for accepting Hamarios and Homarios as
permissible forms of the word; Bingen, BCH, 1953. 626-7. The
sense is probably 'who unites together' (&J.Wii' +ap-) ; see Schweig-
haeuser, ad loc. Zeus Homarios figures on coins of the Achaean
League. The site of the south I tali an Homarion is unknown.
TU\; 1'E auvoSous Ka.l Tel. OLa.J'ouALa.: 'meetings and deliberations'. Cf.
Strabo, viii. 3R~ (following P.). auvo8os- may have its technical sense
of 'a regular meeting' (cf. 37· Io-II n. (e)), since there were probably
no atfyKA'f/TO£ in the fifth century (Aymard, ACA, 35 n. 3).
7. irrro o€ Tfjs ALO\IUO"lOU Iupa.~~:ou(ou Suva.an:[a.s: on Dionysius' in-
vasion of Italy see i. 6. z n. His victory at Elleporus ended Crotonian
influence in south Italy and also, apparently, the alliance on the
Achaean model. The 'surrounding barbarians' are the Bruttians (§6n.).
8. An~~:t:Sa.tl-'ov[wv • • • 1TTa.ta6.vTwv 1Tt:pi Tijv £v At:~•npoLs tJ.6.XTJ":
cf. i. 6. I, iv. 8I. 12; Dem. ix. 23, raxvaav 8.£ 'TL Kal e,{3atoL TOVTOV<TL
TO~S' T€1.€VTalovs- x.p6vovs J.L€TIL T~v Ell' A€vKTpots- J.LctX'l~'· The subsequent
aKptala in Greece is also described by Demosthenes (xviii. I8), dMa
"' ,;v aKpLTOS" Kat 7Tapa TOUTOLS' (i.e. the pro-Spartan elements in the
Peloponnese) Kat 7Ta.p0. 'TOtS UAAO£S" a7Ta0'£V lpts /((),~ Tapa.x~· The uncer-
tainty about the result of the battle is exaggerated by P. to motivate
the Achaean arbitration ; but Schweighaeuser's suggestion that this
is somehow a reference to Mantinea (362) is quite misguided and
misleading.
9. 1TEpt TWY atJ.cJltaJ3TJTOUtJ.EYWV E1TISTpeljla.v ••• !4xa.Lo~s; cf. Strabo,
viii. 384 (probably drawing on P.: d. Honigmann, RE, 'Strabon',
col. 128). This arbitration is not otherwise attested. The Achaeans,
pro-Spartan since 417 (Thuc. v. 82. I, vii. 34· 2) supported that cause
even after Leuctra (Xen. Hell. vi. 4· 17 ff.), but very soon shifted over
226
THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II. 40.2
to a policy of neutrality. Hence the reality of the arbitration has
been questioned (cf. Grote, History of Greece 4 (London, I872), viii.
I89 n. ; E. von Stern, Geschichte der spartanischen und thebanischen
Hegemonic, Diss. Dorpat, I884, I53-5; Aymard, REA, I937. 2I n. 2);
and indeed neither its place in the picture nor the identification of
Ta afufnaf3YJT0-6fLEYU (perhaps the status of the smaller Boeotian towns)
is immediately apparent. Cary (CQ, 1925, I65-6) suggests a date
immediately after the alliance between Athens and the smaller
Peloponnesian states in autumn 37I (Xen. Hell. vi. 5· 1-3), but
regards any period during the following twelve months as possible.
He answers some of the objections of Grote and von Stern; but the
whole incident remains dubious, and may go back to a piece of
Achaean falsification. In any case it had no appreciable effect on
the subsequent events.
12. ToY u"n"oOE(~a.YTa.: 'anyone making such a claim'; cf. 47· Io, v.
46. 9 for this sense, which is in Thucydides (iv. 86. 5). P. here quickly
passes over the long period of Achaean depression which lasted from
the middle of the fourth century to 28o. It included co-operation
with Agis III of Sparta against Antipater in 330, and the occupation
of Achaea by Demetrius Poliorcetes (Brandis, RE, 'Achaia (I)',
cols. I62-3). There is no external evidence of either achievement or
high principle in Achaea at this time.
In iv. 57· 5 P. puts it only 7 stades from the sea, but there has no
doubt been silting from the river since then. Aegium occupied the
site of the modern city of that name.
P.'s omission of Olenus and inclusion of Leontium suggests that,
despite his reference to the period before Philip and Alexander, his
list is really that of the third-century cities; cf. Bingen, BC H, 1954,
404-6.
9. tc:a.TA S£ TOu<; lHTTEpou<; ttTA.: i.e. between 323 and 281. Until
recently Alexander was commonly believed to have dissolved all
Greek Kotvd in 324. That view, which runs directly counter to this
passage, depended on the combination of a fragmentary passage in
Hypereides' speech against Demosthenes (i. r8-rg, Jensen) with
41. 6 above. It was rejected by Tarn (]HS, I92Z, 205) and refuted by
Aymard (REA, 1937. 5-28).
10. TUS 1:1£v ~Jlq,poupous •.. yEvEa8a.L •.• , TUS S£ tc:a.t TupavvEta8aL:
Demetrius Poliorcetcs, son of Antigonus I, was powerful in Greece
and Macedon from 307, and held the title of king from 294. Cassander,
the son of Alexander's viceroy in Macedon, Antipater, was powerful
from about 317 to his death in 297. Antigonus Gonatas, Demetrius'
son, was king of Macedon from 283 to 240{39· A few details from the
wars of the Diadochi in Achaea survive in Diodorus (xix. 66. 3-6,
liberation of Achaean cities in 314 from Cassander's garrisons by
Aristodemus, a general of Antigonus I ; xx. ro3. 4, capture of Bura
THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II. 41. I3
from Cassander by Demetrius in 303). These passages mention
Cassander's garrisons in Dyme, Patrae, Aegium, and Bura; this
system and that of installing friendly tyrants were employed by
Demetrius and Antigonus. Cf. ix. 29. 6, where Chlaeneas of Aetolia
speaks of Cassander, Demetrius, and Antigonus tlv oi f.L£" rppovpas
dt:raj'OVTf<; ds Tas 7T(JAHS I o[ [j~ Tvpawovs ij.Lrp!Yrr;VOJ)'T€<; oOSEJ.L{av 7TOAW
aj.LOtpov iTTo{:ryaav 'TOU rijs OOVA£las 6v6j.La'TO<;,
rr~E(uTovs ••• ~ovapxous o~Tos Erui>uTEuua.~ lioKE'i To'Ls "E~~TJut:
a strong case has been argued by W. Fellmann (Antigonos Gonatas,
Konig der Makedonen, und die griechischen Staaten, Diss. Wiirzburg,
1930, 56-{i3; cf. Porter, xxv-xxvii) for the view that Gonatas' system
of tyrants was first established after the death of Alexander of
Corinth about 245. But the evidence is inconclusive; for though not
every tyrant was Gonatas' man, once in power a tyrant would be
likely to look to Macedon, and if Gonatas was interested enough to
maintain a garrison at Aegium (§ 12) and to found a strong-point at
Leontium (41. 7-8 n.), he may have been not wholly without interest
in what happened at Ceryneia and Bura (§ 14}. The metaphorical use
of iJ.Lrpv-refktat is not uncommon (cf. Plato, T£maeus, 42 A) and there
is no reason to think P. borrowed it fromAratus' Memoirs (so Treves).
11. KO.Ta T~V nuppov Sta~aaw: d. i. 6. 5 n., ii. 20. 6 n.
12. AujLO.LOL, na.TpEis, T PLTO.LELS, 4>apa.uil's: cf. iv. 6o. IO, dpxTJYOUS
Tofi Twv 11xaww uvrrr-TjJ.LaTos. All four of these western towns are
small, though Dyme and Tritaea were probably larger than the other
two (Plut. Arat. 11. x); on their sites see 4r. 7-8 n. Their union is
probably to be connected V>ith the rising of Areus of Sparta and
various Peloponnesian states against Macedon (Justin. xxiv. x),
following on Gonatas' naval defeat at the hands of Ptolemy Ceraunus
in z8o (Memnon, FGH, 434 F I (8. 4 ff.); Justin. xxiv. 1. 8). See
Tarn, AG, 131-3; CAH, vii. 99-1oo; Beloch, iv. I. 249·
lhorrep ov8~ O'TIJ~TJV ••• TllS O'Uj11TO~lTE(ag: since they did not enter
the League, but formed it; and in any case until Aegium entered
the League they had no access to the federal sanctuary and could
not set up a stele there (Aymard, Melanges Franz Cumont (Brussels,
1936), 12). Swoboda has argued (Staatsaltertumer, 375 n. 2) that
UVJ.LTToAtnla is here rather less than full federal union, and nearer to
luono.\tn[a. It is true that in 279 the people of Patrae, llxat<Vv J.L6voL,
sent the Aetolians help against the Celts (Paus. vii. x8. 6, zo. 6); and
this suggests that the earliest constitution allowed more latitude of
action to the separate cities than would later have been possible.
But that the Lt>.ague was not constituted in z8o is an hypothesis
running counter to the whole of P.'s narrative. Cf. Busolt-Swoboda,
ii. 1537 n. I; Niccolini, 6 n. 6.
13. J16.A,uT6. 1TIIl'i €TE~ 1TEjLrrT~: Aegium expelled its Macedonian garri-
son and entered the League in the fifth year after its foundation in
233
IL .p. 13 EVENTS IN GREECE
Ol. 124, 4 = 28rjo. But for his dates in 41-43 P. seems to be using
the Achaean aTparqyia year, which at this time began with the rising
of the Pleiades, in May (v. r. 1). The following table can be con~
structed on the basis of exclusive calculation:
Achaean Year
Foundation of the League {01. 124, 4 = 28rjo}
First year . . May 28ofMay 279
Aegium joins five years later (4r. 13} 275{4
Margus elected sole general after twenty-five
years (43· 2} 255/4
Aratus frees Sicyon four years later (43· 3) 251/0
Corinth freed eight years later (43· 4} 243/2
i.e. one year before the battle of the Aegates
Islands (43· 6) which was in spring 24r (cf. i.
6o-6I n.}.
43. 1. e'LKoaL ••• ~TTJ T4 1rpwTa Kat 1TEvTE: i.e. 280/79-256/s inclusive.
Mommsen (Rom. Forsch. ii. 36o) assumes all P.'s calculations to be
based on inclusive reckoning, and calculates these twenty-five years
from the accession of Aegium; but Ta 1rpwTa. is against this, as
also is the fact that Strabo (viii. 385), who adds the detail that
meetings were at this time held at the Homarion, allows only twenty
years, i.e. from the accession of Aegium, in whose territory the
Homarion lay (Aymard, 111elanges Cumont, 19-20).
ypa"'p.a.Tta. KOLVOV EK 1TEptoSou 1TPOXELptt6~-LEVaL teal 8uo aTpaT1'JYOU~:
iK 1TEpt68ov, 'in rotation' (not 'for a certain period', Paton); cf. vi.
20. 7· Secretary and generals were chosen from a fresh city each year,
on a rota (though probably each from a separate city). 7rpoxetpt{6-
p.evat, agreeing with 1r6Aets, may mean that the citizens of the city
in question elected, and not the federal assembly (Aymard, ACA,
390 n. 3) ; but the point is a fme one, and in any case such a manner
of election can have existed only until the reorganization of 256/5
(cf. Busolt-Swoboda, ii. 1537 n. 3). One may not press the prefix
7rpo- in 7rpoxnpt{w8at (with Aymard) to indicate prior designation;
P. uses it regularly for 'to appoint' (cf. L II • .3, iii. 106. 2, etc.).
2. ~va Ka8taTavuv KTA.: i.e. in 255/4, with Margus. This reform
probably implied a diminution in the importance of the grammateus,
as the League became increasingly preoccupied with problems of
external and military policy (Aymard, Melanges offerts aM. Nicolas
Iorga (Paris, 1933), 96-ro3), and was accompanied by the transfer of
rnJvoSot from the Homarion to Aegium itself (Aymard, ACA, 294 ff.).
3. TETapTtt~ 8' uaTepov ~TEL ••• aTpllTTJYOUVTo~: 'four years after his
term of office', not (as Paton, following Casaubon) 'during his term of
office'. The present participle is used for the aorist, as in iii. u4. 6;
cf. i. 1. I, Toi:s dvayp&.povm, ii. 2. II, T{jl 1Tpoii1Tapxovn. See Schweig-
haeuser, ad loc.; and Porter, 54 (on Plut. Arat. 9· 6). This passage
dates Aratus' birth to :271; cf. Walbank, ]HS, 1936, 65 n. 9; Porter,
loc. cit., against Beloch's argument (iv. 2. 228) that he was born in
276 or 275.
Tupa.vvoup.EVTJV 8' ~Xw8epcilaa.~ T,;v 1TilTpt8a.: cf. Plut. A rat. 5-9;
Walbank, Araios, 31-.34· The tyrant of Sicyon was Nicocles, who had
seized power after Pascas' murder four months previously (Plut.
A rat. 4· r); neither can be shown to be a creature of Antigonus. The
liberation took place on 5 Daisios, i.e. May (Plut. A rat. 53· 5; cf.
Cam. 19; Alex. 16 for equation with the Attic month Thargelion);
but P. does not give the year, as indeed he had no occasion to do.
Porter (xxxiii-xxxiv), who favours 252, lists the events between the
235
II. 43· 3 EVENTS IN GREECE
liberation and the accession to the League. But Plut. Arat. 9· 6,
o(hv JK 'TWV TTO.povrwv apW'TO. Kptva.s TTpoa/p.~f~v a.iJrryv r/Jepwv (i.e.
'promptly') Tots .lixawis, is rather in favour of making the liberation
May 251; and the straightforward interpretation of P. would put
both events in the same year. Sicyon will then have joined the
Confederation in autnmnfwinter 251. See }HS, 1936, 67 for a table
of dates, 251-248.
4. oybo<tl 8( 'ITI:Huv ETEL: i.e. 243/2. Aratus' first crrpo.nryta. was in
245/4 (Plut. Arat. r6; Walbank, Aratos, 42). Corinth had slipped from
Gonatas' grasp when his governor Alexander revolted and declared
his independence in 250/49 (on the date see De Sanctis, Klio, 1909.
1-9; Porter, Hermath. zo, 1930, 293-3n; Plutarch's Aratus, xxxvi-
xlii; Walbank,JHS, 1936, 67). On Alexander's death in 245 Antigonus
tricked his widow out of the stronghold by a proposed marriage with
the heir Demetrius. In 243 Aratus liberated both the city and the
citadel (in midsummer, Plut. Arat. :ZI. 2, TJ TTEP~ Olpos aKfLa~ov wpa).
See Plut. Arat. 16. 2-24. 1; Walbank, Aratos, 45-47; for the topo-
graphy Porter, Hermath. xxi, I9JI, 54-6o; W. P. Theunissen, Plou-
tarchos' Le11en van A ratos (Nijmegen, 1935), 184-97.
5. T~v Twv MEyapEwv 'IT6Aw: Troezen and Epidaurus also joined the
League now; cf. Plut. A rat. 24. 3; Paus. ii. B. 5, vii. 7· 2. Dta7Tpo.g&.-
fLt:vos may suggest the use of intrigue or trickery (cf. Aeschin. Ctes.
232); but Schweighaeuser translates 'sua industria'.
6. 1'~ 'ITpoTEpov E1'£L T~S KapxtJ8ovlwv ~TTT]S: if the battle of the
Aegates Islands was in March 241 (i. 6o-6r n.), it fell in the Achaean
OTpa.rrtylo. year May 242-May 241, and so in the year after the libera-
tion of Corinth, May 243-May 242.
7, blET~hEL 'ITPOcrTI:lTWV ••• Tov TW\1 ;ll,.xau';lv i9vous:: cf. Plut. A rat.
24. s. OUTW S' raxvaev €v TOtS .lixa~ors, wcrre .:l fLry Ka'T' Jvazvrov l~fjv,
TTap' Jv~o.vrov alpd:aOat crrpa'TTJYOV o.tl-r6v, ;pycp 8€ Ka.~ yYWJl.TJ Sui 1ravros
apxEw. Normally Aratus held office alternate years until his death
in :ZIJ/I:z; for details and discussion of the general list see Beloch,
iv. z. 219 ff.; Tarn, CAH, vii. 863; Ferrabino, 272-5; Walbank,
Aratos, 167-75; d. CR, 1937, 224; Niccolini, 267 ff.; Porter, lxxvii-
lxxxi.
8. To MaKE8ova.s 11£v ~IC~a.A~tiv KTA.: this paragraph summarizes
Aratus' aims down to the time of the Cleomenean War, when the
Spartan threat caused their radical revision. This threat revealed
the inadequacy of Aratus' programme when faced by a determined
enemy combining social and patriotic slogans in support of a power-
ful army. Faced by Cleomenes Aratus recalled the Macedonians into
Greece, and handed over the Acrocorinth. On this issue see Treves,
Rend. Line., 1932, 177 ff., 188-9; Athen., 1935, 30 ff.
TfJ\1 ICOlVTJV Ka.i 'IT~lTpLov ~A£u9Epla.v: cf. 42. 6; freedom both as indivi-
dual cities, enjoying their ancestral institutions, and as a federal body.
236
THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II-44·1
9. -rrpos 'T1,v At'TwAwv -rrAEovE~La.v: the Aetolians, ancient enemies of
Achaea, are harshly criticized by P.; cf. 3· 3, 4· 6, 45· I, 46. 3, 49· 3,
iv. 3· I, 3· 5, 67. 4, v. 81. I, ix. 38. 6, xviii. 4· I, 34· 1. The Aetolians
were allied with Antigonus, and on his recovering the Isthmus in
245 invaded the Peloponnese. Triphylia was seized from the Ar-
cadians and annexed to Elis; Arcadia was raided, the temple of
Artemis at Lusi was plundered, and the Arcadian League disinte-
grated. At Megalopolis Lydiades seized the tyranny, probably with
Aetolian and Elean help. See Walbank, JHS, 1936, 67 ff. 11'Aeov~;gia
is 'lust for plunder' (cf. I9. 3, 45· I, iv. 3· 5, Vi. 56. 3), not 'lust for
power' (as Paton).
10. wcrn -rro~T)cra.cr9a.L cruv9T)Ka.s K'TA.: cf. 45· I, ix. 34- 6, 38. 9· Aratus
countered this proposed partition, 'in a statesmanlike fashion'
(11'payp..anKwc;), by an alliance with Agis of Sparta in autumn 243
(Plut. Agis, I3). Only in summer 24I, in Aratus' third C1'TpaT1]yia,
did the Aetolians cross the Isthmus, to be decisively defeated at
Pellene (Plut. Arat. 31. 3-5, 32. s--6). That invasion was probably
a reply to Aratus' policy of expansion against the allies of Aetolia
in Arcadia, which he initiated with an unsuccessful attack on
Cynaetha in the spring (ix. 17); but by now it was clear that Anti-
gonus had no real help to give. See]HS, I936, 69-70.
compact is, at the earliest, winter 229/8; since (a) it follows the
accession of Argos, Hermione, and Phlius to the League (44- 6), (b)
Doson is undisputed master of Macedon (§ 3), which is true only
after his recovery of Phthiotis, Thessaliotis, and Hestiaeotis from
the Aetolians, who had seized them on Demetrius' death (Walbank,
Philip, I I nn. 2-3). Perhaps the agreement between Doson and the
Aetolians which followed this recovery, and apparently left Phthiotic
Achaea in Aetolian hands, is behind P.'s distorted version. For an
apparent difficulty see 45· 6 n.
~VTLYOV<tJ n . . . hnTpont:uovTL • • • 41LMnnou: Antigonus Doson,
grandson of Demetrius Poliorcetes and cousin of Demetrius II, suc-
ceeded first as guardian of the young heir Philip, and husband of
Demetrius' widow Phthia, in 229; cf. xx. 5· 7; Livy, xl. 54· 5; Plut.
Aem. 8. 3 (suggesting that his original position was that of strategos);
Iustin. xxviii. 3· 9-10; Euseb. Chron. i. 238 Schoene. After his
victories over the Aetolians (above) and the suppression of an army
revolt (Tustin. xxviii. 3· u), probably in the late winter of 2z8i7, he
assumed the full rights of kingship. On the chronology see Dow and
Edson, Harv. Stud., 1937, 172ft.; Walbank, Philip, I I n. 4, 295-6;
on the regency and marriage to Phthia (Chryseis} see Tarn, Ferguson
Studies, 483-sor; Aymard, Aegyptus, 1952, 9o--92. Doson reigned until
his death, c. July 221 (7o. 6 n.).
Kll.t:Op.evu Tii! !3a.cnll.ei Aa.Kt:Sa.tp.ov(wv: Cleomenes III succeeded his
father Leonidas on the throne in 235. Married to Agiatis, the widow
of Agis IV, whom Leonidas had murdered in 241 (Plut. Cleom. r. 1-3),
Cleomenes inherited Agis' revolutionary programme, which he linked
with a policy of Spartan predominance in the Peloponnese. On
Cleomenes' policy, which clashed with that of Aratus, see Walbank
(Aratos, 72ft.); and on his blend of romanticism and political realism
see Treves (Athen., 1935, 32-33).
3-4. Aetolian considerations: quite fictitious. In 228 Doson had cer-
tainly established his position in Macedon by expelling the Aetolians
from most of Thessaly (45· 2 n.) and had repelled the Dardanians,
probably with a decisive victory (Iustin. xxviii. 3· 14; Bettingen,
17-18) ; but of active hostility towards Achaea because of the
capture of Acrocorinth fifteen years earlier (43· 4} there is no evidence
(cf. Fine, A]P, 1940, 135 n. 25}. On the other hand, Cleomenes had al-
ready moved against Achaea with his seizure of the fort of Athenaeum
in the Belbinatis (Plut. Cleom. 4- 1-2) in summer 229. Thus there
was no interval when Doson was securely established in Macedon
but Cleomenes not yet at war with Achaea.
4. t:t To us Aa.KcoSa.tp.ovl.ous . . . npoep.!3t!30.cmtev KTA.: 'if they could
first excite the Lacedaemonians to hostile action'. U:rrlxfhtav is vir-
tually 7T6Aq.1.m•: cf. 46. 6.
5. Suvcip.evov uciaT)s IEUaToxeiv neptaTaaEw<;: 'capaoie of meeting any
R
11. 45· 5 EVENTS IN GREECE
47. 1. TO J-1~" 1TpwTov 81t.. TllS l8~a.s 8uvO.J.1ews: the period of indepen-
dent Achaean resistance goes dov.'11 to Cleomenes' coup at Sparta
(winter 227/6). The stress on Achaean isolation is meant to extenuate
Achaean defeats.
2. Tt)v 1TpOS nTo).EJ.LO.iov ••• quMa.v: i.e. Ptolemy III Euergetes. By
an arrangement made with Ptolemy II Philadelphus, after a visit
to Egypt in 251 (Plut. Arat. 12. I; Cic. off. ii. 82), Aratus received an
annual subvention of 6 talents (Plut. A rat. 41. 5; Cleom. 19. 8) until
well into the Cleomenean War (5r. z n.).
TtLS 1TpoyeyE\IT}J.I-EVO.S eu~:pyeata.s: as well as the pension, the ISO
talents given by Ptolemy II to Aratus in 251, after a preliminary
zs talents (Plut. Arat. II. z, where the {JaatA.eus- is Ptolemy, not
Antigonus (Porter, xli); 13. 6) given to solve an economic problem
arising out of the return of exiles to Sicyon.
3. Tou K>.eoJ.LEvous To TE vO.Tpwv 1TOMTEuJ.La. ~ta.Ta.>.uaa.vTos: cf.
Plut. Cleom. i· 1 ff. Cleomenes' revolution was in autumn 227 (Tarn,
C AH, vii. i54; Beloch, iv. I. 702; Walbank, Philip, 14). After tiring
out the army, which included his opponents of the rich party, by
long and apparently purposeless marches, Cleomenes left it at its
own request in Arcadia, and descending one evening upon Sparta,
fell on the Ephors (of whom he slew four) and seized power. He
then carried through the 'Lycurgan' programme, on which Agis had
fallen. Property was put into a common pool, debts were cancelled,
the land was divided into 400 Spartan lots, and the citizens were
made up to this number by additions from perioeci and metics.
Eighty of the leading opponents were proscribed and went into exile;
the ephorate was abolished; and the old common training with its
classes for boys and messes for citizen soldiers were reinstituted.
Behind all this was the ambition to establish a Spartan hegemony in
Greece. Cf. \Valbank, Aratos, 84-86, 165-6. Plutarch's account follows
Phylarchus, who supported Cleomenes (56 ff.); but to Aratus, F.'s
source, Cleomenes' reforms are a threat to social stability and signify
245
II. 47· 3 EVENTt~; IN GREECE
not a return to but an overthrow of the Tr<hpwv TroAlTEVJUL (ct. iv. Sr.
14). The justification for describing Cleomenes' new power as a
Tupawls lies in the abolition of the dual kingship and the use of
violence ; for Cleomenes' methods and character are the reverse of
those attributed to the TVpawor who succeeds the {3aatA€V> in vi.
7· 6-8.
XPW!LEvou oe Ka.~ T¥ voAE!L<tJ vpa.KTLKWS Ka.l va.pa.j36>.ws: cf. Plut.
Arat. 35· 6, T~ K.Aeof.dJJf.t 8pauos EXOJJTt Kat 7Tapa{36'Awr; aveaJJOf.LEVcp
(Aratus' words in a letter to Lydiades). 7Tapaf36'Aws here is 'with great
daring' (Paton) or 'in a remarkable way' (cf. i. 58. I); Schweighaeuser
turns it 'acriter', and Porter, commenting on the passage in Plutarch,
renders 'in a dangerous manner', i.e. to the enemy. In fact the word
has all these nuances. P. refers to Cleomenes' capture of 1\lethydrium,
and his victory at Pallantium, where Aratus persuaded the general
Aristomachus to decline battle (Plut. Arat. 35· 7 ; Cleom. 4) in n8,
and his victories at Mt. Lycaeum (Plut. Arat. 36. I; Cleom. 5· 1) and
Ladoceia (51. 3; Plut. Arat. 36. 4-37. 5; Cleom. 6) in 227.
5. Tous OE ~a.aLA€i<; ••• Ta.is .•• -rou au!L~~povTo; ljti)~ot; a1.El. J.L€~
TpouvTas K'I"A·: cf. Thuc. vi. ss. I, avSpl SJ Tvpawte ~ 7TOAH apxTiv lxor5Uf1
ovo~v riAoyov on tv~pov ovS' olK.eiov Ch-t f.L~ r.<O'Tov· r.pds lKaaTa ()~
()*'' ~ lxfJp6v 7} ,PO..ov f.J.f.Td. Katpofi ytyvfiufJcu. For the phrase which A
1
and R give as OVT lxBpov oifu r.oM.f.Ltoll, either Hultsch's reading,
olin aVf.Lf.Laxov oVTE 'lTOAtf.Ltov, or that of Bfittner-'Nobst, ovn
<aw<:)pydv oi1TE TroMf.Lwv, gives the required sense and the variation
and chiastic balance to Tas lx8pas Kai. nls ,Pt'Alas; Biittner-Wobst's
reading is slightly closer to the MSS. The sentiments (like the refer-
ence to Aetolian audacity and Antigonus' merits, §§ 4-5) may come
from Aratus.
6. tvt:~ciAETo Aa.AE'tv vpoc; Tov ••• ~aalAEa.: this decision and the
opening of negotiations through the Megalopolitans (48) are to be
dated autumn 227, after Cleomenes' coup. See Fine (A]P, 1940,
137 ff.), Koster (lxxviii), and Walbank (Philip, 12-14, superseding
Arato.';, 74 ff., 190 ff.), against Tarn (CAH, vii. 756) and Dow and
Edson (llarv. Stud., 1937, qg), who date the first negotiations
early in 225. Presumably Doson had returned from his Carian
expedition of summer 227, though the comparative chronology of
this and the Achaean embassy is not to be deduced from 49· 6
(see note).
7. 1rpo8f)Awc; • , • vpciTTEW O.au11~opov T)yei-ro: this seems to imply
private diplomatic contacts separate from the Megalopolitan em-
bassy, which must have been a more or less public enterprise; so
Treves, ad loc. This is how Plutarch (A rat. 38. n-12) read P.; and
he says that Phylarchus had the same version. After Hecatombaeum
(5I. 3) Aratus entered on time-gaining negotiations with Cleomenes
(Plut. Arat. 39· I ff.); but one need not assume, \>iith Treves, that
246
THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II. 48.4
resistance to Cleomenes and attempts to enlist outside support in
Aetolia, Athens, and Eg-ypt (Plut. A rat. 41. 3; P. ii. 51. 2) were not
genuine efforts to avoid calling in Antigonus. See so. 7, a fair state-
ment of Aratus' position.
11. EvLO. TOUTWV ou8' EV TOL<; il1TO!-LVTJf'O.O'L KUTETO.~Ev: he did not sup-
press the Megalopolitan embassy, for it was an essential part of his
apologia to show the Megalopolitans taking the initiative, inde-
pendently, in the course for which he had been criticized (cf. § 8
Ka.Ta.<j>£vywv brt To us ix8povs-; Plut. A rat. 38. 6; Cleom. 16. 3-4). What
he suppressed was (a) his own prior negotiations(§ 7 n.), (b) the fact
that he had instigated the Megalopolitan embassy to Pella (d. Plut.
Arat. J8. II, Tovs M£yaMmoAlTa.> 7rpoKafhlvat 3£oJ.L&ovs ~xatwv im-
Ka.Aeta8a.L Tov liVT{yovov). These two details P. added, either from an
independent Megalopolitan source connected with his own circle
(Walbank, Aratos, 12; Treves ad ii. 48. I ; Gelzer, A bh. Berlin. A kad.,
1940, no. 2, r3) or possibly (despite 56. 1-2) from Phylarchus (cf. Plut.
A rat. 38. rz, dJ.Lofwc; o~ Ka.~ ([>VA.a.pxo> tO"T6p"ljKE m:pt ToJ..rwv).
50. 2. l:O.v Kat Tois :AxatOL5 ToiiTo f3ouAOf.LEVOl!l ii: i.e. the invitation
must come from the whole Confederation, not merely from Megalo-
polis.
9. TTJV .•• ciBlKLuv 11"Ept Tov :A.KpoKopLVSov: 43· 4 n., 52. 4· The seizure
was an d&~da, because in 243 Macedon and Achaea were at peace,
10. ds TO Kmvov ~ouAEuT/jptov: probably at the spring at5vo8os, zz6
(Porter, lxxiii; Fine, AJP, 1940, r4o n. 47). The phrase Kowov
{3ouAeurr)pwv is discussed by Aymard (ACA, 65-67), who argues that
{JovAEv-r~pwv is hardly more than an alternative to {3ouil~. itself a
synonym for avvo&os. But PouAe!J7'1/pLDV is normally 'council chamber'
(cf. xi. 9· 8, xxii. 9· 6) ; and 'what was theoretically a meeting Of
a primary assembly might at times be held in a council chamber'
(Larsen, 77). In using the adjective Kow6v P. is contrasting the federal
249
II. 50. to EVENTS IN GREECE
chamber with the Megalopolitan assembly to which the envoys had
first reported (so. 3-4). The terms Td 1rAfj8os- and ol 1roAAot (§ rr) are
properly used of a meeting open to all citizens; see Aymard (ACA,
Sr ff.).
12. Ka.mc!>EuyEw brt n1.s TW\1 4>£Awv ~o,&Eia.s: cf. 47· 8, Kt:J.Tac/>Evywv
e1Tt TOVS' ix8pov<;, also referring to Antigonus. Treves (A then., 1935· 26)
underlines Aratus' adroitness in turning the accusation made against
him. His duplicity as counsellor of resistance shows through despite
P.'s admiration and an account based on his Memoirs.
giving any respite', i.e. for recovery (not 'circumstances no longer per-
mitting any delay', i.e. in appealing to Doson, as Paton; cf. Porter,
lxxiv). &.vaaTpo~~ is 'a breathing-space to do something'; d. i. 66. 3,
ii. 33· 3, etc. The appeal op.o8vp.aoov is part of Aratus' apologia.
5. €v ~ Ka.lp~: 'in this crisis'. From a little after Hecatombaeum
until] unef July 225 there was a truce and ne-~otiations with Cleomenes
(Plut. Arat. 39; Cleom. 15). A first conference, fixed for early in 225,
was postponed owing to Cleomenes' illness. Meanwhile Aratus re-
fused to stand as general for 225/4, letting a supporter Timoxenus
stand and be elected in his place. There is little doubt that during
this period he had secretly resumed conversations with Doson. After
the breakdown in the negotiations with Cleomenes in summer,
the king carried out a series of campaigns in Arcadia and Achaea
which shook the League to its foundations (see 52 ff.). Mean-
while, at some unascertained date (probably late summer 225, cf.
Porter, lxxv) the Achaeans decided to send the younger Aratus to
Doson to discover his final tem1s. On the younger Aratus see iv.
37· r (general for 219/18), vii. 12. 9 (relations with Philip V). First
Philip's lo\·er, he became his enemy when the king carried off his
wife Polycrateia to Macedon (Plut. Arat. 49· 2, so. 2; Livy, xxvii.
31. 8, xxxii. 2r. 23-24; \Valbank, Philip, 78-79). Later rumour attri-
buted his madness and early death (probably falsely) to Philip's
poison (Piut. Arat. 54· 2-3; Walbank, CQ, 1943, 4 n. J).
£(3Ej3a.u:,O"o.To Ta m:pt Tfjs ~o,&E(a.s: 'confirmed the details of assis~
tance', cf. 49· 9· The younger Aratus was sent to learn the exact
price Doson demanded for his help; and this (§ 6) proved to be the
depositing of hostages and cession of Acrocorinth. Presumably
Aratus junior reported back these terms, for they at first proved
unacceptable (§ 7). The final decision to accept was not taken until
spring 224 (52. 4), when the younger Aratus again made the journey
to Macedon, this time as one of the hostages (Plut. A rat. 42. 3; Cleom.
19. 9). Treves (ad loc.) refers this passage to the final acceptance of
Doson's terms in 224; Aratus junior thus makes only one journey
to Pella, to convey the Achaean decision (P.), and to remain as a
hostage (Plutarch). and sr. 6-7 is parenthetical, describing Achaean
hesitation before sending the younger Aratus. It is clear, however,
that at some point an embassy had to go to Macedon to establish the
details hitherto left vague (49· 9); and the likelihood is that it is to
this embassy P. is here referring.
7. U1T~p8EO'lV EO'XE TO fila~ouAlov: if TO a~afiouA£oV, 'the deliberations',
implies a uwollo5', this will be the autumn meeting of 225, at which the
younger Aratus reported Doson's terms. It was probably Achaean
reluctance to pay the price demanded that led Aratus to make his
unsuccessful appeals for help to Aetolia and Athens (Plut. A rat. 41. 3).
52. 2. 1rpoO'Aa.~wv S£ . . . Ka.4>ua5 KTA.: after the collapse of
H. 52. 2 EVENTS IN GREECE
negotiations in summer 225 (51. 5), Cleomenes again declared war and
invaded Achaea (Plut. Cleom. 17. 3 ff.; A rat. 39· 4 ff.). From Tegea he
marched towards Sicyon which he almost captured; then, swerving
west, he seized Pellene, and returned south to take Pheneus in
Arcadia (and the citadel of Penteleium: Plut. Cleom. q. 6; A rat.
39· 4). \\'bet her he continued south to Caphyae, or the town went over
of its own accord is not known. These successes carried Spartan
territory to the gulf of Corinth, and split the Confederation in two.
Cleomenes now concentrated on the eastern half. Argos was taken
during the Nemean truce, and a garrison sent to occupy Cleonae and
Phlius (Plut. Cleom. 19. r ; A rat. 39· 5) ; meanwhile, in a campaign in
the south-east of the Argolid Cleomenes took Hermione, Troezen,
and Epidaurus. Finally, on the invitation of its people he occupied
Corinth. The whole campaign was very rapid (Plutarch (Cleom.
17· 5), following Phylarchus, stresses the appeal made by Cleomenes'
social programme of debt-cancellation and land-division to the
masses in Achaea) and the capture of Corinth will be about August
225. See Walbank, Aratos, 95~; Porter, lxxiv-lxxv.
'11'poaEaTpa.To'll'e8EuaE TU TWv I,Kuwvlwv 'II'OAEt: the narrative must
again be supplemented from Plutarch. Aratus, having been invested
with special judicial powers for the 'purging' of pro-Spartan ele-
ments in Sicyon and Corinth (Plut. Arat. 40. 2, t1T1. ToVTovs- Jf,ovatav
&.vV1T£v8uvov •. . >.a{idw), had already carried out his mission at Sicyon,
and received news of the fall of Argos while at Corinth. The people
of Corinth tried to kill or arrest him, but he escaped to Sicyon.
Cleomenes occupied Corinth, but could not expel the Achaean garri-
son from Acrocorinth, and so threw a palisade around the mountain.
Later he made two attempts to strike a bargain with Aratus (Plut.
Cleom. 19. 4. 19. 7; Arat. 4I. s) and, when these failed, he laid siege
to Sicyon, probably in January 224 (Porter, lxxxi-lxxxii).
3. T~ f.LEV )\paT~ OTpttTt)yoiivTl Kat Tots )\xa~o'ls: i.e. Aratus and the
garrison. Since the general of the Confederation for 225/4 was not
Aratus, but Timoxenus (Plut. Arat. 38. 2}, and since Cleomenes'
capture of Corinth cannot be as late as 224/3, we must assume (a) that
aTpa77JyoiJvn here refers to Aratus' position as head of the military
tribunal, i.e. a de facto command and not the official aTpa77Jyta (Tarn,
CAH, vii. 863---4; Walbank, Aratos, I7o-3), or (b) that the office of
aTpa77]yO<; auTOKpd.Twp which (Plut. Arat. 41. r) was allegedly given
to Aratus at Sicyon after the fall of Corinth, was in fact one to whicl1
he was appointed several months earlier; in which case the l~ovala
dvv'lT(v8vvos held at Sicyon and Corinth was probably held by virtue
of Aratus' supreme power (Porter, lxxviii-lxxix). This second view
is on the whole the more satisfactory. Aratus was at Sicyon both
before and after the debacle at Corinth, and Plutarch mav well have
attributed to the second visit what in fact belongs to the first. In
THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II. 5 2.8
this case the appointment of Aratus as mpaTI}yos aihoKpbwp was
the Achaean response to Cleomenes' renewal of the war and the
internal crisis within the eastern cities of the Confederacy (cf. Plut.
Arat. 39· s, opwvTa T~V JI,),07TOVVYJ<TOV KpaOatvop..lVYJV Kai TOS 1TOAH>
JfavwTap..lvas v1ro TWV vewTEpt~ovrwv TTavrax68ev; Cleotn. Ii· 5).
4. Ka1"Exov,-wv :O..xmwv TOTE ,-ov TO'ITov ,-oihov: this the Achaean
garrison under Cleopater held after the loss of Corinth (Plut. Arat.
40. 5). The decision to accept Doson's terms was taken at Aegium,
probably at the spring avvooos, about April 224; Plut. A rat. 41. 7-
42. 1 (the meeting follows a three months' siege of Sicyon); Porter,
lxxxi-lxxxii. For Aratus' lyKA:1Jp..a TTpo> ,.¥ olK{av, the seizure of the
Acrocorinth, see so. 9 n.
5. &.vateu~as a'ITo Toil ILtwwvos: after three months' siege (Plut.
Arat. 41. 7), and on news of Aratus' escape and the decision at
Aegium (§ 4; Plut. A rat. 42. 2, KaAefv TOV .llv,.[yovov J.f7JrplaavTo Kat
TTapaot})6vat Tov .:4KpoKoptv8ov) ; on the order of events in Plut.
Cleom. I9 see Larsen, r66.
s~aAa~wv xapaKL KOL Tn«Jlp'l:J KTA.: for the method cf. v. 99· 9· The gap
thus fortified is the valley of the R. Leuka between Acrocorinth
(575 m.) and Mt. Oneia (582 m.), where the modern road and railway
to Argos run. North of the Acrocorinth (\vhich the Achaeans still
held) the fortifications of Corinth and Lechaeum completed Cleo-
menes' lines; naturally Oneia was also fortified (Plut. Cleom. za. I).
See Kromayer, AS, i. 2oi-J.
7. oaov o1lmo.~ 'ITapeivaL TOV KAEOfLEVTJ ... els 0eTTaAiav: in the highest
degree improbable; and this reading of Antigonus' mind is evidently
part of Aratus' version designed to fit his prophecy that Doson
might have to fight in Thessaly (49· 6), and so to represent the com-
pact as less one-sided than it really was.
SLa rijs Eu~oias i'ITi. Tov 'la811ov: this route avoided Thermopylae, in
Aetolian hands(§ 8), but passed through Boeotia, which was friendly
to Macedon and allied with Achaea (49· 6 n.). Aratus and the
Achaean damiourgoi met Antigonus at Pagae in the Megarid, sailing
there (Plut. Arat. 43· I, 44· r). Megara had recently transferred itself
from the Achaean League to the Boeotian, when Cleomenes occupied
the Isthmus line (xx. 6. 8); and Feyel (I29-3o) has suggested that
although P. says this was done p..~ml riJ> Twv L'txatwv yvwp..7J>, it was
perhaps the quid pro quo for which the Boeotians agreed to adhere
to the new alliance ¥:ith Antigonus against Sparta (49· 6 n.). Doson's
forces amounted to 2o,ooo Macedonian infantry and I,3oo horse
(Plut. Arat. 43· I).
8. ot yap AhwA.ol. . . . ~ouAOfLEVoL KwAuaaL Tov :t\v,-(yovov Tijs
~oTJ9eias: that the Aetolians were unwilling to see Antigonus crush
Cleomenes is likely, since this would give the Achaeans (though
under Macedonian supervision) supremacy in the Peloponnese; see
253
II. 52. 8 EVENTS IN GREECE
Fine, AJP, 1940, 149-50. But their action is no evidence for P.'s
thesis of an earlier aggressive policy towards Achaea.
56 • 1• Twv
~ KUTa.' Tous
' uuTous
' ' Ka.Lpous ' '",...puT~
. yEypu't'oTwv;
.I.' 'those
writers who were contemporary with Aratus'. Treves (ad Joe.) trans-
lates 'those who wrote upon the same period as Aratus'; but this
would require rwv ('Td.) Kant rou<; au'Tou,; KTA.
2. :ApaT!¥ 1TPOTIP"1tLEVOtS KUTa.KoJ..ou9Ei'v: cf. 40. 4 n. For this use of
KamKo.\ovOefl•, 'to follow an authority', see \Velles, 342. In fact P.
also uses Phylarchus in default of other sources; cf. 47. II n., 70. 6;
Susemihl (i. 632 n. s6o), however, exaggerates this use. For P.'s stress
on truth in history see i. 14. 6 n.
5. 1rpoa.lpeow KUL SuvutLw ev Tfi 1rpa.yjLuTE'~: 'the general purpose
and character of his work' (Paton). 7rpoalpHM refers to Phylarchus'
prejudice for Cleomenes, ouvarus to his methods of composition;
in the immediate case of Mantinea, the criticism of Phylarchus'
7rpoalpwt> is in § 6, of the oul•aru> of his work in § 7.
6. Toos Ma.VTLVEUS yEvo.,..Evous u7TOXEtp1ous: in 223 (cf. 54· II-12). An
echo of Phylarchus' charges appears in Plut. Arat. 45· 6-9. Of the
men many were massacred, and the rest enslaved along with the
women and children; and the wealth of the town was divided be-
tween Achaeans and Macedonians, in the proportion of one to two.
Subsequently, as general, Aratus refounded the tovvn under the
name Antigoneia. This name is common on coins and inscriptions
(BOlte, RE, 'Mantinea', col. 1291); but a Delphic list of fhwpoo6~<:o,,
dating between 192 and 172 (IG, v. 2, p. xxxvii; cf. Haussoullier,
BCH, r883, rgo), mentions the name :Mantinea, which clearly sur-
vived. (For discussion of this list and of Achaean coins with tridents
which may belong to Mantinea at this time see Crosby and Grace,
15 ff., 25 (1\os. 73-95), Plate II.) In A.D. 125 Hadrian restored the
old name (Paus. viii. 8. 12). The fate of Mantinea caused a sensation
throughout Greece; it marked a reversion to a standard of warfare
which had been mitigated during the third century (d. Tarn, CAH,
vii. 2n, 76o), and Phylarchus voices contemporary opinion better
than P., who writes from the harder background of the second
260
THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEO~ENEAN WAR II.56.Io
century, when the fate of Mantinea had become the common lot of
captured towns (cf. Paus. vii. 16. 8 for Corinth in 146).
rf]v &.pxcnoT6.TTJV Ka.t ~:u;ylaTTJV 1ToAw: despite a reference to Mav-nvlYJv
l.pa-retv'>]v in Homer, Iliad, ii. 607, the synoecism of historical Man tinea
in the plain, out of five demes (Strabo, viii. 337) is comparatively
late. Beloch (i. I. 335 n. 4) puts it back into the early sixth century.
other scholars (cf. Busolt-Swoboda, ii. 1396 n. 2; Bolte, RE, 'Man-
tinea', coL 1318) make it as late as just before 450. But in any case
the present passage is tendentious in Phylarchus, and ironical in P.
7. da6.yeL 1TEpmAo~e:O..,; yvva.LKC!v: i.e. probably embracing altars or
statues of the gods like Hecuba in Virgil, Ae'lt. ii. 515-17. HaayHv
sometimes means 'to bring a play on the stage'; cf. Plato, Rep.
ii. 381 D; Ap. 35 B.
9. To ..• Tij.,; hnopla.s ol.ce'Lov 0.~-ta. Ka.t xpTjalp.ov: 'the nature and use
of history' (not, with Paton, 'how far it (i.e. Phylarchus' treatment)
is proper or serviceable to history'). P. proposes to distinguish be-
tween history and tragedy after the manner of Aristotle.
10. lh;'L • , • ou~e ~1Tt1TATJTTEW KTA.: so MSS., B-\V. 2 ; but Casau-
bon's emendation lK'1TAo/'retv is wholly convincing, d. § II.
P.'s vocabulary, as Ullman points out (TAPA, 1942, 41-42), both
here and in similar passages recalls the traditional function of
tragedy. Thus the anagnorisis is lK'lrk')KnKov (Arist. Poet. 14. 8.
I454 a 4; d. 16. 8. I455 a I7; Vit. Aesch. 7. 1rpos lK1rAYJgw -r€pa-rwoYJ, 9,
lK1rA~gat -rov ofjfLov; [Longinus] Subl. I. ·h avv l1mA~g€t -rofJ mOavoiJ •••
KpaT€t TO OavfLd.cnov). See below, xvi. r8. 2 (criticism of Zeno), vr.ep-
{JoA~JiT€pa-rdas .•• lK7TATJgLv -rwv 1roAAwv.
Taus i.vSexop.f.vou.,; 'Aoyous tlJn'Lv: 'to seek after men's probable
utterances'. P. opposes the traditional procedure by ·which his pre-
decessors (cf. Thuc. i. 22) invented speeches to put into the mouths
of their characters; cf. xii. 25 b (contrasting -rove; Ka-r' d.)o.7]8~:tav
dp1]fLlvovs and ifiw8ij lmx<tp~fLa.Ta Ka£ OL€gootKovs Myovs}, xxxvi. 1. 7
(only what was said is to be reported). P. regards speeches as im-
portant (cf. xii. 25 a J, a axeoov ws K£cpd.Aata 1'WV 7rpag£WV €em KaL
avvlx<t ~v oA1Jv laToplav; xxxvi. I. 3), and includes many at critical
points in his history (cf. iii. 63. 2-14, 64. 2-10, 108. 4-109. 12, 111. 2-u,
V, I04. I-II, ix. 28. I-31• 6, 32. 3~39. 7, X. 6. 1-6, 25, xi. 4• I-6. 8,
28. 1-29. I3, XV. I. 6-I4, 6. 4-7, 9, 8. 1-14, IO. 2-7, II. 6-I2, I7. 3-7,
19. 3-7, xviii. I-12 (Locrian conference), 23. 3-7, 36. 2-39. 7 (Tempe
conference), xxi. 10. 5-IO, 14. IS· s-11, 19. I-21. II, 22. s-23. 12,
JI. 7-I5, xxii. 8. 8. 9-12, xxiii. n, xxiv. 9· I-IS, xxix. I, 20,
xxx. Jr. 3-18). Of these some are based on authentic material, while
others, despite the principles here laid down, seem to give a mere
rhetorical exposition suitable to the occasion. Wunderer (ii. g--II)
sees a development from the position of the present passage to that
in xii. 25 i 4 ff.; but the argument there, if properly understood, is
261
II. 56. IO EVENTS IN GREECE
completely in agreement with that here. See also La Roche, 66 ff.;
Susemihl, ii. II4; and above, pp. 13-14.
Ta 1Ta.pe1rbp.eva. To is •.'11ToKelp.evots £€a.pt9p.e~o-tla.t: 'to enumerate the
possible consequences of the events under consideration', i.e. whether
they are in fact known to have happened or not. Cf. Arist. Poet. 9· I.
1451 a 37 f., lfoallep6v St ... on oo Tb Ta yellbfLElla Mynv, TOVTO 7TOHJTOV
lpyov ~aTlv, d,\,\' ola Civ ylllotTo Kal Ta SvvaTa KaTa To ElK6s ~To allay-
Kaiov, ibid. 1451 b 4-5, the difference between the historian and the
tragic poet---Tl[) TOll p.€v n:l. yevbjLeva AEy<w, TOll S€ ola i'ill ylllotTo. But
P. rejects Aristotle's conclusion that tragedy is therefore a higher
thing (a7Tovoat6Tepoll) than history; cf. §§ u-12, where this judgement
is implicitly rejected from P.'s utilitarian, didactic standpoint.
Ka.00.1Tep ot Tpa.y't'Stoypa~ol: 'like tragic poets', cf. I7. 6 n.
11-12. Difference between tragedy and history. Tragedy seeks EK7TAfjga,
Ka£ t/Jvxaywyfjaat, to thrill and charm the audience, an Aristotelian
conception; on EK7TM]gat see 56. Ion., on t/Jvxaywyfjaat cf: Arist. Poet.
6. 13. 1450 a 33 (on peripeteiai and anagnoriseis), 6. 19. 1450 b 17
(of the actual spectacle, ot/Jt>). History, however, seeks Sto&.gat KaL
1rdaat Tovs lfotAop.aBoiJvTa<;, to instruct and convince serious students
(cf. iii. 21. 9, xi. 19 a z for the contrast between what charms the
casual reader, Tovs aKovoVTas, and what benefits the serious student).
Further the charm of tragedy is only KaTa To TTap6ll, the profit of
history el> TOll 1r&.vm xp6vov, a distinction which, in its rhetorical
formulation, recalls Thucydides' famous claim (i. 22. 4, KTfjp.d TE €s
ald p.iiMov ~ dycfmap.a t<; TO 7Tapaxpfjp.a aKOVELJl gtlyKHTat) ; cf. iii.
31. 12 n. In tragedy the governing element is Tb 7Tt8av6ll, Ki'lll ii t/J€uSo<;-
which is Aristotle's Ttt 8vvaTtt KC1Ttt TO elK6<; (d. 56. IOn.); cf. Poet.
9· 6. 1451 b r6, arnov S' on mBav6v €an Tb ouvaTb!l. In history it is
truth. This contrast P. somewhat overstates, so as to limit history to a
record of all (7rttp.7Tav) that happened, however commonplace (56. Io,
Keill 1rdvv p.hpta Tvyxcillwmv ol'Ta) ; whereas in practice his very urge to-
wards didacticism forces him to apply some principle of selection.
12. s,a TTJV lmaT'TJV TWV 9ewp.evwv: 'to beguile the spectator'. For this
non-Attic sense of a7TclT1J cf. iv. 20. 5, music was not introduced l1r'
dmhn Kat Y01JTdq.. Schweighaeuser quotes Josephus, AI, viii. s6, fL1JO€v
•.. €gw TfjS d,\7JBe{as Myop.£ll, fL1}0t 7Tt8aliOLS nat Kai 7Tpos a7TiiT1Jll Kal
nfpt/Jw l1raywyo£s rryll iaToptall OtaAap.{3dliOVTES, T~ll p.€v lgiTaatll lfo€vy<tv
TT€tpwp.e8a, 7TtaT<vw8at S€ <OBts dgwup.€v.
13. oux {11Ton9ei.s a.h(a.v Ka.i. Tp01Tov Tois ywollevots: 'without sug-
gesting why things are done and to what end'; that Tpcmos here
means 'direction' is confirmed by § 16, tv Tats ahlats Kat 1rpoatplawt
Twv TTpaTTbVTwll, 'in the reasons and purposes of the doers'.
ti>v xwpts ouT' "AEE~V ..• olh'' bpy(~eo-tla.t ••. Suva:rbv: by simply
relating peripeteiai shorn of their causes and purposes Phylarchus
fails to arouse legitimate (EtlA&yws) pity or proper (KaB1JK6vTws) anger.
262
THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II. 58.1
P. here implies that both these emotions are legitimate for an his-
torian in certain conditions; these were fulfilled when the emotion
was harnessed to a didactic purpose. In that case the end justified
the means. Ullman, TAP A, 1942, 30-31, would trace this theory back
to Ephorus, (d. Strabo, vii. 302); but see Walbank, Bull. Inst. Class.
Stud., 1955, 9·
15. Tov KAE1TTT]V T] f10Lxov &.1ToKTe(vas: both in Greece and at Rome
an adulterer caught in flagranti delicto might be killed with im-
punity; d. Lysias, i. 26; Cato ap. Gell. x. 23. 4-5. A similar right
existed to kill a thief apprehended at night, or in the daytime if he
attempted self-defence with a weapon; this was laid down in the
Twelve Tables (Riccobono, Fontes, i. 57-59) and in various Greek
codes (d. Hitzig, RE, 'furtum', col. 391).
Tov 1rpoSOTT]V f1 Tupavvov: for P.'s views of tyrannicide see 59· 4 ff.
Greek opinion traditionally condoned tyrannicide (d. Arist. Pol.
ii. 7· 13. 1267 a 12 ff.), and there may have been an actual law at
Athens; d. An doc. de my st. 96-97, o8~ d7ToK-relvas -rdv -raiJ-ra 7TO£~aav-ra
Ka1 0 GVf.Lf3ovAi;Vaas oaws l!a-rw Kat day~>· See von Scala, 44 n. I, 140.
59. 1. )\pLcrroJ.J-a.xov: cf. 44· 6 n. for his earlier career. In 272 the leader
of the pro-Macedonian faction at Argos was Aristippus (I) (Plut.
Pyrrh. 30. r). At the time of the revolt of Alexander, son of Craterus,
at Corinth in 249, the tyrant of Argos was Aristomachus (I) (JG,
iiz. 774), who was murdered in 241/o and succeeded by Aristippus (II)
(Plut. A rat. 25. 4), who was succeeded in turn by Aristomachus (II),
who joined the Achaean League. Since this man was the son of
Aristomachus (Syll. 5IO, cf. IG, iv. IIII), he appears to have been
brother to Aristippus (II), son of Aristomachus (I) and grandson of
Aristippus (I), who perhaps became tyrant as a result of Pyrrhus'
defeat and death. On Apia, daughter of Aristippus (II), and wife
of Nabis of Sparta, see xiii. 7. 6. Cf. Beloch, iv. 1. 579-80 n. 3; Free-
man, HFG, 297 n. 2.
v"'roxe1pLov )\vnyov<tl tta.t To 'is )\xa.LO'Ls yEvo~-tevov: 'falling into the
hands of .. .',i.e. in 224 after the fall of Argos; cf. 53· 2. There is no
evidence that he surrendered voluntarily (so Treves on 6o. 2); cf.
6o. 2, Aaf36vus- KaTrt 1TOAEfLOV fm.oxelp~ov.
ets KeyxpeO.s ••• crrpe~Aou~-tevov ci."'ro9a.vel:v: cf. Plut. A rat. 44· 6
(following Phylarchus), €v Kr=yxpmts- uTpE{3Awuavn:s- KaTm6vnuav.
Cenchreae was the Corinthian port on the Saronic Gulf. Plutarch
alleges that Aratus was much blamed for the incident; he would be
doubly responsible, as UTpaT7Jyos- a?JToKpaTwp of the League, and also
since he had been elected general at Argos after its recovery (Plut.
Arat. 44· s)-unless, indeed, Plutarch here refers to a purely military
commission (Aymard, ACA, 114 n.).
4. Ka.Ta ye TftV Tou ~iov "11"poa.1peuLV: 'in his political conduct through-
out his life', i.e. as a tyrant. The argument is illogical; in accepting
Aristomachus into the Confederation and electing him general the
Achaeans had condoned his earlier career. And if he had resumed
his tyranny after Cleomenes took Argos, P. would surely have said
so explicitly.
6. Ta.uT"l'i Se ~-tei~w tta.T"lYop(a.v KTA.: cf. Cic. de re pub. ii. 48,
'tyrannus, quo neque taetrius nee foedius nee dis hominibusque
265
II. 59· 6 EVE)l'TS l)l' GREECE
inmsms animal ullum cogitari potest: qui quamquam figura est
hominis, morum tamen immanitate uastissimas uincit beluas'; off.
iii. 32, 'quem (sc. tyrannum) est honestum necare ... ista in figura
hominis feritas et immanitas beluae'. For Cicero the question had
achieved a new significance in the career of Caesar, culminating in
the Ides of March 44· See 56. rs n.
7. flt&s .qflEpas: in 235 Aratus forced an entry into Argos by night,
but on receiving no help from the Argives had to withdraw at the
end of the next day, wounded through the thigh. Plutarch (Arat.
27. 3-4) refers this to Aristippus' tyranny, probably rightly; the
punishment inflicted by Aristomachus will have been after his seizure
of the tyranny on Aristippus' death near Cleonae the same summer
(Plut. Arat. 29. ; cf. Walbank, Aratos, r86-7). P.'s indignation
probably reflects the polemic of Aratus' lvf emoirs.
9. O.<jlopflfi TaVT!J Kat vpo<jluaet XPTJC"Uflevos: the new tyrant thus
rid himself of his political opponents, some of whom were no doubt
Aratus' confederates (despite P.'s emphasis on their innocence).
10. TO. ••. athou Kat Twv npoyovwv aa~E~fJflaTa: the offences of Aristo-
machus' ancestors are unknown, and may derive largely from the
rancour of Aratus, who was condemned by a court of arbitration to
pay 3o minae for invading Aristippus' territory in peace-time (46.
2 n.). Aratus' Memoirs are probably also the source of Plutarch's
statement (Arat. 25. 4) that Aristippus was e~wl.iaTepo<; • •• Tvpavvos
than Aristomachus.
62. 1. E:€a.Ktux£Ata. TaAa.vTa. KTA.: cf. Plut. Cleom. 25. I f., dyavaKn)aas
Td p.f.v XP~p.a-ra Dt~p1Taa.:v, avDptaVTaS' S€ Kai yparpds tl1TEUTtt>.c:v tds
}}rnip-r7Jv, Tijs 8~ 1roAc:ws -r.i 1rAt:i'a-ra Kat p.e'ytaTa p.e'pYJ KaTaaKwpas Kat
1
Dtarp8.:f.pas avl(wgtv E1T OtKOV.
Ta StuxfXta. ••• KQ.Ta Tous e9tO'f10US: similarly Aratus persuaded the
Argives to present the property of 'the traitors and tyrants' to
Antigonus (Plut. A rat. 44· 5); and Aemilius Paullus aroused surprise
by refusing any part of the wealth he captured from Perseus (xviii.
35· 4 ff.). Cleomenes, however, must have placed his share in the
general exchequer; for though the subsidy was still forthcoming
from Ptolemy, Cleomenes knew that he was negotiating with Doson
(Pint. Cleom. 22. 7), and had been reduced to raising money by
freeing helots (Plut. Cleom. 23. I) that very winter (223). Moreover,
he could scarcely accumulate a private fortune after his social
revolution. Hence, Phylarchus' statement is to be treated with re-
serve in this respect also (cf. 63. 3).
4. ev To is Ka.O' T)f1iis Katpois: the period of Peloponnesian unity
(rrdv-r.:s EV Kai. TaD-ro >.e'yovns) and prosperity (p.Ey£a-r7JV Kaprrova8at
II. 62.4 EVENTS IN GREECE
(!t'!l3a'fLovlav), which P. here contrasts with the second half of the
third century, falls clearly between r8r, when Lycortas' efforts
brought Sparta into the League (38. 3 n.), and the destruction of
Corinth and the dissolution of the Confederacy in 146 (Paus. vii.
16. g). Compare the picture of a desolated Greece in xxxvi. 17. 5·
It follows that P. was writing this section of his work before 146;
see further, 37-7o n.
TocroiJTo 'ITAfj9os XPTJflaTwv: for general discussion of economic con-
ditions in Greece in the light of this and other evidence see A.
Wilhelm, Jahresh., 1914, ro8-r6; J. H. Lipsius, Rh. Mus., 1916,
r6r ff.; Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, i. 205-6: ii. 750~-3; iii. 1366 n. 31,
1507 n. 20, r6o6-7 n. 85. That the total value of the movable property
from the whole Peloponne.se did not amount to 6,ooo talents in 223
is very probably true. Wilhelm (op. cit. ur-12) calculates that its
area (21,69o sq. km.)l is roughly 66 to 67 times that of .Mantinea
(reckoning this at 325 sq. km. with Fougeres rather than only 275
with Beloch). Since the lrdrrAa of Mantinea probably came to 75
talents (§ I I n.), that of the Peloponnese, on the same basis, would
work out at 5,o25 talents. Such a calculation Wilhelm admits to be
rough and ready; but it affords some confirmation for P.'s statement.
6. Trs ..• oux h:TTopTJICE: 'who has not read ... ?'; cf. i. 63. 7 n.
6-7. The Athenian valuation of 378 B.C.: for discussion of this con-
troversial topic see Wilhelm, Jahresh., 1914, ro8-16; J. H. Lipsius,
Rh. Mus., 1916, 16r-86; A. Zimmern, The Greek Commonwealth""
(Oxford, 1924), 292-3 n.; A. Momigliano, Athen., I9JI, 477 ff.; A.
Andreades, History of Greek PubLic Finance, i (Harvard, 1933), :;z6-
48; 'laTopla Tijs 'EAk'JVLidjs OTJp,oalas oll<ovop,f.as, ii (Athens, 1931),
155 ff.; Glotz-Cohen, iii. r29; Schwahn, Rh. Mus., 1933, 247-84;
Busolt-Swoboda, 1213-15 n., 1224-6 (with bibliography); P. Cloche,
La Politiq-ue etrangere d'Athenes de 404 a 338 avant ].-C. (Paris,
1934), 64-.66; H. Michell, The Economics of Ancient Greece (Cambridge,
194o). 381-5; J. B. Bury, History ofGreece3 (ed. Meiggs), 89o; A. H. M.
Jones, The Athens of Demosthenes {Cambridge, 1952), 2-9; G. E. M.
de Ste Croix, Class. et med., 1953, 30-70 (with bibliography). P. refers
to the valuation of property carried out at Athens in the archonship
of Nausinicus, 378/7 (Diod. xv. 25. I; Dem. xxii. 44), on the initiation
of the Second Athenian League and the campaign in conjunction
with Thebes against Spartan hegemony; this valuation (Tlp,7Jp,a) was
to serve as the basis for a capital levy (Elatfoopa). P.'s figure is con-
firmed by Demosthenes (xiv. 19, rounded off as 6,ooo talents) for
354/3. and by Philochorus (FGH, 328 F 46) for the time of Demetrius
Poliorcetes; thus, once made, the assessment seems to have gone
for a considerable time unchanged. As a total valuation of the
1 The Annuaire slalislique de la GrJce, r939 (Athens, r940), 30, gives 2I,643·z
65. 1. (K TTJS xuJ-Lau(as: d. 54· 14, 64. 1, 64. 3· The joint force did not
move till 'early summer'; perhaps the Macedonians were late in
returning from their agricultural work at home.
2-5. Doson's forces can be set out in tabular form (cf. Kromayer,
AS, i. 228):
Macedonian phalangites 10,000} cavalry 300
Macedonian peltasts 3,000
Agrianians 1,000
Gauls 1,000
Mercenaries 3,000 cavalry 300
Achaeans 3,000 cavalry 300
Megalopolitans 1,000
Boeotians . 2,000 cavalry 200
Epirotes 1,000 cavalry so
Acarnanians 1,000 cavalry so
Illyrians 1,6oo
Total Foot 27,6oo IIorse 1,200
This matches F.'s total, except that (§ 5) he rounds off the infantry
to 'about z8,ooo'. The small proportion of cavalry in this army is
noteworthy. Alexander's army crossed the Hellespont with foot to
horse in the proportion of 6: 1. The number of national Macedonian
4866 T 2]3
II. 65.2 EVENTS IN GREECE
troops is also noteworthy for its smallness. For a general discussion
of Macedonian armies at this time see Walbank, Philip, 289---94.
2. TrEATaa-r&s: the peltasts of the Antigonid armies were the equiva-
lent of Alexander's hypaspists, a crack force which fought alongside
the phalanx in battle, but was called upon for any special duties,
e.g. ambushes, forced marches, and special expeditions. At this time
their total was probably 3,ooo, though by r68 there were s,ooo; like
Alexander's hypaspists they were apparently organized in chili-
archies. Of their uniform nothing definite is known; but, despite
their smaller shields, their armour was sufficiently heavy to allow
them to fight along with the phalanx. See, further, § 3 n.; and
Walbank, Philip, 291-3.
:Aypuiva.s: the Agrianians were a Thraco-Macedonian people living
about Rhodope and the source of the Strymon (cf. Hirschfeld, RE,
'Agrianes (r)', col. 891; Launey, i. 404 ff.). Their weapon \'v'aS the
javelin (Arrian, Anab. i. 14. I, iii. 13. s). sling, or bow and arrow
(v. 79· 6), and they formed one of the most useful and energetic
corps in Alexander's army (cf. Berve, i. 125, 137 ff.), frequently
acting along with the hypaspists on special operations. \\Thether
Alexander's Agrianians served as allies or mercenaries is unknown
(Griffith, 14). At Sellasia, however, they are distinguished from the
mercenaries (Launey, i. 4o6 against Griffith, 7o), and were either
subjects or allies. Cf. v. 79· 6.
raX4Ta<;: probably Gauls from Europe, not Galatians from Asia
Minor (so Treves). On their use as mercenaries see Griffith, 252; but
here P. distinguishes them from the mercenaries (J.<~a8oc{>6povr; •••
ToVs- 7TaVTas-), and Launey (i. 517) suggests that they were provided
'par un roitelet barbare, en vertu d'un traite symmachique'. Later
Phi:ip V used Gallic cavalry; cf. v. 3· 2, q. 4; but the Gauls at
Sellasia are infantry (Schweighaeuser, 'Index Hist. et Geog.', s.v.
Galli, makes them cavalry).
3. :Axa~v ••. MEyaAoTroAlTas ..• KEpKL66.s: the Achaean forces are
small {though larger than those of any of the other allies). No doubt
Doson determined the relative numbers to be furnished by the mem-
bers of the new Symmachy, and the Achaeans provided what was
required. On the meaning of E7TLA<iKTol, 'picked men' (cf. v. 9r. 6), not
merely 'levied', see Aymard (ACA, 86 n.) and Feyel (2o3); on their
age Aymard (ACA, 95 n. I: not necessarily under 30) and Feyel,
who suggests (204 n. 3} that they were a permanent corps of young
men of good family; cf. Syll. 73I for such a body at Tomi in the first
century. These Achaean l7T,A€K7'ol appear elsewhere {cf. iv. 10. 2 n.,
v. 3· 2, 91. 6, etc.) and this is against Treves' view that 'Achaean'
here means 'inhabitants of Achaea', and does not refer to League
forces. The appearance of a separate Megalopolitan contingent can
be explained as a reflection of the special role of Megalopolis (and
274
THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II.6s.6
Cercidas) in the negotiations with Doson {48. 4 n.) and the old ties
of that city with Macedon, but mainly by the fact that the Megalo-
politans were armed by Doson (see next note).
Ets Tov Ma.~<:eSovtK~>V TP01Tov Ka.Bw1T>.ta!J.EVous: these .Megalopolitan
forces were armed with bronze shields, Le. they were xaAKtta7TLOI!iS
(cf. v. gr. 7, where, however, they include cavalry). Doson armed
them because they had lost their own resources {iv. 6g. s). For
Macedonian arms cf. Plut. Cleom. 23. I (of Cleomenes)' owxu\lous OS
7TpOaKa8o7TAlaas 1'11aKI!iOOI!£KWS drrrlTayp.a Tais 7Tap' .Mvnyovou AlliVKaam-
aw, ibid. II. 3 for a description of the arms. Antigonus' '\"'bite-
shields', like the 'Bronzeshields' in his army at Sellasia (66. 5 n.),
recall Alexander's Argyraspides, 'Silvershields' (Arrian, Anab. vii.
rr. 3, where these are hypaspists). At Pydna (r68) Perseus' leucaspis
phalanx (Livy, xliv. 41. 2 from P.) and his chalcaspides (ibid.) are
apparently distinct from his caetrati, i.e. peltasts in P.'s sense of the
word (cf. § 2 n.) (cf. Kromayer, AS, ii. 323; iv. 6o7 against Meyer,
Kl. Schr. ii. 483 and Tam, liMN D, 17); and in iv. 67. 6 Philip's
xu),Kaamollis (who were armed like the .Megalopolitans at Sellasia,
cf. iv. 6g. s) are also distinct from the peltasts. However, this does
not imply any difference in weight of armour. The peltasts, like the
hypaspists before them, frequently take their place in the phalanx,
as at Cynoscephalae, where they are classed with the phalangites
and distinguished from the light-armed (xviii. 24. 8; Walbank,
Philip, 292). Both Cleomenes' recruits and Cercidas' Megalopolitans
at Sellasia will have been armed with the Macedonian sarissa (a
21-foot spear), helmet, sword, shield (of 20 in. diameter), breastplate,
and greaves; cf. Philip, 289. Macedonianarms were widely adopted by
Greek states in the course of this century; for the Boeotian reform of
245 see Feyel (193 ff., 213-I5), and, in general, Launey (i. 36r ff.).
4. BotwTwv: on the relations between Boeotia and Macedon at this
time see Feyel, ro(r--35· Wbether an alliance preceded the formation
of the Symmachy in 224/3 is unknown; cf. 49· 6 n. The size of the
Boeotian contingent, the largest after the Achaean, indicates the
importance of this state in the Alliance.
•H1TeLpwTwv ••• !6.Ka.pv6.vwv: both friendly with Macedon since the
Illyrian alliance of 230 (6. 9 n.).
•l>.>.uptwv ••• ~4»' wv ~v ATJIJ.tlTPLOS 6 c~J6.plo'>: Demetrius (10. 8,
n. 17 n.) had allied himself with Macedon (d. iii. r6. 3); but whatever
his future plans, there are no grounds for thinking of him as already
party to a Macedonian 'western policy' (so Treves, Ath.en., 1935, 46).
P. reckons Demetrius' forces as allies, not mercenaries {cf. Griffith,
70, against Tam, AG, 425-6); but Demetrius was a personal ally of
Doson, not apparently a member of the Hellenic Symmachy (Hol~
leaux, 131 n. 3).
6. Tci.s JlEY nAAo.s'. 'elO'~OAas -TJo-4»a.Mo-o.TO KTA.: see Kromayer, AS,
275
5· THE BATTLE OF SELLASIA. Based on Kromayer
THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR Il.6 5 .6
L 210-15. Cleomcnes' defences were merely designed to delay the
enemy (should he follow any of these other routes into Laconia) until
the Spartan army could march round from the position it had
occupied (on which cf. § 7 n.). These other passes were primarily
(a) those carrying the roads from Megalopolis and Asea, which joined
a little north of the Athenaeum (Mt. Khelmos), and were probably
covered by a Spartan force stationed in one of the gorges north or
south of Pellene on the Eurotas (see Kromayer, op. cit., Karte I);
(b) the coastal road from Argos over Parnon, which could be covered
by a force at the (modern) monastery of H. Saranda, south-east
of Sellasia. Both positions could be reached from Sellasia within a
few hours.
7. The site of the battle: see Kromayer, AS, i. ZIS-Z3, Karten I and V.
According to the most probable identification, that of Kromayer,
Cleomenes placed his forces astride the Oenus (modern Kelcphina)
valley, about I km. south of the (modern) Khan of Krevatas, and
4 km. north of the hill-fortress of Sellasia. Round about this point
the routes from Asca and Tegea via the Khan of Kryavrisi, and those
from Tegea and Argos via Arachova and the passes of H. Petros and
Kastanitza, have all united, and continue for some distance along
the Oenus valley (cf. § 9), to leave it again before the river plunges
into a narrow gorge some 4 km. downstream. The two hills Euas and
Olympus (§ 8) Kromayer has identified with the modern Palaeo-
goulas (ro8 m. above the river) and Kotselovouni (152 m. above the
river) respectively, the latter (also called Melissi) being in fact the
forward spur of the hill of Provatares, to the north; see his map.
Immediately north of Palaeogoulas, and lying between it and the
Heights of Turla, is a side-valley called Kourmeki, along which
there now runs a cart-track from the Sparta-Tripolitza road; and
this Krornayer identifies with the valley of the Gorgylos (66. 1),
which played an important part in the action. This identification
was challenged by Soteriades (BCH, I9IO, s-57; rgrr, 87-I07' 24I-2),
who argues that the ancient route also left the Oenus valley up that
of Kourmeki, <md claims that a fortification, of which traces remain
on Palaeogoulas, was a fifth-century work covering this road.
Admittedly Soteriades has placed a finger on a weak point in
Kromayer's reconstruction. There seems no reason >vhy the ancient
route should make an hour's detour south of Palaeogoulas; and
though Kromayer has found ancient wheel tracks in the valley of
Mylou Rema, where he supposes the ancient road to have ascended
to the site of the Khan of Vourlia, they do not prove that this was
in fact the road from Tegea. On the other hand, Kahrstedt (Hermes,
1913, :z88) failed to discover the traces of an ancient road up Kour-
meki, which Soteriades claimed to have identified; and, in any
case, even if the road followed Kourmeki, this would not disprove
277
II. 65.7 EVENTS IN GREECE
Kromayer's identification, since the Kourmeki valley would be
controUed by a Spartan force holding Palaeogoulas. This would, of
course, mean that F.'s description of the site was at fault in one
important particular-the placing of the Spartan army astride the
road; and this would in tum imply that his knowledge of the site
was less detailed than Kromayer supposes. There is, incidentally,
some evidence of a similar confusion in P. concerning a not dissimilar
site, the pass of the Viossa, where Philip held the Romans in 198;
cf. Walbank, Philip, 149-50 n. I. However, Soteriades has not done
more than raise queries; and Kromayer's site still offers the greatest
plausibility, and can be easily adapted to F.'s detailed description
of the battle. For a convenient summary, substantially accepting
Kromayer, see Honigmann (RE, l:£Ma.ala, cols. I3I]-2o), who, on
F.'s description of the engagement, rightly concludes that it is
'obviously somewhat schematic and omits subsidiary detail, thereby
lending itself to frequent criticism'.
Ttl'i ••• <n·pa.nas Ets SUo JLupu115a.<;: cf. Plut. Cleom. 27. n (quoting
P.). As a round figure it is probably on the large side.
CTTOXO.tOJLEVO<; , , , TO.IJTtJ 1TO~TJCTO.CT00.L , • , T~V ElCT~OhfJV: it WaS here
that Epaminondas' four converging columns met in his invasion of
Laconia in the winter of Ji0/69 (Diod. XV. 64. s).
9, Tacppov tca.l xapa.Ka 1Tpo~O.AOJLEVOS: a COntinUOUS line from hill
to hill is hardly possible, given the lie of the land, and Kromayer
(AS, i. 227 n. 4) thinks of a broken line, with rudimentary camps as
part of the system built on the slopes, and strong fortifications on
the summit.
Tous 1T£ptol~eous ~<a.t CTUf.LJLO.xous: the Perioeci (cf. iv. 34· 9) were the
non-Spartiate inhabitants of the hills and coastal parts of Laconia,
farmers of free status, and in the main originally Spartan colonists.
They counted as AaKEDaLp.6vwc in foreign relations, but within the
state they possessed no political rights, these being the monopoly of
the Spartiates. As Lacedaemonians they shared the obligation of all
citizens to serve in war; internally they were de facto subjects of the
Spartiate f5p.owt. See in general I<. Hampl, Hermes, 1937, r ff. (sum·
mary, 39-41); J. A. 0. Larsen, RE, ll~;pwtt<:ot, cols. 816-22; H.
Michell, 64-74. After his coup of 227/6 Cleomenes had taken many of
them into the Spartiate body, so as to form a corps of 4,ooo (Plut.
Cleom. II. 3), and armed them in the Macedonian fashion. The allies
are probably from Peloponnesian towns (or even contingents of
supporters from pro-Achaean towns) who remained faithful to
Cleomenes' cause.
Eu~eA£(8o.v: Cleomenes had made this younger brother king in 226
after the death of his colleague Archidamus, though it was unpre-
cedented to have both kings from the same house (Plut. Cleom.
n. s) ; on his death see 68. 10 n.
278
THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEA~ WAR II. 66.2
!lETa AaKE8alllovlwv Kill Twv !lla9o~opwv: the 'Lacedaemonians' are
the Spartiate phalanx of 6,ooo (Plut. Cleom. 28. 8) ; and the mer-
cenaries on Olympus came to nearly the same figure (69. 3, the fight
was opened by s,ooo; but there would be others guarding the camp
on Olympus (d. 69. 6), and the slopes above the river, and otherwise
not directly involved in the phalanx charges (Kromayer, AS, i.
226 n. 2)). They were hired with the Egyptian subsidy (51. 2, 63. r)
and perhaps with the help of the Megalopolitan booty (62. 9).
10. Tous L1T1TE~s !lETd llepous TLvos TWv !lla9oc1>6pwv: probably amount-
ing together to r,ooo-2,ooo out of the 7,ooo-8,ooo left for the valley
and the manning of Euas. Kromayer (AS, i. 227 n. r) points out that
Doson used only 8,6oo men to storm Euas from below (66. s-6),
whereas in the centre only the Megalopolitan attack forced the retreat
of the mercenaries (67. 4-5). Thus Cleomenes' dispositions were:
Right (Olympus) 12,ooo (6,ooo Spartiates, c. 6,ooo mercenaries)
Centre 1,ooo-2,ooo (cavalry and mercenaries)
Left (Euas) s.ooo-6,ooo (perioeci and allies)
T::>tal Under 2o,ooo
11. 1Tiial To'Ls otKdots !lEpEat Tljs 8uva!-LEWS: i.e. the cavalry in the
plain, the phalanx on the wide slope of Olympus, etc.
TO O'U!l1T<lV ax 'lila TljS aTpaT01TE8Elas: 'the whole appearance of the
disposition of forces' ; a-rpaTo7Te3ela has here a wider connotation than
'encampment' (its sense in 69. 6). In the comparison o7TAop.axo~ may
be heavy-armed troops (Xen. Resp. Lac. 11. 8) or teachers of heavy-
armed fighting; the former is more probable. 7rpo{JoA7} denotes the
attitude of the soldier in which the spear is levelled and the shield
held forward in readiness for a hostile attack; cf. i. 22. ro, 7rpo{JoA7J
8vpwv, xv. 13. 9, 7rpo{Jd.)..)..w8a~ sc. Ta SopaTa.
12, 1Tpos e1Tl9Eaw O.lla Kat cl>uAaK"v: 'for offensive and defensive
action alike'. Kromayer (AS. i. 227) compares Epaminondas' tactics;
the forces on Euas were the defensive wing, those on Olympus were
designed, if necessary, for assault. The Spartan formation thus con-
stituted a 'battle-line drawn up for action' (7rapaTat~s ivEpyos) and
a 'fortified camp hard of approach' (1Tapep.{JoA7J 8v•mpouo8os).
279
II. 66. 4 EVENTS IN GREECE
4. ~~ op.oMyou litO. (..1-UXTJS ap.,PoTEpOl 11'po£6evTo KptvEtV Tno; 11'pa~u;:
cf. 70. 3· These two passages imply that Cleomenes deliberately
sought a battle, and Ferrabino attributes them to Phylarchus, who
made each king take the offensive with his right wing (cf. Plut.
Cleom. 27~28). For 70. 3 he is probably right. But it is clear from
6g. 3 that P.'s main source depicted Cleomenes as actively accepting
battle; nor does 69. 6 imply that he was intending to avoid a phalanx
charge. Consequently there is no inconsistency between the present
passage and the remainder of P.'s narrative of the battle. Cleomenes'
decision to fight will have been influenced by the news, which
arrived ten days earlier, that his Egyptian subsidies were at an end (63.
1). On the significance of Eucleidas' tactics on Euas, which do not
indicate a general defensive strategy, see P.'s comments, 68. 3ft.
5. Tous xa.A~<aa11't8o.o; ~<a.i. Tous 'IAAupwvs: are these chalcaspides the
J,ooo peltasts of 2 ? For the use of peltasts alongside Illyrians cf.
v. 13. 5-6 (ambush near Thermum). But elsewhere chalcaspides seem
to be part of the phalanx troops (d. 65. 3 n.), and may be so here.
For the Illyrians cf. 65. 4·
tca.Td. a-rrELpa.s tva.AAn~ TETo.yp.ivous: 'drawn up in alternate units'.
On the phrase KaTd. arrdpm; see 3· z n. Paton's translation 'alternate
lines' is incorrect and misses the point of the formation, which had
something of the flexibility of the Roman manipular organization,
contrasted with the normal phalanx. Antigonus was following the
lesson of Pyrrhus, who adapted his army to Italian arms and
methods, n8Et;; .?va.\.\d~ UYJJ.Laiav Ka.t arrel:pa.v paAayyml<ryv i.v Tot;; -rrp6s
'PwJ.La{ov<; dywcnv (xviii. 28. Io). On the arrE'tpa as the tactical unit in
Antigonid armies see Walbank, Philip, 293; it probably contained
about 256 men. But whether this was the number in the units
alternated with Italians by Pyrrhus, and with Illyrians by Doson,
is not known. Kromayer (BCH, 19ro, 521-2) a-rr.:fpa.' 4 wide
and so deep as suited for advancing up the of Euas (§ Io),
which was from Io 0 to 30°; if the unit was about 250 strong, a forma-
tion of 5 files each so deep would achieve the same purpose. The
Illyrian cme'tpaL were doubtless less regular in their numbers. For
the Spartan forces on Euas see 10 n. Alexander the son of
Acmetus is otherwise unknown; for Demetrius see 65. 4 n.
6. E'li'L 8£ TOUTOLS: 'beside these' (Kromayer) or perhaps 'behind
these' (Schweighaeuser, Paton, Treves); but the Acarnanians were
also in the gorge to the left of the Illyrians, though owing to the
angle of Kourmeki they were somewhat farther back (towards
Antigonus' lines) than the Illyrians.
Tous AKnpvciva.s ~<o.t 'H'll'lapwTa.o;: 'Hrretpdnas is Schorn's correction
of the MS. KpijTas; (cf. Krornayer, AS, i. 233 n. 2). Cretans are not
included in Doson's forces at 65. 2-4, nor are the Epirotes stationed
elsewhere; but P. does not indicate the position of the Boeotians
280
THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II.66.ro
either (it is generally assumed that they guarded the camp; cf.
Kromayer, AS, i. 233 n. 3), hence the text may be correct, and these
Cretans mercenaries (so Griffith, 70). For Doson is known to have
made treaties with Eleutherna and Hierapytna in Crete, which
probably contained clauses authorizing Macedonian recruitment (IC,
ii, Eleutherna, 20; iii, Hierapytna, I; Griffith, 69).
i~€Ope(a.s AaJ-L~avovTEs Tci~~v: 'as a reserve'; cf. Plut. Phil. 6. 3, T~v
JljleopE{a.v Jv TCftet owljlvAa.TTOVTWV. The Achaeans formed a second line
behind the Acarnanians, and were evidently intended to close the
gap between right and centre, when the troops on the wing facing
Euas advanced (Kromayer, AS, i. 235 n. 4); cf. 67. 2.
7. ;t..A.E~a.vopov .ftyeJ-Lova.: this Alexander is probably the man Doson
appointed as Philip's chamberlain (iv. 87. 5; cf. v. 28. 6, 96. 4, vii.
II. 6). The word hegemon is used, in the Antigonid army, to denote
the commander of a chiliarchy of about r,ooo men (Feyel, Rev. arch.
6, I935· 54) ; but it is probably employed here in a non-technical
sense for the officer commanding 1,2oo cavalry (65. 5).
8. To us J-L~aeo~opous ••• Kat Tous Ma.K€00va.s: the phalanx of Io,ooo
and the 3,ooo mercenaries, together with the I,ooo Agrianians and
I,ooo Gauls (65. 2}, I5,ooo in all. Cleomenes had n,ooo-12,ooo men
confronting them (65. Ion.). Doson's position in command of the
phalanx is discussed by Tarn (HMND, 36), who concludes that he
advanced parallel with his men, but on the flank.
9. ouj>a.A.a.yy(a.v euaAAYJAov: the normal depth of the phalanx was
I6 ranks (xviii. 30. 1), but here the width was halved and the depth
increased to 32 ranks; cf. 69. 9, rijs E1TaAA~Aov ljla"Aayyos. In xii. 18. 5,
as a reductio ad absurdum P. speaks of a rptljla"Aayy{a .11TaAAY)Ao<;. See
also Arrian, Tact. 28. 6. In vi. 40. 11 the Tptljla"Aayy{a 1TapUAAY)Aos- has
three parallel columns, in contrast to the formation envisaged here.
8Li1 TTtV aTEVOTYJTO. Twv T01Twv: Io,ooo men, 16 deep, would give 625
files, and each file normally needed 3 ft. clearance. If Kromayer's
position is correct, Antigonus could not afford more than half that
distance on the slopes below Melissi (Olympus); hence the double
depth, giving about 312 files.
10. a(voova.: 'a white flag', to be shown from Doson's headquarters.
According to Plutarch (Cleom. 28. 2) the Acarnanians were drawn
up against Euas along with the Illyrians. P. consistently omits
them, since apparently his source did not distinguish between the
Illyrians (and chalcaspides: cf. § 5) and the Acarnanians (and Epirotes,
or Cretans: cf. § 6); but on this point Plutarch's Phylarchean version
seems preferable. For the probable position taken up by these
Illyrians (and Acarnanians) see Kromayer's map. Together they
were able to envelop the whole Spartan left, since their most ex-
tended forces were south-west of the summit of Euas. What never
emerges from F.'s account (or that in Plut. Phil. 6) is that these
281
II. 66. 10 EVENTS IN GREECE
troops were in hiding, concealed from the Spartans on either Euas
or Olympus by the brow of Euas. But the Phylarchean version
makes this clear; cf. Plut. Gleam. 28. 2, -roD ydp .:4v-rty6vov -rous
'I::V.upwus Kat -rous .:4Kap>·iivas i.K7Tt:ptt:ABt.lv KpJrpa Kt.A£vaav-ros. See
further, 67. 2 n. Soteriades argues that the usually dried-up brook in
Kourmeki can hardly be called a 7TOTaJ.u)s; but this argument is not
to be pressed, for the stream may have been larger in classical times,
and indeed Kahrstedt (Hermes, 1913, 289) has found traces of an
eroded river-bed in the valley bottom. In any case, P. himself clearly
conceives the Gorgylos to be dried up at this time, since the troops
hide in its bed.
11. To'i:s 8E: Mt:yaAo'll"oAlTaLs ••• 4>owLKis e~ap8ft: these were the forces
in the centre, 3,200 in all, foot and horse, including I,ooo Achaeans;
on their right (but to the left of the concealed troops) were the re-
maining 2,ooo Achaean infantry. Verbal similarities in Plutarch's
Philopoemen point to a similar source; but these have been exa.g-
gcrated (cf. Nissen, KU, 283, 'c. 6 Schlacht bei Sellasia. Bis zum
Eingreifen Philopoemens entspricht Alles der Darstellung ii. 66. 67' .).
In fact, Plutarch diverges considerably from P. He puts Illyrians
and Achaeans together, the former 'supporting' (7ra.paa-r&:raS') the
latter; and the same red flag is to be the signal for both Illyrians
and centre. However, the Illyrians anticipate the signal while the
Achaeans obey orders and remain in their position. This tendentious
account is designed to exonerate the Achaeans and to glorify Philo-
poemen, and it seems clearly to spring from P.'sLije of Philopoemen.
Evidently when he came to compose the present passage P., being
concerned more with facts and less with panegyric (cf. x. 21. 8),
distinguished more clearly the role of the Illyrians and the separate
functions of the centre and the concealed right. Thus the inaccuracies
in Plutarch, Phil. 6, reflect P.'s purpose in his biography of the
Achaean hero. In the Histories the praise of Philopoemen remains,
but the exoneration of the Achaeans is omitted. (This is not the
place to discuss the arguments of Wundcrer (i. 87) and Pedech
(REG, r9sr, 82-1o3) that P.'s bio~:,>Taphy was written long after
books i and ii, and for the younger Scipio; they seem to me quite
unconvincing. Cf. x. 2r. 5 n.)
come under the phrase TWII af-La TOVT0£5' 7Tpoaf3aw6vTwl!, On F.'s COD·
fusion on this question see 66. ron., 67. 2 n.
68. 1-2. Doson's praise of Pkilopoemen: cf. Plut. Phil. 6. 6-7 for the
same anecdote. Ferrabino (Atti Ace. Tot"ino, I9I8-19, 756 ff.) argues
that Antigonus was really holding back his centre till he had de-
feated the Spartan forces on the wings; then he would break through
to cut off the Spartan retreat. Philopoemen's move may have helped
the Acarnanians a little; but the Ill:yTians were safe from the mer-
cenary attack, and would have overwhelmed Encleidas just the
same, had Philopoemen made no move. Thus fundamentally his
action was a minor incident, which P. seeks to exaggerate into a
major feature of the battle. Doson's praise may be authentic; he
could afford playful encouragement to a young and enthusiastic
leader from a city with which Macedonian relations were especially
close (65. 3 n.). The signal referred to (mJv87Jf-La) is the waving of the
red cloak (66. n).
3. bpwvTES ••• 'T'ns am:(pa.s: i.e. of the Illyrians and chalcasp£des. But
it was probably the Acarnanians whom Eucleidas saw first (67. 2 n.);
the Illyrians will have remained unseen till they reached the brow
of Euas (66. ro).
5. ,.c, Tou Ka8o'ITA~aJ.!ou ~ea.t 'T'fls auvTO.sews tliiw11a.: 'the peculiar advan-
tage afforded by their arms and formation'; d. 3· 5 and 68. 9 for the
weight of lllyrian arms. It is of the Illyrians rather than the Acar-
nanians that P. is thinking.
7. ~J.!EVOV ('!Tl, TWV nKpwv: this is true only of Eucleidas' extreme left;
it is clear from 65. 9-10 and from Kromayer's analysis of the position
(accepting the identification of Euas with Palaeogoulas) that
Eucleidas' forces stretched down the shoulder of the hill to link up
with the centre on the bottom slopes and the cavalry beside the
river (BCH, I9IO, sr6-q). The 'steep and precipitous slope' is that
into the valley of the Gorgylos (Kourmeki).
8. s~· a.uTfjs Tfjs ••• Kopu.f.fjs SLa.J.!6.xea8a.t: 'to fight along the very
top of the hill'' i.e. along the ridge (cf. iii. 72· 9 for oui 'along and in
front of').
10. KPT'J!lVWST'J Kai SUaf!a'T'OV €xovTWV ••• T~V nva.xwpT'JO'LV: Sotcriades
(BCH, 191o, 22: 19u, 94) argues that the southern slope of Palaeo-
goulas is smooth and gradual, and his photograph confirms this
(BCH, 191 t, Pl. 1 facing p. 93). The correct conclusion from this is not,
however, that Kromayer has sited the battle wrongly, but that F.'s
description at this point has been artificially schematized to create
'balance'. Eucleidas' men retreat for a long way down a steep and
precipitous slope because such was the fate they had planned for
their opponents (§ 7); cf. § 8, awlf31J ••• TOvvavTlov. For similar
schematization in P.'s account of the battles of Drepana and the
284
THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II.6g,6
Aegates Islands (perhaps derived in that case from Philinus) see
CQ, I945. II. On Eucleidas' false tactics see Kromayer, AS, i. 236-7.
69. 1. 'ITEPL rfj~ aurwv EAEuOepia~: the Achaean slogan (42. 6). In fact,
Achaean 'freedom' meant recognizing the hegemony of Doson, just
as elsewhere the freedom of the Peloponnese in the fourth century
is identified with the victory of Philip II (xviii. I4. 6; cf. CQ, I94J,
9 n. I, contrasting xviii. II. 4 and 6). Phylarchus naturally inter-
preted 'freedom' differently; cf. Iustin. xxviii. 4· z (drawing on
Phylarchus), 'inter duas nobilissimas gentes bellum summis utrim-
que uiribus fuit, cum hi pro uetere Macedonum gloria, illi non solum
pro inlibata libertate, sed etiam pro salute certarent'.
2. rov 1-'f.v L'lT'lTOV 'lTEuE"Lv 'lTATJy~vra Kmpiw<;: Plutarch (Phil. 6) makes
Philopoemen deliberately abandon his horse in order to pursue the
enemy (in his version the light-armed troops ascending Euas, not
the cavalry). In this version he is wounded by a thonged javelin, but
succeeds in moving his legs so as to break the shaft, and after its
extraction resumes the conflict.
3. OLa TWV eu~wvwv Kal J.LLU0o~6pwv: perhaps 'the light-armed mer-
cenaries' (d. v. 36. 3, 53· 3, where Tovs £ivovs Kai f'-ta8o<fo6pov<;
means 'the mercenaries from abroad'); CR, I95I, 99 n. I. Cleomenes'
d!~wvot are certainly mercenaries, but Doson's light-armed included
the Gauls and Agrianians, who were probably allies (65. z n.); it is
therefore possible that the Ka{ should have its full force.
uxe80v ••• ws ;revraKLUXLAious: Doson's s,ooo consisted of his J,ooo
mixed mercenaries, r,ooo Gauls, and I,ooo Agrianians (65. z); on
Cleomenes' forces see 65. 9-Io nn.
6. opwv TOU~ J.LEV ••• 'ITE~euyoras KTA.: there is a fundamental dis-
crepancy between P. and Phylarchus (Plut. Cleom. z8) on the timing
and reason for Cleomenes' phalanx charge. Here it is clearly a last
hope, forced on Cleomenes when he saw that all was up on Euas, and
nearly so in the centre; but Phylarchus makes Cleomenes charge
deliberately, drive the Macedonians back 5 stades, and pause only
when he sees disaster on the other hill. Such a discrepancy might
well arise from different eyewitness accounts of two events which
were almost simultaneous. There can be little doubt that Cleomenes
meant to charge, and did so deliberately, for he had accepted the
battle (66. 4); but the pro-Spartan source tries to attribute the
failure of his charge to the disaster on Euas, just as the pro-Achaean
source tries to represent the charge as due entirely to the pressure
of events (Ferrabino, Atti Ace. Torino, Igi8-Ig, 8n ff.). Phylarchus
tries further to excuse Cleomenes with his silly story of an inquiry
on the whereabouts of the Illyrians and Acarnanians, and the re-
assuring answer of Damotelas, Tdv bri Tij> KpV'TrTdas TETayf'-ivov, who
had been bribed. It seems probable that the phalanx charged at
z8s
EVENTS IN GREECE
the moment the ambushed troops were making their assault on
Euas, but before the Illyrians had scaled the brow of the hill (\Val-
bank, Aratos, rn-12).
Tous o' ... i'lTTre'Ls oaov ouTrw KMvovTo.s: i.e. as a result of the attack
initiated by Philopoemen (67. 5).
