A HISTORICAL

COMMENTARY ON

POLYBIUS
BY

F.W. WALBANK
RATHBONE PROFESSOR OF ANCIENT HISTORY
AND CLASSICAL ARCHAEOI.OGY IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL

VOLUME I
COMMENTARY ON BOOKS I-VI

OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS

!957

ISBN-10: 0198141521
ISBN-13: 978-0198141525

CONTENTS
:POLYBIUS

(By permission of the Staatliche Museen, Berlin) frontispiece

LIST OF MAPS
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SHORT TITLES

xii
xiii

INTRODUCTION
I.

Polybius' Life and journeys

2.

Polybius' Views on History

3 Tyche

16

4 Polybius' Sources

26

5 Chronology

35

COMMENTARY
Book I

39

Book II

I5I

Book III

292

Book IV

450

BookY

538

Book VI

635

INDEXES
1.

General

747

2.

Authors and passages

769

3 Inscriptions and Papyri

773

4 Greek

775

xi

LIST OF MAPS
I. THE BATTLE OF

xii

ECNOMUS

84

2. LILYBAEUM

106

3 THE BATTLE OF DREPANA

1I2

SITUATIO~ OF CARTHAGE

138

THE BATTLE OF SELLAS IA

276

6.

THE BATTLE OF THE TREBIA

398

7 THE BATTLE OF TRASIMENE

416

8. CALLICULA

428

530

ALIPHEIRA

10. PHILIP'S MARCH ON THERMUM

542

II.

554

LACONIA

12. AREA OF ATTALUS' OPERATIONS IN 218

602

13. A

710

ROMAN CAMP ACCORDING TO POLYBIUS

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF SHORT TITLES
AA = Archaeologischer Anzeiger (incorporated in JDAJ).
Abh. Bay. Akad.
Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
phil.hist. Abteilung.
Abhatldlungen der PreujJischen Akademie der WissenAbh. Berlin. Akad.
schaften, Berlin, phil.hisl. Klasse.
Abh. Heidelb. Akad. = Abhandlungm der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissmschaftm, phil.-hist. Klass e.
Accame, Lega aleniese = S. Accame, La lega ateniese del secolo IV a.c. Rome, 1941.
Acme = Acme: an naZi della facolta di filos'?fia e lett ere dell' U niversita slat ale di
.Milano.
Aa. arch. = Acta archaeologica.
Act. lnst. Rom. Suec.
Acta inslituti romani regni Sueciae (Skrifter utgivna av
Svenska b1stitutel i Rom).
AEl'v! = Archeiologisch-epigraphische Miueilungm aus Osterreich-Ungarn.
AIPhO = Annuaire del' lnstitul de philologie et d'histolre orientale de l'Universite
libre de Bruxelles.
A]P = Ameritan journal of Philology.
Altheim, Epochen = F. Altheim, Epochr:n der romischen Geschichte. 2 vols.
Frankfort, I934-5
AM = Mitteilungen des deutschen archtiologisthen lmtituts, athenische Abteilung.
Annales du Service
Annales du service des antiquitis de l'Egypte.
Annuario = Annuario deUa R. Scuola archeologica in Atene e delle lvfissioni
italiane in Oriente.
Anth. Pal,
Anthologie grecque, ed. P. Waltz. 6 vols. Paris, 1928-44,
Arangio-Ruiz, Storia dir. rom.
V. Arangio-Ruiz, Storia del diritto romano.
Ed. 5 Naples, 1947.
)Jpx. 8.>..,.. = Jl.pxcuo>..oyu;dv lltATlov.
)Jpx. i>. = J4.pxato>..oy~<~ frlp.tpls.
Arch. Pap.
Archiv fiir Papyrusforschung.
Arch. Zeit.
Archiiologische Zeitung.
Arnim, SVF = H. von Arnim, Stoicorum veterum fragmenta. 4 vols. Leipzig,
1903-24-

Arnold, Oorzaak =C. J. C. Arnold, Oor:r.aak m Schuld van den tweedetr punischen
Oorlog. Amsterdam, I939
Atti Ace. Torino = Atti della R. Accademia delle Scimze di Torino.
Alii I st. Vmeto = Atti dell' lstituto Veneto di Scienze, Leitere ed Arti.
Aymard, ACA
A. Aymard, Les assemblies de la confederation achaimne.
Bordeaux, 1938.
Aymard, PR = A. Aymard, Les premiers rapports de Rome et de la amjidiration
achaienne (.r98-189 av. f.-C.). Bordeaux, I938.
Dabelon = E. Babelon, M onnaies de la ripublique romaine. 2 vols. Paris, I88s-6.
Barber = G. L. Barber, The Historian Ephorus. Cambridge, I935
lkumeister, Denkmiiler = A. Baumeister, Denkmiiler des klassischm Altertums.
3 vols. Munich-Leipzig, I885-S.

xiii

A BBitEVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

JI..J,.,J.

K. 1. Bcloeh, Griechische Geschichte. Ed.

2.

4 vols. Strassburg-

ltcoliu ,,.,;1 Leipzig, 1912-27.

J!..J.,do, Ji,.,,,;fkrrung = K. J. Beloch, Die Bevolkerung der griechisch-romischen
It'd!. Leipzig, 1886.
It,.],wll, /JJ - K. J. Beloch, Der italische Bund unter Roms Hegemonie. Leipzig,
.x~o.

lkloch, RG = K. J. Beloch, Romische Geschichte zum Beginn der punischen

K ricge. Berlin-Leipzig, 1926.
Benecke, Seepolitik = H. Benecke, Die Seepolitik der Atolier. Diss. Hamburg,
1934

Bengtson = H. Bengtson, Griechische Geschichte von den Anjtingen bis in die

romische Kaiserzeit. Muller-Otto, Ilandbuch, iii. 4 Munich, 1950.
Bengtson, Strat. = H. Bengtson, Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit. 3 vols.
Munchener Beitrage, vols. 26, 32, and 36. Munich, 1937-52.
Benseler = G. E. Benseler, De hiatu in oratoribus atticis et historicis graecis.
Fribergae, 1841.
Berger = E. H. Berger, Geschichte der wissenschaftlichen Erdkunde der Griechen.
Ed. 2. Leipzig, 1903.
Berve = H. Berve, Das Alexm1derreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage. 2 vols.
Munich, 1926.
Bettingcn = W. Bettingen, K5nig Antigonos Doson von Makedonien (229-220
v. Chr.). Diss. Jena. Weida i. Th. 1912.
Bevan, Seleucus =E. R. Bevan, The House of Seleucus. 2 vols. London, 1902.
Bikerman = E. Bikerman, ln>titutions des Sileucides. Paris, 1938.
Black Sea Pilot = Admiralty Sailing Directions. The Black Sea Pilot. Ed. 7
London, 1920. (Ed. 9, 1942, with Suppl. 3 to 1948.)
Blilmner = H. Blilmner, Technologic und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Kiinste
bei Griechen und R6mern. Ed. 2. Leipzig, 1912.
B.M.C. Lycia = G. F. Hill, Greek Coins of Lycia, Pamphylia and Pisidia. British
Museum Catalogue. London, 1897
B.M.C. Phoen. = G. F. Hill, Greek Coins of Phoenicia. British Museum Catalogue.
London, 1910.
B.M.C. Ptol. Kings of Egypt= R. S. Poole, The Ptolemies, Kings of Egypt.
British Museum Catalogue. London, 1883.
B. M. C. Rom. Rep. = H. A. Grueber, Coins of the Roman Republic in the
British :Museum. 3 vols. London, 1910.
Blv11 = The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum.
London, 1874-1916.
Boll. fil. class. = Bollettino di filologia classica.
Bonn. ]ahrb. = Botmer ]ahrbucher.
Bouche-Leclercq, Lagides =A. Eouche-Leclercq, Histoire des Lagides. 4 vols.
Paris, 1903-7
Bouche-Leclercq, Sileucides = A. Bouche-Leclercq, Histoire des Sileucides, 32364 av. f.-C. 2 vols. Paris, 1913-14.
BPW = Berliner Philologische W ochenschrift.
Brandstaeter = F. A. Brandstaeter, Die Geschichten des t'itolischen Landes,
Volkes und Bundes, nebst einer historiographischen Abhandlung iiber Polybios.
Berlin, 1844.
Broughton = T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic.
2 vols. New York, 1951~2.

xiv

ABBREVIATIONS

A~D

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BSA = Annual of the British School at Athens.

BSR
Papers of the British School at Rome.
Bullettino della commissione archeologica comunale di
Bull. Comm. Rom.
Roma.
Bull. de la sot:. nat. des antiquaires de France
Bulletin de la sociitl nationale des
antiquaires de France.
Bull. de l'inst. arch. bulgar.
Bulletin de l'institut archiologique bulgare (in
Bulgarian).
Bull. ipig. = L. Robert's Bulletin ipigraphique in REG.
Bull. Inst. Class. Stud.
Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the
Uni~ersity of London.
Bull. soc. arch. Alex.= Bulletin de la societe royale d'archiologe d'Alexandrie.
Bung
P. Bung, Q. Fabius Pictor, der erste riimische Annalist. Diss. Cologne,
1950.

Burnet, EGP
J. Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy. Ed. 4 London, 193o.
Burr = Y. Burr, Mare Nostrum. (Wurzburger Studien, 4.) Stuttgart, 1932.
Bursian = K. Bursian, Geographic von Griechculand. z vols. Leipzig, 18G2-iz.
Busolt-Swoboda = G. Buso!t-H. Swoboda, Griechische Staatskunde. (llliillerOtto's Handbuch, iv. 1. x.) Ed. 3 z vols. Munich, 192o--6.
Calhoun = G. M. Calhoun, Greek Legal Sience. Oxford, 1944.
Cardinali
G. Cardinali, ll regno di Pergama. Turin, 19o6.
Cary, GB
M. Cary, The Geographic Background of Greeh and Roman History.
Oxford, 1949.
Cary, Ilist.
M. Cary, A History of the Greek World fr!YIIl 323 to I46 B.C.
London, 1932 (ed. 2, 1951).
Cary, IIR = M. Cary, A History of Rome down to the Re.ign of Constantine.
London, 1935
Castiglioni
L. Castiglioni, Decisa farficibus. Milan, 1954.
CGF
G. Kaibel, Comicorum graecarum fragmenta. Berlin, 1899
Chilver G. E. F. Chilver, Cisalpirte Gaul: Social and Economic History from
49 B.c. to the death of Trajan. Oxford, 1941.
Chrimes = K. M. T. Chrimes, Ancient Sparta. Manchester, I949
Chron. d'Egypte = Chnmique d'Egypte.
Cichorius = C. Cichorius, Riimische Sltldien. Leipzig-Berlin, 1922.
C!L
Corpus inscriptionum latinarum.
Carpus inscriptionum semiticarum.
C.I.Sem.
C]
Classical journal.
Class. el med. = Classica el mediaevalia.
ClermontGanneau, Rec. arch. or.
C. S. ClermontGanneau, Receuil d'archiologie orientale. 8 vols. Paris, J888-I924
Cook, Zeus
A. B. Cook, Zeus: a Study in Atuient Religion. 3 vols. Cambridge,
1914-40,

Cornelius
F. Cornelius, Cannae. (Klio, Beiheft, 26.) Leipzig, 1932.
Corradi
G. Corradi, Studi ellenistici. Turin, 1929.
Couissin= P. Couissin, Les annes romaines. Paris, 1926.
CP
Classical Philology.
CQ Classical Quarterly.
CR = Classical Revie'W.
CRAI
Comptes rendus de l'Acadt!mie des inscriptions et belleslettres.
XV

A llllHEVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

t,..,;~,y

nnd 1:racc
M. Crosby and E. Grace, An Achaean League Hoard.
(Numi.,nwti< Notes and l11onographs, 74.) ~ew York, 1936.
Cnult.
0. Cuntz, Polybius und sein Werk. Leipzig, 1902.
t 'uri i<h
K Curt ius, Peloponnesos, ei1xe hislorisch-geographische Beschreibung
J,.r JJalbinsel. 2 vols. Gotha, 1851-2.
llanx =G. Daux, Delphes au II et au/"' siecle depuis l'abaissemmt de l'Etolie
jusqu'a la paix romaine, I9I-JI av. ].-C. Paris, 1936.
De Beer = G. de Beer, Alps and Elephants. London, 1955.
Delatte, Constitution = A. Delatte, La Conslilt~tion des Etats-unis et les Pytha
goriciens. Paris, 1948.
Delatte, Essai = A. Delatte, Essai sur la politique pythagoricienne. Liege, 1922.
Delbriick
II. Delbruck, Geschichte der Kriegskunst im Rahmen der politischen
Gescht'chte. 4 vols. Berlin, 19oo-2o.
Denkschr. Wien = Denkschriften der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien.
DeSanctis
G. De Sanctis, Storia dei Ronmni. Vols. i-iv. 2, in six parts. TurinF1orence, 1907-23, I953
De Sanctis, Problemi = G. De Sanctis, Problemi di sloria antica. Bari, 1932.
De Sanctis, SG
G. De Sanctis, Storia dei Greci dalle origini allafine del secCllo V.
2 vols. Florence, 1939 (with appendice bibliografica (I940-52) by A. Momi
gliano, 1954).
Die Is, Dox. graec. = H. Diels, Doxographi graeci. Ed. 2. Berlin, 1929.
Diels, FVS
H. Diels-W. Kranz, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. 3 vols. Ed. 6.
Berlin, 1951-2.
Dinsmoor, Archons = W. B. Dinsmoor, The Archons of Athens in the Hellenistic
Age. Cambridge (C.S.A.), 1931.
DLZ = Deutsche Literatur-Zeilung.
Drachmann = A. B. Drach mann, Sagunl und die EbrCl-Gren::;e in den V erhand
lungen zwischen Rom und Karthago, zzo-zi8. Kgl. Danske Videnskab.
Selskab, Hist. fil. Meddelelser, iii. 3 Copenhagen, 1920.
Droysen
J. G. Droysen, Geschichte des HeUenismus. 3 vols. Ed. 2. Gotha,
1877-8.
DS = Daremberg-Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquitis grecques et romaines. Paris,
1877-1919.
Dunbabin = T. J. Dunbabin, The }Veslern Greeks: the History of Sicily and
South Italy from the fow:dation of the Greek Colonies to 480 n.c. Oxford, 1948.
Dussaud, Topographic
R. Dussaud, Topographic historique de !a Syrie antique
et midievale. Paris, 1927.
E. and J. = V. Ehrenberg and A. H. M. Jones, Documents illustrating the reigns
of Augustus and Tiberius. Oxford, 1949.
EHR
English Historical Revie-li!.
Ehrenberg, Aristophanes = V. Ehrenberg, The People of Aristophane. Ed. 2.
Oxford, 1951.
Ehrenberg, Karthago
V. Ehrenberg, Karthago: ein Versuch weltgeschicht
licher Einordmmg. (Morgenland, vol. 14.) Leipzig, r927.
Enc. it.
Enciclopedia italiana.
Erkell
H. Erkell, Augustus, Felicitas, Fortuna: lateinische Wortstudien.
Goteborg, 1952.
Farrington = B. :Farrington, Science and Politics in the Ancient World. London,
1939
xvi

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

FD = Fouilles de Delphes, Vol. iii, Inscriptions, ed. by G. Colin, E. Bourguet,

G. Daux, and A. Salac. Paris, 1909-
Feldmann = A. Feldmann, Zum Aufbau der Geschichtserziilzlung bei Polybios.
Bern, 1929.
Ferguson = W. S. Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens. London, 19II.
Ferguson Studies = Athenian Studies presented toW. S. Ferguson. Harvard, 1940.
Ferrabino = A. Ferrabino, II problema dell' unita nazionale nella Grecia antica.
I. Arato di Sicione e l'ideafederale. Florence, 1921.
Feyel = M. Feyel, Polybe et l'histoire de Biotie au III siecle avant notre ere.
Paris, 1942.
Feyel, Epig. = M. Feyel, Contribution a l'ipigraphie biotienne. Le Puy, 1942
(Paris, 1943).
FGH =F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin-Leiden,
1923- .

FHG =C. and Th. Muller, Fragmenta historicorum graecorum. 5 vols. Paris,
1841-70.

Fick, Vorgr. Ortsn. = A. Fick, Vorgriechische Ortsnamen als Quelle fur die
Vorgeschichte Griuhenlands. Gi:ittingen, 1905.
Flaceliere = R. Flaceliere, Les Aitoliens a Delphes: contribution a l'histoire de
la Grice centrale au I II siicle av. ].-C. Paris, 1937.
Fougeres = G. Fougeres, 111antinie et l'Arcadie orientale. Paris, 1898.
FPhG =F. G. A. Mullach, Fragmenta philosophorum graecorum. 3 vols. Paris,
r88r-3.

Frank, ES = T. Frank, editor, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome. 5 vols.

Baltimore, 1933-40.
Frank, RI = T. Frank, Roman Imperialism. New York, 1914.
Fraser and Bean = P. M. Fraser and G. E. Bean, The Rhodian Peraea and
Islands. (Oxford Classical and Philological Monographs.) Oxford, 1954.
Frazer, Pausanias = ]. G. Frazer, Pausanias' Description of Greece. 6 vols.
London, 18g8.
Freeman, HFG =E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government in Greece and
Italy. Ed. 2 by J. B. Bury. London, r893
Freeman, History of Sicily =E. A. Freeman, The History of Sicily from the
Earliest Times. 4 vols. Oxford, 18gr-4.
GAR = Gruce and Rome.
GDI = Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-ltJschriften, edited by H. Collitz and
F. Bechtel. Gottingcn, 1884-1915.
Geist. Arb. = Geistige Arbeit.
Gelzer, Vom riimischen Staat = M. Gelzer, Vom riimischen Staat: zur Politil1 und
Gesellschajtsgeschichte der romischen Republik. 2 vols, Leipzig, 1944.
Germ. Forsch. = Germanistische Forschungen: Festschrift des Wiener Akad,
Germanistmvereins. Vie1ma, 1925.
GGA = Giittingische gelehrte Anzeigen.
GGM = C. Muller, Geographi graeci minores. 2 vols. Paris, 1855-61.
Gidion = H. Gidion, Untersuchungen iiber das III. Buck des Polybios. Diss.
Gottingen, 1919.
Glotz-Cohen = G. Glotz and R. Cohen, Histoire grecque, vols. i-iv. I. (In
Glotz's Histoire gtnirak.) Paris, 1925-
Giitt. Abh. = Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Giittingen.
Giitt. Nachr. = Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschliften zu Gottingen.
4866

xvii

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gomme, Essays =A. W. Gomme, Essays in Greeh History and Literature.

Oxford, I937
Granier = F. Granier, Die 1i1alcedflllisthe lleeresversammlung: Ein Beitrag zum
antihm Staatsr<dt/. Muuich, I<JJI.
CrtTnidg"
:\. I I. J. I ;.-".. uidge, Noman Public
London, 190r.
{;, itlrl"
I:. T. I;, iltrllo, n,,. 11/tr(CIUlries of the Hellenistic World. Cambridge,
l:r<>:q:
1:-...11

t-:. L;n.;:. llrwui!Jfll als Politiker. Vienna, 1929.

S. 1: ...11,/J,_,fotrran<imnedel'Afriquedu.Nord. 4vols. Paris, I913-2o.

I :11ir.11rd
1'. I :ninnd,/.a j1roj>riite fonciere en Grece. Paris, 1893.
11.""1 ,J, .\t'"'""'ln~t:<' -- F. I-Iampl, Die griechischen Staalsverlni:ge des 4 Jahr
itl!udnf, ,., l'ltr. Leipzig, 1938.
II;""'"
[.;, llanell, Das altriimische eponyme Amt. (Act. Inst. Rom. Su.ec. 2.)
l.u11d, t<).JI.
ll:r""'"
E. V. Hansen, The Attalids of Pergamum. Cornell, I947
ll:llrkr, Oallus Lucanus
R. Harder, Ocellus Lucanus: Text und Kommen/ar.
(Nruc philologische Unterszuhungen, i.) Berlin, 1926.
llm1'. Stud. = Harz'ard Studies in Classical Philology.

llan. Theol. Re11. = Haroard Theological Review.

Head =B. V. Head, Historia Numorum. Ed. 2. Oxford, 19II.
Jleichelheim, Aus-.m'irlige BePiilkcrung
F. M. Heichelhcim, Die auswartige
Leipzig, 1925.
Bevolkerung im Ptolemiierreich. (Klio, Beiheft,
Heichelheim, Wirtsch. Schwank.
F. M. Heichelheim, Wirtschaftliche Schwan
kungm der Zeit von Alexander bis Augustus.
1930.
Hercod - R. Hercod, La couception de l'histoire dans
Diss. Lausanne,
1902.
Hermath. = Herma/hma.
Hesp. = Hesperia,
Hesselbarth = H. Hesselbarth, llistorisch-kritische Untersuchuugm ::;ur drittm
Delwde des LiPius. Halle, 1889.
Heurgon = J. Heurgon, Recherches sur l'histoire, Ia religion, et la civilisatiotl de
Capoue prtromaine des origines a Ia deuxit!me guerre punique. Paris, I942.
Heuss, Stadt und Herrscher =A. Heuss, Stadt und Herrscher des llellenismus
in ihrm staats- und volkerrechllichw Beziehungen. (Klio, Beiheft, 39.) Leipzig, 1937.
Heuss, Vi.ilk. Grund. =A. Heuss, Die tOlkerrechtlichen Grundlagen der riJmischen Auj1enpolitik in republikanischer Zeit. (Klio, Beiheft, 31.)
1933

Heuzey = L.A. lleuzey, Lemont Olympe et l' Aca:rnanie, exploration de ces deux
regions. Paris, r86o.
Hill = H. Hill, The Roman Middle Class in the Republican Period. Oxford, 1952,
Hill, Hisl. Greek Coins = G. F. Hill, Historical Greek Coins. London, ryo6.
Hiller von Gaertringen, Hist. gr. Epi,g. llislorische griechis<.hc E.pigramme,
edited by F. Hiller von Gaertringen. (Kleine
rs6.) Donn, 1926.
Hirschfeld, Kl. Schr. = 0. Hirschfeld, Kleine Sch:rijien. Berlin, 1913.
Hirzel = R. Hirzel, Unlersudnmgen zu Cicero's philosophischeu Sdmjten, ii.
Leipzig, r88z.
Hoffmann = W. Hoffmann, Lir>ius Ultd der II. putlische Krieg. (Hermes, Einzel
schrift, 8.) Leipzig, 1942.
xviii

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ilolleaux = M. Holleaux, Rome, Ia Grece, et les monarchies hellinistiques au III

siecle av. ].-C. (27 3-205). Paris, 1921.
Holleaux, Etudes= M. Holleaux, Etudes d'ipigraphie et d'histoire grecques.
Edited by L. Robert. Vols. i- . Paris, 1938- .
Holm, Gesch. Sic. = A. Holm, Geschichte Siciliens im Alterthum. 3 vols. Leipzig,
187e>-98.

Howald= E. Howald, Vom Geist antiker Geschichtsschreibung. Munich-Berlin,

1944

HRR = H. Peter, llistoricorum romanorum reliquiae. Leipzig, 1906 (vol. ii),

1914 (vol. i, ed. 2).
HZ = Historische Zeitschrijt.
IG = lnscriptiones graecae.
IG 2 = lnscriptiones graecae, editio minor.
IGR = Inscriptiones graecae ad res romanas jJertinentes.
ILS = lnscriptiones latinae selectae, ed. I-1. Dessau. 3 vols. Berlin, r892-I9r6.
lnsch. JV!ag. = Die lnschrijten von Magnesia-am-1liiiander, ed. 0. Kern.
Berlin, 1900.
Insch. Perg. ''" M. Frankd, Die Inschrijten von Pergamon. (Alter!Umer von
Pergamon, viii.) 2 vols. Berlin, r89o--5.
Insch. Priene = F.lliller von Gaerlringen, Die lnschrijten von Prien e. Berlin, 1906.
IPE = inscriptiones orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini. Ed. Latyshev. St.
Petersburg, 1885--1901 (Ed. 2 of vol. i, 1916).
Jahrb. =Neue jahrbucher fur Philologie und Piidagogik (1831-97), Neue Jahrbucher fur das klassische Altertum und fur J>aJagogih (r898-1924), Neue
Jahrbucher fur Wissenschaft und Jugendbildung (1925-36), Neue ]ahrbucher
fur deutsche Wissenschaft (1937), Nme jahrbucher fiir Antike und deutsche
Bildung (1938-42), Die Antike: alte Sprachen und deutsche Bildung (1943- ).
]ahresberichte d. phil. Ver. Berlin= Jahresberichte des philologischm Vereins zu
Berlin.
Jahresh. = ]ahreshefte des iisterreichischen archiiologischen Instituts.
} DAI = ]ahrbuch des deutschen archiiologischen lnstituts (incorporating AA).
Jones, CERP = A. II. M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces
Oxford, 1937.
Jones, Greek City = A. H. M. Jones, The Greeh City. Oxford, 1940.
Joum. Sav. =journal des savants.
]P =Journal of Philology.
Jullian = C. Jullian, Histoire de Ia GauZe. 8 vols. Paris, 1909-26.
Kahrstedt, iii= U. Kahrstedt, Vol. iii of Meltzer's Geschichte der Karthager.
Berlin, 1913.
Kienast = D. Kienast, Cato der Zensor, seine Personlichheit mul seine Zeit.
Heidelberg, 1954.
Kiepert, FOA = 11. and R. Kiepert, Formae orbis antiqui. Berlin, 1893Klatt = M. Klatt, Forschungm zur Geschichte des acha'ischen Bundes, i. Berlin
1877-

Kiatt, Beitriige = M. Klatt, Chronologische Beitriige zur Geschichte des achiiischen

Bundes. Berlin, r883.
Klotz, Appian's Darstellung = A. Klotz, Appian's Darstellung des zweiten
punischen Krieges. Paderborn, 1936.
Klotz, Li11ius = A. Klotz, Livius und seine Vorganger. (Neue Wege zur Antike,
ii. 9-II.) Berlin-Leipzig, 194o--1.

xix

ADDREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

K,.skr =' A. J. Koster, Plutarchi uilam Arati edidit, prolegomenis commen
larioque inslruxit. Leiden, 1937.
Kromayer, AS = ]. Kromayer and G. Veith, Antike Schlachtjelder. 4 vols.
lkrlin, 1903-31.
Kromayer-Veith, Heerwesen = J. Kromayer and G. Veith, Hurwesen und
Kriegfiihrung der Griedzen und Romer. (Miiller~Otto, Handbuch, iv. 3 2.)
.Munich, 1928.
Kromayer-Veith, Sdzla.chlenatlas = J. Kromayer and G. Veith, Schlachlcnatlas
zur antiken Kriegsgeschichte. Gotha, 1922-
Laqueur = R. Laqueur, Polybius. I~eipzig, 1913.
La Roche = P. La Roche, Clwrakteristik des Polybios.
Larsen = ]. A. 0. Larsen, Representative Government itz Greek and Roman History.
Berkeley-Los Angeles, I<J55
Launey = M. Launey, Recherches sur les armies hellt!nistiqtus. 2 vols. Paris,
194<rso.

Leaf, Troad =IV. Leaf, Strabo on the Troad, Book XIII,

I, edition and
introduction. Cambridge, 1923.
Leake, M(irea = vV. M. Leake, Travels in the Morea. 3 vols. London, 1830.
Leake, NG ~ vV. M. Leake, Travels in Northern Greece. 4 vols. London, 1835.
LE'C = Les etudes dassiques.
Lehmann-Hartleben = K. Lehmann-Hartleben, Die antiken llafenanlagen des
1Uittelmeeres. (Klio, Beiheft, 14.) Leipzig, 1923.
Leo = F. Leo, Geschichte der riJmischen Literatt<r, i. Berlin, 1913.
Lesquier = J. Lesquier, Les institutions militaires de l'JJ:gypte sous les Lagides.
Paris, I9II
Leuze, ]ahrziihlung = 0. Leuze, Die romisclle jakrziihlung. Tubingen, 1909.
Lex. Polyb. = Lexicon Polybianum, ed. Schweighaeuscr. Leipzig, 1795
Liv. Ann. = Annals of Archaeology aud Anthropology, Liverpool.
Loewy, Insch. gr. Bildh. = E. Loewy, Inschrijten griechischer Bildhauer mil
Facsimils. Leipzig, 1885.
I,olling = H. G. Lolling, Hellenische La11desl1Unde. (Muller's llandbuch, iii,
pp. 101-354.) Nordlingen, 188<).
Lorenz = K. Lorenz, Untersuchungen zum Geschichtswerk des Polybios. Stuttgart,
1931.
LSJ = Liddell~Scott-Jones, A week-English Lexicon. Oxford, 1925-40.
Madvig, Adu. crit. = J. N. Madvig, Aduersaria crilica ad scriptores graecos et
Latinos. 3 vols. Copenhagen, 1871-84.
:Magie =D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the end of the Third Cmtmy
afta Christ. 2 vols. Princeton, 1<)50.
Mai, Class. auct. ~ A. Mai, Clossicorum auctorum e uaticanis codicibus editorum
tomi IV el V. Rome, r83I-3 .
.Yialcovati, ORF = II. .Malcovati, Oratorum romanorumfragmenla. 3 vols. Turin,
1930
}larquardt = J. }larquardt, Ramische Staatsverwaltung. 3 vols. Ed. 2 by Dessau
and von Domaszewski. (Yols. 4~6 of llandbuch der romischen Altertii.mer
of Marquardt-2\<fomrnsen.) Leipzig, r88r-s.
M DA I = 11ifitteilungen des deutschen archaologischen Insliluts.
Mediterranean Pilot = Admiralty Sailing Directions. The Mediterranean Pilot.
Ed. 7 London, 1918-48.
XX

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Meier, Staalsordnung = Th. .Meier, Das JVesen der spartanischen Staalsordnung.
(Klio, Beiheft, 42.) Leipzig, 1939
Melanges Nicole =Melanges Nicole: recueil de mimoires de philologie el d'archi
ologie offerts a]. Nicole. Geneva, 1905.
Meloni, Perseo = P. Meloni, Perseo e la fine della monarchia macedone. Rome,
1953

Meltzer = 0. Meltzer, Geschichte der Karthager, i. and ii. Berlin, r879-. (For
vol. iii see 'Kahrstedt:' .)
Mem. Ace. Torino= Afemorie della R. Accademia delle scienze di Torino.
Mim. miss. arch. Perse = 111ission archiologique de Perse: mimoires.
Meyer = Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums. Stuttgart, I9IC>-I3 (vol. i, ed. 3),
1928-31 (vol. ii, ed. 2), 1937 (vol. iii, ed. 3, by Stier), 1939 (vol. iv. r, ed. 3,
by Stier).
Meyer, Forschungen = Ed. Meyer, Forschungen zur allen Geschichle. 2 vols.
Halle, r8<)2-9.
Meyer, Grenzen = Ernst Meyer, Die Grenzen der hellenistischm Staaten m
Kleinasien. Zurich-Leipzig, 1925.
Meyer, Kl. Schr. = Ed. Meyer, Kleine Schriften. 2 vols. Halle, H)I024.
Meyer, Pel. Wand. = Ernst )!eyer, Peloponnesische Wanderungen, ZurichLeipzig, 1939
Michel, Recueil = Ch. Michel, Recueil des inscriptions grecques. Brussels, 1900,
with supplements, 1912 and 1927.
Michell = H. :Michell, Sparta. Cambridge, 1952.
Minar = E. L. Minar, Early Pythagorean Politics iu Practice and Theory. Baltimore, 1942.
Mioni = E. Mioni, Polibio. (Problemi d'Oggi, 3.) Padua, 1949.
Mnem. = JY!nemosyne.
Mommsen, RG = T. Mommsen, Romische Geschichte. Ed. 8. Vols. 1-3, 5 Berlin,
1888--94

Mommsen, Rom. Forsch.

T . .Mommsen, Romische Forscltungen.

vols. Berlin,

r864-79.

Mommsen, St.-R. = T. Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrechl. 3 vols. (Vols. 1-3 of

Hm1dbuch der romischen Allertumer of Marquardt-.\Iommsen.) Leipzig, r888.
Mommsen, Strafr. = T. Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht. Leipzig, r899.
Mon. ling. iber. = Monumenta lnguae ibericae. Ed. E. Hubner. Berlin, r8g3.
Mullenhoff = K. V. J\.iullcnhoff, Deutsche Altertumskunde. 5 vols. Ed. 2. Berlin,
r8go--rgo8.
Muller, Dorians = C. 0. Muller, The History and Antiquities of the Dorian Race
(tr. Tufnell and Lewis). 2 vols. Oxford, 183o.
Munch. Beitrage = Aliinchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschung und antiken
Rechtsgeschichte.
Munzer, Adelsparteien = F. Mlinzer, Romische Adelsparteim und Adelsfamilim.
Stuttgart, r920.
~Mus. Ilelv. = J1!useum Helveticum.
Nauck = A. Nauck, Tragicorum graecorum fragmmta. Ed. 2. Leipzig, r88<).
NC = Numismatic Chronicle.
Nettleship, Essays = H. Nettleship, Lectures and Essays in Latin Literature and
Scholarship. Vol. i. Oxford, r885.
Newman = W. L. Newman, The Politics of Aristotle. 4 vols. Oxford, r887-1902.

xxi

ABBREVIATIO~S

:Kiccolini

G. Niccolini, La

AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

confederaziM~e

achea. Pavia, rgr4.

Niebuhr, RG
B. G. Niebuhr, Romische Geschichte. Berlin, r8z8 (vol. i, ed. 3),
1830 (vol. ii, ed. 2), 1832 (vol. iii).
Niese
R. Niese, Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staalen seil der
Schlachl bei Chaeronea. 3 vols. Gotha, 1893~r903.
Ninck
M. H. Ninck, Die Entdeckung von Europa durch die Griechen. Basel, 1945.
Nissen, It. Lattd.
II. Nissen, Italische Landeskunde. 2 vols. Berlin, r883-1902.
H.
Kritische Untersuchungm uber die Quellen der vierten
Nissen, KU
zmd funftm Dekade
Livius. Berlin, r863.
Norden, Agnoslos Theos
E. Norden, Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur
Formengeschichte religioser Rede. Leipzig, I9IJ.
Norden, Urgesch.
E. Norden, Die germanische Urgeschichte in Tacitus' Germmlia. Leipzig-Berlin, 1920.
Not. d. scav.
Noli3ie degli Scavi di Antichita.
Oberhurnmer, Akarnanien
E. Oberhummer, Akarnanien, Ambrakia, Amphilochien, Leukas im Altertum. Munich, r887.
OGIS - Orimtis
inscriptiones selectae, ed. Dittenberger. 2 vols. Leipzig,
1903-5
Oilier
F. Oilier, Le mirage spartiate: etude sur !'idealisation de Sparte dans
l'anliquili grecque. 2 vols. Paris, 1933-43.
Oost
S. I. Oost, Roman Policy in Epirus and Acarnania in the Age of the
Roman Conquest of Greete. Dallas, 1954.
Pais, Ricerche
E.
Ricerche storiche e geographiche sull' Ilalia antica.
Turin, 1908.
Pais, Storia critica
E. Pais, Storia critica di Roma durante i primi cinque secoli.
4 vols. Rome, 19I3-20.
Pais-Bayet
E. Pais- J. Bayet, Histoire romaine des origines a l'achevement de
la couquete
au. ]..C.). (Vol. i of the Iiistoire romaine in Glotz's llistoire
gim!rale.)
1926.
Partsch
J. Partsch, Griechisches Burgschaftsrecht, i. Leipzig, I909
Partsch, Olympia
J. Partsch (and others), Olympia, die Ergebnisse der ron
dem Deu!schen Reich veranstaltelen Ausgrabung, [:Topographic und Geschichte
von Olympia. Berlin, 1&)7.
P BA
Proceedings of the British Academy.
P. Berol.
Berlin
cited by inventory number.
Pelekidcs = s. Pelekides, )hr.:\ 'T~l! 11'0A!Tda. Ka.l 'T~V KOtvwv{a. Tijs apxa{a<; BwaaAoYtK')S. Salonica, 1934.
P. Enteux.
Publications de la Sociitl royale igyptienne de Papyrologie. Textes
et documents, i. 'Evn:vro> . , ed. 0. Gueraud. Cairo, 1931-2.
Pfeiffer, Callimachus
R. Pfeiffer, Callimachus. 2 vols. Oxford, 1949-53.
P. Graec.llaun.
Papyri gratci Hawzienses, fasc. i, ed. T. Larsen. Copenhagen,
1942.
Phil. = Philologus.
Philippson, Thessalien u. Epirus = A. Philippson, Thessalien und Epirus.
Berlin, 1897.
Phil. Woch.
Philologische Wo,henschrift.

P. Lille
lnstitut papyrologique de l'universiti de Litle: papyrus grecs publiis
sous la direction de P. Jouguet. Paris, rgo7-28.

x:xii

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

P. Lond. =Greek Papyri in the British Museum, ed. by F. G. Kenyon (vols. i
and ii), F. G. Kenyon and H. I. Bell (vol. iii), and H. L Bell (vols. iv and v).
London, r&)J-
Pohlmann
R. von Pohlmann, Geschichte der sozialen Frage und des Sozialismus
in der antiken Welt. Ed. 3 by F. Oertel. 2 vols. Munich, 1925.
Posch!
V. Posch!, Romischer Staat und griechisches Staatsdenken bei Cicero.
(Neue deutsche Forschungen, 5.) Berlin, 1936.
Pohlenz, Antikes Fiihrertum = M. Pohlenz, Antikes Fiihrertum: Cicero De
Officiis und das Lebensideal des Panaitios. Leipzig-Berlin, 1934.
Porter
V\'. H. Porter, Plutarch's Life of Aratus with introduction, notes and
appendix. Cork, l93i
P. Oxy.
Oxyrhytzchus Papyri, ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. London,
18<)8-
P. Paris= Notices et extraits des manuscrits grecs de la bibliothique impi!riale,
xviii, by llrunet de Presle. Paris, 1865.
P. Petr.
The Flinders Petrie Papyri, ed. by J. P. Mahaffy and J. G. Smyly.
(Royal Irish Academy, Cunningham Memoirs, 8, g, and n.) Dublin, 18gi1905
llpaKTHal = llpa.t<Tit<ii Tfj> lv illl~a.<> &.pxa.w>..orocijs inupdas.
Prcger, lnsc. gr. metr.
T. Preger, lnscriptiones graecae metricae ex scriptoribus
praeter Anthologiam collectae. L~ipzig, 1891.
Proc. Prehist. Soc.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society.
P. Teb. = Tebtunis Papyri. Ed. by R P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, J. G. Smyly,
E. J. Goodspeed. 3 vols. London-Kew York~-California, rgoz-38.
P. Vat., see .Mal, Class. auct.
Ramsay, Asia Minor = W. M. Ramsay, llistorical Geography of Asia lvlinor.
London, r&)o.
Ramsay, Cities= W. M. Ramsay, The Cities and Bishoprics of Phr_vgia. z vols.
Oxford, r8ys~6.
RE = Pauly-Wissowa's Real-encyclopa:die der classischen Alterl!m/S'.t'issenschaft.
Stuttgart, 1893~ .
REA
Revue des etudes anciennes.
REG = Revue des etudes grecques.
Rehm, Delphinion =G. Kawcrau and A. Rehm, Das Delphinion in i'r1ilet.
Vol. iii of Th. Wiegand, Milet, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen. Berlin, 1914.
Reiske = ]. J. Reiske, Animadversiones ad graecos auctores. 5 vols. Leipzig,
1 757-66.
RE] = Revue des etudes juives.
Rend. Ace. ltalia
Rendiconti della R. Accademia d'ltalia, Classe di scienze
morali.
Rend. !st. Lomb. = R. lstituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere, Rendiconti.
Rend. Line. = Rendiconti della R. Accademia dei Lincei.
Rend. Pontif. Acr. Rom. Arch. = Rendiconti della Ponteficia Accademia Romana
di Archeologia.
Rev. arch. = Revue arch!ologique.
Revue biblique.
Rev. bibl.
Revue d' Assyriologie.
Rev. d' Ass.
Rev. des Univ. du ,'.fidi = Revue des Universitis du Jfidi.
Revue internationale des droits de l'antiquite.
Rev. int. droits d'ant.

x.-.:iii

/1 BBHEVJ AT IONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

!,'n. fhil.
Nh. rllrH.

l.'rmcr dr philologie, de litttfrature et d'histoire anciennes.

Nhrinisches Museum fur Philologie.
Ri'"""""" Fm!les= S. Riccobono, Fontes Juris Romani Anteiustiniani, I,
i.(~;t.>. Ed. 2. Florence, 1941.
llidtt'Wity Studies
Essays and Studies presmted to William Ridgeway. Cambritlgc, 1913.
Riv. fil.
Rivista di filologia e d'istruzione dassica.
RAf = liliiteilungcn des deutschen archtiologischen Instituts, Romische Ahteilung.
Robert, Et. anat.
L. Robert, Etudes anatoliennes: recherches sur les inscriptions
grecques del' Asie },fineure. Paris, 1937
Robert, Et. epig.
L. Robert, Etudes epigraphiques et philologiques. Paris, 1938.
Robert, Hellenica
L. Robert, Hellenica, recueil d'e'pigraphie, de numismatique
et d'antiquites grecques, vols. i- . Paris, 1940-
Robert, ItlSc. Froehner = L. Robert, Collection Froehner, I, Les inscriptions
grecques. Paris, 1936.
Robert, Villes = L. Robert, Villes d'Asie Mineure: etudes de geographie antique.
Paris, 1935.
Robinson Studies
Studies presented to D. M. Robinson. Vol. i. St. Louis, 1951.
Roebuck= C. Roebuck, A History of Messeniafrom 369 to r46 B.C. Chicago,
1941.

Rostovtzeff, Kolonat = M. Rostovtzeff, Studien zur Geschichte des romischen

Kolonats. (Arch. Pap. Beiheft, i.) Leipzig, 1910.
Rostovtzeff, SEHIIW = M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of
the Hellenistic World. 3 vols. Oxford, 1941.
Rostovtzeff, Staatspacht
M. Rostovtzeff, Gcschichte der Staatspacht in der
romischen Kaiserzeit. (Phil. Suppl.B. 9.) Leipzig, rgo4.
Ryffel
H. Ryffel, MoafloA~ "'o.\tntwv: der Wandel der Staatsverfassungen.
(Noctes Romanae: Forschungen Uber die Kultur der Antike, 2.) Bern, l949
Sabine Essays
Essays in Political Theory presented to George N. Sabine.
Cornell, 1948.
S.-B. Berlin = Sitzungsberichte der Preuj3ischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
phil.-hist. Klasse.
S.-B. Heidelberg
Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissen
schaften, phil.-hist. Klasse.
S.B. Leipzig
Sitzungsberichtt der Siichsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
phil.-hist. Klasse.
S.B. Miinchen = Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
phil.hist. Abteilung.
S.-B. Wietl
Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, phil.
hist. Klasse.
Schmid, Lit.
W. Schmid, Geschichte der griechischen I.iteratur. (l\fi.iller-Otto's
HandbUcher, vii. I and 2.) 9 vols. Munich, 192o-48.
Schmidt
M. C. P. Schmidt, De Polybii geographia. Diss. Berlin, 1875
Schulte = A. Schulte, De ratione quae intercedit inter Polybium et tabulas
publicas. Diss. Halle, 1909
Schulten, Numantia =A. Schulten, Numantia, die Er,r:ebnisse der Ausgra
bungm, 1905-12. 4 vols. Munich, 19J4-31.
Schulze, Eigenn. = W. Schulze, Zur Geschichte lateinischer E~r:ennamen. (Abh.
der K. Gesellschafl der Wissenschaften zu Giittingen, phil.-hist. Klasse, Neue
Folge, v. S) Berlin, 1904,

xxiv

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Schur = W. Schur, Scipio Africanus und die Begrundung der romischen Weltherr
schaft. uipzig, 1927.
Schweighaeuser, Lex. Polyb., see Lex. Polyb.
Schwyzer = E. Schwyzer, Dialectorum graecarum exempla epigraphica potiora.
Leipzig, 1923.
Scullard, Hist. = H. H. Scullard, A History of the Roman World from 753 to
I46 B.c. London, 1935 (ed. 2, 1951).
Scullard, Pol. = H. H. Scullard, Roman Politics, 22o-rso B.c. Oxford, 1951.
Scullard, Scip. =H. H. Scullard, Scipio Afn'canus in the Second Punic War,
Cambridge, 1930.
SEC = Supplementum epigraphicum graecum.
Sherwin-White= A. N. Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship. Oxford, 1939
Siegfried = W. Siegfried, Studien zur geschichtlichen Anschauung des Polybios.
Berlin, 1928.
Sinclair= T. A. Sinclair, A History of Greek Political Thought. London, 1952.
Soltau = W. Soltau, Livius' GeschichtS"&erk, seine Komposition und seine Quellen.
Leipzig, 1897.
Stiihelin = F. Stahelin, Geschichte der kleinasiatischen Galater. Ed. 2. Leipzig,
1907-

Stiihlin, Hell. Thess. = F. Stii.hlin, Das hellenische Thessalien. Stuttgart, 1924.

Stauffenberg = A. Graf von Stauffenberg, Konig Hierot1Il. von Syrakus. Stutt
gart, 1933.
Stevenson, Roman Prov. Ad. = G. H. Stevenson, Roman Provincial Administration till the Age of the Autonines. Oxford, 1939.
Stuart = D. R. Stuart, Epochs of Greek and Roman Biography. Berkeley, 1928.
Stuart Jones, Companion =II. Stuart Jones, Companion to Roman Histcrry.
Oxford, 1912.
Stud. et doc. hist. et iur. = Studia et documenta historiae et iuris.
Stud. it. = Studi italiani difilologia classica.
Susemihl = F. Susemihl, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur zn der Alexandrinerzeit. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1891-2.
Swoboda, Staatsaltertumer = H. Swoboda, Lehrbuch der griechischen Staatsaltertiimer. (Herrmann's Lehrbuch der griechischen Antiquitaten, vol. i. 3.) Ed. 6.
Tubingen, 1913.
Syll. = Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum, ed. W. Dittenberger. Ed. 3 4 vols.
Leipzig, 1915-24.
Symb. Osl. = Symbolae Osloenses.
Taeger = F. Taeger, Die Archiiologie des Polybios. Stuttgart, 1922.
TAP A = Transactions of the American Philological Association.
Tarn, AG = W. \V. Tarn, Antigotws Gonatas. Oxford, 1913.
Tarn, Alex. = \V. W. Tarn, Alexander the Great. 2 vols. Cambridge, 19{8.
Tarn, Bactria = W. W. Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and India. Ed. 2. Cam
bridge, I95I.
Tarn, Ferguson Studies = W. W. Tarn, Athenian Studies presented to W. S.
Ferguson. Harvard, 1940. Pp. 483-sor, 'Phthia-Chryseis'.
Tarn, HC = W. W. Tarn, Hellenistic Civilisation. Ed. 3 by G. T. Griffith.
London, 1952.
Tarn, IIMND = W. W. Tarn, Hellenistic Military and Naval Developments.
Cambridge, 1930.
XXV

A BHI<EVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

J I. Thiel, Studies 011 the History of Roman Sea-power in Republican

Tiu/fs. Amsterdam, 1946.
Thiel, II ist. = J. H. Thiel, A History of Roman Sea-power before the Second
l':mic ~Far. Amsterdam, 1954
Thomson = J. 0. Thomson, History of Ancient Geography. Cambridge, 1948.
Tijd. ges. = Tijdschrift voor geschiedenis.
Tod = M. N. Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions. 2 vols. Oxford, 1946 (vol. i,
ed. 2), 1948 (vol. ii).
Torr = C. Torr, Hannibal crosses the Alps. Cambridge, 1924.
Treves, Euforione = P. Treves, Euforione e la sloria ellenistica. Milan-Naples,
1955
Tscherikower = V. Tscherikower, Die hellenistischen Stiidtegrundungm von
Alexander dem Gro)Jen bis auf die Romerzeit. (Phil. Suppl.-B. 9 r.) Leipzig,
1927Ullrich = H. Ullrich, De Polybii fontibus Rhodiis. Diss. Leipzig, 19o8.
UPZ = TJ. Wilcken, Urhunden der Ptolemderzeit, i-ii. 2. Berlin, 1922-37.
Valeton =I. :M. J. Valeton, De Polybiifontibus el auctoritate disputatio critica.
Traiecti ad H.henum, 1879
Vallejo = J. Vallejo, Tito Livio, Libro XXI, edici6n, estudio preliminary wmmentario. Madrid, 1946.
Valmin = ).I. ?\. Valmin, Etudes topograj;hiques sur la Afessinie ancienne. Lund,
1930.
van Effenterre = H. van Effenterre, La Crete et le monde grec de Plat on a Polybe.
Paris, 1948.
van Gelder = H. van Gelder, Galatarum res in Graecia et Asia gestae usque ad
medium secundum saeculum ante Christum. Diss. Amsterdam, 1888.
Veith, AS, see Kromayer, AS.
Vitucci, = G. Vitucci, Il regno di Bitinia. Rome, 1953.
von Fritz = K. von Fritz, Pythagorean Politics in Southern Italy. New York,
1940.
von Fritz, Constitution = K. von Fritz, The Theory of the 1'vfixed Constitution in
Antiquity: a Critical Analysis rif Polybius' Political Ideas. New York, 1954.
von Gutschmid, Kl. Schr. = A. von Gutschmid, Kleine Schriften. 5 vols., ed.
Riihl. Leipzig, 1889--94
von Scala = R. von Scala, Die Studien des Polybios, i. Stuttgart, 1890.
Walbank, Aratos = F. W. Walbank, Aratos of Sicyon. Cambridge, 1933.
Walbank, Philip = F. W. Walbank, Philip V of lvlacedon. Cambridge, 1940.
Warde Fowler, Social Life c= W. Warde Fowler, Social Life at Rome in the Age
of Cicero. London, 19o8.
Wehrli, Dicaearchus = F. Wehrli, Die Schute des Aristoteles. Heft I: Dikaiarchos.
Basel, 1944.
Welles = C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence of the Hellenistic Age. Yale, 1934
Whatmough, Foundations= J. Whatmough, Foundations of Roman Italy.
London, 1937
Wim. Anz. = Anzeiger der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, phil.-hist.
Klasse.
Wim. Stud. = Wiener Studien.
Wilamowitz, Hellen. Diehl. = U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Hellenistische
Dichtung in der Zeit des Kallimachos. 2 vols. Berlin, 1924.
Thiel

xxvi

J.

AI3BREVIA TIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wilamowitz, Lesebuch
TJ. von Wilamowitz-1\foellendorff, Griechisches Lesebuch.
4 vols. Berlin, t9<J6-r3.
Wilamowitz, Staat und Gesellschajt
U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Staat
und Gesellschaft der Griedzen und Romer bis zum Ausgang dt:s NliUelallers.
Ed. 2. Leipzig-Berlin, 1923.
Wilamowitz, Texlgesch.
U. von WilamowitzMoellendorff, Die Textgeschidzte
der griechischm Lyriker. Berlin, 1<)00.
Wilcken, Alexander
U. Wilcken, Alexander the Great {tr. G. C. Richards).
London, 1932.
Wilcken, Grundz1~ge
L Mitteis and U. Wilcken, Grundzuge unJ Chrestomathie
der Papyruskunde. 4 vols. Leipzig-Berlin, 1912.
Wilhelm, Beitritgc
A. \Vilhelm, Beitrii'ge zur griechischm Insclzriftenkwzde.
Vienna, 1909.
Wilhelm, Neue Beitra'ge
A. Wilhelm, Neue Beitriige zur griechischen In
schriftenkunde, i. (S.-B. Wien, I9II,) Vienna, 19II.
Willems == P. Willems. Le senat de la rlpublique romaim. 2 vols. and appendix.
l.ouvain, r878-85.
Willetts
R. F. Willetts, Aristocratic Society in Ancient Crete. London, 1955.
Wissowa
G. Wissowa, Rel~l{ion und Kultus der Romer. Ed. 2. (Ml'uler'sllandbuch, v. 4.) Munich, 1912.
fVJ
Wurzburger jahrbi<cher fur die lllassische Altertumswissenschajt.
W. J. Woodhouse, Aelolia, its Geography, Topography, and
Woodhouse
Antiquities. Oxford, 1897.
Wui\leumier = P. Wuilleumicr, Tarmte, des origines
la conqufte romaine.
z vols. l'aris, 1939
Wunderer, i, ii, or iii
C. Wunderer, Polybios-Forschungen, i: Sprichworter tmd
sprichwiJrtliche Redensarlen bei Polybios; ii: Citate und gefliigelte W orle bei
Polybios; iii: Gleichnisse und J'v!etaphern bei Po~ybios. Leipzig, I&)8, 1901,
and 1909.
Wunderer, Pol. =C. Wunderer, Polybios: Lebens- und Weltanschauung aus dem
zweiten vorchristlichen Jahrlzundert. (Das Erbe der Allen, n.) Leipzig, 1927.
Yale Stud. = Yale Classical Studies.
ZA = Zeitschrift Jii.r Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete.
ZDA = Zeitschrift fur das deulsche Altertum.
ZDMG = Zeilschrijt der deutschen morgenla'ndischm Gesellschajl.
ZDPV
Zeitschrift des deutschen Paltlstinavereins.
Zippel =G. Zippel, Die romische Herrschaft in Illyrien. Leipzig, rSn
ZN = Zeitschriftfiir Numismatik.
Z. Sav.Stift. = Zeitschrift der Saviguy"Stiflullgjiir Rechtsgeschichle, Romanistische
Abteilung.

xxvH

INTRODUCTION
A FULL-LENGTH picture of Polybius will not be attempted in this introduction, which is intended merely to
survey a number of problems relevant to the study of his text. Because his upbringing and political fortunes
played a part in determining the sort of book he was to write, the first section is concerned with his life and the
places he visited. The second deals with his views on history and the writing of it. These views reflect external
influences and the literary traditions of the Hellenistic age, but even more the innate disposition of the man. The
impression he makes is of a somewhat crude and utilitarian rationalist; but this attitude is not without its
inconsistencies. No one, for example, can read many pages in the Histories without running into difficulties
raised by Polybius' references to Fortune, Tyche. Belief in Tyche, a characteristic ingredient of the popular
philosophy of Polybius' time, is not easily reconciled with either his rationalism or his moral purpose; section
three is devoted to an analysis of this central problem. The fourth section contains a brief survey of the sources of
which Polybius availed himself in the different parts of his work; and a short final section outlines the
chronological system which forms the framework of the Histories. In all sections discussion has been kept to a
minimum, with frequent references forward to the commentary for particular examples and details of
bibliography; for in a work of this kind it is in close association with the relevant passages that detailed problems
are most profitably discussed.
1. Polybius' Life and Journeys
Born about the end of the third century1 at Megalopolis, Polybius spent his first thirty years acquiring the
military and political experience of an Achaean statesman. His father Lycortas was an eminent politician, a
follower, though hardly (as has been suggested)2 a relative, of Philopoemen. In 182 the young Polybius was
selected to
[1]

The date is uncertain. Beloch (iv. 2. 228), following Mommsen (RG, ii. 449; Rm. Forsch. ii. 538 f.) in the view
that Polybius took part in Manlius Vulso's Galatian expedition of 189, dates it to 208; Susemihl (ii. 80 n. 2c) puts it
as early as 211/10. Against this is the reference in iii. 39. 8 to the measuring of the Via Domitia (see ad loc.),
which certainly suggests that Polybius lived until 118. If any trust can be placed in the statement of Ps.-Lucian
(Macrob. 23) that Polybius died from a fall off a horse at the age of 82, this would suggest a date round about 200
for his birth; but the author of the Macrobioi may be inaccurate, and in any case we do not know how long after
118 he may have lived, so that attempts to be more precise are somewhat hypothetical.
2

See ii. 40. 2 n.

carry the ashes of Philopoemen to burial,1 and some time later he wrote his life.2 The boy's upbringing was shaped
by the family's position as rich landowners. His interest in military matters is shown by his lost book on Tactics,3
and by many digressions in the Histories;4 he was also much given to riding and hunting.5 His knowledge of
literature was not extensive;6 the occasional quotations from the poets frequently suggest the use of a
commonplace-book rather than first-hand acquaintance,7 and his philosophical studies too were of a limited
character.8 Despite his use of the word as a term of abuse,9 and despite references to Heracleitus,10
Plato,11 Aristotle,12 Demetrius of Phalerum,13 and Strato of Lampsacus,14 he shows little evidence of deep study of
any of these writers; and the philosophical background in book vi seems to lie mainly in recent or contemporary
popular writers rather than in the original minds of the fourth and third centuries.15 On the other hand, he had
obviously read closely and critically the historians of his own and preceding generations, such as Timaeus,
Phylarchus, Theopompus, and Ephorus.16
[2]

Cf. Plut. Philop. 21. 5 ; the phrase would fit a birth-date about 200,
but hardly one much earlier.
2
x. 21. 5 f. The Life of Philopoemen was probably an earlier work. Against the view of P. Pdech (REG, 1951,
82103) that it was written at Rome for Scipio Aemilianus see Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios', cols. 14723 n. It was
Plutarch's source for his Philopoemen.
3
Cf. ix. 20. 4; Arrian, Tact. 1; Aelian, Tact. 1, 3. 4, 19. 10.
4
e.g. iii. 81. 10, 105, v. 98, x. 16. 117. 5, 2224, 32. 733, 4347, xi. 25. 6; but Polybius' detailed description of
military matters throughout his Histories reveals the technical skill and passionate eye of the professional.
5
xxxi. 14. 3 (boar-hunting with Demetrius of Syria), 29. 8 (hunting with Scipio); other references in von Scala, 24
n. 3.
6
So, rightly, Ziegler, op. cit., col. 1465, against von Scala, 65 ff.
7
Cf. Wunderer, ii, passim.
8
Cf. Ziegler, op. cit., cols. 146771, drawing on and modifying the conclusions of von Scala, 86255.
9
e.g. xii. 25. 6 (Timaeus), xxxvi. 15. 5 (Prusias).
10
iv. 40. 3, xii. 27. 1.
11
Cf. iv. 35. 15, vi. 5. 1, 45 (mentioned with Ephorus, Xenophon, and Callisthenes), vii. 13. 7, xii. 28. 2; on the
theory of Friedlnder (AJP, 1945, 337 ff.) that Polybius based his account of his own early relations with Scipio on
the pattern of Socrates and Alcibiades in the Greater Alcibiades see xxxi. 2330 n.
12
See Ziegler, op. cit., col. 1470, criticizing von Scala, 127 ff. Susemihl (ii. 81 n. 4) and Niese (GGA, 1890, 892)
are agreed that von Scala has not proved that Polybius was acquainted with such rare works as the Poetics,
Politics, and Nicomachean Ethics.
13
Especially xxix. 21; but this does not imply an extensive knowledge of Demetrius.
14
Polybius shows a first-hand acquaintance with Strato's theories on the silting-up of the Black Sea; cf. iv. 3942
nn.
15
See the commentary to this book, passim.
16
See i. 5. 1, ii. 16. 15, viii. 10. 12, xii. 315, 2328 a, xxxiv. 10. 5, xxxix. 8. 4(Timaeus); ii. 56. 1-63. 6, v. 35-39 n.
(Phylarchus); viii. 9-11, xii. 4 a 2 (reference in Timaeus), 25 f 6, 27. 8, xvi. 12. 7 (Theopompus); iv. 20. 5, v. 33. 2,
vi. 45. 1, ix. 1. 4, xii. 4 a 3 ff. (reference in Timaeus), 22. 7, 23. 1, 23. 8, 25 f 27. 7, 28. 9-12, xxxiv. 1. 3.

Of Polybius' career between Philopoemen's death and the Third Macedonian War only a little is known. In
181/0 the Achaean Confederation designated him one of three ambassadors to visit Ptolemy V Epiphanes in
Egypt, ,1 but the trip was cancelled when the king suddenly died,
and he next appears as Hipparch of the Confederation for the year 170/69.2 This was a critical moment in his
country's history. Involved in an irksome war with Perseus of Macedonia, the Romans were carefully watching all
Greek states for signs of disloyalty. Polybius has left a detailed defence of his behaviour;3 but his family tradition
was one of maintaining an independent, if friendly, attitude towards Rome, and in 170 independence among
Greeks was a quality little respected by the Senate. In the purge which followed the downfall of Perseus Polybius
found himself one of a thousand eminent Achaeans who were summoned to Rome, ostensibly for examination,
and subsequently detained there without any pretence of justice.4
Once at Rome, Polybius was more fortunate than most of his colleagues. Soon after his internment began, and
while he was still in the city, he had the good fortune to attract the attention of the 18-year-old Scipio
Aemilianus. The acquaintance, which took its origin 'in the loan of some books and conversation about them',5
quickly ripened into friendship, and when shortly afterwards the other internees were distributed into custody
among the municipal towns of Italy,6 Polybius received permission to stay on in Rome, where he became Scipio's
mentor and close friend.7 His position was now highly ambiguous. Technically a foreign internee, he enjoyed
friendship on equal terms with men like Aemilianus, his brother Q. Fabius,8 and the whole of their brilliant circle.
In this company he made the acquaintance of the Seleucid prince Demetrius, and did not hesitate to encourage
and support his plans to escape from Italy.9
[3]

xxiv. 6. 5. Polybius will have been little more than twenty at this time; see above, p. 1 n. 1.
xxviii. 6. 9.
3
xxviii. 13. 913, xxix. 24. 14, 78.
4
xxx. 13, 32. 112; Paus. vii. 10. 11; Livy, xlv. 31. 9.
5
xxxi. 23. 4; the books may well have been lent from the library of Perseus, which had fallen into the hands of
Scipio's father, Aemilius Paullus (Plut. Aem. Paul. 28. 8; Isid. Orig. vi. 5. 1). See von Scala, 176; and above, p. 2 n.
11.
6
xxxi. 23. 5; Paus. vii. 10. 11.
7
xxxi. 23 ff.; Diod. xxxi. 26. 5; Vell. i. 13. 3; Plut. Mor. 659 F; Ps.-Plut. Mor. 199 F.
8
xxx i.23. 5.
9
Cf. xxxi. 11-15 for his own account of the incident, probably written shortly afterwards, but reserved for later
incorporation in the Histories, when its publication could no longer harm him. See discussion ad loc. for Ziegler's
view (op. cit., col. 1452) that Polybius was acting with the connivance of Scipio, and virtually in the role of 'eines
geheimen politischen Agenten im Dienste dieser Partei'.
2

Cuntz has argued1 that until the remnant of the internees was amnestied in 150, Polybius will have been
restricted to Latium under pain of death; but there was all the difference in the world between allowing him to
return to Greece, where he could exercise political influence, and letting him leave the boundaries of Latium and
even Italy in responsible company in order to make journeys in the west.2 As De Sanctis points out,3 Polybius is
known to have visited Epizephyrian Locri several times,4 and by his influence to have secured the immunity of its
citizens from military service 'in the Spanish and Dalmatian campaigns'. Since Schweighaeuser this Dalmatian
campaign has been identified with that of 156/5;5 Cuntz's argument6 that the reference is to the war of 135 against
the Ardiaei and Pleraei,7 is unconvincing, for these peoples were not Dalmatians.8 On balance, then, it may be
assumed that Polybius was allowed as far as Locri during his internment. In that case why not also outside Italy?
It seems in fact probable (though it is a hypothesis not susceptible of complete proof) that the journeys which
Polybius made 'through Africa, Spain, Gaul, and on the ocean that lies beyond',9 are to be dated in part before his
release from internment. The evidence is discussed in the relevant notes. Summarized, it suggests that Polybius
accompained Scipio to Spain in 151, when he acted as legatus to the consul Lucullus, that during his stay in Spain
he went with Scipio to Africa, where he met Masinissa, and that he crossed the Alps on his way back to Italy.10 In
150, thanks to the influence of Scipio and the acquiescence of Cato,11 the internees were released, or at least the
three hundred of them who still survived. Polybius had barely had time to reach Arcadia when a request arrived
from the consul
[4]

Cuntz, 5556; this penalty seems implied by Paus. vii. 10. 12, .
His parole would have afforded sufficient security, especially when underwritten by Scipio, who, though
certainly still young, must have carried weight by reason of his family connexions.
3
iii. 1. 20910.
4
xii. 5. 13.
5
Cf. xxxii. 13; Livy, ep. 47; Flor. ii. 25; Zon. ix. 25; App. Illyr. 11; Strabo, vii. 315; auct. de uir. ill. 44; Zippel, 130
ff.; De Sanctis, iii. 1. 210.
6
Cuntz, 4649; accepted by Ziegler, op. cit., col. 1461. Cuntz also makes the Spanish War that of D. Iunius
Brutus in 138/7 (Strabo, iii. 152) rather than that of 153 (xxxv. 1), the usual view.
7
Livy, ep. 56; App. Illyr. 10; cf. Zippel, 132. The Dalmatian War of 119 (App. Illyr. 10; Livy, ep. 62) is certainly
too late.
8
Cf. De Sanctis, iii. 1. 210.
9
iii. 59. 7.
10
Cf. iii. 48. 12 n.; 5759 n.
11
xxxv. 6; Paus. vii. 10. 12. Unsuccessful attempts had been made in 164 (xxx. 32), 159 (xxxii. 3. 1417), 155
(xxxiii. 1. 38. 3), and 153 (xxxiii. 14).
2

for149, M'. Manilius, to proceed to Lilybaeum ;1 he readily obeyed,

but when at Corcyra he received reports which suggested that the Carthaginians had accepted the Roman terms,
he returned home.2 After the war again flared up, however, he joined Scipio at Carthage and was present at its
fall.3 It was probably in 146, shortly afterwards, that he undertook the voyage of exploration in the Atlantic,
which carried him both down the African coast and some way up that of Portugal.4 Ziegler5 would date this
voyage to 147 before the fall of Carthage; but Polybius will scarcely have left Scipio during the siege,6 and there is
no chronological difficulty in placing his voyage of exploration after the fall of Carthage and before his return to
Greece. He is known to have been at Corinth shortly after its destruction; but this event cannot be dated with
accuracy,7 and an Atlantic voyage may have been a welcome distraction from the embarrassment of being in
Achaea at the headquarters of a Roman general operating against the Confederation.
The Histories enable us to follow Polybius' movements for the next two years. He spent the rest of 146 and
part of 145 working to secure as favourable a settlement as possible in Greece,8 and he visited Rome once more in
the course of these negotiations.9 After that it becomes impossible to attach dates to his journeys. He was at
Alexandria sometime during the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes II (Physcon),10 but whether in the company of
Scipio11 or not cannot be determined. At some equally uncertain date he was at Sardes, where he met the Galatian
Chiomara,12 and he may have visited Rhodes.13
[5]

xxxvi. 11. 1.
Ibid.
3
xxxviii. 1922.
4
See iii. 5759 n.; xxxiv. 15. 7.
5
Op. cit., col. 1455.
6
Cf. Cuntz, 53.
7
xxxix. 2; cf. De Sanctis, iii. 1. 211.
8
On the honours paid to Polybius see xxxix. 3. 11; Paus. viii. 30. 9. Other statues were erected according to
Pausanias at Megalopolis (Paus. viii. 30. 8), Tegea (Paus. viii. 48. 8), Pallantium (Paus. viii. 44. 5), Lycosura (Paus.
viii. 37. 2;
cf. IG, v. 2. 537) and Mantinea (Paus. viii. 9. 1; IG, v. 2. 304). There is also epigraphical evidence for dedications
at Cleitor (IG, v. 2. 370; see Frontispiece) and Olympia (Syll. 686).
9
xxxix. 8. 1.
10
Strabo, xvii. 797 = P. xxxiv. 14. 6. Physcon reigned 170163 and again 145116; Ziegler seems right in dating
Polybius' visit to the second of these two periods; he stresses the elimination of the Greek element from the city
(op. cit., col. 1461).
11
Scipio's embassy to the east was probably in 140 (Broughton, i. 4801, with references); fg. 76 neither supports
nor contradicts the view that Polybius accompanied him on it. Mioni (15) connects Polybius' visit to Alexandria
with his reorganization of Greece, but there is no evidence for such an assumption.
12
xxi. 38. 7 = Plut. Mar. 258 E. Chiomara was probably young when the incident of 189 took place; and there is
no necessity to date Polybius' meeting with her before 169 rather than after 146, though of course the earlier date
cannot be excluded.
13
xvi. 15. 8 refers to archives in the Rhodian prytaneum; but Polybius had not necessarily consulted these in
person (see below, p. 31 n. 8). Nor can it be deduced from xvi. 29 that he had visited Sestus and Abydus (so
Mioni, 125); and had he seen Byzantium (iv. 38), he would almost certainly have said so. Valeton (190-3) assumed
that Polybius had visited Media (v. 44) and Ecbatana (x. 27); here again silence seems to suggest the opposite.
2

During these years he undoubtedly spent some time in the company of Scipio. Cicero1 makes Laelius say that
Scipio, Polybius, and Panaetius had frequently discussed together problems of the Roman constitution; but when
such conversations are to be datedwhether at Carthage or on some subsequent occasion, such as Scipio's eastern
embassyremains quite obscure.2 It is often assumed that Polybius accompanied Scipio to Numantia;3 but his
personal acquaintance with New Carthage,4 and Scipio's inquiries in Gaul (probably incited by Polybius),5 can
equally well date to the earlier Spanish journey of 151/0, for the composition of a monograph on the Numantine
War6 is no evidence that Polybius himself took part in it, when approximately seventy years old. Another work
by Polybius, , on the habitability of the equatorial region, is recorded by
Geminus;7 it has been conjectured8 that this was in fact merely part of book xxxiv of the Histories, but Ziegler9
rightly argues that Geminus is quite explicit in his statement, and that there is no reason to think that Polybius did
not write a separate monograph on a topic for which Strabo consulted only the general historyThe date when this
monograph was written is quite unknown. Pdech (Reg, 1948, 439; Mthode, 58890) argues that the work
was written after P.s voyage along the coast of Morocco and utilized the
results of that voyage.
Polybius died, according to the author of the Macrobioi,10 from a fall off a horse at the age of 82; the authority
is not impeccable, but the statement would fit reasonably well into the other data on Polybius' life,11 and may be
accepted.12
2. Polybius' Views on History
At the outset of his work Polybius indicates its double purpose:13 it is to provide useful training and experience
for the practical
[6]

1
2

De rep. i. 34.

On the date of Panaetius' arrival in Rome see Pohlenz, RE, 'Panaitios', col. 424 f.; Brink and Walbank, CQ,
1954, 103 n. 3. The evidence is not adequate to determine when it took place, and views fluctuate between a date
before 149 and one as late as 132.
3
e.g. Cuntz, 16 ff., 5659; Mioni, 16; Ziegler, op. cit., cols. 1458 f.
4
x. 11. 4; cf. De Sanctis, iii. 1. 112.
5
xxxiv. 10. 67 = Strabo, iv. 190; cf. Class. et med., 1948, 161.
6
Cic. fam. v. 12. 2.
7
Geminus, 16. 12. (*p. 628.)
8
Cf. M. C. P. Schmidt, Jahrb. cxxv, 1882, 113.
9
Op. cit., col. 1474.
10
Ps.-Lucian, Macrob. 23.
11
See above, p. 1, n. 1, for the evidence suggesting that Polybius lived after 120.
12
How the composition of the Histories fits into the above chronology is a subject enveloped in controversy. It is
fully discussed in the commentary at iii. 15 and vi introduction; see also Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 98102.
13
i. 1. 2.

politician, and at the same time to teach the reader how to bear the vicissitudes of Fortune, by describing
those that have befallen others. Throughout the Histories both aspects are repeatedly stressed. The discussion in
book iii1 on the distinction between causes, pretexts, and beginnings is specifically directed towards the
statesman,2 and it is as something essential for statesmen as well as students that he includes his account of the
Carthaginian treaties.3 The description of the Gallic invasions of Italy is designed especially to teach those who
direct the fortunes of the Greeks how to cope with such attacks.4 It is, in particular, statesmen who can correct
their own conduct by a study of the change in character displayed by Philip V,5 and statesmen (as well as students)
who will profit from the account of the Roman constitution.6 The moral lessons of history, though useful to
(for indeed they are often bound up with the practical lessons),7 are frequently aimed at a
wider public. Thus the fate of Regulus, which illustrates the unexpected element in history and the success that
can be achieved by determination,8 is recounted 'in order to improve the readers of this History';9 and these
readers are invited in their turn to pass moral judgement on the government exercised by Rome.10
Usually, however, it is not clear to what particular audience Polybius is directing his frequent didactic
observations on the advantages that will accrue from reading his work, for, as he himself admits,11 many of these
hammer at ancient themes; and the constantly repeated antithesis between and 12 and
their synonyms smacks of the schools and rhetorical communes loci. Both aims, pleasure and profit, are
admissible; but the scale comes down very sharply on the side of profit. The criterion of utility is repeatedly urged
whether the point in question be great or trivial. It may be the claims of history in general13usually implying
[7]

iii. 6. 6 ff.
iii. 7. 5,
; iii. 31 develops the theme as it concerns both statesmen and others.
3
iii. 21. 910; for the distinction between statesmen and students see the note ad loc.
4
ii. 35. 510, especially 35. 9 for the reference to Greeks.
5
vii. 11. 2.
6
iii. 118. 12. In ii. 61. 11 Polybius implies that it is especially statesmen who will profit from reading of the loyal
and courageous behaviour of the Megalopolitans.
7
e.g. the study of Philip's metabole (above, n. 5), the factor of morale in meeting a Gallic tumultus (above, n. 4).
Polybius regarded both right conduct and morale as ultimately paying practical dividends.
8
The same lesson is drawn from the Gallic tumultus: compare ii. 35. 510 with i. 35. 15.
9
i. 35. 6.
10
iii. 4. 7.
11
i. 1. 2.
12
Cf. i. 4. 11, vii. 7. 8, ix. 2. 6, xi. 19 a 13, xv. 36. 3, xxxi. 30. 1.
13
e.g. ii. 56. 10, v. 75. 6, xii. 25 g 2, xxxix. 8. 7.
2

'political history'1which Polybius is pressing; it may be the study of a particular topic, geography,2 causality,3
the biography of some selected individual (provided this is not treated as encomium),4 or even so practical a
matter as the principles of fire-signalling,5 perfected by Polybius himself. What matters is that the reader shall gain
advantage from his reading. To this end Polybius draws a clear distinction between political (and military)
history, ,6 on the one hand, and, on the other, forms of history written with different objects
in view and other criteria in the writing. Thus genealogies may interest , and accounts of colonies,
foundations of cities, and relationships ; but the is interested in the
affairs of nations, cities, and rulers, and it is for him Polybius writes. This kind of writing is
,7 and it is austere in character (though it can include contemporary developments in art and science).8 In
this austerity it stands in contrast to the sensational and rhetorical writing of so many of Polybius' immediate
predecessors. Phylarchus, for example, confuses the categories of history and tragedy;9 and this is true of many
other writers, whose names are not always mentioned,
[8]

Cf. ix. 2. 4, where is preferred . . . .

On the meaning of see below, n. 6.
2
iii. 57. 9.
3
vi. 2. 8 (hence the study of the Roman constitution, a prime cause of Roman success), xi. 19 a 13; see below, p.
11 n. 8.
4
x. 21. 3; cf. xv. 35: in discussing great men one should add appropriate remarks on the role of Tyche together
with any instructive reflections one can.
5
x. 47. 1213.
6
Polybius often uses the phrase as a mere synonym for , 'serious history'; in ix. 12
it distinguishes a political and military narrative from the more mythical studies of genealogies, or of the
foundations of cities, colonization, and ties of kinship. It never means 'history which investigates causes'. This is
. Thus in ii. 37. 3 Polybius calls his main history, contrasted with the summary account in
books i and ii, (cf. iii. 1. 3 ); and in iv. 40. 1 his account of the Black
Sea is , being based on the principles of natural science, in contrast to the unsupported assertions of
other writers; in x. 21. 3 he admits that writers on the foundations of citiesa branch of history which is
specifically contrasted with (ix. 12)may give an account of these topics , though
in the same chapter (x. 21. 8) he contrasts his own history, written impartially and , with the
encomium, which is both and exaggerated (cf. viii. 8. 59); and in xviii. 33. 6 Polybius claims to
have recounted Philip V's metabole and the actions involved in it ( ) ,
inasmuch as he has described . Cf. CQ, 1945, 1516; Gelzer, Hermes, 1954, 347.
Pdech (Mthode, 2132) stresses three elements in , (a) the account of public events and
political actions, (b) the narrative part of a historical work, (c) concern with contemporary history in contrast to
(cf. ix. 2. 4 n.); on see Petzold, Studien, 16 ff. and Walbank, Polybius, 57 n. 153; n.
9: on 'tragic history' see Meister, Kritik, 10926.
7

ix. 1. 45, 2. 4.
x. 47. 1213, a concession to his own interest in fire-signalling; cf. above, n. 5. can also
properly include an account of the anacyclosis (vi. 5. 2), since it is relevant to an understanding of the growth of
the Roman state.
9
ii. 56. 10-13. On 'tragic history' see Bull. Inst. Class. Stud., 1955, 4-14.
8

among them historians of Hannibal's Alpine crossing,1 others (perhaps Timaeus is meant)2 who include fables
about Phaethon in their accounts of the Po valley,3 and writers about Hieronymus of Syracuse,4 Agathocles of
Alexandria,5 the wonders of Ecbatana,6 or the miracles of Iasus.7 Zeno of Rhodes is given to such sensationalism;
Polybius singles him out for special criticism.8 In general, exaggeration and the
rhetorical elaboration of such matters as descriptions of places and accounts of sieges Polybius considers more
likely to be found in the work of historians whose theme is limited ( )
than in that of universal historians like himself.9
In several places Polybius expatiates upon the superior merits of universal history. None of his
contemporaries10 and virtually none of his predecessors11 had attempted history of this sort. Yet it is only from
universal history that one can gain a proper notion of cause and effect and estimate the real importance of events,
and so understand and appreciate the work of Tyche.12 It is true that universal history acquires a special
significance from the hundred and fortieth olympiad, since from that date events themselves had taken on a
universal character, and the history of the various parts of the inhabited world had coalesced into an organic
whole;13 but Siegfried is hardly right in thinking14 that universal history is proper only to the period with which
Polybius is concerned, otherwise he would not have praised Ephorus as
.15 The position is rather that universal history, while always preferable, had now become the
only form capable of treating the period which opened in 220; and it is the type of history which is at once
universal and that Polybius especially commends.
[9]

iii. 48. 8; elsewhere Sosylus and Chaereas, writers on Hannibal, are criticized for retailing the gossip of the
barber's shop (iii. 20. 5; see below, p. 28).
2
Timaeus is accused of sensationalism in xii. 24. 5, 26 b 4 ff.; but cf. ii. 1315 n.
3
ii. 16. 1315.
4
vii. 7. 12.
5
xv. 34. 136. 11 (probably aimed at Ptolemy of Megalopolis).
6
x. 27. 8.
7
xvi. 12. 3.
8
xvi. 18. 2.
9
xxix. 12. 45; cf. vii. 7. 6, making the same point in criticism of historians writing special histories, which give
over-sensational accounts of the downfall of Hieronymus of Syracuse.
10
i. 4. 2.
11
ii. 37. 4.
12
iii. 32; cf. ix. 44, viii. 2. 111; see below, p. 11 n. 8.
13
i. 3. 45; cf. iii. 1. 4, iv. 2. 1 ff.
14
Siegfried, 21; on pp. 2025 Siegfried has an interesting survey of the works of Polybius' predecessors.
15
v. 33. 2; on the limitations of Ephorus' universal history see Mioni, 23, who points out that Ephorus did not
write a history of the whole world, but welded into a whole the separate histories of the Greek states; the
conception of a worldhistory could hardly precede the career of Alexander.

In the course of his work Polybius succeeds in conveying a fairly comprehensive picture of what he regarded
as the prerequisites for the writing of . In an elaborate comparison between the career of
medicine and that of the historian,1 he defines the latter's task as the study and collation of memoirs and other
documents, acquaintance with cities, districts, rivers, harbours, and geographical features generally, and finally
experience of political activity; and of these the last two are essential, for one can no more become an historian by
studying documents than one can become a painter by looking at works of former masters.2 The essential thing is
to see the sites, so that one can, for example, test out the account of a battle on the spot,3 and as far as possible to
interview those who actually took part in important events4 . Equally, no
one can write about fighting and politics who has not had some experience as a soldier and as a practical
politician.5 It is on personal experience that Polybius lays his main emphasis, ,6 and above all on
personal inquiry, .7 'It will be well with history', he writes,8 adapting Plato's famous words
(Rep. v. 473 CE), 'either when statesmen undertake to write history . . . or when those proposing to become
authors regard a training in practical politics as essential to the writing of history.' He could put forward this thesis
with the greater confidence because he had himself made many voyages,9 and played an active part as a politician
and a general.
The object behind this programme of restless activity was to get at the truth. 'Truth is to history', Polybius
writes,10 'what eyesight is to the living creature.' If history is deprived of truth, all that
[10]

xii. 25 e.
xii. 25 e 7; the analogy is a false one, for Polybius' arm-chair historian does not study memoirs as a model, as the
painter studies his predecessors, but as a source.
3
Cf. xii. 25 f 5.
4
xii. 4 c 3, ; this like so much else was scamped by Timaeus. The main period of
Polybius' history fell within the lifetime of people who could be questioned (iv. 2. 23), and he made full use of
his opportunities; see below, pp. 33 f.
5
xii. 25 g 12.
6
xii. 25 h 4 ff.; such personal experience would give among other things the ability to appreciate the economic
problems which arise in history; cf. ii. 62. 2.
7
xii. 2728, 28 a.
8
xii. 28. 35.
9
Cf. iii. 59. 7; see iii. 5759 n. and above, 1, for discussion of the chronology of Polybius' journeys in the west.
He was famous as a traveller, and on a stele at Megalopolis, Pausanias records (Paus. viii. 30. 8),
. . . . For his role as cf. iii. 4. 13.
10
i. 14. 6, quoted again at xii. 12. 3; cf. xxxiv. 4, if indeed this passage of Strabo is from Polybius.
2

remains is an idle tale, . . . .1 One of the main objections to the sensational history of such
writers as Phylarchus is that it obscures the truth and so prevents the reader from benefiting by what he reads;2
and it is a great fault in Timaeus that he puts out false statements.3 What would be permissible in panegyric is
quite out of place in history;4 and Polybius contrasts his own treatment of Philopoemen in his encomium on the
hero with that in the Histories, where he has tried to apportion praise and blame impartially.5 In general, only
absolute truth is to be tolerated in history;6 and the problem of securing it Polybius sees partly as one of scale. As
the writer of a 'universal history'7 he is critical of those who work on a smaller canvas. The fault of the special
study, the monograph, is that it puts things out of perspective, and does not allow the reader to see events in their
proper proportions, and so to appreciate the continuous nexus of cause and effect;8 it is also an incentive to its
author to exaggerate the importance of his own topic and material.9 On the other hand, the very magnitude of his
task perhaps renders the universal historian more liable to the occasional factual slip or misstatement; if this should
unfortunately happen, it is excusable,10 and such errors should be treated, not with the bitterness and virulence
displayed by Timaeus in his attacks on Ephorus, Theopompus, and Aristotle,11 but with the kind of charitable
good nature which led Polybius himself to write to Zeno pointing out his errors 12
unfortunately after the book was already published and so too late for Zeno to correct them.
In two situations Polybius was prepared to allow exceptions to his general rule. Certain historians had reported
miraculous happenings in connexion with the statue of Artemis Cindyas at Bargylia
[11]

i. 14. 6.
ii. 56. 12 (cf. 56. 2); the same point is made in iii. 47. 6 of the historians who describe Hannibal's Alpine crossing.
3
xii. 7. 1.
4
viii. 8. 59.
5
x. 21. 68.
6
xxxviii. 4. 5,
; here in fact the assertion is intended to justify Polybius in haranguing his Greek audience in a
rhetorical rather than an historical fashion (
.
7
See above, p. 9.
8
Cf. iii. 32. Polybius is saying the same thing in a slightly different way in viii. 2, when he argues that it is only
from general histories that one really appreciates the grandeur of the great achievement of Tyche in reducing the
world to the dominion of Rome. On the importance of establishing causes see iii. 6. 6 f. (and especially 6. 147.
3), iii. 31, v. 21. 6, vi. 2. 8, xi. 19 a 13, xii. 25 b 1, xxii. 18. 6, xxix. 5. 13, xxxvi. 17. 4. For the problem of
causality and Tyche see below, 3.
9
vii. 7. 6.
10
xxix. 12. 11.
11
xii. 4 a 1, 7. 6, 8. 1, 11. 4, 12. 14.
12
xvi. 14. 78, 20. 8.
2

and the temple of Zeus in Arcadia. 'To believe things which are beyond the limits of possibility', comments
Polybius,1 'reveals a childish simplicity, and is the mark of a blunted intelligence.' On the other hand, such
statements may contribute towards sustaining a feeling of piety towards the gods among , and if so
they are excusable, provided they do not go too far; . This admission may seem
shocking, but it hardly affects Polybius as an historian, since he was little concerned with miracles and not in any
case writing for the common people. More dangerous is his concession to patriotism. 'I would admit', he writes,2
'that authors should show partiality towards their own country ( ), but they
should not make statements about it which are contrary to the facts.' The concession is carefully hedged about;
but it is clear that Polybius availed himself of it in his own work. The extent of his bias can easily be exaggerated.
It has, for example, been alleged3 that Polybius' picture of Philip V is distorted in order 'to motivate and thus to
excuse the Achaean League's declaration of war on Philip in 198 B.C.'; and the fragment 'on traitors and
treachery' (xviii. 1315) has been quoted as evidence for the violent controversy which surrounded the Achaean
decision. The digression on treachery was, however, evoked by the handing over of Argos by Philip to Nabis of
Sparta in the winter of 198/7.4 Certainly there is a hint at Aristaenus' decision to have the Achaean League declare
war on Macedon: Polybius wishes to make it quite clear that this was not treachery according to his definition.
But there is no evidence for a storm of controversy. Polybius needed to provide no elaborate apologia for the
Achaeans, since only an insignificant minority queried the wisdom of the official policy.
It is much more in the hostile treatment he accords to opponents of the Achaean League that Polybius'
appear. His venom towards Aetolia has long been noted and needs no illustration;5 and if the hostile picture of
Cleomenes of Sparta and the distorted account of Aetolian machinations in the decade before the Social War go
back to Aratus' Memoirs, Polybius must shoulder the responsibility for swallowing his version uncritically, as well
as for many anti-Aetolian obiter dicta.6 Recently it has been demonstrated7
[12]

xvi. 12. 311.

xvi. 14. 6.
3
Edson, AHR, 1942, 827.
4
See Aymard, REA, 1940, 919; probably inaccessible to Edson.
5
See Brandstaeter, 199 ff.; J. V. A. Fine, AJP, 1940, 12965. But the case should not be overstated. Thus
Brandstaeter makes a long and eloquent defence of the Aetolian claim to be considered true Greeks; but the
accusation that they were not comes in a speech of Philip V, which may well record his actual words (xviii. 5. 8),
and does not therefore necessarily commit Polybius.
6
e.g. ii. 46. 3, iv. 3. 1, ix. 38. 6 (but this is in a speech of Lyciscus of Acarnania).
7
Feyel, passim; for detailed discussion of his thesis see the commentary on xx. 47.
2

that political prejudice has also produced a completely false picture of conditions in third-century Boeotia; the
account of social decadence in xx. 57 can be refuted from the evidence of contemporary coins and inscriptions,
and is to be interpreted as a reflection of Achaean hostility. Frequently, too, Polybius' assessment of a situation is
determined by the attitude of those concerned in it towards Achaea or Rome.1 How far in all these instances the
bias is consciously applied it is difficult to say; but Polybius' willingness to grant something to patriotic prejudice
probably rendered him less alert to the risks he was running.
Another field in which practice fell short of theory was in the speeches which, following Greek tradition,
Polybius included at intervals throughout his Histories; some thirty-seven survive, and several times Polybius
makes it clear that such speeches should represent the actual words of the speaker. It was the custom of Hellenistic
historians to set rhetorical compositions in the mouths of their characters, and Polybius condemns this
wholeheartedly in Timaeus. 'A writer who passes over in silence the speeches made and the reason (sc. for their
success or failure) and in their place introduces false rhetorical exercises and discursive speeches, destroys the
peculiar virtue of history.'2 Similarly Phylarchus tries3 'to imagine the probable utterances of his characters' instead
of 'simply recording what was said, however commonplace'; and both Chaereas and Sosylus4 are roundly
condemned for setting down versions of rival speeches made in the Senate on the question of war with Carthage,
when they had no access to a reliable source. There is certainly a proper place in historical composition for
speeches 'which, as it were, sum up events and hold the whole history together';5 but they must give what was
actually said, .6 In fact Polybius does not always come up to the standard he sets. The
long report of the speeches delivered by Flamininus, Philip V, and the other participants in the conference held in
Locris in the winter of 1987 has all the marks of being derived from a verbatim account of the meeting, and may
be accepted as authentic. But once he went outside the scope of Achaean and Roman records, Polybius is unlikely
to have had access to much reliable material for speeches, and must have drawn largely on earlier literary accounts
or the
[13]

See below, p. 24.

xii. 25 b 4.
3
ii. 56. 10.
4
iii. 20. 1, 20. 5.
5
xii. 25 a 3. Polybius here classifies speeches as (addresses in public assembly),
(exhortations, usually to soldiers), and
(ambassadors' speeches); in xii. 25 i 3 are called . For an analysis of
Polybius' surviving speeches according to these three categories see Ziegler, op. cit., cols. 15257.
6
Cf. ii. 56. 10, xii. 25 b 1, 25 i 8, xxxvi. 1. 7.
7
xviii. 110; cf. Walbank, Philip, 159 ff., and references there quoted.
2

uncertainties of an oral tradition; this probably helps to explain why many of his speeches, and especially such
pairs as those of Hannibal and Scipio before Zama,1 read like a series of commonplaces. But he never concedes to
the historian the right to improvise,2 and it would be unjust to assume that he consciously composed rhetorical
exercises for inclusion in his Histories. Set occasions are apt to produce commonplaces, and people's speeches, like
their actions, are often governed by prevalent attitudes and traditions.3 Polybius is therefore entitled to our
confidence that he made a determined effort to discover what was actually said
,4 and that any failure here and there is due to practical shortcomings rather than a deliberate
betrayal of principle.
There is, however, another field in which Polybius sometimes appears to fall short of the standards implied in
his criticisms of others. His attacks on various of his predecessorsTimaeus, Phylarchus, and othersfor a style of
presentation that is inaccurate, sensational, and full of expressions of wonder, has already been mentioned.5 But it
was so deeply rooted a feature of historical writing in the Hellenistic period that Polybius allows it to influence his
own presentation to a greater degree than his professions would suggest; indeed the principle of adducing the
which have befallen others in order to encourage the reader to endure the vicissitudes of fortune,
, was in itself an invitation to dwell on such events. The clearest example of this is his treatment
of the downfall of the royal house of Macedon;6 but the use of the word fifty-one times in books i-iii,
apart from various
[14]

xv. 6. 48. 14, 10. 17, 11. 612.

Ziegler (op. cit., col. 1527) asserts that for a great many of his speeches Polybius must have either drawn his
material from literary sources or 'followed the formula indicated in xxxvi. 1. 6, not
, v v and to give
of these'. But here Ziegler confuses two things, the behaviour proper to a politician and that
proper to an historian; it is the former who should avoid discursive talk and restrict himself to what the occasion
demands; the latter must find out as carefully as possible , and then report only the
most vital and effectual part of this. There is a similar error in my observations in CQ, 1945, 10 n. 4 (rightly
criticized by Balsdon, CQ, 1953, 158 n. 4), where the argument in xii. 25 i 4 ff. is misrepresented; in that passage,
as in xxxvi. 1. 6, it is the statesman, not the historian, who is required (sc. )
. The misunderstanding (shared by Wunderer, ii. 11) arose through the sudden changes of point of
view, which cause Polybius to speak now as an historian (xii. 25 i 6) and now as a statesman profiting from the
reading of history (xii. 25 i 8).
3
See below, pp. 1920.
4
xxxvi. 1. 7.
5
See above, pp. 89, and for general observations along these lines, iii. 58. 9.
6
xxiii. 1011; cf. Livy, xl. 3. 3 ff., drawing on Polybius. For discussion see JHS, 1938, 5568; Ullman, TAPA,
1942, 2553; cf. Warde Fowler, CR, 1903, 448.
2

synonyms like , , ,1 clearly indicates the part played by the unexpected

in his narrative. An example of this tendency towards a sensational presentation can be seen in Polybius' battlepieces. Thus Hannibal's crossing of the Rhone, with the enemy on one side and the Carthaginians on the other,
gives scope for a vivid picture.
'With the men in the boats shouting as they vied with one another in their efforts and struggled to stem the
current, with the two armies standing on either bank at the very brink of the river, the Carthaginians following
the progress of the boats with loud cheers and sharing in the fearful suspense (), and the
barbarians yelling their war-cry and challenging to combat, the scene was in the highest degree striking and
thrilling ( ).'2
This account may go back to some eyewitness such as Silenus; but one cannot but observe a certain affinity with
similar passages such as that in which the feelings and behaviour of the people of Lilybaeum are described as they
stand on the walls to watch the trierarch Hannibal run the Roman blockade,3 or in particular the description of
the clash at Cynoscephalae. 'As the encounter of the two armies was accompanied by deafening shouts and cries,
both of them uttering their war-cry and those outside the battle also cheering the combatants,
.'4 The two rival armies, and the third group shoutingthe parallel is
complete, and suggests the influence of rhetorical elaboration which may ultimately draw on Thucydides' famous
account of the battle in the Great Harbour at Syracuse. Nevertheless, in such passages as these Polybius does not
develop the situation at length nor with the resources of emotional and tragic writing necessary to elicit the pity
of his readers and to thrill them with sensation for its own sake. He feels no obligation to omit everything that
savours of ,5 but he draws a contrast6 between the sieges and battle-scenes of the 'tragic' historians and
his own accounts, . . . , and asks the reader's pardon if he appears to be
which would seem to cover
the kind of instance just mentioned. In short, the degree of rhetorical embroidery which appears in these examples
is something very different from that displayed in the works of the 'tragic' writers. If Polybius seems often to lay
special stress on the unexpected, it is because he regards it as objectively present in the fabric of events, and
necessarily to be stressed if the historian is to fulfil his true function as a moral historian.7
[15]

Lorenz, 1112; cf. CQ, 1945, 810.

iii. 43. 78.
3
i. 44. 45.
4
xviii. 25. 1.
5
Cf. i. 4. 11.
6
xxix. 12. 710.
7
See below, 3.
2

A slight concession (in principle) to politic piety and (in practice) to local patriotism, a limited success in
retailing the real contents of some of his reported speeches, a readiness to embrace the terminology (but not the
emotional attitudes) of 'tragic' history in the interest of or moral edificationthese probably represent
the sum of what a critic of Polybius' truthfulness can assemble. They amount in total to very little, and leave the
overwhelming impression of a reliable and conscientious writer, with a serious theme and a determination that at
all costs his readers shall comprehend and profit by it.
3. Tyche
The role in history which Polybius assigned to Tyche is notoriously hard to define. He regarded the study of
the past as essentially a means of attaining practical ends by learning lessons;1 but the value of such lessons is
seriously reduced if the sequence of cause and effect is at the whim of some incalculable and capricious power.2
On the other hand, the lessons of history were moral as well as political, and one important moral lesson lay in
learning how to meet those vicissitudes which demonstrably occurred in every man's life.3 To have left these out
of his Histories would have falsified the observed course of human events. It would also have deprived Polybius of
much of his purpose in writing at all. Unfortunately in discussing these vicissitudes he made use of a word familiar
to his contemporaries, but to us (and probably to them too) exceptionally ambiguous because of the variety of its
meanings and the difficulty of deciding which is present in any particular passage.
It is clear that in many places the word Tyche is used quite loosely, where a tense of would have
served as well.4 When, for instance, the Mamertines took possession of the wives and families of the men of
Messana, ,5 the sense is simply 'as they
happened upon them'. Such examples6 can be neglected; they reflect current colloquial usage, and have no special
significance. Elsewhere, however, the introduction of Tyche seems to mean something rather more, and
fortunately a passage survives7 in which Polybius discusses the
[16]

See above, pp. 6 ff.

Cf. Erkell, 140.
3
Cf. i. 1. 2, stressing the two purposes, political and moral, and describing history as . . .
.
4
These passages are conveniently assembled in Hercod, 1001; cf. Warde Fowler, CR, 1903, 446 ff.; P. Shorey,
CP, 1921, 281.
5
i. 7. 4.
6
There are similar examples at v. 42. 8 and x. 33. 45; they are common throughout the Histories.
2

occasions when Tyche may properly be invoked. 'In the case of things of which it is difficult or impossible for
mortal men to grasp the causes,' he writes, 'one may justifiably refer them, in one's difficulty, . . .
; such things are heavy and persistent rain, drought destroying the crops, outbreaks of plague, in short
what would today be termed 'acts of God'.1 When a cause is to hand, as for example in the case of the
contemporary depopulation of Greece,
;2 'but where it is impossible or difficult to detect the cause, . One example of such an
aporia is the Macedonian rising behind the false Philip, a wholly incomprehensible movement, which can only be
termed . . . 3. But in general one should not be prompt to ascribe to Tyche4
events for which a cause can be found.
This passage reserves for the workings of Tyche the area which lies completely outside human control and
those events of which the causes are not easy to detect or for which there are apparently no rational causes at all.
Clearly 'acts of God' and irrational or fortuitous acts of men are not identical; but they have this in common, that
they stand outside the sphere of rational analysis. Consequently they can both be described in terms of , or
, or the who nurse their , or (elsewhere) or (for all these phrases
seem to be roughly synonymous).
It is well known that Polybius' concept of cause and effect is somewhat one-sided, and fails to allow
adequately for the interaction of events and the dynamic and dialectical character of almost any train of
causation.5 This may help to explain why happenings which are external to the particular sequence of cause and
effect with which he is concerned are often attributed to Tyche, though there may be a perfectly rational
explanation of them in their own context. Thus the early fortunes of the elder Scipio in Spain received a great
fillip from 6 when the Spaniard Abilyx persuaded Bostar to release the Spanish hostages, and promptly
handed them over to the Roman; for this act of Abilyx, though based on reason and calculation (cf. iii. 98. 3,
), was extraneous to Scipio's plans and unforeseeable on the Roman side.7 Tyche can
also
[17]

For an example see xi. 24. 8; at Ilipa Hasdrubal would have been driven from his entrenchments but for the
intervention of ; in short, a storm of unprecedented magnitude forced the Romans back into their camp.
2
xxxvi. 17. 4 ff.
3
xxxvi. 17. 15.
4
xxxvi. 17. 1, where, however, the words appear to be those of
the excerptor.
5
See the notes to iii. 6 ff., discussing Polybius' account of the causes of several wars.
6
iii. 97. 5; cf. 99. 9 .
7
Similarly, in iv. 3. 4, the Aetolian aggression in the Peloponnese was assisted by ??, since the home
authorities did not foresee the relations between Dorimachus and the brigands; and in v. 34. 2 Ptolemy IV
contrasts his own action in ridding himself of domestic dangers with the help given him ? ? ? in the
deaths of his two rivals, Antigonus and Seleucus, abroad. Here the concept of synchronism (see below, n. 2) also
comes in. Hannibal's attack on Rome foundered (ix. 6. 5) because ? ?? ? ? ?
? ? ? ??; by a pure coincidence an abnormally large number of troops happened to be
present at Rome and could be led out against the enemy. Rhodian feeling against Philip was exacerbated by the
action of Tyche (xv. 23. 1); for at the moment when his representative was expatiating on his magnanimity, a
messenger arrived with news of the enslavement of the Cians.

manifest itself in the simultaneous occurrence of similar events within separate and independent fields. The
fact that the Romans defeated the Boii at Lake Vadimo only five years before the destruction of the Gauls at
Delphi1 suggests that 'Tyche, as it were, afflicted all Gauls alike with a sort of epidemic of war'; and Polybius
chose the date at which he begins his main narrative2
, for by a series of coincidences new figures were then active in almost every part of the
world.
Within the field thus assigned to Tyche it might logically seem that events of any kind might be regarded as
her handiwork; but in practice she is restricted to certain contexts. In particular, events of a sensational and
capricious character are attributed to her.3 Often she will decide great issues by a narrow margin; thus the Illyrian
invasion which compelled Antigonus Doson to march north came just too late to save Cleomenes.4 Or a great
general, Epaminondas or Philopoemen,5 having risen to success on his merits, may be defeated through no fault of
his own, . In such cases, Tyche may justly be censured.6 Her caprice is especially liable to
precipitate a sudden reversal of men's lot. Thus Tyche caused Hannibal to be crucified on the very cross on which
Spendius had died, apparently for the sake of ironical contrast.7 At Medion the Aetolians debated in whose name
they should dedicate the spoil
[18]

ii. 20. 7.
iv. 2. 4. Similarly the Roman defeat in Cisalpine Gaul just after Cannae occurred
(iii. 118. 6; on the chronology see the note).
3
These will frequently be disasters; but in such cases one must be careful to distinguish the occasions when they
are due to lack of judgement rather than to Tyche (i. 37. 4, ii. 7. 13).
4
ii. 70. 2.
5
ix. 8. 13, xxiii. 12. 3. A few stout-hearted men make headway , but they are few (xvi.
28. 2).
6
xv. 20. 58, xvi. 32. 5, xxxii. 4. 3. Tyche turns against Sparta so that her constitution deteriorates and after being
the best becomes the worst (iv. 81. 12); and Athens and Thebes in turn decline
(vi. 43. 35).
7
i. 86. 7; contrast rather than a specific pleasure in cruelty (so Erkell, 140) is what Polybius associates with Tyche.
2

they were going to win; but Tyche showed her power inasmuch as they were themselves obliged to concede
spoils to the Medionians.1 Sometimes this reversal of fortune is vividly illustrated, as on the occasion when
Callicrates' portraits were carried away into the darkness on the same day that those of Lycortas were brought out,
so that people observed that 'it is the characteristic function of Tyche to bring to bear in turn on the lawgivers
themselves the very laws they originated and passed'.2 This capricious and irrational force allows no one to
prosper indefinitely; and recognizing this Demetrius of Phalerum was able to foretell the downfall of Macedon, a
prophecy which greatly impressed Polybius, who witnessed its fulfilment.3
One of Polybius' main moral lessons is the need for moderation in success, in the light of this instability of
fortune, and the certainty that no prosperity can last.4 The events at Medion,5 the fate of Achaeus6 or Perseus,7 the
contrast of the pictures of Lycortas and Callicrates,8 and the fate of Hasdrubal at Carthage9 evoke the same trite
homily with monotonous regularity; sometimes it comes from Polybius' own mouth, sometimes in the words or
behaviour of some historical figureAntiochus weeping at the downfall of Achaeus, remembering the
inconstancy of Tyche10 (just as Scipio Aemilianus was to weep over the sight of burning Carthage, and for the
same reason),11 Scipio himself pointing to the wretched Hasdrubal12 exactly as his father Aemilius Paullus had
moralized over the vanquished Perseus,13 the Punic envoys before Zama urging moderation on the Romans,14
Hannibal begging the elder Scipio to remember
, so that it behoves all men 15 Scipio accepting these premises in
his replies both to Hannibal and to the Punic envoys who came after the battle,16 Syrian ambassadors making a
similar plea after Magnesia.17 It is the mark of a great man to have learnt this lesson;18 both Scipio19 and Hannibal20
came up to this test, whereas Philip V,21 and the Spartans after the Peloponnesian War,22 failed.
[19]

ii. 4. 3. Tyche likes to dash reasonable expectations by lifting a man up and then suddenly ( ) casting
him down (xxix. 22. 12).
2
xxxvi. 13. 2.
3
xxix. 21.
4
Cf. xxiii. 12. 47 (on Philopoemen's death):
, ; ii. 31. 3.
5
ii. 4. 3.
6
viii. 21. 11.
7
xxix. 20. 14.
8
xxxvi. 13. 2.
9
xxxviii. 20. 1.
10
viii. 20. 10.
11
xxxviii. 21. 13, 22; cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 104.
12
xxxviii. 20. 1.
13
xxix. 20. 14.
14
xv. 1. 8.
15
xv. 6. 67. 6. Mioni (141 n. 13) thinks that Tyche is here equivalent to Providence (see below, p. 22); but the
passage is exactly parallel to the others quoted.
16
xv. 8. 3, 17. 46.
17
xxi. 16. 8.
18
Cf. vi. 2. 56.
19
x. 40. 6, 40. 9, xxxviii. 21. 13.
20
xv. 15. 5.
21
xviii. 33. 4.
22
xxxviii. 2. 7; shortly afterwards .

Polybius implies that the reversal which is bound to follow upon prosperity will come because that is the way
things happen, the way of Tyche, regardless of any steps we may take.1 It is in the nature of prosperity that it does
not last; and the reason for behaving moderately is not to avert the blow, but simply that moderate conduct is
more fitting to a man and may help to secure mitigation of one's lot when misfortune comes.2 There is one
exception. After a minor success, Perseus' friends urged him to offer terms to the Romans;3 the latter, they
thought, might be disposed to accept them as a result of their set-back, and if they rejected them,
, whereas the king by his would win over . Now it is true
that Polybius' views often coincide with those expressed by his historical characters;4 but on this occasion he
immediately makes it clear5 that Perseus' friends were quite wrong in their views about how the Romans would
behave, and Perseus' fate shows equally well that they were wrong about the behaviour of . Polybius
did not believe that heaven could be moved by a politic exhibition of or indeed that arrogance in itself
drew divine vengeance upon it.6 It is the instability of fortune which he makes his theme; and indeed it was
morally more edifying to have men behave with moderation in prosperity because it could not in any case last,
than to have them moderate because they were afraid lest arrogance might precipitate disaster.
Slightly different is the concept of Tyche as a power which punishes wrongdoing. For example, she punished
the Boeotians for the unhealthy state of their public affairs, . . . .7 The
Spartan ephors, who had been bribed to make Lycurgus king, were murdered by Cheilon, Tyche thus exacting
. . . .8 This phrase is also used of Philip and
[20]

In xxxix. 8 Polybius says that Tyche is ; on the personification of Tyche see

below, p. 25.
2
For public opinion will then operate; and this is a powerful force; cf. xxxviii. 3. 2.
3
xxvii. 8. 4.
4
See above, p. 19.
5
xxvii. 8. 8 ff.
6
Cf. above, n. 1, where it is prosperity which arouses the jealousy of Tyche, not arrogance. In several passages
(e.g. xxvii. 6. 2, 15. 2, xxxi. 11. 3), where Polybius is believed with good reason to be his source, Diodorus
introduces Tyche in a form which (as in Polyb. xxvii. 8. 4) penalizes arrogance. It does not, however, follow that
the same nuance was in Polybius, for in the case of Regulus Diodorus has the concept of divine nemesis (Diod.
xxiii. 15. 26), which is wholly absent from Polyb. i. 35; see the note on the latter passage.
7
xx. 7. 2.
8
iv. 81. 5. A parallel case is that of the Carthaginian mercenaries, who had broken every law and to whom
gave , forcing them to eat each other.

Antiochus,1 who after their nefarious plot against the dominions of the infant Ptolemy, were led on by Tyche
to attack the Romans, and so met ruin and defeat; their dynasties perished, while that of Ptolemy was revived. The
action of Tyche against Philip is developed at length.2 As if to punish him, she sends against him a host of furies,
which lead him into a succession of acts culminating in the destruction of his own son, a sign of divine wrath.3
Here Tyche takes on a purposive character, which is also evident when the sacrilege committed by Antiochus
Epiphanes and Prusias meets speedy vengeance in the form of death or disaster.4
Close in attitude to this are several passages in which Tyche seems to approximate to something like Fate or
Providence.5 'Tyche', writes Polybius,6 'is for ever producing something new () and for ever
playing a part () in the lives of men, but in no single instance has she ever put on such a showpiece as in our own times', with the rise of Rome to world-dominion in fifty-three years. In this passage, as
Warde Fowler observed,7 the use of such words as (i. 4. 1), , and (i. 4. 3) suggests
that Tyche is here conceived as a power working to a definite goal, the domination of Rome. It is this Tyche
which Hirzel compares with the Stoic ,8 and Fowler with the of book. vi;9 it appears again when
the Gallic invasions, interludes in the main drama, which contribute nothing to its development, are described as
.10 It does, of course, create a difficulty, on Polybius' definition of Tyche as a power which
restricted its activity to that
[21]

xv. 20. 58.

Cf. JHS, 1938, 5568.
3
xxiii. 10. 14.
4
xxxi.9. 4 , xxxii. 15. 14 ; cf. xviii. 54. 11 (Dicaearchus). See below, p. 25 n. 5.
5
Cf. Warde Fowler, CR, 1903, 4467.
6
i. 4. 5. The metaphor of Tyche as a producer of plays appears elsewhere. Thus a Rhodian ambassador tells the
Aetolians that the evil effects of their Roman alliance are now manifest,
(xi. 5. 8); and Polybius makes the same remark (xxix. 19. 2; cf.
fg. 212) of the Rhodians themselves after their left-handed diplomacy during the war between Rome and Perseus.
It links up with similar metaphors making Tyche an umpire (e.g. i. 58. 1) or the stager of a contest (ii. 66. 4), and
reproduces the vocabulary of popular philosophy; see the examples from Diogenes and Lucian quoted by HerzogHauser, RE, 'Tyche', cols. 16689.
7
CR, 1903, 446.
8
Hirzel (8629, Appendix VII) suggests that, where it is not a purely verbal echo of popular usage, Polybius'
Tyche is equivalent to the Stoic ; but if this were so, there seems no good reason why he should not have
used the technical term, rather than a word like Tyche, which is so fraught with ambiguities (cf. Hercod, 76103;
Mioni, 199 n. 32; Erkell, 1401).
9
CR, 1903, 4467; Fowler suggests that Polybius avoids the word in this context, because in book vi it
describes recurrent process, whereas the rise of Rome is a unique problem, soluble only in the course of his
history. He therefore preferred the word to one which might imply that the growth of Rome was the result
of natural law.
10
ii. 35. 5; see the note ad loc.
2

sphere which is not amenable to reason;1 for the whole of his history is based on the assumption that Roman
success can be explained in rational terms. 'By schooling themselves in vast and perilous enterprises', he writes,2 'it
is perfectly natural that they not only gained the courage to aim at universal dominion, but executed their
purpose'; and the sixth book is written mainly in order to analyse the role which the Roman constitution played
in Roman success.3
There are other passages in which this stress on rational explanation is given great prominence. The
achievements of the elder Scipio had been attributed by most people to Tyche; in fact, Polybius replies, it is those
who are incapable of taking an accurate view of opportunities, causes, and dispositions who attribute
what is really due to shrewdness, calculation, and foresight.4 Both Eumenes and Hiero owed their
success entirely to their merits, and had no help at all from Tyche.5 Flamininus,6 like the younger Scipio,7 was
helped a little by , but in the main prospered through his own innate qualities. When men act
foolishly they must take the responsibility, and not try to make Tyche the scapegoat.8 Nor must the rise of the
Achaean League be attributed to Tyche: v
v v vv v .9 Roman success in battle has its
specific causes; only the superficial will attribute it to Tyche.10 These passages do not deny the existence of Tyche;
but they clearly limit the area within which one may legitimately use it to account for historical events.
Consequently, in attributing Roman success both to calculation and rational causes and, simultaneously, to the
overriding power of a Tyche which comes close to 'providence', Polybius raises a problem which has stirred up
much debate and evoked many attempts at a solution. One answer has been to postulate a development in his
beliefs: beginning as a believer in the capricious Tyche of Demetrius of Phalerum, he later came round to the
view that was merely
[22]

See above, p. 17.

i. 63. 9; on this passage, which clearly belongs to the same order of thought as i. 3. 710, see the note ad loc.
3
Cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 97122.
4
x. 5. 8; cf. 2. 5, 3. 7, 7. 3, 9. 23, and (in general terms) fg. 83. But in x. 40. 6 and 40. 9 Polybius speaks without
hesitation of Tyche's having favoured Scipio.
5
xxxii. 8. 4, vii. 8. 1.
6
xviii. 12. 2.
7
xxxi. 25. 10, 29. 2, 30. 13; probably fg. 47, which, Ziegler (op. cit., col. 1534 n. 1) thinks, refers undoubtedly to
the younger Scipio.
8
Cf. ii. 7. 13 (Epirotes), xv. 21. 3 (people of Cius), i. 37. 4 (the Roman commanders at Camarina; but in i. 59. 4
the disaster at Camarina is included among ).
9
ii. 38. 5; here, as at Rome, the cause lies mainly in the constitution.
10
xviii. 28. 5; and cf. i. 63. 9, quoted above (n. 2).
2

a convenient label to cover a gap in our knowledge,1 and, in Cuntz's opinion, ended up a complete rationalist
who would allow nothing to be without its cause;2 alternatively, he began by attributing Roman success to
prowess, but subsequently came to belive in a Tyche which meant rather different things at the different stages of
the ideological development which this theory postulates.3 The fatal objection to such views is that they not only
build up a preconceived system by an arbitrary division of passages, but that in each case they are obliged to
separate passages which despite apparent contradictions can be shown to be closely linked together. For example,
the ideas of Tyche as a capricious, and as a just, retributive power are fundamentally contradictory. But Polybius
can write without any feeling of awkwardness: 'Who of those who reasonably find fault with Tyche for her
conduct of human affairs, will not be reconciled to her when he learns how she later imposed on Philip and
Antiochus the fitting penalty, and exhibited to those who came after, as a warning for their edification, the
exemplary punishment which she inflicted on the above-named kings?'4 Clearly it is the same Tyche which is
now just and now capricious; and it is consistent with this that the metaphor of Tyche as the play-producer is
applied both in contexts where mere change and sensational incident are uppermost, and in those where the
concept is that of providential design.5 Since the same Tyche operates on both occasions, her characteristics are
the same; thus it is a mark of the capricious power of Demetrius of Phalerum's Tyche that she is always
, but this is also true of the providential Tyche which seems to stand behind the rise of Rome,6 and
is not inconsistent with a rational nexus of causation.7 This simultaneous application of both Tyche and rational
causation itself has its parallel in the incident of Regulus,8 whose failure is on the one hand attributed to two
straightforward causes, viz. his error in demanding unconditional surrender and the arrival of Xanthippus,9 and on
the other used as an illustration of the caprice of Tyche.10
This absence of well-marked divisions between the various uses of a word which, by its very history, had
become singularly illadapted to the conveying of clear and precise thoughts11 is against
[23]

von Scala, 159 ff.; his views were adopted by Bury, Ancient Greek Historians (Cambridge, 1909), 200 ff.
Cuntz, 4346.
3
Laqueur, 24960.
4
xv. 20. 56.
5
Cf. xi. 5. 8 (Tyche as it were deliberately brings the folly of the Aetolians on the stage), i. 4. 5 (the show-piece of
Tyche, the rise of Rome to world-dominion), xxix. 19.2 (Tyche brings the folly of the Rhodians on the stage).
6
xxix. 21. 5; cf. i. 4. 5.
7
Cf. i. 63. 9; above, p. 22 n. 2.
8
i. 3035.
9
Cf. Balsdon, CQ, 1953, 159 n. 2.
10
Cf. i. 35. 2; the contradiction is noted by Siegfried, 67 n. 119.
11
Cf. Erkell, 146.
2

any theory which would assign these different usages to different periods of Polybius' mental development. It
is equally against the theory of Siegfried,1 who sees Polybius as a man 'with two souls in his breast', switching
easily and without inner conflict from a scientific, rational, view of a universe subject to the law of cause and
effect, to a religious attitude which sees history as the working out of a plan by an external power of Tyche. This
bisection is not plausible as a psychological account of Polybius, as one comes to know him in his work; nor is it
adequate as a treatment of the evidence, for the contradictions in Polybius' account of Tyche are not one but
several. The various conceptions merge one into another; and it often appears as if the particular aspect of Tyche
which Polybius invokes in any instance, no less than the extent to which he allows Tyche to be introduced into
the situation at all, depends in part at least upon his own sympathies in the matter, and upon how far he is
removed from the incidents he is describing. When, for example, the Macedonians rallied behind Andriscus with
such will and vigour that they even defeated the Romans, their perversity placed them outside the range of
comprehensible conduct, and Polybius dismisses it as what might be called a heaven-sent infatuation,
. . . .2 The same word, , is used of the folly which led
Perseus to ruin his hopes of Genthius' help by his niggardliness;3 and when Philip V, whose end is portrayed in
the form of a tragedy, murders his son,4 Polybius comments: 'Who can help thinking that, his mind being thus
afflicted and troubled, it was the wrath of heaven ( . . . ) which had descended on his old age,
owing to the crimes of his past life.'5 One of the most notorious of these crimes was the compact made with
Antiochus to partition the domains of the infant Ptolemy Epiphanes; and this outrage was doubly avenged by
Tyche, at once when she raised up the Romans against the two guilty kings, reducing them to tributaries, and
again later, when she re-established Ptolemy's dynasty, while those of his enemies sank in ruin.6 In all these
casesPhilip, Perseus, and the Macedonian peoplePolybius' own sympathies were heavily engaged, and he uses
a terminology which represents a fundamentally anti-Roman policy as divinely inspired infatuation.7
This does not necessarily imply that was the work of an objectively existing power. On the
contrary, most progress has been made in the understanding of Polybius' attitude towards
[24]

Op. cit., passim.

xxxvi. 17. 15.
3
xxviii. 9. 4.
4
See above, p. 14 n. 6.
5
xxiii. 10. 14.
2

xv. 20; cf. xxix. 27. 1112 (Tyche arranges that the fall of Perseus shall involve the survival of Egypt).
Where Tyche is not specifically mentioned, the word , like , has the same
implications.

Tyche and its synonyms by those scholarsShorey, De Sanctis, Mioni, and Erkellwho have stressed the
verbal and rhetorical elements in his formulation.1 It has been correctly pointed out that he is not unwilling to
draw his colours from the palette of the tragic historians 'wenn es mglich ist, ohne die Wahrheit zu verletzen'.2
Ziegler has drawn attention3 to the fact that in several passages Polybius modifies his references to Tyche with
some such words as or .4 Similarly, of the two instances where sacrilege seems to be followed by a
swift, retributive punishment, it is significant that that of Antiochus Epiphanes was the result of divine anger,
, while Prusias' fate was such .5
These qualifications suggest a real and prolonged doubt about the existence of an objectively active Tyche; and
this impression is confirmed by what Polybius has to say about religion in general, in a passage6 which stamps him
as fundamentally a sceptic, and by his definition of Tyche as the convenient label with which one distinguishes
acts of God and the irrational or fortuitous interventions of men.7
To a large extent, therefore, the personality with which Polybius invests Tyche is a matter of verbal
elaboration, helped by current Hellenistic usage, which habitually spoke of Tyche as a goddess; and this helps to
explain many of the inconsistencies, for consistency is not essential to a rhetorical flourish. With regard to his
main theme, howeverthe work of Tyche in making Rome mistress of the world in fifty-three yearsone must
allow for at least the possibility that as he looked back on this startling and unparalleled process Polybius jumped
the step in logic between what had happened and what had had to happen, and so in a somewhat muddled way
invested the rise of Rome to world power with a teleological character; in so doing he probably fell a victim to
the words he used and to his constant personification of what began as a mere hiatus in knowledge. Certainly the
use of teleological expressions8 in i. 4. 13 points in that direction. But if this is so, it remains equally true that
Polybius had neither the clarity in philosophical thought nor a sufficiently fine sense of language to enable him to
isolate the contradiction in his ideas. The word 'Tyche' was already corrupted
[25]

Shorey, CP, 1921, 280 ff.; De Sanctis, iii. 1. 21315; Mioni, 1407; Erkell, 1406.
Erkell, 145; see above, pp. 1415.
3
Ziegler, op. cit., cols. 1538 f.
4
e.g. ii. 20. 7, xxiii. 10. 2 . . . . . ., 10. 16 , xx. 7. 2
. . . , xxix. 19. 2, xxxviii. 18. 8; and in iv. 2. 4 the word
is qualified with .
5
xxxi. 9. 4, xxxii. 15. 14.
6
vi. 56. 615.
7
xxxvi. 17.
8
See above, p. 21 n. 7. That here means simply 'the course of events' (so Nilsson, Geschichte der
griechischen Religion, ii (Munich, 1950), 194) is hard to reconcile with 4. 4.
2

when he adopted it; as Erkell observes,1 it covered all the gradations in sense between a sharply defined
philosophical concept and a hazy, outworn clich, and Polybius was not the man to find a lonely way across the
morass. Consequently, to the question whether he believed in an objective power directing human affairs, the
answer cannot be an unqualified 'No'; but in so far as it is a qualified 'Yes', his belief was neither sufficiently
strong nor sufficiently clear for him to recognize any inconsistency with his normal, rational formulation of the
character of Tyche.
This is perhaps unsatisfactory; but Polybius' lack of clarity can be paralleled in other writers. Shorey2 quotes
the hesitations of Plato, who in the Laws attributes a great role to Tyche yet insists on the control extended by
Providence over the minutest details, of Julian the Apostate, of Dante, and of Renan, all of whom at times
admitted Fortune illogically into their philosophical schemes. This discussion may conveniently close with an
extract from a contemporary historian. 'The putsch would have succeeded if Hitler had not been saved by what
can only be regarded as a miracle. It was mere chance that on 20 July the midday conference should have been
held in a flimsy wooden hut, and not in the usual concrete bunker, where the explosion would have been
deadly.'3 The author of this passage was habitually a clear and factual writer. The equivocal and contradictory
terms in which he comments on an incident sensational in itself and fraught with fatal consequences are perhaps
not without relevance to the problem of Tyche in Polybius.
4. Polybius' Sources
The vast literature which exists on Polybius' sources4 is perhaps disproportionate to the results it has achieved;
and the chief reason for this is that for the main part of his work Polybius has used a great variety of material,
much of it no longer identifiable, and has woven it into a close and homogeneous fabric in which the separate
threads are not now distinguishable. Both the character of this material and Polybius' method of dealing with it
are alike described in the course of his work with complete and typical frankness. In a passage in book xii, already
quoted,5 the preparation of the historian is defined as the study and collation of written sources, acquaintance
[26]

Erkell, 146.

CP, 1921, 2801.

Chester Wilmot, The Struggle for Europe (London, 1952), 421.

There is a sensible survey in Mioni, 11927; see also the useful summary in Ziegler, op. cit., cols. 15604, with
bibliography in cols. 14414; among older works those of von Scala and Valeton are still worth consulting,
though neither recognizes the limit of what is possible and useful in studying this problem. More detailed
references and bibliography will be found in the commentary.
5
xii. 25 e; see p. 10 n. 1.
4

with relevant sites, and political experience; but in the same book1 Polybius explains that the most important
activity, at any rate for recent and contemporary history, is the questioning of as many as possible of those who
participated in the events. Indeed, one reason for his choice of 220 as the opening date for his main history was
the fact that , ;2
evidence for events of an earlier date would be mere and would serve as a safe foundation neither
for judgements nor for statements.3 From this it follows that the introductory books i and ii must necessarily fall
into a different category from the Histories proper. They are admittedly derivative, and based wholly on written
authorities. Here, to an extent unnecessary for the later books, Polybius finds it important to discuss the merits of
these authorities and to explain what amount of confidence he places in them. On the other hand, neither his
inclination nor ancient historical practice led him to indicate how closely he followed them nor the points at
which he passed from one to another.
Four historians receive special mention in books i and ii. They are Aratus and Phylarchus on Greek events,
and Fabius Pictor and Philinus for the First Punic War.4 Aratus is explicitly given as the source for the
Cleomenean War, though Polybius does not conceal the omissions which are to be found in his Memoirs;5 the
rejection of Phylarchus is justified at length, but he appears nevertheless to have been used occasionally in default
of other evidence.6 In contrasting Fabius and Philinus, Polybius' sympathies are less closely engaged; he
recognized both to be honourable men, and uses their accounts to check each other.7 That Philinus was also his
source for the Carthaginian Mercenary War is improbable;8 but Fabius is likely to have been used for the account
of the Gallic Wars in book ii9 as well as for later events.10 These four writers, however, cover neither the whole of
the contents of the introductory books nor yet the many digressions in the main part of the work which draw on
incidents taken from earlier periods in Greek history. For the preliminaries of the First Punic War, including the
rise of Hiero of Syracuse, Polybius probably followed Timaeus;11 and Timaeus was very probably his
[27]

xii. 4 c 25; see p. 10 n. 4.

iv. 2. 2.
3
iv. 2. 3.
4
Cf. i. 1415 (Fabius and Philinus); iii. 26. 34 (criticism of Philinus); ii. 56. 2 (Aratus and Phylarchus).
5
ii. 56. 2 (source), 47. 11 (omissions); see in general ii. 40. 4 n.
6
Cf. ii. 47. 11 n., 70. 6 n. On the probable use of Phylarchus for the account of Cleomenes' death see v. 3539 n.
7
See i. 14. 1 n. for discussion of these two authors and criticism of recent attempts to minimize or even to deny
the use of Fabius and Philinus by Polybius.
8
i. 6588 n.
9
ii. 1835 n.; no source is specifically mentioned.
10
See below, p. 28 n. 11.
11
i. 8. 39. 8 n.; cf. 6. 2 n.
2

source for the digression on the Pythagoreans in south Italy as well.1 This is not rendered less likely by the
violent and even malevolent attacks on Timaeus in book xii and elsewhere,2 for criticism of an author by Polybius
did not exclude use of his works. Callisthenes, for instance, is severely attacked in book xii,3 but Polybius uses him
for a digression on early Messenian history,4 and probably for references to the Spartan seizure of the Cadmea in
382 and the peace of Antalcidas.5 Ephorus too was both criticized and used. Though he is the object of polemic in
several parts of book xii,6 he is mentioned with approval on various occasions,7 and Polybius may have used him
in book iv for the passage dealing with the wealth and neutrality of Elis.8 Theopompus is also criticized,9 but there
is no evidence that Polybius used him as a source.
These are in general10 the authorities to which Polybius turned for his account of events before 220. When he
comes to his main narrative in book iii, written sources are still very important, though hereand no doubt
increasingly in the later booksthey are supplemented by other material. For the Hannibalic War Fabius
continues to be used.11 But it seems reasonable to assume12 that in addition Polybius read as widely as possible
among writers on both the Roman and the Carthaginian sides. Of these he mentions two, as usual censoriously;
they are Chaereas, and Sosylus of Lacedaemon, who retail 'the gossip of the barber's shop'.13 But there were
others, too, writing about the Hannibalic War in Greek, and mainly from the Carthaginian side: Silenus of
Caleacte, who like Sosylus accompanied Hannibal on his expedition, and may well be Polybius' source for the
Carthaginian campaigns in Spain before Hannibal set out for Italy,14 Eumachus of Naples, and Xenophon. The
latter two15 are
[28]

ii. 39. 1 n.
See i. 5. 15 n., ii. 16. 15, viii. 10. 12, xii. 316, 2328 a.
3
xii. 1722.
4
iv. 33. 2 n.
5
Cf. iv. 27. 47; alternatively the source may be Ephorus. See the note ad loc.
6
xii. 22. 7, 25 f; see also vi. 4547. 6 n.
7
For references see iv. 20. 5 n.
8
iv. 73. 674. 8 n.
9
viii. 911; cf. Mioni, 119.
10
The account of early Roman history in book vi presents a special problem. The half-dozen fragments which
survive do not allow anything very useful to be said about the sources of the section as a whole. See vi. 11 a n.
11
11 Cf. iii. 8. 1 for his view of the causes of the war; for his career during the war see i. 14. 1 n.
12
Cf. Ziegler, op. cit., col. 1562: 'Im ganzen darf man als sicher annehmen, da P. alles, was es an Literatur ber
den 2. Punischen Krieg gab, sich verschafft und mit dem ihm eigenen kritischen Scharfsinn die verllichsten
Nachrichten herausgesucht und verarbeitet hat.'
13
iii. 20. 5; see discussion ad loc.
14
See iii. 13. 514. 8 n., discussing the relationship with Livy, who probably went back to Silenus via Coelius.
Ziegler (op. cit., col. 1562) hazards a guess that Polybius may have introduced the works of Silenus to Coeliusan
hypothesis not in the nature of things susceptible of proof.
15
On them see i. 3. 2 n.
2

no more than names; and from such references as iii. 47. 6 it is apparent that there will have been others, of
whom not even names now survive.1 On the Roman side we are rather more fully informed. L. Cincius
Alimentus, who was praetor in Sicily in 210/9, and was taken prisoner by Hannibal,2 wrote a history of Rome
from the earliest times which helped to fix the senatorial tradition for the Hannibalic War; like that of Fabius it
was in Greek. He will hardly have been overlooked by Polybius. The histories (also in Greek) of C. Acilius will
perhaps have been used for the later part of the Hannibalic War; but if they were published about 142, as seems
likely,3 they must have appeared too late for Polybius to use them for the years down to Cannae. Also available,
and equally certain to have been read by Polybius, was the of A. Postumius Albinus, the
consul of 151, whom he censures sharply for his vanity, loquaciousness, indifferent Greek, and love of pleasure.4
There is, however, no indication in the text of how Polybius used these or other Roman historians writing in
Greek;5 nor is it clear whether he drew on Cato's Origines, for, as De Sanctis points out,6 if books i to xv were
written before 146,7 he will scarcely have been able to utilize for this part of his work Cato's later books, which
were in all probability published after their author's death.8 Another possible Latin source is L. Cassius Hemina,9
who may have published his first three books before 150; but almost nothing is known about him or the contents
of his work. Ennius Polybius may have readAnnales ix and x dealt with the Second Punic Warbut there is no
evidence for use of him in the Histories.10
For his account of the Greek East, Polybius' written sources are even more obscure. For events round about
the end of the third
[29]

There were for instance the writers of epitomes of the Hannibalic War (v. 33. 2 n.), among whom Meyer would
include Menodotus of Perinthus, known only as a writer of Hellenica.
2
Livy, xxi. 38. 3.
3
Cf. Livy, ep. 53, accepting Madvig's emendation C. Acilius. Acilius wrote a history of Rome going down at least
to 184 (Dion. Hal. iii. 67. 5).
4
xxxix. 1, retailing Cato's witticism in reply to Postumius' attempt to excuse his Greek. Cicero (pr. Acad. ii. 137)
on the contrary calls him 'doctum sane hominem, ut indicat ipsius historia scripta graece'.
5
Ziegler, op. cit., col. 1562. Mioni (122) suggests that one of these authors was P. Cornelius Scipio, the son of
Africanus Maior, the author of 'historia quaedam Graeca scripta dulcissime' (Cic. Brut. 77); but nothing is known
of its contents, though Graeca historia can mean 'history written in Greek' (cf. Cic. de diu. i. 49, where Silenus'
work is called Graeca historia).
6
iii. 1. 203.
7
See Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 9899.
8
Cf. R. Helm, RE, 'Porcius (9)', cols. 1601; there seems to have been a gap between the publication of books i
iii and ivvii. It is of course not impossible that Polybius had access to the manuscript, but not particularly likely.
9
Cf. De Sanctis, iv. 2. 66.
10
Cf. Scullard, Scip. 9.

century he quotes the Rhodian historians Antisthenes and Zeno1 as typical of writers of 'particular histories'
covering that period, and deserving special regard because they were Rhodian statesmen. Zeno was the author of
a history of Rhodes, but this probably contained wider material used by Polybius; he is likely to be the source for
the events in Crete and Sinope in book iv,2 and for the chapters on the earthquake of 225 in book v.3 Polybius
criticizes his accounts of the battles of Chios and Lade,4 of Nabis' attempt on Messene,5 and of the siege of Gaza
and the battle of Panium,6 and relates with satisfaction his own letter to Zeno correcting them.7 But for other
names one has to fall back on conjecture. There were, for example, writers of monographs on Philip and Perseus
and their wars with Rome;8 they included a certain Strato, and the Poseidonius mentioned by Plutarch in his Life
of Aemilius Paulus.9 As Mioni observes,10 there were many local historians, whom Polybius' general contempt will
not necessarily have precluded him from using. The writers on Hieronymus who are criticized at vii. 7. 1 may
have included Baton of Sinope, who was probably his contemporary and wrote
.11 Polybius mentions the public career of Ptolemy of Megalopolis;12 he may have made a limited use
of his anecdotal and scandalous history of Ptolemy Philopator for Egyptian events, including the death of
Cleomenes.13 But the complicated picture of the use of sources which seems to emerge from a comparison
between the treatment of the events associated with Cleomenes' death in Polybius and in Plutarch14 shows how
little can be ascertained about the literary sources for the greater part of the Histories.15
Moreover, Polybius' written sources were not limited to published histories. He is the more ready to criticize
historians of Scipio Africanus' achievements16 in Spain and Africa, who attribute his
[30]

xvi. 14. 2; he will direct his criticism ,

. It seems probable that Polybius knew Antisthemes only through Zeno; he is never quoted as an

independent authority.
2
iv. 5356.
3
v. 8890.
4
xvi. 14. 515. 8.
5
xvi. 16. 117. 7.
6
xvi. 18. 119. 1.
7
See above, p. 11 n. 12.
8
viii. 8. 5, xxii. 18. 5; cf. iii. 32. 8 n. They will include the writers mentioned by Livy, xl. 55. 7 (following
Polybius) for their accounts of the fate of Philocles, Demetrius' murderer.
9
Diog. Laert. v. 61; Plut. Aem. Paul. 19.
10
Mioni, 123.
11
Athen. vi. 251 E; see Polyb. vii. 7. 1 n.
12
xv. 25. 14, xviii. 55. 68.
13

von Scala, 2635; see v. 3539 n. On the possible use of Ptolemy Physcon see xxvi. 1 n.
See v. 3539 n.
15
For some suggestions on the type of source which seems to have been used for the revolts of Molon and
Achaeus and the Fourth Syrian War see v. 40. 4 57. 8 n.
16
x. 2. 5 ff., 9. 2.
14

success to Fortune and the gods, because he had had the advantage of drawing directly on the evidence of his
friend and close companion C. Laeliusthough whether C. Laelius composed memoirs on the subject or merely
talked to Polybius is conjectural.1 Still more valuable, he had at his disposal a letter sent by Africanus himself to
Philip V of Macedon, in which he apparently dealt with his Spanish campaign and in particular his capture of
New Carthage.2 Polybius also used an written 3 by Scipio Nasica on the
campaign against Perseus in the Third Macedonian War; but it is significant for his critical attitude towards his
sources that he did not accept Nasica's figures for the forces involved.4 Such material as this, similar in genre to
Aratus' Memoirs, and leading on to the memoirs and commentaries of the first century, may have been available
to a wider extent than can be ascertained. It will have been supplemented by published speeches, such as that of
Astymedes of Rhodes,5 which Polybius appears to have read, or Cato's famous speech on the Rhodians,6 which he
inserted in the fifth book of the Origines.
Written material was also to be had in official archives, and Polybius made some use of these. He supports his
polemic against Zeno and Antisthenes, who represented Lade as a Rhodian victory, by an appeal to the dispatch
sent by the Rhodian admiral to the Council and Prytaneis 'which is still preserved in the Rhodian Prytaneum'.7
This may imply that he consulted the document himself; on the other hand, he does not say so, and it is equally
possible that Zeno quoted it, but tried to draw from it conclusions unacceptable to Polybius. Schulte discusses a
number of passages for which he is inclined, in the main following Ullrich, to see a source in the Rhodian record
office.8 There is not one of these, however, which
[31]

x. 3. 46; for the theory that Laelius' Memoirs were an important source for Polybius' account of Africanus see
Laqueur, Hermes, 1921, 131 ff., 20725. But his information to Polybius is generally thought to have been oral;
cf. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 427 ff. In either case, despite many faults in the tradition going back to him, he will have
been a most valuable source of information (cf. Scullard, Scip. 1012).
2
x. 9. 3; according to Cicero (off. iii. 4) 'nulla . . . eius ingenii monumenta mandata litteris, nullum opus otii,
nullum solitudinis munus exstat', which suggests that the letter was no longer extant; cf. Scullard, Scip. 10.
3
xxix. 14. 3.
4
Cf. Plut. Aem. Paul. 15. 5; see Ziegler, op. cit., col. 1562.
5
xxx. 4. 1011.
6
Livy, xlv. 25. 3; Gell. vi. 3. 7.
7
xvi. 15. 8.
8
Ullrich, 27 ff., 39, 44, 59, 73; Ullrich considerably reduces the number of passages which, according to Valeton
(21316, 2212), had drawn on the Rhodian records, and his own list is yet further reduced by Schulte (3639),
who leaves only iv. 52. 5 ff., 56. 23, v. 88. 5 ff., xvi. 7. 1, xviii. 2. 3 ff., xxxi. 31. 1. See ad locc. for discussion of
these passages. Mioni (123 n. 38) has a much longer list, and has apparently reverted to the more credulous
attitude of Valeton.

could not equally well have drawn on some other source, such as Zeno, and a direct use by Polybius of the
Rhodian records has yet to be proved. For the Achaean records at Aegium1 the case is altogether stronger and
more likely. It is conceivable that Polybius owes to a memorandum kept here his detailed account of the
conference between Philip and Flamininus in Locris in 198.2 But it is no longer possible to assign passages to
sources deriving from the Achaean record office with any degree of certainty.3 A similar use of Aetolian and
Macedonian royal records has been alleged;4 neither source seems very likely. Indeed Polybius' main access to
public records was at Rome, where there would be official accounts available of embassies sent or received by the
Senate.5 Whether he himself consulted the Carthaginian treaties in the 'treasury of the aediles'6 or merely saw a
version privately circulated7 is uncertain. But such passages as those giving the senatus consultum relative to the
peace with Philip,8 or the terms of the peace with the Aetolians9 or Antiochus10 clearly go back to a documentary
source, for which a Roman origin seems plausible.11 Another official source available at Rome was the annales of
the pontifex maximus. It now seems established12 that the annales maximi were first published by P. Mucius
Scaevola, who was pontifex maximus from 131/0 to a date between 123 and 114; but the material then published
will have been available in the form of inscriptions on the original wooden boards in the regia at an earlier date
for any historian who wished to consult it, including Polybius. M. I. Henderson argues (JRS, 1962, 2778) that
there was only a single board, the entries on which could be erased with a sponge; if this is so there was no
accumulation of boards within the regia. It seems doubtful, however, if the records of magistrates, elections, and
commands, and the sacerdotal details which made up the contents of the annales will have been of great interest
to him. Finally, mention should be made of the inscription on a bronze
[32]

This seems to be implied in xxii. 9. 10, (contra Schulte,

40).
2
xviii. 111; see above, p. 13 n. 7.
3
Cf. Schulte, 40, 'inritum esse puto in Polybii historiis tabularii Achaici
reliquias indagare'. Valeton (20613, 222) has a fanciful list of passages, and Mioni (123 n. 37) is equally
unconvincing. Details of Achaean embassies at Rome can have come just as easily from a Roman source.
4
Schulte (4041) attributes the treaty between Philip and Hannibal (vii. 9) to the Macedonian records; but the
Romans captured the first version sent and Polybius can have seen this in Rome. Mioni (123 n. 39) attributes xi. 5
to the Aetolian records; but the general reference to the Romano-Aetolian treaty carries no such implications.
5
Cf. Ziegler, op. cit., col. 1564, 'nicht zu bezweifeln ist, daihm das rmische Archiv zugnglich gewesen ist'.
6
iii. 26. 1 n.
7
Cf. iii. 21. 910.
8
xviii. 44.
9
xxi. 32. 214.
10
xxi. 43. 127.
11
See also n. 4, above, for the treaty between Philip and Hannibal.
12
For the most recent discussion of the problems connected with the annales
maximi and bibliographical references to earlier work on the subject see J. E. A. Crake, CP, 1940, 37586. (*p.
628.)

tablet, which Polybius himself discovered on the Lacinian Promontory,1 giving full details left by Hannibal of
his numbers and troop formations. The use which he made of this shows that not too much attention need be
attached to his gibes at Timaeus for his discovery of 'inscriptions at the back of buildings and lists of proxeni on
the jambs of temples'.2
Literary sources, official documents, and archives provide the framework of Polybius' history; but, as the
passages quoted above3 make clear, the real business came in the questioning of eyewitnesses. It seems fair to
assume that Polybius' insistence on this is not mere talk, and that he had in fact mastered and habitually used this
specialized technique in order to ascertain what he wanted to know; indeed on occasion he appears to have
enlisted his friends to make inquiries for him.4 Of the hundreds of informants who must in this way have
contributed to Polybius' material and share the anonymous responsibility for a fact here and a mark of emphasis
there few can still be identified. If C. Laelius gave Polybius his information orally,5 he was not the only
representative of an older generation to be questioned. Whether the men 'present at the occasion' (
) of Hannibal's crossing of the Alps6 were Gauls, Greeks, or Carthaginians, we
cannot say; but if Polybius met them after he came to Italy, they must already have been men of 70. He certainly
talked to Carthaginians who had known Hannibal,7 and supplemented his information from Masinissa,8 who
(probably in 151/0) discoursed on Hannibal's avarice as a particular illustration of a fault common to
Carthaginians in general. Masinissa's son Gulusa is also mentioned as an informant, specifically on the use in parts
of Africa of elephants' tusks as door-posts and palings, but almost certainly also for events connected with the
Third Punic War.9
Polybius' detention at Rome was no handicap in carrying out his interrogations. It was if anything an
advantage; for, apart from the great concourse of internees and resident Greeks, there was a constant stream of
ambassadors and other visitors from all parts of the Mediterranean, to whom it cannot have been difficult for
Polybius to gain access. Thus he mentions Perseus' friends as informants on the negotiations between Perseus and
Eumenes, which broke down
[33]

iii. 33. 1718, 56. 14.

xii. 11. 2; in any case the gibe is rather that a man who claimed to make such search for accurate information
should be as unreliable as he claims Timaeus is.

See p. 27 nn. 1 and 2.

xxxiv. 10. 67; Polybius probably had Scipio question the Massaliotes about Britain and north-west Europe (cf.
p. 6 n. 5).
5
See above, p. 31 n. 1.
6
iii. 48. 12; this is clearly not a reference to Silenus, as Mioni (121) seems to think, but to oral informants.
7
ix. 25. 2.
8
ix. 25. 4.
9
xxxiv. 16, xxxviii. 78; cf. von Scala, 269.
4

through the avarice of the two kings;1 one of these was probably Pantauchus, the son of Balacrus, one of
Perseus' ,2 who played an important role in the approach to Genthius. Both he and Hippias
surrendered to the Romans after Pydna,3 and it seems certain that they and many other eminent Macedonians will
have been brought to Rome. It was no doubt to some member of this group that Polybius owed intimate
knowledge of affairs at the Macedonian court during the last years of Philip's reign.4 Besides Macedonians, there
were assembled in Italy internees from most of the states of Greece. Since the thousand Achaeans fell in number
to three hundred in sixteen years,5 they were evidently for the most part elderly men in 167, and so valuable
informants on earlier events. Aetolians, too, like Nicander of Trichonium,6 could supplement the Achaean version
from the opposite camp. von Scala7 has many suggestions on informants both in Rome and elsewherePraxo of
Delphi,8 Menyllus of Alabanda,9 Stratius the doctor of Eumenes,10 and a source for the affairs of Athamania and
Zacynthus dependent on the close connexion between Amynander and Philip of Megalopolis;11 the case for some
is plausible, but more often von Scala presses the details in a way which testifies only to his own fertile
imagination. In any case a list of names is without significance. One has only to consider the multitude of highly
placed informants who will have found themselves in Rome at some time or other during the years 167 to 150,
and the host of others whom Polybius will have met and talked to during the years 145 to his death, when we
know virtually nothing of his movements, to realize that the identification of half a dozen names means next to
nothing. Faced with the anonymity of almost all his informants, Polybius' readers can only take on trust his facts
and the exercising of his critical judgement in selecting them.
The above account of Polybius' use of his sources neglects two special problemsbooks vi and xxxiv.
Following a tradition of old standing, which was to be maintained by ancient historians long after his time,12
Polybius treated geography as an essential part of
[34]

xxix. 8. 10.

xxix. 3. 3; cf. xxvii. 8. 5.

Livy, xliv. 45. 2.
4
Cf. JHS, 1938, 6465.
5
Paus. vii. 10. 12. von Scala (2745) suggests that Stratius of Tritaea, who is mentioned as a fellow internee, and
later resumed political life in Achaea, may have given Polybius information on the assemblies at Corinth in 146
(xxxviii. 12. 513. 7, 17. 118. 6). So he may; but so may dozens of others.
6
Probably a source for Philip V's invasion of Thermum in 218 (v. 614) and for events in the Syrian War (xx. 11,
xxi. 25). On Nicander see further xxvii. 15. 14, xxviii. 4. 6 (deportation to Rome); cf. Woodhouse, 258 n. 1; von
Scala, 275.
7
von Scala, 2708.
8
Cf. Livy, xlii. 15 ff.
9
xxxi. 12. 8; cf. Livy, xliii. 6. 5. von Scala thinks he is meant in xxxix. 7. 2.
3

10

xxx. 2. 24.
Livy, xxxv. 47. 58, xxxvi. 14. 7.
12
See Class. et med., 1948, 1567.
11

historical studies. References to geographical details occur throughout the Histories. In book iii. 57. 3, for
example, there is criticism of writers who gave fantastic accounts of the Spanish minesalmost certainly
Dicaearchus, Eratosthenes, and Pytheas;1 and book iv contains a highly technical discussion of the merits of the
site of Byzantium and the hydrography of the Bosphorus and the Pontus.2 In the main, however, Polybius
reserved questions of geography for special treatment in book xxxiv; it is consequently more convenient to deal
with the sources there used as part of the commentary to that book. Book vi likewise stands by itself. Polybius'
sources for the discussion on the Roman constitution present a complicated and perhaps ultimately insoluble
problem; they are treated in detail in the commentary to vi,3 along with the problems of Polybius' sources for
other parts of this book, such as the archaeologia,4 and the chapter on the constitutions of Crete and Sparta.5
5. Chronology
In default of any universally accepted era such as we use today, Polybius adopted as a chronological framework
for his Histories a system based on 'Olympiad years'. It had probably originated with Timaeus;6 but whether in
the meantime other historians had taken it over is unknown.7 As the basis of a narrative largely concerned with
military history the Olympiad system, calculated from a festival which took place each fourth year in late July or
early August, was far from ideal. Without adaptation it would have involved dividing each campaign into two
halves, recounted under separate olympiad years; and naturally no military historian was prepared to accept a
limitation so irrational. Consequently Polybius used a 'manipulated'8 olympiad year, which allowed him to treat a
single season's campaigning as a whole. The occasions on which he gives precise chronological data are few; the
main passages are iii. 1. 11, 16. 7, 118. 10, iv. 66. 767. 1, v. 105. 3, 111. 9.9 Hence there has been much
controversy about his system, and a variety of attempts to formulate the principle which allowed him to divide up
his campaigns in the way he does. The best solution, and almost certainly the right one,
[35]

See the note ad loc.

iv. 3845; see the note to iv. 38. 145. 8 for the special source-problem.
3
See in particular notes to vi. 3. 5, 3. 7, 4. 79. 14.
4
See above, p. 28 n. 10.
5
Cf. vi. 4547. 6 n.
6
Cf. xii. 10. 4, 11. 1 f.; whether Ephorus had preceded him in this is not known (so Unger, Phil., 1881, 49 ff.). See
Kubitschek, RE, 'Aera', cols. 6278.
7
Cf. Ziegler, op. cit., col. 1565.
8
Ibid.
9
iv. 14. 9 is probably an insertion by some later reader, which has been incorporated in the text; see the note ad
loc.
2

is that of De Sanctis,1 which assumes a certain flexibility in Polybius' methods. Polybius wrote, he argues,
without any consistent and rigid chronological scheme. Normally he closed his olympiad years with the end of
the year's campaigning and the retirement of the troops into winter quarters; this meant that its end coincided
roughly with the autumn date of the Aetolian new civil year and, for the greater part of the period of the
Histories with that of the Achaean.2 However, this system was capable of modification. The third book, for
instance, ends virtually with the battle of Cannae, for obvious reasons; and such incidents as are appended in iii.
1183 are selected to confirm the impression of overwhelming disaster, despite the fact that the revolt of Tarentum
did not take place until 213, and the defeat of Postumius Albinus was probably not sustained until the end of
winter 216/15. On the other hand, many of the events which followed on the defeat of Cannae, including the
revolt of Capua, which opened up a new series of actions, were reserved for book vii4 (which nominally covered
Ol. 141, 1. 2 = 216/14) though many of them may have occurred before the end of the campaigning season of
216. Similarly in book xv, which contained the events of Ol. 144, 2 = 203/2, Polybius included the peace
negotiations after Zama,5 because, though they belonged to the end of 202 or even early 201, they rounded off his
account of the battle and the war. In this way Polybius was ready to modify his olympiad system for dramatic or
other reasons. But as a rule a year would be reckoned from the beginning of the campaigning season subsequent
to its nominal opening. Thus Ol. 140 covers 219216 (though in book iii Polybius includes Hannibal's
preliminary campaigns in Spain for 221 and 220),6 Ol. 141 the years 215212, and so on; in short an olympiad
year was equated for practical purposes with the Julian or consular year coinciding with its second half.7
For indicating dates during the period before his main history opens Polybius uses various methods.
Frequently he gives synchronisms based on olympiad years for the convenience of his Greek
[36]

iii. 1. 21923; accepted by Ziegler, op. cit., cols. 15647. For earlier discussion see Unger, Phil., 1874, 239; S.-B.
Mnchen, 1879, 119 ff.; Nissen, Rh. Mus., 1871, 244 ff., 1885, 349 ff.; H. Steigemann, De Polybii olympiadum
ratione et oeconomia (Diss. Breslau, 1885); O. Seipt, De Polybii olympiadum ratione et de bello Punico primo
quaestiones chronologicae (Diss. Leipzig, 1887).
2

See v. 106. 1 n.
See notes ad loc.
4
Cf. De Sanctis, iii. 1. 222; Ziegler, op. cit., col. 1566.
5
xv. 1719.
6
iii. 1314.
7
The general problem of the relationship between Polybius' olympiad year and the plan of the history as a whole
will be discussed in the second volume, since it is one immediately relevant to the assembling of the fragments
and the assigning of them to their books. (*p. 628.)
3

readers;1 and having thus established a date he works forwards or backwards from it.2 It has been argued3 that for
his earlier Roman chronology, including the lost parts of the archaeologia in book vi,4 he made use of a
synchronized table with olympiad years as its basis. But this has not been established, and it seems more probable
that for these earlier periods lying outside his main history, Polybius drew largely on his sources, and that, for
example, his account of the Gallic Wars was based on consular years, and his chronology of the early development
of the Achaean Confederacy on Achaean strategos years running from May to May.5 For the view that P. sticks
closely to the Olympiad year see R. Werner, Die Begrndung der rmischen Republik (Munich, 1963), 46 ff., 68
f.; H. H. Schmitt, Antiochos, 194 n. 1. P.'s chronological method is also discussed in Pdech, Mthode, 449 ff. His
chronology for the earliest Roman history, including the regal period, constitutes a special problem, which is
discussed in its proper place.6
[37]

1
2

See for example i. 3. 1, 6. 5, ii. 20. 6, 41. 1, 41. 11, 43. 6, iii. 22. 12.
e.g. i. 6. 1, ii. 1835 (Gallic Wars), ii. 41. 1115, 43. 18 (early Achaean history).

Leuze, Jahrzhlung, 105209.

See notes on vi. 11 a.
5
See references in n. 2.
6
See vi. 11 a 2 n.
4

BOOK I
1-5. Introduction
The purpose of this introduction is to arrest the reader's attention,
and to outline the contents of the work and the author's reason for
composing it. There are many precedents (e.g. Hecataeus, FGH,I
F I; Herod. i, prol.; Thuc. i. I ; Eph. FGH, 70 F 7--9) and the same
practice is found at Rome (e.g. Sail. Hist., fg. I. I 1\1.; Livy, praef.;
Tac. Hist. i. I; Ann. i. I); on the principle see Lorenz, 73 nn. I-2,
who analyses P. i. I-5 in detail. P.'s prooemium falls into two sections
of approximately equal length: I. I-3 6 is a general introduction
and discusses the nature of history, 3 7-5. 5 is a particular introduction to books i and ii.

