A Historical Commentary On Polybius - Vol. 2 Commentary On Books 7-18 - Frank W. Walbank

A HISTORICAL
COMMENTARY ON
POLYBIUS
BY
W.WALBANK
RATHBONE PROFESSOR OF ANCIENT HISTORY
AND CLASSICAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL
VOLUME II
COMMENTARY ON BOOKS VII-XVIII
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1967
ISBN-10: 0198141734
ISBN-13: 978-0198141730
CONTENTS
LIST OF MAPS AND PLANS viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SHORT TITLES ix
INTRODUCTION: THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE

FRAGMENTS
I. Books VII and VIII
2. Books IX and X 8
3· Book XI 16
4· Book XII r8
5· Book XIII 20
6. Books XIV and XV 22
7· Book XVI
8. Books XVII and XVIII 26
COMMENTARY
Book VII 29
Book VIII 67
Book IX 116
Book X 189
Book XI 266
Book XII 317
Book XIII 413
Book XIV 424
Book XV 440
Book XVI 497
Book XVII 548
Book XVIII 548
ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA TO VOLUME I 628
ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA TO VOLUME II 649

INDEXES
I. General 651
2. Authors and passages 677
J. Inscriptions and Papyri 68o
4· Greek 681
vii
LIST OF MAPS AND PLANS
I. THE SITE OF HELLENISTIC LEONTINI 37
2. KAPXHI:ION (t::NIVERSAL JOINT) 76

3· LISSt::S AND ACROI.ISSUS 91
4· PLAN OF TARENTUM 103
5· HANNIBAL'S MARCH ON ROME, 211 B.c. 122
6. AGRIGENTUM (ACRAGAS) 158
7· NEW CARTHAGE 206
8. ANT10CHUS' ROUTE ACROSS :>IT. ELBURZ 237
9· THE BATTLE OF BAECULA 249
IO. THE BATTLE OF MANTINEA, 207 B.C. 284
II. SCIPIO'S ADVANCE AT ILIPA 301
I l , BATTLE OF THE EBRO 310
13. THE MARCHING flEFOHE I SSt'S 365
14. THE BATTLE OF ISSllS 368

15. THE AFRICAN CAMPAIGNING AREA 425
16. THE AREA OF PHILIP v's CAMPAIGNS IN 201 498
17. THE MANCEUVRES BEFORE CYNOSCEPHALAE 577
vili
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
OF SHORT TITLES
(ADDITIONAL TO THOSE IN VOLUME I)
Abel, Giographie = F. M. Abel, Giographie de la Palestine. Ed. 2. 2 vols. Paris,

1 933-8.
AC -~ L'Antiquiti classique.
Act. tmiv. Gothob. =Acta universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Aeuum = Aevum, rassegna di scienze storiche, etc. (Universita Cattolica de
Sacra Cuore), Milan.
A)SemL =American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures.
Alt. v. Perg. = Altertiimer von Pergamon. Io vols. by various authors. Berlin,
1885-I937·
Annie ipig. = L'Annie ipigraphique .
.llnnt!e phil. = L'Annie philologique .
.Arch. esp. de arq. = Archivo espaiiol de arqueologia .
.Arch. Nep. = Archaeological Reports, published by the Hellenic Society and the
British School at Athens .
.Aihen. •= Athenaeum: Studii periodici di letteratura e storia dell'antichittl.
ATL The Athenian tribute lists, by B. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery, M. F.
McGregor. 4 vols. Cambridge, Mass.-Princeton, I939-53·
Aiii VII Congr. arch. class. = Alii del V 11 congresso internazionale di archeologia
classica (Rome-Naples, I958). 3 vols. I~orne, I961.
Avenarius =G. Avenarius, Lukians Schriji zur Geschichtsschreibung. Diss. Frank-
furt a. M. Meisenheim a. Glan, 1956.
Babl!lon, Rois de Syrie = E. Babelon, Catalogue des monnaies grecques de la
Bibliotheque Nationale: Les Rois de Syrie, d'Arminie et de Commagene. Paris,
1890-
Badian " E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae (264-70 B.C.). Oxford, 1958.
0
Badian, Studies = E. Badian, Studies in Greek and Roman History. Oxford,

lt)(>4-
BCH • Bulletin de correspondance hellinique.
Beloch, Campanien = K. J. Beloch, Campanien, Geschichte und Topographie des
antiken Neapels und seiner Umgebung. Ed. 2. Breslau, 1890.
Bengtson' = H. Bengtson, Griechische Geschichte von den Anfangen his in die
tiimische Kaiserzeit. Ed. 2. Munich, 1960.
Bequignon = Y. Bequignon, La Vallie du Spercheios des origines au IV• siecle.
Paris, 1937.
Bi?rard ~- J. Berard, La Colonisation grecque del' ltalie meridionale et de la Sicile
dans l'antiquiti: l'histoire ella ligende. Ed. 2. Paris, I957·
Bergk Th. Bergk, Poelae lyrici graeci. Ed. 4· 3 vols. Leipzig, I878-82.
Berthelot, Coll. alch. grecs = M. Berthelot, Collection des anciens alchimistes
grecs. 3 vols. Paris, I887-8.
Berve, Hieron = H. Berve, Ko-nig Hieron 11. in Abh. Bay. Akad. 1959·
Bevan, Ptolemaic Dynasty= E. Bevan, A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic
/Jy"n_,·ty. London, I927.
ix
/\ BB H EV! ATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
BGU Baliner grierhisd!e Urlmnden: Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Staatlirhen
Musem zu Herlin. Berlin,
Birt, Huchwesw T. Birt, Das antike Buchwesen in seinem Verlui:ltnis zur
Literatur. Berlin, 1882.
Bliitterf. Gymn.·Srhulwesen=Bliilter fur Bayerisches Gymnasial-Schulwesw.
J. l3leicken, Das Volkstributzal der klassisclzen Republik. Munich, 1955.
E. S. G. Robinson, Greeh Coins of Cyrenaica. British Museum
London, 1927.
B.M.C. Peloponnesus P. Gardner, Peloponnesus excluding Corinth (ed. R. S.
Poole). British Museum of Greek Coins. London, 1887.
B.Jf.C. Syria P. Gardner, Greek Coins of the Seleucid KiHgs of Syria. British
Museum London, 1878.
B.M.C. Troas W. Wroth, Greek Coi11s of Troas, Aeolia a1td Lesbos. British
Museum London, 1894·
Boguth W. Boguth, AJ. Valerius Laez•iuus. Ein Beit1·ag zur Geschichte des zu·ei·
ten putlischen Krieges. Krems, 1892.
Breccia E. V. Breccia. Alexandria ad Aegyptum. English ed. Bergamo, 1922.
Brewitz = W. Brewitz, Africanus Maior in Spaniot, 2ro-2o6. Diss.
Tubingen, 1914.
Brown Truesdell S. Brown, Timaeus of Tauromenium. Berkeley and Lo'
Angeles, 1958.
Bruns L Brun~, Die Pasiinlirh!ll'it ill da Geschichtsschreibung der Altm.
Berlin, 1898.
Buckler Studies Anatolian Studies fJresenterl to l'V. Il. Buckler. ManchestcJ.
1939·
Bull. Arad. Srrbe, Set!. l.ettres Academic royale Serbe: Bulletin dt·
Lfllres (Br(~;rade).
Bull. Alexandr. Blillrlin dt Ia Snrietl d'Archiologie d'Alexandrie. Alexandria:
Societe de Publications ,:gyplicnnes.
Bull. Inter. A c. Pol. Built·! in iJiternalional del' Acadtftnie polonaise des Sciena.,
d des Leltres; classe de histoire et philosophic.
Bull. Soc. Antiq. France Bulletin de Ia Socit!ti nationale des Antiquaires d1'
France.
Bursian's Jahresberitht Bursian 's jahresbericht iiber d. Fortschritte der rlassisc!teu
Alterthumswissenschaft.
CAF T. Kock, Comicorum allicorum fi·agmenta. 3 vols. Leipzig, r88o--8.
CAH Cambridge Ancient llistmy. I2 vols. Cambridge, 1923-39.
Calabi, Ricerche Ida Calabi, Ricerche sui rapporti Ira le pole is. Florence, I95.1·
Casso Ia F. Cassola, l gruppi politici romani nel II I secolo a. C. Trieste, 1962,
Cerfaux and Tondriau L. Cerfaux and J. Tondriau, Le Culte des souverain,
dans Ia ciz•ilisation grtfco·romaine. Tournai, I957·
CHI Cambridge History of India, vnl. I (ed. E. J. Rapson). Cambridge, r922
Clermont·Ganneaur:l, Et. arrh. or. C. Etudes d'archiolop'
orientale. (Bibl. de !'Ecole des Hautes science historique et phil.
vols. 44, rr3.) 2 vols. r88o, 1897·
Corpus paroem. grarc. E. L. Leutsch and F. G. Schneidewin, Corpus paroonioc
graphorum grauorum. 2 vols. 1839-41.
Cross = G. N. Cross, Epirus: a study in Greek constitutional development. Cam
bridge, 1932.
X
()ehevoise X. C. Debevoise, A Political History of Parthia. Chicago, n.d.
[1938].
lle Sanctis, Storiografia siceliota G. De Sanctis, Ricerche sulla storiografia
siceliota. Palermo, 1957.
IJcvroye and Kemp I. Devroye and L. Kemp, Over de historische methode
van Polybios. Brussels, 1956.
llittberner, Issos W. 0. C. Dittberner, Issos: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Alexan-
ders des Crossen. Berlin, rgo8.
l>umezil, Rituels = G. Dumezil, R.ituels inJo-europiens ii Rome. Paris, 1954.
/lura Parchments C. B. Welles, R. 0. Fink and J. F. Gilliam, The Parchments
and Papyri (Excavations at Dura-Europus, Final Report, V. r). New Haven,
1959·
llftring I. During, Aristotle in the Andent Biographical Tradition. Goteborg,
1957·
Edmonds, FA C = J. M. Edmonds, The Fragments of Attic Comedy. 3 vols.
Leiden, 1957-61.
l•:ltrcnberg, Neugrunder V. Ehrenberg, Neugriinder des Staates. Munich, 1925.
l•'f'h. sem. Epig. Ephemeris fur semitische Epigraphik (Giessen).
/<'lm -~ J. Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. 13 vols. Edinburgh,
1()08-26.
l•dlmunn = W. Fellmann, Antigonos Gonatas, Konig der Mal<edonen, und die
griechischen Staaten. Diss. Wiirzburg, 1930.
l•'nro -= Beatrice Ferro, Le origini della ll guerra maadouica. (Est. dagli Alii
drll'Accademia di Scienze, Lellere e Arti di Palermo, Ser. iv, vol. xix, 1958~9,
Parte II.) Palermo, rg6o.
Jtullcr J. F. C. Fuller, The Generalship of Alexander the Great. London, 1958.
Ci•1ertlc arcMol. Gazette art:Mologique: Remeil de monumet!ts pour servir a Ia
umnaissance el a l' histoire del' art dans l' antiquiti el le moyen·dge (Paris).
Gt~lt.cr, Kl. Schr. M. Gelzer, Kleine Schriften. 3 vols. \Viesbaden, rg62-3.
f.i,IIJ:r. Journ. The Geographical Journa.l.
Gh11.d, Kanon = F. K. Ginzel, Spezieller Kanon der Sonnen- und Mondfinster-
tlisse fur das Liindergebiet der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. Berlin,
1899·
Gomme, Thucydides A. W. Gornme, A Historical Commmtary on Thucydides,
i iii. Oxford, I94s~ s6.
Haywood = R. M. Haywood, Studies on Scipio Africanus. Baltimore, 1933.
HolTmann, Makedone11 = 0. Hoffmann, Die "Hahedo1un, ihre Sprachc und ihr
Volllstum. Gottingen, rgo6.
Holleaux, ETpa-r'lyo~ iJtra-ro~ :M. I-lolleaux, E-rpaT'JrO> iJ1rM<>s: Etude sur la
traduction en grec du titre consulaire. Paris, rgr8.
H~&ltach, Quaestiones, ii = F. Hultsch, Quaestiones Polybianae, pars ii. Programm
tics Gymnasiums zum Heiligen Kreuz in Dresden, r869.
Haul W. I-liittl, Verfassungsgeschichte von Syrahus. (Quellen und Forschungen
aus dem Gebiet der Geschichte, Heft 8.) Prague, r929.
JC - lnscriptiones Creticae.
lt1111', Cat. Cairo, Demot. Denkmaler W. Spiegelberg, Catalogue general des
Anliquitts igyptiennes du Musee du Caire. i. Die demotis.:hen Denkmiiler. ii.
/)j~ demotischen Papyri, 1908. iii. Demotische Inschriften und Papyri, 1932.
C11.iro.
xi
bJSc. de Delos= l11scriptions de Delos: nos. r-88 ed. Plassart, Paris, 1950; no>.
290-371, 372-509, ed. Durrbach, Paris, 1926 and 1929; nos. I400-1496, ed.
Durrbach and Roussel, Paris, 1935; nos. 1497-2879 (2 parts), ed. Roussel
and Launey, Paris, 1937.
Insc. ltal. = Inscriptiones Italiae.
Insc. Lind. = Ch. Blinkenberg, Lindos,Fouilles de l'Acropole, I902-r4, ii, Inscrip-
tions. 2 vols. Berlin-Copenhagen, 1941.
lnsch. Olympia= W. Dittenberger and K. Purgold, Olympia: Die Ergebnisse ...
der Au.sgrabung. Textband v, Die lnschrijten. Berlin, r896.
Jacoby, Atthis = F. Jacoby, Atthis: the Local Chronicles of Andeut Athens.
Oxford, 1949.
jahrb. fur Num. und Geldgesch. = jahrbuch fur Numismatik una Geldgeschichte.
Janke A. Janke, Auf Alexanders des Grossen Pfaden. Berlin, 1904.
Jashemski = W. F. Jashemski, The Origins and History of the Proconsular and
Propraetorian Imperium to Z7 B.C. Chicago, 1950.
jEA journal of Egyption Archaeology.
jRAS =journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.
j RGS = journal of the Royal Geographical Society.
Kahrstedt, Forsch. = U. Kahrstedt, Forschungen zur Geschichte des ausgehmdm
fii.nflen und des vierten jahrhunderts. Berlin, 1910,
Kahrstedt, Gr. Staatsrecht = U. Kahrstedt, Griechisches Staalsrechl. Vol. 1:
Sparta und seine Symmachie. Gottingen, 1922.
Keller 0. Keller, Die antike Tierwelt. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1909-13.
Kieper/ Festschrift= Beitrlige zur Allen Geschichte und Geographic. FestS<hri/1
fur Heinrich Kieper/. Berlin, 1898.
Kip G. Kip, Thessalisrhe Studien: Beitrdge zur politischen Gengraphif.
Geschichte und V erfassung der thessalischen Landschaften. Diss. Halle, r910.
Koldewey and Puchstein ~~ R. Koldewey and 0. Puchstein, Die griechischw
Tempel in Unteritalien Ultd Sizilien. 2 vols. Berlin, I899·
Laistner M. L. W. Laistner, The Greater Roman Historians. Berkeley, 1947.
Le Bas-Waddington= Ph. Le Bas, W. H. Waddington, and P. Foucart, Voyage
archiologique en Grice et en Asie Mineure. 3 vols. Paris, 1847-73·
Lenormant, La (;rande-Grece Fr. Lenormant, La Grande·Grece. 2 vols. Paris,
1861-84.
Leo, Biographie = F. Leo, Die griechisch-romische Biographie nach ihrer lit·
terarischen Form. Leipzig, 1901.
Lerat = L. Lerat, Les Locriens de l'ouest. 2 vols. Paris, 1952.
Leveque = P. Leveque, Pyrrhos. Paris, 1957.
Lucas = C. Lucas, Ober Polybius' Darstellung des dtolischen Bu.ndes. Konigsberg,
1829.
Luckenbill = D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. 2 vols.
Chicago, 1926-7.
Marconi P. Marconi, Agrigento, topografia ed arte. Florence, 1929.
Markhauser W. Markhauser, Der Geschichtsschreiber Polybios, seine Weltan-
schauung und Staatslehre. Munich, 1858.
Marquart = J. Marquart, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte von Eran, Zweites Heft.
Philologus, Suppl.·B. 10, Leipzig, 1905.
Martin V.Martin,La Vie internationale dans la Grece des cites (V l-Ive siecle m·.
j.-C.). Geneva, 1940.
xii
Mauersberger = A. Mauersberger, Polybios-Lexikon. Berlin, 1956-
Melangu Glotz = Melanges Gustave Glotz. 2 vols. Paris, 1923.
Melanges Iorga =Melanges o.fferts aM. Nicolas Iorga parses amis de France et
des pays de langue jran~aise. Paris, 1932.
Meloni, V alore storico = P. Meloni, Il valore storico e le jonti del libro macedonico
di Appiano. Rome, 1955.
Mem. A cad. Inscr. = Memoires del' Institut de France: Academie des Inscriptions
et Belles Lettres.
Mem. Ace. Bologna = Memorie della R. Accademia di Bologna: Classe di Scienze
Morali.
Meyer= Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums. Vol. 3, ed. 2, Stuttgart, 1937;
Vol. 4, ed. 3, Stuttgart, 1939.
Meyer, ElUte = Ed. Meyer, ElUte und Niedergang des Hellenismus in Asien.
Berlin, 1925.
Meyer, Caesars Monarchie = Ed. Meyer, Caesars Monarchie und das Principal
des Pompejus. Ed. 3· Stuttgart-Berlin, 1922.
11-/ilet = Th. Wiegand, Milet: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen
seit dem jahre I899· 3 vols., each in several Hefte, by various authors.
Berlin, 1906-29.
Miller, Melanges= E. Miller, Melanges de Litterature grecque. Paris, 1868.
Miscellanea Rostagni =Miscellanea di studi alessandrini in memoria di Augusto
Rostagni, ed. by l. Lana. Turin, 1963.
Mumigliano, Contributo 2 = A. Momigliano, Secondo contributo alla storia degli
studi classici. Rome, 1960.
Muvers = F. C. Movers, Die Phoenizier. 2 vols. Bonn, 1841-56.
Numin =A. K. Narain, The Indo-Greeks. Oxford, 1957.
Nidluhr, Kl. Schr. = B. G. Niebuhr, Kleine historische und philologische Schriften.
Bonn, 1828-43.
~IIKHon, Griechische Peste= M.P. Nilsson, Griechische Feste von religioser Bedeu-
tung. Leipzig, 1906.
lllllzKch = K. W. Nitzsch, Polybius: Zur Geschichte antiker Politik und Historio-
graphie. Kiel, 1842.
llunlcn, Kunstprosa =E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI. ]ahrh. v. Chr.
his in die Zeit der Renaissance. Leipzig, 1898.
Ormerod= H. A. Ormerod, Piracy in the Ancient World. Liverpool-London,
. 1924.
filltiS -= Pallas, Etudes sur l'Antiquite. Annales publiees par Ia Faculte des Lettres
•le Toulouse.
tarkc - H. W. Parke, Greek Mercenary Soldiers. Oxford, 1933.
1. t'air. Zen. = C. C. Edgar, Zenon Papyri. Catalogue general des Antiquitis
Jl{yptiennes du Musee du Caire, 79· 4 vols. Cairo, 1925-31.
...nnn = L. Pearson, The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great. American Phil.
AKK., New York, 1960.
~lol'h -~ P. Pedech, Polybe: Histoires xii, texte etabli, traduit et commente. Paris,
11)61.
P••h•da, 1\!ithode = P. Pedech, La Methode historique de Polybe. Paris, 1964.
f11r~uuu1s--van 't Dack = W. Peremans and E. van 't Dack, Prosopographia
I 'lolnnaiw. Lou vain, 1950- •
xiii
Perret = J. Perret, l.es Origines de la ligende troyenne de Rome (z8I-JI av. ].·C.).
Paris, 1942.
Peterm. Mitt. = l'etermanns Mitteilungen aus Justus Perthes geographischer An·
stalt (later l'ctermanns geographische Mitteilungen).
Petzold ~c K. E. Petzold, Die Eriiffnung des zweiten riimisch-makedonischen
Krieges: Untersuchungen zur sptitannalistischen Topik bei Livius. (Neue
deutsche Forschungen, 8.) Berlin, 1940.
P. Hibeh = Hibeh Papyrus, Part I, ed. by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. London,
1906.
Pickard-Cambridge= A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, Demosthenes and the Last
Days of Greek Freedom. New York-London, 1914.
P. Par. dem. =Papyrus demotiques du Louvre, publies et traduits par E. Revillout,
Corpus Papyrorum Aegypti, I. r. Paris, r885.
Ilpa~~:-rtll:a :4~~:ao. :48. = IIpa~~:-rtKa -ri)s- :4~~:all<p.Las- :4ll1)vwv.
Pritchett = W. K. Pritchett, Studies in Ancient Greek Topography. Berkeley,

1965.
Pro c. Camb. Phil. Soc. = Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society.
P. Ross. Georg. = Papyri russischer und georgisrher Sammlungen, ed. by G.
Zereteli, 0. Kruger, and P. Jernstedt. Tiflis, 1925--35·
P. Ryl. = Catalogue of the Greek papyri in the John Rylands Library at Man-
chester. Vol. i, ed. by A. S. Hunt, 1911; val. ii, ed. by A. S. Hunt,]. de l\I.
Johnson, and V. Martin, r9 r 5: vol. iii, ed. by C. H. Roberts, 1938; vol. iv.
ed. by C. H. Roberts and F. G. Turner, 1952.
P Sl = Papiri grai e Iatini: Pubblicazioni della Societa italian a per la ricerca de;
papiri greci e Iatini in F;.:itto. Florence, 1912- .
Rei. Sri. Stor. = Relazioui drl X Congresso internazionale di Scienze Storichr
(Roma, 1955). 6 vok Florence, 1955.
Rend. Ace. Sci. 1st. Bologna~- Nendiconti dell'Accademia delle Scienze dell'lsti-
tuto di Bologna.
Rend. ]st. March. Sci. Lett. /Jrti = Rendiconti del lstituto JHarchigiano: Classc
Scienze, Lettere ed Ar/1.
Rev. belge de phil. et d'hist. = Revue belge de Philologie et d'Histoire.
Rev. kist. rel. = Revue de l'Ilistoire des Religions.
Rev. num. = Revue numismatique.
RIDA = Revue internationale des Droits d'antiquite.
Riv. indo-greco-ital. = Rivista indo-greco-italica di filologia.
Robert, Villes 2 -= L. Robert, Villes d'Asie Mineure: Etude de geographie antique.
Ed. 2. Paris, 1962.
Robertson = D. S. Robertson, A Handbook of Greek and Roman Architecture.
Ed. 2. Cambridge, 1945.
Roloff= G. Roloff, Probleme aus der griechischen Kriegsgeschichte. Berlin, 1903.
Roussel, Hist. grecque = P. Roussel in G. Glotz, P. Roussel, and R. Cohen.
Histoire grecque, iv. r: Alexandre et le demembrement de son empire. Paris,
1939·
Sammelbuch = Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Aegypten, ed. by F. Prei-
sigke (i-ii, 1913-22, Strassburg, later Berlin-Leipzig), F. Bilabel (iii-v. 1,
1926-34, Berlin-Leipzig, later Heidelberg).
Schaefer = A. Schaefer, Demosthenes und seme Zeit. Ed. 2. 3 vols. Leipzi~.
r88s-7-
XIV
Schmitt, Antiochos H. H. Schmitt, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Antioclzos'
des Crossen und seine Zeit. (Historia, Einzelschriften, Heft 6.) Wiesbaden,
1964.
Schmitt, Hellenen =H. H. Schmitt, Hellenen, Rihner und Barbaren: Eine Studie
zu Poly bios. Wissenschaftliche Beilage zum Jahresbericht 1957 /s8 des
Humanistischen Gymnasiums, Aschaffenburg.
Sl'lunitt, Rom und Rhodos H. H. Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos. Munich, 1957·
Sdllnitz-Kahhnann = G. Schmitz-Kahlmann, Das Beispiel der Geschichte im
politischen Denken des Isokrates. (Philol. Suppl.-B. JI, Heft 4.) Leipzig, I939·
Srhm.der, Reallex. = 0. Schrader, Reallexikan der nordgermanischcn Altertums·
Jmnde: Grundzuge einer K ultur· und V olkergeschichte Alteuropas. Ed. 2,
by H. Nehring. 2 vols. Strassburg, 1917-28.
Srhmeter F. Schroeter, De regum hellenisticorum epistulis. Leipzig, 1932.
Srhubring = J. Schubring, Historische Topographie uon Akragas. Leipzig, 187o.
Sd1weighaeuser Polybii 1'11egalapolitani Historiarum quidquid supcrest.
Recensuit, digessit, uarietate lectionis, adnotationibus, indicibus illustravit
Johannes Schweighaeuser. 8 vols. Leipzig, q89-95·
Sndhnd, Hist.J = H. H. Scullard, A History uf the Roman World from 753 to
I 46 B.C. Ed. 3· London, 1961.
St~t·liger K. Seeliger, Messenien und der achilische Bund. Programm Zittau,
1897,
Srmu.lifalco = Duke of Serradifalco, Le antichita della Sicilia. Palermo, 1834-42.
Sir. Gym.= Siculorum Gymnasium.
l'iteijietnann H. Steigemann, De Polybii olympiadum ratione et occonomia.
Diss. Breslau, r885.
l'iticr -=H. E. Stier, Roms Aufstieg zur llleltmacht und die gdechische Welt.
(Arbeitsgerneinschaft fi.ir Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen,
Heft II.) Cologne and Opladen, 1957.
It mdmn-Davidson = ] • L. Strachan-Davidson, Selections from Polybius. Oxford,
r888.
ltrohcker K. F. Stroheker, Dionysios I.: Gestalt und Geschichte des Tyrannen
1wn Syrakus. Wiesbaden, 1958.
$tl4di annibalici = Studi annibalici: Atti del convegno svoltosi a Cortona-Tuoro
ml Trasimeno-Perugia, ottobre, rg6r. Cortona, 1964.
llutli di stor. ant. Beloch's Studi di storia antica. Rome, r89I-1907.
tAM = Tituli Asiae lVlinoris.
Taubler =E. Taubler, Imperium Romanum: Studien zur Entwicklungsgeschichte
1Jes romischen Reichs. Vol. i. Berlin, 1913·
thhlwall, History of Greece = Connop Thirlwall, History of Greece. 8 vols. London,
tHJS-47·
Tuoplfcr, Att. geneal. = J. A. F. Toepffer, Attische Genealogie. Berlin, r889.
¥111 (Ieider, Rhodier = H. van Gelder, Geschichte der Allen Rhodier. The Hague,
11)00 •
.,,It, Berlin. Ges. f. Anthropol. Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft fur
Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschirhte (supplement to the Zeitschrift
jur Ethnologic).
\lUll !.'ritz, Histoire et Historiens = K. von Fritz, Histoire el Historiens dans
I'Antiquite: Entretiens, tome IV. 3· Die Bedeutung des Aristoteles fur die
(,'r.schichtsschreibung. Fondation Hardt: Vandceuvres-Geneva, 1958, pp.
/1.\ T45•
XV
A Bill{ EVI AT IONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
v11n Smlu, .\taalnorrltiigc ~ R. von Scala, Die Staatsvertritge des Altertums, i.
L••ipzi~. J ~<Jit
Wd"l', /ltmrltios F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles. Heft 4.: Demetrio·.
101111 l'halaon. Basel, 1949·
w.. nwr I L M. Werner, De Polybii uita et itineribus quaestiones chronologicae.

lliss. Leipzig, 1877.
W<'>llah, 'f'ltt'ssaly = H. D. Westlake, Thessaly in the Fourth Cmtury. Londou.
l'JJS·
Westlake, Timoleon = H. D. Westlake, Timoleon and his Relations with Tyra11t.•.
Manchester, 1952.
Wilamowitz, Arist. u. Athen = U. von Wilamowitz·Moellendorff, Aristoteles md
Athen. 2 vols. Berlin, 1893.
Wilcken, UPZ = U. Wilcken, Urkunden der Ptolemtierzeit: I. Papyri aus Unter
agypten. Berlin and Leipzig, 1922. II. Papyri aus Oberagypten, i, 1935; ii,
1937; iii, 1957·
Winckler= H. Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1887.
Wissensch. Zeitschr. Leipzig= Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Man·
Universitat, Leipzig.
Wunderer, Coniecturae = C. Wunderer, Coniecturae Polybianae. Diss. Erlange; ..
188 5.
Wust =F. R. Wust, Philipp If. von Makedonien und Griechenla!ttf. Munich.
1938.
ZGE = Zeitschrift der Gesellschaftfii.r Erdkunde zu Berlin.
ZO = Zeitschrift for Ortsnamwjorschung.
xvi
INTRODUCTION
THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE FRAGMENTS
SINCE from vi onwards the books are fragmentary, the order has to be reconstituted from
internal evidence. P. normally allots two books to each Olympiad (ix. 1. 1, xiv. 1 a 5), so that
each book usually covers two years. This system is fairly consistently maintained (cf. ix. 1. 2,
τὸ µονοειδὲς τῆς συντάξεως). Within each of the Olympiad years included in a book P.
treats the events of each theatre in turn, following a fixed order which is only rarely broken
(cf. xv. 25. 19, xxxii. 11. 2, τὴν εἰθισµένην τάξιν, ᾗ χρώµεθα παρ’ ὅλην τὴν πραγµατείαν),
viz. Italy, Sicily, Spain, Africa, Greece and Macedonia, Asia and Egypt (cf. Lorenz, 66).
Occasionally two years' events in a particular theatre may be combined in a single section.
For books vi to xviii a convenient framework is afforded by the excerpta antiqua of the codex
Urbinas (F).1 Comparison of these with Livy's continuous narrative provides a sound
chronological basis, though both demand critical use. The excerpta antiqua give forty-six
extracts from books i to v, of which the full text also survives (cf. Büttner-Wobst's edition, ii,
pp. lxiii–lxiv), and of these forty-six only one is displaced (v. 79. 3–86. 7 comes before v. 75.
2–6). This justifies general confidence in the order of the fragments in F and its copies,
without excluding the possibility of an occasional displacement.
1. BOOKS VII AND VIII
These cover Ol. 141 = 216/15–213/12; and though P. normally made each of his
Olympiad years begin at the beginning of the campaigning season which came half-way
through it (cf. Vol. I, p. 36), in following up Cannae he breaks this rule, leaving for vii
certain events of 216 which opened up new actions.
The excerpta antiqua from vii are, in order: the description of Leontini (vii. 6), the
alliance of Philip and Hannibal (vii. 9), Philip's proposal to seige Ithome (vii. 12), Antiochus'
seizure of Sardes (vii. 15–18); from viii they are: the death of Ti. Gracchus (viii. 35. 1– 36. 9),
the magnitude of the war (viii. 1–2), the siege of Syracuse (viii. 4. 1–7. 12), the poisoning of
Aratus (viii. 12. 1–8), Philip's capture of Lissus (viii. 13–14), the capture of Achaeus (viii. 15.
1–21. 11), Hannibal's capture of Tarentum (viii. 24. 4–34. 13).
[1]
1
For the various manuscripts on which the text is based see J. M. Moore, The
Manuscript Tradition of Polybius, Cambridge, 1965.
Of these passages the first, on Leontini, seems to have been introduced in connexion with
Hieronymus' death; hence it is correctly followed by vii. 7–8 (from the Valesian excerpts on
vice and virtue) summarizing the achievements of Hiero, Hieronymus, and Gelo, with
criticism of other authors, and preceded by vii. 2–5 (from the excerpts de legationibus) on
earlier events of Hieronymus' reign. Hiero died in 215 (Livy, xxiv. 4. 1; he was still alive at
the outset of the consular year, Livy, xxiii. 38. 12–13), and Hieronymus reigned thirteen
months, dying in 214 (vii. 7. 3) while campaigning was still possible. Livy (xxiv. 4. 1–7. 9)
has compressed the Syracusan events of 215–214, down to Hieronymus' death, into one year;
and De Sanctis (iii. 2. 333) plausibly suggests that P. did the same. In that case vii contained
only one set of res Siciliae, which would explain why Hieronymus' death in 214 was
mentioned before the PunicMacedonian treaty of 215. This chronology is preferable to that
of G. Tuzi (Studi di stor. ant. i, 1891, 81–97) and Beloch (iv. 2. 278–80), who date Marcellus'
arrival in Sicily (Livy, xxiv. 27. 6) in 213 (instead of 214) and so make all the earlier events a
year later, viz. Hiero's death, spring 214; Hieronymus' murder, 213.
vii. 1. 1–3 from Athenaeus, and 1. 4 from Suidas concern the revolt of Capua and the
investment of Petelia; the first is specifically attributed to vii, the second was assigned to P. by
Fulvius Ursinus (though Suidas does not mention him). Both clearly are from the res Italiae
which opened vii.
Livy (xxiii. 33. 9) dates the alliance between Philip and Hannibal to A.U.C. 539 = 215, a
date which there is no reason to question, though its position in P. does not provide
independent confirmation of it (cf. Walbank, Philip, 299). It was evidently described under
res Graeciae before the Messenian events included in the next extract in F; but these Greek
events cannot be assigned with certainty to either 215 or 214; Philip's visit to Ithome may be
in 215, winter 215/14 or spring 214 (cf. Holleaux, 197 n. 4; and below, ad loc.). The next
fragment, on Sardes, gives no help, since it will refer to 214 (see below).
Of the two fragments vii. 10. 1 (from Suidas) and 10. 2–5 (from the excerpts on vice and
virtue) the latter clearly refers to the time before Philip's intervention in Messenia; but the
former seems to describe the situation after his intervention (see ad loc.) and so perhaps
should stand after 10. 2–5 or even after 12. vii. 11 follows 10. 2–5 in the excerpts on vice and
virtue, and its last sentence seems to point forward to the account of Philip's enterprise
against Messene, which begins with the incident recorded in vii. 12. This supports the
present order of vii. 11 and 12 rather than the reverse order, given in Hultsch. The position
of vii. 13–14 is confirmed since it comes after vii. 11 in the excerpts on vice and virtue, and
after vii. 12 in
[2]
the περὶ γνωµῶν (M), which is a source for that chapter additional to F.
Büttner-Wobst next prints three fragments referring to Sicilian, Spanish, and Greek
affairs. The first, vii. 14 b, from Suidas, mentions a ruse of Hippocrates, and corresponds to
Livy xxiv. 31. 6, which Livy puts in 214. But Livy narrates under this year (Livy, xxiv. 21–
39) all the Sicilian events from Hieronymus' death in 214 (above, p. 2) to the end of 213; for
when in Livy xxiv. 39. 12 Ap. Claudius goes to Rome to stand for the consulship eight
months after the opening of the siege of Syracuse (viii. 7. 6), it is the consulship of 212 that is
in question (De Sanctis, iii. 2. 330 ff.). It seems likely that the context of this fragment relates
to spring 213; but in any case, if there was only one set of res Siciliae in vii, and those ending
with Hieronymus' death (as De Sanctis has argued convincingly: see above, p. 2) this
fragment should be assigned to viii, where it will precede viii. 3 (see further below, p. 5).
vii. 14 c on the Massyli, from Stephanus and Eustathius, cannot be placed; it may form
part of the history of Spain, since the Massyli had been left there (iii. 33. 15). vii. 14 d
probably belongs to Philip V's disastrous expedition to the Aous, which Livy (xxiv. 40) dates
to 214, and so stands correctly here.
Antiochus' seizure of Sardes (vii. 15–18) could, from the position of this fragment in the
excerpta antiqua, belong to either 215 or 214. After crossing Taurus in summer 216 (v. 107.
4, 109. 5), he may have laid siege to Sardes at once or waited till 215. The events leading to
the fall of Sardes occurred τῆς πολιορκίας δεύτερον ἔτος ἐνεστώσης (vii. 15. 2), which must
mean 'as the siege was entering upon its second year'; but without a firm terminus a quo this
does not allow us to determine whether the town fell in autumn 215 or spring 214.
However, Achaeus' capture, after he had been tricked into leaving the citadel, is described in
a fragment (viii. 15. 1–21. 11) from the excerpta antiqua, which follows two fragments
concerned with Greek events of 213 (viii. 12. 1–8, 13–14) and precedes one relating to the
betrayal of Tarentum to Hannibal (viii. 24. 4–34. 13), which seems to belong to winter
213/12 and to form part of the res Italiae of Ol. 141, 4 = 213/12. This suggests that if P. is
describing the various theatres of war in his usual order, and if there is no displacement in the
excerpta antiqua, Achaeus' betrayal was in Ol. 141, 3 = 214/13, which probably means 213.
Since it is unlikely that Achaeus held out in the citadel of Sardes from 215 to 213, it seems
likely that Sardes was captured (vii. 15–18) in 214; and if the events described in viii. 15. 1–
21. 11 covered two years (213–212), an unlikely but not impossible hypothesis (see below, p.
6), there would be an even stronger argument for dating the capture of Sardes to 214.
The first passage in the excerpta antiqua from viii discusses
[3]
examples of generals who have been betrayed by trusting unscrupulous men; and though F
does not reveal the context of this discussion, the Vatican palimpsest M (περὶ γνωµῶν),
before a lacuna of one folium, has the first line of the extract preceded by a sentence,
evidently from the excerptor, which shows that P. is speaking of the death of Ti. Gracchus. It
is clear from Livy (xxv. 3. 5, 15. 10– 16. 7), Appian (Hann. 35), and Zonaras (ix. 5) that
Gracchus' death was in 212. Hence Büttner-Wobst assumes a displacement of the fragment
in F, and puts it at viii. 35–6, following the arguments of Nissen (Rh. Mus. 1871, 257). This
brings it into the second half of viii, after the fall of Tarentum (viii. 24–34), as part of the res
Italiae of 212; but it neglects a point made by Schweighaeuser, that viii. 36. 7 clearly indicates
that the account of Achaeus' death by treachery follows the present extract (ἐναργέστατον δ’
ἔσται καὶ τοῖς καιροῖς ἔγγιστον τοῖς ὑπὲρ ὧν ὁ νῦν δὴ λόγος ἐνέστηκε τὸ κατ’ Ἀχαιὸν
συµβάν). This point also disposes of the view of Reiske, Casaubon, and Ernesti that the two
chapters under discussion were written as a commentary on Achaeus' fall and came after it;
but this refutation has not prevented Paton from placing them immediately after viii. 21, in
the Loeb text. Indeed any theory of displacement from the beginning of viii faces the
difficulty that in M they preceded ch. 21, of which, very fortunately, it preserves the last
three lines after the lost folium. Nissen (Rh. Mus. 1871, 267) would explain this agreement
between M and F by attributing the displacement to some Urhandschrift. But the real
solution, as De Sanctis (iii. 2. 335–6) saw, is evidently that Gracchus' death has been
mentioned, out of its chronological place, in some general discussion early in viii. De Sanctis
himself thinks it came nel premio del libro. But after the first six books P. seems to have
written προεκθέσεις καθ’ ἑκάστην ὀλυµπιάδα . . . τῶν πράξεων (xi. 1 a; cf. R. Laqueur,
Hermes, 1911, 186 n. 2), which would preface only the first book of each olympiad. The
general observations which Büttner-Wobst rightly attributes to the introductions to ix, xi,
and xiv (ix. 1–2, xi. 1 a, xiv. 1 a) arise in each case out of a προέκθεσις κατ’ ὀλυµπιάδα, and
there is no reason to assume that a book without such a προέκθεσις would none the less
carry an introduction containing general discussion. Consequently it follows that the
discussion in viii on misplaced confidence arose in some other context. Whatever this was,
there are no grounds for shifting this extract to 35–36; it should be left (as in Hultsch) at the
beginning of viii.
The next extract (viii. 1–2) is on the magnitude of the war. It cannot form part of the
prooemium of the book (so Büttner-Wobst) for the reasons just given, but it may well have
arisen, like many similar digressions, out of some specific historical point. The short extract
which follows in Büttner-Wobst (viii. 3 a) is taken from the
[4]
margin of F, 'paulo ante initium eclogae quae sequitur, οὐκ ἀλλότριοv cet.' (Hultsch), i.e. it
is opposite the last part of the passage on misplaced confidence (viii. 35–36). This could mean
that it came from the omitted part of Polybius which lay between that passage and the
remarks on the magnitude of the war. Schweighaeuser and Büttner-Wobst have drawn
attention to Livy, xxiv. 24. 2, where Adranodorus reveals his plans to Ariston with fatal
results to himself, a passage derived from P., and, it is argued above, from viii. If viii. 3 a is a
comment on this incident, it will be an extract from the res Siciliae in this book; and the
position of the relevant passage in Livy suggests that it preceded vii. 14 b. It would also seem
that the discussion on the magnitude of the war formed part of the res Siciliae, a feasible
hypothesis, since such a digression could occur in almost any context; a convenient point
would have been that corresponding to Livy, xxiv. 27. 5. On this hypothesis (it cannot claim
to be more) the order of the fragments at the beginning of viii will be:
35–36 (probably preceded by 38 b: see below, p. 8);

3 a (cf. Livy, xxiv. 24. 2);
1–2 (perhaps from a passage corresponding to Livy, xxiv. 27. 5);
vii. 14 b (cf. Livy, xxiv. 31. 6);
3–7 (cf. Livy, xxiv. 33. 9–35. 1).
The fragment in F on the siege of Syracuse is viii. 4. 1–7. 12; it carries with it viii. 3 (from
T, περὶ στρατηγηµάτων), which overlaps the passage from F as far as 6. 4, and an extract in
Athen. xiv. 634 B (= viii. 6. 6) confirms the position in this book. The siege of Syracuse is
narrated in Livy, xxiv. 33. 9–39. 13, a passage which covers down to the end of 213 (see
above, p. 3); hence the present fragment, corresponding to this part of Livy, comes from the
res Siciliae for 213.
The assignment of the remaining fragments from F in viii depends on the placing of the
last, which deals with the taking of Tarentum (viii. 24. 4–34. 13). This event occurred in
winter (viii. 34. 13, cf. Livy, xxv. 11. 20). Livy (ibid.) dates it to 212, but states that some
authorities put it in 213. This suggests a date in the winter 213/12; and P. will have included
it among the events of Ol. 141, 4 = 213/12, in the res Italiae in the second half of the book. In
that case the fragments in F dealing with the poisoning of Aratus (viii. 12), the taking of
Lissus (viii. 13–14), and the capture of Achaeus (viii. 15. 1–21. 11), all belong to 213 and to
the res Graeciae or res Asiae of that year. Aratus died during his last strategia (Plut. Arat. 53.
1); it is uncertain whether this began in autumn 214 (Walbank, Philip, 300) or in May 213
(cf. v. 106. 1 n.; Walbank, Aratos, 202), but either date is consistent with the proposed
arrangement. The passage on Aratus is also in the excerpts on vice and virtue, where it
follows
[5]
immediately on the passage viii. 8. 1–11. 8, which is thus also assigned to viii. The capture of
Lissus will also fall in 213, unless P. has run the res Graeciae for 213 and 212 into one
narrative. There is no positive evidence for this hypothesis, but in the absence of any
fragments from the res Graeciae which can be proved to have followed the account of the fall
of Tarentum, the possibility cannot be excluded; and De Sanctis (iii. 2. 440) in fact dates the
fall of Lissus to 212. The references to the Dassaretae and to Hyscana in Stephanus (viii. 14 b
1–2) could have come from the account of campaigns in either 213 or 212.
A firm dating of the fragment concerning Achaeus' capture and death (viii. 15. 1–21. 11)
must take account of that assigned to the story of Antiochus at Armosata (viii. 23). This
passage is from the Valesian excerpts on vice and virtue (P), in which it falls between the
account of Cavarus (viii. 22. 1–2), which Athenaeus (vi. 252 C = P. viii. 22. 3) assigns to viii,
and an extract dealing with Hasdrubal and Andobales (ix. 11), which refers to the situation
after the death of the Scipios in 211 (on this see De Sanctis, iii. 2. 446 n. 4; Livy dates it to
212) and so belongs to the early part of ix. Since, however, P. usually relates Asian events
after Spanish, the passage on Armosata will belong to viii. But does it refer to 213 or 212?
Schweighaeuser put it under 213, but from sheer horror vacui: 'rettulimus hanc eclogam,
cum ea quae sequitur [i.e. viii. 22. 1–2 and 23] ad A.U. 541 non quod certi simus, ad hunc
annum eas pertinere; sed ne prorsus uacuus ille annus praetermitteretur.' Nevertheless editors
have followed his attribution, making the events at Armosata precede the betrayal of
Tarentum, with the implication that they belong to 213. But, as we saw (above, p. 3),
Achaeus' capture was probably in 213; in which case we may perhaps assume that the
campaign against Xerxes was the next year (212), and accept Nissen's dating (Rh. Mus. 1871,
258) of the Armosata chapter (and probably the extract on Cavarus, which may have formed
part of the res Asiae) after Hannibal's capture of Tarentum (viii. 24–34). The passage in the
excerpts on vice and virtue preceding that which concerns Cavarus deals with Aratus' death
(viii. 12); but this does not help in dating the extract on Cavarus.
The taking of Tarentum (viii. 24–34) has already been assigned to the res Italiae of 213/12
(above, p. 5). F begins at 24. 4; but 24. 1 from M (περὶ γνωµῶν) is shown to belong here
since two lines of this extract also appear in the margin of the codex Urbinas (F), and 24. 2
follows 24. 1 in M. 24. 3 from Suidas was placed here by Schweighaeuser (v. 32), who
observed with Gronovius the parallel in Livy: cf. Livy, xxv. 7. 11–14, 8. 1, 15. 7–8.
The placing of the extract dealing with the fall of Epipolae (viii. 37) depends on internal
evidence; 37. 2–11 comes from the περὶ
[6]
στρατηγηµάτων (with a controlling account in Hero), but 37. 1, 12, and 13, from Suidas, are
easily related to the larger fragment by the corresponding passages in Livy, xxv. 23. 10–12,
24. 6, and 24. 9. Livy describes events at Syracuse from the death of Hieronymus to the sack
of the city and its aftermath in three sections: xxiv. 21–39 (under A.U.C. 540 = 214) covers
down to the end of 213 (see above, p. 3); xxv. 23–31 (under A.U.C. 542 = 212) from spring
212 to the capture of the city; and xxv. 40–41 (also under A.U.C. 542 = 212) the sending of
plunder to Rome and mopping-up operations in Sicily. Of these passages the first
corresponds to viii. 3–7 (see above, p. 5), which forms part of the res Siciliae of 213; and ix.
10 (from the excerpta antiqua) corresponds to the last. What of the middle passage, Livy, xxv.
23–31? The obvious conclusion is that it corresponds to Polybius' res Siciliae in the second
half of viii, which would thus cover the events of 212 down to the capture of Syracuse.
Against this De Sanctis has argued (iii. 2. 333–4) that the break between Livy xxv. 31 and
40 is artificial, and that both passages refer to the same year; and he attributes the break to
Livy's desire to draw a dramatic contrast between Marcellus' victory at Syracuse and,
immediately following it, the disaster of the Scipios in Spain (Livy, xxv. 32–39). But this
hypothesis depends on the assumption that Syracuse fell in 211, the year to which the events
of Livy, xxv. 40–41, certainly belong (though Livy assigns them to 212); and this is far from
certain. Livy (xxv. 23. 1) states that 'cum maxime Capua circumuallaretur, Syracusarum
oppugnatio ad finem uenit'. Capua was surrounded in autumn 212, and it is hard to reconcile
this passage with De Sanctis's view (iii. 2. 331–2) that Syracuse did not fall until spring 211.
The Hexapyla was seized at the time of a festival of Artemis (viii. 37. 2), which will be the
spring festival of 212. The plague which struck the Carthaginians was in the same autumn
(Livy, xxv. 26. 7). The ships sent by Bomilcar (Livy, xxv. 27. 2 ff.) can well have come the
same autumn, and can have gone on to Tarentum the same year (see below, p. 9); they need
not be postponed until spring 211, with De Sanctis. In two places Livy (xxv. 31. 5, xxxi. 31.
8) makes the siege of Syracuse last into the third year; and it seems certain that it began in
spring 213 (viii. 7. 6 n.). This third year may seem hard to reconcile with a siege ending in
late autumn 212. But there is an explanation which seems convincing (though not to De
Sanctis, iii. 2. 332). Having dated the beginning of the siege in book xxiv under A.U.C. 540
= 214, and its end in book xxv under A.U.C. 542 = 212, Livy has been led to calculate its
duration as continuing into the third year, and has in consequence put a reference to three
years into Marcellus' mouth (Livy, xxv. 31. 5) and repeated it as his own statement a little
later (Livy, xxxi. 31. 8).
[7]
There is thus no cogent reason for postponing the capture of Syracuse till spring 211. If it
occurred in late autumn 212, there was every reason why P. should mention it under the
Olympiad year corresponding to 212, rather than postpone along with it to ix (which
nominally deals with 211 and 210) events which occurred in the spring of 212. Livy will
have found res Syracusanae in both the second half of viii (going down to the capture of the
city) and in the first part of ix (its aftermath); and he will have utilized these for xxv. 23–31
and 40–41 respectively. De Sanctis's hypothesis that viii. 37 should be postponed into ix is
therefore to be rejected.
The short extract from Suidas, viii. 38, corresponds to Livy, xxv. 36. 7 (dated A.U.C. 542
= 212). But it is clear from the precise statement of Livy, xxv. 36. 14, that the destruction of
Cn. Scipio took place 'octauo anno postquam in Hispaniam uenerat', i.e. in 211 (cf. Livy,
xxv. 38. 6). De Sanctis (iii. 2. 446 n. 4) argues convincingly that P. related it under Ol. 142, 1
= 212/11, but that Livy put it in the consular year corresponding to 212 (cf. Hesselbarth,
389). Hence this passage should be assigned to ix, where it will precede ix. 11 (cf. Meyer, Kl.
Schr. ii. 445 n.).
viii. 38 b 1, from Stephanus, and 38 b 2, from M, cannot be placed with certainty; but the
latter precedes viii. 35 and so probably belongs to the early part of viii or the end of vii (since
these excerpts are not assigned to books).
2. BOOKS IX AND X
These cover Ol. 142 = 212/11–209/8. The excerpta antiqua from ix are: discussion of
types of history (ix. 1–2), Hannibal's march on Rome (ix. 3. 1–9. 10), the Syracusan spoils (ix.
10. 2–13, preceded by a marginal comment, 10. 1), the art of the commander (ix. 12–20), on
the size of cities and on Agrigentum (ix. 26 a–27), speeches of envoys at Sparta (ix. 28–39,
with a marginal comment, ix. 40. 1), on sending help quickly (ix. 40. 2–3), Philip's siege of
Echinus (ix. 41), the Euphrates (ix. 43); from x they are: the recovery of Tarentum (x. 1),
Scipio's character (x. 2. 5–20. 8), cavalry practice (x. 23–24), Macedonian speech against
Rome (x. 25. 1–5, with marginal comment, x. 25. 6), Media (x. 27), Antiochus' expedition
against Arsaces (x. 28. 1–31. 13), Marcellus' death (x. 32. 1–33. 7), Scipio in Spain (x. 34–40.
12), Philip helps his allies: fire-signalling (x. 41. 1–47. 13), the Oxus (x. 48), Antiochus in
Bactria (x. 49).
The first of these is described in F as 〈ἐκ〉 τοῦ θ λόγου and clearly comes from the
προέκθεσις to the Olympiad (cf. xi. 1 a; above, p. 4); this is confirmed by the reference in x.
47. 12 to this passage (ix. 2. 5) as τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐπαγγελίαν. With a few excerptor's
alterations at the beginning most of the passage is also in M, where it follows viii. 24. 1 and
precedes ix. 10. 2. Livy (xxvi. 7–12) describes the siege of
[8]
Capua and Hannibal's march on Rome under A.U.C. 543 = 211; clearly therefore ix. 3. 1–9.
10 belongs to the res Italiae of 211, the first year of the Olympiad; 8. 2–8. 13 is also in Anon.
de obsid. tol., but this gives no further help on the date or position of the fragment. The
reference to Atella from Stephanus goes correctly at ix. 9. 10 a in view of Livy, xxvi. 16. 5
'Atellaque et Calatia in deditionem acceptae'.
ix. 9. 11 refers to an attempt by Bomilcar to help the Tarentines, but as it is from Anon.
de obsid. tol. 78–79 (321 Thévenot), its position in P. is not indicated. Holleaux (240 n. 2)
would assign it to 209, when Q. Fabius was besieging Tarentum; he emphasizes the phrase
τὰ περὶ τὴν στρατοπεδείαν, but neglects the first words of the extract, probably because
they are clearly the excerptor's, not P.'s (cf. Kahrstedt, iii. 281; Klotz, Livius, 175–6).
However, the presence of a Punic fleet at Tarentum is attested by Livy, xxvi. 20. 7–11, a
passage which opens with the words 'aestatis eius extremo qua capta est Capua et Scipio in
Hispaniam uenit', and deals not with the arrival, but with the departure of the Punic fleet.
The reference to Scipio may be ignored, for at this point Livy's Spanish events are recorded a
year in advance (above, p. 8); but Capua fell in 211 (Livy, xxvi. 14. 6), and there is no reason
to doubt Livy's statement that the Punic fleet left Tarentum in 211. It probably arrived late in
212, if indeed it was Bomilcar's fleet that failed to get through to Syracuse, and made for
Tarentum instead (Livy, xxv. 27. 2–13; above, p. 7). P.'s phrase, τοὺς Ῥωµαίους ἀσφαλῶς
θέσθαι τὰ περὶ τὴν στρατοπεδείαν, which worried Holleaux, can very well refer to the
defence of the citadel by the Roman garrison against the Tarentines in the town (Thiel, 105
n. 222); and since P., like Livy, is here concerned with Bomilcar's departure, we may accept
the placing of this fragment here among the res Italiae of 211.
The relationship between the Polybian fragments dealing with the siege and fall of
Syracuse and the account in Livy has already been discussed (above, pp. 5, 6–8). ix. 10. 2–13
(M also has 3–13) corresponds to Livy, xxv. 40–41; Livy puts it under 212, but it clearly
refers to 211 (cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 333) and will form part of the res Siciliae of that year. The
marginal comment at the beginning of the extract in F is correctly placed at ix. 10. 1.
ix. 11, from the excerpts on virtue and vice, clearly belongs to the situation after the
disaster of the Scipios. It has been argued above (p. 8) that this took place in 211, and that
viii. 38 should be included in the res Hispaniae in the first part of ix (Ol. 142, 1). The present
extract will form part of the same section and stands correctly here; but it should be
immediately preceded by viii. 38.
ix. 11 a, recording a Roman embassy to Ptolemy about corn, is from N, a Munich MS.
containing excerpts on embassies. In this
[9]
collection it follows vii. 2–5, which refers to 215; and it can hardly be later than 210, when
the conquest of Sicily will have relieved the grain shortage (cf. Holleaux, 67 n. 2). The
reference to ravaging µέχρι τῶν τῆς Ῥώµης πυλῶν (11 a 2) suggests a date after Hannibal's
diversion of 211, which would be confirmed if this embassy could be identified with
certainty with that mentioned in Livy, xxvii. 4. 10, under 210 (cf. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 420–1
n. 6). But Livy assigns a different purpose to his embassy, which renders the identification
uncertain. 211 therefore remains a possible date, making the present fragment part of the res
Italiae for the first year of the Olympiad; but in the absence of positive evidence the present
position may be retained with this caveat about the date. Nissen (Rh. Mus. 1871, 258) would
place the fragment between ix. 21 and ix. 22, an arguable position if it could be demonstrated
that ix. 12–20 referred to 211 (see below); but it cannot form part of the res Aegypti of 211
or 210 (as Hultsch implies by making it ix. 44) since there were no res Aegypti in v–xiii (cf.
xiv. 12).
The long fragment ix. 12–20, on the art of the commander, precedes the passage on
Agrigentum (ix. 27), which evidently referred to the taking of that city, an event which
occurred, according to Livy, xxvi. 40. 1 iam magna parte anni (A.U.C. 544 = 210)
circumacta. In the margin of F opposite the end of ix. 20 appears a comment which is in fact
22. 6, and this seems to establish the probability that the section on Hannibal as a general (ix.
22–26), from the excerpts on virtue and vice, must have followed ix. 12–20 in the original
text. The context in which the latter passage was introduced remains, however, uncertain.
Schweighaeuser's suggestion that it referred to P. Scipio's capture of New Carthage may be
ignored now that it is clear that this was part of the res Hispaniae for 209. Hoffmann (59)
thinks the discussion arose in relation to Hannibal; but 22. 7, to which he draws attention,
does not carry the implication that P. has recently been discussing Hannibal. It may well be
that ix. 12–20, as well as ix. 22–26, forms part of the res Italiae of Ol. 142, 2 = 211/10 (i.e.
210); but the fact that the previous extract in F (ix. 10. 1–13) deals with Sicilian events of Ol.
142, 1 = 212/11 (above, p. 9) leaves open the possibility that the digression on the general's
art (ix. 12–20) was introduced in relation to Spanish or Greek events of Ol. 142, 1 = 211, e.g.
in connexion with the disaster of the Scipios in Spain or some event in Philip's campaigns of
that year (so Reiske). In that case, if ix. 11 a referred to 210 (see above, pp. 9–10), it could be
placed after ix. 12–20.
This discussion has ignored ix. 21, a fragment from the gnomic excerpts (M), which
precedes ix. 44. 2 and ix. 22. 6 in this collection and follows ix. 10 (from the res Siciliae of
211). Following Schweighaeuser, Klotz (Livius, 115) compares ix. 21 with Livy, xxvi. 37. 1–
9
[10]
(especially 37. 2), on the state of mind in Rome at the beginning of A.U.C. 544 = 210. The
likeness is striking and supports the placing of ix. 21 before ix. 22. It should also be noted that
Livy, xxvi. 38. 1–3 (quoted in the note to ix. 26. 2) seems to echo ix. 26. 2 ff., on Hannibal's
difficulties in Italy after the fall of Capua. Alone, these parallels could hardly be pressed, since
P. is unlikely to be Livy's direct source for the second passage, and Livy is concerned not
with Hannibal's character, but with the effect of his actions on other cities. But they support
the placing of ix. 21 in its present position. M gives a short passage (ix. 44. 2) between ix. 21
and ix. 22. 6; this Hultsch printed immediately after ix. 21; but Büttner-Wobst removed it to
the end of the book, evidently believing it to be out of place and an interruption to the
continuity between ix. 21 and ix. 22. This is probably right.
ix. 26 a and ix. 27. 1–9 form a single excerpt in F, as Büttner-Wobst (correcting
Schweighaeuser) has shown. Livy, xxvi. 40. 1–13 (not necessarily derived from P.: cf. Klotz,
Livius, 177), dates the fall of Agrigentum to 210, and ix. 26 a 1–27. 9 is clearly from the res
Siciliae of Ol. 142, 2 = 210. ix. 27. 10 covers two extracts from Stephanus, who specifically
refers the second to ix; comparison with Livy, xxvi. 40. 16–17 confirms its position after the
fall of Agrigentum. The former fragment clearly refers to the fall of Agrigentum (cf. ix. 27. 5
for the river), but can have either preceded 26 a or followed 27. 1–9 in the complete text. ix.
27. 11 from Suidas corresponds to Livy, xxvi. 40. 18, on the treatment of refugees from
Agathyrna; its position is thus secure.
ix. 28–39 from F contains one sentence (36. 12) also in the gnomic excerpts (M), where it
follows ix. 22. 6 and precedes ix. 42. 5. This gives no help in placing the excerpt, which,
however, from its position in F clearly forms part of the res Graeciae of Ol. 142, 2 = 211/10.
39. 2 indicates that the speeches recorded were delivered after the fall of Oeniadae, Nasus,
and Anticyra, but presumably (ex silentio) before the seizure of Aegina. The date of these
events is controversial. Livy, xxvi. 24. 1–26. 4, covers Greek events from Laevinus' approach
to the Aetolians to his return to Rome to take up the consulship for 210; it appears to deal
with the years 211–210, recorded under A.U.C. 543 = 211. Now this passage in Livy has
usually been taken as derived from P. (cf. Hesselbarth, 512; Soltau, 80; Klotz, Livius, 115,
176); but recently McDonald (JRS, 1956, 157) has argued that the framework (i.e. Livy, xxvi.
24. 1–6, 26. 4) is annalistic, and that only the central part, Livy, xxvi. 24. 7–26. 3, is Polybian.
This Polybian section he believes to represent the res Graeciae for Ol. 142, 1 = 212/11. This
implies that the Aetolian agreement with Laevinus was made in winter 212/11 according to
P., and that the subsequent events recorded in Livy—the capture of
[11]
Zacynthus, Oeniadae, and Nasus (Livy, xxvi. 24. 15), Philip's expedition against Illyria and
return to Tempe (Livy, xxvi. 25. 1–5), the Aetolian attack on Acarnania under Scopas (Livy,
xxvi. 25. 9–16), Philip's expedition to Thrace and return to Dium and Pella (Livy, xxvi. 25.
6–8, 15–17)—all occurred during the first months of 211; and the seizure of Anticyra ueris
principio (Livy, xxvi. 26. 1–3) will date to spring 211.
There are difficulties in this chronology. The seizure of Anticyra πρῴην (39. 2) is the
latest event mentioned in the speeches at Sparta; and though πρῴην can certainly be used of
events occurring a long time previously (cf. 31. 4), in view of its position in the fragments of
P. the Spartan debate cannot have taken place before autumn 211, and it is hard to see why
the fall of Anticyra at least six months earlier should be πρῴην in contrast to the capture of
Oeniadae and Nasus only a month or two earlier. Still harder to explain is the Aetolians'
delay of between six months and a year (at least) of good campaiging weather since the
compact with Laevinus before approaching the Spartans.
On McDonald's chronology, too, there is a year empty of events between Laevinus'
seizure of Anticyra ueris principio in 211 (Livy, xxvi. 26. 1–3) and his receiving news of his
election to the consulate absens in spring 210. Were there no events of any consequence in
Greece related by P. under 211 after the fall of Anticyra? And if there were, why has Livy
omitted them? In fact Livy obviously believes the news of his election to have reached
Laevinus shortly after the fall of Anticyra in spring 210 (for the elections at the end of 211 cf.
Livy, xxvi. 22. 13); and, quite consistently, Laevinus is delayed by illness, reaches Rome later
in 210 (Livy, xxvi. 26. 4) and eventually his province of Sicily magna parte anni circumacta
(Livy, xxvi. 40. 1).
It has been held that the evidence concerning the Aetolian generals is against this
chronology. Scopas, McDonald observes (loc. cit.), was στρατηγός in the Aetolian year
(autumn-autumn) 212/11. But this is not certain. Scopas was indeed general at the time of
the concilium with Laevinus (Livy, xxvi. 24. 7) and the following spring Scopas Aetolique
joined in the taking of Anticyra (Livy, xxvi. 26. 1). The general for 210/09 was Pyrrhias
(Livy, xxvii. 30. 1, based on P.); and at the siege of Echinus P. (ix. 42. 1) mentions
Dorimachus, ὁ τῶν Αἰτωλῶν (sc. στρατηγός). It has therefore been assumed that
Dorimachus must be the general for 211/10, leaving Scopas necessarily as general in 212/11.
This view (for which I argued in Philip, 301–4) is not, however, compelling. It ignores the
important fact that ix. 42. 1 is part of a mere précis of the historian's text taken from the
Anon. de obsid. tol., and merits no confidence as a record of P.'s words. We cannot be sure
that P. described Dorimachus as
[12]
στρατηγός,1 and as an important Aetolian (cf. Livy, xxvi. 24. 7, where Dorimachus, princeps
Aetolorum, shares the reply to Laevinus along with the στρατηγός Scopas) he may well have
commanded forces at Echinus without being General of the Confederation.
Nothing then forbids the assumption that Livy, xxvi. 24. 7–26. 3 represents part of P.'s res
Graeciae for Ol. 142, 2 = 211/10. The Aetolian concilium will be shortly after Scopas'
election to the στρατηγία in autumn 211, the attack on Zacynthus, Oeniadae, and Nasus
will be late autumn, Philip's winter campaign will belong to winter 211/10, and the Aetolian
attack on Acarnania will be at the same time. The seizure of Anticyra, still in Scopas'
στρατηγία, is in spring 210, and Laevinus hears of his election shortly after. The debate at
Sparta will have taken place in 210 before Philip's attack on Echinus and the seizure of
Aegina (which neither speaker mentions).
The fragment on the character of the Athenians (ix. 40. 1) is from the margin of F
opposite the end of the preceding fragment. Whether it connects with an Acarnanian appeal
to Athens (so Schweighaeuser) or whether, less probably, Athenian envoys were present at
Sparta, it can be placed confidently here before ix. 40. 2–3, also from F. This fragment, in
oratio obliqua, evidently forms part of an appeal for help. Schweighaeuser referred it to the
Acarnanian appeal to Philip (cf. Livy, xxvi. 25. 15); but this involves one of two hypotheses.
Either the negotiations at Sparta preceded the Aetolian attack on Acarnania (cf. ix. 40. 4 n.),
in which case the reference to Oeniadae, Nasus, and Anticyra in Lyciscus' speech (ix. 39. 2) is
anachronistic; or there is a displacement in the order of fragments in F and ix. 40. 2–3 should
precede ix. 28. There is one example of such a displacement in book v; see above, p. 1. But
the hypothesis of another here is one to be accepted only with reluctance. In fact the
fragment may well refer to some other appeal in 210, for our knowledge of the events of this
year is not sufficient to warrant excluding such a possibility. On the whole this hypothesis
would seem to do least violence to the evidence.
In any case, however, ix. 40. 4–6, two passages from Suidas relating to the Acarnanian
resistance to the Aetolian attack (cf. Livy, xxvi. 25. 10, 25. 12–13), are misplaced and should
stand between 27 and 28. The order of the fragments in this part of ix will thus be: 40. 4, 40.
5–6, 28–39, 40. 1, 40. 2–3.
[13]
1
Walek (Rev. phil. 1928, 9 ff.) also eliminates Dorimachus' στρατηγία (as does
Clementi, Studi di stor. ant. i, 1891, 57); but he tries unsuccessfully to dispose of ix.
42. 1 on the assumption that it represents P.'s own words. For criticism of this see
Walbank, Philip, 303. His argument that Sulpicius is also called στρατηγός, though
he was proconsul, is irrelevant in view of P.'s usage; see ix. 42. 1 n.
Of the section dealing with Philip's siege of Echinus (ix. 41. 1–42. 4), 41 is from F (where
it follows 40. 3) and 42. 1–4 from the Anon. de obsid. tol. 136–9 (323, 25–32 Thevenot). The
subject-matter establishes the common context, but the fragment from the Anonymous is
much deformed by the epitomator of P. and allows no confidence in the reference to
Dorimachus as Aetolian στρατηγός (ix. 42. 1: see above, pp. 12–13). The events described
form part of the res Graeciae for Ol. 142. 2 = 211/10, and belong presumably to the
campaigning season of 210. This fits the reference to P. Sulpicius Galba, who was proconsul
in Greece that year (cf. viii. 1. 6 n.; Livy, xxvi. 26. 4, 28. 9).
The fragment on the Roman occupation of Aegina (42. 5–8) is from the gnomic excerpts
(M), where it is followed by x. 5. 8, part of the res Hispaniae of Ol. 142, 3 (210/09). Hence
the present fragment must belong to the res Graeciae of 211/10, and so fall in the second part
of ix. But whether it preceded or followed the account of the siege of Echinus cannot be
determined (cf. Holleaux, 239 n. 6).
ix. 43 on the Euphrates follows ix. 41 in F, and so clearly belongs to the res Asiae of Ol.
142, 2 (211/10); for the choice between 211 and 210 see the note ad loc. Finally, ix. 44 and
45 contain several fragments the context of which is uncertain. ix. 44. 1, on keen allies,
precedes, and ix. 44. 2 on the faults of monographs (apparently from some discussion of
universal history) follows, ix. 21; on ix. 44. 2 see above, p. 11. ix. 45. 1–3 contains three
geographical references assigned by Athenaeus or Stephanus to this book. Of these Xynia
and Phorynna (ix. 45. 3) are from Stephanus; Phorynna (cf. Livy, xxvi. 25. 15) evidently
belongs to the Greek affairs of Ol. 142, 1 (211), of which a version survives in Livy, xxvi. 24.
7–26. 3; the passage containing the reference will have preceded ix. 28–39 and followed ix.
40. 5–6 (see above, p. 13). Xynia(e) may have been mentioned under Ol. 142, 2 (211/10)
before the siege of Echinus, and Arsinoe and the river Cyathus (ix. 45. 1–2) probably in
connexion with the Aetolian attack on Acarnania (cf. ix. 40. 4–6).
x. 1, the first fragment from this book in F, deals with the Roman recovery of Tarentum.
The presumption that it is from the res Italiae of Ol. 142, 3 = 210/09 is confirmed by Livy,
xxvii. 15. 9–16. 9, which dates the event to 209. Next in F comes a fragment on Scipio's
character and the taking of New Carthage (x. 2. 5–20. 8), parts of which are also in M and P
(the gnomic excerpts and those on vice and virtue) and others in Suidas; the excerpts on vice
and virtue also extend the passage backwards (x. 2. 1–3. 2). Its position in F establishes this
fragment as part of the res Hispaniae of Ol. 142, 3 = 210/9, in effect 209 (cf. x. 6. 1 n.),
though Livy (xxvi. 44–46) dates the fall of New Carthage to 210, an error originating out of
confusion in equating Olympiad and consular years (cf. xxvii. 7. 5; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 454 n.
18, 468 n. 38; Klotz, Hermes, 1952, 340, who suggests
[14]
that Livy rejected P.'s chronology in order to reinforce his picture of a Roman recovery
beginning from book xxvi onwards). Discussion of Philopoemen and his cavalry reforms
comes next in F (x. 23–24) and the context allows the fragment x. 21–22, from the excerpts
on vice and virtue, to come immediately before it, as Schweighaeuser first saw. There is no
doubt that we are here dealing with the res Graeciae of Ol. 142, 3 = 210/9, i.e. 209.
Euryleon's Achaean strategia (x. 21. 1) will be 211/10 (autumn–autumn), since the general
for 210/9, the year of Philopoemen's hipparchy (x. 22. 6), was Cycliadas (Livy, xxvii. 31. 10).
The next fragment in F (x. 25. 1–5) is from a speech and, as Schweighaeuser saw, is
probably from the negotiations at Aegium mentioned in Livy, xxvii. 30. 10, 'ibi de Aetolico
finiendo bello actum ne causa aut Romanis aut Attalo intrandi Graeciam esset'. Livy relates
the Greek events of 209 and 208 under the years 208 and 207 (Livy, xxvii. 29. 9–33. 5, xxviii.
5–8; cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 443, with the criticisms of Walek, Rev. phil. 1928, 13 ff.), as
references to the Heraea, Nemea, and Olympia show. Hence the debate at Aegium falls in
209, and the present fragment will be from the res Graeciae of Ol. 142, 3 = 209. The
sentence x. 25. 6 occurs in the margin of F opposite the end of x. 25. 1–5; it is in oratio
obliqua and probably comes from a speech in the same debate.
Two of the excerpts on vice and virtue deal with Philip's character and his behaviour at
Argos (x. 26); they clearly refer to the events mentioned in Livy, xxvii. 31. 3–8, under 208,
though in fact they belong to 209 (see above). Since these events succeed the debate at
Aegium, the fragments are properly placed here.
F contains two separated passages on Asian affairs from x. The first, x. 27. 1–31. 13, with a
break indicated after 27, comes next in the fragments and so belongs to the res Asiae of Ol.
142, 3 = 209: it concerns Antiochus' expedition against Arsaces. Two towns in Hyrcania and
Parthia, mentioned by Stephanus (x. 31. 14–15), evidently belong in this section, since by
208 Antiochus had reached the Oxus and Bactria (x. 48–49); but since Calliope in Parthyene
is likely to have been mentioned before Antiochus reached Hecatompylus, 31. 15 should
probably be placed between 27. 13 and 28. 1.
That the next fragment from F, on Marcellus' death (x. 32. 1–33. 7), belongs to the res
Italiae of Ol. 142, 4 = 208, is confirmed by Livy, xxvii. 26–27, and the fact that Marcellus was
consul when he died. x. 33. 8, from Suidas, refers to Hannibal's attack on Salapia shortly after
Marcellus' death (cf. Livy, xxvii. 28. 10–11), and this determines its position. The account of
Baecula from F (with an extract from M in ch. 36) must come from the res Hispaniae of Ol.
142, 4 = 208 (x. 34. 1–40. 12). Livy, xxvii. 17–20, dates Baecula to 209; but see
[15]
above, pp. 8, 14; cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 443, who points out that Baecula must fall in the year
before Metaurus, which was in 207.
Next in F comes a fragment on help given by Philip to his allies and on fire-signalling (x.
41–7); it must form part of the res Graeciae for 208, which Livy, xxviii. 5–8, recounts after P.
For his dating to 207 see above, p. 15; the reference to the Olympic games in Livy, xxviii. 7.
14, shows the real date to be 208. This fragment should be followed by the short passage
from Suidas, dealing with events at Opus in 208, which Livy (xxviii. 7. 7–8, 8. 1–3) puts in
207; it is printed by Büttner-Wobst at xi. 7. 1 (on this cf. Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 204).
Finally come two fragments from F (x. 48 and 49) dealing with the Oxus and Antiochus in
Bactria; Stephanus also gives x. 48. 1. Clearly both passages are from the res Asiae of Ol. 142,
4 = 208.
3. BOOK XI
This covers Ol. 143, 1–2 = 208/7 and 207/6. The excerpta antiqua are: Hasdrubal in Italy (1.
2–3. 6), Thrasycrates' speech (4–6), Philopoemen's reforms and the death of Machanidas (9–
18), Hannibal's character (19), Ilipa (20–24. 9), Scipio crushes a mutiny (25–30), suppression
of Andobales' revolt (31–33), affairs in Bactria (34). The first of these is described in the
margin as being πολυβίου . τ. . ια λόγου. In Büttner-Wobst it is correctly preceded by xi. 1
a, from the gnomic excerpts (M), in which it follows x. 36 and precedes xi. 3. 7; its subject-
matter indicates that it forms part of the προέκθεσις to Olympiad 143 (cf. ix. 1–2; xiv. 1 a;
above, p. 4). 1. 1 contains two extracts from Suidas; they correspond to Livy, xxvii. 39. 6 and
40. 1 (though it is unlikely that Livy is here deriving from P.), and precede the account of
Metaurus (1. 2–3. 6), which is taken from the res Italiae of Ol. 143, 1 = 207 = A.U.C. 547, the
consulship of C. Claudius Nero and M. Livius Salinator.
3. 7 follows 1 a and precedes 4. 10 in the gnomic excerpts. It concerns speeches and may
well belong to the occasion when Thrasycrates delivered his (4–6); but Schweighaeuser,
Hultsch, and Büttner-Wobst are wrong to compare Livy, xxviii. 7. 13 f., describing the
arrival of neutral ambassadors at Elatea, for though dated by Livy to 207, these events belong
to 208 (cf. Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 203; above, p. 15). 3. 7 could equally well refer to
some event in the res Italiae, or even the res Siciliae or Hispaniae of 207 (so Büttner-Wobst);
but with this caveat, it may be left in its present position. Thrasycrates' speech (4–6: F2 gives
his name in the margin) is from the res Graeciae of 207; and that 7. 2–3, on Philip's invasion
of Aetolia, a fragment from the excerpts on vice and virtue, follows it, is assured by the fact
that the gnomic excerpts (M) contain 4.10 and 7. 3 (with a line of 7. 2) in that order. But 7. 1
from Suidas (cf.
[16]
Livy, xxviii. 7. 7–8) refers to 208 and should be transposed to follow x. 47 (see above, p. 16).
The two Aetolian towns mentioned in Stephanus may be left at 7. 4–5, though in the
original they can just as well have been mentioned before Philip's arrival at Thermum (7. 2–
3). 8 consists of three fragments from Suidas, the third of which (8. 7) is also in the margin of
F opposite 9. 1. The subject, generalship (with a reference to Achaea, 8. 3), appropriately
precedes Philopoemen's reforms (contrast 8. 5–6 with 10. 3); and Suidas has drawn
extensively on P. hereabouts. What follows (9–18) on the reforms and Machanidas' death is
clearly from the res Graeciae of 207; it comes from F, but M appears at 10. 1–2 and the
excerpts on vice and virtue at 10. 3–7 (both following 7. 3). For 13. 8–14. 2, 14. 4, 15. 5, 16.
1–2, 16. 5–6 a Berlin papyrus (P. 9570, second century A.D.; Wilcken, Arch. Pap. i. 388–95)
gives no new information. On the date of Philopoemen's first στρατηγία see xi. 8–18 n.
19 a, on causes, is from M, where it falls between 10. 2 and 24 a (res Hispaniae); though
Hultsch and Büttner-Wobst place it here
at the outset of the res Italiae for 206, it could equally well follow Philopoemen's successes or
occur in the Spanish chapters. The character-sketch of Hannibal from F (19) is clearly part of
the res Italiae of 206, and appropriately follows Hasdrubal's failure in 207; there is a similar
passage at the corresponding point in Livy (xxviii. 12. 1–9).
Most of the remaining fragments of this book are from the res Hispaniae of 206; the
account of Ilipa (20–24. 9) is from F. De Sanctis (iii. 2. 496–7 n. 84) argues that in xi P.
combined the res Hispaniae for 207 and 206 in a single section, and he dates Ilipa to 207.
This implies that Livy, xxviii. 12–37, which is nominally on 206, in fact also covers events of
207, and that Livy, xxviii. 12. 10–17. 1 is a doublet of Livy, xxviii. 1–4. 4 (207); Livy, xxviii.
16. 14 will thus mark the transition to Ol. 143, 2 = autumn 207–autumn 206, and Ilipa will
be left in 207. Against this Scullard (Scip. 304–9) makes these persuasive points:
(a) There is little reason to make Livy, xxviii. 1–4 and 12–17 a doublet; they are quite
different narratives.
(b) Livy xxviii. 16. 14 states that the Carthaginians were expelled from Spain in the fifth
year of Scipio's command and the fourteenth (read 'thirteenth': cf. Livy, xxviii. 10. 8) of the
war; this refers to 206. De Sanctis has to refer it prospectively to events following Ilipa; but it
reads naturally as a reference to Ilipa itself, and implies that Livy put this in 206.
(c) For De Sanctis's argument to hold together, with Livy, xxviii. 16. 14 referring to 207,
Ilipa must have been fought just before; but the battle was in fact in spring (xi. 20. 1).
[17]
Granted, it is hard to fit all that Livy records of Scipio after Ilipa into a time-table which
allows him to return to Rome for the consular elections of 206 (Livy, xxviii. 38. 1–6); but it is
not impossible, if (a) Scipio returned from Ilipa to New Carthage and not to Tarraco, and
Livy reversed the assignment of commands to Silanus and Marcius during Scipio's absence in
Africa (so Brewitz, 38 ff.; Scullard, Scip. 308–9), or (b) the elections were late and Scipio
made a bold return risking bad weather (so Broughton, MRR, i. 301). The second alternative
is the more probable, but either is preferable to dating Ilipa to 207.
24 a 1–3 and 4 follow 19 a in M; 25 comes next in M and an overlap with the excerpta
antiqua allows all these to be placed after Ilipa. Hasdrubal's remark about Scipio (24 a 4) is
also in Livy, xxviii. 18. 7–8; and 24 a 1–3 may correspond to Livy, xxviii. 17. 2–3. Hultsch
and Büttner-Wobst place 24. 10 and 24. 11 between 24. 9 and 24 a 1; the first is a mention of
Ilourgeia from Stephanus, the second a citation from Suidas which comparison with App.
Hisp. 33 and Livy, xxviii. 22–23 shows to refer to the destruction of Astapa. The order of
events in Appian and Livy shows that both these towns were attacked after Scipio's visit to
Syphax; for Ilourgeia cf. App. Hisp. 32 and Livy, xxviii. 19. 1 f. (where Livy refers incorrectly
to the Iliturgi). Hence (as Hesselbarth, 447, saw) 24. 10 and 24. 11 ought to follow 24 a 4. In
fact they were rightly placed in Schweighaeuser, in terms of the fragments then available; the
error arose when 24 a 1–3 and 24 a 4 were wrongly placed after, instead of before, 24. 10–11.
The Roman mutiny (25–30) from F has an overlap with M at 25. 1–7; that it comes here
is confirmed by Livy, who records it in xxviii. 24–29, after the destruction of Astapa (22–23).
The lacuna at 26. 1 can be filled from Livy, xxviii. 25. 15. The last Spanish fragment from F
(31–33) concerns Andobales' revolt; Livy, xxviii. 31. 5–34 independently confirms its
position, and reveals an omission between 33. 6 and 33. 7 (cf. Livy, xxviii. 34. 1 ff.). The
extract 34 (F) is part of the res Asiae for 206, and deals with Antiochus in Bactria and India.
4. BOOK XII
xii forms a digression (cf. xii. 11. 6), devoted to polemic against Timaeus, and incidentally
Callisthenes and others. The excerpta antiqua are: Timaeus' errors on Africa and Corsica (3–
4), on Locri (5–6. 6), Timaeus on truth (12. 1–3), on falsehood and ignorance (12. 4–5),
Timaeus on Demochares and Agathocles (14. 3–15. 11), an incident at Locri (16),
Callisthenes as military historian (17–22), Timaeus' version of Hermocrates' speech (26. 1–8),
Timaeus' failure to use autopsy (27. 1–28. 9); there are also three marginal insertions
[18]
(7. 6, 10. 6, 25 c 5). In this book, however, the order in the gnomic excerpts (M) and those
on vice and virtue (P) is more important for the reconstruction of the order of the fragments
as a whole. The first excerpt from F (3–4) is headed Πολυβίου . . . τοῦ ῑβʹ λόγου, and
evidently follows a reference to Africa; this supports the view (see xii, introductory note) that
P. introduced his criticism of Timaeus in connexion with a description of Africa, Scipio's
next theatre of war and part of his province for 205 (the actual invasion was not till 204).
Stephanus mentions five African towns from this book, and it seems likely that this was early
in the book when Africa was under discussion (1. 1–5); whether they came in polemic
against Timaeus is uncertain. The account of the lotus from Athenaeus will also come at the
beginning (2). In F Corsica is apparently mentioned (3–4) as just another place on which
Timaeus is inaccurate. 4 a–4 d is from M, where it precedes 6 a; the reference to Africa in 4 c
2 justifies placing it here, before P. turns to Locri. Sardinia, mentioned in 4 c 2, must have
been discussed in a lost passage.
That a substantial section on Locri came next is clear from 5–6. 6, which follows 3–4 in F.
6. 7 represents two extracts from Athenaeus on the possession of slaves in Greece and Locri;
like the fragments 6 a and 6 b, from M, it involves discussing Timaeus' criticisms of Aristotle.
It is not, however, clear whether the argument based on the antiquity of slavery (6. 7–8) or
those based on probability (6 a– 6 b) came first. Pédech (introd. xix) argues that P. deals first
with the arguments dealing with autopsy, and then with those based on probability, and is
therefore disposed to make 6. 7 follow 6 b; but it is by no means certain that P. followed this
order, nor, even if he did, does it follow that 6. 7–8 is out of place. The traditional order may
therefore be kept (and indeed is kept also by Pédech). 7–11 are from the excerpts on vice and
virtue, but there is an overlap of 7. 4–8. 1 in M, and two comments in the margin of F (7. 6
and 10. 6), inserted opposite a point about half-way though 5–6. The order of these
fragments seems assured; for though Valesius wanted to put 5–6 after 7–11, Schweighaeuser
rightly follows Reiske in adopting the present order, in view of 7. 2, which suggests that P.
has now finished with Timaeus and Aristotle on Locri.
11. 8 is from M, where it follows 8. 1; and since the next passage (12. 1–3) is also in M, as
well as in F, the order seems assured; it seems probable that 11. 8 on truth is part of the
argument leading up to that in 12. The order in M shows that Schweighaeuser was wrong to
put 11. 8 between 6. 6 and 7–11. F and M both give parts of 12; F has 12. 1–3 and 12. 4–5,
M has 12. 1–3 and 12. 6–7, in each case as separate passages: the relative order of 12. 4–5 and
12. 6–7 can be determined by the sense. 12 a and 12 b, on the proverb Λοκροὶ τὰς
συνθήκας, and Timaeus' criticism of Callisthenes, follow 12. 6–7 in
[19]
that order in M. 13–15, on Timaeus' criticism of Demochares and Agathocles, is from the
excerpts on vice and virtue, with an overlap at 14. 3–15. 11 from F; this establishes the
placing of this extract before 16, also in F, but there is no way of relating this sequence to 12
a and 12 b, which may have followed 15 or even 16. Indeed, the reference to Callisthenes (12
b 2) may have helped to lead up to the discussion of that historian in 17–22; but it is clear
from 17. 1 and 22. 7 that P.'s criticism of Callisthenes was accompanied by criticism of
Ephorus, and it is not impossible that 16 was concerned with criticism of Ephorus, not
Timaeus, which would explain its position here, rather than earlier, when slaves at Locri
were under discussion. On the other hand it would fit into a criticism of Timaeus' allegation
that Zaleucus did not exist.
23, which concludes the discussion of Timaeus' criticism of Aristotle, Theophrastus,
Callisthenes, Ephorus, and Demochares (23. 8), follows 15 in the excerpts on vice and virtue.
It therefore seems likely that 17–22 from F (the first sentence of 17 was restored by
Schweighaeuser from Suidas) precedes it; but Schweighaeuser's suggestion (vol. vii. 112, 123)
that 17–22 might follow 23–25 as a kind of appendix cannot be wholly excluded (cf. Pédech,
introd. xxii–xxiii, who envisages that it might at least follow 23). 24–25 consists of three
fragments from the excerpts on vice and virtue, all following in order after 23; no break is
shown after λόγους in 24. 5. 25 a–28 a contains five consecutive passages from M; and since
26 and 27. 1–28. 9 are also in F, the sequence clearly follows 22. It is not, however, certain
that all the passages in 25 a–28 a necessarily follow the sequence 24–25, though the
development of the argument suggests that they do.
5. BOOK XIII
This covers Ol. 143, 3–4 = 206/5 and 205/4. The excerpta antiqua are: Scopas in
Alexandria (2. 2), Philip's treacherous policy (3. 1– 4. 8), the importance of truth (5. 4–6),
Nabis' character (6. 1–7. 11). The first of these is preceded in modern texts by 1. 1–3 and 1 a
1–3, of which 1. 1–3 is from the excerpts on vice and virtue, and Athenaeus quotes part of it
as from xiii. Its sense confirms its position before 1 a, which is from M; and that the latter
precedes 2 is certain, since the words ὅτι παρ’ οἷς . . . χρησαµένους are also in the margin of
F (at fol. 216v extr.), and further 2. 1–2 is also in M following on 1 a 1–3. 2. 1–5 is also in the
excerpts on virtue and vice, and parts of it are in Suidas.
The passage on Philip's treachery and Heracleides (3. 1–4. 8) also contains an extract from
the excerpts on virtue and vice (4. 4–8), and a reference in Athenaeus to Heracleides' role
confirms that the book
[20]
is xiii. Three fragments from Suidas continue the saga of Heracleides (5. 1–3), but whether 5.
4–6 on truth (from F) should precede or follow these sentences is uncertain; moreover,
comparison with Polyaen. v. 17 (2), taken from P., suggests that the Suidas fragments should
be printed in this order: 5. 2, 5. 1, 5. 3 (cf. Holleaux, études, iv. 136). 5. 4–6 is also in M, with
some small verbal discrepancies and the addition of ὡς συνέβη . . . ἀφικόµενον at the end. 5.
7 is in the excerpts on virtue and vice, and part in Suidas; its position in the former sets it
before 6. 1 and after 4. 8. Its reference to Damocles and Pythion, spies at Rome, makes it
likely that it fits into this context, where Philip's treachery is being exposed. The account of
Nabis is in the excerpts on virtue and vice (P) as well as in F; but P continues with 8. 1–7,
dealing with Nabis' aggression against Megalopolis. All these passages come from res
Graeciae, but they need not all belong to the same year. For the actions of Heracleides
Holleaux (études, iv. 124–5) leaves the choice open. As he observes (ibid. 139 n.), the separate
peace between Philip and Aetolia was in 206, and the economic distress and appointment of
Scopas and Dorimachus as nomographers can well belong to 205 (cf. Steigemann, 28). If, as
is perhaps probable, Philip's intrigues in Crete and Rhodes (3–5) followed the peace of
Phoenice, their date would be 204 (cf. Steigemann, ibid.; Walbank, Philip, 306). Holleaux
(loc. cit.) observes that Diod. xxvii. 3, describing the Rhodian declaration of war on Crete,
precedes the account of Pleminius' sacrilege at Locri (Diod. xxvii. 4. 1–5) in 205. But
Heracleides' activities need not precede the outbreak of the Rhodian war against Crete, and
on the whole 204 seems the more likely date for them. There is no reason why the passages
describing them should be from the same part of the book as those dealing with Aetolia. In 6.
1 Nabis is said to be in his third year of rule; since Machanidas was killed in 207 (xi. 17), 6.
1–8. 1 is almost certainly from 204.
9. 1–3 from Stephanus and 9. 4–5 from Suidas deal with Antiochus' presence among the
Gerrhaeans, his visit to Tylus, and his return to Seleuceia. Since he wintered in Carmania in
206/5 (xi. 34. 13), these events probably belong to the res Asiae of Ol. 143, 3 = 205; in which
case 9 should precede 3. So long as Antiochus' letter to his satrap in Caria (Welles, 36/37;
Holleaux, études, iii. 165–81) was dated to spring 204, the visit to the Gerrhaeans had to
belong to 205. But the date of this letter, queried by Welles, has now been shown by L.
Robert to be 193 (cf. iv. 2. 7 n.); hence this inscription gives no help in the dating of this
fragment (cf. Aymard, REA, 1949, 333 n.). 10. 1–11 is a collection of place-names from Italy,
Crete, Thrace, and Illyria quoted by Stephanus. Fighting among the Bruttii against
Hannibal, and events in the other areas could belong to either 205 or 204.
[21]
6. BOOKS XIV AND XV
These contain each the events of a single year, Ol. 144, 1 = 204/3 (cf. xiv. 1 a 5) and 144,
2 = 203/2. The excerpta antiqua from xiv are: the account of Scipio in Africa (xiv. 1. 1–10.
10); from xv: affairs in Africa down to Zama (xv. 1–16), the emotion of the Punic
ambassadors (xv. 17. 1–2), the settlement after Zama (xv. 17. 3–19. 9), the Syro-Macedonian
pact (xv. 20. 1–8), criticism of the people of Cius and the announcement of Philip's capture
of Cius at Rhodes (xv. 21. 3–23. 10), events at Alexandria (xv. 26. 1–36. 10).
xiv. 1. 1–10. 10 is copied, in the codex Urbinas, in the second hand (F2), with the
marginal comment: πολυβίου τοῦ ϊδ λόγου. xiv. 10. 11–12 are from Suidas, 11 under
κεραία, 12 under ὑπηρετικοῖς. The dating is confirmed by Livy, xxx. 1. 1, 3. 3. Few other
fragments survive from xiv. 1 a from the preface is from M, where it follows xiii. 5. 6. 11
consists of two extracts from Athenaeus, which he ascribes to this book; they must form part
of the res Aegypti, and so follow the res Africae (1–10). 12 is from the excerpts on virtue and
vice (P), where it follows xiii. 8. 7; its connexion with the subject-matter of 11 confirms its
position here, but whether it should precede or follow 11 cannot be determined.
xv. 1–16 is preceded by the words πολυβίου . . . τοῦ ϊε λόγου in F; and clearly the first
three excerpta antiqua from this book refer to res Italiae et Africae of 203/2, which appear to
be dealt with in a block. The first fragment is extended backwards at the beginning by N
(Monacensis, 267), which gives the first two and a half lines of xv. 1. 1 and goes down to 4.
8; M also gives xv. 6. 3–9. 1. xv. 20. 1–8 on the Syro-Macedonian pact evidently falls under
the res Graeciae of 203/2, and may refer to events of winter 203/2. Following Magie (JRS,
1939, 32), Bikerman (Chron. d'égypte, 1940, 130–1) supposes that the moral reflections here
presuppose a fuller account of the pact earlier, i.e. in xiv, which would date it to 204/3. This
dating would certainly better suit an accession of Epiphanes in autumn 204; but on
Bikerman's own hypothesis P. did not describe this accession until xv, and so is unlikely to
have described an event which followed directly upon it in xiv. The real date of the pact is
another matter. If P. put the date of accession too late, he may also have dated the pact too
late; but in fact it is not possible to be wholly certain whether P. believed Epiphanes'
accession to have been in 204/3 or 203/2 (see xiv. 11–12 n.).
The affairs of Cius (xv. 21. 3–23. 10) will also belong to the res Graeciae and to the
campaigning season of 202. xv. 21. 1–2 from the excerpts on virtue and vice (P) seems
correctly placed before 21. 3, since there is a reference back to some such details (cf. xv. 21. 3,
διὰ τὴν . . . ἀβουλίαν καὶ κακοπολιτείαν); Suidas adds a detail on
[22]
Molpagoras' death. xv. 21. 5–8 is also in M, and 22. 1–23. 9 in the excerpts on virtue and vice
(P). xv. 24 is a series of short fragments: 24. 1 from P, where it follows 23. 9 and precedes 25.
1, 24. 2 and 3 from Suidas, and 24. 4–6 from M. At this point M contains four passages, 24.
4–6, 24 a, 26 a 1–2 and 34. 1–36. 11. Of these 34. 1–36. 11 coincides in part with a long
passage in F, and its position is thus certain, while 24. 4–6, which appears to concern Philip
(cf. the reference to universal dominion with v. 102. 1), seems correctly placed as a comment
on the treacherous occupation of Thasos. The right place for 24 a, 25. 1–2, and 26 a 1–2 has
been established by P. Maas in a brilliant piece of analysis (AIPhO, 1949, 443–6). xv. 25. 3–
37 is from Q, an Escorial MS. περὶ ἐπιβουλῶν. By a comparison with P, which is extant for
xv. 25. 20–25, Maas demonstrates the existence of large gaps in Q, wherever his original
contained anything irrelevant to the copyist's subject (cf. xv. 25. 21–23 and 25. 25 τῷ δὲ . . .
ἦγον, both omitted by Q). Maas postulates similar gaps between 25. 7 and 25. 20; and indeed
compression had already been detected in several places by Hultsch and Büttner-Wobst.
Down to 25. 7 Sosibius acts along with Agathocles; afterwards he is not mentioned. Already
Schweighaeuser had suggested that the account of his murders in 25. 1–2 (from P) was
inserted in connexion with his death; and Niese (ii. 573 n. 3) had drawn the conclusion that
he died before Epiphanes' accession, an untenable view (cf. xv. 25. 1–2 n.). Maas suggests
that the account of Sosibius' death fell in a lost part of the narrative between xv. 25. 7 and xv.
25. 20, and probably at the end of 25. 10 (for in 25. 11 Agathocles is acting alone).
This hypothesis gains confirmation from the argument relating to xv. 24 a and xv. 26 a 1–
2 (both from M). Both these Maas places after xv. 25. 19; and in a Nachtrag he proves his
point by comparing 25. 19 and 24 a with xxviii. 16. 10–11, which clearly reproduces the two
earlier passages in that order (see xv. 25. 19 n.). Similarly, the murder of Deinon (xv. 26 a 1–
2) leads up to the statement of xv. 25. 20. The order of all these fragments within xv is
assured both from F and from the fragment of P at 25. 20–25; but on the problem of the real
date of the events described see xiv. 11–12 n. There are thus no surviving fragments between
xv. 25. 37 and the last extract in F, xv. 26. 1–36. 10 (of which M also gives 34. 1–36. 11,
adding eight words omitted by F). xv. 37. 1–2, a comment on Antiochus, is from P, where it
falls between xv. 25. 25 and xvi. 1. 1; it is therefore from the res Asiae of xv. Suidas also
quotes it.
7. BOOK XVI
This contains the events of Ol. 144, 3–4 = 202/1, and 201/0. The excerpta antiqua are: the
battle of Chios (2–9), how men change their minds (10. 2–4), the taking of Prinassus (11),
remarks on Iasus (12),
[23]
a single sentence in the margin (21. 11), Scipio's return and triumph (23), Philip's conduct
compared favourably with that of Attalus and the Rhodians (28), the siege of Abydus (29. 3–
34. 12), Philopoemen's expedition against Nabis (36–37).
1, on Philip's operations near Pergamum, is from P, in which it follows xv. 37 and
precedes xvi. 13 (Suidas also gives 1. 9 with an extra line). But Holleaux (études, iv. 211 ff.)
has demonstrated that the attack on Pergamum followed the battle of Chios, since Philip's
anger (1. 1) is explicable only if Attalus had provoked his attack; that he had is clear from
xviii. 6. 2 and from the fact that Theophiliscus, the Rhodian navarch, precipitated Attalus'
action (xvi. 9. 3). The provocation was evidently Pergamene participation in the battle of
Chios. Hence Holleaux rightly transposes 1 to a position between 9 and 10, to follow the
account of Chios. (For Holleaux's further argument that the attack on Pergamum also
followed the battle of Lade, and on the relative chronology of Chios and Lade see the
commentary on xvi, introductory note.)
F specifically assigns the account of Chios (2–9) to xvi. The discussion of Philip's
behaviour after Lade (10. 1) is from M, where it follows xv. 36. It is followed by 10. 2–3 (also
in F, where it continues to 10. 4), but despite the absence of any break in M, other than a
stop, between 10. 1 and 10. 2, it is clear that 10. 2–4 does not refer to Philip's failure to sail on
Alexandria (10. 1), since P. believes this to have been feasible, whereas in 10. 2 he is talking
about abandoning impossibilities. Philip's siege of Prinassus and his attack on Iasus belong to
the later part of his campaign of 201 when he has gone south; hence 11 and 12 are clearly
rightly placed. All the fragments so far discussed will belong to the res Macedoniae of 201; 13
from P (where it follows 1 and precedes 14) seems to belong to the res Graeciae of Ol. 144, 3
= 202/1, and it is followed in P by 14–20, a criticism of Zeno and Antisthenes apparently
stimulated (cf. 14. 1 with 13. 3) by their account of events in the Peloponnese, even though
P. goes on to discuss their version of Lade, etc., as well. 17. 5–7 is also in Suidas.
21–22. 10, also from P (with Suidas at 21. 1–9), follows 20 in that MS. and will form part
of the res Aegypti for 202/1. 21. 11 is also in the margin of F alongside the passage on Scipio
(23); this confirms the original position of 21–22. 10. 22. 11 follows 22. 10 in P, but the
words ζήτει ἐν τῷ περὶ δηµηγοριῶν indicate a lacuna where the rest of Tlepolemus' speech
occurred. 22 a is from P, where it follows 22. 11 and precedes 24. 1. Schweighaeuser, despite
its place in the MS., made it xvi. 40; but it clearly belongs to 201 and can well stand here as
part of the res Syriae for that year (cf. Nissen, KU, 124 n. 2; Holleaux, études, iii. 320–1).
Scipio's return to Italy and his triumph are recounted in Livy,
[24]
xxx. 45 under A.U.C. 553 = 201; they will fall towards the end of the year, hence in Ol. 144,
4 = 201/0. 23, describing them, is from F, and is from the res Italiae of the second half of xvi.
The next fragments are from the res Macedoniae et Graeciae of that year; the two seem to
have been run together because of the character of the events. 24. 1–8 is from P, where it
follows 22 a; 24. 9 is from Athenaeus and belongs to the same context (though Holleaux,
études, iv. 230–1, has doubts); the presence of hiatus shows Athenaeus to be paraphrasing.
25–26 are from the excerpta de legationibus (for which Hultsch collated N, Monacensis 267);
they concern Attalus' visit to Athens, and 27 describing the Roman ultimatum to Nicanor
follows in the same excerpta. 28 from F concerns Philip's 'kingly conduct'; comparison with
Livy, xxxi. 15–16 confirms its place after the description of events at Athens (as
Schweighaeuser saw). 29. 1 and 29. 2 are from Suidas; the latter, from a passage explaining
why Philip attacked Abydus, must stand here, and though the former would fit the context
of Livy, xxxi. 28. 6, where Philip after his return to Macedonia from Abydus destroys
Sciathus and Peparethus 'ne classi hostium praedae ac praemio essent', this would involve
assigning it to xvii, which must be ruled out since, as De Boor has shown, Suidas took his
Polybian excerpts from the Constantinian collection, and by the tenth century, when this
was assembled, xvii seems already to be lost since no other quotations from it are found.
29. 3–34. 12 is from F, with 34. 1–7 also in N. 35. 1–2, also from N, seems correctly
placed according to its sense. 36. 1–37. 7 on Philopoemen's campaign against Nabis comes
next in F; evidently Philopoemen is Achaean general for 201/0 (cf. Livy, xxxi. 25. 3:
Cycliadas takes over from him in autumn, 200). 38, from Suidas, is on Philip's attempt to
overcome Achaean reluctance to fight Rome, and would fit the context of Livy xxxii. 5
(winter 199/8) or Livy, xxxii. 19 (autumn 198) as well as here; Nissen (KU, 326) indeed put it
with a query in Ol. 145, 1 = 200/199. But the reasons given above against assigning 29. 1 to
xvii hold also for the present fragment, which is therefore better left here.
39. 1 is from Josephus (AJ, xii. 3. 3), who attributed it to xvi (cod. Oxon., however, reads
ἑνδεκάτῃ). Nissen (KU, 326) and De Sanctis (iv. 1. 118) challenge this attribution and would
put the extract in xvii. Holleaux (études, iii. 321–31) defends its present position; for his
arguments, which involve dating the battle of Panium to 200, see xvi. 18. 2 n. 39. 2 from
Suidas was attributed to P. by Valesius, almost certainly correctly; as De Sanctis (iv. 1. 119 n.
10) suggests, it may well refer to Scopas' siege of Damascus. But the date will be 200, not
198, as De Sanctis makes it, and the fragment will go here before the account of Panium. 39.
3–5 from the same passage of Josephus as 39. 1 refers to Antiochus' conquest of
[25]
Palestine after Panium in 200. All the fragments in 39 will form part of the res Asiae or res
Aegypti (if the two were distinguished) for Ol. 144, 4 = 201/0. 40. 1–7 is a series of place-
names attributed by Stephanus to xvi. Brabantium (40. 1), Hella (40. 3), and Candasa (40. 5)
may refer to Philip's campaign in Asia; Carthaea on Ceos (40. 6) would fit the same context
or the Rhodian recovery of the Cyclades (cf. Livy, xxxi. 15. 8), an account of which may
have stood between 27 and 28. Gitta (40. 2) will belong to the Palestinian context of 39. Livy
(xxxi. 10. 2) records an Insubrian rising under one Hamilcar, which other Gallic tribes
joined; P. may have mentioned this (40. 4) and Mantua (40. 7) in the same context.
(Münzer's view (RE, 'Furius (86)', cols. 362–3) that this campaign is a doublet of that of 196
is contested by Scullard, Pol. 95 n. 1; its authenticity gains some further support from this
reference in P.)
BOOKS XVII AND XVIII

These contained the events of Ol. 145, 1–2 = 200/199 and 199/8 and Ol. 145, 3–4 = 198/7
and 197/6 respectively; but no fragments of xvii have survived. See above (pp. 25–26) for
arguments against assigning xvi. 29. 1, 38, and 39 to this book. The excerpta antiqua from
xviii are: the conference in Locris (xviii. 1–12), the end of a discussion on treachery (xviii. 15.
15–16), Cynoscephalae (xviii. 18–33), on being deceived (xviii. 40. 1–4), Antiochus and the
Roman envoys (xviii. 50–52), Scopas at Alexandria (xviii. 53–55).
The first of these, xviii. 1–12, is assigned πολυβίου . . . τοῦ ιη λόγου, and Stephanus also
quotes 5. 8 and attributes it to this book; P gives 12. 2–5 and Suidas the same. (The precise
date, November 198, is discussed in xviii. 1–12 n.) 13–15, from P, is firmly placed since 15.
15–16 is also in F. Suidas gives 13. 3–6, 13. 5–6, 15. 2–5, 15, 15–16, and 15. 16. P continues
with 16 and 17. 1–5, which deal with honours paid to Attalus at Sicyon and the ravages of
Nabis' wife at Argos; their position is assured by the parallel account in Livy, xxxii. 40. 8–9
and 40. 10–11, drawing on P., which makes clear that Attalus' visit to Sicyon followed his
conference with Flamininus and Nabis at Mycenae. 17. 6, Attalus' remark on valour (from
Suidas), fits the beginning of his speech at Thebes, in the course of which he collapsed (cf.
Livy, xxxiii. 2. 1–2). 18–33 deals with Cynoscephalae in 197; F is supported by P at 33. 4–7,
and Suidas quotes 18. 6, 18. 6–7, 28. 9, and 33. 4.
34–39, on the aftermath of Cynoscephalae, consists of fragments from the de legationibus
(34. 1–8), from P (34. 7–36. 1), and from the de legationibus again (36. 2–39. 7). The only
break in continuity is at 36. 1, where, however, the δέ clause at the beginning of the
embassies fragment seems to correspond to the µέν clause in P, and suggests that the two are
contiguous. Livy, xxxiii. 12. 1–2, though following
[26]
P., omits the discussion of Roman integrity and so gives no help on this point; but Livy,
xxxiii. 11 (based on P.), demonstrates that something has been lost between 33. 8 and 34. 1.
35. 4–6 and 35. 9–12 are also in Suidas.
The next passage from F, 'on being deceived', is usually placed at 40. 1–4 (its opening
sentence can be enlarged from Suidas, who also has 40. 4). Placed here it would refer to the
negotiations following Cynoscephalae; but Schweighaeuser (vol. vii. 373–4) rightly rejected
Reiske's suggestion that it was the Aetolians who had been deceived by the Romans, 'multo
quam ipsos nequiores . . . orbis terrarum praedones', certainly a sentiment barely credible in
P. A more likely context is the discovery of Zeuxippus and Peisistratus as the murderers of
the Boeotian Brachylles (cf. 43. 1–13); so Aymard (Pallas, iv, 1956, 27–37), who points out
that Suidas records that Πολύβιος δέ φησι περὶ οἰκογενοῦς προδότου, and that the
murderers' downfall was in this case due to such an incident (Livy, xxiii. 28. 10–15). If this is
accepted, 40. 1–4 must be transposed after 43. 13. Aymard (art. cit. 37 n. 39) notes one
difficulty about this: the fragment 43. 13 (= Livy, xxxiii. 28. 10) is from the margin of F,
where it stands opposite the beginning of the extract which is now 50–52, whereas on
Aymard's theory it should fall opposite 40. 1, if indeed it preceded this in the complete text.
But there are many factors which may have influenced the placing of a passage inserted in
the margin of F, and this difficulty hardly disposes of the case for transposing 40. 1–4 to after
43. 13. According to Stephanus, Medion was mentioned in xviii; this citation is usually
placed at 40. 5 in the context of L. Flamininus' operations against Leucas in 197, which Livy
(xxxiii. 16–17), following P., narrates after the conference at Tempe.
All the above fragments (except 40. 1–4) are from the res Graeciae et Macedoniae of
198/7; next came the res Asiae. 41 a 1 (from Suidas), on Rhodian resistance to Antiochus,
corresponds to Livy, xxxiii. 20. 3, and clearly belongs to the good season of 197; and since
Antiochus possessed Ephesus by the end of that year (Livy, xxxiii. 38. 1; he wintered there
197/6), 41 a 2 will come here. Livy has no corresponding passage, but he says (Livy, xxxiii.
20. 13) that he has omitted the details of Antiochus' attack on the Ptolemaic cities of Asia
Minor (which P. will have recorded) and the same no doubt applies to the present passage
and to P.'s later account of the capture of Ephesus.
41. 1–10 is from P., which attributes it to xviii; 41. 2–10 is also in Suidas. The position is
assured by Livy, xxxiii. 21. 1–5, who records Attalus' death at Pergamum and appends a
shortened charactersketch immediately after relating the clash between Antiochus and
Rhodes. 42 from the de legationibus mentions M. Claudius Marcellus
[27]
as consul and can therefore be assigned to the res Italiae of the second half of xviii, since
Marcellus' consulship was in A.U.C. 558 = 196. 43. 1–12 is also from the de legationibus and
corresponds to Livy, xxxiii. 27. 5–28. 3; 43. 13 (from the margin of F: see above) corresponds
to Livy, xxxiii. 28. 10. The combined fragment is thus part of the res Graeciae for 197/6;
Livy, following P., continues the narrative down to xxxiii. 29. 12. 44–48 from the de
legationibus deals with the settlement in 196 and corresponds to Livy, xxxiii. 30. 1– 35. 12,
which ensures its position.
49. 1 is from Suidas; but its assignment to this book depends on the marginal sentence
opposite 50. 7 in F: τὸ δὴ λεγόµενον, τρέχωσι τὴν ἐσχάτην. Its context remains obscure.
Nissen (KU, 327 n.) refers it to 'the peaceful policy which Antiochus tried to pursue towards
the Greek cities'. But the sentence reads like an extract from a speech urging a peaceful
policy because severity will invite an appeal to Rome; and the words τὴν πόλιν suggest a
particular city. The most likely context is the Lampsacene reply to Antiochus' envoys (cf.
Niese, ii. 643 n. 4); see below, xviii. 49–52 n. 49. 1 will fit very well into the Lampsacene
speech, which Livy has no doubt abbreviated.
The negotiations at Lysimachia (50–52 from F, extended at the beginning to 49. 2–3
from the de legationibus (N)) form part of the res Asiae of Ol. 145, 4 = 197/6, and in fact
took place in summer 196; this fragment (down to 51. 8) corresponds to Livy, xxxiii. 39. 1–
40. 6, but at that point Livy wearies of the detail, omits all mention of the free cities, and
leaps ahead to events which no longer survive in our text of P. The last fragment, 53–55, also
from F, is part of the res Aegypti for 197/6 and concerns Scopas at Alexandria. 55. 7–9 is also
in P, with some verbal differences, and 55. 7 is in Suidas.
[28]
BOOK VII
1. Capua and PeteHa
Hannibal's victory at Cannae (iii. ro7-17) led to widespread revolts
in Italy. He was joined by Arpi in Apulia (iii. II8. 3), Salapia (Livy,
xxiv. 2o. rs), Aecae (Livy, xxiv. 2o. 5), Herdonea (Livy, xxiv. 2o. 8,
xxv. 21. r), and Compsa (Livy, xxiii. r. r). The Samnite tribes, the
Hirpini and Caudini, went over; and, on Mago's arrival with a small
force, almost all Lucania (Livy, xxiii. II. II; but cf. Livy, XXV. r6. s),
and among the Bruttii all the towns but Petelia (Livy, xxiii. II. 7,
20. 4) and Consentia (Livy, xxiii. 30. s). See in general Livy, xxii.
6r. II: 'defecere autem ad Poenos hi populi: Atellani, Calatini,
Hirpini, Apulorum pars, Samnites praeter Pentros, Bruttii omnes,
Lucani, praeter hos Vzentini, et Graecorum omnis fere ora, Taren-
tini, Metapontini, Crotonienses Locrique et Cisalpini omnes Galli'.
This list omits the Campanians and antedates some other defections;
on the revolt of Capua see Livy, xxiii. 2 ff.; Hallward, CAH, viii.
ss-6; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 214-18. Since Cannae was probably fought
in August 216 (iii. 107-17 n. (b)), the defections fall strictly within
OL 141, r (zr6/rs), which justifies P. in describing them in vii. His
source cannot be established with certainty, but may well be Fabius
{cf. Klotz, L£vius, 154).
l. 1. Sui. Ttiv np£T,;v T~S y~s: cf. ii. 17· I, Ul. 91. 2, xxxiv. II. I-7;
Livy, xxvi. r6. 7· The black earth of the Campanian plain, derived
from weathered tufa (terra pulla, Col. i, praef. 24, ii. ro. 18; Pliny,
Nat. h£st. xvii. 25), is highly praised as ideal for agriculture (Cic.
de leg. agr. ii. 76; Virg. Georg. ii. 217-25). It gave three or even four
harvests a year (Pliny, Nat. hist. xviii. rn, 191; Strabo, v. 242), pro-
ducing especially spelt (far, Ua, Varro, Rust. i. 2. 6; Pliny, Nat. hist.
xviii. 82, no ff.; Strabo, ibid.), used for making groats (alica),
wheat (Pliny, Nat. h£st. xviii. 86), millet (Pliny, Nat. hist. xviii. roo).
fruit and vegetables (Pliny, Nat. hist. xv. 94, 103, xix. 67; Strabo,
v. 243), roses, used for perfume (Pliny, Nat. hist. xiii. 26, xviii. III,
xxi. r6, 17, 20; A then. xv. 688E; for unguentarii cf. CIL, x. 3968,
~974, 3975, 3979, 3982), and vines (for Capuan wines cf. Pliny, Nat.
hist. xiv. 69). See Nissen, It. Land. ii. 696-717; Hiilsen, RE, 'Cam-
pania', cols. 1435-6; 'Capua', col. rss8; Heurgon, II-19; Beloch,
Campanien, 334-42.
TYJV 1T£pt KpoTwva teat :Iuj3apLV ..• cJ>rlfl.TJV: the prosperity of Croton
was at its height towards the end of the sixth century and survived
its defeat by Locri on the Sagra (Strabo, vi. 261). To this period
dates the proverb : fLaTata TaAAa Trapa Kp6Twva Taan:a (Schol.
29
VII. 1. r CAPUA AND PETELIA
Thcoc. 4· 33) ; and cf. Petron. II6: 'Crotona ... urbem antiquissimam
et aliquando Italiae primam.' On its prosperity cf. x. 1. 6. Sybaris
was destroyed by Croton in 510; on its later history see ii. 39· 6 n.
Its luxury and extravagance were famous, thanks especially to Epi-
charmus (Suidas, s.v. Evf1aptn~<:a.2s) and Timaeus (cf. FGH 566 F 9·
47-51). According to lustinus (xx. 4· r~s) the men of Croton were
tempted to give themselves up to luxury after the defeat on the
Sagra, but Pythagoras' arrival (about 530: ii. 39· 1 n.) saved them;
this will be from Timaeus who (FGH 566 F 44) dates the eventual
onset of Tpv,P~ in Croton to just after the destruction of Sybaris.
However, the 1pv,Pfj of the Magna Graecia cities is a To1ros (cf. Athen.
xli. 523C FGH 566 F 51, for Siris, quoting Timaeus and Aristotle)
and Timaeus make..<> it the direct result of power (Dunbabin, 319).
See Passerini, Stud. it. 1934. 48-49·
2. ou 8uvtt(lEVo& ..• cfu\pEw T"iv ••• Eu8cH(lovlav: cf. viii. 24. I where
Tarentum Sta To T1js EVOa>t.wv{as {;7TEpfj,Pavov invited the help of Pyr-
rhus. P. there states as a general rule that a free state, after enjoying
power for a time, will seek a master (f:i€0'7T077Jv), and having got
one will quickly realize that the change is for the worse and try to
get rid of him. This transition from freedom to despotism recalls
those of the anacyclosis sketched in book vi (cf. vi. 9· 7---9; Hoff-
mann, Hermes, 1934, 18), but does not imply that the whole cycle
was applicable to Capua or Tarentum.
uvrpwna. 8ELv0.: on recovering Capua after a year's siege in 211 the
Romans executed the surviv'.ing- senators, imprisoned some 300 lead-
ing citizens for life and sold many others into slavery. The city was
not destroyed, but the houses and land were confiscated and all
movables, horses, and slaves became war-booty. The population re-
mained as tenants, and henceforth Capua was administered by a
Roman praefectus sent annually (Livy, xxvi. 14-16, 33-34; VeiL
Pat. ii. 44· 4). However, the SC. authorizing the deportation of the
population remained a dead letter, and eventually the people of
Capua recovered Roman citizenship (Livy, xxxviii. 28. 4, 36. s-6).
On the inconsistencies in Livy's account see De Sanctis, iii. 2.
JI4-I5, 342-7.
3. ni<TT)A~VOL ••• trOALOpKOU(lEVO' Utr' ~vv(~a.: Petelia lay 8 km. north
of the mouth of the River Neaethus (Neto) and about 5 km. from the
sea on a height of 341 m. Coins and inscriptions confirm its Hellenic
character: its reputed founder was Philoctetes (Strabo, vi. 254; Serv.
ad Aen. iii. 402; Solinus, 2. ro). See Nissen, It. Land. ii. ¢3-7. De-
spite the words quoted (they may be due to compression by Athe-
naeus: De Sanctis, iii. 2. 214 n. r3), Hannibal did not himself take
part in the siege. The Punic commander was Hanno (App. Hann. 29;
cf. Livy, xxiii. 41. r2, xxiv. 1. r) or, according to Livy, xxiii. 30. 1,
Himilco. Frontinus (Strat. iv. 5· r8) also gives eleven months as the
so
CAPUA ANDj_PETELIA VII. 2. I
duration of the which will have ended in summer 215. On the

siege see also Livy, xxiii. 20. 4-ro, 30. r-2; Val. Max. vi. 6. ext. 2;
Sil. It. xii. 431-z (a second Saguntum).
4. Tdo; o.;>.J,o.s 'll'ohe~: Atella and Calatia in Campania followed the
example of Capua (Livy, xxii. 61. II (quoted at r n.), xxvi. 34. 6, u);
but it is clear from Livy (xxiii. rs. 3. q. 4-6) that Nuceria and
Acerrae were sacked after some resistance, and the bigger cities like
Nola and Neapolis held out. Kahrstedt (iii. 446 n. r) believes that
Nuceria and Acerrae offered only a token resistance and that it is to
these towns that P. here refers; Hallward (CAH, viii. s6) appears to
follow him. But it seems likelier that the cVu\at ?ToAnS' are the sou them
Italian towns generally (DeSanctis, iii. 2. 236 n. sr).
2-5. The dejection of Hieronymus of Syracuse

The scope of this section can be seen from Livy, xxiv. 4- r-7. 9, from
P. (Klotz, Livius, rr3, 159), which covers in a single narrative the
events of zrs/r4 down to Hieronymus' death. This arrangement prob-
ably derives from P., who will have included only one set of res
Siciliae in vii (see above, p. 2). Livy, xxiv. 4-5, describes events from
a little before Hiero's death to the removal of Thraso (cf. 2. 2 n.); his
account is much compressed, but there is no need to assume con-
tamination with a non-Polybian source (so Jacoby, on FGH z68 F 4;
below, 7· r n.).
2. l. Ti)v E'll'~~ouX1)v Ti)v KO.Ta 'lepwvu14ou: cf. Livy, xxiv. 5· 9 ff.

Hieronymus was the son of Gelo, who predeceased his father Hiero II
in the second half of 216 (Livy, xxiii. 30. ro-rz); his mother was
Nereis of Epirus (4. 5), and on his accession in 215 he was only 15
(Livy, xxiv. 4· 6). His growing arrogance and tyrannical conduct
provoked a conspiracy against his life. This was revealed by one
Callo, who denounced Theodotus, one of its members (Livy, xxiv.
S· 9 ff.); and he, unde1· torture, falsely alleged that the man behind
the plot was Thraso, Hieronymus' only counsellor to favour the
Roman alliance, and aL'lO named others of the tyrant's following,
in order to preserve his fellow-conspirators (Livy, xxiv. 5· 1o-14;
Val. Max. iii. 3 ext. 5). For a different account of Thraso's character
and end see below, 7· r n.
•kxwpi)ao.vTos Tou 9pO.awvoo;: Livy, xxiv. 6. I, Thrasone sublato e
medio; for this sense of ~"xwp•iv cf. ii. 21. 2, xxii. 18. 10. Paton
wrongly translates 'Thraso having withdrawn'.
Z~nnrov KO.L :<\Spo.vollwpov: Hiero's sons-in-law (Livy, xxiv. 5· 7,
25. II, 26. 1), and chief of the fifteen guardians whom he appointed
rnr Hieronymus (Livy, xxiv. 4· 3. 5). By cancelling the guardianship
Adranodorus had diverted power into his own hands (Livy, xxiv. 4.9)
31
VII. 2. I THE DEFECTiO~ OF HIERONYMUS
and he maintained it by means of the mercenaries. Soon only he,
Thraso and Zoippus had access to the king.
2. lloAUKAurov ••• Ka.t <I!~A.OSt]~ov: both later defend Syracuse
against the Romans; see Livy, xxv. 28. 5, for Polycleitus' murder,
and Livy, xxv. 25. 3 f., for Philodemus' command at Euryalus.
Tous &.SeXcpous ets :A.XesavSpE~a.v: their names and number are un-
known; since Hieronymus succeeded to the throne, they were either
younger than he or illegitimate. Zoippus, the husband of Hiero's
daughter Heracleia, was in charge of the mission to Ptolemy (Livy,
xxiv. 26. 1). Its aim was probably to secure the support of Ptolemy
IV for the anti-Roman policy (De Sanctis, iii. 2. z68), and Lenschau
(RE, 'Hieronymus (8)', col. 1 538) even suggests a plan for a triple
alliance of Carthage, Egypt, and Syracuse, recalling the friendly
relations long existing between the }ltolemies and the house of
Hiero. But Hollcaux (Rome, i4 n. 2) emphasizes Zoippus' uolunta-
rium exilium (Livy, xxiv. 26. 1, cf. 26. 4, 26. 6) and suggests that both
Zoippus and the princes were really sent to Egypt under cover of an
embassy so as to remove them from the scene (cf. Niese, ii. SIS n. 4).
3. :A.vv(~a.v .•• 'I'IT'ITOKpdTt]V •• , 'EmKU8t]V: cf. Livy, xxiv. 6. 2.
There is no reason to identify this Hannibal with 'the Gladiator' of
ix. 24. 5 (so Lenschau, RE, 'Hannibal (9)'. col. 2351). Livy (loc. cit.)
calls Hippocrates and Epicydes Poeni zpsi materno genere; but this
may be a deduction from what P. says in§ 4, not a fact drawn from
an independent source (Klotz, Livius, II3)·
4. '!ToA~Teuo~Evous 1ra.ptJ. Ka.pxt]8ovlo~s: 'having adopted Carthage as
their country' (Paton). For a discussion of this phrase, which suggests
close association with Carthage, but not necessarily adoption of
Carthaginian citizenship, see Larsen, Symb. Osl. I9Si. i·
Evt Twv :A.ya.9oKAI!ous ui.Wv :A.ya.90.px~t>: Agothocles' eldest son is
usually called Archagathus, and this variant may be due to confusion
with the Agatharchus of 4· I (though some MSS. of Diodorus have
Agatharchus). He was the son of Agathocles' first wife, the widow
of the Syracusan Damas (Diod. xix. 3· 2), and born probably be-
tween 335 and 330 (Beloch, iv. 2. 254). He and his younger brother
Heracleidas accompanied Agathocles on his African expedition in
310, and on his return to Sicily in 307 Archagathus was left in charge of
the Syracusan anny against Carthage. He was blockaded in Tunis
and a relief expedition by Agathocles was heavily defeated; the
tyrant was forced to take steps and flee and both sons were mur-
dered by the mutinous troops (3oi): Diod. xx. ~-9. Justin. xxii. 8,
with some discrepancies. Iustinus {xxii. 8. 14) says he was murdered
'ab Arcesilao, ami co antea patris', who had sons; this man could
have been the grandfather of Hippocrates and Epicydes. This son
of Agathocles is not to be confused with another one, also called
Archagathus or Agathocles who was left in charge of Ligurian and
32
OF SYRACUSE VII. 3· 2
Etruscan troops among the Bruttii between 299 and 297 (Diod. xxi. 3·
1-2); he is either an homonymous son of Archagathusor (so Beloch, iv.
2. 254-5) a younger son of Agathocles whose real name was Agathar-
chus. A recently published inscription (cf. Fraser, Bull. Alexandr.
41, 1956, 49-55) is a dedication to Sarapis and Isis by Archagathus
son of Agathocles, the Ptolemaic lrrwTaTTJS' of Libya about 283-
279/8; the coincidence of names is striking but there is no evidence
for any connexion between this man and the family of the Syra-
cusan tyrant. The Agatharchus mentioned here is probably the
Archagathus who perished in Africa in 307.
3. 1. o TETa.Yiltvos lvt A1"u~alou <rrpaTr)yos: cf. Livy, xxiv. 6. 4,

'Ap. Claudius praetor, cui us Sicilia prouincia erat'. Klotz (Livius, r13)
argues that Livy may have deduced the name from the earlier
passage (Livy, xxiii. 31. 4) where he lists the holders of the provinces
for 215; but most of 3· r is a lacuna (filled in our texts hypothetically
from details given in 5· 1 and Livy, xxiv. 6. 4), and P. may well
have given the praetor's name. · ·
-rO.s vpos Tous vpoyovous ••• auv91]Kas: from 5· 1 : for the alliance
with Hiero see i. r6. 9 n. The Romans clearly regard it as still in
force; cf. 5· 1, 'Ota{LapTupofL(VOL fL~ 7Tapaf3alw£LV TdS' ••• avvO~Kas-;
Reuss, V olk. Grund. so. 7Tpoyovot here (i.e. in 5· r) connotes, not Hiero
and Gelo {so Schweighaeuser), for Gelo was never independent king,
but Hiero alone. 'The use of 1rpoyovot TTarrjp is well known in
diplomatic language' (Welles, p. 8r); see OGIS, 223 Welles, rsl.
ll. 23-24 (letter of Antiochus II; 7Tp6yavat = Seleucus I) ; Syll. 434
l. 18 (7Tpoyovot Philadelphus' father). It could equally mean
'grandfather' where, as here, the grandfather was the predecessor;
and in OGIS, 222, ll. 18-2o (a decree of the Ionian League from the
time of Antiochus I) 7Tpoyovwv appears to mean no more than Twv
1rpou:pov {3aatAf!.vaavTwv, Alexander and Antigonus. Rostovtzeff
(]HS, 1935, 62) has suggested that in the third-century Seleucid
realm, ' "the king and his ancestors" seems to have been ... a
stereotyped expression, derived perhaps from the official language
of the Persian kings' ; its use by the early Ptolemies shows that it
was common form in other Hellenistic chancelleries, whether in
reference to one ancestor or several.
2. E-r' iyyus E1TOVTWV TWV vp€0'~EUTWV TWV Kapx,6oVLWV: so Buttner-
Wobst for the MS. ELT' €v fMUEtovTw~· Twv TTpmpEvTiiw £tT' €v JLLaHovrwv
Twv Kapx:r~oovlwv. The presence of the Carthaginian envoys (omitted
hy Livy, xxiv. 6. 4. perhaps in order to modify the insult to the
Romans; cf. Biittner-Wobst, ii, p. lxxvi) is confirmed in§ 3 and the
emendation is palaeographically easy, and reasonably comdncing.
Paton prints Biittner-\Vobst's text, but his version ('in the presence
of this embassy') does not translate it.
814173 D 33
VII.3. :2 THE DEFECTION OF HIERONYMUS
KllKot KllKWS: for this combination see v. II. 1 n., where the sense is
the more common one of healing one evil by means of another.
For a meaning more comparable to that here cf. Eur. fg. 1036, KaKov
yd.p avopa XPii KaKWS 7TllCTXELV aEl; Suidas, KaKOS KaKw<; d1T6AoLTO;
\Vunderer, i. 76. KaKo{, however, can hardly be 'worthless' or
'cowardly', which would ruin the irony of avMu1T<ia8at; it must be
'vi-Tetched' (cf. Aesch. Persae, 1041), though the more offensive sense
would lurk conveniently in the background.
5. vevTt;KovTa vaua(: evidently part of the squadron of seventy-
five stationed at Lilybaeum under T. Otacilius (d. v. 109. 5 n.;
Livy, xxiii. 32. 20); cf. Thiel, 66, 70 (who, however, omits this expe
dition).
8. Kti!l£ ••• s~atf>uXO.~a~ 'I'~V tipxiJv •.• 1TI1A~vSpo!lfJaav1'11: the echoes
of the envoy's words maintain the irony of § 2.
9. 1'~ v£111jiav1'~: Ap. Claudius; cf. r n.
4. l. )\ya9apxov Kat 'Ov11a~yiv1') Kat 'lvvoa9£v1'J: otherwise un-
known. For Hannibal cf. 2. 3·
2. Tov 'I11Epav voTa116v: Sicily possesses two rivers named Himeras.
The northern one risessouth-·westof Monte Salvatore, flows north-west
and has its mouth 35 stades east of Panormus and r8 stades west of
Cephaloedium (Strabo, vi. 266); it is the modern Fiume Grande.
The southern one, the Fiume Salso, is the second largest river in
Sicily. Rising near Gangi in the Heraean mountains it flows south
and reaches the sea at Phintias (mod. Licata). One of its tributaries,
however, has its source about a mile from that of the Fiume Grande,
and ancient tradition made the two rivers rise from a single spring
and so form virtually one stream dividing Sicily; cf. Livy, xxiv. 6. 7;
Strabo, vi. 266, '!1-dpav 1TDTap..6v • .• ;s,a p..€a7Js plovm Tfjs l:tK<Alas;
Mela, ii. ng, 'de amnibus Himeras referendus, quia in media ad-
modum ortus in diuersa decurrit scindensque earn utrimque alio
ore in Libycum alio in Tuscum mare deuenit'. Cf. Ziegler, RE,
'Himeras', cols. r62o-1.
4. Tas EV 'ITaAl~ vopdo.s ••• KO.L va.pa.Ta~E~S KilL !lax a.s : 'Hannibal's
marches inside Italy, his marshalling of the line, and his battles'.
5.1'tlS nuppou 9uyaTpos ••• N1')p11lSos: cf. Livy, xxiv. 6. 8, 'Pyrrhi ...
regis, materni aui', following P. Nereis and her sister Deidamia
were the daughters of Pyrrhus, the great Pyrrhus, according to P.
here, and to Pausanias (vi. 12. 3); Polyaenus (viii. 4· 5) also makes
Deidamia's father Pyrrhus, without specifying which. However,
Pausanias (iv. 35· 3) calls Deidamia 8uyaT7JP •.• lluppou ToO liToA<-
p..atov ToO 14..\<gav:Spou ToO lluppov, thus making her the daughter of
Pyrrhus II, Pyrrhus I's grandson (Pausanias erroneously makes him
his great-grandson). Further, since Hieronymus was rs at Hiero's
death in 215 (2. 2 n.), the marriage of his mother Nereis to Gelo
preceded 230, and probably took place before the Epirote revolution.
34
OF SYRACUSE VII. 4· 5
If Harmonia, who seems to have been older than Hieronymus (Livy,
xxiv. 24. 2-6; Beloch, iv. 2. 284), was also a child of Nereis, the
marriage may have taken place about 235: but this relationship is
not certain, nor is it known who was the mother of the brothers
mentioned in 2. 2. Pyrrhus I died in 272, and the probability is perhaps
against Gelo's having married a princess in her late thirties (Cross,
125); moreover Iustinus {xxviii. 3· 4) calls her uirgo (hardly an in-
dication 'that there ... was something unusual about Nereis being
a uirgo when she married', as Oost, 102, thinks). This might seem
to favour the view that Nereis and Deidamia were daughters of
Pyrrhus II, and the great-granddaughters of Pyrrhus I. But Nereis'
age is by no means a decisive factor in a political marriage, and the
evidence of Paus. iv. 35· 3 {which is in any case inaccurate) is hardly
enough to counter the combined weight of Paus. vi. 12. 3 and P. It
tllerefore seems most likely, though not certain, that Nereis was the
daughter of Pyrrhus I, born shortly before his death. Corradi
(Atti Ace. Torino, I9II-I2, 206) suggests that her and Deidamia's
mother was the daughter of Audoleon, king of Paeonia (Plut. Pyrrh.
9· 1); this is conjectural. But there are no grounds for making the
two princesses daughters of Alexander II (so CAH, vii, genealogical
tree I), a view inconsistent with all ancient evidence. For discussion
see G. Corradi, Atti Ace. Torino, I9II-I2, 192-215; P. Treves, Rend.
Line. 1932, 2oo-2; Oost, Ioi n. 24; Leveque, 68o-2 (Nereis daughter
of Pyrrhus I) ; Niese, ii. 196; Beloch, iv. 2. 150-2; Cross, 124-7; Berve,
Hieron, 62 (Nereis daughter of Pyrrhus II). For dedications by
Nereis at Olympia and Delphi, mentioning Alexander and Olympias,
see Syll. 453; they contribute nothing to the problem considered
here.
~YEtJ.ov' dva.l Ka.t ~a.cnAEa.: Pyrrhus I fought the Carthaginians in
Sicily from autumn 278 to spring 275 (i. 6. 7 n.); d. Diad. xxii. 8,
1o-13; Plut. Pyrrh. 22-24; Iustin. xviii. 2. u-12, xxiii. 3; Dian. Hal.
xx. 8. For the title cf. Iustin. xxiii. 3· 2, 'cum Syracusas uenisset, rex
Siciliae sicut Epiri appellatur'; I ustinus (xxiii. 3· 3) adds that he
destined his son Helen us as his successor in Sicily, but there is clearly
confusion with Alexander, his son by Lanassa, the daughter of
Agathocles (Cross, 82 n. 2). The title ~yq~.~J.Jv Ka.i {3a.mAEils seems later
to have been borne by Hiero; cf. Syll. 427, {3a.mMos ayE[OIJ-EVOU]
'llpwvos 'lEpoKUoc; Evpa.Koatot 8wFc; 1riim. See Hlittl, 134-5; contra
Uveque, 46o n. 4· In Riera's case the ~YEIJ-ov{a. relates to the allied
rities, the f3a.a•AE{a. to Syracuse (Stauffenberg, 85) ; but the same dis-
tinction is not necessarily true for Pyrrhus. The words arpwv aVTwv
(~oing with both ~YEIJ-ova. and {3a.aLAEa.) imply that the kingship was
over all Sicily; but the phraseology is that of Hieronymus' flatterers
und need not commit P. Probably only a group of Sicilian cities
recognized Pyrrhus (cf. Aymard, Rel. Sci. Stor. ii. 22r-2). Whether
35
VII. 4· 5 THE DEFECTION OF HIERONYMUS
Pyrrhus' monarchy in Sicily is to be regarded as national or purely

personal cannot at present be determined; cf. Leveque, 460-2. For
Pyrrhus' coins in Sicily see Holm, Gesch. S£c. iii. 69o-2; W. Gie-
secke, Sicilia numisma#ca (Leipzig, 1923), 105-12; Leveque, 463-74,
6gr-8 (with bibliography).
7. T~V ••• 'I'll~ IucEMa.s apx~v: i.e. Hieronymus claimed the whole
island, and offered help to Hannibal in Italy in return for Punic
help in Syracuse; cf. Livy, xxiv. 6. 8.
5. 2. Mpolaa.~ ,.;, auvt8ptov: the usual council of a Hellenistic king's

if>l>.m (cf. iv. 23. 5 n.); the presence of non-Syracusans is not strange
(cf. viii. 9· 6 for Philip II). Dionysius already had such a rnn•el>pLov;
cf. Diod. xiv. 8. ; Plut. Dian, 6. 4; Stauffenberg, i4 n. 98.
3. T~V TOU 1rpOEO"''',lTOS nKptala.v: 'the prince's lack of judgement'.
Paton prints this text but translates the reading of N aKpacriat•,
'lack of self-control', which perhaps goes better with oESw·ns.
Either quality would fit F.'s picture of Hieronymus; for his in-
stability cf. 4· 6, 4· 8, and for his violence i· 5·
AnfH1r1ro; b Aa.K:e8a.tf10Vtos: cf. viii. 37· r n. Aristomachus and Auto-
nous are otherwise unknown.
6. liuaa.pEO"'''IjaEtv ••• 1rpoaK011'TEW: for the combination cf. vi. 6. 3·
7. TTJV livTo~ 'lf1-Epa. 1rOTO.f1-0U xwpa.v; cf. 4· 2 n.
6. Description of Leontini
Livy (xxiv. 7· 1-9} relates how the king had gone to Leontini with
rs,ooo foot and horse, and was there ambushed in a narrow street
by conspirators, who had got possession of a house in it and were
helped by a corporis custos called Deinomenus, who delayed tht>
troops following behind Hieronymus. Clearly P.'s description of
Leontini is intended to lay the scene for his account of the murder.
Leontini (mod. Lentini) lay at the southern edge of the plain ol
Catania, in a valley between two hills overlooking the river Terias
(Diod. xiv. 14. 3; Ps.-Scyl. 13), the modem Fiume di Leonardo,
into which the Lissus (§ 5) ran. Since the work of J. Schubring (ZGE,
1874, 365-89) the main topographical features have been established,
and they have been partly confirmed by the recent excavations
carried out by G. Rizza (cf. Not. d. scav. I955· 281-376, for those oi
1950-1 and 1951-2) to test the hypothe:>is expounded in Sic. Gym.
1949, 276-84 (cf. 1951, 190 ff.). The a?3Adw brl71'eOos; (§ 2) is to be identi
fied with the Valle San Mauro, and the two ridges on either sid•·
with the Colle San Mauro to the west and the Rocca Sandola to th•·
east of this valley. The excavations of 195o-2 revealed the southem
gate, pepwv €77'i EvpaKovcras (§ 4), which lay in the col at the southen.
end of the Valle San Mauro, a fiattish area some zoo m. long from
36
DESCRIPTION OF LEONTINI VII. 6
0L___L_
100 _____________
SOO
L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
llnl
~
I. THE SITE OF HELLENISTIC LEONTINI
north to south and about 25 m. wide, in a part still known as the Citta
Vecchia. On this gate see below, § 4 n. The Lissus will be the river
which flows in the Valle San Eligio to the west of the Colle San Mauro.
At its northern end the Valle San Mauro swings round to the west
to join the Valle San Eligio, and Rizza argues convincingly (Sic. Gym.
1949, 28o) that the agora (§ 2), which Hieronymus was approaching
ulong the road mentioned in§ 6 at the time of his murder (Livy, xxiv.
1· 3), must have stood at the junction of the two valleys. Both this
and the northern gate (§ 4) are in areas not yet easily available for
t•xcavation, since they lie closer to modern Lentini, which has moved
.,;radually northward towards the plain since Hellenistic times
37
VII. 6 DESCRIPTION OF LEONT1NI
(Rizza, Sic. Gym. 1949, 277}. On the site of Leontini in general see
Ziegler, RE, 'Leontinoi', cols. 2042-3. The present chapter is fully
discussed by Rizza in his article in Sic. Gym. 1949.
6. 1. Tc{l .Uv oA~f ttALfUJ.n: 'in its general direction', 'in the general
slope of the land' ; for the former meaning of KMp.a cf. Strabo, i. 27, Kav
Toi> KMp.afn 8€ Kdv TOtS dvlp.ms Sta</.a.lvet TO 7TOltup.a8J<; TO 7Tep1 T~v yewypa.-
,P{a.v vop.T)po>, 'in the matter of directions and winds .. .' (cf. D. R.
Dicks, CQ, 1955, 250); see too Strabo, x. 455 passim. For the other
sense (so LSJ} cf. ii. r6. 3· The meaning 'region' (cf. v. 44· 6, x. 1. 3)
derives from the technical meaning of KMp.a., a belt of land on either
side of a line of latitude; in both v. 44· 6 and x. 1. 3 one might trans-
late 'latitudes' (d. Dicks, loc. cit. 248-55). But this meaning is out
of place here. Paton, 'as regards its general position', follows Schweig-
haeuser, 'uniuerso situ uergit ad septentrionem' ; neither renders
the idea of direction or inclination implicit in KMp.a.
11uf..wv E'!T('!TE8os: 'a level valley'. In fact the Valle San Mauro has
a marked gradient, especially towards the south, where it approaches
the col and the gate; see Rizza, Not. d. scav. 1955, 285; Kromayer,
AS, iii. 1. 174 n. 1, with sketch-map on p. 175; above, iii. 83. 1 n.
But if the agora and the offices and law-courts stood well to the
north, near the junction with the Valle San Eligio, and beneath
the eminences of Tirone and Castellacio (as Rizza supposes}, the
expression is more appropriate.
3. d'!Toppwya. auvex~: 'a ridge precipitous from end to end' (Paton):
the two ridges consisting of, to the west the Colle San Mauro, and
to the east Metapiccola and the Rocca Sandola together with its out-
liers, Lastrichello, Castellacio, and Tirone. It is the more northerly
part of these ridges which flanks the au>.0v at the point of inter-
section with the Valle San Eligio.
otK..Wv ••• 'ITA~pfl KO.i vo.wv: on the terraces and remains of ancient
houses on Colle San Mauro see Rizza, Sic. Gym. 1949. 281-z. Some of
these stood on the western side of the hill overlooking the Lissus.
4. o ~-tEv ••. E'!Tl Iup11ttouaa,: this gate has been located; see Rizza,
Not. d. scav. 1955, 284~. 3i3~. with plan on p. :z85. It was protected
by outflanking walls on either side, which linked up with the con-
tinuous fortifications on the two hills. However, Rizza concludes
that both gate and fortifications were destroyed after 424, and not
rebuilt in the fourth century; Dionysius replaced them by a series
of strong-points (cf. Diod. xxii. 8. 5. ~Kov 1Tptaf3n> • •• MyovTeS
1Tapa80ae.v T{j> f3amlld 1'~1' 1r6..\w Kat TCL ,PpmJpta . .. ). Rizza found
traces of a later military work superimposed on the fourth-century
necropolis just outside the gate; it bore signs of hasty construction
and he associated it with the last attempt of Leontini to secure its
freedom after Hieronymus' death; cf. Plut. Marc. q. 1; Livy,
38
DESCRIPTION OF LEONTINI VII. 7· I
xxiv. 30. 2, for the capture of the walls. If this date is right, it suggests
that P. can hardly be describing the site from autopsy (so Rizza,
Not. d. scav. 1955, 376), for both gate and wall must have been mere
ruins by the time he was in a position to visit the city (not before I68,
and probably much later).
Ta .1\eovTiva. ••• TTeO(a.: part of the modem Plain of Catania, perhaps
extending as far as the river Symaethus (mod. Giarreta); cf. Dun-
babin, 66. This was the richest corn-growing area in Sicily, where
wild grain flourished as late as the time of Diodorus (Diod. v. 2. 4).
5. TToTa.!l6s, <iv Ka.:>..ouu~ .1\[auov: the river of the Valle San Eligio,
which diverges a little to the east towards the Valle San Mauro at
the point where the two valleys join. It thus flows under the brow of
the northern end of Colle San Mauro (T~)) J.L{av a7Toppwya, T~V 7Tpos
T<xs St!ans). See H.izza, Sic. Gym. I949. 28o.
6. TTJV TTPOElPT)Iit\IT)\1 oOov: cf. Livy, xxiv. 7· 3. 'uiae angustae, qua
descendere ad forum rex solebat.' This road evidently descended
Colle San Mauro on its western side, in a northerly direction; it
then followed the ridge round to the north-west, with the con-
tinuous houses on its right, under the cliff, and with the river on its
left, thus reaching the agora at the very entrance to the Valle San
Mauro. See the sketch-map on p. 37·
7-8. On Hiero, Gelo, and Hieronymus; critic·ism of previous writers

7. 1. TWES TWv :>..oyoypacf>wv KT:>...: Aoyoyparpot here are simply 'his-
torians, prose-writers', contrasted with poets (cf. Thuc. i. 21. I with
Gomme's comments, Commentary, ad loc.; Jacoby, Atthis, 300 n. 28);
in xii. 28. I I the sense is different. In using the word here P. may have
in mind the pejorative context in which Thucydides uses it. The
reference will be largely (though not exclusively, cf. § 6) to Baton of
Sinope, author of a work 7TEpi T-i)s Tov 'IepwvVJ.LOV TVpavv[Sos (Athen.
vi. 251 E) and other historical studies (cf. FGH, 268). The only frag-
ment of this work on Hieronymus makes Thraso (see 2. 2 n.) one
of the king's flatterers and attributes his downfall to another flatterer,
Sosis, who also appears at a later stage in Livy (xxiv. 21. 4). Jacoby
argues that Livy, xxiv. 5· 9-I4, describing the torture of Callo, is
not from P., and therefore that Sosis may have been Thraso's de-
stroyer in the Polybian version; but this is not convincing. Clearly
there were several versions of these events and Baton's was not P.'s.
Other Aoyoyparpa. will be the Hannibal-historians, such as Eumachus
(see i. 3· 2 n.}. who is known to have described Hieronymus' reign in
the way here attacked (FGH, q8 F I = Athen. xiii. 577 A).
'II'OAOv nva. .•• TEpa.TE(a.v: repeated (except the second ·nvd) from ii.
I 7. 6, where P. is speaking primarily of tragic poets; see ad loc.
,.o.1Tpo TtlS &.pxfis O.UTOLS YEVOJ~-EVO. O"I'}JI-EiO.: aVTois is attributed to the
39
VII. 7· r ON HIERO, GELO, AND HIERONYMUS
epitomator and taken to refer to the Syracusans; but Schweighaeuser's
mhou is attractive.
2. ~aAapw ••• !b.1ToAM8wpov: mentioned together in Seneca, de ira,
ii. 5· 1. Phalaris, who from a position of trust (Arist. Pol. vii (v).
10. 1310 b 28, EK. Twv TLfLWV; Polyaen. v. r. r, n:.\wv71s) rose to be
tyrant of Agrigentum, ruled there probably from 571 to 555 (Euseb.
Chron. ii. 94 Sch.; cf. Suidas, who dates his accession to Ol. 52 =
572--68; the seventh-century date recorded elsewhere in Eusebius
can be ignored). He had become a synonym for the cruel tyrant as
early as 470, when Pindar wrote (Pyth. r. 95-96):
TJv 0~ Ta.Vptp xa.AK.Etp Ka.vrijpa. Y1jMa. v&ov
i.x.8pa 4JaAa.ptv KU.TEX.H 1TU.I'T(j. </>rtns.
For the brazen bull in which he roasted his enemies cf. xii. 25. r-5 nn.
See Lenschau, RE, 'Phalaris', cols. r649-52; Dunbabin, 314-23.
Apollodorus was a democratic leader who seized power in Cassan-
dreia shortly after the death of Ptolemy Ceraunus (i. 6. 5 n.), probably
in 279 (Polyaen. vi. 7· 2), and maintained it with the help of Galatian
mercenaries (Diod. xxii. 5· 2) and alliances with Antiochus I and
Sparta (Polyaen. ibid.; Pausan. iv. 5· 4-5), until expelled in 276
by Ameinias, a pirate employed by Antigonus Gonatas (Polyaen.
iv. 6. r8). His cruelty also was proverbial; cf. Seneca, de ira, ii. 5· I ;
de benef. vii. 19. 7 (Rossbach's emendation); Plut. M or. 555 B; Dio
Chrys. ii. 76. Tarn (AG, IJI n. 8} suggests that if Lycophron's tragedy,
Kaaaa.vopefs, was based, as Niebuhr thought (Kl. Schr. i. 449-50},
on Apollodorus' reign of terror, the sensational stories in Plutarch
and Polyaenus may derive from this play; but for other suggestions
about the theme of the Ka.aaa.vopEts see von Holzinger's edition of
the Alexandra (Leipzig, r8g6), 6. On Apollodorus' cruelty see Tarn,
AG, 171-2; Kaerst, RE, 'Apollodorus (43}', col. 2851.
3. p.Tjvas oo 11'AElous Tpu~)v Kai 8£Ka: he reigned from early in 215 to
early in 214 (above, p. z).
4. oOK EtK6;: since P. uses only the argument from probability to
controvert the sensational version (probably Baton's: cf. §I n.), he
will have had access to no favourable account of this reign; see
Jacoby, commentary on FGH, z68 F 4· For the sensational account
Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 85 n. r) compares the history of the last Chal-
daean kings in Berossus (FGH, 68o F 9 {a) = Joseph. c. Ap. i. r46 ff.),
where Nabuchodonosor's infant son Awol-Marduk is murdered after
ruling dv&fkw<; Kat aal.\yws, and Nergal-sar-usur's son Labrasi-Marduk
is also murdered after nine months od. TO 1TOMd lp.<f>alvew KO.K0~81j.
5. dKaiov: 'capricious' (Paton), 'unstable' (cf. 4· 6, d.Ka-raamTov),
rather than 'rash, hasty' (LSJ}.
6. o~ Tas t1rl. p.kpous ypd.cpovTc:s wpa~EL;: 'writers of monographs', cf.
i. 4· 3 n., iii. 32. 3, xvi. r4. I. On the temptation to write up one's
40
CRITICISM OF PREVIOUS WRITERS VII. 8. I
material when composing a monograph cf. xii. 23. 7, xxix. 12. 4-5;
Avenarius, 104.
Ta f.Utcpcl. tJ.EyaA.a. Trot.e:iv: cf. xii. 25 g 3 n., xxix. I2, 2-3 (repeating
and developing the phrase); see B. L. Ullman, TAP A, r942, 42-43.
7. 8a~ yd.p &v ns • • • s,&ao,To: 'how much more sensible indeed
would it be, if a >VTiter were to apply that amplification of thenar-
rative, which serves to fill out the book, to Hiero and Gelo.' P. uses
the phrase o i·mp.erpwv Myos elsewhere (xii. 28. ro, xv. 34· I, 35· r)
to describe the expansion of a narrative by added argument and
comment; he also uses the phrases TOV p.er' avf'~aewS' .\6yov (xv. 36. 1)
and TOv i1T£KOtOrtaKoVTa A6yov (xv. 35· 7). Such expansion is bad
only when exaggerated and disproportionate, as here where it is
applied to Hieronymus, or, for example, to Agathodes of Alexandria
(xv. 35· r). It is hard to get any sense for Kat 1repl TaiiTa; and with
Schweighaeuser I am disposed to accept Reiske's emendation Kat
1T€ptTT6npo~·: 'how much more sensible would it be and how much
richer the history, if a writer etc.'
'lepwva. tca.l. rtA.wva.: Gelo had been raised to co-regency; cf. Archi-
medis op. ed. Heiberg, ii. 24r. I, 290. 17; Syll. 428--9.
8. Toi:s +'ATJICOOLS ••• To~s +,A.otJ.a.9oOat: the latter are 'students'
(cf. iii. 22. 9 n.), the former casual readers who 'like a story' and
enjoy o y£vw.\oytKOS' Tp61ros {ix. r. 4). In xi. 19 a 2 P. calls these
casual readers TOVS' ctKoliovTas, as distinct from TOVS' cptAofLafJovVTa<;.
8. 1. 'l£pwv JlEY ycl.p ••• &.pxiJv: on Hiero's rise to power see i. 8. 3 n.

For his humble origins cf. Zon. viii. 6; according to Iustinus (xxiii.
4· 4-5) his mother was a slave, but his father Hierocles a man of
rank, 'cui us origo a Gelone, antiquo Siciliae tyranno, mana bat'.
Hierocles is very likely the 'IepoKAijS' 'Upwvos L'upa<6atos] who re-
ceived Delphic proxenia under the archon Erasippus (SyU. 395/6; cf.
Flaceliere, 445; Beloch, iv. 2. 282-3; contra, Stauffenberg, 91); but
we do not know whether the tradition of a Deinomenid relationship,
fostered in the naming of Gelo and Damareta (Livy, xxiv. 25. n),
was official invention or based on fact. Stauffenberg (9I-92) argues
that the popular (and officially encouraged} story of a Deinomenid
father and a slave mother was simply invented to explain Hiero's
humble origin, and that both Zonaras and Iustinus derive it from
Timaeus. Certainly, if the Hierocles of Syll. 395/6 (see above) is
Hiero's father, the latter carried his grandfather's name and must
be a legitimate eldest son, and the slave mother disappears. But a
Deinomenid descent need not be irreconcilable with the statement
that Hiero rose to power au 1TAOVTOV, ou S&~av, oux lnpov ovotv fK
ri}s T6X!JS' ETOLfLOv 1rapa.Aaf3t.!Jv; nor is Stauffenberg to be followed
when he argues that Theocritus' silence about Hiero's Deinomenid
ancestry shows that it was not genuine, since once the ancestry was
41
VII. 8. I ON HIERO, GELO, A~D HIERO~Y:MUS
officially claimed, as it apparently was, some reference to it was to

be expected in Theocritus, whether it was real or not. Stauffenberg
(loc. cit.) also argues that P. is following Fabius exclusively; this
is not certain, for P. may well have read about the slave mother in
Timaeus and based his low assessment of Hiero's original advan-
tages on that. On the other hand, the panegyric would fit the favour·
able Roman view of Hicro to be found in Livy xxiii. 21. 5 and xxiv.
5· I.
On the extent of Hiero's apx~ at the time of his coup of 275/4 see
Berve, Hieron, 18-19; it probably included Acrae, Necton, Helorus,
Leontini, and Megara Hyblaea. Later, other places such as Tauro-
menium and Catana were added.
4. ~TTJ ••• n'EVnlKovTa. aca.i. TiTTa.pa. ~a.aLAEOaa.s: see i. 8. 3 n. Hiero
probably took the royal title in 27o{&), but not all the evidence
fits. De Sanctis (iii. 1. 95-96 n. n) would emend P.'s 54 to 51 (NJ to
NA), a violent and hardly acceptable solution.
TOv Ta.l:s ovEpoxa.is 1TO.P£'1fO!J.€vov cjl6ovov: cf. i. 36. J, ix. 10. 6, for the
sentiment, common in gnomic collections; see Wunderer, ii. 6z.
6. ou f.IM<pav ••• Euvma.v 1ra.pa ,.o.aw: d. i. r6. ro-u n. for his relations
with Rhodes and Olympia. For his gift of the giant ship 'Syracusia',
bearing a cargo of corn, to Ptolemy HI Euergetes in time of famine
see Moschion ap. Athen. v. 2o6D-209E (= FGH, 575). See also
Stauffenberg, 54-55 (who thinks Hiero perhaps used gifts of corn as a
regular instrument of foreign policy); Berve, Hieron, 8r-82.
7. £TTJ ••• n'AElw Twv (vEvtjKovTa.: he was therefore born before 305.
9. n>.wv TfAEtW TWV n'£'VT'IlKOVTO. ~LWO'IlS uwv: he died in 2!6 (z. 2 n.).
and was therefore born before 266. On the relevance of this to Hiero's
rise to power see i. 8. 3 n.
9. The Treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia

The news of Cannae decided Philip to approach Hannibal (Livy,
xxiii. 33· 4; Walbank, Philip, 70), and in summer 215 an agreement
was sworn between Hannibal and Philip's emissary Xenophanes
(Livy, xxiii. 33· g). Xenophanes fell into Roman hands, twice accord-
ing to Livy (xxiii. 33· 5, 34· 4). The first capture is probably to be
rejected (Boguth, 5; Holleaux, 183 n. 2; contra Kahrstedt, 450 n. 1);
but his capture on the way back (App. Maced. 1), when accom-
panied by Gisgo, Bostar, and Mago, seems to be authentic, and
P.'s text will be that captured with Xenophanes (d. 9· 1; DeSanctis,
iii. 2. 407 n. zz). The presence of hiatus indicates the official wording,
probably of a Greek translation produced in Hannibal's chancellery.
Annalistic versions of the treaty in Livy (xxiii. 33· 10-12), Appian
(Maced. 1), and Zonaras (ix. 4· 2-3) deserve no credence. Bicker-
man has examined this chapter in detail; d. TAP A, 1944, 87-102
4"
TREATY BETWEEN HA~NIBAL AXD PHILIP V Vri. 9
(linguistic analysis); A]P, 1952, 1-23. He equates the oath with the
Hebrew berit, a 'covenanted' treaty sanctioned not by self-impreca-
tion in the event of a breach, but simply by the sworn assertion in
the presence of the gods. The Phoenician term for such a covenant
may be alae, a word found in a Canaanite incantation on an amulet
(Th. H. Gaster, Orientalia, 1942, 39-79; Bickerman, AJP, 1952, 5
n. 8) and meaning 'everlasting bond'. Bickcrman (ibid. 17) leaves
the question open whether Philip made a similar declaration; but
since Hannibal's is related to the fulfilment of certain clauses
(§§ 4-5) it seems likely that Philip swore a parallel document,
which, of course, did not fall into Roman hands. As a berit, designed
to secure peace, brotherhood, and mutual protection, the compact
assigns no time duration to the alliance, a non-Greek feature at this
time.
Bickerman further surmises that such a berit did not commit the
home government at Carthage (A]P, 1952, 18), and he compares
the Ebro River treaty (ii. 13. 7 n.), which he takes also to be a uni-
lateral declaration. If it were certain that Mago, Myrcan, and Bomil-
car (§ 1) were envoys plenipotentiary from Carthage (Chroust, Class.
et med. 1954, 77), it would be less easy to believe that Carthage
remained uncommitted; but unfortunately the status of these co-
jurors is unknown. In any case, even if they had no power to commit
the central government, the treaty may still have been ratified
subsequently at Carthage. Hence the question of Carthaginian
commitment must be left open.
The contents of the treaty are:
x. Names of those swearing: identification of the envoy before
whom the oath was taken (§ 1).
z. List of deities in whose presence the oath is sworn (§§ 2-3).
3· Declaration of friendship by Hannibal and his co-jurors on
these conditions (§ 4):
(a) Philip and the Macedonians and the rest of the Greeks to
protect Hannibal, the Carthaginians, the people of Utica,
subject cities and peoples, and allies in Italy (§§ s--6).
(b) Philip and the Macedonians and the rest of the Greeks to be
protected by Hannibal, the Carthaginians, the people of Utica,
subject cities and peoples, and allies in Italy (§ 7).
(c) We will keep faith with each other, treating each other's
enemies as our own enemies, excepting only those kings, cities
and peoples with whom we have already sworn treaties of
alliance (§§ 8-9).
(d) The alliance shall last until the Romans are defeated (§ ro).
(e) The Macedonians shall give such help as Hannibal may require
and as they rna y agree upon (§ u ).
43
VII. 9 THE TREATY BETWEEN HANNIBAL AND
(/) Peace shall be the responsibility of Hannibal and the Car-
thaginians, but it shall comprise the Macedonians and contain
these provisions :
(i) Rome shall not attack Philip.
{ii) Rome shall abandon her claim to specified Illyrian towns
and peoples.
(iii) The friends of Demetrius of Pharos shall be returned
(§§ I~H3)•
(g) After the peace the compact shall become a defensive alliance,
each side agreeing to furnish such aid as may be required
against either Rome or any other aggressor, except such as
have sworn treaties with the other party (§§ 15-16).
(h) Subsequent modifications of the treaty are permitted with
the consent of the two parties (§ 17).
These terms clearly indicate Hannibal's limited war-aims, for
they do not envisage the annihilation of Rome. For Philip the treaty
was a useful insurance and a claim to those parts of lllyria which
interested him; it hardly indicates that he planned to be the de-
cisive force in the war {so Stier, 40-41). For Hannibal it provided
a convenient second front to embarrass the Romans, without any
real commitments, and its propaganda value among the Greeks of
south Italy was considerable. It defined spheres of interest and,
even more, spheres of operation. Its vagueness was deliberate. To be
significant it required a swift Carthaginian victory, and as the chances
of this grew more remote the relevance of the treaty evaporated.
For discussion see vValbank, Philip, 72, and the works quoted ibid.
71 n. 3; add L. F. Benedetto, Riv. indo-greco-ital. 3 (fasc. 3-4), 1920,
1o1-25 (a useful account of modern interpretation of the clauses);
M. Engers, lvinem. 1938, 134-8; E. Manni, Mem. Ace. Bologna, 3,
1941, 7-26; A.-H. Chroust, Class. et med. 1954, 6o-107 (unimportant);
J. G. Fevrier, Cah£ers de Byrsa, 6, 1956, 13-22; and Bickerman's two
papers quoted above, pp. 42-43.
9. I. 8pKos, ov ~9ETO ~vvlj3a.s : cf. § 4; for the unusual phrase Bicker-
man (AJP, 1952, 6 n. 10) quotes 2 Kings xxiii. 5: StaO~K'fJV • .. lOero,
and argues that 'the solecism covers a Phoenician formula'; but cf.
Aesch. Agam. 1570, opKOtJ<; Oe~J-1.111], not to be dismissed as a poetical
figure, for opKov occurs several times after TrpoaTl0£u0at.
M6.ywvos, MupKo.vos, Bo.plloKo.pos: these co-jurors are probably re-
presentatives of the Carthaginian government present in camp as
members of Hannibal's council (cf. iii. 2o. 8, ol l-l-£'T atiTov cr6v£Opot,
34· 8, 71. 5, 85. 6, ix. 24. 5). Mago is not Hannibal's brother (cf. iii.
71. s, 79· 4, 114. 7), for he was now in Carthage (Livy, xxiii. 32. 5-7),
but the Mago who accompanied Xenophanes back to Philip and was
captured along with him by the Romans (Livy, xxiii. 34· 2 ff.);
44
PHILIP V OF MACEDONIA VII. 9· I
Myrcan and Barmocar are otherwise unknown. Bickerman (A] P,

1952, 7) argues that the three men were 'probably members of his
concilium, that is, the higher officers, responsible for the conduct
of operations'. Were this so, it is unlikely that they would never
appear elsewhere in our account of the war (Meltzer, ii. 475--6}.
Whether, as Movers argued (ii. 1. 4g8), the three named co-jurors
were members of the smaller, and 7ravu,; •. . yt:povcr£a<:rTa{ members
of the larger, council (cf. i. 21. 6 n., x. I8. I)-while 7rUVTE> •••
r~povcrtacrTa~ ot ,...~· alh-ov (§ 4) covers both categories-is uncertain,
but the absence of a special mention of the named co-jurors in § 4
suggests that they are included there in the jiEpovcrmcrTa{, and is
against Bickerman's hypothesis that they are merely members of
Hannibal's staff-council (though as government representatives they
were no doubt also members of this}. Their separate mention here
requires explanation. That they are named as having sworn on
behalf of the rest is not possible, since an oath bound only the man
swearing it (Steinwenter, RE, 'iusiurandum', col. I254); the oath
will have been sworn by all the gerousiastae and indeed by all the
Carthaginians serving in the army (perhaps in a vast assembly,
but more probably administered by officers; for Roman practice
cf. vi. 21. 1-3). Chroust (Class. et med. I954. 77) suggests that the
three had been empowered to ratify the treaty, which would norm-
ally (d. ii. 13. 7 n. (b); iii. 21. 1) have to be ratified at Carthage.
Bickerman, who regards the treaty as a 'covenant' which did not
commit the Carthaginian government (A]P, 1952, 18-I9), thinks
there is a lacuna before Maywvos-, and that the other 'members of the
council' were named in the complete text ; of this there is no evidence.
'll'avTES Ka.pxT)SovtoL aTpa.nuoflevoL f.LET' a.li'Tou: probably all swore
(see the last note). Bickerman (A]P, 1952, 7) argues that the citizen
army, 'as in every ancient city, is qualified to represent the whole
city', and he quotes Punic coins, minted in Sicily, inscribed am
mabnat, 'the people of the camp' (Head, 877). This is hardly con-
sistent with his thesis that the treaty did not commit Carthage as
a state. There is nothing in favour of Chroust's view (Class. et med.
1954, 76 n. 96} that the army was included at the request of the
Macedonians 'to make the treaty more acceptable'.
S•vo+O.VT) K~eof.Laxou )\811va.Lov: Philip's envoy, captured on the
return journey (d. Livy, xxiii. 33· 16--34·9; App. Maced. I} and other-
wise unknown; cf. Ferguson, 254.
•t~L'11'1TOS o ~a.aL~E"'S AT)f.LT)'Tpwu: this word-order is without parallel
in Hellenistic royal formulae (on which see A. Aymard, REA, I948,
232--63; Rl D A, I95o, 61-97; Rev. hist. de droit fran~ais et etranger,
1949, 579-90; Rel. Sci. Stor. ii. 222-3). Bickerman (TAP A, 1944, 98
11. 62) plausibly suggests that it reflects the Punic word-order, and
quotes a parallel, 'Hilleshabal, the suffete, son of Bodtanit'.
45
VII. 9.1 THE TREATY BETWEEN HANNIBAL AND
ll'lrEp a.uToO Ka.t Ma.Kdiovwv Ka.t Twv uulLlLO.xwv: for the juridical dis-
tinction between King and Macedonians cf. §§ 5 and 7 (where the
Greek allies are also separately mentioned), xviii. 46. 5 (the Isthmus
proclamation). two Latin inscriptions commemorating Perseus' de-
feat at Pydna (ILS, 8884; CJL, i 2 , p. 48, xxvii (acta triumph. Capitol.);
OGJS, z83 (Attalus' dedication after Chios); and Syll. 518, {3a.utJ..El!s
:4v·rlyo[vos {3a.mMws~ Ll'T/f''I'/TPlov <a.t ol Ma.K~:80v£s] Kat ol aVtLf'G.X.Ot
[d7To Tfjs 7TEpi] 1:</J..aato.v f'cf[x.'l'/s :4m)IJ..wvt. See Walbank, Philip,
4 n. I; Dow and Edson, Harv. Stud. 1937, 128 ff. The Sellasia inscrip-
tion provides an exact parallel for the three categories: King,
Macedonians, and allies (i.e. the Greek Symmachy). It is not to be
supposed that the Symmachy had been dissolved after the Social
War (so Heuss, Stadt und H errscher, 162-3); cf. 12. 6, 13. 1, xi. 5· 4 etc.
2-3. List of deities guaranteeing the oath. Since Reiske's assumption
that the deities were mentioned in alternate Greek and Punic triads,
it was long believed that the list covered the gods of both sides.
Ed. Meyer (Roscher, Ausfuhrl. Lexicon, i (189o), z8p, 'Baal') first
suggested that the list is one of Phoenician gods; and since the oath
is Hannibal's it seems plausible that the gods invoked, despite
their Greek names, should be the gods of Carthage (cf. iii. 25. 6).
On 'the gods who possess Macedon and the rest of Greece' see below,
§ 3 n. In general d. Gsell, iv. 223-4; Bickennan, TAPA, 1944, 90
n. 7; Benedetto, Riv. indo-greco-ital. 3 (fasc. 3-4), 1920, IOI-4.
Hitherto, however, not every deity named has been satisfactorily
identified, partly because the Greek equivalents are not necessarily
all the usual ones. Cronos and Asclepios, for instance, frequently
occur as the Greek names of Punic gods, but neitheris mentioned here.
Moreover, gods familiar from their popularity in private life may
not necessarily appear in a public treaty (d. Benedetto, op. cit. 105).
The arrangement in groups of three has been held to correspond to
triads of deities actually worshipped together; but the grouping
could equally well be for rhythmical, i.e. incantational, purposes,
and need not correspond to recognized triads. Recently G. Charles-
Picard has argued (Studi annibalici, 33-36) that the gods are the
personal and family deities of Hannibal rather than those of Car-
thage.
2. ALC)s Ka1 "Hpa.s Ka.i )\voXXwvos: Zeus often appears as a Punic
deity (d. Iustin. xviii. 5· I; Uvy, xxi. 22. 6) and is normally identified
with Baal Samem (cf. iii. II. 5 n.), the 'lord of the heavens'; cf.
Augustine, Quaest. in Heptat. vii. 16, 'solet dici Baal nomen esse apud
gentes illarum partium louis; nam Baal Punici uidentur dicere
dominum, unde Baalsamen quasi dominum caeli intelliguntur
dicere; sa men quippe apud eos caeli appellantur'; on Baal Sam em
see Gsell, iv. 293 ff. For Hera as a Punic goddess see Apul. Met.
vi. 4; Pliny, Nat. kist. vi. 2oo; Virg. A en. i. 441-3; Minuc. Felix,
46
PHILIP V OF MACEDONIA VII. 9· :2
Oct. 25. 9 and the other evidence quoted by Gsell, iv. 255-6. Augustine
(loc. cit.) records that 'I uno sine dubitatione ab illis Astarte uocatur'.
Hence Winckler (i. 443) here takes Zeus and Hera to be Baal Samem
and Astarte. But the principal goddess at Carthage was Tanit Pene
Baal (Gsell, iv. 258), consort of the great god Baal Hammon; and
though the latter was usually called Cronos in Greek, the later
identification with Ammon of the oasis of Siva made the equation
with Zeus easy, since at Cyrene Ammon was identified with Zeus.
Hence there is a good case for regarding Zeus and Hera as Baal
Hammon and Tanit; cf. Gsell, iv. 282, 286-7, 293: 'il se peut done
que dans le traite d'Hannibal et de Philippe, la presence de Zeus
explique !'absence de Cronos'. (This conclusion would not, of course,
imply that the Zeus before whom Hannibal swore his more famous
oaths (iii. n. 5 n.) was also Baal Hammon and not Baal Sarnem,
since the present equations are those of Hannibal's chancellery.)
Gsell's argument has not gone unquestioned. Fevrier (Cahiers
de Byrsa, 1956, 14-20) has argued that in the late third century
Baal Hammon could not have preceded Tanit; and he returns
to the equation of Zeus with Baal Samem, arguing that Baal
Hammon is Apollo. This latter, very unusual, equation he sup-
ports with the hypothesis that Baal Hammon is 'Baal of the
hamman' or 'incense-brazier'; if 'brazier' rather than 'incense' is
the primary meaning, Baal Hammon will then be a solar deity.
Whatever the validity of the argument on the precedence of Tanit
and Baal Hammon (and Fevrier admits that at an earlier date Baal
Hammon would come first), the identification with Apollo is clearly
very hypothetical.
Apollo has often been identified with Eshmoun (Winckler, loc. cit;
E. Vassel, Revue tunisienne, 1913, 214 ff.). Against this is the com-
mon equation of Eshmoun with Asclepias and the fact that Carthage
had two separate temples, to Asclepias (on the hill of Byrsa: App.
Lib. 130) and to Apollo (near the agora: App. Lib. 127); cf. Gsell,
iv. 317. Moreover, Apollo appears identified with Reshef, the god of
war, in Cyprus; cf. C.I.Sem., i. 89, where Reshef-M-k-1 is equated
with T/jJ )bro>.wvt rijJ J4ftVKAoi on a bilingual inscription. Further, an
Apollonia in Palestine was called Arsouf ( = Reshef) in the Middle
Ages (Gsell, iv. 327); and Clermont-Ganneau (Rec. arch. or. vii. 173) has
drawn attention to the Arcadian Asclepias, who is the son of an
otherwise unknown Arsippus, who looks like Reshef (or Apollo)
(Cic. de nat. deor. iii. 57; cf. Joh. Lyd. de mensibus, iv. 142 Wuensch) ;
cf. Gsell, iv. 318 n. 4· Dussaud (CRAI, 1947, 218) therefore regards
this first group as Baal Hammon, Tanit, and Reshef, (who were
never, as far as we know, worshipped together); he will be correct in
adding (Syria, 1946--8, 224) that Reshef 'sous le nom d' Apollon ... est
rattache plus ou moins arbitrairement a Baal Hammon eta Tanit'.
47
VU g. z THE TREATY BETWEE~ HANNIBAL AND
Sat...,ovos KapxTJSov[wv Kal 'HpaKAEous Kal. 'loXaou: the identification
of these three deities is equally controversial. Winckler (i. 341-2,
443) took the Daemon to be Dido, but Gsell (i. 393) demolished his
philological arguments; De Sanctis (iii. r. 67 n. r66) made it Tanit,
which cannot hold if Hera is Tanit. Cumont (RE, 'Gad', cols. 433-5)
takes it to be the 'Gad' or Tyche of Carthage, after the Hellenistic
fashion, an identification found in Syria, and possible at Carthage
(though Gsell, iv. 335 n. 3, underlines the absence of all evidence for
a cult of Gad in that city), and Fevrier (Cahiers de Byrsa, 1956,
20-22), adducing a fourth-century Punic inscription (C.I.Sem. i. 3778),
which mentions Baal Samem, Tanit, Baal Hammon, and an
obscure Baal M-g-n-m (which may, he thinks be M-g-n-n and so
Baal megannen or megonen, 'the Lord Protector') argues that this
fourth figure is to be identified with the Daemon, and both with
Eshmoun, whose temple (i.e. of Asclepias) Appian, Lib. 130, describes
as the finest in Carthage. However, independent evidence exists of a
deity specially charged with watching over Carthage. The formula of
euocatio used by the Romans against the city ran: 'si deus si dea est,
cui populus ciuitasque Carthaginiensis est in tutela, teque maxime,
ille, qui urbis huius populique tutelam recepisti, precor etc.' (Macrob.
iii. 9· 7); and this may well refer to the Daemon. Benedetto (Riv.
indo-greco-ital. 3 (fasc. 3-4), 1920, n5-3o) draws attention to a lion-
faced goddess, perhaps the most ancient and local form of Tanit,
who is identified on a coin of Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio,
struck between the battles of Pharsalus and Thapsus, with the genius
terrae Africae; but whether she is the genius Carthaginis found in
a late dedication from Apulum in Dacia (GIL, iii. 993), 'Caelesti
augustae et Aesculapio augusta et genio Carthaginis et genio Dacia-
rum', and attacked by St. Augustine as more than a mere genius
(cf. Sermo 62. 6. ro, 'nam et illi quod numen habeant et pro numine
accipiant illam statuam, ara testatur'), and whether there is continuity
from the daemon to this genius, remain highly speculative matters.
The equation of Heracles with Melqart seems certain; see the
evidence in Gsell, iv. 301 ff. and, generally, Dussaud, Syria, 1946-8,
205-30. Dussaud (ibid. 2n) draws attention to a triad of Astarte,
Melqart and Eshmoun at Iamneia, brought (he believes) from
Tyre to Carthage at the time of colonization. But there is no reason
to equate the Daemon with Astarte; and indeed if we were concerned
here with a Tyrian triad the title 'daemon of Carthage' would be out
of place. As argued above, there is no reason to assume that we are
dealing with a triad here. The evidence, too, for identifying I olaus
with Eshmoun is slender. Eudoxus of Cnidus (Athen. ix. 392 D-E)
reported that Iolaus restored Heracles to life, thereby proving his
close connexion with Asclepios-Eshmoun; and Eshmoun and Melqart
figure together on many Cypriote inscriptions (C.I.Sem. i. 16, 23 ff.)
48
PHILIP V OF MACEDONIA VII. g. 2
in a form which Dussaud (Syria, I946-8, 228} interprets as 'Esh-

moun son of Melqart', and which might therefore support the
equations Melqart-Heracles and Eshmoun-Iolaus. As Gsell observes
(iv. 324), 'il est inutile d'insister sur la fragilite de ces hypotheses'.
Benedetto (Riv. indo-greco-ital. 3 (fasc. 3-4), I92o, I22-4) has an
alternative suggestion: Iolaus closely resembles Sardus, son of
Maceris (whom Egyptians and Libyans called Heracles: Paus.
x. I]. 2; i.e. he is Melqart); Sardus colonized Sardinia, like Iolaus
who led the Thespiads there (Diod. iv. 30. 2}. Perhaps then Iolaus-
Sardus is the patron of the western lands ruled by Carthage. A
plausible thesis; but we have no independent evidence of the wor-
ship of such a patron of the west at Carthage, and it is odd if Esh-
moun (who, as we saw, is hardly to be equated with Apollo) figures
nowhere in the oath. The case for equating Iolaus-Eshmoun is
perhaps not seriously damaged by the fact that a bilingual inscrip-
tion from Sardinia, where the cult of Iolaus predominates, identifies
Eshmoun with Asclepios (not Iolaus); cf. Benedetto, Riv. indo-
,;reco-ital. 3 (fasc. 3-4), I92o, I23-4· No other plausible equivalent
for Iolaus has been proposed. Movers' theory of a god luba or
Hiarbas (i. 536, ii. 2. 505), and the evidence quoted by Gsell (iv.
323 n. 4) for a god Iol, homonymous with the town Iol and men-
tioned on Tunisian inscriptions, fail to provide satisfactory equivalents
for Iolaus. Provisionally then, and with some caution, Dussaud's
theory that Iolaus is Eshmoun may be accepted.
'ApEW'i, T phwvos, noaELSWVO'i: in an ingenious rapprochement be-
tween the story recorded in Philo Bybl. ii. 21-22 (FHG, iii. 568) and
a myth found in a Ras Shamra tablet (Virolleaud, Syria, I935· 29 ff.;
1944-5, Iff.; CRAI, 1946, 498 ff.), Dussaud (CRAI, 1947, 201-24) has
tried to identify this group as Baal Hadad, Kousor, and Yam. In
Philo Damouras kills Pontos, the father of Poseidon; in fg. IIIAB
from Ras Shamra Baal Ben Dagon, aided by Kousor, destroys the
sea-god Yam. Dussaud concludes that Yam is Pontos and Damouras
Baal ; for Damouras is a son of Dagon, and the river Damouras in
Syria (cf. v. 68. 9), modern Nahr Damur, probably takes its name
from a contraction of Hadad-Amourou (cf. Dussaud, Rev. hist.
rel. 1932, 284), while Baal Ben Dagon is Baal Hadad. In Philo,
ii. 24 (FHG, iii. 569), Gruppe had already suggested reading ZE!Js
JJ7J~tapoiis (o) ~eat )l.Swoos-. Yam is to be identified with the ichthyo-
morphous deity portrayed on the coins of Aradus, often wrongly called
Dagon, and with the Poseidon who rides a chariot drawn by four
hippocamps on the coins of Berytus; he is therefore the Pontos of
Philo, or Poseidon who, in Philo, is Pontos' son. Without criticizing
Dussaud's theory in detail one may query its relevance here; for
whatever the relationship between Damouras and Baal Hadad, he
has made no attempt to equate either with Ares. Further, the equation
814173 E 49
VII. g. 2 THE TREATY BETWEEN HANNIBAL AND
Triton-Kousor is ill~based, since whatever the resemblances between
Kousor as sea-god (cf. Virolleaud, Syria, 1932, 153-4) and Triton-
frankly, they are few-in the Ras Shamra myth Kousor assists Baal
against Yam, whereas Triton, though perhaps originally an earlier
sea-god than Poseidon, is represented as his son and is never in conflict
with him (cf. Herter, RE, 'Triton (r)', cols. 248-9). For the worship
at Carthage of a god identified with Poseidon cf. Diod. xi. 21. 4, xiii.
86. 3; Peri plus of Hanna, 4 (GGM, i. 3) and Ps.-Scyl. u2 (GGM, i. 93),
both referring to a temple on C. Soloeis outside the Pillars of Heracles;
coins of Hadrumetum; Philo Bybl. ii. 25 (FHG, iii. 569); and
Herodotus (iv. 179, r8o) records the worship of both Poseidon and
Triton by the indigenous inhabitants of Lake Tritonis (though there
is no indication that this is Phoenician).
Fevrier (Cahiers de Byrsa, 1956, 19) suggests that Ares is Reshef
because Reshef is originally a warrior god (cf. J. Vandier, La re-
ligion igypt£enne 2 (Paris, 1949), 218 and 229 for evidence from Eg;-pt
from the end of the first millennium). But this Vl:'.ill be ruled out if
Reshef is Apollo (above, p. 47).
On present evidence the identity of Poseidon, Triton, and Ares
remains uncertain.
Sewv Twv uu<npa.Teuo..,.evwv: Winckler's suggestion (i. 443-4) that this
phrase renders something like the Hebrew 'the whole host of heaven'
may be disregarded. These 8€:o{ accompany the Punic army, though
in what way they are distinct from the gods oaot Ttv~S' Etp€:0'T~K(I.ULV
br/. TOV8E TOV opKov (below) is not clear. The various nationalities
represented in Hannibal's camp would have their separate gods
(cf. F. Zucker, Abh. Berlin. Akad. 1937, no. 6, 23), and these may be
included here, though not gods of Carthage. Further, the dii cas-
trel,ses would be portrayed on the standards present when Hannibal
took the oath (Bickerman, A]P, 1952, 7 n. 12). For an altar and
l.,pa aK?JV"Ij in a Punic camp cf. Diod. xx. 65. Launey (ii. 921-2) dis-
cusses the divine escort of a Hellenistic army, but in many of the
passages he cites (e.g. v. I4. 8, 24. 9; Plut. Dem. 29. 2) the reference
to gods is very imprecise.
'HA£ov Kat IeAi}V'YjS Ka.t rfjs: since these are not translated by the
names of the Greek deities associated with them, they probably
appeared in this form in the original Phoenician. Gsell (iv. 232 n. r)
argued that the Phoenicians distinguished sharply between natural
objects and their controlling deities; but such proper names as
Abdshemesh, 'servant of the sun', and Shemeshshilleh, 'the sun has
freed him', suggest that the sun was conceived of as a deity, as
among the Babylonians and Aramaeans. For a temple to Shemesh see
Fevrier, Cahiers de Byrsa, 1956, r8-r9 (but his reference to C.I.Sem. is
incorrect). Hence there is no need to suppose 'qu'il s'agit ... des
dieux qui regnent sur le soleil, la June, etc.'
50
PHILIP V OF MACEDONIA VII. g. 3
woTafA-WV ~ea.l A~f:.LEVWV ~ea.l. Mi&Twv: /upivwll is Gronovius' emendation
of the MS. Oatf1dvwv (FS). omp.6vwll is not wholly impossible: d.
Syll. 527 IC i, Dreros, 1), 11. 33-35 (from Crete, about 220 B.c.),
Mal. 7fpwa;; Ka: f]pwacrcras Kat Kpams Kat 7T07'af1ov;; (adduced by Bene-
detto, Riv. indo-greco-ital. 3 (fasc. 3-4), 1920, r25 n. 5); but it is
unlikely, and Casaubon suggested AHf1r!wwv, Reiske Atf1vwv. AtJklvwv
is unsatisfactory. Naber (Mnem. 1857, 236) defends it, quoting
vi. 17. 2 and xxxvi. 4· 3 for the conjunction of rivers and harbours;
but these passages are irrelevant to the inclusion of harbours in
u context such as this. (Paton prints Atf11.vwv, but both here and at
xii. 25 e r he translates Atf1?)v as 'lake', a meaning it cannot have.)
On the whole, Reiske's At11.vwv gives the best sense. The worship of
waters among Semitic peoples is widely attested; see W. Baudissin
Sludien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte {Leipzig, I876-19n), ii.
145-84; W. Robertson Smith, Religion of the SemitesJ (London,
1927). I69-79 (v•:ith notes by s. A. Cook, 555-7). Such natUial objects
appear in the treaty between lj:attusiland Ramesscs II, which appeals
to 'the mountains and rivers of the land of Egypt, the sky, the
earth, the great sea, the \\':inds, the clouds' (S. Langdon and A. H.
Gardiner, ]EA, r92o, 195); and that between Subbiluliuma and
Tetti, king of the N at,la55e, states that 'mountains, rivers, springs,
the great sea and the earth, winds and clouds for this treaty and
curse are witnesses {E. F. Weidner, Politische Dol.umente aus Klein-
asien (Leipzig, r923), 68-69).
3. 1\'dVTWV 8£wv lJqo~ K<lTEXOUO'L Ko.pxlJSova. ••• oam Ma.K£80Vl<tV KQL
't'1!v a).~l}V 'E~AaSa KQ.TEXOUO'~V: this passage was one of the main
reasons for the false belief that the list of deities included those of
both sides (see above, 2-3 n.). The gods of the other party appear
here, almost at the end of the invocation, for the sake of complete-
ness (Benedetto, Riv. indo-greco-ital. 3 (fasc. 3-4), rg2o, ro3), a pro-
cedure which is strange to Greek and Roman practice, but can be
paralleled in the treaty between Esarhaddon and Ba'alu of Tyre
(cf. Luckenbill, ii. 229), in which Ba'alu, invoking a curse on him-
tell, should he break the treaty, calls upon the gods of Phoenicia
&nd 'the gods of Assyria and Akkad'. Similarly, both Hittite and
Egyptian deities are invoked in the treaty between ijattusil and
Ro.messes II (d. Langdon and Gardiner, JEA, Igzo, I79-205). Gsell
(iv. 223 n. I) suggests that if the gods already mentioned could be
held to be, by syncretism, both the Punic gods and their Greek
equivalents, the present clause might be taken as a form of resume.
But, apart from the fact that another clause follows, this is
tpecifically Hannibal's oath, the gods were Punic, and this was no
occasion for syncretism, which would have made no impression on
Philip (for his orthodox religious beliefs d. Walbank, Philip,
167-8).
VII. g. 3 THE TREATY BETWEEN HANNIBAL AND
8ewv 'lravTwv TWv Ka.Ta GTpa.TEla.v: apparently distinct from the BEo~
UVUTpaTEVOp.EVOl (above, § 2).
4. 0 a.v SoKft u~iv KO.i ti~tv: an awkward phrase. Reiske thought
OOKetv had dropped out after ~J-1.-LV and Casaubon changed 0 av to
.lciv; Schweighaeuser kept the MS. reading, but hesitated how to
take it. In the translation he has 'ex animi uestri nostrique senten-
tia', but in the (later) note 'quidquid tandem uobis nobisque (de
aliis rebus) uideatur, amicitiam iungemus his legibus'. The meaning
appears to be: 'in respect of whatever shall seem good to you and
us'; as in §§ 6, 7, and IS there is a conditional idea included.
Tov 8pKov Toihov 8ta8a.l: d. § 1. The infinitive is that normal in
decrees after elrrev, e.g. o OEiva .,[rr.,v· S.,S6x8at 'Tfj {lovAfi K'TA.
m:pt .j>LALa.o; Ka.t euvo(a.s Ka.Ai]s: 'in friendship and goodwill.' Bicker-
man (AJP, I952, 8) quotes the phrase 'good peace and good brother-
hood' in the Accadian text of the treaty between ljattusil and
Ramesses II as a parallel for the unusual adjective KaMjs here
(cf. Langdon and Gardiner, JEA, I92o, zoo), and he mentions a
suggestion of H. L. Ginsberg that the Phoenician original of Evvolas
KaAij<; was sekel na'im, 'so that KUA~ is tautological in Greek, but not
in the Semitic original'. rptA.la will render the Phoenician salom (cf.
§aloma, 'peace', in the treaty between ljattusil and Ramesses II) .
.j>~Aous Ka.t otKElous Ka.t O.SeA..j>ous: the words are 'strange and un-
grammatically assembled ' (Bickerman, loc. cit.), but one need not
follow Reiske: ws rrpos rf>lA.ov<; K'TA, The terminology recalls that of
other near eastern treaties (Bickerman, loc. cit): e.g. 'brotherhood'
in the treaty between ljattusil and Ramesses II, 'peace and brother-
hood' in a letter from Ramesses' queen Naptera to Pudugepa, the
queen of the Hittites, after the conclusion of that treaty, and
'brotherhood and kinship' referring to ljattusil's relations with the
king of Babylon (cf. Meissner, ZDMG, I9I8, 59---0o). In Greek con-
texts a.a.,A.,Pol is used only of kinship between nations (cf. Syll. 59I,
l. 25), not individuals (Bickerman, TAPA, I944, 97); olKdot, 'close
friends', is found in Greek formulae (cf. Wiegand, Milet, i. 3· nos.
I43 B l. I, I46 B l. 2.
5. ~4>' ~T, dva.l KTA.: 'the amity between the partners is conditioned
by the fulfilment of the stipulated obligations' (Bickerman, AJP,
I952, 9): cf. iii. 22. 4, .lrr/. TOiao£ rptAlav elvat 'PwJ.Lalot<; .•• Kat KapxTJ-
oovlot<;. Though not common, Greek parallels exist: xxi. 43· I (treaty
between Rome and Antiochus III); OGIS, 229 ll. 34 ff. (treaty be-
tween Smyrna and Magnesia) ; Syll. 627 l. I (treaty of I83 betwee11
Eumenes II and thirty Cretan communities).
att~~O!J-tvouo;: cf. § 7, attJ~OJ.Levot Kai rpvAaTToJ.L£Vot. Bickerman (A]P,
I952, 9) recalls that 'the first duty of a vassal of the Hittites is to
preserve (na$t1m) the overlord and his empire'; he quotes the pledge
of mutual preservation in the treaty between the Hittite king
sa
PHILIP V OF MACEDONIA VII. 9· 5
M:ursil and an Asian prince (V. Kora.Sec, Hethetische Staatsvertrii,ge
(Leipziger rechtswissenschaftliche Studien, 66, 1931), 66; Luckenbill,
A]SemL, 192o-1, 181). The present instance is parallel, though the
parties are not overlord and vassal.
4'lAL'II''II'Ou Kat MaK€86vwv ~eat ••• TWV ID.>..wv •E>..>..ftvwv: cf. § I n.
The phrase a.Uwv 'E;\t\~vwv probably reflects the Macedonian claim
(since at least the fourth century) to be counted Greek. Cf. Arrian,
ii. 14. 4, "l' Ma~e€oovlav Kai e[, T~v &:,\,\1Jv 'E.Udoa (letter from Alexander
to Darius); and in Lyciscus' speech to the Spartans (ix. 37· 7) the
Achaeans and Macedonians arc said to be 611-6fv'i\m with the Spartans.
Similarly, in Syll. 68o = Insch. Olympia, 325, Q. Caecilius Metellus,
cos. 143. is honoured by a Macedonian of Thessalonica ap€'T"ij> €V€1C€J)
Kat €1!VOta> ~•jS €XuW otaT€1\H
\ ' , ., ~ \ "'
HS T€ aV'TQI' Kat T1)11 TTaTptoa
Jf ' \ \ ' ~~
kat TOVS
' '
Ao<TToVs MaK£86vas ~eal Tovs dA'i\ovs ~E,\,\1)vas. Sec further Komemann,

Aegyptus, 1933, 647.
~<uptous KapxfJSovlous : cf. iii. 24. 3 n. ; perhaps the translation of
a Punic expression. Kahrstedt (Gott. Nachr. 1923, 99) thinks this is
Baalim, i.e. 'citizens' (of Carthage); so too Ed. Meyer, Kl. Schr.
ii. 297 n. 2; but W. Baudissin (Kyrios, ii (Giessen, 1931), 33, .:z87;
iii. 53; cf. Bickerman, TAPA, r944, 97 n. 57) suggests adon or some
similar word. Ehrenberg (Karthago, .z5) thinks that after the fall of
Tyre the Carthaginians substituted this title for something like 'the
Tyrians of Carthage' (cf. iii. 24. 3). An alternative suggestion, pro-
posed by Bickerman (TAP A, 1944. 97 n. 54), is that ~<:vpwt Kapx1J-
36vtoL are citizens optima iure. But, as he admits (following L. Robert,
Rev. arch. 7, 1936, .:z35), to a Greek KVptot would be simply an
expression of politeness--'messieurs'-not a political category;
moreover, this theory implies that mrdpxovs indicates citizens of an
inferior status, and there is no evidence for this at Carthage (cf.
vi. 51.2 n.)~though, of course, Carthage contained many non-citizens,
metics, freedmen, and slaves, a different matter; cf. Gsell, ii . .z.:z6-8,
nnd for the Libyphoenicians see the next note. An objection of G. L.
della Vida, quoted by Bickerman, that in Kahrstedt's view one would
expect 'Lords of Carthage' and not 'Carthaginian lords' is not very
1erious; and on the whole Kahrstedt's view seems the most convincing.
uw<ipxou<;: these 'dependants of the Carthaginians who use the same
laws' will be the Libyphocnicians (cf. L 10. 5 n.), who enjoyed
htyaJ.tla with the Carthaginians (Diod. xx. 55· 4), perhaps the private
rights of Carthaginian citizens and even the right to acquire full
citizenship (like the Latins at Rome) if they came to reside in Car-
thage (Livy, xxv. 40. 5, where Hannibal's officer Muttines is a native
of Hippou Acra); see Gsell, ii. 227. For the view of della Vida see
the last note. inrapxos is normally 'subordinate governor' and has its
present sense only here; this may reflect the vagaries of Hannibal's
translators (Bickerman, TAP A, 1944, 97--98).
53
VII. g. 5 THE TREATY BETWEEN HA~XIBAL AND
'1Tutca.1ous: Utica had a privileged position among the Phoenician
towns (d. i. 70. 9 n.; Meltzer, ii. 75 ff.) and is also separately men-
tioned in the second treaty between Rome and Carthage (iii. 24. I,
24. 3 n.).
oua.~ 1roXns ~ea.t e9VTJ ••• irrn]tcoa.: the 1roAH> of i. 72. 2, 86. I, simple
settlements, occasionally fortified, and established for defence and
control among the native Libyans, who are referred to under £8v7J
(d. i. 72. 2 n., and for the size of Punic territory i. Io. 5 n.).
6. 1TOAE~S ICO.L e9vfJ, 1Tpos a EO"nv ••• 4aALO.: the MS. as was changed
by Reiske (cf. Naber, Mnem. 1857, 236), but unjustifiably: cf. § 9,
{Jaat'Mwv Kai 1roAewv Kai €8vwv 1rpo> ov> KTA. These fluctuations in
gender are a mark of the translator.
~v 'ITa.ALiil Ka.t KEATLiilKa.t Alyuo-T(vn: Ke.\.r{a is probably Cisalpine Gaul
(d. Egelhaaf, HZ, 53, I885, 46o). Italy is therefore still the peninsula
proper (Dickerman, TAP A, I944. 94 n. 36), whereas for P. (ii. I4.
4-I2, iii. 54· 2) it extends to the Alps. On the successive changes in
what the word 'Italia' covered see Nissen, It. Land. i. 63 ff.
~v TO.UTU TU xwp~: in Italy, Cisalpine Gaul, and Liguria; cf. § 7' Ell
TOtS' Kar' 'Ira,\lav T01TOtS' rothotS".
7. o-~~OJ.LEVo~ ~ea.t ~uAaTTOflEVol: cf. § 5· As a parallel for this unusual
phrase Dickerman (TAP A, I944· 98) mentions a Punic formula
found on amulets, n!jr wsmr (d. M. Lidzarski, Eph. sem. Ep. 1, I90I,
1]2).
TWV aAAwv, OO"Ol av YEVWVTO.l O"UflflO.XOl: this avoids the ambiguity
which existed on what allies were covered by the treaty of 241 (iii.
21. 4-5), an issue prominent in the negotiations of 218 (Dickerman,
AJP, I952, I3-J4).
8. £o-6J.LE9a. 1TOAEJ.Ll0' To is 1rpos Ka.pxf15ov(ous 1ToAEf1oiJo-,: after ovK
£m{3ovAdH7ofL£V d,\.\.~Aot>, where 'we' includes both parties ('we' and
'you'). the transition here to Philip and the Macedonians is awkward.
Dickerman (TAP A, I944. Ioo n. 73) argues that 'in Greek, as well
as in Punic, "you and we" could not be spoken of together except
in the third [read "first"] person plural', and he therefore rejects any
emendation here. But there is much to be said for inserting vf.Le'i>
f.L~V after 1ToMf.Ltot, so as to balance the Punic undertaking in § 9 and
changing ~f.LtV to Vf.LLV in the clause 1rpo> ov> • •• qn.\.lat (so Reiske),
or alternatively Engers' emendation (Mnem. 1938, 137 n. 1), £a6f.Le8a
(rtfLWpovVT£5' d,\,\~.\.ots" Vf.Lt(is f.L~V flawBe) 1ToMf.Lwt. Groag (84) takes the
sense to be 'we (Macedonians) will be enemies .. .' ; but the subject
cannot switch to the Macedonians in the middle of Hannibal's oath.
~ao-LAEwv Kai 'lrOAEwv t<a.l. Alf1Evwv: Atf.Levwv can hardly be right. Even
a Punic translator would scarcely envisage establishing opKot Kai
qn.\.lat with a Atf.L~v. However the corruption arose, the reading must
be £9vwv as in § 9· For the gender of the following relative cf. § 9
and above § 6 n.
54
PHILIP V OF MACEDO~lA VII. 9· I:Z
10. ~uEu8£ 6~ Ka.L ti~Jol:v ( uu~Jo~Joa.xa~) 'II' pas Tov 'll'o.N:11ov: so Schweig-
haeuser, who changed £m;a9a.~ and added aup,p.a.xot. But in Hebrew,
and so probably in Punic, the verb 'to be' 'with a personal dative (ex-
pressed by a preposition) could imply the idea of assistance rendered
to the person indicated' (Bickerman, TAPA, 1944. 10o); Bickerman
quotes the use of elva~ with the dative in the LXX to render this Hebrew
expresswn,. e.g. Gen. xxx1.. 42, £L, p,TJ' o• o£o>
.c. I ••• ..t ~
•1v p,o£, vuv " K£vav
av ' fJ-£
f.garrecrm.Aa.s-. Perhaps then the text can stand without aup,p,axo~.
tVTJj.I.Ep(a.v: 'victory'; for the sense see the decree of Iasus on the
Pergamene Nicephoria, Rev. Arch. 1929, ro7 l. I7 and the examples
there quoted (p. rr3) by S. Lambrino; L Robert (BCH, 1930, 339
n. 1) adds Sosylus (FGH, 176 F r, §II L 7) and Diodorus, passim.
11. ~OT)Ih\<TE'I'E 6E tl!JolV, WS Q.y •• • <TUj.LtPWvl]<TW!JolV: it WaS argued by
Holleaux (183 n. 3; Etudes, v. 299, which now shows that the version
in CA.H, viii. 219, represents a modification of his real view) that
this clause implied a later military convention regulating the help to
be sent (cf. Thiel, 67-68; Chroust, Class. et med. 1954, 91-92). Un-
doubtedly {3o1}0£tv here refers to military aid; cf. 4· 2, 4. 7, x. 37. s.
and other examples assembled by P. Gratzel, De pactiom'm inter
graecas ciuitates jactarum ad bellum pacemque pertinentium appella-
tionibus jormulis ratione (Diss. Halle, I88s). sz-s6. But aup,4>wvEtv is
a common word for 'to agree' and there is no independent evidence
for such a separate convention. The clause can equally well be
a general provision for the sending of military aid by Philip if and
when Hannibal asked for it, for such aid was normally sent only
on request (cf. Thuc. v. 6r. I, 79; below, xxviii. 13. 5, where the
Romans reject Achaean aid) since the recipient footed the bill
(Bickerman, AJP, 1952, 16). To this extent Niese (ii. 467 n. 3) and
DeSanctis (iii. 2. 407) seem wrong in claiming that the treaty did not
envisage sending Macedonian troops to Italy. But there would have
been a big difference between the sending of such auxiliaries to
Hannibal and the Italian expedition Philip originally planned (v. 101.
to-102. 1, 108. 4-5). This clause is an unessential part of the treaty;
vaguely worded, it reserves even such limited collaboration for some
unspecified future time at Hannibal's discretion, and Bickerman
(.A]P, 1952, 15) rightly underlines his reluctance to see Philip too
deeply involved in the main conflict. In fact, this clause was never
operated. Whether Philip's side of the compact contained a similar
undertaking by Hannibal (so Hallward, CAH, viii, 6z n. 1) is
unknown, but seems unlikely, since had it been given, it must surely
have appeared in Hannibal's oath. Philip's quid pro quo was to come
rather in the terms of the peace (§§ 12-14) and the subsequent protec-
tion of Hannibal (§§ 15~16).
12. &v &.s,wuL 'Pw11a.ioL uuvT(8Eu8ru ••• , auv8T}uo11E8a.: i.e. we, the
Carthaginians. This clause recognizes Hannibal's principal status;
55
VII. 9· 12 TREATY BETWEEN HANXIBAL A)l"D PHILIP V
Philip as auxiliary was not entitled to share in the making of peace,
but Hannibal undertakes to include the Macedonians in the treaty
(as the Lampsacenes sought inclusion in the peace between Rome and
Macedon in 196: Syll. 591 1. 65 (see now Robert in Holleaux, E'tudes,
v. 141-2)); cf. Bickerman, Phil. 1932, 277-9; Rev. Phil. 1935. 66; A]P,
1952, 15 n. 3o, on the technical term flllfJ-TrEptAaf-Lf3av""'·
13. ~1')8' ..tva.l 'Pw~a.lous Kuplous •.• Jl\'twTa.v(a.s: of the states here
mentioned Corcyra, Apollonia, Epidamnus, the Parthini, and the
Atintanes passed under Roman control as a result of the First
Illyrian War (229-228); see ii. II. s-r2 n. for their status. Pharos and
Dimale (iii. r8. r n.) became Roman after Demetrius' revolt and
defeat in the Second Illyrian \Var (219): iii. r8-r9. The future status
of these places is not defined ; but Philip would hope to be in posses-
sion of them when the Romans agreed to relinquish their claim.
14. Tous oUc:dous TravTa.s: 'all his friends'; evidently friends of Deme-
trius detained in Italy since 219 (Badian, BSR, 1952, 87). There is
no reason to think they were hostages (so Bickerman, A]P, 1952,
r6), since there is no record of any being deposited in Rome either
in 229 or later; nor does it seem probable that these olKeiot arc 'die
Unterthanen des Demetrios ... die in der romischen Bundesgenos-
senschaft stehen' (so Kromayer, HZ, roJ, 1909, 245; contra, Holleaux,
r84 n. r).
15. tC.v Sf:a.'lpwvTa.~ •pw~a.i:ol .•• Tr0Ao£~ov: i.e. after the peace men-
tioned in§ r2. Thus the alliance is to continue as a defensive alliance.
This clause indicates that Hannibal was not envisaging the extinc-
tion of Rome. See iii. 25. 3-5 n. discussing a similar provision in the
third treaty between Rome and Carthage, should Pyrrhus later
attack either; Livy, xxvi. 24. 8 ff.
n
Ka.9ws liv EICQ.T~pOLS XPE(a.: cf. § I I. Here again the recipient of aid
would judge of its necessity.
16. eO.v T~v"s li.XXol: the defensive alliance was to cover attacks from
others besides Rome: this would give Philip a claim on Carthage
should he be attacked by any Greek power.
17. atP£A£iv T) 1TpoO'fMva.l: such provision for later amendments of
a treaty was common Greek practice; d. Thuc. v. 23. 6, ~~~ Sl n
i>oKfi Aa.Ke8aLf-LOV{O£> Ka~ :40T)va.lo£S' TrpouOefvat Kat d~eAEZ~·. v. 47· I:Z;
IG i2 • 71, ii:. 112 (= Tod, 144), II. 35-36 (restored).
10-12. Philip V and Messene

Philip's first intervention in Messenia may fall in either 01. 141, 1
(216(rs) or 141, 2 (2r5/r4), and so may belong to the summer or
autumn of 215 (Seeliger, IJ n. 12) or to the spring of 214 (Niese, ii.
47 r n. 2, and Holleaux, 197 n. 4, both leaving the date open). What
survives in P. can be supplemented from Plut. Aral. 49-51, which
PHII.IP V AND MESSENE VII. IO 5
derives from him (Walbank, Aratos, 19); this shows (Plut. Arat.
$I. I) that the first intervention preceded Philip's Epirote expedition
of 214 (Livy, xxiv. 40. 1-q).
10. l. ouaT]s STJf1oKpa.Tla.s 'l!"a.pO. To'Ls MeaaT]vlots: this fragment from

Suidas (§ I) probably refers to the situation in Messene after Philip
had egged on the democrats to destroy their opponents (13. 6; cf.
Plut. Arat. 49· 3-5). Hence it should probably stand after 10. 2-5 or
even I2 (see above, p. 2; Seeliger, 12 n. 3, q). The aTpa'T'YJyol of Plut.
Arat. 49· 4 suggest a constitutional change since 220, when the
officers were ephors (iv. 4· 2 n., 31. z); this will reflect a change
to Achaean institutions, and probably a move towards moderate
democracy under Gorgus, in contrast to the close oligarchy of the
neutral party (iv. 32. 1). P.'s eulogy of Gorgus (1o. 2-5) suggests
that he was pro-Achaean, but his wealth and family (ro. 2) do not
point to an extreme democrat. In encouraging extreme democracy
at Messene Philip took a step towards alinement with the revolu-
tionary elements, later developed in his compact with Nabis of
Sparta (see Walbank, Philip, 164-5, 273).
Twv O.pxa.£wv 'lfOAlTwv: this implies that new citizens had been en-
rolled, but not necessarily that those who had usurped the property
of the exiles, and whose political equality (l<nJyopla.) was resented,
were themselves new citizens.
l. fopyos o Meacrijv,os: cf. v. 5· 4, where Gorgus tries to secure
Philip's help against Lycurgus (218). The name Gorgus was that of
Aristomenes' son at the time of the Second Messenian War (Paus.
iv. 19. 4), and perhaps this Gorgus claimed descent from this famous
family (ouoevo> • •. SetYr-cpo> Mlia<n]vlwv • .. ytvfit). For his athletic
prowess at Olympia d. Paus. vi. 14. II, r&pyov 0~ TOll EikA~-rov
Mm~vwv avEADf'£VOJl1TEVTd8AovvtKT)Jl (as a boy). See RE, 'Gorgos' ((s);
Kirchner and {9): Niese), col. 1661 (article duplicated).
3. ~~:a.Ta T~v Toll Aol'l!"ou !3iou 1rpoaTa.ata.v: 'in the splendour of his
general mode of life'; d. xxv. 3· S·
5. Tijs Tois 0.9ATJTa.is 1Ta.p~<1To!-LEYT]S &.va.ywy(a.<;: the over-trained
professional athlete is the object of criticism from the time of
Xenophanes (cf. Diels, FVS, i. 129, fg. z, Euripides in the
Autolycus (fg. 284; Athen. x. 413 c-F) repeats the criticism that the
athlete is useless; and Plato in the Republic (iii. 404 B; cf. Laws,
vii. 796 A) condemns the athlete's specialized training as inconsistent
with military efficiency, a view shared by P., if his Life of Philo-
poemen is the source of the story of the Platonic attitude adopted
towards athletics by Philopoemen himself, recorded in Plut. Philop. J·
The charge of boorishness (d.vaywylas is Toup's convincing emen-
dation of aywvla>) made here is slightly different, but is equally a
criticism of the failure of athletics to provide a satisfactory 7Tat8€la.
57
VII. II. I PHILIP V AND l\IESSENE
11, 1. ElTl<TTTJCT<15 TTJV O~TJYTJ<TW; a lacuna exists between IO, 5 and

II. I, though both fragments are from the excerpts (P) on vice and
virtue. This digression on Philip's moral deterioration was antici-
pated in iv. 77· 4; see also v. IO. 11 and xviii. 33· 6. In x. 26. 7-Io
P. associates Philip's defects with old age, and enunciates the prin-
ciple of treating each incident as it arises rather than make a general
character sketch at the outset. See Bruns, 5, g6-Ioo.
TTJS ~1Tl xe'i:pov Op!J-TJS K<ll JliETa6€<TEW5: 'his impulse towardS, and
change for, the worse.'
2. 1T1EpL1To~IE~<T9a~ TTJV EK TTJS tuToplas OLC)p6wuw: d. v. 75· 6, lK Tfis
icnopfas . . . 7Tept-rrou:i:a8at T1Jv • .. lfL-rrttpfav. For the practical lessons
which history affords the statesman see Vol. I, pp. 6 ff.
5. Tov 1rpos AtTwXous Kal. AaKEOa~J.Lovlous 1TC)AEJ.LOV: the Social War,
described iv. 3-37, 57-87, v. I-30, 9I-I06.
TWV 1Tep~oLKol'wTwv ••• j3apf3npwv: but frontier measures were neces-
sary against the Dardani in 22oji9 (iv. 29. I, d. 66. I, 66. 6), and
Philip had seized Bylazora in 217 (v. 97· r-2}.
6. , AXe€nvOpou K<ll Xpuuoyovou K<ll TWV aXXwv ~I:Xwv: on Alexander
the chamberlain see ii. 66. 7 n., iv. 87. 5; on Chrysogonus, father of
Samus, see v. 9· 4 n.
7. TTJV OE n€A01TOWIJ<T[wv KTA.: Schweighaeuser detected and con-
vincingly filled the lacuna after l4Kapvdvwv: 'Peloponnesiorum uero
... quantum fuerit in eundem studium, facile aestimare poterit, qui
considerauerit, quot et quanta breui temporis spatio beneficia in
eorum quasque contulerit.' The Achaeans (here called the Pelo-
ponnesians) received Psophis (iv. 72. 9), Lasion (iv. 73· 2), Stratus
(ibid.), and perhaps Phigaleia (iv. 79· 5 n.); and Dyme recovered
Teichus (iv. 83. 5). The Epirotes got Ambracus (iv. 63. 3}, and the
Acamanians Oeniadae (they held it when the Romans took it in
2II: ix. 39· 2; Livy, xxvi. 24. 15), Phoetiae, and perhaps the remnants
of Metropolis (iv. 63. 8, 64. 3 n.): see C. Salvetti, 'Ricerche storiche
intomo alla lega etolica' (Studi di star. ant. ii, r893), u9, 133; Hol-
leaux, I6o n. 2, r64 n. 6. The Boeotians had remained neutral in the
Social War and so had gained nothing; Feyel (I6I n. I) suggests that
the benefits here mentioned consisted of the goodwill which Philip
showed in permitting their neutrality while protecting their in-
terests against Aetolia.
8. olov epW!J-EV05 ••. TWV 'EXXT]vwv: i.e. the members of the Sym-
machy; d. v. Io6. 7 n., Holleaux, r64 n. 7.
OLa TO TTJS aipeuEWS EuepyenKov: like 1rpoalpw's in § 9, atpwts here
can be 'policy', 'conduct' or 'character'; cf. Strachan-Davidson, 7--8.
9. Eva TTpocrTaTTJV ••• Tijs vi]uou 411AL1T1Tov: d. I4. 4; Plut. A rat.
48. 5· Since 219 western Crete had been allied to Philip (cf. iv. 53-55);
and decrees (Le Bas-Waddington, 65-67, 70, 7z-i4 = GDI, 5r6g-7I,
5176, 5178-So} show Philip's agent Perdiccas attempting to obtain
;>8
PHILIP V AND MESSENE VII. 12. I
dau.\{a for Teos from several Cretan cities and peoples under Philip's
control (Axus, Sybrita, Latus, Istron, the Arcades, Allaria, Lato
7Tpos Kap.dpq.) towards the end of the century (in 201 according to
Holleaux, Etudes, iv. q8-2o3, 267-8; in 205--3 according to Ruge,
RE, 'Teos', cols. 548---9). Nevertheless, P. exaggerates the extent of
Philip's control. Several towns remained Egyptian, including Itanus,
where an inscription (IC iii, Itanos, 18) mentions a Roman cfopovpapxos,
Lucius C.f., in Ptolemy IV's service; for the epigraphical evidence
for continuous Lagid influence at ltanus into the second century
see Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 83 n. 4· Similarly, Cnossus and other towns
remained closely linked with Rhodes (d. van Effenterre, 223-4, 254).
But the fact that Antiochus' representative, Hagesander of Rhodes,
and not Perdiccas, pleaded the cause of Tean aau.\ia at Cnossus,
Polyrrhenia, Cydonia, Rhaucus, and Lappa does not mean that these
towns were necessarily hostile to Philip; both Hagesander and Per-
diccas appeared at Eleutherna, and the absence of one or the other
from several of the other towns may be due to circumstances of
which we know nothing (cf. van Effenterre, 222 n. 4). See further
Cardinali, Riv.fil. 1907, 2-5; cf. Riv. star. ant. ix. 1904/5. 8o; Holleaux,
Etudes, iv. 187 n. 2. The word TTpoUTaala is used of Ptolemy Philo-
metor's control of ltanus in Syll. 685 l. 107 (cf. Holleaux, Etudes,
i. 337----43).
xwptc; 07T~WV Ka.l KwMvwv: for the help sent to the Polyrrhenians
and their allies in 220 was probably mercenaries (iv. 55· 2 n.).
11. Ka.t Ta.u"11 '11'poun9ets ~el. T~Ko~ou9ov: 'and constantly pressed the
consequences of this farther' (omitted by Paton).
12. Sul. Twv e~l]s pT)9TJO'OfLEVwv: probably the events on Ithome de-
scribed in 12.
12. 1. 8n 4l~~hmou KT~.: the words down to JLETd Ta&ra are from the
excerptor, but contain reliable material: cf. Plut. Arat. so. 3· From
Plutarch's Aratus (49-50) it appears that on the outbreak of UTdats
in Messene Philip and Aratus both hastened thither, and Philip
arriving a day earlier egged on the two parties against each other.
The magistrates attempted to arrest the popular leaders, and in
the fighting both the magistrates and nearly 200 other citizens were
killed (Plut. Arat. 49· 3-5). The events described by P. took place
next day, on Aratus' arrival; the ultimate source is no doubt Aratus
himself, though not via the Memoirs, which ended in 220.
"~" Twv MeuO'T)vlwv ~Kpo'll'oAw: Mt. Ithome, mod. Vourkano (2,630 ft.),
has three peaks, two of which constituted the ancient citadel of
Messene, which lay on its western slopes. For a description see
Frazer, Pausanias, iii. 429-41; Leake, llrforea, i. 367---94.
Touc; 'll'poEO'TWTa.'i TlJ'i 'II'OAewc;: the popular leaders now in power.
According to Plutarch (Arat. so. 3) Philip ascended to Ithome from
59
VII. 12. I PHILIP V AND MESSENE
the theatre, and Seeliger (r3 n. 12) suggests that the populace
had gathered there to elect the new government in his presence.
'Access to the citadel was apparently Philip's price for co-operation
with the demagogues' (Roebuck, 8z).
8uaa.L T(il AL£: to Zeus Ithomatas, whose sanctuary stood on the
summit. Since the cult-image, by Hageladas, was kept in the house
of the annually elected priest (Paus. iv. 33· 1-2), and there is no
mention of a temple, the sanctuary probably contained only an
altar. Like the cult of Zeus Lycaeus (cf. iv. 33· z n.) it was associated
with human sacrifice (Nilsson, Griechische Peste, 32). See Paus. loc.
cit.; Adler, RE, 'Ithomatas', cols. 2304-s; Fimmer, RE, 'Ithome',
cols. 2306--7; Reincke, RE, 'Messenien', cols. 1241-2.
!lETa Tf)s 8Epa.,..e£a.s: 'with his bodyguard': cf. v. 6g. 6. Paton trans-
lates 'with his suite'; so too Niese (ii. 471 n. I), who argues that
Philip, having no troops with him, was not prepared for the im-
mediate seizure of the citadel. O~rpa:mda can, of course, mean 'suite,
retinue' (iv. s,. s n.), but its sense here is clear from § 7 TOUr; avSpa::
l~ayayovTa, which refers clearly to armed men capable of holding
the place. In § 10, too, ayWfLEV is a military expression (cf. Mauers-
berger, ayw) implying the presence of troops; cf. Schweighaeuser,
ad loc., 'redeamus sc. cum militibus qui nobiscum sunt'.
Twv Tu8EvTwv l~rpdwv: an ox, according to Plut. A rat. so. 4; hence
the reference to 'holding down the ox' in § 2.
2. A.TJfLTJTpLos: Demetrius of Pharos (cf. v. xor. 7 n.).
3. ~Ka.TEpwv Twv KepnTwv ..• Tov jloi:lv: cf. Plut. A rat. so. 4; Strabo,
viii. 361 (with the revised reading of W. Aly, S.-B. Heidelberg, 1928,
I, 26).
5-7. Arat-us' answer. Plutarch (Arat. 50. 7-9) has an expanded ver-
sion with rhetorical references to the hills of Crete, and the citadels
of Boeotia, Phocis, and Acarnania, none of which Philip has had
need to garrison; he may have drawn on P.'s references to Boeotia,
Acarnania, and Crete in II. 7-9, but Phocis comes in most unsuitably
(cf. v. 26. I n.) and can hardly have been mentioned in the lacuna
at 11. 7· Perhaps Plutarch added it himself.
9. i,..t TTI Twv &.vSpwv &.,..w>.dq.: the massacre of magistrates and
leading citizens (Plut. A rat. 49· s; above § r n.). Plutarch also relates
the abuse of Philip by the younger Aratus, Arat. so. 2, iDOKEL s·
o vEavla~eor; Jpiiv ToiJ fPt.At7T7Tov· ~ea.~ TOTE >.eywv ElrrE rrpos a.VTov, w::
ovS€ KaAO> E7'L <f>a.lvotTO TTJV lJif;tv airr{j> TOtaiha. lipdaar;' d.>.>.a 11'clVTWV
a.rux~uTos.
EVETpa.,..TJ: 'he gave way from shame'.
13. 1. fLOXLs ls.'II'ETpe"'a.To TOV •i>.nmov: i.e. from seizing Ithome.

2. Toll ••. fJfL'Lv ~v ~,..a.yyeM~ Ka.i. cpO.an fLOVov dpTJfLEYou: 'the state-
ment made in anticipation and as a mere assertion'; cf. v. 12. 7-8.
6o
PHILIP V AND ?.IESSENE VII. 14 b
& 1.-rrayy<Altt- is 'with a promise (sc. of later proof)'; cf. xviii. 28. I.
P.'s insistence that Aratus had no responsibility for Philip's actions
at Thermum and Messene suggests that he is countering accusations
that must have been made in view of the close relations between
Philip and Aratus during the Social War.
3. ~'ITt To0To TO !LEpoc; ••• E'ITEO"'TTJ!LEV: 'I reached that part of my
narrative' (Paton).
4. dTJILTJTpLou Sf , •• ~v TOLO.UTTJV E!va.L 1Tpoa.(pE.aw: 'the character
of Demetrius was of just such a kind' (cf. 14. I). Against Strachan-
Davidson's rendering (n) of rrpoatpEaw here as 'advice' (as in v. I2. 6,
rroT€pov T~v TotaVT'l}V ElK6s Etva' avp.{Jov'Atav) see ii. 42. 4 n. For rrpo-
atpEa£<;, 'conduct, reputation', see ii. i· 6 n.
~
6 , TWV !LEYlaTWv
I ~
a.aEI"'TJILO.TWV:
' I
Cf . 12. I n.
7. AuKo<; i~ C.v8p41Tou: according to the myth of the Arcadian sanc-
tuary of Zeus Lycaeus, oywad.p.Evos ToiJ dv8pwrrlvov arr'Aayxvov, lv aAAOLs
lliwv LEpElwv J.vos ey~<aTaTETJL7JJLEVov, dvd.y~<7J /)~ TOVT<tJ Av~<cp yev€a8at
(Plato, Rep. viiL 565 D). Plato quotes the story as an analogy for the
TTpoUTd.T7JS who becomes a tyrant; hence P.'s implied criticism of what
Plato says is rather frigid. Indeed the introduction of the reference,
as von Scala twice observes (21, 99), is 'tasteless and philistine'.
8. TouTou S' iva.pyeaTepov ETl SE'Ly!La.: 'a still clearer proof than this',
i.e. than the massacre of the Messenians, Demetrius' responsibility
for which is still dependent on conjecture.
1Tpoc; TO ILTJSf 1TEpt Twv Ka.T' AhwAo~c; 8La.1Topt'Lv: 'so that we need
be in no doubt about the matter of the Aetolians' : after sEryp.a.
14. l. Tfj<; tKa.Tepou 11'poa.LpEaEW<;: cf. IJ. 4 n.

3. TOU<; TOU 1fOAEjA-OU VO!LOU<;: cf. ii. s8. 6 n. and iv. 62. 3 n. for P.'s
views on the 'laws of war'.
tjaroxE' ••• Tfjc; atfJt:dpa.s 11'poa.lpEO'Ewc;: 'he acted contrary to his
own purposes' (Schweighaeuser, Paton, Mauersberger) or 'he had no
regard for his own reputation' (Strachan-Davidson, LSJ): for dUTo-
XE'iv in the first sense cf. xvi. 26. 6, Tov Tfj' 11'aTpl8os avJL1>€poVTos;
in the second sense cf. xxix. 24. I, /L~ S&~waL 'PwfLalwv aUTox€i.'v; for
TTpoatpEaL> in the first sense cf. iii. III. 1 and Strachan-Davidson, 9;
in the second sense cf. 13. 4 n. and Strachan-Davidson, II.
4. !A.pth4tJ ••• l(a.OTJYE!LovL XP'fJan!LEvoc; 11'Epl. Twv 3Awv: 'employing
Aratus as his general adviser': there are no grounds for thinking
that Aratus played any special role in Crete or even visited it (so
van Effenterre, passim), cf. iv. 53· 5 n. P. is speaking very generally.
14 b. A Syracusan incident (spring ZIJ)

After Hieronymus' murder in Leontini (6 n.) and the temporary
advantage of the regicides, popular opinion had swung over and
61
VII. 14b A SYRACUSAN INCIDENT (SPRING 213)
Hippocrates and Epicycles had been elected to the Council at Syra-
cuse. Hippocrates was sent to Leontini, where Epicycles then joined
him; the town declared against the Romans who, after a clash,
sacked it in spring 213. When the Syracusan army marched out to
Leontini, Hippocrates and Epicydes, who had escaped the sack,
approached them and won their support (Livy, xxiv. 2I-JI). The
present fragment concerns a forged letter by which Hippocrates
sought to discrerlit the Syracusan authorities as pro-Roman; cf.
Livy, xxiv. 31. 6, 'fraudem quoque Hippocrates addit inclinatis
ad omnem suspicionem animis et Cretensium quibusdam ad itinera
insidenda missis uelut interceptas litteras, quas ipse composuerat,
recitat: praetores Syracusani consuli Marcello.' If there was only one
set of res Siciliae in vii (d. above, pp. 2-3 and 5), the present fragment
will follow viii. 3 a and viii. 1-2 and precede viii. 3·
14 c. The Massyli
See above, p. 3· They will have been mentioned under the Spanish
events of 215 or 214.
14 d. Oricus
In August 214 (cf. Holleaux, 189 n. 1} Philip sailed into the Adriatic
to take Oricus in the Bay of Anion; he was operating in conjunction
with Hannibal, who simultaneously attacked Tarentum (Livy, xxiv.
20. 9 f., 40; Badian, BSR. 1952, 89-90}. Leaving a garrison at Oricus,
he then ascended the Aous to besiege Apollonia. Laevinus, on the
appeal of the Illyrians, crossed the straits of Otranto, recovered
Oricus and blockaded the Aous mouth; Philip was compelled to
burn his fleet and retire overland to Macedonia (Livy, xxiv. 40:
details unreliable (see the reconstruction in Walbank, Philip, 75--6);
other sources, Zon. ix. 4· 4; Plut. A rat. 51. 1). The present fragment
belongs to this context. Oricus (mod. Palaeocastro} lies on a hill
west of the sandbank of Pasha Liman, at the south end of the bay
of Valona, and sheltered to the north-west by the Acroceraunian
mountains: originally an island (Pliny, Nat. hist. ii. 204), it was
later a peninsula. See Heuzey, Les Operations militaires de Jules
Cesar (Paris, 1886}, zo-24, with Plan ii and sketch B; Veith, Der
F eldzug von Dyrrachittm zwischen Caesar U'nd Pompejus (Vienna,
1920}, 41 f., 65, 79, 82 f., 200 ff.; Treidler, Epims im Altertum: Studien
zur historischen Topographic (Diss. Leipzig, 1917), 96 f. Tradition
made Oricus a foundation of Euboeans returning from Troy (Lucan,
iii. 187; Ps.-Scymnus, 441-3) or of the Colchians (Timaeus, FGH
566 F 8o; Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 145}. See J. Schmidt, RE, 'Orikos',
cols. 1059-62; R. L. Beaumont, ]HS, 1936, 164-5.
ANTIOCHUS' CAPTURE OF SARDES VII. 16.2
15-18. A utiochus' capture of Sardes

This, the culminating action in the crushing of Achaeus' revolt,
will have occurred in spring 214 (above, p. 3). P.'s source is unknown;
Ullrich, 30-31, argued from the emphasis on Nicomachus in viii.
15. 9 that P. used a Rhodian source (Zeno ?) for his account of the
campaign against Achaeus. For another possibility see viii. 15-34 n.
15. 1. ,.;..s l:ap6£tS: Sardes, the Lydian capital, where Croesus had
his palace (Strabo, xiii. 625 f.) lay on the extreme northern slope
of a spur of Mt. Tmolus, on the right bank of the Pactolus and
overlooking the fertile Hermus plain. It stood Io km. from the junc-
tion between the Pactolus and the Hermus, and its ruins are known
as Sart. Cf. Biirchner, RE, 'Sardeis', cols. 2476-7; H. C. Butler,
Sardis: vol. i. T, The Excavations, 19TO-I4 (Leiden, 1922}, rs~J6
(with map at volume end) for a vivid account of its situation.
2. Seonpov ~Toe;: the siege probably began rather more than twelve
months before its capture in 214, and so early in 215 (see above, p. 3).
Aay6pa.s o Kpijs: a deserter from Ptolemy IV; cf. v. 61. 9; van
Effenterre, 295.
Ttis oxupwTGTCLS 'lrOAElS ••• y£v,aea.~ ••• U11'oxnp(ous: a principle dis-
cussed in Onesander (42. rs-r6) and illustrated by Cyrus' capture of
Sardes itself in 546 (Herod. i. 84; Xen. Cyrop. vii. 2. 1-4).
6. 1'0 J<a.Ta TOV Ka.AOOflEVOV nplova. TElXOS: cf. i. 85. 7 ; evidently SO
called because of its sharp profile, like that along the top of the
acropolis today. At this time, as in the sixth century, when Cyrus
besieged Sardes, the citadel was connected with the lower city by
a narrow saddle on the south side, facing Mt. Tmolus. But, shaken
by the great earthquake of A.D. 17 (Tac. Ann. ii. 47; Pliny, Nat. hist.
ii. 2oo; Strabo, xii. 578; A nth. Pal. ix. 423) and no doubt by sub-
sequent shocks and erosion, the clay foundations of the acropolis
have collapsed and slipped down the hillside on the north-west, leav-
ing only a knife-edge: see the photograph in Butler, Sardis: volume
t. r, rg. The ancient acropolis and its links with the town, and all
the ancient walls, have completely disappeared.
8. ToG To11'ou KP"lflvb!Sous u1TapxovTos Slacfu;poVTws: probably near
the point which the Lydians left unguarded in 546, because they
thought it impregnable (Herod. i. 84. 3, dmho146> r£ yap JaTt Tau711
J. ' ' \
'I 0.1<p07r0AL!> N " "'' • ~ T /4Wi\OU
I<O.t' 0./lO.XO!> • • • • €aT't O€ 7rpo!> TOU " I
T<.TpO./lfLH'OI' 'T1']!>-
woAtos-}.
,.&s ••. J<olA1a.s: the bodies having presumably been eaten; cf. § 4,
T~> Jvlitlos.
16. 2. 1\€'ou 6£ TOV ~a.<nX£a. •• , 11'«pa.Kt:AEuaa.VTa. auaTftaa.l O'OVI!11'l-

&ouva.t atfiis Ka.t ~eowwvfjaa.t Tijs l'll't~oMjs: 'he requested the king to
6.)
VII. 16. 2 ANTIOCHUS' CAPTURE OF SARDES
assign Theodotus ... and Dionysius ... to him with instructions
to put themselves at his diposal and share in the enterprise'. For
avOTfjaat 'assign' d. Wilhelm, Griechische Konigsbriefe (Klio, Beiheft
48: Leipzig, 1943) 22-3s, commenting on Welles, no. 44 1. 39; Robert,
Bull. ipig. 1946-7, I9S·
9£o8oTov ••. Tov AtTwMv: like Lagoras he had deserted Ptolemy IV
for Antioch us: above, v. 40. 1-3 n.
ALovoaLov Tov i]y£~ova. Twv ~va.<TII'LaTwv : mentioned only in connexion
with this enterprise. The hypaspists are probably the royal infantry
corps, called argyraspides in v. 79· 4 (d. Livy, xxxvii. 40. 7, regia
cohors). Antiochus fled from Thermopylae p.era 1TEVTaKoalwv lmaama-
rwv (Antisthenes ap. Phlegon, FGH, 2S7 F 36 (III. I)); and according
to Zeno Antiochus took up position p.ETa rfjs- €ratptKfjS' tmrov Kai
rwv V1TaamOTwv and behind the elephants at Panium (xvi. I8. 7).
Polyaenus (iv. 9· 3) mentions Seleucus I's hypaspists. Thus the term
seems to have survived in the sense in which Alexander used it, in the
Seleucid monarchy; whereas in Macedonia it had come to be used
for a small group of individuals employed on special tasks (d. v.
27.3 n.).
5. Touc; aTpocf.Eis Ka.t To toyw~a. . . . Tov ~oxMv ••• Ka.i Tns
~a.Aa.vci.ypa.s: Greek gates, whether of houses or cities, were held
by a stout horizontal bar or beam (p.ox/..6s), which passed through
guides into a socket in the wall beside the gate, and was secured in posi-
tion by one or more f3ciAavot, pegs held in a kind of box (f3al.avo36K7])
over the bar; these fell by their own weight into a hole or holes in
the bar (which rested directly beneath the f3ciAavot when it was pushed
home into the wall), and they could then be removed only with
the aid of a special device, the f3aAavdypa (cf. Aen. Tact. 18 (a chapter
full of information on f36.Aavot); Herod. iii. ISS· 6; Xen.Hell. v. 2. 29;
Polyaen. Strat. i. 38. I, ii. 36). When the Thebans were trying to get
out of Plataea in 43I, a javelin was used as an improvised f3dl.avos-
to keep the gates shut (Thuc. ii. 4· 3). Here Lagoras and his men,
once inside the walls, were to cut through the bar (p.oxA6s-) and the
pegs holding it in place (in default of the proper device for lifting
these); but P. uses f3a>.avdypar; in the unparalleled sense of f3aA.d.vovr;.
Meanwhile those outside are to try to cut through the OTpotf>Etr; and
ro {vywp.a rwv 1TvAwv. The OTpot/>Etr; were the holes in which the gate
was pivoted, one in the threshold, the other in the lintel; the pivots
themselves are OTp6tf>tyyEr; (cf. Theophr. liP. v. S· 4; Plut. Rom.
23. s). When the adulterous wife in Aristophanes wishes to slip out
of the house unnoticed, she pours water in the arpotf>Evr; so that the
door may swing quietly, the equivalent of oiling the hinges (Arist.
Thesm. 487; for a parallel cf. Plaut. Cure. 161). Here the object is
to shatter the system of pivot and socket, so that when the bar is
removed from within the door will fall in and will be irreplaceable.
64
ANTIOCHUS' CAPTURE OF SARDES Vlt. I7· 8
The sense of rvywp.a is less clear. It cannot be a bolt or bar (soLS]),
for there was no bar outside the gate. But a scholiast to Thuc. i. :29
uses the word to mean ship's thwarts, joining the opposite sides of
the ship, usually Ttl 'vya; and since Ttt 'vya can also mean 'door-
panels' (IG ii 2 • 1457 I. 14, 1672 I. 155; 'EJywv in the same sense in
IG xi. 2. 287 A 51; xii. 5· 872 l. 37), it is just possible that 'vywp.~
has that meaning here.
6. TTjv ToG 8EciTpou an+ciV'I]v: the topmost edge of the theatre; cf.
i. 56. 4. where ~TTE¢xl.v1J is the brow of a hill. Built on a slope, the
theatre probably came close to the approaches to the citadel at its
upper edge. The whole area has now collapsed and the topography
cannot be established.
7. Toos AtTwAovs: these Aetolians, who must already have been
mentioned (whence the use of the article), were evidently mercenaries
in the vicinity. Holleaux has argued cogently (E:tudes, iii. 125-39) that
they had been enrolled through Nicomachus and Melancomas, who
represented Achaeus' interests at Rhodes and Ephesus (viii. 15. Io),
that they had entered Anatolia through Ephesus, which alone
among the tovms of Ionia remained in Ptolemaic hands at this time
(Holleaux, ibid. 135 ff.), and that the funds for their hire were fur-
nished by Sosibius, in accordance with the alliance between Egypt
and Achaeus (cf. v. 67. 12-13 n.), since Achaeus himself, restricted
to Sardes, lacked the means. Sardes fell before these troops could
get there; their pretended arrival is an anticipation of an event to
be expected.
Trpos To 11TJvu8(v: 'in view of the information'.
17. 2. TWV flEV +uXciKwv d.TroAuo.,Uvwv: Antiochus' watch, now due to

be relieved (cf. -rou> p.tv El> -r<1s £cf>E'i3pdas £K7rEp.rrov-ro>) ; it cannot refer
to Achaeus' guards, as this point was unguarded (15. 6). Everything
was to go on as usual.
•ls Tov t,.,.11'68poJ.LOV: unidentified, but clearly outside the city. The
battle line was to tempt out the enemy and, failing that, to maintain
the morale of the besieging troops by demonstrating their superiority.
Aribazus' action in sending out troops to meet Antiochus' attack
shortly afterwards (§ 9) suggests that some fighting outside the gate
was normal routine.
4. Tj '1'6~1-La. Twv d.va.J3a.wovTwv Ka.l Tra.pa.~a.X~oJ.LtvWv: 'the venturesome
and perilous ascent' (Paton).
6. Trpos TO.s ~,.,.t 86.npa. Tru~a.s: this 'Persian gate' has not been
located.
8. TOO'ii ciTra.v~aovTa.s et,. TT)v TrU~"lv: the gate Lagoras and Dionysius
are planning to open (16. 5). The movement in the enemy camp
which leads Achaeus in the citadel to make these dispositions is the
same one (§ 6, -ro m:pi -r~v oA1J" Trapqt{3oA1)v Klv-qp.a) which causes
I!Ul73 F
VII. 17. 8 ANTIOCHUS' CAPTURE OF SARDES
Antiochus to plan the diversion at the Persian gate; but Achaeus'
troops reach the gate too late. As soon as he sees the king's forces
attacking there, Aribazus, in the town, goes to the defence of the
Persian gate. Whether the excitement in the army at the sight of
Lagoras' ascent was visible from the city as well as from the acropolis
is not clear. See Bevan, Seleucus, ii. 6.
9. !b.p(~nto~: cf. r8. 4, 18. 7, viii. zr. 9· On the use of Iranians in
Seleucid armies see Launey, i. 567-8.
8t0. Tijs wuATJs O.cjlte(~: why he did not remain within the walls is not
clear. Perhaps some offensive action was essential to the morale of
the besieged. Clearly Aribazus, who suspected nothing (d~ed~ews
<opp.'T/a€), was following a normal procedure (§ r n.).
18. 1. uwep~6.vTEs Taus Kfl111J-Vous: 'having crossed the ridge', the

so-called Saw (15. 6) linking town and citadel; they had already
surmounted the wall. From here they descended to the adjacent
city gate, through which the z,ooo were to be admitted (-n}v imaKEL-
p.iVTJY m!A7111).
8\EKowTov Tous 1-1oxAous: 16. 5· The plural has no significance; there
was only one p.oxAos.
4. O"'reu8ovTEs vnpeyyuiiv: 'eagerly passing on the word, sc. to attack';
Cf. i. 76. z.
8. ~cjle8p~;uovTEs Tots 8Xo~s: 'holding themselves in reserve during
the whole operation', i.e. in order to help if and where required.
Schweighaeuser translates, 'rei totius euentum obseruantes' ; but
this does not quite get the idea of 'keeping help in reserve' usually
implicit in €<Pe3pevew.
66
BOOK VIII
1-2. The magnitude of the war and the importance of universal history
For the possibility that this extract was inserted in connexion with
some incident in the res Siciliae of 213, and perhaps at a point
corresponding to Livy, xxiv. 27. 5, see above, pp. 4-5. It should be
preceded by 35-36, which Biittner-Wobst has displaced from here.
Book viii had no introduction (above, p. 4).
1. 1. TTJS ~v cipxa.is '11"po9£aews: the plan (i. I, 5, cf. viii. 2. 3-4) of

explaining how in less than fifty-three years the Romans had be-
come masters of the world.
TO "'LAOTLflOV TT}s ..• 'll"poa.Lpiaews: 'consistency of purpose'.
3. 'II"Ept Ia.pSovos tea.l. ILteEALO.S tlfl"''a~l]Touv: on Sicily see below, 3-7.
The clash in Sardinia was over. There the native chieftain Hampsi-
cora had revolted against Rome in 215, without awaiting the ex-
pected forces from Carthage. He was defeated by a Roman army
temporarily commanded by T. Manlius Torquatus pro praetore
(Broughton, i. 257 n. 4) ; and though Punic forces under Hasdrubal
forced Manlius on the defensive, he managed soon to defeat the
combined enemy, capture Hasdrubal, and assure Roman possession
of the island. For these events P.'s account is lost; see Livy, xxiii.
34· zo-15, 40. 1-41. 7; DeSanctis, iii. 2. 25o-1.
1er1l '!l"cl.vTa. 11"Ep1EA&.fl~Clvov: 'they envisaged world-conquest'; for the
phrase cf. ii. 52. 5· The reference to Philip in§ 6leads Biittner-Wobst
(vol. ii. 56) to assume that he was also mentioned here alongside
Sicily and Sardinia; but there, as in Spain and Italy, the Romans
and Carthaginians were fighting each other directly, whereas Car-
thage was not immediately involved in the Greek front. Hence there
seems no need to assume a lacuna after ~p.-cpta{3~Tovv. Hultsch (Quaes-
'iones Polybianae, ii. 9-1o) also assumes a lacuna, but after Tta.pa.-
O'I(fitJa.fs, COnsequent upon his COnjectures ap.-cpta{37JTOVVTf'S' Ka.1 7f!lVTC1.
'11"tpt"Aa.p.-{3dvov-res. On P.'s concept of the Second Punic War as one
fought for world-domination see Walbank, ]RS, 1963, 1-12.
4. Suo ••• Ka.Tci T~v '!Ta.Ma.v ••• evnM] ••• OTpa.To'II"E8a.: 'two full-
scale armies in Italy'; so correctly Niese (GGA, 19o1, 6z2), adopting
Schweighaeuser's iusti exercitus. Since they are under consuls (p.-e'7"a
'l'wv vmfTwv), they will be normal consular armies of two legions each
(cf. i. 16. z, iii. 107. Io, vi. 19. 7. 27. 4). Kahrstedt (iii. 44o) argues
from the fact that there were only two legions in Spain (see next
note) that here too there are only two legions in question, and
that <T'Tpa-roTt€fJa is 'legions' ; but this flies in the face of all P. tells us
u.bout consular armies. According to the annalistic source of Livy
07
VIII 1. 4 THE MAGNITUDE OF THE WAR AND THE
(xxiv. 44) it can be calculated that the Romans put twenty-two
legions in the field in 213, thirteen of them in Italy; but P. seems
here to be drawing on a Punic (i.e. Greek) source without precise
knowledge of the number of legions, and interested only in the
consular armies, and not in the distribution of the other forces in
Italy (cf. DeSanctis, iii. 2. 32o-r; Gelzer, Kl. Schr. iii. 242).
Suo S€ Ka.Tn Ti!v '1(3'1}pla.v: 'and two in Spain'. The relative clause
shows P. to be writing in even more general terms, since here
U7'pa-ro1TEOov covers the fleet as well as the land forces of the Scipios.
The latter amounted to something over two legions, including the
men originally taken out by Cnaeus (iii. 49 r-4; Livy, xxi. 17. 8,
32. 3, the greater part of two legions) and the reinforcements brought
by Publius in zq (iii. 97· r-2; Livy, xxii. 22. r); but this does not
mean that Mo U7'pa-r61!'e8a has the sense 'two legions' (so Kahrstedt,
iii. 440). The two U7'pa-rchre8a are the land forces and the fleet (-ro tt€v
1l'~t,6v • •• -ro 8~ vav-r,K6v ••. }. The phrase vall'T'K6v U7'paT01!'£0ov is
found frequently from Herodotus onwards; cf. especially Xen. Hell.
Vi. 3• 18, -ref. T€ U7'pa-rtm£0a (),aAVHV Kat Ta VctV'TtKa Kat Ta 1l'E,tl<a.
Kahrstedt's argument (iii. 442 n. r), that P. means 'zwei Legionen,
von denen den Teil zu Lande Cn. Scipio, den zur See Publius fiihrt',
is unconvincing, for Roman legions were not divided into a 'land'
and a 'sea' section. But in fact P. is wrong (cf. Thiel, 87 n. 156), for
both brothers commanded the land forces (cf. iii. 97--99; De Sanctis,
iii. 2. 278 n. 138; Scullard, Scip. 46-5o), and indeed after Cnaeus'
victory off the Ebro (iii. 95-6) we hear of no naval warfare in Spain.
P.'s source here is inadequately informed about Spanish affairs.
5. ohu:[ws S€ TO.UTG cruvef3GLVE I<TA.: olK£[ws is here equivalent to
op.olws 'similarly' (so Suidas); Schweighaeuser comments 'subin-
telligendum uero putamus datiuum -rotJ-rots, conuenienter his, pro
horum ratione'. His suggestion of rav-rO. for TctUTa (d.§ 8) may well be
right.
6. Kat p.T}v ••• l~wpp.el ••• crToAos : there was a Roman fleet in
Greek waters from 214 onwards (cf. Lhry, xxiv. 40. z); its first com-
mander, M. Valerius P.f. P.n. Laevinus (d. H. Volkmann, RE,
'Valerius (2n)', cols. 45-49), was relieved in 210 (Livy, xxvi. z6. 4)
by P. Sulpicius Ser.f. P.n. Galba Maximus (cf. Munzer, RE, 'Sul-
picius (64)', cols. 8or-8), who remained in this province until 205
(when he handed overtoP. Sempronius Tuditanus: Livy, xxix. 12. z).
7. ~'1J"Tr1os p.f:v ••• Map~eos Bf: KXa.uSLos: Ap. Claudius P .f. Ap.n.
Pulcher (cf. Munzer, RE, 'Claudius (293)', cols. z846-7) was praetor
at Lilybaeum in 215 (cf. vii. 3· r n.), and in 214 took over eastem
Sicily as propraetor (cf. 3· I, avno--rpd'T'1Jf'OS') till the arrival of the
consul M. Claudius M.f. M.n. Marcellus (cf. Munzer, RE, 'Claudius
(:z:zo)', cols. 2738-55) towards the end of the year. He served under
Marcellus in 213, during the attack on Leontini (Livy, xxiv. 27. 4-6,
68
IMPORTANCE OF UNIVERSAL HISTORY VIII. 3-7
30. I-33· 8) and Syracuse (7. I2; Livy, xxiv. 36. 6), and returned to
Rome at the end of that year (Livy, xxiv. 39· I2). Appius' position
under Marcellus is not clear; Broughton (i. 262) lists him as a legatus,
but admits that he may have been a propraetor (so Munzer, loc. cit.;
cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 257 n. II3)· P. is wrong here as he is about the
Scipios, for in 3· I Appius commands the army and M. Marcellus the
fleet, and though Appius occasionally takes charge of the fleet (cf.
Livy, xxiv. 27. 5, 33· 2, 39· Iz), it was evidently under Marcellus'
overriding command; see Thiel, 87 n. I 56. The Ioo quinqueremes
mentioned here (cf. Livy, xxiv. 27. 5) are probably the ships built
in 214 (Livy, xxiv. II. 6; cf. Thiel, 74-75); they were later reinforced
with a further thirty (Livy, xxiv. 36. 4).
8. !l4.Ji~AtcM: probably the admiral of the Ebro battle (d. iii. 95· 2 n.) ;
Livy (xxii. I9. 3, xxiv. 35· 3) calls him Himilco, as does Zonaras
(ix. 4· 9). For his command of the Punic forces which reached Sicily
in 213 see Livy, xxiv. 35· 3-36. Io, 39· IO-I3·
2. l. -ro 1roA.A.O.tcLS ••• EtpTJJiEVov: see especially iii. 32, and Vol. I,
p. 9·
3. -r(vL -rpo1r!f •.• auvnf:A.EaE: cf. i. I. 5 n., and for the unexpected per-
formance of Tyche, i. 1. 4 n.
6. tca.l -r~ .•• -rwv tea.-rei f-LEpoo; avTE1rpa.~E: 'and what particular circum-
stances stood in the way of their vast enterprise'.
10. Tijo; cipf.LotouO"TJs ~1fLaTamwo;: 'the attention they deserve' (Paton).
For the double claim to achieve clarity and to arouse wonder (aa.c/Jij
•.• Ka.i BaufLacna) cf. iv. 28. 6 n.; it echoes Hellenistic literary theory.
3 a. Marginal extract
This comment may be on the incident when Adranodorus reveals
his plans to Ariston with results fatal to himself; it will thus form
part of the res Siciliae of 2I3. See above, p. 5 (arguing also that it
should precede I-2); for the sentiment cf. ix. I3. 2.
3-7. The Siege of Syracuse

The Sicilian events from which this extract came evidently covered
the period from Hieronymus' death in 2I4 to the end of 213; see
above, pp. 2 and 3, and below 37 n. For the events related here see
Livy, xxiv. 33· 9-35. I (based on P.; cf. Klotz, Livius, II3 ff.). 3· 2-7. 9
is also in Anon. de obsid. to!. 2oo-24I (326-7 Thevenot). § 1 is largely
the epitomator's wording. P. evidently draws on a good source, well
able to cope with the technical details of the siege; its identity is
unknown.
VIII. 3· I THE SIEGE OF SYRACUSE
3. 1. 'EwLtcu8TJs Tf: Ka.t '11r1rotcp<i.TTJs: see vii. 14 b n.; on their rise to
power see Livy, xxiv. 23. 5-32. 9·
wpoO"'TE"Irn•ucu£a.o; ••• Tfjo; 'lepwvol'ou ••• Ka.Ta.aTpocpfjs: this was in 214,
hence the present reference probably derives from the epitomator.
1t.wwLov Kl\a.o5Lov <i.vnaTpttTt]Y0\1: d. r. 7 n.; he was propraetor in 214,
the year before the siege of Syracuse opened. The attribution of the
land forces to him and the fleet to Marcellus is inaccurate; both were
under Marcellus' overriding command (d. I, 7 n.). On P.'s use of
aVTtaTpa7"1]yO<; see XV. 4• I n.
2. ~ea.TilTous <i.wo Twv 'E~a.wul\wv To1rous: cf. Livy, xxiv. 33· 9, 'inde
terra rnarique simul coeptae oppugnari Syracusae, terra ab Hexa-
pylo, mari ab Achradina, cuius mums ftuctu adluitur'. The Hexa-
pyla (or Hexapylon) was a gate in the wall built by Dionysius along
the north edge of Epipolae, the plateau overlooking Syracuse
(Diod. xiv. r8. 3-4, xvi. 20. 2; Plut. Dion, 45· 5, as emended by
Ziegler); it formed the focus of Marcellus' subsequent penetration
and seizure of Epipolae (ct. 37· n; Livy, xxv. 24. 1-7). On its site,
which is certainly the modem Scala Graeca, where the road leads
down from Epipolae to the north, seeP. Orsi, Not. d. scav. r893, I7I;
Freeman, History of Sicily, iv. 501-3; Holm, Gesch. Sic. iii. 359-60;
Parke,]HS, 1944, roo; photographs nos. rand 34 inK. Fabricius, Das
antike Syrakus (Klio, Beiheft 28, Leipzig, 1932). Holm argues that
the six gates of the Hexapyla stood one behind the other, but such an
arrangement would be unparalleled. Probably, as Orsi thought, they
formed an 'unica linea bastionata'. Such a line can be paralleled in
the Tripylon, which was once the western entrance to Epipolae, just
north of Euryalus (see A. W. Lawrence, JHS, 1946, roo--r, for plan
and restoration: the Tripylon, later converted into a double gate-
way, is marked M). My colleague, Dr. E. W. Marsden, regards it
as probable that the wall with five towers at the western end of
Euryalus was originally used as a Tetrapylon (no. 29 on Mauceri's
plan reproduced by Lawrence). Such analogies support Orsi's view
of the character of the Hexapyla.
Tfjs J\xpa.SlvTJs Ka.Tcu~v I~euTLIC~v ••• aTo<i.v: Fabricius (loc. cit. 2o-3o)
has shown that the fortified quarter of Achradina lay on the main-
land immediately north of the Little Harbour, and embracing the
modern suburbs of S. Lucia and S. Antonio, which are wholly in
the plain and well to the south of the famous quarries. The Shoe-
makers' Colonnade is not otherwise known; but there was a aKVTtK~
171\aTd'a at Apamea (IGR, iv. 79o), and Holleaux (Etudes, iii. u7)
compares the stoa which Antiochus, son of Seleucus I, had built at
l.filetus for the use of merchants (OGIS, :213, l. ro). The attack from the
sea must have been launched on the north side of the Little Harbour.
~1r' a.uTfjs ••• Tfl'> KPTJ1ri5os: 'down to the quay'; for this meaning of
~eprrrrl> cf. v. 37· 8.
70
THE SIEGE OF SYRACUSE VIII. 4· I
3. y~ppa.: 'wicker-work screens', Latin plutei.

ILia. IJ#ux~ ••• aYUO'TLK(alTI\pa.: cf. 7· 7; Livy, xxiv. 34· I, 'nisi unus
homo Syracusis ea tempestate fuisset'. Cf. Marvell, Horatian Ode, 'So
much one man can do, that doth both act and know'. For the
sentiment cf. i. 35 n.; it is a favourite theme in P. Archimedes was
the son of the Sy~acusan astronomer Pheidias, and was born in
c. 287 (Tzetzes, Chil. ii. 35, Ios). He visited Alexandria, and sub-
sequently maintained close relations with Conon, Dositheus, and
probably Eratosthenes, but remained in Syracuse, where he was
a friend and kinsman of Hiero II. His main distinction was in the-
oretical mathematics, but his screw (KoxAlas) is also famous. His
works are edited with a Latin translation by Heiberg (I9IO-I5, ed. 2);
see too E. J. Dijksterhuis, Archimedes, Copenhagen, 1956. The
engines he devised for the defence of Syracuse caught the imagina-
tion of antiquity and are widely described; cf. Plut. Marc. 14-17;
Livy, xxiv. 34· I-I6; and for the exaggerated tradition, in which,
for example, Archimedes burns up the whole Roman fleet with a
burning-glass, Zon. ix. 4; Tzetzes, Chil. ii. I03-28.
4. SuJ. To Keia9a.L KuKA'l:' TO TEixoo; KTA.: 'owing to the fact that the
wall extends in a circle along high ground with overhanging crags'.
It is clear from Appius' attack at the Hexapyla that P. is referring to
the Dionysian walls round Epipolae, though these enclosed far more
than the city proper, which lay south of the plateau. This wall in
fact follows the line of the ridge on the north and south sides: see
Fabricius,loc. cit., photographs I, Io, 13, IS, and 37. The To1Tot rflptap.lvot
are such points as Scala Graeca, which allow easier access to the ter-
rain of Epipolae, quite apart from the presence of artificial defences.
5. evToo; Tijs 1TOAEwo;: used generally to include what stood within
the Dionysian wall.
OJLoiws S£ Ka.i 1rpos Tous Ka.Ta 8ciAa.TTa.v e1rmopeuoJL€vous: as well as
against those attacking by land. Attacks by sea are mentioned now
as if as an afterthought. Paton's version, 'both within the city and
also to guard against an attack from the sea', will not do, as it draws
an illogical distinction between the preparations within the city and
those made to cope with naval attacks. Schweighaeuser saw the
difficulty and suggested (probably unnecessarily) that some such
words as npds Tovs mTa yfjv had fallen out after lvT6s TfjS' wo.\.;ws.
WO'TE JLT)Sev ••• TOU'i aJLUYOJLEvOU'i: 'so that there was no need for
the defenders to busy themselves with improvizations'.
6. Tif:l O'UYn'TrTOYTL TELXEL ••• a'Tr'O TWY &.va.ToM>v: 'the wall adjoining
the Hexapyla to the east'. This will be to the east of Scala Graeca,
where the Dionysian wall takes a turn to the north, and the approach
is easier.
4. 1. ~~~KovTa. aKci4>eaL 1rEYTTJPLKoro;: cf. Livy, xxiv. 34· 4; Plut. Marc.

7I
VIII. 4· I THE SIEGE OF SYRACUSE
14. 3· These and the eight mentioned in § z were only part of the roo
quinqueremes at Marcellus' disposal; cf. r. 8 n.; Thiel, 79 n. I33·
2. Sui 1'fis 1'WV tK1'0S 1'olxwv EtpEO'La.s: cf. Livy, xxiv. 34· 7, 'cum
exteriore ordine remorum uelut una nauis agerentur'. From this pas-
sage and Livy's use of the singular ordo remorum Tarn (HMND, 127)
draws support for his convincing hypothesis that the quinquereme
had a single bank of oars rowed five men to an oar (cf. i. zo. 9 n.).
'!'cis ••• O'O.!l-~ut<a.s: literally a uap.f3vK1j was a kind of harp, triangular
in shape, and with many strings (cf. Athen. xiv. 634-5; Plut. Mar.
827 a ff.); the word is also used for a 'harp-player': d. 6. 6, v. 37· ro
(where Paton's 'sackbut-girls' will not do: the sackbut was a kind of
trombone). For the transference of the name to the siege-engine see
§ rx. A type of sambuca, or boarding-bridge for use on land, is de-
scribed by Biton (ed. Rehm-Schramm, Abh. Bay. Ak. 1929), 57-60
(\Vescher); it was invented by a Damius (or Damis) of Colophon,
otherwise unknown. But the first boarding-bridges used to attack
a fortification from shipboard were those of Alexander, mounted on
two merchant-ships, at Tyre (Arrian, ii. 23. 2), and probably the
invention of his engineer Diades (Athen. Meek. (ed. Schneider, Gott.
Abh. 1912) 10. 10 ff. (Wescher); Tarn, HMND, IIl-12). As inventor
of Marcellus' sambuca an otherwise unknown writer on Mechanica
named Moschus (A then. xiv. 634) mentions Heracleides of Tarentum.
From xiii. 4· 6 it is clear that Heracleides was not expelled from his
native city until after its defection to Hannibal in \•:inter 213[12
(seep. 5). But he may well have been in previous Roman employment,
and have assisted Marcellus with the sambuca at Syracuse; this
would have contributed to the suspicion with which he was regarded
at Tarentum. For the use of such machines see further Plut. Marc.
rs. 4; Appian, Afith. 26 f.; Vitruv. x. r6. 9; Athen. xiv. 634 A; Veget.
iv. zr; Fiebiger, RE, 'sambuca (2)', col. zrzs. Livy (xxiv. 34· 7)
refers at this point only to 'turris contabulatas rnachinamentaque
alia quatiendis muris'; and Plutarch (Marc. r4. 3) assumes that the
device was erected on all the eight ships fastened together.
4. E~ a:rro~aO'EWS taou+fi ... 1'1{) Tdxu: 'of equal height to the wall
when erected at a(n appropriate) distance.' For this technical sense
of a1T()f3a!1') See ix. I 9· 7.
5pu4>a.K1'WO'O.V1'COS ••• 9wpa.t<:[Ol'O: 'fencing in with a high protective
breastwork'. The words {m€p7r€Tla£ 8wpaKlot~ go with both participles:
see Schweighaeuser's discussion ad loc.
i91}Ka.v 'II'Aa.y£a.v: 'they laid it flat'; for rrl.ay£os 'horizontal' see LSJ.
Schweighaeuser, who did not know this meaning of the word,
has a desperately complicated explanation of this passage, which
may be neglected.
6. iv5E5£1:1(vwv 1'WV t<O.Xwv: i.e. well in advance of the operation.
Paton's translation suggests that they do not attach the ropes until
72
THE SIEGE OF SYRACUSE VIII. 4· 11
they are about to use the machine, but this is unlikely. (I owe this
point to Dr. J. G. Landels, who has now discussed the various kinds
of instrument called sambuca in ]HS, r966, 69-77-)
11'«pa.1TA'JULWS: 'similarly',
.i~cpEi8ovTEs Ta.is G.v'T'Jplaw: 'supporting it with props'.
7. 8~0. TfjS EtpEO'LO.S ••• Ta.pawv! 'using the oars On both the OUter
sides'.
8. 1ThEupov: 'a platform'; primarily a roosting perch for fowls (cf.
Aristoph. frag. 839; Hesych. s. v. ).
9. u1Ttp8~~~o~ ••• Tou TELxous: 'above the level of the wall', or 'in a
controlling position on the wall' (d. v. ro2. 3).
10. G.a+a.Aws .•• PEP'JKULa.s: 'standing securely (on both ships)'. For
this, the only sense in which P. uses filfiYJKa., cf. ix. 26 a 8. ~rl<; • •• va.iiS'
is to be taken with {IEfiYJ'w{a<;.
Tois KnAoLs: the ~edAm of § 5, hence the article. It is true that in § 6
the article iS USed With allT~pt<7W although this is their first mentiOn;
but no ambiguity arises there, as it would here if the KrtAoL were
not those just mentioned. Nevertheless, as Dr. Landels has pointed
out to me, it is odd that the weight should continue to be taken by
the ropes, when the ladder would more naturally drop on to the wall.
Has P. perhaps misunderstood a reference to other ropes hanging
down from the ladder, which could have been used to hold it down
on the wall?
11. 1T«pa.vX~a~ov ao.(.lPuKn: this comparison of the siege-engine to
the triangular harp-like musical instrument is also in Vegetius, iv. 21:
'sambuca dicitur ad similitudinem citharae; nam quemadmodum in
cithara chordae sunt, ita in trabe, quae iuxta turrem ponitur, funes
sunt, qui pontem de superiore parte trochleis laxant, ut descendat ad
murum.' Festus, s.v., also equates the chordae and Junes. Now
Vegetius' sambuca seems to be on land; but if we make the necessary
adjustment to the naval sambuca, the triangle, comparable to the
harp, appears to be formed by the ladder, the mast, and the ropes
running from the mast-tops to the ladder-top, and the analogy with
a harp in which the triangular space is occupied with a succession of
vertical strings (four according to Euphorion, quoted in Athen. xiv.
633 F, but possibly more) is not very close. However, P. emphasizes
that it is the ship and ladder together which resemble the instru-
ment; so too Andreas of Panormus (Athen. xiv. 634 A= FGH, 571
F r), though if his l:tKeALKn Ka.Tn m:lALv was written under the empire,
as Jacoby thinks, he was probably copying P. On this interpreta-
tion the sides of the triangle will be formed by the ladder and the
deck beneath, while the strings and third side are represented by the
series of props of different sizes which help to support the ladder
and give it stability (cf. § 6 ;.g.,p.,t8ovTes Tai~- &.9ptt:rw). As Schweig-
haeuser (who has the substance of this note) observes, the basis of
73
VIII. 4· II THE SIEGE OF SYRACUSE
P.'s comparison and Vegetius's is quite different; the latter's source
may well be early, but P.'s comparison is closer and may be assumed
to be the original one. It has its difficulties, but one has no right to
press a soldier's joke of this kind too closely; a general analogy
would be enough to justify the nickname (cf. i. 26. 6 n. for a parallel).
For other suggestions cf. Landels, JHS, 1966, 69-77-
5. 2. vpo; liva.v ~ll~EAE; 8uia1'11J.LO.: 'to cover any distance within

missile range'. Paton omits to translate ep.{JEAE>. P.'s point is that
Archimedes had a set of graded machines to cover every range,
short or long, beyond the dead angle (§ 5), and within the maximum
any ancient engine could achieve (§ 3); cf. Plut. Marc. 15. 5·
Toi:s euTovwTkpoLs Ka.l !lEltoaL AL9o~oAoLs Ka.l ~eAecn: 'larger and more
powerful stone-throwers and catapults'; cf. v. 4· 6, SwOd, .,.a {31/..:q
Ka~ 'TOV> 1TE7pof36/..ov,;. The older Latin translations up to Schweig·
haeuser were clear on the meaning; but {3.£/..o,;, 'catapult' (cf. Philo
Mech. 82. 8, 97· Io) is not noted as Polybian by LSJ, and Mauers-
berger gives 'stone' as the meaning of {31/..o,; both here and in v. 4· 6.
Paton translates v. 4· 6 correctly but here takes {3€/..-q as 'missiles',
and so has to connect t{,.,.ovw.,.lpot~> with ltt0o{J61tot> and p.tl,oat with
f3iltwt, despite the word order.
3. Ka.Tn Myov Q.d vpo; To 'll'a.pov cmoa1'111la.: 'proportionately smaller
to match the range at the moment' ; cf. vi. 28. s. ix. 20. 3. Kcm:l /..6yov
ad 'TWII 1rpoaywop.lvwv 7j 'TWV xwpt,op.ivwv.
5. E:vTbs ~EAous: comparing tp.{3£/..l, in§ 2 Schweighaeuser comments:
'priori loco {3.£/..o,; latiore notione de quouis missili accipiatur, adeoque
et de maioribus telis quae ex catapultis, et de lapidibus qui e ballistis
coniciebantur; posteriori uero loco ~i.e. here] de minoribus uulgatis-
que telis'; but his translation implies quite a different sense: 'quae
postquam terrae appropinquassent, et interiores essent ictibus tor-
mentorum.' This is developed from Livy, xxiv. 34· ro, 'propius
quaedam subibant naues quo interiores ictibus tormentorum essent',
and a comparison with Livy, vii. 10. ro, 'interior periculo uolneris
factus', shows that 'interiores ictibus tormentorum' means 'too close
to be struck by weapons from catapults'. This is how Livy under-
stands P. here, where indeed the use of loopholes in the wall is a
device to get over the problem of the 'dead angle', which existed so
long as firing was from the wall-top; for Schramm's reconstructions
of catapults have demonstrated that they could not be depressed
very far. Consequently lii'To> {3.!/..ov>: here seems to be 'within the dead
angle'; Paton paraphrases 'too near to be struck by the mangonels
[sic]'. For the more usual sense cf. x. 5· 14, 'T~v uSpdav Jno>: {3€/..ov,;
'TTOtTfad.p.evo>.
6. i!ws O.v8potJ.TjKous uljtou;: 'to a man's height'. Whether these were
all at the same level is not stated; but it seems likely that many
74
THE SIEGE OF SYRACUSE VIII. 5· to
were fairly low so that the scorpions could reduce the dead angle to
virtually uothing. Even assuming that the apertures were I ft. 6 in.
wide on the inside, the machines would have no room for manceuvre
from right to left, and must have fired virtually along fixed lines;
but the loopholes, which were frequent (Ka.TE1TVKvwaE), and similar
to those familiar from medieval castles, allowed archers to fire
missiles downwards at a sharp angle. The narrowness of the aperture
on the outside afforded a high degree of protection, and made entry
through it impossible. There is a reference to this device of Archi-
medes in Anon. de obsid. tol. 39 (319 Thevenot).
ws 1Ta.Aa.tCTTta.toLs ••• tuna TTJV EKToS E1Tt~p6.v£La.v: 'about a palm's
breadth on the outer face'. Livy (xxiv. 34· 9) mistranslates, 'murum
ab imo, ad summum crebris cubitalibus fere cauis aperuit';
evidently 7TaAa.urna.i:os was unfamiliar, and Livy did not appreciate
the advantage of a narrow aperture.
O'KOp1Tt~ha.: small arrow-firing catapults; cf. Hero, Belop. 74 Wescher,
Ttl OE EO(JVTov&. TWlS Kal UKOp7Tlovs Ka.Aouatv cl.m) Tfj> 1T<pl Td axiil-'0.
O/-'ot6T1JTO>. Ttl plv EVIJVTova cl£0"Totk p,ovovs dcpl7]at. Plut. Marc. 15. 5
refers to this occasion: o{ aKop1Ttot {3pa.xvTovm p,lv, ~yyviJcv OE 1rAfj[at
1Tap<.artJK€UaV aopa.TOt Toi:s 7TOAEp,lotS', i.e. they had special Short Cords
which gave a poor range but a powerful impact. Marquardt (ii.
504 n. 3) wrongly takes these aKop7TlOta. to be hand-weapons; but the
use of light artillery along with archers and slingers can be paralleled,
e.g. in Diod. xviii. 70. 7 (Megalopolis in 318), Tofs TE &~u{3l.\wt Ka.Ta-
1TEAmts £xpwwro Kal Toi:s acpEvDov/jTats Ka! T~oTat<; 1r6.\.\ov;,· ••. KaT<Tl-
TpwaKov, The small catapults indicated here are probably like the
one whose construction (based on Hero, Belop. 104~7 Wescher,
and Philo :M:ech. 54· so-ss- I8) is described by E. Schramm, Die
antiken Geschiitze der Saalb1trg (Leipzig, 1918), 6o-62 (pictures of the
model on p. 22, fig. 5, plans on pis. 2 and 3). See further Lammert,
RE, 'Skorpion (2)', cols. 584-7.
8. 1Tp01TL1TTOYTO. • , • TO.LS IU:po.{O.IS: 'with their beams projecting'.
9. ouK eAO.TTous 8£Ko. Tc.Aa.vTwv: approximately 370 kg. or 71 cwt.
O'T)KWf1o.Tc. f1oAC~8wa.: cf. xxi. 27. 4 for similar defence measures at
Ambracia.
10. 1TEpLa.y6f1£Va.L Ka.pxTJO't~t,~: 'swung round on a universal joint'.
For a description of a Kap;r4awv see Hero, Belop. 88. s--89. 9 Wescher;
my colleague, Dr. E. W. Marsden, has kindly allowed me to quote
his translation. Hero is describing a catapult. It rests on a column
fitted on a three-legged base, and from the column rises 'a round
tenon out of the top EZ about which is to be placed what is called
the universal joint H@KA. This joint is composed of four boards,
of which the horizontal ones H@ and MN have round holes suitable
for receiving the tenon EZ, the vertical ones HK and Ae project
above the board MN and are just far enough apart to receive the
75
VIII. 5· to THE SIEGE OF SYRACt:SE
K .\
H I
I
I
I
I
I
I 1
I I
l J
--~z
2. KapX'Ilatov (UNIVERSAL JOINT)
width of the case (i.e. the bottom of the machine itself) .... When
the case has been inserted between the sides of the universal joint,
a round pin YIP is pushed through the sides of the joint and the
side of the case so that it turns freely.' See Fig. :2.
8~~ T~vo~ axa.O'TTipta.~: 'by means of a release mechanism or trigger';
d. 6. 3· A axaaTrJpia is any device for releasing something held tight
or dropping something which is suspended. See Philo Mech. Belop.
74· :27 Thevenot; Hero, Aut. 13.9; Belop. 78.3 Wescher; Apollodorus,
Poliorcet. 188. 7 Wescher. Paton's translation 'by means of a rope
running through a pulley' gives a spurious definiteness absent from
the Greek.
6.1. XEipa. a~s,pa.v E~ aAUO'EWS 8E8E~V: 'a grappling iron attached
to a chain'.
fj 8pa.~~~vo~ . . . o9Ev EmM~o~TO Til~ 1'1"pwppa.~: 'with which the
man controlling the beam would clutch at the ship so as to get
a grip of the prow'. The beam would be turning on a fulcrum
76
THE SIEGE OF SYRACUSE vm. 7· s
(probably a KapXJ1<nov: 5· Ion.) like a steersman's oar, hence ola.Kt~wv.
ntv 1nipva.v: 'the lower part'.
3. Tc'J.s f1Ev 1TTEpva.s T~V opynvwv ds UKLVt]TOV KO.&fj'IT'TE: 'he fastened
the lower parts of the machines so that they would not move.'
1rrepva<:: was Valesius' suggestion for MS. rrpwppa.<;.
·~ippa.wE: from tKpn{vw, 'make to fall in drops' (which gives JgeppnvE
in Eur. Cyc. 402).
5. ~1Tl Tois U1Ta.vrw..,.Evols u1T' l6.pxLf11\8ous: 'what befell them at the
hands of Archimedes'.
b. Kua.8(tuv ••• aa...,.puKa.S: the wry joke, if true, was suggested by
the double meaning of ua.p.f3v~<7J, which could also mean the harpist
as well as the instrument (d. v. 37· 10). See Plut. Marc. 17. I for a
fuller version of the story.
~O"IrEp ~Ka1T6v8ous: 'as interlopers'. Athenaeus (xiv. 634 B) quotes the
story reading tK rr6rou, which indeed P. implies. Wunderer's (iii. 23)
l!olvov<; misses the point. Marcellus' sambucae are de trop at the party.
7. 2. Tt)v T&w J'EAwv KaTaaKEu~v: 'the supply of artillery'. Paton

adds 'and ammunition'; but l11epyEta. makes the sense dear (d. 5· 2 n.).
6. OKTW ••• fliivas Tfi 1T6An 1Tpoc:rKa8et6f1EVOL: these eight months
do not refer to the fall of Syracuse, which was in autumn 212 (below,
37 n.), but are calculated from the beginning of the siege to Appius'
departure for Rome to assume the consulship of 212 (Livy, xxiv.
39· 12). Since Livy, xxiv. 23-39 covers down to the end of 213,
Appius left for Rome at the end of the campaigning season of that
year. Hence the beginning of the siege and the events described
here belong to spring 213. See above, p. 5; Niese, ii. 544 n. Gelzer
(Kl. Schr. iii. 239) takes the eight months as from the opening of the
siege to Marcellus' departure for the pro-Carthaginian areas (§ u);
but wrongly.
7. Ets &vt)p Kat 11£a. ljtuxt) StiliVTWS tlPf10af1EVTt: cf. 3· 3 n., ix. 22. 6 (on
Hannibal). This phrase, t"'i.ce repeated, Hirzel (ii. 86o-r) has held
to be derived from P.'s identification with Stoic teaching on the
nature of the soul. Its vagueness is against such a conclusion ; and
even von Scala (218), who is usually inclined to follow Hirzel on this
subject, rejects him here. See Hercod, So-81, 91; Mioni, 148.
8. TfiALKa.uTa.<; 8uvO.f11ElS: according to Livy (xxiv. n. z) two legions
were decreed for Sicily and Sardinia for 214, but how they were
divided is not indicated. If one accepts the records concerning the
so-called 'legions of Cannae' (Livy, xxv. 5· xo, 6. I}, which were sent
in disgrace to Sicily for the duration of the war in Italy (Livy, xxiii.
25. 7, 31. 4; cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 135, 232 n. 38; contra Gelzer, Kl.
Schr. iii. 238), these were also in the island. M. Marcellus will have
brought forces with him (Livy, xxiv. 21. I, 27. 6), but how many
is not recorded; his division of the island outside Syracuse into
77
VIII. 7· 8 THE SIEGE OF SYRACUSE
three(§ rz) perhaps suggests three legions, and this is not improbable
(cf. Gelzer, Kl. Schr. iii. 239, who points out that with his third
Marcellus defeated a Syracusan force of ro,ooo foot and soo horse,
but regarded himself as inferior to a Punic army of 25,ooo foot,
J,ooo horse, and 12 elephants-a general pointer to Roman strength
(Livy, xxiv. 35· 3, 35· 8-36. 1)). Later in 213 (Livy, xxiv. 36. 4) the
Romans were reinforced by a further legion at Panormus. This
would bring their total up to four; according to De Sanctis (iii. z.
632-3, table) they were the two legions of Cannae and two com-
manded by Marcellus in Campania in 214; but this is perhaps less
certain than the fact that there were very probably four in all.
At sea the Romans had at this time roo quinqueremes, reinforced
later in the year to make 130 (Livy, xxiv. 27. s. 36. 4; above 1. 7 n.).
12. TOV j-L~V 1\'!Tmov ••• SUo j.t.~PTJ ••. , TO Se Tpl"'"ov ••• M6.pKoV: d.
Livy, xxiv. 35· 1-36. 2; Plut. Marc. 18, for an account of Marcellus'
successes based on P. He received the surrender of Helorus and
Erbessus, took and sacked Megara Hyblaea, and then after a move
towards Agrigentum, which was threatened by a large Punic force
recently landed under Himilco (cf. I. 8 n.), returned to defeat
Syracusan troops, which had gone out from the city under Hippo-
crates, at Acrillae near Acrae. Hippocrates fled to join Himilco, who
now advanced to encamp 8 miles from the Romans outside Syracuse.
See De Sanctis, iii. .z • .284-5; Hallward, CAH, viii. 6o.
8 a-11. Treatment of kings in history: criticism of Theopompus

This digression, preserved in the excerpts on vice and virtue, arises
out of a reference to Philip's devastation of Messenia (8. r-2; cf.
Plut. Arat. sr. 2); this preceded Aratus' death (I2. I-2), which
occurred during his last strategia (Plut. Arat. 53· I). This began in
either autumn 214 or spring 213 (above, p. 5); but since the ravaging
of Messenia was described in viii, it probably took place in spring
.213 (and must have done if Aratus began his last strategia then);
cf. De Sanctis, iii. z. 440. Consistently with this, Livy (xxiv. 40. 17)
describes how Philip returned direct to Macedonia from his disastrous
expedition of 214, which ended in the destruction of his fleet (cf.
vii. I4 d n.) ; nor does Plut. Arat. 51. z contradict it. In 12. I the
Messenians are stated to have become Philip's enemies before the
ravaging of 213; this '"ill have been due to the attempted coup of
Demetrius of Pharos, who perished in the course of it (Paus. iv. 29.
1-5, 32. 2; above, iii. 19. 9-11 n.), probably in autumn 214. See aL<>o
Plut. A rat. sr. z, TOVS MHTOTJVlovs ai58ts E'ITtXEtp{Jaas cp~:va~<t{nv Kai p.~
\8'Wil 1)0!1<1£<
1\Cl. ''" A. ~ Kat''T"YJV
't'avEpWS ' xwpav
' av'TWII ' ' 8 H.
'~ €7TOp
8 a. Death of Demetrius: this merely reprints ii. rg. II,
78
TREATMENT OF KINGS IN HISTORY VIII.9-n
8. 1. TTJV xC:.pav: since the Messenians were now on the alert, Philip
failed to take the town (d. 12. r).
3. Kat Sui Tfjs 1TpoT~pas ~u~Aou: cf. vii. n-14. The 'above-mentioned
reasons' (TU> 1rp6-repov ~JJ.:iv dfY1Jp.lvas- alTlas-) will be those given in
vii. IJ-I4, viz. to establish that Aratus had no responsibility for
Philip's more reprehensible actions (d. vii. 13. 2 n.).
Twv cruyypa,Pl:wv: including writers of monographs on Philip V (cf.
Vol. I, p. 3o); below,§ S·
TTJV 1Tpos To us 1-1-ovapxous EtlvoLav 11 ••• ,P6~ov: the first expression of
a sentiment later to become a commonplace, that fear of rulers affects
historical impartiality (cf. Dio. liii. 19. 2-3; Tac. Ann. L 1. 4-6;
Ammian. xxx. 8. 1); on prejudice due to ei'lvottJ. see x>-i. 14. 8--<J. Cf. in
general Avenarius, 46-54.
4, TTJV • , , acr(~ELaV • , • 11:a\ 'II'O.paVO!-'LaV: cf. XVlli. $4• 10 for the
same words used of Dicaearchus' piracy.
tv ~'l!'a(v'l' Ka.~ Ka.Top8C:.!JoaTL: 'as praiseworthy achievements' (Paton).
5. Tous ypa,PoVTa.s Toil ~L).Jmrou Tas 1TpagELS: d. iii. 32. 8 n. and
above,§ 3 n.
6. iCI'TopLa.s 1-'EV ou8a!J-OOS • , , ~KW!J-LOU 8e .W.l\1\ov: cf. X. 21. 8, Where
P. contrasts his history \Vith his own encomiastic biography of
Philopoemen. For the development of this contrast in literary theory
see A venarius, 13-16.
7. Tov 1Tpi1TovTa. ••• 1\oyov: one's judgements should accord with
the actions of characters under discussion regardless of personal
considerations (i. 14· 8). This implies assigning praise and blame
wherever appropriate (vi. n. 10). Particularly on a great man's
death one should bwfiUyeaaOru Tdv app.O{oll7"a Myov (xvili. 41. I; cf.
xxix. 21. 8, on the fall of the Macedonian monarchy, a different
matter). See Avenarius, 15g-6I.
8. 'l!'oAMs ~~:a.l. 1ToLK(l\a.s ••• 8La.9ecros Ka.i. 'II'EpLCI'TacrELS: 'many and
various conditions and circumstances' (Paton) ; cf. ix. 22. 10, 23. 4·
One statesman and writer who yielded to such circumstances and
so failed to convey his real opinions (but who no doubt was to be
pardoned, avyyvwp.7]v 8oT,ov) was Aratus (d. iL 47· ro). Ziegler (RE,
'Polybius {1)', cols. 15o8, 1558) suggests that P. may have some com-
promises of his own--especially in relation to Rome-in mind. For
P.'s attitude generally towards truth in history cf. Vol. I, pp. ro ff.
9. T~cr~ !J-Ev ••• 8oTtov, €v(o~s yE tJ-TJV ou 8oTiov: 'some of these v.'Titers
we should pardon, but others not'. Paton's version, 'we must pardon
these writers in some cases, etc.', is slightly inaccurate.
9-11. Criticism of Theopompus: cf. xii. zs f 6, xvi. 12. 7--9, xxxvili.