-.lvo.yKa~ETO O<O.O"Tr<i.v Ta TrPOTE~XLO'flO.TO.: the xdpa~ of 65. 9· These
defences were no longer needed once the phalanx was ready to take
the offensive; hence their destruction is no evidence that events
were compelling Cleomenes to change his plan (so Kromayer, AS.
i. 243). For the advance 'frontally, in line' (P,ETW71"Y}Oov) cf. 27. 4; the
side of the camp from which they emerged would be that facing
the Macedonians.
7. Ko.To.~o.AoOao.~ Tas aa.ptaa.s: MS. p.e:-ra.fJaJ.ovaat, 'changing the
position'. Reiske's emendation restores the technical term for
levelling pikes from the shoulder position; d. v. 85. 9. xi. I5. 6, r6. I,
xviii. 24. 9 (misunderstood by Livy, xxxiii. 8. 13). The aaptua is the
long Macedonian pike of 14 cubits (21 ft.); on its use in the phalanx
see xviii. 29.
8. lmo TTJS Twv 1\.o.Kwvwv Ev~Jiuxla.g: d. v. 39· 5, •.J#x.wr; mfvv ~<:al
Aa~<:wv£~<:wr; (on Cleomenes' death, from Phylarchus); but the ad-
mission comes more strangely in the present passage, where the
source is markedly anti-Spartan. In the Phylarchean version of
Plutarch (Cleom. z8. 4) the Macedonians are swept back 5 stades
(nearly r,ooo yards); but this must be an exaggeration (on Kro-
mayer's site it would have forced the Macedonians into a ravine:
AS, i. 244 n. z).
u'lTo Tou ~apous TTJS Twv Ma.KES0vwv Tcl.~ews: P. probably refers to
the fact that the Macedonian files were 32 men deep, in contrast to
the r6 of the normal Spartan formation (66. 9). In width Cleomenes'
phalanx (375 files of r6 men 6,ooo) will have slightly exceeded
Doson's (3r2 files of 32 men 9,984 (ro,ooo)); but once Cleomenes
had failed in his attempt to break the Macedonian line and force
it do\vn into the Oenus valley, Doson's additional weight was bound
to tell. There is no reference to heavier armour, as in 68. 9; and
Plutarch (Cleom. 28. I) is probably misinterpreting P. (mentioned
27. 4) when he writes, -rij> -rpd114:1 -rijs lmMa<:ws Kal -rep f30.pn rijs-
61TAmKfjs 4>aX.ayyos J~f£8Alf57J· One need not suppose any difference
in the length of sarissa, etc. (so Kromayer, AS, i. 244 n. 3), since the
Spartan phalanx was armed like the Macedonian (this is specifically
attested for 2,ooo of Cleomenes' recruits; 65. 3 n.).
9. aup.cflpa~a.VTES Tas a6.pwo.s: 'closing the ranks of their pikes'.
In iv. 64. 6-7, where it is a question of defence against hostile
cavalry, the phrase uvp.</;pa-r-retT' -rofr; o11Aotr; describes a continuation
of the movement of uwauTrtCTfLOS", which a tactical writer describes as
allowing only r5 ft. per man (Asclep. 4· 3; cf. Ael. Tact. rr. 5). But
286
THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II. 70
this formation can hardly have been employed in phalanx action; and
P. clearly states that the formation then used, -rnJKvwat> Twv aapwwv
(xviii. 30. 3), allowed 3 ft. per man in contrast to the usual6 on march
(xii. I9. 7). See Kromayer (AS, iii. 1. 347 ff.; HeertfJesen, I35) and
Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 203 f.) against Delbriick (Geschichte der Kriegs-
kunst, i2 (Berlin, I92o), 423). In fact, P.'s normal use of these terms
is inconsistent. Thus in xii. 21. 3 aAws- avvamrl~nv indicates the 3-ft.
formation, yet in xii. 21. 7 (in polemic against Callisthenes) awryam-
KbTa.> refers to the formation allowing 6 ft. per man. The expres-
sion avp,fpaTTnv is also used of the interlocking of shields over the
head in the Roman testudo (cf. x. I4. I2, xxviii. 11. 2); but here it
clearly refers to the 3-ft. stance of the phalanx -rrvKvwats-. See
Cornelius, 26-27; and on the phalanx Kromayer-Veith, Heerwesen,
1 35·
1. eyKpaT-l]S YEVO!J-EVOS E~ e.flo&ou TTJS I-rrd.pTTJ';: cf. i. 24. II, 76. IO,
etc. 'having taken Sparta at a single stroke'. Cleomenes had advised
against further resistance (Plut. Cleom. 29. I; Iustin. xxviii. 4· 7-9).
This was the first time Sparta had been occupied by an enemy.
!J-EyaA.oo/uxws: ••• exp-r]aaTO TOlS AaKEOal!J-OVlOlS:: cf. v. 9· 8-IO, TWV
fJ.f'YlaTwv aya6wv atnos Yf'VOfLf'VOS Ka~ Ko~vfi Ka~ KaT' lo{av AaKf'Oa~
fLOV{o~s. There were no reprisals (ix. 29. 12), but Cleomenes' constitu-
tion was abrogated (see next note) and Sparta was obliged to aline
herself with the Hellenic Symmachy (54· 4 n.); her exact status is
not very clear, but Philip's words in iv. 24. 4 suggest that she was
a member (cf. iv. 9· 6 n.). Further she was forced to cede the Ager
Denthaliatis (between Kalamata and the Langada gorge) to Mes-
senia (if the Antigonus of Tacitus (Ann. iv. 43· 4) is Doson (so Beloch,
iv. I. 7I8; Fine, A}P, I940, ISS) and not Gonatas (so Ehrenberg,
RE, 'Sparta', cols. I422, I426)); this territory had probably been lost
to Sparta at the time of Arcus' Peloponnesian League and the war
against Gonatas in 28o (41. I2 n.), when Messenia was pro-Mace-
danian (Beloch, iv. 2. 370-I). See further Roebuck, 62, 64 n. 24.
<
To -rroA.heufJ-a To -rraTpLov ••• lmo )KaTaaT-r]aa.s: cf. v. 9· 9, To 7TaTpLOv
7ToAlTWfLa Kat T~v dl.w6f'p[av, ix. 36. s; Plut. Cleom. 30. I. Antigonus
abolished Cleomenes' 'Lycurgan' reforms, and restored the Ephors
(cf. iv. 22. 5). To what extent Cleomenes' land reforms were reversed
is uncertain (cf. Porter, lxxxv-lxxxvi); but the kingship was left
in abeyance (iv. 22, 4), and Brachylles, a Boeotian, was left as Mace-
danian E7Tunanw in the town (xx. 5· I2; d. Feyel, I3I). In this way
Doson fulfilled the ambitions of the governing class in Achaea, and
crushed the sparks of social revolution. As Tarn (AG, 437-8) has
shown, the phrase 7TaTptos 7ToA~nta and similar expressions were
commonly used in the third and second centuries in contrast to
tyranny; cf. ii. 47· 3 n., iv. Sr. 14, ix. 36. 4 (Sparta), ii. 70. 4 (Tegea),
ii. 43· 8 (7TaTptov €>.w6f'p{av of the Peloponnesian cities); Plut. Dem.
8 and Io (Athens); Flam. ro (Greeks); Syll. 434/S. 1. rs (decree leading
to the Chremonidean War, referring to TJ5pavvo£ who subvert Tovs TE
vofLovs Kai Tas 7TaTptovs JKC!.UTms 7TOALnias); Syll. 390, 1. rs (Island
League honouring Ptolemy I). It was a propagandist phrase which
did not necessarily imply a return to the previous constitution
enjoyed before the 'tyranny'.
E\1 oA(yals TJfJ-E:paLc;: cf. Plut. Cleom. 30. I, ~fLipq. TpiT[J. This more
explicit version points to the use of a common source.
TOUS 'IJ\A.upwus ••• -rrop8~;iv TYJV xwpav: cf. Plut. Cleom. 30· I,
7Top6f'i:u6aL T~V xdJpav V7TO TWV f3ap{3apwv. These will not be the Illyrians
of Demetrius of Pharos, but rather rebellious tribes farther east,
akin to their Dardanian neighbours (Fine, ]RS, 1936, 2s). There is
no reason to think they were financed by Rome, as Droysen sug-
gested (Tarn, CAH, vii. 843 n. r).
288
THE ACHAEA~ LEAGUE; THE CLEO}fENEAN WAR II.70.5
2-3. The action of Tyche. P.'s comment here seems to be taken from
Phylarchus (cf. 66. 4 n.); cf. Plut. Cleom. 27. 6, ~ T<i p.eytcrra Tliw
7Tpayp.d.Twv KplvovO'a T(j) 7Tapd p.tKpov TVJ(1J, 'Fortune, who decides the
most important matters by a narrow margin'. Hence Wunderer
(Phil., 1894, 62} proposes to emend P.'s TTapa Aoyov to 7Tap' dAlyov, a
convincing emendation (cf. Siegfried, 73 n. r4o) which makes a better
point here, since Doson's victory is not irrational (like the novel
behaviour of Tyche in letting the Macedonians rise to dominion
7Tapd. Tov /..oytO'p.ov, xxix. ZI. 5, quoting Demetrius of Phalerum), but
merely won by a small margin, as Plutarch correctly has it. The less
satisfactory explanation is that P. has missed Phylarchus' point in
hasty copying. In fact, Cleomenes' cause was lost, whatever delays he
had engineered, since his bid for hegemony had rested on Egyptian
subsidies, which had now ceased (63. r-2).
3. -rC:.v Ka.Lpwv ciVTnrotftao.-ro: 'had sought to use his opportunities'
(Schweighaeuser), or, less probably (cf. the intransitive use, 9· s),
'had resisted circumstances, held out'.
4. -roo-rots A1roSous -r1]v ml.-rpLov 1Totme[a.v: cf. § I n. Nothing is
known of Tegea till 207, when it is again Spartan (xi. I I . 2). On the
probability that Tegea was a member of the Achaean Confederation
for a short time between 234 and 229 see 46. 2 n.; if so, she may have
resumed this status now (the phrase miTpws TToAtnla. being no
obstacle to this view, as Freeman (HFG, 386) thought), though no
positive evidence exists.
els ?\pyos E1T' a.&-r~v ••• -r~v -rwv Nep.Ewv 1ra.v~yupw: the Nemean
festival, held in alternate years, was at this time celebrated at Argos.
Founded in 573, it was originally held by Cleonae at Nemea, probably
with Argive backing (cf. Pind. Nem. x. 42; Plut. A rat. 28. 5); and as
late as 310 it was stiU held there, since Cassander returned to :Mace-
don TTap£AfJwv els- T~v Apy£lav Kat fJds Tov Twv N£p.iwv dywva (Diod.
xix. 64. r). The Argivcs were still erecting stelae at Nemea in the early
third century (cf. Vollgraff, Mnem., r9r6, 221, l. 29}; but at some date
before 235 the games had been transferred to Argos (cf. Boethius,
Der argivische K alender (Uppsala, I 922)' s-8). In 235 Aratus transferred
them back to Cleonae, and rival festivals were held here and at
Argos (Plut. Arat. 28. s); but after 229 they went back to Argos (cf.
Plut. Cleom. 17. 4). A Nemean festival would normally indicate an
'odd' year (Julian); but since Sellasia cannot have been fought in
221 (65--69 n.), this must be the festival of 223 postponed on account
of the war. In 225 Cleomenes had exploited the truce to seize Argos
(52. 2 n.); and there is good evidence for the postponement of
religious festivals at this time (cf. v. w6. 2-4), including the Nemea
(Livy, xxxiv. 41. I (r95 B.c.), based on P.). Cf. Porter, lxxvi-lxxvii;
DeSanctis, Riv. jil., r927, 489.
5. miVTwv TWV 1Tpos &.!lavo.T0\1 M~o.v t<a.l -np.~v aVTjKOVTWV: like the
4866 u 289
II. 70.5 EVENTS IN GREECE
other Antigonids, from Gonatas onwards, Doson had no official state
cult; but after Sellasia he was widely celebrated throughout Greece
in terms which came near to deification. An Achaean Antigoneia was
set up in his honour by Aratus (xxviii. 19. 3, xxx. 29. 3), a proceeding
strongly condemned by the latter's enemies (cf. Plut. Cleom. 16. 7;
A rat. 45· 3, both echoing Phylarchus}. The Antigoneia at Histiaea in
Euboea (Syll. 493, 1. 22; d. Roussel and Hatzfeld, BCH, 19Io, 37o)
was apparently in Doson's honour. :Mantinea was refounded as
Antigoneia (56. 6 n.), with Aratus as olK,O'T'J]s and Doson as its
KT/.t.rrrys (Plut. Arat. 45· 8-9), and the latter was here celebrated as
awT-T]p Kat d<.py€T7}s (IG, v. 2, 299), as he was also by the Spartans
(v. 9· IOn., ix. J6. 5). On the group representing Philip v and Doson,
crowned, which the Eleans set up at Olympia (Paus. vi. r6. 3), see
Walbank (Philip, 19 n. 1), J. Pouilloux and N. M. Verdelis (BCH,
1950, 44), and Aymard (Aegyptus, 1952, 91-92). Similar expressions
of adulation no doubt took place on the present occasion.
6. Tfi 8£ 'TI'a.pa.KAi)aet Ka.t Kpa.uyi:j Tfi Ka.T' a.liTc>V Tbv Klv8uvov: cf. Plut.
Cleom. JO. J, O.VTfj Tfj 7TEpi Triv aywvo. Kpo.vyfi. Plutarch attributes the
story of Doson's rupturing a blood-vessel, encouraging his men,
specifically to Phylarchus.
ets atf..LOTOS 0.va.ycuy1)v Ka.l TLVO. TOLO.UT1']V 8ul.9eatv ~f..L'TI'EO'~lV: 'he took
to vomiting blood and fell into the morbid condition which accom-
panies it.' aJp.o.Tos dva.ywy~ is a technical term for vomiting blood;
d. Erasistratus in Galen, Libr. propr. (ed. Muller, Galeni scripta
minora, ii. 91), I. Plutarch (Cleom. 30. 3), who here has the phrase
TO awp.a. 7Tpoaa.vo.pp~[o.s, uses the words 7TAfjBos o.'tp.a.TOS' d.Yl]yaye in
connexion with another version (from the rhetorical schools), that
the haemorrhage was caused by Doson's shouting JJ KaM)s ~p.lpo.s
after the victory. There was a persistent tradition that Doson was
already consumptive; cf. Plut. Cleom. r6. 7, 30. 2. 8ta0wts is also a
technical medical term; cf. 2o. 7 n.
f.-LET' ob 'II'OAu ••• !J.t:TtJA>.a.~E: cf. Plut. Cleom. 30. 4, uuvTdvws ETEAnJTIJO'E.
In reality Doson lived till about July (Walbank, Philip, 295-8) or
even August 221 (if one follows Bickerman, Berytus, 1944, 73). During
the year between his Illyrian victory and his death he appointed
guardians for the new king (cf. iv. 87. 6), and sent the latter on a
journey to the Peloponnese to make Aratus' acquaintance (Plut.
Arat. 46. 2-3). Either now or earlier he appointed Taurion com-
mander of his forces in the Peloponnese (iv. 6. 4).
8. T1)v ••• ~oatAElO.V U'TI'~>.t'TI'E 4>tAL'TI''TI''f T4> A"l!J."lTPfou: Philip V, son
of Demetrius II (44. r-2} and the Epirote princess Phthia (Chryseis),
was born in 238, and so was 17 upon his accession in 221 (d. iv. 5· 3,
24. r). Iustinus (xxviii. 4· r6, xxix. I. 2) makes him 14; but this figure
may be ignored (cf. Fine, CQ, 1934, roo}. That Philip was never co-
regent with Doson (cf. Walbank, Philip, 19 n. 1) is now confirmed
290
THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II.71.7
by an inscription from Demetrias, containing the formula {3aatlt.£;
.t1vny6vw[t] J Kat <lhAl1T7rwt (Pouilloux-Verdelis, BCH, I950, 42; cf.
Aymard, Aegyptus, I9)2, 90--93). For the general situation on his
accession see \Valbank, Philip, I8-23.
29I
BOOK III
1-5. Introduction to the History proper
Chapters 1-3 outline the work, according to the original plan, down to
r68~a period of fifty-three years {22o-168); in 4-5 P. gives reasons
for continuing his work to cover the years of Roman domination down
to 146. {For a structural analysis see Lorenz, 5o-6r.) Although by
168 the growth and advance of Roman power was already complete
{4. 2-3), a proper judgement on both conquerors and conquered is
only possible from a study of their subsequent conduct {4. 4-5).
Accordingly P. will deal with (a) the subsequent policy of Rome, (b)
the reactions of the subject peoples, (c) prevailing currents and
tendencies in public and private life (4. 6). This will facilitate the
passing of judgement on Rome.
These chapters raise several queries :
(1) When did P. conceive his revised plan, and what was its
scope?
(2) How many books were already written, and how many pub-
lished, when the plan was changed?
(3) To what extent did the new plan involve revision of earlier
parts, whether published or merely written?
(4) When were the Histories, as we know them, published?
1. It is usually assumed that P. resolved to extend his history
beyond 168 only after the double debacle of 146. This cannot be
proved, though Svoboda's attempt to disprove it (Phil., 1913, 465-
83) fails, and the Histories as we possess them shov.· no trace of a pro-
visional scheme of extension conceived prior to 146. Svoboda argued
that there were two stages in revision, (a) an intention to extend the
Histories down to an undetermined date, as outlined in 4· I-II, (b)
a later decision, taken long after the Achaean War, to finish at
146/s; to this second scheme belongs 4· 12-5. 6. Any passage which
mentions Carthage as still existing will have been composed before
146; since SUCh passages include Vi. 52. 1-3, 56. 1-3, XiV. IO. 5, XV.
JO. Io, xxxi. 12. 12, 21. 3 (add i. 73· 4, ix. 9· g-xo), P. must have
composed down to xx:d. 22 when he was interrupted by the events
of c. 150; and this implies that his narrative had already reached
r6o (xxxi. 21. 3). Consequently the extension beyond 168 had begun
before }J. could know of the catastrophe of 146. De Sanctis (iii. r.
202 f.) has, however, shown that xx:«.i. 2r. 3 does not imply the
existence of Carthage, and that xxxi. 12, 12 is part of a passage
describing the escape of Demetrius of Syria from Rome with P.'s
help, which has every appearance of being based on an account
292
INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY PROPER III. r-5
composed at the time, and only subsequently included in the ex-
tended history, cf. Thommen, Hermes, r885, 229. If this is so, xv.
30. 10, dealing with events of 203, is the latest passage which con-
forms to Svoboda's thesis, and the theory of two stages in the
revision collapses.
H. Erbse (Rh. Mus., 1951, 170 ff.), who argues for the composition
of the whole work after 144, tries to deal with the references to
Carthage by adducing the existence of the 'achronistic present tense'
used in a syncr£s£s. This theory would account for the references in
vi. 52 and 53, but fails to explain the rest except by an arbitrary
extension of the usage which in fact surrenders the whole case ; in
particular, his thesis breaks down on ix. 9· 9-10 (which he does not
COnsider), and appearS to ignore 4• I, KaTJ. T~l' lf apxfis 1Tpo6wtl' (cf.
Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 99).
It may therefore be taken that P. conceived his revision after q6;
and in addition to the reasons he gives he was no doubt prompted
by the wish to record events in which he had himself played a con-
siderable part.
2. Can it, however, be shown that P. had written beyond book xv
in 150-146? Aymard (REA, 1940, 12 n. 3) has argued that the refer-
ence to Aristaenus' preservation of the Achaean League by his
agreement with Rome (xviii. 13. 8-9) must have been written before
146; but it might equally be urged that the reference to 'utter
destruction' and 'temporary safety' was a hint at 146, and was
written after that date. Further, if xviii was written before 146,
xviii. 35· 9, with its reference to the fall of Carthage, must be a later
insertion (Brink and Walbank, CQ, loc. cit.). Cuntz (34--35) urges
that the phrase Dtd ~I' ayvwa[av Tfic; lKTO<; 8aft.aT77J<; (xvi. 29. I2)
cannot have been written after P.'s voyages in the Atlantic in I46
(d. xxxiv. rs. 7); but this is not decisive, for there is an implied con-
trast with the Euxine, compared with which the Atlantic was cer-
tainly unknown. Hence, despite Ziegler's assertion (RE, 'Polybios
(1)', col. I477) that by rso P. had certainly brought his history nearly
to Pydna, there is no clear positive evidence that he had composed
beyond xv. 30. ro by that date.
How many books had been published before ISo-146? Various
arguments have been adduced.
(a) Passages designed to affect policy about ISO B.c. These are iii.
21. 9 ff. on the Carthaginian treaties; perhaps iv. 27; iv. 30. 5, on the
advantages of an Acarnanian alliance (a passage with which v. 106. 4
has been linked); iv. 31. 3-33. 12, Arcadia and Messenia should com-
bine against Sparta; iv. 73· 6-74. 8, Elis should resume her asylia.
These passages point to publication about rso/49, and support the
view that iii-iv and probably (in view of its close conncxion with iv)
v were published about then. On the details of this publication
293
IIL 1-5 INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY PROPER
Holleaux (J!tttdes, i. 445 ff. = REG, 1923, 480 ff.) has some cogent
observations. P.'s discussion of the Rhodian earthquake of 227 is
so ill adapted to its context, at v. 88---90, and could so easily have
fitted into iv, that it appears probable that iv was already published
when P. decided to mention it. This implies (i) that iv and v appeared
separately with an interval between (though it tells us nothing of
the length of such an interval), (ii) that v. 88---90 was written after iv
was published; since there is evidence for last-minute insertions in
iv, this is presumably a last-minute insertion in v. Recently J. de
Foucault (Rev. phil., 1952, 47-52) has argued that v. 88---90 is in fact
displaced from immediately after iv. 56; but his view is too hypo-
thetical, and in fact, had P. originally placed the digression here, he
must have introduced it rather differently.
(b) Use of proverbs. On general grounds it appears likely that i and
ii had already appeared before 146. That ii was written before then
is clear from the references to the firmly established Achaean League
in ii. 37. 8-40. 6, 62. 4; for the theory that these chapters were a late
addition based on an earlier, separate work see ii. 37-70 n. Some
support for the orthodox view is afforded by Wunderer's researches
into P.'s use of proverbs. He shows (Polybios-Forschungen, i) that,
although P. quotes proverbial phrases throughout his Histories, the
first example of the phrase Ka.Td 7~v rra.potp.ta.v is at ix. 25. 3, after
which it occurs frequently down to the end of the work; and he
connects it with the use by P. of a collection of proverbs. It is note-
worthy that the Achaean chapters of book ii, like the rest of i-v,
and the surviving fragments of vi-ix. 25. 2, show no example of
the phrase Ka.Ta -r~v rra.po;p.ia.v. For what it is worth this argumentum
ex silentio is against the view that book ii contains late elements.
(c) P.'s use of rrpoypa.rpa.i. and rrpoEK8~aw;. In xi. 10. 5 P. states that
to the first six books he wrote rrpoypa.rpal, but wpo€;c(JI.cr€t>: to the rest.
In fact, we possess no Trpoypa.rpa.l to books i-vi; and De Sanctis
(iii. 1. 205, following Leo) supposes they were lost in a second edition.
However, such rrpoyparpal (contents lists attached to the outside of
the scroll) may well have become detached at any stage in the trans-
mission of the text (Laqueur (Hermes, 19II, 180~4) suggests the
period when the work was transferred from scroll to codex) ; and the
writing of rrpoyparpa.f for the first six books can be explained from
the internal economy of the work, which became more 'oecumenical'
after vi, and so more suited to 7rpoEK8~uH;; (cf. xiv. 1 a 1). See also
the considerations adduced by Laqueur (ibid.). We can only say
that the disappearance of rrpoyparf>al is not inconsistent with the
theory of a separate publication of books i-v (or vi), but does not
make it necessary.
{d) Again following Leo, De Sanctis (ibid.) suggests that the
duties entrusted to P. in Greece in 145 (xxxix. 5) are more easily
294
INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY PROPER IlL 1-5
understandable if his pro-Roman attitude had already been indicated
by the publication of a substantial part of his Histories. This is a
flimsy argument, for the Senate had easy ways of learning about a
dose friend of Scipio Aemilianus.
(e) In xvi. zo. 5 f. P. relates how he had pointed out errors to
Zeno, but too late for correction, as Zeno's book was already pub-
lished ; and he then asks readers to pardon any honest mistakes in
his own work. From this K. J. Neumann (Hermes, 1896, 519 ff.)
deduced that when P. resumed his work after 150--144 he had
already published i-xv. Clearly, however, this does not follow from
the context. P.'s appeal is in general terms, and applies to future
generations as well (i.e. readers of his whole work), and it is inserted
here merely because of the digression on Zeno.
Unless further passages can be adduced from books later than
iv and v which seem intended to influence some identifiable con-
temporary political situation, it remains uncertain that more than
five books had appeared before 146. Perhaps, in view of the fact that
both its subject-matter and place in the Histories as a whole link vi
with i v, this also appeared at the same time (cf. Brink and \Val-
bank, CQ, 1954. 100); but this is only a presumption, though one not
contradicted by an analysis of vi (cf. vi introductory note, 4· 7-
9· 14 n.). Certainly neither evidence nor probability speaks for the
hypothesis of Mioni (33-48} that P. not only wrote, but also pub-
lished, the first fifteen books in the years between 151 and 147; see,
in criticism, Brink and Walbank (CQ, 1954, 100, 101 n. 8).
3· Revision of parts already composed or published. Many of the
attempts to prove later insertions in i-xv, which were written before
146, break down.
(a) Various attempts have been made to frame an account of
P.'s views on Tyche which will enable a reader to assign relative
dates to observations on this topic. Thus Cuntz (43 ff.) sees F.'s
spiritual progress from an orthodox Hellenistic belief in the power
of Tyche, reinforced by the writings of Demetrius of Phalerum, to
a conviction that the world is governed by Stoic law and order;
whereas von Scala (159 ff.) sees a development from a rationalist posi-
tion, which seeks natural causes for all phenomena (in reaction against
an earlier dependence on Demetrius), to an eventual return, after
167, to something nearer Demetrius' position. But all such attempts
fail because at all periods P. tends to use the word Tyche in a variety
of senses, and with varying intensity of 'belief'; see Walbank, CQ,
1945, 6-7; Mioni, 140-5 (a good analysis); Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (1)',
cols. 1532-43. Thus many passages (e.g. i. 63. 9, ii. 38. 4 ff., x. 5· 8,
xviii. 28. 5, xxxi. 30. 1-3) are to be interpreted in the light of P.'s
loyalty to Achaea, Rome, or Scipio, rather than as an expression
of a particular philosophical attitude. See above, pp. 22-26.
295
III. 1-5 INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY PROPER
(b) It has been argued by Hirzel and von Scala that P. was a
convert to Stoicism, largely through Panaetius' influence, and that
any passages in the earlier books (for a list see Susemihl, ii. uo n.,
adding iv. 40. 3 from n. 93) which betray Stoic thought are later
insertions. P. was in fact influenced by Stoicism, both in his late
years, and also earlier (cf. Class. et med., 1948, 170 ff.); but this is an
aspect not to be overstressed in a writer who was not by tempera-
ment a philosopher. Nor can the influence on P. of Panaetius, a
younger man, the date of whose arrival at Rome is quite uncertain,
be proved (cf. CQ, 1943, 86; Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 103
nn. 3-4). In fact Stoicism is a useless criterion for dating P.'s work.
(c) Cuntz argued that most of P.'s journeys and voyages took place
after 146, and so drew conclusions on the dating of passages referring
to them. De Sanctis (iii. 1. 209 ff.) has argued cogently that P.'s
journeys in the western Mediterranean were almost all before, or in,
146. Hence no important deductions on composition can be made
on this basis. Two points, however, are worth noting:
(i) P.'s visits to Sardes (xxi. 38. 7) and Alexandria, under Physcon
(xxxiv. 14. 6), were probably made after 146/5; even so they
probably preceded the composition of the books in which they
are mentioned.
(ii) If P. visited New Carthage in 151 (cf. 57-59 n., x. II. 4), it still
remains true that x. 11. 4 is probably an insertion in the
original composition (cf. ii. 13. 2 n.).
On the other hand, both i-v and also later books up to xv contain
passages apparently composed after 146, which imply revision of an
original draft or edition. One is the present passage (4-5) ; others
(see relevant notes) are:
iii. 32. 2, reference to forty books and the fall of Carthage.
iii. 37· n, the part of Europe washed by the outer sea has recently
come under our notice. Cuntz (34 ff.) argues convincingly that
this refers to the campaigns of D. lunius Brutus Callaicus in
138/7. Probably §§ 10-n, with the reference forward to xxxiv,
were revised or inserted after that date.
iii. 39· 2-12 (or at least 6-8) date to after u8, when the Via
Domitia was constructed.
iii. 59· 4: the reference to Greek politicians being free from war
and politics implies a date after 146. In 59· 7 there is a reference
to P.'s journeys (which are probably subsequent to the original
composition of iii); hence it is likely that 57-59 is a later
insertion.
iii. 61. n, 86. 2, probably composed after 133 since they imply the
shifting of the Italian frontier from the Aesis to the Rubicon.
xii. In the main this book was \\'Titten before 146; cf. xii. 25, where
296
I~TRODUCTIOX TO THE HISTORY PROPER III. c 5
the discussion of Phalaris' bull omits to mention its recovery
by Scipio in r46 (d. CR, 1945, 40). But some passages are later.
(?) xii. 2. r, on the lotus. Athenaeus states that P. described this
from personal observation, and this would imply composition
after the Third Punic War, or rsr at the latest (cf. 57-59 n.).
But in fact the passage has the appearance of coming from a
literary source, such as Diocles of Carystus (cf. v. 45· 10 n.).
xii. 3· on the richness of Africa. If this is described from
autopsy, it will be composed after 146 (or rsr): see last note.
We have no record of any visit to Corsica (xii. 3· 7-4. 4).
xii. 27 ff., the stress on avror.aOEta, and reference to Odysseus'
wanderings, date this after 146 (Class. et med., 1948, I7I ff.).
4· Final publication. Since xxxi. z8. 13 and xxxviii. zr. 3 suggest
that Scipio is dead and were therefore written after 129, and since
there is evidence of insertions as late as 120 (cf. iii. 39), it appears
that P. went on working at his History until his death; and indeed
the 'obituary' in xxxix. 5 shows that his work appeared posthu-
mously. But whether between rso-146 and his death no fnrther books
were published we simply do not know; for there is nothing in x and
xii (where alone insertions from after q6 are to be found) which is
inconsistent with publication after, say, 140. It has been argued by
A. Philippson (Phil. Woch., 1930, rr8r-2) that Cicero, de re pu,b. ii,
draws largely on Polybius vi, and that when in § 21 Laelius remarks
that Scipio's argument is one 'quae nusquam est in Graecorum
libris', he is meant to suggest that at the dramatic date of the
dialogue (129 B.c.) Polybius vi was not yet published. But the ratt'o
ad disputm~dum noua there mentioned is probably not one copied
from P. at all (cf. Laqueur, Phil. Woch., 1924, 334), in which case
Philippson's argument on the date of publication of vi collapses.
4. 1-4. el (LEv oov ••• t'll'el 8€ ••• : on this formula cf. i. 3· 7 n., iv. 28.
2-3. In this addition to his introduction P. insists that judgement
must rest, not on immediate failure or success, but on a consideration
of the results of actions over a long period. Cf. § 3 n., Aymard, REA,
1940, 19 n. I,
1. Kll.Til Tr)v es 6.px1ls 1Tpo8eaw: d. i. I. 5-6 n. for P.'s intention to
stop at 168{7, the conclusion of the fifty-three years. At i. 65. 5,
ii. r. 4, 71· 2 this phrase is used of the plan to describe events down
to 220 in a summary fashion.
2. l] T' o.1is"laLs ••• ETETEAe(wTo: untrue; but P. was committed to the
view that Roman power reached its maximum growth in 167, hence
what followed must be consolidation and moral trial.
4. ooK CLUToTEAe1s ••• at ••• 8Lo.At}ljlw;: 'judgements ... are not
final'. The real character of an apparent success can be judged only
from its sequel, and how it is employed. P. is here moving towards,
but never clearly expresses (cf. the use of av~i-</>•povTwv in § II; in-
terest of whom?), the idea eventually formulated by Panaetius and
the Stoics, and taken over by the Romans (cf. Capelle, Klio, 1932,
86 ff.), that the true justification of Roman world-dominion is one
which takes into account the advantage of both rulers and ruled.
7. Tois ._..ev vuv ooaLv ••• Tois 8' t'II'LyEvo._..~voLS: for his contemporaries,
P.'s history is to afford a political lesson leading to action relative
to Roman rule, viz. rroT<pa ,PwKT~v ~ TovvavTiov alp<T~v Elvat av11-~
{lalv<L r't]v 'Pw11-alwv ovva.r:m:lav; for future generations it is to facilitate
the passing of a moral judgement on an historical event, viz. r.6npov
~r.atv<r'i]v Ka.i. ,7]>-.wr't]v ~ .jleKr't]v yeyovevat vo11-urreov (cf. § I). The
political action of P.'s contemporaries also, of course, rests upon
a moral judgement.
10. ou8ets ••• 'II'AEi TU 'II'EAO.y"l xcipw TOU 1TEpmw9t}vo.L ..,.Ovov: perhaps
proverbial (cf. Wunderer, i. I2J). P. reflects the normal classical
attitude towards sea-travel, always dangerous and uncomfortable.
OU 's E· TO.\;
· E,....1tE:LpLO.~
· , • , "E\IEKO. TT)'li
- Ei1TL<7Tt'
• ·!Jl.T)'li 0.\10./\0.Jl.t'CLVEL;
• ' R• r:., 'S a tt'1~
tude towards knowledge is strictly utilitarian (cf. ix. 20. 6), and this
distinguishes him from the Alexandrian school, ·with its spirit of
free speculation and the acquisition of knowledge for its own sake
(cf. Class. et med., 1948, rp-3). Cf. Cic. de re pub. i. 33, 'cas artis,
quae efficiant ut usui ciuitati simus'. There may well be Stoic influ-
ence here; cf. Cic. off. i. 22, 'placet Stoicis, quae in terris gignantur,
ad usum hominum omnia creari' (quoted by Lorenz, 77 n. 36).
Certainly the distinction in§ I I of ~3v, KaAOV, and aoll-4•pov, though
30I
III. 4· ro INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY PROPER
not contrasted (as for instance Ka,\6v and JJrpl-\,p.ov are contrasted
in i. 4· 4, 4· II, iii. 31. 12), suggests Stoic terminology; cf. xxiv. 12. 2,
Suo ... CFKorroir;; .•. rraaij> rroi\tT€/as, TO TE Ka-\ov !((].' Td avp.rpti.pov. For
the Stoic concepts of ~<aAOv and JJrpi'Atp.ov see Hirzel, ii. 851 ff. On
the other hand, the contrast goes back beyond the Stoics; Newman
(II. xiv) points out the similarity between this passage and Arist.
Nic. Eth. ii. 2. no4 b 30 ff., and Hammond (CQ, 1952, 132 n. 3) com-
pares Thuc. i. 22. 4·
12. ToilT' !Zann Tt;A•;moupyl)fl.O.: i.e. a full understanding of conditions
throughout the world under Roman rule from r67 down to the time of
troubles which followed (c. rsr-r46), and so the passing of judgement
on Rome and on the other peoples she ruled (§ 7). This plan supple-
ments, but does not supersede, that enunciated repeatedly (i. r. 5 n.)
throughout the work; and it should be noted that it nowhere implies
that the verdict will be unfavourable to Roman rule (cf. Brink and
Walbank, CQ, 1954, IOj n. 6).
TTJS fJ.ETa Ta.iha. .•• Ta.pa.xfis Ka.t Kwfta€WS: the idea behind Ta.pax~ and
xivr;a•s is of military operations which lack clear scope, organization,
and outcome; they are the equivalent of the Latin tumultus and
motus. P. applies xlvr;m,; and cognate words to the Carthaginian
Mercenary War (i. 69. 6, iii. 9· 8-9; also described as TapaX7/ in the
former passage and in iii. 9· 9, ro. 1), a rising at Sparta (iv. 34· 3),
the reckless policy which led to the Messenian revolt from Achaea
(xxiii. 5· 9). In ii. 21. 3 it is used of a Gallic tumultus. Here the meaning
will be 'the disturbed and troubled time' with the implication of
convulsive military movements. The translation proposed by Ham-
mond (CQ, 1952, 132), '(political) confusion and (revolutionary)
movement', does not take P.'s normal usage into account and must
be rejected. Lorenz (1oz n. 252) quotes the use of these words in other
historians, e.g. Thuc. i. I. z (KivTJa•s in the sense of the Peloponnesian
War-the usual interpretation, or of the emergence of the two
hostile coalitions in the period before its outbreak (Hammond, CQ,
I9$2, 132-3)); Xen. Hell. vii. 5· 27, aKptata Kat Tapax~ ETt 1rA<i.lwv p.era
rr)v p.a:x11v (Man tinea) JyivHo ~ rrp6cr0<£v fv rfi 'E'AM.8t; cf. Dem. xviii.
r8 (on conditions in the Peloponnese in 346), dX\a TLS ~v aKpL-ros xat
rrapa 7"0VTOtS Kairrapa -rots aMo<s arraaw epts KaL Tapax~·
13. To fl.EYE9os ••• Ka.L To na.p6.8o~ov: qualities claimed at i. z. r for
the subject-matter of the Histories.
a.iho'll'Tl)'i •.• wv fl.EY auvEpyos wv SE Ka.t xup~CTTJS yEyoveVO.l: for p .' s
stress on autopsy for the historian d. xii. 25 h 4, xx. 12. 8. P.'s share
in the major events comes out clearly in the last books, from xxxv
onwards (cf. 5· In.). In particular, he was auv£py6> at Carthage in the
Third Punic War (Ziegler (RE, 'Polybios (r)', col. 1489) recalls the
phrase crrJp.p.axos 'Pwp.alwv on the stele erected in P .' s honour at Megalo-
polis, Paus. viii. 30. 8) and xnp•aT~s in the settlement of Achaea.
30Z
INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY PROPER IlLs. r
o!ov 6.px~v 1TO~T)crajlEVOS aAATJV: this 'fresh start' applies, not to the
period after 167 (so Thommen, Hermes, 1885, 199; Susemihl, ii. 108
n. 104), but to the years of rapax~ Ka~ KiV"IJ<ns' (cf. § 13, 1nr€p 7}s-). Thus
the additional years fall into two groups:
(a) 168/7-c. ISI: pendant to the period of conquest; testing time
for Rome, included to facilitate the judging of conqueror and
conquered by contemporaries and posterity.
(b) c. I5I-I45/4: rapax~ Ka~ KivYJm>; begun 'as if a new work'
because of the extraordinary events and P.'s own part in them.
But in practice the two are not rigidly distinguished (though xxxiv
seems to act as a line of demarcation; cf. § 5· In.), for the events of
the second group also serve in the passing of judgements.
10. 1-6. Second cause: tlte unjust Roman annexation of Sardinia. This
is the greatest cause(§ 4), since it contributed most towards Hamil-
car's will to war. On the incident and its chronology d. i. 88. 8 n.
1. 1rpwTov ets 1rnv avyKa.TE~a.wov: 'first of all they were ready to
negotiate on all points'. So Paton, correctly. Schweighaeuser and
LSJ both take the meaning to be 'they were ready to consent to
anything' (as in xxi. 15. n). But 'consenting to anything' would not
enable the Carthaginians 'to conquer by the justice of their cause'
(vtK~cr.::tv "Tots iiLKalo~s); nor would it differ from 'yielding to circum-
stances' (§ 3, dtaVTf;'> -rfi 1T<::pLaTdaet), which is clearly a pis aller, when
the Romans reject their offer to negotiate. P. is evidently describing
an interview at Carthage, at which the Roman legati announce the
rerum repetitio (a1Tayy.::LMvTwv auTols 1r6>..::p.ov) to the Carthaginians.
They seek to argue the rights and wrongs (ds- miv fTIYJIKaTlf3awov), but
the Romans demand a plain or 'no' (§ J, ovK &rp.::1rop.ivwv) ;
3I3
III. 10. I CAUSES AND PRELIMINARIES OF
whereupon the Carthaginians accept the terms and so avert the
threatened war. The interview thus parallels that of zr8 (d. 20. 6-
2I. 8, 33· 1~4 (d. Taubler, Vorgesch. 23)), except that then the
Carthaginians chose war. For a detailed comparison and fuller dis-
cussion see Walbank, CP, 1949, rs-r6.
Ka.M'IT'Ep Ev Ta.~s 1Tpo Ta.UTT)S ~u~Ams 'ITEpl TouTwv SdiT)AWKa.!-lev: the
Sardinian affair is discussed in i. 88, but nowhere in ii; hence the
plural can only be explained on the assumption that P. is thinking
of the two preliminary books as comprising a single block. Further,
i. 88 makes no reference to the Carthaginian offer to negotiate; the
immediate reaction to the Roman ultimatum is complete capitula-
tion to the Roman terms {i. 88. 12). For a similar error in cross-
referencing see 28. 4 n.
3. O'UVEXWPT)O'O.V o' daolae&v KTA.: cf. i. 88. 12.
5. O''II'OUSO.twv T(I.UTU xpi)anotlo.& 'ITC.pnaKEufi 1Tpos TOV KC.TU 'Pw ....a.lwv
'II'OAE!-Lov: a deduction by P. or his source (not Fabius); cf. 9· 6 n.
6. Third cause: Carthagt:nian success in Spain. This also contributes
to the Carthaginian will to war. On the importance of Spanish man-
power see ii. 13. 4 n. P.'s limited view of causation, which finds no
place for mutual irritation, or a combination of causes on both sides,
prevents his stressing the equally important fact that the success
of the Barcas in Spain must have increased Roman suspicion.
7. TETEAEUTT)KW\l eTEa& Sk.cn 'll'poTEpov Tijs .ca.Tnpxfis n(JTou: i.e. in
229; d. ii. r. 7 n. Of the 'many proofs' of his complicity in the war
neither P. nor any other source records any besides the story of
Hannibal's oath.
13-30. The dpxal of the war. P. here gives the immediate events
leading up to it, and reverts towards the end to the question of
responsibility (z8. s). His account is punctuated by three digressions:
(a) on the Second Illyrian War (16. 1-7, 18. 1-19. 13);
(b) on the treaties between Rome and Carthage (21. 9-28. 5);
(c) on the merits of universal history (31-32).
Ill. 13. I CA l:SES AND PRELIMINARIES OF
13. 1. Ka.M.vt:p ~v6.vw vpot:ivov: 10. 3-4.
2. Td 'II'AEt<YTa. Ka.T' 'I~Ttpla.v ucj>' a.UTOUS volt;CTa.~a.L: exaggeration, to
support the Roman thesis of Punic aggression. Diodorus (xxv. 12)
has a similar account. After avenging Hamilcar's death on the
Orissi {cf. ii. I. 7-8 n.), Hasdrubal took twelve of their cities, Ka~
1rd.aas T<Zs' m:S,\.,-,,. 'l{37]piac;; he then married the daughter of an Iberian
king, and was recognized by all the Iberians as crTpaT1'Jy6S' aVTo-
Kpd.T<.up. Schulten, who accepts a modified version of this account,
suggests (CAH, vii. 788) that Hasdrubal extended Carthaginian
power as far as the upper Anas (Guadiana). However, the terms of
the Ebro agreement (ii. IJ. 7 n.) hardly support his assumption that
Hasdrubal already controlled the coastal tribes as far north as the
Ebro; and it seems more likely that his conquests were bounded by
the basin of the Sucro (modern Jucar), which may have formed the
southern frontier of Saguntine territory (cf. De Sanctis, iii. I. 41o).
The Ebro treaty suggests, on the other hand, that Hemeroscopium,
Alonis, and Acra Leuce (Alicante) (Schulten, ibid.), all .Massiliote
colonies, had already fallen under Carthage, and that Rome en-
visaged her advance to the Ebro as inevitable. The northern and
western parts of the peninsula were never part of the Carthaginian
empire.
4. 1-u~ yvw1-1n a<upta.v ivo{TtCTav T~v .•• a'lpECTLV: the emphasis on the
unanimous vote represents polemic against Fabius' view that Hanni-
bal did not have his government's full support (8. 6). Zonaras (viii.
2I) and Nepos (Hann. 3· r) both mention the election by the army
and ratification at home.
13. 5-14. 8. Hannibal's campaigns in Spain (221/o). P.'s circum-
stantial account of these campaigns is from a detailed source in close
touch with Hannibal, perhaps Silenus of Caleacte (FGH, I75; Jacoby
in vol. ii D, 6oo ff.; Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 405). Livy (xxi. 5· 3-17) has
an account with verbal similarities, but some divergencies and oc-
casionally fuller details. Some scholars have argued that Livy here
draws directly or indirectly on P., and that the elaboration in his
version is rhetorical, and without any historical basis (Soltau, 63;
Meltzer, ii. 6o2; De Sanctis, iii. I. 416 n. 70; Hesselbarth, n7) ; but
it seems more probable that the similarities are due to a common
source, to which Livy goes back through Coelius Antipater (cf.
Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 401--{); Taubler, Vorgesch. 92; Kahrstedt, iii.
36o f.; Thiel, 96 n. 178; Klotz, Livius, III ff., 123-4; Bung, 24-25
n. 3). This hypothesis implies a fairly close dependence on his soruce
by P.; but in straightforward military narrative this is in no way
surprising. On Hannibal's object in these campaigns see 14. Ion.
13. 5. TO Twv 'O?ucaowv €9vos: Livy (xxi. 5· 3) places them 'ultra
Hiberum ... in parte magis quam in dicione Carthaginiensium', with
a glance at his account of the Ebro Treaty (2. 7) 'ut finis utriusque
Jl6
THE HAN~IBALIC WAR III. 14. 2
14. 1. v.iAw DPJ.LTJUO.S evt TOUS Olla.KKO.lOUS: 'he set out again and
attacked the Vaccaei' (not 'he made a fresh attack on the Vaccaei'
(Paton); they had not been attacked before). The date is 220 (n!l ...
£mywofLEVcp 8lpn; Livy, xxi. 5· 5, uere primo). The Vaccaei are to be
sought on the middle waters of the Douro, around the borders of
Leon and Old Castile.
'EAJ.LavnKl]v: Livy, xxi. 5· 6, Hermandica. Details ofits capture from
a different, but good, source (perhaps Sosylus of Lacedaemon (FGH,
176; below, 20. 5) ; Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 405) are preserved in Plutarch
(Mor. 248 E f. = Polyaen. vii. 48). Plutarch calls the town.Ea>.fLanK~,
Polyaenus .Ea>.fLarl<;; it is clearly the Salmatice of the It. Ant. (434·
4). modern Salamanca. See Schulten, RE, 'Salmantica', col. 1985.
!6.p~ouKUATJV: Livy, xxi. 5· 6, Arbocala; Ptol. Geog. ii. 6. 49, :4.\{:ioKEAa;
It. Ant. 434· 7, Albocela. This will be the mining town of Albocola
near Salamanca (GIL, ii. 88o, 2598), modern Toro on the Douro,
a little east of Zamora near the border between Leon and Old Castile
(Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 403; Schulten, CAH, vii. 789).
Hannibal's route. He evidently crossed the slopes of the Sierra
Morena by what is now the Peiiarroya pass, and followed the direc-
tion of the later Roman road Emerita (Merida)-Salmatice (Sala-
manca) (It. Ant. 433 f.), since it was only on the return march that
he ran up against the Carpetani. This led him over the southern part
of the Guadarrama, via the sites of Segovia and Madrid, and subse-
quently over the Valdepeiias pass into Andalusia; and the battle
on the Tagus was probably fought not far from Toledo (Meyer, ibid.;
Schulten, ibid.). 'If this was his route, he discovered the two best
north-and-south roads across the heart of the peninsula', Cary,
Geographical Background, 241.
2. uuv8pa.J.LOVTWV ••• Twv Kap'IT'Ju(wv: Livy, xxi. 5· 8, Carpetani (cf.
P. x. 7· 5). This people inhabited the mountainous regions north of
the Tagus, the modern Sierra di Guadarrama and the head-waters of
the river (Strabo, iii. 139, 141-2, 152). Livy (xxxix. 30. 2) names Tole-
tum (Toledo) as one of their towns. They thus covered the eastern
part of New Castile (not Old Castile, as De Sanctis, iii. I. 416).
31 7
III. 14· 4 CAUSES AND PRELIMINARIES OF
4. el jlEV be 1ra.pcmi€ews ~va.yttaa9lJaa.v ••• ~ha.t<wouveoeLV: cf. Livy,
xxi. 5· II, 'inuicta acies, si aequo dimicaretur campo' (of the Car-
petani).
5-8. The battle at the Tagus: cf. Livy, xxi. 5· 8-r6. Here discrepancies
between P. and Livy are most marked (cf. IJ. 5-14. 8 n.). In both
accounts Hannibal is on his way back, and so marching south (§ 2,
bravaywv; Livy, § 8, regressum ex Vaccaeis), when he finds the Car~
petani and neighbouring tribes preparing to attack him (§ 2, crw~
apap.l!VTWV br' mhov). Here the accounts diverge. According to P.
Hannibal 'turned round and retired' (€~ {nrocrrpocpfjs d.vaxwp~cravros),
so putting the Tagus in front of him (cf. ii. 66. 1). Evidently he was
already south of the Tagus, learnt that the enemy were close on his
heels, and, instead of risking their overtaking him in land not of his
own choosing, wheeled round and returned to meet them at the river.
(Similarly, at Clusium (ii. 25. 3), the Gauls heard that the Romans
Were close behind them and SO €g lnTOC1Tpo~fjS a71'~VT(JJV.) clvaxwpErv
does not here imply retiring from the enemy, but retracing one's
steps. Later, Hannibal goes back (§ 8, roif{Lrra'A•v) across the Tagus in
pursuit of the enemy, that is from the south to the north bank.
This account Livy or his source has apparently misunderstood;
hence his version, though more detailed, is inconsistent with that
of P. In Livy the Carpetani attack the Carthaginians while they are
apparently still north of the Tagus. Hannibal declines battle, pitches
a camp on the bank, and then takes advantage of the night to cross
by the ford. Once across he builds a protective uallum, in such a way
as to give the enemy a place to cross ('ualloque ita praeducto (so
Walters; l\1SS. producto} ut locum ad transgrediendum hostes
haberent', § 9). The enemy are then attacked and defeated while
crossing the river (from north to south). There is no reference to this
uallum in P., and its function is not altogether clear. The possibility
is not to be ruled out that it is due to a misunderstanding (by
Coelius ?) of the phrase in P. (and perhaps taken by him from
Silenus), rrpo{3A7jf.La rrm"'crawf.vou. Alternatively, Livy's source has given
details which P.'s abbreviated version omits. The existence of a
common source is consistent with considerable variations in two
selective acc01mts, though a complete reconciliation of P. and Livy
is here impossible (pace Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 403 n. 1).
5. 1Tpa.yjla.TLKWS Ka.t vouv€xws: \vi.sely and skilfully', because by re-
tracing his steps Hannibal was able to meet the enemy at a point of
his own choosing.
6-7. TWV &T[piwv ••• 01ro TWV {1Tm!wv ••• : cf. Livy, § 10, 'equitibus
praecepit ut, cum ingressos aquam uiderent, adorirentur impediturn
agrnen; in ripa elephantos-quadraginta au tern erant~disponit'.
8. TOUtJ-1Ta.Aw E1TLOLa.~6.vTEs: cf. Livy, § r6, 'Hannibal agmine qua-
drato arnnem ingressus fugarn ex ripa fecit'; the detail agmine
318
THE HANNIBALIC WAR III. 15
quadrato may be a point kept by Coelius and omitted by P. or
alternatively Livian elaboration to point the contrast with the un-
disciplined barbarians.
1TAE(ous 11 S€Ka. JJ-Upuioa.s: cf. Livy, § n, 'Carpetanorum cum ad-
pendicibus ... centum milia fuere'. Livy adds (§ 16) that Hannibal
Carpetattos quoque in deditionem accepit, a detail of which P. has no
mention.
9. ouoets ~TL n7w ~VTOS "lj3T)pos 1TOTO.JA-OU: p. reveals his pro-Car-
thaginian source in the use of this phrase to mean 'south of the
Ebro'; in 76. 6 (from a Roman source) it signifies 'north of the Ebro'
(cf. x. 7· 3, 35· 3). Livy, § q, is more positive, 'et iam omnia trans
Hiberum praeter Saguntinos Carthaginiensium erant'. On the extent
of the Punic empire in Spain after these campaigns see Schulten
(CAH, vii. 791-2).
10. Ta.uTTJS Se Tijs 1ToAews e1T€LpaTo ••• a1rexecr6a.L: in ii. 36.4-7 Hanni-
bal's war-policy against Rome is manifest from his taking command:
here he refrains from attacking Saguntum so as to conceal it. In fact,
Hannibal's campaigns in central and north-west Spain represent a
continuation of the policy of consolidating power in Spain already
followed by Hamilcar and Hasdrubal, and favour the view that,
whatever his future plans, Hannibal was not envisaging an immediate
war with Rome (Kromayer, HZ, 103, 1909, 252-3; Groag, 51; Kolbe,
5.-B. Heidelberg, 1933/4, no. 4, 7); P. naturally assumes dissimulation.
According to Livy (xxi. 5· 3) the purpose of the campaigns was 'ut
non petisse Saguntinos sed rerum serie finitimis domitis gentibus
iungendoque tractus ad id bellum uideri posset'.
j3ouAOJJ-EVOS JJ-T)OEflLO.V O.cpopfllJV OflOAoyouflEVT)V Souvo.L ToG 1TOAEflOU
'PwJJ-aLOLS: whether true or false, this statement shows that P. re-
garded Saguntum as bound to Rome at the time of Hannibal's
appointment in such a way that to attack her would be to court
war with Rome. On the date of this alliance cf. ii. 13. 7 n. (d).
3. 'l!'a.p1]v ••• '11'a.pa.xuJL6.awv El~ Ka.~viJv 'II'OAlV: for winter 22ojr9. F.:>r
1rp6crx1J/La 'ornament', cf. Herod. v. 28, Miletus is rijs 'lwvl1J> 1rp6ax1Jp.a.
5. s~EJLO.pTVpOVTO Za.Ka.v9a.lu.!v U'II'Exeaea.~ KTA.; 'the Romans called
upon Hannibal to leave Saguntum alone' (not, with Paton, 'the
Romans protested against his attacking Saguntum' ; the attack had
not yet begun); cf. Livy, xxi. 6. 4, 'ut ab Saguntinis, sociis populi
Romani, abstineret'.
KEi0'9a.~ yup O.lhous ~v Til acjiETep~ 'II'LO'TEo: cf. 30. I' ii. II. s-12 n. The
n(crT'<> relationship is that defined in Latin as 'in fidem populi Romani
se permittere', and involving the act of deditio or unconditional
surrender (cf. xx. 9· ro-rx. 9, xxxvi. 4); such an act could be followed
by ajoedus (cf. § 8, Tjj •.. crup.p.axlq.) but it seems doubtful whether
in fact the Saguntines had ever been dediticii. The present phrase
gives no grounds for assuming (so Groag, 38, 53-55) that the alliance
was recent and was being announced for the first time to the
Carthaginians.
KQ.~ TCIV "I~TJPO. 'II'OTO.jJ-OV t.t.iJ s,a.~a.£VElV KTA.: this clause is a difficulty'
since it is not apparent why any reference to the Ebro treaty should
have been made. Even if Hannibal meant to attack Saguntum, he
v1ras still roo miles south of the R. Ebro. It has been suggested that
the Saguntines had exaggerated Hannibal's military achievements,
and the Romans thought it well to remind him of his obligations,
inherited from Hasdrubal; though admittedly any reference to the
Ebro treaty must have appeared tactless at a time when the Romans
had recently violated its spirit by interfering in Saguntum (§ 7).
Taken alone, the reference to the Ebro might be accepted as his~
torically accurate, provocative but not wholly unreasonable (cf.
Gelzer, Hermes, I933· rs8). On the other hand, the linking together
of the Ebro treaty and Saguntum is a mark of the later annalistic
tradition, which saw in the taking of the latter a breach of the
former (ii. 13. 7 n. (c)}. In the light of 30. 3, where the destruction of
Saguntum is characterized as a breach of the Ebro treaty, it seems
at least possible that here, too, P. is assuming that Saguntum lay
to the north of the Ebro (cf. 30. 3 n.). If so, he was evidently fogged
by the confused discussions carried out throughout two generations,
and having accepted the Roman case for Carthaginian responsibility,
was deceived into accepting the connexion between the treaty and
the attack on Saguntum (cf. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 346; De Sanctis,
iii. r. 429-30). It is, of course, unquestionable that elsewhere he is
quite clear on the relative geographical positions of town and river;
cf. 14. 9• 35· 2, 91· 6, 98.6-7, iv. 28. 1.
6. veo~ tJ.Ev wv, 'II'ATJpTJo; 5t 'II'OAEtJ.LKTJS optJ.iJ~: Hannibal was 9 when he
went to Spain in 237 (n. 5 n.), and over 45 in 202 (xv. 19. 3); hence
he was born in 247 and was now 27 years of age (cf. Zon. viii. 21 ; he
was 26 on Hasdrubal's death). Hannibal's martial ardour is mentioned
4SCO y 32I
III. IS. 6 CAUSES AND PRELIMINARIES OF
as fitting the man who provoked the war-whether from Fabius or
part of P.'s own elaboration.
7. Roman arbitration: d. 30. 2, where the reference to the Cartha-
ginians as .!yyvs ovTwv •.• Kat Ta KaTa TI]v 'IfJYJp{av 1}oYJ 7TpaTTovTwv
suggests that this arbitration was quite recent, in 220 (Oertel) or
22I (Hallward, Scullard), rather than 223 or 222 (De Sanctis). It
is not to be confused with the original alliance (as by Kromayer
(HZ, Io3, I909, 257) and Reid (]RS, I9I3, 179-8I), who sees some
confusion lurking in the word .!mTpom], with its double meaning
deditio or 'arbitration'); this was earlier (contrast fLLKpofs EfL7Tpoa8<e:v
XPOJJOLS' with 30. I, 7TAELt:btv :lnaw r}DYJ 7TpoT€pov TWJJ KaT' :4)J)J{{Jav
Katpwv). The party struggle must have been between pro-Roman
and pro-Carthaginian factions (Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 36I n. 2 against
Taubler, Vorgesch. 44; Meyer compares the situation in Messana in
264), and the appeal to Rome suggests that the pro-Roman party
got the upper hand.
otl~ ou 1TEptoiJ!eu9aL 1TapeaTTovSTUJ.Evou~: by this answer Hannibal
challenged the Roman claim to represent Saguntum, and forced into
the open the question of the validity of the Romano-Saguntine
alliance. The absence from it of any reference to the injunction not
to cross the Ebro is perhaps confirmation of the view that this clause
has only been introduced into the account of this embassy through
confusion. 'The Romans had the will to peace and Hannibal the will
to war, but the will to war of Hannibal was the will to enjoy the
rights, implicit and explicit, guaranteed by the treaties, the peace
willed by the Romans was a peace which permitted them to dis-
allow those rights' (De Sanctis, Problemi, I 79; cf. Ehrenberg,
Karthago, 32). In short, the Romans provoked the Saguntine affair,
but found to their surprise (2o. I n.) that Hannibal preferred fighting
to yielding ground.
What treaty, if any, the Roman actions inside Saguntum had
violated (7TapEmrovSYJfLlvovs) is obscure. It can hardly be the Sagun-
tine alliance (Ta.ubler, Vorgesch. 45-46). Otto (HZ, I45. I932, 5o8)
thinks it was the treaty of Catulus, which will have prohibited
Roman interference in Punic dominions; and Groag (58 n. 3, 6I)
and Oertel (Rh. Mus., I932, 226 n. 2) the Ebro treaty. But P. is
probably using the word 7Tapaa7Tov8Efv in a general sense, 'to seize
treacherously' ; d. i. 43· 2 n. ; Hesselbarth, 86. The Romans had
abused their power in the town, like the Mamertines in Messana;
they had broken, not a treaty, but their faith.
1TaTpLov yap dvm KapxTJSov(o,~ KTA.: this ironical echo of the con-
temporary Roman propaganda (cf. ii. 8. ro-n, Coruncanius' speech
to Teuta) must come from a Roman source; d. above, ws KYJOofLEvos
ZaKav8a{wv.
8. 1rpo~ Se Ko.pxTJSov1ou~ 6tme...-1TETo: P. does not record the Punic
322
THE HA:\NIBALIC WAR IlL I5. I:Z
18. 1. e:ls ~v A~!J.ciAllv: cf. vii. 9· 13. Dimale lay behind Dyrrhachium,
probably not on the coast (so Zippel, 56); Holleaux (135 n. r) puts
it in the territory of the Parthini, but the fact that it is mentioned
separately, though in association with them, suggests that it was
outside their land (Badian, BSA, 1952, 86 n. 72); cf. Zippel {56), 'in
der Nachbarschaft dieses Volkes'. It is the Dimallum of Livy,
xxix. rz. 3· rz. IJ.
Twv Aomwv 1ToAewv: not of course the Greek coastal towns, but the
townships of the Parthini such as Bargullum and Eugenium (Livy,
xxix. 12. 1,3), if these were not already captured (r6. 3). (For P.'s
loose use of the word .,.oAts see Poseidonius' criticism recorded xxv. I
( = Strabo, iii. r6.)), ·mv> .,.vpyovs KaAovwra 11oAELs; and Livy (xliii.
2.3. 6), following P., mentions Parthinorum ... urbes.) These town-
ships in which Demetrius now installed his party by a cmtp d'etat
were evidently not within his direct control, otherwise his supporters
would have been already in power; this action is the culmination of
a policy of political infiltration (Badian, BSA, 195:2,86 n. 73).
8. T-i)v m)Aw: the city of Pharos, on the site of modern Starigrad
(Civitavecchia), in a fertile plain at the head of a long gulf to the
north-west of the island ; the identity is confirmed by inscriptions.
R. L. Beaumont has argued that this site cannot be reconciled with
P.'s account (]HS, 19.36, r88 n. zoo); and E. Polaschek (RE, 'Pharos
(z)', col. r862) thinks that P.'s 1TOALS' suits the site of modern Hvar
better than Starigrad, where there is no >..6cpos ~pup.v6s between town
and harbour. Excavation may one day help to solve this problem;
certainly P. was aware of only one mSAts-, and that Pharos (r9. 12).
The attack on Issa recorded by Dio (fg. 5.3) may be rejected as a
doublet from the liberation of Issa in the First Illyrian War (cf.
ii. II. 12).
~yov, not to Aemilius' triumph ATJYOVUTJ> ••. rijs: f:hpelas: (r9. 12), as
Schnabel takes it (Klio, 1926, II4). Ha\·ing explained Roman inaction
during the siege by the Illyrian War, P. echoes the Fabian version
that the news of the fall of Saguntum was followed by an immediate
ultimatum. But in fact the embassy cannot have left before rs March
218, and probably left much later (§ 6 n.); nor was the Illyrian
expedition a bar to action in 219, though the presence of both consuls
shows that it was rather more than a miserable raid (}1ommsen, RG,
i. 573). The annalistic tradition reveals considerable opposition to the
war both before and after the fall of Saguntum (Livy, xxi. 6. 7, I6. 2;
Dio, fg. 55; Zon. viii. 22, debate between L. Cornelius Lentulus and
Q. Fabius Maximus; cf. Otto, HZ, 145, 1932, 513); for, since Dio-
Zonaras accepts the causes of the war which appear in the second-
century senatorial writers (6. In.), his source is clearly pro-Roman,
and the account of these discussions seems to have been in the early
annalists as well as in the pro-Carthaginian tradition. They may,
therefore, be taken as authentic (Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 348--9, 365).
It has been argued that in omitting them P. is following Fabius, to
whom the argument of his kinsman Fabius Maximus will have
appeared discreditable (Gelzer, Hermes, 1933, r62); but this is by
no means certain, and Taubler has argued (Vorgesch. 89-90) that
F.'s silence followed the version of Cato against both Fabius and the
other annalists. On the whole it seems most likely that the speeches
were in Fabius, though not necessarily in extenso (Bung, 34-35).
~VLOLTwv auyypa.4>E~tw; in view of§ s, it seems clear that these authors
are Chaereas and Sosylus (d. DeSanctis, iii. r. 424 n. 86; Schwartz,
RE, 'Chaireas (6)', col. 2023; Jacoby, RE, 'Sosylos', cols. r2o4-{i).
The 'speeches made on both sides' suggest writers of the rhetorical
kind, like Timaeus and Phylarchus, and evidently Chaereas and
Sosylus were such (Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 348). Taubler (Vorgesch.
84-85) suggests that Sosylus learnt of this debate from the Roman
historian, L. Cincius Alimentus, whom Hannibal took prisoner in
208 (Livy, xxi. 38. 3). There is no reason to suppose that Chaereas
and Sosylus were F.'s sources only for the anecdote of the boys
(§ 3) (so Laqueur, 75); nor is it probable that P. was here attacking
Fabius (Meltzer, ii. 597; Klotz, La nouvelle Clio, 1953, 239). See
further, § 3 n.
2. t·n"'lYYEA~elha.~ TrOAE!Lov: d. IS· 12 for this embassy, which went on
to Carthage from Saguntum in 220/19. If the demarche there took
the same form as in Spain, P. its positive character; it
was a veiled ultimatum which by no means committed the Romans
to war (cf. 15. 2 n.).
3. Tijv aTuyvoTTJTO. . • . 1Tap£ta6.youat 8a.u116.atov: 'they present a
wonderful picture of the gloomy aspect of the Senate' (Paton) ; on
this sense of uTuyv67rJs- see Strachan-Davidson ad loc. E. Harrison
332
THE HANNIBALIC WAR III. 20. 6
CCR, I924, 54) recalls Reiske's 'palmary emendation', aT~:yvoT1)Ta,
'costiveness', and so 'secretiveness'. But this misses P.'s point. He
is criticizing the authenticity of the sensational picture drawn by
the Greek historians of the sitting of the Roman Senate by con-
trasting it with their own anecdote of the boys who refuse to divulge
a word-which is proof of the secrecy surrounding their debates;
hence either the account of the sitting, or the anecdote, or both, are
false. TTapt;.tad.ynv is often used by P. of the material introduced by
sensational and 'tragic' historians into their work; cf. 4i· i (picture
of Hannibal), v. 2. 6 (sons of Aeacus introduced into a poem by
Hesiod), vi. 56. 8 (introduction of superstition into Roman life). See
CQ, I945· Ion. I.
To us u[ouc; ••• liyc;w ••• de; To cruvHip~ov: Cato told the same story
'in oratione qua usus est ad milites contra Galbam' (Gell. i. 23. I ; cf.
Macrob. Sat. i. 6. I9 ff.), but implied that the custom ceased during
the Samnite Wars (if the boy in his story is the L. Papirius Praetex-
tatus who was censor in A.U.c. 482 272 B.c.; cf. Munzer, RE,
'Papirius (72)', cols. I073-4). But it is not to be supposed that P. is
indulging in polemic against Cato ('in such terms', De Sanctis, iii.
1. 424 n. 86), as was suggested by Hirschfeld (Kl. Schr. 755 ff.) and
Arnold (Oorzaak, 2I), though he may be hitting at others besides
the Greeks; for example, Adlius and Postumius Albinus (Jacoby,
FGH, ii D, p. 6os) or Cincius Alimentus (Taubler, Vorgesch. 86).
5. Xa.~pea.s tca.t IwcruXos: cf. i. 3· 2 n.; Jacoby on FGH, q6 (Sosylus)
and I77 (Chaereas); RE articles quoted § In. On Sosylus see also
Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 370-5. Sosylus of Lacedaemon, together with
Silenus of Caleacte, accompanied Hannibal quamdiu fortuna passa
est, and taught him Greek (Nepos, Hamz. IJ. 3); according to Dio-
dorus (xxvi. 4) he wrote Trt TTEpt :4vvt{5av in seven books. A Wiirzburg
papyrus {FGH, q6 F I) contains part of an account of a naval
battle at the Ebro mouth (95--99 n.) by Sosylus, which puts him in
a much better light than P. here would suggest. Of Chaereas nothing
further is known. In dismissing these historians' work as 'the common
gossip of the barber's shop' (for the KovpEtov as a centre for lounging
cf. Aristoph. Plut. 33i-8, KalTot .\6yo> y' 7lv vTj Tov 'HpaKAla TTDAV> I €TTl
Tofat KovptdotO't T<LW Ka0'1)p.lvwv; Av. I44I ; Theopompus, FGH, us F
283 b) P. is excessively harsh towards Sosylus and so, possibly, to
Chaereas.
6. 1ra.pa.xpi](La. 1TpEcr~EuTnc; ••. t~a.m\crTE~Aa.v: their names were M.
Fabius, M. Livius, L. Aemilius, C. Licinius, and Q. Baebius (Livy (xxi.
18. I) gives Q. Fabius, but the correct form is in Dio, fg. 55· Io and
Zon. viii. 22; for discussion see Scullard, Pol. 274). Of these, M. Livius
and L. Aemilius Paullus were the consuls of 2I9, and cannot therefore
have left Rome before their office expired on 15 March 218. It is not
known in what month news of the fall of Saguntum reached Rome;
333
III. 20. 6 CAl:SES AND PRELIMJ:"ARIES OF
but P. seems dearly to exaggerate the speed of the response (d.
66. g). Pointing to the fact that the consuls did not leave for their
prouinciae until late August (41. 2 n.), W. Hoffmann (Rh. Mus., 1951,
7i ff.) suggests with some plausibility that this embassy was not
sent to Carthage until news reached Rome of Hannibal's crossing
of the Ebro, i.e. in early June. In 40. z P. makes the return of the
embassy precede the arrival of this news; but if opposition to a
declaration of war, and prolonged discussion (§ r n.) delayed a
decision until the fresh news of the crossing of the Ebro made
Hannibal's aggressive intentions manifest, we have an adequate
reason why the embassy at Carthage invoked the Ebro treaty (see
further, 2r. 1 n.). Later the emotional value of a cause based on
succouring a \'lronged ally is enough to explain how Saguntum was
thrust into the centre of the picture, and the awkward delays of
219 and spring n8 obscured by tampering with the chronology. P.'s
account of this embassy certainly comes from a Roman source; but
P. has suppressed the opposition to Hannibal in accordance with
the view expressed in 8. II (cf. DeSanctis, iii. 2. 170).
The juridical position of this embassy has not always been under-
stood. Ed. Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 366 n. z, 367) declares that it 'did not
actually declare war, but up to the last presented an alternative',
and he dates the putting of the war-motion to the Comitia after its
return. This view is contradicted by Livy's reliable account (Livy,
xxi. IJ. 4). In fact at this time and throughout the second century
the war-motion went through the Comitia in a conditional form;
senatorial legati were then sent on a mission which combined the
older rerum repetitio and the formal imiictio betli. This is explicit
in Livy, xlii. 30. ro-rr (war with Perseus); but it was true at the time
of the annexation of Sardinia (i. 88. 8 n., iii. ro. In.), and it was true
now, as the form of the ultimatum shows (33· 2, tvTaiJIJa Kal Tov
7ToAt=fWV auTOtr; ;rPTJ 11:al TiJv t=lp~v-qv t/;ip.=w). From the time of the
envoy's last words the two states were at war. The precedent of 238
{cf. i. 88. 8 n.) disposes of the suggestion of Taubler (Vorgesch. 79)
that the procedure of 218 was a compromise between the views of
L. Cornelius Lentulus, who wanted war, and Q. Fabius Maximus,
who still hoped to negotiate. )1eyer (loc. cit.) is probably right in
placing the war-motion after the arrival of news of the Ebro crossing;
but this motion preceded the sending of the embassy to Carthage.
See further, ]RS, 1937, 192-7; 1941, 87-91.
8. "TOU'i fle-T' GU"TOU auveSpous: probably representatives of the Punic
government, cf. vii. 9· I, y.=povaw.a"Tal (ignored by J. S. Reid (]RS,
I9IJ, rSs), who takes auvt=Opot to be simply Hannibal's associates, in
particular his brothers). Meltzer (ii. 7o) compares the attendance of
the ephors on the Spartan kings when they were campaigning. The
Roman demand thus implied that the Carthaginian Senate must
THE HANNIBALIC WAR Ill. 2I. 2
disown not only Hannibal but its own representatives too, On the
Carthaginian Senate, or Council, sec i. 21. 6 n.
21. 1. Tac; ••• ,.poe; ~a5poo~a.v of1oAoy£o.s- ,.a.pealC:lTrwv: 'they de-
clined to discuss the agreement with Hasdrubal on the grounds,
etc.', literally 'they were for passing over it undiscussed' (cf. iv.
15. ro, c"'T~yyEAAov, 'they \Vere for declaring war', ... E"'Towvv, 'they
were for offering a separate peace'). For this common use of the
imperfect (e.g. v. 67. 4, lvo!Lt~E) see Hesselbarth (87). Such must be
the meaning, since the Carthaginians justify their 'silence' on the
subject-which they cannot do without breaking it. (Bung (37)
thinks the justification is P.'s addition; but this would be extremely
clumsy writing.) The alternative reasons (w> oiJn YEYEV7]!L€vas, d Te
YEYOF<WtV, ouDEV oiJaas 7TpO!: O.lhov>) are not exclusive, but represent
the alternative pleas common to legal contexts. The Carthaginian
refusal to discuss the Ebro treaty implies that the Romans had
brought it into discussion; and this is best explained on Hoffmann's
assumption (Rh. Mus., 1951, 85) that when the embassy left Rome,
news had already arrived of Hannibal's crossing of the Ebro. It is
less easy to understand why the Romans raised it (and actually
demanded the surrender of Hannibal) if the breach of the Ebro
treaty was merely judged to be imminent (so Scullard, Rh. Mus.,
1952, nz). The later Roman version, which pushed Saguntum into
the centre of the picture, and eliminated the Roman delay in acting,
solved its difficulties by assuming that the attack on Saguntum was
itself a breach of the Ebro treaty (cf. ii. 13. 7 n. (e)); but this con-
fusion was of later origin (zg. r). Many scholars have assumed that
the Ebro treaty was not mentioned at all, as being irrelevant; but
in that case the Carthaginians could not have explained their silence.
(See Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 346 ff.; Hallward, C AH, viii. 29; Gelzer,
Hermes, r933, 16o.) On the hypothesis accepted above, the Cartha-
ginians refused to discuss it because it had in fact been broken by
Hannibal's crossing of the Ebro. For other views see Otto, HZ, 145,
1932, 509 (d. Hesselbarth, 89; Drachmann, 14 f.; Schnabel, Klio,
1926, u6; Taeger, Phil. Woch., 1930, 353 ff.), viz. that the Cartha-
ginians refused to discuss the Ebro treaty because it was an unwel-
come limitation on their empire in Spain; Oertel, Rh. Mw;., 1932,
226-7, viz. that it was excluded from the discussion as too vague
in its terms. For the view that the answers of the Carthaginians re-
corded here were really delivered a year earlier in nofrg see 15. IZ n.
ws- ouTE YEYWTJJlGva.') KTA.: the treaty 'vas probably never ratified
at Carthage; cf. ii. r3. 7 n. (b).
2. expwvTo S' E~ auTiilv 'Pw1-1a.£wv ••• 11'o.pnoely~J.a.T~: 'they followed
in this a precedent of the Romans themselves' (cf. i. zo. rs) ; not (as
Paton) 'they quoted a precedent, etc.' The words J.xpwVTO 3' ...
yvdJ!L1J~ are a parenthesis inserted by P., which finds its full
335
III. 21. 2 THE TREATIES BETWEEN
explanation in 29. 2 f.; brlE~ov S.f (§ 3) then takes up the 1.dv of Tcts
J.'-EV ovv 7rpo<; JiuSpouf3av opo>..oy{a<; (§ I). On the change made in the
treaty of Catulus cf. i. 63. 1 n.
3. Tas TEAEuTa.(a.s uuvOT)Kns Tas yEvo~€va.s ~v TQ 1TEpt ILKEA(a.s
1ToA€~: 'the last treaty, which had been made in the war for
Sicily' (not, as Paton, 'the treaty at the end of the war for Sicily').
The treaty of Catulus is the last treaty because
(a) the subsequent agreement about Sardinia (i. 88. 12) was
specifically an annexe (cf. 27. 7, lmcrvv8~Kar;),
(b) the Ebro agreement was never ratified at Carthage and so
remained, strictly, opo>..oylat (cf. ii. IJ. 7 n.). Cf. Taubler, 95 n. 2.
5. ouK ovTas TOTE 'Pw~a.~wv uu~~axous: taken up and answered in
29. 4·
1TapavEy(vwuKov ••• 1TAEovaKLS Tas uuvOT)Kas: 'they several times
read aloud the terms of the treaty', not (as Paton) 'they read aloud
extracts from the treaty'. The absence of a name from a treaty can
only be demonstrated by reading the whole of it. From this passage
Taubler (Vorgesch. 63 ff.) deduces convincingly that the list of allies
on both sides was appended as an annexe to the treaty.
7. TO.UTT)S 0~ 1TapE0'1TOVOT)~EVT)S: conveniently ambiguous; cf. XV.
1. 7 (Punic admission that they had broken Tcts lt &.pxij> yEvop€var;
avvii~Ka>); q. 3 (Scipio accuses the Carthaginians of enslaving the
Saguntines Trapa Ta> uvv8~Ka>). Which treaty had been violated?
The answer is rendered difficult by the Roman attempt to base their
case on the attack on Saguntum rather than on the sounder ground
of the crossing of the Ebro (d. 20. 6 n.); and as the two pretexts
became increasingly confused in the polemics of the next seventy
years, and falsifications were added (ii. 13. 7 n. (e)), a clear answer
became increasingly hard to give. A similar ambiguity is found in
the use of the same word in Hannibal's mouth in reference to Roman
interference in Saguntum; see IS. 7 n.
9-10. Why P. proposes to survey all the treaties between Rome and
Carthage. Since Mommsen (Rom. Chron. 320 ff.) it has been generally
accepted that the Punic treaties came into prominence about I52
B.c., and were the object of lively discussion in the years before the
Third Punic War (29. In.). P. admits that they had not been known
long (26. 2), and Mommsen suggested that Cato drew attention to
them and was indirectly responsible for P.'s knowledge of them. If
so, they will have been translated and passed about in senatorial
circles, and will have reached P. in this form; that they were in-
cluded in Cato's Origines is improbable (Taubler, 257). On this hypo-
thesis, P. added the details of the treaties (21. g--28. 5) to his text
about ISO B.C. (d. DeSanctis, iii. 1. 204; below, 28. 4 n.), just before
the publication of a substantial part of his work (I-5 n.), with a
336
ROME AND CARTHAGE III. 22
view to enlightening a11d influencing politicians of his day, and giving
to a wider public (especially Greeks; cf. von Scala, 289) information
available only to a small group.
9. ots Ka.91}KEL .•. ro aa.<jl&>s El8~va.L KTA.: statesmen (elsewhere
1ToAtrwdfL"Vot, 1TpaKrLKo{, 1Tpayftar,Ko[) ; the other category are students
(qnAofLa8ovvrEc;, cf. r. 6). (Strachan-Davidson, ad loc., wrongly takes
the former group to be 'students and \\>Titers of history' and the
latter 'the general public who are at the mercy of the historians'.)
Both statesmen and students benefit from history; cf. uS. 12, vii. 7· 8
where q,,>.ofLa8ovVTE> to whom history is XPTf£1LfLWUpoc; are distin-
guished from the casual reader, cpLA~KooL, to whom it is merely ~Stwv;
xi. 19 a. Here the distinction corresponds to the Aristotelian contrast
between the 8£wpTJruaSc; and the 1ToAmKoc; {3{oc; (cf. Nic. Eth. i. 5·
1095 b 19). In his references to debates P. is probably thinking of
those of the Senate in the critical years before the outbreak of the
Third Punic War; the historians whose ignorance may mislead
students can be exemplified by Philinus (cf. 26).
10. lwc; Eis Touc; Ka.O' ,;...,as Ka.Lpous: in effect, down to 218 B.c. The
treaty after Zama is dealt with in the body of the work.
without the conditions of 25. 3-5. Later scholars have in the main fol-
lowed one or other of these views. P.I is dated to the first year of the
republic by Ed. Meyer, Altheim, Gelzer, Gsell, Strachan-Davidson,
Lenschau, Last, Scullard, Sherwin-\Vhite, Beaumont, Wickert, and
Scevola, and to 348 by DeSanctis, Kornemann, Taubler, Rosenberg,
Kahrstedt, Cary, Hasebroek, Schachermeyr, .Meltzer, Unger, Soltau,
Schur, and von Scala (bibliography below). To the writer P.'s date
seems more likely to be right. For a defence of this view see H. Last,
CAH, vii. 859-62. Attempts to find new and more decisive arguments
by R. L. Beaumont (]RS, 1939, 74-86) and L. \Vickert (Klio, 1938,
349-64) are to some extent contradictory and cannot be adjudged
successful. Detailed criticism is reserved to the commentary.
(b) Text of the treaties. On P.'s probable source cf. 21. 9-10 n. In
a detailed examination of the diplomatic form of the treaties
Taubler (254-76) has shown that P.'s immediate source cannot have
been oral; and he argues that we have the text from a written source
in a fairly complete form. However, it must be remembered that
(i) the originals were in Latin, and in the case of P.I, very old
and difficult Latin. P. or his intermediary had to turn them
into Greek and certain passages may well have been misunder-
stood;
(ii) some parts P. only claims to summarize (e.g. 25. 2);
(iii) the preliminaries are omitted; thus in 25. 6 ff. the oaths are
retailed separately;
(iv) in three places (23. 3, 23. 4, 24. r6) P.'s commentary implies
something not included in his text.
Consequently P.'s text may not be treated as anything like a ver-
batim record; yet it is much more than a summary (so Meltzer,
i. 173 f., 520). For example, contrary to his usual practice (cf. Hultsch,
Phil., 1859. 288-319; and works by Benseler, Brief, Blittner-Wobst,
and Schlachter listed in Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (r)', cols. rs71-2),
P. in these documents allows himself hiatus.
(c) Context and significance of the treaties. For the historical back-
ground see the detailed commentary. The first two are general
treaties defining a modus vivendi between two states, of which one
was mainly interested in commerce, the other primarily in her
political relationship with Latium. See F. Altheim (Epochen, i. 99-
roo) for the significance of this distinction for the historical character
of the two states. The third treaty contains a specifically political
agreement relative to a common enemy, Pyrrhus. All three corre-
spond to the relationship existing between the two states at the time
of the compact.
(d) Bibliography. The most important works are listed in C AH,
vii (1928), 914, § 6; F. Schachermeyr, Rh. Mus., 1930, 350 n. r; and
338
ROME AND CARTHAGE III. 22. I
23. l-6. Commentary on the first treaty. P. dearly thinks that the
Romans were not to sail east of the Fair Promontory (22. 5 n.); in
§ 2 Paton's translation 'to sail south of this on its western side'
makes nonsense of his argument. P.'s reference to warships (§ 2
p,aKpats vavO'l) finds no parallel in the clauses of the treaty (in 22. 5
Paton has no warrant for inserting the words (p.aKpats va1ml) from
here), and is due to a misunderstanding; the treaty was concerned
with trading vessels, and P. has read later conditions into it.
2. TOU'i KaTa Tijv Buuuanv ••. T<)nous: cf. xii. I. r for Byssatis, Latin
Byzacium. It was the area from the Gulf of Hammamet to the Gulf
of Gabes (~ ll.'Kpd. E.Jpr,s), with the hinterland. For a list of its cities
see Pliny (Nat. hist. v. 24; cf. Livy, xxxiii. 48), and for its fertility
the passages quoted at i. 82. 6 n.
3. ev nEv9' T)~paLS &.na.AAaTTEu6aL: see 22. 7 n. But an alternative
explanation is that P. added this point erroneously from the second
treaty, 24. 11.
4. Ets Se Ka.px11S6va.: not mentioned in our text of the first treaty;
but in the second (24. 12) it appears beside Sicily. It would be odd
for the Romans to be excluded from Carthage, and a simple solution
would be to assume the omission of some such phrase as Kat Ets
Kapx'f/odva after Emipxova~v in 22. 10. But P.'s other inaccuracies do
not allow one to accept this suggestion with any confidence.
1TQUO.V Tijv E1Tl Ta8E TOU Ka.Aou aKpWT1'\p£ou Tfjs ALj3V1'\S: cf. 22. 9;
all parts west of Cap Bon (but in fact P. means east of Cap Farina;
cf. 22. 5 n.).
24. 1-2. Introduction to the second treaty. If P.I dates to 509, then
P.II (to which he as..signs no date) is probably identical with Livy's
345
III. 24. I THE TREATIES BETWEEN
and Diodorus' first treaty (Livy, vii. 27. 2; Diod. xvi. 69. 1), and to
be dated to 348. But if Mommsen is right in dating P.I to 348, P.II
must be thejoedus tertia renouatum of Livy, ix. 43· 26 (3o6). However,
there can scarcely have been towns in Latium not subject to Rome
(24. 5) in 3o6 after the Samnite struggle and the Roman conquest
of the coast from Caere to Campania (Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 296); nor
is it likely that a treaty made in 306 would have contained no stipula-
tions about the protection of Etruria and Campania, closely related
to Rome since 343 and 310 (Lake Vadimo) respectively. The con-
struction of the Via Appia by 308 puts the seal on Roman control
to the south; d. Last, CAH, vii. 861. It has been argued that the
Campanians are included in the aVf-Lf-Laxot of§ 3 (Schachermeyr, Rh.
Mus., 1930, 377 ff.); but this would still leave unexplained the
separate mention of Latium in § 5·
3-13. The second treaty. Set out by Taubler (255; comment, 26o ff.).
Unlike P.I this is arranged item by item, with both parties mentioned
in each. Taubler notes that §§ 8-IO form a avf-Lf3oAov '11'Ept TOV f-L~
d8tKEi'v, such as were a feature of treaties drawn up between Carthage
and the Etrurian towns (Arist. Pol. iii. 9· 6-7, 128o a 36 ff.). An
example of this kind of contract, which probably originated at Tyre,
is the treaty between Assarhadon of Assyria and his vassal Balu
of Tyre, 677 (Langdon, Rev. d' Ass., 1929, 189-94) ; see Laqueur
(Hermes, 1936, 469-72), who compares Herodotus' account (ii. us)
of how Proteus of Memphis, who lived in a Tvplwv aTpaTcmE8ov,
treated Alexander precisely as is provided for in Assarhadon's treaty.
The scheme of the treaty is:
(1) (a) Limits within which the Romans may not plunder, trade, or
colonize.
(b) (i) If the Carthaginians take any Latin town not subject to
Rome they may keep the men and goods, but must surrender
the town to Rome.
(ii) The Carthaginians shall not bring prisoners taken from
states allied with Rome into Roman ports; the Romans to
do likewise in regard to Punic ports.
(2) (a) The Romans are not to abuse the right of provisioning to
harm an ally of Carthage.
(b) The Carthaginians are not to abuse the right of provisioning
to harm an ally of Rome.
(3) Special conditions of intercourse.
(a) For the Romans (i) in Sardinia and Libya, (ii) in Carthage and
·Sicily.
(b) For the Carthaginians at Rome.
This arrangement by categories, typical of Greek treaties (Schacher-
meyr, Rh. Mus., 1930, 362 ff.), suggests Carthaginian drafting.
346
ROME AND CARTHAGE IIL 24. 5
3. Tup(wv Kat 'huKatwv 8,1LI{l: the inclusion of Utica among the
allies of Carthage marks an extension of her power since 509. On the
privileged position of Utica (here more nominal than real) see
Meltzer (ii. 76-7i); it continued after the reduction of Utica in the
Mercenary War (i. 88. 3-4; vii. 4· 5). The reference to Tyre creates
a problem, for an alliance ;vith Carthage seems improbable if the
Syrian city is meant (though in that case no argument can be drawn
as to the date of the treaty, since despite Alexander's destruction in
332, Tyre was already sufficiently recovered in 310 to receive gifts
from her daughter-city of Carthage (Diod. xx. r4. r): see Gsell (iii.
70 n. 6)). However, this sense has been questioned. Hirschfeld (Rh.
Mus., r8g6, 475) emended Tup{wv to Kvplwv (cf. vii. 9· 5); and Beloch
(Klio, i. 284) would omit Ked (cf. Taubler, 257). But any such emenda-
tion is ruled out by § r; and it seems more likely (cf. Kahrstedt,
Gott. Nachr., 1923, IOo) that the phrase conceals a misunderstanding
of a Punic expression 'the Tyrians of Carthage', their official title
(d. Ehrenberg (Karthago, 25), who also suggests that the name wupwt
KapxTJoovwt (vii. 9· 5) was adopted after the destruction of Tyre).
4. Ma.crTtas Tapcr"l(ou: variously translated as 'Mastia in Tarsis',
'Mastia and Tarseum' (so P. takes th~m in 24. 2), and 'Tarseum in
Mastia'. Mastia is usually assumed to connect with the Maunavo{
(33· 9; cf. Steph. Byz. Maunavol, l.Ovo<; 1rpo<; Tai:<; 'HpaKAe{at;; uT~Aat<;,
'EKaTato<; E?Jpt.!mv. <JpTJTCtt oe a1TO MauTias 1TOAEws), and it has been
suggested that it occupied the site of the later New Carthage; cf.
Avien. Or. mar. 451-2, 'sinuque in imo surgit altis moenibus urbs
Massiena'; Schulten, RE, 'Massieni', col. 2153. However interpreted,
TapaTJlou seems to be connected with Tarshish; and Meltzer (i. 520)
proposed Maarla TapuTJlwv, 'Mastia of the Tartessians'. It has
been plausibly suggested by L. Wickert (Klio, 1938, 354--6) that
P. has misunderstood an archaic Latin genitive plural, Mastiam
Tarseiom. It is significant that Avienus (Or. mar. 462), after men-
tioning the R. Tader (modern Segura), just north of Cartagena, adds
'hie terminus quondam stetit Tartessiorum'. That P. knew where
'Mastia of the Tartessians' lay is dubious; and Schweighaeuser may
well be representing P.'s 0\-\'11 belief in describing Afastia as 'Africae
(ut uidetur) oppidum, etc.', for P. appears to regard the town (or
tov.Tis) as lying near the Fair Promontory. The effect of this clause
W<L'i to exclude the Romans and their allies from any kind of naval
enterprise in the western Mediterranean (though the formula would
permit accidental landings subject presumably to the limitations laid
down in§ II).
5. Carthaginian attacks on Latium. The reference is to piracy, not
war (cf. "jfeltzer, i. 339; Gsell, iii. 70); and, granted the date 348, the
treaty will apply especially to Antium, against which tradition
records Roman wars in 386 and 377 (Livy, vi. 6-8, 32), and a triumph
347
III. 24.5 THE TREATIES BETWEEN
de Volscis Antiatibus in 346 (act. tr.; cf. Livy, vii. 27); it lost its
independence in 341-338 (Livy, viii. q. 8). See Gelzer, RE, 'Latium',
col. 961 ; Altheim, Epochen, i. 193·
6. vpo~ ou~ ELPTJV1'J ...,Ev EO'TlV £yypa1TTO~ 'Pwj!QLOl~: primarily the
Latin towns of Tibur and Praeneste, which had separate treaties as
Joederati (Livy, vi. 29. 7; Diod. xvi. 45· 8 (Praeneste); Oxyr. Chron.
(Bilabel, 12), 4-7, under 01. 106, 3 (Tibur)); Lanuvium, which was
independent till338, would probably come under§ 5· See Gelzer, RE,
'Latium', col. 96o; Shenvin-\iVhite, 29. In addition, these independent
towns probably include allied states such as Massilia, Tarentum,
Tarquinii, and Caere; for the treaty implies that some at least of
these allies have sea communications with Rome. See further
Schachermeyr (Rh. Mus., 1930, 374). Taubler (275), who dates P.II
to 306, explains the absence of any reference to the people of Samnium
and Campania by the hypothesis that they are included partly
among the ~m/Koot {implied by § 5, J.L~ o~ua ~m/Koo~) and partly here;
but his date is unconvincing. On the possible international complica-
tions if slaves taken from allied states entered Roman ports see
Schachermeyr (ibid. 375).
£av 1)£ ••• £vtAa~llTat b 'Pwj!a.io~: if the treaty is of Carthaginian
drafting, this evidently represents some Carthaginian practice; but
it is clearly parallel to the Roman custom of manumission per -uin-
dictam, in which the assertor libertatis, usually a magistrate's lictor
touched the slave with a rod and declared him free (d. A. Duff,
Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire (Oxford, 1928), 23), though the
present ceremony is distinguished by the use of the hand and,
apparently, the absence of any formula (cf. David, Symbolae ... van
Oven, 242-3). Paton (ad loc.) suggests that the Roman 'claims him
as his slave'; but this would involve a subsequent legal fiction of
manumission, and seems improbable.
10. d Se, flti t8i~ flETavopeu£a9w: 'if Roman or Carthaginian break
the uVJ.Lf3oAov 71'Epi TOV J.L~ aOtKEiv (cf. 24. 3-13 n.), the other party
shall not take private vengeance'; cf. ii. 8. 10, Tct KaT' lolav dotKJ/J.LaTa
Kowfi J.LET0.7r0pEIJEU8at.
EQV I)E. n~ TOUTO 1TOlTJUU• Sllf100'l0V yev£a9w TO a8lK'I')jlQ: 'but if anyone
does break the u6J.Lf3oAov, the wrong shall be a matter for state adjust-
ment (o7JJ.L6uwv)'. Paton translates 'the aggrieved party shall not
take private vengeance, and if he do, his wrong-doing shall be
public' (whatever that may mean). But the clause surely gives in
positive form the procedure in the case of a breach of the avJ.Lf3ol.ov,
not the sanction to be applied to the man who has taken the law
into his own hands. There is no real parallel between this clause and
that in 22. 9·
11. ev IapMvl Kai At~un: Sardinia and Libya, which were open to
trade on certain conditions in P.I, are now completely closed to the
348
ROME AND CARTHAGE III. 25. 2
25. 1-5. The third treaty. Evidently the alliance of Diodorus (xxii.
7· s. avp.p.axia) and the treaty renewal of Livy (ep. 13, quarto foedus
renouatum), which he dates to 279/8. P. makes it a renewal of the
older treaties with the addition of certain new clauses specifically
concerned with Pyrrhus. The most likely explanation of the historical
context of this treaty is that the Carthaginians feared a Roman
peace with Pyrrhus after the defeat at Ausculum in 279 (Fabricius
was already negotiating) and wished to keep the war going in Italy;
hence the form of the treaty (see below). Cf. Justin. xviii. 2. 1-3;
Frank, CAH, vii. 649; Wuilleumier, 125-31, for the general situation;
on the additional clauses see Beloch, Klio, 1901, 282-3 ( = iv. 2.
476-9); Biittner-Wobst, Klio, 1903, 164 ff.; Klotz, Phil. Woch., 1908,
443-7; Taubler, 264-8. The phrase KUTa T¥ Ilvppov ?iLa{Jaatv (cf.
ii. 41. n) is here used somewhat loosely (cf. 32. 2, arro TWV KaTd
Ilvppov), for Pyrrhus crossed into Italy in May 28o. The 'war for
Sicily' is the First Punic War.
2. Ta J-LEV nAAa. TTJPOUO'L 1TUVTa.: yet Roman interests now extended
far beyond Latium. P. may have ignored new clauses designed to
safeguard those interests; but the likelihood is that the negotiations
349
III. 25. 2 THE TREATIES BETWEEN
after Ausculum were restricted to what mattered most to both sidcs-
Pyrrhus. See Strachan-Davidson (63-64) and, for the possible rele-
vance of 'Philinus' treaty', belm;r 26. 3-4 n.