1. 1. Twv TOLouTwv 01TOJ.LVT)J.laTwY: 'such histories as these'. P. normally uses the word v1rop.~-l)p.am in this general sense: cf. 35 6, etc.
The didactic view of history which appears here is common to the
earlier Greek historians, e.g. Thuc. i. 22, ii. 48. 3; see also Isoc. Nic.
35, Arch. 59; Arist. Rhet. i. IJ68 a 29. It persists of course into Roman
times; cf. Diod. i. Iff.; Sempronius Asellio, HRR fg. 2; Sail. lug.
4. 5-6. Cicero, de orat. ii. 9 z,6 calls history magistra uitae; and see
Pliny, epist. v. 8. II: 'nam plurimum refert, ut Thucydides ait,
KTfjp.a sit an &.ywvW'fLa; quorum alterum oratio, alterum historia est.'
Consequently, although the Stoics also subscribe to this belief, there
is no need to assume Stoic influence here (with Lorenz, 8--9).
TllS mO'TtJJ.LT)S: genitive of comparison after Totp.oTipav, not
objective genitive after 3u)p8wow (so Shuckburgh).
2. 1ravTES ws e1ros Et1TEIY: not identifiable. Diod. i. I-3 probably
derives from Poseidonius, a post-Polybian source, rather than from
Ephorus (as Barber, ro3; B. L Ullman, TAP A, 1942, 30 n. 31,
following Jacoby); and, though attempts have been made to detect
Theopompus and Theophrastus, or Demetrius of Phalerum, in the
reference to Ttls- n"js rox1Js p.t;TafJo>..lls yvvalws {nrorf>ipotv (cf. Lorenz,
Io-n; von Scala, 164), the idea is a commonplace: cf. vi. 2. 6; Plut.
Aem. Paul. 27. 2.
npxfi t<a.l. TEAEL I<EXPflYTQL TOilT'f: the sense is not local (so Laqueur,
257), but qualitative: 'they make this the be-ail and end-all of their
work'. On this proverbial phrase (cf. vi. 6. 7 n.) see Wunderer, i. 73;
Lorenz, i6 n. 33
P. here asserts two main functions for history: (a) as a training
ground for the active politician, (b) as a vicarious method of obtaining the experience which enables us to endure life's vicissitudes.
39

I. r. 4

INTRODllCTIOK

4. To '!l'a.pa8osov: since the unexpected element in F.'s material will

itself attract readers, he can dispense with praise of history in general.
(On a similar argument in Dion. Hal. i. r see Kaibel, Hermes, t885,
501ft.) This, ro 77ap&Jiogov, is part of F.'s legacy from the Hellenistic
historians, who borrowed it from tragedy, where Aristotle (Poet. 9
1452 a 4) defined its function as the arousing of fear and pity; but
\vhereas they employed it to thrill the reader, P. claims that he uses
it to a moral end. For it forms an important element in P.'s analysis
of the rise of Rome to world-empire, as the unforeseen, irrational
factor, controlled by TJx'lJ, and working (throughout the period
under consideration) in favour of Rome (cf. ii. 37 6, viii. z. 3 f., ix.
fi. s). Apart from synonyms like 77ap&.Aoyos, aviA1TGaTOS', ar.po<JOdKTJTOS,
the word occurs 51 times in books i-iii (see above, pp. 16-17).
5-6. P. here states his theme: How and under what systt'fn of government the Romans have succeeded in under
years in bringing almost
repeated at i. 2. 7, 4 r,
the whole inhabited world under them. It
iii. I. 4, r. 9, 2. 6, .3 9, 4 2, uS. 9, vi. 2. 3, viii. 2. J, xxxix. 8. 7. The
constitution is specially treated in book vi. Tile fifty-three years are
from 220 to 167; for although the defeat of Perseus left many states
still independent, none now stood on equal terms with the Romans,
who held an acknowledged first place. Lorenz, 14, recalls the Pentecontaetia of the Athenian rise to power (Thuc. i. n8. 2); but P. had
no regard for Athens (cf. vi. 44), omits her empire from those mentioned in ch. 2, and is probably uninfluenced by Thucydidcs here.
But he was undoubtedly impressed by Demetrius of Phalerum's
discussion of the fall of Persia and the rise of Macedon, unforeseeable
fifty years before (xxix. 2r. 4), and their counterpart in the overthrow of Macedon by Rome (d. Lorenz, 14; Siegfried, ror n. 191).
For P.'s revised scheme, carrying his history down to 145. see
below, iii. 4 ff.
6. O!!a.p.aTwv 1\ p.a.9'lp.aTwv: Thuc. ii. 39 r has the same contrast.
Ch. 2 compares the Roman with past empircs~Persian, Spartan,
Macedonian. Such syncriseis are common in didactic history, especially in P.: for their application to persons see Bruns, 90 ff. Other
examples are vi. 43 (comparison of constitutions), xviii. 28 (legion
and phalanx). Here, by displaying the superiority of the Roman
empire, P. implicitly magnifies the importance of his own work.
On this, and on similar syncristis in Dion. Hal. i. r and App. Hist.
praef., see Lorenz, IS, 8r n. 74
2. 2. nepaa.~ ...u:yaA'lV O.pxf)v KO.Tf.KT'I}aa.vTo: the Persians rose to
eminence under Cyrus (559-529), who united the Iranian peoples
from Persia to Media, reached the Aegean (546), and conquered
Babylon (5,)9) His successor Cambyses (529-522) annexed Egypt;
and Darius (522-486) invaded Scythia, and made the first attempt

40

INTRODUCTION

Iz.7

on mainland
which foundered at Marathon in 490. (Buchanan
Gray, C AH, iv (1926), chs. i and vii; Cary, ibid., ch. vii, 7-8;
Bengtson,
The Persian attempts to 'overstep the bounds of
Asia' are
Scythian expedition (which led to the Ionian
Revolt), and Darius' and Xerxes' invasions of Greece, thwarted at
Marathon, and at Salamis and Plataea. Both Aeschylus (Persae,
790 ff.) and Herodotus (vii. 10) associate the idea of v{Jpt<:: with overstepping the boundary between the continents; and the antithesis
between Europe and Asia runs through Herodotus' work. Revived
by !socrates as a fourth-century political slogan, it again achieved
prominence at the time of the war between Rome and Antiochus III
CQ, 1942, I41-3), and seems to be in P.'s mind here.
3. /\a.~~:EOmj16vLot 1161us ET"l 8w8E~~:a.: viz. from Lysandex's victory
at Aegospotami (4o5) to Conan's victory over the Spartans with a
Persian fleet off Cnidos (394). Cnidos marked the end of Theopompus'
Hellenica (Diod. xiv. 84. 7); and Iustin. vi. 4 I and ~epos, Conon, 4
agree in making it the end of Sparta's hegemony; but
Panath. 56 (but cf. A reap. 6 f.; Phil. 47), who limits the hegemony to
lTIJ biKa p.6At;:, apparently makes it end with the outbreak of the
Corinthian War (396/5).
4. Tav "laTpov 'ITOTa.j16v: an exaggeration. Though Alexander crossed
the Danube against the Triballi and Getae in 3:35, and Zopyrion,
Antipater's
in Thrace, perished at the hands of Scythians
across the Danube in 325, the river was never the regular frontier of
Macedon. P. is describing in very general terms Philip's European
possessions prior to the invasion of Asia, when by his control of
Epirus he reached the Adriatic. For P.'s concept of the Adriatic see
ii. 14. 4 n.
5. TTJV Ti\S :.\ata.s &.pxt}v: cf. . 2. After Darius' death in 330, Alexander
became Great King by right of conquest, and ruler over Egypt,
Syria, Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, and the eastern provinces to the
Jaxartes and Indus.
7-8. The most satisfactory reconstruction of this defective passage
is that of Lorenz, 82-83:
oiKOV!L.!J-'1]JJ U7T~KOOV avTOL;: [ dvu7Tdcrm ]Tov p.~v
TO&<; =VVV um:fpxou]aw, dvtmi:[pfJATJTOV 8J] TO~<;
myt vop.~vots V7TEp jox~v
Ka[T~Amov TfjS avTwvJ OuvaaT[E[a<;. 7TEpl. Toil] p.Jv T<a> 6>..a Sui T[l {;7TEpE'ixov JK ri]s ypa- J
cpfj> Jf~GTat aacf>laTEpOll KaTavoEL'v KTA.

!.2.7

INTRODUCTION

The Greek world probably recognized Rome as mistress over the

oecumene after Magnesia (cf. xxi. 16. 8: a speech of Antiochus'
envoys; xxi. 23. 4: speech of a Rhodian), unless we are here dealing
with later commonplaces as we are in Scipio's speech before Zama
(xv. ro. 2; cf. 9 5; see La Roche, 67; E. Bickerman, CP, 1945. 148).
The concept appears as a T07To> in a speech of Ti. Gracchus (Plut.
Ti. Gr. 9 5: KVptot Tij> olKovp.lvYJ> lvat .\eyop.vot); for its later use,
and comparisons between the Roman and earlier empires see the
passages collected by Kaibel, Hermes, r885, 497 f.; Lorenz, 84
nn. 8o-83. Cf. also 3 g, iii. 59 3
8. o Tfjs 1Tpa.ytJ.anKfjS iaTop(a.s Tp61ros: cf. xxxvi. 17 1. This phrase
is virtually the same as o 7Tpayp.anKo> Tpo7To> Tij> iaTop{a., ; cf. iii.
109. 6 where 6 Tij> 7TapaKA~aw> Tpo7TO> = o TTapaKATJTLKD> Tpo7To> Tij>
Alfw>. Applied to history 7Tpayp.anKo> in P. connotes a narrative
of events (political, military, etc.) as opposed to any kind of category,
e.g. a history of colonization; hence ~ 1rpayp.anK~ i.aTopta is little
more than 'history', and bears no overtones of 'didactic' or 'politically useful'. (See Schweighaeuser, ad loc.; Strachan-Davidson, 1-5;
Walbank, CQ, 1945, 16; above, p. 8 n. 6.)

3. 1-6. The 1rp#n> of the 14oth Olympiad (220-216 B.c.) are (r) the
Social War (cf. iv. 3-37,57-87, v. 1-30, gr-106), (2) the Fourth Syrian
War (v. 31-87). (3) the Second Punic War (iii, relevant parts of
vii-xv, extending down to 202). The Social War began in 220, the
other two in 219. Cf. ii. 37 2, 71. g, iv. 2.
1. ov 1rpwTov i~..]vEyKe: i.e. it was Philip's first war.
2. ov o~ 1TAE'i:aToL vpoaa.yope6ouaw ~vvL~La.K6v: i.e. most Greek historians, who wrote mainly from the Punic point of view and round
the personality of Hannibal. Examples are Sosylus of Lacedaemon
(FGH, 176), Chaereas (FGH, 177; cf. iii. 20. 5), and perhaps Silenus
of Caleacte (FGH, 175), Eumachus of Naples (FGH, 178: cf. Athen.
xiii. 577 A) and Xenophon (FGH, 179: cf. Diog. Laert. ii. 59). The
Romans from the annalists downwards spoke of the bellu.m Punicum secundum (Coelius Antipater (HRR, i. 158) fg. 1 ( = Cic. orat.
6g, 229) ; (HRR, i. 177) fg. 66; Cic. de re pub. i. 1. 1; de diu. i. 35 77;
Sall. Jug. 5 4, 42. 1; Livy, xxi. 1. 2, xxxi. 1. 1, 3; also the epitomators
of Livy, the elder Pliny, etc.). However, in iii. 6. 1 a reference to the
writers on Td., KaT' Yl.wtfiav 1rpat"'" is probably to Roman historians
(see note); and P.'s phraseology is perhaps due to the fact that he
has Greek readers in mind (cf. 3 3-7, ii. 35 g, iii. 59 8; and for
special explanations of Roman institutions iii. 87. 7. 107. ro ff., x.
4 g, xiv. 3 6, xxi. 2. 2, 13. n). See von Scala, 288 ff.; Susemihl, ii. 95;
Lorenz, 13, 81 n. 66; and on the Hannibal-historians E. Meyer, Kl.
Schr. ii. 338; Scullard, Scip. 6 ; Lorenz, 84-85 n. 84.
TTJS vap' ~paTou auvTa~ews: cf. ii. 40. 4 n., iv. 2. 1. The Achaean
42

INTRODUCTION

I. 3 4

statesman composed memoirs (ii. 40. 4, iJTTofLVTJfLanap.otf~; 47 u,

so Plutarch) in over thirty books: FGH, 23I; Walbank,
Aratos, 6--8. In making himself Aratus' continuator P. followed an
established tradition. Among Thucydides' continuators were Xenophon (Hell. i. I), Theopompus (P. viii. n. 3), and Cratippus (Dion.
Hal. Thuc. 16); and Xenophon anticipates a continuator (Hell. vii.
5 27). Further examples (not all certain) in Lorenz, 85-86 n. 85. In
his introductory books P. also continues Timaeus (5. r, xxxix. 8. 4);
and he was in tum followed by Poseidonius (FGH 87 T I and 12 b:
iaTopla ~ fLETa IIo>..uf1tov, beginning 145{4) and by Strabo (FGH, 91
T 2: Ta fLETa IIo>.vf1w~). The same practice was followed at Rome;
for example Ammianus continues Tacitus.
3. <daavet 0'1Topa8a.s nl.s Tfjs oh<ou!J.EVTJS ""Page,s: perhaps
suggesting a parallel between the separate, scattered life of individuals, which preceded the establishment of the first communities
(d. vi. 5 6; and elsewhere, e.g. Plato, Protag. 322 A; Isoc. Paneg. 39;
Arist. Pol. i. 2. 7. 1252 b 23; Diod. i. 8. I, iii. s6. 3; Dion. HaL i. 9 2;
San. Cat. 6. r), and the change over in the political sphere from
separate national states to a single unit, the object of an organic,
interwoven (cf. awfLaToHoij, O'VfL7TAlea6m), universal history. See
Taeger, 19; Lorenz, 86-87 n. 91.
4. otovei O'WflllTOIIi:~Sij TTJV [aTop(av: cf. xiv. 12. 5 : with his account
of the whole of the latter history of Ptolemy IV, P. can depict his
character oiovd awfLa'Totoij, i.e. as a unified whole (not 'a life-like
picture' (Paton)). Similarly Tyche concentrates events from all over
the World in an organic unity (cf. 4 I, 6. 3 Where avvavfr;at!> iS a
word normally applied to organic growth). History is the work of
Tyche, just as his 1rpay1La'Tela is the work of P. The concept of such a
7rpayfLaTtda as a awfLa reaches P. from Hellenistic historiography; d.
Dion. Hal. ad Pomp. 3; Thuc. 5 f., 10; Diod. xx. I. 5; and Cicero
writes to Lucceius (Jam. v. I2. 4): 'a principia enim coniurationis
(sc. Catilinae) usque ad reditum nostrum uidetur mihi modicum
quoddam corpus confici posse.' The idea derives ultimately from the
Platonic-Aristotelian concept of the unity of a literary work; cf.
Plato, Phaedr. 264 c; Arist. Poet. 23. 1, 1459 a 17 f. (who, however,
excepts history from its application). See Lorenz, 87 n. 92; 99 n. 227.
The novelty in P. is that, facilitated by his conception of the role
of TJche, he projects the notion of the unity of an historical work
upon the objective course of historical events. The reason why history nmv becomes universal is summarized in 6. It is because,
encouraged by their victory in the Second Punic War, the Romans
hereafter consciously stretched out their hands towards Greece and
Asia, as steps towards universal dominion (cf. 3 7, 7TEpt Tij~ nuv
OAWV dpxijs, 3 9-IO, iii. 2. 6, EVVOtaV axfv 'Tfi~ 'TWV o>.wv mf1o'Afis,
v. 104. 3 (Agelaus at Naupactus), xv. 9 2-5 (Zama)). Thus the
vTTofLv~fLaTa,

43

L 3 4

I~TRODUCTIO~

Hannibalic War is the decisive period in Roman history. Cf. iii.

7
7. Tile second part of the introduction opens with the stylistic device
used at r. I: Ei p.v . , i:uws- J1rd &J : cf. iii. 4 r~4. ~p.f:v is
'us Greeks': cf. 3 2 n. The justification of the 7TpoKo.TaaKev~ of books
i and ii which P.
here (viz. to explain the earlier policy and
resources of the two rivals for world-power to Greeks ignorant of
them) does not explain the inclusion of the Achaean history in
ii. 37 ff. (cf. i. IJ. r 5). For the theory that the Achaean section is
a later addition see ii. 37 n.
9. tmcml.s i.v' c.uh~v TTJV Twv vpayfl6.Twv E~TJYTJCTLV: 'after becoming
engrossed in the narrative' (Paton), rather than Strachan-Davidson
'when he has come to the actual story of events'.

.)2.

vo(OLs 8La~ouAlOLS ~ 'ITOLO.LS 8uvttflEC1L Kai xopTjylaL<.; XPTJCTCtflEVOL:

corresponds to 7: dm:l 7To{as- 1Tpo(UutWS' ~ OUl!df.LEWS opp.YJBvTE<;. There

are in fact two things, the in tcllectual plan and the material resources, the first essential 1rp6s T~v TT{vma.v, the second 1rpik Tijv
awd.\eLav ( 1o). This analysis makes the Hannibalic War the first
step in the plan of universal dominion (cf. 3 6); it is slightly inconsistent with iii. 2. 6 >vhich makes the project follow on their victory
in that war.
10. Tfj<.; '~~'poKaTacrKeufj<.;: P.
used this term for the
contents of books i and ii: d. i. 13. I, 13. 7. r3. 8, ii. 14. I, r6. 14,
37 z, jr. 7, iv. r. g, v. rrr. ro (q.v.; this refers to the events tozr6).
But, though the word is a new technical expression for an 'introduction'. the custom of appending introductions was already usual:
cf. Thuc. i; and other authors listed by Lorenz, 87~88 n. 93
xe~pLC1flO\I Tfj<.; TOXTJ'> KTA.: viz. the historical process, 1TW')
Kai T{vL yvlf:L r.o.\mdas (cf. I. 5, viii. z. 3). Tyclze has worked her
purpose with Rome; cf. 4 3, 1ron Ka~ 1ro8Ev ri.lpp.~OTJ Kai r.ws ax T~v
auVTl.\Ewv (see above, p. 25 n. 8). On the comparable roles of Tyche

4. 1. TOV

and the historian see 3 4 n. Furthermore, no contemporary historian

has undertaken a universal history (Ephorus, praised in v. 33 2, is not
a contemporary). aVvTafts ( 2) alone means 'historical composition'
(not 'universal history', as Lorenz, 22): d. 3 2 (Aratus' Memoirs),
viii. 2. IT (d. z. s). ~ TWJJ KaT<i fdpos aVVTafLs.
3. Tou<.; fLEV KMa flpo<.; 'lrOAEflOVS KTA.: examples of such contemporary writers of particular histories are the Hannibal-historians
(3. 2 n.), Phylarchus, who wrote the Seleucid history of 222-187
around the figure of Antiochus HI (FGH, 81 T I), Mnesiptolemus of
Cyme (FGH, 164 T r) and Hegesianax of Alexandria Troas (FGH,
45 T 3; cf. xviii. 47 1). For Zeno and Antisthenes, who wrote local
histories of Rhodes (FGH, so8 and 523), see xvi. I4. 2 ff., for Ptolemy
of Megalopolis, who wrote a court history of Ptolemy IV (FGH r6I),

44

I~TRODUCTION

I. 4 6

xviii. 55 6. Baton of Sinope wrote on Hieronymus of Syracuse

(F'GH, z68 F 4). For historians of the wars between Rome and
Philip V and Perseus of Macedon see below, iii. 32. 8 n.
4. TO KaAALO"TOV njlO. S' W~EALjl(;)T(lTOV hnn]SeUjlCI. TTJ'!> TUXTJS: cf. ix.
44 2. 'This, the achievement of Fortune most excellent and profitable
to contemplate', not 'the finest and most beneficent of the performances of Fortune' (Paton). P. is here concerned to expound the
advantages of studying history (cf. H), not to pass judgement on
the rise of Rome (so, correctly, Strachan-Davidson and Shuckburgh).
The conjunction or opposition of KaAoll and w,Pf.A<JLD!l is popular in
Stoic theory: cf. Hirzel, ii.
ff.; P. often borrows it: see iii. 4 II,
31. 13, vi. z. 3, xi. 19 a 2, xv. 36. 3, xxiv. 12. 2, xxxviii. 5 3; and
Wunderer, ii.
The concept of Tyche uppermost in F.'s mind at
this point is of a force in the universe which takes a pleasure in
change for its own sake ( s, TloMa ~eaworrowiiaa; cf. 86. 7); it
is the Tyche of Demetrius of Phalerum (cf. xxix. 21. 3-<l), and it is
significant that the word 1Wtll011"0tfv, otherwise found only in verse
prior to Polybius, is taken from Demetrius. Other examples of this
irrational, novelty-mongering, Tyche are ii. 4 3~4, 70. 2, iv. 2. 4, viii.
2. 3, 2o. 10. But here P. ha.::; the further metaphor of Tyche as the producer of plays (as in xi. 5 8, xxiii. 10. r6, xxix. 19. 2, fg. 212; cf. Diod.
xxxii. 10. 5; above, p. 21 n. 6). The phrase ~yu.wlaar' dywYtafLa is 'put
on a show-piece' (not 'act such a drama' (Shuckburgh) or 'achieved
such a triumph' (Paton); cf. IG, xii. 7 226, ll.4-6, where &pafLaTa dywv{{wOa, means 'to put on plays for competition', and, for dywv~opa,
Thuc. i. 22. 4, and Arist. Poet. 9 ro. 1451 b 37 The concept fits into
the general Hellenistic tendency, elsewhere criticized strongly by
P. (ii. 56, iii. 47 6-48. I2, s8. g, vii. 7 1~2. 6, X. 2.
xii. 24. s. 26 b.
4 ff., XV. 34 I-J6. II, XVi. T2. 7-9, 14, I, 17. 9, I8. 2, XXiX. 12. 1-3. 8),
to confuse the Aristotelian
of history and tragedy. See
further the discussion in CQ, r945, 8 ff., and especially 9 n. 1.
6-8. For the argument cf. iii. 32. World-history cannot be understood from reading TOus KaTtt fLtpo:; ypd.,Ponas, any more than one
can (a) picture the world as a whole from visits to separate cities or
studying pictures of them, (b)
a living creature from con~
sidering its dissected parts. The second example
the 'organic'
conception of history-writing (cf. 3 4 n.), to correspond to the new
era of 'universal' history. Similarly in Arist. Poet. 7. 4 1450 b 35 ff.
the 'qiov to which tragedy is compared is probably a 'living organism'
(though Butcher, Aristotle's Theory of Fine Art4 (London, 1923), 188,
takes it to be 'a picture of a living organism'). yypaJLtLiva, in the
first comparison, are probably 'pictures' (Strachan-Davidson; cf.
ypa<foal, xxi. 30. g, xxxix. 2. 3; see also xii. 28 a r), not 'plans' (Paton).
For L Hostilius Mancinus' picture of Carthage see Pliny, Nat. hist.
xxxv. 23. The distinction between the genuine knowledge which
45

I. 4 6

INTRODUCTION

comes from universal history and that derived from 'special histories' is the distinction between the truth and a mere dream ( 8) ;
but genuine knowledge is essential if history is to provide ;o xp~atfLDV.
Cf. iii. 32. IO: 6atp Ota~ipH ;6 !La8efv ;oil fL6vov a1wiJaat, ;oao&rtp Kat
i~IJ ~fLilpav la;oplav urroAafLfldvw Ota~ipetv T<VIJ E1TL fLEpovs auv;agWII.

5. 1-5. The introduction to the rrpoKa;aaKEv~, like the general introduction (cf. 3 1-6), ends with the problem of a starting-point. 01. 129
(z64-z6r) has the double advantage of (a) being the date when the
Romans first crossed the seas from Italy, (b) immediately following
on Timaeus' history (3. 2 n.). The crossing into Sicily is that of
Ap. Claudius Caudex, consul 264, and must have occurred in the
late summer of z64; for the war lasted twenty-four years (cf. 63. 4;
actually 24 campaigns, but 23 years and some months). Against
Beloch's attempt to date the crossing to spring 263 see 56. I n.
Timaeus of Tauromeniurn (c. JSO-C. 255). son of the tyrant Andromachus, was expelled by Agathocles between 317 and 312, and spent
some fifty years at Athens (cf. xii. 25 d r) composing a history of the
western Greeks, including the barbarian peoples, Rome, and Carthage. Originally ending with the death of Agathocles, the work
was continued to cover the history of Pyrrhus (though Cic. ad Jam.
v. 12. 2 suggests that this was in some sense separate from the main
work). Whether it went down as far as 264 ('a splendid opening,
but no conclusion'-Laqueur) is uncertain, despite P.'s claim; but
see 8. 3--9 8 n. Though painstaking and careful, Timaeus displayed
excessive credulity and superstition; and he showed pronounced
prejudice for Timoleon, who enjoyed his father's help, and against
Agathocles. His work was an inexhaustible source for later writers
including P., who criticizes him severely in book xii. His system of
reckoning by olympiads became a generally adopted device; and his
chronology formed the basis of later history. For polemic against
him (apart from book xii) see ii. r6. I5, viii. IO. 12. See FGH, s66;
Beloch, iv. I. 483-5; Susemihl, i. 563-83; Laqueur, RE, 'Timaios' (3),
cols. ro76-I203. In the rest of the chapter P. is concerned with justifying his date as one requiring no earlier motivation (ovva.fLlVIJV
avTI]v .g airrijs 8Ewp.,ta8at), and comprehensible to his Greek readers
(d. 6. r); there is a similar argument at v. 31. 8.

6-12. Italy and Sicily up to the First Punic War (cf. 5 z)

6. L
2

~To-; ivE~O'TTtKEt KTA.:

the year meant is apparently OL 98,

= 387/6 B.C.; and F.'s indications are intended to make the matter

clear to Greeks, west Greeks, and Romans. The peace of Antalcidas

fell in Ol. 98, 2, in fact in spring, 386; Leuctra was fought on 5 Hecatombaeum in the Attic archon year of Phrasicleides, and so in July
46

ITALY AND SICILY UP TO THE FIRST PUNIC \VAR

371, at the very end of 01. 102, I

372/r B.C.; and Aegospotami was

in the archon year of Alexias (Arist. Ath. Pol. 34 2), and so in the
late summer of 405, in 01. 93, 4 By inclusive reckoning 01. 98, 2 is
the nineteenth year after 01. 93, 4, and the sixteenth year before
01. 102, I. Leuze (]ahrziihhmg, II5 n.), apparently identifying the
Olympiad year with the Attic archon year, puts Leuctra in 01.
1o2, 2, and being unwilling to assume that P. reckoned inclusively
in the case of Aegospotami and exclusively in that of Leuctra,
assumes that he is reckoning from the actual day, and not by years;
but this assumption seems both unsatisfactory and improbable.
Leuze's criticism of Mommsen (Rom. Forsch. ii. 359) is, however,
valid: it is highly unlikely that in dealing with this period P. was
working with an Olympiad year which went down to the end of the
campaigning season. These synchronisms suggest that the Gallic
capture and occupation of Rome fell also in 387/6. Leuze (op. cit.
n5-r6) has argued that because Dionysius (i. 74) dates the Gallic
lcpoSos to the archonship of Pyrgion at Athens (388/7), P. must be
distinguishing between the capture of Rome (J.\6vns) in that year,
and the occupation (Kadx.,~~) in 387/6. It is true that in the previous
clause vevLK7JKtiJS' refers to an event of 01. 97, 4
389/8, and bro>.u>p~eu
to a siege beginning in 01. 98, 1
388/7 (see below); but the capture
and occupation of Rome form much more of a single episode than
the battle of Elleporus and the
of Rhegium, and it is difficult
to believe in Leuze's distinction.
date was not necessarily that
of Dionysius; and the natural interpretation is that the Gauls seized
and held Rome in OL 98, 2
387/6. P. probably had this synchronism
from Timaeus (cf. Beloch, RG, 14o; Stuart Jones, CAH, vii. 32o--3);
it appears again in lustin. vi. 6. 5, 'hie annus non eo tantum insignis
fuit, quod repente pax tota Graecia facta est, sed etiam eo, quod
eadem tempore urbs Romana a Gallis capta est'; and (dependent
on him) in Oros. iii. 1. I.
2. TTJV hr' !l>.vTa.AK8ou AEYOf'kVflV Elp,v'lv: cf. iv. 27. 5. vi. 49 5 The
war between Sparta and the allied forces of Athens, Thebes, Argos,
and Corinth, instigated by Persia after the Spartan defeat off Cnidos
in 394, ended in 387/6, when Tiribazus. on royal instructions, summoned the belligerents to Sardes to receive the conditions for a peace
(subsequently described by Isocrates (Panegyr. 176) as rrpocl'rayJ-Lam),
viz. all the Asiatic mainland and the islands of Cyprus and Clazomenae to be the king's; Lemnos, Imbros, and Scyros to remain
Athenian; all other Greek states to be autonomous (cf. iv. 27. 5);
the king, assisted by the
to punish any breach (cf. Xen.
Hell. v. r. 31; Diod. xiv. IIo). The precise relationship of the king
to the treaty is a matter of controversy. The likeliest view is that of
Wilcken (Abh. Berlin. Akad., 1941 (1942), no. 15; cf. S-B. Berlin, 1929,
292-3), who distinguishes a Sparto-Persian peace agreed on at Susa
47

I. 6.

ITALY AN"D SICILY UP TO

from a subsequent Kou~ eZp~VYJ of Greek states, sworn at Sparta in

accordance with Antalcidas' undertaking. In view of many passages,
epigraphical and historical (including this one), which suggest that
the king was a direct participant in some agreement, it is difficult
to follow V. ~1artin {Mus. Helv., 1944, r3-3o), who, on the basis of
Diod. xv. rg. I' Tct!) KO~vas cruve~Kas 7'0.)' lrr' }1ITaAKl3ou YVOJ.M!Ia<;
uvvtnAa{1op,lvou Toii flp(1(7w (3aat'Mws, argues for a single peace, announced at Sardes and sworn at Sparta, a KDLvTJ ~dp~VYJ of all Greek
states, with the king as benevolent overseer. Whatever its precise
legal form, this D~'ktat re-established Persia in the Greek cities of
Asia Minor; and in Greece proper Spartan coercion soon nullified the
'autonomy' clause, and provoked a growing opposition which culminated in the Theban victory over Sparta at Leuctra in 371.
TTI 11'Ept Tov 'EXXt'!T'opov '!T'OTa.p.ov p.a.x'fi: after defeating Carthage in
396, Dionysius I of Syracuse crossed into Italy and in 389, near the
Elleporus (modern Stilaro; Nissen, It. La.nd. ii. 949), just north of
Caulonia in Bruttium, defeated an I taliote army of 27 ,ooo led by
a Syracusan exile, Heloris (Diod. xiv. ro4, "E,\wpos by confusion with
He loris; Polyaen. v. 3 2; below, ii. 39 7). Rhegium resisted Dionysius
for almost a year {387): when it fell, its inhabitants were treated
with severity (Diod. xiv. 1o6-8, III, nz; Frontin. Strat. iii. 4 3;
[Arist.] Oec. ii. 2. 1349 b I]). These victories established Dionysius
firmly on the Italian side of the straits. For Polybius they do not
merely give Sicilian readers a useful synchronism, but as an example
of how a strong power in Sicily or Italy would eventually cross the
straits they act as a pointer to the First Punic \Var. Timaeus linked
up the Gallic catastrophe with the siege of Rhegium (Diod. xiv.
IIJ. r) and is therefore probably P.'s source here (Beloch, RG, qo-r).
On the chronology see Meyer, v. IJO-J2.
ra.XaTO.~ 1TA~\I TOU Ka'!T'ETwMou: cf. ii. 18. I-2ll., 22. 4-5 n. P.'s
date for Brennus' seizure of Rome (387/6) will be Timaeus' (above);
the usually accepted Varronian chronology made it A.TJ.C. 364
390 B.C. For discussion see below, ii. r8. 6 n.
3. eu8oKOUf1EVO.S r a.AaTO.tS: a ransom of I,ooo lb. of gold (Livy, V. 48;
Diod. xiv. I 16): other authorities said 2,ooo lb., in either case a sum
'more probably dictated by later Roman pride than possible for
Roman resources at the time' (Stuart Jones, CAll, vii. 565 n. r).
a\IEA'!T'lO'TWS tyKpa.n'is: 'unexpectedly' because they were relieved
by an unforeseeable Venetie invasion of Gallic territory (ii. 18. 3).
Thus an element of fortune (d. 8, 7rapaSotw>) combines with Roman
courage to secure the conquest of Italy; cf. 4, (J,Q. .,., T~v av3pdav
Kal .,~v . errL'I'vxfav; 6-7. This combination of rational and
irrational factors is P.'s answer to the 1Tws of 5 2; cf. Lorenz, 35-36.
4-6. Twv Aa.T1vwv KTA.: cf. ii. 18. 5 After the Gallic invasion separatism appeared in the Latin confederation, Tibur and Praencste tried

48

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

L 6. 5

to form
leagues, and the seceding cities called in Volsci,
later Gallic mercenaries. In 358 Rome reconstituted the
Hernici,
confederacy, and by 354 the last town submitted; but in 338, after
a further revolt, they dissolved it and made sep:rrate settlements
with the Latin cities, leaving some independent and incorporating
others in Rome. (See Adcock, CAH, vii. 589-94; Sherwin-White,
2r~3o; Gobler, 4-13; Beloch, RG, 373 ff.) The fighting against the
Etruscans, Gauls, and Samnites was not in successive periods, as P.
might suggest. By 387 (Varr.) southern Etruria had been recovered
and made into four tribes; and in 351 Tarquinii and Falerii received
a forty years' truce. (Homo, CAH, vii. 574-5; Sherwin-White, rrs~
r6; Gohler, I9-2o; Beloch, RG, 301 ff. (sceptical}.) On the Gauls
(whom P. calls K().:roi and TaJ..amt indiscriminately) see below, ii.
J8~zo. The Samnites fought (traditionally) three wars against Rome.
Adcock, CAH, vii. 594 ff., rejects the first (343--34r) as unhistorical
(but cf. Beloch, RG, 369 ff.); the second and most important (327-304)
brought substantial Roman gains; and in the third (298-290), which
developed into a clash between a coalition, including Gauls and
Etruscans, and 1\'ome, the Samnites were reduced to impotence.
These wars consolidated the Roman position in central Italy, and
extended their power to the threshold of Magna Graecia. P. uses
Eauvimt in a broad sense to include Marsi, Paeligni, and other minor
Sabellian tribes (Philipp, RE, 'Samnites', cols. zq8-9), and therefore
places them north as well as east of Latium. {According to Ps.Scylax, 15 (a corrupt passage) the Samnite League (in about 350)
stretched from sea to sea; d. DeSanctis, i. 103 n. 1.)
5. T a.pa.VTLVWV E'II'\O"TTO.O'O.J.lEYWV nuppov: in
folloVving the
sending of help to Thurii against the Lucanians, ten Roman ships
appeared off Tarentum. The Tarentines, alleging a treaty 1 which
pledged the Romans not to sail east of the Lacinian Promontory,
sank four and seized one; they then expelled the Roman garrison
from Thurii. Envoys sent to demand satisfaction were insulted
(r~v . . . aai.\yav); the incident was much exaggerated in the annalistic tradition (e.g. Dion. Hal. xix. 5; App. Samn. 7; Livy, ep.
12). \Vhen in 281 the consul L Aemilius Barbula was sent to
harry the Taren tines, they invited in Pyrrhus of Epirus, who accepted
their offers and crossed with zs,ooo men.
TQ ttpOTEpov ETE\ TllS TWY r O.AO.TWV q.6Sou: c/JO'e3o') is used of the
Gauls in Syll. 3<)8, I. 8, and an inscription in Klio, 1914, 276, no. 5;
it is not peculiar toP. (as Laqueur, rs6 n. I.) The synchronism recalls
ii. 20. 6 (Pyrrhus' crossing two years before the destruction of the
Gauls at Delphi) and ii. 4r. I I (events of OL 124 (284/3-z8rjo) are
' For di!Ierent views of its date see Adcock, CAH, vii. 544; Frank, ibid. 640
(334); De Sanctis, ii. 347 (302-but it will scarcely have been later than the
planting of the colvny at Luceri::t in Apulia in 314 (Lhy, ix, :!6. t-s)).
4800

49

I. 6. 5

ITALY AND SICILY UP TO

KaTd. T1JY llJppov Suipamv d, 'lTailtav). Pyrrhus crossed in May z8o

(01. 124, 4): for the month cf. Plut. Pyrrh. IS I, f3oplq. dvl;.u.p 1Ta.p' cnpav
tKpay~vn (preferable to Dio's statement (fg. 40. 6; cf. Zan. viii. 2)
that 'he did not wait for the spring'). The destruction of the Gauls
at Delphi was in Ol. 125, z (Paus. x. 23. 14) = 279/8, hence late
autumn 279 or early spring 278, for at the time there was snow at
Delphi (FD, iii. 2. r38ll. 31 ff.); autumn 279 is the more likely, as the
Gauls would hardly begin their expedition in winter. Unfortunately
the foSo>, i.e. the first Gallic irruption into Macedon (in which
Ptolemy Ceraunus met his death), is not to be dated with any certainty. It is here dated the year after the Tarentine appeal to
Pyrrhus (not, it should be noted, after Pyrrhus' crossing); but
although this appeal took place in the consulship of L. Aemilius
Barbula and Q. Marcius Philippus (A.u.c. 473 = 281 B.c.), it is uncertain if it fell in 01. 124, 3 or 01. 124, 4 Hence for all the evidence
this passage offers, the lfooo> (and Ceraunus' death) may have fallen
before or after midsummer z8o. ~ew evidence from a Babylonian
king-list (d. A.]. Sachs and D. ]. Wiseman, Iraq, 1954,
has
established that Seleucus I perished at Ceraunus' hands between
25 August and 24 September 281 ; 1 and since Corupedium, where
Seleucus defeated and destroyed Lysimachus, occurred seven
months earlier (Iustin. xvii. 2. 4), this battle was evidently fought
c. February 28I. This new inforrnation, however, gives no basis for
calculating when Ceraunus perished. Eusebius (following Porphyry)
allots him a reign of one year and five months; but even though the
lists omit the seven months of Seleucus, it does not necessarily follow
that Ceraunus' reign is to be calculated from Corupedium. According
to Plutarch (Pyrrh. 22. 1), Pyrrhus heard of Ceraunus' death shortly
after Ausculum in summer 279. If Ptolemy's one year and :five months
are dated from Seleucus' death in Aug./Sept. 28r, he will have died
in Jan./Feb. 279, which (allowing for some delay in sending a message
across the Adriatic in late winter) would fit Plutarch's statement.
On the other hand, January or February does not seem a very likely
time of the year for the Gallic </JoSo;;. A further piece of evidence is
the name 'ET7Jalas, given to Antipater who reigned for forty-five
'as long as the Etesians blow' after .Meleager had followed
Ceraunus' death with a reign of two months (Euseb. i. 235). If
Antipater's reign coincided with the Etesians (and did not merely
last as long as they, which would make the point a poor one), it fell
in July/August; and Ceraunus perished in May (279). But in that
case no signiiicance can be attached to the figure of one year and
five months accorded to Ceraunus' reign; and Beloch (iv. :2. ro9),
1 The text from 1: ruk which suggested that SeleucliS' death was still not known
there in December 28r (cf. Be]och, iv. 2. 108~) must therefore be regarded as
anachronistic (Sachs and Wiseman, op. cit., 205).

50

THE FIRST PTJNIC WAR

L 6. 6

who argues for May as the date of Ceraunus' death, attempts to

dispose of it by adding the seven months of Seleucus' rule, and so
making two years, which can be dismissed as a round figure. But
this is violent, and the figure of one year five months, like rhe two
months given to M:eleager and the forty-five days of Antipater, seems
to deserve some respect. Finally, it may be noted that in ii. 41. 2
P. places Ceraunus' death in Ol. 124, which would make it earlier
than summer z8o; but here the synchronism is very general, and
merely seeks to relate Ceraunus' death to those of Ptolemy I,
Lysimachus, and Seleucus, which did in fact occur within that
Olympiad.
No solution covers all this evidence. The outside dates for the
rpo3os remain July z8o (if one reckons one year five months from
Corupedium) and May 279 (if one attaches weight to Plutarch's
report of Pyrrhus' receipt of the news, and to the nickname assigned
to Antipater). A closer dating must await further evidence. For
discussion see Beloch, iv. 2. IOj-II, 485-9; Corradi, 67-71 (preferable
to Niese, ii. 15 f.; DeSanctis, ii. 39o-2 n. z).
The Gauls destroyed at Delphi and those who crossed into Asia
(cf. iv. 46. I) were separate detachments (Paton's translation misses
this) : cf. M. Segre, Jlistoria, 1929, 596. It was Brennus' small force
which marched on Delphi, and the Tolistoagii and Trocmi (along
with the Tectosages, who left the main body in Greece after the
Delphic catastrophe) who first plundered the coastal districts of
Asia Minor, and later settled down in the interior as Galatians (Livy,
xxxviii. 16). Two armies had invaded Macedon in the original ,Po8os.
That of Bolgius withdrew after destroying Ceraunus, the other under
Brennus and Acichorius continued south into Greece (without the
Tolistoagii and Trocmi). The body under Brennus was a mere
raiding party; but P. already follows the tradition fostered by the
Aetolians, who identified its defeat with the preservation of Greece
and the destruction of the main Gallic army. A contemporary Coan
inscription (Syll. 398, 11. 8-9) confirms the oldest tradition that
Delphi was preserved. The Aetolians compelled the Gauls to withdraw, and legend embroidered their exploits with a report of the
epiphany of Apollo, fighting for his sanctuary. The story of its
partial pillage (in Livy and Strabo) probably goes back via Timagenes or Poseidonius to a second-century Italian story (Flaceliere,
roi). See S. Reinach and R. Herzog, CRAI, 1904, 158-73; 'M. Segre,
Histor-ia, 1927, r8-42; 1929, 592--648; Tarn, AG, 439-42; C AH, vii.
101--6; Flaceliere, 94--ro4; Launey, REA, 1944, 217-36; and below,
ii. 35 7 n.
6. w<> lnrep i8wv ... 1TOAEjl~cro\I'Tec;;: cf. ii. 20. ro. The Pyrrhic War
led the Romans to envisage the conquest of all Italy, just as the
Hannibalic War led them to turn to the conquest of the whole
51

I. 6. 6

ITALY AND SICILY UP TO

world (cf. 3 4 n.). This is P.'s interpretation of Roman imperialism,

simple and rationalistic, and in conflict with the Roman 1rpoapwtc;
which sought, from the time of Fabius Pictor, to interpret all Roman
expansion as defensive action. See Gelzer, Hermes, 1933, I37
7. nuppov tK~aAOVTe<; EK Tfj<; '1TaA1as: from autumn 278 to spring
275 Pyrrhus was fighting Carthage in Sicily. Upon his return to
Italy his depleted forces were defeated by the Romans, traditionally
near Beneventum (but perhaps ncar Paestum in Lucania: Beloch,
iv. 2. 475-6), in autumn 275, whereupon he returned with S,soo men
to Epirus (Plut. Pyrrh. 26. 2). See De Sanctis, ii. 4I5; Frank, CAH,
vii. 652-3. From 270 the Roman federation embraced all Italy, excluding Cisalpine Gaul (1rA~v K<EA.-wv); for its organization see Frank,
ibid. 658-64; Sherwin-White, 9I-125.
7. 2. Kajl:rravoi wap' Aya9oKA~ f!L09ocpopouVTES: Agathocles, the
tyrant of Syracuse (317-289: with the title of king from 304), captured
Messana between 3T5 and 3I2 (Diod. xix. 65ft.). Its seizure by Campanian mercenaries (i.e. Oscans) whom he had settled in Syracuse,
and who had agreed after his death to leave Sicily, occurred between
288 and 283 (Beloch, iv. 1. 543 n. r). Here they took the name
Mamertini (from Mamers, the Oscan form of Mars); cf. 8. I ; Diod.
xxi. I8; Dio, fg. 40.8; Alfius in Festus, p. 158M., S.V. 'Mamertini'. For
their few coins and inscriptions see Conway, The Italic Dialects, i
(Cambridge, 1897), I f.; M. Siirstri:im, A Study in the Coinage of the
Mamertines (Lund, 1940).
6-13. P. records the garrisoning of Rhegium, and the revolt and
subsequent reduction of the garrison from a Roman source (probably
Fabius: Gelzer, Hermes, 1933, 134-6), which defends Roman fides in
the matter; a less creditable version held the Romans responsible
(Livy, xxxi. 29. ro, 31. 6); and the obviously distorted account in
Dion. Hal. xx. 4-5 is a further development of the defence. P.'s
account presents several difficulties:
1. Date of garrisoning. The reference to fear of Pyrrhus ( 6) suggests 28o (so Frank, CAH, vii. ~3). But Dion. Hal. xx. 4 records that
the garrison was against Bruttians, Lucanians, and Tarentines, and
was sent in the consulship of C. Fabricius (282). Despite Dionysius'
general inferiority as a source, this may well be true; and no doubt
fear of the Mamertini played its part. If the revolt of the garrison
was in 28o, after Heraclea (cf. Diod. xxii. r. 2-3), its establishment
at Rhegium may well have been attributed (by P. or his source) to
the same year, and the new motive (fear of Pyrrhus) added. In fact,
it is improbable that a Greek town should require a garrison against
Pyrrhus. See Beloch, iv. I. 545 n. 2; 2. 479-85; DeSanctis, ii. 379 n. 2,
395 n. 3; contra C. Scano, Rend. Line., 1925, 70-87. On this view the
words xpo1ov . . . nva ( 7) refer to the years 282-280.
52

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

I. 8. 3

2. Size a_{ garrison. Dion. Hal. xx. 4 gives 1,2oo, and later at xx. r6
makes it 4,5oo. Livy (ep. 15; xxviii. 28. 3) and Orosius (iv. 3 4) speak
of a legio, which can hardly be taken literally. However, legio is often
used in early Latin of 'a body of troops', and P.'s 4,000 may spring
from a misunderstanding of the word in an original Roman source.
Cf. Beloch, iv. 2. 484. (But it does not follow that Dionysius' 1,2oo
therefore deserves any credence (so Beloch, and Bung, 132 n. 4).)
The alternative explanation that the 4,ooo are a confusion with
forces sent by the Romans to Rhegium in 278 to prevent Pyrrhus'
crossing into Sicily seems improbable; for Diod. xxii. 7 s. the
source for this incident, speaks only of soo men. Hcurgon (204-6)
argues that the Campanians are a band of irregulars in Roman employ.
l1i~ews: Decius Vi belli us (Livy, ep. r2), a member of a famous Capuan
family (d. Syme, CP, 1955, 129). Livy (xxviii. 28. 4) calls him a military
tribune. App. Samn. 9 2 has a romantic story of his blinding by a
Rhegine refugee doctor, called in to treat his eyes. Other sources for
the dispossessing of the Rhegines are Dio, fg. 40. 7-12; Dion. Hal.
xx. 4-5; Diod. xxii. r. 2-3.
The Roman reduction of Rhcgium (cf. 6. 8) is in 270; Dionysius
(xx. 16) and Orosius (iv. 3 3-6) attribute it to the consul C. Genucius,
but his colleague Cn. Cornelius Blasio triumphed de Rcgineis [act.
tr.). According to Zonaras (viii. 6), Hiero sent Syracusan troops to
help the Romans (accepted by DeSanctis, iii. r. 95; Stauffenberg, 8:
it may well be true). There is evidence that the Romans took action
against the troops in Rhcgium only when they spread their activity
to seize Croton (Zon. viii. 6) and destroy Caulonia (Paus. vi. 3 12);
then their punishment was represented as retribution for their breach
of 1Tl07<>. Rhcgium joined the Roman federation as an autonomous
member of the socii nauales (Philipp, RE, s.v. 'Regium', cols. soo-r).

8. 1. 1Tt:pl Tfjs auvopoua'l']s: in 270 Carthage possessed western and

central Sicily (1o. 6 n.), the Mamertini the north-cast corner and west
as far as Halaesa. Syracuse held the east coast from Tauromenium
to C. Pachynus (or the R. Helorus) with the hinterland to Agyrium
(Diod. xxii. 13. 2). The main clash was with Syracuse (De Sanctis,
iii. r. 92 n. 4, who thinks the Mamertini are unlikely to have spoilt
the good relations established with Carthage (Diod. xxiii. 7. 4) ; but
see 43 2 n. for a possible attack on Carthaginian Agrigentum).
2. TTJS 1Tpoup'l']f.'iV'I']S tm~eoupias: 'the Romans in Rhegium', i.e. the
revolted garrison. But the reduction of Rhegium was in 270, and the
pro-Roman tradition exaggerates its contribution to the difficulties
of the Mamertines in 264 (De Sanctis, iii. r. 224).
1rapa 1roSas: as in 7 s. this phrase is not to be pressed.
8. 3-9. 8. This digression on the rise of Hiero, with its clearly marked
53

I. 8. 3

ITALY

A~D

SICILY UP TO

beginning and end (cf. 8. :2 and ro. r), seems to follow a west-Greek
source (cf. the use of f3ripf3apoL of the Mamertini), who is most
probably Timaeus; so Meltzer, ii. sso-I; De Sanctis, iii. I. 225;
Beloch, iv. 2. II; RG, I4I; Stauffenberg, 19 n. 15, Bung, 128 n. r
(criticizing Laqueur's attribution to Philinus).
8. 3. xpovo~s ou 1TOAAois 1Tp0Tepov: the chronology of the early part
of Hiero's reign cannot be established with certainty. According
to 9 8 he assumed the title of king after the battle of the Longanus.
But in vii. 8. 4 P. states that on his death, in 215 (DeSanctis, iii. 2.
329), he had been king (f3arnAevaas) fifty-four years. This would imply
that the Longanus was in 270{69; and this view is defended by some
scholars (e.g. Niese, ii. 179 n. 5; Pais-Bayet, 2r8; Gelzer, Rom u.
Karthago (ed. Vogt, Leipzig, 1943), 182; Thiel, Hist. 145 f.). On the
other hand, ro. r-2 closely relates the Longanus to the Mamertine
embassy to Rome; and the battle described in Diod. xxii. r,), which
is almost certainly the Longanus (Diodorus calls it Ao[mvos), appears
to be about this time. Hence, if P. is correct in dating the assumption
of the royal title to after this battle, the fifty-four years of Hiero's
'reign' must be reckoned back to a seizure of power in 27o{69, and
must include five years of autocratic control during which he was
not yet called ,Baaw\eus- (so Lenschau (RE, 'Hieron (r3)'. col. 1505),
who would place his coup in autumn 270, in time for help to go to the
Romans besieging Rhegium; Beloch (iv. 2. 279) makes the coup 269/8,
since he dates Hiero's death to 214); or, alternatively, one must reject P.'s statement that Hiero took the title of king only after the
Longan us. In favour of the second solution is the following evidence:
r. There is a unanimous tradition (probably from Timaeus) in
Iustin. xxiii. 4 I, and Zon. viii. 6 that Hiero's rise to power
was after the departure of Pyrrlms from Sicil:r; and since it was
connected with his achievements against the Carthaginians, it
would seem to be about 275/4, a date actually given by Paus.
vi. I2. 2 (01. 126, 2).
2. Wilamowitz, Textgesch. der gr. Bukoliker (Berlin, r9o6), 153 ff.,
has shown convincingly that Thcoc. I d. xvi in honour of Hiero
is to be dated before I d. xvii in honour of Ptolemy Philadelphus; since the latter poem must be before 270, and is
probably 273/2 (cf. Gow, Theocritus, ii (Cambridge, 195o), 3os-6),
Id. xvi will have been composed about 275{4, which fits
Pausanias' date for Hiero's coup.
3 Hiero's son was called Gelo: and it is perhaps more likely that
he received this significant name after Hiero became king,
though this is not an argument to be pressed. vii. 8. 9 makes
Gelo over so on his death, which preceded his father's: hence
he was born before 265. This would favour an assumption of the
royal title in 27oj69 rather than after Longanus.
54

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

l. 9

4 In the present sentence Hiero is described as vov

oVTa.
KOf.Lt8fj when he seized power. On his death in 2I5 he was over
9o; vii. 8. 7; cf. [Lucian] Macrob. Io (aged 92); Livy, xxiv. 4 4
(in his ninetieth year). This would make him 36-38 in 27o{69,
and would on the whole favour the earlier date (275{4) for the
coup, when he would be 3I-33 Again taken alone this argument is not very weighty, since vov ovm may conceal some
exaggeration ad maiorem Hieronis gloriam.
Other solutions are possible, certainty is not. De Sanctis (iii. r. 94
n. 7; 95 n. u) accepts Pausanias' date for Hiero's dpxl}, but emends
vii. 8. 4 so as to give Hiero only fifty-one years' reign, reckoned from
the Longan us; and he dates Theoc. I d. xvi, with its exhortation to
make war on Carthage, after the Longanus and before Hiero's
assumption of the royal title (i.e. in 265). Stauffenberg, 92--95, accepts
all three dates (in 275{4 Hiero was elected to a legal generalship in
the army, in 27o{69 he carried out a coup, and in 265 was saluted
king); he dates I d. xvi to 275{4. when, however, it is hard to reconcile
Hiero's position in it with a normal republican aTpaTYJyla. In general
the solution sketched above seems the best way of dealing \vith
evidence which is ultimately irreconcilable.
The words xpovw; OV 1TOAAoi's 7TpOTEpov ('not long before': Paton
is misleading) form a general transitional phrase from I-2 to the
digression on Hicro, and their meaning is not to be pressed, since in
fact 2 covers a period of approximately five years (the SyTacusan
attack of 8. 2 is not to be distinguished from the situation in Io. 1,
as by Bung, I27-8). The sudden leap forward in 8. 2 from the investment of Rhegium by the Romans in 270 to the Syracusan investment
of Messana in 265 is due to P.'s lo\e of parallelism, and also to his
desire to motivate his digression on the rise of Hiero, which is
essential to his account of the opening stages of the First Punic War.
The earliest events in the digression (8. 3-4) will (on the above view)
date to 27 5/4
Mt:pycl.v"llv: otherwise unknown. Various emendations have been proposed. Perhaps identical with M6pyvva, a 1ToAts- LtKEAwv mentioned in
Philistus (Steph. Byz.), but also otherwise unknown.
vpos: Sen yi.vos: . otKovoflias:: for this characterization cf. v. 39 6 (on
Cleomenes) : 7TpOS" 7Tpayf.LaTWJJ OtKOVOf.Llav Ev</>v0s- J(d avAAl]f38YJV ~YEf.LOVtKOS'
Ka~ {3aatAtKos Tfj <f>vaEt. Artemidorus is not mentioned elsewhere.

9. 1. AmTlVTJS: Hiero's wife was called Philistis (Syll. 429; Head,

I84-5), which suggests that Leptines was descended from Philistus
the historian, who served as minister to Dionysius I and his son, and
married the daughter of the elder t)Tant's brother Leptines (Plut.
Dion, II. 6). The Leptines whom Timoleon expelled from a tyranny
at Engyion and Apollonia (Plut. Tirnol. 24) and banished to Corinth
55

l. 9

ITALY AND SICILY UP TO

(Diod. xvi. 72. 3, 5) was probably the son of this union, and the
grandfather of Hicro's father-in-law. The latter is most likely not
Agathocles' general Leptines (Diod. XX. s6. 2-3, 62. 3-s). See Beloch,
iv. 2. 283-4 for the reconstructed family tree; Holm, Gesch.. Sic. ii.
28i ff., 491 ff.
3. KUXEKT<1S ovTaS Kd.l KL\IT]TIICOIJS: KaXEF<ITf:> in P. has usually a
political sense, 'male animatus ciuis, non contentus praeseuti rerum
statu' (Schweighaeuser); cf. xxii. 4 3 (of Boeotia) : 8td ,-c) rrAEiov:::
dva.t Toti<: KUXEKTa<; nov drr6pwv; and, for the conjunction with
KLI!TJTLKO{, :XXViii. 17. I2 COntrasting ol uyta{VOVTffS With oi KLilTJTUt Kat
Ka.XEKTa.t (at Rhodes). See also i. 68. 10; and 6 below.
4. 11'pi KevTopL1t'a: modern Centuripe lies on the high ground south
of the Cyamosorus (modern Fiume Salso). Hiero was following the
inland route west of Etna, perhaps hoping to take over some of the
forts in this neighbourhood (Diod. xxii. 13). The phrase o~<: . .
crVfLf.d!wv may point to the tactics of the battle, viz. to make a flank
or rear attack with the citizen troops (Stauffcnbcrg, r8-19). If the
abandoning of the mercenaries was forced on Hiero by the fortunes
Timaeus' infelice apologia
of the battle, P.'s story will
(De Sanctis, iii. r. 94 n. 8). Since this battle was among Hiero's
7Tpwm Jmvo~1w.:ra (8. 5) it WaS probably fought shortly after 2i5/4.
It was followed by a period of military inactivity (g. 6: du,Pa'Aws ...
8tE!fjy"); this is, however, concealed in P.'s narrative, which in 8. 7
goes straight on to the Longanus campaign, immediately preceding
the First Punic War (8. 3 n.).
7. 1l'Epl Tov Aoyyo.vov 1TOTO.tJ-OV: the campaign is more fully
described in Diod. xxii. 13 (source uncertain: cf. Reuss, Phil., 19or,
104 (Philinus); Laqueur, RE, 'Philinos (8)', col. 2181 (Timaeus)).
After a preliminary attack on Messana, and a diversion during which
he took Mylae (if the coastal town, it was soon back in .Mamertine
hands: Stauffenberg, 95) and Ameselon (its garrison joined Hiero,
and its territory was divided between Agyrium and Centuripa).
Hiero advanced north, was joined by Halaesa, Tyndaris, and A bacaennm on the north coast, and with ro,ooo foot and r ,soo horse
met the :\1amertini near the R. Longan us (AolTavos: Diod.), probably
in the coastal plain to the west of Mylae (Stauffenberg, 20, 96). The
issue was decided when 6oo of Hiero's picked men took the enemy
in the rear.
8. Twv TjytJ-ovwv ~YKPUTTJS: one, named Klws, let himself bleed to
death (Diod. xxii. 13. 6).
T~v TWV (3ap(30.pwv Ko.n\1Taua TOAtJ-av: the phrase conceals a diplomatic setback; for Hannibal, the Punic admiral, who was off
Lipara, after congratulating Hiero accepted the Mamertine invitation
to garrison Messana (xo. r, II. 4) by sending troops under Hanno on to
the acropolis (Diod. xxii. IJ. i ; De Sanctis, iii. I.
; Stauffen berg,
56

THE FIRST PUNIC \VAR

T.

10.

21). It seems probable that Hiero's withdrawal followed Hannibal's

arrival (cf. Thiel, Hist. 146 n. 258).
~alAEVS . 11'poaT)yopEu9"1: probably incorrect: see above 8. 3 n.
Nor is P.'s credit to be saved by distinguishing the present recognition as !mJ ... TwP O'Vf<fl-axwv (so Reuss, Phil., rgor, ro4): see Hultsch,
ed. alt. praef., pp. xxxv-xxxvi; Luterbacher, Phil., r9o7, 398. The
salutation of the Syracusans is naturally implied, and P. calls Hiero
King of the Syracusans (i. 8. 3, II. 13, cf. vii. 8. r : TTJV Evpa.Koulwv
Ka1 Twv crVfLfixwv dpX"/v) : epigraphical evidence in Syll. 427 (perhaps
the dedication after Longanus), also coins. See also Justin. xxiii.
4 2 ; Diod. xxii. 13. 6~8 (who uses the word f3am/..d, for the period
before the Longanus). Hiero's monarchy was in the simple 'democratic' Syracusan tradition, and Stauffenberg, 22-23, has shown that
it owed little to Hellenistic ideas.

10. 1. o[ JLiv e1r~ KapxTJ&ov(ovs !CTecj>euyov: viz. to Hannibal, who at

once responded (above g. 8 n.). In their appeal to Rome the other
party could, as Campanians, claim a degree of kinship ( 2, Of.Locpv/..o>); cf. Cichorius, 58 ff.
3. 'PwJLtOI . i)1r6pT)aa.v: P. attributes two considerations to the
Senate: (r) Support of the :Mamcrtini was morally dubious (ro. 4,
SuuarroilonTo"), especially in view of recent action at Rhegium (cf.
iii. 26. 6). (z) Self-defence, however, demanded the occupation of
Messana. Since the two weigh almost equally (n. 1), the final issue
is left to the Comitia; and the People, played upon by the Consuls,
are persuaded through greed to sanction the war (n. Iff.). P. has
no reference to Philinus' allegation (sec iii. z6. 3) that the Roman
occupation of Messana contravened a Roman-Carthaginian treaty;
partly because he did not believe in such a treaty, and perhaps too
because he did not wish to complicate his argument with discussion of
Philinus at this point (Jacoby, on FGH, I74 F r).
P.'s account is open to t~o criticisms: it exaggerates Carthaginian
power (ro. 5-6 nn.) and it exaggerates the Carthaginian danger. A
Punic garrison ensconced in Messana was not such a threat to Italy
as P. suggests in ro. 9; as Heuss (HZ, 169, 1949~so. 471) correctly
observes, there is no evidence that Carthage had designs on Italy.
Indeed, it can fairly be argued that the real change was in the
situation of Rome rather than in that of Carthage. And yet, if Roman
power and interests had extended to the straits, that had another
side: Rome was now exposed at a greater number of points. Events
at Rhegium must have made her conscious of the straits and their
implications (the Mamertines had helped the Campanians at
Rhegium). Carthage was perhaps not openly hostile: but there was
a history of secular conflict to keep her within the western bounds
of Sicily. She had not before reached Messana; and the war with
57

1.

10.

ITALY AND SICILY t:P TO

Pyrrhus had perhaps made Rome over-sensitive to the dangers

which might come from foreign interference in south Italy. Such
arguments as these may well have been played up by the Mamertine
envoys who came to ask for the alliance. There is nothing difficult
in the view that these Campanians occupied the role that was to
belong to Massilia before the Second Punic War, and to Rhodes and
Pergamum before the Second \Var with Philip. In the main, therefore,
F.'s account is not unconvincing; and the slight anachronisms contained in its stress on the Punic Empire abroad, and what we may
call the 'Mediterranean' aspect of the Carthaginian threat, are easily
explained if P. has followed as his source the version of Fabius Pictor
(see r4. r n.), who, writing after the Second Punic War, naturally
read later motives into the earlier events. F.'s account is accepted
in the main by Thiel (Hist. I357), whose discussion must, however,
be read in the light of hi.s belief in the reality of Philinus' treaty as
a compact dating to 306 (iii. 26. 3-4). Recently a more radical assessment of F.'s account has been made by Bung, 135--8, who would
reject it entirely as a product of the discussions of the middle of the
second century, and of his own 'researches and combinations'; this
view implies that Fabius barely touched upon the causes of the war
(which seems most improbable, when the Romans were taking their
first steps overseas), and for the debate in P. substitutes one on 'the
pros and cons of a war with a naval power, the end of which could
not be foreseen'. This theory seems based on an anachronistic view
of the perspectives which opened out before the Roman senate of
264. It makes the senate irresponsible, it completely discredits P.,
and it throws his readers back on pure conjecture.
The likelihood is rather that the arguments in P. are substantially
those which were presented to the Senate in 264 : fides and selfinterest were weighed
each other in considering whether to
accept the Mamertine offer of alliance. That this involved the possibility of a clash with the Punic garrison already in the town the
envoys must have made clear: at the same time they will have
stressed the threat to Rome if it remained there. The Romans will
also have recognized the risk of
to fight Hiero. But it is hard
to accept the argument of Reuss (op. cit., 478 ff.), that it was only
Hiero they expected to ftght; for in fact Appius declared war on the
Carthaginians, and hardly without the authorization of the Senate
(n. I I n.). Naturally there were other motives. Some senators may
have felt the threat from Carthage to be unreal, and an overseas
policy a disaster when so much remained to be done in Italy; and
the consuls (or at least Appius Claudius) welcomed an opportunity
for military fame (cf. II. 2 n.). But in broad outline Gelzer (Hermes,
1933, 133-42) is to be followed in his interpretation of P.'s account
as both reproducing Fabius, and substantially reliable.
58

THE FIRST PFNIC WAR

I. 10. 5

5. Ta KO.Tn TTJV AL~ullv: Carthaginian territory proper was not large.

T. Frank (CAH, vii. 665; 68z) reckons it at c. 6oo square miles of
arable soil (plus rough pasture), with a west frontier ai Dougga, and
a south at Zaghouan. But before 400 much of neighbouring Libya
was tributary (Justin. xviii. 5 14, xix. r. 3, z. 4); and from the sixth
century Carthage had formed a strong confederacy of the west
Phoenician colonies, capable of ending Greek expansion in the
western Mediterranean. In 265 her power embraced the whole coastline from the Altars of Philaenus on the Syrtis to the Straits of
Gibraltar (see iii. 39 2 n.; date 218), and these important Phoenician
colonies: Acholla, Lcpcis Minor, Hadrumetum, Utica, both Hippos,
and Canthale (site unknown). There were other Carthaginian or
Phoenician towns around C. Metagonium (cf. iii. 33 12 ff.) and a
minor group beyond the Straits; in Tripolis there were Sabratha,
Oea, and Lepcis Magna. The towns were closely bound to Carthage
by separate treaties, carrying rights of intermarriage; and though
some paid tribute, they are distinct from the 'subject cities and
races' of vii. 9 5 Sec De Sanctis, ilL r. 25-.34, _36-40; Pais-Bayet,
194-6; Meltzer, ii. 74-95.
Tf)s '1!3TJpa.s un'fttcoa. n'o/\/\0. j.!Ef>TJ n'E'IfOLlll-lf.vous: not many details
are known. Gades was probably secured by a treaty against occupation (De Sanctis, iii. r. 35 n. 97). Malaca (on the site of the Greek
Maenace) and Abdera are known Punic stations; and one should
probably add Sexi (Phoenician coinage) and, in view of their positions, Carteia and Calpe. The treaty of 348 with Rome (iii. 24) made
Mastia (probably Cartagena) a limit for Roman ships, i.e. the empire
in Spain was still intact. It may have been lost during the First
Punic War (Schulten, CAH, vii. 78r). ln any case its extent is not
to be exaggerated. Probably only a few coastal tribes were controlled
(Meltzer, ii. 102-4; R. L. Beaumont, ]RS, 1939, 83). Here Fabius
may well be reading into the argument the conditions of the Barcid
empire (ro. 3 n.), while the Barcids in their turn recognized the
propaganda value of a claim to be merely recovering (cf. ii. I. 6:
aVEK'TCL'TO) ancient Carthaginian possessions.
Twv vftawv &n'a.awv: the Sardinian Sea (iii. 41. 7, 47. 2, xxxiv. 6) covers
the waters round Sardinia and Corsica and westward towards the
Gulf of Lions and the Spanish coast: on the Tyrrhenian Sea cf.
ii. I4. 4 n. Sardinia contained a group of Phoenician (probably
Punic) colonies: Caralis, Nora, Sulci, Tharros, and Olbia (DeSanctis,
i . .334); and except in the north-east the natives had been reduced
and made subject (cf. 79 6). But it is unlikely that the Carthaginians
held either Elba or Corsica (which the Romans took in 259; Flor.
i. 18. r5-16; Zan. viii. u); though no confidence can be placed in
Serv. ad Aen. iv. 628: 'in foederibus (sc. between Rome and Carthage) . . . cautum est ut Corsica esset media inter Romanos et
59

I. IO. 5

ITALY AND SICILY UP TO

Carthaginienses', for the Romans never questioned Punic interference in the island between 306 and 264. The Aeolian Islands became
Punic after Agathocles' death; and south of Messana there were
Phoenicians on Melitc, Gaulos, and Cossyra (Ps.-Scylax, I I I ; Diod.
v. I2. 3-4; evidence of coins), and a Punic colony on Ebusus in the
Pityussae Islands (Diod. v. r6 . .z).
6. Ei ItKE~ia.s En Kvp,euaatev: Carthage already controlled western
Sicily, including several Greek cities. There were Phoenician colonies
at Motya (later Lilybaeum). Panormus, Soluntum, and Thermae.
After Pyrrhus left, Agrigentum and Phintias came to terms with
the Carthaginians (IS. Io; Diod. ::<L-..:iii. r. z; Beloch, iv. r. 649 n. r),
and Syracuse had her bounds restricted (8. I n.). The Romans may
well have feared that from 11cssana the Carthaginians might impede
their free passage through the straits, or interfere in Italy through
the Oscans or Greeks.

11. 1. To f.Lkv auvSptov ooo' d.s TEAos eKupwaE TTJV yvwp.TJv: 'the
Senate did not sanction the proposal at all'. (On the meaning of
Els- reAos see Schweighaeuser, Lex. Polyb. T/.)..or;.) The issue was
clearly one of admitting :\lcssana as an ally, not one of war with
either Hiero or Carthage; d. iii. 26. 6; Florus, i. r8. 3, 'cum de
Poenorum impotentia foederata Siciliae ciuitas .Messana quereretur';
Livy, xxx. 31. 4 Some difticulty has been felt about this account of
an ovcrscrupulous Senate referring the decision to a war-weary but
easily converted people; and Livy, e:rh. r6, 'auxilium Mamertinis
ferendum serratus censuit, cum de ea re inter suadentes, ut id f1eret,
dissuadentcsque contentio fuissct', suggests that the Senate in fact
took the decision, a view which might appear to be supported by
rr. 3, Kvpw8l!nos St roD 86ytto:ros- {;rro roD 3~ttov. It is true that 86ytta
is the normal Greek translation of (senatus) consultum; but it is also
used in Res Gest-ae, 12, to translate (senatus) auctorilas, i.e. a resolution
of the Senate which is invalid on formal g~ounds. It is not impossible
that P. may have used it here to describe a measure which the
Senate had neither approved nor rejected; and it would not be
illegal, if it was unusual, for a consul (rr. 2 n.) to bring such a
measure before the people (:'<lommsen, St.-R. iii. 345 n. I, n7o ff.).
P.'s account clearly derives from Fabius Pictor, who sought to put
any odium for a dubious policy upon the people; but this does not
mean that it is untrue and that we should follow De Sanctis' s version
of a war-weary people led to acquiesce in a senatorial war-policy
after assurances that it did not really mean war (iii. r. 99). If the
issue that divided the Senate was, as P. says, whether interest or
morality should prevail (1o. 3, 10. 9), they might well accept the
suggestion of an eager consul that the people should decide; and in
the assembly arguments of a very different character would naturally
6o

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

!.

II.

be used (u. 2). The popular decision may well have received senatorial approval in retrospect, for there is no evidence that there was
strong political opposition to the policy of the .M:amertine alliance.
2. ot Se 1To>.>.oL: the striking of a Jaedus was normally a matter for
the tribal assembly (cf. Livy, xxix. r2. r6, xxx. 43 2, xxxiii. 25. 6),
whereas a war-motion must have gone to the comiHa centuriata
(Mommscn, St.-R. iii. 344) ; and since the approach was made by the
consuls (aTpaTTjyo{, z), the comitia tr1:buta is indicated (not thr~
concdimn plebis: so Frank, C AH, vii. 671-2). Several scholars (including Paton) render aTpaTTjyol 'military leaders': but it is difficult
to see who these would be, and in any case, though P. occasionally
uses aTpa:TTj'JH)s for commander, where the meaning is unambiguous,
or where (as in 3; d. 59 8) the commander is the consul, his normal
meaning for the word in Roman contexts is 'consul'. (E. Meyer
(Kl. Schr. ii. 376) points out that as M. Fulvius Flaccus was operating
at this time against Volsinii (he triumphed hal. nozt.), only Appius
Claudius can in fact have brought the matter before the people.)
No account need be taken of .Meyer's view that the initiative came
from the equites, a complete anachronism for 264 (cf. Hill, 45).
w<jlt:Xda.s '11"po8Tj>.ous KCli j1Ey0.Xas: the reference is to booty, pure and
simple: d. ii. 29. 9 imo
TOV AVO"LTAOVS t:l:rr{oos ayop.EvaL, 3I. 4 (also
from Fabius).
3. J\.1T1TLOv KXa.u8Lov: Ap. Claudius C.f. Ap.n. Caudex, cos. A.U.c.
490 = 264/3 B.C. (his colleague was M. Fulvius Flaccus). Neither his
family connexions (he was too young to be the brotl1er of Caecus,
as auct. de uir. 1:/l. ,n. 1) nor the origins of his cognomen are known.
Munzer, RE. 'Claudius (1o2)', cols. 26)2-4; 'Fulvius (ss)', col. 239.
4. Tov j1~V Twv KapxTJ8ovwv 1npa.TT]Yov .. s~a.Xov: his name was
Hanno (Zon. viii. 9; above, 9 8 n.). "Whereas P. attributes his expulsion to the :\lamcrtines (probably following Philinus), the
annalistic tradition in Dio, fg. 43 7-ro and Zon. viii. 8 has an
account of a tribune C. Claudius, who made several trips across the
straits and played a prominent and not wholly honourable part in
the expulsion of the garrison ; this exploit is preceded by a seabattle (cf. Diod. xxiii. 2; AmpeL 46. 3). Much of this is clearly
fabricated; whether it conceals a core of truth, and a tribune C.
Claudius in fact crossed ahead of the consul, is probably past knowing.
De Sanctis (iii. r. ro4, 236) and Thiel (Hist. T49 ff.) accept his existence; Beloch (iv. r. 647 n. 2), followed by Hcuss (HZ, r69, r949-50,
483-4), is wholly sceptical. There is, however, no trace of him in P.,
despite attempts to discover him (Miinzer, RE, 'Claudius (r8}', col.
26&); DeSanctis, iii. r. I05 n. 22.: Bung, I4o). It has been argued that
the words Tov 8' J1mTwv vexdpL'(,av must refer to an earlier
occasion than the crossing described in 9 In fact, the imperfects
are to be given their full force, 'they invited Appius over, and were
6J

J.

II.

ITALY AND SICILY UP TO

for placing the city in his hands' (for this meaning of the imperfect
see the examples quoted at iii. 21. I n.); having described this
decision P. then passes on to the Carthaginians and Syracusans,
and finally comes back to relate Appius' arrival in 9 Consequently there is no need to assume two expeditions and two separate
Claudii.
5. TOV crTpaTT)yOv aveaTaOpwcrav: i.e. Hanno: cf. Zon. viii. 9
A Roman general with limited powers and precise instructions could
rely on the backing of the Senate; a Punic commander had greater
authority for decisions, but might always be sacrificed in a crisis.
See De Sanctis, iii. I. I03 ff. Here P.'s narrative suggests Hanna's
immediate crucifixion (by his soldiers?) : but the account is compressed and he may have been recalled and then executed.
6. 1l'Epi ner,wp~a.sa crTpaT01l'ESeocravn:s: modem Capo di Faro, the
north-east promontory of Sicily; cf. 42. 5 TheL'JvEts- (Diod. xxiii. 1. 3,
Evvas-) are unknow-n: but the description in Zon. viii. 9 suggests that
the spot lay near the coast to the north of Messana, and De Sanctis
(iii. 1. 108 n. 26) locates it 'fra Ganzirri e Faro inferiore'. The topographical details in 6-8 are also in Diod. Joe. cit. and will be from
Philinus.
7. Tl9ETm 1l'pos To(Js KapxTJSovlous cruv9..]Kas: with Hanna, son of
Hannibal, according to Diod. xxiii. 1. 2. Hiero's motives must be
conjectural. His readiness to sink past disputes may signify that he
realized the full significance of the present situation (De Sanctis,
iii. 1. 105-6: but this is only true if he knew the Romans had been
invited in). Alternatively, he was moved by sheer pique at the
ingratitude of the Romans, whom he had helped at Rhegium. But
what P. says is that he now saw a chance to combine with Carthage
to expel his old enemies, the {3ap{3apot in Messana; the Romans are
not mentioned.
8. 11'Epi TO XaAKLSLKOV opos: evidently to the south of Messana, 'nell'
interno verso mezzogiorno, forse tra la citta e il Forte Gonzaga'
(DeSanctis, iii. 1. 108 n. 26).
9. vuKTOS 11'Ep~LW9els Tov 11'op9JLov: despite which he was attacked
by the Punic fleet: i. 20. I4. See further Zon. viii. 9; Frontin. Strat.
i. 4 11; auct. de ur. ll. 37; on the date, above 5 I-5 n. 7rapa{36Aws
'at great risk' or perhaps (cf. 23. 7) 'in a remarkable fashion'.
11. SLE1l'p(O"~E0ETO 11'p0S a~OTEpous: d. Diad. xxiii. I. 4 (the envoys
conveyed friendly messages to Hierc, who replied justifying his
attack on the Mamertini, and accusing the Romans of concealing
their ambitions under a false cloak of fides). In Diodorus Appius
sent envoys to both Hiero and the Carthaginians from Rhegium,
before crossing the straits ; and the Carthaginians sent a return
embassy to Rhegium (Diad. xxiii. 2. I). An embassy from Rhegium
was also implied in Philinus' account, vvhich made Appius attack
62

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

as soon as he was in Messana (rs. z). Since the Roman embassy was
followed by an attack, it presumably delivered the indictio belli;
probably the revised procedure was employed, by which legati went
armed with a conditional authorization from Senate and People, so
that if the rerztm repetitio were rejected, there need be no delay in
legitimizing hostilities (d. 88. 8 n.). This is recorded by Ennius, 223
Vahlen 2 : Appius indixit Karthaginiensibus bellum (cf. Naevius, 3I
Mor.; Cichorius, z6-z7); and, as we have no reason for assuming that
Appius declared war on his own responsibility, the original decision
to accept the Mamertine alliance must since have been followed by
an appeal by the new ally for assistance, and a war-motion in the
Senate and the Comitia Centuriata. That the embassy went from
Rhegium is on the whole more probable (De Sanctis, iii. I. ro8; for
discussion see Stauffenberg, 28 n. 21: Heuss, HZ, r69, 1949~5o, 48I
n. I; Thiel, Hist. 149 ff., who accepts three embassies).
11-15. This account (probably based on Fabius)
Appius the
victory over Hiero, and is in contrast to Philinus' version (IS. r-u)
of the battle as a H.oman defeat; similarly the victory over the
Carthaginians in 12. 3 is contrasted with Philinus' version in the
same chapter.

12. 5-9. Here P. recapitulates ch. 5 The disaster to Rome ( 7) is

of course the Gallic invasion (cf. 6. z~3). Examples of digressions
surveying earlier events ( 8) are those on the Gauls (ii. 14 I ff.), on
the Achaeans and Macedon (ii. 37 7 ff.), and on Antiochus III and
Ptolemy IV (v. JI. 8 ff.). In 7 'TO K<4>ailawv avrwv rfjs; vvv V7TI:.poxif' is
'their present supremacy, taken as a whole'; in 9 x&.ptv roil Aa.ftpavnv dpxd, Tota-&Tas is 'in order to take such a starting-point .. .'
(d. iv. z8. 3), not (as Paton) 'to establish such a fundamental view'.

13-64. The First Punic War

13. L Ktttl>a.Ao.~w8&s 1TpOK9"J-1-~vous: for a discussion of this phrase
see iii. r. 5 n.
2-5. Here P. summarizes the contents of books i and ii: the First
Punic \Var (264-24I) is described in i. 13--{)4, the Mercenary War
(241-238) in i. 6s-88, Hamilcar's exploits in Spetin (237-229) in ii. I,
Hasdru bal's (zz8-zzr) in ii. 13 and 36; the First Illyrian War (22g-:zz8)
in ii. z I2; the Celtic Wars (zzs-zzz) in ii. n-35; and the Cleomenean
War (zzS-222)-with a summary of earlier Achaean history-in
ii. 37-70.
9 t~>n'lTTEa9<:u: 'to touch on' (d. ii. 37. s); not (as Laqueur, 201-J)
'to link up (my narrative with that of previous historians)' (which is
rather avv&.wrnv: cf. 8). oi </>tAolwfJoiJvns arc 'students of history':

L IJ. 9

THE FIRST

PF~IC

WAR

d. 65. 9. iii. :zr. 9-ro, where they are mentioned in contrast to states-

men.
13. 10-14. l. The 'war for Sicily' (cf. 2o. :z) deserves special attention
for three reasons:
Its magnitude compared with other wars( n). This is a commonplace already found in Thuc. i. :zJ (on the Peloponncsian
War).
2. Because of their circumstances, it offers an unequalled opportunity of understanding the special characteristics of Rome
and Carthage ( r:z). (For (r) and (:z) see further GJ. 4-64. 6.)
3 Its previous historians have written as partisans ( r).
I.

In fact P. does not treat this war in any greater detail than the
Illyrian \Var or the Mercenary War (Laqueur, 201).
13. 11. oun . 1ToAuxpov~wTEpov . 1TOAJ1-0V: d. Diod. xxiii. IS 4:
Sto Ked awifJ'YJ Tov 7ToA,;p.ov p.a.Kpo'Ta'Tov yHiaOat Twv p.v'YJp.ovwop.ivwv
(probably from Philinus).
12. aKJ1-YJV aKepa.~a. .. Tots i9~0'f10lS: cf. vi. sr. I-4 By the time of the
Hannibalic War the Carthaginian constitution had degenerated.
p.eTp~a. Ta.'ts Tuxa.~s: 'receiving but modest help from fortune' (so
convincingly) ; d. x. S 8, d, 8wV> Kat 'T11xa> dvaipovcn 'TOS a.iT{a.<:; Twv St' dyx{votav . imHAovp.ivwv. The important
factor was the courage and constancy of the belligerents (for 7TEptmmda> in I I is 'disasters').
14. I. E1TLcrTfjua.t Toun:J T~ 'll'oAe11-~: either 'to direct (readers') attention to' (d. ii. 6r. n), or 'to pay attention to' (cf. ix. 23. I, xv. 9 3).
4l~Atvov t<a.l. <1>Q.~~ov: these writers are somewhat exceptional in being
criticized in moderate terms: cf. i. IS. r:z, 58. 5. iii. 8. r-g. 5 (Fabius),
i. 15. r
iii. z6 (Philinus).
Q. Fabius Pictor, the oldest Roman historian, has not survived
(Peter, IIRR, i. 5 ff.), which are really referexcept in
ences in later writers. He was a senator (iii. 9 4) and contemporary
with the Hannibalic War; in 225 he had fought at Telamon (Eutrop.
iii. 5; Oros. iv. r3. 6), and in 216 visited Delphi as senatoriallegatus
(Livy, xxii. 57 s. xxiii. II. 1-ti). His history, which traced the story
of Home from its foundation (dated 748/7: see vi. II a 2 n.) to his
own time. was written in Greek (Diou. Hal. i. 6. 2; Cic. de din. i. 43),
and had the definite political purpose of justifying Roman policy to
the Greeks. The earlier picture of Fabius as a jejune recorder of
consulships, omens, auspices, and little else (Mommsen, R6m. Forsch.
ii. 272 ff.) has been properly revised; but the antithesis between him
and the later annalists must not be exaggerated (as by Gelzer,
Hermes, 1933.
; r934, 46-55; see now the modified statement in
Hermes, 1954,
criticizing F.
Ilisioria, 1953, r8g-zog),

64

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

I.

If. I

for, though Hellenistic influence can be traced in a liking for the

sensational and paradoxical, much of Fabius' work betrays the raw
Roman material-Fasti, pontifical records, magistrate lists, family
traditions, tituli, elogia, laudationes in crabbed Latin, formal in expression, repetitive, and without literary pretensions (Walbank, CQ,
1945, rs-rs). Further discussion in Munzer, RE, 'Fabius (rz6}'. cols.
1836-4r; Peter, HRR, i. lxix-c; Bung, op. cit.
Philinus of Agrigentum (FG/l, 174) was probably a contemporary
of the war, and wrote from the Carthaginian standpoint; his hostility
towards Rome may have been accentuated by the treatment of
Agrigentum in 26r (r9. rs). The fact that Diodorus used Philinus only
for the First Punic \Var, and went over to P. as his source for the
Mercenary War, suggests that Philinus wrote a monograph on the
former subject (Jacoby, FGH, ii D, p. 598); and this may be confirmed
by the superlatives applied to the First Punic War in 13. I I and 63. 4,
if indeed these are taken over from Philinus (cf. Klotz, Hermes, 1952,
326)~~certainly they are more fitting to a monograph on that war
than to a subject which is merely the introduction to P.'s main
history. See too rs. I n. There is evidence that Philinus, like Fabius,
wrote in the 'tragic' Hellenistic style, with its stress on paradox and
sensational events, and on the role of Fortune, but harnessed to a
didactic purpose (CQ, 1945, 5 ff.}.
It is generally agreed that Fabius and Philinus are P.'s exclusive
sources for the First Punic War; this seems implied by his reference
to them at this point, and recent attempts to minimize considerably
the role of Fabius (so Bung), or to argue paradoxically against the
use of either Philinus or Fabius (P. Pedech, REA, 1952, 246-66) are
unconvincing. There is, however, violent disagreement on the apportionment of P.'s narrative between the two. The problem is complicated by the fact that Fabius may have used Philinus himself,
and also because P. is far from mechanical in his interweaving of
sources. On one occasion his narrative allows us to compare the
same events as recorded by Fabius (rr. IJ-I2. 4) and by Philinus
(rs. z-s); but normally he accepts one or the other without discussion. In general, it is likely that references to consul-names in
P. are taken from Fabius, and those to 'years of the war' from
Philinus' monograph ; and this would suggest a greater use of the
former for the earlier part of the war, and of the latter for the later
years, especially when Hamilcar comes on the scene. Problems are
discussed below, as they arise. See De Sanctis, iii. r. 224~30 (with
earlier literature); L. Sisto, Alene e Roma, 1931, r76--2o2; Gclzer,
opp. cit.; Walbank, CQ, 1945, I-I8; Bung, 49-150; Heuss, HZ, r69,
1949-50, 457-513; Pedech, REA, 1952, 246-66; Klotz, Hermes, 1952,
32 5-34; La nouvelle Clio, r 953, 237-48. Laqueur' s article in RE, 'Philinos
(8)', cols. zr8o-93, is perverse, though here and there very suggestive.
F

I. 14 z

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

2-3. a.ip~aEUlS arpeaLV: 'principles'( z), 'partisan zeal' ( 3); On

the use of this word in epigraphical texts (une jormule banale, Holleaux), see welles, 310. P. often uses a word in two senses in close
juxtaposition, e.g. s8. I (7rapa{loAws-, 'by a bold stroke'' 7Tapaf3o"Aw-repov,
'more desperate'); ii. 40. 3, 5 (lTTta-ra(ns-, 'notice', 'starting-point');
iii. II4. 3 (Ka-rarpopd., 'cutting-edge', 'cutting'); iv. zo.
(perhaps
vofLOt: but see note).
2. 1rapa1rA1)aLov 'I"OLS Epwat: cf. Plato, Laws, v. 73I E: -rvrpAov-rat TTepi
-r6 rptAoVfL~vov 6 rptAwv, wa-re -rei SLKata Kat -ra dya8ci Ka1. -rd KaAci KaKwsKpLv<.t.
5. 'l"o '~"tlS LCT'I"op[as ~8os: the duty to be impartial and truthful is
reaffirmed repeatedly: cf. ii. 56. 2, 56. 12, iii. 47 6, viii. 8. 5-9, X.
21. 8, xii. 7 3-6, u. 8, 12. 3, 27-28, xxxiv. 4, xxxviii. 4 5 But slight
concessions are permissible in the interests of piety (xvi. 12. 9); so
too is a slight twist in favour of one's own country (xvi. 14. 6).
Involuntary errors are of course pardonable in a universal historian
(xxix. 12; cf. xii. 4 a I, 7 6, 8. 1, n. 4, 12. 1-5, xvi. 14 7-8). P. falls
short of these standards in many cases, especially when he is concerned with enemies of Achaea (like the Aetolians or Boeotians) or
with rival historians (like Phylarchus or Timaeus). See above, pp. Io ff.
6-7. l:Ja1rEp ~~ou K'I"A.: P. recalls this passage in his polemic
against Timaeus (xii. 12. 3), as he recalls 7 in describing Philip V's
firmness of purpose in his campaign of zoo (xvi. z8. 5). In general
P. prefers to judge, not the man as a whole, but his separate actions
as they occur: cf. x. z6. 9 A comprehensive criticism is left till the
end. On this practice see Bruns, Personlichkeit, 5 ff.
8. 6.1ro<f!aaELS Kat OLaX1)tELS: 'statements (of fact) and judgements
(on matters of opinion)': Strachan-Davidson.
15. 1-11. Philinus' account of Ap. Claudius' operations: cf. II. nIz. 4 It would seem that both Philinus and Fabius were agreed that
Claudius advanced on Syracuse, and attacked Echetla; but in
Fabius this was preceded by a victory, in Philinus by a defeat.
However, the consul M'. Valerius, Claudius' successor, took the cognomen Messalla, triumphed (act. tr.)~unlike Ap. Claudius- and
exhibited on the wall of the Curia Hostilia a picture representing
his victory over the Carthaginians and Hiero. In view of this it is
hard to accept Fabius' version, which leaves no room for Valerius'
victory; and there is a good deal to be said for Beloch's hypothesis
(iv. z. 533-6) that Ap. Claudius' march on Syracuse is a doublet from
that of M'. Valerius (Diod. xxiii. 4 1), introduced by Fabius, and taken
over by later annalists (Zon. viii. 9), some of whom (Eutrop. ii. 18;
Sil. It. vi. 66z) even invented Ap. Claudius a triumph. However, this
requires the assumption that P. misread Philinus, and thought that
a reference to a Roman advance on Syracuse (which was in fact that
66

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

I. !6.

of M'. Valerius) applied to the advance under Ap. Claudius which he

found recorded in Fabius. It also implies that Diod. xxiii. 3, with its
reference to a Carthaginian defeat (not in Philinus), and the attack
by the consul on a town called "Ey<aTa (? 'Exi.T/..a, cf. IS. 10), is
from an annalistic source (Fabius, according to Jacoby, on FGH,
174 F 2). In that case the attack on Echetla was transferred by
Fabius from M'. Valerius to Ap. Claudius, since IS. IO shows it to have
been mentioned by Philinus, ex hypothesi in connexion with M'.
Valerius. (DeSanctis (iii. I. I09 n. 29, 232, 236-7) makes the alternative suggestion that Diod. xxiii. 4 is taken from Philinus, and applies
to M'. Valerius; but this does not explain why Diodorus speaks of
a Carthaginian defeat, whereas Philinus made it a victory (rs. 2).
Moreover, the motivation of Hiero's retreat~suspicion of Carthaginian false play-looks like an annalistic
since the Carthaginians clearly bore Hiero no malice, and shortly afterwards sent
a fleet to his aid (Diod. xxiii. 4 I ad fin.).) If this thesis of Beloch's is
accepted, one may assume the annalistic building-up of Ap. Claudius
to be
of an attack by Fabius Pic tor on the record of M'. Valerius,
who
been reduced to insignificance in P.'s account. To him is
attributed the victory outside Messana; and his subsequent setbacks (d. Zon. viii. 9) explain why his pretended campaign produced
no results. Bung's discussion, pp. I41-3 (cf. 78 ff.), is based on the
unconvincing thesis that II. u-r2. 4 is simply Philinus' version,
corrected on the basis of the logical criticism enunciated in 15. 9-n.
1. -rf\ s Seu-repa.s ~u ~.Aou : the first book will have given the preceding
events, probably including Hiero's rise to power (cf. 9 7 n.). This
further confirms the view that Philinus wrote a monograph on the
war.
10. T~V 'Exe-r.Aa.v: a xwplov oxvp6v between Leontini and Camarina
(Diod. xx. 32), not yet located; suggestions in Holm, Gesch. Sic. iii.
342-3; Hi.ilsen, RE, 'Echetla', cols. r9rs-r6 (ruins on the hill Occhiala
near Granmichele, east of Caltagirone, where remains of a sanctuary
of Demeter have been discovered).
12. 1ra.pa.1rAT)O'LW') BE Kat <>a~tOV: e.g. s8. s. iii. 8. I-9 15. Absence of
criticism of Fabius here suggests that it was the desire to indulge in
polemic
Philinus on a specific issue that prompted the present
digression.
16. 1. Mavtov '0-ra.KlAtov Ka.t Mavtov Ooa..Aeptov: M'. Otacilius C.f.
M'.n. Crassus and M'. Valerius M.f. M.n. Maximus (Messalla), coss.
A.U.C. 491
B.C. Otacilius was a plebeian and a nouus homo,
Valerius from a gens traditionally hostile to the Claudii; their election
denotes a reaction against the Senate and its representative, Ap.
Claudius: De Sanctis, iii. r. no; Munzer, 67; RE, 'Otacilius (1o)',
cols. r859-6r. Thiel (Hist. 73) has recently argued that Valerius was
67

I.

I6. 2

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

an active advocate of a naval policy. That both consuls were sent

to Sicily is con finned by Diod. xxiii. 4 I; Zon. viii. 9; Oros. iv. 7. 3
Otacilius' role is implied by Naevi.us fg. 32 Mor. (Cichorius, 27):
'Manius Valerius i consul partem exerciti in expeditionem I ducit';
and he had left Rome on r3 September, when in consequence a
dictator clau figendi causa was appointed (Fast. Cap.). But the
prominence given to Valerius in the tradition-his cognomen Messalta, the picture depicting the battle (or battles?) fought victoriously
against the Carthaginians and Hiero (Pliny, Nat. hist. xxxv. 2:2; cf.
Cic. in Vat. 9 n), his sole responsibility for the peace (ined. Vat. 4 (ap.
von Arnim, Hermes, 18gz, 120 ff.) quoted below, 67 n.)-all suggest
that Otacilius crossed after his colleague, and took no part in the
battle at Messana; for their later joint successes see below, 3 n. The
sending of a double consular army-a nonnal year's full levy (cf.
vi. zo. 8-9, iii. 72. I2) together with the allies-was exceptional, and
a
of the gravity of the occasion. In all about 4o,ooo troops must
have been sent to Sicily in :z63. See Luterbacher, Phil., I907, 403;
Beloch, iv. 2. 535-6. The rejection of Valerius' victory by DeSanctis
(iii. I. uo n. 31) is unconvincing.
3. a.l 1TAEiou'> &.~~aTajLEva.t 1ToAe~'>: details in Diod. xxiii. 4, who
attributes the campaign to both consuls. After Adranum, south-west
of
had fallen to assault, and Centuripa was being besieged,
envoys came to offer the surrender of Alaesa; and a general surrender induded Centuripa and probably Enna (Diod. xxiii. g. 4).
Camarina came over now or after Hiero's capitulation; so too
Catana (Pliny, Nat. hist. vii. :214); but Tauromenium remained
Syracusan, despite Eutrop. ii. 19. I. The siege of Echetla may belong
to this expedition (I5. I-II n.). Diodorus' figure of sixty-seven towns
which joined Rome may be an anticipation (by Philinus or some
annalist) of the later number of Sicilian communes (sixty-seven
excluding Messana, or excluding Syracuse); De Sanctis, iii. I. n4-15
n. 36; Bung, 79 n. I. Holm (Gesch. Sic. iii. u) attributes the speed of
the Roman conquest to an upsurge of sympathy for an Italian conqueror among the Sicel population.
7. 9a.Aa.no~epa.To{l\l'rwv Twv Ka.pxl]Soviwv: the Roman naval inferiority is stressed by I ned. Vat. 4: Mdvms oi BaAlp~os o) Tas rrp6;;
'1/.pwva avvll~Kas rro~7JcrdJ.J-"~'os So~<fii Kal. f3paxlws Kat d.A7Jilws Elrrwv
rrpoTplif;at 7'~11 povA~v exwllat 'TWII l'll.VTLI<WV o-n 'ITEPL !n]aov Kll.t iv ll~Utp
f.laxaJJ-ivovs ovK la-n -r(i; 'ITaV'Tt vtKav JJ-~ vavKpa-roilv-ra;;;. The statement
attributed to L. Piso (Pliny, Nat. hist. xvi. 192), that the Romans
built 220 ships against Hiero in forty-five days, reads like an anticipation of the ships built in 255/4 (i. 38.
; cf. Thiel, Hst. 70-73 against
Beloch, iv. I. 649 n. L
9. 1TO~l]<T6.p.evm 8 <Tuv9~Ka.'>: technically a foedus aequum, with
special clauses governing the conclusion of peace (Stauffenberg, 40);

<

6R

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

I. I7. (,

it had to be confirmed by the people (17. 1, d. vi. 14. 10 f.). P.'s

figure for the tribute is probably Fabius' and is preferable to the
200 talents of Eutrop. ii. 19; Oros. iv. 7 3; Diodorus' 25 talents may
be a first instalment (Diod. xxiii. 4 1), though DeSanctis (iii. I. II7)
argues that it is an annual tribute in addition to the indemnity. The
treaty was renewed in 248, when any outstanding tribute was cancelled (Zon. viii. 16) ; and Diod. xxiii. 4 I can hardly be right in
stating that it was only established for fifteen years in the first
instance, since this was not Roman practice (Taubler, 91 f.). Hiero
kept Syracuse, Acrae, Leontini, Megara, Helorus, and Neaetum,
with Tauromenium (Diod. xxiii. 4 r); later he had Erbessus (Livy,
xxiv. 30. ro) and perhaps Centuripa (Lenschau, RE, 'Hieron (IJ)',
col. 1507) and other places {Stauffenberg, 46). Cf. Beloch, iv. 1. 65o
n. I. The prisoners had probably been taken from Ap. Claudius outside Messana (15. r-n n.).
10-11. P.'s praise of Hiero for his pro-Roman policy probably goes
back to Fabius. He had in fact much greater independence than the
Italian socii, and during the first two Punic wars Roman control was
hardly noticeable: cf. Beloch, iv. 1. 65o; Stauffenberg, 40 ff. If he
was debarred an independent foreign policy, he enjoyed Roman
protection (d. 62. R), and was unhampered in internal affairs. On
the honours received from the Greeks cf. vii. 8. 6, t:vpyt:-nKW'1'a.'1'o<; ~<:at
u\of>ot6raros yt:voJLt:to<; t:ls 'Toik "EJ..J..T)t'a>; on his gifts to Rhodes in
227 after the earthquake see v. 88. 5-8. He may also have taken part
in the Olympic Games, following the precedent of Hicro I (Paus.
vi. 15. 6: statues at Olympia). See further, 83. 2-4.

17. 1. SUo tt6vov <M'pnTI1rreoa.: 'only two legions'. In fact two consuls
and four legions were sent ( 6), perhaps after the Punic preparations
( 3) became known (Meltzer, ii. 27o). This information may come
from Fabius (Gelzer, Hermes, 1933. 139), but the reference to Carthaginian reinforcements is probably from Philinus (Bung, 82). On
the Carthaginian use of mercenaries see Griffith, 207 ff.
5. TTJV Twv ~Kpa.ya.vTivwv 'll'OALV: with fewer and inferior forces the
Carthaginians restricted themselves to holding strong points, as in
the war with Pyrrhus. Acragas (Agrigentum), lying midway on
the south-west coast, was the second city of Sicily: cf. ix. 27. Diod.
xxiii. 4 :z, 5 supplements P. with details of further Roman activity
after the peace with Syracuse: Segesta and Halicyae came over
voluntarily (and became 'ciuitates sine foedere immunes et Iiberae',
Cic. Verr. iii. 6. 1.3; on the Segestan claim to kinship with Aeneas
(Zon. -..iii. 9; cf. Cic. Verr. iv. 33 72) see Frank, CAH, vii. 676). The
Romans took several unknown places, but were repulsed from
Adranum and Macella (see 24. 2 n.); on Camarina see r6. 3 n.
6. ot p.v 0'1'pa.T11 yol l!.vnKEXwpfjKELO"a.v: M'. Valerius Maximus

I. 17. 6

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

triumphed, 17 )larch 262, 'de Poenis et rege Siculor. Hierone' (Act.

tr.), having returned to Rome otd r6v xetp.Wva (Zon. viii. ro): avaxo.lpef:v = decedere. The new consuls for A.U.c. 492
z6z/1 B.C. are
L. Postumius L.f. L.n. Megellus and Q. Mamilius Q.f. M.n. Vitulus.
17. 7.-19. 15. The capture of Agrigentum. It seems likely that this
account goes back to Philinus, the historian from Agrigentum, who
is the basis of Diodorus' account in xxiii. 7~8, tl>tAtva;; 8 o }~xpa
yavrf~os lcrroptKOS" avEypdtfoa-ro. But Diodorus' account survives only
fragmentarily, and it is clear that P. has rejected some of his
statistics (e.g. the exaggerated figure of roo,ooo Roman troops). The
detailed comparison of the two versions in Bung, 84-85, is therefore
not very enlightening; but the complete rejection of Philinus as
P.'s source (Pcdech, REA, 1952, 252-3) is over-sceptical.
17. 8. ev o~<:T~ crTa8(o~~: i.e. c. mille passt,s. In xxxiv. 12. 3-4 a mile
is 8! stades, in iii. 39 8 the looser equivalent is employed. The
approximation to a Roman measurement here is no proof of the use
of Fabius: for Fabius, >vTiting in Greek, probably used stades (cf.
Dion. Hal. i. 79 4).
Topography. Agrigentum lay about z! miles from the coast, on
a height sloping steeply to the north and east, and gradually to
the west. Its natural defences were strengthened by the rivers
Hypsas (F. Drago) to the west and Acragas (F. S. Biagio) to the
east, which almost surround the town and meet just below it. Cf.
Hiilsen, RE, 'Akragas', cols. II87 ff. (with sketch-map); Holm,
Gesch. Sic. iii. 345-6; De Sanctis, iii. r. rzo n. 49 Below, ix. 27. I-{).
There is a convenient sketch-map in J. B. Bury, History of Greece3
(London, I95I), 636.
9. &.tcJ.La~ouo-11~ TTl~ Toll crtTou cruvaywyfj~: i.e. the month was
June. Since the consuls proceeded with haste ( 8: cfopwres} they
could easily begin the siege within six weeks of entering office on
r .May. Beloch (iv. 2. 287) argues that the siege of Agrigentum began in
June z6r (cf. Heuss, HZ, 169, 1949-_o;o, 490 n.); but it seems improbable
that z62 passed without any significant action, and P.'s chronology
offers no difficulties on the assumption that the calendar was running
roughly equinlent to the Julian: DeSanctis, iii. r. 254.
11. ij Twv MhcrJ.LwV lhacpopO.: 'the excellence of their institutions': cf.
vi. 56. 6 o~acpopdv ... rrp6;; T(j f3l>..nov. These reflections are paralleled
in vi. 37 u-r2, and arc probably P.'s own, not from Fabius (so De
Sanctis, iii. 1. 225). In such cases as P. here mentions, death was
inflicted by tvAo~<:orrla,Justuarium (vi. 37. 9).
13. 3crov oorrw lho.cnrwVTO.S TOV xO.po.tc(l.: 'when they were about to
tear Up the Stockade' (whereaS in IO xapa{; lS 'camp'); cf. iii. 102. 4,
v. i3 10. The Carthaginian error on this occasion is reprehended by
the tenth-century Anonymus de obsidione toleranda, uo-r2 (ed.
70

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

I. rg.

II

Van den Berg); and Schweighaeuser contrasts the Roman discipline

which forbade plundering until the signal was given (x. rs. 4 ff.).
18. 2. To :A.c:rt<AfJTrLEiov: identified by the Duke of Serradifalco
(Le antichita della Sicilia (Palermo, 18.34-42), iii. 28, 75) as the temple
beside the church of S. Gregorio, which lies to the south of the town
between the two rivers. (But Holm, Gesch. Sic. iii. 345-6, seeks it
east of the town.) The cult-statue was the work of Myron (Cic. Verr.
iv. 43 93), and represented Apollo. The other force camped to the
west of Agrigentum, for Heradea :Minoa (cf. 25. 9; Diod. xvi. 9 4)
lay about Ii miles north-west up the coast.
5. ELS 'Ep~fJc:r6v: ml p.aKpav from Agrigentum, and so not the Sicel
town near Syracuse. It is also mentioned by Diod. xxiii. 8. 1 (offer
to betray it to Hanno) and 9 5 (its abandonment in 258). Meltzer,
ii. 563; Ziegler, RE, 'Herbessos (r)', col. 530. The site is unknown.
6. mfvn l''lvas: i.e. about November (q. 9 n.).
7. :A.vv(Pas b TETayJ.L!vos irri Twv rroAtopKOUflEVWV 8uvci.J.LE:WV: the
son of Gisgo (Zon. viii. IO), who as admiral occupied Messana after
Hiero's victory at the Longanus (9. 8 n.). 0. Leuze (Klio, I9IO,
427-8) argued plausibly that P.'s apparent interest in Hannibal (cf.
I9. 7 19. !2-14, 21. 6, 2I. II (doublet of Mylae), 23. 7. 24. s-6, 4.3 4) is
taken from Philinus, who felt a proper concern for the fate of the
defender of Agrigentum.
8, ~vvwva TOV ETepov O"Tf><lTTJYOV: called 6 1TpEa(jifrpos by Diod. xxiii.
8. I, who brings him with his army from Africa. He is Hanno. son
of Hannibal, who fortified Agrigentum in 264, made the Punic
treaty with Hiero (u. 7 n.), and besieged Messana (Diod. xxiii. 1.
I-3), where he was victorious according to Philinus (15. z), and
defeated according to P. (rz. 3). Philinus records (Diod. xxiii. 8. r)
that Hanno brought so,ooo foot, 6,ooo horse, and 6o elephants;
Orosius (iv. 7 5) gives .3o,ooo, r,soo, and 30 respectively. P. quotes
a figure of about so for the elephants only. Cf. Lenschau, RE,
'Hanno (7)', cols. 2.354-5; De Sanctis, iii. r. r2o n. so.
9. rrpasu<om)c:ras K<lTEO"XE 'Ti)v TWv 'Ep~flc:r~wv rroAtv: by collusion
with a party within (Diod. xxiii. 8. r, Philinus). The subsequent
help to Rome from Hiero is also mentioned by Zon. viii. ro; the
source will again be Philinus (DeSanctis, iii. I. 225-6).
19. 5. TOV M+ov TOV KO.AOUJLEVOV T opov: otherwise unknown.
Meltzer, ii. 273 places Hanno 'on the eastern slopes of Monserrato'
(which lies to the west of Agrigentum).
6. 8Uo l'fivas: i.e. December 262-January 26r, the
having
lasted some seven months (six in Diod. xxiii. 9 I).
9. Tovs fl'c:rOo+6pou~: probably Gauls: see ii. 7 7 n.
11. ot ... rrAEic:rTm 8te+90.p'lc:rav: according to Zon. viii. 10 Hanno

7I

I.

Ig. II

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

abandoned his army, but Philinus (Diod. xxiii. 8. I) made his losses
in two engagements only 3,ooo foot and :zoo horse killed, and 4,ooo
prisoners (whereas the Roman losses for the whole siege are put at
3o,ooo foot and 540 horse-if the reading can be accepted : Diod.
xxiii. 9 r). P. has followed here a source (Fabius), which exaggerates
Hanno's losses: and it i..;; significant that neither consul triumphed
(Beloch, iv. I. 653 n. I; De Sanctis, iii. I. I2I n. 52). Similarly,
Philinus ((tp. Diod.) records only the death of 8 elephants and the
wounding of 33 (unless Diodorus is abridged).
12. L'lpiJ.T)aE EK Tfj~ ttOAEws: the escape of zo,ooo men by this
stratagem (which is recorded by Frontinus, Strat. ii. r. 4) Beloch
(iv. r. 653 n. r) rejects as derived from Fabius and of disconcerting
naivete. He would make Hannibal's escape the direct consequence
of the dubious conflict with Hanno. The annalistic version made
Hannibal, too, suffer heavy losses at the hands of Romans and
Agrigentines (Zon. viii. ro): cf. 14.
15. 1TOAAWV O"WIJ.aTWV iyeVOVTO ey~~:pa.TEt~: Diod. xxiii. 9 1
and Oros. iv. 7 6 both agree that the whole population was enslaved,
and Diodorus puts it at 25,ooo. The original so,ooo (r8. 7) had
evidently been reduced by deaths and the escape of the Punic
garrison (if indeed the garrison was included in the so,ooo; T. Frank
(CAH, vii. 677) assumes it to be excluded). The prosperity of the
city during the Second Punic War is no reason for rejecting the
account of its sack and the enslavement of its population now (with
Beloch, iv. r. 653 n. 1). It was common Roman practice to treat a
conquered city in this way, and the siege had been severe. The
effects of the Roman action on the attitudes of other Sicilians are
discussed by T. Frank (CAH, vii. 677): 'A stubborn hatred displaced
goodwill, and henceforth Rome had to fight for every advance and
guard her gains with wasteful garrisons.'
20. 1-2. oOK iiJ.EVov l,-l. TWV E~ O.pxfis Aoy~criJ.wV KTA.: the capture of
Agrigentum leads the Romans to aspire to the expulsion of the
Carthaginians from Sicily; and their failure to take the sea-board
towns then motivates the building of a fleet ( 7-8). This account is
accepted by Frank (CAH, vii. 678): 'This decision could only mean
that Rome had determined to rule subject-peoples, and therefore
had frankly adopted from her foes the policy of imperialism from
which Sicily had already suffered too severely.' But comparison
with the similar motivation attributed to the Romans after the battle
of Telamon (ii. JL 7) suggests that the schematic development of
Roman ambitions may in fact be the interpretation of P.; for the
annalistic tradition (which perhaps reproduces Fabius) attributes
the decision to build a fleet to an earlier stage in the war, since it
figures in the reply of Ap. Claudius' envoys, and M'. Valerius Messalla
72

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

I.

20.9

strongly favours such a policy (Diod. xxiii. 2; ined. Vat. 4). Further,
Diodorus (xxiii. I . 4) shows Hiero reproaching Ap. Claudius with
concealing imperialistic ambitions under a pretence of aiding those
in trouble. In making the adoption of a naval policy the turningpoint of the warP. is undoubtedly right; but he may exaggerate the
importance of the capture of Agrigentum. That the consuls received
no triumph for its capture (Eutrop. ii. 19. 3 may be neglected; cf.
Bung, 88 n. 3) is not without significance; and there is a good deal
to be said for the argument of Heuss (HZ, 169, I949-5o, 488 ff.), that
what really inspired the Roman naval policy was alarm at the
Carthaginian reinforcement of the forces in Sardinia in z6z before
the assault on Agrigentum (Zon. viii. ro), and at the ravaging of the
Italian coast by Hannibal (Zon. viii. ro; cf. Oros. iv. 7 7) and
Hamilcar (Zon. viii. 10). These attacks on Italy are confirmed in 7,
and suggest that Roman motives, though no doubt mixed, were
concerned more with defensive measures than P.'s version implies.
2. I'Eyci>."lv ~'ll'8o<7\v a.\nwv AYJijsE0"6a.~ TO. trpayl'a.Ta.: for the imperialist
note cf. Diod. xxiii. 1. 1, LLKeAla 1raawv Twv n]awv Ka.MlaTTJ !J1Td.pxe,, W>
p.ey&.Aa OVVafLeVTJ avp.f3&JJ...ea8aL 1Tpos: a~eTJO'LV 1,yEp.ovlar;. On the Hellenistic use of nl 1rpd.yp.aTa = 'the State' (usually of a kingdom: cf.
ii. 4 7) see Holleaux, Etudes, iii. zzs-{j; Bickermann, Gnomon, I9JZ,
426 ff.
4. AEOKLos Oua.>.p,os tca.1 Thos 'OTa.tci>.tos: L. Valerius M.f. Ln.
Flaccus and T. Otacilius C.f. M'.n. Crassus, coss. A.U.C. 493 =
z6rfo B.C. Their predecessors (17. 6) had wintered in Messana (Zon.
viii. ro).
6. tro>.>.a.t I'EV tro>.ns trpooul0EVTO KTA.: the details of this year,
dismissed by P. in 3--7, are mainly lost, since Diod. xxiii. 9 z-5
compresses several years' activity together. The destruction of 4,ooo
unreliable Gallic mercenaries by a trick of Hanna (Frontin. Strat.
iii. r6. 3: cf. Diod. xxiii. 8. 3) belongs to this year (though Zon. viii.
10 attributes it to Hanna's successor, Hamilcar); and the surrender
of a Roman force (Frontin. Strat. iv. I. 19) may also go here (De
Sanctis, iii. I. 124 n.; contra Meltzer, ii. 564).
9. 'll'EifTTlp~tc&. l'~v itca.Tov, Eftcocn S TpL1\pns: the nature of the warships known to the Greeks as triereis, tetrereis, and pentereis (and
usually translated in their Latin forms as triremes, quadriremes, and
quinqueremes} is still hotly disputed. Since ]HS, 1905, IJ7 ff. Tarn
has argued that a trireme had three groups of rowers at the same
level, one man to an oar, viz. 8po.vnu. aft, {t1ytot amidships, and
8a.Aap.tol fore; but this view has been successfully challenged by
J. A. Morrison, who argues for oarsmen at three levels, thranites
rowing over an outrigger, zygii over the gunwale, and thalamii
through oar-ports. The controversy can be followed in Tarn, CR,
1906, 75: Mariner's Mirror, 1933, 52-74, 457-6o; CR, 1941, 89-90;
73

I.

20.

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

Morrison, Mariner's ~Mirror, 1941, 14-44; CQ, 1947, 122-35; R. C.

Anderson, Mariner's Mirror, 1933, 237-8; 1941,314-23; H. I. Chapelle,
Jfariner's Mirror, 1933, 342-3; F. Brewster, Harv. Stud., 1933, 205-25.
It is agreed that the quinquereme was rowed five men to an oar,
and it is probable that the quadrireme was likewise rowed four men
to an oar. Tarn, HMND, IJI n. I, has argued that in Alexander's
time the Athenians
some quadriremes (and also seven
quinqueremes), the oars of which were interchangeable with those
of a trireme; hence these larger ships were also rowed with groups
of oars, one man to an oar. But the evidence (IG, ii 2 r632, 11. 25,
233, 336: date 323/2 B.c.) is not decisive (d. Morrison, CQ, 1947,
132-5), and in any case, as Tarn says, it would not tell us anything
about the Hellenistic quadriremes. The likelihood is that for boats
bigger than a trireme the principle of several men to an oar was
adopted from the outset. See further, v. 62. 3 n.
P. frequently uses 7TEvr1}pYJS to include other types of ship, since
from z6o onwards the 7TEvr1}pYJS was the R.oman warship par excellence
(and probably the only type built at Rome): Tarn, ]HS, 1907,
Of the ships here mentioned, the twenty triremes are probably the
equivalent of the old duumviral squadron ( 13 n.), and the 100
quinqueremes modern vessels on the Punic model: Tarn, ibid. so.
The figures of Orosius (130 ships) and Florus (16o
may be
neglected.
12, T~V KllTtL lla).!lTT!lV tlYEflOV(av lJ.O,plTOV: 'what is called the COmmand of the sea at this time only meant that the Power who claimed
it had a good prospect, if challenged, of getting a fleet to sea, which
might defeat the challenger' (Tarn, HMND, 142). For many years
Carthage had had no challenger.
13. oox otov KO.Taq,pa.KTOS . ooo' ets: cf. Flor. i. r8. 5-7; Zon. viii.
ro. The crossing referred to is that of Ap. Claudius in 264 (u. 9 n.).
t<ard<fopat<ro~ vfjES" are larger, decked warships, Latin constratae, tectae
naues, including anything larger than a trireme: Tarn, Mariner's
Mirror, 1933, 68; below, v. 62. 3, xvi. 2. 10. 1r/..oa 11-at<pa, naues longae,
are warships in general: cf. Herod. v. 30. 4; Time. i. 14. r. M11-f3o~ are
light, undecked ships: i. 53 9, ii. 3 8, etc. P.'s account-perhaps
from Fabius--reinforces the intended expression of wonder at the
Roman achievement. Since JII there had been a naval board of
dumnui1i nauales (Livy, ix. 30. 4), probably controlling a squadron
of twenty ships (Tarn, ] HS, 1907, 49); see Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 57981 ; one had been attacked off Tarentum in 282 (Livy, ep. I2; Zon.
viii. 2; App. Samn. 7 I, l1r~ t<ara<fopdt<rwv 8.t<a vewv-were they really
'cataphracti'? See above 6. 5 n.). But these ships may well have
been allowed to decay since that date (cf. Thiel, Hist. 26 n. 71). The
four quaestores classici set up in 267 (Livy, ep. IS; Lydus, de mag.
i. 27) are probably to be associated with the auxiliary system based

74

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

l.

20.

I5

on the socii nauales (on whom see Thiel, Hist. 33 n. 89). Whether the
nauis Zanga which was conducting legati to Delphi in 394 {Livy,
v. 28. 2) was
a warship, we cannot be sure; but there is no
reference to
in the first treaty with Carthage {cf. iii. 23.
2 n.). The probability is that prior to the First Punic War there was
and that ships were put in commission only when
no permanent
required.
14. n-apa TapaVT(vwv KTA.: of these cities Locri had probably joined
the Roman alliance with Rhegium (7. 6-13 n.); after twice deserting
to Pyrrhus she returned to Rome in 275. Tarentum and Velia (Elea)
became allies by 272 at the latest; and the Xeapolitan alliance was
in 327. As socii nattales these south Italian towns were exempt from
the military levy but required from time to time to provide ships.
They must have furnished the bulk of the sailors for the new fleet,
and probably undertook much of its construction: De Sanctis, iii.
I. 125; Thiel, Hist. 46-47. Their pentekontors were swift boats, naucs
actuariae, with twenty-fi \'C men at single oars on either side; Tam,
..'!ariner's Mirror, 1933, 59
15. -rrapaS~:tyflan xpwfi~:voL: cf. auct. de tf-ir. ill. 37. 4; Enn. Ann. fg.
225 V. 2 This story of the use of a captured Punic ship as a pattern
probably comes from Fabius {Gelzer, Hermes, 1933, 139: contra
Laqueur, RE, 'Philinus', col. 2184, who thinks rather of Philinus,
who in turn used annalists). It is a particular instance of the popular
communis locus that the Romans were especially successful at learnrr, fg. 179), which
ing from, and improving on, their foes (cf. vi.
87 F 59; Athen.
appears also in Diod. v. 40. r, xxiii. 2. r; Poseid.
vi. 273 D, E.; SaiL Cat. sr. 37-39; Cic. Tusc. i. I; de rc pub. ii. 30; Varro
apud Serv. ad A en. vii. 176. See Gelzer, loc. cit.; P6schl, 79 n. (who
gives examples of the same theme applied to Greeks borrowing from
barbarians). For this reason the present incident is usually regarded
(cf. DeSanctis, iii. I. 125 n. 6r,
n. 89; Scullard, Hist.
argued that
(a) models must already have been available from Tarentum or

(b)

incident seems to foreshadow the imitation of the quinquereme of Hannibal taken at Lilybaeum in 250 {cf. 47, 59 8;
Zon. viii. r5).

On the other hand, the Punic vessels may well have been preferable
to those of Syracuse or Tarentum, even if those cities had quinqueremes, for which there is no evidence; and if the Romans could
copy Hannibal's ship later, they could copy a Punic model now.
Indeed, careful scrutiny of enemy weapons has always been a
normal feature of warfare. See, for a good discussion, Thiel, Hist.
I7I ff. But in I6 P. clearly exaggerates the importance of the
75

I.

20.

15

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

incident, which represents the irrational side of Roman success;

for this is due to a combination of rational and irrational factors:
d. 6. 7-8, yEVVa.lws- 1Tapa36ews-, 24. r, wapa36Gw> . JmrppwaBT)rrav. Cf. 1. 4 n.
21. 1. ~SISa.aKov KW'ITTJXa.Tttv: this practice wa..c; essential, as
rowing quinqueremes is quite different from rowing triremes. This
occasion seems to be referred to in Enn. Attn. fgs. 227, 230, 23I V. 2
Naevius, fg. 36 Baehr. is from a tragedy and irrelevant here. For
training on land cf. Polyaen. iii. II. 17 and other examples quoted
by Thiel, Hist. 172 n. 345; he regards it as normal.
3. 8.11-n Tlf! auvnXEa{Hjva.t: within sixty days, according to the tradition in Pliny, Nat. hi st. xvi. 192; Flor. i. r8. 7; Oros. iv. 7. 8.
4. rvcuos Kopv~XLos: the consuls for A.U.C. 494 = z6o/s9 B.C. were
Cn. Cornelius L.f. Cn.n. Scipio Asina and C. Duilius M.f. M.n.:
:Munzer, RE, 'Cornelius (341}', cols. q85-7; 'Duilius (3)', cols. 1777-8r.
The famous inscription on the columna rostrata (CIL, i:t, z. 25 = ILS,
65) attributes the institution of the fleet to Duilius; perhaps, therefore, both consuls shared the responsibility, though Scipio was in
command at first.
5. rrpoo"!l'EO'OUO'T]S s O.UT!f! rrpO.~ews 'ITEpl TfjS rroXEws: 'when
an opportunity occurred of obtaining the city ... by treachery'.
On F.'s use of rrpfi.Gt>, 'treacherous attack', see the discussion in
Feyel, 149 f. The town of Lipara lay on the east coast of the island
of that name, the largest of the Aeolian Islands; it was in Carthaginian hands. The Hannibal who sends Boodes to its defence is the
late commander at Agrigentum (r8. 7 n.), who had since been
ravaging the Italian coast (2o. r-2 n.).
6. TTJS yEpouu~a.s: there were two Councils at Carthage, a smaller
(probably of thirty) and a larger of several hundred members (a
system found elsewhere only at Cyrene: Ehrenberg, Karthago, 24):
P. calls them the yepovula and aVyKATJTOS" (x. r8. I, xxxvi. 4 6; Livy,
xxx. r6. 3), but his usage does not distinguish clearly to which he is
referring; and occasionally he describes one or the other as rrw3pwv.
Here Boodes would seem likely to be a member of the more select
body. See Meltzer, ii. 47o-1; De Sanctis, iii. 1. 5o-51; ClermontGanneau, ]ourn. Sav., 1921, 223 ff.
7. rra.pSwKEv o.uTov Tot~ 'll'oXEp.Lots: hence his nickname, Asina
(Pliny, Nat. kist. viii. 169). He returned to Rome under an exchange
of prisoners before 254 (Livy, xxii. 23. 6; Fast. Cap. for 254, when he
is again consul). viii. 35 9 suggests, rather differently, that he was
the victim of Punic treachery (the annalistic version, Livy, ep. r7;
Val. Max. vi. 6, z; Flor. i. r8. u ; Eutrop. ii. zo. 2; Oros. iv. 7. 9;
App. Lib. 63; Ampel. 36. 1; Polyaen. vi. r6. 5; Zon. viii. 10), and
76

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

I. zz. 3

perhaps even that, like the other examples (except Pelopidas) here
mentioned, he perished. Probably P. is here using Philinus. In
9-12 he records what may be that writer's version of the battle of
Mylae, described in 23 after Fabius; so Beloch, iv. I. 654 n. 1; Tarn,
]HS, 1907, 51 n. 19; DeSanctis, iii. I. IZS-9 n. 73 Bung (96-97) argues
that it is Philinus' account of some minor engagement that P. is
following; and certainly a mere fifty ships and no reference to the
coruus make this look like a very queer account of Mylae. Moreover,
if Philinus appeared to P. to have omitted Mylae (as he must on
Beloch's hypothesis), it would be odd that P. never criticizes him
on that score (cf. Thiel, Hist. 122-7). On the whole, then, this is
probably to be regarded as a separate engagement.
11. TO T~~ 'ITa.Ma.s nKpWT~plov: it is not clear what P. or his source
understood by this: perhaps the Taurianum promontory on the west
coast of south Bruttium between Tropaea and Herculis Portus
(modern C. Vaticano).
22. 1. r cuov BthlOV TOY i]yoVfLEVOV Tii~ TrEtf\s 5uvafLEWS: Duilius has
already taken over his command in Sicily, and accordingly leaves
his legions in charge of military tribunes (23. 1); whereas the
annalistic version brings him news of Scipio's catastrophe while still
at Rome, and accordingly he hands over to the praetor urbanus
(Zon. viii. u. 1). For the possibility that the praetor took over from
the military tribunes see Cichorius, 32 f.; Thiel, Hist. 81 n. 58. For
other variants in the tradition see 24. 2 n.
3. Tou~ iwLKATJ9VTa.s KOpo.Ko.S: d. 27. I z. Tarn has argued that
the cor1Uts (Frontin. Strat. ii. 3 24; Flor. i. 18. 9; au ct. deuir. ill. 38. 1;
Zon. viii. n), which is not heard of again after Ecnomus, is due in
its traditional form to Fabius Pictor, and that it is no more than an
1mproved form of the grapnel used by the Athenians in 413 (Thuc.
vii. 41. z; Aristoph. Eq. 762, with scholia; Pliny, Nat. hist. vii.
209), and commonly employed in the Second Punic War; the t<6pat<E~
used against Sex. Pompeius at Mylae in 36 were likewise grappling
irons (App. Bell. ciu. v. Io6) and Agrippa's apTTat at Naulochus was a
mere extension of these (App. ibid. n8). F.'s coruus, then, is a 'pure
myth', and must have overturned a quinquereme. Against this there
is the very circumstantial nature of F.'s description; and Thiel has
pointed out that the Roman ships at this time were heavier and
slower than they were later (<f>a:u>.wv Kal cvat<t~Twv, cf. 51. 4),
when the model was improved (59 8). Hence the coruus could be
employed now, but not later; and this explains why it disappears
from the tradition after Ecnomus. For a full discus,1.on of the problem
see Fiebiger, RE, 'corvus (3)', col. 1665; Lammert, ibid., 'korax (4)',
col. 138r; De Sanctis, iii. I. 128 n. 72; Tarn, ]HS, 1907, SI n. r9;
HMND, tn-12, 149-so; Holland Rose, The Mediterranean in the
77

I.

22. 3

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

Ancient World (Cambridge, 1933), 97--98; Thiel, 432-47; Hist. 101-28;

E. de Saint-Denis, Latomus, 1946, 359-67; 1948, 129 n. r.
In general outline P.'s account is clear. A round pole, 24 ft. high
and 3 palms, i.e. 9-10 in., in diameter, was set vertically in the ship's
prow with a pulley on top. Around the bottom of this pole was fixed
a gangway (P. calls it a KALj.tag, 'scaling-ladder'), 36 ft. by 4 ft., of
planks nailed across each other and made to swivel around the pole,
which passed through an oblong hole (?Tapap..r]las: 6), set 12 ft.
from one end of the gangway. To the far end of the KALp..ag (which
had a railing the height of a man's knees) was attached an iron spike,
with a ring on the upper side, whence a rope rose to a pulley at the
top of the pole, thus enabling the gangway to be raised into the air.
When the gangway was dropped, either directly beyond the prow,
or sideways if the ships were broadside on, upon the enemy's deck,
the spike became embedded and so the Romans could board. So
much is clear. But there are two possible ways in which the gangway
may have been connected to the deck and the pole. Either it was
roped down at the inside end, and rose and fell in a piece about the
pole, in which case the presence of the pole prevented its being
raised to a completely vertical position; or it was hinged at the point
of intersection with the pole, and only 24 ft. of the gangway was
actually lifted into the air, rising when vertical to the same height
as the pole. Thiel, who formerly defended the second of these alternatives, now (Hist. ror-28) inclines to the first (proposed independently
by H. Bolkestein and H. T. Wallinga), largely because hinges
(which P. nowhere mentions) would be a source of weakness on
board ship; and on the whole his second thoughts seem the more
convincing.
7. Tals ouorrouKals I-1TJxavfJcrow: the reference is clearly to a
resemblance between the coruus as a whole (rd 0/l.ov) and some kind
of device for crushing corn by means of a pestle mounted on an
arm. There is no ancient evidence for such a device ; for though
Thiel (Hist. ro8-r2) would deduce its existence from a diagram
accompanying Hesiod, op. 4ZJ-s, in the codex Galeanus (illustrated
in Paley's Hesiod), since the artist 'could never have erroneously
projected it into Hesiod's text', had he not already been familiar with
it, the evidence is tenuous, especially now that Thiel himself no
longer interprets op. 424-s as a reference to acorn-grinding machine.
Nevertheless, some device more complicated than a simple pestle
(v?TEpov) and mortar {o..\p..os-)-on which see Bliimner, i. 14-15-seems
indicated, and evidence for its existence may one day be forthcoming.
8. cl.vnrrEpu].yovTES nis .. Ej.l~OAas: avn?TEpLa")'DJITES" must mean
'swinging round . . . to meet (the enemy)': Schweighaeuser
makes the ship the object, circumacta naui; but more probably it
is the coruus which is swung round to face the point of collision (cf.
78

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

I.

24 2

23. Io). Biittner-\Vobst's reading yields no sense, and a preposition

must be inserted before T(fs. Since the whole phrase aVTo71'ptayovn:>
l.p,f3oJ\as is parallel to Kani 'TT'pwppav, the preposition omitted is
probably not KaTa (Casaubon and Schweighaeuser} but 'TT'po:> (Campius) or Ei:> (Paton). The comus could not, of course, be used against
an enemy attacking on the stern; hence (as Thiel, Hist. ns. r85,
points out) its use demanded a second line of ships to protect the
stems of the first.

23. 2-10. Battle of Mylae. Mylae (modem Milazzo) lay on the neck
of a promontory on the north coast of Sicily about 25 miles west of
Pelorus (Capo di Faro): cf. 9 7, To Mul\afovmrOiov. The battle occurred
in summer 26o. The 130 Punic vessels were probably a nonnal complement prior to the war with Rome (Tarn, JHS, 1907, 49, comparing
earlier statistics in Diodorus: the latter's figure for Mylae (xxiii.
ro. r) viz. 2oo, may be neglected; De Sanctis, iii. r. IZj n. 7o). The
Punic losses were 5o ( ro) ; whether 30 or 31 of these were captured
depends on whether ativ ats ( 7) means 'including' or 'as well as'.
(The annalistic tradition offers no help, since Eutrop. ii. 20. 2 gives
31 taken and 14 sunk, Oros. iv. 7 1o gives 31 taken and 13 sunk, and
auct. de w:r. ill. 38. r gives 3o taken and 13 sunk. The columna rostrata
inscription (cf. 21. 4 n.) has a lacuna at the vital point: u[ique
nau[ eis cepe ]t cum socieis septer[esmom unam quin-] f [queresmos]que
triresmosque navels x[..... ) The Punic flagship was a hepteres,
a galley with a single bank of oars, seven men to an oar: Tarn,
HMN D, 136; it is mentioned on the columna rostrata inscription
(above) and probably was taken from Pyrrhus in the naval battle
recorded by App. Samn. r2. P. omits the total of Roman ships;
reckoning allied auxiliary ships, it probably came to about 140 (Thiel,
Hist. 84-86).
1

24. 2. n)v T AtyEaTa.iwv . 'll"o:>uop..:&a.v: Zon. viii. rr records a

Roman defeat before Segesta under a C. Caecilius, apparently about
the time of Scipio's disaster; but like P. he puts the raising of the
siege of Segesta after Mylae. The columna rostrata inscription mentions both this and the capture of Macella before the naval action:
[Secest]ano)que .............. op-]
[sidione]d exemet lecione[sque Cartaciniensis omnis]
[ma]ximosque macistr[a~tos l[uci palam post dies]
Lno]uem castreis exfociont, Macel[amque opidom ui]
[p:ucnandod cepet. enque eodem mac[istratud bene]
[r]ern nauebos marid consol primos c[eset copiasque]
Lc]lasesque nauales primos ornauet pa[rauetque], etc.
Likewise the act. tr. record Duilius' triumph de Sicul. et clas. Poenica.
79

I.

24. 2

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

It is quite possible that Duilius' land campaign in fact preceded

Mylae (De Sanctis, iii. 1. 127): it included the capture of Macella
(perhaps Macellaro, near Camporeale, about 15 miles east of Segesta:
Ziegler, RE, 'Makella', cols. 772~3), on which the Romans had made
one vain assault after the peace with Hiero (17. 5 n.; Diod. xxiii. 4 z),
and perhaps an unsuccessful attempt on Mytistratum, which
eventually fell in zs8 (Diod. xxiii. 9 3-4): De Sanctis, ibid. For a
defence of the order of events given in P. see Thiel, Hist. I87--9, who
argues that both Duilius' inscription and the act. tr. follow the order
terra marique.
3. :A.fLtAK!; oTnyfLevos ,.\ Twv 1TEtucwv 8uv6.f1twv: this Hamilcar, who succeeded Hanno after the fall of Agrigentum, and defeated
C. Caedlius (24. z n.), later plays an important role in the war. An
ancient tradition identified him with Hamilcar Barca; but in s6. I
P. introduces the latter as a new figure, and the identification (cf.
Cic. off. iii. 99; Zon. viii. 10) is to be rejected: Meltzer, ii. 570; De
Sanctis, iii. I. 124 n. 59; and (less certain) Lenschau, RE, 'Hamilkar
(6) ', cols. zJo2-J.
O"TUO"t6.tovms Tou<; aUfLf16.xous: probably Sicilians, not Italian socii
(Meltzer, ii. 282; Niese, ii. 185 n. 3). On the ensuing Carthaginian
victory see Diod. xxiii. 9 4 Despite his figure for the Roman losses
(6,ooo)-which may well be unreliable in our abridged version-it
seems likely that P. and Diodorus have the same source; and this
will be Philinus, who is more likely than Fabius to report the discreditable quarrel between the Romans and their allies (Leuze,
Klio, xgiO, 438; Bung, 1oo f. against De Sanctis, Hi. I. 133 n. 85, and
others). Paropus (a town, not a river, as Paton) is perhaps to be
identified with ruins on the R. Roccella, just west of modern
Collesano (Holm, Gesch. Sic. i. 71). The battle was probably in the
coastal plain east of Thermae (modern Tennini); its date is 26o/59.
and probably spring 259 (Duilius has apparently returned to Rome,
where he triumphed, February 259). According to Diodorus Hamilcar
followed up his success by taking a fortress called Md.,apcv (perhaps
Mazara between Selinus and Lilybaeum; Meltzer, ii. 566-7).
5-7. Hannibal in Sardinia. These paragraphs are fully discussed by
Leuze (Klio, rgro, 406-44). P.'s purpose, he points out, is not to
recount the Roman action in Sardinia so much as to round off the
story of Hannibal : hence his neglect of chronology and return to
259 in 8 (~<cml -rov (~fj;; Jvtal)'Tov). After his return to Carthage-for
a worthless anecdote on how he avoided punishment for his defeat
see Diod. xxiii. ro. I ; Val. Max. vii. 3 ext. 7; Dio, fr. 43 18; Zon.
viii. II; auct. de uir. ill. 38--Hannibal crossed to Sardinia, probably
in 258; the arrival of his squadron will have caused the return to
Rome of L. Scipio, who triumphed 'de Poenis et Sardin. Corsica
V id. mart'. (act. tr.): his achievements are celebrated in his verse
So

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

J. 24. 10

elogium (CJL. i 2 2. 8 and 9 = ILS, 2 and 3):

Hec cepit Corsica Aleriaque urbe,
dedet Tempestatebus aide mereto[d].
Scipio, who was consul in 259, is omitted by P., who is almost certainly following Philinus. Hannibal's defeat was at the hands of
C. Sulpicius Paterculus, consul in 258 (24. 9 n.), near Sulci, Zon.
viii. 12. On his crucifixion see Livy, ep. 17 (he was stoned to death
according to Orosius (iv. 8. 4)).
8. otJ8Ev a~LOV Myou: Mylae had made no fundamental change
in the situation in Sicily, and the dispersal of forces to include
Sardinia had caused some deterioration. Of the consuls for A.u.c.
495 = 259{8 B.c., L. Cornelius L.f. Cn.n. Scipio and C. Aquillius
M.f. C.n. Florus (Munzer, RE, 'Cornelius (323)', cols. 1428-31; Klebs,
RE, 'Aquilius (zo)', col. 327), the former was sent to Sardinia, the
latter to Sicily, where the Carthaginians recovered Enna and
Camarina ( 12) and, in the west, fortified Drepana and transferred
to it the population of Eryx (Diod. xxiii. 9 4). This latter step
Zonaras (viii. u) dates just prior to Florus' wintering in Sicily,
259{8 (an innovation deemed necessary to prevent Hamilcar's reducing the whole island!). On the Roman disaster at Thermae see 4
9. 1Tpoa8E~af1EVot Tous E1TtKa.9EUTcif1EVous lipxovTa.s: the consuls for
A.U.c. 496 = 258(7 B.c., A. Atilius A.f. C.n. Caiatinus and C. Sulpicius
Q.f. Q.n. Paterculus (Klebs, RE, 'Atilius (36)', cols. 2079-81; Munzer,
RE, 'Sulpicius (81)', cols. 816-17) But Sulpicius' triumph de Poeneis
et Sardeis (act. tr.) confirms Zonaras' statement (viii. 12) that he was
sent to Sardinia. In Sicily Florus appears to have been joined by
Caiatinus in the summer, where consul and proconsul attacked
Panormus together. Florus triumphed as proconsul de Poeneis IV
non. oct. (258). In Klio, 1910, 431 ff., Leuze argued unconvincingly
that 1Tpoa'fu;fdp,c:vot means 'awaiting', that Florus operated alone
until he was relieved by Caiatinus in September, and that ot arparrryot
( 10) can refer to a single general. Clearly P. is wrong, and his error
may well go back to a failure in his source (probably Fabius: Bung,
103-4) to distinguish consul and proconsul.
Sta To . . . 1ra.pa.xufla~ELV: since the attack was after Caiatinus'
arrival, i.e, ] une at the earliest, the expression cannot be pressed;
evidently the Carthaginians had made no move from their winter
quarters of 259/8.
10. 'I1T1rava.v: identical with .Etrni.va, the capture of which the abbreviated Diodorus (xxiii. 9 5) puts after that of Camarina, i.e. in 259.
Holm's identification (Gesch. Sic. iii. 347-8) with Mte Castellacio near
Termini is wholly hypothetical; but a coin showing a dolphin and a
mussel, with the legend lrANATAN, suggests thatitlayon the coast
(Holm, ibid. iii. 6o3 no. 122). Cf. Ziegler, RE, 'Hippana', col. 1662.
4866

I. 24.

It

THE FIRST Pl:NIC WAR

11. MuTT(aTpaTov had twice before been besieged by the Romalls

( 2 n.); it was now burnt, and its population enslaved (though the
Punic garrison escaped) (Diod. xxiii. 9 4; Zon. viii. II). Coins inscribed MYTI have been found near Marianopoli (near S. Caterina
Villarmosa, 30 km. west of Enna), which probably belong to this
town. Pliny, Nat. kist. iii. 91, mentions the Mutustratini as stipen; Holm, Gesclt. Sic.
dian:i. Ziegler, RE, '.Mytistraton', cols.
iii. 663.
12. "Evvav KTA.: see above 8 n. Auct. de Hir. ill. 39 describes the
recovery of Enna with much fantastic detail. Of the other noAt(fp.dma
Diod. xxiii. 9 5 mentions Camicus and Erbessus, both in the territory
of Agrigentum.
13. Amapaous eTrExelp'!}aa.v 1To1uopKEiv: evidently a failure; cf. Zon.
viii. I2, VVJmk OE J\a8wv npoKaT(1')(11 a~n}v (i.e. Amdpa.v) Kat
imgA06.Jv alqwtS!wc; noMotk OLI.!/>8tp.
25. 1. r&Los J\TLALoc;: the consuls for A.U.c. 497
257/6 B.c. were
C. A til ius M.f. M.n. Regulus and Cn. Cornelius P .f. Cn.n. Blasio
(Klebs, RE, 'Atilius (47)', cols. 2084-5; Munzer, RE, 'Cornelius (73)',
cols. 1271-2). Again the Romans concentrated all their forces on
Sicily. Blasio probably joined Caiatinus, who stayed on as praetor
(or proconsul: cf. Thiel, Hist. 2oi n. 446): Blasio's failure (cf. 6)
explains why he had no triumph, that celebrated by Caiatinus being
for his achievements in 258 ('ex Sicilia de Poeneis XIIIl k.f[ebr.]'
(act. tr.): see Broughton, i . .:208). Munzer, loc. cit., argues that Blasio
remained at Rome: but see Meltzer, ii. z87, 567; Luterbacher, Phil.,
1907, 409; De Sanctis, iii. I. I36. Thiel (Hist. 2oo-1) argues that he
was maintaining a strict defensive on the Senate's instructions;
preparations were concentrated on the next year's expedition. As
P. records, the fleet was under Regulus; the Carthaginians were
conunanded by Hamilcar (cf. 27. 6).
1Tpos TuvSa.pl8a Ka9opll-La9eis: C. Tyndaris lies about 15 miles west
of .Mylae (modern C. Tindaro). P. seems to have used Philinus here;
the engagement only just escapes being indecisive, whereas 'for an
annalist an indecisive battle is always a Roman victory' (DeSanctis,
iii. r. 226). :.\Ioreover, P.'s account differs from the Roman tradition;
Zon. viii. 12 puts both consuls in charge of the fleet; and though the
figures in Polyaen. viii. 2o (2oo Roman triremes against 8o Punic
ships) are exaggerated, it is likely that Atilius had a superiorityTarn (]HS', 1907, sz) thinks he may have had ISO ships in alL He
subsequently triumphed: 'cos. de Poeneis naualem
VIII k .. .'
(fragmentary notice in act. tr.).
7-9. The rz'val fleets, sz,mmer zs6. P.'s figures, 330 Roman and 350
Punic warships, are accepted by Gelzer (Hermes, r935, 275 n. 1),
as based on official sources: but their acceptance is not without
8z

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

I. 25. 7

difficulty. To take the Roman figures first: at Ecnomus the loss of

24 was compensated by the capture of 64 Punic vessels (2S. 14). At
the subsequent battle of C. Hermaea (J6. 10-12) the Romans had
350 ships; they had no (recorded) losses and took 114 prizes. In the
storm which followed they lost all but So of their 364 ships (37 2).
Now, if P.'s figures were consistent, there should have been 464 ships
in the storm (i.e. 350+ n4) or even 504 if one includes the 40 ships
previously left behind in Africa (zg. g). Such a total is, however,
highly improbable; and it looks as though the real Roman figure for
C. Hermaea was 25o (including the 40 based on Africa), for this
figure, together with II4 prizes, gives the required 364 for the storm
(d. Tarn, JHS, 1907, 52 ff.; DeSanctis, iii. 1. 137 n. 9S; Thiel, Hist.
84--85). What then of Ecnomus? Here the real total was probably
not 330, but 230; the larger figure, which will have come from Fabius,
may have arisen from adding in the transports (though it does not
follow that there were in fact precisely 100 of these: there were
probably about So; cf. Thiel, Hist. 85 n. 7o): 230, less 24 sunk, plus
44 out of the 64 prizes (it does not follow from 29. 1 that all the prizes
were fitted out; the Romans will have picked out the least damaged)
bring the total up to the required zso for the fleet which sailed to
C. Hermaea. Frank (CAH, vii. 681-z) has slightly different figures for
Ecnomus: zso for the Roman fleet and Punic losses amounting to
30 sunk and so captured; but he does not defend these in detail, and
the so prizes seem to be those taken from the left wing alone (zS. 12).
Here Tarn's scheme seems preferable.
The Punic figures may be from Philinus, reflecting a Punic source
(Bung, 105), or they may be Fabius', calculated in part at least on
the basis of the Roman; the latter seems more likely, for the Carthaginian 350 at Ecnomus seem to outnumber the Roman 330 ad
maiorem gloriam patriae. If the figure of zoo Punic ships at Hermaea
(36. 9) is approximately right (and 200 is about what Carthage
regularly manned in a crisis), there will have been between 200 and
250 ships at Ecnomus. Tarn prefers 200 on the grounds that (a) the
Roman figure of 230 (see above) suggests that the Romans expected
to meet no more than zoo (and in general he makes out a good case
for thinking that in this war the Romans took care to outbuild the
enemy), (b) the Roman figure of 250 at Hermaea shows that nothing
had happened in the meantime to alter that estimate. De Sanctis
(iii. I. 13S n. 9S) and Frank (CAH, vii. 6S2) prefer zso because (De
Sanctis argues) P. is likely to have been exactly 100 out; but if the
figure is from Fabius, and is designed to be larger than the Roman
total, this would of course not follow.
Tarn's scheme is not watertight; but his figures look about right
and his arguments are plausible. No help comes from the Roman
tradition. Oros. iv. S. 6 repeats P.'s figure for the Roman fleet, 330;
83

FIRST PHASE

~,r-

SECOND PHASE

-~

I
f

'-----~-----

:...(---.:------~

1...,.1 I

I I
, ~31 14
~

'
I I
--~'.(I

r
l

',,_2. . __>-

lVI_)
m. 1000

1.2.3.4. Rornan Fleet.

-- .... _
0

--------

,..,....,,.

"'

1 km.

I. II. ill. IV. Carthaginian Fleet

I. THE BATTLE OF ECNOMUS.

Based on Kromayer.

THE FIRST PUXIC WAR

I. z6. 6

Appian, Lib. 3, gives 350. Diod. xxiii. II is corrupt; and 15. 4 merely
speaks in general terms of Roman fleets of 300 ships.
8. nuxuvov . . . "EKVO .... OV: Pachynus is modern c. Passero, the
south-east promontory of Sicily; Mt Ecnomus is a hill on the right
bank of the R. Himera (modern Salso), near its mouth, today Poggio
S. Angelo or Mte Cufino above Licata. Mt Ecnomus was traditionally the place where Phalaris kept his brazen bull (Diod. xix. ro8. r),
and was famous for a Punic victory over Agathocles in JII (id. ro?ro). Hiilsen, RE, 'Eknomon', col. 2214. The relative positions of the
fleets were determined by the practice of hugging the coast, which
meant that the Romans would sail up the south coast as far as
Selinus before crossing the open sea.

26. 1-28. 14. The battle of Ecnomus. P.'s detailed account suggests
that either his source or ultimate source was an eyewitness; the
intimate knowledge of the Carthaginian dispositions points to
Philinus. In addition, however, P. appears to have used Fabius
(cf. 26. 6 n.). The Roman order has been criticized as improbable
(Tarn, HMND, 149-51; De Sanctis, iii. r. 141 n. 102; Thiel, Hist.
u9): the wedge fonnation, with the third and fourth squadrons
along the base, would have been beyond the skill of the pilots: 'no
captains, let alone Roman captains, could have kept station' (Tarn).
The essence of the formation appears to be to protect the third
squadron, which is towing the horse transports; and this would be
secured if the first two squadrons advanced ahead, slightly in
echelon, with the flanks overlapping the ends of the third squadron.
If, encouraged by the Punic tactics, the joint centre of squadrons
one and two raced ahead, a Punic observer may well have gained
the impression of the closed wedge which P. describes (Scullard,
Hist. r63; Thiel, Hist. 120). P.'s account is accepted as it stands by
Kromayer (Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abt., col. 5) and Frank (CAH,
vii. 68r). The Carthaginian tactics are not wholly clear. Thiel (Hist.
u7) argues that Hamilcar's plan was to draw the Roman first line
forward and envelop it in the rear out of reach of the corui, before
the second line (P.'s third squadron) could come up; but he has to
admit that the independent action of the two wing-commanders is
not consistent with these tactics.
26. 6. Tp~ap~o~ . . . wvo11atovTo: on the four categories of troops,
enrolled in the uelites, the hastati, the principes, TOV> o rrpea-{JvTUTOV>
el> Tov> Tpw.p{ov>, see vi. 21. 7-ro. These categories are distinguished
in age and, to some extent, in income and prestige, a distinction
which did not apply to the four squadrons at Ecnomus, who were all
picked troops (26. 5). It therefore seems probable that the name
triarii was a popular nickname given by troops to whom the sea
and its ways were still novel; and though the fourth squadron may

ss

I. zr,. 6

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

have called themselves 'the tried veterans', it is perhaps more likely

that their comrades dubbed them 'the old men'. The source here must
be Roman, i.e. Fabius. See, for fuller discussions and parallels for
such military slang, CR, 1950, 1o-1I.
7-8. Roman and Carthaginian numbers. P.'s figures of 14o,ooo
(Roman) and 15o,ooo (Carthaginian) seem to be calculated from the
numbers of ships, and probably derive from Fabius. Three hundred
rowers (which, allowing for the inclusion of officers and sailors,
would imply rather less than 30 oars per side) is acceptable as the
complement of a quinquereme (Tarn, HMND, 14o); and 120 soldiers,
raising the total complement to 420, is also reasonable-certainly
not an exaggerated figure, for we hear of 4,ooo soldiers transported
in 15 warships {Livy, xxvii. 32. 2) (cf. Thiel, Hist. :269 n. 681). P.'s
four aTpaTom:oa provide a problem. Presumably arpaTo'lTOoll here
half
translates legio (though cases occur where arpaTimOoll is
a legion, i.e. two OTpaTo'lTEOa form one legion with its
,
cf. 88. 7 n.); but it looks as if these four legions are calculated from
the 39,6oo marines implied in a fleet of 330 quiuqueremes, each
canying 120. This is indeed the basis of Meltzer's figure (ii. 290) of
4o,ooo. But, as Thiel (Hist. :w9) observes, four legions cannot have
been selected out of four legions, which is the most that can have
been in Sicily at this time; and since the quinqueremes will have had
their permanent garrison of 40 proletarians (vi. 19. 3. if indeed this
passage refers to marine service, and not to rowers; Kromayer, Phil.,
1897, 485 f.) from the Italian port, and since the real total for the
fleet was not 330, but 230 (25. 7-9 n.}, the number of forces embarked
at Ecnomus (25. 8, 26. s) will not have exceeded r8,4oo, i.e. 230 x 8o.
This is equivalent to a consular army of two legions at fullest strength.
These calculations assume that P.'s figure of 120 soldiers to a ship
is reliable; possible, though less likely, is the hypothesis that he or
his source got it by assuming an army of four legions of maximum
size, i.e. 4o,ooo including socii (vi. 20. 8) and dividing it among 330
ships. Regulus was later left behind in Africa (:zg. 9) with rs,ooo foot
and soo horse. De Sanctis (iii. r.
n. 3) takes these to be the bulk
of the army originally embarked in Sicily, and this view seems
substantially correct {see 29. 9 n.); Sicily cannot have been left
without troops.
The Punic figures are derived from the number of ships ( 8) ; they
assume the presence of marines in the same proportion as on the
Roman side, which seems unlikely since the Carthaginians were not
planning an invasion (DeSanctis, iii. I. 139 n.
11. Tao; . . . f:~l)pt:lS: 'sixes', i.e. large
decked, with a single
bank of oars, six men to an oar (not 'six-banked galleys' (Paton)).
ot O'TpanlYo(: the consuls for A.U.c. 498
256/5 B.C., M. Atilius M.f.
L.n. Regulus (suffectus in place of Q. Caedicius) and L. Manlius A.f.
86

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

LzJ.II

P.n. Vulso Longus (Klebs, RE, 'Atilius (sr)', cols. zo86-92; Munzer,
RE, '11anlius (10r)', col. 1225). Regulus was probably brother of the
consul of 257.
12. Ka.TO. J.L~a.v va.uv: 'in single file', cf. 13 lrrl p.lav vauv, 'in line one
deep'.
Ta.ts S trpwppo.ts ElxEv: 'the ships were ranged one behind the
other with their prows pointing outwards'; but tgw must in fact
mean 'towards the open sea' and not towards the ship in front
(which would have involved a converging rnovement)-so Paton,
correctly. The ships were in fact in echelon.
13. lv J.1TW1T"!!: 'facing the front', i.e. in contrast to the first two
squadrons; cf. v. 8z. ro, where cavalry are placed lv p.HdJrr<p in contrast to elephants iv hnKap.rr{<p (on this phrase cf. 27. 4 n.).
16. KoiAov . O"TEpEbv: 'hollow ... compact', i.e. the front part of
the formation enclosed an area of empty sea, whereas the base consisted of two lines, with horse-transports between.
27. 1. trnpa.Ko.Aeaa.vTE'S: the Roman motives given in 26. I are now
put into the mouth of the Carthaginian commander; the source may
be Philinus (Bung, uo n., regards the whole of the implied strategy
as a Polybian anachronism).
4. v ttrucnJ.11Tit@ vuov 1Tpos TT-jv yf\v: 'reached shoreward at an angle
with the rest' (Paton): the angle is probably forwards, so that the end
of the line is ahead of the centre. Cf. Xen. C_vrop. vii. 1. s-6. where
forces irrKap.nTov t:ls: KVKAwaLv, w(]ne.p yap.p.a lxaTpwfhv T~v la.vTwv
nl~w 7TOL~(]G.JITIES, W> mi.vToO~:v ap.a p.axotVTO. But the Punic line was
not necessarily at right angles to the centre, i.e. advancing in
column. See further v. 82. 9 n.
5. 1T(1TAovs: naues rostratas (Casaubon): cf. so. 6. Also found in
Philo Mech. Belop. 104. 16.
'Avvwv 6 .. Aetcp9ds Tft 1Ta.pa.Tn~e~: cf. 19. 8 ff.
6. :AJ.LLAKa.s o 1TEpt TT-jv T vv5a.p(5a. v<lUJ.ia.x~aa.s: cf. 25. 1~4 (name
omitted): he is the Hamilcar of 24. 3 The left and right wings are
so named, excluding the squadron on the left ( 4), and represent
the two halves of the main line: hence Harnilcar is KaTa p.i(n]V r~v
TG.gtv. We are not told who commanded the real left flank.
8. EK 1TnpayyE:AJ.inTos KAwavTwv 1Tpos cpvy~v: 'Ecnomus is Cannae
with the result reversed' (Tarn, HMND, rso). For Hannibal's successful use of the yielding centre at Cannae see iii. IIS; at Ecnornus
the centre proved too weak to hold the Romans. Here P.'s authority
seems to be in touch with the Punic plan, and is probably Philinus
(unless P. has deduced the plan from the subsequent Punic resistance
( Io)).
11. EtctrEp~trAeovTes: cf. 23. 9 At the battle of Chios (xvi. 4 14) the
Rhodian plan was to pierce the enemy's line by the manceuvre

l. 2].