6. z. Theopompus of Chios was born c. 378, exiled along with his
father Damasistratus, an admirer of Sparta, and in c. 333 restored
through the influence of Alexander the Great. After Alexander's
79
VIII. 9-II TREATMENT OF KINGS IN HISTORY:
death he found an uneasy refuge in Egypt (Phot. Bibl. 176, p. nob
19 = FGH, us T z). Tradition linked him and Ephorus as !socrates'
pupils (Phot. Bibl. 176, p. 121 a 23 = FGH, us T s a), and his work
revealed clearly marked rhetorical characteristics (d. Quint. x. 1. 74
= FGH, us T 21, oratori magis similis; Norden, Kunstprosa, 122),
and a predilection for wonders (cf. xvi. 12. 7--9). Fragments survive
from his two main works, the 'E».'T}vtKa.i liFTopla.t, a continuation of
Thucydides centring on the Spartan hegemony (cf. Momigliano,
Riv. fil. 1931, 230 ff., 33S ff.), and going down to 394 in twelve books
(Diod. xiii. 42. S FGH, us T 13; cf. FGH, us F s-23) and the
4'hAt1TmKa which P. mentions here (FGH, us F 24-246) in sB books
(FGH, II5 T 17 Diod. xvi. 3· 8). His main interest seems to have
been in moral values (cf. G. Murray, Greek Studies (Oxford, 1946),
149-70); and if he aroused his readers' emotions, it was in order to
assign praise and blame-~this from a somewhat conservative and
even aristocratic standpoint (cf. Dion. Hal. ad Pomp. 6. 4 FGFI,
us T 2o a; K. von Fritz, AHR, 1940-1, 76s-87). Duris of Samos
criticized both Theopompus and Ephorus for neglecting emotional
treatment (Phot. Bibl. 176, p. 121 a 41 FGH, us T 34 (= 76 F r)).
Here P. criticizes Theopompus primarily for his excessive virulence
towards Philip II ; he passes to this criticism from his general re-
marks about bias shown by writers on Philip \'-perhaps influenced
by the similarity of name, as he is in xv. 34-36, where comments on
Agathocles of Alexandria lead P. to comment on Agathocles of
Syracuse (cf. also xii. 4 a 3 n. for the two Dionysii) and goes on to
comment unfa vourably on Theopompus' abandoning of his H ellenica
in favour of Philippica (n. 3-8). Dion. Hal. de imit. B. 31. 3· 428; ad
Pomp. 6. 7-1o, records a defence of Theopompus as making a proper
use of 1tapp7]ata, and concerned like a doctor merely to cut away
what was diseased; it appears to be a direct reply to the criticisms
recorded here by P. (cf. Avenarius, 161-2).
9. 1. EV epxfi Tfi<; tP~AL1T1TOU O'UVTaSEW<;: cf. II. 2, 1Tt.pi -r¥ dpx1Jv Kai.1Tpo-
.!.K8wtv; evidently in the prooemium, which fell into two parts, one
dealing with personal matters and polemic (FGH, IIS F 24-<i), the
other with the subject-matter, including an encomium of Philip.
The present passage is from the latter (FGH, ns F 27).
J.lTJOE1TOTl n)v E~PW""lY ~V1'JVOXEVIU TOLoihov avSp«: the context of
this remark was probably Theopompus' argument that Philip, con-
trary to the views of !socrates and his followers, should restrict his
policy to Europe, as indeed he had done down to 338; cf. the extract
from the Encomium on Philip, d {JovA7]8d7J 4'>lAt7T7Tor; Tofr; ath-ois
lm7'7/i5t:uJ.Laaw iJ.LJ.LE'ivat, Kat rijs- Eupam'T}'> 1Ta07Js- {Jaat!.t:uat.t (FGH, us
F 256). By 'Europe' Theopompus probably means the Balkan
peninsula; the word could become the slogan for either a Balkan
So
CRITICIS~1 OF THEOPOMPUS VIII. g. 3
or an anti-Persian policy. Philip was probably using it in the second
sense when he named his daughter by Cleopatra, born in 336, Europa
(Athen. xiii. 557 E; Iustin. ix. 7· 12). See further A. Momigliano, Riv.
fil. 1933, 477...S7; Filippo il Macedone (Florence, 1934), 132 n. 2, 161,
198;JRS, 1942,56-57 (=Contributo:z,435-6) ;Walbank,CQ, 1942,141-3.
l. aKptL"TfO'TO."TOV ••• 1Tp6s yuvo.iKO.S: apart from his wives, Olympias,
daughter of Neoptolemus, king of the Molossians (Paus. i. II. 1;
lustin. vii. 6. ro), Phila from the house of the princes of Elimiotis
(Satyrus, FHG, iii. r6I, fg. 5 = Athen. xiii. 557 c) and Cleopatra,
Attalus' niece, whom he married after the rejection of Olympias
(Satyrus, loc. cit.; Plut. Alex. 9· 4; Paus. viii. 7· 7), Philip had
several secondary wives. The following names are recorded: Audata,
also called Eurydice, of an Illyrian princely house (Satyrus, loc. cit.;
Arrian, Diad. 22 = FGH, 156 F 9, § 22); Philinna of Larissa; Nicesi-
polis of Pherae (Satyrus, loc. cit.); Meda, daughter of the Getic
king Cothelas (Satyrus, loc. cit.; Iordanes, Get. x. 65; according to
Steph. Byz. rt:Tla, her name was Getis). Iustinus (ix. 8. 3) records
that 'habuit et multos alios filios ex uariis matrimoniis regio more
susceptos' ; but Satyrus, our main source on this topic, admits that
Philip's marriages had generally a political object. However, his
polygamous habits must have contributed to the breach with
Olympias; to this extent he can be said TOll rs,ov olKOV ;uq,al\l<ivcu TO
KaB' aw6v, the more so if one accepts Olympias' complicity in his
murder (Iustin. ix. 7· Iff.); cf. Plut. Alex. 9· 3 al s.e m:pt 'Ti)v olKlav
1 ~ \ \ I \ ' 114' 1 ,... 1' \ """ Q _\ i
-rapaxaL, Ota TOVS yap.ovS KUL TDVS cpWTO.S O.VTOV TpiYITOV TLVa TTJS /"G.G'£1\IiLUS:
Tjj yvvaLKwvlnSt G'VVVOO'DVG'TJS', 110.\Ads atTlas Kal jU:(d).M 8ta.4>opas:
11ap•ixov; cf. ibid. 9· 6.
T1)v 1Tp0S TOtho TO ~t\pos op~~v KO.l '11'p0aTO.O'lO.V: a difficult expression,
but TrpoaTaalav is confirmed in Suidas, s.v. 11poUTo.uto. and Jarfx:iJ..Kivat,
and emendation (e.g. 11apaUTa.uw, Emesti; 'll'poTrl.-r~:Lav, Reiske and,
independently, Wilamowitz, Hermes, 1898, 523) is unnecessary.
Since P. often uses 11poUTo.ala. in the sense 'outward state', 'outward
view' (cf. iv. 2. 6; Lex. Polyb. s.v.), the meaning here may well be
'his passionate and ostentatious addiction to this sort of thing•
(Paton). Philip did not merely pursue surreptitious liaisons; he
openly married his numerous secondary wives.
3. 'll'ept Tas Twv ~(A.wv KilL au~~O.xwv KO.TaaKeu6.s: 'in the making of
friends and allies' (cf. i. 71.6 n.). Schweighaeuser, Lex. Polyb. 'l<a.Ta-
a~<w1] ', corrects the translation given ad loc. Despite his comment
'quo pacto iniustum in his parandis Philippum dicere potuerit, non
uidemus', 11~:pi ••. Ka-rauKwds is to be taken with both superlatives.
Philip's injustice in gaining friends can have been towards those
from whom he tempted them away.
·~TJV8po.no8la~EVOV KO.' 1TE1Tp0.~1K01TTJKOTO.: npa,!tK01TfiV is 'to take
(a city) by treachery', lgav8pam:Jil,£a8a.L, 'to sell (its inhabitants)
814.173 G 81
VIII. g. 3 TREATMENT OF KINGS IN HISTORY:
into slavery'. Since the cities so treated are not necessarily identical,
this is not a case of hysteron proteron, Treachery contributed to the
fall of many cities Philip took (e.g. Amphipolis, Pydna, Olynthus)
but there are few examples of his enslaving populations: one is
Olynthus, some of whose inhabitants were set to work on the royal
domains (Aeschin. ii. 156). And after the Peace of Philocrates
Orchomenus and Coronea were handed over to Thebes and en-
slaved (Dem. xix. II2, 141,
4. n~<pa.TorrotJ"£as :on Philip's inclination for heavy drinking, a national
custom, see further Theopompus, FGH. rrs F 8r, I62, I6J, 224, z8z,
confirming the remarks in Dem. ii. r8-r9; for his behaviour after
Chaeronea d. Diod. xvi. Sj.
6-13. Fragment from Theopompus, Philippica, xlix. See FGH, ns
F 225, where it is set out alongside a less accurate version given by
Athen. vi. 26o n-z6r A. Stahelin (KUo, r9os, 149) has argued that
Thcopompus discussed Philip's character in connexion with his suc-
cessful privateering near Byzantium in 340/39 (cf. FGH, 115 F zgz,
from Didymus, 10. 34).
6. Xii.CJ"Ta.upos 11 Opa.uus: d. Athcn. iv. r67 B FGH, II5 F 224), who
quotes this as part of a longer passage, adding the adjective ~fu).vp6s.
He continues with this sentence, which probably came between §§ 6
and i of P.'s version: d Be Kat f.L~ TowiiT6s TLS' <wv) ~A7JAU0t", {nro
TOV ~iov Kat TTjc; litalT?')S ri)s llfaKEliovtKi'j<; TaXEW> JKdvov; op.otor; Jyivero.
Td p.f:v yap o~ 17'6:\ep.o• Kat a: UTpanfat, ( Ta lie) Kat al 1ToAvTiAEtat
Opaar;/;, a~Tovs- dvat 1TpoeTpE1TOVTo Kat 'ijv f.L~ Koap.iws ci.At\' dawTws Kat
Tots >.rwTa£r; 1TaparrA7JI1{wc;.
7. Twv l8~U~Y ~(U~v Emf.u:>.oullEvous: 'careful of their possessions'.
9. Ti yO.p ••• ol~K nrrT]v: as Norden (Kunstprosa, I22 n.) points out,
this directly echoes the beginning of the longest fragment of Gorgias'
Epitaphios (Diels, FVS, ii. z85 B. 6): Tl yap drrijv To~ dv8pa11t ToJTo<;;
J>v l)~;;; dvlip&.a~ 1Tapt;_fvat; Tl o€ Kat 1Tp011~V wv oil OEt rrapE'ivat; Clearly
this Gorgianic influence is maintained, since similar repetitions recur
throughout the rest of the passage, e.g. oilx iTa{povc;, dtU' iTalpas
(§ ro), dvep6<foovot yap T~v fvatv ovTE<; dvSpo1Topvot Tov Tp61rov ~aav (§ rz).
These contrasts are criticized as forced and frigid by Demetrius,
On Style, 5· 247 FGH, 115 T 44).
13. To.Js KEVTaOpous: the centaurs of Mt. Pelion, half-man and half-
horse, are known from Homer onwards for their struggle with the
Lapiths (Homer, fl. i. 267 ff., ii. i42-J; Od. xxi. 295; cf. Hesiod, Sc.
q8) ; but the story of the assault on the women and boys at the
wedding feast of Hippodameia first appears as the cause of the
conflict in Pindar, fg. r66. Hence the use of the word to designate
Philip's lewd and riotous H etairoi. Two further points deserve noting.
The word Kl.li'Taupos carried tones of obscene insult; cf. Eustath.
p. I9IO. IO, OTt o€ Kat TO yvvatKeiov p.opwv 1>7jAof 0 Klv-ravpoc; 07JAOiJIJtv oZ
Sz
CRITICISM OF THEOPOMPUS VIII. IO. 3
7TaAatoi, ¢lpovr£S Kai XPiJatv Eho1T6,..1Tov (the fourth-century comic
poet, fg. 8g Kock, CAF, i. 755) Ei:; TOVTO. mKpcmpov lie TOVTOV ds
uKiii,..,_.a T6 £lpi)a0a. KlliTa.vpov, os KE'IITE'r 5ppov T6v 1Tapd. TcfJ KO,..tKcp. Cf.
also Photius (ed. Naber), i, p. 334 for the same definition; Hesych.
KtvTavpot• A:nrnal, Kat ol Alvtiiv<s. Kat oZ 1T!1.tO<paaTal, d1T() TOU oppov.
Sturtevant's explanation (CP, 1926, 235-49) of KlvTavpo> as a Thraco-
Macedonian word meaning Philippos would fit very nicely into the con-
text of Theopompus' abuse (cf. Walbank, CQ, 1944, 87--88); but it must,
I think, be rejected as over-imaginative (d. J. N. Kalleris,Les Anciens
Ilfacedoniet;s, i (Athens, 1954), 321). For more recent speculation on
its etymology see von Blumenthal, ZO, 1940, 154-7 (an lllyrian word
meaning 'horse-man'). See further Bethe, RE, 'Kentauren', cols.
172-8.
1'ou~ Aa.LaTpuyova.~: man-eating giants who destroyed all Odysseus'
ships and men except his own ship and crew {Homer, Od. x. 77-132);
they inhabit a town Telepylos, seven days and nights from Aeolus'
island. The short nights (Homer, Od. x. 82--86) point to the far north,
but a spring Artakie to which Odysseus' messengers came, was on
Arctonnesus near Cyzicus (see also \Vilamowitz, Homerische Unter-
suchungen (Berlin, 1884), r66). Later the land of the Laestrygones
was localized in Sicily (cf. P. Oxy. xi. 1358, fg. 2, 26 (Hesiod, Cat.);
Lycophron, 662 f., 956 f.; Thucyd. vi. 2. I (linking them with the
Cyclopes)) and more specifically on the plain of Leontini (Schol.
Hom. Od. x. 86; Polyaen. v. 6; Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 89; Solin. 5· 14;
Strabo, i. 20; Schol. Lycophron, 956; Hesych. AataTpvyov.:s; Sil.
Ital. xiv. 33, 125-n).
10. 3. Trepl Ia.p8a.va:rr6.XXou: cf. xxxvi. I 5. 6, Eap8ava7TJ».ov •••

fMpflapov fllov. The tradition of Sardanapallus, King of Ninus
(Nineveh) in Assyria, who lived a life of effeminate luxury, dressing
and behaving like a woman, goes back to Herodotus (ii. 150) and
Hellanicus (FGH, 4 F 63) ; but the fully developed story in Diodorus,
Athenaeus, and later writers derives mainly from Ctesias. That he
became proverbial is to be seen from Suidas, Eapoavarr&».ov Tpv¢7JAo-
T~pov; cf. Arist. Eth. Nic. 1. 1095 b 22; Eth. Eud. 1. 1216 a r6. In
a full study of the legend Weissbach (RE, 'Sardanapal', cols. 2436-75)
shows that Sardanapallus cannot be identified with any one Assyrian
king, but embodies features from several reigns, e.g. his death in
a fire corresponds to that of Shamash-shum-ukin after his revolt
against Ashurbanipal, or that of Sin-shar-iskun, the last king of
Assyria, and the tradition that he founded Anchiale and Tarsus
(see next note) seems linked with Sennacherib (cf. S. Smith, CAH,
iii. 71, 124, 129-30). But the effeminate traits seem to connect •..vith
the legend of Midas (d. Athen. xii. 516 B); see Weissbach, op. cit.
2471 (who suggests further sources for the Sardanapallus story).
83
VIII. to. 3 TREATMENT OF KINGS IN HISTORY:
TTJ'll ~1Ttypa.cpfJs TTJ'll c1rl ,-ou Tttcpou: the two lines quoted form part of
a longer verse epitaph given by Diod. ii. 23. J, perhaps from Ctesias:
Eo E:lSws OTt 8Vt]T6s l~vs, O'OIJ Ovp.ov af.ef:
T!p1TI:5p.evos Ba>.inr:w 8av6vn uoL ovns Ollt]av;.
Ka/, y(J.p iyw cnrooos £lp.t, Ntvov p.£yai\7Js f3aaJ..£!5uas.
'Tll.VT' EXW oaa' e~ayov Kal J~vf3ptaa Kai fL€7" lpWTOS
1
Ttp7rv' ETTaOov, ra 8~ ,.o,U,i Ka.t 5i\f3ta. .K.:iva Mi\€t1TT<l£.
He says that these verses were designed by Sardanapallus for his

tomb, and translated v1To Twos •E>Jqvos. That Aristotle (who men-
tions Sardanapallus in Pol. vii (v). ro. 22. 1312 a r) knew at least the
last two lines is dear from Cicero's remarks in Tusc. v. IOI, where
he translates them with an indication that he is taking them from
Aristotle (fg. 90 Rose),
'Haec habeo quae edi quaeque exsaturata libido
haurit; at ilia iacent multa et praeclara relicta';
see also fin. ii. 106. Athenaeus (viii. 336 A) states on Chrysippus'
authority that this metrical epitaph stood over Sardanapallus' grave,
and to the lines quoted above (he has slight variants) he adds two
others:
?jOE:Uo~~ j3to'ToW 1TU.pa{v£Cn<;, ovo£ rror' avrijs
i\~aop.at• iKT~u8w a·
0 Oli\wv 1"01' drrelpova xpvuov.
Strabo (xiv. 672) quotes the two lines Ta.fh' £xw KTA. (and some MSS.
give six lines), linking them with the name of Choerilus; and some
have thought he was their author. But the identity of this Choerilus
is unknown; moreover a prose rendering by Amyntas of what he
declares is Choerilus' metrical translation of Sardanapallus' epitaph
in Ninus (Athen. xii. 529 E-530 A FGH, 122 F z) bears so little
resemblance to the version we possess that it would be rash to
attribute this to Choerilus.
There is extant a rival tradition of a prose epitaph over Sardana-
pallus' tomb, known to Aristobulus, Callisthenes, and Apollodorus,
and reading (in Callisthenes' version) : nva.KVvOa.p&gov 7Ta.ts Tdpaov
TE Kal )iyxLMTJI' ;_0Hf-L€V ~f-L~PTI f-LLfi. luO'" rrrJIEo <ixwf:, W<; Td Y" ai\i\a.
ouo£ 'TOJroV Jarlv ii.gta. ('this' being a Snap Of the fingerr·ni y(tp
e~WTO> r{j.> p.ln]f-La.n aya.i\p.a. im~p rijs Kf.~a.i\fjs lxov Tds xelpa.s 7Terrol7]Tt:tL
w;; av arroA7]KOVV Tots 00.KT1JAOL>). For the evidence see FGH, 139 F 9
(Aristobulus), 124 F 34 (Callisthenes), 244 F 303 (Apollodorus), 122 F
2 (Amyntas); A then. xii. 529 D FHG, ii. 305 (Clearchus), Arrian,
ii. 5· 3-4; Plut. Mor. 336 c; and the somewhat speculative account in
Weissbach, RE, 'Sardanapal', cols. 2442-5, 2466-71, who links the
tradition with a commemorative stele set up by Sennacherib near
84
CRITICISM OF THEOPOMPUS VIII. 10. 12
Anchiale in south-east Asia Minor, and another monument at

Nineveh.
The verse epitaph is widely quoted with variant readings: see
the list in Weiss bach, op. cit., coL 2446. P.'s source for it is unknown;
but Wunderer (ii. so, 84, 86) suggests very plausibly that he had it
from some collection of quotations, but that the words ov ~v lv
-rci_j {Jtq.~ «TA. down to the end of the quotation, which add little to his
point and link awkwardly with the preceding sentence, were in-
serted after the original composition of this chapter.
5. ou SuvTJBn ~~:nTa.slws Et1r1iiv ~~:TA.: Philip II's reputation was still
a matter for controversy in Greece, as the rival speeches of Chlaeneas
the Aetolian and Lyciscus the Acarnanian (ix. 28 and 33) show.
P.'s own view is repeatedly asserted: Philip was a benefactor, who
liberated the Peloponnesians oppressed by Sparta and treated
Athens with magnanimity (v. zo. r, xviii. 14, xxii. r6). This judge-
ment is understandable in the light of the close relations long existing
between Megalopolis and Macedon (cf. ii. 48. 2 n.) ; but it led to
embarrassment when the Achaeans abandoned Philip V for Rome
(cf. xviii. 14· 6 n.; Walbank, CQ, 1943, 8--g). On the late-third- and
second-century revival of slogans and attitudes relevant to the fourth
century, especially in the Peloponnese, where the career of Cleomenes
had revived the old tradition of 'liberation' from Sparta, see Treves,
LEC, 1940, 167-8.
7. m:pt a.uTwv: i.e. Philip's companions, maligned by Theopompus,
and especially the 13t&.Soxo' (§ u), Ptolemy, Antipater, Perdiccas,
Craterus, Antigonus, Polyperchon, Cassander, Eumenes, and
Seleucus.
H. ev 1TAE£a-ro~s u1ToJ1\It]J1aow: 'in numerous histories'; for this sense
of ihrop..vflf. LaTa cf. i. 1. 1 n., ix. L 3, xii. 27. 3, etc. In fact, this period
was sparingly treated by historians; and, as Jacoby observes (FGH,
ii D, p. 543), the lost works probably showed the encomiastic traits
characteristic of what survives. Authors treating the early period
of the Diadoch£ and listed by Jacoby are few; apart from the sober
Hieronymus of Cardia (FGH, 154) and the anonymous author of
the so-called Heidelberg epitome (FGH, 155), the only writer earlier
than P., until one comes to the career of Pyrrhus, is Nymphis of
Heraclea (FGH, 432), who lived c. 3r0-245 and wrote twenty-four
books 7rEpl J4AEgav3pou «at Twv Ll£a86xwv Kat 'Emy6vwv. That the
general note was encomiastic seems confirmed by P.'s remarks on the
Diadochi as a body (wvovS~v il.v Stat P..V7JfLOVf..V(!tV f7r' ov&p..aTos). Neglect
of the Diadochi seems due at least in part to a literary predisposition
in favour of another type of history; cf. n. 3-7 n.
12. T1}v J.l~V TlJ.lalou ... 1T~~~:p£a.v •.. ~~:a.T' :A.ya.9oKMous: on Timaeus
see i. 5· r-5 n. and xii passim. For his invective against Agathocles,
to whom he owed his banishment (Diod. xxi. 17· r), see Diodorus,
ss
VIII. Io. 12 TREATMENT OF KINGS IN HISTORY:
ibid. 'TU 7ToX\O. KaTitfWCTTat 'TOU SuvaCT'TOU, s,a. 'T~V 7Tpo,; a!Yrov lx8pav;
below, xii. 15. I-Io, xv. 35· 2-7. Timaeus' account of Agathocles was
contained in books xxxiv-xxxviii, the last five of his history (Diod.
xxi. 17· 3), but whether they were published separately with their
own preface is unknown (cf. Jacoby, FGH, iii b, p. 531); see further
Brown, s-6, 87-90.
O!LWS 'A6yov EXELv: P. is less favourable in xii. IS. Io and xv. 35· 2,
where he condemns Timaeus as malicious and one-sided in his con-
cealment of Agathocles' merits and achievements. Here he wishes
to contrast him with Theopompus, and he is influenced by the
respective characters of Agathocles and the Diadochi. Moreover, viii
was written before ISO (cf. iii. I-S n.) whereas xii was probably
written after Polybius had visited western Europe and the Atlantic
and had grown more hostile towards Timaeus (cf. xii n.). In allowing
invective against Agathocles because Timaeus was writing KaT'
€x8pou, P. may seem to be relaxing his demand for impartiality;
but Agathocles is also 7TOV1)po,; Ka1 TVpavvo,;, and this justifies the
historian's full indulgence of hostility.
11. 1. OUK EO"Tl nov a.to-xf>Wv Ka.l. 8uvwv 8 1Ta.pa.'A€'Aom£: M. Treu

(Historia, 1954, 220 n. 1) suggests that this was to conform to the
rule that in history (as distinct from encomium) both praise and
blame must be applied to the same person; cf. x. 21. 8. But some
vices are irreconcilable with a character IEVqwtECT'Ta'TOU 7Tpo> apf'T~V
yc:yovoTo>, and those Theopompus alleged against.Philip II were such.
How in fact Theopompus gave consistency to his study of Philip the
fragments do not permit us to determine.
2. 1TEpt -r~v ••• 1rpo€K8£0"LV: cf. 9· I n. ; 1rpo€K8wt> suggests a survey
of the contents (cf. iii. I. 5 n.). 1rpayp.anla is 'history' and is quite
colourless (cf. ii. 56. 3, s. of Phylarchus; v. 33· 8, of unspecified con-
temporaries). There is no reason to suppose that P. is using it ironic-
ally (so Brandstaeter, 234 n. 951).
£mK'AT)-rou ~•.oL8opLa.S: 'far-fetched abuse' (Paton), rather than
Ernesti 'merito castiganda vituperatione' (comparing dvmkAr;To>
'free from blame').
-rO.s EYKW!LlO.O"TLKaS a1Tocpa0"£LS: i.e. by going to one extreme (AotSopla)
he will convince the reader of his impartiality when he proceeds to
the other (iyKilJp.tov). Both go beyond the ,Poyo> and l.1ratvo,; which are
a proper part of the historian's duty (x. 21. 8); cf. Avenarius, 16o.
3-7. T heopompus' change of plan. The H ellenica, which ran from 411 to
394 (cf.8.9-u n.), were abandoned in favour of thePhilippica, which
extended to fifty-eight books, beginning with the year 36o/59 (Diod.
xvi. 3· 8 FGH, us T 17). P.'s polemic against this changed plan
reflects the attitude of the historians living in the free cities (who
still wrote 'EX\r;vtd) towards the authors of monographs, IPtAmmKa,
86
CRITICISM OF THEOPOMPUS VIII. rz. 2
14:\cedvSpou 1rpaens, etc., who were more closely associated with the
kings and placed their personalities at the centre of their works (cf.
Jacoby, FGH, ii. D, pp. 543-4).
3. acf G>V 0ouKuS£Slls am\Al'ITE: like Xenophon's H ellenica: FGH, II5
T 13-14.
uuvEyy(cras Tois AEuKTptKois Katpois KTA.: an exaggeration, for 394.
the tenninal point of the H ellenica, is twenty-three years before
Leuctra. But P. wishes to stress the dazzling events which were
awaiting Theopompus, if only he had continued his general history;
for the foundation of Megalopolis and the setting up of the Arcadian
League are naturally nl. l7TL<foav.faTaTa Twv 'EAAT}VtKwv €pywv to the
Megalopolitan historian (cf. Walbank, JRS, 1962, 2).
4. UEJLVOTEpov ••• Kal SucatOTEpov: perhaps; but a case can be
made for Theopompus' change of plan, which recognized how from
36o onwards Philip's personality dominated the whole scene (cf.
Laistner, 4).
5. 'ITOI~cracr9a~ JLETa~acrw e'ITI To ••• '~~'p6crw'll'ov: 'to transfer the title
and chief role in his work to Greece'; the dramatic metaphor comes
easily (cf. ii. 56. rr-r2 n.).
JLOVapxou 1Tp6axllJLa Kal ~£ov: cf. Arist. 1"vfund. 398 a 12, .dapdou
1Tpoax:r~J.La; 'the pomp of a royal biography'.
6. EKElVT)S ••• TT\S u'ITo9euEws TD1.os l;v To KaMv: 'the purpose behind
his original plan was an honourable one' (rather than Paton, 'his
motive was to do good').
12. Death of Aratus

Aratus was strategos when he died, probably in 213 (above, 8 a-rr n.);
it is uncertain whether this strategia began in autumn 214 or spring
213 (above, p. s).
12. 1. 'ITOAEJLtous yEyovoTas: because of the treacherous attack and

penetration of the town by Demetrius of Pharos, probably in
autumn 214 (cf. 8 a-rr n.).
em~aAOJLI1VOS KaKO'ITOli1LV , •• T~V xwpav: cf. 8. I ; probably in spring
:213. P. contrasts his ineffective attacks on his enemies with his
deadly success against his close friends.
2. TOV 1TpEa~UT11pov 1-.paTov: as distinct from his son (cf. ii. sr. 5 n.,
iv. 37 n., vii. 12. 9), the Achaean general for 219/18, whose fate at
Philip's hands was probably described by P. in the next part, now
lost; cf. Plut. Arat. 54· I, rua ydp 0 j.L€V 1TpwfNm:pos JlpaTOS o&rw
{3twaaL Kat Totoiffos yt::v€a6at T~v <fovmv iaToptiraL. Tov S€ vlov atlToD
KTA. Philip is said to have given the younger Aratus poisons which
drove him mad, so that death came as a release (Plut. loc. cit. ;
this account and that of the retribution that followed may be based
87
VIII. rz. 2 DEATH OF ARATUS
on P., though contaminated with more popular versions (cf. Wal-
bank, Aratos, 19). Stories of recondite drugs producing the symptoms
of pulmonary consumption or insanity should be treated with sus-
picion. Porter, 84, suggests that 'father and son both suffered from
tuberculosis, which attacked the lungs of the one and the brain of
the other', and medical colleagues tell me this is possible. Philip was,
of course, not past murdering either friends or enemies, and tradition
attributed many deaths to his credit; cf. xviii. 7· 6 n., (Flamininus'
taunt) and Anth. Pal. ix. 519, xi. 12 (Alcaeus' poems alleging his
murder of his friends and especially Callias and Epicrates: cf. Wal-
bank, CQ, 1943, 3--'J). The murder of the Arati (cf. Livy, xxxii. 21. 23)
is also known to Pausanias (ii. g. 4). Other supposed victims were
Chariteles of Cyparissia (Livy, xxxii. 2I. 23), Eurycleides and Micion
of Athens (Paus. ii. 9· 4; cf. Treves, LEG, 1940, 147-9), Cassander,
epistates of Maronea (xxii. 14. 2-6), and his own son Demetrius
(Livy, xl. 5-16, 20. 3-24. 8, 54-56; Diod. xxix. 25; Justin. xxxii. 2-3;
Plut. A rat. 54· 3 ; Aem. Paul. 8. 6 f.; Zon. ix. 22; Walbank, Philip,
252); and he is said to have tried to procure the murder of Philo-
poemen (Plut. Philop. 12. 2; Paus. viii. so. 4; Tustin. xxix. 4· u).
We are in no position to test these allegations however.
t-"ET' ou -rroM : presumably after the Messenian raid ; a vague phrase.
JHTO. T aup£wvos: cf. iv. 6. 4 n. Along with Demetrius of Pha-
ros he is said to have exercised a bad influence over Philip (ix.
23. g).
3. 8ui.8~<crLv ~pyatoJ.LiVT!: 'creating a morbid condition'; for 8ui8<EaL>
cf. ii. 20. 7 n.; Plut. Arat. 52. 3. <f>rip!La.Kov a.v·nf> 8lowaw, oVK dttJ
Ka.l a,Poop&v, d,\,\tl rwv fUp!La.> 'T£ 1-LaAa.Kas 'TO 1Tpw'ToV ~v rtf> uw!Lan
~ea.i f3fjxa. K<voov•wv d!LfJI.dav, <El8' oihws Ka'Ta !LtKpov <Els ¢8optw rrEpatV-
'
Oln'WV,
5. ~ea.l TL Twv -rrpbs Tct> Tolx<t> -rrTucrllaTwv imCI'T)J.LTJVO.jlivou: an interest-
ing indication of a level of hygiene which would give every scope
for a tuberculous infection to flourish.
1'a.u1'a. Td'II'(XeLpa. K:TA.: cf. Plut. Arat. 52. 4, •ain-a, ECmtv, i!J KE¢www,
~'"lXEtpa "Tij;; {JamAtKfjs <f;U.Las. Even if true, it is not evidence for the
character of Aratus' illness.
7. a~a. TO 'II'OAAaiCLS Tils <lpxils TETEUXEVO.L 'll'apO. 1'0LS :Axa.Lois: from his
first generalship Aratus held office every other year, since re-election
was contrary to law (Plut. A rat. 24. s). According to Plut. Arat. 53· r
he died in his seventeenth strategia; but his second strategia, during
which he liberated Corinth, was in 243/z (ii. 43· 4 n.; Plut. A rat. 16. 2),
and though Plutarch puts his first two strategiai in consecutive years,
he is probably in error and the first a'Tpa•TJrlaisin 245/4 (cf. Walbank,
Aratos, r68-9). This would make 2r3/r2 (or 214/13, if the date of
entry into office was now autumn) Aratus' sixteenth term of office.
Plutarch (A rat. 53· r) makes it his seventeenth, however; but if
88
DEATH OF ARATUS VIII. 12. 8
Aratus was appointed (]TparfJyos atrroKpO:rwp in 225 (ii. 52. 3 n.), he
may have held this office continuously until 222 (and in fact until
the end of the official year 222/r). This would explain Plutarch's
extra year; cf. Porter, lxxviii~lxxx.
Sui. To 11'"-ijllos ••• TWV Els To illvo<; EuEpyEatwv: he had virtually
created the confederacy when he brought in the newly liberated
Sicyon (ii. 43· 3 n.); its growth and fortunes under his direction are
described in ii and iv-v.
11'apt.. Tf111'nTp(8L: Sicyon. According to Plutarch (A rat. 53· I-i ; cf.
Paus. ii. 9· 4) the Sicyonians obtained permission from the Con-
federacy to bring his body from Aegium, where he had died, and
buried him within the city amid great celebrations WCI11't:p olKt(]T~V
Kal. au.rrijpa rijs mSAt:ws; they first obtained the following oracle from
Delphi:
Bov.\etin EtKvciJv Ccpayptov aUv l!p~:hov
dp.rfo' ouin Oa.\in TE Ka:rotxop.lvoto avaKTO<;;
~S' To {3apvvop.€vov TipS' dvlpt Kat TO fJapfJvov
u
ya<T}S' E'(]T
f ' , 'R. \ " ... '~ \ 8a"au!1TJ5'·
aaE~TJp.a Kat oupavov T}Ot:
\'
The site of his burial became the Arateion, and annual sacrifices
took place there on 5 Daisios, the anniversary of the liberation of
Sicyon, called the Soteria, as well as on his birthday. Vestiges
(8€{yp.aTa p.t~<pa) of these celebrations still continued down to Plu-
tarch's time. Sicvonian tradition made the hero Aratus a son of
Asclepius incam~ted as a snake (Paus. ii. Io. 3), a legend which
can be paralleled from Alexander, Aristomenes, Scipio Africanus,
Galerius, and others (see Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 435-7).
8 , EL'ITEp
" KO.l' 11'EpL' TOUS
' Cl11'0LX0p.EVOUS
' ' "'
EO'TL " IIT)<JLS: the re1evance
TLS O.LO'
of this passage to P.'s views on the immortality of the soul is raised
by Hirzel (86r), who argues that of the Stoics Panaetius rejected
the doctrine of immortality, while Cleanthes and Chrysippus were
in doubt whether all, or merely certain chosen, souls were immortal.
But the phrase is a typical example of the figure 'macarismus', as
Treu (Historia, 1954, 222) points out; cf. Isoc. Evag. z, E:i n; E(]TLv
a(alJ7)at; Tot; 'TE'Tt:A<'I.I'rl'JKoaL; 70, li't 'TW£S' "l"(tJV 1Tpo"/li'jiE'VTJJ1-lVWV Ot' apf.T~V
&.BavaTot yryovaatv, olp.at K'liKefvov ~gunaOa, TaVT7)S' Tfjs Swpdi;; Plat.
61; Aeg. 42; SEC, ii. 358 (a fourth-century Thessalian epitaph),
Et T£5' K~V i4£Sq. Knp.lvcp €rrn x6.p,S'. It is found in many Latin epitaphs
and in Tacitus, Agr, 46. r, 'si quis piorum locus, si ... non cum
corpore extinguuntur magnae animae, placide quiescas'; see also
von Scala, zo6, and PCdech, Rev. de l'histoire des religions, 1965,
38-42, for other examples. Thus P. could use this expression, natural
on a subject on which no one can have certain knowledge, without
commitment to any specific philosophical doctrine, but merely
indicating a general agnosticism.
8g
VIII. 13-14 PHILIP'S CAPTURE OF LISSUS
13-14. Philip's capture of Lissus

Since Philip's catastrophe in theAous in 214 (d. vii. 14 d n.) a Roman
squadron had been stationed off Illyria under M. Laevinus, who
wintered at Oricus in n4/r3 (Livy, xxiv. 40. 17) and whose province
was henceforth Graecia M acedoniaqHe (Livy, xxiv. 44· 5); cf. Wal·
bank, Philip, 71· This kept Philip away from the coast, but in 213
and 212 he made headway in the interior, gaining Atintania, the
Dassaretae, and the Parthini, together with the town of Dimale
(cf. iii. r8. 3-5, vii. 9· 13, viii. 14 b r-2; Livy, xxvii. 30. 13, xxix. 12. 3,
13); he also reduced the Ardiaei (or those of them living just north
of Dyrrachium; cf. ii. rr. 10, 12. 2; Livy, xxvii. 30. 13), and regained
access to the Adriatic at Lissus. These campaigns served to split
off the Roman allies in the south from Scerdilaidas (cf. Badian,
Studies, zo), and to secure territories which the treaty with Hannibal
gave Philip hope of retaining after the war (vii. 9· 13); and they gave
Philip a port where a Punic squadron could put in (May, ]RS, 1946,
51), though hardly with a view to ferrying him over to Italy (cf.
Walbank, Philip, 81-82). Moreover, if Lissus was part of Scerdilaidas'
owaa7da (so Badian, Studies, 31 n. 79) this would afford a further
motive for Philip's attack. The date of the capture is probably 213;
but on present evidence 212 cannot be excluded as a possibility (see
above, p. 6). On the attack see Walbank, Philip, 8o-81.
13. 1. Tov 1\(aaov Kat Tov l&.~<:poluaaov: cf. ii. 12. 3 n. (for the site),
iii. r6. 3. iv. r6. 6, xxviii. 8. 4· Lissus has been identified with the
fortified hill above Lesh (r86 m.), and Acrolissus with Mali Selbuemit
(410 m.) a little to the south-east; cf. C. Praschniker and A. Schober,
Archiiologische Forschzmgen in Albanien und lv!ontenegro (Akad. der
\Vissensch. in Wien, Schriften der Balkankommission, Antiquarische
Abteilung, Heft viii. 1919), 14-27, figs. 21-39; defended by J. M. F.
May, ]RS, 1946, 54-56 (map of the district on p. 55) against the view
that the hill above Lesh was Acrolissus, and the Lissus itself lay some-
where down in the low-lying area near the mouth of the Drin (so
J. B. von Hahn, Albanesische Studien, i (Jena, 1954), 92). Lissus was
founded in 390 by Dionysius of Syracuse (Diod. xv. IJ. 4), perhaps
on the site of an earlier settlement, and remains of his fortifications
have been found both at Lesh and on Mali Selbuemit; those at Lesh
have a perimeter of 2,200 metres (May, op. cit. 54, who, however, has
not observed that the remarks on extensive fortifications in Diod.
xv. 13. 5 refer, not to Lissus, but to Syracuse: see Wilhelm, jahres-
heft, n/zz, 1924, 509 f.). The harbour of Lesh mentioned by Caesar
(BC, iii. 29. 3) probably lay some little way from the town, on the
coast south of Shen Gjin (Nymphaeum; cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 144);
cf. May, op. cit. 55; Fluss, RE, 'Lissos (z)', cols. 731-6; but the sea
go
PHILIP'S CAPTURE OF LISSUS VIII. IJ. 2
~ ~1::-i
( :~
t~
-·-~- ll1hTJUtiun.d lfvlltlt·r J_ag~-.nn,~ I .lkl'"'

DJ\f\',l.fSH ).1dtkrn J1.UBt'"i ""'......_ ~tar-.h~S''·lmp~
Lis:iu~·,Dr!!,J :\ncknt ll.li)H'~
Spot hdghh nrh\ Clntou.r<; in rndn''>
~ .\knkrn H)\\ 11!' 1 Yillage.tl'
tJ 5 101-:m
£":l Atn.h.hHI -..ire..; LLL..L.L .
3· LISSUS AND ACROLISSUS. (Based on May, jRS, 1946, 55)
may well have come closer to the city than it does today (cf. § 6).
The map of Philip's operations in Kromayer-Veith, Schlachtenatlas,
Rom. Abt. ii, Blatt 10, Karte 6 (commentary by Praschniker) is
helpful for the operations, but wrongly makes Philip approach from
the south, to fit Praschniker's identification of the R. Ardaxanus
(see next note).
2. TrOlTJO'af1Evoc.; Se Ti)v TropEia.v ETrl 8u' fl!J.Epa.s: the point of depar-
ture, not indicated, must lie thirty to forty miles from the River
9I
VIII. 13. 2 PHILIP'S CAPTURE OF LISSUS
Ardaxanus, through a defile (or defiles). Tomaschek (RE, 'Ardaxanos',
col. 6u} identifies this river with the Arzen, which runs into the sea
a little north of Durazzo; but, despite its name (Xaptavrw in Anna
Comnena, Alex. iv. 5, etc.), the Arzen is not a convenient halting-
point for an attack on Lissus, which is 27 miles from its nearest
point (its mouth), as the crow flies. Praschniker (Schlachtmatlas,
commentary on Rom. Abt. ii. Io. 6) assumes the Ardaxanus to be
the Mati, which is some 8 miles south of Lesh; but Philip must have
approached Lesh from the north, since he marched round the town
of Lissus to reach the south (§§ 6-7). It therefore seems more likely
that the Ardaxanus is to be identified with the river of Lesh itself,
now the Drin (Drilo); for though in classical times it seems to have
run roughly in the channel of the modern Drin i Madh past Scodra
{cf. Livy, xliv. 31. 3 f.; May, op. cit. 56; see below, § 6 n.), Praschniker
and Schober (op. cit. 17) have established that the fortifications of
Lissus presuppose a river running alongside; and this can well have
been a branch of the Drin (Drilo), and the river mentioned here. It
is not, however, possible to identify the O"T.rva which Philip traversed.
3. l'hcl. T~v &.AAT)V £pu1-1voTT)Ta: 'because of its general strength'
(Paton}.
4. TO 1-L"Tasu 8ui17TTJ1-1a: for this gap (which fits the identification
with Lesh and Mali Selbuemit) cf. Strabo, vii. 316 and Steph. Byz.
Alaaos; they were clearly not within a single fortification.
Ka.TO. TOUTO ••• O'UO'TT)O"a!-LEVOS aKpof3oA~O'!-LOV: 'to open the attack
with light-armed troops on this side', dKpofJoA<aJ.~-oS' is the discharge
of weapons by light-armed troops; cf. Arr. Tact. 15. 4, 37· 1.
6. Tous 5£ 1nATa.aTO.s ••• tca.i. To Aonrov !lEpos T(;w c;utC.:wwv: the
peltasts were often used with light-armed as a special task-force;
cf. iv. 75· 4, 8o. 8, V. 13. 5-6, 22. 9, 23. 8, X. 42. 2, and in general ii. 65.
2 n., 3 n.; Walbank, Philip, 292-3.
Ka.Tcl O&.Aa.TTa.v: i.e. Philip marched between the city and the sea,
which was perhaps closer to the town than it is now (3 km. away).
P. does not say whether Philip went from south to north or from
north to south ; but since Mali Selbuemit is south-east of Lesh, and
the ambush had been laid on the landward side of the area between
the two, i.e. north-east of that area, it follows that the march was
round the west end of Lesh from north to south, and this supports
the view that the River Ardaxanus was the river of Lesh. Prasch-
niker (Schlachtenatlas, loc. cit.} brings Philip from the south, but this
ignores § 7 1Tt:p,.rA8ciJv •• • T~v 1r&A,v. There may have been a wider
belt of land between Lissus and the sea than Praschniker's map in
the Schlachtenatlas shows; perhaps the river was bridged or {since
it was smaller than nowadays} fordable.
7. Ka.TO. Tov 1rponpT)!livov T61rov: i.e. the interval between to·wn and
citadel.
92
PHILIP'S CAPTURE OF LISSUS VIII. 15. 2
14. 1. EK Tfjs 1roXews esexkovTo: cf. the tactics of the besieged in

Sardes (vii. 17· g).
5. Ta.is arre£pa.Ls: on the Macedonian t:17T<Eipa see v. 4· g n.
6. Ka.T' oX£yous: 'in small groups'.
w~eXe£a.s Ka.L Tporr"ls: the rout would precede the chance of plunder;
hysteron proteron to avoid hiatus (cf. ii. 2. 2 n., x. 23. 2, 27. u, xi. 1g a
1, xiv. 10. g).
10. a1TO.VT0.5 TOUS 1TEpLS U1TOXELpLOU5 E1TOL~O'O.TO: on his conquests
see 13-14 n. Probably the districts north of Lissus and Lissus itself
belonged to Scerdilaidas, who was from the Ardiaei (ii. n. 7 n.). But
we do not know whether Philip got hold of Scodra. Against Zippel's
view (7o) that he reached areas north of the Naro (Neretva) see
Holleaux, 1gg n. 4; it seems unlikely. How long Philip held Lissus
is unknown, but he probably withdrew before the Peace of Phoenice.
14 b. Fragments concerning Illyria

The Dassaretae lived west of the great lakes towards Berat (cf. v. 108.
2 n.; Philippson, RE, 'Dassaretis', cols. 2221-2). Hyscana (cf. xxviii.
8. u, emended) is often mentioned in the war against Perseus as
Uscana; cf. Livy, xliii. 10. 1. It was the capital of the Penestae, and
lay three days' march from Stuberra (Livy, xliii. 18. 4-5); but the
site of Stuberra is uncertain. A reference to it on an inscription found
at Tsepikovo on the River Erigon between Bitolj and Prilep (cf. Vulic,
Melanges Glotz, 875; Bull. A cad. Royale Serbe, Sect. Lettres, 1g35,
224 ff.) suggests that it stood at this site to the north of Lyncestis.
Uscana has been located at Dibra on the Black Drin, but this is
too far from Tsepikovo-perhaps 120 km.-for a three days' march.
Niese (iii. 141 n. 4) suggests a site 'on the upper Erigon near Sop or
further north near Kicevo'.
15-21. The capture of Achaeus

The events here described form part of the res Asiae of 01. 141, 3 =
214/13, and probably took place in 213; see above, pp. 3 and 5· For
the capture of Sardes, which left Achaeus besieged in the citadel,
see vii. 15-18. The 'mercenary source' postulated in v. 40. 4-57. 8 n.
could be behind these chapters; see also vii. 15-18 n.
15. 1. ev Tfj~a.aLXe£~: of Ptolemy.

SLa.TETPL~ws €v ~YEl!-OVLKTI 1rpoaTa.o£~:
'enjoying the authority, or the
pomp and circumstance, of a military leader'. 7rpoaraa{a bears both
meanings. On Bolis, unknown apart from this account, see Wilcken,
RE, 'Bolis', col. 675; van Effenterre, 2g6; Launey, i. 26o, 567 n. 16.
l. IwaL~Los: cf. v. 35· 7 n., xv. 25. 1-2 n.; the main figure at the
93
VIII. 15. z THE CAPTURE OF ACHAEUS
Alexandrian court. On the Egyptian alliance with Achaeus cf.
v. 67. 12-13 n.
4. TOV Ka.!J-13oXov ••• olJ ~Lovov 1ToAhTJv, O.XM. Ka.l. auyyt:vfj KO.L cji£Xov:
their city is unknown, but van Effenterre (I93 n. 1, 295-6) suggests
plausibly that Cambylus had gone over to Antiochus with many
other mercenaries before Raphia (d. v. 40. r-3, 61. 8-9 nn., 70.
1o-r2), while Bolis had remained with Ptolemy. On Cambylus see
Schoch, RE, Suppl-E. iv, 'Kambylos', col. 864; van Effenterre, 295;
Launey, i. 259-60. For Cretans in Antiochus' service cf. v. 79· Io,
vii. 15. 2 (Lagoras).
5. Ka.Ta.aKw~v ••• ouK E1Tt:llixovTo: 'did not admit of siege-works'.
6. llE~O.!J.EVou T~v E'TTLvoLa.v: 'receiving his suggestion warmly'.
ToLa.UTTJS S£ auvSpa.~LoUO'l'JS ••• 1rpo8u~L£a.s: 'and since this coincided
with such enthusiasm on the part of Bolis'.
9. auv8fJ!J.a.TO. Ka.l. 1r£aTELS: cf. 16. 9, 17· 4, 17. 8; 'dispatches in cypher
and credentials' (Paton}. For a full discussion of the use of cypher in
such cases see Aen. Tact. 31.
1rpos TE NLKO!J.a.xov ElS 'PoSov: who had probably acted with Melan-
comas as Achaeus' representative in securing Aetolian mercen-
aries (cf. vii. I6. 7 n.; Stahelin, RE, '.Xikomachos {8)', col. 459).
1rpos MEAa.yKo~La.v ElS "E~Eaov: Holleaux (Et-udes, iii. I3I n. I} sug-
gests that Melancomas like his two homonyms in OGIS, 134, was
an Aetolian.
10. Ka.l. Tov 1rpo Tou xpovov: 'previously', and perhaps right up to
the time Achaeus was besieged in Sardes (Holleaux, Etudes, iii. IJ4
n. 3). Paton, 'in former times' (so too Bevan, Seleucus, ii. 8), intro-
duces a nuance not in the Greek.
Tac; li.AAa.s lmcl.aa.s Tac; ~~w8EV Eml3oA6.s : 'his other foreign schemes'
(Paton); for instance his enrolment of Aetolian mercenaries (§ 9).
16. 1. Ka.l !J.ETa Ta.uTa. 'TTCi.ALV: cf. v. 27. 2 n. for this sense of 7Tl:i.\w.
:A.pLa.vov: perhaps an Iranian, like Aribazus, the commander of
Achaeus' garrison (vii. q. 9 n.; cf. Launey, i. 567 n. 6); it is un-
necessary to read mvm 'P.av&v with \-Vilamowitz (Hermes, I898, 523).
4. Kp~s u1r6.pxwv KTA.: for P.'s hostility towards Cretans cf. iv. 53·
5 n.; to him they are naturally cunning and treacherous (d. xiii. 8. 2),
a characteristic stressed throughout the present episode (cf. §§ 5 and
], 19· s. 20. 2).
miv tl36.aTa.tE 1rpciy~La. Ka.l. 1rO.aa.v E'TTLVOLa.v tlJITJAcl.~a.: 'weighed up the
whole matter and examined the soundness of every plan; cf. I9. 5·
9. auv8Ti~LO.TLKa ypcl.IL~La.Ta.: cf. IS. 9 n.
17. 2. 1rpos Tpo1rov: 'to his liking'; the more usual genitive would
involve hiatus.
4. a'TTO TOU Kpa.TLO'TOU: 'in good faith'; cf. vi. s6. J, viii. 24. 10, fg. I9.
94
THE CAPTURE OF ACHAEUS VIIL zo. 8
7. al1To1Ta.&wc; ~<:a.t yewa.(wc;: 'in a frank and forthright manner'.
8. 1r..w E~E1TE}LtPE; evidently back to Nicomachus, who had perhaps
come to some more convenient point than Rhodes.
11. Tote; Ka.Ta KoLAlJV Iup(a.v ~<:a.l. ~olVLKlJV: on this phrase cf. v. 34·
6 n. A. Shalit, Studies in Classics and jewish Hellenism: Scripta
Hierosolymitana, i (Jerusalem, 1954), 64-77 (partly anticipated by
E. Schwartz, Phil. rg3r, 393--9), argues that KoD.17 Evpla is a corrup-
tion of the Aramaic Kol, part of the phrase Kol 'awar nahard, i.e.
'the whole province beyond the river, sc. Euphrates'; in that case
KolATJ Evpla would signify Traaa Eupla (cf. Diod. ix. 57· r). Later it
was restricted to the area from the Orontes to Egypt. But the
transition from!((}[ 'awar nahara < Kol Evpia < Koli\TJ Evp{a is not
easy, and Shalit quotes no parallels. P. seems to have forgotten
that since Raphia much of this area was in Ptolemy's hands; cf.
v. 87. 6; Bevan, Seleucus, i. 33o; Bikerman, Rev. blbl. 1947, 264 n. 3
('une etourderie').
18. 4. c::tc; TTJV 1TapEfL~o>..l]v: the camp where Cambylus was stationed
(rs. s).
10. u1rip Twv E1Ta.yyEAlwv: 'about the promised reward'.
19. I. EKTEvwc; Ka.i cp~Aocppovws: cf. xxiii. r8. 4; 'in a warm and cordial
manner'; see Welles, p. 330.
2. il>..KovTa. To Tfjc; 1rpasEws aTaO'lfLov: cf. xii. z8. 6; 'equal to the
gravity of the occasion' (Paton).
5. 1Tpoc; KpfjTG KplJTLbWV: d. Plut. Lys. 20. 2, 7rpd> Kpi)Ta. oJ U.pa, TO
Toil J.ayov, KP'f/Tl{wv ~yvoEL Tov <Papvaf3a{ov; A em. Paul. 23. ro; Corpus
paroem. graec. i. 507, ii. 8r r ; Suidas, Kp1JTl{Ew and Trpo> Kpf/Ta KP1JTl{etv.
According to Zenobius (iv. 62; cf. Corpus paroem. graec. i. ror)
the saying arose from a piece of trickery practised by the Cretan
Idomeneus at Troy; but the proverb may well be as old as intercourse
with Crete. Cf. \Vunderer, i. 41; see above, r6. 4 n.; Launey, i. 286 n. 3·
oU&Ev atPTfMcplJTOV: cf. r6. 4 n.
7, T~V J\<lo8LKTJV; Cf. 20. I I ll.
9. 1TUv96.vEa9a.t ••• ad To ~<:a.TE1TEiyov: 'to make the necessary en-
quiries from time to time'.
20. 8. fLETll. 8uEiv ft Tptwv <rwfLa.TocpuAaKwv: cf. v. 27. 3 n. These

awp.aTotf,VAa.KES are a group of high-ranking officers who remain close to
the king, day and night ; cf. 3· Esdras, iii. 4; Corradi, 307; Bikerman,
37· n. 7· For awp.aTo,PvA.aK•s under Antiochus I see Hegesander,
FHG, iv. 416, fg. 13= A then. i. 19 D.; see also xv. 27. 6, 30. 7, 31. 4,
31. 6, 32. 6, 32. 8 (under Ptolemy V); xxviii. 8. 9; Diod. xxx. I I
(under Perseus). They were often used for special confidential tasks.
95
VIII. :zo. 9 THE CAPTGRE OF ACHAEUS
9. O'U!J-'ITo.lh1s yEvea9o.t Kat Satcpuaat: this reaction is typical of the
sensibility of a Hellenistic prince; cf. Antigo nus Gonatas, confronted
with the severed head of Pyrrhus (Plut. Pyrrh. 34· 8-9) or Scipio
Aemilianus, the Hellenized Roman, weeping over the ruins of
Carthage (xxxviii. 22.1). It is the melancholy thought of the transience
of human prosperity that arouses the emotion; but, as Achaeus' fate
shows, this emotion has no effect on policy.
10. TO Sua+uAatcTov tcal 'ITapaAoyov Twv EK Tfjs TUXTJS au!J-[lo.wovTwv:
on the instability of fortune see the passages quoted in Vol. I, p. 19;
cf. xv. 34· 2, TO TaUr'i)S' (sc. Tij<; Tlf)(YI>) a{31.{3a.LOJ) Ka.i Svarf>v.\a.KTOV.
11. :.\xatos ycl.p ~v :A.vopo!J-6.xou !J-EV u~os tcTA.: for the suggestion
that here and in iv. sr. 4 P. has confused Laodice, the sister of
Achaeus, with Laodice, the sister of his father Andromachus, and
that it was in fact the former who married Seleucus II, see iv. 48, 5 n.;
see, however, Schmitt, Antiochos, 31.
EYTJ!J-E 8€ J\ao8£~~:TJv TfJV ML9pt8aTou ••• 9uyaTepa: if this is correct, she
was the daughter of Mithridates II of Pontus (Geyer, RE, 'Mithri-
dates (8)', cols. n6o-r; SUihelin, RE. 'Laodike (q)', cols. 706-7).
For her upbringing by Logbasis of Selge cf. v. 74· 5 n. She was handed
over as a hostage to Antiochus Hierax, but there is no reason to
think (so Niebuhr, Kl. Schr. i. z62 ff.; Droysen, iii. 2, 15 n. z; Bouche-
Leclercq, Seleucides, i. 148) that she was betrothed to him, and was
to have brought him as a dowry the province of Phrygia, which
had come to Mithridates with his wife Laodice, Antiochus II's
daughter. Beloch (iv. z. 202-4) regards the existence of two homony-
mous sisters (one married to Antiochus III: v. 43· 1) as improbable,
and assumes an error in P.: Achaeus' wife will have been the
daughter, not of Mithridates, but of Antiochus Hierax. Against this
Bouche-Leclercq argues that a daughter of Hierax and Ziaelas'
daughter (Euse b. i. 2 51) would have been too young to marry Achaeus,
a weak argument since the date of Achaeus' marriage to Laodice is
unknown (v. i4· 5 is no help), and for political reasons a girl could
have been married as a child (so, rightly, Beloch, iv. 2. 204). How-
ever, homonyms are not unprecedented, especially in the Pontic
royal house; e.g. the two Laodices, daughters of Mithridates V Euer-
getes (SUihelin, RE, 'Laodike (28) and (29)', cols. Fo-n). Hence,
there is no need to reject P. or our text of P. at this point; cf. Niese,
ii. 172; Bevan, Seleucus, ii. I; Corradi, Alene e Roma, 1927, 228 ff.;
Meloni, Rend. Line. I949. 543 n. I ; Will, REG, 1962, n3-14 n. 8z;
Schmitt, Antiochos, 30.
KilpLos ••• Tfjs E'lri TclSE Tou Taupou 'lraiTT)s: cf. iv. 48. ro, 48. 12 n.
21, 1. auva9po1tofLEvwv Twv +[Awv ••• KaTci Tov E9la!J-6v: on the royal
Friends cf. iv. 23. 5 n., v. 2. In., so. 9 n.; Corradi, 318-43, and for
the Seleucid court in particular, Bikerman, 40-so. who identifies
96
THE CAPTCRE OF ACHAECS VIII. zr. 6
four grades; tf>D.ot (d. xxx. 25. 16, etc.), olTLp.wp,evot tf>lllot (e.g. \Velles,
45, 11. 3~4), ol 7Tpwrot tf>D.ot (e.g. OGIS, 255) and oi 11pwTot Ka~ 7TpOTL/LW·
p.Evot tf>lAot (not attested for the Seleucids, but cf. Holleaux, lltttdes,
iii. zzo~s, who discusses the evidence for these expressions in various
kingdoms of Asia Minor and elsewhere in relation to the letter now
republished as Welles, 45). It would be their normal duty to attend
the king in the early morning.
l. TOU O'UVE8piou: cf. v. 41. 6, 49· I, so. 6, 5I· 3· s8. 2; Corradi, 231~53;
Bikerman, r8g. It is not so much a permanent council as a session
of the king's Friends giving advice which the king takes by custom,
though he is not obliged to do so.
3. Achaeus' punishment: see B. H. van Proosdij, Hermes, 1934,347-50.
wpW'Tov p,Jv ••• p.ETd o€ Taiha are clearly two stages in the punish-
ment, not (as Niese, ii. 345) two successive proposals, the second
a modification of the first. The decision was to amputate Achaeus'
extremities, to cut off his head and sew it up in an ass's skin, and
to impale the body on a stake. By d.KpWT1Jpta,Ew the Greeks under-
stood the cutting off of the ears and nose (d. Polyaen. vii. 12, aKpw71Jpt-
dua> To 7Tp6uw7Tov) ; but Luckenbill (ii. 363) shows that the Assyrian
practice (and probably that of eastern peoples generally) was to
cut off the tongue, lips, and hands as well (cf. i. 8o. 13, 2 Mace. vii. 4,
yAWfJfJOTOP,Etv Kai 7T€ptaKv8laaVTOS aKpW71]pta,ew). The amputation of
the head can also be paralleled from Mesopotamia (cf. Luckenbill,
ii. 300); but the only parallel van Proosdij can find for stitching
up the head in an ass's skin is in Herod. i. 214. 4, where Tomyris
li.aKOV ••• 7TA1juaqa aip,o.To<; av8pW7T1)lou •.• i7TavfjKE a&rov (sc. Cyrus')
"¥ KEt/>aA~v ir; Tov auKov. The object is clearly to insult the victim; but
whether there is any special significance in the choice of an ass
(other than that which led Shakespeare to clap an ass's head on
Bottom) is unknown. Van Proosdij (op. cit. 349) suggests that
'suspicari ... licet opponi inter se caput abscisum (i.e. mortem)
et asinum (i.e. uitam) cui prae ceteris animalibus cupido procreandi
innata sit'; this seems very far-fetched, as does the suggestion that
there was a hint at the popular belief that an ass was worshipped
by the Jews who lived in Coele Syria, whence Achaeus was hoping
for help (cf. 17. I I n.). Luckenbill (ii. 117) quotes parallels for the im-
paling of his foes by Sargon. Thus in so punishing Achaeus An tiochus
followed eastern precedent, as did Alexander in his execution of
Bessus (Arrian, iv. 7· 3-4). The normal Greek reaction would be
Arrian's (ibid.): Kai Jyw OVTE 7¥ ayav TaVT7JV Ttp,wp{av B~(]G()V i7Taww,
a.ua j3apj3ap"<~V Elvat T{Bep,at TWV aKpW77]plwv ~v >.wf37Jv.
5. Tl9,a9a.& TO wpoyJla.Ta. 'to come to terms' ; cf. v. 6o. g, T£0ea8a, Tct
wpdr; :4.vTioxov.
6. O.va.wotcp~Tos: 'without giving any answer'; \.Yunderer (Coniecturae,
38) proposes dl>taKp,To>, but unnecessarily.
814173 H 97
VIII. 2r. 6 THE CAPTURE OF ACHAEL:S
StO. TO 1rap6.So~ov tmi nA~W'i avEA1TwTov ••• cj>a.£veoila~: it is the effect

of Fortune that is so dumbfounding; Hultsch compares 20. g,
d,Pa.aiav. See Vol. I, p. 19.
9. ot j.LEV 1rpos ~pt~a~ov: cf. vii. 17. 9: Aribazus commanded the
garrison in the citadel.
10-12. The lessons of Achaeus' fall. These are on different planes.
The first is pure worldly wisdom: never be too ready to trust any-
body! The second is a counsel of moderation in time of prosperity,
because being but men (ct. ii. 4- 5 n.) we must expect a reversal
of fortune (cf. i. 35 n.). On this second point, repeatedly stressed
throughout the Histories, see Vol. I, pp. 19-20; P. urges moderation,
not in the hope of averting the disaster, but because it is more fitting
to human dignity.
22. A fragment on Cavarus

This fragment cannot be dated ·with certainty as between 213 (im-
plied by its position here) and 212 (Nissen; Hultsch, index, p. 78);
but it is more likely that, along with 23, it belongs to 212, in
which case it should follow 24-34; see above, p. 6. P. probably men-
tioned Cavarus in relation to the fall of his kingdom at the hands
of the Thracians (cf. iv. 46. 4); see Stahelin, II7; Niese, ii. 570;
Schoch, RE, Suppl.-B. iv, 'Kauaros', cols. 881-2. On P.'s possible
source see iv. 45· 10 n.
22. l. 1roAA.~v ••. liacj>6.A.Eta.v: against pirates as well as Celts and

Thracians, and no doubt for a price (d. iv. 45--6); Bengtson, Historia,
1962, 26.
2. To 'Is 1rpos Tous Spq.tea.'i teat Bl9uvous 1TOA~j.LOlS: Prusias had assisted
the Rhodians in their war against Byzantium {cf. iv. 47· 7, 49· 1-52.
10), and had subsidized Thracian attacks on the Byzantines in
Europe (iv. 51. 8 n.). But Thracian attacks may have gone on after
the peace with Prusias.
3. IwaTp6.Tou Tou te6A.ateos: cf. Schoch, RE, 'Sostratos (4)', col.
1200. This unknown man probably played some part in Cavarus'
downfall (Niese, ii. 570 n. 4).
23. Antiochus and Xerxes of Arsamosata

Like 22, this fragment probably refers to 212, and will have stood,
with it, after 24-34; see above, p. 6. The belief of Babelon (Rois
de Syrie, cxcv. 212) and earlier numismatists that this Antiochus is
Antiochus IV Epiphanes must be rejected; for John Antioch. (FHG,
iv. 557) dates the marriage of Xerxes to Antiochus' sister W€ l4wl{Jas-
broMp.€t Toi:s- 'Pwp.alots-; cf. Bevan, Seleucus, iL 295; Bouche-Leclercq,
ANTIOCHUS AND XERXES OF ARSAMOSATA VIII. 23. 3
Stfleucides, ii. 569-70: Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 192 n. I, who observes
that the position of the extract in the fragments on vice and virtue
also assures its approximate date.
23. 1. :epsou ~aaiAEuov-ros 'II'OAEws :.\pJJ.oaa-ra: this Xerxes is known

from coins, which show him bearded and wearing a tiara, and bear
the legend {1arnA€w.c; BJ.pgov (d. Babelon, Rois de Syrie, cxcv. 212;
Allotte de la Fuye, Rev. num. 1927, 144). He is probably the son of
Arsarnes, who helped Antiochus when he entered .Mesopo-
tamia during his war against Seleucus II (v. 7+ 4 n.; Polyaen. iv. I7),
and may be the founder of Arsarnosata (Beloch, iv. 2. 361 ; Holleaux,
lttudes, v. 321-2). This is the form of the name of the city in Tacitus
(Ann. xv. ro. 6; cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. 26; Ptol. v. 12. 8) and is
probably the more correct, though a version similar to P.'s occurs in
Not. episc. i. 950 (Hierodes, Synecdemus ed. Part hey, 89), )tpfWDrranJ.;
see too Geog. Rav. ii. 12, 13 (75· 7 and 8o. r8 Pinder-Parthey). J. G. C.
Anderson, CAH, x. 88o, identifies it with 'the Armenian Asmusat,
the Shamshat or Shimshat of Arab geographers, one of whom
locates it a mile above the junction of Nahr Salkit (probably the
Peri Su) with the Arsanias (]HS, r897, zs). while another describes
it as fully two days march east of Kharput', and he suggests that
it may be the extensive ruins at Nagaran, east-south-east of Kharaba.
See further the works quoted by Anderson, loc. cit.; CAH, x, map
facing p. 255; Baumgartner, RE, 'Arsamosata', col. 1271. Armenia
had recognized the suzerainty of Seleucus I (App. Syr. 55; Strabo,
xi. 531), but its native rulers repeatedly tried to avoid paying tribute
(cf. § 4). Later it is under two of Antiochus' generals, the native
Armenians Artaxias and Zariadris, who governed the east and west
halves respectively; after Magnesia they made themselves indepen-
dent (Strabo, xi. szB, 531; Bengtson, Strat. ii. r57).
1rpos -r<'l> Ka.A rrf.8l<t~ KaAOUJ.lEY<tl: probably the plain of Kharput,
lying to the south of the River Arsanias and extending east of the
junction between that river and its tributary on the north bank,
the Peri Su; cf. Anderson, CAH, x. 768, 8So; Magie, ii. 1416.
2. -roO ~a.alAE(ou: 'his royal capital'; cf. iii. 15. 3. iv. 40. 3· Paton
translates 'his palace', but the wider sense seems more appropriate.
See Mauersberger, flarrO..t:ws.
3. Ml9plM-rn ••• 8s ~v utos -rils ciSeAcpfjs a.u-roG Ka.-rci. cpuaw: 'Mithri-
dates ... his own sister's son'; on this phrase see Niese, ii. 397 n. 4;
Bevan, Seleucus, ii. 16 n. 3· Bevan thinks there is an implication
that he was the adopted son of someone else, probably Antiochus;
but P. often calls Hannibal the son of Hamilcar J<aTa <foorrtv without
any such suggestion (cf. i. 64. 6 n.). It is not said, nor is it likely, that
Mithridates' mother was the Antiochis of § 5· His name suggests
that his father was a prince of Iranian extraction; and the hypothesis
99
VIII. 23. 3 ANTIOCHUS AND XERXES OF ARSAMOSATA
of Th. Reinach (Trois Royaumes de l'Asie lvlineure (Paris, r888),

r65; Mithridate Eupator, roi de Pont (Paris, r89o), 41 n. r), that he
was a dy'Tlast of Armenia Minor who was allied to Phamaces towards
179 (xxv. 2. rr), is possible if not conclusive (cf. Holleaux, Etudes,
iii. 192 n. 2). If, as seems likely, Holleaux (Etudes, iii. 183--93) is right
in emending Livy, xxxiii. 19. 9 to read 'praemissis ... filiis duobus
<et) Ardye ac Mithridate', it is probably this Mithridates who took
part (along with the Ardys of v. 53· 2) in the campaign of 197 against
Ptolemaic vassals in Cilicia, Lycia, and Caria; and he is probably the
Mithridates mentioned by Agatharchides in the thirty-fifth book of
his Europiaca (FGH, 86 F r6) in relation to the unwarlike attitude
of the Arycandeis of Lycia (cf. E. Meyer, Geschichte des Konigreichs
Pontos (Leipzig, r879), 53 n. I; Niese ii. 640 n. 5; Holleaux, Etudes,
iii. r84 n. 6).
4. a ouv(~a~\1£ T0\1 'll'aT(pa '11'pooo4uo:O.. co~\l ••• TGJ\1 4-opwv: probably Ar-
sames (cf. § 1 n.).
5. O'U\IO~K(aac; alJTC~ Tijv a8EA4-Tjv :t\vnoxlSa: Beloch (iv. 2. 202)
assumes her to be a daughter of Laodice, but she can equally well
have been Antiochus' half-sister. By a slip Paton renders aSE>.f.jv
'daughter'.
24-34. Hannibal's capture of Tarentum

These events are from the second set of res Italiae in viii, and date
to winter 213/12; see above, p. 5; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 334-6. The cap-
ture of Tarentum is the first Italian incident of which P.'s account
survives, since his description of the revolt of Capua and the resis-
tance of Petelia in vii. 1. During the years ZI5/I3 Roman strength
had grown. In 215 Hannibal's further gains in Campania were re-
stricted to the fortress of Casilinum (Livy, xxiii. 17-19), though
among the Bruttii Petelia and Consentia had gone (vii. I. 3 n.; Livy,
xxiii. 30· 5). followed by Croton, Locri (Livy, xxiii. 30. 6-8, xxiv. I;
Diod. xxvi. 13), and Caulonia (Livy, xxvii. 12. 4-6, referring to 209).
In 214 the Romans recovered Casilinum (Livy, xxiv. I9. I-II),
Compsa, and Aecae (Livy, xxiv. 20. 5), and scored a success against
Hanno near Beneventum (Livy, xxiv. 14-I6, I8. I2; Val. Max.
v. 6. 8; Zon. ix. 4); and in 213 Q. Fabius junior recaptured Arpi in
Apulia (Livy, xxiv. 45-47; Appian, Hann. 3I). See DeSanctis, iii. 2.
236-7, 25I-62, 271-4; Hallward, CAH, viii. 75--77. On Hannibal's
capture of Tarentum see also Livy, xxv. 7· Io-n. 2o, which clearly
derives from the same source as P., though it contains details he
omits (see below). Livy's source will be Coelius, P.'s Silenus (cf.
Klotz, Livius, 165-7, against Hesselbarth, 489; Kahrstedt, iii. 257;
DeSanctis, iii. 2. 365-7, who regard P. as Livy's source), and from
the substantial agreement between P. and Livy, both P. and Coelius
100
HANNIBAL'S CAPTURE OF TARENTU11: VIII. 24. r
appear to have followed Silenus fairly closely (Klotz, Livius, r67);
P.'s narrative is written entirely from the Carthaginian point of
view.
24. 1. Tarentum and Pyrrhus. Apparently part of an introduction

to the revolt, which covered the earlier history of Tarentum, its
constitutional development and decay, and a description of its topo-
graphy (cf. 34· 3). There can hardly have been a direct comparison
between the calling in of Pyrrhus, the work of the democracy, and
the appeal to Hannibal by a conspiracy of nobles after provocation
(Livy, xxv. 8. 3, 'trededm fere nobiles iuuenes Tarentini coniura-
uerunt'). References to Tarentineluxury (cf. Wuilleumier, i. 233-5) are
found by the fourth century (cf. Theopompus, FGH, II5 F 1oo (Athen.
iv. 166 E), 233 (A then. iv. 166 E-F), and, for drunkenness, Plato, Laws,
i. 637 B; cf. Athen. iv. 155 F; and they were probably stressed by
Timaeus, who publicized the growth of Tpv</>~ in Sybaris and Croton
which followed the gro·wth of power of these states (cf. vii. I. 2 n.).
The sequence here outlined-prosperity and pride, excessive freedom,
a O€Ct1to7'1)s-- is that attributed, in vii. I. I··-2, to Capua and recalls in
outline the final stages of the anacyclosis (vi. g. 7--9). It is apparently
characteristic of a systematic Greek interpretation of the decline of
Tarentum. Thus Strabo (vi. 28o) traces prosperity under Archytas
(cf. vi. 3· 7 n.), followed by Tpvrp~, deterioration, and the calling in of
foreign condottier£- a process ending in the gratuitous provocation
of Rome and the Pyrrhic War; and Plutarch (Pyrrh. IJ. 2 ff., r6. 2)
also has a version hostile both to Taren tine democracy and to Pyrrhus,
the destroyer of freedom. This version could come from the annalists;
so 0. Hamburger, Untersuchungen uber den pyrrischen Krieg (Diss.
Wurzburg, 1927), 14; Wuilleumier, 104; Leveque, 35-36, 302. But it
seems likely that an account so consistent with Greek political
theorizing comes originally from a Greek source; this could be a
Tarentine aristocratic source transmitted via Timaeus (cf. Schubert,
35; W. Hoffmann, Hermes, 1936, 22). This would not exclude later
adoption of this version by Roman annalists (cf. Livy, xxiii. 7· 5).
The picture of Pyrrhus as 011am:irqc; involves some distortion of the
facts: see the discussion in Niese, ii. 32 n. 3; Wuilleumier, II3;
Leveque, 302-3.
m£KuAE<TI1\'TO nuppov: cf. i. 6. 5 n., ii. 20. 6 n. Pyrrhus crossed over
in May 28o (cf. Leveque, z8s-8), but the Tarentine appeal cannot be
precisely dated within 281.
miua ••• ~A£u0£p'a ••• ~uaw EX'' Kopov AafL~cl.vii:Lv KTA.: cf. vii. I. z
(of Capua), ou IivvaJ.I.€VOt ••• <folp€W Ti;v wapouao.y EVOo.<p.ov{av iK&.Aovv
Tov .l1vvl~av. P. probably means 'democracy' by i>.t£vfhpla (cf. vi. 57· 9,
n<Jv ••• dvoJ.~-O..nuv nl K<LVu.a7ov ••• T~V €A£v6€p{av Kai. b7]J.l-OKpo.Tlav),
and that is how Paton translates it.
IOI
VIII. l-4. 1 HANNIBAL'S CAPTURE OF TARENTUM
Taxu rrcl.Xw fLLO'Ei: 'it quickly goes on to hate him'.
3. e.ls T6.po.vTa. Ka.t TOUS eoup£ous: cf. Livy, XXV. 7· II-14, 8. I-Z,
15. i-8. To secure the loyalty of Thurii and Tarentum the Romans
held hostages from among their leading families and kept them
loosely guarded in the atrium of Libertas at Rome. A Tarentine
named Phileas came to Rome in the guise of a legatus, evidently
backed by the pro-Hannibalic party, and persuaded the hostages
to escape. They were apprehended at Tarracina, brought back to
Rome, scourged and hurled from the Tarpeian rock. News of this
punishment, huius atrocitas poenae (Livy, xxv. 8. 1), precipitated
the revolt of both cities; on Thurii see Livy, xxv. 15. 7-q; App.
Hann. 34· Tct rr/..~BYJ will be the people of Thurii and Tarentum.
4. ws hr' e§o8E1a.v Opj.l~O'O.VTES: cf. Livy, XXV. 8. 4, per speciem ue1~andi.
But in 25. 4 P. distinguishes between Jgoaela, 'a foray', and KUV7Jyia,
'hunting'. The subject is the tredecim Jere nobiles iuuenes who formed
the conspiracy (Liv-y, xxv. 8. 3); and their return with cattle and
prisoners (§ 9) would better suit the alleged foray than Livy's hunt-
ing expedition.
Tfi rra.plifL~oXfi Twv Ka.pxTJSov(wv: Hannibal had remained in the
vicinity 'spe per proditionem urbis Tarentinorum potiundae' (Livy,
xxv. I. 1); on the position of the camp see 26. 2.
o Se ci>LArJtJ-EVos Ka.t N£Kwv: so too Livy, xxv. 8. 5; Appian (Hann. 32)
calls the leader of the conspiracy Cononeus {cf. Frontinus, Strat.
iii. 3· 6). Wuilleumier, i. 150 n. 8, suggests this is another name of
Philemenus, just as Nicon was also called Percon (Livy, xxvi. 39· IS);
but Appian seems to be following a separate tradition.
9. Twv ESEAa.a9EVTwv rrpwt 9pEj.lfLcl.Twv: 'the herds of cattle that would
be driven out to pasture the next morning'.
10. rrtaTLV ••• rrpos TOUS 'ITOhtTO.S: cf. Livy, XXV. 8. 6, 'ut fidem popu-
laribus facerent' ; but this nuance that it was the populares who
were loyal to Rome is not present in P. Fordm)TovKpartr:Troucf. I/. 40.
25. 2. Tas Se Twv 'Pwp.a.£wv otK£a.s ••• ~ha.prratEw: cf. Liv-y, xxv. 8. 8,
prodita praesidia Carthaginiensium fore. Livy adds the promise that
the Tarentines should not receive a Punic garrison against their
will, perhaps implied in P.'s Jl.~T· aAAo f.LYJO'v .l-rma~<.::W Ta.panivo,,
Ka.px1Joovlov>.
7. rnLOV Al~wv: M. Livius in Livy (xxvi. 39· J, xxvii. 25, J, 34· 7},
who adds the cognomen Macatus; d. also Livy, xxiv. 20, 13 (name
restored). In Frontinus (Strat. iii. 3· 6, 17. 3) he has no praenomen;
Appian (Hann. 32) calls him Iunius; and the praenomen Marcus is
also in Plutarch, Fab. 23. 3, Mor. 195 F~196 A. The Livian (and Plu-
tarchean} version is probably, but not certainly, right {contra Klotz,
Rh.Mus. I935, 149 ;Livius, I77n. 3); cf. Munzer, RE, 'Livius (24)', cols.
885-7- Livy reveals his sympathy for his namesake by suppressing
I02
HANKIBAL'S CAPTURE OF TARENTUM VIII. 25.7
S.Coglio
del (
Ton no
te (\\ N,, poli
yo>'
M :1 R I P 1C UH 0
(Tarentum harbour l
c,R I \'[)E
4· PLAN OF TARENTUlii
the commander's name in his account of the fall of the town {Livy,
XXV. 8. IO, 9· 6, IO. J).
Tov 'll'uAwvo. T(w U'll'o Tns TTJJ-LEvt8a.s •.• 'll'oAa.s: 'the gate-tower be-
low the Temenid gate'; the gate by which Philemenus made his
entries was clearly distinct from the Temenid gate, by which Hanni-
bal eventually gained access to the city {cf. z8. z, 29. 4), and of which
Heracleides possessed the keys (xiii. 4· 6). The former evidently
stood near the Temenid gate, but a little to the south of it. The
Temenid gate has been convincingly identified with that in the
eastern wall just south of the Mare Piccolo in the neighbourhood of
Masseria Collepazzo, and north of the modern via di Leece (cf.
Lenormant, La Grande-Grece, i. 104; G.B. dal Lago, Riv. stor. ant. 1,
fasc. 4, 1895-6, 5 ff.; Oehler, RE, 'Tarentum (1)', col. 2308; plan of
Tarentum in the folder to Wuilleumier, scale I: so,ooo). Others place
the Temenid soo m. further south in the Marzullo property
(Viola, Not. d. scav. r88I, 395; Evans, ]HS, r886, s); but this gate is
probably to be identified with that used by Philemenus (so dal
Lago and Oehler, locc. citt.). Alternative locations of Philemenus'
gate still further south and west beside the Salina Piccola can hardly
be reconciled with 29. 4, r~v 1Tapa.KHp.€vrp' '11'VA1J" (i.e. next after the
Tern enid gate). The name Temenid (cf. z8. z; Livy, xxv. 9· 9) probably
!OJ
VIII. 25.7 HANNIBAL'S CAPTURE OF TARENTUM
connects with the Heraclid T~;.tevos; and there may have been a
Temenid gate at Sparta, the mother-city of Tarentum (M. Mayer,
RE, 'Temenos (z)', col. 457). Wuilleumier (i. 243), however, connects
the name ·with Tl.;.tevos {despite the )]), and compares Te;.tevtTt>, a
name referred at Syracuse to a region, a fountain, agate, and Apollo
himself; the road at Tarentum led to the tomb of Apollo Hyacinth us
(28. 2}, probably associated with a -r€;.t€vos. See further Viola, Not. d.
scav. I88I, 393 ff.; dal Lago, Riv. star. ant. i, fasc. 4, r895-6, 5-2r.
8. T~v pwo1nJXTJv: 'the postern-gate'; this evidently lay beside the
main gates, and would be opened for authorized persons after these
were shut (cf. § g, vvKT<h·). Cf. 37· u (at Syracuse}; and for a typical
example, at Phoetiae in Acarnania, see Kitsten, RE, 'Phoitiai',
col. 439·
11. £v TitJ ••• Mouu~;('l.> uuvEyyus TfJS &.yopas: according to Strabo
(vi. 278} the agora lay immediately below, i.e. to the east of the
Acropolis, which formed the extreme west of the town overlooking
the entrance to the harbour. The agora, which contained Lysippus'
colossal Zeus, will therefore have occupied the area between the
present canal, linking the Mare Piccolo with the Mare Grande, and
the public garden, where Greek remains have been found {Viola,
Not. d. scav. I88I, 397; d. Wuilleumier's map and Fig. 4). The
Museum has not been located.
26. 3. 1Tt:pt j.LUpious: 8,ooo foot and 2,ooo horse (29. 2}.
4. ds TplaKovTa. UTa.S(ous: between three and four miles.
6. ws EKa.Tcw EiKouL UTa.Si:ous: about IS miles.
7. uuva.Eipolua.s Tou<; ~YE!1-ova.s: contrast Livy, xxv. 9· 4. conuocatos
milites.
9. !1-1J&€v Uho1Tpa.y~;i:v: 'to do nothing on their own initiative' (Paton).
28. 2. ~_,., 'TdS T 1J!1-EvLl)a.s ••• ,.oXa.s: cf. 25· 7 n.

i.,.t Tou Twpou, 'Tou ••• ~1ToAAwvos •y a.KivEiou: identified by local tradi-
tion with the Erto di Cicalone, a hill about 1,.2oo m. east of the ancient
wall and not far from the Mare Piccolo (see Wuilleumier's map);
cf. Oehler, RE, 'Tarentum (I)', col. 2312. The cult of Hyacinthus,
whom Apollo accidentally killed, is found originally at Amyclae,
where both Apollo and Hyacinth us share the Hyacinthia; they are
not fused into a single deity elsewhere, but clearly the Tarentine
cult derives originally from Laconia. See Eitrem, RE, 'Hyakinthos
(2)', cols. 7-16; G, Giannelli, Culti e miti nella Magna Grecia (Florence,
I924), I8-zo.
3. 'Tou<; .•• 1TEpi Tov Tpa.ytuKov: contrast Livy, xxv. 9· Io, 'redditum
ab Nicone signum'.
5. #JKov £,.t Tous 1"0-ljlous: tombs have been found in the eastern part
of the city. Apart from a few pre-dating the settlement, the earliest
HANNIBAL'S CAPTURE OF TAHENTUM VIII. 29. I
seem to have been outside the walls; but as the city spread east-
wards, the walls took in many tombs, and the Tarentines continued
to bury in the same area, probably influenced by Spartan tradition
(Plut. Lye. 27. I; Dawkins, BSA, I9o6-7, rss) rather than by Messa-
pian custom (Viola, Not. d. scav. I88I, 4I3 ff.; Mommsen, Die un-
teritalischen Dialekte (Leipzig, r8so), 90); or perhaps through habit
they went on laying the new dead beside the old. Wuilleumier, i.
250, records that the eastern part of the ancient town from the walls
to the districts of S. Lucia, the Arsenal, the Tesoro, and Vaccarella
was given over to tombs; the effective boundary between the two
parts of the city seems to have been the Via Regina Elena, west of
which no tomb has been found from after the sixth century B.c.
(R. Bertoccini, Not. d. scav. 1936, ro9).
7. f.LETa TCw 1TAELovwv: a common euphemism for the dead; d.
LSJ, 7TA€GWV.
9. 1Tpos Tov Tou llu9Lov£Kou Tacpov: who he was and how the tomb
survived is unknown.
10. wpf.LTJO'av E1Ti. TTJV m]ATJV: the Temenid gate; the gate-tower here
is of course distinct from that holding the guard friendly to Phile-
menus (cf. 29. s).
12. lhEK01TTov Tous f.LOXAous: cf. vii. r6. 5 n. The Taren tines cut
through the bar in the absence of a {3aA.avdypa to remove the
{3a.Aavoc
13. O'Uf.Lf.LETpws, wan f.LTJOEf.LLav t1TlaTaaw y£v(a9aL: 'having advanced
at precisely the right speed, so that there was no occasion to halt
along the road to the city'. Paton's translation oflTTlaTaatS' 'attention'
('no attention was called to his advance') seems less appropriate:
why should the speed of the march affect the degree of interest it
aroused? The point is surely that Hannibal timed his march to
coincide with the opening of the gate. For iTTlciTaULS', 'halt', d. xiv.
8. 14; Xen. A nab. ii. 4· 26,
29. 1. KaTa TiJv 1TAaTEiav TiJv 6.1To T"l'> Ba9E(as .ivacp(pouaav: cf. 33· 6;
'by the street leading from the Deep Road'. TTAania could be a proper
name, as in Miletus (Syll. 57, l. 27); but it is usually just 'a street';
d. 30. 9, 34· 9, xv. 30.4; LSJ, TTAanl,. The topography is not yet clear.
The Deep Road clearly formed one limit of the lo\\ er city running
from east to west (33· 6} ; and it is likely that it ran along the shore
of the ~lare Piccolo more or less where Wuilleumier's map puts it.
This would fit the assumption of dal Lago (Riv. star. ant. i, fasc. 4,
r895-6, ro) and Oehler (RE, 'Tarentum (I}', col. 2309) that named
streets were restricted to the western, built-up part of the city. But
Hannibal appears to have followed the Deep Road for some dis-
tance before turning up the TTAaT€ia leading to the agora. Probably
he advanced from the Temenid Gate through the Pizzone area to the
VIII. 29. I HANNIBAL'S CAPTURE OF TARENTUM
Mare Piccolo in the neighbourhood of the Villa Carducci, east of S.
Lucia, and then followed the Deep Road along the north side of the
city, eventually turning south towards the agora. See Wuilleumier,
i. 245 (with full bibliography); Kromayer-Veith, Schlachtenatlas,
Rom. Abt. 7· 4 (where, however, Hannibal leaves the coast too soon,
at S. Lucia). As Wuilleumier, loc. cit., observes, Hannibal had an
interest in marching low down beside the harbour, both to avoid an
early alarm and to seize the port itself. The exact position of the
7rAaTEi:a is undetermined; but it probably ran east of the transverse
road of 34· 9·
3. Ka.Tci uope(a.v: 'in marching order' (d. iv. 69. 3), not in acie
(Reiske and Schweighaeuser).
4. Eui TfJV ua.pa.KELflEVT)\1 uuXT)v: south of the Temenid Gate; here
Philemenus was well known (25. 7 n.).
5. KO.Ta.~O.L\IW\1 upos TfJ\1 fiL\IO"ITUXT)\1: from the 'TrVAwv (zs. 7).
6. upos a.LJTC)v n OLa.TE(vew: 'that it had some relevance to himself';
on liLaTELvELv, pertinere, cf. Welles, 326.
7. TfJ\1 upWTT)\1 exwv xwpa.v TOU <jlopiJfla.TOS: 'occupying the first
place among those carrying the stretcher'. In Livy, xxv. 9· 14,
Philemenus brings up the rear of the procession.
vofla.OLKfJ\1 ... OLa.aKeui)v: 'herdsman's clothing'.
9. Tous 11oxXous: of the main gate (d. 28. r2).
10. upoijyov ws eut TfJV cl.yopciv: presumably by the direct route past
the Tesoro (see Wuilleumier's map, and the route shown in
Kromayer-Veith, Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abt. 7· 4).
30. 6. Eut TfJV uuXT)v TfJV <jlepouaa.v Eut Tov XLflEVa.: this gate, opening
into the Mare Piccolo, is located by Viola (Not. d. scav. r88r, 393),
dal Lago (Riv. star. ant. i, fasc. 4, r895--6, 8) and Evans (]HS, r886,
4 plan) towards S. Lucia; but there is no reason to locate it so far
east, and the commander's house was probably fairly near the
acropolis. Wuilleumier (i. 242-3) suggests that this gate is the one
at the north end of the street mentioned in 34· 9, at the very western
end of the lower town.
t:ts TfJV CiKpa.v ua.pt:KOf1L0'9TJ: 'he was conveyed along the coast to the
citadel'.
7. aTaVTES eut To 9ea.Tpov: the site is uncertain. According to Florus
(i. 13. 3 f.) 'imminet portui ad prospectum maris positum theatrum'.
Viola (Not. d. scav. r88r, 407) suggested that it was later converted
into the Roman amphitheatre found south-east of the church del
Carmine (see Wuilleumier's map); but there is no archaeological
support for this, and Wuilleumier (i. 248) suggests that following
normal Greek practice the theatre was built on the side of the
Castello, in the south-west of the town (if indeed it lay within the
lower town), or alternatively on the slope above the Mare Piccolo,
ro6
HANNIBAL'S CAPTURE OF TARENTUM VIII. 33· 6
to the east of the Peripato. For this theatre see also Dion. Hal. xix.
5· 2-3; Dio, ix, fg. 39· 5; Oros. iv. I. I; Hesych. s.v. op6/-LO>.
ia-IJ11mvov: according to Livy (xxv. ro. 4) a single trumpet 'inscienter
a Graeco inflata quis aut quibus signum claret incertum efficiebat'.
10. Ta~a.a9a.L To au11~a.'Lvov: 'to form a clear idea of what had hap-
pened'. The sense is unusual. Schweighaeuser comments: 'TC1.taa8a,
apud P. saepe ponitur pro awTC1.taa8aL. itaque, quemadmodum
TataaBal TLVL (uel7rp6> TLva) mc:pl TLvo> uel seq. infmitiuo, ii. 59· 8, v. 9· 3
etc., ... significat constituere cum aliquo, agere cum aliquo; sic Tataa-
8al TL absque casu personae denotare poterit constituere aliquid
secum, et uelut in animo suo aliquid componere et ordinare, id est,
certam sibi notionem rei injormare, certum iudicium jerre.' Cf. Livy,
xxv. ro. 1, 'quid rei esset nemo satis pro certo scire'.
31. 3. <jlLXa.v9pwTrous OLeXex911 Myous: according to Livy xxv. ro. 8

he spoke of his generosity towards Tarentines captured at Trasimene
and Cannae; as there will have been no Tarentines at Trasimene,
Livy evidently had this detail from Coelius (cf. Klotz, Livius, r66).
4. imyp6.1fa.L TAPANTINOY: contrast Livy, xxv. ro. 9, 'fori bus
nomen suum inscribere'; this variant may be an autoschediasma
(d. Klotz, Livius, 165).
6. To us eTrLTT)OELoTaTous <Twv) e1rt Twv Trpa.yf16.Twv: 'the most suitable
of his officers'; cf. Dem. xviii. 247. The emendation is Campe's.
32. 3. Tra.p6.XXT)Xov Tc;, TELXEL rils aKpomSXews: probably along the

line of the canal (built in 148o by Ferdinand of Aragon), which
separates the citadel on its eastern side from the lower town (cf.
Wuilleumier, i. 240, with map); the wall and ditch which here forti-
fied the acropolis (Livy, xxv. 11. 1, 'ab ipsa urbe muro et fossa
ingenti saeptam') were probably west of the line of this canal
(Oehler, RE, 'Tarentum (r)', cols. 2304-5).
33. 5. iK f1ETa.~oX11s: 'by contrast', i.e. the mound is contrasted with

the ditch. Schweighaeuser is more elaborate: 'lK /-LETa{3oAij> uero
recte uice uersa est interpretatus: scilicet arx ab urbe separata erat
fossa, quae a parte urbis erat, et muro, qui a parte arcis; nunc, uice
uersa, urbs aduersus arcem munita erat fossa, quae arcem spectabat,
et ualido aggere cum uallo, qui muri instar erat, a parte urbis.' This
is over-subtle; especially since part of this 'reversed defence' is the
Ta</>po> already mentioned in § 4·
6. aTrO TllS Iwn(pa.s ~ws ELS T~\1 Ba.9e'La.v Trpoo-a.yopEUOflE\IT)\1: these
two streets indicate the extremities of the wall from the Mare Grande
to the Mare Piccolo. On the Deep Road cf. 29. 1 n. Dal Lago (Riv.
stor. ant. i, fasc. 4, r895-6, n) identifies the Saviour Road with an
ancient way which, after following the coast, turns inland past the
107
VIII. 33· 6 HA~NIBAL'S CAPTURE OF TARENTUM
Masseria della Vaccarella to reach the eastern wall near the Masseria
del Carmine (see \Vuilleumier's map and Fig. 4): but the details are
uncertain. See Oehler, RE, 'Tarentum (1)', col. 2310; Wuilleumier,
i. :245-6. l}dJT££pa may refer to Poseidon, worshipped as awrqp at
Tarentum (JG, xiv. 54; cf. Wuilleumier, i. 246, 479).
<
8. 'll'apa TOV 'II'OTQ.!lOV TOv) ••• r a.Aa.iaov ••• EopwTa.v: for the double
name cf. Schol. ad Pind. Ol. vi. 46. For the river cf. Virgil, Georg.
iv. 125-6, 'sub Oebaliae ... turribus arcis, qua niger umectat flauentia
culta Galaesus'; Hor. Od. ii. 6. ro; Prop. ii. 34· 67; Mart. ii. 43· 3,
iv. z8. 3, v. 37· 2, xii. 63. 3; Stat. Situ. ii. 2. II r, iii. 3· 93· Since Lenor-
mant (La Grande-Grece, i. rg) it has been identified with the small
stream which runs past the village of Citrezze; this is about 6oo yds.
from source to mouth, and enters the Mare Piccolo on its north
side about 2 miles from Tarentum (see Wuilleumier, 5, with criticism
of other views). Though supported by local tradition and the pre-
sence of a chapel of S. Maria di Galeso, this identification does not
fit P.'s figures, which are confirmed by Livy, xxv. rr. 8, 'quinque
milia ab urbe a best'. Hannibal's camp must have been east of
Tarentum; and T. J. Dunbabin (CQ, 1947, 93-94) plausibly iden-
tified the Galaesus with what is now a drainage channel in a concrete
bed, the Ajedda, which flows into the eastern end of the Mare Piccolo
at the right distance from Tarentum. 'This site, besides offering
ready communication with the town ... could give Hannibal a
pivotal position from which he could move all or part of his forces
north or west as required' (Dunbabin, loc. cit.).
9. T1)v li'I'I'OlK,av Ka.l. T1)v auyyivewv ••• 1TfO'> Aa.Ke8aLI:iovlous: Taren-
tum (Taras) was traditionally founded from Sparta after the First
1\fessenian War, to get rid of a base-born element, the Partheniae, of
whose origins several accounts exist (cf. xii. 6 b 5 n.; Strabo, vi.
278-8o; Ps.-Scymn. 330 ff.; Paus. iii. I2. 5-6. X. IO. 6-8; Dion. HaL
xix. r. 2-3; Arist. Pol. vii (v). 7· 13o6 b zg; Iustin. iii. 4). The oecist
was Phalanthus, a figure with many mythological accretions (such
as his rescue by a dolphin, Paus. x. 13. ro); and it has been suggested
that the first landing was at Satyrion, some r2 km. south-east of
the later town (Wuilleumier, i. 46). The foundation is dated to 7o6
(Euseb.-Hieronymus, Chron. p. 159, Fotheringham). See Wuilleumier,
L 9-47 (with an account of the pre-Laconian inhabitants); Dunbabin,
z8-3r. Oehler, RE, 'Tarentum (r)', cols. 2302-13, is wholly topo-
graphical. The Laconian characteristics of Tarentum are well
marked.
34. I. tiC METa.'ll'ovTtou: still loyal to Rome; but the reduction in the
strength of its garrison precipitated its revolt (Livy, xxv. r5. 6;
App. Hann. 35) ; and with Metapontum went Heraclea (App. ibid.).
On the revolt of Thurii see 24. 3 n.
roB
HANNIBAL'S CAPTURE OF TARE::•l'TUM VIII. 35· r
3. Twv KaTn Tov Eiu11'A.ouv 'T'011'WV: P.'s account of the topography
(Jis i'Tl'&.vw npor;inov) was in the lost section introducing the fall of
Tarentum (cf. 24. r n.). At its north-western end the citadel is sepa-
rated from the suburb Scoglio del Tonno by a narrow channel, now
only r2o-so m. ;vide (Oehler, RE, 'Tarentum (1)', coL 2304); Strabo
(vi. 278) mentions fortifications on both sides of the channel, which
gave access to the inner harbour in the :Mare Piccolo, and his
reference to a bridge (where the Ponte di Napoli now crosses) is
confirmed for the time of Hannibal by Appian (Hann. 34, Kai T6v
lu8p.dv ('channel') d?TlKAEtov yErpvpats). But the victualling of the
citadel seems to have been by sea (KaTd: 86.Aarrav; cf. §In. and App.
Hann. 34 for victualling from Thurii before its revolt).
6. Toi.iTo 8' tjv ••• ciSUvaTov: the Punic ships were needed for Syracuse
(Livy, xxv. II. r2; Thiel, g6).
9. TTJV 11'AaTE'lav .•• £vTot; Toll 8laTELX(O"f'«TO'i: this road (3o. 6 n.)
ran from north to south at the western end of the lower town, and
no doubt gave access to the sea through a gate at either end (cf.
Oehler, RE, 'Tarentum (r)',col. 23o6 ;Wuilleurnier, 244). It must have
run alongside the agora, probably west of it, where the modem
Corso Due Mari now runs. No traces of the ancient road have been
found (Viola, Not. d. scav. r88r, 395--6; dal Lago, Riv. stor. ant. i,
fasc. 4, r895-6, r2).
11. 11'opElwv \moTpoxwv: 'wheeled trucks'. Hannibal contrived a
8toAKos, though apparently using carriages for his ships, not rollers
as at the Isthmus of Corinth (iv. 19. 9 n.); Livy's account (xxv. n.
I8-rg) is rather fuller. Appian (Hann. 34) says that the Tarentines
dug a canal (ru8p.ov l-rEpov) and floated the ships through.
&lla T<'e My!¥ Toupyov £tA.Tj4>u uuvTeAELa.v: a semi-proverbial expres-
sion: cf. Wunderer, i. 17·
13. E11't TOV e€ cl.pxfi'> xapaKa: i.e. his camp three days from Taren-
tum (26. 2), not that by the Galaesus (33· 8).
To AOL11'0V Toll xnf'wvot;: i.e. winter 2I3(r2; cf. above, p. 5·
35-36. Some victim.s of treachery

These chapters should be left at the beginning of viii, as their position
in the excerpta antiqua suggests; see above, pp. 3-4. In what context
this digression occurred is not known; but since Ti. Gracchus' death,
the subject which gives rise to the discussion, occurred in 212, it
cannot have been the cause of the digression but must have come
up in the course of it.
35. 1. oTl T l[3ipLo~ ••• K«TEaTpElj~Ev: from M, where the epitomator

has compressed the words; P. would have written T<fllp•os. Ti.
Sempronius Ti.f. Ti.n. Gracchus (cf. Munzer, RE, 'Sempronius (sr)',
Io:J
VIII. 35· I SOME VICTIMS OF TREACHERY
cols. 1401-3) had been consul in zrs and again in 213, and had been
occupied mainly in Apulia. In 212 he was led into an ambush by
Flavus, a Lucanian leader, on a pretext of reassuring other Luca-
nians who were allegedly contemplating rejoining the Romans, and
there massacred; cf. Livy, XXV. I5. I8-I6. 24; Val. Max. i. 6. 8, v.
I ext. 6; App. Hann. 35; Oros. iv. 16. 15; Zon. ix. 5; Cic. Tusc. i. 89;
Sil. It. xii. 473-8; Polyaen. vi. 38. r (?); AmpeL 28. 4· According to
this version, which is clearly also P.'s, Gracchus perished 'in Lucanis
ad campos qui Veteres uocantur' (Uvy, xxv. r6. 25); but Livy knows
two other versions (Livy, xxv. q. 1-3), one setting his death 'in agro
Beneuentano prope Calorem fluuium' and another which associates
it with the expiation of a prodigy. He concludes that 'nee locus nee
ratio mortis in uiro tam claro et insigni constat' (Livy, xxv. 17. 3).
For discussion see Munzer, loc. cit.
TO. '1l'Clp' &.v9pw'1l'Ol'; wplUtJ.EVCl 6£KnLa.: the Lucan ian Flavus was
Gracchus' hospes, as well as owing allegiance to him as imperator
(Livy, XXV. 16. 6).
' OUo
2 , OU, tJ.tJV , "' ClUTO
• '9 EV 0.1TOUTClTEOV
' ' ~
T'J}S , A.'
(1.1TO't'i1UEWS : ' neve rth e1eSS
we should not at once abandon all attempt to make a statement
about this'. &:rr64>aut~ is a 'general statement or pronouncement'
(rather than 'a judgement': so Mauersberger); cf. i. 14. 8 n., 57. 4;
and the USe of a1To4>~vau8a£ in § I, which iS echoed here.
3-5. Archidamus of Sparta: on this example see v. 37· r n.; also the
discussion of E. Gabba, A then. 1957, 41-48.
5, Tijs ••• il'l!'o9iaEws Tflo; aoTflo; !lEVOUUtJS: 'the situation being still
the same'. Here 1'm60Eat~ seems to mean 'presupposition of an action'.
t}uywv TrpbTepov: cf. § 3· After Cleomenes' accession, according toP.;
but Plutarch (i.e. Phylarchus) may be right in dating it to 24I on
the murder of Agis (Plut. Cleom. r. I). P. who is concentrating on
Archidamus' death and Cleomenes' responsibility, follows a version
which insists on Cleomenes' hostility throughout; cf. Gabba, A then.
1957· 44 ff.
6-8. Pelopidas of Thebes. Pelopidas, the son of Hippocles, was one
of Epaminondas' confederates in the recovery of the Cadmeia from
the Spartans and the restoration of Theban democracy in winter
379 (Diod. xv. 25-37; Plut. Pelop. 8-12; Xen. Hell. v. 4· r-r8). In
winter 37o{69, as Boeotarch, he accompanied Epaminondas on his
first Peloponnesian expedition (Xen. Hell. vi. 5· :23 ff.; Diod. xv.
6:2. 4-67. I; Plut. Pelop. :24; Ages. Jr ff.); and in 369 and J68 he led
expeditions into Thessaly, invited by the cities there to help them
against Alexander, tyrant of Pherae (see below). In the latter year
he met Alexander's army near Pharsalus and rashly went on an
embassy to him accompanied by Ismenias (Plut. Pelop. 27 ; Diod.
xv. 71. z; Paus. ix. 15. r-z). The two were held, and a Theban army
which was sent at once failed to recover them; it was only in spring
IIO
SOME VICTIMS OF TREACHERY VIII. 37
J6i that Epaminondas forced Alexander to surrender them (Diod.
xv. iS· 2; Plut. Pelop. ; Paus. ibid.).
6. n)v ~A.e€6.v8pou ••• 1ra.pa.vo11£a.v: Alexander, son of Polydorus, and
nephew of Jason, murdered his uncle Polyphron and succeeded him
on the throne of Pherae in 369 (Diod. xv. 61. 2; Beloch, iii. :z. 83);
he reigned till 358/i (Diod. xv. 6r. 2). He is reputed to have buried
his enemies alive or dressed them in the skins of wild animals and then
hunted them down, and to have massacred the populations of Meliboea
and Scotussa (Plut. Pelop. 29, 31; Diod. xv. 75· I); but this hostile
tradition is certainly exaggerated (cf. Westlake, Thessaly, 156-9).
-ri]s Twv 'EA.A.-Itvwv OTJf.I.OKpa.Tla.s: P. is thinking of Epaminondas'
actions in the Peloponnese, especially the founding of Megalopolis
and the restoration of Messenia (d. iv. 32. 10 n.). Thebes favoured the
Peloponnesian democrats, the oligarchs leaning towards Sparta and
Athens (d. Beloch, iii. I. Ii5; Busolt-Swoboda, ii. 1404); but the
extent of democracy should not be exaggerated (see, against Voll-
gra:ff, Mnem. 19r4, 339 f., Plassart, BCH, 1915, 122-4). On the demo-
cratic government of Thebes and of the Boeotian League see Busolt-
Swoboda, ii. 1423 ff.; Larsen, ji-72, 84.
7. 1ra.pwv ets 9eTTa.Ma.v 11'0AE11~os : in 368 ; cf. 6-8 n.
1rpea~euew ••• lieuTepov: no earlier embassy of Pelopidas to Alexander
of Pherae is recorded. In the previous year (36g) after Pelopidas' cap-
ture of Larissa, there had been contact between the two; but according
to Plutarch (Pelop. z6. :z) Alexander was then in Pelopidas' hands.
9. Cn. Scipio: the reference is to Cn. Cornelius L.f. Cn.n. Scipio
Asina, consul for 260/59. who surrendered to the enemy in Lipara
harbour. For discussion see i. zr. 7 n. In attributing his capture to
treachery, P. here seems to follow a Roman version of the incident.
36. 3. yuva.~KES: cf. ix. II. 4, x. 35· I, 38. 4· According to Duris (FGH,
76 F 18 = Athen. xiii. 6os) Cleonymus of Sparta was the first man
(presumably in Greece) to exact female hostages. On the sending
of Cratesicleia, Cleomenes' mother, to Ptolemy III cf. Plut. Cleom.
22. 3· 38. z-3. By P.'s time it was evidently normal practice. See
further A. Aymard, JRS, 1961, 137-9; cf. Bull. Soc. A ntiq. France,
1952-3, 53-54·
6. To Twv Ka.Ta A.6yov +povr~£w: 'to take reasonable precautions'
(Paton).
7. lvo.pyEO"Ta.Tov li' ic:M'a.l ••. To Ka.T' ~xmov au11~6.v: P. looks for-
ward (f'O"ra') to 15-2I, where this will be related (see above, p. 4).
37. The capture of Epipolae

This extract is from the res Siciliae of the second half of viii. covering
01. 141, 4 212 (see above, pp. 6-8). It deals with Marcellus'
III
VIII. 37 THE CAPT"CRE OF EPIPOLAE
capture of the wall near the Hexapyla, and so of the whole of

Epipolae, an event falling early in 212; see further Livy, xxv. 23.
r-31. II; Frontin. Strat. iii. 3· 2; Polyaen. viii. II. The previous
year (d. 7· r2 n.) had ended with Syracuse still blockaded by a
Roman army now reinforced by a fourth legion (7. 8 n.), while
Himilco wintered at Murgantia, a large depot that had defected to
Carthage. A Punic fleet of fifty-five ships under Bomilcar had pene-
trated the Great Harbour, but being outnumbered had soon re-
turned to Carthage (Livy, xxiv. 36. 3-39. 13).
37. 1. ~~"lP'9!J-t1aaTo Tous 56~J-ous: d. Livy, xxv. 23. 8-12; Plut.

Marc. r8. The Spartan Damippus (d. vii. 5· 3) had been taken
prisoner by the Romans on his way as envoy from Syracuse to
Philip V ; and the Romans, in order to placate the Spartans and
through them the Aetolians, whose help in Greece they were already
courting, expressed willingness to discuss his ransom. During several
meetings held for this purpose near the portzts Trogilorum, beside
a tower called Galeagra, one of the Romans counted the courses
in the wall and found it to be lower than had been thought. H. W.
Parke (]HS, 1944, roo--2) has made a strong case for locating portus
Trogilorum (the Trogilus of Thuc. vi. 99· r and vii. 2. 4) at S.
Panagia, a ravine and harbour north-east of Scala Graeca (Hexa-
pyla) (d. 3· 2 n.), and the Galeagra tower will be a tower in the
Dionysian wall approximately where, a little to the west of S.
Panagia, it turns southwards and up the slope towards the Scala
Graeca. The meeting-place was therefore near the site of the attack
mentioned in 3· 6. Hence the Romans were familiar with the wall
hereabouts, but (perhaps because it stood on a slope) had over-
estimated its height (cf. Livy, xxv. 23. 12, 'humilioremque aliquanto
pristina opinione sua et ceterorum omnium ratus esse'). In 428 the
Plataeans used the same method to estimate the Theban wall of
circumvallation: Thuc. iii. 20. 3-4.
~v yap .•• c{l~eoSo!J-"l!J-Evos: though Livy (xxv. 23. 8-r2) refers only to
the height of the wall, it is clear from Plut. Marc. r8. 2, mpyov T'Va
KUTHTKEtPUTO <f>vAaTTOf.L€VOV f.LEV df.L€Aws, avopas o€ OVVUf.L€VOV oltaaiJa,
o
Kpv<f>a, that the subject is 7Tl1pyos (as Schweighaeuser saw). Hultsch,
o
who misunderstands Schweighaeuser, prefers 7Tepl{JoAo>, but Plu-
tarch puts the matter beyond doubt. The postern gate referred to
may be that described by P. Orsi, Not. d. scav. r893. r68 (sketch on
p. qo}; d. Holm, Gesch. Sic. iii. 36o. But Holm admits that that is a
large gate, and a smaller one which stood nearby may be the one
referred to here.
2. !J-ETa Se nvas ..)~J-epac;: after Marcellus received the information
about the wall: d. Livy, xxv. 23. 13-14.
9ua(av .•. miVOl]!J-OV ••• :A.pTE!J-101: cf. Livy, xxv. 23. 14; Plut.
II2
THE CAPTURE OF EPIPOLAE VIII. 37· 9
Marc. r8. 3· Artemis was worshipped under several cult titles at
Syracuse, where there was a month Artamitios; cf. Wernicke, RE,
'Artemis (2)', cols. 1407-8; Bohringer, Die }.funzen von Syrakus
(Berlin-Leipzig, 1929), 9s-ro2. \'le are well informed about, and
possess three accounts of the origins of, the great spring festival of
purification to Artemis L yaea : see the Prolegomena to Theocritus,
in H. L.A. Ahrens, Bucolicorum graecorum reliquiae (Leipzig, x8ss-9},
ii. 5; Diomedes, Grammatic£ Iatini (ed. Keil), i. 486; Probus on Virgil,
Eel. introd. (quoted in full in Nilsson, Griechische Feste, 2oo-1). But
whether this is the festival referred to here, and what is the relation
of either to the festival of Artemis in Theoc. ii. 66--68, is not known;
they may be identical (Nilsson, op. cit. 207).
'ITO"uv Sf. Iupa.~<oulwv: it seems odd that the Syracusans had state
cellars distinct from those available to Epicydes (d. DeSanctis, iii. 2.
367). Livy (xxv. 23. 14) reads only ab Epicyde praebito but adds
'universae plebei et per tribus a principibus diuiso'. Perhaps here
(and elsewhere in this section, from the 1TI'pt crrpaT'/Y'IP.chwv) the
transmission of P.'s text is faulty.
'ITpoua.va."a.~wv ••• Ta.11'EWOTEpov: 1rpoaava>.af3wv has no real sense
here. Hultsch translates 'postquam (e longinquo) muri altitudinem
(secundum trianguli rationem) recepit', thus assuming the use of
trigonometry to calculate the height of the wall; and elsewhere (RE,
'Dioptra', cols. 1073-4) he assumes the use of the ¢,61TTpa (on which
see ix. 19. 9 n., x. 46. I n.). But the height was already known from
the counting of regular courses and neither Livy nor Plutarch men-
tions any other method. Biittner-\:Vobst therefore seems justified in
preferring Suidas, llvavEwaap.EVos and Ilpoaavavlf.wa&p.evos, for an
alternative reading: cl o€ M&.pKOS' 1rpoaavavEwaap.€YOS' n)v TOV n:lxovs
T<HTHVOT1)Ta • • • l1T€{3a.>.ETo KaTa1T€tpd.{Hv ri'js €>.moos, 'recalling to
mind the lowness of the wall etc.' Perhaps what P. wrote was
T6u 7TpoaavavEwad.p.€vos oll'iapKos To TE'i'xos KaO' op.lpos 'ljv Ta7TELI!bTEpov,
'recalling the wall where it was rather low', 'recalling the low point
on the wall'.
3. ~<a.t To'Ls J.lEV E1rl1"1'}1iEloLs ••• EKowoAoyei:To: as it stands not Polybian
(so rightly Hultsch and Biittner-Wobst) ; but the sense is clear.
Livy (xxv. 23. rs) has 'electisque ... ad rem tantam agendam
audendamque idonets centurionibus militibusque'.
5. 1rpoaa.va.11v~ua.s: i.e. to those due to scale the walls.
7. e~ a.uTTjs: sc. ri/s KAlp.aKos, understood from K>.lp.aKas.
9. E'II'L1rOpEuo!1EVOL n)v €4>o5Eia.v: cf. X. IS. I.
ot yO.p Eis Tous m)pyovs ~8poLatLevo&: either the excerptor has
omitted Twv <fov>.aKwv after .qBpotap.ivo' (so H ultsch) or, more probably,
one should omit oi (-y;'ith Anon. de obsid. tol. 59 (320 Thevenot), who
quotes this passage) and read El:; yap Tovs Trvpyous ~()po,ap.illo' • ••
ol p.€v KTA.
8H17ll I IIJ
VIII. 37· lO THE CAPTURE OF EPIPOLAE
10. To'L; p.ev 'ITpwTo~; ~eat To'i; ~€fi;: 'those in the front tower and that
next to it'.
f'ITUOTJ ••• 1\yy~~ov tca.Ta.~a.lvovns: the present participle is very awk-
ward and suggests compression by the excerptor.
11. lv~tco8op.1JP.EV11V ~v '11'pli!T1]v 'ITuM8a 8uiiAov: T reads TrJII a?TvAtOa.
and Mueller's Ttva ?TuMSa (cf. iv. 71. 7; Thuc. vi. 51. r) seems pre-
ferable to Wescher's ?TpwT1)V, adopted by Hultsch and Biittner-
Wobst. Livy, xxv. 24. 3 has 'prope Hexapylon est portula; ea magna
ui refringi coepta est', and that it was the first postern seems of
no significance. Jv<tJKOOOf.t'1Jf.tEv1JV will be 'built into the wall'; cf.
Polyaen. i. 40. 4· Since the Romans descended inside the gate, it is
not clear why they had to burst it open, unless this is simply a
reference to cutting through the bars in the absence of a {3a,\a.vaypa.
(cf. 28. 12 n., vii. r6. 5 n.).
s,• Tj; , •• (JTpO.nup.a.: the excerptor summarizes the event; Livy,
xxv. 24. 3 ff. gives a truer version. The following word, inaccurate
since the immediate seizure was restricted to Epipolae, also belongs
to the excerptor.
12. o\)8evos E'ITEYV(J)f(0TOS IC'I'A.: cf. Livy, XXV. 24. 6, 'magna pars
tamen ignara tanti mali erat et grauatis omnibus uino somnoque et
in uastae magnitudinis urbe pa.rtium sensu non satis pertinente in
omnia'. Further, the point of attack, the Hexapyla, was on the
opposite side of Epipolae from the city proper.
13. Tous 8E 'Pwp.a.£ou; ••• TO'II'ou: cf. Livy, xxv. 24. 9, 'omnia circa
Epipolas armis completas'; but Livy does not mention Roman con-
fidence in this sentence.
P. will have continued his account of Sicilian events in viii down

to the seizure of Syracuse proper, like Livy, xxv. 23. r-31. II, See
Niese, ii. 532--9; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 297--9, 305-8; Hallward, CAH,
viii, 67--69 (the two latter date the fall of the city to spring, 211; but
see above, pp. 6-8).
38. Fragment on Spanish affairs

For this pa.<;sage, from Suidas, cf. Livy, xxv. 36. 7· It describes
measures taken by Cn. Scipio to defend his forces, trapped
on an eminence. For the death of the two Scipios see Livy,
xxv. 32. 1-36. r6, dating to zu (see above, p. 8); hence it will
have been related in ix, and the present extract should precede
ix. u.
38. 1Ta.p0. 'ITnVTa.S xO.pa.KClS aacpa.AEaTa.Tov: Livy, XXV, 36. 7. 'ut

imaginem ualli obicerent', is less sanguine.
114
FRAGMENTS VIII. 38 b z
38 b. Fragments of uncertain position

38 b 1. 'Ayt<a.pu: no Italian town of this name is known ; hence the
context seems beyond recapture.
2. Ao~vov ... lnrot-u\vc;w: the context is unknown, for this fragment
from the excerpts on virtue and vice may be from vii as easily as
from the early part of viii (see above, p. 8),
BOOK IX
l-2. On different types of history
This extract contrasting political history vv'ith oyeveat\oyLK~S Tpo7TOS
and the study of the foundations of colonies and relationships is
from the 1TpotKBH:n> to 01. 142; cf. § I and see above, p. 8.
l. l. inro rijs 1rpoe~pru.~.~'lc; 6A.up.1TLa8oc;: OJ. r42 ; the present dis~

cussion will have followed a catalogue of its main events, now lost.
For this use of the 1TpotK(hcrLs see iii. r. 5 n.
TOV TETPUETOOS s~a.aT.ftp.a.Tos, 0 ~Uj.I.EV 8ei:v OAUj.1.1Tlcl8a. VOt.J.LtE~v: P.
seems to be distinguishing between the Olympiad proper and the
manipulated Olympiad (see Vol. I, pp. 35-37) which he uses as the
basis of his chronology; for it is hard to take this phrase, with
Paton, as a simple definition of an Olympiad as a period of four
years. See further Pedech, Methode, 451 ff.
tv Suat ~U~ALO\S: viz. ix and X; his normal procedure (d. xiv. I. s).
2. a.bO'T1']pOV n Ka.t 1Tpos EV y£vos aKpOUTWV otKe~ooaea.\: what type
of reader this is we learn in § 4· There are no solid grounds for re-
garding this remark as from a second edition and intended to answer
criticisms already made (so Leo, 326 n. 1; d. vi. n. 3).
KplvEa9a.L: 'has the approval' viz. of such a reader; this is preferable
to Schweighaeuser, Lex. Polyb. s.v., 'chosen and approved by P. for
only one type of reader'.
3. 1rO.aL Tois rijs taTopla.s p.£pEm: defined in § 4; in contrast to TO
p.ovo£L8~, (§ 2) in his own narrative.
4. Tov ••• cfnA..ftKoov b yevea.A.oyLKOS Tp61roc;: cf. 2. r, T<i 7repl Tas
yev•a.Aoylas Kal ~-tv8ovs; it dealt with the 'mythical' period and
fabulous origins of various kinds. Surviving fragments of the writers
of this form of history are assembled in FGH, vol. i; they include
Hecataeus, Acusilaus, Hellanicus, and others, and their histories
involved the working over and reduction to some kind of chrono-
logical scheme of epic material (cf. Jacoby, Atthis, 134). Even after
rationalization the legends contained many impossibilities; and
Asclepius of Myrleia, writing in the second century B.c., in a division
of Td iaToptKov into three categories, true, false and seeming-true
(ws d.,\1)9~>), counts only Td y•veat\oy•Kov as false, while reckoning as
true narratives 7Tepl Ta 7Tpocruma Bewv Kat ~pwwv Kat dv8pwv £m¢avwv,
-rr•pl Tovs To1Tovs Kat xpovovs and 1TE:pi T<is rrp&.geLS (Sext. Emp. adv.
gramm. i. 252). Hence, though ¢t>.~Koos elsewhere can mean simply
'the reader' (cf. iv. 40. I, xxxi. 23. 1), here it clearly has the slightly
derogatory sense of casual reader (cf. vii. 7· 8 n.).
II6
ON DIFFERENT TYPES OF HISTORY IX. 2. I
Tov 1ToAu1rpayllova. Ka.i 1TEpLTTov: 'the curious and lover of recondite

lore' (Paton); or, as we should say, the man with antiquarian in-
terests.
b 1TEpi Tas a1TOLKLO.S KQ.L KTL<7ELS Ka.i o-uyyeve~a.s: 'colonies, foundations
of cities, and ties of kindred'; these topics find their way into the
yt:vm.\oyiat, and into local history, but they also occur in general
histories like those of Ephorus (d. xxxiv. r. 3-4 = Strabo, x. 465)
and Timaeus (xii. 26 d 2).
Ka.M. 1rou Ka.i 1ra.p' 'E~op~ AEyETa.L: 'as Ephorus also remarks some-
where or other' (d. Hirzel, 896 n. I}. Paton, 'such as we find, for in-
stance, in Ephorus', despite xxxiv. I. 3-4, seems less satisfactory.
Ephorus' observation will have referred to both the genealogies and
the accounts of city-foundations, but not, judging by P.'s placing
of this remark, 'political history'.
Tov ••• 1roAmKov: 'the statesman'; see Vol. I, pp. 6-8.
b 1repi. Tas 1rpa~ELS TGw €9vwv Ka.l1roAewv Ka.i Suva.oTwv: i.e. political
(and military) history. As a comprehensive list of political entities,
'peoples, cities, and rulers' appears (with slight variants) elsewhere:
cf. Diod. xix. 57· 3 (Antigonus I in 3I5); OGIS, 229 l. I I (Smyrnean
decree of c. 244); Syll. 590, II. I2-I4 (aav.\ta of Didyma, c. I96); OGIS,
441, l. I32 (time of Sulla); Syll. 760 (time of Caesar; see Keil's notes
there for more examples); Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, 502-3, 1347,
1439-40, discussing the meaning of €8v7J. Larsen (CP, I945. 78 n. 72;
cf. Representative Government, 22-23) has shown that €8V7J included
federal as well as tribal bodies; hence the two forms 1ToAts and
€8vos were often regarded as including all forms of state (e.g. Aeschin.
iii. no (the Amphictyonic oath); IG, iv 2 • 1. 68, l. 78 (the Hellenic
League); Syll. 6I3, ll. 4-5). Obviously P. cannot have intended to
exclude such a topic as the history of the Achaean Confederation.
5. Ti)v oAT)v Ta~w: 'my whole work'; Tatts = 'treatise' is found in
Ps.-Democritus (ap. Zosim. Alch. in M. Berthelot, Call. alch. grecs,
p. I53). but this is weak support, and Schweighaeuser may well be
right in suspecting an abbreviation of atlnattc;.
EV J'-EV TL y.Evo'): sc. a~<:poaTWV (§ 2).
T~ Se 1TAe1ovt ll.Epet ••• 0.\jluxa.ywyTJTOv: not a contradiction of the
claim that pleasure is a legitimate aim, and one catered for up to
a point in P.'s work (cf. vii. 7· 8, xv. 36. 3. xxxi. 30. I}.
6. EV ETEpOLS TJJ-1-LV e'Lpl)TO.L s,a. 1TAELOvwv: probably earlier in the
Histories. No passage specifically arguing the case for political his-
tory against other sorts has survived; but i. 35 discusses the merits
of 1Tpayp.aTLKTJ taTopla. i. I and iii. 3I (adduced by Schweighaeuser)
concern history in general; and P.'s repeated defence of universal
history (cf. Vol. I, p. 9) is not the same thing either.
2. 1. 1roAAwv ••• Ka.i. 1ToAAa.xws £~"1P'9f1TJf1Evwv: these other forms of

117
IX. z. I ON DIFFERENT TYPES OF HISTORY
history, depending on previous narratives, can only give scope for
rhetorical rearrangement, and are open to the general objection to
ancient events as the subject of history. This commonly held view
explains the preference of both Thucydides and P. for contemporary
history. P.'s argument that rewriting ancient history can only be
a form of plagiarism appears in Iosephus (BI, i. IJ-rs) and Herodian
(i. r. I, r. 3); d. Avenarius, 8o-8r. On the attitude thus implied
towards historical investigation and on its limitations see Colling-
wood, The Idea of History (Oxford, I946), 25-28.
4. o Be 1Tpa.yflClTLKos Tpo1Tos evE~eplB'l: 'I decided on writing a history
of actual events' (Paton), i.e. 6 '1TEp1 Tds 1Tp&~ns Twv i.8vwv KTA. (r. 4).
P. chooses a contemporary political subject because it is (a) novel
and not already treated, (b) particularly useful because one can dis-
cuss advances in the arts and sciences. Cf. I>Mech, Methode, 27.
lila To Ka.Lvo1ToLEio-9tn O"uvExws: sc. Ta 1rpd:yp.a.Ta. (from &1Tpayp.anKos
Tpmros) ; 'because new events are constantly occurring'.
5. TitJ Tas E!L'Imp£a.s ~ea.t TEXVClS ••• 1Tpo~eo~v dATicpEVQL: 'owing to
the progress made in the arts and sciences'; in x. 47· I2 Ta fhwp~p.a.Ta
is the equivalent of lp.rrHpiat n:al Tixvat. For P.'s optimistic attitude
about the facilities afforded by his own time, compare his remarks
on contemporary geographical knowledge (iii. 59· 3 ff.).
1Tnv To 1TGpa:rr'L1TTov EK Twv KClLpwv: 'every emergency that arises'.
ws livE~ !LE9o5L~ews: 'one may say, scientifically'; cf. x. 47· 12, w<M"E
TWV '1TAEirrTwV Tpanov nva fLE8o3tKWS Etv·
6. TllS TEp+Ews ••• TWV civa.yvwo-o!LEVWV ••• Ti]S cilcpEAE(a.s TWV 1Tpoa-
EXoVTwv: for the common contrast of Tipt/J4'> and clJ<f>ii.Eta see Vol. I,
p. 7 n. 12, and the discussion in A venarius, 22-29. olrrp~alxovn:s are
'those who pay attention'.
3. 1-9.10. The siege ojCapu,a and Hannibal's march on Rome

These events form part of the res Italiae of OL 142, I = :2rr, and Livy
(xxvi. 7-12) describes them under A.u.c. 543 (see above, pp. 8-9).
After the fall of Tarentum (winter 2x3/x2: viii. :24-34) the Roman
cause in Italy languished. The loss of Tarentum was accompanied
by that of Thurii (viii. :24. 3 n.), Metapontum, and Heraclea (viii.
34· r n.), giving Hannibal all the Greek cities of the south except
Rhegium. In :21:2 the new consuls planned to invest Capua. Hanno,
sent from the Bruttii into Campania to hinder this, was heavily
defeated near Beneventum (Livy, xxv. 13-14; De Santis, iii. 2. 291
n. I48); and, when Hannibal himself advanced into Campania,
shortage of supplies soon drove him back into southern Italy (Livy,
xxv. r8-r9) and at last the consuls could close the siege-lines around
Capua (Livy, xxv. 20. 1-4). Meanwhile a good general had been lost
in Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (cf. viii. 35· 1 n.). In 2n the siege of
n8
HANNIBAL'S MARCH ON ROME IX. 3· I
Capua continued under Ap. Claudius Pulcher and Q. Fulvius Flaccus,

the consuls of 212, whose command was extended (Livy, xxv. 41. I3,
xxvi. x. 2). The events here described are also covered by Livy, xxvi.
4· x-u. 2; Appian, Hann. 38-43; Sil. It. xii. 479-752; VaL Max.
ii. 3· 3; Frontin. Strat. iv. 7. 29; there is an abbreviated version of
P. (3. 1-4, 4· 6-7, 10) in Anon. de obsid.tol. WJ-23 (322-3 Thevenot).
P.'s account probably rests on Silenus and Fabius, the former
where the narrative is from the Carthaginian aspect, the latter for
details on the Roman side; but cf. 6. 6 n. Livy diverges at several
points from P. His own account of Hannibal's march on Rome will
probably derive from Valerius Antias {Livy, XX\i. 8. r-n. 9); but
he also records Coelius' route (Livy, xxvi. n. 10-13). For the last
battle outside Capua too he follows one source and records the
version of a second (Livy, xxvi. 5· 4-6. 8, 6. 9-u), the latter coinciding
with App. Hann. 41, which, however, refers the events mentioned
{the entry of elephants and Latin-speaking spies into a Roman
camp) to Fulvius' camp during the pursuit of Hannibal after he
has left Rome. The usual view attributes Livy's alternative version
(and Appian's) to Coelius (cf. Th. Zielinski, Die letzten jahre des
zweiten punischen Krieges (leipzig, 188o), u8; H. Haupt, Melanges
Graux (Paris, r884), 23-34; DeSanctis, iii. 2. 340; H. Sack, Hannibals
Marsch auf Rom (Diss. Frankfurt, 1937); Scullard, NC, 1949. 167).
But Klotz, who denies that Appian's source used Coelius, argues
that Livy's main account of the battle outside Capua is from Coelius,
and the more sober alternative, common to Appian, from Valerius
Antias. This seems unlikely; and in favour of a Coelian element in
Appian is his reference (Hann. 39) to a detachment sent to help
Rome from Alba Fucens, which seems to fit the Coelian version of
Hannibal's route (see below, s. 8 n.). Resemblances between P. and
Livy are due to the use of Silenus by P. and also by Coelius, whom
Livy is following. On the source problem see Kahrstedt, iii. 275-9; De
Sanctis, iii. 2. 336-42; Klotz, A ppians Darstellung, 55-57 ; ] ahrb.
1940, 175-8o; Livius, 172; Gelzer, Kl. Schr. iii. 241-2; E. T. Salmon,
Phoenix, 1957, 153-63; E. W. Davis, ibid. 1959. us-zo.
3. 1. :Avvi~ao;
••• '11'EplAa.f:Joj36.vwv TOV x6.pa.Ka: Hannibal wintered
212{n among the Bruttii (Livy, xxv. 22. 14, xxvi. 5· 3); in spring he
marched to Campania cum delectis peditum equitz~mque, followed by
thirty-three elephants (Livy, xxvi. 5· 3). These elephants appeared
both in Valerius Antias and in Coelius Antipater (d. Livy, xxvi.
6. 9. apud alios); Bomilcar had landed them at Locri in 215 (Livy,
xxiii. 41. Io-n; Thiel, 7o-71; Scullard, NC, 1949, 167-8, quoting
evidence from coins). Livy {xxvi. 5· 4) records that Hannibal's
camp was behind Mt. Tifata. P. mentions only Appius (i.e. Ap.
Claudius Pulcher, cos. 212; cf. viii. x. 7 n., 3· I n., 3· 6, 7· 1-12) in
IX. 3· I THE SIEGE OF CAPUA AND
command at Capua (cf. 4· B, 7· z, 1· 7) and only a single camp and
army (4. I); but this does not mean that his source was necessarily
unaware that Claudius' colleague Q. Fulvius Flaccus (cf. Munzer,
RE, 'Fulvius (59)', cols. 243-6) was also outside the town with his
consular army of 212 (Livy, xxvi. r. 2); see on this Gel.zer, Kl. Schr.,
iii. 241-2. Ap. Claudius' line of circumvallation round Capua must
clearly have been double, to afford protection against Hannibal's
relieving force; and xdpa.~ will here be the outer palisade (not
Appius' camp, as Paton takes it). See Strachan-Davidson, ad loc.
This outer defence consisted of both a trench and a palisade (cf. 4· 4),
like the line built by Hannibal to hold the Romans in the citadel
at Tarentum (viii. 33· 4).
~ouh6f!EVO<s ~KKaAei<r&aL 1rpo<s I-L6.X"lv: Uvy (xxvi. 5· 4--6. 8) gives
this attack on the Roman line elaborate treatment, and also re-
counts an alternative version (Livy, xxvi. 6. 9····12); the latter, with
its entry of elephants and Latin-speaking spies into the Roman
camp, is also in App. Hann. 41, but it there refers to Fulvius' camp
on the way from Rome. On the source-problem see 3· r-g. ron.
P. is typically more interested in why Hannibal failed and why
the Roman resistance was successful.
2. 1ToALopKlq. 1Tapa1rl-:ijcnov: 'like an attempt to storm the position';
cf. viii. 7· s. x. n. 1, for this sense of "'l"oAwpKta..
el<; ~v 1T<lpEfl~oA.l]v: would normally mean 'into the camp'; but
here 1ra.pef-Lf3o/..r} seems to be the area between the inner and outer
Roman lines of circumvallation, including the camp proper.
3. cicnpaALtoflEVoL ••• Twv ~eA.wv: 'warding off the sho\•..-er of missiles':
a slightly awkward phrase, since it is the heavy-armed (Toi:s- •••
{Japicn Twv o1rAwv) who themselves ward off the missiles, as they
remain under their standards (KaTct Tas UTJf-Lalas).
7. aVTma.pilyov ••• TO.L!l U1Twpeicu<;: on the Fabian tactics adopted
after Trasimene cf. iii. 90· I, 90· 9, 92. 6, etc.
ouS' ~1TWOTJO'O.VTE!l •• , dVTo<j>9a.AflE1:v: 'whom they could not even
bear the thought of confronting'.
9. To 1ra.p' ~vv£~ou cuv'l'ayfla.: P. writes as a cavalry officer (cf.
xxviii. 6. g, xxix. 23. s) who fully appreciates the significance of that
arm (d. iv. 8. Io, x. 23. 1-8); cf. Mahaffy, Greek Life and Thought
(London, I887), 522 n. I; von Scala. 24 n. 1.
10. a.t TE , , • aVTL1Ta.paywya.(: 'the tactiCS Of advancing parallel to
the enemy'; P. has already discussed the merits of Fabius' tactics
in iii. 89. 1-90. 6, but without reference to the point here given main
prominence, the avoidance of Hannibal's cavalry.
4. 1. -ro •.• n7w 'Pw11a.lwv aTpa.1'01TEliov: 'the Roman army' (see

above, 3· In.); not necessarily 'the consular army', i.e. of two
legions (so Gelzer, Kl. Scltr., iii. 241-2).
I20
HANKIBAL'S MARCH ON ROME IX. 5· 8
3. vaALV: 'on the contrary'; see x. 9· I with Schweighaeuser's note
on this usage. 'Again' sometimes has this sense in English.
Tois .•. vwTOIS: with Kop.l~oVTas: 'carrying it on beasts of burden' (cf.
Pollux, ii. r8o, vwrocp6pos ~p.lovo<;; P. Cair. Zen. oo8 1. IJ, 215 I. 6,
292 l. 283). Hultsch (Quaestiones, ii. I2) suggested, but did not print,
roi;; SJ Nop.acnv; unnecessarily.
Ka.Tavuaa~: 'to procure'; not found elsewhere in this sense.
5. Tous ev~Ka9~CTTa.JJ.Evous &vaTou,: 'the new consuls', i.e. for zrr,
Cn. Fulvius Cn.f. Cn.n Centumalus Maximus (d. Miinzer, RE,
'Fulvius (43)', cols. 235-6) and P. Sulpicius Galba Maximus (d. viii.
r. 6 n.) ; see below, 6. 6. oi J-mKaBw-rap.E:vot v1ra-rot are 'consuls appointed
in succession to others'; they may therefore be consuls designate
(cf. iii. 70. 7 n.) or consuls already in office (as here, where Paton,
'consuls designate', is misleading).
tJ.4lEAOJJ.EVOl TTjv .•• evaptcELnv: cf. Livy, xxvi. 7· 2, 'ne suos quoque
commeatus intercluderent noui consules'.
7. teat -rrEpi TTjv voALv Avuaaa9a(-rL Twv XPTJO"ijlwv: cf. Livy, xxvi. 7. 4,
'necopinato pauore ac tumultu non esse desperandum aliquam par-
tern urbis occupari posse'. The chances of a success against Rome
itself were in fact small, and Hannibal had not thought it worth
attempting after Trasimene (d. Klotz, ]ahrb. 1940, 177). The real
hope, asP. goes on to say, was to divert troops from Capua.
8 Tous YE v£pi. Tov :A.vvwv O.vo.yKaa£w KTA.: cf. Livy, xxvi. 7· s. 'et
si Roma in discrimine esset, Capuam extemplo omissuros aut ambo
imperatores Romanos aut alterum ex iis; et si diuisissent copias,
utrumque infirmiorem factum aut sibi aut Campanis bene gerendae
rei fortunam daturos esse'. The parallelism will go back to Silenus (in
Livy via Coelius); P. again mentions only Ap. Claudius; cf. 3· r n.
5. 1. -rr£laas nvA TWV A,~uwv a.)'TOJ!OAf}O'o.~ KTA.: cf. Livy, xxvi. 7· 6,

'Numidam promptum ad omnia audenda donis pellicit ut litteris
acceptis specie transfugae castra Romana ingressus, altera parte
dam Capuam peruadat'.
2. vavu yap ~ywvlo. KTA.: d. Livy, xxvi. 7. 6, 'una ea cura angebat
ne ubi a.bscessisset extemplo dederentur Campani'.
4. Tois S' Ell 'PwJJ.!l vpoavEVTWKoTwv: the shift to Rome and there-
actions there may point to the use of Fabius.
bp9ot Taic; s~a.vo~o.~s tco.l -rrEpt+o~o~: 'they were filled with excitement
and alarm': cf. iii. 112. 6, xxviii. I7· n.
ri}s evECTTTJKulo.s tcp£uEw,: 'the impending decision' (Paton).
8. s~A '~'llS Ia.uvi.nSo,: vague, especially as P. reckons the Marsi,
Paeligni, and Sabellian tribes in Samnium (cf. i. 6. 4 n.). Livy makes
Hannibal follow the Via Latina (Livy, xxvi. 9· r-r3, ro. 3), but he
also records the quite different route given by Coelius (Livy, xxvi.
u. ro-n) in connexion with the ravaging of the temple ad lucum
121
IX. 5· 8 THE SIEGE OF CAPU A AND
Marrucini
) !
,/
Bo\ iantm)
•
0 10 20 10 10 50 (.:1)1
5· HANNIBAL'S MARCH ON ROME, 2II B.C.
Feroniae north of Capena, on the right bank of the Tiber (on which
seeR. Bloch and G. Foti, Rev. phil. 1953, 75; R. Bartoccini, Atti VII
congr. arch. class. ii (Rome, 1961), 25o): 'Coelius Romam euntem ab
Ereto deuertisse eo Hannibalem tradit, iterque eius ab Reate Cuti-
liisque et ab Amiterno orditur: ex Campania in Samnium, in de in
Paelignos peiUenisse praeterque oppidum Sulmonem in Marrucinos
transisse; inde Albensi agro in Marsos, hinc Amiternum Forulosque
uicum uenisse.' Livy concludes that Hannibal came back this way, a
desperate explanation designed to reconcile two conflicting versions.
The most likely explanation of P .'s route is that he is following Silenus,
and that Coelius did the same; but on the principle stated in iii. 36. 2,
P. has omitted the place-names recorded by Silenus and transmitted
via Coelius (as he did in his account of Hannibal's Alpine crossing;
d. iii. 49· s-s6. 4 n.). Coelius' route is also in Appian, Hann. 38,
UUVTOV4J 8€ U'ITOvlifi a,EAewv EBVTJ 'ITOAAa Ka~ 'ITOMJLta ••• elm) 8vo Kat
TptaxovTa a-raolwv Tij> 'PwJ1:rys JuTpaTo7r€owm;v, i1rt ToiJ :4vtijvos 1TOTa-
JLoiJ. In Appian's next chapter reinforcements reach Rome from
Alba Fucens, which seems to fit Coelius' route; they were probably
refugees from the countryside fleeing before Hannibal, and so, as
Appian says, without weapons; cf. Salmon, Phoenix, 1957, ISS·
Coelius' route is a strange one, and the possibility cannot be excluded
122
HANNIBAL'S MARCH ON ROME IX. 5· S
that either he or Livy has mixed it up a little (cf. Kahrstedt, iii.
490 n. z); but it is quite arbitrary to correct the account as Momm-
sen does (RG, i. 642; so too Kahrstedt, loc. cit.) : 'er ... fiihrte
seine Truppen durch Samnium und auf der valerischen Strasse an
Tiber vorbei bis zur Aniobriicke, die er passierte und auf dem
andern Ufer ein Lager nalun, eine deutsche Meile von der Stadt.'
Klotz (]ahrb. 1940, 176-7) thinks the Coelian route (in Livy) is the
right one and represents a policy of ravaging central Italy in order
to hinder Roman recruitment and supplies, and so provoke the
Romans to draw off their troops from Capua. But both P. and Jjvy
(above, 4· 7 n.) state that Hannibal aimed at a sudden appearance
before Rome, which is irreconcilable with the policy suggested by
Klotz. The detour north-east into the Marrucini is strange and per-
haps rests on a misunderstanding. Salmon (Phoenix, 1957, 155 n. 4)
has suggested emending Marrucinos into Marruuhws. Marruuium,
the chief town of the Marsi, Jay west of Sulmo and on Hannibal's
way to the Fucine I.ake (cf. Philipp, RE, 'Marsi Marruvini', col.
19Bo). The reference to Marsi after Alba in Livy, xxvi. II. u, may
seem against it; but these Marsi could be the subdivision of the
tribe centred on Antinum in the upper Liris valley. The fairly wide
sweep of Hannibal's route would be designed to elude Roman in-
telligence and to avoid the risk of running into Roman forces ad-
vancing along main routes such as the Via Appia or Via Latina
{c£. 4· s).
De Sanctis {iii. 2. 336-g) has argued, unconvincingly (cf. Salmon,
Phoenix, 1957, 156-7), that P.'s 8u:i. ri)s l:awtT,8os refers only to an
early detour to avoid trouble at the Volturnus, and that Hannibal
simply left Capua behind Mt. Tifata, crossed the Calor and, following
the Telesia-Venafrum route, rejoined the Via Latina near Casinum.
He takes Coelius' route to be a false deduction from P.'s s,a rijs
l:a.wlT~o>; but this would imply that only this phrase was in
Silenus, which is unlikely. More probably Silenus recorded, and
Coelius followed, the correct route, and the alternative tradition
of the Via Latina reflected the Roman assumption that Hannibal
followed the shortest route (cf. Klotz, J ahrb. 1940, r8o). This tradition
may go back to Fabius; but Livy certainly has it from Valerius
Antias (cf. 3· 1--9. ron.), and it may be Antias' contribution based,
as Salmon plausibly suggests (Phoenix, 1957, t6t-z), on a confusion
between Paelignian Sulmo with the Volsdan town of Sulmo in
I.atium (Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 68; Virg. A en. x. 517), which lay
20 miles north-east of Antias' own town of Antium. In either case,
the story of the Via Latina advance (defended afresh by E. W. Davis,
Phoenix, 1959, II3-20) is to be rejected; for the drawbacks of that
route see Salmon, Phoenix, 1957, 159-6o. On this assumption Hanni-
bal followed {with possible but no longer ascertainable deviations
123
IX. 5· 8 THE SIEGE OF CAPUA AND
the route which, according to Livy, Coelius assigned to him; tlus
would take him across Samnium (perhaps after crossing the Vol-
turnus at Casilinum) to the Aternus valley and Sulmo (among the
Paeligni), either north-east into the Marrucini and thence up the
Aternus to the territory of Alba Fucens, or, more likely, west to
Marruuium and so to the same area, south into the land of the
Marsi (around Antinum)-another strange deviation, which may be
simply an error if the Marsi were originally mentioned in connexion
with Marruuium-thence north to Amiternum and by way of
F oruli and Reate to the via Salaria; this was followed as far
as Eretum, whence according to Coelius the raid was made on the
temple ad lucum F eroniae. Finally Hannibal descended on the Anio.
See for reference to the modern roads of this area Salmon, Phoenix,
1957, 161. On the difficulties raised by P.'s account of the crossing
of the Anio see § 9 n.
TOOS Tl'€pt T~V oSov TOTI'OUS ••• Trporc:O.TO.AO.j.tj:l~vwv: detail derived
from the Punic side (Silenus); cf. Klotz, ]ahrb. 1940, 175.
9. lho.~as Tov !6.v£wva. TrOTo.j.t6v rc:TA.: the crossings of the Anio raise
difficulties. P. mentions two, one here, and another, after the consul
has destroyed the bridge, in 7· 4· According to Livy, Hannibal (who
has come by the Via Latina) 'ad Anienem fluuium tria milia pas-
suum ab urbe castra admouit' (Livy, xxvi. Jo. 3); later (Livy, xxvi.
u. 1) he crosses the river to fight, 'transgressus Anienem ... in
aciem omnes copias eduxit' (i.e. he is now on the south side, and so
presumably had encamped on the north). Appian (Hann. 38) makes
him camp on the Anio, 32 stades from Rome (i.e. 4 m.p.): see above,
§ 8 n. Livy's account is consistent and implies that Hannibal crossed
from left to right bank in order to camp in safety; but the distance
of his camp from Rome, 3 miles, does not fit P.'s 40 stades = 5 m.p.
(for which cL xv. 7· 3), and must derive from a different source---
presumably that which brought Hannibal along the Via Latina.
Hence Livy cannot be used to supplement or reinforce P. From P.'s
use here of avvEyytaa:>, he seems clearly to be describing a crossing
from the right to the left bank. True, the sentence could mean that
Hannibal crossed from the left to the right bank higher upstream,
and then approached Rome with the river between him and the
city. The distance of 40 stades could be made to fit either interpreta-
tion; but the second, that of De Sanctis, iii. 2. 336-7, seems forced.
If then the crossing is from the right to the left bank, the manceu vres
described in 6. 1-7. 3 take place between the Anio and Rome; and
the fording of the Anio in 7· 4 will be from the left to the right bank.
This implies that Hannibal retreated by an inland route; and none
of our sources, including P., excludes this. Indeed Hannibal may
well have wished to reach Capua without running into the Roman
forces, which he now expected to be marching north along one or
124
HANNIBAL'S MARCH ON ROME IX. 6
other of the two main roads (7. 2); consequently his purpose might
well be served by a route via Tibur, Sublaqueum, Treba, Sora, and
Aesernia.
6. 2. 1'0 j.I-1)5E1TOTl ••• l1Tl1'oaou1'0V d1T1)pKEV11-~ 1'i}; 'ITOAEWS: the sense

must be 'had never come so close to the city', but is hard to extract
from d1Ta.(p£w. Reiske compares the Latin 'tam prope abfuisse ab
urbe', and the process of thought here must be similar; literally
'owing to Hannibal's never having been (perfect tense) such a
distance from the city'.
1'Wv 1TEpt Ko.1Ttn1v aTpn1'01TE5wv: 'the legions before Capua': P. still
of a single command (cf. 3· I n). See Gelzer, Kl. Schr., iii.
241-2.
3. 'ITAUvouO'a.' Ta.is ICOf-1-!U'O TCi. TG:iv lctpwv £5cut'l: cf. Livy, xxvi. 9· 7,
'undique matronae ... circa deum delubra discurrunt crinibus passis
aras uerrentes'. Dessau (Hermes, 1916, 362 f.; cf. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii.
337 n.) argues that P. has misunderstood his source for an incident
correctly recorded by I.ivy. But in Livy crinibus pass£s is almost
certainly instrumental, like Tats Kop.ms. In any case, P. can hardly
be following a Latin source, as Dessau's argument would imply.
R. M. Henry, commenting on the Livian passage, aptly quotes Ev.
Luc. vii. 38, -rot> BaKpvaw ~p~a-ro {3pixHv 1T<Ji>a> a.tn-oil Kat Tats ep~gtv
rijs KEcpaAfj>a.Vrijs J~ip.acraEv, adding that 'as the hair was the symbol of
youth and strength, the act denoted an absolute surrender to the god'.
5. 1Ta.pci.5o~ov TE Ka.t TUX~Kov aUf-1-'ITTWf-1-«; the peripateia which saves
the Romans smacks of Hellenistic history, and may come from
Silenus, in whose account it would also serve to mitigate Hannibal's
failure (cf. Gelzer, Kl. Schr. iii. 242 n. 64). Siegfried, 65-66, argues
that Tyche is here envisaged as a real power; but despite the phrase
'ITpos a<nTTJptav and the importance of the occasion (cf. 5· 4) this
assumption seems unnecessary. Livy, who follows Valerius Antias
for events at Rome (Klotz, jahrb. 1940, 179), has little on the consuls
for 211 (but cf. Livy, xxvi. 11. r); instead he brings Q. Fulvius Flaccus
from Capua to Rome (Livy, xxvi. 8. 9-n, 9· Io, ro. r), and attributes
much of the defence to him. Though this version is also in Appian,
Hann. 40, it cannot stand against P.; it may have arisen through
confusion between Q. Fulvius Flaccus and the consul for 2n, Cn.
Fulvius Centumalus (De Sanctis, iii. 2. 338).
6. ot yO.p 1TEpt TOV r VCUOV Ka.t no'ITAlOV: the consuls for ZII' Cn. Ful-
vius Centumalus and P. Sulpicius Galba (cf. 4· 5 n.). P.'s source for
the enrolment of troops at Rome may be Silenus, since Hannibal
learnt of it from a prisoner(§ 8); Gelzer, Kl. Schr. iii. 242 n. 64. But
Fabius is more likely to have mentioned the consuls' names, which
would scarcely interest Silenus. As so often, P.'s source cannot be
determined with certainty.
IX.6. 6 THE SIEGE OF CAPU A AND
Tou ~v €vos aTpaT01T~Sou: ambiguous, since P. uses (]7"paTd1TfOov of
either a legion or an army (cf. iii. 107-17 n. in Vol. I, pp. 439-40};
and Livy ignores these providential troops. Gelzer (Kl. Schr. iii.
242 n. 64} argues that, as both consuls are involved, they are enrolling
two consular armies; hence ~" aTpam5m;oov is 'one consular army'.
Klotz (Phil. 1933· n) also takes UTpam)1TEOOV to mean 'army', but
abandons P. with his hypothesis that the legions already enrolled
are really the legiones urbanae of 212, whose departure is not men-
tioned among the dispositions of Livy, xxvi. r. De Sanctis (iii. z.
319-zo) also thinks it possible that the previous year's urban legions
were still in Rome; but since, according to Livy (cf. Steinwender,
Phil. 188o, 527-40), legions were normally recruited each year at
Rome, he very reasonably assumes that it is to them P. refers
(whether or no they had the support of the urban legions of 212 as
well). In 210 Livy (xxvi. 28. 4) records that the urban legions of 2n
were sent to Etruria under C. Calpurnius Piso. Since the Livian
tradition of the annual enrolment of urban legions seems authentic
(De Sanctis, iii. 2. 319 ff. against Kahrstedt, ill. 442), De Sanctis'
view is the most probable. Translate 'of one legion'. Cf. Strachan-
Davidson, ad loc.
EvopKouo;; •.. tj~uv ••• ds ff]v 'PhlfLTJV: cf. vi. 2 r. 6.
Tag KaTeyp~ao;; •.• Kat SoK!.Jlea(es: 'enrolling and selecting'; in
vi. 20. 9 P. uses OoK'!Ld~ew of selecting cavalry. It follows that the
troops of this second legion were also in Rome.
7. QUTOfLaTWS a9po~a9Tjva.L! i.e. without any intention Of having
them there to face Hannibal; but there is no implication of divine
intervention (so Siegfried, 65).
oug E~ayay6vno;; .•• ot aTpaTflyo£: cf. Livy, xxvi. II. 1-2, 'nee
Flaccus consulesque certamen detrectauere'. But in Livy the Roman
forces are those brought by Flaccus from Capua (cf. § 5 n.). E. W.
Davis, Phoenix, 1959, n6, prefers Livy on the grounds that the consuls
would hardly have confronted Hannibal with raw recruits; but
clearly they would use what they had, and the sight of an army,
even of recruits, would destroy any slight hope Hannibal had of
seizing Rome by a coup.
9. O.va.p(9fL1JTOV1TEplEAaa6.1l"Vol AEies 1TAfj9os: 'having collected a vast
amount of plunder'; cf. iv. 59· 1, v. 94· 4, 95· 10. m:pu::.\cuJvw bas this
sense, since much of the plunder would be cattle (cf. iv. 29. 6, viii. 24. 9).
~::ts aypav ~KOVTES: 'having reached an area'; aypa is 'hunting', and
so 'hunting ground'. Wunderer (iii. 30 n.; cf. Phil. 1894, 68} proposed
aKpa (which also appears, apparently as a misprint, in Schweig-
haeuser's commentary here); but it gives no good sense here, and
is a superfluous conjecture.
7. l. iv 8~1<a. tM'a.8£o~s: i.e. about If m.p.

I26
HA~N!BAL'S MARCH ON ROME IX. S. t
3. Etcivet ••• EK TTJS 1Ta.pEJ-L~ol..ijs: i.e. the camp 40 stades from Rome
(cf. 5· 9).
4. 6ta.am!u.ra.VTE!i Tfi~t ••• yeljlupa.s: the bridges over the Anio; cf.
App. Hann. 39, ~:lat ~· ar.\Twv o£ rqv yJq,upav T~v br~ TOV .1tv<-ijvo> €K8pa.JL·
ovr.:> €K01T'Tov. But in Appian this is to prevent Hannibal crossing
to the left bank ; he achieves his object by marching round the
source of the river.
610. 1'ou p.:uf.la.Tos 1TEpa.Louv TTJV Mvaf'W: this implies that Hannibal
is crossing from the left to the right bank, away from Rome; cf. 5· 9 n.
5. OAOO'XI!PE!i ••• ouS(v ••• SLO. TO 1TAfJ9o~t TWV !'!T'ITEWV: cf. 3· 9 n.
7. O'muSwv t'lfl. To 1TpoKdJ-Levov: 'being in haste to attain his object' :
presumably to reach and relieve Capua, whence he hoped all or
most of the Roman forces would have been withdrawn. On his
probable route see 5· 9 n.
E1TLTi9ETat vuKTo<,; ;TL Tfi O"Tpa.To'!Te8d~: perhaps the night attack
made by Hannibal on the pursuing Romans in App. Hann. 41-42;
but this attack in Appian seems to be the one which Livy, xxvi. 6.
9-12, locates at Capua before Hannibal's departure, when the op-
ponent is not the consul P. Sulpicius Galba, but the proconsul Q.
Fulvius Flaccus (whom Appian, like Livy, brings from Capua to
Rome).
10. 6t0. TTJ'> f.o.uv,o.<,; tca.L TTJS BpnTia.s: Daunia is usually taken to be
the part of northern Apulia near Mt. Garganus (cf. iii. 88. 3 n.). This
would involve a very circuitous route, and De Sanctis (iii. 2. 342)
emends Llaw<d> to Ea.uvlTt8os or AEuK<Wla.s. This is probably right,
unless this Daunia has anything to do with the obscure Daunii of
iii. 91. 5 (see note) in Campania (which is unlikely, for P. would
hardly mention them in such a general description of Hannibal's
march). Another possibility would be the Daunii of x. I. 3; but the
usually accepted text there goes back to an improbable conjecture of
Gronovius. It should be noted that if Daunia is expelled from the
present passage, there are no historical arguments for inserting a
reference to Apulia in Livy, xxvi. 12. 2.
Tots KaTO. To 'P~y~ov TlrnoL~t: cf. Livy, xxvi. 12, 2, 'in Bruttium
agrum ad fretum ac Regium eo cursu contendit ut prope repentino
aduentu incautos oppresserit'. Rhegium was the only southern city
now in Roman hands (cf. 3· 1-9. 10 n.).
8. 1-9. 10. Comparison of Hannibal and Epaminondas, and of the

Romans and Spartans. Epaminondas' last Peloponnesian expedition,
in spring 362, culminated in his death at the battle of Mantinea;
cf. Xen. Hell. vii 5· 1-17; Diod. xv. 82. r--84. 2; Plut. Ages. 34;
Justin. vi. 7; Aelian, Var. hist. xii. 3; Aen. Tact. 2. 2. P. probably
uses Callisthenes, whom he followed in his references to the peace
settlement after Mantinea (iv. 33· 8-9 n.); see Jacoby on FGH, r26
127
IX. 8. I HISTORICAL COMPARISON OF
F z6; RE, 'Kallisthenes', col. 1706. In xii. z5 f 5 he criticizes Ephorus'
account of the battle and implies that he had studied the terrain
in person. Epaminondas' expedition was in response to an appeal
for armed intervention from the Arcadian executive. On the initi-
ative of Mantinea the Ten Thousand had resolved to disband the
federal mercenary force maintained out of money taken from the
Olympian temple treasures, and had made peace with Elis. When
the peace was being sworn at Tegea, the Theban harmost stationed
there attempted a coup against the delegates, with the connivance
of the executive. The :VIantinean representatives mostly avoided
arrest, and they called the Arcadians to arms ; for the prestige of
Thebes Epaminondas was obliged to intervene (Xen. Hell. vii. 4- 33-
5· 3; Cary, CAH, vi. 98---99).
8. 1. SlKa.(w~ ••• E1Tl<nJJ.I.~Ya.o9a.L: because of the lesson it affords

statesmen (9. 9-ro).
2. 'E1Ta.J.I.LYwvSa.v ••• Ba.uJ.I.a~ouoL 1TavTE~: for P.'s goodwill towards
Epaminondas, d. viii. 35· 6 n.
1Ta.pa.yEvoJ.I.Evo~ Ei~ T Ey~a.v J.I.ETa Twv OUJ.I.J.I.O.xwv: Xenophon (Hell.
vii. 5· 4) mentions only Euboeans and Thessalians, and records the
refusal of the Phocians to march ; but clearly there were Malians,
Aenianians. and probably others (d. Diod. xv. 85. z), since these
fought at Mantinea. Epaminondas had come via the Isthmus, and
after pausing at Nemea (d. Kromayer, AS, i. 32-34) in the hopes
of catching the Athenians, who were allied to the Mantineans, and
probably to receive the forces of Argos, Sicyon, Tegea, Megalopolis,
Asea, Pallantium, and any other Peloponnesians on his side, he
continued to Tegea on learning that the Athenians were taking the
sea-route to the Peloponnese (Xen. Hell. vii. 5· 6-7).
1Ta.VSTJJ.1.Ei 1Ta.pa.yEyovoTa.~ EL~ Ma.vTfvEta.v: Xenophon's preferable ac-
count records that, when Epaminondas reached Tegea, the Pelo-
ponnesian allies (i.e. the hostile Arcadians, the Achaeans, and the
Eleans) were concentrated at Mantinea (d. Plut. Mor. 346 c) and had
sent for Agesilaus and the Lacedaemonians, and that when he heard
that Agesilaus, marching by the Asea-Pallantium route (d. Loring,
] HS, r895, 48-49) had reached the Lacedaemonian town of Pellana
(cf. iv. 81. 7 n.), rz km. north of Sparta, he set off for Sparta (Xen.
Hell. vii. 5· 9). It would indeed have been a physical impossibility
for Agesilaus to march the 75 km. from Mantinea to Sparta in time
to arrive by breakfast the next day (cf. Roloff, 7-10). Iustinus (vi.
7- 4) gives Epaminondas r5,ooo troops, Diodorus (xv. 84. 4) 3o,ooo
foot and 3,ooo horse; but Kromayer (AS, i. 38) calculates that he
had 2o,ooo.
3. SmrvotroL~aa.o9a.L • • • Tra.pa.yyElA.a.~: d. Xen. Hell. vii. 5· 9,
~ELTrVOTrOLTJUcfJ-L-EVOS" Kat rrapayyElAas- ~yd'To T<{J crTpaT~VJ-l-Oon ~v8is lrri
128
HANNIBAL AND EPA)fiNONDAS IX. S. IO
l:716.p7'TJ"· He evidently had outposts reporting on the king's move-

ment'> (cf. Kromayer, AS, i. 35).
4. ~1r' a.lm)v Ttiv Aa.Kdia.(J.Wva.: by the direct route, joining the
Oenus valley (d. ii. 7 n.). The distance is about 38 miles; cf.
Kromayer, AS, i. 38-39, who calculates that Epaminondas left Tegea
towards 7 p.m. and reached Sparta between 8 and 9 the next morn-
ing. The month was June; cf. Kromayer, AS, i. ur.
5. JlEXPt p.£v Ayopii.,; t~uicra.To kTh.: Diodorus (xv. 83. 3-4, very con-
fused) and Iustinus (vi. 7· 9) both make Epaminondas take the
Spartans by surprise; Xenophon states that Agesilaus was able to
enter Sparta before he arrived (Hell. vii. 5· ro). This version is prob-
ably correct, and Epaminondas' assault on the city (cL Plut. Ages.
34· 4 ; Aen. Tact. 2. 2 ; Ael. V ar. hist. vi. 3 ; Diod. xv. 83. 3-4) will be
after Agesilaus' arrival; cf. Kromayer, AS, i. 41.
6. Ka.( Tl\101,; a.lhOfJ.OhOU ••• a~a.cra.<tiJcra.vTO',;: according to Xenophon
(Hell. vii. 5· IO) a Cretan, but Callisthenes (FGH, 124 F 26 = Plut.
Ages. 34· 4) calls him Euthynus, a Thespian. Fougeres (58r n. 3 and
582 n. r) argues that there were two deserters, one who warned
Agesilaus of Epaminondas' march, and the other who warned the allies
at Man tinea; this may be, but Plutarch (Ages. 34· 4) does not say so.
"-v"lcr~"~: on the throne at Sparta from 399 to 36o; cf. iii. 6. 13 n., and
for a hostile comment, below, 23. 7·
7. Ta.uTT)S ••• Tfls EA1rl8os li11'Ecr<t6.AT]: according to Xenophon (Hell.
vii. 5· ro-14) Agesilaus, though he had left his cavalry, mercenaries,
and three of his twelve companies behind in Arcadia, nevertheless
launched a successful attack on Epaminondas.
1rpocra.ve1Aa.~wv Ttiv 8uva.p.w: 'having refreshed his troops • (cf. v. 8o•
.an.).
8. cruAAoyttOjHVOS on CIU!l~,O'ETO.L ••• KO.TO.AEL11'Ec:.t8a.~: cf. Plut. i\1or.
346 c. Xenophon (Hell. vii. 5· 14) represents the departure of the
army from Mantinea as something in the future {.\oyt~Ofi.EI'os o·n
{jo1J8~aouv ol Jtpt<:&.oes), not, like P., as something which has already
happened.
9. 1rpocr€p.wyE Tfj Ma.vnve~: Xenophon modifies this remarkable
feat: Hell. vii. 5· J4, 71cWV of. 'ITOpt:v8els WS lovvaro raxw-ra £ls '"'"
T.:ylav TOVS fl.iV (J71/..lras dvl71avue, TOVS o' lrmlas €'1Tef"if;Ev Eis T~l' MaJJ-
rlvt:4aV. Fougeres (583 n. r) argues that as hoplite leader Epaminondas
remained at Tegea; but Plutarch (M or. 346 E-F) refers to Euphranor's
representation of him among the cavalry (d. § 12 n.).
10. ot 8' 'A8"lva.iot: Athenian cavalry, according to Xenophon (Hell.
vii. 5· 15), who had come by Eleusis, the Isthmus, and Cleonae, and
were already encamped within the city. These cavalry were under
Cephisodorus of Marathon (Ephorus, FGH, 70 F 85 Diog. Laert.
ii. 54), who fell in the battle; Diodorus (xv. 84. 2) wrongly gives the
Athenian commander's name as Hegelochus, evidently a mistake
8Ul73 K
IX. 8. IO HTSTOlHCAL CO:VlPARISO:N OF
for Hegesileos, the general in (d. Xen. Poroi, 3· 7; Ephorus,
loc. cit.). The Athenians had been allied with the Arcadians since
366 (Xen. Hell. vii. 4· 2).
11. TO TOU noO'Et8wvO!; tep6v: d. 34· IO, xi. 12. 6, 14. I (confirming the
distance); Paus. viii. ro. 2, where the text (otl 7rpocrw crTao{ov Mavn-
vElaS') needs correction, perhaps to {' CTTaotwv (so Bolte, RE, 'Man-
tinea', coL 1301, giving other suggestions). The temple is that of
Poseidon Hippias, and lay at the foot of Mt. Alesion on the Tegea
road (the so-called Xenis: xi. rr. s), nearly a mile south of Man tinea.
Two large threshold-stones, a relief of Poseidon, and a manu-
mission-decree dated by the priest of Poseidon (IG, v. 2. 277) have
been found; but no excavations have taken place (d. Fougeres,
103-5; Bolte, RE, 'Man tinea', cols. r3oo-r). The remains lie 1300 m.
from the walls of Mantinea, \Vhich fits P.'s 7 stades. On the cult of
Poseidon practised here see Nilsson, Griechische Feste, 19; Bolte,
op. cit., cols. IJ4I-J.
auvEKUp'I'J!7EV Ci.ru~ Ka.t -roos )\ll'I'Jva.lous ~'II'Lcpa.(vealla.L: cf. Diod. xv. 84. 2;
but this coincidence is not confirmed by Xenophon; see above, §ron.;
Kromayer, AS, i. 44 n. r. The hill above Mantinea is Mt. Alesion,
round the northern spur of which came the road from Argos.
12. ~90.ppT)!7Q.\I ••• KWAUUO.L T~V TW\1 e,~O.lw\1 ~cpoSov: P. says nothing
of the Athenian share in the action; but there was a considerable
cavalry battle (Xen. Hell. vii. 5· rs-r7), in which Xenophon's o\\-n
son Gryllus lost his life (Ephorus, FGH, 70 F 85: Paus. i. 3· 4, viii. 9·
ro, rr. 6), along with the commander Cephisodorus (d.§ ron.). This
battle was represented in a famous picture by Euphranor, in the
Stoa Poikile, on which Gryllus and Epaminondas could both be
recognized (Plut. Mor. 346 E-F; Paus. i. 3· 4, ix. rs. s); there was
a copy of it in the gymnasium at Mantinea, in the hall of Antinous
(Paus. viii. g. 8, n. 6).
13. ~'ll'l'foiE~ovTa.L To~s ••• ipyo~s: 'complain at these events';
Schweighaeuser compares Xen. Hell. vii. 5· 12, €gECTTt p,Jv To 8Etov
a.lniicr8at.
-r~s ••• TUXTJS ~TTW: d. xxiii. 12. 3 (on Philopoemen). In the case of
both men, P.'s sympathies influence this formulation (cf. Vol. I,
p. 24) ; but a dispassionate estimate of Epaminondas' remarkable
achievement in this march on Sparta and back to Man tinea confirms
its justice. See the analysis of Kromayer (AS, L 44-46) who hails this
campaign as evidence that Epaminondas anticipated Alexander
and all subsequent exponents of Niederwerjungsstrategie.
9 .1. -ro 8~ 'll'a.pa.'II'A~aLov: Epaminondas' march on Sparta and quick

return to Mantinea is comparable to Hannibal's march on Rome
and return south (not, however, to Capua since the superior policy
of the Romans (§ 6) rendered that no longer feasible).
I30
HANNIBAL AND EPAMINONDAS IX. g. 9
2. SLn TWV ~K !lEPOUS aywvwv: cf. 3· I-4·
3, S~n Tn<;; tK T0.0TO!laTOU '11'Ept'11'€TE£a.s: cf. 6. 5, 1Tapaoofov T€ K'O.t
TVXLKOII utip,1TTWfLa.
auvTp'iljuu !lEV Tous E'II'O!l~vous: uup,1Tip,!fat FS, Hultsch, alii; avVTp'ii/Jat
Biittner-Wobst following Reiske. With the emended reading the
reference must be to the defeat inflicted on P. Sulpicius Galba during
the pursuit (7. 7-8). But this occurred after Hannibal had learnt
that Appius was not moving from Capua; and since the next phrase,
describing Hannibal 'waiting to seize the likely occasion of a
Roman move from Capua' (€.f>e0pEDaaL a~ Ttp KO.Td A6yov, el avvlf3TJ
KT;q, precedes this defeat chronologically, the phrases avvTp'ii/Jat
p,ev ••. J,PEOpEiJaat 8€ .•. would have to form a hysteron proteron, which
would be the more misleading since it would fall within a series of
events arranged in chronological order («:a1TEtTa . •• ni 3€ TEAEVTaiov).
Schweighaeuser kept uup,1Tlp,!fat, but translated 'repressis insequen-
tibus hostibus' ; this is an improbable sense for uvp,'ll'lp,!fat and open to
the same objection as uwrp'ii/Jat. The best solution seems to be to keep
avp,1Tep,!fat in its normal sense of either 'to conduct along in procession'
or 'to escort'. Translate: 'he both carried the pursuing enemy along
with him, and kept watch so that, in the likely event of the forces
besieging Capua making some move, he might take advantage of it'.
See Strachan-Davidson, ad lac.
4.1l~ '-iJ5avTa. rijs '11'po91laews: special pleading, since Hannibal's 1Tpo-
Oeats throughout this operation had been to relieve his Capuan
allies; and this he had failed to do.
t:ts T~v Twv ix9pwv ~Mil•1v a'll'oaKfj;ta.L: 'he applied himself to the
destruction of the enemy' ; perhaps a reference to the attack on
P. Sulpicius Galba (7. 7-8), but more likely a reference forward to
the attack on Rhegium (cf. Strachan-Davidson, ad loc.).
!lOVOV oO S' avaaTaTOUS ••• 'P..,y£vous: cf. 7. IO.
6. 'Pwllalous Ao.Ju:Snl!lOVLwv Alldvous: a fair assessment, if also one
acceptable toP., who is in general well disposed towards Rome and,
as an Achaean, hostile to Sparta.
7. auveKxu9EvTe'i: 'flocking off to the rescue' (Paton).
Tb Ka9' O.UTOU<;; !lEPOS n'II'E!'nAov: 'as far as they themselves were
concerned were well on the way to losing (Mantinea)': in fact the
appearance of the Athenian cavalry (8. ro-12) saved the town.
9. T06Tous ••• 'll'oAAO.KLS E'll'earlll"lva.ll"l'>': e.g. i. 13. r2~r3, 64. 5, iii.
II7. 1 (both); i. 32. 8 (Carthage); i. 59· 64. 6, ii. 33· I, and vi
passim (Rome).
TWV T]you!lEVWV 'll'a.p' a!l<JIOTEpOt'i: (the leaders of both these states' ;
the passage indicates clearly that this book was written before the
destruction of Carthage in 146 (cf. Vol. I, p. 292). Erbse (Phil. 1957.
292-3) would understand ly«:wp..lou xaptv \\'ith this phrase and trans-
late 'der groj3ere Teil meiner Angaben bemiihte sich urn eine
131
IX. 9· 9 HISTORICAL COMPARISON OF
riihmende Beurteilung der beidenseitigen (damaligen) Strategen', i.e.
the Roman generals and Hannibal. Against this may be urged (i) P.'s
careful distinction between praising the peoples and praising their
generals seems rather pointless ; (ii) on the Roman side the praise is
in fact due to the state for its firm policy, not especially to its generals
(d. 9· 8); (iii) it is very awkward to have to supply €1ncwplou xaptll
with n~w .ryyoupivw11, and xdpw alone with TWII ••• ;u:M6VTwv. Erbse's
translation, which is designed to save his theory that the Histories
were composed after 146, is therefore to be rejected.
'l!'a.p• iKewTo~s: 'in each and every state'.
10. TWV p.E.v tiva.p.~p.VT)O'KOP,£VO~, TB s· -:,'11"0 TTjv oljiw Aa.p.~avovns: 'by
recalling or picturing to themselves these events'. Casaubon took
Twv pi11 to refer to Hannibal and E paminondas, and Tti: Sl to their
achievements; but such a distinction, if intended, is most ambi-
guously expressed. Schweighaeuser suggests that Twv p.lv are the
more ancient events and Ta St! the more recent; but there seems no
reason why Epaminondas' expedition should merely be recalled,
while that of Hannibal is pictured in the imagination. Probably P.
merely intends to say that some details (TWII p.l11) of the two incidents,
such as the taking of decisions, are to be recalled, while others (TO: Sl),
such as the consternation at Rome, or the arrival of the Athenians
at Mantinea in the nick of time, are suitable to be pictured in the
imagination. This echoes Hellenistic rhetorical theory with its stress
on £11apyew. (cf. Vol. I, p. 15).
tTjAWTa.l ylvwvTa.~ ••• Ko.ATjv ixu TTjv rrpoa.lpeO'w: the general sense
is clear: statesmen are to emulate the actions of Epaminondas and
Hannibal, which are well conceived and bold without being hazar-
dous. But plainly some words have dropped out after y{PwVTat, and
perhaps too after Ktvoww8£s-. Hultsch and Btittner-\Vobst record
various attempts to fill the lacunae, and these depend on the import
of P.'s first words. He may be saying: (i) statesmen should emulate,
not actions which are fraught with risk and peril, but those which
are bold \vithout being hazardous, etc.; (ii) statesmen should emulate
actions which seem to be fraught with risk and peril but are on the
contrary bold without being hazardous, etc.; what he can hardly
be saying is that statesmen should emulate actions which are fraught
with risk and peril, since such actions are bold without being hazar-
dous, etc., since this would be self-contradictory. Hence Hultsch's
restoration, y{vwPrat (Toil) rrapd{1o'Ao11 lxw1 n Ka1 Ktvl:lwwOEs-, <Il,; Tn
'TOtaOr' acnfm:\fj K'TA., and that of Biittner-Wobst, ytPwln'aL (nov 'TOWU-
'TWV lrrt{1o'Awv. oaov p.~ll ydp) rrapa{JoAOII tXE:L [presumably: in the
apparatus he prints merely Jx.] n Kal Ktvi5uvw3Es- (o~K drro<{>EVKTlov,
&..\'Ad) 'TO~I·avTwv K'rA., must be rejected. Of the two alternatives sug-
gested the second is perhaps less satisfactory, since there is no par-
ticular reason why P. should stress the apparent danger of the course
132
HANNIBAL AND EPAMINONDAS IX. 9· Il
advocated, especially as neither Epaminondas' nor Hannibal's march

was especially dangerous, even in appearance: both, as P. says,
combined boldness with safety. Hence the most likely restoration
remains something like Reiske's, ylvwvTaL (ptr) [so Hultsch; Reiske had
ov] TWV SOJ<OVIITwv) 7Tap0flo"Aov EX€LV Tt l({l,~ KWOVVWSfs, (dM' oao.) TOV-
VavTlov KTA.; but there are various other possibilities.
9. 10 a. Surrender of Atella
Livy, xxvi. 16. 5, records the surrender of Atella and Calatia soon
after the fall of Capua (Livy, xxvi. rz. 14; App. Hann. 43; Zon. ix. 6).
Atella lay in the Campanian plain between Capua and Naples, and
had revolted soon after Cannae (cf. iii. n8. 3, Kap,7Tavwv Twes; Livy,
xxii. 61. II). The people of Atella and Calatia were allowed to keep
their liberty, but were debarred from Roman or Latin citizenship;
and the property of their senators and magistrates was confiscated
and sold (Livy, xxvi. 34· 6, 34· u). Subsequently the Atellani were
expelled to Calatia, and their town given to the people of Nuceria,
which had been destroyed (Livy, xxvii. 3· 6-7). Many Ate!lani seem
to have joined Hannibal (Zon. ix. 6, 7TaJJSTJp,el). Cf. De Sanctis, iii.
2. 46o n. 29.
9. 11. Bomilcar obliged to leat'e Tarentum

This fragment probably belongs to zn ; see above, p. 9· Livy,
xxvi. zo. 7~n, is fuller and probably goes back to Coelius, who will
have used Silenus, P.'s source (Kahrstedt, iii. 28r ff.; Thiel, 105 n.
:u2). The fragment is much compressed by the Anonymous, who has
misunderstood the situation; hence it is barely comprehensible with-
out Livy. If, as the Anonymous assumes, Bomilcar was trying to
relieve Tarentum from the Roman siege (cf. the use of Toi> E'voov),
and his supplies gave out, it is not clear why the citizens urged him
p,e(J' i.K<TTJpla> to retire. This is only comprehensible if he was in full
contact with the town and his shortage of supplies had to be made
up by its inhabitants.
Tc;)v •••'Pwfla.iwv 'II'OAtopKoOVTWV T 6.pa.vTa.: the Anonymous's words,

not P.'s, and to be ignored; the author has misunderstood Ta 7Tept TiJv
U'TpaTomoof:Lav. Holleaux believes the passage to refer to 209 (above,
p. 9), but nevertheless attaches no importance to these words
(240 n. 2).
BoflLAKa.~ o ... va.oa.pxo~: Bomilcar first appears in charge of a con-
voy bringing soldiers, elephants, and victuals for Hannibal to Locri
in :us (Livy, xxiii. 41. 10; above, 3· 1 n.). In 213 he brought fifty-five
ships to Syracuse, but retired in the face of superior Roman forces
133
IX.9. 11 BOMILCAR OBLIGED TO LEAVE TARENTUM
(Livy, xxiv. 36. 3-7). In 212 he twice appeared at Syracuse, first with
go, then with 155 ships (Livy, xxv. 25. II-13); and in the autumn, after
returning to Carthage, he set out once more, with 130 ships and 700
transports, for Syracuse. Failing to round Pachynus because of winds
he sent the transports back to Africa and, eluding the Roman fleet,
made for Tarentum (Livy, xxv. 27. 2--IJ), which he reached in late
autumn 212. The present fragment concerns his departure a year
later in 2 r 1.
£ts To uu~!J.a.x'l)u£w: supply a participle such as fMoTarrqupflds or €la-
7T.\oJaa>; see the critical apparatus in Biittner-Wobst for suggestions.
1:1£Ta Suvnp.Ews ni\durf)!l: 130 warships, according to Livy (xxv. '7· 4).
814 To ..• 'II'Ept Ti)v aTpa.ToneSE£a.v: the Romans were in the citadel;
cf. Livy, xxvL 2o. 7, 'Punica classis ex Sicilia Tarentum accita ad
arcendos commeatus praesidii Romani quod in arce Tarentina erat'.
£i\a.8ev ava.i\wua.s Ti)v xopf)yla.v: MS. x.p.,{av, corr. Schweighaeuser; cf.
Livy, xxvi. 20. 8, 'adsidendo diutius artiorem annonam sociis quam
hosti faciebat'.
10. The spoils of Syr•<cuse

The booty taken at Syracuse was greater than Carthage itself could
have yielded (Livy, xxv. 31. II; Plut. Marc. 19. 3); bronze from
S:yTacuse, melted dov.'I1, was used for buildings (Pliny, Nat. !list.
xxiv. 13}. Marcellus-a useful contrast to Verres-is praised for his
forbearance by Cicero (2 Verr. ii. 4, iv. us--16, rzo--3, 131), who
claims that the only thing he took for himself was Archimedes'
planetarium (de re pub. i. 21 f.). But even allowing for exaggeration
by the Syracusans (Livy, xxvi. 29. 4, 30. I-Io; Plut. ~Marc. 23. 4), it
is clear that plunder was on a vast scale (Livy, xxv. 40. r-3, xxvi.
31. 9); much of the booty went to adorn temples in Rome and
elsewhere (cf. Livy, xxv. 40. 3; 'ad portam Capenam dedicata a
M. Marcello templa'; Cic. de re pub. i. 21, ('sphaera) ... quam ab ...
Archimede factam posuerat in templo Virtutis'; 2 Verr. iv. 121, 'ad
aedem Honoris et Virtutis itemque aliis in lods uidemus'; Plut.
Marc. 21. r f., 30. 5 f.); for a dedication see GIL, vi. 474 = ILS, 3139,
'Martei M. Claudius M.f. consol dedit'. See further Munzer, RE,
'Claudius (zzo)', cols. 2748--9. P.'s criticism is echoed by Livy,
xxv. 40. 2, 'inde primum initium mirandi Graecarum artium opera
licentiaeque hinc sacra profanaque omnia uolgo spoliandi factum est';
it had already been voiced by Cato, fr. 224 Male., 'miror audere
atque religionem non tenere, statuas deorum, exempla earum
facierum, signa domi pro supellectile statuere'. In the speech on
the repeal of the lex Oppia (195) Livy (xxxiv. 4· 4; cf. Scullard, Pol.
257) makes him observe: 'infesta ... signa ab Syracusis illata sunt
huic urbi'. P. has two criticisms: (a) the Syracusan plunder (with
134
THE SPOILS OF SYRACUSE IX. IO. II
the possible exception of the gold and silver, § u) could contribute

nothing to the aggrandizement of Rome; (b) the sight of such plunder
is likely to inspire jealousy and hatred in those from whom it has
been taken. Although he speaks of the Roman reputation (e.g.§ 12),
the criterion he really applies is Roman advantage (cf. § 3, (JlJI-L-
.pEpovTw>).
10. 2. SLa TouTo: the reasons P. attributed to the Romans for de-
spoiling Syracuse have not survived, but presumably rested on
Syracuse's status as a defeated enemy.
Ta rrpoupTJJ.leva: according to M (which also contains this passage
with a slightly different version of this sentence) there were Ta TWv
l:vpaKovawv 7ToAVT£AeO"TaTa KaTaaKEV15.afLaTa..
J.1TJSev arroA.me'iv: contrast Cic. 2 Verr. iv. 121, 'Syracusis ... per-
multa atque egregia reliquit'.
op9ws ••• teal. UUJ.lcJlEpOVTWS O.UTOlS; not necessarily distinct; op8w>
can be either 'justly' or 'correctly', i.e. what their interests demanded.
3. J.1TJS' ateJ.1TJV vuv rrpaTTEU9aL; i.e. the practice is still wrong, when
applied in P.'s own time, e.g. after the defeat of Perseus (cf. Livy,
xlv. 39· 5, 'quo signa aurea, marmorea, ebumea, tabulae pictae,
textilia, tantum argenti collati, tantum auri, tanta pecunia regia?').
5. cl.rrA.ouuTaToLs XPWJ.1EVOL ~£oLs teTA.: cf. Plut. lrf arc. 21. 2, 5 for the
sentiment.
TTJS ••• rrepLTTOTTJTOS teat rroAuTEAe£as: 'pomp and extravagance'.
6. Tov ••• tfiA.ov: 'the tastes'.
TOV e~aKoAou9ouvTa ••• cJi96vov: cf. vii. 8. 4 n.
7. ou yap o\hws 6 9ewf1£vos ••• flatcapttu ••• , ws (ev ~) cJl9oveiv
tcTA.: 'for the onlooker never feels moved to admiration of those
who have possessed themselves of the property of others to the ex-
tent of his jealousy, which is combined with a certain pity for the
original owners who have lost it'. The MS. reads o yap oiYrw> dpfLw-
fLEVo>, but Schweighaeuser's correction seems assured; for ilJ> (Ev To/)
,P8ov£tv Hultsch reads ilJ> ,P8ovovv8', with the same sense. Paton,
' ... as by pity as well as envy for the original owners', upsets the
sense; the ,P8ovos must be that mentioned in §§ 6 and ro, and must
therefore be envy of the victors.
8. errav Se •.. rrpo~atvn Ta Tfjs eutca.Lptas: 'when material wealth
increases', or 'when the victor progresses in rna terial wealth', rather
than Paton, 'when opportunities become even more frequent'.
SmA.aaLov y£veTaL To Katcov: a popular expression, often found in
Euripides (Med. 1047, u85, 1315, Her. 937; Hel. 771; cf. Wunderer,
i. 74)-
11. TOV xpuuov Ka.l. TOV cipyupov a9po£tew: von Scala, 314, reads this
as part of a general code containing the 'laws of war', and compares
v. 9· r, n. 3· But P. is merely asserting that a power aiming at
135
IX. ro. II THE SPOILS OF SYRACUSE
universal dominion must strengthen its 0\'111 resources and weaken
others'; this has nothing to do with ol -roD TTo>..lp.ov v6p.ot.
Twv Ka96"-ou Trpay~TI•W llv,-,Tro,.ftoa.0"8a.t: 'to aim at world-empire'.
For P.'s views on this see i. 3· 4 n. and passages there quoted; cf.
Walbank, ]RS, rg6,), r-12. P. here justifies the Roman seizure of
wealth in terms of an ambition which elsewhere (iii. 2. 6) he attri-
butes only to the years after the defeat of Carthage in the Second
Punic War.
ll. ypacj>a.ts Kat TUTI'OLS: 'paintings and bas-reliefs' ; for ru1ro> in this
sense see G. Roux, BCH, 1956, 518-21; REA, 1961, 5-14; P. G.
Leoncini, Aev·um, 1956, 20-29.
11. Failure of the Punic generals £n Spain

This fragment concerns the situation after the defeat of the Scipios
in 2II (cf. viii. 38 n.) and, like the exaggerated account of a Roman
recovery under the eques L Marcius (Livy, xxv. ;)7-9, from annalistic
sources), indicates that the Carthaginians now ventured even north
of the Ebro, where the Ilergetes lived (cf. DeSanctis, iii. 2. 45o).
11. 1. ot Twv Kapx"18ovLwv TjyE.WvEs: Hasdrubal, son of Gisgo (§ 3),

and Hannibal's two brothers Hasdrubal and Mago; on their mutual
hostility cf. x. 7· 3; Livy, xxvi. 4I. 20.
Kpa:r,;oa.vTEs Twv UTI'EVa.VTLWV: they had killed first Publius, then
Cnaeus Scipio (Livy, xxv. 32. r-36. r6).
l. 5La. T~v iitLci>u,-ov ••• TI'AEov€~(av Ka.l cj>tXa.px!a.v: cf. ii. 45· r, Sta
-r7}v €p.cpv-rov d8udav ~~:ai 7TAeove~{av (of the Aetolians). Carthaginian
greed was traditional and Masinissa spoke of it, especially in Han-
nibal, to P. (25. 4).
3. :Ao8pou~a.s o rfoKwvos: he first appears in Spain in 214 (Livy,
xxiv. 41. s).
:Av8o~O.X"lv: cf. iii. 35· 2 n., 76. 7 n. for his loyalty to Carthage. It was
in trying to destroy him before he could join the Carthaginians
with 7,500 Suessetani that P. Scipio had been wiped out (Livy, xxv.
34· 6 ff.). Andobales (Indibilis) must have been deprived of his in-
dependent kingdom by the Carthaginians (ctd. Kapx1Joovtous; Paton's
version, 'owing to his attachment to them', is nonsense), pre~
sumably when Hannibal secured the interior (mfAat p.tfv) but he was
evidently content to be a vassal. His complete independence, which
Hasdrubal son of Gisgo at once tried to whittle away, was evidently
his reward for his share in the destruction of the Scipios (r5.pn ot
7TctAtv d7THA1]cp6-ra}.
4. \f•uoi} 8ta~oX~v €Tr€VtyKas: cf. x. 35· 6, where Hasdrubal's be-
haviour is caused by his mistrust; there Mandonius, Andobales'
brother, is served in the same way and both are said to have been
136
FAILURE OF PUNIC GENERALS IN SPAIN IX. II a 2
compelled to deposit their wives as well as their daughters as hos-

tages. On the handing over of women hostages cf. viii. 36. 3 n. Pre-
sumably the hostages took the place of the money Andobales refused
to deposit.
11 a. Roman embassy to Ptolemy IV

On the date of this embassy, perhaps 2Io, but possibly zu, see above,
pp. 9-Io. The later date would be more certain if this embassy could
be identified with that of Livy, xxvii. 4· Io, an untrustworthy re-
ference to legati sent 'ad Ptolomaeum et Cleopatram reges ... ad
commemorandam renouandamque amicitiam', and bearing gifts. Hol-
leaux (66--67) observes that Philopator's queen was Arsinoe, and that
she was never co-regent. There is a case for accepting Livy's embassy
in some form. Rome and Egypt had enjoyed friendly relations since
Ptolemy II's embassy to Rome in 273 (Livy, ep. I4; Dio, x, fg. 4I;
Dion. Hal. xx. I4. I-2; Iustin. xviii. 2. 9; Val. Max. iv. 3· 9; Eutrop.
ii. IS; App. Sic. I); and similarities can be traced between the two
coinages (d. Mattingly, NC, I946, 63-67; A] A, I95o, 126-8; Svoronos,
Td vo/L[u/LaTa Toil KpaTovs nov liToA€/Lalwv (Athens, I904-8), i. I48 ff.,
2I7 ff., iv. 83 ff., I43 ff.; L. N. Neatby, TAPA, I95o, 89--98). See also
E. Manni, Riv. jil. I949. 79--87 (relationship one of amicitia). How-
ever, the identification between Livy's embassy and that here cannot
be established.
11 a 1. Sla To 1-LEYaA:'lv dv(u ••• oTI'avlv: com was a constant pre-

occupation during the war, and imports were made from Sicily and
Sardinia on several occasions: cf. Livy, xxii. 37· I (Zon. viii. 26. I4).
xxiii. 38. 13, xxvi. 32. 3, 40. I5--I6, xxvii. 5· r--6, 8. I9 (Sicily); Livy,
xxiii. 32. 9· 41. 6--7. XXV. 20, 2-3 (Sardinia); cf. Thiel, s6. On the
corn supply at this time see de Saint-Denis, LEC, I940, 129--30.
2. j-LEXPl Twv Tf1s 'Pw1-111s Tl'uAwv: suggests a date after Hannibal's
advance in 2n (cf. 5-9).
;~w9ev ••• 1-LTt yevoi-Ltv11s ETI'Ucoup(as: the war in Sicily had interfered
with the sending of corn to Rome and Italy (Livy, xxvi. 40. rs-I6),
but Sardinia had helped to provision the army at Capua (Livy, xxv.
20. 2-3).
KaTa Tl'avTa Ta 1-1tP11 ••• 1'1'oA€j-Lwv iveOTwTwv: exaggerated, for there
was no war at this time in Asia Minor (Holleaux, 87 n. 4). Antiochus
was engaged in the far east (cf. 43, x. 27-3I) and Philip in Greece;
and the Roman--Aetolian treaty of autumn 2II (see above, pp. n-I3)
was to bring Attalus in against Philip. But these wars are hardly
relevant to the Roman com supply, which depended on Sicily and
Sardinia until Italian cultivation could be restored (Livy, xxviii.
11. 8--9, xxix. r. 14; see Hultsch, RE, 'Frumentum', cols. 128--9).
IJ7
IX. II a3 ROMAN EMBASSY TO PTOLEMY IV
3. Tov Iu<EAu<ov J1E8lllvov 1TEVTEKa.i8Et<a. 8pa.xllGlV: on the Sicilian
medimnus of ut gallons see ii. 15. r n. The price here quoted is 45
times as high as that in the Po valley in normal times (2 obols
a medimnus, ii. 15. r), and ten times that in Lusitania (xxxiv. 8. 7).
4. TolO.UTT)~ ••• Tfi~ 1TEplO'TnaEws: 'in spite of this distress'; on rrEp{-
<nacrts cf. i. 65. 7 n.
12-20. On generalship
The context of this discussion is unknown; but it formed part either
of the res Italiae of 210 or of the Spanish or Greek events of 2II
(above, p. 10). It is to be regarded as supplementary to the fuller
discussion of such matters in the lost book on Tactics (2o. 4).
12. 5. TL'i oov b Tpo1To~ Tij~ ••. 8m0EaEw~ t<TA.: 'in what manner such
competence is to be attained we may now consider', referring back
to § r lv €KrtQ'Tots • •• To 1rpon.Olv. So Reiske, followed by Schweig-
haeuser in his note ad loc.; in his translation the latter had adopted
Casaubon's version: 'quonam igitur pacta eiusmodi incepta disponi
atque administrari recte queant, considerarc iam Iicet' (or 'conuenit');
Paton translates: 'we must therefore inquire in what such faults
consist', which is also a possible rendering of an obscure sentence.
6. 1rpn~cns ..• 1TEpnrETE(a.o; 8E t<a.t auyt<upl]au~: 'actions ... accidents
and coincidences' (Paton). For this neutral sense of wEpmi:Tna see
xxii. 8. 4 and xxxviii. g. 2; it usually means 'disaster'. avydpT)atS"
does not appear elsewhere, but avy~<vpYJp.a means 'a happening' in
iv. 86. 2 and xxxi. 23. 6, and a-vy~<vpeiv is common in the same sense
as avp.{:1alm11 (cf. ix. 8. II, xxxii. 5· 4, both implying coincidence}.
See Siegfried, 48 n. 8r. wpd.fns- are 'actions', but especially military
ruses of a treacherous character (cf. § 8, and the examples P. dis-
cusses in 17 and r8); see v. 26. r n.
8. 8,&.crTT)I.lO.: 'period of time', during which it takes place, as dis-
tinct from its Katp6s-, the time at which it starts.
81' &v J<a.i. 11~a8' wv, cf. 13. g, 14. 2; the former are agents, the latter
one's comrades in an enterprise.
10. i1v~<a.t To Tuxov .•. TWv Ka.Tallepos: 'a single trivial detail' (Paton).
13. 1-9. Rules for success in surprise attacks: P.lists four: (a) secrecy,
(b) accurate calculation of times and distances, (c) ability to choose
the right time and place, (d) attention to signals, one's collaborators,
and the mode of action.
2. npx'"t !lEV ••• TO crlyiiv: cf. viii. 3 a.
810. ~~AoaTopyla.v: 'affection'; see Welles, p. 374·
6. Ta 8La.vooJ1a.Ta. To~Twv: cf. 14. 8, 15. 3; 'the distances covered in
these'.
ON GENERALSHIP IX. I4. 4
7. TWY £K Tou 1Tepu~xovTos Kalpwv ~xew Evvo~av: 'to have a notion
of time derived from the heavens'; so Schweighaeuser in his note,
having previously translated 'opportunitatum ex coeli conuersione
mutationibusque nascentium notitiam'. That his note is right is
clear from 14. 6-rs. 15, a passage concerned with the use of the
heavens to calculate the time. For P.'s insistence on a knowledge
of astronomy cf. iii. 36. 6.
'T'OOTwv KaTa TO t<:plll£v ellaToX'ii:v: 'to make successful use of these
to serve our purpose'.
8. TOY Torrov: cf. v. 21. 6 for emphasis on position in military con-
texts. See also rz. 8, 14. 2,
Ta fLEV O.SOvaTil ••• Suva'Ta K'T'A.: Wunderer, ii. 6r, compares the
Euripidean ending (Ale. n6r; Afed. 1417; Androm. 1286; Hel. r6go;
Bacch. 1390): Kat Td. OOK7J6EvT' otl1< Jn.'!..€a81), TWV 8' cWoK~TWJI 1r6pov
YJVpe 6e6<;; but the atmosphere is quite different, and there is no
reason to see any echo of the tragedian.
9. auvll'lflaTwv Ka.L rrapa.auvll'lfla'T'wv: 'signals and counter-signals';
cf. q. 9· For examples of the latter suitable for daylight and darkness
see Aen. Tact. 25: in the dark, the exchange of certain prearranged
words or sounds, and in the light the use of certain agreed gestures
like taking off the hat or moving a spear from one hand to the
other.
14. 1. Methods by which a general acquires his skill. P. here lists

three: (a) routine experience, (b) inquiry, (c) experience systematically
acquired; they are repeated in § 4, where, however, atl-roupyta and
{aTopta are grouped together as two aspects of Tp•fi~, and con-
trasted 'vith EjL7mp{a. (d. i. 84. 6 n.). The threefold division in xi. 8.
1-3, also concerned with acquiring the general's art, is different:
(a) the study of history, (b) systematic instruction from experts,
(c) routine practice. The divergences are not significant, for the
schematization into three is mainly a rhetorical device, found else-
where (e.g. xii. 25 d 2); there is nothing rigid about the particular
arrangement set out either here or there. Hirzel (888 n. 1) supposed
it to be Stoic in origin, citing the division of ~<pm~<~ by Crates' pupil
Tauriscus into Aoy~~<ov, Tpt/1<~<6v, and laToptKov; against this see von
Scala, 218, and especially Hercod, 85.
2. To yLvwaKEw a.6T6v: the atl-roupy{a of § 4, just as the taTopei':v of § 3
corresponds to the luTopla of § 4·
3. 'T~v Twv ~<a.ll"lyoufLEV(<)V 'ITLc:rrw: 'the pledge given by the guides':
1Tla-n<; is a concrete pledge, which can be held as bail for the faith
of the guide.
4. Ta.uTa. .•• Ka.l. Ta TOOTo~s: Tra.pa1TA~aLa.: i.e. knowledge of roads,
the place aimed at, and the nature of the ground.
Ti\s: O"Tpa.nwnKftS TPL~fts:: 'the routine experience of a soldier', who
139
IX. 14. 4 ON GENERALSHIP
either knows these things for himself or acquaints himself with them
by cautious inquiry.
5. Ta 0' ~K TfjS ilfJo'll'npta.s: SC. fLE80DLKfi;; (cf. § 1).
p.a.61]aEws Ka.l. 9EWP"lfl-6.Twv: 'a scientific education'; 8€wp~fLaTa are
'the sciences' (cf. x. 47· 12) or 'scientific principles'.
TWV ~~ aaTpoAoy(a.s Ka.l. YEWfl-ETp(a.s: for a limited knowledge of these
as part of a normal education see below, 15. 7-11 n. It is significant
that the rising of the Lyre might be a topic of everyday conversation
(cf. Plut. Caes. 59· 3).
&iv To fl-EV ~pyov ••• TO S€ XPfill-a. ••• : 'the work involved in this is
not great, at least for this purpose, but the study itself is a
thing, etc.'
6. O.va.yKa.wTa.Tov S' a.uTou: athav refers to :Ipyov or xPfifLa (Schweig-
haeuser); P. is concerned here with astronomy, coming to geometry
only at 19. 5 ff.
To 'II'Epl Tas vuKTEpwas 9Ewp£a.s Ka.t Tas ijp.EpwO.s: 'the principles govern-
ing (the length of) nights and days', as the following words show.
8. 'II'OpE(a.s KO.L O~a.vuap.a.TOS i}fl-EPTJO'(ou: 'a day's march and the dis-
tance travelled in it': cf. 13. 6.
11. u'II'Epapa.s Tov ••• Ka.~p6v: 'who arrives later than the time decided
upon'.
15. I. Kpa.TEL 0' , , , 0 KO.lpos: cf. X. 43· Z. The idea is proverbial; Cf.
Hesiod, op. 6g4, Katpos 8' €1Tt 1Tiiow ap~C17'0S. See Wunderer, ii. 43·
2. 'll'poxElpws taTt!ov: 'he must have a ready knowledge'.
3. auflop.ETpE'La9a.l 1rpos Aoyov: 'to calculate proportionately' ; for
Trpos A.6yov d. vi. 30. 3·
4. To us Ka.TO. p.€pos Ko.lpous: 'the separate times, subdivisions'
(Paton).
Tas ~~Ey€paElS Ka.l TO.s O.va.tuyc:i.s: '(when) to arouse the men and
when to be on the march'.
6. Tfi Ka.Ta Tbv TjAwv 1ropd~: 'by the sun's course'; the sun's otaan}-
fLara are its various positions and height in the sky.
7-11. Calculating the hour from the signs of the zodiac. In the course
of each night, whether long or short, six of the twelve signs of the
zodiac rise above the eastern horizon; consequently anyone with
a knowledge of the zodiacal constellations who observes how many
have risen at a particular moment of the night can calculate how
much of the night has passed. The fact that six signs rise in each
and every night was well known to the ancients; cf. Arat. Phaen.
553-6,
Tov 8' OO'O'OV KofJ..cno KaT' dno:avota OV1)Ta
T60'0'0V {mep ya[7JS <f:,tpe.Ta' • 1T!i.orJ l1rl VVKTl
e~ ale.t ovvovat ovwoe.K6.Dt:> KVKAoto
T60'0'a~ s· av"TIAAOIJO''
ON GENERALSHIP IX. 15. 7
(with the scho!iast : ttE~ yap J.1t' aKpL{J€s i~ f-LEli i17Ttp yij> ~~OLa, 2g 8i
1t&.\w v1r6 yfjv). See also :Manilius, iii. 241-2 (with Housman's com-
mentary); Vitruv. ix. 1. 4; Aetna, 236; Lucan, i. 91 (with Getty's
commentary). These elementary astronomical facts, which can be
easily demonstrated on a celestial globe, were unreasonably im-
pugned by Schmidt (r-s) and Susemihl (ii. 92 n. 55, 'einen starken
Irrtum'), and had to be reiterated by Biittner-Wobst (Phil. 1900,
151-3; cf. Klio, 1905, 99}. Their explanation is simple. The ecliptic
and the horizon are both great circles and therefore intersect; hence
180° of the ecliptic, i.e. six signs of the zodiac, are always above the
horizon and 180° below. The sun is a point on the ecliptic, therefore
between its rising and its setting 18o" of the ecliptic must have
passed across the heavens, or what amounts to the same thing have
risen above the horizon; and the same is true between its setting
and its rising. As Housman (ed. Manilius, iii, p. xii) points out, how-
ever, the different signs make different angles with the eastern
horizon, because the zodiac is oblique. 'Taurus rises at an inclination
nearer the horizontal than Cancer's, Virgo at an inclination nearer
the perpendicular.' This means that different signs rise at different
speeds; and in the short nights of summer six swiftly rising signs
come over the horizon, and in the long nights of winter six slowly
rising signs. This is the first qualification of P.'s argument, which
assumes (§ 8) that signs rise at an equal speed. Further, as Hip-
parchus pointed out (ii. I. 1 f., p. 120 Man.), the actual constellations
visible to the onlooker do not correspond exactly to the twelve J0°
sections of the zodiac associated \Vith them; and this introduces
another variable into the calculation. It should be noted that P.'s
statement that six signs rise in any night ceases to be true north
of the arctic circle (and south of the antarctic circle) because in these
areas some of the signs never rise above the horizon at all, i.e. those
in which the sun is to be found in mid-winter; but P. was not con-
cerned with the polar areas. Hipparchus' remarks quoted above were
aimed at Aratus and his commentator, Attalus of Rhodes, a con-
temporary of P.; Biittner-Wobst (locc. citt.) has suggested that P.
drew on Attalus' work (cf. Hipparchus, ii. I. 5 f., p. 124 Man.) for his
discussion here, which is possible. But one must remember that an
elementary knowledge of the signs of the zodiac was widespread;
thus even Socrates lKtAEUE ••• Ka~ aaTpoitoyCas- Ef-L7T€lpovs- ylyvea8a.,,
«aL TU.VTTJ> f-LEJJTOL f-LEXPL TOV VVKTOS" T€ wpav Kat p:rwos KaL lvtaVToii
8vvaa6a, ytyvwaKew €v~;Ka 7ropEws r€ ~c:al. 1rAou Kal <fou>..axijs (Xen.
Mem. iv. 7· 4).
7. brt Toil tj>a.wop.,vou: 'in the visible heavens'.
Tfi Tidv 8wS~Ka. t't'S£wv otKovof-ltl?- tco1 TagE~: 'the system and order of
the twelve signs of the zodiac'. Wunderer (iii. 38) takes the word
oiKo..op.la as a sign of Stoic influence, but unjustifiably; cf. vi. 9· ro n.
141
8. <j>aYEpOY WS iJ.yayKaLOY , , , aYa<j>epea8al: 'it is clear that during

the same portions of every night equal portions of the twelve signs
must needs rise above the horizon'. P. means that each sign will
take a sixth of the night to rise--which is untrue, for the reasons
given above (§§ 7-11 n.); the signs rising before midnight will rise
quicker or slower than those rising after midnight, according to the
time of the year.
9. 1ToiaY JlO'i:paY ~1TEXEL: 'which position (in the zodiac) it occupies'.
T~Y KaT a 8L<l.JlnpoY: 'the part diametrically opposite'.
11. JlETa TauTa: 'subsequently': but the sense is not clear. If P.
means much the same as by f.LETa TaVT7JV (sc. f.LO'ipav) in § 10, the
meaning is 'the subdivisions of the night subsequent to the rising
of the sign opposite to the sun correspond to the rising and passing
across the heavens of the various signs which follow'.
12. ws E1TL1TaY ••• ~ll <j>aiYETaL: true for Greece.
15. opos yap ds Jl~Y ws TU1T~: 'for in general the limit (of its re-
volution) is one month', i.e. a lunar month.
1rpos a'la8YJO'LY TOlouTOl 1TaYTES: 'all months are perceptibly alike'.
16. 1. TOY 1TOLYJT~Y: Homer, as usually (d. iv. 45· 6 n.).

TOY ~YEJlOYLK<MaToY (iy8pa: for Odysseus as the embodiment of
energy and strategical skill cf. xii. 27. 10; Horace, Ep. i. 2. 17-18,
'quid uirtus et quid sapientia possit utile proposuit nobis exemplar
Ulixen'. The Stoics, deriving their views from the Sophists (cf. Plat.
Rep. iii. 390 A-B), represented Odysseus as the typical ao</>6s; see
Hirzel, 875 n. 1, tracing (with some exaggeration) the development
of this concept. But there is no reason to see Stoic influence here
(cf. Hercod, 89). See further W. B. Stanford, The Ulysses Theme
(Oxford, 1954), 118-27.
TEKJlalpOJlEYOY EK TWY <iaTpWY: cf. Homer, Il. x. 251-3,
d.>...>..' LOf.L~V' f.LOJ...a yap vv~ aV€TaL, €yyvlh 8' ~t.!Js,
aaTpa 8€ 8T) 1Tpof3'f37JKE, 1TaPtPXWK€V 8€ 7T.>../wv VV~
Twv 8Jo f.LOLpawv, TPLTaT7J 8' ETL f.LO'ipa MAH1TTat.
This is on land; he navigates by the stars in Homer, Od. v. 271 ff.
3. o!oY OJl~pwY Kai 1TOTaJlWY €m<j>opai KTX.: precisely the kind of
'acts of god' properly attributable to Tyche; d. xxxvi. q. 2; Vol. I,
pp. 16-17.
17. 1-19. 4. Examples of generals whose plans miscarried through an

inadequate knowledge of astronomy (and geometry).
17. 1-10. Aratus' attack on Cynaetha. The source will be Aratus'
Memoirs (cf. ii. 40.4 n.); the date was probably 241. Cynaetha, on the
site of modern Kahivryta (iv. 16. 11 n.), probably became Elean
ON GENERALSHIP IX. I7. 6
(§ 1 n.) along with Psophis as a result of the Aetolian invasion of the
Peloponnese under Polysperchon in 244 (iv. 77· 8-g n.; Paus. v. 6. r);
and Elis became friendly to Achaea with the alliance between Achaea
and Aetolia in 240/39 (ii. 44· r n.; Plut. A rat. 33· r). The policy of
aggression against the allies of Aetolia in Arcadia, which Aratus
initiated during this interval, presupposes the possession of Cynaetha,
and its capture must have been preceded by this unsuccessful attack
in the course of one of Aratus' early generalships (§§ r and 9 n.). I
have argued elsewhere (]liS, 1936, 64-71) that this took place in
241, Aratus' third strategia, that it precipitated the Aetolian attack
of that summer (ii. 43· ro n.; Plut. A rat. 31. 3-5, 32. s-6) with the
Achaean victory at Pellene, and that Achaea acquired Cynaetha in
241-240.
1. Tous ~K TTJ'ii 1TOAEw<; ••• auvEpyouvTo.<;: the pro-Achaean party.

The status of Cynaetha is left undefined. But it was a town rent by
strong political factions (cf. iv. q. 4-5 n.)) and is hardly likely to
have maintained its independence when the Aetolian invasion pre-
cipitated the break-up of the remnants of the Arcadian League in
244 (see above). :Y1ost probably it went over to Elis along with
Psophis, and was now in Elean hands.
T~>V c1.1ro Kuvo.(8Tjs peovTo. 1TOTO.tJ.OV: the river of Kalavryta (probably
the ancient Kerynites; cf. E. Meyer, Pel. Wand. 139-40) runs to the
north of the town in a west to east direction, and this supports
Biittner-Wobst's emendation of E7Tt ?Tpmlou (F) to E'ITt T~v €w.
2. Tov auvTo.x9evTo. Tacj>ov: 'a tomb agreed upon'; the article is odd.
Is P. following a source (perhaps his own Tactics: cf. 20. 4) which
had already mentioned it? The tomb, being elevated, would be
visible to those ambushed in the river valley; the appearance of the
man in a cloak was the signal for the Achaeans to attack (§ 5, TO
m5v071fLG.) .
3. TO~'ii li.pxoua~: 'the officers of the watch'.
6. 1TEpl. 8£ 1TEtJ.1TTTJV llpo.v: about an hour before midnight.
lxwv ns 1rpo~o.To. ••• Twv et!hatJ.Evwv ••• Tpecj>Ew: 'the owner of
some soft-fleeced sheep, whose habit it was to pasture them near
the city'; Twv EWuJ'fLevwv must be after Tts, not 1rp6{3aTa, as the active
Tpl<f>Ew shows. So correctly Schweighaeuser; Paton is misleading.
?Tp6{3aTa fLaAad. (cf. Dem. xlvii. are the fine-fleeced sheep charac-
teristic of Tarentum and some parts of Greece, which had to be kept
indoors for part of the year and were often clad in leather or woollen
jackets to keep the wool soft (cf. Varro, Rust. ii. 2. r8; Strabo, iv.
196, {mo8l<f>Oepot '1TO£fLvat; Hor. Od. ii. 6. ro, oues pellitae). See 0.
Keller, Die antihe Tierwelt (Leipzig, 1909), i. 309-29; Orth, RE,
'Schaf', cols. 384-5; 0. Brendel, Die Schajzucht im alten Griechenland
(Diss. Giessen, 1934), 57-58; they were apparently a cross between
143
IX. t7. 6 ON GENERALSHIP
the sheep with long, coarse wool and long fat tails, and the short-
haired Cyprian mouflon.
1Tu8£cr9m n ... ~~WTLICov: 'to ask something to do with his personal
affairs'.
8. Til~ 11'p0.s~::w~: 'his coup' (Paton); on this sense of the word, singular
or plural (cf. u. 6 n., v. 26. In.), see Lex. Polyb. s.v.
tco.Ta.+a.vE'L<; •.. yEvop.~::VoL: the pro-Achaean party were presumably
known and their complicity suspected; no doubt confessions were
extracted.
1Tpo~A'18evTE~: 'dragged forward, exposed'. Paton follows Schweig-
haeuser (Lex. Polyb. Trpo{JatJ...;w} in translating 'put on trial'. Trpo-
{JatJ...uBat can mean 'to accuse anyone before the assembly by the
procedure of 1Tpo{JoA~' (d. Dem. xxi. 1 and passim; X en. Hell. i. 7. 35)
in Attic law; but so specialized a sense is improbable here and would
be unparalleled in P. Nor is a formal trial likely in the circumstances.
9. v£ov &.tq.u)v oVTo.: according to Charicles, discussing the matter
with Socrates, vlo~ describes anyone not old enough to be a member
of the Athenian Boule (X en. M em. i. 2. 35}, i.e. anyone not over 30.
But such words are elastic in meaning; see now Schmitt, Atttiochos,
8-<J. Aratus was born in 271 (ii. 43· 3 n.} and therefore 30 in 241,
the probable date of this fiasco (above, §§ I~IO n.).
8L11'AWV aUV~JLGTWV ICO.t 11'o.pa.auv8'1p.chwv: om.\a crwB~fl.aTa will be
combined signals, for instance if the cloaked man had been instructed
not only to stand on the tomb, but also to make certain pre-arranged
gestures. On 1Tapaavv8~fl.aTa, which involve the exchange of pre-
arranged signals, see 13. 9 n.
18. 1-4. Cleomenes Ill's attack on Megalopolis: cf. ii. 55· 5 n. The
year was 223, and the date about 22 May (§ 2 n.).
1. To Ko.Ta Tov 41wA£ov ~<o.Aoop.~::Vov: see ii. 55· 5 n. for this name.
tco.Tci Tph'1v ~uAa.tC~v: there was no universally accepted number of
watches in Greece. For five cf. Stesich. 55 Bergk; Simon. 219 A
Bergk; Eur. Rhesus, 543; but the scholiast on Eur. Rhesus 5 says
there were three. See Kromayer, Heerwesen, 223, on the duties. From
Sparta to Megalopolis is 30 miles as the crow flies, and so a very long
march even for a long night; as Cleomenes left Sparta at sunset he
can hardly have proposed anything earlier than the last watch for
his attack. This would suggest that the Spartans at this time divided
the night into three watches.
2. 11'Epl Tt,v Tfl s nAE:~a8o~ €mToATjv : on the meaning see i. 37. 4 n.
The heliacal rising of 'fJ Tauri in the Pleiades, is calculated to 22
Jtlay (v. 1. r n.}; Strachan-Davidson, 2o, makes it 12 May (cf. ii.
55· 5 n.). But the dating is only approximate.
5-9. Philip V's attack on Melitaea; cf. v. 97· 5-<)8. II for this attempt.
which occurred in the spring or early summer of 217.
I4f
ON GENERALSHIP IX. r9. z
5. 'ITpci~lv lfxwv: 'having a proposal for treachery from within
Melitaea'. In v. 97 P. makes no reference to internal collaborators.
TO.s t<A£p.a.t<a.; cMnou; ••. '"ls xpda.s: cf. v. 97. 6. Philip's failure
at Melitaea is introduced here as an instance of an error in timing;
but it gives P. an opportunity to take up the promised discussion
(v. 98. n) of the right way to ensure that ladders are long enough,
and so to pass from his discussion of astronomy to that of geometry.
See below, 19. S-<J·
7, at<p.fJV TWV &.v9pw'll'WV typllyopOTWV: this COntradicts V. 97. S•
where Philip is said to have marched through the night and to have
reached Melitaea at daybreak, inro ,.~v ~wOwr}v. The explanation is
probably not the use of a different source, but a different interest in
the two passages, which has led P. into some carelessness. In v. 97
he deals with the attack on Melitaea summarily and is mainly con-
cerned to stress the shortness of the ladders; hence his omission of
any reference to collaborators. Here he is interested in the training,
and it can be assumed that his more careful account, perhaps based
on a description in his own Tactics, is preferable to that in v. From
Larissa to Melitaea is about r8 miles.
9. cimo-TELV a.uT~ t<a.t q,uM.nEa9a.l: cf. v. 98. 7-8 (in general terms).
19. 1-4. Nicias' delay at Syracuse: cf. Thuc. vii. so. 3; Plut. Nic.
22. 2 ff. But the details of the Athenian disaster in Sicily were so
well known that the sketchy and inaccurate character of the account
here may be due simply to a faulty memory. The events mentioned
occurred in 413; the eclipse of the moon took place at 8 p.m. on
27 August (Ferguson, CAH, v. 306; Beloch, ii. z. 240; Ginzel, Kanon,
178).
I. Tfts vut<Tos Tov O.p11otoVTa. t<atpov: Thuc. vii. so. 3, 1rpoEf1rov <L!:
€Svva.V7'o M7],\cS,.a.Ta. £K7TA.ovv EK'ToiJ aTpaTo'JT!oov m'ia~ Kat7rapEuKEvaua.a0a.£.
This implies a fixed hour, no doubt at night, though Thucydides
does not say so.
5clo-..Sa.lp.o~o-a.s •.• t'ITtaxc n1v &.va.tuyfJv: cf. Thuc. vii. so. 4, oiiv yap
'T~ Kat ayav OE:La.O"f.LtfJ n KaL 'TOtOVT<p 7rpouKdf.L£VO<;; Plut. Nic. 4· I, 23· I. P.
rejected omens and superstitions; cf. vi. 56. 6-12 n., and x. z. 9 f.,
where he will not admit that either Lycurgus or Scipio Africanus
was not a rationalist at heart. In this he diverged from the Stoics,
though Panaetius also Tij> f.La.V7'Elas KaT' o~€v e'ITEaTptrfoETo (fg. 68 van
Straaten); cf. Diog. Laert. vii. 149 (fg. 73 van Straaten); Cic. div.
ii. 88 (fg. 74 van Straaten). But clearly this does not imply that P.
was a Stoic of Panaetius' persuasion.
2. ~~:a.TO. TTJV e'll'Louo-a.v ••• vut<Ta.: incorrect. Nicias insisted on a delay
of 27 days (Thuc. vii. so. 4), thus giving the Syracusans a chance to
launch further attacks (Tlmc. vii. SI-S4), which involved the death
of Nicias' colleague, Euryrnedon, and finally to close the mouth of
814.173 L
the Great Harbour and inflict a decisive defeat on the Athenian
fleet (Time. vii. 54-62). ibe detailed chronology of these events
presents difficulties (cf. Beloch, ii. 2. 24o-1), but the Athenian army
can hardly have begun its retreat (Thuc. vii. 75· r) before about
rs September, over a fortnight after the eclipse.
{nrox•nplous yev€a9a.L Toi:s Iupa.KoaioLs: here again P. contracts
events. From the beginning of the retreat rplrv ~p.lpf!. d7T<i rijs avp.-
p.axlas (Thuc. vii. 75· r) to the destruction of much of Nicias' army
and his surrender at the R. Assinarus occupied eight days (Thuc.
vii. 75--Ss). Demosthenes, Nicias' colleague, was made prisoner on
the sixth day (Thuc. vii. 91).
3. 1ra.pa.ft.urei:v .•. To us t8£ous Ka.Lpous: 'to miss his opportunity'.
s~a. TytV TWV U'II'€\1(1\ITLWV O.yvo~a.v: assuming that they on their side
failed to take scientific counsel.
5-9. On mak£ng ladders the right height: cf. v. 98. II, where P.
promises this disquisition, which is now introduced in connexion
with the second reason for Philip's failure at Melitaea (r8. 5, r8. 8).
Thucydides (iii. 20. 3-4) recognizes the importance of getting ladders
that reach just below the top of the wall, and discusses at length
the precautions taken by the Plataeans to achieve this. On measuring
walls cf. viii. 37. 1 n.
5. TotoOTos T£s taTLv o TPO'II'OS T'JS 6€wpla.s: 'the method of calcula-
tion is as follows'.
6. Sui Twos Twv O"U(l1Tpa.TTOVTwv: i.e. a confederate within.
o'lwv ••• OEKa. nvwv: 'ten of a given unit'.
SwlieKa. ••• SaljJLAwv: 'twelve reckoned generously'.
7. TTJY a:rro~(l.O"L\1 Tijs KAi(la.KOS! 'the interval at which the ladder is
placed (from the wall)' (cf. viii. 4· 4).
1rpos TYJV Twv O.va.~a.w6vTwv crU(l(l€TpLa.v: 'so as to achieve a proper
relationship to those ascending', or 'in order to suit the convenience
of those ascending it' (Paton). The latter would require a meaning for
avp.p.crpta rather diHerent from that found in§ 5 and in 20. 2, where it
refers to the proper proportion of things, not the convenience of people.
~f1icre1a.v •.• Tfjs KAlp.a.Kos: only roughly true of the figures P. gives.
A wall of ro units and a ladder of 12 + (§ 6 8aif11.Awv) would give an
inclination to the wall of 35°, and an ci.rr6{3aats of almost 7 units;
this is rather more than half the ladder's length.
6.Kpoa<Pa.AE'Ls: 'insecure, easily dislodged'.
8. 'TW\1 1Tp0~ op90.s ~cp<:a'TWTWV T()LS U'ITOK€Lf1EVO~S t·TJ'l1Tl80LS: 'standing
perpendicularly on a plane surface'.
9. Suvo.Tbs Ka.l p46Los: the simplest method was that traditionally
used by Thales to calculate the height of the Great Pyramid (Pliny,
Nat. hist. xxxvi. 82: Plut. }.{or. 147 A; Prod. in Eucl. 352. 14 Friedl.
(Eudemus); Diog. Laert. i. 27 (Hieronymus)), viz. by using a shadow-
pole and measuring the shadow of the wall.
q6
ON GENERALSHIP IX. 19. 9
In these two similar triangles the ratios of the corresponding sides

are the same. H 1 = height of wall, h 2 = height of pole, 5 1 and sz =
the lengths of their respective shadows.
HI h2 Slh2
- = ~ and H1 = --.
51 sz s2
The only difficulty would arise if 5 1 could not be measured exactly,

because it was not possible to go up to the wall (§8 p.7J8' lyylaat}. But
if this was wholly impossible there would be little point in calculat-
ing the height, since ladders could not be set up. P. must mean that
circumstances might prevent one having direct access (such as a
collaborator within might have), or being able to approach it directly.
But the length of the shadow is essential to the calculation, for it is
the only side of the larger triangle that can be measured. Various
solutions are possible. One might approach as near to the wall as
safety allowed and estimate the length of the shadow, or more feasibly
make a mental note of the exact point reached by the shadow's tip
and carry out the measurement after dark. The shadow of the pole
could be measured out of sight of the enemy, who would thus not
know what was afoot. See Sir T. Heath, A History of Greek Mathe-
matics (Oxford, 1921), i. 129-30.
An alternative method, independent of the sun, was to determine
the angle of elevation of the top of the wall from any convenient
point, the distance of which from the foot of the wall could be
ascertained, to make a drawing of a similarly proportioned triangle,
and thus to calculate the height of the wall.
In the larger right-angled triangle A is a measured angle and

8 1 is a measured distance to the foot of the wall. The smaller
IX. Ig. 9 ON GENERALSHIP
right-angled triangle is constructed with the same angle A: then
Hl h2 Blh2
Bl = l)2 ••• Hl = y ·
To measure the angle A use was made of a Sto1M"pa, or form of tele-

scope (d. x. 46. In.) ; cf. Hero, rr€pUhrhrTp. 2; Suidas, ?horrTpa, p:r;xaY£Kov
7'£XV0!5pYTfp.a, St' oo of yEWjL~Tpat a1TTJKpl{Jovv Tijv TWV e1Hv.e€WV EK Ota-
a-n}p.aTor; dvap.&pr;aw. See Hultsch, RE, 'Dioptra', cols. 1073-4·
o~ p.'ya.
20. 1. J.1Tt n-A.Etllll:: cf. 14. 5,
ava.AoyLa.S ••• Ka.l TTJS 'ITEpL Tas o~ouh1JTC1S 8ewp~a.s: 'proportion and
the theory of similar figures'. op.otor; is 'similar'' of geometric figures;
cf. Eucl. 6 Dej. I, etc. See above, 19. 9 n., for the use made of similar
figures in the calculation just mentioned.
2. Tas Twv OXTJJ.16.Twv J.lETO.A~ljlns: 'making changes in the plan (of
camps)' (Paton). P. envisages two ways of doing this: (a) replanning
the camp without changing the relative proportions of the areas
occupied by the various parts, (b) an increase or decrease in the size
of the camp, maintaining the same plan and relative proportions of
the parts.
3. Ka.TO. Myov: 'proportionately'; cf. viii. 5· 3 n.
4. iv Tois 'II'Ept Tas TC..~c;:1s U'ITo~V~!J.aO'w: P.'s book on Tactics is also
mentioned by Arrian (Tact. I. r) and Aelian (Tact. I, 3-4, 19. ro);
according to Aelian (Tact. 3· 4) P. defined Tactics as €d.v 7'£> rrMjOos
rhaKTov rrapaAa{JtiJv Toiho avyKplvr; ~eai KaTaAoxlaas avi.Aox{arJ rratllrt!ValJ
n XPTJalp.w<; ,.a, rrp<)r; TOv ?Toi.Ep.ov. The present passage indicates that it
was an early work, and Werner (15-16) suggests that it was written at
Rome after P. had been hipparch of the Achaean confederation in
qo{69 (xxviii. 6. 9). This theory is approved by Susemihl (ii. 90 n. 48);
but it is perhaps more probable that he wrote the Tactics in
the qo's before he was hipparch (so Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (1)',
col. 1473). It has been suggested that the Tactics are among the
sources of Asclepiodotus' Tactics, perhaps via a lost work of Posei-
donius (Ael. Tact. r. z); seeK. K. Muller, RE, 'Asklepiodotos (ro)',
cols. 1637-41; W. W. Tarn, OCD, 'Asclepiodotus'.
5. J.lETp(ws ••• €7Tolat:LV: 'will reasonably charge me with .. .'. For
this Sense Of j.I.ETplws cf. XVill. 15. 4•
AO'TpoAoye'Lv Ka.l yEw~npeiv: cf. 14. 5· The importance of astronomy
has been demonstrated in 14. 6-rg. s. of geometry in 19. 5-20. 3·
6. Ta J.1EV EK 1TEptTTou '11'apEAKOf1EVa. Tois €7TLTTJ~Eu~aa': 'superfluous
adjuncts to any branch of knowledge'. Hirzel (852) argues for Stoic
influence in this utilitarian view of knowledge and quotes Stobaeus,
ii. 128 ( = ii. 73 Wachsmuth), r/;Mt of ~eal Twv lv Eee, dyaOwv Elva• Ta
tmTr;lievp.aTa KaAotJp.m1., olov r/;tAop.ovalav rfotAoypap.p.aTlav rfotAoyEw-
~ ·~I > \ J. -
f-LtTpta:v lea' 7'a rrapa1TI\1]Uta• HVa£
' ' \ \ I
yap OOOJJ
\
'T£1!0.1 €/CI\f.KT'K 'II! 7'WI! Ell TO.IJTO.'S'
l I
ON GENERALSHIP IX. zr. I
Tats Tlxva£s olKElwv 1rpOs dpEn}v) dva.tf>ipovaav a&rO. E1ri .,-6 -roV {Jlov
·dA.o,;. But P. is concerned with generalship, not d.p~r-n1; and there
is no special significance in Stobaeus' use of €m'rr)ll€UfU17'a, since this
is the normal word for 'pursuit, branch of knowledge' (cf. iv. 2I. 2,
vi. 5· 6). Further, Stobaeus is concerned with the general end towards
which ~7Tt7'7JOfiup.a7'a contribute, whereas P. is interested in limiting
their context 7Tpo:; 7'~11 xpdav. Thus the case for Stoic influence here is
not made out. For P.'s utilitarian approach to knowledge cf. iii.
4· II; Vol. I, pp. 6 ff.
ivL<PO.<TEws Kat aTwl'u.>..Las: 'ostentation and fine talk' (Paton).
voAu TL l'a.A..>..ov cmo8oK&~twv: on the contrary I strongly disapprove
l
of .. .' (Paton) ; 7TOAV 7't goes closely with a7To8oKtp.d.~wll, and p.fi.AA.o11
(as often; cf. U. 56. 2, 7L 2) is potius.
7. TOUS ••• opxT)aT&Ki}S fJ TOUS «OhT)TLKi}'ii Et\E!'EvOU'!i: von Scala (2o)
compares the official parades and military dances attested for Man-
tinea and other parts of Arcadia by Xenophon (A nab. vi. I. n), and
praised by P. (iv. zo. ro-n). But P. is here writing generally, and
as von Scala appreciates, his use of the words f3a11avuovs T.!xvas (§ 9)
would be odd if he had these in mind. Plato (Laws, vii. 814 E) dis-
tinguishes two kinds of dance, 7'~11 p.~v TWII KaAAt&vwll uwp.chwv e7Ti nl
G'fiJLIIOV p.tp.ovp.~vqll, 'T~V OE 7'WII aluxt&IIWII rnL 7'0 tfoavAoll. The Arcadian
dances clearly belong to the former, but f3a11awo• 'TEXIIat suggest the
latter.
21. On the feelings of the Romans and Carthaginians

This extract from the gnomic collection (M) probably defines the
state of mind at Rome at the beginning of 210 B.c.; cf. Livy, xxvi.
37. I-<); above, pp. IO-II.
21. 1. TOlClUTT)S l:ha&tat:ws uvapxoOO'TJS: elucidated in Livy, xxvi. 37·

On the Roman side there was disaster in Spain and success in Sicily,
the loss of Tarentum in Italy, but the retention of its citadel, and the
panic at seeing Hannibal outside Rome, followed by the fall of Capua;
while in the east the hostility of Philip had been countered by the
acquisition of the Aetolians and Attalus as allies. The Carthaginians
could balance the capture of Tarentum against the loss of Capua, but
their advance on Rome had been in vain; and theRomans had sent a
new army to Spain, where the Punic success against the Scipios had
been partly nullified by the resistance of L. Marcius.
KO.Ta TOY "'rOlT)T~V al'a. AO"'rfiV Kai. xapO.v: an inaccurate recollection of
Homer, Od. xix. 471, 7'~11 8' ap,a xapp.a H:rJ.t cL\yos- EAE t/>pe11a. Von
Scala, 65, remarks that xapri. is a word popular with the Stoics; but
it appears in many authors and its substitution here for xcfpp.a has
no significance. For A~ Ka1 XrJ.Prl cf. xv. 32. 4·
IX. 22. I HANNIBAL'S CHARACTER
22-26. Hannibal's character

On the placing of this discussion, from the extracts on virtue and
vice (P) see above, p. ro. P. indicates in x. z6. 9 the principles
on which he inserts such a character sketch. There is further dis-
cussion of Hannibal at xi. 19 and xxiii. 13. 2.
22. 1. ~:h ... civ.fJp ••• KC1l !-'lC1 IJ!uxt\: on the power of this gifted
individual cf. i. 35 n. (Xanthippus), viii. 3· J, 7· 7 (Archimedes);
Cic. de rep. ii. 21 (Romulus), perhaps based on P.
2. 8!.0. Tou 1Tpt!a~u,.£pou Twv ooEAcpwv: 'through the elder of his
brothers'; Paton, 'through his elder brother', is wrong, for Hasdrubal
was Hannibal's junior.
s~a TOU M6.ywvos: Mago, after sharing the Italian campaign till
Cannae, was sent back to Carthage to report the victory (Lhry,
xxiii. n-13), and in 215 took an army of u,ooo foot, 1,500 horse, and
2o elephants to Spain to reinforce Hasdrubal (Livy, xxiii. 32. 5).
He there fought beside Hasdrubal and, after 214, Hasdrubal son of
Gisgo (cf. n. 3 n.). In zn Mago and Hasdrubal son of Gisgo defeated
and killed P. Scipio (Livy, xxv. 32-34), and shortly afterwards Cn.
Scipio was wiped out by the combined forces of the three Punic
leaders (Livy, xxv. 35-36; above, viii. 38 n.).
3. Tous Twv 'PwJlC1lwv o-rpe1TT]yous: the two Scipios (see last note).
4. '11T1TOKp6.T'flV ••• Munovou: on Hippocrates, the Punic agent at
Syracuse, see vii. 2. 3 n., 4· 4, 5· s. 14 b n., viii. 3· r. Myttonus (Mut-
tines in Livy, MoTTOV1J> in SyU. sSs}, a Libyphoenician from Hippou
Acra (Livy, XXV. 40· s). perhaps of mixed blood (cf. Livy, XXV. 40. 12,
degenerem Ajrt-tm; see Gsell, ii. rrs n. 4; DeSanctis, iii. 2. 310 n. qo),
was sent by Hannibal to Sicily in command of Numidian cavalry,
after the fall of Syracuse. At first he was highly successful; but when
Hanno, the general in command, handed over his post to his own
(Hanna's} son, Muttines opened negotiations with Laevinus and
surrendered Agrigentum to him (no, cf. Livy, xxvi. 40. ; see
below, 27. This quickly led to the surrender of all Sicily (Livy, xxvi.
40. I3-18). Muttines received Roman citizenship (Livy, xxvii. 5· 6-7;
Ascon. in Pt'son. 52) and later commanded Numidian troops against
Antiochus (Livy, xxxviii. 41. 12 ff.). The grant of proxenia by Delphi
to Md.a.pKos 'Oa.Mpws o MoTTOin]S and his four sons Publius, Gaius,
Marcus, and Quintus (SyU. 585, no. 32, I. 8o) will date from this time.
See further the acute observations of V. Ehrenberg, RE, 'Myttones',
cols. 1428-30.
5. s~a Tfjc,; 1Tp0<,; Cl>i.A~1T1TOV KOLV01Tpo.y(o.c,;: for Hannibal's alliance with
Philip in 215 see above, vii. 9·
6. IJ!ux~ ~EovTw<,; O.p}loa8E'Laa KTA.: cf. viii. 7· 7 n.
KC1Tn T~V E:g .ipxfls aUo-rC1aLV: 'by its original constitution' (Paton).
150
HANNIBAL'S CHARACTER IX. 23. 2
7. lmaneiv b Ka.tpoi lioKei f.LOL • , • STJAwaa.t: only now, for the reasons
given in x. 26. g. An exception to the principle there stated is
specifically noted, cf. xiv. r2. r-5 (on Ptolemy Philopator). See above,
vii. rr. r n.; Bruns, 6, 28.
8. C:,f.LoV ••• Ka6' u'll'ep~oAtjv: the usual Roman accusation; cf. Diod.
xxvi. 14. 1-2; App. Hann. 28, 31, 59, 6o; Livy, xxi. 4· g, 'inhumana
crudelitas, perfidia plus quam Punica, nihil ueri, nihil sancti,
nullus deum metus, nullum ius iurandum, nulla religio'; Cic. off.
i. 38, 'Poeni foedifragi, crudelis Hannibal' ; de amic, 28. The charge
is probably exaggerated; but F.'s exoneration is of a qualified kind
(24. 7-8 nn.).
TLVEi S€ 4HA6.pyupov: see below, 25-26.
9. eA£vxEa9aL ••• TCli qniaELi ti'II'O TW\1 'II'EpLO'TCO'f:wv: a traditional
view, illustrated by the proverb d.px:'J wopa oeleEt (Bias ap. Arist.
Eth. Nic. v. r. r6. n3o a r). See x. 26. 7-ro n. for F.'s view.
10. oux uytES etva.L Sotcei TO AeyOf.LEV0\1: P. sees two factors modifying
men's actions in such a way as to invalidate the theory that circum-
stances reveal character: (a) the complexity of circumstances causes
men to act and speak contrary to their real views, (b) they are
influenced by their friends. These same two factors are mentioned in
two passages of Stoic authors: Diog. Laert. vii. 8g, fw:u:rrptif;EuOat o~ To
.:\oyLKov {<i)ov, 7TOTE p)v otd. Tas Twv €gw8t:v trpay[.Lo.Tetwv mOa.vonJTas,
'ITOTl o€ o14 r1]v KO.T~;)('IjC!LV TWV C!WOVTWJ.i' rod ~ if;vcns difwpp.a,; olowuw
afnaUTpoif;ou,; Galen, de Hipp. et Plat. plac. v, p. 462 (attributing the
view to Chrysippus), OLTThJ.i yap dvat rfi> (Mcrrpoif>ij> Thv alTia.v, ETtpav
p.tv iK K!LT1j)(I}C!EWii TWil770AAWil av8pclmwv iyywo,.,.tV'T]v, h£pav8e a.vrijs ;.e
TWV TTpayp.d.Twv rfjs if;vaew>. The parallel is striking and it seems fair to
recognize Stoic influence on F.'s thought at this point (cf. Hirzel,
858-6o; Susemihl, ii. 1o4 n. 91 ; the incredulity of Hercod, 90, seems
misplaced). See further x. 26. 7-ro n.
TGS Twv opi.Awv 1Tapa.9eaE~i: 'the suggestions of friends'; cf. ::!J. 5,
26, 1, 26. Io. On the importance of friends cf. viii. ro. 8-12.
1Ta.p0. -riJv a1hwv 'll'poa.lpEaLv ••• AeyELv Kat 'll'pUTTELV: e.g. Aratus of
Sicyon (cf. ii. 47. ro) ; see above, viii. 8. 8-g and below, 23. 4, for the
same point. See further Walbank, ]RS, 1962, 4.
23. 2. ;b.ya.9oKAEa TOv Iuct:Ma., Tupa.vvov: cf. viii. xo. 12, xii. 15. r-ro,
xv. 35· 2-7. This alleged unanimity of historians concerning Agatho-
cles' later mildness of character is dubious. We know of one his-
torian favourable to him, Callias of Syracuse (Diod. xxi. 17. 4
FGH, 564 T 3); and the tyrant's historian brother, Antander (FGH,
565) probably flattered him. But Timaeus was uncompromisingly
hostile and is probably the source of Diodorus' remark that trAElaToU>
~ea.l TTOLI<.LAwniToU> <f6vou> imuA€aap.evos KaTcl. T~v SwaUTelav, Kat Tfj
I((J.T(l TWV op.oif;v.:\wv ckp.OT'I)Tt 7Tpoa8€is Kal. T~V el> fJEOUii &.ai,BELav 1Tpt1TOUaav
I
IX. 23. z HANNIBAL'S CHARACTER
laxe Tjj 1rapavoJ.LlCf 7'~v Tav f3iou Ka.Ta.aTpo4>-IJv (Diod. xxi. 16. 5 = FGH,
566 F 123 a). On Agathocles see H. J. W. Tillyard, Agathocles (Cam-
bridge, 19o8); G. J. D. Aalders, Tijd. ges. 1955, 315-66; H. Berve,
S.-B. Mt'lnchen, 1952, 5·
3. KAt:oJ-LEV'I'J~ o IwupnaTTJS: cf. ii. 45· 2 n. For Cleomenes, first as
king, then tyrant, cf. ii. 47· 3 n., iv. 81. 14; for his character, v.
39· 6.
4. won f1TJ olov €A€yxt:o9o.~ tcTA.: cf. 22. ron. For a different and
contradictory view, viz: that both individuals and peoples some-
times show opposite traits 4>6aH (not merely through pressure of
events), see iv. 8.
6. ;6.ptonLoou tco.l nEpuc:Aeou; ••• KA€wvo; OE Ko.t Xci.p'I}TOS: Aristeides
was influential at Athens between 490 and 477 (apart from an ostra-
cism effective between 483-2 and 48o), Pericles from 461 to his death
in 429. Cleon succeeded to Pericles' position of influence and perished
at Amphipolis in 422; Cbares was influential as general from 366
onwards, fighting against Philip II (cf. iv. 43· 6 n.) and eventually
joining the Persian side against Alexander at :Mytilene in 332. P.
may be thinking of the Athenian debate on Mytilene (Thuc. iii. 36-5o;
cf. especially 49· 4 11'pii{J.La a.\AoKoTov), though nothing happened then
which he does not himself countenance at ii. 58. g-Io as part of the
normal hazards of war. His condemnation of the Athens of Chares
may well reflect his lack of sympathy with Athens' anti~Macedonian
policy (d. xviii. 14); but Plutarch (Phoc. 14. 2) confirms Chares'
harshness in exacting contributions from the allies of Athens.
7. KAcoJ.L~pchou ••• ;6.yT)atAO.ou: Cleombrotus I succeeded his
brother Agesipolis I as Agiad king of Sparta in 38o (Diod. xv. 23. 2);
his career was mainly concerned with campaigns against Thebes,
and he fell at Leuctra (371). Agesilaus occupied the Eurypontid
throne from 399 until36o (the exact dates are controversial). Despite
the Peace of Antalcidas and the principles of autonomy embodied
therein, he condoned Spartan interference at Man tinea in 385 (iv. 27.
4-7 n.; xxxviii. 2. n), at Phlius in 381-379 (Xen. Hell. v. 3· ro ff.),
and at Olynthus between 383 and 379 {Xen. Hell. v. 2. zo-3. 9, 3· r8-2o,
3· z6) ; and he was behind Phoebida..s' occupation of the Cadmea in
382 (cf. iv. 27. 4-7) and Sphodrias' attempt on the Piraeus in 378
(Xen. Hell. v. 4· 20-21; Plut. Pelop. 14; Ages. 24; Diad. XV. 29. s-6).
P.'s contrast between the characters of Agesilaus (cf. iii. 6. u n.)
and Cleombrotus does not command unanimous agreement; Dio-
dorus (loc. cit. following Ephorus) suggests plausibly that Cleom-
brotus was involved in Sphodrias' coup.
9. 41CX,wwo~ b ~o.aLAEOS: P. contrasts the influence of Aratus and
Demetrius on Philip V in vii. 13. 3-14. 6 (cf. v. 12. 5-8) ; on Chryso-
gonus see v. 9· 4, q. 6, 97· 3 f., vii. rz. 6; and on Taurion's share in
the alleged poisoning of Aratus cf. viii. 12. 2.
Ij2
HANNIBAL'S CHARACTER IX. 25. r
24. 3. TO:.s ••• Twv 'II'Ep~oTO.oEwv u11o~oAlls: 'the promptings of cir-
cumstance' (Paton).
lKa.viJv Tou 11pllyJ1aTos ~JlcJla.oLv: 'an adequate notion of the matter';
cf. i. 57· 2, iKavT]v €wa~av Aa{Jdv; see § 7·
5. ~v T~ ouvE~p~: Hannibal's council, often mentioned; cf. iii.
20. 8 n., 34· 8, 71. s. Ss. 6, vii. 9· r. It seems to have contained repre-
sentatives of the Punic government as well as his chief officers and
friends (cf. vii. 9· r n.).
i\vv(~as b J-1-0VoJlllxos: otherwise unknown; cf. vii. 2. 3 n.
7. i\vv(j3as .•• ou~~v 0.vTU1Y'ElV ~~uvi)&rj: i.e. Hannibal recognized that
cannibalism was logical, but he was not prepared to give it serious
consideration.
Toil • • • 11pclyf1o.Tos Aaj3civ E'vvo~av: 'to give the matter serious
consideration', a different sense from that in i. 57· :2 (quoted
above, § 3 n.); cf. xviii. II. 4, 14. 6.
8. TOUTou ~€ Tav~pos ••. ~eal. Twv 1TEp~oTllocwv: P.'s examination of
Hannibal is not unambiguous. The acts of cruelty in Italy (cf.
22. 8 n.) attributed to him were the work of the Gladiator (with or
without Hannibal's consent?) or arose from circumstances (in which
Hannibal acquiesced; cf. 26. 7-9). P. does not consider a third
possibility: many of them are the invention of hostile propaganda.
Modem historians are inclined to reject the stories of Hannibal's
cruelty (cf. Lenschau, RE, 'Hannibal (8)', col. 2351; De Sanctis,
iii. 2. srs n. 112; Mommsen, RG, i. 57I}; but chivalry (cf. Livy, XXV.
q. 4-s; Diod. xxvi. I6; Val. Max. v. I ext. 6; Polyaen. vi. 38. I
(funeral of Gracchus; cf. viii. 35· I n.); Livy, xxvii. 28. r; Val. Max.
v. r ext. 6 ; Cic. de sen. 7s ; Plut. Marc. 30 ; camp. Pel. et Marc. 3· 6 ;
auct. de uir. ill. 45· 7; Sil. It. xv. 385 ff.; App. Hann. so (funeral
of Marcellus)) is not inconsistent with acts of cruelty. The question
remains open.
25. l. cJl~Allpyupos •.• lha.cJlEpovTws: cf. 22. 8. P.leaves the point open,
though he is much more ready to concede it. Hannibal inherited much
wealth and property, but although he lost this on his flight to Syria
(Nep. Hann.. 7· 7), he was soon again in possession of considerable
money (ibid. 9· 2, lust. xxxii. 4· 3-5). This suggests at least a capacity
for accumulation. See De Sanctis, iii. 2. srs n. u:z; Lenschau, RE,
'Hannibal (8)', coL 235r. But the temple treasures at Locri, plun-
dered by Scipio's lieutenant Pleminius, had been left intact by
Hannibal (Livy, xxix. 8. 9).
MO.ywv~ T~ (rO.) KO.Ta TftV BpeTTta.v XE~p£tovn: probably .Mago who
destroyed a body of Romans outside Thurii in 2I2 (Livy, XXV. rs.
8 ff.; cf. App. Hann. 34), an event which precipitated the loss of the
town to the Carthaginians (cf. Yiii. 24. 3 n.). He also ambushed and
killed Ti. Gracchus (viii. 35· I n.). Despite Livy, xxv. r8. I, his
153
IX. 25. I HANNIBAL'S CHARACTER
presence at the siege of Capua is doubtful; but he later commanded
in Locri, xxvii. 28. 14). His nickname, the Samnite (§ 4), is also borne
by Hamilcar, active as a democratic leader in 150 {App. Lib. 68, 7o)
and perhaps Mago's grandson, if such nicknames were hereditary
(d. i. 46. 4-47. Io n.). Gsell {iii. 347 n. 2) suggests that :EavvLTTJ> is
a corruption of a Phoenician name, Ehrenberg (RE, 'Mago (9)',
col. sos) that it related to some achievement in Samnium.
2. 1TapE.Xa(3ov ••• 1Tap' atm'dv KapxT)Sov£wv: whom P. could have met
either in Greece or in Italy {cf. iii. 48. 12 n.).
3. £yxwpLOL ••• TCt5 TWV aVE!-LWV O'TOOEL~: for the popular view that
natives know best cf. iv. 78. 4, vi. 11. II, x. 28. 3; see Wunderer,
i. 28-29. On dvlfLov U7ams see i. 48. 2 n.; cf. i. 75· 8, v. 5· 3; von Scala,
28J.
KaTa Tl]v 1TapoL!i(av: P.'s first use of this phrase, which Wunderer
(i. 46) associates with access to a collection of proverbs. On the
relevance of this to the problem of the composition of the Histories
see iii. 1-5 n. {VoL I, p. 294).
4. Mcwavvauou ••• St~Kouua: the hiatus after Maaawaaov indicates
compression, and Biittner-\Vobst suggests that Toii {JamAiws or some-
thing similar has been omitted. Masinissa, of the Massyli, com-
manded his Numidians in Spain, on the Punic side, from 212 to 206
(d. xi. 21. 1 ff.), but later joined Scipio and fought beside him in
Africa {d. xiv. 3· 7 ff., 8. 6 ff., 9· 2, xv. 4· 3 f., 5· 12 f.); he played a
substantial part in the Roman victory (xv. 9· 8, 11. 3, 12. 2, 12. 6,
14. 7 f.). The Romans recognized him as king and substantially in-
creased his kingdom at the expense of Carthage (xv. 18. 5, xxi. II. 7,
21. 2), on whose territories he continued to encroach. P. probably
met him along with P. Scipio, who crossed into Africa in 151 (xxiv.
16. 2, xxxvi. 16. 12; above, iii. 57-59 n.) when serving in Spain under
L. Licinius Lucullus; cf. Pedech, M ithode, 555 ff.
5. 1Tpos ••• TOL~ aAAOL~: 'among other things'; the phrase goes with
;,pTJ, as Valesius saw. Schweighaeuser in an uncharacteristically per-
verse note takes it \V:ith KEKOLVW111JK6Tar; .•• 7Tpayp.d-rwv, and would
emend to 7Tpos Tovs U..Uovs.
6. uTpaTT)YEiv: 'out-general', 'out-manceuvre' (cf. iii. 71. 1).
£cjJa11l.AXou Ti]5 li1TEpoxi]~ ••• u1Tapxou'"l~: this can only have been
strictly true in Spain before Hannibal succeeded to Hasdrubal's
command.
26. 1. EJC TE Tl;'w '11"ponpT)!1Evwv ••• cjlavEpov: cf. 25. 3· After discussing
the influence of friends in respect of cruelty {24) and avarice (zs),
he now turns to the other factor {d. 22. 10), the complexity of events.
2. at 1TOAEL5 11n£wpoL: the fall of Capua, which followed Hannibal's
march on Rome (3. 1--9. 10, 9· 10 a n.) was not followed by any
swing over of cities to Rome. For the taking of Atella and Calatia
154
HA~NIBAL'S CHARACTER IX. 26a
see 9· 10 an. In 210 the Romans recovered Salapia in Apulia (Livy,
xxvi. 38. 6-14) and Marmoreae and Meles in Samnium (Livy, xxvii.
I. r}; and about this time Tisia among the Bruttii (its site is un-
known) was both acquired and lost (App. Hann. 44). In 209 the
consuls Q. Fabius .Maximus and Q. Fulvius Flaccus took several
towns (Livy, xxvii. 15. 2-4; Eutrop. iii. 16). Livy xxvi. 38. 1-3 has
observations similar to P.'s, but the context is different: 'Hannibal
ante omnia angebat quod Capua pertinacius oppugnata ab Romanis
quam defensa ab se multorum Italiae populorum animos auerterat,
quos neque omnes terrere praesidiis nisi uellet in multas paruasque
partes carpere exercitum quod minime tum expediebat poterat, nee
deductis praesidiis spei liberam uel obnoxiam timori sociorum re-
linquere fidem. praeceps in auaritiam et crudelitatem animus ad
spolianda quae tueri nequibat, ut uastata hosti relinquerentur, in-
clinauit'; above, p. II. Here, however, Hannibal's treatment of the
cities he has to abandon is mentioned as leading others to go over
(Livy, xxvi. 38. 4-5), not to illustrate Hannibal's character; and the
fall of Salapia (Livy, xxvi. 38. 6--14) exemplifies this.
6. O.ywv..Wv 1.1Tt ••• uuyKctT~9•Cpn To us UHous <TTpctTtWTctS: as he
lost his cavalry at Salapia (Livy, xxvi. 38. 12-14).
7. j.l.nctvt<TTO.s Ets liAActs 'ITOAEL!i: cf. Livy, xxvii. r. 14 for the transfer
of the people of Herdonea to Metapontum and Thurii and the burn-
ing of the town (in ~no). But Appian's account (Hann. 4· 8) of the
transfer of the people of Atella to Thurii is inaccurate; Atella had
already fallen to the Romans just after Capua (9. roan.).
9. ~(mot 1Tpocf>ciO'€tS: 'pretexts for using violence' (Strachan-David-
son, quoting Thuc. iii. 82. 2, f3lato<; St.S<WKaAo<;). One might have ex-
pected a f3Catas Trpd<foaats to be 'an excuse put forward violently',
as f3laws OdvaTos is 'a death produced violently'; and Schweighaeuser
queries the text. Biittner-Wobst suggests f3lruot (1rpdget<;) 1rpo4>dvws.
But a change is probably unnecessary.
8la Twv EtuL<)VTwv <TTpctTLWTwv Eis Tns 'IToAELS: presumably the cities
into which the transferred populations were brought.
10-11. Conclusio1~ of digression. P. ends by referring to the two cir-
cumstances which hinder judgement (d. 22. 10), and reiterates the
two charges of avarice and cruelty (cf. 22. 8).
26 a, Computai.ion of the size of cities

This extract, continuous with 27 in the excerpta antiqua, must form
part of the res Siciliae of 01. 142, 2 = 210 B.C. (cf. above, p. u). It
may have been introduced in connexion with a description of Agri-
gentum (cf. 27. I, Ka'Tcl ,.a 1TpoHp1Jp,tfva), but it is possible that his
recent discussion of the part played by geometry in the art of a
general (r4. 5 ff.) has led P. to revert to this theme, despite 20, Io,
ISS
IX. z6a COMPUTATION OF THE SIZE OF CITIES
Ka2 1Tf:p'i p.n, -roJTwv l1rl Toaoihov ~p.tv ElfY'laOw. The chapter makes two
points: (a) perimeter and area are not necessarily proportional; (b)
the effective area of a town is not increased by the existence of un-
even ground.
26 a l. TQ ~t:y£9'1 Twv 1rpoup1)~f:vwv: the size of cities is evidently

under discussion ; p.'yEOos is 'area'.
2. Perimeters of Sparta and Megalopolis. 48 stades (nearly 6 miles)
corresponds reasonably well to the length of the walls of Sparta as
determined by excavation; cf. Wace, BSA, 1905-6, 284--8; 19o6-7,
5-16; Dickins, BSA, 1905-<i, 436-7; summary in Bolte, RE, 'Sparta',
cols. IJ59-<lo; plan in BSA, 19o6-7, pl. I (I :8,ooo), reproduced by
Bolte, op. cit., cols. 1353-4; cf. Baedeker, Greece•, map facing p. 365.
P.'s figure of so stades for Megalopolis has been confirmed to within
half a mile. Loring made the circuit of the walls 46 stades (or 4il
if one adds the breadth of the river twice), and argued that the
circuit as excavated or deduced by the British School is that
known to P., since it is the original circuit; this would imply no
reduction in the circuit after the destruction by Cleomenes, as one
party favoured (cf. v. 93· s). See the plan in E. A. Gardner, W.
Loring, G. C. Richards, and W. J. Woodhouse, Excavations at Megalo-
polis (London, 1892), II4 and pl. I (where, however, the scale in stades
is incorrect; cf. Bury, ]HS, 1898, 15 n. 1); Kiepert, FOA, xiii; von
Hiller, RE, 'l\legala polis', cols. 133-4 (who, col. IJo, misunderstands
P. to say that Sparta contained twice the population of Megalo-
polis).
lhwMjv .•• T~v Ao.Kt:!ia.£1-'ova. Tils MEyaA.'ls m)A.Ews: modern calcula-
tions do not confirm this. The area included within the walls of
Megalopolis is 4,o9o,724 sq. yds.; but the perimeter of Sparta is
itself irregular, and from the map in BSA, 19o6-7, it does not appear
that the area within the walls can have amounted to more than
z,soo,ooo sq. yds. at the most.
3. Comparative sizes of towns (or camps). P.'s general point is correct,
but he quotes an extreme example. The largest area that can be
enclosed by a perimeter of given length takes the form of a circle.
A circle of 40 stades circumference has an area of about 127'75
sq. stades. A figure containing only half this area in a perimeter of
100 stades would have to measure almost 49 stades by less than
1·5 stades-a scarcely feasible shape for either a city or a camp.
6. To 1r.Ai)8os TWV O.v8pwv: this is really the same mistake of arguing
from the perimeter to the area, since in a camp, unlike a city, the
area will normally be directly related to the population. P. may be
thinking of a Greek camp, which might vary considerably in shape
and layout to suit the site, rather than the regular Roman camp
(d. vi. 42. 1-5).
I 56
COMPUTATION OF THE SIZE OF CITIES IX. 27. z
7. ~TEpov a.SU<TJj.i-0.: Bekker suggested a}'J.'01]P,O.; but this word is not
found elsewhere in P. On the whole it is best to keep dSlK7Jp,a with
the rather unusual sense of 'error' (cf. Reiske, iv. 494: 'n; SlKawv
saepe uerum et rectum est ... adeoque dSlK1]J.ta est aberratio a uero,
etiam in opinatione').
1TEpt Ta~ Twv 1TOAEwv E1TLcf>iw-EL~: 'concerning the surface-areas of
cities'; l1Tt</>da££> (so Schweighaeuser for a1To</>aaEt>) will be much the
same as Jm¢av££a. Shuckburgh, presumably keeping a1To</>aaEt>, ren-
ders: 'a similar mistake is also made in pronouncing as to the number
of inhabitants of cities'; but such a meaning cannot be extracted
from the Greek.
'II'EpLKEKAa.a ... f:va.~ Ka.i ~ouvwSeLs: sc. Jm<Paact>; 'a broken and hilly
surface-area', cf. xii. :zo. 6, xviii. 22. 9· Schweighaeuser, Paton, and
Shuckburgh all supply 1ToAEtS', but the adjectives are more suited to
hn<Pdam. By an odd aberration LSJ (s.v. 1T€ptKA&.w) joins olKiat
1T€ptK€KAaap,/.v(U,
8 ....~ TOLS EYKALj.I-O.GL ••• 1Tpos op96.s: 'not at right angles to the
slopes'.
Tols ll'll'oKELJlEVOLS E1TLn8oL~: 'the horizontal plane underlying these';
a mathematical concept. Paton 'to the flat ground at the foot on
which the hill itself rests' could mislead.
icf>' wv ... f3Ef3TJKEVO.L auJ.L~a.(vEL: 'on which the hills themselves stand';
cf. for {3€{31]Klvat, viii. 4· Io n.
9. EK Tou cf>a.wOJlEvou 'll'aLSLKws OJ.LWS: 'from an argument which is
after all clear to a child's intelligence'.
27. l-10. Agrigentum

This description was no doubt introduced in conncxion with P.'s
account of Muttines' betrayal of the city to the Romans in 210 (2Z.
4 n.). For the topography see also i. q. 8 n. The site of Agrigentum
is remarkable for its size (it contained 900 acres) and for its situation
high up away from the coast; in this feature it is unique (apart from
Lcontini) among the western Greek colonies; see Dunbabin, 312 ff.
(sketch-map on p. 306).
27. l. ou ...ovov Ka.TO. Til 7rpoELPTJJ.Ll:va.: perhaps suggesting that the

preceding discussion arose out of a description of the site of Agri-
Kcntum.
tccmi To KnAAos Ka.l T'i)v Ka.'!'a.aKEU~v: 'for the beauty of its buildings',
literally 'for its beauty and for its construction'. For KaTaaKw"'
d. iv. 65. J, KaTa S€ Tijv a~p,1raaav KaTaaKcv7}v olKtwv Kat T£txwv Kai
"opywv ovli' 61rola,; ?frrw.
1. n1To 9a.AnTTTJS E\1 0KTWKa.L8EKO. 0'1'a.8ioLs: Strabo (vi. 272) mentions
the harbour, which lay at the mouth of the River Hypsas, near the
157
•n J\ [0
IT
f,·mpk (Jt Juno.l.H ini11. (D..,!
1 ~ rr:ph· ot l'{HHord ~[ J
I •'mph: nl H\'l ~ ull'" ~.\)
Olj mpieum \_B)
' S' Tl'lnph' ot f'>h>'< ud {J)
7 1\:-:rnplv ot \ ult.\l) t,C1)
~ Gate
9 '1 emph: ot Dt>llH.·ter (l)
6 GtltC
1f J\S< kpi<·um ~H)
I~ Villa AurcJ.
ll ~. Nh ol,J
H lou!hl,\tiun:, of lmu_:,c,'i
l'> l't. 21 ~
6, AGRIGENTU.M (ACRAGAS).
Based on Dunbabin, 316
AGRIGENTUM IX. 27. 7
modern church of S. Giuseppe; important remains still existed in
the sixteenth century, but have now vanished. Cf. Schubring, 7;
Htilsen, RE, 'Akragas (r)', col. 1191 (sketch in cols. u89-9o). P.'s
figure of r8 stades, roughly 2! miles, is correct.
3. +u<T£1 ~ea.l Ka.Ta.(TICEufi: 'by nature and artifice'.
4. K«i'Ta.L ••• TO TEi'Xo'> t1rl w•hpa.'i KTA.: the original city-wall goes
back to the sixth century. 'The natural line of the ground is followed
faithfully, and advantage taken of every break in the rock, so that
the work is less an artificial fortification than a strengthening of the
natural defences. When possible the rock is cut away leaving a shelf
which served as a foundation for the wall, and in places along the
southern edge the whole face is cut from the living rock to a height
of about ro feet' (Dunbabin, 313). For a description of the wall see
Schubring, Is-:n. aKpoT6f-WlJ Ka.l. 1Tf.ptppwyos is 'abrupt and pre-
cipitous'.
lT«p,E:xETa.l Iii lfoTa.!lots: cf. i. 17. 8 n. for their identity.
i1rl Tns liuaELS ~ea.l. Tov AC~a.: 'to the west and south-west'.
6. Tj Iii li.~epa. ••• ~ea.T' a.iiTns Tcis 8Epwa.,. civa.ToM.,.: in fact the citadel
lies not to the north-east, but to the north-west of the city. (Paton
adds to the confusion by translating 8f.pwas dvaroMs 'south-east'.)
This citadel, the site of modern Agrigento, is protected to the north
by cliffs (Dunbabin, 316), P.'s a1Tp6a£TOS ,Pd.pay~. West of the city
a depression lies between the citadel and the lower town, so that the
only approach from the latter lay from the south-east of the acropolis
(see the adjoining map taken from Dunbabin, 306).
7. )\9'1vii'i tEp6v: cf. Polyaen. vi. 51. This will be Lindian Athena,
since Agrigentum was founded about s8o from Gela, itself a colony
of Rhodes and Crete founded in 688. Rhodians may also have taken
part in the colonization of Agrigentum. Timaeus (FGH, 566 F 92
Schol. Pind. Ol. 2. 15 a} seems to have brought the Emmenids,
1'heron's family, direct from Rhodes to Agrigentum (not necessarily
11.11 founders), and Dunbabin (sro) suggests that the oedsts, Aristo-
nous and Pystilus (Thuc. vi. 4· 4}, were one Rhodian and one
Geloan, after the pattern of Zancle, which had one oecist from Cyme
u.nd one from Chalcis (Thuc. vi. 4· s). This Rhodian element helps to
explain why P. calls Agrigentum a Rhodian colony (§ 8). The re-
mains of the temple of Athena, begun under Theron, lie beneath the
church of S. Maria dei Greci (Htilsen, RE, 'Akragas (1)', col. u88;
Mu.rconi, 77); they confirm a date between 490 and 46o. According
to the Lindian Temple Chronicle (FGH, 532 F I,§§ 27, 3o), based on
Xmmgoras' records (FGH, 240 F I4 and 17 ), offerings continued to
brt !ient from Agrigentum to Lindian Athena; and Agrigentine art
ur about soo betrays Rhodian influence (Marconi, 216-17; Dunbabin,
,\14).
6'01 )\Ta.~upiou: Timaeus (FGH, 566 F 39 (a)) records a mountain
159
IX. 27. 7 AGRIGENTUM
Atabyrium in Sicily, evidently the citadel of Agrigentum (cf. Schub-
ring, 24; A. B. Cook, Zeus, ii. 9ro; Dunbabin, 316). According to
Polyaenus (v. 1. r) Phalaris used his position as n)..t.fJVYJS' for the
building of a temple of Zeus Polieus on the acropolis to seize power
as tyrant; this will be the temple of Zeus Atabyrius, whose cult
came from Rhodes, where it belonged especially to Camira (Blinken-
berg, Lindos, ii (Berlin and Copenhagen, 1941), 175). According to
Rhianus (FGH, 265 F 41) there was a Mt. Atabyrum in Rhodes, on
which (reports the scholiast on Pindar, Ol. 7· r6o c) small bronze
bulls were dedicated (cf. xii. 25. 1-5 n.). (For another Atabyrium in
the Plain of Esdrahelon see v. 70. 6 n.) On the Rhodian sanctuary
see further App. Mith. 26; Diod. v. 59· 2; Strabo, xiv. 655; Apollod.
Bibl. (ed. Wagner, Myth. gr. i) iii. 13; and on the bulls G. Jacopi,
Clara Rhodos, 1928, 88-----91. 'The temple of Zeus Polieus has not been
identified. It has been supposed (d. Koldewey and Puchstein, i.
139, 143) that it lies under the modem cathedral of Agrigento, but
no traces of a temple have been found under this building (Marconi,
So)' (Dunbabin, 316).
8. {nro 'Pootwv a1T~KLO'JI-EV'l'i: cf. § 7 n.
9. va.o'Lo; tca.t aToa.'i:s: the Doric temples of Agrigentum are still a re-
markable feature of the lower town, where they lie mainly along
the southern wall; their identity is uncertain and their present
names are mostly fanciful (Dunbabin, 323). They are: the temples
of 'Hercules' (Temple A: Koldewey and Puchstein, i. 145-52;
Marconi, 51-57), built about soo; of 'Juno Lacinia' (TempleD: Kol-
dewey and Puchstein, i. r66-71; Marconi, 72-76), in the south-east
comer, built towards 450; of 'Concord' (Temple F: Koldewey and
Puchstein, i. 171--6; Marconi, 8o-86), beside 'Juno Lacinia', built
about 440; of 'the Dioscuri' (Temple I: Koldewey and Puchstein,
i. 178--So; Marconi, 93--98), in the south-west comer, a fifth-century
building rebuilt about 250 (d. Rev. arch. 28, 1928, 138); of 'Vulcan'
(Temple G; Koldewey and Puchstein, i. r8r; Marconi, 86--87), also
from the fifth century. In the east of the town at the modem church
of S. Biagio lies the temple of 'Demeter' (Temple C), dating from
about 48o-46o B.c., which has been associated with the river-god
Acragas (Koldewey and Puchstein, i. 143-4) but its attribution to
Demeter and Persephone seems now to be confirmed (Marconi, 71).
On the Asclepieum, to the south of the town, at S.Gregorio (Temple H),
see i. r8. z n.; and for the Olympieum, the next note. No porticoes
remam.
o Tou .tube; Tou '0AUf11Tlou VEWS: cf. Diod. xiii. 82 for a description.
This temple (B), probably begun by Theron after the victory at
Himera in 48o, was still unfinished when the Carthaginians sacked
Agrigentum in 405. Its last standing portions fell in A.D. 1401, and
its remnants were used to build a mole in the eighteenth century
!60
AGRIGENTUM IX. 27. II
(Robertson, 123). P.'s statement about its size is confirmed by

measurements, which make it 170 ft. by 36o ft. on the stylobate; it
was even larger than this suggests, for it was pseudo-peripteral
(7 X 14 half-pillars), with a curtain-wall, and almost the whole area
was available for the temple proper. But for virtually all but the
ground plan one is reduced to conjecture (Robertson, 123-4; Kolde-
wey and Puchstein, i. 153-66; Marconi, 57 ff.).
'II"O.VTEAEU1V JJ-EV oOtc e'(:>.:rl~E: TTaJn·D.nav, Ernestus for MS. TToAvr{Anav,
which is unsuccessfully defended by Wunderer (Blatter f. bay.
Gymn.-Schulwes. 1901, 468--95) as a reference to the roof.
10. Name of Agrigentum: on the position of this fragment, before
26 a or after 27. 1--9, see above, p. rr. The Greek form, Acragas, is
derived by Thucydides (vi. 4· 4) from the name of the river; and
Duris (FGH, 76 F 59) repeated this, noting that 'most Sicilian and
Italian towns' took their names from rivers. P.'s etymology, from
aKpa yas-, must mean 'the finest Of the land', Since aKpOS' can have
the sense 'highest of its kind'; see Schweighaeuser, vol. v, p. 37·
27. 11. Transfer of refugees from Agathyrna to Italy

'fhe settlement of Sicily after the general surrender which followed
the fall of Agrigentum involved the disposal of some 4,ooo men who
had gathered at Agathyrna (MS. dya8vpua, corr. Holstenius), a tmvn
on the north coast between Tyndaris and Calacte (its site is un-
known; cf. Htilsen, RE, 'Agathyrnum', col. 764). Livy, xxvi. 40. 17,
describes them as 'mixti ex omni colluuione exules obaerati capitalia
ausi plerique cum in ciuitatibus suis ac sub legibus uixerant, et
postquam eos ex uariis causis fortuna similis conglobauerat Agathyr-
nam per latrocinia ac rapinam tolerantes uitam'. Part of the wreckage
of war, they were the sort of men who a century later would join
the pirate fleets or the Sicilian slave revolts. M. Valerius Laevinus,
the consul for 210 (d. viii. r. 6), who had taken Agrigentum and was
In charge of these operations, 'neque relinquere ... in insula tum
primum noua pace coalescente uelut materiam nouandis rebus satis
tutum ratus' (Livy, xxvi. 40. 18), transported them to Sicily to serve
with Rhegium against the Bruttians. In 209 they operated along
with Bruttian deserters against Caulonia, where Hannibal forced
their surrender (Livy, xxvii. 12. 4--6, 15. 8, r6. 9; Plut. Fab. zz).
Aa.l'j30.vovTa.s JJ-ETP"liJ-a.: 'receiving rations'. For this sense of p.h-
P'II'a cf. vi. 38. 3; P. Fayum, 302, UUJ.-'Tagt)J oo8ijvat -f]p.iv r6 [.LETfYTIP,a
~ral T6 o!fwvwv. o!fdmov is 'pay' ; cf. i. 66. 3 n. A soldier's rations, in part
or whole, might be converted into cash; but the two elements of his
rl'muneration, pay and rations, remained notionally distinct (cf.
(iriffith, 274--94; Launey, ii. 725-so and especially 735). Evidently
thrse Sicilian troops were to serve as mercenaries for Rhegium,
lltl78 161
IX. 27. :rr TRANSFER OF REFUGEES
receiving a food allowance supplemented by whatever they could
take from the Bruttians, in short, a kind of subsidized brigandage.
28-39. Speeches of Aetoliatt and Acarnanian envoys at Sparta

Philip's aggression against Illy-ria (cf. viii. 13-14) led to an approach
by M. Valerius Laevinus, the Roman commander in Greece (viii. 1. 6;
Livy, xxv. 3· 6), to the Aetolian confederation (cf. v. 105. 8; Livy,
xxv. 23. 9, xxvi. 24. r); as a result a treaty was agreed between
Laevinusand theAetolians, probably in autumn 2Il (above, pp. 11-13).
Ratification at Rome took place two years later (Livy, xxvi. 24. 14)
after a delay which can be satisfactorily explained as due first to
the desire to leave it till Laevinus' consulship in zro, and later to
pressure of events which caused it to be pushed on one side; this
made no difference to operations (Badian, Latomus, 1958, zo5-8).
\\1lether the treaty was to be valid only for the duration of the war
(Heuss, Viilk. Grund. 39), or was to initiate a permanent relationship
(DeSanctis, iii. 2. 415; Holleaux, 237) is much debated; no Roman
treaties of limited duration survive, but the admission of the Pelo-
ponnesian states, Attalus, Pleuratus, and Scerdilaidas (Livy, xxvi.
24. 9), is easier to understand if the period of the war alone was
envisaged. In that case, the relationship after the war would have
been that of amicitia; but the separate Aetolian peace of zo6 (Livy,
xxix. 12. r),which was a breach of the treaty (xviii. 38. 8), ended
any relations between Rome and the Aetolians, though the latter
continued to invoke the terms of this treaty (cf. xviii. 58. 7 n.,
4i· 8, 48. 7). The terms of the treaty are summarized by Livy, xxvi. 24.
8-r4; and a part of the text was recovered in 1949 on an inscription
from Thyrrheum in Acarnania (Klaffenbach S.-B. Berlin, 1954, no. I ;
IG, ixh. 241; SEG, xiii. 382 (with revised text); cf. A. H. McDonald,
JRS, 1956, 153-7; E. Manni, La parola del passato, 1956, 187 n. 6;
R. Stiehl, Wissensch. Zeitschr. Leipzig, 1955/6, 289-94; Stier, z6-g;
E. Badian, Latomus, 1958, 197-2II; R. G. Hopital, Revue historique
de droit jranrais et etranger, I964, IS-48, 204-46). This treaty was
followed by a series of operations recorded in Livy xxvi. 24. 15-26. 3
(Laevinus' seizure of Zaq:'llthus, Oeniadae, and Nasus, Philip's ex-
pedition against Illyria and return to Tempe, the Aetolian raid on
Acarnania under Scopas, Philip's Thracian expedition and return to
Dium, Laevinus' seizure of Anticy-ra), which will have taken place in
the late autumn and 'A<'inter of 2II (above, pp. n-rJ). The raid on
Acarnania is mentioned in 40. 4-6, a passage which should therefore
precede 28-39 (above, p. r3). The Aetolo-Roman treaty provided
'ut si placeret uellentque, eodem iure amicitiae Elei Lacedaemo-
niique et Attalus et Pleuratus et Scerdilaedus essent'; either Mes-
senia is omitted accidentally (Holleaux, zu n. 1) or she did not enter
r6z
AETOLIAK AND ACARNANIAN ENVOYS AT SPARTA IX. z8. 2
into an alliance with Aetolia until after the Aetolo-Roman treaty

(Seeliger, 16; Roebuck, 84 n. 88 is undecided). Of these explanations
the former is the more convincing; see 30. 6 n. In late spring 210
(cf. p. 13) an approach was made to Elis, Messenia, and Sparta.
zR--39 records the speeches delivered before the Spartan ecclesia (cf.
32. r n.) by the Aetolian Chlaeneas and the Acarnanian Lyciscus.
The genuineness of these two speeches, 7Tpw{3EVT£Kot .\6yo£ (xii.
zs a 3), has been much debated. P. claims that his speeches represent
what was really said (Vol. I. pp. 13-14), but he was to some extent at
the mercy of his available sources. The material of the present pair
of speeches may come from a literary source, and their comparative
lengths are significant for P.'s sympathies. But the two sides are
set out with careful objectivity, and the hostility towards Rome in
Lyciscus' speech (37· 4-39) probably reflects fairly Greek attitudes
of that time; d. Schmitt, Hellenen, 3-r r. The fact that some of
Lyciscus' points were anticipated in the reply given at Sparta to the
Aetolian Machatas (iv. 34· 9; cf. PCdech, REG, 1958, 440) is not an
argument against the genuineness of his speech. The speeches are
to be regarded as based on a genuine record, perhaps by way of
a literary source; this epideictic character is characteristic of this
kind of speech. See Niese, ii. 482 n. 3; H. Welzhofer, ]ahrb. r88o,
539-44; La Roche, 67; Holleaux, r6-r9; Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios {r)',
col. 1527 (but see above, Vol. I, p. 14 n. 2) ;Walbank, ]RS, 1963, 8-n;
Speeches £n Greek Historians (Oxford, 1965), r6 ff. The speeches tum
on the issue: is Macedon or Rome the real threat to Greece ?
The constitutional position at Sparta at this time is uncertain;
but evidently Lycurgus (last mentioned in 217; cf. v. 91. 1) was
now dead, since the Homan alliance was made 'cum Pelope, rege
Lacedaemoniorum iusto ac legitimo' (Livy, xxxiv. 32. 1-2). The
)u.tcr tyrant Machanidas (cf. x. 41. 2 n.) may be one of the anti-
Macedonian leaders mentioned in 39· 7· Cf. Ehrenberg, RE, 'Macha-
nidas', col. 142.
l8. l. auaTTJI"ct TWV e1ri. 9p4~<1]<.> 'EAA~vwv: the Chalcidic federation

(cf. iL 41. 15, n) nov .t1xaL£vv aVc:rrYJf.La, iv. 6o. ro). It has been widely
held that Xa.\Kt'8ijs, as used by Thucydides (i. 57· s. 58. 1-2, 62. 3.
ti~. 2, ii. 29· 6, sB. I-2, etc.) and by fourth-century documents (e.g.
IG, iiz. 36 Tod, u9; Syll. 135 Tod, III), is merely the official
name for the city of Olynthus (cf. Robinson, RE. 'Olynthus', col.
,117; Hampl, Hermes, 1935, 177-96). Gomrne argues (Thucydides, i.
IOJ·..S) that there is no evidence for a Chalcidian federal state before
the fourth century; but his comments on Thuc. iv. uo. r and II4. I
auggest a change of view (Torone a member of a Chalcidian federa-
ilun). There is quite decisive evidence for the fourth century, in-
Illuding a reference to the Kow6v in the alliance between Amyntas
163
IX. :z8. :z SPEECHES OF AETOLIA~ AKD
of )iacedon and the Chalcidians in 393 (Tod, In), to federal magis-
trates, rd.? [dp]xds -ra<s) ~w&s, in the alliance between Philip II and
the Chalcidians in 356 (Tod, 158), and the existence of the right of
imyafLla and €yKTIJmr; between the various cities (Xen. Hell. v. 2. 19,
a speech by Cleigenes of Acanthus). It might be argued that some
kind of unitary state of Olynthus was created in 432 (Thuc. L 58),
and that the enlargement of Olynthus by GVfL7roAmda in the 38o's
led to the creation of a confederacy (Xen. loc. cit.); but in that case
the impetus came from Olynthus at a time of expansion, which is
improbable. Probably, then, the Chalcidian Confederation dates from
432 (Larsen, 42~6). On the Chalcidian Confederation see further,
A. B. West, CP, 1914, 24-34; The History of the Chalcidic League
(Madison, 1918); AJP, 1937, 157-i3; E. Harrison, CQ, 1912, 93~103,
165-78; Busolt~Swoboda, ii. rsor-7; Gaebler, ZN, 1926, 193 ff.;
Hampl, loc. cit.; Rh. Mus. 1935, 12o-4; Kahrstedt, AJP, 1936, 416~44;
M. Gude, A History ofOlynthus (Baltimore, 1933); D. l\L Robinson,
RE, 'Olynthus', cols. 325-30; Excavations at Olynthus, ix, The Chal-
cidic Mint' (Baltimore, 1938), passim; and, for the probable form of
government, Larsen,
o~s O.u~Ktaa.v !l\flT)va.ioL Ka.t Xa.AKtUi:s: for the colonization of Chal-
cidice, largely by Chalcis, which founded over thirty settlements,
especially Torone and the other cities on Sithonia, see Herod. viii.
127; Thuc. iv. 109. 4; Strabo, x. 447· Other colonizing cities here
were Corinth (Potidaea), Eretria {towns on Pallene), and Andros
(Argilus, Stagirus, and Acanthus) ; but the reference to Athens is
hard to explain. Early traditions linked Chalcis with Athens and
Attica (Ps.-Scymnus, 5i3; Proxenus (FGH, 425 F 2); Strabo, x. 447;
Plu t. Zlfor. 296 D; VeiL Pat. i. 4· 1 ; Libanius on Dem. i. I, )!IJ"'valwv
a7roLKos; so P. may have associated Athens with the colonization of
Chalcidice, as he attributed the foundation of Agrigentum to Rhodes
(22. 7 n.). See Oberhumner, RE, 'Chalkis (r)', cols. 2079-80. That he
is thinking of Peisistratus' foundation of Rhaecelus during his second
exile (Arist. Ath. Pol. 15. 2) is a less probable explanation; so too
the assumption that P. has simply made a mistake.
T) Twv '0Auv8(wv TrOALS: Olynthus lay at the head of the Gulf of
Torone, about 2! miles from the sea, sheltered to the north by the
wooded slopes of Mt. Polygyrus; its splendid site is described by
Robinson, RE, 'Olynthus', coL 330. A Greco-Macedonian stock
occupied the town down to 6so, when it fell to Bottiaeans (Herod.
viii. 127; Thuc. ii. 99); in 479 Artabazus expelled them and gave tht'
town to Critobulus of Torone and -r6 XaAKLO~K6v yEvos (Herod. ibid.).
In 432 it was strengthened by a synoecism instigated by Perdiccas,
and probably now became the chief city in a Chalcidic Confederation
(Thuc. i. 58. 2; above, last note but one). In the early fourth century
some of the other cities resented its dominant position {Xen. Hell.
164
ACARNANIAN ENVOYS AT SPARTA IX. 28. 3
v. 2. II, envoys at Sparta from Acanthus and Apollonia; Diod.
XV. 19-23}•
3. TO.UT1JY E~a.vlipa.'Tl'o8w0.1-'EVOS <l>iA\'Tl''Tl'OS: Olynthus was at first
favoured by Philip II, who gave it Potidaea and Anthemus (Dem.
ii. 7, 14, vi. zo, Diod. xvi. 8. 4); and in 356 he made a treaty with the
Chalcidic Confederation (Tod, 158; cf. Diod. xvi. 8. 3). Suspicious
of Philip's intentions, the Olynthians approached Athens in 353/2
(Dem. viii. 64, ix. 56-57, 63) and Demosthenes conducted a campaign
for effective support. In 349 O!ynthus declared war on Philip (Dem.
i. s-7), who, despite Athenian help, took it and razed it in August
348 (Dem. ix. z6). Some of the inhabitants were sold into slavery
(Diod. xvi. 53· 2-3; Dinarch. i. 26 Blass; Dem. xix. 3o6), or put to
work on the royal domains (Aesch. iL rs6) but many found refuge in
various Greek cities such as Potidaea, }1iletus and Athens, where
they were exempt from taxes (Tod, r66 = IG, iiz. 2n).
9ETTa.Aous ••• liul. TOY cf>b~ov: a simplification. Thessalian cavalry
played a large part in Philip's victory over Onomarchus and the
J'hocians at the Crocus Field in 353 (Diod. xvi. 35), and there was
little subsequent resistance to him in Thessaly. He countered irrita-
tion at the occupation of Pagasae and Magnesia and the loss of
harbour dues by promising to restore Magnesia (Dem. ii. 7); and
members of the Thessalian League were well disposed (Dem. xviii.
43) and ready to risk anything if only Phocis were crushed and they
themselves head of the Amphictyonic Council; cf. Iustin. viii. 4· 5,
'Thessali Boeotiique orant, ut professum se aduersus Phocenses
ducem Graeciae exhibeat; tanto odio Phocensium ardentes, ut obliti
cladium suarum perire ipsi quam non perdere eos praeoptarent'.
After the Phocian defeat in 346, and the settlement which gave
them control of the Amphictyonic Council, the Thessalians began to
feel Macedonian pressure. In 344 Philip expelled various short-lived
tyrannies (Diod. xvi. 69. 8), drove the Aleuadae from Larissa (Dem.
xviii. 48), reduced and garrisoned Pherae and other cities ([Dem.]
vii. 32; Dem. viii. 59, ix. r2, xix. z6o) and set up a new form of
government in Thessaly. Some believe that in 344 he established
BIKaBapxlat, boards of ten Macedonian partisans, in the less trust-
worthy cities (cf. Dem. vi. 22 (dated ,)44), T~v Ka8EaTwaav viiv o~:Kao
apx_lav; Harpocrat. s. v. ovcaoapxla), and that his full revision of
the constitution occurred in 342 (cf. Schaefer, ii. 346, 430 n. 3;
Swoboda, ]ahresh. 1903, 2o8-9; Glotz, BCH, 1909, 542; Westlake,
197-9). Others follow Reiske, who assumed an ancient MS. confusion
which expanded Liapxlav,an abbreviation for 7'€Tpapxlav, into OEKM-
upxtav (Beloch, iii. I. 529 n. 3; Momigliano, Filippo, 141 n. 1). The
llkr:lihood is that the decadarchiae represent Philip's first system,
6\lld that the tetrarchies belong to 342, when he became archon of
Tlwssaly for life (cf. Iustin. xi. 3· 2, Alexander 'exemplo patris dux
165
IX. z8. 3 SPEECHES OF AETOLIAK AND
uniuersae gentis creatus'; Diad. xvii. 4· r), thus acquiring control
over the revenues and military resources of the koinon (finances:
Justin. xi. 3· 2; Dem. i. 22 (before the fall of Olynthus), vi. 22;
forces: Diod. xvi. 14.2; Dem. viii. 14). He will also have revived the
ancient system of tetrarchies under pro-Macedonian tetrarchs of
Thessalian birth responsible to the archon (Dem. ix. z6; Theopompus,
FGH, II5 F 208). Philip's link vvith Thessaly was personal, and in-
dependent of his position in Macedonia; he respected the forms of
government, so that the federal assembly continued to meet and
decide such questions as war and peace (Aesch. Ctes. r6I ; Dem.
xviii. 147). But henceforth it was the semblance of freedom without
the reality (cf. iv. 76. z).
4. JL6.xn VLK'Ijaas Tous :.\8Tjvatous: at Chaeronea, where he defeated
Athens and Thebes on 7 Metageitnion (r Sept.) 338 (Diad. xvi. 85 f.;
Iustin. ix. 3· 9; Polyaen. iv. 2. 2, 2. 7; Frontin. ii. r. 9; Plut. Alex. 9· 2};
see Kromayer, AS, i. I58 ff.; Wien. Stud. !905, I6-23; N. G. L.
Hammond, Klio, 1938, r86 ff.; E. Braun, Jahresh. 1948, Sr-89. It is
perhaps odd that Chlaeneas betrays no embarrassment at, and
Lyciscus makes no attempt to exploit, the fact that at the time of
Chaeronea Aetolia was Philip II's ally and through him obtained
from Achaea, and subsequently kept, Naupactus (Dem. ix. 34; Philo-
chorus, FGH, J28 F s6; Theopompus, FGH, II5 F 2J5; Strabo, ix. 427).
£xpl]aaTo JLEyaXo;tuxws KTA.: cf. v. ro. r n., setting out the rival
views of Demosthenes and Aeschines. Clearly controversy on Philip's
reasons and motives went back to contemporary discussions. In
v. ro. r-5 P. gives his own view: Philip's generosity was genuine,
even though it paid dividends (§ 4, p.<Kp~ Oa7TaVJI .'ltd r~v dyxlvo~av r~v
p.<ylaTrjv 1rpii/;tv KaT<<pyauaro). See also xviii. q. 14, xxii. r6. 2.
6 . .fjKE Jl€Tcl Twv 8uv6.11ewv: cf. Paus. iii. 24. 6, v. 4· 9, vii. ro. J, for
Philip's invasion of Laconia in autumn 338. The fifth poem of Isyllus
of Epidaurus is a hymn celebrating the Spartan escape (IG, iv. 950
Powell, Collectanea Alexandrina (Oxford, 1925). 134; Wilamov.itz,
Isyllos von Epidauros (Berlin, r886)}. On the many legends surround-
ing this expedition and recording Spartan bravery see Schaefer, iii.
44-46; C. Roebuck, CP, 1948, 86-88. Plutarch's Apophthegmata
Graeca suggest that Philip tried for a settlement \Vith Sparta, and
invaded Laconia only when his demands (for territorial adjust-
ments?) were refused. Wilamowitz (op. cit. 31-35) took the words
IBlf..M· avd€i'V {laatf..T}ioa. rtp.~~· (Isyllus' hymn, 1. 64) to imply that
Philip proposed to abolish the Spartan monarchy; they are not to
be interpreted so precisely (d. Beloch, iii. I. 574 n. 3; Roebuck, CP,
1948, 88).
7. d.'II'OT~Jl6JlEVOS ••• TCtS '11'6AEL!; tmt T~V xwpav ••• 'll'poatVElJLE KTA.:
cf. ii. 48.2 n.; ix. 33· 8-12 nn.; xviii. 14. 7 (where P. approves the
territorial adjustments).
r66
ACARNAXIAN ENVOYS AT SPARTA IX. 29. 5
8. T£va. Tpo1Tov .•• Buhp9£Lpe: for Alexander's destruction of Thebes

cf. iv. 23. 8 n., v. ro. 6 n., ix. 34· I.
l9. 2. ~VTL1Ta:rpQS ••• ev Tft 1repi /\a.f1£a.v f16.Xn: Antipater, Alexan-

der's governor in Greece (cf. v. ro. 4, xii. IJ. 8; see now D. Kanat-
soules, 'EIJti}JJtKa, 1958, 14--64), was blockaded in Lamia in :Malis
throughout ·winter, 323/2, by Hellenic (mainly Athenian) troops
under Leosthenes and later Antiphilus; but on the approach of
Leonnatus, the blockade was broken, and, though he fell fighting in
Thessaly, Antipater managed to reach and take command of his
forces. But the war was decided by two naval battles off Abydus and
at Amorgus, which put an end to Athenian sea-power. By a victory
at Crannon (spring 322) Antipater forced the allied states to make
peace, and the Hellenic alliance fell apart. Cf. Niese, i. 2oo-ro;
Beloch, iv. r. 68-76; Tarn, CAH, vi. 4554J; Roussel in Glotz, His-
tnire grecque, iv. r. 266-75. What P. means by 'the battle of Lamia'
is not clear; the only fighting there was like the sally which cost
Leosthenes his life (Suid. AEwafUv17S; Diod. xv:iii. 13. 5; Iustin. xiii.
5· rz; Hypereid. Epitaph. r. 3-7). The likelihood is that P. has con-
fused the name of the decisive land battle with that of the town
note·worthy for the most memorable incident in the war, the blockade
of Antipater, and later to give its name to the war as a whole (Diod.
xvii. rn. r; xviiL 8. r, 19. r; Plut. Pyrrh. I. 4; Strabo, ix. 433, oAaf't·
a~e6s 71'oAEf'os). Contemporary sources called it the Hellenic War
(/G, jjz, 448, sos. so6; cf. Plut. Phoc. 2J. r).
3. +uya.8o9T)pa.s ••• ige1TEf1"'": in particular Archias, a former actor,
from Thurii, whom Anti pater sent with a troop of Thracians to hunt
down Athenian enemies of Macedon, condemned to death in their
absence. Hypereides, Aristonicus, and Himeraeus were apprehended
in Aegina, conveyed to Cleonae in the Peloponnese, and there
executed. Demosthenes, on Archias' approach, poisoned himself
within the temple of Poseidon on the island of Calaureia (Plut. Dem.
18. 2, J4.px{a,; cl KA1J8~:is .f>uyaSoO~pas; 29 f. ; Phoc. 29. I ; Lives of the
Ten Orators, 846 F, 849 A-c; Suid. 'Y71'"P"tS1)s, Ll7JfLoa8€v1)s; Arrian in
FGH, 156 F 9· § IJ).
4. ~nd. T~f.lwp(a.s a1TE9VT)O'k:OV: one story said that Hypereides had
his tongue cut out or that he bit it off under torture to avoid be-
traying anyone: [Plut.] Lives of the Ten Orators, 849. It is probably
fictitious; cf. Niese, i. 210 n. 3·
+ufil!-LOV .•• oo8ev •.• 1TATJV EVOS; Aetolian exaggeration; d. Plut.
IJhoc. 29. 3, <Pc.tJK{wv ~eai q,uy* d7r~AAa~E" 7roAAovs 8er10ds ToO .t1ll'Ttm:hpou,
~tal q,Evyovat fnmpa~aTo fLTJ ~eaOar.E"p ol Ao<r.oi 'TCUJJ [-tE8a:rraJ.Livwv {mf.p
t'd KEpcuJv•a ~P'YJ Kai'Tdv Tulvapov l~en€m:lv Tfjs '.EA>..&Bos, d,\,\d lv Il.::,\O?Tov-
....1.
"'/(ltp KaTmKHV• WJJ.. Kat' r.tYJJWllW1)S
'A ~~ "> ' .J.. '
't/ll 0 GVKO'f'UllT't/S·
"· Ka.a0'6.v8pcp KilL .O.TJflT)Tpt~ ••• ~vnybvcp Tcfl rova.T~: see ii. 4!.
I67
IX. 29. 5 SPEECHES OF AETOLIAN AND
10 n. for their use of garrisons and tyrants. See below, 30. 3n., for
a suggestion that the passage which appears there in the MS. should
precede 29. 5·
7. '!'ov TEhEuTa.iov :A.v,.iyovov: Doson; cf. ii. 45· :2 n.
10. opwv OUK EV O.a.pa.Ae'i: ri}v EQ.U'!'OU 8uva.O"!'eia.v ~O'Oj.LEVT)V: the
motives which Chlaeneas alleges for Antigonus' intervention coincide
with the arguments allegedly put to Antigonus by Aratus, viz. the
danger to Macedon of Spartan domination in the Peloponnese. Cf.
ii. 49 n., where it is argued that this danger to Macedon was not
very real and probably not advanced by Aratus' emissaries in the
negotiations. Nevertheless it clearly figured later in Aratus' Memoirs
and so became part of the official Achaean version of the events leading
to the Macedonian rapprochement. It was convenient for the Aetolians
to use it now in their highly-coloured denunciation of Macedonian
policy; for it was Aratus who represented the conflict between Doson
and Cleomenes as one {mf:p TijS' Twv 'EAA.~vwv T]yf.p.ovla> (ii. 49· 6 n.).
'll'pos 8E: '!'o(l'fo ••• eo 'li'E.Pu~<b-ra. ,.~w KAEoj.LEV'fiV: 'seeing that Cleo-
menes was just the man to effect this' (Paton).
Ti)v TUXT)V ••• auvepyouaa.v: cf. the similar verdicts on Flamininus
(xviii. 12. 2) and Scipio Aemilianus (xxxi. 25. 10, 29. 2, 30. 1-3; and
perhaps fg. 47; see Vol. I, p. 22 n. 7).
30. 1-2. Ti}s <P~Ai'IT'ITou '!Ta.pa.vo~J.ta.s: see, for Philip's outrages at

Thermum, v. g. 1-7, I I . ; and, for his cruelty towards the Messe-
nians, vii. 12. I n., 13.
3. At,.w.Aoi yO.p j.LOVOL KTA.: for Aetolian resistance to Anti pater in
the Lamian War cf. Diod. xviii. 24-25. Reiske (iv. 498) conjectured
that something had fallen out between §§ 2 and 3, since there is no
clear continuity of argument; and Bi.ittner-\Vobst indicates a
lacuna. Shuckburgh, The Histories of Polybius, i (London, 18gg),
p. 589, suggests that §§ 3-4 have become displaced and should go after
29. 4, Where they WOuld explain the Sentence <f>u~tiJ.OV yap OVOEII K'!';\.
This superficially attractive idea runs up against two objections.
Firstly 30. 3-4 is a summary of Aetolian achievements against Anti-
pater, against Brennus, and during the Social War (see below), and so
well suited to conclude the speech; in particular the reference to the
Social War would be out of place after 29. 4· Secondly, this trans-
position would leave this part of the Aetolian harangue to end with
a short and rather lame reference to Philip's outrages. Therefore
Reiske's hypothesis remains the more probable; in which case it
invalidates Treves's argument (LEC, 1940, I68 n. I), in favour of the
authenticity of Chlaeneas' speech, that it makes no reference to
Philip's supposed poisoning of Eurycleides and Micion, which P.
himself believed to be true (viii. 12. 2 n.); the existence of the
lacuna rules out the argumentum ex silentio.
168
11'pbs T~V Bpivvou ••• ~+o8ov uvTitTTTJO'O.V: on Brenn us and the Gauls
see i. 6. 5 n., ii. 35· 7 n., iv. ¢. I.
p.ovot S£ ~ea.~oup.Evol auVTJywvlbovTo: in the Social War (iv. 3-37,
57-87, v. 1-30, 9I-1o6), the first occasion in the third century when
the Aetolians fought beside the Spartans (for their friendly neutrality
during the Cleomenean War was something different).
6. uv' 'HAELwV ICO.L MEO'O'T'JVLIIJV lha TfJV ••• t:rUp.!J.a.xla.v: this suggests
that Elis and Messenia had already been persuaded to enter the war
(cf. Walbank, Philip, 87-88). On the other hand avp.p.axla is perhaps
not to be pressed, for Chlaeneas speaks of the Aetolo-Spartan alliance
of the Social War as still valid (31. 3· T~JJ vilv vmipxovaav vp.fv 7Tpor;
~/LGS avp.p.ax{av; cf. 36. 8, iv. 35· 5) and may be referring here to the
similar alliance with Elis (iv. 36. 6). Messenia had been a half-hearted
member of the Symmachy during that war, but may have made an
alliance with Aetolia after the intervention of Demetrius of Pharos
in autumn 214 (cf. viii. 12. 1, Mt:ut:f7Jvlov,; TToAtp.lovs yt:yov&Tas, and
viii. 8 a-n n.; Holleaux, 203 n. 3). The Aetolians had probably
promised the Messenians the recovery of Pylos from the Achaeans
(xviii. 42. 7; Livy, xxvii. 30. 13). Whether these pre-existent ties
with Elis and Messenia automatically committed these states to war
against Achaea since the treaty made between Aetolia and Rome;
whether there was no such commitment, but Aetolia had already per-
suaded them to join in the war; or whether Chlaeneas is representing
as already existing a state of war which he anticipates, is not clear.
7. KO.L ToO pa.atAiws ~nO.Aou: the Aetolo-Roman treaty envisaged
the entry of Attalus I of Pergamum into the war (Livy, xxvi. 24. 9).
For friendly relations between Attalus and Aetolia even before the
Social War cf. iv. 65. 6 n.; he was probably already allied with
Aetolia (Livy, xxvi. 46. 3) before its compact with Laevinus (Niese,
II. 481 nn. 3 and 8; Holleaux, 207 n. 3), though from what date is not
known. Attalus first appeared in Greek waters in summer 209 (Livy,
xxvii. 30. u; Walbank, Philip, 9o). His hostility to Philip had not
been provoked, but was part of a policy of western expansion which
he now hoped to initiate (and which led to the purchase of Aegina;
42. 5, xi. 5· 8, xxii. 8. 9-ro); see Holleaux, 206 n. I; Hansen, 46 .
•• A£a.v s· Eup.a.pw<;; iaTl auAAoylaa.ria.l: 'it is possible to conjecture
very easily . . :.
•" Twv 4\ST'J y£yovoTwv: i.e. from the events of the Social ·war.
Chlaeneas exaggerates Aetolian isolation, for the Eleans were their
allies.
9. auf1PEI3T'JKOTt.lv: the subject to the participle seems to have fallen
nut. Reiske, iv. 499, suggested ~p.wv or TouoVTwv, Schweighaeuser
"dVTwv or rroN\wv, Hultsch (Quaestion~s. ii. Io) 7TavTaxo8Ev Twv Jx8pwv.
liothius, Polybiana (Leipzig, 1844), 58 f., defends the reading, under-
ldllnding 'Pwp.alwv Ka~ AhwAwv.
169
IX. JI. 3 SPEECHES OF AETOLIAN AND
31. 3. Ti]v vuv O'Uf.ltJ.«xiav: the alliance of winter 22ojr9; see iv. 35· 5,
ix. JI. 6 n., and below, § 4, EiA.:ufh P£TfXEW AlTwAois, 36. 8.
Twv OTr' :Avny6vou yEyovoTwv ••. E!'JEPY"ltJ.O.Twv: cf. 36. z-5.
4. rijs ••. EAEu9Ep£as Kai O'WT'I}plas : Chlaeneas sneers at the pro-
pagandist phrase, echoing several centuries of 'liberation'. When
Flamininus followed the Roman garrison from the Acrocorinth in
194 (Livy, xxxiv. so. 9) he was to be hailed seruatorem liberatoremque,
that is awTijpa Kai lAEv8lpwv, the cult-titles under which Zeus was
worshipped at Athens and Plataea for his aid against Persia (d.
Jessen, RE, 'Eleutherios (r)', cols. 2348-5o; Wade-Gery, ]HS, 1933,
90-<)I; Walbank, CQ, 1942, 145 n. 1). Sparta had been 'saved and
liberated' from the 'tyrant' Cleomenes. Cf. v. 9· ron., ix. 36. 5 n.
Tov 1rp~'I}Y auaTaVTa. 11'0AE:tJ.ov: 'the recent war'; on 1TpcpTfv see above,
p. 12.
6. O.vo.aKEun~Ew •.• auv8iJ~~:as: 'break treaties' ; d. 32. 8.
7. b • , . XXaLvias: probably Chlaeneas of Calydon, known as hiera-
tn1temon at Delphi about this time; cf. Flaceliere, 4ro, Appendice I.
41 = Syll. 553·
32. 1. Au~tia~<os: not otherwise known.