3-5. The add£tional clauses. The punctuation, construction, and pur-
pose of these have been much debated. In§ 3 the traditional punctua-
tion with a comma after i!yypa'ITTov was abandoned for a time in
favour of reading a comma after llvppov, and thus linking ~yypa'ITTOl'
with 1roLdaOwaav (so Madvig, Adu. crit. i (Hauniae, 1871), 481); it
was, however, defended, rightly, by Beloch (Klio, 1901, 282-3 iv.
2. 476-g), and restored in B-\V 2 • For auttrmxla i!yypa.1TTo> cf. iv. 82. 5;
similar expressions at iii. 24. 6, ix. 36. 12, xi. 34· ro, xv. 8. 7, 17. 3. etc.
Some scholars have taken 1rpcJ<; llvppov to mean 'against Pyrrhus';
but this would involve the assumption that the agreement to be
made was still hypothetical, and the present document, despite§ r,
merely a preliminary draft (so Meltzer, ii. 547; Klotz, Phil. Jiloch.,
19o8, 445); moreover, avttttaxla 1rp6s TLVa normally means 'alliance
with someone' (cf. Herod. v. 73; Xen. Hell. iii. 2. 21). A third diffi-
culty is the interpretation of the clause i.'va ••• x<.!Jpq,. Beloch (loc.
cit.) proposes to transpose 8' from after !Y!Ton;po£, and placing it
after fva, renders 'in order that they may give help ... whichever
side needs assistance, the Carthaginians shall provide ships'. Others,
while rejecting so violent an interference with the text, are em-
barrassed by the difficulty of attaching the clause to what precedes;
and Taubler (268), here following Niese (Hermes, r896, 497 n. z) and
Meltzer (ii. 547), interprets the clause as if it were independent, with
iva as the equivalent of the Latin uti common in documents (Niese
compares on). Unfortunately, though uti is rendered by 07TWS' in
IG, xiv. 951, I. 12 f. CIL, i2 . 2. 588, there is no parallel for Cva in
this sense. And in fact, the passage can be translated without this
improbable assumption, if the historical context is kept clearly in
mind. The Carthaginians fear a Roman peace with Pyrrhus, and
possibly an alliance with him, which will set him free to come to the
help of the Greek cities in Sicily; they arc anxious to prevent such
a peace and failing that to keep the way open for Roman help in
the event of Pyrrhus' attacking them in Sicily. Such provisions be-
tween allies can be paralleled; cf. vii. 9· 15 (treaty between Philip
and Hannibal) ; Livy, xxvi. 24. 8 ff. (treaty between Rome and
Aetolia, from P.), 'si Aetoli pacem cum Philippo facerent, foederi
adscriberent ita ratam fore pacem, si Philippus arma ab Romanis
sociisque ... abstinuisset; item si populus Romanus foedere iun-
geretur regi, ut cauerct ne ius ei belli inierendi Actolis sociisque
co rum esset'. P. therefore records: 'If they make a written alliance
with Pyrrhus, let them make it, each or both, 'A-'"ith such provision
that they may be allowed to assist each other in the territory of the
party who is the victim of aggression.' Carthage is not yet at war
350
ROME AND CARTHAGE IlL 25.6
V>'ith Pyrrhus, and the sending of help to Rome would not in itself
involve her in a state of war with him (d. Bickerman, Approaches
to World Peace {cd. Bryson, New 1944), zo7 f.); P. uses the
term crvfl-11-axla, 'alliance' to describe any possible pact that might
be made between Carthage and Pyrrhus, or (the real issue) Rome
and Pyrrhus. Such an alliance was to contain a proviso, reserving
the right to send aid to Carthage (or Rome, as the case may be), if
attacked (by anyone) in its own territory (d. Thuc. v. 47· 3). Again,
such help would not in itself involve committing the partner sending
it to a state of war with the aggressor; and in any case the clause is
merely permissive, l:va i~fj {Jor/h'iv. The words 1Totdcr1Jwcrav dwpon.pot
have often been taken to mean 'let them both make it in common'.
The sense is rather 'let either (or both, as the case may be) make it
with the stipulation that .. .'; any apparent ambiguity springs from
the use of a single sentence (deliberately) to cover the eventuality
of a Roman or a Punic crVfLf.l-ax{a with Pyrrhus. iva is apparently
used as the equivalent of (ita . . . ) ut, in a final sense. 1 The two
remaining clauses (§ 4) concern the help to be given to the Romans-
the bait which led them to discontinue treating with Pyrrhus. To
both is added the normal proviso (cf. Taubler, 55, z66-7) that help
shall be sent only as required the party attacked, here Rome.
The advantage of this treaty to both sides is well summarized
by Frank (CAH, vii. 649-50). Rome got money and ships; and if
Pyrrhus left for Italy, she was committed to nothing, for she need
send no help to Carthage unless she wished. Mago had scotched an
immediate peace, and secured the inclusion in any subsequent com-
pact with Pyrrhus of a clause likely to intimidate him, not least by
its ominous hints at a secret clause committing the Romans to action
in Sicily. 'The document reveals shrewd thinking on the part of both
negotiators.'
4. eto; TTJV a.pooov; 'for the return journey'' so Reiske (and inde-
pendently Wachsmuth) for the MS. elJ>o8ov, probably rightly since
'attack by sea cannot be meant, as the last section expressly deals
with naval battles' (Biittner-Wobst, Klio, 1903, 166); Emivo8os
(Klotz) is less easy, though it is P.'s usual word for 'return'.
5. -rei OE rrA!JpWj.lO.TO. ••• nKOUO'LWt;: a proviso to the previous sen-
tence, not a separate clause.
6-9. The oaths. That P. gives these separately is proof that he has
not reproduced the complete texts above. For the Carthaginian Bw~
1Ta1pij;ot d. vii. 9· 2-3, where they are listed. The Roman oath by
Llta l.t(Jov is discussed by C. Wunderer (Phil., 1897, 189-92), Kettleship
(Essays, 35 n. r), Strachan-Davidson (n-8o). Reid (]RS, 1912, 49-52).
1
This use of iea is akin to that found in P. in place of a1rws with the optative
to render c·urare ul, or the i'ea used by him after uerba imperandi e/ petendi; cf.
Fassbaender, Quaestiones grammaticae ad P. pertinentes (Progr. Crefeld), 6-7.
351
III. 25. 6 THE TREATIES BETWEEN
Deubner (Jahrb., r9n, 334), E. Harrison (Ridge<e'ay Studies, 92-98),
H. J. Rose (]RS, 19r3, 238), Wissowa (552). An oath of great solemnity
by louem lapidem is known from Cicero (jam. vii. 12, z), Gellius
(i. 21. 4), and Apuleius (de deo Soc. 5); but none of these passages
describes the form of such an oath. On the other hand, the ceremony
described by P. is also known from Plutarch (Sull. ro. 4) and Paulus
(epit. Fest., p. roz L., s.v. 'lapidem'), and can be paralleled from
many places and times; cf. Homer (/l. iii. 300), woE <J</J' eyKcl</JaJ..o<:
xap.&JitS' plm ciJ, oOE olvo<;, where the Greeks and Trojans thus bind
themselves to keep the truce. In it, however, the hurled stone is
clearly treated as parallel to the perjurer, who is to be driven out
from his country by Iuppiter (so Festus), as the stone is expelled from
the hand of the swearer ; and it is not easy to see how in this case
Iuppiter can be identified with the stone. Hence, if P. is right in
associating this ceremony with the custom I ouem lapidem iurare,
there is much to be said for the view that the oath is not by 'Iuppiter
the stone' (the usual view), but a combination of two ideas, 'to swear
by Iuppiter' and 'to take the stone-oath', i.e. 'to invoke Iuppiter
in the ceremony of the stone' (cf. Nettleship, loc. cit.); for syntactical
parallels cf. Strachan-Davidson (74 n. r).
However, a further ceremony involving a s£lex is known, which
should be considered. According to Festus (PauL epit. Fest., p. 8r L.,
s. v. 'Feretrius') from the temple of Iuppiter Feretrius were taken
'sceptrum, per quod iurarent, et lapidem silicem, quofoedus ferirent',
and the ceremony to which he refers is described by Livy (i. 24. 7-9),
in connexion with the making of treaties by the jet£ales. A pig is
sacrificed by means of the flint, and a curse is uttered against any
perjurer in the form 'si prior defexit publico consilio dolo malo, tum
tu ille Diespiter populum Romanum sic ferito ut ego hunc porcum
hie hodie feriam'. The s£lex may have been regarded as a symbol of
lightning (though Rose, loc. cit., suggests that it was merely a flint
knife around which a certain sanctity had accreted because of its
sacred function); in any case, 'antiqui louis signum lapidem silicem
putauerunt esse' (Serv. ad Aen. viii. 64I)-thcy thought it was the
symbol (or token, or statue?) of Jove. Clearly the flint has come to
symbolize the power of Jove, and the pig the perjurer; and it would
be much easier to interpret this ceremony as an oath Iouem lapidem
than the other, if in fact this description were ever given to it. But
it is not.
It has been argued (by Deubner and Reid, locc. citt.) that P. has
here confused the two quite separate ceremonies, the sacrifice carried
out by the jetiales with the silex, and the invocation accompanied
by the hurling away of the stone (which is not necessarily a public
ceremony at all); and Harrison (loc. cit.) goes farther with his con-
tention that the oath louem lapidem has nothing to do with either,
352
ROME AND CARTHAGE III. 26. I
and that in the present passage the MSS. reading Sta A.l8wv (or S,d_
Al8ou) should be kept, and all reference to Zeus eliminated. This view
is unconvincing in the light of references to Iouem lapidem in Cicero,
Gellius, and Apuleius, and the choice seems to be between the view
that P. has confused two distinct ceremonies, applying the phrase
I ouem lap idem iurare to the hurling of the stone, when it should
in fact belong to the fetial sacrifice of the pig, and the hypothesis of
Nettleship, that he has described the right ceremony, but that the
phrase is to be interpreted 'to invoke Iuppiter in the ceremony of
the stone'. Against the former view is perhaps the fact that, according
to Festus, the oath in the fetial sacrifice was taken not on the silex
but on a sceptrt~m kept with it. On the whole, therefore, Nettleship's
interpretation seems the more convincing.
The oath Lila ).{f!ov was used br!, rwv 7rpwrwv aw87]Kwv, and that
by Arcs and Enyalios £'"2 rourwv. As there are three treaties
the meaning is not clear. But, as the third treaty is regarded as an
amplification of the second, it is likely that the same oaths were
repeated, and the oath L1ta '/..ll!ov restricted to the one made in 509
(hence Ka-n:£ n 7TaAatov €8os). Ares is Mars, Enyalios Quirinus (cf.
Dion. Hal. ii. 48; Plut. Rmn. 29. 1); but there is no parallel for an
oath by Mars and Quirinus alone. One of the oldest cults at Rome
was, however, that of the triad, Iuppiter, Mars, and Quirin us; and
here Iuppiter seems to have been Iuppiter Feretrius (cf. Paul. epit.
Fest., p. 189M., s.v.' Opis'; CIL, x. 8o9). It figures in the devotion
of P. Decius Mus (Livy, viii. 9· 6), in the Salian ritual (Serv. ad Aen.
viii. 663) and in the dedication of spolia opima (Paul. epit. Fest.,
ibid.; Plut. Marc. 8; Serv. ad A en. vi .86o), and it was served by the
jlamines maiores. In Umbria it appears as the cult of Iuppiter, Mars,
and Vofionus (Wissowa, 23). Hence it seems certain that the oath
employed in the treaties of 348 and 279/8 was by this triad, and not
by Mars and Quirinus alone.
to bronze tablets suggests that the treaties were affixed to the walls
of some building, and not records deposited in an archive; and the
fact that the treaties had only recently come into prominence (cf.
§ 2, above 21. 9-Io n.) would be hard to explain, were that building
the temple of Iuppiter itself (so Wissowa, 128). Trapa T6v Ll£a Tov
KaTrETWALov will be 'beside the temple of Iuppiter', and the 'treasury
of the aediles' a comparatively little-known building.
3-4. Philinus' alleged treaty. A treaty defining Italy and Sicily as
Roman and Punic spheres of interest respectively, and forbidding
either party to enter the other's territory, is mentioned by Ser-
vius (ad Aen. iv. 628, 'in foedere cautum fuit ut neque Romani ad
litora Carthaginiensium accederent neque Carthaginienses ad litora
Romanorum') ; but he adds other and dubious explanations of the
lines on which he is commenting, and can only be treated as testifying
to the existence of a tradition, not confirming the truth of it. The
treaty is also implied in Livy (ep. I4 (272 B.c.)), 'Carthaginiensium
classis auxilio Tarentinis uenit; quo facto ab his foedus uiolatum
est', which clearly refers to a breach of 'Philinus' treaty' and not that
of 279 (so Strachan-Davidson, 64 n. I); for, according to Livy, xxi.
Io. 5-8, Hanno attributed the First Punic War to Punic interven-
tion at Tarentum (d. § 8, 'Tarento, id est Italia, non abstinueramus
ex foedere, sicut nunc Sagunto non abstinemus' : 'I talia abstinere'
= a7rlxw8aL '1Ta>..£ac;). This treaty can hardly be that referred by
Livy (ix. 43· 26) to 306 (d. 22-25 n.)-so Thiel, Hist. I4-I7, I3o ff.-,
for it is impossible that at so early a date the Romans claimed Italy
as their sphere of influence, with Tarentum untouched and the
Samnites not yet finally defeated; still less was it necessary to warn
them off Sicily (cf. Schachermeyr, Rh. Mus., I93o, 377 ff.). Philinus'
treaty may have been an unpublished agreement towards the end
of the war with Pyrrhus; it is hardly likely to represent a secret
clause in P.III (279) as both Schachermeyr and Reuss (HZ, 169, 1949,
459-6o) urge, for 25. 4 shows that that agreement envisaged the
sending of troops (on Carthaginian ships) to what could only be Italy
or Sicily, and this cannot be reconciled with a private agreement to
do nothing of the kind. It is, however, possible that P.III contained
a much vaguer recognition of spheres of interest (De Sanctis, iii.
1. Ioo), and that this agreement, or even the general clauses of P.II,
reaffirmed in P.III (so Altheim, Epochen, i. 19I n. 68), were reduced
to a formal shape as pro-Carthaginian propaganda in the years after
264; for Philinus' clause is precisely the one on which to condemn
the Romans as aggressors in 264. Later Roman propaganda may have
seized on the appearance of the Punic fleet at Tarentum to make
Carthage the aggressor; hence Livy's version (ep. I4, xxi. 10. 5-8),
also found in Dio (fg. 43· I, d. Zon. viii. 8), and exaggerated by
Orosius (iv. 3· I) into a battle.
354
ROME AND CARTHAGE III. 27. 9
5. vEpl. ~v i)p.Ei!l . . . p.vfJaflEvTE'il: whether P. is thinking of his dis-
cussion of the Roman crossing to Messana (i. ro-n) or his criticism
of Philinus' reliability (i. 14. 3 ff.) is not clear; he nowhere in book i
mentions Philinus' treaty.
6. Et Ka.TO. TouTo TLS imXap.~6.v£TaL 'Pwp.a.twv: cf. 28. r for criticism of
the Roman seizure of Sardinia. The seizure of Messana and Rhegium
is recounted in i. 7. r ff. The wording here supports the view that the
subject debated at Rome was in the first instance whether to admit
the Mamertines into alliance (cf. i. n. r n.), and that the decision
to send help followed (cf. Reuss, Phil., 1901, Ios).
28. 2-3. The Romans and Sardinia. For criticism of Roman policy
here d. i. 83. s. iii. 26. 6. (Other passages in which P. is critical of
aspects of Roman policy are i. 37· 7-ro (headstrong behaviour),
ii. 21. 8 (Flarninius), ix. ro (plunder of Syracuse), xxxi. ro. 7
ploitation of others' mistakes-if this is critical!), 25. 2 ff. (laxity
among Roman youths), xxxv. 4· 3 (cowardice among young soldiers).)
On the Roman justification here combated by P. see L 88. 8 n.
Taubler (Vorgesch. 27) argues that P. is here admitting that the
Romans justified their action in this way, but questions the validity
of the case ; hence he is following a different source from that used
in L 88, where there is no mention of such a case being put. But
To ... imo 'PwfLa.lwv . . . AEyofLEvov lyKATJfLa will refer, not to any
demarche at the time, but to the 'charge now being made
the Carthaginians', i.e. about I52. As in 29. I he is dealing with
contemporary polemics. See Gsell, iii. rq n. 6; Arnold, Oorzaak,
sr ff.
4. EY TTI '!l"po TC11lT"l~ ~u~A~ OEOTJMIIWJ.LEY: in fact, i. 83. 7· Cf. IO. r
where P. refers to i. 88. 8 as lv rats 1rpo rain-T)s flufl,\ms. Laqueur (231)
sees the trace of an early draft in which the present third book was
the second; but more probably this digression on the treaties was
an insertion just before ISO (2r. g-IO n.}, and the fa)se reference lS
due to carelessness. This seems more probable than Schweighaeuser's
suggestion of a textual corruption, i.e. lv rfi (y') 1rpo TaVTYJS fJuflJtcp,
though that is probably the explanation of a similar error in v.
III. IO.
Bastetani (Strabo, iii. 152, 156), together with whom they occupied
as far as l\falaca (Strabo, iii. 163). Their territory probably lay on
the Anas (Guadiana) and Baetis (Guadalquivir) around Castulo, and
west of the Olcades (on whom see 13. 5 n.). The capital of the Oretes
lay south-west of Ciudad Real and was called "fJp1J-rov FEpp.avwv
(Ptol. Geog. ii. 6. 58; cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 25, Oretani quiet Germani
cognominantur). Schulten (RE, 'Oretani', cols. roi8-19) suggests that
the people included settlements of Germans who came in with the
Celts about 6oo; see further P. Bosch-Gimpera, P BA, 1940, 96 ff.
This distinction may explain P.'s use of the adjective • IfJ7JP"-" here.
<
11. Ba>.tapEis 0KTaK6aun £~Sop.1}ttovTn): cf. Livy, xxi. 21. I2,junda-
tores Baleares octingentos septuaginta. Livy here follows P.'s figures
closely, and Gronovius's restoration is certain; wo' may have dropped
out before ous. For Balearic mercenaries see i. 67. 7·
oi'ls ~~:vp(ws p.f:v Ka~oGat ati>EvSov..]Ta.s: 'which is the name they pro-
perly give to slingers'; cf. ii. 22. r. ~ ytip >..i6> UVTTJ (sc. ra~a&-ro~)
-roii-ro (i.e. mercenaries) U7Jp.aLvn Kuplw>. P. means that the word
362
HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY III. 33· 15
Baleares in the native Iberian tongue signified 'slingers', but that it
was extended to the people and their island so as to form a proper
name (so correctly Reiske). Diodorus (v. 17. x) records the false
derivation a1TO TOV {l&>.AEtv; and both Paton and Shuck burgh intro-
duce a misleading reference to this into their translations. As in the
case of the Gaesatae P. is concerned to explain the original meaning
of a non-Greek word, which had acquired a wider significance;
Kvplw<;, the 'real' meaning, is contrasted with U1TO Tij<; xpda<; TU.VTTJ<;,
'from this mode of fighting' {d. ii. 33· 5). the derivative meaning.
To £9voos .•. Ka.t T~v vijaov : the Greeks originally called the Balearic
islands Fvp.vr]ataL (Diod. v. 17. x), apparently after the Gymnetes, as
the half-naked Iberian cavalry of the mainland were called by the
earliest Greek traders (Hubner, RE, 'Baliares', col. 2823). P. follows
the error also found in the periplous which was Avienus' ultimate
source and spoke of a single island, Gyrnnesia (Or. mar. 467).
12. £t'i Ta M£To.ywvLa Tijos AL~UTJ'i: e·vidently an official grouping
of cities taking its name from Cape Metagonium, perhaps Cap de
l'Agua, near the mouth of the Muluchath (Strabo, xvii. 827; d.
Ptol. Geog. iv. 1. 3) on the eastern border of Spanish Morocco. Strabo
(iii. 170) also records a vop.aOLKov €8vo<; of this name in Tingitana.
Mela (i. 7. 33) also gives the name Metagonium to Cape Tretum, the
modern Bougaroun or Ras Sebaa Rous; and apparently Timosthenes
(in Strabo, xvii. 827) knew of a Metagonium opposite Massilia. This
eastern Metagonium is also referred to in Pliny (Nat. hist. v. 22),
who records that the Greeks called Numidia, eastwards from the
R. Ampsaga, Metagonitis. Kahrstedt (iii. 97) assumes that the Meta-
gonian towns stretch westward from this area, and includes a list
of those with archaeological remains from Rusicade (Philippeville)
to Gunugu (criticism in De Sanctis (iii. x. 31 n. 83)); but it is not
impossible that the western and eastern areas are quite separate,
and that P. here refers only to one (the western) (d. Schwabe, RE,
'Metagonium (1 and 2)', cols. 1320-1). The garrisons stationed in
these towns would be usefully placed to reinforce either Spain or
Carthage (De Sanctis, iii. 2. 12). Whether the inhabitants of the
Metagonian towns were wholly Phoenician or partly Libyan as well
is not certain.
15. AL~uq,ow(Kwv: the Phoenicians inhabiting the towns between
the Syrtes (Pliny, Nat. hist. v. 24) and the Atlantic coast, and
possessing the right of conubium with Carthage (Diod. xx. 55· 4).
It is clear from Hannibal's treaty with Philip (vii. 9· 5) that they
were her subjects. See Mommsen, RG, i. 491; De Sanctis, iii. 1. 33
n. 89. The Libyans were native inhabitants of the Carthaginian
province (Diod. ibid.).
AEPY1'JTWV: Livy, xxi. 22. 3, parua Ilergetum manus ex Hispania. As
Schweighaeuser noted, this reference to a Spanish tribe among the
363
III. 33· 15 HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY
African contingents is odd; and the Lergetes may be some otherwise
unknown African tribe (Kahrstedt, iii. 17r). They are, however, dis-
tinct from both Libyans and Numidians. If they were from Spain
(cf. Meltzer, ii. 448: DeSanctis, iiL z. 13) these cavalry were evidently
enrolled later, after the reduction of the Ilergetes in 218 (35· z),
unless they came as mercenaries (Meltzer, ibid.). The orthography
is no help, since the MSS. of P. are shaky on this name; cf. x. 18. 7
where "-"YX?JTwv, AeyY?)TCJiv, and AEx:rJT(;w are all found.
No1-10.Swv: of these tribes the Massyli dwelt between Cape Tretum
and the (later) Roman province of Africa (Strabo, ii. 131, xvii. 829);
later their king was the famous Masinissa (xi. 21. r, etc.), the son of
Gaia, who was probably king now (cf. Stahelin, RE, Suppl.-B. iii,
'Gaia (4)', col. 534). The M asaesyli, often mentioned along with the
Massyli, lived on the coast west of them; Strabo (xviL 829) puts them
between the l\Iuluchath and Cape Tretum. Their king was Syphax.
The M accoei are lP.ss easily identified. They may be the Macae of
Herodotus (iv. 175), who dwelt on the Syrtes, or the .ll,fa~<~<:6ot of
Ptolemy (Geog. iv. 6. 6), whose home was in the oases of the eastern
Sahara. However, the Maurusii (or Mauri), the inhabitants of
Mauretania (l\1orocco) are described as Twv 1rapd. Tov dJKmv6v (cf.
Livy, xxiv. 49· 5. 'extremi prope Oceanum aduersus Gades colunt').
Hence, if P. (following his inscription) is enumerating the tribes in
geographical order from east to west, it seems reasonable to seek the
Maccoei between the Muluchatll and the Straits. Schweighaeuser,
who himself suspects a corruption of Ba~<:~<:alwv (cf. Sall. lug. 66,
Vaccenses), admits that this principle would favour Grono~ius's
emendation to Ma,vwv; for although the l\fazices (or Maxyes) lived,
according to Herodotus (iv. 191) to the west of the Lesser Syrtes
and north of Lake Triton, and according to Eustathius (ad Dian.
Perieg. (GGM, ii), p. 25r) on the site of what was later Carthage, they
shifted their seat several times, and appear in Tingitana in Ptolemy
(Geog. iv. I. s. 2. 5, Md~£~<Es). Another possibility is that they are the
Baquates who dwelt between the Muluchath and the straits in
imperial times, and appear in the Chron. Pasch. (i, p. 46. 17 ed. Bonn)
as Mo.Kovo.~<:ol. The status of these Numidian troops, whether levies
or mercenaries, is obscure; cf. Griffith, 223 ff.
A~yucrT1vous: for the Carthaginian use of Ligurian mercenaries see
i. q. 4, 67. 7, for the Baleares above§ I I .
18. ~'lfi. Aa.ruvi<(l: 'on Cape Lacinium', about 6 miles from Croton,
on the south coast of Italy. Today it is Capo Colonne, from the
remains of the temple of Hera Lacinia, where Hannibal set up this
account on a bronze pillar, in Punic and Greek, in the summer of
205 (cf. 56. 4; Livy, xxviii. 4/'i. r6); on the temple cf. xxxiv. u. 9·
When P. visited this temple is not recorded, but it may well have
been in the course of his internment in Italy, and not, as Cuntz
364
HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY III. 34· 7
supposes (63), after his return to Greece (with unacceptable implica-
tions for the composition of this chapter). Klotz (Livit~s. 190) hazards
the guess that P. learnt of the existence of the inscription from
Silenus; he attributes Livy, xxviii. 46. I6 to Silenus via Coelius.
34. 2. oacjlws yap £~TJ.,.c1KE~ KTA.: cf. 48. 11. On the fertility of the Po
valley cf. ii. IS, iii. 44· 8, 48. 11. The war against the Romans (§ 3) is
the Gallic tumultus of zzs and its aftermath; cf. ii. z3 ff.
4. Tovs £1rt .,-cl.SE: on the Italian side, cf. iv. 48. 7·
5. (lOVWS O.v u1ToAa(l~cl.vwv £v 'ITaA(<;!- auaTl)aaa9aL KTA.: 'thinking
that on one condition only would he be able to wage war in Italy'.
Shuckburgh follows Schweighaeuser, who takes the phrase to mean
'in Italy alone', contrasting IS. 13; but fLOVW> is explained by El
8vvr/h[1J KT,\.; cf. i. 4· II. Paton's rendering here is correct.
6. acjlLKOfLEVWV Sf: TWV ayyeAwv: the messengers from the Celts (§ I).
§§ z-s are a parenthesis explaining why the messengers came to be
expected. Laqueur (132-3) makes unnecessary difficulties here
through missing this point.
ouvi)yE TUS Suva(lELS . • • li1TO T1jv £apLv1jv wpav: when Hannibal
reached the top of the pass over the Alps snow had already fallen,
i.e. it was about the third week of September (54· r n. : the reference
to the setting of the Pleiades is a general expression for the approach
of the bad season). Since the march from New Carthage to the Po
valley took five months (56. 3), Hannibal must have left about the
end of April. His late start was probably designed to allow the spring
flooding of the Spanish rivers to subside (Hallward, CAH, viii. 36).
See DeSanctis, iii. 2. 79 ff. The phrase apxofLiV7J> Tij> Ot=pda,; in v. I. 3
is vague, nor is it clear to what precisely it refers-the departure
from New Carthage or the crossing of the Ebro; it can therefore be
neglected. Recently Hoffmann has argued that Hannibal set out in-
tending merely to subdue northern Spain, and that he changed his
plan and decided to march on Italy only at the point indicated in
35· 4, having then heard of the Roman declaration of war (Rh. Mus.,
I9SI, 79-82). Admittedly, an advance into Italy depended on success
in northern Spain (Scullard, Rh. Mus., I952, ZIS-I6); but the whole
tenor of P.'s narrative, with its messengers from the Po valley,
implies that invasion of Italy was Hannibal's firm plan.
7. vpoavEvTwKoTwv Sf: ••• KapxTJSovos: i.e. messengers carrying
news of the Roman indictio belli. This, on P.'s chronology (2o. 6),
was delivered by an embassy sent from Rome immediately news of
the fall of Saguntum arrived there, i.e. late autumn or early winter
219/18 (17 n.). Livy (xxi. zr. I) in fact makes Hannibal hear of the
Roman indictio at the beginning of winter. But it is clear that the
ultimatum was not in fact delivered till late March n8 at the earl-
iest, and probably in June (zo. 6 n.). Hence this speech of Hannibal
365
Ill. 34· 7 HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY
is made up of imaginary commonplaces (perhaps m P.'s source).
For the surrender of Hannibal (§ 8) cf. 21. 7·
37. I. TTt'> tca9' tllliiS ottcoujlEVTJS: that part of the world known to
the Greeks and Romans of P.'s time.
2-8. Division into continents and their position beneath the heavens.
The division into continents evidently go<'~ back to the colonizing
period; they were originally two, Europe and Asia (d. Hippoc. aer.
13), but by Herodotus' time the threefold division was established
(Herod. iv. 45· 5· TOtat ydp vop.t~op.lvota~ aOTWV xpr;aop.Eea; H. r6~r7)·
The earliest boundary between Europe and Asia was the Phasis at the
eastern end of the Euxine (Berger, 77 f.), but the Ionians reckoned
the Cimmerian Bosphorus, :Maeotic Lake, and Tanais (Don) as the
boundary (cf. Hecataeus, FGH, r F 212; Herod. iv. 45· 2, for both
limits). It is this Ionian tradition which P. here follows, no doubt
after Ephorus. The Nile was for long the accepted boundary between
Asia and Libya; but in response to the objection that this resulted
in the division of Egypt between the two continents (cf. Strabo,
i. 32; auct. Bell. Alex. 14. s), some geographers, perhaps beginning
with Ephorus, shifted the boundary to the Red Sea and the Isthmus
of Suez (Strabo, i. 65). This issue had been by-passed by Eratos-
thenes, who devised a physical basis for dividing up the earth on
the grounds that the old division into continents was meaningless
(Strabo, loc. cit.); but P. ignores this criticism, thus shuwing 'how
little he had followed the scientific advances in geography' (MUllen-
hoff, i. 242 n.). Instead he tries to apply the principles indicated in
36. 7· Asia is situated beneath that portion of the heavens lying
between the north-east and south, Libya beneath that lying between
J68
HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY III. 37· IO
the south, the south-west, and as far round as the north. An inter-
esting and valid criticism of this procedure has survived in Strabo
(ii. 108), who attacks P. for linking up geographical parts with com-
pass directions, despite the fact that all directions are relative to
the position of the observer: Tavai:v 1-LJv oJv Kat N€fAov OVK aTOTrOV
7rEpa> 7rot€ta8at, BEpLV~V o' dvaroA~v ~ laTJ!L"PtV~V Katvov. The cause of
P.'s confusion is not far to seek. He is known to have believed the
course of the Tanais to be north-east to south-west (xxxiv. 7· 10),
a view which Strabo contests (ii. 107); similarly he asserted that the
Straits at the Pillars of Heracles ran due west (xxxiv. 7· 9); and it
was common knowledge that the Nile ran from south to north. Thus
P. has confused the direction of the course of the Straits, the Nile,
and the Tanais with the supposed direction of their mouths from an
ideal spectator, situated perhaps in Greece. Cf. Class. et med., 1948,
I67-8.
P.'s assertion that Asia and Libya 'considered generally' (§ 6) lie
to the south of the Mediterranean may seem hard to reconcile with
the statement that Asia stretches round to the Tanais 'in the north-
east' (§ 4). P. expanded his view in a passage discussed by Strabo
(ii. Io7 = P. xxxiv. 7· 8-ro, where the 'fragment' breaks off illogi-
cally), whence it is clear that he did not forget this section of Asia
lying north of the prolongation eastward of the line of the Straits
of Gibraltar, but indeed used it to justify his argument that Europe
was shorter than Africa and Asia combined. Here, however, his
scheme is drawn in the broadest outline.
8. T6 ji-Ev oAoaxepe<rrepov KQ~ j3n8.hepov ~~-~pos: 'its most important
and extensive part' (Shuckburgh); i.e. virtually the whole land mass
excepting the Iberian peninsula. Schulten's statement (RE, 'Hi-
spania', col. I967) that P. was the first to commit the mistake of
making the Pyrenees run north-south is not supported by this
passage; nor is Appian, Hisp. I, likely to be Polybian. Cf. Reid,
JRS, I9I3, 194 n. 3· The Narbo, so called after the important city
near its mouth (xxxiv. 10. 1), is usually known as the Atax; it is the
modern Aude. Elsewhere P. makes the town of Narbo a salient
point in calculating distances, on the assumption that it lay at the
apex of a triangle, the other angles of which were at the Pillars and
the Sicilian Straits (xxxiv. 6. 4ft.). In fact, the Aude is about 6o
miles west of the Rhone estuary; the ancient itineraries gave the
distance .Karbo--Nemausus as 91 m.p. (Cuntz, zs).
9. Keho~ VEjJ-OVTm flEx pi TWV ..• opwv : cf. xxxiv. 10. I for a description
of the plain of Roussillon, its rivers, and the famous underground
fish.
10. KnAeiTm Se To 11f:v 1rnpn TfJV Ka8' Tjj~-Cis 1TnpijKov . . . 'Jj3,p1n:
according to Strabo (iii. I66), Iberia once denoted all the lands west
of the Rhone ; another earlier usage restricted the term to the land
•BG6 Bb
IlL 37· 10 HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY
between the Ebro and the Pyrenees, but ol. vvv used Iberia and
Hispania as synonyms (cf. Miillenhoff, i. 12o--2). P.'s distinction (for
his use of 'Celtiberia' cf. 17. 2-3 n.) marks a stage on the way to the
use of 'Iberia' for the whole peninsula; but Eratosthenes may already
have taken this further step (Strabo, ii. 108, iii. 148). P.'s knowledge
of the Spanish coast outside the Straits is inferior to that of Eratos-
thenes, who accepted the reports of Pytheas (cf. xxxiv. 5· I ff.); cf.
Schulten, RE, 'Hispania', col. rg67. His reference here to its 'recently
having come under notice' (§ u) is probably to the expedition of
D. Iunius Brutus Callaicus as far as the R. 1\finho in 138/7 (so Cuntz,
34-37); it is Certainly in COntrast tO the mention Of T~V ayvwu{av rfjs
l.~<.Tos 8aAaaa1]s in xvi. 29. 12, If this is so, this passage was evidently
recast at some date subsequent to Brutus' expedition; cf. 1-5 n. (3).
The reference forward(§ u) is to book xxxiv. 8 ff.
This makes the total distance from New Carthage to the Po valley
about 8,400 stades, whereas P. makes it 9,ooo (§ u), and the distance
from the Pillars to the Pyrenees 8,ooo. Editors from Schweighaeuser
onwards have assumed a lacuna in §§ 7-8, after the word e~aKocrlots,
so as to add some 6oo stades, and bring the separate figures into line
with the totals; but this procedure is demonstrably wrong, for P.'s
figures for the separate sections have been shown to coincide \\ith
those obtained by adding up the detailed distances recorded in the
imperial itineraries (cf. Cuntz, zo--27). Thus the total distance from
the Pillars to Emporiae comes to 7.'2I7 stades (reckoning 8! stades
as mille passus: cf. § 8 n.), and that from Emporiae to the Rhone
crossing at Ugernum (Beaucaire) at 199 m.p., which is 1,658 stades
on the same basis. Cuntz (loc. cit.) attempts to explain the dis~
crepancy between the detailed figures and the two totals of 8,ooo
(§ s) and 9,000 (§ n) stades as somehow due to P.'s having revised
the separate distances from the more accurate records available after
the laying down of the Via Domitia in 120 (cf. § 8 n.); but it can
hardly have affected the section beyond Emporiae (and so the total
of 8,ooo stades) so early as this. On the other hand, Viedebantt's
suggestion (Hermes, 1919, 348-so) that P.'s separate figures were
altered by the posthumous editor, who omitted to change the total, is
a desperate hypothesis. Perhaps the likeliest explanation of the
discrepancy is that P.'s 8,ooo and 9,000 stades represent round
totals to the next I,ooo stades. On this hypothesis the statement
that when Hannibal reached the Pyrenees he had covered nearly
half the distance (§ u) is correct on the separate figures, but not
correct for the total of 9,000 stades which immediate!y precedes it.
F.'s source for these figures is not known. The reference in § 8 to
the Via Domitia must represent a late insertion (probably by P.
himself) ; but it would be rash to conclude that he revised his figures
to fit readings which he had obtained from the new milestones. Klotz
371
III. 39 HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY
( W], I946, I54-5) argues that §§ s-I2 are taken from Silenus; and it
is highly likely that records of the distances marched were kept in
Hannibal's army (though the distance from the Pillars to New
Carthage would not come from such a source). On the other hand,
the figures for the section between the 'Island' and the Po valley
seem to be averaged out on the rough basis of 8o stades a day
(49· 5 n. and so. I n.); it is possible that this also goes back to
Silenus, and was adopted because the bematists' records broke down
for this difficult part of the journey. See further, Cuntz, 2o-27; De
Sanctis, iii. I. 212-13; B-W2, i, introduction, p. xxix.
39. 1. TpEijlofiE9a.1Tpo~ To avvEXEs Tfjs ••• Su'JYtJO'IOWS: this P. appears
not to do. Two obvious explanations suggest themselves: (a) 39· 2-12
is a later addition to the text, interrupting a narrative in which
39· I was followed immediately by 40. I, (b) 36-38 is a later addition
which P. rounded off with the remark in 39· I, not noticing that 39
was itself a digression. For the view that 36-38 was a later insertion
see Gidion, 41-51, u6-19; Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (r)', col. 1486; but
the close parallel with v. zr. 3 f. is against it, and perhaps one should
not rule out the possibility that P. would have regarded the statistics
ro
in 39 as avvEXE> rfj> • • • OtTJJ'11cu:ws-.
2. Twv ~LAa.tvov ~wfiwv: d. x. 40. 7, for the same definition of the
Carthaginian empire in Africa. The Altars of Philaenus (or the
Philaeni) lay in the Syrtes 6 km. inland from the promontory of
Ras el-Aali, at Graret Gser el-Trab; this identification was con-
firmed by the 1951 campaign of the Map of Roman Libya Committee
(d. R. G. Goodchild, ]RS, 1951, ; BSR, 1952, 94-no). For the
legend connected with the Altars see Sallust, Iugurtha, 19· For the
Punic empire at this date see i. ro. 5 n.
4. liws Tfjs pa.x(a.~, 8 1Tepa.s EO'Tt .•• opwv: P.'s source evidently cal-
culated to the famous temple of Aphrodite Pyrenaea, which lay on
the frontier between Narbonensis and Spain (Strabo, iv. q8, 181;
Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 22); payJa is 'promontory' (d. Thuc. iv. IO. s).
Hannibal himself probably crossed the a little way inland
by the Col du Perthus (Jullian, i. 458 n. z), since he descended at
Elne (Iliberris), Livy, xxi. 24. r.
6. TP~O"XLAious: 357 m.p. = 2,97 5 stades, according to Cuntz's calcula-
tions (24) based on the Antonine Itinerary. Strabo (iii. 156) gives the
distance as, reputedly, 2,2oo stades, probably his account on
Poseidonius (Schulten, Hermes, I9Il, s87}.
[T~v S£ Ka.wijv . , . K!lAouowJ: N€a Kapx·YJM>V is not used by P. (in
xxxiv. 9· 8 the expression is Strabo's); and this sentence is rightly
excluded as a gloss by Bi.ittner-Wobst. Cf. ii. 13. 1 n.
i1rt ... Tov "I~T)pa. "'fOTD.fiOV: from New Carthage to the Ebro is 312 m.p.
2,6oo stades (Cuntz, 25), P.'s figure; Strabo (loc. cit.) makes it
2,2oo stades.
372
HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY IlL 39· 8
7. Eis 'EtJ.Trop~ov: to Emporiae (Ampurias, cf. Schulten, Hermes,
1925, 66-73) from the Ebro is 197 m.p. r,6.42 stades (Cuntz, 25);
P. gives 1,6oo stades, and Strabo {loc. cit.) gives the same figure for
the distance from the Ebro to the Trophies of Pompey (near modern
La Junquera; Sall. Hist. iii, fg. 89 M.).
8. EVTeu&ev brl. TTJV TOU 'PoSa.voG s~a.~a.ow: from Emporiae {see 59 n.
on the arbitrary insertion (dm) o' 'Ep.1roplou ... e~aKoa{ov<;) which
alters the meaning of €vuueev) to the Rhone is calculated by Cuntz
{z5), via the Col du Perthus and ending at Ugernum (Beaucaire), as
199 m.p. r,658 stades (on the basis of the Itineraries) ; but P.'s
source may be by-passing :-.lemausus, and consequently may be
shorter. Strabo {iv. q8) reckons from the Trophies of Pompey to
:-.larbo as 63 m.p. and from Narbo to Nemausus as 88; if these dis-
tances are accepted rather than those of Cuntz, his total is reduced
by 5 m.p. to 194 m.p. 1,6r6 stades. These calculations do not take
into account the possibility that Hannibal's crossing of the Rhone
was not the later one at Beaucaire-Tarascon; cf. 42. r n.
Taiha. yO.p vGv ~e~f1f.L6.TI.O'Tcu KTA.: 'for this part has now been care-
fully measured and marked \vith milestones by the Romans, at
intervals of eight stades'. This applies only to the section from
Emporiae {i.e. the Pyrenees) to the Rhone, and the reference is
evidently to the laying down of the Via Domitia in n8, after the
conquests of Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus {cf. P.-M. Duval, CRAI,
1951, I6I-S, for a milestone found at Pont-de-Treilles {Aude),
bearing Ahenobarbus' name). Elsewhere (xxxiv. 12. 3-4) P. allows
8l stades to the mille passus (d. M. C. P. Schmidt, 7 ff.) ; and his
detailed measurements here correspond with the Roman itineraries
on that basis. Nevertheless, he can easily have used the looser
phrase, as he apparently did in i. q. 8, and this cannot be made
an argument against the genuineness of the present passage. Several
scholars, however, have omitted the sentence as a later insertion
{cf. Jullian, iii. 36; Schmidt, loc. cit.; Hartstein, Phil., 1886, 7!7;
I894. 757; I~enchantin de Gubernatis, Boll. fil. class., 1908, s:z-ss).
and Wilamowitz (in Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 333 n. r) suggests it was the
work of the posthumous editor {cf. 1-5 n. {4)); its authenticity is
defended by Thommen (Hermes, r885, 216), Mommsen and Hirsch-
feld (CIL, v. 2, p. 885; xii, p. 666), E. Desjardins (Geographie his-
torique et administrative de la Gaule romaine (Paris, 1878), ii. 264),
and Ziegler (RE, 'Polybios {r)', col. 1445). Mioni (46) argues improb-
ably that the Via Domitia may have been begun early enough for P.
to see it in I 50; and DeSanctis (iii. r. :zr3) suggests that P. is referring
to the opening up of the Ligurian coast road by Q. Opimius in 154
{d. xxxiii. 9-ro), though clearly it is with the district west of the
Rhone that P. if concerned. TI1ere is no real difficulty if this passage
was inserted by P. about n8 as one of the last things he ever wTote.
373
III. 39· 9 HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY
9. 17ctp' O.UTOV TOV 170TCI.jlOV ws E17i T(,.S mwas : the river is the Rhone
(cf. 47· In.); but for P.'s confusion about the upper part of Hanni-
bal's route see so. I n., and for the general problem of the pass he
used, 49· s-s6. 4 n.
11. 1rept Evva.K~~~.Mous: 8,400 stades if the separate stages are added
up (cf. 39 n.).
12. axeSOv Tous ~JlLaE~S Su:AYJXUOe~: as Hannibal had covered 4,2oo
stades at the Pyrenees this is roughly true for the detailed figures,
though it does not fit the rounded off total of 9,000.
40. 1-2. Chronology. P. here suggests (rather than asserts) that news
of the crossing of the Ebro by Hannibal arrived at Rome after the
return of the embassy from Carthage. It has been argued above
(2o. 6 n.).that Hoffmann is right in dating the dispatch of this em-
bassy to early June, when news of the crossing of the Ebro was
already at Rome. Thus the decision to send the consuls of 2I8 to
Spain and Africa belongs to late June or early July. For an apparent
contradiction of this passage see 61. 8 n.
2. nlmX~ov j!EV KopvfJX~ov ••. T e[3€p~ov Se IEjl17pWVlOV: P. Cornelius
L.f. Ln. Scipio and Ti. Sempronius C.f. C.n. Longus, the consuls for
A.U.c. 536 = 218 B.C. (cf. Henze, RE, 'Cornelius (33o)', cols. I434 ff.;
Munzer, RE, 'Sempronius (66)', cols. I43o ff.). The Roman war plan
involved sending Scipio, with 8,ooo legionaries, 6oo Roman cavalry,
q,ooo allied infantry, and 1,6oo allied cavalry (Livy, xxi. 17. 8) to
Massilia, whence he should invade Spain; Sempronius, with a similar
body of citizen troops, but with I6,ooo allied infantry and I,8oo allied
cavalry (Livy, ibid. 5) was to establish a base in Sicily for the
eventual invasion of Africa (cf. 61. 8). On Livy's figures see De
Sanctis (iii. 2. 87-88); and in general, Hallward (CAH, viii. 33-34).
5. n>..a.KEVTia.v ••• Kpej!WVT)V: 'Placentiam coloniam deductam pridie
kal. Iun. (Ian. codd.: emend. Madvig) primo anno eius belli' (Asc.
in Pis., p. 3 Clark). The decision to found these two Roman colonies
was taken in 2I9 (Livy, ep. 2o), and they were designed to watch
the Boii and Insubres, who had taken the lead in the movement of
230-225 (cf. ii. 22. I). The expression Tcts ••• 1roAEtS' iw;pyws helx,,ov
(§ 4) suggests that the colonies were founded on the site of already
existing settlements (cf. Hanslik, RE, 'Placentia', col. I898).
6. otov AoxwvTes TT)v 11pos 'Pwila.£ous ~lMa.v: 'as it were laying a
trap of friendship with the Romans' (LSJ), i.e. laying a trap for the
Romans by a pretence of friendship (following the deditio of 224
(ii. 31. 9), whereby the hostages of§ 7 were evidently surrendered).
No change is needed in the text at ouK JxoVTes 8€ Ton: Katpov, where
ToTe refers to the same period of time as that indicated in mi:Aat; see
Schweighaeuser, ad loc.
7. ev Tfi 'II'POTEPY- f3of3X<tJ: ct. ii. 22-3s.
374
HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY III. 40. 14
8. ili MoTlVTtV, a'ITOU(LO.'II ••• 'Pw...a.(wv: true only for P.'s own time;
'Mutina was an Etruscan town, which had perhaps already joined
Rome (d. Livy, xxi. 25); but it was not settled as a Roman colony
till r83 (Livy, xxxix. 55· 7-8), when it received 2,ooo colonists.
U. E\\ins (BSR, 1952, 55) thinks there was a garrison, not a regular
colony, in 218; but d7TotKta implies more than a garrison.
9. Tp€iS ll.v8pa.s TWV i'ITL~a.vwv ••• (,.t TTjv 8La.£pEOW ••• a1t€CTTO.h!-11tVOIJS:
II!z~iri coloniae deducendae (cf. Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 624 ff.). C. Luta-
tius Catulus (cf. Miinzer, RE, 'Lutatius (5)', cols. 2071-2), the son
of the victor of the Aegates Islands (i. 59· 8), had been consul in
A.U.c. 534 = 220 B.C.; the two praetorians, according to Livy (xxi.
25.3 ff.), were C. Servilius and M. Annius (but he records alternatives
from annalistic sources). The name of Servilius is confirmed by his
later captivity (Livy, xxvii. zz. 10, xxx. 19. 9; cf. Aymard, REA,
1943. 201 ff.). But the alternative names may be those of a second
and separate commission, rather than a doublet. See further, Scul-
lard (Pol. 273-4). and Broughton (i. 241-2 n. 12).
H. A€uKLO'i 8E M6.A~\Los E~a.1teAEKu'i &,.6.pxwv: cf. Uvy, xxi. zs. 8.
Probably the L. Manlius Vulso who failed to be elected consul in
216 (Livy, xxii. 35· 1; cf. Munzer, RE, 'Manlius (92)', cols. 1222-3).
He was probably praetor peregrinus in 218 (cf. Broughton, i. 240 n. 4,
who discusses the theory, based on Livy, xxii. 33· 7-8, that Manlius
was not praetor but pro-praetor this year). On his forces see § 14 n.
13. Twv IJ!LI.wv fltiJta.VTo xwp(wv: Twv uifni'Awv AR, corr. Wolffiin. Cf.
Livy, xxi. zs. 9, aegre in apertos campos emersit.
14. To TiTa.pTov aTpa.To1tE8ov: this should mean 'the fourth legion'.
Kahrstedt (iii. t8o) has argued that the Romans did not yet number
their legions, and takes the phrase as 'one of the four legions' raised
in 218. Against this is i. 26. 5 (where the legionary numbers are
transferred to squadrons of the fleet), i. 30. u ('ro TrpW'Tov (npaTir
Treoov), and Livy, xxiv. 36. 4, legio prima. Indeed numeration is an
obvious provision where legions may serve under a series of com-
manders (cf. Klotz, Phil., 1933, 46); and it is independently attested
for the time of the Elder Cato (M. E. Agnew, A]P, 1939, 214-19).
Emendation to Toiho To CTTpaT67reoov (Hesselbarth, 71) is therefore
quite uncalled for.
The accounts of Roman troops in Gaul in 218 given by P. and by
Livy create difficulties. According to Livy (xxi. 17. 9) there were
two legions in Gaul, and L. Manlius, with reinforcements (Livy,
xxi. 17. 7), took command of these; later C. Atilius came to his aid
with one of Scipio's legions, and Scipio enrolled a new one in its
place (Livy, xxi. :z6. 2-3). P. gives Manlius only one legion, the
Fourth, but later the other praetor reinforces him with both Scipio's
legions, for which Scipio then substitutes two newly raised ones.
Both accounts agree that there were eventually three legions in the
375
Ill. 40. r4 HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY
Po valley this year, but disagree on the order of their dispatch. The
crux is discussed by Kahrstedt (loc. cit.), De Sanctis (iii. 2. 87-88),
Kromayer (AS, iii. r. 98 n. r), Klotz (Phil., 1933, 44-5o), Gelzer
(Hermes, I935, 275--D), and Vallejo (lxix-lxxix). Kahrstedt and Gelzer
treat Livy's details with distrust, whereas Klotz and De Sanctis
think they are ultimately based on official records; but while De
Sanctis and Kahrstedt both assume that eventually there were two
legions in the Po valley, Gelzer and Klotz follow the statement of
both P. and Livy that there were three. Their separate views are
appended:
K ahrstedt: four legions in all at first; original plan, two for Africa
and two for Spain. Manlius takes one of the Spanish legions to Gaul,
Atilius a second; Scipio enrols one new legion and sails with that
to Spain. Final total: five legions.
DeSanctis and Kromayer: four legions in all at first; original plan,
two for Africa and two for Spain. Manlius takes one of the Spanish
legions to Gaul, Atilius a second; Scipio enrols two new legions and
sails with these to Spain. Final total: six legions.
Klot.z: six legions in all (Livy) at first, the two in Gaul perhaps
from 219 •.Manlius takes over the latter with reinforcements. Atilius
takes one of Scipio's to Gaul; Scipio enrols one in its place and sails
with two legions to Spain. Final total: seven legions.
Gelzer: five legions in all at first (one, the Fourth, from 219, in
Gaul). Manlius put in charge of the Gallic legion (P.); Atilius sent to
reinforce him with Scipio's two legions: Scipio raises two more and
sails with them to Spain. Final total: seven legions.
Vallejo: five legions in all at first (one, the Fourth, from 219, in
Gaul). Manlius put in charge of the Gallic legion; Atilius sent to
reinforce him with one of Scipio's legions: Scipio enrols one in its
place, and sails with two legions to Spain. Final total, six legions.
Vallejo assumes that here Td. 7rpOKf:)(€1pta}J.~a aTpa-rlm~oa can mean one
legion, as it may do elsewhere (cf. ro7. 9, but see ro7-r7 n. (c); Hall-
ward, CAH, viii, chart opposite ro4); this involves the improbable
assumption that for these details P. is following a Greek source.
No scheme succeeds in reconciling P. and Livy, hence any decision
must rest on one's general view of the sources of the legion lists.
For these P. appears to follow Fabius, while Livy's source is con-
troversial. De Sanctis has made out a strong case for its reliability
and even Gelzer, its latest critic (Hermes, 1935, 297), grants it a
substratum of truth; this of course does not exclude the possibility
of inaccuracies. Here the most satisfactory explanation is that of
De Sanctis. Both P.'s source and Livy's knew that there were two
legions in the Po valley; P. also knew these to have been originally
Scipio's, but wrongly assumed that Atilius took them both, and so
had to make Manlius' Fourth Legion a separate one. Livy's source
376
HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY III. 42. I
knew that Atilius had only one legion, but wrongly assumed the
final two to be the original number in Gaul under Manlius; hence
his total of three. In fact, two was the final number, after Manlius
and Atilius had in turn borrowed each one of Scipio's legions (and
Scipio had made these up by new levies); at the year end there were
thus six legions enrolled, as Livy records (xxi. 17· 2, q. 5----9). Klotz
and Gelzer argue for three legions in the Po valley; but at the battle
of Trebia, including Sempronius' consular army, there were only
four, not five (72. 2 n.), nor were Manlius' losses (4o. 12; d. Livy,
xxi. 25. 10) sufficient to eliminate one legion.
t)ye~va. aucrrT)aa.vTE~: he was C. Atilius Serranus (Livy, xxi. 26. 2,
39· 3; App. Hann. 5); see Klebs, RE, 'Atilius (62)', cols. 2097-8.
41. 2. E~E1fAEOV E1fL TiJv wpa.(a.v: despite this phrase, the consuls'
departure was in August. Hannibal reached the Po valley about the
end of September (34· 6 n., 54· r), and from 49· 5, so. r, and 56. 3 it
may be assumed that, allowing several days' rest at the 'Island'
(49· 5-13), he had crossed the Rhone about a month earlier, i.e.
towards the end of August. As Scipio missed him there by three
days (49· r), he evidently left Pisa some ten days earlier, i.e. about
15-20 August, and Rome a little before that (Hoffmann, Rh. Mus.,
1951, 76-78). This late start is best explained by the late decision to
declare war (4o. r-2 n.) rather than by the diversion of Scipio's
troops against the Boii (d. Scullard, Rh. Mt~s., 1953, 213-14); for
this would not account for Sempronius' delay.
~~T)~eovTa. va.ua(: d. Livy, xxi. 17. 8, and 17. 5 for Sempronius' r6o
ships. In addition Livy gives Sempronius ce.loces duodecim. It is
unlikely that all Sempronius' r6o ships were quinqueremes; d. i.
20. 9 n. The fleets of this year are discussed by Thiel (35 n. u), who
points out that Scipio's 6o ships just outnumbered the Punic fleet
in Spain (33· 14), on which the Romans were therefore apparently
well informed. The bulk of the Roman fleet was reserved for what
was expected to be the main front (though Scipio will have had
transports for his two legions). On Sempronius' arrival in Sicily see
the fuller account in Livy (xxi. 49-50, Punic attack on Lilybaeum
before Sempronius' arrival thwarted by Hiero); d. too App. Hisp. 14.
4. a.,.b nLawv: for the use of Pisa as a base for operations in the
north-west d. ii. r6. 2, 27. r.
5. To Ma.aaa.ALwn~eov: d. xxxiv. ro. 5 ( = Strabo, iv. 183) : the Rhone
has two mouths, not five, as Timaeus said (cf. Diod. v. 25. 4).
Ptolemy (Geog. ii. ro. 2) also gave it two. On Scipio's voyage see
Livy, xxi. 26. 3-4.
9. K0.6TJYEJ.LOVO.~ CLJ.LO. KO.L auva.ywvLaTn<; KeATOU~: Livy (xxi. 26. s)
makes them Massaliotes.
42. 1. ,.poaJ.Li~a.s Tois 1Tepi Tbv 1foTa.J.Lbv Tbn-OLs: 41. 7, compared with
377
III. 42. r HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY
39· 8, suggests this was the regular Rhone crossing at Beaucaire,
and this is the view of Jullian {i. 464 n. 4; cf. Torr, 3-4; Bourgery,
Ret<. phil., 1938, 126 n. r), though he admits that a crossing south of
the Durance would leave Hannibal exposed to Scipio's attack. The
same is true of Arles, de Beer's suggestion. More probably, therefore,
the crossing was north of the Durance, but whether at Avignon
{~fommsen, Neumann), Roquemaure or Montfaucon (de Luc,
Larauza, Hennebert, Berthelot) or even so far north as Saint-
Etienne-des-Sorts (Lehmann), Pont-Saint-Esprit (Osiander), or
Bourg-Saint-Andeol {Maissiat), cannot be determined. Comparison
of 42. r and 49· 5 suggests that the crossing was roughly half-way
between the sea and the confluence of Rhone and Isere; and though
this cannot be pressed, it confirms the view that the crossing was
above the Durance. For bibliography see Jullian, loc. cit.; and for
discussion De Sanctis, iii. 2. 7o-7r. On the preparations for crossing
(§§ 2-3) cf. Livy, xxi. 26. 7--<J·
4. 11"Af\9os ••• ~a.p~apwv: cf. Livy, xxi. 26. 6, 27. r; they were Volcae,
inhabitants of both banks, who had assembled on the left bank to
oppose HannibaL
6. J.Lipos T~ TllS 8uvajUWS: including cavalry, according to Livy (xxi.
27. 5). who adds some independent detail; cf. Jullian, i. 468 n. I.
On this Hanno, one of Hannibal's most competent generals, see
Livy, xxi. 27. 2 ff.; Lenschau, RE, 'Hanno (r6L cols. 2357-8.
7. ~11"~ s~a.ICOtr\0. <7Ta8u1: 20-25 miles. Livy (xxi. 27. 4) makes it milia
quinque et uiginti ferme, and adds that the river-bed was shallower,
an irrelevant detail in a crossing on rafts.
9. 'll'pos Tl]v i-rr~ou<7a.V XP'\a.v ~ta.Ta -ro cruvTna.yj-lE:vov: 'for the com-
ing action in accordance with instructions' ; for XPela cf. ii. 29. I
(where, however, Tofi uuvTeTayp.lvov means 'of the forces marshalled
against each other').
43. 1. -rils 'll'EJ.111"TTJS vuKTOS: i.e. since the Rhone was reached. Hanni-
bal had spent two days building and acquiring boats (42. 3). On the
third day barbarians contested the crossing, and Hanno marched
north the third night (42. 6). After marching 25 miles he stopped,
built rafts, crossed the river, occupied a strong point and rested
EKElVTJY T1jv ryp.€pm' {42. 9). This is apparently the day after Hanno
set out; and P. seems to imply that he started back the next night
a little before dawn. This night, evidently the fourth, P. here speaks
of as Tfjs Trlp.1TTTJ>; either this is an error or P. has compressed the
events of his source so as to omit one day. Certainly a little over
24 hours is short enough time for a 25-mile march, a river crossing,
and the rest preparatory to a further 20 miles with a battle at the
end; and Livy (xxi. :j. 6) records that 'exercitus (i.e. Hannonis) ...
fessus quiete unius diei refidtur ... postero die profecti .. .'.
378
HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY III. 45· 6
3. t~ u'!repSe~(ou Kat 1rapd. TO f!eulla.: 'upstream and directly aga.inst
the current·.
4. Tois O.ywyeucnv ••. ola.K~tov-ros: cf. Livy, xxi. 27. g, 'equorum pars
magna nantes loris a puppibus trahebantur'. Livy adds that several
were carried across on the ships with saddles and reins, ready for
immediate action.
8. lK'ITAT}KnKOV Kai 1rapa.aTO.TtKOV aywv(as: cf. XViii. 25. I for a
parallel description, involving two armies and spectators (at Cynos-
cephalae). In both cases (as also in v. 48. 5 ff.) there is conscious
writing up; and, as in i. 44· 5, P. may be influenced by Thucydides'
description of the battle in Syracuse harbour. Such passages deviate
from the austere standard demanded (e.g. in ix. r), and make con-
cessions to the more sensational form of composition which P.
derides (e.g. ii. 56. IQ-13, etc.). On the words 1TO.paoogws (§g), 7Tapa-
.\6yov (§ 10), and 7Tapdbo~ov (§ 12) cf. CQ, 1945, 8--9.
44. 5. -rous ~aatAlO'Kous -rous 'ITepi MaytAov: cf. Livy, xxi. 29. 6,
'Boiorum legatorum regulique Magali aduentus'. Livy puts the
arrival and speech of the Gauls after the cavalry skirmish with
Scipio's men had been reported to Hannibal; in P. this news reaches
him only in 45· This divergence, and Livy's reference to the Boii,
shows him to be following not P. but probably Silenus via Coelius
(cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 183).
10-12. Hannibal's speech. This bears little resemblance to the highly
coloured version in Livy (xxi. .30. 2-n), which is designed to en-
courage an army depressed by the news of the cavalry defeat. The
parallel between To p.t!ytO'Tov 7]vvaTat nov €pywv (§ n) and 'postquam
multo maiorem partem itineris emensam cernant' (Livy, xxi. 30. 5)
may be coincidental; and it remains uncertain whether P.'s speech
is wholy fictitious. however, above, p. 14.
12. uvOpas aya6ous y(vea6at Kat .• , Q.~(ous: cf. II6. II, XVi. 9· 2,
avl]p ..• dya8os yev6p.evo<; Kal •.• fhvrlfh'I')S' ~to<;, etc. For the phraseo-
logy. borrowed from chancellery jargon, cf. Schulte, 49·
45. 2. Losses itt the skirmish; d. Livy, xxi. zg. 3, 'uictores ad centum
sexaginta (quadragintaGrott.) nee omnes Romani, sed pars Gallorum.
uicti amplius ducenti ceciderunt'.
6. T) s~aiCOlltST] TWV &']piwv: cf. Livy, xxi. z8. s-r2, who also retails
the version found in Frontinus (Strat. i. 7· 2). The problem interested
P. as a student of tactics. Whether boats could have successfully
towed a raft of elephants across the Rhone, which in its lower
reaches flows at the rate of 2·5 metres a second, is questionable. But
the reconstruction of J. Philipp (Klio, rgn, 343-54), favourably
mentioned by Klotz (Livius, r28), according to which the boats were
anchored at intervals across the river, and the raft forced across from
379
III. 45· 6 HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY
one set of guide-ropes to another by the current, though it does
credit to his technical ingenuity, can be reconciled with the authorities
only by a wholly arbitrary contamination of Livy and P., and by
the utmost violence to both texts. Philipp contends that both
accounts go back ultimately to Silenus, but that P. followed him
slavishly into error, an improbable view.
46. I. K.o.Ta T~v li~~o.ow Toil 'ITOTo.~ou: 'at the point of entrance into
the river', i.e. the point where the raft entered it The first two rafts
thus appear to have been wholly on land. For their width cf. Livy,
xxi. 28. 7, quinquaginta (pedes) latam. Thus a platform of this width,
and several rafts long, projected into the river at right-angles to the
bank; the upper (northern) side of this platform, 200ft. long, was
fastened to trees on the bank (§ s).
4. To 'IT8.v ~t"uy~a. Tijs 'ITpo~oM]s: 'the whole projecting pier'. For its
length cf. Livy, xxi. 28. 7, ducentos longam pedes. P.'s phrase suggests
that the two rafts on land(§ r) are excluded from the zoo ft.
S{Jo 'ITI<1l't'JYOLO.S axeS(o.s S~a.cJ>epovTWS: 'two extremely well-constructed
rafts' (for they have to stand up to the crossing); a further point is
added in TTpa> a.U-ra;; ••. O€Cuopiva;;. Philipp (Klio, rgii, 348) renders
'peczJ-liarly constructed', to suit his theory; but fna.~Ep6vTw;; never
means this in P.
5. pu~ou~K.ouvT~<S: cf. i. 27. 9, 28. 2, for the towing of the horse-
transports at Ecnomus. Philipp (ibid.) states that the boats were in
mid-stream before the platform was covered with earth; neither
P. nor Livy says anything like this.
who contaminated Silenus and Fabius; but this seems less likely.
cc
III. 49· 5 HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY
Polybian colour, in order to bring Hannibal over the Mt. Genevre
into the Taurini, creates a strong case for anyone who cares to
interpret P.'s account as one of a march through the Little St.
Bernard; and this pass is adopted by Klotz (Livius, 105, IJo),
who thinks that Coelius took the reference to the Cremonis iugum
from Silenus, but also had the inconsistent mention of the Taurini
(from Fabius).
Summarizing, one may say that P.'s narrative of the approach
to and crossing of the Alps can be reconciled with either this pass
or one of the group debouching on the valley of Susa and Turin.
It is, however, illegitimate to combine this version with Livy in the
hope of gaining further details, since Livy has contaminated two
traditions.
4· The Pass. Any final decision will depend on the relative weight
assigned to the evidence quoted above. Despite P.'s reference to the
Insubres in iii. 56. 3, Hannibal's first action in the Po valley was
apparently the taking of the chief town of the Taurini (6o. 9), which
Appian (Hann. s) calls Taurasia, and which is likely to have stood
on the site of Turin (De Sanctis, iii. 2. 68); and Livy has recorded
the strong consensus of opinion in favour of the view that Hannibal
came down among the Taurini. Arguing against Viedebantt, Ed.
Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 4rr n. r) has shown how unlikely it is that
Hannibal, having come down the Dora Baltea, should then have
lost time marching west to Turin, with Scipio at Placentia. Thus it
seems very likely (though not certain) that Hannibal reached the
Po valley via the Vaile di Susa, and so that he crossed by either the
Mt. Genevre (or one of the passes from the Durance valley a little
to its south) or the Mt. Cenis (Great or Little, or the subsidiary Col
du Clapier).
Those who accept Livy's reference to the Druentia as true and
important evidence must choose the former. But if one neglects
his secondary source (above (z)), then the details of Hannibal's
march to the 'Island', and subsequently through the territory of the
Allobroges (i.e. up the Isere valley), make it probable that his pass
was one in the Mt. Cenis group, approached by way of the Isere and
the Maurienne (the valley of the Arc). As has been pointed out, the
Mt. Genevre can be reached from the junction of the Rhone and the
I sere only by passing over two cols ; and the only reason for making
Hannibal take so difficult a route is Livy's reference to the Druentia.
The argument that the Mt. Cenis passes were not used in antiquity
has been adequately refuted, most recently by Knoflach (Klio, 1932,
405-6) who emphasizes the effects of a built road over the Mt.
Genevre in concentrating traffic through the western Alps. Thus, on
balance, the evidence seems to favour one of this group of passes.
However, a detailed identification of the various points of Hannibal's
386
HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY III. 49· 7
march, asP. describes it, is not very feasible, for P., though drawing
on a good source, is influenced to some extent by his schematic
picture of an advance up a river Rhone which runs east to west,
parallel to the Alps (cf. 47· 2-s. so. r). Such identifications have
frequently been attempted but no two agree.
This discussion is not intended to be exhaustive, but merely to
indicate the general view of the sources on which the commentary
is based; and detailed problems are reserved for treatment there.
49. 5. 1rpbs Tijv KaAou!LEV'IlV N1]aov: cf. Livy, xxi. 3r. 4, quartis
castris ad Insulam peruenit. Presumably the Gaulish name had this
meaning (d. de Beer, 23). In§ 6 P. reads -rj 8tjaKapas-; and Livy (xxi.
3r. 4) has ibi (s)arar. Editors generally emend to read fi 8' 'la&.pas and
ibi [sara, perhaps without good reason (cf. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 413
n. r); but undoubtedly, whatever name stood in the original source
common toP. and Livy, the river indicated is the Isere. The Saone
(Arar) lies far beyond Hannibal's likely line of march; and though
it is sometimes argued that Liv'}''s reading is confirmed by the
reference to the Arar in Silius Italicus (iii. 452), Silius is in fact not
describing Hannibal's march to the 'Island', but giving a general
account of the Rhone; and since Silius took his geographical em-
broideries from separate sources (cf. J. Nicol, The Historical and
Geographical Sources used by Silius Italicus (Oxford, 1936), 129 ff.),
and a reference to the Arar, its main tributary, was part of the
regular description of the Rhone (cf. SiL It. xv. SOI), Silius may be
left out of the discussion. In any case, the Saone would not correspond
to the distance from the Rhone crossing. Comparison of 39· 9 (1,400
stades from the Rhone crossing 7rpos 'T~v &.vaf3oil~v n»v .tli\7Tewv) with
so. I (8oo stades from the 'Island' to ~ Twv .tlAm;wv d.vaf3o,\1)) shows
the 'Island' to have been about 6oo stades from the crossing (prob-
ably P. obtained his 1,400 stades by adding an attested 6oo stades
up the Rhone valley to the 8oo calculated at the rate of 8o a day for
the stretch from the Isere to the 'foot of the pass': cf. so. I n.). Six
hundred stades (just under 70 miles) from Pont de l'Isere brings one
to a point between Orange and Avignon, which seems likely enough
for the crossing (cf. 42· 1 n.). This figure of 6oo stades is fatal to de
Beer's identification (14-24, cf. 26) of the aKapas with the Aygues,
which is only 39 miles north of his proposed crossing at Arles. Various
other suggested identifications of the aKapa>, ranging from the
Durance to the Saone, and including Wilkinson's Sorgue, accepted
by Conway (see the app. crit. to the Oxford Livy ad loc.), cannot
be dealt with here. For discussion see Viedebantt, Hermes, 1919,
353 n. I; DeSanctis, iii. z. 70; Jullian, i. 474 n. 3· Viedebantt (ibid.)
suggests that P. has inserted the words 7Toilvoxllov Kat mT6<f>opov by
deduction from the fact that Hannibal refitted here (§§ II-12).
7. Comparison with the Nile Delta. Jullian (i. 474 n. 3) considers this
387
III. 49· 7 HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY
forced comparison (in which the rivers and an approximately tri-
angular axfi!'-a form the only common feature) the work of one of
the Hannibal-historians; but it may well be P.'s own contribution.
The comparison Tcf 1'-"y.fBH is obviously absurd. The mountains-
Sva7Tpoao8a Kal 8va.ip.f3o>.a Kat axo;oov ws €t1TEtV &npocnm-will be
the Grande-Chartreuse. The inconsistency between this description
and the comments in 47· 9 (d. Reid, JRS, 1913, 195) is only apparent,
for there P. was criticizing accounts which made the Alps as a
whole inaccessible, but here he is speaking only of a single range.
The phrase TI]v 1'-[av 7TAo:vpav •.• i7Tt~o:V,vvat reads oddly, and Schweig-
haeuser may well be right in suspecting that opt~"' has dropped out
after 1rAwpav (d. ii. 14. 4, 14. 6).
8. SU' cHi€A4>ous ••• OTO.o~O.tovTO.S: Allobroges in Livy {xxi. 31. s-6)
who calls the elder Braneus. P. appears {so. z) to distinguish oi KaTa
ftEpos ~Y"ftoV£> nvv L4>.Aof3plywv from the f3apf3apm who accompanied
Hannibal from the 'Island' ; whereas to Livy the attacking chiefs
are simply Galli. Nevertheless, P.'s account is not inconsistent with
an assumption that the two brothers in the 'Island' were Allobroges,
and the attackers dissident chieftains of a people in a state of aTd.ats-
perhaps supporters of the younger brother. Livy may have sub-
stituted Galli, because he has meanwhile inserted 31. 9-12, taking
Hannibal across country to the Durance (cf. 49· 5-56. 4 n. (z)). Livy
represents Hannibal's aid as an act of solicited arbitration, P. as an
alliance with one side. On P.'s statement that Hannibal's attackers
were Allobroges Jullian's comment (i. 48o n. 3) is: 'il doit s'agir
de Ia tribu ligure qui occupait Ia Basse Maurienne et dont Ia capitale
(castellum ... caput regionis, T.-L. xxi. 33· n) etait non loin de Ia.'
This is a good example of the fatal method of choosing a location
and then forcing the sources into their Procrustean bed.
11. Twv ovAwv Tn va.Aa.~a. Ka.i Tli v€vOVTJK4ha.: but an extensive
replacement with Gallic weapons would raise many problems (cf.
Jullian, i. 475 n. 5), and probably it was a question merely of spears
and javelins. Cf. Livy, xxi. 31. 8, 'ob id meritum commeatu copiaque
rerum omnium, maxime uestis, est adiutus, quam infames frigoribus
Alpes praeparari cogebant'.
59. 3. axe8ov ci'll'aVTWV 'ITAWTWV KO.l 'II'OpEUTWV YfiYOVOTWV: cf. iv. 40, 2.
4. cl'ITOAEAUf1EVWV , , , TllS , , , 4>~AOTLf1La.s: for the date of composition
implied in this phrase see 57-59 n.
6. To us Tfi <PLAo'ITeUaTovvTa.s ••• ~ouAfJ1YOf1E9a. auvfim!YT.Jlo-cu KTA.:
'it will be my aim to instruct those who are curious about such
things.'
394
HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY III. 6I. 5
7. P.'s voyages and journeys: cf. 57-59 n. For P.'s pride in these cf.
xii. z8. I. 8oKet Sl /LO~ Ka.i TO Ti)S' tO'Top{a.s npO<lx:rJILO. 'TOtoiYrov avl3pa.
~1JTeiv. For references to journeys cf. 48. IZ (Alps), ix. 25. 4 (l\lasi-
nissa), x. II, 4 (New Carthage).
TfJ\1 ~sw9ev T!lUTO.LS TO.~S XWPo.LS <JUYKUpOVO'!lV 9Q.~aTTO.\I: 'the sea COn-
tigUOUS to these lands on the further side'. <JV}'KvpoiJ<Jav in this sense
is derived by Welles (364) from <JvyKvpw, by LSJ from <JV}'Kvplw.
That P. made a separate voyage into the Bay of Biscay in IJJ (so
Cuntz, 57 ff.) is unlikely (cf. Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (r)', col. I46o).
62-64. Hannibal and Scipio address their troops: cf. Livy, xxi. 40-44,
frequently echoing the version in P.; on the difference in treatment
seeR. Ullmann, Symb. Osl., I932, 57--60. In both authors the speeches
are based on commonplaces about the strength of forces and the
chances of battle (cf. Kahrstedt, iii. I65-6). Since Scipio did not
expect a major battle at this stage, his speech is clearly unhistorical,
and included partly to balance Hannibal's, partly to inflate Scipio
into a figure comparable with his opponent (d. 61. 5 n.); DeSanctis,
iii. 2. I7I. This treatment may go back to P.'s source, perhaps Fabius
(Klotz, Livius, I3I).
62. 2-11. The duel of the prisoners: cf. Livy, xxi. 42. I-4 (several
pairs fight); Zon. viii. 23. The story, probably apocryphal, interests
P. for the moral Hannibal drew from it (63. 2).
63. 3. Ti]v TUXTJV ••• a.exa.1TpOTE0ELKEVa.L: cf. Livy, xxi. 43· 5.fortuna
... praemia ... proponit. For Fortune as a power handing out prizes
for valour cf. xv. 9· 4, IO. 5, xxxii. 4· 3 (n)v dOavaa{av); von Scala,
172; Siegfried, 8I f. But often, as here, the phrase is purely formal
and 'Fortune' a mere figure of speech. See above, p. I6.
64. 1. n61TAlOS •• TOV na.oov ••• ~OT) 1TE1TEpa.LWflEVOS: cf. 6I. I. The
0
0 ~ ! 2 3 4 Km.
65. Tlte battle of Ticinus: d. Livy, xxi. 46. 3-7, 9-ro (Polybian
tradition); Zon. viii. 23; App. Hann. 5· In x. 3· 3 P. calls it TI]v
lTnrop.axlav • • • 1rept Tov Ilaoov K.aAovp.evov mm~p.&v. The skirmish
probably occurred near modern Lomello, north of the Po between
the Tic! no and the Sesia; for P. mentions no second river after the
Ticinus, yet Scipio advanced westward cautiously for one day (65. r)
and part of another (65. 2). Livy (xxi. 45· 3) puts it near Victumulae;
this is either an annalistic invention or Victumulae is not Biella (a
mining town east of Ivrea) but some unknown village west of the
Ticinus (De Sanctis, iii. 2. 91-92). Nepos' statement (Hann. 4· r)
that the battle was fought Clastidii apud Padum is sheer confusion;
both Valerius Maximus (v. 4· 2) and Florus (i. 22. 12) speak of the
battle of the Ticinus. P.'s source appears still to be the pro-Car-
thaginian Greek writer whom he used for Hannibal's crossing of the
Alps, and who is distinguished for his exact indications of time-
probably Silenus. Cf. DeSanctis, iii. 2. 172; Beloch, HZ, rJ4, 1915, Iff.
5. wpo8E!1Evos Tous O.~~:oVTlO'TQ,; ~~:a.l. ••• l1Twe'i:s: cf. Livy, xxi. 46. 5,
'iaculatores et Gallos equites in fronte locat'.
To us S!l 1\o~wous ev 11nwm~ Ka.Ta.O'T~ua.;: cf. Livy, ibid., 'Romanos
sociorumque quod roboris fuit in subsidiis'. But in subsidiis is a mis-
understanding of Livy or his source (Coelius), for tv p.mlJ1T4J means
here 'in jne facing the front' (d. i. 26. 13 n., v. 82. ro), not 'behind'
(Paton).
7. 1~mo TQ,S '!Tap' auTwv 'lJ\.a.s: 'behind (not "between" (Paton)) their
own cavalry squadrons'.
66-74. Events leading up to the battle of the Trebia: the battle. P.'s
account of the battle best fits a site on the left bank of the Trebia,
but Livy locates the battle clearly on the right bank. The problem is
conveniently summarized by B. L. Hallward (CAH, viii. 709, with
bibliography, 726, supplementing Kromayer, AS, iii. r. 47 ff.).
Kromayer's discussion (AS, iii. 1. 47-103) forms the basis for all
detailed consideration of the battle, and his account is in essentials
convincing; cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 92-99. Livy's evidence and points
of controversy are discussed in the notes. There are useful maps in
Kromayer, AS, iii. r, Karte 3; Kromayer-Veith, Schlachtenatlas,
Rom. Abt. i, Blatt 3; and De Sanctis, iii. z (at end).
399
III. 66. I HANNIBAL IN THE PO VALLEY
66. 1. ivl TTjv Toll n&.Sou y£q,upa.v: i.e. that by which he had crossed
(64. r).
av£o8wv q,Maa.l Sla.~l~aaa.s Ta <TTpa.Tov£Sa.: 'hastening to get his
legions over with all speed'. ,P8acn:u in P. is 'to do something quickly';
cf. 65. 7; Hesselbarth, 15.
2. uvo Tou Tpa.u~La.Tos: first mentioned here; cf. x. 3· 4 n. for the
story of Scipio's wound, and how the later Africanus saved his
father's life (Coelius gave the credit to a Ligurian slave: Livy, xxi.46.
ro). For discussion see DeSanctis, iii. 2. 25 n. 39, listing other refer-
ences to the incident. (B-W2conjectures, but does not print, lhro Tov.)
3. ltws IL£" Toll vpwTou voTa.~Loli: the obvious meaning is 'the first
he came to' (cf. 68. s. 1rpwTovs >..o,Povs), viz. the Ticinus and its bridge
(cf. 64. r), not the Po bridge (so Klotz, Livius, 132). Livy (xxi. 47.
2-3), who follows the same tradition, has been misled into imagining
that Hannibal was checked at the Po, and omits any reference here
to the Ticinus. Livy also mentions the capture of the 6oo Romans;
but they are taken segniter ratem soluentes, for the Po bridge was a
bridge of boats (whereas P.'s is made of planks; cf. § 4, Tas 11Ada-ras
niJv aavLSwv w.:ll1Taafdvas (as in ii. 5· 5); Livy, xxi. 45· r (on the
Ticinus bridge)). Not to have destroyed the Ticinus bridge would
have been sheer folly (cf. Kromayer, AS, iii. 1. 58 n. z).
5. ~L£Ta.~a.M~L£Vos a.o8ls Ets Tuva.vT£a. KTA.: viz. Hannibal wheeled
round and for two days (§ 6) marched westward up the left bank of
the Po, looking for a convenient place to cross. Kromayer (loc. cit.)
locates his crossing just below the confluence with the Tanaro; but
this is necessarily hypothetical. Livy (xxi. 47· s-6) rejects Coelius'
story that Hannibal forded the river with the elephants on his right
to break the current in favour of the version of potiores auctores,
which coincides with that of P. (cf. Klotz, Livius, Ios).
6. iA.a5pou~q,: cf. 93· 4, ol11£ nvv >..u;ovpy,wv T.:Tayp)vos, the officer in
command of the service corps, mentioned elsewhere (ro2. 6, n4. 7,
u6. 6; Livy, xxii. 46. 7); cf. Lenschau, RE, 'Hasdrubal (8)', cols.
:2473-4 (inaccurate on this passage).
tXPT)I!ant£ Tois ••• vp£o-~£uTa.is: cf. Livy, xxi. 47· 7, legationibus
Gallomm audiendis moratus. Livy adds that Mago and the cavalry
pressed straight on down stream, after crossing, and in a single day
Placentiam ad hastes contendunt. For XPTJf.4aTt~nv, 'give audience to',
d. P. Petr. iii. clxiv (the Gurob papyrus), col. iv, l. 24 (cf. Holleaux,
Etudes, iii. 290).
9. O'Tpa.T01TE8t:UO'O.S vt:plvoAlV n>.o.KEVTlO.V: cf. Livy, xxi. 47· 3· 'prius
Placentiam peruenere, quam satis sciret Hannibal ab Ticino pro-
fectos'. The site of this camp, Scipio's first after the cavalry skirmish,
is a crucial point in the controversy about the subsequent battle. In
the manceuvres which now followed, the Roman army twice crossed
the Trebia, once in retirement after Gallic desertions (68. 4-5), and
BATTLE OF THE TREBIA III. 66. I I
again just before the battle (72. 4-5); hence the battle-site and this
camp were on the same side of the Trebia, If Scipio's camp (and so
by implication Hannibal's) was on the right bank (so Livy), it follows
that after the Gallic desertions Scipio marched west across the
Trebia and away from his base at Placentia-a highly improbable
move, which would put the Trebia between himself and the ap-
proaching troops of Sempronius; cf. Kromayer, AS, iii. I. so ff. The
likelihood is that Scipio camped west of the Trebia, and retired east
to await Sempronius in the shelter of Placentia; which would imply
that the battle was fought on the left bank. Kromayer (AS, iii. I.
59) identifies Scipio's camp with Stradella, a point 30 km. west
of Placentia, where the spurs of the Apennines descend to within
3 km. of the Po, and possessing strategic advantages already noted
by Napoleon I (Commentaires, i (Paris, x867), 126, quoted by
Kromayer, AS, iii. I. 6o n. I). But Stradella lies nearer to Clastidium,
and can hardly be described as 1r1:pl. 1r6Aw IIAa.KevTlav. Moreover, a
retreat to the Trebia from Stradella in the face of Hannibal's cavalry
superiority presents 'certain difficulties' (Hallward, C AH, viii. 709).
It therefore seems safer to assume (cf. Kahrstedt, iii. 390 n. 2; Leh-
mann, HZ, n6, 1916, 107) that Scipio's camp was not far west of
the Trebia, in some place such as Rottofreno, behind the R. Loggia
and the rather larger R. Tidone.
An ingenious hypothesis, which would remove most of the diffi-
culties, is T. Frank's suggestion (]RS, 1919, 202-7; cf. U. Ewins,
BSR, 1952, 55) that before its destruction in 2oo and refounding in
190 Placentia was situated at Stradella; Scipio's camp 1repl 1roAtv
IIAa.KeVTlav would be there, and the contradictions in Livy and P.
would be reconciled. But on this assumption there are no good
grounds for Scipio's retreat to the right bank of the Trebia away
from Placentia, after the Gallic desertion (68. 4) ; cf. Hallward, C AH,
viii. 709. See further the arguments of R. Hanslik (RE, 'Placentia',
cols. 18g8-9) on the relationship of the historical Placentia to the
earlier Celtic road system. Hence without archaeological evidence
Frank's hypothesis must be rejected. On the founding of Placentia.
cf. 40. 5 n.
10-ll. va.po.y£v6ru;:vos 8EuTEpo.'ios ••• TU Tphn va.p~Ta.~E KTX.: cf.
Livy, xxi. 47· 8, 'paucis post diebus sex milia a Placentia castra
communiuit et postero die in conspectu hostium acie derecta pote-
statem pugnae fecit'. P. makes Hannibal encamp after Scipio rejects
his challenge, Livy before-perhaps because he or his source attri-
buted to Hannibal the Roman custom of encamping each night.
P. (§ n) puts Hannibal's camp about so stades from the Roman,
Livy (loc. cit.) 6 m.p. from Placentia. The distances tally, but Livy
has WIOngly assumed Scipio's camp to be close to the city, whereas
in fact it was some distance west of it.
Dd
III. 67. I HANNIBAL IN THE PO VALLEY
67. 1-3. The Gallic desertion- cf. Livy, xxi. 48. 1-2 (less detailed).
Livy gives the same figures, but minimizes the caedes.
6. Tm)s Tpei:s O.vopas: cf. 40. 9, for these I I Iuiri coloniae deducendae.
On the Boian hostages with the Romans (§ 7) cf. 40. 6 n., 40. 7,
40. Io.
8. hr~ T4i yeyovcm rrapaarrov8'1]..-a.TL: the Gallic massacre and deser-
tion, as well as the Boian action.
9. ~myevo..-EVTJS Tfls vuKT6s: 'when night came on', evidently the
next night, for the Gauls did not desert until the morning watch
(§ 2); cf. Livy, xxi. 48. 4, quarta uigilia noctis insequentis projectus.
(Paton, 'that same night', is misleading.)
ws errt TOV Tpe~(av 1TOTO....OV KTA.: cf. Uvy, xxi. 48. 4. 'ad Trebiam
fluuium iam in loca altiora collesque impeditiores equiti castra
mouet'. On the hypothesis adopted (66. 9) Scipio retired south-east
across the Trebia to the protection of the hills on the east bank, and
of Placentia. Kromayer (AS, iii. I. 6z) calculates the time required
for both sides to reach the Trebia, assuming Scipio's camp to have
been at Stradella; but such calculations depend on many im-
ponderables. Certainly a march of 25 km. to the Trebia (if Scipio
kept to the foothills) would have been extremely hazardous in view
of Hannibal's cavalry superiority; for even setting out before dawn
Scipio had little start of Hannibal's Numidians. If Scipio's camp was
nearer the Trebia, the risk was proportionately less. Beloch (HZ,
II4, 1915, 3) regards the retreat to the Trebia as a doublet of that
after the Ticinus skirmish, based on an annalistic account which attri-
buted it to Gallic treachery rather than to Scipio's defeat; for a
valid criticism of this radical treatment of the sources see Lehmann,
HZ, II6, I9I6, 101 ff.
I
1T~O"Tfi.UWV Ttl..., TE TWV T01TWV
r< ) 1 f ' "' ""' """
oxupOTTJT~ KO.L TOl'i rrapOtKOUCI"l TWV aup.~
p.6.xwv: Livy (loc. cit.) omits the second factor. The Gauls who con-
trolled the A pennine passes towards Genua were the friendly
Anares (ii. !7• 7, 32. I, 34· 5).
69. 1. 1rpa~lKo1r1]aac; ••• KA.aaT(Olov: cf. Livy, xxi. 48. 9-10, who
calls the Brundisian traitor Dasius, and gives the bribe as nummi
aurei quadringenti.
3. 0ELyJ1a ••• tK<jlEpElV TTJS acjlETepac; 1TpOalpeaEW'); 'to provide an
example of his policy'; cf. iv. 24. 9, xxxix. 5· r, KaAov odyf.La Tij>
•pwf.Lalwv 7rpoatp.!at:ws. (Paton, 'make a display of leniency', is in-
accurate.)
4. ETLJl"lae J1EyaA.etws: 'he rewarded ... generously'; d. Xen. Cyrop.
iii. 3· 6 for this sense of rtf.LB.v (and P. iii. 99· 6). Despite Livy, xxi.
48. 9, nee sane magno pretio, both honour and rewards are involved.
5-14. Sempronius assists the Gauls against Hannibal: cf. Livy, xxi. 52.
On Livy's treatment of the incident cf. Sontheimer, Klio, 1934, 103 ff.
10. TaL'> ~cjleope(alS: 'with reserves', rather than 'from the garrison
post' (Schweighaeuser).
71-74. The battle of the Trebia: cf. Livy, xxi. 54-56. 8. P. depends in
the main on his pro-Carthaginian Greek source (probably Silenus);
Livy is very close toP., and the likelihood is that he foiiows Silen us via
Coelius (the detail of the elephants in s6. I may be from that source:
it is not in P. ; cf. Kahrstedt, iii. r68). De Sanctis (iii. 2. 172, 177)
argues that Livy's account goes 'Qack indirectly to P. himself, and
that divergences have been introduced by an intermediate source.
For a stylistic discussion of the two accounts see Sontheimer, Klio,
1934, 106 ff.
71. l. ey£veTo vpos T/il O'Tf>llTTJYEiv: 'he set himself to outmanreuvre'.
The comments on ambushes in§§ 2-4 read like P.'s own.
4. nl. .•• ev£aTJiJ.O. Twv ovXwv: 'the blazoned shields'.
5. TOlS auv€8po's: cf. 20. 8 n.
8. 8€Ka ••• EKnaTov E'!T'LAEsal'evov: cf. Uvy, xxi. 54· 3, 'singuli uobis
nouenos ex turmis manipulisque uestri similes eligite'. Livy is the
more correct, for P. gives the total(§ 9) as r,ooo foot and r,ooo horse.
9. Ets TftV eve8pav: as the possible site of Mago's ambush Kromayer
(AS, iii. r. 67-69) suggests the bed of the Rio Colomba or Rio
Gerosa, small streams to the west of the Trebia, running north into
that river: Delbri.ick (i. 303) and Beloch (HZ, n4, 1915, 9) reject the
story of the ambush as Roman propaganda designed to mitigate the
defeat; but P. was a serious judge of such matters, and is to be
followed here.
72. 2. eis €saKwxLXlous: for the numbers on both sides see Kromayer,
AS, iii. r. 94-98; DeSanctis, iii. 2. 88-<:Jo; Hermes, 1935, 275-7.
(a) Carthaginian: Hannibal's total force is given (§ 8) as 20,000
infantry (Spaniards, Gauls, and Africans), over ro,ooo cavalry,
404
BATTLE OF THE TREBIA III. 72. 2
and 8,ooo "Aoyxo~opovi: Kat Ba"Ata.pE£1:. Livy (xxi. 55· 2) gives the same
figures for cavalry and light-armed, but includes none for the in-
fantry. Taken literally P.'s figures should exclude Mago's I,ooo foot
and 1,ooo horse (p. g), and the ::-.lumidian cavalry already sent
ahead (71. 10). But the latter at least are probably included, since
at Cannae the cavalry were c. :to,ooo (II4. 5); moreover, P.'s source
probably had the total number of Numidians, but is less likely to
have known the number sent ahead (which is not given). Mago's
numbers are known however, and added to the rest bring the total
to 4o,ooo, which looks suspiciously like an estimate. If it is, then so
presumably are the figures for foot, horse, and light-armed. But
even as an estimate the total may still be approximately correct;
if so, Hannibal's army had been swelled by 14,ooo Gauls (d. 56.4 for the
26,ooo troops with which he entered Italy). That this is not greatly
exaggerated is clear from the fact that the Gauls constituted Hanni-
bal's centre and suffered the heaviest losses (Kromayer, AS, iii. r.
96 n. 2; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 90) ; hence Hannibal's total was perhaps
slightly under, or around, 4o,ooo.
(b) Roman: these are given (§ n) as 16,ooo foot, 2o,ooo allied foot,
and4,ooo cavalry. Livy (xxi. 55· 4) omits to mention the cavalry, adds
auxilia Cenomanorwm, and erroneously makes the foot 18,ooo--a
discrepancy which may go back to Coelius, but in any case is of no
significance. According to Livy (xxi. 17. 5 ff.) the total number of
troops assigned to Sempronius and Scipio in 218 was 42,ooo foot and
4,ooo horse; and both Scipio's original legions had been transferred
to the Po valley (4o. 14 n.). These figures tally with those for the
Trebia, if one reckons the 6,ooo 11'E,aKOVTta7'a.i mentioned here (§ 2)
as additional to the forces listed in § u. Because P. states (§ 12)
that the Roman forces drawn up amounted to the usual strength
of a double consular army, Gelzer (Hermes, 1935, 276 n. 1) assumes
that the figures in § n include these 6,ooo 11'E,aKollTLC17'al, and hence
that there is no correlation between P.'s figures and those of Livy.
But it seems more likely that P.'s figures for the Trebia, i.e. 46,ooo
adding in the 6,ooo 7TE,aKovTLC17'a.l, represent the total of the two
consular armies present; that is why they coincide with those given
by Livy. But the real number at the Trebia could only be arrived
at by subtracting something for the heavy casualties beforehand
(e.g. 40. 12), and adding a few for the troops brought by P. Scipio
from his Spanish-bound legions (56. 5, p,€7 o"Alywv; cf. Livy, xxi.
32. 5), and for the loyal Cenomani who fought with the Romans
(Livy, xxi. 55· 4)-despite Kromayer's scepticism (AS, iii. 1. 98 n. 4,
'nur erfunden, urn jemand zu haben, der zuerst vor den Elefanten
fliehen konnte'). These figures are irrecoverable; but the Roman
total was probably well below 46,ooo. DeSanctis (iii. 2. 89) estimates
it at 4o,ooo; but his calculations are hard to follow, and in any case
405
III. 72. 2 HAXNIBAL IN THE PO VALLEY
the words J1TatpoJ1-<:Vo> Tip •. • 11A~OH (§ z) imply that the Romans had
a numerical superiority, even though the Carthaginians had the
advantage in horse. The fact that the phrase is used in a passage
prejudiced against Sempronius (cf. 68. 12) does not invalidate it as
evidence for the Roman numbers.
'ITEtaKoVTI.O'Tao;: i.e. uetites: elsewhere translated ypourfooJl.O.xot.
3. TrEpi. XELJ.lEp~vO.o; Tpomio;: i.e. December. If Hannibal was on the
top of the pass in late September (34. 6 n., 54· I n.), the Ticinus
skirmish fell at the end of that month. But Sempronius could have
received orders to leave Sicily by mid-September, if the message
was dispatched on Scipio's arrival at Pisa at the end of August (cf.
61. 9 n.). Forty days from Rhegium (not Lilybaeum; cf. 6I. ron.,
68. I4 n.) to Ariminum implies two months for the journey from
Lilybaeum. Hence Sempronius' army will have reassembled at
Ariminum about IS November and reached Placentia about the end
of that month. How long was spent in the camp beside the Trebia
is not known; but these calculations put the battle in December.
Dunbabin (CR, 1931, I22 5) has a chronology which puts the battle
into January 217; but this is based on what has been argued is the
erroneous view that Hannibal was on the pass in mid-October (d.
54· In.). See further Miltner, Hermes, 1943, 3 (c. IS December).
8. 1Tpoayaywv ws OKTW cnalha: Beloch (HZ, 1!4, I915, ro) detects a
Roman source (8 stades mille passus); but see i. 17. 8 n.
9. 8~' clJ.l<POT~pWV 1TpOE~clhETO: 'placed them as COVer all along both
wings'. For this use of Sui cf. ii. 68. 8. \Vhere were the elephants?
In front of the wings of the phalanx or in front of the wings proper,
the cavalry? Livy (xxi. 55· 2) says 'in cornibus circumfudit decem
milia equitum, et ab cornibus in utramque partem diuersos (diuisos
Aldus Edd., but Conway compares Caes. BC, i. 40. 5) elephantos
statuit'. In fact diuersam in the corresponding passage in Caesar
refers to troops on either side of a hill, fadng in opposite directions,
which is no parallel to the Punic line at Trebia; and diuisos should
probably be preferred. Since the elephants later (Livy, xxi. 55· 7)
converge ab extremis cornibus they are apparently imagined as being
on the outside of the cavalry. In Appian (Hann. 7) they are in front
of the cavalry (Tot)s 0~ Zmrlas EKeAwcrev ti1Tlcrw nov JAerfoO.vrwv aTp€J1.€tV).