II

THE FIRST PUNIC \VAR

known as SdK1TAovs, so putting his oars out of action, ftET<z S~ Taih"a

m:i:Aw wrrtEpmAlovns ('turning and sailing round again', Paton), to
ram the enemy from the stern. Ecnomus, like Chios, was a battle
between navies built for ramming and for boarding respectively.
28. 2. 1ra.payeyovoTES e~s f1ETW1TOV: 'deploying into line' (Paton), i.e.
by abandoning its position 11 mKaft1T{lfJ. The third squadron was
exposed by the advance of the first two against the Carthaginian
centre.
6. ol. yap 1rpwTo~ llu:Kp(9rJC7a.v: the sense is that where three
equally matched struggles begin successively, it is natural that an
issue should be reached in the one which began first, i.e. in that
between the Roman vanguard and Hamilcar commanding the Punic
centre: see Schweighaeuser, ad. lac. OtEKp{OTJaav may mean 'separated' (Paton, Shuckburgh) or (d. ii. 22. II, iii. III. 2) 'brought the
issue to a decision'.
10. O"uyKEKAe~O"f1Evov 1rpos TU yft: 'As fleets hugged the coast whenever they could, a really decisive victory meant driving the enemy
ashore' (Tarn, HMND, ISo). On this occasion the arrival of the
consuls turned the tables; and, of the 64 Punic ships taken, so were
from this left wing which failed to get out to sea. On the few that
escaped see Frontin. Strat. ii. I3 Io.
14. Losses: cf. 25. 7---9 n. P. has exact Roman and only approximate
Carthaginian figures (imp Tptcf.KovTa) : his source is evidently Fabius.
The same figures, with slight variants, due to careless transmission,
appear in the annalistic tradition: Oros. iv. 8. 6 and Eutrop. ii. 2I.
I (Punic losses 64: Roman losses 22 (Eutrop.)); auct. de uir. ill. 40. I
(63 Punic ships taken).
29. 1. civ~yoVTo , . AL~OT)V: Zonaras' account of the Roman fleet's
returning to Messana after Ecnomus (viii. 12) is not inconsistent with
P.; and the Punic peace overtures mentioned by Zonaras, ibid. (d.
Dio, fg. 43 22; Val. Max. vi. 6. 2) may also be genuine (though the
account includes details that are manifestly invented).
2. TT]v aKpa.v TtlV 'Epf10.LUV EnOVOf1U~OI'EVT)V: modern c. Bon (Ras
Adder), which lies north-east of Carthage; on the identification of
the capes in this area see iii. 22. s n. (a).
TT]v ::A.0'1T(Iia KaAouf1EvT)V 1roAw: Aspis, the Roman Clupea (though
Ptol. Geog. iv. 3 2 seems to distinguish the two), lay a little south of
C. Bon, on the east side of the peninsula, and somewhat north of
(modern) Menzel Temine; cf. Lehmann-Hartleben, 246. From here
the expedition could cut the communications between Carthage and
her rich possessions to the south-east (Frank, CAH, vii. 682-3).
9. Regulus' forces: 15,ooo foot and soo horse represent the bulk of the
legionaries and probably the whole of the cavalry originally embarked
88

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

l. JO. ]

at Ecnomus (on the horse see Thiel, Hist. 216-I7). Probably between
2,ooo and 3,ooo marines went down in the 24 ships lost at Ecnomus
(28. 14) ; and the original total of soldiers on board was c. 27 ,6oo (i.e.
9,2oo permanent garrison from Italy and c. I8,4oo embarked in Sicily
from the legions there). Since 40 ships remained behind in Africa, the
210 which returned (for the total of 250 see 25. 7--9 n.) would require
8,4oo marines and the 40 at Clupea some I,6oo, as permanent garrison,
i.e. Io,ooo in all. This figure, taken from the c. 25,ooo which survived
Ecnomus, gives almost exactly Regulus' rs,ooo. Manlius' return is
dated to autumn (256) by Zon. viii. I3 He triumphed: 'cos. de
Poeneis naualem egit VIII k .. .' (act. tr.).
30-34. Reg1dus in Africa: in contrast to 29, which is written from
the Roman point of view, and probably comes from Fabius, chs. 3o34 seem to follow Philinus almost exclusively, as can be seen from
a comparison "'ith Diodorus, from the stress on the Carthaginian
point of view, and from the exaltation of Xanthippus, a Greek (like
Philinus) in Punic service. Cf. De Sanctis, iii. r. 226-7; Bung, I I r-rs
(contra Laqueur, RE, 'Philinus', col. 2186, who argues for contamination of Fabius and Philinus).
30. 1. 1t.aopou~a.v ~ea.t BwaTa.pov: Hasdrubal, son of Hanno, here
makes his first appearance; he plays an important role down to his
execution in 25I (d. 40. r-Is). Bostar is not otherwise known: he
may be the Vodostor (or Bodostor) who died from ill-treatment in
Roman captivity, c. 243 (Diod. xxiv. 9 I, 12). Orosius (iv. 8. r6)
speaks of Hasdrubales duo. The divided command was unusual,
though not unprecedented; Meltzer, ii. 72
2. e~ouAeueTo f1ET0. Twv 1rept Tov A.aopou~a.v: 'with Hasdrubal and
his staff' (Paton), 'with Hasdrubal and his colleague' (Shuckburgh);
but Polybian usage sanctions the simple translation 'with Hasdrubal'.
5. 1rpos m)1uv A.8Uv: not mentioned elsewhere; the nominative is
therefore irrecoverable. It is perhaps identical with the Roman town
of Uthina (modern Oudna), about IS miles south of Tunis, and
somewhat east of the Wadi Meliane and the railway from Tunis to
Pont du Fahs and Zaghouan. Meltzer, ii. 569-70; De Sanctis, iii.
I.

47 n. 5

7. acflUfj OE Ta.is ta.uTWV OuVUf1EO'~V : the folly of the Carthaginians

prior to Xanthippus' arrival (d. 32. 2) is part of Philinus' version;
but the Punic generals may have feared the superiority of the
Roman infantry on the plains (De Sanctis, iii. r. I47-8). That they
did not have to wait for a Greek to tell them that cavalry and elephants are most useful on level ground had already been observed
by :Mommsen, Rom. Gesch. i. 523 n. Zon. viii. 13 mentions this battle;
so too Oros. iv. 8. I6 and Eutrop. ii. 21. 3 (with exaggerated Punic
losses from Livy).
8g

l.

30. Ij

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

15. TuvTJTos: Tunis lay at the mouth of the R. Catada, on a slight

eminence between a lagoon, modern El Bahira (on the north-east),
and a salt marsh, modern Sebka es Sedjoumi (on the south-west):
d. 73 5, 1Tapd. r0v :\lpv1JV (the lagoon). It played a prominent part in
any fighting near Carthage (Diod. xiv. 77. J, xx. 8. 7, etc.). Its distance
from Carthage is given as 120 stades = r85 km. (67. IJ, xiv. 10. 5);
but Livy, xxx. 9 II makes it 15 milia passuum.
31. 4. aywvtwv J..L~ O'UJ..L~TI KTA.: the motivation here contradicts
that in the rest of the tradition. Here l~egulus takes the initiative
'With peace terms, lest he be superseded; elsewhere it is unanimously
stated that the Carthaginians took the initiative from weariness
(Oros. iv. g. r; Zon. viii. 13; Diod. xxiii. r2. r), and that Regulus' command was prolonged against his wishes (Livy, ep. r8; Frontin. Strat.
iv. 3 3; Val. Max. iv. 4 6). The latter statement is probably part of
the Regulus saga; but the harshness of the terms offered by Regulus
suggests that the Carthaginians did in fact make the offer, and this
version, which is in Diodorus, \.\'as probably that of Philinus. P.'s
stress on Regulus' fear of supersession may come from Fabius (De
Sanctis, iii. 1. 227; Gelzer, Hermes, 1933, 140 n. :2, who compares
ii. 27. 5, 34 r (not a good parallel), and Livy, viii. 30. 9), or may
indeed be a general deduction from similar situations of which he
was cognizant (e.g. that of Flamininus, xviii. rr. z); Zon. viii. I7
attributes the same motives to Catulus in 24r; and indeed the situation was inherent in a system of annual commands. T. Frank
(CAH, vii. 683) offers a pretty example of compromise: 'he announced
his readiness to receive offers of peace.' On the phrase rrJV Jmyparf;ijv
rwl' 1Tpayparwv see ii. 2. 9 n.
5. -rb j30.pos Twv emTay!J-0.-rwv: according to Dio, fg. 43 2:2~23 (who
alone records them), they required the payment of an indemnity,
the surrender of Roman and ransoming of Punic prisoners, and also
the evacuation of Sicily and Sardinia, the signing of a foedus iniquum, the surrender of the whole Punic fleet but for one ship, and
an undertaking to furnish a squadron of fifty vessels for Rome at
any time upon demand. This version is accepted by Meltzer (ii. 299,
570-1), Arnold (Oorzaak, 71), and Frank (CAH, vii. 683, 'Dio's account
may be correct, and as such a fair commentary on the consul's
stupidity'); but (a) it is not clear by what channel Dio could have
obtained a faithful record, (b) if the annexation of Sardinia was envisaged in 256, its omission from the Treaty of Catulus is odd (62. 8~
63. 3). Hence Dio's account is probably to be rejected. The harsh
terms are also mentioned by Diod. xxiii. r:2. r5; Eutrop. ii. 2r. 4;
Oros. iv. 9 I; Zon. viii. IJ. In fact a successful outcome at this stage
was mled out, since the Romans were bound to demand, and the
Carthaginians bound to reject, the evacuation of Sicily.
90

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

1.32. 9

8 . .ivSpwSws .. Kat yevva~ws: this praise of the Carthaginian aw{8pwv (on which see 21. 6 n.) reveals the source, Philinus (d. 14. 3).
32. 1. =:av9~n..rrov .. Antte5at!Jovwv: Diod. xxiii. I-J.. 1 calls him a
Spartiate, which would fit the words rii> AaKWVtKij> aywyij;:; J.LISTEOXTJKOTa (a training still admired, though its rigours were much diminished, Plut. Ags, 5); he was a mercenary (cf. Diod. xxiii. 15. 7),
despite Eutropius (ii. 21. ..J.) and Appian (Lib. 3), who make him an

ally sent by Sparta, and Oros. iv. 9 z, who calls him Lacedaemoniorum regem. For a useful summary of the history of Spartan mercenaries in the Hellenistic period see Launey, i. IIJ ff.
5. auT<t> .. Tns Suvh. ..u:~s evexdp~aav: Zon. viii. IJ describes him as
r~v aihoKpdropa d.px~v dATJ</>d,. But despite some ambiguity
(e.g. 32. 7, rwv 7Tporepov orpar"f/ywv) the generals did not (nor indeed
could they) hand over an official command to Xanthippus.
8. J.I.ET' oA.iyas i)J.tipu<.; wp~TJOClY: the dating of Regulus' defeat and
the subsequent Roman relief expedition have caused unnecessary
difficulties. The consuls for 255 set sail rij;:; Opda, dpxoJ.L~II"f/> (36. ro);
but as they stayed in Africa only long enough to pick up the survivors (36. 12 n.), and were wrecked 'between the risings of Orion
and Sirius', i.e. in July (37 4 n.), this expression must refer to a date
not earlier than late May or early June (the same phrase is used very
vaguely at v. 1. 3). News of Regulus' disaster reached Rome before
the fleet set out (36. 5); but it is quite possible that its fitting out
was already advanced, since the Romans w1Jl hardly have intended
lea\ing Regulus for the summer without supplies or reinforcements.
Since a message could be in Rome from Carthage in three days
(Plut. Cato mai. 27. r), the battle can easily have been fought in early
May, and news of it have reached Rome in time for the sending of
the fleet to look like an expedition of succour. With this chronology
it is necessary neither to reject P.'s statement that the sending of
the fleet followed news of the disaster (with De Sanctis, iii. r.
nor to adopt with many scholars (Reuss, Phil., r9or, 108 ff.; Igog,
4r7, Gsell, iii. 90 n. 4; Munzer, RE, 'Fulvius (97)', coL 269; Beloch,
iv. 2. 288; Bung, u6) the improbable hypothesis that the expedition
of relief was not sent until 254 (against this see the convincing arguments of De
iii. I. 257-60). The words wpq, KaUJ.LClTOS in App.
Lib. 3 (in any case, an unreliable account) refer to the time of day,
and not to the season of the disaster; and though there is substantial
evidence for the prorogation of Regulus' command (Frontin. Strat.
iv. 3 3; VaL Max. iv. 4 6; Sen. de ben. v. 3 2; cons. ad Helv. rz. 5;
auct. de uir. ill. 40), this might be granted well before the end of his
year of office, and is no evidence for the date of his defeat.
9. Carthaginian numbers. An army of only r6,ooo in Africa seems
very small; and Philinus may have reduced the number to enhance
9I

L 32. 9

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

Xanthippus' victory (De Sanctis, iii. I. 150-I n. 13) The Roman

tradition (Appian, Eutropius, Orosius) gives Regulus 3o,ooo to 32,ooo
men; but even with Libyans he can hardly have raised his rs,ooo to
more than 2o,ooo.
33. 6. Ti]v . .p&.Xa.yya. Twv Ka.pxTJSovlwv: citizen-soldiers, who only
come into the picture when Africa is invaded. Meltzer (ii. rr6-r7,
508--9) estimates that two-thirds of the Punic force was made up
of citizen troops.
9. Taus ypocr.pop.axous: the uelites,lit. 'javelin-fighters'. See vi. 2r.
7 n. The UTJp.1:at are 'maniples'; meaning primarily uexillum, this
word is also extended to refer to the soldiers serving beneath it.
10. TfjS rrpbs Ta OT)p(a. p.axTJs SeoVTWS . EO'Toxa.crp.evol: P. here
seems oblivious of the lesson of Zama, that elephants should be met
with an open formation. But he had no first-hand experience of
elephants, since these were last used in a major battle at Magnesia:
Griffith, 214.
34. 2. cruvelj!o.PTJO'O.V TOlS orrhots KTA.: d. Caesar, BC, iii. 92 5:
'neque frustra antiquitus institutum est ut signa undique concinerent
clamoremque uniuersi tollerent; quibus rebus et hostis terreri et
suos incitari existimauerunt.' De Sanctis (iii. r. 227) questions the
accuracy of P.'s comment (from Philinus) for soldiers carrying
leather shields; but it was always possible to strike the iron boss or
rims (vi. 23. 4-5).
4. Twv p.tcrOo,Popwv: i.e. on the Carthaginian right (d. 33 7). These
were apparently the mercenaries of Xanthippus, who did his best
to rally them (Diod. xxiii. 14. 2); DeSanctis, iii. I. 152 n. 15.
5. Twv . Ka.Ta To us iXe,Pa.vTa.s Ta.xOevTwv: according to 33 6 the
elephantS had been posted 7Tp0 7TaUTj<; Ti]<; Ovvap.ln<; lv fLETWmp, and SO
opposite the whole Roman front. P. must therefore mean 'of those
left drawn up opposite the elephants' after the legion on the left
had broken away in pursuit of the Carthaginian right.
6. KuKXoup.evot rro.vTo.x68ev u1To Twv trrrrewv: De Sanctis (iii. r. 152)
suggests that the Carthaginian cavalry attacked the Roman legions
in the flank and rear only after a successful pursuit of the horse
( 3) ; this would explain how the Roman left had the chance to
break away against the mercenaries.

35. Reflections on the fate of Regulus. In this chapter P. singles out

the double peripeteia of Regulus and of Carthage under Xanthippus
as an example of the moral uses of history (d. r. z), which allows the
reader to gain his experience vicariously. Regulus, inexorable in his
terms when victorious, but soon after forced to sue for terms from
his Punic captors, illustrates the peripeteia wrought by a fortune,
92

THE FIRST PU:'{IC WAR

I. 35

which is conceived as a force which suddenly reverses one's lot at

the moment of extreme prosperity (~<alp.rD..taTa KaTd. Tas mrpaylas);
and Carthage was restored to confidence and success through the
aid of a single man ( 4-5). This is all typically Polybian; but he
may well have drawn to some extent on the congenial reflections of
Philinus. Diodorus (xxiii. 15. 1-{i) has a not dissimilar account of
Regulus' fate: JJv {mr::pTJrf>rfvTJaE T~v d:ruxtav, Tovnuv ~vayKd.aBTJ T~v
tt'Q

'tt

..1...1

tf

..,.

Vl"'ptv Ka' TTJV EsOVO'Lal! 't'EpEW, 7rpoa't'TJPTJ/LfiJJOS E'O.VTOV TTJV O'!JyYVWp.TJV

Kal TOJJ avy~<xwpT}p.lvov Tofs tlTTTatKomv E',\r::ov ( 4); and likewise he
stresses the role of a single man in raising up Carthage: 'TTapaSo[ov
yap lrf>ali'ETo mi.au el "11'poayEvop.lvou Tois KapxTJoovlot> ivos p.avov dvop6s,
TTJALKUVTTJ Ttlll' oAwv ,;ylveTO p.e-rafloJ.~ KTA. ( s). Diodorus, it is true,

introduces an idea not present in P. when he makes Regulus' overbearing conduct, WUTE TO . ocup.oVLOV vr::p.euijaat ( 2), the 'metaphysical' cause of his reversal, for there is no trace in P. of the notion
that Regulus' peripeteia was due to his arrogance (so, correctly,
Balsdon, CQ, 1953. 159 n. 2, criticizing what I wrote in CQ, 1945, 10);
but whether this was cut out of a common source by P. (who adopts
the view that a peripeteia follows upon hybris only in one passage,
xxvii. 8. 4), or Diodorus added it (he is fond of the theme: cf. xxvii.
6. 2, 15. 2, xxxi. rr. 3), it seems probable that both P. and Diodorus
are here follo>Ving a common source, Philinus. It is not an argument
against this hypothesis th:at P. has parallels elsewhere both for his
view of Tyche and his stress on the role of one man (cf. viii. 3 J, 7 7,
ix. 2:::. I, 2:z. 6, xxxii. 4 2) for both are common (for the latter cf.
Plut. lrfor. 325 A, ann Ennius, 'unus homo nobis cunctando restituit
rem'). This conclusion is rejected both by Bung (us n. 3) and by
Pedech (REA, r95Z, 255-{i). Pedech asserts (a) that the word TVXTJ
as well as the theme of the caprice of fortune are both absent from
Diodorus (Philinus), (b) that for Philinus the example of Xanthippus
illustrates not the triumph of the individual but the victory of intelligence and skill over brute force. But: (a) though Diodorus does
not use the word TUXTJ he attributes Regulus' downfall to TO Satp.olLov
( 2) ; and there is no reason to think that he distinguished between
the two any more than does P. (d. i. 84. Io); (b) the second distinction
is artificial, for Diodorus stresses the words Jvos p.6vov avSpos and P.
quotes Euripides' words on v aorf>ov povJ.wp.a. The power of the
individual resid.es in his intelligence. The slightly different attitude
towards Tyche's role in the two authors is mentioned above; it is
no serious obstacle to the view that the common source is Philinus,
and Bung's thesis that Diodorus has introduced Polybian material
in the middle of his Philinian account is not well grounded.
P. here makes no reference to the famous legend of Regulus'
visit to Rome on a peace-mission, under oath to return to Carthage
if he failed, and of his return and death by torture; and had he
93

I. 35

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

known of it, he must have made some mention of it in this d~dactic

passage. It seems well established that this story was wholly legendary, and invented by annalists to cover up the well-founded tradition that after Regulus' (natural) death in captivity, his widow
tortured two Punic prisoners held in the custody of the Atilii, so
that one died (Diod. xxiv. 12). There is an excellent analysis of the
growth of the Regulus legend by Klebs, RE, 'Atilius (51)', cols.
2088-92: see also DeSanctis, iii. 1. I54-6. T. Frank has argued for the
authenticity of the peace-mission (CP, I926, 311 ff.); but the legend
seems to stand or fall as a whole.
4. To 1ra.p' Eupl1TH5n: Nauck, fg. no. 3 from the Antiope, a frequently
quoted line (d. Plut. M or. 790 A; Sex. Emp. adu. math. i. 279; Galen,
Protrept. I3; Eustath. ad Iliad. ii. 372, p. 240. 42; Themistius, or. I6,
p. 207 D), which refers to the strength of autocracy as against ochlocracy. P. quotes Euripides elsewhere at v. 106. 4 and xii. 26. s. and
perhaps echoes him at xv. 33 I; but he may owe his acquaintance to
some collection of passages (Wunderer, ii. 57-58).
7. OuE'Lv y4ip llvnJV Tpcmwv KTA.: cf. 1. 2 for the theme: for the
parallel in Philinus here see Diod. xxiii. 15. 4: Tot<; 8~ lStot<; avp.r.nl>p.aat TOV<; a.\.\ov<; JS{oag<e p.hpw 9povELV Jv Tat<; Jgovafat<;. On npayp.anK-l]
taTop{a ( 9) see 2. 8 n.
36. 3. cf>Oovous OLa.~oA.O.s: these reflections may also echo
Philinus, whose interest in mercenary captains (cf. 43 2 ff.) perhaps
indicates another Greek in Carthaginian service. But the theme
appears elsewhere in P.: cf. vii. 8. 4, ix. ro. 6.
4. npos .. A.Oyos: for the version that the faithless Carthaginians
drowned (or tried to drown) Xanthippus on his way home see Zon.
viii. 13; Val. Max. ix. 6. ext. I; Sil. It. vi. 682; App. Lib. 4; Tzetzes,
Hist. iii. 38o-6 = Diod. xxiii. I6. But if this is what P. had in mind,
he clearly disbelieved it. That the Xanthippus whom Ptolemy III
appointed governor of the newly-won prouinciae lrans Euphraten
before June 245 (Hieron. in Daniel. xi. 7---9) is the same man, was
suggested by Droysen, iii. 1. 386 f., and half accepted by DeSanctis,
Atti Ace. Torino, 1911-I2, 963 ('forse'), but remains uncertain: cf.
Bengtson, Strat. ii. 84, iii. 172-3. If it is true, P. may have resen:ed
his (lost) npo<; Aoyo<; for some context treating Egypt.
7. ITjv yEvvmoT'lTa. Ka.i. ToAfJ-a.v: it has been suggested by Cichorius,
41-42, that Naevius, fg. 42-43 ~for. refers to these Roman survivors.
The lines

'seseque ei perire mauolunt ibidem,

quam cum stupro redire ad suos popularis' (fg. 42)
are thought to imply the rejection by the garrison of a Punic offer
of ships to transport them to Sicily (though in fact the Romans had
94

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

I. 36. II

their own forty vessels); and

'sin illos deserant fortissumos uiros
magnum stuprum populo fieri per gentes' {fg. 43)
suggest some opposition at Rome to the sending of a relief expedition. Neither detail is in P.; but whereas the first contradicts his statement that the Carthaginian object was to reduce the garrison,not to let
it get away (6), the second is at least consistent with P.'s version that
news of the disaster reached Rome before the expedition of 255 set sail.
9-10. The rival fleets in 255. The Punic figure of 2oo is usually
accepted as inherently probable: the difficulties in the Roman figure
have been discussed at 25. 7--{) n. :Meltzer (ii. 307) would reconcile the
figures here with the losses in the subsequent storm (37 2) by raising
the latter from 364 to 464; Frank (CAH, vii. 684 n. r) and DeSanctis
(iii. I. 157 n. 25) prefer to accept Diodorus' figure (Diod. xxiii. r8. r)
of 24 prizes at C. Hermaea rather than P.'s n4, and assume some
Roman losses--Orosius mentions 9-to reduce the resulting 374 to
364. But it is difficult to accept a fleet of 350 ships for the relief
expedition; and the subsequent erection of a columna rostrata on
the Capitol (Livy, xlii. 2o. r) and the granting of a triumph to both
consuls (celebrated in January 253, after their year as proconsuls in
Sicily) favours the higher figure for the Punic prizes, as does the
description of the victory as g icpoSov Kat r)q.8iw; ( n). Tarn's solution, to reduce the figures for the relieving fleet, thus seems the most
probable. As we saw (25. 7~9 n.) the error of an additional roo vessels
goes back to P.'s source for Ecnomus. In fact, the relieving fleet
will have been 2ro, not 250 strong, for 40 ships had been left behind
at Aspis (29. 9). According to Zonaras (viii. 14), these ships arrived
to join the main fleet during the battle. Laqueur's explanation of
the discrepancy, namely that the figure in 36. ro is from Philinus
and that in 37 2 from Fabius (RE, 'Philinos', col. 2187), rests on a
fallacious criterion for isolating passages derived from Philinus.
10. MapKov At(-!iAwv Ka.l. Iepou~ov 4>oAoutov: the consuls for A.U.c.
499 = 255/4 B.C., M. Aemilius M.f. Ln. Paullus and Ser. Fulvius
M:.f. M.n. Paetinus l\obilior {Klebs, RE, 'Aemilius {rq)', cols. sso~r;
Munzer, RE, 'Fulvius (97)', cols. 269~7o).
E1TAeov 1ra.pn TlJV ILKEAia.v: the compression may be to compensate
for the long account of Ecnomus (Tarn, JHS, 19o7, 53). Zon. viii. 14
records that the fleet, overtaken by a storm, put in at and occupied
Cossyra (modern Pantelleria), which was recovered by the Carthaginians the following year. This is confirmed by the consuls' triumph
which each of them 'procos. de Cossurensibus et Poeneis naualem
egit' (act. tr.), in January 253.
11. TouTous (-!EV Tpe"'a(-ievol: this battle off C. Hermaea (cf. 29.2)
is also described by Diod. xxiii. r8. I; Zon. viii. 14; Eutrop. ii. 22. I;
95

!. 36.

I I

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

Oros. iv. 9 5 f. According to Zonaras it was laxupd vauJLaxla, and this

version, including the 24 Punic losses instead of II4 (Diodorus),
probably goes back to Philinus.
12. -rovs 8' ~~~ AL~on ... veo.v(O"~<ous avo.Xa.~6vTes: there may have been
land fighting; but the annalistic tradition of Roman land successes
looks like an attempt to counterbalance Regulus' defeat (Livy, ep.
r8; Oros. iv. 9 7; Eutrop. ii. 22. 2; Zon. viii. I4) DeSanctis (iii. I.
227) suggests that vmvlaKous is P.'s translation of Fabius' tironesa piece of apologetics for Regulus' defeat; but to P. vEavlaKot are
'soldiers' without qualification (see Schweighaeuser, Lex. Polyb. s.v.),
and in xxi. 36. 2, where our abbreviated text
vEavlaKovs, the
fuller version in Livy, xxxvii. 20 says they were veterans.

37. 1. 1Tp00'flo.vns TU TW\1 Ko.f!o.pwo.(wv xwpq;: i.e. towards c.

Pachynus.
2. Roman losses: see above 36. 9-10 n. Eutrop. ii. 22. 3 and Oros.
iv. 9 8 also record So ships surviving, but give the total fleet as 464
and 300 ships respectively. The losses are given in Diod. xxiii. r8. I
as 340 warships and 300 transports sunk.
4. fl~ 1TAE'i:v 1rapO. T~\1 e~w 1TAeup6.v: a criticism which evidently
entered the tradition later, since, with Lilybaeum, Drepana, and
Panormus in Punic hands, ancient methods of navigation allowed
the Romans no choice of route besides that round C. Pachynus.
Meltzer, ii. 308; DeSanctis, iii. r. rs8.
T~v f!EV ooSe1rw I<O.To.Xt]yeLv E1TLO''I'JflO.O"lav, T~v 8' mlj>epe0"9aL: cf. Diod.
i. 49 s, 7TapayEypaJLJLrfvwv TWV KO.Ta rJatv ywoJLr!vwv TOtS' aarpots
avaToAwv TE Kai BvaEWV Kat Bta TO.VTO.<; E1TLTEAO!!JLEVWJ.J E7Tta7JJLaatwJJ KO.Tct
Toil<; Alyv7TTlovs aaTpo.\6you<;. These E7TtU7JJLaalat are the risings and

settings of constellations, and other astronomical phenomena with

which changes of weather were believed to be connected, in this case
the risings of Orion and Sirius. Such phenomena are discussed in the
weather-calendar appended to the Eisagoge of Geminus (d. Tittel,
RE, 'Geminos (r)', cols. 1035-6), in which JmaTJJLaaf.a appears to
denote specifically a phenomenon heralding bad weather (as here).
In Eisagoge, 17 Manit. Geminus insists that such calendars have only
empirical, and no scientific, value-a point of view in advance of
that expressed here.
flETa.~u Ti}S '.Qp(wvos ~<at ~<uvos ~mToAfjs: by the rising of a
star (d. ii. r6. 9, iv. 37 2, v. 1. r, ix. r8. 2, 43 4) P. invariably means
its heliacal rising, i.e. the date at which it first becomes visible on
the eastern horizon before the light of the rising sun causes it to
disappear. It is the first of the nine ax7JJLO.TtaJLol described by
Ptolemy, Alm. viii. 4: o Ka.\ovruvos 1rpwrv6s a7TTJAUnTTJs, (hav o dar~p
E7Ti TOV 7Tp6s dvaToAas opl,OVTOS' YEVTJTO.t avv ~AL<tJ, and later defined as
l~a 1rpoavaTo.\~ rf>mvoJLlv71 , 'the morning appearance of the rising
g6

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

I. 38.

before sunrise'. By the setting of a star (cf. iii. 54 r) P. means the

date at which it first sets before sunrise, having hitherto become
inv1.sible while still above the horizon. This is Ptolemy's third
O'X.TJJl.anap.<k (loc. cit.), described as 6 KaAoVp.Evos 1Tpwrv6s Ali/J, lhav Tov
~>.lou J7Ti TOV 7TpOs avaTOAas dpl,oVTOS ()VTOS 6 aO'T~p fJ i1Tt TOV 1TpD<;
3uap.ds, and defined as lc.{;a 11po3uats if>atvop.,vTJ, 'the morning appearance of the setting before sunrise'. Strachan-Davidson (15-zr) discusses the relationship between these two axryp.aTtap.ot and appends
calculations of the dates of the rising of the Pleiades, of Orion, and
of Sirius, for P.'s date and the latitude of Rome. The rising of Orion
he makes 4 July, of Sirius z8 July (Gregor.): other scholars (e.g. De
Sanctis, iii. r. 258) vary by a day or two.
dates-July for
Sirius and December for Orion-make nonsense of the passage; and
Luterbacher's interpretation of rising as the 'sunset rising' (Ptolemy's
seventh 'aspect') is equally impossible, since it would set the Roman
voyage in December (Phil., 1907, 412).) Ps.-Aristotle (Problem. z6.
13. 941 b) also associates the rising of Orion with uncertain weather;
and (ibid. rz. 941 a-b) associates the rising of Sirius with the south
wind.
7-10. Criticism of Roman headstrong behaviour: this follows P.'s consistent interpretation of the return of this expedition (cf. 37 4-6),
which, as we saw, seems based on an anachronistic judgement on
the consuls. The didacticism recalls that of 35, and there is the same
stress on v{3pts, which turns good qualities such as ToAp.a (cf. 20.
n-r3) into vices. The repetition of such words as {3ta ( 7 and IO),
8p!L7J ( 7), ToAp.a ( IO), {3tawp.ax.dv ( 9) is noteworthy, but need not
indicate the use of specifically Stoic terminology (so Lorenz, 45).
P. is especially interested in Roman naval policy, and in vi. 52 he
assesses the Roman performance at sea more favourably; Laqueur's
view that his criticism here is taken straight out of Philinus (RE,
'Philinos', col. zr87) is neither proved nor probable.
38. 1-4. Dispatch of Hasdrubal to Sicily. This is Hasdrubal, son of
Hanno (cf. 30. r n.), and the source will be Philinus. His arrival in
Sicily is dated to 251 by Orosius (iv. 9 r4) and Eutropius (ii. 24);
and P.'s silence on Hasdrubal's action at the time of the capture of
Panormus ( 7-ro) is in favour of the view that he was not yet in
Sicily. DeSanctis (iii. r. r64 n. 46, :227) makes the plausible suggestion
that Philinus related Hasdrubal's dispatch after a Roman naval
disaster, in fact that of 253 (39 6), and that P. confused it with the
shipwreck off Camarina. Meltzer (ii. 309, 574-5) also dates Hasdrubal's dispatch to 252 (cf. 39 rz n.); see also Thiel, Hist. :243 n. 584.
P. argues (probably again with Philinus) that the Carthaginians now
commanded the sea; but this is not the picture that emerges from
the next few years' campaigning, especially during the blockade of
486!!

97

I. 38.

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

Lilybaeum (42. 7 ff.); on this see especially Thiel, Iiist. 252 n. 6n.
The 2oo ships of 3 never appear to accomplish anything, and Tarn
(]HS, r9o7, 56) is probably right in thinking that they were really
transports used to convey Hasdrubal. He is wrong, however, in
supposing that this is implied by P., who, judging from the text,
pretty clearly took them to be warships prepared after Hasdrubal's
crossing (cf. too 38. r, vavnt<<ls "'T'apaut<was). It is indeed just
possible, though not very likely, that they were warships and that
lack of funds or some other factor prevented the Punic government
from exploiting them fully. On the situation of Lilybaeum see 42. 6 ff.
5. e'lKo<Tl Ka.t S1a.Ko<T1a. aKO.cp'T}: the 8o surviving from the wreck
(37 2) would bring the total up to 300 ( 7); and if the Carthaginians
really built 2oo ( 3) in addition to what survived from C. Hermaea,
they would need them alL DeSanctis (iii. I. 159 n. 29) accepts P.'s
figure, and suggests (following Meltzer, ii. 57 3) that a distorted recollection of this shipbuilding survives in Pliny, Nat. hist. xvL 192,
'contra uero Hieronem regem ccxx naues effectas diebus xxxxv
tradit L Piso'. But this is improbable; and the likeliest explanation seems to be that of Tarn (]HS, 1907, 55; cf. Thiel, Hist. 87),
namely that P.'s 220 really included the surviving 8o, and are not
additional to them. I cannot understand the basis of T. Frank's
figure of 200 quinqueremes as the total of new Roman ships (CAH,
vii. 685).
6. ev TPlllTJVIt': cf. Zon. viii. 14. This account, probably from Fabius,
is not necessarily exaggerated; if the timber was cut at once it could
season through the winter and be ready for construction in February
to April 254 (DeSanctis, iii. 1. 261; Thiel, Hist. 242 n. 578). The fleet
could not set sail until the good season (despite d(Uws-). Beloch's
chronology, dating the sending of the relief fleet to 254, and the fall
of Panormus to 253, depends on his theory that the Roman calendar
was at this time running one to two months behind the seasons
(iv. 2. 26:;, 288--9); against this see DeSanctis, iii. 1. 248 ff.
Ao.Aos ::A.TtAIOS KO.L rvO.,os KopvT)AIOS: the consuls for A.U.C. 500 =
254/3 B.C. had already served in 26o (21. 4 n.) and 258 (24. 9 n.), and
were evidently chosen at this crisis on account of their experience
rather than their success.
7. Ka.TO.pa.vTES Els nO.vopllOV: since the loss of Agrigentum (on which
cf. q. s. using the same phrase) Panormus (modern Palermo) was
the bastion of Punic power in Sicily, and economically, if not
militarily, the capital city of the Punic area. The identification of
P.'s New and Old Towns is not easy, partly because of the silting
up of the harbour since ancient times. The most recent account,
by G. M. Columba, 'Per la topografia antica di Palermo', in Centetlario della nascita di Michele Amari, ii (Palermo, 19ro), 395 ff. (non
uidi), is conveniently summarized, with a map, by K. Ziegler, RE,
98

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

I. 39 1

'Panormos (15)', cols. 668-77 (with earlier bibliography). Columba

has argued that both the IlaAatd. 7TOA<s- (dpxala m5Ats-, Diodorus; aKpa,
Zonaras) and the Nia '1TOAS' (EKTOS' 'lTOAts, Diodorus; KllTw 1TOAts,
Zonaras) are contained within the central area (modern Cassaro)
west of the (then much extended) harbour (the Kala), and between
two streams, the Fiume del Papireto on the north and the Fiume di
Mal Tempo on the south; and that the Old Town lay at the west end
of this oval enclosure, in a district of about 10 ha. known as the
Galea. But it seems unlikely that the original Phoenician settlement
was so far away from the sheltered harbour; and Cassaro with its
43 ha. seems very small for Old Town and New Town together. Hence
it seems likely that Cassaro was the Old Town (Cassaro
AI Qa$r.
'the fortress'), and that the New Town lay south of the Fiume di
Mal Tempo, towards, and probably including, the modern Kalsa.
See De Sanctis, iii. 1. r6o-1 n. 33 The assault is described also in
Diod. xxiii. r8. 3-5, after his mention of the Roman seizure of
Cephaloedium (modern Cefalu) and an unsuccessful attempt on
Drepana; and by Zon. viii. 14. According to Diodorus 14,ooo escaped
from the Old Tmm by paying a two minae ransom, and the remaining 13,ooo were enslaved: this would include former slaves (De
Sanctis). Only Scipio triumphed procos. de Poetteis X k. april. (hence
:zs:z); consequently, despite P., Atilius did not share in the assault
on Panormus (Zonaras also speaks of I17TaTot).
10. nwE1TAEUO'(l,V d':i TTJV 'Pti>JLTJV: before this Soluntum (ro miles east
of Panormus), Tyndaris (12 miles west of Mylae), and three other
places came over (Diod. xxiii. 18. 5: leta, Petra, and Imachara); and
the Carthaginians under Carthalo took, and, being unable to hold it,
burnt Agrigentum (Diod. ibid.), and recaptured Cossyra (Zon. viii. 14).

39. 1. fvluo'i I10poulhLO'i M:o.l f6.1o'i IEjl'lrpWvLo'i: the consuls for

A.U.C. SOl = 253/2 B.C., Cn. Servilius Cn.f. Cn.n. Caepio and c. Sempronius Ti.f. Ti.n. Blaesus (Munzer, RE, 'Servilius (43)', col. 178o;
'Sempronius (28)', cols. IJ68-9) Eutropius (ii. 23), Orosius (iv. 9 10),
and Zonaras (viii. 14) agree in putting both consuls in charge of the
fleet; but as in the former year, only one consul triumphed, Sempronius, cos. de Poeneis k. april. (i.e. 252). Probably Servilius operated
in Sicily with Cornelius Asina, the proconsul; De Sanctis, iii. 1. r63.
Eutropius and Orosius put the size of the fleet at 26o ships: Tarn
(] HS, 1907, 55) makes it 220 as in the previous year (on his calculation
cf. 38. 5 n.). Zon. viii. 14 records a fruitless attack on Lilybaeum,
probably true, as the Romans could now, since the capture of Panormus, take the northern route round Sicily ( 5). The policy of using
the fleet to raid Africa instead of pressing on with combined
operations against western Sicily seems to have been a serious error,
even on the assumption that the raids were designed to stimulate

99

J. 39

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

native revolts and to hinder the Punic naval programme; see Thiel,
Hist. 247-8, J23
2. TTJV Twv AwTotfl6.ywv vf)crov: cf. xxxiv. 3 I2. The identification of
Meninx (modern Djerba, off the Tunisian coast, about 35 miles
south-west of Gabes} with the Homeric island was made by Eratosthenes (Pliny, Nat. hist. v. 41); and the name Lotophagitis was
extended to the Lesser Syrtis (Strabo, xvii. 834; Eustath. ad Dion.
Perieg. 198 (GGM, ii. 252); Agathem. v. 22 (GGM, ii. 483)); Schwabe,
RE, 'Lotophagitis', col. ISIS The raids made en roztte for Meninx are
exaggerated by Eutropius and Orosius into the capture of plurimae
cittitates with much plunder.
3. 1rpo<nrcrovTES Eis nva (3paxEa: Meninx was also known as
Bpaxlwt (Ps.-Scyl. uo: GGM, i. 86); and for these shoals cf. Virg.
A en. i. rrr; .lVedZ:terranean Pilot7, i. 369-71. Tides are not significant
in the Mediterranean, except at particular points and times: cf.
x. 14. 2 (Scipio at New Carthage), xx. 5 7 5 n (Doson in the
Euboean straits). According to the Medit. Pilot7, i. 33, the spring
tide can amount to as much as 6 ft. at Borj Jilij at the north-west
extremity of Djerba, and from 3 to s ft. elsewhere in the Gulf of
Qabes (Syrtis minor)-exceptional figures for the western Mediterranean. According to Diodorus (xxiii. 19), the Carthaginians prevented the expedition from landing.
6. 1Tnpo.(36A.ws ~eo.t oul. 1Topou: rashly because over the open sea. Diod.
xxiii. 19 and Oros. iv. 9 rr also give the losses as 150; Orosi us calls
them transports, but Diodorus mentions horse transports in addition.
Tarn (]HS, 1907, 55) calculates that as the building of another so
ships (39 15) gave the Romans a total of 243 in 249 B.C. (i.e. r23
(51. TI-12) +12o (52. 6)), they still had 193 after the storm; but as
they only had 22o in 2S4 and 253 (cf. 38. 5 n.), their losses from the
storm will have been only 27. P.'s rso+ is rejected as 'a duplicate of
the loss in the first storm' (where, however, Tarn calculated the
Roman losses as r7o, excluding the prizes). But the loss of only
27 ships would not explain the reversal of Roman policy ( 7); and
in any case Tarn's calculations of the number of Roman ships at
Drepana seem in error (SI. II-I2 n.). The figure of 150 sinkages in
this storm is therefore to be accepted; it left the Roman fleet at
only c. 70 vessels from 253 until 250 (41. 3). Only Orosius (iv. g. u)
locates the disaster as having occurred off C. Palinurus in Lucania.
7. ~e:ai'II'Ep tfl~MT~flo~: added to forestall the criticism that the
Roman action was out of character (37 7-ro).
8. AuK~OV Ka~~e:Ouov ICO.l raLOV <>oupwv: the consuls for A.U.C. 503
zsrfo B.C., L. Caedlius L.f. C.n. Metellus and c. Furius C.f. C.n.
Pacilius (Munzer, RE, 'Caecilius (72)', cols. I203-4; 'Furius (75)', col.
359). Those for 252/r B.C. are omitted, like those of 259 (24. 8 n.), as
having accomplished nothing of note: they were C. Aurelius L.f.
100

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

I. 40.

C.n. Cotta and P. Servilius Q.f. Cn.n. Geminus (Klebs, RE, 'Aurelius
(94)', cols. 2481-2; Munzer, RE, 'Servilius (6z)', cols. 1795-6).
10. Tijs . Oo.XaTTTJS ~'II"Etcpa.Touv: echoing Philinus: on the true
picture cf. 38. 1-4 n. On this occasion the Romans sent reinforcements with a convoy of only sixty ships ( 8) ; and for whatever
reason their enemy made no effective moves against them.
12. 'ITt So' evLo.umvs: apparently the two years following the wreck
off C. Palinurus, viz. 252 and 251 (De Sanctis, iii. r. r65 with n. 46,
who, however, is surely wrong in speaking of 'consul years' (cf.
39 IS n.}: for the source is Philinus). ~!eltzer (ii. 574-6) dates the
two years from Hasdrubal's arrival in Sicily to the battle of Panormus
(2s2-june zso); but the change seems to date from the resumption
of a naval policy ( IS), the thing P. is interested in.
13. 0Eplla.v KaL A.mapav: so too Diod. xxiii. 19. 20, who also
mentions an unsuccessful attack on Heirkte. On Lipara see zr. 5,
24. 13; on Tbermae (of Himera: c. Zon. viii. 14) see 24. 4 Zon., ibid.,
dates the capture to the consulship of Aurelius and Servilius (252/1),
and this is confirmed by the coins struck in imitation of those of
Lipara by L. Aurelius Cotta, consul in 65 B.C. Aurelius triumphed
'cos. de Poeneis et Siculeis idibus apriL' (z51).
15. r aLOV J\T0..LOV tca.i Aeotuov MaXLOv: the consuls for A.U.C. 504
zso/49 B.C. were experienced in naval warfare-C. Atilius Regulus,
the victor of Tyndaris (25. In.) and L. Manlius Vulso, who shared
in that at Ecnornus (26. I I n.). The building of tbe fleet will obviously have begun before 11ay, as an integral part of the policy
..........~.,_,.,,"'"' in the election of these two men; but the words Ka:racrn}crai!TES' crTpaTY)yous mean simply 'electing as consuls'; and De
Sanctis (iii. r. 263) is forcing the Greek when he translates 'appointing
as commanders of the fleet', i.e. after their entry into office (crTpetTY)y&>
is used in this sense only when there is no ambiguity, e.g. II, 3.
59 8; but for a parallel to this passage cf. 52. s). DeSanctis is misled
by his desire to postpone Roman activity till after the end of the
two 'consul years' 2s2/1 and 251/o (39 12 n.).
'ITEVT~tcovTa. aK6.<fTJ: having lost over ISO of their 220 ships off C
Palinurus (39 6 n.), they had manned only 6o ( 8) of the approximatel.y 70 surviving. The present so bring their fleet up to rzo,
which is the number in commission this year (cf. 41. 3 n.).
J\aSpou~o.s: cf. 38. 1-4 n. P.'s main source now becomes
Philinus: the regular naming of consuls ceases, and we have two references to the 'year of the war', appropriate to a monograph (14. r n.).
T<lV 11~v l1va. TWV aTpa.TT]ywv TOv OE Ka.ltclXLOv: i.e. Furius and
Caecilius, the consuls for 251/o; in 39- rs P. has anticipated zso/49
(from Fabius}. Furius left Caecilius with two legions at Panormus:
on the date see the next note.

40. 1.

IOI

I.

40. I

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

G1Cjla.too1711s TllS auy~eojlLS-i)s: d. 17. 9; it was June: but of which year?

The battle of Panormus is variously dated to 251 (Mommsen, Holm,
Reuss (Phil., r9or: less certainly 1909)) and 250 (Meltzer, Beloch, De

Sanctis, Frank, Luterbacher, Scullard). Furius' departure would

naturally point to 25o: but against this it has been argued (r) that
Caedlius fought as consul; so Florus, i. r8. 27; Eutrop. ii. 24; Oros.
iv. 9 14; and less definitely, Frontin. Strat. ii. 5 4; Pliny, Nat. hist.
vii. 140; Diod. xxiii. 2r; (z) that there is a tradition of peace negotiations after the battle; but that as Caecilius triumphed in early
September 250, his successors must have left Rome no later than the
end of July, thus leaving no room for such negotiations in 250. De
Sanctis (iii. I. 262-3) has shown that the tradition that Caecilius
fought as consul derives from Livy, who elsewhere confuses consuls
and proconsuls at this time; and the peace embassy is part of the
Regulus myth, and quite worthless (35 n.). Moreover, the 251 dating
has its own difficulties, best set out by Leuze (Phil., 1907, 137-9;
but his own dating of the battle to April or early May zso involves
translating dKp.a{ovmy; ri)s avyKop.tSijs 'when the time of harvest
should be at hand', op. cit. 145-6). The date of the battle, then, was
June 250, probably after the entry of the new consuls into office
(though this is not to be deduced from 39 15).
4. StO. TWV an:vwv El$ TTjv na.vopjltTw: d. Diod. xxiii. 21, S"t Tfjs
1J1ttvomJTws Svaxwp{as ~lt8v Els 'T(J II&.vopp.ov. Probably the route via
Iaitia (modern S. Giuseppe, 15 miles south-west of Palermo) over
into the valley of the Orethus (modern Oreto, Tdv 7Tpb Tijs 1TDAws
7ToTap.ov), which reaches the sea through the plain of the Conca
d'Oro, just south of Palermo.
6-16. The battle of Panormus. Diod. xxiii. 21 records how the
Carthaginians' Celtic mercenaries contributed to the disaster by
their drunkenness; Zon. viii. 14 gives the Punic fleet a sensational
but ineffective part in operations (accepted by Thiel, Hist. 261-2),
and describes how Metellus eliminated a potential fifth column, and
later transported his captured elephants across the Straits of Messana
{cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. viii. r6; Frontin. Strat. i. 7 r). Eutrop. ii. 24 and
Oros. iv. 9 15 give Punic losses as 2o,ooo (out of 3o,ooo: Orosius); and
Orosius records that Hasdrubal was condemned to death.
10. Toi<; <i~epo~oA~OjlEVOLS: the Ev~wvot of 6 ; the ~KtVTJTOt ( 7), who
were stationed before the trench and wall, and appear in 12 as
dKEpawL 'fresh troops', are quite distinct.
12. OO'O'Ot$ ICO.t , , ypoa,Pms: i.e. pita and hasfae Uelitares: cf, Vi, 22.
4 n., 23. 8-II n., for a description of these weapons.
15. uuv a.1hois . 'lv8ol<;: 'Iv8ol is used by P. as a generic term for
mahouJs, whether Indian or not: cf. iii. 46. 7, 46. H, xi. I. 12; Gowers
and Scullard, NC, 1950, 271 ff. Caecilius Metellus offered freedom and
immunity to any prisoners who brought them in the number; taken
102:

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

I. 41. 4

is variously given as 142 or qo (Pliny), r2o (Livy, Seneca, Zonaras),

104 (with 26 killed: Orosius), roo (Florus), and 6o (Diodorus). They
were butchered in the circus; and henceforth coins of the Caecilii
Metelli frequently display an elephant; cf. B.M.C. Rom. Rep. i.
xss-6, ii. 3S7 J 570.
41. 2. 1T6.Aw i1Teppwa9"1aav .. tcaTA Tl)v t~ O.px* 1Tpo9Emv: 'they
were again encouraged to send out ... in accordance with their
original plan'. See 20. 7 for this plan: abandoned after the shipwreck of 39 6, it was resumed as a policy of desperation (39 14-rs)
after a two years' interval (39 12). The victory of Panormus led the
Romans to pursue it with the hope of bringing the war to a successful
conclusion. The change in policy has already been recorded (39 rs):
the important thing here is the change in spirit.
3. l11TAEOV StaKOO'l(11S vauaiv: having been mentioned in 39 rs,
the consuls are not named here. P.'s total of 2oo ships (also in Oros.
iv. 10. z) depends on his belief that the total in 2S4 was 300 (38. 7);
this figure was reduced to ISO by the losses off C. Palinurus (39 6)
and is now raised to 200 by the building of an additional so {39 15).
These figures are consistent, and probably go back to Fabius; but
they are probably all So too large, since the 220 ships of 254 almost
certainly included the So surviving from the storm (37 2). Hence the
real figure for 2so D.c. is 120 ships (cf. Thiel, Hist. 88-Sg). Philinus
in Diodorus (xxiv. 1. 1) gave 240 quinqueremes and 6o cerwri (light
warships; cf. Livy, xxiii. 34 4; App. Lib. 75), an exaggeration. De
Sanctis (iii. r. 171 n. 6s) wavers between the view that P. has 'corrected' this figure from Fabius and that the words (t.:ai n7'1'a.pdKoV7'a) have fallen out of his text; and he mentions 2oo ships on p. 166
and 240 on p. r68. In fact P.'s figures are quite consistent; but
wTong. Philinus' total may be due to confusion with the combined
total for Claudius' and Junius' squadrons in 249 (so Thiel, His!.
257 n. 63z); but this is quite uncertain.
4. lhos TETTapEcrtcm5ktcaTov: it is the departure of the consuls of
250/49 for Sicily which-probably following Philinus (CQ, 1945,
P. so dates. If Ap. Claudius crossed to Messana in fate summer, 264
(s. I-S n.), the departure of Atilius and Manlius shortly after the
battle of Panormus (June zso) will still be in the fourteenth year of
the war. Supporting his view that Ap. Claudius crossed in spring
263, Beloch (iv. 2. 285-6) argues that P. can never have mentioned
what year it is in connexion \vith an event occurring at the end of
a year: P., he insists, must have referred the beginning of the siege
of Lilybaeum to the fifteenth year, if in fact his (i.e. Philinus') 'years
of the war' began in late summer. But both Beloch and DeSanctis,
whom he is criticizing, miss the point that it is not the siege of
Lilybaeum which matters to P. and is being dated here: it is the
103

L 41. 4

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

active resumption of a naval policy, a critical moment (cf. 41. 2 n.).

Since this came clearly within the fourteenth year, P.'s date is
without difficulty.
6. cicj:opfltJV: 'military base': cf. Thuc. i. 90. 2, T~v IkAo7TOW'f/aov cf>aaav . d.cf>opf-L LKav~v lilvat. Understand: 'if Lilybaeum
fell'.
-rrXY)v Ape-rravwv: modern Trapani, lay at the west end of Sicily, about
20 miles north of Lilybaeum (42. 7 ff.). Drepana was one of the most
important remaining Punic bases. (The plural form is more correct:
in Diod. xxiii. 9 To .1p~7Tavov may be the peninsula.)
42. 1-7. Geography of Sicily and Lilybaeum. The comparison with
the Peloponnese, clearly intended for Greek readers (cf. 3 8), perhaps
hints at the tradition that Sicily too was once part of the mainland,
Rhegium being the 'town of the break-through' (Myvvf.Lt) : Aesch. fg.
402 (Strabo, vi. 258); Diod. iv. 85. 2 f.; authorities quoted by Ziegler,
RE, 'LK<)..{a ', col. 2467. Though superficially plausible (Cuntz, 71),
P.'s account of the shape and bearings of Sicily is faulty. The direction of the three capes is given as: Pachynus 7rpos f-LW"fJf.LfJplav, south
( 4). Pelorias Els Tns apKTOVS KEKALf-L~l!OV, north ( s), Lilybaeum ds
xaf.LEptvas Mans, south-west (qualified as 'turned towards Libya':
6). The two latter bearings are found elsewhere. Pelorias is the
north tip of the island in Strabo, vi. 265 and Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 87,
though in fact it is not so far north as the Phalacrian Promontory
(Ptol. Geog. iii. 4 2), modern C. Rasocolmo, ro km. to the northwest; and of Lilybaeum Strabo, ibid., writes, Tp{TrJ o' iaTLV (axpa)
~ 7Tpoa<x~s Tfj AtfJvv. {JAl7TOVaa 7Tp6s TUVT'f!V apa Kat T~l! XHf-L<pLv~v
ovaw, cf. Diod. xiii. 54 2. In fact the promontory of Lilybaeum

(modern C. Boco) is the most westerly tip of Sicily. Both Strabo and
Pliny make Pachynus project east towards Greece; and the explanation of their bearings (which derive from Poseidonius) is that the
island has been distorted thus:
Pe!orias

r/Pachynus

.N.

lt7ybaeom//

The real east-south-east side is here represented as north-north-east,

the north side as north-west, and the south-west side as southeast; the island is about 90 out of true position, and the distortion
perhaps goes back to Eratosthenes, who placed Rome, Messana, and
Carthage on a single meridian (Strabo, i. 93), which implies that the
north coast of Sicily runs virtually north-south (map in Thomson, 142 ),
and the other sides with corresponding errors. Despite his correction
104

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

L 42.7

of Pachynus, which lies 1rpos fWJYJfLflplav, P.'s account especially of

Lilybaeum suggests that he is partly the victim of the same distorted
picture. Ziegler, loc. cit., cols. 2468~, 247r.
4. To ILt<~Au(ov TrEAa.yos: Strabo, vi. 265, also makes Pach_y'llus extend
into the Sicilian Sea, which washes the northern part of the shore
between Pachynus and Lilybaeum (the southern part being washed
by the Libyan Sea); see the diagram above. (In ii. r23, where he
follows a better tradition for the bearings of the capes, he defines the
Sicilian Sea on the west by C. Pachynus, by Locri Epizeph_yTii in
Italy, and by the west end of Crete.) To P. the Sicilian Sea was
separated from the Ionian Sea in the north by C. Cocynthus (ii. 14.
5); and it included the Gulfs of Corinth and Ambracia (iv. 63. s.
v. 3 g, 5 IJ). Whether its southern boundary was a line going east
from Pachynus (so Burr, 54-56) is by no means clear. Ziegler, Joe.
cit., cols. 247I-2.
5. op(~El TO Trpos 8uO'El<; !J.Epos: P. has a correct picture of the
Straits of Messana as running north-south. His 12 stades are in
Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 73 (cf. iii. 86: MD passus); and in Ps.-Scyla.x,
13 (Pelorias to Rhegium, rather too little). The narrowest width
today is 17! stades; but there may have been an increase since
ancient times (so Ziegler, loc. cit., coL 2473; Holm, Gesch. Sic. i. 328,
is dubious).
6. TOLS nKpWTTJp(OLS: c. Bon and c. Farina: see iii. 22. 5 n. (a).
The distance to Africa is variously given as r,soo stades (Strabo,
vi. 267; Eustath. ad Dion. Perieg. 473 (GGM, ii. 306); !tin. Ant. 494).
and r8o milia passuum (Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 87). P.'s figure of r,ooo
stades (i.e. IIS miles or 125 milia passuum) is nearest to the actual
distance of 140 km. (c. 88 miles). Ziegler, RE, 'Lilybaeum (r)', col. 542.
&ta.LpEi: To ALf3utcbv tcal. To Ia.p&~ov Traayo<;: the reference to the
mare Sardoum raises difficulties. The sea north (here read north-west)
of Sicily is the Tyrrhenian Sea, ii. 14. 4, r6. r, iii. 6r. 3, no. 9; and the
mare Sardown lay west of Sardinia (ro. 5 n.; cf. Herod. i. r66).
Ziegler (RE, EtKr:.Ala, coL 2471) argues that P.'s meaning is 'that
Lilybaeum marks the eastern terminus of the line of demarcation
between the Libyan and Sardinian Seas', and quotes Eratosthenes
(ap. Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 75). But why should such a line of demarcation extend 200 miles east of Sardinia, when the Sardinian Sea lay
to its west?
7. TroAts OfLWVVfLOS: Lilybaeum, modern Marsala, the main centre
of Punic Sicily. P. may have visited it en route for Africa in 149,
and perhaps on his return in 146 (d. xxxvi. II. r for his broken-off
journey thither) ; but his detailed account of the topography is not
without difficulties, and though De Sanctis (iii. I. 228) speaks of the
'fleeting impressions of a traveller who once landed at Lilvbaeum',
it is unlikely that these lines were written after his visit. Cf. Cuntz,
105

0
w

2. LILYBAEUM.

to6

Based on Freeman

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

L 42. n

J. Schubring, Phil. xxiv, 1866, 62 ff.;

Freeman, History of Sicily, iv. 93 ff. (map on p. 74). Diod. xxiv. I-4
precedes his account of the operations with the statement that at
some unspecified date (but evidently recently: cf. 39 12) Selin us
had been destroyed by the Carthaginians and its population transferred to Lilybaeum. On the operations here P., like Diodorus, seems
to follow Philinus; but not exclusively (cf. Bung, 57-58). The discrepancies between P. and Diodorus (cf. Pedech, REA, I952, 258-62)
are explicable on the assumption of a different selection of material
and the correction of Philinus' figures from Fabius in P.
Tcici>p'l.J !3a.llEL4: 6o cubits wide and 40 deep (Diod. xxiv. 1. 2) ; a cubit
is about 1! ft.
Tvaymw EK lla.AciTT1)S: cf. 46. 9 The ancient harbour had an artificial
mole north of the town (the modern one lies south of Marsala); on
the shoals cf. Virg. A en. iii. 706, 'uada dura ... saxis Lilybeia caecis'.
LS To(,s ALp.tvo.s: 'into the harbour' (not plural): cf. Schweighaeuser,
Lex. Polyb. s. v. ALJ.L~v.
8. 1Tpoucnpa.T01T80uo.vTE<; oi 'Pwp.a.'LoL: their numbers are a
problem. Philinus (Diod. xxiv. 1. I) made them 11o,ooo, of which at
least 84,ooo were no doubt ships' crews and marines (he assumed a
:fleet of 240 ships: 41. 3 n). In addition there were the land forces
(41. 4), which Orosius (iv. Io. 2) not unreasonably reckons at four
legions. On the other hand, the fleet was in reality only 120 ships
strong. In 45 8, where the defenders are reckoned at 2o,ooo, the
attackers are only -n 7TA<'lov>. This would appear to rule out Thiel's
belief (Hist. 263) that they came to 3o,ooo. The probability is that P.
is not including oarsmen in his purview. Four legions of 3,ooo gives
32,ooo men; 1oo marines for I20 ships another I2,ooo. But both figures
may well have been smaller, and the effective soldiers (excluding
ships' crews) outside Lilybaeum probably came to 35,ooo-4o,ooo
men. For Roman losses see 42. 12 n. The Roman fortifications are
mentioned by Diod. xxiv. I. I, -.Yjv J.LEV yijv am) 8a>..d.cra'1]> tl> 80.>..aaaav

69-71; and, for the topography,

7dfpo/ U7TtoTfxwav.
9, 1TpOUKnTnUKUatovTE<; , , al TOlS li'TTOKELj.LEVOL<;: 'constantly

adding something to what they had already constructed' (Shuckburgh). (In xxi. 11. 6 :rrpoaKa-raaKVd,tv means 'to create new (kings)
in addition to those already existing'.) Paton's translation, 'gradually
advancing from the base thus acquired', gives the false impression
that the southern tower 7Tp6> -ro At{3vK6v m>..ayo> fell; the fall of the
six adjacent towers suggests that this was not so.
11. T~JV j-1-Lullocpopwv elc; p.upouc;: 'about Io,ooo', partly Greeks, partly
Celts (43 4, 48. 3), under Himilco (who is otherwise unknown).
Diod. xxiv. 1. I gives 7,ooo foot and 7oo horse, later reinforced by
4,ooo under Adherbal (Diod. xxiv. I. 2; below, 44 I n.); P. probably
rounds off these u,7oo to 1o,ooo (Thiel, Hist. 263-4).
107

I.

{2. 12

THE FIRST PUNIC "\VAR

12. ouSv 1TO.pEAEL1T~ TWV SuvaTWV: P.'s UVTotKOOop.wv is expanded in

Diod. xxiv. 1. 2 (cf. Zon. viii. 15), which records the building of a
second wall (behind that linking the six towers) ; Diodorus gives the
exaggerated figure of 1o,ooo Roman casualties, and attributes a
further 1o,ooo deaths ( 4) to an epidemic caused by an exclusively
meat diet.
43. Alexan saves the Carthaginians from the treachery of their mercenaries. This incident, which is described at quite disproportionate
length, is clearly from Philinus (that 43-48 are taken from this source
is generally admitted; De Sanctis, iii. 1. 228; Gelzer, Hermes, 1933,
141; Bung, 56: contra Pedech, REA, 1952, 258 ff.). The loyalty of a
Greek in Punic service, who had helped Agrigentum, naturally
appealed to the historian of that city; and the Achaean historian was
sufficiently interested to allot this digression to a fellow-countryman. The story occurs, with slight variations, in Zon. viii. 15. The
identification of the incident at Agrigentum has caused difficulties.
The 'mercenaries of Syracuse' are apparently the Mamertini (7. 2 n.)
who, either before or after seizing Messana, made several similar
plundering expeditions; cf. Diod. xxiii. 1. 4 (destruction of Gela and
Camarina). It has been suggested, however, that the incident here
mentioned is that in ii. 7 7, where Gallic mercenaries in Carthaginian
pay plunder Agrigentum (which became Punic shortly after Pyrrhus'
departure): De Sanctis, iii. 1. 91-92; Kirchner, RE, 'Alexan (1}',
col. 1471; Beloch, iv. 1. 558 n. 2. But P. speaks definitely of Syracusan
mercenaries, and he says that Alexan saved Agrigentum (whereas
the Gallic mercenaries plundered it). Consequently, the two incidents must be distinct. The present one is linked with the death of
the tyrant Phintias, c. 28o, by "Meltzer (ii. 544); and Holm (Gesch.
Sic. ii. 487} puts it even earlier, before the Mamertini broke away
from Syracuse, i.e. before 288-283. But a date before 280 would
perhaps make Alexan rather old for a mercenary captain.
2. 1ra.pa0"1TovSe~v: used by P. to describe the seizure of Messana and
Rhegium by mercenary garrisons: cf. 7 2, 7 8, 10.4,43 7, iii.26. 6. But
it can also refer to any treacherous onslaught; cf. ii. 7. 6, 46. 3, 58. 4,
6o. J, xxxiii. 10. J, xxxviii. 7 10. Reuss, Volk. Grund. 71 n., '1Tapaa1Tovoefv ist im allgemeinen ein Ausdruck fiir ein unredliches
Verhalten'; cf. Hesselbarth, 86.
4. >\vv(~av TOV utov TOU >\vv(~ou: 24. 5-7 n.; cf. 18. 7 n. Nothing
further is known of the son.
8. To us voflous Kat -nlv EA~u9Epta.v: suggests a time when Agrigentum
was independent.
44. 1. >\vv!3o.v, Ss ~v 1l.fltAKou u~o<; KTA.: from Oros. iv. 10. 2,
'Hannibale qui Hamilcaris filius fuit uicti' (where uicti evidently
I08

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

I. 45 9

refers to Ecnomus (26. r) and Adys (3o. 5}), this Hamilcar is clearly
the commander in these battles {24. 3 n.}, who since Regulus' defeat
had been active in reducing the revolted Numidians and Moors
(Oros. iv. 9 9). Diod. xxiv. r. 2 mentions 4,ooo reinforcements under
Adherbal; and the name cannot be a copyist's slip; cf. Zon. viii. 15,
JtpSf3a.v Q't)v vava11T/..El(TTatS: atmv dyoJaa.~s: Kat XP~fl.a.Ta {and Dio's
source was not Diodorus). The discrepancy can be explained in
various ways. There may have been two separate expeditions; or
P. may have 'corrected' Philinus from Fabius (though this is unlikely for a detail of this kind). But the most likely explanation is
that Adherbal was in charge of the expedition, but went on to
Drepana (46. r), leaving Hannibal (Tp~pa.pxos: Ka1 <f>l/..os: Jt--rdpf3ov
1TpwTos:) at the Aegates Islands to run the blockade of Lilybaeum.
Cf. De Sanctis, iii. r. 232-3. The phrase 1TpWTo:; <f>l,/..os: is normally used
of the intimate circle round the king in a Hellenistic court; Bikerman, Sileucides, 40-42; Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 220 ff. = BCH, 1933,
31 ff.; its use here suggests the importance of Adherbal, and Hannibal's position of trust relative to him.
2. ~v Tnl:s Atyoucrall~S: the Aegates Islands lie off the west tip
of Sicily between Drepana and Lilybaeum, and include Aegusa
(modern Favignana) and Phorbantia (modern Levanzo), and in some
writers Riera Nesos (modern Maritima), 15 miles farther west (cf.
6o. 3; Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 92). That they lie 'between Lilybaeum and
Carthage' is true only on P.'s bearings (42. 1-7 n.); Biittner-Wobst's
explanation, that P. means simply that Hannibal's course was via
the Aegates Islands (Klio, 1905, 94), is unconvincing.
E1TET1'JpE~ Tov 1TAouv: 'he waited for favourable weather'; for this
sense of 1r'Aoiis d. iv. Si 2, 57 6.
4-5. Reaction to Hannibal's action. The contrast between the reaction
of the Romans and the besieged population, with Hannibal between,
creates a picture which is reproduced elsewhere; cf. the scene at
Hannibal's crossing of the Rhone (iii. 43 7-8), or the clash at
Cynoscephalae (xviii. 25. 1), which show the same rhetorical influence
and stress on the sensationaL The ultimate forebear may be Thucydides' famous description of the battle in the Great Harbour of
Syracuse (Thuc. vii. 71). In xxix. 12. ro P. shows himself to be
conscious of such repetitions.
45. 8. oliK ~Aa.TTous Swr-tup(wv: i.e. ro,ooo of the original garrison
(42. n), with ro,ooo reinforcements (44 z).
9. KilT' livSpll Kill KllTa ~uyov: 'man to man and rank to rank', cf.
iii. 81. 2, ii. 69. 5 (KaT' avOpa Kat KO.Ta nf.yp.a.). 'V}'OIJ is Strictly a rank
of soldiers, ordo, in contrast to (TTot:xos:, a file; xviii. 29. 5, 30. :2. Here
it is used loosely, as the parallel example with Ka.Ta rdyp.a shows.
109

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

46. 3. w~ ll.v EKO.TOV Ka.l E'lKOO'~ O'TtLO~a.: about 25 miles, a figure rather
on the low side; cf. Meltzer, ii. 326-7.
46.4--47. 10. The blockade-running of Hannibal 'the Rhodian'. De
Sanctis (iii. r. 228) suggests that Philinus, to whom this meticulous
detail is ultimately due, was perhaps an eyewitness and shared the
; so too Cuntz, 69. It must go back ultimately to an eyewitness,
whether Philinus or his source. Xicknames were common at Carthage,
where the same personal names were used to excess; and these are
often taken from some locality; cf. ix. 25. 4, MO:yuwos 'ToiJ l.:auvl'Tou
1rpooayopevopivou; xxxvi. 5 1, Maywva -rcivBpl:rrwv. \Vere such names
hereditary, like Roman cognomina? A Punic emissary to Alexander's
court, named Hamilcar, was nicknamed Rhodanus (Oros. iv. 6. 21; cf.
lustin. xxi. 6. r) or Rodinus (Frontin. Strat. i. 2. 3). If the real form
was Rhodius (or the Punic equivalent), he may be an ancestor of this
Hannibal.
46. 9. errTepwKuia.t: cf. II, 7TTpt.!Joas -r~v vauv. The phrase means 'to
have the oars stretched out like wings ready to strike thewater': cf.
Plut. Anton. 63; Eurip. I.T. 1346.
47. 2. E1TE~T ll.v emrrpoa6et:v O.rra.a~: 'coming from the direction
of Italy he would keep the sea-tower on his bows, so as to cover the
whole line of the city's towers in the direction of Africa'. The words
dm~ -rwv . fLEpwv can hardly go with -rdv 7Tllpyov (as Paton). The seatower is not that mentioned in 42. 8, but another at the western
extremity of the fortifications (Meltzer, ii. 577). Hannibal sailed in
along a line which kept this tower covering other towers on the south
side; he came 'from the Italian direction', i.e. from the north (for
the sake of the manceuvre; that the Aegates Islands were north-west
of Lilybaeum (so Cuntz, 69) is irrelevant). Though P. does not say so,
at some point Hannibal must have swerved left from the above
course to enter the harbour: the use of the towers as sights was to
evade the shoals (Twv 1rpof5paxiwv). lumpoolhrv, 'to cover one thing
by another', is Schweighaeuser's certain emendation.
3. XWVVUEW errexECp'J0'<1V: cf. Diod. xxiv. I. z; the Romans had already
sunkrs cercuri in the entrance (r. r), but without completely blocking it.
7. eK Ka.Ta.~oXfjs: either 'anew' (cf.
8), i.e. after the Romans had
for some time made no attempt to take him (Paton and Shuckburgh) ; or 'from the start', i.e. starting the moment he left harbour
(Reiske); or 'deliberately' (so LSJ, quoting xxiv. 8. 9, where, however, the sense 'from the outset' is equally in place). Schwcighaeuser,
in Lex. Polyb. Ka-raf5ol.:r], finally comes down in favour of a most
forced interpretation: 'uidensquadriremem,quaeolim simul cumipso
(et cum ipsius naui) primum e statuminibus in mare excurrerat (cui us
structura adeo probe ei nota erat)'. Reiske's interpretation seems the
most likely; but there are probably overtones from the other two.
IIO

I. 48.

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

10. KUPLEOC1<LVTE!) TllS VEW!): Zon. viii. IS, who calls Hannibal
'Hanno' (perhaps through confusion with the incident of 264, cf.
20. IS n.), puts his capture after the arrival of Claudius Pulcher
(49 3) ; he adds that 'Hanno's' ship was used as a pattern by the
Romans (cf. 59 8).

48. 2. y(vETa.l TL!) aVE!J.OU Q'TaO'L!): cf. 75 8, ix. 25. 3. v. 5 3. TWV

'ETY}alwv ifo7J araaV Jx6vrwv. Paton and Shuckburgh translate a storm
of wind', 'a turbulent storm of wind', Schweighaeuser uenti tempestas
-but wrongly, as he later realized. d.vp.ov arams has three meanings: the first, 'a dropping, cessation of the wind', may be neglected
here; the second is that found in the three Polybian passages mentioned above, 'the direction, state of the wind' or simply 'the wind in
a certain direction'. Finally, by a metaphor taken from civil discord, it
may mean' seditio uentorum, a squall'. This is the sense in Alcaeus, fg.
30 Diehl, davvvTY}p. TWV avl.p.wv aramv (which Heracleitus, alleg.
Homer. s. p. 6 ed. Bonn., took as an allegorical reference to the
rvpavvKai rapaxui at Mytilene); so too Aesch. P. V., 1086, d.vl.p.wv
71'VJp.ara . . . aramv avT{TI'VOOV d.TI'o0EKVJp.eva. Similarly in Virgil
(Aen. i. I48) the quelling of the storm by Neptune is likened to the
calming of seditio in a city. But in all these examples there is a clash
of winds; and this idea is quite inappropriate here, where the plan
of the Greek mercenaries depends solely on the fact that the wind is
blowing steadily from the city towards the Roman camp, so that it
becomes an ally in spreading the fire and driving the smoke and
sparks in the faces of the defenders ( 6, vmj Tfj-; Els avroi:J<; rppop.EV7J'>
Atyvvos). As Schweighaeuser points out in his commentary, the idea
of force and violence is separately expressed and need not be present
in araa,.,, which therefore means uenti directio. Suidas, s.v. an:lmv,
referring to this passage, says that the word is applied JTI'i Tl'voijs
f3wlov avl.p.ov ; but there is no evidence for this meaning unless there
are conflicting winds. Translate 'a steady wind' (correct in LSJ).
Diod. xxiv. 1. 3 also records the incident.
Tas Twv ll"lXa.v"lf.6.Twv rrpoaa.ywy6.s: 'the apparatus for advancing
the engines' (Paton): less satisfactory Schweighaeuser (in his note
ad loc.), in ipsas machinas quae admouebantur. In xiv. Io. 9 the sense
is abstract: 7rpoaaywylis TWV opyavwv, 'the bringing up of siege
engines'; but here P. refers to uineae, etc., under shelter of which
the engines were advanced. See next note.
Tas aToas ~haaa.AE{n;w: uineas concutere. A uinea is a shed or penthouse to protect men of a besieging force. Caesar, BC, ii. 2. 3,
similarly calls it a porticus. In xxi. 28. 4 P. refers to a arod which
Livy, xxxviii. 7 6, translates by uineae. See Veith in KromayerVeith, Heerwesen, 444
I

III

m.1000

----

tt!JliH!!j

Il2

1 km.
I

Roman

flflet

Carthag/nian flee/;

THE BATTLE OF DREPANA.

Based on Kromayer

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

I. 49 6

5. TlJV ... vo~l]v Tau 'n'Upos: 'the action of the flames' (Paton). For
this metaphor of grazing cf. xi. 4 4
8. E-rr! TE Taus ~oTJBouVTGS KGi T~v TWV ~pywv 8Ln+Oop4v: 'against the
rescuers and to secure the destruction of the works'. i7Tt is used in
two different senses.
9. Ta aT\J1TTJ Twv ~<ptwv: MS. T07T1J corrected by Scaliger; 'the beams
of the rams', to which the battering-tip was affixed; arietum trabes,
Schweighaeuser. Less likely is Paton, 'the posts that supported the
battering-rams'.
10. Telxos 'JTpo~aM~evot: on the previous Roman siege-works see
42. 8. It is difficult to believe that their own camp was not fortif1ed
until now, vi. 34 r; and P. may perhaps have exaggerated a reference
in Philinus to some reinforcement of the defences. Similarly for the
circumvallation of the town (Meltzer, ii. 578); the discrepancy between this passage and 42. 8 is underestimated by Bung, 56.
49. 2. ets ~up{ous: allowing only 250 rowers per ship instead of the
normal 300 (26. j), this number would man only 40 ships; and the
Roman fleet came to 120 ships (41. 3 n.). Hence the statement ( r)
that most of the crews had perished seems exaggerated. Thiel (Hist.
273-4) suggests that Claudius may have pressed legionaries into service as rowers; but P. ( 5) speaks only of their volunteering as
marines.
3. noTrALOS KXa~Stoc;: one of the consuls for A.U.C. 505 = 249/8 B.C.:
they were P. Claudius Ap.f. C.n. Pulcher and L. lunius C.f. Ln.
Pullus (Munzer, RE, 'Claudius (3o4)', cols. 2857-8; 'Iunius (rJ.))',
cols. ro8o-r). Cic. de diu. i. 29, makes Claudius the son of Ap. Claudius
Caecus, but his father was more probably the consul of 264 (II . .1 n.):
De Sanctis, iii. 1. 170 n. 62. Diod. xxiv. 3 describes his headstrong,
bullying character, his criticism of his predecessors, and his own
mistakes. But by mentioning his conference with the xJ..iapxo~,
tribuni militum, P. stresses against the tradition that his plan found
general support ( s).
49.6-51.12. The battle of Drepana. The point of view is Carthaginian
and the source clearly Philinus in the main, though the Roman
tradition is present, and the whole well worked over by P., cf. Bung,
6r. The annalistic version is in Orosius and Eutropius; see also Diod.
xxiv. I . 5; Frontin. Strat. ii. 13.9; Schol. Bob., P90 Stangl. The famous
anecdote that Claudius threw the recalcitrant sacred chickens in the
sea with the words ut biberent quando esse nollent (Cic. nat. deor. ii. 7;
de diu. i. 29, ii. 20, 7I; Livy, ep. 19, xxii. 42. 9; Florus, i. r8. 29;
Eutrop. ii. 26. r ; VaL Max. i. 4 3, viii. I. ext. 4; Suet. Tib. 2 ; Serv.
ad A en. vi. 198) may be genuine (so Munzer, RE,Ioc. cit.), but is more
probably a later invention, to explain the Roman defeat: it is in
!866

113

I. 49 6

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

neither P. nor Diodoms. On the number of ships involved see sr. uI2 n. For discussion see Rodgers, Greek and Roman Naval warfare
(U.S. Naval Institute, I937). 297--9; Thiel, Hist. 275-81.
50. 5. eAa.~E T~v du.:wu1-1ov Ta~LV: Drepana lies on a small peninsula extending to the west and prolonged in a south-westerly direction by rocks and small islands: see the maps in Kromayer, AS,
iii. I, and in Enc. it. s.v.; there is a map of the battle in KromayerVeith, Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abt. i, Blatt r. The harbour opens to
the south and is covered by the island of Colombaia; having cleared
it Claudius reformed his line with the right flank hugging the coast
south of the harbour mouth, and himself on the left. But Adherbal's
five ships succeeded in getting between him and the open sea.
9. JLEyaAa. , ~AMTw9fjva.L: the Roman fleet had been mana:uvred
into the situation of the Punic left at Ecnomus, 28. Ion.

51. 6. To'L<; 1rpo'ITi'ITTOUO'L Twv SLwKovTwv: 'the foremost of their pursuers'; Paton's 'the ships that pursued and fell on them' translates
the MS. reading 7rpomrl7TTovat (but he prints the generally accepted
emendation of Hervagius).
9. SLEK'ITAe'Lv o'ITep tun 'ITpaKnl<wTa.Tov: a classic mana:uvre,
but never employed by the Romans. Indeed in Hellenistic times it
tended to disappear with the adoption of boarding tactics, though
the Rhodians used it successfully at Chios (xvi. 4 I4); 27. 11 n.;
Tarn, HMND, I44 ff.
11-12. Size of the Roman squadron. P. gives the total of ships escaping
as about 30, and 93 Twv .\o7Twv as captured. Tam (]HS, I9o7, 54 ff.}
assumes that these figures together give the size of the Roman
squadron; and, indeed, if P.'s 7TEpl rpuf.Kovra vi}E'> are really 27 (as
they well might be), the total of 120 is precisely the number of ships
available since the building of so in 250 (cf. 41. 3 n.). Against this is
the reference to many sinkages in 6 (7ro,\,\d ... ij3a7Tn~ov); but as
Thiel (Hist. 279 n. 7I6) points out, 'the character of the inshore
battle does not admit of the sinking of a large number of ships'.
P., who believed that Claudius had 2oo ships (41. 3) would be naturally disposed to exaggerate the number of sinkages; the few which
really took place may well be included in the 93 captured. Diodoms
(xxiv. 1. s} reckons the Roman total as 2Io and the losses at 117.
De Sanctis (iii. r. 170-I n. 65) adds in Io ships which appear in a
corrupt passage at the end of Diod. xxiv. 1. 5, to give the Romans
a total of 22o, and assumes that of the squadron of 240 which Philinus
gave Claudius (Diod. xxiv. 1. I) 20 ships had been left behind at
Lilybaeum; but P. (49 3) says that Claudius proposed sailing from
Lilybaeum to Drepana 7Tavn rep ar6Ao/, and it is dangerous to use
the Io ships as part of any argument (cf. Thiel, Hist. 28o n. p6). De

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

I. 52. 5

Sanctis also suggests that the n7 lost vessels are obtained by subtracting the 93 which P. gives as captured from 210: but these II7
are not simply sinkages, but losses in general, and probably represent
Philinus' exaggerated version of those losses. As we saw (4r. 3),
Philinus' figures are to be rejected. Other f1gures, which can be
neglected, are: escaped, 30 (Eutropius, Orosi us), 20 (Frontinus); sunk,
120 (Schol. Bob.), Ioo (Eutropius); captured, 9o (Eutropius). P. gives
no losses of men. Orosius (iv. Io. 3) records 8,ooo dead and 2o,ooo
prisoners; and the latter figure receives slight confirmation from
Diod. xxiv. r. 5 (2o,ooo losses; the 35,ooo dead and an equal number
of prisoners of Diod. xxiv. I. u may be ignored). Roman losses were
probably reduced through survivors-marines more easily than rowers
-swimming ashore (51. 12). No figures survive for the Punic side.
52. 3. JlEyaAQ.L') tT}Jl(nL') KQ.LKLVOUVOL') KpL9ELS nEpLtE'ITEO'EY: the initiative
came from two tribunes, and the movement against Claudius was
apparently popular. P. probably follows a Roman tradition here
(Bung, 63 n. I, is less certain); for other sources on his downfall see the
authorities quoted at 49 6-51. 12 n. According to Valerius Maximus
he was charged with perduellio but acquitted; Schol. Bob. records a
second trial on a reduced charge and a fine aeris grauis cxx milibus.
Modern historians have judged him less harshly. Tarn (JHS, r9oj,
54) suggests that he attacked hoping to forestall the arrival of the
reinforcements under Carthalo, of which he knew (53 2 n. : Meltzer
(ii. 326) thinks they came before the battle; but the order is clear
from Diodorus); and though his tactics were faulty, the general plan
was by no means ill-conceived; De Sanctis, iii. I. 170; Scullard,
Hist. 168.
5. AeuKlov 'louvLov: in fact Claudius' colleague for 249/8, not his
successor, 49 3 n. Beloch (iv. :z. 289) suggests in explanation of P.'s
error that Iunius did not come to Sicily till spring 2, after the
consuls for 248/7 had already been elected; and that P. confused
him with one of these. But after Iunius' naval disaster (54 8}
Claudius was constrained to appoint a dictator, and named M.
Claudius Glicia, whom the Senate rejected (Livy, ep. 19); A. Atilius
Caiatinus (24. 9 n.) was then appointed in his stead. But, if Iunius
did not leave for Sicily till spring 248, there is no time for this before
I May (and little before I8 June, which is Beloch's Julian equivalent
for I May in accordance with his unacceptable view of the calendar) ;
and it is unlikely that the Senate would have required the nomination of a dictator if the consular year was almost at an end. Further,
Iunius' considerable activity after the naval catastrophe suggests
that he came out to Sicily in 249. De Sanctis (iii. I. 263-4) suggests
that he arrived in the second half of the summer, and so in the
sixteenth year of the war by Philinus' calculations (41. 4). This
II.)

I. 52. 5

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

would explain how P.'s error arose; and since, if Iunius already
knew of his colleague's disaster, it is hard to understand his decision
to send half his fleet ahead without adequate protection (52. 7; cf.
Meltzer, ii. 330; Reuss, Phil., I90I, 119), it is possible that when he
sent the ships on from Messana he had not yet heard of the defeat
at Drepana. No conclusions as to date can be drawn from the reference to corn in 52. 8 ; there is no evidence that it was part of the
249 harvest (so Meltzer, ii. 330).
Ta~ onapxa~: here 'corn allowance'; on the various meanings of
this and similar words see 66. 3 n.
6. &no ... 'TOu aTpaTo11'Hiou: perhaps Lilybaeum is meant (so Paton):
but if any of the 6o ships which joined Iunius in Sicily (cf. 52. 5,
52. 6; Diod. xxiv. 1. 9 also gave him a total of I2o, i.e. I3 burnt+105
sunk+2 survivors) were from Lilybaeum, they left before Drepana,
for aftenvards Carthalo and his fleet lay between Lilybaeum and
Messana (Tarn, J HS, I9o7, 55 n. 38) ; and that the 30 survivors
(51. n) had not got away to Messana is clear from 53 3 f. Thiel
(Hist. 88) suggests that the 6o ships which joined Iunius at .Messana
were in fact allied auxiliaries; and he despairs of finding any reasonable sense for the words am:\ TOV UTpaT07dSov.
KaLpou~: a loose link; but here correct,
for Iunius cannot have reached Sicily much later than the battle
of Drepana (52. 5 n.).
2. Kap90.Awva: in 254 Carthalo had relieved Drepana, after sacking
Agrigentum (Diod. xxiii. I8. 2-3): 38. 7 n., 38. Ion. Diodorus (xxiv.
1. 6-7) dates his arrival at Drepana in 249 (with 70 ships and supplies)
after the naval battle; between the two he relates the dispatch of
Hannibal (cf. 44 I) to seize a Roman convoy off Panormus. Carthalo
appears to be Aclherbal's subordinate.
Sou~ TpLaKOVT11 vau<;: the size of Aclherbal's fleet at this time is not
recorded; but it seems likely that the Punic fleet at Drepana was
smaller than the Roman, though in view of its success perhaps not
very much smaller (cf. Tarn, JHS, I9o7, 54-55). It is possible that
Claudius attacked when he did in order to forestall the arrival of the
70 reinforcements, fearing that he would then be outnumbered (Thiel,
Hist. 272; above, 52. 3 n.). Hence Tarn's figure of Ioo (before the
arrival of Carthalo) is likely to be about right (Thiel, Hi st. 266 n. 667).
7. oA[ya . Ta flEV a1I'OO"TI'a0'11<;, Ta OE O'UVTptljia~: 'contented himself
with either towing off or breaking up some few of the vessels'
(Shuckburgh). Schweighaeuser omits dMya from his translation,
Paton takes it with a1roamiaas- only; the point is that the total
Roman loss was small. Diod. xxiv. 1. 7 gives some sunk and five
dragged off.
10. 1rp6<; n 11'0ALu!-lnnov: according to Diod. xxiv. I. 7 the fleets

53. 1. Ka'Ta Touo; all'Tou<;

II6

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

sighted each other near Gela, and this roadstead was off Phintias
(modern Alicata), east of the river Himera, and opposite Mt
Ecnomus. Diodorus puts Carthalo's fleet at 120 ships.
13. bMyu Twv TrAOt{)JV 6.Troamia!lvTi: according to Diodorus
(loc. cit) the Carthaginians sank so transports and I7 warships, and
put 13 warships out of action. P. omits these Roman losses (which
were probably not in Fabius), evidently because he mistrusts
Philinus; cf. De Sanctis, iii. I. 233-4. Thiel argues that they should
be accepted (Hist. 285 n. 731); but P.'s account of the quaestors
falling back on shore fire from catapults to defend their ships is
plausible, and would explain Carthalo's failure .

54. The shipwreck off Caman:na. According to Diod. xxiv. I. 7-9,

Carthalo retired to the R. Halycus (modern Platani) near Heraclea
Minoa to attend to his wounded. Iunius advanced to Phintias,
where he was joined by the remnants of the first convoy, but on
sighting the Punic fleet burnt the r3 damaged vessels and set off
back for Syracuse; overtaken near Camarina o;l, T~v yfjv Ko.Tlcjwyt
7tpos T(l1TOt!S' Tpaxi:s Kat vif;a/..wSets. A storm got up, Carthalo rounded
Pachynus and was saved; Iunius lost all his transports, and all but
2 of his ro7 warships. P.'s account is quite different. Here, too,
Carthalo puts into a river, unnamed; but as he hopes to prevent
a union between the two Roman squadrons ( 2), this can hardly
be the Halycus, about 45 miles north-west of the scene of the
disaster. After Iunius has anchored off the dangerous coast ( 3),
Carthalo gains a cape from which he can watch both squadrons
( 5) ; the storm breaks and Carthalo escapes as in Diodorus. The
discrepancy is clear; and since the Carthaginian standpoint in P.
prevents our assuming that he is giving Fabius' version, the likelihood is that he has merely 'corrected' Philinus, Diodorus' source,
and that his version is a contamination with Fabian tradition. In
fact, he must have felt Philinus' account to be less probable on
comparing the two; and his refusal to identify the scene of the first
disaster with Phintias, and the river whither Carthalo retired as the
Halycus, is probably deliberate. We are not justified in rejecting P.'s
considered account in favour of an abridged version of Philinus
(certainly abridged: e.g. Diodorus has no reference to Iunius' putting
in at Syracuse, xxiv. r. 8). Thiel (Hist. 287 n. 734) defends Diodorus'
version from Philinus against P.'s on the assumption that the latter
gives an account contaminated with Fabius (which may well be
true) and that Fabius has concealed the Roman losses in the quaestars' squadron at Phintias; and he deduces all the other variants in
P.'s account from this 'original sin' of Fabius. Carthalo must have
tried to destroy some of the Roman ships; and 'it is absurd to
suppose he could not destroy them'. In fact, he did not-thanks to
II7

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

the catapults (53 IJ n.). P. is therefore to be followed. Cf. Meltzer,

ii. 33I-2, 579; and for the topography, J. Schubring, Phil., I873,
504 ff., especially 526; Rh. Mus., I873, 137 f. Schubring thinks Iunius
took refuge in the harbour of Caucana, a little south-east of Camarina, while Carthalo anchored off the promontory of Bucra (modern
Braccetto). Other sources for the shipwreck are Eutrop. ii. 26. 2;
Oros. iv. ro. 3; Zon. viii. 15; Iunius was said also to have disregarded
the auspices, and subsequently to have committed suicide: Cic. nat.
deor. ii. 7; de diu. ii. 7I; Val. Max. i. 4 4; Minuc. Felix, 7. 4, 26. 2.
The date cannot be fixed with certainty; Meltzer (ii. 33o) makes it
July, like that of 255 in the same waters (37 I), but this is not
compelling, since storms are not limited to that month.
2. O'TJJLTJVavToov Twv aKo1Twv . TTJV &m4>6.veLa.v: this seems to exclude
the view that Carthalo was at the Halycus.
6. 1TEptaTaaEOOS oAoaxepEaTepa.s! 'a peril of some magnitude';
contrast 32. 3 and 35 ro, where 1Tpfarar:ns = 'situation, Circumstances'. On this word see Strachan-Davidson, II.

55. 2. Ka.pxTJS6vLOL s~ Tils JLEV 9a.AaTTTJS &Kup(EUOV: but they never

exploited this superiority, perhaps because they were occupied for
several years with war in Africa, where Hanno took Hecatompylus
(73. I n.). It is possible that Hanno, a later enemy of the Barcid
family, stood for a policy of African expansion rather than foreign
conquests in the interests of the merchant class (T. Frank, CP, 1926,
313-I4; CAH, vii. 689); this would be a situation not unlike that
which developed between the Senate and equites at Rome 150 years
later. See also De Sanctis, iii. r. I79; Tarn, ]HS, 1907, 56. Bung
(65 n. 4) follows Campe's view that the words KapxTJMvtot .
d.m).\m~ov are an interpolation, but quite unnecessarily.
7. "Epu~: modern Mte San Giuliano. It is 75I m. above sea-level, and
manifestly not the next highest mountain in Sicily after Etna
(3,3I3 m.); for one cannot distinguish J.tEY0os, bulk, and uifios, height,
with Biittner-Wobst (Klio, I905, 95-96). On its topography see
Kromayer (AS, iii. r. 25 ff.), who explains the mistake as easily made
if one approaches Trapani from the sea, when Mte San Giuliano
stands out in imposing isolation. (But P.'s own visit will probably
have been later than the composition of this passage; Cuntz, 7o.)
The vast height of Eryx becomes an established tradition; cf. Solin.
5 9; Virg. A en. xii. 701; Val. Flacc. ii. 523. Here the north coast of
Sicily correctly 'faces Italy' (42. 1-7 n.).
8. T6 TTlS :t\.4>po~HTT)s . ~ep6v: a temple of great antiquity and betraying, by its system of temple-prostitution, an eastern origin.
Diod. iv. 83 describes it in Roman times; and Pans. viii. 24. 6 compares it to the temple of Aphrodite at Paphos. Its goddess, whom
the Phoenicians identified with Astarte, was linked with Venus in
II8

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

L 56. r

Roman legend; and the founding of the temple was attributed to

Aeneas (Virg. A en. v. 759 ff.; cf. i. 570; Mela, ii. II9; etc.). Later
Venus Erycina was one of the most venerable deities at Rome, especially when she could be linked significantly with the gens Julia
(e.g. Hor. Odes, i. 2. 33). Jessen, RE, 'Erycina', cols. 562-5; Hiilsen,
RE, 'Eryx (I)', cols. 6o2-4. On the plunder of this temple by Gallic
mercenaries see ii. 7. 8.
9. t\8E 1TOAlS U1T' aun1v TTJV Kopu<PTjv TETaKTaL! cf. s8. 2. The town of
Eryx was of Elymian origin (Thuc. vi. 2. 3); its population had been
removed to Drepana in 259 (24. 8 n.). The site has been variously
sought on the mountain slope to the south (Holm, Gesch. Sic. iii.
354-5) or, more probably, to the north-west (Kromayer, AS, iii.
I. 25 ff.) of the modern town of San Giuliano.
10. Ofhows 8E Kat TTJV lmo .dpe1r6.vwv 1rpoa~aaw: Diod. xxiv. r. Io
relates the occupation of Eryx by Junius with 8oo men: Kat rclv
Alyl8aJ.Aov irelxuiV, ovmtp viiv .i:I.KeMov Ka.Aovat. VVnereupon Carthalo
landed troops and seized the position. Zon. viii. IS adds that Junius
was himself taken prisoner-a possibility, since although one tradition states that Junius was indicted and avoided condemnation by
suicide (authorities quoted, 54 n.), there was an exchange of prisoners
in 247 (Livy, ep. 19; Zon. viii. I6): De Sanctis, iii. r. 177 n. 73 The
identification of Aegithallus is not certain; cf. J. Schubring, Phil.
24, I866, 59; Holm, Gesch. Sic. i. 13. 333 ; iii. 354 (revised view) ;
Meltzer, ii. 333 Meltzer thinks it is Cape S. Teodoro, on the north
side of the bay of Motya, and c. 20 km. south of Eryx. But Kromayer
(AS, iii. r. 35) identifies it with the spur of Eryx here mentioned by
P., and with the modern Pizzo Argenteria or Sant' Anna; if this is
correct, it must be assumed that the Romans recovered it (58. 2),
and in a short survey P. may have felt justified in omitting the
seizure by Carthalo.
56. 1. )\JhLAKav Tov BapKav: the arrival of Hamilcar Barca, the
father of Hannibal, in Sicily, to succeed Carthalo (Zon. viii. r6)
marks a new stage in the war. (The name Barca(s) is usually associated with the Semitic Baraq, 'lightning--or sword-flash': Lenschau,
RE, 'Hamilkar (7)', col. 2303, who does not confirm the doubts of
Meltzer, ii. 582.) Hamilcar's arrival is dated by Zon. viii. r6 under the
consuls C. Aurelius L.f. C.n. Cotta and P. Servilius Q.f. Cn.n.
Geminus (A.U.C. 506 = 248/7 B.C.). However, P.'s reference to the
eighteenth year of the war (from Philinus) applies to the active
opening of Hamilcar's campaign, his attacks on Italy, and his seizure
of Heircte (as a counter-move to the Roman occupation of Eryx);
and since on his arrival Hamilcar had first to suppress a mercenary
revolt (Zon., loc. cit.), he may well have reached Sicily in spring 247,
and opened his campaign against the Romans only in late summer,
II9

I. 56. r

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

i.e. in the eighteenth year of the war (which began in late summer
264; 4r. 4 n., 5 r-s n.). De Sanctis, iii. I. 253. This chronology is
confirmed by the later course of Hamilcar's command; 56. II, he
was axt"86v lrr Tp&; EVLCWTOUS on Heircte (247/6, 246/s. 245/4); sS. 6,
the struggle continued for two years more on Eryx, until the war
was settled by other means (244/3, 243/2). This brings us to the
arrival of Lutatius Catulus in Sicily in 242 (which signifies the Roman
resumption of a naval policy after a five years' lapse (59 I n.)-for
this, not the battle of the Aegates Islands {so Beloch, iv. 2. 285), is
the decisive point to P. (d. 20. 8)). See DeSanctis, loc. cit.; Luterbacher, Phil., r9o7, 419-20.
3. KO.TO.O"Upa.s TTJV AoKp(lia. KO.l TTJV BpETT~a.vtiv xwpa.v: following
up similar raids by Carthalo in 248 (Zon. viii. r6; Oros. iv. ro. 4).
The Romans replied with citizen colonies at Alsium {247) and
Fregcnae (245) on the Etruscan coast (VeiL Pat. i. 14. 8).
TOv t1rt TTjs EpKTijs AEY61-'evov To1rov: 'the so-called position near
(above?) Heircte'. (Diodorus reads 'EpKml or 'EpKn) (xxiL ro. 4,
xxiii. zo) and Hultsch adopts Tats ElpKm"i:s here). Heircte is thus the
name of a strong-point, applied by extension to the hill above. This
hill is usually identified with :Mte Pellegrino, the 6oo m. hill which
rises in isolation to the north of Panormus; d. J. Schubring, H~'sto
rische Topographic von Panormos, i (Progr. Liibeck, 187o), 24 ff.;
Holm, Gesclt. Sic. i. rs. 334 f.; iii. 28 f., 354 ; De Sanctis, iii. I. I8I n. 83;
K. Ziegler, RE, 'Heirkte', col. 2645; Cary, IJR, 155 n. 17. However,
there are strong arguments against this identification; and Kromaycr (AS, iii. r. 4 ff.} has a cogent defence of the view that Heircte
is Mte Castellacio, an 890 m. hill about ro km. north-west of Palermo,
and more particularly of the fort which he would locate in the pass
which lies between the north-east spurs of Mte Castellacio and Mte
Gallo, just above (and south of} the modern coastal village of Sferracavallo (the name Heircte will then mean 'obstruction' (in the pass)).
Thus F.'s description of Heircte as lying between Eryx and Panormus, though highly inaccurate (and a sign of F.'s meagre knowledge
of Sicilian geography when he was writing this), is perhaps less
unsuitable to Mte Castellacio than to Mte Pellegrino. The perimeter
of the mountain { 4), roo stadcs (u! miles), corresponds fairly
closely to that of the plateau of Mte Castellacio, but it is a third too
much for that of Mte Pellegrino (Holm, Gesch. Sic. i. 15), which
Kromayer makes only n! km. (7-7! miles). The convenient harbour
( 7) is hard to identify if Heircte is .Mte Pellegrino. Meltzer (ii.
341-2) speaks of Mondello to the north-west; but the connexion
between :Mondello and the mountain is difficult. DeSanctis (loc. cit.)
therefore follows G.M. Columba, and locates it in the bay of Palermowhich can hardly be feasible. But on the view that Heircte is Mte
Castellacio, the harbour will be that at! sola delle Femmine. Finally, the

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

I. 5 8.

phrase 1rpos Tds 1TAa.yEovs 1rlloLas Ell</>vw> KdJ-Lello> ( 4), though usually
taken (since Schweighaeuser) as 'well placed to receive the breezes'
(and regarded as an example of P.'s belief that climate affects men's
characters; cf. Class. et med., r948, 178-8r), probably means 'lying
well-protected against the sharp sea-winds' ; and this applies far
more to Mte Castellacio than to Mte Pellegrino. Frank (CAll, vii.
6go) puts the choice between Mte Pellegrino and Mte Billiemi (a col
and slope 2 km. east of Mte Castellacio); but Kromayer's identification seems in all respects the most satisfactory.
11. va.pa.aTpa.TovEOEuaciv1'wv tv 'Laws vivTE aTa.8(o~<;: the Romans'
position cannot be located; nor is one to suppose that they maintained the same camp for three years.
57. The fighting romzd II eircte. The details of this protracted struggle
are compressed into this general characterization, whereas P.'s
sources no doubt emphasized details; some fragments of these are
preserved in Diod. xxiv. P. uses metaphors taken from athletes
elsewhere, perhaps ii. 65. rr, xvi. 28. 9 (runners in the stadium),
xxvii. g. 2 (boxing), xxxix. r. 8 (pancration or boxing); shorter
examples, xxix. 8. s. 8. g, 17. 4. xxxviii. 18. 8. They clearly reflect his
own interests, and it is unnecessary to assume Isocratean or Stoic
influence (so von Scala, 22; and, with reservations, Wunderer, iii. rr2).
2. T(;'w vuv AeyotJ-EvWv aTpa.ntywv: P. has mentioned only Hamilcar
and L. Iunius Pullus; but Iunius had probably left the scene before
Hamilcar arrived (55 Ion.). In fact Hamilcar's activity on Heircte
coincided with a succession of consuls in Sicily, L. Caecilius Metellus
and N. Fabius Buteo (247/6), M'. Otacilius Crassus and M. Fabius
Lidnus (246/5), M. Fabius Buteo and C. Atilius Bulbus (245/4). That
P.'s metaphor has led him into a careless expression is more likely
than a fault in the text (aTpaTwv, aTparWJ-LaTwv, and a-rparo1riDw11
have been suggested: but AEyoJ-Levwll is against such an emendation,
and the language of 57 is more appropriate to two individuals than
two armies; the comparison of the two sides begins in 58).
6. a.t 8uvcitJ-ElS E;JlcitJ-~).o~: Kromayer (AS, iii. I. ron. r) estimates Hamilcar's force on Heircte at 15,ooo-zo,ooo men.
TU TE Ka.Ta TOU<; xd.pa.Ka.<.;: 'their camps' (not 'trenches'. Paton).
58. l. wcrm;p 0,ya.9o<; j3pa.~EUT~S ~ TIJXTJ: i.e. in Order to Secure a
decision between the closely matched pair, Fortune as umpire redefines the terms of the conquest, so as to render it a more severe
test. The word f3paf3eveu is often used with rvx11 (e.g. xxvii. r6. 4,
xxix. 27. r2); but the full metaphorical force is not necessarily felt.
The phrase is found in Diodorus not only in a Polybian passage
(xxviii. 4), but elsewhere (xiii. 53 2 (Timaeus?), xxxiv. 27 (Poseidonius ?). Elsewhere P. makes Tyche distribute prizes (iii. 6J. J,
121

I. 58.

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

xv. 9 4, to. s. xxxii. 4 3) and crowns (ii. 2. 10). In such passages the
personification is formal and rhetorical; it represents part of the
common reservoir of expression on which P. drew. Siegfried, 81,
' ... pure metaphor, springing for the most part from an atmosphere
heightened to match the situation'. See above, p. 25 n. r.
1Tapa~6Aws: 'in a remarkable manner' {Strachan-Davidson); 'by a
bold stroke' (Shuckburgh) : Paton's 'unexpectedly' does not quite
get the sense.
2. Twv 'Pwllalwv Tov "EpuKa. TllpoOVTwv: i.e. at the temple of Venus,
and on the slope from Drepana, 55 ro.
KaTEAa~ETo Tt,v ,.6}\w: evidently in 244, judging by the order of
events in Diodorus, who {xxiv. 8--9) adds that Hamilcar slew the
Roman garrison, and transferred the inhabitants (such as had returned, presumably, 24. 8 n.) to Drepana. Following Kromayer, De
Sanctis (iii. I. 183) puts the Punic landing at modern Tonnara di
Bonagia, north of Eryx. Already Hamilcar had made one attempt
to ease the blockade of Drepana by an unsuccessful attempt on the
island of Pelias (modern Columbara) at the harbour-entrance, which
had been seized by N. Fabius Buteo, the consul for 247 (Zon. viii. r6).
3. 1Tapa~oAWS , {J1TOJlEVEW Kat ~ho.kLV5UVEUELV 'ITOALOpKOUJlEVOUS;
'a siege of the Romans ... supported by them with extraordinary
hardihood and adventurous daring' {Shuckburgh). Paton is here
quite misleading: 'the Romans-a thing they had never expectedremained besieged and in considerable peril'.
5. 1Epov ~1Toh1uo.v Tov a-Te<tavov: 'they left the contest dra-wn', cf.
xxix. 8. 9 In the event of a drawn contest, the crown of victory was
dedicated to the gods; cf. Sen. ep. 83. s. 'quod raro cursoribus euenit,
hicran fecimus'; Gell. xviii. z. 4-5, 'quaestio ... sol uta corona et praemio donabatur .. si nemo dissoluebat, corona eius quaestionis deo
cuius id festum erat dicabatur'.
6. Ko.i11"Ep M' h1J mi.Aw 5to.ywvlO'O.JlEvous KTA.: 'before either
could ma...'>ter the other, although they had continued the conflict
in this spot for another two years, it came about that the war was
decided in another fashion.' It was decided by the Roman decision
once again to resume her naval policy (59 z); and this was in 242.
Hence the two years of warfare around Eryx are 244{3 and 243/2
(56. In.). If the decisive point is taken to be the battle of the
Aegates Islands, either one must force the evidence to date this :242
(Reuss, Phil., 19o1, rzr-3) or date Hamilcar's arrival in Sicily 246
(Beloch, iv. 2. 285), both unsatisfactory. Paton mistranslates,
'though the struggle in this place lasted for another two years, the
war had been decided by other means'.
7. Tot; o/uxollaxouut Twv Ellyevwv 6pvi9wv: the change of metaphor to
a cock-fight {a common sport at all times in Greece; K. Schneider, RE,
'Hahnenkampfe', cols. zzro-15) varies the picture. Such a metaphor,
IZZ

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

I. 59 6

already in Plato, Theaet. 164 c, need be neither a borrowing from

Fabius (so \Vunderer, iii. ros; Gelzer, Hermes, 1933, 141), nor a proof
of Stoic influence (von Scala, 327: d. Epictet. ii. 2, 13, iv. r. 124;
Clem. Al. Paed. iii. r8, p. 262 P.). P. could surely draw on his own
experience. The parallel is closely developed ; the loss of the use of
their "rings corresponds to the five-year duel on land, the death
grapple to the new naval policy culminating in the battle of the
Aegates Islands.
8. i!ws O.v cuhofJ-aTws ~<TA.: 'until accidentally falling foul of one
another they grapple without difficulty'. aVTop.ATws is not quite
'involuntarily' (Paton) ; but Isaac Casaubon's sponte sua, i.e. 'without
outside intervention', is not unattractive. s~aSpauuwOa~ is a rare
compound; the meaning is probably that of the simple verb 'to
seize hold of'.
59. 1. Ofl-o{ws S: 'similarly', i.e. to the cocks. The parallel is stressed
(cf. 58. 7 n.), and Paton is wrong in following Casaubon's emendation
Of-LW'i.

ET1'J crxeSov ~bYJ 'II'EVTE: from the shipwreck off Camarina in 249. to the
new decision (of winter 243/2) is in fact six complete years. P.'s error

is due to his identification of the period of land activity with Hamilcar's command in Sicily, i.e. 247-243; and this identification is made
easier because P. imagines Iunius Pullus to be Claudius' successor,
and hence dates his shipwreck to 248 (52. 5 n.). P.'s view that the
Romans had envisaged finishing the war by land fighting is dismissed
by Thiel (Hist. 333 n. 85r) as nonsensical.
2. ou 'll'poxwpouv auTo'Ls Toupyov: the motive alleged is the same as
that which led to the change of policy before Drepana (39 14; cf.
41. 2 n.).
4. er~avTEs Tois ~I( TTJS TUXYJS aufJ.'II'TWJJ.aaw: i.e. the shipwrecks off
Camarina (255) and C. Palinurus (253), 37 r-2, 39 6-7.
~AaTTw9evTEs TU 1repi Ta Api'll'ava vaut:J.ax~: in 249; 49 7 f. But an
equal motive was the second shipwreck off Camarina the same year
(SS r-2); its omission here helps P. to make a rhetorical distinction
between the blows of Fortune and the blows of the enemy.
6. ~v Se To 1rAeiov o/uxot:J.ax(a: 'in this undertaking resolution
had to supply for the most part the want of material resources'
(Strachan-Davidson). ifivxof-Laxla means fighting by the aid of the
psyche, not to save it (as Paton, who translates 'a struggle for
existence'). The source for this characterization may well be Fabius;
but the concept appears elsewhere in P., e.g. ii. 30. 7 (on the Celts),
iii. 9 7 (on Hamilcar): cf. Gelzer, Hermes, 1933, 141.
T~v n7.1v 1rpoeaTwTwv O.vSpwv <JitAOTL(J-tav I<TA.: the account of this
loan (perhaps compulsory), and the implied praise of the 'leading
men' will also be from Fabius (doubts in Bung, 71). See De Sanctis,
123

I. 59 6

THE FIRST PUKIC WAR

iii. I. :z:z8 (d. 184 n. 87, where he observes that P.'s account of this
'sacrifice' on the part of the senators is much exaggerated; 'in fact
the sacrifice of the Athenian trierarchs at the end of the Peloponnesian \Var was proportionately much heavier'), and Thiel, Hist.
303, who points out that P.'s words do not exclude an interestbearing loan.
8. Suucoalwv 1TAOlwv: probably Fabius' figure. The annalistic tradition gave 300 (Eutrop. ii. 27. I; Oros. iv. ro. 5; auct. de uir. ill. 41);
also Diod. xxiv. II. I, adding 700 transports. Tam (]HS, 1907, s6)
estimates the total Roman fleet (including the ships surviving after
Drepana) at about 220; but the Romans probably did not include
the 20 survh'ing ships built on a heavier model than their new fleet
(Thiel, }fist. 93, 305 n. 786).
1Tpos TTjv ToG 'Polilou va.Ov: cf. 47. 1o n. This new fleet of lighter vessels
was necessarily committed to Punic tactics (d. Thiel, Hist. 304).
raLOV AuTaTLov: 'appointing c. Lutatius to the command', cf. 6o. 3,
II. 2 n., 39 15 n. The consuls for A.U.c. 512 =- 242/I B.C. were C.
Lutatius C.f. C.n. Catulus and A. Postumius A.f. L.n. Albinus
(Munzer, RE, 'Lutatius (4)', cots. zo68-71; 'Postumius (3o)', col. 902).
The plebeian pontifex maximussecured the command for the plebeian
Lutatius by forbidding Postumius, as flamen Martialis, to leave Rome
(Livy, ep. 19, xxxvii. 51. r-2; VaL Max. i. r. 2; Tac. Ann. iii. 71;
Munzer, Adelsparteien, 261); the command was shared by Q. Valerius
Falto, the praetor urbanus (Val. Max. ii. 8. :z; Zon. viii. 17), who
celebrated a naval triumph pro praetore ex Sic::lia in 241/o (act. tr.).
9. 1TO.VTOS O.vo.I<XWPTJKOTOS Ets TTjv ot~eEio.v ToG vo.uTLKOu; the
reasons behind this policy can only be the object of speculation.
Frank (CAli, vii. 691-2) attributes it to the ascendancy of Hanno
and the anti-Barcan faction, De Sanctis (iii. 1. 185) to Hamilcar
himself, who 'had let himself become so engrossed in his guerilla
warfare around Eryx and Heircte that he lost sight of the primary
importance of controlling the seas'; against the latter view see
Thiel, 1list.
306.
60-61. Battle of the Aegates Islands. The substantial agreement with
Diod. xxiv. I I points to the continued use of Philinus as P.'s main
source (though he corrects the numbers from Fabius, 6r. 6 n.); see
also Zon. viii. 17. Eutrop. ii. 27. 2 dates the battle VI idus martias,
i.e. ro March; Zon. viii. 17 puts it at the end of Lutatius' consulship;
and the act. tr. give him a naval triumph de Poenis ex Sicilia as proconsul on 4 October 241. Beloch (iv. 2. 261-2) argues that Lutatius
did not reach Sicily till April 241 (59 8, apxof-Livr;r; TfjS' 8epda.:;), and
that at this time 10 March fell in May (Jul.); but De Sanctis (iii. 1.
264-7) shows that, if Lutatius went out in April, it would have been
impossible for the battle to take place before July at the earliest.

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

I. 6I. 6

P.'s account is indecisive. But it seems unlikely that the Carthaginians could have been ready as quickly as Beloch suggests, despite
the stress on their speed in 2; they must have needed a considerable
time, perhaps even six months (Luterbacher, Phil.,
424). Hence
De Sanctis's arguments seem conclusive. And if P. narrative nowhere makes dear that a winter intervened between Lutatius'
arrival and the battle of the Aegates Islands, he was perhaps misled
by stress on the speed of Punic preparations in Philinus, who may
have used this theme partly to excuse the defeat {cf. 6r. 4, uAiw-;
avaO'K'If7'a). It may be assumed that Lutatius left for Sicily in summer,
242, and won his victory in March 241 {Meltzer, ii. 347-9; DeSanctis,
iii. r. 264-7; Munzer, RE, 'Lutatius (4)', col. 2069; Frank, CAH,
vii.
; Scullard, Hist. qo). Reuss (Phil., r9or, r2r-6) has argued
that the battle was in 242, largely on the basis of a synchronism in
ii. 43 6; but this can be otherwise explained (see ad loc.), and
Reuss's theory is too ruthless towards the other evidence to be
seriously considered.
60. 3. 'Avvwva: perhaps the vanquished general at Agrigcntum (r8.
8), who was defeated at Ecnomus (28. 1 ff.); but Punic precedent
would not lead us to
that he survived this second defeat (he
returned to Carthage, Zon. viii. r2), and this is probably another:man.
6. cpopov nVj.lOV Kai. AO.j.l1Tpov: 'a fresh (AafL7rpov) and favourable
(,Popov) wind'; cf. 44 3. ovp~ov Kal AtlfL7rpov aVEfLOV, with the same
Sense; XXXi. 15. 8, rpop011 UliEfLOV.
7. auAAoyL~Of-LEvos KTh.: Lutatius is made to foresee Hanno's purpose as expressed in 3 (d. 27. r for an example of the same technique). The source is probably Philinus; cf. Klotz, La nMtvelle Clio,
1953, 238.
10. E1Tl. 1-l(a.v vaGv: 'in line one deep', 26. I 2 n.

61. 1. Ka8EAOf-LVoL Tous la-rous: they were sailing, not rov.ing, as

this was faster with a favourable wind; cf. Caesar, BC, iii. 26, for
the example of the Pompeian squadron under saiL For fighting, the
fuller control by oars was essential. See Strachan-Davidson, ad lac.
6. Losses in the battle. P. gives the Punic losses as so ships sunk and 70
captured with their crews; the prisoners amount to nearly Io,ooo
( 8). Diod. xxiv. r x. 1 gives II7 ships lost, 20 of them with their
crews; and 6,ooo prisoners (i.e. 300 for each of zo crews) according
to Philinus, 4,040 according to others (but De Sanctis, iii. I. 235
emends to give 6,ooo Carthaginians and 4,o4o Tuw lTpwv, i.e. c.
Io,ooo in all). The annalistic tradition (Eutrop. ii. 27. 2; Oros. iv.
Io. 7) gives 63 ships taken, 125 sunk, 32,ooo prisoners, and I_),oooI4,ooo killed. Diodorus makes the Punic fleet 25o ships, excluding
transports; the annalistic tradition raises it to 400 or even 6oo, to
make the Roman victory the more glorious.
two separate methods
125

I. 6r. 6

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

of calculation Tam (JHS, 1907, 56-57) arrives at a total of c. qo.

Diodorus puts the Roman losses (including damaged ships) at So,
the annalistic tradition at only 12. F.'s total of Punic losses (so+7o =
r2o) does not differ greatly from Diodorus' total of rq; and Jacoby,
FGH, 174 F 5 (commentary), suggests that Diodorus' figure of 2o
ships lost with their crews may be corrupt, and that in fact P. is
here reproducing Philinus (cf. Reuss, Phil., r9or, 146). Alternatively,
P. may have corrected Philinus' figures from Fabius, as he has done
elsewhere.
7. ~'ITa.pafl.-;:vov ToOs luTous: a very difficult, if not impossible,
manceuvre at sea; perhaps the Punic ships got away with the aid
of the dolon, a subsidiary sail attached to the foremast (d. Thiel,
Hist. 314 n. 8r8).
62. 1. Ta.~s flEV opfla.L's Ka.l TaL's 4nAonf11a.~s KTA.: 'as far as resolution
of mind and will to conquer went, they were still ready to fight on'.
Paton's translation, 'had they let themselves be guided by passion
and ambition', introduces a critical note absent from a phrase which
echoes Philinus' defence of the Carthaginians' courage. Similarly
P. gives full credit to Hamilcar ( 3-5; d. 6o. 8, iii. 9 7, and Diod.
xxiv. 5 r-2); whereas to the Roman annalistic tradition Sicily was
nimis celeri desperatione rerum concessam (Livy, xxi. r. 5); Reuss,
Phil., 1901, 147; DeSanctis, iii. 1. 229.
7. '1Tpo9uflws o.-;:~a.flivou Ta 'ITa.pa.Ka.AOlJj.LVa.: according to Diod. xxiv.
13 Lutatius demanded the surrender of arms and deserters, according
to Nepos, Ham. r. 5, the laying down of arms; the source is probably
Philinus. But when Hamilcar refused, Lutatius seems not to have
pressed these demands, perhaps because he wished to anticipate his
successor's arrival in concluding terms (Zon. viii. 17; the demand,
here mentioned, that Hamilcar and his forces should pass under the
yoke, is improbable).
TOLO{IT(oJV nvwv uuv9YJKWV: F.'s source for the text of this preliminary
draft treaty is unknown. The words TowvTwv nvwv are no indication of
a literary source (so Thommen, Hermes, 1885, 203: d., however, iii. 22.
4, 24. 3, where the source is documentary) ; but the general absence of
hiatus (Hultsch, Phil., 1859, 288-319) indicates that P. is not reproducing any document uerbatim (see Schulte, 19 f.). Probably the
account goes back ultimately to a document, but through Fabius;
though in view of the probable origin of F.'s account of the Punic
treaties in iii. 22 ff., direct access to a documentary source is possible
(De Sanctis, iii. I. 229). N aevius, fg. 49 and so Mor. are concerned
with this treaty (d. Cichorius, so-52; Taubler, Hermes, 1922, 156 ff.;
E. Fraenkel, RE, 'Naevius', Suppl.-B. vi, col. 639) but do not
necessarily derive from the same source as P. See further iii. 27.
1-6 nn. for the emended treaty. Meltzer, De pace a.u.c. SIJ inter
I:Z6

THE FIRST PUXIC WAR

L 63.4

Romanos Poenosque constituta (Festschr. des \Vettiner Gymnasiums

zu Dresden, r884); Ttiubler, r88 ff.; Vorgesch. 108 ff.
8. M.v Kal T~ OTJIJ-<tl TWV 'Pwj.Lalwv <TuvSoKij: cf. Zon. viii. 17. On this
clause see iii. 29. 3 The people had the right to ratify all treaties,
vi. 14. u-rz; but that the comitia demanded a revision of the terms
(63. r) is proof that the Senate had not yet achieved its later preponderance in the constitution (Frank, CAH, vii. 696).
1-LTJ TroA~:j.L~:'Lv 'IEpwv~ KTA.: the formula recognized Hiero's hegemony
over his allies; Stauffenberg, 85. The same prohibition must have
been extended a fortiori to the other Roman socii.
9. xwpls A6Tpwv UTrGVTGS TOO<;; alxj.LaAwTOUS: d. Zon. viii. 17. There
was apparently a restoration of Punic prisoners too, 83. 8 n.; Eutrop.
ii. 27. 4
tv h~:<TLV eiKOO'~ OL<TXLALa Ka.t OlO.KOO'~(I. TUAC1VTO. Eu~o'it<6.: the hiatus is
exceptionaL Other figures (App.Sic. 2. 2, 2,ooo talents; Oros. iv.u. 2,
3,ooo talents) may be neglected. In xxi. 42. 19 (d. xxi. q. 4; Uvy,
xxxviii. 38. r3) a Euboic-Attic talent is equated with 8o Roman
librae; and as the libra weighs 327'45 grammes, the talent will be
zs8 kg. of silver. On a gold : silver basis of rst : I, this comes to just
over 2Jo; and Catulus' proposed indemnity is rather over soo,ooo.
Such calculations, however, take no account of relative purchasing
power.

63. 1. ou 1Tpo<Te8~aTo Tas <Tuv&r\~<as o Sfj~J.os: this is no doubt based

on Fabius and links with his thesis (10. 3 n., 11. r) of popular greed
deciding the issue of helping the 1\Iamertini; d. Gclzer, Hermes, 1933.
142. If in fact the commission of ten was sent by the people (as
Mommsen argues, St.-R. ii. 643, 692; contra Taubler, Vorgesch. 109),
its composition shows that there was no break with the nobility, for
it was led by Q. Lutatius C.f. C.n. Cerco, consul for A.U.c. 513
241/o B.c., and brother of Lutatius Catulus: Zon. viii. 17; Val. Max.
i. 3 z (Munzer, RE, 'Lutatius (13)', col. zo95). Our sources offer no
support for either E. Meyer's theory (Kt. Schr. ii. 38o) that the word
ofip.o> here cloaks the activities of the equites (cf. II. 2 n.), or De
Sanctis's assumption (iii. I. 190) that the people voted to continue
the war, and that the Commission was sent out by the Senate as
a wise compromise.
2-3. ~paxa. 8E 1Tpo<TE1Thnva.v KTA: see iii. 27. z-6 n. for the revised
treaty.
63.4-64. 6. Swmmary on the First Punic War. P. takes up and
develops two of the points made in r3. ro-12, (a) The magnitude of
the war (r3. u): discussion in 63. 4-9, ending with P.'s conclusions
about the forces directing Roman success. (This point may have
been in Philinus; Klotz (Hermes, 1952, 326) observes that P.'s superlatives perhaps neglect the Hannibalic War, which was admittedly
I27

L 63. 1

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

shorter, but no less in scope and significance.) (b) The light thrown
on the special characteristics of the two powers (13. 12) : the moral
aspects are discussed (64. s-6), and also the political institutions of
Rome, which will be treated below (book vi). Thus P. stresses both
the moral and the political virtues of Rome at the outset (contra
Komemann, Phil., 1931, 175; cf. CQ, 1943, 81). The reference back
is underlined by the phrase
'Pwrtaf.os Kct~ KapxTJSovlo~s avo-Tas
7Tp/. .EoKr).to.s m5A<ftOS: cf. IJ. 10; at what stage it became a war 'for
Sicily' is indicated in zo. 2.
63. 4. ETTJ etKOI7l Kal TETTpa. auvexws: from late summer 264
to 241, i.e. 23 years and a few months, 5 I-S n. This figure is confirmed by Zon. viii. 17; Eutrop. iii. r; Oros. iv. II. 4 De Sanctis,
iii. I. 251-2.
5. Numbers engaged. According to P.'s figures there were 250 ships
at Mylae (zo. 9, 23. 3), 68o at Ecnomus (25. 7--9), and 550 at Hcrmaea
{36. 9-10); the numbers at Drepana and Tyndaris are not recorded,
nor the total at the Aegates Islands, where the Romans had zoo
ships (59 8). The two battles are therefore Hcrmaea and Ecnomus;
and r1rro.~ rtv . nciAw Si must be 'on one occasion .. on another'
(so Shuckburgh: Paton translates 1rdAw S 'and on a subsequent
one'). For P.'s analysis of naval strength see 20. 8.
6. Losses on either side. The Punic total is reached thus: Hannibal's
first battle (21. n), say 30; .Mylae (2J.IO), so; Sardinia (24. 6) rroMcis,
say 20-40; Tyndaris (25. 4), 18; Ecnomus (z8. 14), 94+; Hermaea
(36. II), 114+; Aegates Islands (61. 6), 1zo: Total: 446+ (probably
470---90). The Roman figures are: Lipara (21. 4), I7; Tyndaris (25. I-J),
9; Ecnomus (28. 14), 24; first wreck off Camarina (37 2), 284;
Palinurus (39 6), ISo+; Drcpana (sr. Iz), 93+; Lilybaeum (53 7),
JAtyo.; second wreck off Camarina (s:z. 6, 54 8), 120: Total, 697 +
Tarn (]HS, I907' s8-s9) reduces the Roman losses to c. 4/0, which,
by adding say 10 for Mylae and an unknown figure for the Aegatcs
Islands, he brings up to about soo. These calculations involve reducing the losses off Camarina in the first wreck to I7o+, since of
the total of 364 some n4 were prizes, and not all these will have gone
down. But Tarn's figures for Palinurus (27 instead of ISo) are not
acceptable (39 6 n.); here P. is to be preferred. Hence the only
change which has to be made in calculating the total is in connexion
with the first wreck off Camarina; and this makes the total Roman
(real) losses about 6oo (cf. Thiel, llist. 94). De Sanctis (iii. r. I9o
n. 98) makes the Roman total683 +, apparently by raising the losses
at Camarina (first wreck) to 384, and then subtracting the 114 prizes,
thus making the loss 270. Beloch (iv. I, 363 n. 3) thinks both
Roman and Punic totals are from Fabius and much exaggerated;
but they seem to be calculated by P. himself for the figures in his
own text.

o...

128

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

I. 63. 9

7. ))..vnyovou Ka.l nTOAE!L(I.LOU Ka.~ ATI!L'lTPLOU: e.g. Salamis (Jo6),

where Demetrius Poliorcetes defeated Ptolemy I, Cos, Andros, and
Ephesus (Egyptian defeats: all three dates uncertain: see A. Momigliano and P. Fraser, CQ, 1950, 107-18; E. Manni, Athen., 1952,
182 ff.; Treves, Eujorione, 75-83, 124-8 (with notes)).
v~;pt TouTwv {aTopftaavTa.s: 'if they were to read the account of this
war' (Strachan-Davidson : cf. Schweighaeuser; for this sense of
laTopiv cf. ii. 6z. 6, xii. 3 5; perhaps ii. 17. 2) ; 'if they had to tell the
story of this war' (cf. 13. j) (Shuckburgh). But the latter interpretation involves taking 'l"oos 8avp.d~oVTa:; as historians; whereas it is
clearly with readers of history that P. is concerned. Paton's translation is satisfactory, 'if they inquired into the history of this
war'.
8. ou8' O.v ... 8uv119t:t11 EUpEiV: for the claim cf. 2 nn. Indirectly
P. is here challenging comparison with Herodotus and Thucydides.
On the change from trireme to quinquereme see Tarn, liMN D, 122 ff.
9. TO vpoTE9v ft!LiV ~s npxf\s: in 3 g-Io P. undertook to explain the
grounds (ri<{>opfLal) which led the Romans to conceive the ambition
of a world-empire, and gave them the means to acquire it. The First
Punic \Var, and especially Roman naval policy, provide the answer.
Not by chance, nor by purely fortuitous circumstances (rox"7 and
Ta.vT<~fLarov are virtually synonymous: cf. x. 2. s. xv. 16. 6, xxi. z6.
16, xxxi. 30. J. and other passages quoted in Siegfried, 6o--66 ;
Susemihl, ii. Ioi n. 79 compares Arist. Phys. ii. 4--6), but by deliberately schooling themselves amid dangers, the Romans conceived
their ambition (7re{3a.Aovro . 'ToAfL'Y]pws) and accomplished it
(Ka8lKovro rfjs 1rpo8laews). Thus this passage was clearly written in
close relationship to 3 7-10, part of the introduction to books i and ii
(cf. Shorey,CP, 1921, 282). von Scala (182), Susemihl (ii. non. 104), and
Cuntz (46) have argued that it represents a later stage in P.' s thought,
when he has modified or rejected his belief in the power of Fortune
(cf. ii. 38. 5). The assumption is unnecessary and unconvincing. P.'s
concept of Tycke varies from one part of his work to another; but
even so positive a concept as that of 4 4 is complementary to a
belief in causation, and not exclusive of it. In the case of the Roman
Empire P. was faced with a dilemma, and the present passage is his
solution. The rise of Rome to world dominion was the act of Tyche
(4. 1 ff.); yet if it was that and nothing more, P.'s history had no
lesson to teach. The answer to this aporia is that Fortune favoured
the Romans because they were worthy. It was the a<{>opwd as analysed in the First Punic War which marked them out to become the
proteges of Fortune, so that the rise of Rome to world power defined
itself as the main-stream of history and the will of Providence. It
was no doubt from a similar passage in book vi, now lost, that
Cicero borrowed the statement (de re pub. ii. 30) that 'non fortuito
K

129

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

populum Homanum, sed consilio et disciplina confirmatum esse

nee tamen aduersante fortuna' (where nott fortuito does not exclude
the positive aid of fortuna, just as here ov -r6X'll does not exclude the
guidance of 4 1 :ff.). See above, pp. 2I-22,
Ka.9a1TEp vaol 5oKouaL -rldv 'EAAt}vwv: who they are is uncertain.
P. may be thinking of some of the unidentified writers on the Roman
constitution, attacked in
3-4 (if these were Greeks); or he may
simply be referring to orally expressed opinions.
64. 1. olJ-r' O.v 1TA1]pldaa.a ou-r' avt:mAEuaa.a .. 0UV1]9E~ev: the
promised discussion has not survived among our fragments of book
vi, but the difficulty appears to be in assembling the crews rather
than in building the ships. The passage is of interest as an indication
that at the very outset of his history P. was awake to signs of
deterioration at Rome after her acquisition of world dominion, i.e.
after 167 (KtrKpa.T7JICO'TS 'TWV oAwv).
3-4. Twv 1TEpl a.1hfjc; uuyyEypo.cjll)-rwv: who these authors were,
whether Greeks or Romans, is not known. For the utilitarian
criterion applied to their work (uMws- dvwf.Mj) see 1. In.
6. Tous ye JlTJV O.vSpa.s: 'individual soldiers'. P. here puts his finger
on an essential factor in the Homan victory, the quality of the
citizen troops compared with the mercenaries of Carthage.
~lltAKa.v . Tov BapKa.v (mKa.AoullEvov KTA.: the full description both
identifies Hamilcar and prepares the ground for the later discussion
of the causes of the Second Punic War; cf. iii. 9 6, where the
description recurs in that context. The phrase KaTa va'" is used by
P. (I) in contrast to Ka.Ta (Um.v, 'natural' as opposed to 'adoptive'
(e.g. iv. 2. s, cf. iv. 25. 6 (Philip V of .l\facedon, natural son of
Demetrius II, but adopted son of Doson), xviii. 35 9, xxxi. 25. Io,
26. I {Scipio and Fabius the natural sons of L. Aemilius Paullus));
(z) to express genuine relationship where it is called in question, i.e.
'natural' as opposed to 'supposititious' {without reference to legitimacy) (e.g. xxx. 2. 6, Eumenes' successor his son K!ua Jaw, though
not as yet recognized as such (dva.oeoe,yptf"o>)). But in the case of
Hannibal and Hamilcar P. frequently uses the phrase {iii. 9 6, 12. 3,
cf. xi. 2. 2, Hasdrubal is Hannibal's brother Ka'Ta 6a~v), though there
was never any question of adoption or doubt concerning Hannibal's
direct descent from Hamilcar. Hence the meaning (as in xxxi. 13. 3)
seems to be no more than 'own'.
65-88. The Carthaginian Mercenary War

Besides P. there is the account in Diod. xxv, which is usually

assumed to be derived directly from P. (Mommsen, Rom. Forsch.
ii. 266; Schwartz, RE, 'Diodorus (37)', col. 689; De Sanctis, iii. I.
130

THE CARTHAGINIAN MERCENARY WAR

1. 65.

385 n. 10); but the theory of a common source for P. and Diodorus
has been put forward by Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 357) and by Laqueur
(RE, 'Philinos (8)', col. 2I9o), who believe this source to be Philinus
(cf. Unger, Rh. Mus., I879, 90-105). For the view that Philinus wrote
a monograph on the First Punic war, however, see 14 n n. P.'s
source is on this assumption unidentified. He is a military historian,
rather less competent than Philinus, but sharing his enthusiasm for
the Barca family, and hostile to the mercenaries (whose case is
consequently to be recovered only by conjecture).

65. 2. 1TOAEJJ-05 JJ-cpUAl05: cf. iii. 9 9, lp.<f>vMw; Tapaxars. The Falisci

were allies; and the Carthaginian mercenaries were assisted by
Libyan subjects of Carthage, who were probably themselves largely
Carthaginianized.
o 1Tpos Tous ca>a.A.io"Kouo;; Ka.AOUJJ-Evous: the usual Greek form is
tPaAEplot, and the participle softens the use of the Latin word.
Further, the phrase o 7Tpos Tovs tPaAlaKovs parallels o 7Tpos Tovs
Alf3vos ( 3). This is against accepting KaAovp.Evos, the reading of
D and E, with Schweighaeuser, despite the passages i. 70. 7, o 7Tpos
TDV<; tivovs KaL Avj3tKo<; lmKA-qBds 7ToAEp.os, and iv. 33 6, Tj fLUX7J 1}
KaAovp.117] 7TEpL Ta<f>pov.
Faleria, the capital of the Falisci, lay c. 30 miles north of Rome in
south Etruria; but its people were probably of Italic origin (Strabo,
v. 226; Hiilsen, RE, 'Falisci', col. I9p). The revolt, in 24I, may have
followed the expiry of a fifty years' treaty two years earlier (De
Sanctis, ii. 362, iii. I. 279). The Romans took the revolt seriously
and sent a double consular army to suppress it (which it did in
six days). On I and 4 March 240 the two consuls Q. Lutatius C.f.
C.n. Cerco and A. Manlius T.f. T.n. Torquatus Atticus celebrated
triumphs de Falisceis (act. tr.). See Livy, ep. 20; Val. Max. vi. 5 1;
Eutrop. ii. 28; Zon. viii. I8; Oros. iv. II. 5-ro. The Falisci were
harshly treated; deprived of arms, horses, slaves, household effects,
and half their land (which became ager publicus), they were forced
to migrate from their hill-city (the modern Civita Castellana) to
the plain at the site of the church (now ruined) of S. Maria di Falleri
(Hiilsen, RE, 'Falerii', cols. I97o-r).
5. Ka.Tu Ti]v ~~ 6.pxi]s 1Tpo0EoW: cf. I3. 3, oAtj3vKos 7TOAEp.os.
5-9. Reasons for narrating the Mercenary War. P. gives four:
(a) It is a good example of a 'truceless war'. (The phrase d.U7Tovoos
'TTOAEp.os occurs in Aeschines (ii. 8o), and in Demosthenes (xviii.
262), in both authors in conjunction with the word &.wr)pvKTDS',
'relentless' (on which see J. L. Myres, CR, I943 66-67); it
means a war shorn of the normal usages of international law,
and fought out to a finish.)
(b) It affords a useful lesson to the employers of mercenaries.
IJI

I. 65- 5

THE CARTHAGINIAN MERCENARY WAR

(c) It gives a clear picture of the difference between barbarians

and civilized men (a subject in which P. was interested, cf.
iv. 20-21).
(d) It is the key to an understanding of the causes of the Hannibalic War.
In fact the link with the Hannibalic War is very tenuous, and
amounts to no more than the Roman seizure of Sardinia during the
Libyan War (88. 8 n.; but in iii. ro. 4 this seizure is admittedly
regarded as the greatest cause of the Hannibalic War); Laqueur,
159. Having decided on a detailed account of the Libyan War, P.
is determined to justify it in terms of the whole work. Laqueur's
view that the Libyan War was a later addition to the Histories may
be neglected.
7. K TTJS Ton 11"pLaTnaws: 'from the circumstances of that war'
(cf. 35 1o); or 'from the danger Carthage underwent' (cf. iii. II2. 9).
On the two meanings of 7rEpla-ramo: in P. see Strachan-Davidson,
II-12.

9. Ka.l1ra.pa To'Ls 11"11"0A!1TJKOan: i.e. many combatants in the Second

Punic War were still alive. P. appears to be referring to general
discussions on the causes of the war such as had continued since
the works of Fabius Pictor and writers on Hannibal (iii. 6. r ff.);
it is not necessary to see here a reference to the sharp debates on
war-guilt which arose from 152 onwards, when the text of the
treaties was circulating in senatorial circles (iii. 21. 9-10 n.); so
Taubler, Vorgesch. 8 (see rather Thommen, Hermes, r885, 201-2).
The present passage is likely to have been written long before 152.
66. l. cm9To Ttl" cl.pxfJv: the mercenaries thought that he resigned
voluntarily; cf. 68. 12, where, however, Do~<Eiv seems to imply that
this was not so. De Sanctis (iii. r. 383 n. 3) argues that Hamilcar's
appointment would automatically terminate with the end of the war
in Sicily; but it seems more probable that he was ousted by political
opponents (Meltzer, ii. 369; Veith, AS, iii. 2. 525 f.).
o 1rl TTJS 11"0AWS cnpTTJyos rEaKwv: evidently the man who took
part in the preliminary peace negotiations (Diod. xxiv. 13) ; he is
important in the opening stages of the Mercenary War. Niese, RE,
'Geskon (3)', cols. 1322-3.
3. Ta 1rpoaocjiLA0!1VO. TWV otjlwv(wv: 'the pay owing to them' (the
compound verb has no special significance). o.f;wvtov (from o.f;ov,
'relish'), perhaps originally soldiers' slang, had become the regular
word for the classicalJ.naOo> in Hellenistic times, and it frequently
occurs on papyri and inscriptions. Normally it is distinct from
cn-rwvtov, a cash allowance in lieu of rations, and atToJu-rpla, rations
in kind (68. 9 n.). Another word, at-rapxla, has a looser use; sometimes, as in UPZ, i. 16. 7, it covers both wages and ration-allowance,
IJ2

THE CARTHAGINIAN MERCENARY WAR

I. 67. 6

but elsewhere (e.g. 6; xi. 25. ro, 28. 3; SyU. 421, l. 38) it is the
equivalent of &,Pwvtol', 'pay'; and in v. so. r f. it is uncertain whether
it means pay, ration-allowance (cf. 52. s), or both. There was no
technical expression for the whole of a soldier's allowance (wages+
rations) ; hence the use of the part for the whole. Griffith, 2j4--6;
Launey, ii. 725 ff.
4. ixottEvo~ Tc.uTTJ'i Tfj~ ivvo(c.s: the validity of this motivation,
presumably from P.'s source, can no longer be tested. Meltzer (ii.
370 ff.) argues that Gisgo had no choice but to convey 2o,ooo men in
detachments (so, too, De Sanctis, iii. 1. 383 n. 4); and this seems
likely, despite the argument of Veith (AS, iii. 2. 527 n. r) that the
provision of sufficient transports would have constituted no difficulty for Carthage.
6. I(KKc.v: Sicca Veneria, a Roman colony under Octavian, lay a
little over roo miles (the itineraries made it r22 miles) south-west of
Carthage, on the site of the modern El Kef, at the terminus of the
road from Tunis through Medjez el Bab. El Kef is still known
locally as 'Shikka-Benar'; Dessau, RE, 'Sicca Veneria', col. 2187.
Here Carthaginian matrons prostituted themselves in the temple of
Venus (Val. Max. ii. 6. rs, who attributes the custom to Cirta);
no doubt a licentious atmosphere prevailed.
xpuaouv: sc. O'Ta.-n]pa. This payment was evidently as ration-money.
The gold stater normally weighed the same as the silver didrachm,
and the Carthaginians used a Phoenician standard independent of
those current in Greece. Head (877-8o) gives examples of Punic coins
of this period, on the standard of a drachma of 59 gr.
7. Ta<; t:ivoaKeuO.s: cf. 9; 68. 3 Literally 'baggage', the word becomes a technical term in the Hellenistic age, and covers a soldier's
private possessions, including persons, e.g. wife, mistress, servants.
Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 15-26, especially 19 ( = REG, rg26, 355--66).
ll. TTJ'i eaoll~""l'> . ivc.vop9waew~: 'the gain that was due to them';
cf. v. 88. 3, xxvii. 7 12, xxx. r6. 2, for this sense of brav6p8wats, which
is missed by Paton and omitted by LSJ.
67. 1. :&.vvwva: called 'the Great' by App. Hisp. 4 and Zon. viii. 22;

leader of the anti-Bardne faction. He survived the Second Punic

War. Lenschau, RE, 'Hanna (r4)', cols. 2355-7
To j30.pos TWv +opwv: i.e. the tribute due to Rome (cf. Gsell, iii. roz;
Schweighaeuser, grauitatem. tributorum caussatus: Paton and Shuckburgh both translate incorrectly 'taxes'). In xviii. 44 7 (s.c. dealing
with Macedonian tribute after Cynoscephalae) Ka'Ta cfo6povs means
'by instalments', and the plural here may carry a similar meaning.
6. li.1To9"lpLoua9a,: 'be rendered savage'. A favourite word; cf. 70. r,
79 8, 8r. 5, 8r. 9, iii. 6o. 6, vi. 9 9, xv. 22. 5
11'apaaTC.TLKTJV .. 8u~9eaw: 'a desperate state of mind'.

I. 67. 7

THE CARTHAGINIAN MERCENARY WAR

7. f.u;A.A.f)VES: Tarn (Bactria, 38) discusses the word (he finds only
three other examples: Plut. Crass. 31. r; Hellanicus, FGIJ, 4 F
7I a; Syll. 495, 1. 114): it implies a type of half-breed no longer felt
to be Greek, and so despised. Cf. Gsell, ii. 389. The linguistic confusion was an important factor (cf. So. 5). But the sending of Hanno,
who had been responsible for the heavy taxation in Libya and the
suppression of the recent revolt and capture of Hecatompylus (72.
r-3, 73 r), was even more decisive in causing disaffection; for Hanno
was known as Hamilcar's opponent (d. 55 2 n.). Veith, AS, iii. 2. 528.
A(3ut:s: cf. Diad. xxv. 2 (who adds (/>olvtK<S, i.e. Libyphoenicians, by
error). Here the Libyans appear, not as subject-allies, but as mercenaries. The reference to increased taxation (72. r ff.) perhaps supports Griffith's suggestion (219-20) that before or during the First
Punic War the Carthaginians had substituted a cash tribute for
compulsory service among their Libyan subjects, thus leaving the
Libyans free to enlist as mercenaries.
13. hrt T<e TuVfJTL: cf. 30. 15, xiv. ro. 5 The mercenaries were
encamped near the town (cf. 73 3), at a point identified by Veith
(AS, iii. 2. 530) v:ith Belvedere Park, north of the city. The number
of mercenaries is also given by Nepos, Ham. z. z.
68. 5. C..yopO.s Etc1TE!1-1fovns: here O.yopa is the technical term for a
market set up by the authorities in which the soldiers can spend
their amlma (66. 3 n.). In the Egyptian papyri the word has sometimes this sense, sometimes that of 'payment in kind', virtually
equivalent to atTOJME-rpta (68. 9 n.), though not restricted to corn.
P. often uses it in the broad sense of 'food-supplies', e.g. r8. 5. 52. 5,
82. 6, etc. (cf. Griffith, z8o). For the practice of holding an agora
with reduced
see Launey, ii. 740, commenting on OGIS, 266, an
inscription
the agreement between Eumenes I and his revolted troops; in this, as at Carthage, the soldiers appear to fix the
price.
6. TO tca.O' tc6.0'T'fiV tlll-Epav ~1TLVoou11-evov: f.m- here means 'in
addition', as in 8, br{Bruvav, 'they advanced farther' (in their
demands).
8. TC~v n0vEW1-wv ~1T1TWV Tas O.s(as: since this is regarded as outrageous, the probability is that Carthage had provided the horses
in the first instance (Griffith, 289; d. 28r, n. r; this appears to have
been the Ptolemaic practice).
9. Tijs a~Toll-ETpta.s 1"1)v !1-t:YLO'T'fiV T~ll-'l": certain rations
(atTOfLE-rpla)-normally paid in advance-were still owing to the
mercenaries: and this debt they now demanded should be paid in
money. As in all cases of adaeratio, the question arose: At what rate
should the debt in corn be transmuted into a debt in cash? The
mercenaries answer: At the highest rate reached by corn during the
IJ4

THE CARTHAGINIAN MERCENARY WAR

I. 70.3

war. This is the meaning accepted by Paton, Shuckburgh, and

Schweighaeuser; so, too, Launey (ii. 729, 'le versement en especes
du ble qu'on leur doit'). It is clearly preferable to the explanation of
Griffith (288-g), viz. that the mercenaries had already been paid a
ration-allowance, but now demanded supplementation sufficient to
bring up all past payments to the level represented by the amount
paid when commodities were at their dearest. This seems too outrageous a demand even for the mercenaries in the situation described ;
and it involves translating atTOf.Lt:Tpla 'ration-allowance' (though
elsewhere Griffith commits himself to the correct view that a<Tof.LETpla 'always means an allowance in kind' (275 n. z)). vi. 39 12 ff.
shows that as late as 150 B.C. aiTos was still paid in kind in the
Roman army.
10. t:l<; aSUva:rov ~K~tlAA,QVTES T.f]v Suift.uow: since Casaubon this has
been taken to mean 'postponing an agreement by putting forward
impossible demands'. Alone, the phrase eKficD.>.nv T~v S<ti>.va<v would
mean 'to reject a settlement' (d. 14. 4, xxii. 8. 13); but iKfJrillllnv lS'
dovva.TDv recalls such phrases as EK{JMAEtV "ls a1TEtpov, 'to produce to
infinity' (Philodemus, D. i. 12
Abh. Berlin. Akad., 1915, 7) or~ ElS'
TO dSvvaTOV a1Taywy7], 'reductio ad impossibile' (Arist. Anal. pr1:or.
i. 7 29 b 5), and probably means 'to postpone agreement till it is an
impossibility'. Gronovius, comparing the use of omMt:LV with Ta
1Tpoaoc/>nll6p.EYa in 6g. 3,
8, and 72. 6, here translated 'extendentes
solutionem in earn summam, quae sol vi non poterat', i.e. 'increasing
the sum required for a settlement to such a figure as could not be
paid'; but the sense suggested above seems more likely.
12. Kouuws SoKELV a1I'OTE9t:i:u9a.l: cf. 66. I n.
69. 4. Ka.p.va.vc)s ovop.a. I1TEV0lOS: \V. Schulze (Eigenn. ZJ6 n. z)
suggests that this represents the Oscan praenomen l:7Tf:OLS'. He may
have deserted from the Romans during the recent war; Griffith, 220
(who suggests that he had served in the fleet). The motives attributed to him are probably slanderous; De Sanctis, iii. I. 385. The
penalty to which he was liable was to be scourged and beheaded.
7. U11'Ept:l0'0VTO.L "~'tt"' ... opyl\v: 'they would vent their anger';
cf. xviii. J6. 4, iva p.ij xwpwfJ/v;rov 'Pwp.a.[wv .. fls: eKEivov a7TplO'l)T<U
'T~V opy~v

.:fJ/).L1T1TOS'.

12. ~aAAt:: an exaggeration; it is clear from 8o. 6 that they were

mostly acquainted with Carthaginian.
U11'0 TWV aptuTWV: at this time the midday meal.
70. 3. Twv AL~vwv ooo1rw KEKOJlLCYJlfvwv ,.Q.s uLTa.pxla.s: the fact that
the o!/JWVLOV had been paid (6g. 3) SUggestS that atTapxJa~ are here the
'ration-allowance' : so Griffith, 289; and cf. 66. 3 n. On the other hand
it is possible that there is some ground for Spendius' allegation that
135

I. 70. 3

THE CARTHAGINIAN MERCENARY WAR

the Carthaginians were trying to drive a wedge between the Libyans

and the rest, and that the Libyans had not yet received their pay.
This would imply a degree of Carthaginian treachery which F.'s
source has obscured.
M6.9w ToY ITrpUTT}yov: ironical. There is no basis for Meltzer's view
(ii. 374) that Gisgo's answer was meant to be conciliatory. See De
Sanctis, iii. I. 385.
6. 1rnpO. TO. KOLVU Twv 6.v8p6nrwv (9'1: such 67] included respect for
heralds (ii. 8. 12), and those who surrendered in battle (xxxviii. 8. 2).
From similar references it is possible to reconstruct F.'s conception
of international law and a natural ius gentium; see von Scala, 299-324.
What oaths the mercenaries swore is left vague.
7. il ... AL~UI<:os ~mKA118Ets -rroAEJ-LOS: P. prefers the form At{:lvKO>
1Tollt:JJ-o>, IJ. J, 88. 5, ii. r. 3, iii. 27. 7; cf. Diod. xxvi. 23; App. Hisp. 4
Livy uses the phrase Africum bellum, xxi. I. 4, 2, r, 4I. 12.
9. Tftv 'ITuKT}V Tous 'I'II''II'UKpha.s; Utica lay on the (then) coast,
c. zo miles north-west of Carthage, on the outer spurs of a hill
running south-west to north-east, the modern Djebel Menzel Roul
(or Ghoul); it was subject to Carthage, but enjoyed special privileges
(Meltzer, ii. 75 ff.). The Hippacritae are the inhabitants of Hippo
Diarrhytus (modern Bizerta), which was earlier known as Hippou
Acra (Diod. XX. 55 3; Ps.-Scylax (GGM, i. 89). III gives both e lmrov
aKpa and" l1T1TOU (' 11T1TciJV Muller) 1TOIIt>); cf. Step h. Byz. "11T1TOU aKpa,
1r6Ats At{.M7]s J trot..lT7]S 'lmraKp{T7]> P.'s circumlocutions (cf. 82. 8,
88. 2) suggest some embarrassment about the name of the town.
The name Hippo Diarrhytus is not attested before the Roman
period. From 77 I it appears that Spendius besieged Utica, and
Mathos Hippou Acra.
71. 1. Tous KUT' tSiuv ~ous 8uga.yny6vns: 'support life
individually' (cf. iii. 4 6, vi. 48. 3, 48. 7); hardly, with Paton, 'depend
for their private supplies'. For y~:vJn)JJ-aTa, 'harvests', see the interesting note in Welles, 323, s.v. yiv7]JJ-a.
6. va.uTLKfJ Sova.1.uc;: 'a naval force, sailors', cf. 41. z.
ou 1rAowv Ka.TUc::rKeu-rl: in 21. 1, 22. 3 (and elsewhere) ~ TwJJ 1rAolwv
KaTaaKt:v~ is 'the construction of ships'. Here Schweighaeuser argues
that, as in ii. 23. IO (where MSS. vary between trapa<:rKE:tnJv and
KaTaaKw~v), KaTaaKw~ means 'supply', and he translates 'they had
no supply of ships'. This seems preferable to Paton, 'nor the material
left to construct (a fleet)'.
o6Se xopT}yLWv 8L6.8c::rLs: 'no arrangement for supplies' (StrachanDavidson). This seems satisfactory; Paton translates 'no means of
providing supplies', and Shuckburgh 'no store of provisions ready'.
72. 1. EOAOyous
!36

O.~op!-'cl.s:

'a reasonable pretext'.

THE CARTHAGINIAN MERCENARY WAR

I. 73

1ta.pc:upouJlt;VO~ TWV aAAwv 11'QVTWV TWV 1<a.p11'WV TOVS 1\JlLO'ELS :

1rd.VTwv goes with rwv aA:\wv (Paton, Schweighaeuser, Cardona), not
with rwv Kap71wv (Shuckburgh) : it parallels the refusal of any

2.

exemptions to the townsmen. There is no other evidence on the rate

of taxation among the Libyan subjects; but if the burden of the
peasants was increased proportionately to that of the townsmen, the
normal exaction was evidently a quarter of all crops. Meltzer, ii. 85.
Ta.'ls 'll'ohEo': cf. 86. I. These 1r6.\ns-, simple settlements, some fortified,
are mentioned in the treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of
Macedon, vii. 9 5 Strabo reckons 300 of them (xvii. 833; cf. Flor.
i, r8. rg; Oros. iv. 8. 8), Diod. xx. 17. 6 over 200. Details of their
taxation are unknown. Meltzer, i. 381, 426, ii. 496.
3. TWv O"Tpa.T,ywv: evidently the regular governors of the
Carthaginian territories in North Africa. See 67. I for Hanno rov
imdpxoVTa UTparTJyov f!v rfj .thf36rJ. He was followed by Hamilcar
Barca, after the conclusion of the Mercenary War (Diod. xxv. 8), and
Hamilcar was subsequently UTpaTTJyos in both Spain and Africa, like
Hasdrubal and Hannibal after him (iii. 33
n.). These rrrparTJyol
are distinct from the individuals whom Aristotle describes as sent out
from Carthage i1TL rds 7TOAtS' (Pol. ii. II. rs. 1273 b, viii (vi). 5 9
1320 b), and perhaps represent a borrowing from the equipment of
the Hellenistic states, where a crrparTJy6s held a military command
within a prescribed territorial sphere. See H. Bengtson, Aegyptus,
1952, 3i8-82, with the qualifications advanced by A. Aymard, REA,
1953, 138-9. Other minor Punic governors are known; Diod. xvi. 9 4
(cf. Plut. Dian, 25) records an bnrmiTTJs governing a subject town in
Sicily, and in the second century a f3o~8a.pxo> seems to exercise a
territorial function (App. Lib. 68; but the f3o-t)8apxos- in 79 2 (below)
is a Carthaginian captain over mercenaries).
1'0\:S I<O.Ta ,;v xwpa.v: Viz. the COUntry people as opposed (not to the
townsfolk, but) to the Carthaginians; cf. x. 36. 3, where the phrase
indicates the inhabitants of the province of Spain, without distinc~
tion of town and country. In Hellenistic terminology the whole of
Libya would be xwpa, as distinct from Carthage, the 'IToAts (cf. 73 6,
Sta.K.\daavTS a1TO rfjs xwpa<; TOVs KapX'}Oovtovs).