Taus TrOAAous: the ecclesia or general assembly, which decided ques-
tions of peace and war and foreign policy {cf. Xen. Hell. ii. 4· 38,
v. 2. 32). Presumably the Acarnanians had learnt of the Aetolian
embassy and had sent Lyciscus to put the other side; decision
would rest with the assembly, as it did after the famous debate
which preceded the Peloponnesian War (Thuc. i. 87).
2. ouTws TrWS: i.e. the speech is not a literal transcript.
6. TWV OTrapxovTWV Trpos UtJ.8.s s~I(O.LW\1: 'their existing claims upon
you' ; cf. 36. 9. iii. 2!. IO, 27. IO, where TG oiKata likewise implies
specific obligations laid down by treaty.
7-8. ~~, yap ICTA.: ct. 3r. 2-6.
9. vpos auTous AtTwXous: 'with the Aetolians only' {and not, as
now, with the Romans as well: 37· 5 ff.).
H. rijs EVL~t:potJ.tV'lS To is "EAATJa~ 'II'Ep~aTO.at:ws: 'the danger that
threatens the Greeks'. On 1TeplCl7'afns cf. i. 65. 7 n.
12. 1'0UT(I)v TftY ~aux&,a.v exEw: 'to take no active part in this affair'.
33. 2. sla. T-ijs '0Xuv9£wv aTuxla.s KUp~ov ••• ElnTaAlas: cf. 28. 3 n.
4. 'OvotJ.a.pxos ~~:at 4»~AOtJ.'I}Aos: Onomarchus of Elatea and Philo-
mel us of Ledon were put in control of Phocis in 356 when several
leading citizens, condemned to fines for by the Delphic
Amphictyony, persuaded the Phocian assembly to support them in
resisting this sentence. According to Diodorus (xvi. 23. 6) Philomelus
was appointed r:rrpaTTfyos a.frroKp(lTwp (Polyaen., v. 45, says ~Y£1-w)v),
and Onomarchus was his (J1)vrlpxwv (Diod. xvi. 31. 5). \Vhen, on a
170
ACARNANIAN ENVOYS AT SPARTA IX. 33· 7
Theban motion, the Amphictyons declared a Sacred War on Phods
and a coalition of Thessaly, Locris and Doris attacked her, Philo-
melus borrowed from the Delphic treasures (Diod. xvi. 27. 3 f., 30. r,
d. 56.5; Athen. xiii. 6os c; Paus. x. 8. 7, 33· z) and hired a mercenary
army which, with the Phocian contingent, came to over 1o,ooo men
(Diod. xvi. 30. 3). In 355 Philomelus fell at the battle of Neon on
the north slopes of Parnassus against 13,000 Thessalian, Boeotian,
and Locrian troops (Diod. xvi. 30. 3-31. 5; Beloch, iii. x. 25o n. r).
and the command passed to Onomarchus and his brother Phayllus.
Onomarchus used the Delphic treasures without restraint, and soon
the Phocian army of 2o,ooo foot and soo horse was one none of the
Greeks cared to face (cf. Diod. xvi. 35· 4). Phocian use of the Delphic
treasure parallels the Athenian use of temple treasures during the
Peloponnesian War; but since the Phocian right to control Delphi
was contested, their enemies regarded their use of the treasures as
sacrilegious. See Beloch, iii. t. 246-54; Pickard-Cambridge, CAH,
vi. 213-17; Fiehn, RE, 'Philomelos (3)', cols. 2524-5; Ferguson, RE,
'Onomarchus {I)'' cols. 493-sos. Diodorus (xvi. 56. s. 6I. 2) makes
Onomarchus Philomelus' brother, but erroneously (d. Schaefer, i.
492 n. t).
6. ~~Anr'II'OS .•• ~'ll'a.veLAETo JJ.tV Tous -rup<lwous: Philip was invited
into Thessaly in 354 to help Larissa and the Thessalian League against
Lycophron of Pherae, who had help from Phocis, and after two
defeats at the hands of Onomarchus retired to Macedon (Diod. xvi.
35· 2-3). In 353 he defeated Onomarchus at the battle of the Crocus
Field in Thessaly (Diod. xvi. 35· 4-6; above 28. 3 n.); Onomarchus
fell and Philip crucified his body (Diod. xvi. 35· 6; that his own sol-
diers killed him (Paus. x. 2. 5) is an improbable story). The Sacred
War continued until 346. Phayllus died in 352; after a few years his
auccessor, Phalaecus, was deposed and seized a position near Ther-
mopylae with a large mercenary army on his own account. After
the Peace of Philocrates (346) he came to terms with Philip and
1\trrendered Thermopylae to him (Diod. xvi. 59; Dem. xix. 53-62).
Philip overran Phocis and left its punishment to the Amphictyonic
Council, which split it into villages and insisted on the repayment
of the temple treasures (Diod. xvi. 6o; Dem. xix. 81, 123; Paus.
x. 3· 2; other references in Schaefer, ii. 284ft.; Syll. 230-235). See
Plckard~Cambridge, CAH, vi. 24o-1.
7. ~ea.8a11'€p ••• .11'6A~J-n A.£yeLv: 28. 3·
Ma.,.G YtlV •• ·tlYEJJ.OVCl KO.l KQ.TQ oa.A.a.nav: in winter 338/7 representa-
tives of all the Greek cities except Sparta were summoned by Philip
to Corinth and there established a Kot~ Elp/;v"fJ involving a Symmachy
on a permanent basis (Diod. xvi. 89; Iustin. ix. 5; Syll. 26o = Tod,
177; Syll. 665, 11. 19-zo (quoted in ii. 48. 2 n.); see Bengtson, 304-5,
fur bibliography on the debated question of the relations between
I7l
IX. 33· 7 SPEECHES OF AETOLIAN AND
the two. For the view that the Kotv-f] ,.;ip1)v7] and Symmachy were
organized simultaneously see Larsen, 51-2). The oath sworn by the
delegates (Syll. 26o = Tod, 177 = Schehl, ]ahresh. 1932, II7) in-
dicates that at this first meeting Philip was already designated
hegemon; 11. 21-22, KafJ6Tt [av Sowijt Twt Kowwt avvEo]plwt Ka~ o~'}'Ef.Lc.il]v
rrapayy€ltlt7Jt ••• ; cf. Arr. ii. 14. 4; Bengtson, Strat. i. 3 n. I. At a later
League meeting in spring 337 (cf. Wilhelm, S.-B. Miinchen, 1917,
10, p. 27; S.-B. Berlin, 1929, 309 f.) Philip was appointed aTpaT7J'}'O'>
avTOKpaTWp for the war against Persia (Diod. xvi. 6o. s. 89. 3; P. Oxy.
i. 12 = FGH, 255, 11. 24-25), a position which, in contrast with his
~'Y€fwv{a, perhaps gave him the right to make peace or treaties
without consulting the avviopwv of the League. For discussion of the
two positions and of the tradition in Arrian, who speaks only of
~'}'€p.wv a&roKpaTwp see Bengtson, Strat. i. 3-9. For Doson as ~yep.wv
of the later Hellenic symmachy see ii. 54· 4 n.
8. 1TapEyevno ••• Ei~ 1'lJV Aa~ewv,~efJv: cf. 28. 6 n.
9. KaAOUj.LEVO~ ••• U1TO 'TWV EV neA01TOVVTJO''ll ••• O'Uj.Lj.L&.xwv: cf. xviii.
14. s--6, rrlt€LO'TOJJ SJ TWIJ €t :4pKaO{a., Kat Mwa1}V7J'>· According to Paus.
v. 4· 9 the Eleans took part in the expedition.
10. ~ XA.awea: note the rhetorical device of a change in the person
addressed; at 35· 6 wvdowav Lyciscus is again addressing the Spar-
tans, but he returns to Chlaeneas and the Aetolians at 35· 7, and
to the Spartans once more at 36. 2; at 37· 4 Chlaeneas and a fellow
Aetolian are again addressed, and from 38. 2 onwards the Spartans.
This liveliness of style probably reflects the manner of the original
speech.
j.LE'TU -rij~ j.LEYLO''TTJ~ xcip,1'0~: i.e. among the other Peloponnesian
peoples, the aaTV'}'ElTOV€'>•
11. 1'lJV £gaywyiJv ••• 1TEpt 'TWV &.1-LcJI'a~TJ'TOUj.LEVwv: 'to compose their
differences'.
12. Kotvov EK 1TnV1'WV Twv 'EA.A.t1vwv ~ea9iaa~ Kp,.,..qp,ov: 'having set
up a court of arbitration from among all the Greeks'. It seems clear
from Iustin. ix. 5· 1-3 that the Greek territorial disputes were settled
de facto before the constitutive meeting of the Hellenic League (cf.
xviii. r4. 7). As regards those between Sparta and her neighbours,
Argos, Arcadia, and Messenia, this settlement will have followed
the invasion of Laconia in 338 (cf. 28. 6 n.). No records exist of the
areas assigned to Tegea and Argos; but Tegea will have obtained
part of Caryatis (Theopompus, FGH, ns F 238; below, xvi. 37· 4;
Livy, xxxiv. 26. 9; Hiller von Gaertringen, RE, 'Tegea', cols. II3-14).
According to Syll. 407, the village of Tyros on the coast of Cynuria
is Spartan in 275; hence Bolte (RE, 'Sparta', col. 1304) argues that
Sparta now lost only Thyreatis to Argos (cf. iv. 36. 4 n.). Megalo-
polis seems to have acquired Sciritis and Belbinatis (Syll. 665,
11. 19-20) ; and lhough 'Aegylis' is a doubtful restoration in the
172
inscription mentioning this (cf. Bolte, RE, 'Sparta', cols. I3n-rz),
its probable mention in book 56 of Theopompus (FGH II5 F 36I)
suggests that this district also was now given to Megalopolis. The
view that these territorial adjustments were given de iure confirma-
tion by a Hellenic tribunal is supported by other evidence. The
second-century inscription already mentioned confirms the award of
border-territories to Megalopolis by KplaH<; (Syll. 665, 11. Ig-zo); see
H. 48. z n. and ii. 46. 5 n. discussing Livy, xxxviii. 34· 8, which refers
to the same event. True, Tacitus (Ann. iv. 43· 3) makes Messenian
representatives speak of Philip's assignment of the ager Denthaliatis
as made neque ... potentia sed ex uero (it was probably recovered by
Sparta in 28o, and restored to Messenia by Doson; cf. ii. 70. In.);
d. Strabo, viii. 36r. Moreover, Pausanias (ii. 20. r, vii. I r. 2) attributes
t llc decision on the dispute between Argos and Sparta to Philip. This
conflicting evidence would, however, be reconciled if the de facto
settlements of Philip were subsequently confirmed by a tribunal set
up under the Hellenic League after its formation (or by the synedrion
of the League acting as a tribunal), and, of course, guaranteed by
the sanctions of the League. For arbitration under the League see
,":iyll• .z6I Tod, q9, where Argos is appointed to decide a dispute
between Cimolus and Melos (cf. Larsen, CP, 1926, 55). Sparta, of
course, will not have recognized the decision, either as a de facto act
of Philip, or as a de iure act of arbitration. See Martin, 552-4; Roe-
buck, 53-56; CP, r948, Bs-Bg, 91-92; I. Calabi. Riv. jil. 1950, 63-69;
Ricerche, 139-44; Larsen, 210 n. n.
34. 1. TTJV e,~a.(wv '!TOAW fKOAO.O'I!: 28, 8.

l. TI.\Lwp(a.v ••• Tra.pa TWV nEpawv: cf. iii. 6. I3 n., v. IO. 8 for the
revenge motive in Alexander's war on Persia.
3. O.ywvoGEToUVTES: 'embroiling'.
4. Twv ~ha.8~t~a.11€vwv: cf. Diod. xviii. 42. I, ol8u1.Soxot (in the title of
Hieronymus' work: FGH, 154 T 3).
KO.Td. Tas Twv tca.tpwv'ITEp,aTaaELs: cf. ii. 55· 8, 'in all their vicissitudes'.
6. ot T~>V ~vT(yovov ••• '!Ta.pa.KO.AEO'O.VTI!S: cf. ii. 43· IO n., 45· I, ix.
38. 9· Gonatas' compact v.<ith the Aetolians in 243 was his reply to
Aratus' seizure of the Acrocorinth: d. Walbank, JHS, r936,
fKr-70·
7. Trpos TOV ~AE~a.vSpov •.• optcous TrOlTJO'a!I-EVOt: cf. 38. 9. and ii.
45· r n. for discussion of the partitioning of Acarnania between
Alexander II of Epirus and the Aetolians in 249 or, more probably,
In 243.
8. To\s O.auA.o~s lEpois: 'inviolable sanctuaries'; see iv. 6z. 3 n.
9. T(lla~os ••• To ,.• e'!Tl. Tc:uv6.plf ••• ~ea.t To Tfjs EV Aouaots '~tpov:
cf. iv. 34· 9 n. for Timaeus' and Charixcnus' raids in the Peloponnese,
probably in 240. On Timaeus see also Ziegler, RE, 'Timaios (I)',
I73
cols. 1075~. The temple of Artemis was probably plundered in 244
(cf. Beloch, iv. 1. 62o, and Walbank, Aratos, 44); on it see iv. 18.
9-10 n. The temple of Poseidon lay in a narrow gorge at the head
of the bay Porto Asomato, almost at the southern extremity of the
Taenarum peninsula, and filled its whole width; the famous cave,
believed to communicate with the underworld, lies on the west side
of this gorge and was presumably approached through the temple,
and the grove will have stood in the gorge to the north of the temple.
See Strabo, viii. 363 (Artemidorus); Mela, ii. 51; Paus. iii. 25.4; and
for modern discussion K. Bursian, Abh. Bay. Akad. I855, 776 f.; A.M.
Woodward, BSA, r9o6--7, 249-53; F. Bolte, RE, 'Tainaron (1)', cols.
2037-9. The temple was evidently a simple building, about zo m. by
16 m., with doors in the northern and southern walls. For its later
plundering by pirates see Plut. Pomp. Z4· 5·
10. cllnpu~<os ••• Tb Tfjs "Hpa.s iv 7l.pytl TE11Evos: Pharycus is other-
wise unknown. His raid on the Argive Heraeum will date either to
244 or to the Demetrian War (d. ii. 44· I n.) before Argos joined
the Achaean Confederation (d. Niese, ii. 261 n. 6, 271), probably
the former. The Argive Heraeum lay about 8 km. north-east of
Argos; on its site and remains see C. Waldstein, The Argive Heraeum
(Boston and New York, 2 vols., 1902 and 1905).
noAUkplTOS ••• TO TOU noaELOwvos EV Ma.VTlVE£~: on this temple cf.
8. n n. This incident will belong to the Aetolian invasion of the
Peloponnese of 244, when Timaeus plundered the temple at Lusi
and perhaps Pharycus the Heraeum (§ 9); cf. Beloch, iv. I. 62o;
Niese, ii. 261 n. 1; Walbank, Aratos, 44· On Polycritus, otherwise
unknown, see Lenschau, RE, 'Polykritos (5)', col. q6o.
11. AaTTa.~os Ka.t NtK6o-Tpa.Tos: the violation of the Pam boeotian
festival probably occurred between 229 and 224; cf. iv. 3· s n. Old-
father suggests (RE, 'Lattabos', coL 984) that Lattabus is the father
of Sosipatrus (or Sostratus) of 1\aupactus, known from GDI, 1950
(185 B.c.). But the name is not uncommon (cf. FD, iii. r. 148).
Nicostratus, evidently of Trichonium, was the father of Dorimachus
(iv. 3· 5, xviii. 54· 4); he is otherwise unknown, but may be the
man mentioned as Hieromnemon in a Delphic inscription of about
zz8 (GDI, 2525; Flaceliere, 405).
IKu8wv E"pya. I(Q.L ra.t..a.Tw\1: for the proverbial violence of the Gauls
see xviii. 37. 9; the Scythians, familiar to the Greeks from Herodotus
{Herod. iv. 1-144), are added for rhetorical effect (in xviii. 37-39 it
is 'Thracians').
35. 1. T~v lvt ~E!..4>ous l14>ooov ••• uveo-TTJTE: in 279{8; for the legend
of the preservation of Delphi by the Aetolians cf. I. 6. 5 n.
3. Ma.~t~:56va.s •.. vp&ppa.y11a.: cf. xviii. 37· 9 for Flamininus' use of
the same argument against the Aetolians, who wanted Philip V
174
ACARXAXIAN ENVOYS AT SPARTA IX. 37· I
destroyed after Cynoscephalae. See also Tarn, AG, 20I-2 and n. III;
Droysen, iii. I. I99; Fellmann, 40.
4. r a.AaTO.S ••• VLKTJ<70.VTO.') nToAEJlO.LOV TOV Kepa.uvov: Ptolemy
Ceraunus, the son of Ptolemy I and Eurydice, on being supplanted
hy Ptolemy II Philadelphus, went to Lysimachus' court, and after
his death at Corupedium murdered Seleucus and seized the Mace-
danian throne. On the chronology of his short reign see i. 6. 6 n.
ol 'II'Epi Bp€vvov: Brenn us was leader of the Gauls who marched on
Delphi.
6. T~v Tou va.ou Ka.Ta.~9opav: at Thermum. The plural of 30. 2 is
here quietly turned into a singular.
Touo; ~v h.('!! Ka.l. AwSwvn va.ous: on the Aetolian outrages at Dium
1md Dodona see iv. 62. 2-4, 67. I-4, v. 9· z-6 (P.'s discussion).
7. UJ1EL'> 8': turning to the Aetolians.
36. l-5. The benefactions of A ntigonus Doson: cf. 32. 3· For Doson's
victory at Sellasia, his capture of Sparta, expulsion of Cleomenes
amd restoration of Td mhpwv TToMTEVf-La see ii. 65. I-70. I with notes,
und v. 9· 8-Io. The rights of war (§ 4, Td Tov TToMf-Lov) would have
countenanced the enslaving of all the Spartans, men, women, and
children (ii. 58. ro).
5. llOEf>YETTJV ta.uTwv Ka.l. <7WTijpa.: d. v. 9· IO n.; for details of the
honours paid to Doson cf. ii. 70. 5 n. It was at the Nemean festival
held soon after Sellasia (d. ii. 70. 4) that the honours to Doson were
proclaimed.
6. To ~a.woJ1Evov: 'my opinion'.
7. ~ta.Tti. Tov 'll'f>OYEyovoTa. 'II'OAEJlov: the Social \Var.
I. wa.pa.I3-FJ<7e<78E Tas <7uv8-FJ~ta.s: the treaty of alliance dating from the
Social War; cf. 31. 3·
9. TtL 'll'avTwv Twv 'EXX-FJvwv ~va.vT(ov ••. ~ta.9LEf>Wiltva.: evidently a
reference to Sparta's membership of the Hellenic Symmachy (cf.
lv. 9· 6 n., 23. 6, 24. 4). Copies of the inscription recording Sparta's
adherence would be set up at various panhellenic centres.
ll. To 11~ To'Ls ~(AoL'> ••. .fJyE'l<78e: following Reiske (iv. 503) Hultsch
blaerts Tots 8' "v"PYET7JK6mv oif after this phrase. But P. often uses f-LEv
tmphaticallywithout a corresponding Sl, leaving the reader to supply
this. See Biittner-Wobst, ii. pp.l-li, discussingv. 81.5 and vi.43.2; he
&lao quotes ix. 8. 13. Hence, no lacuna need be assumed (as by Paton).
17, l, 'II'O.f>tL TO~') ~LAOTLJlOTEf>OV 0La.KEIJ1~VOL'): 'those WhO are disposed

to be captious' (Paton); d. 20. 6, cpJ.o-rtf-L(l-raTos ••• KaL aTTovSa,wv,
•H. :25 a 3·
6t o~To( ~a.aw: 'as the Aetolians here term it'. The Aetolian case
has been put in 3I, and at 32. 6 Lyciscus calls it am5TOf-LOV TLJia O"Vy-
••~a.>..atwmv.
175
2. Ta(ha, yap EV apxais elva~: 'this, they said, was the first point'.
Paton's translation ('for that is a matter of principle') is not con-
sonant with P.'s use of the phrase (cf. Mauersberger, s.v. dpx~).
4. 6> KXeov~Ke: evidently Chlaeneas' colleague in the embassy. He
was from Naupactus; cf. v. 95· I2, I02. 4 ff.
a.p' ou 1nl.vTas "EXXtjvas: 'were they not all Greeks?' An obscure
remark, since at the date of the Aetolo-Spartan alliance of 22o/I9
(iv. 35· 5, cf. iv. I6. 5 n.) the only Aetolian ally was the Illyrian
Scerdilaidas (d. iv. I6. Io); but an alliance with Elis followed almost
immediately (iv. 36. 6). The translations of Paton ('Had you not the
whole of Greece?') and Shuckburgh ('Were they not all the Greeks?')
are nonsensical.
6. a.p' ou vpos ,.~v ,.t;lV Jjapj30.pwv: cf. v. 104. I, xviii. 22. 8; Livy, xxxi.
29. IS (from P.); but P. himself never calls the Romans barbarians,
and clearly did not so regard them; cf. Schmitt, Hellenen, s-u.
Brandstaeter, 250, and La-Roche, 68, assume that P. used speeches
to voice criticism of the Romans that he was not prepared to utter
in his own person ; but this misunderstands both his use of speeches
and his view of the Romans.
ilj.~-o~d. ye SoKei KTA.: with a mark of interrogation after 1rp6Tepo11 and
another after nilla.IITta. Schweighaeuser gets a clear meaning: 'Does
the situation then and now seem to you to be similar? Is it not
rather the very opposite?' Hultsch, Biittner-Wobst, and Paton
print it as one sentence without any mark of interrogation; the
sense must then be ironical: 'You imagine the situation now to be
similar to what it was formerly, I suppose, and not the very opposite!'
7. 61-1-04>uXous: cf. Livy, xxxi. 29. IS (based on P.: a Macedonian
addresses Aetolians). 'Aetolas, Acarnanas, Macedonas, eiusdem
linguae homines.' The Romans are d>.>.OrJ>v>.ot (cf. 39· 3), alienigenae
(Livy, xxxi. 29. 12, 29. ISL and the argument that they intend to
enslave Greece echoes Agelaus' case in 217 (v. Io4. 3). But not every
Greek accepted the Macedonian claim. In the fourth century !so-
crates (Phil. 108) says of the founder of the Macedonian kingdom
"(1-61/o<; yap TWII 'E)..)..'1}11WI/ ovx 0(1-0r/>vAov y€1/0V<; apxew dguvaa.-;"; and the
Greeks always felt the Macedonian rule in Greece as in some sense
a foreign usurpation (Plut. Arat. 16. 3, dpx~ d,\,\6¢v>.o-;). But by
the third century Macedonians can hardly have seemed foreign in
the same way as Romans or Illyrians (cf. xviii. 8. 9)-glad though the
Greeks were to be liberated by Flamininus. See for discussion Fell-
mann, 4-IO; Porter, s8-S9; Schmitt, Hellenen, 13 n. rs.
8. SoKeiTe ••• E-rna'ITila9a~: not evidence that the initiative was
Aetolian. Cf. Livy, xxvi. 24. r, which clearly indicates that the im-
pulse came from Laevinus; as early as 213/12 the Romans were
interested in Aetolian support. See Balsdon, ]RS, I954. 31.
10. T1]A~Koiho VE4>os a'\TO TTJS Ea'ITepas: cf. v. 104. IOn. At Naupactus
176
the cloud in the west was the Romano-Punic conflict, now it is
Hpccifically Rome.
38. 2. o =:t!p~fl~ ci-rrt!aTELAE trpEa(jEun1v: for this tradition see Herod.

vi. 48, where, however, Darius, not Xerxes, sent envoys demanding
t~;trth and water from the Greek states in 491. The treatment of the
lwralds at Sparta and Athens is described in Herod. vii. IJJ, where
it is followed by the account of the Spartan attempt to purge the
sacrilege by sending Spartan heralds to Xerxes and his rejection of
their self-sacrifice. The sending of heralds by Darius is probably
a doublet of Xerxes' procedure in 481 (Herod. vii. 131); and the
throwing of heralds into the pit at Athens and the well at Sparta
(though accepted by E. Meyer, iv. I. 3oo) is to be rejected as legen-
dary (the barathrum being the answer to the demand for earth, the
well that to the demand for water). See De Sanctis, Riv. fil. 1930,
~<)2~; H. Bengtson, S.-B. Miinchen, 1939, I, 47-48; Beloch, ii. 2. 86
(who, however, accepts the murder of envoys at Sparta, but dates
it to 481, which would fit P.'s reference to Xerxes). P.'s deviation
from Herodotus may spring from a confusion between the king who
st~at the heralds (Darius) and the one who refused the Spartan ex-
piation (Xerxes).
J. Tou~ trEpt AEwvU>llv: to Thermopylae; cf. Herod. vii. 204 ff.
6. 'HtrE,pWTa.L~ KTA.: that the Epirotes were involved in the war on
the Macedonian side is implied here, in xi. 5· 4, and in the terms
of the Aetolo-Roman treaty as recorded (after P.) by Livy, xxvi.
~4· n, 'urbium Corcyrae tenus ab Aetolia incipienti solum tectaque
et muri cum agris Aetolorum, alia omnis praeda populi Romani
e1.1set'. This clause (on which d. 39· 2 n.) exposes Acarnania and
Southern Epirus to Aetolian attack; d. Oberhummer, 167; Oost,
31-32, McDonald, JRS, 1956, 154. In 205 the Epirotes took the initia-
tive for peace taedio diutini belli (Livy, xxix. 12. 8), which would
fit combatants (but also neutrals); and they were included in the
Peace of Phoenice on the same footing as the Achaeans, Boeotians,
'fhessalians, and Acarnanians (Livy, xxix. 12. 14). On the other
lmnd, there is no record of any attack on Epirus in this war (unless
this is implied by the embassy sent to Philip in zo8: x. 41. 4 n.) and
In 2II the Acarnanians sent their non-combatants to Epirus as
though to a neutral country (Livy, xxvi. 25. II; see below, 40. 6).
Hence Holleaux (2T4 n. 2) and Taubler (218 and n. 3) have argued
that Epirus succeeded in maintaining a de facto neutrality in this
WILr. But it is hard to accept Holleaux's view that the words Cor-
cyrae tenus in Livy excluded Epirus from the envisaged operations;
11.ntl any de facto neutrality must have been of a strictly unofficial
kind, perhaps negotiated with a pro-Roman party inside Epirus. As
Onst (31) observes, such an arrangement would have had advantages
114173 N 177
IX. 38. 5 SPEECHES OF AETOLIAN AND
for both sides; it meant one less enemy for Rome (and incidentally,
one may add, kept the Aetolians at a distance from the area in
which Rome was especially interested) and it burdened Philip with
one less ally to succour. The theory that some such agreement
was made covers the evidence economically; and it was probably
made at a date later than the Aetolo-Roman treaty (Oost, 32),
and perhaps after 209 (cf. x. 41. 4 n.).
The Achaeans would be one of the first targets of a Spartan
attack; but they were very soon to feel the blows of Rome in the
loss of Aegina (42. s-8) this summer, and henceforward they were
fully involved in the war. The Acarnanians were especially vulner-
able, if Livy's reference to areas between Aetolia and Corcyra is
a fair rendering of P.; and they had already been attacked (39· 2 n.,
40. 4-6 n.). The Thessalians were inevitably involved through their
close link with the king of Macedon. The Boeotians were also com-
batants and were included in the Peace of Phoenice (Livy, xxix.
12. 14); but Feyel (17o-So) has demonstrated that the war touched
them little if at all.
8. TTJS 'IAAup!.Wv ~1nAa(3o11EVOl po'll'ijs KTA.: for the Aetolian attack on
Cleitor and Cynaetha in conjunction with Scerdilaidas (summer 220),
see iv. 16. u-19. 6. The sea-borne raid on Pylos by Scerdilaidas and
Demetrius of Pharos is recorded in iv. 16. 7, where, however, there is
no mention of Aetolian collaboration, indeed the arrangement with
Aetolia is specifically later (iv. 16. 10). Perhaps Pylos is dragged
in here to increase the score against the Aetolians; there is a further
inaccuracy in the next sentence.
9. i\vTlyov'!? ••• ~rrolT)aavTo auv9T)Kas: the compact with Gonatas
to dismember the Achaean League was mentioned at 34· 6; but, as
Lyciscus has already stated (34. 7), the agreement to partition Acar-
nania was made not with Gonatas, but with Alexander II of Epirus,
whose name has been omitted here perhaps through a straining
after conciseness.
39. 2. i)ST) 'll'ap{JplJVTal ... OlvuiSas Kal. NO.aov: cf. Livy, xxvi.
24. 15, 'Laevinus Zacynthum ... et Oeniadas Nassumque Acar-
nanum captas Aetolis contribuit'. The date was late in 2II (cf.
above, p. 13). For the site and importance of Oeniadae see iv. 65.
8-ro n., n n. Nasus was identified by Bursian (i. 122) with a fortified
hill, still called -ro V7J<:d, in the marsh of Lezini to the west of Oeniadae;
but this view (still accepted by Fiehn, RE, 'Nasos', col. 1793) is to be
rejected, for P. certainly regards Nasus as a separate town, not
a mere outwork of Oeniadae. Kirsten (RE, 'Oiniadai', col. 2209)
suggests that perhaps one of the Echinades Islands off the Acar-
nanian coast west of the Achelous estuary may have been known
simply as Nasus; Leake, NG, iii. 568, had already suggested Petala.
178
lla.Teoxov 8E TTP~11v T~v TWV ••• Y..vntwpiwv v6.>..w: cf. Livy, xxvi.
a6. :, Anticyra in Locride. But Locris was Aetolian and Anticyra
lay in Phocis (cf. Salvetti, Studi di stor. ant. ii, r893, r:zo; Niese, ii.
479 n. 4; DeSanctis, iii. :z. 419 n. 57; Holleaux, 232 n. r; Klaffenbach,
/(;, ix 2• I, introd., p. xxx); Oldfather (RE, 'Lokris (r)', cols. 12;25-6)
1lefends the Livian text, assuming that Philip took the place in the
Social War; but Lerat (i. 54-59; Rev. Phil. I94i, 12-18; cf. Robert,
Net•. Phil. 1947, 19-20) has argued convincingly that no Locrian
Anticyra ever existed. Anticyra lay deep in the bay east of Cyrrha
on the north coast of the Corinthian Gulf, the modern Bay of Aspra
Spitia; remains of Anticyra have been found at Aspra Spitia. See
l'aus. x. 36. 8 f.; Bursian, i. 182-3; Hirschfeld, RE, 'Antikyra (r)',
mls. 2427-8. Laevinus and the Aetolians seized Anticyra in spring
~1o (above, p. IJ), the object being probably to counter any attempt
Philip might make to develop a short line of communications with
the Peloponnese through Phocis (cf. Walbank, Philip, 87).
3. Tn f1Ev TEKvo. ••• thrO.youc:n 'Pw11o.l:ol KT.>...: the literary tradition
il' unanimous that persons and property from captured cities were
to belong to the Romans, and the cities themselves and their terri-
tories to the Aetolians; cf. xi. 5· 5, xviii. 38. 7. According to Livy,
xxvi. 24- 7 (quoted in 38. 5 n.) the original compact made with
l.acvinus defined the area within which this should operate as between
Aetolia and Corcyra. But Antic:yTa (§ 2) lay outside this area, unless
it was envisaged as stretching an indefinite distance eastward; and
even on that assumption the handing over of Zacynthus {Livy,
xxvi. 24. rs) and Aegina (42. 5-8) to the Aetolians cannot be recon-
ciled with Livy's formulation. Probably P.'s text had some reference
to Corcyra as a limit in the north-west; the Romans can hardly have
wished to see the Aetolians make conquests any nearer to Illyria
(d. 38. 5 n.). But the agreement with Laevinus must from the outset
have envisaged wider operations on all Aetolian frontiers and be-
yond, and Livy's limitation to the north-west will be an inaccurate
restriction, perhaps influenced by the emphasis which the Aetolians
placed on the acquisition of Acarnania ; for an unconvincing defence
of the accuracy of Livy's text see R. Stiehl, Wissensch. Zeitschr.
I.eipzig, 1955/6, 293; and, for discussion, Klaffenbach, S.-B. Berlin,
''J54· 7 n. r; McDonald, ]RS, 1956, 154. The recent discovery (cf.
t8-.l9 n.) of fragments of a copy of the treaty (set up according to
l.ivy, xxvi. 24. 14, biennia post) has added both to our knowledge
and to our puzzlement. There may indeed be divergences between
the preliminary agreement made vvith Laevinus and recorded in
J.ivy and the final treaty; but it now appears that the latter at any
mte distinguished between cities taken by the Romans and cities
taken by the H.omans and Aetolians together; from these the mov-
able booty was to be shared between the two allies, not to go solely
179
to the Romans. A further clause states that if any of the cities of
certain peoples already specified in an earlier, lost part of the in-
scription go over to the Romans or the Aetolians, the Aetolians
shall be permitted to receive them into their confederacy. On the
bearing of this clause (which may have been qualified in the following
lines, now fragmentary) on the Aetolian claim to four Thessalian
towns in 197 see xviii. 38. 9 n. For bibliography on the inscription
see above, 28-39 n.
TWV aAAo«j>uAwv: cf. 37· 7 n. Badian (Clt'entelae, 294) quotes this
passage, underlining a.:Uo</>v>twv, as evidence that the fate of these
Greek cities was not consonant with 'Greek international law'.
It is clear from ii. s8. IO that it was. Lyciscus' point is that the
sufferings of the captives are all the more pitiable because their
captors are barbarians.
Ta 8' ~80.Ij>f1: 'the soil and buildings'; cf. Isaeus, rr. 42; IG, iiz. 1587
(quoted in LSJ). Shuckburgh and Paton render by 'houses' alone.
4. t-LETO.O'XEtY Ko.TO. 1Tpoa.(peO'w: 'to share in deliberately'.
5. efj~O.LOU<,; ••• ~~TJ«j>WO.VTO 8EK<lTe00'ElV: ScKaTdEtv should mean 'to
tithe' and some would take it in that sense here (cf. Wilamowitz,
5.-B. Berlin, 1927, r64); but such a punishment is too mild for the
context, and it has been widely argued (most recently and fully by
H. W. Parke, Hermathena, 72, 1948, 82-II4) that at any rate by the
fourth century it was synonymous with 'to destroy' -that is, 'de-
stroy the city, enslave the population and render a tithe of the
proceeds to the gods'. It is probably because of this meaning that
Harpocration cites Didymus for the sense To J<a8u;pouv, 'consecration'.
In the following discussion 'tithe' is used in this extended sense of
total destruction.
Diodorus (xi. 29. 2) records that before Plataea the Greeks swore
an oath to fight to the death, to bury the dead, to protect the cities
of the allies, and to leave unrestored the temples destroyed by the
barbarians; and Lycurgus (in Leoc. 8o-8r) gives another version of
this oath including the words -ras o~ (sc. 176,\;;t~) -rd. -roii {3a.pf3apov
1Tpo;;,\oJ1.€VaS' aTraaas 0EK0.1'EVO"W. Lycurgus locates the swearing at
Plataea, Diodorus at the Isthmus; and Diodorus omits the clause on
tithing the medizers, probably because he has already attributed
it to 48r, where the avv;;8pEuovTfiS' swore at the Isthmus to tithe those
who medized JIJE,\ovTl (Diod. xi. 3· 3). For both passages Diodorus'
source will be Ephorus, and Lycurgus' is directly or indirectly the
same. Herodotus knows of no such oath before Plataea; but he re-
cords an oath before Thermopylae to tithe those who gave themselves
to the Persians p.~ dvayJ<aa8lvTES (Herod. vii. I 32). He lists the states
involved, and includes Thebes and Opuntian Locris, who did not
medize till after Thermopylae; but it seems likely that the oath
really belongs to the Isthmus in 481 and that specific names were
180
added anachronistically afterwards (cf. Beugtson, Eranos, 195r,
X6 n. I; Brunt, Historia, 2, 1953. 136 f.; C. A. Hignett, Xerxes' invasion
of Greece (Oxford, 1963), 99). The proposal to tithe the medizing
st<Ltes was never carried out, though after Mycale the Spartans sup-
ported it and proposed transferring the Ionians to their lands
(Herod. ix. ro6. z-4); Themistocles seems to have been largely re-
sponsible for putting an end to such recriminations (Plut. Them. zo).
The story of an oath before Plataea is generally regarded as a
fourth-century invention; and the text of it recently discovered
on a stele from the enclosure of Ares and Athena Areia at Acharnae
supports Theopompus' allegation that the Athenians gave it a false
attribution (KaTaifwJ8t:Ta•); cf. FGH, rrs F I53· (On this inscription
(Tod, 204: in 1. z6 read Ta~{a.pxov, for TatC\oxov: cf. Robert, Bull.
t />ig. 1946-7, no. ro7) see L. Robert, Et. ipig. 307-r6; Daux, Rev.
1
arch. q, 1941, q6--83; Robinson Studies, ii. 775-82; and the other
works cited by Tod and by Bengtson, r61-2; add E. Benveniste,
Nt~t'. hist. rel. 134, 1948, 9044; A. E. Raubitschek, Bull. Inst. Class.
Stud. (London), r961, 6o-61.) The inscription attributes it to the
Athenians alone (1. 21, opKOS av Wf,LOO'al• .tl.IJ.ryvarm); Diodorus (xi. 29. 2)
says it was sworn at the Isthmus, whereas the Athenians joined the
allies at Eleusis (cf. How and Wells on Herod. vii. IJ2. 2)-though
indeed they could have sworn separately afterwards.
The original oath of 481 will have been in general temts; but in
the fourth century, resenting the Theban proposal to destroy Athens
after the Peloponnesian \Var, the Athenians revived the incident
with special stress on Thebes, and attributed it to the campaign of
Plataea when Sparta and Athens were allied against Thebes. The
forging of this Plataean oath may well date to the period of Spartan-
Athenian collaboration after 374 (Parke, Hermaihena, 72, 1948,
IIO-I2). Xenophon, describing events of the following few years (371
and 369 B.C.)' twice mentions TO 7T6..\m At:y6f,LEVOJJ dt:KaTwefjvaL e1){3alovs
(Hell. vi. 3· 20, 5· 35). The specific association of the oath with Thebes
is reflected in the Acharnian inscription, II. JI-3J, Kat v'<~]aas
f.LO.XOf.L<vos Tovs f3apf3d.povs Ct:Kantiaw T~V 6111f3alwv 1TOALV 1m\. This
phraseology is clearly reflected in P.; and it suggests that the words
~epa.T~aaVT<:s ••• f3apf3d.pwv are to be construed as subordinate to dtiKa-
1'Eva;:w (as their position suggests). Translate: 'the Spartans, who
decreed that when they had vanquished the barbarians in the war
they would utterly destroy the The bans .. .'. Both Shuckburgh and
Paton render: 'who, after conquering the barbarians, decreed etc.'
Lyciscus refers the oath to the Spartans alone, ignoring the
Athenians and the other Greeks; he accuses the Thebans merely of
£11!Utrality, and neutrality imposed KaT' dvd.yK1JV. All sources dealing
in any detail with the proposals to tithe medizers make clear that it
is actual collaboration, and voluntary collaboration, which is to be
I8I
IX. 39· 5 SPEECHES OF ENVOYS AT SPARTA
so punished (cf. Herod. vii. 132; Diod. xi. 3· 3 (Ephorus), where
medizers are distinguished from Totls ~~~ ~avxlav lxov·m; to whom an
appeal was to be made; Lycurgus, loc. cit. Ttls 'TU TOV {3apf:J&pov
-rrpof£AoJLI.va<;). The rhetorical effect of Lyciscus' double distortion-
a purely Spartan decision and one against mere neutrals~is to ex-
aggerate the contrast between Spartan severity and patriotism in
the earlier struggle against the barbarian invader and the present
alignment alongside the Romans.
6. -r(;w iE :.\vT~yovou yEyovoTwv: cf. 36. 2-5.
7. -rwv T~Eiov 8uva.11£vwv: perhaps including Machanidas (cf. 28-
39 n. ad fin.).
1rp6s Y' T~v t]auxta.v op!-lt]aa.TE: 'at least adopt a policy of neutrality'.
40. 1. A then ian character

P. is speaking of the character of the Athenian state (~ ... 1roA~s);
cf. vi. 4i· 2, To .•• KoLvov i)Oos rii> 7TOA€w>. But without knowing in
what context Athens is mentioned (see above, p. r3), it is not possible
to say which aspect of Athenian character P. has in mind. Ferguson,
256 n. 2, saw a reference to Athenian neutrality.
40.2-3. An appeal for help

The evidence is against connecting this fragment with the Acar-
nanian appeal to Philip (Livy, xxvi. 25. 15); see above, p. 13. It
probably refers to some other appeal of 210. The form f:Jot!AornaL (§ 3)
slightly favours this view, though indeed a reference to Philip (oZ
7T€pl. Tov <PlAm1rov) cannot be excluded.
40. 4-6. The Aetolian attack on Acarnania

This passage, consisting of two extracts from Suidas, clearly refers
to the Acarnanian resistance to the Aetolians; it is misplaced and
should stand between 27 and :z8, for the Aetolian attack on Acar-
nania was concurrent with Philip's Thracian campaign (Livy, xxvi.
25. 1-8, d. 25. 9 f.) and earlier than the attack on Anticyra, which had
already taken place at the time of the conference at Sparta (39· 2).
See xvi. 3:. 1-3; and above, p. 13.
40. 4. E"'I'L Ttva. 1ra.pl!.vra.aw ~e:a.-rt}VTT)aa.v: 'had recourse to a desperate

plan'; cf. Livy, xxvi. 25. w, 'ira magis instruit quam consilio bellum'.
The women, children, and old men over sixty were sent into Epirus
(cf. 38. 5 n.), and the men of military age took a desperate oath to
return only as victors, with special imprecations against anyone who
182
THE AETOLIAN ATTACK ON ACARNANIA IX. 41. 1
broke his oath or anyone who gave help or shelter to such an one
(§§5--6; Livy, xxvi. 25. 11-14).
6. f.LaA~(JTa SE To'Ls 'Hvupci>Ta~s: not mentioned in Livy; but Epirus
would be a natural refuge since the non-combatants were there.
41. 1-42. 4. Philip's siege of Echinus

These two chapters form part of the Greek events of 21o; see above,
p. 14. 42, from the anonymous de obsid. tol., is a mere paraphrase
of Polybius, as the appearance of hiatus, the irregular syntax and
the almost illiterate style make clear. Soon after the seizure of
Anticyra in spring 210 (39· z) Laevinus learnt that he had been elected
consul for 210 in his absence, and that he was being succeeded by
P. Sulpicius; but owing to illness he reached Rome late (Livy, xxvi.
16.4). According to an annalistic record (Livy, xxvi. 28. 2), Laevinus,
probably early in 210, reported at Rome 'Philippum inferentem
helium Aetolis in Macedoniam retro ab se compulsum ad intima peni-
tus regni abisse'; but this seems to be a distorted account of Philip's
winter expedition into Illyria, Dardania, and Thrace (Livy, xxvi.
25. 1-8), and not reliable evidence for any Macedonian setback in 211.
The passage in which it occurs is in any case unreliable (d. Gelzer,
1\.l. Schr. iii. 243) since it states that Laevinus reported that 'legionem
... deduci posse; classem sa tis esse ad arcendum Italia regem' (Livy,
xxvi. 28. 2) and that consequently Sulpicius 'omnem exercitum
praeter socius nauales iussus dimittere est' (Livy, xxvi. 28. 9); for
in 209 there are still Roman troops in Greece (Livy, xxvii. 32. 2).
In 210 Philip pressed south with the object of securing a route to
the Malian Gulf; and he seems to have advanced from Phthiotic
Thebes along the coast of the Pagasean Gulf towards Thermopylae.
That this foray was preceded by an attempt to force his way further
west via the Enipeus valley and Xyniae may perhaps be deduced
from 45· 3; and Niese (ii. 484 n. 1) has inferred Macedonian conquests
among the Dolopes at this time (d. xviii. 4i· 6 n.).
Echinus lay on the north shore of the Malian Gulf in Malis, 10 km.
east of Stylida, on a steep hill 40 m. high and overlooking the right
bank of the river now called the Tripotamo (d. 41. 11). For a de-
acription of the site and the remains of the city walls see Bequignon,
199-303·
41. l. KaTa SUo vupyous: 'opposite two towers'; Paton's version,

'the two towers', suggests that they have already been mentioned.
x•Xwvas ••• XW(JTp(Sas: d. X. 31. 8; Onos. 42. 3; A then. Mech. 18. 8 f.
(Wescher); 'shelters for sappers'. They were sheds on wheels to
protect the men who were clearing and levelling the ground before
bringing assault towers up to the city wall (cf. Caesar, BC, ii. 2. 4);
183
IX. 41. I PHILIP'S SIEGE OF ECHINUS
they are distinguished from X<'AwvaL opvKTpL0<'> employed directly

beneath the walls to protect men undermining them. According to
Vegetius, Epit. iv. 16, both types of X"AwvTJ were called musculi in
Latin. Here the 'assault towers' form part of the superstructure of
the X<'AwvaL and are not something separate, to be brought up behind
them. See further Droysen, RE, 'Chelone (3)', cols. 2229-30; Lammert,
RE, 'musculus', cols. 796-7.
KpLou~: evidently to be operated under cover of the X"AwvaL xwaTplS",;
though Diod. xx. 91. 8 (on Demetrius' siege of Rhodes) distinguishes
these from X<'AwvaL Kpw<P6poL.
aT6av: cf. i. 48. 2, xxi. 28. 4: Caesar, BC, ii. 2. 3, porticus. Evidently
a kind of covered gallery affording communication between the
towers, and probably providing a raised walk on top with a parapet
on the side facing the city (thus giving extra height for the firing
of the catapults (§ 7)).
KaTa TO f.LEaorrupyLov: 'opposite the wall between the towers'. Paton,
'in the space between the towers', is misleading, for the towers are
those of the city, and the p..woTrvpywv is the curtain wall.
3. Tel KaTaaKeuaaf.LaTa: 'the superstructure' (Paton).
rrupywv , , , ,PaVTaa(av KQ.L 0Lcl9EaLV: 'the appearance and style Of the
towers'.
~K TTJ~ Twv yeppwv auv9eaew~: 'owing to the fashion of the wicker-
work' (Paton). For y€ppa cf. viii. 3· 3 n., xvi. 11. 2.
et~ ~rraX~eL~ TTI rrXoKfi OLTIPTJf.LEvwv: 'divided so as to form merlons by
the way it was woven'. imiA.tn> seem here to be the merlons and
embrasures of a battlement; cf. xxi. 27. 4; Thuc. iii. 21. 3, Sul S€Ka ..•
€miAt<'wv TrvpyoL ?jaav.
4. 0Lcl ... TOU KclTW f.LEpou~ TWV rrupywv: 'in the bottom part of the
towers', i.e. on the ground. Here the TrvpyoL are the X<'AwvaL with their
superstructure.
rrpoaxwvvuvTE~ T(].~ civwf.LaX[a~ ... TTJV yfjv ~rre~aXXov: 'those engaged
in filling up dips in the ground piled on earth'; presumably they
levelled off any mounds.
f:rri TTI Twv £axap1wv ~4>68~: 'so that the base of the tower might
advance'. For €axapwv, the base of a tower, cf. Diod. xx. 91. 2 (of
Demetrius' helepolis at Rhodes). The base would be on wheels or
rollers.
aTE KpLo~ ~~w9ei:To: i.e. when the tower was near enough to the tower
of the city. P. is describing the two sorts of activity which took place
(successively) on the ground beneath the tower.
7. l:.puyf.LaTa. 8L1TXCi: cf. xxi. 28. 5 for the use of such a aT6a as a cover
for mines driven towards the enemy's walls.
8. Tpe'L~ ... ~eAoaTaaeL~: 'three emplacements for baUistae'; for
{3EAoaTaatEL> cf. Diod. xx. 85. 4, {3tEAoaTaatEL> olKtELa,; TOL> imTlfJwfJa,
p..€A.A.ovrn KaTaTrEATaL,;.
PHILIP'S SIEGE OF ECHINUS IX. 42. 4
TaXaVTLO.LOUS , , , Tp~aKOVTO.J.LVO.LOUS: 'stones weighing a talent ...
weighing thirty minae'. On the Attic-Euboeic standard a talent
weighed 36·86 kg. ; 30 minae would be r8·43 kg. The MSS. read TaAav-
T~afos, and this may be right, for Philo Mech. 85. 2 has Tr€Tpo{Jo"Aos
'TaAavnafos (but cf. Philo Mech. 5I. 40, "Al8ot Tptai<oVTap.,vafot); ~v
is easily understood after o p.,lv e[s.
9. o-upLyyE; KaTao-Teyo~: 'roofed passages'. These may be below
,.;round, as in xxi. z8. 6; but avptyg can be a gallery above ground
(d. xv. 31. 3) and may be so here.
tO. xop'I'Jy£a.;: 'materials'; cf. x. zo. 5·
11. KO.TO.VTL1TEpav Ti]; TWV 0pov~EWV xwpa.;: Thronium, the capital
city of Epicnemidian Locris, lay on an eminence at the western end
of Mt. Cnemis (mod. Karya) and on the right bank of the River
Hoagrius; it is modern Palaiokastro of Pikraki (cf. Bursian, i.
IX<J n. 3; Oldfather, RE, 'Thronion', cols. 6o9-ro). Thronium is
directly south of Echinus, at a point where, however, the gulf opens
out considerably to the south.
11. rrpoo-i]yov ••• Til; TWV opuyJ.LaTWV Kat J.L'I'JXO.V'I'JJ.LaTWV KO.TO.O"ICEUa;:
'l hey carried forward both the construction of the saps and the
KiPge-cngines'. TO.s Twv ••• P..YJxavYJp.,l:hwv I<aTaaKevas is scarcely
more than TO. 11-YJxav~p.,aTa: with &puyp.,aTwv, KamaKevds has its full
11ensc.
42. 1. n61TXLo; 0 TWV 'PwJ.La£wv aTpO.T'I'JYOS: P. Sulpicius Galba, the

consul of zii, who replaced M. Valerius Laevinus in 2ro (cf. viii.
1. (in., ix. 6. 6). He was now a pro-magistrate; but even if aTpaTYJy6s
lwre is P.'s word, and not the epitomator's, there are several parallels
for crrpaTYJyos used of a proconsul in the sense of 'general'; cf. i. 34· 8,
.14· 10, 34· I2 (Regulus}, iii. 97· 2, x. 4· 5 (P. Scipio), x. 17. 6, 34· r,
40. 5 (P. Scipio Africanus), ix. 42. 5 (P. Sulpicius himself), xxxviii.
so. J, 20. 5, zo. 7-8 (P. Scipio Aemilianus). See Holleaux, ETpaTYJyos
&ra.ros, 4 7-48 n. 7.
Awp£J.Laxo; o Twv AhwXwv: cf. iv. 3· 5 and passim in iv and v. This
p!LSsage is not firm proof that Dorimachus was general for zufro
(M1~e above, pp. rz-r3). If, as seems likely, the generalfor that year was
Scopas (Livy, xxvi. 24. 7, cf. 26. r), Dorimachus, who was influential
(d. Livy, xxvi. 24. 7, princeps Aetolorum), commanded these
troops sent to collaborate \\'ith Sulpicius (we know nothing of their
lllttnbers and importance). Paton by a prints 'Achaeans' for
'Adolians'.
'"' 'll'po; To T£ixos: the city wall of Echinus .
... Ti\ TWV 00.1TO.V'I'JJ.L6.Twv evSe(q.: 'through lack of necessaries' ; Da7rciVYJP.,a
In tllis sense may belong to the Anonymous, though it is found in the
lwine, usually meaning 'cost'; Wells, I l. 44, 24 l. I4, p. 323.
6-va.y~<G.tEw TOv q,£XLTI"rrov: sc. to abandon the sieg<l.
IX. 42. 5 SULPICHIS OCCUPIES AEGINA
42. 5-8. Sulpicius occupies Aegina

This extract from the gnomic excerpts (M) falls in 210 (see above,
p. 14); but whether Acgina was taken before or after the attempt to
relieve Echinus cannot be determined. Aegina was at this time part
of Achaea (cf. Plut. A rat. 34· 7). For its fate cf. xi. 5· 8, xxii. 8. 9-ro;
the people were enslaved, and the Aetolians, having received the
city, sold it to Attalus for 30 talents.
5. auva9po~o-9£VTes: 'having been assembled on the ships', i.e. as
Roman prisoners.
Tou O'Tpanwou: P. Sulpicius, the Roman proconsul {cf. § r n.).
trpos TttS auyyeveis troAe~s: probably the Dorian cities about the
Isthmus, e.g. Corinth, Argos, Megara, and Sicyon. Note that at such
a moment kinship takes precedence overthepolitical tieswithAchaea
(cf. § 8, roiiro nap' mhofs €8os).
8. auyxwp~~;iv ecJITJ trpecr~EUEW: the outcome was not impressive; cf.
xxii. 8. (}-IO.
43. The Euphrates

This fragment from the excerpta antiqua forms part of the res Asiae
for Ol. 142, 2 = 21rjro; see above, p. 14· Antiochus was last seen
coming to terms with Xerxes in Armenia (viii. 23). He seems to have
brought his army down the Euphrates in boats during the late
autumn (cf. §§ 4 and 6); but whether in 2n or 210 is uncertain. Either
could be accommodated to P.'s chronological system. It is not re-
corded whether Antiochus came directly to the Euphrates from
Armenia or had since been back to Antioch {cf. Holleaux, CAH,
viii. 140 = Etudes, v. 322). But since his advance south into Meso-
potamia is the prelude to a vast campaign into Hyrcania, Bactria,
and the Kabul valley, a return to Antioch seems likely. In that case
the voyage down the Euphrates may belong to autumn 210, and be
recorded in ix to round off the year's activity; and this would per-
haps better fit later events, since it appears to be spring 209 when
Antiochus reaches Ecbatana (x. 27). It is also more probable if
Antiochus' expedition was the sequel to the news of Tiridates' death,
which will have occurred in 2njro (Bickerman, Berytus, 1944, 82;
below, X. 28. In.). Pedech, Methode, 568, suggests that Callisthenes
is P.'s source for his geographical digression here.
43. 1. ~€ lt>..pJ.lev(as: as Herodotus (i. r8o. r) already knew.

2. 8oK~i: 'it is said'; cf. 25. 1.
e~s TTJV 'Epv9pAv ••• 9aAaTTav: the view P. opposes is in Herodotus,
i. r8o. 1, ietn . .. ls r~v 'Epv8p~v OcD.aaaav. By 'Epv8pa Od>t.aTTa P.
means the Persian Gulf (cf. v. 46. 7 n., 48. 13, 54· 12, xiii. 9· 3, 9· 5};
J86
THE EUPHRATES IX. 43· 6
but whether Herodotus meant the same is doubtful (cf. Berger, RE,
'EpvOpa O&.Aaaaa., col. 545: 'Von einem Persischen Meerbusen ...
verrat der Halikamassier aber keine Spur. Der Euphrat mull sich
nach Herod. i. r8o in den Teil des Ozeans ergossen haben, der das
Rote Meer hie13.' Despite Nearchus' having brought Alexander's
fleet up the Euphrates to Babylon from the Persian Gulf (Arr. vii.
19. 3, d!~ >..lyEL 14purrof3ov>..o~). great confusion still existed about
the geography of the estuaries of the Tigris and Euphrates, and P. is
our first evidence for the view, later in Mela, iii. 77, and Paus. ii. 5· 3
(reappearance in Ethiopia as the Nile) that the Euphrates never
reached the sea. A hostile Parthia seems to have created a growing
confusion about these areas under the Roman empire. See further,
on the mouth of the river, Weissbach, RE, 'Euphrates', cols. r::zoo-.6,
1'a.ls 8&6Jpu~': cf. v. 51. 6. The lower course of the Tigris and Euphrates
furnished a network of such canals from the earliest times (cf. Herod.
i. 193; Strabo, xvi. 740-1), running in general from the Euphrates
to the lower bed of the Tigris (Arr. vii. 7· 3; Dio, lxviii. 28); cf.
Wcissbach, RE, 'Euphrates', cols. 12o8-Ir.
4. 'ITAEicrro'> ••• KCl1'a Kuvo'> ~w,,.o.AiJv K1'A.: cf. ii. r6. 9 on the Po,
and for the heliacal rising of Sirius about 28 July (Greg.) see i. 37·
4 n. Both Herodotus (i. 193) and Polycleitus of Larissa CFGH, 128 F 5)
denied that the Euphrates flooded; but later authors know of its
rise and fall; cf. Cic. de nat dear. ii. 130. According to Strabo (xvi. 740)
the rise begins in spring with the melting of the Armenian snows,
nnd flooding comes in early summer; see also the less accurate account
in Pliny, Nat. hist. v. 90· In fact the river is lowest, at Babylon, in
September; it rises a little with the first winter rains, fills its bed in
December and floods in April. By the summer solstice the water is
well below its highest level. Thus P. (whose source is unknown}
here gives inaccurate data. See Weissbach, RE, 'Euphrates', cols.
1~00-7.
olcl liE trpo·u~w EAanwv: correct, especially in the lower reaches.
Loss of water by irrigation and overspill into the marshes today
reduces its width from 8ooft. to 150 ft. in ::zoo miles (D. L. Linton,
Chambers's Encyclopaedia (1950), 'Euphrates', 434).
6. TO.'ITELVoTa1'ou ••• '!'ou tro1'a.11-ou: P. implies, but does not say(§§ 3-4),
that the Euphrates is at its lowest in winter, though this is true in
September or October (§ 4 n.). The present operation, by which
Antiochus conveyed his troops downstream (perhaps from the
Euphrates bend} will therefore date to autumn or perhaps early
winter, before the substantial rise in December; on the year (prob-
ably :no) see 43 n. Cf. Niese, ii. 397 n. 6; A. von Gutschmid, Geschichte
lrans und seiner Nachbarlander von Alexander dem Groflen bis zum
Untergang der Arsaciden (Tiibingen, 1888}, 36 f.; Holleaux, CAH,
viii. 140 = Etudes, v. 322,
IX. 44· I FRAGMENTS
44-45. Fragments
44. 1. Tous ••. ~ .... ~aJvovTns: €p.f3aivfitV is 'to enter upon' a war, or
other activity; here war seems to be implied.
2. Universal history: see iii. 32, viii. 2. I-II; Vol. I, p. 9· For To KdA-
\
1\WTOV IJ,€0.fLO. Cf • 1.
. 4• 4 n,, TO' K/J,IIIIt<7TOV
,, \ " Q"'' W't'fitw.fLWTO.TOV
O.fLU. '.I.. \. ' ' '"'
€1Tt'T1]0ti.l!fLO.
-rfjr; ~X'l•·
45. 1. Koo.&ov ••• 'ITEpl :4po'LVO'IJV 'ITMuv: the site of Arsinoe is in

doubt, hence also the identity of this river. If Arsinoe (cf. xviii.
Io. 9, xxx. 11. s) is another name for Conope (cf. iv. 64. 3 n.), the
Cyathus is the outlet stream from the lake of Anghelokastro (map
in Vol. I, p. 542); cf. Leake, NG, i. 154; Woodhouse, 210. Probably
both Arsinoe and the Cyathus were mentioned in connexion with
the Aetolian attack on Acarnania (above, p. 14).
3. Euv(n: for the probable context see 41. 1-42. 4 n. Xyniae (cf. Livy,
xxxii. 13. q, xxxiii. 3· 8, xxxix. z6. z; Syll. 546 A) occupied a hill
amid marshy ground to the south-east of the Lake of Xyniae, not
far to the west of the road south from Thaumaci to Lamia; see
Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 16o (sketch-map), and pl. ix. The town, lying
on the south-west slope down to the lake, below the acropolis, was
contained within a strong wall 940 m. in circumference.
cfJ6pouvvo.: for the context see above, p. 14. Phorounna (perhaps
Phorynna) is probably what Livy, (xxvi. zs. 8) calls Jamplwrynnam,
caput arcemque Maedicae. Vulic, RE, 'Iamphorina', col. 690, suggests
that it lay near the source of the Nestus in the wide valley of Razlog;
Leake, NG, iii. 473, identifies it less probably with Vranja, further
west, while to Oberhummer, RE, 'Phorunna', col. 651 (who does not
mention Livy), it is 'otherwise unknown'.
x88
BOOK X
1. The situation and importance of Tarentum
The year 210 was one of minor operations in Italy. For Roman
gains in Apulia and Samnium cf. ix. 26. 2 n.; but the proconsul Cn.
Fulvius lost several thousand men and his own life in an ambush at
Herdonea in Apulia (Livy, xxvii. I. 3-rs; cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 459
u. 28). Marcellus had a successful skirmish with Hannibal near Venusia
(Livy, xxvii. z; Plut. Marc. 24. s); and the Roman garrison in Taren~
tum was hard pressed owing to the sinking of a convoy from Sicily
by a Tarentine fleet (Livy, xxvi. 39· r-19; DeSanctis, iii. 2. 461 n. 31).
Discouraged, twelve Latin colonies withheld men and money (Livy,
xxvii. 9· 7). In 209 the consul Q. Fulvius Flaccus marched south into
Lucania, and took the surrender of the Hirpini and several Lucanian
communities including Vulci in the absence of Hannibal, who had
advanced into Apulia against Marcellus (Livy, xxvii. 12. r-15. 3).
Meanwhile the other consul, Q. Fabius Maximus, took Manduria,
south-east of Tarentum (Livy. xxvii. rs. 4), as a preliminary to
advancing to the relief of the garrison in Tarentum itself; cf. Hall-
ward, CAH, viii. 8r--Sz. The present passage clearly introduces F.'s
nccount of the recapture of Tarentum, which falls in Ol. 142, 3
aro/9. in fact in 209 (see above, p. 14); see Livy, xxvii. rs. 9-16. 9
for the recovery.
1. 1. crTa.5£wv .•• vAuovwv 4\ 5LcrXLh£wv: really c. z,soo stades, or

nearly 290 English miles, from Rhegium, following the coast ; the
straits are another roo stades (about rz miles) further on. In xxxiv.
t t. Io-n ( Strabo, vi. 261) P. reckons the distance from the straits
to the Lacinian promontory as I,.;oo stades (MS. z,.;oo), and from there
to the Iapygian promontory as 7oo (going directly across the gulf),
which is about right. Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 99, makes the distance
ucross the Tarentine Gulf as roo m.p., and the coastal distance
250 m.p.
O.MJJ.Evov ••• Titv vAeup&.v ••• Ta.on1v: Strabo (vi. z86) calls Italy as
11 whole di\l/Levov «a-r<l -r6 1rAefa-rov; and there is no harbour worthy of
the name between Reggio and Taranto. Cf. Florus, i. 18. 3 ; Philipp,
RE, 'Tarentinus sinus', cols. z.;oo-z; Nissen, It. Land. i. 95·
wAT,v Twv tv TO.pa.VTl hLJl~vwv: the Mare Grande, lying on the outer
~tide of the city. and the harbour proper within the Mare Piccolo
(cf. viii. 34· 3 n.); unless the plural is being used with a singular
trll~aning (cf. 8. z n.).
l. T~Tpa.vTa.L ••• ELS To ILtuAucov vEAa.yos: in ii. 14. 5 the Sicilian Sea
ill separated from the Ionian Sea in the north by C. Cocynthus
189
X r. z SITUATION AND IMPORTANCE OF TARENTUM
(probably Punta di Stilo: see note ad loc.); see also i. 42. 4 n. Here
P. seems to follow a different tradition which includes the Gulf of
Tarentum in the Sicilian Sea.
3. BpeTTLOl Ka.t AEuKa.vo(: the Oscan Bruttii occupied the _toe of Italy
south of the R. Laus (mod. Laino). For their main towns cf. Livy,
XXX. 19. IO; their capital was Consentia (Strabo, vi. 256). The Lucani
were also Oscan, but considerably hellenized; their lands went from
the Laus and Crathis to the R. Silarus, which eventually formed
the border with Campania; to the east the R. Bradanus (mod.
Bradano) separated them from Apulia and Calabria. See Hiilsen,
RE, 'Bruttii', cols. 907-u; Honigmann, RE, 'Lucania', cols. 1541-2.
Ka.i TLva. !J.EPTJ Twv 1\.a.uviwv: MS. aavvlnov, .davv{wv Gronovius. But
the Daunii (cf. iii. 88. 3 n.) were as far away from the Gulf of Taren-
tum as the Samnites, and there is no e·vi.dence that a branch of this
people inhabited the coastal district of the Gulf. Though accepted
by Schweighaeuser, Hultsch, and Biittner-Wobst, Gronovius' emen-
dation must be rejected. True, the Samnites too do not reach the
Gulf of Tarentum; but if P. is thinking of the barbarian tribes as
lying in the hinterland of the Greek cities, he might easily mention
the Samnites along with the Bruttians and Lucanians; cf. Livy,
xxxi. 1· II, 'nee Tarentini modo oraque ilia Italiae quam maiorem
Graeciam uocant ... sed Lucanus et Bruttius et Samnis ab nobis
defecerunf. Read therefore .EavvtTwv.
Ka.Aa.!'poL: part of the Messapian people (cf. ii. 24. u n., iii. 88.3 n.).
The name Calabria was gradually used for the whole of Messapia
(cf. Hiilsen, RE, 'Calabria', cols. 1325---D).
Ka.t 'ITAE(ous €TEpot: further evidence that P. is casting a wide net.
If he can include the Samnites, he may here be thinking of the
Peucetii in south Apulia, and other Iapygian or Messapian peoples.
TouTo To KAi!J.a. ••• TTJS '1Ta.M11s: 'this district of Italy'; cf. v. 44· 6,
vii. 6. 1 n.
4. 'P~ytov KTA.: not mentioned in any logical order; following the
coast round they are Rhegium, Locri, Caulonia, Croton, Thurii, and
Metapontum.
5. 'ITpos v6.vTCl'S: some exaggeration; Tarentum will hardly have
served as a mart for Sicilians trading with the more westerly cities,
Rhegium, Locri, Caulonia, and even Croton.
6. EK rijs uEpl. KpoTww:lTClS ••• EuSa.l!J.OVtll'S: on the proverbial pros-
perity of Croton see above, vii. r. r n.
~PilXEinv Twa. ••• upoua.ywy~v: 'affording small opportunity for
putting in'.
8u1 TTJV Twv To'II'Wv Eucf>uta.v: 'owing to the favourable situation'; cf.
ii. 68. 5. iii. 92. II, iv. 38. II (of Byzantium). Despite its poor facilities,
it was a port of call for ships rounding the Lacinian promontory
(cf. Dunbabin, 27).
190
SITUATI0::--1 AND IMPORTANCE OF TARENTU;".l X. 2. r
7. TETo.tc.Ta.~ .•• Ka.l 1rpos Tous Ka.T(.. Tov :A5pLa.v Al~J.iva.s Eu.Puws:
'favourably situated in relation to the harbours of the Adriatic';
that is, harbours in Illyria and Epirus rather than in Apulia.
8. n1To yelp liKpa.s 'la1TuyLa.s i!ws ds lL1TOUVTa: 'from the Iapygian
promontory as far as Siponturn every one corning from the opposite
coast to put in to an Italian harbour crossed to Tarentum' (Paton).
The expression is slightly awkward. The words d1rJ ... EmofivTa.
cannot be taken too closely with 1rp6,; 'iTaJ.{av both because of their
position and because J<:a.8op/Lta8ds- would then be inaccurate : for
those crossing from the opposite coast do not in fact put in at any
harbour between Siponturn and the Iapygian promontory, but sail
round to Tarentum. Hence the phrase a1To . .. .EmoiJVTa. must be
regarded as a general indication of the area of the Italian coast
within which the conditions mentioned apply. This incidentally shows
that Greek ships crossed the Adriatic so as to make landfalls at
various points on the Italian coast between Siponturn and the
Ia.pygian promontory, and did not restrict themselves to the shortest
crossing; for in that case there is no point in mentioning Siponturn.
Sipontum was a Daunian toY.TI on the southern slopes of Mons
Garganus; for its importance as a minor port see Cic. Att. x. 7· r;
/tin. marit. 497; Strabo, vi. 284. But Nissen (ltal. Land. ii. 848) and
Philipp (RE, 'Sipontum', col. 271) seem to have misunderstood the
present passage when they quote it as evidence for maritime rela-
tions between Sipontum and Tarentum. On the Iapygian promon-
tory, Cape S. Maria di Leuca, cf. ii. J4. 5 n., xxxiv. 11. 11.
9. ou8€1TW ••• T~V TWV BpEVTEO'tVWV EKTlO'&a.l 1TOAW: Brundisium was
a Messapian town which the Romans took in 266 after the subjection
of the Sallentini (Eutrop. ii. 17; Flor. i. 20; Zon. viii. 7). A Latin
colony was founded there, at once according to Zonaras, in 244 accord-
ing to Veileius (i. 14. 8; cf. Livy, ep. 19). It became the Roman base
for shipping armies eastward during the third and second centuries;
tee above, ii. 11. j, for the First Illyrian War. P. seems here to be
referring to the sending of the Latin colony as 'the founding of
Bnmdisium' (Beaumont, ]RS, 1936, 176 n. 131); even so, his state-
ment is false.
10. o 41&.~•os: Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, cos. A.u.c. 545
101) B.C.; see iii. 87. 6 n. The hn{Jo).~ is the recovery of Tarentum.
2. 1-20. 8. Scipio's character; the capture of New Carthage

To succeed the two Scipios, killed in zn (viii. 38n., ix.u), Publius' son,
J,, Cornelius P.f. L.n. Scipio (Africanus), was sent out with imperium
;r(l consule by popular vote (Livy, xxvi. 18. 4-u, 19. 10-u); on the
rnnllons for his appointment in place of Claudius Nero see Scullard,
l~ol. 66. Livy dates his arrival in Spain to zu, and consequently
191
X. 2. I SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND
puts the fall of New Carthage in 210; but in fact he arrived in 210,
and took the Punic base in 209 (see above, p. 14). On Scipio's pre-
parations during winter 210-9 see Livy, xxvi. 19. 12-20. 6.
The account of Scipio's character, introduced at the point at which
he harangues his troops before crossing the Ebro in spring 209 (cf.
6. I n.). does not aim at completeness (3. 1, where his beneficence
and magnanimity are passed over as well known; cf. Bruns, 3).
The digression is designed to counter popular views of how Scipio
took New Carthage, and is thus parallel to the polemic against the
sensational historians who attributed Hannibal's crossing of the
Alps to divine intervention (iii. 47. 6-48. 12); in both passages
(u. 4, cf. iii. 48. u) P. supports his version by the claim of autopsy.
Consequently the origin and credibility of P.'s interpretation of
Scipio's character cannot be disentangled from the question of the
credibility of his account of the capture of New Carthage. According
to P., Scipio learnt, while still in winter quarters, of the existence
of a shallow lagoon on the inside of the city, and of a fall in its level
each evening (8. 7); and on arriving there, the day before the attack
was due to begin, he harangued his troops, promising them inter alia
the manifest intervention of Neptune (n. 7-8) on their side. When
at the proper time the ebb came and the wading party was sent
across the lagoon, the army was struck with the thought that this
was p.e-ra Ttvo> OeoiJ 1rpovotas (14. n). This illustrates P.'s thesis that
Scipio did not owe his success to 'the gods and Tyche' (9.2), but to
his own foresight (2. 13); but that he, like Lycurgus (2. 8-u), de-
liberately represented the fruit of calculation as the work of divine
powers (2. u).
What is the truth about the ebb? Although the Mediterranean
is in general tideless, tides occur at some points. But if this ebb is
a tidal phenomenon P. must be wrong in saying that it occurred
daily J1rl SetAr;v olfo£av (though he may, of course, have generalized
what was true for the day for which Scipio planned the attack).
Alternatively the ebb had some other cause such as wind action.
Livy (xxvi. 45· 8) mentions a north wind which assisted the tide;
and Scullard (Scip. 76--9) quotes several examples of similar pheno-
mena due to wind, from the Red Sea, the Crimea, the Suez Canal,
and Geneva. It is also attested that north or north-east winds can
lower the level of the water by one to one and a half feet in the
neighbourhood of Cartagena (Mediterranean Pilot6 , i. 69; Scullard,
Scip. 78-79 n. 3). Scullard also considers (Scip. 79) the possibility of
volcanic phenomena, but rightly dismisses this as unlikely. Tide
or wind, either explanation of the ebb presents difficulties. If
it was tidal (and so predictable) why did Scipio launch a violent
attack in the morning instead of waiting for the ebb later in the day?
Having promised Neptune's help (u. 7), why did he embark on an
THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE X. z. 1
operation the success of which would have made that help super-
fluous? And why did Mago do nothing to guard against an obvious
danger? If on the other hand the ebb was caused by wind action,
dearly Scipio could not be quite sure it would occur; how then
could he, the previous day, promise the god's intervention?
These difficulties would be evaded if the whole story of the ebb
were a legend. But the character of P!s sources virtually excludes
this hypothesis. For his account of the capture of New Carthage
he used at least three, and possibly four, sources, apart from his
own autopsy (u. 4 n.). He had the evidence of C. Laelius, Scipio's
dose friend (3. z), probably oral (Laqueur, Hermes, 1gzr, zo7-25,
argues unconvincingly for a written account). He had also access
to an account written by P. Scipio himself and sent (presumably
after rgo) to Philip V of Macedon (g. 3). in which he confirmed that
his operations were based on the calculations expounded by P., in-
cluding the information on the lagoon. Further, Silenus described
the capture (Livy, xxvi. 49· 3), and P. may be assumed to have con-
sulted him. The strong similarity between the accounts of P. and
Livy points to a common tradition, but it is not easy to establish
the relationship between the two versions. It has been argued that
tivy used P., either directly or more probably via Coelius, and that
the additional details which he gives (cf. Klotz, Appia1ts Darstettung,
73) come from a secondary source like Silenus (added by Livy or
again, more probably, by Coelius); cf. Kahrstedt, iii. 289 ff.; De
Sanctis, iii. 2. 372. On this hypothesis, the Roman point of view in
both P. and Livy derives from F.'s use of Scipio and Laelius. Klotz
has argued, however, that Livy's additions form an integral part of
tlte narrative and are only to be explained as coming from a source
common to P. and to Livy (again, used probably via Coelius) ; cf.
Klotz, Uvius, 178 f.; Hermes, 1952, 334-43. On this view the Roman
colouring must derive from this common original source, who will
hardly be other than Fabius Pictor. P. will have made Fabius his
main source, checking him from Laelius and Scipio's letter.
To choose between these hypotheses is not easy. But it weighs
against Klotz that in xxvi. 45· g, 'hoc cura ac ratione compertum in
prodigium ac deos uertens Scipio .. .', Livy echoes P.'s own attitude
towards Scipio's exploitation of the gods; and though this phrase
occurs in Livy's account of Scipio's speech just before the crossing
of the lagoon, which has nothing corresponding in P. and owes a good
deal to Livian rhetorical elaboration, nevertheless its ultimate origin
In P. seems unquestionable. If, as Klotz argues, the additions in Livy
read like an integral part of his narrative, this could merely be
evidence of Livy's skill rather than an argument for the use of a
common source from which P. omitted them. Further, at two points
(c). 7and n. 1-3), where P. seems to have combined two sources with
0 193
X. z. I SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND
less than his usual skill, Livy (xxvi. 42. 6, 42. 9) faithfully reproduces
what he says. Klotz's theory is therefore to be rejected. P.'s source
will be most likely Silenus, modifted by information from Laelius
and Scipio; but though conclusive evidence is lacking, he may well
have made use of Fabius too, for a Roman source could have ob-
tained information on Mago's dispositions (rz. 2-3) from Mago him-
self \Vhen a prisoner at Rome (cf. 19. 8) perhaps more easily than
Silenus in the camp of Hannibal. Livy's account will go back ulti-
mately to P., probably through Coelius; but he gives information
not in P. which is not always due to elaboration (e.g. xxvi. 42. 5,
43· I, and 44. 10 on the part played by the fleet) and may have been
added by Coelius from elsewhere.
With all these sources to draw on P. will hardly have described a
purely imaginary ebb. On the other hand, some of the difficulties
which it creates and which have been mentioned above are perhaps
less serious than they seem. If the ebb was due to wind action (and
this is on the whole more likely, despite P.'s use of ap:rrwn:;, 14. 2 and
14. i) the risk that it might not occur on the day in question could be
very considerably reduced if Scipio had his local infonnants with him
to conftrm that weather conditions made its occurrence reasonably
certain. ::\'loreover, the morning attack was probably designed to
exhaust the enemy (asP. indicates, u. 7) rather than to capture the
city by direct assault. As attacker Scipio had the initiative and could
contrive the time-table of the operation; and if things went especially
well, it was always possible to send the wading-party across the
lagoon even before the ebb, since, as Scullard observes (Scip. 8o-8r),
it was fordable without it (8. 7). Scipio was counting on using the
ebb; but he was not wholly dependent on it for the success of his
strategy.
There is then no good reason to doubt P.'s assertion that an ebb
took place at the critical moment and that its appearance was fore-
seen well in advance and counted on by Scipio as part of his plan;
for in \ri.ew of the fact that P. had access to Scipio's own account of
the attack and that he assures his readers (9. 3) that this account
conftrms his own version of Scipio's calculations, the fall in the level
of the water can scarcely be regarded as an act of Tyche on which he
was not primarily relying. However, some difficulties still remain
unexplained. In particular, P.'s statement that on the previous\ day
Scipio promised his men Neptune's help has been regarded as hardly
credible; and it has even been suggested that when Livy (xxvi. 45· 9)
makes Scipio refer to Neptune's guidance in a speech delivered just
as the attack is about to be launched, this order of events is the right
one, and P. has transposed Scipio's speech to the earlier position to
support his picture of Scipio's unscrupulous rationalism (Scullard,
Scip. 81-82). On this hypothesis what were originally mere words of
194
THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE X. 2. I
encouragement to the men about to cross the lagoon have been

twisted into a prophetic claim to supernatural help.
Such a view would carry serious implications for F.'s integrity
as a historian. But if the speech was moved-and one must accept
the view that it is taken from F.'s original source, not invented (cf.
VoL I, pp. IJ-!4)-then surely it is Livy (or his immediate source}
who has moved it for rhetorical effect, along \vith the reference to
the information given by Tarraconese fishermen, which now comes
in awkwardly in this context (cf. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 450 n.). De-
livered at the very moment of the attack, the speech is more rhetoric-
ally effective than it would be delivered the previous day (as in F.);
cf. Klotz, Appians Darstellung, 74: 'wenn Livius diese Tatsache in
clie spatere Erzahlung einfiigt, so tut er dies aus kiinstlerischen
Ri.icksichten' (though for 'er' read perhaps 'er selbst oder seine
Quelle'). In fact, the reference to Poseidon the previous day is
perfectly credible if the risk of the prophecy's not being fulfilled is
only very slight; and this was so. For even if it proved necessary to
send the men across the lagoon before the ebb occurred, this man-
oeuvre could without too much difficulty have been attributed to
Neptune. In any case, in the moment of victory no one was going to
ask too many questions about Scipio's promise; an epiphany could
always be conveniently reported from some other part of the field,
and in the last resort only the successful prophecies are remembered.
By saying that Neptune would give his help, when he was in fact
proposing to use the ebb water to cross the lagoon Scipio lies open to
a charge of using religious terminology to deceive. Reluctance to
believe this has been due to a reluctance to follow P. in his charac-
terization of Scipio as a man who cynically exploited religion to gain
his ends; and it has been pointed out that the other story recounted
to support this thesis, viz. that of Scipio's election to the aedilcship,
must be rejected for the reasons given below (4. 1-5. 8 n.), and that
there is little evidence from the rest of Scipio's career asP. describes
It (Haywood, 33-34). The origins of P.'s interpretation have been
much debated. Ed. Meyer argued that it went back to C. Laelius,
whom he took to be a Stoic rationalist (Kl. Schr. ii. 423-57 5.-B.
IJerlin, 19r6, Io6S-8s); but, as Laqueur has shown (Hermes, rg21,
151 ff.), rationalism was no part of Stoic doctrine before Fanaetius,
and there in no evidence that Laelius was either a Stoic or a ration-
alist. Scullard (Scip. rz) therefore seems to be right when he claims
1\'s rationalism as his own, not that of Laelius. P. approves Scipio's
1111pposed policy of attributing his achievements to the gods in order
to impress the masses, just as he expresses his willingness to allow
fnlsc stories of miracles in order to instil piety into the populace (xvi.
1:1. g). His picture of Scipio is his answer to the 'legend' which in
aomc form must already have existed when he wrote and which
195
X. z. I SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND
probably appeared in his main source, whether Silenus or not; for
discussion of the development of the 'legend' see below, z. 3 n.
This does not however mean that Scipio's speech at New Carthage
is to be rejected as part of the 'legend'. Even if P. drew largely on
Silenus, he had access to Scipio's letter {g. 3) and Laelius' recollec-
tions. It has been argued that Laelius did not fully understand P.'s
questions (Haywood, 35-38) and indeed the two men may have made
quite different assumptions about religious matters. But unless we
are to dismiss Laelius as a dotard, we must surely assume that he
confirmed Silenus' account that the men were promised Neptune's
help and that in the ebb the next day this 'prophecy' was fulfilled.
However, Scipio was not necessarily the rationalist that P. de-
scribes. De Sanctis (Riv. ftl. 1936, 192-3) argues that the existence
of the 'legend' implies that Scipio believed in it, This is surely going
much too far. On the other hand, Scipio may well have made the
'prophecy' attributed to him at New Carthage and yet have believed
sincerely in the gods; he may even have taken the existence of the
ebb as a sign that Neptune was favouring his enterprise. Scullard
(Scip. rg) regards the 'legend' as a proof of Scipio's genius: 'a pure
rationalist or a smaller man would never have gained such a roman-
tic halo'. Scipio was certainly a great man, and he can hardly have
been a rationalist of the Polybian stamp. He was probably religious
as Romans of that age understood religious orthodoxy; but, as Hay-
wood (44) points out, even extreme piety is not identical with mysti-
cism, and there seems to be no reliable evidence that Scipio believed
himself to be divinely inspired or thought that he could count on
divine help to a greater extent or more regularly than anyone else
who observed true piety. See for discussion of the problems touched
on above: Kahrstedt, iii. soz-II; Ed. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 423-57;
Laqueur, Hermes, I92I, IJI-225; Scullard, Scip. s6-gg; R. :\<L
Haywood, 9-44; DeSanctis, Riv.ftl. 1936, r89-93; H. Bengtson, HZ,
r68, 1943,487-508; F. W. Walbank, Proc. Camb, Phil. Soc., rg66-i.
2. 1. 1TtiO'o.!l ·n\s ••• 1Tpr:i~E~S: i.e. incidentally, as they occur in the

course of the history.
TO 1Tpom~cn;;O'o.~ Toug O.KouoVTa.s: 'first of all to draw readers' attention
to .. .'.
E1Tl Tl)v a.'lpEow Ko.t cl>uO'w: the point on which P. challenges his pre-
decessors {d. §§ s-6).
2. +uO'EW!I 11 TP~~;;s: cf. xxii. 21. 2. For discussion of the relative
importance P. assigns to inborn qualities and training, heredity and
environment, see von Scala, 4 n. r.
3. Tous i~"lyou~vous ••• 1Ta.pa.1TE'ITa.LKEva.~ Tils O.A."l9da.s: clearly some
elements of the Scipionic legend {cf. 5· 9) existed, but not necessarily
all that later sources contain. Already Scipio was the recipient of
196
THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE X. 2. 8
divine aid (9. 2), and his letter to Philip V may have been designed
to counter such versions by a factual statement of what really hap-
pened at New Carthage. Already too he was evidently believed to
commune with the gods (5. 5 n.). This colouring will be due to Greek
historians like Silenus, but it is not impossible that Ennius made
some contribution, perhaps in the direction of heroizing Scipio (cf.
A. R. Anderson, Harv. Stud. 1928, 31 ff.; Scullard, Scip. 9· n. 2;
Haywood, 18 ff.). If Livy's account of Gracchus' speech against
Scipio (Livy, xxxviii. 56. ro-r2) can be accepted, already in Scipio's
lifetime his image was kept in the temple of J uppiter Optimus
Maximus; but it has been argued (Mommsen, Ram. Farsch. ii. 503 ff.;
Ed. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 434 n. 3; Caesars Monarchie, 531 ff.) that it
is a forgery originating in an anti-Caesarian pamphlet or in anti-
Sullan propaganda (De Sanctis, Riv. fil. 1936, 189 ff.). In any case
however it is evidence for the placing of Scipio's image in the temple
of Juppiter; but the date of this will hardly be earlier than the fire
of 83 B. c. (Val. Max. i. 2. 2; DeSanctis, Riv. fil. 1936, 190, who sug-
gests that Sulla placed it there after rebuilding). P. probably used
!-menus as a source for the taking of New Carthage (2. 1-~o. 8 n.) and
he criticizes his account of Scipio, which was already influenced by
the 'legend' and no doubt resembled in many respects his worked
over version of Hannibal's crossing of the Alps and his premonitory
dream (cf. iii. 47· 6, 48. rz n.). In the full form of the legend, as
Gellius (vi. I) attributes it to C. Oppius and Iulius Hyginus, and
o.s it is given in de uir. ill. 49, Scipio is the son of Juppiter, who
appeared in his mother's bed, before his conception, in the form of
o. snake-an account which even Livy recognizes as borrowed
from the Alexander legend (Livy, xxvi. 19. 7). For full discussion see
Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 423-44; Scullard, Scip. 13-16; Haywood, 9-29.
4. s~« Tils T)fETEpo.s E~TJYtlO'EIIIS: to be taken with e1TL07Jf'O.lv£a8a.t,
'to appreciate by means of my narrative'.
5. €11nuxfi Ttvo. ••• 11'GpE~O'nyouO'~: cf. iii. 47· 8 for P.'s similar use
of 1Tap£wdyovat of sensational historians writing on Hannibal; ix. r6. 1
of Homer, 'introducing' Odysseus in a certain role.
6. TO fEv E'll'o.w•mSv: i.e. to owe one's success to calculation; whereas
to owe it to chance is merely f'O.Kapta'7'ov, 'enviable'.
1eowov EO'T~ KGt Tois TuxofiO't: a proverbial turn of phrase; cf. Carpus
paroem. gr. ii. 446; Diod. xviii. 67. danhov x:ai KOLl'iJ>: a1TCJ.IJL 1'~<; 'Tl;X1Jl>
oD07}1> ; von Scala, 83 n.
7, 8&&0TQT0US • • • KGt 11'poC7cfl&~IEO'TQTOUS TOiS 9Eois; cf. § 6, fl£tO'TEpoVS.
For the opposite cf. xxxviii. IO. 8, Toi'> fJwrs exfJpoi. The phrase is
commonplace and has no theological significance. Cf. vi. 48. 2 n.
where Lycurgus' mind is called divine.
8. AuKoupy'l': Lycurgus, who devised the mixed constitution, having
foreseen .\&yep nvl the nature of political cycles (vi. 10. 12), could
197
X. 2. 8 SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND
hardly be the victim of superstition {like Nicias, ix. 19. r); hence he
cannot have acted at the behest of Delphi, but must have made the
story that he did a cloak for his rationally based plan.
9. TI'QVTO. Trpoa€xov'Ta. Tfi nu&lq.: that Lycurgus had his institutions
from Delphi, or got the Pythia to approve them, is asserted by
Xenophon (Rep. Lac. viii. 5) and Plato (Laws, i. 624 A), and later by
Iustinus (iii. 3· IO) and Nicolaus of Damascus (FGH 90 F 56), though
Herodotus (i. 65. 4), denying this story, says that Lycurgus had his
constitution from Crete, a view shared, he adds, by the Spartans
themselves. P. seeks to refute the latter opinion in vi. 45· 1-47. 6.
Ed. Meyer (Forschungen, i. 231 ff.; contra Ehrenberg, Neugrunder,
12 ff.) has argued that this ascription of the Lycurgan constitution
to Delphi, which seems to be normal in the fourth century, was
adopted at Sparta by Pausanias (king 40&-395 B.c.), and that the
verse of Tyrtaeus quoted by Plutarch (Lye. 6. s) to support it was
a later forgery (cf. Kahrstedt, Gr. Staatsrecht, i. 127 n. 3; RE, 'Lykur-
gos (7)', col. 2442); but it is clearly presupposed by Herodotus, loc.
cit., ot p.Ev S?] 'TW€5: 1rpos: 'TOU'TOt<n Myouat Ka£ <f>priaat ath-<f:> 7'1Jv llu8l7]v
Tdv viJv Ka'T€0''T€W'Ta Koap.ov l:7rap'Tt?}TTJat (cf. Beloch, i. 2. 254-5), and
must therefore go back to the fifth century.
€g £vuTrvlwv .•. Ka.l. K~:rr8bvwv: cf. xii. 12 b I.
TTJAlKO.UT1'JV ••• Tfi Tra.Tp£Sl Suva.anlav: 'such an empire for (not 'from',
as Paton) his country'.
10. ouTE •.• oun: the two alternatives really apply to the two
men, persuading people to accept Td 1rapaSoga being Lycurgus' con-
cern, and the need to have his men face Ta S€wa being Scipio's.
3. 1. TE8Ea!J-Evwv uTr' a.llycis: cf. v. 35· 10 n.

2. r cuos AalA.lo<;: C. Laelius C.f. C.n., consul in 190 (cf. Munzer,
RE, 'Laelius (z)', cols. 40o-4); the dates of his birth and death are
unknown, but he must have survived Scipio by about twenty years,
to meet and give information to Polybius in the period towards r6o.
On the difficult question of whether Laelius was the source of both
the two anecdotes recounted in 3· 3-5. 8 see the notes ad loc. We
must assume Laelius to be a reliable witness for events in which he
personally participated.
ciTro vc\ou ..• !J-l~XPL nA.euTil<>: the youth and death of Scipio, not Laelius.
3-7. Scipio's rescue of his father at the battle of Ticinus; in 218, cf.
iii. 65 n. {For a new location for Victumulae ( = uici tumuli, miners'
dwellings) see J. Zennari, I Vercelli dei Celti nella valle Padana e
l'invasione cimbrica della Venezia (Cremona, 1956) ; he locates both
Victumulae and the skirmish east of the Ticinus.) For Scipio as his
father's saviour see also Livy, xxi. 46. 7-10; Zon. viii. 23. 9; VaL
Max. v. 4· 2; Flor. ii. 6. ro; Oros. iv. 14. 6; Seneca, Ben. iii. 33;
Sil. It. iv. 456; auct. de uir. ill. 49· An alternative account giving the
198
THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE X. 4· I
credit to a Ligurian slave appeared in Coelius (Livy, xxi. 46. ro)

and is found in Macrobius (i. II. 26). Pliny (Nat. hist. xvi. 14) records
that Africanus refused the corona ciuica from his father apud Tre-
biam. It has been argued that if the son was the rescuer, the story of
the slave would never have arisen (E. Wolfflin, Hermes, r888, 307-ro,
479-80; cf. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 430); but this ignores the possibility
of a campaign against Africanus' reputation by his enemies (cf.
De Sanctis, iii. 2. 25-26 n. 39, who also suggests that the slave may
come from the same source as the slaves from Formiae and Sidicinum
in Livy, xxii. 42. II, or even be in Silenus' account). It seems un-
sound to reject outright a story vouched for by Laelius, even though
Laelius may not yet have known Scipio at the time of this encounter.
The suggestion that when he gave information to P. at the age of
70 his memory was so impaired as to be unable to distinguish per-
sonal recollections from legends, or that he deliberately distorted
the truth (both possibilities envisaged by Munzer, RE, 'Laelius (3)',
col. 4oo), does not merit serious consideration. Laqueur (Hermes, 1921,
207 ff.) thinks P. used a written communication from C. Laelius,
hut bf>TJ (§ 3) suggests speech.
4. E1TTaKaLOEKd.Tov eTo,: cf. Zon. viii. 23. 9, l'ITTaJwt8Et<alTTJ>; auct. de
uir. ill. 49. decem et octo annorum; Livy, xxvi. r8. 7 (24 in 210 or, by
Livy's dating, 21r). This would make his birth 235/4, which cannot
be reconciled with the statement (6. ro) that when he harangued
the troops before crossing the Ebro in 209 he was 27 years old;
he would be 26 at the most. On the whole, probability favours his
being 27 in 209; his age at the Ticinus can have been reduced for
effect (cf. 6. ron.}.
7.1TavTw, a.uTov e8(8ou ••• Et, Tous ..• Kw8Uvou,: the opposite sense
is required; cf. 13. r, where Scipio takes part in the battle &.a<f>al..w:;;
it was a general's duty to avoid unnecessary risks: cf. 24. 3. 32. 9,
33· 1-7, xi. 2. 9-11. Bekker added ovt< before JWlov; but <nravlw:;
'seldom' {cf. ii. 15. 6), proposed by Dindorf and, independently, by
Paton (CR, 1916, 222-3), is an easy and convincing emendation for
ff'aVTw>. For a defence of the MS. see Hultsch, Quaestiones, ii. 12.
4. 1-5. 8. Scipio's election to the aedileship. P. suggests rather than

actually states that this story is also from Laelius. It implies that
a youth like Scipio could hardly stand for the aedileship without
his mother's consent (his father being away in Spain); and that
this could only be extracted by a trick. It contains these inaccuracies:
(1) P. Scipio was aedile in 213 {Livy, xxv. 2. 6-8; Mommsen, Rom.
Forsch. i. 98), not in 217 (as implied in 4· 5); (2) his colleague was not
his brother Lucius, who probably held the aedileship in 195 (Brough-
ton, i. 340}, but M. Cornelius Cethegus (Livy, ibid.); (3) Lucius was
his younger, not his elder brother. See Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 430-33,
199
X. 4· I SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND
who points out the unlikelihood of the supposedly elder brother's
being helped to election by the younger; d. Scullard, Scip. 39 n. 1.
That Laelius, who knew Scipio well, can have accepted a story that
makes Lucius the senior, is incredible.
4. 1. 1T'pcu:rfhiupov ~xwv l16EA+ov AE~KLov: L. Cornelius P.f. L.n.
Scipio Asiaticus, consul in 190, was really younger than P. Meyer,
Kl. Schr. ii. 431 n. 2, suggests a possible confusion with Aemilianus,
who was younger than his brother Q. Fabius Maxim us; this would
be a further argument against attributing the story to Laelius, but
it seems somewhat improbable.
2. ~8ous o' OVTOS ouo 1T'O.TpLKLOUS Ka.8LO'T0.0"8a.L: not very clear. P. is
speaking of the curule aedileship, which from 366 onwards (Livy,
vii. 1. 6) went to patricians and plebeians in alternate years. In 'odd'
years by the Julian calendar, these aediles were patricians.
3. Ti]s Ka.TO.O'TGO'EW<,;: 'the election'.
4. TTJV tt.T}TEpa.: according to Silius (xiii. 6IJ ft.) and Pliny (Nat. hist.
vii. 47) Scipio's mother Pomponia died when he was born; but this
story, inconsistent with the existence of the younger son Lucius,
may have been invented to give Scipio a wonderful 'Caesarian' birth.
On Pomponia see Munzer, Adelsparteien, 162 n. 1; Gundel, RE,
'Pomponius (28)', coL 2334.
5. Tov 1T'a.Tipa. Ton 1T'AEtv o-uvi~a.wfv ets 'I ~11pia.v: P. Scipio sailed
for Spain in 217 (iii. 97· 2 n.); but P. may have misunderstood his
source or expressed himself badly (d. Scullard, Scip. 39 n. 1).
O'Tpa.TT}yov Ka.8EO"Ta.tt.ivov: 'having been appointed commander'. He
was proconsul in 217. For P.'s use of a-rpa1'7}yos for a proconsul cf.
ix. 42. r n.
Tas 1T'poeLpT}tt.iva.s 1T'pa~ELS: the Spanish campaigns described in pre-
vious books.
8. T1)~Evva.v ••• Aa.!J-1T'pav: the toga candida. P.'s explanation of its
use (cf. § z) is for his Greek readers.
5. 2. 1T'poEA8ovTos d; Tov ••• To1T'ov: according to Livy {xxv. 2. 6),

the tribunes of the plebs tried to veto his candidature on grounds of
youth (in 213), but his reply, 'si me omnes Quirites aedilem facere
uolunt, sa tis annorum habeo', overcame their opposition.
5. u1T'a.p Ka.l f1E8' 'lj~Joipa.v S\a.AeyE0"8a.\ Tots 8eo'is: part of the Ko.IJ-
wp.t.A1fp.iVT/ O&go. (§ 9). Scipio's visits to the Capitol and long com-
muning with the gods are recorded by auct. de uir. ill. 49, Val.
Max. i. z. 2 and Gell. vi. I (quoting C. Oppius and Hyginus); when
he went up to the Capitol by night, the dogs never barked. At some
stage this led to the legend of Scipio's divine parentage (rejected by
Livy x:xvi. 19. 5-9, though he accepts the temple visits); and though
there is no proof that this had happened by Polybius' time (cf.
Hayvmod, q), and though the present passage does not necessarily
700
THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE X. 6. II
imply visits to the temple, it certainly fits that tradition very well.
7. 1rp6s TOE Tov ••• Ka~pov apJ-LoaaJ-L<Evos euaT6xws: 'cleverly exploiting
the occasion provided by the people and by his mother'.
8. <Ei.s 9eous Kai Tuxas ava~Epoua~ TtLS ah(as: cf. 9· 2, where P. has
the same people in mind; see Vol. I, p. 22 n. 4 for similar passages.
In 40. 6 and 40. 9 he admits the part rvxTJ played in Scipio's career.
9. Tfi KaOwJ-L~ATJ!J.tvn 56€n: cf. 2. 3 n.
6. 1. T6Te auvYJOpo~aJ-Levwv Tt7w ouvaJ-LEWv: the digression on Scipio's

character was introduced at the point, in spring 209, when he had
assembled his men before crossing the Ebro (§§ 6--7). The speech he
now delivers (d. Livy, xxvi. 41. 2-25, especially 20 ff.) will be based
on his source, perhaps Fabius (see Klotz, Hermes, 1952, 34I; above,
1. T-2o. 8 n.); G. Stiibler, Die Religiositiit des Livius (Tiibingen,
IIJ4I). 147, argues that P. has made it up; against this see Vol. I, pp.
13-14.
TTJV 1rpoyeyEV7JfJ.EVYJV 1r<EpmETELav: the defeat and destruction of his
(ather and uncle (viii. 38 n., ix. n).
l. Tfi ot\ 1rpoooaty. TTI KeXn~~pwv: cf. 7· I. For desertion from the
Roman armies of the Celtiberian mercenaries, bribed by Hasdru-
bal, cf. Livy, xxv. 33· I-9·
~eat Tfi 1rpo1r<ETEiy.: 'and their fickleness' or 'and rashness [sc. on
the part of the generals]'. Both senses are found and either would
be appropriate; but on the whole the second is preferable, since it is
then explained in the following absolute clause.
4. Tov 1TOTaJ-L6v: the Ebro.
6. l&veOEXETo J-LEA~aew aliTI1' KTA.: 'he promised that he would make
them his concern'.
7. MapKOV ••• TOV auvapxovTa: M. Junius Silanus, praetor in 2I2,
who had accompanied Scipio to Spain in 210 (Livy, xxvi. Ig. Io)
to take over C. Nero's forces. According to Livy, xxvi. 42. I, he was
now left with 3,ooo foot and 300 (not soo) horse at the Ebro crossing.
Livy, xxvi. 19. 10, makes him propraetor; but in Livy, xxviii. 28. I4,
Scipio in a speech refers to him as 'eodem iure eodem imperio ...
missus', and Jashemski (zs f.) argues that his imperium was pro
consule ; see Broughton, i. 284.
8. ~v J-LEV d1re ••• !J.YJOEv: not recorded; perhaps P. had more on this
aubject in his source.
"'v ••• KapxYJ86va: on New Carthage cf. ii. I3· In.
9. Tils ••• &pn pYJOElaTJS s~aX~Ijtews: 'the judgement recently ex-
pressed', viz. that all his projects were directed by calculation and
foresight and thus worked out according to plan (:z. 13, 3· 1, 3· 7,
~· 8-9)-
10. iTos ••• e~OOJ-LOV ~xwv 1rp0s To is eiKoa~: see above, 3· 4 n.
u. Oous auT6v: sc. i1T~ ras 1Tpci~E'S (cf. § IO).
;;!OJ
X. 6. Il SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND
Jl.lJTE 1rnpO. Toit; 1TOAEfLUH!i: the lacuna which follows has been variously
filled : fL~'TE 1rapa 'Toi~ if>tAots uTToTTTa or TTpoaooKT)BlVTa (Reiske, i v. 51 r),
fL~TE rofs if>tAot> TTpotJOOKT)BlVT' (Hultsch, Quaestiones, ii. ro), 1Tpoa-
o.:xof.LEVa fL~'TE Trapa 'TOL~ if>{).o~s (Bi.ittner-\Vobst). The general sense
is clear. Paton's text, fL~'TE Trapd. 'TOtS' TroAE!LLots fL~n 1rapa 'Tots if>ll.ots
lacks a participle or adjective.
7. 3. Tous EvTos "I~T)pos ••• aul'llaxous: north of the Ebro; cf. iii.
76. 6, below, 35· 3· The standpoint is Roman and probably reflects
the use of Fabius; cf. iii. 14. 9 n.
4. 1ravTa.s O.va.t<lvwv: 'by questioning everyone', lit: stirring every-
one up. Casaubon and Hultsch read dvaKp{vwv.
5. MO.ywva.: Hannibal's brother; cf. ix. n. I, 22. :2 n.
Ev To'i:s Kov£oLs '11'poaa.yoP£uollevols: cf. App. Hisp. 57-58. The Conii
inhabited the most westerly part of southern Portugal beyond the
estuary of the Anas (Guadiana), towards Cape St. Vincent; cf.
Strabo, iii. 137' 7'~1! npoa(xfj 1'0Vrt;J xd!pav 'Tfj .1o.T{~'!7 tf>t.uvfj KMOVat
Koilvt;ov, atf>ijva ~:rrwatvEw {3ovM,..evot {but this use of a Latin form is
scarcely indicated by 7TpotJayopEuofLI.vots; cf. xi. 20. r). The Greek
name was Cynetes; cf. Arien. or. mar. 2oo-s; Herodorus of Hera-
cleia, FGH, 31 F 2 a; Herod. ii. 33, to whom they are the most
westerly people in Europe; Justin. xliv. 4· r-14; cf. Hubner, RE,
'Cynetes', cols. 1906-8. They are usually located outside the Pillars:
and Schweighaeuser, followed by M. C. P. Schmitt, 43, thesis 3,
would here read l.Kros 'HpaKAdwv ar~l.wv; perhaps rightly, for the
reference to the Pillars thus gains greater significance. Brewitz, 56,
followed by De Sanctis, iii. 2. 464 n. 34, rejects the identification
of the Conii with the Cynetes, and seeks them further west near
Seville.
:AaSpou~a.v ••• TOv rtat<wvos: cf. ix. n. 3 n.
K:a.Ta T~v AualTa.vtiv: the Lusitanians inhabited the part of Portugal
between the Douro and the Tagus, later spreading south of the latter
(App. Hisp. 57) as far as the middle Guadiana {cf. Schulten, RE,
'Lusitania', cols. r867-8). T&yov is Schweighaeuser's certain correction
of To roii.
Tov S' ETEpov :Aa8poil~nv: Hannibal's younger brother {ix. 22. 2).
tv Tots Ka.p1T£Ta.vo'Lr;: sometimes called Carpesii; cf. iii. 14. 2 n.
T~S' Kcuvfjs 1TOAEW!>: cf. ii. 13. r n. Klotz (Hermes, 1952, 342) deduces
from the Greek form that P. is using Silenus; he may be, but the
capture of Mago, the commander of New Carthage, could have pro-
vided Fabius Pic tor with ample information on the Punic disposition
of forces, and no arguments can be based on the absence of any
corresponding details in Livy.
202
THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE X. 9· 1
2. Alj.i.Evns: 'a harbour'; P. often uses the plural in a singular sense:

d. L 42. 7 of Lilybaeum; x. 1. r, 1. 5 of Tarentum (unless both
harbours are being referred to: see ad loc.). See ro. r for the singular
used of New Carthage; Strabo, iii. 158 (Posidonius) for the plural.
Cf. Schweighaeuscr, Lex. Polyb. s.v. ;\.tp.~v; Biittner-Wobst, Klio,I905,
94 n. 1.
3. Tas A1roa~eeu6.;: 'the baggage', including the soldiers' private pro-
perty and family connexions (cf. i. 66. 7 n.), who were often left
at base (cf. iii. 76. 5 n.). 'War material' {Paton) hardly gives the
sense. The capture of the d11'oCTK€vaC gave a welcome hold over the
l:nemy's mercenaries.
JS. fif]!l~OUflYLIC0\1 Knt ~nva.uaov: 'consisting Of craftsmen and arti-
S:tns'; there is no real distinction in meaning. Paton's 'tradesmen'
(/U.vauacw) \\'ill stand, but in the sense of 'artisan'.
&: the antecedent is either 1rMj8os or, more probably, the whole
sentence.
6. ~v tca.Ta.atcEu~v: lit. 'the way it was fitted out', i.e. its fortifications.
7. 8u1 s~ Tl\IWV dhl~wv: d. Livy, xxvi. 45· 7, adding that they were
fishermen of Tarraco; presumably they had fished the whole coast
in peaceful times, but were now in the north. Livy mentions the
fact immediately before the crossing of the lagoon, either he or his
source {Coelius ?) thus seeking to create an atmosphere of surprise.
1'cdv w•apya.o-1-L~vwv Toi; TbTrOlS: 'who had worked in that place'.
1'cva.ywSf]s ••• tca.l ~a.T~ tea.TO. To TrhELaTov: even without any ebb.
y£veTa.l TlS O.UTtlS ATrOXWPYJO"lS: so Benseler for -roaa~ a7Toxt.bprpts;
this is preferable to Hultsch, vSa-ros or 8a>..cf'TTI)s d7Toxt.bp7JULS, and
it makes clear that the fordability of the lagoon did not depend on
the ebb.
JCa.9' ~jdpav ~Trl SdAYJv o~J!La.v: here P. is at variance with both Livy
and Appian, who put the ebb at midday; cf. Livy, xxvi. 45· 8,
medium Jerme diei erat; App. Hisp. 21, 10lo• 1T€pt f.1-€CT7Jf.Lflp{av ••• ti1v
8cUa.aaav U11'0xwpofiaa~·· ap.11'W'TtS ydp lq,ljp.€p6s lcr-rt. Unlike Appian,
Livy attributes the ebb to a combination of the tide and a north
wind; but neither suggests a daily repetition at the same time. At
this point both appear to have abandoned a version which suits
excellently P.'s account of a rational, calculating Scipio {and which
may be based on information which he received from the aged
J.aelius), in favour of one which made the ebb a daily phenomenon
primarily tidal in origin and so variable in the hour of its occurrence.
If in fact the tide played any part in it, P.'s reference to evening
here would have to be a generalization based on the time it occurred
on the day in question.
9. 1, T~V ~hLtcLO.V:
cf. 6. 10.
~XPL TrnAw: cf. v. :z7. 2 n. for Sch\'\leighaeuser's note on m.l;\.w here.
203
X. g. 2 SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND
2. oi auyypa+•'Ls: perhaps Silenus, and perhaps too Fabius. Whether
other historians of Hannibal touched on these events, as Silenus
did (Livy, xxvi. 49· 3), is not known. For P.'s criticism cf. S· 8.
3. Ti)s Twv aup.~e~uuxoTwv p.a.pTupia.s: i.e. C. Laelius; cf. 3· 2.
Ti)s E'll'taToAi]s Ti)s 'll'pOS $(A&'II''II'ov: following on his personal ac-
quaintance with Philip V in 190 (Livy. xxxvii. p s) ; cf. Schur, 84;
Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 454· P. probably had access to a copy of this
letter through Aemilianus ; for had published versions circulated at
Rome, Cicero would surely have known of them, whereas he writes
(off. iii. 4), 'nulla enim eius ingenii monumenta mandata litteris,
nullum opus otii, nullum solitudinis munus exstat'. For the letter
as a form of autobiography (in which African us was later followed by
Scipio Nasica: xxix. 14. 3) see Jacoby on FGH, z3z; he compares
Julian's letter .MBTJI'alwv -rfl f3ov'Afl ~eai -rrf> 8~J.Lcp, p. 346 Hertl. Pedech,
Methode, 381, suggests that Scipio wrote his letter in 190 to impress
Philip and lead him to grant the Romans passage through Mace-
donia (cf. Livy, xxxvii. 7· 8-ro); but it seems more likely that Scipio
sent it after the two had struck up a friendship {Walbank, Philip,
2n}. It perhaps dealt with his Spanish campaign generally, and not
just with the capture of New Carthage.
4. T~ p.£v i.,..,
Toil aToAou: cf. Livy, xxvi. 49· 4, 'plerique Laelium
praefuisse classi, sunt qui M. Iunium Silanum dicant'. We do not
know the source of this variant. Scullard {Scip. 87), commenting on
the odd fact that it is Livy rather than P., despite the latter's use
of C. Laelius as a source, who stresses the importance of the fleet, is
disposed to consider favourably Laqueur's suggestion that perhaps
Silanus was the commander and Laelius Scipio's right-hand man,
assigned on this particular occasion to watch over the naval sector;
but Livy (xxvi. 42. x) has himself no doubt that M. Silanus was left
with a covering force on the Ebro (cf. 6. 7).
6. Scipio's numbers: d. Livy, xxvi. 4z. r, when he crossed the Ebro
Scipio's forces were 'uiginti quinque milia peditum, duo milia quin-
genti equites'. For discussion whether these included the s,ooo
Spanish allies mentioned in Livy, xxvi. 41. 2, see Scullard, Scip.
66 n. 2.
7. aofaKOj.tlVOS S' ~~Sop.a.~os: p. implies that the starting-point is the
Ebro (cf. 6. 7} and this is explicitly stated in Livy, xxvi. 42. 6,
'septimo die ab Hibero Carthaginem uentum est simul terra marique'.
From the Ebro to New Carthage is z,6oo stades 312 m.p. (iii.
39· 6 n.), and no army could march this distance 'hith a battle at the
end in seven days ; and this is true even if there was a good road and
bridges, and the fleet carried the heavy baggage. Two solutions are
possible: either the figure is unreliable or the starting-point is not
the Ebro. Of scholars accepting the second solution, De Sanctis
(iii. z. 465 n. 35) suggests the ford of the Sucro; and Pedech (REG,
THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE X. 9· 8
1958,442) points out that all falls into place if one acceptsCarcopino's
theory that the Sucro was also known as the Ebro (see ii. 13. 7 n. =
Vol. I, p. qr). Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 451) makes the starting-point
the territory of Saguntum, which he assumes to have remained
Roman after the catastrophe of the Scipios (cf. Schur, 28). But, as
Scullard (Scip. 68 n.) notes, Scipio is likely to have set off from a
point well to the north, otherwise the danger would have been more
apparent; hence it is probable that the figure is at fault. Kahrstedt
(iii. 509 n. r) suspected an error of i for 17 or sheer exaggeration; but
DeSanctis (loc. cit.) points out that (8EKaraL'os Kal) if38of-La'ios would
be a barbarous expression. Hesselmeyer's (EiKoaTo)"f3&f.La{<p would
allow too long for the march ; and indeed any corruption of the text
must have been very early since Livy has the seven days. Perhaps
then the figure is simply excessively small, as Kahrstedt thought;
hut in that case the truth is irrecoverable. For discussion see Droy-
scn, Rh. Mus. I875. 67; Kahrstedt, iii. 509; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 465
n. 35; Scullard, Scip. 67-69.
Ka.Tn TO 1Tpoc; nptcTOU<; t-LEpoc; Tijc; 1fOAewc;: cf. Livy, xxvi. 42. 6, 'castra
ab regione urbis qua in septentrionem uersa est posita'. 11. 1-2
makes clear that Scipio's camp lay across the isthmus linking the
city with the mainland, and had the lagoon at one side and the bay
at the other. This isthmus lies to the east of the town, not the north;
for P.'s orientation is inaccurate in all his references to the topo-
graphy of ::Sew Carthage. For discussion see g. 8-Io. 13 n., ro. 5 n.
,.~pov tca.i xapcuca. 5l1fAOUV: 'a trench and double palisade'; Paton
has 'a palisade and double trench' (cf. Scullard, Scip. 88) and Shuck-
burgh 'a double trench and rampart', both wrong. This feature lay
on the east (P.'s north) side of the camp. 'From sea to sea' is really
'from lagoon to sea'; cf. ro. 5 f., II. 1.
'I! TOU T01TOU ~u<ns .•. aa~aAElO.V ••• 1rapE<rKEUate: the hill now
called Castillo de los Moros was to the west of Scipio's position. In
u. 2 P. explains the absence of artificial defences as designed to
facilitate sorties and retirement from them, and this may have been
a subsidiary motive; the two explanations do not necessarily exclude
each other (cf. Scullard, Scip. 82 against Laqueur, Hermes, 1921,
173-4). But in II. 2 (q.v.) P. implies a rather different position for
Scipio's camp.
9. S-10. 13. Description of New Carthage. For similar insistence on

Reographical details see iii. 36-38, v. 21. 3-9; they are equally im-
portant for the general, cf. ix. 13. 8. Inn. 4, correcting the figure of 40
•tades given as the perimeter of the city, P. say that he has seen it
himself. If he accompanied Scipio to Spain in 151 (cf. Vol. I, p. 4
n. w) he may have visited it then; he certainly need not have
wnited until 133, when some scholars believe he was at the siege
205
X. 9. S SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND
Jf. Con ..'<ncr("ll

2 J/. .lblin~t,:
~~ Jf. ,)"til Fl :;:: hiH of S~\turn
~ ~hill of Aktc~ -·--- Sdpio's Disp. . r;;itknu
S P<rros ~hill of\'ukaJ\ Ti>e Site la Roman 'lim('S
(~ hm o( .\1ercury
- ace. to Sr.(3IlOYa.
7 Tb,: forum, r:<r:r 1:1 Gran Hotel
~ fiot<t Jc J'oro.-· = ,k.ornJn Amphitheatre - - - - ar:c~ to Strathan-Dav.idson
9 ::,:rr: Hll;;lJ r•;HJ in the: J[;ddle Ages ~ 1\otnJnTown
10 p,,;fH. rn'lrkcd h•· .i..:.Jla, j,J,\~m 1 l*/Jcnce E.H:rombrcJu.<; --~ i)t.Jt/[u:: t'j'wodcrti !'Ulrl!
\l';'!n> [,:· !1kt:k thl! l"">OV
7· NEw CARTHAGE. (Based on Scullard, Scip1:o African us in the

Second Punic War, 29o)
of Numantia (Vol. I, p. 6 n. 3; below, IL 4 n.). But he probably
composed his account of the capture of New Carthage before 151
(iii. 1~5 n., § 1), and it is not to be assumed that the whole description
of the topography depends on P.'s autopsy. He does not claim that
for more than the single point of the length of the walls; and it is
relevant that his account of Hannibal's crossing of the Alps (iii.
49· 5-56. 4) depends on a literary source, despite a similar claim to
have 'seen for himself' (iii. 48. a). The false orientation :first observed
by Droysen (Rh. Mus. I8i5. 62 ff.) may be due to P. or may go back
to his source ; for discussion of his suggested explanation see below,
10. 5 n. Without adequate maps errors of orientation are easily made;
and despite his emphasis on directions (d. v. zr. 8) P. goes wrong
206
elsewhere (d. iii. 47· 2-5 n., on the RhOne). Modem scholars are not
without fault here; cf. Vol. I, p. 530 for a map of Alipheira in which
Leake's original orientation had to be corrected from Frazer. The
particular topographical points are discussed in the relevant notes.
For general discussion see Droysen, Rh. Mus. 1875, 62 ff.; Strachan-
Davidson, 6z9-41 (with map); Hubner, RE, 'Carthago nova', cols.
1(m-4 (unconvincing); Cuntz, 8-zo (with map); Kahrstedt, AA,
~<;12, 225-35; Geschichte der Karthager, iii. 509 n. 2; Brewitz, 47-53;
R. Laqueur, Hermes, 19:21, 17o--8o (bused on his 'layers of composition'
theory); M. F.-V. Canovas, Estudios geogrdficos-hist6ricos de Car-
lil~ena desde los tiempos prehistdricos hasta la expulsidn de los Arabes
(Cartagena, 1905; non vidi); Scullard, Scip. 289-99 (with map),
probably the best account; S. Witkowski, Bull. Intern. A cad. Pol.
Suppl. s. 19+7. 1-12; A. Beltran, Arch. esp. de arq. 1948, 191-224,
'Topografia di Carthago noua'.
10. l. EV KOA'II'~ v10uovn '~~'poe; liv£JLOV M~a.: P. correctly describes the

1-(Ulfat the head of which Cartagena lies as facing south-west, or
more strictly south-south-west (Cuntz, 12); but his dimensions are
too great. If the entrance is measured from Punta de Ia Podedera,
the southern point of the peninsula of Fort las Galeras, to Punta de
S. Ana, west of Fuerte San. Julian, it measures only 96o m.; and from
this line northwards to the ancient coastline north of the present-day
Arsenal Harbour comes to only z,soo m. (Cuntz. 12-13). Strachan-
Davidson, 316, measures from Punta de !a Podedera to Punta de
(~ate, further south, to get a figure comparable with P.'s; but he
admits that 'the inner line from Navidad Point .·north of Punta
de Ia Podedera] straight across (3i stades = 670 m.) is more truly
the mouth of the harbour'. From the line taken from Punta de Ia
Navidad across to the innermost part of the gulf is about xz stades,
from Punta de Gate about zo (Strachan-Davidson, ibid.). See,
for most of these measurements, Baedeker, Spain and Portuga/4,
Leipzig, 1913, map facing p. 319.
:J. viluos E'll'l Tou O'TOfla.Tos ••• KE~Ta.~: the island of Escombrera (d.
Strabo, iii. 159) lies at the entrance to the Gulf of Cartagena, at a
JIOint at which the distance across is not 10 stades (z km.) but r8
•tades (3. 5 km.); and since it is only 450 m. long, it comes nowhere
near closing the entrance (Strachan-Davidson, 316). Strachan-
Davidson, who believes P.'s account to be based on his own observa-
tions, has discovered a point just off the quay by the Town Hall,
from which the island seems to block the entrance to the gulf ; but
there is no reason to think P. was ever at this point in a boat. The
errors are probably those of his source.
I. wt:p&t:XOflEVTJV 9a.AaTT!I fltv 0.'11'' Ava.ToAwv Ka.l flEO'TJJL~p£a.c;: sea sur-
rounded the peninsula on which the city stood to the south and west
X. IO. 5 SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND
(not east and south, as P. states). Droysen (Rh. Mus. 1875, 62 ff.)
suggested that P. sketched the site on the spot and later put in
the compass bearings inaccurately from memory (making east north
and so on); but Strachan-Davidson (839-41) points out that this
hypothesis does not wholly explain P.'s account of the hills (below,
§§ 7-n), which suggests that he has all his bearings 45° out in a clock-
wise direction, so that his north is the real north-east and so on (see
Strachan-Davidson's map with the adjusted directions), an error
not excessive, especially if he was calculating north from the pole-
star, which in his time was 12° east of true north. On this hypothesis,
P. is here referring to the water of the harbour lying to the south
and south-west (P.'s south), which came round further to the south-
east (P.'s east) than it does now. However, Cuntz has some valid
objections (1o ff.) to P.'s account, even accepting this hypothesis;
and he may be right in suggesting that P. is following an earlier
source.
cnro S£ TWV SUaewv Alf1VTI: the lagoon 'to the west and extending to
the north' will have occupied the site of the modern marshy plain
of Almajar, to the north of the city. Its full extent can only be
guessed at, but in the west it probably stopped short of Ramblar
de Benipila, a waterway now running into the Canal de Algumeca,
which drains the Almajar, and 'in the east it extended beyond the
town proper and even beyond the line of the Castillo de los Moros
(see Scullard's map, Scip. 290, correcting Strachan-Davidson). Here
'west' and 'north' can be corrected satisfactorily to 'north' and
'east'.
6. TOY Aonrov T01TOV ••• fltl 1TAEOV umipxew 11 Sueiv O'TaS(wv: the
isthmus lay to the east of the town between the sea and the lagoon.
It probably ran from a point east of Monte San. Jose to include the
railway station on the north, and on the south along a line south-
west from the modern barracks (see maps in Scullard or Strachan-
Davidson); and it included the Castillo de los Moros. The northern
and southern limits of the isthmus are located further south by
Kahrstedt (AA, 1912, 217-18); see, against this, Scullard, Scip. 297.
P.'s width (approximately 2 stades = 400 yds.) is about correct.
7. tiS£ 1T0Al~ •.• f1EO'OKOLAO~ ean: it has hills all round (cf. §§ 7-II).
KQTa Se Tt)v cnro f1EO'TJf1~p(a~ 1TAEupcl.v E1Tl1TESov ~xu ••• 1TpoaoSov:
the side between the cathedral and the Puerta de la Murcia, where
the land now stretches considerably further west towards the
Arsenal Harbour; there are no hills along this part of the coastline.
This line (running in reality south-south-east to north-north-west,
and facing west-south-west (not south), can be regarded as the
'south side', either on Strachan-Davidson's hypothesis or on Droy-
sen's (cf. § 5 n.).
8. 0 .. ·J!EYLO'TO~ a1TO Toft~ civaToA-ft~: as Droysen saw (Rh. Mus. 1875·
208
THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE X. IO. IO
65), Monte Concepcion, the hill on the south side of the town lying
between the cathedral and the military hospital, and crowned by the
ruins of a medieval castle. It extends further from west to east
than Strachan-Davidson's map shows (see Cuntz, I I n. r, and Scul-
lard's map) and it is 2or ft. high. P.'s description of it as lying to
the east fits Droysen's hypothesis a little better than Strachan-
Davidson's.
v1w~ )\o-KATpnoG: probably Eshmoun (d. vii. 9· 2 n., discussing
'lolaus'), who is usually equated with Asclepios; cf. Gsell, iv. 315 n. 4;
Winckler, i. 445; W. W. Baudissin, Orientatische Studien Theodor
Notdeke ... zum 70-ten Geburtstag gewidmet (Giessen, 19o6), 729-55.
9. o lmo Tfi~ SUa£w~ avT(KElTal: the second of P.'s larger hills (§ 7,
clpm•ot> KaL Tpaxwtv) will be Monte Molinete, 123ft. above sea-level.
Against Kahrstedt's attempt (AA, 1912, 230-2) to identify it with
Monte Sacco, which in fact lies opposite Monte Concepcion, to the
north of the city, see Scullard, Scip. 296-7. P.'s location of this hill
in the west can be reconciled with the true orientation on Strachan-
Davidson's hypothesis, but not on Droysen's, for if the hill contain-
ing the temple of Asclepios was on the east side, Monte Molinete
should lie to the south, not the west; see Cuntz, ro.
llovapxlKfi~ opeyoll£vov £~oua£a~: P. gives no hint of such an ambi-
bition in Hasdrubal in ii. 13 and 36; it may derive from Fabius'
account (cf. iii. 8. 2, l7TLf3a>..€a8at ..• ds f.LOvapxlav mc:ptO"Tijaat To
wo>..lTEVf.La nvv KapxYJ8ovlwv) if Fabius is the source here. See further
Meltzer, ii. 594 n. 58.
10. at .•. Aomat Tpei~ Twv •.. ~ouvwv: the three remaining hills
from west to east are Monte Sacro, Monte San. Jose, and Castillo de
Despefia Perros, and can be identified with the hills of Cronos, Aletes,
and Hephaestus respectively. On the assumption of a 45° deviation,
they can be said to lie in the north part of the city; in reality the
first two are in the north and the Castillo de Despeiia Perros in the
east. On the assumption of a goo deviation Monte Sacro is on the
west side. Kahrstedt (AA, 1912, 230-2) identifies Monte San. Jose
with Cronos, Castillo de Despefia Perros with Aletes, and for
Hephaestus he argues in favour of a hill where the Plaza de Toros
stands and the Roman amphitheatre stood, to the eastern end of
Monte Concepcion; but Scullard (Scip. 295-6) argues cogently that
the eminence in this area is merely part of the long Concepcion hill,
the intervening depression (Calle de Gisbert) being either modern
or deepened in modern times. Hence, although Kahrstedt's identi-
fications remove many of the difficulties (since Monte Sacro, Kahr-
lltcdt's arx Hasdrubatis, lies to the north (P.'s west) and San. Jose,
Castillo de Despefia Perros, and the site of the bull-ring all lie to the
east (P.'s north)), his treatment of Monte Molinete, which is scarcely
to be eliminated as a mons testaceus, and of the bull-ring area, which
814178 p
X. IO. IO SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND
is scarcely to be turned into a separate hill, is so violent that the

traditional identifications seem preferable.
11. 'Hcf!a[aTou .•• J\A.f)Tou ••• Kp6vou: New Carthage was a Punic
foundation (ii. 13. 1), and the place-names referring to godsmayorigin-
ally have been Punic {d. 8 n.), unless they represent native deities
assimilated to Carthaginian. Cicero (de nat. dear. i. 84) records that
a god equated with Hephaestus was worshipped in Spain, and com-
ments on the difference between the Italian Vulcan and the Spanish.
He may be the god equipped with a conical hat and pincers on coins
of Malaca, a Phoenician colony (d. A. Heiss, Description ginirale des
monnaies antiques de l'Espagne, Paris, I8jo, pl. xlv). Herodotus (iii.
37) knows of prophylactic figures called llaTa~Ko~. which the Phoeni-
cians set on the prows of their ships, resembling the Hephaestus of
Memphis. This Hephaestus was equated with Ptah, and it has been
suggested that Ptah ·was adopted in Phoenicia, and there identified
with Kousor (cf. vii. 9· 2 n. discussing 'Ares, Triton and Poseidon';
Gsell, iv. 344 n. 4). Philo of Byblus (FGH, 790 F 2, § rr) identifies
XouadJp (MS. XpuadJp) with Hephaestus. That Kousor is the Phoeni-
cian god worshipped here (whether or no he replaced an earlier
Spanish god) seems probable {Gsell, iv. 344 n. 7).
A letes is probably a local divinity, for Aletus and Aletea are fairly
common Iberian names {d. Hubner, RE, 'Carthago nova', col. 1623);
that he was originally a man and the discoverer of the silver-mines
may be either an Iberian or a Punic belief, but would be a concept
familiar toP. (d. xxxiv. z. 5 ff. on Aeolus). See Gsell, iv. 466. Pedech,
Revue de l'histoire des religions, 1964, 44, suggests that Aletes was
a local divinity, whom P. interprets as a man receiving divine
honours in the Hellenistic manner.
Cronos or Saturnus is the usual equivalent of Baal Hammon (cf.
vii. 9· 2 n. discussing 'Zeus, Hera and Apollo'; Gsell, iv. 288-9o with
290 n. 3), and may well be the Baal indicated here; the same god
gave his name to C. Palos, the promontory of Saturn (Pliny, Nat.
hist. iii. 19).
12. TTJV ALj.I-YT)\1 ••• atJppouv ••• xeLpo1ToLT)Tws: the artificial canal
joining the lagoon with the sea must have lain to the west of the city;
against Hubner's attempt {RE, 'Carthago nova', col. 1622) to locate
it to the east see Strachan-Davidson, 317, who observes that the
isthmus described in § 6 is 'of solid rock and at least 30ft. above sea
level'; cf. Cuntz, 14; Scullard, Scip. 293-4, who drawing on the work
of Canovas, describes its exact position. It ran from the eastern end
of the Artillery Park, past a hill since levelled, but formerly standing
on the site of part of this park to the west of the canal, and from here
followed the line of the modern Calle de Santa Floren tina in a south-
westerly direction until this opened out into the sea in the neighbour-
hood of the north-west corner of the Arsenal Harbour (see Scullard's
210
THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE X. I I. I
sketch-map, Scip. 290). According to Canovas (Scullard, Scip. 294),

the sea and lagoon were still linked in the sixteenth century, and
a bridge at the Puerta de Murcia was repaired in r6oo-2.
13. yiq,upa. ~ea.no-~eeua.<rrcu: probably on the site of that mentioned
in the last note; but that referred to by Strachan-Davidson (63r) as
Roman has proved to be medieval (Scullard, Scip. 293). The general
layout resembles Tarentum (d. viii. 34· 3 n.), where, however, the
inner water is still a branch of the sea.
11. 1. 6.o-+a.Mte0'6a.~ • . •
Ka.1'u rijv tvTo~ t1n<Pnve~a.v ov6 TE rijs . . •
8a.AnTTT)~: 9· 7 explains that the outer side, i.e. that facing away
from the city, was artificially fortified, but there were no such de-
fences on the town side because the nature of the ground gave
sufficient protection. The present passage contradicts this in two
ways: (a) it explains the absence of inner defences as due to tactical
reasons, not natural strength; (b) it envisages the inner side of the
Roman camp as divided into three parts, facing harbour, isthmus,
and lagoon respectively. Laqueur (Hermes, 1921, 173-4) concludes
that this passage is from P.'s original source, and 9· 7 a modification
based on information gained from Laelius. The first point is cer-
tainlynot decisive. The natural strength of the Castillo de los Moros,
which probably lay on the western flank of Scipio's camp, and was
included in its defences, would not exclude a decision to add no
artificial defences there, so as to facilitate advance and retreat; as
Scullard (Scip. 82) sees, the two reasons can be complementary. But
the second objection is more serious. 9· 7 clearly assumes Scipio's
camp to stretch across the whole ·width of the isthmus (which was
only 400 yds. wide; ro. 6) ; hence the sea and lagoon could only
wash its two sides. Here the inner side clearly extends beyond the
isthmus at either end so as to face the sea and the lagoon, i.e. the
camp is rather to the east of the isthmus and consequently does not
enclose the Castillo de los Moros within its circuit. P. gives two
reasons why the 'inner side' is not artificially defended: the two
ends face the water and the centre is kept free for tactical reasons.
This version cannot be reconciled with the topography if, as appears
to be the case (above, p. 2o8), the lagoon extended well to the
east of the modern city and the Castillo de los Moros (see Scullard's
map). It might be argued that -r~v tll'Tas imcfoavnav includes the other
lhree sides; and though this would be unbelievable if the camp was
a regular square, the outer side may have been much longer than
that facing the town, in which case the other two would incline and
face west of north and west of south respectively, thus facilitating
their inclusion in the tll1'a,; lmcfod.vna. This is clearly a desperate
hypothesis. The only plausible explanation is, as Laqueur says, a
contradiction between 9· 7 and n. r~3, which imply different sites
211
X. II. I SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND
for the camp, as explained above. Of these, the position described

in 9· 7 is the more convincing; but it is risky to try to assign named
sources to the two versions. Livy, xxvi. 42. 6, 'frons natura tuta erat';
42. 9 'non obiecit uallum ... seu fiduciam hosti superbe ostentans
siue ut subeunti saepe ad moenia urbis recursus pateret', follows P.'s
account faithfully.
2. To 8£ j.I.ETa.~u TouTwv 8laaTlJj.I.O.: the isthmus proper which, accord-
ing to the source followed at this point, faces only part of the west
side of Scipio's camp, and can therefore be described as KaTd p.iUlJv
imapxov rqv avToiJ UTpaTo7TEDElav (a meaningless phrase on the assump-
tions of 9· 7).
4. b •.• 1tEp(~oAoc; TTJS 1toA£wc;: a circuit of 20 stades (3,700 m.) for
the Punic town corresponds reasonably well with the limits deter-
mined by Strachan-Davidson (cf. Cuntz, 19). CIL, ii. 3426 (= ILS,
5333/4) mentions a Porta Popillia at New Carthage, and Cuntz (17-18)
argues that the building of this, presumably by M. Popillius Laenas,
who went out to Spain as consul in 139 and was proconsul of Citerior
in 138 (cf. Volkmann, RE, 'Popillius (22}', cols. 6o--61), was part of
the reduction in size mentioned here. This would imply that P.'s
visit to New Carthage fell after 138. But there were many occasions
between Scipio's capture and the middle of the second century when
minor modifications in the fortifications could have taken place;
and there seems no cogent argument here for modifying the view
that P. visited New Carthage in 15I-15o. \Vhich authors made the
circuit 40 stades is unknown.
ou ••• E~ aKOTJS' ••• O.A.A.' O.UTOlTTO.l: Cuntz (16) and Klotz (Hermes,
1952, 336) argue that since P. visited New Carthage in 134/3. his
autopsy applies only to the point for which he quotes it, the length of
the walls. The text is vague, perhaps intentionally so (for Buttner-
Wobst's argument (Klio, 1905, 1o2), that in this case P. would have
written TOVTOV a7Torfmtv6p.dJa, carries no weight). If P. visited New Car-
thage in 151/o, Cuntz's conclusion could still be possible; on the
other hand, P. may have revised his account of New Carthage on
his return from Spain before publication, and autopsy may have led
him to modify his account of the city. But on the whole, the limited
character of the context in which he mentions his visit, together
with the error of orientation, favours the view that his account
mainly follows a literary source (cf. 9· 8-1o. 13 n.). \Vhatever the
extent of the changes introduced after 151, P. had probably already
written an account before then, in which the present passage (as a
minimum) is a later insertion (d. iii. 1-5 n., § 3 (c) (ii) in Vol. I, p. 296).
j.I.ET' EtmnaaEwc;: with ath67TTat Y"yov6us-, 'from my own careful
observation' (Paton), rather than with a7To</>atv6p.€8a (Mauersberger,
s.v. a'TT'ocpalvw). See Schweighaeuser, ad loc., correcting his own text
and translation.
2!2
5. auva"'O.VTOS ••• TOU aToXou: according to Livy (xxvi. 43· I} Scipio

drew up the ships in the harbour to share the blockade, and uttered
a special warning to keep careful watch during the night. This detail,
though not from P., may be reliable.
u1rep i!lv ••• 1TE1TOL~j1E6a Myov: cf. 7. 1--8. 9· Livy (xxvi. 43· 3-8, with
a lacuna at the end) gives a version of this speech, but postpones
the reference to Poseidon (Neptune) until immediately before the
crossing of the lagoon (Livy, xxvi. 45· 9) for rhetorical effect.
6. (Twv U1TEvavTU.,v, au~TJaLv): add. Ursinus; it has been generally
accepted; cf. Livy, xxvi. 43· 7, 'quae cum magna ipsi habebimus tum
dempserimus hostibus multo maiora'.
xpuaous UTE.f>avous ••• TOLS 1TpWTOLS ••• civat3aaL: Livy, xxvi. 48.
5 ff., mentions a single praecipuum muralis coronae decus claimed by
Q. Trebellius, a centurion, and Sex. Digitius, a socius naualis, and
tactfully assigned to both by Scipio when a riot was imminent (Livy,
xxvi. 48. 13).
Tas Et6Laf.L£vas SwpEaS: cf. Livy, xxvi. 48. 14, 'reliquos prout cuiusque
meritum uirtusque erat donauit'.
7. TOV noaEL8wva 1TO.paaTaVTO. KO.Ta TOV U1TVOv: cf. Livy, xxvi. 45· 9
(the next day), 'Neptunum iubebat ducem itineris sequi'. Livyechoes
P.'s attitude in the words 'hoc cura ac ratione compertum in pro-
digium ac deos uertens'; but having postponed the reference to
Neptune to the next day he makes no mention of the alleged ap-
pearance in a dream. This 'prophecy' and its fulfilment hold a central
place in P.'s account of the taking of New Carthage and probably
play a large part in the creation of the Scipionic legend. On the
credibility of P.'s version see 2. 1-20. 8 n., on p. 196.
auvEPYTJUELV £m.f>o.vws: i.e. in the crossing of the lagoon; see above,
2. 1-2o. 8 n.
8. Twv ••• KaTO. T~v 1TapaKXTJaLv Xoywv: 'his speech of exhortation'.
810U 1Tpovo(q.: cf. 14. II, XXiii. 17. 10; neither passage affords evidence
for P.'s belief in 'divine providence', since in the second the phrase
occurs in a speech, while here and in 14. 11 P. is committed to the
theory of fraud. See Hercod, 98.
Tols vEaviaKoLs: 'the soldiers'; cf. i. 36. 12 n.
12. 1. Sous ~v ~1TLTpo1T~V rat'l:l: i.e. to c. Laelius.

rijs 1ToXLopKfas: 'the assault'; cf. viii. 7. s, ix. 3· 2 n.
l. Mcl.ywv 0 TETO.Yf.LEVOS E1Tl TfjS 1TOXEWS: cf. rs. 7. 18.
I. Nothing is
known of him beyond this episode. Appian (Hisp. 19 ff.) confuses him
with Hannibal's brother. See Ehrenberg, RE, 'Mago(1o)', coL so6.
~1Tl riis aKpo.s ••• E1Ti. TOU 1Tpos civaToAO.s M.f>ou: d. Livy, xxvi.
44· 2, 'quingentis militibus arcem insidit, quingentos tumulo urbis in
orientem uerso imponit'. As Laqueur points out (Hermes, 1921, r6r-2),
neither the citadel, Monte Molinete, nor the 'hill towards the east'
213
X. 12. 2 SCIPIO'S CH.\R.\CTER AKD
(in fact the south : it is Monte Concepcion; 10. 8 n.) is vital for the de-
fence of the walls; but it does not follow that there is a contradiction
between this passage and the statement in § 8 that the best men
were later fighting at the isthmus, for, as Scullard (Scip. 83) rightly
observes, Monte Concepcion and Monte Molinete may have been these
men's normal barracks, and Mago may have stationed them there
at the outset to counter any movement from the fleet. Later they
can well have been moved to the isthmus (d. 12. 6, ri)> ... i.mKovpla>).
Hence no evidence can be drawn from this passage to sustain Laqu-
eur's complicated theories of successive layers of composition.
3. TWV S€ AOL1TWV TOUS eupwaTOTQTOU'i: since Mago had to improvise
a source of arms for these 2,ooo, Livy has probably drawn the right
conclusion when he writes 'oppidanorum duo milia ab ea parte qua
castra Romana erant opponit' (Livy, xxvi. 44· 2).
Ti)v 'II'UATJV TT)v .•• €1rl. Tov ia9!J-6v: this lay probably between the
Castillo de Despeiia Perros and San. Jose (cf. Scullard, Scip. 297).
Kahrstedt locates it further south to fit his identification of the hills
(AA, 1912, 232-3; above, 10. 10-11 nn.).
To'Ls Se AoL'II'ois 'll'a.pt]yyeLAE ~oTJ9e'Lv ICTA.: cf. Livy, xxvi. 44· 2, 'multi-
tudinem aliam quo clamor, quo subita uocasset res intentam ad
omnia occurrere iubet'.
6. axeSov am) Sueiv UTa. Stow: nearly a quarter of a mile, about the
distance of the Castillo de los Moros from the Puerta de San. Jose;
see Scullard, Scip. 89 n. 1.
7. ~11:wv E1TEUTTJUE ••• 1ra.p' auTT)v TT)v aTpa.To1TeSe(a.v: Livy, xxvi.
44· 3, exaggerates for effect: 'Romani duce ipso praecipiente parumper
cessere, ut propiores subsidio in certamine ipso summittendis essent'.
otov et aTO!J-a. Tou ••• 'II'At]9ous: 'so to speak the steel edge of the
population' (Paton). arop.,a is the point or edge of a weapon (Ael.
Tact. 13; Asci. Tact. 3· 5, also comparing file-leaders to such an edge,
otov ri)> p.axalpa<; • •• ro arop.a); and in Xenophon (Anab. iii. 4· 42,
4· 43, v. 4· 22; Hell. iv. 3· 4) it refers to the front of the battle. Schweig-
haeuser compares the Homeric phrase 7TToMp.ow or VCifLLVT)S" arop.a
(Hom. Jl. X. 8, XX. 359).
13. 1. ~~:a.Ta Suva1.uv O.acf;a.Aws: cf. 3· 7 n. Livy omits this, presumably

as discreditable.
3. Tous iJ1TepSe~(ous TO'II'ous: Livy's source, evidently supplementing
P. from elsewhere (perhaps directly from Silenus), adds the detail
that this was 'the hill of Mercury' (Livy, xxvi. 44· 6)-evidently the
Castillo de los Moros. There is good evidence for the identification
of a Phoenician god with Hermes, but his Phoenician name is un-
certain; see Gsell, iv. 330.
11. Tijs i}!J-epas 'll'po~a.woua'Tls: 'as the day was now advancing' (d.
ii. p. 5 of the Trebia, where the action had also begun in the early
THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE X. 15.5
morning). Livy (xxvi. 45· 8) has mediumferme diei, perhaps his own
false deduction from this phrase in P., or perhaps derived by Coelius
from a supplementary source. 8. 7 shows that P. believed it to be
near evening (see next note).
. TT)S
14• 2 • TOY - O.fl.ti'WTEWS
, ' •
KO.lflOV: W h'lCh OCCUITed , \ DHIITJV
o1Tt
" ., '· 1·'
O'I'WV
(8. 7l·
3. Ka.Ta ~v ALfl.VlJV: probably on the north side, near the modern
Molino de Truchas, where a headland must have jutted into the
water (Scullard, Scip. 298, following Canovas) ; from here there is
a ridge across the lagoon. This would be less apparent to the men
fighting on the walls and around the gate, as well as more spec-
tacular when finally it was observed. But a route from the isthmus
cannot be entirely excluded (see Scullard's map, Scip. 29o).
vea.Xeis tron]oa.s Tous oTpa.TLWTa.s: 'massing fresh soldiers'.
8. Ta p.iv liKpa. TTjs ALfl.VTJS: 'the extremities of the lagoon' (cf. i. 42. 2)
or 'the highest points of the lake-floor' (d. ii. IS. Io, etc.); the former
is more probable, but in either case the edge of the lagoon is in-
dicated. The meaning given in Mauersberger, s.v. aKpoc;, viz. 'the
surface of the lagoon', cannot be right in the context of drriAeLrre ro
VOWp KaTa {lpaxv.
11. lha Tou TEAfl.a.Tos &.f1aAAWf1EVwv: 'racing through the shallow
water' (Paton).
tuTO. TLVos 9eou trpovo(a.<;: recalling II. 8, as § I2 makes explicit.
13. Ka.Teoxov ••• To TEixos: the location of this point is clarified by
Livy, xxviii. 36. 5 ff., where Mago later lands a force and leads it
to the spot where the Romans had seized New Carthage. Hearing
of this the Romans draw up their forces 'intra portam ad stagnum
ac mare uersam' (Livy, xxviii. 36. 7). This will be the gate to the
west, at the site of Puerta de Murcia, where the canal was bridged
(above, Io. 12 n.); and presumably the wading party came ashore
a little to the east of this point between Monte Molinete (the citadel)
and Monte Sacco (the hill of Cronos; 10. Io-n nn.).
15. 1. EtretropeuoVTo Ka.Tfi T~v EopoSe(a.v: 'they marched along the

top of the wall'; cf. viii. 37· 9·
2. trpos TTJV trUATJV: the eastern gate facing the Roman camp.
SLeKotrTov Tous fl.OXAous: cf. vii. r6. 5 n.
3. Tov ••• M<f>ov: Monte Concepcion. Its defenders (rove; </wA.arrovrac;)
are not necessarily all the soo men originally posted there (cf. 12. 2 n.),
though Livy, xxvi. 46. 8, expands P.'s statement in that sense:
'tumulum in orientem uersum, qui tenebatur quingentorum militum
praesidio'.
~. Ka.Ta.trXT]~ews xapLv: P. feels it necessary to explain this bar-
barous custom to his Greek readers. His dispassionate and factual
X. J5. 5 SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND
account does not wholly hide his distaste; but he does not condemn
the practice as going beyond what is permissible (d. von Scala, 3n).
10. Touo; ypoucpoJLO.xous: light-armed, ~~eWes; see vi. 21. 7 n.
16. 1. TWv woX~nKwv Kat Twv ipyaO'T~Kwv: the latter, the X£~poTt!xva.t.
of 17. 6 and 17· 9, are taken by Lhry, xxvi. 47· 1, to be free men:
'liberorum capitum uirile secus ad decem milia capta'. But he may
be wrong in this, as he is in limiting the captives to ~£irile secus (cf.
17. 6 n.). In 17. 6-12 P. distinguishes three categories of prisoners,
citizens, xe~poT!xva.t, and 'the rest'. The last two categories lose their
freedom for the duration of the war (r7. 9, 17. 14); but this in itself
throws no light on their previous status. Kahrstedt (iii. sn) is prob-
ably right in describing the third group as a mixture of poor Car-
thaginians, Libyans, and Iberians, perhaps including slaves. But the
X£LpoTt!xva~, though their enthusiasm at the hopes of eventual free-
dom (17. 15) might seem more appropriate to men at present unfree
than to free men who are merely being promised the later restoration
of the status of which they are being deprived, may nevertheless be
free; for their fate was at any rate much better than that of being
sold away. They were perhaps native Iberians, who were not citizens
of the town; d. Aristotle, Pol. iii 5· 3, 1278 a 8, ~ o~ fJiATlaTT) 1ToAt> oo
1TOL~CT£4 fJd.va.vaov 1ToAlTT)V; Plato, Laws, viii. 848 A. Bickerman (A]P,
1952, 3 n.) also argues that the xt:tpo-rlxva.t are free, and compares
the distinction between the Kvpwt Ka.px7J8av~o~ and ol Kapx7J8ovlwv
V1TO.pxo' in viii. 9· 5; but the latter are probably Libyphoenicians
and so afford no parallel (see notes ad loc.).
-roio; U:Ho~<;; cnpa.T01T~bols: probably four in all, including the allies;
for Scipio's forces at New Carthage see 9· 6 n.; cf. below, § 4·
16. 2-17. 5. Digression on the method of dividing booty in the Roman

army. This is supplementary to P.'s account of the Roman army in
vi. 19-42.
l. EKcl<JTTj'i o'lJLata.s: Reiske's brilliant emendation of eKaaT7J> ~~-tipa.>
(cf. vi. 34· 8 and vi. 40. I I for confusion between these words in the
MSS.) ; Schweighaeuser comments : 'diuinum prorsus in hoc genere
ingenium uiri elucere fatendum est'.
1TpOS TTjV 11'pii.~lV a1Top..EpitoVTa~! 'are told off for this duty'.
3. C.d 'lTPO!> TO &euc.vuE~v: Casaubon suggested OHKWf.tEVov, translating
'prout indicati periculi ratio postulauerit'; and Lipsius rendered the
infinitive by 'ita ut semper tamen se ostendant', though it is doubt-
ful if the active could have that meaning. The received text can
hardly be right, and Casaubon's emendation is the most simple and
satisfactory proposed; alternatively Wunderer (Phil. 1894, 68-69)
readS 0'aKtll8VV€lJELll.
4. Suo oTpa.To1T€Ba. 'Pw11aXKci Kat SUo Twv O'UJLJLO.xwv: cf. Livy, xxxvii.
~16
THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE X. 17. II
39· 7. 'duae legiones Romanae, duae socium ac Latini nominis erant'.

P. is thinking of a normal consular army of two legions plus auxili-
aries, here reckoned as another two legions; but the emphasis is on
the separation (St!Jp1Jp.lvrr>) into legions and allies, a point missed
by Paton, who renders 'their armies are usually composed of .. .'.
1'01'1; 8f: I(O.t 0'1TO.VlW') a&po~OjJ-f.VWV KT).,: 'all fOUr being assembled
together only on a few rare occasions'.
5. 1rp0.0EVTWV TOU'TWV: so Casaubon, FS rrpa.x8€v-rwv 'TOVTWV. The
Roman soldier had no legal right to a share in the praeda (cf. Livy,
iv. 53· ro), but in practice normally received one, so that failure on
the part of a general to make such a distribution was resented (cf.
Livy, iv. 53· ro, v. 26. 8; contrast Livy, vi. 2. 12). Where immediate
distributions were made, either the booty was divided and disposed
of by the soldiers individually to dealers who followed the army
(cf. xiv. 7· 3; Livy, x. 17. 6, 20, r6), or the quaestor sold it and di-
vided the proceeds among the army (Livy, xxxv. 1. 12); cf. Mar-
quardt, ii. 274-5. Despite its awkward character (for it is hard to
«mvisage an equitable method of dividing miscellaneous plunder
among a large body of men) the former method seems to have been
more generally employed; cf. Livy, v. 22. r, vii. 27. 8, xxiii. 37. 13,
xxiv. r6. 5. xxvii. 19. 2, xxxvi. 30. r, xxxvii. S· 3 (though not all
these passages exclude sale and division of the proceeds, even though
it is not mentioned} ; and since the MS. rrpa.xBiv-rwv Totlrwv, 'when
this has been done', is no more difficult than Casaubon's emendation,
which involves an awkward switch to the neuter after i1Jtj>£AEia> a line
earlier, the text should be kept, with Schweighaeuser (see his note
ad loc.). Alternatively, if rrpax8€V'Twv could mean 'required to hand
over (sc. the booty)' (d. Thuc. viii. 5; Luc. ix. 21; Plato, Laws, xi.
921 c; SEG, ix. 8, L 99, xP~p.aTa ••• rrpa.xBivTE> (Cyrene edict)).
TOti"Twv COU}d be 'these men', i.e. o{ 1rpdr; TTtV aprray~v aTrOj1.£ptcrfJiV'T€';.
In either case, this passage should not be quoted as evidence for the
u.le of booty before distribution of the proceeds to the soldiers. See
further Vogel, RE, 'praeda', cols. r2oo-13.
7. U1rf:p 1'ou-rou ••• dp1J1'0.l Trpo-rEpov t1tt-iv: d. vi. 33· I n. (where
'Cincius Alimentus' is an error for 'Cindus') for the oath.
9. nis yO.p E).Trl8o<; ••• ouK G'lftO'TOUiJ-EV'flS Q.).).~).ol<;: 'since there is
mutual distrust concerning their hopes of plunder'.
17. 3. ou 8uvap.c;vol Kpo.-rt:iv: i.e. those in authority.

6. JU~<p~ ).Ei'lfov Twv p.uplwv: cf. Livy, xxvi. 47· I (quoted in r6. In.);
In contrast to Livy, P. includes women and children.
TOU~ xnpo-rixva.s: cf. I6. I n.
ll. Twv ).ol1rwv o.txp.a.).wTwv: neither the citizens nor the xetpoTixvat,
and so in fact the slaves (cf. § 14}.
Tot~ a.uTou 'lf).'flPW!la.<n: 'his own ships' complements', including both
217
X. IJ. l[ SCIPIO'S CHARACTER A~D
sailors and marines; for this meaning of -rrA~pwfLa cf. i. 29. I, 29. ro,
v. 94· 8, etc. See Schweighaeuser ad loc.
12. ~ll~ot..ious ••• i\ 1Tpoa0Ev: 'half as many again as before'; the
reference is to sailors (ToJ)s- mivTas vati-ras). hence Scipio can man half
as many ships again (35 +r8): § 13. Strachan-Davidson's explanation
that the new sailors (not the total) amounted to one and a half times
the original number contradicts P.'s specific reference to Tov,; m:fVTas
vavTas-.
~aTe Taus KvSpo.s ••• ~pa.xu T~ A.d'tl"ew ToG SmA.o.a(ous elva.~: in ad-
dition to increasing his sailors by a half, Scipio chose enough men
from among the slaves at ~ew Carthage to enable the total com-
plement of each ship, including both sailors and troops, to be in-
creased to nearly twofold its former size.
13. a.: 8' E~ C.pxils 'll'tV-n KO.l TpL6.tcoVTn: d. iii. 56. 5 n., 95· 5 n.; Thiel,
n I, 120. In 2o8 Scipio has a fleet of 8o (Livy, xxvii. 22. 7); this
involves, in addition to the 35 ships used this .rear and the r8 captured
at New Carthage, a further 27 ships. According to Livy, xxvi. 19. II,
Scipio had taken 30 quinqueremes to Spain; but if it is accepted that
the 20 ships sent out to Spain in 217 (iii. 97· r~2) had relieved the
Massaliote squadron operating with Cn. Scipio (d. iii. 95· 5 n.), there
will already have been a fleet of 35 quinqueremes in Spanish waters.
Thiel (ru) suggests plausibly that Scipio beached the 30 ships he had
brought with him, incorporated the socii nauales in his land forces
(as in 209(8; d. 35· 5) and fought with the 35· These 30 would bring
his total up to 83, which might well be rounded off in Livy to 8o.
Livy's statement that he increased his fleet by 8 (Livy, xxvi. 47· 3) is
probably the result of an error in the text.
15. vpo9uJJ.£nv ••• To is xetpoTEXvn~s: cf. r6. 1 n.
18. 1. SUo ••• TWV etc T~S yepoualClS KTA.: the )'Epovala will be the
select council of thirty, the cn/ytcA7)To> the larger body of several
hundred (cf. i. 27. 6 n.). They were no doubt representatives of the
home government attached to the Spanish front; cf. vii. 9· I n. for
the position of Carthaginian representatives who shared in Hanni-
bal's treaty with Philip V.
6. tcovous ~eo.l +EXA.~n: 'trinkets and bracelets'.
pnf-Lcf.6.s: 'curved knives': Toup restored the correct form from
Hesychius.
7. rijs Mo.v8ov£ou yuvo.~~eos, bs i'jv O.SeA.cf.os :A.v8o~6.A.ou: on Andobales
see ix. n. 3 n. For the desertion of both brothers to Rome see
35· 6-8. On the llergetes see iii. 35· 2 n.
E'ti"IO'Tpocf.l]v ••• TllS o.uTWv el!axTJJJ.OcrllvTJs: 'a care for their honour'.
13. TWV :A.v8o~6.A.ou Ouyo.TEpwv: d. ix. I I. 4·
Ti}v Tils vepun6.aews i11cf.naw: 'the character of the danger to which
they were exposed'.
THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE X. 20. f
19. 1. napt:8l8ou To'Ls TaflLaLo;: the plural is inaccurate, since Scipio

would have only one quaestor; Livy, xxvi. 47· 8, gives his name as
C. Flaminius, who was later consul in 187 (Livy, xxxviii. 42. 2). Livy
gives a more detailed list of booty: 276 gold paterae, nearly all a
pound in weight, r8,3oo pounds of silver and many silver vessels. He
also mentions many catapults and military standards, 4oo,ooo modii
of wheat, 27o,ooo modii of barley, and 6.3 merchant ships with their
cargoes. The source of this circumstantial account is unknown, and
the details will not necessarily be accurate (Livy, xxvi. 47· s-ro).
3. tj>LA0YU\11lV iiVTa TOY nonALOV: this trait may be referred to in
Naevius, fg. 108 (Ribb. com.).
l8LWTTJS: 'a private soldier'; cf. v. 6o. 3; Diod. xix. 4· J.
aTpa.Tl)yos 8' lmO.pxwv: cf. 40. 5 n. O"TpaT"?yO> here is 'general'; Scipio's
rank was pro consule (cf. z. I-zo. 8 n.).
6. cl> noT' Ci.v 'ITpoa(pTJTilL TWV noALTWV: in Livy (xxvi. so. I-Iz) the
same anecdote is elaborated and romanticized to include a young
man Allucius who is in love with and betrothed to the girl. Scipio
hands the girl over to him along with a large sum of money given
by her relatives.
8. l~~1TEfllftE ra.LoV TOV AalALOV ••• t:to; Tiiv 'PWflTJV: cf. Livy, xxvi.
51. 2 (where the :\-ISS. mention only one ship). According to Livy,
xxvii. 7· 1, Laelius arrived in l{ome exitt' ann£ huius (i.e. 210/09
according to his chronology). Klotz (Hermes, 1952, 339) thinks Laelius
went twice to Rome, once immediately after the fall of New Carthage,
and again at the year-end; but more probably De Sanctis (iii. 2.
469 n.) is right in suggesting that Livy found the account of Laelius'
arrival in Rome in the consulship of Q. Fabius Maximus and Q.
Fulvius Flaccus, i.e. A.U.c. 545 209 B.C., and having dated the fall of
New Carthage to the previous year compromised by putting Laelius'
arrival at its end, when the consuls for 209 were already designate.
20. 2. €n~ TplaKoVTa aTa8lous: cf. Livy, xxvi. 51. 4, 'in armis quattuor
milium spatio decurrerunt'.
Tfi S' £~-iio; 6.vcmauea9aL Ka.t pq.9ufLe~v: Livy, xxvi. 51. 4, reverses the
order, assigning the third day to sword and javelin practice, and
the fourth to rest. Since this is more logical, with a day spent cleaning
arms interposed between active running and fighting, there is much
to be said for E. Schulze's proposal (Rh. Mus. r868, 431) to transpose
'J"ff o' ~tfi> . .. pa8vJLEfv so that it follows tl~eoVTl~ew in § 3·
3. eat<uTwfltVaLs IJ.ET' t'ITlatj>alpwv: 'covered in leather and fitted with
buttons'.
ypoatj>ols: hastae uelitares; cf. vi. 22. 4 n. for this weapon.
4. Touo; XllLpOT~xvao;: the 2,ooo workmen who were to be public slaves
for the duration of the war in Spain. On their organization cf. 17. ro
(Ka.8a1T!ip 1rpoet?Tov).
219
X. 20. 7 SCIPIO'S CHARACTER
7. epya.aT'IlPLOV ••• TOA~!lOU: cf. Xen. Ages. i. z6, dglav of. Kat l5A7JV
' 7TOI\LV
TTJII '\ , :1.
EV 'I" 0'
l/ ,J: , '
EaS' I£7TOtTJO'f:ll. 7J., Tli yap
\ ayopa
' ' f.LiiO'T7J' ,J: ~ ~
'IV 1TaVTooa1TW~'
1eal 07TAWV Kat '£7T7TWV J.w{wv, o'£ T€ XUAK0Tti1TO~ ICO:t Ol TeiCTOVES' Kai o/
<n07Jpl£is Kal CTKtrrlitS' Kai ypa,Pcfs 7TClVTiiS' 7TOAEft£Kcl 07TAU KaTEaK<;Ua,ov·
WO"TE ~v 7T()A£ll OVTWS' av ~y~crw 7TOAEp.ov Jpyacrr~pwv <tva£ (this passage
echoes Hell. ill. 4· 17, with slight stylistic changes). The phrase be-
came almost proverbial; cf. Athen. X. 421 B, Kat cf:.s af\'lj0WS' KaTcl -rJ,.
xap,lcr-raTOlt Ecvo,PwVTa 7TOAEp.ou ipyaaT~ptov.
8. Ta.is Twv Tuxwv Ka.Ta.aKEua.ls: 'by repairing the walls'.
21-24. Philopoemen reforms the Achaean cavalry

This fragment, from the res Graeciae of Ol. 142, 3 zro/o9 B.c. (in
fact 209) concerns Philopoemen's hipparchia, to which he was elected
in autumn no, when Cycliadas became Achaean general (zz. 6:
cf. Plut. Philop. 7. 2; Paus. viii. 49· 7; Livy, xxvii. 31. 10 for Cycliadas).
By this date entry upon the strategia, and with it the hipparchia,
was in autumn; cf. v. Io6. I n., xi. Io. 9·
21. 1. EopuAEc.>v: presumably the Achaean general for zufro; he is
not mentioned elsewhere (Xiese, ii. 483 n. s), but may be the father of
Xenophon of Aegium (cf. xviii. r. 4 n.). The approach to Sparta in
the late spring of 210 (ix. 28-39 n.) had brought her into the war,
and under l\lachanidas (41. 2) she threatened Achaea. For the loss of
Aegina the same year see ix. 42.
TTJY O.pxi)v Twv <ilLAO'I!'ol!lEvos 'll'pn~~>c.>v: on Philopoemen see ii. 40. :z n.
Since Sellasia (ii. 67. 4 ff.) he had served as a mercenary in Crete
(Plut. Philop. 1· I-2; Paus. viii. 49· 7) for about ten years; he will
have returned to Achaea in 210. P. is here thinking of his official
career and so neglects his achievements at Sellasia (on 1rpage,s cf.
§ 6 n.).
TCtS El< liaTwv 0. yc.>yO.s Ka.l cj>uai!LS: 'their training and character' ; simi-
larly the account of Scipio's rrpaf€•> is preceded by a discussion of
his atpea~s Kat ,Puat:;, and dm; 1ro£as -/>va<w:; ~ -rpt{3ij;; opp.7J0c£s he
accomplished them (2. I-2). P. also emphasizes the aywyry of
Xanthippus (i. 32. I), the elder Tarquin (vi. II a 7), and Chaeron
(xx:iv. 7· I); cf. Pedech, REG, 1951, 91.
Kat 'II'Ept TOUTou 'l!'o~ijO'a.L TO 'l!'a.pa.TAt]awv: for an attempt to analyse
P.'s procedure in terms of the schemata laid down in late rhetorical
manuals see 0. Schissel, Rh. Mus. ry:z6, 84-97; it fails because it
assumes P. to be writing an encomium of Philopoemen, despite the
clear indication that this is what he is not doing (§ 8).
3. T<ls ••• Twv 'ITOAilwv KTLaEiS: cf. ix. 1. 4 n.
TO.; Sta.O~aE~S ~ea.t 'II'EpLaTnallLS: 'the circumstances and difficulties of
the operation'.
Tel'> .•• O.yc.>yns Ka.;. tt]A.ous: 'the education and tastes'.
PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ACHAEAN CAVALRY X. 21. 5·
Ka.l. Ta.lha. ••• T~v SLa.cpopO.v: 'though such infonnation is more
profitable' (Paton).
4. To~s EJLIJsuxous livSpa.~: Schweighaeuser's convincing emendation
Of p e?J!Jnjxov<:; for the COntrast With a#xwv cf. Vi. 47• 10,
{1Tpos) tva.vop&U>ow: for the didactic purpose see Vol. I, pp. 6 ff.
S-8. Life of Philopoemen. When P. composed this is not recorded
and has been the subject of much controversy. \Verner, 14, dated its
composition to the period 18o-1p when, he argued, Lycortas' party
was out of office (a dubious assumption). Lucas, 35 n. 2, assumed
that P. composed it after 146 to defend the dead leader against
Roman criticism (cf. xxxix. 3), a view that has been generally re-
jected, though not always for good reasons. Nitzsch, 137, for example,
argued that if Lucas was right it was odd that the Philopoemen dealt
only summarily with its subject's adult years; but in fact K€cpaAatwSwc;
(§ 7) describes the general character of the encomium contrasted
with the Histories, and does not imply that Philopoemen's adult
years were given summary tre;).tment and his early youth developed
at length (so Pedech, REG, 1951,82-88; contra Jacoby on FGH, 173).
A stronger argument is that the Philopoemen was an elogium or
encomium (§ 8), and that this was quite distinct in rhetorical theory
from an apologia (Arist. Rhet. i. 3· 3· 1358 b; i. 9· 33· 1367 b; Pedech,
REG, 1951, 89). Finally, it is certain that P. had written at least as far
as xv {and probably xvi) by r46 (cf. iii. r-5 n.); therefore, since P.
here(§ 6) says that the Philopoemen was an earlier work, to date it to
146 will involve the hypothesis that the account of Philopoemen in
xis a later insertion, a view for which there is no evidence whatever.
It is therefore unlikely that the encomium was written at the date
and in the context assigned to it by Lucas. Recently Pedech (REG,
1951, 88-ro3), anticipated by Wunderer (i. 87), has argued that P.
wrote his Philopoemen at Rome as an educational model for the
young Scipio Aemilianus. But this view depends largely on the thesis
that it was primarily concerned with Philopoemen's education and
early years, a view not supported by the evidence (see below) ; and,
as Ziegler observes (RE, 'Polybios (r)', cols. 1472-3 n.), Scipio's model
and vade-mecum is known to have been Xenophon's Cyropaedia
(Cic. T.D. ii. 62; ad Q. frat. i. 1. 23). Further, Philopoemen was hardly
the figure to commend himself to the young Roman noble as a model
ln view of his supposed hostility to Rome (d. Treu, Historia, 1954,
119 n. r). Altogether, then, the view that the Philopoemen was a
youthful work written soon after its subject's death is the most
convincing (Nissen, KU, 28o-r; Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (r)', col.
1472).
It is highly probable that Plutarch's Philopoemen is derived very
largely from P.'s encomium (d. A. H. L. Heeren, De fontibus et
auctoritate vit. parallel. Plut. commentationes quattttor (Gottingen,
X. 2r. 5 PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ACHAEAN CAVALRY
r82o), 86-88; M. Haug, Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Lebensbeschrei-

bungen der Gracchen (Tubingen, 1854), 84-86; Nissen, KU, 28o-7;
contra Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (1)', col. 1472). The Life includes many
details not in P.'s Histories, but not inconsistent with them; whether
Plutarch used P.' s Life directly is another question, not relevant here.
Pedech (REG, 1951, 8z-88) has tried to establish the detailed con-
tents of the Philopoemen, but unsuccessfully. He argues that the
phrase Tds t1rupavwnhas 1Tpafe.t> (§ 6) means Philopoemen's achieve-
ments prior to his holding the hipparchy (cf. § 7, Tr7w ve.wTe.ptKwv
'~.\wv), and therefore that of the three books of the encomium, book i
dealt with Philopoemen's birth and education (cf. § 5, Tls ~v Kat
T{VWV Kat TlaLV aywyafs txp~aaTO v€o<; WV), book ii With hiS Career
down to 2ro/o9, and book iii with his nKfL~· But the t1Tt<pav€aTaTat
1Tpafets seem to be the deeds of Philopoemen's prime; cf. § r, €1ri T~l'
apx~v TWV ..• 1Tpafe.wv, which implies that the 1Tpafm began with his
official career, and neglects what was done earlier, for instance ai
Sellasia. Moreover, if Plutarch's Life is any indication, where only
seven chapters out of twenty-one deal Vvith the period before the
hipparchy, it is unlikely that two-thirds of the encomium was con-
cerned with these early years. Equally unconvincing is Treu's
attempt (Historia, 1954, 22o-4) to expand the Philopoemen to con-
tain an excursus on the early history of the Achaean confederation
(Plut. Philop. 8), inserted between Philopoemen's early life and the
account of his prime~an excursus which he thinks served P. as a
source in the Histories. In reality, the detailed contents and disposi-
tion of the Philopoemen seem to be irrecoverable.
5. TtS iiv Kal T(vwv ••• vEos wv: on the triple scheme here outlined
see Treu, Historia, 1954, 221, who observes that T{s originally in-
cluded a man's character or tf>urns, and only later came to point
only to his name. In the Euagoras !socrates has only the first two
points: 1rpwTov fLEv oov 1Tiipt T~S tf>uae.ws Tfjs E?!ayopov Kat Tlvwv ?jl'
a1Toyovos • •• DOKiii [LOL 1TpE1TiitV • .. Ot~;.\lhtv (Isoc. Evag. 12). The third,
dywy~. is found, however, in Xenophon's Cyropaedia (i. 1. 6), Tls
1TOT • wv y~;v~Edv KaL1Tolav nvd tf>uatv EXWV Kat 1rolq. nv11Tat8w1Jds 1Tat8Elg,
TOIJ'OVTOV Ot~VIiYKf.V ds TO apx€tV dv!Jpdmwv. The whole scheme appears
later in Nicolaus of Damascus' biography of Augustus (FGH, 90 F
126). Pedech (REG, 1951, 83) argues that this part of Philopoemen's
career was treated in detail, and adduces the use of 8taaatf>ovvTES;
but 8watf>dv means only 'to explain' (cf. ii. 19. r3, where it refers
back to the cursory mention of Sena in ii. 14. II and ii. 16. 5).
6. TTJV TE 1Tat8tK~V 6.ywy~v •• , KO.L TdS t1Ttcf>avEO'TCLTO.S 1Tprl~EtS: th('
former is taken up as Tfjs ... vEwre.ptKfjs dywy~s Kat Twv v~SwT~EptKWI'
~~Awv (§ 7), the latter are the achievements of his adult career (§ 7, Tof,
... KaTd TfJV aKfL~V athou ... epyoLS). On the view that the tm<f>m·
€ararat 1Tpaf~Et> are the same as o[ v~Ewre.ptKo1 ~ij.\ot see above, §§5-8 IL
222
PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ACHAEAN CAVALRY X. 22.2
7. ~eo:rO.
p.Epos &.t¥EAELv: 'to abridge the details' (contrast 1Tpoa8Eivat
~ea~KaTd. p.€po>, 'to add details'). Schweighaeuser quotes Reiske's
view that KaT<t p.€po> here means simply 'modo ... modo', 'on the
one hand' and 'on the other' per compensationem; but this is already
in p.iv • .• !5€. The account of Philopoemen's early youth and training
is to be abridged, not because it has been described in greater detail
in the monograph than have his later years, but because a detailed
account of such matters is out of place in a general history.
KftPa.Aa.I.WSws EKEL OEOTJAwp.€vo~s: summarily compared with the re-
quirements of a history; but an encomium, P. adds (§ 8), a1r7lnt Tdv
KerpaAaun87} .•• a1ToAoyu7p.ov.
TO 1rpt1rov ~I< a. TEp~ Twv O'UvT6.€ewv: cf. ii. 40. J, KaTll T6 1rpE1rov Tfj yparpfj,
where P. makes the same contrast between history and biography
(or encomium).
8. Encomium and history. It is a mark of the y€vo> €yKwp.taaTtKov
that it requires avf'r/at> (amplijicatio), a feature stressed by Gorgias,
who laid it down (Plato, Phaedr. 267 A) that the orator's task was
to make Ta ap.tKpd p.qcD..a Kal Ta p.€ycf>.a ap.tKpa rpalv£:a8m. There was
a clear line between history and encomium (also called €m8€tKTLKov
undTTav'r}yvptKov; cf. Kroll, RE, 'Rhetorik', SuppL-E. vii, cols. u28~9)
on the question of truth (cf. xii. 28 a 1). The distinction is developed
in Lucian, Hist. conscr. 7; see Avenarius, IJ~I6, 159-60, also discussing
the present pas..<;age.
~toLV6s l:Jv E1Ta.(vou Ka.t lJH)you: this is essential to the moral and didac-
tic purpose of history (cf. Vol. I, pp. 6 ff.), and must therefore be
firmly based on reasons (p.€7' a1To8dfEw>); see viii. 8. 7 n. Elsewhere
Jl. criticizes Phylarchus (ii. 61. 6) and Timaeus (xii. 15. 9) for omitting
l1rawo> in the proper place; and in i. 14. 5 he insists that personal
friendship or hostility must not affect the historian's duty to apply
praise and blame (cf. vi. rr. 10, xviii. 41. 1). Avenarius, 157-62,
stresses the development of this by Ephorus and Theopompus.
'I'OV p.ET' a1T00eL~EWS KO.L TWV •.• O'UAAoyLO'p.wv: sc. a1ToAoytap.ov; 'an
account supported by reasoning and the considerations accompany-
Ing each action'. This seems the most likely rendering, since, if av>.-
>.oytap.wv is translated 'calculation of results', 1rapmop.lvwv has no
obvious sense.
::12. 1. e€ O.vSpwv TWV E1TLtPO.VE0'1'a1'wv: d. Plut. Philop. I. I, 1TaTlpa

KpaiJytv, av8pa 1TcfVTwJJ EJJ€Ka Aap.1Tpov; Paus. viii. 49· 2.
61ro KA.Ea.vSpov TOV Ma.v1'LVEa.: cf. Plut. Philop. 1. 1--2; Paus. viii.
49· :z, which however add nothing. Cleander was exiled from Man-
tinea about 273, which can be established as approximately the date
of Philopoemen's birth. When Craugis died Philopoemen was 1rai:;
ll!f1Tw> (Paus. viii. 49· :z).
::1. ,.,A.wT"I!s 'E~<Sitp.ou ~ea.t ATJp.ot¥6.vous: cf. Plut. A rat. 5· I; Philop.
X. 22. 2 PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ACHAEAN CAVALRY
1. 3-4; Paus. viii. 49· 2. In the Philopoemen Plutarch gives the
names as Ecdemus and Megalophanes (some .MSS. Demophanes),
in the Aratus only the former is mentioned, in the form Ecdelus;
Pausanias has Ecdelus and Megalophanes. Ecdemus is unparalleled
as a Greek name, and could be a corruption influenced by Demo-
phanes; the variant M:egalophanes might then be due to confusion
with Megalopolis, the city of the two men. But certainty is im-
possible. See Beloch, iv. r. 614 n. 4; Ziegler, Rh. Mus. 1934, 228-33
(Ecdelus and Demophanes) ; W. Capelle, RE, '.Megalophanes', col. 143
(Ecdemus and Megalophanes).
4»Euyov1'E<; 'Tolls 1'upuvvou<;: probably Aristodemus the Good, who
seized the tyranny at Megalopolis at the time of the Chremonidean
War (Paus. viii. 27. u).
:A.pKEa£Aq. 1'~ 4»lAoao+'l:l: Arcesilaus of Pitane in Aeolia succeeded
Crates as head of the Academy in c. 268-5 (Diog. Laert. iv. 32), and
founded the sceptical middle Academy; he held this position until
his death in 24r fo.
au<r1'T(<r6.~J-EVOl Ka.'T' :A.pl<r'TOOYJ!J-OU ••• 1rpd€w: whether Megalopolis
was liberated before or after Sicyon is unknown.
3. 'Tfts Ka.'Ta.AOaEw<; 'Tou ••• N~KoKAEou<;: for Aratus' liberation of
Sicyon in May 25r, see ii. 43· 3 n.
KupT(VCLLWV ••• J.I.E'Ta.'II'Ep.ljla.p.Evwv: d. Plut. Philop. I. 3, TE-rapay!J-f.vwv
-rwv Ka-ra T~ll Tr<lAw Kat voaovv-rwv, rrAE'VO'ai"TE'S" d.wo1-1-lav €8~£v-ro Kat
a,E'KbO'!J-TJO'av apta-ra T~ll TrbAW. This must fall between Magas' death
and Ptolemy III's recovery of Cyrene, i.e. between 253 and 247.
Magas' widow Apama brought in Demetrius the Fair, a son of
Demetrius Poliorcetes, but he was murdered at the instigation of her
daughter Berenice (v. 36. r n.). Some Cyrenaic federal coins over-
struck on issues of Magas carry the monogram .6HM, suggesting
that the organization of Cyrene as a koi1wn was the work of Deme-
trius. If so, the Megalopolitans were perhaps called in by Demetrius,
who had been, like them, a student of Arcesilaus at Athens (though
whether at the same time is not known); cf. Diog. Lacrt. iv. 41;
Jones, CERP, 359, and Beloch, iv. I. 616 (who abandoned this view in
iv. 2. under the false impression that the Ptolemaic l5td.ypa!J-!-I-a
found at Cyrene (SEG, ix. r), and outlining an oligarchic constitution,
belonged to this period; it belongs in fact to the fourth century; cl.
Rostovtzeff, CAH, vii. I2i)· Alternatively they were summoned by
the anti-Egyptian party after Demetrius' murder (d. Tarn, CAH, vii.
7u); this would better fit the references to disorder, but would
leave the Liberators less to organize. On the whole the former view
is more likely, but the evidence is indecisive. Jones (CERP, 359--6o}
suggests that the creation of the federal Pentapolis (Pliny, Nat.
hist. v. 3r) dates to the reorganization carried out by the Megalo
polita.ns; on the Penta polis see Larsen, CP, 1952, 8.
PHILOPOEMEI'< REFOR}1S ACHAEAN CAVALRY X. 23. z
4. lhi,t:pE ••• TWv Ko.9' a.uTbv: 'he came to excel his contemporaries'.
S. Ka.-r<'a. -rTjv 1rEpLKo1T"ftv: cf. vi. 53· 6 n. (where read Tr<EptKoTr~v).
6. Ka.-ra.O"Ta.IMs ••• twwupxT)s: for :uofo9; d. 21-24 n., 21. 2 n.;
Aymard, ACA, 96 n. 1. The Achaean hipparch (cf. ii. 37· xo n. (e);
Aymard, ACA, 323) was nominally concerned mainly with the
cavalry; but Philopoemen was exceptional in treating these duties
seriously (§§ 8-<)).
7. tftAov E1rL1't:UKTLKov: 'an enthusiasm which could not fail to bring
success'.
9. Tftc,;; O'Tpa.TT)y'o.c,;; bpEyO!£t:voL: the hipparchy was normally merely
a step in the Achaean cm·sus honorum.
t~EpL9euov-ra.L -roue,;; vious: 'they canvass the soldiers'; cf. Arist. Pol.
vii (v). 3· 9· IJ03 a 15, €~ atperwv yap J.TrolTjcrav KATjpw'Tds, on iJPoVJI'TO
1'0V> €pL8€uopivous (of offices at Heraea). For viot, 'soldiers', cf.
v. 26. 8 n.
ds -rb fltAAov: the cavalry, being naturally taken from the wealthy,
would be influential in the elections (cf. Plut. Philop. 7· 3), whether
these were in the hands of a full citizen assembly (as in the third
century) or in those of the Council (as seems to be the case in the
second century; cf. Larsen, 7s-ror, and especially 98). Aymard
(ACA, 2ro-n) argues that £ls r.l p.iX\ov envisages political support
to be given by what are now young men when eventually they
reach the voting age of 30 (Techeance ... lointaine'); but P. is think-
ing of the support a hipparch can expect when he stands for the
cn-pa'TTJyla, which might be quite soon, as in Philopoemen's case.
Some cavalry at least would be of voting age, and it is of these that P.
and his hipparchs are here thinking (despite viot, 'soldiers': see last
note).
10. To -rwv KmvQv &wEXEa9a.L: on corruption in Greek public life cf.
Vi. 56. 1J.
lhC.. -r..;v Ka.KotT)Awa(a.v: Suidas read KaKo{TJA{aJ•. Either will give the
same sense, and what that is P. makes clear in xi. 8. 4~7, where in
connexion with Philopoemen's reforms as general P. reverts to his
criticism of the other Achaean slralegoi. KaKo{")AwO'la., 'affectation,
bad taste', seems to be the equivalent here of 'i]A.os ovK dm'X~>
arising EK ri'js 'TWII a:V.wv cL\a,ovt:lar Kat ri'js aKatplas, i.e. an excessive
and inappropriate dandyism and affectation detrimental to military
discipline. The effect of this on the cavalry is worse than on the
infantry, probably because the former being richer are more likely
to be infected.
23. 1-8. Specific cavalr:y manauvres.

;I, K~WELc.;; £'' TtVlC.V KO.t , •• ewt 86pu: 'facing round to left and to
right'; the individual horseman turned through 90°; d. Asclep. ro. 2,
I(AKrtS p.i':v oOv l.crnv ~ Kar' av8pa. Klli")Ut!>, br1 8&pv fLEV ~ I.Trl 0£~Lct,
8U17S 225
X. 23. 2. PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ACHAEAN CAVALRY
i1T' d(J'1Tloa 8~ ~ E1T. dptr.rrf.pci., E1Ti 0~ nvv t1T1TO'TUJV lrfo' ~v[av; Arr. Tact. 21 ;
Ael. Tact. 28. I. For an example of the use of KAlcns by infantry cf.
iii. 115. g-IO (Libyans at Cannae); vi. 40. !2 (Roman marching
column).
&vauTpo!fn1 ~eat I.I.ETa~o!.T): cf. iii. us. 3 (where, however, these terms
are used vaguely). Here p.e7n{3oA~ means turning through r8o0 , and
dvar.rrporfo~ a return to the original position; cf. Asclep. IO. 3. ~ o€
ois i1Tl 'Td avnl ytvop.lll"f) KAlaL<; Ka'Td. VWTOV Ta<; TWV &rrAtTWV
o'fins fLETar.Oeiaa Kal..£i'Tat fLETaf3oA~; JO. 6, d~·ar.rrporfo~ lU EaTLV d1ToKaTcf-
z,
r.rraaL<; 'Tfj<; emcrrporfofjs .. Oil 1TpOKa'TEtXE 7d <TVvrayp.a 7'01TOV (cf. Arr.
Tact. 21. 2, 21. 4; Ael. Tact. 25. 2-4, 25. 7). Here Asclepiodotus uses
dvaaTpo</>~ in relation to a whole body of troops; but just as ema7potf>~
(see below) can be used of an individual (cf. Plut. Philop. 1· s), so
presumably can &.vaa7poif;~. Schweighaeuser, ad loc., took avaaTpoM
to mean a return to the original position after the KAlats itj>' ~vtav or
E1Tt oopv. But iii. IIS. 3 shows it to go closely with p.eraf3oA~. and the
meaning will be 'facing about and returning to the original position',
with hysteron prateron to avoid hiatus.
3. Ku.T' ouAU.tJ-OV 8' hrLuTpoq,T) KU.L 'I!'EpLa1Taup.O~: d. i. 76. 2--9 n .•
xii. r8. 3· The tactical •vriters (Asclep. ro. 4-5; Arr. Tact. 21. 3; Ael.
Tact. 25. 5) define imaTpo~ as a movement by which a whole body
of troops swings round, pivoted on the left or right file leader, so as
to finish at go 0 to its former position and further forward, e.g.
b; right file leader

First position a b c d
Second position (a) b ( c)(d)
Third position K [a] b [c) !dl
(cf. Asclep. 10. 7; Arr. Tact. 2I. 4; Ael. Tact. 25. 8)

'TI'E:pw·rraap.os
represents the same movement continued through a further 90°, so
that the body now faces the direction opposite to its original one.
4. ETl 8' EK'II'Ej>LU1Tau~6s: cf. Asclep. ro. 8; Arr. Tact. 21. 5; AeL
Tact. 25. 9· This movement represents yet a further 90° turn by the
same body, so that the troops now face a direction to the left of their
original position. A fourth turn through 90° would bring the troops
back to this position, and such a turn was called imKaTci.aTaats.
i~a.ywyat ~eaTd Xoxous Kat 81Xoxlas: 'dashing out in files or double
files'. For Aoxos in this sense (rather than 'company'} see Asclep. z;
Arr. Tact. S· 4; Ael. Tact. 4· 1-3, 5· 1-2; and for SL~oxla, 'double-file',
Asclep. 2. 8; Arr. Tact. 10. 1; Ael Tact. 9· 1-4 a. LSJ rnistranslates
'double-company' (the sense in Arr. Tact. 15. 3), and Paton is also
226
PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ACHAEAN CAVALRY X. 23.7
Wrong with 'in single or double companies' (duplicated four lines
earlier as 'in sections and double sections').
C'UVQ.ywy(l,t ••• !'-ET' ~1Toxf\s: 'reining in to return ... '; El> t/..as is
Scaliger's emendation of the MS. 0111111lAas. Eight {,\at are said to make
one imrapxla {Asclep. 7· II; Arr. Tact. 18. 2-3; Ael. Tact. 20. 2), and
an i,\71 to contain 64, a iTmapxla 512 horsemen (though variants are
found). av:\ap.os is not used by these v.Titers, but is equivalent in
P. to an £/..71; cf. 21. 3, xviii. 19. 9 (of Aetolians). Hence there is much
to be said for Schweighaeuser's suggestion that 0111El/..as is a gloss
(= O€s 111r/..lls) giving a technical equivalent for ov:\ap.ovs which has
crept into the text. If that is SO, Ei> OVAU.j.I.OV>, ElS imrapx{a.> Will be
'to return to their squadrons and brigades'. But P. may have
written 111ls tAils, indicating a general sense, 'they returned to their
formations'. For a discussion of l!..llt and :."11'1Tilpxlllt in Alexander's
army see P. A. Brunt, ]HS, 1963, 27-45 and G. T. Griffith, ibid.
68-74.
5. lKT6.€ElS ~<P' EKQ.TE:pwv Twv KEpclTwv: Schweighaeuser's ~Kaupov
gives the right sense: 'deployment towards either wing', i.e. by an
extension of the front. This is accomplished by 'doubling' (otd.
"11'1lpep.f3o/..fjs; cf. Asclep. 6. I, 10. 17; Arr. Tact. 26. 4; Ael. Tact. 29.
1-2, 8; where "11'apEp.{3o/..~ is defined as the insertion of additional men
between the original ranks or files) or by marching men up from the
rear to the front {Sta 1rapaywyij> Tfj> "'l'a.pa Tovs ovpayous). This sense
of "'l'apllyw'YI) (Scaliger's emendation of the MS. "'l'apa/..oyijs) can be
illustrated from Xen. Lac. pol. II. 6-8, where the Spartan Jvwp.oTlat
are advancing in column, one behind the other, and meet an enemy
phalanx; whereupon Ttj} lvc,Jp.oTapxcp 1rapryyviiTat <is p.lTW"'I'ov "'l'ap'
CO'"//'lSa Ka8{0'TaafJa.~. Ka.l s~o. 1T(ll/TOS OVTW'), EO'T' av ~ tj>a.Aay~ iva.VTm
KaTa.O'T'fi. This advance of each unit, by an oblique march forward,
so that it can take up position in line with the first unit, involves
marching along the backs of the troops in front, since those furthest
to the rear march furthest to reach their new positions in the front;
and this is what P. means here by "'I'CJ.pa TOV') ovpayous. (In the tactical
writers "'l'o.paywy~ has another meaning, tl1at of a phalanx advancing
in line, rather than in column, like Alexander's at Issus (xii. 20. 1),
cf. Arr. Tact. 28. 3; Asclep. II. 1; Ael. Tact. 36.)
6. TO.s ••• K(l.TO. 1TEp(KAa.ow: sc. EKTagn.,; cf. xi. 23. 2 ; 'deployment
by wheeling round'. In this rnanceuvre troops advancing in column
limply wheel at a given point and proceed at right angles to
their former direction. This would be a simple method of converting
an extended line into marching order ("11'opE£as .•• 8£Ci.8eatv) or vice
versa.
7. TO.s (1TQ.ywy6.s: 'advances in column'; cf. Arr. Tact. 28. 2, Ka~ ~"'l'a.
yw'Yl} 11-/.v E(}'TLV, brlli~Oav ntyli-a Tayp.an E"'l'' .:vfJv €"11'1]TaL. Cf. xi. rs. 7'
xviii. 31. 12 (of a phalanx charge).
X. 23. 7 PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ACHAEAN CAVALRY
autuyouvTnS Knt auaTo~xoOVTns: 'keeping in line and in column'.
'vyEiv, 'to stand in rank', and CFTotxeiv, 'to stand in file', are used by
the tactical writers (cf. Asclep. 7· 4, of cavalry squadrons).
9. To is T£ '1I'OAAois Knt Tois &.'11'oTEAdo,s: 'to the troops and to the
local commanders'. For ol ?Tol.l..ol in this sense see i. 33· 4, etc. (Paton
has 'the people', wrongly); for ol ~'ITDTI!.eto' cf. xvi. 36. 3; IG, v. 2. 293
(i\1antinea); Bean, ]HS, 1948, 44~48, 11. 39--40, d?To-rll..t:,os wv Kat
a7TOO'TaA£ls- E1T1. TWV ll€aVlUKWV (Araxa). An d?To-rE'>..ews was evidently
a minor local magistrate with military duties; in the Mantinean
inscription he commands infantry, and Toup suggested that in
Suidas, a'/TonfA€W'' ol KO.Til '/T!lA€tS ~Y€/.1-0VES' TWV 'IouSaiwv, the last
word is an error for }ixattiJv induced by the reference to Jews in the
previous article. Aymard (ACA, 1oz n. 1) observes that as hipparch
Philopoemen had no access to a political assembly and so toured the
towns making contact with the local cavalry contingents and their
officers, and later (aoOts) paid a second visit to make sure all was
going welL
OL KtlTa '11'0AELS llpxovTES: the a?TO-ri'A£WI. and other officers.
10. Twv ~YEJLovwv: the word ~Yf/.1-dw frequently denotes a high-
ranking infantry officer in the armies of this period, including Achaea
(cf. Itm. Delos, 442 B, L 68; Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 3 (with Robert's
additional bibliography); but here cavalry are involved, and
fJYE/.1-0l!ES' must therefore be 'officers' in the general sense, as in 24. z
and elsewhere (cf. Launey, i. 24-25).
24. 3. Tl yO.p ••• £ma!Jla.AEO'TEpov KTA.: cf. 3· 7 n.

4. aTpnTLWTLKTJS E:~oua{nc.;: 'the qualifications of an ordinary rank
and file soldier'. Paton renders 'a display of his military rank', but
this error is already noted by Schweighaeuser. On the contrast be-
tween CFTpanwn~<ck and YJY£1.1-ow~<os see i. 84. 6 n.; that passage
shows that ~Y(/.1-olltKfis qualifies Svva1.1-£w;; as well as tj.I-7THptas, hence
the comma could well be omitted after Ep1T£tplas.
6. tv To is tca.TnXTJpEus: the simile is perhaps from Demetrius'
l)rpaT'7Y'Ka, a work in two books (Diog. Laert. v. 8o); so Ostermann,
De Demetrii Phaleri uita, rebus gestis et scriptorum reliquiis, Progr.
Hersfeld, 1847, and Fulda, 1857, fg. xxxix; Wehrli, Demetrios, fg. 123;
von Scala, 154; Jacoby on FGH, 2z8 F 27; Martini, RE, 'Demetrios
(85)', col. 2832 ; Wunderer has no good grounds for rejecting this view.
Von Scala observes that Demetrius' comparison with building goes
back to Socrates ; cf. X en. M em. iii. 1. 7, 1rol..v yd.p Star/>E'pH CFTp&.rw~.~-a
-rero.yj.~.lvov d:raKTOv, Wa1rep MOo, TE Kat ?T>..lv8ot ~tal. ~vl.a ~tal. ~tlpaj.i.os
chrLK7'WS p€v EPP'!.I-1.1-lva ovS€v xf"latj.l.a lanll, E7TEtadv 8£ TaxBfl~taTw ~.~-£v
Kcll i1Tt7ToAfjs nl. j.I.~Tii'. c:Jrj7TOj.i.€Va 1.1-'47'£ T'I')KDj.i.€J!a, or T€ MOot Kat & Klpaj.i.OS',
PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ..-\CHAEAN CAVALRY X. 25. t
Jv p.ea~.p S€ a£ TE. 7TAlv8oL Kal Td gt!>.a., wawE.p otKOOop.lq. uVVTtfiE.TaL, T(JT£
ylyvETaL wo.Uov tigwv KTijp.a, olKla.
iws Myou: i.e. if not by practical ; there is an implied
criticism of Demetrius' theoretical approach to such a subject as
tactics. Compare Cicero's criticism of the older Stoics in de leg. iii. 14,
'nam ueteres uerbo tenus acute illi quidem, sed non ad hunc usum
popularem atque ciuilem de re publica disserebant'; Plut . •Wor.
1033 B, lv >..&yo~s-; von Scala, I 55·
•Av .•. To 1rapa.n8€v: 'if one sets down a brick at a time and the
construction receives due attention in each separate course'. Biittner-
\Vobst accepts Casaubon's TTAlvOov 8fis- for wA.f]Oov fiErs- F, or 7TATJVflov-
8Eis- or -'ITAlvOovfh£s- SE, and Schweighaeuser's 7TapaTEBev for wapappaylv
Sand 1rapan8ev Parisinus B.N. Gr. 165I in app. There is some com-
pression; expanded the full sense is: 'just as in building, if one sets
down the bricks [carefully] one by one and each separate course of
the construction receives due attention, [a firm structure results],
so in an army the careful training of each man and each file makes
the whole force strong'. >.&xos- gives a better point if taken as 'file'
rather than 'company', since the file is to the individual what the
course is to the separate brick.
25. 1-5. Fragment of a speech

This fragment is probably from a speech delivered at Aegium in 209;
see above, p. I 5· In spring 209 the Achaeans had appealed for help
to Philip (Livy, xxvii. 29. 9), who had defeated an Aetolian force
at Lamia, and then returned to Phalara to meet neutral ambassadors
from Rhodes, Chios, Athens, Egypt, and Athamania. (Ferro, 7 n. 6,
refers App. Afac. 3· 1-2, to this occasion; but see xi. 4· 1-6. Ion.}
Philip agreed to a thirty days' truce, continued into Achaea, cele-
brated the Argive Herea towards the end of June (Livy, xxvii. 30.
3-9), and then proceeded to a conference which had been called to
Aegium. Since the object was to coax the Aetolians out of the war,
the Macedonians stressed that Pergamum and Rome were gathering
all its fruits. This will be the context of this fragment. The conference
proved abortive, since half-way through news came that a Roman
fleet was at Naupactus and Attalus had reached Aegina; where-
upon the Aetolians put forward unacceptable demands and Philip
broke off negotiations (Livy, xxvii. 30, Io-15; Walbank, Philip,
89-90).
25. 2. Tel. 1Tpa.KTLKwTa.Ta. T7]s Suvn}LEWS: 'the most agile part of the
force'.
-rftv s· imypa.cJ>T]v: 'the credit' ; cf. i. 31· 4. ii. 2. 9 n.
X. 25.6 FRAGMENT OF A SPEECH
25. 6. Fragment of a speech

This sentence in oratio obliqua probably comes from a speech delivered
at the same conference as 2s. I-S; unless it is from a defence by
Philip of his behaviour at Argos. The latter is rather unlikely. See
p. IS on the position of the fragment.
6. OTJiJ.OKpa.Tu<T]v O"UiJ.iJ.a.xla.v: 'an alliance with a democracy'; from

the context 'democracy' here seems to mean a government where
the masses exercise power (not always its meaning in P.; cf. ii.
J8. 6 n., vi. 4· s).
4nXCa.s 'ITOAAfjs OEi0"9a.~: </nAta here is almost 'goodwill'. In an alliance
with a democracy the mere terms of the contract are not enough;
the people must also like you.
26. Philip's behaviour at Argos

After the breakdown of negotiations at Aegium (25. I-S n.), Philip
hoped to make contact with a Punic fleet commanded by Bomilcar,
and said to be on its way to Greece; but Bomilcar never passed
Corcyra, and Philip returned to Argos to celebrate the Kemea in
July (2o9); cf. Livy, xxvii. 30. IS-I7; Walbank, Philip, 91.
26. 1. j.I.ETd TO iKTEA~aa.t TOV ••• aywvo.: with the introductory words
this is probably the excerptor's interpolation. From Argos Philip
was called to repel a landing by P. Sulpicius between Sicyon and
Corinth, and having done this he returned to Argos to complete the
festival (Livy, xxvii. 31. I-J).
a.OO~s ELS "'pyos t'ITa.viJAee: from repelling Sulpicius (see last note),
though in its present context it suggests that Philip had held the
Nemea elsewhere. At this time the Kemean festival took place at
Argos, not at Nemea.
2. i€oua(a.v ••• iJ.Eltw Ka.t iJ.OVo.px~KwT£po.v: 'the greater and more
monarch-like was the licence he displayed; for this sense of Jeova{a
cf. § s. xxxii. 2. 1·
3. oll yAp lfn Tas xiJpa.s i'ITe(po. KTA.: for a typical incident cf. Plut.
Mor. 760 A-B; see also Livy, xxvii. 31. s-8, xxxii. 21. 24. All this is
characteristic of the tyrant (cf. vi. 7. 7' avavnppl)Tovs Bi KfJ.t7Tapd. TWJJ
\ T \ - ,). ~
p:r1 7rpOG7JKOVTwv Tas Twv a'l'poota~wv
I
XPetas Kat avvova~as , an d con-
I ' I )
trasts with Philip's democratic bearing and costume. There is prob-

ably a hostile tradition behind this, exaggerating the extent of
Philip's debauchery.
4. TWV 1.1.~v Tous u~Eis, Twv 8~ To us llv8po.s: Livy, xxvii. 31. 7, 'peri-
culosumque et uiris et parentibus erat' ; but the variant does not
warrant tampering with P.'s text.
PHILIP'S BEHAVIOUR AT ARGOS X. 2]. I
~1Tl 1TpocjlaC7EOW aAoyolS OlEO'ElE: cf. iii. IS. 9; 'he terrified them on
groundless pretexts'.
5. XPWf1EVOS TTI KctTa TTJV 1TctpemOTJf1LC1V E~OUO'Lc;_l ••• avEOTJV: Jfova{q.
Valesius for P Jfovmav. Biittner-Wobst assumes a lacuna to explain
the hiatus and suggests 81)ptwOw> Kat dviOYJv (cf. xv. 20. 3), which
may well be right. The adverb (or adverbs) must be taken with
XPWJLEVO> (not with EAV7rE£, as Mauersberger, s.v. aJJEOYJV). Translate:
'through his display of excessive licence during his stay in the
country'.
6. Ta 1rapa cjluow: whether P. means what is outrageous (d. xv.
36. 4) or what it is contrary to nature to endure is not clear owing
to the break in the text.
26. 7-10. Philip's deterioration

For earlier remarks on this subject see vii. II. IO, 13. 7 (comparison
with a werewolf), I4. 6 (choice of friends)-Philip's first step in his
f-£ETa{3oA~. P. does not see Philip's career as a gradual unfolding of his
natural characteristics (cf. ix. 22. 9 n.), but treats these as part of
the influences to which he was exposed (cf. xvi. 28. 5-6) ; his f-£ETa{3oA~
is caused by defects which he acquired in the course of his life (e.g.
through listening to bad advice; cf. vii. I4. 6, ix. 22. 10). Von Fritz
(Histoire et historiens, 103--6) derives this way of considering personal
development indirectly from Aristotle, who (Eth. Nic. ii. I ff. IIOJ a
14 ff.) traces a man's character or ~8o>, not from his </>vat>, but from
a series of decisions freely taken, which lead him in the direction of
apET~ or 7rOV1Jp{a according to their tendency. This view of von Fritz
is, however, to be qualified in as far as P., when he specifically
criticizes the view that character is an unfolding of <f>vm>, shows
some influence from Stoic teaching; see ix. 22. ron.
26. 8. Ka.9cmep ev(ols ••• Twv 11r1rwv: a comparison perhaps derived

from personal experience (cf. von Scala, 23 n. 8).
9. ev To is 1TpOOlf1LOlS: 'at the outset', i.e. when each character is first
introduced, not 'in the preface of my work' (Paton) nor 'in prologues';
P. uses 7rpoypa</>~ for 'a prologue' (cf. xi. I a I). For P.'s practice in
this matter see vii. II. 1 n., ix. 22. 7 n. See Leo, Biographie, 186 ff.;
Bruns, 5 ff.
10. Ta.UTTJV ••• TTJV E1TlO"TJf1a.a(a.v: 'this method of indicating it'.
27. 1-31. 15. Antiochus' expedition against Arsaces

Two contiguous, but not continuous, fragments-there is a break
in F after 27-are from the res Asiae of 01. I42, 3 = 21o(o9; see
above, p. IS· The Parthians had recently conquered western
231
X. z]. 1 ANTIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES
Hyrcania, Comisene, and Choarene to the south of the Caspian;
and further east Euthydemus of Magnesia had seized Aria (cf.
Holleaux, CAH, viii. I4o = Etudes, v. 322). In autumn 2Io (prob-
ably; cf. ix. 43 n.) Antiochus had sailed down the Euphrates;
in the spring of 209 he was in Ecbatana, in Media, preparing his
expedition. There is no evidence that the Parthians had seized
Media. P.'s sources for the whole of Antiochus' eastern expedition
are obscure; against von Scala's argument (262) that he followed
Zeno of Rhodes, who had information from Polyxenidas (29. 6 n.),
see Ullrich, 3I-32. But either directly or indirectly P. seems to draw
in part on an eyewitness (cf. 28. 3 n.), who took part in Antiochus'
anabasis and subsequently published an account of it; he may be
the 'mercenary source' detected earlier (cf. v. 40. 4-57. 8 n.). By this
expedition Antiochus thoroughly re-established his position in
Media, where recently-found inscriptions from Nehavend attest the
position of the Seleucids there in I93 (Robert, Hellenica, 7, 1949,
5-22; 8, 1949, 73-75; Bull. ipig. I95o, no. 2I7; cf. Clairmont, Mus.
Helv. I949. 2I8-26; A. G. Roos, Mnem. 1950, 54-63; I951, 70-72;
Aymard, REA, I949, 327-45; Edson, CP, I954. II2-I8).
27. 1. ~ M1JS[a: see v. 44· 4-II on its character and extent; see now
also Schmitt, Antiochos, 5o-6r.
Tl7w KaTa TlJY ~a[av SuvaaTELWv: 'the principalities of Asia'. Histori-
cally Media had been a separate kingdom, though now it was a
Seleucid province.
TWV r1T1TWV: cf. v. 44· l n. for the N esaean horses of Media, and the
location there of the royal herds.
2. Ta ~aaLALKa auanjllaTa Twv ivrroTpo~LWV: 'the royal herds for
breeding'; cf. v. 44· I, Ta ••. imrorfo6p{3ta. The phrase is awkward;
but £1T1TOTporfola is commonly used in the plural, and Casaubon's
l-rrrroTporfoeiwv, 'stables', is no improvement.
(SLQ. Tljv TWV Tovwv) eu~utav: so, convincingly, Biittner-Wobst,
comparing ii. 68. 5, iii. 92. II, iv. 38. II, x. 40. II.
3. rrEplOLKELTCLL St voAeaLY 'EAATJVLUL: these, like the 1roAm· d[toAoyot,
which Alexander founded among the Cossaei (Diod. xvii. III. 6; on
the Cossaei see above, v. 44· 7 n.), will be military settlements, not
full cities (d. Tarn, Bactr£a, 8-9; for P.'s loose use of 1r<:IAts- cf. i. 72. 2,
iii. I8. In., iii. 6o. 9. vii. 9· 5, xxv. r). They were needed to secure
what was to be the central province of the Seleucid realm (cf. E.
Meyer, ElUte, I9 n. 2) and the usual headquarters of the Governor-
General of the Upper Satrapies (Bengtson, Strat. ii. 78 ff., and
especially 86 n. 2). There were, of course, full Greek cities in Media,
including Heracleia (Strabo, xi. 5I4; Ptol. vi. 2. r6; Amm. Marc.
xxiii. 6. 39), Apamea Rhagiane (Strabo, xi. 524; Pliny, Nat. kist.
vi. 43), which according to Isidore of Charax was in Choarene, east
ANTIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES X. 27. 7
of the Caspian Gates (Stath. Parth. 8), Laodiceia (Strabo, xi. 524;
Steph. Byz. s.v.), now identified as Nehavend (see above, 27. I-JI.
15 n.) and Charax (Isid. Char. Stath. Parth. 7; Amm. Marc. xxiii.
6. 43) ; and the two native towns Ecbatana and Rhagae were re-
founded as Greek cities named Epiphaneia (Steph. Byz. s.v . .ityfJa-
-rava; i.e. a foundation of Antiochus IV) and Europus (Strabo, xi.
514; Ptol. vi. 2. 17; Amm. Marc. xxiii. 6. 39) respectively. But it is
neither proved nor probable that any of these is earlier than Seleucus
I, the attested founder of many. See Tscherikower, 99-ror; and,
on Seleucus I's foundations, App. !3yr. 51·
1TA~v 'EK~a.-ravwv: the capital of Media, modern Ramadan; cf.
Herod. i. 98 ff. on its foundation. Pliny's attribution to a Seleucus
(Nat. hist. vi. 43) must be rejected in the light of the present passage;
but Antiochus IV founded Epiphaneia here (see last note). Herodotus
(loc. cit.) describes a sevenfold fortification, each ring a different
colour (perhaps with astrological significance; How and Wells, Com-
mentary, ad lac., quoting Rawlinson,}RGS, ro, r841, 127, for a parallel
from the poet Nizami). Diodorus (xvii. no. 7) makes the circuit
of the city 250 stades, an exaggeration. There has been no excavation.
On its wealth see, besides Herodotus, Ps.-Aristotle, de mundo,
6. 398 A. Pedech, Methode, 568-7o, argues that P. drew his description
of the city from Callisthenes.
4. iv liE 1'ois vpos 1'ns tipKTovs ~€pEaL: Hamad an lies on the main
Baghdad-Teheran road, on the slopes of the Elvend range, which
forms part of the ancient Mt. Zagros (cf. v. 44· 4-II n.); cf. § 6 n.
Toil) vEpt ...,v Ma.u7!Ttv ~<:a.l1'ov Eil~ewov ~€peaL: true only in reference
to P.'s distorted geographical picture of northern Media. See above,
v. 44· 4, where the Elymaeans, Aniaracae, Cadusii, and l\iatiani are
placed in the north of the province, i.mlpKELTaL o€ Twv avva'IT'T6VTwv
1Tpd> Ti)v Matumv Tov ll&vrou p.£pwv; cf. Schmitt, A ntiochos, 6o;
Pedech, Methode, 568-9.
6. (11To ...~" 1Ta.pwpe~a.v T~v 1Ta.pn 1'ov 'Op6VTT)v: for the Orantes
(mod. Elvend) cf. Diad. ii. 13. 7 Ctesias, FGH, 688 F I (rJ. 7));
Ptol. vi. 2. 4· Ammianus (xxiii. 6. 39) calls it Iasonius mons, but
Ptolemy (loc. cit.) distinguishes between this and the Orontes. Pliny
(Nat. hist. v. 98) calls it Oroandes, which Kiessling (RE, 'Hyrkania',
col. 461) connects with the Iranian Arvant.
8a.u~a.crlw!; vpO!; oxvpOTt)1'0. KO.TEO'KEVO.O'~Evt}V: this casts doubt on
Aelian's story (Var. hi st. vii. 8) that Alexander had the citadel and its
wall dismantled as an expression of grief after Hephaestion's death.
7. To ~t\ynv Ka.TC. JlEpos: 'to say something' (not 'to go into details',
as Paton) ; see ii. 40. 6 n.
lxn 1'tv' 0.1Top1a.v: P.'s embarrassment is due to the fact that such
-roTToypa.rf>iaL are part of the stock-in-trade of the rhetorical historian,
who uses them to work up his material (e!£pya{eu8at) in an exciting
2 33
X. 27. 7 ANTIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES
way (cf. xxix. I2. 4; Avenarius, I47-8). \Vhere such accounts further
the understanding of historical events, they form a valuable adjunct
to the narrative (cf. i. 41. 7, iii. 36. I-S. v. 21. 6-7, x. 9· 8); but here
their only justification lies in the details of§ IJ.
8. TUS EK1TA']KTlKUS TWV s~TJYTJUEWV: cf. XV. 36. I, where sensational
accounts are also associated with ailf7Jat>; ii. 61. I, f-LET, avf~a<w> Kat
StaiNa<w> (of Phylarchus)-hence Schweighaeuser's convincing cor-
rection of the MS. i5wf3aaEw> here (Lex. Polyb. s.v. i5ta8wt>; in text
and commentary, following Ernestus, he had read owTaa<w>). See
above, VoL I, pp. 8-g; ii. s6. II-12 n.; Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (I)', cols.
1So4-6. M. Hadas, Hellenistic Culture (New York, 1959), 168, instances
the elaborate description of the palace at Ecbatana with which the
book of Judith opens.
To is s· EuAa.~ws 1Tpocr1TOpEUOJJ-EVO~S KTA.: i.e. himself.
9. axt:OOV ~1TTO. aTa.O(wv: nearly 6! furlongs.
Twv Ka.Ta JJ-Epos Ka.Ta.crKeua.crJJ-aTwv: 'of the separate buildings'; the
palace was probably a complex of structures.
TTJV Twv E~ &.pxijc; Ka.Ta.~a.AAoJJ-evwv euKa.~p(a.v: 'the wealth of its
original founders'.
10. Ta 4>a.TvwJJ-a.Ta.: 'the compartments of the ceiling' (Paton); cf.
Callixenus, FGH, 627 F 2 (= Athen. v. 2s); IGR, iv. ss6. From the
resemblance in shape the word is derived from ,PaTv7J, 'manger' (which
also has this meaning; see references in LSJ).
Ae1T£u~ 1TEjnE~AiJ4>8a.l: 'plated'.
KEpa.JJ-(Sa.s: 'roof-tiles'.
11. Ka.Ta TTJV 1-.At:~O.vSpou Ka.l. Ma.KEOOvwv ~4>oSov: Alexander entered
Ecbatana in 330 in pursuit of Darius after Gaugamela, and lodged
the Persian treasure in its citadel (Arr. Anab. iii. I9. s-8). This
Strabo (xv. 731) makes 18o,ooo, and Iustinus (xii. 1. 3) 19o,ooo talents;
it was not, however, all from Ecbatana, though it may have in-
cluded the metals mentioned here.
Ka.Ta TTJV 1-.vnyovou Ka.i IeAeuKou Tou N~Kavopos Suva.oTE~a.v:
Seleucus I and Antiochus I (in reverse order to avoid hiatus; cf.
ii. 2. 2 n.). The title Nicanor is found elsewhere (cf. Euseb. Chron. i.
249 Schoene, 'Seleukus autem aduersum barbaros profectus uicit, et
rex declarabatur; atque inde Nikanor uocatus est, id est uictor';
the same reading is found in the Armenian version, 117 Karst);
but it seems to be a manuscript error for the cult title Nicator (cf.
Stahelin, RE, 'Seleukos (2)', coL I233), the usual form and the one
known from inscriptions and papyri (e.g. OGIS, 233, L 2 from Antioch
in Persis; Dura Parchments, 2s, 1. I9 from Dura; OGIS, 24s, 1. Io,
from Seleucia-in-Pieria; cf. OGIS, 263, I. 4, 413; CIG, iv. 6856). The
sanctuary around Seleucus' tomb was called the NtKaT6p<wv (App.
Syr. 63), and apparently Seleucus was deified by Antiochus I (Tarn,
Hell. Civ. so). On Seleucid cult see Bikerman, 236 ff.; for the meaning
l34
ANTIOCHUS' EXPEDITIOX AGAINST ARSACES X. 28. 1
of the title, which obviously indicates a conqueror, cf. App. 5::;'1'. 57;
Amm. Marc. xiv. 8. s. xxiii. 6. 3; Euseb. loc. cit. Paton has, in-
accurately, 'Seleucus the son of Nicanor'.
ll. o ... vo.os ••• Tfis Arvl]s: Anahita, the Persian goddess of the
fertilizing waters, who was perhaps originally Babylonian, and whose
cult was widely spread throughout the territories once under Persia.
Her name was usually hellenized as :4.va.la. or :4.vai.'n>; cf. e.g. Plut.
Artax. 27; Strabo xvi. 738. See Cumont, RE, 'Anaitis', cols. 2030-1;
ERE, 'Anahita', 414-r5; S. \Vikander, Feuerpriester in Kleinast'en
und Iran (Lund, 1946), 69, who suggests emending AtV'I)> to :4.vat,-,So,
(contra Festugiere, Coniectanea neotestamentica, 12 (Lund, 1948),
48-49, who both here and in Strabo, xvi. 738, would read the goddess's
name as Nava[a, found on inscriptions and in papyri).
auvETt6EwTo: 'had been assembled' ; aw,-tOTJfi-' often means 'to put
together in a construction', but this meaning, implying that they
were therefore still in place, hardly fits here, where lv a.irrij; suggests
rather that the silver tiles were being stored in the temple.
13. TO xa.pa.x8iv E~S TO ~a.cn'-~1<:0\1 T)8poUr8'1] VOJL~O'l«t: 'sufficient was
collected to coin royal money amounting to .. :. The phrasing is
awkward, and it is not wholly clear whether vofi-Ulfi-a. goes with xa.pa-
x0€v (so LSJ, s.v. xapauaw) or with To{la.atAtKOV (Mauersberger, s.v.
fla.u,Au.:6s); but the latter seems more probable (literally, 'from all
the above-mentioned objects was collected the (metal) stamped to
form royal money'). Most translations render f3a.atJ.,~<6v 'stamped
with the king's effigy', and this was probably true of these coins;
but {JaatAtKo;; does not have that meaning. Babelon, Rois de Syrie,
lxxxi, tries to identify a gold issue of Antiochus with these coins,
but hardly convincingly. The down-to-earth economic facts with
which P. ends his account of the temple furnish him with some
justification for the details of its magnificence, a subject which had
aroused his qualms in § 8.
l8. I. ilws ••• TouTwv Twv Torrwv: the area east of the Caspian Gates,
since the great desert (,-~v ... lpYJfi-ov) begins here and skirts the
southern flank of Mt. Elburz (Alburz). relieved only by scattered
OaSeS ; cf. V. 44· 4, Ta Ka.'Td. 7'~V ~P7Jfi-OV 7TEO{a T~V fi-ETaeu K£tfi-EVTJV TijS'
Ilepaioo> Kal rij> IlapBuala> (with note). P. does not mention Rhagae
and the Caspian Gates (the defiles of Sialek and Sardar, 7o km.
south-east of Rhagae; cf. A. von Stahl, Geogr. ]ourn. 64, 1924, 318-20)
again, presumably, because Antiochus has already passed them since
leaving Ecbatana. See Pedech, REA, r958, 73-74. On the town of
Calliope, mentioned just before this point, see JL 15 n.
)l.pa6.KT}s: Arsaces II succeeded his father Arsaces I in 2IIj1o and
ruled until 191; Arsaces I seized power in c. 238 and took the royal
title in 231. See Justin. xli. 5· 7; Arrian, Parth. in FGH, rs6 F so and
235
X. 28. I ANTIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES
31 (where Tiridates, Arsaces I's supposed brother and Arsaces II's
supposed father, is to be dismissed as non-existent). Cf. J. Wolski,
Historia, 1959, 222 ff.; 1962, IJS ff.; K.-H. Ziegler, Die Beziehungen
zwischen Rom u. dem Partherreich (Wiesbaden, 1964), 13-14; Niese,
ii. 398.
SuvO.p.EL 'I'TIALica.oTTI: according to Iustin. xli. 5· 7 he had 1oo,ooo foot
and 2o,ooo horse, almost certainly an exaggeration (Debevoise, 17
n. &) ; Pedech, REA, 1958, 73 n. I).
2. l:nroVOj.lOL •• , q,pt;Cl'!'(as rxov'I'~<S: 'underground channels linked with
wells'. The underground channel, in Persian kanat, is still essential
to the oases of Iran; some are so km. long (R. Blanchard, Giographie
universetle, ed. Vidal de la Blache and Gallois, viii (Paris, 1929), I6I;
cf. Pedech, REA, 1958, 74 n. 2}, and some seventy converge on the
town of Yezd from the south-west.
3. &.1--TJ&T)s .•. Myos OLa 'I'WV eyxwp(wv: from P.'s source, either
an eye-witness, or derived from an eye-witness in Antiochus' army.
4. 1'ou T aupou: here Mt. Elburz. P. is following the post-Alexandrian
picture of the Taurus as a 'broad mountain-spine running due east,
the Taurus-Elburz-Hindu Kush-Himalaya' (Thomson, 134; Erato-
sthenes' map of the East on p. 135}. This was the famous diaphragma
of Dicaearchus, and various parts had various names, including
'Taurus'. For details see Ruge, RE, 'Tauros (5)', cols. 39-50, especially
44·
l~< p.a~<pou Ka.'l'aaKEua~ov'I'ES 'l'ous u1tovo1-1ous: cf. § 2 n.
6. '!'ous 1tEpl N~Kop.T)oytv: a mercenary captain from Cos (29. 6) ; on
Coan mercenaries see Launey, i. 239-40.
7. 1tpos 'I'Tjv 'E~<a'I'Ojl1tUAov 1tpoaayop~<uop.Evytv: according to Apollo-
dorus of Artemita (FGH, i79 F 5 (a) = Strabo, xi. 514) this city,
,.d Twv Ila.pBvalwv {3a.aL\.,wv, lay I,z6o stades from the Caspian Gates;
variants are I ,040 stades (Amm. Marc. xxiii. 6. 43), I 33 m. p. = I ,o64
stades (Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. 44) and 1,960 stades (Eratosthenes ap.
Strabo, xi. 514). The site is uncertain, opinions varying between the
localities of Shahrud and Damghan (see Map 8}. Apollodorus'
1 ,26o stades brings one to near Damghan, which lies c. 26:2 km. from the
Sardar Pass (A. F. von Stahl, Geogr. ]ourn. 64, 1924, 323), and Kiess-
ling's proposal (RE, 'Hekatompylos', col. 2794} to emend 1,26o to 1,960
to match Eratosthenes, and bring Hecatompylus to Shahrud, is not
convincing. Indeed, if Tagae is modern Ta.q (29. 3 n.), the equation of
Hecatompylus with Shahrud involves Antiochus in an incomprehen-
sible march, first east to Shahrud, then west again to Taq to obtain
information which must have been available at Shahrud, and finally
east again to the Pass of Chalchanlyan (cf. 29. 3, ,.ds- inuip{3oAas ...
Toii Ad{3ov). The more likely identification is therefore with some-
where near Damghan, and specifically the ruins at Shahr-i-Qumis,
16 miles south of Damghan towards Frat (cf. W. Tomaschek, S.-B.
236
ANTIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES X. zB. 7
KAVlR
8. ANTIOCHUS' ROUTE ACROSS MT. ELBURZ

(Based on War Office Map of Asia, Sheets N-]. 40)
Wien, 1o2, 1882, 223-4, following A. H. Schindler, ZGE, x8n, 217;

JRAS, 1877. 425-7; Pedech, REA, 1958, 74-5). This would fit the
account of Alexander's march of 330, when he rested his men some
days at Hecatompylus (Diod. xvii. 75· 1) before crossing into Hyr~
cania by two routes; he himself took the shorter, probably via Che-
hardeh and the Dorudbar. The remarkable spring (J.:n{Jol'T'Y]>, Diod.
xvii. 75· 2; Ziobetis, Curt. vi. 4· 4), 150 stades from Hecatompylus, was
identified by Marquart (51 ff.} with the Fountain of Ali (Chesmeh-
i-Ali), which lies on this route (ct. Weissbach, RE, J.:n{Jot-rTJS', col.
2484); though A. F. von Stahl (Geogr. Journ. 64, 1924, 324) would
identify the River Ziobetis with the modern River Dorudbar, which
runs north-west fromMt. Shah-kuh, through the gorgeofShamshirkur.
The bulk of Alexander's army and his chariots and baggage were
sent under Erigyius by the longer and easier route, probably that
over the Chalchanlyan Pass (29. 3 n.), which Antiochus now took.
237
X. 28. 7 A!-TTIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES
Tarn (Bactria, 13-14) has argued plausibly that 'Hecatompylus', like
the names of several other Greek towns in Iran, was a nickname, taken
from Homer's Thebes and signifying that it had 'more gates than
the stereotyped four of Hellenistic tmvn-planning'. For the view
(rejected here) that Hecatompylus stood at Shahrud see A. D. Mordt-
mann, 5.-B. Munchen, r86<), 497-536; Kiessling, 'Hekatompylos',
cols. 279o-7; Tarn, Alexander, i. 56 n. ('more probable ... but there
is no certainty'). A. F. von Stahl (Geogr. ]ourn. 64, 1924, 323-5) sug-
gested a site west of Damghan, on some hills lying to the south of
Gusheh; but he had not investigated this site, and it may in fact
contain no ancient remains.
f:v ll-E:an Tft napeu,vfl: d. Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. ll3; this implies that
Choarene and Comisene, the regions as far west as the Caspian Gates,
were now in Parthian hands.
Twv 8~68wv ••. auli"'""rrTouawv: this has been used as an argument
for identifying Hecatompylus with Shahrud; but Damghan, with the
passes leading north over the Elburz to Astrabad and Sari, west to
the Caspian Gates and east to Aria and Bactria, could easily fit this
description.
29. 1. ofh' av ~1nT1)8E~OTE:pous TO'IrOUS ~t,;TE:~: for fighting a pitched

battle the bare plains south of the Elburz would be preferable to the
richly wooded valleys to its north.
2. Ets TfJV 'Yp~<av(av: more narrowly, the south-eastern coast of the
Caspian, along with the Elburz valleys; see Kiessling, RE, 'Hyr-
kania', col. 455 (a very full study of the district).
3. 11'apay£Vo1:1Evos ••• ~m T aycl.s: evidently the Nagae of the Tabula
Peutingeriana (G.Rav. Agaeor Tagae); cf. W. Tomaschek,S.-B. Wien,
ro:z, r88:z, 221-4; Weissbach, RE, Taya{ (r), cols. 2007-8. It is Taq, a
village five miles north of Damghan, and at the foot of the mountains.
Tas thnp~oMs ..• Tou A.6.~ou: of the two routes open to Antiochus
from that west of Mt. Shah-kuh, up the valley of Chesmeh-i-
Ali and across the River Dorudbar, and that over the Chalchanlyan
Pass to the east of Mt. Shah-kuh (both of which unite north of Shah-
kuh in the valley of Chasman-Sawer), the former was too steep for
heavy infantry and baggage and Alexander had sent Erigyius round
by the second with the heavy troops, chariots, and baggage (Diod.
xvii. 75· I; Arr. A nab. iii. 23. 2). Hence Antiochus probably selected
the Pass of Chalchanlyan. But the Pass of Labus can hardly be this
col (8,6oo ft.), since from the summit of the pass, after defeating the
barbarians, he dropped down directly into Hyrcania; whereas for the
Pass of Chalchanlyan there is a 3,000 ft. descent on the north into
the upper valley of the Chasman-Sawer, whence two routes lead over
the next range into Hyrcania, one the Quzluq Pass (7 .450 ft.),
and the other that to the west (6,350 ft.), which is described by Lieut.
238
A~TIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAI:.<ST ARSACES X. 29.6
A. Conolly ,journey to the North of India, i {London, 1834), 212-16, who
in 1829 rode over it on his way from Astrabad to Shahrud, in pre-
ference to the shorter Quzluq route, which was infested by Turkman
brigands. Conolly's route is indeed the natural one for anyone travel-
ling direct from Astrabad to Damghan via the Dorudbar and the
valley of Chesmeh-i-Ali; and it gave him the impression that he was
ascending 'a very steep Kotui over the main ridge of the Elburz',
and clearly struck him more forcibly than the 'one steep but short
hill' which must be the Pass of Chalchanlyan. If one calculates the
beginning of Antiochus' 3oo-stade ascent from Shahrud or nearby
(3o. 2 n.), the Pass of Labus will be either the Quzluq or Conolly's
pass; which, cannot be determined with certainty. Kiessling (RE,
'Hyrkania', coL sor) agrees in making Labus a pass leading directly
down to the coastal plain, but he is surely wrong to make Antiochus
reach it so far west as Sari (cf. Pedech, REA, 1958, 79-Bo).
TO 'ITAi}Sos ,.Wv ~ap~6.pwv: perhaps the Tapyri of v. 44· 5 (cf. Kiessling,
RE, 'Hyrkania', col. sor). Tam (Bactria, 20) suggests that they were
mercenaries in the Parthian army, but their admission into Sirynx
(31. 2-3, 6) does not impose this assumption, which seems on the
whole less likely.
s,Md'I'THV TO ••• '1TAT}9os: 'to break up his light-armed troops into
several bodies' (Paton).
5. TftV 1TPWTTJV ~8wKE T6.~w: 'he assigned the first position .. :.
ALoyEvE~: the governor of Susa in 222/r (v. 46. 7, cf. 48. 14), later left
to control ~ledia (v. 54· 12).
Ta~w f.LEv ovK EVEJ.LOV: 'held no regular station (in battle)' ; Paton
omits to translate.
6. Kpi}Ta.S aa1n8LwTa.<;: cf. v. 3· I n.
noXusEV(8a.s 'Po8lOS: the fan10US Polyxenides, later Antioch us'
navarch against Rome (193/r); d. Livy, xxxvi. 4r. s. xxxvii. 8-IJ,
29-30; App. Syr. 17, 22-27. He had been exiled from Rhodes, for
reasons unknown (Livy, xxxvii. ro. I; App. Syr. 21, 24). See Len-
schau, RE, 'Polyxenidas', cols. 185o-I; Launey, i. 243.
&wpa.K(Tas Kat 9upEo~opous: like the Cretan da-m8twmt they are light-
am1ed troops. For 8wpaK'i1'at in Achaean armies see iv. 12. 3 (neither
light-armed proper nor phaJangites), Xi. II. 4-5, J4. I, 15. 5 (fighting
beside lllyrians); cf. Plut. PMlop. 9· 1 ft.; Polyaen. vi. 4· 3; Paus.
viii. so. I. Griffith (Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. I84. I9S6-'j' s-6) takes these
8wpat<tnu to be part of the phalangites; but P. is here indicating the
separate categories into which the light-armed were divided (§ 4),
so that they might leave the main road and ascend the slopes (3o. 5).
The phalanx is first mentioned on the march in 30. 5· For Ovpeo</>Opot
cf. v. 53· 8 (where MSS. have 8vpeacf>6pot) ; and for the Ovpd,, cf. ii.
30. 3 n., iii. TI4. 2, •-1. 23. 2 (scutum). On 8vpw.cf>6pot in third-century
Boeotia see Feyel, 47, 193. 209-10.
239
X. 29.6 ANTIOCH US' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES
Nu<o~-r\8"1-; , • , NucoAa.oo;: nothing else is known of Nicomedes;
Nicolaus will be the Ptolemaic captain who fought so effectively
against Antiochus (v. 6r-9), and then, probably, like so many other
mercenaries went over to the Seleucid side (cf. v. 6r. 8 n.; Launey,
i. 186-7).
30. 2. To ••• &A.ov llilteoo; •.• 11'Epl. Tpta.teou(ous UTa.8i.ous: perhaps cal-
culated from near Shahrud, where the forces began to ascend to the
col, and not from Tagae. Pedech (REA, 1958, 77-78) quotes a Russian
traveller, G. V. Melgunof, Das sudliche Ujer des Kaspischen Meeres
oder die Nordprovinzen Persiens (Leipzig, r868), 132-45, for the dis-
tance of 10 farsakhs 52·5 km. from Shahrud to the Quzluq Pass,
and thls is confirmed by the India Survey map. On the other hand,
this journey does not form a single ascent, but from the Chalchan-
lyan Pass there is a drop of over 3,ooo ft. into the upper valley of
Chasman-Sawer and a further ascent from there to the Quzluq
Pass, a feature omitted from Pedech's map (REA, 1958, facing p. 74).
This map also puts Tash only about 12 km. from Shahrud, whereas
both Conolly (above, 29. 3 n.) and the India Survey map agree in
putting it about zz miles away. According to Conolly the road from
the Chalchanlyan Pass to Shahrud 'was level', i.e. it does not match
the rough and narrow gorge here described. One may, however,
suppose that the higher part of the route provided so many ob-
stacles as to give the impression of being -ro 71'i\<Un-ov p,lpos ••• Tfjs
11op•la;;. It certainly looks as if the trouble with the barbarians oc-
curredin the last stages of the ascent, perhaps around theChalchanlyan
Pass, and certainly up to the col leading over the next ridge; but
P.'s failure to mention the descent in to the upper valley of the
Chasman-Sawer prevents detailed identification of the point where
the fighting first began.
To 11'AEi:uTov !LEPO'> ••• T!ls 'IT'op<(a.<;;: if the 300 stades are reckoned
from Shahrud this is not true (see last note); but this may neverthe-
less have been the honest impression of the eye-witness from whom
P.'s account ultimately derives, and who will have shared in the fight-
ing in the higher reaches.
5. Ta ,.a.po.tedlleva. Twv opwv ••• 11'pou~o.AEi:v: 'to ascend the moun-
tain slopes'; for this sense of 71'poaf3&.MHv (missed by Paton) cf. 39· I,
iii. 94· r, and Schweighaeuser's note in Lex. Polyb. s.v. 'TI'poafM.A.i\etv.
lh' o.lm'iiv Twv AEuteo'IT'ETpwv: 'over the bare rocks'; cf. iii. 53· s for
a similar feature on Hannibal's ascent of the Alps.
6. aAAOWTEpa.v EAn~~a.vE 8u18EO'LV: despite Bothius' defence of the
MS. reading (Polybiana (Leipzig, 1844), 63), a subject seems needed.
Schweighaeuser reads ro 'TI'pii:yp,a. or -r<i 11pt.f:yp,a.ra. after JAU.p,f3a.ve (cf.
xviii. so. 4), Hultsch 1ul.VT' lAap,{3a.ve.
7. u11'ipTL8e!LEVOL tea.t rrpou~a.£vovTES ,.p(,s Ta 11'AuyLa.: 'avoiding an
A~TIOCHL'S' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES X. 31. 8
engagement by ascending on the enemy's flank'. 'To postpone battle'

seems a more appropriate meaning for {mlf.pTl8Ea8at here than 'to
advance further' (cf. Paton, 'making a further flank movement up
hill'); cf. iv. 30. 2, 87. I2; Schweighaeuser, Lex.Polyb. s.v. wlf.pTi8w8at.
9. TWV (o') ciam8u•.lTWV e<jleopEUOVT!IlV: 'with the Cretan shield-
bearers as a covering force' ; for this sense of J4>"Spd€tv cf. iii. 53· s.
and passim.
31. l. 1rpos Tas KaTa Tov Aa~ov u1repoxas: the wEp{3oA~ of 30. 9·
The pass cannot be identified: see above, 29. 3 n.; but whether it is
Quzluq or the pass (used by Conolly) above Ziarut, Antiochus'
struggle against the barbarians will have occurred as he left the
valley of Chasman-Sawer to push north. The discussion in Pedech,
REA, I958, 78-jg, is hard to follow, since many places he mentions
are not shown on his sketch-map, and he writes as though the valley
of Chasman-Sawer lay immediately above the descent to Tambrax
and Astrabad, whereas in fact it is divided from these places by the
massif pierced by the Quzluq Pass, and that above Ziarut.
5. e1rt Tal-l~Pa.Ka: Marquart {62) sites this near Sari, I40 km. west
of Astrabad, and suggests (63) emending TaJ.a.f3p6~<7J to TaJLf3paKa. in
Strabo, xi. so8. Pedech (REA, I958, 79-8o) rightly rejects as im-
probable such a westward advance into Mazanderan, and suggests
that Tambrax was the summer residence of the people of Sirynx
(hence anlxtaTOV, § 6). It WOUld lie On the Upper Slopes Of the hills
coming down from the Pass of Labus towards Astrabad.
K«TEaK~vwae: 'encamped' (cf. xiv. 2. 8, xxi. I3. 7, xxxv. 2. 4), not
necessarily in tents. On KaTaaKTJvoiJv see Welles, p. 344 and no. 30 l. 4·
6. rr)v 1rpoaayopeuo11EVTJV l:LpuyKa 1roAw: also located near Sari by
Marquart (62). E. E. Herzfeld (Archiiologische Mitteilungen aus Iran
(Berlin), i {I929), 109-Io; iv {I932}, 38, 62) seeks it at Sarakhs (Sirok)
on the Tejend (Arius or Ochus), near the frontiers of Apavarticene
and Margiana {cf. 49· I). The former is too far west, the latter too
far east (Tarn, Bactria, I6 n. I), and perhaps the most likely view is
that of B. Dorn ('Caspia', Memoires de l'Academie impiriale des
sciences de Saint-Pitersbourg7, 23, I875, IJ4) who locates Sirynx on
a hill near Astrabad. According to Arab itineraries (Dorn, ibid.
6o n. 3), lead, sulphur, and coal-mines are found hereabouts, which
might explain the nickname 'Sirynx' (= Syrinx?) for a town whose
real name is now lost (Tarn, Bactria, I3 n. 6). See Pedech, REA,
1958, 8o-8I.
8. EV Tais xwaTplal XEAWVO.LS: cf. ix. 41. I n.
Tn<jlpoL .•• TPLTTat: a formidable fortification, parallel to that at
Euryalus above Syracuse (cf. A. W. Lawrence, JHS, I946, IOJ-S;
F. E. Winter, AJA, I963, 386; on the principles, Philo Mech. 84.47 ft.),
and evidently built by Greek engineers for the Parthians to stand
814173 R
X. JI. S ANTIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES
up to a Seleucid siege-train (Tarn, Bactria, 2o-2r). The ditches are
45 ft. wide and 22 ft. 6 in. deep.
xnpnKWiJ.C1Ta. OL'II'Aa: 'a double palisade'; cf. ix. 3· 2. Biittner-Wobst
transposed ~7TiKe:£To from after C£7TAii to avoid hiatus.
11. Tous ••• "EAAT}va.s KaTa.a+O.~a.vTES: Greek settlers living in the
Parthian town, but probably too few either to keep out the troops
or let in Antiochus--if they so wished (Tarn, Bactria, 2o).
12. 'Y11'Epj30.aav: otherwise unknown. The MSS. give V7TEpf3d.aav FD
and tnrEpf3a.a<tv S; if one accepts the former, the name is Hyperbasas,
not Hyperbasus (Shuckburgh) or Hyperbas (Paton).
13. TWv S£ 'II'EATa.aTwv: they appear to be mercenaries, but may not
be; on peltasts in P. see v. 65. r (ii) n.
14. ~XpLa.vt): not mentioned elsewhere. Tarn (Bactria, 444) can
make nothing of this place-name. Tomaschek (5.-B. Wien, 102, 188z,
227} observes that the canton of Jajarm, about 120 miles east of
Astrabad, is often mentioned by Arab geographers as Arghiyan,
and suggests that this is Achriane. The hypothesis is just possible;
it would justify placing this phrase from Stephanus here.
15. Ka.AALo'll'l1: Appian (Syr. 57) mentions it with Hecatompylus as
a foundation of Seleucus I in Parthia; it will have lain in Comisene
(Tscherikower, tor). The name was probably a nickname, like
Hecatompylus and Sirynx (Tarn, Bactria, 13, 346: the name connects
with worship of the muse in the city). Since Antiochus will have
passed Calliope before reaching Hecatompylus, this fragment should
fall between 27 and 28 (not before 27, as Pedech, REA, 1958, 74 n. r;
see above, p. IS)·
32. 1-33.7. The death of }.1arcellus

This fragment from F forms part of the res Italiae of Ol. 142, 4 =
209/8 B.C. The consuls for 2o8 were M. Claudius Marcellus (already
consul in 222, 215, 214, and 210; cf. ii. .34· Iff., viii. r. 7, .37· 2, fg. 9)
and T. Quinctius L.f. L.n. Crispin us (H. Gundel, RE, 'Quinctius (38)',
cols. ro3s-8}, who had served as praetor at Capua the previous year
(Livy, xxvli. 7· ro). Crispinus first undertook the siege of Locri (Livy,
xxvii. :a6. u), but soon left it to join Marcellus at Venusia, where
Hannibal faced him (Livy, xxvii. 26. 12-I4). The ambushing of the
consuls is described in Livy, xxvii. 26. 1-27. I I and, dependent on
him (Kahrstedt, iii. 304; contra, Klotz, Rh. Mus. 19.34, 314 ff.),
Plut. Marc. 29; Eutrop. iii. r6. 4; Oros. iv. r8. 6, 18. 8; Val. Max. i. 6. 9;
Sil. xv . .34.3 ff. Livy (xxvii. 27. 12-14) mentions three versions of the
event recorded in Coelius, one given in the laudatio delivered by his
son, another his own version and a third the traditional one (trad£ium
Jama). Appian, Hann. so, has an independent account. See also, for
passing references, Cic. Tusc. i. 89; Nep. Hann. 5· 3; Pliny, Nat. hi st.
THE DEATH OF MARCELLUS X. 32.6
xi. r89; Plut. F ab. 19. 5; Flam. 1. 4; comp. Pel. et Marc. 3 ; au ct. de uir.
ill. 45· 7; Zon. ix. 9· See also DeSanctis, iii. 2. 474 n. 49·
32. 1. ot u-rra.To~:Marcellus and Crispinus (see above).