But P.'s meaning is surely 'in front of the wings of the phalanx';
cf. 74· 2 (with 73· 7, if;tAwOlvrwv Twv Tfjs ¢a>..o.yyos KepdTwv), where the
elephants attack what are clearly the legionaries KaT<i 11pocrWTTov.
Livy's account of the role of the elephants at the Trebia is full of
impossibilities {cf. Kromayer, AS, iii. I. 71 n. 2), partly due to con-
fusion and partly designed to exaggerate the uirtus of the opposing
Romans (Sontheimer, Klio, 1934, n2 ff.).
U. KnTd TOS £LB~ap.~va.s Trap' aoTois Ta~e~s: viz. in the three lines of
the manipular army, hastati, principes, and triarii, from front to
406
BATTLE OF THE TREBIA III. 74· 8
rear; cf. vi. 21. 7 ff.; E. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 199 ff. The information
on strength which follows {§ 12) is especially meant for Greek
readers.
74. 1. TWY EIC TijS eveSpa.s No .... o:l.Swv: cf. Livy, xxi. 55· 9· M ago
Numidaeque. There were of course r,ooo foot as well as cavalry; but
Holzapfel's emendation Aoyaowv is unlikely in view of Livy.
2. 1rpos Tov U1To~<e£11evov 1ToTa.iJ.ov: i.e. the Trebia. The KEpaTa which
flee are the wings of the infantry (cf. 73· 7), not the cavalry which
formed the wings of the whole line.
4. oi Se 1TEpl. Ta<; 1TpWTO.S xwpa.s: i.e. the hastati and principes.
6. !lET' aacjla.Aeta.s C11TEXWPTJGO.Y ELS nxa.KEYTLO.Y: it is reasonable to
assume a bridge over the Trebia near its confluence with the Po,
over which these 1o,ooo survivors could have fled. On the hypothesis
that the battle was fought on the right bank, or if Placentia was at
Stradella (d. 66. 9 n.), there was no river to cross; but a march
of 20-25 km. to Stradella with Hannibal's cavalry abroad seems
improbable. Livy's account (xxi. 56. 3 ff.) assumes the battle to be
on the right bank; but this is probably a misunderstanding of the
tradition more correctly recorded in P. Cf. Hallward, CAH, viii. 709.
7. U1To TE TWY 9T)p(wv Ka.l. TWY l1mewv: i.e. the Punic cavalry had
returned from pursuing the Roman in time to help wipe out the
remnants of the Roman infantry.
8. ot ••. Sla.cjluyovTEs Twv 1re~wv Ka.i To 1TAE~O"Tov iJ.Epos Twv i1r1Tewv KTA.:
Kromayer (AS, iii. r. 74 n. r) takes ot owfvyovns to mean such
4°7
IlL 74· 8 HANNIBAL IN THE PO VALLEY
remnants as were left behind in Scipio's camp; but they are clearly
a subdivision Twv Aomwv, who are those left when the 1o,ooo have
escaped from the battle, and they survived by making their way,
like the bulk of the cavalry, across the Trebia. Joined no doubt by
any men from Scipio's camp (though P. does not mention these),
they v.rill have fallen in with the 1o,ooo (TJ 7Tponp1Jp.ivov avanJp.a.)
near Placentia.
10. -rou~; 8£ uAEiou~; O.uoAwA~vcu Twv KEATCJv: for Hannibal had put
them in the centre, where the Romans broke through (72. 8, 74· 4).
The subsequent deaths from rain and snow(§ u} are after the battle
(cf. Miltner, Hermes, 1943, 1o-u}; according to Livy (xxi 56. 6)
elephanti prope omnes perished at the Trebia, seven more in the course
of the winter (xxi. 58. u), leaving one (as here} on which Hannibal
crossed the marshes of the Arno (xxii. z. 10).
79. 8. TJf:lEpa.s TE1'1'a.pa.s Kat TpEi:s vuKTa.s: cf. Livy, xxii. 2. 7, 'maxime-
que omnium uigiliae conficiebant per quadriduum iam et tres nodes
toleratae'. From Pistoia to Florence is only 35 km.; hence there is
either exaggeration or misunderstanding. Perhaps the four days and
three nights represent the time taken by the whole army (Kromayer,
AS, iii. r. 13o-2); or they may originally have covered a longer
section of the march. Certainly it is physically impossible for an
army to maintain an unbroken march for 84 hours. See DeSanctis,
iii. 2. 107.
80. L Trpos Tois ~Aeu~ Ka.TeaTpa.ToTI'EOEuae: this does not imply that
the marsh was in close proximity to Arretium, for Hannibal may
have learnt indirectly of Flaminius' whereabouts (Livy, xxii. 3· I, says
per praemissos exploratores). In fact 82. I makes it clear that the camp
was near Faesulae.
3. oxAoKOTI'OV ••• Ka.l OT)f:l«ywyov; on the hostility shown by P.
and his source towards Flaminius cf. ii. 21. 8 n.
{';) Dt.Utitore
~ /sol11 Maggiore
l. A I< E THASIMEIVE
• - Komnns
km, m.
0 ,
~3---~
1000
93. 1. Hannibal's position: d. Livy, xxii. 15. 12, duo inde milia
hastes aberant. On Kromayer's thesis Hannibal lay under the hill
of S. Felice directly opposite Borgo S. Antonio and Pietravairano.
93. 3-94. 6. The stratagem of the oxen: d. Livy, xxii. r6-18; Sil. It.
vii. 272 ff.; Plut. Fab. 6-7; App. Hann. 14-15; Zon. viii. 26; Nepos,
I!ann. 5· 2; Frontin. Strat. i. 5· 28; Polyaen. exc. 46. ro. The story,
though fantastic, appears to be true; a similar ruse was employed
during the war of 1914-18 when a herd of buffaloes was used to force
a mined position on the Halo-Austrian front (De Sanctis, iii. 2.
so n. 79). The source appears to be from the Carthaginian side (De
Sanctis, iii. 2. 173}. On Hasdrubal (§ 4} cf. 66. 6 n.
93. 5. il'II'EpJ3oXT]v nva tJ-Em~u K£~l1Ev'I}V ••• crnvwv: the depression
adjoining Pietravairano, on Kromayer's hypothesis (AS, iii. x. 228 ff.,
with photographs}. DeSanctis (iii. 2. 127), who recognizes the faults
in Nissen's reconstruction at this point, himself suggests that the
demonstration with the oxen was made on the far (i.e. north} side
of his assumed pass between Cales and Teanum, towards Visciano;
but this cannot be described as between Hannibal's camp and the
pass, however far the former is moved 'a nord-est (DeSanctis \vrites
429
III. 93· 5 THE CAMPAIGN OF 217 IN ITALY; TRASIMENE
"nord-ovest") di quel che non sia collocato sulla carta del Kro-
mayer'.
7. all-a. Se T~ KAiva.~ To TplTov llEpo~ Tfj~ vu~<To~: about 3 a.m.
94. 4. Ka.Tcl. Tov vo~TJTTJV: Homer, Od. x. 232, 258; the quotation adds
absolutely nothing to the passage, and looks like a piece of mere
ornament; cf. Wunderer, ii. 27-28. Cf. v. 38. Io, xii. 27. Io-u, xv.
I2. 9, I6. 3, xxxiv. I4- 8, fg. 208.
7-10. Fabius returns to Rome; Hannibal thinks of winter quarters.
Hannibal had reached the Adriatic about 5 July (86. 9 n.), and his
stay in Daunia probably took him to the end of the month. On this
reckoning he could be in the ager F alern·us by 7 August, but will
hardly have stayed long in this dangerous situation. Livy's state-
ment (xxii. IS- 2), that Fabius 'aestatis reliquum extraxit, ut Hanni-
bal destitutus ab spe summa ope petiti certaminis iam hibernis locum
circumspectaret', need not imply a date later than the second half
of August; and Hannibal can easily have been back in Daunia
(Ioo. I f.) by the beginning of September. See DeSanctis, iii. 2. I2I;
below Ioo. 6 n.
9. iv[ nva.~ ••• 9ucr(a.~ et~ TTJV 'Pwi.LTJV: cf. Livy, xxii. I8. 8; Plut.
Fab. 8. I; App. Hann. I2; Zon. viii. 26; Sil. It. vii. 38I ff. Fabius'
recall was probably a reflection of a growing popular feeling against
his policy (cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 5I). Livy records that Hannibal
retired gradually through the country of the Paeligni into Apulia,
and was at Gereonium (Gerunium), withFabiusencamped inLarinate
agro near by, when the latter was recalled. See Ioo. I-2.
Cannae (Gervasio, loc. cit.) have been variously dated to the Lombard period
and the Middle Ages; Ludovico (op. cit.) uses them to support a reconstruction
of the battle, which locates the final clash between the hills of Cannae and
Fontanella. This view was published too late for detailed consideration here; it
seems unlikely.
436
THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANNAE III. ro7
to the river was a three days' march. At the end of the second day
they encamped about 6 miles (so stades) from Hannibal (no. 1),
in a flat and treeless country, suited to cavalry, and Aemilius wished
to advance into the hills; but Varro, who commanded the third day,
continued towards the enemy, and was involved with them. On the
fourth day (ds -r~v l7Tavpwv) Aemilius, judging it inadvisable to
fight and dangerous to withdraw, encamped on the bank of the
Aufidus (no. 8}; -rip 8~ -rpt-rr.p 7TI.pav, dm:l O~af3aaEWS 7Tpds nl.s ava-roA&.s,
lj3d).ETO xap:um, about 10 stades from his main camp (no. xo). The
natural sense of this is that the Romans carne east or south-east
towards the Aufidus, encamped on its left bank and sent a third
of their forces over to make a smaller camp east of the ford, on the
right bank. If P. pictured the Aufidus flowing north, there is no
difficulty; and the battle will have been fought on the right bank
(n3. z}.
Against this De Sanctis (iii. z. 137) urges these objections:
(i} The Romans will not have marched straight across the plain
of Tavoliere to the Aufidus, but must have followed the hillier route
via Aecae and Herdonia; for it was only when they were so stades
from Hannibal that they reached flat country. In fact no. 1-2
warrants the opposite conclusion. P. here describes -rovs 7TEp£g
-r67Tovs as flat and treeless; this does not, however, imply that the
Romans had now for the first time reached the plain, but simply
that on coming in sight of Hannibal Aernilius realized that this was
no country in which to meet him. He therefore proposed advancing
into the hills. In a detailed analysis of the gradients and terrain
Kromayer shows (AS, iv. 6rs} that the route through Luceria, Aecae,
Herdonia, and Canusium is not safer than that via Arpi; nor were
the Romans seeking to evade battle, rather they were seeking it
(108. 1). Moreover, if the Romans came via Canusium, it was evi-
dently near that town that they caught sight of Hannibal; but the
area between Canusiurn and Cannae is hillier than that between Her-
donea and Canusium, and there is no plain in that part of the Aufi-
dus valley corresponding to that in which Hannibal attacked Varro,
(ii} In no. 10 the smaller Roman camp is 'east of the ford'; this
implies that the Romans were advancing along the river eastwards,
and that the Carthaginians were nearer the sea. De Sanctis believes
the little camp to have been on the left bank; hence, when Hannibal
moves his camp over to the same side as the larger Roman camp
(ru. n}, he is moving from the left bank to the right. in order to
unite all his forces near Cannae. But P. clearly regards his move,
following a battle speech to his troops, as aggressive. Moreover, this
interpretation depends on the faulty view that P. believed the
Aufidus to flow to the south-east (see above) ; whereas if it flowed
north, 'east of the ford' clearly means 'on the right bank'.
437
III. 107 THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANNAE
(iii) Various secondary sources refer to the effects of the Volturnus
wind blowing in the faces of the Romans during the battle (Livy,
xxii. 46. g; App. Hann. 2o; Zan. ix. r); and this was the south-east
or east-south-east wind (Eurus) or scirocco (Sen.Qu.aest. nat. v. I6. 4;
Pliny, Nat. Mst. ii. ug). P., however, has no reference to this wind,
and it may well be an invention of Roman propaganda, like the story
of the sun which P. rejects (II4. 8). Even if it is true, it still remains
possible for troops facing south-south-west to be troubled by a
south-east wind.
Thus De Sanctis's objections prove to be unsubstantial. To place
the battle on the left bank is to reject P.'s statement that the
Romans faced south; it also involves assuming that Hannibal
offered battle on the right bank above Cannae, on ground singularly
ill-adapted to cavalry, only to have it rejected by Aemilius (nz. I-2:
3vaapE(]Tov,..evos ..• Toi:s- Twot:;), and that the next day Varro de-
liberately crossed over to fight on the plain. So foolish he can scarcely
have been. It has therefore been assumed below that the battle took
place on the right bank, with the Romans drawn up with their
backs to the sea.
(b) Chronology. Claudius Quadrigarius is our authority for the
fact that Cannae was fought a.d. iv non. sext., i.e. 2 August (Gell.
v. 17. 5; Macrob. Sat. i. r6. z6). Since the calendar appears to have
been running true in 217 (78. 6 n.) there is a probability that the
same was true in 216, and that Cannae was fought in August; but
De Sanctis's arguments (iii. 2. 136) fall short of proof. Hannibal left
his winter quarters near Gerunium when the corn harvest was ripe
(ro7. I), and so in June; he then marched 6o miles to Cannae to take
it. News had to reach the consuls of 217, who in turn sent repeated
(aw.-xws, 107. 6) messages to Rome asking for counsel. The senate
resolved to send the new consuls, who joined their forces at an un-
named point, whence it was possible to come within so stades of
Hannibal in two days (no. I). After haranguing the troops, Varro
and Aemilius at once set out for Cannae. De Sanctis (iii. 2. r36)
argues that this will have brought the year to August; possibly, but
his argument is partly invalidated by his interpretation of 108. 2 as
una concione al popolo held before the consuls left Rome, and his
assumption of a lacuna at no. r ; the 1roMol of 109. 13 are of course
the army. A further argument from a Greek synchronism is also
indecisive. In 216 Philip V assembled his troops in Macedonia d.pxo-
,_.IVTJ> 8te.pdas (v. 109. 4), trained them as rowers and sailed round
Malea for Illyria; leaving Cassandreia in late April or early May he
will have covered the 1,200 km. from there to Sasona in anything
from two to four weeks. Here he turned back suddenly, though 'now
was the time to seize Illyria 3ta 7"0 rov;; 'Pw,..a.lovs m:f.aa.~s 7"0.LS E7T~l'O{a,,.
, ..... , , );l 'a , ' , K,O.VVO.V f.40.X1Jll
K.a.L 7TO.pa.aKEVO.L<; 1TEp~ 7"0V .t:ll'V~/"'a.v KO.£ 'TrJV 7T€p1
, , eat ,
ywEa
THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANNAE III. 107
(v. no. 10). Unfortunately this does not make clear whether Cannae
had yet been fought or not; and DeSanctis's argument that it had
not is not well based. However, this does not mean that the August
date for Cannae is to be rejected, and the argument for a calendar
several months in advance, and Cannae fought in June (Cornelius,
2 ff.) accepted. Probability still favours the later date.
(c) Forces; see especially De Sanctis, iii. 2. 131-5; Kromayer, AS,
iii. I, 341-6; Klotz, Phil., 1933. 57-66; Gelzer, Hermes, 1935, 281-3;
Cornelius, 20-24.
Hannibal had over 4o,ooo infantry and about ro,ooo cavalry (n4.
s), a figure which probably includes the forces left to garrison the
camp (cf. u3. 5, where this principle is followed for the Roman
figures). Since he had reached the Po with 26,ooo men (56. 4), a large
proportion of his army must have consisted of Celtic recruits. His
casualties are 5,700 in all, mostly Gauls (Iq. 6); Livy (xxii. 52. 6)
makes them about 8,ooo.
The Roman figures create more difficulties. In 109. 4 Aemilius says
they outnumber the Carthaginians by more than two to one (cf. Plut.
Fab. IS, ovo' ~fLLGV p..!.por; QM'ES, referring to the Carthaginians); and
P. says (ro7. 9) there were eight legions, each of 5,ooo Romans and
s.ooo socii (cf. u3. s. 8o,ooo foot), and supported by 3oo Roman
and an unstated number of allied cavalry (107. 9-u). 107. 12 says
that normally the allied cavalry were three times the Roman, but
not that this was true at Cannae; and from I IJ. 5 it appears that the
total cavalry were something over 6,ooo, which would make the
allied contingent over 3,6oo, i.e. over 450 per legion. The total force
is thus given as 86,ooo, of whom all but 1o,ooo (117. 8) took part in
the battle. Livy (xxii. 36. 3) makes a total of 8poo, but records
(xxii. 36. 2) an alternative tradition that the Romans put only four
legions in the field, but supplemented them with an extra ro,ooo
men, giving a total of some 5o,ooo-s5,ooo; he also mentions the
Polybian eight legions.
DeSanctis (loc. cit.) accepts the lower figures, and for rejecting P.
gives these reasons:
(i) the smaller of two figures is a priori the more probable;
(ii) it is hard to see how eight legions could be reduced to four
in the tradition, whereas a-rpa.-rorrEOov might easily be used
of a Roman legion without its socii (cf. 86. 3 n.);
(iii) 6,ooo cavalry are not enough for eight legions, for in 219 the
Romans raised !,200 per legion {Livy, xxi. I7· s).
But it cannot be a universal rule always to accept the lower figure;
each case must be judged on its merits. Further, if U7'pa:r6rrEDov
could be used in Greek for a legion without its socii (and for the
socii without the legion), equally it could be used of a consular army
439
III. ro7 THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANNAE
1roA>.ovs. Aemilius' speech and that of Hannibal (ur. 2-n) are full
of commonplaces and it is unlikely that they go back to a genuine
record; cf. La-Roche, 65; Susemihl, ii. II4 n. IIJ. They may well
come from Fabius (Klotz, Livius, 145; La nouvelle Clio, 1953, 238}.
8. 1'ft vpo1'Epa.£~ va.pa.y£vYJ9EV1'ES: rhetorical exaggeration. Here again
(cf. 8g. 6 n.) the Ticinus battle is omitted.
111. 5. 1'0 8e 1Ta.pa.tca.A£iV ••• oMa.!lWS ••• Ka.9~KEtv: for the T01TOS' d.
109· 5·
THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANNAE III. IIJ. 2
112, J, TU 5' txOjllVU: the fifth day from leaving Camp; TU 0' tfijs
is therefore the sixth, and so Aemilius' day to command. Hannibal's
troops, drawn up 1rapa Tov 7TOTaJ.L6v, are on the left bank.
2. 5\a Tcw TroptajloV Twv €mTT)lie£wv: cf. App. Hann. r7, 6 Xwlj3as- .•.
rijs a7roplas; a~ov lvoxA.oU0'7jS £t£Taaa€ G'VVEX<~k ES J.L&.)(flv. It might be
supposed that the problem of supplies would be as urgent for the
Romans as for the Carthaginians. There certainly seems little ground
for Kromayer's theory (AS, iii. I. 3or ff.) that the Romans were
provisioned by sea from the Aufidus mouth (d. De Sanctis, iii. 2.
141-2); and for an army of that size provisions must have been a
matter of grave concern. On the other hand, we do not know how
much com the Romans had brought with them, and Aemilius'
motives in declining battle are perhaps not to be pressed; they may
represent a guess by P. or his source.
3. Toos NojlO.lia!> ETracjlfJKE: i.e. across the river to the right bank;
cf. Livy, xxii. 45· 2: 'Numidas ad inuadendos ex minoribus castris
Romanorum aquatores trans flumen mittit'.
5. (ha.v 5' a,.,.a.~ tcp\9ii; 'when once the decision has been taken',
rather than Paton and Strachan-Davidson 'when the issue has once
been decided' (which suggests that the battle is over, or its result
now clear).
8-9. Superstitious demonstrations at Rome. These arouse a slightly
contemptuous surprise in the Greek rationalist (J.L")3€v d7Tpm€.,; 11:'1f/
&.y.. vvis); but in vi. 56. 6~rz he could admire a statesmanship which
(he believed) exploited and encouraged such superstition for reasons
of state. In neither instance does he reveal any real sympathy with
the character of Roman religion. B<.wv li<<TTJPlat are supplicationes.
9. ~ea.l Beous e~\Aaoa.a9cu tcatO.v9pwTrous: d. xxvii. 8. 4: Perseus' coun-
sellors advise him to offer terms; if the Romans rejected these, they
would incur divine wrath, and the king by his moderation would
have as avvaywvtO'Tas Tovs BEoVs ~<:al ToV. O.vOpdrrrous. It is perhaps
a similar combination of piety and sound propaganda that P. has
in mind here. Cf. Wunderer, i. 76.
113. 1. Til KaTO. ,.,.otias ~jl£p~: the seventh day. Varro crosses to the
right bank below Cannae (§ z).
2. TT]v £,.,.\q,avna.v T~v ,.,.pbs jlEO"TJ!l~plav: cf. Io7-I7 n. (a).
443
IlL IIJ. 3 THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANNAE
3. 'ITUKVoT~pa.s • . • Toil .,.ETwvou: in order to burst through the
weaker enemy centre by sheer weight and so decide the issue before
the Carthaginian superiority in cavalry told, Varro reduced the
gaps between the maniples (TTvKvo-rlpas ••• Ka8tOTdvwv), and inside
each maniple reduced the number of files and increased the number
of ranks (Veith, Heerwesen, 29I; Cornelius, 37 n. I). Of the depth
of the Roman infantry in this formation various calculations have
been made. Kromayer assumes (AS, iii. r. 323 ff.) that the hastati
and principes of these maniples carne to 146 men, and that the depth
was double, and the front consequently half the normal one. If, as
he believes (AS, iii. I. 356 n.), the normal maniple was r2 files wide,
it was now reduced to 6; and the depth running through hastati,
principes, and triarii, and including uelites, he works out as 82 men.
But the maniple may well have normally had zo files (Meyer, Kl.
Schr. ii. :219 n. z), and it is doubtful if the uelites should be included.
DeSanctis (iii. z. I57-8), basing his conclusions on a total of 4legions,
not 8, concludes that the Roman line was perhaps 30 men deep (with
a maniple 20 files wide). The uncertainties are too many for anything
more than a controlled guess; but TToMaTTAamov at least implies that
the depth of each maniple is greater than its width, which allows
hardly less than so men for the total depth of the 3 lines.
6. Ka.Tu SLnoos To,.ous: at two separate fords; cf. v. 52. r.
8. ~,.t .,_£a.v Et)lki:a.v: Hannibal first draws up all his forces in a single
line, viz. (from left to right) the Spanish and Gallic horse, half the
Libyan heavy infantry, the Spanish and Gallic infantry (in the
centre), the rest of the Libyans, the Numidian horse.
TU .,.Eaa. TWV 'l~~pwv Ka.l KEATwv Tay.,.a.Ta.: i.e. not all. K. Lehmann
(Rh. Mzts., I9JI, 321-41), translates 'the centre, which consisted of
Iberians and Celts' ; but -rt:L\Aa makes this unlikely, for the following
phrase means 'and placed the remainder (of the Iberians and Celts)
in rank beside him'. 'uydv is 'to form a rank', and TTa.pla-rav£ 'vyoOJJTa.
is tautologous; cf. Kromayer, AS, iii. I. 335 n. I.
tK Tou Ka.Ttl. Myov: the root meaning of this phrase is 'conforming to
someone's intentions' or 'conforming to reason'; where there is a
comparative idea in the sentence, as in vi. 28. 5 (p.el,oat) or ix. zo. 3
(a.i!getv 7) p.noiiv), the phrase comes to mean 'proportionately'. But
that cannot be the sense here (as Kromayer, AS, iii. r. JI4 n. 1,
335 n. I , d. Cornelius, 38, in entsprechendem Verhiiltnis-to what?),
where there is no comparative. It must be 'to suit his plan', which
is defined in the next few words. See Strachan·Davidson ad loc.,
Casaubon's note printed in Schweighaeuser's Lex. Polyb . .:\6yos, and
Schweighaeuser's note: 'pro ea ratione, quam requirebat conuexitas
lunata quam efficere UOluif; this corrects his translation Where eK
-roO Ka'T'd A6yov is taken with Am-ruvwv to mean 'pro portione', This,
he adds, ad sententiam parum refert.
THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANNAE III. II4. 5
f-L'1VoE~8£s
rrmwv To KupTwf-La.: 'producing a crescent-shaped bulge'.
'Una marcia per linee curve, checche dica P., non si fa', says De
Sanctis (iii. 2. 162). But as a military man P. will scarcely have
written nonsense (cf. Cornelius, 38 f.). \-Vhatever the movement was,
us. I I suggests that Hannibal planned it, and this is decisive against
De Sanctis's suggestion that the centre merely got a little ahead
of the wings. Kromayer (AS, iii. 1. 314-15) thinks P. is really
describing a formation in echelon: the centre advanced 150 metres
and the rest progressively shorter distances as one reached the wings.
But there is no reference to this in P. and the phrase KaTa Aoyov,
mistranslated by Kromayer (see above), contains no such idea. The
'thinning of the line' (.\mnlvwv To ToVr-wv mhwv crx_fjpa) Kromayer
refers to the weakening at the points where the different companies
in echelon make contact ; but AeiTTVO'fLOS is specifically a thinning of
the line (Ael. Tact. 38. 3) and P. states quite unequivocally (us. 6}
that the centre was l1r~ A;;:1TTov lKnTayplvwv.
9. {cpe8pEta.s f-LEV Ta~w ••• a.uTwv exe~v: this use of Libyans as a
reserve, to come into action when the Romans were driving into the
centre, is one of the most important features of Hannibal's masterly
tactics in this battle. Despite its separation from l<foe8pdas, aOTwv
is probably to be taken with it, 'a reserve to support them', i.e. the
Spaniards and Celts. Reiske's suggestion avT<f, approved by Schweig-
haeuser,. breaks P.'s rule of avoiding hiatus; and Cornelius' sug-
gestion of dittography from the line above (38 n. 3) is unnecessarily
drastic.
44· 12, iv. 62. 4, viii. 26. 7, xi. 2. I, xv. 10. 2, xvi. 9· 2, xxi. 9· 3; it is
also common in the language of the Hellenistic inscriptions; cf.
Schulte, 49-50.
12. TouTwv: the Romans in general, not merely Marcus and Gnaeus.
13. Ouevoua[a.v: the Latin colony of Venusia in Apulia, which lay
30 miles south-west of the battlefield.
O.vT)p a.taxpnv !J.EV Ti]v IJtuxi]v KTA.: this judgement on Varro is that
of the Roman senatorial source, probably Fabius. In fact he main-
tained his popularity and continued to hold important military posts;
he was proconsul in Picenum in 215-2I3 (Livy, xxiii. 25. n, 32. 19,
xxiv. 10. 3· II. 3· 44· 5}. and held imperium pro praetore in Etruria in
2o8(7 (Livy, xxvii. 24. 1---9, 35· 2, 36. 13, xxviii. 10. II).
118. 2. Ti]s ••• AoL1Ti]S va.pa.>..ta.s: De Sanctis (iii. 2. 2u} prefers the
marginal reading of the Augustan us (D) and Regius (E), 'lraJ.La;;;
but 1TapaAla;; is well defended by Schweighaeuser, ad loc., and by
Costanzi (Riv. fil., 1920, 346--8); cf. x. I. 4, Twv 'E>J..TJv{f.wv 1TOA£wv
'P~ywv KTA . .•. TUVTTJI' bd.xov<J~ r~v 7Tapa,\iav; Livy, xxii. 61. II f.,
'defecere autem ad Poenos ... et Graecorum omnis ferme ora'. De
Sanctis (ibid.} also proposes L'a.\a7Ti:vm for Tapavrivo~ since Tarentum
did not revolt till 2I3 (viii. 24-34}, and Salapia, a town on the
Apulian coast a few miles north of the Aufidus, was in Roman hands
before 214 (Livy, xxiv. 20. 15}; on the other hand, Livy (xxii. 61. 12}
lists the Tarentini among those revolting, and there is independent
evidence for chronological compression in this chapter (§ 6 n.}.
6. wavep EV~!J.E"TpOUO'T)S Ka.~ auveva.ywv~~O!J.EVT)S ••• "Ti]S TUXT)S: 'as if
Fortune in addition to what had happened were giving them over-
measure and joining in to stir up new contests against them'.
TOV E~S Ti]v r a.Aa.TLO.V aTpO."TT)YOV O.voa"Ta.AEVTa.: L. Postumius Albinus;
cf. ro6. 6; Livy, xxiii. 24. 6 ff.; Frontin. Strat. i. 6. 4; Zon. ix. 3· Livy
and Zonaras state that Postumius was killed while consul designate
for 215, while the Fast. Cap. give him as one of the consuls for 2I5,
adding that 'in praetura in Gall. occis. est quod antequam ciretur ... '.
De Sanctis (iii. 2. 327---9) has suggested that Postumius was in fact
consul suffect~{S for Aemilius Paullus in 2I6, but that his death caused
some confusion in the tradition so that both he and 1\L Claudius
Marcellus (consul suffectus after him) were attached to 2I5 by error.
448
THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANNAE III. n8.n
But there was no need to elect a suffectus in Aemilius' place, even
after the expiry of the dictatorship of M. Iunius Pera (d. Mommsen,
St.·R. i. 29 n. 3; Broughton, i. 257); further, Livy's account is
reasonable and consistent, and the reference to Postumius' death
in praetura (in the Fasti) is against the hypothesis that he was
consul sujfectus. It therefore looks as if Postumius' death was, as
Livy says, shortly before his entry into office, at the end of winter
zt6/I5, and not a few days after Cannae (cf. Scullard, Pol. 275-6).
P. has brought it forward in order to complete the picture of un-
mitigated disaster which book iii was to give; and it is perhaps for
the same reason that this book omits to record the compensating
successes of the Scipios in Spain during :n6 (Uvy, :xxiii. 26. 1-29. 17);
cf. Klotz,Livius, I 55· Two legions perished with Postumius (106. 6 n.),
whose head was lodged, embossed with gold, in a temple of the Boii,
where it served as a goblet for the priests (Livy, xxiii. 24. 12). That
fg. 102 refers to Postumius is no more than a possibility.
7. 11 YE ouyKAt)TO'i ••• 'n'apEtt11AE~ ' • ' TOU'i 'n'OAAOU'i: the formulation
suggests the use of Fabius.
9. Roman -recovery. In thus ending on the keynote of his history,
P. leads up to the discussion in book vi (after the account of Greek
and eastern Mediterranean affairs in iv and v) of the Roman con-
stitution (-rii -rov '7TOAt-rEVJ.to.-ros lotr1T1)n) and Roman morale (T<P
f3ovJIEvro8a., KaAws).
11. wpo9€p.evol: 'by way of introduction'.
"'lAws ... 'n'OLt)O"O!lEBa >.6yov : 'I shall give a separate account'. The
purpose of this account is in part to assist -rots r/JMo~-ta8oucrt Ka.'
rrpay~-ta.nKots; on the distinction cf. 21. 9 n., and for P.'s didactic
purpose, vii. u. 2, 14. 6, ix. 9· 9·
449
BOOK IV
1-2. Introduction; Reasons for Beginning at Ol. r4o
1. 4. Tijs Ka.Ta.aKeuijs ••• 1repl. Twv 'E).),TJv~Kwv: i.e. ii. 37-70. Here, as
in i. I3. 5, KaTaaKw~ is 'introductory sketch'; in ii. 37. 5 it is the main
narrative, contrasted with the introduction. LSJ gives neither sense.
5-8. Achaean events: Tisamenus and Ogygus, ii. 41. 4; democratic
constitution, ii. 38. 6, 41. 5; dissolution by the Macedonian kings, ii.
41. 9; League reformed, ii. 41. 11-12; principles and scheme for
Peloponnesian unity, ii. 42. 3-7; survey, ii. 43-44; Cleomenean War,
ii. 45-70.
9. auyKecf>a.Xa.uAJaaJ-Levo~: 'rounding off', cf. iii. 3· I n.; on the syn-
chronism see ii. 71.
3-37. Origins ofihe Social War; its Course till Spring 2I9
cf. ii. 43· 9, 45· I, 45· 3-4; and for his treatment of Aetolia generally
cf. Brandstaeter, 257 ff.
3. 3. ~ea.Ta To 1Ta.Aa.tov ~9o~: for the early prevalence of piracy see
Thuc. i. S·
a.UToi~ :.\xa.toi~: 'the Achaeans now that they were alone'.
5. uto~ Nl~eoaTpaTou KTA.: cf. ix. 34· II, for the violation of the
Pamboeotian truce; the plundering of the temple of Athena ltonia
(25. 2) is part of the same incident, which evidently occurred when
Boeotia was at peace with Aetolia, yet not protected by the Mace-
danian alliance of 224 (cf. xx. 6. 8), i.e. between 229 and 224 (Feyel,
137-8). Flaceliere (289) and Klaffenbach (IG, ix. i2 • xxv, 11. 6s ff.;
DLZ, 1948, 98) date it to 220, but less probably. The Pamboeotia
was held at the temple of Athena ltonia at Coronea (Strabo, ix. 4II;
Paus. ix. 34· I), near the modern village of Mamoura. The temple
possessed asylia (Plut. Ages. 19. 2). What little is known of this
festival A. Plassart has assembled in BCH, 1926, 397-8; cf. Feyel,
Epig. 58 ff. ; Flaceliere, 289 n. 2.
EL~ TTJV Twv ~tya.Hwv 1TOAw: Phigaleia (modern Pavlitsa) lay in the
western Peloponnese, north of Messene, £1rl JLE-rewpov Kai d1ro-roJLov
(Paus. viii. 39· s); impressively situated above the gorge of the Neda
(Meyer, RE, 'Phigaleia', cols. 2o67 ff.), it afforded an excellent strong-
hold for raids into Messenia. Phigaleia had been an Aetolian ally
since c. 244, when the Aetolians appeared as allies of the Phigaleans
in an agreement of lu01roAm:la between Phigaleia and Messenia (Syll.
472 = IG, v. 2. 419; cf. ]HS, 1936, 68 n. 30); this inscription records
provisions for regulating frontier disputes with Messenia. On the
expression UVJL1ToAt-rEVoJLivq, which probably here means no more
than luo1roAt-reta, see ii. 46. 2 n.
8. TTJV ~eow~v t:tp~VTJV • • • auvTEAEa9E(aa.v: i.e. the general peace
established after the war with Cleomenes. Kotvq £lf117v7J is not to be
taken in a technical sense, as including all Greek states, among them
Aetolia (Bickermann, Rev. phil., I93S· 70-71); it simply indicates a
general state of peace in Greece, so that the Aetolians could not find
belligerents against whom to practise the custom described in xviii.
S· I-3· €t£LVUL 'TOLS' Al-rwAOLS' avEV KOtVOU SOyJLa'TOS' ..• TI]v xwpav ay£w
ri]v dJLrpOTipwv. See Larsen, CP, 1937, 27 n. 34·
9. +t).wv ovTwv ~ea.l au11.W.xwv: cf. 6. II, IS. 10. How far the alliance
still existed de facto is uncertain, since it was based on an anti-
Spartan interest which the Aetolians had abandoned some time ago.
In IS· IO P. speaks as if it still existed after Caphyae (II-I2). See
Fine, AJP, 1940, IS4·
8. 4. ivo.pyfJ 8~ TotoOTwv KTA.: 'Of this there are many dear proofs,
456
ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219 IV.g.S
10. 2. Achaean numbers: 3,ooo foot and 300 horse are the numbers of
the Achaean brl/..o(rot at Sellasia (ii. 65. 3 n.); they appear again
at v. 91. 6. Hence it seems likely that Aratus had dismissed the
ordinary levy, and that the forces here mentioned are the briAeKrot;
that some were later placed under an officer who was probably a
mercenary captain (n. 6 n.) is not evidence for dilution of the force
with mercenary troops (on this see Griffith, 106 n. 5).
11'poijyE TTJV i'II'L naTpa.s: evidently down the Alpheius valley to
Heraea, and thence north through Psophis. Why he marched east
to Cleitor (§ 6, II. 2) is not apparent.
4. 1rpos To 'P(ov: the low-lying Achaean promontory 5 miles north-
east of Patrae; cf. xii. I2 a I-3 for the crossing of the Heraclidae by
this route.
The thought-sequence is complex. Dorimachus is actuated by two
motiVeS, Tct p.Jv ~l£aywv£uaVT€S' , , , Tct 0€ U7TOVoa~OVT€S' (§ 3) ; and these are
then taken up in the account of his own actions (§ 5. avrol}, the first
(his fear) by ro p.~v np&rov J¢>-qop€vov, the second (his desire to provoke
the Achaeans) by Jl-€Tct oJ raiiTa 1Tpofjyov KTA. Fine (AJP, I940, I6I
n. I44) misses this, when he summarizes: 'Dorimachus, fearing lest
the Achaeans should attack him while embarking, sent off his booty
and then marched into Arcadia' ; once the booty was aboard, Dori-
machus' fear was over, and henceforward he is actuated by quite
different motives.
5. 1rpoijyov ..• ws i'll'' '0AUf..L11'la.s: P. appears to misinterpret the
Aetolian plan. Presumably he had some authority for stating (§ 4)
that the Aetolian fleet had been ordered to pick up Dorimachus at
Rhium; hence we may reasonably assume that Dorimachus origin-
ally proposed to march through Achaea to Rhium, plundering and
provoking war (§ 3). But the thoughts attributed to Dorimachus in
458
ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219 IV. ro. IO
between. At the battle of Mantinea they are classed with the Illyrian
mercenaries (xi. II. 4).
bt ~<ipa.~ KAlva.vn~: 'turning to one wing'. The implication is a right-
angled tum, either of individuals, or of a whole column wheeling;
here the men are in line and the effect is therefore to form them into
column.
9. ('!l'nroAa.aTLKW'> Ka.i Ka.Ta.~e.6pws: 'insolent and excessive', metaphors
from medicine and eating, respectively; cf. Wunderer, i. 89, iii. 14.
16. 1. ets Tfjv auJ.LJ.LC.Xl«V '1'1'poaEAa.J3ov: 'were for receiving the Mes-
senians into the Syrnrnachy'. Presumably the other states concurred,
for Messenia was admitted to membership of the Symrnachy. Despite
the immediate decision to remain at peace with Aetolia, the admis-
sion of Messenia was a clear warning to the Aetolians of the conse-
quences of further attacks upon her. But the omission of any reference
to past acts of aggression must have offered encouraging evidence of
the element of weakness in the counsels of the Symmachy (Walbank,
Philip, 28}. From the reference to the Epirotes Holleaux (141 n. 4}
deduces that Philip was at this time (summer 220) in Epirus; this
is a dubious conclusion, and no foundation for hypotheses on sup-
posed concern with the affairs of Rome and Illyria (cf. Fine, ]RS,
l9J6, 38-39)·
4. 'I'I'OAEJ.LOUS nVE'I'I'a.yyEATous: cf. 6. I I n.
5. t}AEu9EpwJ.L€voL: cf. ii. 70. r, iv. 22. 4, v. 9· 9· To the Achaeans
Cleomenes was a tyrant; but to many Spartans 'liberation' obviously
had a different look. The move towards Aetolia signifies a resurgence
of the Cleomenean party (d. v. 35· z), though rfot.Alav •• • Kai CTVfLfLaxtav
(even s~· a1Topp~Tlvv) seems an exaggeration at this date. See 22. 3 ff.
for the internal struggle at Sparta.
6. vEa.vLuKwv: the word signifies 'men of military age'; cf. i. 36. rzn.
On the date cf. 19. 1 n.
l:KEp8LAa.t8as ••• KO.l A'IJ.LtlTPLo;: cf. ii. 5· 6 n., ro. 8 n.; and iii. r6.
2-3 nn. for an earlier reference to Demetrius' breach of the treaty
made with Teuta (ii. 12. 3).
7. TU nuA<tJ 'l'l'pOO'J.LL~Q.VTf:S: Pylos on the l\fessenian coast was at this
date Achaean, 5· 8 n. This suggests that the expedition was not
instigated by Philip (so Holleaux, 141); the agreement between
Taurion and Demetrius carne later (cf. Fine, ]RS, 1936, 31).
9. :.\11uv<z. ..,.~ j)uuLAEi Twv :.\9uJ.L<i.vwv: generally taken to be a shorter
form of the name Arnynander, subsequently well known as the king
of Athamania; but as there is no earlier reference, this may well be
his predecessor. Schweighaeuser takes Kr)St:un}s- to be 'son-in-law'
463
IV. r6. 9 ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR
(cf. ii. 1. 9, xv. 22. I), and this would favour the view that Amynas
was a younger man, and so perhaps make the identification more
likely; but the matter is uncertain. Amynander later is married to
Apama of Megalopolis (Livy, xxxv. 47· 5 ff.). The Athamanians
were akin to the Epirotes, and inhabited the district between the
Arachthus and the western slope of Pindus.
10. !A.yf:Aciou: Agelaus of Naupactus, famous for his speech at
Naupactus in 217 (v. 3· I, Io3. 9-105. r).
11. TtlS Twv Kuva.L9Ewv 11'0A€WS: Cynaetha was an Arcadian city on
the site of modern Kalavryta; see E. Meyer, Pel. Wand. I07---<), for
a description.
18. 7. TWV aSLKWV ~pywv EV ••• SLKa.LOTa.Tov: cf. 19. I3, XV. 26 a I,
which indicates that the phrase is proverbial; perhaps, as Co bet
suggested, it comes from a metrical source (cf. Wunderer, i. 6. I8,
47; von Scala, 75; Bergk, PLG, iii 4• 69I, fg. adesp. 11 B, -rofh-o 7TOL~aa> I
-rwv d.lilKwv lpywv 2v -ro lltKato-ra-rov).
8. SLci<Jlopov 1i Ka.Ta.aK€uciaj.La.Ta.: 'money or plate'.
9-10. 11'pot1yov ws E'II'L Aouawv: Lusi lay in the valley of Sudena
between Cynaetha and Cleitor; its site on the north-west slopes of
the hill H. Ilias was confirmed by Austrian excavations in I898---9.
The temple of Artemis (cf. ix. 34· 9 for its plundering by Timaeus,
probably in 24o) lay about a quarter of an hour's walk east of the
town. The games associated with it, -ra 'HfL£paata, are known to us
from several inscriptions, and its inviolability (aav.\ov ... vf:vofLLGTat)
464
ITS COURSE TJLL SPRJNG 219 IV. 20
20-21. Music and Arcadia. P. here follows the theory which makes
man's material environment primarily responsible for his character.
First propounded by Hippocrates (On climates, waters, and places),
it appeats frequently in later writers; cf. Ps.-Arist. Problem. 14. 1.
4866 Hh 465
V. zo ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR
909 a, for the effects of excessive heat and cold on the temperament·
An important part is played in the development of this milieu-
theory by Poseidonius who (cf. Cic. nat. de&r. ii. 42) also stressed the
cultural effects of racial ~<pam> in the Mediterranean area, whereas
the purer and more primitive races lived on the fringes of the
oecumene. P. may owe his knowledge of the theory to the Stoics, but
this has not been conclusively demonstrated. Hirzel (ii. 891 ff.) points
out that Cicero (de Jato, 7) attributes it to Chrysippus; and in de
diu. ii. 96 f. he attributes it to Panaetius (cf. Norden, Urgesch. 6z).
But Hirzel also admits that it was familiar to Hippocrates, Plato,
and Aristotle. von Scala (zo4-5) argues that avY£eofWwOa8at (21. r) is
Stoic jargon; this is true, but the word is also found in Theophrastus,
and in xxxi. 18. 4 P. uses it without any Stoic implications. See
further R. Pohlmann, Hellenische Anschauungen iiber den Zusam-
metr,hang zwischen Natur und Geschichte (Leipzig, 1879), 12 ff.; K.
Triidinger, Studien zur Geschichte der griechisck-romischen Ethno-
graphie (Diss. Basel, 1918); Walbank, Class. et med., 1948, 179-81.
20. 3. cflua~KW5 auvTE8E(I)P'IIleva.: 'studied in their relation to natural
conditions' (C'..apes).
4. Tt\v y' 6.ATJ8ws jlOUO"~Kt}v: 'significat, puto, se Musicae nomen nunc
propria ac uulgari notione accipere ; non ilia latiore et augustiore,
. . . qua humaniorum omnium literarum disciplina atque cultura
eodem nomine designabatur' (Schweighaeuser); but F. Wehrli
(Eumusia: Festgabe fiir Ernst Howald (ZUrich, 1947), 63 n. I) argues
that poetry was also included. Stress on the effects of music is
traditionaL Thus the valour of the Spartans was associated with
their use of the Dorian mode; cf. Plato, Rep. iii. 398-9; Laches,
r88 D; Arist. Pol. v (viii}. 7· 8. IJ42 a, d. 5· 24· I340 b, cpav£pov on
SvYaTat 1rou>v Tt To T-ij> 1/Jvx-ii> ~8o> ~ p.ovaiJ(~ 1rapaaKwa''""· The theory
may go back ultimately to the sophist Damon (d. Plato, Rep. iv.
424 c; von Jan, RE, 'Damon (I7)', cols. 2072-4).
5. ~5 "E,opos «fl'law ..• pi"'a.s: Ephorus of Cyme in Aeolis was the
foremost fourth-century Greek historian. His main work, the
•luTop[at, in thirty books, went down to the year 356/5· Of his per-
sonal life little is knmvn, but tradition made him a pupil of !socrates
(d. Cic. de or. ii. 94). P. expresses considerable regard for his work
as the first attempt at a universal history (v. 33· 2), and quotes him
(ix. r. 4, xii. 2i. i) ; though elsewhere he criticizes him for misunder-
standing the Cretan constitution (vi. 45· I, cf. 45-4i· 6 n.), and for
having no conception of a land battle (xii. zs f 1). He several times
defends him against Timaeus' criticism, and his geographical book
(xxxiv) seems copied from the example of Ephorus, who devoted
books iv and v to geography (cf. xxxiv. 1. 1-2). See in general
Schwartz, RE, 'Ephoros', cols. I-I6; Laqueur, Hermes, 19II, r6r f.,
J2I f.; G. Barber, The Historian Ephorus (Cambridge, 1935); frag-
466
ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219 IV.:o~.o. 9
ments in Jacoby, FGH, 70; commentary in vol. ii c. Each book of
Ephorus had a separate introduction, and there was a preface to
the work as a whole; cf. Barber, 68-74, who emphasizes the role of
the preface as a vehicle of errtp.erpoiJv-rEs Myot (cf. xii. zB. Io).
l'lf' a'!f6.11) tca.l. YO'lTE{C2- 'lf«pEtaijx9a.l TOLS &.v9pW'If0lS: 'introduced
among (or by) men merely for the purpose of beguiling and be-
witching'. Ephorus was probably contrasting p,ova£Krl and lo-ropla.,
the former, like tragedy, designed to thrill (cf. ii. s6. u), the latter
to point a moral and instruct (dm1T7J : ci>,Pe>.da) ; d. Wunderer, ii. 14·
P. on the contrary rejects a non-utilitarian view of music. Paton's
translation 'for the purpose of deception and delusion' is not quite
adequate; see Schweighaeuser's excellent note in Lex. Polyb. drrdT7J.
and his translation 'non ad solam oblectationem et ad incantandos
animos esse inuentam'.
6. a.uMv tca.l pu81-1ov: 'movement in time to the flute'. Cf. Herodian,
iv. z. 9. rrvpp,x.l<tJ op6p.<tJ Kat lwOp.ij>; Plato, Laws, ii. 665 A, -rfi 8~ -rfjs
KL~O'EWS ..,a,gH pvOp.os ovop.a. Thucydides (v. jo) describes the advance
of the Spartans at the battle of Mantinea to the sound of many flute-
players tva &p.a'Ac;Js p.E-rd pv8p.ov {Jalvovm; rrpoal>.Oot£V Ka~ p.~ ou1·
r:J1Taa6d17 aV-rot:s ~ TJ.g,,, and later sources (Ps.-Arist. apud Aul. Gell.
i. u. I7-I8; Cic. Tusc. ii. 37; Val. Max. ii. 6. 2; Plut. Lye. ;n) agree in
making it a Spartan custom. But two proto-Corinthian vases of c.
65o-64o, the Chigi vase (Payne, Protokorinthische F asenmalerci (Berlin,
1933), pls. 28-29) and an aryballos represented in BSA, 1947,93, fig. 7,
in an article by H. L. Lorimer on the hoplite phalanx (see aLso ibid.
82), show that the flute-player was also a Corinthian institution.
On the Greek av>.os see now K. Schlesinger, The Greek A ulos (London,
1939). The ad.Amyg was primarily an instrument for giving signals
like our bugle, and unsuited for marching in step. P.'s point is
illustrated in a famous passage of Milton (Paradise Lost, i. 549).
8. tca.Td. vol'ous: ex legibus, Casaubon and Schweighaeuser in his
translation, e.~ artis (musicae) legibus, Schweighaeuser in Lex. Polyb.
vop.os. Subsequent commentators and translators have chosen
one or the other. In view of i. 32. 7 (where the phrase means 'in
accordance with military rules') and the usage in § 9, the second is
the more likely; cf. Paton, 'in measure'.
9. ~LAo~c\vou Ka.1 T L!-lo9£ou: Philoxenus of Cythera, the dithyrambic
poet (435-38o), flourished under Dionysius the younger of Syracuse
(Diod. xiv. 46. 6); the story of his being thrown into the quarries for
his outspokenness is often told (Diod. xv. 6. 3 ff.; Cic. ad A.tt. iv.
6. 2). Timotheus of Miletus, his contemporary (c. 450-36o), was
famous for adding four new strings to the seven-stringed lyre. He
was encouraged by Euripides who, Satyrus says (Vit. Eur., fg. 39,
col. zz P. Ox. ix, no. u76, p. r67), perhaps correctly, wrote the
prologue to the Persae, the famous dithyrambic poem, which was
467
IV. 20.9 ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR
discovered on a fourth-century papyrus (P. Berol. 9875, our oldest
extant papyrus, edited by Wilamowitz, Timotheos, die Perser
(Berlin, r9o3)) in 1902. Timotheus' authoritative position as a classic
model for dithyramb and citharoedic composition, along with Philo-
xenus and Polyidon, is confirmed by a Teian inscription of about
2oo (Schwyzer, 190). See P. Maas, RE, 'Timotlieos (9)', cols. 1331-7
(who, however, inexplicably attributes this passage to Ephorus; it
is dearly personal reminiscence).
xopeuouaL ••• TO iS l.LOVUO'LaKOf:S a.lJA'!jT«iS •.• clywvas; 'they in-
stitute choral contests to the accompaniment of professional flute-
players'. The .dwvvataKoi a?JATJTal are professional TexvL-rat organized
in guilds (cf. vi. 47· 8, xvi. 21. 8, xxx. 22. 2); see Poland, RE (v A, 2,
Nachtrage), 'Technitai', cols. 2473-558; Daux, 356-p. For the dative
Reiske compares the phrase TpaycpSot~ Katvot~ in the spurious indict-
ment in Dem. xviii. 54· For epigraphic evidence of these activities
in Arcadia cf. Syll. 703, a Delphic inscription of c. n8 honouring two
men of Pheneus who set poems to music and produced them with
a boys' choir.
10. Tas &.ywyas ••• 11'oLouvTaL: 'they divert themselves'. dywyas
appears here only for Staywyck
~1TEL0'0.KTWV clKpOC1j!0.Twv: 'hired musicians'. This sense of aKp6afLa,
normal in P., passed into Latin; cf. Cic .. Sest. n6; Arch. 20.
&.vel j!Epos (J.Sew AAA'I]AoLs 1TpoaT0.TTovTES: 'calling for a song from
each in tum'. Athenaeus (xiv. 29) cites Philochorus for the Spartan
custom, at supper, of singing one of Tyrtaeus' hymns in tum as
a solo, the polemarch giving a prize of meat to the best. Something
similar may be implied here; or P. may refer to the custom of singing
alternate verses in an amoebean contest, as in Virgil (Eel. 1· 4),
'ambo florentes aetatibus, Arcades ambo I et can tare et respon-
dere parati' (together with Eel. Io our earliest to the
literary 'Arcadia'). T. Keightley, ad loc., attributes the invention to
Virgil's acquaintance with P., a conjecture independently developed
by B. Snell, Die Entdeckung des Geistes, ed. 2 (Hamburg, 1948), 268 ff.
12. Ejl~«T'I]pL«jlET' a.uAou Ka.i. TO.~ews claKouvTES: 'practising marching
strains on the flute while on parade'. i~tf3aT~pta (sc. 4afLaTa or ~tt!AYJ)
are v6~tot r.oAefLtKol, the rhythms to which soldiers march into battle;
cf. Thuc. v. 70 (quoted in 20. 6 n.); Schweighaeuser quotes a scholiast
to Hermogenes: AaKeOat~t6vwt r.po~ TOV i~tf3a~ptov TOV avAoO pvOfLoV
KaTa r.o>te~tlwv Jxc.!Jpovv; Polyaen. i. ro; see further the note of I. A.
Fabricius to Sex. Empiricus, adv. math. vi. 357· But Capes and
Strachan-Davidson prefer to take i~tf3a~pta as 'marches', and it is
possible that the sense 'marching to music' has developed out of
'music for marching'. This would certainly give a better contrast
with dp~aets; and the absence of parallel examples is not a serious
objection. If this meaning is accepted, JfLf3aT~pta and opx~aEtS Will
468
ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219 IV, 22. 8
be the objects of lmodKvuvra£, as well as the accompanying parti-
ciples; otherwise bn&lKvuvra£ is used absolutely, 'they make a dis-
play, show off'.
21. 1. TT)v ..• a.uToupy£a.v: cf. Thuc. i. 141. 3, aVTovpyol T£ ycip
£la£ llcAoTToVll'fJato£.
2. KO.Ta TaS ~6V~KaS Ka.l TaS OAOOXEPELS 8La.aTci.O'ELS: cf. XXXii. 4· 2,
Tas lfJv£Kas aUaTclO'€£S' Kat TGS o>..oaxcpci:S' 0£a~opas- TijS' olKOVfLEV!JS'·
Translate 'in accordance with our nationality and the distance we
are separated from each other'; Strachan-Davidson renders ' ... or
according to yet wider diversities' ; but o£ciaTaats- suggests a spatial
interval (cf. i. r8. 4, xxxvi. 16. 8, lv omaTclm£), and geographical
separation played a part in the milieu-theory (2o--21 n.).
3. To Ti}s cpoa£ws a.~6a.8es Ka.t aKAT)pov: 'the stubbornness and harsh-
ness of nature or of their natures' (cf. § 4, T6 T1j> ¢vxfls aTepa.fLvov).
8. TT)v !lEyaAT)V acpa.yf)v 'l!'oLt1aa.VTES: between the entry of Cynaetha
into the Achaean Confederation c. 241/o (]HS, 1936, 71) and the
events of 220 nothing is known of the internal history of the town
beyond the remarks in 17· 4· The 'great massacre' is evidently one
of those there referred to, and must have brought the pro-Spartan
party into power; and since it is unlikely that this party would have
been allowed to send envoys openly to Sparta through the cities of
eastern Arcadia, once these were part of the Confederation, it is
probable that the incident is to be dated between 241jo and the
accession of Mantinea and Orchomenus to the Confederation (which
was between 235 and 229: cf. ii. 46. 2 n.). The revulsion against the
Cynaethans may have been partly political; but it also expressed
the still powerful feelings about blood-guilt (d. § 9, KafJapfUSv).
Purification from this involved a sacrifice ; cf. Eurip. Suppl. n96,
GV <[> OE TEfLVEW a<f>d.yw XP1J a', aKoVE fLOU. For the purification of a
whole community by human sacrifice cf. Herod. vii. 197. See Ham-
burg, RE, KafJapw)s, cols. 2513-19.
11. av 'II'OT' a.uTOtS 0 6eos eiS 8~: a proverbial expression, quoted by
Aristotle (Nic. Eth. ix. 9· I. II69 b) from Eurip. Or. 667, lhav o' 0
oalfLWV €0 0£0tp, Tl Oei·<f>l>..wv;
25. 1. auvtjSp£u£: cf. xviii. 45· 7' avv~opw~:: fL€Ta TOVTWV Ka' s,~::M.J.Lf3av~::
?r~::p' Twv o.\wv (Flamininus and the senatorial commission). Here P.
refers to the Council of the Symmachy. The complaints against
Aetolia all refer to incidents before summer 220, and were therefore
available when the allies resolved to remain at peace with Aetolia
{r6. 3; cf. Ferrabino, 145); but this was the first conference at which
all the grievances could be aired, and the cumulative effect will have
been considerable. The congress thus registered a success for Aratus'
policy of war, and the allies were won over to a programme of
demands rather than mere complaints. Cf. Ferrabino, 144-7 (who
exaggerates the significance of the change in policy of the Sym-
machy); Walbank, Aratos, 123; Philip, 32.
2. To Tfjs :A.8f]viis Tfjs '1Twv£a.s L£pov: cf. 3· 5 n.
aTpa.Teuaa.vTEs e1r' ~(-L~puaov ~ea.L Aa.uXLov : on the eastern slopes of
Parnassus; Daulium is more commonly called Daulis (d. Livy,
xxxii. r8. 6-8 on its strong position). This attack must have taken
place after the separation of Phocis from Aetolia, which Flaceliere
(248 n. 3, 286-7) dates to 225, and Feyel (112-15) more probably to
228. Feyel has also shown (124-6) that between the summer of 228
and the winter of 227/6 Phocis joined the Boeotians in an alliance
with Achaea (Syll. 519; cf. Treves, Athen., 1934, 407), and in 224 allied
herself with Macedon. Hence it is likely that the attacks on Ambrysus
and Daulis fell between 228 and 224, like that on the temple of
Itonian Athena. All this time the Aetolians continued to hold western
Phocis, including Drymaea, Tithronium, Tithorea, and Lilaea, in the
upper Cephisus valley (cf. Flaceliere, 287).
3-4. Epirote, Acarnanian, and Achaean complaints. For the two
former cf. 6. 2; for the Achaean injuries 6. 3 (Clarium), 6. 9 (Patrae
and Pharae), r8. 7-8 (Cynaetha), r8. ro-11, 19. 4 (Lusi), 19. 1-3
471
IV. 25. 3 ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR
(Cleitor), x6. 7 (Pylas). The earlier reference to Pylos says nothing
of the Aetolians, and P. dates the compact between them and
Scerdilaidas after the latter returned to Naupactus (16. Io); possibly
the Aetolians were being held responsible for the outrages committed
by their new ally. Despite some restoration of the text in § 4, it seems
clear that the Aetolians were also accused of some enterprise against
Megalopolis in conjunction with the Illyrians. This can only refer
to the expedition against Cynaetha, for the attack on Pylas is clearly
distinguished as KaTa 9£\aTTav; and since it did not get farther than
Cleitor (19. 3-4) there can be no question of a direct attack. However,
from v. 93 it appears that since its resettlement, after Cleomenes
took and destroyed it (ii. 55· 2-7, 61--63 ; the refugees found shelter
in Messene), Megalopolis had been the prey of party faction; and it
is quite likely that here, as at Cynaetha, there had been a party
ready to collaborate with the Illyrians and Aetolians. In view of his
concern for the reputation of his native city (cf. ii. 55· 8) it is not
surprising that P. omits details and treats the matter as an attempt
from outside; but it is not improbable that there was some kind of
attempted coup within. Such an hypothesis might help to explain the
excess of virtue with which P. reprehends the men of Cynaetha,
though a comparison of 17. 4 (Cynaetha) with v. 93· 4 (Megalopolis)
is enlightening.
6. 1Tpo9f~Evo~ ••• 1Ta.pa.Ka.n~6.XovTo lji,cjna~a.: P. probably saw a
copy of the decree, for the phraseology of § 7 suggests the actual
text. For the definition of freedom cf. 84. 5, l>..w9,;pofJs dcf>povp{)Tovs
d.cf>opo>.oyryrovs, xpwp.lvovs To's lSlms 1TOA£T<Evp.a.cn ('one long tautology',
Tam, Alex. ii. zos n. I, with a good discussion of a.i:rrovop.ta and
i>.w9,;pla.), xv. 24. z; OGIS, 223 ( = Welles, 15), 228 (freedom from
tribute); Diod. xix. 61. 3, Elva£ Tovs "EA>.11vas /1.1raVTas l>.,;v9lpovs
d.cf>povp{)Tovs a{JTov6p.ovs. Cf. Jones, Greek City, IOI ff.; below, 27.4-7 n.
6-7. Claim on Aetolia. It is not clear whether§ 6 and§ 7 refer to two
categories of territory or one. If the Symmachy is merely pledging
itself to recover the independence of cities and lands annexed by
Aetolia since 229, the scope of the resolution is small, and covers only:
(a) Epirus: Ambracia and Amphilochia (d. Flaceliere, 252 n. x,
'soit avant, soit peu apres la mort de Demetrios'); perhaps too the
town of Cassope (d. Insch. Mag. 32, 1. 51; for the date, Flaceliere,
ibid., against Busolt-Swoboda, ii. 1476 n. 5, who make it adhere to
Aetolia only in 206-202). See further, Beloch, iv. 2. 384-5.
(b) Thessaly: Phthiotic Achaea, annexed on Doson's accession,
and not recovered along with Phthiotis, Thessaliotis, and Hestiaeotis.
Cf. v. 97· 5. 99· z (Melitaea and Phthiotic Thebes), ii. 45· 2 n.; Fine,
TAPA, 1932, 133 ff.; Walbank, Philip, I I n. 3·
In practice, however, the allies sought to recover territory an-
nexed by Aetolia long before 229, and the second clause has an air
472
ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219 IV. 26. 2
of being designed to give them a free hand for almost any territorial
claims; for instance, the following territories might be regarded as
forcibly annexed:
(c) Acarnania: the areas west of the Achelous, where Aetolia held
Stratus (63. 10), Oeniadae (65. 5), Metropolis (64. 4), and Phoetiae
(63. 7) since her compact with Alexander of Epirus (on the date see
ii. 45· 1 n.).
(d) Phocis: western Phocis was still largely in Aetolian hands,
perhaps since c. 258 (Flaceliere, 199); eastern Phocis had been seized
c. 234-230 (Feyel, ro6), but had recovered its independence, probably
in 228 (§ 2 n.). The Aetolians had now lost Anticyra, Ambrysus, and
Daulis, along with everything east of Parnassus; but this decree
would encourage the allies to attack the towns still held.
(e) Eastern Locris: the district of Scarpheia and Thronium was
Aetolian since before 262 (Flaceliere, 198), and remained so after
Opuntian Locris detached itself c. 228 (Feyel, 125). Further, the
second clause (§ 7) would serve as a slogan for the 'liberation' of any
states in the Aetolian Confederation which, unlike the territories
covered in§ 6, had no connexion with the members of the Symmachy.
8. auva.va.KOfU€ia9a.~ • .• To is 1>.f1ci>~KTuoaw ... Tous v611ous: through-
out the third century from 290 or even 300 the Aetolians controlled
Delphi (which was probably bound to the League by isopoliteia;
Flaceliere, 369-70) and the Amphictyonic Council. The Council was
controlled by exercising the votes of states forming part of the
League, and though Macedon and Thessaly were not excluded they
declined to appear on a council dominated by Aetolia. Beloch (iv. 2.
385 ff.) has established that the Aetolian-controlled vote rose in
proportion to the territorial expansion of the Confederation (cf.
Treves, Athen., 1934, 397). The rest of Greece never acquiesced in
the Aetolian usurpation of the oracle, and the first text which
testifies clearly to it, the ithyphallos sung by the Athenians at the
Eleusinian festival of 291, describes Aetolia as a sphinx which has
seized not only Thebes but the whole of Hellas, T~V o' ovx~ f97]{3Wv,
ill' 6..\:i)s- ri]> 'E>.>.aoos- I ucf>tyya 7T€p,Kpa-rovuav . .. (d. A then. vi. 63 =
Duris of Samos, FGH, 76 F 13); Flaceliere, 65, 372. By the present
clause, the allies hoped to convert the war into a Sacred War for the
liberation of Delphi.
473
IV. 26. 2 ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR
contrasted with fighting an attacking enemy while one is on the
march; and in general the sense 'offensive warfare' is to be preferred,
cf. Feyel, I39 n. 2. The war-motion required separate ratification by
each state.
3. ~'1Te111fe ... TOt9 AhwA.oi9 E'ITtaToA~v: that Philip still hoped to
prevent war (so Holleaux, 149 n. I) is unlikely, since the programme
framed at Corinth, especially in relation to the Amphictyonic
Council, was designed to strengthen the Macedonian hold on Greece ;
Walbank, Philip, 32. Perhaps the king hoped to postpone hostilities
until spring 219, or merely to put the responsibility for the breach
squarely on Aetolian shoulders. The contents of Philip's note may go
back to a sound source, but the phraseology is P.'sown (cf. 4· 4, 17. 2).
6. 'IT PO Tfj9 •.• auvo8ou: the autumn meeting held at Thermum for
the elections; cf. 5· 9 n., 27. I, 37. 2.
7. Et!; TI,v Ka.9T)Kouaa.v auvo8ov: the regular autumn Achaean as-
sembly, evidently held towards the autumn equinox (Aymard, ACA,
264); cf. § 8, 27. 9, 29. I; also 27. I, 37· 2. See Larsen, 8r.
TO A.cl.cjlupov E'ITEK~pu~a.v Ka.Ta Twv AhwA.wv : cf. 36. 6, after achieve-
ments by Lycurgus the Spartans E1TEK~pv~av To lvufwpov against the
Achaeans, and Machatas 1Tapa7TA*na Alyo117'€<; a1TEp Kat 1Tpo<; TOV<;
AaKEOatp.ovlovr;, persuaded the Eleans l~EvlyKHV Toir; 11xawt'r; Tov
?T6Aep.ov. Clearly the two things are parallel; the Spartans have
declared war. So, too, here the Achaeans 'declared war on the
Aetolians'. See Kahrstedt, RE, AtUpvpov, col. 772, 'der Terminus
technicus >.ricpvpov fUr solche Untemehmungen (i.e. privateering and
plundering by private individuals) hat dann im spaten III. Jhdt.
den Sprachgebrauch dahin beeinflusst, dass M.cpvpov = Krieg ist
(P. iv. 36. 6), und dass das kein gehassiger Ausdruck des P. ist,
zeigt iv. 26. 7, wo er von einer achaischen Kriegserklarung genau so
redet'. This is correct; cf. Strachan-Davidson, ad loc., '"declared
the property of the Aetolians to be good prize" -a corollary of the
recognition of a state of war' ; it is really an example of pars pro
toto. Kahrstedt is, however, wrong in saying that only the Aetolians
gave the right to win booty to private individuals. The Aetolians
were peculiar in granting letters of marque to their citizens to take
part in any war against anybody, even if Aetolia was neutral (cf.
xviii. 4· 8 and especially 5· r f.). Private rights of plunder and reprisal
were common; cf. 53· 2, xxii. 4· IJ, xxxii. 7· 4, where the term used
is pvata. poata KaTayylAAEtV is quite distinct from 7T6AEp.ov lKcplpEw,
and often represents a stage in the growing tension between two
states which may ultimately end in war. But pvata KamyylA>.Hv is
to be clearly distinguished from To >.ricpvpov l?Tt~<''JPVTTELv; and the
passage Thuc. v. IIS· 2, EK~pv~av ei Tt> {JovAeTat ?Tapd acpwv )i(J-'Ivalovr;
>.uCwOat, normally quoted (since Schweighaeuser) to illustrate the
present passage, is in fact relevant only to pvata.
474
ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219 IV. 27.4
8. npo~ T~v j3ouX~v iv Aly£1f:l: cf. ii. 46. 6. Here the flov/..1) is the League
Council, which would normally be present on the occasion of a
utivo8os-; cf. Larsen, 81.
Ta npoiimi.pxovTa. cjnXO.v9pwna. • • • aVEvEwaa.vTo: a reference to
Doson, Philip's only predecessor with whom friendly relations had
previously existed; but Trp6yovot is used of a single person in Syll.
434-5 (Ptolemy I) and OGIS, 222 (Seleucus I), cf. Tarn, Bactria,
450 n. 3; Welles, 8I-82. Ta TrpoiiTrapxoVTa tPtitd.v8puma will include the
renewal of the annual oath of loyalty to the king of Macedon (Livy,
xxxii. 5· 4), the king's right to summon an Achaean assembly (85. 3,
v. 1. 6), and the law forbidding the proposal of any measure contrary
to the Macedonian alliance (Livy, xxxii. 22. 3).
27. 1. auvuljla.vTO~ TOU Tc7>V apxa.~pEaCII>v xpovou: cf. ii. 2. 8 n.; Strabo,
x. 463 (Ephorus). ;,v Blppms- rii> AlTwAlas-, mrov TaS' ¥xatpw·las-
Tf0L£t(J'8at Trihptov attTOt> l(J"Tlv. On Scopas cf. 5· I ff.
4-7. Parallels to the Aetolian behaviour from Spartan history. For the
seizure of the Cadmea in 382 see Xen. Hell. v. 2. 25 ff.; Diod. xv
20. Iff.; Plut. Pelop. 5; Nepos, Pelop. I. Phoebidas, the commander
of a Spartan force en route for Chalcidice, was approached by
Leontiadas, one of the Theban polemarchs, while encamped near
the town, and by his help was able to seize the citadel during the
siesta, at the time when this was occupied by a women's festival.
Leontiadas then proceeded to Sparta and persuaded the authorities
to recognize Phoebidas' action. According to one unreliable version
(here .referred to) Phoebidas was fined; but the Spartans continued
to maintain their garrison. On the Peace of Antalcidas (387/6) see
i. 6. 2 n., vi. 49· 5 ; on the tautology of l/..w8£pla and a?n-ovop.la see
Tarn, Alex. 203 ff. against Wilcken (5.-B. Berlin, I929, 292-3), who
would distinguish them as freedom from outside domination, and
the right to determine one's own constitution. The expulsion of the
Mantineans took place a year later, when Agesipolis, the son of
Pausanias, made a winter attack on the town, broke down the walls
with the aid of a diverted river, and compelled surrender; the leaders
of the democratic party were allowed to go into exile but the in-
habitants were divided up among the original constituent villages,
and these were given oligarchic governments (Xen. Hell. v. 2. Iff.;
Diod. xv. 5; Plut. Pelop. 4; Paus. viii. 8. 7).
These two incidents, drawn from a period of four years in the
second decade of the fourth century, add nothing to the picture of
Aetolian behaviour, but fall easily into association with the anti-
Spartan propaganda of 3I-33 (cf. 31. 3-33. 12 n.); indeed, like those
chapters, they give the impression of a last-minute addition to his
text made by P. about ISO, when Sparta was stirring up Roman
feeling against Achaea. The verbal parallel between § 4 and Diod,
475
IV. 27. 4 ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR
xv. 20. 2, • ~·A
o£ o£
~ ,
aK£ol1.tf.WV£Ot \ p.£V
••• TOV \ A. tP,
ovot,..,£aav 'T j
fi'>TJP.'waav j
XPTJp.a.a,,
T~V Ot ppovpd.v OfJK ifijyov eK T(OV 8TJfJwv, is sufficiently close to suggest
a common source. It is generally agreed that Diodorus is here follow-
ing Ephorus (cf. Schwartz, RE, 'Diodoros (37)', col. 679); and P.
may be doing the same. On the other hand, 33 points to the use of
Callisthenes, whose Helle1~ica began with the Peace of Antalcidas
(33· 2 n.); and it seems established (Jacoby, RE, 'Kallisthenes (2)',
coL 1706) that this work was one of Ephorus' sources for the thirty
years 387/6-357/6. Hence there is a decided possibility that these
last-minute additions in 27 and 31-33 were associated with the
reading or re-reading of the appropriately anti-Spartan Hellenica of
Callisthenes.
7. E:av TL<; alm)s ~.'lfljlUn, jlTJSE TOU<; 'ITtAa.<; opiiv: this version of our
ostrich proverb is probably proverbial in Greek too; cf. Wunderer, i. 64.
9. 6.v€te:u~E ••• E:vt Ma.KE5ovla.s: it is immediately on Philip's return
to Macedon that one must date the dispatch of a letter to the people
of Larissa in Thessaly (Syll. 543), urging the recruitment of resident
aliens to the citizen body. This policy reflects his concern to protect
the approaches to southern Macedonia, and the date of the letter
(Hyperberetaeus 21 of year II) will be September 220 (assuming that,
as in Egypt, a king's first regnal year was reckoned from his accession
to the end of the next Hyperberetaeus (Walbank, Philip, 297-8)). It
may be noted that if, as Bickerman argues (Berytus, 1944, 73-76}, the
Macedonian regnal year was reckoned from the actual accession of each
king, Hyperberetaeus 21 ( September) 220 would still be in Philip's
second regnal year, but towards its beginning rather than at its end.
30. 3. 5ul. TO ••• 1l'Eipa.v ~:tA'lcptva.t TWV 5uvOT<iTwv: viz. in the parti-
tioning of Acarnania between Epirus and Aetolia (ii. 45· 1 n.) and the
later Aetolian attack on Medion (ii. 2. 5 n.).
4. Toil ~ea9-rj~eoVTos: the Stoic technical term for 'duty' since the time
of Zeno (Diog. Laert. vii. 108). Its frequent occurrence in books vi
onwards and rarity in i-v has led von Scala (3z9 f.) to regard the present
passage and v. ro6. 8, where it occurs, as later insertions, showing
a Stoic influence which he associates with P.'s later development.
It is true that for the present passage and for 74· 3, where the word
also occurs, Svoboda (Phil., 1913, 471 n. 2) reaches a late date on
quite other grounds (d. JI. 3-33. 12 n.); but there is no such evidence
for v. 1o6. 8, and the context of both passages in iv is such as naturally
to lead to a reference to duty. Moreover, ro ~eafHj~eov is by no means
exclusively used by the Stoics, and it would be hazardous to build
any theory of P.'s philosophical development on the incidence of
the phrase (cf. iii. 1-5 n. (3 b)).
5. outc OKV']Tiov •.• tcoLvwviiv 1rpa.y1-16.Twv: cf. JI. 3-33. 12 n.
6. 'HlTEtpwTa.L 5€ ~K 1rapa.8'aews tcTA.: 'the Epirotes on the contrary',
a phrase which Feyel (140) has misunderstood to mean that the
Epirotes heard the Aetolians and the envoys from the Symmachy
in each other's presence (cf. CR, 1946, 42).
£1rnMv Kat 41lhL11'1l'os ••• i;ev€y~en: 'as soon as Philip ... took the
field' (Paton). Feyel (140) translates, 'chaque fois qu'il viendrait'.
But the point is that the Epirotes wished to avoid a clash with
Aetolia until Philip could help; no doubt they had been promised
the campaign of 219 (57 ff.). P.'s condemnation of Epirote policy
reflects Achaean hostility to a diversion of Macedonian resources to
the north-west. Here were the seeds of a cleavage of policy which
must grow with the intervention of Sparta, and the creation of a
situation which called for Philip's assistance in the Peloponnese
(64. 1-2).
8. 1Tpos j3aatAia nTOhEiJ-CI.tOV: Ptolemy IV Philopator. He had taken
no side in the conflict, but the experience of the Cleomenean War
(cf. ii. 63. r) indicated the wisdom of making sure of a king who was
harbouring Cleomenes (cf. v. 35· r ff.). The envoys are of course
those of the Symmachy, not of the Epirotes (Oost, rn n. 6o against
Niese, ii. 424).
32. 8. 01TE!p f\S'I] 1TAE!OVatcLS ••• auv~~T) ••• xp6vo~~: viz. in the Mes-
senian wars (which P. again refers to in 33), especially the second one
which ended, according to a tradition with which P. was familiar,
in a partial migration to Sicily and the enslaving of the remnants,
in the second half of the seventh century (Paus. iv. 15-23; cf.,
however, L. R. Shero, TAP A, 1938, 525-31, who puts this emigration
after a rising early in the fifth century; Plato, Laws, iii. 692 D,
6g8 D, E); one tradition (Paus. iv. 23. 6) made Alcidamidas migrate
to Rhegium after the first war, at the end of the eighth century.
After the Spartan reduction of Ithome in the third Messenian war
which broke out in 464, the Messenians were settled at Naupactus;
but after the downfall of Athens at Aegospotami they were again
expelled and took refuge in Sicily, Rhegium, and Euhesperidae in
Cyrenaica (Paus. iv. 25· I, z6. 2; Diod. xiv. 34· Z-3· 78. 5-6). Paton's
translation 'has overtaken them' is misleading, since Messenia had
enjoyed tranquillity since Leuctra.
9. T'f)v vuv 01r6.pxouaa.v tca.-r6.a-ra.aw: clearly that existing before 149;
cf. 31. 3-33. 12 n.
10. Ka.-rO. 'Ti)v 'E1Ta.jlwi4v8ou yv<ilJ.lT)V: not recorded elsewhere. But
Epaminondas was responsible for both the founding of Megalopolis
(Paus. viii. z7. x f., ix. 14. 4) and the restoration of Messenia (Paus.
ix. 14. 5 f., cf. iv. .26. 3 f.) in 369; cf. Roebuck, 31 ff.
33. 2. 1ra.plt. Tov -roll A..05 -roll Aut<a.lou flwll-6v: on Mt. Lycaeum in
Arcadia, modern Diaphorti, cf. ii. 5I. 3· The Tip.Evos of Zeus (Paus.
viii. 38. 6) lay on a small plateau 6o m. wide on the south side of the
mountain, where the chapel of H. Elias today stands; on super-
stitions attached to it see xvi. u. 7· The excavations of Kourouniotis
are conveniently summarized by E. Meyer (RE, 'Lykaion', cols.
479
IV. 33· 2 ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR
224o-I). The f3wp.os comprised the very summit of the hill, 20 m.
above the Tlp.EVOS; Pausanias (viii. J8. 7) describes it as a yfjS' xwp.a.
Excavations have revealed remains of sacrifices, vase fragments,
and tiles. The rites were secret and are said to have included human
sacrifice down to historical times ; those who partook of the human
flesh became werewolves (Plato, Rep. viii. 565 D; Paus. viii. 2. 3).
Pausanias (viii. 38. 7) mentions two pillars, surmounted by golden
eagles, which stood before the altar, and the bases of these have been
found to the east of the summit; in a line with them to the north
is a further construction, consisting of a large square block of
masonry and several smaller bases, which has been identified with
the dedication here mentioned. Pausanias (iv. 22. 7) also records it,
but describes it as lying Js Tb Tlp.t:voS' Toil AvKalov. See Ernst Meyer,
op. cit., cols. 2242-3.
€v -rot~ tcaor' :.\plO'TOj1EV1'jV tcalpoi~: Aristomenes' date and even his
existence are subjects of controversy. Callisthenes (see the next
note), who is probably P.'s source for all this chapter, clearly made
Aristomenes the Messenian leader in the war in which Tyrtaeus took
part, three generations after the original subjugation of Messenia
(Tyrt. in Strabo, viii. 362) and so in the seventh century. This was
the fourth-century tradition followed by Callisthenes and Ephorus;
but in the third century Myron put Aristomenes back into the first
war in the eighth century (Paus. iv. 6. I-S) and Rhianus brought
him down to c. 490 (Jacoby, FGH, 265 F 38-46, commentary). Grote
argued that Messenian folk-lore was largely a fourth-century in-
vention; and undoubtedly the romantic form which it assumed in
Ephorus, Theopompus, and the third-century writers, and which it
retains in Pausanias (iv. I4· 7-24. 3), goes back to the restoration of
Messene, and in part to Boeotian sources. But it seems likely that
there was also a continuous tradition from early times, con-
taining the figure of Aristomenes, who may well have been a real
person, not unlike the Klephts of the Greek War of Independence.
For recent discussion see J. Kroymann, Sparta und Messenien (Neue
philol. Untersuchungen, xi, I937), passim; E. Schwartz, Phil., I937,
I9-46; L. R. Shero, TAPA, I9J8, soo-JI; P. Treves, JHS, 1944,
Io2-6; F. Jacoby, FGH, 265 F 38-46, commentary on Rhianus of
Bene; Kroymann, Pausanias und Rhianos (Berlin, I943).
KaAAL0'9iv1'j~: Callisthenes of Olynthus (c. 37o-327) was Aristotle's
nephew. His most important works, in which he adopted a pan-
hellenic point of view, were the Hellenica and the Deeds of Alexander.
The former in ten books covered the period from the King's Peace
(387/6) to Philomelus' seizure of Delphi in 357/6 (cf. Diod. xiv. n7. 7,
xvi. 14. 4). It seems likely that the summary of early Messenian
history in Diodorus (xv. 66. Iff.) goes back to Callisthenes through
Ephorus; it probably formed a digression inserted in connexion with
48o
ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219 IV. 33· 6
Epaminondas' reconstruction of Messene, and it seems likely that
Callisthenes was the first man to write a history of the Messenian
wars. For P.'s criticism of Callisthenes both as a stylist and as a
military historian see xii. 12 b 2, 17-23; in general see Jacoby, FGH,
124 (ii B, 631-57, fragments; ii D, 4II-32, commentary) ; RE, 'Kalli-
sthenes', cols. 1674-1707.
'f'O ypnJ.LJ.La. Toi:lTo: also in Paus. iv. 22. 7, reading M.:aa-rJll7J> in 1. 2;
cf. Preger, Insc. gr. metr. 63; Wilamowitz, Textgesch. 102, 2 (accepting
M.:aa1}ll7Js); Schwartz, Hermes, 1899, 448 (accepting Mwa-rJll7J). The
rhetorical character of such epigrams is stressed by Schwartz (Hermes,
rgoo, 122 f.) ; note here especially ll{KTJV &.Map and P1JLlllw> xetJ\errov.
In Pausanias' version the Arcadians set up the stone. About Aristo-
crates there are various traditions. According to Pausanias (viii. 5·
12, 13. s) he was stoned to death at Orchomenus for violating the
priestess of Artemis Hyrnnia; and this was probably the original
account, for stoning is rare in Greece, and usually the punishment
for sacrilege (cf. Latte, RE, 'Steinigung', col. 2294; Kroymann,
Sparta und Messenien, 105). Kroymann suggests that there was a
story that in the Aristomenean War the Messenians were betrayed
by the Arcadians, that after Leuctra this was undesirable, and there-
fore the treachery was attributed to Aristocrates and the stoning
interpreted as his punishment for this. A 'doublet' of Aristocrates
was now made, the 'younger' man being transferred from Orcho-
menus to Trapezus near the Messenian border (cf. Wade-Gery, CAH,
iii. 531 n. 2). Callisthenes was probably responsible for associating
Aristocrates with the Aristomenean War, and for making theMes-
senians stone him; the stoning by the Arcadians, which would seem
more plausible, will be a later version (Schwartz is clearly mistaken
in supposing that P. quotes Callisthenes as evidence for this view
against that of Pausanias). Whether Callisthenes has rightly inter-
preted the epigram, which is (perhaps deliberately) obscure, is an-
other matter. Indeed the reference to 'Arcadia' points to a date after
Leuctra, for the term would not have been used in such a context
earlier (Schwartz, Phil., 1937. 24). Certainly the epigram does not
date to the seventh century.
6. rt)v :A.purToKpaTous •.• 1rpoSoa£a.v: cf. Paus. iv. 17. 2-9, zz. 1-7.
This story, which is evidently implied in the epigram, though it
mentions no name, is recorded by Pausanias. Aristocrates led his
Arcadians out of the battle for a bribe, and so caused the Messenian
defeat. The battle of the (Great) Trench (cf. Paus. iv. 6. 2, J1Tt Tfj
Td,Ppq; Tfj Ka.Aovpivn Mey&.>.n) was traditionally the last battle of the
Aristomenean \Var; that the word M€y&.A1J may have come in after
Callisthenes' time as a reminiscence of Xenophon (A nab. i. 7· rs; cf.
Cyrop. iii. 3· 26) (so Schwartz, Hermes, 1899, 440) is not very probable.
There are references to the battle in Tyrtaeus (apud schol. ad Arist.
d
IV. 33· 6 ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR
Nic. Eth. iii. 8. 5· III6 b) and Plutarch (Mor. 548 F, also mentioning
Aristocrates' treachery).
7. Ta TEAEuTa.'ia. yEyov6Ta. jLETd T~lV ••• auvolKWjL6v: 'what finally
happened after the foundation' (cf. Schweighaeuser's commentary
ad loc.); rather than Paton, 'the circumstances that followed the
recent foundation' (following Schweighaeuser's translation).
8-9. The Peace Settlement of 362/r: cf. Diod. xv. 89. 1-2; Plut.
Ages. 35· 3-4. This followed the battle of Mantinea (362). where
Epaminondas perished, so rendering the Theban victory ti!Ufoil>l]p,Toll
(cf. Xen. Hell. vii. 5· 26--27). From Diodorus it is clear that it took
the form of a Ko'vTj Elpi}111J, with a avp,fuJ.xta among the parties to it;
and though the uvp,p,axla of § 9 is that of the Arcadian allies of
Megalopolis, the statement that the Messenians v1ro TWII uvp,p,&.xwv
TTpoua£x8ijva.~ refers to the other participants in the peace, and so
confirms Diodorus. Similarities of phrasing (e.g. § 8, dp,rp~ptTov
' ,
£XOVUTJS \ 11"(1]11:
7"rjV ' ' .. .J. f3 TJTOVJI-I!V'f/11 EXOVTI!'S T1}V V£K1]V; § 9,
D'10d • aFY'a I , ' I
39.7-42. 8. The hydrography of the Pontus: see above, 38. I-45· 8 n.,
on the probable source.
IV. 39· 7 SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM
39. 7-10. Causes for the current from the Maeotic lake through the
Pontus. P. gives two: (1) the overflow of water entering from the
many rivers draining into these seas, (2) the overflow of water dis-
placed by alluvial matter deposited by these rivers after heavy rains.
Of these arguments the first is already found in Aristotle (Meteor.
ii. I. 354 a 12 ff.), and something very like the second in Strato (cf.
Strabo, i. so), who also recognized that the large number of rivers
flowing into the Pontus and the Maeotis helped to account for the
current in the Bosphorus (Strabo, i. 49). Strato differs from P. in
that he combines the theory about silting-up with a curious error
for which Strabo censures him; because, he argues, as a result of
alluvial deposits the Pontus is shallower than the Propontis, there
is naturally a flow of water from the one into the other-as if, Strabo
comments, seas behaved like rivers. Berger (Die geographischen
Fragmente des Eratosthenes (Leipzig, x88o), 61 ff.) argues that Strato
cannot have committed this absurdity, and that he must have said,
like P., that the current was caused by displacement; but in fact
Strata's error is already in Aristotle, who describes the downward
slope of the sea-bed from the Maeotis by successive stages to the
Atlantic (Meteor. ii. I. 354 a 12 ff.), and like Strato attributes this
slope to silting at the upper levels. P. accepts the argument about
silting, but has nothing about the behaviour of seas running, like
rivers, in the direction of the lowest sea-floor--either because he
saw through it or because it was unnecessary in his own simplified
account. This omission is not a strong argument against the view
that Strata was P.'s source for this section. See, for fuller discussion,
Walbank, Robinson Studies, i. 470-4. Modern research confirms P.'s
thesis only in part. As a result of observations made by H.M.S.
Shearwater, Commander W. J. C. Wharton, R.N., in August and
October 1872, it was ascertained that the flow of water through the
Bosphorus and Hellespont was considerable, and that it was due
most probably to (r) the prevalence of north-east winds in the Black
Sea, (2) the excess of water received from the large rivers over the
amount lost by evaporation, and (3) the difference in specific gravity
between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean ; and that of these
the wind was the most important factor. Black Sea Pilot7 , 1920,
21-22 ..
7. t:ts vt:plypa.cpf]v O.yydwv ~ptO}LM.>v: 'into basins of limited cir-
cumference' (Paton). For dyy€fov, 'sea-bed', cf. Plato, Cr#ias, III A.
u'D'a.pxouawv 8' i~epuat:wv: according to Eratosthenes, following
Strato (cf. Strabo, i. 49), the Pontus had originally no outlet, but
eventually the water piled up and forced a passage through at the
Bosphorus (for a Samothracian legend about this cf. Diod. v. 47· 3-4);
similarly at the Pillars of Hercules. P. omits this part of Strata's
argument; but it was irrelevant to his point, and the omission (like
490
SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM lV. 40.5
that of the argument about the sloping sea-bed: 7-ro n.) is not
evidence against his use of Strato.
11. oOK E~ Et£1TOp~KWV ••• s~TJYTJI'a.Tio)\1: P. is evidently attacking some
specific alternative version based on 'merchants' yarns' ; for his
prejudice against merchants and disbelief in their stories see 42. 7;
Class. et med., 1948, r6r-2, comparing P.'s attitude towards Pytheas.
See Robinson Studies, i. 470 n. 5·
~K riJs KaTO. cpuow 6ewplas: 'from the principles of natural science';
Oewpla is used objectively to mean 'theory' elsewhere; cf. vi. 42. 6,
-!] 1rep/, 'Ta crrpan:7TeOa Oewpta, 'military science, military theory'.
491
IV. 40. 5 SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM
Tdvais OW€ 0 N£'iAos cl€t €ppn, &>.>.' ..jv 1J'OT~ tYJpds 0 T01J'OS oBev piovaw.
Here Aristotle is concerned particularly ;vith infinite time in the
past; but, as his phrasing shows, he also regarded it as infinite in the
future too (d. Phys. iv. r3. 222 a 29 ff., viii. r. 25r b 10 ff.; Meteor.
i. r4. 352 b I7 ... J.LTJ p.b>ToL yivEaw Kal. ,PBopav, el1rep p.ivH -rd miv). von
Scala (r9z) suggests that Aristotle was in fact replying to Anaxagoras
who, according to Diog. Laert. ii. 3· ro, envisaged the possibility
of time stopping; but when Anaxagoras replied to the question
whether the mountains of Lampsacus would one day be sea with
the words Uv yE o XP6vos p.7] im>.l7171, he was perhaps speaking
ironically as of an dSJva-rov. The context in which P. uses this argu-
ment about time is so closely parallel to that in Aristotle as to con-
firm the view that his source is Peripatetic. His argument, like
Aristotle's, requires that not only time but also the material uni-
verse shall be infinite in duration; and though the Stoics admitted
the former (d. Stob. Anth. i. 8. 42 (W.-H. i. 105): Poseidonius said
that some things are a1rnpa, ws o aJp.1ras xpovos; Chrysippus said
that TOV xpovov m:fv-ra a1J'ELpov Elva~ J,P' €Kanpa), they denied the latter
(d. Ps.-Philo, De aet. mundi, 23. 117 ff., recording arguments of
Theophrastus (Zeller, Hermes, n, 1876, 422--9) or Critolaus (Diels,
Dox. graec. 106 ff.), directed against those who denied the eternal
duration of the world, and are, as Zeller (loc. cit.) shows, to be
identified with the Stoics). To this extent P.'s argument is anti-
Stoic. Strato, who is ex hypothesi P.'s source here, held different
views on the definition of time from Aristotle (d. Robinson Studies,
i. 472 n. r6), and von Scala (19off.) fails to show any detailedconnexion
between those views and the present passage; but there is nothing
in Strato to suggest that he did not accept Aristotle's views on the
duration of time, which is the only relevant point here.
Kliv To Tuxov d.a4>epT)Ta.~: 'even though the addition should be but
trifling'.
6. Completion of any process affecting a finite quantity in infinite time.
This is the basis of P. 's contention about the Pontus, and, as von Scala
shows (192 ff.), it is Peripatetic; cf. Ps.-Philo, loc. cit.; Arist. Phys.
iv. 13. 222 a-b; Eudemus, fg. 52 (FPhG, iii. zso), Jv 8€ -rip XPOV~ m:fv-ra
ylvemt Kat ,PBetpe-rat; Ps.-Archytas in Simplic. in Arist. Categ. c. 9·
(f. 89r; p. 352 Berlin), Phys. 'corollarium de tempore' (f. r86, p. 785
Berlin). Ct.§ 5 n.
O.vayKTJ n:AELw61jva.L Ka.Ta ritv lTpo6Eow: 'the hypothesis requires that
the process must be completed'.
8. Shallowness of the Afaeotis. This was widely known in ancient
times. Cf. Arist. Afeteor. i. 14. 353 a, &>.>.a p.~v Kat -ra TT£pl ~v MatCmv
>./p.v7)v €mS€SwK£ -rfj 1rpoaxli>an -rwv TTo-rap.wv -roaov-rov, wa-rE TToAAtfl
€>.0.TTw p.eyi.Bn TTAota vvv ElaTTAE'iv 1rpos -r7]v €pyaaiav ~ €-ros €t7]Koa-rov.
P.'s calculations of an average depth of between 5 and 7 fathoms,
492
SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM IV. 4L 3
i.e. 30-42 ft., are confirmed by modern soundings which make it
only 48 ft. in the deepest part. 'By observations, it is said that from
qo6 to the year r8o8 the depth of the gulf (of Taganrog) has dimin-
ished 3 ft. ; from the latter date to 1833 it has again diminished 3 ft. ;
so that it has lost 6ft. depth in 127 years, but there appears to be some
reason to doubt the accuracy of this decrease in depth. The sand-
banks have also increased in extent and others have formed' (Black
Sea Pilot7, 1920, 6). Shifting sandbanks would explain both Aristotle's
statement and the soundings recorded (with such little confidence)
in the Pilot. Danov (op. cit. (in 38. I-45· 8 n.), 63) suggests that P.'s
information here goes back to someone who had sailed through the
straits; but it may equally well come from Strata, who would be as
likely as Aristotle to quote evidence of this kind.
9. 86.Aa.TTa. a6ppou<; T~ no11T!f: the 'lTOJ\a.wl who held this view were
probably the Ionian natural philosophers (cf. Arist. Gael. ii. 13.
295 b 12, apxatoL = Anaximander; Eratosth. fg. iii A 2 Berger, TOV
apxa.tov yewypar{>,Kdv 'lTtva.Ka.; Agathemerus, i. 2, 3 (GGM, ii. 471-2),
using both dpxa.tot and Tra.Aaw{; von Scala, I 97). P. quotes the 'lTOJ\a.tol as
nearer in time to the circumstances attested, for throughout these
chapters he exaggerates the speed of the processes described (as does
Aristotle in the passage quoted in 40. 8 n.).
vuv lan AlftY'I'J yAuKEta: untrue. The Sea of Azov is less salty than
the Black Sea (cf. 42. 3· correctly), but it is not a freshwater lake.
According to Strabo (i. so), Strato said that yAvKVTaTTJII elvat T~ll
Iloll7'tK~v Od.Aa.TTa.v; he may have said the same of the Maeotis (cf.
42. 3). On the sweet water of the Maeotis ct. Polycleitus (FGH,
128 F 7 Strabo, xi. 509), who confused the Caspian with the
Maeotis (on this see Tarn, Alex. ii. s-rs; L Pearson, CQ, 1951, 8o-84)
and mentions that its water was th-royAvKv; cf. Curt. vi. 4· r8, there
are some who argue that the Maeotis empties into the Caspian, 'et
argumentum afferant aquam, quod dulcior sit quam cetera maria'.
See also Dion. Byz. p. z. 6--8 Giingerich.
Miletus (FGH, 390 F 1, §§ 28-3o), and, for the epigram recording the
name Botowv, Anth. Pal. vii. 169. No other authority follows P. in
associating the name Bous with Io's crossing, but Arrian (Bithyn.
fg. 35 = FGH, 156 F 20 b) records the version that the cow is that
which led the Phrygians over the Bosphorus. The identity of the
headland is uncertain. It may be the west promontory of Scutari,
or even the small island off Scutari, which bears a tower erected by
Mohammed II (the Tower of Leander); and it is apparently identical
with the AwK~ -ns 1ri.Tpa of Strabo (vii. 320) and the saxum miri
candoris of Pliny (Nat. hist. ix. 51), from which the tunnies rebound
to the European shore and are carried to Byzantium and the Golden
Horn, missing Calchedon.