73. 1. Ta ~<a.1'a 1'TJV 'E~<a.TovTa1fvAov: H ecatompylos in Diodorus, who

mentions it in iv. r8. I, and in xxiv. ro. 2 describes its capture by
Hanno (probably after 247: see Thiel, Hist. 295 n. 755). This form
is found elsewhere (e.g. in Parthia, x. 28. 7, 29. r), and is usually
accepted. Hanno treated the town with forbearance (Veith, AS, iii.
2. 5z8, inadvertently speaks of its destruction), but took 3,000
hostages; it was, therefore, of some considerable size. F. C. Movers
(Die Phonizier (Bonn, I84I-S6), ii. 2. II9, sr8-I9) has argued plausibly
for its identification with the later Theveste (modern Tebessa),
137

SITUATION OF CARTHAGE

THE CARTHAGINIAN MERCENARY WAR

I. 74 3

which lay on a high plateau (828 m.) at a point a little over the
Algerian frontier, commanding a wide district. Cf. H. Treidler, RE,
'Theveste', cols. 249~52.
3. Eis EvTa p.upuJ.Sas Al~uwv: clearly exaggerated; Veith, AS, iii. 2.
568; De Sanctis, iii. 1. 386 n. 11. Since Spendius had a little over
rs,ooo at Utica (76. r), and the armies at Hippou Acra and Tunis
had less difficult tasks, and are therefore likely to have been smaller,
De Sanctis sets 4o,ooo as a maximum for the total insurgent forces;
within these there will have been an increase in the number of native
Libyans, and a reduction through losses in that of trained mercenaries. P. gives other figures at 77 4, 78. 9. 84. 3, and 85. 7 (the two
last also exaggerated).
4-5. Situation of Carthage. Since P.'s time the coast round Carthage
has changed considerably, mainly through the accretion which had
already then begun (75 8), especially to the north of Carthage,
between the town and C. Farina (Ras Sidi Ali el Mekki). Carthage
lay on a peninsula stretching due east into the Gulf of Carthage, the
KoA1ros of 4 The northern promontory of the peninsula is C.
Camart; and the south side of the peninsula is washed by the Alp.,v7)
( 4), to which entrance is made between two narrow spits of land.
The isthmus linking the city with the mainland (laep.,6s, 5; avx.Jv,
75 4; d. App. Lib. 95) is here reckoned at 25 stades, i.e. 46 km. (The
view of Schulten (AA in ]DAI, 1913, 249), that the la(}p.,os was the
neck of the sand-bank of La Goletta, which helps to close the lagoon
El Bahira to the so.uth of Carthage, is refuted by Kromayer, GGA,
1917, 451 ff.) The extent of the Punic city is still controversial. See
R. Oehler, RE, 'Karthago', cols. 2150-224; A. Audollent, Carthage
romaine (Paris, 1901), 143-323; H. P. Hurd, The Topography of
Punic Carthage (Williamsport, U.S.A., 1934); H. H. Scullard, OCD,
'Carthage (Topography)'; D. B. Harden, GAR, 1939, 1-12. On Tunis
see 30. 15 n.; on Utica, 70. 9 n.
74. 2. i~opp.l]aas S p.ETa TTJS Suvcip.Ews:: Hanno can scarcely have
been in a position to send aid to Utica before spring, 240; Meltzer,
ii. 375-6. De Sanctis (iii. 1. 386-7), who argues, reasonably, that
Hanno's force does not appear to have exceeded that of Spcndius,
who was in charge at Utica with rs,ooo men (76. r), reckons it at the
same figure (against Veith (AS, iii. 2. 566-7), who, arguing from the
forces raised at Carthage against Agathocles, makes it 3o,ooo).
3. ds 'ITuKTJV 1rapa~o1181Jaas: along the coast, avoiding Tunis
(Meltzer, ii. 376; Veith, AS, iii. 2. 531). Gsell (iii. 107 n. 6) suggests
he went by sea; but 73 6 does not imply the complete isolation of
Carthage by land, and to transport roo elephants by sea would have
been no easy manceuvre. The criticism of Hanno reflects P.'s proBarcine source ; despite his discomfiture he retained his freedom of
139

L 74 3

THE CARTHAGINIAN MERCENARY WAR

movement. Cf. De Sanctis, iii. I. 387 n. 14. On the battle of Utica

see Veith, AS, iii. z. 53r.
4. EK TTjs r.oXews: 'out of Utica', not 'from Carthage' (as Paton and
Shuckburgh); d. 12 for the artillery which Hanno had brought
lK Tfj;; 'TI'oAew> and added to his own; moreover, '11'p6 Tfj;; r.6t\ew;; in the
same sentence clearly refers to Utica. The story of the loss of the
siege-engines may be una inve1tzione maligna (De Sanctis, iii. I. 387
n. I4).
6. r.pos Twa. Mcpov puJlvov ~<a.t crutJ.cpuTov: the Djebel Menzel Roul
to the south-west of the town {7o. 9 n.). This phrase is to be taken
with otaaw~6p..evov, so that p...;VE is used absolutely.
13. r.ept TttV tca.XoutJ.EvTtV r opta.v: situation unknown, but evidently
near Utica-between Utica and Hippou Acra, according to De
Sanctis {iii. I. 387 n. I4).
75. 1. :AtJ.tXKa.v Bap~<a.v: cf. 66. r. Hamilcar had been out of
favour since the end of the war with Rome, perhaps because of his
concessions to the Roman commission, and his repeated promises to
the mercenaries (66. I2, 67. 12; App. Hisp. 4. cf. Sic. 3, Lib. 5), but
more likely on political grounds; for he persisted in an intransigent
attitude towards Rome, and rejected Hanno's policy of extending
Punic influence in Libya. It is possible that the story of his being
brought to trial after the Libyan War {App. Hisp. 4) really falls in
this interim period. See DeSanctis, iii. I. 387-8 n. I6.
2. ets JlUptous: largely composed of cavalry. This is the only figure
given for a Punic force in this war.
4. Twv yewMcpwv Twv r.tteuyvuvTwv tcTX.: 'the chain of hills joining
up ... ' ; cf. iii. 49 7. where lm~eryvvp..t is used of hills forming the
base of a triangle of which the two arms are {probably) the Rhone and
the Isere, and of the sea forming the base of the Nile Delta between
the two outer mouths. Meltzer (ii. 158) identifies these hills with the
Djebel Ahmor, a range lying well to the west in the direction of the
R. Medjerda (Bagradas), and rising to r ,coo ft. But more probably P.
is referring to the Djebel Naheli, to the east of the Djebel Ahmor,
for it is this range (rising to 6ooft.) that blocks the roads to the lower
river and the ford; Veith, AS, iii. 2. 533 ff., and map r2 c, g. On the
mlx~v d. 7.J. 4-.5 n.
Tous r.ept TOY MCi.Ow: Mathos is mentioned as the main leader (d.
73 3); but as he later appears at Hippou Acra (77- r), it is likely that
Spendius was in charge of operations between Carthage and Utica.
Meltzer, ii. 590.
5. Tou '11'pocra.yoptuollvoo Ma.Kcpa. r.oTa.Jlov: cf. 86. 9, xv. 2. 8; better
known as the Bagradas (modern Wadi Medjerda), of which this is
a by-form. Silting and land accretion have forced the river mouth
farther and farther north, so that today only an artificial channel to

THE CARTHAGINIAN }'!ERCENARY WAR

I. 75Jl

the east prevents it debouching in (and silting up) the shallow harbour of Porto Farina. In the third century B.C. it skirted the north
flank of the Djebel Ahmor and Djebel Naheli, to enter the Gulf of
Tunis in an east-north-east direction at a point just north of the
modem salt lake, Sebka er Riana (then open sea). The mouth was
thus about u miles south of its present position. Gsell, ii. 143-4.
1nos . y~cj>upo.s: its situation is controversiaL If the road from
Carthage to Utica ran over the Djebel Naheli and through La
Sebbala (which lies in the north entrance to the gap between the
Djebel Naheli and Djebel Ahmor}, it must have crossed the Bagradas
about a mile north-west of La Sebbala, and about 5 miles from its
mouth. The modern Tunis-Bizerta road follows the same route
(though of course it crosses the river much farther north, owing to
the shift in the river's course). However, this assumption raises
difficulties (cf. Gsell, iii. III n. 2). Presumably Hamilcar started upstream immediately after crossing the river ( ro); but before he
reached the mercenaries' bridge-head he was met not only by troops
from there, but also by those who had come 12 miles from Hippou
Acra, after hearing of the crossing from a messenger who had himself
covered those 12 miles. Yet Veith's position for the bridge-head (as
described above; cf. AS, iii. 2, map u, c, g) is only two hours' march
upstream. Hence Gsell locates the bridge-head farther south, near
Henchir Bou Djaoua, west of Djebel Ahmor, and about 12 miles
from the river mouth. The battle he places north of Sidi Tabet,
about 4-5 miles due west of La Sebbala. This hypothesis implies
that the bridge lay, not on the Utica road, but on one leading southwest to the xwpa or the upper waters of the Bagradas towards Sicca
Veneria, and hence that the important Utica road crossed the river
north of La Sebbala by a ford or ferry-which is hard to believe. A
possible explanation is that P.'s pro-Barcine source has exaggerated
the surprise element in Hamilcar's crossing, and that the insurgents
from both Utica and the bridge-head were in motion long before
it was completed; but the nearer troops (whose numbers P. exaggerates, 76. r n.) may have hesitated to act alone against a superior
force. On this hypothesis Veith's topography can be reconciled with
the course of the battle.
11'0AlV rn' O.UTfji ~K080j.l"lKbTCI.S: cf. Gsell, iii. IIO, 'les cantonnements
constituaient une sorte de ville'. According to 76. r this camp acted
as headquarters for an army of about ro,ooo. For P.'s use of the word
1TOAs for something much smaller than a city see Poseidonius'
criticism in xxv. r (Strabo, iii. 163) ; cf. 72. 2 for the m)A,.,,s of Libya.
8. Ka.TO. TLVa.<; aVEj.lWV OTQaU~: cf. 48. 2 n. Probably the east winds;
Gsell, iii. uo, on the authority of Bernard, Bull. de geog. historique,
I9II 1

9.

213.

To'Ls lv Tfi 1roA~l

tent Tots

U11'Eva.vT{oLS:

which city? Schweighaeuser

r ..p

l.tS-9

THE CARTHAGINIAN MERCENARY WAR

and Paton leave this undetermined, but Shuckburgh translates with

some probability: 'to the surprise of the citizens of Utica as well as
of the enemy'. That the news reached Utica quickly is clear from the
arrival of forces from there (76. 1).
76. 1. Numbers of the insurgents. Since Spendius was later prepared
to follow Hamilcar's Io,ooo with only 8,ooo (77. 4-5), it is improbable
that he had recently been defeated (and sustained losses amounting
to 8,ooo) when facing him with 25,000. DeSanctis (iii. I. J88 n. I7)
suggests plausibly that the real total of insurgents involved in this
battle was not more than Is,ooo.
2-9. The battle of the Bagradas. P.'s account does not permit a wholly
satisfactory reconstruction. Hamilcai, he says, was advancing upstream, with elephants in front, cavalry and light-armed behind, and
heav-y-armed in the rear ( 3). On seeing the enemy ready to attack,
he ordered the whole army to face about (avaa'Tp'if>w, 4), and the
front ranks (i.e. elephants, cavalry, and light-armed) to retire
quickly; those in the rear (who now had their backs to the enemy)
he wheeled round (~ lrrunpoif>ij<> TrEpunrwv, 5) and drew up facing
the enemy. The mercenaries now pressed on against the Carthaginians in some disorder, but Hamilcar's cavalry, having retreated
almost to the hoplites (aw.:yylaai!'Tas Tols 7rapa'TETayfL'"ots, 7), suddenly turned about once more and resisted (JK fL<ETa{1o>..ijs irrrorn1jvat,
cf. xviii. 30. 4, T~v Els To!Jmcr8"v fL"Ta{lo>..~v), while the rest of the Punic
forces advanced against the enemy, who fled in confusion. Such is
P.'s account; but he leaves it fai from clear what precisely happened
to the heavy-armed. lmuTpo</>~ and 7rfi.ptcr7raafL1)s (cf. x. 23. 3, xii. 18. 3)
signify movements in drill, by which a body of troops wheel round
through 90 and I8o respectively (see Schweighaeuser on x. 23. 3);
but Je l.Trtcrrpoif>ij<> 7r!ptcr7rwv most probably means that the heavyaimed troops, who had their backs to the enemy, were wheeled
round (Veith (AS. iii. z. 534-5 and map 12 c, g) thinks to the left)
through goo, and then turned left to face the enemy; thus the column
had turned through goo and each individual through I8o 0 , since they
were now in line. Veith thinks that this manceuvre enabled them to
catch Spendius' troops from Utica in the left flank. Other writers have
suggested other, less probable, interpretations. C. G. Guichard,
M lmoires militaircs sur les Grecs et les Romains, i (Lyon, 176o), 17-25,
propounded an involved scheme by which the hoplites divided into
columns to let the retiring vanguaid pass through. De Sanctis (iii. I.
388 and n. 17) believes that P. has misunderstood his source, and
that in fact Hamilcar, having drawn on the enemy by a mock retreat
of the vanguaid, drew up his rear in battle order on the flanks of his
retreating troops. Gsell (iii. I II n. I) supposes that the hoplites were
ordered to advance obliquely, some to the right, and some to the
0

142

THE CARTHAGINIAN MERCENARY WAR

I. 78.

IZ

left, to meet the two insurgent forces. All these theories go beyond
what P. records. The feigned retreat seems certain. It was a difficult
manceuvre, which Hannibal later used to great effect in conjunction
with such outflanking as De Sanctis postulates for this battle. In
fact the last stages of the battle of the Bagradas may have contained
the germs of the tactics Hamilcar's son later perfected; but the text
does not enable such a hypothesis to be proved.
2. U1Tou8fi 1TUpTJyyuwv &f1a 1TapaKaAouVTES a~as aihous! 'they
eagerly passed on the watchword for battle, at the same time exhorting each other.' 1rapt:yyvav is 'to pass the word along the line';
d. vii. IS. 4
9. ot 8' 1rl. TTJV 1rpos 'lniKn 1Tapef1{3oAt]v: this suggests that Spendius
(who subsequently took the greater part of his army from the camp at
Tunis, not at Utica, 77 4) did not abandon the siege of Utica; and
the defection of the town (82. 8) points to continued pressure. Hence
the statement (75 3) that by the present action Hamilcar :D\vat: T~v
Tfj> 'Inlwq> 1TOALopKlav seems to be part of the pro-Barcine exaggerations of P.'s source.
11. TTJS 8uaeAmaT(as: d. 71. 2.
77. 1. b 8 MaOws E1TEjlEvev: he had been in charge at Hippou
Acra ab initio, 70. 9 n. Mathos' advice is the reverse of that given by
Xanthippus to the Carthaginians (3o. 7 n.), the relation of forces
being reversed.
4. TOUS (-lET' AuTap(ToU raM.TaS: on the desertion of their companions
to the Romans ( 5), after failure to seize Eryx and hand it over to
them, see ii. 7. 8 and Zon. viii. I6; at an earlier date they had tried
to seize Agrigentum and plundered it (d. 43 n., ii. 7 7). They were
originally 3,ooo strong (ii. 7 7); and evidently about I,ooo deserted
at Eryx, since the remnants of these, now Soo, turn up in the pay of
the Epirotes (ii. 5 4). On the camp at Eryx see 58. 2 n.
6. Ev TWl 1TE8L'l,l 1TUVTaxOOev apEal 1TEplEXOf1EV'l;): not identifiable.
Veith (AS, iii. 2. 539 ff. and map 12 a and d) locates it in the valley
of Khangat el Hadjaz, beneath the north slope of Djebel Ressas,
between Creteville and Grombalia, c. 20 miles south-east of Tunis.
But as Hamilcar's object was to relieve Hippou Acra (and perhaps
Utica too, 76. 9 n.) a site north of the Bagradas is perhaps more
probable; DeSanctis, iii. I. 389 n. 19.
78. 1. 1TaTplKTJV EXWV auaTaUlV! 'having ancestral ties of friendship';
d. xxiv. 6. 6, SuJ. Ta> 1TpoyovtKa> avaTaaH> 1rpo> T~v f3aaLJ.,{av.
7. UUCfTUIJTJCTOflEVOS aUT~: 'to join his CaUSe'; d. iii. 68. 8, iV. I. 6, for
the idea of alliance. Paton, less probably, follows Casaubon and
translateS: 'to introduce himself' (d. aVa.-aaL> in 2).
12. et; j1Up1ous ets TnpaKlOXlMous: these figures, especially the
143

I. 78. 12

THE CARTHAGINIAN

MERCE~ ARY

WAR

former, seem exaggerated in the interest of Harnilcar's reputation.

See De Sanctis, iii. 1. 389 n. 20.
79. 1. KaTa . . . Tous auTous Kalpous: that the revolt of the Sardinian mercenaries occurred at the time of the second battle between
Hamilcar and Spendius is confirmed by the story of the letter ( 8).
2. Tiw ~o~8apxov Bwcnapov: a Punic captain of foreign auxiliaries
(72. 3 n.); on which acropolis he was shut is not clear.
3. 'Avvwva: it is improbable that he is the Hanna who secured a
victory in Sardinia in 258 (Zon. viii. 12) and had fought earlier in
Sicily {18. 8), as De Sanctis (iii. 1. 397) suggests. That Hanno is
unlikely to have long survived Ecnomus, 6o. 3 n.
5. ~~E1TEaov . ElS TTJV 'ITaXiav: see 83. 11, 88. 8. The date of this
expulsion, and of the appeal to Rome, is not certain, for in 83. 11 it
is mentioned in a digression. It seems not unlikely, however, that the
appeal to Rome was in 239, after Hamilcar had destroyed Spendius
(85. 5 ff.) and the mercenary cause was declining in Africa; De
Sanctis, iii. 1. 398.
6. TTI 1ToAuav9pw1TL~ Sla+.Epouaa: an exaggeration (cf. Beloch,
Bevolkerung, 445), perhaps copied from Timaeus, the main source
for the early history of the island (J. Geffcken, Timaios' Geographie
des Westens (Berlin, I892), 52 ff.); cf. Paus. x. 17. I, p.iydJos . Ka~
EfJOmp.ovW.v .. op.of.a Tats p.cf)..,ara d1Tatvovp.lvats (from Timaeus). The
other \\ri.ters to whom P. refers cannot be identified, unless one is
Myrsilus of Methymna (cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 85), whom Sallust
probably used for details in book ii of his Histories; Philipp, RE,
'Sardinia', cols. 2481-2.
8. M0.9ws: not evidence that the insurgents had abandoned the siege
of Hippou Acra (so Meltzer, ii. 381). The site of the meeting is not
known (though it was not in the camp near Tunis, 79 14) ; but
Mathos may well have come over to it from Hippou Acra, if indeed
he was present. Veith (AS, iii. 2. 543 n. I} thinks that he was not
(the plural Elm}yayov in 9 could include Spendius and Autaritus) ;
and he certainly did not speak at the meeting.
9. tils a1TEaTaX.Uvov tJ1To Twv atpEncnwv: P. alleges that he was
a fake; cf. 14 The arrest of Gisgo and those with him is related
Ill 70. 4

14. 1rapa1rA,ala . . Staaa+wv: 'bearing a dispatch containing

similar warnings' (Shuckburgh). For Otaaa4>dv 'to give instructions'
(especially by letter) cf. IO, iv. 26. 3
80. 1. ~+' Bv ~mf3aAwv: 'speaking next in succession'. d1rf.+acc.
'following after', not uncommon in P. (cf. xxviii. 4 4), is omitted
from LSJ.
6. o' 1TAEiaTOl auvEaalvoVTo TD SlaAEKT'tl: 'Phoenician was the

THE

CARTHAGINIA~

MERCENARY WAR

I. 8z. 6

language to which the largest number of men ... could listen with
satisfaction' (Shuckburgh). Cf. Soph. Ant. 1214, 7m.t6ds- p.~ aa.lve
86yyos: the compound verb is not found elsewhere.
81. 5-11. Reflections on the brutality of the mercenaries. The soul can
have diseases comparable to ulcers and tumours (Twv . Du<:iiw ~<a~
<fovp.&trwv) in the body. Such diseases are caused partly by a bad upbringing, and partly through giving ear to violent and greedy
leaders. For the metaphor cf. xi. 25. 2, fg. 41; the comparison of ills
in the community to diseases of the body goes back through the
Stoics, especially Chrysippus, and through Plato, to Solon: TofiT' ~STJ
7raafi 7TO/.<;t epx~:Ta (,\Kos il.<fovKTOV (J. 17 Diehl) ; Wunderer, iii. 108.
The word (1ho)8rJpofi(]8a, has the meaning 'to become malignant':
cf. Theoph. Char. 19. 3, AKrJ iiiaa 8rJptw8fjvat; and P. here uses it
in reproducing the Academic analogy between sickness of the body
and soul. In his Ilp~ 1riv8ovs the Academic philosopher Crantor had
attacked the Stoic idea of arr&O~:ta, arguing that if we must be sick,
it was better to retain our feeling, even if we were losing a limb;
freedom from pain could be bought only at a great cost: Tc:8rJpwa9at
yap <tKOS KH~ fLEll <lWp.a T00VT01-' el-'TUV
-ea QE
"' 't'VX!JV
' ' (PlUt . M Or. 102 C;
cf. Cic. Tusc. iii. 6. u). (The malignant tumour itself, 'quod fJr/Plwp.a
Graeci uocant', had no feeling; 'prurigine tantum mouetur: at circa
dolor est et inflammatio'; Celsus, de med. v. 28. 3.) In adopting this
Academic analogy P. does not of course commit himself to its philosophical implications (and in xii. 26 c he attacks the Academic
paradoxes).
7. W!7TE 1-'-TJSEv ai1Ej3EtrTEpov TWV ~~wv: in vi. 9 9 this degeneration
is treated as the last stage of political decline.
9. aov K~Act> Tdl1-1-EVOt TTJV TOtG.UTTjV TOA!-'-~V: 'imagining that such
recklessness is to their credit'.
10. Tpoq,T)v EK 1T~(8wv K~Kt}v: on the importance of education for the
civilizing of manners cf. iv. 20-21 (on music and the men of Cynaetha).
In vi. I I a 7 Tarquin was successful p.a).wTa Sta T~v iK 1ra8wv dywyr/JJ;
and in xxiv. 7 I Chaeron of Sparta is criticized as 8r]p.on;c:fjs aywyfj~
TTwxws. Prusias' faults are due to a lack of 7Tat8c:la~ Kal <fotl.oaofj>{as
(xxxvi. 15. 5). Finally, education at Rome was the thing 'in qua una
Polybius, noster hospes, nostrorum institutorum neglegcntiam accusat' (Cic. de re pub. iv. 3; cf. P. Friedlander, A]P, 1945, 345 ff.).
,

82. 1. Tov 1-1-ev 1a.vvwv~ 1Tpos ~a.uTov EKaAH: this union of the two
armies was a vital step in the campaign; De Sanctis, iii. 1. 390 n. 21.
6. EK Twv 'EJ41Top(wv: Emporia was the district around SyTtis
Minor, the modern Gulf of Qabes; cf. iii. z:;. 2, xxxL 21. I; Livy, xxix.
25. 12, on the fertility of this area, the granary of Carthage (Pliny,
Nat. hist. v. 24, xvii. 41, xviii. 94). Gsell, ii. 127-8.
L

I. 82. 7

THE CARTHAGINIAN MERCENARY WAR

7. Ta S Ka.Ta T'i-Jv Ia.pSova.: 79 I-7 The loss is mentioned here again

partly to reinforce the story of the sudden 7Ta>.lppota Twv 7TpayfLaTwv
( 3), and partly because it made the loss of supplies from Emporia
doubly disastrous.
8. Tous Ka.T' >\ya.9oK}..Ea. Ka.Lpoos: Diod. xx. 54-55 describes the long
resistance of Utica; but both towns fell to Agathocles in 307/6,
whereas others held out (DeSanctis, iii. 1. 44 n. 12o).
TTJV 'Pw...,a.twv E~oSov: there is no suggestion elsewhere that Regulus'
expedition threatened Utica or Hippou Acra.
10. TOUS 1TO.pa.~E~OTJ9TJKOTO.S a1TOKTE~VO.VTES: Veith (AS, iii. 2.
543) places this massacre at Utica: but P. leaves the matter open.
12. >\vv(~a.v: perhaps the friend of Adherbal, who ran the Roman
blockade at Lilybaeum in 250/49 (44 I ff.): but the identification is
quite uncertain.
83. 2-4. Hiero's policy. The praise of his whole-hearted collaboration
with Rome in I6. 11 probably follows Fabius Pictor; the more
sophisticated comment here may be P.'s own. Gelzer, Hermes, 1933,
138.

5-11. Roman support for Carthage: cf. iii. 28. 3 The Roman tradition

on the events here described is given, with some distortion, in Zon.

viii. 17; App. Lib. 5; Sic. 2. 3; Nep. Ham. 2. 3; Val. Max. v. I. I;
Eutrop. ii. 27. It is unlikely that the Romans in fact authorized the
recruiting of mercenaries by Carthage in their territory.
8. 5La }..6you: such Punic prisoners as were still unransomed after
the First Punic War (2,743 in number, according to the Roman
tradition; Eutrop. ii. 27; Val. Max. v. 1. I) were exchanged for these
Italians (iii. z8. 3).
11. Ka.9' ov KO.lpov a1TEO'TTJO'O.V: 79 5 n. The appeal was in fact
some little time after the revolt.
Twv 5' 'ITuKa.twv ~YXELpLtoVTwv O'~cis: probably after Spendius' death
(86. 4), and not (so 0. Gilbert, Rom u. Karthago (Leipzig, 1876), 49)
before Utica went over to the mercenaries. To have accepted the
Utican offer would have been a breach of the Treaty of Catulus, with
its rfoJ..la clause (62. 8).
84. 3. ~;is 1TEVTa.KLO'jJ-uptous: unlikely in reality to have been more
than zo,ooo (d. 73 3 n.): the figure is exaggerated in the interest of
Hamilcar. On the insurgents' tactics cf. 77 2 ff.
6. ~jJ-1TELpLa. jJ-E9oSLKTJ Ka.i O'Tpa.nwTLKTJ SUva.jJ-LS: cf. iii. I05. 9 for a
similar contrast; in ix. 14. 1-4 ~fL7THpla fLE8ofmcr}, 'experience scientifically acquired' (e.g. geometry and astronomy), is distinguished from
aTpanwnK~ Tpt{Jr), 'routine experience of a soldier', obtained partly by
doing the job oneself (avTovpyla) and partly by inquiring from others
([aTopla). Together these qualities make the general. In the interest
q6

THE CARTHAGINIAN MERCENARY WAR

I. 86. r

of his contrast P. here minimizes the importance of a-rpa.-rtw-rt~<~ -rpt{3~

(which can be 'unreasoning'). Diod. xxv. 4 2-3 copies the passage.
7. Ev Ta.is ~ta.TO. JL.ipo<; XfnLO.~'i: 'separate actions', as opposed to 'fullscale battles' (ev -rot> o>.oaxEptUL l<tv8uvots). Schweighaeuser is disturbed by the fact that P. relates the ambuscades and sudden
appearances to the latter rather than the former; but both have
their place in major encounters, as the narrative of Trasimene shows.
a>.oaxEPELS' ~<Lvowot are not conflicts quibus de summa rerum agitur
(Schweighaeuser), but battles in which all the forces were engaged.
For the simile of the player of 7Tf.TTE(a. see Plato, Rep. vi. 487 B
(1TErrE{a. is apparently a generic name for a group of games of the
'battle' type; cf. R. G. Austin, Antiquity, 1940, 26o-3).
9. E(.+ucn St 1rp0<; T'l)v ta.oToo Suva.JLLV: 'favouring his own army'
(and 'unfavourable for action on their part', 1rpos -r~v l~<f.tvwv XPda.v).
Paton takes o!lva.fLW as a-rpa'1'7}yt~<~v SvvafLW (d. 6), 'his own strong
point-generalship', and this is also a possible rendering (cf. xi.
19. 6), though perhaps less likely (cf. 30. 7 n.).
s~a. TO Tn4>plf:l Ka.i. xO.paKL 1Tt:pLELAij4>9cn: built of course by Hamilcar.
10. ToO Sa.LJ-Lovou E'I1'L+povTos: To Srup.ovwv is virtually equivalent
to TVx:rJ (cf. 35 n.), which is a bringer of retribution in iv. 81. 4
(Cheilon's assassination of the ephors) and xx. 7 2 (the downfall of
the Boeotians); d. xv. 20. 5, xxiii. 10 .2, xo. 12; above, p. 2a. Elsewhere the action of Tyche shades off into caprice: cf. CQ, 1945, 5-6;
Mioni, 141. Here the justice of the punishment lies in the directing of
the mercenaries' aat{3Eta and 1TapaVOfL{a against themselves. dut{3Eta.
and 1Tapa.vollla are again linked in xviii. 54 10; they imply outrage
to the laws of God and man respectively.
85. 7. TOV npLova. KaAOOJlEVOv: cf. App. Jllyr. 25, lllyrian peaks JeErs
ota 7rplovEs; and the Spanish 'Sierra'. This 'Saw' is no longer identifiable. Veith (AS, iii. 2. 545--54) locates the surrounding and massacre
of the mercenaries in a valley north of the Djebel el Jedidi, c. 10 miles
due west of Hammamet, on the road to Zaghouan. But as Harnilcar
was concerned to cut off food and reinforcements from the insurgents
at Tunis, it is not clear what either he or Spendius could have been
doing so near the Gulf of Hammamet (De Sanctis, iii. 1. 392 n. 27).
The narrative here suggests a version very favourable to Hamilcar.
The mercenary leaders who ventured into his camp and agreed
to the surrender of 'any ten he might choose' must have known the
implications of their action. The subsequent massacre of the army
for whom they had given their lives looks very much like Punica fides.
86. 1. TT)v xwpav E1TtlEL KO.L Tci.S 'll'OAELS: 'he proceeded against the
countryside and the towns' (i.e. of Libya, 72. 2). For this sense of
bruwa' cf. iv. 83. 5

I. 86. 3

THE CARTHAGINIAN MERCENARY WAR

3. tca-rcl. -rTjv lnro KapxTJSOvo~ 1TAupcl.v: i.e. north of the town, on

the shores of El Bahira, the lagoon before Tunis. Hamilcar was to
the south and the only land communication was round the inner lake,
the Sebka es Sedjoumi (cf. 30. IS n.), a distance of IS miles. The
Carthaginians of course controlled the shorter communications
across El Bahira.
6. -rpuitcov-ra -rwv KapxYJSov[wv -rou~ E'll'lcpvu-rcl.-rou~: there is no
reason to think these were the thirty members of the Carthaginian
gerousia, who had come out to superintend Spendius' execution (so
Meltzer, ii. 40).
7. TYJ~ TUXT)~ . evaAXcl.~ SLSOUO"T]~ &.cpopp.cl.~ KTX.: here Tyche is a
power which delights in change for its own sake, especially when
the peripeteia carries an ironic flavour. This is the aspect of Tyche
stressed by Demetrius of Phalerum, xxix. 21; and it is not peculiar
to P. See von Scala, I64, I/4-S; Siegfried, 75; Walbank, CQ, I945. 6;
above, p. IS.
9. '~~'Po~ -rt;i u-rop.an -rou 'II'OTp.ou: apparently in order to maintain
his communications with Carthage, and those of Carthage with the
interior.

87. 3. -rpul.tcov-ra -rij~ ypouuia~: cf. 2r. 6 n. Perhaps the smaller body
is here indicated, and all its members visited Hamilcar (Meltzer,
ii. 40). Clearly this move represents a growth in the power of Hanno's
faction (for his previous dismissal, cf. 82. r2), probably since the setback before Tunis, for which Hamilcar must have been held responsible: Meltzer, ii. 386; Veith, AS, iii. 2. 556-7; De Sanctis, iii. r. 394
The metaphor of olov axa-r'r)v -rpxovus -rav-r'rJ" (from the games)
occurs also at xviii. 49 r.
7. '11'pi -rt,v AE'II'TLV: Leptis (or Lepcis) minor, the Phoenician town
c. 20 miles south-east of Sousse, where Hannibal landed in 203 (Livy,
xxx. 25. 12). The war of movement had recommenced, and evidently
Mathos had abandoned Tunis.
8. EKKU~ULV U'II'Ep TWV oXwv: for this common metaphor cf. ii. 63.
2 n., iii. 94 4
9-10. The last battle. Neither the site nor the numbers involved are
known. Veit.h (AS, iii. 2. 565ft.) gives the Carthaginians 4o,ooo, the
insurgents 3o,ooo; see his table, p. 57r.
88. 3-4. p.EyaATJV SLa.cpopcl.v ~ f.'ETj)LOTTJ~: a moral not wholly
confirmed by the treatment of lJtica and Hippou Acra; for lJtica
at least was restored to its former privileged position (vii. 9 5, 9 7,
treaty between Hannibal and Philip V).
6. ot VEOL: soldiers, like vwviaKot: cf. v. 26. 8.
7. The length of the war. Diod. xxv. 6 gives -r'r) -rEaaapa Kat p..ijvas
TEauapas, Livy, xxi. 2. I, quinque annos. P. may be reckoning from
q8

THE CARTHAG-INIAN MERCENARY WAR

I. 88.8

autumn 241 to the end of 238 (De Sanctis, iii. I. 396 n. 3o) : in this
case Livy' s iive years probably cover the whole period from the end of
the First Punic War to Hamilcar's crossing into Spain. But Diodorus'
figures (for what they are worth) are not easily explained. De
Sanctis's suggestion that 'il primo TEI7Ua.pa e forse una dittografia del
secondo' is not very persuasive. An alternative explanation is that
the three years four months are reckoned from the outbreak of
fighting at the beginning of 240 until the early summer of 237;
Diodorus will be including the preliminaries of 241, and Livy's fl.ve
years will be a rounding off of this figure (so Ed. Meyer, Kl. Schr.
ii. 382 n. 2). Though neither view can be regarded as certain, the
second is perhaps rather more likely; for its implications for the
chronology of the annexation of Sardinia see below, 8 n. The internal
chronology of the war is past recovery. De Sanctis, loc. cit., dates
the sending of Hanno to Utica to spring 240 (73 ff.), and the last
campaign to 238 (87. 6 ff.); but on Meyer's chronology the latter will
be in 237. DeSanctis puts the battle of the Bagradas in 240 (75), and
the rebel concentration at Tunis, and the battle of the 'Saw' (85), in
239. But this is all hypothetical.
8. Roman annexation of Sardinia. On hearing of the Roman expedition the Carthaginians evidently sent an embassy to Rome announcing their claim to the island and intention of recovering it ( 9);
whereupon the Romans, alleging their preparations to constitute
hostile action directed against themselves, passed a war-resolution
( to), which was conveyed to Carthage in the form of a rerum
repetitio (either ... or ... ) by senatorial legati (see iii. ro. r n., 20.
6 n.}. Upon the Carthaginians' accepting the terms( rz, EgaVTE>: -roi,;
t<atpoi:s-) the situation was restored, and no indictio belli ensued.
Hence the new terms were not embodied in a new foedus, but formed
an EmuvvB~t<Yf to the treaty of 241 (iii. 27. 7-8 n.; on the technical
term see Schwyzer, 63x. 4 (a second-century decree of Methymna));
cf. Walbank, CP, 1949, rs-r6.
(i) Chronology. The annexation o( Sardinia is dated to 238 by
Zon. viii. r8, and by Sinnius Capito (apud Fest., p. 322M., s.v. 'Sardi
uenales'), who attributes it to Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (consul
A.U.c. 5r6 = 238/7 B.c.). But the Livian tradition (Eutrop. iii. 2) puts
it in the next year; and it has been suggested that the date 238 is
due to a confusion between Ti. Sempronius Gracchus, who overthrew the Sardinians as consul in 177, and his grandfather, the
consul of 238 (Ed. Meyer, Kl. Scltr. ii. 385-6). From iii. ro. I it is clear
that the Roman ultimatum to Carthage was after the conclusion of
the Mercenary War; hence, if this war lasted until early summer 237
( 7 n.), the ultimatum was in the same summer, whereas if the war
ended late in 238, the ultimatum may be either at the end of that
year (Meltzer, ii. 387) or eady in 237, while Gracchus was still consul.
149

I. 88.8

THE CARTHAGINIAN MERCENARY WAR

A possible explanation of the divergent traditions for the year in

which Sardinia was annexed may be that the original Roman expedition, undertaken on the invitation of the mercenaries ( 8), was dispatched in Gracchus' consulship (whether in fact the Mercenary
War in Africa was already over or not; KaTa Tdv KatpJv TovTov is a
loose copula}, but the Roman ultimatum to Carthage and the
renunciation of any claim to the island did not occur until the
consular year 237/6 (probably summer 237, since peace will have
been restored before Hamilcar crossed into Spain in autumn 237,
ii. r. 5). Such an hypothesis would explain how the acquisition of
the island could be dated either to 238/7, when the expedition was
sent, or to 237/6 when its annexation was formally conceded.
(ii) The mercenary appeal described in 8 is clearly subsequent
to that of 83. I r, which the Romans rejected. Evidently the Romans
had now decided, belatedly (see below), to make the Tyrrhenian Sea
a mare clausum by striking before Carthage could recover her
strength (Scullard, Hist. r8o). Later propaganda strove to justify
the Senate's action in one of two ways: (a) A version, combated by
P. in iii. 28, and probably deriving from Fabius Pictor (Gelzer,
Hermes, 1933, 142; Bung, 17, thinks rather of Cato), represented the
cession of Sardinia as compensation for the seizure of Italians who
had carried materials to the rebels during the Mercenary War (83. 7);
when the Carthaginians subsequently manned a fleet to recover the
island, the Romans were obliged to declare war. Cf. App. Hisp. 4;
Lib. 5, 86; Dio, fg. 46; Zon. viii. r8. (b) A later annalistic account
associated the ceding of the island with the Treaty of Catulus,
Livy, xxii. 54 n, cf. xxi. 40. 5 (contrast xxi. r. 5); Ampel. 46. 3;
Eutrop. iii. 2. 2; Oros. iv. II. 2; auct. de uir. ill. 41. 2. But in fact the
Roman decision to annex the island was evidently taken after the
Treaty of Catulus, for had its acquisition seemed desirable in 241,
there was nothing to prevent the Romans from insisting on it.
(Mommsen's view that the Carthaginians would have fought on to
save Sardinia (Rom. Gesck. i. 543 4) is unconvincing; and Heuss's
suggestion that the popular rejection of the preliminary agreement
(63. r) had something to do with Sardinia (HZ, 1949-so, 492) is unsupported by the sources. Cf. Taubler, V orgesch. r6 ff.; Ed. Meyer,
Kl. Schr. ii. 384. The reference to Sardinia in Regulus' peace terms
(31. 5 n.) is part of the untrustworthy account in Dio.
11. Tov vponpfJvivov voAEJ.lov: the Mercenary War (not the First
Punic War, as Laqueur, :to).
12. A,.EaTf)crav T"i~ Iap5ovo~ KTA.: P. has a slightly fuller account
of these events in iii. ro. 1-3.
,.poa8f)Ka.v: 'they agreed to pay in addition' (sc. to the former
indemnity, cf. iii. ro. 3. 1rp6; Toi:; 1rponpov).

BOOK II
l. Risumi of Book I; Hamilcar in Spain

1. 3. Ttt va.pO.J..oya Twv ~pywv: 'its dramat!c surprises' (Paton). nl

lpya are, strictly, the warlike acts on both sides; but 1Tap&.Jo.oyo> is
'unexpected' (cf.i. I.4n.) ratherthan 'monstrous' (soSchweighaeuser:
'facta immania'), an idea already expressed in &.aef3~fLaTa. P. gives
especial prominence to the paradoxical elements in the Mercenary
War. Cf. Feldmann, 37
4. ~<E4>aJ..a.1wSw~ . ~wtljla.uovn:s: on the summary character of
books i and ii see i. 13. 7~. and, for the contrast with the fuller
treatment of the history proper (&.1ro8e~1mK~ lcrropia), below, 37 3;
d. iii. I. 3
' E~
t BPX"l~
'
~ wpovEow:
'"'
5; P. refers to his scheme as set
KaTa.' TfJV
Cf . 1..
out at i. 13. 2-5.
5. EU9tw<o :.\11AKav !sa.vEaTEAAov: P. treats the building of the Punic
empire in Spain in three sections, here (Hamilcar), 13 (Hasdrubal),
and 36 (Hannibal's advent). The three chapters serve as a 'frame'
for the First Illyrian War and those with tile Gauls. Their source is
not determined, but P.'s account continues to be pro-Barcine.
In iii. Io. 5-7 P. says that Hamilcar intended the resources of
Spain to serve his revanche against Rome, and his venture is P.'s
third alTia for the second war; and, even if in fact he was not planning
war, he may well have sought to put Carthage in a position to wage
it successfully if it came (d. DeSanctis, iii. I. 401 ff.; Problemi, 171-3)
-rather like Philip V of Macedon between 179 and 171 (Walbank,
]HS, I9J8, 64 ff.). Probably resentment at Roman policy over Sardinia
helped Hamilcar to win support against Hanno and his African
policy (De Sanctis, iii. I. 402). An unreliable annalistic tradition,
accepted by E. Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 355) and Taubler (Vorgesch. 70 ff.),
lets Hamilcar go to Spain without the consent of his government;
App. Hann. 2; cf. Hisp. 5; Zon. viii. 17 The non-Polybian tradition
also records a joint Numidian campaign by Hanno and Hamilcar
after the Libyan War, and after a threat to impeach Hamilcar;
App. Hisp. 4-5; cf. Hann. 2; Diod. xxv. 8, xo. 1; Nepos, Ham. 2, 5
Though accepted by Meltzer (ii. 591-2), this seems to be a reduplication of Hamilcar's eclipse and return to favour between the end of
the First Punic War and the Bagradas battle (De Sanctis, iii. I.
388 n. 16).
6. Ka.Tn Tn~ 'HpaK~Eou<o O'TTJAa.~: i.e. over the Straits of Gibraltar to
Gades (App. Hisp. 5 ;Hann.2). Diod. x..w. xo. I suggests that Hamilcar
coasted along the shores of Numidia and Mauretania and through

II.

I.

HAMILCAR IN SPAIN

the straits (cf. Meltzer, ii. 4oo); but Lenschau (RE, 'Hamilkar',
col. 23o6) and Gsell (iii. 124-5) think he marched to the straits.
civEKTii.To: 'set about recovering'; on the earlier Punic empire in
Spain see i. Io. 5 n.
7. ~T, crxeSov vvia.: cf. Livy, xxi. 2. I; Nepos, Ham. 4 2. Hamilcar
died ten years before the outbreak of the Hannibalic War (iii. Io. 7).
and so in 229; his governorship is therefore from 237 to 229.
1roAAous . 1fOLTjcra.s 'IJ3Tjpwv l111'1')Koous: Meltzer (ii. 399) compares
the career of Caesar in Gaul, both militarily and as an example of
a military autocrat relying on popular support to counter a landed
aristocracy which mistrusted him. Records are slight. Diod. xxv.
ro. I relates a victory over the Turdetani, the east coast Iberians,
and Celtic (Celtiberian ?) mercenaries. The foundation of Acra Leuce
(Alicante) probably marked the limit of Hamilcar's advance, Diod.
xxv. Io. 3 See Schulten, CAH, vii. 786-7.
7-8. KC.TEcrTpeljse Tov J3tov ci~iws KTA.: according to Diod. xxv. 10. 3-4
(d. 12, 19, Tzetzes) the king of the Orissi (Oretani; cf. P. iii. 33 9)
marched to relieve Helice (? Ilici, modern Elche), which Hamilcar
was besieging, and in the subsequent flight the latter was drowned,
still fighting and attending to his family's safety, in an unnamed river
(Tzetzes calls it the Ebro) which was in flood (i.e. it was winter, 229/8).
Livy, xxiv. 41. 3, puts the disaster near Castrum Album (Alicante ?) .
This account, though anti-Barcine, is not inconsistent with P., who
prefers to stress Hamilcar's death KaTa Tdv Tov Ktv3uvov Katp6v. A
stratagem recorded by App. Hisp. 5; Zon. viii. r8; and Frontin.
Strat. ii. 4 17, will not :fit into Diodorus' account.
P.'s high praise of Hamilcar seems to have penetrated the Roman
tradition, despite the hatred of his son. Thus Cato crowns a list of
those who were happier than kings with the name of Hamilcar
(Plut. Cato mai. 8. 14).
9. TTJV . UTpa.T1'}yia.v . 1ra.pi8ocra.v :A.aSpou~~: on the Carthaginian
urpaTT]yia in Spain see Bengtson (Aegyptus, 1952, 378-82); it was in
effect a provincial governorship. ol Kap)(1]36vwt is vague; but Diod.
xxv. 12 suggests that, like Hannibal later (cf. iii. 13. 4), Hasdrubal
was :first acclaimed by the troops in Spain and his appointment
subsequently ratified at home (iii. 13. 3). In the distorted account of
App. Hisp. 4, Hasdrubal is a popular leader who supported Hamilcar
at the time of his impeachment; for his marriage to Hamilcar's
daughter see iii. 12. 3; Diod. xxv. ro. 3; App. Hann. 4 The antiBarcine account which made him Hamilcar's minion (Livy, xxi. 3-4;
Nepos, Ham. 3) may be neglected. He had been back once to Carthage
since 237, to quell a Numidian rising (Diod. xxv. ro. 3; Frontin.
Strat. iv. i. 18); but the story of an attempted coup (iii. 8. 2) is suspect
as part of the anti-Barcine tradition adopted by Fabius. For his
later career see I3 and 36 below.
152

HAMILCA.l't IN SPAIN

II.

2.

Tc{l TPlTJpa.px<tJ: i.e. admiral of Hamilcar's fleet, a post usually

entrusted to a close friend of the general; d. i. 44 r.

2-12. The First lllyrian vVar (231-228)
This war is important to P.'s main theme (2. 2), as it first brought
the Romans east of the Adriatic. For the greater part {2-{). 8, 9~10)
his source is apparently Greek, and the narrative is strongly pre~
judiced against Aetolia (d. 2. 6-4. s); but 8 and II~I2 represent a
Roman tradition, which may well be Fabius (so most historians, e.g.
Taubler, Beloch, Gelzer, Holleaux). Bung, 184~. while accepting
Fabius as a possible source for u-rz, is impressed by Bauer, who
(AEM, r895, 136-47) rather improbably associates the pro-Roman
version of 8 with the propagandist account of the affair given by
Roman legati in Achaea (u. 4). There are secondary accounts in
Dio, fg. 49 (cf. Zon. viii. r9), very unreliable, and App. Ill.
(wellinformed on Illyria, but contaminated by annalistic inventions); see
Holleaux, 78 n. 2 (worthlessness of Dio); Fluss, RE, 'Teuta', cols.
u4o-2; Zippel, 46 ff. On the war in general see Holleaux, Etudes,
iv. 9~25 ( REG, 1930, 243-{)r), for chronology; CAH, vii. 822 ff.
(with bibliography, 931~3); E. Badian, BSR,, 1952, 72-9,3 with bibliography; G. Walser, Historia, ii, 1954. ,)o8~r8 (preferring Appian toP.);
Thiel, Hist. 344 ff. (arguing against Holleaux that the Senate was
seeking a chance to intervene).
1. 1. KaTO. 8~ Tous Kalpous TOuTous: a loose synchronism, for Hamilcar died in winter 229{8, whereas the Roman crossing (d. rr. r) was
in spring 229, a date confirmed by Holleaux (Etudt's, iv. 9--2.5) against
Beloch, who argues (iv. 2. 262-3; cf. Bung, r86) for z28, on the
assumption of two to three months' retardation in the Roman
calendar. Among other arguments, Holleaux points out that the
expedition followed close on Paxos (ro. r, rr. r), which must be in 229,
since by zz8 the Achaeans had broken with Aetolia {as Beloch later
admitted; Holleaux, op. cit., zs n. 3); also that Demetrius II died
early in 229 (44. 2 n.), about the time of the Roman expedition.
2. TTJV ,.p69eow T~V ftf.li!TEpav: i.e. to show the growth of world
affairs into an organic whole, i. 3 3 ff., 4 I ff. In ii. I. 4 rrp69ems was
rather the plan of the contents.
avs11ow Ka.t KaTaaKe.uf]v: 'formation and growth', with hysteron
proteron to avoid hiatus, cf. JI. 2, 3.5 2, 41. 6, iii. 5 3, i4 3, xxiii.
r6. 8. av~T)at> refers to the new links established by Rome in Illyria
(though there were no territorial acquisitions after this war).
4. 'Aypwv o ... J)acnAEus: the ruler over a group of tribes around
Scodra, and the Bay of Rhizon (Cattaro), who lived by piracy,
carried out in light galleys (lemhi). His expanded realm controlled
a large area from Dalmatia southwards, and included most of the
1 53

II. z. 4

THE FIRST ILLYRIAN WAR

Greek colonies on the Dalmatian islands, Pharos, Black Corcyra

(Korcula), but not Issa (cf. vii. 9 IJ). Dio, fg. 49 2-3 (cf. Zon. viii. 19)
calls Agron king of the Ardiaei, and this is accepted by De Sanctis
(ill. I. 294 n. 76) ; it is more likely than the suggestion of A. Gitti
(Historia, 1935, I83-204) that he came from the Labeates, a tribe
never mentioned at this period. The Ardiaei were, however, only
part of his realm. See Zippel, 43 ff. ; and, for the dynastic table,
Lenschau, RE, 'Pleuratos', cols. 237-8.
5. Allf.l.ll"'Piou Tou ~.Ahnrou 1Ta.Tp6~: Demetrius II, son of Antigonus
Gonatas, king of :Macedon, 240/39-229. Philip was his son by the
Epirote princess Phthia (v. 89. 7 n.).
ME8u.wiol~ lm' AlTw).wv 1TOAlopteoup.~vol~: shortly before 23I a republican revolution had swept Epirus, overthrowing the royal house
(Justin. xxviii. 3; Polyaen. viii. 52; Paus. iv. 35 3), the Epirotes
sought Achaean and Aetolian alliances (6. I), and Acarnania declared
its independence. In 231 (DeSanctis, iii. I. 293 n. 73 for the date)
the Aetolians began the siege of 1\ledion, on the frontier of central
Acarnania. (1\ledion, the 1\ledeon of Thuc. iii. Io6. 2, lay on the southeast slope of a fertile ridge, fifteen minutes south of the modern
village of Katouna; for its remains see Leake, NG, iii. 503, cf. 575-6;
Heuzey, 347 ff.). As an enemy of Achaea and Aetolia (44. I, 46. I,
xx. 5 3) it was in Demetrius' interest to send aid; but communications were difficult and he was occupied against the Dardanians
(Trogus, Prol. 28; Justin. xxviii. 3 14; Livy, xxxi. 28. 2), and so he
hired the help of the Illyrians for Medion. This device does not stand
alone; the Phocian pirate Ameinias had helped Gonatas to take
Cassandreia (Polyaen. iv. 6. 18), and the Cretan pirates were later
to help Philip V against Rhodes (xiii. 5 I).
8. auvd.ljta.VTo~ Tou xpovou Twv cipxa.lpEaW..W: the annual election of
Aetolian magistrates at Thermum was at the time of the autumn
equinox (iv. 37 2). The year is probably 231, since the fighting and
compact in Epirus is :230, and the Roman invasion 229. Autumn 232
is not impossible, but unlikely, since Agron died immediately after
the fall of 1\ledion (4. 6), yet his death was unknown to the Roman
ambassadors (Dio, fg. 49 z)~indeed App. IU. 7 makes them find
him still alive. DeSanctis, iii. I. 293 n. 73 Beloch's date of autumn
230 (iv. r. 636; 2. 531-2) assumes that the Roman invasion was in 228.
2. 9-4. 5. 1be account of the Aetolian peripeteia is developed by P. as
anexampleofasuddenchangeoffortune,andalsoasawelcomerebuffto
his old enemies, the Aetolia.ns (despite their alliance with Achaea, 6. 1 ).
2. 9. TftV E:mypa.~T)v TWV <lTTXwv: cf. i. 31. 4, T~ll lrrtypa<J>~~~ TOJII
Trpa.yp.dTwll, 'the credit of the success', for a metaphorical use; v.
42. 8, etc. E.mypa<J>Ii applies literally to inscribing conquered arms,
etc., or dedicating them to the gods (here, at Thermum). A famous
154

THE FIRST ILLYRIAN WAR

II. 4 5

example is Pausanias' inscription on the tripod dedicated at Delphi

after Plataea:
'E>v\-,)vwv dpx7Jyo> E'TTEt trrpaTov a!.\.we M-,)Swv
Ilawav{a,; (/>o{{Jtp f-Lvfif-L' avH17)KE T<:ille (ap. Thuc. i. 132. 2).
10. 1TEpl8eiva.l TOV aTE~a.vov: for Fortune as the bestower of
(metaphorical) crowns cf. v. 42. 8.
3. l. Ka.86.1rep ~Bos icnlv AiTwXoi:s: cf. iv. 67. 1 for the taking of office
immediately on election.
1rpos rqv MeSua~va.v: though Medion is not a coastal town (xviii.
40. 5; Livy, xxxvi. n. 10), its territory may well have reached the
Ambracian Gulf between that of Thyrrheum and the valley of
Limnaea. The 'part nearest to the city' is probably the bay of
Loutraki, about 7 miles from the town.
3. 2. Ka.Ta a1Te(pa.s: i.e. in small companies (d. ii. 66. 5, iii. rg. 5),
probably kinship groups, like those envisaged in Homer, Iliad, ii.
362-3, where Agamemnon is advised
Kpiv' avllpa> Ka"Ta <fovAa, Ka.nl. <fop~7pa.>, JJ.ycff-LEf-LVOV,
w> <fop~TP'f <fop~TP'f<fo'v ap~y!). <fovAa. S <fov.\.o,,.

Likewise among the German tribes 'non casus nee fortuita conglobatio turmam aut cuneum facit, sed familiae et propinquitates' (Tac.
Germ. 7 3). In recent times the Albanians, descendants of Agron's
Illyrians, fought in tribes and 'bairaq'( smaller kinship groups), and
the Montenegrin Slavs in 'bratstva' (brotherhoods).
5. T~ 1rXT)8el KO.t T~ ~dopEL TTJS O'UVTdo~EWS: the Illyrian armour was
heavy; cf. 66. 5, where Illyrian troops alternate with bronze-shielded
Macedonians; 68. 5, g, for the weight of their arms and formation
(uVvTa{L,;).

4. 3. rijs TUXTJS evSeLKVUf.LEvT)S TTJV a.uTTjS 8Uva.f.LLV: for Tyche as a

power punishing pride and delighting in sensational reversals see
i. 35 z; 86. 7; above, pp. 18-rg. For the phraseology see also xi. 5 8,
xxiii. 10. r6, xxix. 19. 2 (where, as in i. 4 5. Tyche is a play-producer).
The phrase ovva.f-L'V . ivllnKVI.If-LEVlJ appears at xxix. 21. 5 in a
quotation from Demetrius of Phalerum; and the present incident is
paralleled, reflections and all, at xxx. ro. r-2, where, after Pydna,
Aemilius Paullus appropriates and turns to his OY/11 honour the
columns Perseus was constructing at Delphi.
5. G.v8pbi1Tous l>vTa.s: a communis locus (cf. Herod. i. 32; [Soph.]
O.T. 1528-3o), cf. 7 I, iii. 31. 3, viii. 21. II, xv. 1. 8, xxi. 14. 4, xxiii.
12. 4, xxiv. ro. n, xxxviii. 20. 3. and several passages in Diodorus
drawing on P.; d. von Scala, 165--6. It is common to both Stoic (e.g.
[Heraclit.] Ep. 78. IS Bywater) and Peripatetic (e.g. Plut. Mor.
104 A, drawing here on Demetrius of Phalerum) sources.
155

rr. 4 . 6

THE FIRST ILLYRIAN WAR

6. I.I.ET~AAO.SE Tbv ~{ov: in autumn ZJI, v o>.lyatS' ~p,lpat> after the

battle.
7. T ~uTa 8lo.8Esai.I.Ev'1 Tbv xe~pLafL6v: in fact as regent and guardian for Pinnes, the young son of Agron and a secondary wife
Triteuta, who subsequently married Demetrius of Pharos; Zon. viii.
I9; Dio, fg. 49 J, 53; App. Ill. 7; Livy, xxii. 33 5 (a tradition independent of P.). In controlling the kingdom (Ta Trpri.yp,a.Ta, cf. i. zo.
::z n.) Teuta uses the normal Hellenistic council of rfoO.oL, found in the
courts of all the major powers; cf. v. :z. In. P. follows a tradition
on Teuta (d. Dio, fg. 49 2-5; Zon. viii. I9) which attributes her
policy to supposed feminine characteristics of headstrong emotion
and lack of reason (cf. 8, 8. 12), which are typical of Hellenistic
historical writing of the more sensational kind. But the collaboration
with Scerdila1das (5. 6) shows that the expedition of 230 ( 9) was
part of a policy of planned expansion into Epirus, preceded by
attacks on Elis and .Messenia, both partly under Aetolian influence
(iv. 59 I, etc., Elis; iv. 3 g, Messenia). Ill:yTian raids had extended
as far as Laconia (Plut. Cleom. Io. n). Badian, BSA, 1952, 73
Ka.n~ ciJowtKTjV: the capital of the new federal Epirote republic
(d. 2. 5 n.), a town in Chaonia about 8 miles inland from modern
Saranda; cf. Syll. 653 A, 4, Td Kowdv Twv 'H1rnpwTWV [Twv] 1Tpt
tl>owlt<TJ~" Under Pyrrhus and his house the capital was Ambracia
(xxi. 30. 9). Cf. Leake, NG, i. 20, 66 f.
4. TW\1 ra.AaTwv: Gauls, not Galatians (as Beloch, iv. I. 637); cf.
7. 6 :ff. ; and on their numbers, i. n. 4 n.
TWV tv a.uTfi: probably including both men and chattels; cf. 6. 6.
6. IKEp8LA.a.t8a.v: since his son was called Pleuratus, like Agron's
father (z. 4), Scerdila!das was probably Agron's brother (Schweighaeuser ad loc.; Lenschau, RE, 'Pleuratos', cols. 237-8).
Blc'i Twv 'ITa.p' ::.\vny6VLa.v O'TEVwv: Antigoneia lay on the site of
Tepeleni, on the left bank of the Aous (Viossa), just below its confluence with the Drynos. Scerdilai:das' route was clearly through
Atintania, along the Drynos valley; hence the aToa must be the
short gorge on that river immediately south of its confluence with
the Viossa, despite the more common application of the term to the
gorge of Klisoura on the Viossa itself (Livy, xxxii. 5 9-II; Plut.
Flam. 3 4-5. I; see Walbank, Philip, 149-5o).
'ITa.pa.cpuA.6.5ovTa.~ ~v :b.VTLy6vEta.v: 'to protect Antigoneia', i.e. against
outside attack {so Schweighaeuser, Paton, Holleaux (Rome, IIo-u),
Beloch, iv. :z. 38o n. 1), rather than 'to keep an eye on' (so Tarn,
AG, 312 n. 3, following Droysen); see xviii. 4 7 This implies that the
town was at this time Epirote, not independent (so Tarn, C AH,
vii. 744) or Illyrian (Treves, Rend. Line., 1932, 204 n. 4); and this is
confim1ed by 5 8 (Epirote survivors escaped w> 1r' J4TwTavwv; on

5. 3.

156

THE FIRST ILLYRIAN WAR

II. 6. 8

the boundaries of Atintania see rr. II n.). However, the ceding of

the area by the Romans to Philip in 205 (Livy, xxix. 12. 13) suggests
that it had recently been Macedon ian; and Antigoneia looks like
an Antigonid foundation (cf. Jones, Greek City, 13) despite Beloch's
suggestion that Pyrrhus founded it, and named it after his late wife
Antigone, to protect the gorges and northern frontiers of his kingdom
(iv. 2. 381). Cary suggested (/Jist. 4oo) that Gonatas took Atintania
from Epirus after Alexander II's intervention in the Chremonidean
Vvar, and that Demetrius II restored it as compensation for the
divorcing of Phthia; but it is now clear that Phthia was never
divorced (Tarn, Ferguson Stttdies, 1940, 483 ff.), and Macedonian concessions to Epirus about 233 would be odd. Nevertheless, a very
recent acquisition of Atintania by Epirus is not to be excluded; it
may, for example, have been garrisoned during the period of joint
hostility against the Aetolians, and retained when Demetrius came
to terms with lli}Tia (to envisage but one out of several possibilities).
But, in any case, its possession by Epirus at this date is assured.
Twv tCaTA TdS <j>uAa~<ils Kat 1TpOtCO~Ta;: 'guard and picket duty';
Paton, 'night and day watches', but P. uses both words of night
watches in vi. 35 4-5.
6. 1. 1rpos Tous AtTwAou; tCat To Twv J\xa7lv ~vos: Epirus had perhaps established relations with the two confederations (which were
still allied against Demetrius II of Macedon) shortly after the fall
of the royal house (cf. 2. 5 n.), but there is no evidence for a treaty
before now (so Beloch, iv. 1. 635). The expedition now sent to relieve
Epirus will be dated summer 230.
2. 'EM~<pavov: this otherwise unknown spot is located by Philippson
(Thessalien und Epirus, fig. 4) north-west of Delvino and south-east
of Gjinokastra, between the hamlets of Vrysi and PavliavH; but
this is very uncertain. The presence of Scerdilaidas shows that the
Epirote force had come too late to hold Antigoneia and the pass into
Atintania.
4. To.:,s Aap8a.vis: an Illyrian people, whose western frontier was
the point where the Drilo (Drin) became navigable (Strabo, vii. 316),
and whose main territory lay on the upper Axios (Vardar), and
north as far as NiS. See Patsch, RE, 'Dardani', cols. 2155-7;
S.B. Wien, 214. I, 1932, 10 ff. Strabo (loc. cit.) says that they are
so wild that they live in holes in the ground under dung-heaps, but
are devoted to music of all kinds. On their constant raids on Macedon
see Walbank, Philip. 27o-1. At xxviii. 8. 2 they are called Llap8avot,
and other forms are found.
8. ESYJv8po1ToSU7!lE"TJ": not 'enslaved' (cf. 6), but 'plundered,
devastated', as in xxxii. 5 II, nvv T()vwTwv ~g1)vOpa1Too{craTo Tous:
f3lovs:. P. exaggerates the importance of Phoenice at this time.

157

II. 6.9

THE FIRST ILLYRIAN WAR

9. aUj.Lj.LO.XlO.V t-Ln' )\Ka.pvcivwv 1rpos Tous 'IXXupious: on the

Acarnano-Illyrian alignment see 2. 5 ff. The date of this Epirote
treaty, which will have pleased Demetrius II of Macedon, was summer or autumn 230. As its price the Epirotes seem to have ceded
Atintania to Teuta (from whom the Romans took it the next year, II.
n; cf. vii. 9 IJ); Holleaux, Rome, non. I; Beloch, iv. 2. 384; BusoltSwoboda, ii. I476 n. 4 Ambracia and Amphilochia may now have
broken away from Epirus and joined Aetolia; cf. iv. 61. 6; Beloch,
ibid.; Flaceliere, 252. P.'s didactic digression (6. 9-7. I2) is clearly
prompted by his irritation, as an Achaean, at the desertion from the
Achaeans (the Aetolians matter less) to the Illyrian side.
7. 6. TT)v a.&hoO TOO auan\j.LO.TOS ~KE(vou 1rpoa.ipeaLv: 'the conduct and
reputation of that very band'. '"poalpm's is used by P. to mean either
'reputation' (e.g. ix. 9 10) or 'conduct' (e.g. xviii. 3 3); and often,
as here, both meanings are present. avarTJp,a is 'a body of soldiers';
cf. i. 81. u, etc. On the history of these Gauls see Jullian, il. 327;
Griffith, 252-3; Launey, i. 517; how they had originally betrayed
their own friends and kinsmen ( 6) is unknown.
7. Sui. To Ka.TmEiyea8a.L 1roAt-L<tl: evidently the First Punic War (cf.
8, ri]s a~ri]s XPElas lvEKEv) ; the date is probably that of the Roman
siege of Agrigentum (262, cf. i. 17 7 f.), as Treves suggests (ad loc.).
De Sanctis is unconvincing (iii. 1. 92) when he dates the incident
shortly after Pyrrhus' departure, and identifies it with the attempted
Mamertine coup (see i. 43 n.).
8. 1rapELaa.ya.y6vrwv Ets "EpuKa.: cf. i. 77. 4 n. for their attempted
betrayal of Eryx and desertion to the Romans, who were scarcely
besieging the city (i. 58. 2 ff.). On the temple of Aphrodite see i.
55 8 n.
ll. TTJS STJj.LOkpO.TlO.S kO.l TWV VOj.LWV: cf. i. 43 8, TOVS vop,ovs Ka~ Tijv
lAEvBEplav. Here P. is thinking of the new Epirote Ko,v6v, a republican
federation like those of Achaea and Aetolia (Busolt-Swoboda, ii.
I476-7)

8. l. Tous 11'Aotto ...vous: 'traders (by sea)': see Schweighaeuser, Lex.

Polyb. s.v.; iv. 42. 7 n. These traders were mainly from the Greek
cities of southern Italy; see J. Hatzfeld (Les trafiquants italiens dans
l'orient hellinistique (Paris, I9I9)) on their activities.
3. 1ra.pa.Kouovns Twv EyKa.AouvTwv: this is the official Roman
version of their reluctance to intervene in the eastern Mediterranean,
probably received from Fabius (cf. 2-I2 n.).
r a:iov kO.l AEUkLOV KopoyKa.vious: the annalistic version (cf. App.
Ill. 7 ; Dio, fg. 49 I-z; Zon. viii. I9) tells how the people of Issa (cf.
5), molested by Agron, threw themselves on the mercy of Rome.
The Coruncanii were accordingly sent, and both a Coruncanius and
I

58

THE FIRST ILLYRIAN WAR

II. 8.8

Cleemporus of Issa were murdered by Illyrian pirates. (There are

more fantastic details in Livy, ep. 20; Florus, i. 21. 3; Oros. iv. 13. 2;
and Pliny, Nat. kist. xxxiv. 24 calls one of the legati P. lunius.) The
annalistic account is accepted by DeSanctis (iii. I. 295) and Walser
(Historia, ii, 1954. 308-18), but looks like an example of the old
legend that the Romans waged only iusta bella, and generally to
defend allies. In fact Issa did not join the Romans until 229 (n. 12);
for Gelzer (Hermes, 1933, 143) is not convincing, when he argues that
Fabius omitted the story of lssa (like that of the Acarnanian embassy; 12. 7 n.) because it damaged his picture of Rome fighting to
avenge an outrage, and exposed her to a charge of meddlesomeness.
The object of the embassy is likely to have been a general reconnoitring visit (~1rlaKe!f;w 7TOt1Jaop.lvou~); see Badian, BSA, 1952, 76,
and in general Munzer, RE, 'Coruncanius (1 and z)', col. 1663;
Zippel, 47-50; Holleaux, Rome, 23 n. 6; Niese, ii. 281 n. 5
5. E11'0AlopteEl Tijv "lava.v: Issa is an island off the Dalmatian coast,
west of Pharos, modern Lissa; Fluss, RE, 'Issa', Suppl.-B. v, cols.
346-so. It had never formed part of Teuta's kingdom (d1re8etv is
'refused to submit'). The Roman arrival was probably in autumn,
230 (Holleaux, CAH, vii. 831), and the interview here most likely
gave rise to the false tradition (8. 3 n.) that the Issaeans provoked
Roman intervention by their appeal and deditio (Treves, Athen.,
1934, 387 n. 1).
8. teolvyj JlEv . t&'~ yf. JA-1\": Elizabeth I of England likewise gave
letters of marque to her privateers and dismissed protests with contempt (De Sanctis, iii. I. 295). Treves has argued (Athen., 1934,
388 ft.) that Teuta was making a conciliatory offer of aat!Ala, and
Badian would justify the Illyrian piracy as in order against Italian
blockade-runners. But the Italian traders were not necessarily
blockade-runners, nor could the Romans admit the Illyrian claim
to blockade all states they were attacking; and Treves' view is hard
to accept, since Teuta admitted her inability to control unofficial
piracy. Hence an offer of davAla.----even if it is to be deduced from the
equivocation P. reports--would have been farcical. P.'s account must
be read as a whole, and clearly he believed himself to be recording
an insult. The reliability of his narrative is another matter, and turns
on the reliability of the Fabian version. Certainly the retort of the
younger Coruncanius (probably Lucius; De Sanctis, iii. I. 295 n. 87)
has the appearance of a post eventum invention designed to glorify
the victim of the subsequent outrage and to reaffirm Roman regard
for wrongs committed upon subjects~in short it is part of the Fabian
tradition; see Treves, Athen., 1934, 389. Badian (BSA, 1952, 77),
following Holleaux (Rome, 99), argues that the Roman reply was in
fact a rerum repetitio ; but normally at this time a rerum repetitio
was preceded by a conditional war-motion in the Senate and the
!59

II. 8. 8

THE FIRST ILL YRIAN WAR

comitia (cf. CP, 1949, 15 ff.), and there is no evidence that the
Coruncanii were authorized to do more than reconnoitre (contra
Holleaux, Rome, 'f), who thinks that despite P.'s account they had
the duty of delivering an ultimatum).
Teuta's phraseology is ironically echoed by Coruncanius, e.g. KaT'
Ullav &DtK~fJ.aTa Kowfi . 1TEtpaa6fJ.l(Ja , 10.
13. itrl Tfi tra.pa.vo.-~~ TtlS yuva.~Kos: 'at the outrage committed by
a woman'.

9. 1. Tfjs l:Jpa.s ~trlYEVOf.\WrJS: i.e. spring 229. Tcuta's policy probably

represents a determination to win bases in preparation for an inevitable war (so Treves, Athen., 1934, 391; Badian, BSA, 1952, 77).
rather than evidence that she had no idea it was coming (Holleaux,
Rome, 101).
2. ~iLO. tropou: 'straight across the high sea', cf. i. 39 6. This gives a
better contrast to putting in at Epidamnus than does the translation 'through the strait (sc. of Corcyra)' (so Paton). Cf. Schweighaeuser, ad loc. Corcyra and Epidamnus were independent Greek
cities.
8. :4troAAwvui.Ta.L: the independent city of Apollonia lay just north
of the Aous mouth. Its appeal to Achaea and Aetolia, rather than
Rome, seems proof that the embassy sent to Rome c. 266 (VaL Max.
vi. 6. 5; Dio, fg. 42; Zon. viii. 7; Livy, ep. 15) had had no political
sequel; De Sanctis, ii. 428; Holleaux, Rome, 1-5.
9. Tas ... va.us Ka.Ta.+pa~eTous: on the meaning see i. 20, 13 n.
10. 1. 1Tpl TOUS Ka.Aoup.Evous na.ous: there are two islands, Paxos
and Antipaxos, lying 5 miles south of Corcyra, opposite the Acheron
mouth; cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. iv. 52. See Johanna Schmidt, RE,
'Paxoi', cols. 2437~8; Hammond, ]HS, 1945, 27 and map (Pl. I).
3. t~ru~a.vTES To us AEJ.I~ous O.vO. Tena.pa.s: lashed together in
fours, the light lembi (i. zo. 13 n.) gained in bulk and stability, and
once the enemy's beak was embedded in the side of one of the outer
ships, boarding became possible. The manreuvre is significant for the
general change over to boarding tactics about this time, and points
to considerable naval adaptability on the part of the Illyrians. Tarn
(HMND, 145) observes that in the First Punic War 'the Roman
sword beat the Carthaginian ram'; the Illyrian victory at Paxos
underlined the same lesson.
5. trAoiwv . TETp'l")plKwv: on these ships see i. 20. 9 n.; so too for
the quinquereme.
MO.pyos o Ka.puvEos: on his earlier career see 41. 14 (assassination of
the tyrant of Bura, 27 5/4), 43 2 (first holder of the single generalship,
255/4). Later overshadowed by Aratus, he is only mentioned again
here, dying a hero's death at an advanced age. As commander of the
160

THE FIRST ILL YRIAN WAR

II.

I I.

quinquereme he was probably navarch of the Achaean squadron

(Niese, ii. z83). See Kroll, RE, 'Margos (1)', col. 1709. On the phrase
-;rdvTa Td O[Ka'a Tij> KO,Vij> .. 1rf'1TO'"f/Ktf>'i (cf. iii. JI6. 9), Which iS typical
of the phraseology of contemporary laudatory inscriptions, see
Schulte, 52.
8 .AT)IJ.tlTp~ov Tov ILj)cip~ov: Demetrius was apparently a Greek (or
possibly a hellenized Illyrian) who governed Pharos (modem U:sina
or Hvar) as Teuta's vassal; Gitti (BHlt. comm. Rom., 1935, 13) argues
less probably that he was a private citizen of Pharos.
11. 1. K!lTU 8~ Tous ulJTous KaLpoos: d. 2. I n.
rvaaos }lEV 1Lj)6Xou~os A3Xos &~ noaTO}ltOS: Cn. Fulvius CnJ.
Cn.n. Centumalus and L. Postumius A.f. A.n. Albinus, the consuls
for A.u.c. 525 = 229/8 B.c. The correct praenomen is attested for
Postumius by Livy, xxii. 35 6, xxiii. 24. 3, and by the Fast. Cap.
P.'s error in giving him his father's praenomen may go back to an
error in Fabius or, more probably (cf. Bung, r86 n. 2), is attributable
to a }{S. fault. See Munzer, RE, 'Fulvius (42)', coL 235; 'Postumius
(4o)', col. 912; Beloch, iv. 1. 665.
4. iv Ota~oXa'Ls wv: Treves (Athen., 19,34. 389---90) argued that
Demetrius had already made contact with the envoys of zJo, who
at Issa were not far from Pharos. But Badian (BSA, I95z, 77 n. 19)
points out that P. clearly distinguishes his contacts with Rome from
the disfavour which led to them, and suggests that Demetrius may
have been intriguing to obtain the guardianship of Pinnes (which he
subsequently obtained by marrying Triteuta; Dio, fg. 53).
5-12. Illyrian towns and tribes join Rome. Corcyra ( 5), Apollonia
( 8), Epidamnus ( ro), the Parthini ( n), the Atintanes ( u), and
lssa ( u) made acts of dedito to Rome. P. here translates fides by
1rlcrn<;, amicitia by if>,).{a; on the latter relationship, which came into
existence with the act of deditio, but did not necessarily imply the
making of a joedus, see A. Reuss (Grtmdlagen, 78-s3). All {except
Issa, on which see below) feature in the treaty of 215 between
Philip V and Hannibal as if subject to Rome (vii. 9 13). Their subsequent status is not, however, wholly clear. Taubler's belief (i. zs)
that they received libertas precaria by a Roman decree (so too
Holleaux, CAH, vii. 836) has been refuted by the arguments of
Reuss (Grundlagen), demolishing the conception of a category of
dediticii with precaria libertas. That they were free is confirmed by
App. Ill. 8, 'Pwp.a'io' .. K.!pKvpo.v p.ev KO.t l11Tolu\wvlav a<fofjKaV /..wOtpas
(which will hardly be true of just these two states alone), cf. Mac. I
(on Corcyra), 'Pwp.alot<; aw.Ip.axEt. De Sauctis (iii. I. 3or) argued that
Issa, Dyrrhachium (Epidamnus) and Apollonia were made socii,
Issa with ajoedus aequum, and Corcyra a ciuitas sinejoedere tibera et
imm1mis. But there is no evidence for any foedtfS, except with Pinnes.
M

161

II.

II.

THE FIRST ILLYRIAN WAR

Details are as follows :

Corcyra, Apollonia, and Epidamnus retained coining rights, and
minted victoriates, drachmae, those for Corcyra having the inscription ROMA (d. Mommsen, Geschichte des romischen Miinzwesens
(Berlin, 186o), 394 ff.; Zippel, 90; B.l~f.C. Rom. Rep., ii. 196-7). It is
convincingly argued by Badian (BSA, 1952, Son. 5) that these coins
were struck by Corcyra at the request of Rome, 'probably ... to pay
Roman troops in the East'; d. De Sanctis (iii. 1. 302 n. 97), who
emphasizes the Greek initials of the minting magistrate. Pliny, Nat.
hist. iv. 52, refers to Corcyra as a free city; but the coarse remark
recorded by Strabo, vii, fg. 8, Aw(Npa KopKvpa, xr o1rov 8Aetr;, may
go back to the fourth century or earlier, either 426 (Bursian, ii.
362 n. 2), 372 (De Sanctis, iii. 1. 302 n. 97) or perhaps 353, when the
anti-Athenian party was in power (Dem. xxiv. 202).
Apollonia (see above for App. Ill. 8) now became the main point
for the landing of Roman armies east of the Adriatic (e.g. Livy,
xxx.i. 18. 9, 40. 6, xlii. 18. 3, etc.), though in 205 P. Sempronius landed
at Epidamnus (subsequently called Dyrrhachium: Pliny, Nat. hist.
iii. 145), as did M. Lucretius in 171 (Livy, xxix. 12. 3, xlii. 48. 7).
Issa later contributed a useful naval contingent to the Roman fleet
(Livy, xxxi. 45 10, xxxii. 21. 27, xxxvii. 16. 8, xlii. 48. 8).
The setting up of this protectorate (the extent of which should not
be exaggerated; Badian, BSA, 1952, 78) ensured command of the
straits against further piracy. Its basis was the loose relationship of
amicitia, which applied the Roman concept of clientela in the sphere
of foreign policy. 'The freedom of the Illyrian cities ... leads directly
to the Isthmian proclamation (sc. of 196)' (Badian, op. cit. 81).
Against Holleaux's thesis (Rome, 109-12) that the Romans were
looking beyond Illyria to Macedon see the compelling arguments of
Cary (History, 406), who shows how little the Adriatic concerned the
Antigonids prior to Philip V.
5. wa.pa.KATJ9Evns: 'encouraging each other' (Emesti, Schweighaeuser, Treves, who makes it reinforce opo6vpao6v), or 'invited (by
the Romans)' (Casaubon, Paton, Niese (ii. 283 n. 2)). Schweighaeuser
argues that subsequent events showed that Roman exhortation was
unnecessary; but the Corcyraeans would not know the procedure of
deditio without some explanation and encouragement (for Greek
confusion on this matter d. xx. 9 10 ff., xxxvi. 4). Hence the second
version is preferable. (It carries no implications for a Roman policy
of imperialism, as Kolbe, 5.-B. Heidelberg, 1933/4,4, 27n. 3.) The views
here attributed to the Corcyraeans (plav ... aacp6.Aetav) arc part of
the Roman propagandist version of events.
7. Roman land forces. These 2o,ooo foot and 2,ooo horse, like Fulvius'
2oo ships (II. 1), indicate the serious Roman view of the war. But
Holleaux is not convincing (Rome, 102 n. 3) in his thesis not only
r6z

THE FIRST ILL YRIA:.T WAR

II.

II.

15

that these preparations preceded the death of Demetrius II (as they

did) but that they were designed to meet a possible Macedonian
attack in support of the Illyrians; cf. Badian, BSA, 1952, 76-77.
10. Tous etO"w To1Tous Tfls 'l).i..upioos: not the inland districts, but
those parts of Teuta's kingdom lying in the farther recesses of the
Adriatic (Zippel, sr); cf. Zon. viii. Ig, Ta xwpla 11"op87]Q'&vTWV Ta
mfpa)la. The Ardiaei (the tribe to which the royal family belonged:
Dio, fg. 49 2) were at this time widely extended, and the Romans will
not have sailed as far as the Narenta (modem Neretva). their original
home; Tomaschek, RE, 'Ardiaioi', col. 6r5. The fate of the Ardiaeans
whom the Romans reduced is uncertain; they were perhaps assigned
to the Parthini or to Demetrius of Pharos (Badian, BSA, 1952,78 n. 26).
11. na.p&(vwv .. )\TWTUVW\1: the Parthini seem to have occupied the
hinterland of Dyrrhachium, as far south as the Apsus (modern
Devol), and eastward towards Lake Lychnidos (Dio, xli. 49 2; xlii.
xo. 1; App. Bell. civ. v. 75; Strabo, vii. 326; Livy, xliv. 30. 13). See
Tomaschek, RE, 'Parthini', cols. 2029 ff. The Atintanes (see 5 6 n.)
dwelt inland behind Apollonia and Oricum, as far south as Dodona
(Ps.-Scyl. z6, a corrupt passage). Thus Atintania included the lower
Aous valley, along with that of the Drynos, and the fortress-town
of Antigoneia (Tepeleni); cf. 5 6 n.
12. Tous 'IO'O'a.tous: cf. Zon. viii. rg. The siege lasted from autumn
230 (8. 5) until midsummer, 229; there is no need to assume a break
after the Roman demarche and a resumption after Paxos, with
Treves (Athen., 1934, 387 n. r). The absence of lssa from the treaty
of 215 (vii. 9 13-14) gives no grounds for accepting any part of the
annalistic account of the preliminaries of the war (8. 3 n.) (so Zippel,
47 92-93; De Sanctis, iii. 1. 301 n. g6) nor yet for assuming a joedus
aequum with Rome (DeSanctis, ibid.). See Holleaux. Rome, xo6 n. 3
13. 1TEpl NouTp(a,v: Dio, fg. 49 7, 1T<pl Tov iinfp~ol' Mmv. Both names
are unknown. Bauer (AEM, 1895, 147) regards P.'s form as a corruption of that in Dio.
14. ll.'lfOKOJUtovTW\1 TTJV ~K "TilS X~pa.s ~~EhELQV: 'Carrying a\vay
booty taken in the countryside', (Shuckburgh; Schweighaeuser s.v.
J,<f>O.E~a in his Lex. Polyb., though in his note ad loc. he translates
'qui fructus ex agris deuehebant', and is therein followed by Paton,
'which were conveying away agricultural produce to save it from
pillage'). w<f>l/...,,a is very common meaning 'plunder' (e.g. i. :zo. 1, ii.
3 8, 8. 8, 22. 5. etc.) and is used as a technical expression in Philip V's
military code (Feyel, Rev. arch. 6, 1935. 3r), whereas it is not
paralleled in the sense of 'produce'. Cf. too Zon. viii. 19, 1rAofa
jLETa XP1JflrlTWV EK I1EA011"0Vvfjaou 11"p0(}'1TMoVTa (though iK TfjS' xwpas
can hardly refer to the Peloponnese).
15. ot liv TTI Ap: ~ .Papo> is the town in P. (iii. 18. 2, r8. 7, 19. 12),
.Pd.po;; the island (v. 108. 7). Polaschek, RE, 'Pharos (2)', col. 186o.

163

II.

II.

15

THE FIRST ILLYRIAN WAR

ei.~ Tov ~p~wva.: unknown. Tomaschek (RE, 'Arbon', col. 419) suggests a connexion with Albanopolis (Ptol. Geog. iii. 12. :zo), modern
Arbunr;, near Kruja (which Anna Comnena (xiii. s) calls TO }ip{Jav&v);
this would be the earliest reference to the modern name 'Albania'.
But it seems more probable that this is a distorted reference to
Narona, a Dalmatian town opposite Pharos, and near the sea (Pliny,
Nat. hist. iii. 142; further references and sketch-map in l\L Fluss,
RE, 'Narona', cols. 1743-55; 'Teuta', col. n46), as Schweighaeuser
suggested.
16. Ets Tov 'Pltova.: modern Risano, at the head of the Bay of
Cattaro, which P. (like Ps.-Scylax, 24) calls & 'Pitwv wo-rafL&s:; cf.
Apoll. Rhod. iv. 5I6; Steph. Byz.: Bov8G-'J, x1 S' E7Tt TOV fLVXOV
'Pltova 1ToAw Kat TrOTafLo" OfLciWvfLov, where, however, the gulf and the
wo-rafLos seem to be distinguished. Hence it is argued by D. Vouksan
(Albania, 193z, 77 n. r, plan on p. 78) that 'la riviere, dont la source
se trouve aujourd'hui dans une caverne situee au-dessus de Risan,
devait etre alors plus abondante que de nos jours et traverser la
ville ancienne qui s' etendait en partie sur un emplacement que la
mer a maintenant conquis'. But this hardly fits P. and Ps.-Scylax.
See in general Oberhummer, RE, 'Pl,wv, cols. 937--9 The words
dvaKexwpTJKOS dwo Tijs OaAaTTTJ> signify 'at a distance from the sea',
i.e. at the head of the gulf (or supposed river), rather than 'high up
above the sea' on a craggy eminence (Treves).
17. fLEyciX,v a.uT~ 1TpL9ilvTEs 8uva.aTEia.v: P. is clearly thinking of a
long-term settlement, and not a mere temporary arrangement (so
Badian, BSA, 1952, 79); but he exaggerates Demetrius' Svvaa-reia
(contrast App. Ill. 8, .JTJfLTJTplcp o' laTH' a xrupia jlta06v Sormv Tfj;;
7Tpoooalas). Its extent is unknown; but until he increased his power
by marrying Triteuta, Pinnes' mother (4. 7 n; Dio, fg. 53) he probably
possessed little more than Pharos and a few coastal places (Beloch,
iv. r. 666; Holleaux, Rome, 105; CAH, vii. 835; Badian, op. cit. So),
which joined Rome after Teuta's flight from Issa. These possessions
can hardly have extended as far south as Lissus (De Sanctis, iii. r.
302 n. 98); cf. Gitti (Bull. comm. Rom., 1935, 14), who, however,
includes the Ardiaei in Demetrius' domains.

12. 1-1. q,oAouLos rls T~v pWfLTJV ciw.E1rAeuae: because Fulvius celebrated a naval triumph pro cos. ex Illurieis on zr June 228, De
Sanctis (iii. r. 297 n. 89) suggested that P. has confused the two
consuls, and that it was Postumius who returned to Rome in 229.
But Holleaux, who was first inclined to reject the reference in the
act. tr. (Rome, 102 n. 6), and later accepted De Sanctis's thesis
(CAH, vii. 835 n. z), has shown (Etudes, iv. x. 22 ff.
REG, I9JO,
258 ff.) that postponed triumphs are relatively common, and may
spring from a variety of causes-illness, political opposition, etc. ;
164

THE FIRST ILLY RIAN WAR

II.

12.

in such cases there was a precedent for the late consul's taking a
purely formal proconsulship for his triumph, like L. Scipio in 189
(Livy, xxxvii. 59 6; A. M. Colini, Bull. comm. Rom., 1928, 269-74).
Postumius received no triumph at all, though P. gives him the
greater credit. Had his losses been too heavy? So Munzer (RE,
'Postumius (4o)', col. 913); but there is no evidence that he rather
than Fulvius was responsible for the losses in n. IJ.
3. Sla.1TpEaj3Euaa..,.v1J 1rpos Taus 'Pw.,.a.(ous: i.e. to Postumius at
Epidamnus ( 4).
Peace terms with Teuta. P.'s source was assumed by Valeton (:zo6) and
von Scala (:z68) to be the Achaean record office; Schulte (4o) thought it
was the Roman records. It is indeed possible, though not very likely,
that the Achaeans filed the report made to them by Postumius ( 4;
Bauer, AEM, r895, 137). But it is improbable that P. carried out
detailed research for these introductory books, and in any case be
is unlikely to have had access to the Achaean record office when he
was writing them. His most probable source is Fabius Pictor.
(r) 4>opous . olanv: probably an indemnity, payable in instalments, like that imposed on Carthage after the First Punic War
(i. 62. 9); cf. Beloch, iv. I. 666 n. 1; Holleaux, Rome, 105 n. 5 The
amount is not recorded. Livy, xxii. 33 5 probably refers to a new,
but similar, indemnity imposed in 219.
(2) 1Ta0'1'JS T' 6.va.xwp~anv '~'il'> 'l>.>.upt8os 1TA~v b>.(:ywv Tlnrwv:
according to Appian, Ill. 7, the Romans permitted Pinnes T'i]v a'M:'lv
i4ypwvos dpx~v ;X"'v, and Teuta accepted these terms. Probably this
means that Teuta agreed to surrender the regency (to Demetrius)
and withdraw to a 8vva.a-rda. (as P. here implies). Cf. Dio, fg. 49 7,
'ITaVTeAws Ka-rSEuJE Jcal T~v tipx~v &.<f>fjKIJJ. Badian (BSA, 1952, 8o)
suggests plausibly that her ouvaaTda was around Rhizon.
(3) .,.1) trAuaELV 1TAEov f) 8ual. AE.,.~o~s ~sw Toil 1\iaaou: cf. iii. 16. 3
Lissus, modern Lesh or Alessio (cf. Fluss, RE, 'Lissos (2)', cols.
731-3; J. M. F. May, ]RS, 1946, 54) lay on a fortified hill near the
mouth of the Drilo (Drin). It is generally assumed that Illyrian land
forces were required to respect the same frontier (cf. Holleaux,
Rome, 105 n. 4); but this is not certain, as Badian (BSA, 1952, 79;
cf. Oost, 12) shows-though with the Parthini and Atintanes both
included in the Roman protectorate, Illyrian access to lands south
of the Genusus must have been very restricted. This clause secured
the freedom of the Ionian Sea for Italian and Greek shipping. P.
mentions the latter especially in the general 'philhellenic' context
of the sending of envoys to the Greek states( 4-8); it will have been
stressed by Fabius, and in any case most of the Italian traders were
Greeks from southern Italy.
4-8. Roman embassies to Greece. The results and importance of these
have been exaggerated by both ancient and modern historians.
165

II.

12.

THE FIRST ILLYRIAN WAR

Zonaras (viii. r9) records how at Athens

77oAtTdas atf>wv Twv ,..,
p,vanJPlwv JhET~axov. De Sanctis (iii. z. 438 n. 98) would reduce this
to a grant of 77potevla; but it should probably be rejected outright
(d. Niese, ii. 285 n. 4; Taubler, i. zr6; Ferguson, 21o n. 3, 256 n. 2;
Holleaux, Rome, II7 n. r). There is no reason to regard these embassies as anti-)facedonian. Those to Achaea and Aetolia were a
purely formal exchange of courtesies, without any political sequel
(Holleaux, Rome, II3 ff.); and those to Corinth (an Achaean city,
not competent to engage in independent political exchanges) and to
Athens will have been motivated by the prestige and perhaps the
commercial power of these two cities (Beloch, iv. 1. 667). Moreover,
there was little to fear from Macedon in 228, when the regent Doson
(guardian to Philip since Demetrius II's death in spring 229 (44. z n.))
was facing a Dardanian invasion and the Aetolian seizure of much
of Thessaly (cf. Walbank, Philip, Io-n). In fact, our sources have
no reference to Macedon in this context.
4. -rrpos n TOu<; Ahw?.ou<; Ka.i. To Twv :A..xa.lwv (8vo<;: who had sent
help to the Corcyraeans at Paxos (9. 8 ff.). Since the death of
Demetrius II their alliance had been dissolved de facto, if not openly
denounced (below, 45-46 nn.). The purpose of the Roman visit was
partly formal, partly propagandist; Roman policy in lllyria was
portrayed as defending the ius gentium against Illyrian 11apavop,la
(n. 5) Cf. Gelzer, Hermes, H)33 I32.
7. n S' rnmAoKt, p.t:TU -rrpE:O'~ELCl<;: this statement contradicts
Iustinus' account (xxviii. 1. 5 ff.) of an Acarnanian appeal to the
Senate, and a Roman demarche in Aetolia, c. 239, which was
brusquely rejected. Iustinus' story is accepted by De Sanctis (iii.
I. zj8 n. I), Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 382 n. r), Kolbe (S.-B. Heidelberg,
1933/4, 4. 26), and Beloch (iv. r. 634 n. 3, 'P. kann seine Grtinde
gehabt haben, den diplomatischcn MiBerfolg der Romer zu verschweigen'). Gelzer (Hermes, 1933. 144) suggests that Fabius, P.'s
source, was reluctant to spoil his picture of the First Illyrian \Var
with an earlier story of Roman interference and failure; but Iustinus'
account is vague and inaccurate, and the arguments against its
authenticity are strong; cf. Holleaux, Rome, 5-22; Treves, Rend.
Line., 1932, 196-7. P. is thinking of political contacts, and this
passage does not bear on the authenticity of the tradition of a fifthcentury embassy to Greece to gather materials for the Twelve
Tables (Livy, iii. 31 ff.; Dion. Hal. x. 52, 54).
8. -rrpos KopwEILou<; Kal. -rrpos ;t!.STJva.(ous: here 'Pwp,aio means 'the
Senate' ; Holleaux, Rome, I r4 n. 2. On the purpose of the visit see
12. 4-8 n. That the Romans made a formal proclamation at the
Isthmian Games (De Sanctis, iii. r. 303) is an assumption not warranted either by this passage or by Zon. viii. r9 (which merely
confirms the admission of the Romans to the festival, adding that
166

THE FIRST ILLYRIAN WAR

II. 13.2

Kat aTa8wv Jv airr<f! 6 ll>.airros- vtwrp). This recognition by the

Greeks is naturally stressed in P. since it was tantamount to accepting the Romans into the comity of civilized (Greek) peoples; cf.
Wilamowitz, Staat und Gesellschajt der Griechen und Romer 2 (Berlin,
1923), rso; Holleaux, Rome, I29 Reference to the Isthmia dates this
embassy to the spring of an 'even' year, and probably to 228 (nl8iws-),
when Athens was concerned with her freedom (44. 2 n.); but the
failure of the Senate to follow up the embassy shows that it had no
political background.

13. Hasdrubal in Spain (229-221)

The source remains pro-Barcine (d. Gelzer, Hermes, 1933, rs8-iJ).
The reference to the Ebro Treaty { 7) makes an artistic transition
to the Gallic \Vars (14-35), but leaves Hasdrubal's death and Hannibal's succession to the command for 36. I-2. On Hasdrubal's achievements see also Diod. xxv. II. I, 12; App. Hisp. 6; Zon. viii. 19;
below, iii. 13. 2 n.
13. 1. EV TOUTOLS a1TEAl-rroJ.LEV Ta KO.Ta T~V 'I~TjpLa.V: see I. 9
Illyrian events have been brought down to the date of Hasdrubal's
death (>vinter 229) and P. returns to the Spanish field. Paton's
translation, 'we have said nothing of affairs in Spain during these
years' (231-228?), is plainly absurd.
Ka.pxTJSOva. Ka.Lv~v v6ALv: P. uses both names, cf. iii. 13. 7, 15. 3,
17. I, etc. (Kmv~ 1ToAts-), x. 6. 8, IS 11, etc. (Kapx:rJ:Sdw) ; an apparent
exception is explicable as a gloss, iii. 39 6 n. The former is a translation, the latter an adaptation of the Phoenician Qart-Chadasht
'New Town' (Ehrenberg, Karthago, 13). New Carthage was founded
(cf. Diod. xxv. I2; Zon. viii. 19) about 228 on the site of the older
Phoenician settlement Mastia (d. iii. 24. 4 n.), which notably resembled that of Carthage itself. 'This city ... was better placed than
Alicante to keep in touch with Africa, because it was nearer and
possessed a magnificent harbour, the best on the east coast of Spain,
indeed one of the best harbours in the world' (Schulten, CAH, vii.
788).

2. T~v 9mv Ka.t T~v XPELa.v: cf. x. 9 ft. for the topography; in
x. 11. 4 P. states that he writes airr61TTat y"yov6ns. If he visited New
Carthage while in Spain with Scipio in 151 (cf. iii. 4-5 n., 3 (ii),
57-59 n.; De Sanctis, iii. 1. 212), that statement was probably inserted in book x before publication (for composition, though not
publication, had certainly progressed beyond book x by then). It
would not, however, follow that the present passage is also a later
insertion (Susemihl, ii. 110 n.), for P. can have intended writing an
account of New Carthage before seeing it personally. If he also
167

II.

13. 2

HASDRUBAL IN SPAIN (229-221)

discussed its advantages relative to Spain and Africa, his account

has not survived.
3. wpf1TJ11C1V hrt To 11'o)\u11'payf1oV~v Ta KaTa Ti]v 'I~TJp(av: despite
P.'s suggestion that the Senate ('Pwp,atm} had hitherto neglected
Spanish affairs, Dio's account (fg. 48: probably based on Coelius
Antipater; Taubler, Vorgesch. 82) of a Roman embassy to Hamilcar
in 231, to question Punic activities in Spain, is quite credible (De
Sanctis, iii. 1. 411 n. 59; rejected by Holleaux, Rome, 123 n. 4) ;
Hamilcar justified them by the need to raise money to pay the Roman
indemnity. The Romans may have entered into their alliance with
Saguntum now; but this is far from certain (13. 7 n. (d), iii. 15. I n.).
4-5. Roman policy. P. here implies that the Senate was resolved to
act against the Punic empire in Spain, but for reasons of expediency,
connected with the Gallic danger, 'smoothed down Hasdrubal' ( 6}
and persuaded him to sign an agreement ( 7); once free to act, the
Romans would proceed against Carthage without scruple ( 5, lmTaTTHv 7} TToAEp,Ew}; cf. 22. 9-11. In both passages Hasdrubal's empire
is a threat to be countered as soon as circumstances allow. This
probably makes Roman policy more clearly defined than it really
was at this date.
4. Et5 To f-LEynATJV X~pa KaTauKw0.uau8al: 'to build up a powerful
dominion' (Paton), 'the opportunity of consolidating their power'
(Shuckburgh), 'creuisse opes Carthaginiensium' (Schweighaeuser),
'per costruirsi un impero' (Treves). But f-1-"YclA'IJ X"tp is 'a large body
of men' (cf. i. 44 7; Herod. vii. I$7. etc.; LSJ, s.v. X"tp, v). P. is
considering the danger to Rome inherent in a large army recruited
in Spain, and hence interprets Roman action as defensive; cf. iii.
10. 6, the Carthaginians ..-avTats Tais X"pai mant5aavns- .,iJ8apaws
vl.f3'rJaav .,;, T6v ... 7TOAf.WV. Translate, therefore, 'to build up and
equip a large body of troops'.
6. Ka.Tao/TjuavT5 .. Kat 1rpauvavTES Tov ~uopoul3av: in contrast to
their policy in 231 (r3. 3 n.). P.'s expression does not imply protracted negotiations (Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 341), but merely proposals
which would seem acceptable to Hasdrubal.
7. The Ebro treaty: cf. 22. 11, iii. 15. 5, 21. I, 27. 9, 29. 2-3, 30. 3 This
agreement (avv8i]Kat here and (by implication) in iii. 30. 3. elsewhere,
more accurately, 6p,oAoy{at, 8w[.WAoyl)aoo:s) was made between Hasdrubal and representatives of the Senate, probably between autumn
226 and spring 225 (cf. 23. 6 n.), in view of the Gallic danger, which
culminated in 225 (DeSanctis, iii. 1. 4I2 n. 62). Controversy surrounds
both the content and the significance of the treaty, and also its
role in the diplomatic exchanges which preceded the Hannibalic
War.
(a) Content. P. mentions only one clause, 'that the Carthaginians
were not to cross the Ebro in arms'. But it has been widely argued
168

HASDRUBAL IN SPAIN

(229--221)

II. 13.7

(e.g. by Otto, Groag, Hallward, Treves) that a complementary clause

limited the Romans in an identical fashion. Certainly it is hard to
believe that the Romans were not bound by such a clause; though
many of those historians who do not admit the existence of this
(e.g. De Sanctis, Momigliano, Taubler, Schulten), assume that the
treaty recognized a Carthaginian right to advance up to the Ebro
(Taubler (Vorgesch. 49-5o) argues that this right was accorded in
a separate, parallel document agreed by the Romans). Thus on either
interpretation the treaty looks like a concession to Carthage, recognizing what had been, or was on the point of being, achieved in
Spain south of the R. Ebro.
It has frequently been argued (e.g. by De Sanctis, Taubler, Altheim) that the treaty does not demarcate spheres of influence, since
this was not a Roman conception at this time; but it can hardly
have left either side free to strike alliances or develop commercial
contacts across the Ebro, merely limiting military activity (so T.
Frank; on this see :Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 363 n. 2). To be effective an
alliance must allow for the sending of military assistance, and against
this the treaty established the Ebro as a substantial barrier. Further,
if (as has been plausibly suggested, e.g. by T. Frank and DeSanctis)
the driving force behind Rome was Massilia, with which Rome had
long enjoyed friendly relations (Diod. xiv. 93 5; Strabo, iv. r8o;
Iustin. xliii. s) and had struck an alliance in the period since the
First Punic \Var (Livy, xxi. 20. 8, socii; cf. Philipp, RE, 'Massalia',
col. 2132), she would hardly view with equanimity Carthaginian
penetration in the areas around her colonies of Rhode (Rosas) and
Emporiae (Ampurias), which lay on the coast between the Ebro and
the Pyrenees. T. Frank (CAH, vii. 8ro) even suggests that Massilia
was a party to the pact, but of this there is no evidence; on the other
hand, Schulten's objection (CAH, vii. 788), that the surrender of her
colonies south of the Ebro must have left Massilia discontented, is not
very substantial, since these had probably gone already (iii. IJ. 2 n.).
On balance, therefore, it seems probable that the Romans accepted
a limiting clause like that restricting Carthage.
(b) Form and validity. The treaty was apparently agreed between
Hasdrubal and a senatorial commission. Presumably it was ratified
in Rome (contra Taubler, Vorgesch. 49), and from the Roman point
of view counted as a valid treaty. But in reply to the alleged
Carthaginian argument (see iii. zr. r n.) that it either was nonexistent, or else had never been ratified at Carthage and hence was
not valid, the Romans, instead of contradicting the assertion, merely
argued that ratification at Carthage was superfluous (cf. iii. 29. 3,
ath-OTEAW> brot~(FO.TO ras DJWAoylas }luSpov~as). This suggests that,
although the Barcids were normally accompanied by Councillors
from Carthage (cf. iii. zo. 8, TOV> fLET' ath-oiJ crvv,Spov>, 71. 5, vii. 9 I,
169

II. 13. 7

HASDRUBAL IN SPAIN (zzg-221)

yepovcnacrrai, signatories to the treaty between Hannibal and

Philip V), the Ebro treaty was not ratified at home; cf. Taubler,
i. 95 Probably the Barcids had power to make local agreements of
this nature (De Sanctis, iii. I. 414 n. 66), a convenient arrangement,
which would leave the Carthaginian senate free to repudiate them
afterwards. On their side the Romans were playing for time, and,
provided Hasdrubal observed the agreement until the Gauls had
been defeated, preferred not to press for any formal ratification.
Hence the treaty is to be regarded, at least on the Carthaginian side,
as a purely local arrangement, and not as an additional clause to
the treaty of 24I.
(c) Significance. For the Romans, the treaty removed the risk of
a Carthaginian alliance with the Gauls, and enabled them to reserve
the 'Spanish problem' to a later date; they could thus look forward
to rounding off their Italian frontiers, and extending their interests
to southern Gaul and northern Spain without encountering the
Carthaginians (22. Io-n). On Hasdrubal's side, the treaty recognized
the Carthaginian right to advance to the Ebro, though Punic arms
had not yet penetrated so far; De Sanctis (iii. I. 4I2) estimates that
they had not yet reduced half the area south of the Ebro. It must,
therefore, be a largely subjective judgement to decide whether the
agreement was a diplomatic triumph for Rome (Mommsen) or Carthage (Egelhaaf).
(d) The Ebro treaty and Saguntum. Some years before Hannibal
succeeded to the command (2I9) the Iberian city of Saguntum had
struck an alliance with the Romans (iii. 30. I, 1TAelouw ~Twtv 7}81)
1TpoTEpov TWV KaT' YJ.wi{Jav I<cttpwv). The date of this alliance and its
relation to the Ebro treaty are both controversiaL It is agreed that
the alliance can hardly have been made at the time of the Ebro
treaty (226/5). or indeed so long as the Romans were afraid of the
Gauls, since it could only arouse Hasdrubal's hostility. P. appears
to regard the alliance as considerably prior to the Roman interference at Saguntum in 22I (contrast iii. 30. I (just quoted) with iii.
IS. 7, which, referring to 220, dates this interference J.UKpots EJ.L1Tpou0Ev
xpovots), which perhaps points to a date before 228; and indeed it
has been suggested that the alliance was made by the embassy of
2JI (IJ. 3 n.). But the evidence is very far short of being conclusive,
and historians are divided in dating the alliance. It is placed before
the Ebro treaty by Egelhaaf, Hesselbarth, Frank (CAH, vii. 809),
Taubler, De Sanctis, Hallward, Gelzer, Otto, Oertel, and Schnabel,
after it by Ed. Meyer, Kromayer, Groag, Schulten, Holleaux, Frank
(Rl), Arnold, and Heichelheim (who adduces numismatic evidence
from Saguntum).
If the alliance was subsequent to the treaty, it seems clear that
it violated it, since an alliance carried with it the implication of
I70

HASDRUBAL IN SPAIN {22g-zzr)

II. I3. 7

armed assistance; if made earlier (e.g. in 231), it is less clear how it

stood in relation to the treaty. Hallward has argued (CAH, viii. 28)
that 'the alliance was not invalidated by the Ebro treaty, which,
however, carried with it the implied obligation on Rome not to use
the town as an instrument to hinder Carthaginian expansion within
the sphere recognized as open to her'. De Sanctis (Problemi, 168 ff. ;
cf. Hesselbarth, 85, 90) believes that the Ebro treaty virtually
sacrificed Saguntum to Hasdrubal. Probably the position was never
clarified. But at bottom the Saguntine alliance and the Ebro treaty
were irreconcilable; and in the last resort the Romans had no legal
redress against a Punic attack on the town, for which the implications of the Ebro treaty were sufficient justification. W. Kolbe (S.-B.
Heidelberg, 1933/4, 4, 21 ff.) has argued that the Ebro treaty automatically included allies of both sides, and so gave Saguntum the
protection accorded to the allies mentioned in the treaty of 241 (to
which he regards the Ebro treaty as a pendant). But the Ebro
treaty contained no such clause covering allies, as far as we know
(Bikerman, Rev. phil., 1936, 284-8). Moreover, the allies in 241 were
actually specified and a list was appended to the treaty (cf. iii. 21. 5;
Taubler, Vorgesch. 63 ff.; Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 368). Hence there are
no grounds for supposing that the Ebro treaty sanctioned the Saguntine alliance. Recently Carcopino has argued (REA, 1953, 258-93)
that there were two Ebros, and that Hasdrubal's treaty concerned
the southern one, the R. Jucar (Sucro); his thesis implies an unbelievable lack of clarity in P., who is supposed to have been aware
of the homonyms, and it is unlikely to win any adherents.
(e) Later distortions. In the course of the second century violent
discussions on the question of the responsibility for the Hannibalic
War gave disproportionate attention to the Ebro treaty; and it
became part of the Roman case to prove that Hannibal's attack
on Saguntum was, somehow, a breach of this treaty. This confusion
sprang from the fact that the Roman declaration of war at Carthage
(iii. 20-21, 33) gave to the attack on Saguntum, for reasons of policy,
a prominence which really belonged to the crossing of the Ebro,
especially if this (despite iii. 40. 2; cf. iii. 20. 6 n.) really preceded the
sending of the Roman embassy; and Cato's accusations against the
Carthaginians as constant treaty-breakers (HRR, i. 8r,
84) may
mean that he played a large part in shaping the Roman version
(Gelzer, Phil., 1931, 266--9 = Vom r6mischen Staat (Leipzig, 1943),
86 ff.; Hermes, 1933, 16o). To support this version the terms of the
treaty were distorted, either by the insertion of a special clause
excepting Saguntum from the treaty, or by locating Saguntum north
of the Ebro; and the words T~V J.L~V aAATJV , lfJwtav 7TaptatW1TWV
( 7) (i.e. they omitted all reference to the rest of Spain) perhaps
represent Polybian polemic against the first of these distortions
171

II. IJ. 7

HASDRUBAL IN SPAIN (229-221}

(Otto, HZ, 145, 1932, so1). The second error is, however, to be found
in P.'s own discussion (in iii. 15. s. 30. 3, and perhaps iii. 61. 8 and
iv. 28. 1). Examples of these distortions are App. Hisp. 7; Hann. 2;
Lib. 6 (Saguntum and 'other Greek [sic] towns in Spain' appeal to
Rome; the Senate sends envoys to Carthage and makes an agreement
which lays down the Ebro as the frontier between the two empires,
but guarantees that Saguntum and the Greek towns shall be free
and autonomous. This version also puts Saguntum north of the
Ebro); Livy, xxi. z. 7, ' . . . Saguntinisque mediis inter imperia
duorum populorum libertas seruaretur'; cf. 44 6; Zon. viii. 21,
~atpTOvs 1rmot~Kwav. Though important as contributions to the
arguments which began soon after the Hannibalic war and reached
their climax shortly before 150 (iii. zg. 1 ff.), these versions are
irrelevant to the treaty itself. The bearing of the treaty on the
question of responsibility for the war is discussed below (iii. 21. 1 n.).
(f) Bibliography. See the works quoted in CAH, viii. 724-5, and
Scullard, His!. 197 n. 1; add: G. De Sanctis, Riv. ji.l., 1932, 426-7;
W. Kolbe, S.-B. Heidelberg, 1933/4, 4 (cf. E. Bikerman, Rev. phil.,
1936, 284-8; P. Treves, REA, 1935. 136-7); C. J. C. Arnold, Oorzaak
en Schuld van den Tweeden Punischen Oorlog (Amsterdam, 1939);
G. Giannelli, Roma nell' eta delle guerre puniche (Bologna, 1938) (cf.
J. Vogt, Gnomon, 1940, 16-17); F. Altheim, Epochen, ii. 51 ff.; J.
Carcopino, REA, 1953, 258-93; F. M. Heichelheim, Historia, 1954,
211-19.
e1rt 'II"OAEI-1~: stressed by Taubler (Vorgesch. 61 f.) as evidence that

only military expeditions across the Ebro were meant; but this
thesis is not sufficient to reconcile the treaty with the Saguntine
alliance (above (d)). The phrase 1ri 1roMp.ftJ occurs frequently in
treaties of this period; cf. Schulte, 72-73.
14-35. Rome and the Gauls

The Gallic invasion of 225 gives P. occasion to outline the previous

history of the Gauls in Italy, prefixing a geographical survey of
Cisalpine Gaul (14-17). In i. 6. 8 the Celts were excepted from the
peoples of Italy mastered before the Roman crossing into Sicily.
Thus the present digression falls into place as part of the story of
how the Romans amassed sufficient resources to justify their ambitions for world-dominion (i. 3 10); in addition it is relevant to
Hannibal's invasion (14. 2).
14. 1. To TllS 1rpoKa.Ta.crKEu1ls otKEi:ov: on its summary character cf.
i. IJ. 8, 65 . 5 , ii. I. 4, 35. 10, 40. 4
14. 4-17. 12. The geography of Cisalpine Gaul. This account of the
district and its inhabitants is a minor masterpiece, and derives in
part from P.'s own inquiries; for the geometrical simplification of
172

ROME: AND THE GAULS

the shape of Italy and the Po valley cf. i. 42. I-7 (Sicily). It has been
argued that P. did not leave Italy during his internment, and hence
that he writes from some earlier source (Cuntz, 72 f.); but it seems
certain that some at least of P.'s western journeys took place during
his detention in Italy, and he may have \'isited Cisalpine Gaul in
ISO, accompanying Scipio Aemilianus back from service in Spain
(xxxv. 4; cf. Nissen, Rh. M1,s., 1871, 271; De Sanctis, iii. I. 2o8 ff.).
In that case his account (if based on autopsy) would be an insertion
roughly contemporary with iii. 22 ff. (on the Punic treaties). On the
other hand, P. may very well have visited Cisalpine Gaul previously
(cf. Thommen, Hermes, I885, 204), and no safe conclusions are to be
dra\.\n on the date of composition.
14. 4. T~ ax~~-ta:n TptyU~vou8ous: a very forced and schematic
description; the representation of Italy as a triangle is criticized
in an eloquent chapter of Strabo (v . .zro), who, however, speaks of
the vertex at the Sicilian strait. Evidently P.'s scheme had been
borrowed and improved. That P. was aware of the real shape of the
peninsula is clear from xxxiv. II. 2 (Strabo, v. 2n).
T~v 'lrA..:upuv . T~v 1Tpbs civa.ToAus KKAL!-tEV11V: the east coast
extends to Cape Cocynthus ( s) by ignoring the heel and the Gulf
of Tarentum.
;; T' 'lovLo'> 'ITopo'> ~ea.l b Ka.Tu Tov :.\8pia.v ~c:oArro'): on these terms
see Partsch, RE, 'Adria', cols. 417-I8; Biirchner, RE, 'Ionisches
Meer', col. 18<}7; Burr, 59-67; R. L. Beaumont, ]HS, 1936, 203-4.
(a) Adriatic Sea. For the periphrasis cf. I6. 4, 7; elsewhere 6
>l8p{a,; (i. 2. 4, ii. IJ. s, etc.) or d KaTd T~v Jloptav KOA7TDS' (d. u,
where Nissen (It. Land. i. 91) wrongly sees a reference to the town).
Beaumont, loc. cit., derives the name from the R. Adrias. In the
early fifth century Hecataeus (FGH, 1 F IOI-I02 b) used it of the
whole sea south to Epidamnus; but others restrict it to the waters
around the Po estuary and the lands of the Veneti (Herod. i. I6J,
iv. 33. v. 9; Eurip. Hippol. 736). ToP. it stretched as far as Hydruntum in south-east Calabria, opposite the Acroceraunian range in
Epirus, vii. 14 d, x. I. 7; cf. Strabo, vii. 317; Mela, ii. 67; Pliny,
Nat. hi st. iii. 100.
(b) 'IOvw> 1Topo,;. For the form cf. Pindar, Nem. 4 53 (linking it
with Dodona) and P. v. no. 2. Hecataeus (FGH I F 91) uses lovto>
KOA7To> for the whole Adriatic ; and this is normal fifth-century usage.
In the fourth century the Ionian and Adriatic seas were distinguished; the latter included all waters as far south as the Straits of
Otranto, while the Ionian Sea was a subdivision, connoting that
part of it south of Mons Garganus (Strabo, ii. 123, vii. 317). Later
the Ionian Sea came to include waters outside the Adriatic, and is
used for the Sicilian Sea (see below; Mela, ii. 37; Pliny, Nat. hist.
iii. 100, iv. 9); and the term 'Adrias' also covered waters far to the
173

II. I4. 4

ROME AND THE GAULS

south of the modern Adriatic. But the distinctions were not sharp,
and Ps.-Scylax, I4 and 27, identifies the Ionian and Adriatic seas.
Here P. refers especially to the Straits of Otranto and the waters
to the south of them (d. s); in v. IIO. 2 he describes Sasona (off
Valona) as lying KaTa T~v daf3o>..~v T~v Ei<; Tdv '!6vwv 776pov (i.e. to one
approaching from the Adriatic). Beaumont, loc. cit., is incorrect in
saying that P. uses the terms Ionian and Adriatic indifferently,
though this became the usage under the Roman Empire.
Ti]v Se 1rpos f1Ea1Jflf3pta.v Ka.t Suaflas TTPO.flf1E"1J": correctly, facing
south-west.
To I~KA~Kov Ka.L T upp1JVLKOV 1TEAa.yos: on the Sicilian sea d. i. 42.
4 n. The Tyrrhenian or Etruscan sea (d. i. Io. s), the Roman mare
inferum, included those waters between the west coast of Italy and
the islands of Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinia. To P. it extends north
to the foot of the Alps; d. I6. I, iii. 110. 9. xxxiv. Io. 18. Burr,
72-74. The Sicilian sea enters the picture only for the short stretch
between Rhegium and C. Cocynthus (see next note), which P. here
includes in the west coast.
5. TO 1TpOKELf1EVOV aKpwt"TjpLOV KoKuv9os: identified with Capo s.
Maria di Leuca, at the southern tip of Calabria, by Ziegler (RE,
I;tKAla, col. 2472; cf. Burr, ss) since in X. I. 2 the whole coastal
stretch from Rhegium to Tarentum faces the Sicilian sea. But elsewhere P. calls this cape axpa 'la7Tvyla (x. I. 8, xxxiv. II. u), and the
likelihood is that he is using a different source for his schematic
account here from that used in x. r. The most probable identification
for Cocynthus remains the Punta di Stilo, on the Bruttian promontory between Caulonia and the Gulf of Squillace, of which the Punta
forms the southern extremity; this is confirmed by Pliny, Nat. kist.
iii. 95, and by the fact that the Itinerarium Antoninum, u4, records
a place Cocintum, 22 (or I2: the reading is dubious) miles from
Squillacium (~issen, It. Land. ii. 2. 948--9). C. Cocynthus marked the
southern limit of the Ionian sea; but what P. regarded as the corresponding limit on the Epirote coast is not clear.
6. Ti]v 1TO.pa T Tas apKTOUS KO.L Ti]V f1Eaoya.~a.v 1Ta.pa.TelVOuaa.v: 'bordering on the interior to the north'. The wa6yata is the interior of
Europe (cf. iii. 47 I), not the Po valley (so Treves); the Po valley
appears as something new in 7.
1] Twv ~A1rewv 1ra.pwpe~a.: P. makes the Alps begin near Massilia (d.
iii. 47 4). This is not because he includes the hills between the Rhone
and the Var, but because (as 12 makes clear) he believes the plain
of the Po to extend to a point roughly above Massilia, where Alps
and Apennines join ( 8). The same misapprehension appears in
reference to the Anares, who live on the south bank of the Po (17. 7),
and also t.t~ t.taKpav a7To Maaaa>..{a> (32. r). Herod. iv. 49 knows of a
tributary of the Danube called Alpis, and Lye. Alex. 1361 has
I74

ROME AND THE GAULS

II. q. u

Ed)..mo.; otherwise this is the first extant historical reference to the

Alps, which probably attracted notice as a result of Hannibal's
crossing (iii. 47 ff. with references to P.'s predecessors). See Partsch,
RE, 'Alpes', cols. 1599'-I6oo.
Tov Tou 'ITO.VTOOS :.\8p(ou 11ux.6v: i.e. the Gulf of Venice (or more
specifically the Gulf of Trieste}. The gap here mentioned is probably
the coastal strip below the hills of the Carso, which lie parallel to the
shore north-east of Trieste. The Alps were usually reckoned as
running from the junction with the Apennines at the Colle di Cadibona (490 m.), north of the Vada Sabatia (modern Vado) (Cic. Ad
jam. xi. 13 2; Strabo, iv. 2or-2, v. 211; Ptol. Geog. iii. L 40}. to the
Ocra Pass between Aquileia and Emona in the east (Strabo, iv. 202,
207, v. 2ll).
7. apeTfl KO.t p.ey~Oe~ s~a.+~povTa.: 'surpassing in fertility and size'.
For this sense of &.pE"r?) cf. 15. 1, 17. I, iii. 34 2, 34 8, 48. rr, xii. 3 r.
oua. 'II'E'!TTwKev l)'l!'b TTJV ~!LETEpa.v li7Top(a.v: not unambiguous. The
analogy of the use of the phrase in xv. 9 5 and iv. 2. 2 supports the
translation 'which falls within the scope of my history'. But
Schweighaeuser takes it as 'which have fallen within the scope of my
inquiries', i.e. which I know of from autopsy or by report. Either
meaning is appropriate; and perhaps P. does not always closely
distinguish the aspect of collecting material from that of recording
it, when he uses the word l0'7'opla.
8. Tij<; . 'II'Eplypa.+ouutjs ypa.!LJ-Lils: 'of the line enclosing these
plains'. Ko.l is 'likewise'; as well as Italy as a whole, Cisalpine Gaul
is also triangular.
9. e1rt 8lO')(lAtous Ka.t 8~a.Koa(ouo; aTa.8ous: cf. xxxiv. ro. 17 2,200
stades (i.e. about 250 miles) is a serious underestimate. Coelius and
Timagenes reckoned the distance from the Varin Provence to the
Arsia on the east coast of !stria as 975-x,coo milia passuum, which is
excessive unless the watershed is followed (Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 132).
Partsch, RE, 'Alpes', col. 16oo.
10. Tov :c\1TEw~vov f.1Tl TPLIYXlA(ouo; ~sa.Kou(ous: the name was originally applied to the range from the Alps to Ancona, and P. was
perhaps the first to use it of the full length of the Apennines (d.
16. 4). Here he is calculating from the supposed junction with the
Alps (see 6 n.) to the point where the Apennines leave the Po plain,
due west of Sena (43" 45' north; cf. n n.); for this distance 3,6oo
stades (4oo miles) is not far out.
11. ~mo 1roAews I~VtJ<;: as in x6. 5 and 19. IJ, Sena Gallica (modem
Sinigaglia) is the southern limit of the plain. Geographically Ariminum, sc miUa passuum farther north, makes a better limit, since
here the spurs of the mountains come close to the sea ; and in
iii. 6I. Il 86. 2, Ariminum iS the last town in the plain (cf. 2I. 5).
But for most of the second century, probably till 133, the political
1

175

II. 14.

II

ROME AND THE GAULS

boundary of Italy was the R. Aesis, between Sena and Ancona; for
the change to the Rubicon see iii. 61. 11 n. Here P. reckons the distance from Sena to the head of the Adriatic (Aquileia?) as about
2,5oo stades (c. 28o miles} ; for a closer estimate in milia passuum
see xxxiv. II. 8 n.
-TYJV 1r<i.aa.v 1repl\ieTpov: his total comes to 8,3oo stades (c. 925 miles).

15. 1. "TE"T"Tclpwv o~ohwv , laoKpL8ov: 'the price of wheat was four

obols per Sicilian medimnus, that of barley two obols, a metretes of
wine costing the same as a medimnus of barley'. A Sicilian medimnus
was c. 5I'5 litres or c. ui gallons (nearly If bushels}, a metretes
c. 8i liquid gallons. In Lusitania, either now or a little later (xxxiv.
8. 7-8), a medimnus of barley cost I drachma (i.e. 6 obols), of wheat 9
(Alexander, i.e. Attic) obols, and a metretes of wine cost a drachma,
here too being laoKpdlov. Mattingly (]RS, 1937. IOI ff.) argues that
P. equates the drachma with 12! asses (rather than Io asses, i.e.
I denarius); but this would imply that P. was reckoning with
Aeginetic drachmas, whereas xxxiv. 8. 7-8 points to the AtticAlexander standard. (Elsewhere (OCD, 'Coinage (Roman)', 210)
Mattingly equates the drachma with the denarius.) In 6 the equation of 2 asses with the obol is probably an approximation, since if
the denarius of Io sextantal asses (introduced about I87 (Mattingly
and Robinson, P BA, I932, 211 ff.) and established by 170 (Mattingly,
]RS, 1945, 76)) was equal to the drachma of 6 obols, t as would
equal 1~ obol, which could easily be translated as t obol. A century
later (Cic. Verr. iii. 72, 84, I74, etc.) the admittedly low price of
Sicilian wheat :fluctuated between 2 and 3 sestertii per modius, i.e.
12 to 18 sestertii per medimttus; this indicates clearly the cheapness
of F.'s figure of 4 obols, i.e. 2f sestertii per medimnus. These north
Italian prices, and the slightly higher ones from Spain, are partly
due to exceptional glut conditions; but in general the low price at
this date is connected with the unfavourable conditions for export,
heavy freight charges, and the Apennine barrier between the Po
valley and Rome, as well as with an undeveloped state of the world
market, which still allowedgreatlocal price-fluctuations. See Hultsch,
RE, 'Frumentum', cols. I46-8; Frank, ES, i. 196; Chilver, 129-30.
On the production of corn in Cisalpine Gaul see iii. 44 8; Strabo,
v. 218; Pliny, Nat. hist. xviii. IOI; Cassiod. Var. xii. 27; Nissen, It.
Land. i. 444 ff.
2. tM\iou yE i!YJ" Ka.t K-yxpou: 'millet and panic'. AvJ.Lo> is Italian
millet, Setaria italica (cf. Theoph. HP, viii. 1. I, I. 4; Dsc. ii. 98),
Ktyxpor; is Panicum miliaceum, common millet (d. Theoph. ibid.;
Dsc. ii. 97). Of the Po valley Strabo writes (v. 2I8} an Sk Kai KEyxpo4>6por; Sta4>pov-rwr; Std -r~v Vuiiplav (perhaps utilizing P.-so Chilver,
I3o-but he gives greater detail).
176

ROME AND THE GAULS

II. I6. a

3. -rrAtwTwv yap .:,iKwv ttpelwv K011'Toj.Lvwv: 'though large numbers

of swine are slaughtered for food'. tEpEtov can be used of any animal
slaughtered for human consumption; cf. Xen. Cyrop. i. 4 17 (of
game).
8~6, TE Tn!l , TrClpa.&to-E~!l: 'for the feeding both Of private individuals
and of the army'. The abstract meaning 'provisioning' (so Ernesti;
cf. P. Petr. 3, p. 133 (3rd cent. B.c.)) seems more appropriate here
than 'stores, storehouses' (Schweighaeuser, cf. iii. 102. ro).
4. Til!l KTn j.Llpos tuwvla.s KTA.: 'the cheapness of each separate
article of food'.
5. otJ uuj.L+wvouvn~; 11'epl. Twv t<T<i j.Ltpo~; ETr~TtJiiE1wv: for the normal
custom of presenting a bill enumerating the separate items cf. CIL,
ix. z689 (from Aesernia in Samnium}. On the price for full board, and
its Greek equivalent, see above, 1 n.
8. T'l!l k-rrt Tov 'Po!ia.vov 11'oTj.LOV veuoUO"I)<>: for further details of
the course of the Rhone see ill. 47 1-5. 49; Strabo, iv. r83--6. P.
correctly describes it as flowing along the north side of the Alps
(before it turns south at Lyons).
T a.upiut<o~ Ki. 'Aywves: the Taurisci (d. 28. 4, 30. 6) are identical with
the Taurini of iii. 6o. 8 and xxxiv. ro. 18, and distinct from the
Taurisd who inhabited the eastern Alps near Aquileia (xxxiv. ro.
IO); cf. Steph. Byz., s.v. Ta.vplaH:Ot, 8vos 1Tp~ TU :4A?T0. op'Yj. Alyoncu
~eal Tavptvo,, ~s IIo>.vfJtos TplTt.p. They inhabited modern Piedmont,
especially the valleys of the Dora Riparia, Stura, and Orco, and
have given their name to Turin. Strabo, iv. 204 and Pliny, Nat. hist.
iii. 123 made them Ligurian, but toP. they were Celts (cf. iii. 6o. 8);
and this is confirmed by their place-names. There were, however,
several Ligurian 'pockets' among them. DeSanctis, i. 62 n. 3; Nissen,
It. Land. i. 468 ff.; Philipp, RE, 'Taurini'; Fluss, RE, 'Taurisci'. The
Agones are otherwise unknown; but their name may have survived
in that of the R. Agunia (modern Agogna), which runs into the Po
on the left bank, west of the Ticino; if so the Agones may have dwelt
around Novara and the Valdossola. De Sanctis, iii. I. 305 n. 103;
Nissen, It. Land. ii. 173.
16. 1. A~yuO"T'ivo~ KTOtKoua~: on the geography see above 14. 6 n.,
14. ro n. The Ligurians were an Indo-European-speaking people,
whose earlier territories may have been quite considerable, but who
in historical times inhabited the Alpes mar#imae and their coast,
the mountains surrounding the upper waters of the Po, and the
northern Apennines.
2. flEXP~ 1r6Atw<; nl<rrJii KTA.: the origins of Pisa are disputed. Its
Ligurian origin (Iustin. xx. I. u) was questioned by Cato (Seru. ad
Aen. x. 179, 'qui Pisas tenuerint ante aduentum Etruscorum negat
sibi compertum'). Lycophron (Alex. 1359) also attests the Etruscan
N

177

IL 16.

:t

ROME AND THE GAULS

domination, but of it little is kno>vn. As a frontier town and natural

operational base for Roman armies attacking the Ligurians it was
counted part of Italy, and so of Etruria, perhaps from z8r onwards;
cf. 27. r. DeSanctis, iii. r. 290 n. 6o; Banti, RE, 'Pisae', cols. 1756 ff.
ews TTJS J\ppTJTlVWV xwpa.s: Arretium, modern Arezzo, lies besid~ the
watershed between Arno, Tiber, and Chiana, half-way between
Florence and Perugia, on the Umbrian march. See Nissen, It. Land.
ii. 315. Arretium was one of the twelve original cities of Etruria.
3. ~sT\s Sf: TuppTJvol: the Etruscans, who gave their name to the
Tyrrhenian sea, inhabited the region within the rivers Arno and
Tiber, from Pisa to the Tiber mouth.
1'oo-.ms Sf: cruvExeis "OJ.L~po~: the Umbrians were an Italian people
to whom, like the Ligurians, tradition accredited much wider bounds
than those they occupied in historical times (cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. iii.
rr2; Dian. Hal. i. rg. r; DeSanctis, i. roz). Strabo (v. 214) and Pliny
(Nat. hist. iii. ns) make the Adriatic coastal towns of Ravenna and
Butrium Umbrian; and some \vriters placed the Metaurus in Umbria
(cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 565). Further, the existence of a R. Umbra
and a tractus Umbriae (Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 51), together with other
evidence (cf. P. Ducati, Le problilme itrusque (Paris, 1938), 66-68)
points to their having once inhabited what was later Etruria. To
P., however, the Umbrians are an inland people dwelling between
the Tiber and the Apennines in an area which embraces the valleys
on either side of the range. Nissen, It. Land. i. soz-8.
4. a1TEXWV TTJS KO.T0. 1'0V :ASpla.v 9a.Acl.TTT)S KT~.: 500 stades are just
under 6o miles. P. exaggerates the abruptness in this change of
direction. From the beginning of the Apennines above Genoa as far
as Iguvium (Gubbio) and the head-waters of the Tiber and Metaurus
the direction is fairly consistently south-east; the range then broadens
and runs slightly east of south to the latitude of Rome, after which
it breaks up into a series of massifs continuing to Reggio di Calabria.
P.'s account places the angle north of Sena Gallica; it is in fact well
to the south of that latitude.
5. 1rl. OaAa.TTa.v Ka.t 1ro~LV I1\VTjv: on Sena as P.'s southern
coastal limit to the plain of the Po see q. I I n.
6-15. This detailed description of the l)o is the earliest extant,
accurate, account. The name Eridanus was originally given to a
fabulous amber-producing river of north Europe (Herod. iii. rrs),
which Aeschylus fg. 73 (Pliny, Nat. hist. xxxvii. 32) identified
with the Rhone. Later, under the influence of Pherecydes (FGH,
3 F 33 c), Aeschylus transferred the Eridanus to the area of the Po
(cf. Pliny, .Nat. his!. xxxvii. 31); and to many later \vriters (cf.
Strabo, v. us) it remains 1TA"f)crlov TOV Ild.oou. It was probably Apollonius Rhodius (iv. 627) who first identified the Eridanus with the
Po, perhaps misled by Euripides (Hippol. 735 ff.) into imagining a
178

ROME AND THE GAULS

II. 16. ro

bifurcation of Rhone and Po. For the legends attached to the

Eridanus (and so to the Po) see Ps.-Scyl. 20, Ps.-Scymn. 395 ff.,
Diod. v. 23. 3 For full discussion see Philipp, RE, 'Padus', cols.
2179 ff. R. L. Beaumont, ]HS, 1936, 197, is misleading.
6 . .)vo Twv rroLTjTWV 9puhouJ.LVos: cf. iv. 70. 8 (on the Erymanthus). P. is hinting at the myth of Phaethon and his sisters( 13 ff.).
The story is told by Hesiod (fg. 199 Rzach), but P. is probably not
referring directly to his version. More probably his criticisms are
aimed at sensational historians who retailed this material borrowed
from the poets; cf. 17 6 n. See CQ, 1945, 8 n. s. and, against von Scala
(73, Son. 2}, Wunderer (ii. 45-46}.
EXEl J.LEv Tas v11yas arro Twv 1-.A.vEwv: on the course of the Po see
Nissen (It. Land. i. 183-91). It rises in a boggy valley, the Piano del
Re (1,952 m.) at the foot of Monte Viso (Mons Vesulus).
voLOUJ.LEVOS Tijv puow ws evl. J.LE<TllJ.L~pLa.v: as far as Industria, at the
confluence with the Dora Baltea, the general direction is north-east,
and subsequently east. Either P. has been misled by his overschematic triangle, with the Po rising at its apex, or he has confused
the Dora Baltea with the head-waters of the Po (so Philipp, RE,
'Padus', col. 2186).
7. 8ucr~ O'TOj.LO.O'LV: cf. iii. 86. 2. Until c. A.D. nso the Po flowed into
the Adriatic through two channels, which divided near Ferrara, after
receiving the tributaries Panaro and Reno. Of these channels the
more northerly was called the Po di Volano, the more southerly the
Po di Primaro; and between lay the Lagoon of Cornacchia. About
A.D. nso the inhabitants of Ficarolo, near Stellata, dug a ditch
drawing off the waters into a new channel to the north, the modern
Po della Maestra. As a result, the Po di Volano, the main channel
in P.'s time, has become a mere drainage dyke for the surrounding
marshes ; and the Po di Primaro has been annexed to form a new
bed for the Reno, which now makes a separate exit into the sea.
Nissen, It. Land. i. 190 f.; Philipp, RE, 'Padus', cols. 2189 ff. (map
in cols. 2183-4).
8. O.rrO.cra.s t<a.i. rra.vTa.xo9Ev: in fact several rivers, such as the Adige,
the Brenta, and the rivers of Venezia, have separate mouths. But
P. aims at broad simplification for a largely Greek public to whom
this region is wholly unfamiliar.
9. rrt:pl. t<uvos ivLToATjv: cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. n7, 'augetur ad canis
ortus liquatis niuibus'. On the rising of the dog-star see above,
i. 37 5 n.; it occurs about 28 July (Gregorian).
10. tca.Ta To crn)f-La. To Ka.Aouf-LEvov "OXa.va.: this is the northern
mouth, the Po di Volano. z,ooo stades are nearly 240 miles, and
take one to the Tanarus (Tanaro). Pliny (Nat. hist. iii. II7-18, 123)
counts the Po navigable from Turin downwards, but he may be
following an earlier source, since Strabo (v. :!17) seems to suggest
I79

II.

I6. IO

ROME AND THE GAULS

that navigability began at Placentia. Nowadays the Po is usually

reckoned as navigable from Casale. Cf. Philipp, RE, 'Padus', col. 2r88.
11. KO.Tu Touo;; ttpoaayopEuofJkvouo;; T pLya~oAouo;;: otherwise unknown,
but dearly in the neighbourhood of Ferrara. Nissen, It. Land. i. 205,
ii. 21J f.
To .,.iv llTEpov . naSOa: the name Padua or Padusa was applied to
the Po di Primaro, and more specifically (cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. iii.
119 ff.) to a branch of it which diverged south-east from Spina to
Ravenna, and was also known as the ostium M essanicum. On the
Padua (Padusa) see Catullus (95 7-8),
'at Volusi annales Paduam morientur ad ipsam
et laxas scombris saepe dabunt tunicas',
and Virgil (Aen. xi. 457),
'piscosoue amne Padusae
dant sonitum rauci per stagna loquacia cycni'.
See Philipp, RE, 'Padus', cols. 2179, 2191-2; 'Padusa', cols. 2292-3.
12. B68Ey~eos: on the authority of Metrodorus of Scepsis, Pliny (Nat.
kist. iii. 122) states that the name is Ligurian and means ]undo
caretts; thus Bodincomagus is an older name for Industria, ubi
praecipua altitudo incipit (but magus is Celtic). Bodincus was evidently the Ligurian name for the upper waters of the Po (cf. CIL,
vi. 2613), while farther down it bore the Celtic, or more probably
Venetie, name of Padus. See Weiss, RE, 'Ligures', coL sz6; Philipp,
RE, 'Padus', cols. 2178-9; Nissen, It. Land. i. r83.
13-15. The story of Phaethon; place of myth in history. Above, 6.
The story of Phaethon, his death from Jove's thunderbolt while
driving the chariot of his father the sun-god, and the metamorphosis
of his sisters into poplars and their tears into amber {cf. Ovid,
M etam. ii. 364-{)), is found with variants from the time of Hesiod,
and was widely treated by writers and poets (Diod. v. 23). See the
discussion by Wilamowitz, Hermes, r8SJ, 3--434; C. Robert, ibid.,
434-41; G. Turk, RE, 'Phaethon', cols. rsoS ff. These stories P. (like
Strabo, v. 215) considers inappropriate to history. But so too did
Timaeus, if he is the source of Diodorus' account (cf. Diod. v. 23. 5;
Mullenhoff, i. 474-6); and in fact P.'s attack on Timaeus ( rs) is
for his ignorance of the area, not for sensationalism (cf. Pedech,
LEC, I956, 19 n. sS). For P.'s stress on the distinction between
tragedy and history see further iv. 40. 2 n.; 1 HS, 1938, s6 ff. and CQ,
1945, 8 ff., and the passages there quoted.
13. Touc; jlEAavE(.,.ovo.o;;: Treves suggests an ironical echo of Timaeus'
poetical vocabulary; but though Aeschylean (Eumen. 370), the word
appears later in prose, in Dionysius and Iosephus, and may well
have lost its poetical flavour by P.'s time.
180

ROME AND THE GAULS

II. l7.

14. TTJV Tpa.yuc-T)v Ka.l. Ta.uTfi 1rpoaeoLKu'i:a.v 6:\11v: 'material of a tragic

character and similar to this legend'.
T~ Tfj~ 1rpoKa.Ta.aKEufjo; ykvf:L: 'the character of my introduction'.
The rrpo~<:a.Ta.a~<:ev~ covers books i-ii (i. 3 ro), and being written
summarily (i. 13. 8, ii. 14. r) affords no space for detailed polemic
(a~<p,f3o>.oyia) against 'tragic historians'. Paton misses the sense.
15. SLa TTJV TLfLa.tou ilyvoLa.v: if P. reverted to the subject in his
polemic against Timaeus in book xii, the passage has not survived.
On Timaeus see i. 5 r n.

17. 1. To 1ra.Aa.Lov Evk11ovTo Tupp11voC: the problem of Etruscan

origins still arouses violent controversy. Herodotus (i. 94) brought
them from Asia Minor, and they themselves accepted this version;
cf. Tac. Ann. iv. 55 Dionysius, on the other hand (i. 27-30), claimed
them as autochthonous. Modern views are surveyed by R. S. Conway
(CAH, iv. 383 ff.), who favours an eastern origin, by H. Last (CAH.
vii. 379 ff.), who makes them a mixture of autochthonous elements
\\ith Indo-European immigrants from the north, and by DeSanctis
(i. 124 ff., 429 ff.), who supports the theory of northern immigration.
For a short summary see Scullard, Hist. 15 f.. and, for a complete
survey of the history of the problem and the evidence, P. Ducati,
Le probteme itrusqtw (Paris, 1938). Ducati argues that the Etruscans
are a mixture of native Umbrians using the Villanovan iron-age
technique with Tynhenians who brought Aegean cults, culture, and
language by sea from Asia Minor. But a recent theory of C. F. Hawkes
(Proc. Prehist. Soc., 1948, 205-r6), brings down the date of the Iron
Age in Italy to after the arrival of the Etruscans about 8oo, and
attributes the impulse of it to them. M. Pallottino, The Etruscans
(London, 1955), 46-73, restates the problem as one of ethnic formation out of mixed elements within Etruria. Livy (v. 33 7) describes
the Etruscan advance north over the Apennines into the Po valley,
and this was apparently about 525. The Etruscans occupied Felsina
(Bologna) and spread to Parma, Mantua, and Melpum (near Milan),
and to the Adriatic at Atria and Spina in the Po mouth; but their
domination was interrupted by the coming of the Gauls about 450
(cf. DeSanctis, ii. I59-<io). Archaeological remains, inscriptions, and
folk-traditions survive as testimony to the civilization they established north of the Apennines.
Ka.9' otlo;

xpovou~ Ka.t

Ta

4>Xypa.uJ. TB 'lrEpl

Ka.'lr~"lV

KO.L NwA"lv:

the Etruscans' advance south was in the late seventh century.

Seizing Rome they went by the Liris valley into Campania, and
there founded a league of twelve cities (Strabo, v. 242). In particular
their presence is attested at Nola and Capua (which they are said
to have founded: Veil. Pat. i. 7 (contrast Cato, fg. 69 Peter) ; Strabo,
ibid.; d. Heurgon, 62 ff.), at Herculaneum and Pompeii (Strabo,
I8I

II. I7.

ROME AND THE GAULS

v. 246-7), and at :Macrina, which they founded on the Gulf of Salerno

(Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 7o). But in 524 they were defeated by Aristodemus of Cumae (Dion. HaL vii. 3-n); and their sway in Latium was
broken, traditionally in 509, with the expulsion of the Tarquins from
Rome. On this sec Altheim, Epochcn, i. 89 ff.
To later writers the Phlegraean plain is the volcanic area between
Cumae, the Gulf of Pozzuoli, and the Gulf of Naples; but P. understands the whole Campanian plain. See iii. 91. 7, where the Phlegraean
plain leads to a discussion of the story of the battle of the gods 7ra.pil
"TOL> p:v9oyparpou,, just as the Padane plain brought up criticism of
the story of Phaethon. Here, too, Timaeus is the source; see Diod.
iv. 21. 7, d. v. 71. 4; :Nissen, It. Land. i. 267. The ferti]ity of the plain
is attested by Strabo (v. 243).
3. itc f.Htcpiis vpoTaaEws: P. appears to recall the story recorded {and
rejected) by Livy (v. 33 1-4; cf. Plut. Cam. IS; Dion. HaL xiii. 10-n;
Cato, fg. 36 Peter), that the Gauls were :first brought into Cisalpine
Gaul by a man from Clusium, named Arruns, who showed them
wine, figs, and olives, to enlist their aid against the Lucumo, who
had seduced his wife. This story implies a date a little before the
capture of Rome in 390; but the movement of Sabellian peoples down
the highlands towards Campania from c. 450 onwards suggests Gallic
penetration of north Italy by then (cf. DeSanctis, ii. r61). However,
Livy's account of a series of invasions from the time of Tarquinius
Priscus (v. 34; cf. lustin. xx. s. xxiv. 4) is a tissue of inaccuracies;
see Meyer (v. 151 ff.), and de Navarro (CAH, vii. 6off.), who discusses
the invasion in the light of archaeology.
4. 'II'Ept TclS &.va.ToAas TOV n6.8ou: 'near the source of the Po'. Paton
confusedly adds a reference to the east.
A6.m teat AE(3EKlOt . "lvao~pES: the Aaot are probably the Laeui of
Livy (v. 35 z) and Pliny (Nat. hist. iii. 124), though to Pliny they are
Ligurians. The AE{31Kwt will then be the Libui of Livy (ibid. ; d.
Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 124, Libicii; Ptol. Geog. iii. 1. 32). These tribes
inhabited the valleys of the lower Ticinus and the Sesites (modern
Sesia) respectively; Vercellae was the capital of the Libicii (Pliny,
Nat. hist. iii. 124). P.'s description of these tribes as the first ncar the
source of the Po supports the view (cf. 16. 6 n.) that he identified
the Dora Baltea with this source. The Insubres, one of the most
important tribes of the plain, had their capital at Mediolanum (cf.
34 10), and Philipp has argued (RE, 'Insubres', col. 1590) that they
controlled several neighbouring peoples, including the Laevi and the
Anares (cf. 7). This might explain how the Laevi, a Ligurian
people, are reckoned here as Celts, and also why Ptolemy (Geog. iii.
r. 29) counts their capital, Ticinum, an lnsubrian town. See Nissen,
It. Land. ii. 177-fJ P. makes the Insubres neighbours of the Taurini
(iii. 6o. 8).
182

ROME AND THE GAULS

II. 17. 7

rovojl6.Vo': the Cenomani (d. Livy, v. 34-35; Strabo, V. 216; Ptol.

Geog. iii. I. 27) dwelt rather closer to the Alps than P. suggests. Their
lands stretched from the Ollius (Oglio) to the Athesis (Adige), and
their towns were Brixia, Verona, Cremona, and {according to
Ptolemy) Bergamum, Mantua, and Tridentum. See Nissen, It. Land.
ii. 195 f.; Hiilsen, RE, 'Cenomani (3)', cols. r899-rgoo.
5. Oa:.tveTol: the Veneti dwelt between the Adige, the Po, the
Adriatic, and {to the east) the lower waters of the Tagliamento
(Tiliaventus); to the north they reached the Alps. See Strabo, v. 214;
Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 126; Nissen, It. Land. i. 488 ff.; De Sanctis, i.
155 ff.; Whatmough, Foundations, I7I-8J. Our knowledge of Venetie
derives largely from funerary and votive inscriptions, and its origins
are still debated; the view that it is akin to lllyrian (cf. R. S. Conway,
The Prae-ItaUc Dialects, i (London, 1933), I-2oi), is now generally
rejected (cf. 1\-L S. Beeler, The Venetie Language (Berkeley 1949);
H. Crabe, S.-B. Heidelberg, 1950, 3, 'Das Venetische', P. Kretschmer, Glotta, 1943, 134-68; recent survey in M. Lejeune, Rev. phil.,
1951, 202-4). The first arrival of Venetie culture in Italy is usually
dated about rooo B.C. ; see Ninck, 178.
6. ot Tpay't'SlGyp6.cl>oL: 'tragic poets', as in iii. 48. 8 (with similar
criticism). However, P. usually employs the word TEpaTela. in connexion with 'tragic' historians (d. ii. 58. 12, 59 3, iii. 58. 9, xv. 34 1),
and in vii. 7 I the whole phrase rroAvv rwa . TEpa.Tdav is repeated
of historians who have written sensational accounts of Hieronymus
of Syracuse. Here too, then, P. may be hinting at historians,
(cf. Wunderer, ii. s6-57). One legend of this area brought
Antenor from Troy, along with the Eneti of Paphlagonia, to found
Patavium (cf. Strabo, v. 212, xiii. 6o8; Virg. Aett. i. 242 ff. (with
Servius); Livy, i. I; DeSanctis, i. rs6-7) but P. may also be thinking
o[ some of the current 'wonder-tales', of hens that laid twice a day,
sheep that lambed twice a year, with huge litters, the fifty towns
of the Veneti, and the richness of the soil (:\issen, It. Land. i. 492).
7. 1l.vapes: cf. 32. r, 34 5 The MSS. give a variety of forms, and
"AvapEs- is due to Mommsen (RG, 554 and 558); recently G. Patroni
(Rend. Ac.ltalia, 4, 1942-3, uo-23) has defended 'Ananes'. Mommsen
(CIL, v, p. 828) suggested an identification with the Marici, who
helped to found Ticinum (Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 124); but the Anares
lived south of the Po between it and the Trebia. See Philipp, RE,
'Massalia (z)', cols. 2152-3 {with the criticism below, 32. In.); Hiilsen,
RE, 'Anamares', cols. 2055-6; Mullenhoff, ii. 251"
BoioL Alyyow.:s Itjvwves: Livy (v. 35 z) relates how the
Boii crossed the Great St. Bernard (Poeninus), found the area between the Po and the Alps inhabited, and crossed the river to seize
modern Emilia, where they occupied Felsinaandrenamed it Bononia;
cf. Ruge, RE, 'Boii (r)', cols. 630 ff. (with details of other branches
I

183

II. I7. 7

ROME AND THE GAULS

in Germany). At the same time the Lingones, a branch of a people

dwelling about the head-waters of the Marne, Meuse, and Saone,

took the low land south of the Po towards Ravenna and Ariminum.
The Senones, a branch of those established between the Loire and
the Seine, reached Italy last (Livy, v. 35 3) and occupied the socalled ager Gallicus on the coast between Ravenna and Sena Gallica, driving the Umbrians into the Apennines. On their later clash with
Rome see 19. 10. Cf. Keune and Philipp, RE, 'Senones', cols. 1474 ff.
9. Til'> Aol"'l"ij<; K:a.TaaKEuils O.!loLpol: 'without knowledge of the other
arts of civilization'. For this sense of KaTaa'KEtnJ, 'instruction, acquired
skill. culture' (not in LSJ) cf. xi. 8. I, rijs EK Tot.bov (nuv 07TDJkVTjttchwv)
KaTaG'KEv~s, 'lessons from memoirs'. Paton's translation 'furniture'
is derived from that of Schweighaeuser (corrected in the Lex. Polyb.).
P. means 'civilized arts other than building walled towns' (implied
from the previous phrase). On the primitive culture of the Gauls
see C. J ullian, i. 36o ff.
10. To aTL~a.8oK:oLTE'iv: 'lying on litter', i.e. to eat as well as sleep.
Cf. Strabo, iii. 155 (of the Spanish Bastetani); Diod. v. :28 (of the
Transalpine Gauls). Diodorus (ibid.) also mentions their meateating; d. Poseidonius ap. Athen. iv. 151.
oih' E"'I"WTTJ!lTJS oun ToEXVTJ'>: an exaggeration, as Treves observes.
The Gauls had considerable skill in metallurgy; d. 33 below; Diod.
v. 27 for gold ornaments.
11. KD.T<l T<i<; "11"Epurr0.UELS K:a.Tci Til.<; a.&ridv "'!"poa.LpEO'U<;: 'whatever
their circumstances ... to suit their choice'. On the former phrase
see Strachan-Davidson, II-I2.
12. Ta<; E"Ta.LpEia.s: 'a following'; cf. Caesar, BG, vi. 12. 2, 'hi cum
per se minus ualerent, quod summa auctoritas antiquitus erat in
Aeduis magnaeque eorum erant clientelae .. .'. On the importance
attributed to their following by the Gauls see Caesar, BG, i. 4 :z;
vi. rs. :2; E. Norden, Die germanische Urgeschichte in Tacitus' Germania (Leipzig, 1920), 1:24-7 The translation 'comradeship' (Paton)
or 'friendship' (Shuckburgh) misses the point.
18-35. The Gallic Wars. 18-:20 cover the earlier conflicts (390-282),
:21-35 those from 237 to :2:2r including the tumultt~s of 225. The source
for most of this is probably Fabius Pictor (cf. i. r4. 1 n.), who himself
took part in the war of :225 (cf. Oros. iv. IJ. 6, qui eidem bella interfuit); consequently P. reproduces Fabius' tendency to depict the
Romans as the victims of aggression, and acting in self-defence. See
DeSanctis, iii. r. 305 n. 103; Leuze, Jahrziihltlng, 142-5; Beloch, RG,
139-40; Gelzer, Hermes, 1933, 147; Bung, 151 ff. (who, however, argues
for the use of other sources besides Fahius).
18. 1. Ta<; 6.pxns: i.e. the first invasion of Cisalpine Gaul, in the
second half of the fifth century.
184

ROME

A~D

THE GAULS

II. 18.6

2. 1-uml. 8 Twa. xpovov KT)..: on F.'s date (387/6) see i. 6. 1-2, and
below, 22. 5 n.; and on the Gallic catastrophe in general Meyer
(Kl. Schr. ii. 307 ff.), L. Homo (CAH, vii. 554 ff., with misleading
remarks on F.'s sources), F. Schachenneyr (Klio, 1930, 277-305), and
Altheim (Epochen, i. 163 ff.). F.'s account, based on Fabius, heads
the tradition. Diodorus (xiv. IIJ-I4) probably gives the early annalistic tradition (but not Fabius, as Mommsen (Rom. Forsch. ii. 297 ff.)
argued). The later versions in Livy (v. 33-55), Plutarch's Camillus,
and Dionysius, Appian, and Dio, build up the figure of Camillus,
who is unimportant in Diodorus, and wholly omitted by Polybius
(cf. Momigliano, CQ, 1942, III ff.).
Tous I'T<1 TooTwv wa.pa.Ta.~a.l'evous : no other source mentions allies
at the Allia, but later tradition may well have preferred to mitigate
the disaster by stressing Roman isolation. On the battle of the Allia
(I8 July, a dies nefastus) see Homo (CAH, vii. 561 ff.), and De
Sanctis (ii. x66 ff.). To Homo's bibliography on the problem of the
battle-site (ibid. 920) add Kromayer (AS, iv. 449 ff.) and Schachermeyr (Klio, I9JO, 277 ff.), both favouring the left bank.
TpLat rijs l'a.XTIS ~p,epa.ls uO'Tpov ~ so too Diodorus (xiv. us: with
exclusive reckoning), Plutarch (Cam. 22) and Verrius Flaccus (in
Gell. v. 17. 2). Only Livy (v. 4I. 4) enlivens the story by making the
Gauls reach Rome the next day. Later legends elaborated the defence
of the Capitol (Livy, v. 43 r ff., 47 Iff.); but perhaps no serious
attempt was made against it (DeSanctis, ii. 175-6).
3. T~v 0llvTwv E:l'f3a.MvTWv: the authenticity of this attack, otherwise unattested, has been questioned; and Livy (v. 48. I) makes a
pestilence among the Gauls play a similar role in drawing them
off. But such an attack is quite plausible, and no more of a
coincidence than the Illyrian invasion which drew Antigonus Doson
north after Sellasia (below, 7o. 1). Whether true or not, the story
belongs to an earlier layer of the tradition than that which emphasizes Camillus' last-minute rescue (cf. Livy, v. 49).
wot,a6.1'VOL auv&'Y]Ka.s wpos 'Pwl'a.(ous: cf. i. 6. 3 n. for the ransom.
which was probably paid; for the Gallic claim see below, 22. 5
4. 9c;wpouvns tK wapa.9aws: 'observing from close at hand' (d.
17 3) or 'witnessing in comparison with their own' (cf. i. 86. 7 and
passim); a small distinction since proximity encourages comparison.
5. TO. K(lTcl Tovs AaTlvous a09Ls wpciyl'aTa. auvt:O'Tftaa.VTo: see i. 6.
4-6n.
6. ~TL TpLa.KoO'T~: the chronology of the fourth-century Gallic wars
is difficult. It may perhaps be assumed (though not with certainty)
(a) that F.'s intervals refer to consul years (not Olympiad years, as
Leuze, ]ahrzahlung. 125, argues), (b) that, as in i. 6. 2, l'. is here
making 387/6 the date of the seizure of Rome, (c) that he identifies
the Attic year 387/6 with the consul year 386 (cf. De Sanctis, i.
185

II. 18. 6

ROME AND THE GAULS

13 n. z). The intervals listed between the Gallic debacle and Sentinum in 295 (19. 5), viz. 30 I2
add Up to only 89 years,
whereas from 386 to 295 should be 91 years. The problem is therefore
twofold, (a) to account for the two missing years, (b) to reconcile
P.'s date of 386 for the Gallic attack with the Varronian 390. For
discussion see Niese (Hennes, 1878, 401-r3), L"nger (Hermes, r879,
77--92), Seeck (ibid.
Mommsen (Rom. Forsch. ii. 297-38r),
Leuze (]ahrzahlung, r2o--45), De Sanctis (ii. 259-6o; cf. i. r3 n. 2),
Beloch (RG, 132-43, 314). The four years' discrepancy between the
Polybian and Varronian dates for the capture of Rome may be due
either to the omission by Polybius' source of the four years in which
dictators and their magistri equitum appear as eponymous in the
Fasti, viz. 333, 324, 309, and 301 (Livy omits these years), or to the
expansion of one year's 'anarchy' to five in the annalistic account of
the Licinio-Sextian rogations (viz. 375-371, cf. Livy, vi. 34-42; De
Sanctis, ii. 214). Diodorus (xv. 75 r) records only one year's O.va.pxta;
but there is no reason to associate his version of the annals with
Fabius. Consequently either explanation must be regarded as possible. The two missing years are explained by Beloch on the assumption that the date 387/6 for the capture of Rome came from Timaeus
(d. i. 6. 2 n.), but that Fabius put it in 384. In fact, Fabius' date is
not known for certain; but if he dated the first plebeian consul (366)
twenty-two years after the Gallic capture (Gell. v. 4 3, duouicesimo),
he can hardly have put the latter in 384. In 19. 5-7 P. reckons the
interval between Sentinum and the appearance of the Gauls at
Arretium as ten years; it was in reality eleven (295-284). This suggests that P.'s figures may in some cases represent a round number,
or be based on a reckoning which excludes both terms; but if so, he
is not himself awake to the discrepancy, and no distinction is to be
made between such phrases as lnt rptaKocrr(j> (r8. 6) and lrYJ Tptd.KoV"Ta.
(r9. r) (so Leuze, ]ahrzahlung, 125). Correlation with Livy and the
triumphal Fasti is of little use, since Livy at least contains frequent
doublets and improvisations. In these circumstances the following
table is merely one possible arrangement of the data:
Reference
Capture of Rome
r8. 2

Gauls before Alba

Gauls invade and retire
Peace made
Successful invasion

299

Sentinum .
Gauls at Arretium

295
284

331

18. 6 ~TL TpLaKOCfT{j>

18. 7 <TEL 8wDEKO.Tlfl
r8. 9 rpLaKalD<Ka eTYJ
19. I ETYJ rpHiKovra. (a round
figure?)
19. 5 ET<L T<Taprlfl
19. 7 Jrwv SlKa (sic)

Livy records no Gallic invasion in 356; but the ravaging of the

ager Albanus in 36o (Lh'Y, vii. rr. 3) is thirty years after his date for
r86

ROME AND THE GAULS

II. I9. 5

the seizure of Rome, and may refer to this expedition if P.'s chronology has omitted the four 'dictator-years'.
7. t~ ~TrL~oA.1ls ~TEpa.s: 'making another attempt'. This third invasion, forty-two years after the capture of Rome, has nothing
corresponding in Livy. However, Livy (vii. 23-24) records an invasion in 350, and the act. tr. assign a triumph to the consul M.
Popillius Laenas [de G]alleis; and Beloch has suggested (RG, 137-8)
a confusion with Popillius' next consulship in 348 (Beloch prefers
Diodorus' date, 347) for the invasion. If the four 'dictator-years'
are omitted, 348 becomes 344, which would fit P. But this is highly
hypothetical.
9. Tpmt<a.8et<a. ~TTJ T~v ftO'uxa.v ~O'xov: viz. 344-331. Livy has no
record of the peace which was now concluded; and attempts to link
this date with the reports of a tumultus in 332 and 329 (Livy, viii.
I7. 6, 20. 2) are unsuccessfuL The growth of Roman power resulted
from the Latin War (J40-JJ8) and the dissolution of the Latin
League (i. 6. 4 n.).
19. l. ~TTJ TpL6.t<ovTa. jLEva.vTES E1!1TE8ws: the attack which ended this
peace was four years before Sentinum ( 2-5), and this was in 295.
In 299 Livy (x. ro. 12) speaks of ajama Gallici tumultus which came
to nothing. \Vhether or no this is a distorted reference to the Gallic
campaign which P. here describes (so Beloch, RG, IJJ), it seems
likely that 299 is the date of the latter, and that here P.'s thirty
years represent a round number.
3. 1repi T~v Twv ELATJ!LilEvoov 1rAeove~a.v: 'for the larger share of the
spoils'. DeSanctis (ii. 350) suggests that the destruction of the Gallic
forces and their spoils is a Roman version designed to point to the
action of Nemesis; but Gallic indulgence in drinking was a well.
known trait (cf. Jullian, i. 342).
5. Tr6.Aw ~TEL TET6.pn~,>: in 295, the decisive year of the Third Samnite
War. Cf. Livy, x. 20 ff.
Ia.uv'i:Ta.L t<a.1 r a.A6.Ta.L: on the Samnites see i. 6. 4 n. If Etruscans and
Umbrians took part in the coalition (Diod. xxi. 6), it was on a very
small scale: see Adcock (CAH, vii. 612). The view of Beloch (RG,
421 ff.), followed by Philipp (RE, 'Sabini', coL 1579; 'Samnites', cols.
2147-8), that the Sabines, not the Samnites, took part in this movement, is contradicted
Duris (in Tzetzes, and Lycophron, Alex.
IJ78), P., and Livy,
to be rejected.
Ev TTI Ka.11epToov xti!p~: faced by the risk of a Samnite break-through
to the north to join the Gauls, and the uncertainty whether the
united force would then advance through Etruria gaining
or
march directly on Rome, the Romans split their forces, and sent an
advance force ahead under L. Cornelius Scipio Barbatus, while the
main army moved on Camerinum, a likely rallying point for Gauls
187

II. 19.5

ROME AND THE GAULS

and Samnites on the east slope of the Apennines in south Umbria.