Tel ••• KEK}uflEYa. flEpl} Tou AO~ou: Hannibal was facing the combined
camp at some point between Venusia and Bantia (Livy, xxvii. 25. IJ,
'inter Venusiam Bantiamque minus trium milium passuum interuallo
consules binis castris consederant'). Between the Roman and Punic
camps lay a tumulus siluestris, which neither side had occupied,
Hannibal having preferred to use it for an ambush (Livy, xxvii. 26. 7).
tAo.~ SUo: according to Livy (xxvii. 26. u; followed by Plut. Marc. 29.
s-{)) there were 220 cavalry, of whom 40 were from Fregellae, the
rest Etruscans. In Appian's divergent account (Hann. so) there are
300 cavalry.
ypoCT~Oflaxous .•• Els Tp~aKoYTa.: 'about thirty uelites together with
their lictors'; each consul would have twelve lictors. Schweighaeuser,
who includes the lictors in the thirty, probably wrongly, suggests
emending to Tpw.t<oalov>, since so few as thirty are not worth men-
tioning; but they will have formed an immediate bodyguard for the
consuls. No other source mentions the uelites, but Livy reports the
capture of four lictors (see§ s n.).
KO.TO.CTKE\jloflEYo~ Tous To-rrous: cf. Livy, xxvii. 27. 14, 'ita fama uariat
ut tamen plerique loci speculandi causa castris egressum ... tra-
dant'; but according to Appian (Hann. so) Marcellus rode out to
intercept some Numidian plunderers.
4. Tou CTKo-rrou KTA.: cf. Livy, xxvii. 27. J, 'speculator ... signum dat
ut ... exorerentur'.
Ka.T' aKpOY TOY ~OUYOY: in Livy (xxvii. 27. s) the consuls are trapped
in a valley.
5. TOY ~~~Y KAa.uo~oy EU0€ws ••• KO.TE~a.AoY: according to Livy, xxvii.
27. s-7. the consuls could have extricated themselves, had not the
Etruscans fled. The Fregellani fought on until both consuls were
wounded, and then made their escape carrying Crispinus and Mar-
cellus' son, who was also wounded, but leaving Marcellus 'transfixum
lancea prolabentem ex equo moribundum'.
K<ll nva.~ ETEpou~: according to Livy, xxvii. 27. 8, 'interfectus A.
Manlius tribunus militum, et ex duobus praefectis socium M.'
Aulius occisus (L.) Arrenius captus'. Five lictors were captured, the
rest were killed or escaped; of the cavalry forty-three perished and
eighteen were taken.
6. ~~:a.i. Tov utov ••• OLa.-rrE~EuyoTa.: the verb has evidently dropped
out, but the sense is clear; cf. Livy, xxvii. 27. ro, 'tumultuatum et
in castris fuerat, ut consulibus irent subsidio, cum consulem et filium
alterius consulis saucios exiguasque infelicis expeditionis reliquias
ad castra uenientes cernunt'. Marcellus' son was M. Claudius
243
X. 32.6 THE DEATH OF MARCELLUS
Marcellus, military tribune this year (Livy, xxvii. z6. I2) and consul
in Ig6 (cf. xviii. 42. I); see Munzer, RE, 'Claudius (zzz)', cols. 2755-8.
7. aKO.KWTEpov: 'more like a simpleton' {Paton).
8. 1t'oAAaK~S ••• 1Tt:pt Twv Toloi'!Twv: cf. 7 and the passages there
quoted on the importance of discretion a general.
9. Twv KaT&. 1-l-~poc; Kw51'1vwv: in contrast to the battle when all is at
stake; there the general must be prepared for disaster and, if it comes,
to perish rather than live on in disgrace (xi. z. 4-I I).
11. tv Ka.pt Tttv 1TE'ipa.v: a proverb {cf. Eur. Cyc. 654; Plato, E uthyd.
285 B; Laches, I87 B, with scholia) derived from the use of Carians
as mercenaries or, less probably, as slaves. See the explanations in
Corpus paroem. graec. i. 70-71, ii. 404-5 with references; von Scala,
283; \Vunderer, i. 25, III; and, for the early equivalence of 'Carian'
and 'mercenary' (d. Archilochus, fg. 24 Bergk), Launey, i. 451 and
Griffith, 236.
12. 'oliK Civ ~Ot-L-TJv' KTA.: cf. Polyaen. iii. 9· u, 'Iif>tKpaTTW inrol.a{Iwv
l¢'1 TO "Tls av 7}A'II'tat' TOiJT' ;at'a8at" ; 9· I 7' ov aTpa.T']ytKdV Td "OVK ~p:qv" ;
there seems to be some dependence on P. here (d. Wunderer, i.
84--85). See also Cic. off. i. 81.
33. 4. KaV '!TOTE 71'E011 TO. oAa.: 'in the event of complete defeat'. Here
and in the next section TVX'1 is little more than a figure of speech
(see Vol. I, p. I6}.
5. 1<a.e6.1Tep ev VTJL Tou Ku~epv.,;Tou: for the simile cf. iii. 81. I I, vi. 44· 3,
xi. 19. 3; von Scala, 101.
6. JLE~pa.K~wse~ ( 1Ta.pa.)cr'T'aae~: 'youthful excitement' ; F has fLapaKtwot
aTd.at. Buttner-Wobst's emendation (defended in J ahrb. 141, 1890, 837
n. 9) seems convincing; though aTa<Tet perhaps receives some support
from xvi. 34· II, Ka.Td Ti]v Jg d.pxfjs aTacnv, 'according to their original
resolve'; the phrase would then mean 'youthful obstinacy'.
33. 8. An incident from Hannibal's attack on Salapia (zo8)

By the use of Marcellus' signet Hannibal effected a treacherous entry
into Salapia, which had gone back to Rome in 210 (Livy, xxvi. 38.
6-r4; on its defection after Cannae see vii. r n.}; but, forewarned by
the consul, the people let in a sufficient number, mainly Latin-
speaking deserters, dropped the portcullis and dispatched them
(Livy, xxvii. :::8. 4-12). The same device was used at Xanthus against
M. Junius Brutus in 42 B.C. (App. B.C. iv. 78} and is already ad-
vocated in Aen. Tact. 39· 3-4. Suidas, s.v. tfLEpos records: tfLEpo> ath-ov
Elaij>.Be Sui:TTvpo> l8E'i:v MdpKe>J.ov vEKp6v, and Hultsch and Biittner-
Wobst suggest that this comes from a passage in P. omitted between
32. 6 and 32. 7· However, Livy follows his verdict on Marcellus'
rashness (Livy, xxvii. 27. n) by the burial of his body by Hannibal,
HA~NIBAL'S ATTACK ON SALAFIA X. 34· 2
and then by an account of the use of the ring to seal the false message
to Salapia; this order of events suggests that the fragment from
Suidas, if it is Polybian, falls between 33· i and 33· 8.
8. Ka.Ta.ppatcTa!) ••• &.V111Lil£vou!): cf. Livy, xxvii. z8. ro, 'earn (sc.
cataractam) partim uectibus leuant, partim funibus subducunt, in
tan tum altitudinis ut subire recti possent'. The sense of 6Atyov €tarrlpw
is not clear, unless the top of the portcullis rose above the gate.
Mauersberger s.v. Jew-rl.pw renders 'etwas auberhalb sc. -rofJ Tdxaus'
and compares Trpo -roiJ rdxovs (which seems irrelevant); and Paton's
version, 'which they had raised somewhat higher by mechanical
means', contradicts Livy, who suggests that the gate was not raised
to its full extent.
34-40. Consolidation in Spain: the battle of Baecula (2o8)

This fragment, from F, is from the res Hispaniae for Ol. I42, 4
209/8 B.C.; see above, p. IS· An account of the same events in Lhry,
xxvii. 17-20 is close to P., but has some details, especially for the
battle of Baecula {cf. I8. 2 f., the introductory skirmish; 18. 6 ff.,
Hasdrubal's dispositions; I8, ro, posting of the Roman cohorts;
18. 20, number of Carthaginian dead), not to be found in P. The pic-
ture is similar to that for the capture of :\ew Carthage (above, 2. r-
2o. 8 n.), and probably P. had access to the same sources, viz. Silenus,
Laelius, Scipio (if his account included more than the capture of
New Carthage), and perhaps Fabius. Livy will derive from P., prob-
ably via Coelius, who may also have utilized other sources, to which
the additional material in Livy (where it is not mere rhetorical
elaboration) will go back; that these sources included those of P.
himself, e.g. Silenus, is not to be excluded. See De Sanctis, iii. 2.
479 n. 59, 638-9; F. Friedersdorff, Livius et Polybius Scipionis rerum
scriptores (Gottingen, 1869), 20; Kahrstedt, iii. 200; Scullard, Scip.
Ioo-I n. I; Klotz, Livius, r8o--I. The coincidence between 34· I and
. Livy, xxvii. 17. 1 suggests that the present fragment opens at the
beginning of the res Hispaniae for 2o8.
34. 1. tca9a11'Ep ••• 5£5TJAWKa.jLEV: cf. 2o. 8, where Scipio approaches

Tarraco; the passage recording his wintering there (2o9j8) is lost.
2. Aa~wv cruvaywvr.cn~v €~e ,.a.,hotLO.Tou: 'by chance gaining the help';
this phrase seems to be behind Livy's odd remark about Edeco
(Livy, xxvii. q. 2): 'sed praeter earn causam (sc. the Roman capture
of his family) etiam uelut fortuita inclinatio animorum quae His-
paniam omnem auerterat ad Romanum a Punico imperio traxit
eum.'
•E8Etcwva. Tov 'E810Ta.vwv 8uv0.0'1'1'Jv: cf. 40. 3· The Edetani appear here
only as Schweighaeuser's emendation of F, -rov 8war6v 8vvticrrqv;
245
X. 34· 2 CONSOLIDATION IN SPAIN
this finds no support in Livy, xxvii. q. I, 'Edesco ad eum clams
inter duces Hispanos uenit', but may none the less be right (d.
Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 406 n. z), for the MS. reading is unconvincing and
avvaaT'l]S" asks for Some local qualification (cf. V. 4· 3, 34· 7, go. I,
X. 35· 6, xxi. II. 2 and other examples in Mauersberger s.v. ovvaaT'l]S").
The Edetani (d. Livy, xxviii. 31. 7, Sedetani) lived on the east coast
of Spain northwards from the Bastetani and the Oretani (cf. iii.
33· 9 n.), between the Sucro and the Ebro (Strabo, iii. 156, I62-3;
perhaps Mela, ii. 92 (d. Pliny, Nat. kist. iii. 2o); Ptol. ii. 6. IS; CIL, ii.
3786. See Hubner, RE, 'Edetani', cols. I938-g.
Tijs: a.uTijs: opJlijS:: there is much to be said for Schweighaeuser's
emendation TijS" allTWV opp.:ijs-.
4. S1a.~EtJ1EVWV Et'i TTJV 1TO.pO.XEIJ10.17LQV: these winter quarters were
not necessarily elsewhere than at Tarraco.
35. 3. TOu<; evTo<; "IPTJpos: 1ToTaJ1oO: cf. 7· 3 n.; 'north of the Ebro'.
5. ouS€v nVTL1TQAOV ••• KO.Ta 90.Aa.TTQV: on Scipio's naval superiority
see q. I3 n. The Carthaginians had no fleet in Spanish waters and at
New Carthage Scipio acquired materials intended for the construc-
tion of one (Livy, xxvi. 47· 9). See Thiel, I2o.
e1ri n1.s: 17TJJ10.La<; EJ1Ep1ae: thus increasing his army by perhaps 3,ooo-
4,ooo men (Kahrstedt, iii. 517 n. I).
6. J\vSoPnAT)'i s~ KQL MavSovlO'i: see ix. I I. 3 n., X. I8. 7-IS (the
womenfolk of these two princes in Scipio's hands). Livy, xxvii. q. 3,
also relates their defection, but more briefly.
Ka.8a1rep •.. ESTJAwaaJ1EV: in ix. 1 r. 4, where, however, only An do bales
is mentioned and only the daughters are mentioned as hostages;
see note there.
36. 1. w<; 1TAeovaKl'i ~11iv etpT)Tal: cf., for example, iii. 4· 5 on the
exploitation of success.
3. To VlKijaa.l ••• Tas: 'Pwlla(wv Suvci11uo;: in 211 ; cf. viii. 38 n.
TOl'i KO.Ta TTJV xwpav: the native population; cf. i. 72. J n.
5. of Sla.J1E[vavTEo; e1rl Twv auTwv 1rpoa1p€aewv: at first sight this clear
statement of P.'s view on how hegemony should be maintained
seems to rule out the view of Gelzer (Kl. Schr. ii. 64 ff.) that Diodorus
is following and echoing P. when he writes (Diod. xxxii. z) on OL
Tas ~y<p..ovlas- Tr<pmot~aaa8at f3ov>.op..<voL KTwVTaL JL~v a1has dvop<lq. Kat
UIJV~a€L, 7rpOS" avg1]UW 0~ p..<yaA1]V ayovaLV ~7rL€LKdq. Ka~ ,PLAav8pw7rLq.,
dmf»a>.l~ovmL o~ ,P6{3tp Ka~ KamTrl.-l}gn (cf. Diod. xxxii. 4). The examples
Diodorus quotes and his use of the verb da,Pa>.i~ovrat leave no doubt
that he (or his source) approves the dictum. In fact there is no
inconsistency, for the present passage is concerned with those whom
one is governing, whereas the doctrine envisaged in Diodorus is of
the sudden violent elimination of some state and all its population
246
THE BATTLE OF BAECULA X. 38.3
as a punishment and an example to others. That P. was prepared to
approve of this seems probable: see further on xxxvi. 9· 3-4. For the
thesis expounded here cf. Sall. Cat. 2. 4, 'nam imperium facile is
a.rtibus retinetur qui bus initio pa.rturn est'.
7. KaKws 'ITo~w(n ••• TWv U'ITOTETayJ1€vwv: as imperial states fre-
quently, but misguidedly do; cf. 6. J, 7· 3·
37. 2. T1)v avn:rrapaywy1)v ••• 'l!'po<; (ToO;) QAAOU') O"TpO.TTJYOU<;: cf.

ix. II. r-2 (quarrel before the fall of New Carthage).
3. i'll'( TWa<; hoy~af'oO<; ••• Tow•hou<;: P.'s account of Hasdrubal's
plan has been dismissed as pure surmise derived from pro-Scipionic
traditions. Kromayer-Veith (AS, iv. 514-15) argue that Hasdrubal
had to try to get through to Italy, victor or no; and De Sanctis
(iii. 2. 479 n. 59) sees a contradiction between Hasdrubal's recorded
decision to fight (§ 4) and the defensive position he took up (38. 8).
P.'s source is unknown; but his account is not unreasonable, for
Hasdrubal may well have intended to invade Italy in any event, but
to make the timing of his invasion tum on the result of the battle;
success would reverse the process of Spanish disaffection and give
a breathing-space for consolidation, whereas defeat must involve
an immediate departure (cf. Kahrstedt, iii. 517). DeSanctis's objec-
tion is also unsubstantial. As Scullard (Scip. ros n. r) observes,
'Hasdrubal wanted a fight, not a fiasco'. There was nothing incon-
sistent in adopting a strong defensive position in the face of superior
numbers (Kahrstedt, iii. srg, estimates Scipio's numbers at Js,ooo-
4o,ooo men compared with 25,000 in Hasdrubal's army) and hoping
that Scipio would accept the challenge. In view of P.'s reference to
the estrangement of the other two generals, DeSanctis's suggestion
that Hasdrubal was awaiting their arrival seems improbable.
4. Kliv •.• ~ TUX'!) Sii) To v~Kiiv: a purely verbal use of TVX1J; cf. Hercod,
101; above, Vol. I, p. 16.
6. 'l!'poaSE~Of1EVO<; r awv TCIV AaO..~ov: cf. 19. 8 n. for Laelius' journey
to Rome; he now returns to Spain in spring 208.
7. 'I!'QAQt ••• O~E'I!'E}l'I!'OVTO 'l!'pos TOV no'I!'ALOV: cf. 35· 7 for his desertion
of Hasdru bal.
Tch xpe£as Kat 71)v OATJV 'ITlO"TW: now a vail a blc to the Romans as they
bad been to the Carthaginians (§ 10).
38. 3. 'l!'poo-tflwVtJunVTwv ~au~A.ea.: Edeco had already done the same

(4o. J). On the significance of the salutation see 40. 2-9 n. ('l!'avrwv) is
added by Biittner-Wobst to avoid hiatus.
ol11iv 'l!'apovns t'I!'EO'TJJltlvavTo (To) pTJ9£v: 'those present applauded
their words'; cf. iii. III. 3, 'TTavrwv • •• TO p1JfN:v ('TTWTJfl-'lJvap..!vwv (which
is against taking l'TTtert}J1-aivEu8a~ here as 'to take note of', with Schweig-
baeuser). Since To p'rJ8€v refers chiefly to the salutation as king
247
X. 38.3 THE BATTLE OF BAECULA
(cf. 40. 3), ot 1rap6vus: are probably not Romans (so Schweighaeuser),
but the chieftains' Spanish retinue (Aymard, Retme du Nord, 1954,
az).
1181 no'l!'A~05 EVTPCI.'li'E(<;: 'Scipio, moved .. :; the word need not imply
embarrassment (so Aymard, Revue du Nord, 1954, rzz, 'rempli de
confusion') ; cf. xxxviii. ro. 6. It is only later that Scipio feels it
necessary to speak out; cf. 40. 3· TOT€ p.tv oov &vcmUTaTWS' aoT6v
1Tap€opap.£ To p1)8€v (not inconsistent with the present passage).
5. 'TO auv€xov TWV op.oAoyT)8EvTwv: 'the main clause of the agree-
ment' ; there will also have been a reference to furnishing supplies
(cf. Badian, rzo; contra T. Yoshimura, Historia, 490 n. 69).
6. aTPCI.TO'l!'&8Euaa.vTE<; op.ou TOL<; 'Pwp.a.lO~S: the Roman camp of P.'s
time made provision for allies; cf. vi. 30. 2, 32. 2. But this was not
invariably done, and to do it for the Spanish chieftains after the
disaster of the Scipios was a notable mark of confidence. See \V.
Fischer, Das romische Lager insbesondere nach Livius (Diss. Freiburg,
Leipzig, 1913), 64-65; Scullard, Scip. ro3 n. r.
7-8. The site of the battle of Baecula. According to Appian (Hisp. 24),
Hasdrubal after sending his two colleagues to raise new troops was
preparing to besiege a revolted town ls T~v Aep(]a y~v when Scipio
approached; whereupon Js BamJKTJV fmf!.XWPf!L. This adds nothing to
P. The exact sites of Castulo and Baecula are not easy to establish;
but it seems fairly certain that Castulo lay about 7 km. south of
Linares on the north bank of the Guadalimar, a tributary of the
Guadalquivir (Baetis), and that Baecula is the modem tov.'ll of
Bailcn, which lies about 15 km. north-west of Castulo (d. xi. 20. 5)
between the R. del Rumblar and the R. Guadiel (Scullard, Scip. 3oo-r).
The silver-mines were probably in the hills north of Bail6n 'near La
Carolina, the mining area of today' (Scullard, Scip. ro4) ; Kromayer-
Veith (AS, iv. 504) place them between Bailen and Linares on both
sides of the R. Guadiel.
Livy, after relating an attack on Hasdrubal's cavalry outposts by
Roman light-armed, which P. does not mention (Livy, xxvii. 18. 1-3),
describes a new position taken up at night by Ha...<;drubal (Livy, xxvii.
x8. 5-6) : 'in tumulum capias red pit plano campo in summo paten tern;
fluuius ab tergo, ante circaque uelut ripa praeceps oram eius omnem
cingebat. suberat et altera inferior summissa fastigio planities; earn
quoque altera crepida haud facilior in adscensum ambibat'. This
account agrees substantially with P.'s, but is somewhat fuller and
describes the defensive features of the site as stretching round to the
flanks, whereas P. speaks only of the front. Kromayer-Veith (AS, iv.
soz-r6), utilizing notes by Lammerer, who visited the terrain in
1921, suggest a site for both camps, Roman and Carthaginian, on the
assumption that Livy's account is merely a rhetorical elaboration of
P.'s, which can be neglected wherever it appears to supplement or
248
THE BATTLE OF BAECULA x. J8. 7-8
Site of '1
Ca•tulo ':'
9· THE BATTLE OF BAECULA

(From Scullard, Scipio Africanus in the Second Punic War, no)
modify P. (cf. DeSanctis, iii. 2. 479 n. 59). It seems more likely, how-
ever, that Livy has access (probably through Coelius) to a good
source-perhaps P.'s owu-and that his account merits considera-
tion (above, 34-40 n.). If that is so, the site which best fits the
terrain described in P. and Livy is that proposed by Scullard, Scip.
3oo-3, with sketch-map on p. no indicating his own proposed position
and Veith's; for the latter see also Kromayer-Veith, Schlachtenatlas,
Rom. Abt., 8. r, and for the district generally AS, iv. 502 (where,
however, Castulo should lie on the north side of the Guadalquivir).
According to this view, Hasdrubal had his camp on a plateau to the
east of Bailen, lying between the Arroyo de Canada Baeza and the
Arroyo de la Muela, a more substantial stream adequate as a water-
supply (photograph in Scullard, Scip. frontispiece); and Scipio's
camp will have lain south-east of this across the R. Guadiel, perhaps
in the neighbourhood of Tobaruela, which has a satisfactory water-
supply. Tobaruelais just over 3 km. south-west of Linares. Kromayer-
Veith's position is a little to the west of this, with Hasdrubal just
below the height of ] arosa between the Arroyo de Canada Baeza
249
X. 38. 7-8 THE BATTLE OF BAECL'LA
and the Arroyo del Matadero, and Scipio a little north of Jabal-
quinto, south of the R. Guadiel.
8. 1TU96jJt:vos ••• IJ-f:TEaTpaTom\SEucrE: according to Livy, xxvii. 18.
1-3, after an attack on Hasdrubal's cavalry outposts, which ended
in a victory for the Roman light-armed, who advanced almost to the
gates of the Punic camp. This incident seems credible, but even
without it Hasdrubal would have assumed his defensive position
(Scullard, Scip. ros n. r).
f:K jJEV TWV oma9Ev 1TOTO.jJOV O.crcpaA:T): not, as Kahrstedt (iii. sr8) sup-
poses, the Baetis, but the R. del Rumblar, which runs into the
Baetis west of Baih~n. The R. del Rumblar lies about 8 km. west of
Hasdrubal's position.
10. S1aywvuiaas 1-'TJ ••• 1TEp~crTwaLV: not necessarily with good rea-
son; and De Sanctis (iii. 2. 478) lacks grounds for his assertion that
Hasdrubal was deliberately postponing a battle until the arrival of
Mago and Hasdrubal son of Gisgo (cf. 37· 2, 37· 3 n.). Paton omits
the words 'Hasdrubal, son of'.
39. 1. Tous SE ypocrcpol-'6-xous ••• €~a.cp~(s: cf. Livy, xxvii. 18. ro,
'ipse expeditos ... ad leuem armaturam infimo stantem supercilia
ducit'; but it is clear from P. (§ 3) that Scipio did not take part in the
battle until a later stage. According to Livy (xxvii. 18. 10) he had
already dispatched two cohorts with instructions 'alteram tenere
fauces uallis per quam deferretur amnis ... , alteram uiam insidere
quae ab urbe per tumuli obliqua in agros ferret'. The river can
hardly be the Rumblar (so Veith, AS, iv. 512; contra Kromayer,
ibid. n. 2), but the Guadiel--probably about the point where the
road from Bailen to Malaga now crosses it (Scullard, Scip. 106).
The other detachment probably ascended the Guadiel valley to
intercept the road which ran off east from Bailen in the Linares
direction; but the exact line of this road is not known.
3. Tous ••• t:utwvous a1ravTas i1racpijKt:: the novel feature in Scipio's
tactics at Baecula is his placing of the light-armed in the centre,
and the use of the legionaries in two bodies to deliver the main
attack on the flank, an adaptation of Hannibal's tactics which failed
to achieve complete success because Hasdrubal was not sufficiently
involved all along the line to be unable to extricate himself (cf.
Scullard, Scip. 108-I2; Veith, AS, iii. 2. 685).
TOUS jJEV ,jJLO't:IS auTOS ~xwv, ••• TOUS S' TJjJlO't:LS Aa.LM~ Sous: cf.
Livy, xxvii. 18. 15, 'ceteras copias cum Laelio diuidit'. Scipio, ad-
vancing against the enemy's left, will have followed the Arroyo
de la Muela, Laelius, advancing against their right, the Arroyo de
Canada Baeza. Livy makes Scipio advance parte dextra and Laelius
ab laeua, thus reversing the commands, an error which might arise
from 'a careless reading of a Carthaginian source, from whose point
250
THE BATTLE OF BAECULA X. 39· 8
of view ... Scipio would be on the left and Laelius on the right'
(Scullard, Scip. roo n. r), but more probably springs from a careless
reading of P. by Livy or an intermediary who interpreted Kant To
Aatov TwP v-rrf.Pa;v,..[wv as 'to the left of the enemy' and lrrl ;a Segt.d fi.lp7J
-rwv -rro.\f.fJ.lwv as 'against the sections of the enemy to the right',
i.e. from the Roman standpoint. According to Livy the division of
the forces was effected on the field, and this may be correct (Scullard,
Scip. ro7 n. r).
6. Tous p.Ev a.im';'w 'll'poa'!f('lf-rovTa.s EK 1r"a.y£wv EcJloveuov: this, the MS.
reading, is defended by Schweighaeuser, who translates, 'alios, a
latere in ipsos impetum facientes, obtruncant'. But the situation
demands that it shall be the Carthaginians who are attacked on the
flank, since they are advancing to meet the Roman centre when
Scipio and Laelius catch them from the wings; cf. Livy, xxv:ii. r8. rs,
'ipse (sc. Scipio) ab laeua ... in transuersos hastes incurrit'. Clearly
(as Schweighaeuser sees) b< 71'.\aylwv must be taken with 1TpoiJ'1Tl'TT1"-
onaS' and not with ir$6vwov; cf. i. z2. 8, sr. 6. Hence the argument is
overwhelmingly in favour of Scaliger's emendation 7Tpo1J'1Tl-rrr01rns
(which both Paton and Shuckburgh translate, though Paton prints
1Tpocml71'rovraS'). The accusative may have crept in under the in-
fluence of 1Tap€fi.{3wVwnaS'.
7. ICO.'f'a TOUS E~ O.pxils s~a.Aoy~ap.ous: cf. 37· 5·
8. Aa.!)wv ••• -rO. Te xpt}p.a.Ta. Ka.l TO. 9TJp£a.: cf. Livy, xxvii. 19. r,
'Hasdrubal iam ante quam dimicaret pecunia rapta elephantisque
praemissis, quam plurimos poterat de fuga excipiens praeter Tagum
ad Pyrenaeum tendit'. This statement is not inconsistent with
P. and may derive from his original source; for clearly Hasdrubal
had envisaged the possibility of defeat (37· 5), and to send the cash
and elephants ahead in case he had to set off at once for Gaul would
be merely prudent. If this is so, Livy's reference to elephants in the
battle (Livy, xxvii. I8. r8-zo), which does not appear in P., is probably
from another, less reliable source (Veith, AS, iv. 513)-unless, which
is less likely, some of the elephants had been sent north and some
retained for the battle.
1ra.pG. Tov TO.yov noTa.p.ov: Hasdrubal evidently retreated north by
the Pass of Valdepeiias to reach the Tagus Valley a little south of
Madrid (cf. iii. 14. r n. for Hannibal's use of this route in reverse in zzo).
ws t'll't TG.s nupt}vT)s V'II'Ep!)oAO.s: presumably he crossed over from the
upper Tagus to the valleys first of the Douro, then of the upper Ebro,
and so through Navarra to the western end of the Pyrenees, if one
can trust App. Hisp. z8: -rrapil r6v {3ope,ov eDKEavdv r~v llup~VIJV €S'
raAdTas V1T€pl{3ru.Y€V. This implies the coastal route via !run or, if
{mep€{3awu is pressed, a pass slightly inland such as the Puerto de
Otsondo or the Puerto de Roncesvalles. The Gauls will be north of the
mountains.
X. 39· 9 THE BATTLE OF BAECULA
9. To ~v ••• E"'I'E0'9a.L ••. oux YJyEiTo <7U~~~pEw: P. does not discuss
the merits of Scipio's decision, which has been much debated by
modern historians (d. Brewitz, 64 f.; Kahrstedt, iii. 519; Veith, AS,
iv. 515-16; Scullard, Scip. II4-19); it was already an issue in Scipio's
own time, if we may accept the arguments of the critical speech
recorded in Livy, xxviii. 4o-42, especially 42. 14-15). That Hasdrubal
got away was clearly a strategic defeat for Scipio; but once it had
happened, it is hard to see any practical alternative to what he did
(Hallward, CAH, viii. 87--88).
T~ 8ElhEva.L Twv liXXwv <7Tpa.Tlwwv (Tl}v) li~o8ov: cf. 38. 10.
40. 1. Number of prisoners. P.'s figure of 12,000 (cf. Livy, xxvii. 19. z)
is probably exaggerated, if Hasdrubal's army was about 25,ooo
(Kahrstedt, iii. 519; Veith, AS, iv. 514); unless it included the popu-
lation of Baecula (so De Sanctis, iii. 2. 480 n.). Liv}r (xxvii. 18. 2o)
also mentions 8,ooo Carthaginian dead; this could be plausible only
as a combined figure for dead and prisoners from a Punic source
such as Silenus (Scullard, Scip. 108).
2. K«Tc Tovo; "'l'poELP"l~vouo; T6"11'ouo;: presumably the area where the
battle took place; those Spaniards north of the Ebro (35· 3) and
most others besides (35· 8) had already joined Scipio before the battle.
f:yxELpl~ovns .•• do; T~v ••• "'l't<7nv: cf. iii. I 5. 5 n. On deditio see
A. Piganiol, RIDA, 5, 1950, 339-47, who argues convincingly that
down to the end of the third century it carried no suggestion of
dishonour for those offering it.
2-9. Salutation of Scipio as king: d. 38. 3; Livy, xxvii. 19. 3-6. This
incident has been frequently discussed, most recently by A. Aymard
(Revue du Nord, 1954, 121-8), who points out that the salutation
may have had a different significance for the Spaniards, for Scipio,
and for P. Regarding the Spaniards and Scipio one is reduced to
surmise; but very probably the Spaniards either thought of Scipio
as a Roman king or recognized his paramount status in Spain by the
use of this word, while Scipio (as Livy adds from another but reliable
source) was embarrassed by a title so hated at Rome, and likely to
harm him in political life ('regium nomen alibi magnum, Romae in-
tolerabile esse'). It seems clear that P., who interprets the incident
against the background of Scipio's later career (§§ 7-9), took the
salutation to mean not 'king of Rome' or even 'king of the Spaniards',
but simply 'king' in the Hellenistic sense of a man with military,
moral, and intellectual qualities of a kingly character; and he con-
trasts this d~Jop.aala. (§ 6) with the real kingdom which Scipio might
have seized, but did not, in some other part of the world (§§ 7-9).
This interpretation would commend itself to the hellenized circle
of Aemilianus (Aymard, op. cit. 125); it was not necessarily that of
the aged Laelius who may have been Scipio's informant {Haywood, 38).
25:2
THE BATTLE OF BAECULA X. 40.7
3. 'TOTE ••• civEmi7'Ta1"ws aihov 1T«pEOpa.f'E ,.b pf19€v: cf. 38. 3 n.; P.
means that Scipio had not paid much attention to the significance
of the salutation (through he had been moved, €vrpa:rrElr;, by the
expression of regard).
4. Ets E1TLI7'Ta.aav ~ya.yE ••• TO yavoi'EVov: 'the incident led Scipio to
give some thought to it'; cf. ix. 22. 7, xiv. r a 1.
5. pa.alALKOS ••• AEyEa9a.L 1Ta.p0. 1TilaL: to Livy even this would give
offence: d. Livy, xxvii. 19. 5, 'regalem animum in se esse, si id in
hominis ingenio amplissimum ducerent, taciti iudicarent: uocis usur-
patione abstinerent'. Cf. Aymard, Revue du Nord, 1954, 123-4.
'l!'a.f>'llyyELAE aTpa.TTJYOV a.~Tbv '11'poatflwvEiv: cf. Livy, xxvi. rg. 4, 'sibi
maximum nomen imperatoris esse dixit quo se milites sui appellas-
sent'. This is per haps the earliest known exam pie ofthe acclaiming of a
general as imperator by his troops (the next being CIL, ii. 5041 (c. rgo
B.c.), in which L. Aemilius Paullus calls himself inpeirator); cf.
Mommsen, St.-R. i. r24 n. 5· P., it is true, says only that Scipio was
called arparYJyck, 'general' (cf. rg. 4); but he was not always awake
to Roman distinctions and in fact nowhere employs the later Greek
equivalent of imperator, ain-oKparwp, in that sense. Hence there
seems no reason to reject Livy's testimony here (cf. Aymard, Revue
du Nord, 1954, 124).
6. TtlS TUXfiS o.u-r~ auveKOpa.f'OUCMJS: cf. § 9: here P. contradicts his
usual thesis that Scipio's achievements were the result of prudence
and foresight (cf. 5· 8; Vol. I, p. 22 n. 4).
i'!l'( TE TGUT'JV •.• T~V OLaATJo/lV KO.l ~v ovo .... aa&av: 'to form this
estimate of him and give him this name'.
OPf'TJV Ka.t tflav-raata.v: 'this popular impulse and this show of dignity'
(Shuck burgh).
7. Tll 1TAeiaTa ••• ...,EpTJ -rijs ALPuTJs ••• t)yayE: rhetorical exaggera-
tion. Scipio's victory at Zama crushed Carthage, but did not subject
North Africa directly to Rome. Aymard (Revue dH Nord, 1954, 126)
argues that such 'ante-dating of the establishment of Roman power
in North Africa and Asia' is only possible after 146 or even 133, and
suggests that P. composed this passage after the earlier or even the
later of these dates. But P. was a political realist, and can well have
recognized that the wars against Hannibal and Antiochus made
Rome the political arbiter in Africa and Asia. Hence no conclusions
are to be drawn on the date of composition of this passage.
Twv ~LAa.Lvou ~w ....wv ••• 'Hpa.~<AEiwv 17'TTJAWV: cf. iii. 39· 2 n. ; the
Punic empire in Africa is there defined in the same terms.
Tous TflS !up&a.s ~a.alAEiS: the Seleucids. For this form of reference
cf. ii. 71. 4, iv. 2. 7, 48. 5, v. 34· 6, xxviii. 20. 6, and the non-Polybian
references quoted by Bikerman, lnstitzttions, 5 n. I. The plural is
rhetorical, for P. is thinking of Antiochus III, defeated at Magnesia
in 189. (On other ways of designating the Seleucid realm see Edson,
253
X. 4o. 7 THE BATTLE OF BAECULA
CP, 1958, 153-70). Africanus was legatus to his brother Lucius for
this campaign, but he was in effect its diplomatic and military
director, and only illness prevented his being present at Magnesia
(Livy, xxvii. I. 9-10, 37· 6-8).
To KaAALaTov Ka.t flEYLaTov flEpo~ Ttl~ otKOUflEVT)~: viz. Africa and
Asia.
Suva.aTELa.v ~a.aLALKTJV: in contrast to the mere name (§ 6). As Scul-
lard (Pol. 86) aptly observes, 'P. was a Greek, to whom the supreme
political temptation was tyranny, and matters may have appeared
slightly different in Roman eyes'.
9. ToaoGTov ~mepe9ETo flEya.AOIIIUXLCf: the tradition of his moderatio
is well established; cf. Sen. epist. 86. 1, egregiam moderationem pieta-
temque.
Tilv Ta.uTT)~ u(anv: 'his duty towards her'.
10. TOU~ "I~T)pa.~ ... &.ueAuae xwpt~ AUTpwv: cf. Livy, xxvii. 19. 2,
'Hispanos sine pretio omnes domum dimisit, Afros uendere quaes-
torem iussit'.
11. 8La T,V TWV T<l'ITWV eucpu(a.v: cf. Zon. ix. 8, €v r0 arparo7T€S~.p au-roD
Kpar~aac; iTT1)vA{aaro; and Dio, xvi. 57· 48, says that Scipio predicted
on Jv r0 (so Reimar, MS. -rfi) rwv TToAEfLLWV arparoTT~::Sn1aotro. That
Hasdrubal's position was stronger than Scipio's is a fact supporting
Scullard's proposed sites, since the position Veith assigns to Scipio
just below Jabalquinto is Ioo m. higher than Jarosa, where he places
Hasdrubal (Scullard, Scip. 303).
Tou~ Ka.Ta.AEL'ITOflEVou~ aTpa.TT)you~: cf. 39· 9· Livy (xxvii. 20. 3-8)
records a conference of the three Punic generals after Baecula, at
which it was decided that Hasdrubal son of Gisgo should take
over Mago's command and retire into Lusitania, while Mago re-
cruited mercenaries in the Balearic Islands. It is unlikely that
Hasdrubal had time for such a conference; cf. Scullard, Scip. II2.
Paton omits to translate mhJc; ... arpar1)ym)c;.
e~a.ueaTELAE Tou~ TT)pT)aovTa.~ Tov :A.aSpou~a.v: cf. Livy, xxvii. 20. 2,
'praesidio tantum ad insidendum Pyrenaeum misso'. Veith (AS, iv.
515-I6) condemns this as a weak half-measure: Scipio tried to
block the passes and failed. Kahrstedt (iii. 519) argues that Scipio
merely tried to harass his opponent, Brewitz (64 f.; cf. Scullard,
Scip. IIS-I6) that he was uncertain of Hasdrubal's goal, and so
merely instructed his troops to follow him, the words iTTt rae; im~::p{3oAa>
TWV Ilvp1)VULWV op€wv being merely P.'s formulation of the order as it
was actually carried out. Scipio probably guessed that Hasdrubal
was making for Gaul: what he could not know was by which pass. In
these circumstances his instructions may well have been: 'Follow
Hasdrubal as far as the Pyrenees, keep a close watch on him and
block his way if possible.' P. has recorded the first part of the instruc-
tions, Livy's source emphasizes the second; but the hope of blocking
254
THE BATTLE OF BAECULA X. 4r. 3
the way into Gaul with a detachment of this kind was always slight.
Hallward (CAH, viii. 88) speaks of 'detaching troops from the Roman
strongholds north of the Ebro' to block the eastern passes; this is
not in the sources.
12. &.vexwpT)aE ..• et~ T a.ppcl.tcwva.: according to Livy (xxvii. 20. 3)
he returned to Tarraco 'paucis post proelium factum ad Baeculam
diebus'. DeSanctis (iii. 2. 48o n. 6o) prefers Livy's version. But some
consolidation in the south was essential if the full advantages of the
victory were to be secured, and to return at once to Tarraco would
give small encouragement to the southern tribes. A firm decision as
between P. and Livy is perhaps not possible; but in favour of a
stay of some time is Scipio's adoption of Hasdrubal's camp (§ II)
for greater security and amenity.
41-47. Philip V gives aid to his allies: fire-signalling

In autumn 209 Philip had returned to Macedonia to repel Illyrian
and Dardanian attacks (Livy, xxvii. 32. 9-33. 3). Attalus, having
crossed over to Greece (Livy, xxvii. 30. rr), had wintered on Aegina
with P. Sulpicius (Livy, xxvii. 33· 4-5; Walbank, Philip, 92). From
Livy, xxviii. S· I-4, based on the passage of P. immediately preceding
the present fragment, it appears that in spring 208 Sulpicius and
At talus sailed over to Lemnos with a joint fleet of twenty-five Roman
and thirty-five Pergamene quinqueremes, and Philip came by sea to
Demetrias and fixed a day for the Macedonian army to assemble at
Larissa. Embassies from the various allies thronged to Demetrias.
See also Justin. xxix. 4· 7-Io.
41. 1. 11'CiaLV ~11'€tceLvTo Ka.Ta yilv: cf. Livy, xxviii. 5· 4, 'finitimosque

depopulabantur'. See Feyel, qr n. 2, against exaggeration by Flace-
liere (3oi) of the extent of the Aetolian attack.
l. Tov Ma.xa.v£8a.v: cf. Livy, xxviii. S· 5· Machanidas probably gained
power as ward of Lycurgus' infant son Pelops (d. Diod. xxvii. r;
Livy, xxxiv. 32. I; Wolters, Ath. Mitt. I897, I44 f.) after Lycurgus'
death, which was some time before winter 2II/Io (above, ix. 28-39 n.
ad fin.). His usurpation of the throne, though perhaps no different
in essence from Antigonus Doson's assumption of the Macedonian
kingship, caused him to be dubbed 'tyrant' (cf. xi. I3. 3, etc.; Plut.
Philop. Io. I; Paus. viii. so. 2). For a dedication by him to Eleusia
found in Sparta cf. Syll. 551. See Ehrenberg, RE, 'Machanidas',
cols. I42-3.
3. T)~£ouv <~xELv) TLva 11'povOLa.v Twv 11'0AEf1Lwv: so Bothius, Poly-
biana, 65; Hultsch, with Schweighaeuser, accepts Reiske's TTottEI:a8at
after TToAtEfL{wv. The sense is the same: 'they urged him to take pre-
cautions against the enemy'.
X. ·41'· 4 PHILIP V GIVES AID TO HIS ALLIES
4. Kal 1ro.p' 'H1rc;:~pw-rwv: implying that the Epirotes feared attack,
not that an attack had necessarily been made already. For the
theory that Epirus was covered by an agreement making her a de
facto neutral in this war see ix. 38. 5 n.; any such agreement was
perhaps negotiated after this date.
l:K€plh.ho.t5o.v Kat n>.Eupo:rov: Pleuratus is Scerdilaidas' son (Livy.
xxxi. 28. 1) and first appears beside his father in the Roman-Aetolian
treaty of 211 {Livy, xxvi. 24. 9, d. xxvii. 30, 13; above, ix. 28-39 n.).
Scerdilaidas probably made him joint ruler after Pinnes' death; but
App. Ill. 8 is chronologically so confused on the date of Demetrius'
death that it cannot be used as evidence that Pinnes survived him
(so Lenschau, RE, 'Pleuratos (2)', cols. 237--8). The dates of both
Pinnes' death and Pleuratus' elevation thus remain uncertain; but
the latter was probably not long before 2n.
TOU9 ••• ep~Ka.s, KO.t J.'aA~aTO. TOU9 Mo.LSous: cf. Livy, xxviii. 5· 7·
According to Strabo (vii. 331, fg. 36), the Maedi inhabited the
Strymon valley; but they probably stretched westward to include
the Bregalnitza too (cf. Lenk, RE, 'Thrake', col. 434; 'Maidoi', col.
541 ). Immediately after the Roman-Aetolian treaty the Romans had
attacked them (Livy, xxvi. 25. 6 ff.) and taken their main town
Iamphorynna (d. ix. 45· J n.).
5. 1rpoKo.TEAafl~o.vov ••• ,.a, mpl9£pfLom}.ho.s anvO. •.. AhwAol: cf.
Livy, xxviii. 5· 8. On this fortification see Bequignon, 47-48. Philip
soon afterwards expelled the Aetolians and drove them into Heraclea
(Livy, xxviii. 7. 3).
6. Ko.TO. ,.a.s ( TE +ux~~<fis opflO.s Ko.l. ,.O.s) awflO.TL~<tts Suvai:L"~S: for this
supplement which goes back essentially to Reiske and Casaubon
cf. vi, 52. ro, viii. ro. 9·
7. ~v To.is Kuv'ly£a(o.ts: P. frequently mentions this sport, which
interested him (cf. xxxi. 14. 3, 29. 8); see von Scala, 24-25.
42. 1. lh6.po.vTO.S KO.l '11'pOaOpf1T)cro.vTO.S Tfl n£'11'0.pT)9<tJ: i.e. from Lem-

nos, as Livy (xxviii. 5· Io) states: see above, 41-47 n. Peparethos lies
slightly north-east of Euboea in the group of 'islands off Magnesia'
(Strabo, ix. 437). Like Thessaly it was under Philip's control at thi'i
time.
TOuTms flhs: the Peparethians; cf. Livy, xxviii. S· 1o.
2. ds S£ ~wK€as ••• no.Au<j>l.vTav: cf. Livy, xxviii. 5· ll, 'Poly-
phantam cum modica manu in Boeotiam ... mittit'. As Feyel has
seen (152 n. 3, 171), only the Boeotians appealed to Philip as clearly
independent allies. Phocis he already controlled (cf. v. 26. r n.), and
§ 7 suggests that Polyphantas (like Alexander in v. 96. 4) was th('
Macedonian officer in charge of Phocis, and that he was instructed
to help Boeotia if necessary; cf. Bengtson, Strat. ii. 364-5. On Euboea
see § 7 n. On his return to Macedonia in autumn 209 (Livy, xxvii.
256
PHILIP GIVES ATD TO HIS ALLIES X. •P· i
32. 9~33. 3) Philip had left z,soo men 'cum l'vlenippo et Polyphanta
ducibus ad praesidium sociorum' in the Peloponnese.
ct~ s~ Xo.AKtOo. I<O.l ToftV O.AATJV E()J3oLa.V M~wmrov: cf. Livy, xxviii.
5· n, 'Menippum item quendam ex regiis ducibus cum mille peltatis
•.. Chalcidem mittit'. Philip had other commanders in Euboea, such
as Plator (probably the Illyrian mercenary officer mentioned in iv.
55· z) who betrayed Oreus to the Romans (Livy, xxviii. 6. r-7; d.
Bengtson, RE, 'Plator (r)', cols. 2544-5); but the terms of Menippus'
appointment suggest that he was in general charge of Euboea, at
least in the south and centre (d. Schoch, RE, 'Menippos (5)', col.
86r), despite Bengtson's doubts (Strat. ii. 331 n. 4); see below,§ 7 n.
)\ypuivo.i 1TEVTa.~<ocr~ou~: on these troops, often used with peltasts,
see ii. 65. :2 n. For Alexander's similar use of them along with
hypaspists see Arrian, ii. 29. 7, iv. 3· z, v. IJ. 4· Livy, xxviii. 5· 12,
assumes that they were sent 'ut omnes insulae partes tueri posset'.
An inscription in the museum at Eretria (IG, xii, Suppl. 629), dated
by Hiller von Gaertringen to the second century, seems to com-
memorate one of these Agrianians in Euboea; cf. Launey, i. 406 n. 5
(who proposes to emend the second line of the inscription to read
l4pxias l:J<cuoiJ (printed text, l:J<a.tO:;) ityptav).
3. EL~ I~<oToucro.v: a town in Pelasgiotis, often spelt 1:K6-rovaua.. It
lay on the west slopes of Karadagh north of Pharsalus; see below,
XVUL 20. 2 n.
Toi'i Mo.~<t:OOcrw ••• 1Ta.p-r]yyeLAEV li1Ta.VT<iv: a convenient meeting
point as they marched south from Larissa (41-47 n.).
4. ~~ N£Ko.Lo.v KO.T0.1TE1TAI!uK4Evo.L: 'had put in at Nicaea' (not 'had
sailed back .. .' (Paton); Shuckburgh is correct); cf. Livy, xxviii.
5· r8. Nicaea (cf. xviii. r. 5, 7· 7) was a Locrian harbour on the
Malian Gulf near Thermopylae; its site is not known (see Oldfather,
RE, 'Nikaia (5)', cols. 222-6, who places it north-east of Alponus
and north-west of Scarpheia, near modern Hagia Triada; cf. Didym.
in Dem. Phil. n).
TWV s· AtT(I)AWV TO~~ lipxoVTa.s ••• O.OpoLtecr6o.l: Livy, xxviii. 5· IJ
mistranslates: 'concilium Aetolis Heracleam in dictum'. The meaning
of d.pxoVT£,; is ambiguous. At iv. 26. 5 and xxi. 4· 7, where P. uses it
in reference to Aetolia, Flaceliere (45) assumes him to mean the
chr6~<A7JTot, an inner committee chosen from the synedrion. This is
possible (cf. xxi. 4· 7 with xxi. 5· z); but there are several Aetolian
magistrates who could be indicated, even if the apocleti acted along
with them, viz. the general, the hipparch, the secretary of the
Aetolians (ypo.p.p.a-r~O> nZw Al-rwAwv), and the secretary of the council
(ypa.p.p.o.TEV> -rwv avvl8pwv; cf. IG, ix 2 • I. 69; Flaceliere, 43 n. 2;
Aymard, Melanges Iorga, 71-ro8; Larsen, TAPA, 1952, u n. 19),
besides seven Tap..ia.l. See xxi. 32. ron.; Busolt-Swoboda, ii. I5Z4-JI.
'Hp<i~<AE~o.v: Heraclea in Trachis lay c. 7 miles from Lamia on the
81U73 s 257
X. 42.4 PHILIP V GIVES AID TO HIS ALLIES
slopes of Oeta (Livy, xxxvi. 22. s-Io, 25. 2); on its situation see
Bequignon, 243-54.
TTJV uuvo8ov O.UTWV: the meeting of the apxovrE<;: see Larsen, 78 n. 20;
TAPA, I952, I9.
5. Tov Atvuiva. KoA:rrov: cf. Steph. Byz. 51. I3 (s. v. Alvta), AlvtaK<k
K6A1ros; the usual name was the Malian Gulf. See Dittenberger,
Hermes, I907, r67 ff.
6. J.LETn Twv Eutwvwv Ka.i. Tfjs ,13a.uLALKfjs 'L"-11s: for such a royal squad-
ron in Antiochus III's army cf. v. 84. I n. Livy, xxviii. 5· IS renders
inaccurately with colwrs regia (evidently including the light-armed).
ELs AT)I1T)TpLa8a. Ka.TaAuua.s E!lEVE: 'he halted and remained at De-
metrias' (Paton).
7. To us t1T~ Tfjs 41wK[8os ••• Tous €1Tt Tfjs Eu~o[a.s: the Macedonian
authorities in Phocis and Euboea (Feyel, 152), in particular Poly-
phantas and Menippus. The commanders were sent to Euboea at
the inhabitants' request (41. 3); but Phociswasalreadyunder Philip's
control (§ 2 n.) and it seems probable that if Euboea was still in-
dependent (which is uncertain), it fell into subjection from now on.
Like Phocis and Epicnemidian Locris, which Philip perhaps took
from Aetolia this year, 208 (cf. Klaffenbach, Klio, I926, 82; \Val-
bank, Philip, 96 n. 3; contra, Flaceliere, 308 n. I) and held until
I98 (Livy, xxxii. 36. 9), Euboea does not figure in the treaty of
Phoenice (Livy, xxix. I2. I4), and like these two states it is specifically
liberated in the Isthmus declaration of Ig6 (xviii. 46. s).
OLci Twv 1Tupuwv: the earliest reference to fire-signalling links with
the accidental fire which broke out on Myconos in 489 and encouraged
the Parians to break off negotiations with Miltiadcs (Ephorus, FGH,
70 F 63). The Greeks used simple fire-signals during the Persian
(Herod. vii. I83. I, ix. 3· I) and Peloponnesian (Thuc. ii. 94· I, iii.
22. 7, So. 2, iv. 111. 2) wars; and Aeschylus (A gam. 28o-3I4) imagines
the fall of Troy reported by a series of beacon fires.
To T(ua.Lov: modern Mt. Bardhzogia {I30 m.), opposite Artemisium in
the southernmost part of the :Magnesian peninsula, where it runs
east and west. Alexander of Pherae had made it the main point of
a fire-signalling system (Polyaen. vi. 2. I). See Leake, NG, iv. 396 f.;
Bursian, i. Ioo; \Vace, ]HS, Igo6, 148-9 (putting it further east on the
main peninsula between Lavkos andPlatania, just above C. Sepias);
Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 55; RE, 'Tisaion', col. I467. It is odd that P.
reckons it part of Thessaly rather than of Magnesia.
1Tpos Tcis ..• 1TEpLci>aaELS: 'to afford an open view'.
Philip's remaining campaigns of 208. These are described in Livy,

xxviii. 5· r8-8. 14 from P. They included the loss and recovery of
Oreus (cf. xi. 5· 8 n.), and a sudden attack on Attalus at Opus from
which he barely escaped whole (xi. 7· I, which should follow x. 47).
258
FIRE-SIGNALLING X. 44· 2
Philip then campaigned against Aetolian possessions and allies
around Doris, and perhaps gained possession of all Epicnemidian
Locris (§ 7 n.). After the Olympic games he helped the Achaeans by
raids on Aetolia across the Corinthian Gulf; the rest of the season
was occupied against the Dardanians. Sulpicius probably took
Dyme this year (Livy, xxxii. 21. 28, 22. IO; Paus. vii. 17. s). See in
general Walbank, Philip, 94-98.
43. 1. O.vepyuo-Tou 'ITj>OTEpov .:nrO.pxovTos: either 'which was formerly

undeveloped' (Paton, Mauersberger), or 'which has never before
been clearly expounded' (Schweighaeuser, Shuckburgh, LSJ). Both
meanings are satisfactory, but 45· 6, -rvxwv S£ Tfi> ifepyaatas S£ ~p.wv,
favours the former.
2. 0 JCa.,pos ••• IJ.EYUAf]V EX£' JLEp(Sa.: cf. ix. rs. r n.
3. ApT' <yap) Ta JLEV y~yov£: perhaps the easiest filling of a lacuna
detected by Reiske.
6. E'SEl TTJV Xp£La.v uuVTEAE'i:v: 'the service had to be performed', not
'should have been performed' (Paton).
otov h' a.uTwv Twv vuv Etpl')I'Evwv: 'as in the case just referred to',
9. Tfjs Ek Tou JCa.lpou auJL~ouAra.s: cf. ii. 24. 5 n.; 'immediate counsel'.
S"tfluye TTJV Twv 'ITupawv XPE(a.v: 'were beyond the competence of the
fire-signals to convey' (Shuckburgh).
10. uuv9fll'a. 'ITOltlaa.a9a.L: 'to give a preconcerted signal'; Thuc. iv.
112. r similarly uses ful'flrwa of a beacon-fire.
44. 1. AtVE~a.s: author of the treatise now entitled 7T€pt Toii mu> XPfi
rroil.topKovp./.vov;; av·Tixw' {the :\iS. Alil.t&vov is an evident error for
Alve[ov). Internal evidence suggests that Aeneas \\<Tote in the fourth
century before 36o, but his personal history is unknown: he may, as
Casaubon thought, be the Aeneas of Stymphalus who was general
of the Arcadian Confederation and expelled Euphron, the tyrant of
Sicyon, in 367 (Xen. Hell. vii. 3· r). The .}IS. title may also be incorrect,
for Aeneas mentions several of his own works under shorter titles;
these, referred to here as -ra rrf'p1 Twv O"Tpanlyt~<Cw Drrop.v~p.a'Ta,
'treatises on military science', dealt with such themes as military
preparations, war-finance, encampments, and plots. The military
handbook on the defence of fortified positions, which survives,
mentions signal fires in several places (4. 2, 6. 7, i· 4, 15. r, 16. 16)
and in 7. 4 Aeneas states that the subject is treated at greater length
lv rfj rrapaaJ<wacrnKip {J[fJil.'f!, from which the method here described
by P. is probably taken. See the Illinois Greek Club, Aeneas Tacticus
(London, 1923), introduction; E. Schwartz, RE, 'Aeneias (3)', cols.
IOI9-2I.
To Ka.Ta TTJV E1T1vo,a.v: 'his invective'.
l. Tp,wv 1Tl)XWV: 'three cubits', i.e. about 4! ft.
259
X. 44· 3 PHILIP V GIVES AID TO HIS ALLIES
3. cp~>AAou5: 'corks'.
ic:ra. JlfPT! Tptli6.KTu:\a.: 'equal parts two and a quarter inches wide'.
The cubit was divided into 24 80.Kn/>.o~.
1r£jnypa.cpijv £ilC71]JlOV: 'a clear dividing line'.
6. Tn 116.:\tc:rT' li.v ••• wpovo(a.s Tuyx6.vovTa. KTA.: 'the chief contin-
gencies of which at present there is a reasonable probability in time
of war'.
7. Tous a.uMc:rKous: 'the outflow pipes'.
9. KO.Ta T«)v X£LPLc:rJlOV: 'by experiment' (Paton).
10. ol c:ruvTETa.yllevot: 'those who have been ordered'.
45. 1. ~pa.xu JlEV TL ••• €;1\:\:\a.x~ov: 'is a slight advance on' (Paton).
4. uuv9ec:r9a.t wpo Tou: 'to make a previous arrangement'.
6. litO. KAeo;€vou Ka.t .t\T\IlOKAE,Tou: beyond a reference in Suidas (de-
rived from P.) nothing is known of these writers. Hultsch, RE,
'Demokleitos', col. 132, plausibly suggests that their date will not
much precede P.'s, and so dates them to the early second century.
8t' "f\11wv: when P. contributed to this technique is not known; but
Schulten's connexion of it with the siege of Numantia (App. Hisp.
90; CAH, viii. 322) would imply that this passage was a late inser-
tion, and of this there is no evidence.
(w6.VTT\ w6.vTws) ••• wptc:rJlEVos: for Biittner-Wobst's convincing sug-
gestion cf. iv. 40. 5·
Ka.Ta ••• Tov xnptuJlov: cf. 44· 9 n. Here 'in practice'.
7. To Twv c:rTOtXE~wv wA1]6os: 'the alphabet'.
8. wAa.ni:a. •.• wevn: 'five tablets' (cf. vi. 34· 8).
yp6.\jla.t Twv JlEpwv £s1]5 KTA.: 'write one of the sections on each
tablet in turn'. The grouping will be:
Tablets
I 2 3 4 5
t >. ~
r
(1, TT
Place :2. fJ 'II jL p X

on 3· y (J v u !{;
tablet 4· s g 7' w
5· € I( 0 v
46. 1. 8tow-rpa.v ••• M' a.uMc:rKous ixouc:ra.v: 'a telescope v:ith two
tubes'. This concentrated the vision on the desired point, without of
course magnifying. On the s~61TTpa see ix. r9. 9 n.
wa.pa.w£cpp6.x8a.l: 'screened off'.
47. 1. litTTns .•• Tns wupc:r£la.5: 'a double signal', i.e. one on the
left followed by a second on the right.
3. -rous X£~pt~ovTa.s: 'the operators'.
260
FIRE-SIGNALLING
6. TO YLVO!J.EVOV ivl. Tll~ ava.yvwcrew~: for the adducing of reading
as an analogy in argument cf. Plato, Rep. ii. 368 D, iii. 402 A-B (use
of large and small letters); Dion. Hal. de comp. uerb. zs; de Dem. ui
in dicendo, 52.
8. Ta~ oljlns ... Ta~ SuvaJ.lEL~: 'the visual impression ... the sound
value' of each letter.
Tas vpos aAATJAa. CFUJ.l1TAOKas: 'their combinations with each other''
i.e. either the combination of sound value and visual appearance of
each letter, or the combination of different letters.
9. U1TO TTjv ava.1TVoTjv .•. auveipov: 'reeling off five or seven lines in
a single breath'.
10. TTjv um1KpLcrLv Ka.l. Tas liLa.Lp~crELs: 'delivery and proper spacing of
words'.
Sa.cruTTJTas Kal. lj!LAOTTJTa.s: 'the presence or absence of aspiration'.
11. 1rpocra.KT~ov Se Tijv lf~Lv: for P .'s confidence in the virtues of
practice (€g,.,) cf. Diog. Laert. vi. 71 giving the view of the cynic
Diogenes : ov<'Uv YE f.L'?" D•.:ye T6 1Tap6:rrav lv To/ {3{cp xwp~s auK~UEWS'
KaTop8ouu8m, SvvaTi,v S€ TaiJT!Jv 1riiv EKVLKijaat. See von Scala, 5 n.
12, Ka.Ta Tijv i~ apxfls £1TayyEALa.v: i.e. ix. 2. s. where P. writes
Ef.L1T.:tp{at Kat TE'X"a' in place of 8.:wp~f.LaTa. P. refers here to the be-
ginning of this Olympiad, not (as Paton) to the beginning of his
work.
[xi. 7· r, on Attalus' escape from Philip, should be placed here; see
commentary ad loc.J
48. The River Oxus

As part of the res Asiae for 01. r42, 4 = 209/8 (above, p. 16) this
account of the Oxus must refer to Antiochus III's campaigns. The
fighting in Hyrcania (31. 5-13) apparently ended in Antiochus' vic-
tory and an alliance with Arsaces; cf. Iustin. xli. 5· 7, 'Arsaces ...
mira uirtute pugnauit; ad postremum in societatem eius (sc. An-
tiochi) adsumptus est'. Antioch us then marched east towards Bac-
tria, and P. evidently prefaced his account of his campaigns there
with a description of some of the peoples and geographical features
of the lands east of Hyrcania. It is to this that 48 belongs. P.'s
source is unknown; but some of the traditions behind it can be
identified.
48. 1. ot ... )\1TacrLaKal: probably identical with the Paesicae (Mela,

iii. 42) or Pascae (Ptol. vi. 12. 4), a Scythian people living on the
north shore of the lower Oxus, where it met the Caspian (see below).
They were probably Sacas; Tomaschek (5.-B. Wien, 102, 1882, 218;
RE, 'Apasiakai', col. 267o) suggests that their name was Apa--;aka,
'Water-sacas'; cf. Tarn, Bactria, 91 n. 2. According to Step. Byz.
THE RIVER OXUS
s.v . .M?TaO',c{Ka,, P. said they were an eBvo<; of the Massagetae.
Strabo (xi. 513) records that Arsaces I of Parthia, who had seized
Hyrcania during the War of the Brothers, was at first expelled and
found refuge ·.vith the Apasiacae; this was in z28/7 (Tarn, CAH, vii.
722). But he soon asserted his possession of both Parthia and
Hyrcania (Iustin. xli. 4· 6-IO).
avO. jlEO'OV "Osou Kat T nva~6os: these rivers are best discussed
separately.
(a) Oxus: the Amu-darya, which today flows into the Aral Sea.
A strong ancient tradition brings at least one branch into the Cas-
pian. Of this the source of Strabo, xi. 512 f. (probably Hecataeus;
d. A. Herrmann, Gott. Abh. 1914, 4, 14 ff.; RE, 'Oxos', cols. 2007-8,
note) will be the earliest example, if indeed the Araxes here men-
tioned is the Oxus; one mouth is said to reach the Hyrcanian sea,
i.e. the Caspian. Herodotus (i. :w8·-rr) also mentions an Araxes
flowing into the Caspian, but he seems to confuse the Armenian
Araxes with the Oxus; Aristotle's Araxes (Meteor. i. 13. 350 a) is
probably the Oxus, though he does not say what it ran into. Probably
according to Aristobulus (Arr. iii. zg. 2), the Oxus flowed ts T~v
!Leyai\-'lv 8d).aTmv rT]v Ka.B· 'YpKa.vlav; and Strabo (xi. 509) says that
he records, on the authority of Patrocles, Seleucus Nicator's admiral,
who sailed the shores of the Caspian, that there was a regular trade
route from India via the Oxus, the Hyrcanian Sea, and Albania to
the Euxine. Both Ptolemy (vi. u-12) and Mela (iii. 42) bring the
Oxus into the Caspian. The earliest writer to describe it as flowing
solely into the Aral Sea (Oxia palus) is Ammianus (xxiii. 6. 59) ;
though Hecataeus (Strabo, xi. 512 f.), Herodotus, and Aristotle all
describe other branches of the Araxes which appear not to flow into
the Caspian. The truth of this tradition bringing waters of the Oxus
into the Caspian has been much debated; but recent investigation of
the geography by W. Obrutschev (summarized in Peterm. Mitt.
1914, I. 87-88) and Feodorovitch, who led the Karakum Expedition
in 192Bfg--conveniently summarized by A. Herrmann, RE, 'Oxos',
cols. zoro-13, with map-suggests that in classical times a branch
ran from the dried-up bed of the Kalif-Uzboi along the Ungus de-
pression north-west to join the Sarg Kamish depression, and thence
flowed westward along the Uzboi, to meet the Caspian at Balkan
Bay, just south of Krasnovodsk. Tarn (Bactria, 488-93) attacks this
theory, assuming that Patrocles confused the Oxus and the Atrek,
which does run into the Caspian (and ignoring the references to the
Araxes); he has since (Alex. ii. 5-15) suggested that in Alexander's
time the Sea of Aral was known and that Polycleitus, a minor his-
torian accompanying Alexander, who argued for the identity of the
Caspian and the .Maeotid Lake (Strabo, xi. sog-1o), was in fact calling
the Sea of Aral the Caspian. This argument is far from convincing;
26z
THE HIVER OX US X. 48.4
for some pertinent criticisms see L. C. Pearson, CQ, 1951, 8o-84.
But Tarn is right when he says that the question whether the Oxus
(or a branch of it) once ran into the Caspian is one to be settled
only by science. On present evidence probability seems strongly to
favour the view that it did. For various suggestions see Thomson,
127-9· In any case, P. follows the normal ancient view.
(b) Ta·nais: normally the Don, which was reckoned as the boun-
dary between Europe and Asia (iii. 37· z-8 n.; xxxiv. i· 10). If this
were so here, the Apasiacae would live around the northern shores
of the Caspian through Kazakhstan to the Don. But in Alexander's
time the Jaxartes (Syr-darya) was confused with the Tanais (quite
independently of Strabo's assertion, xi. sog-ro, that flatterers de-
liberately promoted the confusion so as to suggest that Alexander
had reached the north-east botmdaries of Europe), and this confusion
has probably played a part here, despite the fact that P. makes his
Tanais issue in the Maeotis and not (as Strabo, xi. sro, sr8, and
Arrian, iii. 30. 7~8, vii. r6. 3) in the Caspian. See Herrmann, RE,
'Iaxartes', cols. II83-4·
i~e6:n:poL ... '!I'Aw·mi: today the Oxus is navigable as far as the
mountains at Patta-hissar, 90 km. above Kalif. In ancient times,
when perhaps more water fed it, the same was apparently true of the
branch running into the Caspian. This is confirmed by the reference
to a trade-route from India mentioned on the authority of Aristo-
bulus, Eratosthenes and ultimately Patrocles by Strabo (ii. 73, xi.
509); cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. 52 (based on Varro). The Don, w-ith
which P. confuses the Iaxartes, is navigable into its lower stretches.
3. Mo MyoL: their source is unknown, but the first (about the
waterfall} recalls one told {nra E-1!8&eov (of Cnidus) Kai .L\.\wv (Strabo,
xi. 510; cf. Mela, iii. 5· 40): in Hyrcania rivers flow over cliffs into the
sea w-ith such violence that they leave an area on the shore where
armies can pass, or natives bask at their ease, enjoying the sea, the
waterfall and the shore. P. knows of Eudoxus (d. xxxiv. I. 3), who
may be his source here {cf. 523) ; but there is no certainty
about this and Pectech, Methode, s68-7o, suggests that here (and in
v. 44· 3-u, ix. 43 and x. 27. 4-13) the source is Callisthenes.
4. EK TOU Ka.uK6.aou: d. Arr. iii. zg. z, lK Tov tfpov~ TofJ KaVJcacrov;
Ptolemy (vi. 18. r) puts the source in the Paropamisus, Aristotle
(Meteor. i. 13. 350 A) in Parnassus, but these must all be variants for
the Pamir or Hindu Kush. The Pyandzh, the upper stream of the
Oxus, in fact rises in the Pamir. For the extension of the meaning of
Caucasus to include the Hindu Kush and western Himalayas cf.
xi. 34· I I ; Arr. v. 3· z f.; Curt. vii. 3· 19, viii. 9· 3; Strabo, xi. 505 f.,
sn, xv. 688 f.; Justin. xii. 5· 9; Diod. xvii. 83. I; Herrmann, RE,
'KavKaao~ (3)', cols. 6o-6r.
e'll't 'll'oAU 8' a.u€'1J9Et~ ev Tfi Ba.~eTpLavft: true as far downstream as
263
X. f8. 4 THE RIVER OXUS
Kalif, where the river enters the Turanian plain; below, there are no
more tributaries (Herrmann, RE, 'Oxos', col. 2010 ). Bactria is the area
around the Oxus, including southern Sogdiana on its left bank (cf.
Tomaschek, RE, 'Baktriane', col. 28o5). For the form BaKrpufvTJ cf.
49· IS; Tarn, Bactria, 444-5, apparently overlooks this when he
asserts that Bactriane is a mistake made by 'writers of the Roman
empire' for Badria. It constitutes a further argument against his
theory about eparchies (cf. v. 46. 7 n.}.
5. E1T( TLVaS 1TETpas a1Toppwyas: this, if anywhere, would be in the
depression of Ungus and Uzboi rather than in the present bed of
the Oxus; and Obrutschev discovered two dry waterfalls in the
Sary Kamish and Uzboi channels, one at lgdy 3 to 5 metres high.
But this is obviously too small for P.'s waterfall; and in any case
P. regards the story as improbable (§ 3. 7Tapci.So~os, ov p,1}v d.Svvaros).
See Tarn, Bactria, 491; Herrmann, RE, 'Oxos', cols. 2014-15.
e€w9E~ TO pEUJJ-a ••• TWV U1TEpKElJJ-EVWV T01TWV E1TL TOO'OUTOV: 'it pro-
jects its stream ... so far from the point above'.
WaTE ••• TTJV KaTacflopO.v auTou: 'that in its fall it takes a leap of
more than a stade away from the rock at the lower level'.
7. Tou U1TOKELJJ-EVou To1rou: 'the spot at the foot (of the waterfall)'.
1TAaTaJJ-wvas: this word can mean a fiat area, a fiat reef or a rock
ledge. Here the sense is most likely 'a fiat ledge of rock', since fiat
ground would be washed away, whereas the point is that the river
channels a way down under the rocks, which thus serve as a natural
bridge.
l11ro yi]v cflepEa9aL: sc. rov 7Tin-a11-ov.
EtT' O.vacflalvEa9aL 1raALV: for similar examples see Strabo, vi. 27 5;
Diod. xvii. 75· 1-2 (the Stiboetes: d. 28. 7 n.).
8. e1rt Twv t1r1Twv: 'on horseback', not merely 'with their horses'
(Paton).
49. Ant£ochus in Bactria

The date will be 2o8 (cf. 48 n.}. Bactria, earlier a Seleucid satrapy,
was now an independent kingdom.
49. 1. Eu9USTJJJ-OV: Euthydemus, a Greek of Magnesia (probably the

city underSipylus: cf. xi. 34· In.), had seized the Bactrian throne from
Diodotus II, the second of the dynasty which originally revolted
from the Seleucids in about 239 (Schmitt, Antiochus, 64 f.). Diodotus
II's overthrow and the accession of Euthydemus I cannot be
accurately dated, but may fall shortly after 230; lustin. xli. 4· 9
affords no evidence that Diodotus II was still on the throne in
228-7, as argued by Tarn, Bactria, 74 n. 2. For a portrait-bust of
Euthydemus see R. Delbrueck, A n-tike Portriits (Bonn, 1912), pl. 29;
;!64
A::.-!TIOCHUS IN BACTRIA X. 49· I5
see also Tarn, Bactria, plate, coins r and 2; ~arain, pl. I, coin 4·
His origins are uncertain; he was perhaps one of Diodotus II's
satraps. On his organization of Bactria see Tarn, Bactria, 7I-r28,
a brilliant if somewhat imaginative study.
TI'Epl Ta.TI'oup(a.v: Tayovplav, FS. Gutschmid (Geschichte Irans, Tiibin-
gen, r888, 37 n. 4) emends to Ttl Fovpla.va., which is preferable to Reiske:
Ta7rovplav. Kiessling (RE, 'Guriane', cols. 1945--D; 'Hyrkania', cols.
484, 493 f.) identifies Ttl Fovplava with Ghurian on the Hari-rud (Arius)
west of Herat, cf. Wolski, Bull. Intern. Acad. Pol. Supp!. 5· 1947, 56.
Tam (ap. Holleaux, CAH, viii, 141 n. and PBA, 1930, rzs--D), while
accepting Gutschmid's emendation, identifies Ta Fovplava with the
Guriane of PtoL vi. ro. 4 and, emphasizing that this is in Margiane,
puts it much further north on the main road from Palestine into
f3actria (leading to Merv rather than Herat).
Tov~plov: the Hari-rud or Tedzhen, as it is called in its lower reaches;
it probably formed the boundary of Bactria at this time.
TlJV TI'OAlopK£a.v aTI'o)'Vous: the name of the town Antiochus was be·
sieging, to the west of the Arius, has not survived.
4. oln< eAa.TTov eTKocn aTa.S£wv: about 2 ~ miles.
7. To us Tl'ept a.uTov ete~a""ivous ~ew8uveue~v: perhaps, but not cer-
tainly, the flaa£)wc~ LA1J (cf. v. 84. I n.).
11. TWV 1TAduTwY hTTI'EWY E.cnTO.YflEVwY 118TJ: 'when most of the
cavalry were now in position' (omitted by Paton).
Oa.va.(TwAos: cf. v. 6r. s. 62. 2; he was one of the mercenaries who
deserted Ptolemy for Antiochus.
14. Tov ••. l1T1TOV: sc. f3aut.Mws; the epitomator has omitted some
words.
15. ets 1TOA~v Za.puia1Ta.v: usually called Bactra (d. Eratosthenes
ap. Strabo, xi. 514, ~ls Bat<Tpav T~v 7r6Atv, 1} Ka.l Zapuf.a7ra KaAeiTat;
516). Cunningham (NC, r868, ro7) suggests that Zariaspa was the
name of the great fire-temple there, Azur-i-Asp (cf. Tarn, Bactria,
n4, who thinks that Zariaspa was perhaps a definite part of the city,
which bestrode the river Bactrus). xxix. 12. 8 indicates that An-
tiochus' siege of Bactra was famous as a iopic for elaboration by
Miters of monographs on these campaigns.
BOOK XI
1 a. On the use of 7rpoypa¢at and 7rpoEKlMaEt<;
This discussion forms part of the 7rpolKfhat<; to 01. •43· 7rpoypa<f;al
are lists of contents, either attached to the outside of the scroll (cf.
Hieron. comm. Ezech. v. praef.: 'praefatiunculas singulis libris prae-
posui, ut ex fronte tituli statim lector agnoscat quotus sibi liber
legendus et quae nobis prophetia explananda sit') or preceding the
text, but inside (cf. Laqueur, Hermes, 191I, r83). Such a list serves
somewhat as the list of contents in a modern book (cf. § z). None of
P.'s 7rpoypa<f;at to books i-vi has survived, as P. himself perhaps
anticipated (§ 3); Laqueur, loc. cit., suggests that they disappeared
with the transference of the text from scroll to codex. A 7rpolK8w<r;
is an introductory survey to a book or series of books forming an
integral part of the narrative, and so less easily lost (§ 4) ; it gives
a preliminary synopsis. That beginning in iii. r. 5 (K(;</;aA.atw8wr; • ••
7rpolK8<a0aL; see note ad loc.) is a TtpolK8wtr; of the whole work; but
here P. speaks of rrpoodllaHr; introducing each Olympiad, and of
these extracts survive at ix. I 2 and xiv. I a, as well as here. In
xiv. I a I P. stresses the importance of the TtpolK(hmr; in contributing
to the synoptic universal view of the events contained in the Olym-
piacl. For discussion see Birt, Buchwesen, 141 ff.; De Sanctis, iii.
r. zos; Laqueur, Hermes, r9n, q6-87; Lorenz, 99 n. 229; Pedech,
i\fethode, 509-ro n. 78; above, iii. r-s (c).
1 a l. iv Ta.uTn T'fi ~L~h'!J: probably, as Biittner-Wohst suggests, the

epitomator's words, since {jl{ji\os ((jo(ji\os) must mean a book, not
the whole work. Birt (Bucltwesen, 142 n. r) proposed adding Kai f!v
-rat,- 7rpo -raVTYJ'l; but this is unconvincing. Orelli's lv ·mv-rfi -rfi 7Tpay-
p.o:rrdq, or Biittner-\Vobst's EV oi\n Tfj awTcft« gives the required sense.
Ka.86.vep o& vpo ~1-Lwv: if, as this suggests, 7rpoypa<f;al preceded the
books of previous historians, they have rarely survived. The prefaces
to Xenophon's Anabasis, ii-vii, summarize the contents of the pre-
vious book, and are not 7rpoypa<f;al at all; but one can form some
impression of a 7rpoypa¢~ from FGH, 5i7 F r (= P. Oxy. 665), which
is probably the rrpoypacfo~ to a work on Sicilian history (Philistus?),
and from FGH, II5 F ro,3 and zq, which are either 7rpoypa<f>al or
epitomes of books xii and xlvii of Theopompus' Philippica. Examples
survive in Diodorus.
ci}.}.Q. Ka.lvpou:OEO'US: on 7rpo£KfNan<; see above. Kat will be 'simply'
(cf. J. Denniston, The Greek Particles 1 (Oxford, 1954), 320, quoting
Herod. ix. 2i. 5; Lys. xxv. 13).
266
THE USE OF IIPOrPA<PAI AND IIPOEKBEl:ElE XL 1.-3. 6
2. Eis itr(O'Ta.O'LV liyeL kTh.: cf. xiv. I a I, £1> Jrr[u7a0'£V &yovut TOV> lv-
TVYXctVDl'TCl.S' Ka1 Std. To rr).7j£Jos Kat 8ta To fLiyeOoS' TWV yeyov6Twv.
3. bf.,ywpo~JJ.Evov ~ea.t cJ!8ElpoJ1evov: 'they are held in little account and
get destroyed'. This is a general characteristic of rrpoypwpa.l, and not
something which has recently come about, as Paton's translation
implies: 'as I saw that ... prologues were now neglected and had
degenerated in style'. <f;Ottp6p,Evm• refers, not to style (so Pedech,
Methode, 510 n. 78), but to the loss of 1Tpoypa<f;ai (see above, I an.).
5. trhl]v e~ Twv vpwno~v ~u~Mwv: for the reading~ in M {resembling
t according to Hultsch) Mai read r:' and Cobet t'; but there were
special reasons for not giving 7Tpo£K01.an> KaO' JKaUT7JV oAvfLmci8a to
books i-vL i and ii were introductorv, vi was an account of the
constitution, army, etc,, and iii-v dealt exceptionally with a single
Olympiad. iii could have had a rrpo£Kfl<:ats to 01. 140, but instead
P. chose to prefix an introduction to the whole work (cf. iii. I. s n.),
just as he had included a rrpotKBEat> of the 7TpoKaTaaK€V~ in i. 13. r-s.
The 1rpoypa.pa/., now lost, were a substitute, giving the contents of
the first six books (cf. r a n.).
1-3. 6. Hasdrubal in Italy: the Metaunts

This fragment is from the res Italiae of Ol. 143, I 207 B.C. After
escaping from Baecula (x. 39· 8, 40. ro) Hasdrubal wintered in Gaul
(2o8/7), crossing the Alps in the early spring. Livy (xxvii. 39· 7)
and Appian (Hawn. 52) implytllat he used Hannibal's pass, but Varro
(ap. Serv. A en. x. 13) denies it (see DeSanctis, iii. 2. 561~z). For the
events between then and the battle of the "Y1etaurus see Livy, xxvii.
39· 1-49; Zon. ix. 9; Appian, Maced. 52-53; with Val. .Max. vii. 4· 4;
Frontin, Strat. i. I. g, z. 9, iv. 7· rs; F!or. i. 22. so; Eutrop. iii. 18. :2;
Oros. iv. 18. 9-15; Ampel. r8. n, 36. 3, 46. 6; auct. de uir. ill. 48. 2;
Suet. Tib. 2, I; Hor. Od. iv. 4· 37-39; Sil. It. xv. 543 ff. Livy, the main
source other than P., is closely related to P., but his version in-
corporates annalistic material, which occasionally contradicts P.;
in the main his narrative may be accepted.
To prevent the hrothers joining forces the Romans sent one consul,
C. Claudius Nero, to watch Hannibal in the south, and the other,
M. Livius Salinator, to oppose Hasdrubal in the north (Livy, xxvii.
40. 1). Hannibal moved north to Grumentum to make contact with
Claudius; 'here and again at Venusia skirmishes took place which
Roman tradition magnified into victories' (Scullard) (cf. Livy, xxvii.
41--42). Next Hannibal advanced to Canusium to await a message
from Hasdrubal (Livy, xxvii. 42. I6); but Hasdrubal's envoys, four
Gauls and two Numidians, were intercepted by the propraetor
Q. Claudius, and so revealed to the Romans that Hasdrubal proposed
to meet Hannibal in Umbria (Livy, xxvii. 43· 1~8). By now :M. Livius
XI. I-J. 6 HASDRUBAL IN ITALY: THE 1\IETAURUS
was encamped ad Senam about half a mile from Hasdrubal, who
had followed the Via Aemilia down from Placentia (Livy, xxvii.
46. 4). Xero, taking 6,ooo picked infantry and r,ooo horse, meanwhile
left a covering force against Hannibal and pressed north by forced
marches to join Livius (Livy, xxvii. 46. 4; cf. so. I). Hasdrubal,
learning from the double signal that both consuls were facing him
and uncertain what had happened to Hannibal, attempted to retire
by night, but missed the way and was eventually overtaken some
distance up the river Metaurus, which he had failed to ford, his two
guides having escaped. Here the battle took place.
The battle-site and those of the Roman and Punic camps have
been much discussed, but no theory fits all the evidence and avoids
all the difficulties. It is clear that the Punic camp and the battlefield
were both on the same side of the Metaurus. In favour of the right
bank is the association of the camps in many of our sources with
Sena, which lies about 10 miles south of the l\ietaurus (cf. Livy,
xxvii. 46. 4, ad Senam; Eutrop. iii. 18. 2; and au ct. de uir. ill. 48. 2,
apud Senam; App. Harm. 52, 1TEpi 1TOA<v Elva!;); on the other hand,
Cicero (Brut. 73) calls the battle Senense proelium, and it is located
near Sena by Silius (xv. 552) and Eutropius (iii. IS. z). Perhaps, then,
the references to Sena are to be taken in a general sense, as being
the last town of consequence before Ariminum, and naturally asso-
ciated with the ancient territory of the Senones (De Sanctis, iii.
z. 563). If the reference to Sena is not pressed, a decision between
the two banks will depend in part on Hasdrubal's purpose in dis-
engaging; and this will link up with the message he had sent to
HannibaL Livy (xxvii. 43· 8) records that before setting out north
Nero dispatched a letter to the Senate: 'monet ut cum in Umbria
se occursurum Hasdruhal fratri scribat, legionem a Capua Romam
arcessant, dilectum Romae habeant, exercitum urbanum ad
Xarniam hosti opponant'. As Kromayer observes (AS, iii. I. 447-
8), Umbria can include areas on both sides of the Apennines
(cf. ii. r6. 3 n.). But his argument that Narnia was the southern
frontier of Umbria hardly explains why the Senate were to advance
troops from Rome only to that point, if from the intercepted letter
the consul had in fact deduced a projected meeting on the Adriatic
coast. Nero's letter to the Senate strongly favours the view that
Hasdrubal proposed meeting his brother west of the Apennines.
If this is so, it is not clear why he should have advanced as far
as Sena, since the obvious route for a march into Umbria was the
Via Flaminia, which leaves the Adriatic at Fanum, north of the
Metaurus mouth. Kromayer (AS, iii. r. 44r-z) stresses the difficulties
of the Via Flaminia, in particular the dangerous gorge at the Furlo
Pass; but these could be surmounted by holding the defiles in ad-
vance with light troops, and the advantages of a made road for a full
::~68
HASDRUBAL IN ITALY: THE METAURUS XL 1-3.6
army including elephants would easily outweigh such difficulties of
terrain (d. De Sanctis, iii. z. 564-5). These considerations seem to
favour the view that the rival armies were encamped near Fanum,
and perhaps (though not necessarily) one on either side of the
Metaurus (if the flumen 1t.nde aqtt-abantur {Livy. xxvii. 4 7. z) is that
river). But Hasdrubal's withdrawal creates difficulties on any hypo-
thesis. Our sources are not agreed on its purpose. According to
Appian, Hamt. 52, OU1TW J.LfLXEuBat l<€1<ptKc./;s, aAAa Tip aOEAtPlp CfVV!iAfM:v
JrrHy6J.t£vos, {mExc./;pn. Kromayer (AS, iii. I. 474) translates this: 'der
... wich zuriick, indem er mit seinem Bruder zusammenkommen
wollte'; but this misses the force of l1my6J.t£vos, which seems to sup·
port the view that Hasdrubal withdrew as part of a plan to join
Hannibal in Umbria. Zonaras (ix. 9) says that Hasdrubal €yvw 7Tpos
TOV<; TaAG.-ras ava.xwpfiam Kai EKfL TU rre.p~ TOV aD£Atfoov aKpt~c./;aacrOat;
but a retreat to the Po valley would be excessively timorous for
a Barcid. Livy (xxvii. 47) does not refer to Hasdrubal's purpose at
all. General considerations then seem to favour Appian's view, which
implies a meeting with Hannibal in Umbria; but clearly the evidence
hete is not decisive. More difficult is the detailed account of the
withdrawal, when according to Livy (xxvii. 47· n) Hasdrubal was
in search of a ford over the Metaurus. If his camp lay south of the
river, he had already crossed it and it is not clear why he found it
so hard to go back the way he had come, even if the ford lay some
way upstream to avoid the marshes mentioned by Appian (Hann.
52). But if his camp was north of the Metaurus, it becomes impossible
to reconcile the long march per tortuosi amnis sinus flexusque des-
cribed by Livy (xxvii. 47· ro-n) and Appian (Hann. 52) with an
advance up the left bank, where the Via Flaminia must have facili-
tated a night march, and where one may assume a bridge at Cal-
mazzo.
Kahrstedt's assertion (iii. 310 that the whole of Hasdrubal's night-
march is an annalistic invention (cf. I. z n.) may appear drastic;
but if Hasdrubal's camp stood on the left bank of the Metaurus,
Livy's account is at least considerably embellished and worked over
by annalists. The theme is typical of Hellenistic e~<tfopaats. At most
Hasdrubal may have made a detour to avoid detection before gaining
his obvious route, the Via Flaminia. Nothing can be deduced from
the story of the two guides who deserted, one to swim the Metaurus
at a well-known ford, the other to hide in destt'natis iam a1timo
latebr£s (Livy, xxvii. 47· 9). This has been used to prove that Has-
drubal was on the left bank (hence the first guide swam the river to
join the Romans), and the contrary (since the second guide had
already marked out his hiding-place on the way south); but if the
guides were local men, both conclusions break down.
Livy's account, which clearly contains non-Polybian material and
2&)
XI. 1-3.6 HASDRUBAL IN ITALY: THE .METAt:RUS
several inaccuracies, may well be unreliable on the night march.
:\loreover, if Hasdrubal proposed to meet Hannibal in Umbria, an
advance as far as Sena is hard to accept. Hence on balance, it seems
more likely that his camp lay north of the Metaurus. But the evidence
is finely balanced and certainty not possible. Hence it seems futile
to attempt to locate the exact site of the battle. The main sites
proposed have been (a) north of the :Metaurus, moving westward:
La Lucrezia, Borgaccio, l\L Sterpette, Calmazzo, and San Silvestro;
(b) south of the Metaurus: San Angelo, Cerasa, :Monte Maggiore,
Montebello, Tombacchia, and Vago Colle.
Bibliography: Kromayer, AS, iii. I. 424-6 (full discussion, pp.

426-94), with Karten 4 and ro;; iv. 625; Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abt.,
7· 8 with commentary); Hallward, CAH, viii. 727; De Sanctis, iii.
2. 562-7. The folloV~-ing studies have been published locally in Italy
(non vid£) : A. Bianchini, La battaglia del 111etauro (Pesaro, 1934) ;
G. Bonarelli, La battaglia di Metaura, i. (Ancona, 1942); G. Boroni,
Dissertazione sulla battaglia del1tf etauro (Fano, 1940); Le diverse tesi
sulla battaglia del },fetaura (Urbania, 1953; cf. M. Fievez, Latamus,
1954, 494) ; N. Alfieri, Tapogra.fia della battaglia dellv[ etalHO (Fabriano,
1941; Rend. I st. Afarch. Sci. Lett. Arti, 15-16, 1939~40, publ. 1941,
pp. 91-136; cf. Rend. Ace. Sci. I st. Balogna4, 5, 1942, cn-1o4); G.
Rossi, La battaglia del lv[etauro, ricostruita sui luoga col testa di T.
Livia (Fano, 1928); La battaglia del MeJauro combattuta jra i Romani
e i Cartaginesi nell'anno 207 a.C. ricastruita sulluogo col testa di Tito
Livia, xxvii. 43-51 (Pesaro, r939); Teatra della battaglia del Metauro
ricostruito . .. col testa di Tito Livia e documentato da iscrizioni .. . ,
da moltc tambe ramane . .. e da carcami di elejanti ecc. (Fano, 1939).
1. 1. 1ToM pa.O~ECM'epa.v Ka.t auvTOiJ.WTepa.v: cf. Livy, xxvii. 39· 6,

'Hasdrubali et sua et aliorum spe celeriora atque expeditiora fuere'.
Paton translates 'much easier and more rapid than Hannibal's had
been'; but the Livian parallel suggests 'easier and more rapid than
was expected'. The reasons given by Livy are that the inhabitants
proved more friendly than when Hannibal crossed, some even join-
Hasdrubal's army. Appian (Ham:. sz) says the crossing took
two months. De Sanctis (iii. 2. 574-5) argues convincingly that
Hasdrubal reached the Po valley in May, and that the battle of
Metaurus took place at the end of June or early in July (allowing
for the siege of Placentia (Livy, xxvii. 39· rr) and a march of just
over 3oo miles from Turin to Fanum). Ovid, Fasti, vi. 770, refers to
22 June an occasion when cecidit telis Hasdrubal ipse suis. DeSanctis
(loc. cit.) refers this to the defeat of Hasdrubal, son of Gisgo, at the
battle of the Great Plains, but his arguments are unconvincing;
and though it may seem difficult to apply these words of Ovid to
HASDRt.;BAL I:\ ITALY: THE METAURL"S XI. r. 4
Hasdrubal's death at the Metaurus, P. certainly uses this as a peg
on which to hang what is really a sermon on the permissibility of
suicide in certain circumstances. Moreover, if the calendar was run-
ning true to the sun in 207 (which we do not know), the date would
fit general probabilities. For discussion of Ovid, Fasti, vi. no, see
Scullard, Scip. 324-5.
op91) KQ.l rrEptcpo~o~: cf. Livy, xxvii. 40. I ff. for tension at Rome
on Hasdrubal's approach.
2. TOlJT(Il\1 flEV i)pEO'KEV ouSev: what displeased Hasdrubal is not clear.
Kahrstedt's :1ssumption (iii. 3ro) that it is his realization that the
enemy were reinforced is designed to support his theory that Has-
drubal's night march (Livy, xxvii. 47· 8-II; App. Hann. 52) is sheer
annalistic invention. DeSanctis (iii. z. 562-3) suggests more plausibly
that Hasdrubal was displeased at the drunkenness among the Celts
(cf. 3· r). But ToVTwv . .• ov!5Ev implies more than one factor; and
another may be the general disorder in which his troops now found
themselves (cf. Livy, xxvii. 47· 9. 'fessique aliquot somno ac uigiliis
sternunt corpora passim atque infrequentia relinquunt signa'). Hes-
selbarth (549) suggests that fg. 40 refers to the drunkenness of the
Celts and should be inserted between 1. r and 1. 2 (cf. De Sanctis,
iii. 2. 563).
EKTETG.YflEVOU~ Ka.l. rrpoucl.yovTa.~: cf. Livy, xxvii. 48. 3, 'aduenit
Liuius peditum omnibus copiis non itineris modo sed ad conserendum
extemplo proelium instructis armatisque'. According to Livy (xxvii.
48. 2 and.=;) Hasdrubal was trying to fortify a camp in tumulo super
fluminis ripam, but was forced to ab:mdon this on the Roman attack.
TOU~ "I ~T}pa.~ KQ.LTOU ~ flET. a.lhou YEYOVOTG.<; r a.A.cl. TQ.~ :according to Livy
(xxvii. 48. s-6) Hasdrubal put his Gauls on the left facing Nero, and
himself took up station on the right (see below, § 3 n.) against Livius.
3. Ta 91)pla. ••• SiKa.: cf. Livy, xxvii. 48. s, 'in prima acie ante signa
elephantos conlocat'. Livy places Ligurians in the centre, and the
elephants in front of these, whereas according to P. there is only
a deep-massed Punic right led by Hasdrubal, with the elephants in
front, and the Gauls on the left. Livy thus fails to make clear the
desperate character of Hasdrubal's formation (vtKav 1) BlnjaKnv), which
was designed to stake all on the right ; cf. Kromayer, AS, iii. 1. 465
n. r.
Ka.Ta TT)v Twv 91)plwv rrpouTa.uia.v: 'at the point where the elephants
formed the front'.
4. o ... N~lO~: M. Livius M.f. M.n. Salinator, consul for 207 and,
previously, 219; cf. Munzer, RE, 'Livius (Salinator) (33)', cols. 89r-g.
Livius had been out of politics since his condemnation for misuse of
the booty in the Second Illyrian War (cf. iii. 19. 12 n.; Livy, xxvii.
34· 4). On the background of his election now see Scullard, Pol. 72-73.
O.vTmTIEl To'L~ rroAEflLOl~ oo~a.pw~: cf. iii. 72. 13 (Sempronius at
2jl
XI. I . .j. HASDRUBAL Il': ITALY: THE METAURUS
Trebia), xv. 12. 17 (the phalanxes at Zama), xviii. 23. 7 (Flamininus

at Cynoscephalae).
5. o S€ KA.a.uOLos: C. Claudius Ti.f. Ti.n. Nero, the other consul; cf.
Munzer, RE, 'Claudius (296)', cols. 2774-6. By a slip Paton refers to
him both here and in § 10 as Marcellus.
11'€pLK€pciv ... OUK eSUva.TO: i.e. advance into the gap between Has-
drubal's Gallic left and his advancing right, and strike the latter on
its left flank.
7. Ka.Ta TCIV oma8€v T011'0V TtlS J.LC..XTJS: 'in the rear of the field'; P.
probably means that Nero took men from the rear of the right wing,
to hide his intentions from the enemy. Thus not all the right took
part in this manceuvre. Kromayer, AS, iii. I. 471, translates: 'deshalb
zog er seine Soldaten vom rechten Fliigel hinter der Schlachtreihe
herum' : this is not easily extracted from 1rapaoEtawvo<; •.. KaTa Tov
oma8Ev T61TOV Tij<; f.LUX1)'>·
To Aa.Lov urrEpapa.s TtlS tS(a.s 1Ta.p€J.L~oA.t1s: 'passing round the Roman
battle-line to the left'. Claudius took men from the inactive right
wing, assembled them in the rear and led them round (to the left of)
the Roman left, which was now engaging Hasdrubal's main forces.
Paton renders 1TapEf.Lf3oAij<> as 'camp', which is nonsense.
Ka.Ta K€pa.s ... E1TL Ta a, pta.: i.e. he struck the front of the Punic line
on its right flank; cf. Livy, xxvii. 48. 13-14, 'cohortes aliquot sub-
ductas e dextro cornu ... post aciem circumducit, et non hostibus
modo sed etiam suis inopinantibus in sinistrum <euectus in dextrum)
hostium latus incurrit' (where euectus in dextrum is Conway's addi-
tion, but the sense is clear, since the advancing troops subsequently
reach the Gauls who are on Hasdrubal's left).
8. KoLvT)v ciJ.Lcpo'Lv 1Ta.p€CxovTo TTJV XP€La.v ev Tft J.Laxn: 'they contributed
to the fighting an element which affected both sides equally'; XPE{a
here is 'fighting' rather than 'use', for they were a disadvantage to
both lines.
10. &J.La. S€ T~ ... 1Tp00'1f€0'€LV Ka.T' oupav: in § 7 they are attacking
Hasdrubal's flank, now they have got round to his rear; cf. Livy,
xxvii. 48. 14, 'tantaque celeritas fuit ut cum ostendissent se ab
latere mox in terga iam pugnarent'. There is much to be said for
Schweighaeuser's <Kat) KaT' ovpd.v.
12. Fate of the elephants. Livy, xxvii. 49· 1-2, records that many
were killed by their mahouts, who drove a chisel behind their ears
with a mallet. This story, with its pathetic note, cannot be reconciled
with P.'s precise details.
2. 2. ev <To'Ls 1Tpo TOUTwv) TJJ.LLV <S!iO~AwTa.L): cf. iii. 33· 6, 33· 14-15,
lX. 22. 2.
3. 1foAA.a.'Ls S€ Ka.t 1fOLKLAa.L~ 11'€pLaTaa€aL 1fa.Aa.(aa.s: 'in his struggle
against many embarrassing difficulties'.
272
HASDRUBAL lX ITALY: THE METAURUS XI. 3· 2-3
SLa Tb ••• To us i1fa.1foan:AAollevous: Buttner-Wobst plausibly sug-
gests s~a. TO O"Ta(na~t:~l! 1Tpo<; a.Vrov<; U£t. On the hostility between Has-
drubal, son of Gisgo, Hasdrubal, son of Hamilcar, and Mago, the
latter Hasdrubal's brother, see ix. II. I, x. 7· 3; Livy, xxvi. 41. 20.
4-11. The lessons of Hasdrubal's death; circumstances in which suicide
is praiseworthy (cf. §ron.).
4. a~LOS E1fL<TTOm:ws KO.l t~Xou: 'worthy of note and of emulation'.
9. TijS O.IJTOU <7WT1Jp(a.s: cf. X. 3· 7 n.
10. ll1JSev 61rotJ.Eiva.L ••• O.va~Lov: in such circumstances the honour-
able commander will choose death; cf. xxx. 6--9, on the situation in
which the unsuccessful leader should commit suicide; xvi. 32, ap-
proval of the Abydenes' suicide; xxxviii. r. 7 ; fg. 164. Earlier, suicide
was rejected as an offence against the state; cf. Plato, Laws. ix.
873 c (though here the suicide is not a.laxvv7]> Ttvos a1ropov Ka.l d{~iov
fU!Ta>.a.xwv); Aiist. Eth. Nic. v. Ir. 3· n38 a. Approval of it is typical
of Stoic doctrine (cf. Cic. fin. iii. 6o; Plut. Cleom. 3l (see above,
ii. 69. Ion.); Hirzel, 3oo ff., 857-60; von Scala, 2I2-I3 n. 4); but
others also accepted it and this passage is not evidence that P. was
a Stoic (cf. Hercod, 90; Pedech, Methode, 419 n. 68).
11. cj>LAotwoGvn:<> 1ra.pa Tb Seov: cf. xxx. 7. 8, Tov 1ra.pa To Ka.BijKov
1/Jt>.o,wetv.
3. 2-3. Casualties. The consular armies of 207 had been reinforced

to full strength or over strength (Livy, xxvii. 38. 9), and they prob-
ably had their full contingent of allies. Hence Livius' army can be
put at 2o,ooo-2s,ooo men. He also had with him the forces of Porcius
Licinus (Livy, xxvii. 46. s). described as imtalidus exercitus (Livy,
xxvii. 39· z), and perhaps amounting to ro,ooo men. Hasdrubal was
prepared to meet Livius and Porcius, but retired when they were
reinforced by the 7,ooo men of Claudius Nero (Livy, xxvii. 43· n),
which suggests that Hasdrubal's army was roughly equal to the
forces of Livius and Porcius, i.e. 3o,ooo-3s,ooo. According to P. his
casualties included ro,ooo dead. The prisoners (§ z, ~v >.om~v Twv
a.lxJ.La.>.dnwv >.da.v) brought in 300 talents. In Achaea in 194 Romans
were ransomed at soo dr. each (Livy, xxxiv. so. 6, quoting P.), per-
haps a normal market price. Kromayer (AS, iii. L 492) estimates
that the rate after Metaurus was perhaps a third of this, but admits
that this may be a little high; it would imply about ro,ooo prisoners,
or more. In addition some of Hasdrubal's army escaped, or never
reached the battlefield (cf. Livy, xxvii. 48. 16, 49· 9). Though this
gives no basis for detailed calculation, it does not exclude the possi-
bility that Hasdrubal had 3o,ooo-3s,ooo men in all. Other sources
give impossible figures. Livy (xxvii. 49· 6) has 56,ooo (or according to
some MSS. 57 ,ooo : accepted by Conway in the Oxford text as being
closer to the s8,ooo mentioned by Orosius, iv. I8. I4) dead and 5,400
814173 T
XI. 3· z HASDRUBAL 1:::\ lTALY: THE METAURUS
prisoners; and Appian (Hamt. 52) puts Hasdrubal's total force at
48,ooo foot and 8,ooo horse s6,ooo in all, which perhaps supports
56,ooo casualties in the text of Livy). These are all far too high; with
such an army Hasdrubal need have had no hesitation in facing even
the reinforced Roman legions at Metaurus. Livy (xxvii. 49- 7) puts
the casualties Romanorum sociorumque at 8,ooo, which does not
necessarily clash with P.'s figure of 2,ooo Romans. For discussion
see Kromayer, AS, iii. 1. 475-94; DeSanctis, iii. 2. 571-4.
3. o~ 8i Aonrot Ka.TE:t90.pt'Jaa.v: i.e. of the leading Carthaginians.
4. ~~ ... t~I-Lt'J~ &.t,Ko!lM-J~: cf. Livy. xxvii. so. 6, 'fama incerta
primo accidit duos Narnienses equites in castra quae in faucibus
Vmbriae opposita erant uenisse ex proelio nuntiantes caesos hostes'.
5. ti·rm8Tj 8i Ka.i. 'll'hdous 1jKov: cf. Livy, xxvii. so. 8, 'litterae deinde
ab L. Manlio Acidino ex castris adferuntur de Narniensium equitum
aduentu'. This was read out in the Senate and to the people. Soon
afterwards legati arrived from the victorious army to confirm the
news (Livy, xxvii. 51. I -6).
'II'EAavwv Ka.l 9up.O.Twv: 'sacrificial cakes and victims'. According to
Livy (xxvii. 51. 8), 'senatus ... supplicationem in triduum decreuit'.
6. 1-1118' iv 'ITa.ALtt vo11t~Ew 1ra.pEI:va.~: cf. Livy, xxvii. sr. 10, 'statum
quoque ciuitatis ea uictoria mouit, ut iam inde hand secus quam in
pace inter se contrahere uendendo, emendo, mutuum dando argen-
tum creditumque soluendo auderent'.
3. 7. Fragment concerning a speech

This may belong to the same occasion as 4· r-6. ro; see p. r6.
4. 1~. 10. Speech of Thrasycrates of Rhodes

This speech belongs to the Greek events of 207 and implies a gather-
ing of neutrals at an Aetolian congress; on the month, which is un-
certain, see 6. I n. This neutral approach to the Aetolians has been
convincingly identified with one mentioned in App. Mac. 3· 1-2,
where the participants were Egypt, Chios, Mytilene, and Amynander
of Athamania (cf . .Meloni, Valore storico, 9-24). Schmitt (Rom und
Rhodos, 205; cf. Ferro, 7 n. 63, 139 ff.) argues that it is rather to be
identified with a second neutral intervention mentioned in App.
Mac. 3· 3-4, because the reference to Amynander in Appian's first
intervention dates it before that king's desertion to Philip (Livy,
xxxvi. 31. I I : his desertion preceded Philip's invasion of Aetolia;
see below, 7· 2-3); but this argument has little weight, since Appian
implies that the same powers took part in both interventions, and
his association of the second gathering with the separate peace be-
tween Philip and Aetolia favours dating it to winter 207/6 and the
274
SPEECH OF THRASYCRATES OF RHODES XI. 4· 5
peace to zo6 (cf. \Valbank, Philip, 305). Appian has nothing reliable
to add. The name of the speaker is given in the margin (F 2 ) as
Thrasycrates, and Schweighaeuser's suggestion (vol. viii. 7) that he
was a Rhodian may be right, though it is not supported by very
sound arguments. La Roche (6o) and Ullrich (34) defend the genuineness
of the speech; and indeed the panhellenic note and the accusations
against the Aetolians can have come from a Rhodian as easily as
from P. himself (contra, Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 202}. But P.'s
source is unknown; it may go back to a published version (which is
unlikely) or to a version in some earlier historian such as Zeno.
Moreover, general conformity to the original would not exclude some
working over of detail; for a possible example see 6. I n. See further
P£-dech, Methode, 268--9.
4. 1. nToAE .... o.ios 0 13o.atAEUS: Ptolemy I v. He had already tried

to mediate between Aetolia and Philip in 209 (Livy, xxvii. 30. 4-10;
cf. above, x. 25. I-5 n.) and 2o8 (Livy, xxviii. 7· IJ-·I5)·
1) Twv 'Pooiwv voA~s: the emphasis on Rhodes would support the
identification of the speaker as from that city (Schmitt, Ram und
Rhodos, 199).
Tns 1'1...-ETEpas ••. 8to.AUaEtS: 'your ceasing hostilities'.
2. ou ••• vGv vpw1"ov ou8E O€u1"€pov: Thrasycrates speaks for the
neutrals as a body. There had been interventions in 209 {by Ptolemy,
Rhodes, Athens, Chios, and Amynander) and in 208 (by Ptolemy
and Rhodes) ; see § I n.
vpoaE8pd,ovTES Kai. nD.vTa Katpov 9EpanEuovTEs: 'looking out for and
seizing every opportunity'.
3. T1\!l UJ'ETEpas •.• aToxatoJJ-EVOL ~<o.To48opois: 'looking upon your
ruin'. For this meaning of =oxal;,w8a, cf. vi. 16. I, 16. 5, xv. 8. 3,
xvi. 35· 2, xxiv. 7· 4; Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 67 n. 3·
4. ~"ll't Tou vupos: the use of vivid metaphor or simile is typical of
such occasions (cf. v. 104. 10). von Scala, 29 n. 3, thinks the reference
is to a forest fire, but ui\71 is 'fuewood', and probably some such
situation is envisaged as that described in i. 48. For the metaphor
cf. Solon, fg. i. 14-15 (Diehl).
Ae .... ~avEL T'l)v voJ'~": 'it spreads'; cf. i. 48. 5·
~eet TU 1"fjs uvoKEL...,EVTJ\l uAT)S OLo49op~: 'and by the consumption of
the fuel fed to it'; Gronovius' suggestion, tnaqwpij,, 'by the variety
of fuel' is favourably regarded by Schweighaeuser and accepted by
von Scala, but it is unnecessary.
'll'p(;hov llpf4TJ<TE: 'it turns first of all against .. .'. 1TpwTov goes with
wpp.Tf11l!, rather than with tp:rrp~aa.vra ('the man who lit it in the first in-
stance'). as the following phrase (lVTOVS" TOUTOVS" 1TpWTOV> a1T6AAV11L shows.
lS. ei.El~<a.LvonotoOJ-1-EVO!l Kai npoa<f>uawJ'Evos: 'constantly renewed and
blown into a blaze'.
XI. 4· 6 SPEECH OF THRASYCRATES OF RHODES
6. TOO'S VT)atMTaS ••• Kat TOUS TTtV :A.aLaV KaTO~KOUVTaS "EAATJvas: cf.
v. 105. 6, which shows the phraseology here to be P.'s. The V7la.Wnu
are primarily the inhabitants of the large islands off the Asian coast,
i.e. Rhodes, Lesbos, and Chios, which share in the negotiations; the
sense is the same in v. 105. 6. Cf. Holleaux, 235 n. 2.
8. f1Eycl.AT)S ••• ~maTaaews: 'deep consideration'.
5. 2. a.l auv9i]Km •.• at wpos 'Pw!La.wus: d. ix. 28-39 n., 38. 5 n.,
39· 3 n., xviii. 38. 9 n.
4. aUjLfLcl.xwv owa.pxovTwv: the 'majority of the Peloponnesians' are,
of course, the Achaean Confederacy, since Sparta, Elis, and Messenia
were allied with Aetolia (cf. ix. 30. 6 n.). On the position of Epirus in
this war see ix. 38. 5 n., where that of Thessaly and Boeotia is also
discussed. Phocis was at this time a Macedonian protectorate (cf.
v. 26. 1 n., x. 42. 2 n.). For help sent by Philip to Euboea, cf. Livy,
xxvii. 30. xxviii. 7· 2; to OpuntianLocris, d. Livy, xxviii. 7· 5-9;
on the status of Opuntian Locris see ii. 54· 4 n. The list here is not
complete, for example, the Acarnanians are omitted.
5. ~cp' ~ TO. jLEV awjLa.Ta. KTA.: cf. ix. 39· 3 n.
7. Kw<l.VTO.'ij TOU'ij aAAous "EAATJVBS: other than themselves; an exag-
geration.
Tois ~a.p~cl.poLs: cf. ix. 37· 6 n.
8. Su1 Tll'> 'fipELTWV Kal ••• Al.ywTJTwv: Oreus in northern Eu boca,
the ancient Histiaea (which remained the official name; cf. Geyer,
RE, Suppl.-B. iv, 'Histiaia', cols. 749-50), had been seized by the
forces of the Roman general Sulpicius through the treachery of Plator,
Philip's commander (Livy, xxviii. 5· 18-6. 7; cf. x. 42. 2 n.), in June
2o8, soon after Philip set up his system of fire-signals (x. 42. 7-8);
Philip recovered it a little later (Livy, xxviii. 8. 13), perhaps in
August (Walbank, Philip, 304-5). The plunder from Oreus seems to
have gone to the Romans (cf. Livy, xxviii. 7· 4: 'Oreum ... ab
Romano milite, expertibus regiis, direptum fuerat'), and it is not
clear how its fate concerned the Aetolians, except inasmuch as it
revealed the character of Roman warfare. Aegina was taken by
Sulpicius in 210; see ix. 42. s~8 n., xxii. 8. 9-IO (where raAalTTwpo~ is
again used).
TllS TUXTJ'> •.• ETI'L TT)v l~WaTpa.v &.va.~L~a.tou~s TT]v ••• ayvOLO.V: see
Vol. I, p. 21 n. 6 for Tyche envisaged as a producer of plays; to the
passages there quoted add xxiii. Io. 16 (Philip V's tragedy). Similar
phraseology occurs in Diod. xi. 24. 1 (Ephorus or Timaeus), xx. 70. 2
(Duris or Timaeus), rij~ rJx"'~ wcnr£p i7Tl77]8's: im8nKVVJ.LEV7]S: ~v
l8lav ovvap.Lv iTTt TWV aTT7]A7TLUfdvwv; here it seems to reflect P.'s
vocabulary rather than Thrasycrates' own words.
9. Ka.Ki;lv O.pxt)v f1£y0./..wv ••• To is "EAAT)O'W: cf. xviii. 39· 1. Ap-
parently an echo of Herod. v. 97· 3, where the sending of twenty
276
SPEECH OF THRASYCRATES OF RHODES XI. 7· I
ships from Athens to the Ionians is characterized as &.px.iJ Ka.Kwv •• •

"EXArwt -r£ Kat {Ja.p{Jd.potm. But perhaps the phrase had become pro-
verbial.
6. 1. uuytw<AEtp.evou "~'TiS BpEnta.s ••• ~vv~~ou: not true until after

Metaurus, which was fought towards the end of June (cf. I. I n.). But
if the approach of the neutrals is later than this, it was evidently
contemporaneous with or later than the battle of Mantinea, which
also occurred in June 207 (cf. 10. 9 n.); and P. must have related
events in the northern theatre of war, including Philip's invasion of
Aetolia (7. 2-3), before describing the Achaean risorgimento (8-r8). If,
on the other hand, the neutrals approached Aetolia earlier in the
year, this reference to Hannibal is an autoschediasma of P. which
overlooks the fact that Metaurus, recently described, was chrono-
logically later than this speech. For the second alternative see De
Sanctis, iii. 2. 443-4; Holleau.x:, 253 n. I; Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos,
202-3 ; but the first remains equally possible.
2. Tra.ua.v ucjl' EO.U"''OUS TrO~fjO'OtJ.EVOL: a view of Roman policy not sup-
ported by Roman actions either now or later, but one essential to
Thrasycrates' argument; it is, moreover, P.'s own view; cf. i. 3· 4,
6. 6, 20. I-2, 63. 9, ii. 20. 8-IO, ]I. 7-8, iii. 2. 6, .)2. 7, iX. 10. II, XV. 9· 2,
xo. 2 with notes; Walbank, JRS, 1963, I-IJ.
7. Tois lLAT)9wo'Ls cjl(Aots: hardly implying that the Romans were
'false friends': see, against Holleaux, 37 n. 7, Schmitt, Rom und
Rhodos, 202.
9. Tous p.iv Ka.Ta p.Epos Myous UTrEpe9EvTo: 'they postponed the dis-
Ct!Ssion of details'.
Suo ••• ~XOVTES evToM.s: 'with two instructions', viz. (I) to accept
peace, if the Aetolians are willing; (2) [in the event of the Aetolians'
rejecting the offer (something like Biittner-Wobst's J.i~ f1ovAop€vwv
must be supplied after 8lx€a9a~)J to depart, having first called the
neutrals to witness that the responsibility for continuing the war
lay with the Aetolians.
7. 1. Philip at Cynus (2o8)

This fragment, from Suidas, should stand immediately after x. 47·
In 2o8, warned of the fall of Oreus by fire-signals (cf. 5· 8 n.), Philip
forced Thermopylae and reached Elatea, a 6o-miles march, the same
day (Livy, xxviii. 7· 1-3; Dio, xvii. 57· 57). Attalus was busy at
Cynus, the port of Opus, over the plunder granted him by Sul-
picius (Livy, xxviii. 7· 4-6): 'adeoque improuisa res fuit ut, nisi
Cretensium qui dam forte pabulatum ab urbe longius progressi agmen
hostium procul conspexissent, opprimi potuerit'. Philip came up
as Attalus got to sea: 'inde Opuntem rediit, deos hominesqne
277
XI. 7· I PHILIP AT CY!\t:S (2o8)
accusans quod tantae rei fortunam ex oculis prope raptam amisissef
(Livy, xxviii. 7· 8), corresponding to this fragment.
7. 2-3. Philip's invasion of Aetolia

According to Livy (xxxvi. 31. u), Philip gave Zacynthus to Amy-
nander of Athamania, 'ut per Athamaniam ducere exercitum in
superiorem partem Aetoliae licerct, qua expcditione fractis animis
Aetolos compulit ad petendam pacem'. Is this the expedition referred
to here? A difficulty is the length of time between an invasion in
207 and the swearing of the peace which Livy (xxix. 1:2. 3) suggests
was in 205. Accordingly several scholars have assumed two invasions
(cf. Oberhummer, Akarnanien, 170; Niese, ii. 495, 500; Geyer, RE,
'Makedonia', coL i49; 'Philippos (10)', coL 23Io; Schmitt, Rom und
Rhodos, 2II n. 1) and Walek-Czernecki (Rev. Phil. 1928, 2o) assumes
three (see below,§ 2 n.). The gap can be bridged without this assump-
tion. The invasion of Aetolia was in 207 (in dating it to 206 Oost,
CP, I95i, 3, 13 n. 13, neglects its position in P.). Disheartened, the
Aetolians continued to appeal to Rome but waited to see what help
would arrive the next summer (cf. Livy, xxxii. 21. 17); when none
came they made peace that autumn. Sempronius did not reach
Greece until 205, but Livy's statement (xxix. 12. 3) that news of his
arrival reached Philip uixdum pace facta may well be annalistic
exaggeration. Balsdon'sview(]RS, 1954, 31) that Sempronius arrived
in Illyria in 206 is hard to accept in view of Livy's statement (xxix.
12. r) that affairs in Greece were neglected for two years; it also
involves (a) the assumption that Sempronius was appointed to Sul-
picius' province after the elections of 2o7 (for 2o6), in which case his
delay in going out is odd; and (b) too long a gap before the Peace
of Phoenice, which was sworn in the latter half of 205 at the earliest.
The chronology here accepted was proposed by De Sanctis (iii. 2.
430 n. 87, 444) and approved by Holleaux (253 n. 4) and Flaceliere
(304) ; for a refutation of the objections raised against it by Walek-
Czernecki see \Valbank, Ph£lip, 305-6.
2. 1'1'op€u9ds f:1'1'l TTtY T p1xwvl8a. Mrt""l": 'marching towards Lake
Trichonis'; if Philip came by Athamania (Oost, CP, 1957, 3-4,
suggests that he entered it by the pass from Gomphi), he will ha\·e
descended the Inachus to the Achelous, and the present passage sug-
gests that he turned east along Lake Trichonis, as in 2r8 (cf. VoL I.
p. 542 for map). Woodhouse, 26r, reasonably suggests that he again
followed the easier southern shore of Lake Trichonis, a view supported
by the mention of Ellopium and Phytaeum (§§ 4-5). The likelihood
is that these towns were mentioned before Philip's arrival at Ther·
mum and that the opening words of this fragment are due to com-
pression by the excerptor.
278
PHILIP'S INVASION OF AETOLIA XI. 8. I
cls TOv G£pfLOv: cf. v. 8. 3 n. for the Aetolian federal centre and the
temple of Apollo Thermios.
aaa 1TpOT£pov a1TEAnn: 'TW\1 O.vaOt)fLaTWV: viz. in 2I8; cf. v. 9· I-I2. 4·
Walek-Czernecki (Rev. phil. 1928, 20) bases his theory that there were
three invasions of Aetolia (above, 7· 2-3 n.) on the mistaken belief
that P. here refers to an invasion in 208.
3. TO yG.p ••• opy~tOfL£\10\1 ••. aa£{31!~\1: 'for to be guilty of impiety
towards the gods because one is angry with men .. .' (Paton). For
P.'s views on the inviolability of temples cf. iv. 62. 3 n.
4. 'Eft.AOmov: 'Woodhouse, 26r f., suggests that the ruins of Ellopium
lie at Mesovouni, south-east of Morosklavon, at the eastern end of
Lake Trichonis.
5. 4>uTatov: on the site of Phytacum at Palaiochori see v. 7· 7-8. 4 n.
8-18. The Achaean reforms of Philopoemen: the death of Mach.anidas

This section still forms part of the res Graeciae of OL 143, I
208/7 B.c. (in fact 207). 8 deals with the faults of Philopoemen's pre-
decessors in the Achaean aTpa:rryyta. Philopoemen certainly held his
first aTpaT'T)yla in 208/7, for according to ro. 9 the battle of Man tinea,
described by P. under 01. 143, r, was eight months after Philo-
poemen began his training of the troops; hence he entered office in
autumn 208. This is confirmed by Plut. Philop. rr. r, which mentions
the Nemean games held during his second aTpa77JYla, and speaks of
him then as vt:vLK'T)KOTa p.€v ov rrdAat T~v Ev MaVTtvElff p.ax'1Jv; this must
be in 205, as the Nemean games fell in 'odd' years {Julian) (cf. ii.
65-69 n., 70. 4 n., v. ror. 5), and consequently, since re-election was
permitted only e\·ery other year (Piut. Arat. 24. 5, quoted at ii.
43· 7 n.), the first aTpaTryyta mnst fall in 2o8/7. See Niese, ii. 498;
Nicolini, 286 n. 2; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 443-4; Holleaux, 254 n. I; CAH,
viii. 133 (=Etudes, v. 3r4); Busolt~Swoboda, ii. 1571; Aymard,
Assemblies, 95·
8. 1-2. Method of acquiring the general's art: compare the three

methods here listed with the three mentioned in ix. q. 1-5 (see
ix. 14. r n.). Systematic instruction from experts (§ 2, Tau p.~8oSvmiJ
Ka~ Tijs- rrapa Twv £p.rrclpwv d1,Spwv 7Ta.pa8oat:ws) corresponds to £p.7Ttitpta
1!f8o~aK~, routine practice (§ 2, ToO 8,d Tfjs £7T' a&rwv Twv 7Tpayp.aTwv
l[Ews ~<a~ Tp,fHjs) to TptfJ~; but the study of history (§ r, S«L Twv
~TTop.V'T)p.cl.Twv Kat -rfjs EK To&rwv KaTaaKEvfjs) does not correspond pre-
cisely with la7opta, which is concerned more with verbal interroga-
tion. The divergence is not significant (cf. ix. 14. In.).
l. Twv 01TOfLVT)fLcLTWV: 'histories' ; cf. i. r. 1 n. Though occasion-
ally this term is restricted in meaning (e.g. v. 33· 5, where it means
'official records'; x. 44· 1, (military) treatises; xviii. 33· 3. royal
279
XI. 8. I ACQUIRING THE GENERAL'S ART
correspondence; xxiii. 2. s. memoranda), there is no reason so to
restrict it here (with Paton, 'military memoirs').
2. '~'il'> ••• 1ra.pa.S0uEws: P. seems here to envisage personal instruc-
tion by experts rather than the systematic study of expert treatisrs
(so Shuckburgh, 'the use of scientific treatises composed by speci~
alists') ; cf. Schweighaeuser, 'per praecepta uirorum artis illius
torum'. It is clear from ix. 14. 5 ff. that P. takes a very broad view
of the subject-matter of such instruction.
4. bilXo;; ouK EUTuxt]s: cf. x. n. ron. on KaKo~-ql.wata; the d,\a{ov~da
and aKatp{a, a SnObbish passion for extravagant Jiving, infected
their troops, especially the cavalry.
Twv O.II.Xwv: 'others'; presumably other leading citizens in Achaea.
or perhaps other generals, each stri,·ing to outdo his predecessors.
5. Ka.AAW1TL<TI16;;: 'dandyism'; cf. 9· 7·
7. €pya. ••• 1rapepya: 'real achievements ... the unessential charac~
teristics'.
~K8Ea.Tp(bauut: cf. xxx. 9· r9 for the metaphor. Both Shuckburgh and
Paton omit to translate p.€ra {Jl\d.fJrr;, 'to their detriment'.
9. 1-8. Philopoemen's speech. This was delivered in a {jovllwn/pto~·

(9. 8), and afterwards his hearers dispersed to their cities (Io. 7).
The site is uncertain, but probably Aegium; in that case dyopd (9. 8)
will be simply 'public place' or 'the assembly' (cf. xxviii. 7· 3; xxix.
24. 5), and not 'the market-place', since the sanctuary of Zeus
Homarios at Aegium lay outside the town (Aymard, Assemblies,
99 n. z, zn ff.). It is not clear whether Philopoemen addressed a
primary assembly or a representative council, for the reference to
{JovAwT~ptov is not decisive on this point (cf. Larsen, The
precise date of the speech is also uncertain. 230 n. 2, argues
that it was delivered at the <n5vooos at which Philopoemen was elected
general, i.e. in autumn 208; and this is possible, since P. is here deal-
ing with the Olympiad year 208/7. But, as Aymard (Assemblies,
96 n. 3) points out, Plutarch's account, based on P.'s Life of Philo-
poemen, made the change in armament precede the change in morale:
Plut. Philop. 9· 3, TrEiaar; Se Ka8oTrMaaa8at rovs i.v ~AtKlq. TrpWTov p.ev
brijp€ 8appErv d..s dp.d.xovs yEyov&ras, metra ros •pufas aurwv Kat
r<1.s Trollvr€.lldas /J.p~ara p.ETEKoap.7)a€v. That P. here related events
in the same order is confirmed by the fact that in his speech Philo-
poemen mentions the new anns, the aams, the KV7)p.fi3es, and tlw
8wpa~ (9. 4-5). Probably, then, P. described the military reforms ii1
a passage, now lost, between 8 and 9 (Aymard, Assembltfes, 97 n. 5).
and the speech here recorded will not date to the beginning of Philo-
poemen's year of office. It may (if it \Vas delivered at Aegium) belong
to the ovvooos of February 207 (so Aymard, Assemblees, 96 n 3).
The reference (ro. 9) to eight months' preparations is not inconsistent
z8o
PHILOPOEMEN'S SPEECH XI. 9· 5
with this view, since they must have begun as soon as Philopoemen
entered office.
1. TfJV EK TTJS hno-K£uils O.p11oy~v: what is the meaning of imakEznl?
There are two possibilities: (a) that tK Tfjs lmaKwfjs means (as
Casaubon and Reiske supposed) 'as a result of accurate workman-
ship'; but imaKetn) should be 'repair' rather than 'construction' (cf.
Lex. Polyb. s.v.); (b) Schweighaeuser suggests a meaning derived
from lmaKwa~£w, 'harness a baggage animal', so that lmaK«:v~ would
mean 'the putting on of arms' and the whole phrase 'and that arms
should fit well when put on is of great help in battle (aw<'py<'iv • ••
tds 'T~V xpda.v)'. Despite the absence of any clear parallel, the latter
sense seems the more likely. In either case there is a parallel with
apapvfat T<' Kai aT/Af3ovaat (§ 4). Paton's version, 'that arms should
be so constructed as to be adapted to the purpose they were to
serve', is banal and misunderstands £ls T~v XP£[av. Mauersberger
renders J·muK£u~ by 'Herrichtung, Anfertigung'.
4. TUS KVTJ.U8a.ii: cf. Plut. Philop. 9· 2, o t1>£Ao-rrolfL'YJV • •• E1T£1m:v
a!JTDVS dv'T~ fLtV Ovpwv Kat o6paTOS' darrioa Aa{3<:tv Ka£ qapmuv, KpavwL
8£ Kal Owpag, Kai 1T£ptKV'Y)fLiu• rr£</>payfL€vovs fL6vtpov Ka! f3~:{37]KVLav
avTt OpOfLI.Kfjs Kai 1T£ATaanl<ijs fLdXTJV d.aK£tV; Paus. viii. so. <f>opoiJv-
I'
'TO.S' yap fLtt<pa oopdTta Kai lmfLTJK<'aTipa orr Aa Kani Toils K€ATLKovs
8vpwvs ~ ra yippa n:l Il€pawv, €rr"'a" OwpaKas TE lvovwOa.~. Kal
~1TL'TLOw0aG KV'Y)/LiOas, rrp6s o€ O.umatv J1pyoAtKa.is- xpfiaOat Kat o6paat
fL"ya.Aots-. The substitution of heavier armour and the corresponding
phalanx tactics after the :Macedonian fashion will have been men-
tioned by P. in the lacuna between 8 and 9; see 9· r-7 n. In thus re-
forming the Achaean army Philopoemen was following a practice
widely adopted in the third century; cf. ii. 65. 3 n., iv. 69. 4-5, v. 91. 7
for Megalopolis; Plut. Cleom. I x. 3, 23. 1; Poly b. ii. 69. 7 for Cleo-
menean Sparta; Feyel, I93 ff., 213-1 s. for Boeotia, where an arma-
ment based on the Macedonian peltasts' was substituted for the
former type in 245; in general, Launey, i. 361-2.
!5. ciO"T!'£Sn ••• Oti!pO.ICQ ••• ~epO.vos: the aarris- is a convex, circular,
bronze shield about 20 inches in diameter, which took the place
of the long oval Ovpd>s; cf. Plut. Philop. 9· I, lxpwvro fL~V ydp OvpEots
fL~V £?11TETEGt ota AE1T'T6'TTJ'TO. Kat U7'€VWT€pots 'TDV 1T£poaTlAAW T<l GWfLO.'Ta
1
(cf. above, ii. 30. 3 n., x. 29. 6 n.; Livy, xxxviii. 21. 4, for the Ovp€6<;).
The {arr{s is frequently represented on monuments, coins, and terra-
cottas; cf. Launey, i. 354-6; Kromayer-Veith, Heerwewm, 133. The
8wpag, breast-plate, seems often to be worn by troops lighter than
the phalangite. In rr. 4-5 the BwpaKi:m• are placed with the lllyrians,
the mercenaries and the light-armed (cf. also iv. rz. 3 n.) ; and in
Antiochus III's army they are light-armed (x. 29. 6 n.), and perhaps
wear the 8wpag as an alternative to carrying the Ovp£6s-. However,
the passages from Plutarch and Pausanias quoted in § 4 n. show it
28!
XI. 9· 5 PHILOPOEMEN'S SPEECH
being worn by phalangites. See further G. T. Griffith, Proc. Camb.
Phil. Soc. r84, Kpdvo<; is a general term for a helmet,
and does not necessarily indicate a Macedonian Kwvos (on which see
Launey, i. 356-8); it is mentioned in Plut. Philop. 9· 2 (quoted in
§ 4 n.), and appears to ha,~e plumes (Plut. Philop. 9· 5).
6. ,.a. 'IT pbs em~6.ve~a.v ••• TWV '~~'POS TTJV xp~:(uv: 'what is for show ...
what is for use' ; but as so often xpf'la also implies battle.
8. eu'ITop~:u6fLEVOL TO ~ou"-euTfJpLov: 'on issuing from the council-
chamber'; cf. 9· r-7 n.
10. 3. &.tfu;:AT]s Ka.t ALTOS: 'plain and frugal'; cf. x. 22. 5·

Tas evn:useL<;: 'in meeting people, in approaches to him'. Should we
read Kai (Ka'Ta> -.ds ;l,Tet5gEt, (d. xxii. 2r. 3, 22. 4)?
£l,,.epUco'ITTos ~ea.i &.vm~9ovos: 'unpretentious and not given to stand-
ing on ceremony'.
7. TOTE auvTeAea9€vros Tou ~ha.~ou"-tou: 'when the discussion was
over'. No account of any debate survives in the fragments, but there
may have been some reference to this in the lost part where P. de-
scribed the summoning of the ; d. Aymard, Assemblies, 97,
394-6, who suggests that Philopoemen's speech of exhortation fol-
lowed the normal business and voting.
,.Q.v,.~:s E'ITa.vfjyov £,.j, Tus 'ITOAELS: a phrase equally applicable to a
representative gathering or a primary assembly.
8. e'ITmop~:uero TO.s 'ITOAeL<;;: cf. Plut. Philop. 7. 4, for a similar policy
during his year as hipparch.
9. ou8' oAous OICTW fLtlVO.S XPYJ0'6.[.LEVOS Tfi ••• j.I.EAETtJ: calculated from
his entry into office in autumn 208, since his reforms will have begun
at once. Eight months take us from November 208 to June 207; cf.
DeSanctis, iii. 2. 443·4.
11. 1-18.10. The battle of Mantinea.

(a) Sources. P. can be supplemented from Plut. Philop. ro, which
is based on F.'s Life of Philopoemen (d. x. 21. s-8); as Nissen, KU,
283, points out, Plutarch's real interest was in the duel with M:acha-
nidas, which is treated in greater detail than in F.'s Histories, and
his account of previous events is rather careless. Paus. viii. so. r-2 is
derived from Plutarch. \Vhere P. got his account from is unknown.
(b) Numbers. The 4,ooo Lacedaemonian casualties (17. 10} are our
only figure, but an estimate is possible. In r68 the Achaean League
could raise Jo,ooo-4o,ooo men from the whole Peloponnese (xxix.
24. 8); in 207 it can hardly have raised above 1s,ooo-2o,ooo, and
perhaps u.ooo-r4,ooo citizen troops fought at Mantinea. Thus with
perhaps c. 8,ooo mercenaries (cf. v. 91. 6) the whole force will not
have exceeded c. 2o,ooo. Under Cleomenes tbe Spartan army was
less than 2o.ooo (d. ii. 6~. ron.), nnd under Nabis 18,ooo (Livy
THE BATTLE OF l\1ANTI~EA XL r L 5
xxxiv. 27. r, 29. 14). Since .Machanidas had more mercenaries than
the Achaeans (13. 3 n.), his army was probably much the ;;;ame, and
one can assume that the two forces were roughly equal ir. size. See
Kromayer, AS, i. z89-9r; De Sanctis, iii. ::. 428 n. 79·
(c) General. The fullest treatment is in Kromayer, AS, i. :z81-314;
see also the criticisms of Roloff, u6-39; H. Delbriick, Geschichte der
Kriegskunst, il (Berlin, r92o), 252-6; Griffith, 104; earlier biblio-
graphy in CAH, viii. 746. For Kromayer's reply to Roloff see BPW,
1904, 994-6; cf. 1310-12 (Roloff's answer). P.'s account does not
justify as definite a reconstruction of the battle as Kromayer claims;
in many respects it seeks to give a more favourable picture of Philo-
poemen's tactics than they deserve; see the notes. The site of the
battle can be identified with certainty; but see 11. 5-7 n.
11. 1. Ma.xa.vl8a.s: cf. x. 41. z n.

<:ruv1)1lpol<:rJLEvo~
••• Ets TTJV MavT(VE\a.V: the presence of catapults in
Machanidas' army shows that he intended besieging Man tinea; and
Philopoemen's position(§§ 5-7 n.) indicates that he wanted to prevent
this (Kromayer, AS, i. 292}. But the fact that Machanidas left
Tegea only when he heard that the confederate anny was assembled
at Mantinea shows that he was seeking a battle first. His plan was
clearly to defeat the Achaean levy and then march on Mantinea
with his artillery, prepared for a siege if the town did not capitulate.
2. iv TEyEq.: the status of Tegea between the resumption of the
'lfd-.pws 1ToAt-.da in 222 (ii. 70. 4 n.) and 20j is not recorded; but if
the coins inscribed l1xa<wv TEytHITiiv (Head, 418) and the decrees IG,
v. 2. r6-r7, date to this period, she was a member of the Achaean
confederation (cf. v. 17. In.). Hiller von Gaestrigen (RE, 'Tegea',
col. u6) dates Machanidas' acquisition of Tegea to 210, but this is
unlikely. Since Philip never tried to help the Achaeans recover it,
they will hardly have lost it before summer zo8; cf. Kromayer, AS,
i. 291 n. 4; De Sanctis, iii. z. 427 n. 75·
3. E; h:a.TEpou Tou f.LEpous: thus protecting the citizen troops.
'II'Aij9os opyavwv Ka.t J3~:hwv ••• KUTQ'ITEAnKWV: 'a large number of
siege engines and ammunition for catapults'; opyava is a general
term and may include ball£stae as well as catapults.
oi. E;l}yEv EK TTJS MavTwe(a.s: Philopoemen's three columns left by
three separate gates. These have been identified; see Fougeres,
13o-61 and pl. viii, where they are designated G, Tegea Gate ("~'iJv b.:
1'ov Iloanowvo> lf:poiJ ¢1povaa.v); H, 'Manthyrea' Gate (n}v lffjs ws
wp6s TaS' o~a££>); l, Pallantium Gate (KaTa n}v tlxof-LEV'TJV). From the
first of these a road led south to Tegea and Sparta; it is the A~:w</J6pos
of Paus. viii. ro. r, and after passing the temple of Poseidon it must
have hugged the Kapnistra Hills to avoid the marsh (cf. Kromayer,
AS, i, maps 2 and 6; Bolte, RE, 'Mantinea', cols. IJOO-I). From the
283
XL r1. 4 THE BATTLE OF MANTINEA
third a road led south-west to Pallantium and Megalopolis, corre-
sponding to the modern highway to Tripolis; cf. Paus. viii. I I. 5 ff. ;
Kromayer, A.S, i, map z; Bolte, RE, 'Man tinea', cols. IJ02-J. The
second Fougeres calls the Manthyrea gate, and assumes that it was
ACHAEANS
10. THE BATTLE OF MANTINEA, 207 B.C.
the beginning of a road lying between the other two, and of only
local significance. Both Leake (Morea, iii. 98) and Kromayer (AS,
i. 54· n. 1) take the same view; but, if it went far, such a road would
lead straight into a swamp, and as it is never mentioned in Pausanias
or elsewhere it is likely that the middle gate (H) and road leading
through it were built to serve military purposes, such as that for
which they were used now (cf. Bolte, RE, 'Mantinea', cols. IJ06,
IJI4)•
284
THE BATTLE OF MANTINEA XI. II. 5
TOU noO'ElS(;Jvos lepoG: cf. ix. 8. II n.
Tous 'll..l..upLous KaL 8wpa.~<LT«S: De Sanctis (iii. 2. 428 n. 79) and
Holleaux (254 n. 2} regard these Illyrians as auxiliaries provided by
Philip (d. Aymard, Rapports, 52 n. 24); Griffith (104, 252 n. 2) assumes
them to be mercenaries; Launey (L 415) is undecided. Since P. dis-
tinguishes them, like the Other Categories, from Td eEI'LKdV arrav, the
first view seems the more likely. For 8wpa~et-rat cf. x. 29. 6 n. Judging
by iv. 12. J, they were neither normal light-armed nor phalangites;
and they evidently kept their distinctive name even after the Bwpag
had become part of the normal Achaean equipment (9. 5 n.). P.
regards them as distinct from the mercenaries (cf. 14. 1), and Griffith
suggests that -rovs 'I>Jwp{ou;; ~eal 8wpa~el-ra;; may mean 'the cuirassed
Illyrians' (cf. v. 36. J, 53· 3); the two occur together at 14. I and 15. 5,
but § 5 is against this interpretation. Paton translates Bwpa~e£-ra;; as
'heavy armed cavalry' here and in § 5; this is impossible.
TO SIEVLKOV (iorav KQ.L TOUS eutwvous: Griffith, 104, suggests that 'pos-
sibly his original phrase ... is loose writing for "the mercenary light
infantry" ' (d. the last note). Plut. J>hilop. 10. 2 speaks of d~eov-rta-rat.
But there seems no reason why some country districts of Arcadia
should not have furnished eJ,wvot as part of the levy.
O.va.Te£vwv lKavlw: 'rising to a considerable height' (cf. xviii. 22. 9, of
Cynoscephalae).
Tt\v :::ev£Sa: perhaps so called because it was the main route leading
to non-Mantinean territory; there is a similar fEvl;; at Delphi (Syll.
636 1. 24).
5-7. Achaean dispositions. P. does not indicate clearly how far the
phalanx stretched to the east, and so where the mercenaries and
other troops stood on the left wing. Kromayer (AS, i. 295-7 and map)
assumes that the ditch running across the valley stopped short well to
the west of the temple of Poseidon, and that this marks the eastern limit
of the phalanx; he places the bulk of the mercenaries, etc., in the plain
between that point and the temple of Poseidon, only the light-armed
(w,wvot) being stationed on the lower slopes of Alesion somewhat
behind the main line. Roloff, n9, would put the Ev,wvot further up
the slope, reaching to the summit of .'\lesion, and the rest of the light-
armed to the east of the temple of Poseidon. Concerning the eastern
end of the ditch P. is ambiguous. -r~v -ra<fopov T~v <fo'povO"av Errl Tov
lioO"t;tSlou means literally 'the ditch which extends towards the
temple of Poseidon', but it can have reached the temple, just as~ i¢'
'Hpala;; Kal Te>.<foo-60"'rjs (sc. oOo>) (ii. 54· 12) actually reached those
places. Kromayer argues that the lie of the land is such that a drainage
ditch need not come as far east as the temple; but if the ditch was
to serve military ends (and this may easily have been intended),
there would be good reason to carry it so far. P.'s statement (§ 6)
that the phalanX lay irri Tijv EV810iav '.'.':Jth the 8wpa.KiTaL and the
285
XI. II. 5 THE BATTLE OF MANTINEA
lllyrians does not imply that the latter were necessarily on the same
level as the phalanx (cf. Kromayer, AS, i. 294 n. 3. 'auf gleicher Hohe'),
and so does not exclude Roloff's view that they were stationed on
the lower, gentle slopes of Alesion; and that this was the case seems
indicated by 15. 3. where Philopoemen, having transferred part of
his phalanx to the position vacated by the mercenaries, who have
fled, {nu:pUgw;; €yey6vEL -rofi -rwv 1roAep.tWl• Kipa-ro!: (see note ad loc.).
On the whole the evidence seems slightly to favour Roloff's inter-
pretation.
5. Tiw Mcpov Tov 1rpo T1]S m)A~<ws: the hill A lesion (mod. Alog6-
vrachos), which rises to its first peak at 750 m. to the south-east of
Man tinea. The Tegea road (Xenis) runs along its base, and the tempk
of Poseidon lies beside this (cf. § 4 n., ix. 8. II n.).
E1TL TTJV jL£<1TJJL~p(a.v: the 8wpaKC-ra~ are in contact with the eil,wYoL
(avv&.mwv), but face south; this implies that the EV,wllot were not
facing south, and if they were extended up the hill towards the
summit, they would in fact be facing south-east.
6. E1Tl ~v a.uT-fJv f:ME'Lav: 'in the same straight line'; see 5-7 n.
KO.TU T€ATJ (11T£~p1'}8ov iv s~a<JTl}jLO.CJW E'ITEO'TT}O"£: 'he stationed them in
battalions \\ith inten·als between the companies'; according to the
tactical writers a -r£Ao, consists of 2,048 men (cf. Asclep. 2. 10; Arr.
Tact. 10. 5; Ad. 9· 7). The a7Toipa of 256 men was the tactical unit in
Macedonian armies and had been adopted by Philopoemen (d.
v. 4· 9 n.; Walbank, Philip, 293). In making his phalanx a more
flexible unit, and not the usual Hellenistic monolithic block (cf.
Kromayer-Veith, Hecrwesen, 136), Philopoemen was perhaps
learning from the Romans, as Pyrrhus had done when he alternated
phalangites and Italians in a1TEtpa• (d. xviii. z8. ron.; Kromayer-
Veith, Heerwesen, 136).
cruv6.1TTouo-a.v To'ls &pt;cr~: the mountains to the west of the plain, the
edge of Maenalus, a range about goo m. high. The ditch may have
connected with the katavothra of Milia, which lies at the foot of these
hills about due west of the temple of Poseidon (d. Fougeres, ro6;
Kromayer, AS, i. 293 n. 3). Shuckburgh's translation here suggests
that the mountains are in the direction of the temple.
Til TWV 'EX~o-cpa.o-LWV xwp~: a bronze coin with the legend [EAI}~
l:¢A!InN AX[AinN] (Gardner, BMC Peloponnesus, p. q) confirms
the name. P.'s reference to -ro -rwv MaJ~TLvlwv m!ow11 suggests that thr
territory of the Elisphasii stretched to the west of the mountains
here mentioned. Though Bolte (RE, 'Man tinea', coL 1312) conjecture;;
that the Elisphasii were one of the five original demes out of which
Mantinea was synoecized (Strabo, viii. 337). there is no evidencr~
for this, nor that they formed part of Mantinea at all. Fougeres,
128, suggested that they were perhaps a community in Maenalus
(located, he thinks, on the site of Capsia), who were incorporated in
286
THE BATTLE OF MA~TIKEA XI. 12. 3
Megalopolis in 371 and then established by Philopoemen as an
autonomous member of the Achaean League. For the setting-up of
such independent communities see Plut. Philop. 13. 5; though the
date referred to is c. 190 (cf. Hiller von Gaetringen, RE, 'Arkadia',
col. II35; W. Hoffmann, RE, 'Philopoemen', col. 88; R. Weil, ZN,
1882, 222 ff.; Dittenberger ad Syll. 6z3), this does not rule out such
an explanation of P.'s reference to Elisphasian territory here, for
he may be referring to the conditions of his own time. Plutarch
(loc. cit.) records a tradition that Philopoemen acted from hostility
towards Megalopolis, but he may have sought to strengthen Arca-
dian representation in the Achaean confederation (cf. Freeman,
JJFG, 489; Niese, iii. 37).
7. :A.plaTO.liiETo<; ••• hufla.'los: since the MSS. read l4pw·raiveros where
Aristaenus is meant at xviii. 1. 4, 13. 8 and xxiv. II. 4 (Suidas) (a
confusion also to be found in Plut. Philop. 13. 4, q. 3), Aristaenus is
probably indicated here (cf. Niccolini, Studi storichi peJ' l'antichitd.
classica, 6,I9IJ, I94 f.). Plut. Philop. q. 4 and Paus. viii. 51. 4 attri-
bute Aristaenus to Megalopolis, but Dyme is confirmed by the dedi-
ca.tion to Aristaenus quoted in the note to Syll. 702 (ct Aymard,
PR, 68 n. 93). See, however, J. Deininger, Historia, I966, 376-8o.
TO SEVlKOII a1TO.II: cf. § 4· Whether Philopoemen commanded the
Illyrians and OwpaKi'Ta£ too is not clear. The apparent repetition
arises because having mentioned the commander on the right P.
reverts to the left wing to add that the mercenaries there were under
Philopoemen's personal command. Paton translates 'the mercenary
cavalry'; but arrav rules this out.
iv ~1Ta.AA:rV,ol<; n1.gEal: 'in ranks close one behind another'. From I4. I
it appear~ that the lllyrianS and ewpal<tTO.t Were Stationed behind
some other troops (i<f•JipEvovns "Tofs tlvots), who may be the Taren-
tines of I2. 6 or may merely include these. Kromayer (AS, i. 295-6)
assumes two lines, with mercenary infantry and the Tarentines in
front, and the lllyrianS and 8wpaKiTO.£ behind; this is probably right,
but the phrase iv irraAA~Ao£s ni.tw£ is irrelevant to it, since it refers
only to the mercenaries and not to the Illyrians and 8wpaKZmt.
12. l. n1 auaTt1J.t.aTa: the units forming the phalanx (d. II. 6 n.);
cf. v. 53· ;), TO TijS <fd.:\ayyos avan]p.a (acting as a single body).
3. U1TEp aElJ.l.IITJaTou Kat AaJ.l.1Tp0.s EAEU9Epias: since the Achaean
Confederation represented freedom for all its members (d. ii. 37· 9.
38. 6, 42. 3) ; on this propaganda, including the ovation given to
Philopoemen at the Nemea of 207, when the opening verse of
Timotheus' Persae, KAnvov JAEvfhpia<; 'TEVxwv p.€yav 'EAAaot Koap.ov
was referred to him (Plut. Philop. 11. z) see Walbank, CQ, I944, 9·
It was anti-Spartan in form, and the epigram against Sparta in
A.nth. Pal. vii. 723 (usually dated to I88) is connected by Ollier
287
XI. I2. 3 THE BATTLE 0 F :VI A!\ T I::\" E.\.
(ii. I25) with the invasion following Machanidas' defeat (I8. 8-Io)
and attributed by him to Alcaeus of Messene.
4. we; ••• trpOUf.LtSWV trpoc; 'TO Ses~ov 'TWV troAEf.LtWV: this implies that
Machanidas left the road from T egea, which came up the eastern
side of the plain to pass the temple of Poseidon, and crossed over to
the Pallantium road. His purpose (cf. Kromayer, AS, i. 3oo) was
to get clear of the Pelagos oak-forest, which surrounded the Tegea
road as far north as the temple, but only touched the Pallantium
road at one point (Paus. viii. II. I, II. 5).
trEpLeKAa ••• ktrl. Sopu: 'he wheeled his force round to the right';
cf. x. 23. 6 n., xi. 23. 2.
trapeKn(vac;: 'extending his line'. From the course of the battle it
becomes clear (cf. § 7 n.) that in deploying from a line of march to
a line of battle Machanidas must have sent his mercenaries (cf. II. 3)
forward to constitute the right wing facing the mercenaries on
Philopoemen's left.
Tm:Oc; ••• Ka'Ta.treATa.c; trpo 1T(lUTJ'> ktrEU'TTJ<TE Ti]c; Suval'ews: this pro··
posed use of catapults in a pitched battle was a novel and ingenious
plan, which would have disrupted the Achaean phalanx, or forced it
back to a point which would have let the Spartans cross the ditch
unhindered. In fact it compelled Philopoemen to take the offensive
with the only troops who would not be put at a serious disadvantage
by advancing, his mercenaries. The number of catapults at Macha-
nidas' disposal is unknown; but since they were planned for the
siege of Mantinea, it will have been considerable. P. implies that
the machines were intended to attack the phalanx, and therefore
the words 1rpd ml.a1JS' ... TijS' 3vvap.EwS' need not mean that they were
stationed the whole length of the Spartan line, but simply that
they were in advance of the army as a whole (Kromayer, AS, i.
301 n. 2).
6. Sul. 'TWV T a.pa.VT£vwv: cf. iv. 77. 7 n. Here they are clearly mer-
cenaries, distinct from the Achaean horse (Ir. 4, II. 7); cf. Livy,
xxxv. 28. 8: 'et quos Tarentinos uocabant equites, binos secum tra-
hentis equos'.
~'II'LtrESouc; Ka.l. trpoc; ttrmK-i]v eu<J>ueic; Xf>Eta.v: 'this would not exclude
the land on the lowest slope of Alesion, immediately east of the
temple of Poseidon (cf. II. s-7 n.), and does not necessarily imply
that the fighting was west of it (as Kromayer supposes).
7. Touc; trap' a.u'Tou T a.pa.vT£vouc;: evidently stationed on his right
(§ 4 n.).
13. 1. a.uTwv 'Tou'Twv: sc. and no others.

1Tf>OOTyLVOilEVWV ••• 'TWV eutwvwv: on both sides. The Achaean w-
~wvm were stationed on the upper slopes of Alesion, and would come
down on the Spartan Tarentines from the flank; where precisely
288
THE B,\TTLE OF MA~Tl:c\EA XI. I4. 3
l\lachanidas' !v,wvo• were stationed is not recorded, but it may be
assumed that they were behind his Tarentines.
(To) Tra.p' iKa.Tipl.l)v sevU<cw O.vaJil.s yeve<TBa\: Kromayer (AS, i. 302)
believes that Philopoemen had an advantage in numbers, since we
are not told that :Machanidas brought any of the mercenaries over
from his left wing. But P. nowhere says that Machanidas had any
mercenaries on his left wing, and his silence about what happened
to the two mercenary columns when the phalanx deployed into
line (n. 4) leaves one free to assume that all his mercenaries were
stationed opposite those of Philopoemen (as the present passage
suggests). That Machanidas had the larger mercenary force is clear
from§ 3, and easy to accept if Philopoemen's Illyrians, light-armed,
and 8wpa~<i-ra.t are not included among the mercenaries.
How this melee on the wing stopped the Spartans manning their
catapults is nowhere made clear. Roloff, 124-5. suggests that as
Machanidas became personally involved in the mercenary fight, the
operation with the catapults came to a halt for want of direction.
If this was so, the lack of generalship on the Spartan side was even
worse than P. suggests.
l. j.L~ 8uva.trf!a\ <Tup.fiaXei:v: 'could reach no conclusion'.
3. tcO.TL<Txuov KO.L T({l 'ITATjBu Ka.L Tal:<; e&xe\pla.\s: Kromayer (AS, i.
302 n. 5) rejects this statement as a partisan attempt by P. to cloak
a reverse discreditable to a larger Achaean force; this seems arbitrary.
Sul. ~v Esw: 'acquired through practice'.
4. Toiho 8' ••• etwee yfvetrf!a\: for P.'s interest in the problems aris-
ing out of the use of mercenaries cf. i. 65. 7; for his remarks here
compare those of Guicciardini on fifteenth-century Italian mer-
cenaries, quoted by Thirlwall, History of Greece, viii. 273 n. 2.
14. 1. Tous EcpE8peuovTil<; To'Cs ~ivoLS 'IXXupLou<; Kat llwpa.K£Ta.S: the

Illyrians were stationed behind the mercenaries (and so \vere not
themselves mercenaries); cf. rr. 4 n.
'JCmE<TIIEvTa.s: there is no reason to prefer the reading of the Berlin
papyrus, ~~<{3taafUvTa; (above, p. q).
i'ITTci <TTa8£ous: cf. ix. 8. I I n.
2. (Tra.pO. T1Jv TWV ,;youj.Levwv) E!k'll'etpLav: so Gronovius; cf. ix. 12. 4
for the sense and phraseology.
3. To 'ITpoTepY\Jia.Too;; O.pxT}v Aa.fiovTa 'll'potrfle'i:va.l T&.ttoXou9ov: 'having
begun well to follow up one's success'.
t"'ival Trap' a•iTov: 'to keep control of oneself'.
cruvemii£<TBaL 1'o'i:s ... &.p.apT~p.aow: 'to exploit their mistakes'. P.
aeems here to admit that Philopoemen had the worst of the battle
up to this point and that his ultimate success was due to his ex-
ploiting Machanidas' errors. Griffith, ro4, suggests that the retreat
of the Achaean left was a deliberate withdrawal: 'certainly he
814.175 u
XI. 14· 3 THE BATTLE OF :\IA:;\ T I X E.\
(sc. Philopoemen) retained control of his men, so that at the critical
moment, when Machanidas had pursued far enough and his own
centre and right were victorious, he could stand his ground and force
the enemy mercenaries to fight between two converging lines'. This
theory ignores the fact that Philopoemen was no longer in charge
once the left had fled ; he side-stepped and took over the phalanx
(rs. 2). Further, there is no evidence for two converging lines: the
routed troops took no further part in the battle. Finally, Griffith's
theory runs directly counter to everything P. says; and if the rout
was a controlled retreat, it is odd that P. with his decided interest in
defending Philopoemen, and with his excellent Achaean sources of
information, had never heard of it.
4. 1TO.pn TTJV O.liTiaV nyx(votO.V: the papyrus ShOWS a gap Which
\Vilcken restores TTapd -r~v -rwv TTpo€a-rw-rwv (or ~youJ-L€vwv) dyxtvowv;
but he rightly prefers the MS. since -rovs 8' itself refers to those in
command.
6. Kai 1Ta.pa.A€Auf1evou Tou Aa.toli KEpw~: including the Illyrians, lig!Jt-
armed and BwpaKt'TUt (cf. rs. s).
acpEf.LEVO~ TOU f.LEVELV E1Tl TWV U1TOKHf1EVWV: 'instead of keeping to his
original intention'; cf. i. 40, s. EJ-LEVev JTT~ -rijs imoKHJ-LEVYJ> yvwJ-LYJ>·
Paton misses the sense, translating 'instead of remaining on the
field'.
Tou~ f.LEV Ka.Ta KEpa.~ u1repa.£pew: 'to outflank the enemy on one side'.
TOL~ Se ••• a1Ta.VTnV: 'to charge their front on the other'; dTTav-ra~·
is Biittner-Wobst'splausible suggestion for the MS. ayELv (cf. iii. 65. 6,
xviii. 3· 3). -rovs J-L~v • •. -rois 8€ refer to the Achaean troops; this
Shuck burgh misses, translating ' ... with some of his troops, ...
with others'.
15. 2. u'ITo To Tfj~ cpO.A.a.yyos Kepa~: 'under the shelter of the wing of
the phalanx'.
To'Ls 'ITPWTOLS TeAeaL Twv cpa.AayyLTwv: cf. rr. 6, Ka-rd -r€AYJ. Philo-
poemen detached several of the battalions on the extreme left of
the phalanx, and marched them left into the place of the routed
mercenaries and light-armed, not in the usual way, wheeling them
round by sections, but giving the order 'left turn' and then having
them advance; thus the files of the phalanx became ranks for the
purpose of the advance. lTT'dcmioa KAiv<tv is the technical expression
for 'left turn' applied to the individual (cf. iii. IIS. 9; Asclep. ro. 2;
Arr. Tact. 20. 2; Ael. 25. r). See Kromayer, AS, i. 303-5 n. 3, with
criticisms of previous interpretations.
3. u1repSf:~LOS £yeyoveL Tou ••• Kepa.To~: 'got on higher ground than
the enemy's (right) wing' (Shuckburgh); for this interpretation,
which Schweighaeuser, (Lex Polyb., {mEpo€gws) rightly prefers to
Casaubon; 'ultra hostilis aciei cornu copias suas produxit', cf. viii.
THE BATTLE OF MANTINEA XL I6. 4
4· g, X. 30. 7, tl1repUg~o~ Twv rroAeJLlwv EylvoVTo. This implies that the
Achaean left was originally on higher ground than the phalanx and
so to the east of the Temple of Poseidon (cf. II. 5-7 n.). Unfortunately
Schweighaeuser followed Casaubon in his translation, and has in
turn been followed by Paton, who renders 'outflanked the Spartan
•ving', and by Kromayer (AS, i. 312). According to Plutarch, Philop.
10. 4, Philopoemen initiated the next stage of the battle by a flank
attack on the Spartan phalanx, with what troops we are not told;
he does not mention the ditch at this point, and his account, which
is much compressed, clearly misunderstands what he read in P.'s
Life of Philopoemen, and cannot stand against the version here.
4. Taus f1EV 4>a.f..a:yyiTa.s: i.e. the main body; it is clear from the fact
that the detachment was put under the orders of Polyaenus that
Philopoemen must have returned at once to take charge of the
phalanx now that the moment to charge was approaching (Kromayer,
AS, i. 307 n. z).
'll'OI.E~aOa.t TTJY E'll'a.ywyYjv aVa.fl£~: 'to charge and engage hand to
hand' (cf. 13. r). How imminent that order was we cannot tell, since
Machanidas' phalanx anticipated it by advancing sua sponte across
the ditch; Kromayer (AS, i. 307) outstrips the evidence when he
assumes that Philopoemen was on the point of charging, for although
he could not afford to wait very long with Machanidas liable soon
to return, the ditch was still a considerable obstacle to whiche\•er
side tried to cross it (cf. Roloff, r36-7).
5. nof..ua.tvlf ••• T4> MEya.A011'0Ahn: F(S) reads llo?..vfJlCf, which must
be wrong, since P. had never heard of any other previous bearer of
his name (xxxvi. I2. s). Lucht had suggested 'Poly bus'; but Biittner-
Wobst observes that since in I8. 2 Polyaenus (but not Sirnias) has his
place of origin added, this must be to distinguish him from another
Polyacnus recently mentioned, and so he reads llo)\vat.u.p here. This
is a very plausible, though clearly not a certain, conjecture.
Tous lha.KEKAu«l'l'a.s TTjv 4>uyljv: 'who had evaded the rout'.
Twv eK Stwyf1<1Tos O.va.xwpovvTwv: Machanidas' men.
7. Su1 To TTjv Ka.T~~a.aLY ~XElY ~K 'll'OAAou: 'because the descent into
it was gentle'.
Ka.Ta TO TEAos: unparalleled in the sense 'at all', which is usually
£lc; TlAos.. Casau bon's ~~:anl To (}.!.poe; is attractive.
6.yp£a.v u~TJV: 'scrub'.
16. :2. £v Tfi TTjs ni4>pou Ka.nL(j3aau 11'nAw ~va.)f3a.£vovTES: thi:s con-
jecture, a combination of suggestions by Reiske, Schweighaeuser,
and Hultsch, may be abandoned since the Berlin papyrus reads iv
Tfi T~> Tarj>pov Ka7'af36.a;;~ 7rpoa{JalvovTES' KTA.
4. oOK a.OTOf16.Tw!; ooS' h: TOU K<llpou: 'not accidental or unpre-
meditated': i.e. the Achaean success \Vas not purely fortuitous, nor
XI. I6. 4 THE BATTLE OF MANTINEA
was it even due to an improvization on Philopoemen's part. It was
the culmination of a carefully thought-out plan (cf. Siegfried, 52-53).
This plan P. indicates in §§ and Kromayer (AS, i. 297-9) dis-
cusses it; P. in fact does not consider what Philopoemen would
have done had Machanidas attacked only his left wing, but Kromayer
argues that in this case too Philopoemen had good hopes of success.
But he assumes an Achaean preponderance of mercenaries, which is
untrue (13. 3 n.). In fact, had Machanidas wheeled left after routing
the Achaean left, and co-ordinated a :flank attack on the phalanx
with a frontal attack by his own phalanx over the ditch, it seems
likely that the Achaeans would have been decisively defeated. To
this extent F.'s defence of Philopoemen's strategy is unconvincing.
P. is inclined to interpret Philopoemen's successes as the reward of
merit, and his ultimate downfall as the work of Tyche (xxiii. I2. 3);
here writes the Achaean. For ~K Toil Ka.Lpoii cf. xviii. 24. 7.
5. ou <j>uyo~J-a.xwv, C!r;; nver;; ~nreA6.~J-13a.vov: P. echoes criticism that
must clearly have been made of Philopoemen's defensive strategy
at Man tinea; Pedech, liUthade, 347 n. 67, thinks it may have been
found in the work of Aristocrates the Spartiate (FGH, 591).
ou 1rpoi:86~evor;; TTJV Ta<j>pov: 'without reckoning with the ditch';
r.pol8w0aL does not here imply that Machanidas would not see the
ditch, but merely that he would not be deterred by it; cf. Schweig-
haeuser, 'nil cauens fossam, non ueritus fossam' and his notes on i.
49· ro and on App. Samn. 5 (p. 52 of his edition).
au~J-13l]ana.l 1ra.8eiv auT0 ... Tfjr;; a.x,ee£a.r;;: 'the phalanx would
suffer the fate which I have just described, and which on that occasion
it did suffer in reality'. The article To, added by Casaubon before
r.poELp7Jpivov, is now confirmed by the Berlin papyrus (which also
reads yevop.Evov for ym)p.evov three words later).
6. TTJV tiuaxpTJaTtav: so Ursin us for FS T~v 8Uaxp7JaTov; preference
must now go to Td 8JJaxp7JaTov, conjectured by Casaubon and con-
firmed by the Berlin papyrus.
l!~e 1ra.pa.TeTa.yfJ-evwv &.1roAuael: 'if after having drawn up his line of
battle he were to retire'; &.r.o/..vO~aeTaL would be more usual, but the
active can perhaps be justified in this intransitive sense: see Schweig-
haeuser, Lex. Palyb. s.v. cir.o/..JJew, for discussion.
Ka.t ~a.~epO.v a.uTov l!v 1rope£~ tiltiova.L fJ-EAAn: 'and if he were to expose
himself in a long marching column'; cf. § 8. F(S) reads Kal J.LO.Kpav m1T6v
lp.r.opda liLa{M.MEL, and both EV r.opdq. and the suggested interpreta-
tion derive from Schweighaeuser's interesting note, in which he
compares iv. 12. II and v. 22. 7 (he reads lp.r.eLp{as in his text, a
reading usually ascribed to Casaubon, but, according to Schweig-
haeuser, 'habet eamdem scripturam etiam Hervagiana editio, cum
qua consentit Mediceus'). The Berlin papyrus reads Kat p.a.Kpav a.unlv
E/k TTopElaL &a.f3a./..Et, which confirms Schweighaeuser's EV r.opelr:, but
292
THE BATTLE OF MANTI::\EA XI. r8. 4
shows that the corruption arose early. Madvig, Adv. cr£t. i. 483,
reads Sta{3a.luo:i:, but Biittner-Wobst's suggestion remains the most
acceptable.
lhon ... Trep..Ecrra.~: after av>.>.oytudf.Levo> in § 5.
9. cruf1(3a.£vEL: the sentence is incomplete; an infinitive (e.g. Reiske's
u<PcD.>.ea8at or {3M.TTTW8at, or Gronovius' &.f.LapTdvetv) is required.
<
17. 3. KO.Ta TfJV) TOU s~WYflO.TO~ Trapo:!fTUl<J'~V: 'in the excitement of
his pursuit'; cf. iii. IIS. I I n.
4. 4>euyouaav: with T~v ••. SJvaf.LLV.
TrpoTrETI'TWICE: 'had advanced too far' ; missed by Paton who renders
'that he had blundered'.
auaTpa4>eC~: 'making them close up'.
6. TfJV €1rt T.j]~ Td.4>pou ye4>upav: presumably carrying the Tegea
road. Kromayer (AS, i. 295 n. r), since he believes that the ditch did
not extend to the Temple of Poseidon, has to assume that this bridge
is on the Pallantium road to the west; but it would be natural for
Machanidas to press back along the Tegea road towards Sparta,
rather than to diverge to the west. Whether the Pallantium road
had a bridge over the ditch is unknown; P.'s expression does not
imply that there was only one bridge over it, for he means 'the bridge
Machanidas was making for'.
18. 1. J\va~L8a.11ov: unknown. He is hardly the Anaxidamus men-

tioned in xxx. 30. I, 32. 1-12, xxxiii. 3· r, but may be a relative.
By an oversight Paton calls him Alexidamus.
TfJV 8Co8ov: i.e. by the bridge.
TOUS auvau~OVTO.S a.tel TCtS EV Tij ITrdopTn Tupa.vv(8a.s: the use of mer-
cenaries by Spartan kings began on a considerable scale with
Leonidas II (Plut. Agis, 16. 3. 19. 3). By 226 Cleomenes was using
'Tarentines' and Cretans (Plut. Cleom. 6. 3. 21. 3) and he employed
mercenaries for his coup d'etat (Plut. Cleom. 7· 3 ff.); for those at
Sellasia see ii. 65. ro, 69. 3· Lycurgus' mercenaries are important:
iv. 36. 4, So. 4, So. 6; and for those of N abis cf. xiii. 6. 3 xvi. 37. 3;
Livy, xxxii. 40. 4, xxxiv. 27. 2, 28. 8, 29. I4, 35· 8, xxxv. 27. IS, 29. Iff.;
perhaps IG, v. I. 724. For details see Griffith, 93-98.
2. noxua~V0\1 TOY Ku1T<lpl<10'Ea K<ll. ILflL<l\1: cf. Plut. Philop. ro. 7·
See above, rs. 5 n. Neither is otherwise known.
ots EXP-iJTo TOTE Tra.pa.aTrLaTa'i:s: F(S) TTapeLaTT{1T'Twv. The correction,
suggested by Schweighaeuser, is supported by Plut. Philop. ro. 7,
otTTep del 7lf> tPLAo1TOLfLEVL TTapijaav fLaXOJLEV, has much to commend it (cf. § 5).
TfJV aVTL1TO.paywyf)v: cf. iX. 3· IO ll.
4:. n)v LTI'TI'OV ETrayc:w teal 8La.m;p0.v: according to Plutarch (Philop.
293
XL rS. 4 THE BATTLE OF MANTll';'EA
10. 6}, the horse caught the edge of the ditch with its chest, and was
trying to get out when Philopoemen and his attendants rode up.
1tpoa£vtyK~lV •.. EK ~ha.A~Ijiews: 'dealing him a second blow with a
thrust of the spike at the butt end'; cf. ii. 33· 6 n., xvi. 33· 3, and, on
the aavpwn}p, vi. 25. 6, 25. 9· According to Plutarch (Philop. 10. 7),
a bronze statue erected by the Achaeans at Delphi depicted Philo-
poemen thrusting his spear (not the butt end) into Machanidas (the
source may not be P.'s Life); cf. Daux, BCH, 1966, 283-9.
8. rijs l'ev T£yea.s ••• Kuptot Ka.TeaTTJaa.v: cf. u. 2 n.
10. ouK eAanous Twv Tupa.KtaxtALwv: on numbers in the battle see
II. I-I8. IOn.
19 a. The importance of explaining causes

This fragment could belong equally well to the res Graeciae, the res
ltaliae, or the res Hispan£ae of this year; see above, p. 17· Its theme,
the study of causes if the reader is to derive benefit from history, is
common throughout the work (cf. iii. 7· 4-7, vi. 2. 8).
19 a 1. e~a.v8pa1to5tap.ous KO.l1TOAtopKlO.S: 'the storming of cities and

the enslavement of their inhabitants'; for the hysteron proteron to
avoid hiatus cf. ii. 2. 2 n., viii. 14. 6 n., x. 23. 2, 27. II, xiv. 10. 9·
2. o/uxa.ywy£1: ... wcj>eAouat: for examples of this common anti-
thesis see Vol. I, p. 7 n. 12.
at 5e 1tpoa9ev Sta.A~o/ns TWV em~a.AAop.evwv: 'the previous decisions
of those responsible'; Paton misses the sense and translates 'anticipa-
tion of what is to follow'. For P.'s concept of alTiaL as the events
leading the individual to take certain decisions (here (naA-r]fw,;) see
iii. 6. 3 n.
e~uatop.€VO.l SeoVTWS: 'when adequately investigated'. Shuckburgh,
less convincingly, takes 8E6vrw> with w</>EAovat; but an adverb would
weaken the contrast with !JlvxaywyEi:.
TOUS cj>lAop.a.OouVTa.S: 'students'; cf. ii. 56. II-12 n. for the contrast
with TOV> aKOVOVTas; vii. 7· 8 n.
3. 0 KO."Tdo jlEpos X£lplap.os tKaC"TWV em5nKvup.evos: 'an exposition of
the detailed management of each particular question'; cf. 4· 7, 35· 3·
19. Hannibal's generalship

This sketch seems prompted by the crisis in Hannibal's fortunes
following Metaurus, and seems concerned with the specific question:
why did Hannibal's attack on Rome fail (d. §§ 6-7)? This is in ac-
cordance with P.'s declared principle (x. 26. 9) of discussing the
characteristics of those he is writing on as suitable occasions present
themselves. Another such occasion is Hannibal's death (cf. xxiii.
294
HANNIBAL'S GENERALSHIP XI. 19. 7
IJ. 1-2); see also ix. :22. 7-26. n for a fuller discussion of his character.
Livy (xxviii. 12. I-<J) has a similar discussion of Hannibal at the
corresponding point in his narrative (2o6).
19. l. TLS ouK Civ ~1TWTJf1t)VatTo: cf. ix. 9· 5; and, on €ma7]pJJ.ivot.taL,

x. 38. 3 n.
2. TO.s Ka9oAou ••• 116.xas: such as Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannac,
involving major forces on both sides.
woAewv f1ETaf3oMs : 'defections of cities from one side to the other' ;
hardly 'his movements from city to city' (Paton).
Tfjc; OATJS em!'oAfjs Kat wp6.st:ws: 'his whole design and its exe-
cution'.
3. tKKa.£8ua. 1To>.el.l.t)c:ra.s ~TTJ: P. reckons from Hannibal's arrival in
Italy in 218 (01. 140, z) to his departure in late autumn 203 (01. 144, z).
xxiii. 13. 2, l7r-ra.Kai8€Ka l-rTJ, may be reckoned from the attack on
Saguntum, or may go down to Zama, if it was fought in autumn
:202 (01. 140. 3); but P. describes Zama in xv, which covers Ol. 144, 2
203{2 (cf. xv. 5· 3-14. 9 (b) on the date of the battle), so perhaps
the former explanation is the more satisfactory. Livy, xxviii. 12. 3·
'cum in hostium terra per annos tredecim ... bellum gereret', cal-
culates from 218 to :zo6.
UCJ'TO.CJ'LO.CJ'Ta. ••• Ka.t 1Tpos mhbv Ka.t 1Tpos aAATJAa.: cf. Livy, xxviii.
1:2. 4, 'ut nulla nee inter ipsos nee aduersus ducem seditio exsti-
terit'.
oux otov OfLOE9v~ow, aAA' ouo' OJ.LOci'uAOLS ••• <TTPO.T01T~8oLS: to P.
&p.txpuAos indicates a 'hider grouping than ot.to,dtvr]s, for the </>fJAa. are
the broad racial groups indicated in the next sentence (cf. ii. 33· 2,
To Ta.AanKov </>fiAov; I. ro. 2, where the Mamertines claim the Romans
as Jt.t6¢uAoL), whereas f:8V7] are the various peoples within a race, for
example the Arcadians and Laconians (iv. 32. 3). or the Achaeans
(ix:. 34· 6}. For useful discussion and references see H. A. Stier,
Grundlage:n und S£nn der griechischen Geschichie (Stuttgart, 1945),
388 n. II3; cf. Walbank, Phoenix, 1951, 46 n. 24.
15. oux a1TATJ5 ••• TTJS 1T€p1c:rTaUEW5: 'though circumstances were by
no means straightforward'.
).a.f11Tpiis E1T11T'IIEouO"I]s TTJS TUXTJS: the metaphor is of the wind of
fortune, and there is no real personification; cf. xxv. 3· 9; examples
from other authors in von Scala, 173 n. L On the variability of
n}xTJ see Vol. I, pp. 16 ff.
6. Ev 1'0UT(jl T~ p.ept:l: in controlling his multifarious army.
iw' /l)..Aa. J.LEPTJ TTJS olKouJ.LEYTJ<;: implying that Hannibal's aim, like that
of Rome (cf. 6. 2 n.). was world-dominion.
7. TTJV apx~v ••• Knt TO TtAos : for the almost proverbial contrast of
these t\'ITO words cf. vi. 6. 7 n., and other examples in Mauersberger,
s.v. dpxfJ.
XL Z0-24- 9 THE BATTLE OF ILIPA
20-24. 9. The battle of Ilipa

After Baecula (x. 38. 7-40. 12) the Carthaginians sent Hanno to Spain
to recruit new forces, but M. Silanus defeated and captured him in
207; Hasdrubal, son of Gisgo, retreated to Gades and evaded battle,
while L. Scipio captured the rich city of Orongis. P. Scipio wintered
207/6 at Tarraco (Livy, xxviii. 1·-4}. The present extract deals with
the early season of zo6; for the thesis, here rejected, that llipa was
in 207 see above, pp. q-18. The sources for the campaign of Ilipa
and its sequel are, besides P., Livy, xxviii. 12. J0-16. rs and App.
H£sp. 25-27 (unreliable and irreconcilable with P. and Livy). It is
clear that P. aud Livy draw on common material, and Kahrstedt,
iii. 316-18, has argued that here, as in the account of the taking of
New Carthagt- (x. 2. 1-20. 8 n.), Livy has drawn on P. but has supple-
mented his account from other sources; whereas Klotz, Livius, r85-7,
thinks that the similarities are due to the use of a common source,
Fabius who comes down to Livy through Coelius. It is less easy than
in the case of the description of the taking of New Carthage to decide
between these two theses; but the analogy of that narrative would
suggest that Kahrstedt's theory is the more likely and that the
relationship between P. and Livy is the same as for New Carthage
and Baecula (cf. x. 34-40 n.). As in his account of the taking of N'ew
Carthage, P. probably drew on several sources; but we cannot be
certain either that Fabius' history went down to 206, or that Silenus
dealt with Ilipa, so that P.'s sources must remain obscure. See also
De Sanctis, iii. 2. 643~4 (valuable despite his belief that Livy, xxviii.
r-4 and 12. ro-17. r are doublets).
(a) Site of the battle. Hasdrubal's camp was not far from Ilipa (so
Schweighaeuser convincingly for MS. l.\iyyas F (~Atyyas- S)). Ilipa is
the same word as Livy's Silpia (Livy, xxviii. 17. 14; cf. Schweig-
haeuser and Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 4o6--7) for parallels for the 'S'); it
can be located in the neighbourhood of Alcala del Rio, a village on
the Guadalquivir 14 km. due north of Seville {cf. CIL, ii. roSs, rogr;
Schulten, RE, 'Ilipa', col. ro66). From Livy, xxviii. r6. 3. it appears
that Hasdrubal was able to retreat to the Atlantic without crossing
the Baetis (Guadalquivir); hence the battle was on the right bank.
The evolutions described by P. (22. 9-23. 7) limit the battle to the
fairlj• level ground near the river, and Scullard (JRS, 1936, 19-23)
proposes a plausible site lying from 6 to ro! km. north-east of Alcala
del Rio, with the Roman camp on a hill 79 m. high called Pelagatos,
6 km. east of Burguillos, and that of Hasdrubal on an unnamed hill
which rises from the plain 5 km. south-west of Pelagos. This site has
been approved by Schulten (A A, r94o, II4 ff.; 1943, 51 ff.) and fits
P.'s description of the battle.
(b) Numbers. P. gives the Punic forces as 7o,ooo foot, 4,ooo horse,
296
THE BATTLE OF ILIPA XI. zo. 3
and 32 elephants (2o. 2), whereas Livy gives so,ooo foot and 4,500
horse (Livy, xxviii. 12. q). adding (Livy, xxviii. rz. 14) that 'peditum
~eptuaginta milia quidam adducta ad Silpiam urbem scribunt'.
Whether or no P. got his higher figures from an oral source (so Kahr-
stedt, iii. 318), they seem designed to save Scipio's reputation, and if
nccepted make the course of the battle hard to follow. For a discus-
sion of Carthaginian numbers in Spain at this date see Kahrstedt,
iii. 531-2; it is inconclusive. For Jlipa the smaller number is to be
accepted; it may go back through Coelius to Silenus (Scullard,
Scipio, 125 n. r). App. 25 gives 7o,ooo foot (like P.) 5,ooo cavalry,
and 36 elephants. Li,·y, xxviii. 12. I4, says that 'de equestribus copiis
fcnne inter auctores conuenit'; it is indeed possible that his 4,5oo
l1orse have been rounded off to 5.ooo by Appian's source and to
4,ooo by P.'s. Scipio, reinforced by J,ooo foot and 500 horse from the
Spanish prince Colichas (2o. 3), had an army of 45,ooo foot and 3,ooo
horse; Livy (xxviii. IJ. s) makes the whole force including cavalry
45,ooo, perhaps by an oversight. To Appian Scipio's force is less than
a third the size of his opponents' (Hisp. 25), clearly a late annalistic
version (Scullard, Scip. rz6 n. r). Here P.'s figures are acceptable;
they give the Carthaginians a slight but not very substantial ad-
vantage.
(c) Bz:bliography. DeSanctis, iii. z. 49B-9; Veith, AS, iii. 2. 685;
iv. 517-26; Heem•esen, 295; Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abt. 8. 2; Scullard,
Scipio, r2o-38; ]RS, 1936, 19-23; Shuckburgh, The Ht'stories of
Polybius, ii. 565-7 (giving Warre's views); Brewitz, 71 ff.; F. Taeger,
Klio, I93l, 339-47; A. Neumann, Klio, I93Z. 255-6.
20. 1. ot p.£v oov -rrEpt Tov »..a8pou~o.v: Hasdrubal, son of Gisgo; cf.
ix. rr. 3 n., x. 7· 5· I-ivy, xxviiL 12. IJ, calls him 'maximus claris-
simusque eo bello secundum Barcinos dux'.
lv o.ts ~-rro1ouvTo Tijv '11'apo.x£lp.aa£o.v: according to Livy (xxviii. 2. r6),
Hasdrubal 'exercitum omnem in ciuitates diuisit' after the
defeat of Hanno in 207 ; this was near Gades.
/uro '~'tlS 'II'OAEws ..• 'IALtras: on the MS. reading see above, 20-24.
9 n. (a). According to App. Hisp. 25, the Punic army assembled Js
Kap£wv1Jv 1ro.\w (cf. id. 27, Kap{Jwv']v), which Schweighaeuser emends
to Carmona (cf. Livy, xxxiii. 2r. 7-9. Carmo); Carmona (the name
persists) lay on the left bank of the on the road between
Hispalis and Astigi, and Appian here seems to go back to a reliable
tradition.
wpbs To.'is u'll'wpeio.~s: 'close to the foothills', for the site suggested by
Scullard see 20-24. 9 n.(a).
wpo9ill£VOI -rre8£o.: 'with plains in front'.
2. wAi19os 8£ ••• eixov: see above, 20-24. 9 n. (b).
3. MapKov .•. 'louv1ov: .M. Junius Silanus had accompanied Scipio
297
XI. cao. 3 THE BATTLE OF ILIP A
to Spain (cf. x. 6. 7 n.), and his command had been extended each
year since 210; in 207 he had defeated and taken Hanna (cf. Livy,
xxviii. 1. 4-2. 14).
'~~"PO'> Ko~£xa.vTa.: cf. Livy, xxdii. 13. J, 'praemisso Silano ad Cui-
cham, duodetriginta oppidis regnantem', thus adding a detail not
in P. Culchas appears again in 197 in revolt against Rome (Livy,
xxxiii. 21. 7), perhaps because his tmvns have been reduced from
28 to 17 (cf. Schulten, CAH, viii. 308).
5. T~ Ka.a-ra.~wvL 1<a.i TOL'S 1rept Ba.tKUAa. T01TOL'i: cf. x. 38. 7-8 n. for
this district. Castulo is the important town of the Oretani (Strabo,
iii. 152), modem Ca7.lona near Linares (cf. Hubner, RE, 'Castulo',
cols. 1778-So). Livy (xxviii. 13. s-6) mentions no advance beyond
Baecula, which led Mommsen and others to site the subsequent
battle near that town.
7. {mo -rwv 1Tpayllci-rwv avyteAeUlj.Levos: 'under the pressure of cir-
cumstances'.
8. exwv 1TE~OUS ICT~.: cf. 2<r-24. 9 n. (b).
9. taTpa.-ro1TE8evae 'IT"Ep{ -rLva.; yewMlf>ov;: on the low hill Pelagatos,
if Scullard is right (20-24. 9 n. (a)).
21. 1. Mciywv: cf. ix. 22. 2 n. He was helping Hasdrubal; cf. Livy,
xxviii. 12. 13, adiuuante M agone Hamilcaris .filio.
MaaavvO.aa.v: cf. ix. 25.4 n.; Livy, xxviii. r3. 6, 'castra ponentes eos
Mago et Masinissa cum omni equitatu adgressi sunt'.
2. u1r6 -rwa ~ovvov u1TEO"Ta~Ket To us i1T1Teis: cf. iii. 8.3. 3· According
to Scullard (]RS, 1936, 2o-2r), the hill Pelagatos has a low spur,
which sweeps round to the west to merge with the plain; this he
suggests is the fJotm}, and the cavalry attack could have come either
from behind one of the two saddles on the southerly part of the
slope, or from behind the lower spur of this slope on the south-west
side of the summit, probably the latter, although it affords less cover.
3. lmi11Teaov: the reading is quite dear in the MS.; but it is hard to
bclieYe that surprise would cause Numidian horsemen to fall from
their horses in such numbers as to make the fact worth mentioning.
Hultsch's dmlppEov (cf. 17. 6) is attractive, 'they began to make off'
(so Shuckburgh).
tll6.xovTo yevvcdw;: Livy, xxviii. 13. 9, brings up the light-armed
and eventually the legionaries, before the Punic cavalry eventually
tum tail: but this may well be Livian elaboration to create suspense
(contra, Kahrstedt, iii. 532).
"'' 1TO.p0.\ TWY
4 • Tn~ OE ~ fl '
tea.TO.t-O.LVOYTW\1 • '
• • , COVXEtpt'l-: Cf . Vl.. 25. 4, 7TpD!>
\ JUiV
\
TO Ka.TafJa.lvELII ~~:a.l Ta.xiw> dvaTT1)0iiv l1rl TOO> t1T7TOV> eTolp.(tJ> OtEKEWTO Kai
7rpa.KnKws (though this refers to the period before the Romans
adopted breast-plates). Brewitz, 70, suggests that the Romans
dismounted in order to disable the enemy's horses. It is at any rate
298
THE BATTLE OF ILIP A XI. 22. IG-2J. 9
likely that P. is referring to the horsemen themselves and not, as
Reiske thought, to uelites carried behind them as at Capua (Livy,
xxvi. 4· 4-8).
rs. U1TO TTtV a.~hwv 1TO.f>EJ.L~OATJY: 'to the shelter of their own camp' ; on
the preposition see Lex. Polyb. s.v. vmi.
7. aLa Twv L1T1Tewv Ka.i oLa Twv eu~wvwv: cf. Livy, xxviii. 13. 1o,
'nunquam per aliquot insequentes dies ab excursionibus equitum
leuisque armaturae cessatum est'.
ll. 2. Til J.LEV wp'!- 1Tpoaa.va.Te(veLv: 'to delay his march out until a
later hour'; for earlier misunderstanding of this phrase see Schweig-
haeuser, ad Joe.
4. O.J.La. yO.p T~ TWTL: Livy (xxviii. 14. 7) has the message com•eyed by
tessera the previous evening, perhaps, as Kahrstedt (iii. 317-I8) sug-
gests, a correction to comply with normal procedure (cf. W. Fischer,
/)as romische Lager insbesondere nach Livius (Leipzig, I9IJ), u8).
Brewitz, q, followed half-heartedly by Scullard, Scip. 129-30 n. 2,
takes at-tn -r0 </>wTi with i~ayHv, so reconciling P. with Livy; but, as
Scullard admits, this is forced, and at-tn -r0 cf><JJTi clearly means 'as
soon as it began to be light', since the troops were already taking up
position at sunrise (§ 6); hence there was adequate time for the order
to be carried out. To give it the night before was to risk a 'leakage',
for there must have been spies among the Spanish allies.
6. €va.vTLwS ii 1rp6a8ev: by reversing his order and putting his
legionaries on the wings, Scipio scored two advantages: he
made Spanish desertions less likely, since the Spanish auxiliaries
were not in contact with their fellow countrymen nor were they
to play an important part in the battle, and at the same time he
prevented Hasdrubal from making the best use of his African
troops, who were destined to be rolled up from the flank (Scullard,
Scip. 13o).
8. ~TL VTJO'TELS ••• TOUS avopa.s: like the Romans at Trebia (iii. 72· J),
though in very different weather.
ou 1roA.u T"ls 1rapwpela.s: cf. 2o. 1.
ll. 10-23. 9. Scipio's advance. The manceuvre carried out on the
Roman wings (the second of the two stratagems mentioned in 22. 1)
has been much misunderstood, but unnecessarily. Divided into stages
it runs:
1. The skirmishers were arranged behind the infantry on the vtings
so that from front to back of the line we find infantry, light-armed,
and cavalry in that order (22. 1o).
2. The whole line advanced to within 4 stades of the enemy
(z2. II n.).
3· The centre consisting of Spaniards continued to advance for-
ward; the infantry and cavalry on the right wing wheeled to the right
299
XI. 22.10-23. 9 THE BATTLE OF fLlPA
by maniples and squadrons (and those on the left wing wheeled to
the left) (zz. n).
4· On the right wing the cavalry (with light-armed in front) and
infantry, led by three units of each (23. r), after advancing a little
to the right no·w wheeled round to the left and marched towards the
enemy line in column; those on the left wing did the same in reverse,
i.e. advanced to the left and wheeled round to the right (23. 1-3).
5· On the right wing, the cavalry (and light-armed), who were
now in column at right angles to both lines of battle, simultaneously
turned half-right by squadrons and by an advance at 45° from their
present direction gained a position in line parallel with the enemy,
but in reverse order to that in which they started out, the squadron
originally on the extreme right being now on the extreme left of
the wing.
6. Simultaneously the legionaries (by cohorts) turned half-left and
also advanced at 45° to form a line parallel to the enemy. Their order
was thus identical with that in their original position (23. 5). On
the left wing, once again, the infantry and cavalry both carried out
the same manceuvre in reverse.
The details are clearly shown in the plans in Scullard, Scip.
135, and Kromayer, Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abt. 8. 2. For details see
below.
10. €v Ta.i:s CTTJ!La.lnLs: 'between the maniples': cf. i. 33· 9 n. and
passim; Livy, xxviii. q. IJ, 'patefactisque ordinibus equitatum
omnem leuemque armaturam in medium acceptam diuisamque in
partes duas in subsidiis post cornua locat'.
EvL~0.AA411 TOU'i 11T'IT£LS: the MS. has £m{3aA~:i:v after d.pxds, and the
present reading is due to Schweighaeuser, who did not, however,
adopt it.
11. v£pt ( TETP"')aTC18Lov: cf. Livy, xxviii. 14· IJ, 'ubi iam haud plus
quingentos passus acies inter se aberant'. Hence the emendation of
P.'s rrEpt O"Tctbwv (though in Livy it is now that the light-armed are
withdrawn, whereas in P. this occurs earlier and the whole line
advances to this point before the outflanking movement begins).
TTJV ErrnywyiJv ••• va.pt]yyEIAE: Hultsch fills the gap convincingly
with (JK€/..wae, Tofs- 8J tdpa.cn).
TUS O'TJ!Lt:lla.') KO.t TUS rxa.., EVLCTTpE<j!ELV trrt SOpu: this corresponds to the
third movement listed in 22. 10-23. 9 n. The infantry, light-armed,
and cavalry could gain the correct position for marching to the
right either by wheeling in units, or by each individual's executing
a right turn (Iaeger, Klio, I9JI, 342); but since P. specifically
mentions the awLafa.t and lAa.t, he is probably indicating not merely
that both infantry and cavalry were concerned, but that these units
carried out the turn. O"r)fLa.ta.L are maniples (cf. § ro) and lft.a, are
turmae (vi. 25. 1}. each of 30 horse.
300
THE BATTLl;"_ OF ILIPA XI. 23. I
l3. 1. AEuKtos ••. MapKI.OS: L. Marcius Septimus, a legatus; d. 33· 8.

See also Livy, xxviii. q. 15-r6, 17· u, zr. r, 22.1-35· 2; App. Hisp. 26,
.11-.34; Cic. Balb. 34, 39· As military tribune in :zn he had done much
to rally the Roman forces after the deaths of the two Scipios. See
M[inzer, RE, 'Marcius (Septimus)', cols. r59r-s. On M. lunius
Silanus see zo. 3 n.
TPELS iXas hTrr(111v Tas Tjyou11Eva,s: evidently the cavalry had been
originally in a line three lurmae deep, and since the right wheel they
were in a column three turmae wide. Scipio on the right (and the
two other commanders on the left) now wheeled with these three
turmae through an angle of 90° to the left (and in the case of the left
wing to the right) to advance against the enemy.
K(d 'ITpo TOUT111v ypoa~o11lixous Tovs £i.9LaJ.Livous: 'and in front of
these the usual uelites'. Biittner-Wobst and Hultsch punctuate mis-
leadingly, either put a comma after £Wwp.€vovs or omit that after
~yov!Ltva.s, since 1rpo -rothwv refers only to ypoa<foo!Lcixovs, not to -rpEi:s
•mdpa.s. P. does not explain what happened to the uelites when the
infantry and cavalry originally wheeled right. Scullard, Scip. 135,
shows them in a line between infantry and cavalry, and if the right
tum was effected by individuals turning, this is logical. Hut if, as is
argued above, the right tum was carried out by the wheeling of
~cparate units of infantry and cavalry, it seems likely that the
t4elites will have taken up position in front of their own turmae;
in which case they would now wheel along with them. If Scullard
nnd Veith are right, the uelites did not take up their position in front
of the turmae until the second turn, which directed them once again
forward in the direction of the enemy. The two alternatives arc:
0 ~
(a) Sculla:rc.l and Veith O~
,Pj~
lnfantrv 0 D LJ 0--------··-CJ D D C.:::1 CJ-- ./ }
Ve!ites - -• - - • ./"
Cal'alry !:oiiil Gil :;Ill COil IA -----------:A fA Giil iA !;iii--
~
301
XI. 23. I THE BATTLE OF ILIPA
Tp~::i:s
CT'II'Etpa.s: d. Livy, xxviii. q. 17, 'cum ternis peditum cohortibus
ternisque equitum turmis'. Similarly many modern scholars (cf.
Veith, AS, iv. 523; Taeger, Klio, 1931, 340 n. 3) here assume that
P.'s parenthetical remark that the Romans call •oiiTo To avVTa.yp.a
a cohort refers to the individual a1Tfiipa, and that Scipio (and his
two colleagues) led three cohorts, i.e. nine maniples. This was Reiske's
view and Schweighaeuser rightly resists it. True, a1T€tpa is used in
imperial inscriptions to translate cohors (Veith, iv. 523) ; but in
P. (l1Tdpa is equivalent to a71p.aia and means maniple (see, for example,
vi. 24. s. :14. 8, xv. 9· 7; Lex. Polyb. s.v. a1rEipa). The evidence for this is
quite clear and runs contrary both to Veith's vie·w (AS, iv. 522--3)
that Cl7)p.afa is 'maniple' and a1u.tpa. 'cohort', and that of Brewitz
(74 n. 1) that am;ipa is 'maniple' and a1)p.afa. 'cohort'. The original
infantry line would be in its usual triple order of hastati, principes,
and triarii. On wheeling right it would be led by three maniples,
one from each line, and it is these three which Scipio now wheels
round to the left to advance against the enemy. As a tactical unit
the cohort is a feature of the Marian army; but the present passage
shows that probably by the late third century and certainly by P.'s
time the word cohors was being used for the combination of three
maniples, one from each line, standing one behind the other (cf.
Delbriick, HZ, 51, r883, z6o; Meyer, /(l. Schr. ii. nz; H. Last, CAH.
ix. 146 n. 4). There is no reason to treat Toiho 8~ ~ea.AetTat ••• Koopns
as a non-Polybian interpolation (so A. von Domaszewski, Die
Fa!men im riimischen Heere (Vienna, r885), 19-20; cf. Klotz, Livius,
187); for P.'s use of Ko6pns cf. 33· 1. For a plausible theory that the
cohort was developed during the third and second centuries to meet
the conditions of warfare in Spain seeM. J. V. Bell, Fhstr:rria, 1965,
404-19.
l. o( p.€v E1T' a(J"'I't0a. 1T€pLKAaCTO.VTES TOUTOU'): 'wheeling them round
in the one case to the left' ; as Schweighaeuser observes, o~ p./.v is
Scipio and the plural to be explained in terms of the common peri-
phrasis o~ 1T€pt .E~et1Tlwva.. Septimus and Silanus (ol 8l) wheel their left
wing to the right. For 1T<p{~<),aats, 'wheeling', d. x. 23. 6, xi. 12. 4·
aEL TWV ~tfis •.• ~'ITOflEVWV: it is dear that the whole of the Roman
infantry, light-armed, and cavalry were involved in the manceuvre,
leaving only the Spanish troops in the centre (d. 22. n, 23. 3, 24. 3).
and it is through a misunderstanding of P.'s account that Taeger
(Klio, 1931, 342) can argue that only three cohorts took part in tlH'
operation on each wing, and so assume that a considerable section
of the I tali an troops continued to march forward beside the Spaniards.
3. T/!1 ~a.s,., 1TOlE'Lcr9a.t T~v t'll'o.ywy/jv: evidently under orders, for it
corresponded to Scipio's intention to outflank.
1TpoO"£~a.AAov Tois KEpa.crLv: this implies that Scipio had marched
outwards to a point opposite the end of the enemy line before
J02
THE BATTLE OF 1LIPA XL 23. 9
wheeling round and approaching; he was banking on throwing the
Spaniards on the Punic wing into confusion. P. here implies that
Scipio actually attacked the wing while still in column formation;
if so, the next movement (s in zz. 1o-2.3. 9 n.) must have followed
immediately upon the impact, and indeed have formed part of it,
the infantry and cavalry wheeling out and forward to align them-
Helves parallel to the enemy.
6p91cns Taio; ••. 8uva~J.e<n: 'with the Roman forces in column' (d.
§ z); Paton misses the force of dp8ia•>·
4. hn1ra.pep.(30.XXovTas (i1rl) TTJV aOTTjv e:o9e'Lav: 'falling into the
same straight line'; cf. iii. us. 9-10 n.; xii. 19. 6. ol. ~yovp.evo4 are
the three maniples and the three turmae which have led the columns,
and now face the enemy.
•va.vTlav ..• 8La9Eaw O.XXfJAaLs: P. correctly points out that the right
and left wings did everything in opposite directions, and that the
cavalry and infantry acted in opposite ways, inasmuch as the cavalry
turned half right to advance into line, and the infantry half left (on
the right ·wing).
5. CK 80pa.Tos: 'from the right' ; this refers to the side to which the
cavalry turn before advancing into line, and not to the direction in
which they will look to dress line once they are roughly in position
(aS in iii. II$. 10); indeed in the thick Of the fight there Will have
been no opportunity for such niceties. Scullard, Scip. 133. observes
that the formation into line must have been effected by the wheeling
of the separate units, and not by the whole column wheeling and
advancing parallel to the enemy; certainly such a movement, ex-
posing the flank of the units when they were already in contact with
the enemy must have been unthinkable-nor would it have brought
11bout the reversal of order mentioned in§ 7·
6'11'~rpK£pav ..• Tou., lTOAEttlous: as they could hope to do if the attack
of the right column was directed against Hasdrubal's extreme left.
ol 8i lTE~ol ••• E€ aCT1Tt8os: 'while the infantry formed line coming
up on the left', thus closing the gap between the wing and the
centre.
6. ot p.ev iv TcUS a1T£tpa.~'>: 'those in the maniples', i.e. the infantry;
but here too there may be an implication of advancing in maniples
(d. 22. II n.).
'1. iy£yovt:~ ••• To 8EsLov euwvu1-1ov: see 22. 10-23. 9 n. (5), and the
plan in Scullard, Scip. 135. where this is clearly illustrated.
o~ IJ.LKpov Myov 9£ttEvoo;: as \Varre observes (in Shuck burgh, ii. 565),
11nch an inversion of troops would be a 'clumsy mistake' on the
parade ground, but P. with a soldier's realism sees that Scipio
rightly ignored this point in battle, in view of the advantage if he
rnuld outflank the enemy (Toil Ka·nl 'Ti]v VTToK~pacrw).
9. Ta'i:s 1rpos Tov Ka.~pov O.pp.o~o~aats Kw~aeaw: Neumann (Klio,
XI. 23. 9 THE B.\ TTLE OF ILl l' ,\
1932, 256) inquires why Scipio could not have obtained the same
effect by marching his infantry forward after a half-left turn, and
then when they had opened out into a single line advancing straight
forward. This needs qualification: a march half-left would have
taken the infantry in front of the centre unless it had advanced
some distance to the right. But perhaps the real advantage of Scipio's
formation was the advance in column, which exposed fewer men and
horses to the enemy's long-distance missiles (e.g. the Balearic
slingers mentioned in Livy, xxviii. IS. I) until they opened out at
close quarters. Scullard (Scip. I34~6) discusses two further criticisms
of Scipio's tactics:
(a) WhatweretheCarthaginian caz,airydoing? He suggests plausibly
that they were thrown into confusion by the retreat of the elephants
(24. r).
(b) Why did the Punic cmtre m;w charge? Here, Scu11ard argues.
Scipio took a real risk, for his own centre was unreliable. But
Hasdrubal, he thinks, hesitated to expose his wings still more b\
advancing when thej· were in trouble; lte thus lost any chance ol
turning defeat into victory, but (24. 7-<J} he managed to withdraw
them without catastrophic losses.
24. 1. TO. 9T)p1a.: the elephants were normally placed in front of the
wings (22. :z), and Schweighaeuser suggests that Mago may have
sought to counter Scipio's attempt to outflank by moving them out
to the extremity of the wings. Veith, in his plan (Schlachtenatlas,
Rom. Abt. 8. 2), places them forw·ard and beyond the two Punic
wings from the beginning of the battle, but this is less likely. In
either case, when they ,\·ere routed they may well have thrown the
Punic cavalry into confusion (see last note).
2. To ••. f:A.Eaov: P. explains why the centre could not go to the
rescue of the ~ings (lest it leave the way open for Scipio's centre),
nor yet make contact with the enemy so long as they stayed where
they were. On the third alternative, a vigorous charge against
Scipio's Spaniards, see above, 23. 9 n.
7. Ka.n11!'60a. ••. .,.,v O.va.xwp11aw €1TOLouVTo: for discussion and other
examples of such a controlled withdrawal (Xen. A nab. vii. 8. 8-19;
App. Syr. 35; Caesar, BG, i. 26. 2) see Kromayer, AS, iii. I. 371-2.
Livy, xxviii. IS. 10, describes an attempt to rally and face the
Romans on the slope of the hill before the Punic camp.
8, el , .• (J.i} 9eos aUTOLS ns O'UVE1!'EAa~ETO TTJS O'v.lTT)pLa.S! a storm of
unusual magnitude comes in the category of phenomena which may
properly be referred €1r' -rov fh:ov • .• Kai T1JV Tl;Xl'lv {xxxvi. 17. 2); they
include heavy and persistent rain or snow, the destruction of crop,;
by drought or frost, or an outbreak of plague, in short 'acts of God'.
See VoL I, p. q.
CAPTURE OF ILOURGEIA AXD ASTAPA XI. :;q a 1-3
24. 10-11. Roman capture of Ilourgeia and Astapa

After Ilipa Scipio visited north Africa to secure Syphax's allegiance
(cf. 24 a 1-4 n.); and on his return he attacked Ilourgeia, the popula-
tion of which had gone over to Carthage after the disaster of the
Scipios and had massacred Romans fleeing from the battle. The town
was razed and its population destroyed (Livy, xxviii. 19. 1-20. 7;
App. Hisp. 32). Meanwhile L. Marcius took Astapa, where the Romans
were thwarted by a population which made a holocaust of the town in
a scene of fire and slaughter (Livy, xxviii. 22. 1-23. 5; App. Hisp. 33).
On the placing of 24. 10-11, which should follow 24 a 1-4, see p. 18.
14. 10. 'IA.oupyELa: Livy, xxviii. 19. r ff., has instead Iliturgi; he
also mentions a town Castulo which fell immediately after. For these
towns Appian, Hisp. 32, has 'D.vpyia and KaaTag. Brewitz, 21 f.,
suggested convincingly that Livy's source, probably Coelius, has
substituted the more familiar Iliturgis and Castulo, and that the
forms in Appian are more trustworthy; if that is so, Dio-Zonaras
(ix. 1o) followed Livy's source, since he has 'lALnpy'i:TaL. As Meyer
(Kl. Schr. ii. 445 n.) saw, Ilourgeia will be the town Ilorci, described
by Pliny (Nat. hist. iii. 9) as Scipionis rogum; but as this lay on the
Tader (mod. Segura), it cannot be identical with Lorca on the
Guadalentin, a tributary of the Segura, as Meyer (loc. cit.) and
Schulten (Hermes, 1928, 288--Jo1) assume, and Scullard (Scip. 142-4
n. 2) is probably right in making it Lorqui on the Segura, a town 87 km.
away from Cartagena, which has Roman remains. Against Livy's
reading Iliturgi is the fact that Iliturgis, which Schulten (Hermes,
1928, 289 n. 4) has shown to lie on the left bank of the Baetis, west of
Mengibar, and 30 km. west of Castulo, would have been 2oo km. in
a straight line from New Carthage; yet Scipio marched there from
New Carthage in five days (Livy, xxviii. 19. 4), an incredible speed
for that distance. See Brewitz, 21 f.; Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 444-5 n.;
Schulten, Hermes, 1928, z88-3o1; Scullard, Sc-ip. 142-4 n. z.
11. To SE TETTJKOS KTA.: d. Livy, xxviii. 23. 4, 'dein cum aurum argen-
tumque cumulo rerum aliarum interfulgens auiditate ingenii humani
rapere ex igni uellent, correpti alii flamma sunt, alii ambusti ad-
flatu uaporis, cum receptus primis urgente ab tergo ingenti turba
non esset'. The town is Astapa (cf. App. Hisp. 33), mod. Estepa, near
Urso (Osuna); it is later Ostippo, from which the modern name is
derived (Schulten, RE, 'Ostippo', col. 1665).
24 a 1-3. Scipio after Ilipa

On. the placing of this fragment see p. 18. It corresponds to Livy,
xxviii. 17. 2-3, 'et cum ceteri laetitia gloriaque ingenti earn rem uolgo
suna X
XI. 24 a 1-3 SCIPIO A~D SYPHAX
ferrent, unus qui gesserat, inexplcbilis uirtutis ueraeque laudis,

paruum instar eorum quae spe ac magnitudine animi concepisset
recepta.s Hispanias ducebat. iam Africam magnamque Carthaginem
et in suum decus nomenque ueiut consummatam eius belli gloriam
spectabat.'
24 a 4. Scipio and Syphax
Scipio crossed to Africa and was at Syphax's court at the same
time as Hasdrubal, and the two men shared a couch at dinner;
d. Livy, xxviii. q. Io-r8. 12 (especially 18. 6--8); App. Hisp. 30.
4. T~ Io<fa~<~: Syphax was king of the Masaesyli (xvi. 23. 6; Livy
xxviii. 17· 5) in North Africa; his domains lay in modern Oran and
Algiers, opposite New Carthage, and his capital at Siga, west of Oran
(cf. xii. r. 3 n.), which is probably the scene of Scipio's encounter
with Hasdrubal (its identity with the ruins of Takembrit was sug-
gested by T. Shaw, Tra·vels, or observations relating to several parts of
Barbary and the Levant 2 (London, 1757), II, and confirmed by a
milestone, CIL, viii. ; cf. Dessau, RE, 'Siga', cols. 22j4-S·
Syphax had been at war with Carthage and had established amicitia
with Rome; he had been almost expelled from his kingdom by Gala,
the king of eastern Numidia, but had reasserted his position (Livy,
xxiv. 48. I-49· 6; xxvii. 4· 5-7; App. Hisp. 15-r6; for criticism ofthis
tradition see Kahrstedt, iii. 254-5, SI3 n. z; Gsell, iii. r8r; Holleaux,
Rome, 171 n. z). Scipio failed to win him for Rome during the war in
Africa, and he married Hasdrubal's daughter (see xiv. r. 3-4).
+~A.a.v9pwttw~ ••• Ka.l ett~8E~(ws: d. Livy, xxviii. r8. 6, 'tanta ...
inerat comitas Scipioni at que ad omnia naturalis in genii dexteritas'.
Tbv J\a8pouf3a.v: the son of Gisgo, present simultaneously at Siga.
<fof3Epwnpos .•• Ka.TA TTJV b1-uA£av ilTI'ep lov Tol:s ottAo~s: d. Livy
xxviii. r8. 7-8: 'mirabiliorem sibi eum congresso coram uisum prae se
ferebat quam bello rebus gestis, nee dubitare quin Syphax regnum-
que eius iam in Romanorum essent potestate'.
25-30. Mutiny in Scipio's army

This further fragment from the res Hispaniae of 2o6 corresponds to
Livy, xxviii. 24-9 (see above, p. 18); Zon. ix. Io; Dio, xvi, fg. S7-4i;
App. Hisp. 34-36.
25. I. iv T~ aTpMottt8q,» T~ 'Pwll-a.·iK~: cf. Livy, xxviii. 24.5. 'in

castris ad Sucronem ortus; octo ibi milia militum erant, prae-
sidium gentibus quae cis Hiberum incolunt impositum'. But the
town of that name otherwise attested lies on the R. Jucar, probably
about 20 km. from the mouth near Alcira, where the battle between
Pompey and Sertorius took place in iS· See Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. zo;
306
MUTINY IN SCIPIO'S ARMY XI. 26. 6
Schulten, RE, 'Sucro (z)', col. 561. As Kahrstedt (iii. 322 n. 2) notes,
a mutiny north of the Ebro would have been dealt with from Tarraco
rather than New Carthage (cf. Livy, xxviii. 26. Iff.); hence it looks
as if the mutiny was at Sucro, but Livy has got its location wrong
(cf. Scullard, Scip. 147 n. r). Our text of P. does not name Sucro, but
the full text probably did, since the words on ... 'Pwp.a~Kcp look like
a compressed phrase of the epitomator (see Biittner-Wobst ad loc.)
to cover the details given in Livy, xxviii. 24. 5-25. 7·
l. lf.ufla.Ta. ICtU VOCl'OU~: 'ulcerS and illneSSeS'; for the Comparison be-
tween bodily diseases and disorders in the community, whether
political or as here in an army, see i. 8r. s-n n.
4. -rois €lf.~a-r6.voua~: 'for those who are alert'.
8. IC0.9n1TEp i~ apXTJS Ef'ITOV; cf. X. 3· I.
-rous x~Junpxous: Livy, xxviii. 25. 3-7, shows that this refers to seven
military tribunes who had been sent by Scipio to the camp at Sucro
and had brought back the report.
9. &.vaSk~a.aea~ ••• TTJV TWV o+wv1wv imoSoow: 'give a firm pledge
to pay the wages owing'; for d.va3ixea8m cf. v. r6. 8 n.; for 14t.!Jvm
cf. i. 66. 3 n. Cf. Livy, xxviii. 25. 6, 'uolgo stipendium non datum ad
diem iactabatur'.
10. -rO.s a~Ta.pxlas: 'their pay'; cf. 28. 3, i. 66. 3 n.
26. 1. eylvovTo 1Tepl Ti)v TWV XP'I'UJ.clTWV ~'1Tlf1EAELQV: 'they applied

themselves to the collection of the money' ; the military tribunes
collected it from the cities (cf. 25. 9).
2. -rO. S~:SoytJ.iva: there is clearly a lacuna after §I, in which P. de-
scribed the decision of the army to come in a body to Kew Carthage
to collect their pay; cf. Livy, xxviii. 25. Ij, 'ilia dubitatio erat singu-
laene cohortes an uniuersi ad stipendium petcndum irent, inclinauit
sententia, quod tutius censebant, uniuersos ire' (cf. above, zs. ro).
T~ auveSp£1tl: his council of war; on its composition see xiv. 2. I In.
5. Tois 1TpEa~o.dumat: 'who had been on the mission to them', i.e.
the seven tribunes mentioned above (25. 8 n.), who were to be re-
sponsible each for five of the thirty-five ringleaders. }>aton's version,
'who had been deputed to him', makes no sense.
Kat To~a.UT1JV auvoua{av: 'and similar entertainment'; Paton's ver-
sion, 'and carouse afterwards' is too specific, though it may be im-
plied; Livy, xxYiii. 26. 6, sopitosque uino, makes it explicit.
6. -r~ ••• ~J-E9' auTou aTpaT01TEO~t>: 'the army he had with him ; not 'the
legion' (so Paton), for there were clearly more than one (§ 7); on
this general sense of aTpaTt:Yrr<Sov see viii. L 4 n.
t:ls ~,.i Tov :Av8o~O..A11v: cf. 29. 3 n.
AuTwv flETa M6.p~<ou 1TopeuofL£vwv: under M. Iunius Silanus (d.
20.. 3 n.). ath-wv fJ.fiT(l Md.pKou is Biittner-Wobst's ingenious correction
of athop.oAov M&pKo/·
XI. 27. 2 MUTINY IN SCIPIO'S ARMY
27. 2. TOLS eml.pxoLS: praefecti sociorum (d. vi. 26. 5 n.).

EKTTopwo11€voLs ..• flETa Toiho: €K71'opwofdvots J.Lera To 71'pwTas fL€v
a71'oaKwas F. The sense is perhaps recoverable from Livy, xxviii.
26. 11: 'sub lucem signa mota, et ad portam retentum agmen custo-
desque circa omnes portas missi ne quis urbe egrederetur'. Hence
Biittner-Wobst suggests for the lacuna OTaV €K71'0pWOfLEVOLS <71'p6 Tij>
71'6A<ws avJ.Lf3a£vn 71'apay{vw8at), fLETa TovTo KTA.
rva. 11TJ8el.s EK1TopEUT)TO.L: of the mutineers, who have meanwhile
entered New Carthage.
4. lm' auTov Tov KaLpov: to be taken either with €pp~8YJ, 'at the same
time (sc. that instructions were being given) they were told .. .', or
with av>..>..aj3<fv, 'to arrest at the proper moment (sc. that had been
indicated), when they had dined'. Schweighaeuser approves Reiske's
version: 'sub illud temporis momentum, quo sontes oportebat com-
prehendi, imperabatur tribunis nomine imperatoris, ut eos com-
prehenderent' ; but this implies the presence in each of the seven
tents of a further representative of Scipio to order the arrest, which
is absurd, since the tribunes had his full confidence. The first alterna-
tive is the more probable, the phrase to be understood being easily
derived from J{aTa To avvT<TayJ.Livov in the previous sentence. Paton
takes the phrase tm' avTOV T6v Katp6v closely with €7/'nOav 0EL71'V~awat,
'at once after supper', which is also possible.
8. eppWflEVOV ..• KO.Ta Ti]v E1TL~acnv: 'with an appearance of full
health'.
28-30. Scipio's address to the mutineers: compare the rhetorical ver-

sion in Livy, xxviii. 27. 2-29. 8, which contains a much more subtle
appeal to loyalty than does P.'s threatening oration; but this perhaps
throws more light on Livy than on Scipio. P.'s source is not known;
but there is no good reason to regard the speech as his invention (so
Pedech, Methode, 274-5). See the comments of R. S. Conway quoted
in Scullard, Scip. 149.
28. 5. ou 8Lop9oiho: 'are not paid'; for this meaning of 8wp8ova8at

cf. Welles, p. 328.
29. 3. 1rap' :A.v8o~6.An Kal. MavSovL't': cf. ix. 11. 3 n., x. 18. 7-rs,
35· 6-38. 3, 40. ro. Andobales was king of the Ilergetes (x. r8. 7), who
lived between Saragossa and Lerida (iii. 35· 2 n.); it is by an over-
sight that Livy (xxviii. 24. 4) makes them Lacetani (cf. Kahrstedt,
iii. 322). They had revolted from Rome on the false news of Scipio's
death, which was a major factor in causing the Roman mutiny (Livy,
xxviii. 24. 3-4; App. Hisp. 37; Zon. ix. ro).
6. TWV vOv 1TpoxeLpLa9€VTwv ~ye11ovwv: according to Livy, xxviii.
24. 13-14, the mutineers after expelling their officers gave th('
308
MUTINY IN SCIPIO'S ARMY XI. 31-33
imperium to two gregarii, C. Albius from Cales and C. Atrius, an
Umbrian, 'qui nequaquam tribuniciis contenti ornamentis, insignia
etiam summi imperii, fasces securesque, attractare ausi'. Kahrstedt
(iii. 321) argues that the names are invented, and the provenance
of the men an attempt to exculpate the Romans. Scullard (Scip.
148 n. r) also thinks that the 'coincidence of White and Black' weighs
against these being real names, but admits that if one was called
Albius, the other may have been nicknamed Atrius. Possibly; but
such coincidences do occur, and the names may be genuine.
9. 1rns lixAos e{l1ra.pa.Aoy~o-To<; ~ea.t ••• el!cl.ywyos: for this sentiment,
as natural to a Roman noble as to an Achaean landowner, see vi.
56. I I n. ; cf. vi. 44, xxi. 31. 9 ff. ; von Scala, 43 n. 4·
To us oxAous K:a.l TTJV 9cl.Aa.TTa.v: cf. Livy, xxviii. 27. II ; this simile is
developed and commented on for its aptness in a speech delivered
before the Senate in defence of the Aetolians by Leon, son of Ciche-
sias, after the war with Antiochus (xxi. 31. 6-rs). But this does not
exclude its use by Scipio seventeen years earlier, for it is a rhetorical
gambit of old standing. It first appears in Solon, fg. 12 Bergk,
ie aJJEJLWV 8€ BcL\aaaa TapaaaETat. ~IJ 01 ns ath¥
JL~ KWfj, 7rQIJ'TW11 EU'Tt 0tKaWTcL'T'1) 1
and it is used in Artabanus' speech to Xerxes in Herod. vii. •6 a;

Livy, xxxviii. ro. 5 rightly calls it a uutgata similit1.,do.
30.1. yu11vol •.• oi.: Biittner-Wobst suspects a lacuna on account of

the hiatus; and Li vy, xxviii. 29. ro, certainly has more detail: 'prae-
conis audita uox citantis nomina damnatorum in consilio ; nudi in
medium protrahebantur et simul omnis apparatus supplicii ex-
promebatur'. The reference to the praeco was probably not in P.
since the condemned men are brought in as the shields are beaten
(ap..a o£ TOJrots), but there may have been a reference to the apparatus
supplicii after yvp..vol; but this too may have been added by Livy
for effect, and Benseler's yvp..vol B' may be all that is needed.
l. TWV jl~V jlO.O"TLYOUfLEVWV, TWV s~ 1TEAEICL~ojll!vwv: not alternatives;
those now being flogged would be beheaded afterwards. The Latin
phrase is uirgis laesi et securi percussi (Lhy, xxviii. 29. n).
3. a.t~eLa9l:vTEs : 'outraged'.
4. w11vuov: Livy (xxviii. 29. 12) adds that at the same time they
received the money owing to them.
31-33. Defeat of A ndobales

Also from the Spanish events of 2o6; see above, p. r8; Livy, xxviii.
JI~s-34; App. Hisp. 37; Zon. ix. IO; above, 29. 3 n. If P. followed
the same order of events as that in Livy, between the last fragment
309
XL 31-33 DEFEAT OF ANDOBALES
12. BATTLE OF THE EBRO

(From Scullard, Scipio Africanus in the Second Punic War, 152)
and this one he recounted the unsuccessful attempt of Laelius and

Marcius to take Gadcs (cf. Livy, xxviii. 30. r 31. 4).
31. 2. Twv 1TpoELPTJilEvwv 8uva.trrwv: clearly both Andobales and

Mandonius have been mentioned in a lost passage corresponding to
Livy, xxviii. 31. 5-7.
7. o1-1ovoe'iv 1Ta.pf1vn Ka.~ 9a.ppouVTa.s: cf. Livy, xxviii. 32. 4, 'laeto
et erecto animo'. The reference to the mutiny hinted at in of.Lovo<l:v
is made explicit in Livy.
llE'l·a TWV 9ewv: cf. Livy, xxviii. 32. n, dis bene iuuantibus. There is
perhaps a suggestion of the kind of appeal referred to in x. z. rz,
though the phrase need not carry any special significance. Livy
(xxviii. 32. r-r2) has a much longer version of Scipio's speech, in
which he underlines the insignificance of Andobales and his brother,
compared with Mago, and stresses his own reputation and those of
his father and uncle; Brewitz, 23, argues that the rhetoric goes back
to Coelius (cf. Scullard, Scip. 152 n. r).
32. 1. liEKa.Ta.'ios: the distance is z,6oo stades (iii. 39· 6), i.e. 312
m.p. and ten days sounds too short a time to cover it (cf. x. 9· 7 n.
for an even more marked exaggeration).
JIO
DEFEAT OF ANDOBALES XI. 33· 7
Tfl TETaPT!l Jl-ETU Ta.uTTJV: with rrprHJWTpaTorr,oonJaE.
wpoO'EaTpa.Towk8EuO'E To~s uveva.vTLOLS: according to Livy, xxviii. 31.
s-i. Andobales and Mandonius had retired into their own territory
on hearing of the mutiny; but when they heard of Scipio's severity
towards the leaders, they reassembled their troops and marched
into the land of the Edetani, Edeco's people (x. 34· 2 n.), with 2o,ooo
foot and z.soo horse. The site of the battle cannot be fixed. The
territory of the Edetani la:~• south of the Ebro (x. 34· 2 n.), but both
P. and Livy (xxviii. 33· 1) are agreed that Scipio crossed the Ebro;
hence it looks as though the chieftains had retired north of the river
when they heard of Scipio's approach (cf. Scullard, Scip. 152-3}.
Aa.f3wv a.uA.Gwa Ttva.: 'leaving a valley .. .'; on the meaning of at!Awv
cf. iii. 83~85. 6 n. (i}.
:2. Twv 'ITa.pevo~vwv T4_) O'Tpa.To'IT€8ce: not 'pecora rapta ... ex
ipsorum hostium agris' (Livy, xxviii. 33· z); these would have been
taken into safety (Scullard, Scip. I 54 n. I; Kahrstedt, iii. 323). Twv
rrapErro1drwv is masculine plural (cf. iii. 82. 8) rather than neuter (so
Paton).
,.~ r a.tte: Le. C. Laelius.
6. TO.UT1J XPtl0'0.0'90.L Tfj va.pEJl-f3oAfj: 'to take Up this position'.
7. Tils E~ b11oA6you Ka.l. O'uaTaliTJv 11-axa.s: c£. fg. I44.
33. l. Tous EV T'fi va.pwpe£~ TETa.y11ivous: 'those drawn up on the hill',

in contrast to those who had come down into the valley.
AvTETa.TTE: the object is missing; Schweighaeuser plausibly suggests
rot!s ypoacpofLaxous or Tas- TW~' ypoacpof<axwv arrEipas.
€1<: T~S wa.pE!-1j3oA.T)s: 'from the camp'; contrast 32. 6 n.
ivl. TeTTa.pa.s Koopns: 'in four cohorts'; cf. Livy, xxviii. 33· 12,
'quattuor cohortes in fronte statuit quia latius pandere aciem non
poterat'. Probably the rest of the infantry were massed behind in
a single line. On the cohort cf. 23. I n. (TpE;;> <nTE{par;). See the sketch-
map, taken from Scullard, Scip. 152.
6-7. Lacuna. Livy, xxviii. 34· I ff., describes the capture of the
Punic camp, the casualties, the sending of Mandonius and Scipio's
pardoning of the two princes. This will certainly have been in P.;
probably, too, the subsequent account of the fall of Gades and
Scipio's meeting with and winning over of Masinissa. But how much
carne here cannot be discovered with certaintv.
7. KaAA~aTov 9pia.f1~ov: d. App. Hisp. 38. Acc~rding to Livy (xxviii.
38. 4), 'magis temptata est triumphi spes quam petita pertinaciter',
since there was no precedent for a prit,tatu,s cum imperio to triumph
(cf. Livy, xxxi. zo. 3; Dio, xvii, fg. 57· 56; Val. Max. ii. 8. 5). Scullard,
Pol. i5· suggests that Fabius prevented the triumph, but that
Stipio may have triumphed privately at the Alban .Mount, or re-
ceiwd an ovatio; cf. Degrassi, Inscr. ital. xiiL 1, p. 551.
3II
XI. 33· 8 DEFEAT OF A~DOBALES
8. To Is 1repi Tov 'loovLOv ~ea.i Map~eLov: i.e. M. Iunius Silanus and

L. Marcius Septimus (cf. 23. In.), if Casaubon's correction of the
MS. 'lmlvLOv Kal MapKov is accepted. But according to Livy, xxviii.
38. I, Spain was taken over by L. Lentulus and L. Manlius Acidinus
as propraetors (in xxix. I3. 7 Livy calls them proconsuls), and his
subsequent account of their activities supports this (Livy, xxix. 2.
I ff.). P.'s epitomator may have misunderstood or incorrectly re-
corded the text, or Scipio may have handed over the command to
Silanus and Septimus pending the arrival of Lentulus and Acidinus;
their command can easily have fallen out of an annalistic account
based largely on the official appointments made at Rome.
ami1TAEUaE ... ets TfJV 'PWj-LTJV: cf. Livy, xxviii. 38. I, 'decem nauibus
Romam rediit'.
Twv aXXwv 4>tXwv: on the general's amici see xviii. 34· 3 n.
34. Antiochus in Bactria, India, Arachosia,

Drangiana, and Carmania
This fragment from F belongs to 01. I43. 2 = 207/6, i.e. 206. Presum-
ably the siege of Zariaspa-Bactra had continued since 208 (d.
x. 49· IS), which explains its popularity as a literary theme (xxix.
I2. 8). Reiske remarks that this fragment must have been preceded
by some such sentence as: 'Antiochus ad Euthydemum pacis con-
ciliatorem miserat Teleam, Magnesia oriundum, qui amicus quondam
fuisset Euthydemi, et eadem qua ille patria uteretur.'
34. 1. ~ea.i yap auTos ~v ... Mayv'l]s: i.e. like Teleas. From which
Magnesia they came is not certain. Macdonald (CHI, i. 440) and E. T.
Newell, The Coinage of the Western Seleucid Mints (New York, I94I).
274, argue from similarities between the coins of Euthydemus and
those of certain cities near Magnesia-under-Sipylus; this may be
right though, as Tarn observes, Mayv'f}> without further qualification
suggests the better-known Magnesia-on-Maeander (xvi. 24. 6),
which had a strong record of Seleucid colonization (Strabo, xii. 577,
Antioch towards Pisidia; OGIS, 233, Antioch in Persis; Tarn, Bactria,
6, 74-75)-
1Tpos ov a1TEAOYL~ETO: the relative refers back to Teleas, mentioned
in the sentence now lost (the words Kal yap ... Mayv'f}> being paren-
thetical).
2. hepwv tl.1TOaTaVTWV E1TO.VEAOj-LEVOS TOUS EICELVWV e~eyovous: cf.
x. 4-9· In. The rebel was Diodotus I, the son whom Euthydemus had
destroyed was Diodotus II; on Diodotus l's revolt about 239 cf.
Iustin. xli. 4· 5, 'eodem tempore (sc. (probably) as the War of the
Brothers) etiam Theodotus (sic), mille urbium Bactrianarum prae-
fectus, de fecit reg em que se appellari iussit'. Diodotus II will have
3I 2
ANTIOCHUS IN THE EAST XI. 34· II
been overthrown shortly after 230; see x. 49· In. Tarn (Bactria, 74)
suggests that Euthydemus' revolt had popular support and was
allegedly in the Seleucid interest, because of Diodotus II's alliance
with the Parthians (Iustin. xli. 4· 9, '(Arsaces) morte Diodoti metu
liberatus cum filio eius, et ipso Diodoto, foedus ac pacem fecit') ; but
the arguments here produced for Teleas are not necessarily true,
and he may have acted solely from ambition (cf. Narain, I9-2o).
On the Bactrian revolt see Schmitt, Antiochos, 64 ff.
3. TllS ovolla.ala.s ••• TtlS Tou ~aa~X€ws (~~:at) 1rpoO'Taa£as: 'his royal
name and state'.
!5. TWv Nof.La8wv: i.e. the Iranian peoples of the Steppes collectively
known as Sacas, and including in particular the Massagetae, the
Dahae, and the Sacaraucae (some of whom were only semi-nomadic) :
see Tarn, Bactria, 79-81. The appeal to unity in the face of the bar-
barian danger recalls Agelaus' speech in 217 (v. 104). Tarn (Bactria,
• 17) argues that the words biv f.Kdvov> TrpoaSixwvTat contain a clear
threat to use the barbarians, 'as Nicomedes and Hierax had used the
<;alatae', but Trpoa-six~;a-8at here means only 'to be attacked by' (cf.
ii. 68. 8, iii. 42. 5); cf. Pedech, },Ifcthodc, 271 n. 82. S. Mazzarino, The End
of the Ancient World (London, 1966), 24-25, sees here a prophecy ex
eventu of the invasion of the Yueh-chi in 135-I3o, but unnecessarily.
8. AT)fl~Tp~ov Tbv uLov: now about 19 or 20 years old (d. § 9, vmviaKo>,
which implies that age: Tarn, Bactria, 73 n. 7). See the coins featuring
him wearing an elephant-scalp in Tarn, Bactria, plate, coin 3. and
Narain, plate i, coins 5 and 6. Strabo, xi. 516, has been quoted as
evidence that Demetrius invaded India; he does not say so, and the
Demetrius, a contemporary of Eucratides, whom Iustin. xli. 6. 4
calls rex I ndorum, is not necessarily Euthydemus' son. Tarn (Bactria,
129-82) has reconstructed the history of this supposed invasion with
great brilliance, but Narain, 23-45, has shown that he was misled
concerning the Indian and Tibetan evidence, which gives his thesis
no support.
9. KaTtt niv lfvTeu~LV (Kat) 1TpoO"Ta.a£av: 'in his dignified bearing and
conversation'; but Schweighaeuser's emendation is attractive: Kat
1'~v KaTtt T~v €vT~;ugw TrpoaTaalav 'and in his dignified behaviour at
interviews'.
1-1-£a.v TWv Ea.uTou Ouyan\pwv: whether this marriage took place is not
known, Tarn (Bactria, 201 n. 1) thinks not; but see Schmitt, Anti-
ochos, 23 n. 3·
10. aUflfla.xlav €vopKov: whether Euthydemus acknowledged Seleucid
suzerainty, 'the thing that mattered' (Tarn, Bactria, 82), is not
known. Tarn thinks that as the initiative came from Euthydemus
(§ 3), and he gave up his elephants, he probably did, 'though it
soon became a dead letter'.
11. ~1ro~aXwv 8£ Tbv KauKa.aov ••• ELS TTJV 'lvo~Kt1v: i.e. he crossed
JIJ
XI. 34· II AXTIOCHt:'S IX BACTRIA, L.XDIA
the Hindu Kush into the Kabul valley (Holleaux, C AH, viii. 142
fitudes, v. 323-4).
Ti]v ••• q~Lt..iav • , • 1rpo<; Tov Iocpayaaf)vov: Sophagasenus, here called
nlv fJamMa -rwv 'Iv6wv, •will have been the ruler of one of the splinter
kingdoms in north-west India, into which the Mauryan empire of
Candragupta {321-297) and Asoka (269-232) had broken up. Gandhara
was ruled by a descendant of Asoka named Virasena (d. A. Schiefner,
T aranathas Geschichte des B~tddhismus in I ndien, St. Petersburg,
1869 ,so-sz); and it has been suggested that Sophagasenns (Subha-
gasena) was his successor (cf. V. A. Smith, Early History of India•
(Oxford, 192-1-), 237 n. r; F. W. Thomas, CHI, i. 512; H. C. Ray-
chaudhuri, Political History of Ancient 1ndia6 (Calcutta, 1953) 350 :
Narain, 9), though there seems no evidence to support the view of
Lassen and Bouche-Leclercq (Silmcides, i. 164) identifying him with
Asoka's son Jalauka (cf. Geyer, RE, 'Sophagasenos', col. roo8). The
rpJda. now renewed was that formed with Candragupta by Seleucus I
through the embassy of Megasthenes (Strabo, xv. 724; FGH, 715
T z); it indicates that here Antiochus made no attempt to reassert
Seleucid suzerainty (Tam, Bactria, but ·what it implied juri-
dically is hard to determine.
12. ~v8pocr&evTJv ••• TOV Ku~LKTJVOV: otherwise unknown.
13. ffJV ~paxwcriav: the province lying south and west of the
Hindu Kush, around the valley of the R. Arachotus (modern Argh-
andab). According to Ptol. vi. 20, its neighbours were Drangiana
to the west, Paropamisadae to the north, Gedrosia to the south, and
the Indus plain to the east. See Tomaschek, RE, 'Arachosia', cols.
368---9. \Vhether Arachosia, Drangiana, and Carrnania (see below) had
remained loyal is uncertain (cf. Schmitt, Antiochos, 82); but at least
Antiochus had no fighting to do here.
TOv 'Epuflav9ov 1ToTafloV: cL Arr. iv. 6. 6, 'E-rv-rt-tav6pos; Curt. viii. 9· ro,
Ethymantus; Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. 92, Hermandus or Erymandus. The
spelling in Arrian is nearest to the original, for this is the modern
R. Helmand, a name derived through Pahlavi from the form
haetuma1it of the Avesta. F.'s spelling seems influenced by the
familiar Peloponnesian river-name. The Helmand flows south-west
from the Paropamisadae through Arachosia into Drangiana, then
westward into the depression of Hamun-i Helmand, to be largely
spent in irrigation; cf. Kiessling, RE, 'Etymandros', cols. 8o6-7.
8L0. Ti}<; Apa YYTJVTJ r; els TTJV Kapflavtav: Drangiana is the basin of
the Hamun-i Helmand, modern Seistan; Carmania is the province
in southern Iran along the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, today
Kirman with part of Luristan and Moghostan (cf. v. 79· .3 n.). Anti-
ochus' route was probably via Kabul, Ghazni, and Kandahar, that
taken by Alexander in winter 330-29 in reverse (Strabo, xv. 724-5).
and then along the route followed by Craterus on Alexander's return
ARACHOSIA, DRANGlANA, AND CARMANIA XI. 34· 14
from India, down the Helmand and from Seistan south-west to the
R. Halil-Rud and the Strait of Hormuz (Strabo, xv. 721; Arr. vi.
ts. 4).
'"'v vo.po.x~<l!J.o.aCav: winter zo6/ 5·
14. Tout; O.vw aaTpu'll'o.t;: d. Euseb. Chron. i. 253. 21 ff. (Schoene),
'superiores satraparum prouindas'. Bengtson (Strat. ii. 6o-6r) argues
that 'the upper satraps' are independent vassal-kings such as Arsaces,
Euthydemus, and Sophagasenus, and detects a development towards
independent client-kingdoms similar to those of the vassal-princes in
the Persian empire; Schmitt, Antiochos, 123, also thinks these are
included in the phrase. This seems improbable, for elsewhere a£ avw
aaTpa.rr€i:a• are clearly within the Seleucid bounds. For example, in
an earlier period Xenophon and the Ten Thousand retreat 'K Twv
avw aaTpa'1Tw::Ov (iii. 6. ro), which must mean Mesopotamia; Molon
and Alexander, the satraps of Media and Persis, revolt and try
to involve TGS avw UO.TPO.TrE{a.s (v. 4I. r); after defeating Xenoetas
Molon crossed the Tigris, advancing on Seleuceia and Trpoaywv •••
t<flTEUTPEcPf.TO T(tS avw aaTpa'1T£tO.'i (v. 48. t2). which seems to include
Babylon, the Persian Gulf province, Susiane, and then Parapotamia
and Mesopotamia. After Antiochus has defeated Molon he arranges
for the government of Media, Susiane, and the Persian Gulf pro·dnce
(\'. 54· I2); this was the end of the revolt and the suppression of the
rising Tr£pi. n1s avw aa.Tpamdo.s. But Antioch us was still not happy and
he planned an expedition to intimidate the barbarian princes whose
dominions bordered on his own and lay beyond his own satrapies
(TmJs- Vn£pKHjLEVOV> Ta.is l.avTofJ ao.Tparrda.ts Kat avvopoiJVTO.S' 8vvd.r:nus
Tw~· (3ap{3d.pwv) to prevent their furnishing any potential rebels with
help (v. 55· 1); the first of these wasArtabazanes of :.V1edia Atropatene.
Similarly, an inscription from Nehavend in Media from 193, contain-
ing two documents, refers to Menedemus 0 fTfL TWV avw ao.Tpa.nw'i:w,
who is clearly a royal governor (Robert, Hellenica, 7, 1949, 5-22; 8,
1949, 73). If 'satrap' was no longer commonly used of a provincial
governor in the Seleucid realm (so Bengtson), P. may nevertheless
have so used it here, perhaps as a 'back-formation' from the usual
phrase ai avw aaTpO.TfELaL (cf. 'Will, REG, 1962, 109-IO).
These passages show clearly that although Ot avw T6rroL may be
used loosely for 'the interior' (cf. v. 40. s n., 46. s, 55· 3, 55· 4, xi.
34· I4 (this sentence)), ·whether inside or outside the empire, by 'the
upper satrapies' P. means those of the Euphrates and Tigris valleys
(d. v. 48. 12), together with Media, Susianc, and Persis. One need not
assume (with Will, REG, r962, I09-n) that he refers to satrapies
further east (e.g. Margiane, Aria, Drangiana, or Gedrosia) which
had been restored to Antiochus by Euthydemus. P. is in fact taking
up "the point made in v. 55· r, where Antiochus first envisages an
eastern expedition with the object of intimidating outsiders and so
XI. 34· 14 ANTIOCHUS IN THE EAST
reducing the danger of any further revolt. His expedition had two
results: it had made the upper satraps--whoever they might be (and
satrap-revolts were almost regular events from about 250 onwards
(Bengtson, Strat. ii. s6-s7))-loyal servants (u1f1JK!lous .•. -rfjs iliias
&pxi]s), because they were deprived of the materials of revolt from
the kingdoms beyond, and it had confirmed his control even west ol
Taurus. In short it had consolidated his prestige throughout tlw
kingdom (§§ I5-I6). It seems therefore unnecessary to take o[ a••w
aa-rpa:rrat in any but its normal sense.
Tas £m0a.Xa.TT1ous 1roXE''i Ka.t To us ... Suv6.GTa.s: the former are such
Greek cities in Asia Minor as were recovered by Antiochus afte1
Achaeus' defeat, and the dynasts are those of Asia Minor, such a;.;
the donors of gifts to Rhodes in 227 (v. go. I n.). Dynasts in Asia
Minor under the Seleucids are attested by OGIS, 229, in whicl1
Seleucus I I \\Tites Trpo> -roV> f3amAEi:s Kai mvs 8vvdr.r-ra> Ka1 Tro.\ec,·
requesting dau>.ta from Smyrna (d. ix. I. 4 n.); and the dynast Lysias
had fought for Seleucus III against Attalus (OGIS, 272, 277; d.
iv. 48. 6 n.). That such dynasts, whose numbers probably multiplied
after the War of the Brothers, continued to exist in the second
centur:y. is clear from the references to Moagetes of Cibyra (xxi.
34· 1 ff.) and Philomelus, Lysias' son (xxi. 35· z). Many must br
completely unknown, such as the Moagetes of Bubon known onh
from an inscription of Araxa in Lycia (Bean, ]HS, 1948, 46-56)--
unless he is Moagetes of Cibyra (cf. Larsen, CP, 1956, I65). From
Hierax' revolt down to Achaeus' recovery of Asia Minor in 223-220
the Seleucid position here was weak (d. v. 34· 7), and Achaeus' de-
fection had carried Asia Minor with it. What dispositions Antiochus
made here during his 'anabasis' is not known; but it is reasonable
to suppose that it was his victorious return that finally consolidated
his position in Asia Minor (d. Walbank, ]HS, 1942, 9-10, where,
however, the account of Olyrnpichus of Alinda is now superseded
as a result of the new documents mentioned in v. 90. I n.; see also
below, Addenda, p. 64,:;). It is not clear why Bengtson (Strat. ii. 6o)
takes the 'dynasts this side Taurus' to be a reference primarily to
Achacus, for, as he himself goes on to say, Achaeus had been executed
before the 'anabasis' began.
16. li~LOS ... Tijs ~a.aLAda.s: it was probably on his return that he
took the title piya!>; see iv. 2. 7 n., and below, Addenda, pp. 638-9.
BOOK XII
In devoting this book to criticism of Timaeus P. digresses from his
theme, but justifies this as preferable to several short digressions
{II. 6-7). Since the account of the lotus (z) was v.Titten after P. had
visited Africa (2. r n.), the composition of at least this part of the
book was later than 151, and so probably later than r¢; and the
reference to a historian who emulates Odysseus (z8. I n.) also suggests
composition after 146. Pedech (Methode, 571-z) may therefore be
right in putting the composition of xii as a whole after 146; but this
is not certain, for an original draft can have had extensive revision.
In any case, the book is not necessarily an afterthought; it can have
been planned ab initio but written later. Lorenz (66 ff.) argues that
in making xii a digression P. is continuing the hexadic arrangement
of books already marked by the account of the Roman constitution
tmd army in vi. But if the history as a. whole shows traces of such
a hexadic arrangement, this is not pressed and is of no significance;
and there are other reasons why xii should take its special form.
As Schweighaeuser saw, the attack on Timaeus develops out of
criticism of hi.-; mis-statements about Africa, which now comes to
the fore as the scene of Scipio's forthcoming campaigns; it was part
of his province for 205 (Livy, xxviii. 38. 12, 40-45; Plut. Fab. 25;
App. Hann. 55; Lib. 7; Sil. It. xvi. 692-7oo) and he crossed over in
204 (cf. xiv. r; Livy, xxix. 24-36). True, Scipio's capture of Locri
and subsequent troubles there (Livy, xxix. 6-9, r6-22) may have
led P. to consider Timaeus' false statements about this town, where
P. ha.d personal connexions (5. r n.); so Reiske (and cf. Ziegler, RE,
'Polybios (r)', col. 1548). But Africa, not Locri, stands at the be-
ginning of the book, and seems to have furnished the occasion for
P.'s polemic.
1. Towns in Africa {from Steph. Byz.)

I. 1. Buto.KtSo. x<ilpo.v: cf. Ptol. iv. 3· 6, Bv~a.Ktns xwpa. The MS. has
BvuaJ..dSa, which Schweighaeuser would emend to Buuu&:n8a in view
of iii. 23. 2 ; but Salmasius' proposal, Bu~a.K[8a, seems preferable,
inasmuch as Stephanus goes on to give Bu~a.K[rTJs as the l8vtK6v.
Byssatis (or Byzacis) is the fertile area between the Gulf of Hamma-
met and the Gulf of Qabes (cf. i. Sz. 6 n., iii. 23. 2), and P. evidently
calculates the circumference of the circle (7rtiptcfo€p{j<;: cf. v. 22. 1) by
measuring and doubling the distance along the coast from say
Hadrumetum to Thaenae, which bulges in a roughly circular form.
Pliny, Nat. hist. v. 24, gives the same figure of 2,ooo stades (250 m.p.)
JI7
XII. r. r TOWKS IN AFRICA
for the circuitus. On the fertility of this area, which may have in-
spired F.'s criticisms of Timaeus (3), see Pliny, N,<t. hist. xvii. 4r,
xviiL 94; Solin. 27. 6. Pedech, ad Joe., observes that rr.:p{ is not used
in P. in the sense 'near to', with the implication of geographical
attachment, and proposes plausibly to read vrrEp.
2. 'hrrrwv: probably Hippo Regius, a Phoenician colony, about
:r·s km. from modern Bone, on the Numidian coast at the mouth
of the R. Rubricatus (mod. Seybouse); Laelius landed here on a
raiding expedition in 205 (Livy, xxix. 3· 7). Against Meltzer's vie\\
(ii. 489) that Livy or his source has confused Hippo Diarrhytu:-:
(Bizerta; cf. i. 70.9 n.) >vith Hippo Regiussee Gsell, iii. 207; Scullanl.
Scip. r69 n. r. See in general Dessau, RE, 'Hippo Regius', cols. 2627-8.
3. Ilyyn: probably an error or \'ariant for Siga, Syphax's capital
among the Masaesyli (cf. iii. 33· 15 n.), where Scipio met Sypha\
during his visit from Spain (xi. 24 a 4 n.); cf. Strabo, xvii. 82q
Pliny, Nat. hist. v. 19. Alternatively it may be Sicca (probably
Kef in Tunisia; cf. i. 66. 6 n.; though J. Juillet, Bull. de Ia soc.
nat. des antiquaires de France, r948-9, 20_3-r3, proposes a site near
Zaghouan, and identifies El Kef with Cirta; cf. Poocch, 58). Pedech.
loc. cit., prefers the equation with Sicca on the grounds that P. j._,
basing his comments on his own observations, which will have been
limited to Tunisia; but the evidence is inconclusive.
4. TO.~pnKn: so Bochart and Pinedo for the MS. Taf1a.8pa. Tabraca
was a coashll town, ea..'>t of Hippo Regius, on the R. Tusca, which
separated ZPugitana from Numidia (Pliny, Nat. hist. v. 22; Mela,
i. 33; Treidler, RE, 'Thabraca', cols. 1 r 78-<)). It is the modern Tabarca
at the mouth of the Wadi El Kcbir, between Bizerta and La Calk
(cf. Hannezo, Rev. Tunisiemu, 23, r916, 239-65, 365-92; 24, r917,
12-29, 123-3i; Pedech, ad loc.
5. Xa.>.~~:el:n KTA.: the reference to 'Demosthenes' is probably from
Alexander Polyhistor, since Stephanus' reference to the latter is
precise but to 'Demosthenes' vague; in that case F.'s criticism wa.~
probably recorded by Polyhistor (Jacoby, FGH. 273 F 46, 699 F q).
who is the first-century freedman of Sulla, who had reached Ronw
as a prisoner of war (d. FGH, 273 commentary) ; his Libyca contained
three books. The reading 'Demosthenes' is dubious. He could lw
Demosthenes of Bithynia (if indeed he was a third-century writer.
and not from Roman imperial times, as is usually thought: JacobY,
FGH, 699; Schwartz, RE, 'Demosthcnes (9)', cols. 188-<)); but Demu
sthenes is an epic poet who is not kno>vn to have \'VTitten about Libya.
and an improbable target for P.'s criticism.Various corrections ar"
proposed: Ka.,\/..w8tJ'7}r:: \Vestermann, ~7]J..toxd.pTJ> L. Mueller, TLJ..to
f)"O,£v71r:;Geier (cf. Gisinger, RE, 'Timosthenes (3)', cots. r32r-2; accepk•l
by Pcdech, ad loc.). The last is very plausible, for Timosthen;·,
was Ptolemy Philadelphus' admiral who wrote on the geography ol
3!8
TOWNS IN AFRICA XII. 2
Africa (Strabo, ii. 92, ix. 421, tor his ll<p1 Atp.ivwv) and was criticized
by Marcianus, Epit. Peripl. Menippei, 3 GGlvJ, i. 566) and Strabo,
ii. 93· Meineke thinks a reference to Timaeus has dropped out. The
;~taA~<:ovpy<La, 'copper-mines' (rather than 'bronze-factories': Shuck-
burgh), may be the xaA~<:wpvxw. in Mauretania mentioned by Ptolemy
(iv. 2. 5) and Strabo (xvii. 83o).
2. The Lotus
This passage from Athenacus (xiv. 65r n) will also come from a dis-
cussion of Africa, related to Timaeus' mis-statements: see above,
p. 19. According to Theophrastus (liP, iv. 3· 2), Ophellas' army,
marching to join Agathocles in 308, was reduced to eating lotus fruit.
This incident may have been related by Timaeus and be the occasion
uf P.'s criticism, especially if Timaeus, like Theophrastus at this
point, made the lotus a olvopov •• . eiJp.ly<fh<; (see below, § z n.). (The
eating of lotus fruit is not mentioned in Diod. xx. 4L 2-42. z, but
his account at this point may derive from Duris (cf. FGH, 76 F 17
nn the Lamia). There is no agreement concerning the source of
Diodorus' account of Agathocles; see the references collected in
Wa1bank, CQ, 1945, 6 n. 6, and add H. Berve, 5.-B. 1l-'Uinchen, 1952,
~. 9-ro, who thinks it represents a mixture of Timaeus and Duris.)
The lotus so well described P. is Zizyphus lottts, a shrub of the
genus Rhamnaceae (to which our buckthorn belongs); it grows in
dry stony places near the coast of north Africa; and bears a reddish-
yellow edible berry the size of a sloe. This plant was first clearly
recognized as the food of Homer's lotus-eaters (Od. ix. 91 ft.) by
R. L Desfontaines in the ]r>urnal de Physique, q88, 287-99. Hero-
dotus, iv. rn, has this account of the plant (which in ii. 96 he calls
Kvp7]Vafoc; Aw·n/c;): 0 OE 'TOV AWTov !<:apmlc; lr:rn p.lya8o<; oaov Tl1 ri)c; UXLFOV
(te. mastich)' yAv~<:th'T/'!'Cl. S£ TOV cpotv,Ko<; Tip Kaprr<{J rrpoaet~<:<Aoc;. 1TO,EVVTCtt
a• fK roD ~<:aprrov 'TOVTOV o[ AwTo</;ayot Kat oivov. A similar account is in
Ps.-Scylax, Peripl. rro, except that he has the lotus-eaters make
their wine from a different species; Jacoby (RE, 'Hekataios', cols.
11733-4) suggests Hecataeus as the source of both Herodotus and
Scylax, with Scylax as the more accurate transcriber. But Theo-
phrastus, who in liP, iv. 3· 1 f., makes the lotus the size of a pear-
tree, appears to confuse Zizyphus lotus with another plant, Celtis
•ustralis; and Pliny, Nat. hist. xiii. ro4 ff., conflates both with
Diospyros lotus, the date-palm (which alone is referred to in Nat.
hist. xvi. 123 and xxiv. 6). The account of the lotus in Cornelius Nepos
(Exempla, fg. 20 Halrn = 30 Malcovati). which Pliny quotes, appears
to be derived from P. Von Scala, r52-3, compares P.'s account with
that in Theophrastus and suggests a common source for both ; but
the divergences between the two are considerable, and such common
XII. 2 THE LOTUS
traits as they possess are merely due to their being concerned with
the same plant. The suggestion made above (v. 45· 10 n.), that P. and
Theophrastus both used Diodes of Carystus, is therefore to be dis-
carded. See Stein, RE, 'lotos (2)', cols. 1526-3o, who quotes modern
authorities for the continued use of the lotus as food by the in-
habitants of north Africa; Walbank, Miscellanea Rostagni, 2o8-n.
(For information about the lotus I am grateful to Professor V. H.
Heywood and to Dr. G. Taylor.)
2. 1. .,.a. "'l'a.pa:rrA'I]o-~a. "To~s "'I'Epl. "Tov 'Hp68o.,.ov: Athenaeus is refer-

ring, not to Herodotus' passage on the lotus, quoted above (2 n.),
but to his account (Herod. i. 193. 4) of date-palms in Babylon, which
he has just cited, and which resembles P.'s account of the lotus only
in as far as the dates are used to provide rnTia Kai olvov Ka11-d.At. This
is Athenaeus' reference, not P.'s.
a.u"To"'I'"TTJS yevol'evos: either in 151, when he visited Africa with
Scipio (ix. 25. 4 n.), or when he was there during the Third Punic War
(xxxviii. 19-22). Athenaeus evidently draws on a statement by P.
contained in an introductory passage, and despite the doubts ex-
pressed above (Vol. I, p. 297) there is no reason to question its truth
(cf. Pedech, REG, 1958, 442). Hence this passage, if not the whok
book (above, p. 317), must have been written after 146.
2. ou flEya.: perhaps contradicting Timaeus, if he confused the lotus
with Celtis australis like Theophrastus, who calls the former 8.!v8pm'
£VflEYe8e;;; see above, 2 n.
0.Ka.v9w8es : Z izyphus lotus has thorns on the stem.
~uAAov xAwpov "'l'a.pa."'I'A'I]o-lov .,.ft paf'V':;l: 'a pale green leaf similar to
that of the rhamnus'. Rhamnus is a name given to several prickly
shrubs. Here P. probably means the box-thorn (Lycium europaeum)
or stone-buckthorn (Rhamnus graeca).
~a.9unpov Ka.l. "'I'Aa."Tunpov: probably 'longer and broader'; cf. Theophr.
HP, iii. 16. 2 for {3a8v~. 'long' of leaves. Schweighaeuser takes {3a86npov
as 'deeper in hue', but, without a specific mention of colour, this seems
less likely. Moreover, Zizyphus lotus has a light-green leaf.
3. "Ta.'Ls AwKa.i:s J-LUP"TLO'l: 'white myrtle berries', the berries of the
murtus albus (Cato, de agricult. 133. 2) on which see Dios. i. 112. It is
Myrtus communis uar. leucocarpa and grows widely in Italy and
Greece. See Steier, RE, 'Myrtos', col. n76.
4. cflo~vlKous: 'red'; cf. M. de Lamarck, Encyclopidie mithodiqu,e:
Botanique (Paris-Liege, q89), iii. 317. 'les fruits sont des drupes
presque ronds, rousseatres dans leur maturite, de la grosseur des
prunelles, et qui offrent, sous une chair pulpeuse, d'une saveur
agreable, un noyau globuleux, osseux et biloculaire'.
m'Ls yoyyuAa.lS EAa.Lals: i.e. the small round olives of Greece rather
than the larger oval ones.
320
THE LOTUS
To~s otK£Tals ... Tois EAEu9ipoLS: d. Xen. A nab. ii. J. IS (on dates).
mhat 0~ ai f36.Am•oL TWV .f;ou·lKWV •.. Tots OLKf7'U£<; amfKEWTO' ai o€ TOtS
a1ToJadfLI'YO.t ~aav am:JAE.KTOt.
8Ea1TOTO.LS
xovl>pov tu}lj!a.vTES: 'pounding it up with groats'; cf. Nepos,
j.t.ETO.
Exempla, fg. 30 Malcovati (=Pliny, Nat. hist. xiii. ro6), 'bacasque
concisas cum alica ad cibos doliis condi'. x6vopos (alica) is groats,
prepared by pounding grain in a mortar; see L. A. Moritz, Grain-
mills and Flour in Antiquity (Oxford, I9S8), I4i-9· The stored mix-
ture of groats and crushed lotus-fruit could be made into a kind of
porridge, as required. Perhaps the contains some natural sub-
stance that would counter the tendency of such a mixture to go
mouldy or become contaminated by weevils. Paton translates xovapos
'salt'; but it is unlikely that salt would be added during the pound-
ing, for its purpose would be as a preservative (in small quantities).
This Paton realizes, for he translates 'pack it with salt in jars'; but
fUTil xovopou goes with /(Q~JO.VTt£<;, not aaTTOUiJ'W. In any case, as Pro-
fessor Moritz points out to me, it is unlikely that xovopo> without
any qualifying word (such as mt<pos in Anth. Pal. vii. iJ6 1. 8) can
mean salt; it is 'a lump' of salt, or later of anything else, especially
grain. Mungo Park, Travels in the interior of Africa (London, Ii99).
entry for r4 February 1796, records the conversion of the berries of
Rhamnus lotus (= Zizyphus lotus) 'into a sort of bread' with the
flavour of ginger-bread; but he refers to the mixing in of millet only
to form a kind of gruel. The accuracy of Park's account is queried by
J. L. M. Poiret in his Supplbnent to the Encyclopidie methodique:
Botanique (Paris, r8r3), iii. 191-2; but it seems quite circumstantial
and likely to be correct.
6. To ~pwjLa.: the comparison with figs or dates suggests that P. is
referring to the lotus in its natural state rather than to the mixture
of lotus and groats.
7. yivETO.l ••• KO.L otvos KTA.: cf. Herod. iv. l n (quoted in 2 n.) and Ps.-
Scyl. Peript. no; Xepos, Exempla, fg. 30 Malcovati, 'uinum quoque
exprimitur illi simile mulso, quod ultra denos dies negat durare
idem Nepos bacasque etc. (quoted in§ 4 n.)'. olvofLE.At is a mixture of
wine and honey, Latin mulsum (though xxxiii. 6. 9 distinguishes
olv6fl.eA~ as sweeter). It was made by mixing preferably old wine
with honey which had been boiled; various proportions are found
from one-third to one-eleventh honey. See A. Hug, RE, 'mulsum',
cols. 513-14; Park (op. cit. in§ 4 n.): 'it furnishes the natives ... with
a sweet liquor, which is much relished by them'.
3-4. Some errors of TimaeJ~s on the fauna of Africa and Corsica

From the excerpta antiqua (F). On Timaeus see i. S· r-s n.; to re-
ferences there add T. S. Brown, Timaeus of Tauromenium (Berkeley-
814173 y 321
XII. 3-4 SOME ERRORS OF TIMAEUS ON THE
Los Angeles, 1958); \Valbank, ]RS, 1962, 1-12. P.'s remarks on
Africa suggest personal knowledge of the country; and this would
make the composition of these chapters later than q6 (see above,
p. Jij).
3. L 't~V Tf\s xwpa.s lipET'f\V: clearly Africa (Libya).

2. 'lTmSa.pLwSTJ: cf. Anon. 1rep~ vt/>ot•s:, 4 ( FGH, 566 T 23), t\ml
()~ i!.pwTos -rov glvas vo~aEtS' d.l!'' KtV<itV rroMdKtS' €Krr{rr-rwv <:ls To ?Tat8a
ptwSJO'TaTOV.
TO.LS apxa.(aiS 4>'f\!l0.1S nK!l~V Ev8E8f.!l~VOV: commenting 011 this passage
(FGH, 566 F 8r) Jacoby suggests that P. has in mind Timaeus'
reference to the proverb Jp1Jp.on.pa Tijs Atf3vTJs: in Timoleon's speecl1
(26 a 2). But in that passage Timaeus makes Timoleon speak of
Africa as amiO"Y)S O'VV<'XWS olKoUp.Et''Y)> Kat r.)o.rJfJvoua'Y)S dvOpC:mwv, thu:'>
rebutting P.'s allegation here (cf. Brown, 23-24). \Vhose is the 'ancient
report' is not clear, for both Hecataeus (FGH I F 335) and Herodotu;,
(iv. r63 ff.) wrote of agriculture and pastoralism in Africa, and
Herodotus divided the zones as olKovp.lv'l'/ or rrapaOa.>..aaawt (Herod
ii. 32. 4, iv. r81. r), OTJptwo'YJs (Herod. ii. 32. 4, iv. r8r. r), otppv'YJ lj>ap.p.'YJ,.
(Herod. iv. r8r. r), and £p~p.1J (Herod. ii. 32. 4, iv. r8r. 2, rSs. 3). Possibh
then, in some part of his work (Jacoby that dealing witl1
Agathodes) Timaeus may have the desert character
of the country. \\'hether he gave an overall account of Libya (as tlw
phrase afLtJ.WOOVS' TTclG'TJ'i • •• -rfjs Atf3UTJS' suggests) is unknown. JacOb)
thinks there was one in his rrpoKaTaaKw~. but Brown (2-i) does not·
and Pedech, ad loc., suggests that Timaeus drew on the Tvp{wv
imop.v;)f.'a.Ta. (28 a 3), which may have described Africa as barren
before the Tyrians arrived (Diod. xiii. 8r. s). However, P. may well
have exaggerated Timaeus' inaccuracy by applying his remark to
the whole of Africa.
5. ~ou~O.Xwv: antelopes (not buffaloes: Paton, Shuck burgh). On the
fauna of north Africa in classical times see Gsell, i. IoRz8, zr6-34;
on the lions see J. Ayrnard, Essai sur les chasses romaines (Paris.
195r), 395-6; on elephants, ibid. 42r-3o.
Tl<; oox iCTT6pTJCTEV: 'who has not read of ... ?'; cf. i. 63. 7 n.
6. oo8€v tCTTop~aas: 'has made no inquiries about this',
7. T~v ••• Kupvov: P.'s account may suggest that he had visited
Corsica (so Pedech), but he does not say so and we cannot be sure:
see also 4· 5 n.
8. ~v Tij s~wTep~ ~uJ3X~t~: of his main work (the exact title of which
is not known : it was perhaps L'tKeAtKd or l:tKEAtKa.1 [fJToplat : cf.
Jacoby on FGH, 566, iii b, p. 539). Book ii formed part of the intro-
ductory group, which P. (26 d 4) calls -rd. rrpwTa {mop.v~p.a-ra, and
Which COntained Ta> a1TOtK[a)' KaL KTlaEL'i Ka~ O'VfiEVEtO.S (26 d 2 11.);
Jacoby (FGH, iii b, pp. 542-3, commenting on 566} argues that this
J22
FAUNA OF AFRICA AND CORSICA XII. 4· 9
TTpoKaTaaKEtnJ included what was virtually a geographical description
of the western Mediterranean. The present fragment is FGH, 566 F 3·
Timaeus' account of Corsica is represented by Diod. v. 13~14 (= FGH,
s66 F 164, c. IJ/T4), where, however, the excerpt has little on the
fauna and must represent the original most inadequately.
a.tya.s aypia.s: Nymphodorus of Syracuse (FGH, 572 F Io} mentions
long-haired goats in Sardinia, probably the musmones or ophiones
of Strabo (v. 225) and I)liny (Nat. hist. viii. 199· xxviii. rsr, XXX. 146),
and perhaps identical with the animals mentioned by Timaeus in
Corsica; see Pedech, ad loc.
4. 4. Ka.Kws Ka.t 1ra.pipyws w1'opt)f1a.s: 'after careless and perfunctory

inquiries' (Shuckburgh).
laxEoia.cre: 'he made this random statement', i.e. that the animals
were wild. Brown (roo) finds the point of P.'s criticism obscure; but
it is not clear why he imagines that Timaeus 'had spoken of herds
responding to the shepherd flute and that P. believes this is too
commonplace to be worth recording in a history', for there is no
evidence that Timaeus said anything about a flute; and indeed
Diod. \". 14. I refers to Td. ••• 1Tp6f3aTa 1.TfJ!-L€Lotc; om:\1)/-1./-I.EVU, which
Kav 1-LTJOEL> c}v:\aTTrJ a(gera• To[s KEKTTJ!-L~vot,. On the wild animals of
Corsica in Timaeus' time see F. Ruehl, Rh. J.fus. 1907, 309.
5. olJK ian !la.up.6mov: Brown (roo) claims that 'P. would not have
argued from the behaviour of Italian herdsmen, had he ever visited
Corcyra (sic: read 'Corsica')'. This does not follow: P. may be simply
quoting a similar practice falling within his knowledge.
8. ~hll ... TTJV 1ro?..uxnp£a.v: 'owing to the large labouring population'
(Paton); cf. viii. 3· 3. 34· u, x. 30. 8. On the large population of north
Italy cf. ii. rs. 7·
Ka.t ~6.?..1aTa. [TTJV 1ra.Xa.&a.v] : so F, T~v 1TapaMav Schweighaeuser; T~v
TTAaT<:i."av (i.e. the flat area of Lombardy and Tuscany) Wunderer.
Neither is satisfactory. Biittner-Wobst, with Wachsmuth, omits T~JI
TTaAalav as a corruption of TTJV 'lTilAlav repeated; alternatively one
may read Tryv rllAaT{a.v and omit 1rapd. .•• FilAaTats as a gloss with
PCdech (REG, 1954, 394-5. and in his edition), who points out that
P. does not use TvppYJv~Ko> substantivally.
T~v u[a.v ToK6.8a. x~A[ous E~<TpE«f!t:Lv ~ .. :impossible, if P. means that one
sow bore over r,ooo young. A sow might first bear at two years and
continue with two litters a year up to the seventh year (Varro, RR,
ii. 4· i); a litter might be as many as twenty (Pliny, Nat. hist. viii.
205). But P. may have misunderstood an informant who told him
that over r ,ooo pigs were sprung from a single sow (including more
than one generation). As Schweighaeuser observes, the logic is faulty;
the size of litters is a cause, not a result of the large herds.
9. 8t6 Ka.i Ka.Ta yev"l ••• Kll~ Ka.9' t]?..~K[a.v TdoS ••• ~~a.ywy6.s: once
XII. 4· 9 SOME ERRORS OF TIMAEC'S
the pigs were weaned, which normally took place by tv,·o months
after birth, they were separated from the sows (Varro, RR, ii. 4· 13);
thus K<mi yevTJ will be 'according to breed' and KaB' ~A<KLav 'according
to age'. Varro (RR, ii. 4· 22) says that 100 is a reasonable size for a
herd, but that some breeders go up to more than 300 (if this is his
meaning). however, is thinking of much larger herds than this,
hence (od) the subdivision into age groups and different breeds.
In the comparable situation in Greece (§ r3) the two herds belong to
different parties and Schweighaeuser thinks that P. 'singula genera
(i.e. Kara yeVYJ) ea dicat, quae ad diuersos dominos atque colonos per-
tinent'. But P. seems to be clearly describing subdivisions of a single
vast herd (though indeed the hom would equally well be used to
sort out pigs belonging to different owners if they happened to
intermingle in the woods).
10. auO"TfJ(lO.Twv: 'groups', subdivisions of the herd Kard yevYJ Kai
KaB' ~AtKiav, each under a separate swineherd.
13. E1TE~Mv Q.}.X'I)Xots O"U(lmi011: separate herds belonging to differ-
ent owners (§ 9 n.).
Ka.TEUK<up~aa.s: probably 'and ha,·ing the opportunity' (Paton)
rather than 'who is rich' (Schweighaeuser, who takes it to mean 'qlli
maiorcm porcorum copiam habet'). The latter meaning, accepted by
Pedech, is less appropriate here, where the swineherds and not the
actual o·wners are involved.
14. Tov Ka.pm)v: cf. ii. 15. z, where acorns are the food of swine.
4 a-4 d. More errors of Timaet~s

That this follows the account of Timaeus' errors about
Africa is clear from 4 c 2; see above, p. H). The points here criti-
cized seem to be chosen arbitrarily bv P., but, as Pedech obsen·es,
each chapter is devoted to a distin~t f~ult or faults, viz.: 4a, cavilling
and fault-finding (1'6 <f>•,\mlnp.ov Ko.t <f>•Ai)'KATJp.ov, §6), 4 b and 4 c,
and peda.ntic irrelevance (dtf;tp.aBla, 4 c r), 4 d, inaccuracy
(t/JwSoltoy{o., § 4).
4 a 1. 8n Stom:.pa.s ••• 4>1JO"t: the epitomator's words.

T~ 11'poa<J>uo(liV'f Tois aXXo~s: \vho severely criticizes others', lit.
'who clings to, adheres to .. .'.
11'o.pwvux(a.s: 'trifles' : lit. 'whitlows' ; cf. Plut. 1v!or. 43 B; Cic. Rose.
Am. 128.
2. 9Eo1T<ljl1TOU (-LEV KO.T1JYOpEt: on Theopompus see viii. 8. 9-u n., and,
on his Sicilian books, Westlake, Historia, 1953-4, 288-307.
ALovua(ou ••• lfls Kopw9ov: after the surrender of Dionysius II
to Timoleon. Timoleon was sent out from Corinth in 344 (Diod.
x:vi. 66. 1) and, according to Plutarch (Timol. 16), the tyrant
3l4
MORE ERRORS OF TBIAEUS XII. 4a 3
surrendered the citadel of Syracuse to him within fifty days of his arri~
val ; according to Diod. xvi. 7o. r the surrender was in late summer
.143 (see Beloch. iii. 2. 380-3; Westlake, Timoleon, 24). Theopompus'
statement (FGH, rr s T 341) that Dionysius was sent in a single mer-
('hant ship to Corinth is also in Diod. X\"i. 70. 3, J yap ffx_wv -rerpaKoa:la-:
Tpt~pw; fi.ET' 6.\[;·ov lv p.tKpo/ a-rpoyyvA<p TrAO{I.fl J<a.TrlTrAwaev els -r~v
1\dptvflov; but Diodorus may have taken Theopompus' version from
Timaeus, preferring it because of its greater rhetorical antithesis to
Dionysius' former splendour (d. Beloch, iii. 2. 48). Hammond, how~
ever, CQ, 1938. 137 ff., thinks that Diodorus followed Theopompus
direct. Plut:.trch, Tim. r3. 4, has lTrt f1.£as vews. "Whether Timaeus or
Theopompus spoke the truth is past knowing, for Theopompus
can have exaggerated Dionysius' peripateia as easily as Timaeus can
have transformed a merchant ship into a warship, the better to
underline Timoleon's generosity (cf. Jacoby on FGH, 566 F u6-r7).
PCdech, ad loc., who thinks the warship was intended to guard
Dionysius like a criminal, accepts Timacus on the grounds that,
living in Athens, he could consult witnesses of the event; but Theo-
pompus may have had access to equally reliable sources. The present
passage is quoted at FGH, II5 F 341 (Theopompus) and FGH,
sG6 F u7 (Timaeus).
3. 'E4>opou 8~ viH.. wliyvoLuv Ka.TuljrEuSETUL: so Biittner-Wobst forM
1TctA<v o-rav J<a.-rat/J€1;0T)TO.t; but no correction is necessary. Pedech, ad
Joe. (following Wunderer, Phil. 1894, 59-Go), points out that 'E96pov
is the object of IWTT)yopEI: (§ 2), like Beom)tJ-Trov, the phrase oTo.v Kam-
ifJE!JOT)Tal forming a slight pleonasm. justified by the intervening
words (cf. xxix. 9· 7). On Ephorus see iv. 20. s n. This passage is
FGH, 7o F 218 (Ephorus) and FGH, 566 F rro (Timaeus).
ALovua1o<; b 1Tp~al3uTEPO'i KTA.: the dispute ;vith Ephorus seems sug~
gested by the name Dionysius, which reminds P. of the problem of
the elder Dionysius' chronology (d. viii. 9-n n. and xv. 34--36 for
similar examples of association). This chronology is still controversiaL
Ancient tradition agreed in putting Dionysius' death in the Attic
archon year of Nausigcnes, 368i7 (Diod. xv. 73· 5; Mann. Par. 74
(= FGH, 239 A 74)). His age was given as 63 by both Ephorus (as
recorded here) and by Timaeus (in Cic. TD, v. 57, 'duodequad-
raginta annos tyrannus Syracusanorum fuit Dionysius, cum quinque
et uiginti natus annos domina tum occupauisset'; that Timaeus is
the source is generally agreed; cf. Jacoby, Das lvl armor Par£um
(Berlin, r9o4): r84); consequently Timaeus' criticism cannot have
been levelled against this figure. P. does not say that it was. He
merely points out, correctly, that 23+4:! 65, and that at any rate
one of these numbers must therefore be inaccuratelv transmitted.
il'eloch (ii. 2. 259) assumes that tbe man who prod~ced Timaeus'
copy of Ephorus had written Tf'TTapaKOIJTO. 3vo for ovoi'v 3ioVTa
325
MORE ERRORS OF TIMAEUS
but Jacoby (Marmor Parium, 184) had already pointed
-r..:r-ra.paKovra;
out that this hypothesis would also involve adjusting €LKoaL rpu'i:w
to ELKOUL rrh>re. vVe know that Timaeus believed Dionysius to have
been 25 when he seized power (Cicero, TD, v. 57, quoted above);
but it is improbable that the copyist of Ephorus made two errors,
and there are no grounds for thinking that Ephorus also accepted
zs as Dionysius' age when he seized the tyranny. Clearly P. is right
in detecting a fault in Ephorus' figures, whether this was due to a
copyist's slip or to Ephorus himself (a possibility not to be excluded,
despite P.'s scorn). Jacoby (Marmor Parium, 184) has made a con
vincing suggestion as to where it lies. If Dionysius died in 368/7 at
the age of 63, and seized power at the age of 23, this event was in
408/7, which is the date assigned to it by the Parian marble (A 6:::
and A 74); hence it is likely that the words !Cat Svo have crept in~
correctly into Ephorus' figures, and it may be assumed that he
assigned Dionysius' birth to 431/o, his seizure of the tyranny to 4o8/7
and his death to 368/7. The Marmor Parium will follow Ephorus
(Schwartz, Hermes, 1899,486 n. 2). Timaeus, as we have seen, agreed
in making him die at 63, but put his seizure of power at 25, hence
probably in 4o6/5, the date to be found in Diod. xiii. 96. z (archonship
of Callias) and Dion. Hal. vii. 1. 5; and if his death was in 368/7,
this fits the generally accepted figure of 38 years for his tyranny
(Diod. xiii. 96. 4, xv. 73· 5; Cic. T D, v. 57; ND, iii. 81; Val. Max. ix. 13
ext. 4; Helladius ap. Phot. Bibl. 279, p. 530 a 30 Bekker). The date
406/5 for the seizure of the tyranny probably goes back to Philistus
(Jacoby, Marmor Parium, I84: Stroheker, I98 n. s6). In Plut. Afor.
7!7 c (= FGH, s66 F 105) Dionysius' seizure of power is synchronized
with Euripides' death, which was in fact in 407/6; but here Timaeus
seems to have forced the chronology for the sake of the synchronism
(Jacoby ad loc. )-unless indeed this refers not to the year, but to the
day (Stroheker, I98 n. s6). Thus the essential difference between
Timaeus' chronology and Ephorus' lies in the date assigned to the
seizure of the tyranny by Dionysius. This, however, does not justify
Brown's assertion (77) that this was the only objection raised by
Timaeus, and that P. has not understood what the criticism was
really about; for the arithmetical error is real, and there is no reason
to doubt that Timaeus dealt with it. Jacoby's more recent suggestion
(commenting on FGH 566 F 109~12) that Timaeus may have counted
only complete years, and so have begun his thirty-eight years with
405/4 and come down to 367/6 for Dionysius' death, seems unneces-
sarily hypercritical.
For discussion see Jacoby, i1Iarmor Parium, 184, commentary on
FGH, 70 F 218 and 566 F IIO; Beloch, ii. 2. zsB f.; iii. 2. 374-S;
Stroheker, 196 n. Z9, 198 n. s6, 237 n. 83; Niese, Hermes, 1904, 99 n. 1;
Ed. Meyer, v. 65, 78; Kahrstedt, Forsch. x6s ff.
326
MORE ERRORS OF TIMAEUS XII. 4b r
4. Tou S~ ypa.4>~<»s bfoAoyoutt~v<»s: not necessarily true last
note). In xxxiv. 3· n-1:2 P. similarly explains a difficulty in Homer
as a textual error.
5. Tov K6poL~ov tca.l. Tov Ma.py(T'Ilv: proverbial names for fools; cf.
::15. 8 for Margites. Coroebus was a Phrygian, a suitor of Cassandra,
who perished at the hands of Neoptolemus or Diomedes (Paus.
x. 27. 1), or according to Virgil (Acn. ii. 425) at those of Peneleus.
Servius remarks on Ae1t. ii. 341 : 'tunc autem Coroebum stultum in-
ducit Euphorion' and Eustathius (ad Od. p. r66g. 46) says Coroebus
came too late to help Priam. For the phrase Kopolftou ry)u8ufrrepo<:
see Lucian, Arrwr. 53 (where, as in Aelian, Var. hist. xiii. 15, he is
associated \Vith Melitides); and in general Lentsch, Corpus paroem.
f!.Yaec. i. ro1, 58; Worterb1tch der griechischen Eigen~
namen, s.v.: \Vunderer, i. 98-99. Margites is the hero of the comic
epic of that name, traditionally attributed to Homer; cf. Rader-
macher, RE, , cols. 17os-8; Rh. M1ts. 1908, 445 ff. (on lists
of fools).
4 b 1. E\1 TOLS v~pl nuppou: that Timaeus treated Pyrrhus separately

from his main history is attested by Cicero (ad Jam. v. 12. z} and
Dionysius (i. 6. r} FGH, 566 T 9}; but in how many books is not
known (cf. Jacoby, FGH, 566, commentary pp. 545-0).
TOUS 'Pw ....a.(ous •.• K0.1'o::l.I<OVTtt"w t'lnTOV: FGH, 566 F 36; d. Festus,
p. q8 M (p. 190, I I Lindsay}, 'October equus appellatur, qui in
campo Martio mense Octobri immolatur quotannis Marti, bigarum
uictricum dexterior ... quem hostiae loco quidam Marti bcllico deo
sacrari dicunt, non ut uulgus putat, quia uelut supplicium de eo
sumatur, quod Romani Ilio sunt oriundi, et Troiani ita effigie,
in (?) equi sint capti' (cf. p. 57 Lindsay); Plut. Mor. 287 A. On the
Ides of October each year a horse-race took place in the Campus
Marti us; the off-side horse of the winning chariot was sacrificed to
Mars by the ftamen martialis (Dio, xliii. 24. 4 of human sacrifice} and
its head became the trophy in a contest between the inhabitants of
Sacra Via and Subura. The winners nailed it to the 1\familian tower
or the walls of the Regia respectively. The tail was brought to the
Regia where the Vestals perhaps preserved the blood for religious
purposes at the atonement feast of the Parilia (Festus, p. 178M =
p. 190, 16 Lindsay}; Ovid, Fasti, iv. 731 ff.; Propert. iv. 1. z9 f.
The sacrifice of the horse connects with the purification of the army
on its return from the summer campaign, and with the armilustrium
of 19 October, cf. xxiii. ro. 17 for a similar rite in Macedonia. See
Wissowa, 144 f.; Altheim, History of Roman Religion (London, 1938},
r.n; L. Deubner, ]ahrb. 27, r9n, 326 L; Keller, i. 246 ff.; G. Dumeril,
Riftuels, However, J. G. Frazer, The Golden BoughJ (London,
19II-r5), v. 2. 42 ff., followed by Rose, The Roman Questions of
327
XII. 4b r i\10RE ERRORS OF TIMAEUS
Plutarch (Oxford, 1924). zo8, regards the October horse as originally
a spirit of the grain, and this gains some support from the alternative
explanation in Festus s.v. 'Panibus' (p. 246, 2I Lindsay) · 'id sacri-
ficium fiebat ob frugum euentum' (d. H. M. Hubbell, Yale Stud.
1928, 179-92). Timaeus here shows himself acquainted 'Nith the
legend deriving the Romans from Troy and with a detail of Roman
topography, the Campus .Martius.
8u1 T~v 'i'lr'lrov ••. Tov 8ouptov: on the tradition of the wooden horse
seeR. G. Austin, J RS, 1959, r6-25. Timaeus' use of religious tradition
as evidence for his belit>f in the descent of the Romans from the
Trojans can be paralleled by his reference to the 'Penates' of iron
and bronze and Trojan pottery preserved at Lavinium (FGII, F
59 = Dion. Hal. i. 67. 4).
2. ml.vTas Tous ~a.p~apous: not including the Romans, whom P.
never calls barbarians except in reported speeches (d. ix. 37· 6 n.).
3. L'lr'li'OV ... acpaynitovTcu: Z7T1np M, L7T7TOl'Geel, alii. Pedech, ad loc.,
successfully defends the instrumental dative by adducing parallels,
also the intransitive use of 1Tpo8vw0at, on the meaning of which
see L. Ziehen, Rh. At'tts. 1904, 391 -4o6. Horse-sacrifices are widely
attested from Scythia (Herod. h·. z), Persia (Herod. vii. 113; Ovid,
Fasti, i. 385), Parthia (Tac. Ann. vi. 37), Massagetae (Herod. i.
216. 4), India, Germany, etc. (cf. Schrader, Reallcx. 2 , ii. 173 f.; Stier,
RE, 'Pferd', col. 1443; Frazer's commentary on Ovid, Fast£, i.
Dumezil, Rituds, 73-85 (with bibliography on p. 86, nn. 2-3).
O'T)J.LELoup.Evm ••• tK TTJS ••• nndaEws: not elsewhere attested.
4 c 1. lnjnJ.La9la.v: Theophrastus' difnp.aO~, (Char. 2i) displays exces-

sive zeal in inappropri<Lte activities, and Pcdech, ad Joe., accepts
Perret's interpretation (4-P) that P. is attacking Timaeus for adduc-
ing elaborate proofs (d. 25 is) for what was (in P.'s time) a generally
accepted thesis. The fault springs from seeing newly acquired
knowledge out of proportion (hence al{lwa.8La.). 'Pedantic irrelevance'
perhaps renders it. P. is turning <tgainst Timaeus the charge of
o'f;tp.a.8ia. which he had le\·elled against Aristotle 4 n. ; von Scala,
IZ7 n. 2). Plutarch (.Vic. L 2) also calls Timaeus o'f;Lp.ae~,. Kat
p.Etpa.KtW'8Tjs.
2. Ta 1T£pi. T~V At~UTJV: d. 3· r-<i.
Ttl. nEpi T~v 1ap60va: no fragments of P.'s criticism of Timaeus'
account of Sardinia survive, but it will have occurred in conjunction
with his criticism of what Timaeus said about Corsica (3. 7-4. 4).
Timaeus' account of Sardinia may be the basis of that in Diod. v. 15:
cf. Brown, 38-9.
TIL KtnO. T~v 'haXlnv: none of Timaeus' inaccuracies concerning Italy
has survived, for the account of pasturing swine (4. ,~-r3) is a digres-
sion inspired by his account of Corsica.
32S
MORE ERRORS OE TIMAE'CS XII. 4d 8
3. Til 1T£pi. Ta<; &va.t<ptO'ElS: d. 27. 3. 'personal inquiry'. This is em-

phatically said to he the most important part of the historian's task:
cf. 27. 6, 28 a 8; Vol. I, p. ron. 4· It consists, P. goes on to say(§ 5),
in (a} consulting as many people as possible, (b) believing those who
IUerit belief, and (c) being a good judge of T.l1TpowrrlrrTot'Ta, 'reports'
(cf. iii. I j. 1 n.). These principles apply to historical inquiry in general,
and not, of course, merely to the geographical material referred to
here.
4 d l. J.LEY£<7TTJV E1Ti<f>o.ow EAKwv: 'emphasizes this at length'.

2. &.tcpl~W\l Ti]v aATj9<!lO.Y ESETa~nv: for P.'s emphasis on truth and
accuracy see Vol. I, pp. ro-u; it was a traditional claim (d. Thuc.
i. 20. 3, 22. 1-2; Avenarius, 42 n. rz).
4. Ev ols E<f>u ~<:a.i. hpG.<f>TJ T<i1ToLs: i.e. Sicily, not Syracuse. Despite
Diod. xxi. r6. 5, where he is called & l:vpaK6aw<; (a passage to which
Columba, Ri<'.fi.l. 1S87. 355 ff. and Laqueur, RE, 'Timaios', col. 1076,
attach excessive weight), the sources are othenvise agreed in making
him a citizen (presumably by birth) of Tauromenium {cf. Jacoby,
FGIJ, iii b. p. 53o); cL FGH, T r, 3. 5, 13, 27, z8. Pedech, ad loc.,
suggests that he may perhaps ltave been born at Syracuse under
Timoleon, with whom his father had close links, and perhaps have
studied there. De Sanctis (Storiografia siceliota, 44) thinks he could
perhaps call himself a Syracusan because his father was one.
5. TTJY :Ap£9ouO'a.Y I<PTJVTJV: FGH, s66 F 4! b. The fountain of Arcthusa
is on the north side of the island of Ortygia at ; its associa-
tion ·with the Alpheius in Elis is recorded by many a'Ithors, of whom
the earliest are Ihycus (fg. 23 Diehl) and Pindar, Nem. I. r (see also
Lycus of Rhegium (FGH, 570 F 9), Nat. quaest. iii. z6. 5,
vi. 8. z; Pliny, Nat. hist. ii. zzs). Timaeus is mentioned as a source
for this story also by Antigonus, Hist. mir. 140 (probably using
Callimaclms) and Strabo, vi. 270-r (both quoted in FGH, s66 F 4r).
On Arethusa see J. R. Smith, Springs and IV ells in Greek and Rmnan
Literature (~ew York-London, 1922), 66g-p. Brown (3o) argues that
Timaeus may have recorded the myth as hallowed by tradition
without actually believing it; perhaps, hut Straho seems to have
understood him in the same way asP. did.
6. TETPO.~<lO'X~Aious o-Tn8lous iJ1To To ILKEAt~<:ov .•• 1TEAayo<;: from the
mouth of the Alpheius to Syracuse is about 330 miles, hence 4,ooo
stades is an exaggeration. Whether Timaeus mentioned this figure
(it is not in Strabo or Antigonus), or J>. it in to add ridicule to
the story, is uncertain. On the Sicilian cf. L 42. 4 n.
8.lSv8ou TE 1TA~Bos &.va~M6ew: cL Strabo, v.i. zjo, Oo?..ofia8at a1Tb ;wv
tv '0/..vjm(q. {3ov0vfnwv; Antig. Hist. mir. 140, ot3 KaOapdv elvat . .. d/..Act
pE'i't! ovO(p.
+ul.ATJV xpuo-Tjv: cf. Strabo, vi. 270, Ka!. y.lp r/>ufA1)1' nva eKrre:aoDoav
XII. 4d 8 MORE ERRORS OF TIMAEUS
~:l;; TOV 1TOTUJLdV tVOJLmav OEvpo av<EvEx8fiva£ ed;; n}v Kp~t 1 1)t'; Antig. Hi st.
mir. r4o, .fou1),T/V rroT' El;; Tov JL\,Pnov rroraJLOV lp..p.\1)8£iaav lv tKdvn
.foavfjva£.
8.v£iAovTo: 'they took it up' (Pedech) or 'they made of{ with if (Paton).
5-16. Timaeus' criticisms of Aristotle about Locri: his c1'itidsms of

Callisthenes, Demochares, and Agathocles
P. now passes to a discussion of Timaeus' criticisms of his predeces-
sors (cf. 23 . .S) and the polemic about Locri forms part of this
section (cf. Pedech, p. xviii). On the view that Timn.eus' opinions
about Locri furnished the occasion for P. to devote this book to
criticism of him see the introductory note, above, p. 3I7. Aristotle's
account of the origins of Epizephyrian Locri wa..<; probably contained
in his Constitutions, which may well ha\·e dealt with foundations too,
for Plutarch (Mor. 1093 c) refers to them as KT[a€tS Kat rroAtTEi'a'
(cf. Sandys, Aristotle's Constitution of Athens 2 (London ,r9r2), xxix).
In rr. 5 P. implies that Thcophrastus shared Aristotle's account-
perhaps in his three books NoJJ,08ETwt• (Diog. Laert. v. 45), which
seem to have touched on Zaleucus (d. Cic. de leg. ii. rs; ad Att.
vi. 1. r8), or alternatively in his twenty-four books N,)wov Kant
aTo<xdov (Dio~. Laert. v. 44; Cic. fin. v. n); and indeed in his
treatise On Drunlumness Theophrastus mentioned Zaleucus' law
punishing the drinking of wine without a doctor's prescription by
death (Theophr. fg. 117 Wimmer Athen. x. 429). The reference
is, however, merely to Tim:teus' rejection of Theophrastus and there
is no positive evidence that P. was personally familiar with his
account. All that P. quotes from Aristotle too (at least in surviving
fragments) comes via Timaeus' criticism, and it is possible, despite
9· I, that P. merely took Aristotle's version from Timaeus and what
he was told himself at Locri (d. von Scala, rz7; Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios
{1)', col. r470; Brown, 127 n. 7, correctly observes, however, that this
can be only a hypothesis).
Timaeus' criticism of Aristotle was in his ninth book (FGH, 566
F n) and this digression arose either in connexion with Pythagoras or
else out of his account of the history of Magna Graecia in the sixth
century (so Jacoby, commentary on FGH, 566 F n-rz); Schwartz
(Hermes, r899, argued that as the Locrhn laws were usually
attr~buted to Zaleucus (r6. 4 n.), who was accounted a Pythagorean,
Timaeus, who rejected Zaleucus' existence (FGH, 566 F r3o), rna~·
well have passed from discussing this question in connexion with
Zaleucus to a general account of early Locrian history, and this is
possible (cf. Laqueur, RE, 'Timaios (2)', col. ro78). Aristotle's accep-
tance of the story that Italian Locri was founded by slaves from
locris with whom free-born women had cohabited during their
33°
TIMAEUS' CRITICIS~1S OF ARISTOTLE XII. 5· z
husbands' absence as allies of the Spartans during the Messenian
War (cf. 6 b 5 n.) is rejected by Timaeus on eight grounds:
(i) the Locrians were not wont to have domestic slaves (6. 7-8);
(ii) the inherited friendship of Locri with Sparta (6 a 2);
(iii) the ravaging of Locri by the Athenians (6 b 3);
(iv) the Spartans would hardly have stopped the Locrians of
Greece from visiting their wives during the Messenian War
(6 b sl;
(v) the existence of a treaty between Greek Locris and Italian
Locri If.,;; J'OVEVO'L npos Tb::va. (g. 3) '
(vi) the existence of s;:mpolity between the two states (9. 4);
(vti) the laws of Locri were those of a colony of free men (9. 5);
(viii) the constitution of l.ocri and its cultural institutions are
similar to those of Locris (n. 5).
P.'s answers to these arguments are partly but not wholly valid;
they are discussed in the notes (see also Walbank, ]RS, 1962, I-tz).
They fall in to two groups: those based on personal inguiry at Locri
(s-6. 6), and those based on probability {6. 7-II. s). But as between
the views of Aristotle and Timaeus, the latter seem to be the more
convincing. The story of the slave origins of Locri parallels the
similar story of the Partheniae at Tarentum (viii. 33· 9 n.); it seems
to be implied in the version which made Locri also a Spartan founda-
tion (Paus. iii. 3· 1). It probably arose in an attempt to explain the
matrilineal customs of Locri (5. 6 n.) and may have been given ad-
ditional prominence in democratic propaganda during the party
atruggles at the time of Dionysius II (Arist. Pol. vii (v). 7· 1307 a 38,
~ AoKpwv no:\t) &nw:\ETO lK •fj;; npo;; L.lwvvawv KYfSeta;;), w·hich sought to
bring the 'Hundred Houses' (5. 6) into disrepute (so Oldfather, RE,
'Lokroi', col. I,VS)· Timaeus' rejection of it would be explained if he
drew some of his information about Locri from a Locrian emigre,
Echecrates (to. 7 n.). Other points at issue between Aristotle and
Timaeus are discussed in the notes. See in general Oldfather, RE,
'Lokris', cols. 1255--62; 'Lokroi', cols. 1314-15, 1345-6; Dunbabin,
J6-37' I8J-s; Brown, 44-50; Berard, 201-6; Jacoby on FGH, s66 F
r 1-12; Lerat, ii. 22-25; \Valbank, JRS, 1962, !-Iz.
6. 1. va.pa.~e~AlJK~Va.L ••• d<; T~v Twv /\oKpwv voALv: d. Vol. I, p. 4·

If the Dalmatian campaign was that of xs6/5 {§ 2 n.), these visits
took place while P. was technically an internee in Italy.
2. 1Tt1pa.Xu6Tjva.l ••• s,· ~Ill!: presumably through his influence with
Aemilianus. Granted, Scipio had not in the 15o's the auctoritas he
possessed after the fall of Carthage, but through him P. must have
hnd- access to influential circles. The background and basis of his
intervention escapes us; perhaps Locri, though it had indeed provided
33[
XII. 5· 2 Til\L\EUS' CIHTICISl\IS OF ARISTOTLE
two triremes against Perseus in qr (Livy, xlii. 7), was in a state of
economic distress (so Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', col. 1341).
Tijs ELS 'l~11plav uTpa.nia.s •.• Kai Tijs Eis AaAf4aTEic;: .:k\JLaTEiS', the
reading ofF, is preferable, sir~t:e this was more common in P.'s time
Pedech ad Joe.). The Iberian campaign will be the Spanish war
which opened in 154 (App. Hisp. 56: Livy, ep. 47; Obseq. 17) against
the Lusitanians, or that against the Celtiberians . r), which
opened the next year, rather than the campaign of D. Junius Brutth
in (Strabo, iii. 152), as Cuntz, 48-49, argues. P. may mention it
first as the more important; the Dalmatian campaign need not he
later (d. De Sanctis, iii. I. zro, Cuntz, 46-49; for ~"'"'"I"G~
where P. quotes events in reverse order see Aymard, 1937,
19 n. 7; Pedech, p. xi n. r). This Dalmatian campaign was almost
certainly that of (cf. xxxii. 13, Livy, ep. 47; Flor. ii. 25; Zon.
ix. 25; App. Ill. II ; Strabo, vii. 315; auct. de uir. ill. 44; Zippel.
130 ff.; De Sanctis, iii. 1. zro), not that against the Scordisci or
Vardaei of IJS (Livy, ep. s6; App. Ill. ro).
KaT a 9nAa.TTC.V •.• KO.Ta TUS auv9TjKa.S: Locri probably received it;;
first Roman garrison in 282, with Rhegium (Beloch, iv. t. 545 f.); she
deserted to Pyrrhus after Heraclea (z8o), returned to Rome while hP
was in Sicily (Zon. ,·iii. 6), and again fell away on his return (when
he plundered the temple of Persephone). Locri probably rejoined
Rome in 275, and shortly afterwards issued a famous series of coins
on which P!lMH was crowned with nJ:tTl:L. In the Hannibalic War
Locri was in Punic hands from after Cannae until zos. The definitive
joedus here mentioned may be from this date. On the obligation of thf'
socii nauales to provide ships see i. 20. 14 n.; Badian, z8-3o, 292 ; and
for the two triremes provided against Perseus see the last note but one.
3. rraulv ••. To'i:s Tlf41oLs Kai 4>LAav9ptimoLS: what these were is not
known ; but the vocabulary is that of contemporary honorary decrees,
where they refer to such things as grants of prox:eny, commemorative
the vote of a crown, a place of honour at the theatre, etc. (see
Pedech, ad loc.). (f. Syll. 564, 11. 12-q.; 669, L zr; 748, I. 46; Welles,
369-70. For Ta rfnAavOpwrra, 'favours' or 'privileges', d. iv. z6. 8;
Syll. 502, L 20, 548, 1. 3 and commonly on inscriptions; \Yelles, 37 3·
4. f..l:yELV Kal ypaq.eLV: 'to affirm both in speech and writing' (Paton).
The former must refer to some former occasion, and it is at least
possible that P. means that he has written on this subject previously
-unless he is thinking of an earlier statement above, now lost.
TTJV u'll"' :AplaToTEAous •• , 1aTopia.v: cf. 8. 2. Aristotle's version (see
above, s-·16 n.) is also in Dion. Per. 364-6 (GGll'f, ii. I2S):
K€ t8n• 0' ~S {Joptf-ryv Z EtpVpOV 7Tapatpo.{JJI£TO.t lf.Kp'r'J

Tfj o' imo AoKpo~ laatv, oao• TrpoT!/potr; iT'!iaatv
l]Mov ~rr' Aoaovt1Jv, atpf.Tip!J> JL•xBivTEr; dvaaans.
J32
TIMAEUS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE XII. 5· 6
See the scholia and Eustathius' commentary on this. P. has evidently
discussed Aristotle's version and Timaeus' criticisms to some exter{t
before our fragment opens.
!§. auvot8a ••• OfJ-OAoyooalv: see n. for Oldfather's suggestion
that Aristotle and P. were misled by a version encouraged by the
democrats to discredit the Hundred Families (§ 6 n.), who had sup-
ported Dionysius.
6. l!'cl.vTa Tel ~hO. lrpoyovwv ~v8o~n ••• &.ll'o Twv yuvaLKwv: this is an
argument alleged by the Locrians to P., not (as far as vve know) one
raised by Aristotle. It derives matrilineal descent at Locri from the
special circumstances of its foundation, and so permits no con-
dusions about matrilineal descent in the mother city. Indeed, if
true, it would weigh against the view that descent in metropolitan
Locris (eastern or western) was matrilineal. See Lerat, ii. 13840 and
DeSanctis, Storiografia siceliota, 59, against Oldfather, RE, 'Lokris',
col. 1257· There is some slight independent evidence that women
were highly regarded in Locri. Pindar may hint at it when he \\Tites
of Znpvpla .•. AoKph· 1Tap8€11o; (P.yth. ii. r8 19); and in A nth. Pal. vi.
265 Nossis names her mother and grandmother (but not her grand-
father). Bachofen, in his controversial account of 'matriarchy' (Das
Mutterrecht, Stuttgart, 186r, xvii ff.), suggests that matriarchal
societies show certain erotic and licentious traits, and Oldfather
(RE, 'Lokroi', col. 1345-6, claims to find evidence of these at
Locri. He mentions the erotic poetesses Theano and Nossis, the
erotic poems of Mnaseas and the famous AoKptK1r ~afLaTa, Iustinus'
story (lust. xxi. 3· :z) of the vow of the Locrians to prostitute their
daughters, and an obscure hint at something similar by Clearchus
(Athen. xii. sr6 A). It is doubtful if Bachofen's 'matriarchy' ever
existed in the form he describes; and though matrilineal descent
might reduce the importance of chastity, the evidence which Old-
father quotes from Locri seems trivial and all easily paralleled from
normal societies no less productive of and salacious anec-
dotes. However, this docs not mean that matrilineal descent did not
exist at Locri. If that were so, the foundation legend would be hard
to account for. Moreover, there are parallel cases of matrilineal
customs in Lycia (Herod. i. 173· 4; N'ic. Dam., FGH, go F ro3 (k);
cf. Hom. fl. vi. r86) and elsewhere (cf. Toepffer, RE, 'Amazones',
cols. q68 ff.; Oldfather, RE, 'Lokris', cols. 1255 ff.; Kornemann, RE,
SuppL-E. vi, 'Mutterrecht', cols. 557-71). \Vhy it appears at Locri
is, however, unknown. Berard, 202-3, suggests plausibly that it was
taken over from the indigenous population (despite the scanty
nrchaeological evidence for any overlap in occupation). Toepffer,
Alt. Geneal. 195, derives it from the Leleges, ancestors of the Locrians;
but. no evidence connects it with mainland Gre.cce.
,.Ou<; avo TWV tKaTOV olklWV AEYOfJ-EVOU<;: the Hundred Families at
JJJ
XII. 5· 6 TIMAEUS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE
Locri are derived by P., presumably still on the basis of local in-
formation, from the Hundred Families in metropolitan Locris, wherr
they are the families from which the Locrian maidens were sent to
Troy (d. § 7 n.). That they derived their pre-eminence from supply-
ing the maidens is not stated; and Lerat (ii. 137 n. z) seems right in
suggesting that the connexion between the Hundred Houses and
the tribute is the reverse, and that it was because they already con~
stituted a nobility that the task was assigned to them. The tribute
of the maidens appears to be already an established custom before
the founding of Epizephyrian Locri. From which Locris Italian Low
was colonized is a problem already debated in antiquity. Ephoru:;
(FGH. 70 F 13R), followed by Ps.-Scymnus, ;pz-r6, favoured Opun
tian Locris (so too Paus. iii. r9. IZ) ; and Roman v.Titers also associatr
Locri with Naryca in east Locris (Virg. Georg. ii. 438; A en. iii. 39rJ
with Servius' comments; Ovid, lt1et. xv. 704; Colum. x. 386), as d0
Solin. 2. 10 and the scholiast on Dion. Perieg. 366. Eustathius on th('
same passage, however, supports west Locris (confusedly), following
Strabo, vi. 259. The name of the oecist, Euanthes, perhaps suggests
a connexion with the west Locrian town of OeantheafEuantheo
(though less certainly if Euanthes is an ancient name, since th1·
older name of the town is Oeanthea: Lerat, ii. 23 n. 8). A join1
foundation is not impossible (Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', col. r3t3).
but the weight of the evidence favours east Locris for two reasons·
(a) West Locris is geographically the more likely, hence the per
sistent tradition of an east Locrian origin must be taken seriously.
(b) The association of the Hundred Families with those which
furnished the Trojan tribute of maidens points clearly to east Locris,
for this tribute links closely with the legend of Ajax (see below),
whom incidentally the men of Italian Locri invoked in battle (Paus.
iii. 19. 12). Although there is a little evidence for the cult of Ajax
in west Locris (see the 'Maiden inscription' published by \\'ilhelm,
]ahresh. rgii, 163-256; Nikitsky's improved text in SchiN)'zec 366).
the main centres of the worship were at Opus and Naryca (IG. iv.
n36 ; scholiast to Pin d. Ol. ix. r66).
Although P. nowhere, in survi\ring fragments, specif1cally in-
dicates which Locris he is referring to (despite this being one of the
complaints made against Timaeus in ro. r-3), the association witl•
the Hundred Families suggests east Locris. The notion (Lerat,
ii. 137) that some of the Hundred Families were situated in west
Locris is not very convincing. Independent evidence for the Hundred
Families in Greece is slight. But it has been held, perhaps rightly.
that the roo hostages taken by Athens from the Opuntians after tlw
battle of Oenophyta in 457 (Thuc. i. ro8. 3) were representatives ol
the Hundred Houses (d. Oldfather, RE, 'Lokris', col. 1244); thn·
were chosen as TOV<; 1rAovcnwT&rovs. The existence of a council ol
334
TLMAEUS' CRITICIS.:\IS OF ARISTOTLE XII. 5· 7
a. Thousand at Locri and Opuntian Locris (d. 16. 10 n.) supports the
same view; but there may have been such a council at west Locris too.
See, besides Oldfather (locc. citt.), Busolt-Swoboda, ii. 1457; Berard,
199-202; De Sanctis, Storiograjia siceliota, 6z (favouring west Locris).
7. Tas a11'00'T<lATJa0!1EV<lS 11'Up8c\:vous ELS WIALOV: tradition recorded
that in expiation for violence shown Cassandra by Ajax son of
Oileus a Delphic oracle required the Locrians to send two maidens
chosen by lot to Ilium, where if they succeeded in eluding the men
of Ilium (who barbarously killed them if they caught them) they
took up menial service in the temple of Athena. This obligation was
to last r,ooo years, but after the Phocian \Var the Locrians ceased
:;ending these tribute-maidens (epit. Apollod. 6. 22; Tzetzes on
Lycophron, Alex. II41 Timaeus, FGH, 566 F q6-though whether
Tzetzes has correctly attributed the story to Timaeus has been
doubted), perhaps in 346, perhaps a little later. Some time in the
third century Delphi forced the Locrians to resume the tribute, and
to submit the regulation of the details to King Antigonus (almost
certainly Gonatas) (Ael. fg. 47 Hercher, ii, p. zos); this probably
resulted in a relaxation of thu more archaic features of the custom.
Finally, an inscription published by Wilhelm (Jahresh. r9n, r63-256;
Schvvyzcr, 366) records the assumption of the burden by the family
of the Aianteioi of :'\Jaryca in return for various privileges. The
rustom continued until the time of Plut<1rch's source in !rf or. 557 c
(probably Poseidonius; cf. A then. 1948, 52 n. 2). Its origin
is dated by some sources to two after the fall of Troy-
a view which implied some of the city-but by Demetrius
of Scepsis (who refuses to Ilium with Troy) to the time of the
}lersian occupation of J\Hnor (Strabo, xiii. 6oo). At first the
maidens were sent for life (Timaeus, FGH, 566 F 146 a= schol. on
J.ycoph. Alex. uss; Lycoph. Alex. II4I·73; epit. Apollod. 6. 22), but
in the fourth and third centuries annually (Ael. fg. 47 Hercher;
Strabo, xiii. 6oo; schol. to Lycoph. Alex. IT4I; Serv. ad Aen. i. 41,
who says only one maiden was See A. Momigliano, CQ, 1945,
49-53, for discussion of the custom from the fourth century onwards;
Jacoby on FGH, s66 F I64; Lerat, ii. I9·22; Treves, Euforione,
39-48; De Sanctis, Storiograjia 59-62. See Addenda.
On the assumption that the legend of Ajax and Cassandra was
invented to explain the practice of sending the maidens, many
hypotheses ha\·e been proposed and evidence adduced to explain
this, including a Locrian settlement at Ilium, an etymological link
between Ilium and Oileus, Ajax's father, and the existence of a tomb
of Ajax near Cape Rhoeteium (Strabo, xiii. 595). For bibliography on
these and other unconvincing see the works quoted in
Momigliano, CQ, I945, 52 n. 2; Lerat, ii. 19-21; Parke-Wormell, The
Delph£c Orade 2 (Oxford, 1956), i. 326-9, ii. 134-5. The origin of the
335
XII. 5· 7 TIMAEVS' CRlTICIS!\IS OF ARISTOTLE
custom is not, however, rele,·ant to P. and his discussion ol
Timaeus.
8. i!lv TOUS a:rroyovous ••• EUYEVELS VOfLL~Eo-9aL: the circumstances
would explain why nobility was in the first instance derived from
the female side; the weakness of the argument propounded toP. by
the Locrians is that it does not explain why nobility should continue
to be so derived -why, for example, the sons of these women from the
Hundred Families did not transmit their rank to their children.
9. Tf)s cj>La.A11cj>6pou ••• AEYOfLEV"lS: the cupbearer. This
probably concerned with the cult of Persephone, the
of Locri, whose sacred enclosure has been excavated in the
of Mannella, to the north of the town; Diod. xxvii. 4· 2 calls it n;
ir.upav<faTarov n:tw Kara r-Y,v 'lra'Aiav, and it was known to lie outsid<'
the walls (Livy, xxix. r8. 16 f.). Here Orsi found large numbers ol
phialai, as he did at the shrine of Persephone at Medma (Rosarno);
d. Orsi, Not. d. scav. suppl. 1913, 138 ff.; Pagenstecher, A A, 103.
Kock (CAF, ii. 144), recalling Anaxandrides' AoKpioli:s, would associatt·
his <1haArrf>opos with Loai; but nothing can be deduced from men·
titles.
10. Ka.9' ov Kmpov Tous Iu<EAous EK~aAou;:v: d. Polyaen. vi. 22, Tov,·
LtK€AOVS' avEtAov o( AoKpoi; below, 6. I-·s. The presence of Sicels in
this area before the arrival of the Greeks is confirmed by Thuc.
vi. 2. 4· They 'INere a people speaking a language with Illyrian
affinities, and with a culture which showed Aegean elements. Though
ancient tradition brought them from Italy to eastern (cf. Hel-
lanicus, FGH, 4 F 79 b, making a distinction between and
Sicans which is not confirmed by archaeology; FGH, 556
F 46) before the Trojan War, or (Thuc. vi. 2. 4) 300 years before the
Greek colonies were founded, the Sicel sites among the Bruttii do
not go back beyond the tenth century and suggest a movement from
Sicily to Italy rather than the reverse (Dunbabin, 40-41). There
are three prehellenic cemeteries on the site of Locri, probably as-
sociated with separate Sicel settlements; contain Greek geo-
metric vases, but show no overlap with the occupation (Orsi,
Not. d. scat•. 1902, 39 ff.; 1909, 319 ff.; suppl. 1912, 3 ff.; 'Appunti
di protostoria e storia locrese' in Saggi di storia antica ... offerti a
G. Beloch (Rome, 1910), rss ff.; Oldfather, 'Lokroi', col. r3ro).
The Greek colonization is dated 'a little after that of Croton (7o8)
and Syracuse (734)' by Strabo, vi. 259, and an association •vith the
First Messenian \Var (whether the story of the slaves is true or not)
would fit a date a little before 700 (cf. Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', cols.
13rr-12); but Eusebius makes it 673 (Armenian version) or
(Jerome), and the archaeological evidence for the earliest Greek
graves supports this date (so Dunbabin, 445, 4S2 ff.; but the matte1
remains controversial).
336
Til\IAEl.'S' CRITICIS~lS OF ARISTOTLE XII. 6. 3
wJ\Elw Twv Iti<IOALI<wv ~Gwv TrapaJ\al=fovTIOS: Oldfather thmks the pre-

eminent position of Persephone rather than Demeter, and the exis-
tence of a cult of Hades at Locri (but not at Locris in Greece) may
derive from native influences (Phil. 1908, 431 ff. ; 1gro, II4 ff.; RE,
'Lokroi', cols. 1310-n), likewise the location of the temple of Per-
which stood outside the walls. Neither hypothesis can be
proved correct. Oldfather's statement (RE, 'Lokroi', col. 13ro) that
.P. is thinking of matrilineal institutions is clearly false, since P.
'"'F.'"-L'-'"'"' these as springing from the special circumstances of the
foundation of Locri ; and though there were Greeks here for some
time before this (Strabo, vi. 270; Ps.-Scymnus, 277-8; Dunbabin,
14, 445), the archaeological evidence excludes any period of coexis-
tence of Greeks and Sicels at Locri after the foundation (cf. K. F.
Johansen, Les t•ases sicyoniens (Paris-Copenhagen, 1923), r8z; Dun-
babin, 184).
thO. To 1-'-11Sev aOToi:s TraTptov tm6.pxEtv: improbable. See the discussion
of Dunbabin, 184-5. and Pedech on 5· g.
11. &.J\J\A wap9evov: they may have told P. this at Locri; its truth is
doubtfuL
6. 1. auv9ijKat •.• wpos Toos 1<aTa Tt,v 'EJ\1\0.Sa Ao1<pous: cf. 9· 3 for
Timaeus' account of a 'written treaty' shown to him in Greece.
w6.vns dxov ev wa.paSoaiOL: 'all knew of the tradition'; hence they
would have been likely to remember the treaty with Greek Locris,
had it existed.
2. ItKEAOOS KQTEXOVTQS ..• Tt,v xwpav: cf. 5· IO n.
3. ol-'-oJ\oy(as ... TomuTas: the trick by which the settlers out-
witted the native Sicels is also recorded (with slight variants) in
Polyaen. vi. 22, and can be paralleled by the manner in which
Leucippus, the founder of Metapontum, acquired his land from Taren-
tum (Strabo, vi. 265); Dion. Hal. xix. 3 (xvii. 4) attributes this story
to the homonymous founder of Callipolis. A similar example is the
cutting up of the ox-hide to enclose the Byrsa at Carthage (lustin.
xviii. 5· 9; Virg. Aen. i. 367). Probably then we are dealing with
an old folk-motif; the fact that the Locrians themselves related it
is no evidence for its truth (as Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', col. 1315,
is inclined to Greeks would admire a trick of this kind.
7. Purchased slaves: FGH, s66 F II. The passage of Timaeus (from
his ninth book) which P. refuted, was clearly part of his attack on
Aristotle and defence of the people of Locri; but the editors of P.,
by curtailing the extracts from Athenaeus, have obscured the argu-
ment by which, as Athenaeus tells us, P. attempted to refute Timaeus.
Athenaeus vi. 264 c continues: ... TOLS" /loKpOtS", Of.LOLWS o€ avo€
cllt.t(KEvcnv oiJTE 8Epr1.1raivas- oiJn: oiKhas 1rA~v iyyvs- [iyyun I~umb] Twv
xpovwv; he then goes on to say that the first Phocian woman to be
814173 z 337
XII. 6. 3 TIMAE US' CRITICIS:\lS OF ARISTOTLE
attended by two maidservants was the wife of Philomelus, and that
Aristotle's friend Mnason, who had acquired I,ooo became
obnoxious to the Phocians J;, Toao&rous- Twv 7ToAtTwv r~v dvo:y~<alm•
Tporp~v UrPTJPTJf.LEvov. €Wla8a, yrlp lv ro.i:S' olKA',O.Kai';; 8taKOV€LV 7'0US' vEw-
TtfpoVS' Tof> 7Tpwf3vT€pot>. Timaeus, then, countered Aristotle's allega-
tion that the colonists of Locri were sprung from slaves at Locris by
asserting that the people of Locris (and Greek states generally, in-
cluding Phocis) did not possess domestic slaves, hence the Locrian
women could not have cohabited with them during their husbands'
absence. The words 1rA~v lyyvs Twv xpovwv cannot be construed as
they stand. With Lumb's reading lyyun the sense is 'except on a
guarantee for an agreed time'; but the words may conceal something
like lyylaTwv xp6vwv or Twv lyyvs XPovwv, meaning 'except in recent
times', which links up with what follows. Phocis seems to have been
brought into the picture by Timaeus so that he might make his
damaging remark about Aristotle's friend Mnason. Timaeus'
authority for his statement is the people of Locris, who are tl1c·
subject of iJnwvm. The continuation of Athen. vi. 272 B makes dear
the grounds on which P. attempted to refute Timaeus: ... 8ou.\ov'
KTa(JOa,, cuhos d7Ti1V ••• on Mvaawv 0 (/)WKEV<; 7T.\dovs EKEI('T'T(T'O 8ouAovs
Twv xtAtwv. P. then, ignoring the fact that Timaeus obviously attri-
buted the Greek custom of having no domestic slaves only to earlier
times (this follows from his argument, however 7TA~v i.yyvs Twv
XPovwv is interpreted), quoted the case of Mnason (though he was
a Phocian, not a Locrian) in the fourth century, whom Timaeus
had himself mentioned, in order to refute him. Brown (49) thinks
Athenaeus must have made a mistake; but Timaeus' statement that
the Locrians had no domestic slaves could be countered only by
denying its truth, and the fallacious argument (Athenaeus failed
to see though it) is not inconceivable in P. See \Val bank, ]RS, 1962, 6.
Timaeus' reference to dpyvpwV"'}ro' distinguishes bought slaves
from captives and the descendants of captives; especially it ,.,.;n
distinguish them from an enslaved subject population such as the
Spartan helots or the Thessalian penestae, as in Theopompus, who
(FGH, 115 F rzz AUten. vi. B-e) records that the Chians wert>
the first Greeks to buy slaves in way, and Chios was an advanced
state, economically and politically (cf. Finley, Historia, 1959, 163--4).
On the absence of oidm~ from early Athens cf. Herod. vi. IJ7· J.
The more backward states of central Greece, such as Phocis and
locris, may well have been without chattel slavery to any extent
until the fourth century. Lerat (ii. points out that west
locrian manumission records t1rst begin in the third century (though
this in itself is, of course, not decisive); the meaning of FO'K'ara.v in tht'
fifth century 'colonial law' from Galaxidi (Tod, 24, 11. 43-45) is un-
certain, but would not suffice to refute Timaeus, even if Hesychius'
33B
TIMAEUS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE XII. 6b 5
gloss oba~•7Js.. WV7]Tos oovt\os- is accepted, and even on the assumption

that west Locris was the original mother state (cf. 5· 6 n.).
6 a 1. To auvex€s TouT<:J: \vhat follows this', i.e. the last-mentioned

argument in Timaeus. Since there are gaps in our version, we cannot
be sure what it was. Paton, 'what follows in the latter', is inaccurate
if he is taking •ov•q; as masculine.
2. Twv AaKeSa~t.~.ov(o~s uuf1f1aX11uavTwv: presumably in the First Mes-
senian War. There is no independent evidence for this and it seems
to fall down along with the story of the relations between the slaves
and their mistresses, which was probably invented to explain traces
of matrilineal descent in Locri (5. 6 n.).
3. oTav euTuxfJawuL: i.e. when they gain their freedom, as the word
d:rret\€v8<:pot (§ 4) makes clear.
'TWV KaTa <t>uow avayKaiwv t.~.iiAAov: 'more than those actually con-
nected by blood (do)' (Paton; so too Pedech) rather than 'even more
than the ties of nature' (Shuckburgh). Ex-slaves regard their masters'
connexions as more important than real relatives do because the
latter do not need these as much as do the slaves--a..c; § 4 makes clear.
De Sanctis, Storiograjia s£cetiota, 55, thinks P. may be thinking of
some Roman plebeian families who seek to hide their descent from
a freedman.
6 b 1. auvepyov TOV xpovov: cf. 6 a 3· OlaV ... xpl.wos lrnylV1)TlU (a

phrase omitted from Paton's translation).
TauT' £·mT118Euuv: 'maintain such practices'.
TWV ••• eAaTTW~-LaTWV: 'defects' (Paton) or 'low condition' (Pedech).
3. TO TOUS )\011vaious 1TOp0ftua~ TTJV xwpav aUTWV: in autumn 426
Laches landed an Athenian force in Locrian territory and defeated
some 300 Locrians under Proxenus, the son of Caparon (on the correct
form of this name cf. Keil, Hermes, 1915, 635--6) near the River
Caicinus {Thuc. iii. 103. 3, cL 99). Locri wa.c; consistently on the side
of Sparta and Syracuse in the Peloponnesian War (cf. Oldfather,
RE, 'Lokroi', cols. IJJI-J).
4. d Kat SeKaKLS .qaav oi.KiTaL: on the colloquial cf. \Vun-
derer, i. 6r.
<
oux o\lTwc;) •.• T6 yevQ<; &c; TTJV '!l'poatpEuw: cf. § 3 n.
!5. vTj Af aA.M.: 'but, it may be objected .. :. P. passes to a new
point: surel)r the Locrians would have been allowed home by the
Spartans from Messenia (and so have avoided the risk of intrigues
between their wives and the slaves)? Paton's version, 'How again,
I ask .. .', misses the sense: this is not P.'s query, but his imaginary
opponent's.
i~tmEuTEAAov ••• TOU<; aKI.I.tl~OVTilS .•• TEKVO'ITOtLa.s xupw: Strabo, vi.
2i9, following Ephorus, records how the Spartans, who had taken
339
XII. 6b 5 TIMAEUS' CRITICIS;\IS OF ARISTOTLE
an oath not to return home until they had defeated the Messenians
{d. vi. 49· 2), in the tenth year of the war dispatched home the young
men who had not shared in the oath, to beget children by all the
unmarried women; according to this version the Partheniae who
settled Tarentum were the children of these unions and not of thos<'
with helots. besides Strabo, Diod. xv. 66. 3; Dion. Hal. xix. 1
(xvii. I); Polyaen. ii. q. z; Eustath. ad Dian. Per. 376; Iustin. iii.
4· I-··7. There were other versions going back to Antiochus of Syracuse
(FGH, 555 F IJ = Strabo, vi. 278) and Theopompus (FGH, IlS F
171 Athen. vi. 27r c~D).
6. 1-u<yaATJY EXEt ~ta4>opnv: F.'s argument, not easily grasped from
Paton's translation, is: the Spartans would not be likely to pre\·ent
the Locrians from sending home men to beget children, but the
Locrians (not the curious marriage customs of the Spartans)
would be unlikely to adr>pt this course merely at the instigation of
the Spartans. In fact, not being bound by any oath, they sent their men
on leave at intervals, but because these were long, the Locrian women
lapsed and had relations with the slaves. The argument is logical ;
but it concerns legendary matters and does not really affect the issue.
8. Polyandry at Sparta. This is our only evidence for polyandry,
whether of a general kind, or between brothers (fraternal polyandry),
at ; but the custom is found in various parts of the world,
where there is a shortage of women or where the men
absent themselves for long periods (e.g. the fraternal polyandry in
Tibet; d. Ridgeway, Early Age of Greece, ii (Cambridge, 193r),
IO;i·-.6). The truth of F.'s statement has been contested; but it finds
some confirmation from other evidence that the Spartans modified
the customs usual in monogamy. According to Xenophon (Resp.
Lac. i. 7~ro) a Spartan would often lend his wife to bear another
man children, sue:) offspring having no claim on the estate of the
foster-father; and Plutarch (Lycurg. IS) confirms the custom (d. also
Nic. Dam., FGH 90 F ro3 z). There seems therefore reason to acrept
P. 's statement; but the origin and real significance of such polyandry
is less easy to determine. Nilsson (Klio, 1912, J.v-s} sees in it a sign
of the primitive character of Spartan institutions, polyandry being
four.d mainly in less-advanced communities; but he admits that
economic causes may have contributed to the specifically fraternal
form. Ridgeway (op. cit. 135~6) thinks it is an ancient survival (so
too den Boer, Laconian Studies, Amsterdam, 1954. 216ft.); but
Ziehen (Hermes, 1933, who regards it as a reflection of the
independent position of Spartan women (attested in the critical
mmments of Aristotle, Pol. ii. 9· 5· 1269 b n ft.), believes it to bf:•
a result of a shortage of women which arose in the fifth century as
a consequence of the great earthquake of 4G6, the results of whiclt
would be felt especially among women and children (Plut. Cim.
34°
TIMAE"CS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE XII. 7· 3
16. 4-5; Diod. xi. 63, with exaggerated losses). To DeSanctis, Storio-
grajia siccliota, 55 ff., it indicates moral regression, the result of state
intervention in family life and of economic pressures. Westermarck,
History of Human Marriages, iii (London, 1921), 144, sets the Spartan
evidence into a general sociological context but makes no attempt
at further analysis. Michell (59-0o), who thinks a shortage of women
improbable in settled times~hc discusses Ziehen's views but ignores
the argument concerning the earthquake-suggests that Spartan
polyandry may perhaps have been a legal fiction, the woman being
the real wife of only the eldest brother, but the dowry being shared
hy the other brothers in common; but this would hardly explain
the cases of non-fraternal polyandry which P. envisages. The scanty
evidence precludes certainty ; but even if specific conditions (shortage
of women or economic dillkultics among the men) led to the custom,
it can hardly be separated from the lax attitude towards mono-
gamy indicated by the evidence for shared marriage. In that case,
P.'s contrast behveen Locrian and Spartan mores is valid.
iKSoo-9o.~ yuvo.i:Ka nvt -rwv lj>LAwv: this custom, not otherwise attested,
is even closer to the 'shared mentioned by Xenophon and
Jllutarch {see last note). The of Asia had a similar practice
{Strabo, xi. srs, comparing giving of :Marcia to Hortensius
Ka:rd '/Ta...\atOIJ 'PwfLa.{wv €8o;;)' cf. Michell, 55 n. 2.
9. -rfjs p.ev Ko.-rcl. -ro Kowov E€o.1roo--roM')s: 'the general dispatch of men
home'; Paton has 'to their wives', but tradition assigned the young
men a wider commission. Shuckburgh mistakenly renders 'had a fair
pretext for not taking part in the common exp,cdition'.
10. ~ooo-o.v 6.va.cr-rpolj>~v -ro.i:s yuva.l~i . , . cruv118eo--repo.v ~ 1rpos -rous .••
li.vSpo.s: so Cobet for 01Jv~Oaav Ill (ilf11em. r86:z, r9, not l8i6, 256, as
Buttner-Wobst) ; Hultsch avv1jOetav, fl-'>1· But the best reading
is Bekker's (cf. Mauersberger, s.v. y{vofLat), a1MJ8eCFTI.pa;; 1}, for the
sense must be: 'they gave their wives time to become more intimate
with slaves than with their husbands.'
Tfjs ~~o.vo.cr-rO.o-ews: the colonization of Locri.
7. 1. 8-ro.v ••. 11 ljieyEtv 11 ••. ~y~<wp.tO.tE.Lv -rwb. 1rpo8"1-ro.t: such censure

or praise was a legitimate and indeed necessary part of history-
writing (x. 21. 8 n.); it is Timaeus' lack of moderation that P. is
criticizing.
2. -r(o-L 1rpoo-Exwv: 'relying on what authorities'; P. does not say what
they were, in the surviving fragments, but 5· 5 suggests native
Locrian traditions.
3. -roLavS;; nvb. .•. -r~v &.ml.vTTJO"LV: 'will meet more or less this re-
ception'. P. envisages the possible defence a supporter of Timaeus
may bring forward (§ 4}, viz. that both contestants, Timacus and
Aristotle, base their argument on probability, but that although
341
XII. 7· 3 TIMAEUS' CIHTICISMS OF ARISTOTLE
Aristotle's version is the more plausible, in a case like this we cannot
be sure. P.'s reply to this, after a short digression on Timaeus'
abusiveness (7- s-8. 6), is to produce further arguments against
Timaeus (9. Iff.). This seems more probable than Schweighaeuser's
version, taken from Valesius and accepted by Shuckburgh and
Pedech; 'occasionem hinc opportune nactus uideor, de tota Tima('i
historia atque in uniuersum de Historici officio deinceps exponendi.'
This rendering gives an unparalleled meaning to dmivT7Ja•s, and it
fails to translate Tot6.v8o; nv6..
4. &.A.,&ts j.lEVTm y£ Kal. Ka8cma~ ~iLaaTeiAm: 8taaTijvat MP, StaaTEiA'"
Ernesti: 'but to assert absolutely what is the truth'. Pedech has
a plausible alternative, StaaTijaat 'to sift out'.
5. EO'TW Tov Ttj.lawv etKoTa. AeyeLv j.laAAov: 'let us assume (for tlw
sake of argument) that Timaeus' account is the more probable'.
Tou<;; ••• ~nov etKoTa. A.f.yovTa.<;;: 'those whose version is (on this
assumption) less probable', i.e. in this case Aristotle. The assumptio11
is of course purely hypotheticaL
6. €4>a.l-lev: for this distinction between deliberate and involuntan
falsehood cf. 12. 4---{), xvi. I4. 7-8, 20. 8---9, xxix. 12. r2. It must haw
been made already in some passage now lost (cf. xxix. I2. 12, 1TAwl'a-
KtS'). For an example of 8u)p8watS' EVf-tEVLK~ cf. xvi. :!0. s-7 (P.'s letter
to Zeno).
8. 1. xapLTOS , KepSou<;; , ELa4>opas ~VEK€V: 'by partiality, corruption,

or personal enmity' (Shuckburgh); alternatively x6.ptTos ••. EVEKEI'
may be 'to curry favour'.
mKpiq. ••• otq. KEXPllTa.L Tlj.ia.Los KaT' 1>.pLaToTeAou<;;: various reasons
combine to explain Timaeus' dislike for Aristotle. His teacher Philis-
cus of Miletus (FGH, 566 T r) was said to have been a pupil of
!socrates (Suid. s.v. 1J.AiaKoc;), and the Isocrateans were hostile to
Aristotle. Aristotle had idealized the hated city of Carthage (Pol.
ii. n. 1272 b 24 ff.)-though so for that matter had !socrates (d.
vi. 43· I n.). But it was probably the attack on Locri that stirred him
most. See Laqueur, RE, 'Timaios (3)', cols. II94-5; During, 386-;;
De Sanctis, Storiografia siceliota, 57.
2, 8pa.O'UV EUXEPTJ> 1Tp01TETTJ: 'arrogant, Unprincipled and rash'.
1
Ka.Ta.TETOAj.lllKEva.L: 'he had uttered an audacious slander against .. .'.