7. Tov ~<a.Aoufievov Kepa.s: the Golden Horn, the long inlet between
Stamboul and Galata, finds its earliest mention here. Strabo (vii.
32o) explains the name from the likeness of the inlet to a stag's horn
with many branches (cf. Strabo, vi. 282 for the same comparison
applied to the harbour of Brindisi) ; he makes its length 6o stades
( c. 7 miles). There is a detailed description in Dionysius of Byzan-
tium (4. 2--9 Gungerich); see the summary in Oberhummer, RE,
'Keras', cols. 257--{)2 (with map).
To Se 11'Aeiov 'll'aAw lmoveuu: according to Strabo (loc. cit.) the whole
of the current (with the tunnies; cf. Dion. Byz. 3· 5 ff. Gtingerich
87}pas lxOJwv dywyov) goes up the Horn; hence his reason why it does
not reach Calchedon is rather different from F.'s.
8. Ka.XxTJSwv: on the Asiatic shore at the southern entrance to the
Bosphorus, on a river of the same name. Traditionally Calchedon
was founded seventeen years before Byzantium (Herod. iv. 144), and
was therefore the 'city of the blind'. See Ruge, RE, 'Kalchedon',
cols. 1555-9·
10. d1ToA'm:w TTJV ••• 'II'OAw: 'missing Calchedon'.
44. 3-4. TftV ~<a.AoufieVTJV Xpuao'!l'oAw: cf.Xen. A nab. vi. 6. 38; Strabo,
xii. 563; Dion. Byz. 33· 6-15 (Gtingerich). This Kt.f.Jp.7J lay on a pro-
montory directly opposite Byzantium; today it is Scutari. Alcibiades
seized and fortified it in 410 after the Spartan naval defeat at Cyzicus.
The imposition of a 10 per cent. toll on merchant shipping was en-
forced by a squadron of thirty ships under Theramenes and Euma-
chus, and proved a substantial contribution to the costs of the
Peloponnesian War; cf. Xen. Hell. i. I. 19-22; Diod. xiii. 64. 2;
Beloch, ii. 1. 395; Ferguson, CAH, v. 345· Both Xenophon and
Diodorus agree that the toll was levied on ships sailing from the
Pontus, as one would expect; but the phrase Els IlovTov, used here,
in iii. 2. 5 and in 52. 5 (based ultimately on a documentary source),
suggests not that P. is merely writing carelessly, but that the toll
was exacted on goods tra veiling in either direction. On the economic
Kk 497
IV. 44· 3 SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM
domination which Athens secured by her control of the straits see
Miltner, Klio, 1935, 10 ff.
4. To 8' ~~1rpoo-8n• &.~LCiaL tca.TO. poGv: 'for the rest they entrust
themselves (or their ships) to the current'.
5. TO. tca.TO. Tov t1rlll6.n:pa. 1r'Aouv: 'the approaches on the other side',
i.e. to the south and west. Whether one is going up or do-wn the
Marmara, the European coast and route by Byzantium are the
easier. av TE ydp ••• v6rOtS' corresponds to KaK£UJ~v • •• Bv~aVTLOII, av T.
l1ri ••• lTTJalotr; to l1r~ Ttt Tijs llpo1roVTf.aos •• • l:TJO'TOv, and the sentence
as a whole is cast in chiastic form. For the Etesian winds Schweig-
haeuser quotes Apoll. Rhod. ii. 525 and the scholiast on 528, omt.p-
' , , • 'I;'- , ~ , \,
XOtJUt yap £VaVTL0t OL .r.Jl •jULaL TOLS ~L0'1TI\£01JUL TOV
, n·OVTOV OVT£S' Bopp<U
1
M A
KaT' l~<.~:lvous Toils Tb1rovs (cf. § ro). On the duration and character of
these north winds, the onset of which was a.<>Sociated with the morn-
ing rising of Sirius in the late summer, see Rehm, RE, 'Etesiai',
cols. 7I5-I7. They cooled the summer air, and Diodorus (xii. 58. 4)
makes their absence one of the causes of the famous plague at
Athens.
6. eu1Ta.pa.tc6~LaTo;: 'easy to steer'.
tca.T' ~~uSov tca.i. l1JaTOV: on their situation on the Hellespont see
xvi. 29. 3 ff.
7. lmo 5£ Ka.'Ax1J56vos ••• Tdva.vTia. TouToLs: coastal sailing would
involve a long detour round the gulf of Nicomedia, the gulf of Cius,
and the promontory of Cyzicus. On the latter see Strabo, xii. 575·
9 , oLO.
t' \ ' \ ) f < I •(.1 ~ I t ' t th e f aC t
TO TOUS Q.V(~OUS EKO.T!iipOUS , , • ('TTLt-'0/\0.S: OWing 0
that both (the north and south) winds are adverse to both attempts',
i.e. to sail from Byzantium to Calchedon, or from Calchedon direct
to Thrace.
I ,~--'--]
Antiochus II. Andromachus Laodice I,
rn. Laodice I I m. Antixhus II
~---~-·
~l
49. 3. els Tous '~'Tis :40TJvas O.ywva.!;: Athena was the patron deity of
Pergamum, and Attalus I had associated her with his Galatian
502
RHODES AND BITHYNIA AGAINST HER IV. 49· 3
victories (OGIS, 273-9. dated 226--2~3). The present passage suggests
that the Byzantines had recently accepted a Pergamene invitation
to send 8€wpol to her festival; and Holleaux (REA, 1916, 170 =
Etudes, ii. 6x) took this to be the Nicephoria, the title having been
given to Athena on this occasion. Segre (in Robert's Hellmica, 5,
1948, 102-28) argued against this that the earliest application of the
title Nicephoros to Athena (OGIS, 283) dates to 201; and he recon-
structed the history of the festival of Athena Nicephoros with the
following stages: (a) a local 1ravl]yvp~s with 8vala,, but no dywvE>,
first celebrated in 197 or 196, (b) a penteteric festival, not pan-
hellenic, but attended by representatives of neighbouring cities (in-
cluding Cos), held in 189 after Magnesia, and again in 185, (c) a
trieteric, panhellenic festival instituted in 181. This chronology was
proposed by Segre (op. cit. II4 ff.) on the basis of his restoration of
a Coan inscription recording a letter from Eumenes II to the city;
he suggested that the name Nicephoros was first given to Athena
after a postulated epiphany at the battle of Chios in 201. But this
implies that the use of the word N~K:I)r/;6ptov as the name of the sacred
enclosure ravaged by Philip in 201 before the battle of Chios (xvi.
I. 6, cf. xviii. 2. 2, 6. 4) is an anachronism-'celui qui devint fameux
plus tard, lorsque Eumene le reconstruisit' (Segre, op. cit. II9)-an
unlikely hypothesis. Segre's reconstruction has been challenged by
Klaffenbach (;.UDAl, 1950, 99-1o6), who offers alternative, and in
many cases more convincing, restorations to the Coan inscription;
and his article is criticized by L. Robert (Bull. ep., 1952, no. 127),
who promises a full treatment of the question in his forthcoming
Etudes pergameniennes ei attalides. It is established with certainty
that Athena received the title of 'Nicephoros' after 223 (when it
was not included in the dedications of the great trophy celebrating
Attalus I's Galatian victories); and equally the existence of the
Nicephorium in 201 dates it before the battle of Chios. On the other
hand, a cult of Athena Nicephoros is not the same as a festival, and
it is noteworthy that P. does not give Athena the title here. Hence,
though Klaffenbach (op. cit. 1o6) returns to the view of Holleaux,
it seems safer to conclude that P. is here referring to some different
festival of Athena, such as the Panathenaea, a local festival known
from OGIS, 267 ( Welles, 23), 1. 17 (a letter of Eumenes I to the
people of Pergamum). P. does not imply that a new festival has been
instituted. For earlier discussion of the Nicephoria see Kolbe,
Hermes, 1933, 445 f.; S.-B. Heidelberg, 1942{3, I, 8 ff.; L. Robert,
BCH, 1930, 332--6; Hansen, 99, 407-8.
'IwTl]p~a.: of the occasion for this festival, evidently instituted since
Prusias' accession in 229/8, nothing is known. His defeat of the Gauls
was later (v. III. 6-7); cf. Holleaux, REA, 1916, 171 n. 3 =Etudes,
ii. 62 n. 4.
IV. 49· 4 SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM: WAR OF
4. Ka.Tn yi)v: i.e. on the Asiatic side where there were Byzantine
possessions (so. 2-4).
7. TOO'S l.a.oos Kal Ta 1TOAI'i!J.LI<Ct "~flctTa: the >.ao£ are probably serfs
tied to the soil (cf. Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, i. 591). For TToAEfLLKa
Wilhelm (Wiener Eranos (Vienna, 1909), 131; cf. Wien. Anz., 1922,
n defending his case against J. Tolkiehn, BPW, 1911, 995) suggests
1roAmK&; he compares Syll. 588, 11. 64 ff., and gives other epigraphic
evidence for what is a very plausible emendation. 7TOAEfLtKd. ati>p.a,Ta,
'slaves taken from the enemy' or 'enemy persons', is difficult; a con-
trast to Aaous is needed, and this 7ToA~nKa uwfLa:ra gives.
Ta ~ul.a l<ctl.TT]v ).~9£a.v tca.hov t<€pct!J.ov: 'timber, building-stones, and
tiles'; cf. 65. 4·
9. To is yEwpyois: viz. the Byzantine owners or their tenants.
57-87. The Social War: Events of ZI9 and the Following Winter
57. 1. A1f£1..i'lfa.l-'ev O.p-r' Tov O"UI-'1-'a.XLKOv 'lfOAEI-'ov: cf. 37. 7-8; the
attack on Aegeira is thus dated to spring 219.
2. :AX~ga.vSpos • • . Ka.l Awp£1-'a.xos: this Alexander is unknown;
for Dorimachus see 3· S·
mo.v&eLa.v: modern Galaxidt on the Locrian coast, towards the
southern end of the Crisaean Gulf (Bay of Itea).
'lf).oOv i-r~pouv: cf. § 6, i. 44· 2 n.
5. Situation of A egeira: see ii. 41. 7--s n. The river (§ 6) is the Garis,
which runs to the west of the town.
7. :Apx£5a.....ov TOV na.v-ra.>.eoV'TO'ii: otherwise unknown. His father
may be identifiable with IIavmMovn Ti[J 'TTAeiaTov AlTwAwv SwafLivcp
(Plut. Ar. 33· 1), who is probably Ila.VTaJ\Iwv IlenV,ov II>.evpwvtos,
five times general of the League between c. 242/r and 222/r, and
honoured by the Delphians (Syll. 621 ; cf. Flaceliere, 242 n. I, 274-5;
Klaffenbach, IG, ix. 1 2, p. l. On the Achaeo-Aetolian alliance ar-
ranged by Aratus and Pantaleon in 239 see ii. 44· r n.
8. S,a.Soc; 5L6. 'TLVO<; ~Spoppota.s! 'getting in through an aqueduct'.
62. Scopas' raid on Dium: on the chronology see 61--66 n. Feyel (145)
justly observes that this raid suggests that Scopas did not fear an
assault on his eastern flank from Boeotia and Phocis. But 1Tavo"11L"t
(§ 1) is not to be pressed too closely; forces were left at any rate to
protect the western approaches to Aetolia (63. 3, 63. 8}. Scopas'
detailed route cannot be determined, but he probably passed through
Tempe.
62. 1. n«=piav •.• Aiov: Pieria was the district of Macedonia north~
east and east of Olympus, from the Peneius to the Haliacmon (Geyer,
RE, 'Makedonia', cols. 649-5o). Dium lay on the R. Baphyras
(modern Potoki), at the foot of Olympus, 4 km. from the coast, near
the modern Malathria; Strabo (vii, fg. 17) places it 7 stades from
the sea. See Leake, NG, iii. 409 ff., 419; Geyer, loc. cit., col. 662;
Philippson, RE, 'Dion', col. 833.
2. Tas aToas Td.~ 1'1'Epi. To TEjl-EVos: there was a temple of Zeus at
Dium, and Archelaus of Macedon had instituted aK7JVLKOVS aywvas
to Zeus and the Muses; for the sumptuous festival celebrated by
Alexander in 335 see Diod. xvii. 16. 3-4; Arrian, A nab. i. u. I. P.
refers here to this 1Tavr}yvpts. The remains of the theatre and stadium
(Leake, NG, iii. 409 ff.) were no longer visible to Heuzey (us). The
destruction of Dium was perhaps less complete than P. suggests;
at least Lysippus' statues set up to commemorate the Macedonian
ETatpo' who fell at the Granicus (Arr. A nab. i. 16. 4) survived to be
taken to Rome by Metellus (Vell. Pat. i. u. 3 f.; Pliny, Nat. hist.
xxxiv. 64), after his defeat of Andriscus; and in 169 Livy describes it,
after P., as 'urbem ... sicut non magnam, ita exornatam publicis
locis et multitudine statuarum munitamque egregie' (Livy, xliv. 7· 3}.
It had evidently been comprehensively restored since 219.
3. K<tL TOii 8£o~s 1'1'6A£J.LOV ef£VTJVOXWS: public opinion in Greece
sr6
EVENTS OF 219 AND THE FOLLOWING \VINTER IV. 64. z
normally secured the inviolability of temples, and P. elsewhere
condemns the Aetolians (67. 3-4, ix. 34· 8), and equally Philip's
retaliation (v. II. r ff., vii. 14. 3, xi. 7. z). He also criticizes the
Phocians (ix. 33· 4) and Prusias (xxxii. 15. 7) for the same fault; cf.
xxxii. rs. 13, E1To.vfjA8Ev El> T~JI olKdav, oti p.ovov TOt> dvBpw1TO<> d.Ua
~<a.i Tot> fJEo'i> 1TmoAEp.7JKW>· For a similar expression cf. Isoc. Panegyr.
xs6, O.VTOV> ov p.ovov -ro£, awp.acnv Tjp.wv rua KIJ.~ Tois ava.B~p.a.u£
1ToA.:p.~aavTcU. See von Scala, 316, and, for the growing practice of sacri-
lege in the third and second centuries, Rostovtzeff, SEH H W, i. .:mo-r.
64. 2. 04a(3AvTa ,.;, 'P(ov: 'crossing the Rhium'. This was the name
given to the straits at the entrance to the Corinthian Gulf, covered
by Rhium (T6 'Ptov T6 :Axo.iK6v, Thuc. ii. 86. 4} and Antirrhium (To
'Plov To Mo)u;KptK6v, Thuc. ii. 86. 2); today the former is the Castle
of the Morea. See Philipp, RE, 'Ftov (1), cols. 844-5, who, however,
emends the present passage unnecessarily to otaj3dVTa. (~<anl.> To
51 7
IV. 64. 2 THE SOCIAL WAR
'Plov (cf. xii. 12 a z); cf. Livy, xxvii. 29. g, 'fretum quod Naupactum
et Patras interfluit-Rhion incolae uocant'; xxviii. 7· 18, 'ne ..• inter
Rhium-fauces eae sunt Corinthii sinus--opprimerentur'. Philipp
regards these passages as evidence only for Roman usage; but in
both Livy follows P., and they therefore confirm the correctness of
the reading here, as Schweighaeuser saw.
3. wl: ~1rt M1]Tpo1ToAews KaL KwvW'IT'I]S: M etropalis was evidently on
the right bank of the Achelous, but its site is controversial. Leake
(NG, iii. sn, 576 f.) identified it with remains beneath the hill of
Lygovitzi, near the modern village of Skortous, a little to the west
of Lake Ozeros; and he was followed by Fiehn (RE, 'Metropolis (7)',
cols. 1496-7). Oberhummer (Akarnanien, 39} placed it farther south
at Rigani. But Kirsten (RE, 'Oiniadai', col. 2213; 'Paianion', cols.
2365-6 (with plan of Metropolis}; AA, 1941, 102-3) argues convin-
cingly for placing it still farther south at Palaeomanina (d. Bursian,
i. 12o), the last site with ancient remains containing both aKpa
and ?ToAt> before one comes to Katochi, which was already in the
territory of Oeniadae. From Syll. 421 (c. 268 B.c.} it is clear that
the territories of Metropolis and Oeniadae were adjacent. Philip's
destruction of the town shows that it was regarded as thoroughly
Aetolianized, and it is uncertain whether it was, like Phoetiae,
restored to Acarnania (Flaceliere, BCH, 1935, 25-26). Canape lay
:zo stades east of the river near modern Angelokastro (on the
railway from :Mesolonghi to Agrinion) ; for remains of walls see
Kirsten, AA, 1941, 102. According to Strabo (x. 46o), Ptolemy II
changed its name to Arsinoe in honour of his 'h'ife, and made the
KWfLTJ into a 1roAt> (a statement questioned by Geiger, RE, 'Konope',
col. 1341, but accepted by Flaceliere, 7).
5. 1rpos Tt]v Tou 'ITOTO.flOU 8uxj3now: i.e. the ford of the Achelous.
For the same ford cf. v. 6. 6 and Strabo, x. 46o, Konope-Arsinoe
EV</>vw> t7TtK<tp.iVTJ 7TW> -rfj 7ov .iixe-Acf!ov 8ta{1acw. See Woodhouse,
209-10.
6. Mpoous KnTb. Tayfla. ouv'l]o'!Tuuhas: cf. ii. 69. 9 n. The formation
cnwacnrtaJI-6>, used here, allowed only one and a third feet per man.
Translate 'in close order with the shields of each company locked
together' (Capes). Philip's peltasts were a 'crack' corps of Mace-
donians, the equivalent of Alexander's hypaspists, and like them
used for special tasks. Their armour was not substantially lighter
than the phalangists', since at times they fought in the phalanx ; see
above, ii. 65. 2 n. For the use here cf. Arrian, Anab. i. 6. 6 (hypaspists).
8. To • • • Tt7w AlTwAwv 4>p6vTJ!la.: 'the Aetolians, with all their
haughty spirit' (Paton).
9. •Jewp(a.v: to be identified with the ruins on the hill of H. Elias
Q'Tats- Mvy8a.Atal>, south of Starnna (Leake, NG, iii. 544, 577), on the
left bank of the Achelous. See Woodhouse, r54 ff. (with photographs)
518
EVENTS OF 219 AND THE FOLLOWING WINTER IV. 65 . 4
and E. Kirsten, RE, 'Paianion', col. z367 (autopsy in 1939). It is
implied by Noack (AA in] DAI, 1916, no) that in view of the phrase
8u,>..8t1v 'Ta (]'7'£Va (65. r) Ithoria must have lain at Palaeomanina to
the north of these (]'7'£va (formed where the Achelous fio>l'S 'between
the western spurs of the Zygos and the forest-covered heights of
Manina' (Woodhouse, 154)); but the phrase is resumptive; cf.
Kirsten, RE, 'Paianion', col. 2365, 'jene Angabe (sc. in 65. r) besagt
nur einen Wechsel der Taktik nach Passieren der Engen, nicht eine
Lage von Ithoria nordlich davon, also vor ihnen, kann daher als
Zurlickgreifen in der Schilderung verstanden werden'. If Ithoria lay
north of the narrows, it can only have stood on the right bank (so
Lolling). for there is no suitable site on the left bank there; and this
assumption would be contrary to P.'s account.
ll. Tous Aonrous ,..Jpyous: Woodhouse (159-{)I; cf. Kirsten, RE,
'Paianion', col. 2366) identifies three of these with forts on the left
bank of the Achelous, (r) 2-3 miles north of Stamna at Dyekklesies,
(z) the Hellenik6 due west of H. Elias CM'"als Muyoa.Ata.ls, beside the
river, (3) a fort half an hour down the river towards Guria, roo
yards from the water (photographs in Woodhouse). Woodhouse de-
scribes them as clearly temporary refuges (wpyO£) rather than strong
points.
67. 1-4. Aetolian raid on Dodona (autumn 219). For P.'s views on
temple desecration cf. 62. 3 n. The ancient oracle of Zeus at Dodona
(cf. Herod. ii. 52) was located by C. Carapanos; see his Dodone et ses
ruines (Paris, 1878, two volumes). More recent excavation is reported
by D. Evangelides (Ilpo.K7LK&., I9JO, 52-58; I93I, 8J-i)I; I9J2, 47-52).
The temenos was entered through a door at the south-west corner,
and within the main building was the t€pci olKia. (later converted into
a Christian church) ; in the ruins of this building were found many
bronze statuettes of Zeus, and bronze and lead tablets recording
queries and replies from the oracle; cf. Cook, ]HS, 1902, 5-28;
Krappe, Rev. arch. 36, 1932, 77-93; Nilsson, Geschichte der
griechischen Religion, i (Munich, 1941), 396-400. A Macedonian coin
depicting Zeus of Dodona may well commemorate Philip's restora-
tion of the shrine after the war ; cf. Mamroth, ZN, 1935, 225 no. 4·
On Dorimachus' route see Leake (NG, iv. r85), who suggests that he
followed the Achelous till he was past Ambracia, and then crossed
over into the Arachthus valley.
67. 5-80. 16. Philip's winter campaign (219/18). This was designed
to fulfil Philip's promise (66. z) and to bolster up Achaea, which had
suffered attacks from Aetolia, Sparta, and Elis during the summer.
Winter campaigning was unusual; cf. Heraclit. All. 9, a1ra.> yelp
cl.va:rra.verat 1T(JA€fLO> lv XHplJvL, Ka.t 'T~V 1Tpos aA:\7}:\ovs £Kt:XE>pla.v ayovaw,
ovO' <51TAa Swlir-EVOL fJacn&.~€LV oih-E Ta> 1TOA€~A-LKd> frrr.rypEaia.> ,Plp€LV; but
Philip II had practised it; cf. Dem. ix. so, ClLW1TW Olpos Ka.~ xeLr-wva.,
~, ooSJv 8m,Plp€L, otiS' €uT~V €~a.lp€TO> wpa. 'TLS ~v 0LO.A€L1Tt:L. On Philip's
300 Cretans see 55· 5 n. Like Doson in 224 (ii. 52. 8) Philip had to
come via Euboea to avoid Thermopylae. From Cynus his route
probably lay through Opus, Orchomenus, and Thespiae, and along
the road through the northern Megarid described by Hammond, BSA,
522
EVENTS OF 219 AND THE FOLLOWING WI~nER IV. 6g. 4
1954, ro3-zz. Whether Cynus, an Opuntian port, now belonged to
Boeotia or to Philip himself is uncertain; see Klaffenbach, Klio,
rgz6, 83; Beloch, iv. r. 63r; Tarn, CAH, vii. 744 (Boeotian); Feyel,
172 n. 2 (Macedonian). It does not follow from the fact that Boeotia
gave Philip right of passage that she was a belligerent (rJ. 5 n.).
67. 6. xa.XKoo'II"IDa.s: see above, ii. 65. 3 n.
8. Tov crrpa.Tl}y6v: the younger Aratus (37· r), probably at Aegiurn.
9. Tfjs ¢1ALa.ai:a.s 11"tpt To .i).LoaKOIJpwv: the ruins of Phlius lie on the
right bank of the Asopus, a little to the north-west of the village of
H. Georgios (cf. A. G. Russell, Liv. Ann., r924, 37 ff.; Ernst Meyer,
RE, 'Phleius', cols. 27r-9o). The cult of the Dioscuri is natural in
a Doric town ; the Dioscuriurn probably stood on a small hill to the
western end of the plain near Botsika, where there are said to be
foundations of an ancient building with Doric pillars (Meyer, op.
cit., col. 279).
68. 1. 'HX£(wv 5Uo Mxous: the size of a Mxos- varies; for the 7TetpamLl,
Aetolian mercenaries, cf. 3· 8 ff.; Launey, i. r84. Euripidas evidently
carne east into the upper Ladon valley, over the watershed between
Mts Dourdouvana and Saita into the valley of Pheneus, and thence
via the pass of Kastania (cf. Leake, Morea, iii. II4-I5) to Styrnphalus,
and over Mt. Apelaururn via the Psari valley to (modern Botsika
and) Phlius. This was the direct highland route from Psophis to
Sicyon. See Hiller von Gaertringen, AM, I9IS, 83 f.; BOlte, RE,
'Stymphalos', cols. 448 f.
5. SLEK~a.Xc!iv Tijv ITuJ.l+aX{a.v: 'passing through the territory of
Styrnphalus'. The 'rough country beyond' is the great mountain
ridge running south from Cyllene and the high land west of it. Bolte
(op. cit., cols. 448-9) suggests that Euripidas made up on to the hills
west of the Phlius valley during the night, and reached the valley
of Psari, hoping to cross Apelaururn (6g. r n.) before the Macedonians.
72, 4, j.tEVEW KO.Tn XWf>GV: 'tO remain where they were', i.e. in the
citadel.
5. auvayaywv To us 1Top6VTa.s TWV :4xa.Lwv: cf. § 7 rY)v lKKATJalav. They
amounted to a little over 4,ooo (cf. 67. 6, 70. 2, 4,3oo in all; there were
probably losses at Psophis). This assembly was most likely a syn-
cletos, an army assembly acting as a reunion of the people; cf. 7· 5 n.;
Aymard, ACA, 234 n. 3·
6. n1TEAoy£aaTo ••• T~v a.ipEaLv: 'he protested his affection'; cf.
xxi. 3· 2, d7To.:\oyt~6p.EVDt T~V EVVOtav K<lL 1Tpo8vrdav, ~v 1Taplcry(T)Ta.L KTA.
7. l1rt A.a.atwvo;: Lasion, on the eastern border of Ells, lay on the
upper stream of the R. Ladon, a tributary of the Peneius. Philip
would cross the watershed from the Erymanthus valley about ro
miles below Psophis, where the course of the Erymanthus turns due
south. The ruins of Lasion still exist under the name of Kuti, near
the village of Kumani; see Frazer (Pausanias, iv. 98-roo) for a
description of the strong and picturesque position of the town in
:F4
EVENTS OF 219 AND THE FOLLOWING WINTER IV. 73· 6
the fork of two ravines, not unlike that of Psophis; also for the
route, which Philip probably followed (73· 2n.), between Lasion and
Olympia.
8. ot 8€ 11'EpL TOV Eupl1!'(8a.v a1!'ijA9ov Ets TOV KopLV8ov: no doubt the
safe·conduct required him to leave Elis.
9. npoa~a.ov ••• nu8ia.v: unknown.
73. 2. Tijv ITpchov: cf. 6o. 3· Stratus evidently lay near Telphusa,
which stood in the (Arcadian) Ladon valley, about I2 miles south
of Psophis; but it does not follow from P.'s text that as Philip came
south from Lasion he returned as far east as Telphusa, nor yet that
his main army touched Stratus, since the Eleans may well have
evacuated it at the same time as Lasion. On the district see Frazer,
Pausanias, iv. 286 f.; Meyer, Pel. Wand. 84 ff. Though previously
(RE, 'Thelphusa', col. I6I9) inclined to locate Stratus on the hills
west of Telphusa, between the villages of Rachaes and Stavri, Meyer
here (Pel. Wand. 85) states that despite various proposed sites the
ruins of the place are not to be found, and rejects the earlier identifi-
cation as 'unsinnig'. It must have stood somewhere near Telphusa
in the direction of the Erymanthus, cf. Bolte, RE, 'Stratos (z)',
cols. 33(>-I.
3. 8uaa.s ••• T(j) 8E(j): a political gesture. When Agis tried to sacrifice,
the Eleans prevented him (Xen. Hell. iii. 2. 22), Myov-rEs w> Kat TO
apxafov EL'Y} OVT(J) v6fLtfLOII, /l.~ XP'YJO"T'Ijpta{~:oOa.l TOVS' "EAA'Y}VaS' lq/
'EM~vwv TroAlfLtp' wO"TE d.8vTo<; d.Tr1)A8EV. Subsequently he returned and
sacrificed successfully (id. iii. z. z6). According to Diodorus (xiv. 17)
it was this war which ended Elean asylia (cf. 73· 6-74. 8 n.).
4-5. To , •• :A.pTEJLtawv ••• To l>.~oaKoopwv: the former is probably
the shrine of Artemis Alpheiaea near Letrini (probably H. Ioannes,
3 miles west of Pyrgos) on the coast road to Elis; Paus. vi. 22. 8; cf.
Frazer, Pausanias, iv. Ioo-I; Strabo, viii. 343· Philip would follow
the road through the plain owing to the greater plunder there; and
the shrine of the Dioscuri was probably on the road between here
and Elis.
76. Apelles' first moves against Achaea. On the clash of interests be-
tween the court party and Aratus see Philip, 44-45; the handing
over of conquests to Achaea evidently aroused the resentment of
the Macedonian landowners. The attempt to subordinate the
Achaeans militarily must, if successful, have led to their political
subordination.
IV. 76.4 THE SOCIAL WAR
4. aTaBJLwv tcaTaAuaus: 'billets . . . accommodation'. For
billeting cf. 18. 8, 72. I, xv. 24. 2, xxi. 6. r; Herod. v. 52. I, a-ra8p.ot
re ... Ka.~ Ka.ra)uJ(ne<; KcfAA,a-ra,, See Launey, ii. 695 ff.
8. OlLO'Taa9m: 'to express opposition': on the probable strengthening
of the meaning of this word from 'dispute' to 'resist' see Welles, 327.
530
EVENTS OF 219 AND THE FOLLOWING WINTER IV. 78.3
Leake, Morea, ii. 82-84; E. Meyer, RE, 'Typancai', cols. 1796-7 for
a description). The site of Hypana is not established, for the view
which places it near Mundrisa rests on a misunderstanding of Dod-
well's account by Boblage; cf. Bolte, RE, 'Hypana', cols. ns8-9
(Nachtrage). In any case, however, it lay near Typaneae. No remains
have been found of Pyrgus, which lay on the coast near H. Elias,
between the Neda and the river of Strovitzi (cf. Bolte, RE, 'Triphylia',
col. 193}. Aepium, Bolax, and Stylangiunn all lay to the north of the
Kaiapha range, since they were taken after Samicum, as Philip
advanced north (So. 13). Xenophon (Hell. iii. 2. so) describes how the
Eleans bought Aepium. It was on the road from Samicum to Heraea,
and is variously identified-near Platiana (Hirschfeld, RE, 'Aipion',
col. 1044 : but these ruins are certainly Typaneae}, in the district of
Brumasi (BOlte, RE, 'Triphylia', col. 194), and near Masi farther to
the north-west (Graefinghoff). Bolax and Stylangium lay somewhere
between Mt. Kaiapha and the Alpheius; Graefinghoff puts Bolax
near Volantsa on the Alpheius, west of Olympia; but the sites are
still uncertain. Phrixa (d. Herod. iv. 148. 4; Xen. Hell. iii. 2. go)
stood on the heights of Palaeophanaro in the bend of the Alpheius
east of Olympia, opposite Mouria; cf. Frazer, Pausanias, iv. 94·
10. Alipheira lay 9-10 km. due south of Heraea, on a hill (78. 2) on
the left bank of a tributary of the Alpheius; it was in the district of
western Arcadia known as Cynuria. Cf. Paus. viii. 26. 5· The ruins
are known as Tb KdaTpov rijs NEpofl,lT~a>; cf. Hirschfeld, RE, 'Ali-
phera', col. 1494; Frazer, Pausanias, iv. 297 f.; Leake, Morea, ii.
71 ff. For Orlandos' excavations, his identification of the temples of
Athena and Asclepius, and the discovery of iron arrowheads, prob-
ably from Philip's assault, see A A, 1933, 232; 1934. 156--7; 1935, 199;
1936, q6. The gift of Alipheira to Elis evidently dates to the break-up
of the Arcadian League, c. 244, and the TWE> Z'o£at 1rpa!Hs are probably
Elean help accorded to Lydiades in seizing the tyranny at Megalo-
polis (cf. Beloch, iv. 1. 620; Walbank, ]HS, 1936, 67). Lydiades would
not concede territory to Elis once the Aetolians were in alliance with
his enemies in Achaea ; and this alliance followed the accession of
Demetrius II of Macedon. On Lydiades see ii. 44· 5 n.
86. 8. Tov tJoEV )\pa.Tov ••• ~ea.-r,s£ou: clearly the Achaean version of
the incident; the next sentence shows that Aratus was only partially
reinstated. For an assessment of the situation see Philip, 49·
537
BOOK V
1-30.7. The Social War: Events of n8
1.1. Achaean general year: cf. iv. 37· 2. About this date, and at this
latitude, the Pleiades, or rather the principal star in the constella-
tion, TJ Bull, rose on 22 May (F. K. Ginzel, Handbuck der mathe-
matischen ur&d techniscken Chronologie, ii (Leipzig, 1911), 520; cf.
Beloch, iv. 2. 22o; Aymard, ACA, 252 n. 3); but, as Aymard ob-
serves, the change of office is dated only approximately, as occurring
round about that date. The change in date for the entry into office,
hinted at in TOre, cannot be dated with certainty. Philopoemen
entered his first tenure of office in autumn 2o8 (d. xi. 10. 9; Aymard,
ACA, 240 n.) and this was subsequently the normal date. See further
106. 1-3 n. On Eperatus of Pharae see iv. 82. 8.
2. awpt ....o.xos: elected in autumn 219; cf. iv. 67. I.
3. ::A_vv(~O.'l ••• ~"rlPXETO Tij'l • • • '!Tope£o.g Tij'l E~S 'ITo.Alo.v: cf. iii.
34· 6 n. Hannibal left New Carthage about the end of April; but the
words &.pxop,l.v7Js rfi> Oep<:{as are vague, and may refer either to
leaving New Carthage or to crossing the Ebro.
4. IE!lvpwv~ov • • • Kopvt]~~": on the departure of the consuls cf.
iii. 40. 2, 41. 2 n. It was in August.
5. ::A.vTlOXO'l , , , KO.l nTo~E!LUiog • , • ~'lll)pxovTO '!TO~E!LElV aAA'I\AotS;
cf. 68. I.
6. auvijyE To us ::A.xo.tous ••• Ets tKK~l}a(o.v: i.e. to a syncletos, an
extraordinary meeting (Aymard, ACA, 3o8 f.). On the right of the
Macedonian king to summon an assembly cf. iv. 85. 3 n. Originally
syncletoi as well as synodoi met at Aegium; but this was not a legal
obligation. KaTtt Toi.ls v6p,ou> (§ 7) is simply 'in accordance with
tradition' ; cf. Larsen, 168.
10-12. Financial agreement between Philip and Achaea. The phrase
els TI,v 'TI'pun;lv dva~Vf'liv may mean either pro prima expe4itione (i.e.
for the winter campaign of 219/18: iv. 67. 6 ff.)-so Schweighaeuser,
Paton, and Cardona-or (with Casaubon and Aymard, ACA, 252
n. 4) quo die primum castra rex moueret. Convinced by Aymard's
argument that the so talents, like the corn, must be for the future,
I took the sense (Philip, so n. 3) to be, 'the Achaeans resolved that
as soon as Philip struck camp {i.e. in 218) they would give him
immediately so talents to serve as three months' pay for his army,
and in addition would give him 1o,ooo medimni of corn', But equally
well the sense may be, 'the Achaeans resolved (a) to pay him so
talents immediately for his first campaign, (b) to support his troops
for three months, and (c) to him in addition Io,ooo medimni of
538
THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218 V. z.6
corn'. The so talents would then be quite distinct from the future
undertaking, and Aymard's argument would have no weight. On
the other hand, Aratus' eagerness to divert Philip from the Pelopon-
nese once the threat from Sparta and Elis had diminished (S· 8),
would gain additional motivation if a Macedonian expedition in the
Peloponnese was to cost the Achaeans I7 talents a month at once.
Ferrabino (192 n. 1) argues that P. meant to say that the so talents
were for the future, but that they were in fact recompense for the
past ; but it seems safer to stick to what P. says, lacking in clarity
though this certainly is. For discussion of rates of pay see Launey,
ii. 760.
11. JLUpui8a.s ABE, Jlupu18a. CD: Hultsch and Buttner-Wobst read
~J-Vp£/J.Bas and supply 'each month' ; but alTov ~J-Vpt&oac; would normally
mean 'tens of thousands of bushels of corn', indicating a vague but
large number. It seems preferable to read fJ-I.Iptd.Oa with Schweig-
haeuser, Ferrabino (192 n. 1), and Launey (ii. 729).
12. EW\l liv Trapwv ••• crUJL'IfoAEJLTI: the first three months' subsidy
was unconditional, but after that it depended on Philip's presence
in the Peloponnese. For the clash between Achaean and Macedonian
policy concealed behind this agreement, and for Philip's naval policy,
see Walbank, Philip, so-51. Griffith (3o5-Q) shows that for an army of
7,200 (z. u), 17 talents a month represents an average daily wage
per man (without corn) of about J obols-with uiTo<; say about
r drachma.
2. 1. JLE1'c\ 1'WV +tAwv: cf. ii. 4· 7, iv. 23. s n. As in the other Hellenistic
monarchies (there are four grades in the Seleucid court), the rf>IJ.o,
play an important part in the Antigonid hierarchy; on their military
associations see so. 9 n. Here they act as a royal council.
lK 1'fjc; Tra.pa.xEtJLa.crlas: from Macedon; iv. 87. 13.
4. 1'cl\l 1'E 1'wv l6.xa.twv vfja.c;: probably the five decked ships which had
survived the battle of Paxos (ii. 9· 9. 10. 5) ; on the decadence of both
Achaean and Macedonian marines at this time see Holleaux, 1~8 n. 6.
5. €~e 'lfapa.1'n~Ews ••. €tt 1'ou ~ea.tpou: 'in regular battle .. ~ when
occasion demands'. On the quality of the Macedonians cf. xvi. 22. s.
iv. 69. 6; in the price-lists for slaves recorded in manumissions from
Delphi and Naupactus Macedonians command the highest figure
(cf. Tarn, HC, Ios-Q).
6. o'i:ous 'Hcr£o8os •.• 1'o~s Ata~e£8as: fg. 77 Rzach. Suidas, s.v.
SatTa<>, cites this passage without mentioning P. K. Sittl (Wien.
Stud., 1890, so f.) questions the authenticity of the verse since Hesiod
nowhere else uses ~67-.,; and Maximus Tyrius (3S· 2) attributes it to
Homer. For discussion see Wunderer (ii. 39-41) who believes the
author to be an Alexandrian, 'perhaps Euphorion', and argues that
P. probably took the quotation directly from his source since 'P.
539
v. 2.6 THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218
hatte ja gar keine Veranlassung in dieser Weise die Makedonier zu
verherrlichen'.
8. ds Xa.AKlSa.: Chalcis in Euboea was a centre of the Macedonian
hegemony in Greece; cf. xviii. u. 5, Chalcis, Corinth, and Demetrias
the rr'8at 'EA>..7]vtKal. The inscription, IG, xii, Suppl. 644, is claimed
by S. B. Kougeas ('.EA/.7]vtKd., 1934, 177-208) as a record of Apelles'
activity as governor of Achaea; but it probably forms part of a
general army code (cf. Welles, A] A, 1938, 245-6o).
3. 1. :t\y€Aa.ov Ka.l lKova.v: cf. iv. 16. 10 for Agelaus, iv. 5· 1 and
passim for Scopas.
ftETn NeoKp~Twv vevTa.KoaUaJv: probably half the thousand soldiers
sent by Cnossus (iv. 55· 5). The sense of 'Neocretans' (cf. 65. 7,
79· ro; Livy, xxxvii. 40. 8, 40. IJ) is disputed. M. Guarducci (IC,
iv. 21) argues that they are mercenaries enfranchised by the Cretan
koinon; but the N£oyo('TvVE.l77Js quoted in support (IC, iv. 481) dates
only to the sixth century of our era, and it seems more likely that
Tarn (apud Griffith, 144 n. 2) is right in interpreting the term to
refer to a special type of armament; cf. van Effenterre (179 f.), who
argues that Cretan mercenaries were normally archers, but that the
Neocretans were light-armed with small round p~ltai, such as that
worn by L1toOoTos fl{hpwvos Kp~s 'Yp-ra.Kivos, illustrated on a stele
from Sidon (Th. Macridy, Rev. bibt., 1904, 552, no. 4, and pl. I, 7;
L. Jalabert, Rev. arch. 4, 1904, ro-n, fig. J). Launey (i. 284) inde-
pendently suggests the same explanation, and quotes the Kpfins
aam8tw-rm of x. 29. 6 (after Griffith). See also Willetts, 191 n.
KuAA~VTJv: cf. iv. 9· 9 n.
2. Twv va.p' a.l:m~ Kp'JTwv: 300 in number (iv. 67. 6; cf. v. 7· n). On
the use of Cretan and Galatian mercenaries in the Hellenistic world
see Griffith, 245 f., 252 f. ; Launey, i. 248 ff., 490 ff.
TWV ~s "-xa.ta.s ~'lrf.hfKTW\1: cf. ii. 65. 3 n.
3. yeypa.,Ptils TOLS M~eaO")vlo~s KTA.: the states mentioned lie on the
west coast; hence there is no conclusion to be drawn on the policy
of Boeotia from its omission here (as by Feyel, 142).
KO.Tn npovvous: called llpwwot on the coins and llpwvrwos in Strabo
(x. 455). It lay towards the south-east corner of the island, on the
east coast below Mt. Aenus. Cf. Biirchner, RE, 'Kephallenia (r)',
cols. 209-10.
4. vpos TTJV TWV naAa.LWV vbALV! Palus lay lj km. north of modern
Lixuri, on the west shore of the Gulf of Livadi, which makes a long
bight into Cephallenia from its south coast (cf. Biirchner, ibid.,
cols. 210-u). Philip evidently sailed round the south of the island.
7. Ta.is ••• Twv KE,Pa..>.AfJvwv va.ua£: cf. iv. 6. 2 n.
9. E~S TO I~I<IEh\KOV ava.TE£vouaa. vaa.yos: cf. 5· IJ. For P.'s definition
of the Sicilian Sea cf. i. 42. 4 n.
540
THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218 V. 5· IZ
aTv,\c/;p,aaw lpE£8,a8w, 7TVKVofs p,B)).ov Kal AmTots-, Ka~ p,~ 7Taxlat Kal
&.pawts-. l7TaVltJ Kai KaTw aavloos n8€p,lV7JS"' rva p,i] lwaK'!l 0 UTVAOS" Tfj
yfl, /Cal fjaa76.c:rn T6 TELXOS. D-Tav oJ UlJVTf:AW8fi TO o.\ov Kat dpvyE:v Kat
\
O"TVI\W ()' I
Ev, 7TE:pt1C€LU f)W 'l'pvyava
-J._ I
Kat\ Or:JTf
" >I I
EVKaVO"TOS >
EO'TtV ot\
Vl\'fJ "' f
1 UXWO.K<=S
TE ~eal o{fOEs, ~eai 7TVpova8w TO 7Tiiv ••• Kat oiYrw KO.TaKaJvrwv Twv
-fJ1ToaTvAwp,aTwv, KaTa7Twf:i:Ta£ o.\ov TO T€i:xo;;; cf. also Vegetius, iv. z4.
9. a1reLp11tiov Ta~a.s: the am:tpa, probably of 256 men, was the
tactical unit of Philip's army; cf. xi. II. 6, xviii. 28. ro. Philip, 293.
11. TwY Ka.Ta 11€pos fJYE!lovwY: including speirarchs and tetrarchs
(commanding 256 and 64 men respectively): Philip, 293-4.
Z"ap11ndie
Cono~e~
':4nghelo1'a.s-troJ.
~ AtonY•
Pantoltt-a/;or
I ~s1mac
. h"''a•
. - - - --;alpr/·
(AWrsf:ian<9-
M®!l !f;ipsill
Panillgttlill • eKh.iln 'wl( fyVIl of' K!rsj,~n ~-l~ ~
8
.stamna
•7·~ ~~!!.!, ~
~
('b lP
-o,.,o-
~~"'-.., ~<-%.
5::1~ \ .J'ol
()),......c. '\;.,..,;.,.
"'~
~ '1:>~().;., Il"f?-1;.. cerium~~a~ •..,~. _"'o a>«--;.
"'c .., Acrae ""· •. U''o
.,,. "\" (AnoBotinul• I
Ha;nt'e>sQ »< \ \
(Pai.rochor~;Jl~
Ph .;.~"'"""'"b
'<,~
Elt<IS ·,.P ..... Mount Zygos "'-o"'..;:,.
Aetoliko fr<toMok'Y"_) "" 1- ',_.•••,
Lagoon ~-
13. 1. trpoJjllM....,vos ..-ev TTjv XEla.v KTA.: on the order of march cf.
7· n n.
3. ~AE~O.vSpou ToO T pLxwv,ws: perhaps the Alexander, son of Thoas,
549
V. IJ. 3 THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218
whose statue was found at Thermum (IG, ix2• I. 68); but this is
hypothetical.
5. utrEOTaAKE~ ,-ous 'IX>.upLous tc'TA.: for a similar use of Illyrians and
chalcaspides for an ambush in the battle of Sellasia see ii. 66. 5 n.,
66. Ion.
7-8. no.I-£,\OV • • • :I..Kpa.s: cf. 8. I (form llap.c/J(a), 7, 7-8. 4 n. {site Of
Acrae).
554
THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218 v. 19·4
Slavoch6ri. The temenos contained no temple, and Pausanias men-
tions none. The site of the great throne of Bathycles, on which the
cult image of Apollo rested, has now been located under the chapel
of H. Kyriaki (removed during the excavations); Paus. iii. 19. 3·
The township (Pausanias, ibid., calls it a KWp.'T}) probably lay to the
north-west of the sanctuary, rather than in the plain near Slavoch6ri,
where inscriptions are found built into the walls. See RE, 'Sparta',
cols. 1328--9 (Bolte), 1456-8 (Ziehen); and for a map Baedeker, Greece\
opposite p. 365.
4-8. Philip overruns Laconia. His route, south to the tip of Cape
Matapan (Taenarum), then north and east to overrun the eastern
peninsula almost to Cape Malea, is in its general Jines clear, and
many of the sites mentioned have been identified. Gythium (cf. Paus.
iii. 21. 6-22. 2; Frazer, Pausanias, iii. 376-8) lay a little to the north
of modern Gythium (Marathonisi) on a plain and low hills now
known as Palaeopolis (d. Forster, BSA, 1906-7, 22r ff.). The Camp
of Pyrrhus, Carnium, and Asine are less certain. As Bursian (ii.
148 n. 1) saw, the identification of Ilvppov x¥a~ with either the
castra Pyrrhi of Livy (xxxv. 27. 14), which lay north of Sparta, or
Pyrrichus (Paus. iii. 25. 1; near Kavalos) is impossible; it lay a not
very long day's march south of Amyclae, since Philip pillaged en
route, and is therefore to be sought somewhere in the Bardounochoria
district west of Levetsova (on the area see Ormerod, BSA, 1909-10,
66-7o). Carnium is probably to be identified with the temple of
Apollo Carneius on the hill Knakadion near Las (Paus. iii. 24. 8),
which itself stood on the hill of Passava beside a river which Pau-
sanias (iii. 24. 9) calls the Smenus. Asine (cf. Strabo, viii. 363; Thuc.
iv. 54· 4) was commonly taken to be Las, because Pausanias mentions
a defeat of Philip near Las and does not refer to Asine; but Forster
(BSA, 1906-7, 235 ff.; cf. CR, 1909, 221-2) locates it south of Cape
Pagania in the Bay of Scutari. On the area between Scutari and
Taenarum see A. M. Woodward, BSA, 19o6-7, 23&--59. Helus (cf.
Paus. iii. 22. 3; Frazer, Pausanias, iii. 380; Thuc. iv. 54· 4) stood on
the site of the Kalyvia of Vezani, 8o stades east of Trinasus (so
Pausanias); see \Vace and Hasluck, BSA, r~, r6r ff.; its harbour
is now a marshy lagoon. Frazer describes its plain as 'light and sandy,
covered with corn-fields and dotted here and there with oaks and
olive trees'. Acriae, 30 stades from Helus (Paus. iii. 22. 4), has long
been identified with Kokkinhi near the north-east corner of the
Laconian Gulf, where sherds and tiles often turn up on a high bluff
to the south of the modem hamlet; cf. Wace and Hasluck, BSA,
1907-8, 162. On Leucae see iv. 36. 5 n.; and on the plain of Leucae,
south-east of Mt. Kourkoula around Molai, see Strabo, viii. 363
(Wace and Hasluck, loc. cit.). Boeae (Paus. iii. 22. n-13) stood at
the southern end of the Malea promontory in what is now the
555
V. rg. 4 THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218
Bay of Vatika ( Bo£anK<k), where its ruins were found during the
building of Neapolis (Frazer, Pau.sanias, iii. 384; Wace and Hasluck,
BSA, 1907-8, I68).
To this expedition of Philip one must probably refer the epigram
Anth. Pal. vii. 723,
:4. Trapo<; IJ.op:qros Kat &.vip.fla.-ro<;, JJ AaKEOaL'p.ov,
Ka'ti'Vdv br' EvpJ.mz, ol.pK(aL d!Mvwv
aaKLO<;' olwvo~ SJ Ka.Td. x8ov6<; olKla Oivre-;
p:6poV'Ta£' p.~Awv 3' ovK dtouat AVKo£.
So Bergk; others have connected it with the Achaean invasion of
'1.07 or the capture of Sparta in I88. But it does not mention the
capture of Sparta; nor is d!Mvwv (l. 2) to be linked with #.Q>.evo<;
in Achaea {cf. Bolte, RE, 'Olenos (4)', col. 244o).
5. To KfY11TLtcov v£J\a.yos: the sea lying north of Crete. Its limits are
uncertain; but Btirchner's suggestion (RE, 'Kretisches Meer', col.
1823) that the western limit was the island of Cythera cannot be
reconciled with this passage, which clearly includes the Laconian
Gulf as part of it.
6. "'I'E:pt (lilatcoala ~ea.l) TpL6.~eovTa. aTaOLa.: Strabo (viii. 363) makes
the distance from Sparta to Gythium 240 stades; hence Hultsch's
emendation seems likely, and preferable to treating -rp~&Kov-ra. as
corrupted from -rpw.Koma {so Muller, Dorians, ii. 457; Wunderer,
BPW, 18go, 593). The figure is given as 28 miles in Baedeker, Greece\
375·
7. ~s vpos .,.~pos 9E:wpou~vT): cf. 44· 3· Capes, 'examined in detail'
(cf. Cardona, 'considerata nei suoi particolari'); Paton, 'taken as
a whole'. But '1Tp6s; pipa<; frequently means 'in proportion' in contexts
implying dividing up; here it perhaps means 'considered relatively'
to the rest.
21. 1. OUIC lMTTOUS s,ax,XK.Jv: he left probably half his forces in the
city.
2. J3~.i"'l'ouaav Evl Tov Eu~Tav: Le. facing east; cf. 22. I ff.
3-9. Need for geographical precis1'on. P. repeats the principles
enunciated in iii. 36-38 (with some verbal echoes; 21. 4, cf. iii. 36. I
ss6
THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218 V. 23.8
36. 4), and adds that of proceeding from the known to the unknown
(21. 5). In iii. 36-38 he is of course concerned primarily with distant
lands, but here he is describing a Greek site (d. iii. 36. 3).
6. a.l TWV T01Twv 8ta.!J10pa~: cf. ix. 13. 8, oJB€ T6v TO'ITOV ••• ~~~ fUKptp
8eTlov.
ot'lx OUTWS T6 yqovos ws TO 1TWS ~YEVETO: cf. ii. s6. iii. JI. I2, xii.
25 b r, and passim.
7. xwpa.Ls E1TWVOp.oLs: 'local place-names' or (Capes) 'places with dis-
tinctive epithets'.
8. Ta.is EK ToG 7TEpLEXOVTos 8La,;popa.is: 'different quarters of the
heavens'; the reference is to direction (not climate, as Paton thinks) ;
cf. iii. 36. 6, ~ ToiJ 7TepdxoVToS' 3tatp£ats- Kat T&,fts- (referred to in 21. 9,
Ko.O&rrep ••• elp~Kafu;v).
22. 3. Tc'il 1rpos Ti]v 1ro~Lv Toll 1TOTa.p.ou 8La.arf)p.a.TL: 'the interval
between the river and the city'.
4. To miv 8LttCTT1'jp.a. TpLwv Tjp.taTa.Slwv: i.e. about 300 yards. The spot
was probably near the mill of Matalla; see the map in Baedeker,
Greece 4 , opposite p. 365. On the narrowness of the interval see Livy,
xxxiv. 28. z, 'Eurotam arnnem, sub ipsis prope fluentem moenibus',
xxxv. z9. 9; cf. Leake, M area, i. I 53· 'In consequence of the difference
of level between the plateau of Sparta ... and the plain on the bank
of the Eurotas ... the hills of Sparta present a higher profile towards
the river than in any other direction.'
6 • E'ltLt TOY J.lETa.':>U
t I I - '" ~
l:' T01TOV T'I)S '11'01\EWS KO.Lt TWV r.l ~
t'OUVWV: •
I.e. the p la'ln On
either side of the river; the hills are those on which the Menelaeum
stood. They are the )\(),Pot of § 7.
7. 8ua1Ta.pa.~o118f)Tous Kal p.a.Kpous: 'in a long column to which aid
could be brought only with difficulty'.
9. Tous TE p.La&o+opous ~ea.l. Tovs 'II'EhTa.arO.s: a typical combination of
shock troops; d. the examples given in Philip, 292-3. The Illyrians
were probably sent by Scerdila'idas (Griffith, 7o-71 ; Launey, i.
414-15)•
25. 1. nToAE~J.aiov: a holder of some military post (cf. 26. 8), perhaps
commander of the agema (so Schweighaeuser).
TOUl; El( TOU ••• ayt]...,a.Tos: cf. Livy, xlii. 51. 4. 'delecta deinde et
uiribus et robore aetatis ex omni caetratorum peltasts; cf. Livy,
xxxi. 36. 1) numero duo milia erant: agema hanc ipsi legionem
uocabant'. Thus the agema was a picked body of 2,ooo of the peltasts,
corresponding to the agema of the hypaspists in Alexander's army
(d. Tarn, Alex. ii. 148 ff.), and it formed part of the full corps of
peltasts. For a similar body in the Boeotian army after its reorganiza-
tion on Macedonian lines see Feyel, zo1-2; and for the Ptolemaic
agema, 65. 2.
2. Tus <wTeA&:(as): 'plunder' (not 'largesses', as Paton).
3. To(.,s vea.vwKous: 'soldiers' (not 'lads', as Paton; cf. Latin iuuenes).
558
THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218 V. z6. 12
32. 1. TTJV 6.pxT)v -111-'Lau Tou 'IIUVT6<;: cf. vi. n a 8, quoting Hesiod,
op. 40, ~tot, oVIU taauw datp 'TTAeOV iftttUU 'TTO.l'TCJS'. The present proverb
is rather different. Iamblichus (VP, 162) records it as an apo-
phthegm of Pythagoras in the form, dpx~ Of. Tot f}p.wv TTa.VTos-; cf. also
Plato, Laws, vi. 753 E, dpxfi yap >.iyeTat t-t~" 7itttav 7TaVTa.> Jv Tai;;
TTapotttlat> epyov, KU~ TO YE ICUAW> ap(aa8at 'TTUVTES' ly~ewp.ta~OftEV EKU-
REVOLTS IK EGYPT (222-220) v. 33-5
\ ~1o )f t' ; I .J.. I ). I 'f'\ \ fl \ '~ ' 1 \
UTOT€' TO 0 €0'T£V T€, W<; Ef-LO£ 't'O.£VET!lt, 7TI\l!OJ' TJ TO TJfLtUV, I(O.t OVO€"> !lVTO
~<a.Aws ')'EVOf-LEvov €yKEKWf-LlaKEv i.Kavws; Arist. Eth. N ic. i. 7. 23. Iog8 b 7,
8oKei: o~v 7T-\ei:ov ~ Td 1lf-L£0'!J TOU 7T!lVTtk t:lva.• ~ apx~· Both the codex
Urbinas (F) and the Vaticanus (A) attribute this also to Hesiod; so
too Lucian (Herm. 3). But the phrase had wide rhetorical currency;
cf. von Scala, 73; Wunderer, ii. 41-42, 86, who suggests that P. is
drawing on a gnomic collection.
33. 2. "'Eq,opov: see iv. :zo. 5 n.; cf. ii. 37· 4 n. \\'hom P. means when
he attacks the writers of epitomes of the Hannibalic War (§ 3) is
unknown. Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 338 n.) thinks of Menodotus of Perin·
thus (cf. Diod. xxvi. 4), but apparently only through horror uacui.
3. aEAi<nv: 'columns' on a papyrus roll.
4. '1TA1)v Tou 'ITEpt ILKEALa.v: the First Punic War; cf. i. IJ. 3, 1 3· Io.
ml.vTEs ••• .fJva.yKlw91l!J-E": probably 'we in Greece' (so Paton).
5. T~w 1Tpa.yt-ta.Teuof.LE:vwv: 'composers of history'.
ot ••• u1TOIJ-"1ltJ-a.TLbOf.LEVol 'lroALTLKws ELS To us TOlxous: who are these
writers on walls, and what do they write? A. Wilhelm (Beitrage
zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde (Vienna, xgog), 287 f.) saw a refer·
ence to the setting up of official records; and Laqueur (RE, 'Lokal-
chronik', cols. 1o88-9) showed that 7TOA£TU<ws meant, not 'in a simple
fashion' (Schweighaeuser), nor yet 'political' in contrast to 'rhetori·
cal', as in Aristotle (Poet. vi. 1450 b 7) (\Nilhelm), but 'on public
instructions and for the citizen body'; these &rof-LV~[-Lam were in
contrast to real histories. P., then, is referring to 'officially published
memoranda'; but their contents are still controversial. Laqucur
believes them to have contained material of a 'chronicle' type, and
suggests that 'IToAtnKa V7TOf-L~f-La:ra was the official term for public
chronicles in Greek cities, in contrast to fla.mA.td. &ro[-Lvqp..aTa. But
Jacoby (Atthis, Oxford, 1949, qq-8o, with notes) argues that these
{mof-L~f-LaTa were mainly official notices on such matters as enfran·
chisements, proxeny-grants, and sales, 'matters, that which are
published not because of an historical interest, but because the
citizens must be informed about them for practical reasons'; and
he compares the Roman acta diurna. The main obstacle to this in
other respects attractive view is the phrase €v Tai:s xpovoyparpla.tc;, on
which Jacoby writes (op. cit. 356 n. 20), 'if P. did write the words,
he must mean that the reports are inscribed on the walls meant
for them regularly and annually'. The phrase is indeed difficult;
it is not found elsewhere in the extant parts of P. nor is it easily
translated. If it is retained, a preferable rendering to Jacoby's would
be 'those who on public authority set up memoranda of occasional
happenings in chronological sequence'-which would not neces-
sarily imply an historical record after the manner of the Parian
Marble (so Meyer, /(l. Schr. ii. 338 n.). But this is a forced rendering,
563
V. 33· 5 REVOLTS IN EGYPTj (222-220)
and the likelihood is that lv Tat> xpovoyprufoiats- should be extruded
as a gloss by someone who has failed to understand to what P. is
referring. In that case, Jacoby's view seems the most acceptable.
Paton completely misses the sense.
the light and look at', and first appears in the tragedians (cf. Wun-
derer, i. 75, quoting Homer, Od. xi. 498, 619). The observation con-
cerning Egypt recalls Plut. Arat. 15. 3 (Aratus has returned from
Alexandria um; UK~PlJP !wpaKWS' 1TCtVTa ra iK!i 1Tpayt-LO.Ta Tpaycpfllav
OVTa Kal UKlJPOypacp{av).
11. va.ut; iv Toit; ~e:a.Tn I0.1-1-ov: Samos was Ptolemaic throughout the
third century from about 28o; cf. Holleaux, REG, 1897, 26 =Etudes,
iii. 42; Robert,Et. epig. 113-18; Launey, i. 237-8.
<M'pa.nwTwv 1TAfj9ot; ~v To it; KaT' "EcpEaov: probably mercenaries, as
UTpartwTat often are in inscriptions (Launey, i. 29-30).
13. ou~e: ciacpa.A.f:t; • • • ~'lta.uALv: cf. Plut. Cleom. 6, Kai 1ToAAwv 'l}v
aKOVHV A!yovrwv O'TL •oJros 0 .A!wv lv TOVTotS' TOtS' 1Tpo{3aTOLS' ava-
UTpicp!TaL'. The common source is apparently Phylarchus (35-39 n.).
36. 1. Tt]v O.va.£pEaLv Tou Maya. ~e:a.l Tfj'i BEpEVbcTJ'i: cf. 34· I n. Berenice
was mother of both Magas and Philopator, and wife of Euergetes;
she is celebrated in Callimachus' Lock of Berenice (cf. Pfeiffer, i. 320,
certa uestigia Comae desunt). Her TOAt-La was renowned since, as a girl,
she had her proposed husband Demetrius the Fair murdered for
his relationship with her mother Apama (Iustin. xxvi. 3 ('Arsinoe'
for 'Apama'); d. Cat. 66. 25 f., 'at te ego certe cognoram a parua
uirgine magnanimam').
v. 36.3 REVOLTS IN EGYPT (222-220)
3. Tous ~£vous Ka1t.ua9o«j>opous: 'the foreign mercenaries', cf. 53· 3·
Bikerman (Seleucides, 69) distinguishes the {'vot as troops enrolled
for one season and j.Lta0o<fo6pot as permanent troops ; but they are
probably one body (cf. ii. ~. 3 n.; Launey, i. 27-28).
4-5. oux opq,s KTA.: cf. Plut. Cleam. 33· 4· P. says <JXEOOV €lr; Tpta-
xtAtovs and mentions I,ooo Cretans; Plutarch omits the Cretans but
writes 7TI.tdovs ~ TpwxtAtovs. But these variants are not sufficient to
require a separate source, for Plutarch may be compressing his
narrative (he also omits Cleomenes' ironical reference to Syrians and
Carians). Mercenaries dr.6 ll€Ao1Tovv~aov are probably no more than
men recruited at Taenarum, a mart no doubt controlled by Sparta;
cf. Diod. xix. 6o. r; Launey, i. I04-5·
5. TOUS a'ITO Iup(a.s tca.l Ka.pia.s aTpc:mwTa.S: probably Syrian and
Carian mercenaries in Alexandria. Several are known, and a cinerary
urn of one Syrian from the military cemetery at Hadra, east of
Alexandria, bears an epitaph (Launey, i. 456, 538). This seems to
make a better point than if one assumes (with Griffith, 127--8) that
Cleomenes refers to mercenaries on garrison duty in Syria (Coele-
Syria ?) and Caria; but the garrisons abroad certainly enter the
picture (cf. 35· II, Tois KaT' NE<fowov) and Griffith's view is possible.
In either case the soldiers are mercenaries.
41. 1. 8La T~v fJALK(a.v: in 222 Antiochus III was about 20, since he
was born about 242 (cf. xx. 8. I; Diod. xxix. 2 (over so in 192);
Beloch, iv. 2. 201}.
'Epj1ELou Tou TOTE 1TpoEaTWTOi TWv oXwv 1Tpayj1&.Twv: Hermeias was
o
'grand vizier', officially i77'' rwv 7rpa.yttarwv. On this officer, who
was accompanied by a detachment of guards (2 Mace. iii. 24), see
Bikerman, S ileucides, 187 8 ; Corradi, 2 56-67. He sat in the uvv£Sptov
(42. I f.), set on foot state trials, surveyed the administration of
provinces, conducted business with foreign states, and concerned
himself with military supplies (49· 7) and the paying of troops
(so. 2). The hostile and tendentious character of P.'s account of
Hermeias is analysed by W. Otto, RE, 'Hermeias (1)', cols. 726-30,
especially col. 727 n.
Molon's revolt must be dated 222 (Beloch, iv. 2. 193-5; Tarn,
CAH, v;i. 724; Meloni, Rend. Line., 1949, 539 n. 1); for after his
successes against Antiochus' generals Xenon and Theodotus (43· 7,
45· 2) he prepared to winter at Ctesiphon (45· 4). This can scarcely
be for 221/o, in view of the many events which intervene before
Antiochus' arrival at Nisibis at the winter solstice (51. 1). Hence it
is for 222j1, and Molon's revolt cannot be later than summer 222,
For a consequent difficulty in connexion with P.'s account of
Antiochus' council (41. 6-42. 6) see 42· 4 n.
2. T~v 1TLO'TLv £vxetpCaa.VTos: 'who handed him this office of trust'.
T~v E1TL Tov (' A}TTaAov aTpaTE£a.v: cf. iv. 48. 6 n.
4. 'E1TLyEvT}v: not the Teian Epigenes, who served in the wars of
Attalus I against the Galatians and Antiochus Hierax (OGIS, 28o;
IG, xi. 4· IIo9; Launey, i. 431).
6. Tou auvE8p£ou: on the synedrion see Corradi, 231-53; Bikerman,
571
V. 41.6 MOLON'S REBELLION AGAINST ANTIOCHUS (222-220)
Sileucides, 188--9o. It contained the most important members of the
court, assembled not as a permanent body but as an ad hoc council
with advisory powers. Its procedure is well illustrated here.
7. uuv6.'!1'Tf:LV TO~S TO'!TOLS: 'proceed to the territory'. ol 'T01TOL (ct. 40. 5)
is the technical term for the territory of a Seleucid provincial
governor; cf. Welles, 36 1. 18, ev To4> v1rd aE (i.e. Anaximbrotus,
strategos of Caria) -ro1Tot>, i.e. 'in your province'. It is with the terri-
tory rather than with dynasts and cities in it that a governor is
primarily concerned. -ro1rot also figure in the Ptolemaic and Attalid
organization. See Bengtson, Strat. ii. 9-12.
9. O"UV«p'!TaatlEVTO.S imo TllY OXAWV: 'seized by the SOldiers' (not
'populace', as Paton}; cf. i. 15. 4, 32. 8.
44. 1. Tci ••. l1T7To~6p~La.: cf. x. 27. 1. The famous Nesaean horses of
Media, mentioned by Herodotus {iii. 106. z), were apparently the
ancestors of the large Parthian war-horses (cf. Strabo, xi. 525,
lJnop.oprfoot). They were fed on the Median lucerne or alfalfa. Tarn has
suggested (HMND, 77 ff.) that the Parthian horses came from
Nesaean mares crossed with Libyan stallions.
3. WS 1rpos J.1Epos 8EwpOUJ.1EV"l: cf. r9. 7 n.
4-11. Geography and limits of Media. P.'s source here is unknown,
but his account contains new features, in particular the recognition
of a broad mountain mass, Mt. Zagrus, separating Media from
Persia. P.'s boundaries of Media, to north, south, east, and west, are
somewhat distorted. The desert 'between Parthia and Persis', to the
east, is Carmania Deserta, the central desert area of Persia, including
the Great Kavir salt desert and the Dasht-i-Lut basin, which in fact
lie east and south-east of Media; cf. P. M. Sykes, A History of
Persia, i 3 (London, I930), I9-22, The Caspian Gates(§ s). the Pass of
Sirdarra, indicate the longitude at the north-east corner of the pro-
vince; on their use as a mapping-point see Thomson, zo6-7. The
mountains of the Tapyri are the modern Mt. Albarz, the ancient
Parachoathras, and the Tapyri evidently lived north of the pass in
these mountains; they are probably the barbarians of x. 29. 3· The
Hyrcanian Sea is the Caspian (cf. Tam, Alex. ii. 5 ff.). On the south
P. makes Media march with Mesopotamia, the Apolloniatis, and
Persis, i.e. it reaches the middle Tigris, which must therefore be
pictured as running roughly from west to east. Mt. Zagrus, which
separates off Persis (here evidently including Susiana) is the range
running north-west to south-east along the ridge of the plateau
(Strabo, xi. 522). On the west lie the 'people of the Satrap' (§ 8),
evidently the ruler of Media Atropatene, which was distinct from
Media Magna (Strabo, xi. 522-3), modern Irak-i-Ajami, from Alex-
ander's time onwards, and had enjoyed a high degree of independence
574
MOLOX'S REBELLIOK AGAINST ANTIOCHUS (222-220) V.44.9
under Persian princes (Strabo, ibid.). P. is confused on the extent and
situation of Atropatene. In 55· 7 the dpm~ separating it from Media
is the Zagros, which is thus apparently envisaged as coming round
in a north-west direction, as indeed it later does in the Ptolemaic
map; and P. here makes Atropatene extend to the west of Media
(where Armenia lies), since to the north Media is bounded by tribes
towards the Maeotis (§§ 9-1o). Nevertheless in 55· 7 Atropatene
reaches the Caspian : and it did in fact include the shores from Baku
round to Hyrcania. For a full treatment of the geography of this
area see Kiessling, RE, 'Hyrkania', cols. 454-526 {especially 462-3
and 500-3)·
7. O.v6.~a.ow ~XEt 'll'po; tKa.Tov aT6.8ta.: about u~ miles. Cardona,
'alto circa cento stadi'; but elsewhere in P. tivc1{3ams is the ascent,
not the height, and P.'s point is apparently the shortness of the
ascent (and so the narrowness of the range) and the number of tribes
it contains, thanks to the many folds and branch valleys.
8ta4op0.; 8( Ka.i uuy~el.EwE~'> . • . Exov: 'containing many places
where the mountains open out or close in'. Schweighaeuser suggests
that the former produce avAwv£;, 'wide plains', the latter Ko,,\d.St:s;
but P. is concerned, not with the distinction between wide and
narrow valleys, but between a single undifferentiated range and one
consisting of many separate branches. On a.v,\wvt:s see iii. 83--85.
6 n. (i).
Koaaa.'LoL: despite Strabo (xvi. 744; cf. xi. 524), who associates the
Cossaei with Persis, Paraetacene, and the Caspian Gates, it appears
from Diodorus (xix. 19. 2) that they lived in the mountains between
Media and Susiane, a situation which would fit P. A wild and savage
people, they served as mercenaries in the Persian armies, and drew
tribute from the king. Alexander subdued them in 324/3. Their
tongue and racial affinity are discussed by Weissbach, RE, Koo--
uatot, cols. 1499-I5o3.
Kop~pTjva.L: unknown. Strabo (xvi. 745) knows Kop{:Ju:x.vq (MSS.
Kop{:Jlava, Kvp{3tavd., or Kop{3Lavd.), E7Tapx,lo. rijs 'E,\vt'at8os-; hence
Schweighaeuser conjectured Kop{3,fjvol here. The Kdpxo' are also
unknown.
8. Toi:-. Ia.Tpo.'II'EioLs: 'the people of the Satrap'. P. refers to Media
Atropatene. ]. Marquart (Gott. A.bh. 3 (x9o1), 3· xn) observes that
Armenian governors were normally known as Marzpan or Marzaban ;
but the Marzpan of Atrpatakan (Atropatene) was alone called sahap,
a word akin to 'satrap'. Thus the Ea-rpam:to' will be the people of the
ua-rpa1MJs Ka-r' J~ox~v, i.e. the ruler of Atropatene who, under the
Achaemenids, had enjoyed virtual independence, without bearing
the royal title. See Lehmann-Haupt, RE, 'Satrap', col. 176.
9. 'EA.ul'o.£o~!; Ko.t To!:, i\v~o.paKo.L'>: these Elymaeans are distinct
from the people of Elam, and dwelt north of Media near the Tapyri
575
V. 44· 9 MOLON'S REBELLION AGAINST ANTIOCHUS (222-220)
(cf. Ptol. Geog. vi. 2. 6). Noldeke's proposal (Gott. Nachr., 1874, 197)
to read Lk>..vfLai:ot ( cf. the medieval Delam) has not been accepted
by editors. Strabo (xi. 507-8, 514) mentions the Aniaracae in the
form AvaptaKat, i.e. 'non-Aryans'; but this is not sufficient reason
to follow Holstenius in changing P.'s text, for the Strabo MSS.
give several variants.
Ka.Souo-(o~s Ka.i Ma.na.vo's: cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. 48, 'Arsi, Gaeli
quos Graeci Cadusios appellauere, Matiani' ; Strabo, xi. 514, 523,
stressing the merits of Cadusian javelin-throwers. Matiane lay east
of Armenia, and south and west of Atropatene; and the Cadusii
were in the same neighbourhood, near the Caspian (Strabo, ibid.).
See Weiss bach, RE, 'Matiane', cols. 2197-1). On P.'s confusion con-
cerning the placing of Atropatene, Media, and these tribes see
44· 4-II n.
Tell Mand nebi (Dussaud, Rev. arch. 30, 1897, 355; Honigmann,
loc. cit.), which lies between the Orontes and a stream called
Mukadije; coins of Laodiceia represent these rivers as two water
urns flanking the Tvx'TJ of the city.
8. 8leA9wv TftV ~PTJIJ.OV •• , Ma.paoa.v: Antioch us marched through the
desert south of Ribla (on which see Robinson, ZDMG, 1853, 73).
Honigmann (RE, 'Syria', col. r6r6) suggests that it formed the
frontier area between Seleucid and Ptolemaic domains, deliberately
left uncultivated after its ravaging in the Syrian Wars. The avAwv
of Marsyas (d. Strabo, xvi. 753. 755-6; Theophrastus (HP, ix. 7· I)
calls it, like P., simply the avM!v: icrrtv 6v avAwva Ka>.oucrl m:i5{ov 1TOAiJ
Kai Ka.\6.-) is the modern plain of Biqii' between the Lebanon and the
Antilebanon, which stretches south as far as Chalcis (Gerrha) ; cf.
Strabo, xvi. 755. €xwv nva Kal opetvd., ~v o[s ~ Xa>.Kls (cf. 46. 2 n.),
W0'1T£p d1<po1roAts Tov Ma.crcrtJou. Strabo's form Ma.crcrvas is shown to be
more accurate by the Zenon Papyri; cf. Wilcken, Arch. Pap., 1920,
451 n. I; Holscher, RE, 'Marsyas (5)', col. 1986.
10. 6 !J.Upt::ljfltcbs ••• tcaAa.~J.os; this is Calamus odoratus which, accord-
ing to Theophrastus (HP, ix. 7· I f.; d. Pliny, Nat. hist. xii. 104 f.),
grew between the Lebanon and a small hill on its eastern side, but
not (he adds) between the Lebanon and the Antilebanon, which are
far apart and separated by a wide plain. The KMa.p.os &.pwp.aT£Ko>
grows on the dried-up marshland beside a large lake (the Birket el-
J ammune), and Droysen (iii. z. 3oo f.) identified this lake with P.'s
Atp.VTJ between Gerrha and Brochi. But P. is not here following
Theophrastus, who (HP, ix. 7· 1, cf. iv. 8. 4) locates the calamus
in an a.v>.wvwKos (the Wadi en-nusur containing the Birket el-
J ammune), which is specifically distinguished from the a.v.:\wv of
Marsyas. On the probable position of the latter see 46. 2 n. and the
map in RE, 'Libanos', cols. 5-6.
P.'s source here is clearly that attacked by Theophrastus (HP,
ix. 7· I, ws nvls c/Jam); and, as C. 0. Brink has pointed out to me,
this is probably Diodes of Carystus, whose 'Pt{oTop.t~<ov is to be
regarded as a source of Theophrastus, HP, ix (cf. M. Wellmann,
RE, 'Diokles (53)', col. 8u; Festgabe fiir Franz Susemihl (Leipzig,
1898), 2 ff., 23; Regenbogen, RE, Suppl.-B. vii, 'Theophrastos', col.
1458; Jaeger, Diokles von Karystos (Berlin, 1938), 181 ff.). (P.'s
account of the lotus in xii. 2. 2 f. was derived by von Scala (152-3) from
a source common to Theophrastus (HP, iv. 3· 1), Nepos (Exempla,
fg. 2o Halm) and Pliny (Nat. hist. xili. 104, ro6); this too is probably
Diodes.)
The calamus is also described by Dioscorides and Pliny, but there
is some doubt whether the same plant is always indicated. Dioscorides
describes our calamus (sweet flag), which was used as a strewing
plant in the Middle Ages; it was introduced into Britain about the
l&\6 Pp 577
V. 45· 10 MOLON'S REBELLION AGAINST ANTIOCHUS (222-220)
sixteenth century. But Pliny (like Galen and the Latin glosso-
graphers) confused it with the common iris (fleur-de-lis), Iris
pseudacorus.
50. L 01rep TWV •.• o+wvl:wv: cf. § 2, TdS m-ra.pxlas; both terms are
here used in the same sense, the confusion springing from the prac-
tice of making a cash payment in lieu of rations (cf. i. 66. 6 n.;
Launey, ii. 733 n. 3).
2. a~a.AUaELV ••• TBS O'tTa.px£a.s: as 0 E1rt TWV r.payp.a-rwv Hermeias con-
trols military supplies and troops (Corradi, 264; Bikerrnan, Seltmcides,
I87-8); but the fact that he can make terms about paying suggests
that this was an advance out of his private funds (cf. Rostovtzeff,
SEHHW, ii. II56).
5. 1r£P~EXOII-Evos . • • t<a.Ko'I)(Mas: 'hampered and preoccupied by
administrative duties and by constant watching and attention
thanks to the malice of Hermeias' ; but ol~<.ovop,[at may be malae
artes, as Schweighaeuser suggests, 'uariis artibus, astuta rerum
administratione'.
6. O.va.xwpTjaa.vTos Ets £11-aTtov: 'retiring into civil life'; cf. Plut.
s8o
MOLON'S REBELLION AGAINST ANTlOCHUS (222-220) V. 51. 4
Cam. ro. r, ~~~ [fLaT{ots 'in civilian garb' ; and the Latin ad togam
1'edire.
7. Kuppt}aTwv: Cyrrhestice was the mountainous area of north Syria
between Mt. Amanus and the Euphrates, south of Commagene
(Strabo, xvi. 751 ; Ptol. Geog. v. 14. 10; Dussaud, Topographie, 467;
Honigmann, RE, Kvppw7'LK~, cols. rgr-8); Tarn (CAH, vii. 725)
suggests that it was Epigenes' own province. Many of the inhabitants
claimed Macedonian descent; cf. IG, xii. 5· 8g1, a verse epitaph on
Andronicus of Cyrrhestice, an engineer: Kvppos 'EpfLtov TiJ<os •••
MaKrJOOVWV eoe8Aov. See Bikerman,Se'leucides, 8o; Launey, i. J48, 538-9.
9. q.£J.ous ••. 5uv6.1-U'LS: for the association of these terms cf. OGJS,
219 1. 15; Antiochus I has recovered his ancestral domains fLaALCJ7a
fL€v Sui 7'~v lolav &perqv, elTa Kai OLa T~v TWfL rplAwv Kai Twv ovvafLewv
dJvo,av (cf. 11. 24, 45); 'Welles, 6 1. 6; Insch. Mag. 86 l. 17 [l11l
awTl'JplaL] Tov 7'€ {JacnMws EilfLbovs . •• Kal Twv ,Pf.Awv KaL Twv 8vvafLewv.
This combination reflects the early military character of the ,PC\o,,
direct descendants of Seleucus I's emi:poL and rpf.Ao, (Plut. Demetr. 49:
Diod. xix. 56. 3) and Alexander's batpoL. See above 2. I n. for the
Antigonid court.
10. Tov liKpoq.uJ.a.~ea.: this commander of the garrison at Apamea is
quite distinct from the civil epistates (48. 12 n. ; Bikerman, Sileu-
cides, 54).
o
56. 1. !«\'ll'oAAo~civt]<; ~a.Tpo<;: presumably one of Antioch us' rfoO..o~.
comparable to Alexander's doctor, Philip of Acamania (Diod. xvii.
31. 6). He was a famous medical teacher (Caelius Aurelianus records
that he belonged to the school of the Erasistrateans), and Celsus,
Galen, Alexander of Tralles, and other medical writers mention him.
Apollophanes is probably the writer referred to by Pliny (Nat. hist.
xxii. 59) and the author of the 87Jpta.Ka mentioned by the scholiast
to Nicander, Theriaca, 491. Cf. Wellmann, Hermes, 1888, 561 n. 1;
Susemihl, i. 822,
2. Tot:<; Oj-lo(ol<; ••. O"UJ111'1'WJ1a.aw: cf. iv. 48. 6-8.
7. T~V ... EIEpO.'!!'E(a.v:the court; cf. iv. 87. sn. Corradi {297) thinks the
reference here is to the f3aatAtKol 1rat8E> especially, but this seems
improbable.
troops (cf. Griffith, 168 n. z), and its emphasis by P.'s source, cf.
40. 4-57. 8 n.
4. Tous Kami Tljv l1r' ».vnoxE~o.v ct>epouO"o.v 'ITUAT}V To'ITous: this gate
was presumably on the east side of the city, but cannot be identified
with any of the three surviving gates at the south-east angle. The
most southerly, the Market Gate, is called the Bab An1akiye (Chapot,
Bull. de la soc. nat. des antiquaires de France, I<)o6, 1<)8; Honigmann,
RE, 'Seleuceia (z)', col. u98), but it would not fit P.'s reference(§ 7)
to steep cliffs. The Dioscurium cannot be located, either, and no
clear picture can therefore be formed of where the three columns
attacked the city.
9. /\e6vTlov Tov E'ITi Twv oAwv: the strategos in charge of the garrison.
61. 1. els e~o.Kwx~Mous: for the total free population this figure is
very small, and it may in fact represent free citizens or men of
military age; Beloch (iv. 1. 255 n. 2) assumes the meaning to be
'erwachsene Manner' and calculates the total population as about
JO,OOO.
3-5. Defection of Theodotus: cf. 40. 1-3. The trilingual stele from
Pithom (cf. 83-86. 6 n.) states that after Raphia Ptolemy made an
agreement with Antiochus two years and two months 'after the
treason of the generals' ; since this agreement dates to about
October 217, the 'treason' was about August 219.
5. nToAe!la.tSa.: Ptolemais was the Phoenician Ake, modern Acre
(Akka) ; it was probably refounded as a Ptolemaic city about 261
(coins, B.M.C. Phoen., p. lxxvii; Jones, CERP, 449). See Strabo,
xvi. 758; Diod. xv. 41. Ake had been the chief Persian port against
Egypt.
na.vO.LTWAou: clearly a fellow-Aetolian; d. 62. 2, X. 49· II-12.
7. TtL O"Tevn Tn Ka.TA rEppa.: cf. 45· 8 n., 46. 2 n.; the Pass of Gerrha
is in the Biqa', between Gerrha and Brochi. See, for full discussion,
Honigmann, RE, 'Syria', cols. 1616-17.
8. N~KoAa.ov: another Aetolian (68. s). who also turns up later under
Antiochus (x. 29. 6); for the incentive to desert Ptolemy d. 70. Io.
Another deserter is Lagoras (§ 9; d. vii. 15-18).
9. Aopu!lEY1)V: perhaps to be identified with the hipparch Dorymcnes
whose dedication in the names of Ptolemy and Berenice was found
near Qana (SEG, vii. 326). An Aetolian Dorymenes receives proxenia
at Orchomenus in Arcadia along with other Aetolians between 243
and 229 (BCH, 1914, 454 no. 2; 1915, 127); and a Dorymenes of
Hypata is mentioned in a Delphic inscription granting aav,\{a to
Antioch (Alabanda) (Holleaux, REG, 1899, 345 = Et~~des, iii. 141 ;
cf. Launey, L r86 n. 8). \v'hether either or both of these is the same
man, is unknov.'TI.
Ta O"Teva Tn 1repl B1)puT6v: identified by Niese (ii. 374 n. 5) with the
Nahr el-Kelb along the R. Lycus (ovaxwpla, 1TEpt T6v AtSKov, 68. 9 n.);
Beloch (iv. r. 692) writes simply 'den Kiistenpass bei Berytos'. But
587
v. 6I. 9 THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217)
Honigmann (RE, 'Syria', col. 1617) makes a good case for identifying
these u-rEva with the route now followed by train and motor-road
over the Lebanon via Zal.lle, the King's Road, Derb es-SuWinije.
The Tabula Peutingeriana makes this route 58 milia passuum from
Heliopolis (Baalbek) to Berytus.
62. 2. Tupov Kai. nTohEJ.Lai6a: Antiochus advanced down the coast
from Berytus, by-passing Sidon, which he left in Ptolemaic hands
(69. 1o). In iv. 37· 5 P. seizes this moment for a general synchronism
(spring 219; but c£. 6I. 3-5 n.: these events were in fact somewhat
later in the year).
3. TETpt}pous ••• Tp~t}pns ••• S(~epo-ra.: controversial expressions.
Tarn (Hlv!N D, u8 and Appendix IV) has argued that a oll<:po-ros
(or olKpo-rov) was a triakontor, a vessel smaller than a trireme, with
fifteen one-man oars on either side, the oarsmen being divided into
fore and aft squads. But more probably ollcpo-ros refers to a grouping
of oarsmen at two levels, one of each pair rowing his oar over the
gunwale, the other through an oar-port (Oa),afL'd) ; on this theory
(cf. Morrison, CQ, 1947, 122-35) a 8tKpo-ros is not necessarily identical
with a triakontor. On triremes and quadriremes see i. 20. 9 n.
4. ets ME~LV E~Eht)Aulleva.L: from Alexandria. The visit to Memphis
may have had both religious and military significance (cf. 63. 7).
nTJAOUO'LOV: modern Tell Farama, the frontier fortress in the marsh-
land east of the Nile; see Kees, RE, 'Pelusion (1)', cols. 407-15. For
troops stationed there in 219 see P. Frankfort, 7, in Lewald, 5.-B.
Heidelberg, 1920, 36-47.
nl.s TE SLwpuxa.s <i.va.aToJ1oilv: the object of opening up the Nile
sluices was to flood the land and hinder the advance of a hostile army.
63. l. ol. vepl. Tov !b..ya.lloKAEa. ~ea.l. Iwa£J)Lov: on Sosibius see 35· 7 n.
On Agathocles, the son of Oenanthe {xiv. n. 1), see xv. 25 ff.; accord-
ing to the Ravenna scholia to Aristophanes, Thesm. 1059• he wrote a
commentary to Philopator's tragedy Adonis.
6. s~a.vpeaJ3EUOJ1EVQL 'll"pOS &Jl4>oTEpous TOUS ~a.aLXeis: 'going back-
wards and forwards between the two kings' ; s,a7Tp€Gf3€!Jm8a, in the
sense 'go on an embassy' is rare, and given in neither Schweig-
haeuser's Lexicon Polybianum nor in LSJ.
8. Tous J1Lallo+6pous To us ~v To.is isw voXEaw : i.e. Ptolemaic posses-
sions in Asia Minor and elsewhere ; cf. 34· 6-8.
9. tEvoMyous: on the activities of such recruiting officers, who
frequently covered vast areas in the search for mercenaries, see
Griffith, 254-63; Launey, i. 30-32.
11. TTJV Twv <i.v6pwv EKAoyoqv ~ea~ Sta(peoLv: 'the choice of men and
their distribution'; the method of s,alpm's is described in 64. I.
Af ercenary captains. These men had been attracted from Antigonid
service by better prospects in Egypt. The three Thessalians and the
588
THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217) V. 6 5 .1
Boeotian may have served in Antigonid armies as allies, and the
Cretan Cnopias may have gone to Greece under some such treaty as
those between Doson and Eleutherna and Hierapytna (ii. 66. 6 n.).
Mahaffy (Hermath., 1899, 147) makes an interesting comparison with
the exiled Napoleonic officers who organized the Egyptian army
which cleared the Peloponnese of Greeks and subsequently swept the
Turks from Syria on behalf of Ibrahim Pasha.
66. 1. TT)v ••• -rroALV boupa: as Reiske saw, Llwpa should be read.
Dora was a small Israelitish town on a peninsula (Artemidorus and
Claudius Iullus in Steph. Byz. s.v. Llwpos-) jutting out into the sea
(n)v oxvpDTTJTU TOV T07TOV) below 1\lt. Carmel, 8 (Tabula Peutingeriana)
or 9 (Eusebius) miles north of Caesarea. At the time of the Persian
occupation it belonged to Sidon (C.I.Sem. i, no. 3 11. 18 f.). Its
remains are extant on the site of Tantura. See Benzinger, RE,
'Dora (z)', cols. 1549-so.
2. uuvcmTOVTO~ ••• TOU XElflWVO~: i.e. winter 219/18.
3. O"UVEPYELV ••• TOL~ 1TEpt TOV nToAEp.aiov: cf. iv. 48.12 n., v. 57· I-2.
67. 6-10. The possession of Code-Syria (cf. xxviii. 20. 6-7; Diod.
xxx. 2); on the meaning of 'Coele-Syria' see 34· 6 n. Occupied by
Ptolemy I in 319 (Diod. xviii. 43; Marmor Parium ( = FGH, 239)
B 12), Syria was seized by Antigonus I in 315 (Diod. xix. 57· I, sB,
59), and apart from one short incursion by Ptolemy in 312 (Diod.
592
THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217) v. 68.3
xix. 79-Bo) it remained in his hands until just before 301, when
Cassander, Lysimachus, and Seleucus united to destroy him at Ipsus
(Plut. Demetr. :z8-z9; Diod. xxi. x). Immediately before this battle
Ptolemy seized Syria south of Lebanon and Damascus, including
Palestine and Phoenicia south of the Eleutherus (except Tyre and
Sidon) (Diod. xx. IIJ; Tarn, CAH, vii. 7oo); but from the present
passage and xxviii. :zo. 6-7 it appears that the allies agreed to award
all Syria to Seleucus. However, when Ptolemy kept what he had
occupied, Seleucus did not press his claim (Diod. xxi. r. 5). On these
events, and the subsequent fluctuation in the frontier, see Beloch,
iv. 2. 321-3. In the present negotiations (and those of xxviii. 20. 6-7)
the Seleucid case rests (a) on the occupation by Antigonus I (-roil
'
7TpW'TOV '
Kll.Taax_OVTDS' ' 01
TTJV ' .._,vptlf
" ' f3 aatM£<lV,
\ ' .. . 20. 7) , Wh'lCh Was
XXVlll,
recognized as giving him the title to it, (b) on the rule of Seleucus I
over the area, for (it was argued) in occupying the southern part of
Syria Ptolemy I was acting not on his own behalf but on that of
Seleucus, (c) especially on the agreement between Cassander,
Lysirnachus, and Seleucus after Ipsus, awarding Syria to Seleucus.
The Egyptian reply (a) stressed Ptolemy I's occupation before Ipsus,
(b) denied that this was on conditions binding him to make over the
province to Seleucus-<:ln the contrary it was agreed that Coele~
Syria and Phoenicia should be his ovm, (c) ignored the compact
after Ipsus as ultra uires. Of these three points the second probably
rests on an agreement made before Ipsus when the coalition was
formed, but ignored after the battle since Ptolemy had taken no
part in it (Corradi, 27-55 Atti Ace. Torino, I9Io-II, 585 ff.; Tarn,
CAH, vii. 7oo).
12-13. Inclusion of Achauts. Ptolemy's contention clearly shows
that Achaeus was his ally, formally (Niese, ii. 376) or informally
(Bouche-Leclercq, Lagides, i. 299-300; Sileucides, i. 141); cf. iv. 48.
rz n. On the Hellenistic concept of 'inclusion' in a treaty (m;ptAap.-
f30.vetv, aup.7rep.Aap.f3av£w) see Bickermann, Rev. Phil., 1935, 59 ff.
68. 1. auvi\1TT£ 8i Tel TtlS ~aplvijs Glpa.s: cf. x. 5 for the date (spring
218).
2. et~ TOU'i' I(Q.TU ru~a.v TOvous: the old Philistine city near the
southern border of Palestine; on its people and its sack by Alexander
see xvi. 22 a. He later repeopled it: d. Arrian, A nab. ii. 27. 7, 'T~v St
7T6Aw ewo£K{aas b< 'TWV 7Tf.pto{Kwv. After Ipsus Gaza had remained
Ptolemaic until now, and Ptolemy II and Ptolemy III both minted
there (B.M.C. Ptol. Kings of Egypt, 35, 49); it lies 3-4 km. from the
coast in a richly watered and fertile area.
3. 11Eply€vous TOV va.u6.pxou: otherwise unknown. This Perigenes is
not to be identified with the son of Leontiscus of Alexandria, who
was honoured with proxe-nia and a golden crown by the Siphnians
4800 Qq 593
V.68.3 THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217)
(IG, xii. 5· 48I = OGIS, 73o); cf. Robert, BCH, 1936, I84 ff. Schoch
(RE, 'Perigenes (I)', col. 744) suggests that he may be his son.
6. Ta KQTa nxa.Tavov O"TEVa: d. 69· I. The Plane-tree Pass lay on
the coast between Berytus and Sidon, and north of Porphyreon,
which was itself about 12 miles north of Sidon. Clermont-Ganneau
(Rec. arch. or. vi. 65 ff.) identifies it as the 'Elman Pass; cf. Josephus,
AI, xvi. 36I, llAa-raV7J; BI, i. 539, where he refers to a KWfhTJ :E.Swvlaw
of that name, not far from Berytus (at the modern Bailan). But
Dussaud (To-pographie, 46) questions this identification. See Honig-
mann, ZDPV, I924, 32 no. 376; Spuler, RE, 'Platanos (3)', cols.
23JB--9·
7. Mapa9ov: this north Phoenician town lay on the mainland
opposite Aradus, to which it belonged at the time of Alexander
(Arrian, Anab. ii. I3· 8, I4· I, I5. 6). The present reference is its next
appearance in a literary authority. A summary of the extensive
remains existing about the two streams Nahr el-Quble and Nahr
'Amrit is given by Honigmann, RE, 'Marathos (2)', cols. I434-5·
:A.pa.8£wv: Aradus, also Phoenician, lay on a small island (Ruad)
about 3 km. from the mainland at a point Io km. north of the mouth
of the R. Eleutherus (Nahr el-Kebir); it was traditionally founded
by refugees from Sidon (Strabo, xvi. 753), and under the Persians
controlled a considerable mainland empire. It maintained some
degree of independence (at first under its kings), after its submission
to Alexander; the Aradian dynasty, however, ceased to rule in 259
(cf. Head, 789; Jones, CERP, 239). Some remains are extant.
Tous €v TTI vtiact~ KTA.: the mainland Aradians probably inhabited
the l.1rlv£~ov Tfjs )1pdSou (Strabo, xvi. 753), which later developed into
Antaradus.
8. TO ••• 0eou 1rpoaw'lrov: the headland of Ras es-Saq'ii; the Greek
name translates the Phoenician P'ne-El (Penuel); cf. Bevan,
Seleucus, i. 315 n. 2.
B0Tpuv ••• T plt)pfJ ••• KaAa.!Lov: of these Phoenician towns Botrys
lay Iz miles north of Byblus on the coast (Tabula Peutingeriana),
and according to Menander (in Iosephus, AI, vili. 324) was founded
by Ithoba'al, king of Tyre, at the time of Nebuchadrezzar; but it
already appears in the Tel el-Amarna letters (Jones, CERP, 231,
245, quoting Knudtzon, Die el Amarna Tajeln (Leipzig, 1915}, n65,
nos. 78-79, etc.). Trieres lay about 15 km. north of Botrys (Strabo,
xvi. 754, puts it north of Theon Prosopon}, probably at Enfeh,
rather than at Heri (so Dussaud, Topographie, Sz); for the Itinera-
rium Hierosolymitatmm makes the mutatio Tridis (Trieris) Iz milia
passuum from Tripolis. See Honigmann, RE, 'Trieres (2)', cols. ug-
2o. Calamus is modern :B:almun, round the headland north of Trieres,
and about 10 km. south of Tripolis. For all three see Pliny, Nat.
hist. v. 78, and the map in RE, 'Libanos', cols. 5--.6. Evidently P. is
594
THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217) v. 70.3
not personally acquainted with this district, and he appears to have
compressed and misrepresented his source ; for in fact Botrys lies
south, and Trieres and Calamus north of Ras es-Saq'a (Theon
Prosopon), a fact hardly reconcilable with P.'s order of reference.