It was the advance-party which was defeated. Livy (x. 25. u,
26. 7 ff.) has transferred this battle to Clusium in Etruria, qtwd
Camars olim appellabant (25. n); but his account, which contains
other inaccuracies, cannot stand against that of P. Cf. De Sanctis
(ii. 355 n. 2), Beloch (RG, 440) and Adcock (CAH, vii. 6r2).
6. TrpoatlAovuc-ljaa.V"rES 1rpos -ro EAa-r-rw11a.: 'displaying a victorious
spirit in the face of the reverse'.
~v -rfi -r<71v IEV"rWO.TWV xwp~: Sentinum lay on the eastern slope of the
Apennines on a tributary of the Aesis, about 30 miles north of
Camerinum. The Romans employed the two consular armies of
Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus and P. Decius Mus, four legions in all
(1riic~ -rofs- a-rpa-ro'tTtOots), some JO,ooo-J6,ooo men. This victory over
the 'last resistance of Italian particularism' (De Sanctis) became
famous in popular tradition, especially for the deuotio of Decius Mus
(cf. Munzer, RE, 'Decius (16)', col. 2284).
7. lha.yEvo!L~vwv 8e TraAlv ETwv 8~Ka.: the Fasti and Livy (ep. 12; cf.
Oros. iii. 22. 13) agree in making L. Caecilius MetellusDenter consul in
284, but attribute his death to a praetorship in 283. Mommsen (Rom.
Forsch. ii. 365-77) analysed the tradition and showed how the events
of Caecilius' consulship were transferred to a supposed praetorship
in 283, in the interest of a patriotic compression. This analysis
(which is not superseded by a brief and misdated reference in St.-R.
ii. 195 n. r) has persuaded both De Sanctis (ii. 376 n. 2) and Beloch
(RG, 133) to reject Livy; and indeed rrrpa:rr;yos is consul in P. (see
Lex. Pol_vb. s.v.). Against the annalistic version is the unusual
appointment ofM'. CuriusDentatus as what would be praetor suffectus
( 8), if in fact Caecilius was praetor, whereas in P.'s account his
appointment will be as consul suffectus (see further 8 n.). (In itself,
Caecilius' military command as praetor would not be unparalleled
at this date; cf. Broughton (i. r88-9), adducing the case of Ap.
Claudius Caecus, who held a military command as praetor in 295.)
That P. took Caecilius to be consul in 284, and not praetor in 283,
is shown by the present reference to ten years, which can be applied
to the period 295-284, by the exclusion of both terms, but hardly
to 295-283.
r a.XO.-ra.l . TrOAlOpK~O"OVTES Ti]v :A.pp"lTLVWV 11'0AlV: the Senones,
as the later narrative shows. On Arretium see 16. 2 n. Avoiding
Umbria, the Senones had traversed the Apennines to win allies in
Etruria.
8. AeuKou -rEAEU'I'Tjaa.V"ros: he had two legions (Oros. iii. 22. IJI4) and lost seven military tribunes and IJ,ooo men. The defeat
was followed by a general revolt of Etruscans, Samnites, Lucanians,
and Bruttians (Livy, ep. 12; Oros. iii. 22. 13-14; Augustine, CD, iii.
I7)
188

ROME AND THE GAULS

II.

2.0. I

MO.vtov hnKaTiiO'T'I'lO'a.v T6v K6pl0v: M'. Curius Dentatus was one of

the most notable figures of this period and had terminated the Third
Samnite War successfully in 290 (cf. Munzer, RE, 'Curius (9)', cols.
1841-5). The later tradition, which dated Caecilius' death to 283,
makes him praetor suffectus (above 19. 7 n.). According to this version
Caecilius' death was avenged the same year by the victory of P.
Cornelius Dolabella, the consul, at Lake Vadimo over the Senones
(cf. Broughton, i. r88-9). It has been argued by E. T. Salmon (CP,
1935, 23-31) that both the annalistic version and that of Fabius (i.e.
of P.) distort the real course of events, so as to bring the Roman
revenge immediately after the setback at Arretium; in one case
(Fabius) the revenge was moved back into 284 (and attributed
to Curius), in the other (Livy) the defeat was retarded until
283 (and Caecllius becomes a praetor). If this plausible thesis
is correct, Dentatus' victory ( u) is apocryplml; and indeed its
disappearance from the later tradition is inexplicable on any other
assumption.
9. ~'ll'awlAoVTo Tou~ Tp.!O'~LS: a not impossible, but perhaps
unlikely story; d. 8. 12. See Beloch (RG, 454) and Salmon (CP,
1935, 31 n. 39). The story is probably part of Fabius' version
leading to a bellum iustum. TaJ..arlo. is here Cisalpine Gaul; d. 24.
8, etc.
10. 0'11'0 Tov 8ull'ov EK X"'POS ~'II'LO'Tpa.Tc;uO"u!l'.!vwv: 'immediately in
their anger' ; the narrative implies that it is still 284.
11. Tfj~ . xwpa,~ ... EYKPUTELS: viz. the territory of the Sen ones,
the later ager Gallicus (see 21. 7 n., and above, 17. 8 n.).
12. 6.TotKuv ~O'TlAUV TTJV I1Jv11v: Livy (ep. n) also associates the
founding of Sena Gallica with Curius Dentatus, but dates it after
his first consulship (29o). If Curius' victory of 284 is apocryphal
(19. 8 n.), the founding of Sena drops out of this year. It may have
taken place in 283 after the victory at Vadimo ; but there must be
some good reason why both traditions associate it with Curius.
Therefore, since it seems perverse to postpone its foundation till
Curius' third consulship in 274, with which no authority associates it
(so Beloch, RG, 453-4), Livy's date is probably to be accepted. Its
foundation implies the ceding of land by the Senones, but not
necessarily their defeat and complete expulsion; and this may well
have followed the peace which must have been made after Sentinum;
see De Sanctis (ii. 358 n. r). P. mentions Sena above (&.prlws) at
14. II and 16. 5

20. 1. ol S( Boi:o,: though P. mentions no date, he is evidently

referring to the next year, 283, when the consuls were P. Cornelius
Dolabella and Cn. Domitius Calvinus Maximus. The later tradition
makes Dolabella victorious at Lake Vadimo over the Senones, not
189

II.

20. I

ROME AND THE GAULS

the Boii (on the latter see r7. 8 n. and 20. 4 n.); and if the
Boii suffered so severely in 283, it is hard to comprehend their confronting the Romans again in 282 (2o. 3). The probability is that
P.'s Fabian account, having destroyed the Senones in 284 (19. u),
required a new foe for Dolabella's victory in 283. See Sahnon (CP,
1935. 24 ff.).
1ra.pa.tmAiaa.VTES T uppTJvous: Beloch (RG, 451) argues from the site
of the battle that these were primarily from Volsinii; but the
Gauls may well have attracted allies from a wider area, as they
advanced south, and in 28o the consul Ti. Coruncanius triumphed
over Vulci as well as Volsinii, and in 281 Q. Marcius Philippus
de Etrusceis, which suggests a wider coalition.
2. T-ijv 'OO.S11-ova. ALjlVTJV: Lake Vadimo (V adimonis lac-us, the
modern Laghetto di Bassano) lies on fiat ground west of the Tiber,
some 42-43 miles due north of Rome. For a description see Pliny,
ep. viii. 20; Nissen, It. Land. ii. 342.
4. T~ Ka.T.i ,...68a.c; tvmuT~: viz. 282, in the consulship of C. Fabricius
Luscinus and Q. Aemilius Papus. It is recorded in Frontinus (Strat.
i. 2. 7) that 'Aemilius Paulus [sic] consul bello Etrusco apud oppidum
coloniam' fought against the Boii; and the reference is probably to
this campaign. Beloch (RG, 454) would emend coloniam to Vetuloniam or Statoniam, others to Populoniam; but Salmon (CP, 1935,
26-2i) suggests that the colonia is Sena Gallica, and locates the
battle on the fringe of Cisalpine Gaul, a possible interpretation, even
if Sena was founded not one but eight years previously (19. 12 n.).
Aemilius' campaign is also mentioned by Dionysius (xix. 13. r), who
places it in Etruria; and this is perhaps less easily reconciled with
a Roman (presumably offensive) action in the north-east.
6. Synchronisms : see i. 6. 5 n. Pyrrhus' crossing was in 01. 124, 4 =
281/o (in fact May 28o), the Gallic destruction in 01. 125, 2 = 2i9/8
(probably autumn 279). On the reasonable assumption that consul
years are equated with the Olympiad year in which they begin, the
peace with the Boii in 282 was, by inclusive reckoning, three years
before Pyrrhus' crossing and five years before the Gallic rout at
Delphi.
7. AotjlLKTJV TWa. StMeatv: 'epidemic', a medical term; cf. 31. ro,
(used literally). For this sense of Stci8mt> cf. jo. 6, viii. 12. 3. and the
examples quoted by Welles, 324-5. In afflicting the Gauls thus Tyche
is playing the role of capricious deity; cf. CQ, 1945, 6; above, p. 18.
8-10. General observations on the Gallic campaigns. The long duel
( 8, .iyc.)vwv), drawn out for over a century, had toughened the
Romans psychologically and physically; they could be neither
daunted by horrors nor worn out by hardships. This fitted them to
contest Italy with Pyrrhus, and to struggle with Carthage for Sicily;
cf. i. 6. 6 (Italy), and the parallel reflections (i. 63. 9) on the schooling
190

ROME AND THE GAULS

II.

2I.

of the First Punic War, which led the Romans to aim at universal
dominion, and accomplish that aim. Here too P. is again stressing
the function of his introduction (d. i. 3 9-ro) in explaining the basis
on which Rome advanced to world-domination. For the phrase
&.B>.TJTa.i TEA~:tat y~:yov6T~:s- cf. i. 6. 6 (and, for the metaphor, i. 59 12).
The Gallic and Etruscan wars take their place in the steady, fated
advance of Rome to world-empire; and this phase in the reduction
of the Gauls is rounded off with the words T~v TOAfLa.V . Ka.Ta.7rA7)~&fL~:vot, which recalls (and reverses) the words Tfj T6AfLTI Ka.Ta.TrmA7)yfLlvm with which it opened (18. r).
21. 1. ETTJ 'ITEVTE t<:a.i TETTa.pat<:ovTa: calculated inclusively by
Mornmsen (Rom. Forsch. ii. 362) as 281-237, with the appearance of
the Gauls at Ariminum ( s) in 236. But the forty-five years must be
reckoned from 282, the year of the peace (2o. 6), and are therefore
282-238; and P.'s date for the events at Ariminum is consequently
237, which is confirmed by his dating Aemilius Lepidus' consulship
(232) five years later (21. 7). (Alternatively P. may be reckoning
exclusively, 282-237, with events at Ariminum still in the latter
year.) P.'s account of a single campaign in 237 conflicts with the
annalistic tradition of a three years' war under the consuls of 238,
5; Eutrop. iii. 2;
237, and 236 (Zon. viii. 18; Oros. iv. r2. 1; Flor. i.
Livy, ep. 20), with the Ariminum incident in 236
5 n.). P.'s dates
for the remaining Gallic incidents (cf. r8. 6 n.) are:
Reference

Gauls at Arretiurn
Vadimo .
Defeat of Boii. peace
Gauls at Ariminum .

284

19. 7

:z83

20. r-2

282

20.

237

2 I. I,

232
2 25

21.

interval omitted

4, 6 TijJ KaTd. Troaas Jv,avTij!

4-5 T7) 1TWTE Kal TET'Tapa

KOV'Ta

Division of Ager Gallicus

Gallic tttmultus

7 -r~:t 7rEf.L1t'To/
23. I l-rn ... oyoocp (sic)

The failure of the Gauls to exploit Roman embarrassment during

the First Punic War is discussed by De Sanctis (iii. r. 28o), who
suggests that it was due to a successful Roman policy of appeasement coupled with Carthaginian failure to develop the necessary
contacts and to buy Gallic help.
3. Ta Ka.6EaTWTa. KtVE~v: 'to disturb the equilibrium', viz. the peace
of 282. P. ignores the events of 238, which the annalistic tradition,
probably following Valerius Antias, magnifies into an astounding
victory (after defeat) for the consul, P. Valerius Falto.
5. ~Pll-'tvou: on its site see 14. II n. It was originally Umbrian
(Strabo, v. 2Ij), but a Latin colony was set up in 268 (Yell. Pat.

IL 21.5

ROME AND THE GAULS

i. 14. 7); cf. U. Ewins, BSR, 1952, 54 Zonaras (viii. r8) adds details
suggesting that the dispute of the Gauls, ending in a pitched battle,
was the direct result of a policy of delay and temporizing on the part
of the consuls. The Fabian account in P. is very different. Fear of
the Gauls ensured the dispatch of a legion from Rome; but on
learning of the Gallic broil it returned. Yet clearly the same occasion
is meant; and if the date is 237, Zonaras' error may derive from some
confusion between the consuls L. Cornelius Lentulus Caudinus (237)
and P. Cornelius Lentulus Caudinus (236).
7, iTEI 1!'f1VT'e , , , KO.TEKATJpOUXT)O'U\1 , , T~\1 nu(E\IT~\IT)\1 , , , xwpa.v:
the reference to the consulship of M. Aemilius Lepidus fixes the year
as 232. Cicero (de sen. II; cf. acad. ii. 13), drawing on Atticus, makes
it 228, perhaps confusing the second consulship of Q. Fabius Maximus
with his first, during which Flaminius entered office (Niccolini, F asti
dei tribuni della plebe (Milan, 1934), 88-89); in any case, it is agreed
that P.'s date is preferable; d. DeSanctis (iii. 1. 333 n. 181); Mommsen
(Rom. Forsch. ii. 401 n. 23); and other authorities quoted by Aymard
(REA, 1943, 219 n. 1). Cicero describes Flaminius' bill as the 'lex de
agro Gallico et Piceno uiritim diuidundo' (Brut. 57). On the ager
Galticus between the Aesis and Ariminum see 17. 8 n.; the Senones
were completely expelled after Vadimo (or, according toP., the year
before; cf. 19. n). It is described by Cato (fg. 43 Peter): 'ager
Gallicus Romanus uocatur, qui uiritim cis Ariminum datus est ultra
agrum Picentium.' The ager Picenus, as this quotation indicates, is
normally placed south of the Aesis; but it also indicates that
Picenum in this sense was excluded from Flaminius' distributions.
Nor is there any evidence for the expulsion of the Picentes (on
Strabo, v. 251 see Beloch, RG, 475). Moreover, it appears from Livy
(ep. 15, Ariminum in Piceno) that P. was not alone in identifying
the ager Gallicus and the ager Picenus. The likelihood is therefore
that, despite Cicero's formula, Flaminius' bill dealt only with the
ager Gallicus; cf. Frank (ES, i. 61) and Beloch (RG, 475-{)); contra
De Sanctis (iii. I. 333 n. 184); on the geography, Nissen (It. Land.
ii. 377).
8. r a.tou .ACI.JJ-LVlou TC.UTT)\1 TTJ\1 8TtJJ-a.ywy(a.v dO'T)YTJO'UJJ-EVOU: c.
Flaminius was a plebeian and a nouus homo. His land measure
was designed to restore the firm link between the Roman proletariat and the land, and therein foreshadowed the work of the
Gracchi. It met with strong opposition from the senate, which had
profited by the occupation of public land, and was eventually carried
by Flaminius as tribune in the popular assembly (Cic. de inu. ii. 52;
Livy, xxi. 63. 2; VaL Max. v. 4 5). On Flaminius see Munzer (RE,
'Flaminius (2)', cols. 2496ff.), and on his land bill Frank (CAH, vii.
8o6-7; ES, i. 6o-{)I), De Sanctis (iii. 1. 332-4), Meyer (Kl. Scltr. ii.
39o-3), Fraccaro (Athen., 1919, 76 ff.), K. Jacobs (Caius Flaminius

ROME AND THE GAULS

II. zr. 9

(diss. Leiden, Hoorn, 1937), 37 ff.). P.'s hostile attitude towards

Flaminius (cf. 33 7 ff., iii. 8o, 8z ff.) seems to reflect the hostility of
his senatorial opponents transmitted through Fabius Pictor (cf.
Gelzer, Hermes, I933, I5o; Klotz, Wj, 1946, 156; contra Bung, I74
n. 3). Why does he regard the land-bill as 'the first step in the
demoralization of the people'? The view of Ed. Meyer (Kl. Schr.
i 2 374; cf. Unger, Phil., I88z, 6I7 n. rs), that P. inserted this passage
after the Lex Sempronia of Tiberius Gracchus in 133, has been
widely accepted by Cuntz, De Sanctis, Bung, and others. But
probably too much has been read into P.'s words. ~ 7TI. ro X"'ipov
TOV o-.jp.ov OtaCl'Tporf.'lj is simply the outburst of popular assertiveness
associated especially with Flaminius' career, which ended in the
fiasco of the aequatum imperium of Fabius and Minucius (iii. 103. 4),
and the election of such leaders as Flaminius and Varro who, at
Trasimene and Cannae, were responsible (in the eyes of the Senate)
for bringing Rome within an inch of ruin. Clearly P. had an exaggerated picture of the role of the tribunate at this time (cf. iii.
87. 8), and an exaggeration of Flaminius' maleficent role fits excellently the strange observations on the tribunate at vi. I6. 3-5
(q.v.).
Flaminius is further attacked for precipitating the Gallic tumultus
of zzs. Against this it has been urged that the tumultus did not occur
for seven years (z3. In.), and that when it did come, it took the
traditional form of a plundering expedition, not prepared to try
the final issue (z6. 4 ff.); see Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 395), De Sanctis
(iii. 1. 305), and Frank (CAH, vii. 8o7). But, as Gelzer points out
(Hermes, I933. ISo), the implementation of the bill took a considerable time, the rallying of Gauls from both sides of the Alps was
necessarily slow, and the Romans had anticipated trouble for several
years (13. s); and certainly Flaminius is subsequently associated
with a policy of expansion in north Italy.
1lv s,; KO.L 'Pwfla.(o~~ Jla.TEOV apxTJYOV KTA.: 'which we must admit
to have proved for the Romans virtually .. .' (so Schweighaeuser,
Shuckburgh, Paton, Treves, taking pwp.aiotr; as dative of disadvantage) or 'which even the Romans must virtually admit .. .' ('Pwp.alotr;
dative of the agent with rf.arlov). The second is highly improbable,
but is apparently the interpretation of Frank, who writes (CAH,
vii. 8o6), 'we hear ... that the Senate considered it a measure which
began "the demoralisation of the people" '. But if 'Pwp.almr; were
'the Senate', it would be rather P.'s than Flaminius' contemporaries.
On the use of wr; e7ror; Ei7TEtv to soften an expression (here of criticism)
see Wunderer (i. 5 n. 1).
9. oux uTrp TJYEflOVLa.~ En KTA.: the motivation of the Gallic action
is probably from Fabius' indictment of Flaminius' policy; though in
fact the establishment of further colonies would have aroused Gallic
0

193

II.

21.

ROME AND THE GAULS

apprehension equally. The words rov rrpo; a.irrov; rroAEJLOV indicate

that the Gauls regarded the land distribution as a preliminary to
offensive warfare. In 22. I eUNw; is an exaggeration from the same
source.

22. 1. '11'pOaa.yopwo~vous , . . r O.LO'aTOUS: a misstatement from

Fabius; cf. Oros. iv. 13. 5 (Fabius, fg. 23 Peter), 'maxime Gaesatorum,
quod nomen non gentis sed mercennariorum Gallorum est'. The word
derives from ya.i:ao;, a javelin or throwing-spear (cf. vi. 39 3, xviii.
r8. 4; Diod. xiii. 57; P.Teb. 230 (2nd cent.)), a word of Celtic origin
(d. Serv. ad A en. vii. 664; Nonius, p. 555, quoting A en. viii. 661-2,
on the Gauls attacking the Capitol,
'duo quisque Alpina coruscant I gaesa manu').

P. uses both the -a.1 and -o1 endings, Strabo, Plutarch, and other
Greek writers use -at, and the Latin form is always Gaesati. On the
etymology, which connects with words both Celtic and Germanic,
see A. Holder (Altceltischer Sprachschatz, i (Leipzig, 1896), 1517 ff.),
and R. Much (German. Forsch., 1925, 26); cf. Irish gai, gae, 'spear';
OHG ger, etc. In Caesar (BG, iii. 4 1) the Celts of Canton Valais use
gaesa; and the Gaesatae here come from the Rhone, which may
include the uallis Poenina (cf. F. Stahelin, Die Schweiz in riimischer
Zeit 3 (Basel, 1948}, 33 n. 1}, and not merely the middle and lower
Rhone (R. Heuberger, Klio, 1938, 72-8o). The gaesum was always
distinct from the Roman pilum, though Greek writers often use the
word for any foreign spear; see Fiebiger (RE, 'gaesum', cols. 463-4).
That Gaesatae came to mean 'Celtic mercenaries' is true (cf. Plut.
Marc. 3}, and Much (ZDA, 1932, 43) compares the meaning 'bodyguard' acquired by oopv</>opo;. Much and other Germanists (followed
by Degrassi) have argued that they were Germans because (a) the
act. tr. record a triumph of Marcellus in 222 'de Galleis Insubribus
et Ger(manis'}, (b) Livy (xxi. 38. 8} describes the area north of the
Great St. Bernard Pass as inhabited by gentes semigermanae. But
the act. tr. here probably contain an error introduced in the time of
Augustus (cf. 0. Hirschfeld, Kl. Schr. (Berlin, r9r3). 365 ff.; Stahelin,
loc. cit.), and Livy's reference also suggests an anachronism, since
the extended use of the name Germani does not appear before the
first century (Stahelin, op. cit.}. Heuberger (loc. cit.) believes the
Gaesatae are 'warriors', who joined in the expedition for plunder,
not as mercenaries; and he rejects P.'s explanation out of hand.
In imperial times we hear of a ue[xi]llatio Retorum Gaesa[torum]
(Dessau, ILS, 2623; cf. CIL, vii. roo2, viii. 2728); and Strabo (v.
212) mentions Gaesatae who accompanied the Senones in attacking the Romans and seems to regard them (v. 2r6} as a Celtic
tribe inhabiting the Po valley. For discussion of the problems
194

ROME AND THE GAULS

II. 23. 4

involved see Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 229-30 n. 4), Stahelin (loc. cit.),
R. Much, Germ. Forsch. (1925), 26-Qr, 'Der Eintritt der Germanen
in die Weltgeschichte'; ZDA, 1932, 17-46 'Die Gaesaten'; H. Jacobsohn, ZDA, 1929, z2o-r; R. Heuberger, Klio, 1938, 6o-8o 'Die
Gaesaten'; Degrassi, Inscr. It. xiii. r. sso.
4. olJ j.t6vov EVLK"l<TilV KTA.: at the Allia; cf. r8. 2-3.
5. 8EAovTi Klli J.lETa xapLToc.;: in fact after the payment of a ransom,
r8. 3 n. The figure of seven months was well established in the
tradition. The dies Alliensis was r8 July, the siege in autumn (Plut.
Cam. z8) and the relief in February (in the calendar of Polemius
Silvius on id. feb.; cf. CIL, i 2 I,' p. 259); cf. Mommsen, Rom.
Forsch. ii. 328 n. ~

7. Ka.Tn 8E To us KllLpouc.; TOuTouc.;: a vague transitional phrase, perhaps deliberately so.

KllTilJ.lllV'I"EUOJ.lEVOL To J.lEAAov: 'surmising what would happen', i.e.
in contrast to what they heard (dKov6vTES); cf. Arist. Rhet. 1368 a 3I,
K nov 7Tpoyeyov6nuv Td. j.dlloVTa KG.TG.fW-VTEV6p.tiVOf, Kplvop.Ev. Meyer
(Kl. Schr. ii. 394 n. I) translates erfuhren durch Weissagungen, and
sees a reference to the burial alive of a Gallic and Greek couple in
the forum Boarium in response to a Sibylline oracle (Plut. Marc.
3 6; Dio, fg. so; Zon. viii. I9; Oros. iv. 13. 3) in 228 (ct. Gelzer,
Hermes, I933 ISI n. r). But this sense would be without parallel.
8. aTpa.TO'II'E81l Kll'l"a.ypaq,ELv: ten in all, two for each consul (24. 3),
two to guard Sicily and Tarentum (z4. 13), and four in reserve at
Rome (24. 9).
10. we.; KilL '11'p6a8Ev iJjiiv ELP"lTilL: IJ. s-7 (with note).
23. 1. 86va.J.lLV 'll'oAunMj KilL ~llpEillv: 'a richly-equipped and powerful army', cf. xxxi. I7. 4. ef.'Vf,K~V Xfpa. f3a.pEia.v. Naturally some were
light-armed (cf. 27. 6); hence f3a.pt'ta.v is not 'heavy-armed'.
~TEL , , oy86fl': the year is 225 (cf. ZJ. 5 n.), the eighth after 232 by
inclusive reckoning. See 2r. In., 21. 7
2. ol 8' OOEVE'I"OL KilL r OVOj.taVOL TOUTOLS EtAOVTO <TUJ.lJ.lllXELV:
probably some time before 225. The Veneti (r7. 5 n.), who had intervened so providentially in 387/6 (cf. r8. 3), were Italians; the Cenomani (q. 4 n.) were Celts, perhaps with an Alpine admixture (De
Sanctis, iii. r. 3o6), and in any case were jealous of the Insubres.
Both peoples seem to have become lasting allies of Rome: Strabo,
v. 216.
4. ws E'II'L Tupp"lv(a.s: as in 299 (r9. 2) they crossed the Apennines,
hoping to attract allies in Etruria in their march south. Though less
than Diodorus' 2oo,ooo (xxv. 13), P.'s figures are also exaggerated.
The chariots (avvwpl8ts) carried each a driver and a warrior who,
after hurling his javelin, descended to fight at close quarters (Diod.
v. 29. I; cf. Livy, x. 28. 8 ff.).
195

II. 23

ROME A ;.rD THE GAULS

5-6. AEliiCLOv Ail'iAtov KTA.: the consuls for A.U.c. 529

225 B.C.
were L. Aemilius Q.f. Cn.n. Papus and C. Atilius M.f. M.n. Regulus
{ 6). Cf. Klebs, RE, 'Aemilius (ro8)', cols. 575-6; 'Atilius (.;3)', cols.
zoBs-6. Aemilius was sent to Ariminum to defend the ager Gallicus;
he triumphed in 224 'de Galleis III nonas mart.' (act. tr.). Atilius was
son of the famous Regulus of the First Punic War (i. 26. n ff.). His
presence in Sardinia creates a problem. There seems no good reason
to question P.'s statement (so Beloch, Hermes, 1922, rz8 f., criticized
by Meyer, Kl. Sckr. ii. 396 n. 2); and though the Romans may have
been taken by surprise, either through neglect of the northern
danger (Holleaux, 123 n. 3) or because they did not foresee where
the blow would fall (Gelzer, Hermes, 1933, rso n. s), it seems more
likely that Atilius was sent to guard against a possible Punic attack
(d. 24. 13 n.). He will have been recalled when the news of the Ebro
treaty, sworn probably between autumn 226 and spring zzs (13.
7 n.), secured the Romans against any move by Hasdrubal (27. 1);
see Treves ad loc. Zonaras (viii. 19) records a rising in Sardinia which
may also connect with Atilius' presence there. The name of the
praetor (ita1TtAl'KVS in Greek, since he had six axes and fasces) in
Etruria is not recorded.
9. O.va.cflEf>EW , O.woypa.cJ!a~ Twv v Tals TjALKLa.ls: 'to supply lists
of men of military age', viz. of the iuniores, from 18 to 46 years
inclusive; cf. vi. 19. 5; Mommsen (Rom. Forsch. ii. 404), and StrachanDavidson (28). The details of Roman preparations do not suggest
that they were caught by surprise.
24. Roman and Italian forces in 225. P.'s figures evidently go back
through Fabius to the actual Ka-raypaat, and are mainly reliable (d.
u-r2 nn.):

(a) Troops in arms ( 3-9, 13)

Infantry
With the consuls (four legions}
Sabines and Etruscans
Umbrians and Sarsinates
Veneti and Cenomani
In Sicily and Tarentum (two
legions)
Reserve at Rome (four legions)

20,8oo

I,200

8,400
20,000

400

JO,OOO
2,000
lso,ooo+
4,ooo
20,000
20,000

z,ooo

ROME AND THE GAULS

II. 24

(b) Men capable of bearing arms ( ro-12, 14)

-

Romans

Allies

--

Romans and Campanians

Latins
Samnites
Iapygians and Messapians
Lucanians .
Marsi, Marrucini, Frentani,
Vestini

Infantry

Cavalry

250,000

23,000

..
..
..
..
..

I 250,000

Total

Infantry

Cavalry

..

..

. . !!
..
..
..

8o,ooo
]0,000
50,000
30,000

r6,ooo
3,000

..

20,000

4,000

250,000

35,000

23,000

5,000
],000

--

(c) Polybius' total ( r6: for the figures in IS see ad loc.)

Infantry

Cavalry

700,ooo+

70,000

For discussion see Mommsen (Rom. Forsch. ii. 382-4o6; St.-R. iii. 575
n. 2), Beloch (Bevolkerung, 355-70; I B, 93 ff.), Strachan-Davidson
(22-32), De Sanctis (ii. 385 n. I, 462; iii. 330), T. Frank (CAH, vii.
8U-I2; ES, i. sB-59), Veith (Heerwesen, J05-7L Gelzer (Hermes, I935
273 ff.), and earlier works quoted by Liebenam (RE, 'dilectus',
cols. 6o8 ff.).
The main problem is whether the troops in arms are included in,
or additional to, those capable of bearing arms. On the assumption
that the latter is the case, the sum of the separate items adds up to
P.'s total, viz.

Romans: in arms
not summoned
Allies: in arms
not summoned

Infantry

Cavahy

49,200
250,000
I50,000
250,000

3,100
23,000
8,ooo
35,000

__T_o_ta_l____________________~__6_9_9_,2__
o~~9,IOO

Whether or no any addition be made to allow for allies with the

legions in Sicily, and for cavalry of the Umbrians, Sarsinates, Veneti,
and Cenomani (omitted by P.), clearly these totals correspond closely
to P.'s 7oo,ooo infantry and 7o,ooo cavalry. On this assumption,
which is M:ommsen's, the whole levy of north Italy was called out,
and therefore did not figure under (b); and the contingents actually
serving from south Italy are included in the figures of allies with
the consuls or in reserve at Rome ( 4 and 9), since these forces
197

II. 24

ROME AND THE GAULS

represented contingents from all parts of Italy in addition to the

levee en masse in the north.

On the other hand, the phrasing of IO and I4 (KaTo:ypa<{;ai. s

&.v-ryvx01JG'O.V , 'Pwttalwv o I(O.t Kattrravwv f] 7TA1J0vs ) suggests
that P. is recording the full muster for the areas in question, not
that muster less troops already serving; and the round figures
(25o,ooo Roman and Campanian infantry, 25o,ooo south Italian infantry) look like a maximum based on the Ko.Ta:ypap~ rather than
such a maximum less a specific number already serving. Further,
it is improbable that the figures under (a) represent a roo-per-cent.
turn-out, for instance, the 54,ooo Sabines and Etruscans who
marched to Rome ( 5). Consequently Strachan-Davidson supposes
the figures in (a) to be included in (b), but suggests that P. has
omitted those from north Italy who were liable to serve but not
actually on service; by subtracting the 558,ooo Romans, Campanians,
and south Italians from P.'s total of no,ooo, he reaches a figure of
2rz,ooo north Italians liable for service. 1
The truth seems to be that P. has been less logical than either
Mommsen or Strachan-Davidson demands. His totals must represent
the sum of his individual items- the correspondence is too close for
any other assumption; but what he has given is this. For the north
Italians who fought as national armies (Sabines, Etruscans, Umbrians, Sarsinates, Veneti, and Cenomani) he records the numbers
actually fighting {probably a high percentage of the whole) ; here
he has drawn no distinction between the number fighting and the
possible maximum. He also
the number of Romans serving
in the legions, and of the allied auxiliaries attached thereto, whether
from north or south Italy ( 3-4, 9, IJ). Further he gives the total
number of Roman adult male citizens ( 14), perhaps from the
census lists. But for south Italy, which had to be included in a
picture of the full strength of Italy at the time of the Second Punic
War( I-2), his only figures were those of the Kamypa.pal, and these
he gave unaltered (for he cannot have known how many of these
were serving as auxiliaries with legions). Finally, P. added up all
these figures to give a grand total for Italy. This total omits all
north Italians not on service and counts south Italians acting as
auxiliaries with the legions twice over; it also counts twice over
those Romans and Campanians actually serving in the legions, and
' One may ignore Orosius
7) who gives the number of Roman and
Campanian infantry as
i.e. 348,200. Mommsen emends this to
CCLXXxxvmrcc, i.e. Z99,2oo, which exactly fits his calculations. But Beloch
(Bevolkeru~tg, 363) follows Niebuhr (RG, ii'. 8r) in emending to ccxxxxvmcc,
which on the assumption that (b) includes (a) is perhaps a more accurate veTsion
of P.'s zso,ooo. And indeed Orosius' figure of 23,6oo Roman cavalry is closer to
P.'s 23,000 than the 26,roo required by Mommsen's theory.
I-<)8

ROME AND THE GAULS

II. 24. 3

the Sabines may also be counted twice since they were full citizens
(24. 5 n.).
Can the real total be recovered? There are the following basic
figures:
Infantry

Cavalry

Romans and Campanians

available
South Italians available

250,000
250,000

North Italians on service .

500,000
9o,ooo+

58,ooo
S,ooo (estimating the cavalry
for Umbrians, etc., at
4,000)

59o,ooo+

66,ooo

23,000
35,000

-------

To these totals add (a) an unknown proportion of the 6o,ooo foot

and 4,ooo horse serving with the consuls and at Rome, to represent
north Italians included in those figures; (b) a similarly unknown, but
probably smaller, proportion of the auxiliaries attached to the legions
guarding Sicily and Tarentum, representing north Italians; perhaps
the total for all these auxiliaries, whatever their origin, may be
reckoned at about ro,ooo foot and r,ooo horse, though this is a guess
(Mommsen estimated the total number of north Italians under both
these heads as 19,ooo out of 75,ooo, but this is also a guess); (c) the
adult males of military age from north Italy not on service. It is
clear that these figures are past recovery; but P.'s total looks like a
slight overestimate. P.'s source was Fabius; and his total of 8oo,ooo,
as recorded by Eutropius (iii. 5) and Orosius (iv. IJ. 6) is clearly
a rounding off of P.'s no,ooo. Ultimately going back to Fabius
too are Diodorus (xxv. r3: 7oo,ooo foot and 7o,ooo horse under
arms), Pliny (Nat. hist. iii. 138: 7oo,ooo foot and 8o,ooo horse
under arms) and Livy (ep. zo: 8oo,ooo in all). This suggests
that P. has followed Fabius closely, and that he too gave a picture
of the potential power of Rome at the time of the Hannibalic War.
The errors of calculation probably also go back to Fabius. For the
relation of P.'s figures to the third century census lists see 14 n.
Fabius' figures omit the Greeks of south Italy (who were exempt
from all military service) and the Bruttians (who were used in a
menial capacity); cf. Frank (ES, i. 58), who does not, however,
consider the real problems of this chapter.

3. J.lETu J.lEv 8~ T<7JV urr6.Twv TETTapa. (7Tpa.T6rre8a: i.e. each consul

had an army of two legions (Paton's error ('four legions each') is
reproduced by Frank, ES, i. 58). The normal complement at this
time was 4,ooo-4,2oo foot and 3oo horse (i. r6. 2, vi. 20. 8--9) ; these
legions are over-strength, an indication of the crisis (cf. vi. zo. 8).
199

II. 24. 4

ROME AND THE GAULS

4. au!ll..l.o.xo~ S 11e8' EKO.TEpwv .. ot auv6.Jlll>w: 'the allied forces in

both consular armies together' (not 'in each consular army': so
Paton, and Frank, loc. cit.). According to P. (vi. 26. 7) the allied
infantry normally equalled the Roman in number, and the cavalry
were three times as many; but before the Social War the allies
complained that 'duplici numero se militum equitumque fungi' (Vell.
Pat. ii. rs. 3) Here the allies provide 30,000 foot and 2,000 horse to
the Romans' 2o,8oo and r ,2oo; at Rome ( 9) the proportions are
similar, and for the infantry fit Velleius rather than P. In the second
century the later books of Livy show two allies being normally
enrolled to one citizen (cf. vi. 26. 6--9 n.; Strachan-Davidson, 27);
and calculations based on Livy, Appian, and P. (F. Frohlich, Die
Gardetruppen der romisclten Republik (Aarau Programm, r882), 6)
show that between 296 and r68 allied infantry usually preponderated.
5. eK: Tou K:a.~pou: 'at once, in haste' (cf. x. 43 g, xviii. 26. 8). Schweighaeuser corrected in his Lex. Polyb. his translation 'necessario tempore'; but this has misled Treves ('in que! frangente'), while Paton
mis-translates 'temporary assistance'. Shuckburgh's 'for that special
occasion', can be supported from vi. 32. 3
Io.~vwv Ka.t TuppTJvwv i'IT1l'el:s KTA.: the Sabines, an ancient people
of central Italy (cf. Strabo, v. 228, r.aAcuoraTov y~os ... Kai aU76x8ovES') and the reputed forebears of the Samnites, dwelt in the
Apennines east of the Tiber and Nar, and north of the Anio (Nissen,
It. Land. ii. 46.1 ff.; Beloch, RG, ssz). Since they had possessed
ciuitas sine suffragio since 290 (Livy, ep. II; VeiL Pat. i. r4. 5; Florus,
i. ro; auct. de uir. ill. 33 3) and full citizenship since 268 (Veil. Pat.
i. r4. 7), their mention along with the Etruscans (on whom see
r7. r n.) suggests that in the crisis of this year geographical considerations were paramount and led to the calling out of the Sabini
along with the socii {so Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 575 n. 2).
6. TOuTous .. 1rpoeK:6.81aa.v: an army of so,ooo foot and 4,ooo horse
(the equivalent of five legions with their auxiliaries) seems very
large to entrust to a praetor (d. De Sanctis, iii. r. 307 n. ro7 ). It is
possible that Fabius has confused the praetor's force with the maximum levy; but reductions in number (Beloch, IB, 94, would reduce
the praetor's army to two legions) must be wholly arbitrary.
7. o{ . "Oil~poL Ka.l Ia.paLV6.To~: see 16. 3 n. (Umbrians). Sarsina,
Plautus' home (d. Mostell. no), lay on the head-waters of the R.
Sapis, to the north of the ager Gall!'ezts, in Umbria; its inhabitants
(usually Sarsinates though Pliny (1\'at. h1:st. iii. II4, etc.) and inscriptions have Sassinates) were forcibly enrolled in the alliance and
separated from Umbria in 266. Perhaps they originally controlled
the whole Sapis valley, with the (later extinct) Sappinates and the
tribus Sapinia (d. Livy, xxxi. 2. 6, xxxiii. 37 x). See :Kissen, It. Land.
ii. 378, and Philipp, RE, 'Sarsina', cols. so-sr. Beloch (IB, 99)
200

ROME AND THE GAULS

would raise P.'s figure of zo,ooo for these tribes. On the Veneti and
Cenomani see I 7. 4-5 n., ZJ. z n. P. has omitted the cavalry of all these
four peoples; on the normal ratio this would come to about 4,000
horse in all. Their function in the Roman plan ( 8) was to carry
out a diversionary offensive against the Boii in Emilia.
10. ICO.Ta.ypo.cJ>a.l. S' ilVfJVEX9TtaO.\I: the aTToypwpal of ZJ. 9 The subsequent figures represent maximum levies: see z4 n.
AaTlvwv . Ia.uv~Twv: after the dissolution of the Latin League in
338, Latini (nomen Latinum, socii nominis Lat1:ni) included (a) the
original Latin and Hernican states which had not been incorporated
in Rome, (b) the Latin colonies scattered throughout Italy, whose
citizens had Latin status. 'Since the Latin Name lacked a specific
territorial unity, the term was inevitably interpreted in a political
and social sense alone, as meaning persons of a certain status'
(Sherwin-White, 95; see especially 91 ff.). It seems unlikely, therefore,
that only Latin colonies are here included (Beloch, IE, 99). Samnite
territories (cf. i. 6. 4 n.) had been much limited since the Samnite
and Tarentine Wars by the planting of Roman and Latin colonies
(Beloch, RG, 539-44); Beloch argues (IE, <)8) that their numbers
here include the Hirpini, and perhaps the people of Nola, Nuceria,
and even Sidicinum.
11. 'la.'ITuywv ~eal MEaaa'ITU.>v: terms with a somewhat fluid connotation. In iii. 88. 3 the Messapians are part of the Iapygians; here
Iapygia probably signifies Apulia (v.ith the Apuli, Daunii, and
Peucetii), and Messapia Calabria (with the Sallentini). All these
tribes are closely related in tongue and culture. See Philipp, RE,
'Iapyges', cols. 727 ff.; M. Mayer, RE, 'Messapia', cols. IIiS ff.; De
Sanctis, ii. 462 n. 3 Since 16,ooo horse is disproportionate to so,ooo
foot, it has been widely emended to 6,ooo (Beloch, Eevolkerung, i.
359; IE, 9i; DeSanctis, ii. 462 n. 3; Treves ad Joe.).
12. AEu~eavwv: the Lucanians, Roman allies since the late fourth
century, dwelt among the southern Apennines between the R.
Silurus {modern Sele) just north of Paestum and the R. Laos (Laino)
on the west coast, and between the R. Crathis (Crati) and the
R. Bradanus (Bradano) on the Gulf of Tarentum. They had already
lost Paestum, where a Latin colony was founded in 273; and their
small levy may be due to many of the people's being subject to the
Greek cities of the gulf (Nissen, It. Land. i. 535). P.'s figure was questioned byBeloch(Rh. Af.us., r877, 247), but unjustifiably (Mommsen,
Rom. Forsch. ii. 394 n. 1z). See further Beloch, RG, 591 ff.; Honigmann, RE, 'Lucania', cols. 1541 ff.
Mapawv Mo.ppouKlvwv cj)~pEVTclVWV o.:,.,aT(vwv : tribal confederations of the central Apennines. The Marsi, of Sabine origin,
lived around the Fucine Lake and the upper Liris valley. The
Marrucini were to the north-east of the Marsi, between the mountains
201

II.

24. 12

ROME AND THE GAULS

and the Adriatic, south of the R. Aternus; their capital was Teate
(modem Chieti). The Oscan-speaking Frentani dwelt along the coast
south of the Marrucini, as far as the R. Tifernus (or the R. Frento, if
one includes the Larinates Frentani). These peoples joined the confederacy in 304 (Diod. xx. ror. 5; Livy, ix. 45 r8; Beloch, RG, 403}.
and the Vestini, who lived along and to the north of the R. Aternus,
in 302/r (Livy, x. 3 r). The Paeligni, who lived between the Marsi
and Marrucini (cf. Li-v-y, viii. 29. 4; DeSanctis, ii. 462 n. 3), though
not mentioned here, are probably included in P.'s calculations
(Beloch, Bevolkerung, 365). Twenty thousand infantry seems a small
number for these Abruzzi tribes, and Reloch (Bevolkerung, 36o; I B,
97--98; cf. DeSanctis, ii, 462 n. 3) suggests that it should be changed
to 4o,ooo, which would restore the normal ratio of r : ro between
horse and foot. See further Nissen (It. Land. i. srs-18, 527-8).
13. Ka.l. ~v :IlKEMliJ- Ka.L T6.pa.VTl: Tarentum, the principal harbour in
south Italy (x. 1), and Sicily both needed protection in case of any
move from Carthage. These legions were slightly under strength in
cavalry.
14. 'Pw!lo.lwv 8i Kal Ka!l1Tavwv iJ 1TATJ8U'>: these figures probably indude those serving in the legions (24 n.). They must be considered
in conjunction with the third-century census figures for Roman
citizens:
292,234 (Livy, ep. 16; cf. Eutrop. ii. r8 (text
uncertain; cf. DeSanctis, ii. 425 n. 3) .}
297,797 (Livy, ep. r8.)
241,212 (Livy, ep. 19.)
26o,ooo (Hieron. in Euseb. Chron. ii. 123
(Euseb. ibid. 122 gives 25o,ooo).)
270,713 (Livy, ep. 20 (text uncertain).)
137,108 (Livy, xxvii. 36. 7; cf. Frank, ES, i.
56-57)
2q,ooo (Livy, xxix. 37 s-6.)
Against Mommsen's view that these are figures for iuniores only,
i.e. men between r8 and 46 (Rom. Farsch. ii. 398 f.; St.-R. ii. 411 n. r)
see the arguments of Strachan-Davidson (28 ff.) and Beloch (Bevolkerung, 3IZ ff., 343 ff.). Beloch discusses other theories, and recently
Schultz (Mnem., 1937, 161 ff.) has argued that the figures excluded
men over 6o. But the most probable view is that they include all
adult male citizens. The likelihood is that P.'s figures here are on the
same basis, and include both smtiores and iuniores (unlike those for
the allies: 23. 9 n.); but whether the ciues sine suffragio (Campanians,
Hernicans, etc.) were included in the census is not certain. Clearly
P. has given a round figure, and it is possible that he (or his source)
has adjusted the census figure to allow for ciues sine suffragio and
202

ROME AND THE GAULS

II. 25. 6

men serving abroad (and so excluded from the census). But these
would probably more or less cancel out the number of men over
military age included in the census figures, which is what P. most
likely gives. His total would fit very well into the list of figures for
the third century, 273,000 compared with 270,713 in 234. See Frank
(CAH, vii. 8n; ES, i. 58-59), Beloch (op. cit., supra; IB, 96), De
Sanctis (ii. 463 n. r), Gelzer (Hermes, 1935, 27,3). On Orosius (iv. 13. 7)
see footnote to 24 n.; clearly it must be omitted from consideration
in this context.
15. To Kco+6.Aa.Lov T~lV !lEY trpoKa.9"1J.Livwv Tijs 'Pw!ll]S 5uv6.f1Ewv: how
these 15o,ooo+ foot and 6,ooo horse 'stationed before Rome' are to
be calculated is not clear ; and on any method this figure for thecavalry
seems too small. Beloch (I B, 94) argues that the 15o,ooo are a reduction
of the twelve legions with their auxiliaries which P. found in Fabius
(assuming two under the praetor in Etruria: see 24. 6 n.); but (a)
the total of twelve is only achieved by a forced reckoning, (b) P.
speaks of over 15o,ooo foot, (c) Beloch himself admits 6,ooo horse to
be too few. Mommsen (Rom. Forsch. ii. 38g-go) observed that these
figures are not relevant to an account of the strength of the forces
facing Hannibal; hence they are best regarded as a gloss (with
Hultsch, Blittner-Wobst, and Strachan-Davidson). The words to be
bracketed are [K</J(l.Aawv ... T6 8"1 or (with Strachan-Davidson) [waT'
lvat . .. taKwxtAlov>].
17. AaTTous . 5uY!lup(wv: on Hannibal's numbers see iii. 35 1 n.;
cf. iii. 33 r8. Here P. neglects his 6o,ooo cavalry.
aa.+iuTEpov EKtrmf)uEL Ka.Ta.voEiv: 'it will be possible to win a clearer
understanding'; for the impersonal use of EK7TOt'i cf. xxix. 8. ro.

25. 2. Kl\ouaLov: Clusium (modern Chiusi) lay in the Clanis valley

(Val di Chiana) on the route from Rome to Arretium, the later Via
Cassia; at r6o km. from Rome it is a long three days' march, and De
Sanctis (iii. r. 308 n. w8) suggests emending to 'five', i.e. E for r.
But the tradition would exaggerate the proximity of the danger.
3. ol 5' ES U'ITOO'Tpo+ijs a'ITTJVTWV: cf. iii. 14. 5 The Roman forces
under the praetor (24. 6) were evidently stationed near Clusium or
Perusia, so as to keep in touch with the two legions of Aemilius
Papus, the consul, at Ariminum (23. 5). In case of need Aemilius
could march south through the Fnrlo Pass to Iguvium and Perusia
(cf. z6. r ff.).
6. ti>s etrt .. 4'a.tuoAav: 'towards Faesulae'; Faesulae is So miles from
Clusium and the Gauls obviously did not march there overnight (if
Casanbon's emendation of mho~ to ain-ov is to be accepted, P. has
not fully understood Fabius). De Sanctis (iii. 1. 3o8) suggests the
feigned retreat was only as far as Montepulciano in the Val di
Chiana. 7Tapvl{1al.ov is 'they encamped' (cf. i. 77 6) or 'they drew up
20}

II. 25.6

ROME AND THE GAULS

for battle' (d. v. 69. 7); 10 suggests that the second is the meaning
here (Schweighaeuser).
26. 1. AEuK,oc; AiJ.LiAtoc; 1Ta.pfjv ~oTJ8wv: having come through the
Cales gap into the upper Tiber valley (zs. 3 n.). His arrival ~:ifrvxws
ds- oiovra Katpov dramatically foreshadows the approaching peripeteia of T elamon.
2. O.vo1TAouc;: 'to facilitate their progress and mitigate their situation
in the case of capture' (Treves).
5. To Twv o-WJ.LclTwv Ka.i 8pEJ.LJ.Lchwv 1TATj8oc;: 'the number of prisoners
and cattle'. Paton translates awJ.tam 'slaves'; but in P. it is more
often used of prisoners, whether free or slaves. Cf. 6. 6,awJ.taTa oovAtKa and AEv8~:pa, and Schweighaeuser, Lex. Polyb. s.v.
7. Ka.Ta T~v ~VTJpoia-Tou yvwJ.LTJV: Fabius no doubt had information
of this conference from Gallic survivors after Telamon. But either
he, or possibly P. abbreviating his account, has failed to appreciate the extent to which the Gauls still controlled events. Their
present camp was well to the north of Clusium ; they next appear
marching north up the Etruscan coast towards Telamon, which lies
on a latitude approximately 40 miles south of Clusium. They had
thus made a vast sweep to the south-east, perhaps to avoid central
Etruria (DeSanctis, iii. r. 309), but certainly with scant respect for
Aemilius, who could do little more than hang on their heels in anticipation of 'Fabian' tactics ( 8).
1Tpofjyov 1TO.pa 86.Aa.TTO.V s,a. TTJS T uppTJVWV xwpa.c;: 'they advanced
through Etruria along the sea-coast.' The point at which they
reached the coast can only be surmised; De Sanctis (iii. 1. 309) suggests the mouth of the Albegna near Orbetello, but they may have
gone farther south. Eventually they would have returned through
Liguria or up the Arno valley.
27-30. The battle of Telamon. The source is Fabius (d. Bung, 172).
Conflicting details occur in Zonaras (viii. zo) and Orosius (iv. 13. 8),
both of whom make Atilius perish in a separate struggle. Whether
certain votive offerings discovered at Telamon are connected with
the battle is not certain: cf. DeSanctis (iii. 1. 312 n. 1n).
27. 1. EK Ia.pOOVO') ... r 6.i'oc; ~TLALO<; EL<; no-a.c; KO.T0.1TE1TAEUKWS:
cf. 23. s-6 n. Pisa (16. 3 n.) was not a natural port to use for communications v.ith Corsica, and its choice here was based on sound
strategy. By cutting off the Gauls from Liguria and the north,
Atilius made the victory of Telamon possible (though he could
hardly have foreseen their choice of the coast road).
2. TEAJ.LWVa. TTJS TuppTJva.s: the Etruscan town lay not at the
modem Talamone (Nissen, It. Land. ii. 308--9) but farther to the east

ROME AND THE GAULS

II. 29. 8

at Poggio di Talamonaccio, on the right bank of the R. Osa; see

Gamurrini (Not. d. scav., r888, 682 ff.), Philipp (RE, 'Telamon (4)',
cols. 192-3).
ot 1rpovoj1EUOVTE\i: 'their foragers' (not 'their advanced guard'
(Paton)). The Romans normally sent an advanced guard to discover
a camping ground (vi. 41. r); but on this occasion it was early in the
day (cf. 6, T~v vvKm, the previous night), and though the Romans
were not strong on reconnaissance (cf. iii. 83 ff. for Trasirnene),
Atilius' 7Tporrop<v61Ln'ot are apparently a reconnaissance force. But
this would be a refinement beyond a band of Gallic marauders.
3. O.~oTepwv Twv aTpa.To'll'e8uw: i.e. the consular army of Aemilius
and the army of the Gauls.
4. T~v j1ETW'IT1')8bv 4>oSov: 'a direct frontal advance'. Cf. xi. 22. ro.
In Thucydides (ii. 90. 4) ships sailing fL<TW7T'I'}Oov, in line, are contrasted with others bri K<pws, in column. Here the sense is clear:
Atilius had his men advance straight forward in an extended acies
instead of the usual column of march, the agmen.
28. 7. Ta<; O.va.~up(Sa.<; : 'trousers', Latin bracae. They were the typical
barbarian garment, worn loose and fastened close at the ankles: they
are so represented on Trajan's Column. Cf. Strabo, iv. 196; Diod.
v. Jo-JI; Mau, RE, avatvptliEs, cols. 2IOQ-I.
Tous EU'II'ETE'i:<; Twv uciywv: 'their light cloaks'. The Gauls wore the
cloak known in Latin as sagum.
8. ot 8~ r a.~aaTa.l YU!lVOL: these wild men from beyond the Alps
still maintained the Celtic custom of fighting naked; cf. iii. II4. 4;
Diod. v. 29. 2, 30. 3 (Poseidonius); Livy, xxxviii. 21. 9, 26. 7 (from
P. on the Galatians of Asia Minor). Germans, too, occasionally fought
naked; Tac. Germ. 6. 2; Hist. ii. 22. See P. Couissin, Annates de la
faculti des lettres d' Aix, 1928--9, 65-89, 'La nudite guerriere des
Gaulois'; M. Launey, REA, 1944, 222 n. 4
Toi<; f.q,cip.JLa.O'L: !J.rr. >u:y. l<foa.f.LILa seems to include both sagum and
lrracae; Suidas, quoting this passage, calls it a rr~ptf3>.."7f-La, however,
equating it with e.f,>a7TT{';;, a Soldier's Upper garment (cf. XXX. 25. 10).
11. rslOv Kal. lla.u!lO.O'TOV: cf. 29. I tvryv Ka.l. 7TUp'I')MayfLEV'Y]V, zg. 7
eK7T>..'I'}KTtK~. The stress on the sensational in P.'s narrative may be
imported from Fabius; cf. CQ, 1945, 12; above i. r. 4 n.
29. 1. Ti)v XPEa.v Tou o-uVTETa.yJLevou: 'the movements of the
forces marshalled against each other' (Paton).
8. p.a.vuiKa.L<; Kal 11'EpLxrtpms: 'necklets and bracelets' ; the 1-Lavtdxat
(3L s) are torques, the typical Celtic adornment (cf. Euphorion,
Polychares (in Et. magtt. 22J. r6), Fat,ijTat 7T~pl s~ip~a XPVao.f,>op~VJITE>).
not, as Much (ZDA, 1932, 44) suggests, their wages as mercenaries,
drawn in advance.
205

II.

]0. I

ROME AND THE GAULS

30. 1. To us d.KovnaTas: cf. iii. 65. 3 ff., 69. 8; they are iaculatores,
javelin-throwers, whom P. often mentions as ypoa,Pof-Laxo~. the
equivalent of uelites (cf. i. 33 9 n.) .
.EvEpyo'Ls Ka.i 'II'UKvo'Ls: 'thick and fast' (not, as Paton, 'well-aimed').
3. TOU ra.Xa.nKOU 8upEou: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 21. 4 (of the Galatians),
scuta tonga ... et ... plana. The oval Gallic 8vpEo<; is frequently
represented on ancient monuments; cf. P. R. von Bienkowski, Die
Darstellung der Gallier in der hellenistischen Kunst (Vienna, 19o8),
figs. ro4, ro7, 109, nr, IIJ, 121; and other works quoted by Launey
(REA, 1944, 222 n. r). It was too narrow to cover the massive bodies
of the Gauls; cf. Plutarch (Philop. 9) on the Achaean shields, prior
to Philopoemen's reforms: dnnoTim 8ta T~v AE1rTDT'1JTa Kal aTEvwTipot<;
Tov 1TEpurriX\nv TU adJj.LaTa.
7. E'll'' !aov Ta.'Ls !Jruxa.'is: for the factor of morale cf. 35 8, i. 59 6
(where, in the rfroxoJLaxla which ended the First Punic War, the
Romans had also a worthy opponent), and iii. 9 7
8. Schweighaeuser fills the lacuna exem.pli gratia: . . . JLEya>.~v
Otatfoopav [ifxovaL 'PwJLalw;;, OLa TO TOVTWV JLiV TOV 8vpEOV oAov TO (JWJLU
aKE1TEtV, Tov 8 Ta>.aTLKov {JpaxvTEpov Elvat, Kai Dta TO T~v 'PwJLatK~v
JLEV (Kal T~v JLEV 'PwJLULK~V Hultsch) J.Ldxatpav Kal TO KlVTIJJLU 8uJ4>Dpov
KaL Kamrf>opdv N; dJL,Pov Toi:v JLEpofv {Jlawv] lxnv, KTA. For the substance of this see 33 5, iii. 114. 2 ff., vi. 23. 7, fg. 179. J.Lq6.X1Jv is to
be taken with fna<fopdv, not with 1rpfii;w (as Treves): 1rpu~tv, 'offence',
balanCeS aa,P\naV, 'safety', KUTU,Popa lS 'cutting-edge' (cf. iii. 114. 3,
vi. 23- 7); elsewhere (e.g. 33 3 33 5) it means 'cutting-stroke'.
31. 1. Gallic losses. The 4o,ooo dead appear in other sources (cf.
Diod. xxv. 13; Eutrop. iii. 5; Oros. iv. 13. ro); the ro,ooo+ prisoners
are not mentioned elsewhere. Together they account for over 5o,ooo
of the 7o,ooo with which the Gauls set out (23. 4 n.).
KoytcoXmivos: according to Diodorus (xxv. 13) he was subordinate
to Aneroestes (Tov JLEYWTov aV"Twv {JaatMa).
2. a.uTte Ka.i To'Ls O.va.y~ea.(ms: the dvayKai'ot are here the king's entourage, perhaps including his wives (cf. Caesar, BG, i. 53 4 on
Ariovistus); so Treves, ad loc. For the hysteron proteron to avoid
hiatus see 2. 2 n.
3. Ta !lEV cr~eu>..a. . T1)v o Xt:la.v: the former is the plunder and trophies talcen from the Gauls, the latter the booty they had assembled
during their expedition. o[ 1TpomJKDVTE<; are 'the owners' (a sense not
listed in LSJ).
4. ds T~\1 TCl\1 Bolwv .. xtilpa.v: i.e. into Emilia (r7. 8); on the
expedition see Diod. xxv. 13; Zon. viii. 20. Aemilius will hardly have
returned tv o>.lyat> ~f-Llpat>. Since he triumphed 'III non. mart.' (224),
and will not have campaigned in winter, evidently he crossed the
Apennines in September-October 225, and returned along the line
206

ROME AND THE GAULS

II. 32.

of the Via Flaminia. Diodorus' statement that he invaded the Po

valley as proconsul may be neglected, for he triumphed as consul.
5. To Kn1TET6>Atov: Florus {i. zo) and Dio (fg. so. 4; cf. Zon. viii. 20)
have a story that the Gauls had sworn an oath not to doff their belts
or breastplates till they entered the Capitol (uncaptured in 387);
this they fulfilled as prisoners in Aemilius' triumph. The UTJJLt/iat are
Gallic standards; on the p.a.wiKa' see 29. 8 (where the definition might
have come more appropriately).
8. tenTEA1TcrnvTES' 'Pwjlnot 5uv..)crecr9nL tK~aAeiv: just as the
capture of Agrigentum inspired them with the ambition to seize
all Sicily (i. zo. In.). This schematic development of Roman ambitions is probably P.'s own, rather than the work of Fabius Pictor
(Heuss, HZ, 169, 1949-5o, 488 n. r, against Gelzer, Hermes, 1933, 151).
Ko'(vTov CI>6Xoutov tent TTov M&-Atov: T. Manlius T.f. T.n. Torquatus
and Q. Fulvius M.f. Q.n. Flaccus, the consuls of A.U.C. 530
224 B.C.
The same pair had been elected censors in 231, but abdicated owing
to a flaw in their election. That both were sent to Cisalpine Gaul is
proof of the seriousness of the Roman effort. See Munzer, RE,
'Manlius (8z)', cols. 1207--9; 'Fulvius (59)'. cols. 243-6.
9. ds n)v 'PwJ.lawv enuTOUS' 8ovva.t 1T'Lcrnv: this is an act of deditio
(n. 5-12 n.). Orosius' story (iv. 13. n), that the Po was crossed,
23,ooo Insubrians slain, and s.ooo taken prisoner, is probably an
annalistic invention (nothing to correspond appears in the act. tr.).
It is very unlikely that the Romans crossed the Po in this year. See
DeSanctis, iii. I. 313 n. 1q..
10. els TEAOS G'!TpnKTOV dxov: if T6v AoL7r6v xp&vov is the object of
11:lxov, arrpai<.'TOV is predicatiVe, if an adverbial aCCUSative, arrpaKTOV
is also adverbial. The sense is the same in either case.
32. 1. no1T'ALOS Cl>ooptos teal r<l.i:os CI>XaJlvws: P. Furius Sp.f. M.n.
Philus and C. Flaminius C.f. L.n. the consuls of A.U.C. 531
223 B.c. See Munzer, RE, 'Furius (8o)', col. 36r; and, on Flaminius,
21. 8 n.
Sta TllS' TWV 'Av<l.pwv xwpa.s teTA.: on their situation see I7. 7 n.
Philipp (RE, 'Massalia (2)', cols ..Zisz-3) argues that the Massalia
here mentioned is a town in Italy; but one does not explain the little
by the lesser known, and clearly Massalia must be Marseilles. The
various proposed emendations (see Hultsch, introd. liii-liv) are unnecessary: for it is clear from 14. 6 (cf. 14. 8) that to P. the Alps
began a little to the north of Massalia; and since the Anares were
the first people in the Po valley south of the river, they were clearly
not far from that city. P. has been misled by his own schematic
description, as Cuntz (61) saw. The Roman route lay through Liguria,
and over the Apennines by the passes north of Genoa; see Nissen,
It. Land. i. 473 The Anares also made an act of deditio ( z).

II. 32.

ROME AND THE GAULS

2. Ka.Tcl TclS auppola.s TOU T' :t\Soa. Ka.i n&Sou: they crossed the Po
at its junction with the Addua (modern Adda) between Placentia
and Cremona.
3. Aa.(3ovTt:S SE wAfJyas KTA.: this defeat and agreement {which left
Flaminius free to march away and link up with the Cenomani) make
little sense. Probably the defeat is an exaggeration and the agreement a fiction { s); and Flaminius' original object was to join the
Cenomani. The distortion, De Sanctis suggests (iii. r. 314 n. II7), is
a reflection of the senatorial hostility towards him which permeates
our sources, including Fabius; see 21. 8 n.
4. Tov KAouuLov woTJlOV: should be the modern Chiese, a tributary
of the Oglio; but this and not the Chiese formed the western limit
of Cenomani country (17. 4 n.), and perhaps the name of the tributary
has been applied to the main stream (M:ommsen, CIL, v. 413 n. 2;
Nissen, It. Land. ii. 196 n. 2), either inadvertently or following contemporary usage.
6. Tns xpuuO.s O'TJJlELs: these standards were dedicated to Minerua,
or her Celtic equivalent, of whom Caesar writes (BG, vi. q. 2) that
'Mineruam operum atquc artificiorum initia tradere'. She was, v..Tites
Jullian (L 357), 'deesse de Ia guerre et de victoire, qui rappelait ala
fois Bellone, Athene ou Minerve'. They were suspended in one of her
temples, perhaps at the Insubrian capital of Mediolanum (so
Schweighaeuser). The word dKw7}Tous has special point since KU'Ei:v
was the technical expression for removing sacred objects from
temples (cf. Thuc. i. 143. I, ii. 24. I, vi. 70. 4; see Schweighaeuser on
Appian, B.C. ii. 41). In this case the Insubres removed the standards
as a source of divine protection. \Vunderer's emendation av~K~Tou.
(i. 72-73) is to be rejected. See also R. Hercod, 87.
8. T~\1 Tt: r a.Aa.nKTjv tHlEula.v: 'the treachery of the Gauls' ; cf. iii. 49. 2.
70. 4, 78. 2. Paton translates diJw{av 'fickleness' and Treves 'instability,
inconstancy' (quoting Caesar's estimate of Gauls as ever eager for
novelty, BG, iii. ro. 3, iv. 5 r). But toP. the meaning is stronger,
positive treachery rather than negative instability. See Schweighaeuser, Lex. Polyb. &.iJwia, commenting on fg. I a (B-W), 'certe
grauius quid P. TI)v diJwlav dicere consueuit quam rif311{5ato77jTa id est
leuitatem et inconstantiam'.
9. EVTos Tou woTO.JlOU: i.e. on the right bank of the river. This should
be the Clusius (= Oglio, 32. 4 n.), but P.'s topography here is not
very clear. The Cenomani were dispatched to the left bank.
33. The battle against the Insubres. The account follows the anti~
Flaminian tone of 21. 7--9 and 32. 3 The innovation of the military
tribunes, which is never heard of again, seems invented to contrast
with Flaminius' incompetence. On P.'s picture of 1<1aminius, which
remains consistent down to his death at Trasimene, see Gelzcr
208

ROME AND THE GAULS

II. 33 9

(Hermes, 1933, 152-3); and on this passage De Sanctis (iii. 1. 315).

P. omits the sensational prodigies, and the letter of recall sent by the
Senate to Flaminius, and left unopened until after the battle, which
adorn the Livian tradition; cf. Plut. Marc. 4; Fab. 2; Zon. viii. 20;
Oros. iv. 13. 12-14; Livy, xxi. 63. z, 63. 7, 63. 12, xxii. 3 4, 3 r3. See
DeSanctis, iii. 1. 314 n. 115.
3 .,.o.is t<Q.TO.O't<t:uo.1s: 'from the way they are made' (Paton), cf.
30. 7-9 The long Celtic swords of the middle La Tene period, such as
the Insubres will have used, are well kno"'11 from excavations, and
of excellent quality, though suited only to slashing because of their
blunt points (Dechelette, M anuet d' arcMologie, ii. 3 (Paris, 1914),
II09 ff., II29 ff.). P.'s story of the swords that bent reads like 'one
of those tales told by soldiers to while away idle moments in camp'
(DeSanctis, iii. 1. 315). and also, one may add, to reassure the teller
and his audience. A modern parallel might be the story, popular in
England in the winter of 1939{4o, of a German tank which unexpectedly proved to be made of cardboard. On the Gallic sword see
Plut. Cam. 41 (about Brennus); Polyaen. viii. 7. 2 (drawing on
Plutarch). One may neglect the theory of S. Reinach (Cultes, mythes
et religions, iiiz (Paris, 1913), 152 ff.) that the story grew out of a
Celtic sepulchral rite of burying a dead man's bent sword with him.
4 . .,.a, TWv Tplo.p(wv SOpo..,.o.: instead of pila, the triarii (vi. 21. 7-10)
carried hastae,long spears. Since the triarii had only half the strength
of the other classes (vi. 29. 4), these spears suffi.ced, not for all the
hastati, but only for their TTpCinat <J7TEipat, the maniples in front.
EK fLETo.At)l(iEws: i.e. after taking up their swords instead of their
spears.
5. cl.+EAOfLEVOL TTJY Et< liLO.puEws fLO.XlJ": 'depriving them of the
power of raising their hands and cutting' (Paton). The Romans got
close in, so that the Gauls had no space to use a slashing action; cf.
iii. 114. 3, ~ ?ie Ta>.an~ 1-'d:x.mpa 1-'{av elxff XPfflav T~v tK I<CLTa,Popiis, Kat
-raV'T-rjv

;g a7Torrn:i<JEWS'.

6. Et< lho.Xt)+Ewc;: bp9o.is X~flEVOL To.ic;: fLxa.(po.~c;:: K Sw.A'lj,PEws,

punctim, 'with a thrusting stroke', see Schweighaeuser's long note
ad loc. By dp6ats P. may mean that the swords were kept straight,
i.e. that the movement, punctim, was along the line of the sword, or
alternatively that the Roman swords did not bend.
7 . .,.c, .,.Tjc;: 'PwfLO.i:t<"lc;: flGXlJi 'llhov: room to manreuvre in all directions,
including backwards, was essential to manipular fighting; cf. xviii.
25. 4 for the retreat of the Roman left 7Tt TToi'la at Cynoscephalae
(Meyer, J(l. Schr. ii. 214 n. 3). The tactic of retiring in battle against
the Gauls is discussed by Kromayer (AS, iii. I. 368 ff.).
9. va.vfiADov Eic;: TT)v 'PwfL"lv: Flaminius triumphed by a popular
vote VI idus mart. (222) de Galleis, and "Furius Jill t"dus mart. de
Gatleis et Liguribus (act. tr.). Their victories were celebrated on coins
4866

209

H. 33 9

ROME AND THE GAULS

(see B.M.C. Rom. Rep. ii. zj8, z83); and according to Livy (xxiii.
14. 4) the spoils were sufficient to arm 6,ooo men.
34. 1. MapKOS K>.uoliLOS KUt rva..:os KopYtlALOS: M. Claudius M.f.
M.n. Marcellus and Cn. Cornelius L.f. L.n. Scipio Calvus, consuls
A.U.c. 532
222 B.C. Both were to have outstanding careers against
Hannibal: see Munzer, RE, 'Claudius (z2o)', cols. 2738-55; Henze,
RE, 'Cornelius (345)', cols. 1491-2. Since the previous year's consuls
abdicated after their triumphs (Livy, xxi. 63. 2; Plut. Marc. 4 3,
6. r; Zon. viii. .zo), they probably entered office on the Ides of March;
and this seems to have remained the regular date for entry into
office until I53 See De Sanctis, iii. I. 316 n. 122; Mommsen, St.-R.
i. 598 f.; Broughton, ii. 638-9. There is some evidence that P.'s
account is somewhat weighted in favour of Cornelius, at Marcellus'
expense, perhaps because of his connexion with the Scipionic family
(Munzer, art. cit.).
4. 1T6Aw !A.xippuc.;: the Tabula Peutingeriana puts Acherrae 22 miles
from Laus Pompeii {Lodi Vecchio) and 13 from Cremona; it lay on
the Addua a little above its confluence with the Po, and corresponds
to Gera near Pizzighettone. See Nissen, It. Land. ii. rg2.
5. K>.aaTlBLOv: Clastidium, modern Casteggio, in the territory of the
Anares (17. 7, 32. 1-z), lay on the fringe of the hills south of the Po,
between I ria (Voghera) and Ticinum (Pavia). See iii. 69. I for its
capture by Hannibal; Nissen, It. Land. ii. 271.
6. Ka.t TLVas Twv m;tLKwY: 6oo, according to Plutarch (Marc. 6. 6), who
also records that Marcellus took two-thirds of the cavalry. Plutarch
(Marc. 6--7) gives a fuller account of this battle than P., very favourable to Marcellus, and probably containing annalistic accretions;
see DeSanctis, iii. r. 317 n. u.7. It may be deliberately (34 In.) that
P. omits the gaining of spolia opima by Marcellus in his duel with
the Insubrian chieftain Viridumarus (act, tr.; Livy, ep. 20; Florus,
i. 20. 5; Eutrop. iii. 6; Oros. iv. r3. rs; Ampel. 2I; Val. Max. iii. 2. 5;
Frontin. Strat. iv. 5 4; auct. de uir, ill. 45 r; Plut. Marc. 7--8; Rom.
r6. 7-8; comp. Pelop. et Marc. r. z; Serv. ad Aen. vi. 855; also
celebrated by many poets including Naevius in his play Clastidium,
and Propertius (iv. Io. 39 ff.); see too B.M.C. Rom. Rep.i. 567).
8. a.thoi:s Toi:s t1T1Tilaw 1Tpoam:cr6VTwv: by extending his cavalry
line Marcellus avoided the risk of being outflanked (Plut. Marc.
6. ro).
9 . .,ts Tov 1TOTO.f10Y: its identity is not clear; the Po is 8 miles north
of Casteggio.
10. Mc;~ho>.a.vov: the Insubrian capital (17. 4 n.), modern Milan, on
the site of Etmscan Melpum (r7. r n.), which the Gauls destroyed
in 3 (Nepos ap. Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 125). Cf. Nissen, It. I.and. ii.
r8o ff.; Philipp, RE, 'Mediolanum (r)', cols. 91-95.
210

ROME AND THE GAULS

II. 35 4

15. o S fvO.i:os .. To MtSt6Aa.vov ttAt: after glossing over Scipio's

rashness in advancing to Milan with only a third of his cavalry, and
underlining his success in rallying his shaken force, P. omits to
mention that it was only after Marcellus rejoined him that Milan
fell. See Plut. Marc. 7; Eutrop. iii. 6; Oros. iv. 13. 15; Zon. viii. 20.
35. 1. mivTa. . hrhptljlav TOL'i 'Pwp.aoto;: by deditio; how far miv
7TOt1JaLI' vmaxvovp./vwv (34 1) had fallen Short of readineSS to Carry
this out is not clear. But obviously both consuls and the war-party
were bent on a military demonstration.
2-10. The importance of the Gallic wars. P. underlines the lesson for
the benefit of Greek readers ( 9). It is (a) that in such incidents
Fortune and the unexpected play a large part ( s. 8). cf. 4 s. (b)
that a policy based on courage and reason will outmatch one based
on passion ( 3, 8). Such digressions are a regular feature of P.'s
method; d. i. 65. 5-9 (lessons of the Mercenary War), 84. 6----9 (lessons
of Hamilcar's success), iii. 21. 9-10 (reasons for surveying the
Romano-Carthaginian treaties in full) ; these examples could be
multiplied.
2. TWV .. lmoAXufLvwv tca.L 11'a.paTa.TTOfLvwv: hysteron proteron to
avoid hiatus; cf. 2. 2 n.
oliSEvos Ka.Ta.SEaTEpos TWV ~aTOPTJfLvwv: this is a common To7To:> of
ancient historians; cf. Thuc. i. 1. 2, 21. 2 (the Peloponnesian vVar
the greatest and most memorable). P. uses it repeatedly; cf. i. 63. 4 f.
(comparison with the Persian and Peloponnesian wars), 88. 7 (the
Mercenary War the cruellest ever fought), iii. 1. ro (the period of
fifty-three years, 22o-167, more packed with serious events than any
other); on its usual character see v. 33 I. Lorenz (99 n. 228) quotes
examples from later historians.
3. 9ufL~ fLO.AAov ~ AoytafL~ ~pa.~E..)Ea9a.t: cf. 30. 4, V7ro ToiJ 8vp.oiJ Kal
ri}> .i.\oytaT{as-, 35 8. The sentiment is very typical of P. For the
metaphor of the umpire in {Jpa{J!Jw8at cf. i. 58. 1.
4. a.uTous . wa6vTa.'i: Cisalpine Gaul was pacified in the two
decades following the peace of 201; but details are not contained in
the surviving parts of P. The Boii were defeated in 191 (Livy, xxxvi.
38. s-7). and Strabo (v. 213, 216) records their expulsion to the
Danube area; but according to Livy (xxxvi. 39 3) they merely had
to cede Bononia and half their land, and Strabo's story may be a
false deduction from the presence of Boii in Bohemia. Strabo (ibid.)
also records the annihilation of the Senones and Gaesatae; but the
Insubres (who were defeated in 197, Livy, xxxii. 30-31) continued,
he says, to inhabit their own lands. Pacification was assisted by
colonization. In 190 the Latin colonies at Cremona and Placentia
(iii. 40) were reinforced (Livy, xxxvii. 46. 9-47. 2), a Latin colony
was sent to Bononia in 189 (Livy, xxxvii. 57 7-8), and two citizen
211

11. 35 4

ROME AND THE GAULS

colonies were established at Mutina and Panna in r83 {Livy, xxxix.

55 7-8). Roads too were built, the Via Flaminia from Arretium to
Bononia, and the Via Aemilia from A.riminum to Placentia, both in
187. P., like Strabo, has, however, exaggerated the extent to which
the Gauls were physically expelled. When Strabo (v. 247) says that
the Samnites gTrmov from Pompeii, he is apparently referring to
their ejection from political control; and J. Whatmough would save
F.'s credit with the argument (Harv. Stud., 1944, 8z-8s) that gwa8l!'rs has a similar meaning here. But when P. writes avv8w;p1}aavus .. lgwaflvms, there can be little doubt what he means. He
is, however, incorrect. Hundreds of tombstones with Celtic names
dating mainly from imperial times are only the most striking of the
evidence proving that the Gauls were not expelled, but romanized;
cf. Chilver, 71-8.), and on the settlement in general, De Sanctis,
iv. r. 41o-17; T. Frank, CAH, viii. 326 ff.
1TA-i]v b'Alywv T61Twv ICELfl~vwv: P. will be thinking especially of the
tribes at the head of the Po valley, the Salassi (xxxiv. ro. r8), who
were only partially subdued in 143, and perhaps the Taurini (r5. 8 n.);
see DeSanctis, iv. r. 417
TTJV -~ cipxfts i~oSov nis J.lETci TauTu 1Tpa~ELS '~'TJ" TEAEuTutuv
t~uvuaTuow: three interpretations are possible: (a) the invasion of
387, the intervening events, the final tumultus of 225 (giving lgavaO"TaaLs this sense with Schweighaeuser); (b) the invasion of 225, the
loss and recovery of Cisalpine Gaul, and the final expulsion of the
Gauls (gavaO"TaaLs as in 2r. 9: so Casaubon, Paton, Treves, LSJ, etc.);
(c) the invasion of 387, the intervening campaigns (including 225),
and the final expulsion. The last seems most probable, since it indudes the whole story of the Gauls in Italy (as P. did in this section
and the later lost parts together). Against (a) is the improbability
that gavci.O"TaaLS means tumultus, and against (b) the improbability
that the invasion of 225 would be called~ g dpxf}s lcpoSos immediately
after a survey going back to the capture of Rome.
5. Tu TmuiJ,-' ~1TELa6SLu Ti)ll TUXTJS: lusus jortunae, Schweighaeuser
(cf. Hor. Od. ii. I, 3, ludumque Forttmae), 'such episodes in the drama
of Fortune', Shuckburgh. In his commentary Schweighaeuser suggests that P. means an interlude, dravm from the material provided
by Fortune, and inserted as a digression by the author in his history.
But it is improbable that P. admitted any part of his work to be without relevance to his design (which he had already (i. 4 r) identified
with the design of Tyche). The 'episodes' are rather the interludes
provided by Fortune herself in her role as play-producer {on which see
i. 4. 4 n. and CQ, I945, 9 n. I; to the passages there quoted add fg. :nz).
Strachan-Davidson (ad loc.) suggests that 'the incident of the Gallic
invasion is looked upon as a sort of by-play coming between the
great Acts of the Punic tragedy, which is the main business of TvxrJ
212:

ROME AND THE GAULS

II. 35 9

at this period'. But the episodes include the whole series of Gallic
invasions of Italy from 387 to the expulsion from the Po valley. They
are interludes because they interrupt the direct development of
Roman power, to which (despite such a passage as 31. 8) they con
tribute nothing; and yet they are the work of Tyclre, since in their
ups and downs, their paradoxical and sensational features, they
reveal her typical handiwork. Such interludes, irrelevant interrup
tions, must be faced and mastered; how to meet them is P.'s lesson
here ( 8).
7. 'I"OU'ii 'ri}v nc:pawv ~cJ>o&ov 1((1,' r a.Aa.'!"WV O.ya.yOv'!"a.'ij: Herodotus (cf. i. 63. 8 n.) and Ephorus (praised in v. 33 z) both dealt with
the Persian Wars, though Ephorus' work has survived only in the
popular abridgement of Diodorus. \Vhom P. has in mind for the
Gallic attack on Delphi (cf. i. 6. 5 n., ii. zo. 6) is uncertain, for all our
accounts are secondary (Diodorus, Iustinus, and Pausanias), and
their sources are not determined. Timaeus may have touched on the
subject (so A. Schmidt, Abhandlungen zur alten Geschichte (Leipzig,
r888), 3 ff.); and Demetrius of Byzantium, who wrote thirteen books
on 'the crossing of the Galatians from Europe into Asia' (Diog. Laert.
v. 83) may have included the attack on Delphi. Pausanias' source
is especially good (Tarn, AG, 439-42) and may be either Timaeus
or, as Segre thought (Historia, r927, r8-4z), Hieronymus of Cardia.
1'0U'ii inrEp Tfjs Kowfls 1'WV 'EAA.t1vwv ~AEu9Ep(a.s O.ywva.s: the old
catchword of 'Greek freedom' was as popular and as elastic in the
second century as in the fifth; since P. has no difficulty in reconciling
it with Macedonian domination in the fourth century and Roman in
the second (cf. xviii. 14. 6; CQ, 1943, 7-13), his argument here is
perhaps 'singularly frigid and rhetorical' (Treves, ad loc.). Laqueur
(275) argues that this passage (35 4 ff.) is anti-Roman in implication:
not so, for throughout the Romans are clearly the civilized element
repelling barbarism, not barbarians themselves.
8. TJ a.ipEats Ka.~ liuvnJ.ltS: 'devotion and might'; alternatively
a.tp~a<;; may be 'resolve' (consilit~m, Schweighaeuser). Schweighaeuser
takes Svvap.t;; to mean 'ability', sollertia (d. i. 84. 6). But the phrase
there is crrpa77JYLK~ Svvap.LS'; alone, ovvap.LS' seems to require the more
usual meaning. For the stress on reason cf. 3
9. c) &' a'ITO r a.Aa.1'WV cJ>6l3os .. Ka.8' TiJ.lii'ii E~~'ITATJ~E TOUS EAATJVCI.S:
P. is thinking specifically of the Galatian wars in Asia Minor in the
second century; cf. iii. 3 s. xxi. 41. z, ~x&.p71r:ra.v . brl -rij! Tdv a1r6
-rwv {Japf3dpwv ain-ot.;; cpofJov ii<fonp~cr8aL (after Cn. Manlius Vulso's
expedition in 189). Galatians had invaded Pergamum at the time of
Pydna; the subsequent settlement is given at xxx. z8; cf. xxx. 30. 2.
For inscriptions relative to that war see DeSanctis, iv. r. 363 n. 329.
In xxv. 6. 3 the Dardanians show the traditional fear of the Gauls.
All these incidents helped to form P.'s concept of the Gauls prior to
8

2Il

ROME AND THE GAULS

II. 35 9

his exile; they have no bearing on the date of composition of the

present passage.
10. TTjv O'ITi!p TOUTWV t~t]yqaw: Tov.rwv will be masculine, not neuter
(as Paton) ; cf. 14. r, {nrp wv (i.e. the Celts) SoKEt p.ol x.p*np.ov Elvat
1rm~uauiJa, T~v ig~'}"T}uw, to which P. here clearly refers back.
36. Hannibal succeeds Hasdrubal in Spain (zZI)
36. l. ETTJ Xt:tpiaa.s oKTw: viz. 229-221 ; cf. I. 7 for the earlier date.
Diodorus (xxv. rz) makes it nine years, but only by inclusive
reckoning.
SoA.ocj:.ovTJ8ds om) TLvos Kt:AToO To yvos: a perhaps less reliable,
but early, Greek version (Diod. xxv. 12; Livy, xxi. 2. 6; VaL Max.
iii. 3, ext. 7; App. Hisp. 8; Hann. 2; Iustin. xliv. 5 5, d. z. 4) records
that Hasdrubal was murdered by an Iberian slave {Iustinus) during
a hunt (Appian) to avenge his master (Appian, Iustinus, Livy) ;
the slave died smiling (Iustinus, Livy) under torture (Appian,
Iustinus, Livy). De Sanctis (iii. 2. 18r) attributes this story to
Coelius Antipater.
2. ollx ouTw Sul. Twv 'ITOAJliwv IIpywv KTA.: cf. Livy, xxi. 2. 5, 'plura
consilio quam ui gerens, hospitiis magis regulorum conciliandisque
per amicitiam principum nouis gentibus quam bello aut armis rem
Carthaginiensem auxit'.
3. ol. Ka.pxTJSOvtot: see iii. 13. 4 n. ; Hannibal was the choice of the
troops, subsequently ratified by the people. No distinction is made
here, where oi Kapx.TJS6vw are 'the authorities at home' (not, as
Laqueur (r5) argues, the Carthaginian army; cf. iii. q. u). Laqueur
believes Fabius to be P.'s source; it must be the pro-Barcine source
followed in r and 13.
A.wi~q. .. ovTt vtr: the eldest son of Hamilcar Barca. He was 9 when
he accompanied his father to Spain in 237 (r. 6), and so about 25 now
(in 221). Cf. Diod. xxv. 19 (Tzetzes, Ch. i. 27 f.); Nepos, Hann. 3 2,
'minor quinque et uiginti annis natus'; Zon. viii. 21, et ... Kai
ErKouw e'Twv yEyovws. Eutrop. iii. 7 2 ('annum ... uicesimum') is
probably corrupt. See Lenschau, RE, 'Hannibal (8)', cols. 2323-4.
s~a. TTJV li'ITOcj:.a.woJlEVTJV nyx!vota.v KTA.: Hannibal had served
continuously under Hamilcar and Hasdrubal. The story of his return
to Carthage, whence Hasdrubal recalled him after 229 (Livy, xxi.
3 2ft.), is obviously sheer slander; and the tricnnitltn, which he is
alleged to have served under Hasdrubal (Livy, xxi. 4 ro), may be
a reduplication of the three years spent as independent general in
Spain before crossing the Pyrenees (DeSanctis, iii. 1. 415 n. 6g).
4. SiiAos ~v

etc

TWV i'ITlVOTJJlnTWV m)AEC:JlOV i~o(awv 'PWJlO.lOtS: a

view not confirmed by the evidence quoted. Hannibal's first two

campaigns (iii. r3. 5-14. ro) are merely part of the general policy of
consolidating Punic power south of the Ebro; and in iii. 14. ro P.

HANNIBAL SUCCEEDS HASDRUBAL IN SPAIN (221) II. 37

insists that until his third campaign Hannibal avoided giving the
Romans any pretext for war. See Kromayer, HZ, 103, I909 252-3;
Otto, HZ, 145, 1932, 504-5. P. is here giving the Roman version,
which made the 'wrath of the Barca family' the main cause of the war
(cf. iii. 9 6); hence ( 6) the Carthaginians appear as the aggressors,
'forming designs' and 'eager to be avenged for their reverses in Sicily',
and the war is treated as inevitable { 7, where the propagandist
Version is thinly disguised:unde(thelwords TOt) Op8w) f11<01TOUfL....Ot>).

37-70. Events in Greece: rise of the Achaean League; the

Cleomenean War
P. closes his 1Tpo~<a-rcr.a~<w~ with this survey of the earlier history of
Macedon and Achaea. He is clearly influenced by his own interests
as an Achaean statesman, and his reason for not dealing similarly
with events in Asia and Egypt (37 6) is not wholly convincing.
Nevertheless, his decision can be justified. Under Philip V Macedon
played a prominent part in the rise of Rome to world dominion; and
to an Achaean the growth of the League to embrace the whole
Peloponnese no doubt seemed an integral part of the story of the
unification of the oecumene. Laqueur (Io-n) and Gelzer (Hermes,
I940, 27-37) have argued that P. inserted the Achaean 1TpoKa-raaKw~
in his history only towards the end of his life, and after 146. Two
passages (iii. 32. 2-3, xxxix. 8. 4-5) speak of the recording of western
events from the First Punic War, but of Greek events only from the
end of Aratus' Memoirs, i.e. 220; and Gelzer assumes that when P.
wrote these the second half of book ii was not envisaged. Such
passages as i. I3. I-5 and iv. I. 4-<J will also, he suggests, be later
insertions; and the obvious difficulty created by references in these
chapters to the Achaean League as still existent (38. 4, 42. 2 ff.,
62. 4), which clearly date to before 146, he surmounts by the hypothesis of an earlier work composed to further the propaganda conducted for the return o1 the exiles after 166, and later incorporated
in the main history. However, this thesis fails to account for 37 & ff.,
which forms an essential part of the introductory chapters, and must
therefore, on Gelzer's hypothesis, have been written when the earlier
work was grafted upon the main history, yet clearly implies the
continued existence of the League. It is therefore to be rejected.
M. Treu (Historia, 1954/5, 219-28) has valid criticism of Gelzer's
hypothesis; but his own argument attributing this part of P.'s work
to an excursus in his Life of Philopoemen is equally unconvincing.
Granted P.'s Achaean upbringing, there is nothing in ii. 37-70 which
does not spring naturally from his original scheme; and indeed the
chapters have more relevance if composed before than after r46,
when the contribution made by the League to oecumenical unity
must have been much less apparent. On the use of the synoptic
ZI5

II. 37

EVENTS IN GREECE

method in these chapters see Lorenz, 3I; but the argument of Siegfried (Io2 ff.) that P. regards the union of the Peloponnese under
Achaea as the realization of a Stoic ideal ('ein verkleinertes Abbild
der stoischen Kosmopolis') is unconvincing.
37. 1. Ka"Ta Si "Tous au"Tous Kmpous: a loose sy'Il.chronism. The Social
War (iv. 3 I ff.) began in late spring 220. On Philip see iv. 2. 5 and
below, ii. 70. 8.
Cil-ia. "To~s lii.A.ots aui-LI-Lcixots: the members of the Kotvry avp.p.axla.
founded by Antigonus Doson; cf. 54 4 n. The so-called Social War
takes its name from this avp.p.axla which fought the Aetolians; see
i. 3 I, iv. 3 I ff.
2. Ka.1'a 1'0 auvexes 1'TJS 1TpoKa.1'a.aKeuTjs: 'next in the series of events
described in my introduction'; the phrase goes with ijKop.Ev. P. is
referring to the scheme for the introduction enumerated in i. 3 8-Io.
1'0u Seu1'pou auO""Tav"Tos . 1TOAEj.Lou : it began with the siege of
Saguntum in spring 2I9 (iii. 17 In.). On the name 'Hannibalic War'
cf. i. 3 2 n.
Ka.1'a 1'-f)v E~ apxfis 1Tpo9EO'LV: cf. i. 3 I-2, iv. 2. I.
"Tfjc:; ia.u"Twv auV'Ta~ews: 'my own narrative' (a.v-rwv = ~p.wv a.v-rwv;
cf. Thuc. i. 82. I).
3. 1'f)S a1!'0SELK1'LKfjS l0'1'0pLa.S: 'detailed history', cf. iii. I. 3, fJ.fiT
a1ToSEl~Hos-. P. uses .i7ToSHKTtK6s- to mean 'supported by full reasons,
tracing cause and effect' (cf. iii. 31. 12), and opposes 'apodeictic'
narrative to an account consisting of mere assertions (iv. 40. I) or,
as here, to the 1TpoKaTaO'KEv1} of books i-ii, which is KE</m.Aau./JS1J~
(i. 13. 7, ii. r. 4, 40. 4). On this see Schweighaeuser on i. 2. 8 (vol. v,
125-30); Strachan-Davidson, 5--tl; Walbank, CQ, I945 I6.
4. otov 1'as 'EAAT)VtKas 11 nepatKas: e.g. the 'E}.).T)VLKa of Xenophon,
Theopompus, or Callisthenes, or the IhpatKa of Ctesias of Cnidus
or Baton of Sinope; but P. merely gives two examples of 'particular'
histories. On the superiority of universal hist:Dry see i. 4 2, iii. I. 4,
4 8-13,32. Iff., viii. 2. I ff.,ix.44. z,xxix. I2; and on the faults of 'particular' historians, vii. 7. 6. In v. 33 2 P. gives Ephorus credit for
writing -ra Ka86Aov; hence o: 7Tpd ~p.wv exaggerates (i. 4 2 is more
accurate). But P. writes &p.ov, i.e. he relates together all the different
parts, whereas Ephorus wrote Ka-ra yvos, thus to some extent obscuring the chronology.
11'pos "Toiho 1'0 j.LEpos "Tfjs li1To9eaews: 'to my present purpose'. Why
P.'s own time has especially favoured the writing of universal history
is explained in i. 4 I ff., and is reverted to in many later parts of the
Histories (e.g. iv. 40. 2), some no doubt now lost. Cf. 8 n.
5. -rrpo "Tfjc:; Ka."Ta.aKeuijs: Ka-raaKEmJ signifies the main history, whence
1TpoKaTa(fKEv1] is books i-ii ( 2); but in i. IJ. 5 and iv. r. 4 KamaKfimJ
is itself used for the introduction.
n6

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR 11.378

6. Twv tea.Tel. ~v ;t..a(o.v Af.yuTrTOv tcTA.: the Seleudd and Ptolemaic

kingdoms interested P. less than Macedon and Achaea (cf. De
Sanctis, Riv. jil., 1934, u8). The reasons he gives for omitting them
(despite 3} from the 7rpoKaTao-Ke~ are: (r} their history before 220
has often been told and is therefore familiar; (z) their history after
220 has shown no surprising changes of fortune (unlike Achaea and
Macedon); 7--9
s~a. TO Ti]v LO'Toplo.v UTfO TrAeu)vwv EICOE86ae<u KTA.: for the period
c. 270-220, which books i-ii cover for the west and for Greece, P.
may be thinking of Phylarchus, whose Histories went down to the
death of Ptolemy III (cf. 56-63 n.), and Mnesiptolemus, who lived
at the court of Antiochus III and wrote a History of the Syrian
Kings (Athen. xv. 697 D; cf. x. 432 B), as well as countless other
writers whose works have also been lost.
iv oi To'i:s tca.9' t\i-'iis tca.~po'i:s: strictly speaking, in his own lifetime,
but probably conceived as covering the period from 2zo onwards.
t""'!Oev E~TJAAa.yl""~ov I""TJOE va.pli.Aoyov lnro rils TOX'Ii: paradoxical situations betray the part Tyche is playing in events (cf.
i. 86. 7, xxix. 21. 3-6, referring to Demetrius of Phalerum), and
though they are not always necessarily related to any purpose, their
absence, as from Egypt and Syria, is apparently a sign that the area
in question lies outside the main pattern of events, with which P.
identifies his own Histories (cf. L 3 3-6, 4 r-rr). In fact, the ultimatum delivered by C. PopilliusLaenas to Antiochus Epiphanes in r68
(xxix. 27. r ff.) was both sensational in itself and catastrophic in its
result; but P. is evidently contrasting the survival of the dynasties
of Syria and Egypt with the fall of the An tigonids at Pydna-apart
{rom his need to find some justification for a decision partly resulting
from lack of interest.
8. Tra.pnoo~os a.u~Tj<TLS tca.l. avf.lcpp6V1JaLs: 'a growth of power and a
political union in the highest degree remarkable' (Paton); cf. iii. 3 7,
op.ollo{as Ka~ KaTaO'TMEWS. This reference to the expansion of the
Achaean League to include the whole Peloponnese, achieved in
autumn I9I and consolidated after the revolt of Messenia in I83,
cannot have been written after the destruction of the League in q6;
for the relevance of this to Gelzer's theory of composition see 37-70 n.
As there is no specific reference earlier to this growth of Achaean
power, the words Ka.0a7rp em:J.vw 7rpOEL7TOll have caused Some difficulty.
Such a phrase, as Gelzer (Hermes, I94o, 30) observes, is generally to
a recent passage (e.g. 40. 6 refers to 37 IO and 38. 6-9; 41. II to 41. I;
41. 6 to 38. 6; so. 7 to 49 7; 71. 6 to 4r. 2); and here P. is apparently
thinking of his general observation in 4, that his own times have
made a material contribution to his purpose, by integrating the
oecumene, primarily under Rome, but also, no doubt, in occasioning
the rise of such a unit as the Peloponnese under Achaean control.
2I7

II. 37 8

EVENTS IN GREECE

Achaea is thus an illustration of the general statement there made;

and since that was accompanied by a reference forward to full treatment later (aa(f,ianpov f.v &poLc; D7JAwaop.Ev), th<C substance of this
was probably in P.'s mind when he wrote Ka8a7TEp f.rravw 7TpoE.i:rrov.
The phrase has no bearing on the date of composition.
10-ll. The unity of the Peloponnese; cf. Plut. Philop. 8 (based on P.'s
'Life of Philopoemen'), ~~~ awp.a H;at ;.tlav SVva;.ttV KCI.'T'(l.(]I(EVd.aa& ~v
liEI.orravV7Jaov. Detailed consideration of P.'s points reveals some
exaggeration.
(a) There were geographical limitations. Methana in the Argolid
never joined the League, but remained Ptolemaic (cf. Ernst Meyer,
RE, 'Methana', cols. 1377-9; Aymard, PR, 13 n. 4), and the status
of the Spartan perioecic towns was odd (Aymard, PR, 250 ff.). This
P. perhaps recognizes in II, axE.Sov T~v cnJ1t1Tao-av liEI.orraJJV7Jaov.
(b) voJJ.OL~ Tois a.uToi~: on the federal laws see Swoboda (Klio,
1912, 25 ff.); lnschr. v. Mag. 39, ll. 43-44; below, iv. 7 1, 6o. 10, v.
1. 7, xxii. 8. 3, 10. 10 ff., IZ. 6. But the separate cities also had their
own laws; d. IG, v. 1. 5, 11. 10 ff. (Sparta aftefi88}; 1. 7; Livy, xxxviii.
34 3; P. xxiv. 7 5; Aymard, ACA, 167 n. 5
(c) aTa.811ois Ka.t 11TpoLs: weights and measures were based on the
'heavy' Aeginetan system, 'With its 'stater' of about 123 gm .. a
standard already vridespread in the Peloponnese before the Achaean
League rose to importance.
(d) vo!10'Jla.<n: cf. Aymard, ACA, 167-8 n. 6. An inscription (IG,
v. 2. 345. iii, 11. 21-22) requires money to be paid [lrr' apyupl]ov
au;.t!LaXLKov Spax~t[afs-]; but all surviving coins appear to be struck
by the separate cities. Presumably the League insisted on the standard, and they were allowed to circulate throughout Achaean territory. Such 'federal' coins 'bear emblems recalling the confederation
and signs peculiar to the issuing city. All bear on the obverse the
effigy of the Federal Zeus; on the reverse, silver coins have the
Achaean monogram (:() 'Within a wreath (symbolizing a city), and
then the name, full or abridged, of the city or of a municipal
magistrate, and copper usually the effigy of a goddess, often thought,
wrongly as it seems to me (cf. Mel. Cumont (rg36), 10 n. 1), to be
Demeter Panachaia, a legend giving the two names of the Confederation and of the city (e.g. AXAION KOPIN010N), and finally the
name, complete or abridged, of a municipal magistrate; cf. R. \Veil,
ZN, r882, 207 ff.; Head, 417 ff.' (Aymard, loc. cit.). In addition certain of the cities seem to have issued distinct 'non-federal' money
while members of the League ; and for some seventeen cities there is
no evidence of coining at alL Further to confuse an obscure question
are the coins bearing the letters A P K[A .6. n N] and no federal symbol,
which were struck a little before 182, long after the Arcadian League
had ceased to exist. See M. Crosby and E. Grace, An Achaean
218

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR IL37ro

League Hoard (Num. Notes and Monographs, 74; New York, 1936),
7 ff., 30 (nos. r62-97), Plate IV.
(e) ~pxoum, ~ouAuTa.is, ~LKa,aTa.i'~ To is a.uTois: this triple distinc-

tion of magistrates, deliberative organ, and judiciary goes back to

Aristotle (Pol. vi (iv.} 14 2. 1298 a: 2v 11-~v rl To fJouA.t:u6/l-Evov 7TEpl Twv
J<:DWWV, OEVTEpov 8~ TO 7TEpt TaS' apxas TpLTOV 8~ TL TO Ot~ea,ov} and
does not correspond exactly with the modern division, popularized
by Montesquieu, into legislative, executive, and judicial (see (against
Aymard, ACA, 158 f.) Newman, Politics of Aristotle (Oxford, 1902},
iv. 236 commenting on Aristotle, loc. cit.); but the comparison with
Aristotle shows that under 'deliberative' are included several functions today classified as legislative.
G.pXOIIT!> (v. I. 6, I. 9, XXii. IO. IO ff., I2. j) is a general term for
magistrates; elsewhere they are called oi 7TpawTWTES' ToiJ Ttliv 11xa~wv
7TOALTEV/.LilTDS' (ii. 46. 4), al avvapxaL (xxvii. 2. II, Xxxviii. IJ. 4, IJ. 5),
and oi avvapxoi!TE> (xxiii. !6. 6). The term at avvapxLaL, suggestive of
a collegiate organization (Aymard, ACA, 322), is perhaps the official
title. A board was formed of the aTpaT'T)yo> and ten Sa/1-Lovpyo{ (xxiii.
5 r6; J. Bingen, BCH, 1954, 402-7, no. r8, ll. 3-4; for the number see
Livy, xxxii. 22. :z). In addition there were inferior magistrates, the
hipparch (v. 95 7), secretary (ii. 43- r), under-general (iv. 59 2). and
admiral (v. 94 7, 95 n). See Freeman, HFG, 219 ff.
fJovA.wml are members of the fJovAIJ (cf. Bingen, op. cit., no. 18,
l. :z); but what the Achaean {3ovA7] was is a problem linked with that
of the avvooos. The Achaeans had two kinds of assembly, the a6yd7JTos, meeting at irregular intervals, and the a6vooo<;, which met at
regular times throughout the year. Until recently the a6vo&a> was
generally held to have been a representative body, consisting of
deputies from the various cities, acting a.<; a council or fJouA~ (cf.
Tarn, CAH, vii. 738). It has, however, been argued by Aymard
that both auvoOO> and UUyi<:A7]TO> describe a primary assembly open
to all citizens, and that P. used {JavA.~ as a synonym for awoi'ios.
If this were so, {Jov"AwTal here would be merely those citizens who
attended the primary assembly (Aymard, ACA, 157-8). Against
this, Cary suggested (]HS, 1939, 154-5; cf. EHR, 1914, 209-2o) that
the a6vo8os was a 'bicameral body' consisting of a primary assembly
and a fJovA!J of the normal type; and C. A. Robinson (The Greek
Political Experiettce. Studies in honour ofW. K. Prentice (Princeton,
1941), ros) argued that a auvoSas was a joint meeting of magistrates
and {JavA~. The weak point in Aymard's case was his assumption that
a primary assembly de iure, being attended by only a limited
number. was treated as a {JavA~ de facto; and recently, starting out
from the observation (CP, 1945, 65---97) that the representative council
was regarded as normal machinery in federal states of the second
century (cf. xxxi. 2. 12, S7Jil-apaTLKijs x:a.t awopta17> 7TOALnlas)--a
219

II. 37 ro

EVENTS IN GREECE

view challenged by Aymard (CP, 1950, 103-7) as exaggerated-,

Larsen has proceeded to a new, full, analysis of Polybius' terminology,
and has produced a theory which has the merit of simplicity and
seems to cover all the evidence (Representative Government, 75-xos).
A .Wvo3os-, he argues, is simply 'a meeting'. Until about zoo, Achaean
.Wvo3ot consisted (as Cary had said) of both the boule (Council) and
the ecclesia (Assembly), but after zoo of the boule alone. In the
second century the ecclesa was summoned only to debate war or
alliance, or on instructions from the Roman Senate (xxii. 10. Io--Iz,
12. 6); in short, Achaea enjoyed representative government by a
boule perhaps elected on a system of proportional representation
(op. cit. 83-84). This boule possessed legislative, and not merely
probouleutic powers, such powers in short as were exercised by the
populus at Rome (vi. 14. 4ft.). Irregular meetings of either boule
or ecclesia (or both) were probably termed auyKJ.:qrm, though P.
does not use aVyKA'l)To> of an irregular meeting of the eccles1:a (perhaps
because it is his usual term for the Roman Senate: cf. Larsen, 91).
Achaean 3tKaaTal appear in xxxviii. 18. 3, condemning a magistrate
to death; but the federal assembly could transform itself into a court
of justice (xxiii. 4 5, 4 14, xxiv. 9 13; Livy, xxxix. 35 8, 36. z (cf.
Paus. vii. 9 2), xliL 51.8; Syll. 49o,ll. 4-5. See further Aymard, ACA,
182 n. 4). The 3tKaaTal mentioned in xxviii. 7 9 are not Achaean, but
Rhodians called in to arbitrate (cf. Holleaux, E'tudes, i. 441-3).
Naturally judicial rights within the separate cities were not suspended; d. Aymard, ACA, 167 n. 5
Siegfried (1o3) quotes, as evidence that P. saw Achaea as a
microcosm of the Stoic cosmopolis, Zeno (SV F, i. z6z) : tva fL~
l(aTd 7TdAtS" [L'l)3~ ~eanl &)[LOUS' olKwfLEV, l3lot> EKaaTot Stwpta[Livot
3t~ealm>, d.A.M 7TiiVTM aJJOpwwov<; ~YWfLEOa D'l)[LdTaS' Kat 7TDAl7'f1S, EtS' (j
fllo>

il

Kal KOCTfLO>, wcrrrep d.yiAl]S' CTUVVDfLOV Vd[L<p KOWij auVTpet/Jo[Lil''l)).

Such parallelism as exists with P.'s account of the League seems

purely coincidental, and not significant.
10. TouTo To J.L.\pos: 'this undertaking' (Strachan-Davidson), i.e. the
achieving of unity, rather than 'this land', i.e. Achaea {Treves).
11. Sta.AAnTTEW Tov flit J.LIB.~ 1TOAE!.IIS 8ui9Eaw ~xnv: it fell short of
being a single city by not having a single walled enclosure for all its
inhabitants (as for example Athens had a 1T<.plf1o.\os (Thuc. i. 89. 3)
which served the people of Attica). Aristotle (Pol. iii. 3 4-5. 1276 a)
says that it is not the wall that makes the city, since you might build
a wall round the Peloponnese. P.'s remark here looks like an answer;
but P. is not envisaging a wall all round the Peloponnese (despite
Paton's translation, cf. Larsen, Robinson Studies, Sro n. 55), and it
is doubtful whether P. knew the Politics.
TdAAa. eKUaTol<; -ra.1ha KO.L 1ra.pa.1rAT)a1a.: i.e. in all other respects
the inhabitants of the Peloponnese enjoy similar institutions both
220

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR

II.38.6

federally and within the separate cities. On democracy within the

confederacy (of which nothing is said here) see 38. 6 n.
38. 4. vuv u8oKouaw JUiTEL>.f)<fH~TES: the Arcadians were among
the first to be absorbed, Megalopolis joining under its late tyrant
Lydiades in 235 (44. 5). The Spartans were forcibly incorporated by
Philopoemen in 192 (Walbank, Philip, rq6 n. 7), but later revolted
and were finally readmitted in r8z/r (Aymard, ACA, zo6 n. 6). The
use of vilv shows P. to be writing before 146.
5. <f!a.u>.ov yO.p: this rejection of the role of Tyche in the growth of
Achaea is in contrast with 3i. 6, where Syria and Egypt are omitted
from the 7rpoKaTa<TKwfj because 'Tyche has wrought no such surprising change as to render any notice of their past necessary' ; the
inference is that Tyche has wrought such changes in the affairs of
Achaea and Macedon. The inconsistency has given rise to much discussion; and this is one of the passages which some scholars (cf.
i. 63. 9 n.) regard as later insertions. Cuntz (45), indeed, puts its composition at the time of the Gracchi-a thesis hard to maintain since
P. clearly assumes the continued existence of the League (cf.
Svoboda, Phil., 1913, 4i6). In fact, no satisfactory chronology of the
various passages which refer to Tyche can be made on the basis of
some presumed philosophical development in the historian ; and
though not all these references are purely rhetorical (so De Sanctis,
iii. 1. 213-15), the Histories undoubtedly contain inconsistent expressions (see above, pp. r6-z6). The rejection of Tyche in this instance very largely reflects the local patriotism of the Achaean
statesman, who will attribute the whole of his country's success to
its own merits; and elsewhere, in passages in which P. rejects the
workings of Tyche (i. 63. 9 (rise of Rome), x. 5 8. (the achievements
of Africanus), xviii. 28. 5 (Roman military success), xxxi. 30. 1-3
(career of the younger Scipio : some slight concession here to Fortune)). his emotions and affections will be found already to be
engaged. On other occasions (e.g. 35 2-ro) P. has no difficulty in
combining Tyche with such human qualities as reason and courage
as joint causes of success (cf. CQ, 1945, ro-n).
6. 8f]f.LOKpa.Tla.c; a.>...,9wfjc; 'niOTl)flO. Ka.l1Tpoa.pm.v: 'constitution and
principles of true democracy' (Strachan-Davidson, ro). P.'s claim of
equality (lCJ11yopla.) and freedom of speech (m:~.pp71ala), the marks of
democracy, for the Achaean League, is repeated at 42. 3, 44 6, iv.
r. 5, xxii. 8. 6, xxiii. 12. 8 (cf. iv. 31. 4); see, too, Syll. 665, 1. 17
(though 1. 34 refers to the appointment of dicasts dpLaTMJav; cf. IG,
vii. r88, l. 9, 1rAovTlvSa Kal dpLaTMia). Now it is clear that Achaean
'democracy' was something quite other than fifth-century Athenian
democracy; and Aymard has argued (PR, q n. ro) that the word is
here used metaphorically to describe a confederation in which the
221

II. 38. 6

EVENTS IN GREECE

separate cities possessed equal rights comparable to those of the

individual citizen in a democratic 1TOAL>, a view approved by Gelzer
(Abh. Berlin. Akad., 1940, Phil.-Hist. Kl. no. 2, 5 n. r). It is true that
choice 1TAouTiv8a Kai d.purrtv8a conesponds to the method which,
Aristotle (A .P. 3 r, 3 6) says, was employed for the appointment of
magistrates in pre-Draconian Athens, and generally appears to be
the mark of an aristocracy (cf. Arist. Pol. ii. II. 8. 1273 a, vi (iv). 7 3
1293 b). Nevertheless, P.'s words here are quite precise; and the explanation seems to be rather that in the second century, though the
distinctions were still maintained in theoretical and philosophical
discussion (such as that in book vi), there was a tendency to use the
word 'democratic' loosely, without any implied contrast to 'oligarchic' and almost in the sense 'self-governing' (cf. \Valbank, Philip,
225 n. 2; Larsen, CP, 1945, 88-89). In that sense Achaea was a
democracy; but it is perhaps not without significance that Syll. 665,
1. 19 refers to EVVofLla rather than to the more democratic laovofLla. In
practice the democratic principle was modified by a high minimum
age (3o years) for access to assemblies; the absence of payment for
attendance at assemblies limited these to the richer class ; and officeholding, as at Rome, was often expensive (cf. xviii. 7 7). See further
Freeman (HFG, 205 ff.) for a valuable comparison with fifth-century
Athens, and some valid analogies between Achaean and nineteenthcentury British democracy.
7. 1Ta.pa.xpi\!J.a. 1r6.Aw e{,8otceiv ~1TOL'f}O'EV a.uTft: true perhaps of Corinth
(seized by Aratus in 243, cf. 43 4), but not of Messenia and Sparta,
annexed during the second century.
8. taoT'f}n tca.t cf>t>.a.v9pw1T~: 'equality and humanity'. la6rT)> (cf. vi.
8. 4) is equivalent to l07Jyopla ( 6) ; and both are associated with
Trapp'T)ala (42. 3). In the jargon of the Hellenistic chancelleries cfnAavfJpomla implies the bestowal of benefits upon the citizens of a state.
Identification with the liberttf, egalite, and jraternite of the French
Revolution (E. Rand, The Building of Eternal Rome (Harvard, 1943),
6) is anachronistic and misleading.
39. 1. tea.Tel. T~v Mey6.A'f}V 'E).).6.8a.: Magna Graecia signified the Greek
cities of south Italy from Locri to Tarentum (Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 95)
or even as far as Terina on the west coast (Ps.-Scymn. 303 ff.),
or Sicily (Strabo, vi. 253). It was in use by the fourth century (cf.
Timaeus, FGH, 566 F 13, if the phrase there goes back to him), and
here P. seems to associate it with the influence of the Pythagoreans
(cf. Val. Max. viii. 7, ext. 2), which would bring it back to the late
sixth or early fifth century. See E. Meyer, Phil. xlviii, r889, 274;
E. Pais, Storia della Sicilia e della Magna Grecia, i (Torino, 1894),
513-26; \Veiss,
'Graecia Magna', cols. 169o-r.
tca.9' oi:l; tca.tpou; ~YE1Tpl]a91} Tel. O'UYEOpta. TWY nuaa.yopdwv:
222

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR

II.39.I

the influence of the Pythagoreans in south Italy began with Pythagoras' migration from Samos to Croton about 530 (von Fritz, 92;
Minar, 133; Dunbabin, 359). Despite opposition, members of the
association obtained positions of influence in many of the cities,
where they established governments based on the philosophical and
religious teachings of their leader. The general complexion of these
governments seems to have been aristocratic; but the sources are
so worked over, and indeed contradictory, that little agreement has
been possible about their real character. It is difficult to ascertain
how far Pythagorean government was co-ordinated between the
various cities, and how far its existence outside reflected the domination of Croton (Minar, 38), which is attested by the evidence of
coinage (Kahrstedt, Hermes, 1918, 180-7) for the early half of the
fifth century. Pythagorean rule has been compared to the 'commercial theocracy' of the Calvinists at Geneva (Thomson, Aeschylus and
Athens (London, 1941), 213 ff.; Aeschylus' Oresteia (Cambridge, 1938),
ii. 350-1), and to the role of the Freemasons in the eighteenth century,
who took part in politics as individuals rather than as a society
(von Fritz, 96 f.). Burnet (EGP4, 87-91) is inclined to regard them as
democratic in so far as they had any political colour. By the date
of the rising mentioned by P., however, they were certainly a reactionary group (von Fritz, 97--98). The burning-down of the avvBp~a.
or club-houses (for the expression cf. Plut. Mor. 583 A; Dicaearchus
in Porph. VP, 56), is also described in Iamblichus (VP, 249), who,
however, restricts it to the 'house of Milo' at Croton; and the subsequent visit of the Achaean mediators( 4) is also in Iamblichus (VP,
263). Of these two passages, Iamblichus follows Aristoxenus in the
former; and it is probably Aristoxenus' desire to minimize the extent
of the rising, which restricts it to Croton (d. von Fritz, 30-31). In
the latter, Iamblichus' source is ultimately Timaeus, via Apollonius
of Tyana (von Fritz, 33 ff.; Minar, 6o-65); but it is Timaeus in a
much worked-over and distorted form. P.'s source is also likely to
be Timaeus. He uses him elsewhere for western affairs (e.g. i. 8. 39 8 n.), and like Iamblichus he has the record of Achaean intervention.
On the other hand, Iamblichus makes this intervention lead to a reconciliation between the citizens of Croton and the Pythagorean exiles,
of which P. says nothing; and the similarity is therefore not sufficient
to allow P.'s source to be identified with certainty (cf. Minar, 76
n. 86), though Timaeus remains most probable. Delatte's argument
(Essai, 224) that P. has also used the popular version of Dicaearchus
depends on his view that it was from here that P. took the reference
to disturbances in cities other than Croton; but this may well have
been in Timaeus himself. Timaeus' account was probably based on
inquiry, but he is likely to have used also documents such as the
V1TOfLV~JLa'Ta KpoTWVLa'T(ijj) and the opKO deposited at Delphi after the
223

II. 39

EVENTS IN GREECE

reconciliation between the Pythagoreans and their opponents (Iamb I.

VP, z6z-3); his version, which also survives in part in Iustinus
(xx. 4), Diodoms (xi-xii), and Porphyry's L~fe of Pythagoras (von
Fritz, 33-67; cf. Minar, so, 54 ff.), seems to have been free from political bias and to have set the events within the general framework of
southern Italian history.
The date of the attack on the auv~8pta is disputed. But Aristoxenus
(Iambl. VP, z48-sr) describes how Lysis, Epaminondas'later teacher,
escaped from the holocaust; and from this, taken in conjunction with
Epaminondas' age (he was born not later than 4ro-4os), von Fritz
{78-79. 97-98) deduces that the revolt took place about 445; but the
material for this deduction is tenuous, and Minar (77-78) may well
be right in placing the fall of the Pythagoreans before the rebuilding
of Sybaris in 453, a view which would fit Kahrstedt's findings on the
basis of the coinage, which points to a collapse in the power of Croton
about this time. For though P. makes it clear (against Aristoxenus)
that the revolt was in many cities, the centre of Pythagorean influence and most likely the core of the revolt were at Croton (von
Fritz, 8o ff.). Iustinus' version (xx. 4), putting these events in Pythagoras' lifetime, though also derived from Timaeus, is a doublet of
the events of c. 454. inspired by the common tendency to associate
all Pythagorean details with the master (von Fritz, 87 ff.}.
2. tuvf).,.a:ro; bf.oo-xEpou;: this did not last long, and P. exaggerates
the destruction of the leaders, for while Lysis and Archippus emigrated to Greece, where they set up centres at Thebes and Phlius,
others remained active in south Italy, especially at Rhegium (Aristoxenus ap. Iambl. VP, 248-sr).
4. !A.xaw"l; o-uv~>xp'l\uav-ro: the Achaean mediation is a considerable time after the burning of the avvi8pta, for this is followed by
a period of crrcfrns in the cities ( 2-3). In 417 the Spartans set up
oligarchies in Achaea (Thuc. v. 82. I; Xen. Hell. vii. I. 43); and it is
a reasonable supposition (Unger, 5.-B. Munchen, r883, r78 ff.) that
the establishment of the League of Croton, Sybaris, and Caulonia,
with its imitation of Achaean democratic institutions, antedated
their destruction at home ( 6 n.). But there can well have been an
interval between the Achaean mediation and the formation of this
League. von Fritz (73-74} dates the mediation to c. 445, associating
it with the founding of Thurii. in which the Achaeans shared (cf.
Diod. xii. II. 3, one of its cpv>..al called i1xats-}; but Minar (83-84)
points out that according to Iamblichus (VP, 263: Timaeus via
Apollonius) Achaean mediation led to a reconciliation, and that this
points to a longer passage of time. He therefore prefers c. 430, a date
adopted by Delatte (Essai, 224 n.), who rightly emphasizes the lack
of precision in P.'s indications. The Achaean mediation may have
had something to do \>vith Lysis' stay in Achaea, on his way from
224

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II. 39.6

Croton to Thebes (Iambl. VP, 248-sr: from Aristoxenus); but more

likely it connects with the ancient bond between Magna Graecia and
the people which founded so many of her cities, including Croton.
Strabo (viii. 384) also records these events, following P.; Lenschau
(Klio, 1944, 209-10) has argued for a common source in some .:4xaiK~
for this early history of the Achaean League, but Strabo need not
have used the same source for the mythical history as for these
events, on which he gives nothing not in P. For a convenient summary of earlier suggestions for the chronology of the Achaean mediation see Delatte (Essai, 223 n. 1).
5. 4!i.'!TES~a.vTo TYJV a.tpEm.v TWV )\xa...Wv: 'approved the Achaean political system' (rather than 'their character', Strachan-Davidson, 8):
P. is concerned with Td rijs 1roAm:las lf>twp..a.
6. auJ.Lcjlpov~aa.vTES KpoTwv~O.-ra.~, Iu~a.p~-ra.~, Ka.uAwvLaTa.L: the date
of this confederation, set up in imitation of the fifth-century Achaean
League (38. 10; cf. Herod. i. 145), is uncertain. It has been associated
with the union of ol T~v 'ha),Lav KaTott<:oilvT~;;; (Diod. xiv. 91) against
the threat from Dionysius of
(Oldfather, RE, 'Kaulonia',
col. 74; Philipp, RE, 'Kroton (r)', col. 2024); and from Diodorus
(xiv. ror) E. Meyer (v. 8o4) concludes that it was earlier and against
the Lucanians. But the form of the alliance suggests that it was
made before 417 ( 4 n.). There is also the problem of Sybaris. Croton
destroyed Sybaris in 510 (Philipp, RE, 'Sybaris (ro)', col. Ioo8). It
was rebuilt in 453 (Diod. xi. go. 3, cf. xii. ro), probably following on
the fall of the Pythagorcans at Croton ( 1 n.); and its destruction
once more in 448 may signify a turn in their favour at Croton (Minar,
8o). Thurii, founded as successor to Sybaris in 446 or 445, for a time
bore its name (Vt. X arat.: Lysias, 835 D; Herod. v. 45; evidence
from coins, cf. von Fritz, 70); but the Sybarites, who shared in its
foundation, soon quarrelled, and left to form a new settlement on
the Traeis, from which the Bmttians subsequently expelled them
(Diod. xii. u, 22. I; cf. Strabo, vi. 263). The Bruttians only became
important about the time of Dion's expedition against Dionysius
in 357 (cf. Strabo, vi. 255-6; Iustin. xxiii. r); Diodorus (xvi. 15)
describes how they overran Terina, Hipponium, Thurii, Ka~ 1roAAd;;
aAt\n;;, probably including Sybaris on the Traeis. To which Sybaris
does P. here refer? It is true that Sybaris on the Traeis was founded
in feud against Thurii, in the setting up of which the Achaeans had
shared ( 4 n.); but this is no real obstacle to its having taken part
in the present alliance, if this was considerably later than the
Achaean mediation at Croton and elsewhere. von Fritz (74) is inclined to identify this Sybaris (of the confederation) with Thurii,
and quotes Diodorus' reference (xii. rr. 2) to an alliance between
Croton and the newly-founded Thurii, when it must still have been
called Sybaris. But on the whole it seems more likely that P. is
Q

II. 39 6

EVENTS I::-< GREECE

referring to Sybaris on the Traeis, and that the confederation is to

be dated about 420, perhaps to the time of the war of Croton against
Thurii (Iambl. VP, 264); cf. Minar, 82-8.4, 139. It is far more difficult
to assume that P. is referring to events of about 400 (Oldfather and
Philipp, locc. citt.; Beloch, ii. I. zoo; De Sanctis, ii. r8g n. 4), with
the implication that Achaean institutions were copied after 417.
Diodorus (xiv. 91) dates the League to 393; but this inconsistency
disappears if an original confederacy of Croton, Sybaris, and Caulonia
was subsequently joined by other cities such as Heraclea, Metapontum, Elea, and Tarentum, during the years preceding 393, under
the threat from Dionysius and his Lucanian allies (Diod. xiv. 91. r).
See Glotz-Cohen, iii. 398 ; E. Ciaceri, Storia della magna Grecia, ii
(Milan, 1927),4o8f.,4I3 f.; and, on Thurii, Ehrenberg, AJP, 1948, 14970. 0.1reSeL~o.v ALos o.,.a.pou ~~:owov U.pov ~~:o.t T61rov: cf. v. 93 ro. The
sacred cult centre of the Achaean League was the enclosure of Zeus
Homarios, near Aegium. On its situation see Aymard, ACA, 277~93,
resuming the arguments (d. Melanges offerts a M. Octave Navarre
(Toulouse, 1935), 453-70) for accepting Hamarios and Homarios as
permissible forms of the word; Bingen, BCH, 1953. 626-7. The
sense is probably 'who unites together' (&J.Wii' +ap-) ; see Schweighaeuser, ad loc. Zeus Homarios figures on coins of the Achaean
League. The site of the south I tali an Homarion is unknown.
TU\; 1'E auvoSous Ka.l Tel. OLa.J'ouALa.: 'meetings and deliberations'. Cf.
Strabo, viii. 3R~ (following P.). auvo8os- may have its technical sense
of 'a regular meeting' (cf. 37 Io-II n. (e)), since there were probably
no atfyKA'f/TO in the fifth century (Aymard, ACA, 35 n. 3).
7. irrro o Tfjs ALO\IUO"lOU Iupa.~~:ou(ou Suva.an:[a.s: on Dionysius' invasion of Italy see i. 6. z n. His victory at Elleporus ended Crotonian
influence in south Italy and also, apparently, the alliance on the
Achaean model. The 'surrounding barbarians' are the Bruttians (6n.).
8. An~~:t:Sa.tl-'ov[wv 1TTa.ta6.vTwv 1Tt:pi Tijv v At:~npoLs tJ.6.XTJ":
cf. i. 6. I, iv. 8I. 12; Dem. ix. 23, raxvaav 8. 'TL Kal e,{3atoL TOVTOV<TL
TO~S' T1.VTalovs- x.p6vovs J.LTIL T~v Ell' AvKTpots- J.LctX'l~' The subsequent
aKptala in Greece is also described by Demosthenes (xviii. I8), dMa
aKpLTOS" Kat 7Tapa TOUTOLS' (i.e. the pro-Spartan elements in the
Peloponnese) Kat 7Ta.p0. 'TOtS UAAOS" a7Ta0'V lpts /((),~ Tapa.x~ The uncertainty about the result of the battle is exaggerated by P. to motivate
the Achaean arbitration ; but Schweighaeuser's suggestion that this
is somehow a reference to Mantinea (362) is quite misguided and
misleading.
9. 1TEpt TWY atJ.cJltaJ3TJTOUtJ.EYWV E1TISTpeljla.v !4xa.Lo~s; cf. Strabo,
viii. 384 (probably drawing on P.: d. Honigmann, RE, 'Strabon',
col. 128). This arbitration is not otherwise attested. The Achaeans,
pro-Spartan since 417 (Thuc. v. 82. I, vii. 34 2) supported that cause
even after Leuctra (Xen. Hell. vi. 4 17 ff.), but very soon shifted over

"' ,;v

226

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II. 40.2

to a policy of neutrality. Hence the reality of the arbitration has

been questioned (cf. Grote, History of Greece 4 (London, I872), viii.
I89 n. ; E. von Stern, Geschichte der spartanischen und thebanischen
Hegemonic, Diss. Dorpat, I884, I53-5; Aymard, REA, I937. 2I n. 2);
and indeed neither its place in the picture nor the identification of
Ta afufnaf3YJT0-6fLEYU (perhaps the status of the smaller Boeotian towns)
is immediately apparent. Cary (CQ, 1925, I65-6) suggests a date
immediately after the alliance between Athens and the smaller
Peloponnesian states in autumn 37I (Xen. Hell. vi. 5 1-3), but
regards any period during the following twelve months as possible.
He answers some of the objections of Grote and von Stern; but the
whole incident remains dubious, and may go back to a piece of
Achaean falsification. In any case it had no appreciable effect on
the subsequent events.
12. ToY u"n"oOE(~a.YTa.: 'anyone making such a claim'; cf. 47 Io, v.
46. 9 for this sense, which is in Thucydides (iv. 86. 5). P. here quickly
passes over the long period of Achaean depression which lasted from
the middle of the fourth century to 28o. It included co-operation
with Agis III of Sparta against Antipater in 330, and the occupation
of Achaea by Demetrius Poliorcetes (Brandis, RE, 'Achaia (I)',
cols. I62-3). There is no external evidence of either achievement or
high principle in Achaea at this time.

40. 1. TO K~~~I.O"TOY ~pyoy, TTJY nE~O"II"OVYlJULWY bfJ-OYOLO.Y: cf. 37. 9-II'

38. 6-9. The same slogan, extended to all Greece, appears in the
famous Athenian decree recording the alliance of the Chremonidean
War (Syll. 434/5. 11. 32 ff.): the allies, including the Achaeans Kotvi'j>
6p.ovolaS" y.:;vop.lYYJS" TOtS" "EAAYjat 7rpOS" TE TOVS" vvv TjOtKYjK(JTaS" Kal 7rapEU"1ToYOYJKOTa S"Tct> TToAEt> (viz. Gonatas and his tyrants) 7rpo0vp.ot fLETa
Tov f3amAlwS" liToAEp.a{ov Kal fLET' WU.?)..\wv imapxwmv d.ywvtaTal Kai TO
..\omov fLEO' 6p.ovoia> adn{watv TaS" m)..\nS".
2. 'Apa.ToY TOY IucuwYLOY: Aratus (27I-2I3) founded the Con-

federation in the form in which it played so vital a part in the history

of the third and second centuries. For his early career see 43 3 ff.,
for his Memoirs, 40. 4, and on his character iv. 8. For discussion of
all questions relating to Aratus see Walbank, Aratos; W. H. Porter,
xiii-cv.
ci>L~ovo1fJ-EYa. ToY MEya.~owo~LTlJY: Philopoemen (252-I82) fought at
Sellasia (67. 4 ff.) in 222, reformed the Achaean army and defeated
the Spartans in 206 (xi. 8 ff.), and became the most famous Achaean
statesman of the second century. Though highly praised by P., who
wrote his biography in three books (x. 21. s-8), his policy may be
justly criticized as negative. On his character see De Sanctis, iv.
I. 243-4; and in general W. Hoffmann, RE, 'Philopoimen', cols. 76--95.
AuKopTa.v: Lycortas of Megalopolis, the son of Thearid<1s, and father
227

II.

40. 2

EVENTS IN GREECE

of P. (xxii. 3 6), first appears in 192 as hipparch (Livy, xxxv. 29. 1).
During a long political career he urged a policy of neutrality towards
Rome, and friendship with the Attalids and Ptolemies. P., normally
favourable, as one would expect, criticizes him in xxii. 9 The theory
that Lycortas married Philopoemen's daughter (cf. Hiller von
Gaertringen on Syll. 6z6; Stahelin, RE, 'Lykortas', cols. 2386-9;
von Scala, rs) is based on the fact that P.'s brother Thearidas called
his son Philopoemen (IG, v. 2. 535); but were it true, P. would not
have omitted to mention it (Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (r)', col. 1445).
3, nEt I(Q;TQ. TtJ 1rpE1rOV TTI ypa.cflfi 'I:I'O~OUj.LEVOl TftV ~'lr~UTO.OW: 'making
mention of them from time to time in such a way as not to conflict
with the scheme of this work'; P. probably means that he will not
confound the canons of history and biography (x. 21. 8). Paton's
translation, 'without transgressing the limits I have set to this part
of my work', is misleading; he is not concerned here with the npoKa7aaKetn). On the repetition of iTT[OTauts in the sense 'beginning' in
5 see i. 14. 2~3 n.
4. Ka.l vuv t<a.& p.1ml. Ta.uTa.: 'now and hereafter' (sc. in this book).
P. is not thinking of the Social War (so Treves interprets p.erd.
'Tairra), for Aratus' ]\l[emoirs did not descend beyond the accession
of Philip V. On these see i. 3 2 (rij> 7Tap' l4p6.7ov . uvn<ff~Ews),
ii. 47 II (v7TOf.Ll-'1)f.La7a), 56. 2, iv. 2. I (-N]v J4pdTov aVV'TO.gu,); Plut.
A rat. 3 3, 32. s. 33 3, 38. 6 (v1Top.Jnjf.LaTa) ; cteom. 16. 4; Agis, 15. 2,
fragments in FGH, 23r. See Walbank, Aratos, 6-9; Porter, xvxvii.
The Memoirs, thirty books in length (FGH, 231 T I = Life of
Aratus of Soli, p. 79, 12 M), went down to 220 (i. 3 2, iv. 2. r) and
served as a political defence of Aratus' policy. P. is clearly prejudiced
in favour of his fellow Achaean ; but the work had important omissions (cf. 47 II) and was not always reliable in detail. Plutarch
indicates its character by his use of the words dpvovp.evos, &.1ToAoyetu8a.t,
and &.1To:.\oyltea8a.t in connexion with it. The style was rough and
unfinished (Piut. Arat. 3 3). Aratus' Memoirs are P.'s main source
for Achaean events in this book, and Plutarch's in his Aratus. When
they perished is unknown. Muller's statement (FHG, iii. 21), repeated by Porter (xv), that they were excerpted by Sopater for his
'Ex:'Aoya.{ in the fourth century of our era, rests on a misreading of
Photius, Bibl. cod. 161, p. 104 b {= Migne, Patrol. Graec. ciii. 450),
who merely refers to Plutarch's Life. These v1Top.Vl)f.La.Ta. are- our first
example of the loose, personal, biographical narrative of a statesman,
unless we except the llep1 ~eKa.e.,.la.s in which Demetrius of Phalerum
recounted his government at Athens (Diog. Laert. v. 81). This type
of imof.LV1)p.a7a is to be distinguished from similarly styled royal
journals or records of royal acts (Orrop.Vl)p.anup.o>, cf. xxiii. 2. 4 ; Welles,
283-4. 372; Bickermann, Aegyptus, 1933, 349~55).
5. Ka.Ta m)Alv lha.l.u9iVTo~ Tou 18vous: cf. 41. 9, iv. 1. 5, both
::Z28

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE: THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II.41.5

referring to 'the kings of Macedon'; Strabo, viii. 384 (following P.).

The process, evidently protracted (41. 9 n.), was between 323 and
z8r/o. The 'kings' probably include Cassander, Demetrius I, and
Antigonus Gonatas, as well as Antipater and Polyperchon.
O.pxti wa~w tyf.vETo t<a.l O'UWEuu1~: 'the cities began once more to
approach each other'; hendiadys. avwE'va~s nowhere else has this
metaphorical sense. For details ~ee 41. 9 ff.
6. t<a.TclJ1Cpos &.pT(w~ Efwov: 'I have just given a partial account'.
See Schweighaeuser, ad loc., and Lex. Polyb. pipos for the distinction
between Ta Kani fdpos, 'in detail', and such a phrase as Kant JLlpos
E'lTrEfv, 'to speak partially, somewhat' (cf. x. 27. 7).
41. 1.

b~u~Tnas

124

284-280. Ptolemy I died sometime between

EtKoO'T,; Ka.t TETnpTTJ wpbs TO.t') EKa.Tbv: 01.

2 November 283
and I November 282, but the exact date is unknown (T. C. Skeat,
Mizraim, vi, 1937, 31). Lysimachus perished in the battle of Coru-

pedium in 281 (Tarn, CAH, vii. 98 n. 1), seven months before the
murder of Seleucus (Iustin. xvii. 2, 4), which fell between 25 August
and 24 September 281 (Sachs and Wiseman, Iraq, 1954, 202-12). The
date of Ceraunus' death is still uncertain (d. i. 6. 5 n.). Such synchronisms (which P. liked; cf. Livy, xxxix. so. 10, 52. I, deaths of
Philopoemen, Hannibal, and Scipio in one year; Livy's source is P.,
cf. xxiii. 12 f.) were a regular feature of Hellenistic histories. Thus
Duris of Samos opened his work with the deaths of Amyntas of
Macedon, Agesipolis of Sparta, and Jason of Pherae (Diod. xv. 6o,
3-6), and may have ended with a general dynastic shuffle (FGH,
76 F 55, an episode from Lysimachus' funeral; Lorenz, 86 n. 89,
contra Jacoby, FGH, ii C 117). P. opens his main narrative with the
deaths of Ptolemy III, Seleucus III, and Antigonus Doson in 01. 139
(71. 3-4); and it seems clear that in such coincidences he saw the
working of Tyche (cf. iv. 2. 4 ff., xxxix. 8. 5 f.: simultaneous changes
affect Macedon, Cis-Taurus, Syria, Egypt, Cappadocia, Sparta, and
Carthage). See Lorenz, :u. On Patrae and Dyme see 8 and Iz.
4-5. Awo . . Tlua.~evou ~ws 'fiyuyou: cf. Strabo, viii. 384.
Tisamenus was the son of Orestes and Hermione (Paus. ii. r8. 6).
In the tradition here followed he led the Achaeans from Argos and
Laconia, at the time of the 'return of the Heraclids' (the Dorian
invasion), to the north coast of the Peloponnese, and drove out the
Ionians (Apollod. ii. 8. 2 ff.; Paus. ii. 18. 6 :ff., 38. 1, vii. 6. 2) who,
after holding out in Helice, eventually retired to Attica; see D.M.
Leahy, Hisforia, r9ssf6, 32. The tradition of a Tisamenid dynasty
is also in Pausanias (vii. 6. 2), but its details were probably a later
compilation. Ogygus (cf. iv. r. s) is not mentioned elsewhere.
5. ~ETEO'TT!O'O.V ds ST!~oKpa.T(a.v Ti}v 'ITO~tTda.v: cf. Strabo, viii. 384.
Aristotle (Pol. vii (v). r2. 7 :ff., 1316 a) envisages the possibility of any
229

II. 4I. 5

EVENTS IN GREECE

type of constitution turning into any other; but primitive monarchy

would hardly become democracy without the intervening stage of
aristocracy which normally followed both in reality and in F.'s
mvn scheme in book vi (vi. 4 8, 8. I). This scheme is suggested by the
story of Ogygus' sons ruling p,~ vop,lp,w>, &M..t 8w1ro-rH<:w> (cf. vi. 7 6--9
contrasted v;ith vi. 6. 9-7. 5). The Achaean cities were in fact
democracies in the fifth century, but after the setting up of oligarchies by Sparta in 4!7 (39 4 n.) they remained devoted to these,
and a Theban attempt to restore democracy violently soon failed
(Xen. Hell. vii. L 41-4, :z. 18, 4 17, 5 1-3, 5 18; Diod. xv. 75);
throughout most of the fourth century the Achaeans are tools in
the hands of Thebes or Sparta. P.'s claim that the democracy was
maintained is therefore false, unless indeed he is using the word
'democracy' in the loose sense indicated in 38. 6 n. (cf. Aymard, CP,
1950, 102 n. 33; Larsen, 26-27).
6. J.LEXP' Tfjs 1t.At:~iw6pou Kat CfJtAC1T1rou: on the hysteron prater an to
avoid hiatus cf. 2. 2 n. By its adhesion to the League of Corinth the
Achaean League lost its freedom in external affairs (Sytl. 26o,U. n ff.) ;
and internally the existence of the tyrant Chaeron at Pellene, supported by Alexander ([Dem.] xvii. 10; Athen. xi. 509 B), is indicative
of the pressure exercised from Macedon. Antipater's victory over
Agis at Megalopolis in 331 may also have been followed by interference in the cities of Achaea, which had supported Sparta (Aeschin.
Ctes. 165). See Aymard, REA, 1937, :zo n. 4
7-8. The trtelve cites of Achaea. Lists are given by Strabo (viii.
385-6) and Herodotus (i. 145); the latter states that the Achaeans
took them over from the Ionians they displaced, and both give
Aegae and Rhypes in place of Leontium and Ceryneia. Pausanias'
list (vii. 6. 1) is the same, except that it omits Patrae and includes
Ceryneia. Aegae and Rhypes were evidently abandoned before the
rebirth of the Confederation in 28rjo (Strabo, viii. 386-7; Paus. vii.
23. 4, 25. I2); on the site of Rhypes, on the hill above Kumari, 7 km.
west of Aegium, see Bolte, RE, 'Rhypes', cols. 1288-92, with map,
(hesitant); E. Meyer, Pel. JiVand. 123 ff. The disappearance of Oloms
and Helice is widely attested (Strabo, viii. 385; Paus. vii. 22. 1, 24.6 f.;
Diod. xv.48 etc.). Olen us lay just over 4miles (4o stades) east of Dyme,
in west Achaea, Helice about 5 miles east of Aegium, on the right
bank of the modem Vuphusia (Meyer, Pel. Wand. qo). Meyer has
explored all this district and locates Olenus on the coast, somewhat
west of Tsukale!ka (op. cit. n9-22). Helice perished in 373 after an
earthquake and tidal wave, and its territory went to Aegium (Strabo,
viii. 385, following Heracleides Ponticus; Paus. vii. 25. 4). It had been
the political centre of the 1ww6v, and the Homarion (39 6 n.) perhaps
lay on what was originally territory of Helice (Ayrnard, ACA,
284 ff.; see however, Bingen, BCH, 1953, 626-7). Olenus declined to
230

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II. 41.7

join the Confederation in 281/o (Strabo, viii. 384); it had disappeared

by P.'s time (for BtaJJ.1vw) will be 'exist', not 'remain in the confederacy', as Schweighaeuser takes it).
Leontium andCeryneia are not in Herodotus and Strabo, Leontium
not in Pausanias. Ceryneia (spelt locally Kapvvla.) lay on the hillside
between the rivers Vuphusia and Kalavryta, just north of the
modern village of Mamousia, on a site long thought to be Bura;
d. Meyer, Pel. Wand. 127 ff. Bura itself must have been in the hills
around Diakophto, east of the Kalavryta (Meyer, op. cit. 133 ff.);
Strabo (viii. 386) puts it 40 stades, i.e. 7 km., above the sea, and
in the fuller text of Vat. gr. 2306 (see below) he puts Ceryneia
equally far from Bura and the sea (viii. 387). Leontium lay in the
hills about 30 km. south-west of Aegium, at Kastritsi, ruins 3 km.
north of Vlasia, commanding the pass between Mt. Olonos (Erymanthus) and Mt. Kalliphoni; see F. BOlte (AM, 1925, 71-76, with map),
who argues against Leake's view that Leontium \Vas the ruin of
H. Andreas near Guzumistra. Bolte's view i<> confirmed by Meyer
(Pel. Wand. TII ff.), who describes the site from autopsy. A text of
prime importance for this part of Achaea (in addition toP. v. 94 34)
is now Strabo viii. 388 with additions from the palimpsest (Vat.
gr. z3o6) published by G. Cozza-Luzi (Della geografia di Strabone
frammenti scoperti in membrane palinseste (Rome, 1887), iii. 19
fg.
lxxYi, ll. 25 ff.), ~ ()~ t!>apd avvopEi p.~v lv Tfj LJvp.a.lg (KAet[TO]ptKfi Kat
AeovT"r]a{'} ~v f1VTlyovo> Eh 'Tof> ftxmof> c{JK71uev (read c{JKtaev)). For
KAEL[TD]ptKfj Bolte read Kat TptTa'iKfj (AM, 1925, 73), emended later
to Ka~ Ila-rpLKfj (RE, 'Phara, Pharai (1)', col. 1796), followingW. Aly,
5.-B. Heidelberg, I9JI/z, 1. 14). Leontium seems to have inherited
the territory of Rhypes (see above) ; but whether this statement of
Strabo that Antigonus (Gonatas) founded it merely means that he
strengthened it and put it under one of his men (so Bolte) is dubious.
This text is also relevant to the situation of Pharae; add CozzaLuzi, ibid. 23 (= fg. lxxvi, u. 37 ff.),
o TptTala Tfj:; t!>apatKfj<;
&:rrrua.t Ka.[t AE]oVT"r]aia> Kat Aa.cnwvla> . .. Pharae lay on the
middle course of the R. Pierus (modern Kamenitsa) near Lalikosta,
south-east of !sari (cf. Bolte, RE, 'Phara, Pharai (r)', cols. 1796-8).
Tritaea was successfully located by A. Wilhelm (]ahresh., 19<JI, 74;
Neue Beitrage, I9II, 37) near H . .Marina, west of Mt. Olonos, on the
plateau of Vundukla, which lies south of the upper waters of the
R. Picrus. In placing it rzo stades (i.e. 21-23 km.) above Pharae,
Pausanias (vii. zz. 6) is on the high side. See E . .Meyer, RE, 'Tritaia
(1)', cols. 237-41. Dyme lay near the frontier \lith Elis, on the site
of modern Kato-Achaia; d. Bolte (RE, 'Hekatombaion (r)',col. 2785;
'Olenos (4)', col. 2436) following Duhn (AM, r878, 75-78). For
epigraphical evidence confirming the identification see Bingen, BCH,
1954, 396, nos. 7-8. Patrae occupied the site of the modern town.

IL 4I. 7

EVENTS IN GREECE

Pellene, the most easterly city towards Sicyon, pursued a separatist

course in the fifth and fourth centuries. She joined Sparta independently at the outset of the Peloponnesian War (Thuc. ii. 9 z), in 4I8
she was the only Achaean state to send her help {Thuc. v. 58. 4, 59
3, 6o. 3). and in 413 she again acted separately (Thuc. viii. 3 2). In
394 the men of Pellene fought beside the other Achaeans as Spartan
allies {Xen. Hell. iv. 2. r8, 2. 2o), but were not necessarily in the
League. After Leuctra they supported Sparta enthusiastically for
longer than the other Achaeans (Xen. Hell. vi. 5 29, vii. 2. 2), had
gone over to Thebes by 369 (Xen. Hell. vii. I. r8, 2. II ff.), but later
expelled the democrats and rejoined Sparta (Xen. Hell. vii. 4 r8).
In 345/4 Pellene treated separately with Athens (IG. ii-iiP. 220; SEG,
iii. 83); and in 331 she was the only Achaean state not to support
Agis (Aeschin. Ctes. 165), perhaps under the tyrant Chaeron (4r. 6).
This separatism is not apparent in the third century. The site of
Pellene (Paus. vii. 26. I2 ff.) has been identified near the modern
village of Zugra, on a 6oo m. terrace between the rivers Trikkaliotikos
and Phonissa, some 1o6 km. from the sea (cf. Strabo, viii. 386,
6o stades). See E. Meyer, RE, 'Pellene (I)', cols. 354-66.
Aegeira lay on a hill (Strabo, viii. 386) about 27 miles west of
Sicyon; its remains still stand on a spur of the Evrostina, about
20 minutes from the sea (cf. Hirschfeld, RE, 'Aigeira', cols. 950- I).
In iv. 57 5 P. puts it only 7 stades from the sea, but there has no
doubt been silting from the river since then. Aegium occupied the
site of the modern city of that name.
P.'s omission of Olenus and inclusion of Leontium suggests that,
despite his reference to the period before Philip and Alexander, his
list is really that of the third-century cities; cf. Bingen, BC H, 1954,
404-6.
9. tc:a.TA S TOu<; lHTTEpou<; ttTA.: i.e. between 323 and 281. Until
recently Alexander was commonly believed to have dissolved all
Greek Kotvd in 324. That view, which runs directly counter to this
passage, depended on the combination of a fragmentary passage in
Hypereides' speech against Demosthenes (i. r8-rg, Jensen) with
41. 6 above. It was rejected by Tarn (]HS, I92Z, 205) and refuted by
Aymard (REA, 1937. 5-28).
10. TUS 1:1v ~Jlq,poupous .. yEvEa8a.L . , TUS S tc:a.t TupavvEta8aL:
Demetrius Poliorcetcs, son of Antigonus I, was powerful in Greece
and Macedon from 307, and held the title of king from 294. Cassander,
the son of Alexander's viceroy in Macedon, Antipater, was powerful
from about 317 to his death in 297. Antigonus Gonatas, Demetrius'
son, was king of Macedon from 283 to 240{39 A few details from the
wars of the Diadochi in Achaea survive in Diodorus (xix. 66. 3-6,
liberation of Achaean cities in 314 from Cassander's garrisons by
Aristodemus, a general of Antigonus I ; xx. ro3. 4, capture of Bura

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II. 41. I3

from Cassander by Demetrius in 303). These passages mention

Cassander's garrisons in Dyme, Patrae, Aegium, and Bura; this
system and that of installing friendly tyrants were employed by
Demetrius and Antigonus. Cf. ix. 29. 6, where Chlaeneas of Aetolia
speaks of Cassander, Demetrius, and Antigonus tlv oi f.L" rppovpas
dt:raj'OVTf<; ds Tas 7T(JAHS I o[ [j~ Tvpawovs ij.Lrp!Yrr;VOJ)'T<; oOSEJ.L{av 7TOAW
aj.LOtpov iTTo{:ryaav 'TOU rijs OOVAlas 6v6j.La'TO<;,
rr~E(uTovs

~ovapxous o~Tos Erui>uTEuua.~ lioKE'i To'Ls "E~~TJut:

a strong case has been argued by W. Fellmann (Antigonos Gonatas,

Konig der Makedonen, und die griechischen Staaten, Diss. Wiirzburg,
1930, 56-{i3; cf. Porter, xxv-xxvii) for the view that Gonatas' system
of tyrants was first established after the death of Alexander of
Corinth about 245. But the evidence is inconclusive; for though not
every tyrant was Gonatas' man, once in power a tyrant would be
likely to look to Macedon, and if Gonatas was interested enough to
maintain a garrison at Aegium ( 12) and to found a strong-point at
Leontium (41. 7-8 n.), he may have been not wholly without interest
in what happened at Ceryneia and Bura ( 14}. The metaphorical use
of iJ.Lrpv-refktat is not uncommon (cf. Plato, Tmaeus, 42 A) and there
is no reason to think P. borrowed it fromAratus' Memoirs (so Treves).
11. KO.Ta T~V nuppov Sta~aaw: d. i. 6. 5 n., ii. 20. 6 n.
12. AujLO.LOL, na.TpEis, T PLTO.LELS, 4>apa.uil's: cf. iv. 6o. IO, dpxTJYOUS
Tofi Twv 11xaww uvrrr-TjJ.LaTos. All four of these western towns are
small, though Dyme and Tritaea were probably larger than the other
two (Plut. Arat. 11. x); on their sites see 4r. 7-8 n. Their union is
probably to be connected V>ith the rising of Areus of Sparta and
various Peloponnesian states against Macedon (Justin. xxiv. x),
following on Gonatas' naval defeat at the hands of Ptolemy Ceraunus
in z8o (Memnon, FGH, 434 F I (8. 4 ff.); Justin. xxiv. 1. 8). See
Tarn, AG, 131-3; CAH, vii. 99-1oo; Beloch, iv. I. 249
lhorrep ov8~ O'TIJ~TJV TllS O'Uj11TO~lTE(ag: since they did not enter
the League, but formed it; and in any case until Aegium entered
the League they had no access to the federal sanctuary and could
not set up a stele there (Aymard, Melanges Franz Cumont (Brussels,
1936), 12). Swoboda has argued (Staatsaltertumer, 375 n. 2) that
UVJ.LTToAtnla is here rather less than full federal union, and nearer to
luono.\tn[a. It is true that in 279 the people of Patrae, llxat<Vv J.L6voL,
sent the Aetolians help against the Celts (Paus. vii. x8. 6, zo. 6); and
this suggests that the earliest constitution allowed more latitude of
action to the separate cities than would later have been possible.
But that the Lt>.ague was not constituted in z8o is an hypothesis
running counter to the whole of P.'s narrative. Cf. Busolt-Swoboda,
ii. 1537 n. I; Niccolini, 6 n. 6.
13. J16.A,uT6. 1TIIl'i TE~ 1TEjLrrT~: Aegium expelled its Macedonian garrison and entered the League in the fifth year after its foundation in
233

IL .p. 13

EVENTS IN GREECE

Ol. 124, 4 = 28rjo. But for his dates in 41-43 P. seems to be using
the Achaean aTparqyia year, which at this time began with the rising
of the Pleiades, in May (v. r. 1). The following table can be con~
structed on the basis of exclusive calculation:
Achaean Year
Foundation of the League {01. 124, 4 = 28rjo}
First year .
. May 28ofMay 279
Aegium joins five years later (4r. 13}
275{4
Margus elected sole general after twenty-five
years (43 2}
255/4
Aratus frees Sicyon four years later (43 3)
251/0
Corinth freed eight years later (43 4}
243/2
i.e. one year before the battle of the Aegates
Islands (43 6) which was in spring 24r (cf. i.
6o-6I n.}.