3. iva. T(;JV eaTpa.TllY1lK4hwv: 'one of (Alexander's) generals'.
ev Ta.i<;; KLALKLaL'i 1ruAm<;;: at the battle of Issus; see 17. 2-22. 7
(Callisthenes' account of this battle). On the location of the Cilician
Gates cf. Ij. 2 n.; Brown, 8, suggests that in calling the battle bv
this title Timaeus 'reflects the confusion that would naturally prevail
in Athens in the period not long after the battle and before the facts
were properly known' (he believes that Timaeus was already in
Athens by this date: see below, 25 dIn.); but the phrase is perhaps
34~
TIMAEUS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE XII. 8. 4
being used in a very general sense to include the whole narrow plain
of Issus (cf. Arr. ii. 7· 3, T(l. &rrM)oropa; Plut. Alex. 20. 3; Janke, Klio,
I9Io, 14r). The reference to Issus is perhaps a hint at the story that
Aristotle was a failure as a military man (below, § 4 n.).
4, uo<fl~uTiJv o1jltj.~.0.8TJ KO.t !.HO'TJTOV: cf. 4 C I, oif1~JLa6{av; 'a pedantic
sophist, universally unpopular' (Shuckburgh).
TO 'II'OAUTtjlT)TOV to.Tpdov &.pTlw<,; a'!I'OI(EI(AE~KtlTO.: 1TOAtrrlp.TJTO<:; is
ironical; cf. Plato, Euth:vd. 296 D. Timaeus abusively accuses Aristotle
of having only recently turned to an intellectual career from his
previous trade of keeping a drug-store; Pedech, 8o~8r, argues that
it was the surgery of his father Nicomachus that Aristotle had closed
do;v-n, and he draws conclusions about the date of Nicomachus'
death; but, even if this abuse connects with his father's occupa-
tion (see below), Timaeus is not to be pressed closely in this way.
The abuse derives from Epicurus: cf. Epicurus, fg. qi (Usener):
~ea{ TOL td8ws- Kat 'Errf.Kovpov. - • ra!h' £L1l'(JI'TU Tr<::pt avrofJ Ell rfj 1TEpt
fTTLTTJOEvp.chwv bnarokfi OTt Karaif>aywv ra 7Tarp(j;a E7Ti arparetav
~ , H > / - > > ' I ,.1. \ • ,J:\8
Wj)P,T)O'£, Kat OTi Ell TUVTTJ KUKW<; 7Tparrwv C7Tt TO ~,ap/LUK07TWI\HV 'II\ EV,
flra dva7TmTafdvov roiJ llA.drwvos 7Tcpmarov, ~TJat, 1rapaf3a.Awv €avrov
wpoaEKr.f.8taE rots A.oyots ovK wv d<f;v-lj:;, Kat Kara p.tKpov Els rwv Oewpov--
p.lvwv £g;p.8€v; same account in Diog. Laert. x. 8 and Aristocles
ap. Euseb. Praep, eu. XV. 2. I; cf. ibid. XV. 2. 2, 7TWS av n<:; &:TTos.fgatTO
TLp.alov rofi Tavpop.Evlrou Myovros r!v rar:; 'Iarop£at> a.sogov 6Jpa.s
Avrov
' •
tarpttou
• '
KatI rasI
ruxovaa:;
'
O<fJE ~
'.1 ' rTJ> •\ '
TJMKLa:; \ •
KI\ELaat; (S, ee b e1ow,
:15 e 2 n., for the ill fame of druggists.) On the tradition cf. Cic. N D,
i. 93--94 (Epicurus, fg. 235 Usener), 'Epicurus Aristotclem uexarit
contumeliosissime ... tota commenticia, uix digna lncubratione an-
icularum'. Epicurus' attack on Aristotle derives partly from his dif-
ferent concept of philosophy and 7TilLOe{(t, and partly from personal
animosity towards the contemporary Peripatetic school; and it has
been convincingly suggested that his picture of Aristotle as aawro>
is a reply to Alexis' Xawro8L8aaKaAas which caricatured Epicurus'
concept of pleasure (Bignone, L'Aristotelc perduto (Florence, r936),
ii. 57-sS, ; During, 385-6). The sole basis for the story was
the fact that Aristotle's father, Nicomachus of Stagira, was a doctor,
and his family traced descent from a Messenian god of healing with
that name (Diog. Laert. v. I; \Vilamowitz, Arist. u. A then., i. 3II-12);
and that he inherited some wealth from his father. Ideler's
view that the story derived partly from his discussion of chemistry in
Meteor. iv. 3· a 3-4 see During, 385; Acta univ. Gothob. I944.
:a, p. 9· The anti-Aristotelian tradition is also represented by
Cephisodorus, a pupil of !socrates, who defended his master in four
books Kanl. Xptarorl.:\ovs (A then. ii. 6o D-E, iii. 122 B; cf. Aristocles
ap.' Euseb. Praep. eu. xv. 2; During, 379 T 63), and by those who
hated his pro-Macedonian sympathies and friendship with Hermias
343
XII. 8. 4 TBIAEVS' CRITICIS~IS OF ARISTOTLE
(d. Worrnell, Yale Stud. 1935, 57---<)2), such as Theocritus of Chios

(see next note) or Eubulides of Megara (Diog. Laert. ii. ro8 ff.;
Aristocles in Euseb. Praep. ett. xv. 2. 5; Themist. orat. 23, p. z85 c).
The fragments are assembled and discussed by During, 371---95.
and Pedech, 81, argues that it is to this strand in the tradition
that Timaeus goes back. But the iaTp<~ov is to be associated with
Epicurus' cpapfLaKoTTwAo'i:v, and since Timaeus' polemics need not
date to Aristotle's lifetime (Aristotle died in 322), it seems more likely
that he drew on Epicurus.
ELS ;rO.crav auATjv Kat O'KT}YTJY £fL"TT£1TT}OT}K4JTa: Timaeus' reproach that
Aristotle frequented courts (the reference is to the courts of Themison
of Cyprus (Stob. 95· 21 = iv . .V a zr Hense), Hermia.•; of Atarneu:-:
and Philip II of Macedonia) in order to indulge his gluttony follo\YS
the taunts of Theocritus of Chios, who, in reply to Aristotle's poems
on the death of Herrnias (Diog. Laert. v. 6) and his erection of a
cenotaph at Delphi to the dead tyrant, composed these verses:
'EpfL[ov ovvouxou n Kai Ev{JovAou ToO< Sov>.ov
o-iJ!-'-a K<vov K<vo</>pwv OijK<v J1pwTOTEA1J>
o<; yaUTpo<; TtJLWV aJ•OJLOV cpuatv f'tA<TO J•a[HV
avr' :AKa01JJL<iac; ,Bop,Bopov Jv TTpoxoafs
(Diog. Laert. \". 11; Aristocles ap. Euseb. Praep. eu. xv. 2. 12; variant
readings in Didym. ad Dem. Phil. p. 6. 4~; that Borboros was
a river near Pella is the improbable assertion of Plutarch, Jlrf or.
6o3 c). See von Scala, l27; Laqueur, RE, 'Theokritos (2)', cols. 2025---6;
Dilling, 272---83. By O"K1Jl'>/ Timaeus meant 'camp' or 'general's tent'
(so correctly Shuckburgh; Paton's version 'on to every stage' is
nonsense); during the age of the Diodochi court and camp will often
have been synonymous. Aristotle is treated as the typical flattering
courtier; cf. Menander, CAF, iii, p. 235, fg. 897 (Kock), av>.ac; (J.pa-
7T<vnv Kat cmTpaTTac; {Athen. v. 189 E). Sec Wundercr, i. 79 (who is
wrong, however, in suspecting that Timaeus was here attacking not
Aristotle but Callisthenes).
yaa-rpLfLapyov, biJ!apTuTtlY: 'a glutton and a gourmand'; cf. 24. 2.
hrt o~Ka<YTT}piou iniJ!oAoywv: 'bandying abuse in a law-court' (Shuck-
burgh) ; d. xxxii. 2. 8. The phrase is revealing for the atmosphere
of a Greek law-court.
9. 1. -rt)v aOTou Tou T~fLatou lTpoatp£crw: 'Timaeus' own character'.

l:K 11'apa9icr£ws:: 'side by side (v.;ith those of Aristotle)'; whether P.
knew Aristotle's account at first hand is, however, uncertain (cf.
9-16 n.).
npt Tfjs auTfjS: a;ro~Kias: i.e. Locri.
2. Ka-ra TTJY auTTjv j3uj3Aov: book ix (d. 6. 7).
OUKETl KaTa TOV auToY t;;lKoTa Aoyov: as he had done in arguing that it
344
TIMAEUS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE XII. ro. 3
was improbable that slaves would take over their masters' friend-
Bhips (6 a z). or that the Athenians would have ravaged their land
(6 b 3). or that the Spartans would not have prevented the men of
Locris from sending their men home from :Messene (6 b s); avTOV
refers back to 7. 4, 'the same test .. .'.
/&}IX aXf]8tvws K-rX.: 'but actually visiting, etc'.
3. 'ITpos -rous £sa'ITEcr-raX!J-£vous: i.e. to the colonists in ~fagna Graecia.
a.ts \moyEyp6.4>9al TTJV apxT]v TOlnVTf]V: Valesius' emendation Jmy€-
ypd.pOat, which Jacoby (FGH, 566 F u) accepts, is unnecessary; as
Schweighaeuser notes, 1\eiskc quoted several passages from Demo-
:;thenes where i.rnoypapHv is eqni\·alent to rrpoyparf,£w: Dem. 23. 693. to
\{nroypat/Jas A, avT6 ypd.t/Jar;; edd.); 37· 973· IS; epist. 3· T484. li; add
P. Cair. Zm. I/3· ro (third century B.C.) where IWTd .,.a i.rrroy£ypaJ.LJ.L€va
means 'as has been indicated (above)'.
'ws yov£ucrL 1rpos -reKva.': the dative following some such word as
loo;e. This treaty may well have been a forgery, since the words
<llloted seem sentimental in a document of suc!1 date (cL Oldfather,
UE, 'Lokroi', col. 1314). Bwwn, 48, who thinks the treaty was perhaps
tnmscribed at the time of the grant of isopolity, suggests that it may
have been 'a later attempt to commit to writing what had previously
been a matter of oral tradition'; but this is hardly distinguishable
from a forgery. Oldfather regards Timaeus' vagueness about where
he saw it as an argument against its authenticity; but such vague-
ness can tell only against Timaeus, not against the document.
4. dvcu SOyj.ta-ra.: implying that these were further documents seen
by Timaeus.
ka9' a '!ToXm:iav uml.pxEtV KTX.: i.e. establishing laorrol\LT€la between
the two states (d. ii. 46. 2 n., X\·i. 26. 9); hardly dating to the founda-
tion of Locri, since iaoTro.\LT£la was not one of the usual bonds be-
tween founder-city and colony (cf. § 3 n.). P. never deals with this
argument of Timaeus.
5. !J-ETaJjO.s oe 1r&Xw €'ITt -rous •.. .1\oKpous: 'passing over in his
argument to the Italian Locrians' (cf. rr. s), rather than 'proceeding
aften•.;ards to Italian Locri' (Paton). evpiaKHI' need not imply in-
vestigation on the spot, and this passage therefore affords no
evidence that Timaeus visited Locri.
GKoXou9ous ••. -rfi ••. -rwv EXw9ept.~v &1ro~K£~: in contrast to Aris-
totle's View: cf. 5· IO, 8ui n) J.L'fJOJv athoi's- rraTpLOV tmapXELV,
6. tiw ouS€v <iv LI'ITapxnv K-rX.: a nou sequitur and clearly a weak point
in Timaeus' argument.
10. 3. ouSi:v •.. Stacraopet-raL -rou-rwv: Timaeus' failure to indicate

whether he found the treaty among the eastern or western Locrians
was careless, in view of the dispute as to which founded Locri (cf.
5· 6 n.). but he perhaps assumed that 'e\·cryone who had read
345
XII. ro. 3 TIMAEUS' CRITICIS::\.15 OF ARISTOTLE
Aristotle and Ephorus would know he meant East Locris' {Brown,
49). Pedech, on 5· 4, argues that if Timaeus admitted an alliance
between Sparta and Locris during the Messenian War (d. 6 b s-ro)
this must imply that the Locris in question was West Locris, the
nearer state; this is not decisive.
4. tmi Ka.96Aou TftSi 'ITn Tfl<; lmoSoxi}s: there are various suggestions
for the missing verb: nm1x•!K< or KaT'I/gtwTat Reiske, niTEVXE(v)
Cobet, Pedech (cf. zs c r), dvn7Tot<i'TaL Hultsch, 1rap' €JI{otr; dgwOnu
Biittner-Wobst (d. ii. 56. r).
TTJV tv TOLS xpovo~s I<O.i TCl.LS civa.ypa..f»(I.LS E'ITL.f»(I.O't\' Tfjs clKpt~ELilS: cf.
Diod. v. I. J, p.EylaT'/V 7Tpovow.v 7T€7TOLT!f1-EVOS: TTjs; TWV xp6vwv dKpL{lEI.a·;
I< a~ Tijs; 7To)w7Tnp£as; 7TE<Ppovn~<d.Jr;. For examples of Timaeus' concern
with chronology and accurate documentation see u. 1-3.

6. Si)Ms ecrn O'UVEL5ti1<; {lUT~ •.• elj!EUO'flE\Iit': p. fails to prove Timaeus
a liar.
(.hpi5 ..• clflrpo'Lv Toiv xepotv Erre.f»u: ..1\1\d 1Tptv ])F. Yalesius' emenda~
tion is supported by Plato, Theaet. I 55 E, a1Tpig TOtV xepoi:v 'Aaf1/.a8a,.
(Wunderer's criticisms (i. 3r) are hardly to the point). For other
examples of this proverbial expression (Soph. Ajax, 310; Theoc.
15. 68 with schol., 24. 55) see von Scala, 283.
7. 'Exo:pnTou<;: perhaps Echecrates 'of Phlius', who with his friends
was among the last Pythagoreans in Greece {Diog. Laert. viii. 411,
following Aristoxenus). It was to him that Phaedo recounted
Socrates' death (Plato, Phaedo, 57 A); and he was visited by Plato
in Locri (Cic. fin. v. 87; Val. Max. viii. 7· ext. 3; cf. :Plato] ep. 9·
358 n). See further Diels, FVS, i. 443; Wellmann, RE, 'Echekrates
(3}', col. rg1o; Oldfather, Phil. 1908, 454 n. 139; RE, 'Lokroi', col.
1315; suppL-E. iii, 'Echekra.tes', col. 417. Oldfather, who suggested
this identification, thought that Echecrates was a member of the
Hundred Houses and that his presence at Phlius was due to the
severe class-struggles which took place at Locri after the fall of
Dionysius II (Arist. Pol. vii (v). 7· IJ07 a JS; above, s-rG n.); as an
exile he naturally contradicted the democratic account of the origim
of the Locrian aristocracy. This theory is attractive; but, as Brown
(r26 n. 23) rightly points out, P. calls his Echecrates neither a
Phliasian nor a Pythagorean, nor an exile, and the identification
therefore remains hypotheticaL Against it is perhaps the chronology,
for the Pythagorean Echecrates can hardly have been born after 420
(d. von Fritz, 28); hence Stroheker (zz9--3o n. 139) suggests that he
was Dionysius l's envoy {§ 8) and the father of Timaeus' informant.
Timaeus logically mentions Echecrates' status as evidence of his
reliability; there was no need to be equally specific about the Locrian
documents, since he had seen them himself. P.'s argument herf'
misarcs (cf. Brown, 48).
8. 1Tpea~t:t(I.S tc:(I.Tf1St.Wo-f)cu .•. &wb ~Lovualou: probably Dionysius l.
TIMAEUS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE XII. rr. r
This embassy probably links with Dionysius' attempt to win over
the south Italian cities where there was a Pythagorean opposition
(von Fritz, 75 ff.); cf. Diod. xiv. 105. 4; Polyaen. v. 2. zz. See Stro-
heker, 229 n. 139, who dates this after Dionysius' capture of Rhegium
in 386. Timaeus mentions this detail as evidence for the repute, and
so reliability, of his informant.
9, 8TJI..I.Oa(as avaypatf>fjs , , , ll1TapaOou(fLOU O'T~ATJS: 'public record
or commemorative monument'.
11. 1. Timaeus' chronological u·ork: d. 10. 4· :Magistrates, kings, and

priests were used for dating both in official lists and by historians,
and of these the Spartan eponymous ephor, the Athenian eponymous
archon and the years of the priestess of Hera at Argos, were among
the best known; cf. Thuc. ii. 2. I, -rtji o€ 7T.ffL1T"T(J_J KaL 8EKd-rcp ETEL,
i1rl Xpva£8os lv ;lpy<L T6n 7TEV'Tr/Kovra 8voL'v Mona ET7J tEpwfLEVTJS Kd
AlV7Jalov €,Popov Jv .EmipT'{J ;cat llvBood>pov e-n ovo [Tlaaapas Kruger)
p.fjvas apxoVTOS 14B7Jva.lots .••. For Sparta regnal years offered an
alternative to dating by ephors, and this was later more popular
(cf. Gomme on Thuc. ii. z. r); nor will dating by ephors have pre-
ceded the growth in the importance of that office in the mid-sixth
century (cf. Jacoby, Atthis, 305 n. 24). The Athenian archon list
was published on stone c. 425 (Meritt, Hesp. 1939, 59 ff. Agora
Inv. no. I4uo; Jacoby, Atthis, IF-4), and a little before 400 Hel-
la.nicus used it as the chronological foundation of his Atthis (Jacoby,
FGH, 323 a, commentary in FGH, iii b (Supplement), vol. I, I ff.).
As Gomme observes (on Thuc. ii. 2. r), it may have been available
earlier. For the disadvantages inherent in even a composite form of
reckoning by magistrates and the like, see Thuc. v. 20. 2-3. Hellanicus
also published a work entitled 'UpHm ri)s uHpas ai Jv .tlpyn, a uni-
versal chronicle using the Argive priestesses as a chronological basis
(FGH, 4 F 74-84) 'in the same manner as later writers used the
list of Olympic victors' (Jacoby, Atthis, 357 n. 24); Plutarch (Mor.
1IJ2 A) mentions an U7Toypa¢~ ~ tv LU<VclJVL a7TOICHfLlV7J used by
Heracleides Ponticus, which contains lists of Argive priestesses,
poets, and musicians. The list of Olympionicae was first edited by
Hippias of Elis (FGH, 6 F z = Plut. Num. r. 4) in the fifth century;
Plutarch regards it as unreliable. This was no doubt used by Timaeus
18 well as by other writers of 'O>..vfL7TwvtKm such as Aristotle (Diog.
Laert. v. I. 26, viii. 51 FGH, 241 F 7), Eratosthenes (FGH, 24r F
4-8), and Philochorus, who wrote 'O,\vl-'-md8Es (FGH, 328, comrnen-
to.ry on§§ 4-5 in III b (Suppl.), vol. 1, pp. 35r-2). For general problems
connected with the list of Olympionicae see Jacoby's commentary
In FGH III b, § xviii, pp. :;!21 8, 233-6. Timaeus' precise contribution
carmot be clearly ascertained owing to the ambiguity of the present
1entence, which can be variously punctuated, with commas (i) after
347
Xll. ll 1 TIMAECS' CRITICfSMS OF ARISTOTLE
Ao.K€So.t,u.mn and 6/..u,u.mov{Kas, (ii} after J40ryvl)ao and 6/..v,u.rrLov[lw:;,

(iii) after 71pyn and 6/..u,u.mov{Kas.
The first punctuation is that usually adopted (d. Laqueur, R F.
'Timaios (r)', col. II9'); Paton, Shuckburgh, and Schweighaeuser\.
it implies that Timaeus drew up one table correlating the Sparta11
kings and ephors, and another correlating Athenian archons, Argiyr·
priestesses, and Olympic victors. The second punctuation (cl
Jacoby, FGH, 566 T ro; Atthis, 126) assumes that Timaeus' first tabJ.-
related the Spartan ephors to the Spartan kings and Athenian
archons, and the second the Argive priestesses to the Olympir
victors. The third assumes a single comprehensive chronological
system in which all four lists, Spartan ephors, Spartan king~.
Athenian archons, and Argive priestesses are correlated and com
pared with the Olympionicae; the object of Tro.po.fl&J../..wv must theu
be understood from what has preceded (cf. D. W. Prakken, Studies itt
Greek Genealogical Chronology (Lancaster, Pa., 1943), 56 n. 21, eu
visaging this interpretation). According to Suidas, Timaeus wrot.
'0/..u,u.mov[Kas 7}ToL XpovLKa llpa~ofw<d. (FGH, s66 T r), a work which
seems to be referred to here; it was perhaps a kind of handbook.
serving as a chronological preparation for Timaeus' general history,
much as Callisthenes' work on the Pythian rictors served as a pr('
paration for his history of the Phocian War (Syll. 275 FGH, r~-1
T 23; Brown, 10). \\•l1etller or no Timaeus based his list on researclr
carried out at Olympia we cannot tell (Brown, r2 n. 69, quotin,!:
Pausanias' reference to a list of Olympic victors set up in Uw
gymnasium, probably about sso/540 n.c.: Pans. vi. 6. 3 FGH.
416 T r). But his compilation seems clearly to have made a substan
tial contribution to the problem of reconciling different chronologies.
and his use of Olympiad years in his His tory is followed by P. himsell
(cf. VoL I, p. 35 n. 6).
nis O.Jla.pTla.s Twv "TTOAewv ..• E~eAEyxwv: whether Athens and Argo~,
or cities generally, is not clear; in the second case Tas- Tmhwv will
be 'records of these matters', i.e. chronological matters in general
The mention of three months suggests a specific instance, but whal
it was is not known. In Thuc. ii. z. r, quoted at the beginning of tlw
preceding note, the remainder of Pythodorus' archonship is gin~n
as two months, though it was in fact four, 1rapa Tpl,u.71vov lxovaas ,,;
liw.c[>ipov by inclusive reckoning; some editors accept Kruger's T€arm
pas. Timaeus will not have this passage in mind; but it well illustrat(";
the kind of error he is thinking of. Pedech, ad loc., suggests that th··
reference is to local chronicles and chronological tables like th,·
Parian Marble (FGH, 239) and the Lindian Chronicle (FGH, 532).
if in such tables there was an error of three months in the recordin1'
of some event, it might in consequence be placed under a differen1
epm.ym and so in a different year.
348
TIMAEUS' CRITICISUS OF ARISTOTLE XII. tr. 5
l. TGS OTno-8oOO!LOUS O"TTJhO.S: omaOobojL{Ou<; Reiske, omaOoypaif>ov<;?
Wilamowitz (Arist. u. Alhen, i. 306 n. 24), ·n1s (KaTd TOU<;> oma8o-
"t:ljLOll) aT~Aa; Diels (Hermes, rgoo, zoo). P. means 'inscriptions on
the backs of buildings' or, more probably, 'inscriptions in the inner
Cellae of temples', for omo86bOjLOS, e}se•Nhere found only as a noun,
is the inner cella (often of the old temple of Athene at Athens, used
ItS the Treasury) .
• " TO.LS <!>Ata.l:s TWV vewv: 'on the doorposts of temples'; cf. IG, xii .
.l· IjO, L 24, TO oJ ifl&.cf>wJLa ••• dvaypd.,paL Js TCtV cf>,\ulv (from Asty-
palaea); ibid. xii. 7· 237, I. 50 (Amorgos). For the Attic form •·ewv
cf. XV. 29. 8.
TCtll ••• trposev~a.ll: of proxenia, the right to represent the
11tate making the in one's own state; such proxenoi were
originally not citizens of the state they represented, but during the
lldlenistic age grants of proxenia and honorary citizenship were
made together (cf. C. Phillipson, The International Law and Custom
of Ancient Greece and Rome (London, 191 I) i. 147 ff.; J. A. 0. Larsen,
OCD, 'proxenos').
3. ou6' wpov-ra. tra.pa.Anreiv: but Timaeus did claim to have found it,
IUld he did mention it (cf. 9· 3); hence P.'s polemic and argument
are irrational. Timaeus had merely failed to specify which Locris he
vh;ited.
+•uo-a.!LEV£tl: cf. w. 6 n.
4. TTLKpos ••. KCl~ atrapa.hTJTOii ETTlTLILTJT~<;: cf. 4 a I, 6. This charge
against Timaeus is common and led to his nickname 'Epitimaeus',
given him by lstros (FGH, 334 F 59 Athen. vi. zp B}; see Diod.
v. I. 3 (FGH, s66 T II); Plut. Nic. [ (FGH, 566 T r8); ::\epos, Alcib.
11. r (FGH, 566 F 99), Strabo, xiv. 6-to, quoting the criticism of
Artemidorus (FGH, s66 F I50 b). P. d~arly hints at the nickname
here.
GTTapa.tT~Tou ••• KO.TTJyopla.ll: cf. 7· 6.
5. IL(Ta.('O.Il itrt To us £v 'ITa.Ai~ AoKpous: d. 9· 5 n.
,.~v T( troAtn£a.v ~~:a.t Ta Aoma <!>LA0.v8pwtra. KTA.: d. Syll. 502, 1. zo.
The existence of a lacuna after dJLrf>on!.potr; and uncertainty about its
length help to make the of these words doubtful. If the
lncuna is filled by some such phrase as {nrd.pxli.w OjLOLa, TOIJ o' (Hultsch)
or <e:vp-r;KevaL 1Ta.p6jLOta, Tdll o' (Biittner-Wobst), the meaning will be
'the wnstitution and general culture' (Paton) ; for Til rf>U..&.v8pw1Ta
In the sense of cf>•Aa.v9pw1Tta, 'humane behaviour, civilized practices',
cf. x. 38. 3· In this case P. is Timaeus' rebuttal of the
u.ccusations made against the Italian Locrians in 9· 5· But 1roAtnlav
may refer to the i-aorroAmda bet\veen Locri and its mother
t:ll\il1try (cf. 9· 4, Kae' a 1TOt\tTe{av {nrapxeu· JKaT/.pot<; 1Tap' JKa,T[pot<;)
wit~ dJLr/>oTlpot> taking up the sense of lKaT€poLs 1ra.p' JKaTlpw;;
In that case Ta cf>tAavOpw1Ta are the of privileges and
349
XII. II. 5 TDL>\E US' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE
concessions granted between the two peoples (cf. 5· 3 n. for thic.
sense, common in inscriptions). The lacuna could then be filled with
{rrrdpxetv, Tov o', giving the sense: 'he says that common citizenship
and similar mutual concessions exist between the two sets of Locrians,
and that .. .'; but logically 1TpwTov fLI.v requires some corresponding
phrase, and the lacuna may in fact be longer. Schweighacusr:1
favours the second meaning, but is surely wrong in interprctin~:
J.pxpoTI.pots de 1<trisque Graedae Locn's; for P.'s whole point is th:l.!
Timaeus never adverts to the difficulty raised by the existence oi
the two Locrian states in Greece.
TDLS AoKpo'Ls a1-1cpoTepo~s: those of Greece and those of Italy (see tlw
preceding note).
:A.pLaToTi:ATJ Kat tlt:ocppatrTov: for the version of Aristotle and Theo
phrastus see above, 5-16 n. TTJS' 1To,\.:ws is of course the Italian city.
6. &.vayKaa9iJaol-'a' napEK~a£vnv: despite the suggestion in 7. z thai
the discussion was at an end, and despite the subsequent polcmi•
(7. z-rr. 5), P. now proposes to develop his attack on Timacus still
further in order to clarify and strengthen his case (8wpt,6fL"vos Ka;
ota{3£(3awufL"vos), viz. that Timaeus is a dishonest and unreliabk
historian; for his case for accepting Aristotle against Timaeus on tlw
subject of Locri turns on his success in this.
7. ToiJ Ka9,KovTos bXtywpE:i:v: and so fall into Timaeus' own error.
cf. 1· I ?ToAu n Tov Ka(J~KovTos 1Tap£K(3o.£vn. P., however, admits a
place for the 1Tapi.K{3acns; cf. i. IS. 13, ii. 36. I, iii. z. 7, 9· 6, 33· 1,
iv. 9· I, V. 13. I, vi. 50. I, xii. z8. IO,
8. !J-EytaTov 0.1-'aPTTJI-'a •.• TO VE:G8os: for the commonplace, to which
P. subscribes, cf. Vol. I, pp. Io ff.; Avenarius, 40-46. The present
fragment seems related to the argument in I:z. 1~4, where presumabl"
Timaeus' remarks were directed against Aristotle.
11. 1. €nt Twv Kavovwv: 'in the case of a carpenter's rule'.

T~ 1TAaT£L Tam;woT£po<.;: 'deficient in \Vidth'. Schweighaeuser takes
it of thickness, stressing the meaning of Ta1THvos-; but for 'thickness'
TcfJ f3a6n would be more usual.
riJs 1rpbs TO.UTTJV otKE:tOTTJTOS: 'and all conformity to this', i.e.
straightness. The verb lK1T€crn is Bi.ittner-Wobst's emendation for
lyyt'TI (or Jyyl~<Et); though Pedech's criticism of its use with a plain
genitive is not valid (cf. 14· 7), his own proposal, Jm8£v. is attractin·
and is approved by Gelzer, Gnomon, r963, r6s.
2. )\£~LV • , , xe~plO'!-'Ov: 'style ... treatment'; cf. 28. 10.
KaT' aAAo T~ ••• TWV 1.8(wv fUpwv: 'in any other detail'.
civTEXTJTa~ 8~ TTjs ttrToptas: cf. Lucian, hist. conscr. 9 for the sam(·
distinction ; A venarius, 27.
3. r]yel:a9aL 8E:i: ••. T~v AX,9£Lav: 'truth must play the main role iu
works of this kind'.
TlMAEuS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE XII. ua I-3
a.uTos rrou KEXP"lP.at: L 14. G, with unessential variation in the word-

ing,
•J.~-vuxou awl:la"''OS: cf. L 14. 6, 'c[>ou; Diod. XX. Ls.
TfJ yap Ti)S laToptas
ylvos d1TAoOv lan Kat avp.<fou~s iatJTip Ka1 T6 cn.ivoAov lp.ifnJx.4! arlJp.an
f!'rtpa1TA~awv.
If this prologue of Diodorus derives from Ephorus
(Laqueur, Hermes, l9II, zo6; Jacoby on FGH jO F III), P. mas· have
taken the metaphor from him (Avenarius, 107 n. 10).
4. Mo •.• Tporrous •.• ljt£u5ou<;: for the distinction see i. 6 n. The
repetition in §§ 6-7 suggests that in the original text there was
a substantial passage between the two.
12 a-12 b. The exact position of these two fragments from M can be

determined only approximately; see above, pp. 19-zo.
12 a 1-3. The proverb AoKpot Tas avvO~Kas. The position of this pas-
sage in the book suggests that it forms part of the polemic against
Timaeus and therefore that he and Polybius held different views
nbout the meaning of the proverb. The view given in the text,
associating it with the invasion of the Heracleidae and the treachery
of the west Locrians, would ftt Timacus' general concern to free the
people of Italian Locri from the charges made against them; and it
may therefore be Timaeus' view. The Corpus paroemiographorunt
knows two explanations of this proverb. One (Corp. paroem. graec.
i. 116) refers it to a law of Zaleucus in Locri, auyypa<fo~v l1rl. Twv 8avna-
f'aTwv p.ij ylv€a0at, oOo• 1TOAAwv apvovp.lvwv Ta 0"1.Jl'/<l;\Aay/taTa J?Tt TWV
1/JfvC.op.lvwv Tj 1rapo<p.i.a iKpdTTJUEV. But there is a different explanation
ibid. i. I I.f: AoKpwv avv07]p.a, TUTT€Tat 13.1 bri TWI' 1TapaKpovop.lvwv·
AoKpol. yd.p Tas avvO~Kas Trpds rous ll<Ao1TOVV7Ju!.ous 7Tpo8ov-rEs p.~<ra Twv
•HpaKA<towv lylvoVTO' ol oiOTt EtKt:Aovs 'o/rd.TT)aav 7/"apaA.oyu:rd.p.EVOt.
P.'s introductory words l1T/, Twv d8t:TovVTwv Tcts Jp.o.\oylas, 'those who
let agreements at naught', could in themselves apply to either the
disowning of debts at Locri or the treachery shown by west Locrians
towards the Peloponnesians. But, as Wunderer (Phil. r897, 173) points
out, P. would not have mentioned the matter had he agreed with
Timaeus; and the view that the explanation in the text is that of P.
implies that for some quite unexplained reason he was concerned
to give publicity to a legend discreditable not to Locri but to western
Locris. The argument of Pedech (pp. xxi-"xxii), that P. was
trying to show that the bad bella vi our of the Italian Locrians was
natural since their forebears in Greece were treacherous, seems a far-
fetched way of countering Timaeus and improbable in view of the
other version of the proverb associating it directly with Locri.
Hence it seems reasonable to assume that in the words l1Tt rwv
d6ET.fWTwv -rds Jp.oAoylas P. is giving his own view that the proverb
refers to the consequences of the law of Zaleucus, the disowning of
XII. rz a r TIMAEUS' CRITICIS:\IS OF ARISTOTLE
debt-agreements; and certainly he goes on later to comment furthc1

on Zaleucus' legislation (ch. 16), in which Timaeus disbelieved (FG!l,
s66 F I30). J. F. Lucht (Phylarchi historiarum fragmenta, Leipzi~
r836, p. ix) conjectured that for Tt> in § r we should read Ttf.Law,
This was accepted by Wunderer (i. 26 n. 2; Ph£!. r897, q2) and Old-
father (Phil. 1908, 447-8) and has much to commend it; the beginninr·.
and end of extracts were, of course, especially liable to textual cor
ruption (d. Brown, 125 n. 8, who is not, however, very explicit).
It is just possible that the association of the proverb with Zaleucus·
law on contracts (Strabo, vi. 26o = Ephorus, FGH, 70 F 139; Diod
xii. 2r. 3) goes back to Aristotle (so Wunderer, Phil. 1897, 177); but
such an association is probably unhistorical, since it proceeds froJI1
what looks like a primitive refusal to recognize written debt contract··
to a general debt repudiation (d. Oldfather, Phil. 1908, 448; Rl:.
'Lokroi', col. 1322). Wunderer also argues (Phd. r897, 174-6) tb" 1
Timaeus' source was the Atthidographer Demon; he bases his argu
mcnt on the strung-out participles of this chapter. But Demon·.
style is hardly likely to have survived into P.'s paraphrase of what
will itself have been a paraphrase by Timaeus. Pedech, ad loc ..
refers the version given here to Ephorus, but gives no reasons. 01(1
father suggested (Phil. 1908, 448-9) that the proverb arose in connexio11
with Locrian piracy in the fifth century and Athenian attempts 1' ·
suppress it (d. Plut. Peric. q). But all explanations are hypothetical
1. E11'L n7lll a9ETOUIITWII TQ~ OfLOAoyia~: 'to those who set agreemenh
at naught'; see the preceding note.
TOLJTO of. TL~ e;eupl]ICE\1: JturropYJK€V M can be construed without
Biittner-\\'obst's emendation; nor is Hultsch's reading, roiho s;
r{c; JturropYJKrov; (followed by a lacuna), convincing. But Lucht\
TtJ.Lawc; for rtc; (see 12 a r-3 n.) is attractive (d. Jacoby on FGH.
566 F r62); translate, with this reading, 'But Timaeus' researclw~
have produced this account, that both historians and everyone e]~,·
are agreed that .. .'. Jturropro£v is 'to search out' or possibly 'to set
forth' (d. P. Oxy. iii, 486 1. 12, second century A.D.).
~eat 11'apa TOL!> cruyypa«j>eucrL .•. OfLOAoyoufLEVov: so Timaeus alleges.
P. himself does not accept this view.
2. KaTa TlJII TWII 'Hpa~eAeLOwv ~«j>ooov: Greek legend represented till'
Dorian invasion as the return of the Heracleidae, viz. Temenu,..
Cresphontes, and Aristodemus' sons, Eurysthenes and Proch- ..
Tradition made them build ships at Naupactus (hence its name) and
cross over from there to the Peloponnese at Rhium, advised I>\
Oxylus, a grandson of Thoas (Paus. v. 3· s--6, viii. 5· 6, x. 38. w.
Strabo, ix. 426-7 ; Apollod. Bibl. ii. 8. 2-3; Eustath. ad Iliad. p. 276. · ·
f.); but according to Ephorus (Strabo, ix. 426-7 = FGH, 70 F 121) till'
Locrians built the ships for the Dorians beforehand, and this seeu, .
TIMAEUS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE XII. rz b 2
to be the view adopted here. The historicity of these events has

been much discussed (cf. Oldfather, RE, 'Lokris', cols. rr87-8;
'Naupaktos', cols. 1983-4).
Twv A01<pwv: the western Locrians.
KaTn To 'Plov: 'by way of Rhium', either the Achaean promontory
(iv. ro. 4) or the straits of that name (iv. 64. 2 n.).
12 b 1-3. Timaeus' criticism of Callisthenes: Brown, 8-9, argues that

Timaeus' criticism reflects the current democratic attitudes in Athens
at the time of Callisthenes' death, and that it therefore supports an
early date for Timaeus' migration to Athens (cf. 25 d I n.); this seems
forced.
1. ae~aG(p.ov OLa)aupeLV: 8eia<; EVpeiv M. Herwerden's emendation
(Mnem. 1874, 73), adopted by Biittner-\Vobst, is attractive, though,
as Pedech observes, 8Hacrpo<; is not found again in P.: 'to ridicule the
frenzy .. .'.
Twv 6ve~pwTTovnuv Kat 5a~p.ovwvTwv: 'who dream dreams and write
like men possessed' (Paton). Wunderer (iii. 47) adduces x. 2. 9, and
emends to OetcrtOatpovovvTwv; but unnecessarily. Despite the frag-
mentary character of the MS. at this point, it seems certain that P.
is saying that Timaeus properly criticizes sensational writing, but
being in the same case himself has no right to make such criticisms.
1roAXl]v TTJS TOLO.UTfJS ~f11T€1I'O(fJVTO.L ~Aua.p£as: 'who have produced
a great deal of such nonsense'. Cobet (Mnem. r862, 21) suggests
lp7rerf>&p1JVTat, 'who have stuffed themselves up with .. .'. But the
text stands quite welL
l. KOAa.Ka. ••• Tov Ka.XX~aaivf)v: on Callisthenes see iv. 33· 2 n.; T. S.
Brown, AJP, 1949, 242; Pearson, 22-49. Timaeus evidently sup-
ported his accusation that Callisthenes was a flatterer (cf. 23. 3-8)
by referring to his account of Alexander's visit to the oracle of
Ammon at Siwah (see next note), which was described so as to create
the impression that Alexander was the son of Zeus (below, 23. 4;
Jacoby on FGH, 124 T 20; Strabo, xvii. 814 FGH, 124 F 14; Tarn,
Alex. ii. 350, 357-8).
~t6p5a.€t Te 1rpo<1exovTa.: Kopagl Te is Bekker's certain emendation;
cf. Strabo, x\·ii. 814 (FGH, 124 F I4). 1rAavil>w:vov S' (sc. Alexander
on the way to Siwah) {mb TOV KOVLOPTOV crw8fjvat yevop€vwv opf3pwv
1Cal3vei'v KopaKwv ~yrjcrapivwv T~v ooov, ~STJ TOVTwv KoAaKEVTLKWS' AEyo-
j'E~>wv (sc. by Callisthenes). The same story is attributed to Calli-
sthenes by Plut. Alex. 27. 3. and it appears in Arrian, iii. 3· 6, as given
by Aristobulus, Ka~ o1rAdwv l\oyo<; raVTI/ KaTIX"' (= FGH, 139 F q),
in Diod. xvii. 49· 6, following Cleitarchus, and in Curt. iv. 7· 15. Ac-
cording to Ptolemy (Arr. iii. 3· 5 = FGH, 138 F 8) it was two snakes
who guided Alexander; and there were other variants (Arr. iii. 3· 6).
1ea.l Kopu~avnwGaLs yuvaL$1: according to Strabo (xiv. 645, xvii. 8r4)
8U17S Aa 353
XII. ub 2 TIMAEUS' CRITICISM OF CALLISTHENES
Athenais of Erythrae, perhaps a reincarnation of the Sibyl of that

city, testified to Alexander's ;,vyb·E~a, i.e. his divine birth (Tarn,
Alex. ii. 357); and at Branchidae the prophecies were given by a
delirious priestess (Iamb!. de myst. iii. rr). Timaeus' reference is to
these.
un' ;6.A.E~avSpou T£TEUx£vm TLj.Lwp(ns: Callisthenes ensured Alexan-
der's animosity by his opposition to proskynesis; but his execution
followed the Pages' conspiracy, in which he was implicated either
directly, or as tutor to Hermolaus, the chief conspirator (cf. Curt.
viii. 8. 21-22; Iustin. xv. 3· 3-7; and other sources assembled by
Jacoby, FGH, 124 T q-r8). According to Ptolemy (FGH, 138 F q),
Callisthenes was hanged, while others, such as Aristobulus (FGH,
139 F 33), reported that he died in chains, having grown fat and
diseased (so Charon, FGH, 125 F r5 = Plut. A lex. 55· 5), thus seeking
to absolve Alexander. See below, 23. 3·
Slecp8apKoTn Tl)v EKE(vou \jluxfJv: by representing Alexander as the
son of Zeus, particularly in reference to the visit to Ammon (see
above). Tam (Alex. ii. 365) quotes Alexander's refusal of the offer
of deification in the Alexander-romance of Ps.-Callisthenes (A'),
ii. 22. 12, Klvovvov yap ¢-lpn Tov 7TEpt rfvxfjs, and argues that the author
wrote with this remark of Timaeus in mind.
3. PTtTopns ••• Tov Se cplAOcrocpov: the contrast is ironical, the mere
rhetoricians, who take up an honest stand, with the so-called philo-
sopher who connives at Alexander's deification. Callisthenes is called
.P~J..ouo</>o> elsewhere; d. Plut. Alex. 52. 2; Iustin. xii. 6. 17, xv. 3· 3;
Schol. Lucian, p. 258, 4 R; Philodemus, 7TEp1 KoAaK. i 2 • 4 (FGH, 124 T 7'
9, 18 (e) and (f), 21); Itin. Alex. 92; Suidas, NEocppwv.
Ta.is TLJ..I.a'Ls Ta'is lcro8eol<; nvTeAeyov: according to Hyperides (c.
Demosth. 3r. 15 ff.) Demosthenes nevertheless acquiesced with the
words 'let him be the son of Zeus and Poseidon, if he wishes' (cf.
Dinarchus, c. Demosth. 94), probably ironical even though they con-
ceded the point (cf. Balsdon, Historia, 1950, 383). According to some
late sources, Demades proposed that Alexander should be recognized
as a thirteenth god (Ael. Var. hist. v. r2; Val. Max. vii. z, ext. 13;
Athen. vi. 251 B); but this may exaggerate what was intended.
There was certainly opposition from Lycurgus (Vit. X oral. 842 n)
and Pytheas (lllut. Mor. 8o4 B). The context of the proposal and
debate has been much discussed; see Bengtson 2 , 348 n. 1, for recent
bibliography. Despite Hogarth's view (EHR, r887, 322 ff.; contra
E. Meyer, Kl. Schr. i. 330 n. 2) to the contrary, recently revived by
Balsdon, loc. cit., the fact that the matter was raised in several states
seems to support the hypothesis that some expression of a wish had
come from Alexander. The Spartans refused (Plut. !vi or. 219 E); for
other states see Ael., Var. hi st. ii. 19. Aymard (REA, 1937, 26) has
tentatively suggested that Hyperides, c. Demosth. r8. 13-16, may refer
354-
TD.fAEUS' CRITICISM OF CALLISTHENES XII. I3. I
to a similar wish conveyed to the federal assemblies of Achaea and

Aetolia. Its form can be reconstructed. Hyperides, Ep£taph. 8. 21
(d. G. Colin, REG, rg38, 387), seems to establish that the question was
linked with the cult of Hephaestion, and that in requesting the setting
up of this cult Alexander made clear, without a definite request, that
he wished for deification himself (De Sanctis, Riv. jil. 1940, 6; C.
Habicht, Gottmenschentum und griccltische Stiidte (Munich, 1956), 28-36,
222--9). The demand rested on a consciousness o{ merit (Habicht, op.
cit. 35; C. F. Edson, OCD, 'Ruler-cult', 783; CP, 1958, 63-64) and was
not related to any political purpose. Tarn (Alex. ii. 370 ff.) has argued
that as a god Alexander would 'have a juridical standing in the
cities which he could not other\\·ise have had', and he links the
request with the demand that the exiles should be returned; but
this demand was made at the Olympic games of 324 by Nicanor,
whereas the question of divine honours did not arise until after
Hephaestion's death in October 324 (Habicht, op. cit. 3_3). Further
'no Greek god had a juridical standing in the cities which would
allow him ... to act outside the legal norms' (Bickerman, CP, 1950,
43)·
ntyt8G KGl. KEpauvov vEpdlivTa. 9vlJTU +ucrEL: i.e. Callisthenes had made
Alexander a god; so too Philodemus, 7Tt£pl KoAaK. i. 2 4 FGH, 124 T
:u, Jv . .. Tat<; !uTop{ats a7To8,ov T6v )1Mga,,Spov. Apelles painted
Alexander with a thunderbolt in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus
(Plut. Alex. 4· r; Pliny, Nat. hist. xxxv. 92). Tarn, Alex. ii. 362,
argues that Callisthenes never did more than claim Alexander as
a son of Zeus, \Vhich was not in itself equivalent to divinity. The
confusion belongs to the Hellenistic age. See further T. S. Brown, 9;
A]P, 1949, 242-5, arguing that Callisthcnes was preparing the way
for posthumous deification.
U11'o Tou 8cuf1ov(ou: the divine force of retribution, which also punishes
the sacrilege of Antiochus Epiphanes (xxxi. 9· 4) and Prusias (xxxii.
15. 14); cf. VoL I, p. zr. Timaeus shared this belief (cf. FGH, 566
F so, ro2, ro6; Diod. xvi. i8-8r, based on Timaeus).
13. l. allflox6.pT)v: Demochares of Leuconoe (c. 350-before 27r/o},

the son of Demosthenes' sister, was a democratic statesman and
orator, active at Athens from the expulsion of Cassander's agents
in 307 ; he was exiled himself for an uncertain period, returning in the
archonship of Diodes (:z88/7?; Meritt, 286/5). Later he had a decree
passed honouring Demosthenes (archonship of Gorgias, 28o/79). De-
mochares was famous for his freedom of speech (Seneca, de ira, iii.
23. z, 'Parrhesiastes ... appellatus'); he left behind published
speeches and Histories, perhaps mainly concerned \>v'ith Athens, and
written 'non tam hbtorico quam oratorio genere' (Cic. Brut. :z86).
See FGH 75 with Jacoby's commentary; Susemihl, i. 552-8; Swoboda,
.3.'15
XIL I3- 1 TIMAEUS' CRITICISM OF DE:\IOCHARES
RE, 'Demochares (6)', cols. 2863-7 ;Tarn, AG,93-94;Ferguson, qr-3;

Beloch, iv. 2. 445-52; and for more recent bibliography and discus-
sion of his parrhesia, Momigliano, Riv. star. it. 1959, 537-8. But ZJ. 8,
where he is coupled with other writers (especially Ephorus) whom
Timaeus had criticized, perhaps indicates that P. regarded Timaeus'
attack as levelled against Demochares as a writer rather than as
a statesman ; and Pooech, ad loc., argues that the personal invective
was intended to discredit the claims of his history.
ftTa.tpT)Keva.t KTA.: commenting on this passage (FGII, 75 T z; cf.
566 F 35) Jacoby suggests that Timaeus' hostility may arise from
views expressed by Demochares in those parts of his history which
concerned the west. Tlus is possible, since Suidas (s.v. Td l€p6v rrfJp
£gwn <f>vaijaat} records that this attack was included in the thirty-
eighth (and last) book of Timaeus' Histories, the last five books of
which concerned Agathocles; and Demochares is known to have dis-
cussed Agathocles (FGH, 75 F 5). It is, moreover, significant that
P. passes directly from Timaeus' criticism of Demochares to the
details of his attack on Agathocles (15). De Sanctis, Storiograjia
siceliota, 47, relates the antipathy to Timaeus' general recollection
of his life at Athens; he assumes (so also Brown, 9-1o) that Timaeus
wrote his attack on Demochares after returning to Syracuse. See
also ~Iomigliano, Riv. star. it. 1959, 542. According to Suidas (see
above), who may dra\v on a fuller text of P., Timaeus quoted as an
authority for his accusation a speech against Demochares by Demo-
cleides, who may be the same as Democles, Theophrastus' pupil,
who defended the sons of Lycurgus (Ps.-Plut., Vii. X orat. 842 E); cf.
Susemihl, i. 555 n. J73 (v,rith an over-fanciful reconstruction of the
whole polemic). That Timaeus' abuse was to be taken metaphorically
(so Wunderer, ii. 66) is unlikely; such outrageous accusations were
not unparalleled in political polemic, for Duris (FGII, 76 F 8) records
a similar taunt against Demosthenes.
Tu B<hpvos U1TOJ.LVTJJ.LO.To. Ka.t Til <l>lAa.w(Sos: Botrys of Messana was
mentioned by the Sicilian historian Alcimus as the inventor of rra.tyvm,
·which are evidently the same a.c; the obscene {molivru:J.a.m referred to
by Timaeus (FGH, 56o F 1); cf. Knaack, RE, 'Boti)'S (3)', cols.
793-4. Jacoby suggests a date in the fifth centUI)'. Philaenis is the
alleged author of a work rr~:pt UX7]/-LaTwv uvvovata:;; mentioned by
Clearchus of Soli (Athen. X. 457 E), Chrysippus (Athen. viii. 335 B-E).
Aeschrion of Samos, the writer of dithyrambs (Athen. \'iii. 335 B--e;
Anth. Pal. vii. 345) and Dioscorides, the writer of epigrams (Anth.
Pal. vii. 450) ; but Aeschrion claims that the real author was an
Athenian named Polycrates. Philaenis' date is unknown and her
home is given variously as Leucas (Athcn. v. 220 F) and Samos
(Dioscorides in Anth. Pal. vii. 450). See also Lucian, Amor. 28.
Pseudo!. 24; Clem. Alex. Protrept. iv. 6r. 2; Priap. 63. 17; Paul
TDIAE C"S' CR TTICIS:\1 OF DEl\IOCH.-\RES XIL IJ. 8
Maas, RE, 'Philainis', coL 2122. Brown (ro), like Markhauser (78).
misunderstands the passage, which he takes to mean that P. accuses
Timaeus of outstripping the pornographers; there is no evidence that
P. was personally acquainted with the works mentioned by Timaeus
(cf. von Scala, 83 n. r), indeed Botrys had probably only local fame,
since he is known only through references in two other Sicilians.
ouS<E T(dV a:rro T~you~ ••• ouSf.£~: 'not even any of the inmates of a
brothel'; the words a1T6 TOV awj.LaTO> look like a gloss, and Jacoby,
on FGH, 75 T 2, excludes them. With Elpyaaf.Livwv one would expect
rather l1ri. Tiyovs, which Valesius proposed and Schweighaeuser prints
{though Suidas, s.vv. Lhwoxap'YJ> and Ef-L-farns, has a1ro). Perhaps the
whole phrase a1T6 TOV C!Wj.LQTOS Elpyaaj-tivwv should be bracketed as
a gloss (so Castiglioni, 227).
3. 1TpouKaTe1fl€uO'Tcu TavSpos: 'has also told lies about him, dragging
in the evidence, etc.' The force of 1rpoa- seems to lie in the adducing
of evidence of Archedicus, rather than in the making of an additional
charge (as Paton: 'has made a further false charge'); the only charge
was that mentioned in § r.
KWj-LLKOV nva •.• avwVUj-LOV: cf. § 7' J4pxiouws. The meaning of
aVwVVf.LOS here is 'of nO repute'.
G.SoEA4>LSouv ••• A"l!-Lou9£vou~: cf. Ps.-Plut. Vit. X orat. 847 c (= FGH,
75 T r), dxE 8€ Kai aOEA,P~v (sc. 0 Ll'Y)j.LOCFfJiV'Y)s), Jg ~- Kai. Aax'YJTOS (MS.
Aaxov) AEvKovoiws aOE'A,P,})oiJ<; avTip Ll'Y)f.LOxap'Y]S" iy.!vETO; Cic. Brut.
:z86 ( = FGH, 75 T 3), 'Demochares ... qui fuit Demostheni sororis
filius' ; de or. ii. 95.
6. uTpaTTJy(as ••• TJ~Lwu9aL wap' J\OTJva(OLs: perhaps during the
years 306 and following, when he played an active part in the
arming of Athens in her war with Cassander (Syll. 334); cf. Swoboda,
RE, 'Demochares (6)', col. 2865; Beloch, iv. z. 450-r. However, the
chronology of Demochares' career, which depends largely on the
decree recorded in Ps.-Plut. Vit. X orat. 85r E, is controversial.
TOlauTals ~i.Tux£aL~ waAa(ovn: 'had he had such acts of shame to
combat'; for this sense of aTvxia cf. iv. 2I. 7' xviii. rs. 6; Schweig-
haeuser on v. 67. 4· See below, 14. 2, aTVX'YJf.La.
7. ApxiSLKO~ b KW\.I-1f:1SLoyp6.4>os: cf. § 3; a writer of the new comedy,
tWO Of WhOSe titleS are knO\VIl, the Lltaj.LapTaVWV and the 6J'Y)aavpo>;
cf. Kock, CAF, iii. 276-8; Susemihl, i. 262 n. 93· The new comedy
contained occasional polemic against contemporary statesmen, for
example Philippides' attack on Stratocles (Plut. Dem. 26. 3) or the
attacks on Chabrias' son Ctesippus by Menander (fg. 363 Kock) and
Diphilus (fg. 38 Kock) ; cf. Susemihl, i. 248 n. 5·
8. 'II"€1Tapp'flu(a<JTaL: cf. Sen. de ira, iii. 23. 2 (quoted above, § r n.);
Momigliano, Riv. stor. it. 1959, 537--S.
a.u'I'Dv AVTi1TaTpov: Alexander's general in Greece; cf. v. ro. 4, ix.
29. I ff., 30. 3·
357
Xll. 13. ;3 TL\IAEt:S' CRITiCISM OF DE:\lOCHARES
AT)J.l,;Tp&os b q.a.AT)peus: the Peripatetic pl1ilosopher, appointed ab-
solute governor at Athens by Cassander, and stratcgos there from 317
to .307, when Poliorcetes took Athens and expelled him. See Jacoby,
l<G-ll, 228; F. Wehrli, Die Schute des Aristoteles: Demetrios von
Phaleron (Basel, 1949); Ferguson, 38 ff.; S. Dow and A. H. Travis,
l/esp(;ria, 1943. 144 65.
9. 't<ei:vos: Demochares.
tv Ta.is io-Topla.&s: their scope is uncertain, but they contained at
least zr books; cf. FGH, 75 F r-2. See above,§ r n.
1Tpoo-TaT1JV 'T'i\s TI'Mp(So<;: 'the leading man in the state'; but this wa~
Demetrius' ofikial title, for 1rpoaTr.h7Js was not the name of
any office within the constitution. Strabo, ix. 39· 8, implies that
Demetrius was Jma·n:i:rT)> (cf. Diod. xx. 45· 5, €mar~aas), but Diod.
xviii. 74· 3 and xx. 45· 2 record that he was l1TL/LEArrn)s and this title
(punned upon by Duris, FGH, 76 F IO, l1TE/LEAetTO 8J Kat Tij<; otpEw<;)
was apparently his official one relative to Cassander and the Mace
donian power, as laid down in the agreement. It is certain that for
many years both before and after 3r8 Demetrius was also a.paT'f"Jy6;;
(d. JG, ii2 • 2971, Syll. 319); but the only date for which this is
actually attested is 308/7 (Polyaen. iv. 7· 6). That from the point oi
view of the Athenian people at the time of his legislation (317 fl•
3r6/5) he bore the title of vo/LoOirT)> is cogently argued by S. DmY
and A. H. Travis (Hesperia, 19-J-3, 144-65), examining IG, ii~. 12ot
Syll. 318, a decree of the deme of Aixone in Demetrius' honour.
On Demetrius' government generally see Ferguson, 38--9-1-; Pedech,
ad loc., that the phrase used here is an ironical coinagt·
of Demochares.
em TOuTo&o; o-ep.vuveo-Oa.t KTA.: clearly Demochares was referring
to some statement by Demetrius of Phalerum himself, probabl\
contained in his work of self-justification, entitled llEpi Tijs OEKaE-r{a;;
(Diog. Laert. v. 8r FGH, 228 T r), or llEpi -rfj<; 1roA~-rdas (Strabo,
ix. 398 = FGH, 228 T 3}. From§ 12 it appears that in some later work
Demetrius replied to Demochares, without however mentioning tht,
kind of accusations levelled by Timaeus (cf. von Scala, 153 n. 2,
whose attempt to date these ripostes, however, outstrips HtL·
evidence).
10. 1ToAAti. Ka.l Xuo-tnAws 1TWAeio-9a.&: cheap food and (see below)
entertainments, panis et are the hall-mark of Demetriu<
government at Athens; hence the comment of Strabo, ix. 398, or;
j.L61'ov ou ~<a;£,\vae Ti)v 8wto~<po.-rlav (L\Ad. Kat €1rrrvwp8wa€. 8'1)/,oi: 8€ .,.,!
VrrO[LI'i;/LaTo. lJ. avviypa>/;E 1T€pt Tijs 1roAmdas raUTTJS lJ<Ei:vos. \V ehrli.
op. cit. 73 {on fg. 132) points out that both aspects of Demetriuc.'
policy depended on peace (cf. Plut. Lye. 23. r FGH, 228 F 21 }.
11. KoxXla.s a.vTopO.-rws ~a.o{twv KTA.: for a possible reconstruction
of this device see A. Rehm, Phil. 1937, 317-30, who thinks the motiw
358
TD.LU:.FS' CRITICIS:\I OF DEJ\iOCHARES XII. r 3 Tl
power came from a treadmill concealed vri.thin the giant shelL This
use of machinery for a toy is not unparalleled. For other examples of
mechanically mobile creatures seeR. G. Austin,JRS, 1959, r7~r8, who
mentions a bronze stag with feet that moved, the work of the sixth-
century statuary Canachus (Pliny, Nat. hist. xxxiv. 75), Archytas of
Tarentum's flying dm·e, of wood (Aul. Gell. x. rz. 9). and a bronze
eagle at Olympia which could fly into the air; also the wooden Hermes
in the comic poet Plato (Kock, CAF, i, p. 654. fg. rl-l8) who an-
nounces 'EpfkfjS fiywyli, Llcuod,\av rpwvryv exwv, biAuJOS jjaflttwv (!.i'n-Ofk(!.TOS
(,\~,\vOa. P reads (!.tr:·o/,W.Toc; here, and this may be right.
'TTpoT}yEi:To Ttjs '!TOj.L'TTTlS o.lm~: this is the procession which he gave
during his arcbonship (309}8) at the Dionysia; cf. Duris in A then.
xii. 542 E (= FGH, 76 Fro), iv 8~ ·rfi 1TOfk1Tfi TwvLlwvvatwv, ~v E1Tt:fL</Iev
apxwv YEVOfLEI!O<;, i}Sov 6 xopds ds a~TOV 170£~/J.aTa Edpwvo;; ( ?) TOV
Eot.<ws, iv ofs ~A<Ofkop</;as 17poaYJyOpliV!TO
itoxws o' dryovbas ~,\u)fkoprpos taO[o•s apxwv at:
TLfwfm yepa{ptn.
The date of Demetrius' archonship is given by the Marmor Parium

and Diod. xx. 27; he held the office only once (Diog. Laert. v. 77;
cf. Dion. Hal. de Din. Such processions as this are a great feature
of the Hellenistic courts; cf. the great procession of Ptolemy II
(Callixeinus, FGH, 627 F 2 = Athen. v. r96 A-2o3 B) at Alexandria,
or that of Antiochus EpiphanPs (xxx. zs. 2-r9).
O'UV SE TOUTOLS bVOL OLE'!Ttp.'!TOVTO s,a. TOV 8EaTpou: O:voi:' P, av8pw170t
Valesius, ovo• Toup. Jacoby (FGH, 75 F 4} accepts Valesius' ex-
pansion, and assumes a lacuna after O<Chpov; Wunderer (iii. 22 n. 1)
proposes alxfLaAWTO~. But D'Arcy Thompson's emendation of aF8pw-
fTO) to ovos in several passages in Aristotle's Ili.~toria animalium,
where the 'MS. presumably read avos (CQ, 1945, 54-55), gi\'es some
support to Toup's emendation here (cf. Walbank, CQ, 1945, 122).
Demochares professes to see in these donkeys and the giant (Su~..
8?j ... ) symbols of the degradation of Athens (cf. FGH, 75 F 1); they
were presumably a part of the grandiose show put on by Demetrius
and not of any other significance.
~'ITOLEI Ka.o-auvSp~ To '!TpocrTa.TTbj.L£vov: cf. ii. 41. Io. Athens sub-
mitted to Cassander in JI8}I7 (Diod. xviiL i4· 2; Beloch, iv. 1. 104-5;
Tam, C AH, vi. 48o).
~'IT~ TouTols mhov ovK o.to-xuvEu8a.( ~'I'JO"Lv: 'of all this he (i.e. Demo-
chares) says he (i.e. Demetrius) was in no wise ashamed' (Paton);
the suggestion is that Demetrius described this procession and the
subsequent proceedings in the theatre in his self-justification (above,
§ 9 n.).
12:- ouTE h.T}j.L~TpLo'i: KTA.: this implies that Demetrius had replied
in a subsequent work which made some criticisms of Demochares,
359
XIL 13· 12 THIAEUS' CRITICISM OF DE:\fOCHARES
but not those made by Timaeus. The words ouT' aMos ovods are
exaggeration, for P. could not have covered the whole literature of
the time. Pedech, 96-97, indeed argues with some cogency that P.'s
silence about Dcmochares' later career, when he creditably opposed
Demetrius Poliorcetes and was forced into exile, shows that (a) Ti-
maeus did not speak of Demochares' career after 307, and (b) P.
knew of Demochares only from Timaeus and from Demetrius of
Phalerum (above,§ 9 n.).
14. 2. TOtoi:JTov aTIJX1']fl-O.: 'any SUCh disgrace'; cf. 13. 5, aTv;:{as.

3. ,.£ 'lfa.lle~v ti~toc;;: for a specific illustration see Scipio's reaction to
the Carthaginian breach of the treaty in 202 (xv. 4. ro: the com-
parison is drawn by PCdech).
Tolho fla.A.Xov: the lacuna requires a verb: either B<wpoucnv (Hultsch:
accepted by Pedech) or iv v<il ,\aJ.f3&JJovmJJ (Biittner-Wobst) is satis-
fa.ctory.
4-.5. On the proper conduct of the historian in exercising criticism:
P. lays down two rules, (a) to consider not what one's opponent
deserves, but \.vhat one may oneself suitably say (§ 4), (b) to remem-
ber that those writers who let passion obscure their judgement are
suspect. Pedech, ad loc., points out the similarity in the definition of
decorum (To 1Tpi1ToJJ) given in Cic. off. L 93-96 after Panaetius (cf. van
Straaten, Pmtaetii Rhodii Jragmenta (Leiden, 1952), fg. ro7), but
wisely concludes that the derh·ation of P.'s ideas from Panaetius
cannot be proved.
4. TL A.€ye:w TJfLLV 'ITPE'Ifl!~: Reiske comments: 'hoc fragmento tradita
praecepta uereor ne ipse P. interdum non sa tis diligenter obserua it',
and instances the attack on Heracleides in xiii . .;.
6. 6.9eT~;'i:v TO~S .•. £~p1']1JkvolS: sc. tiJv 1rf.anv: 'to reject Timaeu:;'
slanders against Demochares'.
15. 1. To.is Ko.T' ».ya.9oKAEOUS .•• xo~5op(a.lS; Agathocles was

tyrant of Syracuse from 317 to 289 with the title of king from 304
lcf. i. 7· 2 n.); he was Timaeus' bete noire-see viii. 10. 12 n., ix. 23. 2 n.,
and xv. 35· 2. In the first passage P. is inclined to accept the \'alidity
of Timaeus' criticism of Agathocles, to obtain a contrast with the un-
acceptable remarks of Theopompus, who is there the object of attack.
Et KQ.t Tl'nVTI.uV yiyovev O.o'fii3EcrTO.TOS : 'even admitting him to ha VC beCTl
the most impious of men' : P. concedes the point (cf. viii. xo. 12,
1TW'f}poD Ka.1 TVpawov). Paton is misleading: 'even if that prince were
the most impious of men'.
2. ~'ll't Ko.Ta.crTpo!f!fj Tijc;; oATJS luTop£a.s: cf. Diod. xxi. 17. 3, Tds iaxaTas
T~S' aVJ'Taf•ws 7TEJJT€ fJlf111ovs TOV CT!!')I"fpa<{>lws TOVTOI!, Ka8'a,
71'Ep~etA'f}</>•
TaS' llya.OoKAEOVS: 1Tpd.£w;, oihc al' ns s~~eaiws a7To8£gai'1'0 FGJI.
s66 F x2.; (d)).
TIMAEUS' CRITICIS~I OF AGATHOCLES XII. 15.7
ttoAoLov, TpLopxTJv: 'a jackdaw, a buzzard'; both words are used
of a lecherous person.
3. TTJV yuva.I:K6. .f>TJaL ••• o!ITws 9pTJvE'i:v: presumably Theoxene (the
daughter or stepdaughter of Ptolemy I Soter), Agathocles' third
wife, whom, however, he sent back to Egypt witb his two sons to
secure their safety just before he died (Justin. xxiii. 2. 1; Beloch,
iv. 2. 179). Pedech takes the sense to be '\Vhy did I not keep you?
And why did you not keep me?'; but P.'s sense of outrage can
hardly be accounted for by the hypothesis that Timaeus should
not have sunk to mentioning an exhibition of feminine grief, and the
whole context suggests a more lewd interpretation-'in what form of
sensuality did we not indulge?'-reminiscent of the epitaph of Sar-
danapallus (viii. ro. 4 n.). The story is probably apocryphal.
b • .f>Euywv Tov Tpoxov KTA.: repeated in xv. 35· 2. Agathocles came
with his father Carcinas from Thermae to Syracuse under Timoleon
(Diod. xix. 2. 8) and that he >vas only r8 is perhaps confirmed by the
story of his relations with Damas (Diod. xix. 3· r ; Beloch, iv. 2.
250 n. I). Ht: was born in 36o/s9. since he died at the age of 72 in
289/8 (Diod. xxi. r6. s. following Timaeus (FGH, 566 F 123), Callias
(FGH, 564 F 6), and Antander, Agathocles' brother (FGH, s6s F I)).
and his arrival in Syracuse was therefore in 342/r. For the story of
his early years and his coming to Syracuse see Diod. xix. 2 ; on his
work as a potter cf. Diod. xx. 63. 4; Caecilius of Caleacte, FGH, r83
F 2. Beloch arbrues convincingly (iv. r. r2t n. I) that Agathocles'
family was of the upper class and that his father probably owned
a ceramic business; his brother Antander held office as general
under the oligarchy (Berve, S.-B. Miinchen, 1952 (5), :z:z).
7. Kupws ••• 'TniO'T]s Iu<EALa.s: after 304 Agathodes became master
of most of eastern Sicily (7T(l.trrJs exaggerates) ; there is evidence for
his acquisition at an earlier date of ::\!organtine (Diod. xix. 6. 2),
Centuripa (Diod. xix. IOJ. 2), Abacaenum (Diod. xix. 6j. 6, no. 4),
Galaria (Diod. xix. 104), Enna and Erbessus (Diod. xx. JI. 5), Tauro-
menium (Diod. xix. 102. 6), Camarina and Catana (Diod. xix. no. 3).
See Beloch, iv. 1. 184; Roussel, Hist. grecque, iv. x. 394; Berve, S.-B.
Munchen, r952 (s). 6x ff.
pa.atAEus 11'po<ra.yopwoJlEvos: cf. Diod. xx. 54· I (under 307/6);
but he will hardly have taken this title before 305/4, when it was
assumed by Ptolemy (Marmor Parium, FGJJ, 239 B 23) and
Seleucus; for Diod .. Joe. cit., says that he was imitating An-
tigonus, Ptolemy, Seleucus, Lysimachus, and Cassander. Agatho-
cles' coins carry the title f3aa,Aeus; d. W. Giesecke, Sicilia
numismatica (Leipzig, 1923), 92-93. On Agathocles' position see
Berve, 5.-B. Miinchen, 1952 (5), 62-77, who interprets it as a
'pe'l:'sonal monarchy' of the Hellenistic type (unlike the monarchies
of Macedonia or Sparta).
XII.rs.8 TIMAEUS' CRITICISM OF AGATHOCLES
8. op' OOIC d.vayKTJ ••• :for a similar criticism of Timaeus' treatment
of Agathocles see Diod. xxi. I7.
wo1..1\0.s ••• po1ras tea.i 8uvO.J-1-€~1l: 'endowed vvith great gifts and capacity'.
9. Ta 1rpos Elml.lvov i]KovTa.: cf. ii. 6r. 6, where he calls this To Tfi<:
l11Top£as t8,ov. See the criticism of Theopompus in viii. ro-Il ; but
for P.'s inconsistency cf. 14. 4 n.
11. m;pi. TOU<; n1. yE"'(ov6Ta. KTA.: Schweighaeuser detected the lacuna.
The general sense is clear and various supplements have been pro-
posed: Kpv7TTovTas ~ nep< Ta -rovs Td oil yeyovoTa (with hiatus). Schweig-
haeuser; qnt..a;r<:xBws l;rtKplmTofdvovs ~ Tovs TaP-~ yEyovoTa., Hultsch;
~<pvnTot•Tas ij 'Tf<'PL Tovo:; Ta fLTJDbron yEyovoTa, Btittner-\Vobst.
12. Ttf!-EI:s 8~ TO Jl-EV £mJ-1-€Tpeiv ••• 0.4>~~<a.J-1-€v: this clause defies satis-
factory translation. lrrtfLETpEi:v is 'to add superfluous detail' (cf.
v. 8, vii. 7· 7 n., o lrrtfL£Tpwv Aoyos); but Campius' emendation
of MS. TO e'ITtfLETpo[JV to TO E'ITtfLETpeiv, though accepted by Buttner
Wobst, is unnecessary. The addition of superfluous detail may br>
that of Timaeus with the sense 'the part of the history therefor<'
which was added by him for the gratification of his personal spik,
I have passed over' (Shuckburgh); in this case the tense of i'TI'tfLET-
pouv affords some difficulty. But if -r6 imfLerpouv is that of P., variou.~
renderings are possible: (a) 'I have refrained from accumulating
more details to render him odious out of consideration for him';
(b) 'I have refrained from developing this subject further because it
is so odious' (an improbable meaning for a'IT'x8wr) ; (c) 'while refrain-
ing, in order to spare him, from giving full expression to my hostility
to Timaeus' (Paton); (d) 'I have avoided excessive criticism which
would tend to get Timaeus hated' (Pedech): (e) 'I have refrained
from my views further because of his odiousness' (Gelzer.
Gnomon, 1963, who argues that the odiousness is that of Timaeus
cf. 8. r). Schweighaeuser prefers (b); but Pedech's version is the
least unsatisfactory since xaptv in P. normally means 'with a view to'.
However, one cannot exclude the possibility that the epitomator\
carelessness has resulted in corruption.
Ta 5' otKeia. •.• ou 1ra.peAe(ljla.J-1-€V: Btittner-Wobst otl~<
c/-,~e1)f.LEV OELV 'ITCLpaAt'ITEtV (cf. ii. 35· 4) for the last tWO sine~·
this form of the aorist does not elsewhere appear so early. The mean
ing is 'I have not omitted what was germane to my purpose'. Pedecll
reads ;rapaAEtif;ofLEl•. For mhwv referring to the first person see tlw
examples quoted by Mauersberger, s.v. a.~Twv, viz. i. 3· 5, iii. 1. 1.
r. J, r. 7, 5· 9,iv. r. 9·
16. A legal dispute at Locri

This extract from F (excerpta antiqua) concerns an incident which
was evidently adduced in connexion with polemical discussio1;.
362
A LEGAL DISPUTE AT LOCRI XII. r6. ro
almost certainly of Timaeus, though Ephorus cannot be completely
excluded (cf. I7· 1 n.); for his discussion of Zaleucus' legislation d.
FGH, 70 F 139 = Strabo, vi. :z6o. However, Timaeus disbelieved in
Zaleucus' existence (FGH, 566 F 130), and P. had already taken
issue on this, in connexion with the proverb AoKpoi Tds (J'l)JJO~Kas
(12 a r-3 n.); hence it is likely that Timaeus is being attacked here
too. Schweighaeuser's assertion that P. records the incident in this
chapter from some previous writer rests on the assumption that
r/>1Jat (S) should be read in §§ 9 and r2; but F has rf>a.at, and the anec-
dote appears to depend on an oral source. Pedech, ad loc., quotes
sympathetically Wunderer's hypothesis (Phil. r8g4, 436-41) that
the chapter is in fact a quotation from Ephorus; but in that case he
should read rf>rwt in§§ 9 and u.
2. 1\iJ-~pa.~s Sua' trpoT€floV: sc. before the case came to court.
tis TOv O.yp6v: 'into the country', where the slave was working.
JA8ovTa is to be taken with rov ••• €npov, not with rov SoiiAov (so
Shuckburgh).
3. ;\a.~ovT': sc. Tov ooi!Aov.
4. 'll"ap' oo Tifv iiywy~v O'U!J-~a.(ve\ yiv10a8a\: 'from whom the re-
moval [of the person or thing) took place'.
6. Ti(l KOO"}l-otr6;\llh: probably the chief magistrate at Locri. The same
title is found elsewhere· e.g. IG, xii. 8. 386, 459 (Thasos}; CIG, 2583
= IC i, Lyttos, 55 (Lyttus); IGR, i\·. 908 (Cibyra}; Th. Wiegand, Jfilet
i, 7, index (title of d.pxmpuravts at Miletus). Several of these in-
stances are from the Roman period, e.g. one from Thasos and
those from Cib:yra and Lyttus; they may derive from Locri, but
the Cretan KDafho. are relevant (cf. Oehler, RE, 'Kosmoi', cols. 1495-
8; Willetts, index s.v.). See further Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', cols.
1346-7.
8. 001< dva~ TQUT11V ttup£av: SC. ay<.{ryl'}V: 'that is not abduction within
the meaning of the law'.
9. Ka.nl. Tov Za.Aeuttou v6!l-ov: the custom here described is also men-
tioned by Demosthenes, xxiv. 139 ff.; cf. also Hierocles ap. Stob.
iii. 39· 36 Hense; Bekker, A need. i, 220 s.v. f3poxo>. Diod. xii. 17
attributes it to Charondas. On the laws of Zaleucus, most of which
rest on the unreliable evidence of Diod. xii. 20-21, see Dunbabin,
68-p.
10. n'dv Xt;\twv: the council of the Thousand, known in other states
in Greece, including Opuntian Locris (cf. Tod, 24, 1. 39). There may
have been a smaller committee for effective business, but a larger
assembly is unlikely. Aristotle. Pol. vii (v). 7· 1307 a 38, implies that
Locri had an &.p<crroKpar[a ovK ev fhEfL'YfhEV1) when it accepted a marri-
age alliance with Dionysius of Syracuse.
~p6xwv ttpE!J-a.a9evTwv: sc. b<. rwv rpa~Awv; d. Dem. xxiv. 139, Jv
{Jp6xtp TOY rpaxqAov exwv lJOfh08£TEt.
CALLISTHE:\ES' ACCOU :-; T OF
17-22. Callislhenes' lack of skill in describing military mattets

This extract, from the excerpta antiqua (F}, forms part of a criticism
of Callisthenes and Ephorus (cf. zz. 7}. However, in 23 P. returns to
Tirnaeus, so his discussion of these historians is evidently a digression,
perhaps partly led up to by Timaeus' comments on Callisthencs
(rz b 2-3); but the exact context is lost. Schweighaeuser suggests
that P. may have been making the point that Timaeus criticized
where criticism was unjustified, but left real faults unnoticed, as in
the case of Callisthenes' battle descriptions. There is no reason, how-
ever, to think that P. rejected the criticisms of Callisthenes by
Timaeus which he retails in 12 b 2-3. Even when all allowance is
made for possible errors in copying and the manuscript tradition,
this criticism of Ca]isthenes shows .P. at his worst. His points are
almost all trivial or fallacious; and his mathematical calculations
are marred by egregious errors of logical reasoning (cf. rg. 9 n.) and
gross carelessness (cf. 21. 7 n.). Callisthenes could in fact produc<'
quite adequate battle descriptions, for instance of Eurymedon (.Plut.
Cim. r2-13), Tegyra (Plut. Pelop. r6--q), and Gaugamela {Plut. Alex.
32-33). See Beloch, iv. z . .355; Jacoby, RE, 'Kallisthenes', coL J7oo.
17. 1. 1'W\I 1'TJAlK01hWv nvlipwv: probably Ephorus and Callisthenes;

cf. zz. 7·
Ka.Ta.StO'II'LCM't:'i:oOm: so Dindorf for Suidas' Ka:ra/;unrta'1'EV~;a8a.t. Th~
sense appears to be 'to claim credence for oneself at the expense of
someone else'.
2. Tfjc; tv KLALKLq. y.:voJ.fkvTJs .•• 'll'pos A.a.pELov: the battle of Tssus,
fought in November 333· The other sources are Arrian, ii. 6-rz,
Diod. xvii. 3z. 4-37. r ; Curt. iii. 7-r r ; Plut. Alex. zo. r-s; Tustin.
xi. 9· r-ro; Strabo, xiv. 676. See Judeich in Kromayer-Veith, AS.
iv. 354-ir (with earlier bibliography, p. 354); Schlachtenatlas, Gr.
Abt. 6, 5 with commentary; for the topography, Janke, s-74· As
.Pedech, ns, observes, the apologetic character of Callisthencs'
account is shown by his narrow measurements for the battlefield
(r7. 4, 21. 4), his exaggeration of the difficulties of the terrain (q. 5.
zo. 4) and his attributing to Darius a reluctance to face Alexander
(zz. z).
~>.ega.v8pov i]8f} 8La.'!I'E'II'op.:Go0m: Sw.Trop£liw8a.t (FS) should be kept.
with Pedech, though all previous editions accept Schweighaeuser's
emendation. Alexander was indeed through the pass when he heard
of Darius' position (r9. 4); but the passes may have been traversed
simultaneously or Callisthenes may have thought them to have been.
,.a, O"TEVU Kat ,.a,,.
At:yo}Leva.s iv Tfj KLAudq. miAas: cf. 8. 3· This i;;
one name for the pass between the sea and the mountains a litth·
north of Alexandretta, the modern Pass of Merkes Su, perhaps
364
THE BATTLE OF ISSUS XIL 17. z
13. THE :11ARCHING BE!.'ORE ISSUS

(Based on Kromayer-Veith, Schtachtenattas, Griech. Abt. 6, 5)
including the Pillar of Jonah pass adjoining it to the south; cf.
Xen. A nab. i. 4· 4, m)Aat rf]s KLAtKlas Kat rf'js 2'vplas; Artemidorus in
Strabo, xiv. 67o, 676. Arrian (ii. 6. I) calls it the Assyrian Gates or
(Arr. ii. 5· 1) 'the Gates dividing the Cilician and Assyrian territories'
(cf. Janke, 21-28). The Pass of Merkes Su is quite distinct from the
Cilician Gates leading over Taurus (mod. Gtilek Boghaz; Janke,
97-III}, through which Alexander had already advanced to reach the
Cilician Plain at Tarsus (Arr. ii. 4· 3). See Ruge, RE, KtAlKtat mAat,
cols. 389--90; Treidler, RE, 1TV'Aat KtMKta.£, Suppl.-B. ix, cols. 1363-4;
illustration in Janke, I 7.
Tfl 8t0. Twv )\f1nv£8wv AEyof1evwv nuAwv: the more northerly of the
two passes between Cilicia and Syria mentioned by Cicero, Jam. xv.
4· 4, and probably modern Toprak Kalessi. This Darius will have
reached from Sochi (where Alex<J.nder believed him still to be) via
the Arslan Boghaz, which contains the railway line between Islahije
u.nd,Osmanije (see Schlachtenatlas, Gr. Abt. 6, s); cf. Arrian, ii. 7· I,
.dapdos 'TO Kara r.is m5Aas ras AfLavucds KaAOVfLEVa<; WS i1T~ 'Iaaov
XII. 17. 2 CALLISTHENES' ACCOUNT OF
Curt. iii. 8, IJ, Amanicas Pylas. Darius' retreat will have
'ITpofjyf:;
followed the same route (Janke, 41-42). Strabo, xiv. 676, uses the
same name, :41-'av!.Of:> m)Aat, to describe the Pass of Kara Kapu to
the south-west of Toprak Kalessi, and in xvi. 751, for the Pass of
Bailan south-east of Alexandretta, leading over into Syria. See Ben-
zinger, RE, :41-'avlof:> 1T!l..\a•, cols. 1723-4; illustration in Janke, 3i;
cf. 37-44·
~<<mipa.~ ... et<;; KV.~K(a.v : according to Arrian (ii. 7. r) he desccnderl
to Issus, where he mutilated and murdered the wounded left there
by Alexander.
3. 'IT'po6.yfw -rov :c\).€5a.v8pov ~'ll ~'IT'l. Iup(a.v: according to Arrian
(ii. 6. 1-2) Alexander had learnt when at Mallus that Darius was
across Mt. Amanus at Sochi, two days beyond the 'Assyrian Gates',
i.e. probably the Pass of Merkes Su \\':ith the Pillar of Jonah. He
marched with speed, passed through the Gates in two days and
because of a storm had camped near Myriandrus (near Alexandretta:
exact site unknown) when he received the news that Darius was in
his rear {Arr. iL 6. z, 7· z). Miltner (Jahresh. 1933, 69-78) has argued
that Alexander had no intention of crossing the Bailan Pass to
Sochi, but meant to go south to seize the Syrian coast; but th€'
ancient tradition makes it his object to force Darius to a battle,
and this remains the most likely explanation of his movements.
auv£yy,cra.v-ru -roi.'<;; a-rn<oi.'s: the Cilician Gates {§ 2).
'!Ta.pu TOV mva.pov '!T'OTUfLOV: d. Arr. ii. 7. I. 7rpoilxwp€t k-1. nlv ...
Illl•apov. For the identification of this river opinions vary between
the Deli Chai, nearly 30 km. north of Alexandretta, and the Payas,
about ro km. further south. Callisthenes mentions two features which
seem to support the Payas, the steep banks and the narrowness of
the plain(§ 5); but the steepness of the banks is perhaps exaggerated,
for P.'s comment that very steep banks would have prevented a
phalanx charge (22. 4) is confirmed by Janke (54), who says that such
a charge would have been impossible at the Payas. Further, Callis~
thenes reckons the plain at 14 stades width 2·59 km. At the Deli
Chai it is admittedly 6·7 km. wide, but at the Payas it is in reality
4 km. or, reckoning in windings, 4'4 km. wide; clearly then Calli-
sthenes is merely estimating and no weight can be placed on his
figures. Again, his statement that Alexander heard of Darius' arrival
in Cilicia when he was roo stades away and through the pass {19. 4)
seems to favour the view that the Payas is meant ; but this figure is
probably unreliable (19. 4 n.). The Deli Chai is also more easily re
condled with Callisthenes' statement (19. 6, zo. r) that Alexander
brought his army into battle order 40 stades from the enemy; this
would be immediately to the north of the Kurudere, which lies 7 km.
= 40 stades south of the Deli Chai. But the steep banks of the Payas
and the narrowness of the plain at that point are decisive against its
366
THE BATTLE OF ISSl:S XII. 17. 6-7
being the Jlinarus. For full discussion see Janke, 53-74; Klio, zg1o,
r37 ff.; Judeich in Kromayer, ilS, iv. 368-71; Kromayer, HZ, rrz,
1914, 351-3; Ruge, RE, 'Pinaros', cols. r4o7-8.
'· ou 1r~u:tw Twv Ti:TTapwv Ka.i 8iKa. aTa.O(wv: an esti;nate, and too
narrow for a site on either the Deli Chai or the Payas; see preceding
note. Janke (54) points out that the effect of a high mountain range
(the Amanus reaches 6,ooo ft.) would be to induce underestimation
of the width of the plain immediately beneath. This is a common
phenomenon and may lie behind Callisthenes' figure here.
5. q,ipea&a.l ••• ivtKapaLov: i.e. at right angles to the hills and the
eea; cf. i. 22. s. vi. 29. r, 30. 6.
'Kf»lyf'a.Ta. Twv vAeupG:Iv: 'with gaps in its banks' ; the lxp~yfLaTa.. are
npparently the deep and precipitous beds of tributary streams which
enter it (cf. 20, 4, where they are equated with Ko,J.wfLa..Ta.).
O'II'DTOf'OU~ ••• Ka.t 5ua~aTous Aoq,ou~: cf. 22. 4; Arr. ii. 10. I, Tai<;
&x6at<;, 7TOAAaxi) fill! &:rrOKprJfLVOt<; ovaa.t<;. Mrf>ov<; is Casaubon's correc-
tion of Ao{Jov<; FS. Callisthenes exaggerates (cf. 18. 12); the Mrj,ot are
merely the river banks (cf. 22. 4, nw drf,pvv).
6. E'II"Et auvEyy(~oLEV ••• is uTrouTpoq,Tj~ ••• &.va.xwpouvT£'>: 'when
Alexander faced about and, retracing his steps, was approach-
ing .. .';Alexander returned north from near Myriandrus (cf. § 3 n.)
to meet Darius.
6-7. Darius' dispositions: cf. Arr. ii. S. s-8; Curt. iii. 9· r-6; the
former gives Ptolemy, the latter's source is uncertain. Arrian and
Curtius agree in the main. From right to left Darius' front consisted
of (r) 3o,ooo cavalry under Nabarzanes (in the preliminary stages
these were sent across the river to cover Persian preparations, to-
gether with 2o,ooo light-armed; these latter may be the 2o,ooo troops
which Darius stationed on a hillside to the extreme left and almost
in the rear of the Macedonian right); (2) 3o,ooo Greek mercenaries
under Thymondas; (3) according to Arrian (ii. 8. 6) 6o,ooo Cardaces
lvB~:v Ka.1 €v8<v. Curtius (iii. g. 3-4) mentions 2o,ooo barbarian foot
under Aristomedes and 4o,ooo infantry, both on the left \~ring near
Darius; and Arrian's €v8el' Kal €v8Ev might mean that the Cardaces
were grouped on either side of Darius, the subject of the verb. But
P. had the impression from Callisthenes (r8. ro) that Darius was in
the midst of the Greek mercenaries; and this would fit the more
naturc>J interpretation of Arrian (ii. 8. 6) that the Cardaces were on
either side of the mercenaries, leaving Darius and his bodyguard of
,3,ooo horse (Curt. iii. 9· 4) in the middle (cf. Tarn, Alex. ii. r8o; Fuller,
158, with plan). The remaining troops were stationed behind the
Greek mercenaries and the Persian phalanx ; though Curtius (iii.
9· 5) speaks as if Hyrcanian and Median cavalry and that of other
peoples was placed on the wing. There were 6,ooo javelin-throwers
and stingers in front.
XII. I7. 6-7 CALLISTHEKES' ACCOCNT OF
MACEDO,..lANS H~SI.\NS
I Agri.anians a CavY under :\aharzanes
Ma.::n Archers b Cardaces
Comp;;nion Cav~ c Archers
~aeon ian l r Hur ..e d Greek !\{(·rceflarirs
I dl1C<:"f~ I! Darnh :tnd Bod\- guard
6 l iypaspi,to. tc .. ](•s
7 Phabnx Coenth-
8 PhaiJllX Pt·r,lj, ,_J;.
9 PhJ:Ian\ (
10 l'halanx
ll l'halJ:liX
12 f'halanx
l] (reran :\n·hen
14- THE BATTLE OF ISSUS

(From Fuller, The Gen~>ralship of Alexander the Great, 158).
According to Callisthenes Darius' front contained three elements.

(1) cavalry, (z) mercenaries, (3) peltasts. The first two clearly corre~
spond to the troops mentioned by Arrian and Curtius, and the peltast ~
must be Arrian's Cardaces (and Curtius' pedites barbari), though Arrian
calls the Cardaces hoplites. On Cardaces see v. 79· I I n.; those of An
tiochus may be different from those at Issus. We never hear again ol
Cardaces in the Persian army, and Tarn (Alex. ii. r8o-r) accepts til<'
evidence of Strabo, xv. 734, and makes them Persian ephebes. If that is
so, Callisthenes may be right when he calls them 'peltasts' (so Tarn.
Alex. ii. r8r; Fuller, rss). But this links with the view (which P., r8. I,
combats fiercely and with some justice) that they were distinct from
the Persian phalanx, which was stationed behind. Therefore it seem"
more likely that Arrian (Ptolemy) is to be followed. He (Arr. ii. 8. (,)
specifically calls the Card aces hoplites, and regards them as the Persian
phalanx (Arr. ii. 8. 8, roiJ E1TL tf>O.A.ayyos rEray11-€vou {Jap{Japt~<ov). On th;·
other hand, Alexander charged them with his cavalry (Arr. ii. ro. 3)
and Darius had posted archers before them (ibid., cf. Tarn, Alex. ii.
181 n. z), which suggests that they were not fully~armed hoplites; fo1
so long as hoplites maintained order, cavalry could not charge then1
(Delbriick, Klio, 19Io, 335; Tarn, HMN D, 53, 65-66; Fuller, r6o). They
were probably the Persian attempt to create a phalanx, but with
neither full hoplite armour nor the close Greek formation.
368
THE BATTLE OF ISSuS XII. rS. 3
The size of Darius' army cannot be ascertained owing to the
exaggerated figures passed down. Plutarch (Alex. r8. 4) and Arrian
(ii. 8. 8) reckon it at 6oo,ooo (though Arrian's €Myno implies some
doubt); other figures are 4oo,ooo or more foot and roo,ooo horse
(Iustin. xi. 9· r and Diod. xvii. 31. z), 3oo,ooo foot and roo,ooo horse
(Oros. iii. r6. 6), 25o,ooo foot and 62,200 horse (Curt. iii. 2. 4-9). Tarn
(Alex. i. 26 n. r) argues that Darius' army was no larger or even
smaller than Alexander's; but Curtius, iii. 3· 28 and 7· 9, refers only
to Darius' effective numbers (in a narrow space) and Curt. iii. ro. 2
conveys nothing about numbers at all. Arrian (ii. 8. 5-7) and Curtius
(iii. 9· r-s) detail at least 143,ooo specified troops (3o,ooo Greek mer-
cenaries, 3o,ooo cavalry, 6o,ooo Cardaces, 2o,ooo light-armed, and
3,ooo cavalry around Darius): and numbers on this scale could find
a place on the ground available at the Deli Chai (Judeich in Kro-
mayer, AS, iv. 355 ff.). Equally, they can have been exaggerated to
the glory of Alexander, jusi as the totals certainly were.
7. exof.LEYous TOihwv Taus rreATa<TTas: TOvTwv is Schweighaeuser's con-
vincing emendation of TovToLc; FS; Pedech reads €7ro 1_dvwc; TovTwv,
which is no improvement, and his acceptance of Tovc; 8€ m;ATao·nic; S
gives an impossible word order with 8.£ at fourth place.
18. 1. rrpo TTjs <f>aAayyos: assuming that Darius' phalanx, which had
been drawn up in the camp (q. 6), was distinct from the troops
enumerated. This assumption is improbable (see preceding note), but
it was apparently made by Callisthenes and is not simply a misunder-
standing by P. of what Callisthenes wrote, since the description of
the Cardaces as peltasts ties up with it.
2. TpLcrf.LupLoL ••• lrrrreis ••• , TpLcrf.LupLoL Se f1Lcr9o<f>opoL: so too Arrian
(ii. 8. s-6) and, for the mercenaries, Curtius (iii. 9· 2). The correspon-
dence shows that these were the official Macedonian figures, not that
they were necessarily true. P. himself appears to accept them (d.§ 8).
3. 'II'AELO'T0\1 •.. ~0.9os err' OKTW: 'at the most eight deep'.
'll'pos aAT)9LYTJY xpdav: 'in a regular engagement' (Shuck burgh); not,
as Paton, 'to be really useful'.
taov .•• Tois f.LETwrroLs: £aov {mapxHv Schweighaeuser for avvv7rapxnv
FS; 'a space in the line equal to the front of a troop in length'.
Pedech, ad loc., keeps avvv7rapxnv and assumes P. to be referring
to the distance between the tips of triangular squadrons, which would,
of course, be equivalent to the length of the base. But there is no
evidence that this triangular formation, attested for the Macedonian
cavalry (Asclepiod. 7· 3; Arr. Tact. r6. 6), was also used by the Per-
sians, and P. specifically says that the space between the squadrons
was intended for wheeling and mano:uvring. This gap is not else-
wher.e attested, but corresponds to that between the maniples of
a Roman army: cf. Veith, Heerwesen, 359·
814173 Bb
XII. 18.3 CALLISTHE:-JES' ACCOUKT OF
Ta.'Ls E1TI.<rTpoq,a.l:s .•• Kat Tois 1TEpt0'1Ta.CTfl.o'Ls: cf. x. 23. 3 n.: 'wheelint•.
and facing about', i.e. wheeling through 90° or r8o 0
•
4-5. Space required for cavalry: P.'s calculations allow between each
fA1) a space equal to the width of an £/.."1 (see above): hence a stade (ol
6ooft.) contains roo horse in each of eight ranks, compressed in
fact into half a stade. This allows a width of 3 ft. for each horse:
and it is easy by a reductio ad absurdum to show that 3o,ooo horst•
alone would fill the available space of 14 stades nearly three times
over. But P.'s calculations break down on two counts: (r) the actual
width of the plain at the Deli Chai is not 14 stades {just over z·s km.)
but rather 6-7 km.; {z) we cannot be sure that Darius restricted his
cavalry to eight ranks or left an equal distance between squadrons.
5. Tptq,a.Xa.yy£a.v E1T!iAATJAov: three bodies of cavalry, one behind the
other; d. ii. 66. 9 n.
7. .ls wv O.vayKTJ 1To~e'i:0'9a.L TTJV EK8oxi]v KTA.: P. concludes that tlw
Persian field was divided between the mercenaries and cavalry, not
(as Janke, 67, supposes) because the fact that the mercenaries made
contact with the Macedonian phalanx shows them to have been iJ1
the centre (which might be a reasonable conclusion), but because the
fact that they made that contact shows them to have been in the
front line and not behind the cavalry (d. § 6). This conclusion is
logical: but it throws no light on the division of the front line, for
though the numbers of cavalry and mercenaries are equal, it does
not follow that their respective depth would be the same. In any
case P. ignores the 'peltasts' (q. 7) who, if they were Cardaces, were
reckoned by Curtius' source at 6o,ooo. P. is not in fact arguing against
Callisthenes' figures, as his calculations might superficially suggest,
for he accepts them (§ 8). He is arguing against his statement that,
with a front of 3o,ooo horse, 3o,ooo mercenaries, and an unspecifiecl
number of 'peltasts', and a position in which the river ran close to
the camp (§ 1). the Persian phalanx can have been stationed both
behind the first line and on the site of the camp (q. 6). The issue is
thus a trivial one, for one has only to assume that the Persian camp
was farther from the river than Callisthenes believes it to be, to
destroy the whole point of P.'s criticism.
8. m)aov U1TTJPXE To ~n9os Twv t1T1rewv: by P.'s calculations half the
assumed width of the field, i.e. 7 stades would hold 5,6oo horse; to
accommodate 3o,ooo more than five bodies one behind the other
would be necessary.
'IT'OlGV ••• T01TOV cim[xew TOV 1TOTO.fl.OV n1TO TlJS O'Tpa.T01TE8e£a.s: since
each troop of horse was eight horses deep, the distance is at least
the length of forty horses, together with some distance between the
troops.
9. Ka.Ae'i:v Tous fl.LO'Ooq,opous: this action on Darius' part, whicl1
puzzled P., has been explained by Dittberner (Issos, 139 f.; cf.
370
THE BATTLE OF ISSUS XII. rg. r-2
Judeich, AS, iv. 363 n. 2). Once his phalanx was deployed, Darius
recalled the cavalry sent forward across the river (I7. 6-7 n.) and
posted a few of these on his left; but finding them useless for lack
of space, he sent them round the rear to join the cavalry on his right
(Arr. ii. 8. Io-u). Dittberner has suggested that Darius called on the
mercenaries stationed on his right to come in closer to make room
for these additional cavalry. Here again P.'s criticism is trivial.
a.uTov ~ea.Ta lliaTtv tm6.pxovTa Tljv Tasw: cf. Arr. ii. 8. II, L1a.p.;:tos- T6
~-tlaov Tfj> '1Taa'Y)s- 'Taf,;:ws- JrrEi'X"• Ka.8a'1TEP v6f.LoS" 'Toi:;; Ihpawv {3a.atAEva~
T£Tax8a~. Arrian quotes Xen. Anab. i. 8. n for the arrangement.
11. Tous chro ToO Seslou t<ipa.Tos hr1Te'Ls: cf. I 7. 6-7 n. For this cavalry
action cf. Arr. ii. u. 2. The Persians were met by the Thessalian
horse, which Alexander had moved over from his right wing (Arr.
ii. 9· r).
12. l<lll 1TOTil!lOS OLOV apTLWS ef1TEV: cf. 17· 5· P.'s point, a fair one
but not very substantial, is that Callisthenes has exaggerated the
size of the banks of the Pinarus. On the topography see above, I7. 3 n.;
towards its mouth the Deli Chai is wide and shallow and affords no
obstacle to cavalry (Janke, 59; Klio, I9Io, 163--4).
19. 1-2. Alexander's numbers. Callisthenes' figures for Alexander's

army when he crossed to Asia in 334 are high, at 4o,ooo foot and
4,5oo horse. Compare Anaximenes (FGH, 72 F 29: 43,ooo foot and
s.soo horse), Ptolemy (FGH, 138 F 4: 3o,ooo foot and s,ooo horse),
Aristobulus (FGH, I39 F 4: 3o,ooo foot and 4,ooo horse)-these are
all from Plut. Mor. 327 n-and the figures in Justin. xi. 6. 2 (32,ooo
foot and 4,5oo horse); Diodorus, xvii. q. 4, gives 3o,ooo foot and
4,5oo horse (though the total of the individual sections adds up to
J2,000 foot and s,IOO horse). See also Livy, ix. Ig. 5 (30,000 foot and
4,ooo horse) ; Frontinus, Strat. iv. 2. 4 (4o,ooo in all) ; Plut. Alex.
15. r (estimates vary between 3o,ooo foot with 4,ooo horse and 43,ooo
foot with s.ooo horse); Arr. i. II. 3 (a little over 3o,ooo foot and
over s,ooo horse). The discrepancy of over Io,ooo in the infantry and
of r,soo in the cavalry figures has been variously explained, but no
explanation is wholly satisfactory; see discussion in Beloch, iii. 2.
322 ff., Judeich, Klio, rgo8, 376 n. 2; Jacoby on FGH, 72 F 29,
138 F 4; Dittberner, Issos, 57; P. A. Brunt, ]HS, 1963, and
tables on p. 46. Arrian's figure, based on Ptolemy, has the best chance
of being accurate.
As regards the reinforcements (s,ooo foot and 8oo horse) Arrian,
i. 29. 4, records the arrival at Gordium in spring 333 of 3,ooo Mace-
donian foot and 300 cavalry along with 2oo Thessalian and rso Elean
horse-a total of 3,ooo foot and 65o horse, compared with s,ooo foot
and..Soo horse in Callisthenes. The discrepancy may be due to some
contingent having fallen out of Arrian's account (so Beloch, iii. 2.
37I
Xll. rg. r-2 CALLISTHEKES' ACCOUNT OF
33r-2)~unless Callisthenes' figure includes the vo:oyapm who had
been sent back to Macedon, and now returned with the reinforc<·
ments (Arr. i. 24. 2, 29. 4), which is improbable; cf. Parke, 197-8.
Brunt, ]HS, r963, 36-37.
3. ~~ ns &~U..o& KTA.: 3,ooo foot and 300 horse is quite inadequate to
cover the losses and garrisons left behind up to the time of Issn~.
Recorded losses are negligible (at Granicus 85 horse and 30 foot
Arr. i. 16. 4; lower figures from Aristobulus in Plut. Alex. r6. 1,
slightly higher in I us tin. xi. 6. 12), though there will, of course, haw
been some wastage from deaths, including those murdered b\
Darius at Issus (Arr. ii. 7. 1). But Arrian (i. 23. 6) records 3,ooo
mercenary infantry and 200 horse left behind in Caria after t]w
capture of Halicarnassus and r,soo men left in Phrygia the ne:-.1
spring to guard Celaenae (Arr. i. 29. 3); and troops were also left a1 '
the Hellespont, in Lydia (Arr. i. 17. 7), Lycia, and Cilicia. Even n
some of these later joined Alexander, they must have amounted io
many more than P. assumes (cf. Beloch, iii. 2. 332 .. 3).
E'iTL TO 1TAf:lOV 'iTOLWV TTJV a1Touaia.v KTA.: 'making a liberal allowa!lCP
for losses incurred in previous operations'; rather than Paton, 'a
liberal allowance for those absent on special service' (which ignon·"
yey£VTj{LEva<;). For YEYEVY){Llva<; xpela<; cf. i. 67. 12,
TctTpa.K&O"fLOptoL 8taxtXLo>, <mwTa.KtaxLJuot 8' t,.rr,its): the lacuna \Va'
observed by Casaubon (who, however, printed equitmn quattuor
milia) and by Reiske. 4o,ooo+s.ooo-3,ooo 42,ooo foot; 4,sao
+8oo-soo s,ooo horse. These figures are too large and the real
ones can only be guessed at. Starting from 3o,ooo foot and 65o horse,
Ptolemy's figures (cf. § 1-z n.), adding J,ooo foot and 65o horse (from
Arr. 1. 29. 4). and allowing for losses and garrisons, Tarn (Alex. i. 2li\
makes Alexander's army at Issus between 2o,ooo and 24,000 infantn
and 5,ooo cavalry; and others reach different figures (e.g. Rtistow
Kocllly, 27,6oo; Delbrtick, 3o,ooo-4o,ooo; York von \Vartenburg.
35,ooo-4o,ooo; d. Janke, 65).
4. ~KO.TOY 6.1TEXDYTO. aTa.S{ous a'IT' cuhou: IOO stades I8·s km. Ar~
cording to Arrian (ii. 6. 2, 7· 2) Alexander heard of Darius' arrival i11
Cilicia while delayed by a storm at l\Iyriandrus. The site of this towo
is not knovm, but it was apparently somewhere near modern
.1\lexandretta; and r8·5 km. reckoned from here brings one rather tn
the .Payas (21 km.) than the Deli Chai (31 km.); cf. Janke, Kliu.
19ro, 142. That the roo stades are to be calculated from the Pa~,.
of Merkes Su (IJ. 2 n.), as Janke (63) suggests, seems improbable.
This would involve either rejecting Arrian' s statement that Alexand('r
had reached ~lyriandrus (for clearly he turned the moment the new.
reached him) or else treating the roo stades as a recorded figure in
dependent of the context in which J'. mentions it, for instance assum
ing it to be the distance of Alexander's last halt before the batil("
372
THE BATTLE OF ISst·s XII. 20. z
(Arr. ii. R. 2) from the battlefield (Judeich, AS. iv. 364 n. 1), which F.
has misunderstood or misrepresented. \Vith this kind of assumption
one can, of course, make anything fit, and the only safe conclusion
is that Callisthenes' figure is wrong. The Pinarus, where Darius lay,
must be the Deli Chai (above, q. 3 n.).
Ta aTeva: the Pass of Merkes Su (Sarisaki), the Cilician Gates.
6. aJ-1<1 ... T~ n-pwTOV ets Tas eupuxwp[as £Kn-eaeiv: cf. Arr. ii. 8. 2,
W<; 8£ 8tEXWPH Is 1TAa:ro;, QVE1TTV(1(1€V ad TO KEpa<; J, ,Pa.Aayya, UAA:>JV
Kat aAA7JV TWV J1TAtTWV TatLV ?Tapaywv, Tfj f-tEV JJ, E1Tt TO opo<:, EV dpwupfj
~£ .11Tt TIJV 80..\aaaav KTA.
'mn-apefl~aAeiv Tljv TaAayya: 'to form the phalanx' ; Alexander
brings his men from marching to fighting order: cf. xi. 23. 4 n. This
manceuvre was begun 40 stades (i·4 km.) from the enemy (2o. 1).
If Darius was on the Deli Chai, Alexander began to open out his
army just north of the Kurudere (17. 3 n.). The Rabat Chai, which
lies north of the Kurudere, would be no further hindrance to troops
thus extended (Janke, 64). On Alexander's manceuvre see Kromayer
Heerwesen, II3 n. 3·
7-9. F.'s criticism of Callis/henes' acwunt of Alexander's advance:
given his data, P.'s calculations are accurate, but he makes the
plain too narrow (q. 3 u.) and Alexander's army too large(§§ 1-2 n.).
If Alexander had, say, 32,ooo foot and s.ooo horse, this, according to
the calculations here and those for cavalry in r8. 3-4, would require:
2o stades = 3'i km. for infantry, and 6·zs stades = r·156 km. for
horse: total, z6·25 stades = 4·856 km. The plain north of the Kuru-
dere is 7 km. wide, an adequate space; and the surface of the land
would permit an advance in this formation (Kromayer, Heerwesen,
n3 n. 3), despite P.'s doubts (2o. 2 n.). Again, the criticism is tridal;
P. assumes Callisthcnes' account of the march to be at fault, whereas
it is the numbers and dimensions that are inaccurate.
7. ~KaaTou ... £~ m)Sas E'ITexovTos: cf. Asclep. 4· r, m/xn<: Tiaaapa<:
(=6ft.); see on this Steinwender, Hermes, 1909, I79-9i; Kromayer-
Veith, Heerwesen, 135-6.
9. avayKa'i:ov ~v E'LK011~ 11Ta8twv lmapxew: if a Stade holds t,6oo
men, 20 stades holds 32,ooo. But P. believes the plain to be only
14 stades wide (r7. 4, 21. 4); hence it is not clear why (unless for ease
of calculation) he states his argument in this way instead of saying
that 14 stades would hold 22,400 men, leaving all the cavalry and
nearly 2o,ooo infantry over; for this is what his figures imply, since
there if no evidence nor suggestion that the plain south of the Deli
Chai was precisely 20 stades wide.
20.2. flEl~OV aMyl]J-1<1 Suaxepes E'tt'IVOijam: for the difficulty of finding

flat ground cf. xviii. 31. 7; but F.'s experience was mainly based on
Greece and on the heavier phalanx of his own time. His statement is
373
XII. zo. 2 CALLISTHENES' ACCOUNT OF
hardly proof that he had visited the battlefield of Issus (so Pedecb,
M ithode, 561). Callisthenes' account (like that of Arrian, ii. 8. 2--1)
does not imply that Alexander advanced for 40 stades = i'4 kw.
in full line of battle; the change over from line of march to line ol
battle was carried out in stages, as described-first 32, then r6, and
finally 8 deep; cf. Janke, Klio, 19ro, 148-sr.
3. TomuTTJV Ta~w Ka.i XP£Lav: 'the employment of such a formation'.
4. ~Kp~yfla.Ta Ka.Ta To 1r£8tov: cf. 17. 5, where, however, the referenn·
is to tributaries of the Pinarus, not to the plain further south. Thos<·
in which the Persians were caught in flight would lie to the north ol
the Deli Chai.
01a.4>ea.pfjva.t A.€youcn .•. ~v TOL5 TotouTotc; KmAwfla.crt: Callisthenc~
only recorded this as a report (Myovat); our other sources do not
make this the main cause of Persian losses. Arrian (ii. rr. 3) speaks
of the cavalry being crowded together Kara a-nvas- doovs-.
6. Ot£crTafl€VT}5: so F; 8u;arpappiv1)> S is probably preferable, giving
the sense 'thrown into confusion' (cf. ii. 30. 4) rather than 'driven
back in various directions' (so Sdurw~.t: cf. x. 3· 6). See Pedech, ad lor.
~1Ti TTJV a.UTTJV £M£1a.v ciya.yEi:v: = E7mrap<fLf3aA.oiv.
uA.w8mt: not mentioned previously.
7. 8t4>a.A.ayylav 11 T£Tpa4>a.AayyLav: this 'double or quadruple pha
lanx formation' presumably means marching 16 or 32 deep, i.e.
€mf>..A7JAov (d. ii. 66. 9 n.), not 1rapaAA7JAov (as in vi. 40. u). Th\'
formation suggested is double or quadruple (but not triple) for con·
venience in converting to the extended phalanx.
8. ouo€ TOU'i L1T1TEi:5 1Tpo€eno: i.e. according to Callisthenes.
~~ 'Laou ••. TOL5 1TE~ol5: 'in line with the infantry'; the tense of
7Totd is awkward, and Hultsch's 7TponEL does not give an appropriatt·
sense. Pedech reads Jt£aov 7Tom ro'is- 7T<,ois-; this is ingenious, though
7Taut has not great force. One should perhaps read Jg taov '1roin (de·
spite the change of tense after 7TpoEfhro).
21. 2. ~1ri nTTa.paKOVTa. aTa.oiouc;: i.e. double the 20 stades of 19. q.

but these 20 stades are an arbitrary figure (see ad loc.).
3. £L 8' oAwc; auv~amaav KQ.Ta TOV 1TOlT}T~V: i.e. if they closed up Stl
as to occupy only 3ft. per man, by avvaa-maf-1-6> (or 1TVKvwuts-, cf. xviii.
30. 3: P.'s usage is inconsistent, cf. ii. ~- 9 n.). This 3ft. interval
was usual in the phalanx during action. P. is thinking of the passag•·
in Homer, Il. xiii. 131-3 = xvi. 215-17; see the note to xviii. 29. 1,
(where P. quotes it in full) for its irrelevance to the hoplite phalam.
4. AEL1Tuv Twv O£KanTTapwv aTa8Lwv: cf. 17. 4, where, however, lw
says ov 1rAdw rwv T€TTapwv Kat S£Ka araSlwv.
5. Lacuna: the sense must be more or less as indicated by Schweig
haeuser: 'ex eisdem quattuordecim stadiis fere tria etiam stadi;l
occupasse equitatum, cuius pars altera (Kai rovrov f-1-Epos- f-LEV n) a
374
THE BATTLE OF TSSUS XII. 21. 7
marl, altera pars a dextro 1atere (TOVS (o') ~p.la~as brt TOU s~etofJ)
erant locati'. But there may well be some phrase omitted between
Oli\d.TT'[I and TDus ~p.lat:a:;, as Hultsch suggests. For Alexander's ar-
rangement, with cavalry to left and right of his phalanx, cf. Arr.
ii. 8. g, 9· 1 ff.
Tots 'll'oAEj.LCots ••. To'Ls tta.TExoua~ Tas wa.pwptda.s: d. Arr. ii. S. 7,
t1TITae.. S£ (sc. Darius) Kai To/ op<.t To/ tV aptaT~pif a,Pwv KaTa TO }1.\£gav-
Opov 0€etov is owp.vp{ous· Kat TOUTWJJ ~anv oi IWTU vd>TOU lylvovTO Tfjs
:4A~gJ.vSpov a;paTtas; Curt. iii. 8. 27, 9· Io. These z,ooo, Arrian adds,
were able to utiliz:e the spurs of this range to get to the rear of
Alexander's right wing. The exact position of these troops is dis-
puted. Janke (6o ff.; cf. Kl£o, rgro, 165-9) places them on a ridge
which comes out to within zso m. of the Deli Chai; cf. Kromayer, HZ,
112, 1914, 350 ff. Judeich (AS, iv. 371) rejects this site and suggests
another (Schlachtenatlas, Griech. Abt. 6, 7) further to the south-east.
6. '~~'pbs TOuTous Emttci.,.'l!'tov: cf. i. 27.4 n., v. 8z. 9 n. for this military
term; it indicates troops stationed at an angle to the main line, in
this case an angle backwards, d. Arrian, ii. 9· :2, Tovs lJ~ :4ypdivas . ••
Kat TWV L1T1Tiwv nvas Kat TWV TOgOTWV its lmKap.Tri)v 7Tpos TO t5pos TO Kr:tTa
vdrrov £TatEv, W(J'T£ KaTa TO S<'gtdv aVTToV a,Pwv
T<Tayp.l.vous, Ael. Tact. 31. 4· Paton, 'in a crescent formation', is mis-
leading. Further examples in Diod. xix. 27. 5 (Paraetacene), 40. 3
(Gabiene).
Taos .,.vp(ous 1TE~ous: evidently the hypothetical 1o,ooo 'left over'
if the infantry line extended for 20 stades; they have no independent
existence (cf. 19. 9 n.).
'II'AoEtous ovTa.s Tijs ittEivou 1rpo8taEw'>: 'more than his plan required'
(taking EK<lvov as Alexander), or 'more than his own thesis requires'
(taking i!Kdvau as Callisthenes); but the meaning is obscure, and the
epitomator may have omitted something here.
7. £tt TOuTwv: on the basis of these calculations.
lv8etta. aTa.8£ous ..• 6.'1ToAet'ITt:a9a.t: 'eleven stadcs at the most are
left for the length of the phalanx'. This implies that three of the
fourteen stades (§ 4) are occupied by cavalry. But P. allows only
8oo cavalry to a stade (18. 3 n.), yet P. and Callisthenes are agreed
in giving Alexander s,ooo horse (19. 3 n.), which should occupy over
6 stades. One must therefore assume no space left between the l/.a.L
(cf. 18. 4-5 n.), so that 8oo cavalry occupy only half a stade.
Toos Tp~a.,.uplous ~ea.~ 8uJxlMous t'll'l Tpul.ttovTa. To ~6.9os: these 32,ooo
are Alexander's force of 42,ooo (19. 3) less the Io,ooo which P. is
igno,ring (§ 6 n.). At intervals of 3ft. (avv17am~<:oms), and arranged
,1o deep, 32 .ooo men would require a width of 3,2oo ft. (~j:"" X 3).
,375
XIL 21. 7 THE BATTLE OF ISSGS
Since a stade is 6oo ft., on this calculation Alexander's infantry
would require, not II, but st stades. As Schweighaeuser detecte(i.
P. is at fault in his calculations and is apparently allowing 6ft. per
man, despite his use of aw11a'1w<6ms (cf. ii. 69. 9 n.). That he in
tended to do this, however, is scarcely credible, for it makes nonsens(·
of his criticism of Callisthenes.
8. d~ oKTW Tnayp.Evwv: cf. 19. 6.
9. To yap O.MvaTov KTX.: d. vi. 2. 11, where P. remarks that the im
possible is wholly false and admits of no defence.
a(m)Oev Efxet TT,v 'TI"iunv: 'forthwith convinces us that it must be so·.
i.e. impossible; the phrasing is awk\vard, but TT{a-n<; means 'proof ol
error' as in 20. 3 (as Hultsch points out).
10. u'T!"o9wu': sc. writers; but he means Callisthenes.
22. 1. 'TI"QVTQ 'TI"X~v TEXews oXLywv: an illogical phrase combining tlw

ideas 'to tell all' and 'to tell more than a Yery few'.
2. uO"Tepov S£ fLE-ravo110'a.t: Callisthenes accepts a version discredit
able to Darius.
3. 'TI"WS 8' E'TI"EYVWO'QV aXXTjXous KTX.: 'but how each learnt where tlw
other etc.'; not, with Paton, 'how they intimated to each other .
.P.'s criticism is again petty, at least respecting Darius, for, as Arria11
(ii. 8. n) points out, it was \vell known since Xenophon (A nab. i. l)_
21) that the Great King normally took up position in the centn'.
Alexander in fact led his right as at Granicus (Arr. i. I4· r, ii. ro. 3),
but Darius had perhaps not yet sufficient information to anticipat<·
this. Alexander no doubt calculated on folding up the opposing lefi
and then turning to attack Darius, who may indeed have relishr< I
a direct encounter-he was no coward-lJUt not whr·n Alexander \Va·.
advancing fresh from <t victory over the Persian left.
'T!"oG p.ET£[3'1 m:I.Xtv o aa.pe'Los: 'whereabouts Darius then took up l:h
new position'.
4. a'TI"o-rofLov oOO'av ~<a.i. ~a.-rw811: d. q. 3 n., q. 5· P. is merely con
cerned to point out the contradiction : over such a river a phalan
charge would have been impossible. But the correct conclusion i.
simply that Callisthenes has exaggerated the steepness and rougl,
ness of the Pinams banks (cf. 18. rz). A charge across the Deli Cha1
would be perfectly feasible, especially for Alexander's ph alan\.
lighter than that of P.'s time, and less exposed on the flanks.
6. -r~ 8E <Yuyypa.cpei fLO.XXov: Callisthenes. F.'s criticism that lw
could not distinguish beh.,.·een the possible and the impossible is t'"'
harsh and too naive; on Callimachus' battle-scenes cf. q-zz n.
7. rr£pt ••• 'Ecpopou Ka.l. Ka.XXLO'Oi.vous: none of the discussion ol
Ephorus survives (unless r6 forms part of it), but it appears like till'
criticism of Callisthenes (d. q-22 n.) to arise in reference to Timaen<
attack on him (cf. 23. r).
3i6
TIMAEUS' CRITICISM OF OTHER WRITERS XII. 23. 4
23. Timaeus' criticism of other writers

This chapter rounds off the section of the book in which P. discusses
Timaeus' treatment of other historians (cf. § 8).
23. 1. 11'Ad0'711Y ••• KaTaSpoflTJY: not unnaturally, for Ephorus was
especially concerned with the west (FGII, 70 F 129~41), Sicily, Italy,
Spain, and north Africa (cf. Pedech, ad loc.).
2. ots aihos evoxos €crn: cf. I2 b I. The charge against Timaeus
is made in reference to his criticism of Ephorus, but supported by
comparing his attack on Callisthenes for flattering Alexander (cf.
12 b 2) with his own glorification of Timoleon (§§ 4-6)-a theme
which is in turn twisted to buttress up a little self-glorification by
P. himself (§ 7).
TOiauTas n1To!f>acrEtS: the precise nature of Timaeus' abuse of
Ephorus is not known, but its character may be guessed from the
kind of things he said against Callisthenes (rz b 2), Demochares
(r3~r4), and Agathocles (rs). P.'s remarks suggest something more
than the accusation of falsehood mentioned by loscphus (Ap. i. 16
= FGH, 70 T 30), •.. Ttva TP07TO~ "E<f;opos 11-Jv 'Ei\i\dvtKov €v TOtS
1TA11.£aTotS' if;w8ofL<vov E1TtOI![n:vvatv, "E</Jopov 8t TlfLaHJS".
3. KaAAicr9i:v11v •.. EtKoTws KOAacr6eVTa J-LnaA.A.u~at: for corrupting
the mind of Alexander and attempting to deify him (r2 b 2 n.). Ac-
cording to Arrian (iv. ro. 2), Callisthenes claimed that ToiJ O"{ov
T~v fLETova{av )l>..,gav8p~ ovK Jg c1iv 'OAvfLmds !mf:p yEvEaEwS' auTov
if;eu8eTaL avrJpTfja8at, di\i\' c1i~· iiv mhos {nr£p }!i\.;gav8pou gvyypr:lif;as
Jg.;veyKTJ €, av8pdmovs. Tarn (Alex. ii. 358) suggests that by his flattery
he hoped to persuade Alexander to rebuild Olynthus, his native city,
which, according to Plut. Alex. 53· r (= FGII, 124 T 7), he alleged
to be his aim. P. approves of Callisthenes' execution, but mainly to
concede Timaeus' point (12 b 2, OLKalws- •• • TETwx.!vaL T<fLwplas) in
order to turn it against Timaeus himself.
YtOj.!.£O"~ao.l To Sa.Lj.I.OVIov: d. 12 b 3 n.
4. &.1ro8Eouv ~A.€~a.vSpov £[3ouM611: cf. § 3 n. and 12 b 3 n.
flEL~w 1rou::i T lflOAioVTa Twv e1Tt!f>o.v~;O'T(nwv 8£wv: 1TotE i: is Valesi us'
suggestion for 1rol P; but Suidas' 7TOLEtv (i.e. after JpouA.~87J) gives
a good sense and is read by .PCdech. On Tirnoleon of Corinth see
4 a 2 n. Our sources for his career all derive from Tirnaeus' flattering
version; cf. Stier, RE, 'Timoleon', col. 1277; Westlake, CQ, 1938,
68 and 72· Marcellinus (Vit. Thuc. 27 FGH, s66 T IJ) asserts that
Tim==teus praised Timoleon immoderately because he had not over-
thrown the fLOvapx[a of his father Andromachus at Taurornenium;
and certainly Andromachus had supported Timoleon and let him
use Tauromenium as a base (Plut. Timol. ro. 4-5 = FGH, 566 T 3 b).
According to Plutarch (Timol. 36. r) Timaeus stated that, apart from
Timoleon's munler uf his brother Timophanes (an act of tyrannicide
377
XII. 23.4 TIMAEUS' CRITICIS~1 OF OTHER WRITERS
perpetrated on principle), otioe'v ~unv tJj /L~ roD l:orpoKMov,; .. .
Em<foc.uv(.LJ) €7rp€7TEV, "Jj BEo{, r{<; dpo. KV7Tpt>;, rts rJL€por; TOVOt' gwr]if;o.ro;"
His praise of Timoleon was famous: Cicero (jam. v. r2. 7) asks L.
Lucceius to compose a monograph on his own deeds, in which case
'ingenium mihi ... suppeditatum fuerit tuum, sicut Timoleonti a
Timaeo aut ab Herodoto Thernistocli'. Sintenis (Phil. r847, 291-2),
followed independently by Castiglioni (228-9), proposed ~pdJuw for
(h:wv (cf. § 7), and Naber (Mnem. 1857. 233) B<wv Tro.lilwv; but lm<foa.P*
is used of gods, and P. is here deliberately exaggerating and uses
8t£wv to take up the point of d.TroiJEoiJP. )foreover, the very phrase rwP
lm<foavwrarwv BEwv is found on many inscriptions (IG, v. 1. II79,
xiv. 7r6, 717 and others listed by Pfister, RE, Suppl-B. iv, 'Epiphanie',
col. 3or). Pedech, ad Joe., suggests that Timaeus may here have used
the word bnrpo.vr}r; of Timoleon in the sense 'remarkable' (cf. Herod.
ii. 89. I; Thuc. ii. 43· 3, vi. 72. z). but it does not follow from P.'s
criticism that the word was used by Timaeus at all.
5. J.LEya.Aoq,v£uTEpov 11 Kacr' ii.v9pwrrov ••. TTI ~uxn: d. vi. 48. 2 (cf.
Lycurgus), xxix. 21. 9 (of Demetrius of Phalerum). The phrase is
conventional and has no relevance to the question of Alexander's
deification.
6. J.LLa.v ••• ypO.J.LJ.L~V OLa.vvO"a.vTa.: 'made only a single move'. ypO.JLJLri
can mean the finishing line in a race-course, and Schweighaeuser,
comparing i. 87. 3, r¥ loxar'lv • •• rpexew (ct. xviii. 49· 1), thinks
that is the metaphor here, 'he ran only a single race'; so too Mauers-
berger, s.v. ypo.fLJ.I.rJ· But the context suggests that P. is thinking of
the board-game Five Lines (e'ypaJLJLat), common in Greece from early
times; it was played on a board with pieces and dice, and resembled
backgammon (cf. Lamer, RE, 'lusoria tabula', cols. I97o-3). Wun-
derer (i. 6r, iii. 28-29) seems in error in seeing a reference to the
game of mlA.etr;; see Pedech, ad Joe.
ou8~ tr11"oU8aio.v! 'of no consequence'. Wunderer (iii. 29) suggests
7Tolha4Lv (cf. Plato, Theaet. 147D, TroOLala, 'a side a foot long') for
a1roul>ala.v'; against this is the change in sense of ypaJL/L~ from 'a
board division' to 'a line'. On the other hand '"o8La.lav would give
a better sense to rpo1rov Twa, since it would not be used literally (cf.
24. 6, zS a w).
11"pos To J.LEy~:8oo; TTJS otKoUJ.LEV"I"JS: the contrast is not, as Wunderer
(iii. 29) suggests, with the covering of the vvorld on the gaming-board,
but with the distance Alexander covered and incidentally (see next
note) with the area covered in P.'s own history. P. manages to hint
that the difference between Alexander and Timoleon is similar to
that between himself and the stay-at-home Timacus.
•LS :Iupo.KovO"a.s: cf. 4 a 2 n. ; the date was 344·
7. Ka.e.l.mp ~v b€u~n+~: 'as if in a saucer'; perhaps proverbial (cf.
von Scala, 283).
378
TIMAElTS' CRITICIS),I OF OTHER 'WRITERS XII. 24. I
u-rr~p '1Ta.A.£as !J.OYOY Ka.l ItK£A(as: Suidas ends his excerpt of the
present passage with the words €ypm/J< 1T<pt .Eup{a<; Ka1 Twv ~v alrrfi
1T!lAEwv Ka1 {3ac~tMwv {3t{3Ala y. But this statement is of doubtful origin
and cannot refer to Timaeus, though it appears intended as a reply to
what P. says here (cf. Jacoby, FGII, commentary on F 66 T 1). The
reference to kings excludes the emendation of .Evp{as to 'lTaAla<; (so
C. Clasen, Timaios ·von Tauromenion, Kiel, r883, 6).
KaY miTas .•. "'l'a.pa.~oA.fJs 0.€tw9f)va.t KTA.: P. ingeniously uses
Timaeus' praise of Timoleon to repeat his old accusation (cf. vii. 7· 6,
xxix. 12. 4-5) that writers of monographs exaggerate the importance
of their material, in comparison with Tot> iJ1rep Tfj> olKovi-Lb"1"J> •••
1T<'1TOt7]j.LEl'Dt<; Tas <1rprtf;;u;.
8. -mpl ..• J\puno-r.tA.oos Ka.l0Eo<j>pao--roo Ka.t Ka.XA.to-9€vous: naturally
linked together. See s-r6 n. (cf. II. 5 n.) for Aristotle and Thco-
phrastus; r 2 b r-3 for Callisthenes.
'E<j>opou Ka.l ATJtJ.oxapous: cf. 4 a 3-6 (Ephorus), r3-r4 (Demochares).
-rous l!.<j>LAO'T~!J.WS rrErrHatJ..tYoos &.A.TJ9£uuv: 'those who believe him to
be unprejudiced and truthful', despite the word order d.cptAoT{/1-w'>
goes better with dA7]8<JJEtY (so Schweighaeuser, Shuck burgh, Mauers-
berger, alii) than ;v:ith <1TE1TE<aj.Levou> ('through lack of spirit', Reiske,
Paton, Pedech).
24-28 a. Timaeus' methods and the q~talities of the historian

Despite repetition and overlapping both here and in relation to
earlier sections, this part of the work shows three divisions:
(a) Timaeus' errors and lies (24-25 c),
(b) Timaeus' political and military inexperience (25 d-26 d),
(c) the cause of Timaeus' faults and the qualities of the good
historian (27-28 a).
See the analysis of Pedech, pp. xxiii-xxYii.
24. 1. m:pL -r~s a.tpeo-£ws T LtJ.a.(ou: 'on the character of Timaeus' ; cf.
§ 4· Timaeus is to be judged by the principles he propounds.
'To us 'ITOLTJTas Ka.i auyypa.<j>ea.,: d. 25. 4 n. For Timaeus' use and inter-
pretation of poets as well as historians cf. FGJI, 566 F 141-3. The
present passage is FGJJ, s66 F I52. In an interesting discussion
Pedech, ad Joe., points out that the kind of analysis here attributed
to "!'imaeus contains the germs of a fruitful development, and he
compares the interest in 'character' and 'biography' which appears
in the Hellenistic period, exemplified by the works of Theophrastus
and Ariston of Ceos on the one hand and Aristoxenus and Phaeneas
of Eresus on the other; he also compares Timaeus' approach with
the similar analysis of poems of Anacreon and Pindar by Chamaeleon
379
XIL 24- r TOL\EUS' :\IETHODS:
of Heraclea. There is some truth in this, even though Timaeus'
approach is somewhat crude.
8ul. Twv O'II"Epavw 'II"Aeovacrf1WV: 'by excessive repetitions'.
2. Tov "'I"OlTJTl\v: Homer, as usually in P. (d. iv. 45· 6, ix. 2r. r3, etc.).
et< ToO tho.lTpeuew ••• yo.crTp(f1«pyov 'l!"apEfl.tf.o.lveLv: for the sentiment
cf. Hor. Epist. i. 19. 6, 'laudibus arguitur uini uinosus Homerus'.
oo/o,pniovTa. ••• ev TOLS cruyyp6.f1f10.0'lV: 'by frequently describing
rich food in his writings': d¢~ap-ru€tv is 'to season food'.
oo/otf.6.yov ••• KO.L Xlxvov: d. Athen. viii. 342 c, TtfLaLOS ... llpwTO-
-r.O. 'Y) Tov rjn>..6aolj>ov otjJOij>ayov </>'Y)al y•yovivm. Theocritus of Chios had
alSO referred to his ya<:npOS, , • aVOfLOV lj>umv (cf. 8. 4 0.).
3. Lacuna: the exact wording is lost but Buttner-Wobst's supple-
ment gives the probable sense: TOV av-rov rp01TOl' lm<lf>aivw8m r~v
if>uaw\ roD Ll wvualou -roiJ 'TUpa·wou, k'AtvOICO(]fLOVV'TOS ~ea1 TUS 'TWV u,Paa!La-
1"WV KO.t 1TOL1Ct>..las .J~epya'OfLEl'OU flUV€XiiJS. (d.M') anfy~e1j
i6tOTI)'T'US
-r~v d~e6..\ou8ov TrOLELaOat StM'Y).jlw (Tr€pt Tt!Laiou) Kal &vaap•crrda8at
(-roV"T<p) Ka-rd. ~v TrpoalpEaw.
Alovuulou ••• KAWOKOO'fl-OUVTOS KTA.: on Dionysius I, the tyrant of
Syracuse, see xv. 35· I. The tradition of his Tpu</>~ was, however,
contradicted: d. Nepos, de reg. 2. 2, 'id, quod in tyranno non facile
reperitur, minime libidinosus, non luxuriosus, non auarus'; Cic. TD,
v. 57, 'de hoc homine a bonis auctoribus sic scriptum accepimus,
summam fuisse eius in uictu temperantiam'; [Arist.] Oec. i. 6. 1344 b
34; Plut. .M or. r76 A, 782 c. 792 c; Theophr. fg. 128 Wimmer. This
alternative tradition probably goes back to Philistus and Ephorus
(Jacoby on FGH, 556 F 40). That the outward grandeur of Dionysius'
robes and court practice deliberately emulated that of eastern ab-
solutism as a piece of statecraft is argued by A. Alfoldi, 'Gewaltherr-
scher und Theaterkonig', in Late Classical attd lviediae;;al Studies in
honour of A. M. Friend Jr. (Princeton, 1955), 15 ff.; d. Stroheker,
I6o, q6.
5. ~vurrv(wv t<aLTEpaTwv Ka.t f1u9wv KTA.: on F.'s attitude towards such
sensational writing d. Vol. I, pp. of dreams in Timaeus
are those of Gelon (FGH, 566 F 95), of a woman of IIimera (F 29); of
prodigies, the river which bleached the hair 46), the cigalas of
Rhegium (F 43); of fabulous stories, those the Argonauts and
Heracles (F 84-90) all quoted by Pedech, ad loc.
6. ~<L TrapovTa<,; TPO'I!"ov Twil. flfJ ,-a,pt<'i:va.~: so Bekker for P €LS r6v
Trapovm ~erA.; cf. :28 a IO; Ev. A-Iatth. xiii. r3, {fA€1roVTES otl fiM.Trova~
\ ' .f 'l ) I
Kat UKOUOVTES OUK aKOUOVO~.
25. 1-5. Phalaris' bull: on Phalaris, the tyrant of Acragas (Agri-

gentum}, see "Vii. 7· 2 n., ix. 27. 7 n. The bull, devised by Perilaus,
in which Phalaris' enemies are said to have been roasted alive, was
probably copied from the brazen bulls on the top of 1\ft. Atabyrum
380
PHA LARIS' BULL XII. 25. I-5
in Rhodes, which lowed when disaster threatened the city (Timaeus
in schol. on Pindar, Ol. vii. I6o c: <:lcrt 8£ IWL f36<s xaAKot lrrt Ttfl opH
-rii> 'P6oov, ot 6-rav p.IAA'[J n -rfi 7TOAH ylv<:cr8at KaKov p.vKwv-rat = FGH,
566 F 39 (b) ; Dunbabin, 320; Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 34 n. 3) ;
see above, ix. 27. 7 n. The history of Phalaris' bull is obscure and the
evidence on what Timaeus said about it is contradictory. According
to a scholiast on Pindar, Pyth. i. r85 FGH, 566 F 28 (c)), he stated
that the people of Agrigentum sank it in the sea after Phalaris'
death, and that a bull exhibited at Agrigentum in his o•vn time re-
presented the River Gcla. Both P. (§ 3) and Diodorus (xiii. 90. 4)
are agreed that a bull was taken from Agrigentum to Carthage, and
Diodorus this was done by Himilco after he captured the town
in 4o6/s; P. date is vaguer. P. believes this bull to have been that
of l'halaris, since it had a door at the joint of its shoulder-blades,
through which victims could be let down ; accordingly he attacks
Timaeus (§§ 4-5) for asserting (a) that the bull at Carthage was not
from Agrigentum, and (b) that there had not been such a bull at
Agrigentum. But there is no reason to question the scholiast's state-
ment that Timaeus said that Phalaris' bull was thrown into the sea,
and if that is so, P.'s second accusation, as it stands, is false. Perhaps
then P. misunderstood Timaeus, who really said that there had been
no such bull (i.e. no bull of Phalaris) at Agrigentum at the time when
Himilco was said to have removed it (Lenschau, RE, 'Phalaris',
col. I6So). Such a statement would not, of course, exclude the exis-
tence at Agrigentum of a bull representing the River Gela. (Pedech
has an alternative solution. He argues that in § 4 the words iv -rfi
1Tpo£<P111'-'vn 1TOA£L refer not to Agrigentum but to Carthage. But
-rowih-ov cannot be divorced from the bull just mentioned, as it must
be if Timaeus said (a) that the bull from Carthage was not from
Agrigentum, (b) that there had not been such a bull at Carthage.
Moreover, P.'s assertion that Timaeus tried to give the lie to poets
and authors must mean that he believed Timaeus to have denied
outright the existence of Phalaris' bull (§ 4).)
That there was a bull at Carthage in q6 is undeniable. As Diodorus
(xiii. go. 5, xxxii. 25) relates, Scipio found it there and restored it to
Agrigentum, where it was preserved as a 'monumentum et dornes-
ticae crudelitatis et nostrae mansuetudinis' (Cic. 2. Verr. iv. i3). It
wa3 in Agrigentum in Diodorus' own time (Diod. ibid.) and possibly
in Pliny's (Nat. hist. xxxiv. 8g). The existence of this bull was known
to Piodorus and P.; and both P. and Diodorus (apparently misled
by him; cf. Walbank, CR, J945· 4I) therefore attacked Timaeus for
saying (as they thought) that Phalaris' bull had never existed. Their
arguments are, however, different. Diodorus naively believes that
t.Re restoration of 'the bull' by Scipio refutes Timaeus, assuming
without argument that 'the bull' must be that of Phalaris; whereas
38I
XII. 25. I 5 TIMAEUS' METHODS:
P. realizes that this point has to be established, and seeks to establish
it by the argument that the bull had a trapdoor in the shoulders.
The present extract from P. contains no reference to Scipio's restora-
tion of the bull; and in CR, I945. 39-42, I argued that this was because
P. composed this book before I So, and so before the sack of Carthage
disclosed the bulL I am now inclined to accept Jacoby's view (on
FGH, 566 F 28) that P.'s confident description of the trapdoor must
rest on autopsy, and so be later than I46. The absence of any
reference to Scipio's generous gesture remains a difficulty; but
perhaps it was mentioned in an extension of the fragment which
has not survived. It will, of course, have been related also in its
proper place in xxxviii. If this view is right, the discussion of the
bull could be an insertion in a book written before ISO (or 146) (cf.
iii. 1-5 n.) ; or more probably the bulk of xii was composed after that
date (see above, p. 317).
Whatever the original purpose and significance of Phalaris' bull,
Timaeus' statement that it was thrown into the sea (above) appears
acceptable. Whether the bull discovered by Scipio (with a trapdoor
in its shoulders) was the bull sent to Carthage from Agrigentum by
Himilco, it is impossible to say. Nor is it certain whether P., like
Diodorus, dated the sending of this bull from Agrigentum to Carthage
in 4o6/s; he says merely 'during the Carthaginian domination', and
it would be consistent with this statement if the bull >Vhich Timaeus
knew of in Agrigentum and believed to represent the River Gela
was transferred to Carthage at some date before the First Punic War.
On the other hand, the original capture of the city was the most
likely date for the removal of such an antiquity to Carthage. The
trapdoor seen by P. certainly suggests either Phalaris' bull or some·
thing intended to be taken for it; and Freeman (History of Sicily,
ii. 463) thinks that it had been manufactured by the Carthaginians
to show to visitors. P.'s words (§ 3) may imply that someone in an-
tiquity had made this allegation, perhaps Timaeus, who said that the
bull at Carthage was not from Agrigentum (§ 4). It is not impossible;
but after 146 at any rate Scipio's prestige (and by implication that
of P.) was involved in maintaining the genuineness of the bull
brought from Carthage, since it had been sent back with moral
exhortations to Agrigentum.
Neither P.'s argument nor that of Diodorus is logically impeccable
(though P.'s is stronger), and Timaeus comes out of the attack with
his reputation undamaged. See for discussion (besides Richard
Bentley's famous Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris (London,
1699), sn-12), Freeman, History of Sicily, ii. ; Jacoby, com-
mentary on FGH, 566 F z8. Walbank, CR, 1945, 39-42 (with biblio-
graphy) ; Brown, 54-57; PMech, ad loc. On the relationship of
Diodl)rus' account to P.'s see \Valbank, art. cit.; I am not convinced
38l
PHALARIS' BULL XII. 25. 6
by the argument of R. Lauritano, KQKAAOE, 1956, ro-n, that
both go back to Silenus of Caleacte.
2. ~K Tou KaTaaKeuaufla.Tos: 'from the way it was made'.
3. Ka.Tci n;v ~1TLKpaTeLa.v Ka.pxTJoov1wv: this could include any date
within the period from 4o6/s to the First Punic War; see above,
§§ 1-5 n.
SL' T]v tv Ka.pxTJOOVL KaTEuKeuO.uSTJ ToLoi:iTos Ta.upos: the implication
is that someone, probably Timaeus, had said that the bull at Car-
thage--its existence was evidently well known-was a forgery; see
above, §§ r-s n.
4, 'Ta<; a1TocjlaaH<; 'TWV 1TOLTJ'T(;w KaL auyypacjlewv: the grouping to-
gether of poets and historians is perhaps taken from Timaeus (as in
24. 1). Phalaris' bull was a popular theme in poetry and history
alike: early references are Pindar, Pyth. i. 185, Heracleid. Pont.,
fg. 37 (FHG ii. 223) and Callimachus, fgs. 25, u9, and 149 Schn. =
45-47 Pf. Timaeus could, of course, only refute these stories by
denying the existence of Phalaris' bull; clearly therefore P. believes
him to have done this (cf. §§. 1-5 n.).
fl,;T• dva.L ••• ~~ :A.Kpaya.vToc; fl,;Te yeyoveva.L: probably a slight mis-
representation of what Timaeus really said; see §§ 1-5 n.
~v Tfi 1TpoELPTJflEvU m)AeL: Agrigentum; against Pedech's view that
Carthage is meant see §§ r-s n.
5. 1roAAous ••. 8La.Te9ELTa.L Aoyous: this long discussion in Timaeus
was probably introduced in connexion with his account of the cap-
ture of Agrigentum by Himilco in 4o6/s. and so in book xv of his
Histories (Diog. Laert. viii. 51 ; Diod. xiii. 83).
Ka.Ta Tils TLfLa.1ou: sc. alpiu£w> (unless this should be inserted with
Pedech). Evidently a good deal is missing, however, and it is not
even certain that the present criticism links with the discussion of
Phalaris' bull.
TL ••• ovoj..La Kai pfjfLa.: 'what language'; cf. 7. 5, 7riiv pijp.a Kal 11auav
tf>wv..Jv. Pedech 'quel nom et quel verbe' is perhaps too explicit.
'II'UVTa. ycip t'II'L8exea9a.L ••• To yevos: 'for to me it seems to merit the
bitterest expressions of their kind'. The words nl y.fvos- seem to go
more naturally with Ta mKp6raTa and are so taken by Paton and
Mauersberger (s.v. y.fvos-); but Schweighaeuser and Shuckburgh
make Td y.fvos the subject of 8oK£i:, translating 'Timaei ratio, institu-
tum quo ille usus est' (sc. iKElvou) or 'a man of his kind'. Schweig-
haeuser evidently felt the harshness of this, for in his Lex. Polyb., s. v.
y.fvos-, he inadvertently printed Ta 7rtKpoTaTa ov6p.a.Ta l!mSEx€T(U TOVTO
'Td Y£VOS".
6. acjlLMuo.J.oc; •.• Kal .•• cl.vaywyos: cf. xxxvi. IS. 5 (of Prusias):
fTaL8das 8i Kat </nAoao,Plas Kat 'TWV l!v TDVrDLS fhwpTJp.aTwv a7rnpoo; Els-
'TtAe<; 1jv. The two passages may seem to throw light on the impor-
tance P. attributed to philosophy as a civilizing force; yet the
383
XII. 25. 6 TIMAEUS 0~ TIMOLEON
example quoted suggests that he is thinking of practical knowledge,

viz. theory of geography rather than anything normally included in
philosophy. See VoL I, p. 2 n. 9·
7. ~v Tfj ILL~ Kat ElKocn"fi ~u~Atot: this would imply that Timaeus
dealt with Timoleon's career (344/3-337 /6} in books xxi-xxii (cf.
26 a r). Against this is (a) the fact that Athen. vi. zso A-D ( = FGH,
566 F 32) assigns events of the younger Dionysius' reign to book x.xii,
which can hardly have contained these if the account of Timoleon
was in xxi; (b) the fact~stressed by Jacoby, FGH, iii b, p. 545~that
two books is very little for Timoleon's career, especially if this means
that books xxili-xxxiii were all devoted to the two decades from his
retirement to the rise of Agathocles (337 /6-Jlj /r6). Moreover, ac-
cording to Athen. xi. 47I F (FGH, 566 F 33), book xxviii was still
concerned with Timoleon. Jacoby therefore suggests {and his view
is generally shared) that the excerptor has made a mistake (De
Sanctis, Storiografia siceliota, 51, suggests less convincingly that the
error is P.'s) and that Timoleon's career occupied books xxiii-xxviii,
leaving xxix-xxxiii for the period down to Agatlwcles. Admittedly
this theory has to contend with 26 a 1, where it is stated that
Timoleon's speech belongs to the same book as events attributed (in
25 k 3) to book xxi: hence one must assume a similar scribe's error
in 25 k 3· Since, however, the reading in this passage (q.v.) must
certainly be wrong for quit€ independent reasons, this seems no bar
to Jacoby's theory, which is therefore to be accepted.
KcJ.Ta n]v Tou T~!LoA€oVTos 1TapaKATJow: on Timoleon cf. 4 a 2 n.,
23. 4 n. Diodorus records two speeches made to his troops, one before
they marched out against the Carthaginians (Diod. xvi. 78. 2) and
another a little later (Diod. xvi. 79· 2, cf. FGH, F n8}; if that
here referred to is the one discussed in 26 a I, it is the second of the
t\vo mentioned by Diodorus (cf. 26 a I n.).
Tfjs yfis TTJS imo T4i ~<OO'!L~ KEL!LEVTJ'i KTA.: cf. lsoc. Panegyr. 179, Tij;;
yelp y1J;; dmi0'7)s Tijs inro Tlf Koap.<f Ketp..fVTJs Uxa. TETfJ<TJflb>rJ>, Kal -rii•
Jl~V 11afa.:;, Tfjs S' EupW11'1JS' Ka.i\ovp..fvTJ> •.• In both passages Koap.o-;
means 'the heavens' (d. ix. 15. 6, rs. 12}; but whereas for rhetorical
purposes !socrates adopts the old division of the earth into two
continents, Europe and Asia, Timaeus makes Timoleon follow th(•
more familiar triple division (d. iii. 37. 2·8 n.). Since the content
and form of expression are both quite normal (Paton's suggestion
that P. took exception to the phrase Li7To 'Ttf Koap.<f KEtp..fv1J> is refuted
by the lsocratean parallel), the point of P.'s criticism is obscure.
Pedech follows Valesius in thinking that P. is criticizing Timaeus'
division of the whole earth, not merely the oiKovp.lv1J, into three con·
tinents; but if this is a loose way of writing it is common, and found
in !socrates (above), Onesicritus (FGH, 134 F 6 Arr. bid. 3· 6),
Pliny (Nat. kist. iii. 3, 'terrarurn orb is universus in tres diuiditur
J84
TIMAEUS 0~ TIMOLEO!\ XII. 25 a 5
partes'), and other writers. Pedech argues that the use of d(.Ja.r}s
'ignorant' in § 9 would support this view; but this is not certain,
since the sentence breaks off short and does not make clear wherein
the ignorance consists. The missing words may have meant 'so
ignorant ... as to imagine that a soldier addressing troops would
use such an expression'; and indeed Laqueur, RE, 'Timaios', col.
I08o, suggests very plausibly that P. is ridiculing the introduction of
such a piece of pedantry into a military harangue, a view supported
by the argument of 25 a-b and the criticism of other speeches in
25 k, 26, 26 a, and 26 b.
8. oux ofov Ti11mov: \Vho composed the speech. \Vunderer's pro-
posal (i. 9B n. 2) to read Ttf.WMoVTa. was anticipated by Reiske, but
is superfluous. On Margites cf. 4 a 5 n.
25 a 1. EK T(;'lV 'lra.pOLf1LI';)v: probably, as Wunderer (i. s) suggests,

a marginal note that has crept into the text : with cf>aa{ it is super-
fluous and even untranslatable.
O"Ta.Aa.y11ov £va. .•• t:LS To yvwvcu To '!riiv £yxu11a.: cf. Corpus paroem.
graec. ii. 644. That this piece of popular observation conceals Stoic
doctrine (so von Scala, 283) seem improbable.
3. Toos cjlLAoTLf1oupov OLa.KELf1EVous:: cf. ix. 37· I: 'those who are dis-
posed to be captious'. Orelli's cf>t.Aonf:Laton:pov is ingenious but un-
necessary. P. refers, of course, to over-zealous champions of Timaeus,
but no particular person is singled out.
Kat f1EAET11';: so Hultsch and Biittner-Wobst for Kat f:La.\1\ov M; but
f:La.\1\ov can have the sense of f:La./..taTa in P. (cf. v. 55· 8, quoted by
Schweighaeuser, s.v. f:LaAtiOv), and the MS. reading should be kept
with Pedech.
Tas s111111 yop1a.s Ka.l Tas 1l'a.pa.KATJO'ELc;, £n S€ Toos 11'pEO'~euTLKous
A6youc;: cf. 25 i J, Ut!f:LfJouAEUTtKi:JV •.. 1TapaKAT)TtKf7JV ..• TrpwfJwnKWV;
Diod. xx. r. 2, Ka{Tot 'YE Tovs JmoE{Kvua8at fJoullof:Ltlvous Aoyou oJvaf:LLV
l~w·n KaT' io[av OT)f:LT)Yoplas Kai TrpwfJwnKovs Aoyous-, ETt SJ lyKdJf:Lta Kal
o/Joyous- Kat Taillla Td Totaih-a awTaTTw8at. See also Cic. or. 66 ; Dion.
Hal. ep. ad Pomp. 3· 20, 5· 6; Ant. vii. 66. 3· OT)f:LTJ'Yopla.t, which P.
claims to record frequently (xxxvi. r. 3), include not only harangues
before popular assemblies but also speeches before councils; Trapa-
KA~aEtS' are in the main exhortations by generals to soldiers; and ,\oyot
1rpwfJEUTtKo{ are the speeches of ambassadors. But the distinction
is rather rhetorical (for instance Critolaus' speech to the Achaeans
in xxxviii. I2-I3 has many elements of a mxpcl.KIIT)u•s-), and the words
Kai. uu/J..~fJOTJV miv n1 TotovTo ytlvos are perhaps an indication that it
is not to be pressed. Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (I)', cols. 1525-7. analyses
P.'s own speeches under these three headings; see also Avenarius,
ISO·~
5. Tn P116£vTa. ••• ouS' ws ~ppfJ&"l KnT' &.A-TJ6€~a.v: 'what was said, nor
814173 cc
XlL 25 a 5 TIMAEUS' METHODS:
the real sense of what was said' (i.e. neither a transcript nor an
accurate resume of the actual speech) rather than 'what was said,
nor the form in which it was actually said' (so \Velzhofer, jahrb.
188o, 54r); cf. Walbank, JRS, 1963, 10.
1r6.vTas ••• To(Js pfJOevTas Myous: 'all these speeches', i.e. all the
speeches according to the historian's version, not the real speeches,
which P. insists were not recorded {ov ... Ta pTJ(Uv-ra y€yparp€v •..
ouK l~~'YTJOW TWV KaT' G.>..~6€Lav ElpTJfi-Evwv); P. does not express the
distinction very clearly.
Ta 'll'apE'Il'OfLeva Toi:s '11'payfLacnv: cf. 28 a g. For the same criticism
applied to Phylarchus see ii. 56. 10 n. ; as in iii. 32. 6 'Ta 1Tapmofi-n'a
are the 'concomitant details'. As in tragedy they are used to produce
lvapyEta and an emotional effect in the reader; d. Dion. Hal. v. 56. 1 :
xi. 1. 3-4; Scheller, 59: Avenarius, 133.
ws liv et Tt<; ~v s~aTp~~n 1rpos U'l1'69eow emxupO~Tj: 'as if one were exer-
on a set theme in the schools'. A lacuna is generally assumed
after lmxe!polTJ (Ghelen, <Mym), Biittner-\Vobst, <at€gootKm}s- or
fL€tpa~<:,ciJoE(S >..oyovs')); but lmxEtp€'iv in the sense 'attempt to prove,
argue dialectically', is found in Plato and Aristotle, and may be used
absolutely here (cf. JmxE'P~fi-ara and lmxE'p~crH>, 'rhetorical exer-
cises', 25 b 4, 25 k 8, 26. g).
li'll'oOe~sw TftS ~auTov 5uv6.fLews: 'to show off his rhetorical powers';
this characteristic of historians is frequently criticized: d. Joseph.
Ap. i. 24; Dion. Hal. i. r. 3; Diod. xx. r. 2; below, xxxvi. r. 7·
25 b 1. Tfj<,; taToplas tS'wfLa: 'the special function of history', par-
ticularly in relation to speeches.
To '11'pa.x9w ~ pTj9ev: Pedech, ad Joe., observes that Thuc. i. 22. r-2
also puts Ta AExBlvTa and ni 11po.xBlvra on the same level.
2. \jluxa.ywyEi fLEV, wcjleAEL 8' ou8ev: for P.'s emphasis on TO xp~aLfi-01-'
in contrast to 'TO 'TEp'!Tvr!w see Vol. I, pp. 7-8; it is a commonplace in
the Histories.
'11'poTe9<iL<YTjS SE: Tijs ahlas: on the importance of causes see iii. 6. 3 n.,
7· 4-7 n.
3. licjlopfLal ••• Kai '11'poX~\jiE~<,; els To '11'po·.:oea0aL To fLGAAov: 'the means
of forming presentiments about what is to happen' (Paton); cf. 2.:;
e 6 n. P. here clearly defines history as an aid to present actiml
inasmuch as it furnishes examples of what to avoid (€uAaf3TJBiJvat)
or imitate (~L'fi-oufi-Evov Tn 1Tpoy€yovoTa). Avenarius, 23, compare.~
Thuc. i. 22. 4 (quoted in iii. 31. 12 n.), but as Gomme (Thucydides,
i. 149-50) has clearly shown, Thucydides is referring to events in his
future, not the reader's, and nowhere claims that his history is to aci
as a practical statesman's vade-mecum. For the difference in P.'s
attitude cf. 25 g :z.
~tlLOUlLii:vov TO. '11'poyEyov<ha.: 'by imitating what happened pre-
386
QUALITIES OF A GOOD HISTORIAN XII. :zsc 3
viously'; when an action in the past has been successful we may
imitate it and so go ahead confidently, but when it has miscarried
we learn to be more careful (e:{!Aap7JOijvcu).
Tois ~11"L<f!epott-eVOLS: 'what confronts us'.
4. Tous pt]OEvTa.s Aoyous KO.t T~v a.tTia.v: since alTla covers whatever
leads to the taking of a decision (cf. iii. 6. 3 n.), to suppress or distort
relevant speeches involves suppressing the alTla of whatever action
they lead up to.
ljl~:u5-fl ••• E'Tl'LXELP~tt-a.Ta.: Aristotle uses t.mxt:tp7JJLa for a 'dialectical
proof' as opposed to a demonstrative syllogism (r/><lwa64>TJJLa); but
here it seems to mean simply a rhetorical exercise (cf. zs a 5 n.). On
Greek rhetorical exercises see F. Blass, Die attische Beredsamkeit7.
(Leipzig, I887}, L 6r-63; E. Rohde, Der griechisclu: Roman 3 (Leipzig,
1914), 317 n. z.
8LEgo5uc:ous Aoyous : 'detailed speeches'.
To Tils taTopia.s tSLov: 'the peculiar virtue of history'.
25 c L TOLCLOTTJS 1Tap' €vioLs li11"o5ox-fls ••• Kat wiaTEWS: P. himself

gives further testimony to this reputation by the amount of space
he has allotted to criticizing Timacus and by his own decision to
begin his introductory books where Timaeus left off. After all his
criticism P. admits his failure to account for Timaeus' reputation
(z8. 6).
2. woAurrpayl-'oauvT)v ••• Kai <f!uaw .•• lha<f!epouaav: 'remarkable in-
dustry and talent' (Paton).
3. LTpaTwvL T0 <f!uaLK0: on Strato of Lampsacus sec iv. 38. I-
45· 8 n.; P. probably used him in his discussion of the hydrography of
the Pontus and Maeotis. This is the first surviving example of the
title rf>vaLKb;;, applied to Strato; it recognizes his preponderant, though
not exclusive, interest in physics-which includes psychology and
physiology (d. Capelle, RE, 'Straton (r3)', cols. 284-5}.
~hav £yxupt]an ••• wc;u8owoLetv, Oau1-16.aLos eaTLv: von Scala, 189,
assumes that P. is thinking of Strato's attack on Ephorus's llEpl
fVP7JJLaTwv (d. Pliny, Nat. hist. vii, index: 'Stratonis qui contra
Ephori dJp~JLaTa. scripsit'; Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 77· r). But the
words & rf>vmK6<; perhaps suggest that it is of Strato's physical (in-
cluding psychological) writings, in which he is also concerned with
refuting his predecessors such as Plato (d. Capelle, RE, 'Straton (13)',
cols. Jo8 ff.), that P. is thinking; his interest in one aspect of these is
apparent from iv. 39· 7-42. 8.
+aivc;TaL To'Ls E1TLaT~I-'oaLv ••. vwOpbTepos: this 'appeal to the experts'
shows that P.'s criticism of Strato does not depend solely on his
own opinion. How far he was capable of appreciating the subtleties
of the points at issue between Strato and his predecessors is a moot
point.
xn. ~sd r TUIAEUS AT ATHE~S
25 d l. 6.1TOKa0laas ••. )\(l~VTJO'' axe6ov ETTJ 1TEV1'~KOVTQ: cf. 25 h 1

(without ax£S6v), 28. 6, FGH, 566 T 4· The dates of Timaeus' residence
in Athens cannot be accurately determined, though the suggestion
that he was already there when Agathocles banished him (Diod.
xxi. J7. r) is not very probable plomigliano, Ri11. star. it. 1959. 531.
against Bro'v\'TI, 2-3). Laqueur (RE, 'Timaios', cols. ron-8) suggested
a date between 317 and 310 for the beginning of the exile, and] acoby
(FGJI, ii b, pp. 53o-2) puts it a little before Agathocles' first cam-
paign Messana in 316/rs, linking it with Agathocles' capture
of Tauromenium (which Diod. xix. 65 omits to mention in its place).
Whether Timaeus returned to Sicily is not recorded. Manni
(KQKAAOE, r96o, 170 n. 7) suggests that he went back to Sicily
in 266/s or 262. Brown (2-9), however, thinks he returned soon after
Agathocles' death in 289, and that the fifty years fall within the
period 339-278 (contra, Momigliano, Riv. star. it. 1959, 531). Not all
Brown's arguments are equally cogent (cf. 8. 3 n., rz b r-3 n.), but
Timaeus' lack of political and military experience (25 g r-3, 25 h r.
28. 6) and his inexperience in public speaking (Cic. de or. ii. 58)
would match an early removal to Athens. On the other hand, the
reference to fifty years presumably echoes Timaeus' own statement
(25 h r), and it does not follow that he necessarily returned at the
end of fifty (or 'nearly fifty') years. KaTa{3u..!Jaos {28. 6) may, if
pressed, suggests that he lived out his life at Athens.
25 d 2-25 e 7. Comparison betzr:-een med£cine and history: for the

schematic comparison with its triple arrangement cf. ix. 14. r-s.
xi. 8. r-2, and the threefold constitution (Yi. 3· 5 ff.). The threefold
division of medicine is traditional, but P's division differs from thai
in Celsus, prooem. 9. 'in tres partes medicina diducta est, ut una esset
quae uictu, altera quae medicamentis, tertia quae manu mederetur.
primam 8tatT1JnK~v secundam ;/;apJ.LaKevnKf;v tertiam xctpovpylw·
Graeci nominarunt'. P. compresses pharmaceutice and cheirourgia
into one and adds the XoytKo{, who are to provide the parallel with
Timaeus (cf. 25 e 4); but the division is not necessarily his own, and
he may well be drawing on some handbook of medicine from th1·
third or second century (d. Wunderer, iii. 104). The triple division
recalls the empiricists' division of laTptK~ into three parts: U7Jf-L€t
WHK6v p.tpOS, 8epau€l!TiKOII f-Ltpos {including XELpoupy{a, ;/;apf-LUKELa and
sometimes Olatm) and Oytetvov f-Ltpos (d. IC Deichgraber, Die grieclr
ische Empirikerschule (Berlin, I93o). 288-9r, and Galen, Sun
.figuratio empirica, p. 53, ll. 13 ff. in the same work) ; of these the
iirst corresponds to ,\oyt~eov, the second to xetpovpyLKov Kat ,Papf-La
Ke-vTtdv and the third to otatT1JTLKav, if this means 'regime of life' (c f
25 d 3 n.).
The two great names in Hellenistic medicine are those of Hero
sss
MEDICINE AND HISTORY XII. 25d 3
philus of Ca!chedon (early third century), who discovered the rhythm
of the pulse and developed the theory of humours as the cause of
disease, and his contemporary, Erasistratus of Ceos, who contributed
much to the study of anatomy and the nerves (cf. Jones, CAH, vii.
284-7). Because of their interest in the causes of disease they were
regarded as Aoy•Ko{ and dogmatici, and they and still more their
later followers were felt to be more interested in this aspect than in
the curing of disease, cf. Galen, x. 184, ol 'll'epl Tov •Epaa{OTpa.T6v TE Kat
'Hpo</nAov l~ ~p.urdar; ••. ovus i5oyp.anKo{, Ka.Kws laTpEJovau• EAKos·
p.ova yap emxHpoiiaL AoyLKW<; 0EparrEJ€£V l>aa 'TWV dpyavLKWV ;.an p.oplwv
row vom]p.a.Ta. Apollophanes belonged to this school. The empiricist
school, which held that medicine was concerned only with curing
illness, and aligned itself with the Sceptics rather as the dogmatists
did with the Stoics, began as a breakaway from the Herophileans by
Herophilus' pupil, Philinus of Cos; cf. Galen, xiv. 68J, rijr; EJ.L'II'~rtptKij~ oi
(alpiaewr;} wpotaT7JK€ cP.Aivos Kijws, o
1rpwTos at:h~v U1TO'TEJ.LPOJ.LEVOS
UT/'0 TfjS AoyLKTjS alpiaHv<;, Tal) a</>opp.as J...apwv 'Hpo</>O..ov, ali Kai ci.KOIJO'T~Ii"
iyivEro. Cdsus (prooem. 10) makes Serapion of Alexandria (c. zoo)
the founder of the lp.m.:tpLK~ dywY1/, but Galen treats him as Philinus'
successor. There is little doubt that when he praises pharmaceutice
and clteirourgia as 'TI)V aA1)fhv~v wpoa</>EPOJ.LEVDV E~LV, P. is displaying
his sympathy with the empiricists who developed these two branches;
though the empiricists' tendency to reject research into the causes of
illness (cf. Deichgraber, op. cit. 282; Beloch, iv. I. 475) may have
caused him some embarrassment (d. iii. 7· s. ri yap o</>,Aor; larpoiJ
Krip.vovaLV ayvooiivro<; rd.s alTla<;; 'T(VV 1TEpL rd awp.o.ra. a,aela£w11;). P.
believed that one should study the causes of illness so far as this
was necessary for the curing of it, but not for the salw of theoretical
knowledge and mere display (cf. 25 d 4: ix. 20. 6). See further T. C.
Allbutt, Greek }v!edicine in Rome (London, rgzr), IJI ff.; Deichgraber,
op. cit. 253 ff.
25 d 3. 8w.LTT)1"1Kou: 'concerned with diet': the most famous repre-

sentative of the school concentrating on this branch of healing was
Asclepiades of Bithynia (first century B.c.). The empiricists regarded
diet as one part of 8EparrEVTtK6v (see previous note) ; and Celsus re-
gards the empiricists as a branch of that school quae uictu morbos
curat, who, however, rejected rationalis discipHna (prooem. g-ro). It
has been suggested by van Paassen (The Classical Tradition of Ceo-
graph;• (Groningen, l957l. 294) that DLaLT1)rLKov here means 'concern-
ing one's way of life' (cf. MaLTa in i. 59· 12, iv. r8. 2), in which case it
would correspond to the empirical vymv&v (see previous note).
yEvous ••• -roD E11'\Tl18Eu!J.o.-ros: Boissevain read KnL ToAp.a• Kat Kara-
I{IE&iwOat and Pedech proposes (as a pis-aUer) </>app.a.KeVTLKoiJ
'
')'€V01JS, ,, - E
01\0(l)(.f.pWS '( IILOL<;
' ) ,,
'TDIIJ.L?J .1. ·~ (} at TOIJ- €1TLTTjDEUJ.LU'TOS
KClL' KO.Ta't'€UoEa ' ~ '
XII. zsd 3 MEDICINE AND HISTORY
( av~-tf3alvn). roil lmrTJooJ~-taro;; will be the art of medicine, which is
brought into contempt by some of its representatives in every branch.
Against Wunderer's suggestion that P. here referred, in the lacuna,
to Ota.LTTJTLK~ see below, § 7 n.
4. Tb 8€ Aoyuc.ov: the first aspect (taken up by Toii'To).
n-o.pO. Twv 'HpotfaAe(wv Kat Ko.AALJLO.XE~wv: Herophilus' school were
famous; Galen frequently mentions them. They included Andreas
(v. 81. 6 n.), Baccheius of Tanagra (c. 25o), Demetrius of Apamea,
perhaps a contemporary of Baccheius, Zenon (early second century),
Mantias (c. 15o) and Callimachus (see below); cf. \Vellmann in Suse-
mihl, i. 778, 8q--I8, Instead of the more usual reference to
Erasistratus P. alone mentions the followers of Callimachus, a doctor
of Herophilus' school who concerned himself with Hippocrates'
writings and himself wrote 'de coronis •.. quae nocerent capiti'
(Pliny, Nat. hist. xxi. 12); his date is uncertain. No conclusions can
be drawn from P.'s reference to the names of the group as current in
Alexandria (;K~ri 1TpoaayopEVoftlvwv) for we know neither P.'s source
nor its date; see further Wellmann in Susemihl, i. 827.
KaT a .. , T~v E'll"ltf>aow ~c.al Tf)v E'ITayyEAlav: 'in its ostentation and the
claims it makes '; cf. ix. 20. 6 for a general rejection of knowledge for
mere display.
To~aUTTJV £tf>£AKeTill tf>avTaa(av: cf. xxii. 9· 12, xxiv. II. 5; them-
selves such an air of superiority'.
5. o~ JLTJS~v O.veyvw~c.ons ••• la.Tpl~c.bv u'11"6JLVTJJLa.: though they, the
AoytKo{, lay so much weight on medical literature.
61n TYJV €v Aoy~ SuvaJ.lw: 'impressed by their rhetorical powers'
(Paton); 'sur Ia foi de leur force dans le raisonnement' (Pedech).
The latter suggests their published works; but the former fits better
the reference to the speeches which they deliver (§ 6). On speeches
made by doctors to attract custom see Xen . •vi em. iv. 2. 5·
6. TOt<; €K ~u~Mou teu~Epvwmv: Wunderer, i. 65, takes Kvj3.:pvwaw to
mean 'governing a state', but the literal meaning gives the better
simile.
JUTQ cfla.vTaala.<;: 'with great eclat' (Shuck burgh); preferable to
Pedech, 'environnes d'illusion'.
ht.~Sa.v •.. €'11"' bvof'a.To<;: Hultsch, followed by Pedech, takes f.1r'
ovowJ.ro> with what follows, and Pedech translates 'ils apostrophent
par leur nom ceux qui ont donne .... la vraie preuve de leur valeur';
but f.rr' OVOftUTOS' goes awkwardly with ayovow. Various attempts
have been made at correction, of which perhaps the most convincing
is Biittner-Wobst's suggestion of a lacuna after oxAov-; (so Orelli
for JI.IS. Myov-;), which he fills with <ftovov o~ KaAoiiv'l'~r;) (d. v. 35· 2;
xi 15. r). This he takes with what precedes (the usual view prior to
Hultsch), 'when they manage to collect a crowd, virtually summon-
ing the people by name'; but this seems rather a silly remark, and,
39°
MEDICINE AND HISTORY XIL 25 e 1
with Biittner-Wobst's reading, the phrase will go better with what

follows: 'when they have collected a crowd, they reduce skilled
doctors to confusion, virtually singling them out by name'.
Taus .•• 8ESwtc6Tas avTwv: 'those who in actual practice have given
proof of their skill' (Paton}; d. xviii. z8. 2. Shuckburgh misses the
sense: 'they induce certain people to submit as a specimen to their
practical treatment'. O<O<.u~<oT<l> refers to other doctors, not patients.
7. To S€ Tpi.Tov: 'the third branch of medicine', cf. § 3; P. refers to
surgery and pharmaceutics.
To T~v 6.A.YJ9LV~v 'lTpoa<!>EpOJ.tEvov e~~v ~v €KaaTOIS Twv emTYJOEu-
J.taTwv: a difficult phrase, which rna y have suffered from the epi-
tomator (so Paton). Shuckburgh renders: 'which involves genuine
skill in the treatment of the several cases'; and though Ta ~rnT7Joe:u
ltaTa normally means 'profession, branch of professional knowledge'
(cf. ix. 20.6 n.), the best sense is given here if it has the meaning 'case',
or 'treatment' (so too Pedech). Translate: 'the third branch, which is
concerned with producing genuine skill in each professional treat-
ment'. P. is still concerned with the three branches of medicine, as
is clear from 25 e 1, but as he thinks of the first, 7'6 AoytKov, as the
branch concerned with theory and dogma, so the third (surgery and
pharmaceutics} is envisaged as concerned with practice and ex-
perience, and it is in P.'s opinion practice that produces skill (cf.
X. 47. II, T~v €[til, fj mfvTa nt KaAd. y{vETat f1rJPa1'd. To is ri.vfJpcfmw;,
where efts is 'habit'). Wunderer, iii. 63, suggests that P. dealt with
the second branch, dietetics, in the lacuna in § 3; but, as Pedech
points out, oAoax<pok suggests a general observation, and in addition
such a reference would be out of place, coming before the discussion
of the AoytKov yivos in § 4·
25 e 1. Ti)S 'lTpayJ.tnnKi)~ laTopino;: 'political history'; cf. Vol. I.

p. 8 n. 6; i. 2. 8 n., ix. 1. 4 n.
TptJ.t£pous cf. 25 d 2; P. distinguishes (r} the study and collation
of written sources, (2) autopsy, the visiting of sites and study of
geographical features, and (3) political experience. The historian who
(like Timaeus} concentrates on the first of these is comparable to the
AoytKo{ (§4), who allow theory to divert them from the primary duty
of healing; but how far the other two categories are paralleled from
medicine is doubtful. Political experience may perhaps be compared
with the practice of surgery and pharmaceutics {:zs d 3}; and Pedech,
130, mggests that as the dietetics of the second century tended to
reject theories and controversies and to rely on observation, it can
be compared with the historian's geographical investigations. But
the parallel is forced and there is no evidence that P. \'V·as concerned
to'press it beyond the equation of 'AoytKol and library-historians.
hLt-u~vwv: 'harbours'; Paton mistranslates 'lakes' (cf. vii. 9· 2).
XII. 25e I THE HISTORIAN'S TASK
ToG -rrept Tas 1rpa~ELS Tas 1roAmK6.s: 'political activity', not, with
Paton, 'the review of political events'; that the historian should have
personal political experience is a cardinal point for P.
2. E:4»L€vTaL fl€V TaUTTJS -rro~~o(: 'many aspire to write history' ; -ra.v-rTJS
refers to 7Tpa.yfJ-a.nK~ la-rop{o., and Shuck burgh is wrong in referring it
to 'political activity' in defiance of sense and grammar.
Sui '~'TtV 1rpoyeyEVTJflEVTJV 1repl auTtlS SO~av: 'owing to the high opinion
in which political history has been held'; not 'owing to their pre-
conceived opinions on the subject' (Shuckburgh).
S(KaL0\1 ouSev: 'nothing to justify themselves'; cf. xi. 29. 7·
euxEpeLav Kal'I'O~flaV KT~.: cf. xv. 13. r, xxii. 3· 8, xxiii. 5· 6 (in all of
which, however, it bears a complimentary sense): here it is 'irrespon-
sibility and recklessness' (cf. xvi. r8. 3). pf!:Dwvpylo. is 'roguery' (cf.
9· s).
1rapa1r~~aLov 'I'OLS "'apflaK01TW~aLS So~OK01TOUVTES: 'courting favour
like vendors of drugs'. These had a reputation as (jUacks; cf. Plut.
Mor. So A; [Arist.] Oec. ii. 3· 1346 b 2-3; Horace, Sat. i. 2. I; and
Sext. Emp. Af at h. ii. 4r relates them to doctors as demagogues to
statesmen, here they stand to doctors as charlatans to historians.
For the hostile allegation that Aristotle had been a druggist see
s. 4 n. Further references and discussion in vV. Morel, RE, 'Pharma-
kopoles', coL r84o.
4. TWV SoKOUVTWV euMyws 1rpoaayeLV K'I'A.: 'those who appear to
be justified in undertaking the composition of history' (as distinct
from the quacks): it is in this category that P. places Timaeus.
KaMrrep ot AoyLKOL 'I'WV l.a'l'pwv: cf. 25 d 4·
••• tJ.Epos: no supplement for the lacuna is wholly satisfactory ;
Buttner-Wobst reads <Ko.t7T€p 7Tpoao.ya.yovTES 1rpoSry:\ws €v J.Lovov··,
f.LEpor;, which must be something like the sense.
5. <SLaO)Eaewv, 'I'O'!Twv: so Buttner-Wobst, but the MS. Jdwv -ro1rwv
will stand (cf. v. 8. 2): it is kept by Hultsch and Pedech.
6. auve"'La'I'TJa~ yap ••• rrpos 'l'o flEAAov: 'past events direct our atten-
tion to the future'; cf. 25 b 3 n. The wording recalls Isoc. ad Nic. 35,
av yap -rd 7TO.pEA1)AU8o-ro. f.LV1)fJ-OV<VTJ>, Uf.L<.WOV 7T<-pt TWV fJ-<.AADVTWV f3ov-
Aeva<t. But this was already a commonplace by the late fifth century:
cf. Soph. O.T. 9rs-r6; Andoc. 3· 2; Lysias, 25. 23; Isoc. Arch. 59.
Paneg. r4r, ad Dem. 34; Arist. Rhet. i. 9· r368 a 40; H. Ll. Hudson-
Williams, CQ, 1948, Sr.
7, U1!' 1 O.U'I'TJS 'I'QU'I'TJS <'l'fJS) Suvcl.flEWS 8pflTJ0EV1'0.: 'relying upon this
ability in research alone'.
ypn+nv 'l'ttS emyLvofl€vas 1rp6.~e~s: P.'s point is that to develop the
technique of researching in libraries is not enough to enable a his-
torian to write an adequate history of more recent events (Tds
lrnytvDfJ-Evas 7Tpagtt>), not, of course, because the written sources do
not cover these events (which is self-evident), but because the
39 2
THE HISTORIAN'S TASK XII.zsfz
composition of more recent history demands the different technique
of direct inspection and inquiry, and the understanding that comes
from personal experience of politics.
Ta Twv cipxa(wv twypa<Jlwv i!pya 8eacraJ:.Levos: a general reference.
Wunderer, Phil. 1907,472, argued that 'wyparpo> here means 'animal-
painter' and sees a reference to Nicias of Athens, who was especially
famous for animal paintings (Pliny, Nat. kist. xxxv. 133; Paus. i.
2q. 15}. This is quite fanciful. P.'s point is that just as one can
become a painter only by practical activity and not merely studying
old masters, so the historian can master his craft only by active
investigations and practical experience of politics. \Vunderer's argu-
ment, that the contrast between scholarship and practical experience
is only relevant to an animal-painter, because painters of people,
being concerned with the individual personality, can in any case
paint only from real life (and not from old masters) whereas one
animal is much like another, seems a piece of hair-splitting. See
below, 25 h 2 n. P. is thinking of library research less as the investiga-
tion of sources than as an inadequatc- method of acquiring a neces-
sary skill: hence the criticism made abm·e, Vol. I, p. 10 n. 2, is not
wholly valid.
25 f. Ephorus' lack of experience of battles: P. discusses this to illus-

trate the point just made about Timaeus, that practical political
and military experience is essential to the historian's craft (cf. § 6,
mentioning Theopompus too). If P. quoted similar examples from
Timaeus, now lost, they may have stood behveen 25 f and 25 g.
l. 'TWV !J.(v I<Q'Ta 80.AaTTO.V epywv: Pedech, ad loc., suggests that as
a native of Cyme Ephorus probably grew up with an acquaintance
with na,·al affairs, and Gomme, Thucydides, i. 286 n. 2, takes P.'s
criticism seriously. It is true that as an Arcadian he was not likely
to have had much knowledge of naval warfare himself (cf. Livy,
xxxv. 26. 3-4, based on P., on Philopoemen); but his explorations
in the outer ocean in 146 will have filled that gap in his experience
(cf. Vol. I, p. s}. See further Schwartz, 'Ephoros (r)', col. TO:
H. Peter, W ahrheit und Kunst, Geschichtschreibung ttnd Plagiat im
klassischen Altertum (Leipzig-Berlin, 19n), ; Barber, 141.
'TWV s~ I<Q'Ta yi}v ciywvwv Q1TELpos dvaL TeX~ws: cf. Plut. 1'.{ or. 803 B
{= FGH, 70 T 21): E7Ti S£ rmv 'Erpopov Ka~ e.01T(JfL7TOV Kai J4vag<p,evovs
P7J70p<tmi!:Ka~ 7Tepu5Swv, as 7Tepalvovaw £go7TAlaavnr; rd <rrpar<DJ=Ta Kal
7Tapa1a[ai!7e>, eanv el1rei:v· "otlS.t, a<D~pov ravra p,wpalHt mi>.as-".
2. Tas 1repl. K{mpov vau!J.ax(as: the war between Evagoras, King of
Cyprus, and the Persian satrap Tiribazus, which began in 39r/o
(Diod. xiv. 98; cf. Xen. Hell. iv. 8. 24}, ended with the naval defeat
of 'Evagoras oft Citium in 381 at the hands of the Persian admiral
Glos (Diad. XV. 2-4, 8--t); Isoc. Paneg. 134-s. qo-r; Evag. sB-ii7;
393
XII. -:zsf 2 CRITICISM OF EPHORUS
Theopompus, FGH, nsF 103). Diodoms derives from Epborus (cf.
Jacoby, FGH, ii C, p. 33) but his account of the battle is too short
to give any impression of the original. See Cary, CAH, vi. 58-$9;
Beloch, iii. 1. 97-98, 2. 226---7.
Ka.L Tfi~ vepl. Kv(oov: the Spartan domination after the victory over
Athens in the Peloponnesian War was shattered in the Aegean in
394, when a Persian fleet commanded by the Athenian Conon, and
largely manned by Greek crews, destroyed the Spartan fleet under
Peisander, the brother-in-la\\'Of King Agesilaus, off Cnidus (Xen. Hell.
iv. 3· n-12; Diod. xiv. 83. 4-7 (based on Ephorus) ; cf. I us tin. vi. 3;
Nepos, Cotton, 4· 4; Polyaen. i. 48. 5; Philochoms, FGH, 328 F 144-5
Did. in Demosth. 1· 39 ff.). See Cary, CAH, vi. 43-44; Beloch,
jji, I, 76-n, 2. 211.
voX X&. Twv XPflO"LjlWV ••• 'ITpos Tfi~ olloia.s 'ITEpLuTacrELs: cf. 2 5 e 6 n.
Here too P. is thinking of the use of history to the practical man.
3. 1"~v vEpl AEUK1"pa. lla.x,v: the Spartan defeat at Epaminondas'
hands in July 371 (d. i. 6. r n.); Xen. Hdl. vi. 4· 3-15; Diod. xv.
; Plut. Pelop. 20-23; Paus. ix. 13. 3-13; Polyaen. ii. 3· 8; cf.
CAli, Yi. 8o-82; Reloch, iii. r. 167-8.
1"Yjv ~v Mo.vnvd~: Eparninondas' last victory of spring-summer 362;
see above, ix. 8. r-r3 with notes.
1"&.~ EK1"aseL~ Ka.l jlE1"a.1"0.seLs: 'the battle formations and changes in
these'.
4. b ... ~v 1"0LS AEUK1"pots KlVOUVOS a'!TAOUS yeyovws I<"!" A.: after a pre-
liminary skirmish in which the Spartan horse was driven
back, the Theban left, so ranks deep, charged and broke the Spartan
contingent, which was drawn up rz ranks deep on the right. Success
on this wing decided the battle; hence KafJ' €v n J.Llpos rii~ 8vvaf.L£W~
is 'in which only one part of the army was engaged' (Paton), rather
than 'tout d'unc piece' (Pedech). In both halves of the sentence J ...
Klvowos is really 'Ephorus' account of the battle', and the second
half should mean: 'his battle of Mantinea, while giving an ap-
pearance (~JL<Parnv JL€v •• •) of recounted with much detail and
technical virtuosity, is in fact (€an 8' • .. ) left hanging in the air
and completely incomprehensible to the historian'. The difficulty
here lies in the words r{jl aVJ'"IPa<P£1:, which can hardly refer to anyone
but Ephorus, who is called o avyypa<P€vs in §§ 2 and 4; but P. can
hardly mean that Ephorus' account is incomprehensible to himself.
Pedech translates 'incomprehensible a l'historien' as if the historian
were some undefined reader; but why should P. think of the reader
of Ephorus' account as 'the historian' rather than any reader in
general? Mauersberger s. v. dOLat·o'IJros translates 'un verstanden
von ... ', i.e. 'misunderstood by Ephoms'. But this requires the
words J 1T£pi r~v Ma.v-rf.veta.v to be taken as referring to the actual
battle, which Ephorus has misunderstood, whereas aVU1TOaTa.TO\
394
CRITICIS~I OF EPHORCS XII. 25h I
'without foundation', 'in the air' equally requires the sense 'Ephorus'
battle of Mantinea'. ~1oreover (though in view of the fluctuations in
the meaning of adjectives in --ro> this need not perhaps be serious)
d6,avo1)To> does not elsewhere mean 'misunderstood'. The simplest
solution is to delete the words T0 avyypa,Pef as a gloss; the sense is
perfectly clear. But if To/ avyypa</Jt(i is kept, one can only assume a
shift in meaning and translate with Paton 'the description is quite
imaginary and the battle was not in the least understood by the
author'.
5. Tous TO'!Tous ••• ~1r~J1npfl~eTA.: d.A1)0tvws is probably to be taken
with {nro(N.p.evoc;: 'if we get a correct idea of the ground and check
the movements etc.'; but the sense could also be 'if, relying on the
topography, we measure exactly the movements etc.' (so Pedech).
It is implied that P. has studied the battlefield of )1antinea on the
spot, which is, of course, likely.
a
25 2. TO SuvaJ1€VOV ~<Ju;Ae~v TJ!Lii;: for P.'s utilitarianism cf. ix. 20.
6 n., and for the usefulness of his history iii. 4· 8, 7· 4 ff., 3r. r2-r3,
xii. 25 b x-4, and the passages quoted in Vol. I, p. 7 nn. r2-r3. The
tautology of rl>,Pe>.eiv •.• d.vw,P£>.1> is clumsy.
3, OVT€S aTpt(3eis TTJS TOLO.UT11'i ~!LTreLp(a;: 'without ha\'ing any experi-
ence of this kind', i.e. knowledge of the locality (cf. iii. 90. I, iv. 57. 8,
viii. 20. r) ; that P. is thinking of personal study rather than experience
of writing monographs (so Pedech) is suggested by § 4, dopaa£av.
n-oXXQ. J1EV •• ' OUIC a~iwv OV'TWV : a lack of proportion in dealing
with material is also the charge P. makes against writers of mono-
graphs generally (cf. vii. 7· 6, xxix. rz. 6).
4. TTJV aopa.a(a.v: 'failure to make a personal inspection' (Shuck burgh).
25 h 1. ~v TU Tp~a~eoOTfi Ka.t TETaPTU ~uJ3A<t~: this 'quotation' is prob-

ably from the introduction to the first of the five books dealing with
Agathocles (cf. Diad. xxi. I7. 3. Tas luxaTa> i f3ff3Aw; •.• KaO' a,
11'EptelA1)rP€ 'TOS L4.ya.OoKMov<; 11'pag€t<;, FGH, s66 T 8); these will have
been books xxxiv-xxxviii. P. is hardly quoting literally for (a) he
says 11'€V'T~KOV'Ta Ut!VEXW> e'T'l/ WhereaS in the polemiC Of 25 d I it IS
merely oxe-Sov E'T1) 11'€11'f'l]KoVTa, (b) dp.o>.oyovplvw> hardly reads like
Timaeus' own word, (c) l'/€vcTo is third person, and should probably
remain despite )fai's emendation to Jy£v6p.1)v and the bracketing of
it by Biittner-Wobst; see Jacoby on FGH, 566 F 34; Susemihl,
i. 565 n. 237. C. Clasen, Timaios von Tauromenion (Kiel, 1883), n,
suggested that the quotation ended at gevtTevwv; and Jacoby pro-
posed (oOev) a11'aU'l/S (d.11'aU1)S is Boissevain's reading of the MS.: Kai
m5.a1)> Heyse). There may, however, be some distortion by the epi-
totnator.
4n-£tpo; ..• ~ea.t Tll'> Twv T61!'wv 8€a;: Timaeus, who made a special
395
xu. -zsh r ART AND HISTORY
claim to have consulted records (ro. 4) and inscriptions (u. 2), can
hardly have made this admission in such general terms, and P. may
have twisted a reference to Timacus' long exile from his native
Sicily (so Jacoby, FGH, iii b, commentary on 566 F 34). On the length
of Timaeus' residence at Athens cf. 25 d r n.; the tense of otarpll/Jos
cannot be pressed as evidencl.:: that when he said this Timaeus' exile
was over (so Manni, K.QKAAOL, 196o, qo n. 7).
2. d; n Twv !l-llpwv TouTwv: matters of war or topography.
To~; twypaljlo~;: for the comparison with the historian cf. 25 e 7;
Lucian, hist. conscr. 5o-5 r says that the historian should emulate the
good sculptor. This comparison shows that P. does not object to
€vapycta in itself (cf. xx. 12. 8) pro\·ided it is based on airromf.BHa.
Cf. Avenarius, IJ2-4.
TO~; &:rro TWV <ava.crl!a)a.y.,.Evwv euAaKWV "ITOlOU.,.EvOlS TUS lJ"ITOypa.tjla;:
inroypacb&.s- (Dindorf, for MS. a:rroypa<f>ac;) will mean 'sketches';
a7Toypa,P~ does not have this sense (despite Wunderer's defence
in Phil. 4i2). P. refers to the use of stuffed dummies for the
artists' work. The real subject need not be an animal as
Wunderer (ibid. and Po!.-Forsch. iii. sr n.) also argues, for ~0ov can
include human beings; indeed the use of ~tjiov to denote any figure
in a work of art, not only an animal (cf. Herod. iii. 88) and not neces-
sarily even a living creature (cf. Herod. iv. 88-though this picture
contained persons) suggests that in§ 3 P. is using it in quite a general
sense for the living subject of a painting. \Vunderer (iii. 51 n.) con-
jectures aKuActKwv for 8vAaKwv, but this is improbable. IJvAaKo> is
a bag, not a skin (as Shuckburgh translates, thus supporting his
belief that animal-painters are referred to). W. W. Hyde, CJ, I93i·
431, compares the American slang expression 'stuffed shirts'; but
the context is not
3. To ••• TflS ~.,.ljlO.aew; Ka.t TflS ~vepyda.;: 'vividness and animation';
on P.'s success in achieving lJL¢amc; see Pedech, Methode, 276-89.
Twv aXT}eLVwv !;~wv: 'of real living creatures' (human or animal);
the contrast is between the stuffed dummy and the living model.
Wunderer (Phil. 1907. 473) would keep aAKlJLWV, read by Mai,
Heyse, and Boissevain; but (i,\,a1w;;; can hardly mean 'living' (as
lp.l/Juxo> in i. 4· i), and Bekker's correction seems right.
4. ~K TflS a.uTo1Ta.e11ia.;: 'from experience'; cf. 25 i 7, 28 a 6;
VoL I, p. 10.
oi t~.-rl s,· O.UTWV 'ITE"ITOpEU.,.EVOl TWV 1Tpa.y.,.aTWV: cf. § 6. Obviously P.
is not claiming that no one can describe particular events unless he
has personally experienced them-which would recoil on himself
and render history writing virtually impossible. avTCw 'TWV rrpayJLtf.Twv
must mean 'public life, political events', including those near in
time and kind to what is being described. This is what § 5 implies
and § 6 specifically asserts.
396
THE HISTORIAN'S MATERIAL XI1.25i4
5. 1T€pi ~LwnKwv: 'private life' ; cf. ix. I7. 6. Ziegler (RE, 'Poly bios
(r )', col. 1462) is probably right in concluding from this passage that
P. was himself married with a family; he would hardly make demands
on a historian which he was personally unable to fulfil.
6. TouTo To p.epo<; 1T€pL1T€1TOL1]fLEVOLS Tijs taTop(a.s: 'and have made this
aspect of history their own', in the sense both of understanding it and
of being able to treat of it; for this sense of 7Ttpmott!a8at cf. v. 75· 6.
Twv .•• p.Ey(aTwv Ka.i KoLvoTaTwv: 'the most important and those of
most frequent occurrence'.
25 i 1. b 1TOL1]Ttl'>: Homer, as usually; clearly P. applies his criterion

to poets as well as historians. For the close bond between the two in
ancient thought see \Valbank, Historia, r96o, u6 ff.
3. Twv aup.~ouA€UTLKwv Ka.i 1Ta.pa.KAT)nKwv •.• A.oywv: cf. 25 a 3 n.
(presumably (TVILfJovAwnKOl A6yot are the crqp:'/yopiat of that passage).
The three types are exemplified in the speeches criticized in 25 k-z6 a.
4--9. The proper use of speeches by the statesman, and how historians
can help: P. here returns to the discussion of T.'s speeches as being
artificial and the work of a man lacking in political experience;
he has already criticized them for their falsity (25 a 3-25 b 4). The
argument is not easy to follow owing to the way in which P. switches
from the historian to the statesman without clear indication, and it
has been frequently misunderstood, most recently by Gomme,
Thucydidrs, iii. 522; it may be paraphrased thus: '4. Few occasions
(in real life) allow the speaker to set out all possible arguments;
the ones chosen depend on the speaker, where he and his audience
lived and to what people they belonged (or belong). 5· A statesman
must in fact be selecti\'e and not recite every possible argument (as
Timaeus makes his speakers do): otherwise he may well fail in his
object. 6. Since there is no fixed rule as regards which and how
many of the possible arguments a statesman should employ, we (sc.
the historians) must use quite a special degree of attention and clear
principles (i.e. in reporting speeches) if we are to benefit and not
harm our readers (i.e. the statesmen). 7· The right argument (i.e. for
a statesman to use on a specific occasion) is a matter hard to convey
by precept, but not impossible to ascertain if he reasons from prac-
tical experience (and this experience can be conveyed in the speeches
included in histories). The matter can best be expressed thus: 8. if
writers will indicate first the historical context, then what was
actu.1lly said, and fmally why the speaker succeeded or failed, we (i.e.
the statesmen who read the histories) shall be able to apply the
lesson to other circumstances and cope successfully with whatever
arises.' See further, Vol. I, p. 14 n. 2; iVliscellanea Rostagni, zu-r3.
4.~1TavTa.s ••• SLa.9ea9m Tous evovTa.<; A.oyous:: 'to set out all possible
arguments'; as in§ 5 A6yot will be 'arguments', rather than 'speeches'
397
XII. 25i 4 THE HISTORIAX'S MATERIAL
(as in§ 3). This change is sense is quite in P.'s style, cf., for example,
J<atpos meaning 'occasion' in § 4 and 'what is opportune' in § 7; for
another example cf. xiv. 8. 4 n. Here the reference is to the argu-
ments used by the statesman, not to speeches composed by a his-
torian; and if avaA1JB•s in § 5 seems at first sight to refer more easily
to the latter than the former, in 26 d 6, which refers back to the
present passage, it is statesmen who in studying the harangues in
Timaeus become avaA~BHs-. For the argument cf. xxxvi. 1. 6-7.
Twv U1ToVTwv: 'of those that occur to one'.
ot vuv .•• ot rrpoyeyovoTEs: i.e. a contemporary audience finds dif-
ferent arguments acceptable (11-poaievTat) from those which would
have been acceptable to an earlier generation.
5, Kai To f1EV flaTaiws KTA.: Biittner-\Vobst's emendation for the un-
certain MS. reading (Kat ou)lrrep aB1)vatOL KaLpiin Mai, .. ·lrrep dB1)vatOL
Katpiin Heyse); Hultsch reads Tel o€ rrapl'Kflali•t'LV and suggests other
possibilities in the apparatus; Pedech suggests (Ka{Tot T6 p..€v ~<aTa
p..€pos) mlJJTas ou~dvm KTA. The sense must be something like, 'to
expand a speech so as to include every possible argument .. .'.
0 1TOLEL TLflO.LOS 1Tpos rriiaa.v urro9E<1LV eupeaLAoywv: 'as Timaeus, with
his trick of inventing arguments, does in relation to every proposal'.
civaATJ8es KaLf1ELpa.KLw5es Ka.l 5La.TpL(3LKov: 'is false, and full of affecta-
tion and pedantry'; cf. 25 k 2, 26 d 6. After OtaTpt{1tKov Boissevain
confirms Mai's <{>a{vl'Tat, which is clearly preferable to Heyse's ap..a.
1TOAAo'Ls a'!TOTU)(LO.S a.tnov ••• KO.L KBTa.ci'povi)aews: 'the cause of
failure and contempt for many statesmen'. Shuckburgh says 'many
writers', but P. is speaking of statesmen and merely quotes Timaeus'
speeches as an example of what is to be avoided.
TO Se 1'0US &.pflO~OVTO.S Ka.i. Ka.Lpious ael. Aa.f1(3avELV: sc. Aoyovs .This is
the task of the statesman; that of the historian is to record what was
said(§ 8).
6. a0'1'aTOU ••• )(pTJaT£ov: 'since there is no fixed rule aS to which
and how many of the possible arguments should be used on a par-
ticular occasion', i.e. by the statesman.
nAAOLOTEpou •.• tiJA.ou Ka.lrra.pa.yyEAflO.TOS: 'there is need of an un-
usual degree of attention and clarity of principle', i.e. on the part of
the historian. P. switches at this point to the historian whose in-
formed procedure is to help the reader including the statesman,
who will turn to him for information on speeches previously de-
livered.
7. 6 KnLpbs ••• Suarra.payyeATos: 'what the situation demands is
always something hard to formulate'.
~Lei .,.t;:w EK Tfjs a.1horra.8eia.s Ka.l. 1'pL(3fjs 9ewpTJfla1'wv: 'through precepts
based upon personal experience and practice'. The precepts are given
to the statesman by the historian whose works he reads: and these
precepts are based on the historian's own experience and practice.
398
THE HISTORIAN'S FUNCTION XII. 25k 2
This is essential for a correct account of the situation, and an assess-

ment of why the various speakers succeeded or failed (§ 8).
8. 1'as opf.LO.s Ko.l 8;o.9£ael<; 1'wv ~ouAEUOfJ-Evwv: 'the aims and circum·
stances of those deliberating' (Shuckburgh).
1'0US Ko.1'' aX~9EIO.V pf19EVTO.S Xoyous: cf. 25 b I, XLXVi. I. 7. This is
a point on which P. never wavers.
0.1-1o. 1-1iv 8Lo.Kp1vovTes: 'by distinguishing', i.e. what fails from what
succeeds.
9. C.XA.' ~aT1v, o!f.Lo.L, K1'A.: the rhetorical pomposity of this final
sentence, with its contrast of n) J.LEV alTw.\oyeiv and To i!!e p7fatKo7Tetv, of
1'0 p.ev o,\{ya Katpiws dJTetv and TO of: 7TOAAa OtaBlaflat Kat J.LUTatws, and
the uariatio of oAiyoLS' €</>tKT()v followed by TWV iv p.iar.p KELJ.LEVWV Kat
KotJ•ov, furnishes a suitable conclusion for this confused and clumsy
formulation of how the historian deals with the problem of speeches.
a.tnoA.oyelv: 'tracing causes', i.e. of success or failure.
1'o ••• inJaLKo"TTelv (iv) 1'ois ~u~XioLs: 'to string together phrases
in books': Paton has 'by the aid of Looks', but P. is here speaking of
the historian.
KO.L TOUTOU 1TO.po.yyeAtO.V eupELV: 'and to discover the rules governing
this'; omitted by Paton. Cf. § 6, 7rapayyiAJ.LC.lTOS, 26. 9, 7Tapa}'f'tiAtJ-a-
nKwS'.
25 k 1. Ko.i 1repl. 1'o.\ho.: evidently the point at issue here is Timaeus'

lack of political sense; d. § 8. P. refers to the first two subdivisions
of this final part of the book: Timaeus' lies and errors (24-25 c) and
his political incompetence (25 d~26 d). See above, 24~28 an.
Twv ••• A.oywv: P. now criticizes from Timaeus of each of
the three types of oration mentioned in 25 i 3: those of Hermocrates
(auJ.Lf3ouA~UTtKoS'), of Timoleon (rrapaKA7[TtKos-), and of Pyrrhus (rrpHr-
/3wnKos-). The third is lost.
2. fl-E1'a r£A.wvo. Tov &.pxo.l:ov: d. 26 b 1-5. Gelo, the son of Deino-
menes, made himself tyrant of Gela in c. 491 and of Syracuse c. 485.
In concert with Theron of he defeated the Carthaginians
at Himera, so destroying the great invasion of 480, and making him-
self virtually master of all Sicily; d. Hackforth, CAH, h·. 36g-8z.
'EpJ10Kp6.TY)V, TLfJ-0AEOV1'0., nuppov: on Timoleon see 4 a 2 n., 2J. 4 n.
and below, 26 a; on Timaeus' work on Pyrrhus cf. 4 b 1 n. Hermo-
crates, son of Hem1on, the Syracusan statesman, first came into
prominence at the time of the Congress of Gela in 424 B.C.; his speech
urging Sicilian unity is recorded by Thucydides (iv. 59--64; other
speeches in Thuc. vi. 33·-34, 76--8o}. He later played a prominent part
in the defence of Syracuse against Athens, and his stratagem led to
the final defeat of the Athenians (below, § II; Thuc. vii. 73· 3). Be-
tween 412 and .po he fought in the Aegean on the Spartan side; the
loss of the Syracusan ships at Cyzicus in 410 led to his banishment,
399
xu.~:;k:z lLLUSTRJ1.TlO:t\S FROM TIMAEUS
and he was refused entry into Syra..:use 011 his return to Sicily in 408,
in spring 407 he fell in a street fight trying to force his way into
Syracuse {Diod. xiii. 75· &-g). See in general Westlake, Bull. R.vl. Lib.,
1958-g, 239-68. For F.'s statement that he fought at Aegospotami
see§ u n.
3. tv Tfi J.LL!f Kat eiKocnfi fjui3/..~: this figure must be wrong, for A then.
vi. 250 A (FGH, s66 F 32) assigns events of Dionysius the younger to
book xxii (cf. 25. 7 n.). Jacoby (FGH, iii b, pp. 544 and therefore
suggests that this fragment belonged to book xii, and that the Con-
gress of Gela ended this. It is true that 26 a 1 puts Timoleon's speech
'in the same book', i.e. book xxi, and 25. 7 also dates Timoleon to
that book. But it is difficult to believe that Timaeus dealt with such
an event as the Congress of Gela only incidentally in connexion with
Timoleon, omitting it in its proper place (like Diodorus); for the
account of Hermocrates' speech shows that it was dealt with in
detail. See Schwartz, Hermes, 1899, 489; Laqueur, RE, 'Timaios',
col. 108o; De Sanctis, Storiografia s1'celiota, 51.
Ka.8' ~v Ka.Lpov EupuJ.Leowv ••• 1TapeK6.AeL Ta<;; 1TOAeL<.>: in 424 the
Athenian general Eurymedon arrived in Sicily to build up a coalition
favourable to Athens (Thuc. iv. 48. 6), but the Sicilian Congress of
Gela thwarted this plan.
TOU<; r eA~ous •.• 0La1TIEJ.Lo/aa9a.L 1Tp0<;1'0US Ka.J.La.pLva(ou<.;: at this timP
Dorian Camarina was allied with Athens and her coalition; for the
truce now made cf. Thuc. iv. 58.
4. otnve~ ••• l3ou/..euaovTa~ 1repl. OLa.Aucrew~: cf. Thuc. iv. 58, ,£lnL
Ka.I oi aAAoL E<KEALwTa.t twEAtlovn.;- Jc; T/t\av, dml 1raawv -rwv m)AewF
1rplaf3eM;, €,; Aoyous- Ka.TE<:rrl)aa:v r:LU~AotS', e£ 1Tw<; tvvaAAay4!iev.
5. Sta.~ouMou '11'poTe8evTos: 'on the opening of the conference' (cf. iii.
20. r); but Paton's version 'a resolution was proposed in council' is not
impossible (cf. v. 49· 6 n.)-though less likely with -roiJ before ~ta.
flovAtov (so Boissevain).
TOLOUTOL~ ••. XPWJ.LEVOV ewD.yeL /..oyot.s TOY 'EpJ.LOKpcl1'1)V: cf. Time. iL
59--64 for his version of the same speech. As Gomme remarks (Thucy-
dides, iii. 523), it is curious that P. in criticizing Timaeus' version
never adduces the obvious argument that it bears no resernblanC'e
to Thucydides', and hence that one (or both) must be false. Whether
Timaeus was silently trying to outdo Thucydides (cf. Plut. Nic. 1. :,
€A1riaa.s Tdv fLEV BovKvSltrl)v im<pfla),efatla.t S<worl)n) is a matter o I
opinion; cf. H. Fuchs, Azlgust·in und der antike Friedensgedank,:
(1926) Ij7-8 n. 2; Jacoby on FGH, 566 F 22 n. 213 b. The sources of
both Thucydides and Timaeus for this speech are unknown; but
Antiochus of Syracuse, a contemporary, ended his history with tlw
Congress of Gela (Diod. xii. 7r. 2 FGH, 555 T 3), and Thucydides
may have used him (Gomme, op. cit. iii. Nestle (Phil. If'och.
1932, 1357-59; Der Friedensgedanke in der antiken Welt, Phil.
400
ILLUSTRATIOXS FROM TBiAEUS XII 25k II
Suppl.. B. 31 (1938), 17-18) has argued that Timaeus based his speech
on the famous otympiakos of Gorgias. His points are (r) that the
speech recorded by P. is full of Gorgianic antitheses, and since one of
these (26. 7) also occurs in Herodotus (i. 87.4), it is not Timaeus' inven-
tion; (z) the atmosphere of the speech is sophistic (d. 26. 7, Ka:ra rpu(nv);
(3) the paradox of Heracles, the founder of the Olympian games and
truce, is sophistic and especially appropriate to an Olympian speech;
(4) the Homeric quotations (26. 3~4) are a mark of sophistic composi-
tion; cf. Plato, Protag. 338 E, 1T€pt ~1Ta)IJ 8~:w6v elva•. Nestle has success-
fully shown the sophistic character of Timaeus' composition, but he
has not proved that Gorgias' Olympiakos was its model; nor since
only two fragments of this survive (Diels, FVS, ii. 82. B is it
likely that the proof could be made (despite the statement of Philo-
stratus, uit. Soph. i. 9· 493 that Gorgias ITI'aat&.,ouaal' Tirv 'E:UaiSa
&pi':)l• op.ovo{ac; tup.flou.\os airroL> Jyivt:To). Brown, 65-66, argues that
1'. gives a fair report of Timaeus' speech, and indeed there are no
grounds for thinking that he attributed to it anything Timaeus did
not say; but he is very selective, and it is easy to quote communes
loci out of context and make them sound ridiculous (cf. Jacoby,
FGH, iii b, p. 554).
7. E1TLXELPTJflO.Tn ,.payflaTLtta: 'practical proposals': an unusual
meaning for Jmxdp7Jp.a, distinct from that in 25 b 4·
Til.~ TotnuTa.~ 'YI'EpL1TETda.c;: so Heyse for MS. rrapa ••• ya> ; but his
other suggestion rrap(aAAa)yc:l, seems preferable (cf. vi. 7· 5), and
is read by Jacoby, FGH, 566 F 22. rrap<ai\Aa)ya' was suggested, ap-
parently independently, by Pedech and approved by Gelzer, Gnonwn,
1963, 165.
8. rijs 1TPO.YflO.TlKTl'> ••• a1TOAE(1!'£C19a.~ Ouvcl.f!EWS: 'deficient in political
sense' (Paton) rather than 'fails to show the ability of a historian'
(Shuckburgh); cf. xxxviii. 7· I, Jtlaopouf3a> • .• woAtl K<-xnpwp.ivo> -rfj>
'll'payp.anKfj> Kat rrrpaTrJY~Kfj> Bvvap.<.w> •
...Wv Ev Ta.is s,a.TpL~ni~ €m(XEtp~aEwv): cf. zs a 5, Ern> Jv ISwTpt{lfj ...
lmxEtpol7J. For the supplement cf. 7· 4, 26. 9·
(outt bMyov) EAa.noOa9a.~: 'he falls well below the standard of'.
9. 'YJ'aVTE~ yt\p ..• : 'for everybody', not 'all these', i.e. in the SChoolS
of rhetoric (so Paton).
,.0 tta9EUpE<nAoy£iv: 'to think up arguments': a1Tat A~:yop.evov. The
following lacuna is filled by Boissevain ( rrpJc; Td m )a-rw( ci) p.evov ~
-rJ ytvwaKop.el•ov 'with reference to what is common knowledge or
belief-providing a chiasmus with TWV c:Lyvooup.ivwv Kat TWV c:LmaToU-
"'I!WV. For the sentiment Pedecb quotes Lucian, hist. conscr. 56-57.
10. ATJflflt1C1l KEXf>T}Ttll TolOUTolc;: 'he used such arguments' (Paton).
11 ~ Tov auvnywvLaaflEvov ••• -r~v lv Atyoc; 1ToTa.flo~~ va.u1-1a.x£a.v:
false. Hermocrates perished in 407 (§ 2 n.) whereas Aegospotami was
814173 Dd 401
XII. 25k II ILLUSTRATIO~S FROM TIMAEUS
in 405 (i. I. 6 n.). Lenschau (RE, 'Hermokrates (I)', col. 886) suggests
that the words T~v Ev Aiyd;; rroTaf-Lof;; vavf-Laxiav may be an intrusive
gloss on an original phrase~~~ lv 'EAAYJarrr5vT!fJ f-LUXYJ~', referring to the
battle of Cynossema. This would save P.'s credit, but is clearly not
susceptible of proof.
a.uTa.vopt o£ XE~pwanJ.LEvov .•• Ka.Ta ILKE.Xla.v: only indirectly, by
means of the false message which led the Athenians to postpone
their departure from Syracuse after the defeat in the harbour (Thuc.
vii. 73· 3-74. 1). Timaeus has turned this to the glory of Hermocrates.
26. 1. TOV op9pov ••• a.t aO.AmyyES ... ol opv~9E-;: a proverbial an-
tithesis; cf. Plut. Nic. 9· 5. ~S€w;; a~ f-LEf-LVYJf-L,fVOL (the Spartans and
Athenians) TOV ELTrOVTO;> OTL ToV;; Ell ELpTJVTJ KafkvoovTa;; ov aa-\myy£;;,
&.X\' a-\EKTpVOVE;> a,Pvrrv(~OVUL.
2. Tov 'Hpa.KAEa. ••• Tov J.LEV '0AuJ.l1T(wv O.ywva. 9Eiva.L: although the
first Olympiad was dated from the victory of Coroebus in 776 (cf.
vi. rr a 3 n.) there were strong traditions for an earlier foundation
of the festival in mythological times, and the earliest of these is
found in Pindar (Olymp. 2. 3-4, 6. 67) who makes Theban Heracles
the founder. Another tradition attributed the foundation to a Cretan
Heracles (Paus. v. 7· 4ft.; cf. Diod. v. 64. 6, Strabo, viii. 355). This
association \vith Heracles is probably of Dorian origin, and be-
comes increasingly popular (d. Lys. 33· I; Diod. iv. I4; Stat. Theb.
vi. 5 ft.; Apollodor. ii. 7· 2). Timaeus could well have introduced it
without drawing on Gorgias' Olympic speech (above, 25 k 5 n.). See
further Ziehen, RE, 'Olympia', cols. 2520 ft.; Gruppe, RE, Suppl-E.
iii, 'Herakles', cols. 9I6-q.
iKoua(ws OE 1Ta.pa.LTLOV ouOEvl YEYOVEVO.~ KO.KOU: so Biittner-\Vobst
for MS. KaKou ovoEvi. yEyov€vaL (Boissevain KaKillv ouoevi. yEyov.fvaL;
Hultsch KaKou rrapalnov ovOEvi yEyov.fvm in app. crit.). For this tradi-
tion concerning Heracles cf. Plut. Nic. 25. I, Kai yd.p Tov 'HpaKMa
1TUVTWV KpaTEtV af-LVYOf-LEVOV Kat rrpoETrLXEtpODf-LEVOV. A reference to
Heracles would be not inappropriate from Hermocrates, in view of
his worship at Syracuse (cf. Gruppe, RE, Suppl.-B. iii, 'Herakles',
col. 992).
3. EX9~aTos o£ flOL £aa~ KTA.: Homer, Iliad, v. 890.
4. &.cppt1Twp, a9Ef1~0'TOS KTA.: Homer, Iliad, ix. 63; Nestor speaks.
5. Etpt1va. j3a.9{11TAoun KTA.: from Euripides' Cresphontes (fr. 453, I-8,
Nauck 2 ), also quoted by Stobaeus, 55· I = iv. I4. I Hense. Pedech
asserts that this play was produced after 42I and Herrnocrates'
speech delivered in 424; but this is not certain.
6. Tov J.I.Ev mSAEJ.LOV TU voai!_J: sophistic commonplaces.
7. To us 1TpEa~uTipous li1TO T~JV viwv 9a1TTEa9m KTA.: cf. Herod. i. S7. 4,
where the same paradox is attributed to Croesus addressing Cyrus
from the pyre.
402
ILLUSTRATIOXS FROM TIMAEUS XII. z6a 4
8. 11118' O.xpL TWV TeLxwv: since missiles can penetrate the city.
9. apn yevb!lE\10\1 'ITEpt OLa.TpL~c:i.c;: 'who has just come to the schools'.
Tac; ~K Twv .:mol1"1111c:i.Twv '1ToAu'11"pa.y11oauva.c;: 'the search after know-
ledge contained in treatises'. inrof-LV~f-LaTa is a very general word in
P.; there is no reason to suppose (with Wunderer, ii. 35) that here it
means collections of quotations arranged under headings.
'll"a.pa.yyeXIla.TLKWc; ••• 'ITOLe'i:a8a.L TTJ" ~mxe£pTjaLv: 'to make up an
essay according to the rules containing everything consonant with
the character of certain historic personages' ; for 7Tapa.yyeAf-LanKw~
cf. 25 i 9 n., 7Tapayye:Vav; Dion. Hal. de camp. uerb. n. 151.
(oux h)ipOLc;, &.XXO. TouToLc;: if the supplement is correct, Hultsch
is right in suspecting the hand of the epitomator, for the phrasing
is infelicitous and DoKef requires an infinitive.
26 a 1. TL!lOAEwv ev Tfj a.uTfj ~u~X~: for Timoleon cf. 25 k 2 n. Laqueur

argues that 25 a 1-26. 9 forms part of a later insertion, and that the
words lv Ti] avTi) f:1vf1Ai.f refer back to 25. 7 (RE, 'Timaios', col. I08o);
and Muller believes in two systems of calculating Timaeus' books,
one excluding books i-viii, so that book xxi might sometimes be
reckoned as book xiii. Neither provides a convincing explanation
of a real difficulty; for whatever stood at 25 k 3 (and it can hardly
have been 'book xxi': see note), Timoleon's speech will not have
been recorded in the same book as Hermocrates' address at Gela.
Perhaps the simplest solution is to assume a lacuna between z6 and
26 a, containing a mention of the book of Timaeus to which P.
refers back (one of books xxiii -xxviii? see 25. 7 n.). On the identifica-
tion of Timoleon's speech see 25. 7 n.; it is that described in Diod.
xvi. 79· 2, where two themes are mentioned, the cowardice of the
Carthaginians and the recollection of Gelon's victories. Of these only
the first is referred to here.
wpoc; TTJV &.va.vSp~a.v: d. Diod. xvi. 79· 2, o6)/o..8~; ••• T0v TWV !PowlKWV
ava.v8pla.v. That Diodorus here follows Timaeus is clear from the
account of the omen following the speech, which Plutarch specifically
attributes to Timaeus (FGH, 566 F 118 = Plut. Mar. 676 D).
2. EpTj!loTepa. Tflc; AL~UTj'i: cf. Eurip. Hel. 404, 1211 for references to
the proverbial deserts of Libya {on which cf. Herod. ii. 32. 4). Wun-
derer, i. 28, suggests that the explanation which Timaeus puts in
Timoleon's mouth came from some collection of proverbs, such as
Demon's. It hardly fits Timaeus' own picture of Libya: cf. 3· 3·
3. eVToc; TWv XLTwvwv exovToc;: the custom of orientals before their
king; cf. Xen. Hell. ii. I. 8, Kfipo<; a1TEKTHVEV AvTo{3otaaK7JV Ka~ Mt-
'Tpaiov •.. OTt av-rtj'J U1TO.VTWVTE<; ov otlwaav Ota Tij<; KOP7J> Ta<;" XEipa<;,
8 1TOWVUt {3aatAE'i f-LOVOV" ~ ()€ KOP'YJ £aT~ f-LO.KpoTEpov ~ xetplS", Ell fj Tijv
xnpa €xwv ovo€v av SvvatTO 7TOtijaat.
4. ~a.vepot yivwvTa.L To'i:c; U'II"Eva.vT~oLc;: Campe suggested that the
XII. -z6a 3 ILLUSTRATIONS FROM TIMAEUS
words avOpES OIITES had been omitted before rf>avcpol; but the omission
was probably more considerable (so Biittner-Wobst).
26 b 1. rEXwvos ~Tra.yyeAAOJ.Levou KTA.: cf. 25 k 2. According to

Herodotus (vii. IS3· r, IS7· r ff.) the request came from the Greeks,
who sent envoys to Sicily; the version here, which must surely be
that of Timaeus (not Ephorus, as Dunbabin, 421, says), is more
favourable to the Sicilian, who offers the help through envoys sent
to Corinth (Tofs Trapa Toil TlAwvos Trpm{JEvmts). Jacoby, commenting
on FGH, 566 F 94, seems correct in treating this as an invention,
since the pro-Sicilian version in Herodotus vii. r6s shows no trace of
it. It is noteworthy that P. does not attempt to refute Timaeus'
version by quoting Herodotus against him, just as in 25 k 5 he makes
no reference to Thucydides. The numbers here, 2o,ooo foot and 200
warships, are those given by Herodotus (vii. 158. 4) who, however,
adds 2,ooo horse, 2,ooo archers, 2,ooo slingers, and 2,ooo light horse.
For the battle of Himera fought shortly afterwards against the
Carthaginians Diodorus (xi. zr. r) gives Gelo's army as so,ooo foot
and 5,ooo horse; these Jacoby (loc. cit.) takes to be from Ephorus,
but their divergence from the numbers Gelo offered to the Greeks
is without significance for there is no reason why they should be
identical. On their historicity see P. A. Brunt, Historia, 1953, r6o.
TO~S TrpoKa.&T)J.LEVous ~v Kop£v&ct>: the representatives of the allied
Greek states who assembled in congress at the Isthmus in 481 (Herod.
vii. 132, 145, 172. r).
2. T~v 5' ijyeJ.Lov(a.v C.vayKtJ ••• TrEpL9~o-ew To'Ls d.p£o-ToLs: in the
Herodotean version it is made quite clear that Sparta is to be he-
gemon (Herod. vii. rsg-6z).
4. eKTElveL Xoyous: a technical expression for spinning out material
into a long narrative (cf. Avenarius, go).
T~v J.LEV ILKEALa.v J.LE:ya.AOJ.LEpeo-Tepa.v KTA.: if Diod. xi. 23 goes back
to Timaeus, it provides an example of how he related the struggle
of Gelo against the Carthaginians with the Persian War in Greece:
cf. also Diod. xxi. 17. 3, Trap' oA7JV •.. T~v yparp~v ~YKWfLta~wv T~v Twv
l:vpaKoalwv dvopdav; Cic. de rep. iii. 43, 'urbs ilia praeclara, quam ait
Timaeus Graecarum max imam, omnium autem esse pulcherrimam'.
5. To'Ls J.LUpa.K(oLs Tots ~v Ta.l:s 5La.TpLI3a.is KTA.: cf. z6. g. The words
Kai Tots ( TrEpt )rraTots are Buttner-\Vobst's conjecture for MS. Kat Toi>
TdTrots. It was based on a hint from Campius and the comparison of
Baton in Athen. iv. r63 B, Tovs Tov rppovtf-Lov ~7JTovVTas ~~~ Tofs rrEpt-
TraTots Kai Tats i:haTpt{3ai:s wa7r<p <hoSESpaKoTa. '1T<pl7raTot will be 'the
philosophical schools'. But Pedech, perhaps rightly, keeps To'1Tots in
the sense 'communes loci'.
0epo-£Tou ••• ~YKWJ.LLOV f) n,ve:A6TrT)S ••• ljloyov: these were para-
doxical; cf. Aesc hines, iii. ~31, kat cl wlv TLS Twv Tpayt~<wv '1TOL7JTwv ...
ILLCSTRATION"S FROM TIMAEUS XII. 26 c z
'II'Ot~anev iv Tpay<pStf! Tov Bepalrqv {mo Twv 'EA>.~vwv crret/JavovfLevov,
otlSds- av {JfLWV {JTr0fL€tVEt€V, OTL 4nJaiv ~ Owqpo> avavSpov aVTOV elvat Kal
avKo~aVT7JV. But encomia of Thersites, the demagogue, were written,
more or less seriously; an example survives in the JyKWfLLOV BepalTov
of Libanius (viii. 243-51 Forster). See too Aeneas, Ep. 15 (Epist. gr.
27, Hercher); Gell. xvii. 12. 1-2; Gebhard, RE, 'Thersites', col. 2467.
Defamation of Penelope is more common; she is lewd and adulterous
in Lycophron, 772; Duris, FGH, 76 F 2r, made her the mother of
Pan by all the suitors; and other accounts convicted her of adultery
with Amphinomus or Antinous (Apollod. epit. vii. 38-39) or had
Odysseus drive her out for loose behaviour (Pausan. viii. 12. 6).
Normally, however, she was the type of the true and chaste wife
(references in Wiist, RE, 'Penelope', cols. 483-4) and Philodemus (de
rhet. 4, cols. 35 a-36 a i. zq Sudhaus) protests against those who
'll'po~<pelvovns-
lv Tai:s avfL{jA~aEatV Jl7jVEAOTr7JS' KAvTatfL~aTpav Kat TOV
Jlaptv :4J..€tavSpov NEKTOpos d~avi,ovat TdS' ap€Tas TWV dyaOwv. See
further W. H. Roscher, Phil. 1894, 368-72, and, for the particular
branch of encomium and vituperation known as 'adoxography', that
is the paradoxical treatment of worthless or inappropriate topics
(such as P. mentions here), A. S. Pease, CP, 1926, 27-42.
il Twos ~TEpou Twv TOLOUTwv: e.g. Gorgias' encomia on Helen and Pala-
medes, !socrates' Helen and Busiris, Polycrates' Busiris, Libanius'
vituperation of Achilles and Hector (cf. Pease, op. cit. (see previous
note) 29, 37-38) or the encomium on Polyphemus by Zoilus of Am-
phipolis (FGH, 71 F 2), which forms part of his attack on Homer.
26 C l. Olll<: ets aUyKpLUL\1 1 tt)._A' Ets KO.TO.~WKYJUL\1: he exposes them

'not to serious comparison (i.e. with others), but to ridicule'.
<1rpos) Tov 1TpoxeLpoTa.Tov Myov i)aKYJKOaL: so Biittner-Wobst for
MS. Tov TrpoxnptaToTaTov J..oyov; Pedech omits <Trpos) and Hultsch
reads xdptaTa Tov J..oyov. Tr. 'have trained themselves in extreme
readiness of speech' (Paton).
l. EKdvwv TLves ••• ToLa.UTa.Lc; xpwvTa.L 1ra.pa.Oo~o.?..oy£a.Ls: P. refers to
the New Academy, which from the time of Arcesilaus (c. 315-241{4o).
took a turn towards the scepticism which became even more pro-
nounced under Carneades (214/13-129/8), on whom cf. xxxiii. 2
Aul. Gell. vi. 14. ro. Arcesilaus attacked the Stoic theory of com-
prehension, den:ying the possibility of knowledge and insisting that
the philosopher must necessarily withold judgement ; cf. Sex. Emp.
Math. vii. rs6 ff., fL7JDEVOS yap 5vTOS' KaTaA7JTrTOU, el auyKaTaTi0ETat
'Ttvt, T{ji aKaTaA~TrT<p uuyKaTaO~aETat, ~ B£ T{ji aKaTaA~TrT<p avyKaTaOeats
o
Sofa laT{v. wcrre el Twv auyKaTanOefL€vwv €uT1v ao~os, n'Ov Sotaa-rwv
la'Tat 0 ao~os. ovxl Be ye TWV Botacrrwv lanv 0 ao<fo6s- (TOUTO yap
I.J.. ,1 A
i
a'f'pOClVV7JS' 'IV KaT ) atJTOVS,
} I \ .,. r I
Kat TWV dfLapT7)fLaTWV f1 ) ' W
atTLOV . OUK apa TWV
auyKaTanOEfLEVWV EaTlv 0 aotfoos. el s~ TOUTO, TrEpi 1TallTWV aVTdv OE~UEt
XII. z6c 2 ILLvSTR.\ TlONS FRO::VI Tll\IAEtJS
aauyKara8£u'iv. TO 8~ &.auyKa:ra8£T£iV aiiSev lrEpov EO"TW ~ TO brlxnv·
i<folg£t apa 1T€pt miVTWV aaot/x)~. This passage illustrates the distinction
New Academic teaching drew between the comprehensible and the
incomprehensible. See also Cic. Acad. i. 45, de orat. iii. 67. Carneades
argued the same case, denying even the possibility of knowing that
nothing could be known; cf. Cic. A cad. ii. 28, 'Antipatro hoc idem
postulanti, cum diceret ei, qui ad:firmaret nihil posse percipi, unum
tamen illud dicere percipi posse consentaneum esse, ut alia non
possent, Carneades acutius resistebat, nam tantum abesse dicebat,
ut id consentaneum esset, ut maxime etiam repugnaret'. Such teach-
ings as these gave rise to word-spinning and paradoxical arguments
among the lesser lights in the Academy, here criticized.
Tola.uTa.s tdnropoUO"l m8a.vonpa.s: 'probabilities' (d. 7. 4} carry no
guarantee of truth; cf. xiii. 5· 5, ivlor£ Kat 1raawv rwv mBavon]rwv p.ETa
Toii o/<-vDav> ra-rrap.evwv. It was Carneades who, having denied the
possibility of knowledge, first accepted the existence of 'perceptions
which carry conviction', mBa.v~ c/Javmaia (Sex. Emp. l~fath. vii. 184};
and under Carneades and Cleitomachus the Academy was much
concerned with developing a theory of 'probabilities' (cf. Sex. Emp.
Pyrrh. i. 227-9; V. Brochard, Les Sceptiques grecs 2 (Paris, 1923), 135 ff.}.
Tous tv 'A81]va.ls ovTa.s oO"ti>pa.(ve0"8a.l •.• tv 'Eq,EO"<tJ KTA.: perhaps
part of a discussion on whether one can distinguish between true and
false impressions (as the Stoics asserted and the New Academy
denied: cf. Sex, Emp. ;'-fatlt. vii. 154) or, as Pedech suggests, an
example of the sorites argument based on the impossibility of draw-
ing a clear distinction between 'near' and 'far', and so of determining
at what point a smell ceases to be perceptible. Why Ephesus is men-
tioned is not known. The follov.ing point concerns the distinction
between being somewhere and dreaming one is there. Carneades
invoked the evidence of dreams and drunken and insane hallucina-
tions to counter the Stoic doctrine of the KaTaJ.TJ1TTLK~ c/JaVTaa{a, and
that of other dogmatists who taught the certitude of knowledge (d.
Sex. Emp. Math. vii. 403 ff.); the argument here is almost certainly
from Carneades; cf. Brochard, op. cit (previous note), 129 n. 1.
3. TTtV oXYJV a.tpEO'LV: 'the whole sect'.
WO'TE ~ea.l. TO. Ka.}U;)s u1Topouflwa. ••• 1)x8aL: 'so that even reasonable
subjects of debate have lost credit with people generally'; P. re-
cognizes the importance of scepticism kept within limits.
4. Twv fl~ t\9l~<wv ~ea.i. 1Tpa.yJ-ta.n~ewv Mywv: 'questions of ethics and
politics'.
nvwti>eXeis Ka.t 1Ta.pa.Sb$ous EOpi!O'LXoyLa.s: 'useless and paradoxical
verbiage'.
26 d 1. Su]. TTtV E1TL+O.O'lV Tijs nXYJ8woAoy£a.s: 'through the superficial

appearance of veracity' (Paton).
4o6
ILLUSTRATIONS FROM Tll\IAEUS
TLVns 5~ ~<o.l TrpoaKiKATJTO.': 'and some he has won over to himself',
cL viii. 23. 5, these are the more intelligent minority. Paton, 'in
other cases he invites discussion', is misleading.
t-tn' (mo8€L~£11lS ••• Trda€w: 'convince by the proofs he brings'.
l. TWV m:pl TO.s a1TOLKta.s ••• <i1Tocpua£1ilV: cf. ix. I. 4: this appeals to
antiquarians. As an example Pedech quotes Timaeus' discussion of
the origins of the Sicans who, he argued, were autochthonous,
against Philistus' view that they came from Iberia (FGH, 556 F 45,
s66 F 38 = Diod. v. 6. r). Laqueur (RE, 'Timaios', col. IZ03) suggests
that among those who were misled by Timaeus' account of the
foundation of Italian cities was Cato and that P. is hinting at him.
That Cato used Timaeus is not r-ertain but likely (cf. Geffcken,
Timaios' Geographie des Westens (Phil. Unters. 12), r892, 179 n. 3);
but there is no evidence that Cato was one of those here referred
to whose eyes were opened to Timaeus' unreliability and who sub-
sequently became his most obstinate critics.
3. 8~ TTJS llKpL~oAoyl:o.s: 'owing to his affectation of accuracy';
dKptpo>..oyla. is a disparaging term ; cf. ii. 16. 14 ; dKptpo>..oyEiaEia.t,
xxix. 5· r, xxxiii. zr. 1.
KO.TEO'X£8,o.dvo.L TTJS olKoU~EvTJS: 'to ha,·e made random statements
about the world'.
iv ots voAAO. t-tEv Oytws AEY€TO.L: tbe antecedent of ol<; is EKaO'Tots, but
ras ~v EKUCTTOLS tcrropla.s may be either 'stories in various fields' or
'the stories in the various parts of Timaeus' work'. The relative
clause may therefore refer to the existence of both true and false
elements in the stories which Timaeus appears to sift before in-
corporating them in his histories (in which case we are not told any-
thing about the success of his sifting) or it may refer to the stories
already incorporated in his histories, in which case P. is saying that
Timaeus himself wrote 'll'OA.\d p.~v uyuns . .• rro>..Ad OE Ka.i rpwbws. The
second is the interpretation of Shuckburgh and Jacoby (FGH, iii b,
p. 527), the first, that of Paton and Pedech. Both are possible, but the
first, which gives P.'s attitude towards Timaeus, is the more probable.
4. oTav .•• lmomanuawa,: 'when they have placed confidence in
his altogether excessive claims'.
t1Tt TWV AoKpwv: above, s-II, J6.
5. KO.L ax€8ov ••• TOUT' ll11'oof.€povTO.L TO AUO'LTt;A€s;: 'and that I might
almost say is the only benefit which the most diligent students of
his history get from their reading' (Shuckburgh). Paton misses the
sarcasm.
6. 8tE~o8ut.ois Myots: 'verbose passages'; cf. xxxvi. I. 6 (of the
actual speeches of politicians).
· ~€tpo.Kt615ns Ka.t lha.Tplpuc:ol KTA.: cf. 25 i 5, 25 k 2.
'
XII. 27a I SUMMING-UP AGAINST TIMAEC'S
as distinct from the earlier sections dealing with colonies, founda-
tions of cities and relationships (26 d 2). Timaeus' work contains
various kinds of historical 'ATiting, in contrast to P.'s own history
which is JLOVot£8.£> (ix. r. 2-3).
2. ouK EvSosos: 'improbable'; this seems more likely than 'discredit-
able'. Pedech rightly keeps the reading of M <f>alvETa' in preference
to Cobet's <f>av<.fTat..
aJ..,a~vwTnTT) ••• TWV TL...(I,tOU KO.TTJYOPT)JlGTWV: 'the truest explana-
tion of the accusations brought against Timaeus', not, with Paton,
'the truest accusation .. .'.
3. TTJV EJ11TE'P'K~v 'II'Epi EKM'To. Suva.ll'": 'a talent for detailed re-
search'; Pedech, '!'esprit scientifique en chaque chose'.
TTJV t'll'i Tils 1ToXu'll'pa.y!locr6v'ls ~SLV: 'a competence based on in-
quiry'.
4. Twv e'IT' oVOJlO.TO'i cruyypo.4>£wv: 'reputable historians'.
27. 1. WS Clv El TlVWV opyavwv: 'two instruments as it were'.

aAT)9LVWTEpas •.• Tfj<; opacrEWS KO.Til TOV 'HpaKAEtTOV: cf. XX. I 2. 8.
For the quotation from Heracleitus see Diels, FVS, i. 22 B 101 a.
But Heracleitus also wrote (Sex. Emp. 1'1ath. vii. 126) KaKol fLaf>Tvpes
dvepJrrrou:nv d<j>eaJ..JLol Kal dJTa {3apf3apovs fvxds ,}x6vTwv [Bernays
{3op{36pov fvxds exovTES'], and since Herod. i. 8. 2 writes WTa yd.p Tvyxavtt
a1!8pwr.ou:n EOVTa dmaTOT€pa 6<j>eaAJLWV, many scholars have assumed
that 'HpaKAEtTov is an error for 'Hp6SoTov (d. von Scala, 88 n. 1).
This view, which Ziegler (RE, 'Polybios (1)', col. 1468) regards
favourably, is to be rejected, for P. quotes Heracleitus elsewhere
(iv. 40. 3), but not Herodotus, of whom he betrays no certain
knowledge. The saying embodies a piece of popular wisdom which
Herodotus may have taken from Heracleitus or transcribed inde-
pendently; d. Thuc. i. 73· 2, Ka~ Tlt JL€" "JTavv r.al.ata Tl Sd MyEw,
djy aKoat p.a.A/..ov t..Oywv p.ap711p€S' ~ Otf'" TWV aKOVG:OJLEVWV ; Dio Chrys.
xii. 7I, Tb I.Eyop.EVOV WS' la:-nv aKof1s 'JTLCJ'TOTEpa OfLJLUTa; Lucian:hist.
conscr. 29, a stay-at-home historian nevertheless begins his work:
"Qm 6<j>8a>.p.wv dm.aT(STEpa. ypa<f>w TOL~·wv fl dSov, o~x 1/Kova:a; a
Horace, A.P. r8r-z, 'segnius irritant animas demissa per aurem I
quam quae sunt oculis subiecta fidelibus et quae J ipse sibi tradit
spectator'. The credibility of the eyes was paradoxically
denied by !socrates, Panath. rso, d KaT(llJTULY'JV E:L<;' cAEyxov Kat .:\Oyov,
Swry8cl7JV av JmSEr~a· 'JTaJJTa<; dv8pdm·ov<; TrAElov.:; lma:T~JLaS' lxoi!Ta<;;
bLa T'ijS' aKoijs ~ Ti)S' JrpEws, Kat JLd~ov<; TrpagHS' KaL Ka/../..[ov.:; ElboTaS', as
t t I ' I 1\ Jt 'f' t \ I , •
r.ap cTEpwv aKr;Koamv, 1) KE:wa<;, at<; avTot r.apayEYEV7JfLEJJOL rvyxavova:w,
d. Isoc. Panegyr. 30, where this thesis leads him to reckon ancient
events as more credible than modern! It is against this rhetorical
and bookish concept of history-writing that P. is here protesting.
It is unlikely that he had read Heracleitus himself; the quotations
408
OTHER WRITERS CITED XII. 28. 1
here and at iv. 40. 3 will come from him at second-hand, probably
through a florilegium (cf. Wunderer, ii. 69-70).
3. TOU f.LEV s~a. TWV UTrOflVT)j.L(hwv ••• : Buttner- w obst supplies
pipovs rfo,}.,om5vws dvnlxmJ, Pedech ijo/a-ro (from Reiske's dv8~o/a-ro).
Reading is a function of the ears rather than the eyes.
TO 8£ TrEpt 'TaS ava.Kptaus: iv. 2. 2, xii 4 c 3; it is to the latter passage
that P. here refers back.
4. J3tJ3A&o9tiKTJV vou yE&TV..Waa.v: there would not be much available
at Athens concerning the west. Pedech, ad loc., mentions the return
by Seleucus 'Nicator of Peisistratus' library (Gell. vii. 17. 1), and the
rxistence of private libraries (Athen. i. 3 A); but there was nothing
on the Alexandrian scale.
5. Ta<;: TW\1 vpoyeyov6nuv ••• ayvo[as: 'the mistakes of former his-
torians'. H ultsch regarded dyvo{as with suspicion and Buttner-Wobst
and Boissevain conjectured a:rrorfoaO'<£>; but cf. iii. 21. IO, Tats dyvolat>
Kai rfotAOTLfLLO.LS TeL>!' O'Vyyparfo€wv ; 59· 8.
6. rroXAijs ..• Sa.traV'I]S: cf. xxxiv. 5· 7 on the expense of travel. No
doubt his journey to Spain on Scipio's staff would be paid for out of
public moneys, but P. came from a wealthy family in his own country;
cf. von Scala, 14 n. 6.
7. "E4>opos 4>TJa&v: FGH, 70 F uo; d. iv. 20. 5 n. on Ephorus. Jacoby,
ad Joe. (FGH, ii C, p. 64), compares Thuc. i. 22. 2.
8. 9e6trof.LTro<;:: FGH, 115 F 342; cf. viii. 9-n n. on Theopompus.
Jacoby, ad loc. (FGH, ii BD, p. 397), suggests that this sentence
comes from a speech rather than a prologue to one of his books.
For the sentiment cf. 25 g 1. Pedech quotes Dion. Hal. ad Pomp. 6
(FGH, us T 20 (a)). where Theopompus' method is described in
tem1s very similar to that recommended by P.: (r) considerable
expense in assembling evidence (d. 27. 6, 28 a 3), (2) effort to be an
eye-witness (d. z8 a 4). (3) history a full-time occupation, not a
TTap<Opyov (cf. 28. 4).
10. vpo9Ef.LEvo<;: To Tou '08uaa€w<;: trpoaf.U'Irov: on Odysseus as an exem-
plar see ix. 16. J n. Here he is the typical man of action. The three
quotations are from Odyssey i. 1-2, 3-4, viii. r83 Ilt'ad, xxiv. 8).
28. 1. TO TfjS LO'TopLa.<;: vpoax"ll-'a TO&OU'TOV av5pa t'IJTt:LV: the full force
of this conclusion is evident if one compares iii. 59· 7: J.rrHS~ .•.
inrEOE~ap.€8a Tovs ~ew8uvovs ToVs O'vp.f3avTas ~11.'iv ~v7TAavv Tfj ~eaTd A~f361fv
Ka1 KaT' 'Jf3TJp{av, ;Tt 0~ TaAaTiav Kai T~ll €~w0rv TaUTa£S -rais xdJpa~S
crvyKvpoOO'av 8£\anav. On the date of these journeys see iii. 57-59 n.
JPedech, REG, 1958, 439, argues that P. must have crossed the Alps
before 151-o, since few witnesses of Hannibal's crossing could have
been alive then; but iii. 48. r2 does not imply that the questioning
of! eye-witnesses necessarily took place on the route. P. can have
made his inquiries rrap' av-rwv •.. TWI! 1TapaTETWX<hwv 'TOLS KO.£pois
XII. 28. I PLATO CITED
at Rome or elsewhere.) On P. the traveller see further Walbank,
Class. et med. 1948, 171-3; ]RS, I962, Io-n; and cf. Paus. viii. 30. 8
for the inscription to P. at :\fegalopolis, ws E7T~ yijv Ka~ OaA.aaaav
7raaav 7TAaV7JOdry.
2. nMTWY ~T]ffL KTA.: P. adapts the saying about kings and philo-
sophers from Rep. v. 473 c-E, lav JL~ ... ~ oi cpJ...oaocpo< {JaatAnfawatl'
lv Tats 7ToAwtv ~ oi {3arrtAijs TE vvv AEyoJLEVO< Kat SvvarrTat cptAoaocp-ljawrrt
yvYJalws TE Kat tKavws •.• oDK /!an KaKwv 7ravAa •.. Tais 7ToAEat, DDKl;>
8' ouS€ Tij> av0pw1T£Vi.p y€vn; but significantly he lays the stress on
practical experience, whereas Plato laid it on philosophical activity.
The quotation was famous and P. may cite it from memory; cf.
Arist. Rhet. ii. 23. 1398 b I8, who applied it to the Theban hegemony,
Kat f9~{3Yjfftv aJ.ta oi 7rpoaTclTat cpJ...oaocpo< Jy€vovTo Kat EVOatf.tOVYJaEv ~
7ToAts. Cf. \Vunderer, ii. 72-73.
4. }.I.TJ Ka.86.1rep vGv 1ra.ptpywc;: Pedech ad loc. suggests that P. is here
criticizing such writers as Cato who wrote as an old man (Plut.
Cat. mai. 24. 8} or A. Postumius Albinus (xxxix. r. 4) who wrote as
a hobby; cf. Dion. Hal. ad Pomp. 6. 3 (on Theopompus): ov yap
Wff7T€p nv€s 7TclpEpyov TOV (3lov avaypacp~v Tfjs iaToplas E7Tot1]rraTo, /!pyov
8€ TO 7TUVTWV avayKatoTaTOV.
&.1rep1rr1ra.rrTo~ .•. : Biittner-Wobst proposes <y.:v6JL<:vot 7Taaav cptAo-
nJ.tlav) 7Tapd.axwvTat; F has a7TEpta7TarrTw and MS a1T.:ptrr7TaaTws. Pedech
keeps a7T.:p<amirrTws 7TapaaxwvTat, in the sense 'to devote oneself'.
5. olnc ~crTa.~ 1ra.uAa. Tfjc; ••• O.yvo[a.c;: cf. Plato, Rep. v. 473 D, ovK
€an KaKwv 7TaVAa. The imitation is deliberate, though P. uses 7TavAa
elsewhere.
6. Ka.Ta.~u;,cra.c; €v £vl. T61T~ ~ev~Teuwv: cf. 25 d I, 25 hI, with notes.
KaTa(3uf>aas could imply that Timaeus died at Athens, since the
word sometimes means 'live out one's life and die' (cf. Philost. Vit.
soph. i. 9· 3) like KamyYJparrKw (cf. Treves, A}P, 1942, I49-53).
TTJY EYEPYTJTLK~Y: With aVT07TlfOnav.
EAKWY TTJY Tou O'uyypa.~£wc; 1TpOO'TaO'[a.v: 'as being capable of sustain-
ing the role of a master in the art of writing': cf. viii. I9· 2, xii. 8. 6.
8. KQ.TU Til 1rpOOL}.I.~OY Tfjc; EKTTJ'i ~u~AOU: FGH, 566 F 7; Jacoby, ad
loc. (FGH, iii b, commentary, p. 543), suggests that the theme here
treated, including the comparison between epideictic and history,
implies that books i-v of Timaeus' history contained the account of
the foundations of the Greek cities (d. 26 d 2 n.) and the general geo-
graphy of the west (cf. FGH, 566 F 62-90), and that book vi markecl
the beginning of his narrative proper. If that is so, his glance back-
ward at this point over his geographical work in books i-v (d. 28 a 3)
is parallel to his remarks about his life and manner of writing re-
corded from book xxxiv, which opened the five devoted to Agathocles
(25 h 1).
10. "E~opoc; ... 8a.u!.l.6.cr~oc;wv Ka.l Ka.Ta ••• TTJY £1r(vo~a.v Twv A'J}.I.}.I.aTwv:
EPHORt:s PRAISE!l XII. zS a 3
'Ephorus is admirable in his phraseology, treatment and the working
out of his argument' (FGH, 70 T 23); d. Diod. v. I. 4 ( = FGH,
70 T u), ov pol•ov Kard r?Jv Mgw, dAAd Kat Kard. rry1• olKovo,.dav lrnTE-
TliVI(li' Twv ydp {Jtf3>.wv J~<aUTYJII7T£7TolYJKli 1t<ipdxHv Kant ylvo<: Tas rrpag£tS'.
Elsewhere P. considers some of these qualities less important; d.
xvi. 17· 9 n., xxix. 12. 1o,
8ELV01'a.Tos ••• ~v Ta.'i:s 1ra.p£K~cl0'£0'L KTX.: 'most eloquent in his
digressions and the expression of his own personal refl.exions'. P.
admits the value of digressions: cf. xxxviii. 6. I.
n)v ~1TlfLETpoGVTa. Xoyov: 'enlarging on any subject'; d. vii. 7. 7 n.
Such moralizing, with its stress on praise and blame, was a regular
feature of the Isocratean school, including both Ephorus and Theo-
pompus, and often took the form of a comparison, general or specific;
see the passages in Diodorus (Diod. xi. II, 46---47. sB. 4 fL. 82, xiv. I,
xv. 1, 33· 2-3, 52. 7, 79· 2) quoted by Jacoby on FGH, 70 T 23. For the
idea behind it see !soc. Paneg. 9, a~ f-'EV ydp 1rpagas aZ rrpoyq"v"'ll-'.!vat
Kotvat mioW7Jj.LLV KUTo:\<i:l!foOrycrav, Tb 8'lv Kmpo/ raJraLS' KaTaxfY'lcracrOat •••
Kat TO iS' dv6pacrtv d! 8m1Na0aL 'TWV di !fopovorJVTw!J r&ov la-nv; cf. Dion.
Hal. ad Pomp. 6; Schmitz-Kahlmann, 3 n. :z. But, as P. goes on to
say, Ephorus was quite clear about the difference between history
and epideictic oratory.
11. TTJ~ auyKpiO'EWS ••• Tfjs Twv {O'TopLoypO.<J>wv Ka.i. XoyoypO.cj>wv:
following Laqueur, Hermes, r9u, :zo6, Jacoby (on FGH, jo F u) sug-
gests that the passage in question is that used by Diodorus in the
prologue to his book xx; but this is improbable, for whereas Ephorus
was concerned V>'ith the distinction between history and epideictic
in general, Diodorus is concerned with the position of speeches in~
side a history (cf. Avenarius, r6). Hirzel (ii. 897) seems to be splitting
hairs when he qualifies P.'s commendation by drawing a distinction
between E:VxapwTorara ~~:al 1Tt£lavwTaTa and, on the other hand, 'tme'
{though this distinction is found in some contexts, e.g. ii. ;6. II).
28 a 1. ,.Q. Ka.T' &.>.~8ELa.v t\?Ko8ofLYJfLEv« KTX.: for the simile cf. Plut.
Arat. 15. 2, quoted in v. 35· ro n.
Twv • • • To1rwv ~<a.i 8La.9€aEwv: 'landscapes and composition;;';
Wunderer, iii. 51 (cf. Phil. 1907, 474}, suggests that 8ta01anc;, here
distinguished from representations of places, portray mythological
situations; but such situations would scarcely form a suitable back-
ground for a play and something more general seems indicated. Else-
where i3ui9w·tc; is the subject of a picture (Polemon in Athen. v. :no B);
and the phrase may be a hendiadys, 'landscape-compositions'. In
§ 6 P. has only r61rwv.
3. auva.ya.yc:iv ,.a, 1ra.pa t Kupv£wv t u1TOfLVftfLO.Ta.: Boissevain reports
1tfl.pd Tuplwv as the reading of M (though Mai read 7Tapd Twwv and
Heyse 11ap' d.arvpiwv}; it is preferable to Biittner-Wobst, ra TTapa
41I
Xli.28a3 CASE AGAIN'ST TIMAEUS CLOSED
Kvpviwv (Hultsch reads Trap' Jtaavplwv). The context in which Timaeus
would consult such a source would be the founding of Carthage; but
whether the account in FGH, 566 F 82 (=Anon. de mul. 6, p. zrs
\Vest) is from the Tvplwv VTrop.v~rwra or some book on Carthage is
unknown (cf. Jacoby, FGH, iii b, commentary, p. 574). Nor is it
known what the Tvp{wv {!1Top.v-rjp.ara were. Iamblichus (Vit. Pyth. z6z)
speaks of KpoTwvta.Twv V1TOfL~fLO.Ta, but Jacoby (FGH, iii b, commen-
tary, p. 6o6) suggests that these were merely citations from records
by Timaeus, and not a continuous chronicle; the Tvp{wv lnrop.v~p.aTa
likewise he takes not to have been a chronicle (FGH, iii b, com-
mentary, p. 549). But such a chronicle is mentioned by Servius ad
Aen. i. 343 and by Ps.-Aristot. Mir. A usc. 134, and this would seem
to be the most likely meaning here; so Pedech, ad loc. On the usual
meaning of tnrop.v~p.am, 'official notices on matters of public interest'
set up by officials, see v. 33· 5 n. (to the references there add Jacoby,
FGH, iii b, Noten, p. 139 n. 19); but how Timaeus could have ob-
tained access to such records in Athens is a mystery. Jacoby (FGH,
iii b, commentary, p. 549) suggests records bought from Phoenician
traders; but in what language, and what would traders be doing
with such records? For avvayEtV (cf. § 2 avva.8poi:aaL, § 4) as a technical
expression for collecting material see Avenarius, 7I n. 2 (\vith
references and synonyms).
6. Ta KtJ.T' a),:r16!lul.v oi.1<oSop.~p.ant.: taking up Timaeus' own analogy
(§ I),
l:'T!'t 'TI'a.a~v T~v auvTa~ll<•.IV: 'in all historical works'.
T~V E~ aKoij~ KO.l s~llYTJf.I.O.To~ ypa.<f!of.i.EvWV: 'writings based On hear-
say and others' tales'; for O~~y'l]p.a cf. i. I4. 6, iv. 39· II.
7. TO auvaynll •.• I<O.l 1Tuv9av!la9a.~ ••. : the two aspects of inquiry
s,a ri)c; aKofjc;; cf. 27, 3•
9. ou yap £Xa.TTov o 'TI'uv9a.v6p.tvoc,; .•. o-up.J16.XXETa.~: here P. from
his experience recognizes the importance of knowing the technique
of interrogation, based on a knowledge of the subject.
~yap T~v 'TI'O.f>ll'ITOf.i.~vwv To'i:~ 'TI'payf.i.a.ow um)p.vlla~~: 'for the recollec-
tion of the concomitant details' leads on the narrative from point
to point; cf. 25 a 5, ii. 56. IO, X. 21. 8, XVi. 6, 7, for this meaning.
Paton, 'the suggestions of the person who follows the narrative', and
Shuckburgh 'in the case of men who have had experience of real
actions', both miss the sense. P. means that the narrator, without
careful questioning by someone who understands what it is all about,
will drift along at the mercy of a train of associations.
10. KO.v 'TI'a.pfi .•• (ou 1rnpEanv): cf. 24. 6 n. Pedech reads (otl
<foalv£7'a').
BOOK XIII
1-2. A etolian affairs
On the date of this, probably 01. 143, 3 ::w6fs, sec pp. 20-21.
1. 1. 5,0. T~v auvexeLa.v Twv rroAEfLwv: the Social War and the First
Macedonian War; before that they were involved in the Demetrian
War against Macedon, though they were neutral in the Chremonidean
War. They had not in fact been as continuously at war as Achaea.
5,0. T~v rroAvTEAELa.v T<1lv ~(wv: cf. Agatharchides, FGH, 86 F 6
Athen. xii. 527 B, C, Alrw.\o~ roaovrt.p rwv Aot1TWV lrotfL6repov Exova£
7Tp6> 8d.varov OU!.p1T€p Ka~ {i]v 7To.\vre.\ws- EKTEVI.t:J'Tepov 'Tj'TOiJUL 'TWV a.\.\wv.
2. otKeiw~ lha.KELfLEVol Tpos Ka.woTofL£a.v: a observation about
Aetolian character. Shuckburgh, 'being naturally disposed to a
change in their constitution', links it too closely with this immediate
occasion. There is no evidence in fact that the Aetolian constitution
had hitherto been unstable; see, on its development, Larsen, 69 ff.;
TAP A, I952, I-33·
vofLoyp6.,Pov<;: mentioned in the Aetolian decree of asylie for Teos
(Syll. 563, l. r7 = IG, ix 2 • 1. I92), which belongs to the strategia of
Alexander of Calydon. This falls between 205 and 2or, and appears to
be contemporary with the Delphic archonship of Megartas (Syll.
564); but the exact year is not agreed, cf. xviii. 3· 12 n .
.t.wptfLa.xov t<a.l. It<o,.a.v: active in the Social War; for Dorimachus of
Trichonium ct iv. 3· s-6; for Scopas, iv. 5· I n.
3. £v8e5EfLEYov<; El<; 'IToAAa TWY ~awnKwv cruva.AAa.yfLaTuw: 'com-
promised in many private financial transactions' (Paton).
1 a 1. ~Aisa.v8pos b AlTwMs: the words 6 AlrwM.- are probably the

excerptor's (in xviii. 36. 5 the context is different). This is probably
Alexander 6 "law<; emKa.AOVfLEVO>", the richest man in Aetolia and
naturally opposed to revolutionary measures (cf. xviii. 3· I, xxi.
25. II, 26. 9}.
Toiho TO ,PuTOV: xp•Cw d1TOK01Tal or KO.LVO'TOfLta. Some headway had
been made with debt-cancellation, if IG, ix 2 • r. 70, a decree of
Pleuron in honour of Lycus of Calydon [xp<]oAvr~aavm belongs to
this period; cf. Flaceb~re, 310 n. 2. Wunderer, i. ro7, thinks Alexander
is quoting an Aetolian proverb: this is unlikely.
2. 1. tiKo'ITa.s Ahwi.wv crTpa.TT)y6~t: so Valesius following Suidas.