9. TttS 8uaxwp(a.s 11'Ept Tov AuKov: the Lycus is the Nahr el-Kelb,
or Dog's river, the fluuius qui cognom£natur canis of the Crusaders
{William of Tyre, Historia rerum transmarinarum, x. 5) ; its mouth
is 12 km. north of Berytus, and immediately south of this a head-
land restricts the passage beside the sea for a distance of about 2
km. This headland is crossed by a narrow pass which carries the
Berytus-Byblus road. North of this pass the road follows the south
bank of the Lycus upstream for about .f km. (Caracalla improved the
road here; cf. GIL, iii. 1. :206, 'montibus imminentibus Lyco flumini
caesis uiam delatauit'.) It is to this section P. here refers; it was
clearly important, for the Lycus had been a frontier post from ancient
times (d. Weissbach, RE, 'Lykos (13)', cols. 2392-J). P. mentions the
occupation of the Lycus pass after Antiochus' arrival at Berytus;
but there is some confusion here, as Schweighaeuser saw, for since
the pass is north of Berytus, Nicarchus and Theodotus must have
been sent ahead earlier, probably from Marathus. Bevan (Seleucus,
i. 315) says 'from Calamus'; but P.'s credit cannot be saved thus, for
JwreiiBev (§ 9) goes back beyond the p,€v ••. S€ clause to B1JptrrOY. Here
again the explanation probably lies in a compressed source.
TTJV 8uva.11Lv r.iva.Aa~wv: 'with the (main) army' (d. 70. I, 70. J, etc.) or
'after resting his army' (d. iii. 6o. 2, 85. 5. v. So. :z n.).
Tov ..Aa.11oupa.v 1ToTa.116v: the Tamyras, modern N ahr Damur; cf.
Strabo, xvi. 756. It lay midway between Berytus and Sidon; cf. Dus-
saud, Topographie, 43, 47; Honigmann, RE, 'Tamyras', cols. 2152-3.
10. Tas 1TpoKa.TEXOI1Eva.s ••• Suaxwp[as: the Plane-tree pass: d. § 6,
70. 3. 'TI'GAW ••• a1T011'AE'i:V Els T upov: 'to sail on to Tyre'; d. 27. 2 n.
3-4. Philoteria and Scythopolis. Philoteria (cf. Syncellus, p. 559
Bonn) lay on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, and is probably the
595
V.70.3 THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217)
later Tiberias; Scythopolis was on the right bank of the Jordan
somewhat farther south. Philoteria may have been a Ptolemaic
colony (its name is taken from Philotera, Ptolemy II's sister), and
Scythopolis (Besan) was probably a Ptolemaic foundation, though
not necessarily a real colony. 'The name has a Ptolemaic ring: it
falls into the same class as the fanciful names given to the Egyptian
metropoleis, Gynaecopolis, Crocodilopolis, and so forth' (Jones,
CERP, 242). Beloch (iv. 2. 325--6), however, would ascribe it to
Antigonus I. Neubauer (La Geographie du Talmud (Paris, I868), I75)
records the hypothesis that its name has survived in that of the
near-by village of Succoth. From P.'s phrase ri]v v7rou.rayf-Llv7Jv
xwpav Tats m)Amt ratirats (§ 5) Jones (CERP, 449) argues that both
towns were administrative district capitals rather than m$.:\ns with
territories attached.
6. :.\Ta.f3upLov: cf. Josephus, AI, v. 84, xiii. 396; Syncellus, p. 559:
Atabyrium, the :Mt. Tabor of the Old Testament, now Djebel-et-
T6r, stands at the north-east corner of the Plain of Esdrahelon,
562 m. above sea-level. For the town on the summit see Steph. Byz.,
s.v. )1Taf3vpov. As the supposed site of the transfiguration of Christ
the mountain later possessed many churches. The op€t~ is the
high land between the Jordan and :Mt. Tabor.
10. KEpa.(a.s, Ets TWV . • • om:i.pxwv: in his commentary Schweig-
haeuser takes V7rapxwv as a participle ; but in the Lexicon he translates
it as a noun and this seems preferable. As governor of a Seleucid
v7rapxla, the word v7rapxos is attested (Welles, zo 1. s), but rare;
more commonly, as here, it signifies a subordinate commander in
a general sense (d. Welles, p. 37I, s.v.; Holleaux, REG, 1899, 29 n. 3 =
Etudes, iv. I55 n. 3; Bikerman, Sileucides, 129-30, 203; Bengtson,
Strat. ii. 2I-24. Ceraeas is a Pisidian name; cf. :Macridy, Rev. bibl.,
I904, 550 no. I; L. Robert, Et. anat. 366-7).
ll. 'lmr6Aoxos: cf. 71. n, 79· 9; evidently a leader of mercenary
cavalry. See Otto, RE, 'Hippolochos', cols. I86z-3. On the importance
of Thessalians in the Ptolemaic army see Launey, i. 2I7 f.
12. llEAAa.v tca.t Ka.!lOUV tca.l r E<j>pouv: Pella, modern Fahl, lay on the
left bank of the Jordan about 20 miles below the Sea of Galilee; it
appears in Egyptian documents and was renamed Berenice under
the Ptolemies (Steph. Byz., s.u. B€p€viKat). Camoun is perhaps the
Kawiw of Judges x. 5 (but other readings are found); cf. Josephus,
AI, v. 254. Gephroun may be the Ephron of I Mace. v. 46; 2 Mace.
xii. 27; cf. Josephus, AI, xii. 346. Its position has been sought 8 miles
west by south of Jrbid (Arbela), where a watch-tower controls the
road, in the valley of Wad el-Ghafr; cf. Benzinger, RE, 'Ephron
(2)', col. 19. All three towns lie in the Decapolis, across Jordan.
71. 1. n)v .•• :.\pa.~(a.v: to the Greeks Arabia, the land of the Arabs,
596
THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217) V. 72
included the Syrian desert and the north African desert east of the
Nile, as well as Arabia proper (Arabia Felix): see § 4, 79· 8 n.
2. KO.Ta.<Txtilv ds TTJV r a.M.nv: 'reaching Galatis' : an unusual sense
of Ka·rlx€w, which is normally used of 'putting in at port' by a ship.
Galatis or Galaad (or Galaaditis) (cf. Iosephus, AI, xii. 336, 345,
350) is the Old Testament Gilead, the district across Jordan; its
precise boundaries vary at different periods. Hultsch completes the
sense by reading ylver' eyKpan]s.
)\~t).wv: cf. xvi. 39· 3; Iosephus, AI, xii. 136; Bl, ii. 252. Abila lay
in the Decapolis, 12 miles east of Gadara (§ 3) (Eusebius); cf. CIG,
4501 (time of Hadrian). Its site is perhaps at Tell Abil, some 6 miles
east of Umm Qeis, where ruins and graves have been found (Ben-
zinger, RE, 'Abila (4)', col. 98). This Abila is not to be confused with
that opposite Jericho in the Peraea (Josephus, AI, iv. 176, v. 4) or
Abila Lysaniae, the capital of Abilene, south-east of the Antilebanon.
N~tc£a.s ••• <TuyyEvT)s MEvv€ou: both equally unknown; Menneas was
probably a local dynast (Niese, ii. 378).
3. fa.Stipwv: the famous city of the Decapolis, a little south of the
Hieramyces (Jannt14:), and 16 miles from Scythopolis (ltinerarium
Antoninianum); cf. Pliny, Nat. kist. v. 74· Gadara is modern Umm
Qeis, lying on a prominent hill about an hour south of the hot springs
in the J annuJ.c valley, and overlooking the Sea of Galilee. Benzinger
(RE, 'Gadara (1) and (z)', cols. 436-8) suggests that both here and
in xvi. 39· 3 P. refers to the Gadara in the Peraea, since its capture
is mentioned between those of Pella and Rabbat Ammon. But P.
clearly designates Gadara as in the district of Abila, and in Gilead;
hence if this were the Gadara in Peraea (modern es-Salt), then the
Abila mentioned must be that opposite Jericho, an area hardly to
be included in Gilead. Both towns must be those in the Decapolis;
and in view of P.'s compression of his source (cf. 68. 8-g nn.) the
advance of about so miles to Rabbat Ammon creates no difficulty.
4. Tn 'Pa.~~a.TO.}la.va. Ti}s ~pa.~£a.s: i.e. it lay in a different area from
the towns already mentioned. Rabbat Ammon is modern Amman, the
capital of Jordan; it figures in 2 Sam. xi. r, xii. 26, etc. Under the
Ptolernies it was renamed Philadelphia; but the Zenon correspon-
dence refers to it under its old name (Jones, CERP, 449).
9. Tov u1TOVo}lov: cf. x. z8. 2, etc., 'underground passage'; probably
similar to the stairway leading to a secret cistern outside the walls
by which Mycenae secured its water-supply in case of siege (cf.
A. J. B. Wace, Mycenae (Princeton, 1949), 98 ff.).
lt. Tous ~~:a.TO. Ia.}LO.pE~a.v -ro'ITous: the district west of Jordan,
opposite Gilead.
73. 3. 'ETevveis: this tribe is known for its silver coins minted from
the third century onwards (Head, 7o8) and also from inscriptions
(Launey, ii. I224); it lay inland from Side, but, if it possessed a
town Etenna, its position is uncertain. The Etenneis are identified
by Jones (CERP, 126-7 411) and Niese (ii. 385 n. 7) with the Catenneis
I
of Strabo (xii. 570, Ta 8' {mep TOVTWV (Aspendus and Side), 7)87] opHv&.,
KaTevvef:>, DJ.LopoL Ee'AyEiiat Kat 'OJ.Lova8eiiat), the variant being due,
Jones argues, to 'a guttural in Pisidian, which ..• was not pro-
nounced in some dialects'. In fact both names occur in the pro-
ceedings of church councils, and though Ramsay (Asia Minor, 4I8 f.)
believed that both were originally identical, the question is safer left
open; see Ruge, RE, 'Etenneis' cols. 706--7. The troops sent were
I
602
ATTALUS' CAMPAIGN OF 218 V.n.6
77. 2. Ai.youO. yas r aAaTaS: hitherto the Attalids had not used
Galatian mercenaries; pressure from Achaeus had driven Attalus to
this unwelcome step. The Aegosages, who travelled with all their
families (78. r}, may be from the Thracian kingdom of Cavarus at
Tylis (cf. 78. 5, iv. 46. 4}, which had broken up. See Launey, i. 509 n. r.
4. Ko~-1'1 Kal ti1-1upvat Kai. 41wKala: Wilcken's proposal (RE, 'Attalos
(9)'. col. 2162) to read Myrina for Smyrna (cf. § 6} is supported by
the fact of a customs union between Cyme, Myrina, and Phocaea
as early as 261 (Macdonald, ]HS, 1907, 159). Cyme and Myrina were
Aeolian, Phocaea Ionian. Cyme, modern Nemrut Koy, was on a
small bay north of the peninsula of Phocaea (cf. Herod. i. 149;
Strabo, xiii. 582 and 621 f.; Ps.-Scylax, 98; other references in Magie,
ii. 906). Myrina, modern Kalabassi, lay on two small hills about
7 miles north of Cape Hydra, near the mouth of the Pythicus (Koc;a
<;ay) (cf. Strabo, xiii. 622; Ps.-Scylax, 98; Ramsay, JHS, r881, 277 f.;
Ruge, RE, Suppl.-B. vi, 'Myrina', cols. 615 f.; Magie, ii. 906).
Phocaea was at the end of a hilly peninsula east of the entrance into
the Gulf of Smyrna, and possessed an excellent harbour (cf. Strabo,
xiv. 647; Livy, xxxvii. 31. 8 f.; Ps.-Scylax, 98; Lehmann-Hartleben,
276; Magie, ii. 896).
AtyaU<LS Kal T TJ!-lVLTa,: Aegae (Nemrut Kalesi) lay higher up the
Pythicus, at an altitude of r,2oo ft. in the mountainous area between
the Caicus and the lower Hermus (cf. Strabo, xiii. 621; Ramsay,
JHS, 188r, 292 ff. (map on 274); Hansen, 263-5 (for elaborate building
under the Attalids}; Robert, Et. anat. 74 ff.; Villes, 89 n. 5; Magie,
i. 84). Temnus is the other Nemrut Kalesi above Giirece on the south-
east slopes of the Dumanli Dag (Ramsay, ]HS, r881, 287 ff.; Asia
Minor, 109; Keil, RE, 'Temnos', col. 461; Robert, BCH, 1933,
497 f.; Et. anat. 90 ff.) a little north of the Hermus, and z! hours
north of the railway station of Emir Aalem (Ramsay) (cf. Strabo,
xiii. 621; Paus. v. 13. 7; Pliny, Nat. hist. v. 119-21). Temnus was
independent in the fourth century; in the third it had a treaty of
sympoliteia with Pergamum (Imch. Perg. 5 with supplement, p. ix;
OGIS, 265).
TTJ(wv Kai. Ko>..olj>wvlwv: of these Ionian cities, Teos lay on a neck of
land connecting a hilly peninsula with the mainland on the south
side of the peninsula of Erythrae; Colophon was inland, with a port
at Notion, some distance east of Teos. On the prosperity of Teos
in the Hellenistic period see Magie, i. 79-80. See, for T eos, Strabo,
xiv. 644; Livy, xxxvii. 27. 9; Lehmann-Hartleben, 283 f.; for Colo-
phon, Strabo, xiv. 642; Ps.-Scylax, 98; Livy, xxxvii. 26. 5; Schuch-
hardt, AM, r886, 398 ff.
6. Tai:s avv9't]Kals a.ts Kat To 1TpOT£pov: evidently these two cities had
been formerly in alliance with Attalus (probably after Hierax's
defeat; Hansen, 4I), but had been forced to join Achaeus.
V. 77-6 ATTALUS' CAMPAIGN OF 218
the modern Dimotika near the right bank of the Granicus, and
Carseae (following Schweighaeuser) with the Caresene of Strabo
(xiii. 6o2-3), a mountainous area to the south of Dimotika (d. Leaf,
Troad, 203-4). According to Robert, Attalus went north from the
Lycus valley by the 1,6oo ft. pass near the head-waters of the
Gelenbe ~ay, which leads out of the plain of Kerkagay (containing
Stratonicaea). From here he turned north-west past the sites of
Kiresun, Ivrindi, and Balia Maden to the Granicus; then, having
taken Carseae and Didymateiche, he turned south-east to the
broken region of Balikesir (identified, in agreement with Strabo, xiii.
616, \\':ith the .lhrtas m;:3iov), where the city of Hadrianotherae was
later founded, and thence north-east over the Pass of Demirkapu
( = Mt. Pelecas, an outspur of Temnos) and along a tributary of the
Macestus, to reach the latter at the site of Susurluk. On this route
see also Magie, ii. 798 (with modern topographical details); Meloni,
Rend. Line., 1950, 166-76; it seems likely to win general accep-
tance.
7. s,a~cis TOV AuKOV 'II'OTa!J.OV: the river of Pliny, Nat. hist. v. us,
which runs past Thyatira to join the Hyllus; see Schweighaeuser,
vi. 250; Foucart, BCH, 1887, 1oo, no. 23 11. 16-q; Holleaux, Etudes,
ii. 20 n. 2; Robert, Et. anat. 187. On Attalus' route see 77· 7-9 n. If
he crossed the Lycus (i.e. from south to north) he must have ad-
vanced well up the Hermus valley towards Sardes, which is quite
possible, since he was well informed on Achaeus' movements.
Meloni (Rend. Line., 1950, 169-70), because he judges such an action
improbable, prefers to accept Reiske's emendation of AvKov to
Kai:Kov; but this seems unnecessary.
Ttt5 Twv Muawv KnTo,Ktas: cf. ii. 32. 4, xxx. 28; Frankel, lnseh. Perg.
i. 174; Holleaux, Etudes, ii. 36-38; Robert, Et. anal. 191 ff. Holleaux
refutes Radet's view that these are Mysian military colonies outside
Mysia, and takes them to be Mysian defence posts, 'des campements
fixes devenus bourgades'. But, as Robert has shown, KaTo,Klat in
P. are simply villages, not military settlements; cf. Launey, i. 336,
'le mot designe simplement une agglomeration, un bourg, depourvu
des privileges de la polis'. See, too, Ed. Meyer, Hermes, 1898, 644 f.;
Oertel, RE, 'Katoikoi', cols. 7-8, giving a catalogue of civilian
KaTo,KI.a, (but Oertel reckons this an example of military colonists).
8. 9e~'O'TOK>teous , •• wapa80VT05: this man, probably governor Of
Mysia under Achaeus (on the technical use of ol T6?To' in Seleucid
administration see Bengtson, Strat. ii. 10 f.), may be the Themistocles
who figures in a fragmentary inscription (recording a letter of
Antiochus III to Tralles concerning tithes) of about 212jn, appar-
ently as Seleucid governor of Carla (Welles, 41). See Holleaux,
REA, 1903, 209 n. 2; Meyer, Grenzen, 127 n. 2; Bengtson, Strat. ii.
n6, n9.
6os
V.J8.I ATTALlJS' CAMPAIGN OF 218
78. 1. EKAeiljlews ueA~VTJ'i: on I September 218 (T. Oppolzer, Canon
der Finsternisse (Denkschrift der Wiener Akademie, 52, 1887, math.-
Nat. Klasse), 340 n. 152o). 1 Niese (ii. 779) records calculations by a
colleague, that at a point 30° east and 40° north it lasted from 16.39
to 20.19 hours (totality I7·5I to 19.17 hours); Stahelin (34-35 n. 8}
records different calculations varying from these by only a few
minutes. Thus the moon rose in eclipse.
flETB yuva.LKWv Ka.t TiKvwv: the whole tribe was in migration. But
even when this was not the case, such impediments handicapped
many Hellenistic armies (cf. i. 66 ff. for the Punic mercenaries), and
especially those of the Galatians (cf. Polyaen. iv. 6. 17 for Gonatas'
Galatian mercenaries). Plutarch (Cleom. 12. 4) rates it a virtue in
Cleomenes that of all the Hellenistic armies his contained no mimes,
conjurers, dancing girls, and musicians. See further Holleaux, REG,
1926, 355-fi6 =Etudes, iii. 15-26; Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, i. 145-6,
iii. 1344 n. 17; Launey, 785-90· Similar examples can be quoted from
medieval and modern Europe as late as the Napoleonic vVars.
2. UfJflELwuaflEVOl To yeyov6s: 'treating the event as an evil omen'
(cf. Strabo, ix. 404, for this sense of 0'7JfLE'toOa8at).
4. TTJV Ets TTJv ;6,.u£a.v 8taJ3a.uLv: cf. 77. 2 n.
5. TO'II'ov ••• Euq,vij 'll'poo; Ka.ToLK(a.v: i.e. they would form a military
settlement. As in the Seleucid realm (n 8 n.), so under the Attalids
'To'll'os and of mot have a technical sense of an administrative sub-
division (cf. Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, i. 561; Bengtson, Strat. ii. n,
:2II-I2; contra Hansen, 172, who is here unnecessarily sceptical, in
view of parallels from the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms). Here,
however, 'To1Tos appears to be used in a non-technical sense.
6. Aa.flljla.KfJVois, ;6.Ae~a.v8peuuLv, 'IAlEum: on these three cities see
Magie, i. 81--82, ii. 903-4. Lampsacus (modern Lapsaki), on the north
coast of the Troad, almost at the northern end of the Hellespont,
gained considerable wealth from its good harbour and from trade.
It had remained independent during the third century. Cf. Strabo,
xiii. 589; Leaf, Troad, 9Z-<J7· Ilium was raised from a village to a
1ToAts by Alexander (Strabo, xiii. 593; but already Xenophon (Hell.
iii. I. 16) counts it among the Alo.\Uks m1AE'tS of the Troad; d. Syll.
188). Along with Lampsacus Ilium was one of the first towns of
Asia Minor to open relations with Rome (cf. xxii. 5· 2-3}. See
Bruckner ap. Dorpfeld, Troja und Ilion (Athens, 1902}, 576--88;
Leaf, Troad, 158 f., 174 f. Alexandria Troas lay farther south beyond
Cape Sigeum and Tenedos; Antigonus I synoecized it out of the
communities of Scepsis, Cebren, Neandreia, Larisa, Colonae, and
Hamaxitus {Strabo, xiii. 593-4, 597, 6o4, 6o7). See Leaf, Troad, 233-
40; Lehmann-Hartleben, 2oo. The city was enlarged by Lysimachus
' Oppolzer in fact gives the date as I September 217, but he reckons in the
astronomical fashion with a year o.
6o6
THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217) V.79.3
(Strabo, xiii. 593: but whether the 40-stade wall belongs to Ilium or,
less probably, Alexandria is disputed: cf. Leaf, Troad, 142 f.; Jones,
CERP, 385 nn. 22-23; Magie, ii. 923; below, 111. 2 n.); it was soon one
of the main trading cities of the Hellenistic world. For its action
against the Galatians see xn. 3 ff. All three cities were independent
but, like Smyrna (77- 6), had maintained friendly relations with
Pergamum; for an 'Attalis' tribe at Ilium see IGR, iv. 216 = CIG,
3616.
Susa (cf. Strabo, xv. 728, distinguishing Cissia and Susa from
Elymais proper); they were archers (Strabo, xvi. 744). On the
Cadusii see 44· 9 n., and on the Carmanians § 3 n. Launey (i. 567 n. 4)
queries the name Aspasianus for a Mede and suggests emending to
Brraulvov.
8. ~pa.~e<; ••• Za.~8~!3-rl'-'1:1: cf. 71.I n. for the submission which made
the Arabs of the Syrian desert available to Antiochus. Arab javelin-
throwers are later used by Alexander Zabinas (Ioh. Antioch. =
FHG, iv. 56I; Bikerman, Seleucides, 59 n. x). Zabdibelus ~'ill be
a local sheik.
10. NeotcpTJTa.s: cf. 3· I n.
11. AuSot ••• Kc1p8a.tcE<;: for Lydians at Magnesia cf. Livy, xxxvii.
40. II. Cardaces fought for Darius at Issus (Arrian, A nab. ii. 8. 6);
and a passage in Strabo (xv. 734), which has been rejected as a gloss,
suggests that they were Persians (cf. Eustath. ad Iliad. ii. 86g, p. 368
11. 38ft.; Hesych. s.v.; Magie, ii. Ioz6). An inscription (M. Segre,
Clara Rhodos, 1938, 190 ff.) refers to ol KaTotKoWrES' lv KapoaKwv
KWfLTJ near Telmessus in Lycia at a date (I81) when this area was
Attalid; but these Cardaces may well be Antiochus' mercenaries
settled here after I 97{6, when he took the area from Egypt (Holleaux,
CAH, viii. 178). Segre took them to be Galatians; and Launey
(i. 486, soB n. 5) supposed them to be identical with the KapoofJxo,,
devastating archers dwelling on the upper Tigris (Xen. Anab. iv.
2. 28; cf. ibid. iii. 5· IS, S· I7, iv. 1 ft.), and possibly ancestors of the
modern Kurds.
Aucnt~-«xou TOU r ~a, TOU : cf. Launey' i. so8, 'le nom est interessant
pour l'hellenisation de l'onomastique galate, et le grade pour leur
progres dans la hierarchie militaire hellenistique'; this hellenization
is well illustrated in Launey's prosopographicallist, ii. IZ29-30.
12. >'l.vTl1Ta.Tpos b Tou ~a.at.Aews &8e'-ota8ou<;: cf. 87. 1, 87. 4, xxi. I6. 4
(cf. Livy, xxxvii. 45· 5, Antipater,Jratris regis filius), 24. I (d. Livy,
xxxvii. 55· 3. 56. 8-Io). Probably the Antipater of xvi. 18. 7· In a full
study of this Antipater (REA, 1916, 166-9 =Etudes, iii. 195-8)
Holleaux shows that (despite Livy) he cannot have been a son of
Antiochus' brother, since his only brother, Seleucus III, left no
offspring, nor yet the son of a (necessarily elder) sister. For Antipater
was an experienced man in 218, hence his mother cannot have been
born later than c. 255. But Antiochus' father, Seleucus II, was born
about 265 (Beloch, iv. 2. zo1), and so cannot have had a daughter
ten years later. Hence .ll.VTl'Tra.TpoS' • •• dSEAtjJJ>ofJ~; was most probably
a nephew of Seleucus II, i.e. his mother was a daughter of An-
tiochus II and Laodice. Holleaux suggests that he bore the name
rlSEAtjJ0ofJs as a kind of title and that this misled P. Cf. Stahelin, RE,
'Laodike (I3)', col. 702.
8Etf.l<I'WV: ct. 82. II ; otherwise unknown.
6og
V.So.z THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217)
80. 2. "ll'poaa.va.A.a.~~v ••• Toos Eq.EAKOIJ.Evous: 'having gathered up
the stragglers'; but in § 4 1rpoaaJ)a>.af3dw T~J) OVJ)ap.LJ) may be 'having
assembled his army' (as here) or, more probably, 'having refreshed
his army' (cf. iii. 90. 4, ix. 8. 7); cf. 68. 9 n.
Tb Kcia~ov Kat Ta Bcipa.9pa. Ka.AOUIJ.Eva.: Casium was a sandy promon-
tory on the coast near Pelusium (cf. Herod. ii. 6. r, r:;8. 4, iii. 5· 2-3,
making it the boundary of Egypt and Syria). It lay beside the
Sirbonis lacus, the modern coastal lake Sebache Bardautl, and has
been identified by Cledat (CRAI, 190,'i, 6o2; 1909, 764; A nnales du
Service, 19ro, 209 f.; d. 1912, 145; 1916, 6) with modern Mehemdije
at the west end of the lake; cf. Steuernagel-Kees, RE, 'Kasion (2 )',
cols. 2263-4. The Barathra were marshes treacherously covered with
drifting sand by the driving sea-winds along this coast; cf. Diod. i.
30. 4, m:3la TEit.p.aTdJOTJ nl1rpoaayopev6p.em f3dpa8pa (with a description
of the phenomenon). The area was highly dangerous. See Diod. xvi. 46.
5 f. (andP. Cloche, Rev. egypt., 1919, 246) forOchus' disaster herein342.
For this area see the map facing p. n4 in Gardiner, ]EA, 1920,
99-n6; d. Kees, RE, 'J:,pf3wJ)ts /t.lp.J)TJ', cols. 286-7 for bibliography.
3. 'Pa.q.(a.s: Tell Rifal} on the frontier between Egypt and Israel.
Rhinocolura was a day's journey south of Raphia, and an important
centre for trade with the Arabs (Diod. i. 6o. 5 ff.; Strabo, xvi. 759);
it occurs several times in Iosephus, and was later famous as the
death-place of Baldwin I, king of Jerusalem; it is now called El-
'Arisch (cf. Beer, RE, 'Rinocolura', cols. 841-2).
81. 1. ee66oTOS: cf. 40. I-3 n. His enterprise against Ptolemy is also
described in 3 Mace. i. 2-3. where Ptolemy's escape is attributed
to Dositheus, the son of Drimylus, an apostate Jew. P. adds a typical
remark against an Aetolian (cf. ii. 43· 9 n.), qualified, however, by
ovK a.J)a.J)op<p.
3. "II'O~K(A'I]V ••• n]v Mva.IJ.LV: 'their army was mixed' (Paton, who,
however, prints JJ)8op.EJ,i{aJ), Dindorf's conjecture for EJ)O!!p.EJ,i{aJ), the
reading of C).
4. ~aToxa.a~J.evos ••• Ti]S ••• aK'I]vi]s: 'having conjectured the where-
abouts of the tent'. In§ 5 XPTJP.aTLCJTLK~ CJKTJV'Ij is the 'official tent'.
6. !6.v6pea.v: a famous physician of the Herophilean school, author
of a work Narthex on herbs, a IlEpl OaKETWJ,i (on biting animals),
and several other works. The first two are widely quoted in antiquity,
but his reputation was assailed by Eratosthenes and Galen. Both
Celsus (M ed. vi. 6. r6 b) and Galen (xii. 765) mention his eye-salve, and
he invented a contraption for setting limbs (Celsus, M ed. viii. 20. 4;
Galen, xviii a 338 f., 747; Oribas. de mach. 4 f.). See Wellmann, RE,
'Andreas (n)', cols. 2136-7; Hermes, r888, 56I-2; Susemihl, i. 8I7-I8.
82. Battle order at Raphia: on the omission of Ptolemy's Graeco-
Macedonian phalanx see 65. r-ro n. See 65 and notes for the numbers
6ro
THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217) V.S3
under each command in Ptolemy's army. In § 4 1ra.p' a.thotis rotis
l7T7Tel:s refers to Polycrates' cavalry; Paton mistranslates.
8. 4>LAm7Tos o auvTpo~os o.uTou: the same Philip, J {AecpaVTapX1J>
(App. Syr. 33; cf. Livy, xxxvii. 41. I, magister elephantorum), shared
the command over the phalanx at Magnesia in 190. On the title
u6v-rpocpos -roiJ f3a.ut"Mws see 9· 4 n., and, for other Seleucid examples,
Corradi, 270-7; Bikerman, Seleucides, 42-43.
9. tv tw~Ko.f.L1TL'l,l : 'at an angle', probably forward. For this phrase
Griffith (JHS, 1947, 77 n. 3) quotes Aelian, Tact. 31. 4, v7To-rcl.tts S€
Ju-r,v, U.v ns rotis if;tA.otis v1ro -ra Kepam ••• ii1To-rau071 E7TtKafL7Tlov -rdttv
€xoVTas WO"T€ TO oAov uxiJfLa -rpmuAoe,SJs elvat (viz. the shape of a
three-piece gate). {mo-raft> is a later name for the defensive use of
the JmKafL7Ttav. Cf. i. 27. 4 n., where the fourth squadron inclines
forward from the line. No commander is mentioned for these 2,ooo
cavalry at an angle. Were they to be under Antiochus' direct com-
mand? See 84. 1 n.
10. tv t~ETt:m'l.l: 'in a line facing the front' ; cf. i. 26. 13, also con-
trasted with another unit (there naval) at an angle; iii. 65. 5· In fact,
if the slanting cavalry are on the extreme right, as seems likely,
the 2,ooo under Antipater immediately alongside the Cretans are
also facing the front; but P.'s phrase is justified to contrast the
Cretan line with that of the right-wing cavalry taken as a whole.
Twv els -rov Mo.KeSov~K(w -rpowov Ko.9wwA~af.LEVwv: Theodotus' Io,ooo
(cf. 79· 4) and distinct from Byttacus' s,ooo (79· 3). Paton mistrans-
lates here.
13. -rcl. S€ Ka.-r6.Aomo. Twv 91]plwv: i.e. 102 (79· 13) less 6o (§ 8), and so 42.
MutaKov: otherwise unknown. The f3autAtKoi 1ral:&s (cf. iv. 87. 5 n.)
formed a corps of pages, who received military training; they existed
under Alexander for whom they formed quasi seminarium ducum
praejectorumque (Curt. viii. 6. 6). Antiochus IV had some 6oo (xxx.
25. I7, if these are not slaves). See further Corradi, 296-301; Biker-
man, Seleucides, 38; A. Spendel, Untersuchungen zum Heerwesen der
Diadochen (Diss. Breslau, 1915). I5-I6; Launey, ii. 863 n. I.
613
THE BATTLE OF RAPHIA
87. 6. To~s Kam1 l:upta.v Ka.t 4»olVtK11" T6-rrols: under the Ptolemies
the province was officially l:vpta ~eal rl>owlKTJ; cf. 40. 1-3 n. On
Andromachus see 64. 4, 83. 3·
utTTJYofs 1TAolots. This gives what (as Holleaux, op. cit. 447 n. 3,
observes) is missing from P.--a reference to money for rebuilding,
the prime need; and Reiske accordingly added after Jf18op.7}KoVTa
the words (Tdt\avra 1rpos dvotKoBop.~v TWV Tetxwv Kal vewplwv). How-
ever, the position of d.pyvplov is against this, and it seems more likely
that the missing words came after TaAav-ra, e.g. (1rpos ~v -roiJ Telxovs
olJ<o8op.~v J<a~).
Aef3'1'!Ttl~ O.pyupous: from the time of Homer (e.g. It. ix. 122-3, 264-5;
xxiii. 259, 264, 268, 485, 702, 885) cauldrons are valuable objects,
obviously regarded as possessing a definite silver value, and represent
a primitive form of money. Similarly, on Cretan inscriptions of the
fifth and fourth centuries, from Gortyn and Cnossus (JC, i, Cnosos
5 b; iv. r, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, u, 14, :n), cauldrons figure as a form of cur-
rency; see, against Svoronos (BCH, r888, 405 f.), who thinks the
reference is to coins stamped with the representation of a cauldron,
Guarducci (Riv. jil., 1944-5, 171 ff.; IC, iv. 41-42). The gift of the
Syracusans is primarily a dedication in some temple, but one which
could be converted at need into coin, and is therefore included in
the hundred talents (§ 6). See further Regling, RE, 'Geld', col. 972 ;
'Lebes (3)', col. I054·
6. TT)v evuo~"latv TGiv voAtTGiv: 'for the enrichment of the citizens'
(rather than 'for the increasing of the citizen body' with Casaubon).
Holleaux (op. cit. 448 n. 2) quotes epigraphical evidence for this
sense of l1TUV,7JCM, IG, ix. 2. 520 ll. 7--& (Larisa); Robert adds IG,
xi. 4· 1004 l. 33 (Lesbos); BCH, 1933, 516 (Rhodes) 11. 1-3 e1Ta~yy~:{
Aavro XP7Jp.a]Ta [8wp]edv els Tdv l1rav,7JaLV -roiJ 1TA~8Evs Twv rroAtTav. In
this sense E1rav~7Jcns is equivalent to the more usual l1rl8oats.
7. aTEhEttlV: cf. 89. 8. Remission of customs dues had been offered
to Rhodian merchants by Antigonus I, provided they did not put
in at Rhodes (Polyaen. iv. 6. r6). Probably Hiero and Seleucus
(89. 8, cf. xxi. 43· 17) were hoping in this way to divert part of the
Rhodian trade from Egypt.
KUTu,.~ATas TPlmlXIrlS: 'three-cubit catapults', i.e. catapults designed
to fire arrows three cubits long (cf. IG, iP. 1487, l. 87}.
8. ev T~ ••• 5Elyl'-un: the Deigma, an Exchange for the display of
goods, for business, and for banking, is found in several Greek cities,
e.g. Olbia (IPE, i 2 • 32 B, 49), Peiraeus (Polyaen. vi. 2. 2; Xen. Hell.
v. I. 2I; [Dem.] XXXV. 29) ; according to Pollux TOVVop.a a1To TOV
Belyp.aTa Twv dywylp.wv Toi:s cbV7JTLWUI Sl8ou8at. The one at Rhodes
is mentioned also by Diodorus (xix. 45· 4), whose reference to flooding
shows that it was in the lower part of the city, and by Aelius
Aristides (Or. xliii, 'Po8£aK6s, 553 (367), p. 818 Dind.). See Szanto,
RE, ..::ldyp.a, cols. 2383-4; Ehrenberg, Aristophanes, 143, ISS·
6r8
THE RHODIAN EARTHQUAKE: GIFTS TO THE CITY V.89.3
aTE+a.vo.JJ.lEvov Tov &fll'ov KTA.: the two &fifLot are personified, and the
act of crowning will have been literally represented (though at this
time the word a-re{>av6w is often used in a weakened sense to mean
merely 'to honour' or 'to reward'; cf. xiii. 9· 5; Welles, 363 s.v.). The
personification of a SijfLo>: is attested for Athens in the fourth century;
and a letter to Priene, dating from about the middle of the second
century (Welles, 63ll. 9-10) refers to a statue of the ofjfLo>: of Priene.
For the crowning of the ofjfLOS of one city by another see IG, xi. 2.
199 b I. 23 (cf. Rouse, Greek Votive Offerings (Cambridge, 1902),
266-9); [Dem.], XViii. 91, UTfiUa£ 0€ Kat EiK6vas TpEtS iKKO.WEKfL7TcLXEtS
b -ro/ Boa770p<icp, UTE{>avoufL<VOV TOll sa,.,.ov -r6v )!Oavalwv inrJ TW safLW
-rw Bu~aVTlwv Kctt 1IEptv8iwv (on the Hellenistic date of this forgery
see P. Treves, LEC, 1940, 138-74). Such a personification might lead
to the establishment of a cult of the DfjfLo>:, such as is known for
Athens (together with the Xcfpm:s) from shortly after 229, and for
Rhodes itself from before 167 (BCH, 1934, 345-76; cf. Segre, Rend.
!st. Lomb., 1937, 83-89). See further von Schoeffer, RE, 'Demos (2)',
cols. 153-161; Bean-Fraser, 132-7.
90. 1. npoucr(a.s; Ka.l Mt9pt86.TTJS: Prusias of Bithynia (cf. iv. 47· 7 n.)
and Mithridates II of Pontus (cf. iv. s6. I; v. 43· I-2 nn.).
Auaa.v(a.v 'OMI'mxov AlJ.LVa.l:ov: Olympichus was the ruler of Alinda
in Caria, known from various inscriptions as the tool and indeed the
epistates of Philip V of Macedonia; BMI, iii. 441 = GDI, iii. 375o;
cf. Holleaux, REG, I899, zo-37; REA, I903· 223-8 = (combined)
Etudes, iv. I46--62; Laumonier, BCH, 1934, zgi-8; A. Vogliano, Acme,
I948, 389--<}0 (cf. Robert, Bull. ep., 1950, I82). For discussion of
Olympichus see Walbank, ]HS, 1942, 8-13; Bengtson, Strat. ii. 367-
70; Robert in Holleaux, EtHdes, iv. 162 n. r. The new document
partially published by Vogliano (with revisions by Robert), a letter
from the dynast probably to Mylasa, is dated to Philip's third year,
and involves dating the remaining documents to the early years of
62!
V. go. I THE RHODIA~ EARTHQUAKE: GIFTS TO THE CITY
Philip's reign and not to the period c. 202, as had previously been
supposed. Lysanias and Limnaeus are not identified. Attempts have
been made to treat one or the other as a predecessor of Moagetes, the
dynast of Cibyra in Greater Phrygia in I89 (Niese, ii. I6o; Ruge (RE,
'Kibyra', col. 375) and Schoch ('Limnaios (2)', col. 7o8) are non-
committal). A. Wilhelm supposed that Lysanias was perhaps the
same as Lysias, father of the Philomelus mentioned as dynast in
Phrygia in xxi. 35· 2 (5.-B. Wien, I9II, 54, 'Neue Beitrage zur
griechischen Inschriftenkunde: I, Kleinasiatische Dynasten'), and
Holleaux (Etudes, iii. 358) concurred. But both may have been minor
dynasts in Caria, with neighbourly reasons for their benefactions.
3. Ets Tov xpc"'o" • • • Ka.t T~" lLpx ~", lLcj>' o~ • • • ouv~t>Kio9a., : 'if one
considers the epoch at which the city of Rhodes began to be once
more habitable'. avvo£Kt,Hv is 'to repeople'; cf. ii. 55· 7, iv. 25. 4,
xviii. 51. 7 (see Bikerman, REJ, Ioo, I935. 11 n. 2; Robert, Insc.
Froehner, 98-----99; Holleaux, Etudes, i. 450-I n. 5). Schweighaeuser is
correct; Paton and Waltz translate as if P. were referring to the
synoecism of Rhodes in 408.
5. Ta.uTa. j.lE\1 o~v etp~o9w KTA.: cf. iv. 33· 11 for a similar ending to a
digression inserted after the text as a whole was complete; both
stress the didactic purpose.
T-ijs 'PoS£wv ll'epL Ta Ko,vO. 11'pooTa.ola.s: 'the dignity with which the
Rhodians conduct their public finances'; cf. xxxi. 3I. I, Tijv Toil
7ToAtT£lJf-LaTos rrpoaraa{av. For Td Kowa (sc. XP-rlf-LaTa) cf. xxiv. 7. 4, 7· 5,
xxxi. JI. 3 (where Ti}v lrrt4>aaw ri}s a£f-LVC17TJTOS 'their claim to dignity'
corresponds to Tijs • •• rrpoaraalas here, and P. censures a lapse from
the standard adumbrated).
Tijs T~J\1 vuv ~a.oLAEwv !J-LKpoSooia.s: see 8~o n., with examples of
such meanness.
Tijs ••• j.lLKpoAYJijiia.s: 'ready acceptance of small presents', with an
implied meanness of spirit.
8. To Ka.T' Q.~(a.v f:Kci.oTo's TYJpeiv: 'to maintain the principle of esti-
mating everything at its true value' (Paton); cf. iii. I7. Io, vi. 6. 11.
~ 'II'AELOT0\1 s,a.cj>EpOUOL\1 ICTA.: 'for it is in this quality of discernment
especially that the Greeks excel other men'.
622
END OF THE SOCIAL WAR V.92.7
4. ~s ~,.a.vw 1Tpot:'i:1Ta.: on Eperatus' incompetence see 30. I-'J.
5. ,.a.pa.Ka.AEo-a.s Tous 1\x(uous KTA.: 'encouraging the Achaeans';
the assembly at which the decree was passed was probably, if not
certainly, an extraordinary one (cf. Aymard, ACA, z66 n. z; Larsen,
169). P. may here have drawn on the Achaean records (Mioni, 123 n.
37); but his sources for the Achaean history of this period cannot
be distinguished. In § 6 rrev-ratwulovc; is Perottus's correction of
rreVT!]Kov-ra; for EmAlKTovc;, 'picked men', see ii. 65. 3 n.
7. xa.X~e&nnSa.s: on these troops, with Macedonian armour, see ii.
65. 3 n., iv. 69. 4; here cavalry are included, with equipment pre-
sumably heavier than that of the foot (Plut. Phil. 6. 4).
8. 11'£pt Tijv ~.tcTTjv: the east coast of the Argolid between Troezen
and Epidaurus (Strabo, viii. 389; Diod. xii 43· 1). The Achaean ships
operating here and in the Corinthian Gulf are distinct from those
which had joined the Macedonians in spring 218 (z. 4 n.).
99. 1. 'II'Ept Tov 'Evt'II'Ea. 'II'OTO.jlov: the Enipeus rose in Othrys and
passed within ro stades (r-7 km.) of Melitaea on the east (Strab:J,
ix. 432); it is the modern river of Neochori (Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 83).
2. TdS ca>e~.~mSa.s ••• e~~a.s: Thebes lay on the spur of a hill over-
looking the Crocian plain (plain of Halmyros) on the south; and Leaf
(NG, iv. 360 f.) identifies it with the ruins north of Akitsi, which lies
3'5 km. from Pyrasus (Neanchialos) and 53 km. (3oo stades) from
Larissa. On the plateau are four peaks, of which the most easterly
was the acropolis (99· ro), 'With the to,wn sloping down on its eastern
side. Arvanitopoulos (llpo.KnK&., r9o8, r68 f.) identifies the Heliotro-
pion (99· 8) as the hill to the west behind which the sun set for the
inhabitants on either the longest or shortest day; it is probably
Taburi, about 250m. west of the citadel. Skopion (ibid.) he takes to
be the eminence Karauli, about 6oo m. north-west of the citadel,
where an ordnance pillar now stands. The {m.,p,a£lp.ryov apo> (ibid.) is
the hill Kokkinos Vrachos, which stands across the Alchanorevma,
which runs along the base of the acropolis on the north and east.
See further, for a plan of the to~TI and acropolis, Stablin, HeO.
Thess. r7r-2; RE, 'Thebai (3) (Achaia)', cols. rs82-<)J.
4. dT)jlTJTPLELS ••• 4>a.paa.Atous ••• 1\a.pLO"a.wus: all cities controlled
by Philip. Demetrias and Larissa were old Macedonian possessions;
Pharsalus in Phthiotis had been annexed by the Aetolians on the
death of Demetrius II, but recovered along with Thessaliotis and
Hestiaeotis by Doson (see Fine, TAPA, 1932, 133 ff.; Walbank,
Philip, n n. 3 (against Beloch, iv. 2. 414-r7) for references). There are
no grounds for rejecting P. here (see Feyel, 294 n. I against Flaceliere,
294 n. I).
5. To ••• 1>-jlupu<ov 'II'ESlov: this lay in Pelasgiotis, east of Larissa and
north of Lake Boebe, and through it ran the R. Amyrus, probably
the modern Deres. It is the modern plain of Karalar, and the town
of Amyrus is probably to be identified with the ruins of Kastri, with
Leake (NG, iv. 447); see Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 59·
7. KO.Ta'II'EATwv ••• 'II'ETpo~oAucidv ••• bpyO.vwv: according to Hero the
former was a two-armed machine firing arrows; it is more or less the
Roman scorpio. The 1T£-rp&{Jo'Aos (ballista) is more powerful and also
more expensive. At New Carthage (Livy, xxvi. 47· 5-6) the cata-
pultae and ballistae taken were 401 and 75 respectively, roughly the
same proportion, 6 : I, as here.
9. K«Td'II'AE9pov: 'every hundred feet'.
10. ~p~aTo 11'poa6.yELv ••• 11'pos TTJV iiKpa.v: i.e. to the north and west,
where the acropolis walls were on the outside; here, to the west, a
low saddle offers a convenient approach, with a gate in the wall, and
it was doubtless against this point that Philip brought up his
machines (Arvanitopoulos, llpa.KnK&., 19o8, 177, pl. 4; Stahlin, Hell.
Thess. qr-2).
627
v. 100,2 CAMPAIGNS OF 211 IN GREECE
100. 2. 'Twv bpuyJ.LnTtuv: 'Das ... Bergplateau ... ist wie dieser ganze
Gebirgsteil von Marmosen, Chloritschiefem und Phylliten gebildet,
die auf Gneis lagem. Die auf diesem Untergrund ruhenden Mauern
konnten unterwuhlt werden' (Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 171). P. emphasizes
the difficulties (§ 3). For the method of underpinning (§ 4) see 4· 8 n.
7. E\1 Tfl 'ITEpt TOUS na.Aau'i's 1TOAloptc£q.: cf. 3· 5 ff.
8. ToO; ••• u1T6.pxovTo.'> obn\Topo.;: 'the existing population' ; cf. 10. 6
(where Tovs olK~Topas are the population of Thebes enslaved by
Alexander), 93· 6 (where Twv 7rpocrAaftf3avop.l.vwv olK1JT6pwv refers to
new citizens), iii. roo. 4· Tarn (JRS, 1941, 171, 173) renders 'the
(Aetolian) settlers who were there'; but P.'s normal usage is against
this forced translation.
cj)l).(1T1TOU Tfjv 11'oAw: cf. Diod. xxvi. 9; Steph. Byz., s.v. I'PO.tmroL.
The new name did not maintain itself.
9-10. Further attempt at mediation by neutrals: cf. 24. II for an appeal
by Chios and Rhodes; they are now joined by Byzantium and
Egypt. Holleaux (78 n. :a) argues that Egyptian intervention reflects
a new policy of Sosibius, to cultivate Macedonian friendship against
Antiochus (cf. Etudes, i. 82-83, u9-2o). Feyel (r65-6) points out that
mediation was in the immediate interest of Aetolia rather than of
.Macedon (for Sosibius could not know of Philip's sudden reason for
wanting peace), and argues that the present passage merely shows
Sosibius anxious for peace in Greece. However, Feyel admits that
such a peace would leave Philip free to be canvassed for help against
Syria; and ultimately the difference with Holleaux is only one of
emphasis.
10. 1TO.po.11'A'I'j0'£ou!i a'IToKpLO'ELS: cf. 24. II.
11. TOU 8£ 11'pnTTEl\l Tl TW\1 E~ils a\ITELXETO: 'he applied himself to the
continued prosecution of his policy'.
102. 1. iJ JlclA~aT6. 11'tuS O.d Til'> Twv oAtuv EA1rl8os E,PLETo.L: this could
only refer to Antigonus I and Demetrius I, not to any of their
successors; cf. Edson, Harv. Stud., 1934, 222 n. I.
4. KAEovLl<ov ••• 'TOY Na.u1Tcll<T~ov: cf. 95· 12, ix. 37· 4· No information
can be extracted on the date of the approaching Achaean o-Vvooos,
which was probably that of autumn 217 (Aymard, ACA, 267 n. 1).
EK Tfjs alxfLaAwala> is probably causal; Cleonicus was awaiting the
628
END OF THE SOCIAL WAR V. IDS. 4
at5vo3os- which was to decide his fate (Aymard, ibid.). A temporal
sense is possible (so Paton), but leaves it obscure why he should
have been awaiting the assembly.
6. AaO'lwva: cf. iv. 72. 7 n.; the fortress tv Tots Ilepm7T£o•> is un-
identified.
9. na.voptJ-OV: the sandy bay IS stades (z·s km.) east of Cape Rhium
(Paus. vii. 22. 1o), modern Tekke. See Thuc. ii. 86, 92. 1; Polyaen.
vi. 23; Pliny, Nat. hist. iv. 13; E. Meyer, RE, 'Panormos (8)', col. 658,
and the map in his Pel. Wand.
10. 'II'A£uO'a<; ££; ZaJCvv9ov 8l' auTou KanO'n\O'aTo KTA.: 'he personally
settled the affairs of the island', i.e. he took it over. Hitherto
Zacynthus was independent.
103. 4. Tci. ••• KoiAa ri\s Nav7TaJCTtas: Naupactia was the district
around the town (cf. 95· u; Aesch. Suppl. 262; Thuc. iii. 102. 2;
Paus. ix. 38. 3) and the KofAa clearly lay 20 stades to the west. See
Woodhouse, 318; Trowbridge and Oldfather, RE, 'Kaupaktos (1)',
col. 1982.
9. :A.yEAaov ToO Nav7TaJCTtov: cf. iv. 16. 10, v. 3· r; he was evidently
leader of the peace party in Aetolia (d. 107. 5; Holleaux, 162 n. 4).
His speech is likely to be based on a contemporary record. De
Sanctis (Riv. fil., 1934, 1o8-9) compares Thucydides' version of the
speech delivered by Hermocrates of Syracuse at Gela in 424 (Thuc.
iv. 59-64); but any parallelism may spring from a similarity between
the occasions, and is not a reason for regarding P .'s speech as merely
a rhetorical composition. See further Walbank, Philip, 66.
104. 1. O'UtJ-7TAEKoVTES Tci.s XE~pas: 'an image universally known'
(Tarn, Alex. ii. 68 n. 1, discussing Diod. xvii. 55· 5).
3. 5-ijA.ov ••• elval ••• Kat vuv: 'it was clear, and that already .. .';
on the Greek apprehension cf. 33· 4·
7. yEv6tJ-EVOS E'cpESpos: Philip was to wait and see, leaving action
for the future (aiJv Ka•po/).
10. Ta 7TpocpawotJ-EVa ••• vEcpYJ: the fignre became famous; cf. ix.
37· 10; xxxviii. 16. 3 (used of a Roman fleet off Elis and Messene);
Justin. xxix. 3 (attributed to Philip). For the metaphor of a cloud
of war see Homer, Il. xvii. 243, 7ToAlp.o£o v.1¢.os, and other passages
quoted by Bowra (CR, 1940, 127-9); on Archil. fg. 56 see also Sand-
bach (CR, 194.2, 63).
105. 3. k<lTa Tov Tphov EvLavTov ri\s •.• 6AVtJ-1n6.So;: an approxima-
tion only (Nissen, Rh. Mus., 1871, 246); for Trasimene and Raphia
were both towards the end of June, and the Peace of Naupactus
probably in August.
4-10. Events of Greece, Italy, and Africa linked together. In trying to
connect this 'universalizing' of events with the Peace of Naupactus
629
V.IOj • .j. CAMPAIGNS OF 217 IN GREECE
P. forces the evidence, for there is no record of an appeal to Rome by
the islanders and Greeks of Asia Minor for many years. The neutral
embassies sent from Egypt, Rhodes, Chlos, Mytilene, and Byzantium
did not approach the Romans, nor is any embassy to Carthage known
from the islanders or the Greek cities in Asia opposed to Attalus.
Further, no Roman embassy crossed the Aegean until 2oo. The
earliest link between any Asiatic states (other than Pergamum) and
Rome would be the inclusion of Ilium in the Peace of Phoenice
(Livy, xxix. 12, 14); but this reference is probably to be rejected
(Philip, 103-4; Petzold, 28-29; contra Magie, ii. 744 ff.). After that
would come the appeal of Rhodes (and Pergamum) to Rome in
autumn 201 (Philip, 3II), and the appeal of Lampsacus to be in-
cluded in the treaty of 197 (Syll. 591). In fact§§ 6-8 are to be taken
in the most general terms and as covering a long period.
9. KClTa TTjV t~ apXflS (,1TflCf)(EOW: Cf. i. 3• I ff., iv. 28. 2-6 (note § 4,
I ~ t , )
'TrOT€ Kat' -
'TTWS' Ka'\ , (\
ot as atTI.a.S ,
107. 1-3. Philopator's war with the Egyptian rebels. On the arming
of the Egyptian p.ax•p.o• and training of them as part of the phalanx
before Raphia see 65. I-Io n. (especially (vi) 65. 8-()}; it is not to be
assumed, with Lesquier (6-7), that Philopator armed all Egyptians
indiscriminately. A later stage in the rebellion is summarized in xiv.
12. 4· For recent discussion of the scanty evidence, which suggests
631
V.IOJ.I EVENTS OF 217/16 IN GREECE, EGYPT, SYRIA
a widespread, unsystematic outbreak of the oppressed classes all
over Egypt, see C. Preaux, Chron. d'tgypte, 1936, 526 ff. Rostovtzeff
(SEHHW, 709-10) suggests that the war was less of a national
and religious war against a foreign government than a rejection of
the burden laid on the peasants by the expenses of the war with
Antiochus, the bonus to the army, and the gifts bestowed on the
temples. Some of the temples suffered during the rising (OGIS,
90 1. 27)-
4. Antiochus prepares to attack Achaeus. The crossing of Taurus is
spring 216. The earliest event mentioned in the surviving fragments
is the capture of Sardes (vii. 15-18). See Leuze, Hermes, 1923, r88-9.
5-7. Aetolian discontent. There is evidence for Aetolians seeking ser-
vice as mercenaries for Achaeus at this time (vii. 16. 7, with the com-
mentary of Holleaux, REA, 1916, 233-47 = F-tudes, iii. 125-39). In
§ 6 TTCfvras •.. Tovs eE:V..TJvas is really a reference to the members of
the Symmachy.
109. Philip's naval plans. It seems likely that Philip planned first
to attack the Illyrian coast, and later to cross over into Italy (Philip,
69). Badian (BSA, 1952, 89) has argued, however, that he may merely
have intended a naval attack on Scerdila'idas, and that his intentions
were later reinterpreted in the light of his attack on Apollonia in 214
632
ACTIVITIES OF PHILIP AND PRUSIAS I~ 217/16 V. III. 10
(Philip, 75-76); this is possible but not susceptible of proof. Where
Philip built his lembi is not mentioned; his later shipyard (Livy,
xxviii. 8. 14) was Cassandreia.
5. -rov -rwv 'Pw!J-a.£wv a-r6Aov: probably Otacilius' seventy-five ships
mentioned by Livy (xxii. 37· 13); Servilius' squadron had already
returned to Rome (iii. 106. 7 n.). See Thiel, 57-58 (against Holleaux,
163 n. 4).
111. 2. olls 5LE~£~a.o-ev .•• :a.-r-ra.Aos: cf. 77· 2 n., and for their settle-
ment on the Hellespont, 78. 5·
1TOALopKe'Lv -rous 'IALeis em~a.Ao~J-~vwv: Strabo (xiii. 593) records that
Ilium had had a city-wal14o stades long since Lysimachus (cf. Livy,
xxxvii. 37· 2). Excavations have revealed such an early Hellenistic
wall, though somewhat short of 40 stades in length; cf. C. W. Blegen,
A] A, 1935, 26, 564; 1937, 594; Magie, ii. 923. Despite the contra-
dictory statements in Strabo (xiii. 594) from other authors, that
Ilium was aTelxtUTOS in 278 (Hegesianax)' and a mere KWf:l-07/'0Ats in
190 (Demetrius of Scepsis), it is therefore unnecessary to follow
Grote, and Leaf (Troad, 142 f.), in so interpreting or emending the
text as to make it refer to Alexandria Troas.
5. :4.p£o-~a.v: Arisbe lay on the R. Selleis in the Troad (cf. Homer,
Il. ii. 836, vi. 13, xxi. 43; Virg. A en. ix. 264; Lucan, iii. 204). It was
a Milesian (Strabo, xiv. 635) or Mytilenaean (Steph. Byz.) colony.
Alexander's army encamped here after crossing the Hellespont
(Arrian, Anab. i. 12. 6). See Hirschfeld, RE, 'Arisbe (1)', col. 847.
8. ev -rois 1rpo -rou-rwv Se5t1A.w-ra.L: cf. iii. n8. 2 ff. for defections to
Carthage after Cannae.
10. -rils [iv -ra.u-rn -rfi ~u~A.'!l] 1TpoKa.-ra.o-Keuils: the bracketed words
are probably a gloss suggested by the previous iv rfj p.lmi TaiiTa
{3vfJA.ctJ. But the TTpo~<"aTaaKw~ elsewhere means the events down to
220, as dealt with in i and ii (cf. i. 3· ron.), whereas here, by excep-
tion, it would include those down to 216, for a recapitulation merely
of the events to 220 would be inappropriate at the outset of book vi.
Hence De Sanctis's plausible suggestion (iii. r. 217) that the gloss
conceals a lacuna, which he would fill: {3paxla TTpoaavap.~aavns Tfjs
(TE-better T'-~v TavTats Tais f3v{3Aots TTpayp.aTelas Ka~ Tfjs) TTpoKaTa-
O'Kwi]s. Laqueur's view (9, 224-5) that the phrase once ended book iii,
633
V.nr.to ACTIVITIES OF PHILIP AND PRUSIAS IN 217Jl6
before P. had included iv and v in his History, is adequately refuted
by De Sanctis (iii. I. 217), who observes that, were this true, iv
TaVT'[J Tfj fl!JfJ>.I.f:l would refer to book iii, and not to i andii, asLaqueur's
argument demands. For two other false cross-references, which are
probably to be explained differently, see iii. 10. 1, 28. 4·
Ka.TA T~v ev d:.pxa.'Ls u1r6axEaw: cf. i. 64. 2, iii. 2. 6, n8. n-12.
BOOK VI
Though is has survived only in fragmentary form, the generalshapeof
book vi is assured by the order of the fragments in the Codex Urbinas
(F). These, Nissen showed (Rh. Mus., r87r, 253 f£.; cf. Buttner-Wobst,
ii. lxii-lxvi), follow the order of the original closely in i-v (the
one exception is in v, where fol. 54r gives 79· 3-86. 7 and fol. 59"
75· 2-6), and may therefore be presumed to do so in later books.
Nor does any substantial part of the book appear to have been lost
outright (cf. Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (x)', col. 1493 n. r). After an
introduction (2), omitted by F, the book opens with some general
remarks on the nature of constitutions, with special reference to the
Roman, designed to lead up to a discussion of the mixed constitution
and the early history of Rome ('l· 3 n.). P. distinguishes three types
of constitution (3. 5), but adds the mixed type, as found in Lycurgan
Sparta (3. 6-8), and the three associated corruptions (3. 9-4· 6). He
then outlines a process by which the three constitutional forms and
their three corruptions, preceded by a seventh type, primitive
monarchy, follow each other in a cyclical succession KaTO. cfot}(JLJI
(4. n); the order followed is monarchy, kingship, tyranny, aristo-
cracy, oligarchy, democracy, and ochlocracy, and the process, out-
lined in 4· 7-13, is developed at length in S· I---(). 9· P. follows it with
the statements (a) that by observing where a state is situated in
this cycle one can predict its future (g. ro-n), (b) that this method
will especially facilitate understanding of the development of Rome
(g. 12-14). How P. in fact applies this anacyclosis (g. ro) to Rome
is discussed below (4. 7""""9· 14 n.), where it is related further to the
'biological concept' that all things, including states, follow an or-
ganic pattern of beginning, growth, acme, and decline (d. 9· 12-14,
51. 4-8, 57). After outlining the anacyclosis P. returns to Lycurgus,
who devised his mixed constitution to avoid the several corruptions
implicit in the single constitutional forms-of kingship into mon-
archy (ro. 4 n.), of aristocracy into oligarchy, and of democracy into
ochlocracy; and what Lycurgus achieved by reason, the Romans
have achieved by choosing the better course in a series of crises and
struggles, in the light of experience gained in disaster (ro). This
formulation leads naturally to a survey of early Roman history,
carried by P. down to the time of the Decemvirate (u. In.), and
regarded as the process by which Rome attained to the mixed con-
stitution (nan.); and this survey is followed by an analysis of the
system of checks and balances operating within this mixed constitu-
tion, when at its prime (u~r8). Whether P. here included a detailed
description of the constitution, now lost (so Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios
635
VI. I INTRODUCTIO"N
(I)', col. I493 n. I), is uncertain; the reference in iii. 87.9 (=vi. I8. 9)
to a fuller discussion of a constitutional point elsewhere perhaps
points in this direction (d. too n an. at the end). There will, in any
case, have been a transitional passage to the detailed account of the
Roman military system (I9-42), which is included as clearly relevant
to the extension of Roman power, and of special interest to P.
personally. For a full appreciation of the merits of the Roman con-
stitution P. felt it necessary to adopt the traditional device of the
mJyKpLaLs (d. Focke, Hermes, I923, 348 ff.), and to compare it with
certain other well-regarded constitutions, and in particular that of
Carthage (since the Hannibalic War offers the occasion for this
digression); this comparison is made in 43-56. Finally, in 57, P.
hazards some observations on the probable future development of
the Roman constitution, and rounds off the book (58) with an anec-
dote which serves as a transition back to the historical narrative of vii.
In CQ, I943· 73-89 it was argued that those parts of vi which imply
the decay of Rome, and outline the scheme of the anacyclosis, belong
to a later strand, which was composed after the events of ISO-I46,
in response to the impact of political developments. This view is
superseded in a more recent study, written in conjunction with C. 0.
Brink (CQ, 1954, 97-122). There is no evidence that any part of vi
was composed substantially later than the book as a whole; and
there is nothing in it which points to a date later than ISO for its
composition. Indeed, its publication along with i-v about that date
remains the most likely hypothesis (d. iii. I-5 n.). Such problems
as book vi still offers on the 'unitary' hypothesis are considered in
the notes which follow. In recent works on book vi the unitary view
has been reasserted by E. Mioni, Polibio (Padua, I949), 49-78; H.
Ryffel, Meraf3o>..~ 1ToALTEt.Wv (Bern, I949), especially I8o-228; H. Erbse,
Rh. Mus., I95I, I57-79· For other recent discussion see G. B. Cardona,
Polibio, Storie, vol. ii (Naples, I949), introduction, i-xliii, who accepts
De Sanctis's 'separatist' position; K. Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (I)',
cols. I489-15oo, who believes in two strands of composition but a
single publication before ISO; and W. Theiler, Hermes, I953· 296-302,
who argues for three layers of composition. Earlier bibliography in
Walbank, CQ, 1943, 73-89; Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 97-I22;
and Ziegler, op. cit., cols. I489---90.
cpvaw (cf. 9· I2-14). What is the connexion of ideas between this bio-
logical theory and that of the anacyclosis with which it appears in
close conjunction? Whether this con junction was already in existence
before P. is uncertain. Theiler (Hermes, I953. 298; Gnomon, 1926,
590 ff.) argues that it was in Critolaus {d. Philo, aet. mttnd. 58 ft., 71);
but Critolaus' acquaintance ·with the anacyclosis has yet to be proved.
In any case the relationship between the two concepts in P. requires
close analysis. The problem was first raised by Cuntz {4o-4r) and
De Sanctis (iii. 1. zo6) ; and Zancan (Rend. I st. Lomb., I936, soS) pro-
vided a partial answer by pointing to the concept of cpuats which
P. insists is proper to both the biological development and the
anacyclosis (cf. 4· 7 cpvaLKws, 4· 9 Ka·n:i cpuaLv, 4· n, 4· 13, S· 8 cpua£ws
lpyov, and 9· Io cpva£ws olKoiJop.la (both of the anacyclosis), 9· IJ,
9· I4, sr. 4 mnl. cpvaw, 57· I ~ Tijs cpva£w<; aYaYK1J). Particularly in
4· II-I3 the two concepts are brought into the closest relationship;
yet they cannot be made wholly to coincide, since the biological
theory requires an aKJL~, and it is o11ly at the cost of some violence
that this can be introduced into the anacyclosis. The difficulty is
discussed by Ryftel (zr6 ft.; see also Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954,
no ft., II3-IS)· There are, he observes, three forms which such an
aKfL~ might take.
(a) If one considers the whole curve of the anacyclosis, it might
Well be argued that the aKfL~ iS {3aat/...da, Since clearly the apx~ lies
in primitive society (cf. 5· 4), and the development through the
povapxf.a to the {3aml.da is a form of aift1)a•s, and the decline into
7vpaw{s represents a fLETa{3o/..~. But, despite the fact that P. devotes
all s--7 to this stage of the cycle, such an identification neglects the
further stages, and is therefore unsatisfactory.
(b) Inside the single state (e.g. of Rome) P. tends to treat aristo-
cracy aS the aKfL~ (e.g. in 51. s-6, 57· 8), thUS indulging his personal
prejudices (cf. s6. II). But when he is describing the detailed working
of the mikte (n-r8), he seems rather to exaggerate the real power
of the people by putting to their credit the role of the tribunes
(I6. 4) and the economic activity of the equites (17. 3ft.), in the
interest of his schematic balance. This is against our assuming that
the mikte is to be regarded as in some sense weighted towards aristo-
cracy; and in fact 51. 6 merely states that in a mixed constitution
at its prime deliberation is part of the function of the aristocratic
element (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, I954. 117-I8).
(c) One may apply the biological concept to a single constitutional
form; and Ryftel (2r7) sees some evidence that P. intends this in
his USe of the doctrine Of the GVfLcpV'TOJJ KaK6JJ inherent in each good
form (cf. 4· 8 n., ro. I f.). Up to a point this is sound, and is partly
supported by such passages as 7· 1 and 8. r, where it is clear that
each phase of the anacyclosis has its own apx~ mt yevw•s and in turn
646
ANACYCLOSIS AND MIXED CONSTITUTION VI. 4· 7
its destruction. If this is pressed, the problem of an dKfi.~ disappears,
each phase having its own aKfi.~; but if P. meant this, surely he
would have said so more clearly.
Indeed, the problem of the aKfL~ is not fully solved until the idea
of the mixed constitution has been combined with that of the
anacyclosis. It is to this combination that we now turn.
(c) The anacyclosis and the mixed canstUution. In four passages
(1o. 7, ro. rr, 10. 14, II. 1) P. speaks of the mixed constitution in
terms implying that it will not last for ever; eventually it must
decline Ka.-ra rp.Ja4v, like other states including the ideal state of Plato:
cf. Plato, Rep. viii. 546 A, xa.A€7Tov f1.€v KWf}8ijva.t m)Atv oihw avaTiiaa.v.
lli' l7T€t 'jlf:I!Ofl-EI!Ifl m5.vn rp8op6. ~aTtV, ou8' ~ ToLa.JT., a.J<JTaats TOJ.!
a:rraVTa }l.JiiVf:f xp6vov cL\Aa Avll~af:Ta£. Consequently there is no funda~
mental contradiction between the theory of the mixed constitution
and that of the organic series, birth, growth, acme, decline (cf.
Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, ro7, ru). Indeed, historically the
theory of the mixed state arose as the answer to the problem of
constitutional change and decay (cf. 3· 7 n., 4· 6 n.); and the ultimate
lack of permanence in the mikte made it possible to combine it with
the anacyclosis in this book.
The existence of any mixed constitution at an historical period
('Lycurgan' Sparta, third- and second-century Rome) explicitly
raised the question of its growth, and by implication at least that
of its decay. P. wrote book vi as part of his general didactic purpose.
His specific reasons are repeatedly stated (iii. 2. 6, u8. 9 f., v. III. Io,
vi. 2. 3, cf. xxxix. 8. 7); they are, briefly, to account for Roman
success and world-empire by analysing the form of constitution
under which she achieved it. Zancan (Rend. I st. Lomb., 1936, 499 f.)
assumed that P. was also concerned to explain certain contemporary
signs of decadence; but this is an object he never mentions, and can
only have been incidentaL To explain Roman success P. had to
analyse the mixed constitution; this meant analysing its growth.
and here he found the theory of the anacyclosis invaluable, since the
early course of Roman history corresponded to the demands of that
theory (cf. I I an.). But the anacyclosis also implied eventual decay;
and it is this fact which has led to the view (cf. CQ, r943, 7J-89) that
its acceptance by P. must be part of the revised plan of his history,
adopted after 146 (cf. iii. 1-5 n.), and that this revision sounded a
critical note, and put Rome up at the bar of justice to answer for
her method of exercising her rule-vvith an end to it all in Tapa.x~
Kal1cf:vr;ats (iii. 4· 12 n.). But in fact P. must have been confronted
with the issue of Roman decay before 150-146 (cf. Brink and
\Valbank, CQ, 1954, 1o5-i}· Already in i. 64 he had criticized the
ability of Rome as mistress of the world to put to sea such fleets as
she had marshalled during the First Punic War; and he must have
647
Vl.4·7 ANACYCLOSIS A~D MIXED CONSTITUTION
been familiar v.rith the statue set up to Cato after his censorship of
r84 and have read the inscription which Plutarch (Cat. mai. r9. 3)
translates: rl]v 'Pwf.Lalwv rro.A.tTI!lo.v €y~<:€Klu.f.Liv1}V Kai perrovuav bri TCJ
xdpov • .. els 6p8ov av6ts U7TOH:aT€GT1JUI!. Nor was Cato alone. Already
in 166 the young Scipio Aemilianus was a contrast to the rest of the
Roman youths, who had been corrupted by the great wealth and
power of Rome since the fall of Macedon (xxxi. z5~zg; the d8~ptTos
J~ouata Of XXXi. 25. 6 recalls the OVIJUGTI!la UO~ptTOS Of Vi. 57· 5); on
this see P6schl, 64-ti5. Hence the theory of the anacyclosis, which
P. saw illustrated in the rise of Rome, and which he probably
regarded as the specific form of the general theory of biological
change (above §(b)), could perhaps already find a further justifica-
tion (if an incidental one) in the signs that even as early as P.'s
arrival in Rome 'things were not what they had been'. It is therefore
unnecessary (and misleading) to postulate that (as was argued in
CQ, 1943, 8z~84) the anacyclosis was part of the revised scheme;
indeed the difficulties of such a view render it untenable (d. Brink
and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 109 ff.).
The mikte is therefore to be regarded as the constitution to which
the Romans worked by way of the early stages of the anacyclosis;
and in so far as she achieved the mikte Rome succeeded in temporarily
placing herself outside the influence of the forces normally making
for change. To that extent the Roman constitution is a breach of the
anacyclosis pattern, which was ~<:aTa <fouaw. Yet from another point
of view the achievement of the mikte gave Rome something which,
as we saw, was lacking to the anacyclosis as it normally operated-
an acme; and this brought it (despite the zigzags in its pattern) into
relation with the biological concept of origin, growth, acme, and
decline. Hence it could (from that point of view) be said to have
had a growth that was essentially ~<:o.Ta <fova•v (d. 9· 13-14). This is
the explanation of the apparent paradox that P. describes as having
had, el . . . nva Kai eTepav rro.A.tn:la.v (9. I3), a development KaTa
¢vow, the one state which has evidently succeeded in making
a breach in the 'natural' development of the anacyclosis. There is a
contradiction here-but one which lies \'vithin P.'s rather compli-
cated theorizing in a realm in which he was not a real master; and
it is this contradiction which enables him to treat the anacyclosis
as the specific form in which the biological law finds expression
within the realm of political theory.
is unnecessary (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, II5 n. 3). P.'s dis-
tinction between p.ol!apxla and TVpaw{s in this section, which is not to
be found elsewhere in the Histories, probably reflects the terminology
of the source from which he drew his account of the anacyclosis,
and is irrelevant to the problem of the construction of this book.
fl.E-rd. Ka.-ra.O"Keufjs: Ka.l1hop9wO"ews:: 'by the aid of art and the correction
of its defects' (Paton). ih&pOwcn;; is contrasted with ,PuatKw;;.
8. fJ.e-ra.~a.AAouO''l':l Se -ra.o'r'lc; elc; ,.a_ o-u11cl>u1J Ka.KO.: i.e. f1aa~>..eta
(Paton misleadingly translates it 'monarchy') changes into rvpawts.
The concept of 'innate evil' is Platonic; cf. Rep. x. 6o9 A aufi.rfovrov
iKaar4:1 KaKcw r" Kat vocr7Jp.a. Ryffel (248-9) traces it back to a sophistic
milieu, probably Antiphon, and ultimately to Empedocles, as its
earliest originators. See below, ro. I ff., and especially Io. 3 n.
10. a1TO'ITA'lpoiJ>ra.~ O'UV XPOVOLS 6x.f.oKpa.TLa.: 'in due course mob-rule
closes the series'. For the use of 6x>..oKpar[a in Areius Didymus, re-
cording a peripatetic source, see 3· 7 n.
11-13. Transition to the biological interpretation. On p.era{1o>..at see
3· r n. P. stresses that these changes (apxat Kai yev€aet;; Kal p.era-
{1oAa[) occur Kanl ,Pumv (cf. § 12 rfouerat). and that it is because of this
that the course of development can be traced; in particular, this is
true of Rome (§ u lrrl Tfj;; 'Pwp.alwv 7TOAtrela;;, with a reference for-
ward to the archaeofogia (I l a), Which OUtlineS the UUUTaatS Kat
.;J.U~1)at> of the Roman constitution until it acquired the mikte); for
this constitution has developed essentially Kard </Fucnv. The transition
from § 12 (general statement) to§ 13 (application to Rome) how-
ever, effected only by a slight shift in the application of the bio-
logical idea. In §§ n-12 the words EKaarwv and €Kaarov, coming
immediately after the outline of the various constitutional forms,
seem naturally to apply to them; and indeed these forms have
their beginnings and ends (7. 1, 8. r). Thus the biological idea is,
as it were, 'built into' the anacyclosis. But when in§ r2 P. comes to
apply his argument to the Roman 7ToA~TEto., it is no longer of the
separate constitutional forms that he is speaking, but of the 'con-
stitution' which is in some sense continuous behind (and through)
the separate forms. The same ambiguity appears in g. u-r4, where
€Ko.arov (q. n) seems to mean 'each constitutional form', but where
it is in reference to the constitutional history of Rome as a whole
that he speaks of formation, growth, perfection, and decline. In
this way the idea of growth and decadence proper to each part of
the anacydosis is transferred to the process as a whole, thus enabling
P. to make the kind of assessment which in sr allows him to assert
that Carthage is farther along the path of constitutional change
than Rone (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, rn-u); and it is of
course for its application in such specific instances, and as a tool of
prognostication, that P. is especially interested in political theory.
649
VI. 4· II DETAILED EXPOSITION
P. is here interpreting the growth of the mikte at Rome as an
illustration of the cycle of constitutional forms outlined in the
anacyclosis, and consequently as the mark of a state developing
Ka·nt rpvaw. In Io. 13-14 its growth is conceived in more rationalist
terms. But there is no fundamental contradiction (as Laqueur,
Hermes, 1930, 165, asserts). In the one case the contrast is with
Lycurgan Sparta, in the other P. is merely stressing that the growth
to the mikte conformed to the pattern of the anacyclosis. When in 9·
rr-14 P. reverts to the argument of this passage, he adds an explicit
reference to decline (absent here) which is taken up in 57.
13. TouTov ••• Tov Tpinrov ••• Tfjs €€TJyiJaews: 'this sort of explana-
tion'; on -rp6rros in P. see Strachan-Davidson, 1-2.
9. opos ••• iaxos: 'strength is the standard of his rule' (not 'sole
limit', as Paton and Shuck burgh); Schweighaeuser is right as usual:
robore metiuntur imperium; cf. Arist. Pol. vi (iv) 8. 1294 a ro, apurro-
KpaTlas [L~V yap C5pos dpen), oA~yapxlas 8~ 1TAoitros (a parallel I owe to
C. 0. Brink).
1-Lova.px'a.v: in making monarchy the primitive social form P. follows
Plato (e.g. Laws, iii. 68o D ff.) and Aristotle (Pol. i. 2. 1252 b zo); but
they both associate primitive monarchy with the regime of the family
(cf. § 7 n.), as do the Stoics (if indeed Panaetius is Cicero's source in
de re pub. i. 54 (see too fin. iii. 62, quoted in § 7 n.)), whereas P. links
up rather with the sophistic teaching on the role of the stronger,
by making the sociable virtues and ethical concepts a subsequent
development (§ 10 ff.), the fruits not the cause of living in society.
10. pa.aLXeia.s: distinguished from monarchia by its ethical and social
basis, which has developed in the course of time by a natural process.
ivvo1a. ••• Toll Ka.Aou Ka.i OLKa.iou: Stoic phraseology; cf. Cic. fin.
iii. 21, 'simul autem cepit intellegentiam uel notionem potius, quam
appellant £v1'o~av illi (sc. eorum quae sunt secundum naturam), ...
multo earn pluris aestimauit quam omnia illa quae prima dilexerat'.
But the importance of this is not to be pressed (cf. 4· 7--9· 14 n. (b)),
for P.'s idea of concepts of right and wrong springing from the
experience of social life is found among the Epicureans (cf. Porph.
de abst. i. ro).
6. ~tret 8' etc SlaSoxfj~ KTA.: the second stage, contrasted with Tb p.~v
oo~·7faAatOJl (§ 4)· Safety (Td 7Tpb> T¥ &.a,Pal.dav) and luxury (7T/..dw
TWI' lKavwv .,.d 1rpo> rf]v Tpo,P~v) are the direct result of the original
king's efforts (§ 4).
7. tcal tra.pO. Twv llTJ trpOcrTJtc6v.,-wv: 'even from those for whom such
things are quite improper'. oi 1rpo<n}Kovres- are not relatives but, on
the contrary, those who might properly satisfy the king's a,Ppootalwv
x.petat. For an example of the excesses here hinted at cf. x. z6. 3
(Philip V).
8. f.y€vETO •.• e1<: Tfjs ~a.cr~Ada.s Tupavv(s: on the difference cf. v. II. 6.
and the reversion to the rule of the J.Lovapxo> (§ 9). It utilizes themes
already found in P. ; d. the description of the people of Cynaetha,
iv. I7. 4, 2o-2r.
3. TTJV SE Twv KOLvwv TrpovoLa.v Ka.i 'lTLanv .•• O.v~.Aa.~ov: 'they took
into their own hands on trust the care of the commonwealth'.
4. um;poxij,; l(a,l, Suva.o-TEL<lS: d. i. 2. i, v. 45· I; 'excessive power'.
P. refers to the dominion of the oligarchs.
TTJV tO'Tjyop(a.v Kat TTJV 'lTa.ppTJa(a.v: 'equality and freedom of speech',
the signs of democracy; cf. § 5. ii. 38. 6 (of Achaea), l07Jyoplas; Kal
1TappYJalas Kat Ka86Aou OYJJ.LOKparla> UAYJOwry> aJaTYJf.LO. Kal 7rpoalpwtv,
42. 3, iv. 31. 4, Vii. IO. I.
5. 'lTa.Lat mdSwv: cf. iv. 35· 15. vlot is 'of a new generation' (a sense for
which LSJ quotes only verse examples, and which is more commonly
expressed by v<:.WTEpot).
6, 8eAE0.~0VTES Ka.l /\ufJ.<lWOtJ.EVOL Ta TrA"rj9T]; cf. iv. 15. 8, tj>0E{pnv KaL
AuJ.LalvwOat rov> rwv iixatwv aUf.Lf.Ldxou> (of the Aetolians), xxvii. 2. 7,
Auf.L~VaaOat ~v rwv 1roAAwv evvotav 1rp6,; T~v MaKEOovwv olKlav (of Q.
Marcius' activities in Boeotia), 7. 4, l.uJ.Lalv€a0at r~v rwv 1roAAwv
1rpoa.lpmw (of Deinon and Polyaratus at Rhodes). P. uses Se>.dtew
more specifically of demagogic action tending towards ochlocracy ;
cf. xxxii. 6. z (of the people of Phoenice driven by Charops to insti-
tute a reign of terror), xxxviii. rr. I I (of the people in the Peloponnese
seduced by Critolaus)-two examples which illustrate P.'s meaning
here.
7. 8wpoS6t<ou<; t<t:I.L 8wpocf!ayou<;: owp6tj>ayo~;, inserted for the jingle,
is found elsewhere only in Hesiod (Op. 39, 221, 264).
8. O'UVEL9LO'f.1EVOV ••• ea9(uv Ta aAMTpta.: d. Cicero, de re pub. i. 68,
for the demagogue 'populo gratificans et aliena et sua' ; but it is a
commonplace in the account of the decay of democracy, cf. Plato,
Rep. viii. 565 A, roil,; lxoVTO.S T~ll otiala.v acpatpouw:vot, ~haVEJ.LOVT€> T{jJ
&r/J.Up.
Trpoanl.TT)V tJ.Eya.M<j>pova. I(O.L TOAtJ.T)p6v: cf. Plato, Rep. viii. s6s c,
Ofii<OW lva nvd. dd SfjJ.LOS' erwOEv ow.t/>epoVTw> 1TpotO'TaaOat EC1.1.170V, KaL
TOtrrOV TPEtP€tV Te KaL augEW J.LEYO.JJ;
9. acf!a.yas, cf!uy6.s, yfls O.va.Sa.atJ.ous: cf. Plato, Rep. viii. 565 E (of
the demagogue in the saddle), . . . dvSpYJAarii Kai a1TOKT€WVn KfJ.~
WOITYJf.Lalvn xp~wv T€ U1TOK01T<:l> Kat yij> dvaoa.aJ.L&v. At Syracuse
land-division was the demagogic programme of Hippo, the tool of
Heracleides (Plut. Dion, 37. s, "l1T1Twv6. rwa rwv 07Jfll;tywywv KaOlYJa'
1TpoKai.E£a0at Tov SfjJ.Lov l'IT/. yfj> dvaoaaJ.L&v) ; and it generally features in
a revolutionary policy; cf. iv. 17.4 (of Cynaetha), atJ>ayas Kaltj>vyds,
1TpO;; 0~ TOVTOL!; ap1Tayd.> imo.px6VTwv, ln 0~ yij,; dvaSaaJ.LoJ,;, 8r. 2
(Cheilon follows Cieomenes, thinking to win the populace d . . .
ii1ToSEtgat ~v li.1Tloa rfi> KAYJpovxlas; Kai rwv dvaSaaJ.Lwv). Cicero's con-
demnation of this policy at Sparta, and praise of Aratus for the
48M uu
VI.g.g PROGNOSTICATION AND THE ANACYCLOSIS
difference only 140 years. Why? Because, Sprey replies (op. cit. 6r),
Cicero was using P.'s data, but making his own calculations (de re
pub. ii. 29, regiis annis dinumeratis) ; and, as we saw, the total of
regnal years involved came to 140. Knowing, however, that some
allowance must be made for interregna and additional regnal months,
Cicero qualified his figure with jere. A similar qualification occurs in
de re pub. ii. z8 and s:z, where '240 years and a little more' represents
a convenient approximation. Sprey's scheme seems to account for
the evidence, and on the whole seems preferable to assuming that
Cicero has contaminated P.'s figures with those of Fabius or Nepos;
on the other hand, it involves a considerable hypothetical element
and several separate assumptions, and the second alternative cannot
be wholly excluded.
Year of death,
Year of Lasl1'egnal including any
accessian yea1' interregna
Ol. Ol. Ol.
Ron11.1lus 37 7, z 751/0 16, 2 /15/4 r6, J
and 4 7I4/Z
Numa 39 I7, I 7IZ{I26, 3 674/3 26,4 = 673/2
T1.1J11.1s 32 27, 1 = 672/I 34. 4 641{0 35, I = 640/39
Ancus 23 35, 2 = 639/8 40,4 6!7/6 41, I = 6r6/5
Prise us 38 41, 2 = 615{4 so, 3 = 578/7 so, 4 = 577/6 No interregnum
Ser. Tul- 44 so, 4 = 577/6 61,4 = 533/Z 62, I = 532./1 No interregnum:
lius additional year in-
cluded (see above)
If this means 7oo years before his own time, it will bring the founda-
tion back to about goo; and Mommsen (Rom. Chron. IS2-3) thought
this perhaps referred to the foundation of Lavinium. But if the
fragment is from a speech by Camillus (cf. 0. Skutsch, The Annals
of Quintus Ennius (London, IgS3), I4-IS), the date goes back to
c. noo, which matches Ennius' belief that Romulus was Aeneas'
grandson. Cincius Alimentus' date of Ol. I2, 4 = 72g/8 (Dion. Hal.
i. 74· 1; Solinus, i. 27 ff.) may assume a regal period of two no-year
saecula (cf. Mommsen, Rom. Chron. I3S)- But the later tradition
makes the regal period waver between 240 and 244 years. For the
foundation 753/2 acquired canonical value on the authority of
Atticus and Varro, though the Fasti preferred 7S2/r. All these dates
are of course unhistorical.
On the problem see Unger, Rh. Mus., I88o, 1-38; Mommsen, Rom.
Chron. 127 ff., I34-so; Valeton, 47-sg; De Sanctis, i. 2Io n. 4; 0.
Leuze, }ahrzlihlung, rso ff.; E. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 288--9; Beloch,
RG, 86 ff.; Gelzer, Hermes, rg34, so ff.; K. Sprey, Tijd. ges., 1941,
S4-6I. For the most recent discussion of the pontifical annals see
]. E. A. Crake, CP, 1g4o, 375-86 (with bibliography).
3. Olympiad chronology. (Eusebius, Chron. 194. Io Sch. = Cramer,
Anecd. Paris. ii. 141. 23 (Armen., p. go. 24 Karst); cf. Syncellus,
p. 370. 6 and 372· 2 Bonn) Two traditions existed for the beginning
of the historical Olympic Games--an early 'mythical' period associ-
ated with Heracles, Pelops, etc., is not relevant here. One of these
traditions attributed the foundation and the Olympic truce to
Lycurgus of Sparta and Iphitus of Elis, the other dated the first
66g
VI. II a. 3 OLYMPIAD CHRONOLOGY
Olympiad from the victory of Coroebus in 776. The Lycurgan tradi-
tion, which Aristotle upheld (Plut. Lye. 1. 1), was supported by the
famous disk in the Heraeum, seen by Pausanias (Paus. v. 20. 1),
which bore an inscription reputedly giving the names of Iphitus and
Lycurgus. But the chronographers, from Eratosthenes onwards
(Clem. Al. Strom. i. 21. 402 P.), who based their calculations on the
lists of Spartan kings, put Lycurgus in 884, over a hundred years
before Coroebus' victory (cf. Apollodorus ap. Euseb. Chron. i. I9o
Sch.). This conflict of dates was resolved either by assuming the
existence of two men called Lycurgus (cf. Timaeus, FGH, 566 F
I27 = Plut. Lye. 1. 2; Cic. de re pub. ii. I8, 'prima ... Olympias (i.e.
of 776), quam quidam nominis errore ab eodem Lycurgo constitutam
putant'), or by postulating a period of twenty-seven 'unrecorded'
Olympiads between the foundation by Lycurgus and Iphitus, and
Coroebus' victory at the 'first' Olympiad in 776. This second thesis
goes back, apparently, to Callimachus (fg. 54I Pfeiffer), who, how-
ever, makes the number of unrecorded Olympiads thirteen rather
than twenty-seven-perhaps reckoning with a system of eight-year
Olympiads (so Muller, Dorians, ii. 512), or, more probably, dating
Iphitusand Lycurgus to824 (] acoby, ApollodorsChronik (Berlin, 1902),
I22 ff.; Pfeiffer, Callimaehus, on fg. 54I). This theory of a period of
unrecorded Olympiads was generally accepted; and it is given in this
extract from Eusebius as the view of Aristodemus of Elis and of P.
Cicero discusses Olympic chronology in connexion with the founda-
tion of Rome (de re pub. ii. I8), and for this section his chronological
source appears to be P. (see § 2 n.). But in accepting the theory of
an original foundation, at the hands of a homonymous Lycurgus,
in 776, and dismissing the view that the original Lycurgus founded
the games as springing nominis errore, Cicero is clearly dismissing
also the theory of unrecorded Olympiads; and if the P. of this frag-
ment is the historian, Cicero is indicating him under the disguise of
quidam. This is of course possible; Cicero may have accepted P.'s
date for the First Olympiad (776) and his figure for the interval
between this date and the foundation of Rome, without necessarily
accepting also his view of the relationship between the Olympic
Games and Lycurgus. Moreover, Cicero's First Olympiad was 'cen-
tum et octo annis post quam Lycurgus leges scribere instituit', which
is equivalent to the twenty-seven Olympiads of the present frag-
ment; this might well imply that Cicero accepted P.'s figure for the
gap, but preferred to bridge it differently.
On the other hand, H. Gelzer (Sextus Julius Africanus und die
byzantinische Chronographic, ii (Leipzig, 1885), 96 n. I) has argued
that the P. of this fragment is the ab studiis of the emperor Claudius;
and in this he is followed by Weniger (Klio, I905, 158 n. I) and
Jacoby (FGH, 254 F 2). Three passages, from Syncellus (p. 172.
670
DRINKING OF RAISIN WINE VI.na . .f
zz Bonn), Eusebius (PE, x. xo. 4, p. 488 c). and Malalas (Chron. vi,
p. 157. 19 Bonn)--conveniently set out in FGH, 250 F r b, 6, and n -
quote a Polybius, along with Diodorus, Cephalion, Castor, Thallus,
and Phlegon, for the date of Cyms' rise to power, for Cyrus' victory
over Croesus, and for the duration of the Assyrian empire. It is very
unlikely that the historian can here be meant (cf. Biittner-Wobst,
iv. sx6 n.), for these are topics quite outside his field. Hence Gelzer's
attribution to the freedman has some degree of plausibility; and if
the latter wrote a chronographical work, it is not impossible that he
and not the historian is referred to here for the foundation of the
Olympic games. Whether the conjunction llo"Avf3w~ iaTopd is against
this hypothesis is hard to say; for {a7·opd: is probably no more than
'records', and, even if it does suggest a history, we are ignorant of the
character of the work from which the above chronological material
was taken. No help can be got from Aristodemus of Elis, for his
exact date is not known (cf. Susemihl, ii. xs8), though a scholiast
to Pindar (Nem. 1· 1) makes him a pupil of Aristarchus. The problem
must therefore be left without a solution ; but if Cicero has diverged
from P. and he is the author here referred to, book vi is where he
will have discussed the matter (and not, as Nissen (Rh. Mus., r871,
254) argued, in xii or xl [sic]). See further Weniger, Klio, 1905, r86 ff.;
Ziehen, Schedae Hermanno Use·ner oblatae (Bonn, r891), 138 ff.; RE,
'Olympia', cols. 2525 ff. (and especially 2526 n. r, where, however,
Ziehen does not observe the discrepancy between the views of Cicero
and the P. of this fragment).
4. Drin.king of raisin wine by women (Athen. x. 440 E; Eustath. ad
Iliad. xix. r6o, p. 1243). It is established that in early Rome women
were forbidden to drink wine; cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. xiv. 89, 'non
lice bat id (sc. uinum) feminis Romae bibere'; Plut. comp. Lye. et
Num. 3· 5; Mor. 265 B; Val. l\lax. ii. r. s. vi. 3· 9; Gell. x. 23. 1; Dion.
Hal. ii. 25. 6; Tert. Apol. 6. 4; Cic. de re pub. iv. 6, Serv. ad A en.
i. 737· Pliny (loc. cit.) records the clubbing to death of his wife by
Egnatius Maetennus for drinking 'kine, and his acquittal by Romulus,
the starving to death of a matron, who broke open the casket con-
taining the keys of the wine-cellar, by her relatives (on the authority
of Fabius Pictor), and (Nat. kist. xiv. 90) Cato's assertion that
women were kissed by their male relatives in order to detect the
smell of temetum (wine). In one of his speeches (ORF, fg. 218) Cato
also referred to fining women for wine-drinking, and Pliny (loc. cit.)
quotes the example of a woman who, for this offence, was fined a sum
equivalent to her dowry by the judge Cn. Domitius. The alternative
drink, uinum passum, was a sweet raisin wine with quite a different
flavour (Pliny, Nat. kist. xiv. So, suo sapore. non uini). Pliny (ibid.
xiv. 81) describes its production, and it is frequently mentioned as
coming from Crete (Juv. 14. 27o-1, 'pingue antiquae de litore Cretae
671
VI. II a. 4 THE FOUNDATION OF OSTIA
passum'; Mart. xiii. Io6; Pliny, ibid.). Aegosthena, the Megarian
village in the bay of Porto Germano at the head of the Corinthian
Gulf, is not mentioned elsewhere as producing passum; but on its
vineyards see L. Robert, Rev. Phil., 1939, n6 n. 1. For passum made
in Italy see Pliny, Nat. hist. xiv. 81.
The obligation imposed on the Roman matron to kiss her relatives
and relatives by marriage €ws J~avE.j.{wv, i.e. up to sobrini, of the
sixth degree, is discussed by Plutarch (Mor. 265 B), and Cato (in
Pliny, Nat. hist. xiv. go); cf. Gell. x. 23. I. On the ius osculi see also
Arnob. ii. 67; Plaut. Stich. 89, 91 ; Prop. ii. 6. 7; Cic. loc. cit.
This fragment on Roman mores illustrates P.'s intention (3. 3) to
expound ,.a, ... wpoyEyov•:ha ••. lliLwp,a.Ta ~al. ~o•vfi ~<ai ~<aT' lo{av.
5. Length of Numa's reign (Cic. de re pub. ii. 27). The figure is probably
from Fabius (cf. § 2 n.).
6. Foundation of Ostia (Steph. Byz. '!Jcrr{a.). The port of Rome lay
16 miles down the Tiber, on its left bank, p,Emtu Toil woTap,ov ~<a~ Ti)s
Oa.Aa'TT'JS ay~wvt (Dion. Hal. iii. 44· 4)· A unanimous tradition assigned
its foundation to Ancus Marcius (d. Ennius, 144-5 Vahlen; Cic.
de re pub. ii. 5, 33; Livy, i. 33· 9; Dion. Hal. iii. 44· 4; Strabo, v. 232;
Festus, p. 214 Lindsay 'Ostiam'; the assertion of Calza (RE. 'Ostia',
coL 1655) that P. assigns the founding of Ostia to Numa seems to
rest on a misunderstanding of the fragmentary text). The origins of
this tradition are obscure. It may have arisen in connexion with the
late-fourth-century Roman defence against Etruria on the lower
Tiber, directed by C. Marcius Rutilus (so DeSanctis, i. 37o-r); and
Carcopino (Virgile et les origines d'Ostie (Paris, 1919); Ostie (Paris,
1929)) has postulated an early Latin cult of Vulcan centred at what
was later the military colony of Ostia. Alternatively, 'the war of
Ancus with Ficana and his foundation of Ostia may ... be regarded
as the traditional account of Rome's southward advance' during
the regal period (Last, CAH, vii. 378). Hitherto excavation has
revealed nothing earlier than the castrum of about 325, with walls of
tufa from Fidenae and an area of about s·s acres; but an earlier
settlement, perhaps on a slightly different site, may still be discovered
as a basis for the tradition. See Calza, RE, 'Ostia', cols. r654 ff. ;
Carcopino's works mentioned above.
7. L. Tarquinius' arrival at Rome; how he obtained the throne. The
tradition about the Tarquins took shape in the third century and
first appears in Fabius; there is some evidence that an early tradition
of Tarquin' crystallized into the duplication of Priscus and Super-
bus, one good and the other bad. The oldest existing version is this
in P., which draws on Fabius and is in turn the basis of Cicero, de re
pub. ii. 34~35 (where, however, Priscus' character is carefully drawn
to bring out Roman virtues; cf. Taeger, 56-57).
1\EOKlOS o h"111apliTou: authorities vary between Lucumo (e.g. Livy,
5]2
TARQUINIUS PRISCUS VI. II. I
i. 34· I; Dion. Hal. iii. 47· r) and Lucius as the elder Tarquin's name.