Cf. Beloch, iv. 2. 226-7; other discussion in Mommsen, Rom. Forsch.

ii. 36o (unconvincing); Niccolini, 267 ff.; Niese, Hermes, rgoo, 53 ff.;
Leuze, ]ahrziihlung, 137 n. r68.
f.~fjs S.l TOuTOlS Bouplol Ka.puv'i:s: whether, like Aegium, in 275/4
is not known. On the site of Bura and Ceryneia see above, 4r.
7-8 n. !seas, the tyrant of Ceryneia, is otherwise unknown.
14. Su1 MO.pyou Kal TWV ~Xa.lWv: Margus (ro. 5 n.) was evidently
active in the Confederation as a refugee from Ceryneia. !seas will
have anticipated just such an attack as Aratus carried out against
his own city of Sicyon in 251/o (43 3).
42. 4. TT)v TWv ~xa.lwv 1rpoa.ipt::ow: 'the political principles of the
Achaeans', as in 2. Strachan-Davidson (n), followed by LSJ, assumes a special meaning 'advice, policy advocated' here and in three
other places; but in vii. IJ. 4 and vii. q. r 1TpoalpEatS is 'principle,
character', and in xxxix. 3 9 (as he admits) 'intentions' or 'attitude'.
P. is claiming that in so far as Achaean allies have helped (a) to
extend equality and liberty, (b) to crush those who would enslave
their native cities on their own behalf or on behalf of 'the kings', the
credit should go to Achaea. The implication of 5 would be that
Achaea deserved the credit for the Romans' achievements in this
direction, e.g. the extension of equality and liberty in Flamininus'
declaration at Corinth in rg6 (xviii. 46. 5), the crushing of Nabis, one
of those who enslaved cities St' a{JTwv (Livy, xxxiv. 22 ff.: source P.),
or of the Aetolians, allies of Antiochus (xx. r ff.), who did the same
8ta TWV f3aatMwv. On Achaean independence relative to Rome at
that period cf. xxii. ro. g.
' EKUO'TWV
' '
,.._ n , KO.l\ TTJV
'
' ,
nE/\O'ITOVVTJO'lWV:
\.
'
6 TTJV
E/\EUvEpUlV
KOLV,J.1V OfJ.OVOla.V
a very favourable picture of the Achaean policy of uniting the
Peloponnese, willy-nilly, under the Confederation. For the op.ovow.
134

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II. 43 3

of the League cf. 37 n, 40. 1, iv. I. 7; it was frequently used as the

slogan of middle-class stability against the demands of social revolution, cf. Tarn, HC. goff., 1.2:2 ff.
43. 1. e'LKoaL ~TTJ T4 1rpwTa Kat 1TEvTE: i.e. 280/79-256/s inclusive.
Mommsen (Rom. Forsch. ii. 36o) assumes all P.'s calculations to be
based on inclusive reckoning, and calculates these twenty-five years
from the accession of Aegium; but Ta 1rpwTa. is against this, as
also is the fact that Strabo (viii. 385), who adds the detail that
meetings were at this time held at the Homarion, allows only twenty
years, i.e. from the accession of Aegium, in whose territory the
Homarion lay (Aymard, 111elanges Cumont, 19-20).
ypa"'p.a.Tta. KOLVOV EK 1TEptoSou 1TPOXELptt6~-LEVaL teal 8uo aTpaT1'JYOU~:
iK 1TEpt68ov, 'in rotation' (not 'for a certain period', Paton); cf. vi.
20. 7 Secretary and generals were chosen from a fresh city each year,
on a rota (though probably each from a separate city). 7rpoxetpt{6p.evat, agreeing with 1r6Aets, may mean that the citizens of the city
in question elected, and not the federal assembly (Aymard, ACA,
390 n. 3) ; but the point is a fme one, and in any case such a manner
of election can have existed only until the reorganization of 256/5
(cf. Busolt-Swoboda, ii. 1537 n. 3). One may not press the prefix
7rpo- in 7rpoxnpt{w8at (with Aymard) to indicate prior designation;
P. uses it regularly for 'to appoint' (cf. L II .3, iii. 106. 2, etc.).
2. ~va Ka8taTavuv KTA.: i.e. in 255/4, with Margus. This reform
probably implied a diminution in the importance of the grammateus,
as the League became increasingly preoccupied with problems of
external and military policy (Aymard, Melanges offerts aM. Nicolas
Iorga (Paris, 1933), 96-ro3), and was accompanied by the transfer of
rnJvoSot from the Homarion to Aegium itself (Aymard, ACA, 294 ff.).
3. TETapTtt~ 8' uaTepov ~TEL aTpllTTJYOUVTo~: 'four years after his
term of office', not (as Paton, following Casaubon) 'during his term of
office'. The present participle is used for the aorist, as in iii. u4. 6;
cf. i. 1. I, Toi:s dvayp&.povm, ii. 2. II, T{jl 1Tpoii1Tapxovn. See Schweighaeuser, ad loc.; and Porter, 54 (on Plut. Arat. 9 6). This passage
dates Aratus' birth to :271; cf. Walbank, ]HS, 1936, 65 n. 9; Porter,
loc. cit., against Beloch's argument (iv. 2. 228) that he was born in
276 or 275.
Tupa.vvoup.EVTJV 8' ~Xw8epcilaa.~ T,;v 1TilTpt8a.: cf. Plut. A rat. 5-9;
Walbank, Araios, 31-.34 The tyrant of Sicyon was Nicocles, who had
seized power after Pascas' murder four months previously (Plut.
A rat. 4 r); neither can be shown to be a creature of Antigonus. The
liberation took place on 5 Daisios, i.e. May (Plut. A rat. 53 5; cf.
Cam. 19; Alex. 16 for equation with the Attic month Thargelion);
but P. does not give the year, as indeed he had no occasion to do.
Porter (xxxiii-xxxiv), who favours 252, lists the events between the

235

II. 43 3

EVENTS IN GREECE

liberation and the accession to the League. But Plut. Arat. 9 6,

o(hv JK 'TWV TTO.povrwv apW'TO. Kptva.s TTpoa/p.~f~v a.iJrryv r/Jepwv (i.e.
'promptly') Tots .lixawis, is rather in favour of making the liberation
May 251; and the straightforward interpretation of P. would put
both events in the same year. Sicyon will then have joined the
Confederation in autnmnfwinter 251. See }HS, 1936, 67 for a table
of dates, 251-248.
4. oybo<tl 8( 'ITI:Huv ETEL: i.e. 243/2. Aratus' first crrpo.nryta. was in
245/4 (Plut. Arat. r6; Walbank, Aratos, 42). Corinth had slipped from
Gonatas' grasp when his governor Alexander revolted and declared
his independence in 250/49 (on the date see De Sanctis, Klio, 1909.
1-9; Porter, Hermath. zo, 1930, 293-3n; Plutarch's Aratus, xxxvixlii; Walbank,JHS, 1936, 67). On Alexander's death in 245 Antigonus
tricked his widow out of the stronghold by a proposed marriage with
the heir Demetrius. In 243 Aratus liberated both the city and the
citadel (in midsummer, Plut. Arat. :ZI. 2, TJ TTEP~ Olpos aKfLa~ov wpa).
See Plut. Arat. 16. 2-24. 1; Walbank, Aratos, 45-47; for the topography Porter, Hermath. xxi, I9JI, 54-6o; W. P. Theunissen, Ploutarchos' Le11en van A ratos (Nijmegen, 1935), 184-97.
5. T~v Twv MEyapEwv 'IT6Aw: Troezen and Epidaurus also joined the
League now; cf. Plut. A rat. 24. 3; Paus. ii. B. 5, vii. 7 2. Dta7Tpo.g&.fLt:vos may suggest the use of intrigue or trickery (cf. Aeschin. Ctes.
232); but Schweighaeuser translates 'sua industria'.
6. 1'~ 'ITpoTEpov E1'L T~S KapxtJ8ovlwv ~TTT]S: if the battle of the
Aegates Islands was in March 241 (i. 6o-6r n.), it fell in the Achaean
OTpa.rrtylo. year May 242-May 241, and so in the year after the liberation of Corinth, May 243-May 242.
7, blET~hEL 'ITPOcrTI:lTWV Tov TW\1 ;ll,.xau';lv i9vous:: cf. Plut. A rat.
24. s. OUTW S' raxvaev v TOtS .lixa~ors, wcrre .:l fLry Ka'T' Jvazvrov l~fjv,
TTap' Jv~o.vrov alpd:aOat crrpa'TTJYOV o.tl-r6v, ;pycp 8 Ka.~ yYWJl.TJ Sui 1ravros
apxEw. Normally Aratus held office alternate years until his death

in :ZIJ/I:z; for details and discussion of the general list see Beloch,
iv. z. 219 ff.; Tarn, CAH, vii. 863; Ferrabino, 272-5; Walbank,
Aratos, 167-75; d. CR, 1937, 224; Niccolini, 267 ff.; Porter, lxxviilxxxi.
8. To MaKE8ova.s 11v ~IC~a.A~tiv KTA.: this paragraph summarizes
Aratus' aims down to the time of the Cleomenean War, when the
Spartan threat caused their radical revision. This threat revealed
the inadequacy of Aratus' programme when faced by a determined
enemy combining social and patriotic slogans in support of a powerful army. Faced by Cleomenes Aratus recalled the Macedonians into
Greece, and handed over the Acrocorinth. On this issue see Treves,
Rend. Line., 1932, 177 ff., 188-9; Athen., 1935, 30 ff.
TfJ\1 ICOlVTJV Ka.i 'IT~lTpLov ~Au9Epla.v: cf. 42. 6; freedom both as individual cities, enjoying their ancestral institutions, and as a federal body.
236

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II-441

9. -rrpos 'T1,v At'TwAwv -rrAEovE~La.v: the Aetolians, ancient enemies of

Achaea, are harshly criticized by P.; cf. 3 3, 4 6, 45 I, 46. 3, 49 3,
iv. 3 I, 3 5, 67. 4, v. 81. I, ix. 38. 6, xviii. 4 I, 34 1. The Aetolians
were allied with Antigonus, and on his recovering the Isthmus in
245 invaded the Peloponnese. Triphylia was seized from the Arcadians and annexed to Elis; Arcadia was raided, the temple of
Artemis at Lusi was plundered, and the Arcadian League disintegrated. At Megalopolis Lydiades seized the tyranny, probably with
Aetolian and Elean help. See Walbank, JHS, 1936, 67 ff. 11'Aeov~;gia
is 'lust for plunder' (cf. I9. 3, 45 I, iv. 3 5, Vi. 56. 3), not 'lust for
power' (as Paton).
10. wcrn -rro~T)cra.cr9a.L cruv9T)Ka.s K'TA.: cf. 45 I, ix. 34- 6, 38. 9 Aratus
countered this proposed partition, 'in a statesmanlike fashion'
(11'payp..anKwc;), by an alliance with Agis of Sparta in autumn 243
(Plut. Agis, I3). Only in summer 24I, in Aratus' third C1'TpaT1]yia,
did the Aetolians cross the Isthmus, to be decisively defeated at
Pellene (Plut. Arat. 31. 3-5, 32. s--6). That invasion was probably
a reply to Aratus' policy of expansion against the allies of Aetolia
in Arcadia, which he initiated with an unsuccessful attack on
Cynaetha in the spring (ix. 17); but by now it was clear that Antigonus had no real help to give. See]HS, I936, 69-70.
44. 1. cruv9eJ.dvwv . cruJ-1-JJ-a.x(a.v -rrpos At'TwAous: for Aratus' alliance
with Pantaleon of Aetolia see Plutarch (Arat. 33 I); it seems to have
followed immediately on Gonatas' death, which was in the Olympiad
year 240/39 (for a closer approximation is impossible on the evidence
available; Tarn, Ferguson Studies, 490 n. 3 It follows from the date of
Demetrius' death, 2). The subsequent war between the two confederacies and Gonatas' successor, his son Demetrius II, sprang from
Demetrius' marriage to Phthia; this involved the sending of help to
her mother, Olympias, the queen of Epirus, against the Aetolians who
were trying to annex the Epirote half of Acarnania. On the Achaean
side it sprang from the policy of unifying the Peloponnese. The Demetrian War broke out in the Attic year 239/8 (JG, ii 2 I299, 1. 57 = Syll.
485: archonship of Lysias; cf. Meritt, Hesperia, I938, I23-36). P. exaggerates the self-sacrifice and generosity of the Achaeans in this war
(cf. 46. I}. Demetrius was occupied during most of this obscure war
against the nearer foe, Aetolia, and successfully, judging from his
title Aetolicus (Strabo, x. 45I). Meanwhile, the Achaeans made considerable gains in the Peloponnese (d. 5, Megalopolis, who brought
Orchomenus and Mantinea with her), despite Aratus' defeat at the
hands of the Macedonian general Bithys at Phylacia: both place
and date are unknown (it may lie near Kryavrysi between Tegea and
Sparta (cf. Walbank, Aratos, 64 n. 5), and Feyel (Ioo) gives strong
arguments for dating it in 237/6 before Demetrius entered Boeotia,
237

II. 44

EVENTS IN GREECE

xx. 5 3). On their side, the Aetolians supported the Achaean campaign against Macedonian-occupicd Athens with piratical raids on
the coast of Attica (IG, iiz. 834, 844; Wilhelm, Attische Urkunden,
iii, 1925, 57-58). See in general Tarn, CAH, vii. 744 ff.; Walbank,
Aratos,
; Treves. Rend. Line., 1932, I67-zos; Feyel,
Only when the Aetolian alliance began to involve Achaea in serious
struggles (cf. 9 9 ff.) did the compact break down; but the alliance
was never formally cancelled (iv. 7 4).
2. ATJV.TJTptou 8t! ~ac:nAeuaa.vTos 8Ka ~J.ovov ~T"J: so, too, Porphyry
in Eusebius' lists; FGH, z6o F 3 (13). Demetrius II's death and the
accession of Antigonus III (Doson) is to be dated to spring 229. See
Holleaux (REG, 1930, 255 ff. = Etudes, iv. 19 ff.) against Beloch (iv.
I. 637; 2. II2; 2.
; Dinsmoor's date (Archmts, I08), autumn 230,
is due to a misapplication of Beloch's theory of the Roman calendar.
On the date of the Roman crossing into Illyria (summer 229) see
z. I n. A termintts ante quem for Demetrius' death is further furnished
by the fact that it preceded May 229, since Aratus, who was general
229/8, initiated negotiations for the surrender of Athens before the
expiry of Lydiades' year (Plut. A rat. 34 6; Walbank, Aratos, 189go; Feyel, 123 n. 3). De Sanctis' statement that Demetrius died
fighting against the Dardanians (iii. I. 297) rests on a false deduction
from Trogus (pro/. xxviii).
5. Au8u~.8a.s b MeyaAo'll'oALTTJS: Lydiades, the son of Eudamus
(Syll. 504). had seized the tyranny shortly after Gonatas recovered
Corinth in 245 (43 9 n.). For his gift of Alipheira to Elis 1rpo> nvas
lSlos 1TpagEt> see iv. 77 ron. Previously Lydiades had led the Megalopolitan detachment along with Leotychidas at the battle fought at
Mantinea against Sparta in 251, shortly after the liberation of Sicyon
(Paus. viii. ro. 5, a poor text but not wholly false; see Schoch, RE,
'Lydiadas', col. 22o2). Lydiades was a man of considerable political
talent, and his tyranny had brought some real benefits at a time of
weakness in Arcadia. On his motives in joining the Achaean Confederation (less disinterested than Droysen {iii. 2. 39) and Freeman
(HFG, 315 ff.) thought) see Walbank (Aratos, 62--63) and Treves
(Rend. Line., 1932, r9o-1). On the annexation of Megalopolis to the
League in 235 (Walbank, Aratos, 169), see Plutarch (Arat. 30. 4;
Mor. 552 B). For Lydiades' death see 51. 3
6. ~p~aTOIJ.IlXOS ::evwv . KAEwvuv-os T6T' a'!l'o9EtJ.EVOL Tas
Jlovapx(a.s: Aristomachus had seized Argos in 235. after the tyrant
Aristippus, his brother, had fallen trying to recoVCI Cleonae from
Aratus (Plut. A rat. 27-29; for the chronology, Walbank, Aratos,
186-7). He joined the League in 229/8 {6o. 4; Plut. A rat. 35 r ff.),
and was elected general for 228/7 (as Lydiades had been rewarded
\'lith the (]'Tpar7Jyla for 234/3). On his family see 59 r n. On Xenon of
Hermione (in the Argolid) and Clconymus of Phlius see Plutarch
238

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II. 45.1

(A rat. 34 7. 35 5}. Plutarch links the accession of Hermione to the

League with that of Aegina, which had been among llia -rd TaTT0/-1-Eva
,UTa TOV Ilepat~W> (IG. ii2 1225, 11. 9-Io}; hence it is likely that
both came over after the liberation of Athens (which was in 229: cf.
44 2 n.). Phlius seems to have come over at the same time as Argos.
On Aristomachus' subsequent career and fate see 59-60.

45-46. E11ents leading up to th13 Cleome-nean War. P. reproduces the

tendentious account of Aratus' M emors, designed to justify Achaean
policy and throw the blame for its failure upon the Aetolians. To
this end the chronology is obscured and the facts are therefore unreliable. The best analysis is that of J. V. A. Fine (A]P, 1940, 130 ff.,
!44 ff.).
45. 1. D11rlaa.vTES Ko.T0.81EAa6a.~ TUS 1TOAELS: that the Aetolians compacted with Antigonus and Cleomenes to partition Achaea is wholly
improbable. The thesis is contradicted (a) by the fact that the
Achaean embassy to Antigonus (47-49: date 227{6) spoke only of the
possibility of a coalition between Sparta and Aetolia, (b) by Cleomenes' abuse of the Aetolians at the time of his coup (Plut. Cleom.
ro. 6: date 227). (c) by Aratus' appeal to the Aetolians (Plut. A rat.
41. 3: date, winter 225{4); see Fine (A]P, 1940, 134}. Further, the
Aetolians would not have attempted an alliance with Antigonus
after his recovery of much of Thessaly from them in 228 (Fine,
TAPA, 1932, 140-3); and 47 3-9 makes it clear that they did not
do so. P. is giving Aratus' version, which was intended to justify
the Achaean appeal to Macedon. Aratus' real enemy was Cleomenes;
but many in Achaea preferred Cleomenes to Antigonus. Hence
Aratus misrepresented the danger as one of combined attack from
Sparta, Aetolia, and Macedon, to partition the League, whereas
in reality Aetolian policy throughout this decade was one of strict
neutrality (Fine, A]P, 1940, I45-<J).
'l'a~ 11~v !6.Ko.pvO.vwv l>u;veL!l<lVTO 1rpos )\).~av8pov: cf. ix. 34 7, 38. 9
(confused); Iustin. xxvi. 3 r, xxviii. I. I. Alexander II of Epirus
succeeded his father Pyrrhus in 272; but the partitioning of Acarnania cannot be dated with certainty. It is one of a series of events
falling together: (a) a treaty of mutual assistance and isopoliteia
between Acarnania and Aetolia (IG, ix 2 I. 3 = Syll. 421), (b) the
expulsion of Alexander of Epirus by the crown prince Demetrius
of Macedon during the Chremonidean War (Iustin. xxvi. 2. n-3. r),
(c) Alexander's restoration (Iustin. ibid.), (d) the partitioning of
Acarnania between Alexander and the Aetolians. A good discussion
will be found in G. N. Cross (Epirtts (Cambridge, 1932), 128 ff.),
and G. Klaffenbach (Historia, 1955{6, 46-5r, modifying his earlier
theory in Klio, 1931, 223-34). It is dear that Alexander lost his throne
during the Chremonidean War (267/6-263{2), c. 263, and clear too that
239

II. 45

EVENTS IN GREECE

the Acarnano-Aetolian treaty must date between 2 71 fo (an Aetolian

officer referred to in it comes from Doris, which may have joined
the Aetolian League in that year, if Bousquet (BCH, 1938, 388 ff.)
is right in counting six Aetolian hieromnemones at the spring Pylaea
of 270) and the partitioning of Acarnania, though whether before or
after Alexander's flight from his kingdom (c. 263) is not attested.
In 1931 Klaffenbach argued that the fugitive Alexander granted
the Acarnanians independence in return for help in mediating with
Gonatas. On this assumption the treaty with Aetolia was an Acarnanian insurance against a renewed attempt at Epirote domination,
and the partitioning (dated c. :z6o by Klaffenbach) Alexander's reply
to the treaty. But such a reversion to an aggressive policy seems
improbable so soon after Alexander's recovery of the throne (cf.
Treves, Riv. fil., 1932, 276-7); and this would be no moment to
challenge a successful Macedonia by absorbing its Acarnanian allies.
Moreover, the existence of a treaty between Acamania and Pyrrhus
(mentioned on a now lost Acarnanian inscription; d. Tarn, AG,
rzr n. 2o; Klaffenbach, Historia, 1955/6, 47-8) is evidence that
Acarnania was already independent of Epirus before Pyrrhus'
death in 272. Hence Klaffenbach has put forward a new and more
convincing arrangement of these events. The Acamano-Aetolian
treaty and the partitioning of Acarnania, he suggests, both fall
after Alexander's flight. The former, dated to 263 or 262, will have
been engineered by Alexander himself as a move against :Macedon,
and probably led to his restoration in 262. The partitioning, as
Cross had already seen, is most likely to have occurred some considerable time after the Acarnano-Aetolian treaty, and will have
coincided with some period of Macedonian weakness. This would
give two possible dates: the revolt of Alexander, the governor of
Corinth, in 249 (43 4 n.; dated by Cross to 252), or Gonatas' loss of
Corinth to Aratus in 243 (43 4 n.). If 243 was the date, the partition
coincided with that proposed between Gonatas and the Aetolians
for the partition of Achaea; if in addition it was with his connivance,
P.'s error in ix. 38. 9 would be easier to comprehend.
The Aetolians took eastern Acarnania with Stratus, Oeniadae,
Metropolis, and Phoetiae; Epirus western Acarnania and Leu cas
(Busolt-Swoboda, ii. 1466-7; Beloch, iv. I. 596 n. r). The statue
erected by the Aetolians at Delphi in celebration of this success
IG, ix 1 1
(Paus. x. r6. 6) has been identified (F D, ii. 3 312
18o).
TO.s Se TWV :Axcuwv . npos :AvTiyovov: d. ix. 34 6, J8. 9; above,
43 10 n. Paton's translation is misleading; it suggests that the proposed partitioning of Achaea is previous to that of Acarnania. P.
does not say so.
2. TOT 1Ta.pcnrA1Jalcns A1rtaw ~na.p9eVTES: the date of this pretended
240

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEO:MENEAN WAR II-455

compact is, at the earliest, winter 229/8; since (a) it follows the
accession of Argos, Hermione, and Phlius to the League (44- 6), (b)
Doson is undisputed master of Macedon ( 3), which is true only
after his recovery of Phthiotis, Thessaliotis, and Hestiaeotis from
the Aetolians, who had seized them on Demetrius' death (Walbank,
Philip, I I nn. 2-3). Perhaps the agreement between Doson and the
Aetolians which followed this recovery, and apparently left Phthiotic
Achaea in Aetolian hands, is behind P.'s distorted version. For an
apparent difficulty see 45 6 n.
~VTLYOV<tJ n . . . hnTpont:uovTL 41LMnnou: Antigonus Doson,
grandson of Demetrius Poliorcetes and cousin of Demetrius II, succeeded first as guardian of the young heir Philip, and husband of
Demetrius' widow Phthia, in 229; cf. xx. 5 7; Livy, xl. 54 5; Plut.
Aem. 8. 3 (suggesting that his original position was that of strategos);
Iustin. xxviii. 3 9-10; Euseb. Chron. i. 238 Schoene. After his
victories over the Aetolians (above) and the suppression of an army
revolt (Tustin. xxviii. 3 u), probably in the late winter of 2z8i7, he
assumed the full rights of kingship. On the chronology see Dow and
Edson, Harv. Stud., 1937, 172ft.; Walbank, Philip, I I n. 4, 295-6;
on the regency and marriage to Phthia (Chryseis} see Tarn, Ferguson
Studies, 483-sor; Aymard, Aegyptus, 1952, 9o--92. Doson reigned until
his death, c. July 221 (7o. 6 n.).
Kll.t:Op.evu Tii! !3a.cnll.ei Aa.Kt:Sa.tp.ov(wv: Cleomenes III succeeded his
father Leonidas on the throne in 235. Married to Agiatis, the widow
of Agis IV, whom Leonidas had murdered in 241 (Plut. Cleom. r. 1-3),
Cleomenes inherited Agis' revolutionary programme, which he linked
with a policy of Spartan predominance in the Peloponnese. On
Cleomenes' policy, which clashed with that of Aratus, see Walbank
(Aratos, 72ft.); and on his blend of romanticism and political realism
see Treves (Athen., 1935, 32-33).
3-4. Aetolian considerations: quite fictitious. In 228 Doson had certainly established his position in Macedon by expelling the Aetolians
from most of Thessaly (45 2 n.) and had repelled the Dardanians,
probably with a decisive victory (Iustin. xxviii. 3 14; Bettingen,
17-18) ; but of active hostility towards Achaea because of the
capture of Acrocorinth fifteen years earlier (43 4} there is no evidence
(cf. Fine, A]P, 1940, 135 n. 25}. On the other hand, Cleomenes had already moved against Achaea with his seizure of the fort of Athenaeum
in the Belbinatis (Plut. Cleom. 4- 1-2) in summer 229. Thus there
was no interval when Doson was securely established in Macedon
but Cleomenes not yet at war with Achaea.
4. t:t To us Aa.KcoSa.tp.ovl.ous . . . npoep.!3t!30.cmtev KTA.: 'if they could
first excite the Lacedaemonians to hostile action'. U:rrlxfhtav is virtually 7T6Aq.1.m: cf. 46. 6.
5. Suvcip.evov uciaT)s IEUaToxeiv neptaTaaEw<;: 'capaoie of meeting any
R

11. 45 5

EVENTS IN GREECE

emergency' (Paton). Thus the non-fulfilment of these imaginary

plans is turned to the greater glory of Aratus, a theme clearly reproduced from his Memoirs.
6. 1t..pa.Tov TOTE vpoeo-TwTa: 'who was then general' for the ninth
time, 229j8. The supposed pact will date to winter 229/8 or 228
(45 2 n.); but inch. 46 P. gives as its result events which occurred in
the summer of 229. This is a further argument against the reality of
the pact.
46. 1. Tiw j.LEV TroAEj.LOV alo-xuvo11vou, civaA.a.JkLv: a suggestion
hard to reconcile with P.'s usual picture of the Aetolians. On
Achaean d.!pywta, see 44 r n.
2. KA.eo11~vou, vapnpTJj.LEvou Teyiav, MavTfve~av, 'Opxo11evov:
to these towns, annexed by Cleomenes in 229, add Caphyae, which P.
omits because Aratus recovered it by a coup in 228 (Plut. Cleom.
4 7). Their previous history is controversial (Swoboda, Staatsaltertiimer, 350 n. r) and best considered separately.
llfantinea lay in the east Arcadian plain r 2 km. north of modem
Tripolis. That she was a member of the Achaean League at the time
of the battle of Mantinea in 251 (44. 5 n.) is not proved (despite
Beloch, iv. 2. 525); and the fact that Man tinea was asked to arbitrate
between Aratus and Aristippus of Argos, after Aratus' attack on
Argos (c. 240) (Plut. Arat. 25. 5), shows that Mantinea was not then
Achaean, though she was not necessarily Aetolian either (Bolte, RE,
'Mantinea', col. 1327). At some time between this date and 229 the
city joined Achaea, since it was Achaean before it joined Aetolia
(57 r), and the present passage makes it clear that it was Aetolian
in 229.
Orchomenus, which lay 17 km. north of Mantinea, had also previously belonged to Achaea (iv. 6. 5; Livy, xxxii. 5 4), and is likely
to have shared the fortunes of Mantinea. The treaty of alliance between Orchomenus and the Achaean League (IG, v. 2. 344 = Syll.
490) contains certain stipulations in favour of Megalopolis, which
date it after the accession of that city to the League in 235 (44. 5 n.).
Orchomenus like Mantinea was Aetolian in 229 ; hence it seems certain
that Orchomenus (and likely that Mantinea) went over to the
Aetolians with Achaean consent between 234 and 229, perhaps in
compensation for the Aetolian losses in central Greece (Tam, CAH,
vii. 747). On the site of Orchomenus see R. Martin, Rev. arch., r944,
107-14.

Tegea lay 20 km. south of Mantinea and 8 km. south-east of

Tripolis. Several proxeny decrees (IG. v. 2. ro-rs) show Aetolian
influence in the magistrates and in their phraseology, but they cannot be accurately dated.
Caphyae lay at the north-west end of the east Arcadian plain,

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II. 46.5

8 km. north-west of Orchomenus, near the modern village of

Kotussa. Of its history between the collapse of Aristodamus' tyranny
at Megalopolis and 229 nothing is known.
It seems reasonable to assume that despite P.'s silence on Caphyae,
these four cities, which had learnt to act together at the time of the
Chremonidean War (cf. IG, iiz. 687, 11. 24-25), followed the same
fortunes now; what these probably were has been indicated under
Orchomentls. But there is no agreement among scholars on this
question. See E. Meyer, RE, 'Orchomenos (4)', cols. 889-95 (site),
899-90; Bolte, RE, 'J'I.fantinea', cols. 1292 ff. (site), 1327-8; von
Geisau, RE, 'Kaphy(i)a(i)', cols. r896-7 (site), r898; Hiller von
Gaertringen, RE, 'Tegea (1)', cols. 107 8 (site), II5; Busolt-Swoboda,
ii. 1539 n. 5, 1540 n. r. Against Beloch's view (i\'. 2. 524-5; d.
Treves, Athen., 1934, 4og-ro) that Mantinea and Orchomenus joined
Achaea c. 251 and were seized by the Aetolians in one of their raids,
243-240, is Syll. 490, which indicates (see above) that Orchomenus
(and so probably the other three towns) followed Megalopolis into
the Achaean League.
O'UJ.L'IToXtTEOOJ.1EV<lS TOTE 'ITOXELS: this should mean full membership
of the Aetolian Confederation with corresponding limitation of independence (cf. 43 r; xxii. 8. 9). But occasionally P. uses uvp:rrot"TEvEaea,
in a more limited sense, to indicate a treaty of lao7ToAtTt.la (d. xvi.
26. 9), which implied an
of citizenship under certain specified
conditions. Thus Phigaleia is avp.7Tol\tTwoldVIJ 70" AlTwl\oiS' in 220
(iv. 3 6, 31. r); but a treaty of lao7ToAtnta between Phigaleia and
Messene (Syll. 472: date, c. 24o) makes the Aetolians allies of the
former. Similarly, Lysimachia, Cius, and Calchedon were members
of the Aetolian avp.p.ax,la (xv. 23. 8) but elsewhere their relationship
is described by the word avp.7ToAm:vop..!vovS' (xviii. 3 r2). Here, too,
the link between Aetolia and the eastern Arcadian towns was one
of lao7Tol\mda (Busolt-Swoboda, ii. rsu nn. 1-3; Flaceliere, 312 n. 3;
Walbank, Philip, n6 n. 5 (reading Cius for Perinthus)), which was
more appropriate than full League membership for overseas allies.
3. (3Ef3cuouVTas auT\! T~v 'ITo.pcl.X'l"'tv: in the absence of other evidence
that the Aetolians were encouraging Spartan expansion, one should
consider the possibility (d. Fine, AJP, I94o, 138) that in 229 the
Aetolians were too occupied in Thessaly (45 2 n.) to pay much
attention to the defection of the Arcadian cities.
4. ot 'ITpOEO'TWTES: i.e. ot apxov-rES' (cf. 37 ro-n n. (e)). If this decision
to adopt a policy of resistance was ever really taken, it is to be dated
to the summer or autnmn of 229, since it precedes Cleomenes'
seizure of the Athenaeum ( 5).

5. TOV KXEOJ.LEV'l i'ITou<o8oJ.10UVT<l To KO.AOUj.LEVov :.\9f)vo.tov:

d. Plut. Cleom. 4 r-:z. This temple of Athena stood on the Megalopolitan frontier, in the Belbinatis, the district about the upper
243

EVENTS IN GREECE

waters of the Eurotas, on what is now Mt. Khelmos; cf. 54 3, iv.

11. It is not to be confused with the Athenaeum near
Asea (Paus. viii. 44 z f.), as by Oberhummer (RE, 'Athenaion (2)',
col. 2023). On its location see Loring, ]HS, 1895, 36-4o, 72 (with a
plan); Frazer on Paus. iii. 21. 3; Bolte, RE, 'Sparta', cols. 13o9-1o.
At this time Megalopolis held the area as a result of the decision of
the Synedrion of the Hellenic League, which arbitrated on the
frontier disputes of Messenia, Megalopolis, Argos, and Tegea with
Sparta (d. ix. 33 12, Kowdv EK 1rav-rwv -rwv 'l!.'AA{;vuw KaOlaa'; Kpt-n}pwv;
Syll. 665, 11. rg-zo (quoted, 48. 2 n.); Roebuck, 53-56} after Philip II's
invasion of Laconia in 338. When Livy (xxxviii. 34 8) makes the
transfer follow ex decreto uetere Achaeorum he is confusing Achaei
with "EM7JI'"' (cf. Livy, xxvii. 30. 6, where concilium Achaeorum
seems to be an assembly of the allies); see \.Veissenborn-Mi.iller,
ad loc.
6. auva.9potaa.vTES To~s !A.xa.to~s ~Kpwa.v p.ET(!. Tijs ~ou>.fts: this
passage appears to describe an extraordinary meeting of the
Achaean assembly. In the second century such an extraordinary
meeting would have been termed a m)yKAlJ-ros (cf. xxix. 24. 6); but
Aymard (ACA, 4IJ-ZI} has demonstrated that the avyKAT)TOS' was
not differentiated as a separate meeting until about zoo, and it was
only after zoo that competence in such matters as peace and war
was removed from the regular aV~o8os to a auyK,\7J-ros (xxix. 24. 5).
What term was employed for an extraordinary meeting in this
century is not recorded. Aymard has further argued (ACA, 68-75)
that P. here identifies the {JovAf) with 'the Achaeans', hence that
this is simply an extraordinary meeting of the primary assembly.
But this thesis involves some strain on the Greek, which seems to
distinguish clearly between ot M.xaw and the fJovih}. On Cary's theory
(]HS, 1939, 154-5), this is a joint meeting of a bicameral body
consisting of the primary assembly and a normal council; and this
view, as integrated by Larsen (78-9, 165, 217 n. 24} into his
general theory of the Achaean assemblies (cf. 37, ro-n n. (e)), seems
convincing. This will be an irregular meeting of the ecclesia and the
boule, at which the latter, acting in a proboulcutic capacity, prepared a war-motion which the primary assembly approved.
civa.>.a.p.~6.vnv cpa.vepws Ti}v . o:rrex8Emv: this declaration of war
took place in autumn 229 or spring 228, and before the expiry of
Aratus' ninth a-rpa-r7Jyla in May 228 (Holleaux, REG, I9JO, 249 n. 1
Etudes, iv. 14 n. r; against Tarn, CAH, vii. 753; Treves, A then.,
1935, 24; Fine, A]P, 1940, 137; and Porter, lxvii, who put the wardecision in the arpa-r7Jyla of Aristomachus, 228/7). Plutarch (Cleom.
4) records an attempt by Aratus to seize Tegea and Orchomenus by
night, which failed, and shortly afterwards the successful capture of
Caphyae. These events belong to Aratus' ninth a-rpa-r7Jy{a, and the
37 6, 6o. 3, 81.

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II. 473

attack on T egea and Orchomenus at least seems to have preceded the

Achaean declaration of war (Aymard, ACA, 72 n.). Attempts have
been made to treat this decision as less than a full declaration of war
(cf. Busolt-Swoboda, ii. 156on.), often to avoid the supposed dilemma
which arose if such a declaration was made by a o-VvoSos. But P.'s
rather odd phraseology is probably chosen to counter the accusation
(cf. Phylarchus in Plutarch, Cleom. 3 r-8) that the personal responsibility was that of Aratus; P. of course follows the iU emoirs. See
Aymard, ACA, 70-72.
7. ;, ... K).EOJ.I-EVLKOS vpoaa.yopeu9EtS ,.6).EJ.LOS: cf. i. IJ. s. ii. s6. 2
(-ra KA.Eop.evtKd), iv. 5 5 The date of its beginning is thus autumn 229
or spring 228, and it continued till 222.
47. 1. TO J-1~" 1TpwTov 81t.. TllS l8~a.s 8uvO.J.1ews: the period of independent Achaean resistance goes dov.'11 to Cleomenes' coup at Sparta
(winter 227/6). The stress on Achaean isolation is meant to extenuate
Achaean defeats.
2. Tt)v 1TpOS nTo).EJ.LO.iov quMa.v: i.e. Ptolemy III Euergetes. By
an arrangement made with Ptolemy II Philadelphus, after a visit
to Egypt in 251 (Plut. Arat. 12. I; Cic. off. ii. 82), Aratus received an
annual subvention of 6 talents (Plut. A rat. 41. 5; Cleom. 19. 8) until
well into the Cleomenean War (5r. z n.).
TtLS 1TpoyeyE\IT}J.I-EVO.S eu~:pyeata.s: as well as the pension, the ISO
talents given by Ptolemy II to Aratus in 251, after a preliminary
zs talents (Plut. Arat. II. z, where the {JaatA.eus- is Ptolemy, not
Antigonus (Porter, xli); 13. 6) given to solve an economic problem
arising out of the return of exiles to Sicyon.
3. Tou K>.eoJ.LEvous To TE vO.Tpwv 1TOMTEuJ.La. ~ta.Ta.>.uaa.vTos: cf.
Plut. Cleom. i 1 ff. Cleomenes' revolution was in autumn 227 (Tarn,
C AH, vii. i54; Beloch, iv. I. 702; Walbank, Philip, 14). After tiring
out the army, which included his opponents of the rich party, by
long and apparently purposeless marches, Cleomenes left it at its
own request in Arcadia, and descending one evening upon Sparta,
fell on the Ephors (of whom he slew four) and seized power. He
then carried through the 'Lycurgan' programme, on which Agis had
fallen. Property was put into a common pool, debts were cancelled,
the land was divided into 400 Spartan lots, and the citizens were
made up to this number by additions from perioeci and metics.
Eighty of the leading opponents were proscribed and went into exile;
the ephorate was abolished; and the old common training with its
classes for boys and messes for citizen soldiers were reinstituted.
Behind all this was the ambition to establish a Spartan hegemony in
Greece. Cf. \Valbank, Aratos, 84-86, 165-6. Plutarch's account follows
Phylarchus, who supported Cleomenes (56 ff.); but to Aratus, F.'s
source, Cleomenes' reforms are a threat to social stability and signify
245

EVENTt~;

II. 47 3

IN GREECE

not a return to but an overthrow of the Tr<hpwv TroAlTEVJUL (ct. iv. Sr.
14). The justification for describing Cleomenes' new power as a
lies in the abolition of the dual kingship and the use of
violence ; for Cleomenes' methods and character are the reverse of
those attributed to the TVpawor who succeeds the {3aatAV> in vi.

Tupawls

7 6-8.
XPW!LEvou

oe Ka.~ T voAE!L<tJ vpa.KTLKWS Ka.l va.pa.j36>.ws: cf. Plut.

Arat. 35 6, T~ K.Aeof.dJJf.t 8pauos EXOJJTt Kat 7Tapa{36'Awr; aveaJJOf.LEVcp
(Aratus' words in a letter to Lydiades). 7Tapaf36'Aws here is 'with great
daring' (Paton) or 'in a remarkable way' (cf. i. 58. I); Schweighaeuser
turns it 'acriter', and Porter, commenting on the passage in Plutarch,
renders 'in a dangerous manner', i.e. to the enemy. In fact the word
has all these nuances. P. refers to Cleomenes' capture of 1\lethydrium,
and his victory at Pallantium, where Aratus persuaded the general
Aristomachus to decline battle (Plut. Arat. 35 7 ; Cleom. 4) in n8,
and his victories at Mt. Lycaeum (Plut. Arat. 36. I; Cleom. 5 1) and
Ladoceia (51. 3; Plut. Arat. 36. 4-37. 5; Cleom. 6) in 227.
5. Tous OE ~a.aLAi<; Ta.is . -rou au!L~~povTo; ljti)~ot; a1.El. J.L~
TpouvTas K'I"A: cf. Thuc. vi. ss. I, avSpl SJ Tvpawte ~ 7TOAH apxTiv lxor5Uf1
ovo~v riAoyov

on

tv~pov ovS' olK.eiov Ch-t f.L~ r.<O'Tov r.pds lKaaTa ()~

()*'' ~ lxfJp6v 7} ,PO..ov f.J.f.Td. Katpofi ytyvfiufJcu. For the phrase which A
and R give as OVT lxBpov oifu r.oM.f.Ltoll, either Hultsch's reading,
olin aVf.Lf.Laxov oVTE 'lTOAtf.Ltov, or that of Bfittner-'Nobst, ovn
<aw<:)pydv oi1TE TroMf.Lwv, gives the required sense and the variation
and chiastic balance to Tas lx8pas Kai. nls ,Pt'Alas; Biittner-Wobst's
reading is slightly closer to the MSS. The sentiments (like the reference to Aetolian audacity and Antigonus' merits, 4-5) may come
from Aratus.
6. tvt:~ciAETo Aa.AE'tv vpoc; Tov ~aalAEa.: this decision and the
opening of negotiations through the Megalopolitans (48) are to be
dated autumn 227, after Cleomenes' coup. See Fine (A]P, 1940,
137 ff.), Koster (lxxviii), and Walbank (Philip, 12-14, superseding
Arato.';, 74 ff., 190 ff.), against Tarn (CAH, vii. 756) and Dow and
Edson (llarv. Stud., 1937, qg), who date the first negotiations
early in 225. Presumably Doson had returned from his Carian
expedition of summer 227, though the comparative chronology of
this and the Achaean embassy is not to be deduced from 49 6
(see note).
7. 1rpo8f)Awc; , vpciTTEW O.au11~opov T)yei-ro: this seems to imply
private diplomatic contacts separate from the Megalopolitan embassy, which must have been a more or less public enterprise; so
Treves, ad loc. This is how Plutarch (A rat. 38. n-12) read P.; and
he says that Phylarchus had the same version. After Hecatombaeum
(5I. 3) Aratus entered on time-gaining negotiations with Cleomenes
(Plut. Arat. 39 I ff.); but one need not assume, \>iith Treves, that
1

246

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II. 48.4

resistance to Cleomenes and attempts to enlist outside support in

Aetolia, Athens, and Eg-ypt (Plut. A rat. 41. 3; P. ii. 51. 2) were not
genuine efforts to avoid calling in Antigonus. See so. 7, a fair statement of Aratus' position.
11. EvLO. TOUTWV ou8' EV TOL<; il1TO!-LVTJf'O.O'L KUTETO.~Ev: he did not suppress the Megalopolitan embassy, for it was an essential part of his
apologia to show the Megalopolitans taking the initiative, independently, in the course for which he had been criticized (cf. 8
Ka.Ta.<j>vywv brt To us ix8povs-; Plut. A rat. 38. 6; Cleom. 16. 3-4). What
he suppressed was (a) his own prior negotiations( 7 n.), (b) the fact
that he had instigated the Megalopolitan embassy to Pella (d. Plut.
Arat. J8. II, Tovs MyaMmoAlTa.> 7rpoKafhlvat 3oJ.L&ovs ~xatwv imKa.Aeta8a.L Tov liVT{yovov). These two details P. added, either from an
independent Megalopolitan source connected with his own circle
(Walbank, Aratos, 12; Treves ad ii. 48. I ; Gelzer, A bh. Berlin. A kad.,
1940, no. 2, r3) or possibly (despite 56. 1-2) from Phylarchus (cf. Plut.
A rat. 38. rz, dJ.Lofwc; o~ Ka.~ ([>VA.a.pxo> tO"T6p"ljKE m:pt ToJ..rwv).
48. 2. olKELW'il 8La.Ku.,.Evouc; EK Twv EuEpyt:uLWv: close relations
existed between Megalopolis and Macedon throughout the third
century until Lydiades resigned his tyranny in 235. The r:vEpymlat
conferred by Philip II {cf. ix. 28. 7, 33 8-12, xviii. 14. 6-7) were territorial additions taken from Sparta after Chaeronea and the invasion
of the Peloponnese in 338 ; these assignments were made through the
Hellenic League (d. 46. 5 n.), as an inscription confirms for Megalopolis; cf. Syll. 665, 11. I9-20 (a second-century arbitration settlement
between Megalopolis and Sparta)' arT' f.v Tof[c;J"Ellauw Ka.i O'VJ.LJ.Laxot~
)'E)'IEV"ljJ.Llva.t 7rpor1Epov [K]p[l]aELS f31J3ata.L t] K(J.' aK~paTOL S[t ]aJ.LlvwVTt
r:ls rov d.d XP6vov. The districts concerned were Sciritis, Aegytis, and
Belbinatis {46. 5 n.).
4. N~Ko<PO.vu Kai KEpK~8ij: Nicophanes is unkno.'!1, Cercidas (d. 65. 3)
is the famous Cynic .Titer of satirical verse with a social content
(cf. Gerhard and Kroll, RE, 'Kerkidas (2)', cols. 294-3o8; Wilamowitz, S.-B. Berlin, 1918, IIJ8 ff.; J. U. Powell, Collectanea Alexandrina
(Oxford, 1925), 201 ff. for frag-ments; G. Pasquali, Orazio lz'rico (Florence, 1920), 2Io ff., 220, 226 f.; D. R. Dudley, Hlstory of Cynicism
(London, 1937), 74-84; E. A. Barber in Powell-Barber, New Chapters
in the History of Greek Literature, i (Oxford, 1921), 2 ff.; Walbank,
CQ, 1943, n f.). Cercidas was descended from the Cercidas attacked
by Demosthenes (xviii. 295) as a pro-Macedonian traitor (d. Theopompus, FGII, II5 F ng), and defended by P. (xviii. 14); d. Hiller
von Gaertringen, IG, v. 2, p. 130, lL 104, 157. Further, like Nicophanes,
Cercidas was a "TTaTptKO> glvos of Aratus, whose father Cleinias, an
eminent Sicyonian, enjoyed ties with the rulers of Macedon and
Eg-ypt (Plut. Arat. 4 2-3). The Megalopolitan embassy was to raise
247

EVENTS I)[ GREECE

the matter before the Achaean synodos (Aymard, AC A, 352--4),

probably that which met between mid-September and early November 227 (d. Porter, lxxii), with a view to obtaining federal consent
to its proceeding to Pella. The embassy, however, remained Megalopolitan, not Achaean ( 8, so. z; Freeman, HFG, J6,)--6; Bikerman,
REG, 1943, 290 ff.)-whatever the ultimate implications of this move.
'L'habilete supr~me d' .t\ratos fut done de provoquer les negociations
entre Megalopolis et Antigonos pour traiter sous leur couvert de
I' alliance generale entre la Confederation et la Macedoine' (Bikerman,
loc. cit. 294).
49. The embassy to DosotJ. In general P.'s source is Aratus' }'yfemoirs,

though he stresses \\ith his other source (whether Phylarchus or a

private Megalopolitan informant, 47 n n.) that Nicophanes and
Cercidas were acting as figure-heads for Aratus. The stress on the
Aetolian menace is of course from Aratus. But this was meant for
internal Achaean consumption: did the Megalopolitans really use
these arguments to Doson? He will have known well enough hm.v
slight was the danger of an Aetolo-Spartan alliance; nor is there any
evidence that Spartan domination in the Peloponnese would have
been a real threat to Macedon. We must conclude (despite the arguments of Bikerman, REG, 1943, 299 ff.) that this chapter presents
arguments ex eventu, and reproduces the tendentious form of Aratus'
apologia. The earlier legend (cf. 45 z) of a triple alliance of Cleomcnes,
Doson, and the Actolians has now receded, an indication that this
alliance never really existed.
6. J.Ln' -xa~wv Kat BolwTi:JV: for Boeotian policy at this time cf.
xx. 5 r ff. The Boeotians had formed a close tie with Macedon under
Demetrius II (xx. 5 3), but from the time of his death maintained
a friendly, but independent, attitude; however, to placate the
Aetolians, who temporarily occupied much of Thessaly, they sent
hieromttemones to Delphi (Flaceliere, 257 ff.). The fact that the proMacedonian Neon was hipparch in Boeotia in Z2j (xx. 5 8) indicates
the predominant sentiments in the country. The present passage
implies, however, that in 227/6 Boeotia was allied with Achaea, and
that her support could be promised in part-exchange for Doson's
help; the alternative assumption that it indicates an already existing
alliance between Boeotia and Macedon (cf. Dow and Edson, H arv.
Stud., 1937, 179-8o; Fine, A]P, 1940, 142) cannot be sustained in
view of the absence from xx. 5 n-r2 of any reference to such an
alliance (cf. Feyel, 121 t). This Achaeo-Boeotian alliance was evidently concluded between 228 and 227/6, since Syll. 519, celebrating
honours bestowed on certain hostages deposited in Achaea by
Boeotia ar..d Phocis, will refer to hostages deposited when alliances
were struck between Achaea and Boeotia, and Achaea and Phocis,

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR l1.5o.ro

and returned either in spring 224, when Boeotia adhered to the

general alliance against Cleomenes (cf. 52. 7 n., xx. 6. 8) or, as Feyel
suggests, in winter 224/3 when the Symmachy was established (54
4 n.). The striking of these two alliances was probably simultaneous;
if so, since eastern Phocis became independent of Aetolia in zz8
(Feyel, rrs, IZI-4; Treves. A then., 1934 4o6-7). this will be a terminus
past quem for the alliances. See Feyel, ro6~Js, for a full discussion of
Boeoto-Macedonian relations during this period.
u11"ep n]5 Twv 'H.Xfjvwv ~YEf.Lovlo.s: cf. 4 This counterposing of
Antigonus and Cleomenes is part of Aratus' propaganda, which seeks
to limit the alternatives to two, and so to justify his policy of
rapprochement with Macedon. But in fact there was no clash between
Antigonus and Cleomenes until the former came to the help of
Achaea. The 'hegemony over Greece' is Aratus' magnification of his
O\Vn dilemma.
tv 0ETTaAlc,t: most of Thessaly was now back in Antigonus' hands,
though Aetolia still held Phthiotic Achaea, Dolopia, and Athamania:
see Fine, TAPA, 1932, '33 ff.; Walbank, Philip, II.
7. Eav . TTJV Eiivomv ~VTpE11"0f.LEVOL TTJV ~auxlav ayEw
u1l"oKpLvwVTm: 'if. through respect for the goodwill ... they should
pretend to maintain the peace ... .' Here P. reveals the truth, that
Aetolia was neutral at this time (KaO&.rrEp Kal vvv).
1-1~ BEia6at xpElas Twv ~o11811a6VTwv: unconvincing, Treves argues
(ad loc.). in a speech of envoys sent orrF.p {3o7J8dai; (48. 5). But why
doubt P.'s statement (so. 7) that Aratus' object was to ensure Macedanian help if it proved necessary, and that Doson was sufficiently
realistic to discuss the situation on that basis? At the same time, if
Aratus doubted the power of the I"eague to survive without Macedanian help, his actions must have been directed towards inveigling
the Achaean authorities into taking the steps he judged to be
necessary.
50. 2. l:O.v Kat Tois :AxatOL5 ToiiTo f3ouAOf.LEVOl!l ii: i.e. the invitation
must come from the whole Confederation, not merely from Megalopolis.
9. TTJV . ciBlKLuv 11"Ept Tov :A.KpoKopLVSov: 43 4 n., 52. 4 The seizure
was an d&~da, because in 243 Macedon and Achaea were at peace,
10. ds TO Kmvov ~ouAEuT/jptov: probably at the spring at5vo8os, zz6
(Porter, lxxiii; Fine, AJP, 1940, r4o n. 47). The phrase Kowov
{3ouAeurr)pwv is discussed by Aymard (ACA, 65-67), who argues that
{JovAEv-r~pwv is hardly more than an alternative to {3ouil~. itself a
synonym for avvo&os. But PouAe!J7'1/pLDV is normally 'council chamber'
(cf. xi. 9 8, xxii. 9 6) ; and 'what was theoretically a meeting Of
a primary assembly might at times be held in a council chamber'
(Larsen, 77). In using the adjective Kow6v P. is contrasting the federal
249

II. 50. to

EVENTS IN GREECE

chamber with the Megalopolitan assembly to which the envoys had

first reported (so. 3-4). The terms Td 1rAfj8os- and ol 1roAAot ( rr) are
properly used of a meeting open to all citizens; see Aymard (ACA,
Sr ff.).
12. Ka.mc!>EuyEw brt n1.s TW\1 4>Awv ~o,&Eia.s: cf. 47 8, Kt:J.Tac/>Evywv
e1Tt TOVS' ix8pov<;, also referring to Antigonus. Treves (A then., 1935 26)
underlines Aratus' adroitness in turning the accusation made against
him. His duplicity as counsellor of resistance shows through despite
P.'s admiration and an account based on his Memoirs.
51. 2. nToAEj.LO.LOS KAEoj.Lf.vEt XOP'I'JYEL\1 l'II'E~uAETO: see 47.

2 n. for
Egyptian subventions to Aratus. The date when they were discontinued was probably winter 226/s (Beloch, iv. r. 709 n. I; Walbank,
Aratos, 200-1; against Ferrabino's view (84, 258) that it was summer
227). P. mentions this first, since he had held up the Ptolemaic tie
as a moral obstacle to an Achaeo--Macedonian rapprochement (47 2).
Later Cleomenes was driven to rely increasingly on Ptolemy, who
extracted his mother and sons as hostages and a promise not to make
peace without his consent (Plut. Cleom. 22. 4-9), yet withdrew his
subsidies at the critical moment (63. r ff.).
3. To AuKa.tov f.v Tois Aa.8oKEiots 'E~eam!'fL~O.lOV: Aratus, in his
tenth rnpa.TI)yta. (227 /6), while retiring from an assault on Elis, was
attacked by Cleomenes on the slopes of Mt. Lycaeum (modern
Diaphorti, south-east of Andritsaena) and heavily defeated (227);
d. Plut. Cleom. 5 I; Arat. 36. r-2. Pausanias (viii. 28. 7) mentions
the monument to the Achaean dead as standing near Brenthe, at
the foot of the hill of Karytaena; cf. E. Meyer, RE, 'Lykaion', col.
2236. Later in 227 Cleomenes seized the fortress of Leuctra near
Megalopolis. Aratus drove him back from the walls of Megalopolis.
but would not follow up the victory. Lydiades (44. 5 n.) charged with
the cavalry against orders, and was killed near the village of Ladoceia
on the Asea road, an incident which brought considerable obloquy
on Aratus; cf. Walbank, Aratos, 83-84; Plut. Cleom. 6; A rat. 36. 437 5 In early summer 226 Cleomenes, now supreme at Sparta (47
3 n.), took the Arcadian town of Mantinea, invaded western Achaea,
and brought Hyperbatas, the general for 226/s. one of Aratus' supporters, to battle between Dyme and the Hecatombaeum. Cleomenes
was wholly victorious, and Achaean losses were heavy, the whole
federal force being engaged (7ra.v87Jp.el). See Plut. Cleom. r4. 4-5; Arat.
39 I ; Paus. \ii. 7. 3 Though the first two of these disasters preceded
Cleomenes' coup and the sending of the Megalopolitans to Antigonus,
P. has enumerated all three to underline the extent of the Achaean
collapse; cf. Bettingen, 37 n.; Treves, Athen., r935, 27; Fine, AJP,
1940, 140 n. 48.
4. Twv,.pa.yj.Lcl.Twv oOKlTt lh86vTtt.JV &.va.o-Tpocl>i}v: 'the situation no longer

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR

II.y~. 2

giving any respite', i.e. for recovery (not 'circumstances no longer permitting any delay', i.e. in appealing to Doson, as Paton; cf. Porter,
lxxiv). &.vaaTpo~~ is 'a breathing-space to do something'; d. i. 66. 3,
ii. 33 3, etc. The appeal op.o8vp.aoov is part of Aratus' apologia.
5. v ~ Ka.lp~: 'in this crisis'. From a little after Hecatombaeum
until] unef July 225 there was a truce and ne-~otiations with Cleomenes
(Plut. Arat. 39; Cleom. 15). A first conference, fixed for early in 225,
was postponed owing to Cleomenes' illness. Meanwhile Aratus refused to stand as general for 225/4, letting a supporter Timoxenus
stand and be elected in his place. There is little doubt that during
this period he had secretly resumed conversations with Doson. After
the breakdown in the negotiations with Cleomenes in summer,
the king carried out a series of campaigns in Arcadia and Achaea
which shook the League to its foundations (see 52 ff.). Meanwhile, at some unascertained date (probably late summer 225, cf.
Porter, lxxv) the Achaeans decided to send the younger Aratus to
Doson to discover his final tem1s. On the younger Aratus see iv.
37 r (general for 219/18), vii. 12. 9 (relations with Philip V). First
Philip's lo\er, he became his enemy when the king carried off his
wife Polycrateia to Macedon (Plut. Arat. 49 2, so. 2; Livy, xxvii.
31. 8, xxxii. 2r. 23-24; \Valbank, Philip, 78-79). Later rumour attributed his madness and early death (probably falsely) to Philip's
poison (Piut. Arat. 54 2-3; Walbank, CQ, 1943, 4 n. J).
(3Ej3a.u:,O"o.To Ta m:pt Tfjs ~o,&E(a.s: 'confirmed the details of assis~
tance', cf. 49 9 The younger Aratus was sent to learn the exact
price Doson demanded for his help; and this ( 6) proved to be the
depositing of hostages and cession of Acrocorinth. Presumably
Aratus junior reported back these terms, for they at first proved
unacceptable ( 7). The final decision to accept was not taken until
spring 224 (52. 4), when the younger Aratus again made the journey
to Macedon, this time as one of the hostages (Plut. A rat. 42. 3; Cleom.
19. 9). Treves (ad loc.) refers this passage to the final acceptance of
Doson's terms in 224; Aratus junior thus makes only one journey
to Pella, to convey the Achaean decision (P.), and to remain as a
hostage (Plutarch). and sr. 6-7 is parenthetical, describing Achaean
hesitation before sending the younger Aratus. It is clear, however,
that at some point an embassy had to go to Macedon to establish the
details hitherto left vague (49 9); and the likelihood is that it is to
this embassy P. is here referring.
7. U1T~p8EO'lV EO'XE TO fila~ouAlov: if TO a~afiouAoV, 'the deliberations',
implies a uwollo5', this will be the autumn meeting of 225, at which the
younger Aratus reported Doson's terms. It was probably Achaean
reluctance to pay the price demanded that led Aratus to make his
unsuccessful appeals for help to Aetolia and Athens (Plut. A rat. 41. 3).
52. 2. 1rpoO'Aa.~wv S . . . Ka.4>ua5 KTA.: after the collapse of

H. 52. 2

EVENTS IN GREECE

negotiations in summer 225 (51. 5), Cleomenes again declared war and
invaded Achaea (Plut. Cleom. 17. 3 ff.; A rat. 39 4 ff.). From Tegea he
marched towards Sicyon which he almost captured; then, swerving
west, he seized Pellene, and returned south to take Pheneus in
Arcadia (and the citadel of Penteleium: Plut. Cleom. q. 6; A rat.
39 4). \\'bet her he continued south to Caphyae, or the town went over
of its own accord is not known. These successes carried Spartan
territory to the gulf of Corinth, and split the Confederation in two.
Cleomenes now concentrated on the eastern half. Argos was taken
during the Nemean truce, and a garrison sent to occupy Cleonae and
Phlius (Plut. Cleom. 19. r ; A rat. 39 5) ; meanwhile, in a campaign in
the south-east of the Argolid Cleomenes took Hermione, Troezen,
and Epidaurus. Finally, on the invitation of its people he occupied
Corinth. The whole campaign was very rapid (Plutarch (Cleom.
17 5), following Phylarchus, stresses the appeal made by Cleomenes'
social programme of debt-cancellation and land-division to the
masses in Achaea) and the capture of Corinth will be about August
225. See Walbank, Aratos, 95~; Porter, lxxiv-lxxv.
'11'poaEaTpa.To'll'e8EuaE TU TWv I,Kuwvlwv 'II'OAEt: the narrative must
again be supplemented from Plutarch. Aratus, having been invested
with special judicial powers for the 'purging' of pro-Spartan elements in Sicyon and Corinth (Plut. Arat. 40. 2, t1T1. ToVTovs- Jf,ovatav
&.vV1Tv8uvov . . >.a{idw), had already carried out his mission at Sicyon,
and received news of the fall of Argos while at Corinth. The people
of Corinth tried to kill or arrest him, but he escaped to Sicyon.
Cleomenes occupied Corinth, but could not expel the Achaean garrison from Acrocorinth, and so threw a palisade around the mountain.
Later he made two attempts to strike a bargain with Aratus (Plut.
Cleom. 19. 4. 19. 7; Arat. 4I. s) and, when these failed, he laid siege
to Sicyon, probably in January 224 (Porter, lxxxi-lxxxii).
3. T~ f.LEV )\paT~ OTpttTt)yoiivTl Kat Tots )\xa~o'ls: i.e. Aratus and the
garrison. Since the general of the Confederation for 225/4 was not
Aratus, but Timoxenus (Plut. Arat. 38. 2}, and since Cleomenes'
capture of Corinth cannot be as late as 224/3, we must assume (a) that
aTpa77JyoiJvn here refers to Aratus' position as head of the military
tribunal, i.e. a de facto command and not the official aTpa77Jyta (Tarn,
CAH, vii. 863---4; Walbank, Aratos, I7o-3), or (b) that the office of
aTpa77]yO<; auTOKpd.Twp which (Plut. Arat. 41. r) was allegedly given
to Aratus at Sicyon after the fall of Corinth, was in fact one to whicl1
he was appointed several months earlier; in which case the l~ovala
dvv'lT(v8vvos held at Sicyon and Corinth was probably held by virtue
of Aratus' supreme power (Porter, lxxviii-lxxix). This second view
is on the whole the more satisfactory. Aratus was at Sicyon both
before and after the debacle at Corinth, and Plutarch mav well have
attributed to the second visit what in fact belongs to the first. In

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II. 5 2.8

this case the appointment of Aratus as mpaTI}yos aihoKpbwp was

the Achaean response to Cleomenes' renewal of the war and the
internal crisis within the eastern cities of the Confederacy (cf. Plut.
Arat. 39 s, opwvTa T~V JI,),07TOVVYJ<TOV KpaOatvop..lVYJV Kai TOS 1TOAH>
JfavwTap..lvas v1ro TWV vewTEpt~ovrwv TTavrax68ev; Cleotn. Ii 5).
4. Ka1"Exov,-wv :O..xmwv TOTE ,-ov TO'ITov ,-oihov: this the Achaean
garrison under Cleopater held after the loss of Corinth (Plut. Arat.
40. 5). The decision to accept Doson's terms was taken at Aegium,
probably at the spring avvooos, about April 224; Plut. A rat. 41. 742. 1 (the meeting follows a three months' siege of Sicyon); Porter,
lxxxi-lxxxii. For Aratus' lyKA:1Jp..a TTpo> ,. olK{av, the seizure of the
Acrocorinth, see so. 9 n.
5. &.vateu~as a'ITo Toil ILtwwvos: after three months' siege (Plut.
Arat. 41. 7), and on news of Aratus' escape and the decision at
Aegium ( 4; Plut. A rat. 42. 2, KaAefv TOV .llv,.[yovov J.f7JrplaavTo Kat
TTapaot})6vat Tov .:4KpoKoptv8ov) ; on the order of events in Plut.
Cleom. I9 see Larsen, r66.
s~aAa~wv xapaKL KOL TnJlp'l:J KTA.: for the method cf. v. 99 9 The gap
thus fortified is the valley of the R. Leuka between Acrocorinth
(575 m.) and Mt. Oneia (582 m.), where the modern road and railway
to Argos run. North of the Acrocorinth (\vhich the Achaeans still
held) the fortifications of Corinth and Lechaeum completed Cleomenes' lines; naturally Oneia was also fortified (Plut. Cleom. za. I).
See Kromayer, AS, i. 2oi-J.
7. oaov o1lmo.~ 'ITapeivaL TOV KAEOfLEVTJ ... els 0eTTaAiav: in the highest
degree improbable; and this reading of Antigonus' mind is evidently
part of Aratus' version designed to fit his prophecy that Doson
might have to fight in Thessaly (49 6), and so to represent the compact as less one-sided than it really was.
SLa rijs Eu~oias i'ITi. Tov 'la811ov: this route avoided Thermopylae, in
Aetolian hands( 8), but passed through Boeotia, which was friendly
to Macedon and allied with Achaea (49 6 n.). Aratus and the
Achaean damiourgoi met Antigonus at Pagae in the Megarid, sailing
there (Plut. Arat. 43 I, 44 r). Megara had recently transferred itself
from the Achaean League to the Boeotian, when Cleomenes occupied
the Isthmus line (xx. 6. 8); and Feyel (I29-3o) has suggested that
although P. says this was done p..~ml riJ> Twv L'txatwv yvwp..7J>, it was
perhaps the quid pro quo for which the Boeotians agreed to adhere
to the new alliance :ith Antigonus against Sparta (49 6 n.). Doson's
forces amounted to 2o,ooo Macedonian infantry and I,3oo horse
(Plut. Arat. 43 I).
8. ot yap AhwA.ol. . . . ~ouAOfLEVoL KwAuaaL Tov :t\v,-(yovov Tijs
~oTJ9eias: that the Aetolians were unwilling to see Antigonus crush
Cleomenes is likely, since this would give the Achaeans (though
under Macedonian supervision) supremacy in the Peloponnese; see
253

II. 52. 8

EVENTS IN GREECE

Fine, AJP, 1940, 149-50. But their action is no evidence for P.'s
thesis of an earlier aggressive policy towards Achaea.
53. 1. Tfis ~v auToi.s tAtrSa.s; an echo of Aratus' Memoirs; for what
was the invitation to Antigonus but a failure of self-reliance?
O.~a. T~ TOV ;6.pL0'1'0TAYJ TOV ;6.pye'Lov ltravaaTl]Val TOLl> KAeot.U::VlaTai.s: cf. Plut. A rat. 44 2 ff.; Cleom. zo. 6 ff. Aristoteles was a friend

2.

of Aratus and exploited Cleomenes' failure to carry through the

social revolution at Argos. Aratus sailed with 1,5oo men to Epidaurus; and meanwhile the Argives rose, trapped the Spartan garrison on the citadel, and were reinforced by Timoxenus and the
Achaean army from Sicyon. Aratus' arrival is mentioned only by
Plutarch (Arat. 44 4). It was argued by M. Klatt (6-39) that P.'s
silence on the role of Aratus here shows him to be using a source
other than the lvfemoirs. But Plutarch omitted Timoxenus because
he was writing a biography of Aratus; it does not follow that the
.o/1emoirs omitted him too. P. is here giving an outline sketch, and
may well have left Aratus out of an event in which his role was
insignificant. Hence Klatt's theory can be rejected.
~ETa TL~o5vou Toll 0'1'flO.TTJyoO: d. Plut. Cleom. zo. 8. This reference
to Timoxenus as general has created a difficulty. On the assumption
that the battle of Sellasia was in 222 (below,
n.), the following
possibilities arise:
(a) Timoxenus is general for 225/4. and his position has not been
abrogated by Aratus' appointment as crrpa.'TTJYD> a.il'1'oKpa'1'wp.
In that case the revolt of Argos is before May 224 (so Porter,
Ixxix. n. 45; Ferrabino, z68; Walbank, Aratos, 172}, and there
is little information on the rest of the campaigning season of
224 (cf. 54 3 n.).
(b) Timoxenus is general for 224/3. His crrpa'TTJyta for zzs/4 was
suspended on Aratus' extraordinary appointment ; but he held
office again in 224/3 (what happened to Aratus' office?). This
scheme, adopted by Treves (Athen., I935. ss) in modification
of one proposed by H. Frank (Arch. Pap., 1933, r ff.). fails to
explain why Timoxenus had to resign in 225 but could be
re-elected under the same av'ToKpchwp six months later; also
it fails to connect satisfactorily with the section of the Achaean
General List beginning 'Timoxenus, 221/o' (iv. 7 10). Beloch
(iv. 2. 222) also makes Timoxenus general in 224)3; but his
theory that Hyperbatas resigned after the defeat at Hecatombaeum, and Timoxenus' first crrpa'TTJyla was for the remainder
of 226/s, has nothing in its favour (Walbank, Aratos, 170).
(c) Timoxenus is not general of the Confederation, but holds a
de facto command under Aratus as ati'1'oKpd'1't1Jp; so Tam (CAH,
vii. 863-4). but such a use of crrpa'1'1)ya> is unparalleled.
254

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II.543

On present evidence the problem is not soluble with certainty. That

Aratus remained a;pa:rryyo> avToKp&.;wp till after Sellasia is possible;
but we do not know precisely what that entailed. We cannot argue
from the powers given to Critolaus and his successors in 146 (xxxviii.
13. 7), since there was no question then of prolonging office. It seems
likely that Aratus may have been especially concerned with relations
with Antigonus; and in that case it would be necessary for someone
(like Timoxenus on this occasion) to command the Achaean forces.
But whether such a commander would be comparable in powers to
the normal crrpa;ryyo> we do not know. On the whole we may accept
Tarn's hypothesis as the most satisfactory.
6. 1ra.pa.1reu~w S' dt; :Apyos KTA.: cf. Plut. A rat. 44 3-4; Cleom. 21.
According to the latter passage Cleomenes first sent Megistonous, his
stepfather, with 2,ooo men; but upon Megistonous' falling in battle
he abandoned his Isthmus line, fearing for Sparta itself. He cleared
part of the city, but was cut short by Doson close on his heels. P.
obscures the role of the Macedonians (and not merely Achaean
courage) in completing Cleomenes' withdrawal from Argos.
cptAoTLp.ws . e~e flETO.flEAEia.s: 'pertinaciter ... ex paenitentia prioris
consilii' (Schweighaeuser). Paton gives the \\'TOng emphasis in his
version 'with the zeal of renegades'; toP. the Argives were renegades
v.ho had repented.
e1ra.vTjAeev ds TtlV I1rcipT"1V: via Tegea, where he heard of the death
of his wife, Agiatis (Plut. Cleom. 22. r).
54. 2. 1(0.T0.!7TlJ!7ap.evos Ta Ka.Ta TtlV m~Aw: cf. Plut. A rat. 44 s.
/1pao> St a;par'lyo> alpe0e1s tm' Mpyelwv (on this phrase see Aymard,
ACA, II3-14, n. 2) l1retaEv aV.ov<; Mvnyovtp T&. Te Twv ;vp&.wwv Ka~
T& ;wv 1rpo8oTwv XP~fLaTa 8wpE&v SoiJva,. On Aristomachus' execution
see 59 1 ff.; and for the massacre which followed cf. v. 16. 6.
3. Ttl" AtyuTLV Ka.l BeAJJ.LViinv xwpa.v: Aegytis in north-west Laconia,
a district lying around various tributaries of the Alpheius, rising
in the north of Taygetus, took its name from an ancient town
Aegys, destroyed, tradition reported, by the Spartan kings Archelaus
and Charillus, who suspected it of Arcadian sympathies (Paus. iii.
2. s, viii. 27. 4, 34 s; Strabo, viii. 364, x. 446; Bolte, RE, 'Sparta',
cols. IJIO-I2). On the Belminatis (Belbinatis) see 46. 5 n.; among the
forts handed over to Megalopolis will be the Athenaeum, and, in the
Aegytis, Leuctra (Plut. Cleom. 6. 3; cf. Thuc. v. 54; the exact site
is disputed). Doson must have marched near Tegea to reach Megalo~
polis, but postponed its capture till the next year (54 6 ff.).
-ijK 1rpo; Tl}v TWV ;b.xa.~wv a.)voSov: probably September 224, since
.t\ntigonus goes on to winter quarters. That there are so few events
in this campaigning season is possibly due to Antigonus' having been
held up at the Isthmus longer than P. suggests; in which case the

255

II. 54 3

EVENTS IN GREECE

revolt of Argos may have been as late as midsummer 224. Ferrabino

(z6z-8) compresses Doson's Arcadian campaign into the early months
of 224 and dates this o-vvo8o> to February-March 224; but this chronology is only likely in conjunction with his date of 223 for Sellasia, and
on other grounds this cannot stand (65-69 n.). See Aymard, ACA, zG9
n., 'on concluera ... que l'automne est probable, mais non certain'.
4. I<O.Ta.~na.9eis i]ye..,.wv O.miVTwv Twv auilJlnxwv: cf. 37 r n. Besides
the Achaeans there were evidently present representatives of the
various states which now united to form the Symmachy under the
presidency of the king of Macedon. The Symmachy was a League
of Confederacies, following in other respects the example of the
Leagues of Alexander and Demetrius Poliorcetes. The original members were the Achaeans, Macedonians (but see below}, Thessalians,
Epirotes, Acarnanians, Boeotians, Phocians (cf. iv. 9 4, 15. r},
Euboeans (xi. 5 4; perhaps directly subject to Macedon} and possibly
Opuntian Locris (xi. 5 4; unless it was subject to Boeotia (\Valbank,
Philip, r6 n. 3) or Macedon (Feyel, 172 n. z)). For the relations of
these states to Macedon immediately before 224 see Fine, AJP, 1940,
151 n. 92 (with the note to 49 6 above on Boeotia and Phocis). The
form of Doson's dedication at Delos after Sellasia (Syll. sr8 = IG,
xi. 4 1097, Bao-,).Eti> AVTlyov[O> ~ao-tMws] !LJT)p.T)Tplov Ka[~ MaKe86ves] I
a~ o[ o-vp.p.axo' [a7To ri)s 7TEpl] I EeJJ..ao-lav p.ci.[>..'TJ> :4m:\.:U.wvt].) suggests
that the Macedonians were not members of the Symmachy except
through their king (as one might expect) (cf. Treves, Athen., 1935,
52-53). 'The Council or Synedrion of the Symmachy could be summoned by the king of Macedon in his capacity of president, and had
the power to decide questions of war and peace, the voting of supplies
and the co-opting of new members; moreover, the king of Macedon
was ex officio commander-in-chief. But the Symmachy possessed no
treasury, and all decisions were subject to ratification by the legislative bodies of the separate leagues, which thus maintained a considerable measure of independence. Eventually the Symmachy was
to prove a failure; but what should have been immediately clear
was that, so long as the king of Macedon was prepared to abide by
its terms, the domination which it offered him was largely illusory;
on the other hand, Achaea and the other small federal states would
profit by Macedonian military protection, without sustaining any
appreciable loss of autonomy' (Walbank, Philip, rs-16; bibliography
there). At this meeting Antigonus was probably elected hegemon of
the Achaean League, a position formerly held by Ptolemy (Plut. A rat.
38. 9, cf. 24. 4), and a law was passed enjoining the Achaean magistrates to summon an assembly whenever the king of Macedon required them (cf. iv. 85. 3, v. r. 6).
5. XPOVOV f1f.V TLVO. 1TO.pO.XELJla~WV: i.e. winter 224/3 xp6vov Ttva need
not imply an abnormally short stay in winter quarters.
256

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II.jj.I

7. or TEyEciTa.l va.pMioaa.v a.hous: cf. Plut. Cleom. 2J. I. Doson

may have installed a garrison; cf. 8, dcr4>a)..wdJ-LEVos r~l Ka:rd. -r~v
n6A.w. See, further, 70. 4 n.
11. T~lV J.1EV 'OpxotJ.EVov dAE: in 226 (for the date see Walbank,
Aratos, I94-s), after defeating Megistonous and the Spartans near
Orchomenus (Plut. Arat. 38. I), Aratus had failed to recover the
town; and Phylarchus (Plut. A rat. 45 I) retails the complaint that
he now allowed Antigonus to plunder Orchomenus and to garrison
it (cf. iv. 6. s).
TT]v Twv Ma.vTwEwv m5Alv: cf. 46. 2. Mantinea was taken by
Cleomenes from the Aetolians in 229, captured by Aratus in 227
(Plut. Arat. 36. 2-3; Cleom. 5 I), recaptured with the connivance of
the pro-Spartan party in 226 (Plut. Cleom. I4 I), and now (223)
taken by Doson and the Achaeans. For Phylarchus' sympathy for
its fate, and P.'s reply, see 56. 6 ff.; cf. Plut. A rat. 45 6--<J; Cleom.
23. I ; F ougeres, soo ff.
12. TTJV tcf 'Hpa.la.s ~ea.l TEA~ouoTJs: Heraea lay on the right bank of
the Alpheius, IS stades east of the Ladon (Paus. viii. 26. I-3); cf.
Frazer, Pausanias, iv. 295--6; Ziegler, RE, 'Heraia (I)', cols. 407 ff.
(with map). Telphusa was about IO miles north of Heraea on the
left bank of the Ladon; cf. Frazer, op. cit. iv. 286 f.; E. Meyer, Pel.
Wand. 86. Heraea had been taken by the Achaean general Dioetas
in 236, and this presupposes the Achaean possession of Telphusa;
d. Beloch, iv. I. 632 n. 2; Walbank,] HS, I9J6, 66. Cleomenes had
seized Heraea prior to his coup in 227 (Plut. Cleom. 7 5), and Telphusa either then or in 225.
13. 1ra.pa.A.a.~wv 8E 1ea.l Ta.uTa.s: Doson put a Macedonian garrison into
Heraea, as he had done at Orchomenus; for Philip held it in 208,
when he offered to restore it to Achaea (Livy, xxviii. 8. 6, cf. xxxii.
5 4 for the actual restoration in I99/8). Aymard's suggestion (PR,
25-27 n. 5), that the Macedonian garrison dated only from a postulated recovery by Philip from the Aetolians in 2o8, seems overcomplicated; d. Walbank, Philip, I7 n. 2.
auva1TTOVTO'i TOU XElJ.1WVO'i: 'since winter was now at hand'. In fact
P. uses no word for autumn, and this phrase indicates a time around
the autumnal equinox, the beginning of the bad season. Cf. Holleaux,
REA, I92J, 354 (=Etudes, iv. 286); REG, I924, 3I4 n. I (=Etudes,
ii. I6I n. I); BCH, I9J2, 534--6 (=Etudes, iv. 338-4o); Aymard,
Melanges Glotz (Paris, I932), i. 53 n. I. (For the period from early
October to early December P. uses the phrase XHJ-LWV Ka-rapxot-L~vos; cf.
xvi. 24. I.) Hence the synodos was the regular meeting of autumn 223.
55. 1. J.1ETc!.. Twv J.1la9ocJ115pwv: o?J noUot5s, according to Plutarch
(Cleom. 25. 4). The next year Doson had J,Ooo mercenaries (65. 2 n.),
but he was relying less on his citizen troops {IJ,ooo as against 2o,ooo
s

257

II. 55

EVENTS IN GREECE

when he ftrst marched south, sz. 7 n.). For further discussion see
Griffith, 65, &)-7o.
2-7. Cleomenes' capture of Megalopolis. This event, which took place
in autumn 223, while the Achaeans were still at the o-Vvooos at
Aegium (Plut. Cleom. zs. z), is also described by Plutarch (Cleom.
23~25), who follows Phylarchus, as is clear from a comparison with
P.'s criticism of Phylarchus at 61-62. Cf. also Plut. Phil. 5; Paus.
viii. 27. 15-16. Plutarch relates how Cleomenes began with a feint
march towards Argos, then turned west to descend via Asea on
Megalopolis. After taking the city he was persuaded by Lysandridas
to send him and Thcaridas as envoys to those who had escaped to
Messene, with an offer to spare the city if they would join him; but
the Megalopolitans, at Philopoemen's instigation, rejected the offer,
whereupon Cleomenes sacked the city. These details P. omits here,
but discusses them in his polemic against Phylarchus.
2. s,a. TO !-1Eye9os Ka.t TftV EPT)!-LlD.V: cf. v. 93 s. Ka~ yd.p viJv 7rapd. Tt.l
p.iyEOos arh-ijs Ka1 T~v f.p1Jp.la.v f.r:rcpd.AOa., (217, when the dispute on
rebuilding Megalopolis turned on its size). As a federal centre for
Arcadia, originally garrisoned by the League, Megalopolis was prob
ably planned on too large a scale from the outset; its area of 4,o9o,jz4
square yards (Bury, ]HS, 18<}8, zo) was even larger than that of
Messene. On the battles of Lycaeum and Ladoceia see 51. 3 n.
3. Twv fiK MeaaTjvT)s ~wyO.Swv: the reception of Megalopolitan refugees
at Messcne after the capture of Megalopolis proves that relations
between the cities were good (61. 3-4; Phylarchus in Plut. Cleom.
24. I; Fine, A]P, 1940, 154 ff.). Perhaps, therefore, these Messenian
exiles were of the popular democratic party, opposed alike to the
neutral oligarchs (cf. iv. 32. 1) and the pro-Achaean, but wealthy,
party of Gorgus (cf. vii. 10); this element, to which Philip V later
appealed (Plut. A rat. 49 4-5; d. Walbank, Philip, 72), may have
been attracted by Cleomenes' programme. As Roebuck notes (69-7o),
the Tritymallus who conveyed Cleomenes' offer to Aratus in 224
(Plut. Cleom. 19. 8; cf. A rat. 41. 5) was also a Messenian, probably of
the same party.
4. s~a, Tft'l' euiJtux(av TWV Meya.A01TOA.LTWV: in fact, the escape of all
but I,ooo inhabitants, who fought a covering action, suggests that
hope of saving the city was abandoned once the Spartans were
inside.
5. Ci Sf) Ka.t Tp~at 1-LT)ut 7rpoTEpov a.vT~ auve~T) 1fa.9ei:v: P. gives details
in ix. 18. 1--4, where the first attack is dated Trepi T~v Tijs llAmiBos
~mToA~v, i.e. about 12 May (Strachan-Davidson, 20). But this would
make the second attack August, whereas it was clearly in autumn
(54 13 n.). Either P. has miscalculated, or 7pr:r{ is an error for TrEVTE
(Beloch, iv. I. 715 n. 2). Clearly the two attacks were just before and
just after the Macedonian campaign of 223.
258

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR

II. 56

tcaTtt TOV KwAaL~W 'll'poaayopEuo~-LEVov TO'Il'OV:

cf. ix. r8. I, Tb Kanl TOV

1/>w>.eov KaAoup.evov. The word cfow>.eo> is found in the sense of Sd>aaKaAeiov (Poll. iv. 19, ix. 41; Suidas and Hesych. s. v.), and this may
be the correct form and meaning here; cf. Bolte-Meyer, RE,
'Pholeos', col. 513.
7. o(hw~ . 'll'tKpw~ lhE<f>9npEv Kat oua...,Evw~: Phylarchus, however
(Plut. Cleom. 25. 1), explains Cleomenes' action as provoked by
Philopoemen's intransigence.
8. KaT A 1'a~ TWV ~eaLpwv 'll'EpLaTaO'EL~: 'in all their vicissitudes', nullo
unquam tempore, quantumuis dijjidli (Schweighaeuser), rather than
'in the varied circumstances of his career' (Paton).
1-'~a alpE1'LaTTJV 1-'~TE 'll'pooo'"lv: implicit polemic against Phylarchus, who (cf. Plut. Cleom. 24. 2 ff.) had stressed the readiness of
Lysandridas and Thearidas, avSpes f!vSogoL Kat OVVCI.TOt p.aAurra. TWY
Mf.ya.Ao1ToAtrwv, to compromise and collaborate with Cleomenes. If
this Thearidas was P.'s grandfather, who bore that name (Syll. 6z6;
von Scala, 15 n. I; Stahelin, RE, 'Thearidas {1)', col. 1382), P.'s disavowal is even more understandable. Stymphalus, in north-east
Arcadia, south ofMt Cyllenc, had probably joined the Achaean League
in 235 (Niccolini, 28-29; Beloch, iv. I. 415, dates its accession c. 251).
9. KAELTopwv: Pausanias (viii. 21. I) places Cleitor 7 stades (emended
to 17 by Curtius, Peloponnesos, i (Gotha, I85I), 398 n. z6) west of
the conjuncture of the R. Cleitor, on which it lay, with the Aroanius
(modem Katsana); cf. Geiger, RE, 'Kleitor', col. 66r; Meyer, Pel.
Wand. ro9-ro; Papandreou, IIpa.KTLKa, I92o, 95 ff. It probably joined
Achaea about 236/5. but whether before or after Megalopolis is unknown; cf. Niccolini, 29; Beloch, iv. I, 632 (at the time of the conquest of Heraea in 236). Of Thearces nothing more is known.

56-63. Criticism of Phylarchus: a digression in fact inspired by

Phylarchus' version of Cleomenes' capture of Megalopolis, which P.
has already tacitly combated in 55 8 and to which he reverts in
6I-<5J. Phylarchus, who is known mainly from these chapters and
from fragments preserved in Athenaeus, came from Athens or
Naucratis (Suidas, 1/>v>.a.pxo> l!Orwa.fos ~ NavKpa:rlrr;s ot o Euwwvwv,
d.\Ao, 8 Alyt)1TT~ov <&v)lypa.t,/Jav)-he was perhaps a Naucratite who
settled as a metic in Athens~ and was probably contemporary with
Cleomenes and Aratus (56. In.). He wrote twenty-eight books of
larop{a.L, covering the period from Pyrrhus' invasion of the Peloponnese (272) to Cleomenes' death (2zo{I9), as well as other works known
to us only by name (Suidas). P. polemizes against Phylarchus,
not only as a representative of the 'tragic' school of historians,
following the fashion of Duris, but also as a partisan of Cleomenes
against Aratus (cf. Plut. Arat. 38. rz). (For criticisms elsewhere of
sensational historians see r6. 14 (unnamed historians), iii. 4i 6-48.
259

II. 56

EVENTS IN GREECE

I2 (writers on Hannibal), s8. 9. vii. 7 I-2, 7 6 (writers on Hieronymus of Syracuse), x. 2. 5-ti (writers on Scipio), xii. 24. 5, 26 b 4
(Timaeus), xv. 34 r-36. II (Ptolemy of Megalopolis), xvi. r2. 7-9
(Theopompus), 14. r f., 17. 9, r8. 2 (Zeno of Rhodes), xxix. 12.
r2. 8 (unnamed historians); for his own concessions to this style
composition see CQ, 1945, 8 ff.) Phylarchus was Plutarch's source,
especially in the Agis and C/eomenes, and to a lesser extent in the
Aratus and Pyrrhus, and he was also used by Pompeius Trogus
(perhaps via Timagenes). Plutarch recognized his faults; cf. Them.
32. 3; Arat. 38. r2. The fragments are collected by Jacoby,
81,
See also Walbank, Aratos, 4-ti; ]HS, 1938, 56 ff.; B. L. Ullman,
TAPA, r942, 4r-42; Oilier, ii. 88-93
~
' uuTous
' ' Ka.Lpous
' '",...puT~
.
.I.'
'those
KUTa.' Tous
yEypu't'oTwv;
56 1 Twv
writers who were contemporary with Aratus'. Treves (ad Joe.) translates 'those who wrote upon the same period as Aratus'; but this
would require rwv ('Td.) Kant rou<; au'Tou,; KTA.
2. :ApaT! 1TPOTIP"1tLEVOtS KUTa.KoJ..ou9Ei'v: cf. 40. 4 n. For this use of
KamKo.\ovOefl, 'to follow an authority', see \Velles, 342. In fact P.
also uses Phylarchus in default of other sources; cf. 47. II n., 70. 6;
Susemihl (i. 632 n. s6o), however, exaggerates this use. For P.'s stress
on truth in history see i. 14. 6 n.
5. 1rpoa.lpeow KUL SuvutLw ev Tfi 1rpa.yjLuTE'~: 'the general purpose
and character of his work' (Paton). 7rpoalpHM refers to Phylarchus'
prejudice for Cleomenes, ouvarus to his methods of composition;
in the immediate case of Mantinea, the criticism of Phylarchus'
7rpoalpwt> is in 6, of the oularu> of his work in 7.
6. Toos Ma.VTLVEUS yEvo.,..Evous u7TOXEtp1ous: in 223 (cf. 54 II-12). An
echo of Phylarchus' charges appears in Plut. Arat. 45 6-9. Of the
men many were massacred, and the rest enslaved along with the
women and children; and the wealth of the town was divided between Achaeans and Macedonians, in the proportion of one to two.
Subsequently, as general, Aratus refounded the tovvn under the
name Antigoneia. This name is common on coins and inscriptions
(BOlte, RE, 'Mantinea', col. 1291); but a Delphic list of fhwpoo6~<:o,,
dating between 192 and 172 (IG, v. 2, p. xxxvii; cf. Haussoullier,
BCH, r883, rgo), mentions the name :Mantinea, which clearly survived. (For discussion of this list and of Achaean coins with tridents
which may belong to Mantinea at this time see Crosby and Grace,
15 ff., 25 (1\os. 73-95), Plate II.) In A.D. 125 Hadrian restored the
old name (Paus. viii. 8. 12). The fate of Mantinea caused a sensation
throughout Greece; it marked a reversion to a standard of warfare
which had been mitigated during the third century (d. Tarn, CAH,
vii. 2n, 76o), and Phylarchus voices contemporary opinion better
than P., who writes from the harder background of the second

260

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE

CLEO~ENEAN

WAR II.56.Io

century, when the fate of Mantinea had become the common lot of
captured towns (cf. Paus. vii. 16. 8 for Corinth in 146).
rf]v &.pxcnoT6.TTJV Ka.t ~:u;ylaTTJV 1ToAw: despite a reference to Mav-nvlYJv
l.pa-retv'>]v in Homer, Iliad, ii. 607, the synoecism of historical Man tinea
in the plain, out of five demes (Strabo, viii. 337) is comparatively
late. Beloch (i. I. 335 n. 4) puts it back into the early sixth century.
other scholars (cf. Busolt-Swoboda, ii. 1396 n. 2; Bolte, RE, 'Mantinea', coL 1318) make it as late as just before 450. But in any case
the present passage is tendentious in Phylarchus, and ironical in P.
7. da6.yeL 1TEpmAo~e:O..,; yvva.LKC!v: i.e. probably embracing altars or
statues of the gods like Hecuba in Virgil, Ae'lt. ii. 515-17. HaayHv
sometimes means 'to bring a play on the stage'; cf. Plato, Rep.
ii. 381 D; Ap. 35 B.
9. To .. Tij.,; hnopla.s ol.ce'Lov 0.~-ta. Ka.t xpTjalp.ov: 'the nature and use
of history' (not, with Paton, 'how far it (i.e. Phylarchus' treatment)
is proper or serviceable to history'). P. proposes to distinguish between history and tragedy after the manner of Aristotle.
10. lh;'L , ou~e ~1Tt1TATJTTEW KTA.: so MSS., B-\V. 2 ; but Casaubon's emendation lK'1TAo/'retv is wholly convincing, d. II.
P.'s vocabulary, as Ullman points out (TAPA, 1942, 41-42), both
here and in similar passages recalls the traditional function of
tragedy. Thus the anagnorisis is lK'lrk')KnKov (Arist. Poet. 14. 8.
I454 a 4; d. 16. 8. I455 a I7; Vit. Aesch. 7. 1rpos lK1rAYJgw -rpa-rwoYJ, 9,
lK1rA~gat -rov ofjfLov; [Longinus] Subl. I. h avv l1mA~gt -rofJ mOavoiJ
KpaTt TO OavfLd.cnov). See below, xvi. r8. 2 (criticism of Zeno), vr.ep{JoA~Ji

Tpa-rdas . lK7TATJgLv -rwv 1roAAwv.

Taus i.vSexop.f.vou.,; 'Aoyous tlJn'Lv: 'to seek after men's probable
utterances'. P. opposes the traditional procedure by which his predecessors (cf. Thuc. i. 22) invented speeches to put into the mouths
of their characters; cf. xii. 25 b (contrasting -rove; Ka-r' d.)o.7]8~:tav
dp1]fLlvovs and ifiw8ij lmx<tp~fLa.Ta Ka OLgootKovs Myovs}, xxxvi. 1. 7
(only what was said is to be reported). P. regards speeches as important (cf. xii. 25 a J, a axeoov ws Kcpd.Aata 1'WV 7rpagWV em KaL
avvlx<t ~v oA1Jv laToplav; xxxvi. I. 3), and includes many at critical
points in his history (cf. iii. 63. 2-14, 64. 2-10, 108. 4-109. 12, 111. 2-u,
V, I04. I-II, ix. 28. I-31 6, 32. 3~39. 7, X. 6. 1-6, 25, xi. 4 I-6. 8,
28. 1-29. I3, XV. I. 6-I4, 6. 4-7, 9, 8. 1-14, IO. 2-7, II. 6-I2, I7. 3-7,
19. 3-7, xviii. I-12 (Locrian conference), 23. 3-7, 36. 2-39. 7 (Tempe
conference), xxi. 10. 5-IO, 14.
IS s-11, 19. I-21. II, 22. s-23. 12,
JI. 7-I5, xxii. 8.
8. 9-12, xxiii. n, xxiv. 9 I-IS, xxix. I, 20,
xxx. Jr. 3-18). Of these some are based on authentic material, while

others, despite the principles here laid down, seem to give a mere
rhetorical exposition suitable to the occasion. Wunderer (ii. g--II)
sees a development from the position of the present passage to that
in xii. 25 i 4 ff.; but the argument there, if properly understood, is
261

II. 56.

IO

EVENTS IN GREECE

completely in agreement with that here. See also La Roche, 66 ff.;

Susemihl, ii. II4; and above, pp. 13-14.
Ta 1Ta.pe1rbp.eva. To is .'11ToKelp.evots a.pt9p.e~o-tla.t: 'to enumerate the
possible consequences of the events under consideration', i.e. whether
they are in fact known to have happened or not. Cf. Arist. Poet. 9 I.
1451 a 37 f., lfoallep6v St ... on oo Tb Ta yellbfLElla Mynv, TOVTO 7TOHJTOV
lpyov ~aTlv, d,\,\' ola Civ ylllotTo Kal Ta SvvaTa KaTa To ElK6s ~To allayKaiov, ibid. 1451 b 4-5, the difference between the historian and the
tragic poet---Tl[) TOll p.v n:l. yevbjLeva AEy<w, TOll S ola i'ill ylllotTo. But

P. rejects Aristotle's conclusion that tragedy is therefore a higher

thing (a7Tovoat6Tepoll) than history; cf. u-12, where this judgement
is implicitly rejected from P.'s utilitarian, didactic standpoint.
Ka.00.1Tep ot Tpa.y't'Stoypa~ol: 'like tragic poets', cf. I7. 6 n.
11-12. Difference between tragedy and history. Tragedy seeks EK7TAfjga,
Ka t/Jvxaywyfjaat, to thrill and charm the audience, an Aristotelian
conception; on EK7TM]gat see 56. Ion., on t/Jvxaywyfjaat cf: Arist. Poet.
6. 13. 1450 a 33 (on peripeteiai and anagnoriseis), 6. 19. 1450 b 17
(of the actual spectacle, ot/Jt>). History, however, seeks Sto&.gat KaL
1rdaat Tovs lfotAop.aBoiJvTa<;, to instruct and convince serious students
(cf. iii. 21. 9, xi. 19 a z for the contrast between what charms the
casual reader, Tovs aKovoVTas, and what benefits the serious student).
Further the charm of tragedy is only KaTa To TTap6ll, the profit of
history el> TOll 1r&.vm xp6vov, a distinction which, in its rhetorical
formulation, recalls Thucydides' famous claim (i. 22. 4, KTfjp.d TE s
ald p.iiMov ~ dycfmap.a t<; TO 7Tapaxpfjp.a aKOVELJl gtlyKHTat) ; cf. iii.
31. 12 n. In tragedy the governing element is Tb 7Tt8av6ll, Ki'lll ii t/JuSo<;which is Aristotle's Ttt 8vvaTtt KC1Ttt TO elK6<; (d. 56. IOn.); cf. Poet.
9 6. 1451 b r6, arnov S' on mBav6v an Tb ouvaTb!l. In history it is
truth. This contrast P. somewhat overstates, so as to limit history to a
record of all (7rttp.7Tav) that happened, however commonplace (56. Io,
Keill 1rdvv p.hpta Tvyxcillwmv ol'Ta) ; whereas in practice his very urge towards didacticism forces him to apply some principle of selection.
12. s,a TTJV lmaT'TJV TWV 9ewp.evwv: 'to beguile the spectator'. For this
non-Attic sense of a7TclT1J cf. iv. 20. 5, music was not introduced l1r'
dmhn Kat Y01JTdq.. Schweighaeuser quotes Josephus, AI, viii. s6, fL1JOv
.. gw TfjS d,\7JBe{as Myop.ll, fL1}0t 7Tt8aliOLS nat Kai 7Tpos a7TiiT1Jll Kal
nfpt/Jw l1raywyos rryll iaToptall OtaAap.{3dliOVTES, T~ll p.v lgiTaatll lfovy<tv
TTtpwp.e8a, 7TtaT<vw8at S <OBts dgwup.v.
13. oux {11Ton9ei.s a.h(a.v Ka.i. Tp01Tov Tois ywollevots: 'without suggesting why things are done and to what end'; that Tpcmos here
means 'direction' is confirmed by 16, tv Tats ahlats Kat 1rpoatplawt
Twv TTpaTTbVTwll, 'in the reasons and purposes of the doers'.
ti>v xwpts ouT' "AEE~V .. olh'' bpy(~eo-tla.t . Suva:rbv: by simply
relating peripeteiai shorn of their causes and purposes Phylarchus
fails to arouse legitimate (EtlA&yws) pity or proper (KaB1JK6vTws) anger.
262

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II. 58.1

P. here implies that both these emotions are legitimate for an historian in certain conditions; these were fulfilled when the emotion
was harnessed to a didactic purpose. In that case the end justified
the means. Ullman, TAP A, 1942, 30-31, would trace this theory back
to Ephorus, (d. Strabo, vii. 302); but see Walbank, Bull. Inst. Class.
Stud., 1955, 9
15. Tov KAE1TTT]V T] f10Lxov &.1ToKTe(vas: both in Greece and at Rome
an adulterer caught in flagranti delicto might be killed with impunity; d. Lysias, i. 26; Cato ap. Gell. x. 23. 4-5. A similar right
existed to kill a thief apprehended at night, or in the daytime if he
attempted self-defence with a weapon; this was laid down in the
Twelve Tables (Riccobono, Fontes, i. 57-59) and in various Greek
codes (d. Hitzig, RE, 'furtum', col. 391).
Tov 1rpoSOTT]V f1 Tupavvov: for P.'s views of tyrannicide see 59 4 ff.
Greek opinion traditionally condoned tyrannicide (d. Arist. Pol.
ii. 7 13. 1267 a 12 ff.), and there may have been an actual law at
Athens; d. An doc. de my st. 96-97, o8~ d7ToK-relvas -rdv -raiJ-ra 7TO~aav-ra
Ka1 0 GVf.Lf3ovAi;Vaas oaws l!a-rw Kat day~> See von Scala, 44 n. I, 140.

57. 1. AhwAois evexe(p~aav QUTOUS: d. 46. 2 n. for the earlier fortunes

of Mantinea.
2. ~Te~ TeTapn(:l 1rpoTEpov TTJS i\vnyovou 1rapouatas: Aratus' capture
of Mantinea (d. iv. 8. 4; Plut. A rat. 36. 2; Cleom. 5 I-2; Paus.
ii. 8. 6) was in spring 227, during his tenth a-rpa-rYJyla, and immediately
after the defeat at Mt. Lycaeum. Antigonus' presence is probably
his presence in the Peloponnese (Beloch, iv. 2. 223, against Ferrabino,
269, who applies the phrase to Antigonus' appearance outside Mantinea); d. 55 2, 8,0. -r~v .:4v-rty6vov 7Tapovaav. From spring 227 to late
summer 224, when Doson entered the Peloponnese (d. 54 3 n.), is
over three years, hence Aratus' capture of Mantinea took place t-re
-re-rapTttJ 7Tp6-repov -rij> .:4v-rty6vov 7Tapovalas.
O~a TTJV , . , iJ.f1apT(av: We do not knOW the circumstanCeS in which

3.

the Mantineans left the Achaeans for the Aetolians; but it is possible
that it was with Achaean consent (d. 46. 2 n.), despite P.'s censure
here. Normally secession would count as rebellion; d. Aymard, ACA,
2o8. P. exaggerates Achaean leniency. From 58. 2-3 it appears that
the Achaeans sent 300 Achaeans chosen by lot and 200 mercenaries
to Mantinea. Plutarch (Arat. 36. 3) says that Aratus -rovs f.LETolKovs
7TOA-ras l7TOLYJGi;V av-rwv, whence Fougeres (494) infers that the
Achaeans were settlers and received Mantinean citizenship. See 58.
4 n. P.'s picture of the Mantinean 'conversion' ( 6 ff.) represents
the ascendancy of a party as a change of mind in the community.
58. 1. Tas . . . O'TaO'E~S KQL Tas {m' AtTwAwv . . . em~ouAas: the
pro-Achaean faction, probably the rich landowners (d. Bolte, RE,
263

II. 58.

EVENTS IN GREECE

'Mantinea', col. 1328), evidently distrusted their authority, and asked

for a garrison. The reference to Aetolia is part of the falsified Aratean
version of the Cleomenean \Var; cf. 45 I n., 46. 1-3, 49 7.
4. aTa.a16.cra.vrEs npos aifO.s: 'becoming involved in internal struggles'
(not 'they fell out with the Achaeans' (Paton)). The popular, proSpartan, party gained the ascendancy, and called in Cleomenes (Plut.
Arat. 39 r; Cleom. 14. r); the date was early summer 226 (5r. 3 n.).
TOUS na.pa. TWV !1\xa.lWV Ola.Tp(~ovra.s KO.T~o-+a.sa.v: i.e. the 300
Achaean settlers. Plutarch's statement (Cteom. q. r), that Tijv t{>povpcw T~V Axataw (J'!JV<'!Kj3aAovTfi<; lvexdpt(J'aV avTOU<;, either represents an
alternative account (Phylarchus ?) or refers to the garrison proper
of 200 mercenaries, who may well have been expelled while the hated
settlers were reserved for a more violent fate. See Niccolini, 40 n. r.
6. KO.TCL TOUS KOWOUS TWV av9pwnwv vop.ous: cf. ro TOV<; TOV TTOAEJ.LOV
voJ.Lov;, 8. 1.2. The concept of general rules governing men's conduct
as men (not merely as Greeks) appears in Herod. v'ii. r36. z, the
killing of heralds violates Tel 1TUVTWV av8pw1TWV VOJLLJ.La; but in practice
the fifth century concerned itself mainly with a code of conduct
common to Greeks (cf. Thuc. iii. 58. J, 67. 6 (6 Twv 'EM.~vwv v&JLo;),
iv. 97 3; Eurip. Med. 536 ff., r339 ff., Hec. II99 ff., A~~dr. 173 f.,
Heracl. 130 ff., roro, d. 965 ff., Supp. 3n, 526). The problem of international laws exercised !socrates' school; cf. Diod. xiii. 2o-2i
(probably Ephorus; d. Schwartz, RE, 'Diodoros', col. 6Br), with references to both Tov; nov 'E>..>..~vwv lBL(J'f.WV<; (23. 4) and rli KOtvO. VOJLLJ.La
(26. 2). Likewise the Aristotelian school, which produced the famous
study of comparative law, Theophrastus' Laws, reached out towards
a concept of law embracing more than Greeks (Arist. Nic. Eth. viii.
r. 3 1155 a 21 f.; Cic. Fin. v. 65 (peripatetic source)). Cf. von Scala,
299 ff. But whether conceived as applying to Hellenes or to all men,
the concept of natural law is one of great importance from early
times. 'Though .. repeatedly challenged ... the idea persisted of
an absolute, universal standard of right behind and above the laws
of particular political societies' (Calhoun, i4). It is to the principles
implied in such a concept that P. refers back in pa5sagcs like this;
but the fact that the actual details of what is permissible are so
vague prevents our constructing a system out of P.'s incidental
remarks, such as von Scala attempts. Here, for example, he demands
far greater leniency for an Achaean garrison than he will accord to
opponents; cf. ro, where 'the laws of war' allow the enslavement of
men, women, and children in a captured city (cf. 56. 6 n.). Moreover,
how do the rules of war apply to a popular revolt inside a city?
Clearly P. has no scientific or consistent answer to such questions,
but approaches them in the light of party and patriotic prejudices
so strong that they lead him to such callous judgements as appear
in 12 and 6o. 8.
264

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II. 59 6

12. Tous A.ev9Epous: 'the free population' (not, as Paton, 'the male
citizens') ; the masculine form covers both sexes; cf. 9 fLETd TlKvwv
Ka~ yvva~Kwv; Plut. Arat. 45 6 (from Phylarchus), 1rafoas- o Kat
yvvaiKas-

~vSpa1ToO[uavTo.

TO lj!eu8os chr19a.vov: cf. 56. 12, n\ m8av6v, KUV

zfor=iJoos-. Phylarchus,
to secure npaTda (cf. 59 3, and 17. 6 n.), discards the criteria even of

his own 'tragedy'' since his work is a1Tl8avov.

13. To "'ra.pa.ttE(}levov uuvemcrrftua.l: 'to pay attention to an
example close at hand'.
Kupleuua.vTes TEyea.Twv: cf. 54 7; the date was late spring or early
summer 223.
59. 1. )\pLcrroJ.J-a.xov: cf. 44 6 n. for his earlier career. In 272 the leader
of the pro-Macedonian faction at Argos was Aristippus (I) (Plut.
Pyrrh. 30. r). At the time of the revolt of Alexander, son of Craterus,
at Corinth in 249, the tyrant of Argos was Aristomachus (I) (JG,
iiz. 774), who was murdered in 241/o and succeeded by Aristippus (II)
(Plut. A rat. 25. 4), who was succeeded in turn by Aristomachus (II),
who joined the Achaean League. Since this man was the son of
Aristomachus (Syll. 5IO, cf. IG, iv. IIII), he appears to have been
brother to Aristippus (II), son of Aristomachus (I) and grandson of
Aristippus (I), who perhaps became tyrant as a result of Pyrrhus'
defeat and death. On Apia, daughter of Aristippus (II), and wife
of Nabis of Sparta, see xiii. 7. 6. Cf. Beloch, iv. 1. 579-80 n. 3; Freeman, HFG, 297 n. 2.
v"'roxe1pLov )\vnyov<tl tta.t To 'is )\xa.LO'Ls yEvo~-tevov: 'falling into the
hands of .. .',i.e. in 224 after the fall of Argos; cf. 53 2. There is no
evidence that he surrendered voluntarily (so Treves on 6o. 2); cf.
6o.

2,

Aaf36vus- KaTrt 1TOAEfLOV fm.oxelp~ov.

ets KeyxpeO.s crrpe~Aou~-tevov ci."'ro9a.vel:v:

cf. Plut. A rat. 44 6

(following Phylarchus), v Kr=yxpmts- uTpE{3Awuavn:s- KaTm6vnuav.
Cenchreae was the Corinthian port on the Saronic Gulf. Plutarch
alleges that Aratus was much blamed for the incident; he would be
doubly responsible, as UTpaT7Jyos- a?JToKpaTwp of the League, and also
since he had been elected general at Argos after its recovery (Plut.
Arat. 44 s)-unless, indeed, Plutarch here refers to a purely military
commission (Aymard, ACA, 114 n.).
4. Ka.Ta ye TftV Tou ~iov "11"poa.1peuLV: 'in his political conduct throughout his life', i.e. as a tyrant. The argument is illogical; in accepting
Aristomachus into the Confederation and electing him general the
Achaeans had condoned his earlier career. And if he had resumed
his tyranny after Cleomenes took Argos, P. would surely have said
so explicitly.
6. Ta.uT"l'i Se ~-tei~w tta.T"lYop(a.v KTA.: cf. Cic. de re pub. ii. 48,
'tyrannus, quo neque taetrius nee foedius nee dis hominibusque
265

II. 59 6

EVE)l'TS l)l' GREECE

inmsms animal ullum cogitari potest: qui quamquam figura est

hominis, morum tamen immanitate uastissimas uincit beluas'; off.
iii. 32, 'quem (sc. tyrannum) est honestum necare ... ista in figura
hominis feritas et immanitas beluae'. For Cicero the question had
achieved a new significance in the career of Caesar, culminating in
the Ides of March 44 See 56. rs n.
7. flt&s .qflEpas: in 235 Aratus forced an entry into Argos by night,
but on receiving no help from the Argives had to withdraw at the
end of the next day, wounded through the thigh. Plutarch (Arat.
27. 3-4) refers this to Aristippus' tyranny, probably rightly; the
punishment inflicted by Aristomachus will have been after his seizure
of the tyranny on Aristippus' death near Cleonae the same summer
(Plut. Arat. 29.
; cf. Walbank, Aratos, r86-7). P.'s indignation
probably reflects the polemic of Aratus' lvf emoirs.
9. O.<jlopflfi TaVT!J Kat vpo<jluaet XPTJC"Uflevos: the new tyrant thus
rid himself of his political opponents, some of whom were no doubt
Aratus' confederates (despite P.'s emphasis on their innocence).
10. TO. . athou Kat Twv npoyovwv aa~E~fJflaTa: the offences of Aristomachus' ancestors are unknown, and may derive largely from the
rancour of Aratus, who was condemned by a court of arbitration to
pay 3o minae for invading Aristippus' territory in peace-time (46.
2 n.). Aratus' Memoirs are probably also the source of Plutarch's
statement (Arat. 25. 4) that Aristippus was e~wl.iaTepo<; Tvpavvos
than Aristomachus.
60. 2. on ... anEKn'LVav: P. does not admit this accusation, which
is made by Phylarchus (d. 8). He merely argues that Phylarchus'
charge, if true, would not expose Antigonus and Aratus to any
recrimination, since Aristomachus deserved an even more horrible
fate ( 7).
4, O.veA.niOTws 5i Tfj~ 6.cr<jlaA.e1a~ ~Tuxe: untrue. \Vhen Aristomachus
laid down his tyranny in 229/8 (44. 6 n.), the Achaeans made definite
terms, guaranteeing his safety (Plut. Arat. 35
5. iJY'flova Kai O"'TpaTT)yov KaTaaTfjcra.vTES: d. Plut. A rat. 35 5
This ~yEp.ovla probably means merely that Aristomachus commanded
the Achaean forces during his UTpaTT)yta of 228/7, e.g. at Pallantium
(Plut. Arat. 35 7), it is not to be confused with the honorary
~ycp.ovlu. of Ptolemy Euergetes (cf. Plut. Arat. 24. 4, ~yEp.ovlu.v
xm'Ta 'TToAEfLOV Ka1 Ka-rd. yfjv Kat KaTa 8\arrav), and the double title
is used mainly for rhetorical effect, like the inaccurate use of '"ap(i
m5Sas ( rr) to describe a desertion which took place in summer 225,
more than two years after Aristomachus' aTpaTYJyla.
7. flETa TlJ.LWp(a~ napa5etyJ.LaTt~6J.Levov: 'tortured as a deterrent
spectacle'. On P .' s callousness here cf.
6 n.
266

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II. 62.4

1

61. 1. f1ET a.li-TJaews tta.i Sta.Oeaews: 'with exaggeration and rhetorical

elaboration'.
2. 1repl. Tous a.l~To(/s Katpo6s: in fact, autumn 223 (54 13), a year
after Aristomachus' execution.
3. ~TJAWTWV cjleuKTWV: cf. Livy, praef. Io, 'in de tibi tuaeque
reipublicae quod imitere capias, inde foedum inceptu foedum exitu
quod uites'. For P.'s moral and didactic attitude towards history
cf. i. I, 2.
4. eis Tt,v Meu<nlv"lv: on these events see 55 2-7 n.
5. OUK eciamev ds TH\Os ava.yvwuOijva.t: 'they would not allow it to
be read to the end' (rather than 'they would not allow it to be read
at all').
f1tKpou oe Ka.Ta.Aeuumev Tous ypa.f1f1<1Tocjlopous: a breach of international law (cf. 8. IZ) which, as Treves notes, does not stir P.'s
indignation.
7. KatTot y' tf11ToOwv 1\v: 'and yet the instance was there to hand'
(cf. 58. 13), not, 'this was obviously demanded here' (Paton).
9. 1TpWTOV f1EV Tt,v xwpa.v 1TpoeivTo: not when Megalopolis fell
(for this was quite sudden), but previously in the loss of Belbinatis
(46. 5 n.)
11. 1TpOS aAf]8LVWV 1Tpa.yflaTWV Ka.l. ~E~Q.tWV KOtVWVl<lV: 'to share the
enterprises of an honourable and well-established state' (on -r.i 1Tpayp.am, 'the state', see i. 20. 2 n.; cf. xxxviii. q. 8). In translating 'to
true and faithful comradeship' Paton appears to be following
(though he does not print) Reiske's emendation ci),7J(hv~v 1rpayp.a-rwv
Ka~ f3f3alav Kotvwvlav.
62. 1. E:a.KtuxAta. TaAa.vTa. KTA.: cf. Plut. Cleom. 25. I f., dyavaKn)aas
Td p.f.v XP~p.a-ra Dt~p1Taa.:v, avDptaVTaS' S Kai yparpds tl1TEUTtt>.c:v tds
}}rnip-r7Jv, Tijs 8~ 1roAc:ws -r.i 1rAt:i'a-ra Kat p.e'ytaTa p.e'pYJ KaTaaKwpas Kat
Dtarp8.:f.pas avl(wgtv E1T OtKOV.
Ta StuxfXta. KQ.Ta Tous e9tO'f10US: similarly Aratus persuaded the
Argives to present the property of 'the traitors and tyrants' to
Antigonus (Plut. A rat. 44 5); and Aemilius Paullus aroused surprise
by refusing any part of the wealth he captured from Perseus (xviii.
35 4 ff.). Cleomenes, however, must have placed his share in the
general exchequer; for though the subsidy was still forthcoming
from Ptolemy, Cleomenes knew that he was negotiating with Doson
(Pint. Cleom. 22. 7), and had been reduced to raising money by
freeing helots (Plut. Cleom. 23. I) that very winter (223). Moreover,
he could scarcely accumulate a private fortune after his social
revolution. Hence, Phylarchus' statement is to be treated with reserve in this respect also (cf. 63. 3).
4. ev To is Ka.O' T)f1iis Katpois: the period of Peloponnesian unity
(rrdv-r.:s EV Kai. TaD-ro >.e'yovns) and prosperity (p.Eya-r7JV Kaprrova8at
1

II. 62.4

EVENTS IN GREECE

(!t'!l3a'fLovlav), which P. here contrasts with the second half of the

third century, falls clearly between r8r, when Lycortas' efforts
brought Sparta into the League (38. 3 n.), and the destruction of
Corinth and the dissolution of the Confederacy in 146 (Paus. vii.
16. g). Compare the picture of a desolated Greece in xxxvi. 17. 5
It follows that P. was writing this section of his work before 146;
see further, 37-7o n.
TocroiJTo 'ITAfj9os XPTJflaTwv: for general discussion of economic conditions in Greece in the light of this and other evidence see A.
Wilhelm, Jahresh., 1914, ro8-r6; J. H. Lipsius, Rh. Mus., 1916,
r6r ff.; Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, i. 205-6: ii. 750~-3; iii. 1366 n. 31,
1507 n. 20, r6o6-7 n. 85. That the total value of the movable property
from the whole Peloponne.se did not amount to 6,ooo talents in 223
is very probably true. Wilhelm (op. cit. ur-12) calculates that its
area (21,69o sq. km.)l is roughly 66 to 67 times that of .Mantinea
(reckoning this at 325 sq. km. with Fougeres rather than only 275
with Beloch). Since the lrdrrAa of Mantinea probably came to 75
talents ( I I n.), that of the Peloponnese, on the same basis, would
work out at 5,o25 talents. Such a calculation Wilhelm admits to be
rough and ready; but it affords some confirmation for P.'s statement.
6. Trs .. oux h:TTopTJICE: 'who has not read ... ?'; cf. i. 63. 7 n.
6-7. The Athenian valuation of 378 B.C.: for discussion of this controversial topic see Wilhelm, Jahresh., 1914, ro8-16; J. H. Lipsius,
Rh. Mus., 1916, 16r-86; A. Zimmern, The Greek Commonwealth""
(Oxford, 1924), 292-3 n.; A. Momigliano, Athen., I9JI, 477 ff.; A.
Andreades, History of Greek PubLic Finance, i (Harvard, 1933), :;z648; 'laTopla Tijs 'EAk'JVLidjs OTJp,oalas oll<ovop,f.as, ii (Athens, 1931),
155 ff.; Glotz-Cohen, iii. r29; Schwahn, Rh. Mus., 1933, 247-84;
Busolt-Swoboda, 1213-15 n., 1224-6 (with bibliography); P. Cloche,
La Politiq-ue etrangere d'Athenes de 404 a 338 avant ].-C. (Paris,
1934), 64-.66; H. Michell, The Economics of Ancient Greece (Cambridge,
194o). 381-5; J. B. Bury, History ofGreece3 (ed. Meiggs), 89o; A. H. M.
Jones, The Athens of Demosthenes {Cambridge, 1952), 2-9; G. E. M.
de Ste Croix, Class. et med., 1953, 30-70 (with bibliography). P. refers
to the valuation of property carried out at Athens in the archonship
of Nausinicus, 378/7 (Diod. xv. 25. I; Dem. xxii. 44), on the initiation
of the Second Athenian League and the campaign in conjunction
with Thebes against Spartan hegemony; this valuation (Tlp,7Jp,a) was
to serve as the basis for a capital levy (Elatfoopa). P.'s figure is confirmed by Demosthenes (xiv. 19, rounded off as 6,ooo talents) for
354/3. and by Philochorus (FGH, 328 F 46) for the time of Demetrius
Poliorcetes; thus, once made, the assessment seems to have gone
for a considerable time unchanged. As a total valuation of the
1 The Annuaire slalislique de la GrJce, r939 (Athens, r940), 30, gives 2I,643z
sq. km., an insignificant variation.

268

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II.62.9

privately held capital of Attica, including fixed and movable property (but excluding state capital and temple possessions) 5,750
talents ( = r,32B,zso sterling) seems very small. Hence, since
Boeckh (Staatshaushaltung der Athener, i 2 (Berlin, rSsr), 636 ff.)
attempts have been made to interpret -rlp:ry11-a as 'taxable capita]';
but Beloch's view (Hermes, r885, 237 ff.) that TlfL7JfLO. is a valuation
of all capital, which only falls short of completeness through error
and fraud, has won wide acceptance (see the bibliography for both
views in Busolt-Swoboda, r2r3-15 n.), and is strongly supported by
Wilhelm's deductions from second-century Messenian documents,
which
the n11-aalat based on an area of 407 sq. km. as r,256
talents. The cultivable area of Attica was 2,647 sq. km.; but Messenia
was more fertile, and Athenian wealth, being comprised to a larger
extent in non-agricultural property, gave greater scope for evasion
of assessment. A close comparison cannot therefore be made. But
in general the Messenian figures confirm those of P. for Attica; and
it seems certain that P. believed his figure of 5.7so talents to represent
the total capital. Such a theory as that of Schwahn (Rh. Mus., 1933,
281; RE, 'Tele', cols. 248 ff.), who resurrects Rodbertus's hypothesis
that TLfL7JfLO. represents an estimate of income, would imply that the
total Athenian capital came to so,ooo talents, and that P. is referring
to the
of Demosthenes' speech On the Symmories (xiv), i.e.
354/3. and not 378/i; but it seems improbable that P. would prove
thus simultaneously crassly ignorant and grossly careless. It is
possible that P.'s figure ignores many small properties below the
exemption limit for Ela<foopa (Jones, op. cit.,
that no tax
was perhaps payable on properties of less than 25 minae, and these
may have amounted in bulk to a very substantial amount) ; but
with this (considerable) qualification P.'s total may be taken as a
(no doubt conservative) estimate of the total of privately held
capital in Attica. On the levying of the da<foopa there is still much
disagreement; for this problem, which is not relevant here, see the
works quoted above, and especially de Ste Croix.
6. !-lupous <npa.nwTa.,, etca.Tov Tpt~pELS: according to Diodorus (xv. 29. 6), who draws on Ephorus, the Athenians mobilized
2o,ooo hoplites and soo cavalry, and manned 2oo ships; and by 376
it is known that there were ro6 ships in the Piraeus dockyards (IG,
iF. r6o4; cf. Glotz-Cohen, iii. rz8 n. 33). P.'s figures are not intended
as an indication of the full military capacity of Attica, but merely
explain why the assessment was necessary.
7. cmo 1'll!l &~4a.s "'I'OleicrOa.l TIJ.S etcrq.op6.s: 'to pay a property-tax
to cover {the expenses of) the war on the basis of a valuation'.
elarf>opat (cf. Thuc. iii. r9. I) is the technical Athenian term for a
property-tax levied to meet the costs of war.
9. "'I'AElw , , , Tp1a.Kocrwv: 3oo Attic talents = 69,300 sterling.

II. 62. II

EVENTS IN GREECE

11. ouSaoo<; yO.p OVTE<; OEUTEPOL MnVTlVE~<;: on Man tinea, in comparison with Megalopolis, see Bury, JHS, 1898, 20; cf. Wilhelm,
]ahresh., 1914, ru. The city walls were 3,942 m. long (Fougeres, 14o);
and though for the late fifth century Fougeres (571-2) calculates its
free population as 18,ooo (his addition of some S,ooo-Io,ooo slaves is
dubious; cL Beloch, iii. 1. z8o}, Wilhelm concludes that in 223 its
total population will not have exceeded 12,ooo. If, as he suggests,
about g,ooo of these were sold into slavery at r5 minae per head,
this would make a total of 225 talents, leaving only 75 talents for all
movable property an indication of how little the average man
possessed apart from his land. For the relevance of these figures for
P.'s estimate of the value of movable property in the Peloponnese
see 4 n.
63. 1. nToi'.Ep.nio<; TO p.Ev xop1]yEiv a:rroAeyEt: d. 5I 2 n. It is clear
from Plutarch (Cleom. 22. 7) that negotiations with Doson had continued for some time before this ultimatum to Cleomencs ; cf. also
Plut. Cleom. 27. 1, 27. 4 (from Phylarchus), on the importance of
money to Cleomenes. The battle is that of Sellasia, fought in July
222

(65-69 n.).

2. EK.K.U~EvEw To is oAoLs: the metaphor was obvious and common;

cf. i. 87. 8, iii. 94 4; Plut. Caes. 32. 6; Cor.3. 1. That the wordso<i ...
~Aots form an iambic senarius (Sauppe, Phil., 1863, 177) is probably
mere coincidence, and it seems quite arbitrary to attribute it to
a comic poet (via Phylarchus}, still more to attempt to identify
him (Wunderer, i. 8o-8r}.
J110Etdnv ~A1ri8a. ToG 8Uvn0"8nL J'L0'8o8oniv: cf. Plut. Cleom. 27. 4
(from Phylarchus), yAlO'xpws Ka.l fL6At;; 7Topl,ovra. Toi's {'vots fLta06v Ka~
Tpof~v Toi's 7To)dTat;;.
4. 1rpbs OE Tov :A.vTLyovov: echoing 63. x. Phylarchus said that
Cleomenes had 6,ooo talents from Megalopolis, yet owed his downfall
to Ptolemy's suspension of subsidies; P. retorts that Cleomenes only
possessed 3oo talents (cf. 62. 9). yet even so could have been independent of Ptolemy. In short, the Phylarchean thesis of defeat due
to a 'stab in the back' by Ptolemy is rejected.
6. KnTO. T~v ~~ &.pxfls 1rpo8EO'LV: 'in accordance with my original
intention', i.e. on beginning this digression. P.'s intention (56. r-2)
was to discuss the relative credibility of Aratus and Phylarchus; in
fact, his digression has developed into a one-sided criticism of the
latter. He now returns to the narrative. (Paton's translation, 'at
such length as the plan of this history allows', misses the point.)

64. Cleomenes' devastation of the Argolid: cf. Kromayer, AS, i. zmr-ro;

vValbank, Aratos, 108-9. P.'s source is Aratus' Memoirs; for Plutarch
270

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II.64. 7

(Cleom. 26) records a second invasion of the Argolid after Doson

had left for Tegea, which is known to be from Phylarchus (cf. FGH.
81 F 57 for his use of po!J-ifw.la, found in Plut. Cleom. z6), and is clearly
a doublet of the first invasion, which Plutarch describes, after P.,
in Cleom. 25. A comparison of Plut. Cleom. zs. 4 ff. with P. ii. 64
shows that the former draws directly on the latter, with many
verbal repetitions. No question of a common source arises (as Treves
suggests); cf. Plut. Cleom. 25. 4, W> tfo7Ja~ llo>t6f3os.
I. JlETd Ti}v Tfj~ MEynATjS 'll'OAEWS axwow: cf. 55 2-7. It fell in autumn
223; Doson wintered 223/2 at Argos; and Cleomenes' attack on the
Argolid will be February-March 222.
2. Iii~ ~:.~.ev Toi~ 'll'oAAo'Ls eooKEL: P. contrasts the view of the layman,
who is ignorant of strategy, with the judgement of the expert (himself). His favourable criticism of Cleornenes' strategy at this point
will be his own; it can scarcely come from Aratus' Memoirs. ot
7roMol here are not 'the masses'; and this passage is not to be taken
as an example of F.'s anti-popular bias, as by von Scala (43).
OLd Ti]v oxupontTa. TW\1 TO'ITW\1: Cleornenes marched over Parnon.
'Er zog also nicht den bequemen Weg tiber Tegea, sondern iiber
den Pass von Hagios Petros (etwa 10oo Meter) oder den von Kastanitza (1521 Meter) direkt nach Argos' (Krornayer, AS, i. 209 n. +)
The difficulties sprang from snow rather than frontier guards. Cf.
also the Phylarchean version of Plut. Cleom. z6. I, KafJ' Jdpas dSo6s(than via Tegea).
3. OLa.cpuKOTa. TdS Svv6.J1ELS: cf. 54 14, Jn' o{Kov laatfofjsa: 'InfVTas, 55 I.
Plutarch (Cleom. 25. 5) says they were DErnrap!J-lvov> KaTa n6Atv,
evidently referring to the cities of Macedonia (if this is not merely
careless transcription of P.). That Doson thus handicapped himself
through a critical winter is an indication of the importance of the
Macedonian men to the Macedonian fields.
Tovs 16.pyELous &.uxnAAEw Ko.i. KO.Tap.i~cpeu(Jal Tov 16.vTtyovov:
Cleornenes' plan envisaged two possibilities; either popular indignation would force Doson to fight and be defeated, or the elements
formerly favourable to him ( 4, 6, oxAo) would be detached from
Macedon.
6. TtYEJlOVlKWS Kai (Ja.uLALKW~: cf. Plut. Cleom. 25. s. W> ~Sn a7'paT7Jyov
11-tfopova. F.'s praise may reflect the views of Aratus, who will have
approved Doson's refusal to be coerced by the ox>.ot. Aratus'
Memoirs may have contained abuse of Doson (Plut. Clcom. 16. 3~4;
cf. Walbank, Aratos, r6I n. r); but their apologetic character must
necessarily have involved some praise of the king with whom Aratus
carne to terms.
7. O.ucpaA.ws l'll'a.vilADEv: in a \vide sweep through Ph1ius and
Orchomenus, if any confidence can be placed in the Phylarchean
doublet (Plut. Cleom. 26).
271

II. 65

EVENTS IN GREECE

65-69. The Battle of Sellasia.

(a} Date. Defenders have been found for 223, .2::12, and 221. The
convincing arguments for 222 are succinctly given by Tarn (C AH,
vii. 863; later bibliography in Walbank, Philip, 296 n. 5}; 223 must
definitely be rejected (cf. Porter, Hermath. 48, 1933, 270-r). P.
states (iv. 35 8} that in spring 219 Sparta had been without kings
axEoov f/871 TpEts ~vtavro15s, a statement hardly reconcilable with
Sellasia in July 221. Against 222 is Doson's visit to the Nemean
festival after the battle (7o. 4); for the Nemea was held in 'odd'
years. But the general situation can well have caused a postponement
of the festival of 223 (cf. 70. 4 n.). Account must also be taken of the
Achaean general list. If T(j> itpaTq; a7paT7!YofJvn (52. 3) and f.tETO.
Ttp.o~l.vou Tov a7pa771yov (53 2} both refer to full, regular UTPa771yl1u
of the Confederation, they must be those of zz4/3 and 223/2 respectively; in that case the return of Argos to the League is in 223 and,
since between that event and Sellasia Doson twice went into winter
quarters (54 5, 54 13-14), Sellasia is in 221. However, the phrases in
52. 3 and 53 z need not and cannot refer to full UTpaT7Jyta, (for alternative interpretations see ad loc.}; for the evidence from Egypt is
decisive against Sellasia in 221. Plutarch (Cleom. 32; cf. P. v. 35 r)
shows that Cleomenes was in Egypt for some time before Euergetes'
death; and Euergetes died between Choiak 2I and Tybi 2
s-I6
February 221 (Skeat, Mizraim, 6, 1937, 32). Hence Sellasia was in 222.
(b) P.'s sources. The battle of Sellasia is described 65--{)9; Plut.
Cleom. z8; Phil. 6; and the relationship between these three accounts
is discussed by Kromayer (AS, i. 266-77) and Ferrabino (Atti Ace.
Torino, rgr8-r9, 751-Qo, 8u-rg). Kromayer shows that the details
in the Philopoemen correspond closely and often verbally with P.;
they are probably taken from P.'s Life of Philopoeme1z. The version
in the Cleomenes mentions Phylarchus by name and is clearly
favourable to the king, to the extent of attributing his defeat to
treachery; Phylarchus will be the source here. Finally, P.'s version
is very detailed on the Macedonian side, and especially on the action
around the centre and right flank. Hence Kromayer concludes that
P.'s source was a Megalopolitan informant from Philopoemen's
staff, perhaps even Philopoemen himself. Ferrabino attempts to
isolate three sources :
(r) The Polybian account, with certain omissions, which makes
Antigonus alone take the offensive (Aratus).
(2} ii. 67-j-Plut. Phil. 6. Antigonus takes the offensive, but the
victory is due to Philopoemen (Megalopolitan source).
(3) ii. 66. 4, 70. 3; Plut. Cleom. 27-28. Both kings take the offensive
on their right wings. Doson's victory is due to Damotelas'
treachery (Phylarchus).
272

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR IL65.2

But in fact there are no substantial discrepancies between versions

(r) and (2), and both of these probably go back to the Megalopolitan
source. Some real discrepancies exist between the accounts in 67 and
Plut. Phil. 6 (see 66. n n.), but these are not more than can be
explained by the greater compression of P. and the carelessness of
Plutarch, if both go back ultimately to F.'s biography of Philopoemen. Against the view that Aratus' Memoirs were a source for
P. are these two points:
(r) The complete omission of Sellasia from Plutarch's Aratus
suggests that it was given no prominence in theM emoirs, and
hence that Aratus played no important part in it (cf. Walbank,
Aratos, 109~10).
(z) Cleomenes is treated more favourably than usual (cf. 66. 4).
(c) On the strategy, tactics, and location of the battle see the
works listed in C AH, vii. 885, 12 b. Of these the most important is
Kromayer, AS, i. 199 ff. (further note in iv. 597~9), which contains
an excellent map (repeated with additional modern place-names in
BCH, 1910, Pl. XIII). Some valid points have been made against
Kromayer by Soteriades; cf. BCH, 191o, s-57 (Soteriades); so8~37
(Kromayer); 1911, 87-107, 241-2 (Soteriades). See also Kahrstedt,
Hermes, 1913, z86--91. For the points at issue see 65. 7 n. Earlier
bibliography than that in CAH, vii, is listed in Kromayer.

65. 1.

(K TTJS xuJ-Lau(as: d. 54 14, 64. 1, 64. 3 The joint force did not
move till 'early summer'; perhaps the Macedonians were late in
returning from their agricultural work at home.
2-5. Doson's forces can be set out in tabular form (cf. Kromayer,
AS, i. 228):
Macedonian phalangites
10,000} cavalry 300
Macedonian peltasts
3,000
Agrianians
1,000
1,000
Gauls
Mercenaries
3,000 cavalry 300
Achaeans
3,000 cavalry 300
Megalopolitans
1,000
Boeotians .
2,000 cavalry 200
Epirotes
1,000 cavalry so
Acarnanians
1,000 cavalry so
Illyrians
1,6oo
Total
IIorse 1,200
Foot 27,6oo

This matches F.'s total, except that ( 5) he rounds off the infantry
to 'about z8,ooo'. The small proportion of cavalry in this army is
noteworthy. Alexander's army crossed the Hellespont with foot to
horse in the proportion of 6: 1. The number of national Macedonian
4866

2]3

II. 65.2

EVENTS IN GREECE

troops is also noteworthy for its smallness. For a general discussion

of Macedonian armies at this time see Walbank, Philip, 289---94.
2. TrEATaa-r&s: the peltasts of the Antigonid armies were the equivalent of Alexander's hypaspists, a crack force which fought alongside
the phalanx in battle, but was called upon for any special duties,
e.g. ambushes, forced marches, and special expeditions. At this time
their total was probably 3,ooo, though by r68 there were s,ooo; like
Alexander's hypaspists they were apparently organized in chiliarchies. Of their uniform nothing definite is known; but, despite
their smaller shields, their armour was sufficiently heavy to allow
them to fight along with the phalanx. See, further, 3 n.; and
Walbank, Philip, 291-3.
:Aypuiva.s: the Agrianians were a Thraco-Macedonian people living
about Rhodope and the source of the Strymon (cf. Hirschfeld, RE,
'Agrianes (r)', col. 891; Launey, i. 404 ff.). Their weapon \'v'aS the
javelin (Arrian, Anab. i. 14. I, iii. 13. s). sling, or bow and arrow
(v. 79 6), and they formed one of the most useful and energetic
corps in Alexander's army (cf. Berve, i. 125, 137 ff.), frequently
acting along with the hypaspists on special operations. \\Thether
Alexander's Agrianians served as allies or mercenaries is unknown
(Griffith, 14). At Sellasia, however, they are distinguished from the
mercenaries (Launey, i. 4o6 against Griffith, 7o), and were either
subjects or allies. Cf. v. 79 6.
raX4Ta<;: probably Gauls from Europe, not Galatians from Asia
Minor (so Treves). On their use as mercenaries see Griffith, 252; but
here P. distinguishes them from the mercenaries (J.<~a8oc{>6povr;
ToVs- 7TaVTas-), and Launey (i. 517) suggests that they were provided
'par un roitelet barbare, en vertu d'un traite symmachique'. Later
Phi:ip V used Gallic cavalry; cf. v. 3 2, q. 4; but the Gauls at
Sellasia are infantry (Schweighaeuser, 'Index Hist. et Geog.', s.v.
Galli, makes them cavalry).
3. :Axa~v . MEyaAoTroAlTas .. KEpKL66.s: the Achaean forces are
small {though larger than those of any of the other allies). No doubt
Doson determined the relative numbers to be furnished by the members of the new Symmachy, and the Achaeans provided what was
required. On the meaning of E7TLA<iKTol, 'picked men' (cf. v. 9r. 6), not
merely 'levied', see Aymard (ACA, 86 n.) and Feyel (2o3); on their
age Aymard (ACA, 95 n. I: not necessarily under 30) and Feyel,
who suggests (204 n. 3} that they were a permanent corps of young
men of good family; cf. Syll. 73I for such a body at Tomi in the first
century. These Achaean l7T,AK7'ol appear elsewhere {cf. iv. 10. 2 n.,
v. 3 2, 91. 6, etc.) and this is against Treves' view that 'Achaean'
here means 'inhabitants of Achaea', and does not refer to League
forces. The appearance of a separate Megalopolitan contingent can
be explained as a reflection of the special role of Megalopolis (and
274

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II.6s.6

Cercidas) in the negotiations with Doson {48. 4 n.) and the old ties
of that city with Macedon, but mainly by the fact that the Megalopolitans were armed by Doson (see next note).
Ets Tov Ma.~<:eSovtK~>V TP01Tov Ka.Bw1T>.ta!J.EVous: these .Megalopolitan
forces were armed with bronze shields, Le. they were xaAKtta7TLOI!iS
(cf. v. gr. 7, where, however, they include cavalry). Doson armed
them because they had lost their own resources {iv. 6g. s). For
Macedonian arms cf. Plut. Cleom. 23. I (of Cleomenes)' owxu\lous OS
7TpOaKa8o7TAlaas 1'11aKI!iOOI!KWS drrrlTayp.a Tais 7Tap' .Mvnyovou AlliVKaam-

aw, ibid.

II. 3 for a description of the arms. Antigonus' '\"'biteshields', like the 'Bronzeshields' in his army at Sellasia (66. 5 n.),
recall Alexander's Argyraspides, 'Silvershields' (Arrian, Anab. vii.
rr. 3, where these are hypaspists). At Pydna (r68) Perseus' leucaspis
phalanx (Livy, xliv. 41. 2 from P.) and his chalcaspides (ibid.) are
apparently distinct from his caetrati, i.e. peltasts in P.'s sense of the
word (cf. 2 n.) (cf. Kromayer, AS, ii. 323; iv. 6o7 against Meyer,
Kl. Schr. ii. 483 and Tam, liMN D, 17); and in iv. 67. 6 Philip's
xu),Kaamollis (who were armed like the .Megalopolitans at Sellasia,
cf. iv. 6g. s) are also distinct from the peltasts. However, this does
not imply any difference in weight of armour. The peltasts, like the
hypaspists before them, frequently take their place in the phalanx,
as at Cynoscephalae, where they are classed with the phalangites
and distinguished from the light-armed (xviii. 24. 8; Walbank,
Philip, 292). Both Cleomenes' recruits and Cercidas' Megalopolitans
at Sellasia will have been armed with the Macedonian sarissa (a
21-foot spear), helmet, sword, shield (of 20 in. diameter), breastplate,
and greaves; cf. Philip, 289. Macedonianarms were widely adopted by
Greek states in the course of this century; for the Boeotian reform of
245 see Feyel (193 ff., 213-I5), and, in general, Launey (i. 36r ff.).
4. BotwTwv: on the relations between Boeotia and Macedon at this
time see Feyel, ro(r--35 Wbether an alliance preceded the formation
of the Symmachy in 224/3 is unknown; cf. 49 6 n. The size of the
Boeotian contingent, the largest after the Achaean, indicates the
importance of this state in the Alliance.
H1TeLpwTwv !6.Ka.pv6.vwv: both friendly with Macedon since the
Illyrian alliance of 230 (6. 9 n.).
l>.>.uptwv ~4' wv ~v ATJIJ.tlTPLOS 6 c~J6.plo'>: Demetrius (10. 8,
n. 17 n.) had allied himself with Macedon (d. iii. r6. 3); but whatever
his future plans, there are no grounds for thinking of him as already
party to a Macedonian 'western policy' (so Treves, Ath.en., 1935, 46).
P. reckons Demetrius' forces as allies, not mercenaries {cf. Griffith,
70, against Tam, AG, 425-6); but Demetrius was a personal ally of
Doson, not apparently a member of the Hellenic Symmachy (Hol~
leaux, 131 n. 3).
6. Tci.s JlEY nAAo.s'. 'elO'~OAas -TJo-4a.Mo-o.TO KTA.: see Kromayer, AS,

275

THE BATTLE OF SELLASIA.

Based on Kromayer

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR Il.6 5 .6

L 210-15. Cleomcnes' defences were merely designed to delay the

enemy (should he follow any of these other routes into Laconia) until
the Spartan army could march round from the position it had
occupied (on which cf. 7 n.). These other passes were primarily
(a) those carrying the roads from Megalopolis and Asea, which joined
a little north of the Athenaeum (Mt. Khelmos), and were probably
covered by a Spartan force stationed in one of the gorges north or
south of Pellene on the Eurotas (see Kromayer, op. cit., Karte I);
(b) the coastal road from Argos over Parnon, which could be covered
by a force at the (modern) monastery of H. Saranda, south-east
of Sellasia. Both positions could be reached from Sellasia within a
few hours.
7. The site of the battle: see Kromayer, AS, i. ZIS-Z3, Karten I and V.
According to the most probable identification, that of Kromayer,
Cleomenes placed his forces astride the Oenus (modern Kelcphina)
valley, about I km. south of the (modern) Khan of Krevatas, and
4 km. north of the hill-fortress of Sellasia. Round about this point
the routes from Asca and Tegea via the Khan of Kryavrisi, and those
from Tegea and Argos via Arachova and the passes of H. Petros and
Kastanitza, have all united, and continue for some distance along
the Oenus valley (cf. 9), to leave it again before the river plunges
into a narrow gorge some 4 km. downstream. The two hills Euas and
Olympus ( 8) Kromayer has identified with the modern Palaeogoulas (ro8 m. above the river) and Kotselovouni (152 m. above the
river) respectively, the latter (also called Melissi) being in fact the
forward spur of the hill of Provatares, to the north; see his map.
Immediately north of Palaeogoulas, and lying between it and the
Heights of Turla, is a side-valley called Kourmeki, along which
there now runs a cart-track from the Sparta-Tripolitza road; and
this Krornayer identifies with the valley of the Gorgylos (66. 1),
which played an important part in the action. This identification
was challenged by Soteriades (BCH, I9IO, s-57; rgrr, 87-I07' 24I-2),
who argues that the ancient route also left the Oenus valley up that
of Kourmeki, <md claims that a fortification, of which traces remain
on Palaeogoulas, was a fifth-century work covering this road.
Admittedly Soteriades has placed a finger on a weak point in
Kromayer's reconstruction. There seems no reason >vhy the ancient
route should make an hour's detour south of Palaeogoulas; and
though Kromayer has found ancient wheel tracks in the valley of
Mylou Rema, where he supposes the ancient road to have ascended
to the site of the Khan of Vourlia, they do not prove that this was
in fact the road from Tegea. On the other hand, Kahrstedt (Hermes,
1913, :z88) failed to discover the traces of an ancient road up Kourmeki, which Soteriades claimed to have identified; and, in any
case, even if the road followed Kourmeki, this would not disprove
277

II. 65.7

EVENTS IN GREECE

Kromayer's identification, since the Kourmeki valley would be

controUed by a Spartan force holding Palaeogoulas. This would, of
course, mean that F.'s description of the site was at fault in one
important particular-the placing of the Spartan army astride the
road; and this would in tum imply that his knowledge of the site
was less detailed than Kromayer supposes. There is, incidentally,
some evidence of a similar confusion in P. concerning a not dissimilar
site, the pass of the Viossa, where Philip held the Romans in 198;
cf. Walbank, Philip, 149-50 n. I. However, Soteriades has not done
more than raise queries; and Kromayer's site still offers the greatest
plausibility, and can be easily adapted to F.'s detailed description
of the battle. For a convenient summary, substantially accepting
Kromayer, see Honigmann (RE, l:Ma.ala, cols. I3I]-2o), who, on
F.'s description of the engagement, rightly concludes that it is
'obviously somewhat schematic and omits subsidiary detail, thereby
lending itself to frequent criticism'.
Ttl'i <npa.nas Ets SUo JLupu115a.<;: cf. Plut. Cleom. 27. n (quoting
P.). As a round figure it is probably on the large side.
CTTOXO.tOJLEVO<; , , , TO.IJTtJ 1TO~TJCTO.CT00.L , , T~V ElCT~OhfJV: it WaS here
that Epaminondas' four converging columns met in his invasion of
Laconia in the winter of Ji0/69 (Diod. XV. 64. s).
9, Tacppov tca.l xapa.Ka 1Tpo~O.AOJLEVOS: a COntinUOUS line from hill
to hill is hardly possible, given the lie of the land, and Kromayer
(AS, i. 227 n. 4) thinks of a broken line, with rudimentary camps as
part of the system built on the slopes, and strong fortifications on
the summit.
Tous 1Tptol~eous ~<a.t CTUf.LJLO.xous: the Perioeci (cf. iv. 34 9) were the
non-Spartiate inhabitants of the hills and coastal parts of Laconia,
farmers of free status, and in the main originally Spartan colonists.
They counted as AaKEDaLp.6vwc in foreign relations, but within the
state they possessed no political rights, these being the monopoly of
the Spartiates. As Lacedaemonians they shared the obligation of all
citizens to serve in war; internally they were de facto subjects of the
Spartiate f5p.owt. See in general I<. Hampl, Hermes, 1937, r ff. (sum
mary, 39-41); J. A. 0. Larsen, RE, ll~;pwtt<:ot, cols. 816-22; H.
Michell, 64-74. After his coup of 227/6 Cleomenes had taken many of
them into the Spartiate body, so as to form a corps of 4,ooo (Plut.
Cleom. II. 3), and armed them in the Macedonian fashion. The allies
are probably from Peloponnesian towns (or even contingents of
supporters from pro-Achaean towns) who remained faithful to
Cleomenes' cause.
Eu~eA(8o.v: Cleomenes had made this younger brother king in 226
after the death of his colleague Archidamus, though it was unprecedented to have both kings from the same house (Plut. Cleom.
n. s) ; on his death see 68. 10 n.
278

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE

CLEOMENEA~

WAR II. 66.2

!lETa AaKE8alllovlwv Kill Twv !lla9o~opwv: the 'Lacedaemonians' are

the Spartiate phalanx of 6,ooo (Plut. Cleom. 28. 8) ; and the mer-

cenaries on Olympus came to nearly the same figure (69. 3, the fight
was opened by s,ooo; but there would be others guarding the camp
on Olympus (d. 69. 6), and the slopes above the river, and otherwise
not directly involved in the phalanx charges (Kromayer, AS, i.
226 n. 2)). They were hired with the Egyptian subsidy (51. 2, 63. r)
and perhaps with the help of the Megalopolitan booty (62. 9).
10. Tous L1T1TE~s !lETd llepous TLvos TWv !lla9oc1>6pwv: probably amounting together to r,ooo-2,ooo out of the 7,ooo-8,ooo left for the valley
and the manning of Euas. Kromayer (AS, i. 227 n. r) points out that
Doson used only 8,6oo men to storm Euas from below (66. s-6),
whereas in the centre only the Megalopolitan attack forced the retreat
of the mercenaries (67. 4-5). Thus Cleomenes' dispositions were:
Right (Olympus)
Centre
Left (Euas)
T::>tal

12,ooo (6,ooo Spartiates, c. 6,ooo mercenaries)

1,ooo-2,ooo (cavalry and mercenaries)
s.ooo-6,ooo (perioeci and allies)
Under 2o,ooo

1Tiial To'Ls otKdots !lEpEat Tljs 8uva!-LEWS: i.e. the cavalry in the
plain, the phalanx on the wide slope of Olympus, etc.
TO O'U!l1T<lV ax 'lila TljS aTpaT01TE8Elas: 'the whole appearance of the
disposition of forces' ; a-rpaTo7Te3ela has here a wider connotation than
'encampment' (its sense in 69. 6). In the comparison o7TAop.axo~ may
be heavy-armed troops (Xen. Resp. Lac. 11. 8) or teachers of heavyarmed fighting; the former is more probable. 7rpo{JoA7} denotes the
attitude of the soldier in which the spear is levelled and the shield
held forward in readiness for a hostile attack; cf. i. 22. ro, 7rpo{JoA7J
8vpwv, xv. 13. 9, 7rpo{Jd.)..)..w8a~ sc. Ta SopaTa.
12, 1Tpos e1Tl9Eaw O.lla Kat cl>uAaK"v: 'for offensive and defensive
action alike'. Kromayer (AS. i. 227) compares Epaminondas' tactics;
the forces on Euas were the defensive wing, those on Olympus were
designed, if necessary, for assault. The Spartan formation thus constituted a 'battle-line drawn up for action' (7rapaTat~s ivEpyos) and
a 'fortified camp hard of approach' (1Tapep.{JoA7J 8vmpouo8os).

11.

66. 1. Xa~wv 1Tpo~ATJ!l<l TOV ropyuXov 1TOT<l!lOV: d. iii. 14- 5

Kromayer (AS, i. 228 n. 2) places Antigonus' camp on both sides of
the Oenus, north of its conjunction with the valley of the Gorgylos
(Kourmeki).
2. E~EK<lAELTO Tas emvolas: 'he tried to elicit the enemy's intentions.' Kromayer (AS, i. 246) takes 7rpos To p.tAAov with 1Tpo3n~<vJwv
Ttis .!1Tt{JoAG.s ('die auf etwaige kiinftige Absichten schliessen liessen');
but it seems more probable that it goes with JteKaAErro Tds
>

E7TtVotas.

279

II. 66. 4

EVENTS IN GREECE

~~ op.oMyou litO. (..1-UXTJS ap.,PoTEpOl 11'po6evTo KptvEtV Tno; 11'pa~u;:

cf. 70. 3 These two passages imply that Cleomenes deliberately

4.

sought a battle, and Ferrabino attributes them to Phylarchus, who

made each king take the offensive with his right wing (cf. Plut.
Cleom. 27~28). For 70. 3 he is probably right. But it is clear from
6g. 3 that P.'s main source depicted Cleomenes as actively accepting
battle; nor does 69. 6 imply that he was intending to avoid a phalanx
charge. Consequently there is no inconsistency between the present
passage and the remainder of P.'s narrative of the battle. Cleomenes'
decision to fight will have been influenced by the news, which
arrived ten days earlier, that his Egyptian subsidies were at an end (63.
1). On the significance of Eucleidas' tactics on Euas, which do not
indicate a general defensive strategy, see P.'s comments, 68. 3ft.
5. Tous xa.A~<aa11't8o.o; ~<a.i. Tous 'IAAupwvs: are these chalcaspides the
J,ooo peltasts of
2 ? For the use of peltasts alongside Illyrians cf.
v. 13. 5-6 (ambush near Thermum). But elsewhere chalcaspides seem
to be part of the phalanx troops (d. 65. 3 n.), and may be so here.
For the Illyrians cf. 65. 4
tca.Td. a-rrELpa.s tva.AAn~ TETo.yp.ivous: 'drawn up in alternate units'.
On the phrase KaTd. arrdpm; see 3 z n. Paton's translation 'alternate
lines' is incorrect and misses the point of the formation, which had
something of the flexibility of the Roman manipular organization,
contrasted with the normal phalanx. Antigonus was following the
lesson of Pyrrhus, who adapted his army to Italian arms and
methods, n8Et;; .?va.\.\d~ UYJJ.Laiav Ka.t arrel:pa.v paAayyml<ryv i.v Tot;; -rrp6s
'PwJ.La{ov<; dywcnv (xviii. 28. Io). On the arrE'tpa as the tactical unit in
Antigonid armies see Walbank, Philip, 293; it probably contained
about 256 men. But whether this was the number in the units
alternated with Italians by Pyrrhus, and with Illyrians by Doson,
is not known. Kromayer (BCH, 19ro, 521-2)
a-rr.:fpa.' 4 wide
and so deep as suited for advancing up the
of Euas ( Io),
which was from Io 0 to 30; if the unit was about 250 strong, a formation of 5 files each so deep would achieve the same purpose. The
Illyrian cme'tpaL were doubtless less regular in their numbers. For
the Spartan forces on Euas see
10 n. Alexander the son of
Acmetus is otherwise unknown; for Demetrius see 65. 4 n.
6. E'li'L 8 TOUTOLS: 'beside these' (Kromayer) or perhaps 'behind
these' (Schweighaeuser, Paton, Treves); but the Acarnanians were
also in the gorge to the left of the Illyrians, though owing to the
angle of Kourmeki they were somewhat farther back (towards
Antigonus' lines) than the Illyrians.
Tous AKnpvciva.s ~<o.t 'H'll'lapwTa.o;: 'Hrretpdnas is Schorn's correction
of the MS. KpijTas; (cf. Krornayer, AS, i. 233 n. 2). Cretans are not
included in Doson's forces at 65. 2-4, nor are the Epirotes stationed
elsewhere; but P. does not indicate the position of the Boeotians
280

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II.66.ro

either (it is generally assumed that they guarded the camp; cf.
Kromayer, AS, i. 233 n. 3), hence the text may be correct, and these
Cretans mercenaries (so Griffith, 70). For Doson is known to have
made treaties with Eleutherna and Hierapytna in Crete, which
probably contained clauses authorizing Macedonian recruitment (IC,
ii, Eleutherna, 20; iii, Hierapytna, I; Griffith, 69).
i~Ope(a.s AaJ-L~avovTEs Tci~~v: 'as a reserve'; cf. Plut. Phil. 6. 3, T~v
JljleopE{a.v Jv TCftet owljlvAa.TTOVTWV. The Achaeans formed a second line
behind the Acarnanians, and were evidently intended to close the
gap between right and centre, when the troops on the wing facing
Euas advanced (Kromayer, AS, i. 235 n. 4); cf. 67. 2.
7. ;t..A.E~a.vopov .ftyeJ-Lova.: this Alexander is probably the man Doson
appointed as Philip's chamberlain (iv. 87. 5; cf. v. 28. 6, 96. 4, vii.
II. 6). The word hegemon is used, in the Antigonid army, to denote
the commander of a chiliarchy of about r,ooo men (Feyel, Rev. arch.
6, I935 54) ; but it is probably employed here in a non-technical
sense for the officer commanding 1,2oo cavalry (65. 5).
8. To us J-L~aeo~opous Kat Tous Ma.K00va.s: the phalanx of Io,ooo
and the 3,ooo mercenaries, together with the I,ooo Agrianians and
I,ooo Gauls (65. 2}, I5,ooo in all. Cleomenes had n,ooo-12,ooo men
confronting them (65. Ion.). Doson's position in command of the
phalanx is discussed by Tarn (HMND, 36), who concludes that he
advanced parallel with his men, but on the flank.
9. ouj>a.A.a.yy(a.v euaAAYJAov: the normal depth of the phalanx was
I6 ranks (xviii. 30. 1), but here the width was halved and the depth
increased to 32 ranks; cf. 69. 9, rijs E1TaAA~Aov ljla"Aayyos. In xii. 18. 5,
as a reductio ad absurdum P. speaks of a rptljla"Aayy{a .11TaAAY)Ao<;. See
also Arrian, Tact. 28. 6. In vi. 40. 11 the Tptljla"Aayy{a 1TapUAAY)Aos- has
three parallel columns, in contrast to the formation envisaged here.
8Li1 TTtV aTEVOTYJTO. Twv T01Twv: Io,ooo men, 16 deep, would give 625
files, and each file normally needed 3 ft. clearance. If Kromayer's
position is correct, Antigonus could not afford more than half that
distance on the slopes below Melissi (Olympus); hence the double
depth, giving about 312 files.
10. a(voova.: 'a white flag', to be shown from Doson's headquarters.
According to Plutarch (Cleom. 28. 2) the Acarnanians were drawn
up against Euas along with the Illyrians. P. consistently omits
them, since apparently his source did not distinguish between the
Illyrians (and chalcaspides: cf. 5) and the Acarnanians (and Epirotes,
or Cretans: cf. 6); but on this point Plutarch's Phylarchean version
seems preferable. For the probable position taken up by these
Illyrians (and Acarnanians) see Kromayer's map. Together they
were able to envelop the whole Spartan left, since their most extended forces were south-west of the summit of Euas. What never
emerges from F.'s account (or that in Plut. Phil. 6) is that these
281

II. 66.

10

EVENTS IN GREECE

troops were in hiding, concealed from the Spartans on either Euas

or Olympus by the brow of Euas. But the Phylarchean version
makes this clear; cf. Plut. Gleam. 28. 2, -roD ydp .:4v-rty6vov -rous
'I::V.upwus Kat -rous .:4Kap>iivas i.K7Tt:ptt:ABt.lv KpJrpa Kt.Avaav-ros. See
further, 67. 2 n. Soteriades argues that the usually dried-up brook in
Kourmeki can hardly be called a 7TOTaJ.u)s; but this argument is not
to be pressed, for the stream may have been larger in classical times,
and indeed Kahrstedt (Hermes, 1913, 289) has found traces of an
eroded river-bed in the valley bottom. In any case, P. himself clearly
conceives the Gorgylos to be dried up at this time, since the troops
hide in its bed.
11. To'i:s 8E: Mt:yaAo'll"oAlTaLs 4>owLKis e~ap8ft: these were the forces
in the centre, 3,200 in all, foot and horse, including I,ooo Achaeans;
on their right (but to the left of the concealed troops) were the remaining 2,ooo Achaean infantry. Verbal similarities in Plutarch's
Philopoemen point to a similar source; but these have been exa.ggcrated (cf. Nissen, KU, 283, 'c. 6 Schlacht bei Sellasia. Bis zum
Eingreifen Philopoemens entspricht Alles der Darstellung ii. 66. 67' .).
In fact, Plutarch diverges considerably from P. He puts Illyrians
and Achaeans together, the former 'supporting' (7ra.paa-r&:raS') the
latter; and the same red flag is to be the signal for both Illyrians
and centre. However, the Illyrians anticipate the signal while the
Achaeans obey orders and remain in their position. This tendentious
account is designed to exonerate the Achaeans and to glorify Philopoemen, and it seems clearly to spring from P.'sLije of Philopoemen.
Evidently when he came to compose the present passage P., being
concerned more with facts and less with panegyric (cf. x. 21. 8),
distinguished more clearly the role of the Illyrians and the separate
functions of the centre and the concealed right. Thus the inaccuracies
in Plutarch, Phil. 6, reflect P.'s purpose in his biography of the
Achaean hero. In the Histories the praise of Philopoemen remains,
but the exoneration of the Achaeans is omitted. (This is not the
place to discuss the arguments of Wundcrer (i. 87) and Pedech
(REG, r9sr, 82-1o3) that P.'s bio~:,>Taphy was written long after
books i and ii, and for the younger Scipio; they seem to me quite
unconvincing. Cf. x. 2r. 5 n.)