P reads EK6Tra>" o Al-noAwv arpa.TT)y6-; and M E~<:&1Ta> o Alrwl.wv. See
Pomtow, RE, 'Delphoi', cols. 2677-8 n.; Btittner-Wobst, Phil. 1903,
545 and in his edition vol. 5 index s.v. EK&1Tas-; Holleaux, 289 n. z.
4IJ
XIII. 2. I AETOLIAN AFFAIRS
M, slightly modified to read J Twv AhwAwv voJloypa</>os, is to be pre-

ferred.
UlTOTUX~W Tt)S upxfjs: 'failing to obtain the office' : probably that of
qrpa.T'Yjy6s. Klaffenbach, IG, ix2 • I, discussing no. 31, l. 106, which
mentions a third strategia of Scopas, dates this to 205/4 (so too
Dumrese, RE, Suppl-B. vii, 'Skopas', col. 1215), and others ha,·e
suggested 204/3; but, although Scopas was general in 220/19 (iv. 27. r)
and in 2njro {see above, pp. 12-13), it is not known that these were
his first and second strategiai. If Syll. 554. in which he is grammateus
in the second strategia of Agelaus, is the opening of his career and
is to be dated to c. 224/3 (so Klaffenbach, IG, ix 2 • x. 4 c note), there
still remain many years of which we know nothing; and this pas-
sage of P. seems to rule out a rt7'pa.T1)yla. at this juncture.
~s xupw ETOA!J.O. ypuljlc::w TOUS VO!J.OUS: 'for the sake of which he
ventured to draft these laws'. So correctly Shuckburgh: Scopas was
using the position of nomographos as a stepping~stone to the strategia.
Paton misunderstands this, rendering 'when he fell from the office
by power of which he ventured to draft these laws' ; but xdpLv cannot
mean 'by virtue of'.
!J.I!TEwpos ~v Ets TTJV 1\Xc::~&.v8pc::~av: 'turned his hopes towards Alex-
andria'.
2. tcaOtmc::p E11'L TWV u8pwmtcwv: the parallel between dropsical thirst
and greed appears in Diogenes (FPhG, ii. 3oz, fg. 27 = Stob. ro. 46
=iii. 419 Hense), Aristippus (Plut. Mor. 524 B), and Bion (Stob.
97· 31 = v. 813 Hense). Horace has it from Bion: d. Odes, ii. 2. rz-rs:
crescit indulgens sibi dirus hydrops,
nee sitim pellit, nisi causa morbi
fugerit uenis et aquosus albo
corpore -~"'ou~ ••
and Epist. ii. 2, 146-8:
si tibi nulla sitim finiret copia lymphae,
narrares medicis: quod quanto plura parasti
tanto plura cupis, nulline faterier audes?
See von Scala, 333-4. The comparison is evidently favoured in Cynic

circles, but it was probably proverbial in F.'s time, as it is today in
Tuscany, whence von Scala quotes the saying: Tavaro e come idro-
pico: quanto piu beve, piu ha sete'. The difficulty, as Schweighaeuser
observes, is in the fact that there is no medical basis for the belief
that a victim of dropsy is especially subject to thirst; and he there-
fore interprets ~ rwv EfwOEv vypwv 1!'apd8wts to mean 'the accumula-
tion of water under the surface of the skin'. This cannot be right,
both because of the reference to thirst in the parallel examples and
because unquenchable thirst is so clearly the right comparison for
414
AETOLIAN AFFAIRS XIII. 3-5. 6
insatiable greed. \Vhy this popular belief in dropsical thirst should
have mistakenly arisen is not clear: is there perhaps confusion \vith
diabetes? For similar medical comparisons cf. i. 81. s-II, xi. 25. 2,
fg. 41; on Scopas' greed cf. xviii. 55· I.
3. ets !A.Ae~avSpucw «<P~~<o..-.Ev<t!: as a mercenary captain, like Theo-
dotus and Nicolaus before (cf. v. 40. 1-3 n., 6r. 8 n.). When he left
for Alexandria is uncertain; but if he failed to be elected general in
autumn 205 he probably left that autumn or winter (2o5/4); cf.
Walbank, ]EA. 1936, 25.
'll'pos Ta~s ttt Twv \mai.Opwv WtJ!eAe[a~s: 'in addition to the booty from
field operations' (cf. ii. II. 14); for this meaning of Ta lnradJpa cf.
vi. 12. s. 12. 7. 34· 3· and for wrf>i'AHa~ cf. ii. 1L 14, T~V EK Ti]> xif>pa,;
wrf>l'AE,CLV, 'booty taken in the countryside'. Neither Paton, 'the profit
he drew from the force in the field', nor Shuck burgh, 'his military
pay', gives quite the right sense.
c!lv ~v ••• ttup~os: 'over which he had personal control' ; the ante-
cedent is wrpe'Aela.t>, not V11'al1Jpwv.
5La TO 1nO'TEUEu0aL 'II'EpL TWV oAwv: 'since he had been entrusted with
the supreme command'.
l>IJrwvLov , •• 8eKOfi.VCLLa~ov: 'pay of ten minae'; for d.jlwvtov cf. i. 66. 3 n.
The mina of 100 drachmas was a gold coin in Ptolemaic Egypt at
this time (cf. I<egling, RE, 'Mnaiaion', cols. 2245-6); it weighed a
little over 430 gm. Scopas received quite exceptional pay.
II j3acnAEus: probably Philopator, but one cannot be sure, since
neither the date of Scopas' arrival in Egypt (probably winter zos/4:
see above) nor those of Philopator's death and Epiphanes' accession
are certain. See below, xiv. n-12 n.
5. To 11'VEUJlC1 1Tpoa€8l]KE T~ xpuu(~: cf. xxxii. I 1. r, TO nveil!La 11'poai-
8TjKav Tot,; XP~!Laa'; 'he delivered his soul over to money' (Paton).
On Scopas' downfall cf. xviii. 53· I-SS· 2.
3-5. 6. Philip's treachery towards Rhodes

The First Macedonian War, already dying out with the separate
Aetolian peace of zo6 (cf. xi. 7. 2-3 n.), ended in the Peace of Phoenice
in zos (Livy, xxix. rz. 13-15; App. Mac. 3; the Senate may not have
ratified it until spring 204; cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 444) ; see below,
xviii. 1. 14 n., 3· 12 n., 47· 12 n., for discussion of some of the clauses.
Though proposed by the Romans, it represented a limited success
for Philip, who now directed his ambitions towards the Aegean (cf.
Walbank, Philip, 105 ff.). The Rhodians, •vho were general foes
to piracy (cf. iv. 19. 8; Strabo, xiv. 652; Syll. s8r, ll. SI ff., 79 ff.
(= JC, iii, Hierapytna, JA), a treaty between Hierapytnaand Rhodes
c. ,rgg). made war on the Cretans (Diod. xxvii. 3), thus irritating
Philip, who was 7TpocrraT'T/> over part of Crete (vii. 1 I. 9 n.)-probably
415
XIII. 3-5.6 PHILIP'S TREACHERY TOWARDS RHODES
including the anti-Rhodian cities now involved in this war. Philip's
reply was to suborn an Aetolian, Dicaearchus, to plunder in the
Aegean and help the Cretans (d. xviiL 54· 8-Iz), and to employ
Heracleides against Rhodes directly, as described below. The date
is either 205 or, more probably, 204 after the Peace of Phoenice;
see above, pp. 20-21.
3. 1. Ka.Ko1Tpa.y~oa{nrqv: 'treacherous dealings' (Paton) ; the reference

is probably to Philip's intrigues in Crete; cf. 5· I and the last note.
2. oi •.. O.pxo.iol: particularly Greeks, though perhaps not excluding
Romans (see next note).
4. Convention on the use of weapons: cf. Livy, xlli. 47· s. 'non per in-
sidias et nocturna proelia ... bella maio res gessisse: indicere prius
quam gerere solitos bella, denuntiare etiam interdum, pugnam et
locum finire, in quo dimicaturi essent' (probably deriving from a
passage now lost in P. xxvii; cf. xxxvi. g. g). P.'s discussion is clearly
linked with the reference to the Lelantine War in Strabo, x. 448:
awE8€vro €¢>' ots avan)aovTat Tov dywva; Strabo quotes an inscription
in the Amarynthium, a sanctuary of Artemis near Eretria, forbidding
the use of Tr/AE{3o'Aa, and von Scala (3o8 n. 1 ; cf. Staatsvertrage, 16
no. 19) suggests that both Strabo and P. derive their information
from this inscription via Ephorus (Strabo's immediate source being
Apollodorus); for Ephorus' use of inscriptions cf. FGH, 70 F 199.
This story of a convention fits the time, with its traditions of single
combat (cf. Ephorus, FGH, 70 F II;'i Strabo, viii. 357, p,o11op,axtav
••. KaTa €8os Tt m1.Aatov Twv 'EM~11wv) and the attempts of the
Amphictyonic League to ameliorate warfare (cf. Walbank, Phoenix,
1951, 53-54; Larsen, CP, 1949, 258-9), and is acceptable. It is con-
firmed by the remark in Herod. vii. 9 fJ 1, l.wiJom "E'A>.7Jll€;;, ws
7TvvfJ&vop,at, dfJovA6TaTa r.oMp,ov;; [aTaa8at VTto Tf dyvwp,oaVV7]S' Kal
aKaLOT7JTos. €7TEav yap a>..:l.~:\o,m r.6'A€p,ov Ttpo€[Ttwa•, ;.g"Jpovus To KaA-
:\,O'Tov xwp{ov Ka~ A€WTaTOV, ls TOVrO KaTLOYTfS Jkaxovrat. This will
represent democratic criticism of archaic procedure; cf. Jacoby,
FGH, iii b (SuppL-E.), vol. ii, p. ,,54, no. 37·
TT)v EK X€lpos Kat auo-TaSttv ••• ~«xttv: the passage of Strabo quoted
in the previous note continues: o{ o' EvfJot:tS dyaiJoi r.po;; p,ci.X!Jll vm)p~av
ri;v aTao{av, ~ Kai avCTTaO~v MyETa< Kai lK xt:tp/Js. The phrase may go
back to the common source (Ephorus ?) , though P. uses it elsewhere.
O.A.tt9lvT)v ••. KpiaLv 1Tpa.yjJ.6.Twv: cf. Livy, xlii. 47· 8, 'sed eius demum
animum in perpetuum uinci, cui confessio expressa sit se neque arte
neque casu, sed collatis comminus uiribus iusto ac pio esse bello
superatum'.
5. Tooc; TroAe~ouc; .•• 1rpouA.eyov Kat Tas ~6.xa.s KTA.: cf. Liv)', xlii.
47· 5 (quoted in§ 4 n.).
6. +a.vA.ou ••• To 1rpo+o.vws n 1rpaTTEW Twv 1TOAEjJ.lKwv: cf. Livy.
416
PHILIP'S TREACHERY TOWARDS RHODES XIII. 4· 2
xlii. 47. 8, 'interdum in praesens tempus plus profici dolo quam

uirtute; sed eius demum ... (quoted in the last note but one)'. But
war was still declared more frequently in Greece than P. here admits;
d. iv. :26. 7 n., 36. 7' xvi. z6. 8; Livy, XXXV. sr. 2; Plut. Pyrrh. z6. If;
Bengtson, Historia, I963, Ioo-4, discussing a second-century B.c. in~
scription from Apollonia on the Pontic coast of Thrace, which men-
tions a 1T6AEJ-WS al·mdyycXros (cf. iv. 16. 4) waged by Mesembria.
7. ~po.xu Se T~ Ad1Tt:Tm 1ro.pcl. 'Pwlla.ioL<; ixvo<;: in book xxvii (if
Lh•y, xlii. 47, is a fair indication) the argument was placed in the
mouths of 'ueteres et moris antiqui memores' that the Romans had
lapsed from these principles in their dealings \vith Perseus; and
probably, as in his account of Greek comments on the sack of
Cetrthage in r46 (xxxvL 9), he expressed no opinion of his own.
However, his praise of Scipio's burning of the camp in the war in
Africa (xiv. 4-5) is not easily reconcilable with his comments here.
i.~t XELpos ••• Ka.t ( au)c:ml.Sl)V: on the importance of the individual
fighter in the Roman legion, compared with the mass weight of the
phalangites, cf. xviii. 30. 6-8. P. neglects the role of the pilum;
but he is, of course, trying to identify Roman practice with the
conventions of the dpxa.ro~.
8. 1rt:pi Tou<; ""youJLevou<;: 'leading men', presumably Greek.
4. 1. 'Hpa.KA£iSn: Heracleides of Tarentum is perhaps the Hera-

deides mentioned in a letter of 209 (Syll. 552 = IG, ix. 78; cf. Schroe-
ter, 79-8o, no. 32), in which Philip V granted &nAda. to Abae in
Phocis, concluding: UfLiV f3ouAOfL"VOS xa.p{Cwfla.t yiypa[¢ja. TWt 'Hpa-
KAEtO'fJ~ fL~ JvoxA<tv ilfLiis. If so he was already Philip's military
representative in Phocis, and had joined him after arousing the
suspicions of both Hannibal and the Romans (§§ 6-8). He was an
architect (§ 6) and may be the inventor of the sambuca used by :\1ar-
cellus at Syracuse; if he had worked for the Romans at Syracuse, he
would naturally be viewed with suspicion at Tarentum (cf. viii. 4.
2 n.). Both these identifications are hypothetical, however, and the
former is rejected by Schoch, RE, Suppi.-B. iv, 'Herakleides (36a)',
col. 729. See also Fabricius, RE, 'Herakleides (63)', cols. 497--8; and
below, xviii. 22. 2 n.
~ea8a1rep u1roiJEaLv Soo<;: 'as if giving him a theme on which to display
his talents': im68wv; is a term from the schools of rhetoric, cf. xii.
:zs a 5· Shuckburgb, 'a kind of problem to work out', misses the
nuance.
2. £pE91ouvTo.<; Ko.l1Ta.popf1~uovTo.<; E1TL Tov ••. m)AeJ.Lov: 'to provoke
them and arouse their enthusiasm for the war against Rhodes'. The
phrasing suggests that the war had already begun; and Diod. xxvii. 3
~tes its outbreak before Pleminius' sacrilege at Locri and so in
205 (Holleaux, Etudes, iv. I39 n. 1). One of the main states on the
814113 Ee
XIII. 4· 2 PHILIP'S TREACHERY TOWARDS RHODES
anti-Rhodian side was Hierapytna (cf. Syll. 581}. Heracleides' ruse is
also described {after P.) in Polyaenus, v. 17. (2) (cf. Holleaux, Etudes,
iv. 136 ff.). On this war see Riv. fil. 1907, 6 ff.; Holleaux.
£tudes, iv. r63-77, r87 ff. ;Walbank, Philip, IIo ff.; Hiller \·on Gaert-
ringen, RE, Suppl.-B. v, 'Rhodos', cols. 787-8.
3. T~v tmTa.ytiv: Welles, 336, points out that this word means an
oral command, in contrast to written orders.
4-5. Character of Heracleides: P.'s source is unknown, but he may
draw on some Macedonian informant who resented the influence
the man had with Philip (cf. Livy, xxxii. 5· 7; Diod. xxviii. 9).
Clearly the details are prejudiced and include many stock themes of
abuse (cf. xxviii. 14. 1), which P. readily condemns in Timaeus (cf.
xii. 13. r ff. on Demochares). Ullrich, 35, argues for the use of Zeno
of Rhodes, but unconvincingly.
6. So~a.s Tov TC.pa.vTa. 1rpaTTEtv 'Pwlla.lo~s: see abm·e, 4. r n., for the
possibility of earlier contacts with the Romans.
Tfjs m)ATJS Tfjs t1rt TO }LEaoyatov +Epoua'l}s: probably the Temenid
gate; cf. viii. 25. 7 n.
8. W<YTE TOu Ka.Ta.aTpa.+fivaL ... a.lnwTa.Tos yeyovEvaL: cf. Diod.
xxviii. 2 for the same tradition.
5. 1. ol1TpuTavELS: cf. xv. 23. 4, xvi. 15. 8, xxii. 5· 10, xxix. 10. 4; a
committee of five (cf. Hiller von Gaertringen, RE, Suppl.-Rv,
'Rhodos', coL 767), appointed half-yearly (xxvii. 7· 2; Insch. Mag.
55; Syll. 644 (cf. Pugliese A1muario, rg.p, r6o n. r)) along-
side the ypa.fLp.aTt:vs and {moypafLfL0.7Ev,;; they presented business
to the Council and Assembly, and negotiated with ambassadors and
allies. One of their number probably took the chair throughout their
period of office (cf. xv. 23. 4). They occupied the Prytaneum (xv. z3.
3), which was also used as a record office (xYi. 15. 8). See van Gelder.
Rhodier, 239-51; Hiller \'On Gaertringen, RE, Suppl.-B.v, 'Rhodos',
col. 767.
8Ln T~v 1repl TQ. Kp'llnKn r<a.Ko1Tpa.y}Loauv'llv: i.e. Philip's share in the
stirring up of the Cretan cities to war against Rhodes (above, 3· I,
4· 2; Diod. xxvii. 3), and especially his support of Dicaearchus who,
in addition to his piracies (xviii. 54· 8-12), had been instructed to
help the Cretans (Diod. xxviii. 1).
Tov 'Hpa.r<A.e£8'1lv ••• ~yKa8eTov: the context is recoverable from
Polyaen. v. q. 2. Heracleides on his appearance before the prytaneis
produces a letter from Philip to the Cretans, urging them on in the
war against Rhodes, and he remarks, tva. 8€ TTWTEVa'f)Tt: To'is AEyo-
fLEVu<s, Kat a~ Ka.i EmaToAds t:PtAL1T7TOV DE£KVVW KTI-.. The present frag-
ment refers to the distrust which in this way he tries to dispel.
2. 0.1TeAoy£tETo nl.s a.h£a.s KTA.: from Polyaen. v. q. 2 it is clear that
this should precede the previous fragment, since it refers to the
418
PHILIP'S TREACHERY TOWARDS RHODES XIII. 6-8
beginning of the intervie·w. Heracleides says (Polyaen. ibid.) ildnr>
~AOov 1Tp01T7J!..aKtt6/LEVOSOt' vp.B.s, i1Tc:t0~ cJ:>tAm1TOV b:w>..vov TrOA€JUiv
up.iv, rva 0€ KTA. (quoted in last note).
3. vO.v yAp ~ouA.TJOilva.L KTA.: d. Schweighaeuser ad loc.: 'ut Rhodiis
persuaderet ueterator, se serio Philippa esse iratum, demonstrat illis,
quiduis potius passurum Philippum, quiduis aequiore animo laturum,
quam ut ipsius consilia cum Cretensibus eommunicata (quae !usee
literis, quas Heracleides subripuisset, aperirentur) Rhodiorum ad
notitiam peruenirent'. Polyaenus, Joe. cit., says 'P&owt Tats ima-
ToAais maTEvaaVTES •HpaK,\el07JV vrrolUxovTat, tiJs 0VV7Ja6p.evov avToi"s
wt/>eA.tJLOV KaTa c]:>,)..[mrov yivwOat. According to Polyaenus, the ageni
provocateur (whose methods resemble those of Sinon at Troy, even
to the extent of displaying self-inflicted injuries) succeeded in setting
fire to the Rhodian arsenal and destroying thirteen w:waotKot to-
gether with the triremes in them.
n Ka.L TllV 'Hpa.KAelOTJV cmEAUall.: the epitomator•s words, for in reality
Heracleides is the subject of dmf/..va£.
4. T~V aA.Tj9ELO.V: on the importance P. attributes to truth in history
see the passages listed in Vol. I, pp. Io-Ir. Here Truth is personified
as a power active in human life, as when we say 'Truth wm out';
but despite the reference to p.eylaT7JV Oe6v, this is little more than
a manner of speech. Nor is the personification of cf,vats to be taken
seriously.
5. f1U'a TOU ~EUOOUS TCLTTOJ:lEVWV: a military metaphor.
6. ws <.Tvve~TJ yEve<.TOm 1repl Tov 'Hpa.KAElOTJV: this has led some
scholars to doubt Polyaenus' story of the burning of the dockyards
(Niese, ii. 572 n. 2; Fabricius, RE, 'Herakleides (63)', col. 498); but
perhaps the Rhodians awoke to the truth in time to prevent the
destruction of their fleet. The words rror€ 8€ Kai 1roAov XP6vov
JmaKonafJc.faa, Te,\os aih~ 0~' iavrijs JmKparl'ii. KaL Ka'Taywv{tHa~
-ro t/Jf.voos imply some preliminary success (Holleaux, Etudes, iv.
136 n. 3).
5. 7. Damocles and Pythion
7. ACLf10KAfjs b f1ETcl nuO(wvos TI'Ef1,P8eLs: neither can be identified,
nor is it certain who sent them (though it was probably Philip).
6-8. N ab:·s of Sparta

Nabis succeeded Machanidas on the Spartan throne in 207 (cf. xi.
11. 1-18. 4; Paus. iv. 29. 10); he was the son of Damaratus (Syll. 584),
and Homollc (BCH, 1896, 502ft.) suggests that he \Vas from a branch
of the Eurypontid house, which sprang from the Damaratus who
took refuge \v:ith Darius I (Herod. iv. 67-7o); the Damaratus praised
by the Delians in Syll. 38r will be his great-grandfather. Since he
419
XIII. 6-8 NABIS OF SPARTA
had grown-up sons in 197 (Livy, xxxii. 38. 3) he will have been born
at thP. latest c. 240. According to Diod. xxvii. I Nabis rid himself ol
Pelops, son of Lycurgus, whose guardian Machanidas had beeu
(x. 41. z n.); but P. does not mention this. Like Machanidas he is
dubbed tyrant by the hostile tradition going back to P.; but he
was oftkially King (IG, v. T. 885 (on bricks); Syll. 584; Livy. xxxiv.
31. 13; Head, 435; P. Wolters, AM, r897, 139 ff.), even though th(•
double kingship had been abolished and his bodyguard and general
behaviour suggested the tyrant. On the combination of social and
imperialistic factors in N abis' policy see Aymard, PR, 33-36; and i11
general J. Mundt, Nabis, Konig von Sparta (Diss. Munster), Cologne,
1903 (over-favourable); V. Ehrenberg, RE, 'Nabis (r)', cols. 1471-82.
P. mentions Nabis here in connexion with the v.rar 'A-.Jth Megalopoli~
(8. 7)·
6. 1. lhos ~&TJ TJ'LTov itxwv T~v ApxfJv: it is now 204, and Man tinea
was fought in 207: see above, p. zr.
TfJV u1ro Twv ~xrHwv ~TTa.v: tlte battle of Mantinea (xi. II. r-r8. 4).
Paton by a slip 'A-Tites 'by the Aetolians'.
3. Tous lo.ol1Tous: 'the remnants'. Paton seems right in his suspicion
that some defining phrase has dropped out and that the reference is to
the royal house (perhaps meaning Pelops: cf. 6-8 n.). Schweighaeuser
and Shuckburgh think of 'the Spartiates, the Spartan nobility' .
but these are covered in the next clause, l.<{JvydSevae ••. '1Tpoyov~t<fi.
Twv lilo.lo.wv To'Ls €m<J>avEaTaTOLS: 'the chief of those who were left'.
4. 1Tapa.axtaTaL, Xwrro66TaL: 'housebreakers, brigands'. This abuse of
:Kabis' followers recalls P.'s severe criticism of Theopompus for a
similar characterization of Philip II's hetairoi (Yiii. 9· 6-10. 10).
iK Tijs otKOUJ.LEvTJS: the exaggeration defeats its own purpose; see
further xvi. I3. 2.
~ 9p£lj!aaa: cf. iv. 17. 12.
5. [~<al ~aatXta]: wrongly expelled by editors; on Nabis' claim tn
the title see 6-8 n.; P. will be quoting it ironically: these were thl·
men over whom he was king!
7. iv TG.LS o&ois: 'on the road'.
EK TWV To1Twv Erra.v6.yovTa'ii: 'on their return from exile' (Schweig·
haeuser) or 'as they were returning from their country seats' (Paton).
Shuckburgh renders: 'others he dragged from their place of retreat
and murdered', but bravclyavTa> has not this meaning. On the whok
Schweighaeuser's sense is best; it gives two ways of dealing witl1
the exiles, a third way being mentioned in the next sentence.
8. 9up£5wv: 'windows'.
10. Tous 1Tlo.E1aTous: more exaggeration.
7. 1. t<al TLva P.TJxavfJv: the story of this 'iron Maiden' is probabh

Xlil. 9
llpocryphal: Ehrenberg, RE, 'Nabis (r)', col. 1472; Aymard, PR,
36 n. 33· The account of the depredations of Nabis' own wife (xviii.
17. 1-5; Livy, xxxiii. 40. ro--u) suggests an origin for the legend.
6. :c\rrijyav: Wilhelm (rVien. Anz. 1921, 70 ff.) argued plausibly that
this is a corruption of the name Apia; N abis' wife, he believes, was
the daughter of Aristippus II, tyrant of Argos (Plut. Arat. 25. 4,
a9. 3-4); cf. Beloch, iv. r. 58o n.
8. Kal 8e€ullcrcl.}levos KTA.: the text is badly compressed. The sub-
ject appears to be the victim, who is supposed to imagine that he is
~· eeting the tyrant's wife (§ 2, els OJ.LO'M'f/TU . .. owpopws a:rmpyaa-
/LEIIOII) and courteously assists her to rise (avlGT'r]ae). The figure then
enfolds him and draws him towards her (in response to Nabis'
manceuvring of the levers: § 10).
9. TOUS •.• rr~xus: 'the forearms'.
10. oTav rrpoa~pe1cre Tais XEpcrl KTA.: 'when (Nabis) pressed his hands
on the figure's back'.
8. 2. Tois KpYJa(: cf. 6. 8 for use of Cretans as henchmen. For P.'s

hostility towards Cretans cf. iv. 53· 5 n., viii. 16. 4 n. On the Cretan
piracy encouraged by Philip at this time see 3-5. 6 n.
Op}ll]TTJfliOV Kai Ka.Ta~uy~v: cf. xvi. IJ. 2, dvaoeLga, r~v Javrov oz5va-
l"v o[ov aav.\ov iepoll.
3. €£vo1 Twv O.rro Tijo;; Bo1wT~a.s: 'strangers from Boeotia': Paton gives
the more specialized sense 'foreign soldiers', i.e. mercenaries.
6. }lClpTupo}lE.vwv ••• hrav6.yuv: 'protesting that they should bring
the men before the authorities'.
7. Ta npoa.yopou 9pE}l}lC1Ta.: he is unknown, but probably a Megalo-
politan.
Tou rroM:}lou: cf. 6-8 n. This war appears to have consisted of a
series of frontier raids between Sparta and Megalopolis over a long
period (xxi. 9· r), but not to have developed into a full \Var with
Achaea even after Nabis' attack on Messene (xvi. IJ. r-3). when
Philopoemen had to act alone since the Achaean general Lysippus
refused his collaboration (Plut. Philop. 12. 5); cf. Aymard, PR,
J8-43·
9. Antiochus and the Gerrhaeans
Antiochus will have left Carmania, where he wintered in 2o6/s
(xi. 34· 13), in spring 205; the events recorded here belong to that
year (d. Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 178-9) and should precede chapter .3
(see p. 21). Antioch us will have crossed Persia, calling at Antioch-in-
Persis (OGIS, 231, 233; identified by Tarn (JEA, 1929, I I n. 4;
Bactria, 418 n. 1) with Bushire on the coast of Iran), before taking
to•the Persian Gulf to visit the Gerrhaeans. E. Will (REG, 1962,
104 n. 59) suggests that Persis at this time remained in revolt against
421
XIIL9 ANTIOCHUS A"XD THE GERRHAEANS
Antiochus (for we do not hear of the suppression of Molon's brothel
Alexander: v. 40. 7, 43· 6, 54· 5); but the absence of any referenc<'
to it here is probably due to the fragmentary nature of the narrativr.
9. 1. Aa~cu ••• Xa.TTT)Yla.s 1TOAtS: cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. 14 7, 'sinus
Capeus, quem accolunt Gaulopes et Gattaei, sinus Gerraicus, op·
pidum Gerra'. Neither Labae nor Sabae is identifiable, but Chattenia
is a name for the country of the Gerrhaei, who lived in the southem
part of the modem province of Hasa on the west shore of the Persian
Gulf. They are mentioned by Strabo, xvi. 766, 776, 778 (using Erato-
sthenes and Artemidorus) ; Diod. iii. 42. 5 (Agatharchides; cf. GG11rf,
i. I77); Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. I47 (quoted above), xxxi. 78; PtoL vi. 7· I6,
viii. 22. Io. The capital Gerrha is mentioned by the Arab geographer
Hamdan! (Gezi.ret, 137, 24M) under the name of el-Cer'a; it lay near
the modern town of Hufuf, two days inland from the coast at Uqair,
and it may be the Carrhae of Pliny, Nat. hist. xii. So. See Tkar,
'Gerrha (2)', cols. 1270-2.
l. ~~~0. T~Y EOKa.tpla.v: 'through the wealth of the Gerrhaei' (cf. x.
27. 9) rather than 'for their convenience' (Paton).
3. TouTots ••• 1ra.pT)yyetAE <jlE(8E0"9a.t: probably the order is to hi:>
troops (see § 4, where hiatus betrays the excerptor).
5. ~aTe<jlavwaa.v: 'they made him a gift of'.
aTa.KTTJS: oil of myrrh; cf. Dioscor. i. 6o; LXX Gen. 37· 25.
~1ri T uXov T~Y vflaov: cf. Pliny, Nat. hi st. vi. I48, xii. 38, 40; the best
account is in Theoph. HP, iv. 7· 7· and CP, ii. 5· s. who describes tbc
and rich vegetation, including palms, mangroves, figs, fruit,
and cotton. It is the island of Bahrain (Manama). See 0. Stein, RE,
'Tylos (2)', cols. I732-3. This passage probably implies the presence
of a Seleucid fleet in these waters; cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. I 52;
Tarn, 240; Schmitt, Autiochos, 49 n. L
TOY n1T01TAOUY i1Tt IEAEUKeta.<;: he probably wintered there in 205/4·
10. Geographical fragments

10. 1-3. Italy: after Metaurus (xi. 1-3) Hannibal retired among the
Bruttii. In 206 both consuls faced him here and in Lucania (Livy,
xxviii. Io. 8, II. 8-Iz. 9; Dio, fg. 57· 59-tio) and in 205 the consul P.
Licinius Crassus Dives took over the army, but accomplished litth-
owing to plague (Livy, xxviii. 41. I2, 44· II, 45· 9, 46. 2-3, 46. IS,
xxix. Io. 1-3, II. 9; Diod. xxvii. 2; Plut. Fab. 25; App. Hann. 36;
Dio, fg. 57· 52; Zon. ix. II). In 204 P. Sempronius Tuditanus was
consul operating among the Bruttii and after a setback won a victory
(Livy, xxix. 13. I, 36.4-9; Dio, fg. 57· 70; Oros. iv. 18. I8; Zon. ix. II).
The three names recorded here must belong to events on this front
of 205 or 204. According to Livy, xxix. 38. I, 'eadem aestate (zo4)
422
GEOGRAPHICAL FRAGl\1E~TS XIII. IO. 11
in Bruttiis Clampetia a consule (i.e. P. Sempronius) ui capta, Con-

sentia et Pandosia et ignobilcs aliae ciuitates uoluntate in dicionem
ucnerunt'. Clampetia is probably P.'s Lampeteia; and the town
Baesidiae, which revolted the next year along with Clampetia and
many other towns (Livy, xxx. 19. 10), may well be P.'s Badiza (cf.
Nissen, It. Land. ii, index) and be included among Livy's ignobiles
ciuitates. Clampetia is modern Amantea, on the coast north of Terina;
it was in ruins in Pliny's time (Nat. hist. iii. 72; cf. l\Iela, ii. 69). See
Hiilsen, RE, 'Clampetia', coL 2625. The site of Baesidiae is uncertain.
~ amese lay on the coast between Clampetia and Terina; a local tradi-
tion, reproduced in Strabo, vi. 255, identified this town with the Temcse
of Homer, Od. i. r~-t. probably falsely. Temesa is likely to have been an
Ausonian town, later under Croton; in 194 the Romans sent a citizen
colony there, and the town still existed under the empire. The site is
that of Le 1\Iattonate near Torre del Casale; see Lenormant,LaGrande-
Grece, iii. 7s-ro4; H. Philipp, RE, 'Temesa', cols. 459-60. The town
was probably among those that fell to Sempronius in 204.
4-6. Crete: these three towns were probably mentioned under 205 or
204 in connexion with the war between Crete and Rhodes. On Allaria
cf. v. 63. 12, 65. 7; it lay in west Crete and about this time was under
Philip's control (cf. Walbank, Philip, 121 n. 3). See the inscription
granting as~vlia to Teos (Le Bas-Waddington, iii. 73 IC, ii
Allaria r*). Ilattia is not otherwise known; can it be the Elatos of
Pliny, Nat. hist. iv. 59? Sibyrtos is Sybrita, which lay between
Gortyn and Eleutherna in central Crete, near the modern village of
Thronos; cf. Bursian, ii. 568-9; Honigmann, RE, 'Sybrita', col. ro12 ;
Guarducci, IC, ii, p. 289. Sybrita was also under Philip in 205{4; see
the inscription granting asylia to Teos (Le Bas-Waddington, iii.
66 = IC, ii, Sybrita, r*).
7-10. Thrace: evidently Philip campaigned here in 204 (since the war
with Rome did not end till 205). Adrene: the site is unknown. Cf.
Theopompus, FGH, us F 36o. The Plain of A res is unknown. Diger£:
the Digerriof Pliny, Nat. hist. iv. 40; they lived on the left bank of the
Strymon. Cf. Oberhummer, RE, 'Digerri', coL 484. Cabyle. a colony of
Philip II (cf. Strabo, vii. 32o; Dem. 8. 44; Theopompus, FGH, us F 220;
Anaximenes, FGH, 72 F 12, who sets it on the Tundscha). The site
has been variously placed at Tauschan Tepe on the bend of the
Tundscha and at Slivno a little further north; see Oberhummer,
RE, 'Kabyle', cols 1455-6. The Astae lived further to the south-east,
in the hinterland between Byzantium and Perinthus, and along the
Pontus shore as far as the Thynias promontory; according to Strabo
vii. 320 their territory stretched inland beyond Cabyle. See Ober-
hummer, RE, 'Astai', cols. 1772~3.
U'. Melitussa: this Illyrian town was probably mentioned in con-
nexion with a campaign of Philip V; it is not referred to elsewhere.
423
BOOK XIV
1 a. On the -im.portance of Ol. 144 = 204-200
In this extract from the 7TpoiK8fw> to this Olympiad (cf. xi. 1 an.)
P. sets out to catch the reader's interest by stressing the contents
(von Scala, 29o-1); for further examples of P.'s endeavour to attract
readers cf. iii. 32. r, vi. z. 3, z6. 12. The present book contains only
one year's events (§ 5), 01. 144, r = 204/3.
1 a 1. at 1TpoEte9iuns: Twv 1Tpa~Ewv: 'the introductory surveys of

events'.
ElS: E1TL<TTautv liyouut: 'arouse the attention of the reader' ; cf. xi.
1 a 2.
2. Tous: teaTci TTJV '1Ta>.1av teat At~UTJV 1TOAEfLOUS:: the plural is curious,
for these are both aspects of the same war against Carthage.
1To1a. ns T) teaTauTpocJ>Tj teal. T( To n\>.os: 'what was the final outcome':
there is no clear distinction between the two nouns; cf. vi. 8. 6,
ro rEAo> mhwv . .. Tij> Karaarpocpijc;.
3. Ta ..• i!pya teal. Xoyous:: the two conventional parts of history-
writing; cf. Thuc. i. 22; Plato, Tim. 19 c; Ephorus, FGH, 70 F 9;
Dion. Hal. /mit. 3· 3; ad Pomp. 3· 20; Thuc. 25, 55; Quint. x. 1. 101.
4. Tcis: 1TpompE<TE~S: Twv ~autAEwv: P. refers to Philip V and Antioch us,
and probably has in mind the pact against Egypt (xv. 20. 1 f.), and
the events leading up to the Second Macedonian War, which brings
the Romans decisively into the Balkan peninsula. 7Tpoaf.pwt> includes
both character (cf. 12. s) and policy.
0. yap 1Tponpov EAEYETo 1TEpl. auTwv: 'what was hitherto only ru-
moured about them'.
5. ou Tcis: Ete TWV SuELV ETWV 1Tpa~us teTA.: cf. ix. I. I, Ell ova~ {1vf3/dw;
.•. T~V Jt~YYJaW.
1-10. Scipio in Africa

Scipio returned from Spain in zo6 (xi. 33· 8) and was elected consul
for 205 (Livy, xxviii. 38. 6) with Sicily as his province (Livy, xxviii.
38. 12), to which Africa was subsequently added (Livy, xxviii. 40-45).
Scipio went to Sicily to prepare for the invasion of Africa (Livy,
xxix. 1) and C. Laelius raided Africa (Livy, xxix. 1. 14, 3· 6-5. r).
In 204, as proconsul (Livy, xxix. 13. 3), Scipio crossed to Africa and
gained some successes; he also undertook the siege of Utica (Livy,
xxix. 24-36; Val. Max. iii. 7· 1, viii. 3· 3; Frontin. Strat. i. 12. 1, ii. 7· 4;
App. Lib. ro-q; Dio. fg. 57, 63--g; Zon. ix. rr-r2). The present frag-
ment opens in the winter of 204~3. P.'s source or sources cannot be
424
SCIPIO IN AFRICA XIV. I. 2
./
.
'f,g!ln\.1,1llt'
'-' ! i'\'E"
'._'\.li•<<J],
~.lrr.'lg."trr,l,
~idi luu.')-.t'i I
•
~'
0
} ~I\ ( ,l '
Dra t"l \ ( n l'fL1
Meinan 1.1 }..~:1 •
\" ";", ,,,
/.· ni:mr
IS. THE AFRICAK CA~IPAICNI::-.!G AREA

on Veith, Schlachtfelder, iii, 2, Karte II a)
recovered with anv certainty; he draws on good information for

Scipio but he is also well informed about the African side, and as
De Sanctis (iii. 2. 649) points out, the distances of 30 and 7 stades in
8. 2 point to a Greek source, for they do not represent com'ersions
from milia passuum. Whether Fabius' history extended down to
the end of the war is uncertain (d. Walbank, JRS, 1959, 195; Hoff-
mann, Historia, r96o, 317 (after zoo)).
1. 1. ot JJ.EV oov urraTOL: this will refer to the res Italiae of 203, which
would the res Africae; hence the consuls are those of A.u.c.
551 203 B.C., Cn. Servilius Cn.f. Cn.n. Caepio and C. Servilius C.f.
P.n. Geminus (Livy, xxix. 38. 3). Caepio had received the surrender
of several Bruttian towns (Livy, xxix. 38. r; above, xiii. ro. r-3 n.);
Geminus was in Etruria, and advanced thence into Gaul to rescue
his father and Lutatius Catulus from captivity (Livy, xxx. 19. 6-8).
2. ~v Tfl AL~un KaTe Titv rro.paXELJJ.ao-£av: for Scipio's winter quarters
see 6. 7 ; the Castra Cornelia was placed towards the north end of
the ridge, which runs south-west to north-east, a little to the east of
Utica; at this period it projected into the sea at the site of Galaat
e1 Andeliss, and the camp was probably on the highest point, at
the base of the actual promontory, with the naval station on the
425
XIV. r. 2 SCIPIO IN AFRICA
west; cf. Livy, xxix. 35· 13-14; Caesar, BC, ii. 24. 2; Veith, AS, iii.
2. 583-6; Gsell, iii. 220 n. 2; Scullard, Scip. n. 2.
1TUY9a.YOJJ.EVo<; £~apTUEW O'TOAov: cf. Livy, XXX. 3· 4, 'classem paratam
instructamque ad commeatus intercipiendos habebant'. On the
Punic failure to usc their fleet see Thiel, r6o.
£yivno ••• 1repi Ta.UTTJV TTJV 1ra.pa.crK£u~v: 'he busied himself with
similar preparations'; d. 2. r-2. Scipio's war-fleet at Carthage
amounted to only forty ships (Livy, xxix. 25. ro, 26. 3; see Thiel,
rs6 n. 422}.
1rept T~v TtlS 'ITuKT)S 1TOA~opK£a.v: cf. Livy, xxx. 3· 3, 'neque Scipio
ullo tempore hiemis belli opera remiserat ... Uticam obsidebat'. But
P. probably means simply 'he was concerned v..ith the siege' ; cf.
v. 36. r, ly{voVTo 1TEpt r~v dva.l.p<mv roO Maya. This is the meaning
of the phrase in 7· r, where it occurs before he has marched out the
following spring to besiege the city, cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 649. Clearly
Scipio could not carry on the siege of Utica through the winter,
shut up in his camp; elsewhere Livy (xxix. 35· 12) has the facts: 'ut
Scipio, cum quadraginta ferme dies nequiquam omnia experiens
obsedisset Uticam, abscederet inde irrito incepto.' See Gsell, iii.
221 n. 7 ; Scullard, Scip. 196 n. < On Utica see i. 70. 9 n.; G. Ville,
RE, Suppl.-B. ix, 'Utica', cols. r869-94 (with plan at cols. r871-2}.
3. Ttl'> Ka.Tti. TOV Ioq.aKa ••• eA1r£Sos: on Syphax, king of the Masae-
syli, see xi. 2-l a 4, where Scipio visited him in Africa.
SlE1TE!L1TETo OE crvvE)(ws: according to Appian (Lib. 17} and Dio (fg.
57· 72; d. Zon. ix. rz), Syphax the negotiations; and Valerius
Antias {Livy, xxx. 3· 6} spoke of a visit of Syphax to the Roman
camp.
4. TtlS 1ra~SraKTJ'>: cf. 7. 6; Sophonisba, the daughter of Hasdrubal,
whom her father gave in to Syphax to win his support
(Livy, xxix. 23. 4; Diod. xxYii. 7; Dio, fg. 57· 51; Zon. ix. II); the
form of the name in the best Livian MSS. is Sophoniba (Livy, xxx.
12. u); but the Punic form is Saphanbaal (Gsell, iii. 197 n. 3; De
Sanctis, iii. 2. 532 n. 137). The story of her suicide to avoid imprison-
ment is romanticized in the tradition, probably including P.; De
Sanctis, loc. cit., attributes this to Ennius.
V.+tKop(a.v: 'quickness to tire', and so 'fickleness'.
5. tiJv SE mrpt 1roAAO. KTA.: 'since his mind was much distracted'.
Tov e~w K£vSuvov: 'a battle in the open country'.
7. TOU') !LEV E~ apxil<> 'those who tirst arrived'.
Tou') S' £( m )cruva.yojLEvous: 'those who kept joining'.
8. T<lUTTJV TTJV KO.TUO'KEu,;v; 'the following trick'.
10. Ttl'> ~1TtJ3oMjs ••• l}s tmJ3aXXETa.~: 'the course he wished to see
adopted' (Shuckburgh).
13. TWY 1rpa.y11anKwv ••• Ka.t aTpaT~WnKwv: cf. Livy, xxx. 4· 1,
'primos ordines spectatae uirtutis atque pmdentiae'; but P. seems
426
SCIPIO IN AFRIC.\ XIV. z-5
to mean 'men of tried experience' contrasted with 'men of military
skill'. Paton translates 'expert observers' and 'certain of his officers';
the two categories are partially but not wholly exclusive.
14. Suo .•. CTTpa.To11'EOeia.~: not identifiable with certainty, but
Veith's proposed site has great plausibility. Scipio was encamped
for the winter at the so-called Castra Cornelia (6. 7 ; Livy, xxix. 35· IJ;
Caesar, BC, ii. 24. 2) on a rocky peninsula about 3 km. east of Utica
(above, 1. 2 n.). Veith (AS, iii. 2. sSIH} and map 13 a) places Has-
drubal's camp on the site of the village Douar Touha, which lies
on the south-east side of the eminence Koudiat Touba, the southern
end of the ridge running south-south-east from Castra Cornelia, and
Syphax's camp on Koudiat el Mabtouka, which lies to the west of
Douar Touba: the distance between the two camps as shown on
Veith's map is 2i km., and this is considerably more than the
ro stades (r! km.) mentioned by P. Scullard (Scip. 199 n. r) suggests
that the camps were perhaps on Koudiat Touba and on the hill to
the north-east (54 m.: not named on Veith's map), which are exactly
Jo stades apart; Veith thinks P. gave the distance to the nearest
Io stades. Either site fits the distance of 6o stades from Castra
Cornelia (4. 1). At this time the Bagradas (Wadi Medjerda) flowed
well to the south-east of Koudiat Touba (i. 75· 5 n.), not between
this hill and Koudiat el Mabtouka, as at present. Against the position
for the two camps suggested by Tissot, Glograpltie comparee de la
province romaine d'Afrique, i. (Paris, 18R4), 554, on the south slope
of Djebel Menzel Roul (Djebel .Mcn;:el-el~Ghoul), immediately south-
west of Utica, see the arguments of Veith, AS, iii. 2. 588-1).
Carthaginian numbers. P. here gi\·es Hasdrubal Jo,ooo foot and 3,ooo
horse and Syphax so,ooo foot and 1o,ooo horse, a total of 93,ooo.
According to Appian, Lib. 9, Hasdrubal at the beginning of the
campaign had armed IJ,:zoo men (a more reliable figure than the
2j,ooo given in App. Lib. 13 from a different source; De Sanctis,
iii. 2. 583; Scullard, Scip. 319-20). Clearly the figures given now for
the two camps are too large : they are larger than any army Carthage
ever assembled, and Hasdrubal can hardly have doubled his force
since Scipio landed. It is likely that at some stage the figures have
been inflated to the glory of Scipio, and De Sanctis (iii. 2. 584; cf.
Scullard, Scip. 3zo) plausibly suggests 3o,ooo infantry plus J,ooo-
s,ooo cavalry for the combined force.
2-5. The burning of the camps; Livy, xxx. 3-6, follows P.; Appian,
Lib. Ij-23 mal<es the whole thing almost a spontaneous reaction to
an attack by Syphax on Masinissa, which is also mentioned by Zon.
ix. 12, who connects the burning of the camps with the battle of the
Gteat Plains; see also Frontin. Stral. i. r. 3, 2. I, ii. 5· 29; auct. de uir.
ill. 49· 13 ; Sil. It. xv'ii. 89 ff.
XIV. 2. r SCIPIO ll' AFRICA
2. I. Tfjs ea.pLvi]s wpa.s: spring 203 and probably March or April;
cf. Scullard, Sdp. 326; De Sanctis, iii. z. 585; Pedech, Metlwde, 464,
makes it between 5 and 15 March.
3. Tov UtrEp T~v troAw Kd~Evov Aocpov: evidently mentioned
earlier; cf. Livy, xxi..x. 35· 7, 'ab imminente prope ipsis moenibus
tumulo' (a passage relating to the previous autumn). Livy, xxix.
34· 3, puts it a Roman mile from the town, and Veith identiJies it with
the hill commanding the walls where the amphitheatre later stood
(66 m. at its highest point); it thus lay south-west of Utica (AS, iii.
z. 579-80). Gsell (iii. zr9 n. r) suggests another hill slightly further
to the south-west. But there is not enough evidence for certainty.
According to Livy (xxx. 4· n), Scipio did not occupy this hill until
he had denounced the truce; this statement may be due to excessive
concern with Scipio's honour in this somewhat disreputable plan.
Livy also puts its garrison at 2,ooo.
4. ecpESpEOELV TOL5 KQ.Tcl TOV ••• I<Blpov: 'guarding against anything
happening at the time of his own enterprise'; the phrasing is awk-
ward, but Buttner-Wobst is probably right to make rof> Kard. rov •• •
1w.tp6v neuter. Schweighaeuser translates: 'ut ea quae per ipsum
expeditionis tempus fieri possent observarent et rebus suis praesidia
essent'. This gives €</;r;SpEvnv its full sense; for its original meaning
'to be in reserve' contains the ideas both of defence and of watching.
Cf. Livy, xxx. 4· r2, 'ne qua, cum ipse ad Syphacem Hasdrubalemque
profectus esset, eruptio ex urbe et impetus in castra sua relicta cum
leui praesidio fieret'.
8. EKToc; ••• Tijc; tra.pEil~oA~s: cf. 1. 7; for KaTaaKTJvovv see x. 3r. 5 n.
II. Tous S' tv Tti> auveSp£~~;~: cf. 9· r; the members of his advisory
council, which would normally include the military tribunes (cf. i.
49· 3, iii. 41. 8, v-iii. 7· 5. xi. 25. 8, xx. Io. ro) and the primus pilus
prior (vi. 24. z n.). For other references to this council see xi. z6. z,
xv. r. 6, xxvii. 8. 6. In the second century we hear of senatoriallegati
attached to the consul in an advisory capacity, and these and any
other consulars present would be members of the council; cf. vi.
35· 4 n. See Mommsen, Staatsrecht, i. 316.
13. xnpw 'TOU ~it SO€a.L tra.pa.atrovSE'iv: 'in order not to appear to be
breaking the truce'. According to Livy, xxx. 4· 8, Syphax conveniently
added new undefined but unacceptable clauses; this is part of the
Livian treatment of the story, probably derived from his sources (cf.
§ 3 n.).
14. &.vetrlArprTov , •. TI)v trpoa.(pEow: 'his conduct would not be open
to blame'.
3. 6. tca.TO. Tov Toil OEltrvou ~<a.Lpov: cf. Livy, xxx. 5· z (on the present
occasion), 'tribunis edicit ut ubi praetorio dimisso signa concinuis-
sent extemplo educerent castris legiones'. One of the ancient customs
428
SCIPIO iN AFRICA XIV. 5· q.
practised by Corbulo under Nero was conui~tium bu.cina dimitti (Tac.
Ann. xv. 30. r) ; but it is not clear whether P. has the beginning or
the end of the meal in mind-probably the former. Perhaps the
trumpet was sounded both at the beginning and at the end of supper.
This note is intended for P.'s Greek readers; cf. von Scala, 289.
7. auvEKpwe Ka.l OLTtpeuva. Td A.eyo11eva.: 'he compared their accounts
and questioned them'.
XPW!lEvos hrucplTU KTA.: 'letting Masinissa decide' ; on Masinissa
cf. ix. 25. 4 n.
4. 1. 'TTEpl .•• ~gtlKOVTa. aTa.8(ous: about rol km.; see r. 14 n.

l. 1TEpl TP(Tllv cf>uA.a.~c:Tjv A.tiyouaa.v: on the division of the night into
four ttigiliae see vi. 33· 7 n.
r a.£<-t~ ••• Aa.LAC<t~: d. x. 3· 2 n. He had served as praefectus classis
during the crossing in 204 (Livy, xxix. 25. s-13), when he com-
manded the left wing of the fleet. In 203 he was legatus to Scipio
(cf. Livy, xxx. 9· r, u-r2, 14. 2-3, 33· 2; App. Lib. 26, 28; Zon. ix.
r2-13; Diod. xxvii. 7; Val. Max. vi. 9 ext. 7).
5. ~0.811v E'TTOLELTo Ti)v 'TTopda.v: if Hasdrubal had the eastern site,
Scipio had not so far to go as Laelius and :\lasinissa. According to
Appian (Lib. 21-22) Scipio set fire to the Punic camp first, and when
Syphax came to the rescue Masinissa defeated him.
7. ll'xwv Ecf>eSpeta.s Tagw: not contradicting § 5, which is a general
description of the simultaneous acts of Laelius and Masinissa. Laclius
sent men forward to fire the camp (§ 6 oZ rrporrymJf-LEVO<) while he him-
self covered the operation; Masinissa surrounded the camp and
covered the exits, and finally as soon as the fire began Laelius
attacked.
5. 4. Tfjs 8f..11s 1rep~aTaaews: 'the disaster generally'.

7. ToTE yd.p 1rup KTA.: the sensationalism is worth noting in view of
P.'s strictures at ii. s6. 7-IO; d. §§ I0--14; Siegfried, 29.
10. 11upui.8Es: rhetorical exaggeration. Livy (xxx. 6. 8) gives the
number killed as 4o,ooo with over s,ooo prisoners; Appian (Lib. 23)
gives nearly 3o,ooo dead and 2,400 prisoners. 'Livy's figure is only
within the bounds of possibility, if P.'s absurd total of 93,ooo is
accepted' (Scullard, Scip. 321). Perhaps P. gave figures of those
killed, which the epitomator omitted at the end of this chapter; but
Livy's seem to be from an annalist, perhaps Valerius Antias (De
Sanctis, iii. 2. 528 n. 133).
14. ooS~ Ka.9' l'mep~oA.Tjv etKQO'O.L Suva.Tov KTA,: 'it is impossible for
any man alive to give a true picture of what happened, no matter
how he might exaggerate'; for o~OEvt ntiv ovTwv cf. ix. 29. 2, Paton
talkes ol3tlEvi to be neuter and renders 'it is impossible to compare what
happened with any other disaster', which is possible but less likely.
XIV. 5· I4 SCIPIO IN AFRICA
1!'aaa.s Tas 11'f>DE~PTJf.LEva.s 11'pa~ELS: 'all previously recorded exploits';

not merely recorded by P., the usual meaning of 7TpoHp7Jplvo<;.
15. KUAALO"Tov ••• Kat 1ra.pa.~oAwTa.Tov: von Scala, 37 n. 2, suggests
that this judgement may echo the enthusiasm of Masinissa, who was
present (3. 7) and may have been an informant about it when P. met
him (ix. 25. 4). It is hard to reconcile with P.'s remarks on dmiT7J in
warfare in xiii. 3 ; cf. Ullrich, 34-35.
6. 2. TTI T~S 1!'0AEWS oxupOTTJTL: cf. Livy, XXX. 7· I, 'Hasdrubal ex

fuga cum paucis Afrorum urbem proximam petierat, eoque omnes
qui supererant uestigia ducis sequentes se contulerant; metu deinde
ne dederetur Scipioni urbe excessit'. Appian (Lib. 24) says that
Hasdrubal fled wounded, and accompanied by 500 cavalry, to Anda,
where he proceeded to recruit on his own account, after hearing that
he had been superseded by Hanno at Carthage. This town, Anda,
has been frequently identified with the unnamed tmvn of P. and
Livy (cf. Gsell, iii. 227-8; Veith, AS, iii. 2. 589), although Hasdrubal
is said to have evacuated it. Saumagne (Rend. Line. r925, 648) rightly
rejects this identification; but his own, following Tissot, that Anda
is Abba, Syphax's rallying place (6. r2; Livy, xxx. 7· ro, calls it Obba)
is unconvincing; on the identity of Abba see 6. r2 n. The town
mentioned hew is likely to be quite distinct from Anda, which will
lie inland near the Great Plains (Scullard, Scip. 209). It may have
stood where Veith (AS, iii. 2. s8g, following Tissot, op. cit. (I. I4 n.)
i. 556) puts Anda, that is at Henchir Merkeb en Nabi, on the Djebel
Mergueb, a spur of the Djebel Amar, which lies south of the Medjerda,
or alternatively (as Gsell, iii. 227 n. 4, suggests) at Henchir Bou
Djaoua, slightly further south; both these sites are about r r km.
from Douar Touba, where Veith set Hasdrubal's camp (d. r. 14 n.).
But certainty is impossible.
3. t1!'1TELS ••• ou1< EAaTTous 1TEVTa.Koa£wv, 1TEtot 8e 1TEpt 8L<J)(LALous:
Scullard (Scip. 32r) suggests that Hasdrubal will very soon have
built up this nucleus to a force of about 2o,ooo men.
5. Mo ... 1roAELS: cf. Livy, xxx. 7· 2, 'duae subinde urbes captae
direptaeque'. Their situation is unknov:n.
TTJV £; apxfjs •.• 11'0.f>Efl~OATJV: Castra Cornelia (cf. § 7l·
8. Uf.LO. T~ KTA.: Ufta np goes with both tKxwp7jaat and 11poaboKiiv.
9. To auv€8pLov: whether the larger or the smaller Council is not clear
(cf. i. 21. 6 n.).
12. Ets Tf]v l\~~a.v &.1ToKEXWPTJ~<Eva.L: cf. Livy, xxx. 7· ro, urbem
nomine Obbam; but according to Livy envoys sent from Carthage-
informed Syphax of the arrival of the Celtiberian mercenaries at
Obba, whereas P. (7. sl makes these Spaniards meet Syphax at this
town. Thus to Livy Obba is not necessarily the locus munitus (Livy,
xxx. 7· 3) where Syphax first halted, as P.'s account would suggest
43°
SCIPIO IN AFRICA XIV. 7· 6
hence the site of Abln is doubtful. If the variant account in Livy
springs from rhetorical elaboration (7. 5 n.), we may, however, assume
that Abba was the locus munitus, which Livy states to have been
nearly 8 miles either from the town where Hasdrubal first halted
(6. 2 n.) or (since Livy is ambiguous) from the two towns near it
which fell to the Romans (6. 5). Veith (AS, iii. 2. 589), who links the
Livian and Polybian accounts of the arrival of the Celtiberians with
the battle of the Great Plains, would put Obba well up in the interior,
five days' march from Utica (cf. 8. 2); so too DeSanctis, iii. 2. 529 n.
135. But Gsell (iii. 228 n. 5) seems justified in treating Livy's 8 miles
as the distance between the unnamed halting place of Hasdrubal (he
calls it Anda) and Abba, in which case Abba also lay in the lower
l3agradas valley. Gsell suggests a site at Henchir Chouegui, north-
west of Tebourba; but he quotes no evidence for his statement that
a Roman town, Thubba, stood here, and altogether no certain identi-
fication is possible. A site somewhere near Henchir Bou Djaoua is,
however, likely.
TiA.os a.(h'l ••• £m:KpaT'la£v: Livy (xxx. 7. 7), following P. here, adds
that 'haec sententia quia Hasdrubal praesens Barcinaeque omnes
factionis bellum malebant uicit'. This is perhaps an annalistic ad-
dition, but more probably a Polybian detail omitted by the ex-
cerptor.
13. Tas n Suvafl£LS ~9poL~ov: not necessarily at Abba, but more
likely in the interior on the upper Bagradas.
8L£1TEflljla.vTo 1rpos Tov I6<j>a.Ka.: this embassy is described in detail by
Livy, xxx. 7· 8-12, who develops it as an interesting theme, thereby
slightly distorting P.'s narrative (cf. 7· 5 n.).
7. 1. ey(v£To ••• 1r10pt TTJV Tijs 'ITuK'lS 1ToALOpK£a.v: 'he was occupied
with preparations for the siege of Utica'; cf. I. 2 n.
2-3. vd(J-a.s Twv A.a.<j>upwv KTA.: lacunae exist after Aacpvpwv, TOV>
p.tv, and JgaTreantAe. The meaning is ambiguous. Scipio distributed
the booty and sent away the merchants who were buying it up for
a song; or, alternatively, he sent away the merchants with an excel-
lent profit. The latter is more likely. If the soldiers were satisfied,
why should he alienate both them and the merchants by interfering?
On the procedure see x. 16. 5 n.
5. Twv Se K£A.n~T)pwv a.uTol:s cma.vT'laavTwv: cf. 6. 12 n. According to
Livy, xxx. 7· 10, it is the Punic legati on their way to Syphax who
meet these Celtiberians near Abba, and announce the fact to
Syphax as part of their argument to persuade him to collaborate
again. This looks like Livian elaboration.
WA€LOUS ovns TWV T£Tp0.KLO'XLALWV: cf. Livy, XXX. 7· 10, qttattuor
milia Celtiberorum.
6. TijS 1TO.L8LO'K'1S: cf. I. 4 n.
431
XIV. 7· 8 SCIPIO IN AFRICA
8. xuSalou ~~:at 1T'O.YS~jLOU Ao.Mas: 'the vulgar gossip of the rabble'

(Paton).
9. iv iJ~-t€pa~s TpL«i~toYTil: if the attack on the camps was in ~1arch
203 (d. 2. r) this will be in late April (Scullard, Scip. 326); DeSanctis
(iii. 2. sss) put these events about a month later.
rr~<pi. TO. M~;:yaAa mrS(a. ~~:o.AoujL£Yo.: cf. Li vy, xxx. 8. 3, Afagnos~ita
uocant~campos; for this battle Livy derh·es directly from P. (Veith,
AS, iii. 2, 589-go; DeSanctis, iii. 2. 649). The Great Plains are to be
identified with the plain of Souk el Kremis on the Medjerda (Bag-
radas), where it is joined by four tributaries, the Wadi Mellegue and
Wadi Tessa on the right bank, and the Wadi Bou Heurtma and Wadi
Kasseb on the left. Here, some 125 km. west of Utica, the plain is
25 by zo km. in size, and it seems impossible to fix the site of the
battle precisely. Veith (AS, iii. 2. 590 and Karte 136; Schlachtenatlas,
Rom. Abt. 8, col. 3i) identifies the hill on which Scipio camped as
one overlooking the Wadi Kasseb from the east, and he places the
Punic camp just east of the Wadi Bou Heurtma. Kahrstedt (iii.
551 n. I) and De Sanctis (iii. 2. 531 n. r36) reject this, and Scullard,
Scip. 210, is non-committal, but critical; as he remarks, the terrain
plays no part in the course o( the battle, consequently the identifying
of the site is not important.
ouK tAaTTous .•• TpLajLup(wv: a figure hard to reconcile with the fact
that Scipio used all his infantry against the 4,ooo Celtiberians, and
successfully routed the Carthaginian and Numidian troops (on these
figures, 26,ooo) with his two cavalry corps (8. 6-u). Veith (AS, iii.
2. 591-2; Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abt. 8, col. 36) argues therefore
that 3o,ooo is the total of the whole Punic army, but that only about
6,ooo had been sent to join the Celtiberians; De Sanctis (iii. z. 584)
thinks this right in principle, but too drastic a reduction, and he
makes the Punic total rs,ooo. Gsell (iii. 23o) admits the feasibility of
Veith's argument, but accepts P.'s figures. Scullard (Scip. 321-3)
argues convincingly (a) that the greater part of the Carthaginian
forces must have been sent out to join Syphax, especially as both
generals, Syphax and Hasdrubal, were at the Great Plains, (b) that
the distress caused by the defeat at Carthage is inexplicable if only
a small proportion of the army had been involved, (c) that Scipio
would not have dared to divide his troops (8. r), if the bulk of tlw
Carthaginian army was outside Carthage. He therefore assumes tlw
Africans at the Great Plains to have amounted to about 2o,ooo.
8. 1-14. the l;attle of the Great Plains: for this battle see Livy, xxx. 8,
Appian ignores it, perhaps drawing on Coelius (DeSanctis, iii. 2. 666),
but Zonaras, ix. 12, has a distorted account of an attack on tlw
Romans by the Spanish allies which may be a confused version ol
this battle.
I. Ei.s TO TWY 'PwjLo.lwv a'TpGTo1TeSov: outside Utica; cf. 7· I.
432
SCIPIO IX AFRICA XIV. 9. II
'lfii.V EXWV EU~WVOV: 'in light marching order', i.e, with a minimum of
baggage (cf. iii. 35· 7).
2. 1TEpt Tp~aKOVTa CTTa8£ous a'ITOQ'){WV: cf. Livy, XXX. 8. 3, 'quattuor
milia ferme distante ab castris regiis'.
3. (E:v) lo1rTa crTa8£oLS 1rapeve~aAe: the suggests a Greek source:
see above, 1-10 n. The cavalry are to protect the infantry while they
encamp. Livy (xxx. 8. 4) misses this second camp; and Shuck burgh
argues that P. is not referring to a camp but to drawing up his
troops.
4. 1TapeveflaAAov nl.s 8uvO.p.eLs: 'they drew up their forces for battle';
P. feels no embarrassment at using 7TapEp.{3&Xi.Hv in two different
senses within four lines. Scipio's numbers are not recorded, but he
probably had only a couple of legions, lea\·ing the rest at Utica; cf.
Scullard, Scip. 209, 321.
5. ICaTa TO 1Tap' auToi:s £9os: on the division into hastati, principes,
and triarii see iv. 21. 7-8 n.; cL xi. 23. I n., xv. 9· i· There \vill have
been gaps between the ltastati and principes, and between principes
and triart'i; cf. Veith, AS, iii. 2. 688 ff. On the normal Roman dis-
position see further xv. g. 6-9 n., xviii. 30. 5-I I n.
7. Tous p.€v KeAT[flT)pas ••• avT£ous Tais ••• cr'!fe(pcw;: this does not
rule out the possibility that the Roman infantry also faced part of
the Numidian and Punic forces: P. merely indicates that the Car-
thaginian centre was made up of the 4,ooo Celtiberians. !mdpa.t are
maniples, d. xi. 23. I n.
8. E:ve~t)-uva.v -roos 'ITa.ALKous L'lf'ITEt>;;: 'they fled before the Italian
horse'.
11. U'ITO Twv 1fPLYKt1fwv Kat TpLap£wv: the hastati were attacking in
front. On Scipio's use of the principes and triarii as an aggressive
reserve to outflank the enemy's centre, a new and significant tactical
development, see Scullard, Scip. 212.
14. 1rept TouTouc; yevop.ev'l')s ~mCTTacrews: 'owing to their being halted
by the Celtiberians' ; cf. viii. 28. 13 for this sense of bdcrra.crt'),
9. 1. TO auv€SpLov: cf. 2. II n.
2. Tas 1roAElS: the settlements in quite simple Libyan villages; see
i. 72. 2 n., XXV. I.
5. olKeia. p.eTa.flo.AfJs: 'ready to revolt'.
CI'UVEXWS :TE] ~KKE(p.Eva: 'having been COntinUOUSly eXposed tO.,,',
8. p.T)8ep.£a.v U'll'Ep~oAl)v 1TOL11aap.evous: 'without delay'.
11. yevop.evwv Sf: Kat 1TAELovwv Aoywv: 'after several speeches had
been made', not (as Paton) 'there were several debates on these
proposals'.
vacras E:Kupwcrav fi.p.a. -ras yvwp.a.s: 'they adopted all these proposals
together'. P. does not evidently include the proposal to consider
peace among these; d. Scullard, Scip. 213 n. 1.
814173 Ff 433
XIV. IO. I SCIPIO IN AFRICA
10. 1. oi: ••. ~tls 'TTJY 'l.,.a.Mo.v jLEAAovTES rrXeiv: P. seems to imply that
these envoys set out at once for Rome; but xv. I. 6 suggests that
Carthaginian envoys visited the Roman camp at Tunis, asking for
pardon and peace. According to Livy, xxx. 16.3-15, the visit to Tunis
and Scipio's offer of terms are followed by a further embassy to
Tunis to a truce while other envoys go on to Rome to ask
for peace; and is difficult to believe (so Gigante, Aegyptus, 1950, So)
that P. described the sending of envoys to Rome and to Scipio as
completely enterprises. One must assume that the lost part
of xiv contained an account of how these envoys proceeded first to
Scipio's camp at Tunis, and then to Rome.
2. l<a.'Ta.y~jLOVTOS fi&TJ Tou aTpa.Torr~&ou: 'the army was now loaded
with plunder'; cf. Livy, xxx. 9· 10, 'grauem iam spoliis ... exercitum'.
But the sense 'camp' is also possible and adopted by Paton and
Shuckburgh.
~tis 'TTJY ~5 &.pxi]s ••• 1ra.p~tjL~oXitv: the Castra Cornelia.
3. 'TOY E'lrl TUYT)T~ xapa!<a.: on the situation of Tunis see i. 30. IS n.;
the defmite article suggests that the position has already been men-
tioned. On the importance of Tunis in any attack on Carthage see
Scullard, Scip. q8"8o, who briefly considers the operations of
Agathocles, Regulus, the Mercenaries, and Curio.
5. ws iKa.'Tov EiKoat aTa.&ious: cf. i. 30. IS n., 67. 13.
~an &!\ o-uvo'II"Tos ••• 'Ti]s 'II'OAEWS: i.e. Carthage still exists, and this
is written before : see iii. I-S n. arguing against Erbse's view that
this is an 'achronistic present tense'. For criticism of Erbse's later
defence of this theory (Phil. 1957, 269-97) see ix. 9· 9 n.
Ka.&arrep ~<a.lrrpoTEpov lJIL'iv Etpfi'TO.t: cf. i. 30. IS.
9. rrpoS . , , Td$ ESatptaEt$ I<O.t rrpoaaywycis 'Tc;W opyavwv: 'for the
bringing up and erecting of siege engines': h~vsteron proteron to avoid
hiatus, cf. ii. 2. 2 n., viii. 14. 6 n.
11. 'Tas I<Epa.tas: 'the yard-arms': the masts and yard-arms were
lashed across the merchant-ships; cf. Livy, xxx. 10. 5, 'malis anten-
nisque de naue in nauem traiectis ac ualidis funibus uelut uno inter se
uinculo inligatis'. Livy, xxx. ro. 8-21, gives an account of the Punic
attack which, after some delay, succeeded in dragging off nearly
sixty transports to Carthage; there is a rather different version
in Zon. ix. 12 and Appian, Lib. 24--25, JO, has two attacks, probably
a doublet of the one in P.
11-12. Affairs in Egypt: character of Ptolemy IV

A note by the excerptor of P (on virtue and vice), inserted after Ot£.\'1]-
.\~(Jaluv (12. 3), reads: '~'TEL. lvlAmre yap <fo~Ma. I-<"' lvotr; rrepi Toil
7r'TDAEftalov lverplpe'To Ka~ rrep~ dpaw61JS'· This reference to 48 pages on
Egypt matches P.'s statement that he has chosen to treat the whole
434
AFFAIRS I~ EGYPT XIV. II-I'Z
of Egyptian affairs after the war for Coele-Syria (described in v) in

one piece (rz. r), and in particular to sketch the character of Philo-
pator Elad:rrat orov El UWJLUTOI!~Oii (I2. 5)· In the preface (I a 4) he has
already explained that in Ol. 144 204-200 the affairs of the east be-
came interhvined with those of the west: the Syro-Macedonian pact
is an important part of this process (xv. zo. I f.), hence Egyptian
affairs had to be introduced in this Olympiad. The account of
Epiphanes' accession occurs in xv (events of 203/z); but there must
have been some event on which to tie the survey of Philopator's
reign in xiv (cf. 12. 3, '1Tept oo vGv 6 .\6yos), and this was most likely
Philopator's death. It will hardly have been the war mentioned in
12. 4, Which COntained 000El! ... /1-li~IJ."'JS a~£OV.
The chronology of Philopator's death and Epiphanes' accession is,
however, a vexed question, which can only be treated here in outline.
The Egyptian records agree in making Epiphanes' second year begin
on Thoth r = 13 October 204 (Jul.); this date, given by the Canon
of the Kings, is confirmed by documents dated to Epiphanes' twenty-
fifth year, which ended with his death about May 18o (xxiv. 6. 7; the
latest date (Tait, Greek Ostraca, i (London, 1930), 17, Bodleian no. 96)
is Pharmouthi 16 of year 25 20 May r8o). The latest dating by
Philopator is an ostracon from I)hiladelphia (BGU, 1555) of year
18, Hathyr 4 ''' December 205; and a Greek papyrus (vVilcken, UPZ,
i. nz) shows (as Bikerman, Chron. d'Egypte, rg4o, 128--9, has demon-
strated) that Epiphanes was known to be king. and documents con-
cerning the farming of taxes were being dated by him, from a date
sometime between 12 March and 8 September of some year (not
necessarily 104, as Bikerman assumes), which, allowing two or three
weeks for the preparation of the tax-documents, means that his
accession cannot be later than mid-August (d. Schmitt, Antiochos,
19r). A further date is furnished by the Rosetta stone, which con-
tains the record of a decree enacted on 4 Xandikos = r8 Mecheir
of Epiphanes' ninth year, at a festival held to celebrate the day lv
n 7lapl>-.aflev T~ll {Ja(n>.dav 'Tt'O.pa TOU 7la-rp6:; (OGIS, 90, l. 47), which was
on Phaophi I 7. Bikerman (op. cit. 126-7) has shown that these words,
b fi ... TTa-rp6r;, clearly refer to a ceremony carried out at Memphis.
For the years 205·-203 the Julian equivalent of Phaophi I7 is z8
November, and the ceremony so held must have come after the
announcement of Epip)ftlnes' accession described in xv. 25. 2. The
Rosetta decree (OG!S, go, 11. 44-45) refers to Epiphanes visiting
Memphis '1Tp6r; Tel avVTe~ea8fi[vat a&rwt -raJ TTpoal]Kov-ra vo/1-tfLa -rfit '1Tapa-
l.ljt{let -rfi;; flaaJ..Etas, evidently a ceremony held on the anniversary of
his original TTap<f).'T)tft>, and so on Phaophi 17 of his eighth year. On
the usual dating of documents of Epiphanes this gives 27 November,
197, with the Rosetta decree enacted in March r96; and this is
confirmed by the evidence of the moon (d. xviii. 53-55 n.). On the
435
XIV. n-tz DATE OF PTOLEMY IV'S DEATH
relationship of this ceremony at Memphis to the Anacleteria of Epi-
phanes described in xviii. 55· J see xviii. 53-5 n.; since the dating of
that passage depends on the dating of the Memphis ceremony, it has
no independent value in establishing the latter.
The problem is to reconcile an Egyptian tradition which dates
the beginning of Epiphanes' second year to October 204 with F.'s
chronology, which suggests that Philopators' death was mentioned
in 204/3 and definitely places Epiphanes' proclamation as l{ing in
2o3j2. Two solutions are possible; both have their difficulties.
(1) The theory of a concealed death. Both P. (xv. 25. 4, .iP8wpoAoy~
aa.VTo) and Iustinus (xxx. 2. 6, 'sed mors eius, dum pecuniam regiam
mulieres rapiunt et imperium inita cum perditissimis societate oc-
cupare conantur, diu occultata fuit') mention the concealment of
Philopator's death. If he died in about September 204, this would
give P. reason to discuss his character in xiv (OL 144, I 2o4/3);
and if his death was then concealed until late in 203, P. could de-
scribe the events of his proclamation in xv (OL 144, 2 203/2). This
concealment need not have lasted until September, for P. might
for purposes of arrangement and literary effect have dealt with the
events of the last seventeen years and Philopator's death and charac·
ter in xiv and have postponed the beginning of the new reign to xv.
even though it came in fact at the end of 01. 144, r. The obstacle to
this theory lies in the dated documents. If it were true, dating b~
Philopator ought to have continued until summer 203, and his nine·
teenth year; but so far the latest date we have is IS December 205.
in his eighteenth. On the other hand, there arc documents mention-
ing all Epiphanes' years up to nine (with some doubt about year 1);
cf. Nims, JEA, I938, 73-74. Hence if the theory sketched above is to
succeed, one must assume that at some later date an adjustment was
made back-dating Epiphanes' accession to the real time of Philo-
pator's death before October 204. This can only have been done by
dividing some Egyptian year of the way through, so that thr
period from then to the next I Thoth was treated as a new
·with fresh eponymous priests (cf. Walbank, JEA, 1936, 32;
]EA., 1938, 74); and this would mean an apparent twelve months
without documentary evidence. There are periods of over twelve
months between Phaophi of year 5 and Choiak of year 6 and between
Mecheir of year 7 and Pharmouthi of year 8 without recorded dates.
consistent with such a manceuvre. But, of course, new documenb
may at any time be discovered to dispose of this theory by leavin;.:
less than twelve months unaccounted for.
(z) The alternative is to assume that Philopator died in summe1
204, that his death was concealed for only a few days or weeks (until
Arsinoe could be removed), and that the king's death was matk
public before October 204 (indeed, in view of UPZ, i. 112, befm•
436
AND PTOLE:\lY V'S ACCESSIO?-l XIV. 11. 1
111i<l-August 204). In that case the recorded dates of both Philopator

and Epiphanes offer no difficulties; but it is necessary to assume
that P. delayed his account of the proclamation until 01. 144, 2
2o3j2, either because he was in error or for reasons of composition
(cf. Bikerman, Chron. rEgypte, 1940, r 30, 'Si Polybe avait decrit
l'intronisation de Ptolemee V encore dans le livre xiv•>, il aurait
detruit cette unite de l'histoire de Philopator qu'il a creee dans le
xive livre par !'abandon de !'ordonnance annalistique'). It is true
that a deliberate postponement can be only partially paralleled by
the deferment to book vii for compositional reasons of certain events
(including the revolt of Capua) which fell within the campaigning
season of 216, since these events were technically within 01. 141, 1
= 216/15. Similarly, the inclusion within books iv (d. iv. 14. 9) and
v of events from the previous Olympiad is hardly parallel, since P.
opened his main history with 01. 140. Nevertheless this alternative
seems to be the more probable; and if in fact the downfall of
Agathocles, described in xv. z6 a-33, fell in 203(2 (and the account
of Tlepolemus' growing opposition in xv. 25. z6-37 is consistent with
quite a long passage of time), P. may have chosen, for the reasons
suggested by Bikerman, to postpone the account of Epiphanes'
accession to book xv, where it could be incorporated in a continuous
narrative going down to the end of Agathocles and his clique in
203(2. If the annual festival, which caused the Thesmophoreum,
where Oenanthe took refuge (xv. 29. 8 n.). to be open, was the Thes-
mophoria (as seems likely), and if this fell at the usual time of the
year, viz. October-November (Pyanepsion at Athens), the downfall
of Agathodes took place in October-November 203.
For further discussion see Walbank, ]E A, 1936, 20-34 (with earlier
bibliography); modified by the date printed by Nims, JEA, 1938,
73-74; E. Bikerman, Chron. d'E.'gypte, 1940, 124-31; T. C. Skeat, The
Reign of the Ptolemiesz (Munich, 1954), 12 and 32; Ferro, zs-z6; A. E.
Samuel, Ptolemaic Chronology (Munich, 1962), 108-14; H. H. Schmitt,
Antiochos, 189-237 (who argues that P., lacking any annalistic source
for these events, erroneously recounted Epiphanes' accession under
203/2 because he thought it preceded the Syro-Macedonian pact (cf.
xv. 20 n.) more closely than was in fact the case).
11.1. 1>.ya.9otcA£ous: d. V. 63. In.; below, XV. 25 ff.; lustin. XXX. 2, 2.

He is probably the priest of Alexander of 216(15, J4yaiJoK>..ijs- J4yaOo-
KAEovs- (Wilcken, Arch. Pap. vii. 74; Beloch, iv. 1.689 n. 1), and accord-
ing to the scholia on Aristoph. Thesm. 1062 he had been the ipwp.EPos-
of Ptolemy IV, which suggests that he was younger than the latter
(cf. also xv. 25. 32). Beloch (op. cit.) would change Ptolemy IV to
Ptolemy III, but unnecessarily, for he has no evidence for his view
that Agathodes had been politically active in Euergetes' last years.
437
XIV. rt. r AFFAIRS IN EGYPT
See Wile ken, RE, 'Agathokles (19)', cols. 757-8; Holleaux, Etudes,
iii. 49 n. 4 =REA, I9I2, 372 n. J. Whether the Agathocles, whose
son was Ptolemaic emard.TYJS of Libya c. 28J-279/8 (cf. vii. 2. 4 n.).
was an ancestor of this Agathocles is not clear.
otv6.v9t')s: d. Plut. Cleom. 33· 2. Oenanthe, Agathocles' mother, was
a Sami<m who came to Alexandria under Ptolemy III (Plut. 111or.
753 n). whose mistress she probably became. See Bouche-Leclerg,
Lagides, i. 331 ff.; Raubitschek, RE, 'Oeuantbe (6)', col. 2I89.
$iA.wva.: d. xv. 33· z, for his share in the events leading to the
murder of Agathocles and all his family.
2. KA.eLvous: according to Athenaeus (x. 425 E-F}, Ptolemy of .Megalo-
polis mentioned her in the third book of his Hr:story of Philopator
(FGH, r6r F 3); P. probably draws on Ptolemy for the gossipy details
mentioned here. See further, Vol. I, p. 30 n. 13, v. 35-39 n., and X'\',
34· r-36. rr (probably aimed at this writer).
p.ovox1Twva.s: d. Arist. Ath. Pol. 25. 4 of Ephialtes as suppliant; the
statues had no himation.
puTov: a drinking-cup coming to a point.
4 .. a1ToSESE~yp.Evov K:al. Kowwv SELKTTJfH6.Swv: 'a vulgar, professional
m1me'.
5. !t>.ya.9o~<AELa.: sister of Agathocles (§ r); d. Strabo, xvii. 795; Iustin.
xxx. r. 7 ff.; Plut. Cleom. 33· 2. For her responsibility for the murder
of Arsinoe, Philopator's queen and sister, cf. xv. zs. 2 n.
12. 1-5. Chronology: P. discusses deviations from his normal system

and anomalies in it also at xv. 24 a and xxxii. u. 2-4.
1. Ka.T' ev~a.uTcw yp6.4>ovTES: P.'s normal annalistic method.
Tas K:a.Ta.AA~Aous: parallel; i.e. all the parallel events in each year
are described as they occur; cf. Ui. 32. 5 n. Paton, 'successive events',
is incorrect.
EK; 1TAelovos xpovou 1T£'11'm~ ....e9a. T~V E~~YTJOW: irregular but not
unique ; cf. xxxii. n. 6 on the affairs of Oro pus, {;rrip oli Ta ji-EV
avaSpaji-OVn£;;, rd S€ rrpo'Aaf36vus To£s xp&~·oLS auyKE¢>all.atwa6ji-€0a T~V
;;,\TJV 7rpiif,w, [va IL~ Ka.Ta ji-Epos aUTfjS' OUaTJS' ou.S' OAWS' lmcfoavolis lv
Ot!Jp7]ji-lvms ;.:p6vots drrayyilloVTES EthEMj Ka' daacfoij TrOLWjLEV T¥ St+
iflJUU'.
3. nTOAEp.a'ios ••• 'II'Ept o3 \IU\1 b Myos: Ptolemy IV Philopator;
it is probably his death within the period March-September :204 that
leads P. to survey his reign and character (cf. rr-rz n.). On Philo-
pator' s character see C. Preaux, Chron. d' Egypte, 1965, 364-7 5·
p.nO. TO auvTEAEa9~va.L TOV 1repl. Ko(AYJV Iupla.v 1TOAEtLOV: cf. v. 87. r-7
(after Raphia, 217).
otov &.pTlWS SLEAYJAUEia.p.ev: cf. II. 1-5. But P. had shown Phi1opator
as aloof and indolent and debauched even before Raphia; cf. v. 34· 4,
35· 6, 3i· ro, 40. 1, 8j. 3, 87. 7·
438
CHARACTER OF PTOLEMY IV XIV. 12. 5
4. Ets Tov vuv S~;.S"lAwJLf.vov 'lrOAEJLOV: the native revolt which may
have begun in the Delta, but found its real centre in upper Egypt,
which broke away from the control of the government from zo7{6
until 186; see above, v. Io7. 1-3 n. The evidence for this obscure war
is collected by M. Alliot, Rev. belge de phil. et d'hist. I951, 421-43;
cf. Volkmann, RE, 'Ptolemaios (2-z)', cols. 1687-8; 'Ptolemaios {23)',
cols. r699-17oo. The attack on the temple of Edfu in 207/6 marked
a cessation of Greek records in the Thebaid, the last for many years
being Mesore 4 of year 16 = 12 September 206 (Tait, Greek Ostraca,
Bodleian no. 41). P.'s account is lost; but the war seems to have
fascinated him for the same reasons as the Carthaginian Mercenary
War (d. i. 8r, 88. 7).
Tf\s ... WJLDTtJTOS: for an example of the methods of fighting see
BGU, I2I5.
5. otov Et awJLa.TOELOtl: 'as it were a unified picture'; cf. i. 3· 4 n.
Paton, 'a life-like whole', is inaccurate.
'll'Ept a.OTijs: i.e. 7Ttpl •fj> Toil {3aaL'Mw> 7Tpoatpta€w>.
439
BOOK XV
1-16. Affairs in Africa (zo3-2): the battle of Zanw
The battle of the Great Plains (xiv. 8) was followed by the defeat
and capture of Syphax by C. Laelius and Masinissa near Cirta (Livy,
xxx. rr-rs, with the story of Sophonisba's marriage to Masinissa
and suicide; App. Lib. 27-28, Zon. ix. rz; Diod. xxvii. 6-7)- The
Carthaginians now asked for pe<tce from Scipio who, having failed
to take Utica, had returned to the camp at Tunis. and later to Castra
Cornelia. Scipio proposed terms (cf. I. 2 n., 8. 7 n.) which were accepted
at Rome (r. 3, 4- 8, 8. 9). Meanwhile a Roman convoy from Sicily was
scattered by a gale and the transports driven ashore on the island of
Aegimurus (Djeziret Djamur) at the entrance to the bay of Carthage,
and to the west of the C. Bon peninsula. The Carthaginian people
sent Hasdrubal to collect these (Livy, XXX. 24- s-rz; App. Lib. 34;
Dio, xvii. 75; Zon. ix. 13; Diod. xxvii. n-rz). This is the situation
at the opening of I. Meanwhile Hannibal had left Italy and landed
at Lepcis Minor near Hadrumetum (Livy, xxx. 19. 12, 25. II-rz);
and he encamped at the latter town (5- 3).
The chronology of these events is disputed. Ovid, Fasti, vi. 769-~7o,
'superat Masinissa Syphacem, et cecidit telis Hasdrubal ipse suis',
refers these events to 22 June; but it is not clear which Hasdrubal
is meant and whether the two incidents are from one battle or two.
For discussion see De Sanctis, iii. 2. 575 (reference to Campi Magni
in both lines); Scullard, Scip. 324-5 (separate references to the battle
near Cirta and to the Metaurus). In the one case the battle of the
Great Plains and in the other the battle near Cirta will have been
fought in about June 203. This evidence cannot be pressed in view
of uncertainty as to how the calendar was running at this time;
but Scullard's view is consistent with a chronology dating the burn-
ing of the camps to early March and the battle of the Great Plains
to late April (xiv. i· 9 n.). The dispatch of Carthaginian ambassadors
to Rome will probably fall in autumn 203 (Scullard, Sc£p. 326).
Hannibal was still in Italy when peace negotiations were opened
(d. 8. 12; Livy, xxx. r6) and was back in Africa when the Cartha~
ginians broke them off (1. ro); but the exact date of his return is
controversial. Livy puts it in A.U.c. 551 = 203/2 B.c.; for his state-
ment (Livy, xxx. 29. r) that Hannibal marched to Zama paucis diebus
after reaching Hadrumetum is due to a misunderstanding of 5· J,
his source, where ;.tera IU rwas ~;.tlpa>: has nothing to do with the
disembarkation (DeSanctis, iii. 2. s86-7). DeSanctis, ibid., suggests
plausibly that Livy has identified P.'s year 01. T44. r 204/3 with
440
AFFAIRS IN AFRICA (2o3-2) XV. I. 2
A.C.C.ssr and so has given the impression that Hannibal returned

just before the end of that year, i.e. in February or March, 202;
whereas in fact in Polybius, his source, the year 204/3 (and book
xiv) will have ended \<rith Hannibal's return in autumn 203, and
book xv (2o3j2) will have opened with his rest at Hadrumetum. For
further discussion see De Sanctis, iii. 2. 586--S; Scullard, Set}. 326-7.
1. 1. Tas .f>opTYJyovs vfjas: the Roman transports driven ashore at

Aegimurus and the mainland west of C. Bon (above 1-16 n.). Livy
(xxx. 24. s-12) dates this under A.U.C. SSI = 203/2; it probably
took place towards the end of that consular year, in the early months
of 202.
2. TOVS opKous Kat TUS a-uva,;Kas: cf. 8. 7 n., I7. 3· In response to the
Punic request for peace after the capture of Syphax (r-r6 n.) Scipio
proposed terms to include surrender of all prisoners, deserters, and
refugees, evacuation of Italy, Gaul, and all islands between Italy and
Africa, abandonment of Spain, surrender of all but twenty ships
and payment of an indemnity of s,ooo talents together with soo,ooo
modii of wheat and 3oo,ooo of barley; so Livy, xxx. r6. 12, who says
that some authors gave s,ooo pounds of silver instead of s,ooo talents.
App. Lib. 32, adds that the Carthaginians were also to be debarred
from recruiting mercenaries and were to be restricted within the
'Phoenician trenches', and that Masinissa was to have the Massyli
and any other of Syphax's dominions he could take (which seems
correct: cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 6r6). The Carthaginians were to keep
thirty ships, according to Appian; see 8. 7· Plut. Mor. 196 D mentions
the surrender of ships and elephants and the payment of an in-
demnity. According to Livy, xxx. 23. r-8, the Senate rejected the
Punic offer on the motion of :VI. Valerius Laevinus. Dio, xvii. 74,
states that the terms were accepted at Rome. Appian, Lib. 31-32,
reports that the Senate authorized Scipio to conclude peace: his
terms were accepted and the Punic envoys left for Rome to receive
the oaths of the consuls while Roman envoys left for Carthage to
receive the oaths of the Punic magistrates. But before the former
could leave Rome ne\vs arrived of the attack on the Roman convoy,
Scipio's protest and the attack on the Roman envoys, whereupon
the Senate sent back the Punic envoys as enemies to Scipio, who
restored them to their homes.
Recently a further source for these negotiations has appeared in
P. Ryl. iii, pp. II4 ff., no. 491, pl. v (ed. C. Roberts), a second-century
B.c. papyrus containing an extract from an unknown but con-
temporary or all but contemporary writer on the Second Punic vVar.
This is a brief account, apparently of the swearing of oaths and
handing over of prisoners, probably by the Carthaginians, of the
return of Roman and Carthaginian envoys to Scipio's camp and to
44I
XV. I. 2 AFFAIRS IN AFRICA (203-2)
Carthage, and finally of the rejection of the peace terms and breaking
off of the truce by the Carthaginians. Roberts's suggestion (cf. Klotz,
W ], 1946, 153-4) that the extract may be from P.'s account of events
after Zama must certainly be rejected, for (a) the breaking off of the
truce is neither recorded nor probable then, (b) despite some parallels
in vocabulary, the scale of the narrative excludes P. as its author.
There seems no doubt that the occasion is the truce of 203-2, and
that the fragment gives a more pro-Carthaginian version than the
others we possess. There is, for instance, no reference to the Punic
attack on the Roman supplies, nor any place for one; but again the
scale may have led to compression. Hoffmann's argument (Hermes,
1941, ; cf. Treu, Aegypttts, 1953, 46-56) that this extract from
what is little more than an epitome (cf. v. 33· z) deserves preference
to and that the attack on the supplies is to be dismissed as a
pro-Roman distortion, is unconvincing. On this papyrus see further
Gelzer, Vom romischen Staat, i. 69 ff.; M. Gigante, Aeg_vptus, T950,
77-92; M. Treu, ibid. 1953, 3o--56.
3. 1tpEcr~EuTar;: cf. Livy, xxx. 25. z; App. Lib. 34; Dio, x,·ii. iS:
Zon. ix. 13. The nomina are given as £€pourov, £€{nov (or Elnov} and
1J&.f1wv (or Wa.tuov, \vithout accent, in N). The Livian :\'ISS. have L.
(or M.) (Baebius), M. Servilius (L. Sergius in three fifteenth-century
MSS.) and L. Fabius. Conway and Walters read 'L. Baebium L.
Sergium L. Fabium'. Gronovius corrected £€pou~ov to £ipy,ov and
Schweighaeuser read Ba.iflwv for £<lTwv in view of Livy ; Casaubon
had already noted the mention of Baebius in 4· r. L. Baebius may be
L. Baebius Dives, praetor in 189 (Livy, xxxvii. 57· ; but L.
Sergius and L. Fabius are unknown, and L. is not found elsewherr
as a Fabian praenomen (since in Dion. Hal. ix. 67 L. Fabius is an
error for L. Aebutius Helva, the consul of 463).
I<EKupwKf Tat;; cruv9ipmt;; KTA.: cf. 4· 8, 8. 9; clearly to be accepted in
preference to Livy (above, § 2 n.).
5. Ti)v cruyi<A1}TOV ••• TOU~ TroAAout;;: on the two Carthaginian COUll
cils see i. 21, 6 n.
6. ot 1ta.p' E1<elvwv Trpecr~euTa.l: sent to Scipio after Syphax's capture;
according to Livy, xxx. 16. 3, they were triginta seniorum principes,
who formed the members of the inner senate (i. 21. 6 n.).
To cruvESplov: Scipio's advisory council: cf. xiv. 2. II n.
Ktt90.1tEp l!crnv ~9o; To 'is aAAOlS O.v9pw1tOL!i: and so permissible be-
haviour; cf. Livy, xxx. 16. 4, 'more adulantium-accepto, credo, ritu
ex ea regione ex qua oriundi erant-procubuerunt'. T~v yi)v TTportKwf:f•·
is to prostrate oneself and worship the earth; cf. Soph. O.C. 1654.
yijv 7€ 1rpoaKwoOv8' /lp.a Kat Tov 8dvv u OA.vp.1rov.
7. Tar; Eg O.pxf\.,; yevoJJ1va.; cruv9~Ka.r;: cf. 11· 3; both passages arc
ambiguous for the reasons given in iii. 21. 7 n. Here the words
;,g apxiJ> suggest the Treaty of Catulus; in that case the Carthaginian:-.
AFFAIRS IN AFRICA (:2o3-2) XV. z. 6
have changed their attitude towards this treaty since the opening of
the war, when they argued that it had no relevance to Saguntum (iii.
zi. 3-5}. But this is, of course, a Roman account of what took place.
8. Tij<; TUXTJ'> we~< a Twv 6.v9pw'II'WY: for this appeal to the vulner-
ability of all men in relatit>n to Tyche cf. ii. 4· 5 n., and below, 6. 8.
9. 6.9eTELV ••• TOUS opKOU<; KO.l Ta<; cruv9t]Ka<;: cf. § 2 n.
10. Tal:<; fJ.ETa TOuTou ••• Suv~flEcrL: it is clear that Hannibal was now
back in Africa (7}Koucr• vilv); cf. 1-16 n. on the chronology of his return
(probably late autumn 203).
ll. s~HJTEpov ETOS ••• els TOU'i 'II'Epl Ao.KiVLOV TO'II'OU'i: according to
Livy, xxviii. 46. 16, Hannibal spent the winter of zos propter Junonis
Laciniae templmn (cf. App. II ann. 57, T~v 1r6An· (sc. Kp<hwva) EVKa>pov
iryoUJLEVos dva•, Kat TO.JLI€rov a!rr~v ~alJ'Tt.ji Kat opf.LTJrrJP•ov irri nh aMas-
n8l.JLEvoc;). But P. seems to be thinking of the period after the defec·
tion of the cities of the Bruttii in 204 (cf. Livy, xxix. 38. I, quoted
above in xiii. 10. 1-3 n.). See DeSanctis, iii. 2. 539 n. 14j, 542 n. 152.
On the inscription set up by Hannibal in the temple of Juno cf.
iii. 33· T8 n.
12. 8ucrl flaxm<>: the battle of the Tower of Agathocles, to the south-
west of Utica (204; cf. Livy, xxix. 34; App. Lib. 14: \'eith, AS, iii.
z. 58o-3; Scullard, Scip. 191-4). and the battle of the Great Plains
(above, xiv. 8).
14. 'll'apa 9Ewv: cf. 8. z n.
2. 2. Twv 'II'OALTEUotJ-~vwv Kal. Twv 13ouAEuof-LEVwv: 'the chief politicians

and members of the council': not exclusive categories.
4. To'i:s ••• rro!..!..o'is: the assembly (cf. 1. 5); not, as Schweighaeuser
(s.v. 7ToAtr€Vm-'), oZ {JouA6JL€Vot, of whom he assumes there was a large
number, in contrast to ol1ToAm:uoJL€Vo>. The contrast is between the
decision of the assembly and the secret plot of some of the politicians
(n.!lv noAtrwoJ.Livwv ole; l)v 7rpOK€lJLEvov .•• oi5Tot KTA.). According to
Livy (xxx. 25. 3) the magistrates had difficulty in protecting the
Roman envoys from violence; and App. Lib. 34 records that the
populace wished to hold them until their envoys returned from Rome.
5. eLs TllV lS~av 'll'apEfl~o!..t]v: the Castra Cornelia.
6-15. Treacherous attack on the Roman envoys: this is in Livy (xxx.
25. 3-8); Appian, Lib. 34; Dio, xvii. 75; the story is dramatic, but not
necessarily therefore untrue. Its omission from the brief account of
the fragmentary P. Ryl. iii, no 491, is not a substantial argument
against the truth of the other sources (so Treu, Aegyptus, 1953. so-51).
6. :.\cr8poul3av: the son of Gisgo (cf. Livy, xxx. :24. n).
flll flaKpav Tfjs Twv 'Pwflalwv '!l'apef-1.13oi..Tjs: off C. Apollo, according
to App. Lib. 34· Gsell (iii. :249) suggests a point off Rusucmon, south-
west of the promontory (which is C. Farina, Ras Sidi Ali el Mekki,
elsewhere called the Fair Promontory; d. iii. 22. 5 n.).
443
XV. :z. 8 AFFAIRS IN AFRICA (203-:z)
8. Tov Ma.Kapa.v 'ITOTo.p.ov: cf. i. 75· 5 n.; it is the Bagradas.

12. e~ u'ITo~oA.f}s: 'from their place of hiding' (cf. v. Io4. 4, Io5. I) or
'in accordance with instructions' (cf. ix. 24. 3): the former seems
more likely.
13. EK 1To.po.~oA.f}s: 'running alongside'.
15. oi: OE 1TpEa~EUTO.l ••• e~eali>9T)O'O.V: App. Lib. 34 records that Kat
'TWV 7rpia{3Ewv Ttl'€<; EK Totev[LaTWI' amiBavov. This seems like annalistic
exaggeration: P. is quite explicit.
3. 2. auveloons a~(al Ta 1Te1Tpo.yp.ivo.: cf. v. n. 8, avvnooTas •••

avTois Ta mopt .d tov Kat .dwowv"l)v 7re7rpay[Ltfva.
4. To us KO.Ta TT)v 'I~T)p(o.v KTA.: an interesting comment, which implies
that the issue of the war was not yet of interest outside the areas
directly affected by it. Only the western Mediterranean has its eyes
directed on the conflict (despite Agelaus' warning, v. Io4).
5. :.\vv(~o.s: evidently at Hadrumetum (d. 5· 3). According to Livy,
xxx. 25. I2, he landed at Lepcis Minor and he can well have gone by
land to Hadrumetum (cf. Livy, xxx. 29. I; iam Hadrumetum per-
uenerat). App. Lib. 33 brings him first to Carthage, and thence to
Hadrumetum.
Tuxo.i:ov: perhaps the prince of the Areacidae mentioned by App.
Lib. 33· TOll ovvaCTT"I)V TWV No[LaOWV 'TWI' KaAOV[LEVWV ApmK~OWV ES
c/>tAlav ur.~yETo. Cf. Scullard, Scip. 230.
4. 1. Ba.L~lov O.vnaTpaTT)yov: on Baebius see I. 3 n. Whether he was

left in command of the camp or the fleet is not clear. Mommsen
(St.-R. i. 68I n. 4) expresses doubts whether Baebius was officially
pro praetore, or merely an acting second in command. But although
P. uses avnCTTpaT"I)yos- to mean either the position of an ex-consul
whose imperium is prorogued (iii. 106. 2), i.e. as the equivalent of
dvBv7raTos (cf. xxviii. 3· I, 5· 6), or that of an ex-praetor in the same
position (d. viii. 3· 1, where despite some change in phrasing by the
epitomator there seems no reason to doubt that this word is Poly-
bian), there are no cases of his using the word to mean legatus and it
seems safer to assume that Baebius was appointed pro praetore by
Sf.:ipio exercising his right to appoint a deputy.
3. OLe'ITEiJo'ITETo auvexws: 'he kept sending messages'; 1\hsinissa was
evidently busy recovering territory (§ 4) and not very prompt in
responding.
4. Ko.9a1Tep eipT)TO.l: in the part now lost; Masinissa will have left
with the object of taking his kingdom back from Syphax as soon as
the truce was made between Scipio and the Carthaginian envoys (cf.
1. 2 n. where the word avvBijKm is used); according to App. Lib. 32,
Masinissa's claim to all he could get was specifically mentioned in
the terms (1. 2 n.).
444
AFFAIRS IN AFRICA (203-2) XV. 5· 3-I4. 9
6£Ka. O'lJfia.ia.s KTA.: 'ten companies of Roman horse and foot':
awwia. is the equivalent of manipulus (but cf. i. 33· 9 n.) but here it
seems to have a more general significance, as applied to both infantry
and cavalry (cf. iv. 64. 7). Perhaps ten cohartes equitatae are meant;
but the Greek can equally well mean twenty companies in all, ten
of foot and ten of horse: so Gsell, iii. Z43·
'll'pEa~EuTas: legati. The Roman officers and troops indicate that
.Masinissa has full Roman support in his campaign (Scullard, Scip.
221).
TfJY 'll'a:rp~a.v 6.pxi]v ••. Ti]v Tou Io.Pa.Ko<;: on the two kingdoms, of
the .Massyli and .Masaesyli respectively, see iii. 33· IS n.
5. Tous (t< 'PwfilJS 'll'pEa~EuTas: presumably the fetiales sent to com·
plete the peace at Carthage, who accompanied the Punic envoys
back to Africa. P. Ryl. iii, no. 491, 11. 12-18, also records the return of
both sets of envoys together; but it has no knowledge of the detaining
of the Carthaginians in the Roman camp, since it follows a version
which omits the Carthaginian breach of the peace. Certainly Scipio
already knew from dispatches that the treaty had been accepted at
Rome before these envoys arrived (cf. 1. 4, ~KE ••• ypaJ.kfLa.Ta). Scul-
lard, Scip. 229 n. 1, suggests that the fetiales brought the additional
news of the ratification by the Senate, and there is no reason to
assume (with Treu, Aegyptus, 1953, 48) a contradiction between the
two passages.
7. T~v ..• ~a~~eLav: cf. 2. To attack envoys was against ·nilv Trap'
iivBpdmwv clJpwfLlvwv oumlwv (ii. 8. u); cf. XX. IO. 10.
9. Ka.Aws •.• t<a.l. .ppovi~ws: i.e. both a fine gesture and an advan-
tageous one.
10. oux oihws ,.( OEov mdiEiv KapxTJ8ov(ou<; KTA.: this formulation
of Roman behaviour becomes a communis locus. Cf. SaiL Cat. 51. 6,
'item bellis Punicis omnibus, cum saepe Carthaginienses et in pace et
per indutias multa facinora fecissent, numquam ipsi per occasionem
talia fecere: magis quid se dignum foret quam quid in illos iure fieri
posset quaerehant'. rt is stated in general terms in xii. 14. 3·
11. OLa..puJ...&_~a.L , • , 'II'ClTEpwV E~ KEl~EVO. /1pya.: cf. XXi. ZO. 6, T~V , ••
TrpoalpH;w -r~v -roii TraTpoc; ot<</!!5Aa.g•. For the proverb cf. Corp. paroem.
grace. i. 22, 278; but the sense here is rather different from Plato,
Phil. rs c, J.L~ /a:vEtv (sc. KaKr.h·) EO KEiJM.VOV. Wunderer. i. r8, suggests
that the words Tra-rlpwv ..• €pya are from the Homeric cycle; but to
seek a context is futile. See von Scala, z84. The comparatively large
number of proverbs introduced in this book (cf. r6. 6, z6 a r) points
to the use of a collection; cf. Wunderer, i. 46.
5. 3-14. 9. The batile of Zama. The problems connected with this

445
XV. 5· 3-q. 9 THE BATTLE OF ZAMA
battle are greater than those of any other battle in this war, and
concern the sources, chronology, site, numbers, and tactics.
(a) Sources: besides P. these are Livy, xxx. 29-35; Frontin. Strat.
ii. 3· r6; Flor. i. 22. 6o; Eutrop. iii. 23; Oros. iv. 19. 3; App. Lib. 39-47;
Zon. ix. I4; Sil. It. xvii. 385 ft. Livy (and the Livian tradition) relies
mainly on P. with occasional glosses from annalistic sources (cf.
De Sanctis, iii. 2. 653-5 ; Kahrstedt, iii. 353-4) ; Appian and Dio
(via Zonaras) give an annalistic account ·with considerable interpola-
tions (DeSanctis, iii. 2. 6or-4). P.'s sources are, as usual, not identifi·
able. Clearly he owes a good deal to Scipionic traditions, and these
may include both written and oral accounts (Veith, AS, iii. 2. 658);
but he will probably have used other written sources on both sides
as well. For the speeches see below 6. 3-8. 14 n.
(b) Chronology: clearly Zama belongs to 202; but the exact month
cannot be ascertained. The conclusion of peace took place in 201
(Livy, xxx. 40. r··4, 42. II-43· 13), which suggests a late month in
202 for the battle. October would fit, but the solar eclipse mentioned
by Zon. ix. 14 is of little weight, for a partial eclipse on 19 October
202 was scarcely visible in North Africa, and Dio's source may be
unreliable here (cf. DeSanctis, iii. 2. 599. quoting Ginzel, Kanon, r89).
Livy (xxx. 36. 8) also records that Syphax's son Vermina was defeated
Sat1~rnalibus primis, and this was soon after Zama; but this is not a
detail to be pressed. The convoy under Lentulus which reached Utica
after the battle (Livy, xxx. 36. cannot be used as an argument for
putting the battle earlier (so Kahrstedt, iii. 569 n. r), for it was not
necessarily the first to be sent that year (DeSanctis, iii. 2. 6oo). For
further discussion see DeSanctis (iii. 2. 598-6o1), who rightly comes
do"'n in favour of a date near October for the battle, while admitting
the possibility that it was slightly earlier. Why the battle was so
late is unknown. Scipio may have been waiting for Masinissa; and
other possibilities exist (cf. Scullard Scip. 328). There is no reason to
think that the Roman calendar was in disorder at this time. See for
discussion De Sanctis, iii. 2. 598-6o1; Gsell, iii. 264-6 (264 n. 3 for
bibliography); Scullard, Scip. 327-8; F. G. Moore, Livy, xxviii-xxx
(Loeb edition, 1955), 551-4.
(c) Site: according to ~epos (Hann. 6. 3; cf. SchoL Bob. on Cic.
pro Sest. 142, using ~epos) the battle was apud Zamam, and this name
has become traditionally attached to it. But it seems certain that
Zama was not the site of the battle, but merely the spot where
Hannibal camped and from which he sent out his spies (5. 3; cf.
Livy, xxx. 29. 1-2). The site of Scipio's camp at this time is not
given: but after Scipio had received a herald from Hannibal and had
been joined by Masinissa with ro,ooo troops (5. 9-1_1), he broke camp
and proceeded to a town called M&.pya.pov and encamped there.
Hannibal now approached and encamped 'i\·ithin 30 stades of Scipio
446
THE BATTLE OF ZAMA XV. 5· 3-14. 9
on a hill short of water (6. 2); and it was from these two positions,
after the fruitless conversation (6. 4-8. 14), that the armies marched
out to battle.
The first problem is the name of the town which P. calls M argaron.
Livy, xxx. 29. 9, reads 'Scipio haud procul Naraggara urbe cum ad
cetera loco opportuno tum quod aquatio intra teli coniectum erat con-
sedit'; this clearly derives from 5· 14. Margaron is otherwise unknown;
Naraggara is known as a station on the route Sicca-Naraggara-
Gegetu-Thacora, and has been identified as the modern village
of Sidi Youssef. There are three possibilities: (r) P. had il,fargaron
but Livy changed it to the more familiar Naraggara; (2) ]v[ argaron
is another form or alternative name for the town called in Latin
Naraggara; (3) P. wrote Naraggara, Livy copied this accurately,
but the epitomator or some earlier copier of P. corrupted it to }Jar-
garon. Against (r) is the fact that Naraggara was not a well-known
name, and in any case such a correction by Livy seems highly im-
probable (despite Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 407 f.). The same argument
~tpplies to (2), since Livy is hardly likely to have known either that
the Latin form of Afargaron was N araggara, or that this obscure
place had two names. This leaves the third hypothesis, that Narag-
gara stood in the original text; and the view that P. is here corrupt
is supported by the appearance in some inferior MSS. of Livy, not
uf N araggara but of narcara, which is near enough to margaron to lend
support to the view that M argaron is a corruption of Naraggara. It is
perhaps also relevant that in the previous sentence the MSS. of P. read
J{aKLUXLAlou~. and that this is corrected from Livy to TerpaKtaxtAf.ou~.
If Naraggara is definitely Sidi Youssef, the battle was fought near
that town; but homonyms are not unknown in Africa (see below on
Zama), and Veith (AS, iii. 2. 636--8), followed by Kromayer (Schlach-
'enatlas, Rom. Abteilung, 8 and cols. 38-40; AS, iv. 626-33), suggests
that some other ~araggara may be meant, and proposes a site for
the battle in the plain of Draa el Meinan a little south of the road
leading westwards from El Kef (Sicca Veneria) to Sidi Youssef
(Naraggara). This site fits the general requirements and lies at a
junction of roads leading either to Carthage via Sicca or to Hadru-
metum via Seba Biar (see Veith, AS, iii. 2. 637, sketch-map 47 and
Karte n a; iv. 6; Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abteilung, 8); and Scullard
(Hist. 3 439-40), who has visited this site, finds it plausible. If Narag-
gara is Sidi Youssef, this site cannot be reconciled with 5· 14; if
therefore it is to be accepted on other grounds, it follows that the
Naraggara of Livy and (as argued above) of P. is some other town
-perhaps, as Veith suggests, the ruined Henchir el Chemmarn to
the north of the proposed Roman camp alongside the El Kef-Sidi
Youssef road.
Hannibal's previous camp was at Zama (5. 3). At least two Zamas
447
XV. 5· 3-I4. 9 THE BATTLE OF ZAMA
arc known in north Africa. An inscription found at J ama, a town i11
the Djebel Massouge, on the left bank of the Wadi Siliana (a tribu-
tary of the Medjerda) reads A ttg. Zama lvf. (GIL, viii. r6442, now lost) .
and Ptolemy (iv. 3· 8) knows of a Zap.a M€l~wv. There was also ;,
Zama about 45 km. to the east at Sidi Abd el Djedidi, a strong
position so km. north-west of Kairouan, lying on a plateau; an in
scription from here (GIL, viii. r2or8) mentions a magistrate of the
colonia Zamenst's, and this name also appears in an ecclesiastical
document of the fourth century A.D. (Scullard, Scip. 310). If th<'
Xaraggara of the battle was not Sidi Youssef, either Zama appear!>
to be a possibility for Hannibal's camp; but in fact the eastem
Zama, Sidi Abd el Djedidi, which Kahrstedt (iii. 563 n. r) and other:-.
(mentioned by Veith, AS, iii. 2. 613) have supported, seems ruled oul
by the agreement of both Appian (Lib. 47) and Nepos (Hann. 6) th;1!
after the battle Hannibal :lied and reached Hadrumetum insid"
forty-eight hours. Appian the distance as 3,ooo stades ('
530 km.), Nepos as 3oom.p. 450 km.), both obviously exaggerating.
But the agreement about time taken suggests that it is correc!.
and Veith from experience reckons 200 to 240 km. as a maximun1
for this. However, Sidi Abd el Djedidi is only about roo km. frorn
Hadrumetum, and an army in flight will hardly have spent fort\
eight hours covering such a distance; whereas from Hadrumetum
(Sousse) to Sidi Youssef is 250 to 270 km., which would suit Yerv
well a battlefield at Draa el Meinan, some 40 km. east of Sidi Youssd
(Veith, AS, iii. z. 6oo~2). This would seem to exclude eastern Zama
as the site of Hannibal's camp.
A western Zama is known from the Tabula Peutingeriana, which
indicates a route Assures-Zama Regia-Seggo~Avula-Autipsidam
Usappa. Assures is Zanfour and Usappa is El Ksour, and Zama
Regia is stated to be Io m.p. (= IS km.) from Zan four; it was
probably Juba's capital (Bell. Afric. 9!. z). Now Sallust (jug. s6. I,
57· 1) also mentions a Zama, which Metellus approached after the
battle of the Muthul, 'urbem magnam et in ea parte qua sita erai.
arcem regni'. This town was not far from Sicca and lay in a plain :
it was 'magis opere quam natura munitum'. The obstacle in the >vay
of identifying this Zama with Zama Regia and the modern Jam a
where the inscription was found, is the fact that J ama is a very strong
natural position and Sallust's Zama is not. Veith (AS, iii. 2. 6Hl)
following Toussaint (cf. Gsell. iii. 257) a site 13 km. east ol
Assures (Zanfour), and at the south~west end of the Djebel Mas
souge about 2o km. south-west of Jama, called Seba Biar, which
would fit Sallust's site; this, he thinks, was the third century Zama.
After its destruction in 41 B.C. (Dio, xlviii. 23; Strabo, xvii. 829) the
town was refounded (perhaps under Hadrian) at the stronger positio11
at Jama. This is indeed more likely than the assumption that Janu
448
THE BATTLE OF ZAMA
was merely a strong point in til(;- territor~· of Zama (Zama Regia or

Maior), which remained at Seba Biar (cL IJareti, At# Ace. Torino,
19rojii, .)OZ-zj), for, as }ferlin (journ. Sav. 1912, 507) points out,
Seba Biar has no remains from imperial times. Bnt it remains possible
that the name Zama Regia continued to be used of the ancient site
of Juba's capital at Seba Biar despite the removal of the town to
jama; and in fact Seba Biar fits the distances of the Tabula (ro m.p.
from Assures and 20 m.p.-it is actually r6·5 m.p.-from Seggo, if this
is Ksar el Hadid) better than Jam a. The claim of Seba Biar to be
Zama Regia is fa\·oured by L. Deroche (Mllanges d'archiologie et
d'histoire, 6o, 19.+8, ss~ro4), who rejects the arguments of Ch.
Saumagne {Ret•. arch. zo, 1942-3, I 78-9) for placing Zama Regia 4~
miles east of Seba Biar at Ksar Toual Zouameul {cf. Scullard, Hist.J
439 n.). Seba Biar lies c. r4o km. from Carthage, which fits P.'s state~
ment (5. 3) that it lies five days' march away (cf. xiv. 8. 2, where a
th·c days' march, or slightly less, corresponds to 125 km.; see xiv.
1· 9 n.).
These considerations support Veith's site for the battle at Draa
d Meinan; but other sites are possible---Veith himself suggested two
alternatives south of Sidi Youssef at Djebel Lajbel and Djebel
Harraba (AS, iii. 2. 6o7-r2 with Karte 14) before deciding on Draa
cl Meinan-and if Naraggara is Sidi Youssef one of these may be
preferable. Some doubt must attend any identification. See, for
discussion, Veith, AS, iii. z. 599-638; iv. 626~33; Schlachtenatlas, Rom.
Abteilung, 8, cols. 38-40; Gsell, iii. 255-64; Scullard, Scip. J10t7;
Hist.> 439-40; F. G. Moore, Lt"vy, xxviii-xxx (Loeb edition), 1955.
54J-SI; Kahrstcdt, iii. s6J-4 n. I (sceptical).
Two points remain to be made here. First, Appian's reference
(Lib. 40. I) to a town Killa, near which Scipio anticipated Hannibal
by a hill, is safer left out of consideration: Appian's account
of the battle and events leading up to it is here unreliable, and
Killa is not otherwise known; to emend to Sicca a dubious pro-
cedure. For hypotheses based upon this see Veith, AS, iii. 2. 633-6.
Secondly, the preliminary strategy. The battle took place with
Scipio in the west and Hannibal in the east; situation in
the west is to be explained by his campaign against the 1ToAE"t>
(4. z, 5· 1), and by his desire to make contact with Masinissa {5. r2).
He may indeed have hoped to finish the campaign before Hannibal
was ready to march out (cf. Veith, AS, iii. z. 642); but by his quick
reaction (5. 3) Hannibal succeeded in getting between Scipio and
his communications, thus scoring an immediate advantage, which,
however, could only be exploited by a full-scale (Veith,
AS, iii. 2. 643).
(d) Numbers: these cannot be calculated with any certainty. P.
gives the Punic losses as zo,ooo killed and nearly :zo,ooo prisoners
8Hl73 Gg 449
XV. 5· 3~ q. 9 THE BATTLE OF ZAMA
(14. 9); and since he says few escaped (14. 8), this \\'ould make tlw
Punic army about 4o,ooo. App. Lib. 40 makes it so,ooo; but bot],
figures are likely to be exaggerated. Of the sections of Hannibal\.
army P. puts the mercenaries at 12,ooo (n. 1); if they were a third
of the whole (so App. Lib. 40), this would give a total of 36,ooo fool.
For Scipio's army App. Lib. 41 gives a total of 23,ooo foot and r,so:•
cavalry, counting only Romans and Italians; this seems possibl<·.
Add .Masinissa's ro,ooo (s. 12) and something for the troops brouglil
by another native chieftain, Dacamas (App. Lib. 41 puts these a!
6oo cavalry), and one gets a total of over 35,ooo (cf. Scullard, Se1}.
3z3-4; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 597-8). But this is not easily reconcilabJ,
with F.'s statement (14. 6) that Hannibal's veterans, r2,ooo on tlw
above calculations, >vere about equal in number to the Romall
legionaries, less those hastati who had fallen in the first phase of tlu
battle. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that Scipio would h;n,
risked an engagement with substantially inferior forces. No sun·
estimate can be made of either cavalry; but it is certain that tbt·
Romans were superior in this arm. See for discussion Veith, AS.
iii. 2. 67o-81; De Sanctis, iii. z. 595-8; Scullard, Scip. 323~~4.
(e) Tactics: these will be discussed in the commentary, on tlw
assumption that J>.'s account of the battle is the most reliable, indeed
our only reliable source. See for discussion Veith, AS, iii. 2. 645-tq
(with criticism of earlier accounts), iv. 633-6; De Sanctis, iii. z.
549-55, 6o4-r6; Gsell, iii. 269-8o; Ed. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. zn~13.
Fraccaro, A then. 193I, 428-38; Passcrini, A then. 1936, 18r-9I; Scul
lard, Scip. 229-49.
3. Tov :A.&puJLTJTO.: a Phoenician coastal town about r2o km. south o(
Tunis, modern Sousse; see Dessau, RE, 'Hadrumetum', cols. 2r78-8o.
KO.TE<npa.To1T€&eucre m:-pi. ZO.JLa.v: probably Seba Biar; see above.
5· 3-14. 9 (c) n. It lies c. 140 km. from Carthage.
1rpos Tas 5uO'eLs: in fact south-west.
4. E~€1TI:JLIJ1e Tp~:ls Ka.Ta.O'K01Tous: d. Livy, xxx. 29. 2-3; App. Lib. 39·
The story closely resembles one in Herodotus (vii. 146. 7), who bas
Xerxes adopt the same policy towards three Greek spies sent to
Sardis. It is therefore usually rejected (d. K. Lehmann, j ahrb.
Suppl.-B. 21, r894, 556-9; DeSanctis, iii. 2. 594) as a pure anecdote.
The story is also paralleled in the action of Laevinus who treated
one of Pyrrhus' spies the same way (Dion. Hal. xix. II; Zan. viii.
3· 6; Eutrop. ii. u; Frontin. Strat. iv. 7· 7; cf. Leveque, 323-4).
Even so, it may be true; for Scipio may have known and utilized
these earlier stories, especially since he could decide how much to
show the spies. If at this time Scipio was west of Draa el1Heinan,
Veith's site for the battle, the distance from Seba Biar is too far
for a reconnaissance; but the furnishing of €¢6om (§ 7) by Scipio
suggests a considerable journey.
450
THE BATTLE OF ZAMA XV. 6. 3-8. I.f
12. ~K€ Ma.o-a.vvao-a.s KTA.: the MSS. give Masinissa's cavalry as
l~at<taxtAlovs ; this was corrected to -rerpat<taxtAtovs by Reiske from
Livy, xxx. 29. 4·
Tau<; 1rpon:pov Ioopa.Kt Tret&oll~vou<;: on Syphax's possessions see
xi. 24 a 4 n.
14. Trpo<; TroAtv Na.paya.pa.: so Schweighaeuser for the MS. Md.pyapov;
see above, 5· 3-14. 9 (c) n. for the possibility that this is not the well-
known Naraggara (Sidi Youssef), but another site further east. If
Veith is right in making it Henchir el Chemmam (matching his battle-
site at Draa el Meinan) Scipio's camp was on K•t el Behaima, a hill
514 m. high about 2 km. south-south-east of Henchir el Chemmam;
it has a spring on its southern slope, easily accessible from the camp
(see Veith, Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abteilung, 8, 6).
6. 2. :O..vv1j3a.s avt~EU~OO: De Sanctis (iii. 2. 594) argues that Hannibal

advanced westward from Zama before Scipio sent the message, since
his real object was to prevent Scipio from making contact with
Masinissa; but, as Scullard (Scip. 233) observes, P. nowhere suggests
that when Hannibal marched from Zama he knew that Masinissa
had already joined Scipio.
1-LTJ TrAooi:ov .•• TpuiKovTa. aTo.8£wv: cf. Livy, xxx. 29. 10 a qHattuor
milibus. Veith suggests as Hannibal's camp K•t Bougrine, a hill of
572 m., about 5} km. south-east of Kat el Behaima. This corresponds
exactly to P.'s 30 stades. From Seba Biar Hannibal probably marched
via Zanfour (Assures). Kat Bougrine lacks water, and so fits P.'s
description.
6. 3-8. 14. Meeting of Scipio and Hannibal. This incident (recorded
also in Livy, XXX. 30-31; App. Lib. 39; Zon. ix. q; Flor. i. 22. sS;
Oros. iv. rg. 2) has been rejected by several scholars as deriving from
Ennius (cf. 6. 8 n.); but it is not impossible nor even improbable in
itself. Hannibal may have sought to avoid the battle; or he may have
welcomed the opportunity to meet and assess his adversary (cf. De
Sanctis, iii. 2. 594; Scullard, Scip. 234-5). Groag (99 n. 2) counts the
reference to an interpreter against the veracity of the story since
both Hannibal and Scipio spoke Greek, and Hannibal perhaps Latin
too (Zon. viii. 24); but on such an occasion a Roman noble would
naturally use Latin, and Hannibal could hardly follow suit without
losing face. In any case, we do not know how good his Latin was,
and one is ahvays at some disadvantage in a foreign tongue. P.'s
source is uncertain. Pedech (REG, 1958, 440) thinks he drew on
Laelius. Hoffmann (93 ff.), like La-Roche (66 f.), sees a solid kernel
of truth in both speeches, Hannibal's the voice of the experienced
statesman and general, Scipio's that of the Roman aristocrat, con-
fident and victorious, echoing the mas maiormn. There was perhaps
a Scipionic version of the meeting for P. to draw on; the reference
45I
XV. 6. 3-8. 14 THE BATTLE OF ZAMA
(Vol. I, p. 14) to 'a series of commonplaces' should have been re-
stricted to the speeches immediately before the battle (ro-II); cf.
Gelzer, Gnomon, 1957, 402.
6. {nrip Twv Ka.Ta I,K~;;Ma.v ..• Twv Ka.T' '1~1)p(a.v: 'on behalf of Sicily
... of Spain'; Hannibal means both that the wars were fought be-
cause of events there, i.e. Messana and Saguntum, and that they
were fought for the possession of those lands.
i.nro T~S TUX'lS oo1rw vou6noUtJ.IOVo': the lesson is, of course, tlw
fickleness of fortune, and the certainty that prosperity cannot last
(cf. i. 8); it is a lesson of which P. himself is quite sure, but this does
not mean that Hannibal did not also share this typically Hellenistic
attitude. See above, VoL I, p. 19, for similar passages; Tyche hert"
is not necessarily Providence (so Mioni, 141 n. 13).
7. T~v EVEaTwaa.v t'AOTI.Jl(a.v: 'our present rivalry'.
8. (Eu)tJ.ETa6n6s ianv ~ TUXlJ KTA.: it has been suggested that this
passage derives from Ennius (Ann. JIZ-13 Vahlen 2 ),
'mortalem summum fortuna repente
reddidit e sumrno regno ut famul infimus esset',
and that consequently Ennius is the source for the whole of this
meeting, which should therefore be dismissed as fabulous. As De
Sanctis (iii. 2. 594-5) observes, the sentiments are common, the
parallelism slight, and the Ennian context uncertain.
7. 1. !l'l8£1rw llEXP' yE Tou vuv Els T~v •.. 1TaA,ppull'lv: Hannibal

may have said this; but it reads rather like a vaticiniutn ex eventu.
3. l:v TETTa.pllKovTo. aTa.Slols: cf. ix. 5· 9· The reference is to Hannibal's
march on Rome in 211.
8. 1TclVTa ••• 'Pwlla.~v U'll'apx,Hv: Hannibal offers to surrender all
Punic outside Africa. But this is considerably less than
the tenns previously proposed by Scipio and accepted by the Senate
{I. 2 n., 8. 7), but abandoned through the Carthaginian breach of
lhe truce; to accept Hannibal's reduced offer would have dealt a
blow to the prestige of Rome and of Scipio, and would moreover
have left Africa (and Masinissa) open to Carthaginian ambitions.
8. 2. llapTupa.s ••• Tou<; 6eous: that the gods reward good faith by
success and punish faithlessness by failure is implied also in the
speech of the Roman envoys at Carthage (i. 14); both may well
derive from the same source.
4. d !lEv •.• 1TpouTEMI.S TUS s,a.AuaE'i TO.UTQ,S: a pertinent remark.
It is indeed odd that the Carthaginian government never seized their
chance to negotiate at that point, while they could still offer tlJe
evacuation of Italy as a bargaining point. Cf. Meyer, I\l. Schr. ii.
353 n. 2.
452
THE BATTLE OF ZA:\IA X\'. 9· 5
7. auv9T)Ka.; f:yypu'ITTou;: cf. r. 2 n. The clauses here mentioned cor-

respond to the account in Livy, xxx. 16. ro-rz, except that he
qualifies the clause about warships-'naues longas praeter uiginti
omnes tradant'-, adds a reference to corn and barley and omits to
mention the hostages. But Scipio is not concerned with details,
~~specially any which appeared to mitigate the earlier terms. Accord-
ing to Dio, xvii. 74, the Carthaginians who came to Scipio at his
camp did in fact hand over XP~fLa.Ta ... Kal Tovs a.lxtta.Ad!Tovs miwras
a7Tl8wKaP; and this version also appears in P. Rytands, iii, no. 49I.
ll. s-{), €8w[KaV Tojvs opKovs Kai [€Ava]aP ~O'YJ T~V alxfLtJ.AwataP. Cf. also
Livy, xxx. 16. 15 (tendentiously twisted). This fact may be true
despite P.'s failure to mention it.
9. E1rda&'l To auviopwv KTA.: cf. r. 2 n.
1Ta.pa.a1Tovol]aa.vTES TJfLO.;: the taunt of punica fides becomes a
commonplace in Homan literature. See iii. 78. 1 n.; for further dis-
cussion see Gelzer, Vom romischen Staat, i. 65 ff.
10. T~Y EfL~V xwpa.v fLETO.AQ.~WV: 'put yourself in my place'.
13. ouo' ava.cf>opO.v EXI!L TO 0U1~0UALOV: 'it would be useless even to
refer our discussion (to the people)'; Shuckburgh mistranslates:
'such a reference does not even admit of discussion'.
14. T~v E'ITLTpo'IT~V uflas SL86va.L 'ITEP~ acf>wv a.OTwv: Scipio counters
Hannibal's proposals ·with a demand for deditio; cf. xx. 9· rz. See
Taublcr, 198 n. 2. In the event ded£tio was not demanded, but a
foedtlS was entered into (cf. 18. 2 n.).
9. 2. 'PwfLO.lOL ••. 'ITEpi Tfls TWV OAWV apxfjs l<O.L OUVO.O'TELO.S: for after
their victory at Zama, P. believes, the Romans stretched out their
hands to Greece and Asia, aiming at world dominion; see i. 3· 4 n.,
iii. 32.7 n., v. ro4. 3-4; '\Valbank, ]RS, 1963, 5·
5• ou. ya.p
' TTJS
~
LtJU'lS ••• OL• TU~ fLO.' XU Kpa.T'laa.vTe;: r.e. tl1e R omans,
f\ll' I •
as it proved; cf. Livy, xxx. 32. z, 'Roma an Carthago iura gentibus

daret ante crastinam noctem scituros; neque enim Africam aut
Italiam sed orbem terrarum uictoriae praemium fore'--which, how-
ever, is not the same thing. As P. saw, the issue was not whether
Rome or Carthage should master the world, but for the Carthaginians
simply whether they should survive and keep their hold on Africa
(§ z). Livy has blurred the issues and represented what P. would
have accepted as the point the war as a whole was to decide (cf.
i. 3· 4 n.) as the point still to be decided at Zama.
&aa. vuv 'ITE'ITTWKev 01r0 TTjv ~aTop,a.v: 'which are now known'. Cf. for
this phrase ii. 14. 7 and iv. 2. 2, and the discussion of K. Petzold,
Historia, r96o, 251--2. He observes correctly that the sense I gave it
in ii. 14. 7 is not supported by the other two passages; nevertheless it
is a possible translation. In iv. 2. 2 Petzold rightly takes the words
Toils 7l'lr.mvTas u1T(l T~v ~luoT€pav la7oplav to mean 'which come within
45.3
XV. 9· 5 THE BATTLE OF Z.\~IA
my own purview'; they are -rovs Ka.O' TJJ-LOS (xp6vous) in contrast to

-ravs €gr]s (sc. Tofs 1Tpof!tp1)fLEVats), i.e. -rous Ka.-ra -rovs 1TaTipas ~J-LGk.
See also Pedech, Methode, s6i n. 295.
6-9. Ro·man dispositions. The normal Roman battle order consisted
of three lines, hastati, principes, and triarii (vi. 21. 7-8 n., xiv. 8. 5 n.).
each divided into ten maniples of 120 men, or in the case of the
triarii of 6o men (vi. 21. 9); between these maniples were gaps,
8taaT~fLaTa (9. 7; d. iii. 73· 6 (Trebia), xi. 22. ro (Ilipa), xviii. 24. 10
(Cynoscephalae)}, through which the uelites retired after the pre-
liminary skirmishing (xviii. 24. w), and since the maniples of the
hastati were placed behind the gaps in the front line, the whole for-
mation took on a quincunx or chess-board appearance. Sources do
not record the width of these gaps and this, as well as their role in
battle, is much debated; but since they seem to have been used fm·
bringing up the rear maniples as relief, they were probably the
width of the maniples themselves. Against the argument of Del-
bruck (i 2 • 448) that such gaps in the Roman line would constitute
a danger in the shock see Kromayer, AS, iii. 1. 358-9, and Veith,
Hee:ru:esen, 359-6o, who show that by pressing into the gaps phalanx
troops would expose themselves to greater peril than they could
create for the I<oman rnaniples on either side, •vhich were adept at
fighting in all directions (cf. 15. 7, xviii. 32. ro-n). See further
Kromayer, AS, iii. r. 347 ff.; Veith, ibid. iii. 2. 688 ff.; Heerwesen,
; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 144 ff.; Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 195 ff., and works
there quoted; below, xviii. 30. s-n n. At Zama, abnormally, Scipio
placed the maniples of the principes behind those of the hastati in
order to leave room for the elephants to pass through without
causing much damage(§ 7); Veith (AS, iii. 2. 690 ff.) rightly disposes
of Delbriick's objections to P.'s account of this, which is quite con-
sistent. De Sanctis (iii. 2. has expressed doubts about the
placing of the uelites in the intervals between the first rnaniples and
suggests that P. has misunderstood what really happened, viz. that
the uelites, to their usual tactics, carne out from behind the
heavy lines to reopen the fighting when the elephants were disposed
of. Here too there seems no reason to reject P.'s clear account; as
Scullard remarks (Scip. 239 n.), the intervals between the separate
maniples could well have been indicated by standards and there
would be no danger of confusion in the line through the closing
of the front intervals. P. omits to mention specifically where the
6,ooo Numidian infantry (5. r2) were placed; taken literally § 8
suggests that they were on the right wing, but it seems unlikely
that they were incorporated in the flank of the legion as Lehmann
argues (jahrb. SuppL-E. 2r, 1894, Si6). They may have fought to-
gether with the cavalry, for they were used to this; cf. Bell. Afric.
69. 4, 'in Caesaris 1egionarios irnpetum faciunt Nurnidae leuisquc
454
THE BATTLE OF ZAMA XV. 9· IO
armaturae mirabili uelocitate praediti, qui inter equites pugnabant

ct una pariterque cum equitibus accurrere et refugere consueuerant'.
De Sanctis (iii. 2. 6o7) argues that such a combination would not
be very effective against Hannibal's cavalry; but this neglects the
large amount of evidence that, unless cavalry were going to move
very quickly, close co-operation between units of foot and horse
was extremely advantageous. Dr. E. '\V. ~farsden, to whom I am
indebted for discussion of this question and for much of this note,
reminds me that horse and foot units collaborated most successfully
in the battle of Man tinea in 362 (xii. 25; see Diod. xv. 85. 4 f.;
Xen. Hell. vii. 5· 24-25, for Boeotian cavalry co-operating with
ap,L7T7TOL, &71Ai'Tat, and 7TdTa.CTTa{). and Xenophon, Hipparch. 5· IJ,
recommends the cavalry commander to study such mixed actions.
Alexander used the idea at Gaugamela (cf. Marsden, Gattgamela
(Liverpool, r964), so-sr) and at Waterloo British cavalry worked
successfully against superior French cavalry with the help of a firm
infantry base. If, at Zama, the Numidian foot were not with the
cavalry, they may have been stationed along with the ttelites, in
which case in§ 8 P. must be referring only to cavalry (cf. Veith, AS,
iii. 2. 673; iv. 634; Lammert, BPW, 1915, urs f.); but minwv is
against this.
7. alJflO.La.s ••• arrdpa<; : both words mean maniple (cf. i. 33. 9 n.,
xi. 23. r n.). Livy (xxx. 33· r) appears to have misunderstood the
Greek and translates 'non confertas autem cohortes ante sua quam-
que signa instruebat sed manipulos aliquantum inter se distantes
ut esset spatium qua elephanti hostium acti nihil ordines turbarcnt'.
ou KaT a To Twv rrpt.:muv CTJlJ1a~wv 8LaaTJlf.LO.: 'not opposite the inter-
vals between the maniplcs of the first line'.
Ka.Ta~~~~ou<;; iv drroaTacrn: 'directly in line with them and at an
interval'; the implication is perhaps (though not certainly) that the
interval was greater than that normally left between the hastati and
principes, so as to afford lines of retreat for the uelites (§ IO). But the
words Std ... {A.,PavTwv explains KaTaM~Aou.> (the unusual feature)
rather than El' a7TOO'TcLO'H.
8. r aLOV AaL~lOV: cf. xiv' 4· 2 n.; he had accompanied :\iasinissa
in his pursuit of Syphax (xiv. 9· z) and had later gone v..·ith the cap-
tured Syphax to Rome (Livy, xxx. r6. 1, I7. r-s) and returned to
Africa with the Punic envoys (Livy, x..xx. 23. 6, 25. 9).
p.~Ta rrnvTwv Twv ••. No11a8wv: including the infantry? See above,
§§ 6-9 n.
9. Tais Twv ypoa<Jlofl6.xwv crrrECpa.L<;;: 'with companies of uelites'. For
uelites cf. vi. zr. 7 n. Here u7Te.!pa is 'company', used in a non-technical
sense; the uelites were not divided into maniples.
10. Et<; TO. rrAC..y,a ••• OLaaT~f.Ltna KaTO. Tas C11Jfla£as: 'make their
way into the gaps between the lines of maniples'.
455
XV. IO. 2 THE BATTLE OF ZAMA
10. 2. TTJS lihh1JS otKOUj.LEV1"JS T-,)v .,;yEj.Lovtav KTA.: d. 9· 2. \\'hether

Scipio used this expression is uncertain, for the speech here recorded
(whatever its source) contains little but commonplaces (d. La-Roche,
67); and there may be some anachronism. After Magnesia the phrase
itself becomes a commonplace (cf. xxi. r6. 8 (Syrian envoys), 2,3. 4
(Rhodian envoys)).
5. Tfj~ ••• TiSXTJS ••• ~KTEBELKula~: cf. iii. 63. 3 (in a speech of Han-
nibal), T~l/ TDX7JV ••• 1Tapa1TA~ata. TOLS viJv dOI..a 1Tpon:Owdvat; similarly
here the 'prize' is death or victory (here .ds lKdnpov TO p.Jpo:;) ; cf.
von Scala, r72 n. 6.
TWV aya.Bwv ••• TWV KQ.KWV: i.e. T0l' im€p rijs 7TdTptOos O&.va.TOV and
aiaxtaToV Kal iAHwchanw TDV J1rlAomov f3lov (§ 3).
11.1-3. Punic dispositions. Hannibal had adopted the Roman system

of three lines: the first consisted of mercenaries, r2,ooo in number~
Ligurians, Celts, Balearic islanders, and Moors~the second of nati\'e
Libyans and Carthaginians, and the third line contained Tous
'haM.as ijKoVTas 11-"(}' airroiJ, i.e. the veterans of the Italian campaign.
Kahrstedt (iii. 564) includes veterans in the second line and assumes
the third line to consist of 'deserters and allied troops, mainly
Bruttians and Lucanians' (cf. § 2 n.); but this can hardly be right,
since in r6. 3 P. speaks of the middle line as the weakest element, and
though he there mentions only the Carthaginians and not the
Libyans, this cannot be pressed, since in referring to the second line
he never anywhere mentions the Libyans again after the present
passage. Clearly the third line contained Hannibal's real strength.
The elephants may well have beP.n oYer eighty in number, asP. says,
since they were intended to play a big part in the opening phase of
the battle (r6. 2; Scullard, Sclp. 237 n. r), ~'..Specially if Hannibal
dispensed with light-armed (see next note). The ca\•alry were on the
wings, as usual; see further, r6. r-4.
Livy (xxx. 26. 3, 42. 4-5) mentions 4,ooo Macedonian mercenaries
under Sopater, stationed in the second line along with the Car-
thaginians (Livy, XXX . .33· s); Frontinus (Strat. ii. 3· I6) and Silins
(xvii. 418 ff.) take them over from Livy. They are most likely an
annalistic invention (Gsell, ii. 389 n. 6; Holleaux, Etudes, v. 340 n. r),
since they are not in P. or even Appian. Balsdon (]RS, r945, 34)
suggests that they were in Carthage, but not at Zama; in that case it
is not clear why they fell into Roman hands. Livy is quite specific
about where they fought in the battle, and if they are to be excluded
from Zama, as I think they must, they should disappear alto-
gether.
I. A~yu<TT'tvot, KeAToi, Ba.Xw.pEr~, Ma.upovaLoL: these mercenaries
were probably all recently recruited; the Baleares include the 2,ooo
enrolled by Mago on Min orca in 206 and sent to Carthage (Livy,
4.)6
THE BATTLE OF ZAMA XV. II. 2
xxviii. 37. 9). The precise use of these troops is uncertain. The Baleares
were, of course, normally slingers {cf. iii. 33· u) and were widely
used by the Carthaginians; the Maurusii from Morocco (cf. iii. 33·
rs n.) were also usually light-armed (cf. Livy, xxiii. :::6. II, iacu-
lator). Appian, Lib. 40, mentions the Celts and Ligurians and con-
tinues: Tot'6Tat"' auTot;; dvafLqLixaTO 1Tai'T1J Kat a</>evoovijTat, Afavpovawt
Kal rvfLv'ljatot (i.e. Baleares). Hence Lehmann (jahrb. Suppl.-B. 2I,
r894, s8r f.) concluded that these mercenaries were light-armed
troops. Veith (AS, iii. 2. 678--9) and DeSanctis (iii. 2. 6o7-S) rightly
point out that P. describes their ad,·ance in terms appropriate to
heavy-armed, fighting with swords (cf. 12. 7, 13. r n.), and they
assume that Hannibal had trained them at Hadrumetum to use
these weapons. This seems on the whole the most probable view (cf.
Fraccaro, Athe;z. I9JI, 433}. But the possibility cannot be excluded
(cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 6o8) that Appian is right (and not merely
jumping to conclusions about the Balearic and l\Ioorish arms).
To tum Baleares and Moors into was to make indifferent
swordsmen out of first-class slingers; and the first line may have
consisted of Ligurians and Celts (who could fight at close quarters)
intermixed with slingers; the result would not be very substantial
infantry, but P. makes it clear that Hannibal regarded his first line
as largely expendable, and intended to weary the Romans and blunt
their weapons before the real troops, the veterans, got to dose
(1uarters (r6. 3). See Griffith, 227-9, on all these troops.
2. AiJ3ua.s Ka.i Ka.px1)Sov(ous: according to Appian, Lib. 36, Hannibal
had taken these over from Hasdrubal's army. As in the First Punic
War (i. 67. 7 n.) the status of the Libyans is uncertain; the evidence
of Livy leaves it obscure whether they were a national levy or mer-
cenaries, though here P. seems to distinguish them from the merce-
naries of the f1rst line and so perhaps to support the former view.
The Libyans formed the bulk of Carthaginian armies, and in vi. 52. 4
P. states that in contrast to the Romans the Carthaginians use
f~v<Kat;; /(UL fL<a8o<foopot;; •.• Svw:lfLern; but this should probably not be
pressed to mean that the Libyans sen·ed voluntarily for pay. For full
discussion of the evidence see Griffith, 22J-33· Livy, XXX. 33· s-6,
implies that these Libyans also included any brought back from
Italy, since the third line were mainly Bruttians (see next note);
and it is in accordance with this that he treats the first line, the
mercenaries, as the weak element which had to be strengthened by
the Carthaginians behind. But P.'s dew is dearly that all the troops
from Italy were in the third line, despite the interpretations laid
upon him by Appian and Livy (see next note). Griffith (229) assumes
that the Libyans ·were 'the last African levy of very many during
the war, and may well have resembled the last Spanish levy at
llipa-tirones Hispanorum' (Livy, xxviii. 1s. r). In referring to the
457
XV. II. 2 THE BATTLE OF ZAMA
second line during the battle P. mentions only Carthaginians; the
Libyans are not mentioned again.
TOU<; e; 'ho.Mas tlKO\ITO.<;: his veterans, described in 16. 4 as 7'00';)
p..axLfW.rra'TOtJ<; Kai U'TUULfLW'Ta'TOV<; 7'WV av8p<Ov. Roth Livy (xxx. 33· 6)
and Appian (Lib. 40) take these troops to be Italians: Livy says they
were mainly Bruttians, brought by compulsion rather than choice,
and Appian says Hannibal put his greatest conf1dence in them be-
cause they feared to be taken (which would not apply to the Libyans).
For P.'s view see the preceding note.
rrAe'Lov 11 aTaOwv &.rroaTT)(Tas: i.e. about zoo m. The object of this j.,
explained by P. (r6. 4): it is to keep the most experienced troop:-:
clear of the battle until they can be thrown against an enemy
already exhausted by his struggle against the first two lines (ct l\reyer.
Kl. Schr. ii. 212; Veith, iii. 2. 6so). With his inferiority in cavalry
Hannibal must have relied on this line of veterans to give the coup
de grcice; on the role of the cavalry see r2. n. Against Lehmann's
hypothesis that the veterans held back in order to protect the otlwr
lines from a possible Roman cavalry encirclement see Veith (:Is·.
iii. 2. 655-6), who points out that this would be a wasteful use oJ
Hannibal's best troops (d. Scullard, Scip. 242).
3. Taus aup.tLaxous Nop.aSas: i.e. Masinissa's troops.
6. 8u].rr1.eu)vwv: 'at length'; Scipio spoke f3paxiw> (Io. r). Hannibal'~
speech is also mainly commonplaces (cf. 10. 2 n.).
8. Tftv Te rrepl Tov T pe~ta.v ... p.aXTJV; cf. iii. 71-74.
T~V ev Tupp'r)vlq. rrpos Aap.[v~ov p.axTJv: Trasimene; d. iii. 8J-8s. 6.
T.,\1 1repi KO.vva.s yevotLEVTtV 1rp05 Alp.CJ.wv: d. iii. 107- I7.
9. KaTa 1TAf1eos Twv civSpwv: an exagg('ration: the numbers involved
at Zama (cf. 5· 3-14. 9 (d) n.) are no more than at Trchia and Trasi-
mene and considerably fewer than at Cannae.
10. ouOe rroAAocrTov p.epos: 'not even a small fraction·.
12. 1. TW\1 Nop.a.8tKwv •.. ii.Kpo~oAL~op.evwv: i.e. Masinissa's cavalry

on the Roman right against the Numidian horse on the Carthaginia11
left (g. 3, II. 3). If the :Moors and Baleares had their normal arms.
they could not use them at this stage because they were behind thl'
elephants.
2 . ... Twv rrepl Tov Mauavva<:rav: the lacuna is clear: read either
ou yevofLI.vov S.d. (Hultsch) or o•o1rep vm:i (Biittner-Wobst).
3. ev Tq, tLETO.SU xwpCIJ:l: the uelites had advanced ahead of the Romalt
infantry line, leaving the gaps between the maniples of the hasfatl.
as instructed (9. g).
4. s~a. TWV trr'ITEWV IYUV!lKOVn~6p.eva.: the Italian horse under Laeli li '
was on the Roman left and Carthaginb.n right (9. 8).
5-6. Flight of the Punic caz•alry. It was argued by Lehmann (Jaltrl•.
Suppl.-B. 21, r8g-1-, 589 f.), and accepted by Veith (AS, iii. 2. r.)
4~8
THE B.\.TTLE OF ZAMA
and others, that this flight of cavalry on both wings was a manreuvre
planned by Hannibal to draw off the Roman cavalry, which was
superior in number, so that he could finish off the battle with his
infantry before they returned; this is possible, but no more, for
I lannibal's cavalry were probably inferior in number, nor is it likely
that he would have deliberately abandoned all hopes of achieving
success with this arm (Fraccaro, Atl:en. 1931, 432-3).
7. Jj0.8TJv .•• tca.t ao~a.pw<; 'n-TIEaa.v: cf. iii. 72. r3 (of the advance of
tl1c heavy infantry at the Trebia). Clearly P. regards the Punic mer-
cenaries as troops of the line (cf. rr. r~~3 n.).
-n-AT)v Twv <etc) Tils 'ITa.Ala.s ••• 1rapa.yeyov6Tu1V: thus the gap be-
tween them and the second line was allowed to grow: see above,
II. 2 n.
8. auva.Aa.Aa~a.vn<; tca.L O'ul-11jlo+~O'O.VT€S t<TA.: cf. i. 34· 2 n., xi. 30. I.
9. t<a.Tn Tov 1fOLTJTt1v: the quotation is a mixture of Homer, fl. iv. 437
aud ii. 8o4 (or Od. xix. 175); such contaminated quotations occur in
other authors, including Aristotle.
KC.6cl1rEp , , , e;TJpL6!-1TJUcl!-1TJV; cf. II, I,
13. 1. 'K XElpO<; Ka.i ICa.T' uv8pa: this is the individual close fighting
characteristic of the Romans, in contrast to the Hellenistic phalanx
{cf. xviii. 26. 4, 30. 7).
8La To 1-lfJ 80pa.uL ••• To us 6.ywvL~o!-1Evous: rejected by Biittner-
Wobst and De Sanctis (iii. 2. 6o7); but the sentence may be behind
the statement of Livy, xxx. 34· 3, that the Romans advanced um-
bonibtts pulsantes. A simple emendation is to read d,\,\0. tt¢>wt or
eU/>em 3i (Hultsci); d. Scullard, n.; Fraccaro, Athen. 1931,
433; Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 2u n. 2. But even so the sentence is flat, and
Strachan-Davidson may be right in suspecting a more extensive
corruption; see also Lammert, BPW, 19r5. cols. ur6-q.
«uxEpe1c:t t<a.L ToAp.n: and daring'; cf. xxiii. 5· 6. In xii. 25 e 2
the phrase means 'recklessness and irresponsibility' ; see note there.
3. E1rop.c\vwv ••• Twv Ka.T61fw: i.e. the principes and triarii, who could
only give the hastati moral support for the time being (Meyer, Kl.
Schr. ii. 2II n. 3).
&-n-oSuA.u;,VTwv: P. says that Hannibal had deliberately placed the
Carthaginians between the mercenaries and the veterans because
he mistrusted their courage (r6. :;). Hence no other explanation is
needed of their (and the Libyans') failure to support the mercenaries.
Veith (AS, iii. 2. 65r), however, assumes that Hannibal intended to
keep his lines quite separate, to use the mercenaries alone to force
Scipio to send in his principes, then with the accession of the second
line to draw in Scipio's last reserves, the triarii. This is very hypo-
thetical and goes beyond what can be deduced from P.; cf. Fraccaro,
Atlun. r931, 434·
459
XV. I3 5 T.HE BATTLE OF ZAMA
5. av8pw8ws a'IT'o9avetv: Veith (AS, iii. 2. 6sr n. I) sees a contradic-
tion in this s\vitch from cowardice to courage; but this is the courage
born of desperation (cf. ¥ayKaaE . .. 7Tapd. r~v atnwv 7Tpoalpemv • .•
EKD'TUTLKa1<; Ka1 7TUpYJAftayp./vw<;).
7. f:rrecrTttcrav Ta<; (l~ITtdV Tn~ets: 'held firm their ranks', rather than
'brought up ... to assist' (Paton; cf. Sdl\veighaeuser; Scnllard, Scip.
245), a meaning for which P. shows no parallel (cf. Mauersbergcr, s.v.
i,Pt.aTYJJL•; Passerini, Athen. 1936, 182 n. r). The centurions of the
principes, who have hitherto kept close behind the hastati, now checl;
their men lest they get im·olved in the confusion. Had they joined
the hastati now, they must have been involved in the pursuit whicil
followed, but Scipio recalls the hastati alone (14. 3).
8. Twv 8£ p.ta9o<jlopwv Ka.t ruv Ka.pxTJoov!wv: the first and second
ranks of the Punic army respectively. Veith (AS, iii. 2. 647 n. 1)
believes that the final infantry charge (J4. s--6) must have involved
the second and third lines on Hannibal's side, for their numbers to
equal Scipio's force less the casualties among his hastati; and lw
therefore has to assume that only the mercenaries were now drivcu
off the field, and so proposes to omit KaL this (r) the
Ot p.ta8o<f>6pot TWV Kapx:r;oovlwl•, though in place at IZ. 9 (contrasted
with the Romans), is awkward here after they ha vc been called ol
1-aaOo,P6poL throughout the chapter (cf. §§I, 3, 5): (z) presumably too
the Carthaginians suffered casualties, not merely the mercenaries.
9. To us ... <jleuyovT<tS: i.e. both of the mercenaries and of the Car
thaginians (and presumably of the Libyans· above, rr. 2 n.).
'IT'po~a.Xta9a.t: cf. xdii. 29. 4: 'to level their spears'; the last linl'
like the Roman triarii (vi. 23. r6) arc armed with hastae. For Han
nibal's adoption of Roman arms cL xviii. z!l. 9·
Toi:s t'IT'LaTnTms: 'the troops behind'; not 'the foremost ranks'
(Paton).
14. l. TWv Ka.TaAEmop.(vwv aTpa.To'IT'e8wv: 'the armies still left on tlw

field'.
To TT)s rponT)s ep.milhov: 'the rout of the enemy an impedi
ment of a perplexing nature to the Roman (Slmckburgh) :
cf. Passerini, Ath. H)36, 189. This rather than Paton, 'the obstacll'
to his completing the rout of the enemy' (cf. }fauersberger, s.Y.
ip.7ToOwv : = roil p.~ 1rot~fv laxvpav rpo7T~v rwv 1Toi\qdwv), is the sen so·.
2. To'Ls ev Ta~n Oto.nopeuop.evot<;: 'for men in rank'.
3-4. Scipio's reorganization of his lines : he recalled hastati fr01n
their pursuit and, after conveying the wounded to the rear, he placed
the remainder in the centre at}roil 1rpo rfi> p.d)(1]S'; then he brouglil
up the other t\vo lines, having made them close up on the \vinp ..
and stationed them on either side of the hastati. He then attach• I
The implications of all this are less simple. P. does not explain WI!\
460
THE BATTLE OF ZAMA XV. 14. 3
Scipio re-formed: he merely says that the encumbered field was an
obstacle to men advancing in formation, but nevertheless Scipio re-
called his hastati and ordered the other ranks to advance level \\-'i.th
them 8td. Taw vEI<:pWJJ. The reason seems to be simply that Scipio could
not risk letting his hastati, disordered and with casualties, involve
themselves with Hannibal's untouched veterans before regaining
some order and receiving the support of the second and third lines;
alternatively, if the hastati's pursuit had carried them to the flanks
(13. 10), he dared not let the principes and tn:arii become disordered
as they advanced to attack over the encumbered field (cf. Fraccaro,
Athen. 1931, 436-7). Veith, AS, iii. 2. 66z n. 1, assumes that Scipio
hroke off the pursuit and called a halt in the fight at the sight of the
veteran third line held back from the main conflict; but this turns
on his assumption that Scipio was planning an outflanking move-
ment and now realized that it was impracticable. This outflanking
movement is neither mentioned nor implied in P. It seems unneces-
sary to assume with De Sanctis (iii. 2. 612-16) that P. is in error and
that the principes and triarii had already taken up their new positions
in the first stage of the battle (and now needed to pause only to
re-form and rest) ; this is to jettison our only reliable source at a
critical part of his account. But De Sanctis raises a serious question :
why did not Hannibal use the pause to attack the hastati? The answer
seems to be that if he involved his veterans with the hastati, he would
have brought his last troops into action while the Romans still had
their principes and triarii intact: the disastrous rout of the mer-
cenaries and Carthaginians had turned the scale against him, and
he would be exposed both to flank attacks by the Roman second and
third lines and also by the cavalry when it returned (cL Scullard,
Scip. 246-7). Whether Hannibal reorganized his line and, if so, how,
is not known, and is not to be discovered by arguments based on
probability. Veith thinks the operation was described by P. in a
passage now lost, but originally standing at the end of 13; this is
a gratuitous suggestion. Hannibal may have incorporated remnants
of the mercenaries and the Carthaginians and Libyans in his flank
(d. Scullard, Scip. 248); but there is much to be said for Fraccaro's
vie\v (A then. 1931, 436; cf. Meyer, Kl. Sch1·. ii. 2r2-r3 n. 4) that these
demoralized elements could only damage his chances, and that they
were 'written off', once they had been driven to the flank (13. ro).
In any case, we are not informed how long the pause lasted- prob-
ably quite a short time, and Hannibal may have needed the whole
of this to get rid of the troops fleeing first towards the veterans and
then to the wings. It seems safer to assume that in the last phases
of the battle the Romans faced Hannibal's veterans alone.
3. Tous 8' ~'ITLbLI.;li<OVTa.<;; TWV (urrchwv: in contrast to the wounded
(Tovs fLEV TpaufLaTlo.s) ; it is these hastati, recalled from their pursuit,
461
XV. q. 3 THE BATTLE OF ZAMA
who are stationed aihoiJ 1Tpo rijs: f1.dX7J' (d. Passerini, Athen. 193n.
r83 n. r). That the hastati were pursuing the enemy has not pre-
viously been stated, but follows easily from IJ. 8; as already pointeo
out (3-4 n.) there is no need to assume a lacuna in which this wa,_;
specifically mentioned (so Veith, AS, iii. 2. 648).
o.1hoG vpo TijS JlGXTJS ••• tvtO'TTJO'E: 'he stationed them in the very
front of the field'; d. xi. rz. 4, -rovs ••• KaTa7TtA-ra;; 1Tpd r.dcrqs: Jr.tar'r}a<
rijs: Swctf1.<Ws. The use of f1.clX7J to mean 'field of battle' can be paralleled
in two interpolated passages of Xenophon's Anabasis, ii. 2. 6 and
v. 5· 4· Passerini (Athen. 1936, r87) tries to dispose of these by trans
lating f1.lXP• rijs f1.rlXTJ> as 'up to the time of the battle', but th•·
sentence drro S€ rfjs f1.ttX7J' JMyovro dvat d, BafivAtJva urd.Sw< Jfr}Kovr<t
Kai rpwKoawt is unambiguous. Here Passerini translates 'just befor('
they began the battle'; against this is (a) the use of JuixTJ to mean 'a
new phase in the battle', which has already been going on for som•·
time; (b) the parallel passage, ii. J. 4, atlroii rrpd rfjc; arpaTorrESEias . ..
7T11.pEvlf3aUov, where 1rpo is local; (c) the fact that mlroii always has
a local sense: Passerini can quote no parallel for aJrov 1rp6 in the sens< ·
'just before'; (d) the picture of the hastati recalled from their pursuit
and checked just as they are about to join battle with the veteran;;
is unreal; why should they be about to join battle (and need check
in g) if that was not part of their orders?
Kara (ltaous Tous voAE'Jl(ouc;: 'opposite the enemy's centre'; it j-;
usually (and perhaps correctly) assumed that the hastati, like tlw
principes and triarii, have closed up their ranks (see the next note).
so as to be opposite the centre alone and not the whole Punic lin•·
(cf. DeSanctis, iii. z. 6rs; Veith, AS, iii. z. 654; Fraccaro, Athe11.
19Jl, 437)·
4. 1TUI<vwaa.s ~4>' El<aTE'pov T6 KEpas: 'making them close up on eithn
wing'; this would be achieved, not by reducing the interval betwecu
the men, but by closing up the gaps between the maniples (d. g. 7,
lv S,aar~twcnv). See Veith, AS, iii. 2, iOI. The hastali probabl:<l clos1·d
up in the same way (see preceding note), thus presenting a more
solid formation than was usual in Roman armies. Passerini (Athw.
1936, rgo) suggests that the principes and triarii were ordered t"
close ranks since in the march across the encumbered field the inter
vals would have been hard to maintain; but it seems more likc·h
that Scipio was manceuvring (a) so as to bring the second and third
lines out beyond the hastati so that they could advance alongsid•·
them without difficulty, and (b) so as to have a compact mass to cou
front the veterans. It can be assumed that both principes ~11' I
triarii divided in the middle, half closing up to the left and half it>
the right; the altemative, for the triarii to go one way and t lw
pr£ncipes the other would be slO\ver and hardly feasible owing 1•,
the difference in the numbers of the two lines.
TH,E BATTLE OF ZA:MA XV. 15. 6
tiul. Twv vEKpwv: 'over the corpses': this seems the obvious sense,
rather than 'past the corpses' (so Biittner-Wobst, ]ahrb. 1889,145, fol·
lowing Reiske); cf. Mauersberger, s. v. oui, col. 458, 'iiber ... hinweg',
and vrnpf3aVT£S in § 5·
5. cruvf:~o.l\ov o.t ~0.1\o.yye~ al\1\f)l\cn~: from the fact that this occurred
the moment the Roman line was ready it appears that Scipio took
the initiative. De Sanctis (iii. :2. 616) that he advanced as
soon as he saw or foresaw the return of cavalry; but the words
al<pt'TOV brt rro.\v (§ 6) do not confirm this view. Hannibal's line prob-
ably consisted of his veterans only (d. r3. 8 n., I4· 3-4 n.).
7. liclL!J-ovLw~ Ei~ liEovm Ko.Lpov: 'providentially at the right moment';
the implications of Smp.avtws- are not to be pressed (cf. Vol. I, p. 24
n. 7; Mioni, 138).
9. Casualties. P. gives r,soo Roman dead, and 20,000 Carthaginian
dead with the same number of prisoners. Appian (Lib. 48) has more
even figures: :zs,ooo killed and 8,soo captured on the Carthaginian side,
while the Romanlosst:s were 2,5oo aml those of .1\lasinissa rather more.
15. 1. TJ , • , errf. rriicrL '(EVO~TJ J.LclXTJ: 'the final battle'; for this mean-
ing of E7Tt rriiat cf. iii. 3· 8, xvi. JL 7, xxviii. zo. 9·
Ta 3~a. KpivaO'a.: following Schweighaeuser, Shuckburgh translates:
'which assigned universal dominion to Rome'; and this could be de-
fended from 9· 2 and 10. 2. But elsewhere (i. 3· 6, iii. 2. 6) P. makes
dear that the victory o\-er Hannibal was either the first step towards
world-dominion or alternatively the event which led the Romans to
hope for this; and it \\'as not until the victory over Perseus that the
Romans possessed universal dominion (xxxi. 25. 6), though after
Magnesia Syrian and Hhodian envoys attribute it to them (xxi. 16. 8,
23. 4: perhaps commonplaces, cf. i. 2. 7-8 n.). It therefore seems
probable that here we must translate 'decided the war'; d. iii. 70. 7
and, in a similar context, i. 59· II; d. Scullard, Pol. gr n. 1.
3. rroLOUJ.LEVO!; ri)v O.vaxwpTJO'LV f.t~ :AlipullTJTa.: on Hadrumetum cf.
5· 3 n. Appian (Lib. 47) and Nepos (Hann. 6) agree that Hannibal
reached it inside forty-eight hours: see above, S· 3-14. 9 n. (c).
~. TOG npo.::LiiOTos Td Ka.TopOw!J-o.Ta.: 'one who foresees success' ; this
is not really contradicted by what follows. Hannibal plans and ex-
pects to win, but he knows what fortune is and that no victory is
assured until it is won. This, the reading ofF, is to be kept in pre-
ference to reading oll -rrpon86-ro<; with several inferior MSS.
4mO'TouvTos Tfj Tuxn: as a great man should; cf. Vol. I, p. 19 (where
the first reference in n. 19 should read x. 40. 6).
6. rro.pa.rrATJcrL~t~ Ko.OonALO'Jl~ XPWJ.LEvov: 'with troops equipped as
Hannibal's then were', i.e. with the mixed troops and mixed equip-
ment he was obliged to use; for as Strachan-Davidson observes, only
the veterans will have been armed in the I{oman fashion (d. 13. 9 n.).
463
X\'. I5. 7 THE BATTLE OF ZA::'.1A
7. ~iLO. Ti]o; fLuio; EKTa~EWS: 'in a single formation'.
<Twv) ~YYI<TTa. ••• <TUVE"I'IW"TPE+ou<Twv: on this technical meaning ol
i1w:;Tpoif,~ see x. 23. 3 n. If this is meant here, the maniples nearest
to the source of danger wheel round together, each pivoting on th(·
appropriate end file leader. But if the maniples are approximately
as wide as they are deep, the same result will be achieved more
quickly by everyone's carrying out the instruction 'Right (or left)
turn!'; and this is the view of Kromayer, who uses this passage as one
argument for the view that the maniple is a relatively deep unit.
8. TO tJ.~ye8os TOu llupeov: on the scut-um see vi. 2.3. 2 n.
Tt)v Ti]o; fLuxa.tpo.o; u1Tof1ovt)v Twv 1TA1Jywv: 'the of the sword
to snstain blows'; on the gladius see vi. 23. 6-7 nn.
16. 2. To ..• Twv EAe+avTwv 1TAi]8os ... 1TpoE~aAno: cf. rr. 1.

3. Tovs .•• fllaBo+opous ••• Ko.t Tous Ko.pxTJSovious: cL 11. 1-2; P.
as usual makes no reference to the Libyans positioned along with the
Cart h aginians.
ava.yKa<TCLL liE TOUS Ka.px,sov(ous ••• f16.xea9a.~: the sense is changed
by Livy (xxx. 35· 7), who makes the mercenaries the unstab!t'
element: 'deinde auxiliares ante Carthaginiensium aciem ne homine~
rnixti ex conluuione omnium gentium, quos non fides teneret sed
rnerces, liberum recepturn fugae haberent'; but see above, r3. I-6.
P.'s view is strangely misunderstood by Wunderer, ii. 28 n. 3, who
quotes Livy him.
Ko.Tn Tov 'ITO~TJTtJV: Homer, ll. iv. 3co; the preceding words an·
I{(I.I{OUS o' E> fL.f<J<JOV €Aa<JU€V, which fits the present context (;.daou<;
oVTa>) ; cf. Aristotle, fg. 147 Rose.

4. TOu<; •.• fLO.X~fLWTnTous: the veterans from Italy, of all nation·
alities, and by now a seasoned fighting force. For the different inter-
pretation of Livy and Appian see II. z n.
€v cmo<TTaO"El va.pev£~a.AE: d. II. z, ?TAEwv ~ an1owv u?ToU"T'l)aas.
O"UV KC!.Lpii) XPtJCm<T8CI.I , , , llpeTa(s: See above, I I. 2 n., on the tactics.
6. lio-n fLEV yap on Kni Tnt'JT6f1a.Tov KTA.: P. seems to attribute Han-
nibal's defeat to two causes, TavT6ftaTov, bad luck, the unforeseeabl"
element, and the fact that he met a better man, Scipio. Here Taun~
p.aTov is merely a popular expression, as in xxi. 26. I6 (d. Vol. I, p. I7;
Hirzel, 863; Susernihl, ii. roi n. 79). From Scipio's point of view too,
the v-ictory is thus a mixture of merit and good fortune--which
would not go against the generalization of xxxi. 30. 3·
€a&Ms Ewv KTA.: d. Suidas, s.v. im,BoA+ mfho 8.1 if>o.at ?Tt:pt "Y,Uo,
Toil 'HpaKAdoou Kai 'Exlpw Toil AlyEaTov (read TeyeaTov). Crusith
(Phil. I889, q8-8o) argued that this quotation carne from a Hellenisii•
epigram dealing with this topic; but others refer the sentiment to tlw
killing of Eurypylns by Neoptolemns (see \Vunderer, i. r 7; von Scah.
76, . Bergk, iii 4 • 69o, fg. adesp. 8A, thinks Theognis was the autho1
464
BEHAVIOUR OF Pr~IC ENVOYS XV. I7. 3
17. 1-2. Extravagtmt behaviour of the Punic ambassadors

After Hannibal's camp Scipio marched to Castra Cornelia
and, after a naval reconnaissance as far as Carthage, he brought
his army to Tunis. Hither thirty Punic envoys were now sent to
Scipio to ask for peace, and it is to these that this passage refers
(d. Livy, xxx. 35· 10-36. g, especially 36. 9: 'et illi quidem multo
miserabilius quam ante quo magis cogebat fortuna egerunt; sed
aliquanto minore cum misericordia ab recenti memoria perfidiae
auditi sunt').
17. I. a.uTo'!Ta.9ws: 'from genuine feeling, spontaneously'; cf. vn1.

17. 7·
iAEOV .•• 'l!'a.pu Tois opWO'L KO.L Tois lLKoOoua,: 'man glaubt cinen
Satz aus einer Theorie der Tragodie vor sich zu haben' (von Scala,
8o n. I; cf. \Vunderer, ii. 13); P. is concerned with actual eyents, not
incidents on a stage, but the comparison is striking and illustrates
further how far P.'s attitude towards history is liable to be affected
by the tragic criteria which he so vigorously attacks (cf. Vol. I,
pp. q.-15). Such incidents are part of the tragedy of real life; but
the behaviour of the Punic envovs is of a different kind.
2. YOT)TELClS xnpLV Ka.i. Ka.9' U'II'OKp<an•: cf. iv. 20. 5· xxxiii. 18. II, for
yo~TI!ta. Translate: 'a mere piece of charlatanry and acting' (Paton).
17. 3-19.9. The settlement after Zama

Between the passage quoted in 17. r-2 n. and his account of the terms
offered to the Punic envoys Livy 36. ro n) has a passage ex-
plaining why, despite general anger and an impulse to destroy
Carthage, Scipio resolved to offer peace terms : the reasons alleged
by Lh-y were the labour which would be involved in besieging
Carthage and the fear that a successor might take the credit. Some-
thing of the kind may possibly have stood in P. between r7. r-2 and
the present fragment; but Livy's account of Scipio's motives is
suspect (cf. Mommsen, RG, i. ; Scullard, Scip. 251-2), and
may not be from P.
17. 3. OLa ~pa.x~wv: as in his speech before the battle ( 10. r).
'l!'a.pu Tas uuv9~Ka.S: cf. I. 7, which appears to refer to the Treaty of
Catulus. Here it is not clear \vhich treaty had been broken: see
iii. 2r. 7 n. and iii. 30. J, where the Roman case seems to treat the
attack on Saguntum as a breach of both the Treaty of Catulus and
the Ebro Treaty.
i~a.vopa.'l!'oo,uO.p.~tvo~ TiJv ••• 'l!'oAw: P. does not mention the fate of
the inhabitants in iii. 17; but Livy, xxi. 14. 3-4, records that Hannibal
ordered the massacre of all adults, and that those who escaped either
814173 Hh
X\'. 17. 3 THE SETTLE~IE.:-JT AFTER Z.A.MA
died fighting or committed suicide: the survivors became the booty
of the soldiers.
0.9£T1]aa.vT£S , .. Oj.I.OAoy£a.s: by the attack on the Roman transports;
cf. r-I6 n., I. 2 n., 8. 7 n.
6. 1] TUXTJ ••• S1a 1'~v a~n€pa.v O.S1K£av: for Tyche as the avenger of
wrong-doing cf. Vol. I, pp. zo-21. The view is, of course, here at-
tributed to Scipio.
18. 1-8. Scipio's peace terms: sec also Livy, xxx. 37. 1-6; App.Lib. 5-l-,
Dio, xvii. 8z. All four sources give the terms laid down by Scipio,
and accepted by the Carthaginians, not the final terms agreed by the
Senate; these terms naturally included certain clauses relevant onh·
to the preliminary armistice (e.g. IS. 6). For full discussion see B.
Nissen, De pace anna 20I a. Chr. Carthaginiensibus data (Marburg,
r87o); Taubler, I90-2o2; DeSanctis, iii. z. ; A. Aymard, PaUas,
1953, 44-63. Tiiubler argues that P. and Livy giYe the preliminary,
and Appian the final terms; De Sanctis thinks that all three gin
the final terms, but represent them for literary reasons as thos··
propounded by Scipio, where necessary (e.g. I8. sl adjusting the
tense. It seems safer to assume that all the sources give what the:-
claim to give, the preliminary terms, especially since there was no
change made by the Senate (Livy, xxx. 43· Io); divergences will br
due in part to annalistic enterprise or arbitrary changes (e.g. by
Livy, who follows P., but not always exactly). ):ioreover, P. claim~
to give only the principal points, ,a KE</JdAa.ta. The following clauses
do not appear in P.:
(a) Appian, Lib. 54, iv S' J~~x:ona. ~jdpats Mdywva XP~ .t1;yt5wv
d1Tmni)va;. Mago had already left Italy at the time of Zama, however
(Livy, xxx. 19. r-s), and this clause must be false; though DeSanctis
(iii. z. 6zz) suggests that it replaces a real clause stipulating the
evacuation of all Punic troops and officers from Europe.
(b) Appian, Lib. 54 Kat fL~'" (.:voAoyEfv dm} KEATwv ~ Atyvw ven;
Dio, xvii. 8z' fL~T€ KaTaA6yovs- 7TOL<:ta-8at fL~T€ fLIIJ'(Jo<f>6pots xpfjaBa;. This
would reaffirm the clause in the of 24I (cf. ii. 27. 4), and may
well be authentic.
(c) Appian, Lib. 54, 'PwfLatov<; dva.xwpt!fv €K At{Ju-qs 1TEvn/Kovm Ka;
f.Ka;(w ~fLdpa<s. This is Ijo days from the final swearing of the treaty.
it seems authentic.
For discussion of the other clauses see the notes.
18. 1. 1TOAELS~xnv Ka.TO. ALf3u"lv KTA.: for this guarantee of Car~

thaginian possession of her 1!'6,\<ts, territory, flocks and herds, slaw~.
and other possessions cf. Livy, xxx. 37· 2. 'quas urbes quosque agw·.
quibusque finibus ante bellum tenuissent tenerent; App. Lz'b. 51.
T¥ 8~ 7TOALV VfLUS EXWI KG.~ ;ryv xwpa.v OIITJV i.vTOS TWV <PotVtK!8wv TU<f>puJI'
.,tx"n JfLov 8ta17Ato11Tos €s AtfJul!v· On the Phoenician Trenchc:,,
THE SETTLE:VIENT AFTER ZAMA XV. I8. 2
which also appear, according to Appian, Lib. 32, in the proposed

terms of 203 (above, 1. 1 n.), see Gsell, ii. roi-3; iii. 289-90; DeSanctis,
iii. 1. 37 n. 104; z. 6zo; Scullard, Scip. 255 n. I; they are mentioned
by Eumachus of Naples (FGH, Ii8 F 2) and so not merely an
anachronistic reference to the trenches cut by Scipio Aemilianus
(Pliny, Nat. hist. v. 25), as Hesselbarth (256-7) and Kahrstedt (iii.
358, 59I n. I) argue, in support of the view that this clause in Appian
was a later forgery to justify Masinissa's encroachments (cf. P. G.
Walsh, JRS, rg6j, n. 77). Where the trenches ran is unknown;
hut they probably went from a point on the north coast somewhere
near the R. Tucca (the later boundary of the Roman province) to the
neighbourhood of the Minor. The geographical limitation
s<:cms probable though omits it; outside the Phoenician Trenches
the demarcation of Masinissa's territory was to be subsequently
determined (§ 5 n.), and this demarcation seems to be implied in the
later Punic claim (Livy. xxxiv. 62. g-10) that Emporia had been
assigned to them. P. and Appian are also at variance over the date
referred to. P. says 'before the war' of the cities and n~ rraAatov of the
rest (a very \'agne : Appian, more probably, specif1es 'before
Scipio crossed into Africa'. It is unlikely that {as Taubler argues}
Scipio's terms said 'before the war' and the Senate altered this to
a later date (Scullard, Scip. 254).
2. n1TO 8€ rijs l)Jdpo.s ~K€iVT]s KTA.: cf. Livy, XXX. 37· 2, 'populandique
fin em eo die Roman us faceret'. The day in question would seem to
be that on which Scipio put the terms to the Punic ambassadors;
Aymard, Pallas, I953, 58 n. n, thinks the date indicated will be that
on which the armistice will be agreed, but this date has not yet been
mentioned. It is reasonable to think that Scipio suspended the
ravaging as an act of grace while the ambassadors reported back to
Carthage.
19€0'~ KO.l v6~to~s xpfja9o.~ KTA.: Nissen (op. cit. (in r8. I-8 n.) I4) re-
jects this clause on the grounds that Carthage was to be stipendiaria,
a false argument which confuses war-tribute with the tax paid by
a subject. Taubler rejects it on the ground that treaties
presuppose the autonomy of the contracting parties and so never
explicitly it. This argument is also fallacious, for such guar-
antees are relatively common in Greek treaties {cf. Syll. 142 = Tod,
u8: treaty between Athens and Chios, 384 B.C.; IG, ii2• 44= Tod, 124:
tre.at)· between Athens and Chalcis, 37i B.c.) and as DeSanctis (iii. 2. 6r8)
obsen·es, its absence from the Roman treaties we possess is no proof
that others, including this one, cannot have contained such a clause.
On the phrase[()'!} Ka~ vopm d. vi. 4j. t-6 n.; for the general definition
of autonomy cf. iv. 25- 7. 84. s. XV. 24. 2, xviii. 46. s. 46. rs. The guaran-
tees contained in §§ r-2 resemble the declaration frequently made by
the Romans as a sequel to deditio; and deditio seems to have been
467
XV. r8. 2 THE SETTLEMENT AFTER ZAMA
envisaged at some stage, for it is implied in Scipio's remark in 8. 14.
For the formula in such declarations of freedom d. Livy, xlv. 29. 4
(Macedon in r68: follo\\'ing P.), 'omnium primum liberos esse iubere
l'vlacedonas, habentes urbes easdem agrosque, utentes legibus suis'.
But such declarations are found without any preceding act of deditio
(e.g. the Isthmus declaration of : xviii. 46. 5), and there was no
deditio on this occasion. See n.ubler, I98 n. 2; Reuss, Volk. Gmnd. 97·
Hence there is no reason why such a guarantee cannot have been
embodied in the treaty, and though we do not possess the text of this,
it is probable that it was.
3. TOUS a.txf.'o.l-.wTOUS ••• xpovou: d. Livy, XXX. 37· J, 'perfugas fugi-
tiuosque et captiuos omnes redderent Romanis'; App. Lib. 54, Kai.
alxp..ct.-\WTa mivTa Kai ath-op..o.\ov>, Kai ouovs ltwlfla.s '!TaMas ifyayo';
Dio, xvii. 57· 82, Tovs alxp..aA<vTovs Tovs n ath-opo.\ovs ovs -/jTo' Twv
•pwp..alwv ~ TWV O"Vp..p.axwv ucpwv elxov a7To8oiJvat. Appian adds that
this was to be done within thirty days of peace being declared. It
looks as if a reference to a.in-6p.o.\m has dropped out of P. after
a.ixp.a.AwTovs; the two appeRr in xviii. 1. 13, 44· 6, xxv. 2. 8;
and in both xxi. 30. 3 and xxi. ,32. 5 the text of P. has similarly to be
reconstructed from Livy. The distinction between runaway slaYes
and deserters is clearly drawn in their respective punishments: d.
Livy, xxx. 43· 13: the deserters were either beheaded or, if Roman
citizens, crucified (d. VaL Max. ii. 7· 12).
Ta fl(I.Kpa 1rl-.oio. ••• Tous (l\(cpavT(I.S: d. Livy, xxx. 37. 3, 'et naues
rostratas praeter decem triremes traderent elephantosque quos
haberent domitos, neque domarent alios'; App. Lib. 54, Tris u vav,.
TClS p..aKpds 7Tapa3t8WT€ 'Pwp..aims xwpls S!Ka p..6vwv Kat TOVS JAl,PavTa<;
ouovs €xt:T<; Dio. xvii. 57· 82, Kat Tovs £.\lcpaliTas 7TaVTaS' Kat TCls Tpt~pns
7TA~v 8€Ka 7Tapa3ovvat, Kat TO .\omov p..~ K£KTfja6at p..~n £M,Po.VTa<; p.~n
vavs. On the ships Dio is inaccurate, and Appian imprecise. Livy's
additional detail concerning elephants sounds plausible; cf. xxi.
43· r2 (similar ban imposed on Antiochus). Livy, xxx. 43· rz,
records the burning of the Punic ships; and Zon. ix. 14 says,
following Dio, that most of the elephants were taken to Rome, but
some were given to Masinissa. Some of the former appear at Cynos-
cephalae (xviii. 23. 7).
4. rroAEf!.oV f1'18Evt ••• 'Pwl"'(l.twv yvwf1'1S: d. Livy, xxx. 37· 4,'bellum
neue in Africa neue extra Africam iniussu populi Romani gererent';
App. Lib. 54, p..~n Manuavaaar~ p.ftu a.Uo/ 'Pwp.alwv cpl.\cp 7ToA<p.<ir•
fL"f/OE O'TPO.TEIJnv nvd. Kapx'looviwv J7T' JKolvovs a7TO ')If TOV KOWOV; Dio,
xvii. 57. 82, p..~u 7TOAep..ov 1rpos p..7JO€va 1rapa T~l' 'Pwp.a{wv yvwp.~J"
dvatpd:aBat. P. distinguishes waging war outside Africa (which i~
completely forbidden) and waging war inside Africa (which requires.
Roman approval). Appian adds the ban on making war on a Roman
ally (including Masinissa) and this seems to be implied in Livy, xlii.
468
THE SETTLE~ENT AFTER ZAMA XV. rS. 5
23. 3-4, 'Carthaginienses foedere inligatos silere: prohiberi enim extra
fines efferre arma; quamquam sciant in suis finibus, si inde Numidas
pellerent, se gesturos bellum, illo baud ambiguo capite foederis de-
teneri, quo diserte uetentur cum sociis populi Romani bellum gerere'.
Here Livy distinguishes between making war outside the Carthaginian
fines, which is contrary to the treaty, and defensive war within
the Jines, which is only forbidden if the opponent is a Roman
ally {Masinissa) ; and in I49 the Romans declared war on Carthage
(Livy, ep. 49) 'quod exercitus extra fines duxissent, quod socio
populi Romani et amico Masinissae arma intulissent' (i.e. a breach
of the treaty on both scores). Badian, 126, and Sculiard, Scip. 256,
reject the clause forbidding all war against an ally of Rome as
contrary to ius gentium (cf. Livy, xlii. 41. n); but it had its value
to the Romans as going beyond the clause quoted by P., in which
m)/..q..t.ov Jm<jJ£pnv refers specifically to offensive warfare (d. I7. 3)
and does not cover action taken in defence against an attack by
Masinissa. Hence its authenticity is probably to be accepted. Livy
refers to carrying war extra fines, because the only easy way in
which the Romans could decide whether the Carthaginians were
waging otlcnsive warfare was to inquire whether they were inside
their own territory or outside--if the latter, they were aggressors!
The clause forbidding them to engage in warfare against a Homan
ally would put them in the wrong even inside their own territory,
and thus opened the door to continuous proYocation, ending
ultimately in the Third Punic War.
5. ohc£a.s KO.L xwpa.v Ka.i 1TOAf:tS .•• Ma.aavvaa~: cf. Livy, XXX. 37. 4,
'Masinissae res redderent foedusque cum eo facerent'; Dio, xvii.
57· 82, Kal rip Maa<vlaaq. m:h,rwv wv elxov at'n-ov drroa'Ti]vat Kal EKELVltJ
Sovvat, T~V T£ xwpav Kat TQS 11'6.\ns nis J.v rfi Jm~<:paTE{q. a.vroii o!JaaS'
0.</JE'iva,. P. alone mentions the territories of Masinissa's ancestors,
but there seems no reason to reject this sinister clause. But Livy's
reference to a treaty between Carthage and Masinissa is to he rejected;
it was unnecessary in view of the guarantees, and it was contrary
to Roman practice to instigate separate alliances between her allies.
(For a later treaty between Masinissa and Carthage d. App. Lib. 67.)
P.'s reference to boundaries to be later assigned is appropriate to
the preliminary agreement which he is summarizing; this boundary
decision was probably carried out before the treaty was sworn
(though it is not impossible that no clear line of demarcation was
made, owing to the discordant character of the claims; d. \Valsh,
JRS, I96s, rs6 n. 76). Carthage seems to have maintained posses-
sion of Emporia, beyond the Phoenician Trenches (cf. i. 82. 6 n.).
which was later attacked by Masinissa, but claimed by Carthage in
accordance with the treaty (Livy, xxxiv. 6z. g-ro, 'Cartbaginienses
iure finium causam tutabantur, quod intra cos terminos esset, quibus
4°9
XV. 18. 5 THE SETTLEME~T AFTER ZAMA
P. Scipio agrurn qui iuris esset Carthaginiensium fmisset'). This
interpretation (cf. Gsell, iii. 29cr-r) is contradicted by App. Lib. 54,
lv 8' if~KoVTa rif:.Llpa~s • .• Tas <f>poupds Vf:.LGS £fayd.y<Ll' i.K Twv m5A.ewv,
oaa~ TWV tl>o~v~Klowv nl.<f>pwv eKTO'!i elm, Kai oaa ath-wv lx<T€ (Jf:1-1JPfl
chrooavvat (on the Phoenician Trenches cf. § I n.); and De Sanctis
(iii. :z. 6:.n) suggests that the word Atf:luKwv should be inserted be-
tween Twv and 1r6A.ewv, so that the ban did not apply to the Liby-
phoenician cities {d. ill. 33· 15 n.). The alternative is to reject
Appian's clause entirely; d. Scullard, Scip. 257-8.
6. oUOj.LETpiiua.l TE TTJV Mva.j.Lw •.• Ka.TQ TtlS uuv8~Ka.<;: d. Livy,
xxx. 37· 5, 'frumentum stipendiumque auxiliis donee ab Roma lcgati
redissent praestarent'; App. Lib. 54. o<.!Jat!T€ 0~ is Oa1TaV"f]V rfi (JTpanfj.
O:AA.a T(LAalJTa xD.ta, Kat ayopav. The limitation to auxiliaries in Livy is
probably erroneous; and r ,ooo talents is a suspiciously large sum,
for at ro denarii a month (cf. vi. 39· r:z-15 n.) r,ooo talents would pay
:zoo,ooo infantry for three months. Taubler, 69-70, suggests that
Appian's figure is a first instalment of the indemnity; but it would
still be far too large, even with double pay (Hallward, CAH, \'iii.
103). The most likely explanation is an error in Appian (cf. Scullard,
Scip. 254; Aymard, Pallas, 1953. 59 n. 16).
7. O.pyupLou TnAa.vTa. j.LUp~a. KTA.: cf. Livy, xxx. 37· 5, 'decem milia
talentum argenti discripta pensionibus aequis in annos quinquaginta
soluerent'; App. Lib. 54. Ka1 fS 'PWf:.L"f}V iKda-rov ETOUS aJ'a<f>t!pw
EiJf:lo•~Ka TaAaVTa a~aKO(TLfl, e7T1 1T€vnJKOVTa iv~aVTOVS; omitted from
Dio. The period of fifty years was intended to prolong the period of
subjection and in 191 the 1\omans refused an offer to pay off several
instalments in advance (Livy, xxxv:i. 4· 7-9, 'responsurn nullam ante
diem accepturos'). On the value of the silnr Euboic-Attic talent
see i. 62. 9 n.; xxi. 43· rg n.
8. bllt1Pou~ ••• EKa.T6v: d. Livy, xxx. 37· 6, 'obsides centum arbi-
tratu Scipionis darent ne minores quattuordecim annis neu triginta
maiores'; Dio, xvii. 57· 82, Of:.L~pous TE a<foas 8ouva1..; App. Lib. 54,
dvoxas liE: ~v i8€,\1JTE A.afMv, la-rrc: 7Tp;;afkua1JT< €s 'Pwp.1Jv, 15waETe f:.LEV
~f:.Lrv aUT{Ka i5f:.L>)pa, 1T€VnJKOVTa KaL EK<lTbV 1Tat8as, or,, av au-r6s; JmMew-
p.at ••• Kai y•vof:.Lffvwv Twv ar.ovowv, a7TaA>]if;ea8E Til (Jf:.LYJpa. For Appian
the hostages are a pledge of good faith until the treaty is concluded,
for P. they guarantee the peace itself. Taubler (40. n. r), comparing
the provisions made in the negotiations with Philip in rg8 (xviii.
39· s-6), suggests reading oil y<VOf:J-EVWII TWV 0'1TOV0WV (better f:.Lry ');
but the circumstances are not entirely parallel, since Philip had nol
yet been defeated, and Appian is speaking of hostages guaranteeing
the preliminaries, not the final peace. It seems safer to accept Ap·
pian's text as it stands and to assume that P. refers to a separat<·
clause related to the final settlement; this would explain the dif·
ference in numbers (roo in P., rso in Appian). It seems from late1
470
THE SETTLEJI.1E"i\T AFTER ZAJ\IA XV. :zo
references in Liry (xxxii. :z. 3-4 (r99), xl. 34- 14 (r8r), xlv. 14. 5 (r68))
that these hostages were still at Rome in 168 and that their personnel
was changed from time to time (so ~issen) ; it seems likely, though
it cannot be proYed, that roo hostages continued to live in Italy until
the tribute vYas all paid off (d. xxi. 32. 9-Io of Aetolian hostages).
The limitation in age, like replacement, is a normal provision: cf.
xxi. 32. 9-ro (Aetolians), 43· 22 (Antiochus); but its purpose is not
clear, and a subject for speculation. See on these hostages, and on
hostages generally, Aymard, Pallas, I953· 44--63; JRS, r96r, I36-42;
De Sanctis, iii. z. 623; Taubler, rg6; Scullard, Scip. 254.
19. 2. Ka9' <iv of} KaLpov Xf:ynm: the source of this anecdote about
Hannibal-it may well be true-is not identifiable; Livy, xxx. 37·
7-II, has the same account.
TWV EK Tfjc;; yEpoua(ac;;: which council is not clear (d. i. 21. 6 n.}; Lhry,
xxx. 37· 7, gives the name of the councillor Hannibal pulled down
as Gisgo.
3. ayvoe'Lv (J.1EV O!J-OAoyf\am, OELV of:) auyyVWJ.lT)V EXEIV: 'he confessed
that he had been at fault, and they must pardon him': the supple-
ment is Hultsch's (based on Reiske).
ivvaf:TT)s ~v: cf. ii. r. 6, iii. II. 5 n. His departure from Spain with his
father was in 237; if he was born in the middle of 247, he would be
45 in 202; cf. Lenschau, RE, 'Hannibal (8)', col. 2323.
5. vpoaKuve'i: TTJV TUXTJV: 'bless his stars' (Paton} gets the effect; the
phrase is merely a vivid verbal coinage (cf. Vol. I, p. 25).
9. vpEa~EUTac;; E~f:Treflo/E: in the first instance to Scipio, according to
Livy (xxx. ,38. r-3}, who records that the Carthaginians were now
granted a three months' truce during which they were to St'nd envoys
to Rome, but nowhere else, and might receive no envoys save with
Scipio's permission. For the hearing of the envoys by the Roman
Senate, and the final decision to make peace on the terms proposed
by Scipio cf. Livy, xxx. 42. II-43- 9· App. Lib. 57-65 and Diod. xxvii.
13-18 record a debate in the Senate, at which P. Lentulus put the
case for destroying Carthage; as they stand the speeches seem to be
influenced by arguments which preceded the Third Punic War, but
they may derive in part from P. (d. Scullard, Pol. 279---So; contra
W. Hoffmann, Historia, I96o, 3I5-16, who allows them no historicity).
20. The Syro-M acedonian Pact against Egypt

This much-discussed agreement between Philip V and Antioch us III,
directed against the young King Ptolemy V, is mentioned at iii. 2. 8
and xvi. r. 8---9 {cf. xiv. I a 4), and by Livy, xxxi. I4- 5; App. Mac.
4· I; Iustin. xxx. z. 8; Trog. prol. 30; Hier. in Daniel. II. 13 {= Por-
phyry, FGH, z6o F 45); and John Antioch. fg. 54 (FHG, iv. 558).
4il
XV. 20 SYRO-MACEDONIAN PACT AGAINST EGYPT
According to P. the terms provided that Philip should take Egypt

itself, Caria, and Samos, while Antiochus took Coele-Syria and
Phoenicia (iii. 2. 8); and there were guarantees of mutual assistance
(xvi. r. 8-9). In iii. 2. 8 P.'s account has been obscured by the altera-
tion of the words Ta KaT' Aryv1TTov to Ta KaT' Aryawv (Niebuhr's
emendation) or Ta KaTa Kt6v (so Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 70 n. r; iv.
r62 n. 3, who rightly points out that Ta KaT' Aryawv is not good
Polybian Greek for the islands of the Aegean). Since P. firmly be-
lieved that an attack on Egypt was part of Philip's programme
(xvi. ro. r), the MS. reading should be kept (d. Pedech, REG, 1954,
391-3; Ferro, 40 n. 25). However, P. may well have exaggerated the
scope of this secret agreement, as does Appian's quite different
account, according to which (App. Mac. 4· r) Philip was to help
Antiochus against Egypt and Cyprus, and Antiochus to help Philip
against Cyrene, the Cyclades, and Ionia. It is improbable that either
king would have acquiesced in Egypt's falling into the hands of the
other (McDonald, JRS, 1937, r83). But if P. has exaggerated the
scope of the compact, this does not justify rejecting it completely
as a Rhodian invention (so Magie, JRS, 1939, 32 ff.); this theory
takes no account of the help given by Antiochus' governor Zeuxis
to Philip KaTa Tas- avv8~Kas- (xvi. r. 8, 24. 6). Evidently a compact
was made envisaging a division of Ptolemaic possessions abroad
into spheres of Macedonian and Syrian interest; and judging by the
subsequent actions of the two kings it is reasonable to suppose that,
asP. indicates (iii. 2. 8), Philip was to take Caria and the Ptolemaic
naval base at Samos, and Antiochus the Ptolemaic possessions in
Coele-Syria and Phoenicia.
The situation of the present fragment among the res Graeciae of
01. 144, 2 suggests that P. dated it to 203/2; and it is unlikely that the
account of the making of the pact which will have preceded this
passage was in xiv, since P. would hardly include it in a book earlier
than that containing the account of the accession of Epiphanes
which led to it (see above, p. 22). It might be argued that although
P. recounted Epiphanes' accession under 2o3j2, since it probably
occurred a year earlier, the real date of the pact may also have been
in 204/3; but it can hardly be earlier than May 203, when Antiochus
sent a letter to the city of Amyzon in Caria after annexing it from
Ptolemy (Welles, no. 38, dated 24 May 203)-an annexation which
would certainly have violated the agreement with Philip, had the
pact already been made. It therefore seems likely that the pact was
in 01. 144, 2 = 203/2 and was so dated by P. To date it more closely
within that year is harder. Philip's first hostile mo,·e against Egypt
was his seizure of Samos in 2or (d. xvi. 2. 4, 2. 9 n.); but Antiochus
probably opened his assault on Coele-Syria in 202 (d. Holleaux,
Etudes, iii. 319-20) and this is consistent with the making of the
472
SYRO-MACEDONIAN PACT AGAINST EGYPT XV. 20.3
ngrcement in winter 203/2. But the pact may have been later. De
Sanctis (iv. I. 4 n. ro) assumes that in view of the presence of
Ptolemy son of Sosibius in ~1acedon (25. I3 n., xvi. 22. 3), it was
not made before autumn 202; but if Epiphanes' accession was an-
nounced in August 204, Ptolemy can have left for Macedon shortly
afterwards, and his presence there would be a useful cover until
Philip was ready to attack Ptolemaic possessions. Hence Ptolemy's
mission to Macedonia is no obstacle to dating the pact to winter
2o3J2. Despite§ z, it seems likely that the initiative for the pact came
from Antiochus, who was more immediately concerned to attack
Egypt (cf. 25. I3; Cary, Hist. 9J n. 3) though one cannot rule out the
possibility of an approach by Philip following on Antiochus' moves
in Caria, where Philip had long-standing interests maintained
tltrough Olympichus of Alinda, since the time of Doson (cf. Robert,
Bull. ep. I950, no. r82; ap. Holleaux, Etudes, iv. r62 n. r); in this case
the renunciation of his claims in western Asia Minor and Thrace
was perhaps the price Antiochus paid for Philip's neutrality in his
approaching attack on Egypt in Coele-Syria (so Schmitt, Antiochos,
250-{)I).
See Holleaux, CAH, \'iii. 151 (=Etudes, v. 334); De Sanctis,
iv. I. ro ft.; Magic, JRS, 1939, 32-44; ~fcDonald, JRS, 1937, ,
Walbank, Philip, rr3; Pcdech, REG, 1954,391-3; Stier, 9I-92; Ferro,
39-41; L. de Regibus, Aegyptus, 1952, 97-roo; Schmitt, Rom und
Rhodos, 62 n. r; A ntiochos, 237-{)r. For the moral reflections (§§ 4-8)
cf. the similar passage in Diod. xxviii. 3, which is imitated from it
(Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 132).
20. 1. (llhos 0 nToAEI-£<llOS: Ptolemy IV Philopator.

iTo~~-to~ !3oTJ9t:f:v i;<Tav: presumably against the rebels; d. xiv. 12. 4 n.
Both offers were evidently declined: cf. Holleaux, CAH, viii. 148 =
Etudes, v. 331.
2. vapnKnAE<TaVTES 6.XA~Aous: P. makes both kings equally re-
sponsible: see above, 20 n.
C11'nvt:Ai<T9n~ Tov 6.voAEAE~1-£1-£Evov: 'to destroy the orphan', i.e.
Ptolemy V Epiphanes, the 1TaLoiov lll}mov. According to Iustinus (xxx.
2. 6) Epiphanes was 5 when his father died, and according to Hierony-
mus, in Daniel. II. 13 Porphyry, FGH, 26o F 45), only 4; the former
figure seems the more reliable if Epiphanes was born on 9 October
21o (cf. OGIS, 90, 1. 46; Smyly, P. Gurob, no. 12; d. Walbank, JEA,
1936, 21-22) and Philopator died in summer 204 (cf. xiv. u-r2 n.).
3. Kn9avEp ol Tupavvo~: in making their conduct even worse than
that of tyrants, P. says the worst of Philip and Antiochus that he
Gl.ll imagine; cf. ii. 59· 6 n., v. II. 6, viii. 35· 6, xxi. 22. 8 for dicta on
tyranny; von Scala, 44 n. r.
11'poaocpAt:i:v KTA.: 'to deserve to be said to live .. .'.
473
XV. zo. 3 SYRO-MACEDO~L\::\ PACT AGAINST EGYPT
T6v XeyofJ-Evov Twv tx9uwv ~(ov: cf. Corp. paroem. graec. ii. 596 n. 79;
and below xxxiv. 2. 14, 2. r6 for the phenomenon. Wunderer, i. q,
compares the reference in xvi. 24.4 to Philip living the 'life of a wolf',
and thinks both phrases go back to the same historian, whom P.
used as a source. This need not be so. Whether P. is thinking of
Hesiod's account of the order of Zeus~
tx8vu' p.€v Ka~ 81Jpui Kat olwvoZs- 7T€T€1JVOtS'
ou
€u8€w d..\..\~..\ovs-, E7T€L of.K1] EUTtV Ell aUTOtS''
av8pdJ7TOW' o' EOWKE 8lK1Jv, ~ 1To..\..\ov ap[UT'I'J
yLyvETat (TVorlls and Days, 277-So)
-we cannot say; Stier, 95, quotes the passage.
T~ 1-lE(~ov~ Tpo4>TJv ••• Ka.i J3iov: \Vunderer, iii. iS. quotes the German
proverb: 'des einen Tod ist dem andren sein Brot'.
5. etKoTws TtJ Tuxn fJ-EfJ-Ijlc'tfJ-evos: for her capricious behaviour; cf.
\'ol. I, p. r8 n. 6.
avnKaTaAAa.ye£,: 'became reconciled with her'; on this word see
Welles, p. 313 s.v.
Tov Twv ••. paa~Aewv 1Tapaouy~J-anafJ-ov: 'the exemplary chastise-
ment she inflicted on these princes'.
6. ~maTT]aaaa 'Pw~J-a(ous: usually translated 'raising the Romans up
against them'; but there is no parallel for this. Hence Passerini
(Athen. 1936, 182 n. r) suggests with good reason that the sense is
the more usual one of 'drawing the attention of the Romans' to
them.
7. auyKAe~a9evTEs ets 4>opous: 'compelled to pay tribute'; cf. xxi.
II. 9- P. refers to the settlements after the Second Macedonian War
(d. xviii. 44- 2) and after Magnesia (cf. xxi. 43).
8. Tous fJ-EV apOT]V avaaTclTOUS ~1To(T]O'E: the overthrow and dethrone-
ment of Philip's successor Perseus after Pydna (cf. xxix. 2I for P.'s
reflections on this).
To us oe fJ-LKpoG oe~v •.. O'UfJ-1TTWfJ-aaL: for the humiliating of Antioch us
Epiphanes cf. xxix. 27 (and especially §§ II-IJ, on the saving of
Egypt and the expulsion of Antiochus at the hands of Tyche).
21-24. Philip and Cius: the enslavement of Thasos

In 202 Philip opened his campaign in the Aegean area by forcing
Lysimacheia and Calchedon to join the Macedonian alliance (23. 8-')),
annexing Perinthus (xviii. 2. 4, 44- 4), which enjoyed sympolity with
Byzantium (cf. DeSanctis, iv. 1. 7; Magie, ]RS, 1939, 36-37), and
was otherwise independent (Holleaux, Etudes, iv. JI8 n. I}, and
attacking Cius. These e\'ents ·will belong to the campaigning season
of this year, but cannot be dated more closely. P. seems to draw 011
a Rhodian source, who may be Zeno (cf. Cllrich, 36).
474
PHILIP AND Cl US XV. 22. 1
ll. 1. Mo!..vo.yopo.s: clearly one of the x.;lpun-ot mentioned in § 4·

'll'o.pn To~s K,(o.v)ois: Valesius restored the correct form; P reads
Klots, Suidas KEiot>. Cius is a town in Bithynia, in the innermost
recess of the Ktavos ~<6ATTos (Ps.-Scyl. 93; cf. Mela, i. roo; Strabo,
xii. 563 f.}, modern Gemlik; see Ruge, RE, 'Kios (1)', cols. 486-8;
Magie, 306, I 188-9.
2. TOU') E(,KO.Lj>OVVTO.S ••• U'II'O~aAAwv TOl') oxAOLS: 'putting the richer
citizens in the power of the mob'; d. L 8.z. z, ro~s ... daaPnxBl~"Ta~
rhr1.{3ille rotS' 8ryplot>.
"''PLE'II'oLT)ao.To f1ova.pxLK1)v ~~ouala.v: 'secured the position of a
tyrant'; Suidas adds that dt'!/PE81J 7Tapd. nvaw (s.v. 8ryp.aywytK6s}.
3. 8Ln T~v a.\m'ilv lt~ouMo.v: hence they have only themselves to
blame ; d. ii. 7. 2 ; Siegfried, 89.
!5. o(J Suvo.vTa.L Xi}so.' Ti}s &.vo~a.s: cf. v. 75· z-{) n. and xviii. 40. 1-4
for the sentiment.
1Ca.9arrep ~vLo. TWv &.A.oywv ~t!>wv: in view of § 8 tJEMara ~<ara7Tt6VTwv,
Wunderer (iii. 31) argues that P. is thinking primarily of fish. ~tfiov
is used of the sword-fish (xxxiv. 3· J, 3· 8} and of such sea-beasts as
dolphins and sharks (xxxiv. z. 14}; but UAEap, bait, is not used
exclusively of catching fish, and P. uses the phrase KaraTTlvew ro
&I.Aeap virtually as dead metaphor (cf. xx. rz. 7, xxii. 8. 4, xxix. 9· 7
(cf. 8. 3}). Moreover, apKvs is a hunting net rather than a fishing net.
The {tfia then are probably any wild animals contrasted with man,
not excluding but not particularly stressing fish.
7. T~ 1TpoELpf)f1EV!f Tj>01Tif: by letting such demagogues as Mol-
pagoras impose upon them.
8. a.t TO~o.lho.L rroAm;.'i:o.L: 'such acts of policy'.
l2. l. tPiAtrr1TOS ~eupLos yEVOf1Evos KTA.: apparently Prusias (and

l'bilip} exploited the factions in Cius to get possession of it; and P.'s
strictures on the people of Cius (zr. 3-8} suggest that their dissen-
sions brought on this intervention. Which side the kings supported
is unknown; but Philip, who had been moving away from the pos-
sessing classes for a \'ariety of reasons (Walbank, Philip, I6-t--sL
cannot be assumed to have been necessarily opposed to the elements
represented by Molpagoras.
T~ KfJSEaTfj: 'his kinsman by marriage', Prusias I of Bithynia (23. ro}.
Strabo (xii. 564} and Hermippus of Berytus, fg. 72 (FHG, iii. sr}
state that Prusias I gave the name of Apamea to the town of
Myrleia, which Philip captured and handed over to him at the same
time as Cius, naming it after his wife. Niebuhr (Kl. Schr. i. 257} sug-
gested that this Apama was Demetrius II's daughter, and the sister
of Philip V (cf. Beloch, iv. 2. 137}. However, an inscription from
Asia Minor found in Piraeus and published by Wilhelm (]ahresh.
1908, 75 ff.; d. IG, ii-iiiz. 3172} showed that the name of Prusias II's
4iS
PHILIP A::.\D Cit'S
wife was Apama, and since Stephanus of Byzantium (s. v. Mvp.\ttai
states that it was Nicomedes II Epiphanes who renamed the town
after his mother, the wife of Prusias II, the inscription has been
held to support his statement and to discredit those of Strabo and
Hermippus. Prusias II indeed married a daughter of Philip V (Livy.
xlii. 12. 3-4, 29. 3; App. Mith. 2), who may well have been called
Apama; but he did so after Philip's death, and this marriage cannol
explain why Prusias I is here called Philip's KTfO<(}T~>· The Piraeu"
inscription is irrelevant to the question whether Stephanus should
be preferred to Strabo and Hermippus on the origins of the name
Apamea for )iyrleia. In their authority might be held to bt>
higher; and since Prusia.s I renamed Cius Prusias (Strabo, xii. 563:
Steph. Byz. s.v.llpouua), there seems good reason to think he also re
named :\'lyrleia Apamea. If so, this may well have been after his
wife, and if she was Philip's sister, as Niebuhr suggested, the term
KTfDHm]<: is explained. Note that Demetrius II married Stratonice,
the daughter of Antiochus I Soter (Iustin. xxviii. r. 2); and it
would be most probably through her that the name Apmna came
into the Antigonid dynasty from the Seleucids. There is no reason
why Prusias I and Prusias II should not both have married Anti-
gonid wives named Apama; indeed such a coincidence would explain
Stephanus' error about Myrleia. See for the above view Vitucci,
48 n. 4; Tsherikower, 49; Magie, ii. u89; contra Holleaux, Rome.
207 n. r; Habicht, RE, 'Prusias (r)', cols. ro86-7, rogj-6.
Tous aAAoTpt6.~ovTas: 'those who were opposed to him' (d. 25. 34) ;
not, with Paton, 'the revolutionary party'.
3. T~v •.. .pfj~"lv l'11r~p 't'fls ••. w~o'"lTos: for the tradition of Philip's
savagery as a murderer of his friends see the passages quoted in
viii. 12. 2 n.; and the discussion in Walbank, CQ, r943, 4-5.
£~ O.~opo'i'v: i.e. by acting unjustly (§ 2) and by acting savagely to-
wards a Greek city; P. distinguishes the two quite separate crimes.
TTjv €rr' d.aef3d~ 86$av: part of the tradition of Philip at this time; cf.
xviii. 54· ro.
4. To'i's d.rro Twv rrpoetpl)fJ-EVwv rroAEwv rrpeaf3euTa'Ls: the passage in
which they were mentioned is lost, but they included T<hodes (see
next chapter), and perhaps Athens and Chios, who had made ap-
proaches as neutrals during the First :\1acedonian War (Livy, xxYii.
30. r-s; xxviii. 7· 14).
23. 1. f) TUX'fl .•. auvf)pyl)aE: i.e. pure chance played a part in tbc
coincidence (as in 29. 5, where P. uses Ta.rm)J.LaTov): no idea of au
independent, purposeful power seems implied; cf. Vol. I, p. r6;
Siegfried, 62.
2. Tov O.rroXoy~afJ-OV €rrot.eiTo: 'was making his speech'; for the neutral
sense of a1ToAoywfL6S cf. vi. 2. I, 2. 7; \Velles, no. 22, L rg. But often
PHILIP AND CIUS XV. 23. 8
the idea of 'justification' is found, and may be partly present here.

Philip's ambassador had probably been sent to Rhodes in reply to
those sent from Rhodes to him (zz. 4 n.).
Kpt:milv f1o"l Tfj; m)XEw;: 'already master of the city'.
l)(owa~ T~ l)tl!-1'¥ T~V xapw T0.0TT)V: 'he granted this faVOUr to the
people', The favour is the general treatment implied in luyaAoifJVxla.
The of!!LOS' is probably the Rhodian people (cf, § 6), whom the ambas-
sador is addressing (so Schweighaeuser and Shuckburgh), but could
possibly be the people of Cius, as Paton takes it. If the former, the
insult to Rhodes is all the greater.
.pa.vepO.v ••• Tfi 1TOAE~ Ka.Ta.O'TtlO'a.~ T~v ••• 1rpoa.ipeO"w: 'to reveal to
the city his sentiments towards it'; here too the city is probably
Rhodes, despite the fact that two lines earlier m.J,\.,ws- is Cius.
3. To 1rpuTa.ve:'Lov: see xiii. 5· I n.
4. b 1TpUTa.v~s: probably the chairman of the committee of five
(cf. xiii. 5· In.).
1-LTJ ouva.cr&m 1T'crn00'a.': this incredulity is, as Schweighaeuser ob-
serves, a little hard to understand after the Rhodian experience with
IIeracleides (xiii.
8. O.pn yap OLa.A£Xul-lE:vos KTX.: in the peace o[ 2o6 (cf. xiii. 7· 2-3 n.).
This sentence contains two ambiguities, (a) the meaning of the
genitive absolute </;lAw.· . .. Klal'wv, (b) the context of the phrase
{Jpax.Et: XPDl''{J 1TpOT€pov.
(a) Holleaux (Etudes, iv. 129 n. I; Rome, 29r n. 2\ following Casau-
hon and Schweighaeuser takes the sense to be: 'quum amicis ac
sociis ... uteretur Aetolis, Lysimachensibus, Chalcedoniis et Cianis' ;
but from xviii. 3· 12 and 5· 4, which he quotes in support of this
interpretation, it is clear that l)hilip distinguished between his
friendship with Aetolia and his alliance with Prusias (which took
precedence over it). Peace with Aetolia did not make .Philip her ally;
and the loose use of cplAm Kat avfllwxo~ in xviii. 5· z (cf. xv. 24. 4) does
not justify treating aUJLflaxo~ here as a mere 'expletif' of cpf.>.m. The
sense must be 'when (or although) the people of Lysimacheia, Cal-
chcdon, and Cius were friends and allies of the Aetolians'.
(b) The phrase flpax"t xp6vcp 1Tpchtpov stands awkwardly. Holleaux,
loc. cit., again follows Casaubon and Schweighaeuser in taking it
with cp[Awv • .• Ktavwv; so too Paton, who translates: 'when the
Aetolians had at no distant date entered into friendship, etc.' This is
just possible assuming a slight anacoluthon: P. writes fJpax•f xp6v4J
1tponpov as if yuofl.!vwt• preceded rather than {nra.pxovrwv. But this
is difficult, and a case can be made for taking fJpax"f • •• 77poT<pov
with what follows (witlwut necessarily accepting vVilamowitz's
transposition of the phrase to follow 77pwTov 1d:t·; d. Klaffenbach,
JC, ixz. r, p. xxxiii L 39; contra, Flaceliere, 312 n. 3): Shuckburgh
takes it like this. On this view, however, the phrase applies only to
477
XV. 23.8 PHILIP AND CIUS
the taking of Lysimacheia and Calchedon, but not Cius; nor does it
seem relevant that the taking of Lysimacheia was only a short time
before, whereas the recent friendship with Aetolia is very much to
the point. On the whole then the case for taking the phrase with
vr.apxovrwv is the stronger. But the sentence would gain from its
exclusion, and a case could be made for treating it as a gloss. The
difference to the sense is negligible, since so vague a phrase cannot
be used to date the acquisition of these towns by Aetolia (see below).
In xviii. 3· n-12 P. makes Alexander the lsian describe the re·
lationship between Aetolia and Lysimacheia and Cius as avp.,7ToArnf.a;
but the link will rather haxe been one of alliance with iao1ToAL7·do..
which goes better with mJp.,p.,axot (cf. ii. 46. 2 n. for other context;;
where P. fails to distinguish clearly between these two concepts).
When these towns established close relations with Aetolia is un-
certain. Niese (ii. 581) puts the alliance in 202 as a result of Dicae-
archus' piracy; but the weakness of Aetolia then is against this
supposition, and the alliance was more probably struck some tim,·
during the First Macedonian War, when it was a natural reply t"
the threatening compact between Philip and Prusias (d. De Sancti~.
iv. 1. 6 n. q). On the previous alignment of these tovvns see below.
Auo-~11axewv: Lysimacheia was founded by Lysimachus on the
Thracian Chersonese (Gallipoli) in c. 309 (Diod. xx. 29. 1 ; Strabo.
vii, fg. 51; Livy, xxxiii. 38. n; Pliny, X at. ltist. iv. 48). Certain
::\ISS. of Ptol. iii. n put it at Hexamilion (mod. Ortakoy) just
south of the River Melas (Ka\·ok) at the entrance to the Chersonese;
and this has been commonly accepted. Casson, 111acedonia, Thracc
and lllyria (Oxford, 1926), 2n, sited it on the Melas Gulf near Cape
Xeros (Bakla Burunu), where Cardia stood; but Appian (B.C. iL SS)
makes Cardia and Lysimacheia protect the entrance to the Cher-
sonese, wmTEp mJAat, which would suggest that one stood on or near
either sea. There is therefore good reason to accept the site suggested
by Daphne Hereward (Archaeology, 1958, 129) at Sukruler Tepe to-
\\·ards the Hellespont just south of Bolayir (Plagiari); anticipatf'• I
in the discussion of L. Robert, Hellenica, s. 1948, 51-54: 10, 19.::;:;.
266-71 (publishing a monument dating from Philip's occupation nl
the city, bearing the relief of a club and the inscription ~f3aarAiw \·
lf>tAlTT1Tov, similar to those on some of l)hilip's coins). See also Meritt.
\Vade-Gery, and McGregor, The Athenian Tribute Lists, i (Cambridw·.
Mass., 1939), 564-5. Together with the rest of the Thracian Chersonr~··
Lysimacheia had fallen to Egypt between 2.J.5 and 2-J.I (see v. 3S·
7-8 n.). \Vhen it joined the Aetolian alliance (see previous note) an
Aetolian rnpaT7JYD> was installed (xviii. 3· rr). Philip appears to ha \ ,.
taken over Lysimacheia peaceably, alleging that his object was t''
protect it from the Thracians (xviii. 4· 6), to whom indeed it quickh
fell in 198 after his withdrawal in 199-8 (Livy, xxxiii. 38. II). Au
l'HlLlP Az..<D CIUS
inscription containing fragments of the £mavv01}K1J to a treaty between
Philip and Lysimacheia was published by Oikonomos, 'Emyparpa1 Tfjs
MaK£3ovla>, r (Athens, 1915), 2-7, and conveniently reproduced by
Bikerman, Rev. phil. 1939, 348-g (d. Heuss, Stadt und Herrscher, r8o;
Robert, Hellenica, ro, 1955, 269-70); it contains mutual oaths and
mentions the rf>u\la Kat av!L!Laxla existing between the city and the
king.
Ka.AxTJSov(wv: on the site see iv. 43· 8 n.; Magie, 304, u83-4· The
status of Calchedon when it joined the Aetolian alliance is uncertain,
but it was probably independent; cf. SEG, iv. 720, a decree of Phocaea
and Tenedos (third century) granting a request to be recognized as
lEpd Kat aavAo;. There are no grounds for the view that Philip handed
it over to Prusias (so Ed. Meyer, RE, 'Bithynia', col. 5r8; Rostovtzeff,
SEHHl"i', ii. 66z).
KLa.vwv: cf. 21. r n. Its status before joining Aetolia is also unknown.
9. ~pa.xei xpov<tJ 1TpoTepov: see above, § 8 n.
aTpO.TTJyou 1rap' AtTwAwv ••• SLa.Tp(~ovTos: as in Lysimacheia (§ 8 n.);
so probably Calchedon had one too.
10. oiKom:Sov EPTJI-LOV lKAYJpovolleL: P.'s reference to Prusias' dis-
satisfaction is against the view of Stier, 27, that Philip's treaty with
Prusias contained a clause similar to that in the treaty between
the Romans and the Aetolians (z12/rr), by which when a city was
captured the Romans had the persons and property and the Aeto-
lians the city and its territory (d. ix. 39· 3 n., xi. 5· 5· xviii. 38. 7 n.).
24. l. TTaV Twv Sao'iwv m)ALV: probably situated on the north coast
of the island at the modern town of Limenas; d. von Hiller, RE,
'Thasos (r)', col. r3ro. At the time of Philip's attack Thasos was in-
dependent; Beloch (iv. 2. 347) quotes no evidence to support his
assertion that it was Ptolemaic (d. DeSanctis, iv. r. 7 n. 20).
Ka.l TaUTTJV •.• ESTJvSpa1roSiaa.To: an abbreviation by the epitomator.
2. MYJTpoSwpov: known only from fg. 7, which suggests that he later
fell foul of the king. He could be the 1111]-rpoowpoc; LTparwvo;; Mrud8wv
who was given proxeny at l\Iiletus in 228/7 (Rehm, Milet, i. 3· 221
n. 99; d. Hiller von Gaertringen, RE, 'Miletos', col. r6o7); but the
name is quite common.
il.cjlpoup{aToU!; KTA.: cf. iv. 25. 6 n., xv. r8. 2 n. (with references); for
d.vemard.OfLWTD> d. 'Welles, no. 70, l. 13 (avedaraO!Lov), pp. 313 and
335 (E-maraOw:Jw). The billeting of troops was one of the most resented
features of occupation; see the evidence collected by Launey, ii.
695-715 (and especially 697 n. 5).
3. auyxwpeiv Tov ~aaLA£a KTA.: probably the oratio obliqua is to be
explained (as Schweighaeuser suggests) as being the words of
Metrodorus' answer.
44. Criticism of Philip: P. believes in Philip's imperialist ambition
4i9
XV. 24. 4--{) PHILIP'S ENSLAVEMENT OF TIL\SOS
and his criticism is based on this belief. His point is that whereas all
kings by exploiting the slogan of liberation and then enslaving those
who trust them lose their reputation, but at least gain their ends,
Philip by revealing his duplicity at the outset shows himself to be a
pure madman. The absence of any moral criterion here is note-
worthy.
4. Ktt6LKoJleVOL ••• Twv rrpa~Ewv: 'having gained their ends'.
5. Tou JlEV Ka.Aou ••• Tou OE rra.pa.uTa cruJlcp€povTos: cf. xxi. 32 c 2,
TO TE Ka.\ov <f>dyH -r~v rofi Trapo.trriKa .\vatn:Aovs <f>vatv Kal: -r6 Auai-r€.\<s
~v rofi KaAofi.
6. rrEptAO.Jl~O.vovTa. Tal:<; iA'!I'Lo:FL T~v oiKOUf1EVT~V: this is P.'s picture
of Philip and the Antigonids; cf. v. roz. 1 n.
'IT6.cra<; aKJlTJV aKEpa.LoU<; ••• TQ'ij E'ITt~OAa<;: 'his chances of success iu
all his projects unimpaired' (Paton).
~v To'Ls tAa.x£<7TOL':i ~~:a.l. rrpwToL<; n7w urrom'!I'Tovnuv: toP. Philip's an-
nexations of this year (which may have included Lemnos; cf. xviii.
44· 4- n. on Myrina) are the first step in a programme of unlimited
expansion, and it is against this interpretation that he judges him;
cf. xvi. Io. r, where he regards his failure to sail on Macedonia as a
further proof of madness.
24 a-36. Affairs of Egypt: the accession of Ptolemy V Epiphanes and

the downfall of Agathocles
That P. used Ptolemy of Megalopolis as a source is possible but
beyond proof; see xiv. 11. 2 n.
[24 a. Chronology: see above, p. 23. :\bas (AIPhO, I949. 443-6)
has demonstrated that this passage should follow 25. I9. For com-
ments by P. elsewhere on his chronological system and deviations
from it d. xiv. rz, xxxii. 11. z-4. For a reference back to the present
passage and to zs. 19 see xxviii. r6. Io-u.
im:i '!l'acra.s: ::\1aas, loc. cit., suggests brei (yap) rraao.s; on is, of course,
from the excerptor of M.
Ta<; KC1TaAA11Aa. rrpa~ELS: cf. xxviii. r6. I I, T<ls KaraU~Aov<: 1rpagn<;:
'contemporary events' (not 'successive events', as Paton). See iii.
32. 5 n. on the meaning of KardAA1JAo<;.=
~25. 1-2. Character of Sosibius: on whom see v. 35· 7 n. The most

probable place for this summary would be in connexion with tlw
account of Sosibius' death (cf. Schweighaeuseradloc.). Maas (AIPhO,
1949, 446-i), in a study of Sosibius, suggests that P. recounted hi:-.
death in a passage omitted by Q but standing originally somewbert·
between 25. ro (burial of Philopator and Arsinoe) and zs. n (end ol
mourning). Kiese (ii. 573 n. 3) assumed that his death preceded
Epiphanes' accession, but this is clearly wrong (cf. § 5;
480
CHARACTER OF SOSIBI US XV. 25. 2
Ptolemaic Dynasty, zsz f.; Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 49 n . .;). Holleaux,

ibid., suggested that his death fell during the period covered by the
part of the text, now lost, between 25 and z6 a; but Q made sub-
stantial omissions and .Maas's hypothesis is the most convincing. See
further above, p. 23.
L ljlw8m(Tpo1Tos: cf. § 5; the word comes from the epitomator, as it
does in Pat 25. zo and in M. at 34· I, and Biittner-\Vobst indicates
this in his text. :\laas (A I PhO, 1949, 443-4) suggests plausibly that
it was a Polybian word which occurred in some lost passage dealing
with Alexandrian affairs.
aKEOos 6.yxivouv Ka.l. 1roXuxpov~ov: cf. xiii. 5· 7 for UK<voc;; 'a creature
of extraordinary cunning, who long retained his power' (Shuck-
burgh). For a fairer estimate of Sosibius' achievements-he had saved
Egypt earlier in Philopator's reign---see Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 48 n. 5,
who justly compares P.'s prejudice against him with his hostility
towards Hermeias, the grand vizier of Antiochus III (cf. iv. 48. IZ n.,
v. 40. 4-57. 8 n., 41. I n., 42. 3 n.).
2. 4>ovov AuatJ.I.IiXIf: Ptolemy II Philadelphus was f1rst married to
Arsinoe, daughter of Lysimachus of Thrace, who bore him three
children, Ptolemy III Euergetes, Lysimachus, and Berenice. Lysi-
machus was probably born after z8o (Beloch, iv. 2. r8s). and his
death seems to have preceded that of Magas below); Holleaux
(Etu.des, iii. 52 = iii. 385) ar!';ued, against the common view placing
the event soon after Philopator's accession (:\'iese, ii. 36I ; Bouche-
Leclercq, Lagides, i. 289), that Lysimachus ·was murdered during
the reign of Ptolemy III, his brother. Nothing else is known of him
beyond a reference in Schol. Theoc. xvii. 128 (p. 324, C. Wendel).
Whether the demotic inscription from Thebes mentioning a 'Lysi-
machus, strategos, brother of the kings' (Insc. Cat. Cairo, Dernot.
Denkmaler, i. 3''3i; cf. Krall, S.-B. Wien, ros, IS84, refers to
him or not is still uncertain; cf. Holleaux, h'tHdes, 385 n. I ; Otto
and Bengtson, Abh. Bay. Al~ad. 1938, q, 102 n. 5 (suggesting that it
dates to the later Ptolemaic period). 'Ptolemy son of Lysimachus'
known from many inscriptions (cf. Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 365-404, and
especially 397-402; OGIS, 55; d. TAM, ii. 1) appears to be the son of
Lysimachus of Thrace and to have nothing to do with Lysimachus
the brother of Ptolemy III (d. Welles, i5-76, r61-2; M. Segre, Clara
Rhodos, 1938. I8r-2o8; L. Robert, Bull. epig. 1939. nos. 38o-I; ap.
Holleaux, f...'tudes, iii. 404); see further Roos, .\1nem. 1950, 54 ff.;
Volkmann, RE, 'Ptolemaios (r3)', cols. 1596-'7.
May~ Til! nToX~e:J.~.aiov KTA.: on the murder of Magas, son of Ptolemy
liT, see v. 34· x n.
BEpEViKn TU nToAE!la(ov: murdered along with her son Magas; cf.
v. 34· I n., 36. 1 n.
KX~::oJ.I.evu: on his death cf. \', 35·-39 ; Sosibius was hardly to blame here.
814173 I i
XV. :05. z D.\ TE OF ACCESSION OF PTOLEMY V
&uyo.Tpi Bep~;vt~<'I'JS !A.pow6n: wife and full sister of Ptolemy IV Philo
pator; cf. v. 8J. 3 n. The omission of Arsinoe's name from a prh·ate
dedication from Thebes 89) need not imply that the queen
was kept in the background; but John Ant. fg. 54 (FHG, iv. 55?ll
records her dismissal in favour of Agathocleia (cf. xiv. II. s). ·who
murdered her after Philopator's death, apparently in some incident
which involved the destruction of the palace: on flToAE!J.o.{ou
(.:1ya8ot<f..e,o.v (sic)) n)v laVTofJ yvvaFKa J!J.pai\ov7w Kal !J.L?- n1•i Twv
JTaLplSwv C1l!varp8ivTos, dTa TEAWT~aat'To:; flToAEjlalou, ~ }:1ya!JoKAna
}1pau·&rp• 3ta¢0<lpet Soi\tp• KO.L TO.VTY)S' avv TOtS' (3aati\dot> Otatp!Japelt:rrjs.
o TE I:upla:; paa•A<VS' E/),wKo> (sic), Kat Tfjs MaK€i5ovlas ti>{ilm1To>,
i'A1Tli5. TOfJ KpaT~(]EW rij> xwpa> aw npo!Jujllq, aTpaTEVO'U(ftv KTA. Miiller.
ad Joe., plausibly that the palace was partly burnt down.
See further§ 3 n., §§ and 26 a 1-2; Walbank, JEA, 1936,29. But
no official reason for her death was aunounced (§ 8).]
3. flETa S' TJJ.Llpas Tpe'Ls l\ T€na.pGS; perhaps, but not certainly, after
the fire in the palace (§ 2 n.). Clearly some \'iolent event is postulatt·d
as a cloak for the production of the ums allegedly containing t!H
ashes of both the king and the queen. On the real date of the event~
described here see xiv. II-rz n. Egyptian records put Epiphanes'
accession before 13 October 204, and probably between 12 March and
8 September 204. If this is correct P. has, probably deliberately, in
eluded under 203/2 e\·ents which occurred the year; on
that hypothesis the announcement described here was probabl\
made in early September 204. The date Phaophi r7 28 NovembeJ.
lv 'ljt 1Tap.Iilap€v T~V (3acnil<{av 1rapO.. ToiJ 7raTpo> (OG!S, go, I. 47) refers
to the subsef]uent enthronization at :Hemphis and not to the cere~
mouy carried out now at Alexandria (d. xiv. 11-12 n.); it is therefore
irrelevant to the dating of this passage.
~v T(il J.LEY~aT~ 11'tipLrrTuA~ Tfj~ a.OM\~: the royal palace occupied the
peninsula of Lochias on the east side of the harbour, and also ex·
tended into the city proper (d. \', 39· 4, 7rpo> n/v aKpav; Athen. \'.
196 A; Caesar, BC, iii. II2); eYentually the palace occupied a quarter
to a third of the city (Strabo, xvii. 793).
O'UVEKaAEaa.v TOU') UTI'O.O''ITLO'Ta~ KO.~ TTJV e,pa.TI'E(a.v: the subject is proL~
ably Agathocles and Sosibius; for Agathocles cf. v. 63. I n., xi\'.
II. In. The hypaspists are most likely the equivalent of Alexander'"
personal staff, as they ·were in the Antigonid court, a small group ol
individuals employed on S1)ecial tasks; cf. , .. z7. 3 n. There is liP
evidence that a body of guards called hypaspists continued to exi~l
under the Ptolemies as they did nnder the Selucids (cf. vii. r6. 2 11.).
8<pa:;re{a is probably the royal bodyguard rather than the cou1 t
generally; cf. iv. 87. 5 n., v. (}(}. 6 n.
Touo; ••• T]y~q.u)vo.os: these will be the officers of the 'Macedonian:--.'.
foot and horse; d. z6. I n.
482
ACCESSIOX OF PTOLEMY V XV. 25. rz
4. civOwJ.LoAoy-.lcravTo: suggests some previous concealment; cf.

Justin. xxx. 2. 6 and above, xiv. II-I2 n.
TO -rr£v9oc; civ£<j~T)vav tcTA.: 'they proclaimed the customary period
of mourning for the people' (Shuckburgh).
5. civ£8t:L~av ~acrtA£a: 'they proclaimed him king'.
~nupo'TTouc;: on the guardianship of Hellenistic kings who are minors
see the discussion and material assembled by W. Otto, Abh. Bay.
Akad. II, 1934, 44-45; index under 'Vormundschaftsregierungen';
Bikennan, 21 ; Holleanx, Etudes, iii. 387 n. I.
7. 1TAtlPTJS ... 6.pwfl6.Twv: presumably because the body was not
accessible: this would be explained if Arsinoe had perished in the
palace fire, as John of Antioch suggests (cf. § 2 n.): but there are
other possibilities, e.g. that she died away from Alexandria.
8. Tij<;; cill.fJOwij<;; <jJ-.lJ.LTJ'> 1Tpocr1TmTwtcu(a<;;: perhaps spread by Deinon
(z6 a 1): so Schmitt, Antiochos, 204-5.
9. oUOt:i<;; oU9Eva Myov E1TOL£LTO: P. is hostile towards Philopator;
cf. xiv. rz. 3·
[25. l-2. l:wcr(~IO'> b ljlw8mhpo1ros .•• :A.pcrwon: see ad loc. for the
likelihood that the sketch of Sosibius' character came here in con-
nexion with his death. The continued prestige of his sons (zs. r3,
32. 6) suggests that he died naturally of old age; cf. Maas, AIPhO,
1949, 447, against Schwcighaeuser's view that Agathocles murdered
him.]
n. TOU<;; ~acrLALtcOUS OliCOUS: 'the royal vaults'; cf. Diod. i. SI. z (of
the Egyptians), rovs ... -rc:Vv TETE.\EVTIJK6rwv rd.cpovs dt:oiovs otKovs
'1TpoaayopEVOVCrtv, ws Ell '%1oov DtaTEAOVllTWIJ TOll a:rrE<pov aiwva. But the
word is used of funerary monuments elsewhere; cf. J. Martha, BCH,
1878, 6ro-u, nos. 29. r, 30 (Cibyra); Cousin, ibid. r894, II, no. 6
(Magnesia on Maeander). Mauersberger, s.v. f3aat,\tK6s, thinks the
palace is meant.
cmo0Ecr9aL Tn <jlaLn: 'to put off mourning'; there is some compression
here, for the mourning would not cease immediately after the burial
when it had hardly begun. The original probably contained an account
of Sosibius' death at this point (§§ r-2 n.).
wljlwv1acrt:: 'he paid'; cf. i. 66. 3 n. on OVJ<VIJWll, 'pay'.
E1TE~wptcLO'E TOV optcov: the form of the oath is not known, but it
would include the king himself as one of the deities; cf. P.M. Meyer,
P. !Iamb. i, no. 57 (cf. Klio, 19r8, 376-Sr); P. Enteux. 48 (v.-ith the read-
ing of A. \Vilhelm, Arch. Pap. ro, 1932, 245); see Launey, 948 n. 2.
12. IPtAO.J.LJ.LWIIa: cf. 26 a r; otherwise unknown.
AL~uapxfJv "Twv teaTel. Kup-.lvTJv Tovwv: evidently in charge of the
Libyan xwpa, which did not belong to the Penta polis; on the technical
sense of -r61To~ see v . .J.I. 7 n. Whether Atf3vd.px7J<;, which is not attested
{8,)
XV. 25. IZ AGATHOCLES AS REGE':'-rT
elsewhere in this sense (though it is found as the name of an internal
Ptolemaic functionary probably concerned with finance), is an
official title is doubtful; see Lesquier, 72 n. 4; Bengtson, Aegyptus,
1952, 38r ; Strat. iii. 157-8 (suggesting that the title was perhaps
simply =pa-rTJyos, known for Cyrenaica from SEG, ix. 55).
otvciv9T)v Knl. :Aya96KAELnv: on Oenanthc, Agathocles' mother, see
xiv. r r. r n.: for Agathoclcia, his sister, xiv. r r. 5 n.
13. neXorra ••• TOV neXorros: the father is known as the recipient
of an honorary decree at Samos at the time of Ptolemy II Philadel-
phus i. 364 Schede, Ath. Mitt. rgig, 24, no. u); he is there
described as the son of Alexander, friend of the king and an army
commander (-rHayfLi~·os bri SwafLEw:;). His son, now sent as an am-
bassador to Antiochus, had already served as governor of Cyprus
under Ptolemy IV (cf. ]liS, 1937, 30, no. 6; OGIS, 84, restored in
the light of the previous text). He married Myrsine, whose sister
Iarnneia 'Y7T€p{JaaaavTo:; is recorded as canephoros of Arsinoe Phila-
delphus in 243{2 (P. Hibeh, 171; PSI, 389). See further, A. Wilhelm,
Wien. A1tz. 1920, xvii-xx\·ii, 53 f.; Launey, i. 308-9.
OUVTt')flElV TTJV 4>lALGV KGL (.lfJ rrnpapaLVELV Tal) , , , ouv9fJKGS: the
treaty is that made in 217 after Raphia, cf. v. 87. 8. If Epiphancs'
accession described here) was in September 204 (see § 3 n.), the
various ambassadors, including Pclops, may have been sent at once
or indeed in the following spriug ; the time indications in P. are quite
vague (cf. § 13, fLHCt 8€ Ta.Lim). Antioclms had already annexed
Amyzon by May 203 (Welles, no. 38; cf. 2o n.), and the wording of
Pelops' message suggests that this was not known at Alexandria
when he was dispatched (cf. Ferro, 38 n. rs); on the other hand, the
words 11-~ 1Tapaf1alv<:Lv • • • avv8~Ka:; could be a polite protest
a breach already committed.
nToAEf1GLOV ••• TOV Iwot~LOU: nothing is knovm of him outside
P.'s pages; cf. xvi. 22. 3-n; Volkmann, RE, 'Ptolemaios (47)', col.
Ji63.
rrept Tijs imya.(.l~ns: 'concerning the marriage-alliance'; probably a
proposal, already mooted under Philopator, for a marriage (or be-
trothal) between Epiphanes and a daughter of Philip (who could
also have been a child). For a defence of the 1\fS. reading against
Svoronos' emendation imfLa.xtas see the conclusive arguments of
Holleaux, Rome:, 79 n. 1, On Sosibius' policy of close relations be-
tween Egypt and Macedon against Syria see Holleaux, Etudes, iii.
48 n. 5; his son was a most appropriate envoy on this occasion. The
date is uncertain, as it is for the sending of Pelops to Antiochus.
oXooxep£oTepov ••. rrnpaorrovSE'i:v: 'a serious breach of his compact':
the phrase need not imply that a breach had already occurred; d.
v. 24. 12, 1Tp&.g<£t> 6/o.oax"PE=.fpas, 'important business'.
14. nToAE(.lGLOV TOV :Ay,c:rcipxou: Ptolemy of Megalopolis, who later
484
FOREIGN RELAT lO~S OF AGATHOCLES XY. 25. 17
wrote scandalous histories of Philopator (cf. v. 35-39 n., xiv. u. z n. ;
Jacoby on FGH, 161; above, 24 a-36 n., for the possible use of this
work by P., below, 34-36 n., for possible criticism of him). In 197
Ptolemy succeeded Polycrates (v. 64. 4) as governor of Cyprus
(xviii. 55· 6-9); his full style there is recorded on a Cypriote inscrip-
tion, perhaps from Larnaca, reading: Eip~I'TJv IhoAqwiov -roO [a-rpa-rrr
you] Kal apxvcplws JipTEJLLSas DE[a1ToiV1]'>] 8Eu1V Ka' TOU f3aatMws Kat
-rrwv aM.wvJ 8Eivv, Jiv Td [Epa iSpv-rat EV Ti)[t v.-)awt. J (T. B. Mitford,
Arch. Pap. xiii, 1939, 24 ff. no. r2); see further Volkmann, RE,
'Ptolemaios (43)', cols. 1762-3; Bengtson, Strat. iii. 141-2, who sug-
gests that the apxtEpEtJS, WhO COntrolled all the templeS On the island
of Cyprus, and was at the same time governor, was a creation of the
energetic Aristomenes (d. 31. 6 n.). The identification of the his-
torian with the later governor of Cyprus is rejected by Jacoby on
FGH, 161.
1rpeu~eu1"~v 1rpo~ 'Pw!J-a(ou~: presumably to announce Epiphanes'
accession and to ask for help, if necessary, against Antiochus (Hol-
leaux, Rome, 70-73); but if its date was late 204 or early 203 (cf.
§ 13 n.), Rome was scarcely yet in a position to take any action-
which may help to explain why Ptolemy was allowed to dally in
Greece. Holleaux (Rome, 72 n. 2) argues that this embassy is identical
with that mentioned by Appian (Syr. 2) as being sent by Philopator
to complain of Antiochus' seizure of Syria and Cilicia; but this re-
ference is too confused to support any conclusions. See further on
this embassy Manni, Riv. fil. 1949, 96.
1"o'i:s EKe!: ciJO..oL~ K«l auyyevi.uLv: presumably at l\fegalopolis and
in Achaea generally, where he will have been an important source
of information on what had happened in Egypt.
16. IKo1rav ..• e1rt ~evoAoyiav: on Scopas' arrival in Alexandria see
xiii. 2 with notes. The date will be either late 204 or spring 203:
cf. § 13 n. On tEvoA6yot and their methods cf. Griffith, 26o--3.
£t~ ni 1rpo8oJ.LMa: d. xxix. 8. 8; this is the normal expression for the
payment of part of a mercenary's wages in advance, and is often
found in the papyri: d. Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 138 n. I; Griffith, 85,
278, 292; Launey, i. 728. When Scopas went recruiting in Greece in
rgg, he went magna cum pondere (Livy, xxxi. 43· 5), for the same
purpose; d. Plaut. Mil. glor. 72-76, 948-so, for examples.
17. et~ 1"0V 1rpo~ :4-v,.(oxov 1TbAEJ.Lov: evidently imminent; cf. § 13 n.
That Scopas used these mercenaries against Antioch us is clear; d.
XVI. 39·
i1TL ,.a. Ka1"a 1"~V xwpav ciJpoC,pla: the Egyptian xwpa is the country-
side, organized separately from the towns. The peace-time army
was stationed in camps, vTTatBpa, and in fortresses, rf>povpta, which
varied in size and importance; see, for references, Lesquier, 71 n. 2;
Bengtson, Strat. iii. 73· n. 2; and for the organization of the command
485
XV . .z5. 17 AGATHOCLE:J .\~D THE .-\R)I\"
Bengtson, ibid. iii. 24-29, 35-42. For similar </>roupm in Cyprus d.

Diod. xx. 47· 3; in Greece proper, d. Diod. xx. 103. 7; IG, iv 2 • I. 68,
ll. 14 f.
Ta; KllTO~Kia;: in Ptolemaic Egypt K<tTotKot are foreign clerucli~
settled on the land and cultivating it in return for military duties.
but these KaTotKot did not occupy special settlements, but wen·
scattered throughout the xwpa. Hence Ka-rotldat here seem to bt·
existing villages (cf. v. 71· 7 n.) where mercenaries may, of cours('.
have been given plots or allotted quarters (OTa8JLo{). On Kd:rotKo• se•'
the references quoted in\', 1-ro n. (§ (\')on 65. 10); add Bengtson:..
43S--6; Strat. iii. 73-75.
T~V 9€pa'ITELilV! cf. § 3 n.
19. 'ITpoTepa Toll 'ITa.pa LA.i.,-'ITt..;l 8~a.~ooA(ou: 'before the discussion at
Philip's court'. Clearly, under the res Graeciae of this book, P. must
have dealt in some detail with the reception at Pella of Ptolem\.
son of Sosibius; the sun·ival of this passage would perhaps ha \,
thrown more light on the background of Philip's pact with Antioclm~.
The hiatus after owfiovAlov indicates that the epitomator has omitted
further detail referring to the earlier passage.
O.A.A.' EKELvwv KTA,: sec 24 an. Comparison with xxviii. 16. ro-I 1.
which clearly recalls the present passage, proves that Tfjs €$a11'oa-roArj,·
should be followed by 24 a (probably reading ~1r~:i <yap) 11'a<ra> ... ) .
so Maas, AIPhO, 1949, 44.1-r,,
Ka.Ta T~v Tll~ lh'ly~aEw~ Ta~w: 'owing to the order of my narrative'.
d. xxxii. rr. 2; above, p. r ; in this order the events of Greece and
l\Iacedonia precede those of Egypt. Shuckburgh misunderstands tlw
v;hole of this sentence, which he takes to refer to the intrigue be-
tween Philip and Antiochus.
~Ke(vwv ••• 'ITpoTepwv Aap.~a.vop.evwv: 'these being dealt with first'.
Ta~ ineuseL~ ••• Twv 'ITpEcr~wTwv: cf. xxdii. 16. 10, 'the interviews
and hearing of the ambassadors'; see, on ihrr_,vgts and XPYJfLU'TWfL(;,,
Welles, 331, 375· Since Ptolemy, son of Sosibius, will hardly haw
travelled to Pella alone, the plural 1rpwf3~:v'Twv need not impl)· thai
P. also recorded the reception of other envoys, to Antiochus and
to the Romans, in detail.
Kilt TTJ~ Kll'TilO''TclaEW~: cf. XX\·jjj, 16. JO, -rfjc; Ka-raaT6.aEW<;, Without Kn:.
Maas, AIPhO, 1949, 4~6 n. r, proposes to omit Kat here, and with
good reason.
[24 a. Emet (yap) 'IT6.aa.c; ••• 1'1'Ep1exovTo;: see ad Joe. for commenta1 \
on this passage which, as it is there argued, should start here.
26 a 1-2. on Ae(vwva ••• 'TOV ~LOV: Deinon's murder will also h:n ,.
been recounted in the gap left by the excerptor of Q; it was one of
the steps taken by Agathocles to strengthen his position. See ad Joe.
for commentary.]
q.86
TLEPOL!L\It;S A>:D THE ARMY XV. 25. JI
25. 20. 1'0U'> E'lnqmvE0'1'<l1'0U<> TWV av6pwv: sending them a\vay or

(as in Deinon's case) by murder.
Tfj<; TOU '1TAT)9ou-. opyT}<;: here Td rrAfj8o<; means the troops.
21. Ta<; Twv cp£Awv xwpa.s: 'the vacant among the Friends'.
As in other Hellenistic courts, the Friends also existed in Egypt;
cf. xxx. 16. I and other references given by Corradi, 331-2 (but sec
xviii. 53· I I n.).
23. oMiEf.LLa., ••• 9epa.'!Tda.s •.• 1Tpoaayof.LEV1')1i: 'since there was no
help or remedy to hand'.
24. Ta ••. m;pl TTJV jja.aLAElav fiTuxt}f.La.Ta.: 'the disasters that had
previously befallen the kingdom'.
25. 0.~L6Xp£wv To 1TpoaTTJu6f.Lt:Vov: 'strong enough to take the lead'.
Tov TA'lmiAef.Lov: probably a member of a well-known family of
Persian origin which had acquired Lycian connexions before emigra-
ing to Egypt in the third century. The following members can be
identified: (1) T>.:!JrroAEfLO> )lpTarraTov, priest of Alexander in 247-5
(P. Petrie, iii. 43 (z); P. Par. dan. 2438; Sammel-
buch, no. 6759; P. Ross. Georg. ii. 2; and probably F D, iii. I. p. 269;
Daux, 517; Pausan. v. 8. n). (z) )lpmmiTTJ'> ETaat8,fiw<;, honoured
hy Xantlms (T AiH, ii. 261). (3) the present Tlcpolemus. (4} Perhaps
the Tlepolemus sent as ambassador to Antiochus IV in 169 (xxviii.
19. 6). (5) Artapates, known as a general from late inscriptions of
Silsilis (A. H. Sayee, REG, 1891, 49 ff. no. iii, 1 and 2 Preisigke~
Bilabel, Sammelbuch, 244 and 245; see Launey, i. 571 n. 2, and for
full discussion A. \\'ilhelm, IlpaKnKd J1Kao. i18. 6, I9JI,
26. •YTPO.TT]YO'i 'l'lliALV eyevfJB'l TWV Kll.TU llT)AOV<T~0\1 TOTI'WV: was
then appointed commander of the district round Pelusium'; for this
meaning of -rrdAu· d. ,-, 27. 2 n. There is no reason to suppose (with
l'aton) that Tlepolemus had held this post before. As he was an
enemy of Agatl10cles (§ 28) he perhaps owed the appointment to
Sosibius. For Pelusium d. \'. 62. 4 n. ; it was the key to the Ptolemaic
defences against the Seleucids on the eastern frontier.
28. Tou<; .•. Q.~(ou~ emTpolTfl'> ii.vSpa.s: \'On 265, detects the
pen of Ptolemy of l\Iegalopolis, one of them; but neither can this be
proved nor is it known whether Ptolemy wrote on events later than
Philopator's reign; see abo\-c, xiv. 1r. 2 n.
30. o-uvepyoVVTW\1 • , , 'ITpo<; TTJV TOLO.UT'lV U'I!'08EO'L\I: 'since both COn-
tributed towards such a situation'; for this meaning of vrr68wt<; cf.
Vlll. 35· 5·
31. ~YE!J.ova.<; ~<:at Ta.tLapxou<;: ~Y<fiuw here seems to refer simply to
'superior officers' (cf. Lesquier, 7i f.). A taxiarch is the commander
of a Td_f,,, which in Alexander's army was a battalion of I,soo men
(though Arrian uses the ,,·ord for smaller units; d. Tarn, Alex.
ii. 144}; its significance in Egypt is unknown (cf. Lesquier, 92, who
1111estions its existence), but Theophilus, a Persian, and taxiarch, is
487
XV. 2.5. 31 TLEPOLEMUS VERSUS AGATHOCLES
known from Philadelphia in the Arsinoite nome in 252/1 (PSI, 513.
I. n); d. Launcy, i. 57z. P. is speaking quite generally here.
32. Tou 9pa.voypa.:pov: 'the writer on walls'. presumably of obscen('
graffiti.
Tou Trl:n8a.p(ou KTA.: the alliterative repetition of 1r seems deliberate;
for the insinuation that Agathocles had been Ptolemy IV's Jpwp.cl·a..;
cf. xiv, II. I n.
35. EK Ka.Ta.j3oM\c;: 'from the start' (in contrast to EK rwv uvp.f.au•·
ovrwv rrap!i'KOE'Xop.n•os:); cf. i. 4i· 7 n. on this phrase.
37. NlKwv: d. 33· 7. Whether this post carried the title of v<H;apxa,
is not certain; well-known at this period (d. v. 68. 3; Lesquier, 3.:;1)
the word vat!a.pxo> may howe\·er indicate, not the supreme admiral.
but the commander of a squadron (d. Kiessling, RE, 'Nauarchos'.
col. r896). The present passage suggests that Nicon was commander
of the navy. Against Tarn's view that in the third century th(•
navarcbate was combined with a command over the Aegean islands
(.JHS, H)II, 2SI-9; 1933· 6I-68) see Strack, RE, 'Nauarchos', cols.
r894-·5. Nicon's share in stimulating the popular movement led by
Tlepolemus cannot be determined, since the fragment breaks of!
here; but evidently Tlepolemns was able to gain control of the xwp(L
and upper Egypt (cf. z6. II}.
[26 a 1-2. lielvwva. Tov lieLvwvos: see abo\·e, p. 23; Maas has shown
that this passage comes most appropriately in the gap left by the
excerptor of Q between 25. 19 and 25. 20. It then leads up to the
statement in zs. zo. Jacoby on FGII, 137 suggests that Deinon was
a descendant of the historiall Cleitarclms (cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. x. 136;
'Dinon Clitarchi celebrati auctoris pater'), but this cannot be proved.
Deinon may be the strategos of Cyprus under Philopator (I nsc. Lind.
i. 139; d. Bengtson, Strat. iii. 231, no. 135).
1. TWV &.SlKwv ~pywv ..• 8tKa.uha.Tov: cf. iv. r8. 7 n.
Twv ypa.1111aTwv ••• lmtp T1]c; &.va.tp~aEw<;;: since Deinon 's status is
unknown, we cannot tell how he came to receive such dispatches.
TOLS m:pl T0\1 4>tAa!1!1WVa.: cf. zs. 12 n.J
26. 1. uvva.9po(ua.s Touc; Ma.Ke8ova.s: sc. Agathocles. By 'Macedo

nians' P. seems here to mean the guard (cf. 28. 4; they camped neat
the palace). The Macedonians of Egypt constituted the most im
portant part of the army; they occupied bnd and were probabh
by no means all of Macedonian origin. See Lesquier, 2-4, u ff. and
passim, Heichelheim, A ust.L·iirtige Bevolkerung, 38-43; Griffith, I II ff ..
Launey, i. 308 ff. Grifiith suggests (IZ9} that the Macedonians men
tioned here arc the survivors of the ayTJfLa of Raphia (see v. 65. I -Ion ..
§ (r), 6s. 2-·wbere 6z. 5 is a printer's error}, an elite possessing plots
of roo arou.roi (d. Lesquier, 172 ff., especially q 5 (giving cvidenc(·
488
TLEPOLEl\IUS VERSUS AGATHOCLES XV. 29.1
from papyri)). See further Granier, 140-44, who, however, exag-

gerates the political role of the 'Macedonians' in a state such as
Ptolemaic Egypt.
3. To 1Ta.L81ov: the child Epiphanes.
7. KpLToAa.ov: othenvise unknown.
8. oux otov iJA.eouv a.uTov: i.e. Agathocles.
9. 1Tepi Ta AoL1Ta cruaTTJI-la.m: 'with the other regiments'; distinct
from the Macedonians (cf. 29. 1).
10. EK Twv O.vw aTpa.To1Te8wv: 'from the troops of upper Egypt';
('Vidently by now the xwpa was in Tlepolemus's hands (cf. §II}.
ll. 1Ta.pw~uve TOIJS 1ToAAous : the troops in Alexandria.
TO j.lEAAELv Ka.9' mhwv ean: 'that delay was to their disadvantage'.
27. 2. EK TOU TlJS a-ftl-lTJTpoc; iepou: Demeter was worshipped in

Alexandria, 1.vhich possessed a suburb called Eleusis; see below, 29. 8,
.B· 8, for the Thesmophoreum, also a temple of Demeter; OGIS, 83
for a dedication to Demeter, Kore, and Dikaiosyne; and the other
evidence collected by E. Visser, Cotter und Kulte im ptolemiiischen
Alexandrien (Amsterdam, 1938), 36--37, 81-82 (omitting this pas-
sage); Kern, RE, 'Demeter', col. 27-P·
UKa.Ta.KaAu1TTov: 'unveiled', thus exposing her full shame.
6. MoLpa.yevous, Evos Twv aw!-la.To<j>uAnKwv: a member of the king's
personal staff, like the younger Sosibius (32. 6); on the awftaTotj>vAa~<.-;s
see viii. 20. 8 n. On M:oeragenes' race see the next note.
)\oa."i:ov ••• Tov E1TL TlJS Bou~a.aTou ••• Ka.9eaTa.j.levov: a common
Macedonian name: cf. 0. Hoffmann, Makedonen, 190 n. 102. Probably
then Moeragenes was also Macedonian (Hoffmann, ill akedonen,
227-8; contra Launey, i. 316 n. z). Adaeus was governor of the nome
of Boubastis (cf. Herod. ii. 166; Strabo, xvii. 8os). the chief town of
which lay in the Delta on the easternmost arm of the Nile, a little
below the point at which the Red Sea canal branched off. See Sethe,
RE, 'Bubastis', cols. 931-2.
7. NLKOaTpan~ ..~ 1Tpos Toic; ypal-ll-la.crL ..e.. a.yflev~: otherwise un-
known. He was Secretary of State; cf. iv. 87. 8 n. on this post.
8. E~ op9ijs civEKpLVETO: 'he wa..<; questioned directly, normally'; so
Reiske, and this seems more likely than Casaubon, 'he was ques-
tioned standing on his feet'.
28. 2. 8La.TeTa.flevoL Ta$ flaanya.c;: 'with their whips stretched ready

to strike'.
29. l. ..a.c; Twv Ma.Ke86vwv aKTJvac;: cf. 28. 4· Launey, ii. 695 n. 3,
argues that aK1)va{ in this context will mean 'barracks', since the
palace guard in Alexandria ·will hardly, at this date, have been
stationed in tent<; or simple huts.
XV. zg. 1 TLEPOLEMUS VERSUS AGATHOCLES
..-O.s TWV aAAWV <npa.nWTWV: probably including Egyptian J.uixtJWL

and mercenaries; Griffith, 129.
3. olov d 1rvp: for the simile d. xi. 4· 4.
4. Ka.t ..-0. a..-pa.nwnKa Ka.i ..-0. rroAmK&.: throughout these chapters
P. draws no distinction between the sentiments of the army and tho,,,.
of the civilians, using such phrases as o[ 7To"XAol (25. 4, 25. 24, 25 ..Y'·
26. II, 27. I, z8. 8, 3I· II, J2. 7L 0 oxilos (J2. 7L ol 15xilot (zs. 8, 32. ·!.
33· 3, 33· 9), To '11'1\fj/}os (25. 2o, 30. 9, 32. 6, 32. i. 32. rr), n1 '1Tilfrth1
(:zs. :z6, 25. J6, 25. 37. z6. 7. 33· s) to refer to either or both indi;,
criminately.
5. avvl]pyT]a€ ••• Ka.t ..-a.u..-oy.a.Tov: 'chance played a part'; on tlw
role of coincidence in eYents see Vol. I, pp. , Siegfried, 49, 57·
Here it is the coincidence in the arriv:-tl of the letter and the spi•'"
which causes Agathocles to lose his head and abandon any coun;c
that might have saYed him. See below, 33· r n.
8. eis ..-o 0t:ay.o~opdov: identified 88, with a sanduarv
in which statues of Cleopatra-Isis and Antonius-Osiris were found
in the nineteenth century. It lay a little outside the city on the
eastern side and to the west of modern Lake Hadra ; see the plan in
Puchstein, RE, 'Alexandreia (r)', cols. The Thesmophori.l
was a fertility ceremony in honour of Demeter known from many
parts of the Greek world (cf. Arbesmann, RE, 'Thesmophoria', cols.
24-:z6), and a Thesmophoreum is also known at Arsinoe (\Vilcken,
ZGE, r887, Sr). Normally, the Thesmophoria was held at the sowing-
time in October-November (cf. Plut. Dem. 30. 4; Schol. Aristoph.
Thesmoph. Bo and 834, mentioning Pyanepsion); and though ex-
ceptions are known from Thebes and Delos, it was probably held in
autumn at Alexandria. Since the temple was open for an annual
sacrifice, the date of these eYcnts would thus be October~No\'embcr.
probably of zo3 (falling within 01. 144, z). See xiv. n-12 n.
10. a.t ••. nof.f.al Twv yuva.LKwv: who were probably taking part in
the festival and so present in the temple.
al ... TOU noAUKpaTOVS ouyyEYELS: on Polycrates, cf. \'. 64. 4 n.
13 . ..-a.i<; pa.~8ouxots: clearly the female attendants at the festival, n·
sponsible for keeping order (d. Herod. viii. 59; Thuc. v. so. 4; Syf!_
736, I. q8 (Andania); IG, ix. 2. II09, II. 23 f. (Magnesia); cf. Thalheilll.
RE, 'Paf!Sorf,opot, pa{3oofixot, cols. r8-r9). 2'\iese (ii. 404 n. r), followt·d
by LSJ, s.v. paf38ovxo~, wrongly supposes them to be Oenantht>'·,
private bodyguard.
30. 3. ets ..-o a..-6.8Lov: in the south-west corner of the town at tl w

foot of the hill on which the Sarapeum stood; cf. 32. z, 33· z, 33· "'.
Athen. v. r97 c~n; it is also mentioned by Aphthonius, Progymn. v.
See "'achsmuth, Bursian's Jahresherichte, 18i3. z, 1094; Puchstein.
RE, 'Alexandreia (r)', col. ; Breccia, 104.
490
UPRISING AGAI:;:ST AGATHOCLES XV. 3!. 2
tcauSuovTo: 'hid themselves', either through fear, or in order to

make an unexpected sortie later.
4. Twv ••• EOpuxwpu;lv: the wide avenues around the palace.
'l"fj!l TrAaTE(a.~: sc. 68ov: 'the street'; cf. v. 39· 3. \.Vhere Paton also
incorrectly translates 'square'. This is the main east-west street,
which ran from the Necropolis in the west to the Canobic Gate in
the east, probably following approximately the line of modern
Rosetta Street (see Breccia, 71-75; A. M. de Zogheb, Etudes sur
l'ancienne Alexandrie, Paris, r9o9, II; E. M. Forster, Alexandria:
a history and gtddeJ (~ew York, r96r), ro~u); cf. Strabo, xvii. 793,
795; Diod. xvii. 52. 3·
'l"fj~ TrEpl T6 ll.lovvcr~a.Kov 9(a.Tpov TrflOO'Ta.crtas: 'the area before the
theatre of Dionysus'; cf. Aeschines, 2. 105, rryv rrpoaraalav Ka8-
rudas. Paton, who belie,·es that the position of the clause prevents
its being local (which it does not), translates 'including all the crowd
of supernumerary performers in the theatre of Dionysus', but
this meaning is unparalleled and improbable: who would all these
supernumerary performers be, and why would P. (or his source)
who does not e\·en distinguish soldiers from civilians bother to
mention them? The theatre of Dionysus lay not far from the har-
bour (Caesar, BC, iii. nz; Strabo, xvii. 794) and was probably linked
with a temple of Dionysus (A then. vii. 276 B; cf. Lumbroso, L'Egitto
al tempo dei Greci e dei Romani (Rome, r882), ro7 ff.). It collapsed in
A.D. 428; cf. Theophanes, 92. 33 de Boor. Breccia, 1}6, suggests that it
stood below the hill containing the modern 'Native Hospital', where
limestone walls and column shafts have been found.
5. TrATJv ¢1£>.wvo'): cf. xiv. II. I.
6. 'I"TJV aupLyya. Ti)v j.LETGSU TOU Ma.Llw8pou KO.t Tij~ Tra.Aa.LO'Tpa.~: the
syrinx is a covered gallery, the .J1aeander perhaps a garden with a
twisting ornamental waterway; for the use of such proper names to
denote ornamental features d. Cic. de leg. ii. r. z, 'ductus ... aquarum,
quos isti nilos et euripos uocant'. The site of these features cannot
be identified.
7. O'Wj.La.TO.:PvAO.KWV: cf. 27. 6.
8. bLTTOi'> j.LOXAo~<;: one bar was usual; cf. vii. r6. 5 n.
9. ,.a. ~C.9pa.: 'steps'.
10. fv TE .,.ii Ka.pxTJoov(wv TroAe\: evidently written before 146 (contra
Erbse, Rhein. Mus. 1951, 173; Phil. r957, 29o). Von Scala, :z66. assumes
that this is P.'s own account based on personal experience; but there
is no evidence, and no great likelihood, that P. had visited Alexandria
before the fall of Carthage (cf. xxxiv. q. 6 and Vol. I, p. 5 n. ro).
31. L .,.c, Ka.AEiv T6v ~acrLAea.: 'the cry of "the king" '.
2. Tov XPTJj.LO.TLO'TIKOV TruAwvo.: 'the gate of audience'; d. v. 8r. s.
')(P1JP,a1'taTtK~ C1KlJVlJ.
491
XV. JI. 3 DEATH OF AGATHOCLES
3. TdS •.• rrpwns ••• ~~EI3a~ov 9opas: d. v. 25, 3·

5. To rrvw~TLov: cf. M. Ant. z. z, etc.; it is Hadrian's animula
uagula blandula.
e~s TTJV t~ O.pxfis SLa9eow: 'his original obscurity' {Paton).
13ou~'t')9EvTES: 'even if he wished'.
6. ;A,puTTO!J.EVTJS ••• 6 ... ht TWV rrpa.yjL6mwv: for this position st.,.
v. 41. 1 n. (Hermeias under Antiochus III). But it never reached tlw
same importance under the more absolutist monarchies of tl1c
Ptolemies and Attalids (cf. Corradi, z66}; for Pergamum, d. OGJ.-.,.
zgi·-6. A new inscription from Acamania (IG, ix 2 • 1. 583), publish.·.!
by Ch. Habicht (Hermes, 1957, 86-122) and dated by him to c. 2ll1,
refers to an ilptaTop.iv1)> MEwEla of Alyzia, whom Habicht (Herme.>.
1957, 501·4) has convincingly identified with this Aristomenes, who
is also known as a priest of Alexander at Alexandria (Plaumann,
RE, {€pELS', cols. I-143 and 1451 no. 57 ; cf. Robert, Bull. epig. I951i.
no. 270}. on Aristomenes, xviiL 53 L; Diod. xxviii. 13: Plt11.
M or. 7I c-D; Bengtson, Strat. iii. qz (on his political skill).
3l. 3 . .::ts TTJV ~a.c:nAu<~v 9tav: 'in the royal seat'.

4. xapd. t<al AUrrlJ: cf. ix. 21.
6. IwulJ'hos •.. utos IwuL~lou: the awp.aTotf>vAa~<Es haYe of conr~;·
remained with the king(§ 1). On the younger Sosibius d. xd. 22. r··l 1
8. 1rpos TTJV O.::pa1rela.v eis TTJV Uilav oltcia.v: 'to his own house !o1
attention': so Schweiglmeuser and Shuck burgh, correctly. Pato11
translates 'to join his lwusehold at his own house'; but the housP
is that of Sosibius and 'the court, or household' (one meaning of
Bt:parrt:la) was in fact Agathocles and his circle. That a small boy
would need attention in such circumstances is very natural.
10. Els TdS t8ta.s tca.Ta~ua.::L~: 'to their own homes'.
33. I. Tou ••• rroLEtv al!J.a. tca.l <Povous: von Scala, 3:, compares Euri
pides, Or. 406, & auvopwv a[p.a Ka( fL1)Tpb> tf>6vov; but the para] hi
is probably coincidental (\Vunderer, ii. 59).
ttc TauTo!J.b.Tou l(a.Ta.px~: P.'s source here is fond of coincidences.
cf. zg. 5·
2. t<o~G.tcwv n~ ovo!La ct>iAwv: cf. xiv. II. I, xv. 30. 5·
3. Twv 11x>.wv: here soldiers, as the reference to spears (§ .:t) mak".
clear.
11. auvTpo<PoL TfjS ;A,puLVOT]~: on the institution of the oV!'Tpotf>m cl
v. 9· 4 n.
T6v ct>L~b.ILILwva .•• d.rro Kup'l]vf}s: on his command there see 25. 1:
12. fivTi'll'aL8a. TTJV ~~udav ovTa.: d. xxvii. 15. 4; 'hardly more tlutn
a mere boy'.
1t~ TTJV 1TAa.Te'La.v: perhaps, though not necessarily, the great stre<d
(JO. 4)·
492
OTHER AUTHORS ON AGATHOCLES XV. 34-36
34-36. Treatment of these events in other authors: who these are is

uncertain, though one may \vell be Ptolemy of Megalopolis (z4 a-
36 n., zs. 14 n.); but whether in that case he is reckoned as one of
those who attributed all to Tyche or those who rationalized every-
thing (34· z) is obscure. Pedech, Afithode, 354, suggests Agatharchides
of Cnidus (FGJI, 86; see especially Rubr. mar. i 17 = GGM i. II8) as
one of the former group. P.'s argument in these chapters is not very
satisfactory. He makes these points:
(r) Many writers have worked over the story of Agathocles in
a sensational way, either overstressing the role of Tyche, or explain-
ing everything by rationalization (34· r-z).
(z) Agathoclr:s, being devoid of any outstanding qualities, is un-
suitable for such treatment (34· 3-6).
(3) Digression: some development of the narrative, touching on
the role of Tyche, and adding useful reflections, would be in order
in the case of Agathocles of Syracuse, and Dionysius, because of
their outstanding qualities (35· r-7).
(4) P. has kept his own account of Agathocles (of Alexandria)
concise for the reasons given (in (2) above) and also because sensa-
tional changes of fortune (JK'rrATJKTtKai -rnpmEuiat) are worth atten-
tion only at first and quickly cause disgust as well as being useless.
ln short, the popular treatment of Agathocles is to be condemned as
(a) disproportionate to its subject, (b) neither enjoyable nor useful
(J6. 1-3)·
(5) It is neither useful nor enjoyable because (a) no one seeks
to emulate ('TJAovv) changes of fortune which are irrational (1rap.i\oyo'
1T£pm£uiat) ; (b) no one gets pleasure from seeing or hearing things
contrary to nature (1rapa 4>vaw) and the common experience of men
(mtpd T~v Kotv~v €vvmav Twv dv8pr.!mwv). These things only arouse a
momentary interest (d. {-t) above) {36. 4--6).
(6) What neither deserves emulation nor gives pleasure is suited
to tragedy rather than history (36. 7).
(7) Writers who make the mistake of describing events that are
neither natural nor such as generally happen do so because they are
struck by what is sensational (though it may not be new); they thus
deprive their readers of both benefit and pleasure (36. 8-w).
This attempt at an aesthetic theory (d. Wunderer, ii. rz) breaks
down for several reasons. First, it makes an unjustifiable identifica-
tion between 1T£PL1T£T£tat which are JK1TA1JKT£Kai (36. z) and those
which are 1rapa.\oyot (36. 4) ; the next step is to describe them as
1rapa q,vaw and 1rapa T~v Kowl}Y €vvota" Twv dv8pw1rwv (36. 4) as if
these were necessarily the same, and then on the 1Jasis of a generaliza-
tion that men find what is 1rapd q,vaw disgusting, to assert that
JK1TATJKTtKa.i 1TEpmaniat can have no place in history-but only in
tragedy! Is tragedy then concerned with what is neither pleasant
493
XV. 34-36 OTHER AUTHORS ON AGATHOCLES
nor profitable? This was not normal doctrine; cf., for example,
Philodemus, 1TEpi 1TOtTJI.Ui.T. pap. 1425 fg. II, p. 7' 24 ff. oT[, Sei nlF
ayaBo] v 1T01)nJ [v TEp1TetJlJJ.tEJl TOV aKov[ovTOS", w,PE ]AEtJl 8£ TOO<; <fo[povofivTa<;
(d. Jensen, S.-B. Berlin, 1936, 296 ff.); and see the further evidence
for the usefulness of tragedy which I have collected in Historia, 196o,
228 ff., and the survey of the question in Ziegler, RE, 'Tragoedia'.
cols. 2053 ff. Stoics and non-Stoics alike agree in giving tragedy, and
poetry generally, the double task. In short P.'s definition of TEp-rrvcJI'
is too narrow; it is in reality limited to the useful, and this shows
where P.'s sympathies really lie. Sensational changes of fortmw
may be of no use for teaching lessons, but they are not really 1rap<l
,Pvmv; and there is little to be said for an aesthetic theory which
draws a dividing line between EK1TAijtat Kai tfouxaywyijaat (ii. s6. II)
and To TEp1Tvov.
34. 1. Tas TEpaTE(a.s Kai OLa.aKeuO.s: 'sensationalism and elaborat"

descriptions'; cf. ii. 56. 10 (of Phylarchus), xxix. 12. 6.
1TAe(w ..• ToO auvexoVTos Ta 1TpuyJ.La.Ta Ka.i. Kup(ou: 'more than is
essential to give an adequate account of the events'; on J Jmp,eTp(7)!·
Aoyo>, 'amplification of the narrative', see vii. 7· 7 n., xii. 28. ron.
2. TO Ta.01"YJ5 O.j3ej3mov Ka.i. liua<}oAa.KTov: P. admits these qualities in
Tyche (cf. viii. 20. 10, xxx. ro. I); it is their exaggerated role to
which he objects.
tmo A.6yov O.yovTEs: 'giving a rational explanation of ... ; thesl'
are two extremes, one to attribute everything to chance (nv~s p,£v .. . ).
the other to try to bring everything within the scope of reason (ol
S€ ... ). 'attempting to assign reasons and probable causes to every·
thing'. Both P. condemns, for the place of To 1rapa8otov in histon·
has to be conceded.
3. TO OTt~ ... 1"~ XELPLO"Jl~: 'this method', i.e. of writing at length,
whether for the one reason or for the other.
4. j3aaLAEis EK j3aaLAEwv J.LETaXELPL~OJ.LEVOL: 'managing king aftt·r
king' ; for the phrase cf. 24. r.
5. 1Tpoaywyi]s ••• 1rapalio~ou: 'a remarkable position'; cf. vi. 8. .J.
35. 1. T~ 8' :Aya.OoKAEi Kai fuovuu(~ Tois ILKEALWTaLs: on Agathock-;

see i. 7· 2 n., viii. 10. 12 n., ix. 23. 2 n., xii. 15. r-r2; on Dionysin"'.
trrant of Syracuse, see xii. 4 a 3 n. (on the date of his tyranny and
life), 24. 3 (Timaeus' attack on him). As elsewhere (d. vii. 9-11 11..
xii. 4 a 3 n.) P. seems to be led to mention Agathocles by the sinri
larity of name; Dionysius then comes in as another tyrant ol
Syracuse.
2. eK OYJJ.LOnKi]s Ka.i. Ta'ITnvils ti'ITo9euews opJ.LYJOe(s: d. Isoc. Phil. 65,
rro.\.\oO'TOS" wv I:vpaKoalwv Tip YEV€L Kat Tfj oofn Kai TOL<; aMoLS a1TaaU' ;
Plut. J.Vfor. 176 D; but there was disagreement on this; cf. Cic. Tusc.
494
OTHER AUTHORS OX AGATHOCLES XV. 35· 7
v. 58, 'cum esset bonis parentilms atque honesto loco natus {etsi id
fjUidem alius alio modo tradidit) .. :, one story made him the son of a
donkey-driver (Helladius in Phot. &ibl. 530 a 30). See Stroheker, 37 n. 29.
w~ 0 Ttf-'0.~0<.;. ' ' l'lal: cf. xii. Ij. 6 n. for this account.
4. ~O.O'~AEt<.; a:ITclO'llS IucEAta.<.; VOf-'~0'9EvTE~: inaccurate. Dionysius did
not use the title of king ({3a,nAEVs), nor did he strike coins with his
name and head; but after his victory over the Carthaginians he
appears to have taken (or been accorded) the title E,KEAlas <fpxwv,
which is found on several A then ian inscriptions (e.g. Syll. 128 = Tod,
108; Syll. 159 Tod, 13:i; Syll. r63 = Tod, 136); d. Diod. xv. 23. 5,
E,KEA{as; 8vvaa'T''Y)>; Beloch, iii. z. 200 ff.; P. de Francisci, Arcana
imperii {Milan, 1948), ii. 484-5; Hiittl, ro8 n. 90; Stroheker, 85, 136 f.,
172 ff., with n. zrs.
Agathocles took the title of ,Ba.,nAEus following the example of the
Diadochi, and on the completion of his African campaign (Diod.
xx. 54· I; on the date d. Be loch, iv. 2. 252; it will have been in 3o5/4);
it appears on his coins. See Berve, S.-B. ;\iiinchcn, 1952 (s), 63 f.
Ko.( nvwv Ka\ TtlS 'haXCus f.'Epklv KVp!.Euaa.vTES: Dionysius took
Rhegium in 387 {i. 6. 2 n.) and after making peace with Carthage,
probably in 378, he captured Croton (Livy, xxiv. 3· 8; Dion. Hal.
xx. 7) but failed to take Thurii (Aelian, Var. hist. xii. 6r ). Ancona
was founded by refugees from his tyranny (Strabo, v. 241; Pliny,
Nat. hist. iii. ur); but he took Adria at the mouth of the Po (Pliny,
Nat. hist. iii. 120; Plut. Dion, u). Agathocle.~ carried out several
campaigns in southern Italy from about 325 onwards; he took
Croton soon after 300 {Diod. xxi. 4), allying himself with the Peucetii
(Diod. ibid.), and a little later he took Hipponium (Diod. xxi. 8)
and despite a Bruttian revolt he succeeded in maintaining the
southern half of the peninsula in his control.
5. n?w Tfjs A~~u11s &:mme(pa.aEv: Agathocles' Libyan expedition,
directed against Carthage (3ro-3o7), ended in final disaster {cf. i.
Bz. 8, vii. 2. 4 n.; Diod. xx. 3-.&J; Beloch, iv. I. 190-8; Berve, S.-B.
Munchen, rgsz (s), sz ft.).
6. nonA~ov l:Kl'ITLI.I.IVO. KTA.: this remark of Scipio, probably known
to P. through his Scipionic connexions, is hardly evidence that
Scipio admired tyranny; he may have been thinking of Dionysius
and Agathocles as note\vorthy fighters against Carthage (d. Scullard,
Pol. 86 n. For Scipio's views on kingship see x. 40. z-9 n.
7. KO.l 1TOU Ka.t T1]t;; TUXllS ••. TWV nv9pw'ITf:LI.I.IV npa.yf.'cl.TWV: d. 34· 2 ;
such references are in order where the subject is sufficiently great to
merit them.
Tbv ineKS~SaaKOVTa. 'A6yov: d. 34· r, ,.&v €mJU'T'povv'T'a Aoyov; 'some
instructive reflections' (Paton).
i1Tl lie T'WV npoE~J>'llf.'EVWV nvl>pwv: Agathocles of Alexandria and his
associates.
495
XV. 36. I OTHER AUTHORS ON AGATHOCLES
36. I. Tov ~ET' a~~~oE<U':l A.oyov: another term for 6 (mJ-tt£rpwv .:l.oyo'
2. 11luv iXELv ••• &.~io.v E'l'nOTnoEW':l: 'are worthy of attention onh
when first to our view' (Paton); that is why traged\
thrills and the audience only 1w-ra ro 1rap6v (ii. 56. u )--then·
is no lasting as in history.
-n;v ivEpyE•o.v Twv TOLOOTwv: 'the vivid representation of such things',
i.e. of eKTrAT)KTtKai 7TEpme-refat; for this technical sense of Jvlpyna (Pr
l11apye•a) cf. xxxiv. 4· 3; Dion. Hal. de Lys. 7· Paton's version, 'such
an exercise of our faculties', misses the sense.
3. Suc;~v ••• nA.wv, c!lcp£Ado.s 1<o.t n\pljiEW':l: see Vol. I, p. 7 n. 12, and
references there.
4. t11A.ouv ••• Tn':l tra.po.A.oyov'> trepL11'£nla.,: 'for who would wish to
emulate (i.e. in his own experience) irrational changes of fortune?'
For the loose logic which turns sensational into irrational (and soon
unnatural) 7r€pmeni:at, see above, n.
Twv tro.pO. c!>uoLv yEvo~vwv rnA.,: bnt events such as Agathocles' fa!\
are not really unnatur:ll or contrary to human experience (cf.
34-36 n.).
5. £iocmu~ ••• Kat trpwTov otrou8atottEV: cf. § 2, J-t{av €xnv <f>anaalav
r~v 7rpuxrr1v &.glav bniJ"Taaew<;.
xapw TOU yvwvo.L ••• 8L6n Suvo.TOV EO'TLV: this is P.'s explanation of
why the unnatural arouses even a momentary interest.
7. ~ t11A.wTov •.. 'ii nptrv6v: 'excite emulation or cause pleasure'.
Paton's 'excite admiration' is not quite right, for the stress of
{T)Aw76v is on 'usefulness'.
otKELOTEpov ..• TPO.YCfOlo.s: for F.'s view of tragedy cf. ii. s6. tT; but
his present definition would refuse it any title to be called TEP7f'vJJ,
(see above, 34-36 n.).
8. ,.a, Tfjs 4>ooews ••• ,.a, Ko.86A.ou ••. trpnyfLaTa.: cf. § 4, 'Twv 1rap,;
<f>vatv y£voJ-tivwv 7TpayJ-ta-rwv Ka.t rra.pa -r~•· Kow~v lwotav -rwv dvBpdJ7Twv.
10. jl~TE ~tawwv ovTwv: here P. slips in a new criticism.
37. Antiochus' character

This must be from the res Asiae of 203/2; see p. 23. The conte'.:t
cannot be reconstructed with any assurance; but if, as Hollean'
suggests (Etudes, iii. 320), the first campaign in the Fifth Syrian \\'ar
took place in 202 and was slow in its progrcss~Antioclms will ha. 1 '
taken a year to reach Gaza--then P. may here be contrasting hh
lack of success with his swift ad\·ance through Asia. For other po,;st
bilities see Schmitt, Antiochos, 235 n. z.
BOOK XVI
Chronological note on Philip V's expedition of 201
In a detailed discussion of the events of 201 (Etudes, iv. 211-325)
llolleaux distinguishes four 'principal events', the battles of Chios
and Lade, Philip's invasion of Pergamum and his invasion of the
Rhodian Peraea. It is important to establish their order. Holleaux
has demonstrated that Chios and Lade occurred in that order for
the following reasons, which are not all of equal weight but taken
together are overwhelmingly convincing:
(a) The eulogy on Theophiliscus, the Rhodian admiral (xvi. 9· 2-4)
implies his success, and his share in a single battle (9. 2, KaTa Tov
KlvSvvov ayaBos- YEVOjLEVO>); he died at Chios, a Rhodian victory. In
Philip, 307, I argued that KlvSvvo> 'covers all the events of that
critical year', and this view has been followed (cf. Ferro, 51 n. 82).
It is wrong. K£vSvvo<; in P. means 'a battle'; see, for instance, 2. 8,
and passim.
(b) In xvi. 14· 5 P. writes as though Lade followed Chios (incon-
clusive taken alone).
(c) In xvi. 15. 3 and 8 P. does not name the Rhodian navarch at
Lade; this is unlikely had he been Theophiliscus (also inconclusive
taken alone).
(d) xvi. 15. 6 implies that the :Maccdl)nian admiral at Lade was
Heracleides, as he was in 2oo and 199 (Livy, xxxi. 16. 2, 33· 2, 46. 8);
whereas the Maccdonian admiral at Chios was Democrates, who
perished in that battle (xYi. 3· 6). This supports, though it does not
incontrovertibly confirm, the view that Chios came first. Against
this DeSanctis (iv. 1. 10 n. 27) points out that after Lade TOv ;[TmAov
p.r/ibrw avp.vEp.txivat; but At talus fought at Chios (xvi. 3· 1), hence
Lade was first. The argument is fallacious; avp.p.tyvuvm can equally
well mean 'to rejoin'; d. i. 19. 2, 19. 4· De Sanctis also argues that
after his repulse at Chios Philip would hardly have dared to leave
his fleet and mJ.Tch on Pergamum; and in Philip, 307, I suggested
that the defeat at Chios so weakened Philip's fleet that e\·en a sub-
sequent victory at Lade would not have sufficed to make the attack
on Alexandria feasible. But Chios may well have been less disastrous
than P., following Rhodian sources, makes it (cf. Tarn, JRS, 1941,
172), though on tbe other hand Philip must have sustained some
losses to make the Rhodians ready to face him single-handed at
Lade (Holleaux, CAH, Yiii. 153 n. 3, points out that with Lade the
earlier b:J.ttle one must assume quite improbable courage in the
Rhodians, who would be facing 53 cataphracts (2. 9) with about 30;
81U73 Kk 497
r6. THE AREA OF PHILIP v's CAMPAIGNS IN ZOI
(From Walbank, Philip V, ro6)
PHILIP V'S EXPEDITIOX OF 201 XVI
and the attempt of Miss Ferro (55) to surmount this difficulty by
supposing that Philip did not add the Egyptian ships from Samos
(2. 9) until after Lade is unconvincing). Holleaux's arguments thus
seem to show decisively that Chios preceded Lade.
Holleaux also argues that the invasion of Pergamum followed both
battles. From xvi. 34· 5 and xviii. 6. 2 it appears that there was no
effective answer to Philip's claim that the Rhodians and Attalus
had taken the initiative in attacking him (Holleaux, Etudes, iv.
2I3-I4). The anger shown by Philip in this invasion is explicable only
as springing from resentment; what he resented must be At talus'
part in the battle of Chios. Theophiliscus was responsible for bringing
Attalus into the war (9. 4). It therefore seems clear that the invasion
of Pergamum followed Chios. That it also followed Lade is less cer-
tain. The argument that it did (Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 2I5 f.) depends
on Io. I where Philip is criticized, after Lade, for not sailing on
Alexandria but, instead, fLavuvSTJ y£vofL€Vov ... ToiiTo TTpa~at. The
words TovTo TTpa~at Holleaux refers to the march on Pergamum,
pointing out that in I. 2, where this is described, P. speaks of Philip's
AVTTwv 8vfLo> and his dp-r). These phrases do indeed imply fLavla, a
symptom of which, in P.'s opinion, is to make war on the gods by
sacking shrines and temples. See on this v. II. 4, TpoTTov Kai 8vfLoii
AVTTwVTos €pyov (with the whole discussion, v. 9· I-IZ. 8, of Philip's
behaviour at Thermum); xxxii. 15. I-I4 (Prusias' behaviour at Per-
gamum). In the second of these instances P. refers back to his own
description of Philip's similar behaviour as being that of a madman
(xxxii. IS. 6); and Holleaux (Etudes, iv. 216 n. 2) assumes that the
reference is to Philip's attack on the Pergamene temples and to the
passage xvi. Io. I. It might, of course, be to Philip's behaviour at
Thermum (v. I I. 4) ; but it is altogether more likely that P. is thinking
of Pergamum, for this was also the scene of Prusias' ravages.
However, this does not necessarily involve a reference to xvi. Io. r,
and is not proof that that passage concerns the attack on Pergamum.
Sacrilege is only one sign of madnes..<;. Another is to cherish vast
plans and then to nullify them by completely irrational behaviour.
In xv. 24. 6 Philip is criticized for aspiring to universal dominion
and then, at the first opportunity, by his treacherous attack on
Thasos, revealing to the world his fickleness and faithlessness, thus
putting men on their guard against him; this shows him to be
d.Aoyunov ... Ka1 fLaVtKov. Philip, then, may (in Io. I) have sho"'n
his madness by his sacrilegious campaign against Pergamum; but
he may equally well have shown it by neglecting the reasonable
opportunity to sail on Alexandria in order to do something else
quite impossible~oiiTo TTpii~at. \Vhat that was, we do not necessarily
know. But if it was not the march on Pergamum, there is no argu-
ment against dating that event after Chios and before Lade, as
499
XVI PHILIP V'S EXPEDITION OF :zor
)1agie does (ii. 748 n. 39). This order of events has much to be said
in its favour. A raid in anger is more likely to have followed im-
mediately on Attalus' defeat at Chios (6. 4-8), and would not involve
the long and risky march north from Miletus to Pergamum and back,
which is implied if the Pergamene campaign followed Lade. On the
whole, then, the most likely order for these events is Chios, Per-
gamum, Lade, Caria.
For discussion see Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 213-24; CAH, viii. 153
n. 3 (=Etudes, v. 337 n. 2); De Sanctis, iv. r. 10 n. 27; Walbank,
Philip, 307-S (superseded by discussion above); Magie, ii. 748 n. 39;
Stier, 98-99; Ferro, ; Pedech, Methode, rrr.
[l. PhiUp's attach on Pergamum

I. 1-9. Position in xvi: since Schweighaeuser (vii. 234) editors have
placed this chapter at the beginning of xvi. See p. 2-1- for the argu-
ment that it should stand between 9 and 10.
I. 1rapo.yevoi-Levos ets To llEpya.I-Lov: if the above arguments are
accepted, this followed on Philip's defeat at Chios (z-g), in which
he claimed, however, the victory over Attains (8. 2). Philip's route
is unknown. Holleaux (Etudes, iv. 253), who sets the inYasion after
Lade, assumes a land march north from Miletus (rs. 6 n.). But from
the straits of Chios he more probably sailed to some convenient
point near the mouth of the Caicus (cf. Magie, ii. 749 n. 39) ; his object
was evidently to catch Attains before he reached home (cf. Diod.
xxviii. 5, roih'ov ou KarlAape 1rcpt rovrov::; TOu<; r67rov>).
Philip's invasion probably took place in the second half of June,
since he counted on living off the land (§ 3); Attalus, howe\·er, had
taken steps to pre,·ent this, presumably by hasty harvesting (Hol-
leaux, Etudes, iv. z83). The harvest in ~orth-west Anatolia is in late
June (Holleaux, Joe. cit. n. 5). For several arsenals to the north of tht•
acropolis, suitable for the storage of provisions and ammunition.
and showing marks of hasty construction, see E. Boehringer, Alt. 1'.
Pet-g. X. 48-s6; Th. \Viegand, Bericht uber die Ausgrabunge1t in Per-
gamon. 1927 (Abh. Bertin. Akad. r928, no. 3), ro-rr; these belong tn
Attalus' reign, but there is no positive argument for dating them to
this crisis (as Hansen, 54, suggests).
On the site of Pergamum (mod. Bergama), on a hill to the north
of the Caicus, about 20 miles from the mouth, see Hansen, 3-<•.
Zschietzschmann, RE, 'Pergamon (3)', cols. 12.41 ff.; above, VoL 1.
fig. 12 on p. 6o2; E. Boehringer, Neue deutsche Ausgrabungen 1-111
.~fittelmeergebiet u11d im vorderen Orient (Berlin, 1959), 121-7T ; ct
J. M. Cook, Arch. Rep. 1959-6o, 32.
otov aim:ixelp ~T·nl.Aou yevEa9a.l: perhaps a reference to Chios; d.
6. 4 ff. Another possibility (cf, Philip, II9 n. r) is that Attalus had
500
PHILIP'S ATTACK ON PERGAl\IUM XVI. r. 7
sent troops out to meet Philip, and these had been defeated. This
would explain Attalus' failure to offer any real opposition during
Philip's invasion (though he made a further appeal to Aetolia, per-
h;tps now, for help: Livy, xxxi. 46. 4). According to Diod. xxviii. 5
Philip vented his spite on the temples E7T£t roih-ov (Attalus) ov t.:ar€-
>..af1£ 7T£p1 rovrovs ro!Y; r67rovs; but this need not imply that Attalus
was absent from Pergamum (so Magie, ii. i48 n. 39).
2. otov El AUTTWVTL T/j) euJLij}: cf. v. II. 4. 7TlJJS OUK UV€t1Tot 7'(!) Eivat rp67TOV
Kat Bvf.LoiJ AvTTwvro<; €pyov; (of Philip's sacrilege at Thermum), xxxii.
15. 8 (of Prusias II at Pergamum).
3. otJOEV w<jiEAE~TO: Philip had been forestalled in his hopes of gather-
ing in the har\'est.
4. Ta Twv 9Ewv ~811: 'seated statues of the gods'; often linked with
temples and sanctuaries (cf. Isoc. Paneg. rss. ra TWV 8Ewv fD7J KG.~
TOUS J.IEWS' uvAiiv; Lycurg. £43, TOUS' J.l££ils Ka~ ra Ell7J Kal rd TEf1.EV7J)· For
Philip's similar behaviour in Attica in zoo cf. Livy, xxxi. 26. 9-13.
5. TOO<.i A£9ous E9pa.ue: cf. Livy, xxxi. 26. rz, 'neque enim diruere
modo ipsa templa ac simulacra euertere satis habuit, sed Iapides
quoque, ne integri cumularent ruinas, frangi iussit'.
6. To Nu<TJ<jlop~ov: the cult title Nicephoros was given to Athena
at Pergamum some time between 223 and 201 (see iv. 49· 3 n.); and
the Nicephorium was her sanctuary outside the walls. See A. Conze,
Alt. v. Perg. i. z. 233. This sanctuary probably stood on the hill of
Musalla Mezarlik to the west of the town, across the River Selinus,
where the remains of the }~oman theatre, amphitheatre, and circus
were located (Hansen, 226; see plan in RE, 'Pergamon', coL 1243), but
it has not yet been discovered, though excavations designed to locate
it are at present being conducted (cf. E. Boehringer, Neue deutsche
Ausgrabungen, qz ff.; Cook, Arch. Rep. 1959-6o, 2). See also L.
Robert, Et. anat. 86-87. According to xviii. z. z and 6. 4 Philip also
destroyed the temple of Aphrodite, the scene of Attalus' victory over
the Gauls and Antiochus Hiemx in 229 (OGIS, ; it has not been
identified.
Taus Tfi va.ous eK e"!LEAtwv iiv~aKa.IJ!e: the sacred enclosure was evi-
dently large and contained more than one temple. App . •"4!ac. 4· r
mentions tombs, perhaps by confusion with Philip's similar behaviour
at Athens in zoo (Livy, xxxi. z6. r2 ; Holleaux, Etudes, 248 n. 2).
1TOAAous KQL 1TOAUTEAELS uml.pxovTO.S: Schwartz, RE, 'Diodoros (JS)''
col. 689, compares Diod. xxviii. 5 and proposes reading 7ToiJ.d.; Ka~
7roAuTEA<2;; (yAv~ds) €xovras. The change is quite unjustifiable, for
the text is clear and unambiguous.
7. l.ipJLTJaE ••• e7ri. 9ua.TEipwv: cf. xxxii. 15. ro. Thyateira (mod.
Akhissar) was an important town in fruitful country near the river
Lycus (Vol. I, p. 6o2, fig. IZ). After Corupedium (z8r; see i. 6. 5 n.)
Seleucus Nicator occupied it with a Macedonian garrison (BCH,
sor
XVI. 1. 7 PHILIP'S ATTACK ON PERGAfv1UM
1887, 466 no. 32), and it was usually Seleucid down to the battle of
Magnesia, after which it became Pergamene. But at this time
Attalus held it (Robert, l'illes 2 , 26o; cf. Schmitt, Antiochos, 273 n. 3).
On Philip's probable route up the Caicus, over the pass of Necrasa
(Keil-Premerstein, Bericht uber eine zweite Reise t·n Lyd£m (JJenh-
schr. Wien. Akad. iv. 2, rgn), into the valley of the Lycus, se<'
Rolleaux, Etudes, iv. 248-g. thrl with the genitive need only implv
direction, but EKEi:fhv in the next sentence implies that Philip actually
reached Thyateira.
TOITJ<Taflevos T~v O.va.~uyi)v: 'setting out on his march'. Holleaux.
Etudes, iv. 249 n. 4, suggests that, exceptionally, this phrase may
here have the sense of marching back. This suggestion is unwarranted,
for in v. IIO. 5 (which he quotes) the idea of a journey back is con-
tained in the word avd7TAouv (as in iii. 96. 13 and X\'. 24. r). In fact
Philip's route did involve returning on his tracks: see next note.
ElS TO e~~TJS Tefiiov El<7E~Q.~E: d. xxi. 10. IJ. The plain of Thebe
lay to the east of the Gulf of Ida and the town of Adramyttium some
40 to so miles north of Pergamum; cf. Strabo, xiii. 6IZ; Livy, xxxvii.
19. 7-8; Rolleaux, Etudes, iv. 249; Ruge, RE, 'Thebe (5)', cols. I595--<J·
Livy, loc. cit., following P., emphasizes the fertility of the plain. To
reach it Philip had to retrace his steps to Pergamum, and then con-
tinue north-west through the mountainous district of Teuthras (cf.
W. M. Ramsay, }HS, 2, 188r, 44 ff.).
8. To.pa.yEvOfLEYOS ElS 'IEpav ~~:wp...,v: cf. xxxii. 15. ro~rr, which shows
Riera Come (with its sanctuary of Artemis) to have lain between
Thyateira and the river Rermus; and F. Imhoof-Blumer (Lydische
Stadtmiinzen (Geneva, 1897), 8 ff.) on the basis of the coinage identified
it convincingly with the Roman Rierocaesarea, which stood on the
right bank of the River Hyllus, near its confluence with the Lycus,
nearly 20 km. south-west of Thyateira and nearly 40 km. north-
west of Sardes (which possessed a famous sanctuary of Anahlta, thr
Persian Artemis); see Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 251; J. and L. Robert,
Hellenica, vi. 27--55 and pis. iii-vii; L. 1\.obert, Et. anat. 559· An in-
scription recording honours paid to Philip V by [-rj ,Sou].\~ ~<(at) oDfjpo;;
was found at Selendi and is either from Riera Come (K.um-tschai) or
from Thyateira; cf. P. Foucart, BCH, r887, 104 no. 25; W. H. Buckler,
]HS, 1917. no no. 23, with facsimile. See further Biirclmer, RE.
'Hiera Kome, Rierokai.'>areia', cols. qox-2; DeSanctis, iv. 1. 12 n. 30.
Philip's long marches through Attalus' territory are directed to food
and plunder, and in marching to Hiera Come he was on his wav
south to rejoin his fleet. Rolleaux (Etudes, iv. 252-3) believes that
he was on his way to Caria, whither he assumes him to be returning.
but this reconstruction assumes that the expedition followed Lade. 11
it preceded Lade, as argued above (chronological note, pp. 497-soo),
Philip may have been making for the coast somewhere near Ephesus,
502
PHILIP'S ATTACK ON PERGAMUM XVI. 2-9
where his navy could meet him from Samos. The Hi era Come in
Caria, a city which, according to Stephanus, was mentioned in P.
xvi, is quite distinct from this one, and was probably referred to in
the account of Philip's later Carian campaign.
Zeu~w: see v. 45· 4 n. He played a large role in all Antioch us' cam-
paigns; See V. 46. II, 47. 5, 48. IO, 48. 12, 5I. J• 53· 6, 54· I, 60. 4•
But if joseph. A], xii. 3· 4, can be accepted (a letter from Antiochus
to Zeuxis about a revolt in Lydia and Phrygia during his anabasis)
Zeuxis was left in charge on the coast when Antiochus marched east
(cf. Wilhelm, J:Vien. Stud. 1907, II-12). Zeuxis is mentioned on an
inscription from the temple of Artemis at Amyzon; OGIS, 235; on this
temple see Robert, Carie, 289, 300; CRAI, 1953, 403-L.f.- For Philip's
later dealings with him see below, 24. 6. In the war with Rome he
served as an ambassador (xxi. r6. 4, q. 9, 24. 1 ff.), and had a statue
erected to him at Pergamum (OGIS, 236). See the Addenda.
9. KaTa Tas auv9~Kas: the secret compact between Philip and
Antiochus (cf. xv. 20 n.). Zeuxis gives help, but half-heartedly, as he
does later (24. 4-6).
17WJ.I.<lTOTrOLe~v ••• Tov <l>()u-rr-rrov: 'to strengthen Philip'.]
2-9. The battle of Chios.

Philip opened his campaign of 2or by sailing across the Aegean to
Asia Minor, probably annexing the Cyclades en route (cf. Livy,
xxxi. r5. 8, 3r. 4, for Andros, Cytlmos, and Paros; Holleaux, Etudes,
iv. 272; Fraser-Bean, 159). The seizure of the Cyclades was a chal-
lenge to Rhodes under whose unofficial control they were. Philip next
put in at Samos, taking it and the ships stationed there from Ptolemy
(cf. 2. 4, 2. 9 n.) ;hewill thenhaveproceedednorthpast Ephesus, New
Colophon, Lebedos, Teos, and round C. Corycus to Chios. Holleaux
(Etudes, iv. 267) has argued from Cretan inscriptions relating to the
aavMa of Teos that Philip took over this town now; this is question-
able (cf. Walbank, Philip, r2r n. 3; Ferro, 6r n. 136).
Sources : the criticism of Zeno and Antisthenes in I4· 1 ff. suggests
that they were a major source for P.'s account of the battle of Chios,
as well as for the other events of this year; and this would explain
the pro-Rhodian version of the battle, with the absurdly small
figures of Rhodian losses (7. 4-5). The Rhodian proper names also
point to a Rhodian source (cf. 5· r n.). But we do not know whether
Zeno (and Antisthenes ?) was P.'s only source, nor is it easy to know
what allowance to make for Rhodian exaggeration. Be loch (in Gercke-
Norden, Einleitung in die Altertumszcissenschajt (Leipzig-Berlin,
1912), iii. 130) makes Chios a Macedonian victory, and Tarn {]RS,
1941, 172) writes that 'there is little doubt that Philip knocked
Attalus right out for the time being and handled the Rhodians
5°3
XVI. 2-9 THE BATTLE OF CHIOS
so roughly that at Lade most of their ran away'; but to Hol-

leaux (Etudes, iv. 244) 'la verite est que la journee demeura indecise'.
P.'s picture of a decisive Nlacedonian defeat is inconsistent with the
details he quotes, though indeed if Holleaux's restoration of OGIS,
283, is correct (Etudes, ii. 43-49) Attalus made a dedication to Zeus
and Athena Kicephoros from the spoils of the battle. See further
Ullrich, 36-41. Against the view that P. used the Rhodian record
office see Vol. I, p. 31 n. 8.
2. 1. Twv ••. Ka.TO. TTJY 1TOALopK1a.v &.vn1TL1T'TOV'Twv: this town will be

Chios, as is now generally agreed (for earlier see Hol-
leaux, Etztdes, iv. 226-7); it was in the immediate vicinity of the
battle, and the order and position of the Macedonian and Rhodian
fleets fits this assumption. Appian (l~fac. 4· r) writes l:ap.ov Kai Xtov
EL\E, an error; Plut M or. 245 B-C has a probably apocryphal story that
Philip promised the Chian slaves freedom and their masters' wives,
if they deserted to him; and Frontinus, Strat. iii. 9· 8, may refer to
this occasion. For links between Chios and I~hodes cf. Holleaux, 35,
87 n. 2, 91, against Beloch, iv. z. 345, and De Sanctis, iv. r. 12, who
regard Chios as nominally Ptolemaic at this time. !:>ylt. 579, a Del-
phian decree in honour of Hermocles, a Chian hieromnemon, may
refer to the events of this year when it speaks of Hermocles' efforts
{nrJp Tac; Kotviic; EAEvB<plac;.
Twv 8€ 1TOAEJ!1wv e~opJ!ouv.,.wv: the Rhodians and Attalus, who had
evidently united their fleets near Pergamum, probably in the Gulf of
Elea (cf. 9· 4; Mommsen, RG, i. 697; Holleaux, Etudes, iv. z68), and
had also been joined there by the Byzantine contingent (§ IO).
KaTa~pat<'TOLS vavuiv: 'decked ships'; cf. i. ~o. 13 n.
3. '~"TI Twv JlETaXXwv Ka.Ta.uKeuft: the undermining of the walls of Chios
(cf. I I. 2 ff., 30. 6).
4. 1TOL~ua.u9a.L T(w &.va1rAovv: 'to put out to sea'.
ets TTJY Ia1-1ov: in Philip's hands; see § 9 n.
5. 9Eo~LALO"Kov: the Rhodian navarch (cf. § 7, 4· 6 ff., 5· I ft., 9·
nothing is known of him outside P.'s pages; see Geyer, RE, 'Theo-
philiskos', cols. 2134-5· On the great powers of the Rhodian navarcb
cf. XXX. 5· 5·
6. Tov &.va1TAovv .•. 8LaAeAUtJ.Evov: 'they had put out in a loose order'.
7. T~ 8e€L~ ••• Tots euwvuf1oLs: so long as Philip was sailing south
(§ 4), his left was on the Asian coast and his right towards Chios;
once he had turned to face the enemy (§ 8) his right was to\vards tlw
mainland and his left towards Chios. But in§§ 7-8 P. uses the terms
'right' and 'left' of Philip's fleet as if the turn had already been made.
This confusing inaccuracy in the use of 'right' and 'left' can be paral-
leled from P.'s account of Trasimene (where there is also a r-eversal
of direction by Hannibal, but where P. continues to use the terms
5°4
THE BATTLE OF CHI OS XVI. 2. 9
appropriate to the original march: cf. iii. 83-85. 6 n. (ii)). Attalus

attacks the section nearer the coast, and Theophiliscus that nearer
the island of Chios. See Ullrich, 8o; Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 228.
8. To"Ls E1TL ToG 8e€LOG: i.e. to those on his left, who would become his
right once they had turned (see previous note).
u1ro Tac; vT]aiSas cl.vaxwp~aas: probably the islands off C. Argennum
(cf. 8. 2).
9-10. Number of ships in the battle: Philip had fifty-three decked
ships (Ka-racppawroL), which included several very large ones (e.g. the
flagship, a 8eK~pYJ>, under the admiral Democrates (3. 3-6, 7· I); one
or more Jvv~peL<; (7.1); at least two oK-r~peL<; (3. 2, 3· 7-8); one or more
£TTT~PEL<; (3. 7, 7· I; perhaps the same ship); one or more £t~pEL> (7. I)),
but consisted mainly no doubt of quinqueremes and quadriremes
(cf. 6. 4, 7· 2); he had alSO an Unknown number Of acppaKTa including
?jJLwA{m (6. 4) and -rpLYJJLLOA{aL (7. I) (probably not many, since he lost
f(w) and about 150 AEJLf3oL and TTp{a-reL<; (cf. 4· 2, 4· 8, 4· ro, 5· 5, 6. 4,
6. 7, 7· I-2).
The allied fleet consisted of sixty-five Ka-racf>paK-roL, i.e. quinqueremes
and quadriremes (the Rhodian admiral had only a quinquereme
(5. r), and the size of Attalus' flagship (3. r, 6. ro, 7· 3, 8. 2) is not
mentioned), twelve O.cf>paK-ra, i.e. three triremes (one of these is
Rhodian, 7· 4) and nine trihemioliae (of which two are Pergamene,
J. 4, 3· 14). Apparently they had no ships corresponding to Philip's
lemhi; see Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 235-7. As well as the ships of Rhodes
and Pergamum there was a Byzantine contingent (§ Io), and prob-
ably the Rhodians had ships from Cyzicus (d. 31.3; Livy, xxxi. I7. 6)
and Cos (as later against Antioch us: Livy, xxxvii. II. I3, 22. 2); for
allied ships in the Rhodian fleet cf. iv. so. 5· It seems likely that of
the sixty-five cataphracts Attalus had about thirty-five, and Rhodes
and her allies about thirty between them.
9. aq,paKTa: the omission of the number from our text was noted
by Meibomius: see Buttner-Wobst, apparatus criticus.
XEfJ-~OL ••• auv TaL<; 1TpLaTEaLv: on AEJLf3oL cf. i. 20. I3 n., v. I09. I ;
Livy (xxiv. 40. 2) calls those he used in 2I4 biremes, i.e. they had two
men to an oar (d. Tarn, JHS, I905, 208 n. 94). The TTp{anc; (cf. xviii.
r. I; Livy, xxxv. 26. I, xliv. 28. 2) was named after the sword-fish,
probably from its appearance (so N onius), which must have been
beaked.
Tac; ••. Ev TTI I all-~ vaGs KTA.: Philip had evidently seized Samos
before the battle of Chios took place and probably at the beginning
of 2oi (2-9 n.)-though no conclusions are to be based on App. Mac.
4· I, l:&.JLov Kat X{ov e[Ae. The ships mentioned will be the Ptolemaic
squadron stationed here (cf. v. 35· II), which was partially dis-
mantled; on Philip's use of some of the Egyptian crews see 7. 6 n.
On Philip's capture of Samos as part of the plan attributed by P.
XVI. z. 9 THE BATTLE OF CIUOS
to the Syro-Macedonian pact see iii. 2. 8 (d. xv. 20 n.). Livy xxxi.
1
JI. 4, suggests that Philip used dolence against the inhabitants in

taking the town, and this is confirmed by an inscription in honour of
a Samian doctor set up shortly after the restoration of the city to
Ptolemy; this inscription shows clearly that the Macedonian garrison
resisted expulsion, and there were casualties (see Ch. Habicht, Ath.
Mitt. I957, 233~41 no. 64 ; part of this inscription was previously
I
published by G. Klaffenbach, Ath. Mitt. r926 z8~33, and was thought

1
to be concerned with Philip's annexation of Samos in zor) and makes

I
it probable therefore that Philip took the town by force and not, as
Holleaux had argued (Etttdes, iv. 233~4; d. v. 336 n. r, 448 (addendum
by L Robert}}, with Egyptian consent. It is not clear why the
evacuation of the island was not demanded in 198 (xviii. 2. z-6).
unless indeed it was included in the general Roman demand recorded
in xviii. 1. 14. Concerning the date of its recm.·ery we know only tbat
in 197 it was once more reckoned among the ciuitates sociae Ptolemaei
(Livy, xxxiii. 20. r1~12).
10. TPLTJtt.Loh(a.L: tbese are swift ships, used by the Rhodians for
policing the seas, and probably invented by them. The ship first
appears a little before 300 at the time of Demetrius' siege (d. Diocl.
xx. 93· z~3) and later occurs in the navies of Athens (d. IG, ii 2 • 32I8,
3494 (restored}; Insc. de Delos, rso8; Hesperia, 1942, 292, no. 57) ancl
Egypt (UPZ, ii, no. 151; Sammelbuch, iii. 626r 1. 2o; Athen. v. 203 n).
Its relation to the hemiolia (6. 4) is discussed by L Casson( J H.'i.
1958, 14~r8). who has identified this craft on a black-figured cup
(c. 540B.c.) in the British Museum (B436: pls. v~vi in Casson's article).
A hemiolia, it appears, was a pirate craft with two banks of oars, so
arranged that half of the top bank, abaft the mast, could be quickly
removed so as to leave space for the bringing down of the sail and
mast at the critical moment, after sail had been used in conjunction
with oars to overtake a merchantman. The name will mean a '1!-fold
ship', and Hesychius (s.v. ~p.mA.la) calls it StKpoTo>, which probablv
implies two banks of oars (cf. v. 62. 3 n.). A triemiolia is a loose com-
pound of TP~~P'rJ> and ~!LwMa; it is a swift form of trireme adapted in
the same way as the hemiolia, i.e. with the top bank of oars, tlw
thranite oars (cf. 3· 4 n.). removable abaft the mast. Such a vess1'l
could overhaul and tackle a pirate hemiolia. It is a respectable ship.
used as a standard naval unit, and especially for policing the seas.
For discussion see (besides Casson, quoted above) Ch. Blinkenberg,
Triemiolia, etude sur un type de navire rhodien (Det Kgl. Dansk('
Videnskabernes Selskab: Arch.-Kunsthist. l\feddelelser, ii. 3: Lin
diaka, vii. 1938, 59 pp.). who claims to identify the prow of a tn
emiolia on various Rhodian monuments, including the Victory "I
Samothrace and the base of a dedication by the officers and crew;;
of various victorious triemioliai; but it is unlikely that there was
so6
THE BATTLE OF CHIOS XVI. 4· 2
anything distinctive about the prow of such a ship; L Robert, Rev.