The story of Demaratus (cf. Wissowa, RE, Suppl.-B. i, 'Demaratos
(3 a)', col. 340) as Tarquin's father appears widely (Livy, i. 34· 2;
Dion. Hal. iii. 46. 3 ff.; VaL Max. iii. 4· 2; Plut. Rom. r6. 8; Publ. I4. 1;
Macrob. Sat. i. 6. 8, iii. 4· 8, etc.), and he is frequently regarded as a
bringer of Greek culture to Italy (cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. xxxv. 152;
Tac. Ann. xi. 14) ; but the name of Tarquin recalls the Etruscan hero
Tarchon (and the Asiatic god Tarku). and this story must be false.
Schachermeyr (RE, 'Tarquinius (6)', col. 2371) suggests that it con-
nects with Greek influence in Etruria, and specifically with trade
contacts with Bacchiad Corinth. Demaratus is supposed to have been
a Bacchiad who migrated to Etruria at the time of Cypselus' tyranny
{c. 655-62s). See further A. Blakeway, ]RS, 1935. 129-49.
yuva.f:~<a. XP"la(p."lv ... auvepyov: probably Tanaquil, who is renowned
for her bold plans (Livy, i. 34· 4 f.; Dion. Hal. iii. 47· 4). But P. does
not mention her name; and one tradition gave Tarquin a wife named
Gaia Caecilia (perhaps first found in Varro: cf. Schachermeyr, RE,
'Tanaquil', cols. 2172-3; 'Tarquinius', col. 23j2).
8-9. The proverb is from Hesiod (Op. 40: V1}1TWL, ouS€ iaamv O<T'-!_J
1r .\Eiov i}p.tav 1ra.~>ro>), and is quoted by Plato (Rep. v. 466 c and Laws,
13. Powers of the Senate: cf. Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 2. 835 ff.; Greenidge,
26I-88; De Sanctis, iv. I. SIS ff.; O'Brien-Moore, RE, Suppl.-B. vi,
'Senatus', cols. 66o ff.
1. TTJV Tou Ta.,.wolou Kupla.v: control of the aerarium and of all
revenue and expenditure lay within the Senate's competence. The
former will have included the levying of tributum (regarded as a
compulsory loan, Dion. Hal. v. 47· I) until its abolition in I67 (Cic.
off. ii. 76), as well as the income from the provinces, the basis of
which the Senate determined in each instance in its ratification of
the lex prouinciae; in addition it controlled ager publicus and its
occupation or alienation, and accepted or rejected gifts and bequests
to the state. P. deals in greater detail with the Senate's outlays.
See in general Cic. Vat. 36, 'eripueras senatui ... aerarii dispensa-
tionem, quae numquam populus ab summi consilii gubernatione
auferre conatus est'. Cf. Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 2. u2s-6; Greenidge,
286-7; De Sanctis, iv. I. SIS f.; O'Brien-Moore, RE, Suppl.-B. vi,
'Senatus', cols. 736 ff. For the exception (§ 2, 1ri\~v ~v ds Tovs:
rhraTovs;, d. I2. 8 n.
3. Ets Tas hnaKEuas Ka.l. Ka.Ta.aKEuas n7w or1Jloa1wv: 'for the repair
and construction of public buildings' (cf. q. 2). For the distinction
here drawn d. Livy, xlv. IS. 9, 'ad sarta tecta exigenda et ad opera,
quae locassent, probanda' ; the full formula for repairing buildings
occurs in Cic. jam. xiii. II. 1, 'sarta tecta aedium sacrarum locorum-
que communium tueri'. It was part of the censors' duties to make
and repair opera publica (cf. Cic. de leg. iii. 7, templa, uias, aquas ...
tuento), and this work was leased out to contractors, who were in-
vited to submit low estimates (cf. Livy, xxxix. 44· 7, 'ultro tributa
(technical term for such contract work) infimis (sc. pretiis) loca-
uerunt'). But the financing was done by means of a credit (avyxw-
P"IJP.a) granted by the Senate, up to the limits of which the censors
were authorized to draw money on the aerarium through the
6]8
POWERS OF THE SENATE VI. 13.4
quaestors; cf. Livy, xliv. r6. 9, 'ad opera publica facienda cum eis
( censoribus) dimidium ex uectigalibus eius anni attributum ex
senatus consul to a quaestoribus esset'; xi. 46. r6, 'censoribus deinde
postulantibus ut pecuniae summa sibi, qua in opera publica uteren-
tur, attribueretur, uectigal annuum decretum est'. Cf. Mornrnsen,
St.-R. ii. I. 443 ff.; Greenidge, 232; De Sanctis, iv. I. sr8.
4-5. The Senate's intervention in Italy. P. distinguishes (a) concern
with criminal jurisdiction in allied states (§ 4), (b) administrative
intervention (§ 5). For discussion see Mornrnsen, St.-R. iii. 2. II94 ff.;
Willems, ii. 687 f.; McDonald, ]RS, 1944, 1.3 ff. ; von Fritz, Constit1t-
tion, rp-4.
The Italian socii were nominally, and originally in fact, indepen-
dent states, and the Senate's competence to intervene arose out of
its role in foreign affairs. The first two offences P. mentions are
1Tpo8oala (treachery, i.e. disaffection, proditio) and avliwj.toala (con-
i~lratio). The Senate's claim to intervene here sprang out of its duty
to secure the confederation, and, possessing no jurisdiction of its
own, it normally acted by directing magistrates. Many cases
occurred, during the Second Punic War, of the destruction of cities,
the execution of leading citizens, and restriction of autonomy, for the
crime of 1Tpo'8oala {e.g. Campania, Etruria, Tarentum, Locri, Brut-
tium), and of the arrest and execution of those guilty of conspiracy
to revolt, followed by the exaction of hostages and the introduction
of garrisons (e.g. Tarentum, Thurii, Arretium). A mere suspicion of
disloyalty might be dealt with by milder administrative action, the
summoning of envoys and the pronouncing .of formal censure, im-
Tlwr;ats (mistranslated by Paton, 'claims damages'), examples are the
reproof administered to the Tiburtines in c. I 59 (GIL, i2 • s86. z), and
various incidents in the Hannibalic War and later (Livy, xxvii . .38.
3-5, xxix. rs. r-15, xxxvi. 3· 4-6). In general, public safety was a local
responsibility; but when offences seemed likely to have extensive
repercussions, and especially when extraordinary measures proved
necessary within districts under Roman jurisdiction, the Romans
often required the socii to take similar action through their own
magistrates. It is in this context that P. mentions mass poisoning
(tf>apftaKeta) and assassination (8ol.ocfoovla). The former offence {cf. Kauf-
man, CP, 1932, 156-67) is a constant concern of the quaestiones uenejicii
from 184 onwards, following the suppression of the Bacchanalia (see
below); cf. Livy, xxxix. 38. 3, 41. 5, xl. 37· 4-7, 43· 2, 44· 6, xlv. r6.4, ep.
48. The number of those condemned-whether justly or not-ran into
thousands, and though Livy mentions only action in Roman territory,
it will have been followed up in the allied cities. Likewise for brigand-
age (i.e. ooA.o,Polila): cf. Livy, xxxix. 29. g, 41.6; Cic. Brut. 85 (in Apulia).
The idea of conspiracy inherent in both these offences helped to justify
senatorial intervention. A particulary notable example, and one which
679
VI. 13. 4 POWERS OF THE SENATE
P. or his source has probably in mind, is the suppression of the cult of
Bacchus in 186 (Livy, xxxix. 8. Iff.; Riccobono, Fontes, i, no. 30; recent
discussion in McDonald, JRS, 1944, z6 ff. with bibliography), a measure
in which the Senate acted autonomously within Roman territory and
through the Latin and Italian authorities in allied land. The extensive
action taken reveals a wide expansion in the Senate's claim to enforce
public security throughout Italy.
As part of its general concern for the peaceful development of
Italy the Senate also arbitrated in the case of disputes between cities
(ot&AvuLs); commissions were appointed, frequently including patrons
of the cities in question; cf. Livy, xlv. 13. Io-n (Pisa and Luna), and,
for the appointment of patrons, Dion. HaL ii. II. I (further refer-
ences in McDonald, JRS, 1944, 14 n. zo). How far the Senate lent an
ear to lotiirra.L is less dear; allied citizens had in general no automatic
right of access to the Senate {Mommsen, St.-R. iii. z. II49), but
occasionally, out of favour or interest, the Senate may have been
prepared to listen to private individuals appealing on behalf of them-
selves or their city. Examples of responses to appeals for help
({Jo~Om1) are the rebuilding of the walls of Genua (Livy, xxx. I. 10),
and that of Placentia and Cremona {Livy, xxxiv. 22. 3), and the
sending of Cn. Sicinius cum im.perio to deal with a plague of locusts
in Apulia (Livy, xlii. 10. 8). The sending of a garrison on request
(,Pvl.c.K1]) is attested for Kola, Neapolis, Placentia, and Cremona
during the Second Punic War (Livy, xxiii. 14. 10, 15. 2, xxviii. II.
IC-II), and for Aquileia in 171 (Livy, xliii. 1. s-6, cf. 17. 1).
The position of the Senate, as P. here sketches it, was attained
as the result of a process which began in the late third century, but
was scarcely completed before the second quarter of the second cen-
tury; hence P. is here giving his experience of the Senate after 168
rather than a picture of its role in 216.
6. The Senate's duty in dispatching em.bassies: cf_ 11ommsen, St.-R.
ii. I. 675-701; von Premerstein, RE, 'legatus', cols. IIJ3 ff.; O'Brien-
Moore, RE, SuppL-E. vi, 'Senatus', col. 732.
Originally the concern of the college of fetiales, by the middle of
the third century relations with foreign states had fallen into the
hands of the Senate, which acted through legati. From the time of
the Second Punic vVar onwards the sending of legati was authorized
by a senatus consultum, which specified their number (usually three,
occasionally two, four, five, or ten) ; the choice of individuals was the
task of the chief magistrate {cf. Livy, xxix. 20. 4, 'consules decem
legatos quos iis uideretur ex senatu Iegere'), but on their return the
legati reported to the Senate. The use of legati to carry a conditional
declaration of war, Le. to submit a rerum repetitio and, if the reply
was unfavourable, to convey the demmtiatio belli, can be traced
from 2:f./1 onwards (see McDonald and Walbank, JRS, 1937, 192-7;
68o
POWERS OF THE SENATE VI. I3.9
Walbank, }RS, I94I, 82-93; CP, 1949, I5-19), and it is to this P.
refers in the phrase 7T6A£JLOV e7TayyiAAouaa.v (on it see Welles, 334).
The other duties mentioned can all be illustrated from second-cen-
tury practice: d. Livy, xxxix. 24. I3 ff., conference at Tempe in I85,
at which three Roman legati settle disputes between Philip V of
:Macedon and certain Thessalian cities (8ta.AvO"Ouadv nJ•as); P. xxii.
Io. 2, Q. Caecilius Metellus exhorts the Achaeans to correct their
policy towards Sparta (1TapiKaA£t ... OtopBwua.aOat T~V ••. ayvotav);
xxix. 27. I, C. Popillius Laenas' famous ultimatum to Antiochus
Epiphanes at Pelusium {when, however, Antiochus agrees that he
will 1rot~unv 1rav ro 7TapaKaJ.ovw:vov; 7Tapmcal.£tv and e1Ttrarr£tv shade
off one into the other); xviii. 48. I, P. Lentulus takes over and
liberates Bargylia, and L. Stertinius Hephaestia, Thasos, and the
Thracian cities; Strabo, xiv. 646, in IJ2 the Senate send five legati to
take over the inherited kingdom of Asia.
The extension of these functions came in the second century,
especially with the growth of the senatorial practice of appointing
a commission of ten legati to assist a victorious general to organize
the peace after a war. The first clear examples are after the Hanni-
batie and Second Macedonian Wars {Mommsen, St.-R. ii. I. 692);
on the First Punic War see i. 63. I n. Thus here again P. appears to
be describing second-century conditions.
7. Reception of embassies by the Senate: cf. Mommsen, St.-R. ii. I.
687, iii. 2. 959 ff. ; von Premerstein, RE, 'legatus', cols. u36-8;
O'Brien-Moore, RE, Suppl.-13. vi, 'Senatus', cols. j;~o ff.
Embassies could be sent from states at war with Rome only by
permission of the Roman general, and might not cross the pomerium.
They were lodged outside the city, usually in the camp~ts 11-fartius,
and if they were given a hearing it took place in the Temple of
Bellona or Apollo (d. xxxv. 2. 4); they might, however, be sent back
unheard, or told to leave Rome or Italy within a given period {xxvii.
6. 3; cf. xxxi. 20. 3). Friendly states had the right of access to the
Senate, a refusal to receive their legati being tantamount to a de-
claration of war (xxxi. 20. 3}; their legati were introduced into the
Curia by the consuls {I2. 2, cf. xxiii. r. 8). After a discussion, in which
individual senators might put questions (Livy, XXX. 22. 5), the legati
left the Senate and waited in the so-called Graecostasis near the
Curia Hostilia, until the Senate had decided on its answer. They
then returned to the Senate-house to receive it.
The large-scale reception of legati at Rome is a development of
the second century, but a regular interchange of legationes must
have been a feature of Roman history from early times.
9. 1TOAAoL Twv 'Ei..i..iJvwv, &fioiw<;~ 8~ KClL Twv j3<1cnMwv: i.e. in the
second century, when relations between Rome and the Greek states
and Hellenistic kings first became important.
681
VI. 14 POWERS OF THE PEOPLE
14. Powers of the People.
2. 'l"~s Ela6Sou ~eat TflS ~soliou: cf. 13. 1-2.
'l"wv Si aTpa.TTJy&>v ••• ~souaia.v: cf. 12. 5·
4. np.f1s •.• ~eat nf-U>!plo.s ••• ~~:op~.as: the people control the election
of officers and the lawcourts. On the importance of this cf. Plato,
Laws, iii. 697 A-B, Myop.<v 1'olvw on 1TOAtV, tiJs £otKEV, TTJV jd,Movaav
a</>~EaBal TE Kal Ei!Oatp.ovr/crEtll <ls Mvap.tv tivlipw1TlVYJV od Kal .lva.yKafov
np.&s TE Kat O.np.la.s Ota.v.fp.wr opOw<;.
5. ov8ev .•. TWV &4>€aT(.hwv: 'none of the business in hand'.
6. Judicial competence of the People in cases brought against ex-
magistrates, involving a serious fine or the death penalty. Though he
does not mention the tribunes specifically, P. is clearly thinking of
their role as 'public prosecutors' of ex-magistrates; cf. 12. 2 n. ;
Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 1. 318 n. 3· Procedure in these cases is contro-
versial. According to Mommsen (St.-R. iii. 1. 351 ff.). cases involving
a possible fine greater than the so-called multa suprema (fixed by the
Lex Julia Papiria of 430 at 3,020 libra} asses: cf. St.-R. i. 158) came
before a ittdicium populi (in this case the Tribal Assembly) as a
result of the defendant's invoking his right of prouocatio against the
sentence pronounced in a magisterial anquisitio (cf. Hardy, ]RS,
1913, 34); likewise for cases involving a capital charge, except that
such a case was reserved for the comitia centuriata (the comitiatus
maximus of the XII Tabulae) (St.-R. iii. 357). with the consequence
that the tribune, who lacked the it~s agendi cum populo, had to ask
a praetor to summon the assembly on his behalf (Livy, xliii. 16. 11:
169 n.c.). Recently, however, it has been forcibly argued by C. H.
Brecht (Perduellio (Munch. Beitriige, 29, 1938) passim; Z. Sav.-Stift.
(ROm. Abt.), 1939. 261 ff.) that the theory of a 'universal right of
prouocatio' was a legal construction of Cicero's time, and that the
anquisitio before a contio (a procedure to be sharply distinguished
from the magisterial quaestio) and the hearing before the iudicium
populi are part of the same legal action, throughout the whole of
which the tribune acts as prosecutor. Genuine prouocatio can be in-
voked only against a fully operative sentence, viz. one pronounced
after a quaestio by a magistrate possessing full imperit-tm (i.e. dictator,
consul, and with certain qualifications pontifex maxim us and duum-
uiri perduellionis) ; it is never mentioned in connexion with a tri-
bunician prosecution. It is probably to this single procedure of
anquisitio and iudicium populi, without prouocatio, that P. here
refers.
7-8. Forestalling of the capital sentence by voluntary exsilium. From
the earliest times a Roman citizen had the right to go into exsilium
in order to avoid condemnation. Of this exsilium Cicero (pro A.
Caec. 100) writes: 'exsilium enim non supplicium est, sed perfugium
portusque supplicii ... confugiunt quasi ad aram in exsilium .
682
POWERS OF THE PEOPLE VI. I..f. 7
non adimitur eis ciuitas, sed ab eis relinquitur atque deponitur'. In
Livy, xlii. 16. 15, exile is taken for granted, in the case of an adverse
decision. In effect the exile took up the citizenship of his new abode,
lost that of Rome, and so was removed from her jurisdiction. A
decree of aquae et ignis interdictio would then be passed, not as a
punishment, but to ensure that the exile remained permanently
outside Roman territory (Cic. dom. 78; Livy, xxv. 4· 9). The modi-
fied procedure of the first century and later, by which exsilium
followed a decree of aquae et ignis interdictio, and itself developed
into a penalty, is not relevant here (cf. M. I. Henderson, ]RS, 1951,
71 ff.).
Place of exsilium. Originally the exile would choose some near-by
place in Latium such as Tibur, Praeneste, Lanuvium, Lavinium,
or Ardea (cf. Livy, ii. 2. ro, iii. 29. 6, 58. 10, v. 43· 6, xliii. 2. 10), with
which there existed an alliance and mutual right of exsilium (cf.
Cic. de or. i. 177). Later we hear of this right at Nuceria (Cic. Balb.
28), Neapolis (here and Livy, xxix. 21. 1), and Tarquinii (Livy, xxvi.
3· 12, which seems to establish the time at which Tarquinii received
this ius: cf. Sherwin-White, 119; Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 49 n. 3). Since
there is no point in specifying Naples, Praeneste, and Tibur if the
ius exsilii is common to all cities possessing a joedus, evidently the
phrase -rai:<; a.\Aat<;, 7rpos as lxovatv f!pKta means, not 'the other
ciuitates foederatae', but, with Schweighaeuser (cf. Shen"in-\Vhite,
n8 n. 5), 'aliis urbibus quibus hoc iure foedus intercedit cum
Romanis'.
7. £'1l'av Ka.Ta.8LKa~wvTaL: 'when they are in process of being con-
demned', i.e. when the case is going against them, or even (P.
stresses this) when the result of the vote is being read out (not, with
Paton, 'when found guilty': exsilium can only be used to forestall
sentence). This l8os was made possible by the growing custom of
dispensing with arrest prior to and during the hearing; cf. E. Levy,
5.-B. Heidelberg, 1930-r, 5· rS f.
Kav ~TL ll(a. A.dm1Ta.L <JluA.T] ..• chJnl<Jlo<JlopTJTOS: the reference is to the
comitia centuriata sitting as a iudicium populi. At some date after
the introduction of the last two tribes in 241 the organization of
the comitia centun'ata was reformed. The evidence is in Livy, i. 43· 12
and Cicero, de re pub. ii. 39 (Dion. Hal. iv. 21. 3, p.Emf3'f3A7JKEv Els To
I57Jp.07LKdJTepov, probably does not refer to the same event). Details
are uncertain; but the change clearly involved some degree of co-
ordination between centuries and tribes. Several passages, including
the present one (d. Cic. leg. agr. ii. 4; Sest. 109; Plane. 49; Livy,
xxix. 37· 13; ep. 49; perhaps Lucan, v. 391-4), imply that the voting
units in the revised comitia centuriata were called tribes. Thus Cicero
contrasts his ov..n unanimous election to the consulate with that
of a man who only just gets home by the vote of extrema tribus
683
VI. 14· 7 POWERS OF THE PEOPLE
' Tibiletti (Athen., 1949, 226-7) thinks he is describing the revised assembly;
but when Cicero writes 'quae discriptio si esset ignota uobis, explicaretur a me;
nunc rationem uidetis esse talem, ut' etc., clearly nunc means 'as it is, i.e. since
the organization is not unknown to you' (see Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 1. 274 n. 4),
and not 'at the time when I, Scipio, am speaking', as Tibiletti apparently inter·
prets it.
POWERS OF THE PEOPLE VI. 14· 7
figure: Livy, i. 43· r), centuries to the first class, it seems clear that
he is in fact giving the first class the number of centuries it had under
the reformed system, and that the difference was not a significant
one from his point of view; and this is more likely if Mommsen
(St.-R. iii. r. 275 nn. r-2) is right in his assumption that the Servian
and reformed comitia contained the same total number of centuries.
As we saw, Livy (i. 43· r2) stated that the new body 'ad institutam
ab Ser. Tullio summam non conuenire'; but this discrepancy be-
tween the two would exist if there was an increase in the number of
voting units without there necessarily being an increase in the num-
ber of centuries too.
Attempts to satisfy these conditions were made by Cavaignac
(] ourn. Sav., I9II, 2jj) and Arangio-Ruiz (Scritti c. Arno (Pubblicaz.
Facolta Giurisprud. Modena, 30, 1928). 3 ff.; Storia dir. rom. 86 ff.),
who both propound schemes, which fail, the former because of the
very few centuries (ro each) allotted to classes three, four, and five,
the latter because it involves a fusion of voting between classes two,
three, and four (all the seniores, for example, of one tribe in classes
two, three, and four, voting in a single century) and an equally
improbable fusion in the fifth class, where both seniores and iuniores
of a tribe would vote in one century. But already Mommsen (St.-R.
iii. 1. 270 ff.; cf. Momigliano, Stztd. et doc. hist. et iur., 1938, 519) had
suggested that, whereas in the first class the 70 voting units were
allotted one century each, in the remaining 4 classes only roo cen-
turies were available for 28o (viz. 4 X 7o) voting units, and therefore
that several units must have voted in a single century (the equites
and capite censi would continue to vote in their r8 and 5 centuries
as before the reform) ; unlike his successors, however, Mommsen
saw no necessity for a scheme involving a simple ratio between
voting units and centuries, but envisaged centuries containing un-
equal numbers of voting units within a single class. Vntil recently
this hypothesis was generally dismissed as improbable. But the dis-
covery in 1947 of the now famous Tabztla Hebana (E. and J., 94a) has
given it a new plausibility. This inscription records a system of
voting for the destinatio of consuls and praetors under Augustus
and Tiberius, in which the senators and equites from 33 tribes vote
in ro (later rs) centuriae, which are ad hoc creations, representing
a group of voters from two (or three) tribes chosen by lot to vote in
a single urn on a single occasion. Such a device would render it easy
to correlate tribes and centuries in all five classes, and if (as seems
likely) the total remained at 193 (see above), it was probably used.
For example, if an equal number of centuries was assigned to each
of classes two, three, four, and five, giving 25 each, co-ordination
could be achieved by letting 6o of the 70 voting units in each class
vote three to a century, and the remaining ro two to a century
6Bs
VI. 14· 7 POWERS OF THE PEOPLE
{6o~ 3 +10~2 = 25); but other distributions are equally pos-
sible. I
The purpose of the reform has been much debated. Its effect was
evidently to give a preponderant influence to the first class from the
thirty-one country tribes, and, by substituting a praerogatiua tribus
taken by lot from the first class (cf. Livy, xxiv. 7· 12, 9· 3, xxvi. 22. 4,
xxvii. 6. 3; Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 1. 274) for the equestrian centuries
and the sex suffragia, to reduce the possibility of equites and senate
(who voted in the sex suffragia; Cic. de re pub. iv. 2) influencing the
vote. Mommsen (St.-R. iii. 1. 28r) suggested that C. Flaminius was
the man behind the reform; and Sch6nbauer (Historia, 1953/4, 31 ff.)
develops this theory, making Flaminius the representative of an
agrarian-democratic movement. The Fasti, however, show no trace
of any break in the noble monopoly of office at this time; and if it
was on account of his electoral measures that Flaminius was espe-
cially hated by the nobiles, it is odd that P. never mentions this
among his criticisms of the popular leader (ii. 21, 32, 33, iii. So, 84).
In the present passage P. is thinking of the comitia acting as a
judicial body. In this case the voting was undoubtedly carried out
successively (cf. Livy, xliii. r6. 14, 'cum ex duodecim centuriis
equitum octo censorem condemnassent multaeque aliae primae
classis .. .'); and P.'s point is that right up to the moment when
only a single tribus suffragiorum has to register its vote (not neces-
sarily in an urn reserved exclusively to it; cf. Tibiletti, A then., 1949,
238) in order to make a majority of the centuries for condemnation,
the accused may still avoid sentence by going into exile. Normally
this ,Pv>.fJ would be likely to be one of the voting units in the second
class.
The problems of the centuriate assembly have been widely dis-
cussed; many of them are not directly relevant here. See Mommsen,
St.-R, iii. r. 270 ff.; DeSanctis, iii. r. 353-Sr (with bibliography up
to 1916); G. Tibiletti, Athen., 1949, 223-40; F. Gallo, Stud. et doc.
kist. et iur., 1952, 127-57 (cf. G. Vitucci, Riv. fil., 1953· 56 n. 2);
I Recently E. Schonbauer has argued (Ilistoria, 1953/4, 21-49) that the
reformed comitia contained only 89 centuries (viz. 70+18+1); but this view is
based on a violent distortion of Cicero, de re pub. ii. 39, and is in other respects
unacceptable. A single example will suffice. In Phil. ii. 82 Cicero is describing
election procedure. 'Ecce Dolabellae comitiorum dies. sortitio praerogatiuae; quie-
scit. renuntiatur: tacet. prima classis uocatur, renuntiatur; deinde ita ut adsolet
suffragia; tum secunda classis, quae omnia sunt citius facta quam dixi.' All
this Schon bauer would apply to the praerogatiua; but slfifragia must refer to
the sex suffragia and the equestrian centuries, and cannot mean merely 'the
voting (then took place)', for in that case the words tum secunda classis have
no force. Clearly Cicero is describing, first the voting of the praerogatiua and the
announcing of its decision, then that of the first class, the equestrian centuries,
and the second class in turn, with results announced after each century; there
are no grounds for deleting the second renuutiatur with Madvig (and Schonbauer).
686
POWERS OF THE PEOPLE VI. 14. 9
gained access to the Senate, they were treated more and more, de
facto (though never de iure), as magistrates. :Moreover, as the tri-
bunate became a stage in the cursus honorum, held between quaestor-
ship and praetorship by young men early in their careers, it could
carry little independent weight. Consequently, between the time of
C. Flaminius and Ti. Gracchus there is no recorded case of a tribune
occupying the role outlined here by P. Nevertheless, it need not be
assumed that r6. 3-5 is a late insertion dating from the Gracchan
period (cf. Last, CAH, ix. 27 (non-committal)). ii. 21. 8, which
probably stands with it, can be otherwise explained, and probably
here too P. is giving a view of the tribunate based partly on Flami-
nius' career, as he found it in Fabius (cf. ii. 21. 8 n.), and partly on
the traditional picture of the office as the weapon of the plebs (cf.
von Fritz, Constitution, 332-3). In this, however, he exaggerates not
only the theory of the tribunate, but even more what it had become
in practice. Never, even in their origins, were the tribunes the execu-
tive organ of the plebs, acting 'without a discretion of their own'
(cf. Last, op. cit. 28). P. both falsifies the tribune's role and exag-
gerates his powers (cf. iii. 87. 8 n.). It was, however, perhaps to be
expected that the character of this unique Roman institution, with
its curious history and repeated modification of function, should
have eluded P.'s Greek schematism.
5. 8€8u;: To us 1roAAous: an exaggeration of the position before the
Gracchi; but this view suits not merely the Fabian picture, based on
Flaminius' career (see last note) but also P.'s own formal picture of
the mixed constitution and its working.
17. Dependence of the People on the Senate (§§ r-8) and Consuls (§ 9).
In this chapter P. identifies the 'people' with the publicani, and the
urban middle-class involved in their financial enterprises (cf. Livy,
xxiv. 18. 13, where the phrase 'haec inclinatio animorum plebis ad
sustinendam inopiam aerarii' refers to an offer of contractors to do
work on credit). His picture of a large-scale system of public con-
tracts, administered by the Senate (through the censors; cf. 13. 3 n.),
and taken up by equestrian societates publicanorum, is only true of the
period just before r5o, and P. has written back these conditions into
his account of the Roman state at the time of Cannae. See in general
DeSanctis, iv. 1. 515 ff., 552-5; Frank, ES, i. 148-57; Warde Fowler,
Social Life, 6o-96; Scullard, Pol. 14-15; Hill, 45 ff.
2. Building contracts throughout Italy. During the Hannibalic War
building was reduced to a minimum, and that minimum appears
to have been done on credit (Livy, xxiv. 18. 13). For the next few
decades Livy records the work contracted out in various censorships,
e.g. xxxii. 7· 3· xxxiv. 44· 5· xxxix. 44· 5-7. xl. 5I. 2-7. xli. 27. 5-12,
xliv. 16. 10. But not until the censorship of Fulvius and Postumius
6g2
ON THE SENATE VI. 17.2
19-42. The Roman military system. The account falls into two sections :
697
VI. Ig THE ROMAN MILITARY SYSTEM
19-26 describes the organization of the army, 27-42 the Roman camp.
It appears to rest on F.'s own observation and inquiry.
19. 1. xtXul.pxous Ka.8uJT0.,n: cf. 12. 6. These are the twenty-four
tribunes of the four urban legions, the tribuni militum a populo ; the
five years' military service is not elsewhere attested.
2. Years of service. The text is corrupt. For the infantry MSS. vary
between €g· oil FS and £g. o~> D 2 G. Cavaignac (Rev. Phil., 19I4, 76-
So) attempts a defence of ;g, ignoring ml; but when six campaigns
were accepted as the legitima stipendia in I40 (App. Hisp. 78), in-
subordination and disaffection had obviously created exceptional
circumstances. Most editors read lJEKalg with Casaubon or £g Ka~
SiKa with Biittner-\Vobst; and sixteen years was certainly the figure
in Augustus' time (Dio, liv. 25. 6; subsequently raised to twenty,
Dio, lv. 23. I). Plutarch (C.Gracchus, 2. 5, TwvaAAwp lllKa <rrpaTwop.lvwv
Jv avayKats) suggests that ten years were normal in the Gracchan
period; but here, too, the reference is to Spain, where perhaps less
than the normal maximum was being demanded, as in I4o. See
Mommsen, St.-R. i. sos n. 3; Marquardt, ii. J8I n. 2; E. Meyer,
Kl. Schr. ii. 199 n. 3; Last, CAH, ix. I35· The years during which a
man might be called on for military service were from I7 (Gell. x. 28)
to 46 (Cic. de sen. 6o).
1rXTJv Twv tmo Tas TETpa.Kocrla.s Spa.xf1d.5 TETLf11'Jf1Evwv: in the middle
of the second century 400 drachmae was evidently the minimum
property census for admission into the fifth class. On the basis of
I drachma = I denarius = IO asses (cf. ii. 15. In.), this makes 4,000
'sextantal' asses, a considerable reduction on the 'Servian' require-
ment of n,ooo asses (Livy, i. 43· 7), and an indication of some degree
of proletarianization of the army in the course of the second century
(d. Last, CAH, ix. I34; E. Gabba, A then., I949. I77 ff., I8I ff.;
Gabba's date for the reduction (2I4-212) is not convincing).
3. TouTous ••• va.uTtKTJV XPEia.v: those below the fifth class are the
proletarii (or capite censi). Thiel (12; Hist. 73-78) argues that such
citizens served only in the marines, and the crews consisted of allies,
slaves, and libertini; but the more natural interpretation is of service
in the crew (d. Marquardt, ii. 38o n. ro; R. 0. Fink, A]P, I949. 2n).
4. 1ToALTLKTJV .•• O.pxfJv: the ten years correspond to the obligatory
ten years in cavalry service, the branch in which a young noble
would normally serve ; the limitation prevented a man standing for
office until he had completed his twenty-seventh year. See Mommsen,
St.-R. i. 505-7; Afzelius, Class. et med., 1946, 276.
19. 5-20. 9. Procedure of enrolment. F.'s account suggests that this
was an annual affair (19. 6); but it is clear from Livy that the details
and extent of the enrolment varied from year to year to suit the
city's needs (cf. Livy, xxii. II. 3, 38, 57, xxv. s. xxvii. 38, xxxi. II. I,
xxxiv. s6. 3· s6. I2, xli. IO. II, xlii. 27. s. 32; Veith, Heerwesen, 304),
6g8
ENROLMENT OF TROOPS VI. I9. 7
that troops could be enrolled locally (e.g. Livy, xxiii.32. 19, Picenum),
and that not all citizens due for service proceeded on a given date
to Rome. Thus P.'s account is over-schematic, like his account of
the constitution. Enrolment was by tribes; whether in bringing for-
ward the recruits four by four (2o. 3) account was taken of their
property class as well as of their age and physique is not kno>vn~
P. does not mention it. Under the Servian system the basis of en-
rolment seems to have been the century (cf. Dion. Hal. iv. 19); and
this is what one might expect after the setting up of the centuriate
organization, which in origin was primarily for military purposes
(cf. Last, ]RS, 1945, 42 ff.). Several passages (Livy, iv. 46. r (4r8) ;
VaL Max. vi. 3· 4, cf. Varro ap. Non. p. 28 Lindsay; Livy, ep. 14
(275)) suggest that enrolment by tribes was practised from the fifth
century onwards, and one (Dion. Hal. iv. 14) even assigns it to
Servius. Hence Mommsen (St.-R. iii. r. 268) rejects Dion. Hal. iv. 19
and assumes tribal enrolment from very early times (cf. Liebenam,
RE, 'Dilectus', coL 5¢). But Dion. Hal. iv. 14 may well depend on
a late annalistic source, who imports a contemporary practice into
the regal period; and Livy, iv. 46. r, if reliable, perhaps refers to
the exceptional circumstances of a tumultus. Recently E. Gabba has
argued (AtJten., 1951, 251-5) that enrolment on the basis of tribes,
a method likely to produce a more effective use of man-power, was
introduced to meet the crisis of a tumultus, and became normal under
the vressure of the First Punic War, with its tremendous need for
men. His argument seems convincing, and the change would repre-
sent one more factor in that decline in importance in the centuria,
which is reflected in the political sphere by the reform of the comitia
centuriata (cf. 14. 7 n.). For discussion see also P. Fraccaro, Atti del
2° Congresso Nazionale di Studi Romani, 3 (Rome, 1931), 91-97;
Athen., 1934, 57-71; De Sanctis, Riv. fil., 1933, 289 ff.
19. 5. 'ITpo".iyouow ev Tii.> STJI.I.'l.l: i.e. in the assembly, probably the
comitia tributa. For the consuls' edict d. Livy, ii. 55· I, v. 19. 4, vii.
6. 12, xxvi. 35· 2. Those JJJ Tafs ~>.udats are the iuniores; cf. ii. 23. 9 n.
6. ets To KcmETwAtov: d. Livy, xxvi. 31. II, 'ipse in Capitolium ad
dilectum discessit'; Varro, ap. Non., p. zB Lindsay. Several passages
(Livy, iii. 69. 6; Dio, fg. ro9. 5; Varro, Rt~st. iii. z) suggest that the
recruits assembled in the Campus :Martius. Perhaps they then as-
cended the Capitol tribe by tribe for enrolment; or alternatively
(Gabba, Athen., rgsr, 253 n. 2} the use of the Campus may be later
than the period of which P. is \';Titing.
7. Ka.9cnrep liv {nro Tov SfuJ.ou •.• 1] Twv (npa.TTJywv: 'according to
the order in which they have been appointed by the people or the
consuls' (misunderstood in the Loeb translation). Apparently P. is
describing the enrolment into the four legiones urbanae, the tribunes
of which were all appointed by the people (rz. 6 n.); but he implies
699
Vl. rg. 7 ENROLMENT OF CAVALRY
a similar process, if further legions had to be enrolled, and so adds
the words Twv mpa.n1ywv to cover the military tribunes of such
legions. There was presumably an order of nomination for tribunes
appointed by the consuls, as there was an order of election for the
twenty-four elected in the comitia tributa.
TTJV OAocrx£pTj KO.t 11pWTtJV liLo.lpEOW: four legions, i.e. two consular
armies, formed a normal levy (cf. i. r6. 2}; but again P. is over-
schematic.
9. Twv ... 1rp11af3uT€pwv: those with ten years' service (§ r).
21. 1-3. Taking of the oath (sacramentum): cf. Marquardt, ii. 384-5;
Veith, Heerwesen, 305.
1. oi Trpoat}KoVTES Twv Xli..lapxwv: 'the tribunes on whom this duty
falls'.
2. ~ }l~v Trn9apxT)aElV KTi...: cf. Dion. Hal. x. r8, 'Tov CTTpanwnKov
opKoV, aKOAovO,/aELV TOtS vmi.TOLS, icf>' ovs Ul/ KO.AWVTO.< rroMp.ovs KO.l
ft~'TE arroA£LtPEtl/ Ta CJTjftELO. P..~TE aMo rrpd.~£tV p..rJfN.v €vavTlov r{j! v6p.(fl,
xi. 43. 0 T€ ydp opKOS 6 arpanwnKOS, Sv dmfvTWI/ p.d.AtaTa ip..m:oovm
'Pwp..o.l:ot, 'TOLS aTpanryoi:s atwAov8Et:v K€A€Wt TOVS' CTTPO.T€Vop..€vovs, 01TOL
1TOT' .J.v aywow.
3. Toih' auTo OTji..oGvTE'i> KTA.: cf. Paulus, epit. F esti, p. 250 Lindsay,
'praeiurationes facere dicuntur hi qui ante alios conceptis uerbis
iurant: post quos in eadem uerba iurantcs tantummodo dicunt:
idem in me'; cf. Livy, ii. 45· 14. Anyone breaking his oath became
sacer (Macrob. Sat. iii. 7· 5), and could be killed with impunity.
4-5. Emolment and oath of socii. The apxwv and p..wOoooTYfS (§ 5) arc
native officers (cf. 26. 5 n.).
6-10. Grouping of recruits.
7. ets Tou., ypo17cflo!l-«1xou<>: cf. i. 33· 9 n. The uelites opened the battle
in conjunction with the citizen cavalry; and, according to Livy
(xxvi. 4. 4 ff.), they came into action on the cavalry horses, behind
the riders. But this whole account is suspect, including the assertion
(Livy, xxvi. 4· ro) that the uelites were now (2u) first instituted.
The earlier light-armed were called rorarii, a name which persisted
till the end of the second century (cf. Lucilius, vii. 290, x. 393;
E. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. z6o); but Livy already mentions uelites in
xxi. 55· I I (Trebia}, xxiii. 29. 3 (battle Hannibal), xxiv. 34· 5
JOI
VI. zr. 7 GROUPI!ITG OF RECRUITS
(Syracuse), and even in xxvi. 4· 4 he writes as though they were
familiar ('praefixa ferro quale hastis uelitaribus inest'), and in i.
33· 9 P. mentions ypocu/>op..dxot in Regulus' army in the First Punic
War. Hence it seems unlikely that uelites were in fact a new invention
in 2II (so E. Gabba, A then., 1949, 182~3); they seem rather to be
a development of rorarii under a new name (cf. Fr. Frohlich, Die
Bedeutung des zweiten punischen Krie.ges fiir die Ent·wicklung des
romischen Hcerwesens (Leipzig, 1884), 37--43; Veith, Heerwesen, 309;
E. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 26o), and judging from Lucilius (above) this
new name only gradually imposed itself. See also i. 26. 6 n. where the
existence of uelites seems to be implied in the attribution of the title
triarii to the fourth naval squadron.
7-8. Ha;,tati, principes, triarii. Though first mentioned here, these
groups are undoubtedly older than P., as their names show. Varro
(Ling. v. 89) records that 'hastati dicti, qui primi hastis pugnabant,
pilani, qui pilis, principes, qui a principia gladiis: ea post commutata
re militari minus illustria sunt' (here pilani is another name for
triarii; cf. Ovid, Fasti, iii. 129). In any case the names suggest that
the principes were originally the front-line fighters, and bore some
weapon distinct from the hasta, from which the hastati took their
name. At some date nmv unknown the pilum was adopted by both
principes and hasfati, and the latter were brought forward into the
front line. The triarii used the hasta (23. 16), and the alternative
name pilani probably comes from pilae in the sense of 'files', despite
Varro's and Festus' connecting of the word with the pilum (cf.
Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 253-4; Schulten, RE, 'pilum', coL 1335); pilani
are troops formed in columns. On the pilum see 23. 8-u n. The
manipular army, with its three ranks of hastati, pri1tcipes, and triarii,
existed in essentials by the time of the war with Pyrrhus, but whereas
originaHy their tactical significance depended on distinction of
census, reflected in differences of equipment, by the time of the
Second Punic War, and even more when P. was writing, the distinction
at any rate between principes and hastati was one not of equipment,
but of seniority; cf. Livy, viii. 8. where the hastati are flos
iuuenum pubescentium, the principes are robustior aetas, and the
triarii are ueteranus miles spectatae uirtutis, in a passage which pro-
jects back into the age of the Latin wars the conditions of the mani-
pular army (Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 265). See furtr.er Marquardt, ii.
327-8, 358 ff.; Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 198 ff.; Veith, Heerwesen, 261ft.,
269·-70, 308---9.
9-10. Number in the legion. For the normal figure of 4,2oo cf. ii.
24. 13; rounded off, iii. 107. Io, mopi n:rpaKwxi).lous·; cf. vi. 32. L
Legions are mentioned of s,ooo (iii. 107. 10, vi. 20. 8; Livy, xxii. 36. 3,
etc.), 5,2oo (ii. 24. 3; cf. Livy, xi. 1. 5, r8. 5, 36. 8, xli. 9· 2, xlii. 31. 2,
xliii. 12. Io, xliv. 21. 1o), and from the time of the Third Macedonian
702
EQUIPMENT OF RECRUITS VI. 23.2
War 6,ooo (Livy, xlii. 31. 2, xliii. 12. 3. xliv. 21. 8} or 6,2oo (found
under the elder Scipio, Livy, xxix. 24. 14, xxxv. 2. 4; regular after
Marius). Calculation makes the number of uelt'tes r,2oo.
22. Equipment of the uelites: see Marquardt, ii. 343; Veith, Heer-
wesen, 326-7.
1. l'6.xa1pa.v ••• Ka.i yphmpous Kat 1r6.Pl'TJV: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 21. 13,
'hie miles (i.e. one of the uelites) tripedalem parmam habet et in
dextera hastas, quibus eminus utitur; gladio Hispaniensi est cinctus';
id. xxvi. 4· 4·
3. ALT~ 1TEpLKe+a.Aa~: a helmet \o\ithout a crest (contrast 23. 12).
The AuKda, wolf's skin, marks out the galea or galerus from the cas sis;
cf. Prop. iv. ro. 20, 'et galea hirsuta compta lupina iuba'; Virg. A en.
vii. 688 f., 'fuluosque lupi de pelle galeros tegmen habent capiti'.
Tois KaTa l'epos ijye..,oaL: 'the subordinate commanders'.
4. The hasta uelitaris. To be distinguished from the long thrusting
lance of the triarii. Livy (xxiv. 34· 5) also calls it 'telum ad remitten-
dum inhabile imperitis' (Klotz, Livius, II3-I4, points out that there
is nothing equivalent to this in P. viii. 4· r, Livy's source, and sug-
gests that the addition is from the present passage; but Livy did
not need a specific statement in P. to tell him what a hasta uelitaris
was like). Each man carried seven according to Livy (xxvi. 4. 4; cf.
Frontin. Strat. iv. 7· 29; Val. Max. ii. 3· 3}; Lucilius, vii. 290 Marx
is not evidence to the contrary (Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. :z6o). cro~Batttafov
is 'a span long'; the head was 'beaten out and sharpened to a fine
point'.
KOLv6v ••• To ~e'-os: similarly, as Schweighaeuser observes, elephants,
because of their untrustworthiness, Ka'Aoikn Kotvov; 7ToAettlou; (App.
Hisp. 46).
pilum see xvm. r8. 4). The existence of a Spanish weapon, the
phalarica, similar to the Roman pilum, is well known (d. especially
Livy, xxi. 8. 10). Since P. i. 40. 12 is our earliest authentic reference
to the use of the uaaos as a Roman weapon, it was probably taken,
like the gladius, from Spanish mercenaries during the First Punic
War (Schulten, RE, 'pilum', col. 1344. modifying his earlier view
that it was adopted at the time of Hannibal-a view justly criticized
by Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. z¥ n. 1). Schulten has a detailed discussion
of P.'s pilum, heavy and light, with diagrams (from Schramm) in
RE, 'pilum', cols. 1349-54. He shows that a heavy p£tum \vith a
3-cubit shaft (1·4o metres) and 4 fingers (7·7 em.) wide, equipped
with an iron head of like length, ri fingers (z·8 em.) wide where it
fits into the shaft, would weigh 8·5 kg. and be too heavy to throw.
Veith (H eerwesen, 326) thinks P. is describing some transitional,
experimental, weapon perhaps used by Scipio and given an un-
deserved immortality by P. 'aus Pietat'; this seems most improbable,
and a more likely explanation is that P.'s pilum, like the later one,
was thinner except where the shaft was fitted to the head (contra
Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. zso n. 5). Since half the iron head was let into the
shaft (23. n), the total length of the pilum was c. 2·1o m., and its
weight, allowing for tapering, 4·68 kg. (or in the case of a round
p1:t-um, 3·69 kg.). The lighter pilum, used against more distant targets,
and akin to the later Roman weapon, is calculated to weigh only
c. 2 kg. For contemporary pita found near ~umantia see Schulten,
RE, 'pilum', cols. 1354-7.
8. 'II'E:p~KE:<J>a.:\a.(a. xaJ.Kij Ka.~ '~~'POKVTJfLLS: cassis and ocrea. For the
bronze helmet see Veith, Heerwesen, fig. 120 (incorrectly called galea);
it was open and without a vizor. For the crest worn on it see § 12;
contrast the galea (22. 3 n.). The use of the singular 7Tpo~<YYJp.is may
indicate the use of a single greave (Lammert, RE, 'ocreae', col. Ij78);
shortly afterwards greaves are no longer worn.
9. oitJ-EV cnpoyyu:\oL ••• oE oe T£Tpaywvo~: i.e. some had a circular,
others a square cross-section.
at~uvloLs ••• autJ-tJ-hpoLs: 'moderate-sized hunting-spears'; mfMYtoY
is an otherwise unknown diminutive of mf:luVTJ.
10. ~£:\os ••• ciyKLcrrpw1'ov: 'barbed head'; cf. Philo, Bel. 95 I. 45 1
tv Ti{> r,u011E:vL tta.l. TTI ••• auva.+ii: 'at the bottom where it joins .. .' .
14. ~~:a.pSloq,oA.a.~ea: a bronze sheet, a span (c. 9 in.) square, this was
of great antiquity. It formed part of the dress of the Salii, and
examples from the seventh and sLxth centuries ha. ve been found in
graves at Targuinii and on the Esquiline; cf. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 201.
15. ol ... urrip Tas fLUpCas TLfLWI1£Vm 8pa.xl1aS: i.e. members of the
first (Servian) property class. If the drachmc< is equated with the
denarius (cf. ii. 15. In.), P. here makes the qualification for the first
classes too,ooo sextantal asses (ten of which made a denarius). This
is also Livy's figure (i. 43· r, centum milium aeris ..• censum) and
Dionysius' (iv. r6); but Pliny (Nat. kist. xxxiii. 43) and Festus
('infra classem', p. Ioo Lindsay) give r2o,ooo. The lex Voconia (169)
laid impedimenta on testators possessing above a certain property;
and this limit, which has been reasonably identified with the first-
class census, is variously given as rzs,ooo aeris (Gellius), roo,ooo aeris
(Gaius), Ioo,ooo sestertii (Ps.-Asconius), and zs,ooo drachmae
25,ooo denarii ~ roo,ooo sestertii (Dio). Mattingly (]RS, 1937, 99 ff.)
argues for Gellius' figure ; but his argument rests on the improbable
view that P.'s draclmut is an Aeginetan drachma (cf. ii. 15. I n.). The
alternative, that the lex V oconia defined the figure as roo,ooo libral
asses =- Joo,ooo sestertii, is certainly unlikely; but Mommscn (St.-R.
iii. r. 249 f. n. 4) may well be right in thinking that asses (undefined,
but in fact sextantal) were taken to be libra! asses (i.e. sesterces) in
order to circumvent the provisions of the law (cf. Steinwenter, RE,
'Lex Voconia', cols. 2419-20). This would lend support to P.'s figure.
<iA.um8wTous ••• Owpa.Ka.s: 'breastplates wrought in chain', the lorica
hamata. This and the Kapowtj>vAa~ were perhaps wom over a leather
jerkin; cf. Grosse, RE, 'lorica', cols. 1444-5. On both see Couissin,
I57 ft., 265 ff.
16. SOpaTa: the hasta, still used by the triarii, was the earlier
weapon of the whole army (as the name hastati indicates) and was
suited to the phalanx formation. With the gradual standardization
which culminated in the Marian reforms it gave way to the pilunt
in all lines.
eq ui
I
e:rl:ri>Or-
'
d/nar/i
I
pel( e'{Y.
I
B
IJ. Plan to illustrate Polybius' description of half a four
legion camp, based on Fabricius.
710
THE RO~[AN L>\MP VL27
set back to back; but when the consuls camp separately, the foru·m,
quaestorium, and praetorium are placed p.luov ••• TWV ovetv crrpaTO-
mf8wv. For an interesting account of the various interpretations of
this passage suggested by scholars from the fifteenth century on-
wards see E. Fabricius, JRS, 1932, 78~7. If the last word, crrpaTo-
71'E8wv, is translated 'camps' or 'armies', the sense is fantastic, and
cannot be healed by merely transposing op.ofJ and xwpfs in J2. 8 (so
Reiskc and Fischer). Nor can Fabricius' solution, to omit 32. 8 as
a foolish interpolation, be commended. If, however, uTpa701r£8wv is
'legions', many scholars have been worried by what they have taken
to be a clear account of a camp for a single consular army of two
legions followed by the statement that this is in reality half the
camp of a double consular army, and that when a single consular
army is encamped, the pattern is different--despite 26. ro, lvds·
lnrapxoVTOS" 7rap' at!roi:s 0Ewp7}p.aTos d71'1\ofi 71'EP~ nls 7rapEp.f3o>.as, (/)
... ~ T \ \ ,
xpwv<at 7rpos 7!'avTa Katpov Kat Tonov.
The most satisfactory solution yet proposed (though it leaves
some difficulties unresolved; d. 27. r n.) is that of P. Fraccaro
(Atlum., 1934, 154--fir), who points out that P. evidently took his
account from a Roman vade-mecum containing a plan of the camp,
and that such a work will naturally give the typical form. But it is
clear that the 'typical' and traditional Roman army was one of
four legions; this is indicated, for example, in Livy, iii. 70. 1, 'in
exercitu Romano cum duo consules essent potestate pari, quod
saluberrimum in administratione magnarum rerum est .. :, and,
one might add, in P.'s own account of the mobilization (19 fL), which
presupposes a double army of four legions. Fraccaroquotes Mommsen
(St.-R. i. 47): 'aber auch in dem Heerwesen selbst ist die Collegialit!it
spaterhin freilich theils verdunkelt, theils geradezu bei Seite
geschoben worden; in denjenigen militarischen Institutionen inde3,
welche darauf Anspruch habcn als der ursprlinglichen Republik
angehorig zu gelten, herrscht sie entschieden.' Of the latter one is
clearly the consular command. Hence P. is assuming the four-legion
camp as normal: and it is for convenience alone that he describes
only one-half of it. The other half will be identical, but will be
plotted out independently, with merely the base line in common.
When -what was theoretically exceptional, but must in fact
have become by P.'s own time the usual practice--a single consular
army camped alone, the position of the praetorium, forum, and
quaestorium was altered so as to lie, not as before between the two
armies, but in a more protected position between the two legions
(32. 8). That this was in fact done is confirmed by the Spanish
camps, especially that of Q. Fulvius Nobilior of 153/2, near Numan-
tia (d. A. Schulten, Numantia, iv. u6: the camp is 'Renieblas
III'), where large buildings, identified as praetorium, forum, and
7II
VI. 27 THE ROMAN CAMP
quaestorium, lie along the cross axis at right angles to the uia prin-
cipalis.
Bibliography: earlier works are listed in Marquardt, ii. 405 n. I,
and the main later (and some early) accounts by Fabricius, JRS,
I9J2, 79 n. 2; add Stuart Jones, Companion, 22~; Veith, Heerwesen,
342-6; Fraccaro, Atlten., I934. I54-61. For examples of camps see
the works listed by I. A. Richmond, OCD, 'camps'.
28. 1. AoiTr0\1 aTro Ti]~ ••• t:U9E'a~: 'next, starting from the line drawn
at this distance' (Paton). The 1oo-ft. way thus left clear is the uia
principalis or principia (Livy, x. 33· 1; Hyg. de mun. castr. 14).
2. npo~ bp9a~ TTI ypaflflfi: 'at right angles to the (original) line'.
The point of intersection (aYJfLEtov) of these two lines at right angles
is called the groma (or grama) after the instrument set up by the
surveyors for castrametation; cf. H yg. de mun. castr. 12. From it
can be seen three of the four portae of the camp.
flEO'TJV ••• Tou 81aaTT)f1aTo~: 'making the bisecting line (run along)
the middle of the interval'. TOfL~ is the line which bisected that
parallel to the tribunes' tents (~ op[~ovaa EVBEfa), the OULO'TY)fLa is the
so ft. The street thus formed between the cavalry is the uia praetoria.
3. To oA.ov axi]fla ••• TETpaywvov: 'it is the complete figure of a
square both for the maniple and the squadron'.
4. Ta~ S1Miou~: 'roads running through', parallel to the uia praetoria
and, like it, at right angles to the uia principalis and the tribunes'
tents.
nA.t]v Twv auf1flaxwv: cf. 30. There is no need to omit these words
as an interpolation (with Fabricius, JRS, 1932, 86); the triarii form
another exception (29. 3).
29. 1. otov et puf1TJ~ TLvo~: pvfLYJ is a street or alley, as its use in this
chapter makes clear; cf. Aen. Tact. 2. 5, 3· 4; LXX Isa. xv. 3. etc.
Cardona wrongly takes it to be the striga, or longitudinal block of
tents (on which see Marquardt, ii. 407-8).
Ttl\1 apTL pTJ6Eiaav eu8eiav: 28. I.
that their rank lay between that of quaestor and that of military
tribune; sec further von Premerstein, RE, 'legatus', cols. u41 ff.
Such legati would be important members of the general's consilium,
hence the title 11'pwf3w-ri;s Ked uvpflov/..or;, which also appears in Dio-
dorus (xxxiv-xxxv. 38 Exc. Vales. p. 6o7); see also App. Hisp.
78; Pun. 32, etc. (avfLf3ovAm). The council also included any con-
sulars present, and the primus pilus of each legion (24. 2). See
Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 1. 6g8 n. z.
5. o[ ypoocpop.axo~ 1TAT)pouo~: 'the uelites man .. .'. Schweighaeuser
suggested (but did not adopt) r'lpofiut (for which d. Tlmc. ii. r3. 7,
'To €~w6Ev (sc. TEixos) E'TrypEt'To), and this is read by von Domaszewski
(RE, 'castra', col. 1763}. But 11'A7]pofia£, which is amplified by 11'apa-
KotTofii"TES', need not imply that the uelites encamped along the agger.
As General \V. Hoy (The Military Antiquities of the Romans in
Hr£tain (London, 1793), 43) argued, the ttelites were most probably
quartered along with the maniples of the triarii, principes, and
hastati (cf. 32. 2 n.; f<abricius, JRS, I9JZ, 78-79). Marquardt (ii. 409
n. 2} quotesCato in Festus, p. 298 Lindsay, 'procubitores dicunturfere
uelites, qui noctu custodiae causa ante castra excubant, cum castra
hostium in propinquo sunt, ut M. Cato in eo, quem de re militari
scripsit' ; and from this he argues that the uelites camped outside
the fortifications, 'wo sie sich wahrscheinlich besonders verschanz-
ten'. Against this are these points: (a) The whole of the uelites
cannot have been on watch-duty at night, and it would seem im-
probable for a body of 2,400 Roman and 2,4oo allied uelites to be
exposed unnecessarily to danger against which they had to be pro-
tected by 'special fortification' (which P. nowhere mentions). Cato's
remark must mean only that those uelites who were on night-duty
outside the camp were called procubitores. (b) Camping outside the
castra is a special punishment (d. 38. 3, €fw K€AEJJ"' 'ToiJ xdpaKos Kal
'TryS aurpaA£las: 11'W:.[a0at 7~1/ rrapcfLf3oA~v), often mentioned; d. Livy,
x. 4· 4; Val. Max. ii. 7· IS; Tac. Ann. xiii. 36 . .5 (cf. Frontin. Strat.
iv. 1. r8, 1. 19, r. 21); and it was clearly regarded as dangerous as
well as disgraceful. Special guards were placed outside the camp
(cf. Sal!. lz~g. roo. 4; Caes. BC, i. 21. 3; Tac. Ann. ii. IJ. 4); but these
were men on duty, not sleeping. It therefore seems likely that al-
though the t,:ruards for the agger were assigned daily (Ka6' iwipo.v)
from the uclites, and the uelites provided the forty guards on the
gates each night, the body of these troops were encamped inside the
fortifications, and probably with the legionaries; for it would be
quite an arbitrary assumption that they camped in the open space
round the inside of the agger, thus defeating the purposes mentioned
in 31. I I ff.
t<o.9' i}p.epa.v: 'every day'; Schweighaeuscr's comment is worth repro-
ducing: 'id est, uelites non per uiccs has excubias agunt cum alio
THE ROMAN CAMP VI. 37· 8
genere militum: sed quottis dt'e, id est semper, (nempe die nocteque)
uelites sunt, quibus hoc ministerium incumbit.' That this guard
is always provided by the uelites; but not, of course, by all the uelites,
all the time, as P. makes clear, when he speaks of the guards for
the gates.
ava bEKa. 1TOLOUVTa.L • , • Tas 1TpOKOLT£a.s! 'they Stand guard, ten at
each'; this probably means ten at a time (at each gate), which
implies forty rf>vitaKda, involving I6o men, for all four gates for the
whole night (cf. 33· 7).
8. Tov 1rpwTov tAltpx"lv Kn9' EKnaTov <7Tpa.To1TEOov: the first dewrio
(25. 2) of the first turma in each legion.
11. li1TO TWV oopa.ywv: in § 8 a single optio makes the selection.
1roaou Ka.t 1roaas ••• tjluAnKas : for the first word in this phrase the
MSS. vary between 7TDUT1JV (FS) and 1roaov (G); either is possible.
With 7TOcrT1JV sc. ,Pv/..aK~v. i.e. 'qua uigilia ct quas stationes'; with
7TOO"OV sc. XPOVOV: cf. Aristoph. Aclt. 8J, 7TOaOV aJ TOV 7TpWK7'0V xpovov
~w~yayH; Different posts are visited in different watches, according
to the instructions given (cf. 36. z, TaD> pryfJ€VTa<; To7Tovs); but in the
course of each night all posts \Viii be Yisited once.
12. Tou Ka.Ta tjluAaKTjv j3ouKnvav: 'the sounding of the bugle (at the
beginning of) eac.h watch (uigilia)'. The prim us pilus of each legion
in turn takes responsibility for this alternate days (cf. 36. 5); in a
double camp presumably the four primi pili took turns (for the
double signal which revealed the double consular army to Hasdrubal
before Metaurus (Livy, xx'llii. 47· 5) was clearly exceptional). The
blowing is done by a bt(cinator (cf. Livy, vii. 35· r, xxvi. IS· 6; Caes.
BC, ii. 35· 6, Frontin. Strat. i. 5· 17; Prop. iv. 4· 63; Sil. Ital. vii. 154).
38. 2. Decimation: cf. Livy, ii. 59· II; Dion. Hal. ix. so. 7· Its use
is recorded of Caesar (Dio, xli. 35· 5), Domitius Calvinus (Dio,
xlviii. 42. 2), M. Antonius (Dio, xlix. 27. I; Frontin. Strat. iv. I. 37),
and Octavian (Dio, xlix. 38. 4; Suet. Aug. 24. 2). Cf. Marquardt,
ii. 573 n. 5·
3. To'i:s 8i AOL'ITOLS KTA.: for the punishment of barley instead of
wheat see Frontin. Strat. iv. r. 25, r. 37; Veg. i. 13; Dio, xlix. 38. 4;
Suet. Aug. 24. For outside the fortifications see the
passages quoted under 35· 5 n.
4. To 8uva.Tov ••• aup.'ITTw...-chwv: 'the best possible practice has been
adopted both to inspire terror and to repair the harm done'.
39. 3. ya.l:aov: cf. fg. 3. where, however, the word used is A.6yx17·
The hasta (usually pura, i.e. without a tip: Serv. ad A en. vi. 76o) is
often mentioned as a decoration; cf. Festus, 'hastae', p. 90 Lindsay;
Cato ap. Fest. 'optionatus', p. 220 Lindsay; SaiL Jug. 85. 29; Dion.
HaL x. 37; Gell. ii. II. 2; Res I4. 2; Dio, lv. I2. I; inscriptions
of the imperial age, passim. Marquardt, ii. 328 n. 4; Helbig,
Gott. Abh., 19o8, no. 3; Ed. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 251.
~LaA11v .•. lj>D.A.a.pa.: cf. SH A Frob. 5· I, 'publice in contione donatus
est hastis puris qnattuor . . . sacrificali quinquelihri una' ;
Livy, xxx. 15. 11, 'Masinissam ... aurea corona aurea patera sella
curuli et Scipione ebumeo picta et palmata tunica donat'. 0.
Jahn (Die Lauersforter Phalerae, Bonn, 186o, 2 f.) suggested that
these <Ptd.Ao.L were not goblets, but an ornament developed :from them
and worn on the breast (cf. Nonnus, Dionys. ix. 125, xlvi. 278, xlvii. 9,
where bacchants wear phialai on the breast). Steiner (Bonn. ]ahrb.,
19o6, 11) suggests that they were shields; and if they were indeed
small representations of shields worn by infantry, there will have
been little difference between phialai and the phalerae, which were
originally harness-medallions (xxx. 25. 6), but are here medallions
which the cavalry-man himself wears on the breast (cf. Livy, xxxix.
31. 17, 'pro contione . . . laudati donatique ... equites phaleris').
See Baumeister, Denkmiiler, iii, p. 2062; Lammert, RE, 'phalerae',
col. 166o; Marquardt, ii. 575-6 with notes.
5. xpuaouv ••• aTiilj>a.vov: corona muralis; cf. Livy, x. 46. 3, xxvi.
48. 5; Sil. It. xv. 257; Gell. v. 6. r6, 'quasi muri pinnis decorata est'
(probably derived from Varro, who is most likely the ultimate
source for all information on coronae: cf. L. Mercklin, De Varrone
coronarttm Romanarwn militarium interprete praecipuo quaestiones,
Dorpat, r8sg). It is illustrated on a coin of M. Agrippa and on the
Ribchester helmet (Baumeister, Dcnkmiiler, iii, fig. 2290). See
Fiebiger, RE, 'corona', coL 1641.
6. T0\1 awaa.vTa. aTEcpa.vouv: if necessary the tribunes investigate the
incident (Kplvo.vre>). The corona ciuica of oak-leaves (Gell. v. 6. u)
3A j2I
VI. 39· 6 THE ROMAN CAMP
46. 1-3. Cretan development of private property and love of gain. The
implication would be that in Crete there were very great differences
of private property; but on this there is no independent e;'idence.
The accusation of TTAwvEqla is repeated in 47. 4; it is a commonplace
in descriptions of Cretan character. Ephorus (ap. Strabo, x. 48o)
hints at 7TAeov€qla Kai Tpv</>~; see, too, the passages quoted by van
Effenterre, 277-8. The statement in 46. 3 that the Cretans alone in
the world consider no gain disgraceful is contradicted at 56. 2, where
precisely the same accusation is levelled against the Carthaginians;
but P. is persistently hostile towards Crete (see the passages quoted
in iv. 53· 5 n.).
4. Cretan magistrates annual and democratically elected. Government
in the cities of Crete was normally in the hands of a Board of Ten
Kosmoi and a Council (Boule) elected from ex-Kosmoi. From Aris-
totle, Pol. ii. ro. 1272 b 4, €qeun '8€ Kat [.Leraqil To!:s KDUf.Lots a7TH7T€Lv
T~V apx~v. it is clear that the Kosmos was not elected for life; but
whether, as in P.'s time, he was elected annually is not indicated.
The members of the Boule are elected for life (Pol. ii. ro. 1272 a 37)
like the Spartan Gerontes. Since Aristotle Cretan institutions had
evolved in the direction of democracy, a fact confirmed by the
appearance of the word '8a[.LoKpa-rta on inscriptions (e.g. IC, i, Cnosos
9, 11. 6-7; iii, Hierapytna 3 A, ll. 68; end of the third century). For
further evidence and discussion see van Effenterre, 163-4 (with the
criticism of \Villetts, Jii-lJI); as elsewhere, the sudden appearance of
large numbers of inscriptions towards the end of the third century
may indicate the setting up of democratic institutions. Perhaps,
therefore, in P.'s time life membership of the Gerousia no longer
existed.
6. ~v hn!J-ETP([l: 'into the bargain'.
7. Role of courage and concord in preserving the State. This formulation
(it is inconsistent with 57. 2, which takes up the argument of ro. 3-4)
goes back to Ephonts; see 45-47. 6 n.
10. Ta.'is Xe;ecn ... Tais a(,Ta.is: see 45-47. 6 n.
The contrast is not between Kings and Gerousia, but between Sparta and Crete,
where (46. 4) magistracies are annual and elective.
732
THE CRETAN CONSTITUTION VL 47· 8
47. 1-6. Condemnation of the Cretan constitution. P. argues syllo-
gistically that the basis of any state is sound €87J Kai v6p.m: now
these are closely correlated with public and private behaviour, so
that one can argue from good or bad tf(JTJ Kat v6p.ot to good or bad
behaviour, and vice versa; but the behaviour of the Cretans, both
public and private, is notoriously bad: hence the Cretan constitution
is bad. Kornemann has argued (Pha., 1930, 175) that the reference
to €BTJ Kat v6p.ot indicates a later insertion in a revision of book vi;
against this see CQ, 1943, 81-S:z. In fact, P. often uses this expression,
or some slight variant of it. Thus in iv. 67. 4 the Aetolians who burnt
the porticoes at Delphi violated the common go.,., Kai vop.tp.a of man-
kind; and three passages (vi. 56. I, XViii. 34· 8, 35. 1) mention the
€811 Kat vop.tp.a. of the Romans, that honesty which lasted until they
undertook wars overseas. In xxxi. 29. 12, however, €811 Kat vop.tp.a
apparently refers to the custom of winning fame by prosecuting,
a practice of which P. disapproves. In the present passage vop.ot is
rather more specific than vop.tp.a. von Scala (229) draws attention
to the division of ,\6yot, lmTaOEup.a-:-a €8wv and v6p.ot in Ps.-Hippo-
damus (Mullach, F.Ph.Gr. ii. 12 Stob. iv. I. 94 = W iv. 31);
but the correspondence is neither close nor exact-indeed Aristotle
(Pol. ii. 5· 1263 b 39-4o) is equally close when he refers to ;oi:s €Bwt
Kat Tf} </nAoaocp[q. l<a1 TOtS' IIOfLOtS' in COnnexion with the institutions
of Sparta and Crete. It is therefore quite unjustifiable to see Stoic
influence in the phrase, or indeed in the extension of the comparison
between states to their general ethos.
1. nJ.s n 6uvcl.1.u:~s ••• KaL Tas auar6.ans: probably 'the true quality
and form'; for TroAtnlas av(J"'Taat<; cf. r8. I n.
5. 1]91'] ... KpTJTalEWV: the conduct of Cretans was proverbially evil,
from the time of Homer (when they were pirates: Od. xiv. 199 f.)
onwards. See the passages assembled by van Effenterre (277 ff.) ·
Epimcnides; Homer, Hymn to Demeter, 123; Herod. i. 2. I ; Leonidas
of Tarentum (A nth. gr. vii. 654); Curt. iv. 8. 15; Plut. Mar. 296 D;
and add Cic. de re pub. iii. 15. For P.'s own views see iv. s:;. 5 n.
7-10. Plato's Republic is irrelevant to the comparison, as a purely
imaginary constitution.
8. Tous ye fLTJ vevEJL'I']fLEVous: the sense is 'those not enrolled' (i.e. for
the contest) or, more probably, 'those not registered' (i.e. in one
of the associations of Dionysiac TExv£Tat, such as those of Athens or
the Isthmus; cf. Poland, RE (Va, Nachtrage), 'Technitai', col. 2507;
Daux, 356 ff.; Riccobono, Fontes, i, no. 34); cf. Arist. A.P. 8. 3,
lK Tijs· tfvAijc; €Kd(J"'T1jS' vEvEp.TJp..fvat TptrrU€<; ••• Tp•ts. On the second
interpretation v€11Ef1."YJp.l.vovc; applies to TEXII~Twv, amwp.acrKTJKb-;-c.c; to
d.BA"YJTWv (a point missed in LSJ s.v. vlp.w, where this phrase is trans-
lated 'unproved athletes'). In dO'Arrnuovs aywvas P. ignores the con-
tests in which the "~"•xvfTat will take part ; hence Meineke proposed
733
VI. 47· 8 CRITICISM OF
(or OvjL(iAtKovs) ~ d8A7JnKm)s (better d8A7JnKoVs ~ aK7JVtx:oJJs
aK7JVtKovs
to avoid hiatus). But there seems no reason for the suggested
omission.
' In ro. I I it is the mixed constitution which preserves freedom; but this
contradiction, which has already been noted (46. 7 n.), is due to P.'s use of
Ephorus in his discussion of the Spartan constitution.
734
THE SPARTAN CONSTITUTION VI. 51. 2
55. 1-4. The story of Horatius Cocles. P. gives the earliest extant
version of this famous legend; for De Sanctis's thesis that Calli-
machus (Aetia, iv. 107 Pfeiffer Llt1JY~(rus-, ed. ~orsa-Vitelli, 26ft.)
refers to Horatius under the name of the mysterious Gaius is un-
convincing (Riv. jil., 1935, 294 ff.). In contrast to Livy (ii. ro. II,
'rem ausus plus famae habiturarn ad posteros quam fidei') P.
treats it as wholly historical. He does not here give the context;
but he probably placed the incident in the war with Porsenna,
like Cicero (paradox. tz) and Livy (who, however, makes Horatius
survive: ii. ro. rr, incolumis ad suos tranauit). The other later versions
also agree on Horatius' survival, but with a wound which left him
lame. The name Codes means 'one-eyed', and is used by Ennius as
an equivalent for 'Cyclops'; Horatius was said to have lost an eye
in some former conflict (e.g. Dion. Hal. v. 23. z, IloTTAw> o' 'Op&:no>
I T7' \ , ... ' \ '~.II ,\ ,. , ' ,
0 K{L/\OtJJLEVOS' .l~OK111JS' EK TOIJ KaT a T1JV O't'tll c/ UTTWJLUTOS' EKK011"ELS' EV
I' --'
JLUX?J T6v £npov ot/J8aAJLOV .•• ; auct. de uir. ill. II. r) or to have had
so flat a bridge to his nose that eyes and eyebrows coalesced (cf. Plut.
Publ. I 6. 7, Std. atJLDT1JTa Tfj> ptvbS' iv8e3vKv[aS', wGTE JL1JDkv elva~ To
Swpl,ov Ta OJlJLa.Ta Kat Ta> &¢puS' avyK<'XuuBm). It has been suggested
that Horatius is the hero of an aetiological myth designed to explain
an ancient statue at the Vulcanal (Verr. Flacc. ap. Gell. iv. 5· 1),
which was attributed to Horatius Codes. If such a statue repre-
sented Vulcan, it may have shown a lame man (Pais, Storia critz'ca,
ii. 101 f.) or have been so clumsily carved as to seem to represent
a lame person (De Sanctis, i. 448); and it may have been carved
with one eye to represent Vulcan as a sun-god (De Sanctis, i. 274)
or in the manner described by Plutarch (sec above; De Sanctis,
Riv. jil., 1935, 295). In either case, the lameness and blindness were
later ascribed to Horatius, and the story of the defence of the Pons
Sublicius attached to his name. There is slight evidence for Vulcan
as a sun-god (cf. Serv. Dan. ad Ae11. iii. 35, 'nonnulli eundem Solem
et Vulcanum dicunt'; cf. Martian. i. 42), though De Sanctis in his
later treatment appears to have withdrawn this element of the
theory; and indeed, since we know nothing of the appearance of
the Vulcanal statue, it seems verv hazardous to use its features to
explain the legend. Recently G. Du~ezil (1'v!itra- Vanma 2 (Paris, 1948),
169 f.) has sought the origins of Horatius' single eye in 'Indo-Euro-
pean mythology', comparing his role and that of Mucius Scaevola
ROMAN USE OF RELIGION v1. 5 6. 6
to those of the one-eyed Odin and the god TyT, who had his
hand bitten off by the wolf; already Pais had compared Odin and
Varuna. It is indeed possible that Horatius Codes has inherited some
divine or heroic features; but parallels with Norse or Indian mytho-
logy must remain arbitrary because of the gap in time and space.
Mommsen (RG, i. 465} saw the story as aetiologically connected with
the Pons Sublicius, but failed to explain the various features of the
legend.
56. 1-5. Carthaginian attitude towards money: cf. ix. II. z. As in the
case of Crete (47· 1-6}, and in his discussion of the Roman love of
a reputation for apen], P. goes beyond the framework of the constitu-
tion to discuss lf17J Kai v6p..tp..a. Carthaginian 'love of money' (§ 2)
echoes the accusation already made against the Cretans (46. 3). The
account of Roman integrity and refusal to take bribes (§ 3} is subse-
quently modified (xviii. 35} ; since the Romans undertook overseas
wars their morality is impaired.
4. 96.va:ros ean ... 1rpoanf1ov: this penalty for ambittts was evidently
introduced by the lex Cornelia-Baebia, proposed by P. Cornelius
Cethegus and M. Baebius Tamphilus, the consuls of r8r (Livy, xl.
rg. rr, 'leges de ambitu consules ex auctoritate senatus ad populum
tulerunt'); this law was reinforced by a further measure in 159
(Livy, ep. 47, lex de ambitu lata). Nothing further is known of these
two laws (for the lex Cornelia de ambitu mentioned in Schol. Bob.,
p. 78 Stangl (ad Cic. pro Sulla, r7) was probably a Sullan law; cf.
Mommsen, Strafrecht, 867 n. 2). The need for such a law is evidence
for a growth of electoral corruption in the second century.
6-12. Roman use of religion. P. approves the use of religion and
superstition for disciplinary purposes; cf. xvi. 12. 9-u, 6aa p..€v oJv
avvrtdv€t 7Tpb<; Tb owao/~HII r-Tjv roii 7T.\.]8ov<; dJa.f{3EtaV 7Tpbs: rd 8Efov,
ooriov €ari avyyvwp..7JV €viot<; rwv avyypa<J>.fwv upauvop...fvots: Kal .\oyo-
7TDtovat 7T€pt Ta TOLaUra' Tb s· fJ7T€pafpov ov
avyxwp7Jr.fov. But his inter-
pretation of Roman religio is that of the Greek rationalist, not of
the native Roman. The idea of the divine origin of law and divine
sanction as a socially useful concept may originally go back to the
Pythagoreans (d. Delatte, Essai, 44-46, quoting Isoc. Busiris, 24-25;
Iambl. VP, r79; and Xen. Mem. i. 4, where Socrates stresses the
moral advantages of a belief in the gods); but the first example of
the rationalistic, atheistic, exploitation of this approach, which
would make religion a deliberate imposture devised for political
reasons by a cunning man, ,Pwod KaAJ,Pas: r~v d.\.]8nav A.6ycp, appears
in Critias (Diels-Kranz, FVS, ii. 88, B 25 from the Sisyphus); see
Farrington (88 ff.), who traces the part played by this concept
in the formulation of the Platonic doctrine of the Y"watov .p.,iii5os:.
P. here echoes a religious scepticism normal in his own Greece, and
VI. 56. 6 ROMAN USE OF RELIGION
in his case linked with a tendency towards Euhemerism, the doctrine
that the gods are in reality human beings, dead long ago but
honoured for their benefactions (cf. x. 10. 11, xxxiv. 2. s); this
scepticism was soon to make advances at Rome, until Cicero, an
augur, could express doubt as to whether the art of divination had
ever existed (de div. ii. 148) or had merely been lost (de leg. ii. 33),
certain only of one thing, that he did not possess it. For later exposi-
tions of the same political view of religion see Diod. xxxiv-xxxv.
2. 4 7' m1p.</>opov E(JTL Tip KOtll{j; f3lip ti;v b~: e~wll OEt<nDatp.ovtav £11'1"E7'7)KfVC1t
mrs Twv 1roAAwv 1/Jux.ais; Strabo, i. 19-20, an interesting passage
linking the educational use of myths for children with their deterrent
use for adults: ou yap ox:\ov ')IE ywatKWV Kat 1TUIITOS' xvoaiov 1TA~tlovs:
l1rayay€iv l.oyip SvvaTov rf>•l.oa6r/>itJ Kat TtpoKal.eaaatlm Ttpos €Uae{3Etav
Kai Q(Jt(l'1"1J'I"U Kal 1TlfJ7"tV, d:\1.~ 8€1: Kat OuatOatp.ovlas· TOV'I"O 8' OVK avev
p.vOorrodas Kai T<:paTElas; Plut. 1lf01'. no4 I>; Numa, 8. See now De
Sanctis, iv. 2. 369 n. 1o85.
7. TO 'IT!l.pd To is aAAOLS ••• trvnlh~oj.1£VOV: primarily the Greeks.
8. EKTnpa.yc{l8l]T!l.L Ka.L '!Ta.peLaijKT!l.L: for rrap~wdyw used of the intro-
duction of a character or material into a narrative see iii. zo. 3, 4 7. 7,
v. 2. 6. P. here uses the terminology applicable to 'tragic history';
and just as he is prepared to adopt the 'tragic' approach (despite
his many criticisms of it; cf. ii. ss-63 n.). provided he can use the
Ttepmhnat which have befallen others to brace the reader against
the Yicissitudes of fortune (d. CQ, 1945. 8-ro), so here he justifies
the emphasis on sensational myths as being conducive to virtue.
Myths about Hades are among the ingredients both of tragedy
(Arist. Poet. 18. 2. 1456 a 3) and of 'political' religion (Arist. Metaph.
xii. 8. zo. 1074 b 4 ff.). Diodorus (i. 2. z), drawing on post-Polybian
material, links the moral effects of myth with the warnings of
history.
9. TOU 'ITA1}8ou<; xO.pLv: cf. Liv-y, i. 19. 4; Numa invents the story of
his meeting with Egeria, for 'omnium primum, rem ad multitudinem
imperitam et illis saeculis rudem efficacissimam, deorum metum
iniciendurn ratus est'.
10. aocJ.wv avopwv 'ITOALTCU!l!l.: is this a jibe at Platonic utopianism
(so Hirzel, ii. 879)? Cf. Livy, xxvi. zz. 14, 'si qua sit sapientium
ciuitas quam docti fingunt magis quam norunt'.
11. 'lfiiv '1TAT}8os .•• £Aa.cjlpov KTX.: the vie\v that the masses are
'unstable, full of lawless desires, irra tiona! anger, and violent passion'
derives from Plato (cf. Rep. iv. 431 ; it appears earlier in Pindar's
A6.f3pos rnpan)s (Pyth. 2. 87), and reflects the view of any oligarchy
towards its commons (cf. Herod. iii. 81. 1 f.: Megabyzus' defence of
oligarchy). See von Scala (23r) who quotes parallels from Ps.-Hippo-
damus, Dio Chrysostom, Dio Cassius, and :'daximus Tyrius.
13. avnypa.cjleis: an d.vrtyparf>cvs is a clerk who checks accounts; cf.
7·42
DISCUSSION ON THE ROMAN STATE VI. 57· I
743
VI. 57· I CONCLUSION OF THE
state, with its mixed constitution, as well as to the simple forms,
P. follows Plato, Rep. viii. 546 A (quoted in 4· 7-9· 14 n. (c); for this
willingness to admit decay in the ideal state Plato was criticized
by Aristotle, Pol. vii (v). r2. 7· r3r6 a r). On the other hand, the
phrase <f>vaE"ws dvarK'l/ the Stoics; d. Ps.-Hippod. (ap. Stob.
A nth. iv. 34· 71 (W.-H., v. 846); d. Harder, Ocellzts Lucanus, 59, 62),
ml.vra p.~v ovv Ta fJva.Ta St' dvd.yKav <f>vaw<; lv p.£TafloAaf:s- KaAtvOiiif:Tm.
2. The two agencies of decay: cf. ro. 3 n. for the theory of the aVJL-
<f>uTov KaKoll, here apparently indicated in the words TOV o' lv mlTOLS
<f>vop.lvov. The passage of Plato (Rep. x. 6o8 E ff.) there quoted makes
a similar distinction between the lli6Tptov KaKOV and the rowv KUKOV
(ibid. 6ro B-e); and Aristotle (Pol. vii (v). 10. 36. 1312 b 38 ff.) gives
t\\'O causes for the fall of kingship: flaatA£{a o' {nro p.iv TCVJ! E~WB£11
1jKtaTa <f>Odp€Tat, llLo Kat 1TOAuxpovtOS laTLV' ~.~ avrij> o' al 1TA€iaTaL
<f>8opa1 ovp.flalvouaw. But neither passage is sufficiently close to sug-
gest direct borrowing.
S.OTa.Tov .•• 9ewpia.v: the outside source of decay proceeds according
to an 'indeterminate principle'; Ziegler's emendation aTaKTOV (RE,
'Polybios (r)', col. 1495) is unnecessary. The orderly process (T£Ta-
yp.€V?]v) by which the state decays from within is of course that of
the anacyclosis, referred to in § 3·
4. TaS O.pxcis Tij) Tf-Aet auva'IT'I'E~Y 1'fjS tYE<71'WaTJS U'!To6eaews: 'to con-
nect the opening propositions of this inquiry with its conclusion'
(Paton). {J1To8€aEws is the reading of P (F has ... ws), and this seems
preferable to \Vunderer's Dt7]yrJGE"ws or Poschl's KaTaaTaaEws or
auaTaaews (P6schl (6z) misunderstands the passage: it cannot mean
'die Anfange (sc. der neuen, schlechten Verfassung) mit dem Ende
der gegenwartigen Verfassung zu verkniipfen'). Nor does Su:tBiae(us,
read by Theiler (Hermes, 1953, zg6), carry the sense 'Vcrfassung', as
he takes it. A case can be made for tlmaTda£ws (so llyffel, zr4 n. 373,
comparing 9· u); but {mofJlaEws gives a better sense. For the phrase
Tas dpxas TCf TlAEt awa1TTHv cf. Alcmaeon in Diels-Kranz, FVS, i. 24,
B 2, TOUS dv8p(01I'OU<; Ota TOVTO dr.oAAvaOat on ov otivm'TaL rryJ! apxiJv
np TEAH 1rpoadrf;at.
'ITpoe'i'ITnY U'ITEp Tov ll().).ovTos: cf. 3· 3 n. Here P. implies that the
anacyclosis will follow its course; but he then proceeds to modify
this (d. 57-58 n.).
5-9. Analysis of the corrttpNon of the mixed const£tution. P. does not
state that this process of disintegration has begun; on the contrary,
he assumes a considerable lapse of time between the attainment of
uncontested sovereignty (§ 5) and the beginning of ~ e1rt To xdpov
p.Em{loA-1], which still lies in the future (ap~et). See Brink and \Val-
bank, CQ, 1954, 104-5. The ideas in this passage were, ho·wever, of
great influence on later writers, especially (through Poseidonius) on
Sallust; on this see Klingner, Hermes, 1928, 165 ff.; Gelzer, Vom
744
DISCUSSION ON THE ROMAN STATE VI. 57· 10
romischen Staat, i. 78 ff. Phil., 1931, z61 ff. Posch! (63 ff.) has
shown how the elements in the process of decay are those already
analysed in the various stages of the schematic anacyclosis; they are
ducpa/..na (cf. 7. 6, kingship), 7Tepwvula (7. 7, kingship; 8. -h aristo-
cracy), luxuria (7. 7, kingship; 8. 5, aristocracy), ambitio (9- 6, demo-
cracy), 7TAwvd}la (7. 7, kingship; 8. 5. aristocracy; 9· s. democracy}.
They are, of course, commonplace themes; cf. Plato, Rep. iv.
42 r D ff. ; all viii; Laws, v. 728 E ff. ; 736 c ff.; Arist. Pol. vi (iv). n. 4·
1295 b I ff., iv (vii). 15. J· 1334 a 25, vii (v}. 2. 1. IJ02 a r6 ff.; Stob.
A nth. iv. r. 8o (\V.-H., iv. z6): IluBay6pas d?Tev elodva~ els Td.s 7ToAHs
7rpWTOV -rpvcp-/jv, l-rrHTa Kopov, elTa v(3pw, J.i.f.Tct oi TUUTa bAEBpov; cf.
Thuc. iii. 82. 8. P. had already associated these ideas with Rome
long before 150; see 4· 7--9· 14 n. (c).
5. liuvn<TTe(a.v O.liijpLTov: cf. xxxi. 25. 6, do~ptTov • •. i~ouulr.n·, referring
to the period just after 167: the whole passage is relevant to the
present argument, which up to the end of § 5 is in general terms.
Future developments begin with § 6 ap~et (d. 57· 5-9 n.; correct in
Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (1)', col. 1496).
7. Aijo/nnL .•• TTjv e1nypa.<j>T)v ••• b lifJp.os: cf. ii. z. 9; 'credit' is here
ironical. The mixed constitution had supervened on oligarchy; its
break-up will therefore involve a growth in the power of the 13ijp.os.
But whereas in the anacyclosis democracy would now appear as one
of the three good forms, only later to be perverted into ochlocracy,
the decline of the mixed constitution must be towards democracy
in its worse sense (cf. § 9).
8. ouKEn 8eAl}aeL •.• Tois rrpoeaTwaLv: i.e. the 7rpow-rwTEs will have
either encouraged the people's resentment or flattered them (§ 7),
in either case leading them to aspire to power. P. mentions two steps,
(a) the refusal of the populace to obey the 1rpoeu-rwTes, (b) their
refusal even to accept equality with them; but these steps are merely
part of the rhetorical climax ending in the words d.X\d miv Kat TO
1TA>EiOTov mhos. They are not to be identified '\.\'ith stages in the ana-
cyclosis, which does not fit the details of the decaying mixed con-
stitution.
9. EAEu8epiav KO.t OT}p.OKpaT£a.v ••• oxAoKpa.TW.v: in 9· J-7 these are
successive constitutional forms: but the present formulation (with
its ironical echo of Herod. iii. 8o. 6, 7TAfjBos SJ apxov ..• ovvop.a m:!vrwv
Kd.MtUTov €xH, iaovop.{-ryv) can be paralleled in Plato, Polit. 292 A,
where the distinction between democracy and ochlocracy is merely
verbal. \Vith ochlocracy P. reaches the same end as in 9· 7, but by
a slightly different path.
10. Summary of the book. The avuTau~s and aiJg-ryms are described in
the arclzaeologia (cf. II. 2, Tijs avUTduews), the dKp.~ forms the central
part of the book with its account of the constitution (and military
system) at the time of Cannae (n-42), the comparison with other
745
VI. .'l7· IO AN EXAMPLE OF ROMAN INTEGRITY
747
INDEXES
Acschincs, 639. 53, 6o, 65, 69-72, g8-99,
Aesis, R., frontier of Italy, 175-6, 143. 158, 207.
1<)2, 2<J6. Agrinium, 543·
Aetolia, Adolian confederation, Agron, 325.
r 53-8, 457-8, 48o; assemblies, A laesa,
453 ·4, 546; apocleli, 454; magis- Alcibiades, 497·
trates, 453; date of elections, 154, Alcidamas, 479·
453, 522; official records, 32; P. Alcimachus, 548.
critidzes, 12, 66, 154, 237; Roman Alexander the Great, 41, 230, ·z32,
embassy to, r6:;-6; helped by JOU, 308, 347, 470, j2I, 548, 560,
Patrae against Gauls, 233; saves 580, 594-5, 598-g, 608, 6II,
Delphi, 51; controls Delphi, 473;
and Soleria, 473; raids Peloponnese,
237. ; alliance with Aehaea,
456, 463,513, 531; alleged
compact with Doson and Cleo-
menes, 239-·40, 248; treaty of
isopoliteia with Acarnania, 239;
with Cephallenia, 454; partitions
Acarnania with Epirus, '.1.39. 473,
; erects statue at Delphi, 240;
parts of Thessaly, 241, 248,
5 ss.
- Troas, 633.
Achaean appeal to, 247; Alexon, mercenary leader, ro8.
of, 249; tries to hinder Alfaterni, 425.
253; Mantint>a joins, 263;
war with, 298, 3'.1.6; war Alipheira, 238, 530-3.
299, 309; plunder and Allia, R., battle of, 185, 195.
A. economy, 451; and Phigaleia, Allifae, ·12 7.
452 · march through Boeotia, 456; Allobroges, 380, 383, 385~6, 388.
of ca\•alrv, 457; in Alps, 174-5. 207, 382 (P.'s crossing),
expedition, 4bo; in Social 436; Hannibal's crossing, chrono-
; ~<:aOo;;)uap:C,, 460; logy, 365; problem, 382-91.
464; and Sparta, Alsium, 120.
471; complaints against, Ambracia, I.~6, 158, 472, 510, 515-16,
and Scerdila!das, 472; 522-
504, 507, 509; and Ambracus, 515-16.
Rhodes, 507; attacks Acgeira, 513- Ambrysus, 471, 473,560.
14; attacks temples, 517, 522 Ameinias, I54·
(Dodona) ; and Pcrgamum, 520; amicitia, 161-2.
Philip invades, 542-50; and Phocis, Ammonius of Barce, 592.
; mercenaries, 561 ; and ,Moly- Amphaxitis, 6.1.6.
. at Melitaca, 626. Amphictyonic Council, 473-4 .
Africa, P. ,in, 4, 297; Punic Amphidamus, 536.
territory in, 59, 362, 372, 431; Amphilochia, 158, 472, 516.
boundary with Asia, 368; see also Amphipolis, 552, 559·
Libya. Amyclae, 553, 555·
Agathocles of Alexandria, 588. Amynandcr of Athamania, 34, 463-4.
- of Syracuse, 46, 52, 85, 146. Amynas of Atharnania, 403--4.
Agdatls of Naupactus, 464, 540, 56r, Amyntas of Macedon, 229.
6zq. Amyrus, 627.
Agesilaus, oi Sparta, 307~8, 735· anacyclosis, 635-6, 642-60, 663,-4,
~uncle of IV, 484. 724· 727, 743. 745·
Agesipolis I, 229, 475· Anares, 174, 182-3, 207, 402.
-son of Cleombrotus, 484. Anaxagoras, 492.
-Ill, 484. Ancus Martius, 342.
Agesistrata, 484. Andarria, 623.
Agetas, 622. Andobales (Indibilis), 366, 410.
Agiatis, 241, 255. Andosini, 366.
Agis Ill, 227, 230, 232. Andreas, physician to Ptolemy IV,
- IV, 237, 245. 469, 483-4, 568, 731. 6ro.
Agones, 177. Andriscus, the ps<;;udo-Philip, 14 n. 6,
Agrianians, 274, 285, 607-8. 24, 304·
GENERAL
Andromachus, father of Achaeus, - Lyscios, temple of, at Thcrmum,
450, 501-2, sos. 546.
of Aspendus, 589, 6r3, 6r6. Amyclaeus, temple of, 553, 555·
Andros, battle of, 129, 565. Apollodorus, 583.
Aniaracae, 576. Apollonia (Illyria), 160, r61-2, 632.
annales maximi, 32. (Sittacene). 574·
Annius, M. (liiuir zr8), 375· Apolloniatis (Sittacene), 574, 582-3.
Antalcidas, peace of, z8, 46-48, 3o8, Apollonius, son of Menestheus, 592.
475 ·6, 480, 735· ApoUophanes, doctor to Antiochus
Anticyra (Phocian), 473. Ill, 584-5.
r\ntigoneia on the Aous, rs6, I63. Aptera, sro.
(Mantinea), z6o, 290. Apulia, 423, 430, 432, 690.
(festival) 290 (Achaea), 290 Apustius, L. (praetor 196), 632.
(Histiaea). Aqui!eia, 68o.
Antigonus I l>Ionophthalmus, 232-3, Aquillius, C., Florus (cos. 259), 8r.
571, 592-3, 596, 6o6, 6r8, 628. Arabia, Arabs, 596-7, 6o7, ·609, 615.
- I I Gonalas, 154, 157, 231-3, Aradus, 594·
236-7, 240, 288, 499, 505. Aratus, 160, 215, 227, 234-42, 244-55,
III Doson, r8, r3o, r66, r85, 216, 257. 259-60, 263-7. 455. 457. 459-
229, 238-4o, 241, 246-5r, 253, 62, 405, 'f]O-I, 508, 513, 527-8,
255-7· 267, 271-2, 274-5. 279-81, 535-6, 539. 549, 550, 562, 622,
284-7, 289, 290, 547-8 (honours 657-8; ll-1emoirs of, 27, 43, 227-8,
paid to him in Greece), 324, 326--7, ·.<33, 239, 245-f>, 248, 250, 254. ·z64,
456, 504, soB, 522, 534, 536, 547, 266, 270-3, 289, 450, soB, 544, 658.
551-2, 564, 583, 589, 02o-r, 624, the younger, 251, 485, 5!4, 523,
61.7, 63I. 535. 589.
Antioch (on the Orontcs), 574, 585, Arbocala, 317.
587, 612-13. Arbona, r64.
in :\iygdonia, see Nisibis. Arcades (Crete), 509.
Antiochus l, .)OI, 505. Arcadia, 12 (temple of Zeus), 221,
II Theus, 5or, 509, 570, 584. 237, 251, 293, 420, 465, 478, 48I-2,
- I l l , 19-20, 24, 32, 2<)I, 295-9, 526-3I, 552.
306, 314, 450 (title Mlyas-), 451, 486, archaeologia, 655. 658-·-9, 663-74. 743.
sor-z, 511, 538, 56r, 564, 567, 745·
570-2, 582, 586-8, bor, 6os, 6o7-9, Archelaus of Macedon, 5 r6.
612-16, 6z8, 632, 717. Archidamus III, 509.
son of Antiochus III, 584. . v, 27s. 48 4 , 566, 568·9.
IV Epiphanes, 25, 217, 300, 6o8, of Actolia, 5I3.
611, 68r. Archippus the Pythagorean, 224.
- Hierax, 501, 571, 6oo-r, 603. Archytas of Tarentum, 64o-r.
Antipater, 227, 230, 232, 548. Ardea, 344, 683.
-'the nephew', 6og-ro, 612. Ardiaci, 154, 163.
'Etesias', 50-51. Ardyes, 38r.
Antipatreia, 632. Ardys, 582.
Antiphon, 649. Areius Didymus, 64o-r, 649.
Antirrhium, 517, szo, 6zs. Arcus of Sparta, 233, 288, 731.
Antisthenes of Rhodes, 30 n. r, 31, 44· Argos, A.rgolid, 12, 241, 244, 252,
Antium, 344· 347· 254-6, 27o-z, 289, 307, 331, 412,
Anxur, see Tarracina. 47o, 485, 535-D, 552-3, 625.
Apama of .Megalopolis, 464. argyraspids, 607-8.
-mother of Berenice, 567. Ariarathes IV Eus<'bes of Cappa-
Apamea (on the Orontes),576,579,58r. dacia, JOO, 303-4, 45l.
peace of, 599, 6o4. Aridices (Arideices), 505.