67. 2.

ot S ... eutwvo,: i.e. the mercenaries (cf. 6s. Io).

8t:wpouvTes Tas 0"1Te(pas TWV AxaLwv p~f.Lous eK Twv KaT6'll"w olloas:

Paton translates 'upon seeing that the rear of the Achaean line was
exposed'. But as the Achaeans had not moved (cf. Plut. Phil. 6. 2,
Twv .:4xatwv, wrr7T<p 7rpo<FereraK-ro, -r~v Jrpd)pt:lav v ng._. otarpul\a'M'ov-rwv), their rear cannot have been exposed by the advance of troops

on their right; and according to Plutarch (Phil. 6. 3) it is the

IllyTians who arc Jp~Jl-OVS' TWY lmriwv a7ToAdnp.p.vovs (mentioning
282

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMEXEAN WAR II. 67.7

'cavalry' instead of 'Achaeans' in order to exonerate the latter from

responsibility). Accordingly, Kromayer (AS, i. 247 n. I) translates
'when they saw that the units were not covered in the rear by the
Achaeans'. The U1TEipa (cf. 66. 5) are those of the Macedonian right,
now visible (in part) to the Spartan centre; specifically they will
have been the Acarnanian and Epirote (or Cretan) forces, but P.
does not distinguish between these and the Illyrians (66. 10 n.).
This explanation surmounts the difficulties in the passage; but it
remains possible that Twv .ftxatwv should be simply expunged as a
gloss.
According to Plutarch (Cleom. 6. 3) it was Eucleidas who, observing
the gap, Tovs tAa.fpDTJ:rov;; Twv z/ltAwv 7TEpu1'11'EJLz/1Ev, with orders to
attack the Illy.Tians. This is hardly to be reconciled with the assumption that the Illyrians and Acarnanians were in ambush, and their
movements hidden from the Spartans (cf. 66. IOn.). Hence Ferrabino
(Atti Ace. Torino, I918-19, 756-6o) suggests, very plausibly, that the
advance of the Acarnanians up the lower slopes of Euas to the east
was immediately visible to Eucleidas and led him to send his mercenaries round against their rear; but that he remained ignorant of
the position of the Illyrians, who were farther up Kourmeki to his
west and south-west, until their appearance on the brow of the hill
put an end to his hopes.
3. 1'WV ttEV '11'pl TOV EuKAeloa.v ICC.Ttt vpoO'W11'0V C.UTOI:s e+0'TWTWV:
'as Eucleidas' troops were facing them from above'. Eucleidas did
not, however, advance to meet the enemy (cf. 68. 3 ff.); if he was
aware of the Acarnanian advance( 2 n.), he was content to deal with
it from the rear by means of the mercenaries.
4. 41~Ao11'0(JlTJV b Meya.Ao11'oALTT)S: cf. 40. 2 n. He was serving >vith the
Achaean cavalry (69. I) and not with the Megalopolitan chalcaspides;
hence he carne under the command of the Macedonian Alexander
(66. 7). Cf. Plut. Phil. 6. I, 'ljv p,tv iv Tots 7T7TVat p,76. TWV iaVTofJ
1roAmov TETayp,Evos o 4JtAo"TTolp,7Jv. The present incident is also recounted by Plutarch (Phil. 6), drawing on P.'s biography.
Tois 11'poO"Twa~: they were, like Alexander, Macedonian; cf. Pint.
Phil. 6. 3, rf>pa~E TOtS fJa.c:nAtKot;;.
6. auvt00V1'11S TTJV TWV tvv~wv auwrrAOK~V: Philopoemen had attacked
the Spartan cavalry, thus compelling the mercenaries to relinquish
their attack on the Acarnanian rear and come to the rescue. In
Plutarch (Phil. 6. 3) it is the mercenaries (called zjlt>.oi), not the
cavalry, whom Philopoemen attacks.
7. 'TWV 'I.A.Aup~wv Ka.l. Ma.K0ovwv tea.t 'TWV vpoa~a.wovTwv: the
Macedonians are the chalcaspides, 66. 5 But if Krornayer's reconstruction is correct these troops were farther up the gorge of
Kourrneki, and it was the Acarnanians who were relieved by Philopoernen's action. Perhaps the Acarnanians and Epirotes (Cretans?)
283

IL 67. 7

EVENTS IN GREECE

come under the phrase TWII af-La TOVT05' 7Tpoaf3aw6vTwl!, On F.'s

fusion on this question see 66. ron., 67. 2 n.

COD

68. 1-2. Doson's praise of Pkilopoemen: cf. Plut. Phil. 6. 6-7 for the
same anecdote. Ferrabino (Atti Ace. Tot"ino, I9I8-19, 756 ff.) argues
that Antigonus was really holding back his centre till he had defeated the Spartan forces on the wings; then he would break through
to cut off the Spartan retreat. Philopoemen's move may have helped
the Acarnanians a little; but the Ill:yTians were safe from the mercenary attack, and would have overwhelmed Encleidas just the
same, had Philopoemen made no move. Thus fundamentally his
action was a minor incident, which P. seeks to exaggerate into a
major feature of the battle. Doson's praise may be authentic; he
could afford playful encouragement to a young and enthusiastic
leader from a city with which Macedonian relations were especially
close (65. 3 n.). The signal referred to (mJv87Jf-La) is the waving of the
red cloak (66. n).
3. bpwvTES 'T'ns am:(pa.s: i.e. of the Illyrians and chalcaspdes. But
it was probably the Acarnanians whom Eucleidas saw first (67. 2 n.);
the Illyrians will have remained unseen till they reached the brow
of Euas (66. ro).
5. ,.c, Tou Ka8o'ITA~aJ.!ou ~ea.t 'T'fls auvTO.sews tliiw11a.: 'the peculiar advantage afforded by their arms and formation'; d. 3 5 and 68. 9 for the
weight of lllyrian arms. It is of the Illyrians rather than the Acarnanians that P. is thinking.
7. ~J.!EVOV ('!Tl, TWV nKpwv: this is true only of Eucleidas' extreme left;
it is clear from 65. 9-10 and from Kromayer's analysis of the position
(accepting the identification of Euas with Palaeogoulas) that
Eucleidas' forces stretched down the shoulder of the hill to link up
with the centre on the bottom slopes and the cavalry beside the
river (BCH, I9IO, sr6-q). The 'steep and precipitous slope' is that
into the valley of the Gorgylos (Kourmeki).
8. s~ a.uTfjs Tfjs Kopu.f.fjs SLa.J.!6.xea8a.t: 'to fight along the very
top of the hill'' i.e. along the ridge (cf. iii. 72 9 for oui 'along and in
front of').
10. KPT'J!lVWST'J Kai SUaf!a'T'OV xovTWV T~V nva.xwpT'JO'LV: Sotcriades
(BCH, 191o, 22: 19u, 94) argues that the southern slope of Palaeogoulas is smooth and gradual, and his photograph confirms this
(BCH, 191 t, Pl. 1 facing p. 93). The correct conclusion from this is not,
however, that Kromayer has sited the battle wrongly, but that F.'s
description at this point has been artificially schematized to create
'balance'. Eucleidas' men retreat for a long way down a steep and
precipitous slope because such was the fate they had planned for
their opponents ( 7); cf. 8, awlf31J TOvvavTlov. For similar
schematization in P.'s account of the battles of Drepana and the
284

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II.6g,6

Aegates Islands (perhaps derived in that case from Philinus) see

CQ, I945. II. On Eucleidas' false tactics see Kromayer, AS, i. 236-7.
69. 1. 'ITEPL rfj~ aurwv EAEuOepia~: the Achaean slogan (42. 6). In fact,
Achaean 'freedom' meant recognizing the hegemony of Doson, just
as elsewhere the freedom of the Peloponnese in the fourth century
is identified with the victory of Philip II (xviii. I4. 6; cf. CQ, I94J,
9 n. I, contrasting xviii. II. 4 and 6). Phylarchus naturally interpreted 'freedom' differently; cf. Iustin. xxviii. 4 z (drawing on
Phylarchus), 'inter duas nobilissimas gentes bellum summis utrimque uiribus fuit, cum hi pro uetere Macedonum gloria, illi non solum
pro inlibata libertate, sed etiam pro salute certarent'.
2. rov 1-'f.v L'lT'lTOV 'lTEuE"Lv 'lTATJy~vra Kmpiw<;: Plutarch (Phil. 6) makes
Philopoemen deliberately abandon his horse in order to pursue the
enemy (in his version the light-armed troops ascending Euas, not
the cavalry). In this version he is wounded by a thonged javelin, but
succeeds in moving his legs so as to break the shaft, and after its
extraction resumes the conflict.
3. OLa TWV eu~wvwv Kal J.LLU0o~6pwv: perhaps 'the light-armed mercenaries' (d. v. 36. 3, 53 3, where Tovs ivovs Kai f'-ta8o<fo6pov<;
means 'the mercenaries from abroad'); CR, I95I, 99 n. I. Cleomenes'
d!~wvot are certainly mercenaries, but Doson's light-armed included
the Gauls and Agrianians, who were probably allies (65. z n.); it is
therefore possible that the Ka{ should have its full force.
uxe80v ws ;revraKLUXLAious: Doson's s,ooo consisted of his J,ooo
mixed mercenaries, r,ooo Gauls, and I,ooo Agrianians (65. z); on
Cleomenes' forces see 65. 9-Io nn.
6. opwv TOU~ J.LEV 'ITE~euyoras KTA.: there is a fundamental discrepancy between P. and Phylarchus (Plut. Cleom. z8) on the timing
and reason for Cleomenes' phalanx charge. Here it is clearly a last
hope, forced on Cleomenes when he saw that all was up on Euas, and
nearly so in the centre; but Phylarchus makes Cleomenes charge
deliberately, drive the Macedonians back 5 stades, and pause only
when he sees disaster on the other hill. Such a discrepancy might
well arise from different eyewitness accounts of two events which
were almost simultaneous. There can be little doubt that Cleomenes
meant to charge, and did so deliberately, for he had accepted the
battle (66. 4); but the pro-Spartan source tries to attribute the
failure of his charge to the disaster on Euas, just as the pro-Achaean
source tries to represent the charge as due entirely to the pressure
of events (Ferrabino, Atti Ace. Torino, Igi8-Ig, 8n ff.). Phylarchus
tries further to excuse Cleomenes with his silly story of an inquiry
on the whereabouts of the Illyrians and Acarnanians, and the reassuring answer of Damotelas, Tdv bri Tij> KpV'TrTdas TETayf'-ivov, who
had been bribed. It seems probable that the phalanx charged at

z8s

EVENTS IN GREECE

the moment the ambushed troops were making their assault on

Euas, but before the Illyrians had scaled the brow of the hill (\Valbank, Aratos, rn-12).
Tous o' ... i'lTTre'Ls oaov ouTrw KMvovTo.s: i.e. as a result of the attack
initiated by Philopoemen (67. 5).
-.lvo.yKa~ETO O<O.O"Tr<i.v Ta TrPOTE~XLO'flO.TO.: the xdpa~ of 65. 9 These
defences were no longer needed once the phalanx was ready to take
the offensive; hence their destruction is no evidence that events
were compelling Cleomenes to change his plan (so Kromayer, AS.
i. 243). For the advance 'frontally, in line' (P,ETW71"Y}Oov) cf. 27. 4; the
side of the camp from which they emerged would be that facing
the Macedonians.
7. Ko.To.~o.AoOao.~ Tas aa.ptaa.s: MS. p.e:-ra.fJaJ.ovaat, 'changing the
position'. Reiske's emendation restores the technical term for
levelling pikes from the shoulder position; d. v. 85. 9. xi. I5. 6, r6. I,
xviii. 24. 9 (misunderstood by Livy, xxxiii. 8. 13). The aaptua is the
long Macedonian pike of 14 cubits (21 ft.); on its use in the phalanx
see xviii. 29.
8. lmo TTJS Twv 1\.o.Kwvwv Ev~Jiuxla.g: d. v. 39 5, .J#x.wr; mfvv ~<:al
Aa~<:wv~<:wr; (on Cleomenes' death, from Phylarchus); but the admission comes more strangely in the present passage, where the
source is markedly anti-Spartan. In the Phylarchean version of
Plutarch (Cleom. z8. 4) the Macedonians are swept back 5 stades
(nearly r,ooo yards); but this must be an exaggeration (on Kromayer's site it would have forced the Macedonians into a ravine:
AS, i. 244 n. z).
u'lTo Tou ~apous TTJS Twv Ma.KES0vwv Tcl.~ews: P. probably refers to
the fact that the Macedonian files were 32 men deep, in contrast to
the r6 of the normal Spartan formation (66. 9). In width Cleomenes'
phalanx (375 files of r6 men
6,ooo) will have slightly exceeded
Doson's (3r2 files of 32 men
9,984 (ro,ooo)); but once Cleomenes
had failed in his attempt to break the Macedonian line and force
it do\vn into the Oenus valley, Doson's additional weight was bound
to tell. There is no reference to heavier armour, as in 68. 9; and
Plutarch (Cleom. 28. I) is probably misinterpreting P. (mentioned
27. 4) when he writes, -rij> -rpd114:1 -rijs lmMa<:ws Kal -rep f30.pn rijs61TAmKfjs 4>aX.ayyos J~f8Alf57J One need not suppose any difference
in the length of sarissa, etc. (so Kromayer, AS, i. 244 n. 3), since the
Spartan phalanx was armed like the Macedonian (this is specifically
attested for 2,ooo of Cleomenes' recruits; 65. 3 n.).
9. aup.cflpa~a.VTES Tas a6.pwo.s: 'closing
the ranks of their pikes'.
In iv. 64. 6-7, where it is a question of
defence against hostile
cavalry, the phrase uvp.</;pa-r-retT' -rofr; o11Aotr; describes a continuation
of the movement of uwauTrtCTfLOS", which a tactical writer describes as
allowing only r5 ft. per man (Asclep. 4 3; cf. Ael. Tact. rr. 5). But
286

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR

II. 70

this formation can hardly have been employed in phalanx action; and
P. clearly states that the formation then used, -rnJKvwat> Twv aapwwv
(xviii. 30. 3), allowed 3 ft. per man in contrast to the usual6 on march
(xii. I9. 7). See Kromayer (AS, iii. 1. 347 ff.; HeertfJesen, I35) and
Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 203 f.) against Delbriick (Geschichte der Kriegskunst, i2 (Berlin, I92o), 423). In fact, P.'s normal use of these terms
is inconsistent. Thus in xii. 21. 3 aAws- avvamrl~nv indicates the 3-ft.
formation, yet in xii. 21. 7 (in polemic against Callisthenes) awryamKbTa.> refers to the formation allowing 6 ft. per man. The expression avp,fpaTTnv is also used of the interlocking of shields over the
head in the Roman testudo (cf. x. I4. I2, xxviii. 11. 2); but here it
clearly refers to the 3-ft. stance of the phalanx -rrvKvwats-. See
Cornelius, 26-27; and on the phalanx Kromayer-Veith, Heerwesen,
1 35
XPTJO"nj.lVm T~ Uiuilllo.T~: 'taking advantage of the peculiar
formation of the double phalanx', cf. 66. 9 Paton's translation fails
to distinguish the special feature of the double phalanx, which massed
Io,ooo men behind a 3oo-yard line, and the normal procedure of
I
TTVKVWat<;.

EK TWV oxupwj.laTWV: 'from their position'.

10. a:TrXWflTIO' acr<j>o.Aws Ls TTJV ITrapTTJV: Plutarch (Cleom.
29. I ff.) describes Cleomenes' arrival there with much circumstantial
and melodramatic detail from Phylarchus (d. Iustin. xxviii. 4 3 ff.).
According to Plutarch all but 2oo of the phalanx fell; Iustinus gives
the total survivors on Cleomenes' side as 4,ooo. In the words ,Povw6p,.:vov and &.afaAw> P. echoes contemporary criticism of Cleomenes'
failure to die on the field in the tradition of Sparta. Phylarchus'
defence is represented in the long, and no doubt apocryphal, conversation between Cleomenes and the Spartan Therycion, which
Plutarch relates as taking place on the island of Aegialia (Cleom. 31),
before the king left for Egypt. In this moving chapter Cleomenes is
made to criticize the easy Stoic solution-suicide; the source is
probably Phylarchus, worked over by Plutarch himself. For discussion see F. Oilier, REG, I936, 54I-2.
11. KO.To.~O.s ets fu9wv: Gythium was the main port of Laconia,
about 35-40 miles south of the capital (cf. v. 19. 4-8 n.). For Cleomenes' subsequent career in Egypt cf. v. 35-39.

70. A ntigonus in Sparta; Illyrian invasion of Macedon. A comparison

of this chapter with Plutarch (Cleom. 27 and 3o), who has many
resemblances but is in some respects fuller, suggests that both go
back to Phylarchus (Susemihl, i. 632 n. 56o); see especially 6 n.
This hypothesis is not ruled out by the favourable treatment of
Antigonus, which can well come from P. himself. See Kromayer,
AS, i. 2~ n. I; Valeton, I66.

ZBJ

II.

]0. I

EVENTS IN GREECE

1. eyKpaT-l]S YEVO!J-EVOS E~ e.flo&ou TTJS I-rrd.pTTJ';: cf. i. 24. II, 76. IO,
etc. 'having taken Sparta at a single stroke'. Cleomenes had advised
against further resistance (Plut. Cleom. 29. I; Iustin. xxviii. 4 7-9).
This was the first time Sparta had been occupied by an enemy.
!J-EyaA.oo/uxws: exp-r]aaTO TOlS AaKEOal!J-OVlOlS:: cf. v. 9 8-IO, TWV
fJ.f'YlaTwv aya6wv atnos Yf'VOfLf'VOS Ka~ Ko~vfi Ka~ KaT' lo{av AaKf'Oa~
fLOV{o~s. There were no reprisals (ix. 29. 12), but Cleomenes' constitution was abrogated (see next note) and Sparta was obliged to aline
herself with the Hellenic Symmachy (54 4 n.); her exact status is
not very clear, but Philip's words in iv. 24. 4 suggest that she was
a member (cf. iv. 9 6 n.). Further she was forced to cede the Ager
Denthaliatis (between Kalamata and the Langada gorge) to Messenia (if the Antigonus of Tacitus (Ann. iv. 43 4) is Doson (so Beloch,
iv. I. 7I8; Fine, A}P, I940, ISS) and not Gonatas (so Ehrenberg,
RE, 'Sparta', cols. I422, I426)); this territory had probably been lost
to Sparta at the time of Arcus' Peloponnesian League and the war
against Gonatas in 28o (41. I2 n.), when Messenia was pro-Macedanian (Beloch, iv. 2. 370-I). See further Roebuck, 62, 64 n. 24.

<

To -rroA.heufJ-a To -rraTpLov lmo )KaTaaT-r]aa.s: cf. v. 9 9, To 7TaTpLOv

ix. 36. s; Plut. Cleom. 30. I. Antigonus

7ToAlTWfLa Kat T~v dl.w6f'p[av,

abolished Cleomenes' 'Lycurgan' reforms, and restored the Ephors

(cf. iv. 22. 5). To what extent Cleomenes' land reforms were reversed
is uncertain (cf. Porter, lxxxv-lxxxvi); but the kingship was left
in abeyance (iv. 22, 4), and Brachylles, a Boeotian, was left as Macedanian E7Tunanw in the town (xx. 5 I2; d. Feyel, I3I). In this way
Doson fulfilled the ambitions of the governing class in Achaea, and
crushed the sparks of social revolution. As Tarn (AG, 437-8) has
shown, the phrase 7TaTptos 7ToA~nta and similar expressions were
commonly used in the third and second centuries in contrast to
tyranny; cf. ii. 47 3 n., iv. Sr. 14, ix. 36. 4 (Sparta), ii. 70. 4 (Tegea),
ii. 43 8 (7TaTptov >.w6f'p{av of the Peloponnesian cities); Plut. Dem.
8 and Io (Athens); Flam. ro (Greeks); Syll. 434/S. 1. rs (decree leading
to the Chremonidean War, referring to TJ5pavvo who subvert Tovs TE
vofLovs Kai Tas 7TaTptovs JKC!.UTms 7TOALnias); Syll. 390, 1. rs (Island
League honouring Ptolemy I). It was a propagandist phrase which
did not necessarily imply a return to the previous constitution
enjoyed before the 'tyranny'.
E\1 oA(yals TJfJ-E:paLc;: cf. Plut. Cleom. 30. I, ~fLipq. TpiT[J. This more
explicit version points to the use of a common source.
TOUS 'IJ\A.upwus -rrop8~;iv TYJV xwpav: cf. Plut. Cleom. 30 I,
7Top6f'i:u6aL T~V xdJpav V7TO TWV f3ap{3apwv. These will not be the Illyrians
of Demetrius of Pharos, but rather rebellious tribes farther east,
akin to their Dardanian neighbours (Fine, ]RS, 1936, 2s). There is
no reason to think they were financed by Rome, as Droysen suggested (Tarn, CAH, vii. 843 n. r).
288

THE

ACHAEA~

LEAGUE; THE CLEO}fENEAN WAR II.70.5

2-3. The action of Tyche. P.'s comment here seems to be taken from
Phylarchus (cf. 66. 4 n.); cf. Plut. Cleom. 27. 6, ~ T<i p.eytcrra Tliw
7Tpayp.d.Twv KplvovO'a T(j) 7Tapd p.tKpov TVJ(1J, 'Fortune, who decides the
most important matters by a narrow margin'. Hence Wunderer
(Phil., 1894, 62} proposes to emend P.'s TTapa Aoyov to 7Tap' dAlyov, a
convincing emendation (cf. Siegfried, 73 n. r4o) which makes a better
point here, since Doson's victory is not irrational (like the novel
behaviour of Tyche in letting the Macedonians rise to dominion
7Tapd. Tov /..oytO'p.ov, xxix. ZI. 5, quoting Demetrius of Phalerum), but
merely won by a small margin, as Plutarch correctly has it. The less
satisfactory explanation is that P. has missed Phylarchus' point in
hasty copying. In fact, Cleomenes' cause was lost, whatever delays he
had engineered, since his bid for hegemony had rested on Egyptian
subsidies, which had now ceased (63. r-2).
3. -rC:.v Ka.Lpwv ciVTnrotftao.-ro: 'had sought to use his opportunities'
(Schweighaeuser), or, less probably (cf. the intransitive use, 9 s),
'had resisted circumstances, held out'.
4. -roo-rots A1roSous -r1]v ml.-rpLov 1Totme[a.v: cf. I n. Nothing is
known of Tegea till 207, when it is again Spartan (xi. I I . 2). On the
probability that Tegea was a member of the Achaean Confederation
for a short time between 234 and 229 see 46. 2 n.; if so, she may have
resumed this status now (the phrase miTpws TToAtnla. being no
obstacle to this view, as Freeman (HFG, 386) thought), though no
positive evidence exists.
els ?\pyos E1T' a.&-r~v -r~v -rwv Nep.Ewv 1ra.v~yupw: the Nemean
festival, held in alternate years, was at this time celebrated at Argos.
Founded in 573, it was originally held by Cleonae at Nemea, probably
with Argive backing (cf. Pind. Nem. x. 42; Plut. A rat. 28. 5); and as
late as 310 it was stiU held there, since Cassander returned to :Macedon TTapAfJwv els- T~v Apylav Kat fJds Tov Twv Np.iwv dywva (Diod.
xix. 64. r). The Argivcs were still erecting stelae at Nemea in the early
third century (cf. Vollgraff, Mnem., r9r6, 221, l. 29}; but at some date
before 235 the games had been transferred to Argos (cf. Boethius,
Der argivische K alender (Uppsala, I 922)' s-8). In 235 Aratus transferred
them back to Cleonae, and rival festivals were held here and at
Argos (Plut. Arat. 28. s); but after 229 they went back to Argos (cf.
Plut. Cleom. 17. 4). A Nemean festival would normally indicate an
'odd' year (Julian); but since Sellasia cannot have been fought in
221 (65--69 n.), this must be the festival of 223 postponed on account
of the war. In 225 Cleomenes had exploited the truce to seize Argos
(52. 2 n.); and there is good evidence for the postponement of
religious festivals at this time (cf. v. w6. 2-4), including the Nemea
(Livy, xxxiv. 41. I (r95 B.c.), based on P.). Cf. Porter, lxxvi-lxxvii;
DeSanctis, Riv. jil., r927, 489.
5. miVTwv TWV 1Tpos &.!lavo.T0\1 M~o.v t<a.l -np.~v aVTjKOVTWV: like the
4866

289

II. 70.5

EVENTS IN GREECE

other Antigonids, from Gonatas onwards, Doson had no official state

cult; but after Sellasia he was widely celebrated throughout Greece
in terms which came near to deification. An Achaean Antigoneia was
set up in his honour by Aratus (xxviii. 19. 3, xxx. 29. 3), a proceeding
strongly condemned by the latter's enemies (cf. Plut. Cleom. 16. 7;
A rat. 45 3, both echoing Phylarchus}. The Antigoneia at Histiaea in
Euboea (Syll. 493, 1. 22; d. Roussel and Hatzfeld, BCH, 19Io, 37o)
was apparently in Doson's honour. :Mantinea was refounded as
Antigoneia (56. 6 n.), with Aratus as olK,O'T'J]s and Doson as its
KT/.t.rrrys (Plut. Arat. 45 8-9), and the latter was here celebrated as
awT-T]p Kat d<.pyT7}s (IG, v. 2, 299), as he was also by the Spartans
(v. 9 IOn., ix. J6. 5). On the group representing Philip v and Doson,
crowned, which the Eleans set up at Olympia (Paus. vi. r6. 3), see
Walbank (Philip, 19 n. 1), J. Pouilloux and N. M. Verdelis (BCH,
1950, 44), and Aymard (Aegyptus, 1952, 91-92). Similar expressions
of adulation no doubt took place on the present occasion.
6. Tfi 8 'TI'a.pa.KAi)aet Ka.t Kpa.uyi:j Tfi Ka.T' a.liTc>V Tbv Klv8uvov: cf. Plut.
Cleom. JO. J, O.VTfj Tfj 7TEpi Triv aywvo. Kpo.vyfi. Plutarch attributes the
story of Doson's rupturing a blood-vessel, encouraging his men,
specifically to Phylarchus.
ets atf..LOTOS 0.va.ycuy1)v Ka.l TLVO. TOLO.UT1']V 8ul.9eatv ~f..L'TI'EO'~lV: 'he took
to vomiting blood and fell into the morbid condition which accompanies it.' aJp.o.Tos dva.ywy~ is a technical term for vomiting blood;
d. Erasistratus in Galen, Libr. propr. (ed. Muller, Galeni scripta
minora, ii. 91), I. Plutarch (Cleom. 30. 3), who here has the phrase
TO awp.a. 7Tpoaa.vo.pp~[o.s, uses the words 7TAfjBos o.'tp.a.TOS' d.Yl]yaye in
connexion with another version (from the rhetorical schools), that
the haemorrhage was caused by Doson's shouting JJ KaM)s ~p.lpo.s
after the victory. There was a persistent tradition that Doson was
already consumptive; cf. Plut. Cleom. r6. 7, 30. 2. 8ta0wts is also a
technical medical term; cf. 2o. 7 n.
f.-LET' ob 'II'OAu !J.t:TtJA>.a.~E: cf. Plut. Cleom. 30. 4, uuvTdvws ETEAnJTIJO'E.
In reality Doson lived till about July (Walbank, Philip, 295-8) or
even August 221 (if one follows Bickerman, Berytus, 1944, 73). During
the year between his Illyrian victory and his death he appointed
guardians for the new king (cf. iv. 87. 6), and sent the latter on a
journey to the Peloponnese to make Aratus' acquaintance (Plut.
Arat. 46. 2-3). Either now or earlier he appointed Taurion commander of his forces in the Peloponnese (iv. 6. 4).
8. T1)v ~oatAElO.V U'TI'~>.t'TI'E 4>tAL'TI''TI''f T4> A"l!J."lTPfou: Philip V, son
of Demetrius II (44. r-2} and the Epirote princess Phthia (Chryseis),
was born in 238, and so was 17 upon his accession in 221 (d. iv. 5 3,
24. r). Iustinus (xxviii. 4 r6, xxix. I. 2) makes him 14; but this figure
may be ignored (cf. Fine, CQ, 1934, roo}. That Philip was never coregent with Doson (cf. Walbank, Philip, 19 n. 1) is now confirmed
290

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE; THE CLEOMENEAN WAR II.71.7

by an inscription from Demetrias, containing the formula {3aatlt.;

.t1vny6vw[t] J Kat <lhAl1T7rwt (Pouilloux-Verdelis, BCH, I950, 42; cf.
Aymard, Aegyptus, I9)2, 90--93). For the general situation on his
accession see \Valbank, Philip, I8-23.
71. Conclusion to the IlpoKaTaaKw~ (books i-ii)
71. l. TTJV hri. vAEiov . . . t-LV~t-LTJV: for the reasons for P.'s full treat-

ment of the Cleomenean \Var see 37--70 n. Since it led to the return
of Macedon to the Peloponnese and the institution of the Symmachy,
it links up in a very real sense with To is il</>' ~p.wv l.aropEiaBat p.EAAovat
(ilp.wv in B-W 2 is a misprint, copied by Paton and Treves). For P.'s
starting-point, the 14oth Olympiad (220--216) cf. i. 3 1--6 n. For the
phrase Kanl T~v lg dpxfjs TTpoBwtv cf. 37 2.
3-6. Synchronisms: to Egypt and Syria P. adds Cappadocia and
Sparta in iv. 2. 8-9. Ptolemy III Euergetes reigned from 246 to 22I,
and was succeeded (cf. iv. 2. 8, v. 34 I) by Philopator sometime
between 5 and I6 February (65--69 n. (a)). In Syria Antiochus III
succeeded his elder brother Alexander, who took the dynastic title
of Seleucus III (iv. 2. 7), when he succeeded Seleucus II in 225 (iv.
48. 6, v. 40. 5). Seleucus III was assassinated in Phrygia as the result of
a conspiracy led by Apaturius, a mercenary leader, and Nicanor, in
late summer 223 (iv. 48. 8, v. 40. 6). Seleucus II's title of Callinicus,
'Victorious' (cf. OGIS, 233, 11. 3 f.), celebrated his recovery of Syria
from Ptolemy III Euergetes in the Laodicean War; the other title
Pogon, 'bearded', is not otherwise attested, but it is confirmed by
coin portraits showing Seleucus II with a full beard (cf. Bevan,
Seleucus, i, Pl. I, n). On the deaths of Seleucus, Ptolemy I, and
Lysimachus in 01. I24 (284-28o), and on the significance of such
synchronisms toP., see 41. In.
7-10. Summary of the introductory books: i. I3 2--5. The Hellenes
( 9) are the members of Doson's Symmachy; the Social War (d.
i. 3 I, ii. 37 1, iii. 2. 3) is described iv. 3--37, 57-87, v. I--30, 9I-106.
The Hannibalic War (d. i. 3 2, iii. 2. I} is described in books iii and
vii-xv, and the Fourth Syrian War between Antiochus and Philopator, which also began in 2I9 (cf. i. 3 I, iii. 2. 4), in v. 3I-87. The
phrase o[ KaTa T~v .t1alav {3aatAis includes Ptolemy, either because Asia
was held to include Libya or at least to extend to the Nile (a boundary
for which Suez was substituted only in the Christian era; Ruge,
RE, 'Asia (I)', col. I534; Honigmann, RE, 'Libye (2)', col. I49;
]. 0. Thomson, 66, 27I), or because Coele-Syria was so often part of
the Ptolemaic possessions.

29I

BOOK III
1-5. Introduction to the History proper
Chapters 1-3 outline the work, according to the original plan, down to
r68~a period of fifty-three years {22o-168); in 4-5 P. gives reasons
for continuing his work to cover the years of Roman domination down
to 146. {For a structural analysis see Lorenz, 5o-6r.) Although by
168 the growth and advance of Roman power was already complete
{4. 2-3), a proper judgement on both conquerors and conquered is
only possible from a study of their subsequent conduct {4. 4-5).
Accordingly P. will deal with (a) the subsequent policy of Rome, (b)
the reactions of the subject peoples, (c) prevailing currents and
tendencies in public and private life (4. 6). This will facilitate the
passing of judgement on Rome.
These chapters raise several queries :
(1) When did P. conceive his revised plan, and what was its
scope?
(2) How many books were already written, and how many published, when the plan was changed?
(3) To what extent did the new plan involve revision of earlier
parts, whether published or merely written?
(4) When were the Histories, as we know them, published?
1. It is usually assumed that P. resolved to extend his history
beyond 168 only after the double debacle of 146. This cannot be
proved, though Svoboda's attempt to disprove it (Phil., 1913, 46583) fails, and the Histories as we possess them shov. no trace of a provisional scheme of extension conceived prior to 146. Svoboda argued
that there were two stages in revision, (a) an intention to extend the
Histories down to an undetermined date, as outlined in 4 I-II, (b)
a later decision, taken long after the Achaean War, to finish at
146/s; to this second scheme belongs 4 12-5. 6. Any passage which
mentions Carthage as still existing will have been composed before
146; since SUCh passages include Vi. 52. 1-3, 56. 1-3, XiV. IO. 5, XV.
JO. Io, xxxi. 12. 12, 21. 3 (add i. 73 4, ix. 9 g-xo), P. must have
composed down to xx:d. 22 when he was interrupted by the events
of c. 150; and this implies that his narrative had already reached
r6o (xxxi. 21. 3). Consequently the extension beyond 168 had begun
before }J. could know of the catastrophe of 146. De Sanctis (iii. r.
202 f.) has, however, shown that xx:.i. 2r. 3 does not imply the
existence of Carthage, and that xxxi. 12, 12 is part of a passage
describing the escape of Demetrius of Syria from Rome with P.'s
help, which has every appearance of being based on an account

292

INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY PROPER III. r-5

composed at the time, and only subsequently included in the extended history, cf. Thommen, Hermes, r885, 229. If this is so, xv.
30. 10, dealing with events of 203, is the latest passage which conforms to Svoboda's thesis, and the theory of two stages in the
revision collapses.
H. Erbse (Rh. Mus., 1951, 170 ff.), who argues for the composition
of the whole work after 144, tries to deal with the references to
Carthage by adducing the existence of the 'achronistic present tense'
used in a syncrss. This theory would account for the references in
vi. 52 and 53, but fails to explain the rest except by an arbitrary
extension of the usage which in fact surrenders the whole case ; in
particular, his thesis breaks down on ix. 9 9-10 (which he does not
COnsider), and appearS to ignore 4 I, KaTJ. T~l' lf apxfis 1Tpo6wtl' (cf.
Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 99).
It may therefore be taken that P. conceived his revision after q6;
and in addition to the reasons he gives he was no doubt prompted
by the wish to record events in which he had himself played a considerable part.
2. Can it, however, be shown that P. had written beyond book xv
in 150-146? Aymard (REA, 1940, 12 n. 3) has argued that the reference to Aristaenus' preservation of the Achaean League by his
agreement with Rome (xviii. 13. 8-9) must have been written before
146; but it might equally be urged that the reference to 'utter
destruction' and 'temporary safety' was a hint at 146, and was
written after that date. Further, if xviii was written before 146,
xviii. 35 9, with its reference to the fall of Carthage, must be a later
insertion (Brink and Walbank, CQ, loc. cit.). Cuntz (34--35) urges
that the phrase Dtd ~I' ayvwa[av Tfic; lKTO<; 8aft.aT77J<; (xvi. 29. I2)
cannot have been written after P.'s voyages in the Atlantic in I46
(d. xxxiv. rs. 7); but this is not decisive, for there is an implied contrast with the Euxine, compared with which the Atlantic was certainly unknown. Hence, despite Ziegler's assertion (RE, 'Polybios
(1)', col. I477) that by rso P. had certainly brought his history nearly
to Pydna, there is no clear positive evidence that he had composed
beyond xv. 30. ro by that date.
How many books had been published before ISo-146? Various
arguments have been adduced.
(a) Passages designed to affect policy about ISO B.c. These are iii.
21. 9 ff. on the Carthaginian treaties; perhaps iv. 27; iv. 30. 5, on the
advantages of an Acarnanian alliance (a passage with which v. 106. 4
has been linked); iv. 31. 3-33. 12, Arcadia and Messenia should combine against Sparta; iv. 73 6-74. 8, Elis should resume her asylia.
These passages point to publication about rso/49, and support the
view that iii-iv and probably (in view of its close conncxion with iv)
v were published about then. On the details of this publication
293

IIL 1-5 INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY PROPER

Holleaux (J!tttdes, i. 445 ff. = REG, 1923, 480 ff.) has some cogent
observations. P.'s discussion of the Rhodian earthquake of 227 is
so ill adapted to its context, at v. 88---90, and could so easily have
fitted into iv, that it appears probable that iv was already published
when P. decided to mention it. This implies (i) that iv and v appeared
separately with an interval between (though it tells us nothing of
the length of such an interval), (ii) that v. 88---90 was written after iv
was published; since there is evidence for last-minute insertions in
iv, this is presumably a last-minute insertion in v. Recently J. de
Foucault (Rev. phil., 1952, 47-52) has argued that v. 88---90 is in fact
displaced from immediately after iv. 56; but his view is too hypothetical, and in fact, had P. originally placed the digression here, he
must have introduced it rather differently.
(b) Use of proverbs. On general grounds it appears likely that i and
ii had already appeared before 146. That ii was written before then
is clear from the references to the firmly established Achaean League
in ii. 37. 8-40. 6, 62. 4; for the theory that these chapters were a late
addition based on an earlier, separate work see ii. 37-70 n. Some
support for the orthodox view is afforded by Wunderer's researches
into P.'s use of proverbs. He shows (Polybios-Forschungen, i) that,
although P. quotes proverbial phrases throughout his Histories, the
first example of the phrase Ka.Td 7~v rra.potp.ta.v is at ix. 25. 3, after
which it occurs frequently down to the end of the work; and he
connects it with the use by P. of a collection of proverbs. It is noteworthy that the Achaean chapters of book ii, like the rest of i-v,
and the surviving fragments of vi-ix. 25. 2, show no example of
the phrase Ka.Ta -r~v rra.po;p.ia.v. For what it is worth this argumentum
ex silentio is against the view that book ii contains late elements.
(c) P.'s use of rrpoypa.rpa.i. and rrpoEK8~aw;. In xi. 10. 5 P. states that
to the first six books he wrote rrpoypa.rpal, but wpo;c(JI.crt>: to the rest.
In fact, we possess no Trpoypa.rpa.l to books i-vi; and De Sanctis
(iii. 1. 205, following Leo) supposes they were lost in a second edition.
However, such rrpoyparpal (contents lists attached to the outside of
the scroll) may well have become detached at any stage in the transmission of the text (Laqueur (Hermes, 19II, 180~4) suggests the
period when the work was transferred from scroll to codex) ; and the
writing of rrpoyparpa.f for the first six books can be explained from
the internal economy of the work, which became more 'oecumenical'
after vi, and so more suited to 7rpoEK8~uH;; (cf. xiv. 1 a 1). See also
the considerations adduced by Laqueur (ibid.). We can only say
that the disappearance of rrpoyparf>al is not inconsistent with the
theory of a separate publication of books i-v (or vi), but does not
make it necessary.
{d) Again following Leo, De Sanctis (ibid.) suggests that the
duties entrusted to P. in Greece in 145 (xxxix. 5) are more easily
294

INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY PROPER IlL 1-5

understandable if his pro-Roman attitude had already been indicated

by the publication of a substantial part of his Histories. This is a
flimsy argument, for the Senate had easy ways of learning about a
dose friend of Scipio Aemilianus.
(e) In xvi. zo. 5 f. P. relates how he had pointed out errors to
Zeno, but too late for correction, as Zeno's book was already published ; and he then asks readers to pardon any honest mistakes in
his own work. From this K. J. Neumann (Hermes, 1896, 519 ff.)
deduced that when P. resumed his work after 150--144 he had
already published i-xv. Clearly, however, this does not follow from
the context. P.'s appeal is in general terms, and applies to future
generations as well (i.e. readers of his whole work), and it is inserted
here merely because of the digression on Zeno.
Unless further passages can be adduced from books later than
iv and v which seem intended to influence some identifiable contemporary political situation, it remains uncertain that more than
five books had appeared before 146. Perhaps, in view of the fact that
both its subject-matter and place in the Histories as a whole link vi
with i v, this also appeared at the same time (cf. Brink and \Valbank, CQ, 1954. 100); but this is only a presumption, though one not
contradicted by an analysis of vi (cf. vi introductory note, 4 79 14 n.). Certainly neither evidence nor probability speaks for the
hypothesis of Mioni (33-48} that P. not only wrote, but also published, the first fifteen books in the years between 151 and 147; see,
in criticism, Brink and Walbank (CQ, 1954, 100, 101 n. 8).
3 Revision of parts already composed or published. Many of the
attempts to prove later insertions in i-xv, which were written before
146, break down.
(a) Various attempts have been made to frame an account of
P.'s views on Tyche which will enable a reader to assign relative
dates to observations on this topic. Thus Cuntz (43 ff.) sees F.'s
spiritual progress from an orthodox Hellenistic belief in the power
of Tyche, reinforced by the writings of Demetrius of Phalerum, to
a conviction that the world is governed by Stoic law and order;
whereas von Scala (159 ff.) sees a development from a rationalist position, which seeks natural causes for all phenomena (in reaction against
an earlier dependence on Demetrius), to an eventual return, after
167, to something nearer Demetrius' position. But all such attempts
fail because at all periods P. tends to use the word Tyche in a variety
of senses, and with varying intensity of 'belief'; see Walbank, CQ,
1945, 6-7; Mioni, 140-5 (a good analysis); Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (1)',
cols. 1532-43. Thus many passages (e.g. i. 63. 9, ii. 38. 4 ff., x. 5 8,
xviii. 28. 5, xxxi. 30. 1-3) are to be interpreted in the light of P.'s
loyalty to Achaea, Rome, or Scipio, rather than as an expression
of a particular philosophical attitude. See above, pp. 22-26.
295

III. 1-5 INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY PROPER

(b) It has been argued by Hirzel and von Scala that P. was a
convert to Stoicism, largely through Panaetius' influence, and that
any passages in the earlier books (for a list see Susemihl, ii. uo n.,
adding iv. 40. 3 from n. 93) which betray Stoic thought are later
insertions. P. was in fact influenced by Stoicism, both in his late
years, and also earlier (cf. Class. et med., 1948, 170 ff.); but this is an
aspect not to be overstressed in a writer who was not by temperament a philosopher. Nor can the influence on P. of Panaetius, a
younger man, the date of whose arrival at Rome is quite uncertain,
be proved (cf. CQ, 1943, 86; Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 103
nn. 3-4). In fact Stoicism is a useless criterion for dating P.'s work.
(c) Cuntz argued that most of P.'s journeys and voyages took place
after 146, and so drew conclusions on the dating of passages referring
to them. De Sanctis (iii. 1. 209 ff.) has argued cogently that P.'s
journeys in the western Mediterranean were almost all before, or in,
146. Hence no important deductions on composition can be made
on this basis. Two points, however, are worth noting:
(i) P.'s visits to Sardes (xxi. 38. 7) and Alexandria, under Physcon
(xxxiv. 14. 6), were probably made after 146/5; even so they
probably preceded the composition of the books in which they
are mentioned.
(ii) If P. visited New Carthage in 151 (cf. 57-59 n., x. II. 4), it still
remains true that x. 11. 4 is probably an insertion in the
original composition (cf. ii. 13. 2 n.).

On the other hand, both i-v and also later books up to xv contain
passages apparently composed after 146, which imply revision of an
original draft or edition. One is the present passage (4-5) ; others
(see relevant notes) are:
iii. 32. 2, reference to forty books and the fall of Carthage.
iii. 37 n, the part of Europe washed by the outer sea has recently
come under our notice. Cuntz (34 ff.) argues convincingly that
this refers to the campaigns of D. lunius Brutus Callaicus in
138/7. Probably 10-n, with the reference forward to xxxiv,
were revised or inserted after that date.
iii. 39 2-12 (or at least 6-8) date to after u8, when the Via
Domitia was constructed.
iii. 59 4: the reference to Greek politicians being free from war
and politics implies a date after 146. In 59 7 there is a reference
to P.'s journeys (which are probably subsequent to the original
composition of iii); hence it is likely that 57-59 is a later
insertion.
iii. 61. n, 86. 2, probably composed after 133 since they imply the
shifting of the Italian frontier from the Aesis to the Rubicon.
xii. In the main this book was \\'Titten before 146; cf. xii. 25, where
296

I~TRODUCTIOX

TO THE HISTORY PROPER III. c 5

the discussion of Phalaris' bull omits to mention its recovery

by Scipio in r46 (d. CR, 1945, 40). But some passages are later.
(?) xii. 2. r, on the lotus. Athenaeus states that P. described this
from personal observation, and this would imply composition
after the Third Punic War, or rsr at the latest (cf. 57-59 n.).
But in fact the passage has the appearance of coming from a
literary source, such as Diocles of Carystus (cf. v. 45 10 n.).
xii. 3
on the richness of Africa. If this is described from
autopsy, it will be composed after 146 (or rsr): see last note.
We have no record of any visit to Corsica (xii. 3 7-4. 4).
xii. 27 ff., the stress on avror.aOEta, and reference to Odysseus'
wanderings, date this after 146 (Class. et med., 1948, I7I ff.).
4 Final publication. Since xxxi. z8. 13 and xxxviii. zr. 3 suggest
that Scipio is dead and were therefore written after 129, and since
there is evidence of insertions as late as 120 (cf. iii. 39), it appears
that P. went on working at his History until his death; and indeed
the 'obituary' in xxxix. 5 shows that his work appeared posthumously. But whether between rso-146 and his death no fnrther books
were published we simply do not know; for there is nothing in x and
xii (where alone insertions from after q6 are to be found) which is
inconsistent with publication after, say, 140. It has been argued by
A. Philippson (Phil. Woch., 1930, rr8r-2) that Cicero, de re pu,b. ii,
draws largely on Polybius vi, and that when in 21 Laelius remarks
that Scipio's argument is one 'quae nusquam est in Graecorum
libris', he is meant to suggest that at the dramatic date of the
dialogue (129 B.c.) Polybius vi was not yet published. But the ratt'o
ad disputm~dum noua there mentioned is probably not one copied
from P. at all (cf. Laqueur, Phil. Woch., 1924, 334), in which case
Philippson's argument on the date of publication of vi collapses.
~v TTI "~~'PWTU ~v~?-.'!1 8e8TJAWKa.fLEV: cf. i. 3 r-6.
3, fLET' (mo8e\~WS (~a.yy?-.?-.nv: cf. ll. 37 3 n., aTrOOELKTLK~ WTopa.
4. ~vos l1pyou Ka.l. 6e!lf.!a.To'> iva.,: 'a single action and a single
spectacle'. fN.ap.a corresponds to dydwtap.a in i. 4 5 For the stress on
the organic unity of the period cf. L 3 4, and, for the exaggerated
reference to the whole known world, i. I. 5
5, TOVTou 8' EXOVTO'> bJlo?-.oyoufLEVTJV: the Aristotelian theory of
the unity of a dramatic work is here applied to history; cf. Poet.
23 I. I459 a 19, 7TEpt p.lav r.pa.;.v OA7JV Kat TEAtdav, ;xouaav apx~v Kal
p.daa. a~ TEAoc;. See further, L 3 4 n.
Kf:ljla.Xmw8ws . "11'poeK6ia8a.~: cf. 7, r.poxO~aw, i. 13. I. 7rpod~~:Owtc;
is P.'s term for a preliminary summary of the events in a book, or
a work (here 2~3), included as an integral part of the narrative. Cf.
vi. 2. 3, xiv. r a r, xxxix. 8. 3, and viii. 11. 2 (an example from

1. 1.

297

III. r. 5 INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY PROPER

Theopompus); Arist. Rhet. Al. zg. 1436 b I, TO 1Tpfiyp,a TOt> aKOVOV(T~

1TpoeKTtBtf.vat (i.e. the 1Tpolx:()Em> is not invented by P., as Lorenz
(99 n. 229) supposes). In xi. I a I-5 P. states that i~vi originally possessed only Trpoypa<foal and not Trpo~:KOI(Tet>; the reference here is to
TrpoeKBE(TEL> of the contents of the separate books.
7. T~v Eg &.p.cf>oi:v E1TL(]'Ta.ow Ka.i 9Eav: 'a preliminary survey based on
both' (Paton). Probably a hendiadys for JTfl(TTaaw ri]> 8las (Schweighaeuser). Ola corresponds to the concrete (Nap,a 'spectacle' in 4
8. T~V Ka9oA.ov ~p.cf>aaw KTA.: cf. i. I. s-6 n.
10. oaas ouSeas , ~v ta~ 1TEp~~Aa~E 8LaaT~p.aTL: on the magnitude
and uniqueness of P.'s theme cf. i. r. 5, 4 4, v. 31. 6, vi. 2. 3, xxxix.
8. 7 The TaTro:; appears in Thuc. i. I. 2, cf. 21. 2, and is common
later (d. v. 33 r); see Dion. Hal. i. 2. 1-3; Josephus, AI, i. I-7;
Herodian, i. I. 4; Lorenz, 99 n. 228.
11. TOLCLVOE TLVli. T~V ecf>ooov Tf)S EST)YtlO'EWS: 'the following method
of procedure in my exposition': for i!.cpooo:; in this sense cf. xxxi. 23. I.
For the 14oth Olympiad cf. i. 3 r.

2. 1. TtLS ahLa.s: discussed in 6-33. 4 Laqueur's objection (220) that

only the Saguntine apx~ came within the 14oth Olympiad is true but
irrelevant, since P. nowhere undertakes not to go back above zzo.
Hence his conclusions about an early stage of composition in which
the Saguntine affair figured as an nlTla fall to the ground.
3. ci>'AL1T1Tos OLC.l1ToAEp.~aa.s AtTwA.ois KTA,: cf. ii. 71. 7-10 n. for
the Social War. The settlement follows the Peace of Naupactus
(v. 103-5) in 217. On Philip's project for an alliance with Hannibal
cf. V. IOL j-I02, I,
4. :tl.vT\oxos Ka.t nToAE!-la.l:o~: cf. ii. 7I. 7-IO n. for the Fourth

Svrian War.

s: 'Po8Lo~ KCI.t npovala.s 1Tpos Bu~a.vT(ous: cf. iv. 38-sz. On

the phrase ;> TOV II6VTov cf. iv. 44 3--4 n.
6. Tov U1T~p TTJS 'Pw1-1alwv 1TOALTEfa.s A.6yov: cf. i. I. 5, 64. 2, n8.
n-r2, vi. 2. 3, x. r6. j, xxi. r3. u, xxxix. 8. 7 This account is in vi.
The reconquest (ava~aaaOa.t) of Italy and Sicily was described in
vli-xiv; the acquisition (1rpoaAa.f3etv) of Spain was partially effected
during the Hannibalic War (d. viii. 38, ix. n, x. 2-zo, 34-40, xi.
20-33), and completed in the second century. P.'s account of the
conquest of the Gauls, which had started after the Gallic Wars
(ii. rS-35), but had to begin afresh after the defeat of Hannibal, has
not survived. On the impetus given to Rome by her defeat of Hannibal to advance to world dominion cf. i. 3 6, iii. 32. 7 n., v. Io4. 3,
XV. 9 2, IO. 2,
7. TTJV Ka.TnAucrw TTJ'> 'l~pwvos Suva.crTEia.s: for Hieronymus' fall
and the capture of Syracuse cf. vii. z-8, viii. 3-7, 37, Why P. describes
298

INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY PROPER III. 3 6

this as occurring in a digression, Ka.Ta 1Ta.plx:{3a.utv, is not clear

(Schweighaeuser).
8. Tas rrepi. TTJV A'LyurrTov -ra.pa.xus: Ptolemy IV's civil war in Upper
Egypt (xiv. Iz. 4), the detailed account of which is lost.
Errt S(cupkcm TTl'> O.pxils: the plot to dismember Ptolemy V's
dominions is discussed at xv. zo. I f. The words x:a.T' Ai'ya.tov are
Niebuhr's emendation of the MSS. Ka.T' At)'V'l'I'Tov, Holleaux (Etudes,
iii. jon. I; iv. I62 n. 3
BCH, 1907, III n. 2; REG, 1899, 37 n. 3}
proposed x:a.Ta Ktov; for a full discussion see xv. 20. In. On the date
of Philopator's death and Epiphanes' accession see xv. 25. 1-2.
3. 1. auyKe,Pa.A.a.u.>a6.f.I.EVm Ta<; rrp6.~u<;: cf. 7, iv. L 9; 'rounding
off the affairs'. uvyx:f:cpa.Aa.tavu8a.t is 'to round off, sum up', not (as
Schweighaeuser) 'to summarize (in breuem summam contrahere)'.
The account of the Second Punic War is rounded off in xv, though
fighting had ceased earlier in Spain and Sicily.
f.I.ETa(3((3aaof1EV Els TOut) KaTa Tljv 'E).AO.Sa. Torrous: v.~th Philip's
campaigns in and around the Aegean, and the Second Macedonian
War (xv onwards). Laqueur (5) sees a discrepancy between this
statement and the stress on Greek affairs in ii, iv, and v. But P.'s
point is simply that the main thread passes over to Greece after the
Hannibalic War; and Philip's Aegean campaign is directly relevant
to this in a way in which, for example, the war of Rhodes and
Prusias against Byzantium is not, since it led to the appeal to
Rome and her intervention. For P.'s account of the naval battles
see xvi. 2-9 (Chios), Io. I, I4--I5 (Lade).
2. Tov 'Pwf1a1wv Kai. cP(Mrrrrou m)AEflOV: for the Second Macedonian
War (2oo-r97) see xvi. 34 (declaration), xviii. r-12, r6-27, 33-39
(action), 42-48 (settlement).
3-4. Tov O.rro Ti)s }.\a(a.s rroAEJlOV: cf. 7. I-3 on the causes of the
Syrian War (r92-r87). The a.hla. was the anger of the Aetolians (cf.
xviii. 45 I f., 48. 7), the dpx?] Antioch us' crossing into Europe (of
which P.'s account has survived only in Livy's version). For the
stress on Europe and Asia, and the contrasting of the two in the warpropaganda see CQ, I942, I4I-2. For Antiochus' evacuation of the
districts west of Taurus see xxi. I7. 3; the account of his flight after
Thermopylae survives in Livy.
5. KO.Ta.AUaa.vn:s TTJV fa.AO.TWV vj3pw: on Cn. Manlius Vulso's expedition (r89) see xxi. 33-39; and on the fear of the Gauls felt by the
Mediterranean peoples d. ii. 35 9 n.
&.S~pLTOV Tljv TTJ'i }.\O'LCll) apxfJv: here 'Asia' is Asia Minor; cf.
Xen. Hell. iv. 8. 27.
6. Ta'> AhwA.wv Ka.t Ko:::<jlo.XA.t)vwv 6.Tuxa.s: on the end of the Aetolian
War (189) and the siege of Cephallenia (189/8) see xxi. 25-32 b.
TOUS EuflEVEL auaTcivTa<; rrpo') TE npoUO'LO.V KO.t

r a.A<iTO.S

rroAkjlOUS:

299

IlL 3 6

INTRODUCTIO~

TO THE HISTORY PROPER

the lost account of the war of Prusias of Bithynia against Eumenes II

of Pergamum (186-r83) was evidently in xxii; cf. xxiii. 1. 4, 3 1-3;
Niese, iii. 71. From an inscription of Telmessus, published by M.
Segre (Riv. fil., 1932, 446; cf. L. Robert, Rev. phil., 1934, 284 n. r;
E't. anat. 73 n. 1), in which relief at Eumenes' victory finds expression,
it is clear that the Galatian rising was part of Prusias' war (8wywv~ud
fLEvos: 1rpos 'TE Jlpovufav [Ka]~ 'OpnayovTa Kat 'TOV<; ra,\cf.Ta<; Kal 'TOfJ<;
[uv]fLfLdxovs: avnvv), asP. here suggests; cf. Trogus, prol. 32, 'in Asia
bellum ab rege Eumene gestum aduersus Gallum Ortiagontem,
Pharnacem Ponticum et Prusian, adiuuante Prusian Hannibale
Poeno'. Following on his victory Eumenes received the title of Soter,
henceforward attached to his name in decrees of cities within his
kingdom; on the problem of the Nicephoria see iv. 49 3 n. and the
works listed there. On Ortiagon, who perhaps fell in this war, see
xxi. 38, xxii. 21. I. F.'s account may have drawn on the personal
reminiscences of Ortiagon's wife, Chiomara; xxi. 38. 7 A Delian
epigram in honour of the Pergamene prince Philetaerus has been
referred to this war; but the ascription is uncertain (cf. E. Loewy,
Jnschrijten griechischer Bildhauer (Leipzig, 1885), ro9 f., no. 147).
\Vhether after their defeat the Galatians were left independent
(Niese) or incorporated in Pergamum (Brandis; cf. Hansen, 96) is
not clear; xxiv. rs. 6 merely proves Galatia to be non-Pontic, but
not necessarily Pergamene, territory, and xxv. 2. 4 (Pharnaces not
to invade Galatia; treaties made with Galatia null and void) only
shows, as one might expect, that Galatia assumed a relationship of
clientship towards Pergamum, without necessarily losing its independence.
TOv p.n' ~pLapa8ou rrpos ~a.pv6.K1JV: for Pharnaces' attack on
Ariarathes of Cappadocia, Eumenes' ally, and the subsequent war
(I83-r8o/7g) see xxiii. g. 1-3, xxiv. I. r-3, 5 r, 14-15, xxv. 2.
7, rijs 1r0.pa neA011'0VVTJCI'tWv OflOVOlO.S Kat KO.TO.CJ'TaCJ'EWS: 'the unity
and settled condition of the Peloponnese'. Paton translates 'the
unification and pacification'; but &fL6vota is a state, not a process.
Cf. ii. 37 8. The consolidation of Peloponnesian unity dates from the
readmission of Messene and Sparta into the Achaean League in 183
(xxiii. 17-18).
Tfjs a.us~crews ToG 'Po81wv TOA\Teop.a.Tos: for Rhodian acquisitions in
Asia Minor after the defeat of Antiochus see xxi. 24. 7, 46. 8 (Lycia
and Caria as far as the Maeander, except Telmessus).
cruyKecpaAa.~wcr6p.e8a. T~V OATJV 8l~YTJCI'tV nJlO. Kat TclS rrpas\S: cf. I n.
'I shall bring the whole narrative of events to a conclusion' (Paton).
The rounding off is explained in the words J1ri ?Tautv . {3autAdac;.
Schweighaeuser mistranslates 'uniuersam narrationem nostram et
res ante positas in pauca uerba contrahemus'. For Antiochus IV
Epiphanes' expedition against Egypt (168) see xxvii. 19, xxviii.
300

INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY PROPER III. 4 xo

I8-zJ, xxix. 2, 23 f., 27, for the Third Macedonian War (171-I68)
xxvii. I-Io, 14-16, xxviii. 3-13, xxix. 3-9, I4-2I.
9. 'll'aao.v eTtoLt1ao.vTo TTJV otKou._..~"ll" il'll't1Koov o.uTois: the summary
ends on the keynote; cf. r. 4, I. 9

4. 1-4. el (LEv oov t'll'el 8 : on this formula cf. i. 3 7 n., iv. 28.
2-3. In this addition to his introduction P. insists that judgement
must rest, not on immediate failure or success, but on a consideration
of the results of actions over a long period. Cf. 3 n., Aymard, REA,
1940, 19 n. I,
1. Kll.Til Tr)v

es 6.px1ls 1Tpo8eaw: d. i. I. 5-6 n. for P.'s intention to

stop at 168{7, the conclusion of the fifty-three years. At i. 65. 5,
ii. r. 4, 71 2 this phrase is used of the plan to describe events down
to 220 in a summary fashion.
2. l] T' o.1is"laLs ETETEAe(wTo: untrue; but P. was committed to the
view that Roman power reached its maximum growth in 167, hence
what followed must be consolidation and moral trial.
4. ooK CLUToTEAe1s at 8Lo.At}ljlw;: 'judgements ... are not
final'. The real character of an apparent success can be judged only
from its sequel, and how it is employed. P. is here moving towards,
but never clearly expresses (cf. the use of av~i-</>povTwv in II; interest of whom?), the idea eventually formulated by Panaetius and
the Stoics, and taken over by the Romans (cf. Capelle, Klio, 1932,
86 ff.), that the true justification of Roman world-dominion is one
which takes into account the advantage of both rulers and ruled.
7. Tois ._..ev vuv ooaLv Tois 8' t'II'LyEvo._..~voLS: for his contemporaries,
P.'s history is to afford a political lesson leading to action relative
to Roman rule, viz. rroT<pa ,PwKT~v ~ TovvavTiov alp<T~v Elvat av11-~
{lalv<L r't]v 'Pw11-alwv ovva.r:m:lav; for future generations it is to facilitate
the passing of a moral judgement on an historical event, viz. r.6npov
~r.atv<r'i]v Ka.i. ,7]>-.wr't]v ~ .jleKr't]v yeyovevat vo11-urreov (cf. I). The
political action of P.'s contemporaries also, of course, rests upon
a moral judgement.
10. ou8ets 'II'AEi TU 'II'EAO.y"l xcipw TOU 1TEpmw9t}vo.L ..,.Ovov: perhaps
proverbial (cf. Wunderer, i. I2J). P. reflects the normal classical
attitude towards sea-travel, always dangerous and uncomfortable.
OU
's E TO.\;
E,....1tE:LpLO.~
, , "E\IEKO. TT)'li
- Ei1TL<7Tt'

!Jl.T)'li 0.\10./\0.Jl.t'CLVEL;
' R
r:., 'S a tt'1~
tude towards knowledge is strictly utilitarian (cf. ix. 20. 6), and this
distinguishes him from the Alexandrian school, with its spirit of
free speculation and the acquisition of knowledge for its own sake
(cf. Class. et med., 1948, rp-3). Cf. Cic. de re pub. i. 33, 'cas artis,
quae efficiant ut usui ciuitati simus'. There may well be Stoic influence here; cf. Cic. off. i. 22, 'placet Stoicis, quae in terris gignantur,
ad usum hominum omnia creari' (quoted by Lorenz, 77 n. 36).
Certainly the distinction in I I of ~3v, KaAOV, and aoll-4pov, though
30I

III. 4 ro INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY PROPER

not contrasted (as for instance Ka,\6v and JJrpl-\,p.ov are contrasted
in i. 4 4, 4 II, iii. 31. 12), suggests Stoic terminology; cf. xxiv. 12. 2,
Suo ... CFKorroir;; .. rraaij> rroi\tT/as, TO TE Ka-\ov !((].' Td avp.rpti.pov. For
the Stoic concepts of ~<aAOv and JJrpi'Atp.ov see Hirzel, ii. 851 ff. On
the other hand, the contrast goes back beyond the Stoics; Newman
(II. xiv) points out the similarity between this passage and Arist.
Nic. Eth. ii. 2. no4 b 30 ff., and Hammond (CQ, 1952, 132 n. 3) compares Thuc. i. 22. 4
12. ToilT' !Zann Tt;A;moupyl)fl.O.: i.e. a full understanding of conditions
throughout the world under Roman rule from r67 down to the time of
troubles which followed (c. rsr-r46), and so the passing of judgement
on Rome and on the other peoples she ruled ( 7). This plan supplements, but does not supersede, that enunciated repeatedly (i. r. 5 n.)
throughout the work; and it should be noted that it nowhere implies
that the verdict will be unfavourable to Roman rule (cf. Brink and
Walbank, CQ, 1954, IOj n. 6).
TTJS fJ.ETa Ta.iha. . Ta.pa.xfis Ka.t KwftaWS: the idea behind Ta.pax~ and
xivr;as is of military operations which lack clear scope, organization,
and outcome; they are the equivalent of the Latin tumultus and
motus. P. applies xlvr;m,; and cognate words to the Carthaginian
Mercenary War (i. 69. 6, iii. 9 8-9; also described as TapaX7/ in the
former passage and in iii. 9 9, ro. 1), a rising at Sparta (iv. 34 3),
the reckless policy which led to the Messenian revolt from Achaea
(xxiii. 5 9). In ii. 21. 3 it is used of a Gallic tumultus. Here the meaning
will be 'the disturbed and troubled time' with the implication of
convulsive military movements. The translation proposed by Hammond (CQ, 1952, 132), '(political) confusion and (revolutionary)
movement', does not take P.'s normal usage into account and must
be rejected. Lorenz (1oz n. 252) quotes the use of these words in other
historians, e.g. Thuc. i. I. z (KivTJas in the sense of the Peloponnesian
War-the usual interpretation, or of the emergence of the two
hostile coalitions in the period before its outbreak (Hammond, CQ,
I9$2, 132-3)); Xen. Hell. vii. 5 27, aKptata Kat Tapax~ ETt 1rA<i.lwv p.era
rr)v p.a:x11v (Man tinea) JyivHo ~ rrp6cr0<v fv rfi 'E'AM.8t; cf. Dem. xviii.
r8 (on conditions in the Peloponnese in 346), dX\a TLS ~v aKpL-ros xat
rrapa 7"0VTOtS Kairrapa -rots aMo<s arraaw epts KaL Tapax~
13. To fl.EYE9os Ka.L To na.p6.8o~ov: qualities claimed at i. z. r for

the subject-matter of the Histories.

a.iho'll'Tl)'i . wv fl.EY auvEpyos wv SE Ka.t xup~CTTJS yEyoveVO.l: for p .' s

stress on autopsy for the historian d. xii. 25 h 4, xx. 12. 8. P.'s share
in the major events comes out clearly in the last books, from xxxv
onwards (cf. 5 In.). In particular, he was auvpy6> at Carthage in the
Third Punic War (Ziegler (RE, 'Polybios (r)', col. 1489) recalls the
phrase crrJp.p.axos 'Pwp.alwv on the stele erected in P .' s honour at Megalopolis, Paus. viii. 30. 8) and xnpaT~s in the settlement of Achaea.
30Z

INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY PROPER IlLs. r

o!ov 6.px~v 1TO~T)crajlEVOS aAATJV: this 'fresh start' applies, not to the

period after 167 (so Thommen, Hermes, 1885, 199; Susemihl, ii. 108
n. 104), but to the years of rapax~ Ka~ KiV"IJ<ns' (cf. 13, 1nrp 7}s-). Thus
the additional years fall into two groups:
(a) 168/7-c. ISI: pendant to the period of conquest; testing time
for Rome, included to facilitate the judging of conqueror and
conquered by contemporaries and posterity.
(b) c. I5I-I45/4: rapax~ Ka~ KivYJm>; begun 'as if a new work'
because of the extraordinary events and P.'s own part in them.
But in practice the two are not rigidly distinguished (though xxxiv
seems to act as a line of demarcation; cf. 5 In.), for the events of
the second group also serve in the passing of judgements.

5. 1. ~ 1TpoupTJjlEVTJ KivTJa~s: this chapter purports to summarize

the events of the years of rapax~. just as z-3 summarize those of
zzo-I68. But this fails to account for the years between I68 and
the onset of the rapax~- when did P. regard this as beginning? Of
events mentioned in this chapter the earliest is the expulsion of
Ariarathes from Cappadocia ( z) in I 58; the war between Attalus
and Prusias was I56-I54, and the Celtiberian War began in 153 and
lasted till I5I (I). This would suggest that the rapax~ began in I58.
But in fact P.'s scheme here is not easily reconciled with the more
rigid system of his 'olympiad' chronology. There is no specific date
dividing the 'pendant to the conquest' from the 'period of disturbance', but only a gradual increase in warfare as I 50 approached, and
finally the culminating disasters in Carthage, Macedonia, and Greece.
Hence, though P. here mentions events earlier than ISI, it seems
likely that he intended the line of demarcation before the events
distinguished by his own autopsy, collaboration, and direction, to
be xxxiv, with its description of the oecumene. Similarly, vi served
to separate the period up to Cannae from the period after, when
events throughout the whole world became intertwined. Cf. Lorenz,
68 f. (who is not, however, to be followed in his conclusion that P.
regarded the 'years of trouble' as a condemnation of the Roman
imperium). Thus xxxiv provides a climax to vii-xxxiii, and 'insulates' them from the last books in which P. plays a more personal
part. The present passage is an attempt to do two logically different
things, to summarize the period I67-145, and to summarize the 'time
of trouble' which is defined schematically, and with some violence
to the arrangement by Olympiad years, as c. I5I-I45
'Pwjla.'lol . 1rpos KEArif3lJpa.s Ka.L Oila.KKa.(ous: fragments on the
Second Celtiberian War (I53-I5I) are preserved in xxxv. I-S
Ma.aa.wO.aa.v ~a.a~Aa. rwv Al~uwv: Carthage declared war on

III.s.

INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY PROPER

Masinissa in winter rsr/o; but the only surviving fragment on the

differences between Carthage and Numidia (xxxi. 21) refers to r61.
2. 'AnaAo~ Kal. npoua(a~: the war between Attalus II and
Prusias II opened in rs6, and ended with Prusias' defeat in 154.
Ct. xxxii. rs-r6, xxxiii. I. I-2, 12-IJ.
:A.ptapci91'}~: Ariarathes V was expelled from Cappadocia in rs8 by
his half-brother Orophernes, helped by Demetrius I of Syria (the son
of Seleucus IV). Attalus II helped in his restoration in rs6. Cf. xxxii.
ro, xxxiii. 6.
3. Al'}p-tiTpLOS: after reigning from 162 to rso, Demetrius I fell in
battle against Alexander Balas, a pretender suborned by Attalus II
and Ptolemy VI of Egypt (Twv CiM.wv Pam.>.wv). Cf. xxxi. 2, u-rs
(escape from Rome), xxxiii. s. r8. 8 f. For the hysteron proteron of
TOV Pu5v Kat Tfj<; apxfi> to avoid hiatus cf. ii. 2. 2 n.
4. a1TOKaTEO"TT)O"av TOU~ "EAAT)Va~: the remnants of the thousand
Achaeans, who were kept in Italy without trial after Pydna (xxx.
13. 6 ff., xxxi. 23. s), were allowed to return home in rsr (xxxv. 6).
5. Kapx11ooviot~: for the Third Punic War (149-146) see xxxvi. r-g,
r6, xxxviii. 7-8, 19-22.
6. ot~ KaTaAAT)Aa: 'simultaneously' (cf. 32. 5, Td> KaTa.M~>.ov> Twv
-rrpa[Ewv, 'contemporary events'), not, as Paton, 'close upon this'.
The list of events in the era of Tapax~ does not follow a strictly
chronological order. The Macedonian revolt under Andriscus was in
149/8; cf. xxxvi. 9-ro, 17. Trouble arose between Sparta and Achaea
in rso, and in winter 149/8 the Senate authorized the independence of
Sparta, which led to the outbreak of war between Achaea and Sparta,
and so to the Achaean \Var with Rome; cf. xxxviii. r-6, 9-18, xxxix.
r-6.
all-a Ti]v apxf)v Ka~ TO TEAO~: for disaster was swift; cf. xxxviii. r8. 12,
El flTJ Taxw<; a1TwAop.E8a, oOK av iaw87Jp.Ev. For the proverbial linking
of dpx~ Katr.fAo> cf. i. r. 2, vi. 6. 7 n.
7-8. It is uncertain whether this paragraph is part of the first draft
or of the additional material; the reference to long life is perhaps
more likely to come from an older man, but not necessarily so.
8. 1TE1TE1a1-1-m !-LEv ycl.p, : 'yet I am sure .. .' ; for this sense of
yap, 'yet, jreilich' (ct. Stahl, Rh. Mus., 1902, r ff.), see Aristoph.
Ran. 262, TOVrt;J yctp ov vtK~a<n, '(do so), yet you shall never win
by these means'. The euphemism, Kav n avp.(3fj . dv8pwmvov, is
common.
o~el. (oe) To KaAA.os: so B-W', returning to the reading commonly
accepted since Casaubon; but Ursinus's emendation 8ui To Klliov<;
(cf. B TO KOL aMov<;), adopted by Hultsch and B-W', is equally easy
and no less attractive.
KaTeyyuYJ9tiaea9at: 'will pledge themselves' ; Kanyyviiv is 'to exact
surety from someone'. Partsch (i. 36) takes it, less probably, to mean
304

INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY PROPER III.6.3

'will become entangled', a sense which the word acquires from the
idea of arrest connected with the demanding of surety (cf. Thales
in Stob. Anth. iv. 22. 65 (W.-H. iv. 521), TO tfjv Atl7T(US av8atp~TmS
Ko.nyyvryaat).

6. l-33. 4. Causes and Preliminaries of the Hannibalic War;

the Second Illyrian War

6. 1. ;VLOl 1'Wv auyyEypn4>chwv TdS KelT' i6..vvt{3nv rrprtSElS: who

are these historians of Hannibal who make the siege of Saguntum the
first, and the crossing of the Ebro the second, cause of the war?
Chiefly Silenus (cf. i. 3 2 n.}, in the opinion of Hesselbarth (r3); but
Arnold (Oorzaak, r8) suggests they are Chaereas and Sosylus (cf.
i. 3 2 n.), and perhaps Cato (to whom he mistakenly sees a reference
in 20. I f.). However, pro-Carthaginian writers like Chaereas and
Sosylus (cf. 2o. 5) will scarcely have given so anti-Barcine a version
of the causes of the war; and P. is more likely to be thinking of the
second-century senatorial historians at Rome (d. Tii.ubler, Vorgesch.
84, 86-87; Gelzer, Hermes, 1933, 159; McDonald, CR, 1940, 42), who
concocted this version of Carthaginian responsibility, as it appears,
for instance, in Zonaras (viii. 22). That Cato and Cassius Hemina
had this version (Arnold's further suggestion) is possible, though it
remains uncertain, and even unlikely, that the relevant books of
Cato were accessible to P. before rso. Postumius Albinus may be
meant, though Taubler's argument (Vorgesch. 87) that P. is hitting
at his claim to write -rrpayp.anK~ [a,.opla (xxxix. 1. 4) rests on the
false assumption that by this phrase P. means 'history dealing with
cause and effect' (cf. i. 2. 7-8 n.; Walbank, CQ, r945. r6). In any case
P. is probably referring not merely to writers on Hannibal, but also
to historians who have covered the Second Punic War in the course
of their work.
2. -rra.pcl. ,.Q.s auv8,t<ns: the Ebro treaty of 226 (ii. r3. 7 n.).
3 . .ipx&.s nhlns: to Thucydides (i. 23. 6) ahlat, 'grievances' (and
so proximate casus belli; cf. Adcock, CA. II, v. 481 n.), are distinguishable from the aA7]81iaTri.TTf -rrporpaa-,r;, 'the truest explanation' (cf.
L. Pearson, TAPA, 1952, 205-23). P.'s usage is different. He uses
ahta to describe such events as lead the individual to conceive a will
to war; the pretext for war then given (which may or may not be
genuine) is the -rrp&rpaa<>. The first action of the war itself (which is
not necessarily fought by the person who conceived it; cf. xxii.
r8. 9 ff.) is the dpxl). Clearly this is a more mechanical concept than
that ofThucydides, for whom a war breaks out because of grievances,
which are simply the form in which a deeper antagonism (the real
cause or -rrporpaatr;) finds expression. It is, moreover, noteworthy that
none of P.'s three terms covers the actual decisott to go to war; this,
~866

III. 6. 3

CAUSES A:ND PRELIMINARIES OF

an all-important stage in his sequence, is neither cause, pretext, nor

beginning, but will fall in point of time between the al-rla and the
-rrp6,Pafn-;;. P. draws the same distinctions in xxii. I8. 6; cf. iv. IJ. 6
for al-r{a, a.f>opf-t~, and apx~, iv. 56. I for apx~ and -rrpo.f>aut-;; ; for general
emphasis on establishing causes see ii. 38. 5, iii. JI, vi. 2. 8, xi. I9 a I-J.
Though he makes no reference to Thucydides' system, his silence
spells criticism of it, for in 31. I2 f. he shows by reminiscence his
familiarity with his predecessor.
P. here regards the war as beginning with Hannibal's attack on
Saguntum, not with the Roman declaration of war at Carthage;
this is the Roman case (d. xv. 17. J, Scipio's accusation after
Zama), and the (subsequent) reply to the clever tactics by which
Hannibal forced them to take the responsibility for the formal
outbreak.
4. -rl\v ~). e~civopou Sta~aow E~S -rl\v :A.a(av: his crossing of the Hellespont from Sestus to Abydus in 334, the beginning of the war against
the Persian Empire of Darius Codomannus. (P. ignores the force
which had been operating in Asia Minor under Parmenion since 336.)
-rov Avnoxou Ka-rcirrXouv eis l:t..TJilTJTpLaOa: Antiochus III's crossing
from Asia to Pteleum in Thessaly in autumn I92 (cf. Livy, xxxv. 43
I-6; below, xx. In.), an action which initiated the war with Rome.
Since previous preparations were made for the crossings of both
Alexander and Antiochus, these cannot, P. argues, in themselves be
regarded as primary causes.
6. <ipxl\ -r( Sta<f>~pn . at-r(as Kat rrpo<f>aaEws: cf. 3 n. P. here puts
alTla and -rrpo.f>mn-;; together, because his immediate concern is not
to distinguish between them, but to expose the cruder confusion of
those who confound either of them with a totally different event, the
first action of the war itself. -rrpo,Paat> is still 'pretext'; Paton's
translation 'purpose' is misleading.
7. -ras rrpoKa9T)youf1vas -rwv KpLaEwv Kat OtaXT)Ij!Ewv: 'the events
which influence in advance our purposes and decisions' (Ta> -rrpoKaBTJyovf-tlvas is attracted into the gender of alTla-;;). In vi. 2. 8-10 a
state's constitution is said to be the wylaTTJ alTla of success or failure
in politics; that is because the constitution is the factor which above
all others shapes political decisions. Paton here translates 'judgements and opinions'; but this misses the idea of 'decision to take
action', present in both words and essential to P.'s argument. It is
taken up in the verbs Kptval n Kat -rrpoBlaBm, 'to reach decisions and
projects' (Paton). LSJ omits this sense of StJ)..TJtft>; cf., however,
ii. 46. 5, iii. 89. 2, IOJ. 6, and passim. (P. does not always keep to this
rigid definition of alTla; in 28. I it means 'justification', and in 28. 5
'guilt' (cf. Bung, Ion. I).)
10. T) -rwv flETa =:evo<f>wv-ros 'EXX~vwv . ~rrO.voSos: the march of the
Io,ooo Greek mercenaries, who had gone against Artaxerxes under
J06

THE IL\"!'l"NIBALIC WAR

III. 6. I3

Cyrus and Clearchus in 401, and after Cyrus' defeat and death at
Cunaxa near Babylon, and the treacherous murder of Clearchus, had
made their way north under the command of Xenophon, through
Armenia to the Black Sea coast at Trapezus, and thence to Calchedon,
which some half of them reached eventually in 4oo (Tarn, CAH, vi.
4-18). Xenophon recounted the story of the march in his Anabasis;
and an absurdly exaggerated account of the achievement was given
by !socrates in his Panegyricus (145-9) in 38o, and his Philippus
(9o ff.) of 346, as an argument in favour of his programme of uniting
Greece in a campaign against Persia. Philip will have welcomed
!socrates' propaganda, but neither he nor Alexander is likely to
have been directly influenced by it. However, they too must have
drawn the obvious conclusions fromXenophon's exploit~the weakness of Persian infantry, and the indispensability of strong cavalry
for any success in Asia. Subsequently it was natural that post hoc
became propter hoc; and P. here gives an advanced version of the
association of Alexander's expedition with that of the ro,ooo. Later
Arrian, writing in the middle of the second century A.D., entitled
his History of Alexander Anabasis in open imitation of Xenophon.
By 'Asia' P. here means 'the Persian Empire'; cf. Lysias, ii. 21;
Isoc. Panegyr., passim.
11. 1j Tou Ao.KE8cup.ovwv f3o.mXEws ~y'l'la'M.ou 8~0.f3o.o-Ls: in 396 the
Spartan king Agesilaus crossed to Asia with a force of 8,ooo Spartans
and allies, and in 396 and 395 operated there against the satraps
Tissaphernes, Pharnabazus, and Tithraustes. In the absence of a
strong cavalry force and siege-train he could not do more than make
a series of forays to protect the Greek towns; but P. fairly observes
that 'he found no opposition of any moment'. His return was brought
about by the so-called Corinthian War, which was precipitated in
summer 395 by a Theban invasion of Phocis, the ally of Sparta, and
soon developed into a coalition of Thebes, Athens, Corinth, and Argos
against Sparta. Consequently in spring 394 the ephors recalled
Agesilaus, who marched back through Macedonia and Thessaly. See
Cary, CAH, vi. 40-47. Like Alexander after him, Agesilaus saw himself as a second Agamemnon re~enacting the destruction of Troy;
before setting out he had tried to sacrifice at Aulis, but was driven
off by the Boeotians (d. Niese, RE, 'Agesilaos (4)', cols. 796~7). But
in making his expedition a 'cause' of Alexander's, P. seems again to
be following !socrates, who asserted (Phitippus, 86-87) that he failed
because he had not secured Greek unity, but had preferred to put
his friends in charge of the cities; hence his recall Std T~v -rapax~v
'Tijv v8ao (i.e. in Greece) yyvo!LtV'ryv. F.'s remark on Agesilaus in
ix. 23. 7 reveals the hostile tradition also to be found in Plutarch
(Ages. 25) and Diodorus (xv. 19. 4).
13. eu9ews 11"poq.&ae\ XPWf-LEVOi [)or, 0'11"f.U0n 11"0.pCI.VOf-LlO.V j cf. v. IO, 3

III. 6. 13

CAUSES AND PRELIMINARIES OF

(of Alexander), ~nafJd.s els rqv Autav fLtTE1TOpV7'0 rqv llepuwv aaefJtav
f.ls -rovs "EI\i\7Jvas. a1T6on, 'was eager', not 'it was his duty' (Paton).
The idea of a national crusade against Persia recurs frequently in
fourth-century Greek political thought, and it is supported by references to legend and history, to the Trojan War and the Persian
invasion. Gorgias was the first to preach on the theme of homonoia
and war against Persia, probably in 392 (Momigliano, Riv. fil., 1933,
478; Wilamowitz, Aristoteles und Athen, i (Berlin, 1893), 172 made
it 408), shortly after the 'Homeric' expedition of Agesilaus ( I I n.).
In 388 Lysias advocated the same policy at Olympia, combining it
with a campaign against Dionysius I in Sicily (his 'Oi\vfLmaK6s); and
in 38o Gorgias' pupil, !socrates, produced his famous Panegyricus, in
which he called on Athens and Sparta, especially Athens, to reconcile
their differences, and to lead an anti-Persian crusade, which would
win the wealth of Asia and avenge the King's Peace (i. 6. 2). In the
years after 374 this programme was actively taken up by Jason of
Pherae (lsoc. Phil. II9; Xen. Hell. vi. 1. u), who was a great admirer
of Gorgias (Paus. vi. 17 9) and a guest-friend of !socrates (Isoc.
Epist. 6. 1), but it was cut short by his murder in 370. Finally, in 346
!socrates directly appealed to Philip II of Macedonia to lead the
crusade, in hls Philippus, published that year. He was not alone;
we hear of Delius (or Dias, Philostr. VS. i. 3 p. 485) of Ephesus giving
similar counsel to both Phllip and Alexander (l'lut. Mor. nz6 n).
That Philip was convinced by !socrates' pan-hellenic propaganda
is unlikely; but Alexander's sacrifice at Ilium (cf. H. U. lnstinsky,
Alexander der Grosse am Hellespont (Godesberg, 1949), 54 ff.; with
my criticism, ]HS, rgso, 79-Br) showed that he, no less than his
father, knew how to exploit it, and also that he could make a genuine
response to its more romantic aspects. The 1rp6</>aa~s here mentioned,
revenge for Xerxes' sacrilege, was part of the programme put forward
at the conference of Greek states at Corinth in winter 338/7 (cf.
Diod. xvi. 89. 2, 1\a{JEtv 1rap' athwv StKas {J1Tep -rijs els -rd. ifpa JlfVDfL~V7Js
1rapavoftlas) ; it does not appear in this form in !socrates, and was
probably Philip's own idea (cf. Wilcken, Alexander, 47), though
Plutarch (Per. q) records a similar scheme of Pericles. Wilcken also
points out that the Kotvi} lp~v7J set up at Corinth was designed to
recapture the atmosphere of the years of resistance to the Persians,
when a similar internal peace was in operation.
14. a.h(as .. TJYTJTiov: viz. the anabasis of the ro,ooo and Agesilaus'
invasion of Asia. These two events suggested the Macedonian expedition, and gave promise of its success; hence by leading Philip
(and Alexander) to conceive the purpose of going to war, they are
its 'causes', in the sense defined in 3 The 1rp6</>aa~s is the progranune
of avenging the wrongs of Hellas. For such a programme of action
P. often uses the word 1TpoalpHttS (cf. 8. 4, 8. s, etc.).
308

THE HANNIBALIC WAR

III. 7 7

7. 1-3. Cause of the Syrian War: here, too, P. distinguishes three

events,
(a) the anger of the Aetolians against Rome (3. 3-4 n.), which
inspired their will to war;
(b) the programme of liberating Greece, the 1rp6rpams (here undoubtedly 'pretext' in the bad sense; cf. 3, d..\6yws Kal
iftwows);
(c) Antiochus' crossing into Europe, the apX1}.
Here again the actual decision to invite Antiochus (with the readiness
to 'do and suffer anything', 2) is excluded from the three categories.
It is noteworthy that the Achaean historian makes the Aetolians
responsible for the war, not because of their dpy?], but because they
took the vital decision and carried out the subsequent action of
bringing over Antiochus. He thus shows once more his superficial
conception of historical causality, which would attribute the responsibility for a war to the 'unilateral' actions of one side. On the
Aetolian propaganda of liberation see Livy, xxxv. 33 8, 46. 6, 48.8
(based on P.); on Antiochus' crossing to Demetrias, 6. 4 n.
4-7. Importance of discovering causes: cf. 6. 3 n. and passages there
quoted. The function of history is to give practical assistance, particularly to the statesman; cf. i. I. 2, ii. 35 5-10, iii. 31, 118. 12, vii.
n. 2 (and many passages which mention merely the utility of history
without referring to the statesman, i. 4 II, ii. s6. 10-IZ, iii. 4. S7-S9.
vi. 2. 8, vii. 7 8, ix. 2, x. 21. 3, 47 12-13, xi. 19 a 1-3, xii. 7 3-6,
zs b, 25 g, 25 i 4 ff., xv. 35 7, 36. 3. xxxix. 8. 7). For the correction of
ol rptAol'-a8oiJvn:s ( 4, 'students of history') see i. 65. 9; cf. i. 13. 9,
iii. 21. 9-10, 59 4, vii. 7 8, ix. z. s. xi. 19 a 2.
5. ,-[ yttp ilc!>~::Xoc; ta,-pou KTA.: P. is fond of medical comparisons, cf.
xi. 25. z ff. (implied comparison between Scipio tackling a mutiny
and a doctor treating an abscess), xii. z7. 8 (approval of Theopompus'
comparison of statesmen, doctors, and pilots), xxix. 8. 8 (Eumenes
like a bad physician), xxxiii. 17. 1-2 (Rhodians like sick men who
turn from their physicians to the help of soothsayers, etc.), fg. 41,
o~::i Touc; dp8ws {3ouA~::uol'-ivous 1Ttop1. TOii 1ToAil'-ou, Ka8am::p Kal TOV> lv
Tats appwaTtats, 1'-TJOJv .ryTTOV TWV r!myt::VVTJ!LdTWV 1TOtt::'ia8m AOyov ~ TWV
ig dpxfj> {J1ToKt::t!'-ivwv 1ra8wv. In xii. d medicine is compared to

zs

historical writing. This comparison is common to both the Socratic

school and the Stoics.
6. au<J"TJ]aa.o6a.L Tac; TWY aWJ.LUTWY 9Epa.vEi.a.c;: 'to institute proper
treatment for the body' rather than 'to recommend', etc. (Paton).
7. ouoEv ouTw c!>uAa.KTEov: 'there is nothing we ought to be more
alive to' (Shuckburgh); for if a statesman acts in good time, he may
prevent some disastrous event by remedying 'the initial impulses
and decisions'.
309

III. 8.

CAUSES AND PRELIMINARIES OF

8. 1-9. 5. Criticism of Fabius' view on the causes of the war: on

Fabius cf. i. 14. In. According toP. Fabius gave two causes for the
war, (a) the outrage at Saguntum, i.e. Hannibal's seizure and sack,
(b) Hasdrubal's 7TAWJ.!Egla Kai cpL>.apx!.a, which led him to govern Spain
as an independent ruler (Diod. xxv. 12; App. Hisp. 4-13); so too
Hannibal, who accordingly began the war \\ithout the approval of
his government. P. has dealt with (a) in 6, and does not return to it.
He refutes the picture of Hannibal's independence by showing the
Carthaginians unwilling to surrender him in reply to the Roman
ultimatum. Hasdrubal's 1TAEOJ.!Egla Kal cfo,}.,a.pxta are not specifically
dealt with; but in 9 6 P. takes the cause one step farther back by
referring the war to the wrath of Hamilcar. Fabius' account calls for
discussion in relation both to its origin and its truth.
It seems likely that it came from the anti-Barcine party which,
after the defeat, tried to lay the responsibility on Hannibal and his
predecessor (DeSanctis, iii. 2. :z); cf. the behaviour of the Punic inter~
mediaries after the Hannibalic War (xv. I. 7-8, 17. 3; Livy, xxx. 16.
5--{) (Polybian), 22. 1-3.42. 12 (annalistic)). But why did Fabius accept
it? Because, Gelzer argues (Hermes, 1933, 157 ff.), it was true. \Vhen
the first Roman envoys went to Carthage from Spain in 220/19
{15. 12) they found the Carthaginian Senate in anti-Bardne hands
and ready to disavow Hannibal. Reassured, they therefore took no
steps to save Saguntum. But Hannibal's success in the siege strengthened his position {17. 7), and the Senate refused to disavow him.
This version, says Gelzer, helps to explain how Rome seemed to
have let down an allied state, Saguntum. The thesis is unconvincing.
As Arnold (Oorzaak, 28) points out, Punic disavowal of Hannibal
in 22ojrg could make no clifference to the Roman obligation to succour
Saguntum; and it implies great clishonesty in P., if he hoped to
refute Fabius' account of Hannibal's independent action by pointing
to Punic support of Hannibal throughout the war, when (on Gelzer's
theory) Fabius had recorded a change in the attitude of the Carthaginian Senate towards him between the two Roman embassies. The
accusation of dishonesty is specifically made by P. Schnabel (Klio,
1926, ns~16), who here anticipated Gelzer. P., he supposes, deliberately suppressed the peaceable answer of the Carthaginian Senate
because it clashed with his general picture. The version that Hannibal
acted independently of the government is not supported by the
annalistic traclition; this emphasizes the factional opposition to
Hannibal (cf. Livy, xxi. 1o-u; App. Hisp. xo; Zon. viii. 21). and
Appian even records the absurd story that he went to war to save
his political supporters at home (Hann. 3), but the general impression
is of a Senate giving him its support. P.'s evidence (r3. 4, ii. 36. 3 n.)
points in the same direction.
Equally unconvincing is Fabius' picture of an ambitious and
310

THE IIANNTBALIC WAR

III. 8. 5

powerloving Hasdrubal. Against it is the fact of the Ebro Frontier

Treaty, sworn at a time when Rome was hard pressed and eager to
prevent an alliance between Carthage and the Gauls (ii. 13. in.). This
treaty was a concession to Carthage; but Hasdrubal's preference for
a concession rather than a war is an argument against Fabius. More~
over, Hasdrubal's actions nowhere reveal a will to war; cf. 12. 4;
Diod. xxv. rr. r, on ltuiipov{las ILafJ6w 1Tpa1CrtKWTipa11 o?iaa11 rijs {lias
T~l1lmflKrtal1, 1Tp0EKpi.V ~11 r:lp~V1]11TOV1TO/..fLOl.!; Livy, XXi. 2. 5 (quoted,
ii. 36. 2 n.). His pacific nature is firmly rooted in the tradition. In
short, Fabius' version must be rejected.
A more likely explanation of why he adopted it may be that it
is to be connected with the agitation which led to Hannibal's expulsion from Carthage in 195 (Livy, xxxiii. 49 6). In this the antiBarcine party was prominent; and their case for Hannibal's guilt
would be useful propaganda in
where otherwise the Roman
policy towards him in 195 might have been regarded as rancorous.
8. 2. tLEYahTJV avfllhTJcp6TO. T~V SuvO.O'TE(o.v KTA.: 'having obtained a
command of great importance' (or 'of vast extent'). Meyer (Kl.
Schr. ii. 352) assumes Hasdrubal's supposed visit to Africa to have
occurred immediately after he had succeeded Hamilcar, in which
case 8uvauu{a is imperium, 'command' (cf. Taubler, Vorgesch. 68
n. II4) ; and Schweighaeuser translates T~v 3waaT<ial1 a11a/..afLf3avr:w
as adire imperium (Lex. Polyb.). Others, however, including Paton,
Meltzer (ii. 359), and Schweighaeuser in his earlier translation, render
'having acquired a great empire, dominion'. Schweighaeuser's second
thoughts were best. P.'s narrative certainly implies that the incident
came early in Hasdrubal's career. Its truth is not easy to determine.
De Sanctis (iii. 1. 409 n. 55) suggests that P.'s story is a distorted
version of that recorded in Diodorus (xxv. ro. 3), who mentions the
sending of Hasdrubal to Africa by Hamilcar; but Taubler (V orgesch.
71) regards the two incidents as quite distinct, and the one recorded
by P. as an attempt by Hasdrubal to claim the aTpaT'T}yla rfj:; At{3v1}s
formerly held by Hamilcar (i. 72. 3 n.).
3. ;ous 1Tfl<i>Tous 0.v8pa.s: the a~to/..oyot of 7, the anti-Barcine
party of Hanno and his followers.
4. Ta Ko.Ta TTJV 'I~T)pia.v XELpi~Lv Ko.TO. ~v o.ihoG 1Tpoa1pEcnv: in fact
Hannibal. and presumably Hasdrubal too, were accompanied by
Councillors from Carthage (d. ii. 13. in. (b)). On the Councils at
Carthage see i. zr. 6 n.
5. 8la.SEga!LVOV Til KO.Tcl T~V '(~T)pLa.v: in 221; cf. ii. 36. I n.
T~v o.uT~v O.ywy.fJv i\uSpou~i!-: but Hannibal declared war, not Hasdrubal. \Vhat, in Fabius' exposition, occasioned this step? P. does
not inform us. E. Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 352 n. 1) conjectures that
'Hannibal hoped so to extend his power through war as to be able
3II

IIL 8. 5

CAUSES AND PRELIMINARIES OF

to make himself master of Carthage' ; Ta.u bler (V orgesch. 68) thinks

that Hasdrubal was pictured as precipitating the Roman policy
described in ii. 13. 4, and that as Hannibal shared Hasdrubal's
ambition it was immaterial whether war broke out in zz6 or 218.
10. TOG EtcSoGvaL Jl-EV Tiw aXTLov Twv &.SLtcT)f1clTWv: this demand
(cf. 20. 8) followed Roman practice. To omit earlier examples such
as the surrender of Sp. Postumius to the Samnites after the Caudine
Forks disaster (Livy, ix. w. g--ro), in 266 Q. Fabius was handed over
to Apollonia for an outrage on ambassadors (Dio, fg. 42; Zon. viii. 7;
Livy, ep. 15), in 236/5 M. Claudius Clineas was handed over to the
Corsicans for making an unauthorized peace (Val. Max. vi. 3 3;
Zon. viii. r8), in r38 L. Minucius Myrtilus and L. Manlius were handed
over to the Carthaginians for an outrage on ambassadors (Livy,
xxxviii. 42. 7), and in 137 C. Hostilius Mancinus was handed over to
the Iberians after the Senate had refused to ratify his capitulation
(Cic. off. iii. ro9, and many other authorities; cf. Munzer, RE,
'Hostilius (r8)', coL 25n).
T~v EKOLKTJOW 1TOLTJO"O.f1Evous: 'giving satisfaction' to the Romans. So
Schweighaeuser (Lex. Polyb. ~KSlK'I)CJ't>). Paton follows the version in
Schweighaeuser's translation and renders 'accomplish their vengeance'; this is not very likely.
11. evTa.Ka(OEtc' ETTJ O"UVEXWS voAEf1f)aa.vTES: viz. 2I8-2o2 inclusive.
On the full support given to Hannibal from Carthage see Meyer
(Kl. Schr. ii. 353) and Hallward (CAE, viii. JI-J2).
9. 3. 11-~ vpos TTJV EvLypa.~f)v: 'not to the authority of the author's
name'; cf. 4, 17"' a&r6v T6v >.iyoi!Ta. For this sense of myparf>~ cf.
ii. 2. 9, TTJII (myparpT)v "TWII OAWII where the essential feature iS the
inscribing of the victor's name (hence the metaphorical sense of
'credit', i. 31. 4). The Greek title of Fabius' work is unknown (cf.
Peter, HRR, i. lxxvii); but Cicero (de diu. i. 21. 43) speaks of Fabi
Pictoris Graeci annates, and it seems unlikely that the title was such
as to give any sense to the translation of the present phrase 'not to
the title of the book' (Schweighaeuser, LSJ, Paton).
4. ToG o-uvESplou flETEiX TWv 'Pw1-1a.wv: there is no reason to question
this fact (which is consonant with the high regard with which he is
mentioned in i. 14. 2), though it is not otherwise attested.
6. First cause: the wrath of Hamilcar. Against this thesis, which
became the established Roman tradition (Nepos, Ham. r. 4, 4 2;
Livy, xxi. r. s-z. z), is the fact that no hostile move against Rome is
recorded of Hamilcar. Secondly, his neglect of the fleet, which was
insignificant even at the outbreak of the war (cf. 95 z n.), is against
the view that he planned a war against Rome (cf. Ehrenberg,
Karthago, 31) ; though one might argue (with De Sanctis, Problemi,
172-3) that Hamilcar had a war-plan, in which the fleet was to play
1

312

THE HANNIBALIC WAR

III.

IO. l

a very secondary role--for he could hardly foresee how fatal naval

weakness would ultimately prove. Finally, Fabius only put back the
guilt as far as Hasdrubal; in short, the 'wrath of Hamilcar' was a
later invention, designed to establish a long-cherished Barcine plan
of revenge, and no doubt supported, as P. supports it, by the story
of Hannibal's oath. On the historicity and significance of this see II,
with notes. On Hamilcar's peaceful reception of the Roman embassy
of c. 231 see ii. 13. 3 n. In putting the first cause of the war back into
the time of Hamilcar P. may be following the polemical version
developed by Cato (Taubler, Vorgesch. 90), but this is not proved.
7. oux TJTT1)9ds .. TTI .Pvxn: Hamilcar was beaten (i. 62. s~6) but
not personally defeated in the First Punic War. For P.'s interest in
morale see i. 59 6, ii. 30. 7.
' '
"
'
~

~
'J..' WY
.. C.UTOS
, \ 3., v: sChWelg.
O.KEp11LO.
oLC.TETT)pTJKEYC.l
TO.LS
Op!-LC.LS
E'l'
1
haeuser's note is worth transcribing. 'If the reading is sound, there
lS SOme ambiguity aS to (1) Whether Tat<; Opp.af<; Should be taken With
aKlpaw, vlZ. "he had maintained their martial Spirit Unimpaired";
or the words should be construed Tafc; opp.ai:s lcf>' if)v atho,; ~~~ 8ta-r<::T1JP1JKlvat aKlpam T<l O'Tpanm.::Sa, viz. "he had kept his forces unimpaired by the martial spirit with which he was animated" [so
Strachan-Davidson], (2) whether the words lcf>' <liv aVTo<; ~v go with
-rats opp.ais or "vith Ta 7T<::p~ Tov EpvKa O'Tpa-r07Tiia [so Paton]. Whichever of the alternatives is adopted, difficulties arise; ... but if a
version must be adopted, the sense seems to be "for he appeared
to have maintained intact among his forces at Eryx the martial
spirit with which he himself was inspired"' (Lex. Polyb. opp.~).
The naval defeat is that of the Aegates Islands (i. 6o-6r).
8. To 1repi Tous givous KVTJ!-LD.: i. 66-88. On the phrase lp.cf>v>.w,
Tapaxal ( 9) see i. 65. 2 n,
10. 1-6. Second cause: tlte unjust Roman annexation of Sardinia. This
is the greatest cause( 4), since it contributed most towards Hamilcar's will to war. On the incident and its chronology d. i. 88. 8 n.
1. 1rpwTov ets 1rnv avyKa.TE~a.wov: 'first of all they were ready to
negotiate on all points'. So Paton, correctly. Schweighaeuser and
LSJ both take the meaning to be 'they were ready to consent to
anything' (as in xxi. 15. n). But 'consenting to anything' would not
enable the Carthaginians 'to conquer by the justice of their cause'
(vtK~cr.::tv "Tots iiLKalo~s); nor would it differ from 'yielding to circumstances' ( 3, dtaVTf;'> -rfi 1T<::pLaTdaet), which is clearly a pis aller, when
the Romans reject their offer to negotiate. P. is evidently describing
an interview at Carthage, at which the Roman legati announce the
rerum repetitio (a1Tayy.::LMvTwv auTols 1r6>..::p.ov) to the Carthaginians.
They seek to argue the rights and wrongs (ds- miv fTIYJIKaTlf3awov), but
the Romans demand a plain
or 'no' ( J, ovK &rp.::1rop.ivwv) ;
3I3

III.

10. I

CAUSES AND PRELIMINARIES OF

whereupon the Carthaginians accept the terms and so avert the

threatened war. The interview thus parallels that of zr8 (d. 20. 62I. 8, 33 1~4 (d. Taubler, Vorgesch. 23)), except that then the
Carthaginians chose war. For a detailed comparison and fuller discussion see Walbank, CP, 1949, rs-r6.
Ka.M'IT'Ep Ev Ta.~s 1Tpo Ta.UTT)S ~u~Ams 'ITEpl TouTwv SdiT)AWKa.!-lev: the
Sardinian affair is discussed in i. 88, but nowhere in ii; hence the
plural can only be explained on the assumption that P. is thinking
of the two preliminary books as comprising a single block. Further,
i. 88 makes no reference to the Carthaginian offer to negotiate; the
immediate reaction to the Roman ultimatum is complete capitulation to the Roman terms {i. 88. 12). For a similar error in crossreferencing see 28. 4 n.
3. O'UVEXWPT)O'O.V o' daolae&v KTA.: cf. i. 88. 12.
5. O''II'OUSO.twv T(I.UTU xpi)anotlo.& 'ITC.pnaKEufi 1Tpos TOV KC.TU 'Pw ....a.lwv
'II'OAE!-Lov: a deduction by P. or his source (not Fabius); cf. 9 6 n.
6. Third cause: Carthagt:nian success in Spain. This also contributes
to the Carthaginian will to war. On the importance of Spanish manpower see ii. 13. 4 n. P.'s limited view of causation, which finds no
place for mutual irritation, or a combination of causes on both sides,
prevents his stressing the equally important fact that the success
of the Barcas in Spain must have increased Roman suspicion.
7. TETEAEUTT)KW\l eTEa& Sk.cn 'll'poTEpov Tijs .ca.Tnpxfis n(JTou: i.e. in
229; d. ii. r. 7 n. Of the 'many proofs' of his complicity in the war
neither P. nor any other source records any besides the story of
Hannibal's oath.

11. 1-12. 6. Hannibal's oath. Despite the suspicions of some scholars

Groag, 2o n. r; Arnold, Oorzaak, 24-25, so), there is no reason
to question the authenticity of this anecdote, which goes back to
a good source, Hannibal's own information to Antiochus. By what
route the story reached P. is uncertain. Meltzer {ii. 399; cf. Bung, 12)
thought it came through the oral traditions of the Scipionic circle;
but this theory rests partly on the view that African us was a member
of the Roman embassy to Antiochus (n. r), a view now discredited
(DeSanctis, iv. r. 131 n. 47; Leuze, Hermes, 1923, 247-68). It is not
impossible that P. had it from one of the Aetolian exiles in Italy, who
had been in touch with Antiochus, such as Nicander of Trichonium
(cf. Walbank, Philip, 279 n. 6); but it must soon have achieved wide
circulation, and is found in the annalistic tradition (d. Livy, xxi.
I, 4, xxxv. 19. 2 ff.; Nepos, Hann. 2. 4; Val. Max. ix. 3 ext. 3; App.
Hann. 3; }fartiaJ, ix. 43 9; Sil. It. i. 8r ff.; Oros. iv. 14 3; Florus,
i. 22. 2; auct. de uir. ill. 42; on the wording cf. II. 7 n.). There seems
no good reason to think that P. had it through Silenus or Sosylus
(so Klotz, Appians Darst-ellungen, 19).
314

THE HANNIBALIC WAR

III. 13

Assuming its genuineness, the story tells nothing, however, of

Hamilcar's war plans, but only the indubitable fact that he hated
Rome (Otto, HZ, 145, 1932,493; DeSanctis, Problemi, 172 ff.). Hatred,
or even a resolve to be prepared for further Roman aggression, is
by no means identical with a determination on war; but the story
was so useful a confirmation of the Roman thesis of war-guilt that
the conclusion was bound to be drawn.
11. 1. KMo.1ToAEt-L'118eis TEAos e~exwpl]CYE: in 195 (Livy, xxxiii.
47 7; cf. Holleaux, REA, 1913, 1 ff.). Appian (Syr. 4; cf. Nepos,
Hann. 1 6) dates Hannibal's flight to r, and this is defended by
DeSanctis (iv. 1. usn. 3); but Appian appears to have run together
the events of 1 and 195
e~o.'II'EcrmAo.v 1Tpea~euTcl.s: in r93, in reply to the embassy of Menippus
to Rome in 194/3. The legati were P. Sulpicius, P. Villius, and P.
Aelius (Livy, xxxiv. 59 4-8 (Polybian)); there is a full account of
this embassy, based on P., in Livy, XXXV. rs. I-17. z. On Appian's
inclusion of Scipio Africanus (Syr. 9) cf. n. 1-12. 6 n.; Walbank,
Philip, 192 n. 1.
5. hfl 11ev ~xnv lvvea: cf. xv. 19. 3 The sources are unanimous on
this figure. The year was 237 ; cf. ii. 1. 7 n.
8uovTos 5' aihou T(ii A'': probably to Balsamem (cf. Plaut. Poen.
1027) or Bee'Aad.p:rl'' the highest male deity at Carthage (De Sanctis,
iii. r. 68-D9; Cumont, RE, 'Balsamem', cols. 2839-40). For the
identification see Philo Bybl. (FHG, iii. 565 ff.), fg. z. 5, ToiJTov yap,
,Pr;al, 8tJV Jv&p.t{ov p.ovov oupavofJ KVpwv, Bee'Auap.r;v KaAovvn;s, 0 Jrn~
1Tapa <Potnet KVpws avpavov, ZdJs CE 1Tap' NEM-r;a~. The religious conviction behind Hannibal's oath is stressed by H. V. Canter (CJ,
1928-<), 571).
7. IATJ8E1TOT 'PWj-~QlOlS EUVOtlCJ'EW: cf. App. Hisp. 9 aO"'TE~OS lx8p6s
laetY8a~ 'Pw,;.a.to~s, <Yre J, TfoAtTii.W.v 1Tapl>..8ot; Livy, xxi. I. 4, 'cum
primum posset hostem fore populo Romano'. The negative, and more
forceful, phrasing occurs in Livy (xxxv. 19. 3), taken directly from
P., 'me . iureiurando adegit numquarn amicum fore populi
H.omani'. De Sanctis (iii. 2. 202-3) attributes the positive formulation
to Caelius Antipater; and he, Arnold suggests (Oorzaak, 25), had it
from Silenus. But this is very speculative.

13-30. The dpxal of the war. P. here gives the immediate events
leading up to it, and reverts towards the end to the question of
responsibility (z8. s). His account is punctuated by three digressions:
(a) on the Second Illyrian War (16. 1-7, 18. 1-19. 13);
(b) on the treaties between Rome and Carthage (21. 9-28. 5);
(c) on the merits of universal history (31-32).

Ill. 13.

CA l:SES AND PRELIMINARIES OF

13. 1. Ka.M.vt:p ~v6.vw vpot:ivov: 10. 3-4.

2. Td 'II'AEt<YTa. Ka.T' 'I~Ttpla.v ucj>' a.UTOUS volt;CTa.~a.L: exaggeration, to
support the Roman thesis of Punic aggression. Diodorus (xxv. 12)
has a similar account. After avenging Hamilcar's death on the
Orissi {cf. ii. I. 7-8 n.), Hasdrubal took twelve of their cities, Ka~
1rd.aas T<Zs' m:S,\.,-,,. 'l{37]piac;; he then married the daughter of an Iberian
king, and was recognized by all the Iberians as crTpaT1'Jy6S' aVToKpd.T<.up. Schulten, who accepts a modified version of this account,
suggests (CAH, vii. 788) that Hasdrubal extended Carthaginian
power as far as the upper Anas (Guadiana). However, the terms of
the Ebro agreement (ii. IJ. 7 n.) hardly support his assumption that
Hasdrubal already controlled the coastal tribes as far north as the
Ebro; and it seems more likely that his conquests were bounded by
the basin of the Sucro (modern Jucar), which may have formed the
southern frontier of Saguntine territory (cf. De Sanctis, iii. I. 41o).
The Ebro treaty suggests, on the other hand, that Hemeroscopium,
Alonis, and Acra Leuce (Alicante) (Schulten, ibid.), all .Massiliote
colonies, had already fallen under Carthage, and that Rome envisaged her advance to the Ebro as inevitable. The northern and
western parts of the peninsula were never part of the Carthaginian
empire.
4. 1-u~ yvw1-1n a<upta.v ivo{TtCTav T~v . a'lpECTLV: the emphasis on the
unanimous vote represents polemic against Fabius' view that Hannibal did not have his government's full support (8. 6). Zonaras (viii.
2I) and Nepos (Hann. 3 r) both mention the election by the army
and ratification at home.
13. 5-14. 8. Hannibal's campaigns in Spain (221/o). P.'s circumstantial account of these campaigns is from a detailed source in close
touch with Hannibal, perhaps Silenus of Caleacte (FGH, I75; Jacoby
in vol. ii D, 6oo ff.; Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 405). Livy (xxi. 5 3-17) has
an account with verbal similarities, but some divergencies and occasionally fuller details. Some scholars have argued that Livy here
draws directly or indirectly on P., and that the elaboration in his
version is rhetorical, and without any historical basis (Soltau, 63;
Meltzer, ii. 6o2; De Sanctis, iii. I. 416 n. 70; Hesselbarth, n7) ; but
it seems more probable that the similarities are due to a common
source, to which Livy goes back through Coelius Antipater (cf.
Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 401--{); Taubler, Vorgesch. 92; Kahrstedt, iii.
36o f.; Thiel, 96 n. 178; Klotz, Livius, III ff., 123-4; Bung, 24-25
n. 3). This hypothesis implies a fairly close dependence on his soruce
by P.; but in straightforward military narrative this is in no way
surprising. On Hannibal's object in these campaigns see 14. Ion.
13. 5. TO Twv 'O?ucaowv 9vos: Livy (xxi. 5 3) places them 'ultra
Hiberum ... in parte magis quam in dicione Carthaginiensium', with
a glance at his account of the Ebro Treaty (2. 7) 'ut finis utriusque
Jl6

THE

HAN~IBALIC

WAR

III.

14. 2

imperii esset amnis Hiberus'. The Olcades are mentioned elsewhere

only in 33 9 (among troops sent to Africa) ; probably they lived
about the upper waters of the Anas (Guadiana), in what is now La
Mancha.
!6.Aea.[av: MSS. i1.\8{av, but the correct form is given in Suidas and
Steph. Byz. J4).8a[a, 1ToAt> '0>,Kci8wv. o[ 8J '0.\KciOE> l8vo<; 'I{Jryplas,
1TA7Jat6xwpot Kapx7]86vo<;, ~v lKci>.ovv Ka~ Kaw~v m)>.w, a notice clearly
derived from this passage. Livy (xxi. 5 4) calls the town Cartala,
adding that it was urbs opulenta, which Hannibal expugnat diripitque.
The site is unknown.
14. 1. v.iAw DPJ.LTJUO.S evt TOUS Olla.KKO.lOUS: 'he set out again and
attacked the Vaccaei' (not 'he made a fresh attack on the Vaccaei'
(Paton); they had not been attacked before). The date is 220 (n!l ...
mywofLEVcp 8lpn; Livy, xxi. 5 5, uere primo). The Vaccaei are to be
sought on the middle waters of the Douro, around the borders of
Leon and Old Castile.
'EAJ.LavnKl]v: Livy, xxi. 5 6, Hermandica. Details ofits capture from
a different, but good, source (perhaps Sosylus of Lacedaemon (FGH,
176; below, 20. 5) ; Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 405) are preserved in Plutarch
(Mor. 248 E f. = Polyaen. vii. 48). Plutarch calls the town.Ea>.fLanK~,
Polyaenus .Ea>.fLarl<;; it is clearly the Salmatice of the It. Ant. (434
4). modern Salamanca. See Schulten, RE, 'Salmantica', col. 1985.
!6.p~ouKUATJV: Livy, xxi. 5 6, Arbocala; Ptol. Geog. ii. 6. 49, :4.\{:ioKEAa;
It. Ant. 434 7, Albocela. This will be the mining town of Albocola
near Salamanca (GIL, ii. 88o, 2598), modern Toro on the Douro,
a little east of Zamora near the border between Leon and Old Castile
(Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 403; Schulten, CAH, vii. 789).
Hannibal's route. He evidently crossed the slopes of the Sierra
Morena by what is now the Peiiarroya pass, and followed the direction of the later Roman road Emerita (Merida)-Salmatice (Salamanca) (It. Ant. 433 f.), since it was only on the return march that
he ran up against the Carpetani. This led him over the southern part
of the Guadarrama, via the sites of Segovia and Madrid, and subsequently over the Valdepeiias pass into Andalusia; and the battle
on the Tagus was probably fought not far from Toledo (Meyer, ibid.;
Schulten, ibid.). 'If this was his route, he discovered the two best
north-and-south roads across the heart of the peninsula', Cary,
Geographical Background, 241.
2. uuv8pa.J.LOVTWV Twv Kap'IT'Ju(wv: Livy, xxi. 5 8, Carpetani (cf.
P. x. 7 5). This people inhabited the mountainous regions north of
the Tagus, the modern Sierra di Guadarrama and the head-waters of
the river (Strabo, iii. 139, 141-2, 152). Livy (xxxix. 30. 2) names Toletum (Toledo) as one of their towns. They thus covered the eastern
part of New Castile (not Old Castile, as De Sanctis, iii. I. 416).
31 7

III. 14 4

CAUSES AND PRELIMINARIES OF

4. el jlEV be 1ra.pcmiews ~va.yttaa9lJaa.v ~ha.t<wouveoeLV: cf. Livy,

xxi. 5 II, 'inuicta acies, si aequo dimicaretur campo' (of the Carpetani).
5-8. The battle at the Tagus: cf. Livy, xxi. 5 8-r6. Here discrepancies
between P. and Livy are most marked (cf. IJ. 5-14. 8 n.). In both
accounts Hannibal is on his way back, and so marching south ( 2,
bravaywv; Livy, 8, regressum ex Vaccaeis), when he finds the Car~
petani and neighbouring tribes preparing to attack him ( 2, crw~
apap.l!VTWV br' mhov). Here the accounts diverge. According to P.
Hannibal 'turned round and retired' (~ {nrocrrpocpfjs d.vaxwp~cravros),
so putting the Tagus in front of him (cf. ii. 66. 1). Evidently he was
already south of the Tagus, learnt that the enemy were close on his
heels, and, instead of risking their overtaking him in land not of his
own choosing, wheeled round and returned to meet them at the river.
(Similarly, at Clusium (ii. 25. 3), the Gauls heard that the Romans
Were close behind them and SO g lnTOC1Tpo~fjS a71'~VT(JJV.) clvaxwpErv
does not here imply retiring from the enemy, but retracing one's
steps. Later, Hannibal goes back ( 8, roif{Lrra'Av) across the Tagus in
pursuit of the enemy, that is from the south to the north bank.
This account Livy or his source has apparently misunderstood;
hence his version, though more detailed, is inconsistent with that
of P. In Livy the Carpetani attack the Carthaginians while they are
apparently still north of the Tagus. Hannibal declines battle, pitches
a camp on the bank, and then takes advantage of the night to cross
by the ford. Once across he builds a protective uallum, in such a way
as to give the enemy a place to cross ('ualloque ita praeducto (so
Walters; l\1SS. producto} ut locum ad transgrediendum hostes
haberent', 9). The enemy are then attacked and defeated while
crossing the river (from north to south). There is no reference to this
uallum in P., and its function is not altogether clear. The possibility
is not to be ruled out that it is due to a misunderstanding (by
Coelius ?) of the phrase in P. (and perhaps taken by him from
Silenus), rrpo{3A7jf.La rrm"'crawf.vou. Alternatively, Livy's source has given
details which P.'s abbreviated version omits. The existence of a
common source is consistent with considerable variations in two
selective acc01mts, though a complete reconciliation of P. and Livy
is here impossible (pace Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 403 n. 1).
5. 1Tpa.yjla.TLKWS Ka.t vouvxws: \vi.sely and skilfully', because by retracing his steps Hannibal was able to meet the enemy at a point of
his own choosing.
6-7. TWV &T[piwv 01ro TWV {1Tm!wv : cf. Livy, 10, 'equitibus
praecepit ut, cum ingressos aquam uiderent, adorirentur impediturn
agrnen; in ripa elephantos-quadraginta au tern erant~disponit'.
8. TOUtJ-1Ta.Aw E1TLOLa.~6.vTEs: cf. Livy, r6, 'Hannibal agmine quadrato arnnem ingressus fugarn ex ripa fecit'; the detail agmine
318

THE HANNIBALIC WAR

III. 15

quadrato may be a point kept by Coelius and omitted by P. or

alternatively Livian elaboration to point the contrast with the undisciplined barbarians.
1TAE(ous 11 SKa. JJ-Upuioa.s: cf. Livy, n, 'Carpetanorum cum adpendicibus ... centum milia fuere'. Livy adds ( 16) that Hannibal
Carpetattos quoque in deditionem accepit, a detail of which P. has no
mention.
9. ouoets ~TL n7w ~VTOS "lj3T)pos 1TOTO.JA-OU: p. reveals his pro-Carthaginian source in the use of this phrase to mean 'south of the
Ebro'; in 76. 6 (from a Roman source) it signifies 'north of the Ebro'
(cf. x. 7 3, 35 3). Livy, q, is more positive, 'et iam omnia trans
Hiberum praeter Saguntinos Carthaginiensium erant'. On the extent
of the Punic empire in Spain after these campaigns see Schulten
(CAH, vii. 791-2).
10. Ta.uTTJS Se Tijs 1ToAews e1TLpaTo a1rexecr6a.L: in ii. 36.4-7 Hannibal's war-policy against Rome is manifest from his taking command:
here he refrains from attacking Saguntum so as to conceal it. In fact,
Hannibal's campaigns in central and north-west Spain represent a
continuation of the policy of consolidating power in Spain already
followed by Hamilcar and Hasdrubal, and favour the view that,
whatever his future plans, Hannibal was not envisaging an immediate
war with Rome (Kromayer, HZ, 103, 1909, 252-3; Groag, 51; Kolbe,
5.-B. Heidelberg, 1933/4, no. 4, 7); P. naturally assumes dissimulation.
According to Livy (xxi. 5 3) the purpose of the campaigns was 'ut
non petisse Saguntinos sed rerum serie finitimis domitis gentibus
iungendoque tractus ad id bellum uideri posset'.
j3ouAOJJ-EVOS JJ-T)OEflLO.V O.cpopfllJV OflOAoyouflEVT)V Souvo.L ToG 1TOAEflOU
'PwJJ-aLOLS: whether true or false, this statement shows that P. re-

garded Saguntum as bound to Rome at the time of Hannibal's

appointment in such a way that to attack her would be to court
war with Rome. On the date of this alliance cf. ii. 13. 7 n. (d).

15. The first Roman embassy on Saguntum. Saguntum was an Iberian

town on the east coast of Spain between New Carthage and the
Ebro, on the site of the modern Murviedro (since 1877 renamed
Sagunto). Tradition connected it with Zacynthus, of which it was
declared to be a colony owing to the similarity of name (cf. Livy,
xxi. 7 2, 'oriundi a Zacyntho insula dicuntur, mixtique etiam ab
Ardea Rutulorum quidam generis'; Strabo, iii. 159; Pliny, Nat. hist.
xvi. 216; App. Hisp. 7); but its Iberian character is clear from the
coin inscriptions which read arse and, on one example, arsesken (or,
less probably, arsesaken) (GIL, ii, Suppl. lxxxiv, p. 967; De Sanctis,
iii. 1, 417 n. 74; Vallejo, xl-lv). Its native name gave rise to the
Roman connexion with Ardea (Livy, loc. cit.). P. describes it (17. 2)
as lying on a spur of the mountains about! mile (7 stades) from the
319

IlL 15

CAUSES AND PRELIMINARIES OF

sea; its remains show that it stood upon a narrow plateau directly
south of the R. Palancia, about I,ooo yards from east to west, and
IIo to 130 yards broad, its west side alone being accessible to a
besieging force. See Schulten, RE, 'Saguntum', cols. 1755~; CAH,
vii. 790; P. Paris, Promenades archiol{)giques en Espagne, ii (Paris,
1921), u7 (on the site); DeSanctis, iii. r. 421-2; A. Chabret, Historia
di Sagunto (Barcelona, 1888), 2 vols. For the commercial relations
between Saguntum and .Massilia, which may have been originally
responsible for causing the Roman alliance, see Schulten, Phil. W och.,
1927, col. 1582.
15. 1. ol of: Za.Ka.v9a.tm O"OVt:XW!> g11'ElJ-11'0V Els TTJV 'PWlJ-TJV: these constant appeals are of uncertain date, but no doubt link up with
conflicts inside Sagnntum between the pro-Roman and pro-Carthaginian parties ( 7). Sagnntum was at this time allied with Rome
(14. 9), perhaps since 231 (ii. 13. 3 n., IJ. 7 n. (d)); but in that case
the pro-Roman elements must, since the Ebro treaty, have felt
uncertain about their position and anxious to reinforce the Senate's
commitments. The Senate, however, had hitherto proved reluctant
to be committed ( 2, 1TAEOJ8il<t> o.?rrwv 1Tapa1<7J~<oo7"<>).
2. TOn 1rpeo-~euTas isa11't\O"Te~Aa.v; apparently in autumn 22o, after
Hannibal's successful campaign of that year ( I, -r~v dJpotav .
rwv Ka.r' 'lf37Jpla.v 1rpayp.crwv}. The annalistic tradition (Livy, xxi.
6. 5, 9 3-u. 2; App. Hisp. II; Zon. viii. 21) records that the siege
had already begun when they arrived, and Hannibal refused them
audience; this version is clearly designed to put Hannibal in the
wrong and to conceal the failure of the Romans to send Saguntum
adequate help (Meltzer, ii. 6o4-5). The names of the legati are given
by Livy (cf. Cic. Phil. v. 27) as P. Valerius Flaccus and Q. Baebius
Tamphilus, which may well be correct.
To us E11'~C1KEI{tolJ-Evovs u1r~p Twv 1rpo0"11'~11'TOVTWV: 'to investigate the
report' (for rd. 'TTpocnri1rrovra, 'what is announced', see 6r. 7, 61. 12,
75 2, cf. IoJ. 1). Such a function does not cover the veiled ultimatum
of 5; and much remains obscure about the Senate's purpose in
sending the embassy. The certainty of the Saguntines that they
were to be attacked is inconsistent with 14. ro; and the sending
of the embassy should perhaps be related to recent Roman interference in party conflicts ( 7). 'After enjoying the benefits of the Ebro
Treaty, Rome began to use Saguntum as a tool to undermine Punic
power south of the river and to loosen the hold of Carthage on
the enviable wealth of Spain' (Hallward, C AH, viii. 28). Now that the
Gallic danger was past, the Senate probably hoped to reassert the
validity of the Saguntine treaty, if indeed it dated to before the
Ebro treaty (cf. ii. 13. 7 n. (d)), and to bully Hannibal into admitting
a check without having to resort to war. To reject the embassy
outright (Hoffmann, Rh. Mus., 1951, 69-73) is unnecessarily radical.
320

THE HANNIBALIC WAR

III.

rs.

3. 'l!'a.p1]v '11'a.pa.xuJL6.awv El~ Ka.~viJv 'II'OAlV: for winter 22ojr9. F.:>r

1rp6crx1J/La 'ornament', cf. Herod. v. 28, Miletus is rijs 'lwvl1J> 1rp6ax1Jp.a.
5. s~EJLO.pTVpOVTO Za.Ka.v9a.lu.!v U'II'Exeaea.~ KTA.; 'the Romans called
upon Hannibal to leave Saguntum alone' (not, with Paton, 'the
Romans protested against his attacking Saguntum' ; the attack had
not yet begun); cf. Livy, xxi. 6. 4, 'ut ab Saguntinis, sociis populi
Romani, abstineret'.
KEi0'9a.~ yup O.lhous ~v Til acjiETep~ 'II'LO'TEo: cf. 30. I' ii. II. s-12 n. The
n(crT'<> relationship is that defined in Latin as 'in fidem populi Romani
se permittere', and involving the act of deditio or unconditional
surrender (cf. xx. 9 ro-rx. 9, xxxvi. 4); such an act could be followed
by ajoedus (cf. 8, Tjj .. crup.p.axlq.) but it seems doubtful whether
in fact the Saguntines had ever been dediticii. The present phrase
gives no grounds for assuming (so Groag, 38, 53-55) that the alliance
was recent and was being announced for the first time to the
Carthaginians.
KQ.~ TCIV "I~TJPO. 'II'OTO.jJ-OV t.t.iJ s,a.~a.VElV KTA.: this clause is a difficulty'
since it is not apparent why any reference to the Ebro treaty should
have been made. Even if Hannibal meant to attack Saguntum, he
v1ras still roo miles south of the R. Ebro. It has been suggested that
the Saguntines had exaggerated Hannibal's military achievements,
and the Romans thought it well to remind him of his obligations,
inherited from Hasdrubal; though admittedly any reference to the
Ebro treaty must have appeared tactless at a time when the Romans
had recently violated its spirit by interfering in Saguntum ( 7).
Taken alone, the reference to the Ebro might be accepted as his~
torically accurate, provocative but not wholly unreasonable (cf.
Gelzer, Hermes, I933 rs8). On the other hand, the linking together
of the Ebro treaty and Saguntum is a mark of the later annalistic
tradition, which saw in the taking of the latter a breach of the
former (ii. 13. 7 n. (c)}. In the light of 30. 3, where the destruction of
Saguntum is characterized as a breach of the Ebro treaty, it seems
at least possible that here, too, P. is assuming that Saguntum lay
to the north of the Ebro (cf. 30. 3 n.). If so, he was evidently fogged
by the confused discussions carried out throughout two generations,
and having accepted the Roman case for Carthaginian responsibility,
was deceived into accepting the connexion between the treaty and
the attack on Saguntum (cf. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 346; De Sanctis,
iii. r. 429-30). It is, of course, unquestionable that elsewhere he is
quite clear on the relative geographical positions of town and river;
cf. 14. 9 35 2, 91 6, 98.6-7, iv. 28. 1.
6. veo~ tJ.Ev wv, 'II'ATJpTJo; 5t 'II'OAEtJ.LKTJS optJ.iJ~: Hannibal was 9 when he
went to Spain in 237 (n. 5 n.), and over 45 in 202 (xv. 19. 3); hence
he was born in 247 and was now 27 years of age (cf. Zon. viii. 21 ; he
was 26 on Hasdrubal's death). Hannibal's martial ardour is mentioned
4SCO

32I

CAUSES AND PRELIMINARIES OF

III. IS. 6

as fitting the man who provoked the war-whether from Fabius or

part of P.'s own elaboration.
7. Roman arbitration: d. 30. 2, where the reference to the Carthaginians as .!yyvs ovTwv . Kat Ta KaTa TI]v 'IfJYJp{av 1}oYJ 7TpaTTovTwv
suggests that this arbitration was quite recent, in 220 (Oertel) or
22I (Hallward, Scullard), rather than 223 or 222 (De Sanctis). It
is not to be confused with the original alliance (as by Kromayer
(HZ, Io3, I909, 257) and Reid (]RS, I9I3, 179-8I), who sees some
confusion lurking in the word .!mTpom], with its double meaning
deditio or 'arbitration'); this was earlier (contrast fLLKpofs EfL7Tpoa8<e:v
XPOJJOLS' with 30. I, 7TAELt:btv :lnaw r}DYJ 7TpoTpov TWJJ KaT' :4)J)J{{Jav
Katpwv). The party struggle must have been between pro-Roman
and pro-Carthaginian factions (Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 36I n. 2 against
Taubler, Vorgesch. 44; Meyer compares the situation in Messana in
264), and the appeal to Rome suggests that the pro-Roman party
got the upper hand.
otl~ ou 1TEptoiJ!eu9aL 1TapeaTTovSTUJ.Evou~: by this answer Hannibal
challenged the Roman claim to represent Saguntum, and forced into
the open the question of the validity of the Romano-Saguntine
alliance. The absence from it of any reference to the injunction not
to cross the Ebro is perhaps confirmation of the view that this clause
has only been introduced into the account of this embassy through
confusion. 'The Romans had the will to peace and Hannibal the will
to war, but the will to war of Hannibal was the will to enjoy the
rights, implicit and explicit, guaranteed by the treaties, the peace
willed by the Romans was a peace which permitted them to disallow those rights' (De Sanctis, Problemi, I 79; cf. Ehrenberg,
Karthago, 32). In short, the Romans provoked the Saguntine affair,
but found to their surprise (2o. I n.) that Hannibal preferred fighting
to yielding ground.
What treaty, if any, the Roman actions inside Saguntum had
violated (7TapEmrovSYJfLlvovs) is obscure. It can hardly be the Saguntine alliance (Ta.ubler, Vorgesch. 45-46). Otto (HZ, I45. I932, 5o8)
thinks it was the treaty of Catulus, which will have prohibited
Roman interference in Punic dominions; and Groag (58 n. 3, 6I)
and Oertel (Rh. Mus., I932, 226 n. 2) the Ebro treaty. But P. is
probably using the word 7Tapaa7Tov8Efv in a general sense, 'to seize
treacherously' ; d. i. 43 2 n. ; Hesselbarth, 86. The Romans had
abused their power in the town, like the Mamertines in Messana;
they had broken, not a treaty, but their faith.
1TaTpLov yap dvm KapxTJSov(o,~ KTA.: this ironical echo of the contemporary Roman propaganda (cf. ii. 8. ro-n, Coruncanius' speech
to Teuta) must come from a Roman source; d. above, ws KYJOofLEvos
ZaKav8a{wv.

8.

1rpo~
322

Se Ko.pxTJSov1ou~ 6tme...-1TETo: P. does not record the Punic

THE HA:\NIBALIC WAR

IlL

I5. I:Z

answer; but, despite annalistic emphasis on the opposition of Hanno

(Livy, xxi. 10 ff.), he was probably authorized to take what steps
seemed necessary (cf. App. Hisp. 1o). Cf. Schnabel, Klio, rg26, us.
nvas TWV uq,' O.UTOOS TO.TTOf1EliWV 0.8LkOUO'L: the Torboletae, according
to Appian (Hisp. Io); Livy (xxi. 6. I, 12. s) makes them Turdetani,
which is impossible (in Livy, xxviii. 39 8 they are Turduli). P. makes
Hannibal connect this dispute with the recent accession to power
of the pro-Roman party in Saguntum (muT.;Vmr.;s rfj 'Pwp.alwv
avp.p.axlq.); both events reflect a more aggressive Roman policy in
Spain.
9. 'ITAYJPTJ'i &..Aoy(o.s ~<:o.t 8uf1ou ~Lalou: the Roman picture, which is
not borne out by Hannibal's actions; it continues the 'wrath of
Hamilcar'. A fairer estimate will take into account that in all his
actions Hannibal was accompanied by representatives of the home
government (20. 8 n., cf. ii. 13. 7 n. (b)).
0.ATJ8LVo.t:s o.tTLaL'i 'ITpoq,aO'EL'i aMyou<;: cf. 6. 3 n. The present
passage fills a gap in P.'s exposition of the preliminaries to the war.
He has already stated the ai.rla (9. 6, Io. 4, Io. 6) and the d.pxat
(6. I 3); here he gives the '11'porf>oms:, the Saguntine interference with
the Torboletae.
10. 'IToa'l? yap ~v Ci.f.LELVov KTA.: on the cession of Sardinia as the
greatest ca.use of the war see 10. I-6; here and in 30. 3-4 P. writes
as if it were the only cause. His didactic, moralizing tone shows little
appreciation of the psychological background to the clash ; cf.
.Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 360), 'die ktihlc, krass rationalistische Denkweise
dieses Historikers, dem fur das psychologische Moment und die im
Hintergrunde des Bewusstseins wirkenden geschichtlichen Faktoren
das Verstandnis fehlt, gewinnt darin drastischen Ausdruck'. On
orm8at 8.;fv, 'demand', see Schulte, 7o.
12. oi. 8 rrpea~os . arr~'ITAEUO'O.V Ets Ka.pxTJSOVo.: P. docs not
describe the interview at Carthage, perhaps because it seemed irrelevant once Hannibal had made clear his will to war, and because
it did not mark an important stage in the development. From 20. 2
it appears that the Carthaginian senate was warned that an attack
on Saguntum would be a casus belli; and this, together with the
stress here on the envoys' certainty that they would have to fight,
creates the picture of a Rome unhesitatingly resolved to defend its
allies. This will have been the picture in Fabius; and Klotz (Livius,
122 ff.; w], I94U, rs6) attributes this chapter to Fabius, rather than
Silenus (cf. I3. s-r4. 8 n.). Bung (26-27) argues, however, that the
reference to the Carthaginian senate is inconsistent with Fabius'
thesis that Hannibal acted independently of the home government
(8. 6), and makes Silenus the foundation of what is in any case a
chapter moulded through and through by P. to suit his own purposes.
Taubler has argued (Vorgesch. 58; cf. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 364 n. 2;
323

III.

Ij. 12

CAUSES OF

Otto, HZ, I4S. I9J2, sog-ro) that P. has recorded the Carthaginian
reply to this embassy as part of the discussion of the reception of
the second embassy of zi8 (zo. 6 ff.), i.e. he thinks that it was in
autumn 220 that the Carthaginians refused to discuss the Ebro
treaty and stressed the treaty of Catulus. This view, however,
assumes inaccuracy in P. of a serious kind, nor is it necessary, since
the role played by the Ebro treaty in the interview of 218 is easily
explicable (21. r n.). See further 8. 1-9. 5 n. for the unconvincing
argument of Gelzer and Schnabel that at the present interview the
Carthaginians agreed to disown Hannibal but later went back on
this decision.
13. ou 1-LYJY l.v ITa>..~ YE 'II'OAE!-LtlCJ'ELY ~A'II'laav I(TA.: the dilatory
Roman policy after Hannibal's attack on Saguntum is hardly reconcilaHe with a firm decision to fight, still less with a decision to fight
in Spain from Saguntum. The real purpose of P.'s remark is to bridge
the gap to the Second Illyrian War, which is here introduced as an
operation to 'close the back door' before a long struggle (cf. r6. 6
rounding off the digression).
16. Causes of the Second lllyrian War. P. motivates this war as
designed to secure the rear before the clash with Carthage, and this
seems likely, even if the Romans were not so convinced of the
inevitability of the Hannibalic War in spring 219 as he suggests
(cf. rs. 12, 2o. I n.). Less convincing is the picture, common to both
P. and the annalists, of an aggressive and reckless Demetrius.
According to the annalistic tradition (cf. Gelzer, Hermes, I9JJ, 147
n. I) the expulsion of Demetrius (App. Ill. 8) was the sequel to an
Adriatic policy which included two Roman expeditions (in 22r and
zzo) to Istria, where Demetrius was said to have intrigued (cf. Zon.
viii. zo; Livy, ep. zo; Eutrop. iii. 7 r; Oros. iv. IJ. I6). This allegation
may well be part of an annalistic apologia for the war against him
(Holleaux, 134 n. r; Badian, BSA, 1952, 84 n. 58), and deserve no
credence. But when Holleaux argues further that because such an
expedition must have deterred Demetrius from his outburst against
Rome in 220, it is therefore apocryphal, he may be drawing the wrong
conclusion (Badian, ibid.); it may well be that Demetrius' actions
were less reckless and less clearly a defiance of Rome than P. would
have us suppose. As Badian (op. cit. 8r ff.) points out, 220/19 was
the very worst time for Demetrius to provoke the Romans. They
were free of the trouble with the Gauls, and not yet involved in
Spain; and Demetrius' ally, Antigonus Doson, had recently died
leaving his kingdom to a boy (ii. 70. 8). On the other hand, Demetrius
was perhaps an lllyrian, a member of a semi-barbarous people, and so
liable to act with what would have been irresponsibility in a Greek or
a Roman (Oost, 22). How far he was bound by Teuta's treaty may
324

THE SECO.ND ILLYRIAN WAR

III. I6 . .z

have been uncertain (16. 3 n.); and the reference ( 3) to his 'sacking
and destroying the Illyrian cities "Tas vTr6 'Pwf.Lalov,; "TaTTofL{vos' may
be strongly coloured by the propaganda of its Roman source. But
Radian (op. cit. 8r ff.) goes too far in his defence of Demetrius (cf.
16. 3 n.). The Romans only crossed over to close the back door
because they feared what stood outside; and Demetrius will hardly
have inspired such an action merely by installing his own supporters
(who 'may well have been the pro-Roman parties' (Badian, op. cit.
85)) in the territory of the Parthini and Atintanes. Both Holleaux
(r38 n. 2) and Gelzer (Hermes, 1933, 147) assume that P.'s source is
Fabius; but if it is (and this view is contested by Bung, 19o-4). it is
evidently contaminated both with information from a Greek source,
and also with some family tradition of the Aemilii, which stresses
the achievements of L. Aemilius Paullus, the grandfather of Scipio
Aemilianus, to the exclusion of his colleague M. Livius Salinator
(r8. 3-19. 6, 19. 12; cf. DeSanctis, iii. 2. 169-70).
2. ICilT' iKf-lvous To us 1ta1pous: a vague synchronism. Any senatorial
decision following the return of the envoys from Carthage cannot be
earlier than winter 220/19; but Demetrius sailed beyond Lissus into
the Cyclades in summer 220 (cf. iv. r6. 6, r6. 11, 19. 7. synchronism
with affairs at Cynactha). The order in which P. describes his actions
might suggest that he attacked the Illyrian towns first, and that is
the communis opnio (cf. Holleaux, 134 n. 4). But the perfect infinitives TrmAe:vKva and 7Turop8TJKI.vat must refer to acts earlier than
those signified by the present infinitives 7ropfJefv and Ka"Tanpbpmf1at
( 3) ; the latter are mentioned first as weighing most with the
Romans and nearest in date to 220/19 (cf. Hultsch, Die erziihlenden
Zeitformen bei Polybios (Leipzig, 1891), i. rsz~3; iii. 87 (quoted by
Holleaux, loc. cit.); Badian, BSA, 1952, 83 n. sz). Consequently the
attack on the Roman protectorate followed the expedition in the
Cyclades described in iv. 16. 6, 19. 7-8; so, correctly, BiittnerWobst, RE, Suppl.-ll. i, 'Demetrios (44 a)', coL 343 It was evidently
in autumn zzo, and led to the capture of Dimale (r6. 3).
Ayt~J-,;Tptov n]v tl>nplov: d. ii. 10. 8, n, 17, for his gains after the First
Illyrian War. By 220 he has acquired control over the whole of the
curtailed kingdom of Teuta, marrying Triteuta, the mother of
Pinnes, Agron's son and heir (Dio, fg. 53); cf. ii. 4 7 n. He may have
gained confidence for an independent policy from seeing the Romans
occupied until 222 with the Gallic tumzlltus; but Roman danger from
Carthage is unlikely to have influenced Demetrius' calculations in
early summer 220, several months before the first Roman embassy
went to Saguntum (15. z). Had he in fact foreseen the Second Punic
War, elementary prudence would have suggested waiting for its
outbreak before challenging Rome. Cf. Ti:iubler, Vorgesch. 13; Holleaux, 133 n. r (underestimating the Celtic danger to Rome).

Ill. r6. 3

CAL:SES OF

3. 1racra.s t>...rr8a.s ev Tfi Ma.t<E8ovwv ohd'i!-: Demetrius' links with

Doson probably go back to c. 225, the time of the Gallic tumultus
(d. Holleaux, IJI-2). Our earliest specific evidence is for Demetrius'
help at Sellasia (ii. 65. 4). The present passage is not evidence that
Demetrius' moves now had the backing of Macedonia, where Philip
had succeeded.
TclS tea..rb. TT]v 'IA.Aup[8a. 'ITOAE~S .. TO.TTop.Eva.s: the phrase lacks precision, for the Illyrian towns were very loosely under the protectorate
of Rome (d. ii. II. s-12 n.; Holleaux,Etudes, iv. JOI n. J). The towns
in question are south of Lissus in the territory of the Parthini, and
may include Dimale {18. r) and the unidentified Eugenium and
Bargullum (Livy, xxix. 12. 13}. Epidamnus is not mentioned, nor is
there reason to suppose that Demetrius seized any other large towns
in the protectorate. Appian's statement (Ill. 8} that he seized all
southern Illyria including Atintania is probably a propagandist
account designed to exaggerate the danger he constituted to Rome
(Holleaux, 135 n. r). That P. also exaggerates is comincingly argued
by Badian (BSA, 1952, 85}; but he goes too far in reducing the facts
behind P.'s account to the mere installation of Demetrius' supporters in the towns (cf. 18. r).
'ITE'ITAEute~vo.L '!To.pb. Tiis cruv&r\Ka.s: for this expedition, during the
first part of which Demetrius was acting with Scerdila'idas (who
contributed 40 lemhi to Demetrius' so) see iv. I6. 6-g, H). 7-9 The
treaty (ii. Iz. 3} which forbade more than hvo Illyrian lemb to sail
south of Lissus had been made with Teuta, not Demetrius, who was
then a Roman ally. As Teuta's successor he probably inherited her
obligations; but Badian (BSA, 1952, 85) argues (a) that Tenta cannot
have spoken for every dynast in her kingdom, (b) that Demetrius,
like Scerdila'idas, sailed with the ships of his private DtJJ'a.arda, not
of the Illyrian kingdom. But the point is a fine one, and hardly
likely to convince the Romans. At the most we can grant that
Demetrius' obligations were perhaps not so clear as our Roman
sources assume.
4. BEwpouvTEs O.vSouacw Tijv MaKEMvwv oit<lo:v: in late autumn of
220 Philip had been on the throne rather over a year, and had already
declared war on Aetolia; Taurion, his officer in the Peloponnese, had
been in touch with Demetrius, who had collaborated in attacking
Aetolia (iv. rg. 7-9}. But the general considerations here referred to
are Doson's success in re-establishing Macedon in southern Greece,
and himself as leader of the Symmachy. Taubler (Vorgesch. 13) argues
that P. has represented Demetrius' hopes (of Macedonian support)
as Roman fears, and that in fact Roman policy in lllyria took no
account of Macedon. This is rather an exaggeration. True, there is
no evidence that Rome was alarmed by Macedon; as Badian ( BS A,
1952, 86) obser.-es, the settlement after the war shows that ~-iacedon
J26

THE SECOND ILLYRIAN WAR

III. 17

was not felt to be the danger, and it is a distortion of the evidence

to suggest (so Kolbe, 5.-B. Heidelberg, 1933/4. no. 4, 29 n. 3) that the
Senate deliberately attacked Demetrius at a moment when Doson
was dead and Philip not firmly on his throne. But Demetrius' presence at Sellasia will have been noted, and was no doubt a subsidiary
reason for suddenly deciding to take strong action when to Roman
eyes the treaty appeared to have been flouted.
5. 6LEijtEua61Jac.v 8' -roi<; XoyLaflo'L~: unlike Hannibal at Saguntum
(17. n). The parallelism is deliberate, and forms part of the apology
for Rome, prevented by this miscalculation from sending help in
time to Saguntum. In fact, the IllyTian War constitutes no justification for the Roman failure to help Saguntum.
6. Kc.T(J 1rO.aa.v 'ITaALc.v: contrast I5 I3.
7. AeuKtov Tbv Alf1LALOv: L. Aemilius M.f. M.n. Paullus, consul A.U.c.
535
219 B.C. together with M. Livius M.f. M.n. Salinator (d. Klebs,
RE, 'Aemilius (n8)', coL 58r (correct M. to L.); Munzer, RE, 'Livius
(Salina tor) (33)', col. 892. As in the former war (ii. II. I), both consuls
were sent to Illyria {Dio, fg. 53; Zon. viii. 20; auct. de uir. ill. so),
Aemilius in charge of the fleet and Livius of the land forces; clearly
the Romans were taking the war seriously. Holleaux (r38 n. 2) rejects
the non-Polybian tradition here; but it is confirmed by Livy (xxii.
35 3, 40. 3, 49 II, xxvii. 34 3, xxix. 37 I3), and there can be little
doubt that P. has suppressed Livius' role either out of consideration
for the familr of his patron, Scipio Aemilianus, or else following a
source which favours Aemilius (d. Bung, I9r~2; cf.
for a
similar explanation of the apparent prejudice in favour of Cn.
Cornelius Scipio Calvus {ii. 34 I n.)). The size of the Roman forces
is not recorded.
KUTa TO 1rpwTov eTos KTA.: in 01. year 140, 1
22o/I9 B.c. P. thus
emphasizes that the Second Illyrian War falls within his history
proper.
17. The fall ofSaguntum. P. clearly follows a pro-Carthaginian source
for his account of the siege, probably Silenus (Kahrstedt, iii. 146 ff.;
Beloch, Hermes, 1915, 357 ff., and especially 362; Gelzer, Hermes,
I9J3, rs6 ff.; Klotz, Livius, l i i ; Bung, 29) More detailed but less
reliable accounts occur in Livy, xxi. 7 4-9 2, u. 3~rs. 2: Diod. xxv.
15; App. Hisp. ro-12; Zon. viii. 2r; of these Uvy and Zonaras (Dio)
are closely related, and even more closely Diodorus and Appian
(De Sanctis, iii. I. 423 n. 83). The military aspect of the siege is discussed by R. Oehler {jahrb., 189r, 421-8), drawing on the siege of
Murviedro (Sagunto) by Marshal Suchet in Sept.-Oct. I8Il; he, like
Meltzer, supplements P. from Livy, where his account seems to fit
the geography of the site.
Chronology. Livy compresses all the events from the opening of
327

III. I7

CAUSES

A~D

PRELIMINARIES OF

the siege to the battle of Trebia into A.u.c. 536

218 B.C. (d. Livy,
xxi. 6. 3. 'consules tunc Romae erant P. Cornelius Scipio et Ti.
Sempronius Longus') and may be neglected. (He recognizes the error
in xxi. IS. 3-6, based on P.) The real dating depends on synchronisms
in P. From I7 I it appears that the siege began in spring 219; and
since it lasted eight months (17. 9) it must have ended in late autumn
or early winter of the same year. This dating is confirmed by iv. 37. 4,
and not contradicted by 20. I; nor need iv. 66. 8 be considered, when
it seems to refer Hannibal's conclusion of the siege to the harvest
season of 2r9, for this synchronism assembles events as widely
separated as Hannibal's return to \\-inter quarters, the arrival of
the news of the fall of Saguntum at Rome, the sending of envoys to
Carthage, and the elections for 2r8. The only difficulty is iv. 28. I,
where events of autumn 220 occurred Ka8' ovs- (Kw.poilt;) )!wl{Jas
i7TOtTo ~" &pp.~v E7Tl T~V ZaKav8alwv 7T6Atv, 'was setting out for
Saguntum'; whence Schnabel (Klio, I926, II3-I5) argues that the
blocl\ade began in autumn 220, and tries to dispose of iv. 37 4 by
drawing a distinction between the blockade and the assault (7ToAtopKla), which is quite unjustifiable. In iv. 28. I P. has been led to make
a false synchronism by his desire to insert the didactic observations
contained in iv. 28. 2-6; and the traditional dating is to be accepted
(Meltzer, ii. 433; Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 365; DeSanctis, iii. I. 420, 431),
though the evidence does not allow the determination of the exact
months of the siege.
2-3. Description of Saguntum. Probably from the same source as
the rest of the chapter (17 n.) ; see rs n. The 'range of hills connecting
Iberia and Celtiberia' is evidently the range of mountains between
New Castile and Aragon, which forms the watershed between the
valleys of the Tagus and Guadiana in the west and the tributaries
of the Ebro in the east, and approaches the coast behind Sagunto.
By Celtiberia P. usually means north-east Spain, and he restricts
Iberia to the coastal area as far as the Straits of Gibraltar (37. Ion.).
But he has no clear conception of the geographical boundaries of the
two regions, and in xxxiv. 9 I2 describes the Baetis and Anas as
taking their rise in Celtiberia; cf. Hubner, RE, 'Celtiberi', col. I886;
A. Schulten, Hermes, 19II, 575-6. The Celtiberi were first clearly
defined in the time of Poseidonius.
2. a:rri!xu ... ti>s E'II'TO. aT6.8m: x3 km., between ! and 1 mile; cf.
Livy, xxi. 7 2, passus mille ferme. By Pliny's time (Nat. hist. iii. zo),
as a result of coastal accretion from the alluvial deposit of the
R. Palancia, Saguntum lay 3 miles from the coast; today Schulten
(RE, 'Saguntum', col. 1756) makes the distance 5 km.
4. evpyos E:yivf:To 1npl ff]v 'II'OALOpteinv: Livy (xxi. 8. 4) gives him
rso,ooo men, an absurd exaggeration (De Sanctis, iii. r. 423 n. 83),
since there was a low limit to the number of troops that could
328

THE HANNIBALIC WAR

Ill. r7. 9

profitably be used outside a small fort only double the size of the
Acropolis at Athens. Hannibal will have employed only a part of his
forces at Saguntum; and Lh'Y (xxi. n. IJ) records a contemporary
expedition against the Oretani and Carpetani which may well be
genuine.
5-7. Hannibal's reasons for taking Saguntum. These, and not the
details of the siege, are what really interest P. (cf. Bung, 29). P.
gives four:
(a) to deprive the Romans of a base for an Iberian campaign;
(b) to cow, by example, those tribes already under Hannibal; and

to make those still independent more willing to submit;

(c) to leave no enemy in the rear, during his march on Italy (the
most important) ;
(d) to raise funds to finance the expedition, reward the soldiers,
and bribe the government at home.
These reasons are probably P.'s own deductions; though the reference to bribing the home government ( 7} suggests a trait taken
from Fabius (cf. Bung, 30). In fact, the town lacked the military
importance P. claims for it, since it was neither a useful harbour
nor yet large enough to act as base for a strong army (d. De Sanctis,
iii. I. 42o). Hannibal's reasons for taking it were mainly political;
either Rome must give way or she must go to war to avenge an
action which fell within the terms of the Ebro treaty (in which case
Hannibal could count on full support at Carthage}. If it was to be
war, Hannibal would fight under the most favourable conditions,
if peace, the empire in Spain could be extended and consolidated
without challenge.
7. '11"poKa.Xcmrl)aL &~ T~v Elivo~a.v TWV bl otK~ Ka.pxTJ&ovU.Uv: cf. II.
For the tradition of the hostile Carthaginian senate, probably from
Fabius, cf. 8. I-<). 5 n. The nucleus of truth in it is the existence of
a strong party, hostile to the Barcas, and representing the rich landowners who feared that the new imperialism might spell tyranny;
whereas the Barcas, like Marius and Caesar at Rome a century and
a half later, relied on the masses; cf. Lh'Y, xxi. 2. 4, 'factionis
Barcinae opibus quae apud milites plebemque plus quam modicae
erant'. Cf. De Sane tis, iii. 1. 406 n. 45 See also vi. 5I. 3--6 n.
Twv imoaTaAfJ<TDflEvwv Xmpilpwv: Ta Mcj>vpa. represent spoil paid
into the treasury (here KnTa.t:rKEVl}, 'miscellaneous property'), in contrast to dJcj>Ow.a, booty distributed to individuals (here the money
that would be raised by the sale of slaves) ( ro).
8. TOLOUTO~~ &ta.Aoytuflot~: the parallelism with the Romans'
calculations {I6. 7) is deliberate.
9. T~Ao~ v bteTw J.l.'l]<rt ElA T-qv 1roAw: it is clear from Li vy (xxi.
j-rs. z), and from the topography, that the Carthaginians made
329

III. I7. 9

THE SECOND ILLYRIAN WAR

their attack from the extreme western angle, the only point where
the town is not impregnable; this was defended by the citadel,
which rose about 100 yards farther to the east, leaving a small causeway at the extreme point. It was towards this point that the Punic
attack was directed (Lhy', xxi. 7 5). Eventually Hannibal offered
what were mild terms, life and liberty to the survivors if they would
settle on a less formidable site; upon their rejection, the town fell
after a desperate resistance. See De Sanctis, iii. r. 422-3.
10. ~eaT.i T-i)v &g[av: 'according to their deserts', not (as Paton)
'according to their rank'; cf. v. 90. S, vi. 6. n.