Phil. 1944, r 1-17; REG, 1943, 336; H ellenica ii, 1946, 123-6 (not known
to Casson).
TpL,;pEL<;: on the trireme see i. 20. 9 n.
3. l. Ti}<; }\:naAou vEw<;: its size is unknO\vn (2. 9-ro n.).

2. l:u.:T,;pEL: probably a large decked ship with eight men to an oar
(Tarn, HMND, 134 ff.).
3. 8EK,;f»1'>: a ship similar to an oK-r~p'YJS', but with ten men to an oar
(Tarn, HMN D, 134 ff.).
4. TPLl]fLLoAla.s: see 2. 10 n.
tJ1ro Tov 9pa.v1Tl]V o-KO.AfLOV E8£811: 'she stuck fast under the top bench
of oars'; the thranite oars would probably be rowed over an out-
rigger, and the Macedonian flagship became wedged in the smaller
ship's side-timbers (Morrison, CQ, 1947, 130, against the view of Tarn,
l:R, 1941, 89, that the thranite oarsmen were merely the stern squad
uf rowers) ; cf. i. 20. 9 n.
6. 1TE\IT,pEL<;: cf. i. 20. 9 n.
dTJfLOKpaTl]'> : otherwise unknown.
7. ALovuo-68wpo<; Ka.t AewoKpaTTJ'>: the former is Attallls' delegate at
the conference with Philip and Flamininus in 198 (xviii. 1. 3, 2. 2);
see also 6. II, 8. 4 f.
va.ua.pxouvTEs: 'were admirals' ; on the navarchy in Hellenistic king-
domssee Kiessling, RE, 'nauarchos (nauarchie)', cols 1892 ff.; Robert,
Rev. Phil. I9+f, 14 n. 4 (on the office at Athens and other cities).
o 11~" ~1fT,; peL ••. , b 8' oKT,;peL: for E1TT~P'YJS, a galley with one bank
of oars a side, seven men to an oar, d. i. 23. z-ro n. The reference
to this hepteres engaged by Dionysodorus has slipped out of Paton's
translation.
8. &.vo.o-TEipou ••• ouo-11s: 'being high in the prow'.
~1ro ,.a, ~£o.xo.: for the unknown word {3laxa various emendations have
been proposed, none convincing; see apparatus criticus to Biittner-
Wobst, and Schweighaeuser's note ad Joe. The sense must be 'below
the water-level' or 'low down in the hull'.
11. m1vTE<; ••• 8LEcp90.pl]o-a.v: presumably Attalus' men boarded;
tp'l)fLOV a1TOAEL</>0~v will mean 'with none of her own crew left'.
12. ~11a.pn Tou Tpwo-a.L: he was attacking a hepteres (§ 7).
1'wv 1rupyouxwv: according to Pollux, i. 92, these are 1Tupyl8La Suo,
lleeL6v Kal ;:uwvv11-ov, cJiv 11-icrov -ro Kan5.cr-rpwfLa. These towers must have
projected to some extent beyond the line of the gunwale, to be
carried away along ·with the right bank of oars.
4. 2. lhEcpEpov ••• Til> Twv Ka.Ta.cppaKTwv vEwv 1rx,;en: if Philip's two

wings were about equal in number, Attalus faced approximately
twenty-five cataphracts; his own fleet must therefore have exceeded
507
XVI. 4· 2 THE BATTLE OF CHIOS
this number considerably. In :zo8 his fleet in Greek waters amounted

to thir1y-fin~ quinqueremes (Livy, xxviii. 5· r), probably his whok
marine; and it therefore seems likely that he had thirty to thirty-five
quinqucremes at Chios. See for these calculations Holleaux, Etudes,
iv. 236--j.
3. 'II'Ept To 8E~lov Kepas: i.e. towards the mainland.
4. K0.66.11'Ep apT(W<,; Elrro.: evidently in a passage nOW lost and pre-
ceding 2. r; there is no statement between 2. 1 and 4· 4 that tlH·
Rhodians were widely separated from the enemy, for in :z. 6 th!'
sense is simply that they were sailing in loose order.
Taxuvo.un'i:v: the Rhodian ships were faster than the Macedonian.
10. 8lEK'I!'AE:iv: cf. i. 51. 9 n. for this classic manreuvre; below, § q.
aTpecf>eLv: to ram the disabled enemy from behind; d. § 14, EK1T£pt-
1T'AeoVT£<;.
11. ~'ll'otouv n TEXVLKov: 'they employed a certain artifice' (Paton) .
cf. 6. 6.
12. E!l1Tpwppa. TO. a~<a!J.Tt 1TOlOUVTE<,;: 'depressing their ships towards
the prow'; how this was done is obscure. Tarn (HlvfN D.
146-7) that the Rhodians had perhaps 'designed a of prow and
ram which forced the enemy's ram to strike them above and not
below the waterllne'; he rejects the meaning 'depressing their bows'
and appears to regard the passage as corrupt. The MS. reads €,·
Trpwppa. Perhaps P. has not fully understood his source.
14. EK1TEpl1TAeovTEc;: 'turning and sailing round again'; cf. i. 27. n n.
and above, § ro, arplrj>£w.
5. 1. <P~XoaTpa.Tos ... AuT6AvKo<,; ... €m\1TAEL Se NLKoaTpo.Toc;: this

acquaintance with individual Rhodians (not merely the admirals,
as for Macedon and Pergamum) is an indication of a Rhodian souro·
(cf. Ullrich, .37). The first two are unknown; Nicostratus has been
identified with NtKoaTparos NtKoarparov mentioned on a decree ol
Halasarna (S'yll. 568, l. 4; cf. in Robert's lleUenica, s. 194i',
n8), but this decree is probably later than Chios, \\'hen Nicostratn:--
perished (Holleaux, E'tudes, iv. 275 n. z); nor is there any reason
to make the Nicostratus of the inscription a Rhodian. lTriTr'A<'t mean,.
'was in command of', so presumably Nicostratus was trierarch (thou~ h
some inscriptions (Blinkenberg, Insc. Lindos, ii. 420 a; ibid. ii. Jo.;.
ll. 12 ff.; Clara Rhodos, 8. 1936, record an brirrAov> who i~
apparently distinct from the trierarch, and in charge of tlll'
lm{36.rat or, as P. M. Fraser suggests, the material equipment of tL,·
ship).
6. 4. Tf>El<,; 1\J.LLOA(o.s: cf.

2. IOn.
tK~aAE'i:v
TO. aKticf>Tt: to run aground his own flagship and the two
quadrirernes (§ z).
soB
THE BATTLE OF OliOS XVI. 7
5. ei.<; "Tcis 'Epu9p6.s: Erythrae (cf. Strabo, xiv. 644) lay on the west
side of the Erythraean peninsula which faced Chios (site of modern
lldir); cf. Biirchner, RE, 'Erythrai (1)', cols. 575-89; Magie, i. 79·
9. TOLS J:L~V oAo~s; l}XuTTWJ:LEVO<;: some exaggeration. Attalus clearly
suffered a setback, and 4· 9-14 shows the Macedonians successful
in hampering the Rhodian ramming tactics, and effectively fighting
from the decks. In the end the Macedonians withdrew from the
hattie with the Rhodians (§ I2-I3), who did not attempt to pursue,
while Dionysodorus did the same in the Pergarnene sector (§ ro);
d. Holleaux, .Etudes, iv.
13. ets Tl]v Xtov: where siege had proved unsuccessful (z. I).
7. Losses in the battle: that P.'s figures are incomplete appears from
his own account; cf. Ullrich, 39; Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 238.
(I) Macedonian ships sunk or captured by Attalus: one DEK~PYJ>,
the flagship (sunk), cf. 3· ; one .-!vV!JpYJ~ (sunk); one oKn/p'7> (sunk),
omitted here, but cf. ;;. 2; one d~<-r~pTJ> (captured), omitted here, but
d. 3· j - I I ; one br-r~pTJ> (sunk); one €g~P71> (sunk) ; ten other
mtaphracts (sunk), probably quinqueremes and quadriremes; three
-rpL'JJktoAfa~ (sunk); twenty-five lembi (sunk).
(2) Macedon ian ships sunk or captured by the Rhodians: ten
cataphracts (sunk) ; two quadriremes (captured), see § 3 n.; about
forty lembi (sunk) and seven lembi (captured).
(3) Pergamene ships sunk or captured by Philip: two quinqueremcs
(sunk), cf. 3· 14, 6. 2; the royal ship, probably a quinquereme (cap-
tured), along With tWO quadriremeS, cf. 6. 5-7, 6. IO, 8. 2; One tri-
Mtniolia (sunk), cf. 3· 4·
(4) Rhodian ships sunk or captured by Philip: two quinquercmes
(sunk); one trireme (sunk); none captured.
Thus on balance Philip was left with twenty-eight cataphracts
(including the three taken from Attalus), most of his undecked ships
and about seventy-eight lembi; Attalus' larger ships were down to
about thirty; and the Rhodians and their allies still had about
thirty cataphracts (having taken two quadriremes from Philip). As
Holleaux (Etudes, iv. 239) observes, it left the allies with a decided
ltdvantage, but Philip with his large supply of lembi could out-
number either separately. And if the Rhodians and Attalus had
reserves (24. r), so had Philip at Samos (2. 9).
The allied losses are clearlj• too small (d. Holleaux, Etudes, iv.
244 n. ro). One Rhodian quinquereme sank with all on board (5. 2-3)
and most of the marines on Theophiliscus' ship perished (5. s)-
clearly more than sixty men in all; and in the Pcrgamene fleet all
the marines in Dionysodorus' ship were drowned (3. q). P. is follow-
ing his Rhodian source; and this may be equally unreliable on the
number of ships lost by the two sides. For instance, the reference
XVI. 7 THE BATTLE OF CHIOS
to prisoners taken from Attalus (xviii. 2. 2, 6. 1, 6. J, 8. 10) presupposr.-,

ships taken (for Philip will hardly have picked up men from the
water, cf. 8. 3 n.); but F.'s account implies that Philip took no ship~
y;ith their crews from Attalus.
According to P. (§ s), following his Rhodian source, Philip losl
J,ooo soldiers and 6,ooo sailors; the Macedonians took no prisoners,
but themselves lost 2,ooo Macedonians and allies and 700 Egyptians
(§ 6) ; on these figures see § 6 n.
3. <fiXw<Jav Sf: SUo TETPtlf>ELS): this phrase was added by Meibomius
(see Hultsch, apparatus criticus) in view of 6. 5; it will have dropped
out by haplography, since the same phrase appears among Philip\.
losses in§ 2. Holleaux (i.'tudes, iv. 238 n. 2) considers an alternatiw.
viz. that the words Mo -rnpr}pH;; have been displaced from § 3 to § :
(since there is no reference in the narrative to the Rhodian captur.·
of two quadriremes from Philip), and notes that if that were so ther•·
would be no evidence for the presence of quadriremes in Philip ,,
fleet. But the explanation adopted in the text is perhaps simpler and
more probable.
5. MaKeSOves fLEV •.• Twv Sf: 'ITATJf>WfLnTwv: the suggestion is that th•
sailors were not Macedonians, and this is borne out by the distin•
tion drawn between Macedonians and allies among those captun·d
(§ 6).
6. hwv B' ~'ITevavTiwvt: -rwv 8' alyv'l'fT{wv FS. Schweighaeuser conjer
tured -rwv 8' .lhm.\tKwv, but recent editors have printed this variation
on Niebuhr's TWl' S' Jvav-rlwv. But, as Holleaux observes (Etude-',
iv. 242), P. enumerates the losses first in ships, then in men; of tlll'
ships lost he gives first those sunk, then those captured, for (a) Philip,
(b) Attalus, (c) Rhodes, then reversing the order he gives men killed
and captured for (a) Rhodes, (b) Attalus, (c) Philip. In his accounl
of the conference of Ig8 P. reveals the existence of
prisoners taken at Chios (above, 7 n.); but he is then followin;·,
a different source, and his account of the battle has no room fo1
such prisoners. Therefore TWV o' {rrrr;vavTlwv and 7'WI' o' )hTaAtK<;,.
are equally out of place; whereas the use of Eg~·ptian ships fro111
Samos (2. g) would be naturally paralleled by the use of Egypti:111
crews. The MS. reading should therefore be kept (d. Hollea11',
Etudes, iv. :23<r-4J) ; it is further confirmed by the reference i"
Philip's use of an Egyptian as a pretended deserter, later in the yl':n
(Polyaen. iv. r8. :2). The figures are from a Rhodian source <11><1
probably much exaggerated.
8. 2. f:yKpan1s Ttjs vE6!s; i.e. the flagship (cf. 6. ; Paton mi~

translates 'ships'.
To KaAoufLevov 'Apyewov: the south-western promontory of tlw
Erythraean peninsula, 8 miles across from C. Poseidion on Chios
sro
T!IE BATTLE OF CHIOS XVI. Io. I
(Strabo, xiv. 645); it is the .M.pyivov of Thucyd. viii. 34· I, modern

Asprokavo.
3. Twv EtTLywwaKoJ.L€vwv: 'that were recognizable', i.e. as those of
allies; he would not pick up enemy corpses.
5. aT~aa.vn:<; ev J.LET~nr~ Ta<; va.il11: 'stationing their ships in a line
facing the front'; cf. i. 26. 13 n., v. 82. Ton.
9. 1. 9Eoci>~MaKoc; ••• Em~..Waa.s: on his wounds see S· 7.

Tfi 1Ta.Tp(~t ypO.!Jta.s: this report is probably behind P.'s source.
KAEwva.l:ov: d. Syll. 673, an inscription in honour oi a Nisyrian who
served in the Rhodian navy under Cleonaeus and two of his succes-
sors in the navarchate, Acesimbrotus (cf. xviii. I. 4, 2. 3 f.) and
Eudamus (xxi. 10. 5, fg. 193; see xxi. 7· 5 n.).
2. KO.Ta Tov Kivouvov O.ya.Oo<; y~vop.c;-vos: for the use of the phrase
<iya9o;; ylvea8at in the inscriptions d. Schulte, 49-50. As usual
KlvSvvos- is 'the battle' (see above, p. 497).
4. apXftV 1TOA~J.LOU 1TOtTtO'O.S: cf. § 3, r.ponnf3a/.r/tv; by Sailing north, by
persuading Attalus to bring out his navy in support, and by attack-
ing Philip at Chios. See Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 213, for the implication
of this pa_<>Sage for the relative chronology of the battle of Chios and
Philip's invasion of Pergamum.
!Order of fragments: between g. 5 and To. 1 should stand I. 1--9, de-

scribing Philip's attack on Pergamum, which (cf. pp. 24, 497-soo)
fell after the battle of Chios and (it has been argued) before Lade.
1. 1-9 will also have been followed by a description of the battle of
Lade 15. 1-8) before the observations contained in ro.]
10. 1. Ph£hl; after Lade

P.'s remarks are based on the assumption that Philip's plans included
an attack on Egypt (cf. xv. 20 n.).
10. 1. T~V 'ITEpt Tf}v AO.OTJV VO.UJ.La.xla.V: cf. rs. I-8. At some time after
the battle of Chios, and probably after ravaging the territory of
l}ergamum (1. 1--9), Philip having rejoined his fleet at some point
unknov.rn (but probably not far from Samos: I. 8 n.), sailed south
and came up with the I<hodian fleet near the island of Lade (15. s),
covering Miletus. On the numbers on each side see 7 n.; for the de-
tails of the battle, as far as they are kno·wn, see 15. r-8. On the
island of Lade see Strabo, xiv. 635. Ov.'ing to the silting up of the
estuary of the Maeander, it now forms part of the mainland.
'l'ov &' 1\TTa.Aov J.L'lb€1TUJ O'UJ.LJ.L'J.l'Xeva.L: 'and that Attalus had not
yet rejoined them' or 'returned to the war'; on this sense of aufL-
1-1-'YvtvaL see p. -J-97 (cf. i. 19. ~. 19. 4). Attalus did not rejoin the
51I
XVL 10. I PHILIP AFTER LADE
Rhodians until late in the year (24. I-2); see Holleaux, Etudes, i\.
270-2.
T<)v ds T~v :.&.A.e~civ6p.;~av '!!'AoGv: in accordance with his supposed
intention of seizing Egypt (xv. 20 n.)
J.LnYtwSTJ ••• ToliTo '!l'piieaL: the reference is uncertain. Holleam:
believes that TofiTo 1rpii$at refers to the march on Pergamum and
that it is in his behaviour here that P. reveals his p.av{a; but (se<'
p. 499) P. states clearly (€$ ov) that it is from the fact that he migh1
have sailed on Alexandria (but did not) that his madness can bl'
deduced; in short,J he is p.avHv81'JS' because he acts irrationally (as
in xv. 24. 6). Toiho 1rpii.$m. (which may be the epitomator's words)
refers to whatever he did instead of to Alexandria: what that
was we do not know.
10. 2-4. The role of the irrational in mm's hopes and in

the abandoning of them
That this fragment cannot refer to Philip's supposed reversal of
intention over sailing to Alexandria is clear; for here P. is speaking
of impossible ambitions (§ 3, TWv d8uv(hwv lc/>{EvTa~), whereas th('
attack on Alexandria is regarded as quite feasible (§ I, l$-i)v [L
TEAE!v ... T(h• ..• 1rAm1v); see Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 215 n. I. The con·
text is therefore unknown; but it is likely to concern Philip and
evidently some wild plan conceived and abandoned between the
battle of Lade and his operations in Caria. It may well be this scheme
that is referred to in 1ofho 1rpata~ (§ 1 ).
2. TO TYJS opJ.Lf)S E'!l'\Aa~o~ou:vov: 'that checked his impulse'.
4. OUOEVL 'A.oyt.t trUAIY a+LO'TO.YTO.L TWY '!l'po9(0'EWY: the schemes are
abandoned as irrationally as they are conceived.
8ul T1lY O.llTJXa.v£nv ••• Twv atravTWjlEYwv: 'owing to the embarrass
ments and difficulties that meet them' (Shuckburgh).
11. Philip's capture of Prinassus

After Lade Philip probably entered Miletus and annexed the terri
tory around it (cL 15. 6 n., 24. 9 n.). We next fmd him vainly attack
ing Cnidus (u. I); and from there he proceeds against the Rhodian
Peraea, in which l)rinassus was situated (see below). He probably
s;:tiled direct from Miletus to Cnidus (cf. Holleaux, Etudes, iv. z8o·'
for discussion).
11. 1. trOLT]O'UJ.LEYOS , , • TIYQS atrpclKTOU!i trpoa~oAU!i: pt prefixes be-
fore this passage the words: ir rij> Kvl8ou TToAt:w>. The Hellenistk
city of Cnidus (cf. xii. zs f 2, xxx. 8. 6, xxxi. 5· 1) lay at the western
end of the Dorian Chersonesc, which stretched between the bay of
Cos and the Bay of Syme (Herod. i. 174); it has been convincingly
SI2
PHILIP'S CAPTURE OF PRINASSUS XYL I2. J.
tlemonstrated by G. E. Bean and J. M. Cook (BSA, 1952, rjr~Hz,

d. 1957, 85-87) that Cnidus was moved from a situation at Burgaz
further east to Tekir on the tip of the peninsula. just east of C. Kri6.
probably about 330 B.c. (though a slightly earlier date is possible).
On the site see Bean and Cook, BSA, 1952, r8s-5; Btirchner, RE,
'Knidos (r)', cols. 914-21.
11, 1. TQ. 4>poupLa Kat TQ.S KaTQ. TTJV XWP<lV O"UVOUdas: probably Small
forts and settlements; cL Livy, xxxiii. r8. 20, 'dum in castellis
uicisque recipiendis Peraeae tempus teritur' (of the Rhodian re-
covery in rgj of places taken by Philip).
l. 'ITpoaEO"TP<lTO'IT~8€UC1E Tfj npLV<lO"O"i{): cf. Polyaen. iv. r8. 1, an
account of Philip> siege probably derived from the same source
asP. (Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 256). Polyaenus calls Prinassus 'Poo{wv
'ITbAw tv Tfi ll£patq., Stephan us 7ToALs- Kaplas-; its site is still unidenti-
fied, but it was probably in the subject Peraea, and not incorporated
ns a Rhodian deme (cf. Fraser and Bean, 75; on the distinction be-
tween subject and incorporated Peraea, ibid. 53-54).
yippa: 'wicker-work screens'; cf. viii. 3· 3 n., ix ..p. 3·
5. 'ITpos Suo 'ITAe9pa: about 2oo ft.; the 77.\!.0pov is roo 'IToO<s-.
12. I asus and certain superstitions concerning it

After taking over the Rhodian Peraea on the Dorian Chersonese,
of which operation the attack on Prinassus \Vas part (xviii. 2. 3,
6. 3, 8. 9, App. Ivfac. 4· I; Livy, xxxiii. r8. 1, 18. 2o), Philip marched
north and is next found attacking Iasus; that he took this follows
from the Rhodian claim to it in 198 (xviii. 2. 3· 8. 9). Whether it was
now or earlier that Philip seized the north Carian towns of Euromus
and Pedasa (xviii. 2. J, 44· 4). which belonged to Rhodes, and
Stratonicaea (Livy, xxxiii. r8. 4-7, 18. 19-22, 30. n), which Rhodes
only acquired later (xxx. 31. 6), is uncertain; see Holleaux, Etudes,
iv. for the various alternatives; for Philip's occupation of
Panamara in the north of the Peraea see Holleaux, Etttdes, iv. 204-10;
Ferro, 69 n. Ii7.
Iasus (cf. Strabo, xiv. 658) was an Ionic city lying on a rocky penin-
sula on the north shore of the inlet at the head of the Gulf of Bargylia
(modern Gulf of Mandalya), now known as Asinkale; Strabo, xiv.
658, and Steph. Byz. s.v. call it an island; cf. Magie, i. ii. goG-7
(with bibliography); Btirchner, RE, 'Iasos (rs)', cols. ; G. E.
Bean and J. ~L Cook, BSA, 1957. roo-6 (with plan); Laumonier,
591 ff. A forthcoming study is promised from L. Robert in La Carie, iv.
12. 1. EV Ti{} KOA'IT~ K-rA.: the Gulf of Mandalya; after 77paaayoptvopivcp

some words have fallen out, ev·idcntly mentioning a name 'Gull of
8Hl73 Ll
XVI. 12. r lASUS AND SUPERSTITIONS CONCERNING IT
Iasus' (d. Hultsch, (Si ?Tap' mhoi<; p):v 'Iaa{c!:')· P. defines the gull
by reference to the two flanking promontories. The archaic altai
of Poseidon stood at the south-west corner of the Milesian peninsula,
high up above the sea (d. Strabo, xiv. 633; Mayer, RE, 'Miletos',
cols. r653-4; for the excavations see A. von Gerkan, Der Poseidon-
altar bei Kap ll-1 onodendri in Milet, i. 4). The city of Myndus (d. IS. -t)
stood at the western extremity of the H alicarnassian peninsula, abou!
12 miles west of Halicarnassus (d. Strabo, xiv. 658; Ps.-Scyl. 99),
modern Giimii~liik; see G. E. Bean and J. M. Cook, BSA, 1955, ro8-I2
(with plan); Rlige, RE, 'Myndos (I)', cols. 1075---9; Laumonier, 6I4-20.
auvwvu...,ws: Ta.ls: ••. m:lAEaw: Iasus and Bargylia, on which see
24. In.
2. :A.pyELW\1 a'ITOlKm ••• tJ-ETn OE Ta.iha. MlAT)O'lWV: our only evidence.
For a suggestion that the name Iasus came from Argos d. Hicks.
JHS, r887, 84. Later Milesian settlement rendered the town wholh
Ionic; on the Milesian settlers see Bilabel, Die ionische Kolonisatiou
(Ph£!. SuppL-E. xiv. 192o), 56, 144.
NT)A£ws: ••• TOu tcTiaavTos: MiAT)TOv: the more usual fonn is Neileos
or Neileus; in Herod. ix. 97, he is the younger son of Codrus of Athens,
who after a conflict with his elder brother Medon for the throne,
in which Delphi pronounced for Medon, led a migration to Ionia
(Paus. vii. 2. I). But Strabo (xiv. 633), referring to the altar erected
to Neleus lrrl To/ IIoat::~Oltp (the promontory carrying the altar 0f
Poseidon, §In.), states that he came from Pylos (cf. Mimn. fg. ~~
Diehl) and this is probably the older version (cf. Ed. Meyer, iii. 399
40I). His grave was shown on the road from Miletus to Didyma (Pans.
vii. 2. 6). A son Aepytus founded Priene (Strabo, xiv. 633; Paus.
vii. 2. Io); but other sons are known, Phryius, Hegetor, and Hippocles.
Which is meant here is unknown. See Hanslik, RE, 'Neileos', cob.
2I83-4; van der Kolf, RE, 'Neleus (2)', col. 228o (a curious duplica
tion).
To ••• t-Lf:yt:Oos: ••. of:Ka aTaOla: the fortification around the pen in
sula of Asinkale, now dismantled and perhaps mainly post-classical.
was about a mile and a half in circumference; Io stades would h•·
a little under a mile and a quarter, and this would fit, if the tran·'
of walling seen by Bean and Cook (BSA, 1957, IOI} within the mai11
perimeter belonged to the Hellenistic circuit.
3. To Tfjs Kwou6.oos: :A.pTEtJ-lOos:: the sanctuary of Artemis Cindy a·.
lay in the plain beneath the site Stgtrtma~ Kalesi, about 7 milt-.
due east of Bargylia. It was identified by Paton and Myres, J H'-,
I8g6, I96; see also Laumonier, Rev. arch. I933 (z), 49· Stgtrtmt•,
Kalesi is the ancient town of Cindya; d. Bean and Cook, BSA, 1957.
97---99 (with plan of Cindya). The cult of Artemis Cindyas continul'< I
into Roman times (cf. Strabo, xiv. 658; inscriptions quoted by Magi<·,
ii. 907 n. n8; for an epiphany of the goddess see JHS, 1896, 218 f.,
514
IASUS AND SUPERSTITIO:;{S CONCERNING IT XVI. 13
no. 8 B (=Robert, Et. anat. 459; cf. Magie, ii. lOJ9)), after the town
of Cindya had been abandoned (Bean and Cook, RSA, 1957, 97). Cf.
Adler, RE, 'Kindyas', col. 472; Laumonier, 599-6o6; and for Artemis
Cindyas on coins of Bargylia and of Antiochus III see H. Seyrig,
Rev. num. 1964, 7-8.
ouTE vlopeTa.l •.• oliTe ~p£xeTa.1: there was a similar belief about the
altar of Paphian Aphrodite (Tac. Hist. ii. 3· 2; Pliny, Nat. kist. ii.
::no). For other parallels see also 0. Gruppc, Griechische 111ythologie,
ii (Munich, 19o6), nz n. ro.
4. 'f'o Tfjs !l\anaSos: Artemis Astias was the chief goddess at Iasus;
for the evidence on coins and inscriptions sec G. Jost,lasos itt Karien
(Hamburg, 1935). 33 (especially REG, 1893· I59· TrpOiatOYJy•p..a!l' ri]~
r.oAew> ~p..wv; CIG, ii. 2671, i.ep6v; CIG, ii. 2683 Le Bas, 3oo (dedica-
tions); Ath. Mitt. r889, ro8 no. 62; for cults of Iasus d. Hicks, }HS,
1887, II4 f.; Laumonier, 591-9).
'f'tves ••. !Ca.~ Twv auyypa.opf:wv: not identifiable.
7. a1TTJAYTJKUta.s ••• ~uxfjs: cf. i. 35· 5; 'the sign of a blunted in-
telligence' (Paton).
8eo1Top.1Tos: cf. FGH, IIS T 20 {a),§ II (Dion. Hal. ad Pomp. 6. II)
for criticism of Theopompus' introduction of childish and incredible
anecdotes, such as the 'appearance of a Silenus in .:Vfacedonia, or the
sea-monster that fought against a trireme'. For other criticism of
Theopompus see viii. 9-11 n. and passages quoted there.
TOU<; els TO TOU ALOS li~a.TOV €Jl~G.YTa<; •.. aaKLOU<; y(vEalla.L: the 'holy
of holies' in Arcadia is the ·dp,evo> on Mt. Lycaeum; see iv. 33· 2 n.
for details, and for another myth concerning this sanctuary vii.
I.~· 7 n. On the shadowlessness of those entering the shrine see Paus.
\iii. 38. 6; Schol. Callimach. hymn. 1. TJ; Plut. M or. 300 c.
9-ll. P.'s attitude tozmrds pious fictions: see Vol. I, pp. II-I2, where,
however, the statement that P.'s concessions in this case hardly
affects him as a historian must be modified to take account of
P.'s treatment of Scipio Africanus; d. x. 2. 8-13 for the belief that
Scipio exploited pious fictions for rational ends, and for P.'s attitude
towards this see the discussion in X. 2. I-20. 8 n. See vi. s6. 6-12 n.
for his approval of Swn8a.tp..ovla as an instrument for mass discipline.
9. €v£ov; Twv auyypaoptwv TEpaTEUOfltVOL<; ••• 1TEp\ Tel T01a.ilTa.: but
neither the writers who make the absurd statements about Artemis
Cindyas and Artt:mis Astias (§ 4), nor Theopompus (§ 7), are to be
so excused.
10. Sua1ra.paypaopos tUTw t1 1roao'TT)s: 'it is difficult to draw the line'.
13. N abis' plan against lt.l essene

This fragment forms part of the res Graetiae of 2o2/1 (see p. 24); on
Nabis see xiii. 6-8 n.
XVI. IJ. I NABIS' PLAN AGAINST MESSENE
13. 1. -rj}\t;:u8£pwa£ 'l"ou<; SouAou<;: this accusation is not contained in
the fragments surviving from xiii, where Nabis is said to have
married the wives of the exiles to his chief supporters and mercenaries
(xiii. 6. 3-4).
2. i]8potaE TTAY]Bo<; 6.v8pwvwv 6.voa(wv: cf. xiii. 6. 4, 8. 2.
tv 'I"O'i<; vpo 'I"OU'I"WV: xiii. 6-8.
3. Ka.'l"li 'I"OU<; TTpoetp'ljlEvou<; Ka.lpou<;: 'at the time I have mentioned';
but it is not clear whether this refers to the time of Nabis' original
institution of his policy of terrorism (§§ or behind that to the
lost passage in which P. introduces Nabis in the context of 2or.
Holleaux, 262, thinks the reference is to zos/4. but 2or seems more
likely.
GUJljlG.XO<; uml.pxwv AL'I"WAo'i<;, 'HA£LOl<;, M£GGf)VLOt<;: Sparta, Aetolia,
Elis, and Messenia were all allies during the first Macedonian War
(cf. ix. 28 ff., 30. 6, 31. 3), and the full alliance of that time seems tn
have continued as a defensive alliance after Aetolia made peace >Vitll
the Greek Symmachy (Livy, xxix. r2. r; cf. Livy, xxxvi. 31. rr) in
206. Whether Sparta, Elis, and Messenia were included in that peace
is disputed. Livy does not mention them in that context, but his
reference to the peace is brief (Livy, xxix. r2. r); moreo\·er in the
similar context of the Peace of Naupactus (v. ror-s) P. makes no
mention of Elis and Sparta, though it is clear that they were also
covered by that treaty. It is at any rate fairly certain that the three
Peloponnesian states did not continue as belligerents after the de-
fection of Aetolia (cf. Holleaux, 26r f.). Livy (xxix. 12 .•H). howeYer,
includes them in the Peace of Phoenice between Philip and the
Romans, and Badian, 59, argues that though not actual parties to
either treaty they were asm:pti in both. It is a little hard to see how
Elis, Messenia, and Sparta can have allowed themselves to be ascriptl
in the treaty between Aetolia and T'hilip without breaking their
obligations to Rome (obligations probably defined in separate
treaties: cf. Livy, xxxiv. 31. s, uetustissimum foedus (between Rom<'
and Sparta: not denied by Flamininus, Livy, xxxiv. 32. r), 32. r6.
Messene linked to Rome eodem iure foederis as Sparta: cf. Larse11,
CP, 1935, 2rr; Badian, 59); that these obligations continued is cleaT
from Livy, xxxiv. 32. r6, where Flamininus, addressing Nabis, refers
to both Sparta and Messene as socii in 201. (Holleaux's argument.
:263~4 n. 4, that Flamininus is here discussing a hypothetical situation
-the conditions in which amicitia persists--the relevance of whi< I•
to Nabis he denies, and that Livy has misunderstood P., is clearh
a counsel of despair.) See also xviii. 42. 7 n. for Elis and Messenia as
Roman allies in 197.
It has been argued (cf. Walbank, Philip, ror n. ,3, ro3-4 n. 6) that
Elis, :\fessenia, and Sparta were ignored at Phoenice, and that their
presence in Livy's account of the treaty is due to an annalist; but
516
NABIS' PLAN AGAINST MESSENE XVI. I4, z
Roman neglect of these states both in the Second Macedonian War
and in the embassies preceding it is easily explicable on geographical
grounds-they were of little importance in a war against Macedonia
(cf. Larsen, CP, 1935, 210 f.). Thus the continuing relations with
}{orne support the view that, as Livy says, these states were in-
cluded in the Treaty of Phoenice. On the other hand, if they were
abandoned by Aetolia in her separate peace of 2o6, they can hardly
have been her allies in 202/r; and it is unsatisfactory to reject P.'s
specific statement on the grounds of his hostility to Nabis (so Piraino,
Riv. fil. 1955, 67). Hence, despite the difficulties mentioned above,
perhaps the solution of Badian is the least unsatisfactory, that the
Peloponnesian states were ascripti in both treaties (cf. Niese, ii.
sor-z). The defensive alliance mentioned here may be simply a con-
tinuation of the former alliance, provided for in the original terms
(cf. vii. 9· 15, a similar clause in the treaty between Philip and
Hannibal) or it may have been sworn in or after zo6.
vuv epoufl£V: P.'s account of this has not survived; but we have
some comment on it in relation to Zcno and Antisthenes (I6. r-q. 7).
See Livy, xxxiv. 32. I6, 35· 6; Plut. Philop. 12. 4-6; Paus. iv. 29. ro,
viii. so. 5; Syll. 595, I. 3; and in general Aymard, PR, 40-41. It
evidently took place in summer zor.
14-20. Criticism of Zeno and A ntisthenes

14. r makes it clear that this criticism is introduced in connexion
with these historians' account of events in Greece and Asia Minor
with which P. is himself concerned.
14. 1. Twv Tas Ka.Ta flEpos ypa.+ovnuv 1rpn~ELS: for criticism of

writers of monographs cf. Vol. I, p. II, vii. 7· 6 n.
Td. ••• Ka.Ta M~too'lvlous: cf. r6. r-I7. 7·
Ta Ka.Tcl. Tas ••• VO.Uf-La.xla.s: Chios and Lade: cf. 2-g, IO. I. rs.
2. z,;vwv KO.~ ~VTL<78EVTfS: Zeno (FGH, 523) is mentioned briefly by
Diodorus (v. 56. 7) and Diogenes Laertius (vii. 35), but only as a
Rhodian historian; clearly he belonged to the late third (14. 3) and
early second (zo. 5) centuries. According to Timachidas (Lindian
Chronicle: FGH, 532, §§ 35 and 40) his work was entitled Xpovtl{~
O'VVTag.,, and it seems to have included the early history of Rhodes
as well as contemporary events (cf. l''GH, 523 F r); book ii dealt with
Pyrrhus (FGH, 532, § 35) and there may have been fifteen books in
all (if in Diog. Laert. vii. 35 tvda is to be emended, as Ullrich, IJ-I4,
urges, to iv iE). That it continued to 164(3 (cf. Ullrich, 70-72) is
hypothetical (cf. xxx. 23 n.). Zeno's treatment of the early myths
inclined towards rationalism (cf. Diod. v. 55· 1, 56. 3) and his work
had stylistic pretensions (cf. 17. 9), which P. criticizes. P.'s discussion
XVI. 14.2 CRITICISM OF ZENO AND ANTISTHENES
here shows that Zeno's book contained more than a strict historY
of Rhodes (cf. r6. 1-q. 7, 18-19, zo. s); how far P. used it is uncertain.
but the comparatively warm terms in which he speaks of him (cf.
14. 3) suggest that he was a source for Rhodian and other topics.
See Vol. I, p. 30; notes on iv. I, sz-ss. s6, v. 40. 4-57· 8, 88-90,
vii. IS-I8, xv. 21-24, xvi. 2-9. further Valeton, 202-3; Ullrich.
IO-IS (and passim); Jacoby on s23.
Antisthenes (FGH, so8) is also mentioned by Diogenes Laertiu~
(vi. 19) as 'Pootos- ns- laToptK6;;; and he too seems to have been a con
temporary of late-third-century events (14. 3), though probably oldt·J
than Zeno (Ullrich, w, I6-17). The scope of Antisthenes' history i~
not known. Jacoby suggests that it was continued by Zeno, and
that P. does not quote him because of his anti-Roman attitude:
but this depends on identifying him with Antisthenes the Peri
patetic, quoted by Phlegon (FGH, 257 F 36, §iii. 1) for an anti-Roma1:
anecdote, and both this identification and that with the author ol
cfJLAaao<f>uw ow.8oxal (cf. r'GH, 508 F J-6) are dubious; see Ullricli.
8-IO. Schwartz (RE, 'Antisthenes (9)', cols. 2537-8) suggested that
P. knew Antisthenes only through Zeno; this is possible (cf. Vol. l.
p. 30 n. r), though Schwartz supports it with some unacceptab!t-
assumptions, and 14. s and IS. r are perhaps against it. That P. goe~
on to criticize Zeno alone (16 ff.) is explicable if Antisthenes' histon
did not deal with non-Rhodian affairs. Antisthenes may well beth·
son of Archetimus, and priest of Helios, known from IG, xii. 1. r,_;
(early second century}; other historians active in I\hodian political
life were Poseidonius and Timachidas. See further Valeton, 202~-3;
Ullrich, s-IO, I6-I7; Schwartz, Joe. cit.; Jacoby on FGH, soB.
3. n-En-oAlnuvTal: 'were active in politi~s'; d. Larsen, S~vm. Osl. 1957.
7, on the meanings of this word.
OUI( wcp~;Ada<; xapw: i.e. they were amateurs, like P., \Vho expressco
contempt for the man who has to live by his writing; d. xii. 25 e _;.
below,§ 8.
avSpaO'I TrOAITII(O~<;: for the obligations of the historian toward·.
statesmen see Vol. I, p. i.
4. oti(EIOTaTa<; ••• 'PoiHoL<;: as an Arcadian P. is scnsiti,.:e here.
5. Tl-jv n-ept AO.S11v vauJ:laxiav I(TA.: the order in which the two batth~
are mentioned that Chios came first (cf. p. 497); on La(k
cf. IO. I n.
Tfj ••• Tou I(W8Uvou XPEL~ I(O.L O'uvn:A.d~ Kai ICa8oA.ou: 'in both tht·
detailed action of the battle and its general outcome'.
6. pon-as s,SOvaL I(TA.: for P.'s insistence on a truthful presentatio11
of the facts cf. xxxviii. 3· rz-4. 8; but the concession to patriotisn1
is a dangerous qualification: see Vol. I, pp. 12-13; La-Roche, 43-.J~. 82.
See further von ; Susemihl, ii. IIZ n. nr. 11te vie\v tl1a1
P. here echoes the famous passage in Arist. Eth. Nic. i. 6. 1, 1096 a 10
sr8
CRITICIS::\f OF ZE:'<O AXD AXTISTHEKES XVI. 15.6
(so L. Schmidt, Die Ethik der alten Griechen (Berlin, r882), ii. 481
n. 17) is not convincing.
8. TWV n'ITO TOUTOU TOV ~(ov 'ITOpl~OJ-lEVwv: cf. § 3·
9. ooTws ol 'ITOAlTUcoi ICTA.: by allowing favour towards his own side
to distort the truth, a historian renders his history unreliable
(0.8oKlf.tou>) and so worthless. Similarly statesmen who let their likes
and dislikes influence their decisions will go astray. Note that in both
cases F.'s criterion is utility, and that his call for truth rests on this.
For repetition of this commonplace (as it concerns historians) in
later writers cf. Avenarius, 51-52; on the distinction between volun-
tary and involuntary error cf. xiii. 7· 6 n.
15. 1. OJ-LOAoyouvns: P. makes no distinction between the accounts

in Zeno and Antisthenes, but this does not prove that he knew only
Zcno at first-hand (cf. q. :2 n.).
2. E'!Ta.pa.J-LEVfl'il Tov 86Xwva.: 'raising its jury-mast'. The So>.wv was
a small mast with a subsidiary sail which remained on board in
hattie, when the usual mast and sail were left ashore; it was used for
a quick get-away, and consequently 'to raise the jury-mast' was
a nautical term for flight from battle. On the use of the dolon cf.
Diod. xx. 61 8 (Punic), Livy, xxxvi. 44· J, 45· 1; xxxvii. 30. 7 (Roman);
d. Assmann, RE, M>.wv, cols. 1288-9; Casson, The Ancient 1\:fariners
(London, 1959), 97-()8. The ship's action on this occasion seems to
have caused a panic in the Rhodian fleet; cf. Holleaux, Etudes,
iv. 246.
3. Tov va.va.pxov: d. § 8: Philip's silence on his name suggests that he
was not Theophiliscus, and so perhaps that Lade followed Chios
(cf. p. 497).
4. Ets Ti)v Muv8[av: evidently the capacious harbour of :\1yndus, mod.
Giimii~ltik (see above, 12. r n.) at the end of the Halicarnassian
peninsula, about 40 miles away from Lade.
U'!Toupwaa.vTa.s: 'driven by unfavourable winds' ; the word explains
why the Rhodians stopped at Myndus instead of continuing home.
Paton misses the sense.
cts Kw: the island of Cos, with its new capital founded in 366/5
(Diod. xv. 2: modern Kos) lay immediately south-west of the
Halicarnassian peninsula, and was at this time independent but
under Rhodian influence (Fraser and Bean, 135; Burchner, 'Kos',
cols. 1467-So).
5. Tac; 'ITEVT,pEts: cf. § 1 : evidently the only ships the Rhodians lost.
hi Ti\ 1 KEtvwv crTpa,-o'ITE00€(4: its site is unknown, but it was probably
near .Miletus.
6. Tovc; MlAfla(ous: cf. r::. 1-2; probably Philip entered the city, but
this is not quite certain.
Tov 'HpaKAE(S'lv: d. xiii. 4· r n., 4· 4-5; he was Philip's admiral in
519
XVI. I5. 6 CRITICISM OF ZE:\'0 A~D A:\'TISTHE~ES
200 and 199 (Livy, xxxi. 16. 2, 33· :z, 46. 8) and evidently succeeded
Democrates, who perished at Chios (3. 6). See p. 497·
s.a. TTJV ~~oSov: ambiguous. Against Valois's translation urbem in-
gressis see Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 229, who takes up Schweighaeuser'-.
suggestion and renders 'on account of their attack' (i.e. at Ladc,i
So too Paton, 'for his brilliant attack'; Shuckburgh has 'on hi"
entrance to their territory'. Holleaux' rendering is certainly possible.
but perhaps more likely is Reiske's n:rsion: 'through fear he might
attack'; cf. xi. 24. 3, ovn ... AL1T6vn:; .,,;,. !Stoll -r61rov 1hd. ~t· n<:w
'Ifll}pwv €rfoooov, 'they would not leave their position for fear of attad
by the Spaniards'. P. says they were Ka-rmrAa.yEvms -ro yEyovos. Se.-
Mauersberger, s.v. irfooBos.
8. T~S imoTo>.fis .•• iv ,.q, 1TpuT<lV€Lif:J: cf. x\·. 23. 3· The prytaneum.
the headquarters of the Rhodian prytaneis (cf. xiii. 5· r n.) appear~
to have been used as a record office; it has been restored on ;1
Rhodian inscription (IG, xii. r. 85): see further, van Gelder, Rhodicr.
239-4I. P.'s reference to the dispatch preserved in the prytaneum
may, but need not necessarily, imply that he had seen it himself.
Zeno can have quoted it in his account, trying to draw conclusion,
from it which P. rejected (cf. Vol. I, p. 31); without the text \\'('
cannot judge between them. Alternatively, P. may have consulte.d
the records through an intermediary (so l)edech, REG, 1958, 441).
The contents of such a document may originally have been published
on AwKwwua., a notice-board whitened with gypsum, and known to
have been used at Rhodes (among many Greek cities) from Syll.
644, L rs; see Wilhelm, Beitrage, 246, 272-5.
Tft n ~ouXfJKaL To'Ls 1rpun1v€o1v: on the Rhodian prytaneis cf. xiii_
5· r n.; like them the Council (fJovAa) changed every half-year, having
a '}(Etfi.epwd and a Oeptvd €gdp.>Jvos; it was thus dosel }' associated with
the prytaneis. See Hiller von Gaertringen, RE, Suppl.-B. v, 'Rhodos',
col. 767 ; Fraser and Bean, 2 n. r.
16. 1. 1T€pl ,.oG Ka,.a. M€oo11vLous 1ro.pao1Tovo,;p.a,.os: in 201; d.

13 n. On this incident see further Plut. Pht'lop. 12. 4-5; Livy, xxxi,-.
32. r6, 35· 6; Paus. iv. 29. Io, viii. so. 5· Nabis failed to capture tlw
citadel (so Pausanias) and was forced to withdraw by an Achaean
force under Philopoemen, who led a body of volunteers to Messell('
when the general for 2o2jr, Lysippus, refused to act. See NiesP,
ii. s66.
2. N abis' route to Sellasia: P. does not specifically criticize this part
of Zcno's account (cf. Leake, Peloponnesiaca (London, r846), 35~
n. 2; contra, Bursian, ii. IIi n. 2), but the names given by Zeno arl'
otherwise unknown, and may be corrupt. Sellasia is usually identified
with the hill-fortress standing a little west of the Oenus (Kelephina),
about 7 miles north of Sparta, modern Hag. Konstantinos (cf. Loring.
CRITICISM OF ZENO Al"D ANTISTHENES XVI. r6. 8
JHS, 1895.71 ff. with plan; Bolte, RE, 'Sparta', col. 1;po); contra
W. K. Pritchett, 59-70, who locates it on 1\H. Palaeogoulas (see Vol. I,
pp. 276-j). The ancient road from Sparta to Tegea passed west of
Scllasia (d. ii. 65. 7 n.) and it is probably to this route that Zeno
referred. The Hoplites has been variously identified as a statue on the
Eurotas bank (Leake, ibid.) or less probably as Apollo Pythaeus of
Thornax (Curtius, ii. 321 n. 54); Bursian, Joe. cit., took it to be a
brook. See Bolte, RE, 'Hoplites ( r )', col. 22g6. Poliasion and the
narrow road near it are both unidentified; d. Bolte, RE, 'Poliasion',
col. 1365.
3. i'II'L E>a./.c:l.floa.<;; E'II'L~a.AOvTa.: 'reaching Thalamae'. Thalamae lay
above the Messenian Gulf, west of Taygetus; its remains have been
identified at the village of Svina, about 16 km. north of Oetylus
(Vitylos) and a little east of Kutiphari. See Forster, BSA, I90J-4,
r6T-2; Dickins, ibid., 1904-s. 125-36.
K~:ml. «<la.pc:l.<;;: d. xxiii. I7. 2. Pharae lay at modern Kalamata, on
the River Nedon in south Messcnia (d. Strabo, viii. 36o; Branden-
stein, RE, 'Pharai (2)', cols. rSor 2). Against Valmin's attempt
(41 ff.) to identify Pharae with the modern village of Giannitza,
south-east of Kalamata, see Roebuck, 123-4.
'll'f>OS TOV na. . . Laov 'II'OTO.floOV: there are two rivers of this name in
l\1essenia (Strabo, viii. 344). One is the small stream near Thalamae
(modern river of Milea), which was probably made the boundary
between Messenia and Sparta at the time of Philip II (Strabo, Yiii.
,)6r), when the small town of Leuctmm was allotted to Messenia
(cf. Bolte, RE, 'Pamisos (z)', cols. 293-6; Roebuck, n. 132), the
other is the river which still bears that name, the largest in ~1essenia,
draining the lower Messenian plain (Bolte, RE, 'Pamisos (r)', cols.
z9o-3). The reference to Pharae shows that the latter is meant by
Zeno.
4. EK KopLv9ou KTA.: most of the places P. mentions are well known,
which demonstrates clearly the absurdity of what Zeno wrote. The
Kontoporia (d. Athen. ii. 43 E) is a mountain road leading from
Corinth via Tenea to Argos; it is the route used in X en. Hell. iv. 4· 19
and Ages. 2. q, and appears to run from Chiliomodi past the site of
Tenea, then via Hagionori and Berbati and through Klisoura into
the Argive plain. See Leake, Morea, iii. 328, Geiger, RE, 'Konto-
poreia', cols. I343-4·
Mu.djva.c;: Paton unfortunately translates 'Messene'.
7. 6.'11'o n4v '~~'POtlYOUI-I-Evwv: 'given these data'.
8. we; '11'p0<;; TtlS 9epwO.s 6.va.ToAO.s: 'north-east'; Paton has 'south-
cast'. In fact Sellasia is due north of Sparta, and the Eurotas flows
from north-west to south-east of the city, leaving it on the west
(Strachan-Davidson, 68); Pharae and Pamisus lie due west of Sparta
and Thalamae alone is south-west. In his anxiety to represent these
521
XVI. r6 8 CRITICIS::\I OF ZE~O AND ANTISTHENES
two groups of places as diametrically opposite, P. has been les~
accurate than his criticism might lead a reader to expect.
9. oux otov hrl T~V I£AAUO'LUV I<TA.: Niese (ii. s66 n. :!) suggests thzll
Nabis may have set out in this direction as a feint to cover his rP;d
objective; one might compare Cleomenes' feint in the direction nf
Sellasia when he set out to take ~1egalopolis (Piut. Cleom . .23. 3). But 011
);iese's hypothesis, the false direction would be even more marked.
17. 1. T~v E'ITavoSov: upon the arrival of Philopoemen (cf. r6. r n.:
2. Q.Suva.TOV ••• KUA£ia9a.i TLV(l mJA'I}V ••• E'ITl T £yEa.v: because Mega I· l
polis lay between Messene and Tegea, it does not follow that a gat.-
at Messene could not be said to lead €1Ti Tt:ylav (Tegea existed Ion;:
before Megalopolis) ; nor does it follow that because Zeno used thi~
phrase he must have believed Tegea to lie near Messene. I).'s criticisr11
is niggling and hardly valid: contrast his own claim to consideration
in similar cases (xxix. 12. ro).
3. 1rUAT] T£yECins: probably the so-called Arcadian Gate, which i·,
still an impressive monument (cf. Frazer, Pausani,ls, iii. 429
u'!T(Aa.j3E T~v T eyEa.v £tva.1 MEaa'lviwv: P. has not produced am
proof of this.
5. 1T£pl AuKoa.v Tfjs :.\pt<a.S(a.s: this town, which evidently on
the Alpheius below its junction with the Lusius (§ 7), the river ol
Dimitsana (Paus. \'iii. 28. 2; BOlte, RE, 'Lusios', coL r867), is to b•·
identified with the .1vKauirat of Paus. viii. 27. 4, and with the Kastrn
of Hag. Helena near Lavda, north of Andritsaena (Curtius, i. 358 f.;
Leake, Morea, ii. r8 f.; Frazer, Pausanias, iv. 386 ff.; Ernst Meyer.
RE, 'Lykaia (r)', cols. 22.29-31).
6. ~<pucp9£to; E'ITt SeKn aT6.8~n, 1T6.Aw EK'ITL'ITT£1: the Alpheius has su~
tained several changes in its upper stream since ancient times, whctt
it appears to have gone into the ground at the foot of :\H. Boreium.
to reappear on the other side of the hill near Asea, at the mod~en1
spring of Franc6vrysi; it then sank once more, to reappear on th
south-west of the plain of Asea at :\1annariani (ancient ll'}ya!).
See Pausanias, viii. 54· I--;;; Frazer, Pausanias, iv. 443 f.; Hirschfeld,
RE, 'Alpheios (r)', cols. r63o-r; Pritchett, 125-9·
7. eTTI Su1tcoa£ouo; aTa.5(ous: 24 or 25 miles.
tcal J3apus: here P indicates an omission with the words '~(r• •)
d,\{y(a.) Sd>.(me).
8. 1rpocpa.alv ••• tca.t 1ra.pah'la~v: 'some excuse and apology'.
9. T~v Twv 1rpa.y!J-6.Twv ~~TTJaw: 'critical enquiry into the facts'.
Tov xuplap.bv Tf)S li1!'o6Ea•;r.us: 'the organization of his material'
'T~v 'Tf\S AE~EWS Ka.Ta.at<Eu~v: 'stylistic elegance'; for P.'s conscioll'•
disregard of this cf. xxix. 12. ro-though he counts it a merit in
Ephorus that he is Oavp.aaw<; ... Ka.rd. T~v <fopdmv Kai KolTd. n/•·
X"~p~altlw (xii. 28. to), and here too he grants it some importance.
CRITICISM OF ZENO AND ANTISTHENES XVI. r8. 4
18. 2. T~V T£ r U~T]') 1rOA~opKta.v KO.L TTjv ••• wa.paTa.~~v .•. wEpi. TO
na.v~ov: the siege of Gaza and the battle of Panium are two events
in the Fifth Syrian War, in which Antiochus III seized Coele-Syria.
The war was expected in Egypt when Scopas was sent recruiting
late in 204 or early in 203 (d. xv. 25. r6 n., 25. 17 n.); but it seems
not to have begun until after the pact between Antiochus and Philip
in 2o3j2. Antiochus probably opened his assault on Coele-Syria in
202 (xv. 20 n.). Of this campaign nothing is kno\vn. From 22 a it is
clear that the siege of Gaza was in 201 (d. Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 320)
and probably occupied much of that year (d. xxix. 12. 8). The battle
of Panium is also attributed to xvi by Ioseph. Ant. Iud. xii. 135-6
(see below, 39· 3), and this is confirmed by the detailed criticism of
Zeno's account made by P. in this book; but since Panium lies near
the source of the Jordan (Ioseph. Ant. Iud. xii. 132; Hieron. in Dan.
xi. r5-r6) and Gaza in south Palestine near the Egyptian border
(cf. v. 68. 2 n.), there was clearly an Egyptian counter-attack be-
tween the two incidents (as Ioseph., Ant. Iud. xii. 135. confirms
(see below 39· r); cf. Joseph. Ant. Iud. xii. 131; Hieron. in Dan. xi.
13-14) and after this Scopas returned to Egypt. Consequently the
battle of Panium must fall in the season after Gaza, viz. 2oo. De
Sanctis (iv. r. II8 n. 8) dates Panium in 198 after Scopas' levy in
Aetolia in 199 (Li,·y, xxxi. 43· 5-7) and assumes that, in Iosephus,
xvi is an error for xviii (d. Nissen, KU, 134 n. r; Bevan, Se!eucus,
ii. 36-37; Bouche-Leclercq, Lagides, i. 36r). But Scopas had already
obtained his troops (see above), and those assembled in 199 were no
doubt to fill the gaps left by the defeat at Panium. Moreover, P.'s
discussion of Zeno's account of Panium here also suggests that it fell
in 2oo. See, for full discussion and a refutation of Nissen, Holleaux,
!!:tudes, iii. 317-3I. See the Addenda.
-ro Ilcivwv is the shrine of Pan near the grotto in which the Jordan
has its source, at the foot of Mt. Hermon, and in the district known
as Panias (mod. Biinjas). Pan must represent some earlier Semitic
deity, but his identity is not known. On the site and later history
of the shrine, which is first mentioned here, see Holscher, RE, 'Panias',
cols. 594-6oo; Dussaud, 390-r. One cannot evaluate P.'s criticism of
Zeno's account of Panium simply on the basis of what P. says; he
may have read Zeno carelessly (e.g. on the two Antiochi (r8. 8,
19. 9) or what happened to Antiochus' light-armed, cavalry, and
elephants before the phalanxes met (r8. ro)).
IK6wa.v: d. xv. 25. r6 n.
uwEpf3oA.Tjv TEpa.Te£a.rs: cf. ii. 56. ro for similar accusations against
Phylarchus; on the antecedents of this kind of historical writing
see Walbank, Historia, r96o, 216-34.
3. -r~v EUXEPE~a.v: 'recklessness'; cf. xii. 25 e 2.
4. Tl]S uwwpEta.s ~XE0"9a.~: 'rested its right wing on the hills' (Paton).
52 3
X\'T. r8. 5 CRITICISM OF ZE::;-O A)l'D A~TISTHENES
5. Tov 1TpEa~IJTEpov utov )\vT(oxov: his mother was Laodice, and he

was born in 22o; since 209 he had been co-regent with his father. Se•~
v. 55· 4 n.
<
6. Tov 1TOTaflOV Tov) flETa~u Twv aTpaTo1Teowv: not identifiable in
the absence of further information on the site of the battle: it mav
be one of the sources of the Jordan, either the Nahr Banias, which
rises in the cave of Pan, or the stream rising at Tell el-Kady, west
north-west of Paneas (Joseph. Ant. Ind. i. 177, ~ !T!pa Tov 'lopou~·o•'
••• 1T1Jy~), but there are at least two other streams in the basin ol
el-Huleh, immediately south of Paneas, which might be meant (sl•,·
E. Robinson, B£bl£cal researches in Palest£ne (London, 1841), iii.
352-3)-
TTtV KaTil.oppaKTov t1r1TOV: d. xxx. 25. 9; Heliodoms, Aethiop. ix. 15 H.
Mailed cavalry came from the nomads of central Asia, and r,ooo
mailed Saca horse fought for Darius III at Gaugamela. Tam
(liMN D, 76) suggests that Antiochus had met them in his invasiou
of Parthia, and notes his (unsuccessful) use of them at Magnesi:t
(Livy, xxxvii. 40. u); see his discussion of the development of tlw
cataphract, ibid. 73-92; d. Ra.ttenbury, CR, 1942, 113-16.
o vEwTEpos ;b..vT(oxos: the later king Antioclms IV. But he had an
elder brother, the later Seleucus IV, whom he succeeded (xxxi. 2. 1-2),
and at least one and probably two elder sisters (cf. xi. 34· 9, which
implies that in 207{6 Antiochus III had at least two daughters aged
10 or over: cf. Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 187 n. 4). Hence he can hardh·
have been born before 215, so that a command in 201, when he was 1 1
years old, must have been a formality, and P. seems to have good
reason for saying that only one son Antioch us, the elder, was present
at Panium (19. 9).
7. Tous flET' ;b..vn1TaTpou TapavT(vous: on Antipater see v. 79· 12 n ..
on Tapavri:vot, iv. i7· 7 n.
flETa Ti]s tTmptK1]s L1T1Tou: d. v. 53· 4 n.
Kat Twv lJ1Ta<nrLaTGw: probably a royal infantry corps under tlw
Seleucids ; see vii. r6. 2 n.
8. nToAEflalOV TOV :A.Ep01TOU: the name suggests a l\Iacedonian (ci
Hoffmann, Makedonen, 13o-r), and this is perhaps the same Ptol•·
maeus who appears as a priest of Alexander on l. 6 of the Pith om st,·l··
recording honours paid to Ptolemy IV in 217/16 (cf. v. 83-86. 6 11.
for bibliography and references). See Volkmann, RE, 'Ptolemaio,
(46)', col. 1763; Peremans-van't Dack, iii, no. 5239.
To'Ls AtTwAo"Ls: d. xv. 25. 16 for Scopas' recruiting ,·isit.
19. 1. KaTa1TpoTEpouf1EV"lv ••• Tais EUXELp(aLS:: 'proving inferior 111

fortitude'; d. xi. 13. 3· But the MS. reads £Vx£p£iats, which shoul< I
perhaps be kept (d. xxii. 3· 8, xxiii. 5· 6, etc.) in preference to
Schweighaeuser's conjecture.
524
CRITICISM OF ZENO AND ANTISTHENES XYI. 21. 5
7. To KnXXunov cruaTY)f.La. ••• Twv nf.~wv ~<a.l Twv tnw€wv: i.e. the
companion horse and the hypaspists (18. 7).
9. ooS' ••• civo.~<EXWPTJKEV a.lm~: 'he does not even represent him as
returning': a.tin:;::> has the same sense in § Io.
20. 2. Twv Tll'i lcrTopla.o; jjf.pwv: cf. xii. er.

3. TW\1 ••• TEXVW\1 Ka.l E'ITLTY)OEUJ.LilTW\1: and professions; d. vi.
5· 6.
4. ~<a.Ta.O"KEuiJv ixn py.OlEO"TEpa.v: 'it is easier to produce' (Paton).
TTJY eOOOKY)O"LV bXLyoOEEaTtpnv: 'wins applause more cheaply'.
~ea.8a:rrep a.t Xoma.t Twv ypa.cj>wv: '(in history} as in the other branches
of writing'.
5. wept 8E Tf\'i TWV Ton!.Jv ciyvota.o; KTA.: i.e. the errors which are
t~xcusable (q. 8); P. did not write to Zeno on the more fundamental
error of putting style before factual accuracy and an account that
makes sense (18. 2-3), presumably because he could say nothing
useful on this.
wpos o.uTov ZT]vwvn: who must therefore be a contemporary (I4. 2 n.).
P.'s action, as von Scala, 294, justly remarks, 'will hardly have had
the effect of creating ... increased popularity for his own writings
in contemporary professional circles'. For a more generous inter-
pretation of P.'s action cf. Suscrnihl, ii. II/ n. rzr.
7. ti.Js ivL tJ.nALO'To.: 'extremely'.
8-9. ~e<iv £yw rro.pa.Ka.AEO"O.Lfi.L ••. auyyvw~-t-TJV exov: from this request
Neumann (Hermes, I8g6, 519 ff.) deduces that P. had already pub-
lished i-xv when he resumed work after the interruption of 150-I44,
clearly a false conclusion (see iii. I-S n. (c)). See xxix. 12. I I for a
similar request for pardon for trivial geographical errors but censure
in the (unlikely) event of his indulging in lies deliberately or for the
sake of gain; also xii. 7· 6 n., 12. 4 n.
21-22. The character and conduct of Tlepolemus

This extract is from the res Aegypti of 2o2/1 ; see p. 24.
21. 1. b TX,woAEflO'i: on him see xv. 25. 25 n. He had evidently now

come to Alexandria from Pelusium, following Agathocles' downfall
(xv. 29. 6), and taken control of the government; on his popularity
cf. xv. 25. zg.
ICGTG. TO cruvEXE!i ••• 8LeyEyovn lolETa cj>a.vTo.aio.s: 'he had constantly
lived a life of ostentation'; 'a life in which he enjoyed high prestige'
is also possible (cf. xxii. g. 12, xxiv. 7· 2, II. s. fg. 233), but the
former is more likely (cf. xv. 25. 22).
4. E'TI"LaTaO"Ew5 ~<o.i vTI'VE!.J'i: 'application and sobriety' (Paton).
8. ou fi.Ovov l!crcj>TJAEv KTA.: Paton translates, 'he not only carne to
525
XVI. 21. 5 CHARACTER AND CONDUCT OF TLEPOLEMUS
grief, but diminished the power of the kingdom', and Shuckburgl1

'he caused his own fall'. Despite zz. I I (and xxviii. 19. 6: perhaps
a different Tlepolemus ?) this must be the sense, for he is no longe1
in power in xviii. 53· Schweighaeuser, who rightly observes tha1
;.a</>YJAE is active would take flaatAdav with both verbs; but to say 'b•·
not only brought the kingdom to grief, but also weakened its re
sources' is almost bathos. Despite the agreement of Suidas, the tex1
seems at fault: read perhaps JaVT6v f!a</>YJAEv (with Reiske) or ffa</>YJA•
1Titaas- Tcts- lotas- Jm,BoMs (uel aliud simile) with Hultsch. Buttner
Wobst approves Schweighaeuser, but both sense and word-ord1·1
are against his view; in the Lex. Polyb. s.v. a,Pd.A.A.w Schweighaeus<'l
adds 'si uera scriptura'.
6. TTJV TGw XPTJf.l-clTWII isouaLa.v: 'financial control'.
a<jla.Lpof.l-a.xwv: 'boxing'; cf. Plato, Laws, viii. 830 B-831 A. !\ol
'games of ball' (so Bevan, Ptolemaic Dynasty, 256).
8. ivTEvSEL~: 'interviews, audiences'.
To'Ls 'ITEPL Tov A.Liwuaov TEXViTa.L<;: cf. iv. 20. 9 n. These are profession;JI
actors and musicians organized in guilds, who performed at th•·
various Greek festivals ..Paton translates: 'the actors of the theatn·
of Dionysus': tbis misses the point, for the title refers not to am
specific theatre, but to the guild organization. For an Egyptia11
example from Ptolemais from the reign of Ptolemy 1II see ()(; /."
so and 51.
9. ava.vEUELII: 'to say no', by throwing the head upward and bark
ward (still the Greek gesture equivalent to the English shaking ol
the head).
'ITav •.• TO <jla.vev: 'anything to hand'.
12. Ta<; ... imxuaE~S: 'drinking-toasts'; Schweighaeuser's emend.~
tion for the MS. JmAlaf.tS'.
Tas imypa.<jlas: 'graffiti' praising him.
lha Twv O.Kpoaf.l-aTwv: 'by musicians'; cf. iv. 2o. ron. Paton, 't"
popular audiences', is quite wrong.
Ta; SEVLKa<; Kal. O'TpUTLWTlKn<; xapLTU<;: 'gifts to foreigners and soldier<
22. 1. T~w ••. IwaL~Lov: the younger Sosibius; cf. xv. 32. 6-u.
2. as(a.v ••• Tij<; iyKEXELplO'~VTJ<; UUT~ '!T(O'TEW<;: 'worthy of t lw
charge entrusted to him'. Trlan> is equivalent to the Latin fides, at~< I
is often used of the commission of an ambassador (sometime .
Roman) in his dealings with Hellenistic kings; see v. 41. 2, xni11
I. 9 11.; Schulte, s8; Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 227 n. 3. 228 n. I ; Heinz• '
Hermes, r929, I63 n. I; Otto, Abh. Bay. Akad. I9J4, 46 n. r. 1-l<·••
however, it is more specifically the charge of the young king, 3:; tlu
next sentence shows.
~ a<jlpayt; Ka.!.To Tou ~a.atX~w; awf.l-a.: in xv. 32. 6 Sosibius is describe ol
as a awpaTo,Pv>..ag. Corradi, 298, suggests that he had now been mw I·
520
CHARACTER AXD CONDUCT OF TLEPOLEMUS XVI. zz a I
"Tov bri Tfj> BEpaTrclac; T<Taypivov, or chamberlain, a post attested only

for Macedonia (iv. 87. 5 n.).
3. j)KEL 1Ta.p0. TOU 4>LAL'IT'ITOU n..,.oAEJlO.LO'i b IwaL~LOU: i.e. sometime
in 2o2/r (contra Schmitt, Antiochos, 234, who rejects P.'s chronology
and dates this to spring 202); he had been sent in autumn 204 or
spring 203 (xv. 25. 13 n.). The words KaTa Tov Katpov TaiJTov are too
vague to help in a closer dating of his return to Egypt; but it was
probably before Philip made any open move against Egypt in 201.
5. Tol:c; m<pi niv a.oX..;v vEa.vlaKoLc;: perhaps the equivalent of Alexan-
der's ~acnAtKat Trai8E> (Corradi, zg8 n. r); elsewhere P. uses vcavtuKot
for 'soldiers'.
6.v8pci1ro8a. Ka.t ~Aa.Ka.c;: 'slaves and blockheads' (Paton); Shuck-
burgh omits this sentence. According to Teles (TrEpl aTraBda,; p. 62
Hense 2 ), Bion of Borysthenes, who spent some time at the court of
Antigonus Gonatas in preached that if fortune struck one
down, she should strike a man, not a blockhead-a>.>.' o~v y• av8pa
Kai ov ~AaKa. Tarn (AG, 238 n. sR) concludes that 'avSpa ~AaKa was
still a catch-phrase at Pella' and that this proves that Teles' re-
ference is to Bion, since 'a which both has the place of honour
in Teles and was also current at Pella cannot \Veil ... be due to any-
one else'. But the word flM.e in the sense 'blockhead' is fairly common
(cf. Heraclitus, II7 Bywater; Xen. Oec. 8. r6; Arist. Eth. Eud.
1247 a r8); P. himself uses the noun flAaKda, and we may not assume
that he here has access to actual words quoted from Ptolemaeus.
Thus Tarn's deductions from this passage exceed the evidence.
8. iK Tfjc; ..,.&v a.uALKwv 'ITa.pa.TTJP-IJaEwc; Ka.t Ka.Ko'!Tpa.yJloauvTJc;: 'from
the close observation and malignancy of the courtiers'.
10. auvfjyE To auv£8pLov: the royal council of the king's friends, found
in most Hellenistic monarchies; d. v. 41. 6 n., and for examples
from Egypt, Joseph. Ant. lud. xiii. 75, and below, xxviii. rg. r-2.
cKdvouc;: the courtiers (and especially Sosibius' sons).
11. JlETa ..,...;v STJilTJ'Yop£a.v: omitted in our text; the ~iS. P has, after
~ea·r"'JYoptd.v, the words {~ •{, ir D"JfL"JYop, i.e. {~TEL Jv To/ TrEpt D"JfL"JYoptwv
(now lost).
22 a. The loyalty of the people of Gaza
This fragment, from P, will be from the res Syriae for 202/r; see p. 24.
The first sentence (from the excerptor) makes clear that it follows
P.'s account of the siege of Gaza, which will therefore fall in 201 ;
see r8. 2 n.
l2 a 1. TWV r a.ta.£wv: on the site of Gaza cf. v. 68. 2 n.

3. ..,.~ TTJpE'i:v T..;v 'ITLO'TLV: P. rates this highly; cf. vi. s8, XV. 4· 9·
4. KO.TU ••• niv nEpawv ~cpoSov: according to Herodotus {iii. 19. 3)
the Phoenicians surrendered to Cambyses, and this is confirmed by
XVI. 22 a 4 LOYALTY OF THE PEOPLE OF GAZA
Herod. iii. 34· 4 (Cambyses 7rpoaEwrijaBat T~v BcL\aaaav) ; the unique

resistance of Gaza is not mentioned elsewhere, but there is no reason
to question it. P.'s source is unknown: von Scala, 262, thinks that ill
view of 18. 2 P. is following Zeno, but the account here is not par-
ticularly rhetorical, and the source must remain unknown.
5. Ka.Ta 8€ TT)v ~A.e~avlipou 1rapouaia.v: in 332. After his victory al
Issus (d. xii. q-22), Alexander marched south, received the sur-
render of Aradus and ~1arathus from Strato (Arr. ii. IJ. 7--8) and
then Byblus and Sidon (Arr. ii. 15. 6). The famous siege of Tyre
(Arr. ii. 16-24) lasted for the first seven months of 332, and from
there Alexander marched south on Gaza.
Tupiwv E~TJv8pa1TolilaJl€vwv: cf. Arr. ii. 24. s. who puts the number al
JO,ooo, including foreigners present inTyre.
Jl6vot ••• um\:aTTJaa.v: on the resistance of Gaza under the eunuch
Batis see Diod. xvii. 48. 7; Ioseph. Ant. Iud. xi. 320-25; Strabo.
xvi. 759; Plut. Alex. 25. 3-4; Mela, i. 64; Zon. iv. IO; and especialh
Arr. ii. 26-27; Curt. iv. 6. 7-3o. The siege lasted two months, till
October 322. On the legendary aspects of the story see Tarn, Alex.
ii. z65-7o. As at Tyre the women and children were sold into slavery,
Arrian (ii. 27. 7) confirms P.'s account of the bravery and united
action of the men.
7. Ka96.1Tep .•• KaT' lSia.v E1TlO'TJJlO.WDJlE9a. KTA.: cf. ii. 61. 6, TO rij.;
[a-roplas rowv ... Tov E'TTmvov Kat T~v €TT' ciyaB<fj ftll~f.l"1" TWJI O.twAoyw1·
TTpomp€atwv. Timaeus is criticized for failing in this respect (xii. 1_:;.
8--g: in respect of Agathocles). Censure also has its place: but both,
censure and praise, must be supported by evidence (x. 21. 8) and
must be applied regardless of the historian's predilections (i. 14. s).
See, further, Avenarius, 159-6o.
EK 1ra.pa80aew~ •.• Kai 1Tpo9Eaew~: 'by tradition and principle'.
23. Scipio's return to Rome and his triumph

From the res Italiae of zmfo. Livy (xxx. 45) puts his return at tlw
end of A.u.c. 553 = 201, when he was proconsul.
23. l. o& 'li'OAU KaT01TlV TI7W 1TpoeLpTJJlEVWV KO.Lpwv: the point of rc

ference is lost.
5. Tov 9p(a.!l~ov ela1he: 'de Hannibale et Poenis et Syphace' (LiV\',
xxxviii. 46, Io, d. 51. 14).
liLa Tij~ TWV elaa.yoJl£vwv ivepye(a.~: 'the spectacle of the prisoner~
who formed the procession'; Schweighaeuser and Paton both takt·
Twv Elaayofdvwv as neuter, but in favour of treating it as masculitw
(with Shuckburgh) is the reference to Syphax in§ 6. Moreover, per
sons would be more likely to remind spectators of their perils than
would mere spoils.
528
SCIPIO'S RETUR:\ A:-.: D TRIUMPH XVL 24. r
6. b I6~a.s: cf. xi. 24 a 4 11., and xiv and xv passim. A different
version is by Livy's source: cf. Livy, xxx. 45· 4 5, 'morte
subtractus spectaculo magis hominum quam triumphantis gloriae
~yphax est, Tiburi haud ita multo ante mortuus, quo ab Alba tra-
ductus fuerat. conspecta tamen mors eius fuit quia publico funere
est elatus. hunc regem in triumpho ductum Polybius, haudquaquam
spcrnendus auctor, tradit'.
7. xopTjy6v •.• TfjY II(L1TLWYOS ILEya.AoiJ!uxiav: cf. Livy, XXX. 45. 3.
'argenti tulit in aerarium pondo centum uiginti tria milia. militibus
ex praeda quadringenos aeris diuisit'.
24. l-9. Philip in Caria

This fragment deals with autumn 201 (d.§ 1), falling within 01. 144, 4·
After taking lasns (12 n.) Philip took Bargylia, also on the Gulf of
lasus (mod. ~landalya). Bargylia stoocl on a hill about 750 m. broad,
which projected into the lagoon of opening off tl1e southern
side of the gulf; the modern name of the site is Asar. For a descrip-
tion of the surface remains (it is 1111excaYated) see Bean and Cook,
BSA, 1957,96-97. That Iasus was taken first follows from 12. 1, where
the detailed account of the Gulf of lasus must have been given in
connexion with the first town to fall; so too the description (12. 3~4)
of the statue of Artemis Cindyas and the Bargylian superstitions
about it (d. Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 257).
24. 1. Tou xe~llwvos ilo'l KaTapxoll(vou: 'since it was now the be-
ginning of winter'; by X<'tp.wv Ka:rapxop.Evo<; (cf. xx. 3· 1) P. means the
period rougnly from 2o November to zo December; see Pedech,
Methode, 462-3, who seems to have refuted the view of Holleaux and
Aymard (quoted in ii. 54· 13 n.) that xap.wv for P. began about
the autumn equinox. It began at the traditional date of the morning
setting of the Pleiades (cf. iii. 54· 1 n.).
ka8' ()y no1TALOS Io/mhc~os U1T<1TOS K<1TEO'Tnlhj: P. Sulpicius Ser.f.
P.n. Galba Maximus, previously consul in 2II (ix. 6. 6), and ex-
perienced in Greece in the First Macedonian War (cf. viii. I. 6 n.),
was elected to the consulship for A.U.C. 554 = 2oo B.C. along with
C. Aurelius C.f. C.n. Cotta; see Livy, xxxi. 4· 4, 5· r.
'll'o~ouJlEYos Tijv lha.Tpt~T]v tv To~s BapyuA.ioLs: this suggests that P.'s
capture of Bargylia was the last event of the 201 campaign (Hol-
leaux, Etudes, iv. 258). 'If the water at tne head of the creek was
deeper in ancient times, Bargylia will have had the advantage of
a capacious sheltered harbour'; hence Philip's choice of it as a base.
What the fleet had been doing since Lade is not recorded; for
tions see Ferro, 67, One need not assume with Holleaux (loc.
that he bronght his fleet in simply to help on the and was
then trapped; P. does not say he was blockaded.
814178 Mffi
XVI. 24· I PHILIP I~ CARlA
aAAa ten~ TrPOlTITATJpOUVTnS: vnus:: 'manning additional ships'. Hol

leaux (Etudes, iv. 169-77; cf. 277-8) has argued that the Nisyrian who
served under various navarchs from Cleonaeus onwards (IG, xii.
3· 103 = !-J)'ll. 6i3; cf. 9· r n.) was enrolled in the Rhodian navy
at this time. On the history of Nisyros see Holleaux (Etudes, i\'.
169-77) and Fraser and Bean (147-52); the latter argue cogenth
that Nisyros was an old Macedonian possession to which PhiliJ •
gave its freedom, removing its garrison, sometime after 205 (IG, xi1
3· 91 = Syll. 572), and which promptly joined Rhodes (cf. Ferro.
6r-6S).
2. TrpoEwpO.To Tov tcnTn llaAnTTav ~e£vSuvov: 'foresaw with alarm ;r
naval battle'; both Paton and Shuckburgh translate 'danger at sea·.
missing the point.
3. Tas: E~nTrouTEAAop.Evns: .•• Trpeu~E1ns ets 'Pwp.l'Jv: probably en1
bassies sent to Rome by Rhodes and Pergamurn (Livy, xxxi. 2. 1.
'sub idem fere tempus (sc. as an embassy from Athens) et ab Att;1l"
rege et Rhodiis legati uenerunt nuntiantes Asiae quoque ciuitatr·
sollicitari'; App. Mac. 4· 2, the Rhodians reveal the Syro-Macedonia11
pact to the Romans). These embassies probably reached Rome in
autumn, 201 (cf. \Valbank, Philip, JII). There is no reference here to
any Aetolian embassy; Philip's 'fear of the Aetolians' mentioned in
the previous sentence means that he feared an Aetolian attack whil··
absent in Asia, and there is no reason to think that the Aetolia'''·
were mentioned in the lacuna after 'Pw!LTJV (so Nissen, KU, 123.
contra Hol.leaux, Rome, 294 n.). That the Aetolians had appealed to
Rome is indicated by Livy, who records the brusque rejection ol
their embassy (Livy, xxxi. 29. 4; the annalistic passage, Livy, xxxi.
r. 9, is irrelevant); and Appian 0\.fac. 4. 2) dates this appeal aftr·1
the arrival of the Pergamene and Rhodian embassies, which mu 1
be wrong, since these embassies led the Romans to decide quit•·
suddenly on an active policy against Macedon, for which Aetoli;u1
help would be invaluable (Holleaux, loc. cit.; ::\'kDonald, JRS, rS.-t-- ·'.
Badian,Latomus, 1958, 2o8). ThisAetolianembassyhas been variou"h
dated between 205 (or even 2o6) and 201; for discussion of some ol
these views see Walbank, Philip, 3ro-n. Ferro (46-47) and ~feloiH
(Valore storico, 45 f.) both accept Appian's dating for the Aetoli;ul
embassy (which they think is referred to here), ignoring the objecti""
already made by Holleaux (loc. cit.), that such a dating cannot J.,.
reconciled with a rejection so bitter. Badian (Latomus, 1958, 208-1 1l
argues that Livy's reference to the Aetolian embassy is of annali:-;11•
origin, since Appian, had he found it in Polybius before the Rhodi:111
and Pergamene embassies, would hardly have shifted it to come afl•·1
them, and since the Roman speech in Li,·y, xxxi. 3r. 20, has 1"'
reply to the Macedonian reference to an Aetolian rebuff at the po1111
where it might be expected to occur; and he is disposed to reject 11
530
PHILIP IN CARlA XVI. 24.6
as an annalistic insertion (contra, Dorey, CR, 1960, g). It seems more
probable, however, that Livy, xxxi. 29. 4 is Polybian (like the speech
generally) and that the Aetolian appeal to Rome is genuine and
occurred in 202, following Philip's seizure of Lysimacheia, Calchedon,
and Cius (xv. 23.8-9 n.); but the present passage makes no reference
to this.
3. s~o1fE:P ••• Tn Ka.Ta TTjv Al~OT)V: the war against Carthage. The
extent of the lacuna is unknown, but it can hardly have included
a reference to events which caused the end of this war. Hence
I<eiske's emendation, accepted by Hultsch and Mauersberger, to
8ton (for oto1T€p) seems convincing. Both Shuckburgh and Paton
translate as though Suin stood in the text (though Paton prints
li<o'IT<'P with Biittner-\Vobst). Bickerman (CP, 1945, 147) argues that
this passage implies that Philip expected Rome to attack him once
the Punic \Var was over; it need only mean that Philip had reason
to fear the representatives of his enemies, since ,the Romans, if
persuaded, were now free to act.
4. AUKou ~rov ~Tjv: see xv. 2o. 3 n. P. need not be drawing on the
same historian for the proverbial expressions used there and here
(so Wunderer, i. 34-35).
5. ea~Tt:i1'o: 'he got supplies of'.
6. Zeu~LS: cf. r. 8 n.
MuAo.aeis: the Hellenistic town of Mylasa lay n.t the site of modern
MiHis, about 12 miles east-north-east of Iasus, and ro miles from its
port of Passala, in a fertile basin; cf. Strabo, xiv. 658--<].; Ruge, RE,
'Mylasa', cols. 1046~4; Magie, i. Ss-86, ii. 90i n. 129; Laumonier,
39 n. r. For a suggestion that Mylasa 'Was moved to this site from the
citadel of Pet;in (perhaps the site of the temple of Carian Zeus) by
Mausolus in the fourth century see J. .M. Cook, Arch. Rep. r959~o, 51
(with references to recent Turkish works on Mylasa). A recently dis-
covered inscription from Philip's third year (219 or 2r8) shows him
writing to the dynast Olympichus of Alinda (earlier aTpalf)yo~ of
Seleucus II: see J. Crampe, Opuscula Atheniensia, rg6o, 99-104) to
respect a city which is probably Mylasa {so Robert, Bull. r!.pig. 1950,
182) and suggests that Philip had a friendly relationship with Mylasa
dating from Doson's reign (see v. 90. r n. with the Addenda); but
the town was independent and in 209/8 it had made a treaty of iso-
polity with Miletus(Rehm, Milet, i. 3· no. r46).
"Ao.~o.v6.:is: Alabanda was a Carian city situated 16 miles south
of the Maeander, in a broad plain watered by the Marsyas and a
tributary; it is the modern Araphisar. See Strabo, xiv. 66o-I; Magie,
i. rJo, ii. 992 fill. JO-JI. Under the Seleucids Ala banda had had a
privileged position as an autonomous to\\'!l (cf. Holleaux, E'tudes,
iii. 152-3) and, perhaps since the middle of the third century, had
carried the name (ignored by P.) of Antioch of the Chrysaorians
XVI. 24. 6 PHILIP IN CA RIA
(OGIS, 234); cf. Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 141-57; L. Robert, BCH, 1925,
228-9; note to Holleaux, loc. cit. 157; Laumonier, 434 n. I.
M6.yvTITES: :\Iagnesia-on-Macander was an Ionian city which stood
at this time not, as formerly, on the river, but at the foot of Mt.
Thorax, 3 miles north of the river and about 17 miles north-east of
the coast at Priene; see Strabo, xiv, 647; Magie, i. 78-79, ii. 894--5 n.
ror. For its removal to the new site by the Spartan Thibron in 4oo/39'!
see Diod. xiv. 36. 4· Following the epiphany of Artemis in 221/o tlw
Magnesians from 207/6 onwards had solicited support for her new
festival of the Leucophryena from various cities and monarcb
(d. lnsch. Mag. r6, r8-64, 66, 78-8r; cf. Welles, 31-3+ f01
Antiochus III, his son, Ptolemy IV and Attains I); that Philip V also
received such an invitation is implied by his letter to Cllalcis (men-
tioned in Syll. s6r). It is, however, noteworthy that there is no
evidence that any of the kings, except probably Ptolemy IV (lnsch
Mag. 23; Welles, 33), agreed to grant inviolability to the city ol
Magnesia (d. Magie, ii. 942 n. 38).
lio-a.wev ••. hrej3ouXeuev: the colouring here will derive from P.' :-.
source (perhaps Zeno). From Bargylia, where his fleet lay, Philip
will ha,·e made foraging expeditions inland and as far north a~
Magnesia.
7. errt T~V MuAa.O"EWV rr6Xw .•• 8La ~LAOICAEOUS: for the meaning ol
rrpd.gEt;; see v. 26. r n.; it implies within. Philocles later ap-
pears as one of Philip's 7rpwrot <f;lAot (xxii. 14. 7, xxiii. r. 5); in 2oo
he led an invasion into Attica (Livy, xxxi. r6. 2, 26. 1), and sub
sequently played a prominent part in the Second Macedonian War
(Livy, xxxii. r6. 12 f., 23. II, 25. r f., 38. 2, 40. r-s).
8. T~V 8' :.\f..a.j3a.v8ewv xwpa.v •.• ICa.Te<P9ELpE: followed shortly after
wards, it appears, by the occupation of the town itself, which in
197 was still held by Philip's general Deinocrates (Livy, xxxiii. r8. 7).
9. MuouvTos ~eupLEuo-a.s: :\1yus lay on the height of Af~ar Tepe, sout I'
of the Maeander (as it now runs). and was one of the twelve orighJ;tl
Ionian cities; according to Strabo (xiv. 636) it was in his time y•
stades from the sea. See Ruge, RE, 'Myus (2)', cols. 1430-7; Magi•.
i. 74, ii. 883-4 n. Sr. In zor, and probably since before 228 when
Cretan mercenaries were settled on land belonging to Myus h\·
Miletus (Rehm, Jfilet, i. 3· p. 199; cf. Wilammv:itz, GGA, rgr4, 91-9:).
l\lyus belonged to Miletus; and Philip had evidently not secured it
earlier when he probably entered Miletus (u n.). It seems likely tb;tl
the war between Magnesia and Miletus, which ended with the treat\
of rg6 and had been fought over a xwpa 7rEpa{a (Syll. 588) was in fat t
concerned with the possession of Myus. See Rehm, Milet, i. 3, no. r4S.
pp. 2oo-r, 347-8; Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 231, for some doubts, lat('t
dismissed in Etudes, iv. 331. Holleaux (Etztdes, iv. 232) suggests thai
Philip received the from Magnesia at an earlier stage in the year'
532
PHILIP I~ CARL\ XVI. 25. z
campaigns, when Philip marched north from Caria to Pergamum; but
it is likely that Philip invaded Pergamum from much further north
(d. r. 1 n.), and the wording suggests that this extract from Athenaeus
is rightly linked with the events mentioned in§§ For unsuccessful
Magnesian attempts to repatriate the Cretan mercenaries settled at
Myus by Miletus see Insch. Mag. 65 a, b, 75, 76; IC i, Cnosos, 9;
Launey, ii. 663-4.
On Philip's return from Bargylia to ~1acedonia see n.
25-26. Attalus and the Rhodians at Athens

The date of this fragment is probably April 2oo. According to Livy,
xxxi. q. 6-ro (drawing on P.), Athens became embroiled with Philip
owing to the execution of two Acarnanians who had been found
guilty of trying to enter the temple at Eleusis, though uninitiated
(probably at the Great Mysteries of autumn 201); Acarnania appealed
to Philip, probably on his return to Macedon from Bargylia in early
spring 2oo (on his escape by a ruse see Polyaen. iv. r8. 2), and he lent
Macedon ian auxiliaries for a ravaging expedition into Attica. Further,
the :,racedonian fleet seized four Athenian warships, but these were
intercepted by the Rhodians, who returned them to Athens (26. 9,
cf. Livy, xxxi. 15. 5). Attalus probably helped by patrolling the
Attic coast. Some scholars date the Macedonian reprisals to autumn
201 (cf. Ferguson, 268; Petzold, 39 n. 45; Meloni, Valore stor-ico, 34-35;
Ferro, 75 ff.); for the chronology here adopted see Holleaux, Etudes,
iv. 287-92; CAll, viii. r6r; De Sanctis, i\·. 1. 23 n. 57; McDonald,
]RS, 1937, 187-9; Walbank, Philip, 129-30, 309, 314·
25. 1. 1Tp£aj3eun1s 1Tpbs 'A,.To.Aov: who was on Aegina (d. Livy, xxxi.
14. II).
•uxo.pLaT~aovTo.s ~1Tl. Tots yeyovoaLv: 'to thank him for what had
happened', that for his action along with the Rhodians against
Philip's ships. Petzold n. -1-5) thinks that nl y!iyovora refers to the
trapping of Philip at ; but this had failed. :\foreover, this
thesis does not explain depyw{as in :26. 2.
2. 'Pw~o.£wv 1Tpeaj3euTfis ds Tbv nnpo.ui: they were c. Claudius Nero,
M. Aemilius Lepidus, and P. Sempronius Tuditanus. According to
Livy (xxxi. 2. 3-4) were sent to Ptolemy to announce the
Roman victory over Carthage and solicit his continued support in
the event of war with Philip (an improbable motivation): Appian
(Mac. 4· 2) says they were to visit both Antiochus and Philip and
warn them against aggression (d. Iustin. xxx. 3· 3); while 27. 5
suggests that part of their duty was to arrange a settlement between
Egypt and Antiochus. Subsequent events indicate that the real
purpose of the embassy was to secure Seleucid neutrality in the
533
XVI. 25.2 ATTALt:S AND THE RHODL\NS AT ATHENS
approaching war with Philip, if necessary at the expense of Egypt
(cf. Holleaux, Rome, 320 f.; McDonald, }RS, 1937, 204-7; Walbank,
Philip, 3r6-q). These legati had probably left Rome in the late
winter of zor/o after the entry into office of the consuls in :\larch 200
(December-January by the Julian calendar; cf. De Sanctis, jy
I. 368 ff.; Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 336-48), and had visited Epiru~.
Athamania, Aetolia, and Achaea en route (27. 4 n.). ln his account ol
these events Livy (xxxi. q. 6-rs. 8) omits all reference to the Roman
embassy, probably because he had assigned it a quite different func
tion (see above); see McDonald, ]RS, 1937, 190 n. 3. and for tlw
many views concerning the function and movements of this em
bassy, Balsdon, ]RS, 1954, 39-41.
4. Tfjs rrpoyeyEVTJJ.LEY11S Koworrpa.yla.s: in the recent war; cf. ix. 30. 7,
x. 41. Iff., 42. r, 42. 7, xi. 7· I. The word Kotvorrpa.y{a. (cf. v. 95· ::.
107. 4, vii. 2. 2, etc.) is a fairly general word for military co~operation.
and perhaps implies that there had been no joedt~s between Ronw
and Attalus (cf. Badian, s8 n. 4; Petzold, r6 n. 24; Larsen, CP, I943.
59). The present relationship would be one of amicitia.
vpos Tov ••• 'ITOAEJ.LOV eTolJ.Lous: it has been argued by McDonald and
Walbank (]RS, 1937, 190 ff.; d. Walbank, Philip, 314-16) that tlw
war decision \v·as not taken by the tribes at Rome until the end ol
July (reckoning back from the arrival of Sulpicius in lllyria in mid
September (Livy, xxxi. 22. 4, autumno ferme exacto, based on P.)); a1H •
since Livy (xxxi. 6. 3) records the rejection of the war measure when
it was first put, it seems clear that this embassy was despatclH'd
without full authorization to deliver a declaration of war a poinl
here concealed (cf. Petzold, 39).
6. rrpos Te 'PwJ.Lalous: this is against Holleaux's thesis (CAH, Yiii
r6r n. 2; Etudes, v. 23) that the Romans were pushed into the back
ground (cf. Balsdon, ]RS, r954, 4o).
7. Kina To .6.'rruXov: the principal gate of Athens, lying on the north
west, and the natural point of entry for anyone ascending from th
Peiraeus to the west of the Long Walls (now in ruins: Livy, xx.'.i.
26. 8). See Frazer, Pausanias, ii. 42-45 (with plan); W. Judeich, Tupn
graphie von Athen 2 (Munich, r93r), 135-8, Abb. ro.
9. cpuX~v tm~VUJ.LOV trro£11aa.v ~TTaXtp: thus bringing the number nl
tribes up to twelve. At the same time a deme was renamed Apolloni,·i,,
after Attalus' wife Apollonis; cf. Steph. Byz. s.v.; Hesych. s. v .
IG, ii2 • roo8, L ro7, 1009, col. 4, l. 98, 2065, ll. 131-2, 2130, I. 2oo, 233s,
l. 75· The original ten tribes had been increased to twelve by tlw
addition of Antigonis and Demetrias in 307/6, and to thirteen b)' Uw
creation of Ptolemais, probably in 224/3. The date of the abolition"'
the two 'Macedonian' tribes has been much discussed; but Pritchell
(TAPA, 1954, r59-67) has discovered that the inscription giving ;t
list of demes under eleYen tribes (IG, ii, 2362) was left unfinished,
534
ATTALlJS X:--JD THE RHODIAXS AT ATHENS XVI. 26.9
which suggests that only a short time separated their abolition from
the creation of At tal is. The likelihood is that the 'Macedonian' tribes
were abolished in spring 2oo, as a result of the Acarnanian attack,
a few weeks before the events here described. On Attalis see W. K.
Pritchett, T!te Five Tribes after Kleisthenes (Baltimore, 1943), 33-36.
To us ~'lf<UVOfLous Twv O.pxTJynwv: 'the eponymous tribal heroes',
whose names were associated with the tribes by Cleisthenes {with
the additions mentioned in the last note). Attalus received a cult
nnd a priest; cf. IG, ii2 • roo6, roo9; IG, iii. 3oo.
26. 2 . .paaKovTos dva.L .popTLKov: Livy, xxxi. 15. r, 'ex dignitate

magis uisum scribere'.
5. Twv wpoTEpov ••• f.u.;py.;T1JfLO.Twv: Attalus I had inherited Eumenes
J's interest in the Academy, providing a garden in which Lacydes,
the head of the school, might lecture, the so-called Lacydeum (Diog.
Laert. iv. 6o); since it is uncertain when Lacydcs retired from his
post (Capelle, RE, 'Lakydes', co!s. 53o~ I), no terminus ante qttem
can be established for this gift. According to IG, ii 2 • 886, Attalus
gave a favourable hearing to an Academic philosopher pleading on
behalf of Athenian prisoners in 2oojr97; his most famous benefaction
to Athens is, however, the gift of a series of bronze statues represent-
ing the contests of gods and giants, Lapiths and Centaurs, Greeks
and Amazons and his own forces against the Galatians, which were
dedicated at the south wall of the Acropolis {Paus. I. 25. z); marble
copies of many of these have been identified in various European
museums (cf. Hansen, 282-7). The date of this benefaction is dis-
puted. Ferguson, 209-ro, connected it with IG, ii~. 833, and dated
it to May 228; but it is more usually associated with Attalus' visit
in 2oo (cf. H. Brunn, Annali dell'Istituto di Corrispondema archeo-
logica, 42, r8p, 320-1; Trendelenburg in Baumeister, Dmkmiiler
des klassischen Altertums (Munich-Leipzig, t884-8), ii. 1241-8;
Hansen, 287).
Twv wEwpnyl:levwv a.l!T<i.J wpos 4>(Alwwov: on account of the events of
201 since his entry into the war.
6. Ka.t 'PwfLa.£oL<,;: cf. 25. 4; Atticus' inclusion of the Romans was
evidently based on assurances given by the envoys.
KoLvwvelv ••• Tfj'.> Etpf)Vl]s: i.e. to be included in the eventual treaty
(d. Syll. sgr, 1. 66, O'Vf.L1TEpd.'Aaf3ev ~f.LOS EJJ rats- avvB~KaL> 1Tp[o> TOf.L
{JamMa], of Lampsacus); on the procedure involved see Bickermann,
Phil. I9J2, 2/i---f.jf).
&aTox~aew ••• Tou TTI wa.TpUh au11.P£povTos: a veiled threat; cf.
Livy, xxxi. rs. 4, 'nequiquam postea, si tum cessassent, praeter-
missam occasion em quaesituros'.
9. n)v TE S-i]l:lov iaTe.Pavwaav Ca.ptaTe£wv _oTEcPUV«t>: N dptcrrelq.t. Cf.
OGIS, 248 (an Attic decree; cf. Holleaux. Etudes, ii. 127-47), ll. 43-44,
535
XVI.z6.g ATTALUS A::\0 THE RHODIA~S AT ATHENS
ancpavwaaL xpvawL ancpavwL dpwn{wL dproTij> €vt:K€V. For the expres

sion dptan'Lo> aT€cpavo> d. Ioseph. Ant. Iud. xiv. 153; OGIS, i7l.
1. 24; Holleaux, op. cit. 146 n. r, who suggests that in the later HeJ
lenistic period this honour 'n'ctait guere decerne par les Athenic1;,;
qu'aux souverains et aux peuples amis de Ia republique'. Clearly tb•·
MS. reading should be kept in preference to Reiske 's emendation.
dptanfwv. The demos is that of Rhodes.
lcro'!ToAm;;lav: d. ii. 46. 2 n.
TasTe vaOs .•. Kal Tous O.vSpas: d. Livy, xxxi. 15. 5, omitting men
tion of the news. Nissen, KU, 11, suggests that the text of P. is hen·
abridged by the excerptor, since it does not mention the number ol
ships (four in Li\·y); but Livy may have added this detail from tb·
earlier passage, now lost, in which P. described the capture an•!
recovery of the ships. These e\·ents probably occurred near Euboe.1
and the Athenian ships were perhaps engaged in duties similar to
the three 'Atticae naues ad tuendos maritimos agros comparata< ·
mentioned later by Livy (xxxi. 23. 8). The Maceuonian ships wen·
probably based on Chalcis (cf. Livy, xxxi. 22. 6-7), and the Rhodian~
were able to recover the Athenian vessels before they got them
into port (since the crews were still on board). See Holleaux, Etudn.
iv. 289 n. 1.
10. els TTJV Kewv E'ITL Tas v~crous: Ceos lies a little to the south-east ol
Attica; one of its four cities, Carthaea, is quoted by Stephanu~
from this book (4o. 6). Livy, xxxi. 15. 8, adds (from a passage of P
omitted by the excerptor) that the Rhodians sailed back from Cer"
to Rhodes 'omnibus praeter Andrum Parumque et Cythnum, qua•·
praesidiis Macedonum tenebantur, in socictatem acceptis'. An in
scription (Syll. 582) from Delos, honouring a Rltodian commanu<·l
Epicrates and referring to operations involving island and Athenia11
ships, is concerned with e\·ents a little later than those Livy mention:;_
but probably of the Second Macedonian War; but the formal r!'
constitution of the Nesiot League will be later still, and is perhap~
implied in Syll. 583, a Delian dedication honouring Anaxibius, apX''"'
J7T{ n [Twv v~]awv Kat Twv 7Tlw{wv Twv V'l)atwnK[wv]. See furth!'l
Ormerod, 133-4, 149; Thiel, 224-5; and especially Fraser and Bean,
r6o n. r, r66 ff.
27-28. The demarche to Nicanor's: Philip's character

27. 1. Ka8' /jv xpovov KTA.: there is a gap between 26 and this fra~~
ment, though hardly one covering several months (Passerini, Atltrn
1931, 279£.; Ferro, ron).
E'ITOLouvTo TTJV 8LaTpL~~v: 'were staying', d. 24. r.
NLKavopos: perhaps Nicanor 'the elephant' (xviii. 24. 2; d. Liv\ .
xxxiii. 8. 8). Livy omits this incident, having decided not to mentio11
5.36
T II E DfMA. RCH E TO XlC\:\OR XVI. 27. 2
the presence of the Roman envoys at Athens; but it has been

~upposed that the ravaging of Attica by Philip's general Philocles
(Livy, xxxi. r6. z) with z,ooo foot and 2oo cavalry is a doublet of this
passage, and that Nicanor was Philocles' subordinate (cf. DeSanctis,
iv. 1. 35 n. 67; Accame, Riv. fil. 1941, 193; Balsdon, ]RS, 1954, 39).
This is possible; but it is perhaps more likely that the two incidents
are distinct, for J>hilocles' invasion sounds like Philip's reply to the ulti-
matum (cf. Livy, xxxi. r6. 2, 'ne Romano quidem quod imminebat bello
territus') ; cf. \\'albank, Philip, 315; McDonald, ]RS, 1937, 192 n. 7.=;.
iw~ -rtjs 1>.Ka.OT)f!Eia.s: a suburb of Athens 6 stades (about ! mile)
north-west of the Dipylon Gate, and famous for its sanctuary of
Athena (Athen. xiii. E), containing the twelve sacred olives, and
~everal other shrines, and still more as the site of Plato's Academy
(Diog. Laert. iii. 5, zo, iv. r6; Ci('. .fin. ,., 2). See Wachsmuth, Die
:-:tadt Athen im Altertum (Leipzig, r874--9o), i. 255 ff.; Judeich, Topo-
f!.raphie von Athen 2 (see 25. 7 n.), 412 ff.
2-3. The ultimatum to Nicanor. rt is argued in Philip, 13r, 315 (cf.
McDonald and Walbank, ]RS, 1937, r9o, 192-7) that tbe Roman
lq~ati were not yet empowered to delin·r an otlicial ultimatum to
Philip, and that the demarche to Nicanor was forced on them by the
situation in which they found themsdves. The two conditions- to
stop attacking the Greeks and to submit the question of compensa-
tion to Attains to arbitration--were not excessive, though the second
was an irritant; Holleaux (CAH, viii. 16o) exaggerates their adverse
implications for Philip. It was not in fact until the war had begun
that the Romans openly stepped up their demands to include the
liberation of the Greeks under him (Frank, Rl, t6r n. 29; Aymard,
PR, 278 n. 14; Dadian, 67 n. 3).
2. Twv fl€v 'EA.A.t]vwv flTJSevt 1TOAEfle'i:v: probably the Greeks of main-
land Greece, P.'s usual meaning (d. Bickerman, Rev. phil. 1935, 75;
C P, 1945, 141; Larsen, CP, 1937, 3o, contra, Magie, ii. 751-2 n. 44,
who thinks the Asian Greeks are included). The reference is mainly to
Athens.
StKa.s ll1TEXEW €v \:a~t> Kp~-rT)p£4{>: 'to give compensation as determined
by a fair tribunal'; for the sense of S{Kas- im€xnv d. v. 42. 6, Twv
~/.LaPT'fJJ.LEIIWV, xvi. 34· 3· 7repi TWV ..• d?hK'f)fHfTwv, XX. 6. 3· aDtK'f)J.LctTWV
Kat • •. o,PnA'fJJ.LaTwv. Badian, 67, argues that it is only 'Philip's dif-
ferences with Attalus' that are to be discussed; but the word aDLK~
fLUTa suggests that Philip's guilt is being assumed, and what the
court is to decide is the amount and form of compensation. This

clause is against Radian's view that the Romans were still hoping to
gain 'peace with honour and advantage'. (If the word aD<K~J.LaTa is
'due to P.' (so Badian), he repeated it at 34· Tile concept of arbi-
tration is Greek rather than Roman (Bickermann, Re1•. phil. 1935,
77-79): cf. ix. 33· r2.
PHILIP'S CHARACTER
3. Tti.va.vTla. auve~a.KoAoulhjaeLv: a euphemistic but clear threat that
war would follow, but not a declaration of war in itself (cf. Stier.
108 n. 243).
4. Ka.L 'IT'pbs 'H'IT~aLpwTa.S el'll'a.v KTA.: P. is describing visits made pre-
viously on the way to Athens (r.apa.r,/.ioVT€>); the legal£ had ·visited
Phocnice, Athamania, Naupactus, and Aegium. On Amynandcr
see above, iv. 16. 9 n., xi. 4· r-6. ro n., 7. 2-3 n.
5. ws :AvT(oxov KO.L n,.oAep.a.iov: on the purpose of the embassy see
25. 2 n. The envoys are next heard of in Rhodes (34· 2).
28. Philip's behaviour. This extract from F clearly belongs here; cf.
LiYy, xxxi. r6. I, 'Philippus magis regio animo est usus', following
on criticism of Attalus and Rhodes for allowing him to advanCi'
through Thrace towards the Hellespont unhindered.
1. auva.Kp.aaa.L Ta.i:s opjlais KTA.: 'to maintain enthusiasm long
enough to secure a considerable measure of success' (Shuckburgh).
2. TO '~'ils 1Tpo9up.la.s EAhL'II'~S: 'a deficiency in enthusiasm' (Shuck-
burgh).
3. TfJV .•• ;o.,.,.a.Xou Ka.l. 'Po8£wv oALyo'IT'ov£a.v: At talus had remained
inactive on Aegina awaiting the return of the envoys he had sent to
Aetolia, and he and the Rhodians had done nothing further to check
Philip (Livy, xxxi. 15. 9-II). Their inactivity has been plausiblY
explained as clue to suspicion and veiled hostility between the two
allies, perhaps reinforced by the recent acquisition of the Cyc!arlc-;
by the Rhodians (Starr, CP, 1938, 67-68; Thiel, 225-6); they may also
ha\'e hoped to leave matters to the Romans (so Hansen, 58-59.
Ferro, rii). On the help sent see 30. 7 n.
4. TfJV TOlO.UTT)V S~a.a'!'oht)v: i.e. that he is praising, not his charactn
generally, but merely his vigour on this occasion.
5. ~v O.pxa.'Ls TllS 'll'pa.yjla.TE£a.s: i. 14. 7; here P. further elucidatt· ...
the statement there made by explaining that it is changing circum
stances that cause in men's behaviour (cf. x. 26. 7-ro n.)
See also iv. 8. 12.
7. Ka.Ta ff)v t8ia.v <j>uaw: i.e. this does not change nor is it 'revealed
by circumstances' (cf. ix. 28. ron.).
9. Ka.M'IT'Ep ol Ka.Kot TWY aTa.~h<Ewv: for the simile cf. Plato, Rep
6r3 c.
29. 1-35. 2. Philip's siege of Abydus. the Roman declaration of li'{/J

Two fragments from Suidas go here (29. ; seep. 25. For Philip'"
advance through Thrace cf. Livy, xxxi. 16.4-6; capture of Maronc;1,
betrayal of Aenus, seizure of other forts, mainly Egyptian; s• ...
\Valbank, Philip, 133. P. here two reasons for Philip's campaign.
to obtain a slepping-stone for any future invasion of Asia, and !"
deprive the Romans of bases for attacking Macedonia (Ferro, IJo)
538
THE SIEGE OF AB\'Dl:S XVI. 29.8
Control of the Hellespont would also enable him to strike at the
Athenian corn-supply and Rhodian trade (cf. iv. 47· r-z).
29. 1. £m~a9pa.s: 'approaches'; cf. iii. 24. r4 n.

3. Tfjs :A~u8ou t<a.t ITJcrroO 9Eaw: since Philip later possessed Sestus
(xviii. 2. 4), he probably took it now, despite its omission from Livy,
xxxi. r6. 4-6; cf. Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 129 n. 4, 3r7 n. 2, against
Niese's view (ii. 581) that Philip seized it in 202. Sestus (cf. Herod. ix.
115; Thuc. viii. 62; Xen. Hell. iv. 8. 5) lay on a plateau 350ft. above
the Hellespontine shore of the Thracian Chersonese at the narrowest
point of the straits; only a Turkish monastery now occupies this site
(d. Oberhummer, RE, 'Sestos' (1)', cols. r8g2-4). Abydus was on the
Asian side in Mysia, south of modern Nagara Point, which shields
it from the strong current; cf. Magie, i. 82. The sites of both cities
are discussed by Strabo, xiii. 59r (cf. W. Leaf, Strabo on the Troad
(Cambridge, 1923), n7-2r, correcting the false siting of Abydus on
Admiralty chart 2429) and Procopius, ii. 4. g, iii. I. 8. Both cities
were apparently independent at this time; cf. Holleaux, Etudes,
iv. 3!7 nn. 3-4.
wv ICC.~ l'll<pOv ocjll!AOS: cf. iii. J6. 6, where P. is also explaining a
geographical point; it also occurs in Plato, A pol. zl\ B, Crito, 46 A.
4. E1T~C'TaC'EWS xapw: 'in order to arouse their interest'.
6. is a.1hwv Twv \moKE~flevwv T01TWV: 'from the places under dis-
cussion themselves'.
ltc ,.~~ 1Ta.pa.9eaews .•• flEAAovTwv: 'from the comparison and con-
trast I am about to mention'. On this comparison, see Pedech;
LEG, I956, 7·
6. 'nKea.vou ..• :ATAc.VT~Kou 1TEAayous: P. has various circumlocu-
tions for the Atlantic Ocean: d. iii. 37· 9·-n, 57· 2, 59· 7· The earlier
name seems to have been simply ~ ;gw Od>.a.aaa (cf. Herod. i. zo3).
The Homeric word 'QKEal"Js is first applied to it in Pytheas' title
Ilep/, WKt:avoiJ, and becomes normal at Rome. But the name Atlantis
is also found as early as Herodotus (i. 203, ~ Egw a-r'Y)Mwv IJdAaaaa i]
}h,\av-rt;; KaAw;.dvYJ)· For full details and other variants see Partsch,
RE, 'Atlantis (r)', cols. 21og-u.
7. ds n;v npo1TOVTl8a.: in iv. 44· 6 P. describes the straits here as -rd
rijs- Ilpo11'Dl11'l8o;; meva Ka-r' /!{ju8ov Kat EYJa-rcw, and the explanation
may be that (like Ps.-Scylax, 67, 94) he regards the part of the
Dardanelles north of Sestus as part of the Propontis (as earlier the
Propontis had been regarded as part of the Hellespont: Bi.irchner, RE,
'Hellespontos', cols. ; Holleaux, Etudes, ii. 83 n. 9; iv. 130 nn. r
and 4).
8. t:.!a1TEp ..• 1Tpo~ TWa. Aoyov TlJS TUXTJS KTA.: 'as if chance had exer-
cised a certain proportion .. .' (Paton). The use of wam=p suggests
that P. really means that what is in fact quite fortuitous appears
539
THE SIEGE OF ABYDl':C:
to be based on proportion (and the of Tyche); on Tyche sc•
Vol. I, pp. 16-26.
9. i;~t)KovTa. O'TO.Olwv: P. puts the pilla.rs at the Straits of Gibraltru
(xxxiv. 9· 4), 6o stades (n·r km.) is a slight underestimate for be
tween Gibraltar and Ceuta the distance is about 14 km. l\larcianus.
Peripl. mar. ext. i. 3, makes it 8o stades. See also ~fela, i. 5· 27, who.
however, gives no measurement.
6 S£ Ka.Ta T~v '1-.~uSov Suii:v: a gross underestimate. The tradition a I
width here was 7 stades (Herod. vii. 34; cf. Strabo, ii. 124, xiii. 591 .
Pliny, Nat. hist. iv. 49) and Xenophon (Hell. iv. 8. 5) makes it 'nol
more than 8 stades'. Pliny, Nat. kist. vi. 2, gives it in Roman measun
as 875 passus 1,294 m. The actual width at Abydus (not tlw
narrowest point, which is at Chanaq Kalessi) is 1,950 m. See BiirchnPI.
RE, 'Hellespontos', col. rSs; Oberhummer, ibid., col. r89.
ws O.v e'~ Ttvos TEK!la.~pollivou KTA.: 'as one might conjecture, thi~
was an account of .. .'; Paton has 'as if this distance had been dl'
.. .'. but -rEKf1.alpo 1Lat in the sense 'ordain' is only Homeri•
(or archaic as in Plato, La1rs, E).
11. ye<J>upmJJJ-evov Orro Twv rreteouv •.• rrpoa.~poullevwv: P. refers to
the crossing of Xerxes into Europe (Herod. Yii. 33 ft.) ; Alexander
ferried his troops across (Arr. L rr. 6).
12. O'mivLov ... T~v XPfiO'w Kat O'rra.vlms: 'used by few and rareh ·
(Paton).
liLa T~v O.yvwO'(o.v TTJS EKTOS 9a.AO.O'O"TJS: cf. iii. 37· II n. In Vol. I
p. 293 (commenting on iii. 1-5) it was that Cuntz's argn
ment that this phrase could not have been written after P.'s voyagh
in the Atlantic in 146 (d. xxxiv. 15. 7) was not decisive, since her,·
P. is contrasting the Atlantic \Vith the waters beyond the Hellespont
In view of iii. 59· 7, stressing P.'s voyages in the Atlantic, I am no1\
more iuclined to accept the view that xvi (with its account of Scipio'~
triumph, which rounded off the Hannibalic War) may have benr
written before r46. But the c\'idence is not decisi,·e.
13. urro TWV Tfj<; EllpwrrYJS d.x:pOTYJp(wv: 'by two capes on the Euro
pean shore'. By C. Nagam the Hellespont, which runs in
frmn north-east to south-west, swings first west and then south, sn
that the promontory on which Abydus stands is enc}osed by thu,_,,.
of Sestus and Cyuossema (mod. Kilid Bahr): see Biirchner's map i11
RE, 'Hellespontos', cols. r83-4. It is to these J). refers. The harb(llll
is the modern Nagar a Liman.
14. OLa T~v o~th'1Ta. Kat f3io.v Tou pou: according to Strabo, xiii. 5() 1.
one could cross from Abydus to Sestus only by ascending the strait .
for 8 stades in the direction o[ the Propontis, and then crossin;·
diagonally; in the opposite direction the current ran from Seslu .
to Abydus. The speed of the current at Nagara Point averages :
knots, and a little further east at Kodjuk Burnu z! knots; in the;,•·
54°
THE SIEGE OF ABYDUS XVI. 32. I
narrow waters it occasionally reaches a maximum of 5 knots (Black

."lea Pilot 7 , 54-55). For more detailed calculations see A. Moller and L.
Merz, Hydrographische Unters~tchungen in Bosporus und Dardanellen
(Veroffentlichungen des Inst. fiir Meereskunde an der "Cniversitat
Berlin, X. F. geogr. -naturwissenschaftliche Reihe, Heft r8, rgz8),
181)-92.
30. 1. a1TOO"Ta.upwaas .•. 1TEp~xa.pa.KWO"O.S: 'setting Up a palisade in

one part, and a stockade in another': the latter will have consisted
of piles driven in along the sea approaches; cf. i.. s6. 8, U1ToaravpovVTE<;
Kut moptxapaKovVTe; nls: JK BaAaTTTJ> 1rpoaf3aaHs: (of the defences of ihe
Sinopeans).
2. T) 8€ 1rpii~~'i auTT): 'this action', i.e. the siege.
3. yevvau)TT)TO. , •. Ka.t TTJY U1TEp~oA.Tjv Tij<; ElnjtUxiac;: cf. 1v. 58. rz
for the combination.
b. To J.ulv EKTos Tou Teixout;;: 'the outer wall'.
7. Tou<; 1rapa 'Po8iwv Ka.~ 1ra.p' :A.TTaAou: cf. JI. 3; P.'s lost account
of the sending of these forces can be partially recovered from Livy,
xxxi. r6. 7-8, 'Attalus trecentos tan tum milites, l\.hodii quadriremem
Imam ex classe, cum ad Tenedum staret, miserunt. eodem postea,
cum iam uix sustinerent obsidionem, et ipse Attalus cum traiecisset
spem tantum auxilii ex propinquo ostendit, neque terra neque mari
adiutis sociis'.
8. 1repl mlvTwv emTpe1rew: i.e. to surrender unconditionally.
31. 2. Tout; 8ouA.ou<; eXeu9epouv: an extreme course, but one for

which there are many parallels in a military crisis; see the examples
collected by L. Hobert, J~t. epig. rr8-zG, and the discussion of M. I.
Finley, Historia, 1959, 157-8 (=Slavery in Classical Antiquity, Cam-
bridge, Ig6o, 65-66).
To Tij'i :A.pTell'So., {epov: the worship of Artemis at Abydus is attested
from the coinage; cf. Imhoof-Blumer, 11Ionnaies grecqHes (Paris-
Leipzig, r883), z6r; B.IIJ.C. Troas, 4--s, pl. ii.
3. TTJY TETPTJPT) ( TTJY) TWV 'PoS~wv Ka.l TTJY TP~TJPT) TTJV TWY KuhLKT)YWv:
on the l\.hodian vessel see 30. 7 n.; Livy omits the Cyzicene trireme,
which was no doubt mentioned in the corresponding passage in P.
5. TO s,aTELXLO"jlCJ.: the inner wall (JO. 6).
Ka.Ta Tns O.pa<;: 'in accordance with the curses', i.e. those invoked
upon themselves if they failed to carry out their oath; Paton mis-
understands this and translates 'with curses', adding a footnote
'curses, that is to say, on anyone who recovered it'.
7. Ka.Tapa.s •.• 'li'OLeia9aL ••• 1TEpl Twv 1rpoeLpT)~vwv: 'to utter im-
precations to meet the situation I have described'.
32. 1. TTJV A.eyojlEYT)Y <flwKLKTJY a1rovo~av: Pausanias, x. r. 3 ff., records

541
XVI. 32. I THE SIEGE OF ABYDUS
three actions in which the IJhocians expelled the Thessalians from
their country; after the first of these, a battle in which they in-
capacitated the Thessalian horse by burying amphorae in the pass
of Hyampolis, the Phocians murdered all the Thessalian officials
and Phocian collaborators, whereupon the Thessa!ians executed
their Phocian hostages and resolved to kill all the Phocians of mili-
tary age and enslave their women and children. After 3oo Phocian
scouts had been wiped out, the decision P. here mentions was taken
at the instigation of Dai"phantus of Hyampolis; but a Phocian vk·
tory rendered the desperate plan unnecessary. The seer, Tellias of
Elis, served as one of the three Phocian commanders (Paus. x. 1. 8).
and his statue was among those of the generals at Delphi (Pau~.
x. 1. ro). The third battle was also in the Pass of Hyampolis (Paus.
x. 1. u). The second incident mentioned here is not in Herodobh
(viii. 27-30, which mentions the first of the battles); but beside,..
Pausanias, Plutarch (Mor. 244) and Polyaenus (viii. 65, based 011
Plutarch) record it; cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. C/Jw~~:lr;. All three incidenh
belong to the decade between 491 and 481 ; cf. M. Sordi, La leg,r
tessala fino ad Alessandro i\-fagno (Rome, 1958), 87 ff.; Larsen, Cl'
1960, 231-7 •
T~v )\Ka.pvcl.vwv £61J!ux1a.v: cf. ix. 40. 4--6 nn. for this response to clll
Aetolian invasion.
2. 1TEpL Twv O.va.yKa.£wv: 'concerning their relath·es'; Twv &.~·ayKai",.
will hardly be neuter (so Mauersberger, s.v.).
Tov 1<iv8uvov ••• eK 1Ta.pa.Ta~£ws: according to Plut. Mor. 244 D tlw
battle was at Cleonae in the territory of Hyampolis.
3. ill Tois 1rpo TouTwv ~uTopT)Ka.flEV: ix. 40. 4--6 for the Acarnanians.
but P.'s account of the Phocian resoh·e has not survived. It w:i .
perhaps introduced in connexion with that of the Acarnanians.
5. 11a1ucrr' liv TLS •.• ll~!llJ!a.LTo Tfj Tuxn: the capricious behaviour •d
Tyche is also censured at xv. 2o. and xxxii. 4· 3; cf. \'ol. I.
p. 18 n. 6.
Tois a1TTJ.).1TlUfl~VOLS: used loosely of the Phocians at least, who wet•·
oUK EtS' TfAo<; d7T1JATTLafd.J•ar; £xoVT£S TU<; TOU vt~~:iiv £A.'"i.Sas (§ 2).
T~v £va.vT£a.v dx£ oul.ATJIJ!lv: 'had a different intention'.
6. Tois £x8pois &1roxelp,a.: according to 34· II-IZ most of tlH''"
perished.
33. 3. Ci.viTpe1rov o11oo Tois 01TAOLS: 'hurled them down, arms and all
EK 5,a..).t1IJ!Ews: 'with a thrusting stroke': cf. ii. 33· 6 n., xi. 18. 4 11
Biittner-\Vobst adds ('1TaniaaovTe;; Ka1), Hultsch excludes T•J•··
lm8opaT{at, 'the spear-points', as a gloss.
4. To UEflVOV Ka.i Sa.u~u~ov T-ils ••• 1rpoa.Lpttu~:ws: it is this ratlJ<·I
than the horror of the story that takes P.'s interest. Livy's adapt.1
tion concentrates on the motives and emotional background of tlw
THE SIEGE OF ABYDCS XVI. 34· 4
Abydenes' action; see P. G. Walsh, Livy, his Historical Aims and
Methods (Cambridge, 1961), 178--l), 193 ff.
34. 1. f:ts Tf:vf:Sov: cf. Livy, xxxi. r6. 8 (quoted above, 30. 7 n.).
MapKos At11i.Xws o vf:wTaTos: M. Aemilius Lepidus, the youngest of
the three legati (cf. 25. 2 n.); P. mentions Lepidus' youth as relevant
to what follows(§ 6). Paton, 'the younger 1\f. Aemilius', is misleading.
2. 1rpos a.lm)v Tov 1Pi.AL11'1Tov .•. KaTa Tas €vToAas: cf. Livy, xxxi.
8. 3, 'consultique fetiales ab consule Sulpicio, bellum quod in-
diceretur Philippa utrum ipsi utique nuntiari iuberent, an sa tis esset
in finibus regni quod proximum praesidium esset eo nuntiari'. The
jetiales replied that either course would be in order, but 'consuli a
patribus permissum, ut quem uideretur ex eis, qui extra senatum
cssent, legatum mitteret ad bellum regi indicendum' (Livy, xxxi.
8. 4). Hence the sending of Lepidus, who was not yet a senator (V.'al-
bank, ]RS, 1937, 196). It seems probable that a non-senator was
sent as a compromise between religious scruples (since the ultimatum
at Athens, delivered before the popular decision (27. 2-3 n.), had no
real validity) and the dignity of the Senate in the face of Philip's
continued aggression since the ultimatum delivered to Nicanor
{Walbank, ]RS, 1937, 196-7).
''II'LaT~aaVTf:S TTJV 1rpos To us ~aaLAf:~S bp11Tjv: cf. z7. 5·
3. S£5oKTm TTI auyKA~Tit': this senatus consultum had also been
ratified in the assembly; cf. Livy, xxxi. 8. r, 'in snffragium missi, uti
rogaret, bellum iusserunt'.
3-4. Terms of the ultimatum: to the two clauses of the earlier de-
marche (to make war on none of the Greeks and to give satisfaction to
Attalus: 27. z) have been added the demand not to attack Ptolemy's
possessions, and to give satisfaction to the Wwdians. The latter
probably reflects pressure exerted on the legati at Rhodes, the former
arises out of the seizure of various Ptolemaic towns by Philip in his
advance to the Hellespont (cf. Livy, xxxi. r6. 4 for Aenus). Neither
Rhodes nor Egypt was allied to Rome; but amicitia between Egypt
and Rome may have existed since Ptolemy IT's embassy after the
war with Pyrrhus (see above, ix. I I an.). On Roman relations '-Vith
Rhodes see xxx. 5· 6 n. (which shows that there was not yet ajoedus).
But the Romans had now decided on war, and were using the defence
of the Greeks as an instrument of propaganda, regardless of treaty
obligations (cf. McDonald, ]RS, 1957, 204; Walbank, Philip, 134-5)·
3. TWv 'EXX~vwv: cf. 27. 2 n.
TWV ••. aSLKTJ!laTWV: cf. 27. 2 n.
4. u1rap;uv Tov 1rpos 'Pw11a.i.ous 11'0Af:!lov: 'a state of war would
exist with Rome' : tltis is more specific than 27. J, TavaVTia avv£~
aKoAov8-,ja£n'. Follo\ving the war-decision of the people (d. Livy.
xxxi. 8. r quoted above, § 3 n.), the envoys were now empowered
543
XVI. 34· 4 R.tHIE DECLARES WAR
to deliver a rerum repetitio followed immediately, in the case of it.
rejection, by a declaration of war; this procedure by which tlw
senatoriallegati went out furnished \vith a conditional declaration ol
war can be traced in the ultimatum to in 238/7 (d. ii!
ro. 1 n.) and again in that of 218 :zo. 6 n.). There is correspondeuc,·
between the details of the ultimatums of zoo and :nS: in both til('
ultimatum proper, the rerum (iii. zo. 7, xvi. 34· is followed
by an attempt to contest the Roman demands (iii. zo. ro f.; xvi. 34· s).
but when the Roman answer makes clear that war is intended, th
ultimatum is accepted (iii. 33· r-2; xd. 34· 5); cf. Walhank, JR.<..,,
1937> 197·
5. o·n 'P68wL nis XEI:pa.s £m~O.A.ou:v a.LIT!{J: cf. xviii. 6. 2, when·
Attalus is also included in this Perhaps one should read
(JlTTaAos- Kat) 'P6cnot here with Tillmanns; cf. Lh·y, xxxi. r8. 2.
'ab Attalo et Rhodiis ultro se bello lacessitum'. nut the omission PI
Att:1lus would not be signifiwnt, for M. Lcpidus ga,·e Philip n"
time to finish his protest (;mroAa{3~aas). The Rhodians had cleclan·d
war 011 Philip on hearing of the sack of Cius (xv. 23. tl), and Attalu~
had also been persuaded by Tlieophiliscus to take the offensive ~~~
Chios {9. 4) ; thus technically Philip had right on his side.
TL Sa.L 11.9t]va.io~; KTA.: Lepidus quotes the most recent examples o!
Philip's aggression; this passage has no bearing on the relation:.
between these towns and Rome, though the reference to Athenc
may lie behind Appian's statement (Mac. 4· z) that Athens w;l'o
mentioned along \vith Rhodes and Attalus in the ultimatum.
6. v~oc; ••• Ka.L 'ITpayf,laTWV li'ITElpoc;: cf. § I n.
<•uiAUTTO. 8' on 'Pwf!ruOc;): Reiske filled the lacuna from Lin'
xxxi. 18. 3, 'aetas, inquit, et forma et super omnia Romanum nome·,,
te ferociorem Licit'.
7. Ta'i O'uv9T]Kat;;: the treaty made at Pboenice.
11, KO.Ttt TTJV E~ apxfjs <7TaOW: 'aCCOrding to their Original resolve' .
cf. x. 33· 6, where the :\IS. aTd.a<s-, if kept, must have a simih 1
sense {see ad loc.).
35. 2. (Twv) ~K Tfjc; 'Pwfll]'i 'ITpEC'~EuTwv: since they had not yet lt·ll
Rhodes, this event cannot be long after the ultimatum delivered ;,I
Abydus; the Roman request that the Rhodians shall not mak;· ·'
separate peace avw 'Pwp..o.lwv conftrms be view (34· 4 n.) that siw•·
the Abydus meeting Rome :mel been at war with Philip. The furilw1
movements of the Roman embassy are not recorded, but they will
have gone on to visit Antioclms and Ptolemy's ministers, retuwil'"
to Rome probably in 199 (Holleaux, Etudes, v. r59 nn. r-2).
<1ToxO.tu:r9al Tfjt;; TOuTwv <(lt~(as: 'to have regard to their friendsbi' ·
(rather than 'to seek their friendship'); cf. Schmitt, Rom zmd RlwJu
6i n. 3 ; above xi. 4· 3 n.
544
PH I L 0 P 0 E :\1 E ~ ATTACKS :>:: :\ B IS XVI. 31l
36. 1-37.7. Philopoemen's expedition against Nabis

After Nabis' attack on Messene and Philopoemen's successful riposte
(13. 3 n., r6. r-q. 7) the Achaean confederation seems at last to haYe
accepted a policy of war with Nabis, and Philopoemen was elected
~eneral for 201 fo; the expedition here described will belong to the
campaigning season of 2oo. See, in general, Aymard, PR, 44-47;
Loring, ]HS, r895, 63.
36. 1. Knl. 1TOLnl SUvnvTm ••• 1Tnpayivea9nl: loosely expressed; the

sense is 'from which of them troops would reach Tegea'.
3. TOL<; n1TOTE;>..EL0l<;: 'local commanders' ; cf. X. 23. 9 n.
37. 1. Twv (wT)nKouaTwv Kat KnTnaKo1Twv: the convincing addition

is Ursinus's; cf. xxxi. 13. 1, wTaKovaT~aona Kao KaTo7TTEVaowa.
l. Tous €m;>..€KTous: cf. ii. 65. 3 n.
we pl. Ie;>..;>..aaiav: ro. 2 n.
3. o~ j-l.la6o<jlopol: cf. xiii. 6. 3·
Tov IKoTiTav: cf. § 4; an oak-forest extending on both sides of the
Oenus (Kelephina) from near its source to below modern Arachova
(d. Paus. iii. IO. 6; Bursian, ii. us-r6; Geyer, RE, 'Skotitas (I)',
col. 612); the area is still wooded with oaks. The route the £7TfAEKTOL
followed from Tegea was evidently along the more easterly road
via Caryae (d. Loring, J H 5, r895, 57-58), arid the area in question
may in part have belonged at this time to Tegea (d. ix. 33· 12 n.).
The forest contained a shrine to Zeus Scotitas: Paus. ibid. ; Kock,
RE, 'Skotitas', cols. 612-13.
AlSa.aKa}..tiJvSy. T~ KpTJTL: clearly a mercenary captain; cf. Launey,
i. 263; van Effenterre, 296-7. Philopoemen may have learnt to rely
on him during his own mercenary service in Crete (Plut. Philop. 7· 2).
5. €v TTI 11e;>..;>..iJvn: on its site see iv. Sr. 7 n.
7. OL j-~.£V KO.TEK01TTJO"av, OL S' ~a}..wao.v (lUTWV: but the absence of
any mention of this expedition in Plutarch's Philopoemen suggests
that Philopoemen failed in his main object, to force Nabis to a
pitched battle (Aymard, PR, 44-45). However, the war now came
to an end (Plut. PM!op. 13. r ff., departure of Philopoemen for Crete;
Livy, xxxi. 25. 3, the Achaeans dissolve their mercenary force),
though ~abis soon began it afresh (Livy, loc. cit.).
38. Philip, the Achaeans, and Rome

This fragment from Suidas, attributed by Valesius to P., could a
priori belong to 199/8 (Livy, xxxii. 5) or autumn 198 (Livy, xxxii.
l9); but, for the reason mentioned on p. 25, it seems preferable to
leave it here as an extract from xvi.
8Hl73 Nn 545
XVI. 39 :\:\TIOCHL"S' CAMPAIG:\ (JF 200
39. Antioclms' campaign of 2oo

The fragments grouped here refer to the successful counter-attack
of Scopas, following the capture of Gaza by the Seleucid troo1 ···
(r8. 2, 22 a), and to Antiochus' \'ictory at Pan!um and subse(}uenr
campaign. On the chronology see rS. 2 n.
39. 1. op)l~O'O.S £Ls TOUS avw T011'0U5: this invasion of the hill countn
of Judaea represents an Egyptian counter-attack after the fa11 oi
Gaza (22 a); cf. Ioseph. Ant. hul. xii. 131, Bs (Scopas) 1ToA.Ita:; T•
t.uhwv 7TOAEtS f1Aa.{3£v Ka{ TO ~fLETEpol• e81'os· 1TOA€fLOVfLEV01' yap aim,"
1rpoa/.fhTo; Hieron. in Dan. xi. IJ-I4, 'cepitque Iudaeam (Scopas), ,.,
optimates Ptolomaei partium secum abducens in Aegyptum reuers1:"
est'. The date (iv T<t> xnp.wv•) will be winter zor/zoo: Holleau'.
Etudes, iii. 325-6; Dumrese, RE, 'Skopas', vii., coL r2rt •.
2. Tfjs Se 11'0ALopK1a.s t.:TA.: this fragment from Suidas was assigned
to P. by Valesius, hut its position is uncertain. De Sancti.s (iY. 1
II9 n. ro) suggests that it refers to Scopas' siege of Damascus, in th··
campaign in Palestine which preceded Panium; but Holleaux (Etude.•.
iii. 325 n. 2) suggests that it may refer to the of Lycopolis in
Egypt (cf. xxii. q. r; OGIS, go, 11. 2r-26).
3. ToG IKo"'l'a. vLKTJ9EvTo5 {m' :A.vnoxou: at Panium (d. r8-r9); ar
cording to Hieron. in Dan. xi. rs-r6 Scopas escaped with ro,ooo mr·;r
to Sidon and, after three Egyptian armies failed to relie\·e him.
capitulated.
Ba.TavE:a.v: Bat<mia is the O.T. Bashan (Deut. iii. ro, r3) and is tlw
Aramaic form of the name. In the wider sense Batania is the equi,·.r
lent of modern Hauran, the area between Hermon and the Hierompr.
(Scherl'at cl Menfu;lire), and stretching from the Jordan east 1"
Salchad at the foot of the Hauran range; but in Iosephus Bata11i.l
is usually restricted to the plateau which stretches east and south-ea~i
of Dscholan, the southern part of modem en Nu~ra (cf. Benzing,.,.
RE, 'Batanaia', cols. ns-r6; Dussaud, Topographie, 323 ff.). I!.
capital was Adra (Der'a). Antioch:1s would reach this area advanciw:
south from Panium.
Iap.apeLa.v: Samaria lay south-west of Batania and west of n,,
Jordan; its capital was the town of the same name, and it w.r·.
bounded by Galilee to the north and J udaea to the south; cf. Be•·1.
RE, 'Samaria', cols. 2ro4-5·
~[3LAa. Ka.l ra.Sapa.: see v. 7I· 2-J nn. It is likely that Antiochus to<.l
Abila and Gadara (in the neighbourhood of the Hieramyces) bcfr •l •
crossing the Jordan to annex Samaria; P. (if Josephus has quoted lri"'
correctly) has mentioned first the two prodnccs, then the two tO\\ 11
4. ot 11'ept To lEpov ••• 'lepoabAuJ.La. KO.TOtKOVvTE\>: the expression 1 •
fleets the status of Jerusalem at this time. The Seleucids regard< .I
546
ANTIOCHUS' CAl\IPAIG:-.1 OF 200 XVI. 40
it as a KthJf-TJ and its inhabitants as native villagers; d. 2 :Mace. xiv. 37,

'Pa~ts BE ns: 'TW~ dn6 'ltipaaoAvfkwv. For the Jews the temple was the
important feature, and that is stressed here; d. Orac. Sibyll. iii. 213.
See Bickerman, ]ouru. Bib. Lit. 1944, 356; Syria, 1946-8, 84 n. 2. For
its capitulation, perhaps not before late I99 or early 198, cf. xviii.
4t an.
~. 1repl Tij<; ytvoJLEVTJ'i 1TE:pt Tb [epbv ~mcpa.veia<;: 'concerning the
splendour of the temple.' P. perhaps described Jerusalem in con-
ncxion with either the dedication of the temple to Zeus or its pillage
by Antiochus IV (cf. Pedcch, Jfithode, 562 n. 276).
40. Pla.ce.s nwttioned in xvi

These places are all from Stephanus, who attributes them to this
hook. Brabantium may hare been mentioned in connexion with the
battle of Chios; it is otherwise unknown. Gitta will fit the context of
Antiochus' campaign after Panium (39) and may be the Gath-bepber
in Galilee (2 Kings xi\'. 25), where the prophet Jonah was buried,
modern el Meschhcd, 6 km. north of Nazareth; but there are also
other places with this name: (a) a KWJf-TJ in Samaria mentioned by
Justin Martyr (apol. i. 26 n.), the modern ~arjet Dschit, west of
Nablus; (b) a fortress in Idumaea (Ioseph. Ant. bul. xiv. 450; Bell.
Iud. i. 326) perhaps identical with 'J;1asada on the Dead Sea (cf.
Heminger, RE, 'Gitta', col. 1372; 'Gadda (I)', coL 438); and (c) the
Gitta lying between Antipatris and Iamneia in J udaea (F:useb. Onom.
•so. 7-n Larsow-Parthey), probably identicat with the Gittaim of
:: Sam. iv. 3 and NelL xi. 33, and perhaps to be sought at or near
Ramie (Abel, Gcog. ii. 338). Helta may be a corruption of Elaia in
Aeo lis (d. xxi. ro. 2); so Biirclmer, RE, 'Hella'. coL 96. For the
Insubres cf. ii. q. 4 n.; their attack on Placentia and Cremona in zoo,
in company with the Cenomani and Boii, is mentioned by Livy, xxxi.
Io. I ff. Candasa is not otherwise known; it will be mentioned with
reference to Philip's im·asion of Caria (u-Iz, 24). On Carthaea see
26. ron . .\1antt~a lay in the territory of the Cenomani (PtoL iii. r. zj)
and will hardly ha';e been a Roman community at this date (despite
the prodigy recorded in Livy, xxiv. Io, 7): see Beloch, RG, 58o, 615;
the words 1r6A~> 'PwJf-alwv are not necessarily P.'s. Mantua may well
have been mentioned in a passage dealing with the action against
the Cenomani (sec above).
547
BOOK XVII
No fragments surviYe from this book; see pp. 25-26.
BOOK XVIII
1-12. The conference in Locris and its aftermath
The Roman campaigns against Philip between autumn 200 and tlw
end of the campaigning season of 198 were described in xvii; P.'s
account was followed by Livy, xxxi. 22. 4-47. 3 (200-199), xxxii.
4· 1-6. 4 (autumn 199-spring 198), 9· 6-25. 12 (spring-autumn 198),
who thus subdivided P.'s narrative for 199/S so as to have thn•,-
sections corresponding to the commands of P. Sulpicius Galba (cos.
2oo), P. \'illius Tappulus (cos. 199), and T. Quinctius Flaminil11b
(cos. 198); sec Nissen, KU, 133· By autumn 198 Philip had retired
behind Tempe (Livy, xxxii. 15. 9) leaving Thessaly to the Romans,
the Aetolians (allied to the Romans since September 199), and
the Athamanians; he had lost most of Euboea, and much of Phocis
and Locris, Epirus had half-defected and recently, in October 191'.
the Achaeans had gone OYer to Rome. Philip therefore decided to
treat and sent a caduceator to Flamininus requesting a conferenct·
(Livy, xxxii. 32. 5) ; and seeing in such a conference a useful mancemTt'
to gain time when the question of his own succession was being de
bated at Rome, Flamininus granted Philip's request (Livy, xxxii.
J2. 6-8).
The conference took place in Kovember, as the following evidew,·
makes clear :
(a) The Aetolian general for 198/7, Phaeneas, has already assum{'d
office (1. 4).
(b) It is already the bad season, XELfLWV (g. 10).
(c) Four events follow in close succession: Flamininus' captUJ ,.
of Elatea (Livy, xxxii. 24. 1-7), the rising against Philip at Opu~
(Livy, xxxii. 32. r-2), Flamininus' arrival at Opus (Livy, xxxii. y.
3-4), the sending of Philip's caduceator (Livy, xxxii. 32. 5). About
the same time that the siege of Elatea began, attempts were mad,
at a meeting at Sicyon to \Vin over the Achaeans; and Aristaenu·.
was still in office, i.e. it was not yet the autumn equinox of 198, fo1
548
THE CONFERENCE IN LOCRIS XVIII. r. 3
Aristaenus was general in Achaea 199/8 (Aymard, RE.A, 1928, 3-4).

These negotiations were successful and were followed, probably still
during Aristaenus' generalship, by an attack on Corinth (Livy, xxxii.
19. I, 21. 14, 23. 3); the Roman and Pergamene fleets then went into
winter quarters (Livy, xxxii. 23. r3), a procedure which usually
occurred in mid-September, but could be later. These dates are some-
what elastic and lead Aymard (PR, 8o--8r n. 49) to date the meeting
at Sicyon about the middle, and the fall of Elatea about the end, of
October, Holleaux (Etudes, v. n--79) a fortnight earlier. In either
case a week or two would have to be allowed before the conference
met; and this would therefore be in November. See further De
Sanctis, iv. I. 385; \Yalbank, Philip, :po-r.
P.'s account of the conference probably derives from the report
brought back by the Achaean representatives; and since Xenophon
also went on to Rome (ro. n), he can also have brought back the
story of Flamininus' intrigue (9. 5 n.). For secondary accounts cf.
Livy, xxxii. J2. s-J6.ro; Plut. Flam. 5· 6, 1· I; App. Mac. 8; Iustin.
xxx. 3· 8-ro, 4· 5; Zon. ix. r6. 4; all derive ultimately from P. (cf.
Holleaux, Etudes, v. 29-30 n. 2). For recent discussion see Holleaux,
f'tudes, v. 29-79; Aymard, PR, II4-27; F. M. Wood, TAPA, 1939,
93-103; ASP, 1941, 277-98 (defending Flarnininus); Walbank, Philip,
159-{j2; Scullard, Pol. ror-4; Stier, I28-Jo.
1. I. EK A'tlf.!.TITP><18o~: still in Philip's hands, cf. II. 4·

>.iji~ou~ ... 'IT'pianv: d. i. 20. 13 n., xvi. :z. 9 n. The pristis is a small
boat, though Livy translates by nauis rostrata.
2. J\'!T'oAA68wpos Ko.l. A11p.oa-OevTJ~: cf. 8. 7, 3-1-· 4·
BpaxuAATJS: son of Neon and grandson of Ascondas, who like him
were warm supporters of Macedon ; he had been appointed JmaTCLTTJ'>
of Sparta by Doson after Sellasia (xx. 5· 5; ii. 70. r n.). On his later
murder by the pro-Roman party see 43· 1-13, xx. 7· J, xxii. 4· 7·
KuK>.~Cr.Sa.s: cf. 34· 4· Cycliadas had led the pro-.Macedonian party in
Achaea (Livy, xxxii. 19. 2), and had been elected general in autumn
200 (Livy, xxxi. 25. 3), but had resisted Philip's attempt to involve
Achaea in the war (Livy, xxxi. zs. 8-c;). The swing·over to Rome in
199 caused his banishment (Livy, xxxii. 19. z}, which P. must have
mentioned in xvii (TdS 7TpoT€pOl' • .. dprwJvas a.1Tlas-). Though Bra-
chylles commanded the Boeotians serving with Philip (43· 3), both
he and Cycliadas were here in a purely personal capacity, as a
counter-weight, Aymard suggests (PR, u6-q), to the large array of
Greeks which Philip rightly expected to see mustered against him.
3. Toll Thou: T. Quinctius T.f. Ln. Flamininus, the consul for
A.u.c. 556 rg8 B.c.; cf. H. Gundel, RE, 'Quinctius (45)', cols.
1047-IIOO.
J\11uvav8pos: Amynander of Athamania (cf. iv. r6. 9 n., xi. 4· 1-{j,
549
XVIIL r. 3 THE CO~FERE~CE 1~ LOCRIS
10 n., 7· 2-3 n., xvi. 27. 5 n.); he had gone over from Philip to tlw
Romans in the winter of :zoo--199 (cf. LivT. xxxi. z8. I).
Atovuo-Miwpos: At talus' admiral at Chios: cf. XYi. 3· 7.
4. 7\piaTo.wos t<a.l. ::Evo<jlwv: }fpta-ralveTos- corr. Schweighaeuset
cf. 13. 8, xi. II. 7 n. Aristaenus, the Achaean general for 199/8 had
brought Achaea over to Rome at the council held at Sicyon i;,
October 198 (Livy, xxxii. 23. r-3). Xenophon of Aegium (cf. To. 11.
xxviii. 19. 3) is perhaps identical with a Delphic proxenos of 1
(Syll. 585, L 29, Ec:vo¢wv EvpvMoVTos Alyu,vs-), and in that case he i~
probably the son of the Euryleon who appears to be Achaean gencr.tl
in z11/10 (x. zL I n.). Alcithus of Aegium, mentioned in xxviii. 19.
will be his son. On Aristaenus see the Addenda.
7\t<Eai(l~poTos: eddently the successor of Cleonaeus, whom The''
philiscus designated to succeed him on his death at Chios (xvi. 9· 1)
Cleonaeus, Acesimbrotus, and Eudamus are named as successors in
the navarchate in Syll. 673, an inscription honouring a Nisyrian who
had served in the Rhodian navy; cf. xvi. 9· r n. Acesimbrotu.
evidently took over the o[fice in 200 or 199, and probably held it 1ill
the end of the Second Macedonian War (d. Livy, xxxi. 46. 6, 47· ·.
xxxii. 16. 6; Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 171; Fraser and Bean, 148 n. 6).
<Pmv£o.s o aTpO.TTJYOS: Aetolian general for rgR/7, a native of Arsinf"'
(Syll. 6ro, l. l>; cf. IG, ix 2 • I. 31, L zo); he is known from several i11
scriptions dating from this year (G Dl, zooo, zoor, 2073, 2Ci 1'
Phaeneas later appears supporting a pro-Roman policy in Aetolu
(cf. xx. 9· 1 n.). See W. Hoffmann, RE, 'Jlhaineas', cols. 1563-5·
£npot Twv 1TOA~Teuo(l~vwv: i.e. in Aetolia; one is Alexander the Isi;J,,
(3. r); but there were many others, probably those later sent '"
Rome (ro. 9-ro). It was the large number of Aetolians present tl1;il
aroused Philip's anxiety (§ 7: cf. Hollcaux, f::tudes, \'. 34 n. 3).
5. t<o.Ta Nt~eo.ta.v: cf. Liv~·. xxxii. 32. 9, 'in sinu Maliaco pror•·
l\icaeam litus elegere'. On ::\icaea sec x ..p. 4 n.
7. <jlof3elo-llm • , • ou8~va. ,.A,t)v Touo; 9eous: an orthodox remark, <>I
little value as evidence for Philip's religions beliefs (on these see Wai
bank, Philip, 267 ff.). Stier, rz8 n. z8S (cf. Welt als Geschichte, 19..p, 5').
utters a warning against Hultsch's comparison of a similar remark •d
Bismarck, '\Vir Deutschen fiirchten Gott, aber soust nichts in di,.,..,.,
\-'Velt'. Philip is mainly concerned to draw a hair-splitting distinction
between fear and distrust.
12. (mAoOv ••• Ka.t <jla.~vo1-1evov: 'simple and clear'.
13. ix ... Tils 'EA..AO.Sos ~m6.0'11s £~exwpelv: cf. z. 6, 9· r; this dem;~nd
had already been made at the conference on the Aous in June '".
which preceded Philip's defeat and retreat into Thessaly (Livy, xxx11
IO. 3; Diod. xxviii. II, both from P.; Walbank, Philip, rsr-2). II
represents an advance on the original ultimatum (xvi. 27. z, 34·
which merely required Philip to cease making war on the Greek .
sso
THE CONFERE::\CE IX LOCRIS XVIII. r. 14
On the new policy, hardly that of Flamininus alone, see Badian,

7o-71; it was the Senate that rejected Philip's embassy in the winter
of 198/7 (II. 12-14). How much this policy owed to Hellenistic pre-
cedents (d. Taubler, 432-6; Sherwin-White, rso-r; Scullard, Pol.
1oo f.) is debatable; Badian, 73-i4, stresses the Roman antecedents in
Sicily and Illyria, but Greek propaganda will itself have played a
considerable part in shaping policy.
lmoSovTa Taus atx~J.aAwTous KTA.: cf. Livy, xxxii. 33· 3, 'captiuos et
transfugas sociis populi Romani reddendos'. EKriarot;; implies that
Flamininus spoke for the allies as well, and there is no reason to
reject this (so Holleaux, 36-3i n. 8) because Dionysodorus indepen-
dently demands the return of Pcrgamene prisoners (2. z) or because
Philip offers to return the prisoners 'to the Romans' (8. 1o).
14. Taus ... KaTn TTtV 'IAAupiSa TO"Irous lrapaoouvm: d. LiYy, xxxii.
33· 3, 'restituenda Romanis ea Illyrici loca, quae post pacem in
Epiro factam occupasset'. That the words fLETa rds ell 'Hrrdp(p
StaAvan;; mean 'in consequence of, and as a result of, the peace of
Phoenice' (so Zippel, 73; Holleaux, 278 n. r; Etudes, v. 37 n. g) is hard
to credit in the light of the parallel phrase fLErd roll ... 8avarov in
§ I4; see Badian, Studies, 33 n. ro2; Balsdon, CQ, 1953. r63-4. (Oost's
recent defence of 1-Iolleaux's interpretation (CI>, 1959, rsS-64) based
in part on a supposed distinction between the 8wAvan;; in Epirus and
the ratification of the treaty at Rome (not supported by Polybian
usage: d. i. 65. r), is unconvincing.) But where these Illyrian places
are to be sought is uncertain. It is unlikely that they were among the
l~arthini, as has been thought (d. 47· 12 n.); and the most probable
view is that they represent acquisitions of areas not directly linked \\itb
Rome, perhaps in 204 (d. xiii. ro. n). (1Tapa8o£illat is 'to hand over': it
is Livy who introduces the idea of restoration with his 'restituenda'.)
This would explain why there was no reference to encroachment in
Illyria in the ultimatum of 2oo. Attempts have been made to see refer-
ences to these Illyrian places in the annalistic tradition. Livy speaks
of Philip's 'infidam aduersus Aetolos aliosque regionis eiusdem socios
pacem' (Livy, xxxi. r. g), and tells how 'legati sociarum urbium ex
Graecia questi essent uastatos agros ab regiis praesidiis' (Livy, xxx.
26. 2). Three Roman envoys are sent to protest to Philip (Livy,
xxx. 26. 4) and Aurelius Cotta remains behind 'ne socii populi Romani
fessi populationibus ui atque iniuria ad regem deficerent' (Livy,
xxx. 42. s). It has been suggested that these socii are the Illyrians
mentioned here (d. Badian, 61; for another suggestion as to their
identity cf. 3· 12 n.) ; but the whole context of these exchanges is
dubious, the location of the allies is suspiciously vague, and there is
no evidence at all that Illyrians are meant (d. Ferro, r2).
ct,v y£.yovE tcupLoS: 'which he had seized' rather than 'which he re-
tained' (cf. Balsdon, CQ, £953. I6J n. s).
55 1
XVIII. r. 14 THE CONFERENCE IN LOCRIS
jLETa Tas tv 'H1relp~ 8to.Ma~>lS: the Peace of Phoenice, negotiated
between Philip and P. Sempronius Tuditanus in 205, concluded tlw
First Macedoni:w War. Its clauses were (a) that Philip should SUI-
render to Rome the land of the Parthini, Dimale, and the unidentifit>d
towns of Bargullum and Eugenium, (b) that subject to the Senatt:\
confirmation he was to hav-e Atintania (probably together with hi·.
gains of 217 in Dassarctia (v. ro8) and those of 213 in Illy-ria (\·iii. 3i',
Dassaretae; Livy, xxvii. 30. I.J, xxix. rz. 13, Atintania); see Lin.
xxix. 12. 13-15; App. Jfac. 3). Livy lists, as foeder£ adscripti, Prusia:-,,
the Achaeans, the Boeotians, the Thessalians, the Acamanians, tlw
Epirotes, on Philip's side, and on the Roman side the people of Ilium.
Attalus, Pleuratus, Nabis, the }:Jeans, the l\fessenians, and tlw
Athenians. It is argued abO\·e (xvi. 13. 3 n.) that Elis, Messenia, and
Sparta arc to be accepted; but many of the names look like annalistic
additions. Ilium is improbable, for had she established close links
with Rome by now, I.ampsacus would almost certainly have en
listed her aid in her appeal to be included in the treaty with Philil'
in 197, rather than that o£ distant Massilia (Syll. 591). Athens is li.keh
to have been included incorrectly to support the account of th•·
origins of the ·war in which she was made to play a major part. It hac;
been suggested that the Phocians, Euboeans, and Epicnemidian
Locrians were included in the treaty, but that their names wen·
accidentally omitted by Livy or P., his source (cL Holleaux, 259 n. 2).
but they were at this time directly under Philip's control, and so h;~d
no share in the treaty (cf. Daux, 2367; Feyel, 152; above, v. 26. r n ..
x. 42. 2 11.). There is a long bibliography on this peace· see Walbank.
Philip, ro3-4 n. 6, and for later discussion, Petzold, II-30; Balsdo11,
JRS, 1954, 33-34; Piraino, Riv. jil. 1955, 57-73; Badian, sS-s'>.
Ferro, 20.
nToAej!a.L<p TUS 1TOAELS a1TOKO.TO.O'TTJO'O.l: the tovms in Thrace takell
by Philip in 2oo (cf. xvi. 34· 3-4 n.) and perhaps also Samos (cf. x' 1.
2. 9 n.; Habicht, Ath. Mitt. 1957, 240 n. rr3) ; Philip at this tinw
possessed no Ptolemaic cities in Asia: see the full discussion of Hol
leaux, Etudes, iv. 298-335·
~LETa Tov ••• <i»LAo1Tci.Topos 9ci.va.Tov: see xiv. n-12 n. for its date.
2. 2. Tas .•• vo.us ••• Tas ... o.lxfla,AwTous: according to xvi. 6. s ;.

6. ro, 7· 3 (restored}, 8. 2, Philip took Attalus' flag-ship and t\'"
quadriremes as prize; but the crews escaped (xvi. 6. 5). Evidenlh
the account of the battle in xvi is incomplete, since the reference f,.
TOVS Uf.LU Tavra~> avopa> here implies the capture of ships with Crf'\1'.
intact (cf. n-i. 7 n.).
TO TTJS :.\!f>po01TTJS tepov ... KO.L TO NL~<TJ4>6pLov: cf. xvi. r. 6 n. fo1
this temple and sanctuary, and the damage Philip did there.
3. TTJ'i ... n£po.£o.s :cf. xvi. II n. for Philip's seizureofthe Rhodian Perac.l
55 2
THE CONFERENCE 12' LOCRIS XVIII. 2. 6
'la.uoO Ka.i Ba.pyu.Mwv: xvi. 12 n., 24. r-9 n.

Tfjs EupwfLewv 1roAews: Euromus (or Eurome) lay about 8 miles
north-west of Mylasa (cf. xvi. 24. 6 n.) in a gap in the hills east of the
plain of Mandalya; cf. Magie, i. 86, ii. 908 n. 130; Laumonier, 164 ff.;
Rev. arch. 1933, 2, 40 ff.; cf. L Robert, A] A, 1935, 337· For a possible
sympolifeia between Euromus (?) and the nearby city of Chalcetor
see Robert REA, 1934, 525; Laumonier, 162-4; and below, xxx.
5· I I n., a passage which suggests that the name Euromus seems
also to have been used of an area rather larger than the territory of
the city; cf. Bean and Cook, BSA, 1957,141 n. 348. Pedasa is probably
omitted by error (Holleaux, Etudes, v. 38 n. 5). All these towns are
likely to ha,re been proteges of Rhodes (Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 314 ff.).
4. nepw9lous ets TTJV Bu~avT(Wv C7UfL1TOALTEla.v: annexed by Philip in
202 (cf. xv. 21-24 n.). On its site see Diod. xvi. 76; it lay on the
Thracian coast of the Propontis at modern Erekli (cf. Oberhummer,
RE, 'Perinthos', cols. 8o2-13). On the sympoliteia see Treves, LEC,
1940, 157-8, who attributes the apocryphal joint decree of the
Byzantines and Perinthians in Dem. xviii. 90-91 to a late-third-
century forger. On sympoliteia in general see L Robert, Villes, 54 ff.
I,a-Tou Ka.i )\~uliou: probably Sestus as well as Abydus was taken
in 2oo (cf. xvi. 29. 3 n.).
TWV EfL1TOplwv KO.l ALfLEVWV .•. amiVTWV: 'trading stations and har-
bours': the words imply something smaller than cities (cf. Holleaux,
f._·tudes, iv. 323 n. r), and suggest that Philip had no other substantial
possessions, other than those mentioned, in Asia Minor.
5. K6pw9ov ••• Ka.i TTJV Twv )\pyelwv 1roAw: Corinth had held a
Macedonian garrison since the Achaeans called in Antigonus III
against Cleomenes in 224 (ii. 52. 3-4); Argos had gone over to Philip,
calling in his general Philocles by night, shortly after the Achaean
decision to join Rome in 198 (cf. Livy, xxxii. 25. 1-12). The remaining
Macedonian points in Achaea-Orchomenus, Heraea, Alipheira, and
Triphylia-had been ceded by Philip in 199 (Livy, xxxii. 5· 4--6).
Aymard (PR, 118-zo) argues that the modesty of the Achaean claim
reflects uncertainty, and that the word Corinth is deliberately am-
biguous-to include the citadel if Rome favoured this, but other-
wise indicating the city alone; Holleaux, Etudes, v. 54 n. 2 (d. De
Sanctis, iv. r. 70 n. 14o) takes it to include both. But the AchaearJ
omission of any reference to the evacuation of Greece (mentioned
by the Aetolians) favours Aymard's interpretation (for we have
here virtually a verbatim record of Achaean origin).
6. Tl1s 1r6A.us •.• fLETa.o-xouuas Tfjs Twv AtTwAwv CYUfL1TOALTela.s: pri-
marily the Thessalian towns of Phthiotic Thebes, Echinus, Pharsalus,
and Larissa Cremaste (see below, 3· 12 n., 8. 9, 47· 7-8), but also no
doubt Lysimacheia, Cius, and Calchedon (d. xv. 23. 8 nn. and below,
,)• II-12).
553
XVIII. 3· I THE CO::\FEREKCE I~ LOCIUS
3. 1. :A.Xe~av&pos 0 ... WI enos: d. xiii. I a I n., xxi. 25. II The

ethnic "law> appears on several inscriptions (GDI, 1949, 1993. 2orr),
including a manumission decree from Buttus (E. Kachmanson, Ath .
.Mitt., I90i, I9, no. 13, 1. I6), which suggests that Isus lay near Buttus
north-east of Naupactus (Oldfather, RE, 'Isios', cols. 2083-4). Sec
also Tlmc. iii. ror. 2, where 'Haa{ov> should perhaps be 'lalov> (cf.
Lerat, BCH, I946, 329-36). Alexander was evidently known with his
ethnic to distinguish him (his name being common) : hence 7Tpoa-
ayopw6t-t~vo>. Clearly he is not the Alexander of Calydon mentioned on
several inscriptions as general of the confederacy; cf. Woodhousl'.
IOI n. I against Wilcken, RE, 'Alexandros (32)', cols. 1442-3. \Voou-
house puts Isus at :Malandrino, south-east of Lithoriki.
2. 1ro~eiv Ta Tou 1TOAEJJ.ouvTos tpya: 'behaved as if he were at vvar·
(Paton).
4. 1TOAE~S 0'1Tavlws ava~pE~V Kal KaTa<j>Beipe~v: the complaint against
Philip seems to be not the destruction of cities (which was permis
sible: cf. v. II. 3 with note), but their wanton destruction merely to
spite the victorious enemy (cL xxiii. I5. I--3)· See YOU Scala, 3!5·
5. 1rpos :A.vT(yovov lmep TllS: :A.a(as:: the war of Lysimachus, Seleucus.
Ptolemy, and Cassander against Antigonus Monophthalmus, which
culminated in Antigonus' defeat and death at Jpsus at the hands ol
Lysimachus and Seleucus (3or).
8. TOV 1TOAEJJ.OV auTov KaTaAl1Te~v: cf. Livy, xxxii. 33· IJ, 'nihil sil>i
praeter belltlm relinquere', i.e. to destroy the cities and leave himsl'll
the war. This gi'l:cs a good contrast between avaLptELV and KaTa'AeJ.7TEII'
(for normally one sought Tbv 7ro'A"t-tov avaLpEiv: cf. ix. II. :z). Bnt :1
possible sense is 'to abandon the war yet destroy the cities (for whiclt
the war was being fought)'; cf. § 3 arpf.vra . •. TOV KU'rtl 7TpoaWmH
d7TaVTQV TOL<; 7T'OAtEf-L{OL<;, rptEvyovra T(h rroAH<; it-tmf-L7Tpava.L KTA. ShucL
burgh adopts this rendering: 'that a man should abandon war, a11< I
yet destroy that for which the war was undertaken, seemed, etc.' Bul
the first version is perhaps the more probable.
9. TOaauTa<; .•• s~e.p9apKEVa~ mSAH<; EV eeTTaAL~: according to Li \'\''
xxxii. IJ. s-9 (d. Plut. Flam. 5· 2), he pursued a 'scorched-earth'
policy on his retreat through Thessaly from theAousin I98; Phacium.
Peiresia (MS. Iresiae), and Euhydrium near the Enipeus, and th'·"
Eretria and Palaepharsalus were all burnt, and the inhabitants fore<·• I
to retire with Philip to Macedonia. Pherae escaped by shutting it·.
gates. 'haec ctiam facicnti Philippa acerba erant, sed e terra m"\
futura hostium corpora saltern eripere sociorum uolebat' (Lin
xxxii. 13. 8). See Walbank, Philip, I53·
eK Twv ev 'H1Te(p'tJ aTEvwv: the pass on the Yiossa (Aous), near Ant'
goneia, covering the route south-eastward up the Aous valley 'i .•
the Klisoura gorge, which Philip had occupied in spring I98, and
from which he was expelled by Flamininus, who turned the pa ..
THE CONFERE.!'CE IN LOCRIS XVIII. 3· I2
(Livy, xxxii. 10. I-IJ. 1 ; Plut. Flam. 3· 4-5. t). In ii. S· 6 and 6. 6 the
phrase ,.a_ r,a.p' i-1VTty6vEwv a-re>'ct applies to the narrows on the Drynos,
which runs into the Viossa, on the left bank, just south of Tepeleni.
See further, for a plan and illustration, Walbank, Pltilip, 149·50 and
plate facing 148 (with references), arguing against the view of De
Sanctis, iv. 1. 6o n. IJi, who puts Philip's position at Tepeleni below
the junction of the two rivers. ?~lore recently N. G. L. Hammond,
JRS, 1966,39-54, has discussed Philip's battle-site and the topography
of all this area, locating Antigoneia at Lekel on the Drynos (Drin),
five miles south of Tepeleni.
11. AucnfLaxnav: d. xv. 23. 8 n.
ll. K~a.vous: cf. xv. 21-24 n. The relationship of both Cius and
I.ysimacheia to Aetolia will have been one of iuo1ToAo-rela rather than
full uvp:rroA>-rela. (d. ii. 46. 2 n., xv. 23. 8 n.; Busolt-Swoboda, ii.
I5II n. J).
'Exivov KTA. on Echinus see ix. 41. 1-42. 4 n., on Phthiotic Thebes,
v. 99· 2 n.; Larissa Cremaste in Phthiotis lay on the south-east slopes
of Mt. Othrys above the Malia.n Gulf; its ruins are a little abon the
village of Gardiki (Leake, NG, iv. J.J.7 f.; Stahlin, Hell. Thess. r::\2-4
(with plan). The Romans had taken it (except the citadel) in 199
(Livy, xxxi. 46. 12), but evidently Philip had recovered it. Pharsalus
lay on the site of the modern town; cL Stahlin, ibid. 135-41. On the
Aetolian claim to these four Thessalian towns cf. 8. 9. 38. 3 ff., where
the Aetolians demanded them Ka.-ra ,.~v ;.g dpxfi> aVJ.LJ.Lax{av (with Rome)
and as former members of the confederation (rrp6-repov . •. uuf..L-
rroAL-rEVof..Liva,;). The basis of this claim is obscure; but clearly tl1ey
had at some time belonged to Aetolia and had been taken by the
Macedonians, Pharsalus probably by Doson in 229/8 along with
Thessaliotis and Histiaeotis (d. Fine, TAPA, 1932, 148; Walba.nk,
Philip, I I n. 3), since it was Macedon ian during the Social War
(v. 99· 3 n.), while Philip took Thebes in zr7 (v. 99-roo) and Echinus
and Larissa probably in 2ro (ix. 41-42 for Echinus; d. Walbank,
Philip, 88). Evidently then the peace of 206 between Philip and
Aetolia contained some clause which gave the Aetolians a claim to
them. Stahlin (Phil. r92r, 199 ff.), followed by Hoileaux (225 n. r;
cf. CAH, viii. 135 n. r), suggested that the four towns were promised
to Aetolia by Philip in 2o6, but never handed over. Against this
Klaffenbach (IG. ixz. r, introd. pp. xxxii ff.) and Flaceliere (307 n. 2,
316 n. 3, 375-6) point out that Aetolian hieromnemones at Delphi
are attested for Phthiotic Thebes under the archons Megartas and
Philaetolus (Syll. 564; OG IS, 234), whose dates fall between 206 and
:zoo (Dinsmoor, Archons, 143-4, puts Philaetolus in 203-2, Megartas
in 202-1; Manni, Fasti ellenistici e romam· (Palermo, r96r), 92, puts
Megartas in 205/4 ( ?) and Philaetolus in 202/r (?) ; for Megartas Daux,
Chronologie delphique (Paris, r943), 45, gives 'zo5/4 to 203/2 (?)',and
555
XVIII. 3· 12 THE COKFERENCE IN LOCRIS
Flaceliere, 310 n. 2, dates his archonship 'towards 204/.3'), and argue

from this that Philip restored these towns but subsequently rc
captured them in 202. This argument is not decisive, since it is not
safe to argue from hieromnemones to the Aetolians' possession of
towns or areas; by the use of exiles, they may well have maintained
their title to possessions which they had lost but to which they had
not relinquished their claim (cf. Stahlin, Phil. 1921, 204 ff.; Tarn.
CAH, vii. 745), and they would have had all the more reason for
such a procedure if Philip had promised them these towns but had
not fulfilled his word. In support of Klaffenbach's thesis Ferro, rs,
quotes Livy xxxi. 31. r-4, where the Roman legatus at Naupactus
in spring 199, L. Furius Purpurio, includes Larissa in a list of citie"
that have suffered at the hands of Philip; but this passage proves
nothing, for Livy also mentions Messene, ravaged by Philip in zq,
and the wrongs of Larissa may well date to the ::\facedonian capturl'
in 210. Two inscriptions recording each a hieromnemon from Pharsalus
(Syll. 545 = Flaceliere, App. i, no. 39, archon Polycleitus; Syll
539 A= Flaceliere, App. i, no. 43, archon unknown) are also too UJl
certainly dated to be of help (cf. Ferro, rs-r8). On the other hand,
it is hard to see why in 2o6 Philip, making peace quibus uoluit con
dicionibus (Livy, xxix. 12. r), should have handed over important
towns in Thessaly to the Aetolians; a promise which he had no i11
tention of keeping, and did not keep, would seem more likely. \>VheJJ
(8. 9) Philip offered two of the towns only, he was evidently hopin;.;
to strike a bargain. Note that the annalistic account of an appeal to
Rome from sociae urbes in Greece, quoted above (i. 14 n.), can hardh
refer to these Thessalian cities (so Ferro, 19), which were in no sen~,.
allies of the Roman people. See Walbank, Philip, roo-r n. I, for di~
cussion and bibliography; add Piraino, Riv. jil. 1955, 71-72.
4. 1. AtTwAucov ••. Kal9£a.TplKOv: this may be a faithful version nl

Philip's words, and not mere Polybian abuse; the force of AlTwAtK,;,.
here seems to be 'violent and exaggerated'.
4. Ka.i TucpX~ IHjXov: a common colloquialism; cf. Plato, Rep. \'lll
550 D; Menander in Edmonds, FAC, iii. 2, fg. III CAF, iii, fg. ITt
Wunderer, i. 82.
1\v yO.p £u9LKTD'> KTA.: Livy (xxxii. 34· 3) alters this comment COlt
siderably: 'et erat dicacior natura, quam regem decet, et ne ink1
seria quid em risu sa tis temperans'.
6. TJJLWV ci1ra.ya.yovTwv TOU'i O'Tpa.TLWTa.'>: probably in winter 19(1/"
when Philip was concentrating all his efforts against Rome (\Valbanl,.
Philip, 148). On Lysimacheia see xv. 23. 8 n. On the Thracian pressu1 •
at this time see Bengtson, Historia, 1962, 21-28, discussing an inscri1•
tion from Istrus published by S. Lambrino in Rev. etudes roumainc·.
s-6 (Paris, 196o), 180-217.
556
THE CONFERENCE IN LOCRIS XVIII. 7· l
Touc,; 1Ta.pa.cpuXaTTovTa.s: on the meaning of this word 'to protect', see

ii. 5· 6 n.
7. OjlWV a.htwv yevop.evwv: Philip argues that he is merely following
Aetolian precedent, but this is a quibble to cloak a clear act of
aggression.
8. ayew Xacpupov 6.m) Xa.cpupou: the meaning, obscure to Flamininus,
is explained in 5· r-2. The Aetolians granted their citizens letters
of marque to take part, as private individuals, in any war against
any state, even though Aetolia was herself neutral (d. iv. z6. 7 n.);
this, Philip argues, robs them of the right to complain of his actions
at Cius, but it does not, of course, create a generally valid pre-
cedent in 'international law' (so Ferro, zr). The Aetolian practice
was never accepted as legitimate by other states, as the present
passage shows.
5. 3. jlTJTE cp1A(a.s opous •.• jlfJT' ~x9pa.s: 'no defined standards of
friendship or hostility'.
8. AhwXGJv ouK e~crtv "EXAt]V£S ot 1TheLous: cf. Eur. Pkoen. IJ8, where
they are called fLELtofld.pflapot; and to Thucydides (ii. 68. 5) most of
the Amphilochians were barbarians. Amphilochia lay at the east
end of the Ambracian Gulf, between Ambracia and Acarnania, and
the Agraei lived south-east of this towards the Achelous in its upper
reaches. See Oberhumner, Akarnanien, 4, 26 ff.; \Voodhouse, 8z. The
Apodoti li\·ed to the south-east of Aetolia on the middle reaches of
the R. Daphnus and separated by mountains from Ozolian Locris to
the south; see Thuc. iii. 94-<)8, with the commentary of Gomme;
Woodhouse, 57-59. In the fifth century neither the Amphilochians
nor the Agraei were Aetolian; and \Voodhouse, 76-77, suggests that
'Philip, or P. for him, used the first names that came to his tongue-
hence the alliteration'. But Philip's accusation is not to be taken as
seriously as it is by Brandstraeter, 26o ff.
6. 1. TtTou yeXaaa.vTos: clearly thus encouraging Philip (d. Holleaux,
Etudes, v. 46 n. 7); cf. § S·
:J. olh01 S' l)p.iv OjlOAoyouj.LE:vws: cf. xvi. 34· 5 n.
4. TTJS a.u5t1aews TWV ~KK01TEVTWV 8evSpwv: ironical; hence Flamininus'
laughter.
15. Tfis ES :b.vT1y6vou: i.e. Antigonus Doson.
7. TO 1TEpl TTJS a1TOO'TaO'EWS +TJ<j>IO'jlG.: passed at Sicyon in autumn,
198; cf. Livy, xxxii. 20-23.
8. 1Tepi SE Tou Kop(v9ou ~ouheucrea9cu p.ETa Tou Thou: this proviso
is Philip's reply to the ambiguity in the Achaean demand (above
2. 5 n.): he still hopes to keep the citadel at least.
7. t. 1Tpbs eKeivov ••• Ka.l1Tpbs 'Pwjlalous: i.e. he addresses Flami-

ninus in person and as representative of the Roman government
557
XVIII. 7· I THE CONFERENCE lN LOCRIS
(which, to Philip, must mean the Senate; cf. Holleaux, fitudes,

v. 57 n. 4).
wv hriKT'lTcu 1TOA£wv Kat TomJJv: this alone went beyond the de
mands made at Abydus (xvi. 34· 3 f.) and evidently Philip was hopin;·~
to compound on such an offer; so correctly Badian, 70. Already at
the Aous meeting Philip had made this distinction, clearly important
to him, between his inherited possessions and his own conquest<-.
(Livy, xxxii. ro. 4, Io. 7; cf. Diod. XXYiii. rr), without gaining am
hope of a concession from Flamininus. On the present occasio11
Flamininus' silence (§ 2) is intended to indicate, not the 1\.oman'c.
resolve to let the allies speak on this topic (so Homo, Milangr'
Cagnat (Paris, 1912), 42-43), but that Philip had reason for hop1·
(Holleaux, Etudes, v. 41\ n. 3).
6. TOUS •.• c!>iA.ous .•. a1TWAEO'as a1TaVTaS: for the allegation thaI
Philip murdered his friends see viii. I2. 2 n.; also Plut. Flam. 17· 2.
J\.for. I97 A; Paus. vii. 7- 5; Diod. xxviii. 3· Holleaux (Etudes, v. _:;o:
sees that this remark was meant to reassure the Greeks, but would
hardly gi,·e Philip reason to revise his generally favourable view nl
Flamininus' attitude towards him.
8. 5. Taus o-up.1rapovTas: probably the allies, though P. does no I

specifically say so; but Flamininus could scarcely aYoid obtainin;:
their concurrence. See on the difficulty Holleaux, Etudes, v. 52 n. :
6. 'A1T1Twv KA.auSLOv XLALapxov: cf. Livy, xxxii. 35· 7, 'cum AJ'·
Claudio tribuno militum'. He is almost certainly the Ap. Claudiu·.
Nero, whom Flamininus sent to Rome shortly after (Io. 8); he w;1·.
praetor in 195 (cf. Livy, xxxiv. Io. r, 17. I). For a similar example ol
a man referred to first as a military tribune, then as legatus, cf. Li\'\.
xlii. 49· 9, 67. 9; at this time consulars and praetorians often sernd
as military tribunes. Cf. M:ommsen, St.-R. ii. 695 n. I (where, hO\r
e\·er, Ap. Claudius Nero is confused with the Ap. Claudius Pulch('t
of Livy, xxxiv. so. Io; Broughton, MRR, i. 332).
8. Suax£pts d1r£'Lv: evidently Flamininus did not report this to tlw
allies (despite Livy, xxxii. 35· 8, 'quae acta Philippus ad suos ret
tulerit, minus compertum est'; cf. Nissen, KU, 29; Holleaux, .E'tudc'.
v. 53 n. 4). Hence P.'s Achaean memorandum (d. r-r2 n.) could gi\ •
him no help.
9. 0r1~as 8' auK a1ToOLOovaL: nor Echinus either most likely; P. seem.
to be bargaining to give two and keep two. Cf. Holleaux, fitudc-..
v. 54 n. I; above, 3· r2 n.
TTjS •.• n€pa(as 1TapaxwpELV; as already agreed (6. 3); the absence of
any mention of the other towns whose evacuation Acesimbrot11·.
had demanded (2. 3-4), apart from Iasus and Bargylia, suggest
that Philip refused to surrender them (cf. Holleaux, fitudes, v. , ;
n. 6).
sss
THE CQ);FERE:\CE I.:\ LOCRIS XVIII. 9· 5
Tov K6p~v8ov: clearly the lower town only, since Philip's envoys at
Rome had no authority to speak on the citadel (cf. II. r3 n.). See
Holleaux, E:tudes, v. 54 n. 2; Aymard, PR, 125 n. 40. The ambiguity
here may be due to P. or his Achaean source. If Flarnininus gave
Philip to believe that he might be allowed to keep Acrocorinth, he
wa..s running a great risk of failing to secure peace should he be super-
seded in the consulship (9. 5 n.); for the Romans could not afford to
leave a Macedonian garrison there.
10. T«i KaT a TTJV 'IAAvptOa.: cf. I. I4 Il.
«v Ta.l:s vau1-1-axlms: a slip of P. or his source; Attalus lost men and
ships only in the battle of Chios (cf. z. z). since he did not take part
in Lade.
9. L '!TttvTwv ••• 8uaa.pECTToui-L(vwv: excluding Flamininus; for a dis-

tinction between his attitude and that of the allies cf. §§ 6-7. Hol-
leaux, Etudes, v. 55 n. 2.
TTI Ola.AU~YEL: 'at the peace-terms offered'; cf. xv. 8. 4·
limiaTJs eKxwpeiv Tfjs 'EA.M.8os: d. I. l3· As the allies saw, Philip's
silence on this point was tantamount to its rejection; it can hardly
be doubted that the conYersation with Flamininus had encouraged
him in withholding his agreement to this clause (Holleaux, Etudes,
v. ss-s6).
3. 'ITpos Tov KaTa 0pov~ov aly~aA.Ov: on the site of Thronium see
ix. 41. rr n. It was further east and so more com·enient for Philip,
who will presumably have spent the intervening nights somewhere
near by, such as Larissa Cremaste or Echinus (cf. 3· 12).
4. Twv Y" 8ti 'ITAdCTTwv ••• TJYJJ-Evwv: manifestly false.
5. 'ITpErr\3t:OO"EW li4>TJ 'ITpOs TlJV auyKATJTOV: the proposal was clearly
inspired by Flarnininus at the previous day's meeting; cf. ro. 3;
Holleaux, E:tudes, v. 57-58; Wood, TAPA, 1939, 95 n. 9· lt was
unprecedented, for hitherto consultation with the Senate had followed
a preliminary and provisional agreement with the Roman general
in charge (d. Livy, xxix. 12. IJ-IS (First Macedonian War); above,
xv. 8. 7--9; Livy, xxx. 38. 3-4,40. 1, 40. 6, 42. II f.; App. Lib. 3r, 54,
56 (Second Punic War)). Flamininus' motives have been variously
interpreted; as a means of tricking Philip out of garrison posts in
Phods and Locris (10. 4), since there was never any possibilit:r of
Philip's terms being accepted (so Niese, ii. 622-3; De Sanctis, iv. 1.
71); or as a clever scheme to get the control of events out of the hands
of the Greeks into those of the Romans, and to prevent Philip from
combining with Antiochus (so \\'ood, TAPA, 1939, 9G--98: his first
point has validity, but Plut. Fl,un. 9· his only evidence for the
second, refers not to r98 but to what might have happened if the war
with Philip had dragged on to 192). As Holleaux (Etudes, v. 63--77)
has shown, the clue to Flamininus' moth:es lies in Livy, xxxii. 32. s-8,
559
XVIII. 9· 5 THE CO!\FERE~CE 1:\' LOCRIS
'caduceator ab rege uenerat locum ac tempus petens colloquio. id
grauate regi concessum est, non quin cuperet Quinctius per se partim
armis, partim condicionibus confectum uideri bellum: necdum enim
sciebat, utrum successor sibi alter ex nouis consulibus mitteretur an,
quod summa ui ut tenderent amicis et propinquis mandauerat.
imperium prorogaretur; aptum autem fore conloquium credebat, nt
sibi liberum esset uel ad bellum manenti uel ad pacem decedenti rem
inclinare.' Flamininus hoped to obtain a prorogatio of his command
or failing that to be entrusted with making peace (so Plut. Flam. 7· r,
cf. below, ro. 3, II. 2); in the one case he would have deceived Philip.
in the other the Greeks; and clearly Roman interests were to take
second place to the fostering of his own gloria (d. Plut. Flam. I. z.
<fnAonp.6TaTos . .. Kat </>tAoaogoTUTo<; (.Uv). In these methods and valuc·s
(cf. r2. J, mivu yd.p dyxlvous, el Kal '1'£S' £TEpos- 'Pwp.alwv) Flamininu,
showed himself to be ahead of his times. See further Walbank, Philip.
r62; Scullard, Pol. ro2-5, refuting the attempt of 'Wood (TAP .rl.
r939, 96-99) to reject the Polybian tradition.
8. iKTrOltol:v £4>11 xo.p£tEcr9o.L: 'he said it was possible to grant it'
cf. ii. 24. r7 n. for this use of €1mou''i~·.
9. ol!OEv , , • a'\IEU TijS 17UyK1.~TOU: disingenUOUS, for FJamininUS Wa;,
perfectly at liberty to carry out his mandate by refusing to negotiat,·
further unless Philip accepted the ultimatum to withdraw from
Greece; d. Holleaux, Etudes, v. 59 n. 3·
10. ouoiv 1TpaTTEt\l Sui TOV X4::t~VO.: a valid point; a subsidiary ad
vantage of the negotiations would be to immobilize Philip for th•·
winter.
10. 1. cruyKo.To.9Eplvwv tL1TCivTwv: but obviously with rcluctanct>,

since Flamininus was set on this course.
3, Ko.Ttt Tous €~ O.pxfjs Oto.AoyLcrflous: a clear statement that tlw
embassy to Rome was contrived by l'lamininus: cf. 9· 5 n,
4. O.voxas OLfl~vous: from November to January; the conferenn·
in Locris cannot be dated with complete accuracy, but took phu·•·
some time in November (above, 1-rz n.). The delegates can hardll
have left for Rome before the beginning of December (allowing tim•
for the Greek states to appoint them), and the journey from, sa1.
Athens to Rome took 20-25 days (see the calculations in Holleau \.
Etudes, v. 69 n. 3, z6r n. 4). On the relationship of these dates to tJ,,
Roman elections see below, n. r n.
Ttts , , • 4>poupas •.. EK Tfjs cpwKiOos Ko.i. AoKplSos: the milil<u 1
balance of this is not wholly against Philip. these forts tied 111 •
valuable Macedonian troops, and Philip needed every man (cf. Li1 1
xxxiii 3· 1-4). But the publicity value to the Roman cause in Grt'• • •
was clearly high. See De Sanctis, iv. I. 71 ; Holleaux, f:tudes, v. ~>'
rates Philip's loss more seriously.
s6o
AFTERMATH OF THE CO:-.IFERE::s-C£ DT LOCRIS XVIII. xo. xo
6. OL' a.uTou To 1Tpot<ELjlt:vov ~1tETEht:L: viz. his intrigue at Rome (see
9· 5 n.).
7. Evnywyov ••• t<o.l jmS~ws liso.~<oAou9~c:TovTo. Tois EKEt cpiAoLs: cf.
App. Syr. I3, dalhvij Kai 7rpayp..ciTWI! aTTnpov. Amynander was pliable
and ready to follow the lead of Flamininus' friends, whether events
led them to press for a settlement or a continuation of the war
(£¢' !m6np' av aywrnv ath-&v); cf. Holieaux, Etudes, v. 70 n. 4, compar-
ing Livy, xxxii. 32. 8 (quoted above, 9· 5 n.). For Flamininus' 'friends'
cf. II. 2. Scullard (Pol. 97-105) suggests that he had reached the
consulship by the support of a large body of senators including the
Fabian group, but not the Claudii; he sees his opponents now as
the Claudian, or more probably the Scipionic group. But the evidence
is tenuous, and one of Flamininus' envoys was a Claudius (§ 8 n.);
and regarding the friends of Flamininus involved in the intrigue
(probably few in number, since the affair had to remain secret) we
know only that the tribunes who intervened to prevent his super-
session were a Q. Fulvius and L. Oppius Salina tor (praetor 191): Livy,
xxxii. 28. 3· Gelzer, Historia, 1950, 637 Kl. Schr. i. 2o4), thinks their
names mav be a later annalistic invention.
+a.vTo.c:T(o.v- ••• Sul. ToT~<; ~a.c:TLh~:(o.<; ovo!lo.: Holleaux (Etudes, v. 70
n. 4) points out that he was the first king to visit Rome; later the
Romans became more blase, though they continued to display an
ambivalent attitude towards the title rex.
8. KowTov ••• ¢16.~LOv ••• KiHvTov <floAooLov ••• "A1rmov KAo.vSLov:
if dfu,'Arfn8auc; means 'the son of his wife's sister' (cf. Livy, xxxii. 36. ro,
'uxoris Quincti sororis filius'), Flamininus had married a Fabia
(Scullard, Pol. 98 n. r). The identity of this Q. Fabius is not certain,
but Broughton (MRR, i. 331) suggests that he may be the Q. Fabius
Buteo who was praetor in 196 (Livy, xxxiii. 24. 2). Q. Fulvius Flaccus
was probably the praetor of r87 who became consul suffectus in 18o
(Livy, xxxviii. 42. J, xi. 37· 6-7); cf. MUnzer, RE, 'Fulvius (6o)',
col. 246. But Willems (Le Senat de la ripublique romaine (Louvain,
1878-Bs). i. 319) thinks it was the tribune of 197 (who intervened on
Flamininus' behalf: above, § 7 n.) who held these offices.
9. 1ro.pO. ••• TWV AtTwAwv hrpl!c:T~Euov: on Alexander Isios cf. 3· In.
Damocritus of Calydon (cf. xxi. JI. r3) was Aeto!ian general in 2oo/r99
(Livy, xxxv. 33· 9; GDI, 1969; IG, ix. I. 36o). Dt:caearchus of Tri-
chonium will be the general of 195(4 (G Dl, 1994-5, 2075, 2n8-23;
IG, ix. r. 359) ; he was a brother of Thoas, se\·eral times Aetolian
general (cf. xxi. r7. 7), and the son of Alexander of Trichonium (cf.
v. r3. 3 n.). Pole1marchus of Arsinoe, Lamius of Ambracia, Nico-
machus of Acarnania, and Theodotus of Pherae are otherwise un-
known.
10. TW\1 EK 9oupLOU 1fEcpEUYOTWV KO.TOLKOO\ITWV o' Ev :t>.~~po.t<(<;!-:
Thurium is Thyrrheum in Acarnania (iv. 6. 2 n.). A category of o[
814173 00
XYIIl. ro. ro AFTERMATH OF THE CO~ FERENCE IN LOCR IS
KUTO!KOV~'Tf;) EV AhwAlif is known frum iliscriptions (Syll. 554. s6J, 62'}.

cf. IG, ix 2 • I. IJ5 and I89; Michel, zs) and Busolt has shown that
thcv are identical with a group elsewhere referred to as oi €v AiTw;\t'l
r.o.\tT€t;OVT€S' (cf.IG, ix • I. I69 ( = Syll. 522), I89 (=Michel zs), L90).
2
But his view (BusoltSwoboda, r5r2 n. r) that they were citizen,;

with civil but no political rights is to be rejected. Like the Syracusan~
living at Carthage (vii. 2. 4) they were resident aliens; see Larsen.
Symb. Osl. 1957. 7-8. Theodotus of Pherae will fall into the sam<·
category.
ll. EEvo<jlwv AtytEU'i: cf. r. 4· Paton renders Alyw.k 'of Aegae'; it
of course, 'of Aegium'. The sending of the relatively unimportant
Xenophon, alone, and the failure to raise the question of a reguhlr
alliance with Rome (see .p. 6 n.) were perhaps prompted by Flarni·
ninus, who will not have wanted conflicting claims raised at thi,
juncture; cf. Aymard, PR, rz8.
)\A~savSpos: unknown; Dionysodorus, who had represented At tales
at ~icaea (r. 3), was probably obliged to stay with the fleet as navarch
(cf. Holleaux, £·tudes, v. 34 ·n. 4).
o< -rrEpt KTJ<jlu:r6Swpov: the leading Athenian statesman after the deatl1s
of Eurycleides and Micion (v. ro6. 7 n.), which were probably
in the last decade of the third century, and a strong opponent ol
~racedonia. Pausanias (i. 36. s--6). probably drawing on the funerar;
inscription on Cephisodorus' tomb, which lay on the road from
Athens to Eleusis (Niese, ii. 590 n. r), records how he tlw
alliance of Attalus, Ptolemy, the Aetolians, the Rhodians, and tlw
Cretans, and when Attalus, Ptolemy, and the Cretans sent no hell'·
and the Rhodian ships were useless against Macedonian hoplites.
he went with others to Rome to beg protection. 'This embassy W<l~
evidently in 2oo, when it arrived either just after or (so Scullanl.
Hist.l, 4·12) just before the comitia centuriata appro\·ed the war witl1
Philip. Against the ,·iew that the embassy mentioned on Cephiso
dorus' tomb was really the one referred to here by P., but that
Pausanias was misled by an annalistic source into dating it befor•·
the outbreak of the war (so Holleaux, Etudes, v. 16 n. 3; Petzold.
75-8o, u2; Stier, usn. 26o) see McDonald, ]RS, 1937, and
Balsdon, JRS, I95+, 36-37; and in general, on the Athenian en1
bassies to Rome, Walbank, Philip, 3II-IJ. A decree in Cephisodonh'
honour was passed and set up in 195: see Meritt, Hesperia, I9.;t ..
419-28 and the commentary of 2\fcDonald, JRS, I93i· 200-3.
1L. l. u-rrf:p TWY •.• ~ea9EUTa.p.ivwv umiTwv: the consuls appointed [.. ,
197 were C. Cornelius L.f. M.n. Cethegus and Q. Minucius C. f. ( ."
Rufus (Livy, xxxii. 27. 5).
nJL<jlOT(pous ElS T~V r a.AaTtaV: a rising of Gauls and Ligurians b"
been opposed by L. Furius Purpurio as praetor; the consul i
562
AFTERMATH OF THE CONFERENCE IN LOCRIS XVIII. 12. r
Aurelius Cotta succeeded him in command in 200 (Livy, xxxi. ro-IL 3,

21~zz. 3, 47. 4~49: details unreliable). The Insubres and Cenomani
had taken Placentia either in this year or in 199 (Zon. ix. 15). In 199
the praetor Cn. Baebius Tamphilus was defeated by the Insubres
(Livy, xxxii. 7· 5~7; Zon. ix. 15), and in 198 the consul Sex. Aelius
Paetus made no headway (Livy, xxxii. z6. x-3). There was some
alarm in Rome (§ z) and a case for sending the consuls to Gaul. See
De Sanctis, iv. 1. 412-13.
2. f-LEVEw ••• df-L~OTepous K<m:l. TTJV 'ITo.Aiav: d. Livy, xxxii. z8. 8,
'patres consulibus ambobus Italiam prouinciam decreuerunt'. Not
a contradiction with§ 1, ds r~v Ta.Aar[av, for the consuls were intended
to operate in Cisalpine Gaul they did: Liv-y, xxxii. 29. s-3I. 6;
Zon. ix. r6). Flamininus' friends had learnt of what was proposed
before the actual decision was taken: cf. 12. 1; Holleaux, Etudes,
v. 71 n. r).
1raVTES: i.e. the Greek representatives (d. § 12), but evidently
prompted by Flamininus' supporters, who could now press for a
continuation of the war.
4. TTJS XaAKioos Kat Toil Kopiveou Kat TTJS oAT)f-LTJTplaSos: cf. Diod. xix.
78. 2 on Chalcis: l:rttKatpos .•• lcrTt Tof;; f3ovAoiJ.Icvot:; lxnv DPf.LTiT~pwv
()ta7TOA€f.LEi:v 7r€pt TWV oAwv. Clearly the Acrocorinth is now in question
as well as the lower town: see above, :z. 5 n.
5. 11"EOas 'EAATJVIKac;: cf. 45· 6. For the phrase cf. Strabo, ix. 428;
App. l'.fac. 8, 7rloa;; Tfj>: 'EMdSo;;. When Philip used it is unknown.
8. 4>avTacrLav exeiV: 'a mere show of concession' (Paton).
to. 1rp0TJTT11f-LEVWV ole; "1&,: in I99 when Sulpicius forced the pass
south of modern Banitza and so penetrated into Eordaea (Livy,
xxxi. 39· 6-9; Kromayer, AS, ii. 23 ff.; cf. Thuc. iv. r27~8) and in
rqR, when Flamininus forced the Aous Pass (3. 9 n.). See 23. 3~4,
where Flamininus mentions the same two battles in his exhortation
before Cynoscephalae.
Ko.-rO. y~v •.• xopTJyLwv tKOeOa'ITT)f.LEvwv: perhaps exaggerated; but
Livy, xxxiii. 3· 2-4, is evidence for the effect of long wars on the
population of Macedonia and especially on the supply of men of
military age.
13. f.LT)OEf.L(o.v •.• mpt TOIJTwv €vToATjv: tbis extraordinary omission
is scarcely explicable except on the assumption that Flamininus had
led Philip to beliPYe that the evacuation of these garrisons would
not be demanded, despite the Greek call for the complete eYacuation
of Greece (d. 9· r). See Holleaux, Etudes, v. 73·
12. 1. Kaea1TEp E1Tavw vpoEL'ITa: cf. I I. 2 n.

6oucra. T<i,J T(n~ niv emTpo1rTjv: 'they gave Flamininus full control
of the Greek front'. Livy, xxxii. 37· 5, adds that 'Quinctio liberum
arbitrium pacis ac belli permissum'.
XVIIL 12.2 AFTERMATH OF THE CONFERENCE IN LOCRIS
2. Ta.uToJ.LO.Tou auvEpyTjaa.vTos: cf. x. 34· z, xv. 29. 5; Siegfried, 57

n. 93· P. makes the same qualification in discussing the achieve-
ments of Scipio Aemilianus (xxxi. 30. 3). He may have in mind here
Flamininus' good fortune in not being superseded, a circumstance
to which the efforts of his friends also contributed.
4. Tas Ka.T' UHa.v evn{,SE~s: 'his own private dealings', i.e. the subtk
plan behind the sending of the embassies to Rome; d. 9· 5 n.
5. 1rAe£w ••• Twv Tp~nKovT' eTc;w ooK EtX£: prior to his consulship lw
had held only the quaestorship (whence the tribunician opposition
to his candidature): Livy, xxxii. 7· 8-9. He had also served "''
military tribune under Marcellus (Plut. Flam. I. 3), and at Tarentum
pro praetore in 205 and 204 (Livy, xxix. 13. 6; Plut. Flam. I. 4), aud
had served on two commissions (Xuir agr. ass. in Samnium awl
Apulia in 201/o: Livy, xxi. 4. 1-3; llluir col. deduc. to supplement
Venusia in zoo: Livy, xxxi. 49· 6).
13-15. A discussion mt treachery

Treachery was a constant hazard to be guarded against (d. viii. 31J).
But the context of the present digression has been much discussed.
since it is not clearly indicated in the surviving fragment, which
falls between the end of the peace negotiations and Attalus' vi;;i 1
to Sicyon, following his conference with Nabis and Flamininns at
Mycenae (see p. 26). There are two possibilities. Schweighaeus•·t
(vii. 331) has been widely followed in the view that the digression
was evoked by Aristaenus' success in persuading the Achaeans to
abandon the Macedonian alliance and join Rome (d. 13. 8-ro nn.):
and Nissen (KU, 326 n.) added that P. was specially concerned to
rebut the accusations made by Philip on this score at the conference
in Locris (6. 5-7). This view is adopted by E. Gabba, A then. 1957.
30 ff., who argues further that the reference to the statesmen accused
of treachery by Demosthenes (14) is a hinted defence of Aratus, whom
many Greeks had accused of treachery for calling in Antigo nus I II.
This nuance seems improbable. The definition of a traitor (15. :c)
as one who called in a foreign power and admitted a foreign garrison
was (despite ii. 52. 3) too reminiscent of what Aratus had done fo1
his conduct to be justified merely by hints; once the possibility th;Jt
Aratus came into this category had been envisaged, it would ha' ,.
to be dispelled by specific arguments, and it seems more likely th;1l
the parallel with Aratus did not cross P.'s mind when he was writin;·.
these chapters. That the case of Aristaenus did emerges from r3. 8-1 c·,
and there can be little doubt that the justification of Aristaenu:-; 1 •
one purpose, and an important one, of this digression. But it ]J;,,,
been pointed out by Aymard (REA, 1940, 9-19) that Aristaenu,:
action had preceded the conference in Locris and was described 111
564
A DISCUSSION ON TREACHERY
xvii; there was no occasion to revert specifically to Aristaenus in
the section where this digression falls. Hence Schweighaeuser's view
is not inherently probable; nor is much to be said in favour of
Waltz's theory (in his translation of P., Paris, I92l, iii. 324 n. I) that
P. is also trying to present an apologia for his own pro-Roman policy
(though Aymard, REA, 1940, 15 n. 7, is not to be followed in his
belief that the present section was composed before 146, and there-
fore before P.'s close alignment with a group at Rome would be self-
evident).
Reiske (iv. 6o6) took a different view. The digression, he suggested,
arose 'per occasionem narrationis de aliquo oppido, Philippa tradito'.
This is certainly unconvincing. But it led Aymard (loc. cit.) to the
hypothesis that these chapters, clearly inspired by some act of
treachery, were introduced in connexion with Philip's surrender of
to Nabis, described in Livy, xxxii. 38. I-6. The traitors, in
P. opinion, were the Argive leaders who seceded from the Achaean
confederation and let Macedonian troops into the city (d. IS. 3); they
met with speedy retribution when Philip handed them over to the
scant mercy of Nabis. This is the most satisfactory explanation yet
proposed, and any difficulties in it seem to arise not from any in-
adequacy in Aymard's hypothesis, but from the ambiguities or blank
spots in P.'s thought; see below, q. I n., 15. r n.
On this passage see P. Cloche, AC, 1939, 361-70; A. Aymard,
Rev. hist. I83, I938, 79; REA, I940, 9-19; P. Tre\·es, LEC, I940, 289 ff.;
F. W. Walbank, CQ, 1943, 9 n. I; I. Calabi, Ricerche, 144-5; E.
Gabba, A then. 1957, 30 ff.
13. 1. i'lft 'lfOAAOL!i ea.uJ-LO.tetv ••• TWV O.vepw'II'ELWV aJ-LCI.PTTJJ-LaTWV: 'to

wonder at many of the mistakes men make'; cf. 15. 6, 15. I6 for his
explanation (repeating fJa.VJLa,ELIJ, aJLa.p'TaV€LV).
2. ,.a, '~~'P~'IfOVTa. Tol:s Ka.tpol:s: 'appropriate to the occasion'; probably
the betrayal of to Nabis (see above) though P. leaves this
vague.
4. ES aKepa.(ou auvnBEJ-LEVOU!i ••• KOWwv(a.v '!rpa.yJ-LaTWV: 'who of their
own free will engage in common action with certain kings and
princes'; Paton translates certain kings', but 14 shows that
this cannot be the sense. Here P. is thinking of the Peloponnesian
statesmen who joined Philip II. For Kotvwvla.v 1Tpayru1.Twv cf. ii. 6r.
I I n. (with addendum, below, 634).
5. Tous •.• J-LETa.nBevTa.s: as Aristaenus (§ 8).
~ea.TO. <Tas) 'lreptaTO.aus: 'in time of danger'.
7. es a.thwv Twv evf:aTC.:..Twv p~8£ws ••• Ka.Ta.voel:v: 'easily observed
from the time with which I am dealing'; cf. xxxix. I. u, Toi>To
8' Ea'Ta.L o1]Aov '~ aOTWV 'TWIJ lvm'TW'TWIJ. 'TWV lvm'TW'TWIJ is contrasted
with 1T6ppw8Ev, 'far-off times'; Aristaenus' action had occurred the
565
X\'IIL I3. 7 A DISCtJSSIO~ 0.:1 TREACHERY
previous autumn, and was described in xvii (cf. 1-12 n.); but between
autumn and ·winter the gap is not so great as to be incompatible wit],
the words -ra lv~u-rw-ra {cf. Aymard, REA, 1940, 14 11. 6).
8. Et yO.p !J.TJ •.• T<)TE !J.E-r£ppure: 'if Ia; had not at this time caused tlw
Achaeans opportunely to abandon the alliance .. :. nh< tak~O' HJ'
€f avTwv Twv evw-rw-rwv; but it furnishes no evidence as to wbl
led P. to include this
cf. xi. rr. i n.
9. vvv S(: 'as it was'; for tllis usagL' cf. Time. iii. u 3· 6. vvv is not
temporal, and there is no contra,;t between it and TOTE in ~ tl r~...
Aymard, REA, 1940, I4 n. 7).
TTlS 1Ta.p' C.UTOV TOV Ka.Lpov a<Ta.>.da.s: 'safety in the immediat•·
crisis'; d. § R, ,Pav<.pws CJ.pSryv cbro,\w.\ft -rd :JOvos. Not, I think, 'tem
porary safety' {so, incorrectly, Vol. I, p. 293).
a.ug~11ews •.. a.inos HioKEL yeyoveva.L: ' ••• were regarded as having
unquestionably brought about an increase in Achaean power'. A:-
mard docs not make out his case that this sentence must have been
composed after the catastrophe of qrl (REA, 1940, 12 n. 3); tlw
increase of Achaean power during the period following 19X was ~u~
undoubted fact, whate\·cr lw.ppened in qo, and the causes of tk
later catastrophes had nothing to do with Aristaenus' policy J:v\\
10. £uEpyeTTJV Ka.L crw-rfjpa.: like Antigonus Ill, with whom the Man
donian policy had been initialed; cf. , .. 9· Ion., ix. f>. 5 n.; see ah>
iv. 22. Io. For P.'s view of Aristaenus' policy see xxi\·. 13. 8-Io.
11. Scro' ••. TO. 1ra.pa.1TAitcr~a. -rouTOIS 1TOALTeuovTa.L: having mentimw. I
the more immediate ;md rdenmt case, P. no\v passes to tl1e Pdo-
ponnesian statesmen in the fourth century (cf. § i. rroppw(hv).
14. l. 8vnSos Toi:s E1TL<!>a.vE<TTiLToLs Twv 'E:A>.t]vwv: Demosthenr'-''

attack on the pro-:\lacedonian faction in Greece is to be found in
the De Corona (xviii), 43. 48, and especially zgs, where all the names
which P. mentions here occur. P.'s criticism of Demosthenes (like his
definition of treachery) is based on the criterion of success; becaust·
his policy was followed by war, he is condemned as responsible for
his country's disasters (the specific case quoted by Aristotle. RJ~et.
ii. 24. 8. qor b, to illustrate the logical fallacyofpostlwc,propter hoc).
'If success is the true and only test of statesmanship, P. was un-
doubtedly right. But if political liberty had prm·ed itself so preciot!!-
that without it the whole of life would have seemed to be lived 011
a lower plane, success was an altogether unworthy criterion by >vhich
to judge the actions of those who were dominated by such a senti-
ment' (Pickard-Cambridge, 49o-r). Moreover, it is not clear that l'.
has properly assessed the true interests of the Peloponnesian stah·"
at this time, for since Leuctra Sparta was no longer the main dangel
there (d. § 6 n.).
566
A DISCUSSION ON TREACHERY XVIII. I4. 5
2. KEptnSO.v Ka.L 'IEpwvu..-.ov ~<o.l EuKa.ll-1TtOa.v: on Cercidas see ii. 48.
4 n.; Theopompus also criticized him in Philippica, xv (FGH, 115 F
119), but nothing further is known of him. Hieronymus and Eucam-
pidas are both mentioned by Paus. \·iii. 27. 2 as citizens of Maenalus,
whence they came as oecists to share in the foundation of }fegalo-
polis; Theompompus (FGJI, II5 F mentioned the former as
pro-Macedonian, and Aeschines against him at Megalopolis
(Dem. xix. II). According to a scholiast on this passage of De-
mosthenes, Hieronymus was a pupil of !socrates; and if Schaefer
(ii. 1jl n. r) is right in changing Ap'a"rwvvp.ov to 'lcpwvvp.ov in
J>Jut. ).far. 1126 c, he was also a pupil of Plato; see also Dion. Hal.
R.het. 8. 6.
3. NEwva. KO.L 9pa.auAoxov: Theopompus (FGH, 115 F cJI) mentions
the former. Though pro-Macedonian, they were evidently expelled
from Messenia on Philip's death, since their restoration in 333, per-
haps by Antipater, was criticized at Athens ( Dem.J xvii . ..J., 7) on
the ground that they were tyrants. Ben·e (RE, 'Keon (3)', col. 2..J.2CJ)
suggests that their career was finally ended with Alexander's decree
abolishing tyrannies (Plut. Alex. 34· 1); hut the description of them
as tyrants may be Athenian polemic (cf. Roebuck, 53).
Mupnv ~<a.l. TeA.eSa.1-1-ov t<a.l Mva.aea.v: j\fyrtis is known only from
Demosthenes (loc. cit.), unless he is the man mentioned by Theo-
phrastus (in A then. d. 25.J. ll). Teledrmms and lvfnaseas are also other-
wise unknown.
4 . .AO.oxov Ka.l Ktvea.v: Dem. xviii. 295 adds Thrasyclaus as a Thes-
salian '\facedonizer. According to Marsyas (in Plut. !Jemosth. r8. 1-2
FGJI, q_:;~6 F 2o) Daoclms and Thrasydaeus (sic) were sent by
as em·oys to Thebes in 339 or 338; Theopompus (FGJI, I IS F zog)
n"'"r-r'l"'" the latter as p.t~<pov p.Jv . .. T~v yvwp.r1v, KoAaKa &€ p.ey~aTov.
Cineas is also mentioned by Theopompus (FGJI, IIS F 35).
9t:oye£Tova. Ko.l. TLp.oAa.v: Dem. xviii. 295 adds Anemoetas. According
to Dem. x\·iii. 48, Timolaus lost fa,·our with Philip once Thebes was
in his hands, but Dem. xviii. 295 reads as if he was still a follower
of Alexander. However, in 324/3 he scrms to have changed his policy,
for Deinarchus (in Dcmosth. H) mentions him as a friend of Demo-
sthenes. He is described as a debauchee by Theopompus (FGH, 115 F
21o; cf. Aelian, Var. kist. ii. 41); cf. Lenschau, RE, 'Timolaus (3)',
cols. 1274-5. Theogeiton is not elsewhere mentioned.
5.1TAE.:ous ETepous: in Dem. x\-iii. 295, they are Euxitheus, Cleotimus,
and Aristaechmus from Elis, Aristratus and Epichares from Sicyon,
Deinarchus and Demaretus from Corinth, Ptoeodorus, Helixus, and
Perillus from Megara, and Hipparchus, Cleitarchus, and Sosistratus
from Euboea; Dem. xviii. 48 adds Lasthenes of Olynthus, Eudicus
and Simus of Larissa. On these fuaBwTo[ of Philip {so Dem. xviii.
so-sr) see Treves, LEC, I940, 2tj0--I.
XVIII. q. 6 A DISCUSSIOX OX TREACHERY
6. im<T'!!'QO'Q!lEVOI 41£Xmmw ets neXomSVVlj<TOV! for Philip's invasion
of Laconia in autumn 338 see ix. 28. 6 n., 33· 8.
ava'!!'VEU<Ta~ Kat Xo.~et:v EAEu9epio.s €vvotav: d. I r. 4, II. 6, where tlw
same phrases are used in reference to the proposed liberation of
central Greece from the same Macedonians who are here representPd
as bringing these benefits to the Peloponnese by a policy which in
fact involved the Macedonian occupation of Acrocorinth and tlw
setting up of pro-:\lacedonian governments elsewhere (below,§ 9 n.).
P.'s argument rests on the fallacy that after Leuctra and Mantinea
Sparta still represented the main threat to Peloponnesian freedom
(cf. Treves, LEC, 1940, 289-90).
7. m)Aets, O.s '!!'O.PTIPTJVTO ••• MEa<TTJVLwv, MEyaAO'!!'OA~Twv, Teyea.Twv,
J\pyELWv: for the territorial adjustments made in favour of these
cities see ix. 33· 12 n.
8. av9' c!iv ou '!!'OAE!lE~I! ~EtAov: 'in return for this it was not their
business to make war, etc.', rather than Paton, 'with this in view .. :.
9. ~ cppoup(w ••• 8€xo!lEYOL Ta.is 1raTpiaw KTA.: as indeed happenell
at Corinth (Plut. Arat. 23. 4), perhaps with the connivance of the
Corinthians, Deinarchus and Demaretus (Dem. xviii. 295), on whom
P. is silent. On the restoration of Neon and Thrasylochus in l\lessenP
by Alexander (despite the guarantee of existing constitutions by the
Hellenic Confederacy) see§ 3 n. At Pellene a pro-1\facedonian despot
was installed, by name Chaeron ([Dem.] x\·ii. 10), perhaps in 332-1;
and the democrats were expelled from Sicyon ([Dem.J x\·ii. r6). On
the partisan character of P.'s argument here see Cloche, AC, 1939.
361 ff.; Pickard-Cambridge, 490 ff.; Treves, LEC, 1940, 290 ff. A com-
parison between the views expressed here and F.'s criticism of Thebes
for placing her safety first in iv. 31. 5 is instructive.
13. To 1TE~pav Xa.~£1:1! Twv ••• au!l1TTW!laTwv: to P. Chaeronea is a
proof of the error of Demosthenes' policy.
14. TTJV ToO ~aa~iws !1Eya.Ao~ux1o.v Ka~ cptXo8o~£av: on Philip II's
generosity cf. v. ro. 1 n., ix. 33 (speech of Lyciscus).
15. Kowfi !lEv ••• Ka.T' toiav: 'in common ... separately', rather
than 'public ... private' (so Paton). But the old rhetorical contrast
has little meaning here, for there is really no substantial point to
be made about the gains Arcadia and l\1essenia made together and
those they enjoyed separately.
15. 1. TTJV oi!O!laa£av TaUTTJV: of traitor. P. has devoted 13-14 tn

defining who are not traitors, in such ii way as to exculpate Ari,;
taenus, the friend of Rome, and the fourth-century friends of Philip.
He has now to find a definition which ·will cover the case front
which this digression arose, and which is probably the betrayal of
Argos to Philip V by the ArgiYe bourgeoisie (d. IZ-I.) n.). He offeh
two definitions:
56s
A DISCUSS!Ol\ 0~ TREACHERY XVIII. 15.9
(a) § 2: those who in time of imminent danger purchase their safety

or advantage or gratify a political grudge by handing OYer their cities
to the enemy.
(b) § 3: those who to further their own ambitions admit a foreign
garrison and usc outside aid to submit their country to a superior
power.
Of these it is the second which ftts the action of the Argives (who
are nowhere said to have acted for motives of personal advantage);
on its weakness as a criterion of treachery see Aymard, REA, 1940,
r8-r9, who points out that it would cover perfectly the action of
Aratus, who handed over Acrocorinth to Antigonus Doson (a case
P. can scarcely have had in mind: cf. IJ-IS n.), and that those who
supported Rome secured her domination just as effectively as if they
had handed over their citadels to Roman garrisons ; whereas the
Argives remained faithful to the oaths and laws which the Achaeans
were violating.
5. ot~ AuaLTEAES ..• ou8e1TOTE O"UVESTJKOAouOT]O"E: here, as in some
other passages, P. seems to be holding the view that \\Tongdoing
sooner or later meets with its appropriate chastisement. It cor-
responds to his view of Tyche as a purposeful and retributive power
(cf. Vol. I, pp. 20--21). But this 'optimistic' philosophy is not the
whole story; elsewhere, more realistically, P. admits that fortune is
unstable and incalculable (cf. Vol. I, pp. r8-2o). and this is against
any generalization about P.'s beliefs based on the present passage
(as in Aymard, REA, 1940, 19 n. r). In fact his Achaean bias requires
him to be able to brand the pro-Macedonian policy of Argos and all
other such 'acts of treachery' as the outcome of human folly (§ r6,
d,\oywTla) and for that purpose treachery must be shown never to
pay (since the ultimate criterion of such action is success; cf. 14. I n.) ;
hence the view (for this occasion) that wrongdoing will meet with
inevitable punishment.
6. Oa.u11-6.~ew: taking up 13. r, 8avp.a~m· E7T€pxeTat.
wpo~ Tov t~ apxfj~ A.Oyov: 'their original reasoning'.
OpJI-WO"L 1rp0~ n)v TOLO.UTTJV ciTux(a.v: 'they rush headlong into such
misfortune'. aTvx[a combines the idea of both 'wrong action, scelus'
and 'misfortune, calamitas', as xxxviii. 1-4 makes clear. The idea of
volition in opp.wat leads Aymard (REA, 1940, I7 n. r) to observe that
P. is here adopting the view (Socratic, one may add) that wrongdoing
springs from an error of judgement, since no one consciously seeks
out aTvxla; and this seems to be the conclusion of § 16.
9. Ka.Ta TOv .6..TJJI-Oa0EvT]v: Dem. xviii. 47, E7TetOav Twv 7Tpayp.d.Twv €yKpa-
~s 0: ~YJTWV apxew KaTaarfj, Kai TWJJ TaiJT' a7To8op.€vwv 0Ea7TOTYJS EaT{,
rf]v 8€ 7TOihJplav El8ws T6TE o~. TOTE Kai p.taEt Kai a7TtaTEt Kai. 7Tp07TTJ-
.\aKl~n. Demosthenes then mentions several of Philip's instruments
who were later discarded: Lasthenes of Olynthus, Timolaus of
sGg
XVIII. 15. 9· A DISCUSSIOX 0:-< TREACHERY
Thebes, Eudicus and Simus of Larisa, Aristratus of Sicyon, and
Perillus of Megara.
12. ~ Y"' rra.pa Toi:s Q.f..f..oLs ••. .P~flTJ: 'their evil reputation among
other men'. For a specific example cf. x:xiii. ro, where the 'avenging
spirits' conjured up by Tyche to torment Philip by night and day (as
here, vv1cTwp Kai fLE(}' ~fLipm•) are connected with the curses and im-
precations openly uttered against him (xxiii. ro. 7). In both cases
P. is analysing the mechanism of conscience.
15. 1TOAuv lfxeL Myov TOU .pa.uAOTa.TOV uml.pxELV: 'gins good reason
for being considered the most foolish'.
16. OUX ~TTOV /)uJ. TTJV af..oy LIJ'TLO. V , . , clflO.pTClVEL: 'goeS aStray 3 S
much through want of thought as from physical appetite': dfLapTcfvEL
here takes up the afLapT~fLaTa of IJ. I. Being unable to appreciate
the firm link between wrongdoing and disaster implied in dTvxia
(§ 6 n.), human beings are the victims of their d..\oywT{a. P. here
uses </;vat> to mean 'appetites' (d. § r6, mic; Tov awfLaTo<; €mevfLlaLo:;)
in contrast to ..\6yoc;, 'reason'.
16. Attalus at Sicyon

On learning that his approach to the Senate had been rejected (u. r),
Philip arranged to hand over Argos to Kabis on the condition that
if Philip won the war it should be returned, but if not Nabis should
keep it (Livy, xxxii. 38. r-9); and once master of the town, Nabi~
betrayed Philip by opening negotiations with Flamininus. (For the
probability that Philip's surrender of Argos to Kabis pro,·oked P.'s
digression on treachery see IJ-I5 n.) At a conference held at Mycen<1r~
plans were made for co-operation between Attalus, Flamininus, thP
Achaean general for 198/7, Nicostratus, and Nabis, with a truce be-
tween Sparta and Achaea (Livy, xxxii. 39· 1-40. 4). See \Yalbank,
Philip, r63-6. From l\1ycenac Attalus came ,·ia Argos to Sicyon,
and the present passage corresponds to Livy, xxxii. 40. 8--9. The
date of these events at Mycenae and Sicyon is probably Fcbruan·-
March 197; it was a little before the opening of the campaignin;~
season (cf. Niese, ii. 625 n. 3).
16. 1. ETLIJ.aTo ... Ka.l rrpoTEpov: evidently the previous year (r9S),
when Attalus attended the meeting at Sicyon in October, at which
the Achaeans resolved to join Rome. This is the first time Attain~
is known to have visited Sicyon, which was, of course, enemy terri ton
during thP First Macedon ian War (cf. Li,·y, xxxii. 19. 5 f:f.). Livy'-.,
qtwndant (Livy, xxxii. 40. 8) is no obstacle to this view, for here he 1'
paraphrasing P.
TTJV tepav xwpa.v TOU J\rroAAWVOS EAuTpwaa.TO: this land had perhap~
been pledged to raise money in the hard times of the First Mao·
570
ATTALUS AT SICYON XVIII. I7. 4
donian 'A7ar, when it will have been needed to pay troop:;; Apollo's
land was a guarantee for the loan which the city obviously hoped in
due course to repay. Ignorance of the Sicyonian legal system pre-
vents our defining the exact nature of the legal transaction involved;
but €..\vTpwaaTo suggests something like the Attic Trpam<; JTr1 ,\Jan,
'sale on condition of release' (on which see M. I. Finley, Studies in
Land and Credit in Ancient Athens, 500-200 B.C.: the Horos-inscrip-
tions (~ew Brunswick, I95I), 3I-37). This pledging of sacred land to
surmount an emergency is paralleled by the use the Athenians made
of money banked in the sacred treasuries during the Peloponnesian
\Var, and the use they were even prepared to make of the gold on
Athena's statue (Tlmcyd. ii. I3. 5). Two temples of Apollo are re-
corded at Sicyon, that of Apollo Lycius (Paus. ii. 9· 7) in the market-
place, and that of Apollo Carneius (Paus. ii. II. 2); to which temple
the pledged land belonged cannot be ascertained.
2. TOV KOAOaaov . . . TOV 0EKcl1TT)XUV: G. Roux, REA, rgGo, 5-40, has
argued that the original meaning of Ko..\oaaos- is a statue, usually of
archaic appearance, whose legs were not separated; after the build-
ing of the famous colossus of Rhodes (cf. v. 88. In.), the word takes
on its modern sense of 'huge statue'; and the refereno~ to its height
shows P. to be using the word in that sense here. On the Pergarnene
standard a cubit is o·495 m., which woulJ make the statue of Attalus
about 5 m. high; but the measure used at Sicyon may ha,·e been
slightly smaller.
rra.pO. -rov J\rroAAwva.: 'besides the temple (or statue) of Apollo'; in
favour of the meaning 'temple' is perhaps the fact that there was
a temple of Apollo Lycius in the market-place at Sicyon (§ r n.).
3. OeKa. -raAa.v-ra. ... KCLL flup(ous f1E0Lf1vous rrupwv: Livy speci-
fies 'decem talenta argenti' (Livy, xxxii. 40. g), and the word
dpyvp{ov may have slipped out of our text. lf these are Attic
medimni (of 40·36 litres), the gift amounted to about rr,1oo bushels
of barley.
17. 1-5. The cruelty of Nabis' wife

The parallel passage in Livy, xxxii. 40. ro-u, establishes the position
of this fragment (see p. 26), which describes Nabis' actions after
the conference at Mycenae, and appears to follow directly on 16
(d. Aymard, PR, 152 n. 66).
17. 1. TLf10KpclTT)V TOV neAAT)VECL: probably from Pellana in Laconia

(d. iv. 8r. 7, xvi. 37. 5), not Pellene in Achaea; d. Launey, i. 135 n. r.
Otherwise unknown.
2. -rT)v yuva.iKa.: Apega; d. xiii. 7· 2ft.
4. KCLTn auyyEVELCLV: 'by families'.
571
XVIII. IJ. 6 ATTALL'S' SPEECH AT THEBES
17. 6. Attalus' speech (at Thebes)

Livy, xxxiii. :z. 1 (cf. Plut. Flam. 6. 3), describes how Attalus had a
stroke at a meeting summoned to hear him and Flamininus at Thebes
in the spring of 197 ; cf. xxi. 20. 5·
6. TTJS ••• T(dV 1Tpoy6vwv apETf}s: Attalus' forebears; cf. Livy, xxxiii_
2. r, 'orsus a maiorum suorum et communibus in omnem
Graeciam et propriis in Boeotorum gentem meritis ... obmutuit ('I
conddit'. Both Paton and Shuckburgh assume the forebears of hi-,
listeners to be meant.
18-33. C)noscephalae: the legion and the phalanx

In spring 197 both sides moved. Flamininus came north from Elatea,
received 6,400 Aetolian reinforcements at Xyniae, and detachments
from Gortyn, Apollonia, and Athamania in Phthiotis; his forces no\1
amounted to about 3z,ooo men, over 8,ooo of them Greeks (Plut. Flam.
7· 2; Livy, xxxiii. 4· 4-6). Philip, who had resolved to stake all on ~~
battle, at the same time marched south to Dium in Thessaly with an
army of zs,soo (Livy, xxxiii. 3· 5, 4· 4-5; see McDonald ad lac. in OCT).
Flamininus spent some time trying in vain to take Phthiotic Thebrs
(Livy, xxxiii. 5· r-3); then, on learning that Philip was in Thessaly.
he abandoned the siege, and prE'pared to advance to meet him. StT
further \Valbank, Philip, On the date (late May or early June)
see 20. 2 n. (crrr~:vowv • .. €4>o8tdcraa8a.t). Other sources for the battle
are Livy, xxxiii. 3-10 (based on P.), Plut. Flam. 7 ff.; Zon. ix. rfi.
There is a considerable bibliography on the battle and the marches
leading up to it. See Leake, NG, iv. 457 ff., 473 ff.; Kromayer, AS, ii.
63 ff. (with maps and biblio1,:rraphy); Schlachtmatlas, Rom. Abt. ii,
Blatt 9; De Sanctis, iv. r. 85 n. r66; Stahlin, Hell. Thess. rii, 141;
RE, Kuvos Ku/mA.ai, cols. ; Walbank, Philip, r68-72; E. Kirsten,
RE, 'Onchestos', col. 417; vii, 'Pherai', cols. IOr8-:zo (with
map); I. Demetriadis, 'H Twv Kwos K<:.f>aA.wv (Athens, rgzq).
kno-vvn to me only from
18. 1-18. On Roman and Greek stakes: cf. Livy, xxxiii. 5· 5-12, based
on P.
4. Taus 1'-EV 9up~:ous: the Roman scutum; cf. vi. 23. 2 n. Livy, xxxiii.
5· 9, assumes that it was carried hanging down the back ('suspensi"
ab tergo armis'). See Couissin, 142 ff., 237 ff.; Veith, Heerwesw.
324.
Taus ya.laous: pita (d. vi. :ZJ. 8-n n.), which P. normally calls !Jaaol.
ya.!aov has this meaning, however, in Athen. vi. 273 (quoted in
vi. 23. 8-II n.) and in Crito's Getica (FGH, zoo F 6).
-r~v 1Ta.pa.KoJ.u5~v Tou xO.pa.Kos: 'the carrying of a stake'.
572
CYNOSCEPHALAE XVIII. I8. I 2
7. SUo ~~:epaias ~ Tpe~s: 'two or three forks'; m App. B.C. iv. 78

~eepafa.t are the forked stakes themselves.
Ka.i. TO.VT<~S ••• llxovTES XatLJ30.vovTa1 ••. oOK tvaA.M.~: Biittner-
Wobst proposes Ka.i Ta.vms <Tds tKrpuans) lxwns Aa.fLf3dvovTa~ (Kara
~eopu4>as) ovK iva/../..ae, 'and those are taken which have offshoots at
the head, not all round'; but Hultsch, ~~:alTa.vTas lxovTf!S AafLfJdvona.
(~<aTa fLLUv (or -r~v a.1.h~v) eVf)Etav -re-rpafLfLtvas), ov~~: iva/..Adg, is perhaps
more convincing. The side branches on the Roman stakes come out
in a single plane, so that when they are set in the earth none projects
towards the enemy, but all come out on either side and can thus be
intertwined with the branches of the next stake.
lO. To !-l£v KpaToGv KTX.: 'the part that is firm and tightly fixed in
the ground is single' (Shuckburgh).
o1 8' 6-nocpuaels: 'the offshoots': the l~<</JvaEts of § 6.
11. Ti(> J3paxei.as .•• yiveo-9cn: 'and all this because the stakes are
not closely interlaced or interwoven with each other'; strictly, it is
the loose intertwining of the stakes that makes it easy to pull them
up; and this in turn creates a hole and the loosening of the stakes on
either side. The words -r<f .•• xdpatcos cannot be taken closely with
-ra TrrJ..paKelfLeva ,\.£/..u-ra.t, since the opposite would be truer, viz. that
tightly interlaced stakes would cause the loosening of those next to
them.
12. waTE !-l~Te TBS ~~:epala.s •.• nol.wv Kepa~wv: P.'s inconsistency in
the meaning he gives to tupa[a and l~<<Pucns makes the sense of this
.stmtence hard to elicit. In §§ 6 and 7 both KEpa.la and £~<rpua•s mean
offshoots from the main wood of the stake; but here one of the two
words appears to refer to the stake itself, and the other to its off-
shoots. If the words -rwv • •. 1m-rwpuyfL€vwv are taken closely with
iK</Jva,.ws (as the order suggests), €~<</;vats is the main stem (or stake
itself) ;md the K<pa.i:a, are the branches coming out of this. In that
case translate 'so that it is not easy to recognize to which stem, of
those buried in the ground, the branches belong, nor to which
branches the stems belong' (so Reiske and Schweighaeuser). Since,
however, €K4>vats (like aTT&<f;uats in § ro) seems a more natural word
for a branch, and K£pai:a. is found elsewhere (d.§ 7 n.) meaning a stake
with forks or branches, it may seem more natural to translate 'so
that it is not easy to recognize to which branches the stakes buried
in the earth belong, nor to which stakes the branches' (so Mauers-
berger, s.v. €~<.</;urns). But this involves taking -rwv • •• IWTwpuyfLlvwv
with -rO.s Kepa{a.s, which is awkward. A third r-ussibility, which avoids
this difficulty, is to treat -rwl' •.. Ka-rwpvyfLlvwv as a genitive of origin
with e~<¢uae.ws: 'so that it is not easy to recognize to which offshoots
from the parts buried beneath the earth the various stakes belong,
nor to which stakes the offshoots'. But this would imply that the
stakes were buried in such a way that the junction between branches
573
XVIII r8. 12 CYKOSCEPHALAE
and stake was beneath the ground; and though the lacuna in § 7
prevents our getting a completely clear picture of the Roman stake,
this would hardly seem to be P.'s meaning. Shuckburgh renders
'it is not easy to know to which of the stems fixed in the ground th1·
branches belong, nor on which of these branches the smaller shoot:-;
are growing'; but this implies three elements (stems, branches, and
smaller shoots) whereas P. has only two, lKrPVun;; and K<=pai:at. 011
the whole Schweighaeuser's interpretation seems to involve fewec;l
difficulties and to suit § 13 besL
13. 'ITUKv~w ouO"wv •.• Twv KEpa.Lwv: 'since the branches are closeh
interlaced one with another, and moreo•'er carefully sharpened to
a point'. KE:pa.£Wv must be the subject both of 'ITVKVWI' ovawv Kfli
TrpOU1TL'/TTOVUWV avraf;; and of a'/TWgV/Ljl/vwv; and in that case t)w
K<=pai:m are branches rather than the stakes themselves, for the stak,·
would ha\'e only one end out of the ground, and to sharpen tha1
would afford small hindrance compared with the sharpening of tlt.
interlacing branches.
14. '!Tacro.s Tas 'ITpocrfloM.s ••. Mvo.I-Lw ~xnv: 'all the portions ope11
to attack possess an almost impregnable power of resistance d<·
rived from the ground'.
15. Tov p.la.v ~ma'!Twp.evov KEpalo.v: 'the man who pulls at a sing!··
branch'.
'ITOAAous avayKa~Ecrflo.L 'ITELlJOj..LEVOUS aj..LO. flo.a-TabEW: 'is obliged to Jj[f
se,·eral stakes which all respond together'.
19. 1. 'ITpofJ:ye: from Phthiotic Thebes, in the ,·icinity of which tJ,,,

stakes had been cut (d. Livy, xxxiii. 5· 1-4, 6. 1).
a'IToa-xwv 8£ '!T£pl 'ITEV1'~KOVTO. crnl.lha. Tlj:S TWV ~Epo.£wv 'ITOAEWS: Li\'Y'
xxxiii. 6. r, 'sex ferme milia a Pheris'. Pherae lay in I'elasgiotis al
the site of modern Velestino; Strabo puts it 90 stades from Pagasa•·
(Strabo, ix. 436), and it was not far from Phthiotic Thebes (cf. \'. 9'~·
3). For the ruins see Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 104~8; Y. Bequignon.
Recherches arcMologiques a Pheres (Paris, 1937); E. Kirsten, RF.
Suppl.-B. vii, 'Pherai', cols. 984-I026. Flamininus' camp, 6 miles to
the south, will have stood in the small plain of Persufli, betwec11
two ridges, the former from Karadagh, the southerly the Tchiragioti•
hills (Leake, NG, iv. 452; Kromayer, AS, ii. 6r).
3. '1Tuv9a.voi-L"vos .•• 'ITEpl Tas 8ft~a.s: mistranslated by Livy, xxxii1
6. 3, 'ccrtior iam factus Homanum ab Thebis Pheras mouisse'; in fa< 1
as P. shows, Philip's advance from Larissa was simultaneous wi11,
that of Flamininus from Thebes.
'ITo~oup.Evoc; T~v 'ITopelo.vws ~'ITt Tas Cl>epas: south-east along the erlt-:'
of Karadagb follov:ing the route now used by the railway frnn:
Larissa to Yolo.
4. a'!Tooxwv 5£ 'ITEf>~ Tf>lUKOVTa OTa5m: Livy, xxxiii. 6. 3. 'quattUOI
574
CYNOSCEPHALAE XVIII. 20. 2
milia fere a Pheris'. The Macedunian camp will have been somewhere
near Teltiktschi to the north-west of Pherae (Kromayer, AS, ii.
Cn n. 1; Kirsten, RE, Suppl.-B. vii, 'Pherai', col. 1019, puts it slightly
to the east of Teltiktschi between that village and Risomylo).
5. TaS li'ITEP Tao;; ~Epas aKpoAo~LO.'i: this will be the ridge south of
Pherae, where the road to Persufli and Phthiotic Thebes crosses it
(so Kirsten, RE, Suppl.-B. vii, 'Pherai', col. 1019, against Kromayer,
AS, ii. 62 n. 3, who puts it south-west of Pherae). Pherae took no
part in these events, remaining neutral (it had closed its gates against
Philip in 19S: Livy, xxxii. 13. 9); but this does not mean that
Macedonian or Roman forces could not march past its walls.
6. 1TEp1 Tas \mEp~oAcio;;: at the point mentioned in the previous note.
Kirsten (RE, Suppl. B. vii, 'Pherai', col. 1019) gives its distance as
twenty-five minutes north of Persufli and thirty-five minutes south
of Pherae.
7. \mo TTtV op~V"lV: 'in the darkness'; Paton's 'early dusk' is wrong.
8 .... £1ri Twv u1ToK£LfJ-Evwv <npa.Tom:OEiwv: Buttner-\Vobst fills out
the lacuna with (ol. DE rmh1)v p.~v r~v ~p€pav p€vnv EKptvav) following
Reiske: Livy, xxxiii. 6. 6, has 'et illo quidem die nullo inito certamine
in castra reuocati sunt'. Philip had already begun to move his main
forces (§ sl. but neither side can have gone far with these. See Kro-
mayer, AS, ii. 62 (somewhat unfairly criticized by Kirsten, RE,
Suppl.-B. '·ii, 'Pherai', col. ro19).
9. SU' ouAa.~J-ouo;: probably two turmac, making sixty men (for P. uses
ov.\ap.bs as the equivalent of r>..1), which is itself the equivalent of
turma; cf. vi. 25. r, 28. 3, 29. 2-3, 33· ro); thus about a fifth of the
force was Aetolian. F.'s source gives these Aetolians full credit(§ n).
10. E1Tt TaOe TWV ~epwv wo; 1Tpoo; Aaplcra.v: TaO€ for Tel, Schweighaeuser,
'short of Pherae in the Larissa direction'. Kromayer (AS, ii. 62) puts
this cavalry skirmish well to the north-west of Pherae; but Kirsten,
RE, 'Pherai', col. 1019, points out the unsuitability of the broken
land west of Pherae, around the hill of Maluka, for cavalry fighting,
and he is to be followed in putting the skirmish due north of Pherae,
in the plain (d. 20. r, drawing on the experience of this engagement).
11. Eu1ToAE!J-OV: cf. 21. 5; deported to Rome in qo as a leader of the
anti-Roman faction in Aetolia (cf. xviii. 4· 6); Livy, xxxviii. 4· 8,
xli. 25. 3 f.; Wissowa, RE, 'Eupolemos (Sa)', col. 28j8 (Nachtrag).
Can he have been one of P.'s verbal sources for this battle (d. 21. 5 n.)
and especially for those parts where the Aetolians appear in a very
favourable light (cf. 22. 4)?
20. 1. 1rAY)puo; a.i!J-a.cru:;,v Ka.l K1]1Tiwv: 'full of walls and small gardens';
a.lp.acnal are walls, not thorn-hedges (so Mauersberger, s. v.) ; d.
Theoc. i. 47, €</>' al.p.aa~aiat .•. :jp<EVOS'.
l. ws £1r1 T.,;v IKoTouacra.v: Scotussa (d. x. 42. 3) was a town in
575
XVIII. 20. 2 CYNOSCEPHALAE
Pelasgiotis; its ruins lie about I km. west of the village of Supli, ou
the \Vest slopes of Karadagh, and above and to the south of the
Platanorevma, which flows west and then north to join L. Boebeis.
See Leake, NG, iv. 454-6; Kromayer, AS, ii. 64 n. I; Stahlin, Hell.
Thess. IOg-ro; RE, 1JK6ToVQ'O'a., cols. 6r3-I7·
2-8. The marches before the battle. The identification of these is bound
up with the problem of locating the battlefield of Cynoscephalae. De
Sanctis (iv. r. 85-86 n. r66), following in general Leake (NG, iv. 457 ff.,
473 ff.), sites this between Supli and Duvlatan, Stahlin (HeU. Thess.
IIr, r4r-2) a little further west, near Alkani. Kromayer (AS, ii. 63 ff.),
however, argues for a site still further west, around Karademirdshi.
Three days' marching is involved. On the first Flamininus reached
Eretria and Philip the River Onchestus (§ 5); on the second Philip
reached Melambium and Flamininus the Thetideum (§ 6) ; and on
the third Flamininus remained at the Thetideum (21. r), but Philip
advanced to a new camp a little beyond Melambium (§ 8). Of thest>
four named sites, Eretria is identified with some certainty as the
ruins near Tsangli on the north-west slope of the Tchiragiotic range
towards the upper Enipeus valley (Leake, NG, iv. 466 f.; SUihlin,
Hell. Thess. r74-5). The sites of the Thetideum and Melambium and
the identification of the Onchestus are all uncertain. Leake, loc. cit.,
made Philip march north-west along the plain below Karadagh,
reaching the neighbourhood of Ghereli the first night; for him tht·
Onchestus was the stream on which Ghereli lies. The second night,
according to Leake, Philip reached Dcdejani, 6 km. up this stream,
and here he locates Melambium. On this assumption the battle
occurred between Supli and Ghcremi, well to the east of Scotussa.
Leake's view is followed with little variation by De Sanctis, ·who
argues (Joe. cit.) that when, on the third Philip KaTal'VO'at G7T<Vbwv
i7Tt T£l 7TpOK€{f.U!'OV, ai'U~EVtaS' 7Tpof/Et (§ 8), Cannot yet have reached
Scotussa, since his original purpose was to revictual near that town
(§ z). But Philip's purpose was twofold: (a) to revictual near Scotussa,
(b) that done, to find a suitable battleground. On his first day's march
Flamininus covered about zo km., and it is improbable that Philip,
in his haste to reach Scotussa, covered substantially less. It is there~
fore hard to believe that the Onchestus is the dr-ied-up stream al
Ghereli or, as Kirsten argues (RE, 'Onchestus (3)', col. 417, modified
in SuppL-E. vii, 'Pherai', col. rozo; cf. Leake, NG, iv. 473), thai
which flows down into L. Boebeis from Dedejani through Sarastar.
for neither of these is anything like a day's march from Philip';;
original camp. As Kromayer observes (AS, ii. 68-6g), the only wate!
course in the area meriting the name of river is the Platanorevm~1.
which flows below Scotussa and then northwards to L. Boebeis.
Stiihlin (Hell. Thess. ru) argues that since Philip's second camJ•
was ~7Tt To 1¥/et..dp.,Bwv 7TpOO'ayopEu6p.EVOI' Tfjs lJKoTOUO'O'a{as, the previmh
'· ' .,
., '\
'\,
Ghereli •
'· \
Kara Dagh fkd<>jani•
Ill
Hai:.ljlh<>y,._..,....
/
· c;, ntussa \ .,...,.,.. ......
!}•' 'ff\..L
·-.-"-o
Sup II
___ .,_...,_Gheremi
v SIH {}{ lll\
It) """'P,H A t"-f.
E ' •
Alkani
'd
'
\ ll<>kid~'
'·, Ill •Thetideum( ?)•
Du,Jatan
.,
' • ...:Qr.man M•goula
~,--lf---..~-----'-""....r-..,__,. , ....... ,_ - ll
~ -----.Tsangh
.
---~ . .,, -·-
Eretria·-•-·
Tchirag'·ot
. ...-
·"'.
\C
.,... k'
.\ \'>
t\'
"'
"""
""'
-- --•-!. Mact'doni•n route and camp 4.;,
C'
· - · - ...... - ~ 1\.om.>n rotJteand camp
_,
'-"
..__, 0 ~ 10 rs kllometrc·~
' . J ...J
17. THE l\lANtEUVRES BEFORE CYNOSCEPHALAE

(Adapted from Kromaycr, Schlachtjelder, ii, Kartc 4)
XVIII. 20. 2-8 CYNOSCEPHALAE
night's camp must have been well to the east of Scotussan territory
and Leake put Melambium at Dedejani (NG, iv. 473); but the words
Tijs EKoTovaaalas are inserted here, not to indicate that the Onchestus
was not in the territory of Scotussa, but to define an otherwise little-
known spot (there are no other references to it) and also to balance
the phrase Tijs f!>apaaAtas, attached to the Thetideum (§ 6), which
Flamininus reached the same night. Probability favours the view
that Philip got as far as Scotussa by the first night, and pushed on
a little further the next day, when, however, he would be mainly
occupied gathering corn; this was still in the fields ~v Tfj EKoTovaaa{q.
(§ 3). Melambium will therefore lie a little to the east of Hadjibey
(though Kromayer, AS, ii. 72 n. 2, need not be followed in his identi-
fication of it with the tumulus known as Kukurialo, some twenty
minutes south-east of that village) ; the small distance from Scotussa,
a mere 8 km., can be explained if Philip was busy foraging in the
cornlands west of Scotussa (not east of the town where tbe land is
poor and mainly sand and stone; Kromayer, AS, ii. 67).
The site of the Thetideum, which Flamininus reached simul-
taneously, is not agreed. DeSanctis (iv. i. 85-86 n. I66) seeks it on the
Scotussa side of the ridge of Karadagh,between Supli and Duvlatan,
where he sites the battle; but it is clear from P. that it was Tij>
f!>apaaAlas (§6) and so to the south of the ridge. Kromayer (AS, ii.
73 n. I) accepts Heuzey's identification with the temple remains z km.
south-west of Alkani, roughly between that village and Bekides; but
it seems more likely that Leake (NG, iv. 472-3), followed by Stahlin
(Hell. Thess. I4I; RE, 'Thetideion', cols. 205-6), is right in locating it
in the Enipeus valley, and probably, as Stahlin argues, at the site of
the church of H. Athanasios between the station Orman Magoula
and the village of Bekides. This would fit Plutarch's reference to it
(Pelop. 32. I) as the point to which Alexander of Pherae advanced
on his way to Pharsalus in 364. Flamininus' second camp will have
been hereabouts, perhaps a little to the north-west of the sanctuary,
but not so far as Kromayer places it. Philip's third camp (§§ 8-9)
was a little beyond the Melambium. Having foraged, he was now
concerned to gain the level ground south of the hills and will have
made west towards the gap through which the main Larissa-Pharsal us
road now runs (21. 2); his camp can plausibly be placed between
Karademirdshi and Hadjibey (Kromayer, AS, ii. 72).
From the Thetideum Flam in in us sent a reconnoitring force forward
(21. I, TTpoFUJ-Lf;vos), i.e. in the same north-westerly direction; his
object will have been to head Philip off from the plain around Phar-
salus, for he must have known that by now he had carried out
his foraging. Consequently he also aimed at the gap in the hills.
The battle will therefore have developed on the summits a little to
the south-east of Karademirdshi, where Kromayer places it. It was
578
CYNOSCEPHALAE XVIII. 20.6
in the territory of Scotussa: cf. Strabo, ix. 441, eaTL 8' ev rfi EKoTovaav
xwpwv TL Kvvos Kecrf;a.Aal KaAovp,ecvov, 1Tepi 0 'Pwp,aiot • •• ev{KWV; Plut.
Flam. 7. 3· 1Tcpi T~V EKOTovaa.v ... 8ta.Kw8vvevc.v ep,EAAov. See Fig. I7 J
and for further details the separate notes.
2. <nreuliwv ~K Ta.unl~ Tfj~ 1r0Aew~ ~~oliu].cracrB<u: but the corn was
still in the fields (§ 3), though evidently sufficiently ripe to be worth
harvesting. Since the harvest month in Thessaly is July, it was now
late May or more likely early June. This chronology is substantially
confirmed from the Polybian account in Livy. Philip rallied his
forces in Macedon primo uere (Livy, xxxiii. 3· r), i.e. early March;
the army assembled at Dium secundum u.ernum aequinoctium (Livy,
xxxiii. 3· 5), i.e. about 24 March; simultaneously Flamininus marched
from Elatea to Thessaly (ibid.). After three days' delay at Heraclea
(Livy, xxxiii. 3· 8) he advanced to Xyniae and waited there for some
time-not very long since nihil morati Aetoli sunt. There was a further
delay at Phthiotic Thebes (Livy, xxxiii. 3· 10) and the battle occurred
seven days after Flamininus left this town. These events are slightly
short of filling the time required; but the data are all somewhat
elastic, and there is no real contradiction with the dating of the
battle in early June. On the chronology see Kromayer, AS, ii. 109 ff.;
De Sanctis, iv. r. 86-87 n., 386 f.; Holleaux, Etudes, v. 82 n. I; CAH,
viii. 174; Walbank, Philip, 322-3.
To1Tou~ O.p!J-o~ovTa<; Tai~ auTou 8uvO.!J-E<rW: i.e. for a battle, and so
level ground, essential for the phalanx (cf. 31. s--6). The nearest level
ground was in the Enipeus valley north and east of Pharsalus.
3. U1To1TTEucra~ To !J-EAAov: it is reasonable to think that this suspicion
was based on some information about the direction of Philip's
march; this is not excluded by the statement(§ 4) that the two armies
were out of contact during their march.
4. oxBwv l'nJtrJAwv: the range of Karadagh.
5. 'Ep~TPLUV Tfj$ <<~>Bu.:mlio~ xwpa.s): probably Tsangli (above,
§§ 2-8 n.). The lacuna was plausibly filled by Schweighaeuser from
Livy, xxxiii. 6. ro, 'ad Eretriam Phthiotici agri'. Phthiotis should
mean the Tetras (cf. G. Kip, Thessalische Studien (Halle, I9IO), 7r);
but here the phrase seems to be introduced to contrast Eretria with
the Thetideum, which was Tf/S <Papaa./..las (§ 6). (Strabo, ix. 434, 447,
merely reckons the town as part of the <PB<WT<Kov TEAos and puts
it near Pharsalus.) There is therefore reason to suppose that Eretria.
was in Phthiotic Achaea (cf. Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 174 n. 9).
Tov 'Oyx'lcrTov 1TOTU!J-oV: probably the Platanorevma: see §§ 2-8 n.
6. e1rt TO MeAa!J-f3Lov: presumably a village or hamlet, otherwise un-
known. On the probable site east of Hadjibey see §§ 2-8 n.
1repl. To 0ETLOELov: on the probable site at H. Athanasios see§§ 2-8 n.;
for a description see Giannopoulos, ilpp,ov{a, iii. ro2, 427 (non uidi).
Steph. Byz. (s. v. 19wTL8ewv; cf. TI~/..wv) asserts that the original
579
XVIII. :zo. 6 CYNOSCEPHALAE
name was the Thestideion, and that Hellanicus omitted the > (cf.
FGH, 4 F 136): but this is controverted by a phrase ev<TTdxvo>
efnEl'r}s (from a hexameter), preserved in Etym. gmuin. (in Miller,
Melanges, I5i; cf. Stahlin, RE, 'Thetideion', coL zo6). Strabo (ix. 431)
sites the Thetideum near Pharsalus and Palaepharsalus. It is the
scene of the action of Euripides' Andromache.
8. KaTav~acu <MT£u8wv f'IT~ To '!TpOK£(f1£Vov: i.e. to secure fiat ground
suited to his forces (§ z}. Presumably he had by now revictualled
from the crops west of Scotussa: see above, §§ z-8 n.
'ITpon~tL: so Reiske; 7T€pi "r'rJ F, 71€p~~"' S. Leake took 71<ptzjn as e\·i-
dence for the view that Philip skirted the hills to the north; but the
emendation seems more probable, and has been generally accepted.
9. ('ITt To us Ci.Kpous ••• TWV ••• j3ouvwv: from his third camp, be-
tween Hadjibey and Karadcmirdshi, Philip's covering force advanced
south-west up the slope of the range w·hich separated them from the
Enipeus valley, probably to a point rather east of the Larissa·
Pharsalus road, where the gap comes.
21. L 8La'!Topouf1£VOS ••• '!TOU '!ToT' dai: but probably suspecting

that Philip would be aiming at crossing the hills by the most cor:-
venient route.
8€Ka '!Tpo8tp.~tvos ovXa.p.ou<;: in a north-·westerly direction from his
camp at the Thetideum. Ten ttmnae (cf. 19. 9 n.) would make 300
caYalry, the same number that had been sent out on the occasion
of the skirmish near Pherae (1q. q 12). Kromayer (AS, ii. 79 n. z)
puts them at zso.
2. ~s f:'!Tt Tas ~~m~tpj3oll.a<;: probably the gap in the hills where the
Larissa-Pharsalns road cross(~S them.
5. :A.pxi8a.p.ov Ka.~ ••• Ei:m6Xep.ov: on the latter cf. rg. r 1 n. : Arche-
damus also appears later as a leader of the anti-Roman party (d.
xx. 9· 2 ff., xxviii. 4· 8). It is significant for P.'s sources on the battle
that he knows the names of the two Aetolians, but not those of the
Roman military tribunes: see 19. I I n. for the possibility that Eu-
polemus, who had been deported to Rome three years before P., was
an informant about the battle. Livy (xxxiii. 7· 7) mentions only the
military tribunes.
'IT~tvTaKoalwv L'IT'ITtwv: not more than 400 were Aetolian for that was
the total Aetolian cavalry contingent (Uvy, xxxiii. 3· 9; Plut.
Flam. 7· 2).
8~aXLA(wv 'IT£twv: light-armed; cf. 22. 7.
8. 1Tpoa€4>uyov 1Tpos Tou<; liKpou<;: probably the ridge lying aboul
2 km. south of Karademirdshi and Hadjibey (cf. 20. 9).
22. 1. 8ul. Tas 1Tpo£tpt]f1Eva.o; a.hla.s: d?.. the bad weather conditiml:>
(zo. i-9).
sSo
CYXOSCEPHALAE XVIII 23. 7
2. 'HpaKA€l81JY •.• TOY r upTWVLOV .•. A£ovT« TOY ••. t,.TrapxTJV:
not otherwise known. Launey, 2r9 n. I, reckons Heracleidcs a mer-
cenary and suggests that he is the Heracleides mentioned in Philip's
letter to Abae in zo9 (quoted in xiii. 4· I n.); but the latter is more
probably Heracleides of Tarentum. P. distinguishes the Thessalian
and Macedonian horse from the mercenaries (under Athenagoras)
and it seems more likely that Heracleides was the commander of
Thessalian horse contrib~ted from an area still under Philip's juris-
diction. Leon will be a Macedonian. Clearly P. here draws on a
Macedonian informant, directly or indirectly.
,.Af)v Twv 9p~tc:wv: it is not known why the Thracian mercenaries,
who were 2,ooo in number (Livy, xxxiii. 3· 4), were stationed away
from the other mercenaries, who were under Athenagoras (otherwise
unknown). Some accompanied Philip later in his flight (26. &). Apart
from the Thracians Philip had 2,ooo Illyrian and 1,5oo other mer-
cenaries (Livy, xxxiii. 4· 4-5).
4. f) T&lV AhwALKWV l1MTEWV .faAoTLJllll: cf. 19. II n.
5. tAALTrEL<; .• , T4i Ka0o1TAtaJ1iti K<d Tft O'UVT~€t: cf. iv. I I. 8 n. for
the same comment.
6. ~w<;; d<; Tout; ETrm£8ouc; TD1Tou<;;: not, of course, the plain of Phar-
salus, which was about 4-5 km. away, but a small plain immediately
south of the ridge which was being contested {zo. 9, z r. 8, zz. 3).
See Kromayer, AS, ii. i7 n. 5·
9. oL yap ••• AocpoL KTA.: explanatory of otlK etlooKOVf.Levov To 'is T67To£s.
The name Kvvos K•<foaAal seems to have covered the whole range
extending from the Larissa-Pharsalus road to the Karadagh massif
(Kromayer, AS, ii. 70; SUi.hlin, Kuvos Kf.¢a/..ai, col. 34).
10. ou5nJ1WS TJPtLOteTO 11'pos O.ywvn: P. is clearly interested in how
the experienced Philip let himself be persuaded into accepting battle.
His informants were probably Macedonians anxious to mitigate
Philip's error of judgement.
23. 3-6. Flam£11inus' : commonplaces, like Hannibal's at

Zama (xv. 11. 7-9). But to former victories are an obvious
theme for such an occasion and were probably made by Flamininus,
whatever P.'s source here. For a reference to the same two battles
in Eordaea and on the Aous during the negotiations at Rome see
II. IOn.
4. TaS aTr1JA,.to-tLevns f:v 'HTr€£p<f 8uaxwp£n<;: sec 3· 9 n.
5. 11'poopno-9cn Twv ,.poyeyovoTwv: 'on what event in your past ex-
perience need you look with apprehension'; for this meaning of
11'poopfi.aOa, see i. 65. 7, 66. 9, ii. 47· 4, vii. !7· 5, xxvii. 4· 7·
7. To .•• 8EsLov Jl-Epos: consisting of one legion and its auxiliaries.
Ta 9t]pin: taken from the Carthaginians after Zama (xv. 18. 3 n.);
their number is not recorded.
XVIII. 23. 8 CY~OSCEPHALAE
8. T~v Twv 1T£twv ~npa.To,.iowv l<j>Eopda.v: 'reinforced by the in-

fantry of the legions'.
24. 1. Tous 1T£ATa.tM'as: cf. ii. 65. 2 n. for these troops; see below, § 8.
As at Pydna (cf. Walbank, Ph£Z£p, 292 n. 9) they fight at Cynos-
cephalae in close conjunction with the phalanx.
1Tpo<; Tou; M<j>ous: the hills mentioned before (zo. 9, 21. 8).
N~Knvopa. Tbv ••• tA~cpa.vTa.: perhaps the Xicanor who ravaged the
land outside Athens in 2oo (xvi. 27. r n.) : the reference to the nick-
name here may derive from the eye-witness source on the Mace-
danian side, to whom part of P.'s narrative clearly goes back.
3. TTJ'> li1T£p~oA~s: probably distinct from the L'1T£p{3ol.ai of 2r. 2,
whither the Roman squadrons were making when they established
contact with the Macedonians; if Kromayer's site for the battle is
accepted, this inr<£p{3ol.~ will lie a little to the east of the depression
containing the Larissa-Pharsalus road (§ 8 n.).
E~ aa11'L8os 1Ta.pEVE~O.Af.: 'formed them into line from the left' (ct
iii. us. 10, xi. 23. 5). The wing of the phalanx had come up the hill
in column of march, and then wheeled to the left to form into
battle line, dressing ranks from the left (after a right turn).
Tou<; U1TEp8E~ious: the heights immediately to the east of the actual
pass (which is marked on Kromayer's map as 429 m.).
4. Ta 8E~u1 p.epTJ: 'his right wing'; cf. § r.
5. Ka.90.,.t:p O.p.,.£ws El'll'a.: cf. 2,3. 8.
otov f.L a~Kwp.a.: 'as it were to turn the scale'.
7. KplVEW ~K TOU Kmpou TU oAa.: 'to decide the whole action on the
spur of the moment' (cf. xi. 16. 4).
Twv ,.xf.lcnwv p.Epwv ... Ka.Ta ,.opEia.v ovTwv: all his left wing (§ 2)
and part of his right.
8. ij9poLtE ••. ~,.i TO 8E~Lov KEpa.s: Kromayer (AS, ii. 82) suggests
that tllis was to fill a gap between his phalanx and the Larissa~
Pharsalus road.
8LTrAa.aLatELV To ~neos Ka.t 1TUKvouv E'll'l To 8t:~u)v: they were to change
from a marching depth of men to the battle line of sixteen men
(cf. 30. r), and by 'ffUKvwa•s (3o. 3) to reduce the space occupied by
each man from 6ft. (xii. r9. 7) to 3ft. (29. 2); cf. ii. 69. 9 n.
9. Ka.Ta.~a.AouaL TtL<; aa.piaa.s: 'lowering their spears' to face the
enemy; misunderstood by Livy (xxxiii. 8. 13) who translates 'hasti,;
positis, quarum longitudo impedimenta erat, gladiis rem gerer•·
iubet' (d. Walsh, Greece and Rome, 1958, 84-85).
TO'i'i 8' •nit~woLs KEp&v: the retirement of the light-armed around
the wings of the phalanx must, of course, have preceded tlw
charge.
10. ds .,.a. OLa.tM'~IlaTa: the more open Roman formation allowed tlw
skirmishers to retire through the intervals between the maniples.
582
CYXOSCEPHALAE XVIII. 26. I
25. 1. EK'ITAT}KTLKOV Ka.t 'ITO.pa.aTO.'niCOV aywvia.s: the whole sentence

echoes P.'s account of Hannibal's crossing oi the Rhone: cf. iii.
43· 8 n.
2. T~v €lJ>o8ov e~ u'ITep8e€tou 'lrOtO~f1Evov: they held the summit of
the ridge to the east of the pass (24. 3), and were properly dra\m up
in phalanx formation.
3. T<l. 8~ Aot'lra: i.e. all the heavy infantry who had not been incor-
porated in the phalanx-charge; these would include the left wing
of the phalanx and also such part of the right wing as had not been
able to reach its position (hence in 24. 7 Philip charges Kaf11Ep ln
Ttov Tt)vd(f'Twv fL€pr1w ;fj;; fa>..ayyo:; Kcm11Top€tav ov;wv).
Ta fi~v txbfiEVo. TI71V Kw8uveuovTwv: 'those next to the troops actually
fighting' . those left over from the right wing.
Tn 8' t1rl Twv euwvul-lwv: under Nicanor (d. 24. 2).
4. ev 8f: TOLS 8e~to'i:s ••• Tns Hmt8o.s: 'and that his hopes of salvation
rested with the right wing'.
alJ>op!-l~CI'O.'i
'!Tpos 1'0\JTOUS! 'he placed himself in COmmand there'
(Paton); Flamininus had originally commanded the left (23. 7).
5. Twv 'lrOAEfiiwv KTA.: by the enemy P. here means Philip's left,
consisting oi half the phalanx (S,ooo men: Livy, xxxiii. 4· 4), such
cavalry as were not with Heracleides and Leo (22. z)~perhaps 6oo
in all (Kromayer, AS. ii. 84 n. z)-2,ooo Thracians (22. 2 n.) and the
remnants of his right (§ 3 n.). There may be a lacuna after TO£s
S<aywvt~OfLWOL<;, to be filled by some such phrase as a11paKT!l (Reiske)
or a7rpaKTa , • .tvovra (Biittner-Wobst); unless Shuckburgh is right in
taking otJvEXfJ predicatively, 'part being in contact with those fight-
ing'. P. here distinguishes three groups in the left: (a) those nearest
the enemy (cf. § 3) who were too far off to take part in the phalanx-
charge, (b) those who had alrea.dy reached the summit and begun
to descend on the south side towards the Roman right, {c) those
still on the ridge (in § 3 groups (a) and (b) are just appearing on the
ridge). But from 26. 9 it appears that there were yet other Mace~
donians who had not yet reached the crest, as they ascended on the
north side.
6. olin Tov 1ra.pa.yyEXouvT' IExovTES: what was Nicanor doing?
TclS Twv TO'ITWV 8uaxepelas: on Kromayer's site the ground to the
east, in the area south of Hadjibey, falls away and does not give
the even surface necessary for a phalanx (Kromayer, AS, ii. 84 n. 3).
26. I. ds- 8E Twv XtAtapxwv 1<-rA.: according to vi. 34· 3 the military
tribunes, in took it in tum to have full administrative control
of the legion for hvo months out of six, each perhaps taking full
charge on alternate days (Marquardt, ii. 363). The present passage
suggests that the military tribune here mentioned was the chief
officer of the legion (as he often still was in the first century; d. Plut.
ss3
XVIII. 26. I CY!"OSCEPHALAE
Sulla, I6. 8; Cata mi1~. 9· I; App. Mithr. so); indeed, if he could draw
off twenty of the thirty maniples, it implies that he controlled the
whole legion (contra, Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. :n6 n. 3; Lengle, RE, 'tri-
bunus militum', col. 2443). But his relations with Flamininus, who
had taken control of the right wing (25. 4-5), remain a problem, for
it is hard to believe that he acted without consulting the commander.
Elsewhere military tribunes appear to act under the direct orders of
the commanding officer (cf. ii. 26. 3, 27. 4, 33· r, xi. 22. 4). A solution
may perhaps come from a consideration of the source of this passage.
It is significant that, as in 21. 5, P. does not know the name of this
remarkable tribune. The reason will be that his source, as there, is
Aetolian; and being Aetolian it will be prejudiced against Flamininus.
The emphasis given to the tribune's action 'on the spur of the moment'
dearly detracts from Flamininus' credit; and it may well be either
that he, and not the tribune, saw what was needed and did it or at
least that the tribune acted with the concurrence of the supreme
commander.
O"YJIJ.a.(a.s ••• oo 'IT>..e£ous EiKoa~: probably the ten maniples of the
principes and the ten of the triarii, who could most easily be de-
tached (Kromayer, ii. 85 n. 1); Meyer {Kl. Schr. ii. 3r6 n. 3)
suggests the lzastati and principes, but this would be to call in the
hastati, whom one assumes to have been leading the pursuit; cf. the
similar use of the principes and triarii at the Great Plains (xiv.
8. n).
4. O.SuvaTOU ••• ~K IJ.ETa.~oMjs Ka.t Ka.T' nv8pa. KWOUVEUEIV: cf. Livy,
xliv. 41. 6, 'si carptim adgrediendo circumagere immobilem longi-
tudine et grauitate hastam cogas, confusa strue implicantur; si uero
aut ab latere aut ab aliquid tumultus increpuit, ruinae modo
turbantur'. Contrast the Roman method, 3'-'· 7·
7. uuve9Ewpe~ Tfi l:i>..a.: 'he took a look at the whole scene'.
8. T(;)v 6pq.~~:<;IV: cf. 22, 2 n., 25. 5 n.
9. 0-pn Tois n~~:po~s E1Tl~a.!.>..ouaa.s KTX.: 'who were just now reaching
the summit'; d. 25. 5 n.
27. 2. 'ITept Tov :1\!.e~O.vopou Ko.XoufLEvov 1Tupyov: unknown. It will

have been somewhere in the plain of Pelasgiotis towards Larissa.
rovvous: Gonni, at the western end of Tempe (cf. Livy, xxxvi. IO. II,
xlii. 54· 7, 67. 6), has been identified with a site lying on three hills
to the north of the Peneius, at modern Dereli: see Stahlin, Hell.
Thess. 33 f. It controlled both the route through Tempe and tha!
directly north past L.
4 . .fJp~a.vTo Ka.Ta.f1Ef1cpEa9a.~ To us AiTw>..ous: the beginning of th1·
quarrel is thus attributed to the Romans; the source will be Aetoliau.
6. Numbers and losses: Livy, xxxiii. 4· 4-5, gives the Macedonian
forces as r6,ooo phalanx, 2,ooopeltasts, 2,ooo Thracians, 2,ooo lllyrian:-.
584
CYNOSCEPHALAE· LEGION AND PHALANX XVIII. 28-32
about r,soo mixed mercenaries and 2,ooo cavalry, making a total of
:zs.soo. The source will be P. The Roman forces were about the same
total (Livy, xxxiii. 4· 6, 'Romanis fere par numerus erat, qui tum
(so B, McDonald; earlier editors read eqwitum) copiis tantum, quod
Aetoli accesserant, superabant'); according to Plutarch, Flam. 7· 2,
also drawing on P., they had m·er z6,ooo including the cavalry.
Kromayer (AS, ii. 102) therefore estimates their infantry at c. 24,ooo
and their ca,·alry at about 2,4oo (including 400 Aetolian horse·
Livy, xxxiii. 3· g). This total included soo Cretans from Gortyn,
.300 Apolloniatae (probably from Illyria, not Crete. cf. Aymard, PR,
431 (addenda to p. 148 n. sz)), and 1,2oo Athamanians (Livy, xxxiii.
3· Io). In addition to their 400 horse the Aetolians sent infantry,
which Plutarch (Flam. 7· z) gi,·es as 6,ooo but Livy (xxxiii. 3· 9) as
only 6oo. Kromayer (AS, ii. Io2·J) accepts the lower figure, but the
Aetolian boast that they had won the battle (Lh·y, xxxv. 12. 15)
would be merely ludicrous if they contributed only I,ooo men in all
(cf. De Sanctis, iv. r. 78-79 n, 159); and that the boast had some
substance appears from Alcaeus' epigram quoted in Plut. Flam. 9· 2
(d. Anth. Pal. vii. 247), ALT(I),,WV 0JLrjfNvT€S v?T' J:lp€0<; ~Sol AaTlvwv,
oil<; TtTo<; €upel1)s ~yay' a?T' 'J.raAiTJS (cf. Strabo, ix. 441). Thus over
8,ooo of Flamininus' troops were Greeks, leaving z8,ooo for the Roman
army. According to Lh·y, xxxiii. I. z, Flamininus had 2,ooo hastati
in his legions, compared with the normal figure of I,zoo (cf. vi. 21. 9)
or 1,6oo, if one includes the assigned number of 400 uelitcs (Yi. 24. 4);
however, z,ooo hastati implies z,ooo principes (vi. 21. 10), in both cases
probably including soo uelites. Thus there were in each of the first
two sections an additional4oo, giving a legion of s,ooo (or 5.Ioo if the
triari£, who remained at 6oo, also had an increased assignment of
uelites); see Kromayer, ii. IOI n. I. Two legions gh·e c. Io,ooo
men, to which must be added about the same number of socii
(vi. z6. 7; d. iii. IOj. r2): total about zo,ooo foot. But in addition to
the 8,ooo Greeks Flamininus' total of c. 26,400 included 2,400 cavalrr.
hence there can have been only I6,ooo Homan and allied infantry.
This leads Kromayer (loc. cit.) to reject Plutarch's figures for the
Aetolians; but the discrepancy disappears if Flamininus had left
c. 4,ooo men on garrison duty (DeSanctis, iv. I. 79 n. 159). The excess
in Macedonian losses is not surprising in view of the collapse of the
Macedonian phalanx.
28-32. Discussion of the phalanx: the passage in vi where P. promised

this comparison between legion and phalanx has not survived; but
it is typical of P. to prefer to attach such a discussion to a specific
occasion rather than to treat it in the abstract (cf. vii. 13. z, -roD ilv
f?Tayy€t..lq. Kat </Ja<.m fLOIIOII EipYJfJ·fiiOU viJv 8t' QTJTWI' iu)v ?Tpayp.cf-rwv T~v
'ITlanv €l.\1J,P6Tos).
XVIII. z8. r LEGIO~ AXD PHALANX
28. 1. ev evayyeA.(~ KaTa.Amwv: 'leaving it as a promise', cf. vii. I3. 2
(just quoted).
3. vAeovaKtS yeyove ••• EiLaKpuns: at Cynoscephalae, Magnesia,
Pydna, and Corinth, to quote major engagements.
5. iva. 11-.l TUXfl" A.eyovTes KTA.: as elsewhere, P. rejects Tyche as an
explanation when there are genuine reasons to hand; cf. Vol. I,
p. 22, and passages there quoted.
flO.Ka.p(~wflEV ••• O.Myws: 'to congratulate the victors without giving
the reasons (for their victory)'; contrast Bauf.Laswf.L<'V KaTa Aoyov,
'offer a reasoned tribute of admiration'.
8. aTpaTf)you ••• va.pa.vAf)ala.v SUva.~tLV exovTos :A.vvi~~: P. Scipio.
9. TouTots OLETeAecre XPWf1Evos: for Hannibal's use of Roman arma-
ments cf. xv. I3. 9 n. (at Zama Hannibal's rear lines are equipped
with hastae, like the Roman triarii).
10. nuppos ••• 'ha.ALKO.tS auyKEXPflTO.L: apparently he adopted the
manipular system, which was evidently used by Italians as well as
Romans (cf. u~veque, 542); see the next note. Whether he left gaps
between the units is not stated, but it is improbable since it would
expose the right-hand man in each group of phalangites.
nOels eva.AM.~ Uflfl.O.LO.V KO.L avelpa.v <j>a.Aa.yyLTLK~V: see ii. 60. 5 n.,
where Antigonus Doson follows Pyrrhus' example at Sellasia, al-
ternating chalcaspides and Illyrians, just as Pyrrhus alternated
maniples and phalanx units. See the same note on (}''1T<'tpa.
11. O.ei 'ti"WS af1<j>L0o~a.: unjust to Pyrrhus who was undoubtedly vic-
torious at Heraclea and Ausculum; this passage cannot therefore
be used (as by Beloch, iv. 1. 557 n. I, who also adduces Iustin. xxv.
5· 5) as evidence that the battle of Beneventum was indecisive. See
Leveque, 5:!5.
12. xapLV TOU flf)OEV aVTEIL<j>O.LVELV Tals ... O.wo<j>O.aeaLV: 'so that
nothing may go unnoticed which contradicts my statements'.
29. 1-30. 4. The 1lfacedonian phalanx.

29. 1. T-.)v auTfjS iSuSTf)TO. KO.l OUVO.ILLV: cf. § 5·
2. iaTaTO.L cruv TOLS O'ti"AOLS ev Tplcri. 'ti"OO"L: i.e. when the phalanx is
closed up for battle (Kant TUS' £vaywvlous- '1TUI<vwaus-: cf. 24. 8 n.). P.
is evidently reckoning from right shoulder to right shoulder; but
there appears also to have been a 3 ft. interval between chest and
chest from front to back, as the calculations concerning the sarisae
show (cf. Ael. Tact. I4).
KO.Ta TUS eva.ywvlous 'ti"UKVWO"EIS: on P.'s use of the technical term
m)Kvwa~s-. for a close formation, normally as here allowing 3 fef'l
per man, see ii. 6g. 9 n.; Asclep. Tact. 4· I ; Arr. Tact. I2. 6; Ael.
Tact. II. 3·
To ••• TWV aa.ptawv f1Eye9os: in the time of Alexander the longest
sarisa was not more than 12 cubits (Theophr. His!. plant. iii. I2. 2.
5s6
LEGIOX ~\:\D PHAL.\XX XVHI. 29. 6
d. Asclep. Tact. 5· r) Tarn, HMN D, rs~~16, argues that this may he

il smaller Macedonian cubit, gidng a length of only about 13 ft.,
since Alexander used phalangites for forced marches and since the
same satisae were used by cavalry; but an alternative explanation
would be sarisae of different lengths {which the writers on tactics
certainly assume: e.g. Asclep. Tact. 5· r). By the second century,
as P. here indicates, sarisae were much longer and all of the same
length, which came to 21 ft. (14 cubits). See further Kromayer-Veith,
Heerwesen, 134 ff.
ICO.TO. ••• T~V t~ O.pxfis urro9eaw ICT)..: P. means 'earlier' though he
says 'originally'. Polyaenus (ii. 29. 2) records a sarisa of r6 cubits at
the time of Cleonymus of Sparta (c. 3oo B.c.); see also Arr. Tact. 12. 7
(reading 7T~X"'s for 11o8as); Leo, Tact. 5· 3. 6. 39; Const. Porph. Tact. r.
By the end of the third century the 14-cubit sarisa was normal.
KaTO. SE TTJY O.p11oyT)v Ttl" rrpo<; TT)v 0.).~9elav: 'but as adapted to
current practice': P. probably knew the r6-cubit sarisa only from
tactical handbooks. By experiment F. Lammert (RE, 'sarisse', cols.
2517-19) demonstrated that a spear 6·5 metres long (r4 cubits, reckon-
ing 46•2 em. to the cubit), of ash, required a diameter of 5 em. taper-
ing to 3 em. to be rigid in the shock, and that such a spear would
weigh about 6 kg. including the iron tip.
3. TO Ka'nSmv at1~<w11a Tfjs rrpol3oA~<;: 'the counter-weight behind to
the projecting part'. There is no evidence for any metal tip at the
back to help counter-balance the front (Lammert, RE, 'sarisse',
col. 2519).
4. Setco. '~~'TJXELS rrporr(rrn~v 6.v6.yK'I'): ro cubits, i.e. about T5 ft. There
is no reason to change 7T~xm· to '"68as with Rlistow and Kochly,
Geschichte des griechischen Kriegswesens (Aarau, T852), 238, a hypo-
thesis which long found acceptance. The same account as in P. is
also to be found in Asclep. Tact., 5· r and Arrian, Tact. 12. j-II ; in
Arrian, who reckons with a 16-cubit sarisa m)oas must be emended
to ~xn>, to match the other evidence. Lammert (RE 'sarisse',
cols. :z5r8-19) calculates that v•ith a distance of about 3 ft. between
left and right hands a pressure of about 6 kg. would have to be
exerted by the right hand to maintain the sarisa couched in position.
5. rrAeiov: i.e. more than those of the fifth rank.
KaT' emaTO.TTJv Ko.t KaTa rro.po.aTaTTJV: 'as regards both depth and
breadth': but only depth is really relevant here; d. 3o. 8.
6. w<;; ''O!!T)po<; urroliELtcvuaLv: Iliad, xiii. 131-~3 and xvi. 215-17; d.
xii. 21. 3 n. for a hint at this passage. There was a tradition linking
Philip ll's phalanx \\ith Homer: cf. Diod. xvi. 3· z, J.up.:qa&,Levos
T6v iv Tpolf!- Twv rypwwv crwaamap.Dv; Livy, xxxiii. 8. 14. But the
hoplite phalanx is quite unknown to Homer and these lines have no
relevance to it. See Kromayer, Hermes, 19oo, zr8-41; H. L. Lorimer,
B SA, 1947, II3-14· The argument that this quotation from Homer
587
XVIII. 29.6 LEGION A!':D PHALA:'{X
was a later insertion (so \Vunderer, ii. 24~6) is unconvincing, despite
its inappropriateness and the repetition of phraseology in §§ r and 5·
7. 8uai rri}xEa~ ••• Ko:ra fLTjKos: 'each point being at a distance of
2 cubits from the next'. Lammert (RE, 'sarisse', cols. ::522ft.) rejects
P.'s evidence here, and prefers to believe that the spears of the
first fh·e ranks varied in length so as to confront the enemy with
five points all together, and to assume that the epitomator has cor-
rupted what P. wrote. But the text is perfectly clear and affords no
gronncls for rejecting P. in favour of a quite different arrangement
which is that described in schol. ad fl. xiii. 130 (codex Marcianus).
That the sarisae of the first th·e ranks could not strike the enemy
simultaneously is a theoretical rather than a practical objection. It
might appear that, when the ranks closed up in the actual fighting
(d. 30. 4), more than the points would project beyond the front line;
but until this moment arrived, it 'vould be dangerous for the men
below to have their sarisae lowered, and consequently, w·hen thr
ranks did close up, the probability is that the sarisae of these ranks
remained pointing upwards. At any rate, no ancient author mention;.,
more than the spears of fi,·t' ranks projecting.
30. 1. £"' ~KKa.tOEKa To ~0.9os ooaa.v: sixteen ranks was the normal
depth for the Macedonian phalanx, but \'ariants were easily achiewd
(cf. ii. 66. 9 n., 32 ranks at Sellasi<1; xii. rg. 6, 8 ranks at Issns; Ael.
Tact. 4· 3; Asclep. Tact. 2. r).
l. OO'OL <TO> rri(.L1TTOV ~uyov vrrepa.(poual: 'those further back than tlw
fifth rank': the sarisae of the sixth rank reach only to the first
rank, since they project r 5 ft. (1o cubits), <1nd each rank is 3 ft.
(z cubits) deep.
oiio( rrotouvTa.• KaT' avOpa '""v rrpo~oATjv: 'they do not }e,·el them
man against man' do the first five ran h).
3. xupw TOU . ' . nucj)(I.ALtfw TijS EKTa;ews: 'in order to protect the
formation from above'.
4. aoT~ •.. T~ Tou o-tilfLaTos ~apu •.. mEtouvns: cf. Ael. Tact. 14. 6,
K:al oi Tiji £K-rrp f.cptrrrTJKfJT€<;, d Kat p,~ ail-ral:c; -rare; aaplaat<;, -riji 8J f3apu
-rwv awp,&-rwv gwE77~p€tDm-·; Arr. Tact. 12. 10, wa-n £KaaTav Or.-ALT1)1'
~g uapl(TaL<; mrppaxOo.. Kal -rai:<; (so MSS.; ~g Roos; d. Ael. Tact. I-t. sl
ouv&p,€aLIJ E1TEpE()!etv o-rro• lmf3pla€ta.Jl; Asclep. Tact. 5· 2.
30.5-11. Roman disposition. On the manipular arrangement d. X\

9· n. The present passage is concerned with the space occupi,,d
by the legionary and has aroused much discussion, mainly on tlw
interpretation of§ 6 and§§ 8-----9. But P. is in fact merely saying thai
the legionary, like the phalangite, needs 3 ft. in close formatir)JJ,
shoulder to shoulder (§ 6), but since his special form of fighting 1 •
¥.-i.th the sword he needs a space of 3 ft. clear between himself and
sss
LEGION AND PHALANX XVIII. 30. 5-rr
the next man (§ 8); hence when legion meets phalanx, each front-
line legionary faces the spears of two files of phalangites. The 3 ft.
of § 6 is the space the man himself needs, the 3 ft. of § 8 are needed
to manceuvre in: the total required is 6 ft. There is no contradiction
between § 6 and § 9 and no need for emendation of the text or for
the untestified assumption that the phalangite's space was 1! ft.
(so Delbriick: 29. 2 refutes it); nor is DeSanctis' theory (iii. 2. 144 ff.)
acceptable, that the legionary had only 3 ft., but because of his
movements he had to take account of two files of phalangites (while
each file of phalangites had to take account of two legionaries) for
this would make P.'s comment truly banal.
The real problem is to fit P.'s statement into the context of a battle.
}{oman tactics clearly varied between mass-advance and the shock
of contact with the enemy's forces, and indi\·idual swordsmanship.
For the former a close formation was essential, and it is presumably
this that P. has in mind in his reference to 3 ft. in § 6. Meyer (Kl.
Schr. ii. 209 n. r) argues that the shock method was used only as a
final resource, when the hand-to-hand fighting of the hastati and
principes had failed to achieve a decision, and no doubt the impor-
tance of the shock has been exaggerated by Krornayer (AS, iii. I.
346 ff.) and Veith (ibid. iii. 2. 694 f.). However, as often happened
in the later era of the cohort (d. Caesar, BG, iii. 2. 4 and passim),
the Romans must frequently have routed an inferior enemy prima
impetu (cf. Veith, Heerwesen, 364-5), and it seems over-schematic to
assume a tactic which only employed the mass charge in the final
stage of the battle. How then did the army com·ert itself from the
3 ft. to the 6 ft. basis? The maniples were, of course, separated from
each other by intervals, probably of the same width as the maniples
themselves (d. xv. 9· 6---9 n.), and Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 206 ff.), follow-
ing Delbriick and Steinwender, argues that, in order to achieve the
looser formation, the maniples extended themselves by a voluntary
sideways movement of the legionaries to fill up the inten·als be-
tween the maniples; note that such a movement would also have to
occur in a frontwards and backwards direction, since there was
a 6ft. interval in all directions in the looser formation. Alternatively,
as Veith and Kromaycr argue, the gaps between the maniples re-
mained intact, and the 6 ft. interval, which need only have applied
to the first rank, could easily be achieved by each alternate man's
dropping back a place and joining the remaining ranks behind (AS,
iii. 1. 365; d. HZ, 95. HJOS, r6). Since it is not easy to see a function
for the gaps and the quincunx arrangement (d. xv. 9· 6""9 n.). if it
was to be abandoned in the hand-to-hand fighting, the second alter-
nati\·e seems perhaps the more probable, the gaps remaining for the
bringing up of principes and even, if need be, triarii to relieve the
tired or wounded hastati, either as individuals or as whole maniples.
XVIII. 3o . .5 LEGION AKD PHALANX
Our sources give no clear indication of how this relief was carried
out; but the gaps seem the obvious way. If on the contrary 'Meyer
were right and the intervals were filled during battle by the sideways
expansion of the maniples, it would be odd that we nowhere have any
reference to this process nor is there any technical term to describe it.
For further discussion see Kromayer, AS, iii. I. 347-82; Veith, AS,
iii. 2. 688-·702; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 144-57; Delbri.ick, i3 • 349, 432-41,
457-{)o; Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 195-223; and the convenient summary
by Veith, Heerwesel!, 356-73. See also works by Delbri.ick, Giesing.
Kromayer, Lammert, Meyer, Steinwender, and Veith quoted ibid.
356 n. 3·
6. i:aTaVTa.L ..• ev TpLat '!Tout ••• Ka.t 'PwJ.La.l:oL: like the phalangite;;
{29. z) the Romans require a minimum of 3 ft. from right shoulder
to right shoulder, including their arms; and this will likewise bP
true in the direction front to back.
7. T"ls J.LaXT}5 ••• TTjv KivT)aLv >.a.J.L~a.vouuT}S: 'but since in their mode
of fighting each man moves separately' (Paton).
T!j} ••• 9upt:!j}: the scutum; cf. vi. 23. z n.
uUJ.Lj.1ETa.n9£f1Evou~; aiEl. 'ITpos Tov ••• Kalpov: 'constantly turning
to meet the threatened blow'.
EK Ka.Ta.q,opas Ka.l 6uup€u,ws: 'both for cutting and thrusting'.
Ka7'at:foopd. is 'cutting-stroke' (d. ii. 33· 3, 33· 5, vi. 23. 4; elsewhere it
can mean 'cutting-edge'; cf. iii. rq. 3 n.), and fhalpcm<: is 'a thrust'
(d. fg. 202, p.axordvwv EK ou.upEO'EW<; Tafs- p.axalpa<S'), for which P.
elsewhere uses the phrase £~< omA~t/Jcw> (ii. 33· 6, xi. r8. 4, of a spear~
butt). See Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 204 n. 3·
8. xaXa.a1u1 Ka.t 6~a0'7'a.aw: 'a looser order and an interval between
them', rather than 'a relaxing and opening up', with the idea of
motion, a meaning given to the phrase by Krornayer, Hermes, r9oo,
245-{) (but P. offers no parallels for this use of the two words). The
minimum of 3 ft. represents a clear space between each man and
the next and excludes the 3 ft. already mentioned in § 6. See above,
5-II n.
KaT' E'ITlO'Tan1v Kat ~ea.TO. 1Ta.pa.uTaTTJv: cf. 29. 5·
9. TclV £va. 'PwJ.La.iov ••• Ka.Ta Suo ••• Twv cpa.Aa.yy~Twv: the phalan-
gites occupying 3 ft. (29. 3) and the legionaries 6 (§§ 6 and 8).
S£Ka. uapLcra.s: five projecting from each file (29. i)·
11. w~; ev &.pxa.t, E1'1Ta.: cf. 2 9. 1.
31. 2. ciopiaTous ••• Tous KO.lpous KO.L Tous Tt)1Tous: 'the times and
places for action are unlimited'.
~va. Ka.Lpov ••• Ka.t Tcmwv €v y£vos: the one type of place is descriL, ., I
in§ 5; by €va. ~<atpoY P. means that if the enemy declines battle wh1'II
the side with the phalanx offers it, and instead adopts other tacti, .
(§§ 8 ff.), the formation is quite useless.
590
LEGION AND PHALANX XVIII. 33· z
4. ~KKA(v~w: 'to take evasive action'; or the object to be supplied
is To auV'TayfLa in the next line.
5. ~1mr€8wv Ka.~ q,~:>..Gw: 'level and open', i.e. not woody.
O'UYO.yKda.s, Ocj>pUS: 'depressions, ridges'; mwayKEtm are 'the meeting-
points of waters'; Paton mistranslates 'clumps of trees'. drf>puc; can
be eminences or steep river banks.
7. ~1T~ cr1'a.Mous e'{Koa~ K1'A.: cf. xii. 19. 9, 21. 3, where P. argues (not
always logically) that Alexander required at least 20 stades for his
phalanx at Issus; xii. 20. 2 makes the same criticism made here.
8. 1'-/jv 1'Gw o-u11116.xwv: the allies of the power using the phalanx.
12. ~po.x£a. 8£ cpuyo11o.x~o-n: 'but withholds a little of his forces from
the conflict'.
32. 2. 1Tomv ..• 1'ol:s aTpo.1'o1Tk8ots: with all their legions: contrast
3r. 12 where a'Tpan51Ttc8ov is 'army' .
.,.a, 11£v €cj>e8pE~Et: i.e. the priHcipes and triarii, who are not engaged
at once.
5. T61Tos, ov oOTo~ KO.Tetxov: 'the space which the phalanx occupied'.
trAo.ylous •.• Ko.i Ka.TO. vwTou: 'in the flanks and rear'.
6. f!48~ov n: Bekker's emendation for cJTJ, which Pedech (cf. his note
on xii. 25. z) would keep since P. uses the optative with O.v occasion-
ally to express repetitive action in the past (ct x. 3· 7, where Dindorf
emends the MS. /ha.v to th'); but here a causal sense is requireu, so
perhaps the emendation is preferable.
9. 1TW\i ou ••• Twv 1TpoEtPT'I!l(vwv: 'Joes it not follow that in practice
the difference between these two systems is enormous?' (Shuck-
burgh).
7. 1TO.po.80~ots tmcpo.vEta.ts 1TEpt1TEo-e'tv: 'meet with unexpected ap-
pearances of the enemy' (Shuckburgh).
9. Ka.1'a Tay11a.: 'in detachments'.
10. 1Tpos 1Taao.v E:mcj>6.v~~a.v: 'to meet every attack' (d. § 7} or 'to
face in any direction' (cf. xv. 7, p.J.xwea.~ Trpos miaasT<:ls tn~rf>a.vtcla;;).
II. T-/jv all1'1lv ~XEt 8ta0Eaw: equally well prepared'.
12. TTJ\i Ko."Ta 11kpos ellxpTiaT(o.s: 'the effective use of the parts'.
13. 1TOAAous Twv 'EXXi}vwv 8ta.Aa.!l~O.vnv KTA.: P.'s purpose is to
instruct his fellow-countrymen; cf. ii. 35· g.
33. 2. Ets 1'ofJV A6.ptao.v ••• "Twa. 1'WV u1Ta.a1TtcrTwv: on Philip's hypas-
pists see v. 27. 3 n. Philip had marched south from Larissa (19. 3),
which evidently served as his base for the expedition, hence the
royal records there. For Philip's own movements immediately after
the battle see 27. r-2.
1rpay11a. ~aatA~Kov: ni ... 1To~<ta8at is in apposition (d. xii. 28. 10).
The phrase To ~.:a.OijKov need not indicate Stoic sympathies in P. (so
von Scala, 330).
59 I
XVIIL 33· 3 AFTER:\IATII OF CYNOSCEPHALA.E:
3. Twv U'ITOf.l.VTJf.LCtTWv: Philip's ephemerides, or official records of pub-
lic business, part of the nonnal apparatus of Hellenistic kings since
Alexander, kept in diary form aml recording all that concerned
the king; cf. Wilcken, Phil. r894, So ff.; Kaerst, RE, 'Ephemerides'.
cols. 2749-53· They are often called lnrol-'-'"tJf-La.To., but must be dis-
tinguished from memoirs; cf. Polyaen. iv. 6. 2 (an Antigonus); Ps.-
Lucian, Encom. Dem. 26 (general reference to the ~facedonian house);
and for Ptolemaic ephemerides cf. Aristeas, ep. ad Philoc. 298 Wend-
land; cf. Jacoby, FGII, commentary on voL ii BD, p. 639,
11. 22-35·
4-7. Philip's reaction to the disaster: P. discusses Philip's character
and the changes in it at various points: it dearly fascinated him.
For his early impulse br~ To 3€ov (which coincided \\i.th his support ol
Achaea under the influence of Aratus) cf. iv. 77. r-4, 82. I, vii. n. 8;
for his change for the worse cf. iv. 77· 4, v. g. r-12. 8, vii. n-q.
viii. 8. 1· 4, I2. 1-8, iX. 2J. 9, X. 26, 7-10.
6. f.l.ET' &.,.o8t:[~t:ws t~'lY'l<7af.L€9a.: cf. iii. I. 3, x. 21. 3; see ii. 37. 3 n.
7. TTJV (.LETavoLa.v: 'change of mind, disposition' rather than 'repen
tance' (Shuckburgl1).
(.L~<Ta.IIE(.LEvo'S TOL'S £K Ti]'S TVX'I')S tAnTTW(.Laaw: either one mnst read
f-L£Ta.nf:Jif-LEVO> with Reiske, 'altered by the disasters inflicted by For-
tune', or aUf-Lf-LETaf:Jef-LEVa>, 'changing to suit the disasters, etc.' (d.
ix. 23. 4, Tai> nvv 7TpO.yf-LaTwv f-LETa{1oAa.is aviLf-LETa.TlHwOa.~) ; Casaubon
adopts the second translation without adapting the text.
EOAoyLaT<JTnTn ••• KEXpfJa9nl: 'to haYe faced the crisis in his affairt'
with great prudence'; Paton adds superfluously 'until his death'.
34. l-39. 7. Aftermath of Cynoscephalae

There is a small lacuna between 3.3· 8 and 34· r, as can be seen from
Livy, xxxiii. 2-7, from P.; it contained a description of the sending
of a herald by Philip, ostensibly to ask for a truce to bury the dead.
but in fact to ask for permission to send envoys. Flamininus granted
both requests, adding the encouragement bono animo esse regem. Thi"
led the Aetolians to complain of his changed manner since the vic-
tory, his failure to consult the allies and the withholding of their fai1
share of the spoils of victory; d. Pint. Flam. 9· 2. 5· For an analysis
of this passage see Holleaux, E't1.,des, v. 86-IoJ.
34. 1. Tfj ••• 'ITAEovE~L\1- TWv Ahw?.wv: cf. Livy, xxxiii. II. 8, 'sed l'l
suscensebat non immerito Aetolis ob insatia hilem auidita tern praecb ·
et arrogantiam eorum, uictoriae gloriam in se rapientium, qu;w
uanitate sua omnium aures offendebat'.
¢1iAL'IT'ITov EK~af..wv EK TTj<; O..pxijs KTA.: Livy, xxxiii. II. 9, translat• ,,
'et Philippa sublato, fractisopibus Macedonici regni Aetolos habendo"
592
AFTET(:\[A TH OF CY:\OSCEPlL\L\E XVTli. 3+· o
Graeciae dominos cenwbat', where the ablatives are dearly con-

ditional, like the participle here. Translate: 'he did not wish to expel
Philip from his kingdom and so leave etc.': cf. 36. 7, Alexander of
Aetolia JLlav {nrapxEtv €¢7J 8t.£\vatv 7rpo> MaK<8ova>, To cPl>. t7T7Tov lK{3a'A-
'Anv €K riJ> d.pxij>. Paton and Shuckburgh both take €K{3a'Awv to refer
to Cynoscephalae; see Holleaux, Etudes, v. 97 n. 4·
2. O.vnmypa~o1-1£vous hrl. To VLKTJI-La: 'laying claim to the victory
in his place'. An example of this is the epitaph by Alcaeus of l'vlessene,
which according to Plutarch (Flam. 9· 2) irritated Flamininus more
than Philip :
.ilKAavaTO£ Kal li8a7TTOL, o8o{7Top£, Tcjl8' €7T1 VWTI.tJ
EhaaaA{TJ'> Tptaaal K£iJL<8a J.WptaO<>,
AlTwAwv 8JL7J8€vns {m' JlpEo<; ~8€ /laTivwv,
OV<; TiTo<; dp<iTJ> Tjyay' a?T' 'ha'Al1)<;,
'HJLa8ln JLEYa TTijJLa· nl 8€ 8paav K<tvo qJtM7T7Tov
TTv<fiJLa 8owv J'Acf,Pwv o/x<T' D.a¢poT<pov
(Anth. Pal. vii. 247).
On this poem, the two middle lines of which were inserted later,
see Walbank, CQ, 1943, I-3 (where, however, the view that Alcaeus
had originally been a supporter of Philip is to be rejected; d. Edson,
CP, I9.f8, n6-2I). For Philip's retort cf. Anth. Pal. appendix, x,·i.
26 B (Plut. Flam. g. 3) and (probably by Philip) A nth. Pal. ix. 520.
The Aetolians had probably a better claim to the victory than the
Achaean historian \viii allow, as a basis for their boasting (for which
d. Livy, xxxv. 12. IS): Holleaux, CAH, viii. 175 n. I; De Sanctis,
iv. 1. 87.
3. KQ,Tcl TE Tel') EVTEUgEL') •.• a1TljVTa: 'wherever he met them, he
treated them with arrogance'.
rrepl. Twv Kowwv: 'on matters of common interest'; d. Holleaux,
E'tudes, v. IOI n. 2.
5lel Twv tMwv ~(Awv: the amici who normally accompany a Roman
general or governor; d. xi. 33· 8, xxi. 31. 2. Gelzer (Kl. Schr. i. Io3)
thinks these are referred to in vi. 3I. 2 ; but the following passage
suggests that P. is more likely thinking of euocati.
4. b.lJ!-LOo-OhT)s Kai KutcAlaOas tcnl. Al!-LVa~os: for Demosthenes and
Cycliadas d. r. 2; Limnaeus may be the man mentioned as a hostage
in xxix. 4· 6.
5. o-u1-1rropeueo-8aL T(i? cplAL1T1Tf.tl: 'to meet Philip'; not 'to return with
them to confer with Philip' (Paton). This v\'ould have involved loss
of dignitas.
6. fimAauiws EgEKaETo Tel Tijs urr01¥£as: that the Aetolians had already
been irritated by Flamininus' friendly reception of Philip's herald
is recorded by Li\'y, xxxiii. I 1. 4, from the passage of P. which stood
in the bcuna between 33· 8 and 34· I; d. Holleaux, Etudes, v. 95--99·
814178 Qq 593
XVIII. 34· 7 AFTERMATH OF CY~OSCEPH.\L\E
7. 8wpE:cw 'll'pclTT'Eiv: 'to do something gratis'.