Apaturius, 29I. Ariminum, 175-6, 191···2, 196, 396-7,
Apelles, 527, 534-6, 55I-2, 56L 402-3, 406, 410-1 I.
Apennines, r75, 410, 413 (Hannibal's Arisbe, 633.
route), 436. Aristaenus, 12.
Aphrodite Pyrenaea, temple of, 372. Aristarchus, 67I.
- temple of, near Saguntum, 432. Aristippus, tyrant of Argos, 238, 242,
Apia, Plain of, 604-5. 265-6.
Apollo Thermios, temple of, 546. Aristocles of Sicyon, 532.
749
INDEXES
aristocracy, 635, 638-43, 646, 655-6, Athens, 238-9, 251, 307-8, 479, soo,
664. 551, 560, 624, 631; Roman em-
Aristocrates, king in Arcadia, 481-2. bassy to, 166-7; valuation of 378
Aristodamus of Megalopolis, 243· B.c., 268-9; after Cha.eronea, 548;
Aristodemus of Cumae, r8z. toll on Pontus shipping (4ro}, 497;
of Elis, 67o-r. constitution, 724-6.
Aristomachus of Argos, 238, 244, 246, Athyrnus, R., 429.
255. 265-7· Atilius, C., Balbus (cos. 245), I2I.
Aristomenean War, 481. A., Caiatinus (cos. zs8), 8I, g8,
Aristomenes, 48o-1. 115.
Ariston, 453. 458. C., Regulus (cos. 257), 82, ror.
Aristotclcs of Argos, 254· C., Regulus (cos. 225), 196, 204.
Aristotle, 2, II, 261, 466, 639. M., Regulus (cos. 256), 7, 23, 86,
Aristoxenus, 223-4. 88-94. log, q6, 150, 435·
Armenia, 6oo. M., Regulus (cos. 227), 435, 442,
army, Roman, organization of, 697- 446-7.
709, 743; years of service, 6g8; C., Serranus (? praetor 218), 375·
enrolment, 6g8-701 ; taking of 7, 393, 4IL
oath, 701 ; grouping of recruits, Atintania, 157-8, r6r, r63, r65, 325-6.
701; uelites, 701-2; hastati, prin- Atlantic ocean, 370.
cipes, triarii, 702, 723; adoption of Atropatcne, 502, 574-6, 583-4-
pilum, 702; number in legion, Atropates, founder of Atropatene,
702-3; equipment, 703-4; organi- 584.
zation of recruits and appointment Attalus I, soo, 502, sos, 520, 570-I,
of officers, 706-8 ; appointment and 6oo, 6o1-7 (campaign of 218), 63o-
equipment of cavalry, 708; mobili- I, 633·
zation, 708-9; number of ex/t'a- - I I , 303-4. 6r6 .
ordinarii, 709. Aufidus, R., 4-35-7, 441-3.
Arpi, 423-4, 437, 441-2, 746. Aulis, 307.
Arretium, 178, 410-rr, 413, 415, 679. Aurelius, C., Cotta (cos. 252), roo-I,
Arsinoe (wife of Ptolemy II), 518. 119.
- (wife of Ptolemy IV), 613. Aur·nnci, 425.
- (Conope), 518. Ausculum, battle of, 50, 349-50.
Artabazanes, 583-4. Ausetani, 366.
Artaxerxes III Ochus, 610. Autaritus, 143-4, 424.
Artemidorus, 55· Aymard, A., quoted, 218-r9, 535,
Artemis, temple of, at Lusi, 237, 562.
464-5, 483; in Elis, 525, at Ther-
mum, 546. Bacchanalia, suppression of, 679, 690.
Artemis Cindyas, II. Badian, E., quoted, 162, 325, 33I.
Asia, 307; boundary with Europe, Baebius, Egerius, 344·
368; boundary with Africa, 368. - J'vl., Tamphilus (cos. r8r), 741.
-Minor, Ptolemaic possessions in, - Q., Tamphilus, 320-r.
s6s. Bagradas, R. (Macaras), battle of,
Asine (Laconia), 555· 140-3, I49·
Aspasianus, 6og. Baleares, 362-3, 405, 407, 418-rg.
Aspendus, 599- Balsamem, 3r5.
Aspis, see Clupea. Barathm, 6IO.
Assarhadon and Balu, treaty be- Barce, 592.
tween, 346. Ba.rguUum, 326, 330.
Astymedes of Rhodes, 3I. Bargusii, 366-7.
Atabyrium (Mt. Tabor), 596. Bargylia, 68r.
Atax, R., 369. Bathycles, 555·
Athamania, 249, 464; source on, 34· Baton of Sinope, 30, 45·
Athena Itonia, temple of, in Boeotia, Belbinatis (Belminatis), 241,243,247,
452, 4/L 255. Z.67.
of the Brazen House, temple of, Beloch, K. J., quoted, r66.
at Sparta, 469-70, 483. Beneventum, 424, 426-7.
festival of, at Pergamum, 503. Berenice, wife of Ptolemv lil, 564,
-worshipped at Alipheira, 531-2. 567, 613. '
Athenaeum in Belbinatis, 241, 243, - wife of Antiochus II, 585.
255, 277, 486, 514, 534· Beroca, 626.
750
GENERAL
Bervtus, 594-5· Calchedon, 307, 487, 489, 497-8.
Dikerman, quoted, 248, 564-5, Calene, 433·
571, 6o8. Cales, 425-7, 429.
biological concept applied to states, Calhoun, G. M., quoted, 264.
635, 645-B. 649-50, 659. Callicratcs, 19.
Bithynia, sao. Callicula, Mons, 427-30.
Bithys, 237. Callimcdes, 504.
Black Sea, see Pontus. Callisthcnes, 2 n. 11, 28, 476, 480-2,
Pilot, quoted, 488, 493-<>, 51 3· 726-7.
Bodincus, see Po, R. Callonitis, 58 3·
Boeae, 555· Calpurnius, L., Piso Frugi (cos. 133),
Boeotia, 66, 248-9, 253, 256 (Sym- 696.
machy), 275, z8o-r, 307, 45>1, 456, Calydon, 544·
461, 471, 479, 483, 5r6, 523, 540, Camarina, 22 n. 8, 68, 69, 81, 96, II?,
558. 12J.
Boidion, 496-7. Cambyses, 573·
Boii, IS, r8J, r8g-9o, 2II, 374, 377• Camoun, 596.
J85, 389. 402, 449· camp, the Roman, 709-23: dimen-
Bolax, 531. sions, 714-15; discipline in, 716;
Bologna and Modena, treaty between guard duty, 716; fortification, 717;
(A.D. u66), quoted, 343· organization of night-watches, 717-
Bononia, 2II, 393· 18; giving of watchword, 7I7;
Bosphorus, 35, 486-go, 495-6 punishments and rewards, 719-22;
(current). pay and allowances, 722; breaking
-Cimmerian, 368, 488. camp: marching order, 722-3;
Bosporus, kingdom of, 487. compared with Greek, 723.
Bostar, 144. Campania, Campanians, 197-9, 202,
Botrys, 594-5· 343· J46, 348, 425-7. 679·
Bottiaea, 6z6. Cannac, battle of, J6, 87, 193, 303,
Bous (Bosphorus). 495-<>. 405, 435-49. 6JJ, 674· 736, 745-6.
Bovianum, 432-3. Canusium, 437, 441.
Brachylles of Boeotia, 288. Caphyae, 242-3, 245, 252, 452, 455,
Brancus, 388. 457. 459. 460-2, 465. 524.
Brennus, 51, 499· Cappadocia, 29t, 303, 573-4 (royal
Britain, tin-mines, 394· genealogy), 6oo.
Brochi, 577-8, 587. Capua, 36, 424, 426, 693.
Brundisium, 423, 436. C'.archi, 57 5·
Bruttium, Bruttians, 52, 199, 679, Cardaces, 6o7, 609.
746. Caria, 246, 559, 565, 568, 571, ooo.
building contracts in Italy, 612. Carmanians, 6o7-8, 614-15.
Bura, 231-4. Carnium, 555·
Bylazora, 626. Carpesii {Carpetani), 317-18, 329,
Byssatis (Byzacium), 345· 362, J67.
Byttacus, 6o8, 6n, 6q. Carseae, 604-5.
Byzantium, 6 n., 35. 298-g, 486-8, Carthage, Carthaginians, 5, 354• 487,
495-7, sao, 503, 504-5 (Peraea), 630; situation, 139; possessions,
so6 (eponymous magistrate), 5I2, 59-60; in Spain, I 5 I ; in Africa,
6or, 628, 630. 372; governors used by, I 37; con·
stitution, 64, 642, 649; compared
with Roman, 636, 724, 735-6, 743;
Cadmea, Spartan seizure, 28, 475· at the time of the Ha.nnibalic War,
Ca.dusii, 576, 607, 609, 6I5. 736; councils at, 76, r48, 169-70,
Caecilia, Gaia, 673· JII, 334, 361; sufetes at, rro;
Caecilius, L., Metellus (cos. 251), treaties with Rome, 7, 32, 57-59,
I00-2, 121. 293, 315, 336-56; numbers of fleet:
- L., Mctellus Denter (cos. 284). r88. (26o) 79, (257) 82, (256) 82-85,
- Q., Metellus (cos. 206), 681. (255) 95, (254) 97-98, (249} n6,
Caere, 346, 348. (24r) 125-6; numbers and losses in
Calabria, 423. First Punic \Var, r28; Mercenary
Calamae, 623. vVar, 130-50; Roman embassies at:
Calamus, 594-5· (zzo) 323-4. 332, (218) 328, 333-6,
Calarmts odoratus. where grown, 577-8. 522; attitude towards money, 741;
751
INDEXES
Carthage (cont.) Cheilon, 20, 147, 484, 53+
nicknames at, I 10; Marcin us' Chersonese, Thracian, 548, 565.
picture of, 45; fall of, 292-3, 296, Chilonis, 484.
303, 393- Chiomara, j, 300,
CarthaJO, u&--r 8. Chios, 500, 628, 630; battle of, 30,
Cary, M., quoted, 317. 87-88, II4, 299, 503.
Casilinum, +~7• 429. Chlaeneas of Aetolia, 233.
Casinum, 427. Chremonidean War, 157, 239, 243,
Casium, 6ro. 288, 485.
Caspian Sea, 493, 574-5, 6o7. Chryseis, see Phthia.
Gates, 574-5. Chrysippus, 466, 492, 641.
Cassander, 232-3, 289, 534, 593· Chrysogonus, 547, 553, 626.
~ Macedonian i'pistates, 559· Chrysopolis (Bosphorus). 497·
Cassandreia, 154, 438, 6JJ. Chyron's farmstead, 452.
Cassius, L., Hemina, 29, 305. Cibyra, 622.
Cassopc, 472. Cilicians, 607-8, 61 4·
Catana, 68. Cincius, L., Alimentus, 29, 332-3,
catapults, II7-18, 512-13, 6r8, 627. 366, 708, 716.
Catulus, treaty of, 126-7, 146, 150, Circeii, 344·
322, 324, 336, 355-8. Cirrha, 560.
Caudini, 425, 746. Cissa, 409.
Caudium, 433· Cissians, 607-9, 615.
Caulonia, 48, 53, 224-5. Cius, 22 n. 8, 498, 505.
Caunus, 504. Clarium, 454, 462, 471.
causality, P.'s view of, 305-6, 309· Clastidium, 210, 401, 403.
cavalry, Roman, 70o-L Claudius, C. (mil. trib. 264), 61.
Cavarus, 500, 603. - Ap., Caudcx, 46, 58, 61, 66, 74,
Celtiberia, 328, 370. IIJ.
Celtibcrian War, Second, 303. M., Clineas, 312.
Ccnomani, 183, 195-7. 201, 2o8, 405. M., Marcellus 222), 210, 448.
censor, 675, 678-9, 694-5. - Ap., Pulcher 143), 689.
c<:nsus lists, Roman, 202. P., Pulcher (cos. 249), II3-I.').
Centenius, C. (? propraetor 217), Quadrigarius, 438.
420-[. Clearchus, 307.
- M., Paenula (prirnus pilus 212), Cleemporus of Issa, 159.
42I. Cleitor, 5 n. 8 (honours to 259,
centurions, 706-8. 458-60, 464-5. 472, 524.
Ccnturipa, 56, 68, 69. Cleombrotus, 484.
Cephallenia, 299, 454, 540, 625. Cleomenean War, 239-91, 245
Cephaloedium, 99· (name),450,452,456,477•485,535·
Ccraeas, 596. Cleornenes III of Sparta, 18, 241-3,
Cercidas of Megalopolis (4th cent.), 245-6 (his coup), 247-55, 257-60,
247· 270-2, 275, 277-8, z8o-r, z85-9,
(3rd cent.), 247-8, 274-5. 360, 452, 456, 463-4. 469, 472,
Cercina, 43r. 477· 483-+. 486, 529, 534-5. 552,
Cerea (?), 509, 598. 564--9, 731.
Cerethrius, 498. Cleonae, 238, 252, 266, 289.
Ccryneia, 230-r, 233-4. Cleonicus of Naupactus, 625, 628.
Chaereas, 9 n. I, 13, 28, 42, 305, Cleonymus of Phlius, 238.
332-3, J8I. Cleopater, 253·
Chaeron of Sparta, 145. Climax Pass, 598.
- of Pellene, 230, 232. Clupea, 88-89.
Chacronea, battle of, 548. Clusium, 203-4. 414.
chalcaspids, 27 5, 523, 6o8, 623. Cnopias of Allaria, 589.
Chalceia (Chalcis), in Aetolia, 625. Cnossus, 504, 507-1 I, 540, 550.
Chalcidice, 426. Cocynthus, C., 174. 436.
Chalcis, 540, 559· Coele-Syria, 29I, 486, 562, 564, 57?.,
- see Gerrha. 592-3, 6II-l3.
Charadra, 517. Coelius, L., Antipatcr, 28 n. 14, 175,
Chares of Athens, 496. zq, 3I6, 318, 362, 365, 381, 385,
Charixcnus of Actolia, 483. 400, 404-5, 409-10, 430.
Charops, 657. Colophon, 603-4.
751.
GENERAL
comitia centuriata, 68]-8, 699; reform Cosa, 431.
of, 683-7. 691. Cossaei, 575·
- curiata, 687. Cossyra, 60, 95, 99, 431.
- tributa, 687, 699, Grantor, r 45·
Comontorius, 499· Cratippus, 43·
Compsa, ]46. Crernona,2o8,zrr, 374, 408,41I,68o.
concilium plebis, 687. Cremanis iugum, 383, 386.
Concolitanus, 206. Cretan Sea, 556.
Conope, 518, 543-4. Crete, Cretans, JO, z8o-x, 283, 457,
consuls, powers of, 075-8; checks on, 466, 486, 504, 507-11, 515, 5Z2,
688-go; powers militiae, 6g6; date 533, 540, 545. 568, 582, 590, 6o7,
of entrv into office, 210. 6og-ro, 614; constitution, 72.h
continents, division into, 368. 726-8; private property and love
continuators, tradition of, 43· of gain, ]]2, 741.
Corbrenae, 575· Cretopo!is, 598-9.
Corcyra, I6I···2. Crinon, 550-z.
Black, 154. Crisa, 560.
Corinth, I66-7, zn, 234, 236, 24o-r, Critolaus (Achaean), 255, 657.
249, 252, 455, 457, 461, 474• .')IO, (Peripatetic), 492, 044, 646.
szr. 525,534. 540, 552-3,561,673. Croton, 53, 223-5.
Corinthian Gulf, yw. Ctesiphon, 571-z, 576.
-'War, 307, Cumae, 4z5-6.
Cornelius, F., quoted, 447· Cunaxa, battle oi, 307.
Cornelius, Cn., Blasio (cos. 270, 257), Curius, M' ., Dentatns (cos. ·z9o),
53, 8z. r88-g, 423.
- P., Cethegus (cos. 181), 74L Cyclades, 325.
- P., Dolabella (cos. 283), 189. Cydonia, 5 ro.
- L., Lentulus Caudinus (cos. 237), Cyllene, 458, 540.
Igz, 332, 334· Cyme, boo, 603-4·
P., Lentulus Caudinus, rg2. Cynaetha, 145, 237, 325, 462, 464,
- L., Scipio (cos. 259), 8r. 469. 4]1··2, 65]·8.
- L., Scipio (cos. 190), 690. Cynics, 413.
- P., Scipio (cos. 218), 374-7. 380, Cynoscephalae, battle oi, (363) 725;
386, 400-8, 431, 432 (camp near (197) 209.
Saguntum). 449· Cynuria, 531.
- P., Scipio, son of African us, 29 n. 5· Cynus, 522-3.
- P., Scipio Aemilianus, z n. 2, 3, 5, Cyparissia, 453·
6, 19, 33, I]J, 221, 295, 297, 327, Cyphanta., 485.
382, 392-3. 395, 648, 663 (in Cyprus, 564-5. 619.
Cicero's de u pub.). Cypsela, in Thrace, 565.
P., Scipio Africanus, 14, I], 19, Cypselus, 673.
22, 31 (letter to Philip V), 221, 229, Cyrene, Cyrenaica, 479, 592, 724.
260 (writers on), 306, 3£4-15, 400, Cyrrhestice, 581, 584.
697, 712, 738 (imago of), Cyrtii, 582.
Cn., Scipio Asina (cos. z6o), 76-77, Cyrus, founder of Persian empire,
98-99· 5]3. 67!.
- P., Scipio Asina (cos. zzr), 435· - brother of Artaxerxes, 307, 735·
- L., Scipio Barbatus (cos. 298), 187. Cyzicus, 498,500; battle of (410), 497·
- Cn., Scipio Calvus (cos. 222), zro,
327, 382, 409, 432 (camp near Dahae, 607, 614.
Saguntum), 449, 538. Damastiurn, 6zx.
P., Scipio Na.sica Corculum (cos. Damon, 466.
r6z). 31 (letter of), 662, 697. Damonon, 484.
Coroebas, 670. Damotelas, 285.
Coronea, 452. Dardanians, 157, r66, 213, 238, 241,
Corsica, 59, 297, 431. 6z6.
Cortona, 414-15. Darius I, 573·
Coruncanii, C. and L., 158--6o, 322. - Codomannus, 306.
Coruncanius, Ti. (cos. z8o), 190. Dasius, 403.
Corupedium, battle of, 50, 229. Dassaretia, 63·2.
coru~ts, n-79· Daulis (Daulium), 471, 473, s6o.
Cos, 503, 509; battle of, IZ9, s6s. Daunii, 423, 425, 426, 430.
4866 3C 753
INDEXES
Decapolill, 596-7. Dioscuri, cult of, at Phlius, 523.
Decemvirate, 635, 664, 674, 743· shrine of, in Elis, 525.
Decius, P., Mus (cos. 312), 188, 353· -temple of, at Seleuceia, 587.
declaration of war, Roman, 63, 149, Ditizele, 505.
159, 306, 334, 361, 365, 68o-r, Dium, 515-!6, 547·
68]-8. Dodona, 522, 547·
Deigma, in various cities, 618. Dog-star, see Sirius.
Deinon, 657. Dolopia, 249·
Delius {Dias) of Ephesus, 308. Domitius, Cn., Ahenobarbus (cos.
Delphi, 50-51, 290 (group of Philip V 122), 373·
and Doson), 473, 499, 513,560, 6r6. - Cn., Calvin us :l>laximus (cos. 283),
Demades, peace of, 548. r8g.
Demaratus of Corinth, 672-3. Dora, 592.
Demetrian ·war, 237-8. Dorian invasion, 229.
Demetrias, 540, 552, 627. mode, 466.
Demetrius the Fair, 567. Doricus, 344·
-of Byzantium, 213, 499· Dorimachus, 451, 453, 457-9, 513,
-of Phalerum, 2, 19, 22-23, 39, 45, 5 22, 5 3s, 5oo.
q8, 155, 217, 228, 289, 295, 450, Doris, 240.
534. 559· Dorymenes, 587.
-of Pharos, 156, 161, 163, 280, Dositheus, 6ro.
288, 324-7, 330-1, 463, 50], drachma, value of, 176.
521, 549, 628. Drepana, 81, 99, ro4, rog; battle of,
- I Poliorcetes, 129, 232-3, 241, II3-15, 284.
256, 410, 509, 534. 595. 628. Druentia, R. (Durance), 381, 383-4.
- I I of Macedon, 130, 153-4, 157, 386.
163, 166,z36-41,248,290,454, 456, Drymaea, 4 7 r.
531, 582. Ducarius, 419.
- son of Philip V, 331. Duilius, C. {cos. z6o). 76-77.
- I Soter of Syria, 3, 292, 304. Dunbabin, R. L., quoted, 392, 403.
- of Calla tis, 487. Dura~Europus, 579-80.
democracy, meaning in P., 221-2, Dura, on the Tigris, 579-80.
229-30, 4]8, 635. 638-41, 655-7· Duris of Samos, 229, 259.
Demon, atthidographer, 506. Dyme, 230-1, 233, 250, 514, 534, 536,
Demos, personification of, 619. 623.
Denthaliatis, 288, 471. Dyrrhachium, see Epidamnus.
De Sanctis, G., quoted, 62, 105, 124,
149, zog, 322, 392, 417, 427, 429- Ebro, R., 371-3, 396, 410; battle of,
30, 445. 482. 43D-2.
Diaeus, 478. -treaty, 167-72, rg6, 305, 316,
Dicaearchia, 425. 320-1, 324, 329, 334-6,
Dicaearchus, 35, 223, 394, 640-1, Ecbatana, 6n., g.
645. 675· Echetla, 66-68.
dictatorship, character of, 422. Ecnomus, battle of, 84-88, 380.
didactic view of history, 39, 45-46, Edessa, 626.
65, 92-94, 2II, 434, 442, 638, 647. Edson, C., quoted, 12.
Didymateiche, 604. education and the civilizing of
Dimale, 325-6, 330. manners, 145.
Diocles of Carystus, 297, 570, 577· Egypt, Egyptians, 300, 465, 505,
- Seleucid governor, 578, 595. 562-70, 59o-2, 618, 628, 63o-r.
Dioetas, Achaean general, 257. Elatea, 558-60.
Diogenes, Seleucid governor, 578, 583. Elaus, szo.
of Seleuceia, 644 n. L Elba, 59·
Diognetus, 586. Elea, 75, 226.
Diomedon, epistates of Seleuceia, 579· elephants, 92, 102-3, 405-6, 590, 607,
Dionysius I, 48, 225-6, 308. 6ro, 614-15, 703.
II, 467. Eleutherna,28r,5o5, 507-8,s83,589.
-of Thrace, 592, 614. Elis, Eleans, 237-8, 290, 293, 455,
Diophanes, 465. 458. 462, 4]8, 514, 522-3, 525-7
Diophantus, 187. (wealth and neutrality), 526 (tradi-
Dioryctus, between Leucas and tional asylia), 529, 531, 533, 535.
Acarnania, 541-2. 539, 550, 553. 560.
754
GENERAL
Elizabeth I of England compared to Euripida~. 465, 514, 523, 525, 561,
Teuta. 159. 625.
Elloporus, battle of, 48, 226. Euripides, 467, 498.
Elymaei, 575· Europ0, boundary with Asia, 368.
embassies and the senate, 676, 68o-r. Europus, see Dura-Europus.
Empedocles, 649. Eurvcleides, 631.
Emporia, 145-6. Euthydemus of Bactria, 451.
Emporiae, 371, 373, 409. Euxine, see Pontus.
Enna, 8r-8z. Evander, 664.
Ennius, Q., 29. exiles at Rome, Achaean and other
Epaminondas, 18, 223-4, 278-9, Greek, 3, 4 n. rr, 34, 304, 314.
481-2, ]25. exsilium, 682-3.
Eperatus of Pharae, 535, 538, 56r, eyewitnesses, P.'s questioning of, 33·
623-
Ephesus, 565, 567; battle of, 129, Fabius, Q. (aedilicius 266), 312.
565. M., Buteo (cos. 245), 121, 333·
Ephorus, 2, 9 n. 15, II, z8, 35 n. 6, - N., Buteo (cos. 247). 121.
216, 263. 269. 368, 466-8, 475-6, - JVL, Licinus (cos. 246), 121.
48o, 482, 5~6. 563, 65o, 726-9, Q., lla.ximus Aemilianus, 3·
731-2, 734· - Q., Maximus Rullianus (cos. 322),
epicurean concepts, 653. 188, 422.
Epiuamnus, 161 2, 326, Q., Maximus Verrucosus (cos. 233),
Epidaurus, 236, 252, 254, 193. 332, 334· 412, 422-3, 426,
Epigencs, 571, 581. 429-30, 435. 7'5·
-of Teas, 571. Q .• Pictor, 27-28, 52, 58, 63-66,
Epinicus, Ptolemaic officer, 499· 6 9 - 7 o, 72, 77. 81, 85-95, 103, 107,
Epirus, Epirotes, 22 n. 8, 41, 154, 109, II], 123-4, 126-], I3Z, 146,
156-7, 237, zs6 (Symmachy), 275, rso. 152, 159, 165, 184, 189, 192-3,
28o-1, 283, 454, 463-4, 471-2, 477, 199, 204-5, 208, 214, 310-12,
515-16. 322-3, 325, 329, 332, 361, 3]6, 386,
Episuatus of Acarnania, 460. 397. 420, 423-4· 440, 442, 448, 664,
Epitadeus, 728 g. 666, 6]2.
Epitalium, 529, 533· Fabricius, C., Luscinus (cos. 182), 52,
equites, 64 6. 190.
Eratosthenes, 35, 104, 368, 370, 394, Faesulae, 414-15.
49o-1, 52 4, 66s, 668, 6 7o. Fair Promontory, 341-2, 345• 347·
Erbessus, 69. Faleria (Falisci). revolt of, 131.
Erbse, H., quoted, 641. Falernus, ager, 424-6, 430.
Eridanus, R., SNJ Po, R. Fasti, 665-6, 668-9.
Erkell, H., quoted, 25. Ferentina, 345·
Eryx, Mt., 81, II8-2o, 122, 143, 158, fetiales, 68o.
344· Fine, j. V. A., quoted, 458.
Etenneis, 599· Flaceli<~re, R., quoted, 472.
Etesian winds, 498. Flaminius, C. (cos. 223), 207-9,
Ethiopia, 370. 409-Il, 413-14, 41]-20, 68g,
Etruria, Etruscans, 49, I]B, 18r-2, 6gr.
188, 190-1, 195-6, 198, 200, 341, Flavius, Cn. (aedile 304), 340-1.
343, 346, 4II, 413, 426, 448, 673, Fraccaro, P., quoted, 712.
679, 694, 746; origins of, 181. Frank, T., quoted, 72, 90, 193, 351,
Etruscan (Tyrrhenian) sea, 105, 174, 691, 693.
436. Frazer, J. G., quoted, 536, 555.
Euboea, 253, 256 (Symmachy), 522, Fregenae, 120.
540, 625- Frentani, 197, 201, 423.
Eucleidas, king of Sparta, 278, 28o, Fulvius, Cn., Centumalus (cos. 229),
283-5· 161, 164-5.
Eugenium, 326, 330. - M., F!accus (cos. 264). 6r.
Euhesperidae, 479· - Q., Flaccus (cos. 224). 207.
Eumachus of ~aples, 28, 42. - Q., Flaccus (cos. 179), 692.
Eumenes I, 134, 503, 570. - Q., Nobilior (cos. 153),
- I I , 22, 33, 130, 299, 300, 582, 6o4, - Ser., Paetinus ::Sobilior 255),
615. 95·
Euphorion, 539· Fundi, 693.
755
INDEXES
Furius, M., Camillus (diet. 390). 669. Gythium, z87, 555-6.
C., Pacilius (cos. 251), roo-L
- P., Philus (cos. 223), 207, 209, 689. Hallward, B. L., quoted, l ] I , 320,
justuarium, 410. 4II.
Hamilcar, 8o, 82, 87, 108-.g.
Gadara (Decapolis), 597· Barca, ug-22, r24, rz6, 130, 132,
(Peraea), 597· 137, LjO, 142-4, 146-8, 150-2, 168,
Gaesatae (Gaesati), 194-5, 205, 2u, 3!0-13, 315-16, 323, 357·
363. (Hasdrubal's admiral), 43·
Galatians, Gauls, r8, 51, 213, 299, Hanell, K., quoted, 339·
300, 487, 498-<}, 502-3, 540, 553. Hannibal, 14, I9, 32, 130, 143, q8,
571, 583, 6oo, 603, 6o6, 6og, 633; 151, 161, I6], 1]5, 214-15, 229,
attack on Delphi, 49-51, 233. 298, 306, 3I0-24, 327-31, 350,
Galatis, 596. 361-6, 371-4, 377-93. 395-421,
GaUicus, ager, 184, 189, 192, 196, 200, 423-4,426-30,432-4,437-9,441-7,
397. 6gr. 451, 486, 522, 561, ]OI, ]36; forces
Garsyeris, 60I. (in 219), 366, 395, statistics on
Gaul, Gauls, 4, 6, ], 49, ]I, 102, Io8, distance of his march, 37I··A;
II9, 143, 156, 1]2-214, 590, 614, chronology of his march, 374,
704; Roman war against (225), 391--2, 538; crosses Rhone, 3 ]8--
151, r67, 172, 214, 274. 285, 298, Bo ; crosses Alps, 382-93 ; crosses
311, 3Z4-6, 365, 375-7, 402-5, 408, Apennines, 413.
4I 2, 419, 444-6; siege of Rome, 48, son of Gisgo, 56--57. ]I, 8o-8r.
185; wars, chronology of, r85-7, son of Hamilcar, 18, ro8, 146.
191 ; importance of, 21 L - 'the Rhodian', IIO.
-Cisalpine, 52, r89, 207, 2II-I2, Hannibal-historians, 9 n. I, 42, 132,
396, 4II; geography of, 172-84; 260, 305, 360, 381, 388.
prices in, I76-7. Hannibalic \:Var, see Punic \Var,
Gaulos, 6o. Second.
Gaumata the Magus, 573· Hanno, enemy of the Barcids, n8,
Gaza, 30, 593. 124, 133. 137· 148--q, 151, 32J.
Gela, Congress of (424), 629. -Punic officer in Sardinia, 144.
Gelo, son of Deinomcnes, 547· -officer of Hannibal, 367.
- son of Jiiero II, 54, 617. - general of Hannihal, 378.
Gelzer, M., quoted, 356, 665. son of Hannibal, 62, ]I, 73, I25,
Genthius, 24, 34· 144·
Genna, 68o. Harder, R., quoted, 644.
Genucius, C., Clcpsina (cos. 270), 53· Harpalus, Macerlonian epistates, 559·
geographical information, place of, Hasdrubal, son-in-law of Hamilcar,
393-5· 151-2, I67-72, I9U, 214, JI0-12,
Gephroun, 596. 316, 335. 357·
Gephyraei, 506. - son of Hanna, 89, 97-98.
Gerrha, 577-8, 587. -Hannibal's general. 447-
Gerunium, 423, 430, 432, 438, 441. - brother of Hannibal, 362, 430, 719.
Gerus (Gerunium), in Dassarctia, 632. in Third Punic \\'ar, 19.
Getae, 498. Hecatombaeum, 246, 250-1, 254·
Gillius, P., account of Bosphorns Hecatompylus (Hecatontapylus}, r r8,
currents compared with F.'s, 495--6. 134. 137·
Gisgo, 132-3, 144. Hegesianax of Alexandria Troas, 44·
Gitiades, 469. Heircte, II9-2I.
gladius, 704. heliacal rising, 96.
Glympeis, 485, 556. Helice, 230.
Golden Horn, 496-7. Hdlenic League of Philip and Alex-
Gonnus, 521. ander, 244, 24 7, 256, 548; of
Gorgias, 308. Demetrius I, 256.
Gorgus of Messcnia, 541. Hellespont, 306, 490, 499, 633.
Gortyn, 504, soB 9, 5II, 583. Helmantice (Hermandica). 317.
Gori;ys (Arcadia}, 514. Helus (Laconia), 555·
Greia, 559· Hemcroscopium, 316.
Griffith, G. T., quoted, 624. Hcphaestia, 681.
Gsell, S., quoted, 141. Heptazeta, 505.
Gulusa, source of P., 33· Heraclea (inS. Italy), 226.
GENERAL
Heracleia (Bithynia), 505. Hyrcania, 575, 6oJ.
Heracleitus, 2, 491. Hyrcanian Sea (Caspian), 574·
Heracleium, 521. Hyria, 425.
Heracks, 382, 514, 524. Hysiae, 470.
Heraea, 257, 455, 458, 529, 531, 534· hysteron protet·on, 153. zo6, 2II, 230,
Herdonia, 437, 746. 3°4·
He.nnaea, C., battle off, 95·
Hcrmaeurn (Bosphorus), 489, 495-6. lamblichus, 223.
Hermeias, 502, 505, 570-3. 580. lapygians, 197, 201, 423, 425.
Hermias, Coan doctor, 508-g. Iberia, 369-70.
Hermione, 238--9, 241, 252. Ilergetes, llurgetes, 363-4, 366, 410.
Hermocrates of Syracuse, 6zg. Ilium, 606-7, 630, 633.
Hernicans, 202. Illyria, Illyrians, r8, z75, z8o-7, 325,
Herodotus, r2g, 638-9. 331, 438, 461, 472, 510, 545, 550,
Hestia, altar of, Achaean, 624. 557, 621, 632; towns join Rome,
Hestiae (Bosphorus), 495-6. I6T, 326.
Hestiaeotis, 241, 472, 627. Illyrian War, First, 64, rsr. 153-67,
Reuss, A., quoted, ro8. 238, 330; chronology, 153; peace
Heuzey, L. A., quoted, sr6. terms, r6s.
Hierapytna, z8r, 583, 589. Second, 315, 324-7, 330-2, 486,
Hiero II of Syracuse, 22, 27, 53-57, 5 1 5·
62-63, 66 69, IZJ, 146, 355, 35], imagines, 738-g.
3]], 409, 56g, 6IJ-I8. Indian ocean, 370.
Hieron (Bosphorus), 489, 504. lndibilis, see Andobales.
Hieronymus of Cardia, 534· Insubres, r8z, 195, zo8, 374, 385-6,
of Syracuse, 183, 298; writers on, 395. 419-
z6o. internationallaw, 136, 264, 267, 455,
Hill, H., quoted, 700. 5IJ, 546-7, 549·
Himera, battle of, 344, 547· Ion of Chios, 639.
Hippana, 8r. Ionia,
Hipparchus, 370. Ionian
Hippias, Macedonian, 34· Iphitus of
of Elis, 526. Ipsus, battle
Hippitas, 569. Iseas of 234·
Hippocrates, 465-6. 'Island', the, 372, 377. 383, 386-9.
Hippodamus of :\filetus, 639, 644. !socrates, 307-8, 466, 639.
Hippo Diarrhytus, Hippou Acra, 136, lssa, 154. 159, r6r, 330.
139-40, 143-4. q6, 148. Issus, battle of, 595·
Hippolochus, 596. Ister, R. (Danube), 493·
Hippornedon, Spartan in Ptolemaic !stria,
service, 484. Italy, description of, 173,
424, 740. 436; boundary of, 175-6; Roman
compared with tragedy, 8-9. reconquest of, 298; Philip plans to
261-3- attack, 632; Senate's intervention
Homarion, 226, ·z3o, 235, 624. in, 679.
Horner, 498. !thorne, 479·
Horatius, M., Barbatus (cos. 449), Ithoria, 5I8-I9-
674. Iulius, C., Caesar, 678; compared to
Codes, 74o-r. Harnilcar, 152.
M., Pulvillus (cos. 509), 339-40. -C., Polybius, 670-r.
Hostilius, Tullus, 666, 668, 673. Iunius, L., Brutus (cos. 509), 339·
C., :\fancinus (cos. 137), 312. -D., Brutus Callaicus (cos. 138),
- L., Mancinus (cos. 145), 45· 296,
Hultsch, F., quoted, 66o-r. - M., (cos. 245), 434· 449·
human society, beginnings of, 65 r~2. - L., Pullus (cos. 249). II3, II5, IZI,
hydrography of Pontus and Bos- 123.
phorus, 35· Iuppiter Capitolinus, temple of, 339-
Hypana, 529, 531, 533. 40.
hypaspists, 274-5, 518, 558, 560-1, -lapis, oath by, 351-2.
591, 6oS. - :\Iars, Quirinus, triad of, 353·
Hypatodorus, sculptor, 531,
Hyperbatas, 250, 254· Jacoby, F., quoted, 563.
757
INDEXES
Jason, Argonaut, 489. Leontini, 69, 4r5, 418.
~ Macedonian officer, 6:1:5. Leontium, 230-2, 233, 459, 524, 528,
of Pherae, zzg, 3o8. 625.
Jews, 6r5. Leontius, 536, 541, 551, 559-61.
Jones, A. H. M., quoted, 596. ~commander of Seleuceia, 587.
H. Stuart, quoted, 48. Lepcis (Leptis) minor, 59, r48.
Jullian, C., quoted, zo8, 380, 388. Lepreum, 529, 533·
justice, definitions of, 654-5. 66I. Leptines, 55-56.
Lergetes, 363-4.
Kahrstedt, U., quoted, 474· Leucae, 485, 555·
kingship (basileia), 549, 635, 639, Leucas, 240, 541, 553, 632.
6 4 2-3, 6 46, 6 4 8-g, 6 53-6. Leuctra, battle of, 46-48, 226-7, 232,
Kirsten, E., quoted, 519. 479, 4 8 I, 535, 725.
Klotz, A., quoted, 403. - fortress near Megalopolis, 250, 255.
Kroma.yer, J., quoted, 271, 405. lex A cilia, 700; Claudia (218), 691;
Corntlia-Baebia, 741; Horte-nsia,
Lacetani, 366, 410. 687; ll<lia-Papiria (430), 682;
Lacinian promontory, 49; tablet on, Vownia (r69), 706.
33. 362, 364, 367, 392. Libba, s8r.
Laconia, 553-8. Libicii, r82.
Lacydes, head of Academy, 631. Libya, Libyans, 341, 343-4, 346,
Lade, battle of, 30, 299· 348 ·9, 363, 445-7, 590-2; see al.so
Ladicus, 533· Africa..
Ladoceia, ::46, 250, 258. Libyan \Var, see Mercenary War.
Laelius, C., the elder, 31, 33, 395· Libyphoenicians, 363.
C., the younger, 6. Licinius, L., Lucullus (cos. 151), 382,
Lagoras, 587. 393·
Lai (Laevi), r8z. -C., Varus (cos. 236), 333·
Lampsacus, 492, 6o6-7, 63o. Ligurians, 177, 364, 411-12.
Lanuvium. &83. Lilaea, 4 71.
Laodice, wife of Antiochus II, 501, Lilybaeum, 60, 99, 109, I q, 377, 393,
585. 396, 403, 406, 431, 435; siege of,
wife of Seleucus II, 501. 104-7; 146; perhaps visited by P.,
~ A, daughter of Mithridates, wife 105.
of Antioch us III, 501, SII, 573,584. Limnaea, 155, 543·
B, daughter of Mithridates, wife Limnaeus, 502, 6z2.
of Achaeus, 501, 5II, 573, 6ro. Lingones, 183.
Laodicean \Var, 585, 6oo. Lipara, 82, 102, 355·
Laodiceia, in Phrygia, 502, 584. Lissus (Illyria), 164-5, 325-6.
~on-sea, 579, 583. (Crete), 509.
uKa.{Jlwaa. on Lebanon, 576. Livius, M., Salinator (cos. Zig), 325,
--in Iran, 579· 327, 331, 333·
Lappa, 509. Lixus, R., 393·
Laqueur, R., quoted, 46. Locri, Epizephyrian, 4, 75, 679.
Larinas, ager, 430. Locris, east, conference in, 13, 32.
Larissa, 476, 5II, 515,521, 536,626-7. - Opuntian, 256 (Symmachy), 473·
La Roche, P., quoted, 66z. Logbasis of Selge, 6oo-L
Larsen, J. A. 0., quoted, 249. Longanus, battle of the, 54-56.
Las, 555· lotus, P. on, 297.
Lasion, 524-7. 6zg. Luca, 411.
Last, H., quoted, 672. Lucania, 49, 52, 197, 201, 225-6, 442,
Latium, Latins, 48-49, 201, 341, 344• 746.
346-7, 349· 382, 425, 427, {46. Luceria, 49, 423, 437·
laudalio funebris, 737-8. Lucretius, Sp., Tricipitinus (cos. 509).
La.uney, M., quoted, 274, 6og. 339·
Laurentes (Lavinium), 344, 683. luiling~to, impossible for ancient
Leake, W. M., quoted, 46o, 532, 557· craft, 66o-1.
Lechaeum, 461, 553. 561. Luna, 68o,
legio, in early Latin, 53· Lusi, 237, 464-5. 471, 483.
lembi, 74, 160. Lusitania, price> in, I 76.
Leonidas II, 241. Lutatius, C., Catulus (cos. 242). 120,
Leontiadas, 475· 124-6, 37.5·
GENERAL
Lutatius, C., Catulus (cos. :z.w), 375· Magilus, 389.
Q., Cerco (cos. 241), 12.7, 131. Magna Graecia, 222-4.
Lycaeum, Mt., 246, 250, 258, 263, :Magnesia, battle of, 503, 6ro.
479-80. r.1ago, 4oo, 404-5, 407.
Lycia, 565, 619. Maharbat 42o-r.
Lycortas, 1, 19, 228, 268. Malchus, 344·
Lycosura, honours to P., .5 n. 8. Mamertini, 52-54, 56--58, 61, ro8,
Lycurgus, lawgiver, 534, 659, 669-70, 127, 158, 322, 355·
726, 728, constitution of, 535, 635, Mamilius, Q., Vitulus (cos. 262), 70.
641, 650, 659-63 (comparison with }fanilius, M' ., summons P. to Lily-
Roman), 697, 724, 734-5· baeum, 5·
-king of Sparta, 20, 451,474. 484-6, Manlius, L., 312.
51~ 534.541,552,556.561,622-3. T., Torquatus (cos. 224), 207.
Lycus of Pharae, 624-5. A., Torquatus Atticus (cos. 241),
- R. (Nahr El Kelb), 595· I3I.
- R. (tributary of R. Hyllus), 605. - Cn., Vulso (cos. 189), 299.
Lydia, Lydians, 500, 607, 609, 613. - L., Vulso (praetor 218). 375--'7·
Lydiades, 221, 237-8, 247, 250, 524, 393·
531. - L., Vulso Longus (cos. 256), 86-87,
Lysandridas, 258-g. 101.
Lysanias, 502, 6zz. Mantinea, 237, 24Z-3, 250, 257,
Lysias, Athenian orator, 308. :z6o-r, 263, 268-70 (value of booty),
Asiatic dvnast, 6zz. 457,464,469,475.515; constitution,
Lysimacheia, 565; battle of (277), 724; honours to P .• 5 n. 8; battle
499· of (363), 484, 725; (Z5I), 238; (207),
(Aetolia), 543-4. 461.
Lysimachus, 50·-51, 229, 291, 593, Marathus, 594·
6o6. Marcius, Ancus, 666, 668, 67z.
- brother of Ptolemy III, 585. Q., Philippus (cos. z8r), 50, 190.
Lysis, Pythagorean, 224. Q, Philippus (cos. r86), 657, 688.
Lyttus, 507-10. C., Rutilus (cos. 357), 672.
Margus of Ceryneia, r6o-1, 234, 447·
Maccoei, 364. Maronea, 559, 565.
Macedonia, empire in Europe, 41; :Marquardt, J., quoted, 718.
and the Adriatic, 162; relations Marrucini, 197, zo1, 423·
with Boeotia, 2.48-9; and the Marsi, 49, 197, zor, 4z3.
Symmachy, z56; army, arms, 275, Marsyas, Plain of, 565, 570, 577·
281, 590; army assembly, 552; Masaesyli, 364.
military code, 552; Illyrian in- Masinissa, 4, 33, 303, 364.
vasion, 287-8; conquest by Rome, Massilia (Ma.ssalia). 58, 169. 207, 316,
303; Aetolian outrages against, 320, 342, 348, 377. 393. 431; Ln-
454; and the Peloponnese, 454 ; habitants questioned, 33·
and the Aegean, 465; and Amphic- Massyli, 364.
tyonic Council, 473; chronological Mastia, Mastiani, 167, 347, 362.
system, 4 76; and Tiboetas, 504 ; Mathos, 136, qo, 143-4.
and Rhodes, 504; and Crete, 507; Matiani, 576.
reputation of troops. 523; decay of Maurusii, 364.
navy, 539; value of slaves, 539; Media, Medes, 6 n., 57o-1, 573, 574··7
officials of, ; and Egypt, 565; (geography of), 582, 607-8, 615.
iron-mines, ; pitch and tar, Mediolanum, 208, 210.
620; silver, 6-;u , lead, 6zr ; levies Median, r8-I9, I54-5. 477·
raised, 626; mini'.s, 693-4. Megaleas, 536, 550-z, 56o-r.
Macedonian \'i'ar, Second, 58, 299, Megalopolis, }Iegalopolitans, 244,
681. z46-7, 249-50, 255, 258-9, 270-1,
Third, 301. Z74-5, 282, 454-5, 459, 461, 472,
Machanidas, 708. 479. 482, 523-4. 531, 534. 624-5:
Machatas, 4 74· joins Acha.ea., zzr, 237-8, 243;
Maeotic Lake, 368, 488, 490, 492-5, taken by Cleomenes, ·zs8-<J, 529;
honours to P., 5 n. 8, ro n. 9, 302.
of Cyrene, 509, 564. Megalopolitan source, perhaps used
son of Ptolemy III, 564, 566, by P., 247-8, Z72-3, 455, 462.
s68. Megara, Megarid, 253, 46I, 522.
759
INDEXES
Megistonous, 255, 257· Montesquieu, division of the state
l\Iegistus, R. (Macestus), 604. into legislative. executive, judicial,
:Vleleager, king of Macedon, 50-51. 219.
Melitaea, 472, 626. Motya, 344·
Melite, 6o. Mucius, P., Scaevola, 32.
Memphis, 588. Miillenhoff, K. V., quoted, 368.
Menedemus of Alabanda, 595, 6o8. music, effects on character, 465-9.
(the same?), 570-1. Mutina, 212, 374'-5·
Menelaeum, near Sparta, 553· Mycenae, 597·
Meninx, roo, 531. Mylae, battle of, 77, 79·
Menippus, 315. Mylasa, 621.
Menneas, 597. 1\fyrina, 6or, 603-4.
Menodotus of Perinthus, 29 n. 1, 563. Myron, 480.
Mens, 423. Myrsilus of Methymna, 144·
Menyllus of Alabanda, 34· Mysia, Mysians, 504-5, 6or, 6o4-5
Mercenary 'War at Carthage, 130-50, (Mysian KaTO<Klcu).
151: P.'s source for, IJO-I; reasons 1\Iytilene, 630.
for describing, IJI-2; other names, J\;lytistratum, So, 82.
136: brutality, 145; chronology of,
148-9, 150. Nabis of Sparta, 12, 30, z65, 535, 642.
Mcrgane, 55· Napoleonic officers compared with
::\:l:esene, 578. Greek mercenary leaders, 589.
Mesopotamia, 574• 579-80. Narbo, 369, 373: river, 369.
Messana, 52, 55-57, 6o, 68, 103, roB, N armalcha, canal in Mesopotamia,
r r6, 322, 355, 403. 582.
Messapians, 197, 201, 423. Narnia, 423-4.
Messenia, Messene, 28, 30, 222, 243-4, Naucratis, 342.
258, 269 (economic conditions), Naupactus, 464, 472, 476, 479, 629.
z88, 293, JOO, 331, 451-4, 456-7, Neanthes, writer on Attalus, 570.
462-3, 471-2, 478-82, 525-6. 534. Neapolis (Naples), 425, 68o, 683, 688.
540, 549. 624, 730, 734· Nemausus, 369, 373·
Metagonium, 3(.13. Nemea, 459·
Metapa, 544-5· Nemean games, 252, 272, 289, 412,
::\Ietapontum, 226. 6z8.
Metaurus, battle of, 719. Neocretans, 540, 550, 590-r, 6og.
Methana, 218. Neon of Boeotia, 2.48.
Methydrium, 246, 459, 46I. Nesean horses,
Metropolis, 240, 473. 518. New Carthage, zg6, 321, 36z,
Meyer, Ed., quoted, JII, 323, 704. 371-2, 391, 432, 712.
Miccus of Dyme, 623. Newman, W. L., quoted, 728.
Micion, 631. Nicagoras, 566, 568-g.
Miletus, 483, 565. Nicander of Trichonium, 34, 314, 515,
Milyas, 598. 544·
mines, 693-4. Nicanor, governor of Antigonus I,
Minucius, L., Myrtilus, 312. 571, 579·
- M., Rufus (cos. 221), 193, 422, 429, satrap of Seleucus I, 579·
434-5, 442, 446, 715. Nicarchus, 595, 6o8.
Mithridates I of Pontus, 573· Nicephoria, at Pergamum, 300, 503.
- 11, 501, 51 I, 573, 6oo, 621. Niccphorium, at Pergamum, 503.
mixed constitution, 534-5, 635, 6]8- Nicias, 597.
41, 646-8, 663-4, 675-97, 734 n. r, Nicippus, 477·
736, 743. 745· nicknames at Carthage, r ro.
Mnesiptolemus of Cyme, 44, 217, 570. Nicocles, tyrant of Sicyon, 235.
Moagetes, 622. Nicolaus, Aetolian, 587.
Modena and Bologna, treaty be· Nicomedes I of Bithyuia, 504-5.
tween (A.D. rr66), quoteu, 343· Nicophanes of Megalopolis, 247-8.
Malon, 30, 570-85. Nicostratus, 452.
Molycria, 625. Nile, boundary of Asia and Africa,
Mommsen, Th., quoted, 667 n, 1, 368, 370.
6gr, 711. -delta, comparison with the
monarchy, 635, 641-2, 646, 648-9, 'Island', 387-8.
652-3, 656, 66o. Nisibis, 571, 5lh.
]60
GENERAL
Nissen, H., quoted, 282. Panaetius, 6 n. 2, 296, JOI, 466, 641,
nabihtas, 739· 644, 653, 658.
Nola, 425, 68o. Panium, battle of, 30, 612.
Notium, 6o3-4. Panormus, 6o, 81, 98-99, r:w, 344:
Nuceria, 425, 427, 683. battle of, 101,
Numa, see Pompilius. (Achaea), 629.
Numantia, 6, 382, 71 r. Pantaleon, Aeto!ian, 237, 513.
Numidia, Numidians, 363-4,405, 444· Pantauchus, 34·
Nymphis of Heracleia, 499. Panteus, 569.
Papirius, L., Praetextatus (censor
'Oc<>llus Lucanus', 644-5, 65R. 27z), 333·
ochlocracy, 635, 649, 656-8, 66o. Paraetacene, 575·
Ocriculum, 424. Parapotamia, 579-80.
Oeanthea (Oeantheia), 513, 553· Parma, 212.
oecumene, geographical divisions of, Paropus, So.
367-7!. Parthians, 607.
Oenanthe, 588. Parthini, 161, 163, 165, 325-6, 330.
Oeniadae, 240, 473, 518-21. Pasargadae, 573·
Oenis, 477· Paseas, tyrant of Sicyon, 235.
Ogygus, 229, 450. Patrae, 230-1, 233, 455,458, 462,471.
Olcades, 316-17. Pausanias, Spartan regent, 155, 469.
Olenus, 230-1. Paxos, battle of, 153, r6o, r66, 539·
oligarchy, 635, 641, 643, 664. Pednelissus, 598.
Olygyrtum, 524. Peisistratus of Athens, 526-7.
Olympia, 525, 527-8, 531. Pelagonia, 632.
olympiad year, P.'s use of, 35· Pelasgiotis, 627.
- chronology, 669-71. pe.liganes, 583.
Olympichus of Alinda, 502, 61n-2. Pellum, 470.
Opimius, Q. (cos. 154), 373· Pella, 5z1.
optiones, 707. - (on Jordan), 596.
Opus, 522. Pellana, 534·
Orchomenus (Arcadia), 237. 242-5, Pellene, 232, 237, 252, 457, 459, 461.
257.271.455.45960,469. 481,534· Pelopidas, 548, 725.
-(Boeotia), 522. Peloponncse, value of property in,
Oreii, 509· 268.
Orgessus, 632. Peloponnesian War, 541, 6z5, 735·
Orissi, Oretes, Oretani, 152, 316, 327, Pclorias, C., 104-5.
362. peltasts, 274-s. z8o, 409, 5I8, 536,
Orophernes, 304. 557-9, 589-91, 6q.
Oropus, 548. Pelusium, 588, 68r.
Ortiagon, 300. Penteleium, 252.
Ostia, 342, 345, 424, 672. Pentri. 746.
Otacilius, ::'1-f'., Crassus (cos. 263), 67- people, Roman, powers of, 68z-8;
68, 12 I. checks on, 692-6; judicial com-
- T., Crassus (cos. 261), 73, petence of, 682; and peace-terms,
T., Crassus (praetor 217), 435,633. treaties, 689-90; and consuls,
Otto, \V., quoted, 572. 689-90; ultimate judicial powers
of, 690; and legislation, 691 ; and
Pachynus, C., 85, 96, 104-5, II7. publicani, 692.
Paeligni, 49, 202, 423, 430. Pergamum, 58, 503, 604, 607, 630.
Paestum, 201. Perge, 599-
Palatine, etymology of, 664-5. Perigenes, Egyptian navarch, 593·
Palinurus, C., shipwreck off, 100, 101, son of Leontiscus, 593·
123, !28. perioeci (Laconia), 278.
Pa!lantium, 246, 266, 664; honours Peripatetics, Peripatetic views, 155,
toP., 5 n. 8. 486, 492, 641, 645. 649·
Pallas, son of Heracles, 665. Perseus of Macedon, 3, 19-20, zr n. 6,
Pallene, .p6. 24, 33, 45, 267, 275, 589, 621;
Palus (Cephallenia), 540, 552, 628. writers on, 3o, 36o-r.
Pamboeotia, 452. Persia, Persis, Persians, 40-41, 213,
Pamphia, 544~5. 550. 306, 308 (Greek 'crusade' against),
Pamphylia, 565, 6oo. 548, 571, 573-5, 582, 59Z, 607-8.
761
INDEXES
Persians, conspiracy of the seven, 57 3· Phoenice, 156-7, 63o, 657.
Petraeus, 471, 553· Phoenicia, 593, 595·
Peucetii, 423. Phoetiae, 240, 473, 5I7-r8.
Phaestus, 511. Phoxidas, 592, 614.
Phaethon, myths of, 179-80, 491. Phrixa, 529, 531.
Phalanna, 536. Phrygia, Phrygians, 502, 6oo, 613,
Phalaris, 85, 297. 622.
Phalasarna, sro. Phthia., wife of Demetrius II, 154,
Phanoteus (Panopeus), 625. 157, 237, 24I, 2go, 6zi (named
Pharae, 231, 233, 455, 462, 471, 514, Chryseis).
528, 624. Phthiotic Achaea., 24I, 249, 472, 626.
Pharaea (Pheraea), 528. Thebes, 626-8.
Pharnaces of Pontus, 300, 512. Phthiotis, 241, 472, 627.
Pharos, 154, 163, 330-1. Phyla.cia, battle of, 237.
Pharsalus, 536, 627. Phylarchus, 2, 8, II, 13, 14, 44, 2I7,
Phaselis, 599· 246, 252, 257-8, 259-70 (criticized),
Phasis, 368. 281, 285-7, zgo, 381, 728; source
Phea, 458-g. of P., 27, 247-8, 260, 272-3, z8o,
Pheidon of Argos, 526. 28g, 457, 565-70.
Pheneus, 252, 523. Phyta.eum, 544-5·
Phigaleia, 243, 452, 454, 477. 533, Phyxium, 6zs.
54 I. Picenum, 422, 448, 6gg.
Philaenus, altars of, 59, 372. Pieria, 516.
Philetaerus, soo. PillarsofHeracles,36g,371-2,394, 490.
Philinus, 27, 57-58, 61-67, 69-70, 72, pilum, 704-5.
75• 77, 83, 87, 91-95, IOI, 103, Pindar and Theban medism, 478-g.
1og-ro, II5, r r 7, 124-7. 131, 285, Pinnes, 156, 161, 164-5, 325.
337. 350, 354-5· Pisa (Italy), 177-8, 204, 377, 392, 406,
Philip II of Macedon, 244. 247, 308, 68o.
496. 521-2, 548. - (Elis), 526-7.
V of Macedon, 7, 12, 13, 19, zo, Pisaurum, 693.
24, 31-32, 34, 130, 148, 151, 154, Pisidia, 598, 60I, 604.
156-7, 161, 166, 215, 241, 257, 274, Pissaeum, 632.
290, 298, 326-7, 331, 350, 363, 412, Pithom stele, 587, 6II-I3, 615.
438, 450, 463. 470, 474· 476-7. 504, Placentia, zo8, 2II, 374, 386, 393,
507, jiO, 514-25, 527-9, 53I-4, 397, 401-2, 406-8, 68o.
536, 538-6r, 564,s8g,62t, 626-30, Plane tree Pass, 594·
631-3, 638. 656, 681, 7I7, 746; Plataea, 479·
writers on, 30, 45. 36o-r. Plato, 2, 466, 638, 650, 726; A lc.i-
of Acarnania, Alexander's doctor, biades maio:r, 2 n. II; Republic, 733·
584. Pleiades, rising of, 97, 258,455.485-6,
auvTpo,Po;; of Antioch us III, 6II. s38.
Philippopo!is (Phthiotic Thebes), 628. setting 390.
Philistis, wife of Iliero II, 55· Pleuratus,
Phillidas, 532-3. Pleuron, 52I.
Philo of Cnossus, 592. Po, R., I78-8o, 208, 365, 370-I,
Philocles, king of Sidon, 595· 375-7,386,389,391, 4oo,4Io, 524,
Philomelus (Phocian), 480. s6r.
(Phrygian), 622. Polemocles of Rhodes, 507.
Philopoemen, 2, 3, II, 221, 227-9, Polichna, 485.
258-g, 272, 283-6, 538, 708. Polyaratus, 657.
- son of Thearidas, 228. Polybius, life and journeys, r-6,
Philoteria, 595-6. 393-4, 395; On lhe habitability of the
Philoxenus of Cythera, 467-8. Equatorial Region, 6; Tactics, 2,
Phintias, I I 7. 6oi; Life of Philopoemen, 2 n. 2,
Phlegraean plains, r8r-2, 426. II, 227, 273, 282-3; carries Philo-
Phlius, 238-40, 252, 271, 459, 523. poemen's ashes, 2; designated
Phocaea, 603-4. ambassador to Egypt, 3; hipparch
Phocis, Phocians, 248-g, 256 (Sym- of Achaean Confederation, 3:
ma.chy), 307, 461, 471, 473, 483, exiled to Italy, 3; visits Epize-
5ro, 5I6-I7, 558-g, 625. phyrian Locri, 4; visits Cisalpine
Phoebidas, 475· Gaul, I 73; perhaps at Rhodes, 5;
J6'l
GENERAL
Polybius (cont.) ZJO, 314, 316, 325, 327, 334, 376,
visits New Carthage, 6, 167, 395; 423, 429, 430, 433-4, 440-I, 455,
death o(, 6; views on history, 6-16, 476. 480, 486-J, 488, 499. 500, 506,
39, 45, 66, 92, 2I6, 259-70, 358-61, 507-8, 5II, 515, 516, 54I, 561,
562, 6or ; attitude towards Boeotia, 565-g, 570, 574, 577, 612-13, 615-
I 3; use of speeches, I 3-14, 42, 261. r6, 623, 64o-1, 668.
6zg; attitude to Tvche, 16-26; see Iulius, C., Polybius.
system of chronologj;, 35-37, 46- Polycrateia of Argos, 589.
47, 49-50, 103, 190, 233-4, 235; Polycrates of Argos, 589.
criticizes Roman behaviour, 97, Polyenctus, Athenian archon, 483.
130, 145, 192-3, 356, 647, 664; Polyidon, 468.
comparison vdth Herodotus and Polyrrhenia, 508, 51 o-n.
Thucydides, 129; views on inter~ Polysperchon (Aetolian), 529.
national law, 136,264, 455; attacks Pompeii, 425.
Academics, 145; on Roman educa- Pompey, Trophies of, 373·
tion, I45, 664; on the qualities of Pompilius, Numa, 666-8, 672-3.
a general, 146-7. prejudice against Pomponius, Sex. (legatus 218), 396.
Aetolia, 12, 154, 237, 246, 45I·~3. - M., Matho (praetor 217), 420.
532, 561, 6ro, 6z6; didacticism, pontifex maximus, tabula of, 665-6.
158, 2II; democracy in, 221-2; pontifices, P.'s account of, 664.
views on tyrannicide, 263, 265-.6; Pontus, 35, 486-g6, 512, 573-4 (royal
callousness of, 266; journeys in genealogy).
west, 4, 5, I6J, I 73. 293. zg6, 393; Popillius, C., Laenas {cos. 172), z17,
meets Masinissa, 4, 393. 395; 68r.
crosses Alps, 4, 382, 395; released Porcius, M., Cato, 4• 152, IJI, 313,
from internment, 4; with Scipio at 333. 336. 375. 641, 648. 662-3, 668,
Carthage, 5, 302, 393 ; perhaps 6]1, 697; Origines, 29, 3I, rso. 305,
visits Lilybaeum, 105; in Corinth, 332; speech on the Rhodians, 31;
5; mediates between Rome and imago of, 738.
Achaea, 5, 294, 393; honours paid 1\L, Cato (praetor elect c. 152), 720.
to him in Greece, 5; visits Alexan- Porphyreon, 594·
dria, 5, 586; visits Sardes, 5. 296; Poseidon, sanctuary of, at Taenarum,
use of proverbs, 294, 464; and 483.
Seleuceia, 586 ; on the lotus, 297; Poseidonius of Apamea, 43, 51, 330,
on the Roman constitution, 298, 394. 466, 492·
635-··6; utilitarian view of know- -··· source for Macedonian affairs, 30,
ledge, 301-2; stress on autopsy, 361.
302; view of causality, 305-.6, 309, Postumius, A., Albinus (cos. 242), 12~.
358-61, 46r; on Punic treaties, -A .. Albinus (cos. 179), 692.
336-56; on divisions of the oecu- A., Albinus (cos. 151), 29, 305, 333·
mem?., 367-71 ; on the need for L., Albinus (cos. 229), 36, I6I,
geographical precision, 556-7; on 164-5· 435. 448, 449·
music, 465-9; prejudice against - Sp., Albinus (cos. 321), 312.
Sparta, 4 7 5-6; on war and other - L., :.V!cgellus (cos. 305). 689.
evils, 478; polemic against authors - L., Megellus {cos. 262), 70.
of epitomes, 562-4; hostility to- Potentia, 693.
wards Crete, 724, ]:~6-33; on praefecti socium, 709.
Roman religion, 741-2. Praeneste, 48, 348, 68).
Histories, theme of, 40; organic praetor, controls civil jurisdiction,
character of, 43, 45. 297; greatness 675·
of theme, 21 I, 298; composition Pra.Bttttlianus, Had~·ianus, ager, 422-3.
and publication, 215-16, 217, 292- Prasiae, 485, 556.
7, 336, 358, 525-6, 635-.6, 674-5; Praxo of Delphi, 34·
purpose of, 301-2; use of medical prognostication, a feature of book vi,
metaphors, 309; place of geo- 63~. 649. 658-<).
graphical information in, 393-5; Pronni, 540.
continues Aratus' 1'r1 emoirs, 450; Propontis, 487, 490, 504.
insertions in, 475-6, 4]8, 525; Protagoras, 639, 643.
structure of book vi, 635-6. Proteus of Memphis, 346.
sources usec1 by, 26-35, 64-65, prouocatio, 675. 677, 682, 690.
I30-r, 151-2, 153, 165, r67, 184, proverbs, use by P., 294, 464, 469,
214, 223, 239, 245, Z47, Z50, 254, 476, 505-.6, 549. 562, 624, 654· 673·
763
INDEXES
Prusias I, 298-3oo, 5oo, 505-6, 621. quaestores classici, 74·
II, ZI, 25, 145· 303-4· 517. quaestors, 677-8.
Prytanis, Peripatetic philosopher, Quinctius, T., Flamininus, 13, 22, 32,
624. 714.
Psophis, 455. 458-9, 523-5, 528.
Fteleum, 306. Rabbat Ammon, 597·
Ptolemaeus, son of Thraseas, 450, raisin wine, drunk by women, 671-2.
592, 613. Raphia, battle of, 476, 567, 570, 587,
- Macedonian, 552, 558-g. 589-92, 607 (Ptolemy's forces),
Ptolemais, 486, 561, 587-8. 607-9 (Antiochus' forces), 6ro--15,
Ptolemy I Soter, 51, 129, 229, 565, 629, 63r.
592. religion, political exploitation of,
II Philadclphus, 245, 505, 518, 741-2.
565. 593. 595· Rhegium, 48, 52-55, 57, 6z, 75, ro8,
- III Euergctes, 229, 245, 250, 266, 355. 396, 403, 406, 479·
270, 272, 291, 564-5. 567. 572, 585, (near Byzantium), 506.
593, 613, 619, 631. Rhianus, 480.
-IV Philopator, 30, 43, 291, 298-9, Rhinocolura, 6ro.
451. 477· 486, 502, 538, 564··5, 567. Rhium, 458-9, 517 (strait), 520, 561,
572, 584, 587. s89-92 (forces at 6zg.
Raphia), 6o1, 607, 6ro-r6, 631. Rhizon, 153, 164.
V Epiphanes, 3, 20, 24, 299. Rhodes, 21 n. 6, 30, 58, 294, 298-300,
VI Philometor, 304. 465, 485. 500, 504, 506-7, 509,
VII Euergctes II (Physcon). 5· 5II-1z, 6or, 628, 697; earthquake
30 n. 13. and gifts, 6r6-zz; colossus, 617,
- Ceraunus, 223; date of death, 619; documents in prytaneum, 31,
49-51, 229. 500, 506, 512; perhaps visited by
of Megalopolis, 9 n. 5, 30, 44, 260, P., 5·
566, 568. Rhone, R., rn-s. 194. 371, 373.
Publilius, Q., Philo (cos. 339), 688. 377-81, 387-9, 415; site of Hanni-
Punica fides, 412. bal's crossing, 378.
Punic \Var, First, 63-130, 158, 431, Rhynchus, 746.
563, 681, 699, 700, 704; causes, Rhypes, 230.
57-58, 6o-6r; outbreak, 61-63; Roebuck, C. A., quoted, 623.
importance, 64, I 27-9; n urn bers Rome, date of foundation, 665-9;
engaged, 128. empire of, 40-42, 48-49; mistress
Second, 58, 291, 298-9, 325, 636, of oecumene, 41-42; imperialism,
674, 679, 681, 691-2, 702-4, 715, 43. 51-52, 72-]3, 129, 162, 191-2,
736; causes of, 132, 171, 215, zg8, 207, 298, 360-1, 636; support of
31o--14, 358; importance, 43-44: :Mamertini, 57-58, 6o-61; naval
writers on, 563. policy, 72-75, 103, 123; numbers in
Third, 304, 337· fleet: (260} 79, (257) 82, (256) 82-
Puteoli, 425-6, 693. 85, (255) 95, (254) 98, (253) 99-
Pydna, battle of, 217, 275, 304, 620-I. roo, (250) 101, 103, 107, (249)
Pylos, 453, 463, 465, 472. rr4-I6, (242-I) 124-6; numbers
Pyrenees, 371, 372 (Hannibal's route}, involved and losses in First Pu-
374· nic War, 128; forces in 225,
Pyrgus, 531, 533· 196-9; census lists, 202 ; fleet com-
Pyrrhias, Aetolian, 561, 622. pared with Carthaginian, 736-7;
Pyrrhus of Epirus, 46, 49-54, 58, 75, policy against Achaea, 4 75; and
79. 156, 158, 233. 239, 240 (treaty Sparta, 4 78; and Ilium, 6o6; rela-
with Acarnania}, 265, 280, 338, tions with the east, 629-30; oflicial
349-50, 702. records, 32; criticized by P., 97,
camp of (Laconia), 555· 130, 145; education criticized, 145;
Pythagoras, 66fr--7. institutions, 64, 70, 145; constitu-
Pythagoreans in South Italy, 27-28, tion, 635. 637, 649-50, 659, 673-97,
222-4· 736, 7 43-5; compared with Spartan,
views, 640, 66r, 741. 735-6; state compared 'With others,
Pytheas, 35, 370, 394, 491. 724-43; division of powers, I 30;
Pythiades, Seleucid governor, 578. P. on constitution, 298, 449; em··
bassies to Greece, 165-6; to Hamil-
quaestiones, 679, 6go, 6<)6. car, 168; policy in Spain, 168; and
GENERAL
Rome (cont.) Scopas, 453, 457, 48b, 515-16, 540,
the Gallic Wars, 190-1; policy in s6o-x.
Illyria, 326-7, 463, 515; moral scutum, 703-·4·
qualities, r28; wages only just Scythia, 488.
wars, 159; importance of reputa- Scythopolis, 596-7.
tion at Rome, 737-41; funeral Segesta, 69, 79·
customs, 737-40; use of religion, Segre, M., quoted, 303.
741-2; situation hard for Greeks Scleuceia-in-Pieria, 532, 570, 57'l. 5il5,
to grasp, 638; military system, 636, j86.
697-723; early history, 635, 663- -on-the-Bridge (Zeugma), 573·
73; problem of Roman deteriora- -on-the-Tigris, 576, 582-3.
tion, 647-8, 743-5; example of Seleucus l, 50, 229, 501, 5<i5, 574,
integrity, 746. 583, sss, 593·
Romilly, J. de, quoted, 630. - II Callinicus, 291, jOI-:.!, 505, 512,
Romulus, 652, 664-5. 667-8, 673. 573, 6oo, 616, 6r8, 621.
Rubicon, R., frontier of Italy, 176, - III Soter, 229, 291, 450, 501 ·2,
296, 396--7. 505, 564, 570, 6og.
Rupprecht, E., quoted, 349· of Babylon, 370.
Selge, 598-9.
Sabines, 196, 198, 200, 703. Sellasia, 529; lmttle of, 227, 254,256,
Saguntum, 216, 305-6, 310, 319-24, 270, 272-87, 289, 326, 453, 458,
327-9. 331-j, 336, 357. 358, 361-2, 461, 484-5. 523, 550, sss. 624.
365, 396, 409, 476, 486,522; Roman Sempronius, C., Blacsus (cos. 253), 99·
alliance with, 168, 170-2, 319. - Ti., Gracchus (cos. 238), 149.
Salamis, battle of (48o), 340; (3o6), Ti., Gracchus (tribune 133). H)3,
129. 6gr.
Salapia, 442, 448, 746. Ti., Longus (cos. :uS), 374, 377,
Salassi, 212. 393, 396, 402-6, 409, 538.
Sallust, 144. Sena, 175-6, I 78, r 8g, 396.
Salmydessus, 493. Senate, powers of, 678-81; checks on,
Samicum, 529, 531. 6go-z ; intervention in Italy, 679 ;
Samnium, Samnites, 49, 187-8, 197, controls supplies, 688; controls
200· I, 348, 354, 423-7, 442, 703-4, prorogatio, 688 ; and triumphs,
746. 689; and equestrian contracts,
Samos, 565, 567. 694-5; appointment of judges
Samothracc, 499· from, 695-6.
Samus, 547· Senones, 183, r88-g, 194, 2II, 397·
Saporda, 598. Sentinum, battle of, 188.
Sarapieum (Bosphorus), 489. Servilius, Cn., Caepio (cos. 253), 99·
Sardes, 6os, 632; P. visits, 5, 296. C., Geminus (IIIuir 218). 375·
Sardinia, 73, 8o-8r, 196, 334ii, 341, - Cn., Geminus (cos. 217), 409-11,
343. 346, 348-g, 355-6, 358. 408, 421-4, 435. 442, 446-8, 033·
431, 691; Punic possessions in, 59; P., Geminus (cos. 252), roo-1, II9,
revolt of mercenaries, 144, 146; 409.
Roman annexation, 132, 149-51, Sestus, 6 n., 306, 498, 565.
313-14, 334· Shearwater, H.J'vl.S., observations
Sardinian Sea, 59, 105. made by, 490.
Sarsinates, 196-8, 200. Sherwin-White, A. N., quoted, 201.
Sasona, 438, 633. Shorey, P., on P.'s view of Tyche, 26.
Satrap, people of the, see Atropatene. Sicca Veneria, 133, 141.
Saturn, temple of, 353· Sicilian Sea, 105, 173-4. 517, 540.
'Saw', battle of the, 147, 149. Sicily, 196, 199, 202, 298-9, 350, 355,
Scarpheia, 473· 377, 408, 431, 479, 691; Punic
Sccrdilaidas, 156-7, 326, 331, 463, possessions in, 6o, 341, 344-6, 349;
465, 472, 477. 557. 625, 632. geography of, 104-5·
Schulte, A., quoted, 32 n. 3· Sicyon, 234-6, 245, 252-3, 457.
Sdiulten, A., quoted, r67. 461-2, 523, .)61.
Schwartz, E., quoted, 727· Side, 599-6oo.
Schweighaeuser, J ., quoted, 313, 466, Sidicini, 425.
508, 547, 560, 6Ig, 718-19. Sidon, 565, 588, 592-5.
Sciritis, 24 7. Siegfried, \V., quoted, 216.
Scolacium, 693. signijeYi, 707.
INDEXES
Sitenus, rs, zS, 42, 305, 314, 316, 318, Strabo continues P., 43·
323, 327, 333, 365, 367, 372, 380-1, Strachan-Davidson, J. L., quoted,
385, 399, 404, 4ro, 430. 212-13, 343· 474·
Sinope, 30, 500, sn-r3, 616. Stratius of Tritaea, 35 n. 5·
Sinuessa, 425, 693. - doctor of Eumenes, 34·
Sirius, rising of, g6, 179, 498. Strata of Lampsacus, 2, 486, 490-4.
Smyrna, 603, 607. source for Macedonian affairs, 30,
Social ·war, 291, 298, 451-86, 461 36I.
(name), 513-62, 622-30. Stratonicaea, 6os.
societates publicanorum, 693-4. Stratus, 240, 473. 517, 543-4, 746.
socii nauales, 75· (Arcadia), 525.
Solon, 643; his constitution, 639-40. Stylangium, 531.
Soluntum, 99, 344· Stymphalus, 259, 523.
Sonicus, 483. Suessetani, 410.
Sopater, author of 'E~<Aoya.l, 228. Sulpicius, P., Galba Maximus (cos.
Sosibius, 564, 566-7, 569, 572, 588, 2II), 315.
612-13, 628. C., Paterculus (cos. 258), 81.
Sostratus, sculptor, Susiane, 571, 575, 578.
Sosylus, 9 n. r, rJ, 42, 305, 314, swords, Celtic, character of, 206, zog,
317, 332-3, 367, 381, 430. 445 (compared with Spanish).
Soteria (of Prusias), 503. Sybaris, 224-5.
Spain, 444, 446, 704 ; Punic possessions Symmachy of Antigonus Doson, 216,
in, 59; Hamitcar in, 151-3; Roman 256 (foundation), 274-5, 288, 291,
policy in, r68, 324; H.oman con- 326, 451, 453-4. 457. 461-3, 465,
quest of, 298-g; Hasdrubal in, 310; 470-3, 477. 504, 510, 535-6, 63I.
Carthaginian success in, zq, 316; synchronisms, 46, 229, 236, 291, 450,
Hannibal in, 316-24, 362; Scipio 476, 485, szz, 538, s83, 6z8,
in, 375-7; mines, 683.
Sparta, Spartans, 307-8, 455, 457, syncriseis, 40, 293, 549, "636, 736-7.
469, 483, 486, 522, 535. 541, 556-8, Syphax, 364.
657; after the Peloponnesian War, Syracuse, 52, 57, 6o, 62, 66, 69, II7,
19, 41; seizure of Cadmea, z8; zgS, 702.
defeat at Leuctra, 226; refer dis- Syrians, 613.
putes to Achaean arbitration, 226; Syrian \Var, Second, 565.
frontier problems in 338, 244; re- Third, sss.
lations with Achaean Confedera- Fourth, 291, 298, 570, 585-97·
tion, 221-2, 300, 304, 478, sz6; - Fifth, 612.
Cleomenes' coup, 245-6; at Sellasia, -between H.ome and Antioch us,
278-86; taken by Doson, 288; and 299. 309.
Symmachy, 288, 4 70; and Aetolia,
463, 471, 477; courage of, 466· Taenarum, 483, 555, 568.
P.'s prejudice against, 475-6; Tagus, battle of the, 318.
Argos, 485; and Lyttus, sro; in- Tanagra, 506.
vaded by Philip, 553; mercenaries, Tanais, R., 368-g.
568; and Selge, 598; Plato on con- Tanaquil, 673.
stitution, 640; Aristotle on consti- Tapyri, 574--5.
tution, 640; constitution compared Tarchon, Etruscan hero, 673.
with that of H.ome, 659-63, 724; Tarentines (cavalry), 529.
with that of Crete, 726-32; land- Tarentum, 36, 49-50, 52, 74-75, 196,
tenure, 728-3r; money at, 735; 199, 202, 226, 348, 354, 408, 423,
contempt for money-making, 731 ; 448. 640, 679·
position of kings andgerousia, 73I- Tarn, W. \V., quoted, 87-88, r6o, 472,
2; constitution criticized, 734-5· 572-
Spendius, r8, 135-6, 139, 142, 144, Tarquinii, 348, 683, 706.
146, 424. Tarquinius, L., Collatinus (cos. 509),
Spoletium, 421-2. 339·
Stahlin, F., quoted, 628. L., Priscus, 145, 340, 655. 664,
Stertinius, L., legatus, 68r. 666-8, 672-3.
Stoics, Stoic doctrine, 21, 121, 145, - L., Superbus, 664. 666-8, 672-3.
155, 216, 220, 287, 295-6, 301-2, Tarracina, 344, +29-
309, 413, 466, 477. 491-2, 641, Tarraco, 409.
644-5. 651-4, 658. Taurasia (Turin), 386, 392, 395-6.
766
GENERAL
Taurini (Taurisci), 177, 182, 212, 383, Thucydides, 15, 129, 305 (idea of
385-6, 395· causality). 379·
Taurion, 290, 326, 454, 457, 459--60, Thurii, 49, 224-6, 679.
463, 507, 533. 536, 624. Thyreatis, 485.
Tauromenium, 68-69. Thyrrheum, 155. 454·
Teanum, 425-7, 429, 432. Tiboetes, 504-5.
Tectosages, 51, 499· Tibur, 48, 348, 424, 683.
Tegea, 242-5, 252, 255, 257, 265, 271, Ticinus, R., 397, 400, 402, 424, 442-3,
289, 470, 552-3, 625; honours to 443; battle of, 399·
P., 5 n. 8. tides in the Mediterranean, 100.
Teichos, on Achaeo-Elean border, Tifernus, Mons, 433·
sq. 536. Timaeus, 2, 10 n. 4. r 1, 13-14, 33,
Telamon, battle of, 204-6. 43· 46. 53-54· 56. 144· 179--82, 213,
Telesia, 424. 223-4, 259-60, 332, 381, 394, 466,
Telmessus, 300, 6og. 669; source of P., 27-28, 46-48, 56,
Telphusa, 257, 455, 5!4, 525, 529. 144, 223; originates 'olympiad
Temnus, 6o3-4. year' chronology, 35, 46.
temples, inviolability of, 517, 546-7. of Aetolia, 483.
Ten Thousand, march ofthe, 306, 308. Timagenes, sr, 175, 260.
Teos, 603-4. Timocharis, 505.
Terentius, C., Varro (cos. 216), 193, timocracy, 643.
435. 437-8. 440, 442-4, 448. Timoleon, 46, 55·
Termessus, 598. Timosthenes, 363.
Tcuta, 156, 158-9, 163-5. 324-5. 463. Timotheus of Miletus, 467-8.
Thalamae, 527. Timoxenus, 252, 254-6, 272, 454, 535,
Thasos, 681. 630.
Thearces, 259. Tiribazus, 47·
Thearidas, father of Lycortas, 228, Tisamenus, 229, 450.
258-g. Tithorea, 471.
brother of P., 228. Tithronium, 471.
Thebes, 307, 470, 478-9, 548, 560-r, Tolistoagii, 51, 499·
724; constitution, 726; employs Torboletae, 323.
Achaean arbitration, 226. 'tragic' history, 8 n. 9, q-r6, 40, 45,
theft, penalty for, 263. 65, 180, 183, 259-60, 262-3, 476,
Theiler, W., quoted, 644. 742.
Themison, 6o9, 614. Tralles, 6os.
Themistocles of Athens, 725. Trapezus, 307.
- Achaeus' general, 6os. (Arcadia), 48r.
Theodotus Hemiolius, 574. Trasimene, L., battle of, 193, 205,
586, 595, 6o8, 6II-I2, 208, 408, 412-13 (date), 414-21,
Theodotus, Ptolemaic governor, 486, 424, 476. 628-9.
564, 570, 578, 587, 6ro. treaties between Rome and Carthage,
Theophrastus, 39, 486, 492, 641. 7. 32, 57-59. 293. 3!5, 336-56-
Theopompus, 2, II, 28, 39, 41, 43, Trebia, R., 397; battle of, 328, 399--
260, 480. 408, 424, 701, 709, 715; numbers
Theramenes, 497· engaged, 404-6.
Thermae (of Himera), So, ror. Trench, battle of the (Great), 48r.
Thermopylae, 253, 299, 522. Treves, P., quoted, 204.
Thermum, 154, 453, 474, 542--6, 746. tt·iarii, 85, 209, 702, 723.
Thersitae, 362. Triballi, 498.
Therycion, 287. tribunes, military, 677, 698-701, 706,
Thespiae, 522. 712, 719.
Thessaliotis, 241, 472, 627. of the plebs, 646, 676, 69o-2.
Thessaly, Thessalians, 249, 256 (Sym- tribunician prosecutions, procedure
machy), 426, 472-3, 596. in, 682.
Thestia (Thestiae), 543· Tricastini, 383, 385.
Thiel, J. H., quoted, 78, rq, 431. Trichonium, 543-5.
Thrace, Thracian~. 487, 498-g, 505, Trieres, 594-5.
521, 545, 565, 59o-r, 6oo, 607-8, Trigorii, 383, 385.
614, 681. Triphylia, 237, 527-33.
Thrasymachus, 652. Tripolis, Punic possessions in, 59·
Thronium, 473· triremes, 73-74, 129.
INDEXES
Tritaea, 231, 233, 455, 462, 5I4, 624. Venusia (in Apulia), 448.
Triteuta, 156, I6I, I64, 325. (in Samniumf, 424.
Tritymallus, 258. Vestini, 197, 201.
triumphs, 689. Viae, Acmilia, 212; Appia, 346, 427;
Trocmi, 51, 499· nomitia, 371 ; Flaminia, ZI2, 414,
236, 252, 623. 424; Lati-rm, 427, 429; Popillia,
Troy, of fall, 668. 425.
truth in history, ro-I6. Vibellius, Decius, 53·
Tullius, Servius, 664, 667-8. Vibinum, 423.
Tunis, 134, 139, 143-4. 148. Villius, P., Tappulus (cos. 199), 315.
tunnies, the Bosphorus, 497· Vocontii, 383, 385.
Turdctani, 152. 323. Volcae, 378.
Tusculum, 344· Volci, 673.
Tyche, 7 n. 4, 9, II n. 8, 14, 16-26, Volsd, 244.
43-45. 48, 04-65, 93. !21-2, 129, Volturnus, R., 427-9; wind, 438.
147, 155, 190, ZII-I2, 217, 22I, Vouksan, D., quoted, 164.
229, 289, 295, 36o, 397, 414, 448,
450, 534-5, s6r, 7z5. war, P.'s views on, 478, 527, 549·
Tychon, archigrammateus, 583. Welles, C. B., quoted, 501.
Tylis, 499, 603. Wilamowitz-:Nioellendorff, t:". von,
Tvndaris, C., battle of, 82, 99· quoted, 506, 645·
Typaneae, 529, 531-2. Wilmot, Chester, quoted, 26.
tyranny, 549, 635, 638, 641-3, 646, winter campaigning, 522.
648-9, 655-6. Woodhouse, W. J., quoted, 519.
Tyre, 347, 486, 588, 593, 595· Wunderer, C., quoted, 484, 539··40.
Tyrtaeus, 48o.
772
III. INSCRIPTIONS AND PAPYRI
AA, 1933, 139, no. r, 506. 419, 452; vii. r88, 221; 507, 567;
Acme, 1948, 38g-go, 621. 3166, 567; ix. 2. 520, 618; xi. 4·
A]A, 1904, 170, 521; 1938, 246 f., 596, ;jOO; 649, 567; ro64, 618;
II. 8---g, 559; 252, I. g, 559. rog~ 256; rrog, 571; rrrr, 451;
AJP, 1939, 452-8, 499. II7], 589; xii. I. 40, 505; 5· 481,
Alii, r8g7, 139-47, 642; 1940, 47-56, 594; 8gr, 581; 7· 226, 45; suppl.
546. 644, 540, 559; xiv. 951, 350;
llpx- J<f>., rgos, 58, no. 2, 623; rgr3, 986, 478.
43-46, nos. 173-4. 521; 1934-5, i•. 3]2, 620; ii•. 554. 512; 68], 243;
II]-2J, 559. 774· 265; 834. 238; 844· 238;
BCH, 1892, 543-4. 552; 1905, 234-5. 1225, 239; 129~ 237; 130~ 631;
589; rgr2, 230, 505: 1914, 454. r6o4, 269; 1632, 74; 1668, 620;
no. z, 587; rgrs .. 127, 587; r~3o, !6]2, 620; 2313, 589; 2314. 589;
245-{)2, 451; 1933, 516, 618; iv2 . 68, 454; 102, 620; 235, 620;
1934, 291-8, 621; 1939, 133 f., 590 A, 553; ix2 • I. 3, 239, 460,
499; 1940-r, 70-75. no. 5. 464; r8, 483; 68, 550; 135, 465; r8o,
rgso, 44, 290-l; 1954, 396, nos. 240.
]-8, 231. TLS, 65, 76, 79; 2623, 194; 4913, 340.
BAli, iii. 441, 621. Insch. llfag. 18, 470; 32, 472; 38,
GIG, 1936, 506. 624; 86, 581.
GIL,~- 2. 25, 76; 58~ 679; 5 88, 350; Insch. Perg. 5, 603.
60], 434; ]19, 396; ]Z5, 4 78; ii, Insch. Priene, 37 II. 65 ff., 512.
Snppl. lxxxiv, p. 967, 319; iii. r. IPE, i•. 32 B, 49, 618.
206, 595; vi. 2613, ISO; vii. I-raq, 1954, 202, 50, 229.
1002, 194; viii. 2]28, 194; x. Sog, JHS, r888, 254, no. II8, 589; 1946,
353; xiv. 4123, 340. 112, 547.
Clara Rhodos, 1938, rgo ff., 609; 1941, Loewy, Inschr. gr. Bildhauer, 109 f.,
25-38, 508. no. 147. 300.
CRAI, 1951, r6r-5, 373. Mbn. miss. arch. perse, rg28, So-81,
Dacia, 3-4, 1927-32, 400 ff., 487. no. 2, 583.
Daux, 692 ff., 615. Mendel, Catalngue sculpt. mus. Con-
Dura-Perg. 2I I. 3, 580; 40 I. 2, 580. stantinople, iii, no. 838, 506.
E. and]., 94 a, 685. Michel, Recueil, 1386, 559.
'Ei\,\-qvtKa, 1934, I]] ff., 559. Afnem., 1938, r r6, II8, 589.
FD, ii. 3· 312, 240; iii. r. 519, 570; OGIS, 54, 565, 578, 585; 79, 567; So,
iii. 2. 138, 50. 567; go, 632; 93, 589; 219, 581;
GDI, 1259, 599;2o4g,622;20]o, 623; 222,475;223,472;224,501;228,
2139. 623; 3059. 500; 3750, 621. 472; 229, 608; 230, 450, 592;
Hellenica, 2, 1946, 154-5, 506; ], 231, 564; 233. 291; 235. 576; 237.
1949, 5-ZZ, 451, 570, 579; 30-34, 450; 240, 451; 245. 586; 254.608;
504, 506. z65, 603; 266, 134; 267, 503;
Hesp., 1935, 525 ff., 624. 2]2, 502; 2]3, 503; 2]4. 503;
Holleaux, titudes, iii. 75-76, 589; 141, 2]5,503; 2]6,503; 2]], 502-3;
587; iv. 14&-62, 621. 278, 503; 279, 503; 280, 571;
IC, i, Cnosos, 5 b, 618; ], 508, 5ll; 9, 283. 503; 730, 594; 746, 450;
732; Lyttos, 8, 509; ii, Eleu- 747. 578; 751, 470.
therna, 20, 281, 508, 583; Lisos, Pelekides, 6, 559.
1, 509; Phalasarna, 4· 510; iii, P. Enteux. 48, 592.
Hierapytna, r, 281, 583; 3 A, P. Graec. Haun. 6, ll. 28 ff., 564, 570.
500, 733; iv. I, 5-8, Io-II, J4, P. Lille, 4, 590.
618; 21, 540, 618; r62, 509; 167, P. Lond. 23, 591.
583; 481, 540. P. Paris, 6z, ii, 7 f., 694.
IG, iv. 729, 511; IIII, 265; v. I. 213, P. Petr. ii. 32. 2 (a), 591; ii. 45 +iii.
484; 88 5 , 642; I369-7o, 623; 144, 585; iii. IO, 608.
1390, 623; 2. ro-15, 242; r6, P. Val. = Mai, Class. auct. v. 352,
552; 293. 515; 299. 290; 344. 591.
242; 345. iii, 218; 351-6, 523; REA, 1903, 223-8, 621.
773
INDEXES
REG, 18g8, 25o-1, 58!3; r8gg, 345, 472; 452: 485, 237; 490, 220,
587. 242, 245; 493. 290, 512; 502,
Rev. arch. 7• 1886, 266, no. ; , 58!1; 484; 504, 238; 510, 265; jl 5 B,
4• 1904, IO-II, 540; 3, 1934, 483; 5I8, 256, 519, 248, 471;
39 fL, 470, 552; 6, 1935, 29-68, 523, 520; 525, 509; 528, 508,
163, 552. 511; 529, 536; 543. 476;
Rev. bibl., I904, 552, no. 4, 540. 631; 559, 624; sBo, 506;
Rev. phil., 1929, 127, :)06. 500: 584, 642 j88, .106--7: 591.
Riccobono, Fontes, i, no. 24, 694; no. 630; 6oo, ; 621, 513; 626,
30, 680. 259; 636, 465; 665, 221, 244,
Riv. fil., 1932, 446, 300. 247: 6]1, 615; 6]2, 615; 703,
Robert, ii.t. anat., 39 f., 604. 468; 705 B, 470; 731, :!74; 736,
s.-B. Heidelberg, 1920, 36~47 (P. 623; 826 G, 465.
Frankfort, 7), 588. Syria, 1942-3, 21-32, 5i9, 583.
Schwyzer, 631. 4· 149. TA}v!, ii. z66, 450.
SEG, ii. 580, 604; vii. IO, 583; 62, Tod, IOI, 506; 145, 482.
5i9; 326, 587; ix. ]2, 617; xi. UPZ, i. 16. 7, 132.
338, 546. Welles, 6, 581; 15, 4i2; 20, J96; 23,
Syll.Z, 832, 551!. so:~. 31, 564; 36, 572; 41, 605;
Syll. (= Syll.'), 122, 506; 18:z, 482; 48, 604; 63, 619; 64, 451; 8r,
260, 230; 354, 512; 363, .312; 475; 82, 475.
390, 288; 398. 51; 40], 465; \Vile ken, Chrestomathie, no. r, 585;
133, 239, 518; 427, 57; 429. : no. 336, 590.
434/5. 227, 288, 475: 459. 559;
774
IV. GREEK
fl<4l>.A'Iv•;;, 134·
1-'ova.pxla, w)~a.pxos, 642, 64&-9, 656, 66o,
SatflO"tov, nl, 17, 147• 675·
OatflovoJ3Acif3<w, 24.
ouifJcat<; 1 190.
QLf(pOTo<;, 588.
St</>allayyla. lmf),{\'1/lo:;, 28r. dp.6vota, 227, 234--5, 3o8.
Sdyp.a., 6o. ~xA~,, ol, 5o2, 6r5-16~
ofwvtov, 132,
lKKA']ala, 244•
ll.wfkpta, 213, 236, 285, 472, 475, 478, JTap&Sotos, 14, 40.
662. JTapa.Aoyo>, 151.
lrrapxla, lrrapxos, 578. rrapaarrov8<iv, 108.
br' dmr{oa, 447· r.a.p<yyuiiv, 143·
.!myovfj:;, oi rijs, 591. rraTpws rroAtTela, 288-9, 483.
£7r{yovot, 591-2. 7T£plrrltot, 487·
irrtypa,P~, 154-5, 312, rr£p<crrraaw6s, 142.
l-rri 36pv, 447. 1T£pLU7'0.ULS1 132,
irr•AocTol, 274, 458, 46J, 540, 553, 6r5, 7T£TT<la, 147.
624-5· .,.{(]1'<<;, 161, J2I.
lmp...\T)n}s, 533-4. wAor~6pt:vot, 158.
brtO"')flaalm, 96. rr6A«s, 137, 330, 395·
~ma7'aT1)>: 137, 534, 559, 579, 581, 586. rroAvrrpayl-'oav•"'• ro.
errta1'porp1), 142, rrpayp.am, 'TU: ]3, }56, 267 •
brwvviJ~KrJ, 149, 355· 'lTpayp.aTU<'I taTopw, 8 n. 6, 9-ro, 42,
'EptJ3tav6s lt6¢>os, 426-7. 3o5, 65o.
£¢' Tjvlav, 447· 1Tpaywm><ot <1.v8pes, 7, 337·
i</>ooo>, 49-50, 499· rrp<I}'flUTWV> 0 ~trl TiiJV, 571, 580,
775
INDEXES
1rp&ens, ss8. 2S3, 2SS-7 1 4SS-{), 46r-2, 474-S, S38,
1rpoalpw•s, rs8, 234, 3o8. 624-S, 628.
1rpoypat/>al, 294, zgS. a.Jnpotf>os, S47•
1TpOO<W~<:ptvetv, 674. adJILa-ra, 204, 507.
TrpoeKIUaeLS, 294 1 297, 637. awl'a-rotf>vlla~<:es, s6o--I.
1TpoKa-raa~<w'>j, 44, r8r, 2IS-I7 1 36o,
633~4. Talrr&p.a-rov, 17.
1rpov01a, 2I n. 8. -rexvfTa<, 468.
Trpotf>aats, 30S-{), 308---91 323, 461, SI2, T01TOL 1 o/, 572 1 6os-{).
1rpu.rros </>lllos, reg. -riit/>os, 413.
1rVKvwaLs, 286--']. -run, see Tyche.
at-rapxta, n6, 332, sSo. tf>lllot, rs6, 470, so2, S37. 539, 547. 550,
atTO/L€1'p{a, I32 1 I34-S• ssz, 581,
atTWVtOv 1 IJ2 1 !34• q,.Jcns, 646, 658.
a1r£ipa, 541.
OTpa-r't)yla, a-rpa-r"'y&s, 6r, ro1, 137, 152. x••~<wv, Z51·
aUy!<l\1)TOS 1 244. xe{p, 168.
avl'flol\ov 'ITEpl -roii IL~ dOLKeiv, 346--8. x<~pi~ones, 559·
avi'7To>.tu.Jw8at1 243. XetptaT'>jS 1 559•
avvapxla<, 452-3. XP1Jita-rl~nv, 584.
avvaaJTLa!Lo>, 286-7, Sr8.
avvooos, 219-zo, 226, 244-5, 248---9, 251,