TOU xapaKTi}po~ ••• '!l'ap<t Tot~ AhwA.oic;: 'since this passes for current
coin among the Aetolians'; the metaphor is present in xapawrfjpos
('the stamp on a coin') as well as in the \'erb.
8. TO. 'Pw~ClLWV £6"1 KCli vo~l~tl: cf. vi. I, Trt 1TEpi Toils XPTJ/iaT~ap.oV>
lfhJ Kat v6p.tp.a.
35. Examples of Roman integrity. The reference to the fall of Carthagt'

in § 9 dates the composition of this chapter after 146; but this in
itself does not mean that the chapter is a later insertion since there
is no evidence that P. had composed beyond xv or xvi before that
date. However, 1 is a reference forward to the account of Aemilins
Paullus and the younger Scipio in xxxi. zz-so; cf. xxxi. 22. 4 and
perhaps 23. r for references back to the present chapter. But thi,.;
later digression, which is also much concerned with the question of
Roman integrity (cf. xxxi. z2. I-Tr, 25. 9, etc.), contains a hint ol
Scipio's death (xx.xi. 28. IJ), and though this could be a later insertinn,
it ~:,>ives some support to the suggestion (Gelzer, Kl. Schr. iii. 2o7-f))
that xviiL 35 and xxxi. 22-30 were both written at the same time,
after Scipio's death in r2g. This cannot be proved with certainty,
and if true would not imply that P. changed his views on Rome in
a more pessimistic direction in his later years, since the present
criticism is couched in general terms, associating deterioration in
Roman character with the date when they undertook overseas wars,
which means from 200 onwards (§ I n.); see Brink and \Valbank,
CQ, I954. 105-i·
35. 1. ICClTQ ••• TOUS avwTipw xpovous: contrasted \Vith €v Ot TOts l!Vll
Kcupo'Ls. Both phrases are vague, but the reference to Sta1TdVTtot
?T6A£p.o•, prior to which the Romans maintained their own gf)TJ Kat
v6p.tp.a (cf. 34· 8) suggests that P. is thinking of the age of the eastern
wars from 200 onwards. In i. 71. 8 the First Punic War is called
DLa?Tovnos 1TdA£p.os; but this is in reference to Carthage, and in any
case P. cannot be thinking of so early a date, for in vi. 56. I he speak:-:
of Roman (ff)TJ Ko.t ~>6p.tp.a as still unimpaired, and though he uses the
present tense the context of his remarks is the time he is nominally
concerned with, that of Cannae. This association of moral deteriora-
tion with luxury following the eastern wars is also in the annalistic
tradition in Livy; cf. Livy, xxxix. 6. 7 for the introduction of luxun
to Rome as the aftermath of Manlius Vulso's Galatian expedition of
189; L. Piso, fg. 34 Peter Pliny, Nat. hist. xxxiv. r4. That this was
a contemporary view and not one later imposed on the tradition
appears from the events of Cato's censorship of r84, when a statLw
set up in his honour in the temple of Salus had the inscription statin1:
that 'when the Roman state was tottering to its fall, he was madt·
594
EXAMPLES OF ROMA~ INTEGRITY XVIII. 35· 6
censor and by helpful guidance, wise restraints and sound teachings
restored it again' (Plut. Cat. mai. 19. 3). See Brink and Walbank,
loc. cit. (in previous note).
2. Ko.T' tSlo.v: 'individually', as opposed to mtpl -rravTwv.
3. SU' bvofLO.To.: Reiske supplied the verb TTa.pa.O~aofLa.t or TTapl~ofLat.
4. AfHJKtos ••• AtfLIAtos: L Aemilius L.f. :M.n. Paull us was the son
of the consul who perished at Ca.nnae (cf. iii. r6. 7 n., 106. I~z, n6. 9).
As consul for the second time he conquered Perseus at Pydna in
168 (cf. xxix. I, 14 ; on his integrity cf. xxxi. zz. P.'s favourable
picture of Aemilius connects v.i.th his own position in the household
of Scipio Aemilianus (cf. Vol. I, pp. 3 ff.).
Tijs Mo.K€Oovwv ~o.cnAeio.s: 'the Macedonian kingdom' (not, with
Paton, 'the palace of the M:acedonian kings').
Tijs ••. KO.TO.O'K€UllS: 'booty'; cf. i. 19. rs, ii. 8. 4 (not specifically
'furniture' (Paton)).
v>.ei<u T(;w k~o.KtaXtAi<uv To.Aa.vTwv: the figure is variously given in our
sources. Livy (xlv. 40. I) records the total as 120 million sesterces
according to Valerius Antias, adding that if one added all his detailed
figures one would reach a yet higher totaL Velleius (i. 9· 6) gives zro
million sesterces and Pliny (Nat. hist. xxxiii. 56) 300 million; Plutarch
(Aem. Paul. 32-33) mentions 750 vases containing each 3 talents of
silver and 77 containing each 3 talents of gold (which De Sanctis,
iv. 1. 351 n. 302, converts into 5,022 talents of silver); and Diodorus,
xxxi. 8. n, gives various items which add up to over 6,ooo talents.
The last two coincide in many details. See further De Sanctis,
loc. cit. As a result of this addition to the treasury Ttaly henceforth
ceased to pay tributum (Cic. off. ii. 76; Plut. A em. Paul. 38. I; Pliny,
Nat. hist. xxxiii. 56).
6. fLt:To.AM.~avTos ••• TOV ~Lov: in 160 (Livy, ep. 46; cf. xxxi. zz. 1).
no1TA~os IKL1TLWV I(O.L K6LYTOS Ma.~~fLOS: Q. Fabius Q.f. Q.n. Maxim us
Aemilianus, the elder of the two brothers (cf. xxix. 14- z, xxxi. 24. 3),
was born about 186 and adopted into the Fabian house, probably
by the Q. Fabius Maximus who was praetor in 181; for his career see
below, xxix. q. z, xxxi. 22-24, 28, xxxiii. 7. 3 f., rz. z ff., 13. 4, xxxvi.
5· 8; l\fiinzer, RE, 'Fabius (109)', cols. 1792-4. His younger brother
was P. Cornelius P.f. P.n. Scipio Africanus Aemilianus, born two
years later (cf. xxxi. 24. 1}, probably early in 184 (cf. Miinzer, RE,
'Cornelius (335)', coL 1440); he is frequently mentioned from book
xxxvi onward. Both were sons of Paullus' wife Papiria, from whom
he was later divorced; on the birth of two sons by a second wife
he had his two eldest sons adopted into the Fabian and Carnelian
families (Vell. L 10. 3).
Tfi yuva~Kt nl" 4>epv1]v: her name is unknown. The Roman institu-
tion of dos, dowry, was designed to meet the onera matri'!1Wnii
and so secure the husband's economic position relative to his wife in
595
XVIII. 35· 6 EXAMPLES OF ROMAN INTEGRITY
marriages invoking no transfer of manus and so no possession of the
\.vife's whole property by the husband. Roman law distinguished
between dos projecticia, a dowry by the bride's father, and dos
adwmticia, that given by another, including the bride herself. If the
wife predeceased the husband, dos profectZ:cia normally returned to
her father, but dos aduenticia remained the property of the husband
unless the wife was still in her father's potestas, in which case tht·
dowry returned to him. However, the fate of the dowry in the cast'
of the husband's prior death was frequently covered by pacta dotalia
(dos recepticia) and some such agreement may have covered thr·
dowry in the present instance, so that the two brothers had to retum
it to their stepmother out of their father's estate. The word {3ovATJ
(Nvr€> (§ 6) should not be taken to indicate a voluntary act of
generosity for which there was no obligation. See Leonhard.
RE, 'dos', cols. r586-9; P. E. Corbett, The Roman Lari! of ItJarriag<'
(Oxford, 1930). 147-204, especially 182 ff.
TTJV €vSouxiav: 'household goods'.
Twv ~<TfJcrewv: 'real estates'; cf. xxxi. 22. 4· After all these debts had
been paid the residue of Paullus' estate came to 6o talents; cf. xxxi.
28. 3·
8. ~eai. Jl-6./ncrTa 1rept TouTo To Jl-Epos: 'and especially those concerned
with this', i.e. financial questions and matters involving fin an cia 1
integrity. That charges of extortion and peculation were among the
commonest forms of political warfare needs no illustration.
Sl<i TCl.S 1Tpos aAAYJAOUS Avn1TapaywyC.s: i.e. feuds between nobk
families; cf. Gelzer, Kl. Scltr. i. 8r n. I:Zi.
9. o •.• KaTn q,ucrw ulos: cf. i. 64. 6 n.
no1TALOU ... TOU fl€y6.A.ou I<:ATJ9EvTOS: P. Scipio Africanus the elder;
cf. xxxi. z6. r, 27. r, LKt1Ttwm<; -rav p.<:yr:iAov; Plut. A em. Paul. 2. -~;
Polyaen. viii. 14. 2. No Roman writer calls Africanus 'the Great', and
Sch\veighaeuser, ad loc., suggests that p.iya.c; has here the sense of
the Latin 'maior', 'the elder'. Although in iv. 2. 7 the phrase op.€yac:
€mKXryO<:t> .iiv-rioxos- certainly means 'Antiochus the Great' (see nob·
ad loc.), and no parallelis quoted forthe use of p.€yas as the equivalent
of maior, in both xxviii. 23. 4 and xxxi. rz. 8 the .!VIS. reads 1rpm{lvrl"'
for the elder Ptolemy (following Reiske, editors read 1Tpmf3vr€pot<)
and both that reading and p.<yr:iAov here may haYe the force of tlw
comparative.
Kup~os yevo11-evos Tt;s KapxTJ8ovos: in q6; cf. xxxviii. 19-22. c..;,.,.
abow, 35 n.
1rOAuXPTJfLOVE<rTaTTJ Twv .•. 1TOAEwv: c\·en after the loss of Spa11o
Carthage was able to save 1,ooo talents in addition to the war indeno
nity of 2oo talents per annum, since in rgr she offered to pay off tl..-
remaining balance of her indemnity in a single payment of S,oo·,
talents (Livy, xxxvi. 4-7). For an analysis of the sources of Puni<
596
EX.UIPLES OF ROMAl'\ I.:\TEGRITY XVIII. J7· 2
wealth see Kahrstedt, iii. I~J4o; G. and C. Charles-Picard, Daily

Lzfe in Carthage (New York, 1961), 59-rzS, I64-90.
10. p.~Tp~os wv ... ws 'Pwp.a.ios: 'only moderately well-off, for a
Roman'; P. has in mind the contrast between the vast fortunes of
the Roman nobiles and that of even a rich Greek. According to
xxi. z6. 14 Alexander the Isian, who was the richest man in Greece
(xxi. z6. 9), possessed a little over zoo talents, and this will have
been quite exceptional. Wunderer, i. II3, takes the sense to be 'of
only modest fortune, as Romans are', and suggests that Roman
simplicity was proverbial; the error of this view had already been
exposed by Schweighaeuser, ad loc.
12. C.va.f-1-.f.u,.~tiT'IlTov ••• n)v •.• So~a.v: cf. xxxi. 25. 9, 7TEpt T<l
XP~f-1-aTa .•• Ka8apcm7n.
36. 1. OLKEtu)npov ••• Kalpov: xxxi. :u-30; see especially xxxi. 22. 4
(and perhaps 23. r) for reference back to this chapter.
Ta.~O.f-1-Evos TjtJ.€pa.v:
as he had promised Philip's envoys, 34· 5·
2. ToG auv~<Sp£ou auva.x9enos il~ a..:nwv TouTwv: 'while the council
was composed exclusively of them'; but there were other Romans
present (37. lO ).
4. 'TTpovota.v a.uTov 1TOttiaa.otla.L 71'avTa.s KTA,: misrepresented by Livy,
xxxiii. 12. 2, 'ita componendam pacem esse, ut Graecia etiam ab-
sentibus Homanis satis potens tuendae simul pads libertatisque
esset'.
5. ;4.A~;~avSpos o AtTwAOs: probably Alexander •law>; cf. 3· I n.
7. rqv TTjS 1TO.Tp(5os 1Tpo9E.(JlV • , • t<ai TaS tfi{a.s urroax£a£LS: the free-
dom of the Greeks from interference by Philip \vas implicit in the
ultimatum delivered at Abydus (x\"i. J-1· 3) and in Flamininus' de-
mands in the Aous pass (Livy, xxxii. ro. 3); also no doubt in Apus·
tius' approach to the Aetolians (Livy, xxxi. 46. s. Romanis amnia
pollicentibus).
To ct>(At1T1TOY i~e~aAA£w it< Tfjs &.pxijs: which Flarnininus was not
prepared to do (34· r).
37. l. ovn yap 'Pwp.a.[ous •.• E09€ws nva.O'TUTOUS 'TTOtEiY: cf. App.
Mac. 9· According to Roman doctrine the iustum bellum was fought
to right a \Hong, and this view P. approves; cf. v. II. s. ov yap J1r'
tl?TwAdq. I3Ei: Kat d<foavtafl!f> TOt<; ayvo~aaat 7TOAt:p.EtV TOU<; dyaBork avSpa<;
ill' i?T/. 13top6w(u;.t Ka/. flE.Taf:Ma<t nvv -?flapT'YJf-1-Evwv; see below, § 7. On
the Romans specifically see xxiv. Io. rr. Limited aims were also
normal in Hellenistic warfare generally; cf. vii. 9 n. for Hannibal's
treaty \Vith Philip, the terms of which indicate that he too did not
endsage the annihilating of Rome in the e\'ent of victory; for an
earlier period see Thuc. iv. r9. 2; Xen. Cyr. vii. r. 41. If, as seems
likely, this part of the Histories was composed after I-+6, the words
597
XVIII. 37· 2 AFTERJI.L\ TH OF CYXOSCEPHAL.\E
T6 1rpwTov 1roAE!L~aavra<; will have a special significance in relation

to Carthage.
5. TWY 1T€pl. TTj~ s~a.A.)CJ€w~ auAA6ywv: in Locris; cf. I-12.
6. 6.yvwJ.LoveaTa.Tov: cf. xxiii. 18. 2. The word implies both folly and
lack of feeling; translate 'inconsiderate'.
7. 1ToA£J.LoOvm~ yap 8£i KTA.: cf. xxvii. 8. 8, where P. states this to be
Roman policy. It is, of course, the doctrine enshrined in Yirgil's
famous line 'parcere subiectis et debellare superbos' (Aen. vi. 853),
and the claim to behave generously is implicit in much second-
century publicity, as seen especially in contemporary Greek inscrip-
tions; cf. Syll. 593 (Flamininus writing to Chyretiae c. 196/4), 6or
(:M. Valerius Messalla writing to Teos in 193), 618 (letter of the Scipios
to Heracleia on Latmos; cf. De Sanctis, Atti Ace. Torino, 1921j2,
242-9), 676 (Elean decree honouring L. Mummius). See further H.
Volkmann, Hermes, 1954, 474 ff. (though his argument that P.
is the source of a theme that the Romans were universal bene-
factors by virtue of ridding the world of Carthaginians, as if they
were wild beasts-a theme attributed to a Roman speaker debat-
ing the fate of Carthage in 201 by Diod. xxvii. 18. 3-is not con-
vincing).
9. TTjS 9p~KWV KO.L f a.Aa.TwV va.pa.VOJ.Lia.s: cf. ix. 34· I I n. for tJw
traditional violence of the Gauls, and ix. 35· 3 n. for the argument
that Macedonia forms a traditional bulwark for Greece against the
barbarians. Cf. Holleaux, CAH, viii. 177 n. I, '(the argument) lost not
a little of its force when it was advanced by the ally of the Iilyrians,
the Thracians and the Dardanians'.
11. <lla.weou : cf. I. 4 n.
12. mh69£v e~ e8pa.s: taken by Schweighaeuser (and Shuckburgh)
to mean 'leaping at once from his seat' ; but the Homeric parallels
II. xix. 77 ; Od. xiii. 56) make it clear that the sense is \vithout rising
from his seat' (so Paton). This would be an added insult to the
Aetolians (cf. Suet. Div. Jul. 78. 1). Cf. Wunderer, ii. 31 n.
38. 1. lmneJ.Lno Tas 'ITavTwv bpJ.Lcis: 'he diverted their strong feel
ings'; cf. xx. 9· 8.
3. b .•• Twv AhwAwv: he was general at this time, but probablv
'delegate' is the word understood here.
Acip~aa.v •.• 'Exivov: for these tmvns and the Aetolian claim to theur
see 3· 12 n.
4. 9t1~a.s 8e J.Lbvov: Flamininus' concession here had no form" I
validity, but would need later confirmation. 47· 8 suggests that ti..-
Aetolians now assumed it would be theirs, and it does not fig11r ,.
by name among the other towns on which decisions were taken (cl
Livy, xxxiii. 49· 8); nor does Alexander the Isian complain of beirw
cheated of it in 195 (Livy, xxxiv. 23. 7). Therefore, although it mu~r
598
AFTER!\1ATH OF CYNOSCEPHALAE XVIII. 38.9
have formed an isolated piece of Aetolian territory (d. Flaceliere,
349 n. 3), it must be assumed that the Aetolians got Thebes.
5. eyy(cra.VTOS a.ihou: cf. r8~33 D.; Livy, XXXiii. 5· 1-3.
7, Ka.Ta T~V ES apxTjs O'U!J.p.a.xta.\1; cf. 47• 8, 48. 7; the alliance Of 2II
(cf. ix. z8~39 n., 39· 3 n.). For the terms see also xi. 5· 5· iA611Twv
(Biittner-Wobst and Paton) is a misprint for &.\6wrwv (see Hultsch).
8. Ka8' ov Ka.Lpov TdoS lha~ucrELS ~'II'OLTJO"avTo: in the separate peace
made between Aetolia and her Greek enemies in autumn 2o6 (Livy,
xxix. I 2. r, cf. Livy, xxxYi. 31. n ; above xi. 7. 2-3 n.).
9. Kop.(~ea9aL Ka.i. '11'apa~a.p.l3avew: 'recover and take over'; there is
no substantial difference of meaning.
OUK er TW£S eii£~0VTfJV aopas ••• evexelpLO'Il\1 KTA.: Flamininus asserts
that even if the alliance of zrr still subsisted the Aetolians would
be entitled only to such cities as had been taken by force, and not
those which surrendered voluntarily. The implication is clearly that
the treaty of 211 laid do-w11 those conditions, and it is difficult
to see how Stier (27) can paraphrase: 'und wenn das Biindnis noch
weiter dauere, so unter anderen Bcdingungen', and go on to describe
the conditions mentioned by Flamininus not as part of the terms of
2u, but simply as the usual rules of war. Flamininus' statement
creates problems. The first point, that the Thessalian cities do not
appear to fall within the area with which, according to Livy, xxvi.
24. u, the treaty was concerned, is not substantial and has already
been discussed: see ix. 39· 3 n. But more important is the fact that
the newly discovered fragments of the Roman-Aetolian treaty in-
clude a clause not mentioned in our literary tradition which appears
to cover precisely the case of the Thessalian towns which surrendered
voluntarily. This reads
I 5 f:l 0~ 'TtVUS' (sic) I<G. TG.VTiiv ·rfi.J.t
[1ro]Atwv TroT!. 'Pwt-talov:; ~TroT' AlTwAov:; 7To8{-
[aTJavTat ~ 1ToTtxwp~aoii'Tt, TOVTous Tovs
[t::ho8]p[<io]7TOVS' Ka/. Tt::tS 7T6.\taS Kat Tdt; XWpat; €-
Toii 8]arwv Twv 'Pw;wlwv [-roi:]s AlTwAois
[VEI<'f:V
zo [d:; To ath-wv 1r]pAlTw,ua Tron'Aa1Lf3avnv

[lteaTW • .•.•9 •••• ]ctt.'TtpV afrrOI'OfLWV
r- -- - -- c" rJ - - - - - Ta JvTat; Toii dm) 'Ppw-
i-- - c_ ;:r_- ----]at TaV <olp~v[av]
Klaffenbach (S.-B. Berlin, 1954, t, r3} argues that woOlrrraaBat implies
surrender before fighting began, 1ronxwpe£v in the course of it (cf.
i. 29. 3) ; but whether this distinction is well founded or not' it seems
1 R. Stiehl, 'f;Vissmschajl. Zeitschr. Le-ipzig, I9S:;J6, 29t-2, believes that the
distinction between the two verbs lies in the tense, the present subjunctive
'JJ'OfJirrroJ•-rm indicating 'dal3 eine stadt fUr lange Zeit oder dauernd auf romischer
oder aetolbcher Seite bleibt', and the aorist subjunctive ,.,...,xwp~uov.,., 'dal3 sie
599
XVIII. 38.9 AFTERMATH OF CYNOSCEPH.\LAE
clear that this clause is concerned with cities which surrender volun-
tarily, in contrast to those taken by force, which are provided for in
11. 4-15. The argument of R. Stiehl (seep. 599 n. r) that ll. 15-21 of
the inscription do not concern towns surrendering voluntarily, takes
no account of the context of this clause within the inscription; for
if troO{a;a.vra.L and 1Tonxwp~aovn do not mean 'go over voluntarily',
what do they mean? (It follows that Stiehl's reconstruction of the
first surviving, but fragmentary, lines of the inscription to cover the
case of voluntary surrender may be neglected.) However, if thl'
treaty covered cities making voluntary surrender, why does Chlaenea"
quote the clause referring to cities taken by force (§ 7), and why does
he not make any retort to Flamininus' apparently incorrect inter-
pretation of the treaty? Klaffenbach suggests (op. cit. 19) that th•·
answer lies in a certain disingenuousness on the part of P. First tht~
sentence Ka.O' ~v !!SH ... Al.wAwv may be P.'s own elucidating ad-
dition: Chlaeneas referred to the treaty in general terms, P. in the
light of Flamininus' retort has inserted this limiting and misleading-
qualification. But in that case Chlaeneas must have retorted that
Flamininus had quoted the wrong clause. Perhaps then P. has also
suppressed this Aetolian reply (Klaffenbach, ibid.). This view, which
implies dishonesty in both Flamininus and Polybius, is hardly con-
vincing; and the most likely solution of the problem is that in the
lost part of the inscription (11. 21 ff.) there was some further qualifica-
cation concerning cities making voluntary surrender, such that
Flamininus' distinction could be justified legally.
A. H. :VIcDonald (]RS, 1956, 155-7) has proposed, exempli gratz'a,
a possible reconstruction of these lines which would indicate that
such towns as surrendered to Rome (by deditio) were to be auto-
nomous and be accepted into the Roman amicitia; Aetolia would still
be free to receive them (r.onAa.fLf5dvELv) into her confederation, but
the decision would be theirs. On this hypothesis the Aetolian claim,
even on the basis of the original treaty, could be rejected as pre~
mature; the first step would be the recognition of the autonomy of
the three cities and their admission as Roman amici. But in fac1
since the original treaty was null and void, they were merely in th;·
category of dediticii and the Romans were no longer committed t"
granting them autonomy; they could be disposed of entirely a~
seemed good to Rome (d. xx. 9· r2). This hypothesis solves many ol
the difficulties of reconciling P.'s account with the evidence of tiw
treaty; but it is rather hard to believe that the treaty of ~11
made such elaborate provision for towns making deditio to Romt·,
viz. guaranteed autonomy, specified acceptance as amici of Ronw,
sich zu einem einmaligen oder kurz befristeten Akt verstehen muLl'. In that c:hc.
whv the change of verb and not merdy of tense? But such a distinction seen"'
highly improbable.
6oo
AFTER::O.L\TI-I OF CYNOSCEPHALAE XVIII. 40.2
with later permission to join the Aetolian confederation. Like Klaffen-

bach's hypothesis, it also involves the assumption that the words
Ka8' ~"' ... AlrwAwv are an insertion of P. and not part of Chlaeneas'
speech.
39. 1. apXTJ KaKWV: d. Xi. 5· 9 n.

3. TOV !b..vTLOXOV a1TO Iup1as <O.v)iJx9m: on Antioch us' movements
see below, 4I an.
4. hf:pou 1Tapayt:vT)9€vTos 6ml.Tou: for similar considerations at the
conference in Locris the previous autumn d. 9· 5 n., and the general
course of events narrated in 1-12. The tone here reflects a similar
source, probably Achaean (d. I-I2 n.); though not named, there
will ha\'e been Achaean representatives at Tempe (Aymard, PR,
172 n. 23, who suggests, following the precedent of Locris, that the
Achaeans were represented by Aristaenus and Damoxenus, who later
went as envoy to Rome (.p. 6)).
5. Ta bLaKocrLa TaAavTa: not mentioned before; hence the article is
odd. In xxix. 24. 8 its use is to refer back to 2oo cavalry mentioned in
xxix. 23. 5; just as here it is in place in § 6. One would therefore be
tempted to exclude it, were it not for iii. 45· 2 where !nrtp rov> Sta-
Koulov> is simply 'over 2oo'.
ATJJLtJTpLOv Tov ul6v: Demetrius was Philip's second son (xxi. q. 9,
Tbv vEwrarov viov, but the onl.Y e\·idence for a third son is the corrupt
passage, Livy, xlii. 52. s. mentioning one Philip adopted by Perseus,
who may have been Philip V's posthumous son, since he was born
in q8: for he died at the age of about IS, two years after Perseus, and
so, since Perseus lived five years after Aemilius Paull us' triumph in r67
(Euseb. i. 240 Sch.), in r6o). Who Demetrius' mother was is unkno\vn;
but he was five years younger than his half-brother Perseus (Livy,
xl. 6. 4) and so born about 2o8/7; for in r82 Perseus was 30 and De-
metrius 25 (Livy, ibid.). At this time he was only ro or II years old.
Twv cp1Xwv: d. iv. 23. 5 n.
40. 1-4. On being deceived

See p. 27 for the argument in favour of transposing this fragment
after 43· 13, where it will represent P.'s comments on the treachery
of a slave which led to the discovery of the guilt of Zeuxippus and
Peisistratus as murderers of Brachylles; the passage is introduced in
Suidas with the words 7np1 olKoyEvov<; 7rpo8orov. See further, 43· 13 n.;
for similar reflections d. v. 75· 4, X\'. 21. 5·
40. 2. p!fbLOupy1as: 'villainy', d. xii. 9· 5 ; on the above hypqthesis,

the reference is to the treachery of the slave who gives away his
master; d. Livy, xxxiii. 28. 14, 'aperit perlectisque litteris pauidus
Thebas refugit et ad magistratns iudicium defert'. This act remains
6or
XVIII. 40.:: 0.::-< BEI~G DECEIVED
villainous, even though carried out against those equally villainous,
1rap' o[:; ~
1TTJrfJ -rij<; -rmaVTTJ> imapxEL KaKo1Tpayp.ou6vrys--villainous both
as murderers and as men prepared cold-bloodedly to rid themselves
of the slave who shares in the guilt.
voXX6.1<1S lnro voA.Xwv Tj811 yeyovE: Aymard, Pallas, 1956, 36 n.
recalls the similar incident which occurred in connexion with the
Spartan regent Pausanias (Time. i. IJZ-J).
TO va.p' 'Emxci.p~~ •.. etpTJ~Evov: the line (Kaibel, CGF, zso) is
repeated xxxi. IJ. 14 as the last line of the verses which wrote
for the prince Demetrius as a hint to fly. The Yerse was very common.
Cicero, ad Att. i. r9. 8, quotes it as cantilena £lla; cf. Lucian, Hermo-
ti-m. 47, de pet. eons. 39, "EmxapjLcwv illud teneto, neruos atque
artus esse sapientiae, non temere credere'. One need not assume that
P. was familiar with Epicharmus' works in generaL See Wunderer,
ii. 5I.
40. 5. Fragment on 1'yfedion
On Median sec ii. z. 5 n. It may well have been mentioned in a de-
scription of L. Quinctius' operations against Acarnania, including
the capture of Leucas (d. 47· 8 n.), which are related from P. in
Livy, xxxiii. 16-17; the last sentence of q, 'audita proelio, quo ad
Cynoscephalas pugnaturn erat, omnes Acarnaniae populi in dicionem
legati ucnerunt', may represent a fuller narrative in P.
41 a. Antiochus' advance in Asia 1'v!inor

After his successful campaign against Ptolemy in zoo (cf. xvi. r8.
z-19. rr, 22 a, 27. 5, ,39) Antiochus besieged Scopas in Sidon (Hieron.
in Dan. xi. rs-r6) and forced him to capitulate, probably in 199; the
complete subjection of Coele-Syria, including the taking of Jeru-
salern (Hieron. Joe. cit.) lasted into 198 (d. Livy, xxxiii. 19. 8; Hol-
leaux, Etudes, iii. 326 -7). He then turned to Asia Minor and Thrace
to take advantage of the Second Macedonian War and in spring 197
he sailed along the coast with roo warships and zoo lighter craft,
while his generals led the army towards Sardes (Livy, xxxiii. HJ-
9-II). The Rhodians presented him with an ultimatum not to pass
the Chelidonian Islands, but on the news of Cynoscephalae reaching
them, they carne to terms with him, gaining various cities for them-
selves (Livy, xxxiii. :zo; Holleaux, CA H, q8-<)). On this campaigu
d. 39· 3· Of his further advance up the coast the evidence is scattered.
Iasus, and probably other towns (cf. Heuss, Stadt und Herrscher.
220, 230 n. r), were nominally freed (OGIS, 237); but Iasus later ha"
a Syrian garrison (Livy, xxxvii. 17· 3). The two fragments here con
cern this campaign, part of the res Asiae of 01. 145, 3 (198/7); on il
see further Schmitt, A ntiochos, 2R5 ff.
.\.:.-TIOCHCS' AD\'AXCE I:\ AS!\ ~II::-iOR XYHI 4r. 7
41 a 1. Kw.Mnv 8E: Tov :ts.vTLoxov KTA.: the Rhodian ultimatum to An-
tiochus: cf. Livy, xxxiii. 20. 2-3, 'legatos ad regem miserunt, ne
Chelidonias ... superaret: si eo fine non con tineret dassem co~
piasque suas, se obuiam ituros, non ab odio ullo, sed ne coniungi
eum Philippo paterentur et impedimenta esse Romanis liberantibus
Graeciam'. xxiii. rg. I I states that Antiochus' voyage was made
'simul Philippum-necdum enim debellatum erat-exercitu naui-
busque adiuturus' ; but it would be unsafe to attribute this view
toP., who may have given this as a suspicion, which Livy has con-
verted into a fact.
2. wp£yno TTtS 'Ecf!£aou: he soon gained it (Hieron. in Dan. xi. rs)
with Rhodian help (cf. Frontin. Strat. iii. 9· 10) and wintered there
in 197/6 (Livy, xxxiii. 38. r; cf. below, xx. 8. s. 11. 2, xxL II. 13).
Ephesus lay on a hill south of the Cayster, in the Gulf of Scala Nova
in Ionia, about ro km. from the present mouth of the river (Strabo,
xiv. 64o); by the early second century it was already largely silted
up (Livy, xxxviL 14. 7; Pliny, Nat. hist. ii. 20I, 204; v. ns). On its
site and history see Biirchner, RE, 'Ephesos', cols. 2773-2822; Magie,
i. 74-76, ii. 885·8: for recent excavations since 1955 see J. M. Cook,
Arch. Rep. r959-6o, 43·47 (reports in various volumes of the Austrian
]ahreshejte); in general, F. Miltner, Ephcsos (Vienna, 1958); J. Keil,
Ephesos: ein Fiihrer durch die Rttinenstiitte (Vienna, 1957).
1'Wv €cf!' 'Ef..A1]0'1TOVTou 'll'OAEWV: the cities of the Troad: cf. 54· 2 n.
41. Death of Attalus

After his stroke at Thebes (d. 17. 6 n.), Attalus was taken back to
Pergamum and there died (Livy, xxxiii. zi. r-s based on P.). For
Eumcnes' eulogy on him cf. xxi. 20. 2-5.
41. 1. Ka8&.'11't:p 'll'Ep~ Tti>v O.f..f..wv: for other 'obituaries' d. xxiii. r2

(Philopoemen), 13 (Hannibal), r4 (Scipio Africanus).
2. ou8€v €cf!o8tov ••• TWV EI<TOS: 'no external advantages'; Paton
takes Twv iKTo> with {Jaa~>.,da, 'to rule over those outside his own
household'; this is surely wrong.
5. 00 ~-Lt:'itov 1\l<aAA~ov OUOEV ot6v T EOTLV ou8' EL'Il'E~V: this is praise,
1
not of kingship per se, but of the disposition which devotes all
resources exclusively to its attainment, a sign of w:yall.oif;ux.ta.
7. Vll<tJOO.S .•• ~axn ra.t..aTO.S: cf. Livy, xxxviii. r6. 14· On the
Galatian movement of 28o see i. 6. 5 n. An eastern branch of these
marauders, consisting of Trocmi, Tolistoagii, and Tectosages, and led
by Leonnorius and Lutarius, had reached Asia Minor with Bithynian
help by 278/7 (Paus. x. 23. I4; cf. iv. 46. I n.; Launey, REA, 1944,
226-36). For over thirty years they ravaged the territory of Greek
cities to the west and north of Asia Minor, including 11iletus, Priene,
603
XVUL 4r. 7
Erythrac, and Cyzicus, despite a defeat at the hands of Antiochus 1
in 275; and sometime before 266 the Tectosages were given the area
around Ancyra as a permanent home by the king of Pontus. On his
succession as dynast at Pergamum in 241, .:\ttalus refused tribnte
to the Tolistoagii, who were established in Aeolis and Ionia, defeated
them decisively on the upper Caicus and drove them back from thP
coast. Attalus then took the title of Icing and his victory was widely
celebrated in Pergamene art, in dedications and in the growth of
legends (cf. lnsch. Perg. 20, 24 OGIS, 276), 43-45; Paus. i. 25. z
(see above, xvi. 26. 5 n.); Polyaen. iv. 20; Frontin. Strat. ii. 13. 1:
Paus. X. 15. 2-3 for a prophetic oracle; Hansen,
rrp&i'Tov a.1hov (8,n5~:: pa.o-t>.ia.: probably 'he first styled himself kinE:·
(cf. § 8, -rvxtlw . . . Ttfi.ijs -ravTr}';) ; and cf. Strabo, xiii. 624, Kai
UV7Jyopn5BYJ (3aatA<;US OOTOS 1TpWTO<;, J.'LK~O'aS raAd.-ras fUlXfl fl.EyfL\v.
8. pu~aa.~ ETt'( 8oo rrpo~ Tois ip8o!J-fp<ov'Ta. ~~:-r>..: he was therefore
born in 269 or 268, and succeeded Eumenes in 241; P.'s chronologv
is preferable to thi\t of Strabo, xiii. 623 f., who gives Attalus a reign
of only forty-three years. The text of P.'s forty-four years is con-
firmed by Liv:y, xxxiii. zr. r, 'cum quattuor et quadraginta anno;;
regnasset'. Cf. Beloclt, iv. 2. 206-n ; Corradi, 6r.
'1Tpo<; yuva.'l~~:a. Ka.i T(~~:va.: on his wife A pollonis sec xxii. 20; on hi:-.
sons, § 9 n.
9. eva.rr(&a.vt: 8' ev a.•ho'i:s TOt~ Ko.li.Xio-To'i £pyots: cf. xxi. 20. :;.
Ka-recnpeifie -rov {3lov ~v au-roi:s- -roi:s €pyo<<;.
10. TETTa.pa.~ u{oo~: Eumenes, Attalus, Philetaerus, and Athenaeus.
Eumenes II. who succeeded his father in r97, must have been born
before nr, since Attalus II, his younger brother, died in r38 at the
age of 8:2 (Ps.-Lucian, M acrab. r2). Both Attalus II and Philetaerus
are called l'€avlO'Ko~ in 181 (xxi\·, 5. 5), and so \Vill ha,·e been under
40 at that date (Holleaux, Etudes, ii. 5 n. 5; on the meaning of
vea~·{aKo. cf. iv. r6. 6 n.}. Athenaeus, the youngest son, was e\·iclently
born before 215, and was at least r8 in 197, when his father died (cf.
Holleaux, Etudes, ii. 59, commenting on an inscription in his honom
from New Colophon). All four brothers are mentioned in later parh
of P. (Philetaerus only at xxxviii. q. 2).
'l'l'a.,o-t rra.(Swv: cf. iv. rs n. for this phrase in the sense pf
grand-children. Tbe is to A ttalus II L, son of Eumenes I I
(cf. xxx. 2. xxxm. r8. r ff.). who succeeded Attalus II on hh
death in r38 (Strabo, xiiL 624; Ps.-Lucian, Macrob. r2), and suggesh
that these words at least were written after that date.
42. Embassies to an.d from Rome

This extract is from the res Itabiae of rg6; see pp. 27-28. Livy, xxxiii. 2.J.
2-7, zs. 4-7, gives a version of these events from an annalistic source.
604
EMBASSIES TO AND FROM ROME XVIII. 42. 5
42. 1. Mo.pKEAXou KXo.u8(ou: M. Claudius M.f. M.n. Marcellus, consul
for A.U.c. = rg6 B.c., was the son of the famous Marcellus of
the Hannibalic War; cf. x. 32. 6 n. His colleague was L Furius Sp.L
Sp.n. Purpurio. The consular year began on I 5 March, but the
Roman year was anything from two to four months in advance of
the seasons at this time (cf. De Sanctis, iv. r. 368 ff.; Holleaux,
Etudes, iv. 336-48; v. 249-94); hence Marcellus probably entered
office towards the end of 197 (Julian}. The exact wording of the
first few \\·ords of this extract (with hiatus) probably derives from
the epitomator. According to LhT, xxxiiL 24. 3-7, the envoys were
heard and the Commission of Ten appointed before the end of the
consular year A. u.c. 557, and Nissen (KU, 143) would emend lrri
here to avdn (Niese, ii. 646 n. 2, corrects this to oJrrw); but the
account of Marcellus' opposition occurs in Livy (xxxiii. 35· 5-6) after
the new consuls have taken office, as in P., whereas Nissen's emenda-
tion would bring it back into the end of the previous year. It seems
clear that Livy here follows an annalistic source, and our text of P.
cannot be adjusted on that basis.
2. t:v TU auy~<A1\1'(tl: embassies were heard in the Senate; cf. vi. 13. 7 n.
3. M6.pKos ••• avT€At:yE: cf. Livy, xxxiii. 25. 4, who says that he argued
that Philip would re\'Olt in the absence of 11 Roman army, and that
only the intercessio of two tribunes, probably acting in collaboration
with the Senate, secured the reference to the plebs of the question
whether or not peace should be made; the concilium plebis now
ratified the proposal; cf. Bleicken, 55· For ?\'Iarcellus' agitation against
the peace compare that of Cn. Lentulus, the consul of 201, against
peace with Carthage (Livy, xxx. 40. 7--16, 43· r-4; Bleicken, 88 n. 2).
4. E1fEKupwae TUS 8to.Maels: Livy, xxxiii. 25. 7, 'omnes ... tribus
"uti rogas" iusserunt'. Since Philip had accepted the terms put
forward at Nicaea (38. z), he was presumably allowed to send re-
presentatives to Rome (39· 5) on this basis. From the Roman point
of view the peace was now ratified: whether Philip had to swear it to
the Roman legati is uncertain, but probably he did (cf. xxi. 42-44
for the parallel events after the Syrian War: Larsen, CP, 1936, 347).
15. O.vopa.s SEKo. ... Twv E1TL<j)().vwv: cf. Livy, xxxiii. :q. 7, 'decem
legati more maiorurn, quorum ex consilio T. Quinctius imperator
leges pads Philippa daret, decreti adiectumque ut in eo numero
legatorum P. Sulpicius et P. Villius essent, qui consules prouinciam
Macedoniam obtinuissent'. For P. Villi us Tappulus d. 48. 3, so. r.
The following names are also recorded: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus (48. J),
P. Cornelius Lentulus Caudinus (48. 2, so. r), L. Stertinius (48. 2). L
Terentius 1\fassaliota (48. 3, so. r), and perhaps M. Caecilius Metellus.
who was honoured with a statue in Larissa by the newly founded
Thessalian ~eo~vov (llpx. i<fo. 19ro, 374 f., no. 22; Munzer, RE, 'Caecilius
(73) and (76)', Suppl.-B. iii, col. 222). Broughton, llfRR, i. 339, adds
6os
XVIII. 42. 5 E!\IHASSIES TO A~D FRO!.£ ROME
P. Aelius Paetus, who visited Antiochus at Lysimacheia in either
r96 or 195 (cf. so. z n.). There are no grounds for supposing (Homo,
Re·v. hist. rzz, r9r6, 6; Passerini, A then. 193:2, no ff., 326 ff.) that the
Ten were sent out to oppose Flamininus' policy; cf. Aymard, PR,
I73 n. JI.
6. rrepl. Tij!> aulllla.xia!> olrra.pc\ Twv :A.xcuwv rrpicr~ELS: presumably on
the S\\Tearing of a regular joedus. vYhen, in the autumn of 198, thr
Achaeans ,,;ent over to the Roman side, 'societatem cum (Attalo) a('
Rhodiis praesenti decreto confirmarunt; cum Romanis, quia iniussu
populi non poterat rata esse, in id tempus, quo Romam mitti legati
possent, dilataest' (Livy, xxxii. 23. r-2). The issue was not apparently
raised by the Achaean delegates who went to Rome after the con
ference in Locris (cf. 10. II n.), and so first came up now.
Aa11o5~;:vov Tov AtyLia.: Damoxenus of Aegium (not Aegae, as Paton)
is not mentioned elsewhere; but d. 39· 4 n. Whether he was alone
is not clear from P.'s formula.
7. y~;:vofLEvTJS 8' O.vnpp'iJaew<;: presumably by the representatives of
Elis, Messene, and Aetolia (cf. Kromayer, AS, ii. I. II4 n. z). Aymanl
(PR, 174 n. 34) points out that neither Elis nor Messenia had been
involved in this war; but clearly the question of the Achaean treat\
(with implications for the territorial status quo) vvill have been kno\VJt
to be likely to arise, and envoys would be sent with the specific
object of making the claims here mentioned.
'HA.e£oos •.• urr€p Tij!> T pt.q>uAta.<;: seized by Philip from Elis durinf,;
the Social War (iv. n 8-11. 79-8o; cf. v. 27. 4), its subsequent fate
is recounted confusedly by Livy, who dates its cession to Achaea
first in zo8 (Livy, xxviii. 8. 6) and then in 199 (Livy, xxxiii. S· 4);
evidently in the first passage Livy has misrepresented a promise, noi
fulfilled, but the second is to be accepted (cf. Livy, xxxii. r9. 7.
lv[acedomf.tn benejiciis . .. recentibu.s). The Eleans certainly had a case,
since Philip had transferred the territory to the Achaeans (\vho had
never previously possessed it) during the war. But the Romans wen:
eventually to confirm the Achaeans in its possession (47· 10; cf. Livy.
xxxiii. 34· 9). The affair has been much discussed; see for a sound
summary Aymard, PR, 59-60 n. 53·
MecrcrT]VlOUS UlTEp :A.crt\IT]'i KC1L nuA.ou: A sine lay on the west coast of
the Gulf of Messenia, east of Mt. Acritas (modern IIH. Tsarnaoura) .
it was a Dryopian town (Herod. viii. 73· z; Strabo, viii. 359, 373)
Most topographers have identified it with the modern town of Koroni.
on the basis of the list of sites from north to south given by Pau~.
iv. 34· 4-IZ, and this seems acceptable. True, a statue base with au
inscription found at Koroni (M. N. Valmin, Bulletin de la Soci/1,
Royale des Lettres de Lund, 1934-5. 44-46) seems to suggest that thi·.
was the ancient Corone, which Pausanias places north of the saiH
tuary of Apollo Corynthns, and which ought to correspond t< •
6o6
EMBASSIES TO AND FROM ROME XVIII. 42 7
Petalidi; but to accept this identification would create chaos in
Pausanias' list, which is apparently based on autopsy, and the best
solution would seem to be that this stone was moved from Petalidi
to Koroni for building purposes. See Roebuck, 18-22. Pylos, or
Coryphasinm (d. iv. 16. 7, 25. 4, ix. 38. 8), is well known from the
events recorded in Thucydides, and stood on the site of Palaiokastro
at the north-west corner of Navarino Bay (cf. G. B. Grundy, JHS,
1896, 1-54; R. lYL Burrows, ibid. 55 76). The Achaeans must have
seized Asine before entering the Second Macedonian War, when
Messenia was allied to Rome (see below), and perhaps since zag, when
the Aetolians demanded the return of Pylas alone (Livy, xxvii. 30. 13;
d. Niese, ii. 646 n. 4); was in their hands by 220 (iv. 25. 4 n.;
Niese, ii. 4rr n. 1).
<rUJ.LJ.Lltxou'> -ron 'PwJ.La.iwv u1Tltpxov-ra.c;;: referring to both Eleans and
Messenians. For the latter there is independent evidence for a treaty
with Rome, evidently sworn during the First Macedonian \Var (cf.
Livy, xxxiv. 32. 16, quoted in xvi. 13. 3 n.). and, since Sparta also
had a treaty (Liv;r, xxxiv. 31. .=;, also quoted in xvi. 13. 3 n.), Elis
no doubt had one too. See Badian, 57-58.
AtTwAous ••• 1Tcpt Ti}s 'Hpa.Lwv 1TOA~<wc;;: on the site of Heraea cf.
ii. 5+ 12 n. It was promised to Achaea by Philip in 208 (Livy, xxviii.
8. 6, who says reddidit as he does for Triphylia: see above,§ 7 n.) and
restored in 199 (Livy, xxxii. 5· 4), but there is no eYidence that it had
ever belonged to Aetolia. An error in the text is excluded by the
reference to Heraea in Livy, xxxiii. 34· 9 (see belmv, 47· ron.); and
an error by P. himself (De Sanctis, iv. 1. 104 n. 207. suggests a con-
fusion with Phigaleia) is improbable. Any explanation of the Aetolian
claim is therefore conjectural, as well as the date the Macedonians
acquired the town. Aymard (PR, 25-27 n. 5) suggests that the
Aetolians took Heraea during the First Macedonian War, and that
Philip recaptured it before 2o8 and failed to hand it over to Achaea;
but there is no space in our records of 211-208 for such a capture and
recapture to take place and go unmentioned, nor would so short an
Aetolian tenure give much ground for the present claim (d. \Valbank,
Philip, I7 n. 2 for fuller discussion). It seems on the whole more
likely that Doson garrisoned and kept the town after its submission
in 223 {ii. 54· r3 n.). P.'s failure to mention it along with Corinth and
Orchomenus in iv. 6. 4-6 is not decisive against this hypothesis, as
Aymard, loc. cit., argues. The Aetolian claim may have rested on
a promise by Philip to hand over the town, made in the separate
peace of 2o6, as he probably promised certain to\\-TIS in Thessaly
(3. 12 n.); the Aetolians could hardly bring up a claim to it along
with that to the Thessalian towns at the conference in Locris, since
bv then it was in Achaean hands. The alternative is to assume that
it. was Aetolian at some date in the third century before the Achaeans
6o7
XVIII. 4 z. 7 EMBASSIES TO .\~D FR0:.\1 H0:\1E
acquired it (under Dioetas, probably in 236/5: Polyaen. ii. 36; cf.

Beloch, iv. 2. 224; Tarn, CAli, vii. 745); but in that case it is odd
that the Aetolians laid no claim to Mantinea, Tegea, Orchomenus.
and Phigaleia, which had been more recently in their possessio11
(Aymard, loc. cit.).
43. Rest()Yat~·on of Brachylles and plot against him

The events here recounted fall in \Vinter 197/6 and form part of there'
Graeciae of 01. 145,4 (197/6): seep. 28 and cf. Livy, xxxiii. 27.5-29. u.
43. 1. 1Tapa.x.::tl.tli.tovTo~ ev 'Ef.aTEt~: the chief city of Phocis (cL

v. z6. r n.) had been captured by Flamininus in October 198 (1-12 n.,
Livy, xxxii. 24. r-j; Paus. x. 34· 3-4), and its people expelled; they
had taken refuge at Stymphalus in Arcadia the inscription pub-
lished by M. l\Iitsos, REG, 1946--7, rso-74; cf. A. Passerini, Atlu·n_
1948, 83--95; S. Accamc, Ri1•. fil. r949, 217-48, refuting Passerini'•·
view that the Elateans were expelled by the Aetolians).
2. 8d1 To 1rpoopiicr6a~ Tov AvTioxov: 'owing to his apprehension con
cerning Antioclms'; for this meaning of 1Tpoopaa0at cf. v. ros. 11,
vii. 17. 5. xviii. 22. ro, etc. Paton's rendering, 'foreseeing the arrival
of Antiochus', is too specific; Flamininus will hardly have foresern
the invasion of Greece as early as r96.
3. Bpaxu!.f.'ls: cf. I. z n.
J3oLWTGPX'lv: in the Boeotian confederation of the third century (a'
in that of the fourth century after 379) political affairs and command
of the federal army were in the hands of seven boeotarchs, elected
in some sort of relation to the size of the various cities: but informa-
tion is scanty, cf. IG, vii. 3073. I. r57, .J088; ix. r. 98, 27o; Polyaen.
iv. 1· II (referring to 293); Paus. x. 20. 3; Plut. Arat. 16. r; Livy,
xlii. 43· 7; Busolt-Swoboda, ii. 1436 n. 3· Feyel (266) suggests that
after the annexation of Megara the number may have been increased
to eight, but this is not proved. From some uncertain date in tlH·
third century there was also a federal strategos, superior to tlH·
boeotarchs. On the institutions of Boeotia see Busolt-Swoboda,
ii. 143r-42; Feyel, 264-73.
oux "Jnov -l1 1rpoTEpov: for the earlier relations of Boeotia an• I
Macedon see xx. 4-7 with notes.
5. Zeu€L1TTI'OV Kat n.::IO'LaTpaTOV: not otherwise knmvn.
8. T~V &.xo.piO'TLO.V TWV oxf.wv: 'the ingratitude of the populace'.
11. Af.t:~o.p.~iiJ Tte Twv AtTwAwv aTpaT'lYte: for 197/6. He came front
Calydon (Paus. viii. so. ro) and is the Alcxamenus or Alexomentt.
mentioned on various Delphian inscriptions (GDI, ii. zooz, 2041-5'
A true Aetolian cut-throat, he murdered Nabis in 192, but \\;t:.
himself killed by the Spartans (Livy, xxxv. 34-36).
6:>8
RESTORATION OF BRACHYLLES XVIIL 44· 1
12. 1Tpoo-o£o-ovTas T<is XEipas T~ Bpaxu~~TI: Livy, xxxiii. 28.

recounts the sequel to the murder, the apprehension of
after a slave had laid information v.i.th the authorities and Zeuxippus'
flight to Anthedon. This led to an outburst against Rome and the
murder of soo Roman soldiers. Flamininus invaded Boeotia demand-
ing heavy reparations, but on the intervention of the Achaeans these
were reduced to 30 talents.
13. o08El.s ••• OUTE j.lapTUS .•. oun: KaTiJyopoo;: on the effects of
conscience cf. 15. 13, xxiii. 10. 2-3. ut)vem,- here is the equivalent of
uwel8rJ<:n>; d. Eur. Or. 396; Menander, fg. 632 (Kock, CAF, iii);
Herodian, iv. 7· 1; Wunderer, ii. 67. The context is clear from Livy,
xxxiii. z8. 10, 'Zeuxippus ... nocte perfugit Tanagram, suam magis
conscientiam quam indicium hominum nullius rei consciorum
metuens'.
[40. 1-4. should probably be inserted here: see ad loc.]
44-48. The Roman settlement in Greece and the Isthmus declaration

These events of spring-summer 196 follow in Livy (xxxiii. 30. I-35·
u) immediately after the account of the events in Boeotia.
44. 1. KaTO. Tcw Ka~pbv Toihov: i.e. at the time of the events follow-
ing on Brachylles' murder and the Roman assassinations.
TO Tfjs o-uyK~~Tou (86y11a): this senatus consultum contained seYeral
clauses regulating the application of the peace treaty, which had
already been sworn and ratified (42. 4); it substantiated the Roman
claim to organize Greek affairs and to ensure Greek freedom, and
it made Philip responsible to the Senate for the fulfilment even of
those clauses which concerned the allies; cf. Larsen, CP, 1936, 345·
P. only the principal clauses, ,.a. uvv£xoVTa; he omits any re-
ference to lllyria (cf. I. 14), which was probably by now in Roman
hands. Lysimacheia had been evacuated and was in Thracian occupa-
tion s. 51. 7); but the omission of any references to Aenus,
Maronea, and the other Ptolemaic towns later freed by L. Stertinius
(48. :z) suggests that P. has omitted a clause dealing with the cities
formerly Ptolemy's (cf. I. 14). There is also, strangely, no mention
of payment of reparations to Eumenes (cf. z. 2 ff.). Attalus' captured
ships may be included in § 6 (cf. Larsen, CP, 1936, 346}, but on the
whole it seems more likely that a clause is lost or omitted. There is
also no reference to giving hostages. See Taublcr, i. 237; Holleaux,
Etudes, iv. 320. See also Livy, xxxiii. 30. 6-u (with annalistic variants
and additions; cf. Nissen, 145; DeSanctis, iv. I. 96 n. I85; Holleaux,
Etudes, v. ro4-20; in KQKAAOl..', 1956, 3 ff. L. Bivona unsuccessfully
defends the authenticity of the clause restricting Philip's army to
s,ooo men and his right to make war without the Senate's permission;
814173 R r
XVIII. 44· r THE SETTLEME);T IN GREECE AND
see too Petzold, 92--93, II7, and Klotz, Livius, 97 ; Livy represents
the clauses of the senatus consultum as the terms of the peace treaty) ;
App. Mac. 9· 3; Plut. Flam. 9· 5, ro. r; Tustin. xxx. 4· 17; Zon. ix. 1&.
The terms are well set out in Ti:iubler, i. , see for a general
discussion, Holleaux, CAH, vii. r8o; Etudes, iv. v. 86-ro3;
Klotz, Hermes, 1915, {&r ff.; Larsen, CP, 1936, ; Aymard, PR,
272-87 ; Badian, p-73.
2. TOUS J.L€V aXXous VEXXl]VO.S 'ITQVT!JS: i.e. all not under Philip (§ J).
The inclusion of the Greeks in Asia was, of course, a direct warning
to Antioch us and represents a new claim on the part of Rome; at
Nicaea it is the Rhodians who speak for Asia 3-4).
3. 1Tpo T~S Twv 'la9Jdwv 1Ta.vl]yopEws: the Isthmian festival stood
third in the order of the four great panhellenic gatherings (after the
Olympian and Pythian games), and was held on the Isthmus ol
Corinth near Schoenus (Strabo, viii. 38o) near the site of the
modern village of Kalamaki at the eastern end of the canal, in June
July of each alternate year, falling in 'even' years. See Schneider,
RE, 'Isthmia', cols. 2248-55; Gardiner, Greek Athletic Sports and
Festivals (London, r9Io), 64 L, 214 f.
4. EupwJ.Lov ••• n€p~v9ov, iXEu9€pas O.q,t~vat: as an exception to the
general rule for cities under Philip (§ 3). On Euromus see 2. 3 n.
Pedasa (probably omitted in error from z. 3} is a name found applying
to several towns in Anatolia (the form Pidasa abo occurs), but this
one appears to be the Pedasa which received .,.a imepttKpta of the
territory ofMiletus from the Persians in 494 (Herod. d. 2o), and which
made a treaty of sympoliteia with ::\-Iiletus in the second century,
perhaps in q6/s (Milet, i. 3, no. 149: Rehm's date in S.-B. Miinchen,
1923, no. 8, pp. I I ff.). The site is unccrtaill ; but the sympoliteia
inscription shows that it was not far from Miletus or Euromus, and
since it also mentions the maintenance of a road from Pidasa to
Ioniapolis on the Latmic Gulf, Pedasa evidently lay somewhere near
Mt. Grion. G. Bean and J. M. Cook located Ioniapolis at Koca
Orman on the south shore of the La tmic lake and suggest for Pedasa
a site high on the ridge of .Mt. Grion (Arch. Rep. I959-6o, 49); it is
the modern Cert Osman Kale, above Dani~ment overlooking tht'
Euromus. L. Robert (Rev. phil. 1957, 9) preferred a site in the \'allev
of the Euromus; and for earlier suggestions see Rehm, 1i1ilet, i. 3· 35-~;
Meyer, Grenzen, 78 n. r. Bean and Cook (BSA, 1955. 149-sr) suggested
that the Pedasa mentioned here be that near Halicarnassns
(Herod. i. qs), which is to be sited at Gokc;:eler, about 5 km. north
of that city, since Philip needed a site in the Halicarnassian peninsub
to complete his control of the Iasian Gulf; but the words lAwOip<~>
&.cpdvat are against this, for this Pedasa had long been incorporatt-d
in Halicarnassus. See in general \\l. Ruge, RE, 'Pedasa', cols. 26-2•J;
Magie, ii. 962; ATL, i. 535--S.
610
THE ISTR~HJS DECLARATION XVIII. 44· 6
For Bargylia see 2. 3. xvi. 24. 1-9 n. On Iasus see 2. 3. xvi. r2 n.;
its presence in this senatus consultum may seem odd, if Antiochus
had already taken it (41 an.), but the Senate may have mentioned it
with one eye on him (d. Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 309 n. 2); the same will
be true of Ab_ydus, which was also in Antiochus' hands by spring r96
(Livy, xxxiii. 38. 4, 8; Holleaux,loc. cit.); on Abydus see xvi. 29. 3 n.
For Thasos see xv. 24. r n. 1Hyr£na (wrongly identified in the index
to Biittner-Wobst with a town in Aeolis; cf. v. 77· 4 n.) is a city on
Lemnos (d. 48. 2); it is the modern Kastro and stood on a steep
promontory 135 m. high, projecting into a useful bay on the west
coast. How long Lemnos had been Macedonian is uncertain. In 2o8
Sulpicius and Attalus sailed there from Aegina (Livy, xxviii. 5· r),
but this passage of Livy furnishes no evidence on the ownership of
the island ; similarly a letter of Philip V to Hephaestia (Accame,
Riv.fil. 1941, 179-93; Fraser and McDonald, ]RS, 1952, 81-83) cannot
be firmly dated and need not imply Macedonian possession of
Lemnos at the time Philip was initiated at the Cabirion. Philip may
have seized the island in 202 when he took Thasos (cf. xv. 24. 6 n.;
Accame, op. cit. r8r; Ferro, 47-48 n. ; but Lemnos is not men-
tioned among the places that have suffered violence from Philip
in the Roman speech in Livy, xxxi. 31. 4, and it may have been in
Macedonian hands since before Philip's accession (d. Beloch, iv. 2.
348; Holleaux, Etudes, iv. J:lo-r). For Perinthus see 2. 4 n. P. makes
no mention of Scstus and Hephaestia (cf. 2. 4, 48. 2), or the Greek
cities of Thrace (d. 48. 2); Stratonicaea is omitted, for it fell to
Antiochus, who restored it to the Rhodians, in late 197 (Livy, xxxiii.
18. 22). Of the towns mentioned, Jasus had already been 'liberated'
by Antiochus (see above) ; and since only Bargylia is mentioned
as being set free by P. Lentulus (48. r), it is likely that Philip's
general Deinocrates had lost the other Carian places (Livy, xxxiii. r8).
Hence this clause of the senatus consultum is intended mainly as
a warning to Antiochus.
5. 1rEpt ..• '~'tl~ TWV Kto.vwv EAEu9EpwaEws: on the seizure of Cius by
Philip on Prusias' behalf cf. xv. 21-24 n. There is no evidence that
the approach to the neutral Prusias had any effect, for the town is
later known as llpovat£i> am:l 8a/..aaaTJS (CIL, vi. rso8 = IG, xiv.
1077; d. Memnon, FGH, 434 F r, § 28. 6; Magie, i. 306, ii. II88-9); cf.
Vitucci, so-sr. P. continues to use the original name (cf. Holleaux,
Etudes, iii. qg-5o n. 6).
6. Ta S' o.txl-'ahW'!'O. ICal. '!'OU~ QUTO!-'OAous ava.vTa.s: perhaps including
allies as well as Romans; Larsen, CP, 1936, 346 thinks only Romans
are meant.
Tfi~ £~eKa.lSE~et\pou~: on such large ships as this see Tam, HMND,
132 ff.; a 'sixteen', he suggests, was a ship with oars grouped in
pairs, eight men to an oar. This particular vessel was probably
6n
XVIII. 44· 6 THE SETTLEMENT IN GREECE AND
taken by Lysimachus from Demetrius (Plut. Dem. 43· 4; cf. 20. 4,

where the plural may be an exaggeration) and is perhaps Ptolemy
Ceraunus' flagship (called an 'eight' by Memnon, FGH, 434 F I,§ 8. 5,
oKT~PTJ'> . .. ~ A.wvToif>6poc; KaAoVJLEVTJ). It remained in Macedonia till
the war between Rome and Perseus, after which Aemilius Paullus
brought it to Rome, sailing in it up the Tiber (Livy, xlv. 35· 3). At
Rome a special dock had to be built to hold it (xxxvi. 5· 9).
45. 5. 'fipt:ov, .•• KopLv9ov: for Chalcis, Corinth, and Demetrias, cL

II. 4-5; on the Achaean claim to Corinth see 2. 5 n. Euboea, lih
Phocis, had probably been under direct Macedonian control since·
the First Macedonian \Var; cf. x. 42. 7 n. Oreus had been taken b\·
the allies in I99 (Livy, xxxi. 46. 6, 9-I6), Eretria (with Carystus) i11
I98 (Livy, xxxii. I6. 10). Their appearance here may be an error
(Holleaux, Etudes, v. 42. n. 2); but it is more likely that they had
not been garrisoned and that Philip had recovered them (Niesr·.
ii. 6I5 n. I; Aymard, PR, 11 n. 24). See below, 46. 5 n., on Ev{3o€1:<;.
7. f:K TllS 'EA.a.n1a.s KTA.: cf. 43· I ; on Anticyra in Phocis cf. ix. 39· 2 n.
9. TTJV Twv 'EA.A.T)vwv t:uKAt:La.v: 'renown amDng the Greeks'; for P.',
use of the genitive where a prepositional phrase might seem mon·
natural cf. x. 37. Io, Tij> dvo{ac; Tij> J~<:dvwv, 40. 9, T~v TaVT1)> (sc.
Tij> TTaTplooc;) TTlaTLv, and Schweighaeuser's note on x. 17. 14.
10. £1nTporrl]v •.. St:Sbcr9a.L OL<l. Tov J\vT1oxov: a reasonable precau-
tion, which implies no change in Roman policy to liberate tht·
Greeks. P. here implies firm instructions on all other issues; but it
is clear from 42. 7 and 47· 5, 9, Io-n that the Ten were given con-
siderable discretion to settle details; cf. Aymard, PR, 173-4 n. 32.
12. To cruv£8pLov: the Ten.
0La Tas £~ apx1'Js Of10Aoy1a.s: evidently the agreement made in 19~
with L. Flamininus (Livy, xxxii. 23. 2-3; App. Mac. 7, avv€B€vTo Tif'
AwKl<tJ); cf. Aymard, PR, 99-1oo, who argues that the meaning or
'Corinth' was left ambiguous (cf. 2. 5 n.).
46. 4. t:LS To crTaOLOv: to the south of the enclosure; cf. Paus. ii. I. 7 ;
P. Monceaux, Gazette archiol. x, r885, 207 ft.; Schneider, RE, 'Isthmia'.
col. 2250.
5. Ka.Ta.rroAt:f1fJcra.vTt:S !3a.crLA.£a. 4>1A.L1Trrov Ka.i Ma.Kt:Sova.s: cf. vii.
9· 1 n. for the formula. It is by virtue of their victory that the Romans
acquire the right to determine the fate of those states subjected to
Macedon.
f:A.w9£pous, &.<!>poupf)Tous, &.<!>opoA.oyf)Tous KTA.: cf. iv. 25. 6 n. for tlw
same formula used in the decree of the Symmachy preceding tlw
Social War; this means, not that P.'s wording here is unreliablt',
but that Flamininus had taken the trouble to get his terminolog\
right. See also iv. 84. 5, xv. 24. 2; Magie, ii. 828 n. 13.
612
THE ISTHMUS DECLARATION XVIII. 46. 12
Kopw8(ous ... neppaLj3ous: cf. Livy, xxxiii. 32. 6, 'percensuerat

omnis gentis, quae sub didone Philippi regis fuerant' (though in
fact P. omits the Dolopes and the Orestae: 47· 6; Nissen, r48). For
the declaration see also Plut. Flam. ro-rr; App. Mac. 9· z; Val.
Max. iv. 8. 5· On Corinth see z. 5 n.; on Phocis, v. 26. r n.; on
(Epicnemidian} Locris, x. 42. 7 n.; on Euboea, x. 42. 7 n., above,
45· 5 n. (P. says Evf3o•f>, not simply XMKt3Ef,;: the whole island is
included}. Thessaly had been under Macedonian control since the
time of Philip II; of the four peoples mentioned, the Phthiotic
Achaeans, lost to Aetolia under Doson (cf. iv. 25. 6-7 n.} had been
recovered by Philip in the Social War (v. 99-roo, Phthiotic Thebes)
and the First Macedonian War (ix. 41. r-42. 4 n.; Walbank, Philip,
88). The Thessalians included the inhabitants of Thessaliotis,
Phthiotis, and Hestiaeotis. Magnesia embraced Demetrias, which,
like Acrocorinth and Chalcis, was thus included in the declaration.
Perrhaebia lay to the north of Thessaly proper around the upper
stream of the River Europus; on these two outlying districts of
Thessaly see Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 5-39 (Perrhaebia), 39-78 (Magnesia),
Kip, nr-25 (Perrhaebia), 87-IIo (Magnesia}.
6. ~ep6Tou ••. £~a~a(ou: for the anecdote that birds flying overhead
fell dead see Plut. Flam. ro. 6 and Val. Max. iv. 8. 5; Coelius
Antipater told the same story about the shouting of the soldiers
when Scipio embarked for Africa (Livy, xxix. 25. 3--4; De Sanctis,
iv. 1. roo n. 196).
9. Tois vuv lu<auouaL: 'those who hear of it today' rather than 'my
readers' (Reiske).
10. otov EL rrapaaTantcot Tao;; 8Lavo(as ijaav: it is not clear whether
this refers to everyone (Trdvns ... OtaAaAoOvn>) or more specifically
to those talking to themselves: probably the former, a more effective
rhetorical point.
12. awTfjpa rrpoa.J>wvfjaaL: the title implied divine honours (d. Plut.
Dem. ro. 4; Diod. xx. 46. z, roo. 3; Paus. i. 8. 6; Syll. 390, 1. 27); cf.
Cerfaux and Tondriau, 448. Its use in reference to Flamininus is
attested epigraphically: Syll. 592 (from Gytheum) , seeS. B. Kougeas,
'EAA1]VtKci, L 7 ff. (cf. Annee epig. 1929, 24 f., no. 99; S. Eitrem,
Symb. Osl. 10, 1932, 43) on the cult of Flamininus at Gytheum;
Bouquet, BCH, rg64, 6o7 f. (Achaean dedication by Aristaenus) ;
Daux, BCH, I964, s69 f. (Titeia at Argos, following the liberation
from Nabis in 195); E. Mastrokostas, REA, r964, 309 f. (from Thes-
saly); see also Plut. Flam. 16. 3 f. for the cult at Chalcis and the paean
ending cL TlTE awnp. When the Romans evacuated Acrocorinth,
Flamininus was hailed seruatorem liberatoremque (Livy, xxxiv. so. g),
that is awTfjpa Kai l,\w8€pwv, the cult-titles under which Zeus was
worshipped at Athens and Plataea for help against Persia (cf. Jessen,
RE, 'Eleutherios (r)', cols. 2348-so); and the connexion will be
613
XVIII. 46. rz THE SETTLEME~T I:\ GREECE A::\D
deliberate, for Eleutheria games were now set up in Larissa in imitation
of the famous Plataean festival (cf. Syll. 6I3 n. 48; Niese, iii. I9 n. 7).
Flamininus thus appropriated the identification with Zeus favoured
by Philip V; see, for discussion, Walbank, CQ, I942, I45 n. I; 1943.
8 n. 7; d. Gelzer, Kl. Schr. i. 133; and for the cult of Flamininus,
H. Seyrig, Rev. arch. 1929, I, 94 f.; H. Gundel, RE, 'Quinctius (45)',
COlS. IOj j--D.
15. To !LTJStv tK Ti]s TUXTJ'> O.vn1ra.'lua.l 1rpos TTJV em~oAi)v: i.e. there
were no accidents to upset the plan. There is no real personification
of Tyche here.
Sla KTJpuy!La.Tos ho6s: for most of the Greeks of Europe and Asia
freedom either already existed or came to them as a result of tlw
treaty between Rome and Philip and the senatus consultum regulat-
ing its application (44. 2--7). But the picture was completed by this
unilateral declaration concerning the states hitherto subject to
Philip, and so F.'s statement is correct; the emphasis is on &rravraS".
There is no reason to think that P. confuses the procedure adopted
towards states already free and former subjects of Philip (so Sherwin
White, rsz).
47. 1. EXPTJ!LO.nua.v Tots ••. 1Tpt:u~EuTa."is: sc. 'the commissioners'; 011

the members of the Seleucid embassy see§ 4 n. Livy, xxxiii. 34· 2-3.
also mentions an embassy, consisting of the same members, to Rome.
and this is evidently the embassy of I98/7, described by Livy, xxxiii.
zo. 8--9 (based on P.); against the view that it was a second embass\
sent in 197/6, and that Hegesianax and Lysias had been referred b\
the Senate to the Ten see Holleaux, Etudes, v. Ij6--D3. Clearlv
Hegesianax and Lysias had been sent direct to Flamininus (d. so. 3).
In view of Livy's text, :\issen com·incingly suggests that there i"
compression in our text of P. at this point (cf. Holleaux, loc. cit. r61).
and this would explain the omission of the subject of lxp7Jv6.naav. Twv
fLEV O.(,TOVOfLt.l\1 a1TEXt:u9a.l: two towns which had resisted Antiochu
were Lampsacus in Aeolia and Smyrna in Ionia (d. Livy, xxxii1
38. 3; on Lampsacus see below, 49· 1); in the winter of 197/6 both
appealed to Flamininus (App. Syr. z) and Lampsacus sent envoy,
first to its kinsmen in Massalia (both were Phocaean foundatiml,,)
and then with the Massaliotes to the Senate, appealing to thc11
mythical relationship with the Romans and asking to be included in
the treaty (d. Syll. 529; new readings in Wilhelm, Arch. Pap. X\".
I953· 8o-88; new edition promised by L. Robert in the Parium and
Lampsacus volume of the Corpu.s; for discussion see Holleaux, Etudn.
v. 141-55. with bibliography by L. Robert on p. 141 n. 3; E. Bick.. 1
mann, Phil. 1932, 277--99, who argues convincingly that Lampsacn·.
was not included in the treaty with Philip).
oua.s •.• 1TO.pt:(AT}~t: TWV U1TO nToAEfLO.l0\1 KO.~ ¢1LAl1T1TO\I TO.TTOfLEvWV
THE ISTHMt:S DECLARATIO:-l XVIII. 47· 4
cf. so. 5; Lh-y, xxxv. 16. Iofor the two categories. See for the former
Hieron. in Dm~. xi. rs-r6, 'et ceperit (sc. Antiochus) alias urbes,
quae prius a Ptolomaei partibus tenebantur, Syriae et Ciliciae et
Lyciae. eo enim tempore captae sunt Aphrodisias et Soloe et Zephy-
rium et Mallos et Anemurium et Selinus et Coracesium et Corycus ct
Andriace et Limyra et Patara et Xanthus et ad extremum Ephesus'
(probably based on P. via Porphyry: Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 325).
On Ephesus cf. 41 a 2. According to Livy, xxxiii. 20. ro, the Rhodians
succeeded in turning him aside from Caunus (cf. xxx. 31. 6), Myndus,
Halicarnassus, and described as ciuitates sociae Ptolomaei
(for an inscription of Halicarnassus testifying Ptolemaic control cf.
Wilhelm, ]ahresh. 1908, 56 f.). The treaty between Miletus and
Magnesia-on-the-Maeander, probably from r¢ (Syll. 588 =Milet,
i. 3 no. 148), shows these two cities, Heradeia-in-Latmos, Priene,
Samos, Myndus, Halicarnassus, and Cnidus as independent cities,
which confirms the impression given by Hieronymus that Ptolemy
and after him Antiochus had virtually no possessions between
Patara and Ephesus; d. Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 325-6; for details,
Schmitt, Antiochos, 279-82. The only towns left to Philip in Asia
by I9i. after Rhodian operations in the Peraea (Livy, xxxiii. r8. r-22;
the campaigns of Nicagoras mentioned in Syll. 586 (d. GDI, 4269;
btsc. Lind. 151, 152) probably belong to 201-198; see Hiller von Gaer-
tringen, RE, SuppL-E. v, 'Rhodos', col. 788; Fraser and Bean, 98-99;
contra, Holleaux, Etttdes, iv. 308 n. 3), were lasus, Bargylia, Euromus,
Pedasa, and Abydus. Antiochus will have taken Iasus, Euromus,
and Pedasa in summer 197 for only Bargylia is mentioned at 48. I;
on Iasus see 44· 4 n. Abydus, still in Philip's hands in 198 (cf. 2. 4),
may have been garrisoned by him till Antiochus seized it in late 197
or spring 196 (44. 4 n.).
2. l·nl OLaj3a£veLv ds TTJV Eupw'IT'I]v: already in spring 196 Antiochus
had crossed the Hellespont, seized Madytus, Sestus, and other
towns in the Chersonese, including Lysimacheia, which he found
deserted after destruction by the Thracians; this he had set about
restoring (Livy, xxxiii. 38. 8-q; App. Syr. 1; cf. 49· 2 ff.).
ou8£va •.• 'TWV 'Et.!.f)vwv ••• 1TOAEp.ei:cr9aL vuv KTA.: i.e. Greeks of
Europe; this principle has been asserted unilaterally in the senatus
consultum of 44· 2, where it applies to Greeks of Asia as •well as
Europe. The same principle is behind the demand(§ r) that Antiochus
respect the cities of Asia, whether previously autonomous, Ptolemaic,
or Maccdonian.
3, ~~ au'TWV nvas • , • TJ~ELV 1Tpos 'TOV >\vT~OXOV: cf. 49· 3·
4. 'Hy1lcru1vatcTa Kai /\ucr(av: H egesianax, son of Diogenes, from
Alexandria Troas, is well known as one o{ Antiochus III's if>Dw~
(Athen. iv. 155 An); in 193 he accompanied Menippus to Rome (Livy
xxiv. 57· 6; App. Syr. 6 also mentions perhaps in error), and
6rs
XVIII. 47· 4 THE SETTLEMENT IN GREECE AND
it was probably then that he was named proxenos at Delphi (Syll.
585, no. r8; archonship of Peithagoras, 194/3). He was poet, his-
torian, and grammarian; his works included a book on Democritus'
style, one on poetic diction, an astronomical work, ci>atvot-tEva, and
a Trojan history, this under the pseudonym of Cephalus of Gergithes
(cf. Strabo, xiii. 594). See Stahelin and Jacoby, RE, 'Hegesianax (r)'.
cols. z6o2-6; Susemihl, ii. 31-33. As a writer who had dealt with th<"
foundation of Rome from Troy (FGH, 45 F 9 = Dion. Hal. i. 72. r),
he was a suitable person to lead an emba.<;sy to the Romans. Lysia\·
is mentioned by Appian (Syr. 6) as also taking part in the embassy
of 193 (see above), but is not otherwise known, unless he is to be
identified with the later minister of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and
regent of Antiochus V Eupator, who was overthrown by Demetrius
on his flight from Rome (cf. xxxi. 11. z n.).
5. Ta S6§a.vTa. T~ cruvESpi~: 'the decisions of the commissioners'
(not 'of the Senate', as Reuss, Volk. Grund. 89); cf. 45· 7, 8, ro.
Aymard, PR, 174 n. 32.
6. Tous 'Op€oTa.S: the Orestae inhabited the Haliacmon valley in ib
upper waters, north of Ehmiotis and around the lake of Celetrum
(mod. Kastoria); Strabo, vii. 323, 326, makes them Epirote; cf. also
Thuc. ii. 8o. 6 (mentioned with Epirote tribes); Hecataeus, FGH,
r F ro7 (Molossian). But by the fourth century they were incor·
porated in Macedon, and together with the Lyncestae formed one
of the six TCitHs at Gaugamela, under Pcrdiccas' command (Diod.
xvii. 57· 2). For modern discussion see the references in Johann;t
Schmidt, RE, 'Orestai', cols. 96o-5. When the Orestae joined Rom('
is not clear. In 199 Celetrum surrendered to Galba (Livy, xxxi.
40. r·-3), but this is not a reYolt; moreover in Livy, xxxix. z8. 2,
Philip speaks of 'ciuitates Macedonum qui ... inter indutias dc-
fecerant' (cf. Livy, xxxix. 23. 6, in bello), and this suggests a revolt
during the truce of 198/7 (d. Walbank, Philip, r63 n. z; De Sanctis,
iv. r. 55; contra Nissen, KU, 222-3, who thinks per indutias in Livy
is a loose translation of something other than a truce in P.).
nEppa.t~ous: cf. 46. 5 n. They formed a KOtVOV; cf. IG, ix. I. 68'),
mentioning a arpaTTJy6s; cf. Kip, ru-zs. Syll. 593 is a letter sent l)\·
Flamininus between 196 and 194 to the magistrates of Chyretia('
(mod. Domeniko) in Perrhaebia, making over certain properties thr~11
in the possession of the Roman people and stressing Roman goodwill.
rva 1-"'li)' lv TOJTots ifxwatv ~t-tfis KaTa.\aA€LJl ol O~K U1Til TDV {3€.\Tiarc>P
tdw06ns avaaTptcpw9at (II. 6-8).
A6A.ova.s: omitted, like the Orestae, from the declaration at tlw
Isthmus (46. 5 n.). The Dolopes were a Thessalian tribe inhabiting t1w
east slopes of Pindus to the south-west of Thessaliotis; cf. Kip.
126-8; Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 145-50; Flaceliere, 23. Despite Livy.
xxxviii. 3· 4, the Dolo pes were members of the Aetolian confederation
616
THE ISTHMUS DECLARATION XVIII. 47· 9
for much of the third century, perhaps from about 277 (d. Flaceliere,
185) ; but at some date Macedon reco\·ered part of Dolopia, since in
198 the Aetolians took the towns Ctimene and Angeia from Philip
(Livy, xxxii. IJ. 15). Niese (ii. 484 n. r) would date this to 210 (cf.
ix. 41. 1-42. 4 n.), but Flaceliere (304) suggests a date in 207 when
Philip penetrated Aetolia from the north (cf. xi. 7· 2-3). The Dolo-
pians were probably incorporated in the Aetolian confederation
after their liberation, like the Phocians and Locrians (§ 9); cf. Flace-
liere, 348 n. 5·
MciyvT}-ra.s: cf. 46. 5· They too were organized as a Ko~v6v, and their
chief magistrate was the Magnetarches (Livy, xxxv. 31. u), at least
for a time; on the constitution of the ~<:o.v6v see Kip, 87-110.
7. -rovs :A.xcuovs -rous ~9lw-ra.s: cf. 46. 5 n. The Aetolians may have
kept some western parts of Phthiotic Achaea, including Thaumaci
(cf. Syll. 6o3 for an Aetolian hieromnemon from that city in 193/2),
which is not mentioned among Antiochus' captures when Acilius
took it in 191 (Livy, xxxvi. 14. r2-q). Probably Xyniae and Cyphaera
were also Aetolian (Flaceliere, 349).
&rl~a.s ••• Ka.i ~&p<:ra.Aov: on the Aetolian claim cf. 3· IZ n., 8. 9,
38. 3· Pharsalus was, of course, in Phthiotis (cf. v. 99· 3), not Phthiotic
Achaea (Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 135 ff.), hence d</;£Aop..El'ot must refer to
the combined state of Thessaly with Phthiotic Achaea (Kip, 65-
66).
8. Ka.-rb. -rns ES apxf}s <:rov9tiKas: cf. 38. i n.
teal trEpt Anncalios: captured from the Acarnanians by L. Flamininus
in summer 197 (cf. 40. 5 n.; Livy, xxxiii. 17· I-rs) and also claimed
by the Aetolians on the basis of the 'original treaty'.
9. ~w1<oeo.s ~<al. ••• AoKpous: the Phodans and east Locrians had
been liberated at the Isthmia (46. 5). Details of the relations of Phocis
with Aetolia in the third century depend largely on the interpretation
of the hieromnemon lists from Delphi, which is controversial.
in the third century a treaty between Aetolia and Boeotia (IG, ix 4 •
1. 170 with addenda; cf. Flaceliere, 57-68) mentions ¢lw~<£tS oi p..er'
Al-rw>.wv; this is variously dated between 300 and z8r fo. Later the
whole of Phocis was temporarily united with Aetolia, from about 262
to 258 (d. Beloch, iv. 2. 402) and again from 245 onwards; but
Flaceliere, z86-i, does not believe that the Cephisus valley was
acquired by Aetolia until about 235 (cf. F. Schober, RE, 'Phokis',
coL 493). However, towards 225 Phocis defected from Aetolia, leaving
her with only Delphi, and perhaps Tithorea and Anemoreia in the
east, and Lilaea, Drymas, and Tithronium in the upper Cephisus
valley (Livy, xxYiiL 7· r2-13; Paus. x. 33· 3; cf. Daux, 237 f.; Salvetti,
Studi di sior. ant. ii. 1893, r21). On the later subjection of Phocis to
Macedon see v. :z6. r n. Epicnemidian Locris had joined the Aetolian
confederation probably by 262, and had been captured by Philip,
617
XVIII. 47· 9 THE SETTLEME.;.;T IN GREECE AND
probably in 2o8, and held by him until r98 (cf. x. 42. 7 n.; Livy,
xxxii. 36. g).
10. KopLv9ov ••• T plcf!ul\La.v ••. (T.,v 'Hpa.uiw 'IToXLv ••• : Heraca
(like Oreus) is restored in the lacuna from Livy, xxxiii. 34· 9· Se<'
42. 7 nn. on the claim to Heraea and Triphylia; on Corinth, 2. n.
'llpeov 8') ••• T~v 'EpnpLewv "'l"oAw: cf. 45· 5 n.; to have given
towns, captured in conjunction with Attalus, to Eumenes would
have been to confirm the Aetolian accusation that this was no libera-
tion; hence Flamininus' opposition to the proposal. See Scullard.
Pol. roB n. 2, who attributes the main opposition to Flamininus to tlw
Claudian-Servilian group among the Ten, viz. Galba, Tappulus.
Cn. Lentulus, and (perhaps) Caepio.
11. jLETa TLVQ xpovov ••• Sin Tfj<; auyKXTJTOU: the decision was referred
back to Rome (as Livy, xxxiii. 34· xo, adds).
aov TQVTO.LS KO.puaTO'i: cf. 45· 5 11.; like Eretria, taken with the help
of Attalus and the Rhodians. Andros, however (d. Livy, xxxi. 45
3~7), seems to have remained under Pergamum (Larsen, CP, I957.
I7 n. 7).
12. n>.euplm.:,J Auxvt8a. Ka.t n6.p9ov: Livy, xxxiii. 34· II, 'Lychnidu~
et Parthini', but Apollodorus knows IIap8os· 1roA•> '!MvptK~ (FGJl,
244 F so}, and it seems likely that both are towns . •1t!xvts will b<·
Lychnidus, modern Ochrida, on the lake of that name (v. ro8.
IIapOos could be the main town of the Parthini (cf. Livy, xliii. 23. 6.
Caesar, BC, iii. 41. 1 for several towns), but it is odd that it should
be mentioned separately from the tribe, which had been assigned
to the Roman alliance at the Peace of Phoenice (Livy, xxix. 12. r3).
It has been argued that both the Lychnis and the Parthus mentioned
here are situated in north lllyria (Pliny, Nat. kist. iii. I43-5; Zippel,
77-78; cf. Gitti, Historia, 1935, zoo n. 42), but this seems improbable
(Niese, iii. 15 n. 3; Fluss, RE, 'Lychnidus', col. zuz); and the likeli
hood is that Parthus was a town situated somewhere near Lychnidu:::.
and that the Romans handed them both over to Pleuratus as au
enclave between Macedonia and Roman Illyria. According to !tin.
Hieros. 6o7. 4 f., a distance of rz rn.p. separated Cledo (= Lychnidus)
and an otherwise unknown Patras, also on the lake: can Patras lw
Parthus? See Polaschek, RE, 'Parthini', cols. 2037-8. In any cast·.
the words {mo @{}wrmov . •• TaTTop.i.vas suggest regular frontier are:t•,
of Macedon and not recent acquisitions. It may therefore be assumt·• I
that, despite Livy, there is no reference to the Parthini here. PbiliJ •
could hardly have taken this tribe from the Romans between 20,
and zoo without there being some reference to it in the ultimat uw
of zoo; and the suggestion of Holleaux (278 n. r) that he reconquen <I
its territory, for instance, in the autumn of 2oo (in circumstantt"•
unknown t~ us and omitted by Lh·y) is unconvincing, for once tlw
Romans had landed there was no longer much chance of makiJ1r
6x8
THE ISTHMUS DECLARATION XVIII. 48. 3
Macedonian advances in IllyTia. Assuming Lychnis and Parthus to
be towns near Lake Lyclmidus, we have no idea when Macedon
acquired them; their omission from the places mentioned in v. ro8. 8
proves nothing, and it is hazardous to assume that the annalistic
passage in Livy, xxx. 42. r-3, can have anything to do with fighting
on this frontier (so Ferro, u-12).
13. ;b.~uvnvSf><f .•• ~pu~a:'rt:l: cf. Livy, xxxii. 13. 15~14. 3 for the
towns on the west border of Hestiaeotis taken by Amynander in
1g8; they included Gomphi, and Phaeca between Gomphi and the
pass from Athamania, after which 'dedidere deinceps sese qui Argenta
quique Pherinium et Timarum et Ligynas et Strymonem et Lamp-
sum habent aliaque castella iuxta ignobilia'. Apart from Gomphi,
their sites are unknown; cf. Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 127--8 and, for
Gomphi, 125.
48. 1. if:1€pwt:lv o-+us auTous: about the second week in September;

cf. Walbank, Philip, 324.
n61T~LOS ••. AEVT~O<; Ets Bapyu~ta.: for Bargylia cf. 44· 4· P. Cor-
nelius P.f. Ln. Lentulus Caudinus, after serving under P. Scipio in
Spain, was praetor in Sardinia in 203 and served in Africa in 202 ;
see Munzer, RE, 'Cornelius (zr4)', cols. 1379-80; he is perhaps the
object of Cato's speech referred to in Gell. v. 13. 4, and he later served
on the commission sent after the victory over Antioch us (Livy,
xxxvii. 55· 7).
2. AEuKLOS ••• ITEpTlVlO<;: the MSS. read O'T€p£vvws U or crrtipfwlvos
0 and the condncing correction is due to Drsinus; Livy, xxxiii. 35· 2,
does not help since the MS. reads L. Thermus, and L Stertinius is
a conjecture of Galenius, and Plut. Flam. rz reads TtTO.),toY (whence
Reiske conjectured Titinius). See Schweighaeuser, ad loc. L. Ster-
tinius will be the man who held proconsular imperium in Spain in
191{-6 (Livy, xxxiii. 27. 3-4); nothing further is known of his career
(cf. Munzer, RE, 'Stertinius (5)', col. 2451).
'H+aul'Tla.v K<li 9aCTov ••. ~<:a.t Til<; ~1rt SpqKTJS Tr6Aus: Hephaestia
lay on the north coast of Lernnos; on Lemnos see 44· 4 n. On the
Macedonian capture of Thasos in 202 see xv. r--6. The Thracian cities
are those taken from Ptolemy in 200 (cf. xvi. 34· 3-4 n.; cf. xviii. r. 14).
3. n61TALOS 06(~~LO<; Ka.l. AdtKlO<; Tep~vnos: P. Villius Ti.f. Ti.n.
Tappulus had been consul in 199, and arrived in Macedonia in 198
too late for operations (Livy, xxxi. zz. 4); he was succeeded early
in 197 by Flamininus, to whom he was appointed legatus (Livy,
xxxii. z8. rz). Scullard, Pol. ¢, reckons him a member of the Clau-
dian-Servilian grouping. See in general H. Gundel, RE, 'ViUius (ro)',
cols. 2166~7I. L Terentius lv!assiliota was a younger man, aedile in
zoo (Livy, xxxi. so. 3); he was later praetor in 187 (Livy, xxxviii.
42. 4, 42. 6). Scullard, Pol. 141, counts him in the Scipionic group.
619
XVIII. 48. 3 THE SETTLEME~T 11'\ GREECE
rva.~ov TOV Kopv~ALov: Cn. Cornelius Lf. Ln. Lentulus, cousin of
P. Lentulus Caudinus (§ r n.), had fought at Cannae as military
tribune, and had subsequently been quaestor in 212, curule aedile
in zos and consul in 201, when he tried to supersede Scipio in Africa
(Livy, xxx. 40. 7-15, 43· r, 44· 3; Scullard, Pal. 8r).
4. inrEp cruf1f1axias: probably implying a regular Joedus (cf. Reuss,
Volk. Grund. 37; Aymard, PR, 219 n. 24); De Sanctis (iv. r. res
n. 213) thinks of a loose arrangement by which Philip gave military
aid, but P.'s wording suggests something firmer in the light of the
danger from Antiochus.
5. ~rri '!"f)v -rwv f>£pf1tKWV cruvo8ov: the regular autumn assembly of
the Aetolian confederation at Thermum (cf. ii. 2. 8 n., iv. 37· z);
the name Tct (~hpf.LtiHi appears in an inscription from Magnesia-on-
Maeander (IG, ix 2 • I. r87 = Syll. 598 xxxiii. 35· 8 (cf. Livy,
xxxi. 32. 3) by confusion with Thermopylae renders Pylaicum
(Nissen, KU, 29). For the Aetolian assemblies, which were normally
two each year, this and a spring meeting, the Panaetolica, see Hol-
leaux, Etudes, i. 219-30; Larsen, TAPA, 1952, r-33.
7. flTJ KOLVWV£KWS xpfjcr6a~ TOLS EUTUXiJJ.laCTL: the Aetolians could fairly
complain that the whole settlement had been carried out by the
Romans.
-rO.s £~ O.pxi}s cruv6T)kas : cf. 38. 7 n., 4 7. 8.
9. a ... ETrOL1}UaV: but obtained no satisfaction; cf. Livy, xxxiii . .t9·
8, 'legatos Pharsalum et Leucadem et quasdam alias ciuitates e-;
primo foederc repetentes senatus ad T. Quinctium reiecit' (annalistic) ,
for the continued complaints of the Aetolians cf. Livy, xxxiv. 23. i
(from P.).
49-52. Antiaclms and Lampsacus; negotiations at Lysimacheia

During the winter of 197/6 Antiochus applied pressure to Lampsacn:.;
(cf. 47· r n.), where he promised liberty in the future 'cum satis l't
ipsis et omnibus aliis appareret ab rege impetratam eos libertatem.
non per occasionem raptam habere' (Livy, xxxiii. 38. 6). The date is
dear; the events of Livy, xxxiii. 38. 1--7 (despite§ r, 'cum hibernasscl
Ephesi') are prior to Antiochus' campaign of spring 196 (§ 8, initio
ueris) ; they form part of the res Asiue of OJ. 145, 4 = I9i /6. It is
possible that 49· r represents a sentence from the Lampsacene replv.
summarized by Lh'Y (xxxiii. 38. 7), 'nihil neque mirari neque sus-
censere Antiochum debere, si spem libertatis differri non satis aequn
animo paterentur'. If that is so, the Lampsacenes are urging that
severity may drive them to turn to Rome. This interpretation gailis
some support from 52. 1, and by the appeal which Lampsacus had
already sent to Rome to be included in the treaty with Philij>
(47· In.).
620
ANTIOCHUS AND LAMPSACUS XVIII. 50.4
49. 1. 1'pixwal TftV iaxa.,.,v: for the metaphor cf. i. 87. 3·
Ka.,.ucJ~eu~ovTuL! the subject will be the Lampsacenes; the third person
suggests reported speech ; cf. xxiii. 3· 3 and passim.
2. 11'poxwpouul1~ ••• Tfj~ E1T'L~oXTj~: Antiochus had crossed the Helle-
spont in spring 196 and Madytus, SeshL'>, and other towns in the
Chersonese had surrendered to him (Livy, xxxiii. 38. 8-9); cf. 47· 2n.
Ka.TerrXeuuuv ei.c; I T}Au~p(a.v of 1T'Ept AEu~eLov KopvtjX1ov: Selybria
(modern Silivri) lay on the north shore of the Propontis between
Perinthus and Byzantium (cf. Oberhummer, RE, 'Sely(m)bria', cols.
1324-7). L. Cornelius (App. Syr. 3 has H·dws incorrectly) is probably
L. Cornelius L.f. L.n. Lentulus, consul 199 (d. Broughton, !vfRR,
i. 339 n. 5), sent on the special errand here mentioned.
50. 1. Tepevnoc; Ka.t .•. Ou(AALOc,; EK ea.aou: they must have put in
there en route, since the liberation of Thasos was the task of L.
Stertinius (48. 2).
2. 1faVTE:li ••• ,;apotaa..,aa.v Eis 1'ftv AuaLf.I.UXELa.v: according to P.,
the Romans present were L. Cornelius Lentulus, P. Cornelius Len-
tulus Caudinus, P. Villius Tappulus, and L. Tarentius Massaliota.
Livy, xxxiv. 59· 8 (referring to an embassy to be sent to Antiochus
in 193) states: 'legatos mitti ad regem eosdem qui Lysimachiae apud
eum fuerant placuit, P. Sulpicium, P. Villium, P. Aelium'; and
Holleaux (Etudes, v. r66-75) has argued that P. Sulpicius and P.
Aelius (cf. 42. 5 n.) were also present at this conference, having per-
haps joined L. Cornelius; he rejects the view of several scholars that
the reference is to a special conference held at Lysimacheia in 195,
which they consider to be supported by Livy, xxxiv. 33· 12, 'adidebat
(sc. Flamininus: in 195) et cum Antiocho infidam pacem Villium
legatum redeuntem nuntiare'. It is perhaps less certain than Holleaux
asserts that inde here means 'from those parts' (not yet mentioned)
rather than 'from Antiochus'; hence a meeting with Antiochus
at Lysimacheia in 195 is not to be excluded (cf. Broughton, MRR, i.
342 n. 4). Whether Sulpicius and Aelius were present in 196 must
therefore be left open. On Lysimacheia cf. xv. z3. 8 n.
3.1T'pos TOv n,.ov u1!'oa1'a.A~VTES: cf.47. 1-4. They had perhaps delayed
in Greece, making diplomatic contacts (cf. Badian, Studies, ng}.
4. auvEOpEla.s Kowijs: on the conference of Lysimacheia cf. Livy,
xxxiii. 39· 1-41. 4; Diod. xxviii. 14, cf. 15. 2; App. Syr. 2-3. Its date
will be early October 196; see Holleaux, Etudes, v. r63-4; with the
criticisms of Leuze, Hermes, 1923, 203-4; Walbank, Philip, 325. The
demands made by L. Cornelius, to retire from the cities in Asia
previously held by Ptolemy or Philip, and to keep off the autonomous
cities, are a repetition of those made at the Isthmus to Hegesianax and
Lysias (47· r}; and the query why he had crossed into Europe corre-
sponds to the warning of 47· 2.
6:n
XVIII. so. 8 ANTIOCHUS AND LAMPSACUS
~iLa~aaLV: d. 49· 2 n.
8. TTJV ets TTJV EupW1TT)V
9. 1TpoT1BeaBaL 'Pw!laLOLS eyxeLpelv auTov: 'that he was proposing to
attack the Romans'; d. Livy, xxxiii. 39· 7, 'quantum a bello a pert('
Romanis indicto abesse?' Paton misunderstands construction and
meaning: 'that he was trying to put himself in the way of tlw
Romans'.
51. 4. TTJV AuaLp.axou ~aaLXeiav •.• yeviaBaL IeXeuKou: on the shar-

ing out of Alexander's empire, Lysimachus received Thrace: rl
Arrian, FGH, rs6 F I, § 7. TWJJ SJ KaTd T~JJ EvpdnrYJV 8p4KYJS f-LJJJ KU;
X€ppov~aov KaL oaa 8pq.t1 avvopa €8vY) EaT€ E-rr1 ~JJ 8.£\aaaav T~JJ E7T;
£a>.pvDY)aaov rovEvt€LJJOV 1T<JJJTOV Ka8~KOJJ7a AvaLf-LclXltJ ~ dpx~ E'TT€7pcl'TTYJ'
d. Diod. xviii. 3· 2; Iustin. xiii. 4· r6; Curt. x. ro; Dexippus, FGII.
rooF 8, § 3· He was defeated and killed at the battle of Corupedium,
at the hands of Seleucus I Nicator, who perished seven months lat('J
fighting against Ptolemy Ceraunus; the date of Corupedium is DO\\
fixed as c. February 28r (d. i. 6. 5 n.). Bickermann (Hermes, 1932,
so-53) argues that in Greek thought (unlike Roman) mere occupation
gave no accepted title to territory; only victory over the enem\
could do this. Hence Antiochus' claim would have been generally
accepted. There is some truth in this, convenient though it was to
Antioch us' purpose, and notwithstanding the casuistry of Antioch us'
other answers to the Roman demands. Reuss (Stadt und Herrscher.
227-8 n. r) rightly stresses the political background, but does les~
than justice to Antiochus' juristic case. See also Magie, Buckler
Studies, r68 n. r.
5. 1TpwTov 11£v llToXe11alov •.• a~ETepiaaaBaL: the Seleucid dominions
in Thrace were lost to Ptolemy III Euergetes between 245 and 241 :
d. v. 35· 7-8 n.; and for the Ptolemaic organization d. iv. 35· 13 n ..
B. Lenk, RE, 'Thrake', cols. 433 ff.; Bengtson, Strat. iii. q8-83.
SeuTEpov Se <1>1XL1T1TOV: in 2oo; d. xvi. 29. r-35. 2 n.; Livy, xxxi. r6. r
r8. 8. In 2or the Egyptian government was still collecting taxes in
Thrace in both money and kind (P. Teb. i. 8; Wilcken, Grundziigl',
i. 2 no. 2; Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, i. 335-6).
7. KaTaywv Kai auvoLKL~wv: 'bringing them back and resettlin1:
them'; for avvoLKl~av d. v. 90. 3 n. On the Thracian sack of Lysi
macheia, probably in 199/8, d. 4· 6 n.
8. IeXeuK~t~ s· otKT)TtlPLOV ETOLflcl~ELV: the future Seleucus IV Philo
pator, the second of the three sons of Antiochus and Laodice, bon1
soon after 220 (Bouche-Leclercq, Seleucides, 578 n.). Antiochn~
established him at L ysimacheia as governor of the European pos
sessions; d. Livy, xxxiii. 4!. 4. XXXV. rs. s. xxxvi. 7· rs; App. Syr. 14.
Bengtson, Strat. ii. 227 n. 4·
9. SLn TtlS a•hou xnpLTOS: cf. Livy, xxxiii. 28. 6 quoted above, 49
52 n.
622
)<EGOTIATIONS AT LYSIMACHEIA XVIII. 53-55
10. O.va.y~<<u6TTJTa. auvT19ea9c::u: cf. App. Syr. 3 fin.; Diod. xviii. r4fin.;
the proposed maniage was between Ptolemy V and one of Antioch us'
daughters, Cleopatra. According to Hieron. in Dan. xi. 17, the be-
trothal was in Epiphanes' seventh year (Oct. 199-0ct. 198). Chron.
Pasch. 334· rS Bonn, gives it as Porphyria et Marcello consulibus,
which should be r96; but the Chron. Pasch. is in itself valueless as
evidence, for it is based on a series of faulty synchronisms between
Egyptian royal years, Olympiads, and consul-years, and Hieronymus
will have got his dates from Eusebius, and will therefore be equally
unreliable (cf. Leuze, Hermes, 1923, 222-4). However, since Antiochus
attacked Ptolemaic possessions in his campaign of 197 (Livy, xxxiii.
2o. 4 for Coracesium: cf. Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 302 n. r), r96 is evidently
the right date. See further Walbank, }EA, 1936, 22-23; Volkmann,
RE, 'Ptolemaios (23)', col. r696; Schmitt, A ntiochos, 26 n. 4· The
marriage was in 194{3 (Livy, xxxv. 13. 4; Hieron. in Dan. xi. 17 ('thir-
teenth year'); Leuze, Hermes, 1923, 221-9); see xxviii. 20. 9 n. for a
later dispute about the dowry. This agreement with Antiochus shows
clearly that the Egyptian government had lost all confidence in
Roman aid, which now came too late (cf. Holleaux, 83); the new
policy of a rapprochement with Antiochus may reflect the situation
after the overthrow of Scopas and Dicaearchus (53-55).
52. 1. TOU'i Aa.p.1Jta.~<'IJVOU'i ~<a.l TOU'i Ip.upva.tou'i: both cities had

already appealed to Rome (cf. 47· r n.) and Lampsacus may even
have threatened to make an act of deditio (49-52 n.). The envoys
named by P. are not otherwise known; Livy and Appian omit them
completely.
3. ETrl T/ll So~<eiv ••• O.p.cj>~<Y~T)TOU<YI: 'at the idea of defending himself
against accusers before a tribunal of Romans' (Shuckburgh).
4. ETrl 'PoS1wv: now on good terms with him; cf. 41 an.
5. Su\Auaa.v Tbv auAAoyov: Livy, xxxiii. 41. r---9, continues the narra-
tive from P. for the rest of the year. A rumour of Ptolemy's death
reached Lysimacheia, and both sides, pretending not to have heard
it, broke up the conference. Antiochus sailed to Ephesus and from
there sent an embassy to Flamininus (on the difficulty of accepting
this see Holleaux, Etudes, v. r64 n. 3; Leuze, Hermes, 1923, 207 n. 3)
before proceeding to Lycia (where he learnt that the rumour was
false), to Pamphylia (where a mutiny detailed him), and eventually
after a storm and shipwreck to Seleuceia, where he wintered 196/s.
53-55. The downfall of Scopas and Dicaearchus; the Anacleteria

of Ptolemy V E piphanes
The events described here form part of the res Aegypti of Ol. 145, 4
197/6. They culminate in the preparations for the anacleteria or
623
XVIII. 53-55 DOWNFALL OF SCOPAS AKD DICAEARCHUS
coming-of-age ceremony of the king (53· 2). It has been argued thai
this ceremony is identical with one held at 1Iemphis, probably on
the anniversary of Epiphanes' succession on Phaophi 17 (OGIS, go.
11. 44-45; cf. xiv. n-r2 n.}. The Rosetta decree which contains this
reference was enacted on 4 Xandikos = rS Mecheir of Epiphane;;'
ninth year (which ran I I October 197-10 October 196 on the usual
dating of his reign; cf. Skeat, Reigns of the Ptolemies•, Munich, 195-1.
13); rS Mecheir will thus be 27 March 196 and the previous Phaophi 11
is 27 November I97· This date is confirmed by the equation betwec11
the Egyptian and the Macedonian calendar. Dinsmoor, Archon.'.
492, has shown that the latter was running closely with the Atti•
lunar calendar at this time; and there was a new moon on 22 :\iardo
rg6, but not anywhere near that date in 197 or I95· If 18 Mecheir
27 March ~ 4 Xandikos, r Xandikos falls on 24 March, which is clo~ ..
enough to confirm the year.
However, the assumption that the .:V'J:emphis festival of I7 Phaopl11
of the eighth year (27 November 197) is identical with the anacleteria
(cf. W. Otto, Priester und Tempel im hellenislischen Aegyptc11
(Leipzig-Berlin, 1908), ii. JOI nn. 2 and 3; Holleaux, Etudes, v. 164 n. z)
is almost certainly \¥Tong, for the one is an Egyptian and the othe1
a Greco-Macedonian ceremony. Nevertheless, it seems very likelv
that the e';ents which led to the one led to the other, and so that tlw
anacleteria fell in the autumn of 197. VYith the ceremony at Memp!Ji~
on 27 November shortly afterwards (cf. Volkmann, RE, 'Ptolemaio,,
(23)', cols. 16¢~7); both, as P. indicates for the anacleteria, will bo·
the sequel to the overthrow of the Aetolians. In that case, the event:-;
described in these chapters belong to autumn 197, as their positiou
in the book requires. Holleaux, who assumes (loc. cit.} that tht>
rumour which broke up the conference of Lysimacheia in autum11
196 (52. 5 n.) was caused by Scopas' abortive putsch, puts both tbi.'
and the anadeteria in that year, and since he identifies the anacleten.1
with the Memphis ceremony, he is obliged to date the Rosetta deere•·
to 195, which clashes with our other dates for Epiphanes' reign. But
the connexion of the rumour with Scopas' put.sch is quite conjectural.
and it seems more likely that the internal changes in Egypt carril·d
out in autumn 197 led to the rapprochement with Antiochus wit It
which he confronted the Romans at Lysimacheia (sr. 10 n.).
Scopas' position having been shaken (xvi. 39· 2 n.: the identity ,.1
the siege is uncertain), he planned a coup d'etat, concerning which !'
evidently gave some details in the passage preceding 53 and now lost.
53. 2. tta.A.Mou<; ••• cl.rpopjlO.<; ••• KAEOjlEVou<;: on the rising of t ]1,·

Spartan Cleomenes see v. 33-39.
4. XE'ipa. ~a.p£'ia.v: the 6,5oo Aetolians recruited in 199 (Livy, XX.\L
43· s).
624
DOWNFALL OF SCOPAS AND DICAEARCHUS XVIII. 54· 8
-roO j3a.cnAEWS en 1TO.LS0s OVTO'i: Epiphanes was born on 30 Mesore
(OGIS go, 1. 46) and was raised to co-regency with his father by 25
Pharmouthi of year 13 = 5 June 209 (P. Gurob, 12; d. W. Otto and
W. Spiegelberg, Die demotischen Papyri Loeb (Munich, 1931), III f.).
The previous 30 Mesore is 9 October 2ro. Consequently in autumn
197 Epiphanes was about thirteen years old. See Walbank, ]EA,
1936, 21-22.
5. ot 1Tepl Tov l6.pLaTOf.LEVTJV: he held the post of oJ1ri rwv 1rpayf.Larwv;
cf. XV. JI. 6 n.
Twv ti1Ta.amaTwv: d. xv. 25.3 n.
-ro aov€SpLOv: cf. 54· I; the royal Council. selected from the 'Friends'
of the king, and common to all the Hellenistic monarchies (cf.
Corradi, 231-55); for Egypt cf. Ioseph. Ant. Iud., xiii. 75 (an example
under Ptolemy VI).
8. nToAEf.LO.~OV ••• TOV Euf.LEVOO'): probably a member of the Council,
not otherwise known. vmvwKol are soldiers; cf. i. 36. 12 n.
II. f.LE-ra TWV 4>l.>..wv: 'with his friends' ; cf. § 5, 54· 6. The reference
is not (as Corradi, 331-2) to the king's Friends (cf. xv. 25. 21 n.).
54. I. noAoKpaTT}s: cf. v. 64. 4 n.

2. To is llpn pTJ9e"LaL: evidently in the part now lost.
4. £rrt Tns liLa.AUans: in the war between Antiochus and Egypt. The
Aetolians may already have been interested in disentangling Anti-
ochus from this conflict, in order to free him elsewhere. In view of
the close relations here indicated between Aristomenes and Dori-
machus, the latter may have been involved in the policy of a marriage
alliance which came to fruition the next year (51. ron.).
Awpif-La.xos: last mentioned as lawgiver in Aetolia along with Scopas
himself (xiii. r. 2-3, r a 1), but he had remained in Aetolia when
Scopas left for Alexandria.
5. liLa TTJV Twv 1rpa.yf.LaTwv ci.A.oyia.v: 'owing to the senseless nature of
his proceedings' (Shuckburgh).
8. ALKa.la.pxos: cf.Diod.xxviii. r; DicaearchuswasanAetolian, whom
Philip entrusted with 2o vessels and sent out, in 2o5 or, more prob-
ably, 204, to plunder the autonomous islands of the Aegean and give
what help he could to the Cretans against Rhodes. (Philip thus
followed the precedent of Antigonus Gonatas, who had used a
Phocian pirate Ameinias in his capture of Cassandreia: Polyaen.
iv. 6. 18.) For the Cretan war with Rhodes cf. xiii. 4· 2 n.; and for
full discussion of Dicaearchus' expedition and its date, Holleaux,
Etudes, iv. 124-45. It is not known when Dicaearclms entered
Ptolemaic service, but presumably in one of the levies carried out
by Scopas (cf. xv. 25. r6 n. (2o4 or 203); Livy, xxxi. 43· 5 (199));
a Fayum papyrus (198 or 197) shows him enjoying a special dorea,
consisting of a r per cent. tax on all sales of slaves between
SH173 ss
XVIII. 54· 8 DO\YKFALL OF SCOPAS \'(D DICAE.~RCHUS
individuals, and later of r draduna on slaves sold by auction (d. \Y. l .

Westermann, Upon Sla·cery in Ptolemaic Egypt (New York, rg2q).
ll. 7 and 21 of text, pp. 22 ff. of commentary); see H. Benecke, f)l,
SeepoNtik der Aitoler (Diss. Hamburg, 1934), 41-42; Launey, i. 191-2.
-rO.s ~<P' 'EAAT)V'ITOv-rov ,.6A.ns: cf. v. II r. z; xviiL 41 a 2; as in both
these passages the reference is to cities of the Troad. For P.'s re-
stricted use of 'Hellespont' to describe the straits only as far north
as Sestns and Abydus see xvi. 29. i n.; Holleaux, ttudes, iv. 130 m1.
6-i·
Tou <m:iA.ov 'ITO.VTOS ~Yt:f!OVa. KTA.: twenty ships were invoked (Diod.
xviii. r); P. means that Philip did not reveal that he was behrnd
Dicaearchus, who appeared to be quite independent.
10. TOV flEV Aa€~€(a.s, 1'ClV 5€ na.pa.VOf!lO.S: not unparalleled. Aft;·r
the expiation of the 'guilt of Cylon' (cf. Time. i. 126) at Athens, altaP.
arc said to have been erected to ~Y{3pL<; and J.lvatSna (cf. Theophrastn-;
ap. Zenob. 4· 36 (Corp. paruem. graec. i}; Cic. de leg. ii. 28; Epimenide-.
(Dicls, FVS 6 , i. 3.-\ 7, p. 31, 11. r6 ff. =Clem. Alex. Protrep. 2. 22 l'.i
on the advice of Epimenides. But these were no doubt apotropaic:
Dicaearchus was seeking appropriate protection. See :M. P. Kibson,
Geschichte der griechischen Religion, i2 (~funich, 1955), 812-15.
12. n7JV OE A.omwv AhwA.wv: with the downfall of Scopas and Dicae-
archus the large Aetolian element in Alexandria is reduced. As Niese
{ii. 672 n. 7) Jlrst suggested, the old hostility between Acamanian
and Aetolian may have played a part in these events, for it is now
kno;vn that AristCJmenes had fought against Scopas and the Aetolian,;
in the Social War (cf. IG, ix 2 • I. 583; above, xv. 31. 6 n.); cf. Habicht,
Hermes, I95i, 504. The whole affair becomes ra ~<ard roue; AlrwAotk
(55· 3)·
55. 1. IKo'ITa. ••. ~ cp1Ao.pyupLa.: cf. xiii. z. z n., where Scopas' greed
is compared to the thirst of a dropsical patient.
2. Xo.plflop-rou: known from a dedication hy one of his subordinates,
Alexander, as O'TpO.T1JYDS rn~ T~V 8~po.v TUW lAc:,P&vrwv under Philopa tor
(OGIS, 86) and also from Strabo, xvi. i74, who mentions O'TfjAm ~<ai
f3wJLol of various Greeks, including Charimortus, on the Somali coast
in the elephant country; cf. Launey, i. 192; Rostovtzeff, SEHHW,
iii. rsss n. zo3. Though not stated, it is possible that Charimortus
was another Aetolian; and he was probably eliminated with Scopas
(54· 6).
3. Ava.KATJ1'~p~a.: the coming of age ceremony of the young king,
carried out in Alexandria in the presence, no doubt, of the army; d.
xxviii. 12. 8. Against the view that it is identical with ra 7TpwroKAlaw
(mentioned in connexion with Ptolemy Philometor in z Mace. iv. 2r)
see Otto, Abh. Bay. Akad. !934. II, rs. See also 53-55 n.
o{JOE'ITW ••• TfjS ~AIKLO.S Ka.1'E'IT€lyouaT)s: how old a Ptolemy must be
ANACL!iTERlA OF PTOLE:\IY V XVIII. 55· 9
to become officially of age is not known (cf. Otto, Ablt. Bay. Akad.
1934, II, 44); on Epiphanes' age in autumn 197 see 53· 4 n.
).~+E0'9a( nva. Ta Trpayf.laTa KaTaO'TaO'LV: 'the kingdom would achieve
some degree of tranquillity'.
4. 6.~1ws Tou TllS ~aO'L).1!£as TrpoCYX~f.lO.Tos: 'in a manner worthy of the
dignity of the realm' rather than ',vorthy of His Majesty's dignity'
(Paton).
no).vKpaTOUS: cf. v. 6-t. 4 n., XV. 29. IO. He was governor of Cyprus
from 202 to 197; the times were hazardous o·wing to the threat from
Antiochus and perhaps Philip.
6. TrM]Bos tKavov ••• XPTJf.LBTwv: mainly, no doubt, from the rich
temples, for Polycrates was a-rpaTT)yos ~m1 dpxLEpEVS (cf. xv. 2.5. q n.;
Bengtson, Strat. iii. 142 n. I}.
n,.o).Ef.LO.tlf;l Ti!J M!!ya.).oTro).hn: the son of Agesarchus (d. X\". 25· 14;
in§ 8 below Agesarchus is Sc!nveighaeuser's emendation of dyr]aavopou
(FS) or ~Y'7aavOpou (P)) and the historian; cf. v. 35-39 n., xv. 25. 14 n.
9. o(,K OKV!]O'Of.LEV s~a.O'a<JIEI:v I<T)..; these passages have not survived,
except xxii. 17, referring to Polycrates.
INDEXES
I. GENERAL
Abacaenum, 3111. Adra, 546.
Abae, •P7· Adrarnyttium, soz.
Abba, Adranodorus, 5, JI, 32, t,q,
Abila, Adrene. 423.
Abyuus, 24, 25, r•>7, 538-44 (siege of), Adria (Po mouth). 495·
553, 558, 597. 6u, 615, 62t>. Adriatic Sea, I9L
Academy, !\Iiddle, 224. Aecae,
- N•;w, Scepticism in, 224, 405-6. Aegates battle of, 633.
Acanthus, 164. Aegean Sea, 416,472, 474-80 (Philip's
Acarnania, Acarnanians, 12, 13, campaign).
6o, I 73, 177, 78, 179, rSz. r88, Aegimarus island, 440, 441.
533. 542, 552, 557, 561, 6oz, 617, Aegina, rr, 13, 14, 167, I69, 179, 1.29,
63I. 255, 276, 533, 538, 61 r; Achaean
--speech of envoys at Sparta, 162- loss of, 178, 186, 220.
82. Aegium, 15, 220, 229, 230, zSo, 538.
Acerrae, JL Aegosages, 6•1-+
Acesimbrotus, 5I I, sso, 558. Aegospotami, battle of, 400, 401-2,
Achaea, Achaeans, 15, I 7, 25, 53, 58, 6~1l.
I z8, I+~. I66, I6•), 174, 177, 178, I 72-3.
r86. 212, 22q, 259. 273, 276, 355. P .. Paetus (cos. 6o6, 621.
5J4, 546. 548-g, 552. 553· 566. SC'x., Paetus Catus rqR), 563 •
570, 6or; chronology of early .\ernilius, :\I., Lepidus 187), 533,
633; 8wpal(t-rm, 239. 281, .iH-4 (ultimatum to Philip V).
287, 289, 290; revival, - L, Paullus (cos. 219), .;;8, 595·
277, 279-82; alliance with Actolia (cos. r82), 253, 594, 595,
(240/ 39)' 143 ; cruvallM, z;)o; Philo- 596. UOI, biZ.
poemen reforms cavalry (:zrojog), Aeneas Tacticus, work on signalling,
220-9; cavalry, importance of, 259-
22 5; military reforms of Philopoe- Ae.niania, 128.
men, 279-82; victory at Man tinea, Aenus, 538, 543, 0og.
282-94; Eliphasii join Confeden.cy, Aepium, 6.j.I.
286-7; save Messene from ~allis, Aepytus, 514·
szo-z; join Rome, 85, 550, 564: Aeschines, r66.
fuedus with Rome, 6o6; strategz'a, Aescrnia, 125.
date of entry on, no hipparchy, Aetolia, Aetolians, I q. II), 17,
I 225; drrorlAec.o(j ; avvapxlat, .n, 6;, 94, rr2, r6g, 172,
174, 178, 179, 186, 188, 229,
r, 3, 4. 5 (date of death), 6, 255, 259, 274, 275, Z76, 355. 479,
63-65,93-98 (capture of), 316,640, 501, 516, 524, 530, 534, 542, 548,
644 550, 555. 562, 572, 575, sso, 584-5,
Acharnae, rSr. 598, 6o6, 607, 613, 6r6-I7,
Achdous, R., 178, 278, 557· 62•f, 628, 6:rr; constitu-
Achriane, 242. tional arrangements. 257, 413, 620;
Acilius, M' Glabrio (cos. 191), 617. social distress, 413-15; 'llomo-
Acrae, 42, graphos in, 413-14; granting of
Acragas, god, r6o. letters of marque, 557, resident
- R., r&r. aliens in, st>r-2; alliance with
Acrillae, 78. Achaea (240{39L 143; Roman
Acrocorinth, 173, 559, 563, 567, agreement with, chronology of, I I -
569, 613, 633; se,· Corinth. IJ, 137, 162-3, 179-80, 256, 599-
Acrolyussus, go (identification). 6oo, 649; attack on Acarnania
Acusilaus, r 16. (211), r62, 182, r88, 542; Philip V's
Adaeus, 489. invasion of, 274, 277, 278, 279;
INDEXES
Aetolia, Aetolians, (cont.) 354, 377; deification, 354-5; paint
Philip's peace with (·~o6), 21, rnB, ing by Apelles, 355·
477-8, 599; speech of envoys at of Pherae, I IO, Ill, 258, 578.
Sparta (2Io), 162-82; raids on II of Epirns, 35, I 73, 178.
Greece, r 43, 173-4; fortify Thermo- chamberlain to Philip V, 58, 256
pylae, 256; embassy to Rome, 530- satrap of Persis, 3£5, 422, 642.
r; generals, chronology of, I2-13. of Calydon, 413, 554·
Africa, 19, 134. 453. 619, 620; of Trichonium, 561.
Timaeus on, r8; Scipio in, r8, 22, Attalus' envoy to Rome, 562.
317; Roman power in, 253, 254. the Isian, 413, 478, 550, 554, 561.
Agatharchus, son of Agathocles of 593, 597. 5')8.
Syracuse, 3:l, 33· Polyhistor, 318.
- Syracusan, 34· Alexandria, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 71, 415,
Agathodeia, 438, 482, 484. 438. 484-5. 489-90. 499. 512, 525.
Agathocles, of Syracuse, r8, 20, 32, 626; Thesmophoreum at, 437, 489c
33, 8o, 151-2, 319,356,360-2 (early 490; royal palace, site of, 482,
career), 377. 384,388, 395,493·4,495· stadium, 490; Sarapeum, 490,
of Alexandria, 23, 41, 8o, 437, 438, ;\fccropolis, 491; Canobic Gate, 491.
480, 482, 486, 487, 488, 489, ·190. theatre of Dionysus, 491.
493-4. 495. 525· Troas, 615.
-son of Agathocles of Syracuse, 32. Alipheira, 207, 553·
-Tower of, battle of, 443· Allaria, 59, 423.
Agathyrna, II, 161. Allucius, 2H1.
Agelaus of Naupactus, I76, 313, 645. Alpheius, H., 329, 522.
Agesan;hus, 484, 627. Alps, 54, 122, 197, 206, 240, 267, 637.
Agesilaus, I2fl, 129, I5z, 394· Amanid Gates, Pass, 365~~.
Agesipolis I of Sparta, 152. Ambracia, 75, 557, 561.
Agis IV, I ro. Ambracus, 58.
Agraei, 557· Ambrysus, 639.
Agriania, 257. Arneinias, pirate, 40, 625.
Agrigentum, 8, IO, II, 78, IjO, I55, Amiternum, 124.
164, 381, 383; site and topography, Ammon, 47, 354·
157-61; plan, 158: city walls, 159; Amorgus, 167.
temple of Lin dian Athena, 159; Arnphictyonic Council, 165, 170, 171
temple of Zeus Atabyrius (Polieus), Amphilochia, 557·
159-60; temple of 'Hercules· (A), Amphipolis, 82. 152.
r6o; temple of' Juno Lacinia' (D), Amyclae. 642.
r6o; temple of 'Concord' (F), 16o; Amynander of Athamania. :1.74, 275.
temple of 'Dioscuri' (I), 160; 278, 538, 549-50, s6r, 61g.
temple of ·Demeter' (C), l(io; Amyntas, king of Macedonia, 163-4
Asclepieum (H). I6o; Olympieum Amyzon, 472, 484, 503, 649; tempk
(B), 16o; Phalaris' bull at, 381-3; of Artemis, 503.
sacked by Carthaginians (405), roo; atJacyctosis, 30 (Capua), 101 (Taren
origin of name, 161. tum).
Ajax, sou of Oilcus, 334-5; cult of, Anahlta (Aene), 235, 502
334; tomb of, 335 Anares, 1)32.
Alabanda, 531-cz. Anas, R., 202.
dlat, Phoenician, 43· Anaxidamus, Achaean, 293·
Alba Fucens. trg, 1:.!3, 124. Ancara, unknown town, II5.
Albania (Caucasus), 262. Anchiale, 83, 85.
Aibius, C., 309. Ancona, 495·
Alcaeus of Messenc, 2R8. Ancyra, 604.
Alcithus of Aegium, 550. Anda, 430.
Alesion, Mt., 130, z86, z88. Anderson, J. G. C., quoted, 99·
Aletes, 2 ro. Andobales (Indibilis), 6, r6, 18, 13'··
Alenadae, 165. 218, 246, 247, 307, 308, 309-1'
Alexamenus of Calydon, 6o8. (defeat of).
Alexander the Great, 33, 53, 64. 72, Andreas, doctor, 390.
8o, 89, 97, 130, 15:::. 167, 173, 197, Andromachus, father of Achacus, ql>
227, 232, '233. 237. 238, 257. 3!4. -father of Timaeus, 377·
353, 364-76 (Issus), 455, 528, 567, Andros, 164, 503, 536, I>I8.
568, 586,591,622; and Callisthenes, Androsthenes of Cyzicus, 314-
6s:z
I. GENERAL
Anemoetas, 567. - of Syracuse, 400.
Anemoreia, 617. Antipatec, Macedonian, 85, 167, r68,
Anemurium, 6rs. 357. 567-
617. - 'the nephew', 524.
233· Antipatris, 5f7·
Anio, R., I23, 124. I2]. Antiphilus, 167.
annales maximi, 628. Antisthenes, Rhodian historian, 24,
Antalcidas, Peace of, 152, 629. 503, 5 r 7; criticized, 5 I 7-25.
Antander, brother of Agathodes, 151, -Peripatetic, 518.
36I. Antium, 123.
Anthedon, Aous, R., 3, 62, go, 581; con·
Anthemus, ference on (198), 550, 597; pass
Anticyra, II, rz, 13, 162, 179 (site). of, 554-5, 563, 58r.
182, 11>3. 612. Apama, wife of Magas, 224.
Antigoneia (Cha.onia), 630-1; pass -wife of Prusias I, 475-6.
near. (site), 630-r. - wife of Prusias II, 4 75-6.
Antigonus Monophthalmus. 33, 85, Apamea {on the Orontcs), 70.
361, 554· - Rhagiane {Nehavend), 232-3.
- I I Gonatas, 40, 96, 167-8, 173, - (Mvrleia), 475·6.
1]8. 335. 625. Apasiiwae (Paesicae or Pasiac), 261,
- I I I Dosun, r68, 170,173, 17.'i. z63.
473. 549. 557. 564. Apega, wife of :\abis, 421, 571.
569, 586' (>07' Apennines, 26R.
175· .'l.phrodisias, (H.).
Antinum, 123, 234. Aphrodite. temples of, at Pcrgamum,
Antioch-in-Persis, 421. sor; at Paphos, 515.
-- of the Chrysaorians, 531. Apodoti. 557·
Antiochis, sister of Antiochus lll, 99, Apollo, in Punic-Mar.edonian treaty,
100. 47. so; Temenites, at Syracuse,
Antiochus I, 33, 40, 70, 95, 234, 476, 104; Hyacinthus, at Tarentum and
604. Amyclae, 104; Thermios, at Ther-
- I I , 33· mum, 279; Lycius and C..arneius at
- I I I , r, 3. 6, 8, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23, Sicyon, 571; Corynthus, on Gulf of
26, 27, 137, rso, r86, 187, 253, ~Iessenia, 6o6-7; land of, at Sic yon,
368, 485, jOj, 532, 533, 538, s1o-1.
oo8, 61o, 6rr, 619, 622, 640, 644, Apollodorus of Cassandreia, 40.
645, 65o; character, 496; called secretary of Philip V, 549·
'the Great', 596, 638-9; marries Apollonia (Chalcidice), 165.
Laodice, 643; and Hermeias, 481; (IIlyria), 56, 62, 585.
8wpaKfTat of, 281; route against (Pontus), 41 7·
Molon, 643; capture of Sardes, (Arsouf in Palestine), 47·
63-66; capture of Achaeus, 94-98; (near Tigris), f)43·
and Xerxes of Arsamosata, 98- Apollonis, wife of Attalus I, 534, 604.
100; against Arsaces, 231-42, 261; Apollophanes, 389, 644·
crosses ::Vlt. Elburz, 236-9; and the Apulia, 29, roo, 127, 155, r8g, rgo,
Oxus, 261-4; in Bactria, 264-5; rgr, 564.
siege of Bactra, 265; in far east, Apustius, L., Fullo (praetor 196). 597·
312-16; takes title ,_dyas, 316; and Arachosia, 312, 314.
Gerrhaeans. 421-2; takes Amyzon, Arachotus, R, 3!4·
484; at Gaza and Panium, 523-5, Aradus, 49, 528, 644.
546; campaign of 200, 546-7; cam- Aral Sea, 262.
paigns of 200-197, 6o2; advances Aramaeans, 50.
into Asia ::-.finor (197), 6o2-3, 6q- Aratus, r, 5, 59, 61, 78-79, 87-89
I5: and Lampsacus, 62o-1; pact (death), 143, r,;r-2, r68, r 73. 224,
with Philip V, 22, 424, 435, 47I-4, 564, 569, 645, early chronology of,
503, 506, 523, 530; at Lysimacheia, 633; attack on Cynaet.ha, 142-4;
6o6, 621-3; treaty with Rome, 52. chronology of generalships, 88-89,
IV Epiphanes, 98, 233, 355, 359. 143; MemoiYs of, 142, 168, 633.
474· 487. 524, 547· 616. the younger, 87, 88.
V Eupator, 6r6. Araxa, 316.
-eldest son of Antiochus III, 524. Araxes, R., 262.
Hierax, 96, 99, 313, 316, sor. Arcades (Crete), 59
INDEXES
Arcadia, Arcadians, 128, r 29, 130, Arpi, 29, roo.
143, 172, 295, 393, 568, 6o8; Arretium, 63r.
League, 87, 143; Ten Thousand, Arsaces I, 23s-6, 262.
!28; dances and parades, 149. 639. - II, 8, rs, 23s--6, JIS; Antiochus'
Arcesilaus of Pitane, 224, 405. expedition against, 23I-42, 26r.
Archagathus, son of Agathocles, Arsames, 99, roo.
Ptolemaic !ma'T'<LT')~. 33, 438. Arsamosata (Armosata), 6, g8-99
-son of Agathocles of Syracuse, 32, (location).
33· Arsanias, R., 99·
Archedamus, Aetolian, 580. Arsinoe, town in Libya, q.
Archedicus, 357· -- (= Conope ?), r88, sso.
Archias of Thurii, 167. - wife of Ptolemy II, 481.
Archidamus V, king of Sparta, no. -wife of Ptolemy IV, 137, 438, 480.
Archimedes, 7I, 74· 75. 77. !34. rso; 482, 483.
planetarium of, I34· Arsippus, 47·
Archytas, ror. Artabanus, 309.
Arctonnesus, 83. Artabazanes, of Media Atropatene.
Ardaxanus, R, ')I, 92 (identification). 3I).
Ardiaei, go, 93· Artabazus, I64.
Ardys, roo. Artapates, 487.
Ares, in Punic-Macedonian treaty, 49, Artax:ias, 99.
so, 649, and Athena Areia, shrine Artemis, festivals of, at Syracuse, 7
of at Acharnae, r81; Plain of, 423. II2-IJ; cult of, at Abydus, 541.
Areacidae, 444· temples of, at Lusi, r 74, f>39; ;d
Argennum, C., 505, sro-r r. Ephesus, 355; near Eretria (Am;,
Argilus, r64. rynthium), 416; at Hiera Come.
Argos, rs, z6, rz8, 130, 172, 173, 174, soz; at Amyzon, 503; Cindy8s
r86, 230, 521, 553, 565, 568, temple of, near Bargvlia, sq-r.;
Sf'9, 570; 174; Heraea, 529; Astias, cult of, ai: lasus, 51_';
festival at, rs, festival Leucophryene, cult of, at Magnesi;~
at, 230; method at, 347-8. on-Maeandcr, 532.
Aria, ·232, 238, 315, ti42. Artemisium, 258.
Arianus. 94· Arycandeis, roo.
Aribazus, 65, 66, 94, g8. Asclepiades of Bithynia, 389.
Ariminum, z6il, 632. Asclepias, 46, 47, 48, 89; temple of," 1
Aristaechmus, 5(:J7. Kew Carthage, 209.
see Aristaenus. Asclrpius of Myrleia, I I 6.
287, 548-g, sso. Ascondas, 549·
601, 649. Asea, 128, 522.
rsz. Ashurbanipal, 83.
Aristinrms IT, tyrant of Arg-os, 42r. Asia, 254. 453·
SITlD11111S. 26 3, Minor, Seleucid position in, 3'''·
Aristodemus of Megalopolis. 224. 472, 602.
Syracusan, 36. Asine, 6o6-7.
of Argos, Asoka, 314.
Aristomenes 57, Sq. Assinarus, R., 146.
of Acarnania, 484, 492, 62S· Assyria, Assyrians, 83, 97·
Syracusan, 5, 69. Astae, 423.
of 379· Astapa, r8, 305.
Aristonicus, Athenian, 167. Astarte, 47, 48, 635.
159· Atabyrium, Mt. (Sicily), I59-6o.
379; on Locri, criticized Atabyrum. Mt. (Rhodes), r6o, 3So.
19. vie\v Atella, 9, JI, 133, 154, I55·
A tern us, R., I 24.
by Epicurus and Athamania, 229, 274, 278, S34. S' ·
54s. 549, 572, sss.
Athena, 504; Lindian, temple of .. .r
Agrigentum, I 59; at Lindus, 1 ·"
Arius, R. 265. Areia, and Ares, shrine of, 1
Armenia, 99, 186. Achamae, r8r; Nicephoros, t<"lllJ •·
Minor, roo. of, at Pergamum, sor, 504; s""
.\rmosata, see Arsamosata. tuary of, at Academy, }\.thens, 5 ;
I. GENERAL
Athenaeus, son of Attains I, 604. Bactra, 265, 312.
Athenagoras. s8r. Bactria, 8, 15, I6, 238, 264, 265,
Athenais of Er3:thrae, 354· 312-!3, 642.
Athens, Athenians, 13, 25, 85, r II, Badian, E., quoted, 537. 629.
rz8, 129, 130, 131, 145-6 (disaster Badiza (Baesidiae ?), 423.
in Sicily), 152, 164, 165, r67, 171, Baebius, L., Dives (praetor r8g). 442,
177, r8r, 229, 275, 331, 339, 342, 444·
357. 359. 388, 394. 399. 402, 409, Cn., Tamphilus (cos. r8z), 563.
476. 533-6, 539. 544. 552, 567, 571, Baecula, town, 248, 251, 298; battle
034; character of people, 13, r82; of, I5-I6 (date), 247-55. 267, 296;
method of dating at, 34 7-8; Stoa site of, 248-9; map, 249.
Poikile, r 30; Treasury, 3+9; Dipy- Baetis, R., 248, 250, 296, 305.
lon Gate, 534, 537; Long Walls, Balearic Islands, Baleares, 254, 456,
534; Academy, 535, 537; Cephiso- 458; slingers, 304, 457·
dorus' tomb, 562; altars to Hybris Balkan peninsula, So.
and Anaideia, 626; Attalis tribe Bantia, 243·
founded, 534; deme Apollonieis Bargullum, 552.
founded, 534; Attalus' benefac- Bargylia, 514, 529, 532, 533, 553. 558,
tions, 535· 6JI, 6I5, 6I9; temple of Artemis
athletes, criticism of, 57· Cindyas at, 514-15, 529; Gulf of,
Atilius, M., Regulus (cos. 25('). 51 3·
Atintania, Atintanes, 56, 90, 552, Barmocar, 44. 45·
Atlantic Ocean, 539· Bastetani, 241,.
Atrius, C., 309. Batania (Bashan). 546.
Atropatene, see Media Atropatcne. Batis, 528.
Attalus I, 24, 25, 27, I37. r62, I69, Baton of Sinopc, alluded to, 39, 40.
I86, 229, 255, 261, 2]], 3ICJ, Belbinatis, 172.
497, 499, 500, 501, 502, 504, 50], Beneventum, roo, r I 8; battle of, 586.
509, 5ro, .')II, 532, 533-6, 538, 541, Berat, 93·
544,552, .')62, 564,570-1,572,603- Berenice, wife of Ptolemy III, 224,
4 (death and character). 609, 6I I. {8I.
6rS, 644, 645; benefactions to -daughter of Ptolemy II. 481.
Athens, 535· Berger, H., quoted, IS].
n. 6o 4. berit, Hebrew, 43·
- I I [ , 604. Berytus, 49·
- general of Phihp I I, 8 I. Bessus, 97.
-of Rhodes, 141. Hickerman (Bikerman), E.]., quoted,
Attica, r64, 532, 536. 45. 52, 54. 5S. 95. 355. 437·
Audata, secondary wife of Philip II, Bien of Borysthenes, 527.
8r. Bismarck quoted, 550.
Audoleon, king of Paeonia, 35· Bithynia, Bithynians, 603.
Aulon, Bay of, 62. Boagrius, R., r85.
Aurelius, C., Cotta (cos. 252), 629. Boebeis, L., 576.
-C., Cotta (cos. zoo), 529, 502-3, boeotarchs, 6o8.
629. Boeotia, Boeotians, 58, 6o, I 71, I]],
- M., Cotta (legatus, 20I). 551. I]S, 239, 256, 276, 42I, 455, 549,
Ausculum, battle of, 586. 552, 6oS-9, 6I 7; Boeotian League,
Autonous, Syracusan, 35· III, 608.
Autolycus, 508. Boii, 547. 631-2.
Axus, 59· Bolax, 64r.
Aymard, A., quoted, 225, 253. Bolis, 93, 94·
Bomilcar, 7, 9, II2, II<), I33-·4, 230.
Baal Ben Dagon, 49, so. booty, di\·ision of, in Roman army,
Baal Hadad, 49, so. 6+lJ· 2T6-I7.
Baall!ammon, 47, 48, 2IO. Bostar,
Baal M-g-n-n, 48. Botrys Jiessana, 356-7.
Baal Samem, 46, 48, (,49· Bottiaei, I64.
Ba'alu of T:y'Te, treaty with Esar- Boubastis, 489.
haddon, 51. Braba.ntium, 26, 547·
Babylon, Babylonians, 50, 187, 3I5, Brachylles, 27,549, 6o1, 6o8-g.
320. Bradanus, R., 190.
Baccheius of Tanagra, doctor, 390. Branchidae, 354·
INDEXES
Brennus, ro8-9, I 75· IH:i-33 (Roman siege of), 137, I f•-.
Brothers, War of the, ~(!:~. 154· 155· 242, 437·
Brown, T. S., quoted, 323, 345· .346. Cardaces, 367, 368, 370.
Brundisium, 191. Cardia, 478.
Bruttii, 21,:29, 33, roo, rr8, rrg, 155, Caria, Carians, 21, roo, 244, 372, 47:.
I6I, 162, Igo, 336, 422, 425, 443, 473, 533; Philip V's attack on, 50o.
457. 495· 502, 529-33. 547·
Bura, 633. Carmania, 312, 314, 42I, 642, 644.
Buttus, 554· Carmona, 297.
Byblus, 528. Carneades, 405, 406.
Bylazora, 58. Carpetani (Carpesii), 202.
Byssatis (Byzacis), 317. Carthaea, on Ceos, 26, 536, 547·
Byttacus, 645. Carthage, Carthaginians, 7. 9. 17, 3.-.
Byzantium, 82, 98,190, 504,553,621, 33, 35. 43, 44. 48, 53, 55. 67, go, 1 r '.
644· l]I, 134, 136, J49, 150, I54, ·211<.
246, 253, 306, 33I, 424, 430, 4.H
Cabyle, 423. 450, 456. 457. 458. 461, 464. 4<·:.
Cadusii, 233. 469, 49 I, 495, 531, 533, S(>c .
Caecilius, M., Metellus (praetor 206), foundation legend, 337; councils al
6os. 45. 218, 430, 441; land system, 03•·.
- Q., .Metellus Macedonicus (cos. slaves and freedmen in, 53; tempi•
14J), 53· of Apollo at, 47; temple of Asclcpi"··
- Q., Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica (Eshmoun) at, 47, 48; 'Gad' "'
(cos. 52), coin of, 48. Tyche of, 48; temple of Poseidon al,
Caicinus, R., 339· so; greed of, 136; Pha!aris' bu!Ltt.
Caicus, R., 500, 502, 604. 381-3; capture and sack of, 417.
Calabria, 190. 594, 596; mercenary war, 43".
Calacte, 161. treaties with Rome, chronology "!
Calatia, 31, 133, 154· 635; second treaty with Rome, 51
Calaureia, 167. third treaty with Rome, 56.
Calchedon, 474, 478, 479. 531, 553· Carya.e, 545·
Callias, friend of Philip V, 88, Caryatis, 172.
of Syracuse, historian, 151. Carystus, 612, 618.
Callimachus, doctor, 390. Casilinum, 1oo, I24-
Calliope. town in Parthyene, 15, 235, Casinum, rz3.
242. Caspian Gates, 233, 235. 236, 238.
Callipolis, 337· Sea, 232, 238, 261-3.
Callisthenes, r8--2o, u7. 233, 263, Cassander, 85, 166---7, 355, 357, 35·•
348,354 (death), 377.379,643,648; 361, 554·
(death). 377, 379, 643. 648; criti- ..._ epistates of Maronea, 88.
cized by Timaeus, 353-5; criticized Ca.s~andra. 335-6.
by P .. 364-76. Cassandreia, 625.
Callo, JI, 39. Castra Cornelia, 425, 427, 430, 431
Calor, R., 123. 440. 443. 465.
Calpurnius, C., Piso (praetor 211), Castulo, 248, 249, 298, 305.
126. Catana, 42, 361.
Camarina, 361, 400, 631. catapults, at Syracuse, 74-77; .11
Cambylus, 94, 95- .Mantinea, 283, 287, 289.
Cambyses, 527. Catulus, Treaty of, 465.
Cami:ra, 16o. Caucasus, extended meaning, 263.
Campania, Campanians, 29, 31, roo, Caudini, 29.
I I 8, 190, 635; fertility of, 29. Caulonia, 1oo, r6l, I<)O.
Candasa, 26, 547· Caunus, 61 5·
Candragupta, 314. cavalry manreuvrcs, 225-8; space ,.
Cannae, battle of, 29, 42, 78, 107, 133, quired for, 370.
150, 2~6. 244· 295. 458, 594. 620, Cavarus, 6, 7, 98, 644.
6]8. Cayster, R., 603.
Canusium, 267. Celaenae, 372.
Capena, 122. Celetrum, 616.
Caprus, R. (Lesser Zab), 643. Celtiberians, J3z, 43o-1, 433·
Capua, 2, 9, I I, 29, 30 (treatment Celts, see Gauls.
after Roman recovery), 31, roo, Cenomani, 547, 563.
I. GENERAL
centaurs, 8:z-83. - Ap., Nero (praetor 195), 558.
Centuripa, 361. -C., Nero (cos. 207), I6, 191, zoi,
Ccos, 536. 267. 26~ 271, 272, 533·
Cephisodorus of Marathon, 129, 130. Ap., Pulcher (cos. 2 12), 3, 33, 34,
- pupil of Isocrates, 343· 68, 69, 70, 77, II9, I20, I21, I 31.
-Athenian statesman, 562. Ap., Pulcher (cos. I85), 558.
Cephisus, R., 617, 641. Cleander of Mantinea, 123.
Cercidas, 567. Cleanthes, 89.
Cerea, 644. Cleigenes of Acanthus, 164.
Chaeron (Pellcne), 568. Cleino, 438.
- (Sparta), no. Cleisthenes, 535·
Chaeronea, battle of (338), 82, 166, Cleitarchus, historian, 488.
568. -of Euboea, 567.
Chalceia, 318-19. Cleitomachus, 406.
Chalcetor, 553· Cleitor, I78.
Chalcidic federation, I63-5· Cleombrotus I of Sparta, I 52.
Chalcis. 159. H'l4. 257, 536, 563, 6rz, Cleomenean War, I6g.
613. Cleomenes III of Sparta, 85, I 10, I r r,
Chaldaean kings in Berossus, com- 152, I68, 175, 282, 481, 553, 624;
pared to account of Hieronymus, 40. attacks Megalopolis, 144, I 56, 522;
Chamaeleon of Heradea, 379-80. military reforms of, 27I; use of
Charax, 233. mercenaries, 293.
Chares, Athenian, 152. Cleon, Athenian, I52.
Charimortus, 6z6. Cleonac (Peloponnese), 167.
Chariteles of Cyparissia, 88. {Phocis), 542.
Charixenus, I73· Clconaeus, 5II, 529, 550.
Charondas, 363. Cleonicus, I 76.
Chattenia, 422. Cleonymus of Sparta, III, 587.
Chelidonian Islands, 6oz. Cleopatra, wife of Philip Il, 8r
Chersonese, Dorian, 512, 513. - daughter of Antiochus III, 623.
- Thracian, 478, 615, 621. Cleotimus, 567.
Chios, 229, 274, 275, 338, 476, 504; Cleoxenus, 260.
battle of, 23, 24 (chronology), 497- Cnemis, Mt., 185.
soo (chronology), 503-II, 509-10 Cnidus, 5I2-13, 615; battle of (394),
(losses), 517, 520, 544, 547, 550, 394·
552, 640. Cnossus, 59·
Chlaeneas, Aetolian, 85, 163, !66, r68, Cocynthus, C., 189.
170, 172, 176, 6oo-r. Coele Syria, 95 (meaning), 97, 435,
Choarene, 232, 238. 438, 472, 473. 523, 602.
Chremonidean \Var, 224, 413. Coelius, L., Antipater, roo, 107, IIg,
Chrysippus, 84, 8g, 151. I21, 122, 123, 124, 133. 193. 199.
Chrysogonus, 58, 152. 20], 215, 242, 245- 249. 296-7, 310,
Chyretiae, 598, 616. 61 3, 628, 650.
Cilicia, IOo, 366, 372, 485, cohort, development of, 302.
Cilician Gates (Merkes Su), 366, coins of Abydus, 541 ; of Agathocles,
372, 373· 361, 495; of Aradus, 541 ; of Bar-
(Taurus), 342, 365. gylia, 515; of Berytus, 49; of Q.
Cimolus, I73· Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio, 48;
Cincius, 217, 647, 648. of Cyrene, 224; of Hadrumetum,
Cindya, 514-15. 50; of Iasus, 5 I 5; of Locri, 332; of
Cineas, 567. JI.-Ialaga, 2IO; of the Mamertini, 629;
Cirta., 440. of Malon, 642; of Nabis, 420;
Citium, battle of, 393-4· of Ptolemaic Egypt, 414; Punic,
Cius, 22, 474-9, 53I, 544, 553, 555, minted in Sicily, 45; of Pyrrhus,
6II. 36 ; of Rome and Egypt compared.
Claudius, Q., (Flamen) (praetor 2o8), I 37; of Xerxes of Arsamosata,
267. 99·
- J\1., Marcellus (cos. 222), 2, 7, 8, 15, Colchians, 62.
68, 69-70, 72, 77, 1Ir, rrz, 134, Colo:phon, New, 503, 604.
189, 242-4 (death), 417, 564, 632. Com1scne, 232, 238, 242.
- M., Marcellus (cos. 196), 27-28, comitia ctmturiata, reform of, 646.
243-4. 6os. Compsa, 29, roo.
8Hl73 uu
1;-\DEXES
Conii, 202. bull from Carthage•, 3S2; helped 1 ,
Conolly, Lieut. A., quoted, 239, 240. fortune, r68, 563; and Xenophr>~1
Conan, Athenian general, 394· Cyropaedia, 22 I.
Sam ian astronomer, 71. L, Scipio Asiaticus (cos. 190), I<><>
Conope, 189. 200, 254. 296, 598.
Consentia, 29, IOo, 190. - Cn., Scipio Asina (cos. 26o), r 11
consuls, powers of, 646. Cn., Scipio Calvus (cos, 22:!), l•, ,
Coracesium, 623. 8 (date of birth), 9, 68, 69, I 14. 1 ;• ·
Corcyra, 50, 177, 178, 179, 230, 549· 149, IjO, 191, .W5, 218, JOl, L I'
Corinth, 88, 10i), 164, diG, ~30, 3l4, -· 1'.. Scipio :Nasica Corculum (1'
325, 521, 559, 503. 567, 568, 16.:), 204 (letter of).
607, 612, 618; battle of (q6), - L., Sulla Felix (cos. 88), 197.
s86; Isthmus of, n8, I 29, r8o, zs8; Coroebus, a fool, 327.
Greek congress at (481), 404; - Olympic victor, 402.
Roman declaration of freedom at Carone, 6o6.
(196), 258, 609-14, 617; Gulf of, Coronea, 82.
259; see also Acrocorinth. Corsica, Tirnaeu;; on, I8, IC).
corn, price of, 138. Corupedium, battle of, 175, 501, (, ·
Cornelius, C., Cethegus (cos. I97l, 5(•:z. COrliU·S, 629-30.
- Cn., Lentulus (cos. 201], 605, t,r8, Corycu:>, C., 503.
620. Cos, 26, 236, 505, 512, 519, 6Jr.
L., Lentulus (cos. I9Y). 31 z, bzr. Cossad, 232.
- P., Lentulus Caudinus (praetor Cothelas, king of Getae, Sr.
203), 446, 471, 6os, 611, 6rg, o2o, Crannou, 167.
6'21. Crarerus, 85, 314.
P., Scipio (cos. 218), 6, 7. g, 68, 6q, Crates, I 39, 224.
u4, 136, 149, 150, r85, 191, 198 9, Cratesicleia, r I I.
200, 205, 301. Crathis, R, 1<JO.
P., Scipio Africanus (cos. 205), 8, Craugis, father of Philopoemen, 2 c _;
9, IO, 14, I6, I], !8, Ig, 22, 24, 89, Cremona, 547·
145, rs4. ISs. 320, 360, 5'ls. 603, Cresphontes, 352,
(;rJ, urg, u2o; called 'the Great'(?), Crete, Cretans, 21, 52, 6o, 0r, 9+. ··,
596; character of, I9I-2lO; legend (character), 159, 23'J, 24I, 293, ·l ·'
of, rg6, 197; letter sent to Philip V, 423, 532, 533, 545. 562, 6L5; \1• '
193, rg6, H17, 204, 245; image in part allied to Philip, 58-.w; Hl1"
temple of Juppiter, rcn; visits to dian war on, 415-16, 423, 6~5
temple of J uppiter, zoo-r; saved Critobulus of Torone, r6.~
his father's life, rg8-9, elected to Critolaus, 489.
aedilcship, 199-200; takes New Crocus Field, battle of, I65, I/ I.
Carthage, 191-22o; consolidation Croesus, 63, 402.
in Spain. 245-6; Baecula (zo8), Cronos, 46, .p, zro.
245-55; saluted as king, 247--8, Croton, 29, 30, roo, Ioi, 190, 33f1, I' 1,
252-3; hailed impe-rator by troops, Ctimene. 617.
253; helped by fortune, 253; Ilipa Culchas, 298.
(2o6). 296-304; visits Syphax (zo6), Curius, M.', Dentatus (cos. ·zgo), i• i ·
305, 306; mutiny in army of, 306-- Cyathus, R., q, r88.
9; campaign in _-\frica, 317, 424-34; Cyclades, 26, 47 2, 503, 538.
capture of Locri, 317; burning of Cycliadas, 15, uo, 549, 593-
camps, 417, 427-30: battle of Great Cydonia, 59·
Plains, 432-3; proposes terms, 441, Cyllene, 639.
453: campaigns of 20J-2, 440-G4; Cyme, 159, 393·
Zama, 445-63; meeting with Han- Cynaetha, 142-4, 178.
nibal, 451-3; after Zama, 465-7I; Cynctcs, 202.
peace terms to Carthage, 466-71; Cynoscephalae, battle oi,
remark on Dionysius and Aga- 285, +.B. 468, 563.· .,-,, .
thocles, 495; return to Rome aml 6o2; nmrchiug before, 57<]-, r 5+. r S 5, zoo, 204, Cynus. 277, 641.
221, 252, 331, 467, 594. 595. 596; Cyphaera, 61 7·
visit to Spain (I5IL 205: recoYers Cyprus, 472.
L GESERAL
Cyrene, 2;!4, 472; federal Penta1)olis, title,358; Strategica, 228; 'lr<pt Tijs
224· O<:Ka<rlas, 358; mechanical snail of,
Cyrus, 63, 402c 351l-g.
Cythnos, 536. of Pharos, 44. 56, 6o, 78, 87, 88,
Cyzicus, 505, 541, 604; battle of, I 52, I6g, I 78, 635·
399· of Apamea, doctor, 390.
Demochares of Leuconoe, r8, 20, 355-
Dacamas. 450. 6o, 377, 379·
Daemon of Carthage, 48. Democleidcs (Democles ?), 356.
Dahae, 313, 644. Democleitus, 260.
Da1phantus of Hyampolis, 542. Dernocrates, Philip V's admiral, 505,
Dalmatia, 331. 507.
Damaratus, various Spartans so- Demophanes, 224.
called, 419. Demosthenes, Athenian general, 146.
Damareta, daufihter of Hiero II, 41. orator, r65, r66, 167,355,564,566.
Damas of Syracuse, 32. secretary of Philip V, 549, 593·
Damascus, 25, 546. of Bithynia, 318.
Damasistratus, father of Thtopom· Denthaliatis, I 73·
pus, 79 Diadcs, enfiineer of Alexander, 72.
Damius of Colophon, 72. Diadochi, historians of,
Damocles, 21, 419. Dicaearchus, pirate, 79, 418, 478,
Damocritus of Calydon, j!JI. ()23-6.
Damouras, 49· of Messana, 236.
-river in Syria (Nahr Damnr), 49· of Trichoniurn, 561.
Damoxenus, 601, 6oo. Didascalondas, 5·~5·
Daochus, 567. Dido, 4S.
Dardania, Dardanians, jH, r83, 255, Didyma, 514.
Digeri, 423.
I, 177 ..py. Digitus, Sex., sodMs 11auaiis, 213.
Cod<\mannus. 53, 23+· )D4-76 Dimale, 56, go, 55·2.
(Issus). Diodotus J, 3 I 2.
Dassarctia, Dassaretae, 6, go, 93, 552. II, 2f,4, 265, Jl2-lJ.
dating, methods of, in Greece, 347· Diogene>, Seleucid ofticial, 239.
Daulium, 63~). Dionvsius I of Syracuse, 36, 38, So,
Daunia, u7. 346-7, 363, 494, 495; walls of, 71;
Daunii (Campania), 127. chronology of, 325-6; tradition of
- (Apulia), I')o, Iyi. extravagance, 380.
dedi/ifl, 467-8, 62<), 631, 635· II of Syracuse, 8o, 324-5,331, 346,
Deidamia 34, 35· 384, 400.
Deinarchu~. 568. leader of Antiochus Ill's hypas-
Deinocrates, 507, 532, 6IL pists, 64, 65.
Deinomenus, c01'poris custos of Hiero- Dionysodorus, 507, 509, sso, 551,
nymus, 36. 56z.
Dcinon, 23, 483, 487. 488. Dium, 12, 162, 175, j72, 579·
Delphi, 35· tso. I ] I , 174, 175, 198, Dodona, I 75, 641.
285 (f<•[;; at), 335 (and Locrian Dolopes, r83, 613, 6r6-r7.
maidens), 542, 555· 615, 617, see Domitius, Cn , .\hcnobarbus (cos.
a!sn Amphictyonic CounciL I 22), 636.
Demarctus, 567, 568. Cn., Corbulo, 429.
Demeter, temple of, in Alexandria, Don, H.. (Tanais), 263.
489; at Eleusis, 533. Doriruachus, 12, 13, 14, n, 185, 413,
Dcmetrian \\'ar, 174, 413. ()J.j.
Demetrias, 255, 258, 549, 563, 612, Doris, 171, 259.
6IJ. Dositheus, 71.
Demetrius [ Poliorcctes, r67-·S, 224, Douro, R., 251.
358, JDO, 612. dowry (dos), at Home, 595-6.
-II, 475, 476, 633 4· Drangiana. 312, 314, 315.
- the F;nr, 224. Drin, R. (near Li:;sus). go.
-son of Philip V, 88. ()or. dropsy, associated with thirst, 414-15.
- [ Soter, 602, 6r6. Drymas, 617.
son of Euthydemus, 31 3· Dunbabill, T J., quoted, ro8, 159,
- of Phalerum, 218-g, 358-Go, 378; !Go.
INDEXES
Duris of Samos, 276 ; criticizes Theo- Ephorus, 20, II], 128, 152, 276, 351.
pompus and Ephorus, So. 379, 387, 409, 416, 648; criticized
Dussaud, R., quoted, 47· by Duris, So; by Timaeus, 325-7.
Dyme, 58, 259· 377; by P., 364, 376, 393-5.
Dyrrachium, go, 631. praised, 4!0-Il, 522.
Epichares, 567.
Earth, in Punic-M:acedonian treaty, Epicrates, Rhodian commander, 53'•
')0. - alleged victim of Philip V, 88.
Ebro, R., 136. rgz, 199, 201, 202, 204, Epicurus, abuses Aristotle, 343·
zo5,246, 251; treaty, 43, 465,631; Epicydes, 32, 62, 70, IIJ.
battle off, 68; battle of, 309-1 z Epidarnnus, 56.
(map on 310). Epimenidcs, 626.
Ecbatana, 232, 233 (renamed Epi- Epiphaneia (Ecbatana), 233.
phaneia), 234, 235, 642; palace, Epirus, Epirotes, 58. 182-J, I91, 25'·
234· 534· 5{8, 551, 552, 6r6, 6J'
Ecdemus, 223-4. Philip's expedition to (2r4), 57; i11
Echecra.tes of Phlius, 346. first l\lacedonian 'Var, 177, 27'•.
informant of Timaeus, 331, 346. passes in, 554-5.
Echinades Islands, 178. Epitalium, 641.
Echinus, 8, 13, 14, r83-5 (Philip's Erasippus, Delphic archon, 4L
siege). 186, 553. 555. 558. 598. Erasistratus of Ceos, 389, 390.
eclipse of moon !413), 145. Eratosthenes, 71, 263, 642-3.
Edeco, 245. 247. 3IL Erbessus, 78, 361.
Edet.1.ni, 245-6. 31 I. Eretria (Euboea). 164, 612, 6r8.
Egypt. Egyptians, 32, 49, 59, 65, 8o, ~ (Thessaly), 554, 57fi, 579·
229, 274· 434-9. 472-4. 478. 480, Eretum, 124.
sn. 538, 546; relations with Rome, Erigon, R., 93·
I37, 543; overseas possessions of, Erigyius, 237, 238.
642; ships at Samos, 499, 503, 505, Erymanthus, R. (Helmand), 314·
510; native re>"olt, 439· Erythra.e, 509. 604.
Elaia, 547· Eryx, 630.
Elatea, 170, 277, 548, 549, 572, 579, Esarhaddon, treatv of. with Ba',Ji,,
6o8, 6!2. of Tyre, 51. J
Elburz, l\£t .. 235, 236; topography of Eshmoun, 47, 48, 49, 209.
Antioch us' crossing, 236--9; map, Ethiopia, r87.
237· Etruria, Etruscans, 33, 425, 631.
Elea, Gulf of, 504. Euanthes, oecist of Locri, 334·
elephants, at Haecula, 251; at Zama, Eu boea, Eubocans, 62, 128, 256, :;: .1.
456, 464, 468; at Cynosc€-phalae, 258 (under Philip V), 276, 536, 5·1:'
sBr. 552, 567, 6r2, 613, 641.
Eleusia, cult of, at Sparta, 255. Eucampidas of Maenalus, 567.
Eleusis. 129, 562; temple of Demeter Eudamus, 51I, 550.
at, 533· Eudicus, 567, 570.
Eleutherna, 59 Eudoxus of Cnidus, 263.
Elimiotis, 81, or6. Eugenium, 552.
Eliphasii, 286-7. Enhydrium, 554·
Elis, Eleans, 128, 142, 163, 169, 276, Eumachus. 39·
371,j16,542,552.567,598,6o6,6o7. Eumenes I, 535·
Ellopium, 278, 279. ~II, 603, 6o4, 609, 618.
Elymaeans, 233· -of Cardia, 85.
Emporia, 467, 469. Euphranor, r29, 130.
encomium. contrasted with history. Euphrates, R., 8, 14, 95, 186-7, 21:.
22!-3. 315.
Enipeus, R., 183, 554, 578, 579, 580. Euphron, tyrant of Sicyon, 259·
Enna, 361. Eupolernus, 575. 580.
Ennius, 197, .p6, 431, 452. Euromus, 513, 553, 610, 615.
Eordaea, 563, 581. Europa, daughter of Philip II, 81.
Epaminondas, IIo, III, 394; com- Europe, and Philip II, 8o; mea111n•:
pared with Hannibal, 127-33. in Theopompus, 8o.
epa.rchies, in Seleucid empire, 264. Europus (Rhagae), 233·
Ephesus, 27, 65, 355, 406, 502, 503, R., 6r3.
6o3, 6r5, 623. Eurotas, R., 521.
66o
1. GENERAL
Eurydeides of Athens, 88, 168, 562. Galatia, Galatians, 40, gS, 169, 174,
Eurydice (Audata), secondary wife of 1]5. sor, 594. 598, 603-4·
Philip II, 81. Galerius, Roman emperor, 89.
-wife of Ptolemy I, 175. Galilee, 546.
Euryleon, 15, 220, 550. Gallic Wars of Rome, chronology of,
Eurymedon, Athenian general, 145, 631-2.
400. Gandhara, 314.
battle of, 364. Garganus, Mt., rgr.
Eurysthenes, 352. Gaugamela, battle of, 234, 364, 455,
Euthydemus I of Ba.ctria, 232, 264-5, 6I6.
312-13. Gaul, Gauls, 174, 251, ·267, 295, 425,
Euthynus, 129. 456, 457, 466, 562-·3: Cisalpine, 54,
Euxitheus, 567. 138, 562-3; see alsv Galatians and
Evagoras of Cyprus, 393· Gallic Wars of Rome.
Gaza, 496, 527, 528, 546; battle of, in
Fabian tactics, 120. Zeno, 523.
Fabius, L., 442. Gedrosia, 315.
- Q., Buteo (praetor 196), 56I. Gela, Geloans, 159, 399, 630; Con-
Q., Maximus (cos. 213), roo. gress of, 399, 400, 403.
Q., l'viaximus (praetor r8r), 595· Gelo, son of Hiero II, 2, 3I. 33. 34, 35.
Q, l\Iaximus Aemilianus (cos. 145), 39, 41, 42 .
200, 595· . - son of Deinornenes, 399, 404.
- Q., Maxim us Verrucosus (cos. 233), genius Carlhaginis, 48.
9, I 55, 189, I9I, 219, 3 II. Genusus, R., 63r.
Q., Pictor, 29, 40, IIg, 121, 123, Germany, 328.
125, 193, 202, 204, 209, 245, 296, Gerrha, Gcrrhaeans, 21, 421-2.
425, 629, 636. Getae, 8r.
Falerii, 63o. Gisgo, envoy, 42.
Fanum Fortunae, 268, 269, 270. councillor, 4 7 I.
Ferentina, 636. Gitta, 26, 547·
Feroniae, Iucus, 12 I, 124. Glos, Persian admiral, 393·
Fevrier, J. G., quoted, so. Gomphi, 6rg.
fire-signalling, r6, 258-62. Gonni, 584.
Flaminius, C. (cos. 223), 632, 646. Gordium, 371.
-C. (cos. 187). 219. Gorgias. Olympiakos of, 401, 402; en-
Flavus, Lucanian, I ro. comia on Helen and Palamedes,
Fonniae, 199. 405.
Fortune (Tyche). 96, 98, 125, r4·z, 168, Gorgus of Messenia, 57·
191., 194-5· 201, 244. 24 7. 253. 2 76, - son of Aristomt:-nes of :Messenia, 57.
304, 443. 452, 463, 466, 474· 476, Gortyn. 572, s8s.
493-4. 542, 564, 569, 570, ss6, Gracchi, 632, 646.
614. Granicus, R .• battle of, 376.
Foruli, 124. Great Plains, battle of, 270, 427, 432-
Fregdlae, 243. 3, 440, 443·
friends, see ,PC\ot. Greece, Greeks, 644; freedom of, 597,
Fucine Lake, 123. 6og-zo.
Fulvius, Q. (trib. pleb. 197), 561. Griffith, G. T., quoted, 457·
- Cn., Centumalus IVIaximus (cos. Grumentum, 267.
cHI). 121, 125, 189. Gryllus, son of Xenophon, 130.
Q., Flaccus (cos. 237), I 19, 1zo, Gsell, S., quoted, 47, 49·
125, I26, 127, 155, 189, 219,632. Guriana, 265.
- Q., Flaccus (cos. sufi. r8o), 561.
Furius, P., Philus (cos. 223), 632. Hades, cult of, at Locri, 337·
- L., Purpurio (cos. 196), 556, 562, Hadrumetum, 50, 440, 44I, 444, 450,
6os. 457. 463.
Hageladas, sculptor of cult-image of
Gadara, 546. Zeus at I thorne, 6o.
Gades, 296, 310, 311. Hagesander, Antiochus' agent, 59·
Gaesatae, 632. Halicarnassus, 372, 5!4, 519, 6ro, 615.
Gala, king of eastern ::--rumidia, 306. Hallward, B. L., quoted, 255.
Galaesus, R., 1o8-g. Haruilcar Barca, father of Hannibal.
Gala:da, 361. 99. 633·
66r
IKDEXES
Hamilicar,leader of Insubrian revolt, Hephaestia (Lcmnos), 6!1, 6r9.
26. Hcphaestion, 233. 355·
-Punic admiral at Ebro battle, 6q, Hephaestus, :no; Spanish ~ 1"
78 (called Himilco by Livy). · Hera, in Punic--:\Jaccdonian treal ·,
the 'Samnite', 154. 46-4 7; temple of, at Argos, 174
Hampskora, 67. Heraclea, in S. Italy, ro8, II8, .1
Hannibal, son of Hamilcar, I, z, 3, 6, battle of, 586.
II, 15, 21, 29, 30, 34, 36, 62, 99, in Trachis, 256, 257, 579·
133, 136, I54, r89, 277, 422, 504, -on Latmos, 598, G15.
583, 6o3, (>49; council of, I 53; Heracleia, daughter of Hiero II. J ·
campaign of 220, 251; crosses (Media),
Rhone, 636-7; crosses Alps, 122, Heracleidae, of Pelopontt•···•
197, 206, 240, 637; alliance with by, 35I-3
Philip V, I, 2, 42-56, go, 150, 218; Heracleidas, son of Ag;:,.thodc•s '.1
march on Rome (2II), 8, g, ro, rr8- Syracuse, 32.
33, 137, 149; captures Tarentum, Heracleides of Tarentum, 20, 21. ,
roo-9; at Caulonia, r6r, defeats (invents sambuca), 103, 416, 417-- '"
and kills Marcellus [208), 242-4; 476, 497, 5llJ-2o, sSr.
attacks Salapia {2o8L ; dur- - o f Gyrton, j8I, 583.
ing Metaurus campaign, Heracleitus, 40S.
leaves Italy {203), 44o--r, 443; Heracles in Punic- l\Iacedonian tn·" 1 ' ,
up inscription in temple of Juno, 48, 49, founder of Olympic gan'''',
443: Zama campaign, 446-64, 58 I; 402.
meeting with Scipio, 451-3, as a Heraea, ft>stival at Argos, 22•1·
general, ro, 294-5; compared with -- (Arcadia). ·22:;, 553, 607, IIi.
Epaminondas, !.17-3.3; character, Heraeum, Argive, see Hera.
16, !7, IS0·-5: greed, I36, T5I, Herdonea, 29. 155, r8g.
I.'i3; chi,·alry, 153; cruelty, I5I, !53· Hermeias, 4lh, 492, 644.
envoy to Syracuse, :12. 34· Hermes, H4-
- ..... the 'Gladiator', 32, I5J- Her:mias of Atarueus, 3-13--4·
Hannibal-historians, 39- Hormocles, Chian, 504.
Hanno, son of Bomikar, 30, roo. I r8. Hermocrates of Syracm;e, r8, }'J'l· 4";
430- (speech in Timacus).
general in Sicily, rso. Hermolaus, 354·
-general in Spain {207). 296, zg8. Hermus, R., 63.
Harmonia, 35· Herophilus of Cakhedon, 388-90.
Hasdrubal, son-in-law of Hamilcar. Hestiaeotis, 555, 6IJ,
I 54, 20\1. Ilelairoi of Philip 11, 8z,
-son of Gisgo, 6, I8, 13(,, IjO, 202, Hi<trbas, 4'l·
2j0. 254. 273. 2()6, 297, zgtl, hiatus, avoidance of, 234, 2u4, ·U·f·
299, ]0], 426, 427, 429, 432, Hiera C01ne (Hierocacsarea), so.,.
440. -- {Caria). 503.
-brother of Hannibal, I6, Hierapytna., 418.
IjO, 202, 247-52, 254, Hiero II of Syracuse, 2, 31, B ..H. J ..
(Metanrus). 39. 41, 4'2, 71, 62().
Punic commander in Sardinia, f;7, Hierocles, father of Hiero II, .p.
IJattusil, treaty of, with Ramcsses II, Hieromyces, 546.
Hieronymus of Syracuse, 2, 3, 7, J'
II6. (defection from Rome), 32, 34, J ..
Hecatompylus, IS, 236-8, 142. ,36, 37, 38, 39, 41, GI, 6g, 70.
Hegesianax. 6I4, 6rj-I6, 62r. of Maenalus, 567.
Hegesileos, I 30; called Hegelochus in Himera, battle of, r6o, 399, 40.J..
Diodorus, I 29. Himcraeus, Athenian, 167.
Helenus, son of Pyrrhus I, 35· Himeras, R. (Fiume Grande), .H• 3'•
Helixus, 567. (Fiumc Salso), 34, 36.
Hella, 26, 54 7. Himiko, general at Carthag<:, II2.
Hellanicus, I 16. conqueror of Agrigenturn (.joC'i"l.
Hellenic League, see Symmachy of 38I, 383.
Philip IL (or Hanno). 30.
Hellespont, 538, 539, 543· 603, Hippana, 630.
615, 62r, Hipparchus, astronomer, I4L
Helorus, 42, 78. -of Euboea, 567.
662
I. GE)IERAI.
Hippocles, father of Pelopidas, rIO. Inachus, H.,
Hippocrates, son of Svrac:usan exile, India, 262, ; Antiochus in, 18,312;
3, 31) 62, 70, 7R, 150. ;\Iauryans, 314·
Hippodameia, .~·'· Indibilis, sec Andobales.
Hipponium, +'15 Insubres, 26. 5+7• 563.
Hippo ReF:ius, 318. international law, r 35, 175. r8o,
Hipposthenes, Syracusan, 34· 597·-8.
Hippou .\cnt. 53, Ijo. Iol, town and (') god, 49·
Hirpini, zq, r89. Iolaus, 4S, 49·
Histiaea, see Oreus. Ioma, Ionians, r8r, 472.
Hittites, 52. Ionian League, 33·
Holleaux, '\1., quoted, 504, 529, 536, Sea, rSg.
598. Ioniapolis; 6ro.
H,>plites, Ipsus, battle of, 554·
hoJrse-saLCt!hc:cs, 328. Iranians, 66, 99·
hostages, IIl, 137· lsmenias, 110.
Hyacinth.us, Hyacinthia, 104. !socrates, So, 342, 567; school of, 3·P.
Hyampolis, Pass of, battle in, 5•}2, 567.
641. hsus, battle o{, 342-3, 3f•4-76
Hypana. ri41. (plan on j68), s88, 591.
hyp:~spists, nnrlf'r Scleucids, 64, 482; Isthmia, 6ro, 617, h3I.
Alexamkr' ..,;, 64,257; in Alexandria, Isthmus, see Corinth.
482, 625; under .\ntigonids, 482, Islron, )<J.
59 I. 1stros, G4o.
Hyperhasas, 242. !sus, 554·
Hypereid••s, :\thenian, rh]. Isyllus of Epidaurus, r66.
Hypsas, R., 1.17. Italv, 67, 68, 161, t8g, 190,
Hyrcania, Hyrcanians. 15, 232, 237, revults in, after Cannae, 29;
238, 261, 2(lc, Z63, 367, 642, 644. allies in, included in treaty with
Hyscana, (,, 93· Philip, 43; Hannibal's stay in,
295. boundary of, 637; meaning of,
Iamneia, 48, 547· 54·
canepluwosof Arsinoe Philadelphus. ltauus. 59·
484. lthome, I, 2, 59·
Iamphorynna, see Phorounna Iuba, 49·
(Phorynna). lulius, M,, Brutus (praetor 44). 244·
Iapygia, Iapygians, rgo. D., Brutus (Cailaicus) (cos. 138),
Iap~'gian promontory. rf<g, 19r. 3J2.
Iasus, 23. 24, sq-rs. 531, 553, -C., Hyginus, 197, zoo.
558, 6o2, 6II, 615 · of Artemis - M., Silanus (praetor 212), r8, 201,
Astias, ; Gulf 529, 6ro. 20~ 29~ 297-~ 301, 302, 307. 312.
Iaxartes, 263.
Iberians, ; see also Spain. Jacoby, F., quoted, 347·
Idomeneus, Cretan at Troy, 95· Jason of Phcrae, I 1 I.
ldumaea, 547· Jerusalem, 546-7, 602.
Ilattia, 423. Jews, 97·
Ilergetes, 136, czr8. 308. J udaea, 546.
Ilipa, battle of. r6, 17-18 (date), 296- Juno, temple of, on Lacinian pro-
304, 301 (plan), 453· montory, 443·
Iliturgi, r8. 305. Juppiter Optimus Maxirnus, temple
Ilium, 335 •.))2. of, at Rome. 197.
Illyria, Tllyrians, !2, ~o, 44· 62, 93,
176, t79, 183, rqr~ 255t 2B5r 286~ Kahrstedt, F., quoted, 68, 456.
zSg, :lgo, 534, 5.11-2 (Philip and Kalavryta, 142.
towns in), 559, 581, 586, 598, 609, Kerynites, R., 143.
6r8, 633+ Kharput, plain of, 99.
Illyrian ·war, First, 56, Igi, 633-4. Killa, 449·
Second, 56,271. kings, treatment of, in history, 78-79;
Ilourgeia, r8, 305. various views on, 252.
imagines, 648. Klotz. A., quoted, 195.
impeo·ator, first example of hailing by Kontoporia, 521.
troops, 253. Korris, 645.
663
INDEXES
Kousor, 49, so, :no. Leonnatus, 167.
Kromayer, J., quoted, 56. Leonnorius, 6o3.
Leontini, r, 2, 36-39 (description),
Labae, 4Z2. 61, 62, 68, 83, 157; Syracusan
Labraunda, 645. 38; map, 37·
Labus, Pass of, 238-9, 241. Leosthenes, 167.
Lacedaemonians, see Spartans. Lepcis Minor, 440, 444·
Laches, Athenian, 339· Lesh, see Lissus.
Lacinian promontory, r8g. Lencas, 27, 6oz.
Laconia, Laconians, r66, 29.5. Leucippus, oecist of Callipolis, 337·
Lacydes, 535· - oecist of 1\Ietapontum, 337·
Lade, battle of, 24, 502,511,512,517, Leuctra, battle of, 87, rs·z, 394, 566,
529; chronology, 24, 497-500; .)68, 628.
Zeno's account of. 519-20. Leuctrum, 521.
Laelius, C. (cos. 190), 193, 194, 196, Libba, 643·
197, rg8, 200, 204, zr 3, 219, 24.5, Libya, Libyans, 49, 216, zz6, 403.
247, 250, 251, 252, 310, 3II, 318, 461, 464, 466, 531.
4 24, 429, 440, 45 r, 455, 458; re- 53, 150, 470.
liability as a source, 198. LH:till:liS, P., Crassus Dives (cos. 20)),
Laestrygones, 83. 422.
Lagoras, Cretan, 63, 65, 66, 94· L., Lucullus (cos. 151), I 54·
Lamarck, l\t. de, quoted, 320. Liguria, Ligurians, 32, 54, 456, 457,
Lamia, r67, r88, 229, 257. 466.
Lamian \Var, r67-8. Li!aea, 617.
Lamius, 561. Lilybaeum, 34, 68, 203.
Lampeteia (Clampeteia). 423. Limnaeus, 593·
Lampsacus, Lampsacenes, 28, 56, Lipara, I I r.
552, 614, 62o-r, 623. Liris, R., 123.
Lanassa, daughter of Agathocles of Lissus, r, s. 6; Philip V's capture of.
Syracuse, 35· 90-93·
Landels, J. G., quoted, 73· - R., near Leontini, 36, 37, 38, 39·
Laodice, wife of Antiochus II, g6. Livius, C. (or M.), 102-3.
-wife of Seleucus II, 96, roo, 640. - M., Salinator (cos. 207). 16, 267,
daughter of Mithridatcs II, 96. 268, 271.
two homonymous daughters of Livy, sources used by, 3 r, 32, 39, 74,
Mithridates V, g[,; one married to 100, 107, II9, 121, 122, 123, 124,
Antiochus III, 524, 622, 643. l2j, 133· 193. 203, 214, 242, 245.
Lappa, 59· 249, 251, 267, 269-70, 296, 3IO,
Larissa, 81, ru, 145, 165, 171, 255, 429, 446, 585, 6oz, 605, 620, 638.
257. 567, 574, 575, 584, 591, 598; Locri, 21, 29, roo, II9, 133, 153, 154.
£[eutheria at, 6q. 190,242, 417, 629; Timaeus on, 18,
Cremaste, 553. 555-6. 19, 330-53 ; Aristotle on, 330-53;
Larsen, J. A. 0., quoted, 631. alleged foundation by slaves, 330-
Lasion, 58. 53; matrilineal descent at, 333-4.
Lasthenes, 567, 569. Hundred Families at, 333-4, 346;
Latin colonies withold men and treaty with 'Locris', 337, 345-6;
money, 189. class struggles in, 346; a legal dis-
Lato '11'por; KaJi.&.pg., 59· pute at, 362-3; Council of the
Lattabus, 174. Thousand, 363; chief magistrate
Latus, 59· called Cosmopolis, 363: Sicels at.
Laus, R., 190. 336; relations with Rome, 332;
Lebedos, 503. Scipio's capture of, 317; tempk
Ledon, 170. of Persephone. 332, 336, 337; cult
legion, compared with phalanx, 585- of Hades, 337·
Locrian maidens, 334, 335-6, 649.
1 .Pinr>rHlP \Var, 416. Locris, east, 26, 171, 257, 334-47, 560,
Lemnos, 255. 256, 48o, 6I I, 619; 617; conference in, 548-64, 60I,
Cabirion on, 611. 6o6, 607.
Leon, son of Cichesias, 309. Epicnemidian, 185, 258, 259, 334-
- Macedonian, 58r, 583. 47, 351-3, 552, 613, 617.
Leonidas I, 177. - Opuntian, 180, 276,363.
II, 293. Ozolian, 557·
664
l. GENERAL
Long-anus, R., battle of, 629. Madytus, 615, 6:zr.
lotus, I9, 3I], 3l9-2L Maeander, R., 5II, 531,532.
Lucania, 29, no, r89, 190, 422. Maedi, :zs6.
Lucius, C.f., Roman in Ptolemy IV's l\1aenalus, ~It., :z86.
service, 59· :\faeotis, 233, 262, 263, 387,
Lusi. 174, 639· Magas of Cyrene, 224.
Lusitania, 138. 202, 254, 332. son of Ptolemy TIJ, 48r.
Lutarius, 6o3. r.Iagna Graccia, -rpvifnj in, 30.
Lutatius, C., Catulus (cos. 220), 425. Magnesia, .Magnetes (Thessaly), I65,
Lychnidus, L., 6r8-r9. 256, 258, 6I3, 617.
Lychnis (Lychnidus), 618-rg. Magnesia-on-Maeander, 312, 532, 6I5.
Lycia, roo, 333, 372, 615, 623. -ad-Sipylum, 52, 264, 312, 463;
Lyciscus, 13, 53, 85, 163, r66, r]o, battle of, 99, 253. 254, 456, 474·
I 72, 175. I So, I Sr. 182, 568. soz, 586.
Lycoas, 522. Mago, son of Hamilcar, 29, 44. 136,
Lycophron, his Cassandreis perhaps 150, 153. 154 (nicknamed 'the
based on Apollodorus' reign, 40. Samnite'), 202, 213, 250, 254. 273,
-of Pherae, I ] L zg8, 304, 456, 466.
Lycortas, z:zr. -commander at )l'ew Carthage, 193,
Lycurgus, Athenian, 354· 194, 202, 2 I 3·
Spartan king, 57, 163, zss. e293, - Carthaginian 44·
420. Malis, Malians, 128, I6],
Spartan lawgiver, 145. 192, 197-8 -Gulf of. 257, 258, 555-
(origin of his constitution), 378, Mallus, 366, 615.
648. Mamertini, 295, 629.
of Calydon, 41 3· Mandonius, brother of Andobales,
(Asia Minor), 501, 502. 136, zr8, 246, ]o8, 310, 31 r.
R. (Gt. 7.ii.b), 643. Manduria, r8g.
Lydia, Lydians, 63, 372, 503. rnanipular system, 588-go.
Lydiades, 633· :Manlius, L., Acidinus (praetor 212),
Lyncestis, Lynccstae, 93, 616.
Lysias, dynast, 316. Torquatus (cos. 235), 67, 632.
-envoy of Antiochus, 614, 615, 616, - Cn., Vulso (cos. I8g), 594·
6:zr. Mantias, doctor, 390.
Lysimacheia, 28, 474, 478---9 (site), Man tinea, r:z8, 129, 130, I3I, 152,
531, 553, 555, 556, 6o6, 6og, br5, 223. 283, 286, 6o8, battle of (362),
621-3- 127, 128, 394-5. 455. 568 (207).
Lysimachus of Thrace, I]j, 36I, 478, 279-94, 420, 633; and
48I, 554, 6I2, 622. military dances, 149; Xenis road
son of Ptolemy Il, 48r. at, 130, 285, 286; gymnasium, 130;
Lysippus, Achaean general, 421, 520. Tegea Gate, 283; ::Vlanthyrea Gate,
·283, 284; Pallantium Gate,
Macedonia, Macedonians, 25, 26, 43, 284; temple of Poseidon, I 30,
44• 46, 53, 62, ]8, 79, 85, 163, 1]1, 285, z86, z88, 291,293: Mt. Alesion,
r83, 204, 255. 256, 327, 472, 507-8, 130, 286, 288; Pelagos oak-forest.
563, 565, 581, 6o7, 612, z88.
; as a bulwark for Greece, Mantua, 26, 547·
174-5. 598; supporters of, in Greece Marathus, 528, 644.
under Philip II, 566-8; regarded as Marcius, L., Septimus (legatus 206),
Greeks?, I 76; alleged presence of, 18, 136,149,30I, 302, 305,]10,312.
at Zama, 456 · in Egypt, 488---g; Margaron, 447, 451.
declaration of (r68), 468; Margiane, 265, 315.
booty from, in 595· Margites, a fool, 327.
Macedonian ·war, 413,415, 476, Margus, 633.
478, 529, 5]0, 60], 613. Marmoreae, ISS·
Second, 424, 474, 517, 532, 536, Maronea, 538, 6og.
6o2, 6o]. Marrucini, 123, 1'24.
Maceris, 49· :Vlarruuium, Marruuini, 123, 124.
Machanidas, r6, I], 21, 163, 182, Marsden. E. W., quoted, 70, 75·
22o, 255, 282-94 (\1antinea), 419, Marsi, I2I, 123, 124.
420. ::Vfasada, 54 7.
Machatas, 163. Masaesyli, 306, 318, 426, 445·
66.~
INDEXES
Masinissa, I36, 154, ·298, 3II, 429, Metaurus, R., battle of, 16, 267-74,
430, 440, 441, 444, 445, 4f6, 449, 277. 294, 422, 440; site, z68-7o;
450, 451, 452, 455. 4.58, 467, -t68, da.te, 270-I, 277.
469· Metrodorus, 479·
J\-lassagetae, 262, 313, 328. Metropolis, .'iR.
Massilia (Massalia), zr8, 552. 6q. Micion of Athens, 88, 168, 562.
Massyli, 3, 62, 154, 4fi, 445· Midas, 83.
Matiani, '233· :l<Iiletus, r65, soo, sn. 5I·~.
matrilineal customs, 331, 333· 53I, 532.533. 603,6I0,6I5;
Maurusii (Moors), 457, 458. of Poseidon, 5I4.
Mauryan empire, 3I4. ::VIiltiades, 258.
mechanically mobile creatures, 359· Minnrca, 456.
Meda, secondary wife of Philip II, 81. l\Iinucius, Q., Rufus (cos. 197), 56z.
Media, :\Iedians, 8, 232, 233, 239, 315, :\lithridates II of Pontus, gb.
367, 642,643, 644; Xesaean horses, nephew of Antiochus HI, 99.
2J2. l\Inaseas, Locrian poet, 333·
- Atropatene, 315, 642, 644. -Argive,
medicine, schools of, 388-91. l\Inason of 338.
Medion, 27. ::>.Ioagetes of Bubon, 316.
Megalopolis, 21, 85, 87, 110, 128, I]Z, of Cibyra, 316.
173. 224, zS4. 287, 410, 420, 42I, l\loeragenes, 489.
485, j68; foundation of. I 10, 287, Molon, 315, 642, 643.
567; attack by Cleomenes, 144, .Molossi, 6 I 6.
522; war with Sparta, 4ZI; military Molpagoras. 23, 475·
reforms at, 281 , perimeter and size Mommsen, Th., quoted, 12.).
of, 156. Moon, in the Punic -:\Iacedonia11
l\Iegara, I86, 567, 6o8, G33. treaty, so.
- Hyblaea, 42, 78. ::>.iorga.ntine, see :\iurga.ntia..
Megartas, 555· :\iummius, L. (cos. 146), 598.
Megasthenes, 314· :\lurgantia (Morgantine). I rz, 301.
Melambium, 576, 578, 579· Mursil, treaty of, with an Asian
Melancomas, 65, 94· prince, 52-53·
Meles, 155. ::VIuttines, 53, 150, 157; four sons of.
Meliboea, r I I. 150.
Melitaea, attack by Philip V, I44-5, Mycale, battle of, 181.
q6. Mycenae, 26, s·zi, 564, 570.
Mclitussa. 423. Myconos, 258.
Melos, I73· Mylasa, 53 I, 553. 645·
Melqart, 48, 49· Myndus, 514, 519, 615.
Memphis, 482, 624. Myrcan, 43. 44, 45·
Menedemus, 315. Myriandrus, 366, 367, 372.
Menelaeum, near Sparta, 642. Myrina, 480, 6IL
.Menippns, 257, 258, 6rs. Myrleia, 475, 476 .
Mesembria, 417. Myrtis, 567.
Mesopotamia, 99, 315, 643. :rvfysia, 539·
Messana, 388, 4.'P· Mytilene, 152, 274·
lVH'"~'<VI<t, 1-iessapians, 190, 191. Myttonus, see Muttines.
::vlessene, 2, 169, 172, I 73, 1\[yus, 532. 533·
276. 5!6, 517, 552, 556. 567, 568,
6o6, 607, 635; restored by Epami- ~abarzanes, 367.
nondas, r I r; Philip V and, 56 6I, ~abis, 20, 2I, 24,
70, 88, 168; political changes in, 564. 565 •.)70,
57; omitted from Aetolo-Roman polis, 21: conduct nl.
treaty, r62-3; Nabis's attack on, 419···.:ZI; 'iron maiden' of. 420-1
421,515-17, 521-2; Tegcate (Arca- plan against Messene, 515-I7, s.w
dian) gate, 522. 2, 545; Philip V's compact with.
Messenian \Var, First, Io8, 331, 336, 57 Philopoemen's expedition
339· 545; cruelty of wife of, .5il .
-Second, 57· murdered, 6o8.
Metapa, 641 31, I33·
Metapontum, ro8, rr8, 155, rgo, queen of Ramesses II, 5z.
337· :\'a.raggara. 447, 451.
666
I. GENERAL
Narnia, ·;:68 Nuceria, 31, 133·
Naro (Neretva). R., 93· Numantia, Roman siege of. 260.
Naryca, 334, 335· Numidia, Numidians, 15o, I5f, 267,
Nasus, rr, 12, 13, rbz, 178. 433· 458.
1\;anpactus, r66, r·;6, zzg, 352, 538,
554, 556; Peace of, 516. Octavius, M. (trib. pleb. 133), 646.
Neaethu, R., 30. October horse, 327-8.
Neapolis, see Naples. Odysseus, If2, 409.
Nearchus, 187. Oeanthea (Euanthea), 334. 640.
Necton, 42. Oenanthe, 438, 484, 490.
Neleus (Neileus), 5t4. Oeniadae, II, !2, 13. sB. !62, I78.
Nemea., 128; festival, rs, 175, 230, Oenus, R., 545·
279· Oeta, Mt.,
Neon, Messenian, 567, 568. Olympia, 42, 128.
-battle of, 171. -·festival, rs, r6, 35, :159, 402, 610.
Neoptolemus, king of :\1olossians, 81. Olympias, wife of Philip II, 81.
Neptune, alleged aid to Scipio, rg..:, daughter of Pyrrhus 1, 35·
194--6, 213. Olympichus of Alinda, 316, 473, 645.
N ereis of Epirus, 3 r, 34, 35. Olympionicae, list of, 347-8.
Nesaean horses, 23z. Olynthns, 82, 152, 163-6, I]O, 377,
1\;estus, R, r88. 567; site of, 164.
New Carthage, ro, 14, r8, 246, Onchestus, R., 576, 578. 579·
296, 305, 306, 308; plan of, Onesicritus, 384.
topography, zo:;-rr; Scipio's cap- Onesigenes, Syracusan, 34·
ture of, 191-220; distance from Onomarchus, r65, 170, 171.
Ebro, 204; ebb in lagoon, 192-6; Oost, S. I., quoted, 35·
isthmus, 205; hill of Mercury, zq; Ophellas, 319.
hill of Cronos, 209- r o, 2 r 5 ; hill Oppius, C., 197, 200.
of Aletes, :zog-1o; hill of Hephae- L, Salinator (praetor 191), s6r.
stus, 209-10: caual from lagoon, Opus, r6, 258, 548, 64r.
:no; Porta Popillia, 212 : ;.;«p=i;.;ro< Orchomenus (Arcadia), 553, 607,
at, 216-17, zrg. 6o8.
Nicaea (Locris), 257. 550, 562, 6os. - (Boeotia), 8z.
Nicagoras, 615. Ot·cicon, 643.
Nicanor, general of Philip V, 25. 536- Orestae, 613, 616.
7. 543. 582, 583. Oretani, 246, :.<)8.
representative of Alexander, 355· Oreus, 257, 258, 276, 277, 6u, 6r8.
Nicesipoli:>, secondary wife of Philip Oricus, 62 (situation), go.
IT, 8r. orientation, faults in, 206-S.
Nicias, qs-6 (delay at Syracuse). rq8. Orongis, 296.
Niwlans. mercenary capt<"in, 240, Orontes, R., 95·
'P5· -- Mt. (Elvend), 233·
:-.iicomachus, A•. carnanian, 561. Oscans, rgo.
Rhodian, 63, 6_;. 94, 95· Ostia, 646.
father of Aristotle, 343· Otacilius, T., Cmssus (praetor 217),
Nicomedes 1I Epiphanes of Bithynia, 34·
47h. Oxus, R., 8, 15, 16, 261-4 (and the
Nicomedes, mercenary captain, 236, Caspian).
2f0. Oxylus, 352.
Nicon, Alexandrian, 488.
-· Tarentiue, 102, Io4. Pachynus, C., 134·
Nicostratus, Achaean, 570. Pactolus, R., 63.
Alexandrian, 489. Paeligni, 121.
Rhodian, 508. Pagasae, 165, 574; Gulf of, 183.
Niese, B., quoted, 93· Palaepharsalus, 554, s8o.
Nile, R., r 87 (identified with R. Palestine, 26, 265.
Euphrates). Pallantium, 128, 284, 293·
Ninus (Nineveh), 83, 85. Pallene, r64.
!'l'issen, H., quoted, 28. Pamboeotian festival, I74·
Nisyros, 530, 5_10. Pamisus, R., 52I.
Nola, 31. Pamphylia, 623.
Nossis, poetess, 333· Panaetius, 89, 3Go.
INDEXES
Panaetolus, 265. 255· 504, 505. 512, 549. 603, 601,
Panama.ra, 513. 6r8; Philip's attack on, chronology
Panium, battle of, 25, 26, 523-5, 546, of, 497-500, 533; embassy to Rome,
547; Zeno's account, 523-5. , Nkephoriurn, 501, 552; tempi<·
Panormus, 78. Aphrodite, sor, 552.
Paphos, 515: cult of Aphrodite, Pericles, Athenian, rsz.
515. Perilaus, 380.
Papiria, wife of L. Aemilius Paullus, Perillus, 567, 570.
585. Perinthus, 474. 553, 6II, 621.
Parapotamia, 315. Perrhaebi, 6r3, br6.
Park, Mungo, quoted, 32r. Persephone, temple of, at Locri, 332,
Parke, H. \V., quoted, r8o. 336, 337; at Medma, 336.
Parnassus, Mt., 17r. Perseus, son of Philip V, 93. 95, 135,
Paropamisadae, 314. 332,474, 595,60I,612,
Paras, 503, 536. Persia, Persis, Persians. 152, 173, r8o.
Partheniae, 108, 331, 340. 234. 328, 421, 642·
Parthia, Parthians, rs. Ill?. 231-2, Persian Gulf, r87, 421, 422; provim··
238, 239. 241, 2(i2, 328, 642, 644.
Parthini, 56, 90, 552, 6r8. 258.
Parthus (Illyria), 618-19. '1., 30, 100.
Parthyene, 238. ...-ence•ui. 190, 495.
Passala, port of Mylasa, 531. Phacium, 554·
Patara, 615. Phacca, 6rg.
Patrocles, admiral of Seleucus r, 262, Phaent>as of Eresus, 379·
263. Actolian general, 548, 550.
Pausanias, Spartan king, 1<)8. Phalaecus, 171.
Spartan regent, 6oz. Phalanthus, 10!1.
Pedasa, 513, 553, 6ro, 615. phalanx, at Issus, 373-6; compan·d
Peiraeus, 53·f· with legion, s8s-9l
Peiresia, 554· Phalara, 229.
Peisander, 3'l4· Phalaris of Agrigentum, 40, r6o, 38o·
Peisistratus of Athens, 164, 40•). 3; bull of, 380-3.
-murderer of Brachylles, 27, 6or, Phanoteus, 641.
608-<). Pharae, 521.
Peithagoras, Delphic archon, 616. Pharaea, 64 I.
Pelasgiotis, 574, 576, 584. Pharnaccs, 100.
Pelion, Mt., Pharos, 56.
Pella, 12. Pharsalus, ·zs7. 553. 555, 578, 57G.
Pellana (Laconia), Jz8, 5{5, 571. 580, s8r. t>17; battle of (Pelopidas),
Pellene, 143, 568. I 10.
Pelopidas, no, II L Pharycus, 174.
Peloponncse, Peloponnesians, ;q, Phayllus, r7r.
(meaning Achaeans), 85, uo, Pheidias, Syracusan astronomer, 7 r.
172, 173- Pherae (Peloponnese), 641.
Peloponnesian War, 170, 171, r8r, (Thessaly), 64r.
258, 394- 57!. Phigaleia, 58, 6o8.
Pelops, Alexandrian, 484. Phila, wife of Philip II, 81.
- his son, 484. Philaenis, 356-7.
king of Sparta, r63, 255, 420. Philaenus, altars of, 253·
peltasts, in army of Philip V, 92, 257, Philaetolus, 555·
z8r, 582 ·in army of Antiochus III, Philammon, 483, 492.
242; in army at Issus, J(l8- Phileas, Tarentine, roz.
70; at Mantinea (362), 455· Philernenus, 102, 103, 105. 106.
Pelusium, 487, 525. Philetacrus, son of Attalus I, 6o4.
Peneius, R., 584. Philinna of Larissa, secondary wife of
Penelope, works defaming, 404-5. Philip Il, 8r.
Pencstae, 93· Philinus of Agrigentum, 635·
Peparethos, 25, 256. of Cos, 389.
Perdiccas H, king of Macedon, 164. Philip II, Ij2, 165. 166, I7I, 173. 344-
general of Alexander, 85, 616. .')21, s5s, j68; privateering (340/39).
agent of Philip V, 58-59· 82; alliance with Chalcidians, 164;
Pergamum, Pergamenes, 24, 27, 229, and Olynthus, 165; supporters in
668
I. GENERAL
Greece, 566-8; hetairai of, 82, 85, Philiscus of .Miletus, 342.
420; reputation in Greece, 85; inva- Philodes, 537·
sion of Laconia and Peloponncse Philocrates, of, 82, I 71.
(338), 166, 172,568;setsupHcllenic Philoctetes, reputed founder of Pe-
confederacy. 171-2; and Europe, telia, 30.
So, inclined to heavy drinking, 82; Philodemus, 32.
Theopompus' hostility towards, 8o. Philomelus, of Phocis, 170, 171,
V, I, 2, J, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 338.
23, 24, 25, 55, 57, 67, liZ, 137, 177, dynast, son of Lysias, 316.
ns. 179, 18z, 229, 274-5. z8s, 527, Philon, 438.
546, 570, 605, 6o6, 6og, 615, 6zo, Philopoemen, 15, r6, 17, 25, 57.
6z I, 641; family of, 6or; alleged 88, 130, 421, 603; in 220;
murders, 558; of Aratus, 87-89; of hipparch (210/09), 220, 225; re-
Aratus the younger, 87, 88; of forms Achaean 220-9;
others, 88, r68; treacherv of, 20; military reforms stralegia
moral deterioration of, 58:23 I ; and (2o8{7). 279-82, speech of, :z8o-2;
Messene, 56-61' ; devastates at battle of Mantinea, z82-94, 633;
Messenia, 78; Oricus, 62 ; saves ~Iessene from Nabis, 520-2;
hums his fleet, 62, 78, 90; and expedition }l'abis (20o),
Aratus, 79; takes Lissus, 90--93, 545; statue at Delphi, 294·
r6z; attacks Illyria (nr). r62; Philostratus,
Thracian expedition (zii), 162; Phintias, 630.
alliance with Hannibal, r. 2, 42-56, Phlius, 152, 346.
150, 218; takes Anticyra, 179; Phocaea, 479, 614.
of Echinus {:no), 183-5; at Phocis, Phocians, 6o, 128,
"1'"~-----··- r68, 499, sor; conduct 171, 179, 256, 276, ,p7,
at Argos (209), 230; helps his 560, 6o8, 612, 6r3, 617;
allies (zo8), 255-61; takes Epicne- officer in charge, 256, 257.
midian Locris (2o8), 617-18; gives 258; action against Thessaly, 541-
Zacynthus to Amynander, 278; in- 2; normal route across, 641 ; slavery
vasion of Aetolia (207). in, 337-8.
278--9, 617; peace with Phoebidas, I p.
(zo6), .H, 278, 477-8, 516; peace of Phoenice, 538; peace of, 21, 93. 177,
Phoenice, 552; pact with Antiochus, 178, 258, 415, 416, 516-17, 544,
22, 4Z4· 435. 471-4, 486, 503, 506, 551-2 (full discussion), 618.
523, 530; allied to west Crete, 58- Phoenicia, 210,
59, 415, 423; proposed marriage Phoenician 467, 469,
alliance with Ptolemy IV, 484, 486; 470.
treachery towards Rhodes, 415-19, Phoet:iae, 58; postern gate at, ro4.
attacks in Aegean, 474-80; Phorounna (Phorynna), I4. r88, 256-
with Prusias r' 4 7s-8; Phrygia, 96, 372, 503.
expedition of 201, 497-500, 503- Phthiotic Achaea, 579, 613, 6I 7·
I 1 ; attack on Pergamum, 500-3, Thebes, I83, 553. 555-6, ss8. 574·
sn; battle of Chios, 503-11; and 598--9, 613, 617.
Olvmpichus, 645; after Lade, srr- Phthiot:is, 579, 613, 617.
12; in Caria, 529-33; and l\1ylasa, Phylarchus, 222, 523.
531; appeal from Acarnania against Phytaeum, 278-9, 64r.
Athens, 533; Roman declaration of Picenum, 63:<.
war on (zoo), 534, 543-4; behaviour Pickard-Cambridge, A. W., quoted,
in zoo, 538; siege of Abydus, 538- 566.
44; campaigns of 200-198, 54B; Pillars of Hcracles, 253·
compact with ~abis, 57; Achaeans pilum, 647.
abandon, 85, 564; and Heraca, Pinarus, R. (Deli Chai), 36&--7, 373·
607; conference Locris, 507, 548- Pinnes, 256.
64; and towns in Illyria, 551-z; Piraeus, 1_52.
and towns in Thessaly, 555-6; at pirates, 98.
Cynoscephalae, 572-85; reaction to PlaC"cntia, :268, 270, 547, 563.
defeat, 592, letter from P. Sdpio, Plataea, Plataeans, I 12, 146; battle
193, 196, 197, 204; royal formula of, r81; Greek oath before battle,
in treaty with Hannibal, 45; and r8o-z; Eleutheria at, 613-14.
Zeus, 614. Plato, 346, 567.
-adopted ~on of Perseus, (jo1. Plator, 257. 276.
INDEXES
Pleiades, rising of, r 4-1-; morning set- ship, 244, 279-So; on being deceived,
ting of, 529, 634· 26, 27, 6or-2; on the impor-
Pleminius, Q. (legatus 205), 2I, 153, tance of one outstanding man,
417· 71, 77; on the inviolability of
Pleuratus, 162, 256, 552, 6r8. temples, 279; on astronomy, 139;
Po, R. (Padus), 138, 187, 270. on calculating hour from signs ol
Polemarchus, S(H. zodiac, 140-2; on importance of
Poliasion, 521. geometry, I45-8, 155; on makin~
Polyaenus of Cyparissia. 293. ladders the right height, 145-8; on
of Megalopolis, 291. replanning camps, 148; on com-
polyandry, 340-1. puting size of cities and camps.
Polyhius, Achaean hipparch 170{69, rss-7; on the art of the commander,
; visits Spain (I 5 I), zos-{); 8, ro, r7, 138; on fire-signalling, 16.
1\ew Carthage, 205·6, zr 2; 258-62; on surprise attacks, I 38 -o,
visits Numantia (?), 205-6; visits on cavalry practice, 8; on Grecl;
Africa, 317, 3:20; services to Locri, and Roman stakes, .572-4; on kee11
33I-2; naval experience, 393; voy- allies, q.
age in Atlantic, 393, 6z8; wealth of, on the laws of war, 6I; on causf'h.
4og;journcysof, 4og-ro,644; visits 17, 294; on the magnitude of the
Alexandria, 491, 644; and Rome, Haunibalic War, ; on the lesson"
79. 597-9· of Achaeus' fall, ; on progress in
- on universal history, 67, r88, arts and sciences, I r8; utilitarian
379; on types of history, 8, rr6--r8; attitude to knowledge, 149; didacti
on uses of history, s-'l; on the faults cism, 591; explanation for Gred,
of monographs, 14, 379, 517; on readers, 215; on Odysseus, r.p.
moral nature of history, 223; on 317; on the Euphrates, 186-7; ""
praise and blame in history. 528 ; hunting, 256; on the lotus. '"
on history and encomium, 79, l2o- 3[9-Z I.
3; on truth in history, zo, ::r, 79, on the manipulated Olympia< I
419, 5 I 8 ; on prefaces, 201,-7; on I I6; on tht; Roman aim at world
types of speeches, 385, 3')7-9; on dominion, 67, 277, 453; on th•
the use of the eyes and ears, 408 , maintaining of hegemony, 246-
on autopsy, 320; on the qualities never c:1.1ls Romans barbarians,
of a historian, 386-7; on the his- on Roman moral deterioration, 5')4
torian's task, 329, 391 3; on limits on division of bootv in Romau
of criticism allowed to the his- armv, 216-I7; on treatment ol
torian, 360; on voluntary and in- kings in history, 78- .. 79; on am!H
voluntary falsehood, 342; on tragic tions of Philip V, 4 7<)-80; conce•pt
events and historv, 495; on sensa- of races, 295; on Cretans, 94; '"'
tionalism, 380, 429, 493·4; on con- the Oxus and Taxartes, 261-4; <•II
cessions to patriotism in history, the Persian envoys to Athens and
518-rg; on importance of philo- Sparta, ; on the fauna of i\frJc,,
sophy, 383-4; history compared and 321-4; on Epaminon
with medicine, 388-93; empiricists das, I 28 :on the A then ian charactc1 .
supported in medidne, 389; history 182; oti Athens' anti-Macedoni""
compared with art, 395-6. policy, 152.
on the importance of moderation, - prejudice against Thebes, .;r''
g8, on immortality of the soul, 89, against Sparta, I3 I ; aga 1nc-1
on factors modifying men's con- Hcrmeias, 481 : agatnst Sosibiu~
duct, ISI; on Fortune, r68, Iqz, 481; against Ptolemy IV, 4<'3.
1<14-5. .!OI, 244. 247, 586; on against Thebes, 568; polcnH•
divine providence, 113; concept of against Hannibal-historians. I9c
character-development, 23 I ; on against historians of Scipio's cal'
suicide, 2 73; on alleged or actual ture of New Carthage, 19<; again .1
Stoic doctrines in, 77, 139, t4r-z, historians of events in Alexandri<>.
145, rsr. 231, 591: on rationalism, 493-4, on Timaeus, 18-zo, 2 21.
194-6, on the irrational, 512; on 321-62, 362-3, 377-88, 395-41.'
miracles, r 96; on pious fictions, on Baton of Sinope (?). 39; ""
5I5. Theopompus, 78--87: on Ephoru·.
-on how men change their minds, rz8, 3z5-7, 363, 31'4• 371), 393-5; " 1'
23; on importance of iriends, rsr; Phylarchns, 223; on Callisthen< c
on treachery, 26.564-70; ongeneral- r8-2o, 364-76; on Aeneas Tacticu·

67o
I GESERAL
259; on Zeno and Antisthenes, 51?- zf,s • .:86, 288, lyi, 293; see also
on Aristotle, 330-53; on Neptune.
Gelo, and Hieronymus, 39- Poseidonius, 148, 518.
42. Postumius, A., Albinus (cos. 151),
- Histories, assignment of frag· 4IO,
ments, 1-28; chronological system, Potidaea. 164, r6s.
628, 639; book xi!, origins of, 317; Priene, 514, 532, 6o3, 615.
organization, I , avoidance of hiatus Prinassus, 23, 24, 5I'l-IJ.
in, 234, 29-h 434; prologues in, 4, Proagoras, Megalopolitan, 4.2 1.
r6, So, 86, 116, 266-7, 424; use Procles, 351.
of topographical detail, 233-4, Propontis, 539, 6-zr.
speeches in, 8, 163, 176, 385-6, proxenia, grants of, 349·
Yn-9. 424, 451-2, 581; faults of Proxenus, Locrian, 339.
orientation in, 206-8; chronology Prusias I, 98, 475, 476. 477, 478, 479,
of composition, r, 131-2, 438, 491, 552,611.
594. 59]-8, 631,633.634.636,642, II, 355. 499. SOL
644; aid to statesmen, 132; inac- Psophis, 58, 143.
curacies in, 219, sources used in, Ptah, 210.
29, 40, 42, 59, b3, 68, 69, 93, roo, Ptoeodorus, 567.
101, IIO, ll9, 121, 122, 12j, 12], Ptolemy I Soter, 33, Bs. 175, 361, 554·
133. 136, 142, 154. 163, 192, 193. - 11 Philadelphus, 33. 175, 359. 481,
197, 199, 202, 204, 206, 21 I, 232, 484. 543·
233, 236, 245, 261, 263, 2].), 282, III Euergetes, 42, III, 224, 437,
292, 296, 308, 320, 330, 360, 418, 438, 481, 6n, 631.
424-5. 430, 433. 438, 446, 451, 474. IV Philopator, 9. 32, 59, 63, 64, 93,
480, 497. 503, 549. 558, 559. 575· 94, 13], 151, 275, 434-9, 473, 480,
580, 581, 584, 601, 613, 643, 644, 482, 484, 487, 488, 53Z, 634, 640,
645· 648. 645; date of death, 435-7. 473, 552.
Life of Philopoemcn, 221-2, 282; - V Epiphanes, 22, 23, 95, 435-7,
Tactics, r38, 143, 14.). 148 (perhaps 471-4, 48o-g, 492, 503, 533. 538.
source Ior .Asdepiodotus); On the 552, 562, 6oz, 6og, 6q~rs, 6:n, 623,
habitability of the equatorial regi&n, 025; date of accession, 22, 435-7,
6z8. 482, 624, Ins; anacleteria, 436,
Polydeitus of Cyrcne, 31. 623-4· 626-7.
-of Larissa, 262. VI Philometor, 59, 625.
Polycrates. governor of Cyprus, 485, -son of Aeropus, 524.
490, 625, 627. - Ceraunus, 40, 175. 6rz.
Polycritus, Aetolian, T74· -son of Eumenes, 625.
Polyperchon, 8 5· - son of Lysimn.chus, 481.
Polyphantas, 256, 257, 258. - of Megalopolis, 438, 480, 484-5,
Polyphron of Pherac, I I 1. 487. 493. 627.
Polyrrhenia, 59· son of Sosibius, 473, 484, 486, 527.
Polysperchon, Actolian, 143· Pudu!)epa, queen of the Hittites, 52.
Polyxenidas, ·2.32, 239· Punic War, First, 457·
Pompeius, Cn., Magnus (cos. 70), Second, 136.
306. Third, 471.
Pomponia, mother of P. Scipio Afri- Pydna, 82; battle of, 474, 582, 586,
canus, 200. 595·
Pontos, father of Poseidon, 49· Pylos, 169, 178, 514,607.
Pontus, 387. Pyramid, Great, height calculated by
Popillius, M., Laenas {cos. 139), 212. Thales, 146.
Porcius, M., Cato (cos. 195). 341, 407, Pyrenees, 251.
410, Grg, 636; censorship of (r 84), Pyrgi, Punic and Etruscan insctip·
594-5· tions from, 635.
- L., Licinus, 273. Pyrgus, 641,
Porter, W. H., quoted, S8. Pyrrhias, 12.
Poseidon, in Punic-1\Iaccdonian Pyrrhus I, 30, 34, 35, 36, 56, 96, IOI,
treaty, 49. 649; temple of, on 286, 327. 332, 399. 450, 543. 586,
Calaureia, 167; on l\Iilesian penin- 6zg.
sula, 5 T4; at Taena.rum, I 74; II, 34, 35·
Soter, at Tarentum, 108; Hippias, Pystilus, I 59·
temple of, at Mantinea, 130, 283, Pythagoras, 30, 330.
IX DE XES
Pythagoreans, 330, 346, 347· tion of, r62; Hannibal's march on.
Pytheas, 354· 8, 9, ro, I r 8-33; in treaty between
Pythian festival, 6ro. Philip and Hannibal, 43, 44; take"
Pythion, 21, 419. Oeniadae (21 r), 58; Macedonia11
speech against, 8; envoys treacher
Quinctius, T., Crispinus (cos. zo8), ously attacked, 443; peace oJ
242-3. Phoenice, 552; embassy to
L., Flamininus (cos. 19'2}, 27, 602, Ptolemy IV, 9, 137-8, relations
612, 617. with Egypt, 137, 543; relation:-.
T., Flamininus (cos. rg8), 26, 88, with Rhodes, 543; envoys at A then-.
168, 170, I7f, 176, 272, 507, 548- (zoo), 533-4, 536-7; war-declam
64, 570, 572, 574. 575. 576, 578-86, tion against Philip (zoo), 534; and
592-3, 598, 6oo, 6o6, 6o8-g, 614, Greek freedom, 597 · ten legati sent
616, 6r 8, 61 g, 62 r, 623, 649; helped to Greece, 605-6 ; and setth:
by Fortune, r68; cult, 170, 613-If· ment in Greece, oo9-2o; Isthrnu'
quinquereme, character of, 71. declaration, 612-14; mistress of tht·
world, 456, 463; political arbiter in
Ramesses II, treaty of, with lj:at- Asia and Africa, 253; compared
tusil, sr. 52. with Spartans, 127-33; example~
ransom, cost of, 273. of integrity, 594-8; moral dt·
Raphia, battle of, 94, 95. 438, 484, terioration, 59+; called barbarian,,
645· 176; admitted to Isthmia, 631.
Heate, 124. state of calendar. 605; imports <>I
Reiske, J. J., quoted, 1.7, 360, 565. corn, 137; organization of legion.
Reshef, 47, so. 302, 433, 454-5; division of boot\
Rhaecelus, r64. in army, 216-17; camp, 248; rok
Rhagae, 233 (renamed Europus). 7.35· of military tribunes, 583-4; atriufl!
Rhaucus, 59· of Libertas at, I02; Tarpeian rock
Rhegium, n8, 127, 131, 161, 189, 190, 102; t(·mplc at Porta Capena, IJ·+.
332, 3·1-7· 495, 629. temple of Hanas et Virtus, I 34 .
Rhium, 352-3. trPaty with Antiochus III, 52.
Rhodes, Rhodians, 21, 22, 24, 27, 42, Romulus, rso.
59, 63, 65, 94, 95, 98, 159, 164, 229, Rostovtzeff, M., quoted, 33·
239, 275, 316, 381, 463, 472, 477, Rubicon, R., 637.
503, 504, 505, 506, 508, 509, 510,
5II, sr8, 519, 530, 536. 538. 539. Sabae, 422.
541, 544.562, 602-3, 6rr, 615, Sabellia.ns, Sabines, 121,632.
618, 644; Philip's treachery Sacaraucac, 313.
towards, 415--19, 625; embassy to Sacas, 263-4, 3 I 3·
Rome, 530; at Athens, 533-6; Sacred \Var, against Phocis, 171.
Roman relations with, 543; consti- Sagra, R., battle of, 29, 30.
tutional anangements, 418; Pry- Saguntum, 205, 295, 452, 631, 63.5.
taneum (record office}, 418, 504, 639·
520; colossus, 571, 645; Peraea, Salapia, 15, 29, 155, 244-5.
Philip V's attack on, 497-500, 5I2- Sallentini. I9I.
I3. 552; evacuation Of, 558, 615. Samaria, 546, 547·
Rhone, R. (Rhodanus), 207, 583, sambuca, siege-engine, see aafLPvK'1·
636-7. Samicum, 64r.
Roebuck, C. A., quoted, 6o. Samnium, Samnites, 29, 121, 12.1.
Rome, Romans, II, 1:2, r8, 21, z6, 67, I5j, 189, 190, 564.
149, 170, 176, 177, r83, :204, 244, Samos, Samians, 472, 484, 503, 501.
247, 456, 549, 581, 624; Gallic cap- 505, 506, 509, 552, 615.
ture of, 629; treaties with Carthage, Sapini, 632.
chronology of, 635; second treaty Sardanapallus, 83·-84, 36I.
with Carthage, 54; third treaty Sardes, I, 2, 3, 63-66, 93, 94, 45"·
with Carthage, 56; and just wars, 502, 6o'.!, 6p, 649; chronology ol
597-8; imperialism, 135-6, 277. Antiochus' siege, 3; situation, ;, '
453; modest wealth at, 597; enters theatre, 65; Persian gate, 65, u ..
Balkans, 424; alliance with Aetolia 'Saw·, 63, 66; sanctuary of Anaili: ..
(211), chronology of, n-13, 137, 502.
162, 176; terms of, 162-3, 179-80, Sardinia, HJ, 49, 67, 137, 323, 31i',
zs6, 479. 599-600, 636. 649; dura- 619.
6i2
I. GENERAL
Sardus, son of Maceris, 49· 399-400, 424, 440, 452, 551, 629;
Sargon, 97· Athenian disaster, 145-6.
Saturnus, 2Io; promontory of, 2IO. Sicyon, 26, 89, 128, r86, 224, 230, 548,
Sceptics, 389. 549. 557· 564, 567, 568, 570, 5
Scerdilaidas, go, 93, 162, I 76, 178, 633; Arateion, 89, land of Apollo
zs6. at, 570-1; two temples of Apollo at,
Schweighaeuser, ] ., quoted, 6, 68, 74• 57!.
81, 107, 216, 419. Sidicinum, 199.
Sciathus, 25. Sidon, 528, 546, 6oz.
Sciritis, 172. Siga, 306, 318.
Scodra, 92, 93· Silarus, R., 190.
Scopas, 12, I3, 20, 21, 25, ·~6. zB, 162, Silenus, roo, 119, I;<I, IZ2, :123, 124,
I85, 413-15, 485, 523, 546, 6oz, 125, 133, I93, 194, 196, 197, 199,
623-{;. 202, 204, 2J4, 245· 251. 296, 383,
Scotitas oak-forest. 545· 628.
Scotussa, I I I , 257, 575-h, 578, 579, Simias, 293.
sao. Simus, 567, 570.
Scullard, H. H., quoted, 'Z47• 248, Singa, see Siga.
250-1, 254· 267, 429. Sin-shar-iskun, 83.
Scythia, Scythians, 174, 328. Sipontum, I9l.
Scythopolis, 649-50. Sirius, heliacal rising of, I 87.
Seleuceia-in-Pieria, 6..!3, 644. Sirynx, 239, 241.
-on-the-Tigris, 21, 315, 642. Sithonia, r64.
Seleucid kingdom, 23l, z.n-.;. 622; slaves, in Greece and I..ocri, I9-20,
upper satrapies, 232. 330-53; in Chios, 338; in Athens,
Seleucus I, 33, bf, 70, 85, 99, I75· ·233, 338, at Carthage. 53; at J.ocris,
234, 242, 262, 361, 409, 501, 554, 331, 337-9; in Phocis, 337-8; at
&zz; ~icanor or Nicator?, 234; New Carthage, 216-18, revolts in
friendship with Candragupta, 314. Sicily, I6I , Carians as, 244; decision
- I I , 99, 642, 645. to liberate, at Abydus, 541; Ligu-
- III, 316, 6-43. rian, said to have saved P. Scipio,
IV, 524, 6:22. I99·
Sellasia, 52o-z, 545, 634; battle of, 46, Smyrna, 52, 316, 614, 623.
175. 220, 293, 549. s86, 588, 634. Social \\'ar, 46, 58, 61, t68, 169, I75,
Selybria, 621. I ]9, 413, 613, 626, 633.
Sempronius, Ti., Gracchus (cos. 215), Sogdiana, 264.
r, 4, 109, 110 (death), rr8, I53· Soloe, 615.
Ti., Gracchus (cos. 177), I97· Soloeis, C., temple of Poseidon, 50.
- Ti., Longus (cos. :n8), 27I-2. Sophagasenus, 314, 315.
P., Tuditanus (cos. 204), 68, 278, Sophonisba, 306, 426, 440.
422, 533. 552. Sora, 125.
Sena, 268, 269, 2 70, 63·•· Sosibius, 23, 65, 93-94. 480-I, 482,
Sennacherib, 83, 84. 483, 487.
Senones, z6R, 632. son o{ Sosibius, 492, 526.
Sentinurn, battle of. 631, Sosipatrus (Sostratus) of Naupactus,
Sepias. C., 258. 174·
Sergius, L., 442· Sosis, 39·
Sertorius, Q., 306. Sosistra.tns, 567.
Servilius, Cn., Caepio (cos. 203), 4Z5, Sostratus, 98.
618. Sotcria, festival at Sicyon. 89.
-C., Geminus zo3), 425. Spain,3,7,8,9, 17,67,68, I36-7, 149,
- C., Geminus, father, 425. 154· 201, 204, 245· 247. 2j2, 332,
Sestus, 539, 553, 6II, 615, 62r, 626. 424, 452, 619.
Shamash-shum·ukin, 83. Sparta, Spartans, 40, 79, 85, no, II2,
Shemesh, so. rz8, 129, 130, I3t, I44, r6g, 172,
Sibyrtos (Sybrita), 423. 173, 175, I 77, I8I, 220, 276, 394,
Sicans. 407. 516, 52I, 549. 566, 567, 570, 6o8,
Sicca Veneria, 448, 449· 648; founds Tarentum, 108; rel:J.-
Sicels, 336-7. tions with Locri and Locris, 331-
Sicilian Sea, I 89-90, 329. 52; Partheniae at, 108, 331, 340;
Sicily, 3, 10, 12, 35, 67, 6R, 83, 137, polyandry at, 340-1 ; hegemon
14j-6, 149· ISO, I61, 329. JS8, 396, against Persia, 404; refusal to deify
814.173 XX 673
INDEXES
Sparta, Spartans, (cont.) 432, 440, 441, 442. 444. 445. 451'
Alexander, 354; Cleomenes' mili- 455, sz8-g.
tary reforms, z8r ; speeches at Syracuse, Syracusans, 5, 6 . 7-8, g, 32.
(~:ro), 8, 12, 13, 53; Roman ap- 6r, 62, rog, 112, 133, 134, 150,241.
proach to (210), I63, 220; treaty 336, 339· 361, 378, 399. 400, 40~
with Rome, 6o7 ; at battle of Man- 417, 562; Athenian attack on, 145
tinea (2o7), 282-94; war with 6; Dionysius II relinquishes, 324-5.
Megalopolis, 421; compared with Roman siege of, 69-78; chronolof;'
Romans, 127-33; use of mer- of, 7-8; spoils taken from, I34-(•.
cenaries by, 293; perimeter and Epipolae, 6, 70, 71, III-14 (cap
area of, 156; method of dating at, ture); Hexapyla (Scala Graeca), 7.
347; Menelaeum at, 642; Temenid 70, 71, r 12, Iq; Euryalus, 32, 241,
gate at {?), 104; cult of Eleusia, Tripylon, 70; Acbradina, 70. Sho•·
255· makers' Colonnade, 70; Great Hat
Sphodrias, 152. bour, 146; Little Harbour, 7".
Stagirus, 164. Temenitis, 104; postern gate, ro~ .
Stertinius. L., 609, 6Ig. porlzts Trogilorum, r 12; Galeagr.•
Stiboetes. spring 237. z6,~. tower, I rz; Arethusa fountain
Stiehl, R., quoted, 599-600. 329; month Artemitios at, r r 3·
Stier, H. E., quoted, 599· Syracusia, giant ship of Hiero H, 4~
Stoicism, Stoics, alleged or actual Syria, Syrians, 48,379,463,485,615.
views in P., 139, 141-2, 145. 23I, kings of (Seleucids), 253.
273. 591; views on Odysseus, L42; ~ Coele, see Coele Syria.
on omens and superstitions, 145; on Syrian War, Fifth, 496, 523-5, 6oz.
men's conduct. Iji; on suicide,
alleged rationalism, 195-6; Tabraca, 3I8.
for dogmatists in medicine, Taenarum, 174.
opposed by New Academy, 405. Tagae, 236, 238, 240.
Strachan- Davidson, J. L., quoted, Tagus, R., 25t.
207, 210. Tambrax, 241.
Strato of Lampsacus, 387. Tamese, 423.
Stratonicaea, 5I3, 6n. Tanais, R., 203.
Stratonice, wife of Demetrius II, 475· Tanit Pene Baal, 47, 48.
Stuberra, 93· Tapyri, 239, 341.
Stylangium, 641. Tarentum, Tarentines, I, 3, 4· 6, 7. c..
Stymphalus, 6o8. 9, 14, 30, 62, 72, Ioo-g, uS, IJ \.
Subbiluliuma, treaty of, with Tetti, 134,149, I89-90,ZII,J37•340,4l/,
51. 418, 564. 649; foundation of, ro:-<
Sublaqueum, I25. plan, 103; and Pyrrhus, IOI; situ:~
Sucro, 306--7. tion and importance, 189-90; ral'
R., 204-5, 246. ture by Hannibal, 100-9; Temcnid
Suessetuni, 136. gate, ro3 (site}, 105, ro6, 41:->
suicide, views on, 273. postern gate, 104; agora, 104 •·
Sulmo (Paclignian), I23, 124. 109; :\Iuseum, 104; cemetery, l<>'>
{Volscian), 123. Deep Road, I05-6, 107, Ioq
Sulpicius, P., Galba Maximus (cos. theatre, 105; harbours, 189, ~0 l
2II}, I3 n., 14, 68, I2I, I25, 127, canal, I07; Saviour Road, I07· ;..
IJI, 183, 185, r86, 230, 255, 259, sheep from, 143; Gulf of,
276, 278, 534, 548, 563, 6os, • Tarentines' (mercenaries),
6n, 6r8, 289, 293. 524.
Sun, in the Punic-Macedonian treaty, Tarn, W. W., quoted, 238, 355, .so.~
so. soB, 527.
Susa, 239· Tarquinius, L., Priscus, 220.
Susemihl, F., quoted, qr. Tarracina, 102.
Susiane, 315, 642. Tarraco, r8, 195, 203, 245. 246, 2')',
Sybaris, 30, 101. 296.
Sybrita, 59· Tarsus,
Symaethus, R., in Sicily, 39· Taurion, 152.
Syroe, Day of, 512. Tauriscus, pupil of Crates, l3SI·
Symmachy of Philip II, 171-:z; of Tauromenium, 42, 329, 361, 377, \'
Antigonus Doson, 46, 58, I69, 17 5· Taurus mountains, 3. 236; (!\1t. l· I
I8, 306, 318, 426, 430, 431, burz), 236.
r. GENERAL
Tectosages, 603-4. Theron, 159, I6o, 399-
Tegea, 128, 129, 130, 172, 283, 293, Thersites, encomia of, 404-5.
294, 521. szz, 545. 568, 6o8. Thesmophoria, at Alexandria, 437,
Tegyra, battle of, 364. 490; at Athens, 43 7·
Teichus (Teichos) on Achaeo-Elean Thespiads, 49·
border, 58, 640. Thespiae, rzg.
Telamon, battle of, 632. Thessaliotis, 555, 613, 6I6.
Teleas of Magnesia, 312. Thessalonica, 53·
Teledamus, Argive, 567. Thessaly, Thessalians, I IO, 128, I65,
Telemachus, 64r. I66, 167, 170, I/I, 177, 178, 256,
Telepylos, 83. 276, 371, 548, 550, 552, 553, 554.
Tellias of Elis, 542. 572, 579, j8I, 599-600, 607, 613,
Temenus, 352. bi6, 617; Phocian action against,
Tempe, 12, r62, 54~. 584; conference 541-2; harvest in July, 579.
of, 27, 6or. Thetideurn, near Cynoscephalae, 576,
Tenea, 521. 578, 579. j8o.
Tenedos, 479, 543· Thibron, 532.
Teos, 59, 503, 598. Thoas, Aetolian, s6r.
Terentius, L., Massaliota (praetor Thorax, l\ilt., 532.
187), 605, 6rg, 62r. Thrace, Thracians, 12, 2I, 98, I6],
Terias, R., near Leontini, 36. r8z. r83, 256, 423, 473, 478, 538,
Tetti, king of the Xa]Jai§;e, treaty of 556, s8r, 583, 584, 598, 6o2,
with ~ubbiluliuma, 51. 615, 619, 622, 640.
Tbalamae, 521. Thraso, 3I, 39.
Thales, and height of Great Pyramid, Thrasycrates of Rhodes, I6; speech
146. of, 274-7.
Thasos, 23, 479, 499, 6IJ, 6rg. Thrasydaeus, 567.
Thaumaci, r88, 617. Thrasylochus, Messenian, .567, 568.
Theano, poetess, 333· Thronium, I8j, 559·
Thebe, plain of, 502. Thucydides, 635; continued by Theo-
Thebes. The bans, 26, 82, rro, I I r, pompns, So, 87, on purpose of his-
rz8, 152, 167, 181 tory, 386.
j68, 6o3 ; Gre<ok to ' , Thurii, 102, 108, I09, liB, IS3. ISS.
r8o-r; Cadmea, seizure by Epa- rgo, 495·
minondas, IIO; by Phoebidas, 152. Thyateira, sor, 502.
- Phthiotic, see Phthiotic Thebes. Thyrnondas, 367.
Thefarie Velianas, 635. Thyreatis, 172.
Themison of Cyprus, 344· Thyrrheum, r62, 56L
Themistocles, r81. Tiber, R., 122, I23, 6I2.
Theocritus of Chios, 344. 380. Tibur, 125.
Theodotus, Aetolian, 64, 415. Tidnus, R., battle of, rg8-g, 637.
- of Pherae, 561, 562. Tifata. Mt., 119, 123.
- Syracusan, 3 r. Tigris, R., I87, 315·
Theogeiton, 567. Timachidas, SIB.
Theognis, 464. Timaeus, Aetolian, 173-4.
Theophiliscus, Rhodian navardr, 24, - of Tauromenium, IB-w, 85-86,
497. 499. 504, 505, 509, 5I1, 519, II/. 2]6, 319, 4IO, 418, 495; P.
544.550. on, 85, 222, 317, 321-62, 379-88,
Theophrastus, 20, 330, 399-412; on Agathocles, 86, I5I-2;
Theopompus, continues on Africa and Corsica, 321-4; on
8o ; characterization, Pyrrhus, 327; on the October horse,
count of Philip II, 327~8; on religious traditions, 328;
abandons H etlenica for on Sardinia, 328; on Locri, 330-53;
86; historical method, 409, criticizes Aristotle, 330-53; Theo-
criticized by Duris, 8o; by < uua..:uo;. pompus and Ephorus, 324-7; Callis-
324-5; by P., 78-87. 362, thenes, 353-5; Demochares, 355-
Theoxene, wife of Agathodes, 6o; other writers, 377-9; fails to
Thermopylae, I]1, r83, give due praise, 528; chronological
battle of, oath before, work, 347-9; on Zaleucus, 363;
Iiams fortify, 25& dreams in, 380 ; speeches in, 399-
Thermum, 17, 6r, r68, 175. 279, 499, 405; copies Gorgias (?) , 401 ; nick-
620. named 'Epitimaeu's, 349; residence
I. GEK ElL\L I!\DEX
Timaeus, (co11t.) Vermina, son of Syphax, .146.
at Athens, 388,396, 409; f1ve books Verres, C. (praetor 74). 134·
on Agathocles, 395· Via Aemilia, 268; Appia, r 23.
Timocrates, 571. Domitia, 636; Flaminia, ::;68-q.
Timolaus, 567, 569. Latina, 121, 123. 124; Saiaria, 1 "·I
Timoleon, 322, 3~4-5, 361, 377, 378, Valeria, UJ.
]84, 399, 4oo; speech in Timaeus, Victumulae, 198.
f03. Villius, Tappulus (cos. 199), 54·~
Timophanes, brother of Timoleon, 3 77. 6os. 6rg, MI.
Timosthenes, admiral of Ptolemy 11, Virasena, 314.
318--!9. Volturnus, R., 123, 124.
Tiribazus, 393. von Scala, R., quoted, 6r, 465.
Tiridates, alleged brother of Arsaces I, Vulcan, ZIO.
2]6. Vulci, r8g.
Tisaeum, Mt., 258.
war, declaration of, 416-17.
Tisia, 155.
watches, military, in Greece, If4·
Tithronium, 617.
water, worshipofbySemiticpeopi<>~. 51
Tlepolemus, lf, 487, 488, 489, 525-7·
Waterloo, battle of, cavalry at, 455·
Tmolus, ~1t., 63.
weapons, convention on use of, 410.
Tolistoagii, 603-4.
Woodhouse, W. J ., quoted, 557·
Toronc, I 63, I 64.
Tragiscus, IOf. Xanthippus, I50, 220.
Trasimene, L., battle of, I07, r·zo, X.anthus, :1.44·
121,295,458, 504; site, 637-8. Xenoctas, 315.
Treba, 125. Xenon, 642.
Trcbellius, Q., centurion, 213. Xenophanes, emissary of Philip, .f.'.
Trebia, R., battle of, 214. 295, 299, f4, 45-
454. 458, 459· Xenophon of Aegium, no, 549. 5:i''
tribunes of the plebs, 1>46-7. 562.
Trichonis, L., 2 78. of Athens. 315, 648.
Triphylia, 5.B· f>o6, 607, 618,641. Xerxes of Arsamosa ta, 6, 9R-r oo, IS< •
Triton, in Punic .. :Vfacedonian treaty, -Persian king, 177, 309, 450.
49. so, 649· Xynia(e), If, 183, r88, 572, 579, bt;·.
Tritonis, L., 50.
Troad, 603, 626. Yam, 49. so, 049·
Trocmi, 603. Zacynthus, rz, 13, r6z, 179, 278,645.
Troy, 62, 258, 335· Zagrus, JUt., 233, 6+3·
Tunis, 32, 434, 440, 465. Zalcucus, .zo, 330, 351-2, 363.
Tychaeus, 444· Zama, various towns called, 447-•J,
Tyche, see Fortune. Seba Biar, 450, 451; battle of, 2:.',
Tylis, 644. 253. 445-63, 466, 58 I; chronu
Tylus, 21, 422. lo:,ry, ; site, 446-9.
Typaneae, 641. Zancle, I 59·
tyranny~ 254, 255· Zariadris, 99·
Tyre, 48, 53, 7~. 52R. Zariaspa. 265, JI 2.
Tyros, I72. Zeno, Rhodian historian, .14, 63, 13 ·.
Umbria, 268, 269, no.
275, 417, fH, 503, criticized,
517-25; on battle 519-20,
Uni, 635. on Gaza and Paniuru, 523-5.
Uscana, see Hyscana.
-- doctor, 390.
Vt.,ns, R., 632.
Zephyrium, 6r 5·
l:tica, 43. 54. 424, 425, 428, 431, 432, Zeus, in Punic-Carthaginian treat\.
433. 440, 443· 46, 049; Attalus' dedication L• •.
Vadimo, L., battle of, 6JI. 504; Eleutherios, 6r 3; Atabyrit~>,
ValcriusAm:ias, II9,123, 125,429. 59-60; Carian, 531 ; I thomatas, uo.
M., Laevinus (cos. 2IO), tr, 12, IJ, Lycaeus, 6r, .JI5; Scotitas, 545·
62, 68, 90, 150, 161, 162, I6<,), 176, Zeuxippus, 7.7, 6or, 608-9.
179, r83, r8j, 441. Zeuxis, 4 72. 503, 53 I, 643, 649.
P., Laevinus (cos. 280), 450. Ziaelas, 96.
~::VI., }fessalla (cos. I 1:18), 598. zodiac, on calculating hour from si~t'"
van Proosdij, B. H., quoted, 97- of, I4o-z.
Venusia, 242, 243. 267, 564. Zoippus, 31, 32.
II. AUTHORS AND PASSAGES
The figures in larger type indicate the pages of this book.
Aclian, Tact. I4. 6, 588. i. 38. 151; iii. 4. 204.
Aeschines, ii. I06, 491; iii. 231, 404-5. v. 325, 380: 5 s, 494---5;
Aeschylus, A gam. I 570, 4.4. IOI,
Agatharchidcs, FGH, 86 F n. 413. 2 Verr. iv. 73,381; 121, 134, 135.
Akaeus of "-fessene, Anth. Pal. vii. de pet. cons. 39, 602.
247. 585, 593. graec. i. r r4, 351 ; II6,
Anon. Bell. Afric. 6'). 4, 454--ii.
- n.p1 i'll{;ov~. 4. 322.
Antigonus, Hist. mir. I40, 329. xviii. 47, 569; xxiv.
Antisthenes, ap. Phlcgon, FGH, 2.57
F 36 (III. 1), 64. Dio, 57· 48, 254; xvii. 74, 453;
Apollodorus of Artemita. FGH, 779 82, 466, 468, 469.
F 5 (a), 236. Dio Chrysostom. xii. ]I, 408.
Appian, iJ.C. iv. 88, 478. Diodorus, i. 51. 2, 483; ii. 23. 3, 84;
Hamz. 34, 109; 38, 122; 39, 127; v. i. 4. 411: q. I, 323; xi. 3· J,
52. 268, 269; 57. 443. 182; xv. 23. 5. 4!)5; xvi. 3· 2, 587;
Hisp. 2I. 203; 24, 248; z8, 251. 70. 3, 325; 79 2, 403; xviii. 67,
Lib. 33, 444; 34. 444; 40, 457; 54, 197; xix. 78. 2, 563; xx. r. 2,
466, 468, 4 70. 385; 1. 5. 351; 85. 4· 184; xxi.
Mac. 4· I, 504, 505: 7, 612; 8, 563. I6.j, 151-2; 17. I, 86; 1].3,360,
Syr. I3, 561. 39[,, 404; xxii. 8. 5, 38; xxvii.
Aratus, Phaen. 553-6, 140. 4· 336: xxviii. 5, 500, 501;
Aristotle, 1Hund. 398 a 12, 87. 2, 246.
Pol. iii. 5· 3, 1278 a 8, 216; vii (v). Laertius, v. r r, 344; vi. 71,
3· 9, 1303 a 15,225; 1· 1307 a 38, ; vii. 8g, 151.
331. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, ad Potnp.
Rhet. ii. 23, 1398 b 18, 410. 6. 410.
Arrian, Anab. ii. 7· 1, 3{i5; 7· 3, 343; Periegetes, 364-6, 332.
8. 2, 373; 8. 7· 375; 8. 8, 368; Duris of Samos, ap. A then. xii. 542 E,
8. II, 371; 9· 2, 375; IO. I, 367; 359.
iii. 3· 6, 353; 29. 2, 262, 263;
Ennius, Ann. 3I2-IJ Vahlen 2 , 452.
iv. 7· 3-4, 97; 10. 2, 37i; vii. Epichaunus, CGF fg. 250 Kaibel, 602.
Ig. 3, 187.
Tact. 12. ro, 588; 28. 2, 227. Epicurus, fg. 171 Us., 343; fg. 235
FGH., Ij6 F I, 622. Us., 343.
Euripides, Ale. I I6I (et al.), 139.
Asclepiodotus, 10. 2, 225·6; Io. 3.
226; IO. 6, 226. Oresph. fg. 453, 402.
Athenaeus, iv. 163 B, 404; vi. c, Or. 406, 492.
Eusebius, Chron. i. 249, 234; 253, 315.
337-8; :!7:! B, 338; viii. 336 A,
P.raep. eu. xv. 2. 2, 343.
342 C, 380; x. 4:.11 B, 220;
Eustathius, p. 1910. Io, 82-83.
527 B-C, 413; 542 E, 359.
Ev. Luc. vii. 38, 125.
Augustinus, Qt~aest. in Heptat. vii. I6,
46, 47.
Ev. Matth. xiii. 13, 380.
Sermo, 62. 6. Io, 48. Festus, p. rgo, 11 Lindsay, 327;
[Aurelius Victor], de Hir. ill. 48. 2, 268. p. 246, zr Lindsay, 328.
Florus, i. 13. 3. 106.
Bcrgk, iii 4 • 690 fg. adesp. SA, 464.
Bias, ap. Arist. Eth. ]l.'ic. v. i. 16, I 130 Galen. x. I84, 389.
a 1, 151. de Hipp. ~~Plat. plac. v, p. 462, 151.
C'TCnesis, xxxi. 42, 55.
Callisthenes, FGH, I24 F 34, 84. Epitaph. (Diels, FVS, ii. 285
Celsus, prooem. 9, 388; ro, 389. 6), 82.
Cicero, Acad. ii. z~. 406.
Brut:1s. 73. 2{18; 286, 355, 357. Hero, Belop. 74 \Vescher, 75.
de ltf.Z. iii. 14, 229. Herodotus, i. 8. 2, 408; 65. 4, 198;
de •·~ pub. i. li, 134; iii. 43. 40t 84. 3, 63; IIIO. I, 186; 203, 539;
lnm. v. r ~- ], 3i8. 2r4. 4, 97; iv. I/7, 319; v. g7. 3,
,\'D, i. 93-94, 342. 2i6-7; vii. 9 f3 I, 416; I32 180.
677
IXDEXES
Hesiod, Op. 474, 694, 140. 250. 251; 19. 1. 251: rg. z, 254.
Hieronymus, Dan. xi. IJ-14, 546; !<). ]-6, 252, 253: 20. 2. 254.
15-16, 615. 20.3,255; zs. I3,243;27-J, 243,
comm. Ezech. v. praef., 266. ·;q. s-7. 243; 27. s, 243; 27. rc·
Homer, Iliad, iv. zqg-3oo, 464; xhi. 243; L7· 14, 243; 28. IO. 24~
131-3, 5Si; xvi. 215-17, ()87. 30. IO, 15; 31. 7, 230; ]2. I"
Odyssey, xix. 471, 149. 25G-7; 39· !>, 270; 43· 8, 2G--<
Horace, A.P. 181--z, 408. 46. 4, 268; 47· 2, 269: 47· 9, Nil!.
Ep. i. 2. 17-18, 142; rg. 6, 380; 271; 47- Io-II, 2o!J; 4 8. J, 2/J
ii. :z. 146-8, 414. 48. 5, 271; 48. I3-I{. 272; 50. 1 •
Odes, ii. 2. I2-15, 414; 6. 10, 143. 274; so. 3, 274; 51. 8, 274.
51. ro, 274; xxviii. 2. !6, 2!'17
Iosephus, Ant. Iud. i. I77, 524; xii. 5· 4, 2.'\5; 5· II, 256, 2!57; 5· I..?
131, 546. 257; 5· IJ, 257; 7· 4, 276, 277
Ap. i. r6, 377. 7• 8, 277~8; 12. J, 295; Il. J;
Isocrates, Euag. 2, 89; I 2, 222. 297, 298; 12. q, 297; 13. ), 2!!1'
ad Nic. 35, 392. 13. U, 298; IJ. 10, 299; 14. l_•,
Panath. 150, 408. 300; 14. 17. 302; I]. z-3, 305-H
Panegyr. g, 411, I 55· 501; I 79, 384. r8. 1), 306; 18. 7-8, 306; ~3- ·I·
Phil. 65, 494; ro8, 176. 305;24·i,306;24- 13-14,308-P
Iustinus, viii. 4· 5. 165 · ix. 8. 3, 81; 25. 6, 307; 2_'i. IS, 207; 26. 6. 307
xi. 3· 2, 1656; 8. 14, 32; 2b. II, 308; 28. J4, 201; 29. In
xxiii. 3· 2, 35; 4· 41 ; XXX. 309; ]2. 4· 310; 32. 10, 3111
z. 6, 436; xli. 4· 5. ; 4· g, 313; 33· Il, 311; ]6. 7 , 2lii; JR. I, :Jl·'
5-7.261. 38. 4, 311; 4(>. I(>, 443; x;.;"
I2. 1, 556; I2. 3. 278; rz. il, II<
John Antiochenus, FHG, iv. 557, 98; 35- 7. 428; 35· I2. 428;
iv. 558, 482 422-3; XXX. ]. J, 426; 3· 4, 4;_;1i
4· I, 426; 4· I Z, 428; 5· 2, 42~
2 Kings, xxiii. 5, 44. 7- I, 430; 7· 2, 430; 7· 7, 431
7· 10, 430, 431; 8. J, 432. 43:~
Livy, vii. IO. IO, 74; xxi. 4· g, VH; g. ro, 434; 10. 5, 434; 16. J, 4·!::
xxii. 6r. IT, 29; xxiv. 6. r, 31; 16. 4. 442; I6. IO-I2, 453; zfJ :
6. 4, 33; 6. 8, 34; 7- 3, :J9; 3L 6, 551; 2C). 9. 447; 32. 2, 453; 33· 1
62; 33· 70; 34· I, il; 34· 7, 72; 455; 34· 3- 459; 35· 7- 464; 36 ...
3·1-· 9, ; 34· TO, 74; XXV, I. I, 465; 37· 2, 466, 467; 37· 3- 4fi~
102; 2. 6, 200; 8. 3. 101; 8. 4· 37· ... 468, 469: 37· s. 4i0; 37· •·.
102; 8. 6, 102; 8. 8, 102; g. 4- 4 70; 42. 5· 55] ; 45 3. 52!!
104; 9· IO, 104; 10. I, 107; IO. 4• 45· 4-5, 529; xxxi. I. 9, 551; 2. 1
107; IO. 9, 107; II. I, 107; ll. 8, 530 ; 7. I I, 190 ; 8. I, 54 3 ; il. 3 I
108; Io. 25, llO, 17. I-3. 110; 543; 15. z~ 535; rs. 4 . .53.5; 1 ·'
2]. I, 7; 23. I2, 112, 23. I4, 113; .~36; I6. I, 538; I6. 2,
2]. 15, 113; 24. 6, }]4; 24. 9, 114; 16. 7-8, 541; r8. 2, 1;44; Iil.
26. I], 8; 36. 114; 40. 2, 134; 544; 2J. 8, 536; 26. I2, 501
40. J, 134; 5· 3. ll9; 7· 4· 29. I5, 176; 46- s. Ml7; XX'-t!
121; 7· 5. 121; 7· 6, 121; 9- 7. IJ. 8, 554; 14. 3, 619; !<). 7, ()(II)
125; IO. 3, 124• II. I-2, 124, 126; 23. 1-2, 606; z8. 8, .563; 32. 5 .<
II. IO-II, ; 12. 2, 127; 559-60; J2. 9, .550; 33· 3. 5Ji I
16. 5, 9; 20. 7-II, 9, 134; 24. 7, 33· I3, 554;34·3,556;35·7,5(>S
185; 24. Sq., 162, 177, 179; 35· 8, 558; 3 i s. 5()3; 40- 9, 571
2'). 8, 188; 2.). 182; 2.5· rs. xxxiii. 2. I, 572; 3· 5. 579; 3 :..
178;26.2,179; z,l83;z8.9, 579; 4• 6, 58,~; 5· (), 572• f>. I
183; 38. 1-3, 155; 40. I, 10; 574; 6. ], 574; 6. 6, 575: J;o
40. 17, 161; !8, 161; 42. I, 579; 8. I 3, 582; I I. 8, 5!J2; I I "
204; 42. 6, 205, 212; 42. 9. .'i92-3; I2. 2, 597; I 7· 15, !HI~'
212; 43· 7. 213; 44· 2, 213, 214; I8. 20, 513; Iy. 9, 1()0; !C). I I
44· 3. 21-i; 45· 8, 203, 215; 45· 9. 603; 20. 2-3. 603; 20. 10, ()J;,
193, 213; 46. 8, 214; 47· I, 2lf.l, 20. I I-12, 506; 21. I, 604; 2-1
217; 47· 8, 219; 48. 5· 213; 48. I4, 605; 25. 7, 605; 28. IO, li!l!l
213:49-4,204; 51.4, 219; xxvil. 28. I4, 601; 32. 6, 613; 31 1
4· IO, 137; 7· 219; IJ. 2, 245; 621; 38. I, 620; j8. b, 620; JS
I8. 5-6, 248; IO, 250; 18. 15, 620; 39· 7, 622; 49· 8, 620; XX\!'
678
II. AUTHORS A:XD PASSAGES
4·+· 134;Jr.s,516:3z.I-z, 163; 293; ti, I, 279; II. 2, 287.
516; so. 9, 170, ol2; sg. s. Phoc. 29. 3. 167.
, ')-IO, <!69-/0; XXXV. Timol. 13. 4, 325.
2R. ll, 288; XXX\'i. 4· 7-9, 470; iPlutareh], Vit . .t' oral. 847 c, 357.
31. II, 278; xxxviL 39. 7. 217; Polyaenus. iii.(). TI. 244; iv. r8. I,
40. 7, 64; xxxix, z8. z, 616; 513; v. J 7· 2, 418~19; vi. 22, 336.
xlii. 23. 3-4. 468--9; 47· 5, 416;
+7· 8, 416, 417; xlh•. 41. 6, 584; Quiutilian, x. 1. 74, 80.
xh'. 29. 4, 468; 39· j, 135; ep, 49,
469. Sallust, Cat. 2. 4. 247.
Lucian, hist. consc. 29, 408. jug. 56. r, 4<18.
Lycurgus, in Leoc. 8o-8r, 180, 182; Seneea, de ira. iii. 23. 2, 355.
143. 501. cpist. 86. t, 234.
Senius, ad Aen. ii. 341, 327.
2 Mace. xi,·. 37. 547. Sextus Empiricus, adv. gramm. i. 252,
Macrobius. iii. 7, 48. 116.
Mela, ii. I math. vii. 126, 408: rs6 ff., 405-6.
Mcmnon, 434 F I, 612. Solon, fg. r 2 Bergk, 308.
Sophocles, O.C. I(J54· 442.
rei{. 2. 2, 380 . Stnbacus, ii. 148-9.
.fg. JO, 321. Strabo, i. ::7, 38; 137, 202; iv. rg6,
143. vi. 266, 34; 270, 329-30;
Q,·id, Pasli, ,.i. 769 -7o, ::70, 440. z86. 189; viii. 357, 4111; ix. 398,
358; 441, 579; X. 448, 416;
Panactius, fg. 68 van Straa.tcn, 14•3. xi. ro, 263; 514. 236; 515, 341;
Pausanias, iv. 35· 3, 34; vt. 14. r I, 57; 624, 604; xiv. 672, 84;
viii. 30. 8, 410; so. r, 28L xvii. 8q, 353.
Petronius, Salvr. TI6, 30. Suidas, a'l!"C1}'WY<KOC:, 475; O<O?rTpa,
Philo Bybl. il. 24 (FHG, iii. 569), 49. 148; ~m,BoA~, 464; tf4€po~. 244.
Philodemus, de rhel. 4, cols. 35a-36a,
405. Tacitus, Agric. 46. I, 89.
'll'<'pt KoAaK. x•. 4, 355. Ann. iv. 43· 3, 173.
7T<pL 'll'D<>)p.&:r. pap. 1425 fg. II P· 7, Teles, 7TEp1 a::raiJ<{ac;, ?· 62 Hense•,
494. 527.
Philostratus, t•it. i. g. 403, 401. Theocritus, Idylls, 4· 33, schol. ou,
Pindar, Pyth. i. 40; ii. 18-rg, 29--30.
333. - ... of Chios, ap. Diog. Laert. v. II,
Schol on Olymp. vii. 16oc, 3SL 344.
Plato, Laws, vii. 8r4 E, 149; ix. S73 c, Theopompus, FGH, I 15 F 209, 567;
273. F 82; F 256,80.
Phaedr. z67 A, 223. i. 73· 2, 408; ii. 2. I, 347
Phil. I5 c, 445. zr. 3, 184; 82. 2, 155; iv.
Pratag. 338 E, 401. 400; v. 23. 6, 56.
Rep. v. 473 c-E, 410: viii. 565 o, 61. Tirnaeus, FGH, 566 F 123a, 151.
-com., CA F, i. fg. 188, 359. Timotheus, ap. Plut. Philop. 1 r. 2,
Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 3, 384-5; vi. 147, 287.
422; vii index, 387; x. IJ6, 488;
xiii. Io6, 321; x:xi. rz, 390. Vegetius, iv. 21, 73.
Plutarch, Alex. g. 3, 81. Virgil, Aet!. vi. 853, 598.
A rat. r6. 3, 176; 50. 2, 60; 52. 3, 88; GeMg. iv. 125-6, 108.
52. 4, 88; 54· r. 87.
Cato mai. rg. 3. 594·5, Xenophon, Ages. r. 220.
Demos. :z8. 2, 167. A nab. i. 4· 365; 3· 15, 321.
Flam. r. 2, 560; 7· 3, 579; g. 2, 585, Cyrop. i. I. 222.
593. Hell. ii. r. 8, 403; iii. 4· 17, 220;
20. Z, 95. vi. 3· 18, 68; 3· :zo, 181; 5· 35,
r8. 2, 112. 181 , vii. 5· 9, 128-9; 5· 12, 130;
J'Vlor. 8o3 B, 393; 1033 D, 229; ,;. 14. 129.
I 132 A, 347. Lac. pol. I I. 6 8, 227.
Nic. I. 2, 328, 400; 25. r, 402. Mem. iii. I. 7, 228-9.
Philop. I. I-2, 223; I. 3, 224; g. I,
281; g. 2, 281; g. 3· 280; [Q. 7· Zonaras, ix. 8, 254; g, 269.
III. INSCRIPTIONS AND PAPYRI
The figures in larger tvpc indicate the pages of this book.
Abh. Berlin. Akad. 1952, I, nos. II, 283; zn. 130; 293.228; vii. 307.1.
12, 13, 630. 608; 3088, 608; ix. I. 98, 608.
A]A, I<JI\4, I78-9. 639. 270, 608; 359. 561; 360, 561; 68<),
Annee eptg., 1957, 158, 629; 196o, 76, 616; 2. 1109, 490; Xi. 2. 287 A 51.
636. 65; xii. I. 63, 518; 85, 520; 3· 91.
14px.l,P. rgro, 374 f., 605 530; !OJ, 530; 170, 349; 5· 872.
Arch. Pap. vii. ]<}, 437; xiii. 24 ff., 65; 7· 237. 349; 8. 386, 363; 45"·
no. 2, 485; xv. So-88, 614. 363; Suppl. 629, 257: xiv. ]I<>.
AJ!, r889, ro8 no. 62, 515; 1907, 19 378; 717, 378; ron. 611.
no. I 3. 554; 1919, 24 no. r I. 484; i 2 • ]I, 56; ii>. 163; 44, 467; 112.
1926, 28-33, 506; 1957, 233-41 56; 2II, , 448, 167; 505, 167.
no. 64, 506. 506, 167; 833. 535; 886, 535,
BCH, 1878, 610 11 nos. 29. I and 30, 1002, 535; 1oo8, 534; 1oog, 53-1.
483; r887, 10-1 no. 25, 502; 466 535; IZor, 358; 1457. 65; rs87.
no. 32, 502; 1894, I r no. 6, 483: 180; 1672, 65; 2065, 534; 213n.
1964. 569 f., 613. 607 f., 613. 534; 2338, 534; 29]1, 358; 3I]2,
BGlJ, 1215, 43B; 1555. 435. 475; 3218, 506; 3494. 50fl'
Bull. Alcxandr. 41, 1956, 49-55, iv•.I. 68,117,486, ix•. 1. 4c, 414.
33. 31, 414, 550, 56, 631; 69, 25/.
Bull. epig. 1939. JSO and 381, 481; 70, 413; 135, 562; 169, 562; 170.
rg6r, 673, ti45. 617; 187, 620; 189, 562, rr)o,
CIG, 2583, 363; 2671, 515; z683, 562; 192, 413; 162, 179-Bn.
515; 68j6, 234. 599-600; 583, 626.
Cfl., i•, p. 48, xxvii (acta t~iumph. IGR, iv. 556, 234; 70.
Capitol.). 46; i'. 2. 6ro, 629; ILS, 3139, 134; 212; 8884, 41>.
ii. 3426, 212; 3786, 246; 5041, Insc. Cat. CaifiJ, DtmkmtUe;.
253; iii. 993, 48; vi. 474, 134; i. 31I37· 481.
viii. I20I8, 448; X. 3968, 3974, Insc. de Delos, 442 B, 228; 150~.
3975· 3979. 3982, 29. 506.
C. I. Sent. i. 16, 23 ff .• 48; 89, 47; Insc. Li1td. 139, 488; 151, 615; 15·'·
3778. 48. 615; 303, 508; 42oa, 508.
Clara Rhodos, 1938, r8r-2o8, 481; InscJt. 1v1ag. 16, 23, 18-64, 532; .~.'i-
232-3. 508. 418; 65, 533; 66, 68~-73. 532; 7,
Dura Parchment.<, 25, 234. y6, 533; 78-8r, 532.
FD, iii. I, 269. 487. Insch. Perg. 20, 24, 43, 45, 604.
GDI, 1949. ; 1950, 174; 1969. 561; Israeli Exploration journal, 1966, 5·1
H)9J, 554; 1994/5, 1)61; 2000, 70, 649.
550; 2001, 5iS0; 2002, 608; 20II, ] ahresh. 1908, 56 ff., 615; 75 ff., 4it•.
554; 2041-5, 608; 2073· 550; l(jli, 163-256, 334, 335.
20].oj., 550; 2075, 561; 2II8-23, ]EA, 1938, 73-74, 436.
561; 174;4z6g,615:sr6g- ]HS, 1896, 218 f., no. 8 ll, 514-lf•.
7I, , 5176, 58; 5178-Ro, 58. 1917, IIo, no. 502 · 19.'\;·
Hellcnica, s. I9.oj.8, I.oj.8. 508: 7. 1949.5- 30, no. 6, 484; 2:'".
22, 232 315; 8, 1949. 73·-75· 232, 316.
315; 10, z66-7I. 478, 479. Le Bas-VI-'addington, 58; (.t>.
Hesperia, 419-28, 562; 1942, 423; 70, 58;
292, no. 57. 506. Milet, i. 3· 143 B, ; 146ll, 52; qs
Historia, Ioo-4, 417. 5S8, 615; 149, 610; 221, no. '~"·
Holleaux, ii. 59, 604; iii. 365- 479.
404, 481. OGIS, so, 526; 51,526, 55. 481; /\1.
IC, i, Cnosos, q, 533; Dreros, I, 51; 488; 84, 484; 86, 626; 8g, ~ 1':'
Lyttos, :~63; ii, Aptera, 6 F, go, 435, 473, 482, 546, 624, 6:>:.
649; I", 423; iii, Hiora- 134, 94; 213, 70; 222, 33; Z.' \
pytna, z A, 418; ltanos. 18, 33; 229, 52, 117, 316; 231, 4:ll
59. 232, 421; 233. 234, 312; 235. r.o:t
JG, ii. 2362, 534: iii. JOO, 535; iv. 950. 236, 503; 237, 602; 239. H:ls
166; IIJ6, 334; V. I. 724. 293; 245, 234; 24B, 53fi; 255, 97; .ct··
885, 420; 1179, 378; z. ruand 17, 231; 2]2. 316, 276. 604,
lli. IKSCRIPTIO~S A::\D PAPYRI
316; 283, 46, 504; 291-6, 492; xiii. 382, 162, 179-80, 599-600;
413, 234; 441, 117, J7I, 536. xv. 254· 636.
Oikonomos, 'E1Ttyparf;a1 Ti)s MaK<Oovlas, Svlt. 128, 495; 135, 163; 142, 467;
i, I9Ij, 2-7, 470. . 159. 495; 16],495;260, 171, 172;
Opuscula Atheniensia, 1960, 99-104, 2DI, 173;}!8,358;319,358;334,
531, (}45. 357; 381, 419; 390, 613; 39.) 16,
Otto and Spiegelberg, Die demotischen 41; 407, 172; 4~7. 3.5; 434, :!3;
Papyri Loeb, iii f., 625. 453. 35: 50:Z, 332, 349; 518, 46;
P. Cair. Zen. oo8, 121; 173, 345; 215, 522, 562; 527, 51; 529, 614;
121. 539 A, 556; 545, 556; 546 A, 188;
P. En/eu>:. 48, 483. ssz,417:554,414,562;s6r,532;
P. Fa:J,•Wn, 302, 161. 563, 413, 562; 564, 332, 413; 568,
P. Gurob, no. 12, 473, 625. 508;572,530:579,504;j81,4l5,
P. Eiamb. i, no. 57, 483. 418;58z,536;ss3.536;s84,41~
P. Ilibeh, 171, 484. 420;58s,no. r8, 616;s8s,no.Jz,
P. OxJ'· i. rz, li2; iii. 486, 352. l50;s86,615;s88,532, 6lfi;59o,
P. Par. dem. 2438, 487. 117; 59 I, 52, 56, 535, 552; 592,
P. Petrie, iii. 43 (z), 487. 613; 593, 598, 616; 595. 517;
P. Ross Georg. ii. 2, 487. 598 D, 620; 6or. 5!J8; 603, 617;
P. Ryl. iii, no. 491,441-2,443,445,453. 6ro,550;6r3, 117,614;618,598;
PSI, 389, 484; 513, 488. 287;627, 52;6zg, 562;63~
P. Teb. i. 8, 622. ; 644· 418, 520; 665, 171, 173;
5.-B. Berlin, 1954, no. r, 162. 669, 332' 673. 5ll, 530, 550; 676,
REA. 1964,309 f., 613. 598; 68o, 5:J; 702, 287; 736, 490;
REG, 1891, 49 ff., no. iii. rand 2, 487; 748, 332; 760, 117.
r893, 159, 515; 1946-7, rso-74, Tait, Greek Ostracn, Bodl. no. 41, 439;
608. Bod!. no. 96, 435.
Rev. arch. 1929, 107, 55. TAM, ii. 1, 481.
Hvv. etudes rm4maines, 5-6, rg6o, r8o- Tod, 24, 338-9, 363; ro8, 495; Ill,
zr7, 556, 6-!0. 163,164; II8, 467; II9,163; 124,
Rev. phil., 1939, 348-q, 479. 467; 133, 495; IJ6, 495; 144, 56;
Robert, Et. anat. 459, 515. IS~164; I6~ 165; 17~171,172;
La Carie, ii. 309, 638-9. 179. 173; 204, 181.
--Nouvellednscriptionsde Sardes, rS- UPZ, i. 112,435, 436; ii, no. 151,506.
rg, 639; 19-21, 649. Welles, 33; 22, 476; 31-34, 532;
Sammelbuch, 244 and 245, 487; 6261, 38. ; 45. 97; 70, 479; 75.
506; 67 59. 487. 76, 481; 161, 481: !62, 481.
Schwyzer, 336, 334, 335. \Vestcrmann, Upott Slavery iJt Ptole-
SEC, i. 364, 484: ii. 358, 89; iv. 720, maic Egypt, text, 626.
479; ix. r, 224; 8, 217; 55, 484; \Vilcken, Grundz,·ige, i. 2, no. 2, 622.
IV. GREEK
J.OcAcpol, 52. fN.\o;;, 74·
~tpca~S', 5~· fJorylhtv, 55,
a.Kpwrr;pta,«v, 97·
Y<V<aAoyLKO~ Tp01TO), &, II6.
UVUO'Tpo¢~, zz6.
aVTL1TAo<a, 646. 1lnml'iapxta.<, 165.
aVTtarparr;yos, 70, 44· 8EKaTct!uv, I8o-I.
S.vw uarpa1T£i.at, ai, 315. l'ir;p.oKparla, 230.
d'11'6KA1)'TOt 1 257 ~ lit.\oxia, 226-7.
ii'1rOUK€Va[, 203.
dno-rlAEtOL 1 228. •' ypap.p.al, 378.
apx.cwrc;; (Aetolia), 257. if/Jr; Kat v&p.ot (vop.<i-<a), 467, 594·
danls, 281. lOv"'', 54, rq.
fKKaLD<K..jp"'/>, 6II-I2.
fJai\a.vaypa, 64, 105, 1I.:f. EKn€pLa1taap,Ot;, 226.
fJ&..\avot, 64, 105. iA£V8£pia, IOI, 612.
681
IV. GREEK INDEX
€vapyeta, r32. 7TA~pwp.a, 218.
€v Kapi TiJV TI'E;;pav, 244. 7ToAn;;, 54, 232.
l7taywy~, 227, 7TOAt'Tni<alhu, 32.
€myovfi;;, ol Tfi;, 644. rroAAof, ot, 228.
lrrtKarciaTlHTlS, 226. 7TpayJLanK0 laTopia, 628.
~mp.np~v A6yo>, o, 41, 4II, 494, 495~· 7rPflYJL&TwJ J J1rl TWv, 492.
1
,
~'1TtaK~V'IJ, 28L 7Tpa(w;, rJB, 144, 532.

lmarpo.fn/, 226, 370, 464. 1Tpoa.ipoa<s, 58, 61.
np6yovo<.• 33·
~UyWJ.LU, 65. 7Tpoypacf>f), 231, 2W7.
~<;iov, 396, 475· npooKIJw,s, 4, r6, 8o, 86, rr6, 266-7,
424.
1TpoCJTaaia, Sr, 93·
1TP<f>'1v, I2.
8<pan<la, 6o, 482, 486.
8vprocf>opot, O"aJ.Lf3VKTJ, 72-74, 417.
8vp<os, 2 39, CJ1]JLO.fa, 300, 302, 445, 455·
8wpaK4Tat, 239, 28r, 285, 286, 287, 2&). CJTr<ipa, 93, 286, 302, 433, 455, 586.
aToa, r84.
'""~· 227, 300. C1T6p.a, 214.
- {3aatiltK'4, :265. aTpa:r"t)y6s, 219, 225, 253; used of pro-
imrapxia, 227. consul, 13 n., r8s, 2oo.
iaorroiltnla, 4 j8, 555· CJTpaTf>7TEfWV, 67, 68, 120, 125, !26, 307,
59I, 638.
Kapx~awv, 75-77 (with diagram). <1Tpo<{>E tS, 64.
KaTaaK"/VOVY1 241. aTporf>tyy<S, 64.
Ktlrti cfiVaw, 99~ CTUfLJ.lLYllrJJ,•ar-, 4~7-• _3II.
KaTOtKOt 1 48(}, ""lm•p<Aap.{3av<w, 56.
K<.ATla, 54· UUf.L1TO)..l:ida, 478, 555~
KMJ.La, 38. avvapxiat, 639·
KMat;;, 225~. avvi8pF>v, 35, 428, 430, 527, 612, 6r6.
KOtVtJ <lP"/Y"/, f7I. ativrpocf>o<, 492.
KoAoaa6;, 57 I. ax.aar"'pia, 76.
~<o6pn>, sec cohort. awJ"aTor/>vAaK<', 95, 4&), 491, j26.
KVpwt Kapx.1186vtot 1 53· awr~p, 6r3 q.
i\oyoypapo<, 39· r"q.\cf36Aa, 416.

A,oKpol T~; av•·8~Ka>, 19-20, 3SI-31 363. Tor.o<, 483.
.\oxo>, nt>. TPL"'JLLOAiaL, so6-7.
At!Ko> ([ &.vf!pamov, 6r. 'Tpvcf>~, 30, IOI,J8o.
TV1To>, 136.
JLeraf3o.\~, 226. Tvpiwv ~rrop.vf)p.ara, 4II-I2.
p,€-rp"'p,a, r6r.
vrrapx.o>, 53·
tmoJLvfJp.a;a, 85, 27g-So, 4I2, 592.
Jp.o¢u.\os, cf>iAo<, 36, 1)6-97, 312, 487, 527, 532, 5'H·

o,Ptp.aOia, 6or, 6rs, 625, 647.
Oq,C.:wto'l;:~ cf>iAo< ml aVJLJ"axo<, 477, 479, 639.
1rapaywy'4, 227. x«p.w•·, 634.

7T<.pLKilaat;;, 227. X«J"Wv KtnapxoJL<Vo>, 529.
7T<pwnaap.o;;, 226, 370. X<<poTix.va<, 216, 219.
1T1UTf.~ 1 252~ x•Auwat, 183-4, 241.

A Historical Commentary On Polybius - Vol. 2 Commentary On Books 7-18 - Frank W. Walbank

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Historical Commentary On Polybius - Vol. 2 Commentary On Books 7-18 - Frank W. Walbank

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A HISTORICAL

INTRODUCTION: THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE

6. Books XIV and XV 22

ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA TO VOLUME II 649

2. KAPXHI:ION (t::NIVERSAL JOINT) 76

4· PLAN OF TARENTUM 103

5· HANNIBAL'S MARCH ON ROME, 211 B.c. 122

6. AGRIGENTUM (ACRAGAS) 158

7· NEW CARTHAGE 206

8. ANT10CHUS' ROUTE ACROSS :>IT. ELBURZ 237

9· THE BATTLE OF BAECULA 249

IO. THE BATTLE OF MANTINEA, 207 B.C. 284

II. SCIPIO'S ADVANCE AT ILIPA 301

I l , BATTLE OF THE EBRO 310

13. THE MARCHING flEFOHE I SSt'S 365

14. THE BATTLE OF ISSllS 368

16. THE AREA OF PHILIP v's CAMPAIGNS IN 201 498

17. THE MANCEUVRES BEFORE CYNOSCEPHALAE 577

Abel, Giographie = F. M. Abel, Giographie de la Palestine. Ed. 2. 2 vols. Paris,

Badian, Studies = E. Badian, Studies in Greek and Roman History. Oxford,

Pritchett = W. K. Pritchett, Studies in Ancient Greek Topography. Berkeley,

w.. nwr I L M. Werner, De Polybii uita et itineribus quaestiones chronologicae.

THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE FRAGMENTS

1. BOOKS VII AND VIII

35–36 (probably preceded by 38 b: see below, p. 8);

BOOKS XVII AND XVIII

duration of the which will have ended in summer 215. On the

2-5. The dejection of Hieronymus of Syracuse

2. l. Ti)v E'll'~~ouX1)v Ti)v KO.Ta 'lepwvu14ou: cf. Livy, xxiv. 5· 9 ff.

3. 1. o TETa.Yiltvos lvt A1"u~alou <rrpaTr)yos: cf. Livy, xxiv. 6. 4,

Pyrrhus' monarchy in Sicily is to be regarded as national or purely

5. 2. Mpolaa.~ ,.;, auvt8ptov: the usual council of a Hellenistic king's

I. THE SITE OF HELLENISTIC LEONTINI

7-8. On Hiero, Gelo, and Hieronymus; critic·ism of previous writers

8. 1. 'l£pwv JlEY ycl.p ••• &.pxiJv: on Hiero's rise to power see i. 8. 3 n.

officially claimed, as it apparently was, some reference to it was to

9. The Treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia

Myrcan and Barmocar are otherwise unknown. Bickerman (A] P,

in a form which Dussaud (Syria, I946-8, 228} interprets as 'Esh-

Ao<TToVs MaK£86vas ~eal Tovs dA'i\ovs ~E,\,\1)vas. Sec further Komemann,

10-12. Philip V and Messene

10. l. ouaT]s STJf1oKpa.Tla.s 'l!"a.pO. To'Ls MeaaT]vlots: this fragment from

11, 1. ElTl<TTTJCT<15 TTJV O~TJYTJ<TW; a lacuna exists between IO, 5 and

13. 1. fLOXLs ls.'II'ETpe"'a.To TOV •i>.nmov: i.e. from seizing Ithome.

14. l. Tfj<; tKa.Tepou 11'poa.LpEaEW<;: cf. IJ. 4 n.

14 b. A Syracusan incident (spring ZIJ)

15-18. A utiochus' capture of Sardes

16. 2. 1\€'ou 6£ TOV ~a.<nX£a. •• , 11'«pa.Kt:AEuaa.VTa. auaTftaa.l O'OVI!11'l-

17. 2. TWV flEV +uXciKwv d.TroAuo.,Uvwv: Antiochus' watch, now due to

18. 1. uwep~6.vTEs Taus Kfl111J-Vous: 'having crossed the ridge', the

1. 1. TTJS ~v cipxa.is '11"po9£aews: the plan (i. I, 5, cf. viii. 2. 3-4) of

3-7. The Siege of Syracuse

3. y~ppa.: 'wicker-work screens', Latin plutei.

4. 1. ~~~KovTa. aKci4>eaL 1rEYTTJPLKoro;: cf. Livy, xxiv. 34· 4; Plut. Marc.

5. 2. vpo; liva.v ~ll~EAE; 8uia1'11J.LO.: 'to cover any distance within

2. KapX'Ilatov (UNIVERSAL JOINT)

7. 2. Tt)v T&w J'EAwv KaTaaKEu~v: 'the supply of artillery'. Paton

8 a-11. Treatment of kings in history: criticism of Theopompus

8 a. Death of Demetrius: this merely reprints ii. rg. II,

9-11. Criticism of Theopompus: cf. xii. zs f 6, xvi. 12. 7--9, xxxvili.

10. 3. Trepl Ia.p8a.va:rr6.XXou: cf. xxxvi. I 5. 6, Eap8ava7TJ».ov •••

Ttp7rv' ETTaOov, ra 8~ ,.o,U,i Ka.t 5i\f3ta. .K.:iva Mi\€t1TT<l£.

He says that these verses were designed by Sardanapallus for his