18. 1. e:ls ~v A~!J.ciAllv: cf. vii. 9 13. Dimale lay behind Dyrrhachium,
probably not on the coast (so Zippel, 56); Holleaux (135 n. r) puts
it in the territory of the Parthini, but the fact that it is mentioned
separately, though in association with them, suggests that it was
outside their land (Badian, BSA, 1952, 86 n. 72); cf. Zippel {56), 'in
der Nachbarschaft dieses Volkes'. It is the Dimallum of Livy,
xxix. rz. 3 rz. IJ.
Twv Aomwv 1ToAewv: not of course the Greek coastal towns, but the
townships of the Parthini such as Bargullum and Eugenium (Livy,
xxix. 12. 1,3), if these were not already captured (r6. 3). (For P.'s
loose use of the word .,.oAts see Poseidonius' criticism recorded xxv. I
( = Strabo, iii. r6.)), mv> .,.vpyovs KaAovwra 11oAELs; and Livy (xliii.
2.3. 6), following P., mentions Parthinorum ... urbes.) These townships in which Demetrius now installed his party by a cmtp d'etat
were evidently not within his direct control, otherwise his supporters
would have been already in power; this action is the culmination of
a policy of political infiltration (Badian, BSA, 195:2,86 n. 73).
8. T-i)v m)Aw: the city of Pharos, on the site of modern Starigrad
(Civitavecchia), in a fertile plain at the head of a long gulf to the
north-west of the island ; the identity is confirmed by inscriptions.
R. L. Beaumont has argued that this site cannot be reconciled with
P.'s account (]HS, 19.36, r88 n. zoo); and E. Polaschek (RE, 'Pharos
(z)', col. r862) thinks that P.'s 1TOALS' suits the site of modern Hvar
better than Starigrad, where there is no >..6cpos ~pup.v6s between town
and harbour. Excavation may one day help to solve this problem;
certainly P. was aware of only one mSAts-, and that Pharos (r9. 12).
The attack on Issa recorded by Dio (fg. 5.3) may be rejected as a
doublet from the liberation of Issa in the First Illyrian War (cf.
ii. II. 12).
19. 5. ftvT~1Tecrav Tais am:(pats: 'fell upon their formations'. Paton,
following Shuckburgh, translates 'formed their ranks and delivered ... a charge'; and this was Schweighaeuser's original interpretation. But in the note ad Joe., and in the Oxford edition, he
330

THE SECOND ILLYRIAN WAR

IlL

20. I

rendered 'in eorum manipulos irruunt'. Since the formation Ka'Ta

!I'1T'dpa<; is typically Illyrian (cf. ii. 3 2 n.) and dVTe'mo-o-av calls for an
object, this later view seems preferable.
8. Stt:Koj-l(o-911 "rrapaSO~ws "rrpos Tov ~a<nAEa: cf. iv. 66. 4 His escape,
not his flight to Philip, was surprising.
9-11. Demetrius' character and death: cf. v. rz. 5 ff., vii. 14, ix. 23. 9,
for adverse comments, not unconnected \"ith Demetrius' attempt
to persuade Philip to dominate the Peloponnese. P.'s account of
Demetrius' attack on Messene is lost, but a confused version in
Pausanias (iv. zq. 1 s. 32. 2), which identifies Demetrius with Philip's
son of that name, makes Demetrius land in the Argolid, and march
across country to make his coup. The date was probably before
Philip's second attack on Messene (viii. 8. r-:z, 12. r; Plut. A rat.
51. 2) in autumn 214. See Walbank, Philip, 78, 299-300; Roebuck, 83.
Appian (Ill. 8) and Zonaras (viii. 2o) have a worthless account of his
return to IH:vria and death at the hands of the Romans.
12. Ttiv .. 4>apov KaTEaKaljlt:: clearly the city (in P. the island
is masculine; cf. v. ro8. 7). Cf. App. Ill. 8, -r 7Ta-rpl3a ai'n-0 Wapov
o-vvaJ.tap-rovaav JmKa-re'o-Ka{Jav (with a confused order of events). If
it was Pharos which the Romans destroyed (cf. r8. 8 n.), it was
subsequently rebuilt, since it later minted coins as a free city (cf.
DeSanctis, iii. 1. 325 n. rso; Head, 318; Drunsmid, Die Inschrijten
und 1\fiinzen der r;riechischen Stiidte I>a!matiens (Vienna, r898), .39,
47 ff. (nos. 25-so). Moreover, it appears in a clause of the treaty
between Hannibal and Philip in 215 (vii. 9- 13) among the other
cities of the Illyrian protectorate.
TllS 8~ AomTjs 'IA.Aupi&os iyKpaTtlS: clearly exaggerated, for vii. 9 13
mentions no part of upper Illyria except Pharos as dependent on
Rome; cf. Holleaux, 140 n. r; Badian, BSA, 1952, 87 n. 75, 'the
phrase ... probably means that the Romans had the Illyrian king
at their mercy'.
T-f)v ElaoSov E"rro~t1aaTo j-lt:Ta 9pt6.j-1~ou: cf. iv. 66. 8. The time is late
summer 219. Not only Aemilius, but also Livius (r6. 7 n.) triumphed
over the Illyrians (auct. de uir. ill. so. r; cf. Suet. Tib. 3 r). Livius
was later condemned for unequal dhrision of the booty (Frontin.
Strat. iv. r. 45) or peculatus (auct. de uir. ill. so. r); see Mommsen
(Rom. Forsch. ii. 453 f.; St.-R. ii. 321 n. 3; Strafr. 765); and according
to Livy (xxii. 35 3, cf. 40. 3, 49 n) Aemilius Paullus damnatione
collegae prope ambustus euaserat. The consuls took no action against
ScerdilaYdas, though he too had broken the treaty (iv. r6. 6) and
allied himself with Philip (iv. 29. :z; winter 2zo/19). For the praise
of Aemilius ( r3) cf. ro7. 8.

20. 1. "n'JWO'"n'fi,.TWKU(as UIJTOtS ii8TJ TtlS TWV Za~mv9a(wv aAWO'fiWS:

the perfect tense and 1f3"1 relate to the phrase oti ... -ron 3wf5ovAtov
J3I

III.

20. I

CAUSES AND PRELIMINARIES OF

~yov, not to Aemilius' triumph ATJYOVUTJ> . rijs: f:hpelas: (r9. 12), as

Schnabel takes it (Klio, 1926, II4). Ha\ing explained Roman inaction
during the siege by the Illyrian War, P. echoes the Fabian version
that the news of the fall of Saguntum was followed by an immediate
ultimatum. But in fact the embassy cannot have left before rs March
218, and probably left much later ( 6 n.); nor was the Illyrian
expedition a bar to action in 219, though the presence of both consuls
shows that it was rather more than a miserable raid (}1ommsen, RG,
i. 573). The annalistic tradition reveals considerable opposition to the
war both before and after the fall of Saguntum (Livy, xxi. 6. 7, I6. 2;
Dio, fg. 55; Zon. viii. 22, debate between L. Cornelius Lentulus and
Q. Fabius Maximus; cf. Otto, HZ, 145, 1932, 513); for, since DioZonaras accepts the causes of the war which appear in the secondcentury senatorial writers (6. In.), his source is clearly pro-Roman,
and the account of these discussions seems to have been in the early
annalists as well as in the pro-Carthaginian tradition. They may,
therefore, be taken as authentic (Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 348--9, 365).
It has been argued that in omitting them P. is following Fabius, to
whom the argument of his kinsman Fabius Maximus will have
appeared discreditable (Gelzer, Hermes, 1933, r62); but this is by
no means certain, and Taubler has argued (Vorgesch. 89-90) that
F.'s silence followed the version of Cato against both Fabius and the
other annalists. On the whole it seems most likely that the speeches
were in Fabius, though not necessarily in extenso (Bung, 34-35).
~VLOLTwv auyypa.4>E~tw; in view of s, it seems clear that these authors
are Chaereas and Sosylus (d. DeSanctis, iii. r. 424 n. 86; Schwartz,
RE, 'Chaireas (6)', col. 2023; Jacoby, RE, 'Sosylos', cols. r2o4-{i).
The 'speeches made on both sides' suggest writers of the rhetorical
kind, like Timaeus and Phylarchus, and evidently Chaereas and
Sosylus were such (Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 348). Taubler (Vorgesch.
84-85) suggests that Sosylus learnt of this debate from the Roman
historian, L. Cincius Alimentus, whom Hannibal took prisoner in
208 (Livy, xxi. 38. 3). There is no reason to suppose that Chaereas
and Sosylus were F.'s sources only for the anecdote of the boys
( 3) (so Laqueur, 75); nor is it probable that P. was here attacking
Fabius (Meltzer, ii. 597; Klotz, La nouvelle Clio, 1953, 239). See
further, 3 n.
2. tn"'lYYEA~elha.~ TrOAE!Lov: d. IS 12 for this embassy, which went on
to Carthage from Saguntum in 220/19. If the demarche there took
the same form as in Spain, P.
its positive character; it
was a veiled ultimatum which by no means committed the Romans
to war (cf. 15. 2 n.).
3. Tijv aTuyvoTTJTO. . . 1Tapta6.youat 8a.u116.atov: 'they present a
wonderful picture of the gloomy aspect of the Senate' (Paton) ; on
this sense of uTuyv67rJs- see Strachan-Davidson ad loc. E. Harrison

332

THE HANNIBALIC WAR

CCR, I924, 54) recalls Reiske's 'palmary emendation',

III.

20.

aT~:yvoT1)Ta,

'costiveness', and so 'secretiveness'. But this misses P.'s point. He

is criticizing the authenticity of the sensational picture drawn by
the Greek historians of the sitting of the Roman Senate by contrasting it with their own anecdote of the boys who refuse to divulge
a word-which is proof of the secrecy surrounding their debates;
hence either the account of the sitting, or the anecdote, or both, are
false. TTapt;.tad.ynv is often used by P. of the material introduced by
sensational and 'tragic' historians into their work; cf. 4i i (picture
of Hannibal), v. 2. 6 (sons of Aeacus introduced into a poem by
Hesiod), vi. 56. 8 (introduction of superstition into Roman life). See
CQ, I945 Ion. I.
To us u[ouc; liyc;w de; To cruvHip~ov: Cato told the same story
'in oratione qua usus est ad milites contra Galbam' (Gell. i. 23. I ; cf.
Macrob. Sat. i. 6. I9 ff.), but implied that the custom ceased during
the Samnite Wars (if the boy in his story is the L. Papirius Praetextatus who was censor in A.U.c. 482
272 B.c.; cf. Munzer, RE,
'Papirius (72)', cols. I073-4). But it is not to be supposed that P. is
indulging in polemic against Cato ('in such terms', De Sanctis, iii.
1. 424 n. 86), as was suggested by Hirschfeld (Kl. Schr. 755 ff.) and
Arnold (Oorzaak, 2I), though he may be hitting at others besides
the Greeks; for example, Adlius and Postumius Albinus (Jacoby,
FGH, ii D, p. 6os) or Cincius Alimentus (Taubler, Vorgesch. 86).
5. Xa.~pea.s tca.t IwcruXos: cf. i. 3 2 n.; Jacoby on FGH, q6 (Sosylus)
and I77 (Chaereas); RE articles quoted In. On Sosylus see also
Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 370-5. Sosylus of Lacedaemon, together with
Silenus of Caleacte, accompanied Hannibal quamdiu fortuna passa
est, and taught him Greek (Nepos, Hamz. IJ. 3); according to Diodorus (xxvi. 4) he wrote Trt TTEpt :4vvt{5av in seven books. A Wiirzburg
papyrus {FGH, q6 F I) contains part of an account of a naval
battle at the Ebro mouth (95--99 n.) by Sosylus, which puts him in
a much better light than P. here would suggest. Of Chaereas nothing
further is known. In dismissing these historians' work as 'the common
gossip of the barber's shop' (for the KovpEtov as a centre for lounging
cf. Aristoph. Plut. 33i-8, KalTot .\6yo> y' 7lv vTj Tov 'HpaKAla TTDAV> I TTl
Tofat KovptdotO't T<LW Ka0'1)p.lvwv; Av. I44I ; Theopompus, FGH, us F
283 b) P. is excessively harsh towards Sosylus and so, possibly, to
Chaereas.
6. 1ra.pa.xpi](La. 1TpEcr~EuTnc; . t~a.m\crTE~Aa.v: their names were M.
Fabius, M. Livius, L. Aemilius, C. Licinius, and Q. Baebius (Livy (xxi.
18. I) gives Q. Fabius, but the correct form is in Dio, fg. 55 Io and
Zon. viii. 22; for discussion see Scullard, Pol. 274). Of these, M. Livius
and L. Aemilius Paullus were the consuls of 2I9, and cannot therefore
have left Rome before their office expired on 15 March 218. It is not
known in what month news of the fall of Saguntum reached Rome;
333

III.

20.

CAl:SES AND PRELIMJ:"ARIES OF

but P. seems dearly to exaggerate the speed of the response (d.

66. g). Pointing to the fact that the consuls did not leave for their
prouinciae until late August (41. 2 n.), W. Hoffmann (Rh. Mus., 1951,
7i ff.) suggests with some plausibility that this embassy was not
sent to Carthage until news reached Rome of Hannibal's crossing
of the Ebro, i.e. in early June. In 40. z P. makes the return of the
embassy precede the arrival of this news; but if opposition to a
declaration of war, and prolonged discussion ( r n.) delayed a
decision until the fresh news of the crossing of the Ebro made
Hannibal's aggressive intentions manifest, we have an adequate
reason why the embassy at Carthage invoked the Ebro treaty (see
further, 2r. 1 n.). Later the emotional value of a cause based on
succouring a \'lronged ally is enough to explain how Saguntum was
thrust into the centre of the picture, and the awkward delays of
219 and spring n8 obscured by tampering with the chronology. P.'s
account of this embassy certainly comes from a Roman source; but
P. has suppressed the opposition to Hannibal in accordance with
the view expressed in 8. II (cf. DeSanctis, iii. 2. 170).
The juridical position of this embassy has not always been understood. Ed. Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 366 n. z, 367) declares that it 'did not
actually declare war, but up to the last presented an alternative',
and he dates the putting of the war-motion to the Comitia after its
return. This view is contradicted by Livy's reliable account (Livy,
xxi. IJ. 4). In fact at this time and throughout the second century
the war-motion went through the Comitia in a conditional form;
senatorial legati were then sent on a mission which combined the
older rerum repetitio and the formal imiictio betli. This is explicit
in Livy, xlii. 30. ro-rr (war with Perseus); but it was true at the time
of the annexation of Sardinia (i. 88. 8 n., iii. ro. In.), and it was true
now, as the form of the ultimatum shows (33 2, tvTaiJIJa Kal Tov
7ToAt=fWV auTOtr; ;rPTJ 11:al TiJv t=lp~v-qv t/;ip.=w). From the time of the
envoy's last words the two states were at war. The precedent of 238
{cf. i. 88. 8 n.) disposes of the suggestion of Taubler (Vorgesch. 79)
that the procedure of 218 was a compromise between the views of
L. Cornelius Lentulus, who wanted war, and Q. Fabius Maximus,
who still hoped to negotiate. )1eyer (loc. cit.) is probably right in
placing the war-motion after the arrival of news of the Ebro crossing;
but this motion preceded the sending of the embassy to Carthage.
See further, ]RS, 1937, 192-7; 1941, 87-91.
8. "TOU'i fle-T' GU"TOU auveSpous: probably representatives of the Punic
government, cf. vii. 9 I, y.=povaw.a"Tal (ignored by J. S. Reid (]RS,
I9IJ, rSs), who takes auvt=Opot to be simply Hannibal's associates, in
particular his brothers). Meltzer (ii. 7o) compares the attendance of
the ephors on the Spartan kings when they were campaigning. The
Roman demand thus implied that the Carthaginian Senate must

THE HANNIBALIC WAR

Ill.

2I. 2

disown not only Hannibal but its own representatives too, On the
Carthaginian Senate, or Council, sec i. 21. 6 n.
21. 1. Tac; ,.poe; ~a5poo~a.v of1oAoyo.s- ,.a.pealC:lTrwv: 'they declined to discuss the agreement with Hasdrubal on the grounds,
etc.', literally 'they were for passing over it undiscussed' (cf. iv.
15. ro, c"'T~yyEAAov, 'they \Vere for declaring war', ... E"'Towvv, 'they
were for offering a separate peace'). For this common use of the
imperfect (e.g. v. 67. 4, lvo!Lt~E) see Hesselbarth (87). Such must be
the meaning, since the Carthaginians justify their 'silence' on the
subject-which they cannot do without breaking it. (Bung (37)
thinks the justification is P.'s addition; but this would be extremely
clumsy writing.) The alternative reasons (w> oiJn YEYEV7]!Lvas, d Te
YEYOF<WtV, ouDEV oiJaas 7TpO!: O.lhov>) are not exclusive, but represent
the alternative pleas common to legal contexts. The Carthaginian
refusal to discuss the Ebro treaty implies that the Romans had
brought it into discussion; and this is best explained on Hoffmann's
assumption (Rh. Mus., 1951, 85) that when the embassy left Rome,
news had already arrived of Hannibal's crossing of the Ebro. It is
less easy to understand why the Romans raised it (and actually
demanded the surrender of Hannibal) if the breach of the Ebro
treaty was merely judged to be imminent (so Scullard, Rh. Mus.,
1952, nz). The later Roman version, which pushed Saguntum into
the centre of the picture, and eliminated the Roman delay in acting,
solved its difficulties by assuming that the attack on Saguntum was
itself a breach of the Ebro treaty (cf. ii. 13. 7 n. (e)); but this confusion was of later origin (zg. r). Many scholars have assumed that
the Ebro treaty was not mentioned at all, as being irrelevant; but
in that case the Carthaginians could not have explained their silence.
(See Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 346 ff.; Hallward, C AH, viii. 29; Gelzer,
Hermes, r933, 16o.) On the hypothesis accepted above, the Carthaginians refused to discuss it because it had in fact been broken by
Hannibal's crossing of the Ebro. For other views see Otto, HZ, 145,
1932, 509 (d. Hesselbarth, 89; Drachmann, 14 f.; Schnabel, Klio,
1926, u6; Taeger, Phil. Woch., 1930, 353 ff.), viz. that the Carthaginians refused to discuss the Ebro treaty because it was an unwelcome limitation on their empire in Spain; Oertel, Rh. Mw;., 1932,
226-7, viz. that it was excluded from the discussion as too vague
in its terms. For the view that the answers of the Carthaginians recorded here were really delivered a year earlier in nofrg see 15. IZ n.
ws- ouTE YEYWTJJlGva.') KTA.: the treaty 'vas probably never ratified
at Carthage; cf. ii. r3. 7 n. (b).
2. expwvTo S' E~ auTiilv 'Pw1-1a.wv 11'o.pnoely~J.a.T~: 'they followed
in this a precedent of the Romans themselves' (cf. i. zo. rs) ; not (as
Paton) 'they quoted a precedent, etc.' The words J.xpwVTO 3' ...
yvdJ!L1J~ are a parenthesis inserted by P., which finds its full
335

III.

21. 2

THE TREATIES BETWEEN

explanation in 29. 2 f.;

brlE~ov

S.f ( 3) then takes up the 1.dv of Tcts

( I). On the change made in the

J.'-EV ovv 7rpo<; JiuSpouf3av opo>..oy{a<;

treaty of Catulus cf. i. 63. 1 n.

3. Tas TEAEuTa.(a.s uuvOT)Kns Tas yEvo~va.s ~v TQ 1TEpt ILKEA(a.s
1ToA~: 'the last treaty, which had been made in the war for
Sicily' (not, as Paton, 'the treaty at the end of the war for Sicily').
The treaty of Catulus is the last treaty because
(a) the subsequent agreement about Sardinia (i. 88. 12) was
specifically an annexe (cf. 27. 7, lmcrvv8~Kar;),
(b) the Ebro agreement was never ratified at Carthage and so
remained, strictly, opo>..oylat (cf. ii. IJ. 7 n.). Cf. Taubler, 95 n. 2.

5.

ouK ovTas TOTE 'Pw~a.~wv uu~~axous:

taken up and answered in

29. 4
1TapavEy(vwuKov 1TAEovaKLS Tas uuvOT)Kas: 'they several times
read aloud the terms of the treaty', not (as Paton) 'they read aloud
extracts from the treaty'. The absence of a name from a treaty can
only be demonstrated by reading the whole of it. From this passage
Taubler (Vorgesch. 63 ff.) deduces convincingly that the list of allies
on both sides was appended as an annexe to the treaty.
7. TO.UTT)S 0~ 1TapE0'1TOVOT)~EVT)S: conveniently ambiguous; cf. XV.
1. 7 (Punic admission that they had broken Tcts lt &.pxij> yEvopvar;
avvii~Ka>); q. 3 (Scipio accuses the Carthaginians of enslaving the
Saguntines Trapa Ta> uvv8~Ka>). Which treaty had been violated?
The answer is rendered difficult by the Roman attempt to base their
case on the attack on Saguntum rather than on the sounder ground
of the crossing of the Ebro (d. 20. 6 n.); and as the two pretexts
became increasingly confused in the polemics of the next seventy
years, and falsifications were added (ii. 13. 7 n. (e)), a clear answer
became increasingly hard to give. A similar ambiguity is found in
the use of the same word in Hannibal's mouth in reference to Roman
interference in Saguntum; see IS. 7 n.
9-10. Why P. proposes to survey all the treaties between Rome and
Carthage. Since Mommsen (Rom. Chron. 320 ff.) it has been generally
accepted that the Punic treaties came into prominence about I52
B.c., and were the object of lively discussion in the years before the
Third Punic War (29. In.). P. admits that they had not been known
long (26. 2), and Mommsen suggested that Cato drew attention to
them and was indirectly responsible for P.'s knowledge of them. If
so, they will have been translated and passed about in senatorial
circles, and will have reached P. in this form; that they were included in Cato's Origines is improbable (Taubler, 257). On this hypothesis, P. added the details of the treaties (21. g--28. 5) to his text
about ISO B.C. (d. DeSanctis, iii. 1. 204; below, 28. 4 n.), just before
the publication of a substantial part of his work (I-5 n.), with a

336

ROME AND CARTHAGE

III. 22

view to enlightening a11d influencing politicians of his day, and giving

to a wider public (especially Greeks; cf. von Scala, 289) information
available only to a small group.
9. ots Ka.91}KEL .. ro aa.<jl&>s El8~va.L KTA.: statesmen (elsewhere
1ToAtrwdfL"Vot, 1TpaKrLKo{, 1Tpayftar,Ko[) ; the other category are students
(qnAofLa8ovvrEc;, cf. r. 6). (Strachan-Davidson, ad loc., wrongly takes
the former group to be 'students and \\>Titers of history' and the
latter 'the general public who are at the mercy of the historians'.)
Both statesmen and students benefit from history; cf. uS. 12, vii. 7 8
where q,,>.ofLa8ovVTE> to whom history is XPTf1LfLWUpoc; are distinguished from the casual reader, cpLA~KooL, to whom it is merely ~Stwv;
xi. 19 a. Here the distinction corresponds to the Aristotelian contrast
between the 8wpTJruaSc; and the 1ToAmKoc; {3{oc; (cf. Nic. Eth. i. 5
1095 b 19). In his references to debates P. is probably thinking of
those of the Senate in the critical years before the outbreak of the
Third Punic War; the historians whose ignorance may mislead
students can be exemplified by Philinus (cf. 26).
10. lwc; Eis Touc; Ka.O' ,;...,as Ka.Lpous: in effect, down to 218 B.c. The
treaty after Zama is dealt with in the body of the work.
22-25. The earlier treaties. Their chronology, authenticity of text,
and historical context and significance have all been widely discussed.
Only a bare sketch of the problems and a suggested interpretation
can be given here.
(a) Chronology. P. records three treaties prior to the First Punic
War, and dates the first (P.L: 22. 4-13) to the first year of the
Republic, and the third (P.III: 25. 2-5) to Pyrrhus' crossing over to
Italy; the second (P.II. 24. 3-13) is not dated. Further, Diodorus
mentions two treaties; the first he dates to 347, but puts it under the
consuls for 348 Varr. (Diod. xvi. 69. I, 1rpwrov uw81jKI.:tt JylvoVTo), the
second he makes contemporary with the war with Pyrrhus (Diod.
xxii. 7 5). Livy (vii. 27. 2) records a treaty in 348, and (ix. 43 26)
states that in JOO a joedus was tertia renouatum; and somewhere in
book xiii (ep. 13), under 279/8, he spoke of quarto joedus renouatum.
Further, in ix. 19. 13 he speaks of Rome and Carthage being united,
at the time of Alexander, foederibus uetustis, which suggests something more and something earlier than the treaty of 348; if he here
understands a treaty in 509, it will have been tertio and quarto
renouatum in 3o6 and 279/8. Since the time of Mommsen attempts
have been made to correlate the treaties in P. and in Livy. Mommsen
(Rom. Chron. 320 fi.) wished to reject P.'s date for P.I, and identify
this with the Livian treaty of 348; P.Il was then dated 306 and
equated with that which Livy described as tertio renouatum. Against
this, Nissen (]ahrb., 1867, 321-32) accepted P.'s date for P.l and 348
for P.II, and took Livy's renewal of 3o6 to be the original of P.III
4856

337

III.

22

THE TREATIES BETWEEN

without the conditions of 25. 3-5. Later scholars have in the main followed one or other of these views. P.I is dated to the first year of the
republic by Ed. Meyer, Altheim, Gelzer, Gsell, Strachan-Davidson,
Lenschau, Last, Scullard, Sherwin-\Vhite, Beaumont, Wickert, and
Scevola, and to 348 by DeSanctis, Kornemann, Taubler, Rosenberg,
Kahrstedt, Cary, Hasebroek, Schachermeyr, .Meltzer, Unger, Soltau,
Schur, and von Scala (bibliography below). To the writer P.'s date
seems more likely to be right. For a defence of this view see H. Last,
CAH, vii. 859-62. Attempts to find new and more decisive arguments
by R. L. Beaumont (]RS, 1939, 74-86) and L. \Vickert (Klio, 1938,
349-64) are to some extent contradictory and cannot be adjudged
successful. Detailed criticism is reserved to the commentary.
(b) Text of the treaties. On P.'s probable source cf. 21. 9-10 n. In
a detailed examination of the diplomatic form of the treaties
Taubler (254-76) has shown that P.'s immediate source cannot have
been oral; and he argues that we have the text from a written source
in a fairly complete form. However, it must be remembered that
(i) the originals were in Latin, and in the case of P.I, very old
and difficult Latin. P. or his intermediary had to turn them
into Greek and certain passages may well have been misunderstood;
(ii) some parts P. only claims to summarize (e.g. 25. 2);
(iii) the preliminaries are omitted; thus in 25. 6 ff. the oaths are
retailed separately;
(iv) in three places (23. 3, 23. 4, 24. r6) P.'s commentary implies
something not included in his text.
Consequently P.'s text may not be treated as anything like a verbatim record; yet it is much more than a summary (so Meltzer,
i. 173 f., 520). For example, contrary to his usual practice (cf. Hultsch,
Phil., 1859. 288-319; and works by Benseler, Brief, Blittner-Wobst,
and Schlachter listed in Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (r)', cols. rs71-2),
P. in these documents allows himself hiatus.
(c) Context and significance of the treaties. For the historical background see the detailed commentary. The first two are general
treaties defining a modus vivendi between two states, of which one
was mainly interested in commerce, the other primarily in her
political relationship with Latium. See F. Altheim (Epochen, i. 99roo) for the significance of this distinction for the historical character
of the two states. The third treaty contains a specifically political
agreement relative to a common enemy, Pyrrhus. All three correspond to the relationship existing between the two states at the time
of the compact.
(d) Bibliography. The most important works are listed in C AH,
vii (1928), 914, 6; F. Schachermeyr, Rh. Mus., 1930, 350 n. r; and
338

ROME AND CARTHAGE

III.

22. I

F. Altheim, Epochen, i. 99 n. Ii; add R. L. Beaumont and L. Wickert

(quoted under (a) above); W. Hoffmann, Rom und die griechische
Welt im 4. ]ahrhundert (Phil. Suppl.-B. xxvii. r, 1935), r-r7; T.
Frank, ES, i. 6-8, 35-37; E. Rupprecht, K!io, 1939, ro6--8, Maria
Luisa Scevola, Athen., 1943, r22-4. The treaties are studied from the
point of view of private law by M. David, .)ymbolae . .. van Oven
dedicatae (Lei den, 1946), 231-so.
22. 1-3. Introduction to the first treaty.
1. Ka:ru Af!.uKtov 'louvLOv BpouTOv Kal. Map~<ov 'llpaTtov: the earliest
version of the consuls of the first year of the republic, L. Iunius ;\U.
Brutus and M. Horatius M.f. Fulvillus. Livy (ii. 8. 5) quotes quosdam
ueteres auctores for the vie>v that Horatius was consul suf!ectus after
Brutus' death; and he eventually appears as colleague to F. Valerius
Volusi f. Fublicola, after L. Tarquinius Egeri f. Collatinus had been
banished, Brutus had fallen in battle against the Etruscans, and
Brutus' immediate successor, Sp. Lucretius Tricipitinus, had died
within a few days of his election. Cf. Stuart Jones, CAH, vii. 436;
De Sanctis, i. 407; Broughton, i. r-~.3. All five are usually treated as
legendary; and this has been held against F.'s date since, it is
alleged, such names cannot have figured in a contemporary treaty
and so brand it as late (cL Schur, RE, Suppl.-B. v, 'Iunius (46 a)', col.
364; Taubler, 270 f.). Further, mubler (ibid.) argues that the treaty
is drawn up, following Carthaginian precedent, in the form of an
oath, vithout date or personal names. In reply, Last (CAH, vii.
86r) observes that a note of the responsible Roman officers may very
well have been added to the Roman copy; and he envisages at least
the possibility that both Brutus and Horatius were historical figures.
Munzer too (RE, 'Horatius (r5)', cols. 2401-4) has argued cogently
for the view that Horatius was the man who dedicated the temple
of Iuppiter Capitolinus in 507 (whether as consul or not, he leaves
open); and Cary (JIR, 6263) believes L. Junius Brutus to be an
historical figure. However, to accept P.'s date is not necessarily to
accept the historicity of both Brutus and Horatius. It is possible
that only Horatius' name stood on the treaty, and that F. added
that of Brutus from the traditions of his own time (cf. K. Hanell,
175, 'cine Nonnalisierung, die in der selben "Weise zu beurteilen ist
wie Ciceros Verfahren, wenn er,pro Balbo 53, dasfoedus Cassiamtm
als ictum Sp. Cassio Postumo Cominio consulibus kennzeichnet,
obwohl in der Urkunde selbst nur Sp. Cassius erwalmt war'), or even
that both names were a late addition to a treaty which a wellestablished temple tradition dated to the very year of its dedication.
In the latter case, the names of the consuls would neither support
F.'s date nor count against it; and DeSanctis's objection (ii. 252)
to the appearance of the cognomen Brutus would fall to the ground.
339

III. zz.

THE TREATIES BET\VEEN

u!J>' wv auve~1'1 Ka.lhepwOfrva.t l((l.t TO TOU Atos ~epov TOU Ka.vETwA(ou:

the temple of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus (with luno and Minerva)
lay on the southern summit of the Capitoline. lts foundation is
ascribed almost universally to Tarquinius Priscus (Cic. de re pub.
ii. 36; Livy, i. 38. 7. 55 3; Dion. Hal. iii. 69, iv. 59, 6r; Plut. Pub/. 13;
Tac. Hist. iii. 72), and its dedication to M. Horatius. Livy (ii. 8,
vii. 3) and Plutarch (Publ. 14) agree with P. in ascribing its dedication to the first year of the Republic; but Tacitus (Hist. iii. 72) and
Dionysius (v. 35 3) date it to Horatius' second consulship, A.P.c.
247 = 507 B.c., when Valerius was again his colleague. The discrepancy can be explained from Pliny, who records that Cn. Flavius'
dedicatory inscription on the temple of Concord (304 B.C. or, omitting
the dictator year of 301, 303 B.c.) dated its construction ccii (ccciiii
MS.) annis post Capitolinam dedicatam (xxxiii. 19 f.). Reckoning back
from 303 gives 507 for Horatius' dedication, which was the first year
of the Republic by F.'s reckoning (see next note); but the Varronian
system made 509 the first year, hence the second consulship in 507 to
overcome the discrepancy of two years. This confusion, and the
uncertainty whether Horatius was consul or pontifex (cf. Cic. dom.
139: VaL Max. v. ro. 1; Sen. cons. ad Afarc. 13), suggest that Horatius'
dedication (d. Dion. Hal. v. 35 J, T'?v /3' rl.vdpwatv ... Ka~ T'?v ~7TL
ypa~rJl' tAaf3e Mr5.pKoS 'OpaTws) recorded neither year nor office (d.
Munzer, RE, 'Horatius (15}', col. :z-to4) Brutus is nowhere else named
as a dedicator of the temple; whence Villoison proposed emending
v~ J.w to i/ Jiv, quibus CO'nsulibus. On the later history of the temple,
culminating in the fire of 6 july 83 B.c., see Hiilsen, RE, 'Capitolium
(r)', col. 1532
:ep~ou ~la.fJO.aews . TplaKovTa. ~Teal A.et'ITOIJO'l
8ueiv: though Xerxes crossed the Hellespont in spring 480, i.e. 01.

2. np6Tpa. Tf\s

74, 4, P. speaks of his crossing 'into Greece'; and when, as in Eratosthenes or the Parian Marble, Xerxes' crossing is used to give a date,
01. 75 r, the year of Salamis, always seems to be implied (cf. Dion.
HaL ix. r; Diod. xi. r; Leuze, ]ahrzahlung, I48-9). Hence the first
year of the republic will be equated v.-ith 01. 68, I
soS/7. Mommsen
(Rom. Chron. rz8) attributes this synchronism to Fabius; d. Beloch
(RG, roo) and below, vi. II a 2 n. The Varronian system put the
foundation of Rome in 754/3 and the institution of the republic 244
years later in sro/9.
3. ~vta. !LOAtS eg emaTacrews OlE!Jt<ptve'i:v: 'understand some parts of it
only with difficulty, after considerable application'. This dear statement is one of the strongest arguments for accepting P.'s date for
the first treaty. His description suggests the kind of language found
on the ftbula from Praeneste (CIL, xi\. 4123 manios. med. jhe.
fhaked. uumasioi (fifth century)) or the l1orum inscription (ILS, 4913)
from the sixth or fifth century, rather than anything likely to be
340

ROME AND CARTHAGE

III. n. 5

written in the middle of the fourth century, only four decades before
the publication of the Jasti and legis actiones by Cn. Flavius (cf.
Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 297), or even about 400, the date adopted by
Beloch (RG, 298). P. does not claim to have seen the original documents himself.
4-13. The first treaty. Best set out in clauses by Taubler (254 and
258). The treaty is in two parts, and is cast in negative form:
(r) The Romans
(i) shall not pass the Fair Promontory; and anyone driven
thither by storm shall conform to certain regulations;
(ii) shall trade in Libya and Sardinia only on certain conditions;
(iii) shall be free to trade in the Carthaginian province of Sicily
on the same terms as anyone else.
(z) The Carthaginians
(i) shall do no wrong to certain specified Latin towns subject to
Rome;
(ii) shall not touch any other Latin city; or if they do, they shall
hand it over to Rome;
(iii) shall make any stay in Latium conform to certain rules.
On the general 'shapelessness' of this treaty see Altheim (Epochen,
i. 101). The Punic interests are commercial, the establishing of a mare
clausum and regulation of trade, the Roman political, the recognition
of rights over Latium. On Roman relations with Latium after the
expulsion of the Tarquins see u-12 n., on the extent of Roman
trade, 6 ff. The treaty is probably to be associated with the series
of agreements by which Carthage regulated her trading relations
with the Etruscans (d. Arist. Pol. iii. 9 6-7. 128o a 38 ff.); it would
be agreed by the new republic in order to obtain acknowledgement
of the claim to dominions held under the kings.
4. e1rt .,-o'iaSe ~tMa.v dva.~: probably not a reproduction of the real
introductory phrase, for P. uses this formula in the proposed treaty
at the end of the First Punic War (i. 62. 8), whereas the present
treaty is cast in Carthaginian form.
5. 1-LTJ 1TAELV 'PwfJ-a.(ous . Eli'EKWO. TOU Ka.A.oG aKpWT11PlOU: this
stipulation occasions difficulties.
(a) I dentijication of the Fair Promontory. Three African capes come
in question; they are (from west to east) Cap Blanc (Ras Abiad),
known to the Romans as Promunturium Candidum (Pliny, Nat. hist.
v. 23); Cap Farina (Ras Sidi Ali el Mekki), the Roman Promuuturium
Pulchri (Livy, xxix. 27. 8 ff.); and Cap Bon (Ras Adder), the Roman
Promunturium Mercuri (Livy, ibid.), which P. calls f) fiKpo. -Q 'Epf.Lo.ia
(i. 29. 2, 36. n). Carthage lies in the bay between Cap Fanna and
Cap Bon. In 23 P. explains this passage to mean that Roman ships
341

III.

22.5

THE TREATIES BETWEEN

might not sail south into the Syrtes; thus iniKewa means 'south and
east of'. This, if tme, would involve identifying the Fair Promontory
with Cap Bon, since 'south and east of Cap Farina would exclude
the Romans from Carthage itself; and the second treaty at least,
which contains similar stipulations, clearly envisages the presence
of Romans at Carthage (24. 12; cf. 23. 4). The identification of Cap
Bon with the Fair Promontory was the oldest one (see Schweighaeuser, ad Joe.) and has been recently defended by R. L. Beaumont
(JRS, 1939, 74 ff.). But it is hard to reject the identification of the
Fair Promontory with the Promunturium Pulchri, especially as P.
already has a name for Cap Bon; and most modern scholars (cf.
Meltzer, i. 181, 488) have made this identification and assumed that
P. has misunderstood the treaty; the area from 'vhich the Romans
are excluded lies to the west of Cap Farina, towards Mauretania (cf.
Gsell, i. 457; Strachan- David'Son, 67-70; Scullard, Scip. 187 n. 2; De
Sanctis, iii. :z. 58o-I). For several not very cogent reasons, however,
L. Wickert (Klio, I9,38, 352 ff.) has proposed to seek the Fair Promontory outside Africa, and (following several older scholars) to
identify it with the Cabo de Palos, north of Cartagena; he suggests
that in 509 Rome had wide trading connexions, but that the treaty
(if not common form to all made by Carthage at that time) applied
particularly to "Massilia. However, no evidence points to relations
between Rome and ~Iassilia before the fourth century, nor is it
clear how Rome could commit Massilia; thus Wickert's hypothesis
is unconvincing. The most likely hypothesis is that the Fair Promontory is Cap Farina, and that the Carthaginians were protecting the
thinly scattered settlements along the north coast of Africa.
(b) On the Roman avppaxo see below, II n.
6. 11, ESEO'TW auT~ I-"TJ5EV uyopu~ELV: about the same date Naucratis
in Egypt enforced similar conditions; cf. Herod. ii. 179, el o n>
ls TWV TL a.\,\o a-rop.O:rwv TOU N<E{).ov ani~eoTo, xpfjv op.oaa JL~ fLEv l~e6vra
A8el:v, d.nop.oaavra 3~ rfj ll'fj~ avrfj nAh.Lv is n\ Kavw{3LKOil' ~ el fL~ ')'E
ofa 7' Et7] np6<; avlp.ov<; avr[ovc; 1TAEELV, Td cpop{a ;Sn: nepuiyov lv
{3aptat nepi -rd Ll..\-ra, p.lxpt. ov dn{Kot.ro s NavKpart.v. See Hasebroek,
Trade and Politics in Ancient Greece (London, I93J), 63, ng.

The conditions reflected in this treaty are still those of Rome

under the Tarquins; and the Carthaginian stipulations have been
taken as evidence that Rome was then a trading city of importance.
This is quite wrong. There is some evidence for the development of
domestic manufacture and guilds under Numa (P!ut. Numa, q. 2),
but none for foreign trade on any large scale. The Tiber is not a good
river for navigation; and evidence is still lach:ing for Ostia as a
port before the fourth century, despite the tradition assigning it to
Ancus :Yfartius (cf. vi. I I a 6 n.). Roman trade at this time was more
likely to develop along the salt-route beside the Tiber, and there

J4Z

ROME AND CARTHAGE

III.

22.

may have been some transit traffic between Etruria and Campania.
See Last (CAH, vii. 464--6) against Ed. Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 298},
Beloch (RG, 336), and T. Frank (ES, i. 5). This does not mean that
Rome had no overseas trade. But the probability is that this is but
one of a number of treaties struck by Carthage with the cities of
Etruria, of which Rome may well have been reckoned one (cf. Dion.
Hal. i. 29. 2, T~v 'PwJL7JV mh~v 1roAAoi Twv uvyyparplwv Tvpp7Jv{Sa 1r6Atv
lvat {nr/.Aa{3ov}; see 4-13 n. The stipulations may have been the
same in all these treaties and will reflect general Carthaginian interests and practices. Rome's political claims figure in n-13.
7. (tv 'ITEYT o' ~(.LEP<liS U'ITOTPExhw): see the interesting note in
Schweighaeuser for the early history of this phrase inserted in view
of :23. 3 But this is not the only place where F.'s commentary assumes material not recorded in our text of the treaties; cf. 23. 2,
23. 4 Moreover, in his commentary he seems to have confused some
of the clauses of Treaties I and II; cf. 24. I I with 23. 3, 24. r6 with
2:2. r1. Hence the present correction may be assuming an accuracy
and consistency in P. which is lacking elsewhere in these chapters.
See Wickert, Klio, 1938, 360-1.
8-9. tv A~J3un T] Ev Iapoov~: that the area to which these stipulations
apply is not mentioned till the end of 9 is very awkward, and
Wickert has suggested (Klio, 1938, 364; accepted by Rupprecht,
Klio, 1939. ro8 n. 2} that a clause of general import, on the lines of
24. 8, has been lost at the beginning of 8. However, a certain
angularity is perhaps natural in a document of this age and character. Trade in Libya and Sardinia must be carried out before a
public official, and the state guarantees the sale. This is not unparalleled. 'The rule that contracts are to be valid only if concluded in
the presence of a public officer recurs frequently in primitive commercial law' (Strachan-Davidson, j2}. Cf. Theophr. fr. 9i Iff.
(\Vimmer}, o[ JLEV {J1T6 K~pvt<.o<; t<..oAn!ovm -rrwAd'v t<.a1 1TpOK7JPVTTHV lt<.
1TAHovwv ~JL.opwv o! S 1rap' dpxfi nvi t<.aBa1T~<p t<.ai lltTmt<ds 1rapa
{3aatAi)a< t<.a11TpvTavn; Plut. Mor. 29i F f., giving an example from
the sixth or fifth century at Epidamnus (Beaumont, ]HS, 1936,
r6j). JL7JSv aTw T.!Aos is 'let them have no authority'.
9. OTJ(.LOOl~ 'TI'lOTEL ocf!uXioOw 1'4! U'TI'OOO(.LEV~: the meaning is hardly

that the state underwrites any debts of a defaulting national, a

clause which would be unparalleled in the history of public law, but
rather that it compels a defaulting national to give satisfaction, if
he has the wherewithal to pay. Strachan-Davidson (io-j2) quotes
parallel clauses in Italian treaties; for instance a clause in a treaty
between Bologna and Modena in A.D. n66 reads, 'si quis de nostris
ciuibus ... debitor est ... soluere faciemus si habeat unde soluat,
si uero non habeat unde soluat de Ciuitate et nostro districtu expellemus bonis ablatis et destructis'.
343

III.

22.

THE TREATIES BETWEEN

v Al~un: evidently representing Africa in the original Latin. Here

it must refer primarily to the area around the Bay of Tunis, since
the coast west of Cap Farina was closed to foreign trade( 5 n.), and
the Syrtes coast was so treacherous that it will have seen few foreign
merchants; d. i. 39 z-s; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 581. That 'Africa' is thus
used in a sense limited by the context need cause no difficulties, and
affords Wickert no support for his theory (Klio, 1938, 353-4) that the
'dosed coast' was in Spain.
10. EtS IU<EMav . tis KupxTJ8cwlol thrapxouaw: cf. 23. 5 On the
Punic J.Trapxla in Sicily towards the end of the sixth century see
Hackforth (CAH, iv. 356 ff.). From their base in the north-west
round Motya, Soluntum, and Panormus, the Carthaginians had begun to advance somewhat before 550 under Malchus (Justin. xviii. 7;
on his name see Meltzer, i. 484-5), mainly at the expense of the
Greeks; and about 5ro they defeated and killed the Spartan Dorieus,
who had tried to found a colony at Eryx (Herod. v. 46; Diod. iv.
23. 3; Paus. iii. 16. 4; Dunbabin, 35o-1). But in 480, at Himera, Punic
power received a severe setback at the hands of the Syracusans. For
a possible reference to Carthage in the original treaty at this point
see 23. 4 n.
ta<1 E<TTW Ta 'Pwj.Laiwv 'ITavTa: the Romans shall enjoy commercial
equality with the Carthaginians or anyone else.
11. )\p8Et1TWV T appa.KwlTWv: coastal towns of Latium as far as
a point 6o miles south of Rome. It has been argued that such an
extent of Roman power was impossible in soS. But the treaty
probably reflects conditions under the Tarquins, who dominated the
coastal route south from Rome; and Strachan-Davidson (54 ff.) has
shown that greater difficulties are caused by dating the treaty to
348 than by accepting P.'s own date (d. too Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii.
296-7). The limits to Latium implied here suggest a date before
Antium became Volscian and Tarracina was separated from Latium
(it was Volscian in 406, Livy, iv. 59; Diod. xiv. 16); see SherwinWhite, 16. Elsewhere Tarracina appears only as the later Latin name
for Volscian Anxur; but it may well be old (Altheim, Epochm,
i. roo). A fragment of Cato (HRR, fg. 58) recording a dedication by
Egerius Baebius of Tusculum, which is generally dated about 5oo,
shows Ardea and the populus Laurens as members of an Arician
league, independent of Rome; but the passage may refer to an
earlier period (Sherwin-White, 12). Ardea is at war with Tarquin in
Livy, i. 57-6o; and Circeii was traditionally a colony of Superbus
(Livy, i. 56. 3; d. Dion. Hal. v. 6r), but later, like Tarracina, was
Volscian (Livy, ii. 39; Dion. Hal. viii. 14; Plut.Cor. 28). TheLaurentes
(MS. apvTlvwv: Aape;VTlvwv Hultsch, AavpfVTlvwv Crsinus; their tO'h'Il
was Lavinium) break the geographical order of the to'h'IlS from north
to south; nor do they appear in the list of 24. 16. Hence Rosenberg

344

ROME AND CARTHAGE

III.

2+ I

(Hermes, 1919, r64) suspects the emendation (which is usually accepted); and apEnvwv may perhaps be a corruption of ltpow.T7w or
}1vna<wv written twice by dittography. The absence of any reference to Ostia has no bearing on the date (d. vi. II a 6 n.).
ouoL liv (,~KooL: probably implies an alliance recognizing Rome's
military leadership, based on a series of separate treaties (like that
with Gabii, Dion. Hal. iv. 58. 4), and independent of the relations
between Rome and the Latin League. These ~~Koo' are the crop.p.axo'
of 4; the Latin would be socii. See Sherwin-White, r6~r7; Gelzer,
RE, 'Latium', cols. 951-2; Last, CAH, vii. 405.
12. loav S nvEs fl.ti &mv u1rtJKOOL: probably the cities of the Latin
League of Ferentina (Li>ry, i. so~sr ; Dion. Hal. iii. SI-53); possibly
Rome was a member, and even the predominant member of this
League (d. Livy, i. 52. 4). If so, Roman relations with Latium took
two separate forms, treaties with socii, and predominance inside a
league of nominal equals. See Sherwin-White, loc. cit.

23. l-6. Commentary on the first treaty. P. dearly thinks that the
Romans were not to sail east of the Fair Promontory (22. 5 n.); in
2 Paton's translation 'to sail south of this on its western side'
makes nonsense of his argument. P.'s reference to warships ( 2
p,aKpats vavO'l) finds no parallel in the clauses of the treaty (in 22. 5
Paton has no warrant for inserting the words (p.aKpats va1ml) from
here), and is due to a misunderstanding; the treaty was concerned
with trading vessels, and P. has read later conditions into it.
2. TOU'i KaTa Tijv Buuuanv . T<)nous: cf. xii. I. r for Byssatis, Latin
Byzacium. It was the area from the Gulf of Hammamet to the Gulf
of Gabes (~ ll.'Kpd. E.Jpr,s), with the hinterland. For a list of its cities
see Pliny (Nat. hist. v. 24; cf. Livy, xxxiii. 48), and for its fertility
the passages quoted at i. 82. 6 n.
3. ev nEv9' T)~paLS &.na.AAaTTEu6aL: see 22. 7 n. But an alternative
explanation is that P. added this point erroneously from the second
treaty, 24. 11.
4. Ets Se Ka.px11S6va.: not mentioned in our text of the first treaty;
but in the second (24. 12) it appears beside Sicily. It would be odd
for the Romans to be excluded from Carthage, and a simple solution
would be to assume the omission of some such phrase as Kat Ets
Kapx'f/odva after Emipxova~v in 22. 10. But P.'s other inaccuracies do
not allow one to accept this suggestion with any confidence.
1TQUO.V Tijv E1Tl Ta8E TOU Ka.Aou aKpWT1'\pou Tfjs ALj3V1'\S: cf. 22. 9;
all parts west of Cap Bon (but in fact P. means east of Cap Farina;
cf. 22. 5 n.).
24. 1-2. Introduction to the second treaty. If P.I dates to 509, then
P.II (to which he as..signs no date) is probably identical with Livy's
345

III. 24. I

THE TREATIES BETWEEN

and Diodorus' first treaty (Livy, vii. 27. 2; Diod. xvi. 69. 1), and to
be dated to 348. But if Mommsen is right in dating P.I to 348, P.II
must be thejoedus tertia renouatum of Livy, ix. 43 26 (3o6). However,
there can scarcely have been towns in Latium not subject to Rome
(24. 5) in 3o6 after the Samnite struggle and the Roman conquest
of the coast from Caere to Campania (Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 296); nor
is it likely that a treaty made in 306 would have contained no stipulations about the protection of Etruria and Campania, closely related
to Rome since 343 and 310 (Lake Vadimo) respectively. The construction of the Via Appia by 308 puts the seal on Roman control
to the south; d. Last, CAH, vii. 861. It has been argued that the
Campanians are included in the aVf-Lf-Laxot of 3 (Schachermeyr, Rh.
Mus., 1930, 377 ff.); but this would still leave unexplained the
separate mention of Latium in 5
3-13. The second treaty. Set out by Taubler (255; comment, 26o ff.).
Unlike P.I this is arranged item by item, with both parties mentioned
in each. Taubler notes that 8-IO form a avf-Lf3oAov '11'Ept TOV f-L~
d8tKEi'v, such as were a feature of treaties drawn up between Carthage
and the Etrurian towns (Arist. Pol. iii. 9 6-7, 128o a 36 ff.). An
example of this kind of contract, which probably originated at Tyre,
is the treaty between Assarhadon of Assyria and his vassal Balu
of Tyre, 677 (Langdon, Rev. d' Ass., 1929, 189-94) ; see Laqueur
(Hermes, 1936, 469-72), who compares Herodotus' account (ii. us)
of how Proteus of Memphis, who lived in a Tvplwv aTpaTcmE8ov,
treated Alexander precisely as is provided for in Assarhadon's treaty.
The scheme of the treaty is:
(1) (a) Limits within which the Romans may not plunder, trade, or
colonize.
(b) (i) If the Carthaginians take any Latin town not subject to
Rome they may keep the men and goods, but must surrender
the town to Rome.
(ii) The Carthaginians shall not bring prisoners taken from
states allied with Rome into Roman ports; the Romans to
do likewise in regard to Punic ports.
(2) (a) The Romans are not to abuse the right of provisioning to
harm an ally of Carthage.
(b) The Carthaginians are not to abuse the right of provisioning
to harm an ally of Rome.
(3)
Special conditions of intercourse.
(a) For the Romans (i) in Sardinia and Libya, (ii) in Carthage and
Sicily.
(b) For the Carthaginians at Rome.
This arrangement by categories, typical of Greek treaties (Schachermeyr, Rh. Mus., 1930, 362 ff.), suggests Carthaginian drafting.
346

ROME AND CARTHAGE

IIL 24. 5

3. Tup(wv Kat 'huKatwv 8,1LI{l: the inclusion of Utica among the

allies of Carthage marks an extension of her power since 509. On the

privileged position of Utica (here more nominal than real) see
Meltzer (ii. 76-7i); it continued after the reduction of Utica in the
Mercenary War (i. 88. 3-4; vii. 4 5). The reference to Tyre creates
a problem, for an alliance ;vith Carthage seems improbable if the
Syrian city is meant (though in that case no argument can be drawn
as to the date of the treaty, since despite Alexander's destruction in
332, Tyre was already sufficiently recovered in 310 to receive gifts
from her daughter-city of Carthage (Diod. xx. r4. r): see Gsell (iii.
70 n. 6)). However, this sense has been questioned. Hirschfeld (Rh.
Mus., r8g6, 475) emended Tup{wv to Kvplwv (cf. vii. 9 5); and Beloch
(Klio, i. 284) would omit Ked (cf. Taubler, 257). But any such emendation is ruled out by r; and it seems more likely (cf. Kahrstedt,
Gott. Nachr., 1923, IOo) that the phrase conceals a misunderstanding
of a Punic expression 'the Tyrians of Carthage', their official title
(d. Ehrenberg (Karthago, 25), who also suggests that the name wupwt
KapxTJoovwt (vii. 9 5) was adopted after the destruction of Tyre).
4. Ma.crTtas Tapcr"l(ou: variously translated as 'Mastia in Tarsis',
'Mastia and Tarseum' (so P. takes th~m in 24. 2), and 'Tarseum in
Mastia'. Mastia is usually assumed to connect with the Maunavo{
(33 9; cf. Steph. Byz. Maunavol, l.Ovo<; 1rpo<; Tai:<; 'HpaKAe{at;; uT~Aat<;,
'EKaTato<; E?Jpt.!mv. <JpTJTCtt oe a1TO MauTias 1TOAEws), and it has been
suggested that it occupied the site of the later New Carthage; cf.
Avien. Or. mar. 451-2, 'sinuque in imo surgit altis moenibus urbs
Massiena'; Schulten, RE, 'Massieni', col. 2153. However interpreted,
TapaTJlou seems to be connected with Tarshish; and Meltzer (i. 520)
proposed Maarla TapuTJlwv, 'Mastia of the Tartessians'. It has
been plausibly suggested by L. Wickert (Klio, 1938, 354--6) that
P. has misunderstood an archaic Latin genitive plural, Mastiam
Tarseiom. It is significant that Avienus (Or. mar. 462), after mentioning the R. Tader (modern Segura), just north of Cartagena, adds
'hie terminus quondam stetit Tartessiorum'. That P. knew where
'Mastia of the Tartessians' lay is dubious; and Schweighaeuser may
well be representing P.'s 0\-\'11 belief in describing Afastia as 'Africae
(ut uidetur) oppidum, etc.', for P. appears to regard the town (or
tov.Tis) as lying near the Fair Promontory. The effect of this clause
W<L'i to exclude the Romans and their allies from any kind of naval
enterprise in the western Mediterranean (though the formula would
permit accidental landings subject presumably to the limitations laid
down in II).
5. Carthaginian attacks on Latium. The reference is to piracy, not
war (cf. "jfeltzer, i. 339; Gsell, iii. 70); and, granted the date 348, the
treaty will apply especially to Antium, against which tradition
records Roman wars in 386 and 377 (Livy, vi. 6-8, 32), and a triumph
347

III. 24.5

THE TREATIES BETWEEN

de Volscis Antiatibus in 346 (act. tr.; cf. Livy, vii. 27); it lost its
independence in 341-338 (Livy, viii. q. 8). See Gelzer, RE, 'Latium',
col. 961 ; Altheim, Epochen, i. 193
6. vpo~ ou~ ELPTJV1'J ...,Ev EO'TlV yypa1TTO~ 'Pwj!QLOl~: primarily the
Latin towns of Tibur and Praeneste, which had separate treaties as
Joederati (Livy, vi. 29. 7; Diod. xvi. 45 8 (Praeneste); Oxyr. Chron.
(Bilabel, 12), 4-7, under 01. 106, 3 (Tibur)); Lanuvium, which was
independent till338, would probably come under 5 See Gelzer, RE,
'Latium', col. 96o; Shenvin-\iVhite, 29. In addition, these independent
towns probably include allied states such as Massilia, Tarentum,
Tarquinii, and Caere; for the treaty implies that some at least of
these allies have sea communications with Rome. See further
Schachermeyr (Rh. Mus., 1930, 374). Taubler (275), who dates P.II
to 306, explains the absence of any reference to the people of Samnium
and Campania by the hypothesis that they are included partly
among the ~m/Koot {implied by 5, J.L~ o~ua ~m/Koo~) and partly here;
but his date is unconvincing. On the possible international complications if slaves taken from allied states entered Roman ports see
Schachermeyr (ibid. 375).
av 1) vtAa~llTat b 'Pwj!a.io~: if the treaty is of Carthaginian
drafting, this evidently represents some Carthaginian practice; but
it is clearly parallel to the Roman custom of manumission per -uindictam, in which the assertor libertatis, usually a magistrate's lictor
touched the slave with a rod and declared him free (d. A. Duff,
Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire (Oxford, 1928), 23), though the
present ceremony is distinguished by the use of the hand and,
apparently, the absence of any formula (cf. David, Symbolae ... van
Oven, 242-3). Paton (ad loc.) suggests that the Roman 'claims him
as his slave'; but this would involve a subsequent legal fiction of
manumission, and seems improbable.
10. d Se, flti t8i~ flETavopeua9w: 'if Roman or Carthaginian break
the uVJ.Lf3oAov 71'Epi TOV J.L~ aOtKEiv (cf. 24. 3-13 n.), the other party
shall not take private vengeance'; cf. ii. 8. 10, Tct KaT' lolav dotKJ/J.LaTa
Kowfi J.LET0.7r0pEIJEU8at.
EQV I)E. n~ TOUTO 1TOlTJUU Sllf100'l0V yeva9w TO a8lK'I')jlQ: 'but if anyone
does break the u6J.Lf3oAov, the wrong shall be a matter for state adjustment (o7JJ.L6uwv)'. Paton translates 'the aggrieved party shall not

take private vengeance, and if he do, his wrong-doing shall be

public' (whatever that may mean). But the clause surely gives in
positive form the procedure in the case of a breach of the avJ.Lf3ol.ov,
not the sanction to be applied to the man who has taken the law
into his own hands. There is no real parallel between this clause and
that in 22. 9
11. ev IapMvl Kai At~un: Sardinia and Libya, which were open to
trade on certain conditions in P.I, are now completely closed to the
348

ROME AND CARTHAGE

III. 25.

Romans; the lacuna after Kn~hw (first detected by Casaubon) must

have contained words meaning something like 'nor to land for any
other purpose', and there may also have been a reference to piracy
(d. 4); d. Wickert, Klio, 1938, 362 n. 3 The Punic province in
Sicily is still open ( 12); on Carthage itself see 23. 4 n.
14-16. Commentary on the second treaty.
14. 1TpouemTe(vouow gLSmtoJ-LEVOL: 'they insist with great stringency
on their claim' (Strachan-Davidson); cf. i. 63. 2. The lm{Jaflpm,
'approaches', which they deny to the Romans, are probably Libya
and Sardinia themselves, regarded as approaches to the Punic sphere
of influence; d. xvi. 29. 1-2, Abydus and near-by towns are lm{JaflpaL
to Asia. Paton and Shuckburgh take the lm{Jaflpm to be landingplaces on the islands.
16. OJ-LOLW~ Sf: Kat 'PwJ-LaioL 1Tept T* AaTLVTJ~: 'similarly the Romans
concern themselves with Latium'; d. 23. 6. In adducing the mJp.{JoAov
of 8-10 as if it referred to the coastal towns of Latium P. appears
to be erroneously quoting from the earlier treaty (22. n); and this
is possible, for he is here concerned with features he believes to be
common to both documents. There is no good reason for treating
the sentences ovK otoV"Tm .. Tas mJv{/-qKao; as a non-Polybian interpolation (so Rupprecht, Klio, 1939, 106-8), especially in view of
P.'s other blunders in his commentary on the treaties. The phrase
!5rrp ljo;, which Rupprecht finds awkward (op. cit. 107, 'die Romer
schliessen die Vertrage nicht fur Latium, sondem fiir sich und ihre
Bundesgenossen') is a common Polybian synonym for m;;p~ ljo;.

25. 1-5. The third treaty. Evidently the alliance of Diodorus (xxii.
7 s. avp.p.axia) and the treaty renewal of Livy (ep. 13, quarto foedus
renouatum), which he dates to 279/8. P. makes it a renewal of the
older treaties with the addition of certain new clauses specifically
concerned with Pyrrhus. The most likely explanation of the historical
context of this treaty is that the Carthaginians feared a Roman
peace with Pyrrhus after the defeat at Ausculum in 279 (Fabricius
was already negotiating) and wished to keep the war going in Italy;
hence the form of the treaty (see below). Cf. Justin. xviii. 2. 1-3;
Frank, CAH, vii. 649; Wuilleumier, 125-31, for the general situation;
on the additional clauses see Beloch, Klio, 1901, 282-3 ( = iv. 2.
476-9); Biittner-Wobst, Klio, 1903, 164 ff.; Klotz, Phil. Woch., 1908,
443-7; Taubler, 264-8. The phrase KUTa T Ilvppov ?iLa{Jaatv (cf.
ii. 41. n) is here used somewhat loosely (cf. 32. 2, arro TWV KaTd
Ilvppov), for Pyrrhus crossed into Italy in May 28o. The 'war for
Sicily' is the First Punic War.
2. Ta J-LEV nAAa. TTJPOUO'L 1TUVTa.: yet Roman interests now extended
far beyond Latium. P. may have ignored new clauses designed to
safeguard those interests; but the likelihood is that the negotiations
349

III.

25. 2

THE TREATIES BETWEEN

after Ausculum were restricted to what mattered most to both sidcsPyrrhus. See Strachan-Davidson (63-64) and, for the possible relevance of 'Philinus' treaty', belm;r 26. 3-4 n.
3-5. The addtional clauses. The punctuation, construction, and purpose of these have been much debated. In 3 the traditional punctuation with a comma after i!yypa'ITTov was abandoned for a time in
favour of reading a comma after llvppov, and thus linking ~yypa'ITTOl'
with 1roLdaOwaav (so Madvig, Adu. crit. i (Hauniae, 1871), 481); it
was, however, defended, rightly, by Beloch (Klio, 1901, 282-3
iv.
2. 476-g), and restored in B-\V 2 For auttrmxla i!yypa.1TTo> cf. iv. 82. 5;
similar expressions at iii. 24. 6, ix. 36. 12, xi. 34 ro, xv. 8. 7, 17. 3. etc.
Some scholars have taken 1rpcJ<; llvppov to mean 'against Pyrrhus';
but this would involve the assumption that the agreement to be
made was still hypothetical, and the present document, despite r,
merely a preliminary draft (so Meltzer, ii. 547; Klotz, Phil. Jiloch.,
19o8, 445); moreover, avttttaxla 1rp6s TLVa normally means 'alliance
with someone' (cf. Herod. v. 73; Xen. Hell. iii. 2. 21). A third difficulty is the interpretation of the clause i.'va x<.!Jpq,. Beloch (loc.
cit.) proposes to transpose 8' from after !Y!Ton;po, and placing it
after fva, renders 'in order that they may give help ... whichever
side needs assistance, the Carthaginians shall provide ships'. Others,
while rejecting so violent an interference with the text, are embarrassed by the difficulty of attaching the clause to what precedes;
and Taubler (268), here following Niese (Hermes, r896, 497 n. z) and
Meltzer (ii. 547), interprets the clause as if it were independent, with
iva as the equivalent of the Latin uti common in documents (Niese
compares on). Unfortunately, though uti is rendered by 07TWS' in
IG, xiv. 951, I. 12 f.
CIL, i2 . 2. 588, there is no parallel for Cva in
this sense. And in fact, the passage can be translated without this
improbable assumption, if the historical context is kept clearly in
mind. The Carthaginians fear a Roman peace with Pyrrhus, and
possibly an alliance with him, which will set him free to come to the
help of the Greek cities in Sicily; they arc anxious to prevent such
a peace and failing that to keep the way open for Roman help in
the event of Pyrrhus' attacking them in Sicily. Such provisions between allies can be paralleled; cf. vii. 9 15 (treaty between Philip
and Hannibal) ; Livy, xxvi. 24. 8 ff. (treaty between Rome and
Aetolia, from P.), 'si Aetoli pacem cum Philippo facerent, foederi
adscriberent ita ratam fore pacem, si Philippus arma ab Romanis
sociisque ... abstinuisset; item si populus Romanus foedere iungeretur regi, ut cauerct ne ius ei belli inierendi Actolis sociisque
co rum esset'. P. therefore records: 'If they make a written alliance
with Pyrrhus, let them make it, each or both, 'A-'"ith such provision
that they may be allowed to assist each other in the territory of the
party who is the victim of aggression.' Carthage is not yet at war
350

ROME AND CARTHAGE

IlL 25.6

V>'ith Pyrrhus, and the sending of help to Rome would not in itself
involve her in a state of war with him (d. Bickerman, Approaches
to World Peace {cd. Bryson, New
1944), zo7 f.); P. uses the
term crvfl-11-axla, 'alliance' to describe any possible pact that might
be made between Carthage and Pyrrhus, or (the real issue) Rome
and Pyrrhus. Such an alliance was to contain a proviso, reserving
the right to send aid to Carthage (or Rome, as the case may be), if
attacked (by anyone) in its own territory (d. Thuc. v. 47 3). Again,
such help would not in itself involve committing the partner sending
it to a state of war with the aggressor; and in any case the clause is
merely permissive, l:va i~fj {Jor/h'iv. The words 1Totdcr1Jwcrav dwpon.pot
have often been taken to mean 'let them both make it in common'.
The sense is rather 'let either (or both, as the case may be) make it
with the stipulation that .. .'; any apparent ambiguity springs from
the use of a single sentence (deliberately) to cover the eventuality
of a Roman or a Punic crVfLf.l-ax{a with Pyrrhus. iva is apparently
used as the equivalent of (ita . . . ) ut, in a final sense. 1 The two
remaining clauses ( 4) concern the help to be given to the Romansthe bait which led them to discontinue treating with Pyrrhus. To
both is added the normal proviso (cf. Taubler, 55, z66-7) that help
shall be sent only as required
the party attacked, here Rome.
The advantage of this treaty to both sides is well summarized
by Frank (CAH, vii. 649-50). Rome got money and ships; and if
Pyrrhus left for Italy, she was committed to nothing, for she need
send no help to Carthage unless she wished. Mago had scotched an
immediate peace, and secured the inclusion in any subsequent compact with Pyrrhus of a clause likely to intimidate him, not least by
its ominous hints at a secret clause committing the Romans to action
in Sicily. 'The document reveals shrewd thinking on the part of both
negotiators.'
4. eto; TTJV a.pooov; 'for the return journey'' so Reiske (and independently Wachsmuth) for the MS. elJ>o8ov, probably rightly since
'attack by sea cannot be meant, as the last section expressly deals
with naval battles' (Biittner-Wobst, Klio, 1903, 166); Emivo8os
(Klotz) is less easy, though it is P.'s usual word for 'return'.
5. -rei OE rrA!JpWj.lO.TO. nKOUO'LWt;: a proviso to the previous sentence, not a separate clause.
6-9. The oaths. That P. gives these separately is proof that he has
not reproduced the complete texts above. For the Carthaginian Bw~
1Ta1pij;ot d. vii. 9 2-3, where they are listed. The Roman oath by
Llta l.t(Jov is discussed by C. Wunderer (Phil., 1897, 189-92), Kettleship
(Essays, 35 n. r), Strachan-Davidson (n-8o). Reid (]RS, 1912, 49-52).
1
This use of iea is akin to that found in P. in place of a1rws with the optative
to render curare ul, or the i'ea used by him after uerba imperandi e/ petendi; cf.
Fassbaender, Quaestiones grammaticae ad P. pertinentes (Progr. Crefeld), 6-7.

351

III. 25. 6

THE TREATIES BETWEEN

Deubner (Jahrb., r9n, 334), E. Harrison (Ridge<e'ay Studies, 92-98),

H. J. Rose (]RS, 19r3, 238), Wissowa (552). An oath of great solemnity
by louem lapidem is known from Cicero (jam. vii. 12, z), Gellius
(i. 21. 4), and Apuleius (de deo Soc. 5); but none of these passages
describes the form of such an oath. On the other hand, the ceremony
described by P. is also known from Plutarch (Sull. ro. 4) and Paulus
(epit. Fest., p. roz L., s.v. 'lapidem'), and can be paralleled from
many places and times; cf. Homer (/l. iii. 300), woE <J</J' eyKcl</JaJ..o<:
xap.&JitS' plm ciJ, oOE olvo<;, where the Greeks and Trojans thus bind
themselves to keep the truce. In it, however, the hurled stone is
clearly treated as parallel to the perjurer, who is to be driven out
from his country by Iuppiter (so Festus), as the stone is expelled from
the hand of the swearer ; and it is not easy to see how in this case
Iuppiter can be identified with the stone. Hence, if P. is right in
associating this ceremony with the custom I ouem lapidem iurare,
there is much to be said for the view that the oath is not by 'Iuppiter
the stone' (the usual view), but a combination of two ideas, 'to swear
by Iuppiter' and 'to take the stone-oath', i.e. 'to invoke Iuppiter
in the ceremony of the stone' (cf. Nettleship, loc. cit.); for syntactical
parallels cf. Strachan-Davidson (74 n. r).
However, a further ceremony involving a slex is known, which
should be considered. According to Festus (PauL epit. Fest., p. 8r L.,
s. v. 'Feretrius') from the temple of Iuppiter Feretrius were taken
'sceptrum, per quod iurarent, et lapidem silicem, quofoedus ferirent',
and the ceremony to which he refers is described by Livy (i. 24. 7-9),
in connexion with the making of treaties by the jetales. A pig is
sacrificed by means of the flint, and a curse is uttered against any
perjurer in the form 'si prior defexit publico consilio dolo malo, tum
tu ille Diespiter populum Romanum sic ferito ut ego hunc porcum
hie hodie feriam'. The slex may have been regarded as a symbol of
lightning (though Rose, loc. cit., suggests that it was merely a flint
knife around which a certain sanctity had accreted because of its
sacred function); in any case, 'antiqui louis signum lapidem silicem
putauerunt esse' (Serv. ad Aen. viii. 64I)-thcy thought it was the
symbol (or token, or statue?) of Jove. Clearly the flint has come to
symbolize the power of Jove, and the pig the perjurer; and it would
be much easier to interpret this ceremony as an oath Iouem lapidem
than the other, if in fact this description were ever given to it. But
it is not.
It has been argued (by Deubner and Reid, locc. citt.) that P. has
here confused the two quite separate ceremonies, the sacrifice carried
out by the jetiales with the silex, and the invocation accompanied
by the hurling away of the stone (which is not necessarily a public
ceremony at all); and Harrison (loc. cit.) goes farther with his contention that the oath louem lapidem has nothing to do with either,
352

ROME AND CARTHAGE

III. 26.

and that in the present passage the MSS. reading Sta A.l8wv (or S,d_
Al8ou) should be kept, and all reference to Zeus eliminated. This view
is unconvincing in the light of references to Iouem lapidem in Cicero,
Gellius, and Apuleius, and the choice seems to be between the view
that P. has confused two distinct ceremonies, applying the phrase
I ouem lap idem iurare to the hurling of the stone, when it should
in fact belong to the fetial sacrifice of the pig, and the hypothesis of
Nettleship, that he has described the right ceremony, but that the
phrase is to be interpreted 'to invoke Iuppiter in the ceremony of
the stone'. Against the former view is perhaps the fact that, according
to Festus, the oath in the fetial sacrifice was taken not on the silex
but on a sceptrt~m kept with it. On the whole, therefore, Nettleship's
interpretation seems the more convincing.
The oath Lila ).{f!ov was used br!, rwv 7rpwrwv aw87]Kwv, and that
by Arcs and Enyalios '"2 rourwv. As there are three treaties
the meaning is not clear. But, as the third treaty is regarded as an
amplification of the second, it is likely that the same oaths were
repeated, and the oath L1ta '/..ll!ov restricted to the one made in 509
(hence Ka-n: n 7TaAatov 8os). Ares is Mars, Enyalios Quirinus (cf.
Dion. Hal. ii. 48; Plut. Rmn. 29. 1); but there is no parallel for an
oath by Mars and Quirinus alone. One of the oldest cults at Rome
was, however, that of the triad, Iuppiter, Mars, and Quirin us; and
here Iuppiter seems to have been Iuppiter Feretrius (cf. Paul. epit.
Fest., p. 189M., s.v.' Opis'; CIL, x. 8o9). It figures in the devotion
of P. Decius Mus (Livy, viii. 9 6), in the Salian ritual (Serv. ad Aen.
viii. 663) and in the dedication of spolia opima (Paul. epit. Fest.,
ibid.; Plut. Marc. 8; Serv. ad A en. vi .86o), and it was served by the
jlamines maiores. In Umbria it appears as the cult of Iuppiter, Mars,
and Vofionus (Wissowa, 23). Hence it seems certain that the oath
employed in the treaties of 348 and 279/8 was by this triad, and not
by Mars and Quirinus alone.
26. 1. tra.pO. TOV Aa. Tiw Ka.trTWAtov ~v n~ Twv C.yopa.vbfLWV TO.fLtE~:
the aediles (&.yopavop.ot) shared with the quaestors the care of records
deposited in the aerarium in the Temple of Saturn below the Capitol
(d. Dio, liv. 36); but here P. is clearly referring to a separate building
under the exclusive control of the aediles, and situated on the
Capitol. HUlsen (RE, 'Capitolium (r)', coL 1537) identifies it with the
atrium publicum in Capitolio, which was struck by lightning in 214
{Livy, xxiv. 10. 9), Mommsen (St.-R, ii. I. soo n. r) more probably
with aedes thensarum (CIL, iii, p. 845, l. 22; cf. Suet. vesp. 5 7), in
which was kept the apparatus for religious processions, which was
certainly under aedilician controL Mommsen mentions the keeping
of standard weights and measures in the temple of Iuppiter Capitolinus, under the supervision of the aediles. Certainly the reference
4866

353

II'I.

26. I

THE TREATIES BETWEEN

to bronze tablets suggests that the treaties were affixed to the walls
of some building, and not records deposited in an archive; and the
fact that the treaties had only recently come into prominence (cf.
2, above 21. 9-Io n.) would be hard to explain, were that building
the temple of Iuppiter itself (so Wissowa, 128). Trapa T6v Lla Tov
KaTrETWALov will be 'beside the temple of Iuppiter', and the 'treasury
of the aediles' a comparatively little-known building.
3-4. Philinus' alleged treaty. A treaty defining Italy and Sicily as
Roman and Punic spheres of interest respectively, and forbidding
either party to enter the other's territory, is mentioned by Servius (ad Aen. iv. 628, 'in foedere cautum fuit ut neque Romani ad
litora Carthaginiensium accederent neque Carthaginienses ad litora
Romanorum') ; but he adds other and dubious explanations of the
lines on which he is commenting, and can only be treated as testifying
to the existence of a tradition, not confirming the truth of it. The
treaty is also implied in Livy (ep. I4 (272 B.c.)), 'Carthaginiensium
classis auxilio Tarentinis uenit; quo facto ab his foedus uiolatum
est', which clearly refers to a breach of 'Philinus' treaty' and not that
of 279 (so Strachan-Davidson, 64 n. I); for, according to Livy, xxi.
Io. 5-8, Hanno attributed the First Punic War to Punic intervention at Tarentum (d. 8, 'Tarento, id est Italia, non abstinueramus
ex foedere, sicut nunc Sagunto non abstinemus' : 'I talia abstinere'
= a7rlxw8aL '1Ta>..ac;). This treaty can hardly be that referred by
Livy (ix. 43 26) to 306 (d. 22-25 n.)-so Thiel, Hist. I4-I7, I3o ff.-,
for it is impossible that at so early a date the Romans claimed Italy
as their sphere of influence, with Tarentum untouched and the
Samnites not yet finally defeated; still less was it necessary to warn
them off Sicily (cf. Schachermeyr, Rh. Mus., I93o, 377 ff.). Philinus'
treaty may have been an unpublished agreement towards the end
of the war with Pyrrhus; it is hardly likely to represent a secret
clause in P.III (279) as both Schachermeyr and Reuss (HZ, 169, 1949,
459-6o) urge, for 25. 4 shows that that agreement envisaged the
sending of troops (on Carthaginian ships) to what could only be Italy
or Sicily, and this cannot be reconciled with a private agreement to
do nothing of the kind. It is, however, possible that P.III contained
a much vaguer recognition of spheres of interest (De Sanctis, iii.
1. Ioo), and that this agreement, or even the general clauses of P.II,
reaffirmed in P.III (so Altheim, Epochen, i. 19I n. 68), were reduced
to a formal shape as pro-Carthaginian propaganda in the years after
264; for Philinus' clause is precisely the one on which to condemn
the Romans as aggressors in 264. Later Roman propaganda may have
seized on the appearance of the Punic fleet at Tarentum to make
Carthage the aggressor; hence Livy's version (ep. I4, xxi. 10. 5-8),
also found in Dio (fg. 43 I, d. Zon. viii. 8), and exaggerated by
Orosius (iv. 3 I) into a battle.
354

ROME AND CARTHAGE

III. 27. 9

5. vEpl. ~v i)p.Ei!l . . . p.vfJaflEvTE'il: whether P. is thinking of his discussion of the Roman crossing to Messana (i. ro-n) or his criticism
of Philinus' reliability (i. 14. 3 ff.) is not clear; he nowhere in book i
mentions Philinus' treaty.
6. Et Ka.TO. TouTo TLS imXap.~6.vTaL 'Pwp.a.twv: cf. 28. r for criticism of
the Roman seizure of Sardinia. The seizure of Messana and Rhegium
is recounted in i. 7. r ff. The wording here supports the view that the
subject debated at Rome was in the first instance whether to admit
the Mamertines into alliance (cf. i. n. r n.), and that the decision
to send help followed (cf. Reuss, Phil., 1901, Ios).
27-28. Later agreements between Rome and Carthage (241-218 B.c.).
For completeness P. gives summarily the peace treaty of 241, the
agreement of 238, and the Ebro compact.
27.2-6. Treaty of 241. On the preliminary draft and the later modifications see i. 62. 8-9, 63. r-3 ; also App. Sic. 2 ; Zon. viii. 17 ; Diod.
xxiv. 13. The islands between Italy and Sicily will be the Lipari and
Aegates islands; this was a logical corollary to the loss of Sicily, and
its addition in the revised version (i. 63. 3) perhaps mere windowdressing. The phrase da<fo&AHav {nrapxHv Tots lKaTepwv avp..p..axos
( 3) is not clear: does it include allies subsequently taken on by either
side (29. 4 n.)? Its addition (cf. i. 62. 8) is not mentioned in i. 63. 1-3,
but represents a gain to Carthage; for an obligation which originally
was exclusively hers is now shared by both parties. Taubler (V orgesch.
64, no) sees a concession extorted by Hamilcar before he would
accept the heavier demands imposed at Rome, and thinks that
Hiero has been dropped from the treaty in favour of this general
clause. The clause on recruiting ( 4) is applied only to Carthage by
Zonaras (loc. cit.); but P. makes clear that this too applied to both
sides. The additional I,ooo talents (i. 62. 9, 63. 3) (ignored by Paton,
who translates 'twelve hundred') were not a very heavy burden;
and the halving of the period of payment released Carthage from her
obligations all the sooner. On the release of prisoners see i. 62. 9 n.
7-8. The lmavv8fiKat of 238j7. On the Roman demarche and additional imposition see i. 88. 8 n. The phrase 7ToAEp..ov lgEveyKaVTES lws
86yp..aTos refers to the normal conditional war-decree. Since the
Roman terms were accepted, no indictio belli ensued; the reference
too 8EV-rEpos 7ToAEp..os (28. r) does not invalidate this view, since fetial
procedure was strange to P. On the terms of the l7TLavv8fiKat see
i. 88. 12, iii. 10. 3
9. ~vt 8( Tois vpoEtp-rJp.(vots: 'in addition to the aforesaid treaties'.
The Ebro treaty was not l7Twvv8fiKat to the former treaties, as Kolbe
(5.-B. Heidelberg, 1933/4, no. 4, 14 n. 2) argues, quoting 7TpOaKHTat in
25. 2 (which is not parallel). In fact this interpretation of the Ebro
treaty appears as an annalistic falsification to give it greater
355

III. 27. 9

CAUSES AND PRELIMINARIES OF

authority; d. App. Hisp. 7, ~rat Ta8 Ta.t!i avvO-?Kat!i Tats 'PwJ.Laf.wv Kat
KapX!JSovlwv 1rpoaypd4>-ri; cf. Hann. 2; Livy, xxxiv. 13. 7, 'patres
nostri . . . addi hoc in foedere uoluerunt, ut imperii sui Hiberus
fluuius esset finis' (Cato speaking). On the various problems of the
Ebro treaty see ii. 13. 7 n.
28. 2-3. The Romans and Sardinia. For criticism of Roman policy
here d. i. 83. s. iii. 26. 6. (Other passages in which P. is critical of
aspects of Roman policy are i. 37 7-ro (headstrong behaviour),
ii. 21. 8 (Flarninius), ix. ro (plunder of Syracuse), xxxi. ro. 7
ploitation of others' mistakes-if this is critical!), 25. 2 ff. (laxity
among Roman youths), xxxv. 4 3 (cowardice among young soldiers).)
On the Roman justification here combated by P. see L 88. 8 n.
Taubler (Vorgesch. 27) argues that P. is here admitting that the
Romans justified their action in this way, but questions the validity
of the case ; hence he is following a different source from that used
in L 88, where there is no mention of such a case being put. But
To ... imo 'PwfLa.lwv . . . AEyofLEvov lyKATJfLa will refer, not to any
demarche at the time, but to the 'charge now being made
the Carthaginians', i.e. about I52. As in 29. I he is dealing with
contemporary polemics. See Gsell, iii. rq n. 6; Arnold, Oorzaak,
sr ff.
4. EY TTI '!l"po TC11lT"l~ ~u~A~ OEOTJMIIWJ.LEY: in fact, i. 83. 7 Cf. IO. r
where P. refers to i. 88. 8 as lv rats 1rpo rain-T)s flufl,\ms. Laqueur (231)
sees the trace of an early draft in which the present third book was
the second; but more probably this digression on the treaties was
an insertion just before ISO (2r. g-IO n.}, and the fa)se reference lS
due to carelessness. This seems more probable than Schweighaeuser's
suggestion of a textual corruption, i.e. lv rfi (y') 1rpo TaVTYJS fJuflJtcp,
though that is probably the explanation of a similar error in v.
III. IO.

29-30. The Roman case against Carthage.

29. 1. Ta 8' ll'll"O 'Pwf-La.(wv AeyOJ.LEYC1 YUY epOUf-LEY: P. will now give
the reply made by the Romans in stating their case in the course
of the discussions of c. 152-I5o (Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 340 ff.). Gelzer
(Hermes, 1933, r6o) v,rrites, ' ... sagt er mit aller Deutlichkeit, dass der
vertragswidrige Ebroiibergang erst "jetzt", d. h. urn 152 v. Chr., von
den Romern genannt wird'. But viiv ~poDfL<V is in contrast to SdJT)AwKafL<V.

ol Kapx11Mvtol A.(yetv ~96.ppouv: cf. 2r. r n.

e!vm TaOTa.~ KTA.: cf. i. 62. 8 for this clause in the treaty
of Catulus (omitted from the final draft when ratified, iii. 27. 2-6).
The Roman argument is that the agreement was not subject to
ratification at Carthage (cf. 21. r, Std. nl xwpls Tfjs arf>mfpas 1Tf:rrpax0at

2.
3.

~<:aOn'!l"ep
~<:up1a.~

356

THE HANNIBALIC WAR

III. 30.

yvwJLTJS) but that Hasdrubal acted with full authority (ai>Ton:.\ws}.

Cf. Livy, xxi. 19. 2~3.
4. To'Ls &j.~-if>oTipwv aul-l-!A-6.xolc;: to use Saguntum in the case against

Carthage, the Romans must justify her status as a Roman ally.

For the clause of the treaty of Catulus here quoted see 27. z-6 n.
Did this guarantee allies who joined one or the other side later?
Cf. Livy, xxi. 19. 5, 'nam neque additum erat "iis qui tunc essent"
nee "ne qui postea adsumerentur" '. The Roman case is that in
default of closer definition in the treaty, subsequent allies automatically enjoyed the benefit of the clause; the Carthaginian view is in
zr. 5 Taubler (Vorgesch. 64 f.) argues that an annexe with a list of
names was appended when the general provision about allies was
substituted for the phrase protecting Hiero (cf. 27. z~6 n.) at the
request of Hamilcar ; the Carthaginians regarded this list as a binding
and integral part of the treaty, in the Greek (and probably Punic)
manner, while to the Romans it remained a memorandum outside
the sworn document (cf. Otto, HZ, 145, 1932, 51o). This seems attractive and plausible, though not susceptible of proof.
9-10. aJ...'A' fiv aj.~-lf>OTepwv TO auvxov KTA.: 'the main point present
in the minds of both parties was .. .'or 'the main point of the sense
of the treaty related to both classes of allies'. This P. elucidates:
(1) already existing allies to be free from canvassing by the other
side (d. 27. 4, fl-TfDE nporrAap.{3alltv . .. aup.p.axov>); (z) for those to be
subsequently attached precisely the following clause (aJT6 Tm)To)
applies, that the other party refrain from enlisting mercenaries or
levying contributions in their territory (cf. 27. 4, JLTJDETI.povs . tvo.\oyd'v); (3) all allies on both sides are to enjoy immunity from
attack (d. 27. 3}. The implication of this somewhat arbitrary dis~
tinction is that there would scarcely be any question of enlisting
mercenaries or levying contributions in the old-established allied
territories of the other side; and therefore that the treaty envisaged
the addition of new allies. But this is very obviously special pleading.
30. 1. ZaKnv9a'Lot 8diwtmaav a.oTouc; t<TA.: on the date of this
alliance see ii. IJ. 7 n. (d); and on the significance of Els T~v Twv
'Pwp,a{wv rrlrrTW see 15. 5 n. Of a Joedus with Saguntum nothing is
known; later, under the empire, it became a municipit(m ciuium
Romanorum (Pliny, Nat. hi st. iii. 20; GIL, ii. 3827, 3855). The appeal
to the Romans mentioned here ( 2) is that already referred to
in rs. 7 (where Aa{36VTES T~J! f'TTtTpom/v corresponds to brbpEif;av
here).
2. Ta ~<aTa ,..qv 'I~'I'Jp(av -118"1 '1rpa.TT6vTwv: 'already playing an active
part in Spain'. This vague expression can scarcely mean 'more or
less masters of the wllOlc of Spain' (so Otto, HZ, 45, 1932, 505 n. r);
but lyy!;> ovTwv suggests that the Saguntine uTauts was recent.
357

III. 30. 3

CAUSES

A~D

PRELIMINARIES OF

3. Et j.Liv ns T~v Za.Kav&Tts &:rrwAELa.v a.tTia.v TUITt<n Tou 'ITOMj-LOU:

this view, already dismissed in 6. r ff. is merely adduced here for
argument's sake. P.'s claim that the capture of Saguntum violated
the treaty of Catulus depends on his acceptance of the Roman interpretation of that treaty, that it covered allies made later (29. 4 n.);
his second point, that it violated the Ebro agreement, has been endlessly debated. Hesselbarth, anxious to free P. from the charge of
having shared the annalistic belief that Saguntum was north of the
Ebro, suggested (gr ff.) that we should read cl p.iv ..,,. rryv Tov wlfJTJPO>
(with hiatus!) 8u:lpaaw Kat T~v) ZaKavOT)S' tt77<i~Anav alTlas (MSS. alTlav)
Tl(JT)at Tov ?roMp.ov, a desperate expedient; and Gelzer (Hennes, 1933.
159-6o) suggests that a reference to the Ebro was accidentally
omitted by P. himself. But it seems more likely that here, in discussing the arguments of the second-century Roman historians, P.
has accepted their erroneous view of Saguntum as lying north of the
Ebro (cf. I5 5 n.; Meltzer, ii. 597; Cuntz, 65"67; Reid, ]RS, I9IJ,
r86, 190; Hallward, CAH, viii. 29; Oertel, Rh. Mus., 1932, 230;
Treves, REA, 1935, 137; De Sanctis, iii. r. 429; Riv. jil., 1933, 548;
Klotz, Appians Darstellung, 22). See further, ii. 13. 7 n. (e).
4. Et 8( T~v IapSbvos Cl.cJ!a~pEaw: P. has already characterized this
as wholly unjust (28. 1-2), and the greatest cause of the war (ro. 4).
In his eyes it justified the Carthaginians in their attack in the
Hannibalic War. For the theory of 'Hamilcar's wrath', which follows
togically on this, see 9 6 n.

<

31-32. The study of causality in history. P. stresses its importance

(31). and defends himself against the criticism that this has made
his work long and difficult (32). The reference to forty books and to
the fall of Carthage (32. 2) dates this chapter to the 'second edition'
of the Histories (cf. 1-5 n. (3)). 31 could belong to either the original
draft or the later revision; in the former case, it is likely to belong
with the discussion of the treaties to the last-minute addition before
publication about the time of the Third Punic War (21. 9-1o). For
the view that both JI and 32 are part of the revision after 146
see Svoboda, Phil., 19IJ, 4&). P. emphasizes causality also in 7 4-7,
21. 9-10; for references to the merits of 'universal' history see i. 4 2,
iii. r. 4, 4, iv. 2. I ff., vii. 7 6, viii. 2. r-II, ix. 44, xxix. 12.
31. 2. T~v TWv 'ITpoyEyovoTwv ~'IT~a-nlllTJV: 'knowledge of the past' in
general.
3. I.LTJSds . . . O.v9pw1fos wv: cf. ii. 4-5 for the commonplace. The
translation 'no one in this world' (Paton) rather misses the point;
it means 'no one possessed of the failings and liable to the misfortunes of a mortal man'. For the doctrine that no man knows if his
prosperity will last cf. i. 35 2, viii. 2r. II, and especially xxiii. 12. 4
358

THE HANNIBALIC WAR

III. 32.

It is common throughout Greek thought, from the story of Cyrus

and Croesus onwards (cf. Herod. i. 86. 6).
5. Kn]aa.o-9a. T~ tca.t "11'potca.r6.pa.o-9<u O'"l!'ou86.twv: 'desiring to acquire
some possession or initiate hostilities'; this, the reverse picture of
T'fjs 7TaTplBos dBtKOVfl-lV1JS', shows P. to be thinking primarily, though
not exclusively, of the statesman rather than the private individual.
6. "I!'Gli 8' ll.v . "l!'a.po~Ov<u 8~Ka.wi: 'how can he rightly stimulate
those who are likely to secure the success of his own principles and
preserve the status quo?' A statesman's duties are threefold: (I)
defence against enemies, (z) aggressive action, (3) when he is satisfied
with present conditions, the maintenance of his own policy and the
status quo. Whether the status quo refers to internal political order
alone, or also to international equilibrium, is not clearly defined.
8. TdS (tcGo-rwv a.ipo-us Ka.t s~a.At11JilS: 'the principles and intentions
of each'. For ISu5A1JtP'> see 6. 7 n.
12. C.ywvwp.a. p.h p.6.9rnJ.a. 8' ou yvTa.~: as Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii.
343 n. 2) observes, this phrase deliberately echoes Thucydides, i.
\

')

Jf

..,).

).-fo:-

22, 4 1 Kat S' fl-1.1 aKpoaatV tO"WS TO f:l.t f:J.VUWU!S aVTWV O.TfY'I'IiO"T(>0V
<fmvTat 8um 1) {3ovA~aOVTW TWV Ttc yo;vop.lvwv ni ua4>s O"Kom:tv Kat
TWJI p.tcAAOVTWV 7TOT~ av9ts KaTO. Td d.vOpt.hmvov Towlf.rwv Kat 7Tapa7TA1)0"LWV
[ucufJaL, wt/>{ALf:J.O. Kpl~ELV O.VTa apKotJVTWS get, Kri'jp.a T J.s alEt p.fi.IJ..ov
tj dywvtup.a is Td 1rapaxpfjp.a dKovctv gvyKE:tTm. On the sentiment see
xii. 25 g 2. An echo of this passage of Thucydides may be present
in ii. 56. n and xxxviii. 4 8 (Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (I)', coL ISOJ,
adds iii. 57 8, but this seems unlikely). For the opposition of KaA6v
(Tlp1rn) and JJt/>llo.tp.ov (d.Jtfo!AE:r) see i. 4 4 n., 4 u, iii. 4 10 n. There

is a useful discussion of this passage in Howald, 95

32. 1. 5UatcTTJTov Kal 8uo-(a.v6.)yv(ll(J'Tov: P. seems here to echo

specific complaints that his work was hard to come by and difficult
to read because of its scope and length; and this chapter, written
at the earliest when P. had started on his extension beyond 167 (cf.
4 I-5 6), is a defence against both charges. The reference to forty
books shows that the whole work was certainly planned, and perhaps
~Titten, when P. added this chapter; but it need not be assumed that
a full edition of forty books had already appeared (cf. 1-5 n. (4)).
The complaints may have been verbal and based on private knowledge of P.'s work combined with experience of the earlier books
already on the market.
2. Ka.9a."l!'pa.vEl tc:a.rO. p.rov ~su+a.o-p.~a.s: the expression KaTd. p.f.Tov
(here Ursinus's emendation of MS. KaTap.tKTov) is proverbial (cf. Cic.
Att. xiv. 16. J, 'Herodi mandaram ut mihi KaTa p.lTov scriberet').
and means 'thread by thread, i.e. in detail, or in due order, in an
unbroken
continuously' (LSJ). With vt/>aup.vas the full sense
is evidently 'woven together in an unbroken series'. F.'s forty books
359

III. 32. z

CAUSES AND PRELIM IN ARIES OF

resemble the threads of the warp, which lie side by side, KaTrt /LTov,
and are woven together into a piece of fabric by the weft, here
symbolized by the 'universal' aspect of P.'s theme. This seems better
than taking KaTa /LlTov to mean 'by a single, continuous thread'
(Schweighaeuser, Paton).
lnro TWV Ka:n1 nuppav KTA.: cf. i. 5 I. The words Kat Tt/Lawv ..
6-Jy~aEw>, which vary in detail in different MSS., are rightly
bracketed as a gloss in B-W2
3. atrO TfjS KAEOJ.lEVOU') TOU ItrapnaTOU <J>uyfjs: i.e. from 222 (cf.
ii. 69. u). As in xxxix. 8. 4-5 P. omits any reference to his account
of the Cleomenean War (ii. 37-70); hence the theory of Laqueur,
developed by Gelzer (Hermes, 1940, 27-37), that the 'Hellenic 7TpoKaTaaKw~' was composed late and inserted into the Histories late.
Against this see ii. 37-70 n. Although P. also omits from both
passages all reference to the careers of Hamilcar and Hasdrubal in
Spain (ii. 1. 5-9. I3. I-], 36. I-2), no one has suggested that these
are also a late insertion. On the battle at the Isthmus (r46} see
xxxviii. I4. 3; in the main P.'s account of it has not survived.
T<1c; TWV Kanl. J.lEpos ypa<J>ovTwv O'UYTaus: cf. i. 4 3 n. The reference
is vague and includes for instance those who wrote on Philip and
Perseus (viii. 8. 5, xxii. rS. 5, and 8 below), the Hannibal-historians,
etc., not merely the second-century Roman senatorial historians
(McDonald, CR, 1940, 42), of whom he is thinking mainly in 6. 2.
5. Tac; Ka-raAAtjAouo; Twv trpaewv: cf. v. 3r. 5 LSJ gives the meaning
of KaTaAATJAo> as 'one after the other, successive'; but, as so often,
the truth is in Schweighaeuser, 'i.q. avyxpovoi. P.'s criticism of
'episodic' historians is threefold: (I} they give different versions of
the same events, (2} being restricted to certain fields they cannot
discuss parallel events elsewhere, (3) above all, they neglect causality.
If LSJ is correct, (2) and (3) are identical, since it is in the succession
of events that an historian finds the basis for investigating causes.
P. is, however, thinking of the occurrence of events simultaneously
in different parts of the world; cf. 5 6, ot> KaTcD..ATJAa, 'at the same
time' (see note there). On the significance of synchronisms as a mark
of the working of Tyche see ii. 4r. I n.
0.AAoloTepas SoKlJ.laO"Ias: 'a different estimation' and, P. implies,
a juster one.
6. TU T, etrlYlVOJ.lEVC!. TOl') epyols KTA.: 'the consequences of events,
the concomitant circumstances, and above all their causes' ; in these
three categories of past., present, and future P. subsumes the various
aspects of the cause nexus as it affects each historical event. By
translating Trt naperr6w;va as 'the immediate consequences' Paton
misses this point.
7. The cause nexus from the First Punic War to that with A ntiochus.
ToP. these events are part of a single texture. How the Sicilian War,
360

THE HANNIBALIC WAR

III. 33 5

and its pendant, the seizure of Sardinia, led to the Hannibalic War
has been analysed at iii. 6 ff. In i. 3 6 P. explains how, having
defeated Hannibal and taken the first and hardest step 1rpos: ~~~
Twv oAwv mf3oA~v, Rome was emboldened to reach out to Greece and
Asia; for, as here, he treats the wars against Philip and Antioch us
as acts of Roman expansion (in fulfilment of the purpose of Tyche,
cf. naaas; . auvvwovaas; 1rp6s; T~V aVT~V {m6fJmw), following upon
the war with Hannibal, which he sometimes regards as the first
step in the Roman plan for world-dominion (i. 3 6-9), and sometimes
as the event which led them to conceive it (z. 6).
8. otov TOV) npCTlKOV 11 TOV <f>lAlTnl'lKOV: perhaps such writers are
meant as the Strato (of uncertain date) who dealt with these wars
(Diog. Laert. v. 61), or the Poseidonius mentioned by Plutarch
(Aem. Paul. rg), a contemporary of Perseus, cf. 3 n.

<

33. 1-4. The declaration of war at Carthage: cf. Livy, xxi. 18. IJ-14.
On the embassy see zo. 6 n. P. takes up the narrative from 21. 8
(T7]v . 1Tap!K{3aatv JvniJfJEv E1TOt7J<:UiJ.u:Oa, I), though the words
a:\Ao f.LEV ou~v d1TaV do not wholly link up. The Romans had
explained that since Saguntum had fallen, further discussion was
impossible, and the Carthaginians must either make amends or
accept war, and there is no reference to any further speech by the
Carthaginians; indeed in Livy (xxi. r8) the incident of the toga occurs
immediately after the Carthaginian statement which P. records in
zr. r-s. Thus 21. 6--8 and 33 1-3 are mutually exclusive accounts of
the Roman reply, which perhaps go back to separate sources
(Hesselbarth, r4). If so, the toga incident probably comes from
Fabius Pictor, who will have introduced its dramatic element into the
Roman tradition (cf. Meltzer, ii. 6n n. 6o; Bung, 4o). Livy adds to the
drama with such phrases as sinu ex toga facto and iterum sinu eifuso.
3. o 8~ (3acr&Aeu~ TWV Ka.pxTJ8ov(wv: the sufete; cf. Livy, xxviii. 37 2,
'sufetes . . . qui summus Poenis est magistratus'. The two sufetes
or judges were elected annually, and acted as the supreme magistrates, like the consuls at Rome. Normally one seems to have presided over sittings of the council (on which see i. 21. 6).
4. fiveflwVTJcra.v iif1a. Kai 1TAdov~: omnes respondemnt, \\Tites Livy
(xxi. rB. 14), with an eye to dramatic effect. But if 11Adovs; suggests
that some kept silence, this is not sufficient evidence for a minority
favouring peace (Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 366 n. 3); silence may not
necessarily have implied dissent.
33. 5-59. 9. Hannibal's March to Italy
33. 5-16. Hannibal's preparatt'ons. For the figures of troops left in
Spain and Africa see Livy, xxi. 21. ro-22. 4, who draws on the same
tradition. See E. von Stern, Das hannibalische Truppenuerzeichnis
36I

IIL 33 5

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

bei Livius (Berlin, r891). The moving of troops between Spain and
Africa indicates that Hannibal was strategos in both areas; cf. i. 72.
3 n.; Ed. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 355 n. 3; Bengtson, Aegyptus, 1952, 38o.
5. 'ITapaxoap.atwv v Kcuvft 'ITb~E~: winter 219/18. Hannibal evidently
returned to New Carthage after the fall of Saguntum in autumn 219
(17. 9-u). The dispositions here described did not necessarily all
date to this winter. As De Sanctis observes (iii. 2. 13 n. ZI), the
Ladnian inscription { r8) is likely merely to have given the figures,
and the date ;viii be P.'s own hypothesis.
81a4>fjKE Tous "I~1Jpa.s: expanded by Livy (xxi. 21. r-8) into a whole
chapter, with a speech by Hannibal (perhaps derived from Coelius;
Soltau, 65). which is partly conflated from that mentioned below,
34 ]-8.

6. :A.a8pov~q: Ti8E~tPt'i>: Hasdrubal was the eldest of Hannibal's

younger brothers (ix. 22. z).
9. Troops sent to Africa. The Thersitae are othenvise unknown, and
many scholars have followed Ursinus's emendation to T apa7Jl-ra~ (ct.
24. 4); E. Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 402) says 'Tartessier oder Turdetani';
and Schulten (RE. 'Tartessos', coL 2448) attributes the form to the
Punic source. The M astiani were a tribe in Andalusia, with their
capital at Mastia (see above, 24. 4 n.); as well as to Avienus they are
known to Theopompus (FGii, us F zoo) and Hecataeus (FGH, I F
4o-41). They are the later BaaT1)Tavol (or Bastuli) who, according to
Strabo (iii. 141), live between Gades and New Carthage. The Iberian
Oretes are probably the same as the Orissi (or Orissae), fighting
against whom Hamilcar Barca lost his life (ii. I. 7-8 n.). The Romans
knew them as Oretani, and they dwelt south of the Carpetani (14,
2 n.), according to Strabo, who says they reached the sea near the
Bastetani (Strabo, iii. 152, 156), together with whom they occupied
as far as l\falaca (Strabo, iii. 163). Their territory probably lay on
the Anas (Guadiana) and Baetis (Guadalquivir) around Castulo, and
west of the Olcades (on whom see 13. 5 n.). The capital of the Oretes
lay south-west of Ciudad Real and was called "fJp1J-rov FEpp.avwv
(Ptol. Geog. ii. 6. 58; cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 25, Oretani quiet Germani
cognominantur). Schulten (RE, 'Oretani', cols. roi8-19) suggests that
the people included settlements of Germans who came in with the
Celts about 6oo; see further P. Bosch-Gimpera, P BA, 1940, 96 ff.
This distinction may explain P.'s use of the adjective IfJ7JP"-" here.
11. Ba>.tapEis 0KTaK6aun ~Sop.1}ttovTn): cf. Livy, xxi. 21. I2,jundatores Baleares octingentos septuaginta. Livy here follows P.'s figures
closely, and Gronovius's restoration is certain; wo' may have dropped
out before ous. For Balearic mercenaries see i. 67. 7
oi'ls ~~:vp(ws p.f:v Ka~oGat ati>EvSov..]Ta.s: 'which is the name they properly give to slingers'; cf. ii. 22. r. ~ ytip >..i6> UVTTJ (sc. ra~a&-ro~)
-roii-ro (i.e. mercenaries) U7Jp.aLvn Kuplw>. P. means that the word

<

362

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

III. 33 15

Baleares in the native Iberian tongue signified 'slingers', but that it

was extended to the people and their island so as to form a proper
name (so correctly Reiske). Diodorus (v. 17. x) records the false
derivation a1TO TOV {l&>.AEtv; and both Paton and Shuck burgh introduce a misleading reference to this into their translations. As in the
case of the Gaesatae P. is concerned to explain the original meaning
of a non-Greek word, which had acquired a wider significance;
Kvplw<;, the 'real' meaning, is contrasted with U1TO Tij<; xpda<; TU.VTTJ<;,
'from this mode of fighting' {d. ii. 33 5). the derivative meaning.
To 9voos .. Ka.t T~v vijaov : the Greeks originally called the Balearic
islands Fvp.vr]ataL (Diod. v. 17. x), apparently after the Gymnetes, as
the half-naked Iberian cavalry of the mainland were called by the
earliest Greek traders (Hubner, RE, 'Baliares', col. 2823). P. follows
the error also found in the periplous which was Avienus' ultimate
source and spoke of a single island, Gyrnnesia (Or. mar. 467).
12. t'i Ta MTo.ywvLa Tijos AL~UTJ'i: evidently an official grouping
of cities taking its name from Cape Metagonium, perhaps Cap de
l'Agua, near the mouth of the Muluchath (Strabo, xvii. 827; d.
Ptol. Geog. iv. 1. 3) on the eastern border of Spanish Morocco. Strabo
(iii. 170) also records a vop.aOLKov 8vo<; of this name in Tingitana.
Mela (i. 7. 33) also gives the name Metagonium to Cape Tretum, the
modern Bougaroun or Ras Sebaa Rous; and apparently Timosthenes
(in Strabo, xvii. 827) knew of a Metagonium opposite Massilia. This
eastern Metagonium is also referred to in Pliny (Nat. hist. v. 22),
who records that the Greeks called Numidia, eastwards from the
R. Ampsaga, Metagonitis. Kahrstedt (iii. 97) assumes that the Metagonian towns stretch westward from this area, and includes a list
of those with archaeological remains from Rusicade (Philippeville)
to Gunugu (criticism in De Sanctis (iii. x. 31 n. 83)); but it is not
impossible that the western and eastern areas are quite separate,
and that P. here refers only to one (the western) (d. Schwabe, RE,
'Metagonium (1 and 2)', cols. 1320-1). The garrisons stationed in
these towns would be usefully placed to reinforce either Spain or
Carthage (De Sanctis, iii. 2. 12). Whether the inhabitants of the
Metagonian towns were wholly Phoenician or partly Libyan as well
is not certain.
15. AL~uq,ow(Kwv: the Phoenicians inhabiting the towns between
the Syrtes (Pliny, Nat. hist. v. 24) and the Atlantic coast, and
possessing the right of conubium with Carthage (Diod. xx. 55 4).
It is clear from Hannibal's treaty with Philip (vii. 9 5) that they
were her subjects. See Mommsen, RG, i. 491; De Sanctis, iii. 1. 33
n. 89. The Libyans were native inhabitants of the Carthaginian
province (Diod. ibid.).
AEPY1'JTWV: Livy, xxi. 22. 3, parua Ilergetum manus ex Hispania. As
Schweighaeuser noted, this reference to a Spanish tribe among the
363

III. 33 15

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

African contingents is odd; and the Lergetes may be some otherwise

unknown African tribe (Kahrstedt, iii. 17r). They are, however, distinct from both Libyans and Numidians. If they were from Spain
(cf. Meltzer, ii. 448: DeSanctis, iiL z. 13) these cavalry were evidently
enrolled later, after the reduction of the Ilergetes in 218 (35 z),
unless they came as mercenaries (Meltzer, ibid.). The orthography
is no help, since the MSS. of P. are shaky on this name; cf. x. 18. 7
where "-"YX?JTwv, AeyY?)TCJiv, and AEx:rJT(;w are all found.
No1-10.Swv: of these tribes the Massyli dwelt between Cape Tretum
and the (later) Roman province of Africa (Strabo, ii. 131, xvii. 829);
later their king was the famous Masinissa (xi. 21. r, etc.), the son of
Gaia, who was probably king now (cf. Stahelin, RE, Suppl.-B. iii,
'Gaia (4)', col. 534). The M asaesyli, often mentioned along with the
Massyli, lived on the coast west of them; Strabo (xviL 829) puts them
between the l\Iuluchath and Cape Tretum. Their king was Syphax.
The M accoei are lP.ss easily identified. They may be the Macae of
Herodotus (iv. 175), who dwelt on the Syrtes, or the .ll,fa~<~<:6ot of
Ptolemy (Geog. iv. 6. 6), whose home was in the oases of the eastern
Sahara. However, the Maurusii (or Mauri), the inhabitants of
Mauretania (l\1orocco) are described as Twv 1rapd. Tov dJKmv6v (cf.
Livy, xxiv. 49 5. 'extremi prope Oceanum aduersus Gades colunt').
Hence, if P. (following his inscription) is enumerating the tribes in
geographical order from east to west, it seems reasonable to seek the
Maccoei between the Muluchatll and the Straits. Schweighaeuser,
who himself suspects a corruption of Ba~<:~<:alwv (cf. Sall. lug. 66,
Vaccenses), admits that this principle would favour Grono~ius's
emendation to Ma,vwv; for although the l\fazices (or Maxyes) lived,
according to Herodotus (iv. 191) to the west of the Lesser Syrtes
and north of Lake Triton, and according to Eustathius (ad Dian.
Perieg. (GGM, ii), p. 25r) on the site of what was later Carthage, they
shifted their seat several times, and appear in Tingitana in Ptolemy
(Geog. iv. I. s. 2. 5, Md~~<Es). Another possibility is that they are the
Baquates who dwelt between the Muluchath and the straits in
imperial times, and appear in the Chron. Pasch. (i, p. 46. 17 ed. Bonn)
as Mo.Kovo.~<:ol. The status of these Numidian troops, whether levies
or mercenaries, is obscure; cf. Griffith, 223 ff.
A~yucrT1vous: for the Carthaginian use of Ligurian mercenaries see
i. q. 4, 67. 7, for the Baleares above I I .
18. ~'lfi. Aa.ruvi<(l: 'on Cape Lacinium', about 6 miles from Croton,
on the south coast of Italy. Today it is Capo Colonne, from the
remains of the temple of Hera Lacinia, where Hannibal set up this
account on a bronze pillar, in Punic and Greek, in the summer of
205 (cf. 56. 4; Livy, xxviii. 4/'i. r6); on the temple cf. xxxiv. u. 9
When P. visited this temple is not recorded, but it may well have
been in the course of his internment in Italy, and not, as Cuntz
364

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

III. 34 7

supposes (63), after his return to Greece (with unacceptable implications for the composition of this chapter). Klotz (Livit~s. 190) hazards
the guess that P. learnt of the existence of the inscription from
Silenus; he attributes Livy, xxviii. 46. I6 to Silenus via Coelius.
34. 2. oacjlws yap ~TJ.,.c1KE~ KTA.: cf. 48. 11. On the fertility of the Po
valley cf. ii. IS, iii. 44 8, 48. 11. The war against the Romans ( 3) is
the Gallic tumultus of zzs and its aftermath; cf. ii. z3 ff.
4. Tovs 1rt .,-cl.SE: on the Italian side, cf. iv. 48. 7
5. (lOVWS O.v u1ToAa(l~cl.vwv v 'ITaA(<;!- auaTl)aaa9aL KTA.: 'thinking
that on one condition only would he be able to wage war in Italy'.
Shuckburgh follows Schweighaeuser, who takes the phrase to mean
'in Italy alone', contrasting IS. 13; but fLOVW> is explained by El
8vvr/h[1J KT,\.; cf. i. 4 II. Paton's rendering here is correct.
6. acjlLKOfLEVWV Sf: TWV ayyeAwv: the messengers from the Celts ( I).
z-s are a parenthesis explaining why the messengers came to be
expected. Laqueur (132-3) makes unnecessary difficulties here
through missing this point.
ouvi)yE TUS Suva(lELS . li1TO T1jv apLv1jv wpav: when Hannibal
reached the top of the pass over the Alps snow had already fallen,
i.e. it was about the third week of September (54 r n. : the reference
to the setting of the Pleiades is a general expression for the approach
of the bad season). Since the march from New Carthage to the Po
valley took five months (56. 3), Hannibal must have left about the
end of April. His late start was probably designed to allow the spring
flooding of the Spanish rivers to subside (Hallward, CAH, viii. 36).
See DeSanctis, iii. 2. 79 ff. The phrase apxofLiV7J> Tij> Ot=pda,; in v. I. 3
is vague, nor is it clear to what precisely it refers-the departure
from New Carthage or the crossing of the Ebro; it can therefore be
neglected. Recently Hoffmann has argued that Hannibal set out intending merely to subdue northern Spain, and that he changed his
plan and decided to march on Italy only at the point indicated in
35 4, having then heard of the Roman declaration of war (Rh. Mus.,
I9SI, 79-82). Admittedly, an advance into Italy depended on success
in northern Spain (Scullard, Rh. Mus., I952, ZIS-I6); but the whole
tenor of P.'s narrative, with its messengers from the Po valley,
implies that invasion of Italy was Hannibal's firm plan.
7. vpoavEvTwKoTwv Sf: KapxTJSovos: i.e. messengers carrying
news of the Roman indictio belli. This, on P.'s chronology (2o. 6),
was delivered by an embassy sent from Rome immediately news of
the fall of Saguntum arrived there, i.e. late autumn or early winter
219/18 (17 n.). Livy (xxi. zr. I) in fact makes Hannibal hear of the
Roman indictio at the beginning of winter. But it is clear that the
ultimatum was not in fact delivered till late March n8 at the earliest, and probably in June (zo. 6 n.). Hence this speech of Hannibal
365

Ill. 34 7

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

is made up of imaginary commonplaces (perhaps m P.'s source).

For the surrender of Hannibal ( 8) cf. 21. 7

35. 1. Hannibal's forces. Hannibal reached the Po with 2o,ooo foot

and 6,ooo horse (56. 4, evidence of the Lacinian inscription). Delbriick
(i. 326--8) argues that these figures are too small, and that the lightarmed have been omitted; but, as Kromayer observes (AS, iii. 1. 94)
the Lacinian inscription gave its numbers according to nationalities,
not different sections of the army. See also ii. 24. 17 and Livy, xxi.
38. 2. P. gives Hannibal's figures at the Pyrenees as so,ooo foot and
9,ooo horse ( 7), at the Rhone as 38,ooo foot and 8,ooo horse (6o. 5);
and he left 1o,ooo foot and 1,ooo horse with Hanno ( 5) and dismissed
the same number ( 6). Apart from the figures at the Po, these
numbers are hardly credible, but it seems unlikely that P. simply
invented them on an arbitrary plan, as De Sanctis (iii. 2. 83--84)
suggests, arguing that P. had merely two figures-1oo,ooo for the
outset of the march, and so,ooo losses; nor is the matter solved by
Kahrstedt's theory (iii. 374 n.) that at each step the infantry figures
should include the cavalry. Detailed, if exaggerated, figures existed
for sections of the march; thus L. Cincius Alimentus gave the
starting figures as 8o,ooo foot and 1o,ooo horse, and the losses between
the Rhone and the Po as 36,ooo foot 'ingentemque numerum equorum
et aliorum iumentorum' (Livy, xxi. 38. 3-5, misunderstood by Kahrstedt), allegedly on Hannibal's personal information. Such exaggerated figures rnay well have misled P. ; whether his source depended
on such calculations as DeSanctis postulates must remain open. For
earlier bibliography see DeSanctis, loc. cit.
2. KaTEaTflE4-ETo , nupl]VTJS; of the tribes here mentioned the
Ilurgetes (Ilergetes: cf. 33 rs n.) lay between Salduba (Saragossa)
and Ilerda (Lerida), in what is now the province of Huesca; cf.
x. 18. 7 for their king Andobales (Indibilis). The Bargusii, Aerenosii
(cf. Sall. Hist. iii, fg. 5 Maur., Aresinarii), and Andosini are virtually
unknown tribes lying between Salduba and the Mediterranean. Livy
(xxi. 23. 2) omits the two latter, but adds the Ausetani (near Vich)
and a tribe which is probably the Lacetani, who lived immediately
south of the Pyrenees, near modern Barcelona (cf. Schulten, RE,
'Lacetaner', col. 331, correcting his earlier article 'Jaca', col. 545;
Hermes, 1925, 68-70; G. Barbieri, Athen., 1943, 113-21; Vallejo, lxiiilxviii).
3. Ta.xews }lEV Ka.l 'Tra.p' tA'Tr8a.: Hannibal's speed, like his losses, may
be exaggerated by P.'s source. De Sanctis (iii. 2. So) estimates that
he spent two months over the 225 Roman miles between Ebro and
Pyrenees, a delay which he attributes (iii. 2. 9-10) to deliberate
policy (cf. Scullard, Rh. Mus., 1952, 215); Hannibal meant to leave
the Romans guessing about the speed of his advance, so that he
366

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

III. 36.

might accelerate and take them unprepared by crossing the Alps

just before the snow fell. This is possible; but the opposition may
have been heavier than he anticipated. See also 34 6 n. for Hoff
mann's theory of a change of plan.
4. ':1\vvwva.: cf. Livy, xxi. 23. 2-3. Of Hanno, whose capture is recorded in 76. 6, nothing further is known. The reference to the vvma
of the Bargusii towards Rome is confirmed by the account of Roman
contacts in Livy, xxi. 19. 7 Cf. Hesselbarth, 12 f. On the a1roaKval
( s) cf. i. 66. 7 n.
6. O.wEXuaE -rous taous Tois wpoELPTJl.I.~YOLS: dismissed by De Sanctis
(iii. 2. 83-84) as part of the process by which P. reduces his inflated
figures to the modest total of the Lacini.an inscription ( 1 n.).
According to Livy (xxi. 23. 4) 3,ooo Carpetani deserted in the
Pyrenaean passes, and Hannibal dismissed another 7,ooo partly to
eliminate unreliable troops, partly to cover the desertion. Whether
this is derived from P.'s source, or is merely an elaboration of P.'s
figures, is uncertain.
8. oux OUTW<; 1ToXAl)v Suva.p.w we:; XPTIO'l!l-YJV KTA.: 'not so much
numerous as highly efficient' (Shuckburgh). P. is stressing the quality
of the troops, not implying that they were particularly small in
number (DeSanctis, iii. 2, 169).
36-38. Digression on the geographical divisions of the oecumene. In
dealing with geographical data the historian should (1) avoid proper
names in distant lands, since they can have no significance for a
Greek reader (cf. Strabo, iii. 155), (2) classify the oecumene as a
whole in relation to the primary points of the compass (north, south,
east, and west) (36. 6), and demarcate the three continents (36. 7).
As general principles these are somewhat meagre and inadequate
(cf. Reid, ]RS, I9IJ, 191-2); and in fact P. quotes many names
unknown to us otherwise. However, he does make good use of
indications based on compass points, including 'half-directions' such
as north-east, north-west, south-east, and southwest (e.g. iii. 47 2,
iv. 77 8, v. 22. J, xxxiv. 7 9-1o}. P. repeats his principles at v. 21. 3 f.,
with Sparta, a Greek site, in mind; for a discussion of the application
of these principles to Greek topography see Cuntz (J-8). His failure
adequately tO describe 7TlJflf:v opp.~aa.r; J1vvl{3ar; , , lr; 7TOfu p.lfY11
Karijp -rijs 'ha.Atas is shown by the still inconclusive discussion on
which Alpine pass Hannibal used (49 5-56. 4 n.).
36. 2. owEp ~V~O\ 1TO\OUO'L TWY auyypa.cplwv: probably Sosylus and
Silenus, who accompanied Hannibal (zo. 5 n., cf. i. 3 2). They imagine
that the listing of names of countries, rivers, and cities is 'a decisive
means of securing knowledge and lucidity in each case' (iv 1ra.v-rt)
(Schweighaeuser), or 'a wholly sufficient means of securing clear
knowledge' (Shuckburgh and Paton: as if l.v 1rav-rl were -rep 1ra.v-rl).
367

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

3. 1-uyO.A.a. auJLPO.}.}.wEla.t 11'e11'o7Jtce 1rpos civO.,.w,cnv: 'has the effect

of contributing considerably in the recalling of the places' ; this use
of '""wotr;K< +infinitive is not listed in LS J (though 1TO~Ev -L- accusative
and infinitive is common). For the sense cf. v. :!I. 7 on the use of
local names (xwpa~s l1Twvvp.otr;).
tcpouaJLa.ntca.'i<> A.e5eal: 'inarticulate sounds'. Kpov(a)p.a-ra are the notes
of a musical instrument, and the expression here means literally
'words which are musical sounds' without meaning (d8avo~-rots). P.
may be thinking of meaningless words such as BpE-r-rave/..o (Aristoph.
Pl. 290), imitating the sound of a musical instrument.
4. E11'' ouSev a1TEpeLSOJLEVTJS: 'having no point d' appui' (Reid).
O.vu1ToTa.tcTo'> teat tcwrp~: lit. 'without any principle of classification';
cf. 7, (mo-raTTOVT<;. See also 38. 4, v. zL 4
6. lley(aTTJ yv~ats: 'most important concept', not 'general concept'
(Paton), an idea contained in the next phrase. For P.'s emphasis on
astronomy see ix. 14. 5
7. etcaO'Tll Sta+op~ Twv 1rpo.:apTJ""'vwv: 'under each of these divisions'
(Paton), i.e. north, south, east, and west; cf. v. 21. 8, Ta~s EK Toi!
1TEptlxovTo<; Sm<foopa~s.

37. I. TTt'> tca9' tllliiS ottcoujlEVTJS: that part of the world known to
the Greeks and Romans of P.'s time.
2-8. Division into continents and their position beneath the heavens.
The division into continents evidently go<'~ back to the colonizing
period; they were originally two, Europe and Asia (d. Hippoc. aer.
13), but by Herodotus' time the threefold division was established
(Herod. iv. 45 5 TOtat ydp vop.t~op.lvota~ aOTWV xpr;aop.Eea; H. r6~r7)
The earliest boundary between Europe and Asia was the Phasis at the
eastern end of the Euxine (Berger, 77 f.), but the Ionians reckoned
the Cimmerian Bosphorus, :Maeotic Lake, and Tanais (Don) as the
boundary (cf. Hecataeus, FGH, r F 212; Herod. iv. 45 2, for both
limits). It is this Ionian tradition which P. here follows, no doubt
after Ephorus. The Nile was for long the accepted boundary between
Asia and Libya; but in response to the objection that this resulted
in the division of Egypt between the two continents (cf. Strabo,
i. 32; auct. Bell. Alex. 14. s), some geographers, perhaps beginning
with Ephorus, shifted the boundary to the Red Sea and the Isthmus
of Suez (Strabo, i. 65). This issue had been by-passed by Eratosthenes, who devised a physical basis for dividing up the earth on
the grounds that the old division into continents was meaningless
(Strabo, loc. cit.); but P. ignores this criticism, thus shuwing 'how
little he had followed the scientific advances in geography' (MUllenhoff, i. 242 n.). Instead he tries to apply the principles indicated in
36. 7 Asia is situated beneath that portion of the heavens lying
between the north-east and south, Libya beneath that lying between
J68

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

III. 37

IO

the south, the south-west, and as far round as the north. An interesting and valid criticism of this procedure has survived in Strabo
(ii. 108), who attacks P. for linking up geographical parts with compass directions, despite the fact that all directions are relative to
the position of the observer: Tavai:v 1-LJv oJv Kat NfAov OVK aTOTrOV
7rEpa> 7rotta8at, BEpLV~V o' dvaroA~v ~ laTJ!L"PtV~V Katvov. The cause of
P.'s confusion is not far to seek. He is known to have believed the
course of the Tanais to be north-east to south-west (xxxiv. 7 10),
a view which Strabo contests (ii. 107); similarly he asserted that the
Straits at the Pillars of Heracles ran due west (xxxiv. 7 9); and it
was common knowledge that the Nile ran from south to north. Thus
P. has confused the direction of the course of the Straits, the Nile,
and the Tanais with the supposed direction of their mouths from an
ideal spectator, situated perhaps in Greece. Cf. Class. et med., 1948,
I67-8.

P.'s assertion that Asia and Libya 'considered generally' ( 6) lie

to the south of the Mediterranean may seem hard to reconcile with
the statement that Asia stretches round to the Tanais 'in the northeast' ( 4). P. expanded his view in a passage discussed by Strabo
(ii. Io7 = P. xxxiv. 7 8-ro, where the 'fragment' breaks off illogically), whence it is clear that he did not forget this section of Asia
lying north of the prolongation eastward of the line of the Straits
of Gibraltar, but indeed used it to justify his argument that Europe
was shorter than Africa and Asia combined. Here, however, his
scheme is drawn in the broadest outline.
8. T6 ji-Ev oAoaxepe<rrepov KQ~ j3n8.hepov ~~-~pos: 'its most important
and extensive part' (Shuckburgh); i.e. virtually the whole land mass
excepting the Iberian peninsula. Schulten's statement (RE, 'Hispania', col. I967) that P. was the first to commit the mistake of
making the Pyrenees run north-south is not supported by this
passage; nor is Appian, Hisp. I, likely to be Polybian. Cf. Reid,
JRS, I9I3, 194 n. 3 The Narbo, so called after the important city
near its mouth (xxxiv. 10. 1), is usually known as the Atax; it is the
modern Aude. Elsewhere P. makes the town of Narbo a salient
point in calculating distances, on the assumption that it lay at the
apex of a triangle, the other angles of which were at the Pillars and
the Sicilian Straits (xxxiv. 6. 4ft.). In fact, the Aude is about 6o
miles west of the Rhone estuary; the ancient itineraries gave the
distance .Karbo--Nemausus as 91 m.p. (Cuntz, zs).
9. Keho~ VEjJ-OVTm flEx pi TWV .. opwv : cf. xxxiv. 10. I for a description
of the plain of Roussillon, its rivers, and the famous underground
fish.
10. KnAeiTm Se To 11f:v 1rnpn TfJV Ka8' Tjj~-Cis 1TnpijKov . . . 'Jj3,p1n:
according to Strabo (iii. I66), Iberia once denoted all the lands west
of the Rhone ; another earlier usage restricted the term to the land
BG6

Bb

IlL 37

10

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

between the Ebro and the Pyrenees, but ol. vvv used Iberia and
Hispania as synonyms (cf. Miillenhoff, i. 12o--2). P.'s distinction (for
his use of 'Celtiberia' cf. 17. 2-3 n.) marks a stage on the way to the
use of 'Iberia' for the whole peninsula; but Eratosthenes may already
have taken this further step (Strabo, ii. 108, iii. 148). P.'s knowledge
of the Spanish coast outside the Straits is inferior to that of Eratosthenes, who accepted the reports of Pytheas (cf. xxxiv. 5 I ff.); cf.
Schulten, RE, 'Hispania', col. rg67. His reference here to its 'recently
having come under notice' ( u) is probably to the expedition of
D. Iunius Brutus Callaicus as far as the R. 1\finho in 138/7 (so Cuntz,
34-37); it is Certainly in COntrast tO the mention Of T~V ayvwu{av rfjs
l.~<.Tos 8aAaaa1]s in xvi. 29. 12, If this is so, this passage was evidently
recast at some date subsequent to Brutus' expedition; cf. 1-5 n. (3).
The reference forward( u) is to book xxxiv. 8 ff.
38. 1. 1<a.Ob auva'!TTouaw aAATJAa.ts vepl ~v At8tova.v: if the Nile
demarcated the two continents (37 2--8 n.), they joined in Ethiopia
at the source of the river, and there was an ancient controversy
whether the combined land-mass continued 'infinitely' to the south,
or was bounded by Ocean (in which case the Atlantic and Indian
Oceans were connected). The second-century astronomer Hipparchus propounded the theory of a continuous continent, basing it
(Strabo, i. 5-6) on the assertion of Seleucus of Babylon that the
behaviour of the water in the two oceans was not uniform, but it
is not clear how far Hipparchus was seriously devoted to this hypothesis (cf. Strabo, i. 56), nor whether it had been published when P.
was writing this chapter. See Miillenhoff (i. 350 n. 2), who, however,
misunderstands P. to say that it is uncertain 'whether Asia and
Libya join in the south' (i.e. the southern extremities of the two
continents, making the Indian Ocean an inland sea) ; the question
is of the prolongation of the 'combined' continent south of the Nile
source.
2. Env !LTJ Tt tCTTop'ljaw!lEV: '{and will remain so) unless we ... find
out something .. .'.
3. 11u8ous 8La.n0(va.t: 'recite mere fables'; cf. ii. 17. 6, no.:\A~v 8~a
d8ELVTO.~ Tt:pa...dav (of sensational historians writing on the Po
valley). The active form is used of minstrels reciting by Plato (Ch.etrm.
162 D; Leg. 658 D). P. hints at accounts such as those of Pytheas
(cf. 37 II, 57 ,3, xxxiv. 10. 6), which he regarded as travellers'
yarns; hence by implication he is criticizing Eratosthenes.
4. aAM KllTcl YE TUS OAOax,EpEis s~a.q,opG.s KTA.: 'but that they may
also direct their attention to at least the main geographical divisions,
and have something in their minds to which they can refer each
mention of a place, calculating its position from the quarters of the
heavens'.

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

III. 39

5. 1rpos To Ka.TO. T1\v v5E~~w li1To8EIKVUfJ.Evov: 'towards any object

pointed out to us' (Paton) ; cf. 54 3. tv8n~<:vvflEVos ra ... m:olu.
39. Statistics on the distance of 1/am>ibal's march. P. estimates the
distance covered by Hannibal between New Carthage and Italy,
calculating as follows:
Pillars-New Carthage
New Carthage-Ebro
Ebro-Emporiae

3,000

stades

2,600

I,6oo
7,200

Emporiae-Rhone crossing

. c.

Rhone crossing-Alpine foothills

Alpine foothills-Po valley

. c.

1,6oo
1,200

4,200

This makes the total distance from New Carthage to the Po valley
about 8,400 stades, whereas P. makes it 9,ooo ( u), and the distance
from the Pillars to the Pyrenees 8,ooo. Editors from Schweighaeuser
onwards have assumed a lacuna in 7-8, after the word e~aKocrlots,
so as to add some 6oo stades, and bring the separate figures into line
with the totals; but this procedure is demonstrably wrong, for P.'s
figures for the separate sections have been shown to coincide \\ith
those obtained by adding up the detailed distances recorded in the
imperial itineraries (cf. Cuntz, zo--27). Thus the total distance from
the Pillars to Emporiae comes to 7.'2I7 stades (reckoning 8! stades
as mille passus: cf. 8 n.), and that from Emporiae to the Rhone
crossing at Ugernum (Beaucaire) at 199 m.p., which is 1,658 stades
on the same basis. Cuntz (loc. cit.) attempts to explain the dis~
crepancy between the detailed figures and the two totals of 8,ooo
( s) and 9,000 ( n) stades as somehow due to P.'s having revised
the separate distances from the more accurate records available after
the laying down of the Via Domitia in 120 (cf. 8 n.); but it can
hardly have affected the section beyond Emporiae (and so the total
of 8,ooo stades) so early as this. On the other hand, Viedebantt's
suggestion (Hermes, 1919, 348-so) that P.'s separate figures were
altered by the posthumous editor, who omitted to change the total, is
a desperate hypothesis. Perhaps the likeliest explanation of the
discrepancy is that P.'s 8,ooo and 9,000 stades represent round
totals to the next I,ooo stades. On this hypothesis the statement
that when Hannibal reached the Pyrenees he had covered nearly
half the distance ( u) is correct on the separate figures, but not
correct for the total of 9,000 stades which immediate!y precedes it.
F.'s source for these figures is not known. The reference in 8 to
the Via Domitia must represent a late insertion (probably by P.
himself) ; but it would be rash to conclude that he revised his figures
to fit readings which he had obtained from the new milestones. Klotz
371

III. 39

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

( W], I946, I54-5) argues that s-I2 are taken from Silenus; and it
is highly likely that records of the distances marched were kept in
Hannibal's army (though the distance from the Pillars to New
Carthage would not come from such a source). On the other hand,
the figures for the section between the 'Island' and the Po valley
seem to be averaged out on the rough basis of 8o stades a day
(49 5 n. and so. I n.); it is possible that this also goes back to
Silenus, and was adopted because the bematists' records broke down
for this difficult part of the journey. See further, Cuntz, 2o-27; De
Sanctis, iii. I. 212-13; B-W2, i, introduction, p. xxix.
39. 1. TpEijlofiE9a.1Tpo~ To avvEXEs Tfjs Su'JYtJO'IOWS: this P. appears
not to do. Two obvious explanations suggest themselves: (a) 39 2-12
is a later addition to the text, interrupting a narrative in which
39 I was followed immediately by 40. I, (b) 36-38 is a later addition
which P. rounded off with the remark in 39 I, not noticing that 39
was itself a digression. For the view that 36-38 was a later insertion
see Gidion, 41-51, u6-19; Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (r)', col. 1486; but
the close parallel with v. zr. 3 f. is against it, and perhaps one should
not rule out the possibility that P. would have regarded the statistics
in 39 as avvEXE> rfj> OtTJJ'11cu:ws-.
2. Twv ~LAa.tvov ~wfiwv: d. x. 40. 7, for the same definition of the
Carthaginian empire in Africa. The Altars of Philaenus (or the
Philaeni) lay in the Syrtes 6 km. inland from the promontory of
Ras el-Aali, at Graret Gser el-Trab; this identification was confirmed by the 1951 campaign of the Map of Roman Libya Committee
(d. R. G. Goodchild, ]RS, 1951,
; BSR, 1952, 94-no). For the
legend connected with the Altars see Sallust, Iugurtha, 19 For the
Punic empire at this date see i. ro. 5 n.
4. liws Tfjs pa.x(a.~, 8 1Tepa.s EO'Tt . opwv: P.'s source evidently calculated to the famous temple of Aphrodite Pyrenaea, which lay on
the frontier between Narbonensis and Spain (Strabo, iv. q8, 181;
Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 22); payJa is 'promontory' (d. Thuc. iv. IO. s).
Hannibal himself probably crossed the
a little way inland
by the Col du Perthus (Jullian, i. 458 n. z), since he descended at
Elne (Iliberris), Livy, xxi. 24. r.
6. TP~O"XLAious: 357 m.p. = 2,97 5 stades, according to Cuntz's calculations (24) based on the Antonine Itinerary. Strabo (iii. 156) gives the
distance as, reputedly, 2,2oo stades, probably
his account on
Poseidonius (Schulten, Hermes, I9Il, s87}.
[T~v S Ka.wijv . , . K!lAouowJ: Na KapxYJM>V is not used by P. (in
xxxiv. 9 8 the expression is Strabo's); and this sentence is rightly
excluded as a gloss by Bi.ittner-Wobst. Cf. ii. 13. 1 n.
i1rt ... Tov "I~T)pa. "'fOTD.fiOV: from New Carthage to the Ebro is 312 m.p.
2,6oo stades (Cuntz, 25), P.'s figure; Strabo (loc. cit.) makes it
2,2oo stades.

ro

372

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

IlL 39 8

'EtJ.Trop~ov: to Emporiae (Ampurias, cf. Schulten, Hermes,

1925, 66-73) from the Ebro is 197 m.p.
r,6.42 stades (Cuntz, 25);
P. gives 1,6oo stades, and Strabo {loc. cit.) gives the same figure for

7. Eis

the distance from the Ebro to the Trophies of Pompey (near modern
La Junquera; Sall. Hist. iii, fg. 89 M.).
8. EVTeu&ev brl. TTJV TOU 'PoSa.voG s~a.~a.ow: from Emporiae {see 59 n.
on the arbitrary insertion (dm) o' 'Ep.1roplou ... e~aKoa{ov<;) which
alters the meaning of vuueev) to the Rhone is calculated by Cuntz
{z5), via the Col du Perthus and ending at Ugernum (Beaucaire), as
199 m.p.
r,658 stades (on the basis of the Itineraries) ; but P.'s
source may be by-passing :-.lemausus, and consequently may be
shorter. Strabo {iv. q8) reckons from the Trophies of Pompey to
:-.larbo as 63 m.p. and from Narbo to Nemausus as 88; if these distances are accepted rather than those of Cuntz, his total is reduced
by 5 m.p. to 194 m.p.
1,6r6 stades. These calculations do not take
into account the possibility that Hannibal's crossing of the Rhone
was not the later one at Beaucaire-Tarascon; cf. 42. r n.
Taiha. yO.p vGv ~e~f1f.L6.TI.O'Tcu KTA.: 'for this part has now been carefully measured and marked \vith milestones by the Romans, at
intervals of eight stades'. This applies only to the section from
Emporiae {i.e. the Pyrenees) to the Rhone, and the reference is
evidently to the laying down of the Via Domitia in n8, after the
conquests of Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus {cf. P.-M. Duval, CRAI,
1951, I6I-S, for a milestone found at Pont-de-Treilles {Aude),
bearing Ahenobarbus' name). Elsewhere (xxxiv. 12. 3-4) P. allows
8l stades to the mille passus (d. M. C. P. Schmidt, 7 ff.) ; and his
detailed measurements here correspond with the Roman itineraries
on that basis. Nevertheless, he can easily have used the looser
phrase, as he apparently did in i. q. 8, and this cannot be made
an argument against the genuineness of the present passage. Several
scholars, however, have omitted the sentence as a later insertion
{cf. Jullian, iii. 36; Schmidt, loc. cit.; Hartstein, Phil., 1886, 7!7;
I894. 757; I~enchantin de Gubernatis, Boll. fil. class., 1908, s:z-ss).
and Wilamowitz (in Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 333 n. r) suggests it was the
work of the posthumous editor {cf. 1-5 n. {4)); its authenticity is
defended by Thommen (Hermes, r885, 216), Mommsen and Hirschfeld (CIL, v. 2, p. 885; xii, p. 666), E. Desjardins (Geographie historique et administrative de la Gaule romaine (Paris, 1878), ii. 264),
and Ziegler (RE, 'Polybios {r)', col. 1445). Mioni (46) argues improbably that the Via Domitia may have been begun early enough for P.
to see it in I 50; and DeSanctis (iii. r. :zr3) suggests that P. is referring
to the opening up of the Ligurian coast road by Q. Opimius in 154
{d. xxxiii. 9-ro), though clearly it is with the district west of the
Rhone that P. if concerned. TI1ere is no real difficulty if this passage
was inserted by P. about n8 as one of the last things he ever wTote.
373

III. 39 9

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

9. 17ctp' O.UTOV TOV 170TCI.jlOV ws E17i T(,.S mwas : the river is the Rhone
(cf. 47 In.); but for P.'s confusion about the upper part of Hannibal's route see so. I n., and for the general problem of the pass he
used, 49 s-s6. 4 n.
11. 1rept Evva.K~~~.Mous: 8,400 stades if the separate stages are added
up (cf. 39 n.).
12. axeSOv Tous ~JlLaE~S Su:AYJXUOe~: as Hannibal had covered 4,2oo
stades at the Pyrenees this is roughly true for the detailed figures,
though it does not fit the rounded off total of 9,000.

40. 1-2. Chronology. P. here suggests (rather than asserts) that news
of the crossing of the Ebro by Hannibal arrived at Rome after the
return of the embassy from Carthage. It has been argued above
(2o. 6 n.).that Hoffmann is right in dating the dispatch of this embassy to early June, when news of the crossing of the Ebro was
already at Rome. Thus the decision to send the consuls of 2I8 to
Spain and Africa belongs to late June or early July. For an apparent
contradiction of this passage see 61. 8 n.
2. nlmX~ov j!EV KopvfJX~ov . T e[3p~ov Se IEjl17pWVlOV: P. Cornelius
L.f. Ln. Scipio and Ti. Sempronius C.f. C.n. Longus, the consuls for
A.U.c. 536 = 218 B.C. (cf. Henze, RE, 'Cornelius (33o)', cols. I434 ff.;
Munzer, RE, 'Sempronius (66)', cols. I43o ff.). The Roman war plan
involved sending Scipio, with 8,ooo legionaries, 6oo Roman cavalry,
q,ooo allied infantry, and 1,6oo allied cavalry (Livy, xxi. 17. 8) to
Massilia, whence he should invade Spain; Sempronius, with a similar
body of citizen troops, but with I6,ooo allied infantry and I,8oo allied
cavalry (Livy, ibid. 5) was to establish a base in Sicily for the
eventual invasion of Africa (cf. 61. 8). On Livy's figures see De
Sanctis (iii. 2. 87-88); and in general, Hallward (CAH, viii. 33-34).
5. n>..a.KEVTia.v Kpej!WVT)V: 'Placentiam coloniam deductam pridie
kal. Iun. (Ian. codd.: emend. Madvig) primo anno eius belli' (Asc.
in Pis., p. 3 Clark). The decision to found these two Roman colonies
was taken in 2I9 (Livy, ep. 2o), and they were designed to watch
the Boii and Insubres, who had taken the lead in the movement of
230-225 (cf. ii. 22. I). The expression Tcts 1roAEtS' iw;pyws helx,,ov
( 4) suggests that the colonies were founded on the site of already
existing settlements (cf. Hanslik, RE, 'Placentia', col. I898).
6. otov AoxwvTes TT)v 11pos 'Pwila.ous ~lMa.v: 'as it were laying a
trap of friendship with the Romans' (LSJ), i.e. laying a trap for the
Romans by a pretence of friendship (following the deditio of 224
(ii. 31. 9), whereby the hostages of 7 were evidently surrendered).
No change is needed in the text at ouK JxoVTes 8 Ton: Katpov, where
ToTe refers to the same period of time as that indicated in mi:Aat; see
Schweighaeuser, ad loc.
7. ev Tfi 'II'POTEPY- f3of3X<tJ: ct. ii. 22-3s.
374

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

III. 40. 14

8. ili MoTlVTtV, a'ITOU(LO.'II 'Pw...a.(wv: true only for P.'s own time;
'Mutina was an Etruscan town, which had perhaps already joined
Rome (d. Livy, xxi. 25); but it was not settled as a Roman colony
till r83 (Livy, xxxix. 55 7-8), when it received 2,ooo colonists.
U. E\\ins (BSR, 1952, 55) thinks there was a garrison, not a regular
colony, in 218; but d7TotKta implies more than a garrison.
9. TpiS ll.v8pa.s TWV i'ITL~a.vwv (,.t TTjv 8La.pEOW a1tCTTO.h!-11tVOIJS:
II!z~iri coloniae deducendae (cf. Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 624 ff.). C. Lutatius Catulus (cf. Miinzer, RE, 'Lutatius (5)', cols. 2071-2), the son
of the victor of the Aegates Islands (i. 59 8), had been consul in
A.U.c. 534 = 220 B.C.; the two praetorians, according to Livy (xxi.
25.3 ff.), were C. Servilius and M. Annius (but he records alternatives
from annalistic sources). The name of Servilius is confirmed by his
later captivity (Livy, xxvii. zz. 10, xxx. 19. 9; cf. Aymard, REA,
1943. 201 ff.). But the alternative names may be those of a second
and separate commission, rather than a doublet. See further, Scullard (Pol. 273-4). and Broughton (i. 241-2 n. 12).
H. AuKLO'i 8E M6.A~\Los E~a.1teAEKu'i &,.6.pxwv: cf. Uvy, xxi. zs. 8.
Probably the L. Manlius Vulso who failed to be elected consul in
216 (Livy, xxii. 35 1; cf. Munzer, RE, 'Manlius (92)', cols. 1222-3).
He was probably praetor peregrinus in 218 (cf. Broughton, i. 240 n. 4,
who discusses the theory, based on Livy, xxii. 33 7-8, that Manlius
was not praetor but pro-praetor this year). On his forces see 14 n.
13. Twv IJ!LI.wv fltiJta.VTo xwp(wv: Twv uifni'Awv AR, corr. Wolffiin. Cf.
Livy, xxi. zs. 9, aegre in apertos campos emersit.
14. To TiTa.pTov aTpa.To1tE8ov: this should mean 'the fourth legion'.
Kahrstedt (iii. t8o) has argued that the Romans did not yet number
their legions, and takes the phrase as 'one of the four legions' raised
in 218. Against this is i. 26. 5 (where the legionary numbers are
transferred to squadrons of the fleet), i. 30. u ('ro TrpW'Tov (npaTir
Treoov), and Livy, xxiv. 36. 4, legio prima. Indeed numeration is an
obvious provision where legions may serve under a series of commanders (cf. Klotz, Phil., 1933, 46); and it is independently attested
for the time of the Elder Cato (M. E. Agnew, A]P, 1939, 214-19).
Emendation to Toiho To CTTpaT67reoov (Hesselbarth, 71) is therefore
quite uncalled for.
The accounts of Roman troops in Gaul in 218 given by P. and by
Livy create difficulties. According to Livy (xxi. 17. 9) there were
two legions in Gaul, and L. Manlius, with reinforcements (Livy,
xxi. 17. 7), took command of these; later C. Atilius came to his aid
with one of Scipio's legions, and Scipio enrolled a new one in its
place (Livy, xxi. :z6. 2-3). P. gives Manlius only one legion, the
Fourth, but later the other praetor reinforces him with both Scipio's
legions, for which Scipio then substitutes two newly raised ones.
Both accounts agree that there were eventually three legions in the
375

Ill. 40. r4

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

Po valley this year, but disagree on the order of their dispatch. The
crux is discussed by Kahrstedt (loc. cit.), De Sanctis (iii. 2. 87-88),
Kromayer (AS, iii. r. 98 n. r), Klotz (Phil., 1933, 44-5o), Gelzer
(Hermes, I935, 275--D), and Vallejo (lxix-lxxix). Kahrstedt and Gelzer
treat Livy's details with distrust, whereas Klotz and De Sanctis
think they are ultimately based on official records; but while De
Sanctis and Kahrstedt both assume that eventually there were two
legions in the Po valley, Gelzer and Klotz follow the statement of
both P. and Livy that there were three. Their separate views are
appended:
K ahrstedt: four legions in all at first; original plan, two for Africa
and two for Spain. Manlius takes one of the Spanish legions to Gaul,
Atilius a second; Scipio enrols one new legion and sails with that
to Spain. Final total: five legions.
DeSanctis and Kromayer: four legions in all at first; original plan,
two for Africa and two for Spain. Manlius takes one of the Spanish
legions to Gaul, Atilius a second; Scipio enrols two new legions and
sails with these to Spain. Final total: six legions.
Klot.z: six legions in all (Livy) at first, the two in Gaul perhaps
from 219 .Manlius takes over the latter with reinforcements. Atilius
takes one of Scipio's to Gaul; Scipio enrols one in its place and sails
with two legions to Spain. Final total: seven legions.
Gelzer: five legions in all at first (one, the Fourth, from 219, in
Gaul). Manlius put in charge of the Gallic legion (P.); Atilius sent to
reinforce him with Scipio's two legions: Scipio raises two more and
sails with them to Spain. Final total: seven legions.
Vallejo: five legions in all at first (one, the Fourth, from 219, in
Gaul). Manlius put in charge of the Gallic legion; Atilius sent to
reinforce him with one of Scipio's legions: Scipio enrols one in its
place, and sails with two legions to Spain. Final total, six legions.
Vallejo assumes that here Td. 7rpOKf:)(1pta}J.~a aTpa-rlm~oa can mean one
legion, as it may do elsewhere (cf. ro7. 9, but see ro7-r7 n. (c); Hallward, CAH, viii, chart opposite ro4); this involves the improbable
assumption that for these details P. is following a Greek source.
No scheme succeeds in reconciling P. and Livy, hence any decision
must rest on one's general view of the sources of the legion lists.
For these P. appears to follow Fabius, while Livy's source is controversial. De Sanctis has made out a strong case for its reliability
and even Gelzer, its latest critic (Hermes, 1935, 297), grants it a
substratum of truth; this of course does not exclude the possibility
of inaccuracies. Here the most satisfactory explanation is that of
De Sanctis. Both P.'s source and Livy's knew that there were two
legions in the Po valley; P. also knew these to have been originally
Scipio's, but wrongly assumed that Atilius took them both, and so
had to make Manlius' Fourth Legion a separate one. Livy's source
376

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

III.

42. I

knew that Atilius had only one legion, but wrongly assumed the
final two to be the original number in Gaul under Manlius; hence
his total of three. In fact, two was the final number, after Manlius
and Atilius had in turn borrowed each one of Scipio's legions (and
Scipio had made these up by new levies); at the year end there were
thus six legions enrolled, as Livy records (xxi. 17 2, q. 5----9). Klotz
and Gelzer argue for three legions in the Po valley; but at the battle
of Trebia, including Sempronius' consular army, there were only
four, not five (72. 2 n.), nor were Manlius' losses (4o. 12; d. Livy,
xxi. 25. 10) sufficient to eliminate one legion.
t)ye~va. aucrrT)aa.vTE~: he was C. Atilius Serranus (Livy, xxi. 26. 2,
39 3; App. Hann. 5); see Klebs, RE, 'Atilius (62)', cols. 2097-8.
41. 2. E~E1fAEOV E1fL TiJv wpa.(a.v: despite this phrase, the consuls'
departure was in August. Hannibal reached the Po valley about the
end of September (34 6 n., 54 r), and from 49 5, so. r, and 56. 3 it
may be assumed that, allowing several days' rest at the 'Island'
(49 5-13), he had crossed the Rhone about a month earlier, i.e.
towards the end of August. As Scipio missed him there by three
days (49 r), he evidently left Pisa some ten days earlier, i.e. about
15-20 August, and Rome a little before that (Hoffmann, Rh. Mus.,
1951, 76-78). This late start is best explained by the late decision to
declare war (4o. r-2 n.) rather than by the diversion of Scipio's
troops against the Boii (d. Scullard, Rh. Mt~s., 1953, 213-14); for
this would not account for Sempronius' delay.
~~T)~eovTa. va.ua(: d. Livy, xxi. 17. 8, and 17. 5 for Sempronius' r6o
ships. In addition Livy gives Sempronius ce.loces duodecim. It is
unlikely that all Sempronius' r6o ships were quinqueremes; d. i.
20. 9 n. The fleets of this year are discussed by Thiel (35 n. u), who
points out that Scipio's 6o ships just outnumbered the Punic fleet
in Spain (33 14), on which the Romans were therefore apparently
well informed. The bulk of the Roman fleet was reserved for what
was expected to be the main front (though Scipio will have had
transports for his two legions). On Sempronius' arrival in Sicily see
the fuller account in Livy (xxi. 49-50, Punic attack on Lilybaeum
before Sempronius' arrival thwarted by Hiero); d. too App. Hisp. 14.
4. a.,.b nLawv: for the use of Pisa as a base for operations in the
north-west d. ii. r6. 2, 27. r.
5. To Ma.aaa.ALwn~eov: d. xxxiv. ro. 5 ( = Strabo, iv. 183) : the Rhone
has two mouths, not five, as Timaeus said (cf. Diod. v. 25. 4).
Ptolemy (Geog. ii. ro. 2) also gave it two. On Scipio's voyage see
Livy, xxi. 26. 3-4.
9. K0.6TJYEJ.LOVO.~ CLJ.LO. KO.L auva.ywvLaTn<; KeATOU~: Livy (xxi. 26. s)
makes them Massaliotes.
42. 1.

,.poaJ.Li~a.s Tois 1Tepi Tbv 1foTa.J.Lbv Tbn-OLs: 41.

7, compared with
377

III. 42. r

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

39 8, suggests this was the regular Rhone crossing at Beaucaire,

and this is the view of Jullian {i. 464 n. 4; cf. Torr, 3-4; Bourgery,
Ret<. phil., 1938, 126 n. r), though he admits that a crossing south of

the Durance would leave Hannibal exposed to Scipio's attack. The

same is true of Arles, de Beer's suggestion. More probably, therefore,
the crossing was north of the Durance, but whether at Avignon
{~fommsen, Neumann), Roquemaure or Montfaucon (de Luc,
Larauza, Hennebert, Berthelot) or even so far north as SaintEtienne-des-Sorts (Lehmann), Pont-Saint-Esprit (Osiander), or
Bourg-Saint-Andeol {Maissiat), cannot be determined. Comparison
of 42. r and 49 5 suggests that the crossing was roughly half-way
between the sea and the confluence of Rhone and Isere; and though
this cannot be pressed, it confirms the view that the crossing was
above the Durance. For bibliography see Jullian, loc. cit.; and for
discussion De Sanctis, iii. 2. 7o-7r. On the preparations for crossing
( 2-3) cf. Livy, xxi. 26. 7--<J
4. 11"Af\9os ~a.p~apwv: cf. Livy, xxi. 26. 6, 27. r; they were Volcae,
inhabitants of both banks, who had assembled on the left bank to
oppose HannibaL
6. J.Lipos T~ TllS 8uvajUWS: including cavalry, according to Livy (xxi.
27. 5). who adds some independent detail; cf. Jullian, i. 468 n. I.
On this Hanno, one of Hannibal's most competent generals, see
Livy, xxi. 27. 2 ff.; Lenschau, RE, 'Hanno (r6L cols. 2357-8.
7. ~11"~ s~a.ICOtr\0. <7Ta8u1: 20-25 miles. Livy (xxi. 27. 4) makes it milia
quinque et uiginti ferme, and adds that the river-bed was shallower,
an irrelevant detail in a crossing on rafts.
9. 'll'pos Tl]v i-rr~ou<7a.V XP'\a.v ~ta.Ta -ro cruvTna.yj-lE:vov: 'for the coming action in accordance with instructions' ; for XPela cf. ii. 29. I
(where, however, Tofi uuvTeTayp.lvov means 'of the forces marshalled
against each other').
43. 1. -rils 'll'EJ.111"TTJS vuKTOS: i.e. since the Rhone was reached. Hannibal had spent two days building and acquiring boats (42. 3). On the
third day barbarians contested the crossing, and Hanno marched
north the third night (42. 6). After marching 25 miles he stopped,
built rafts, crossed the river, occupied a strong point and rested
EKElVTJY T1jv ryp.pm' {42. 9). This is apparently the day after Hanno
set out; and P. seems to imply that he started back the next night
a little before dawn. This night, evidently the fourth, P. here speaks
of as Tfjs Trlp.1TTTJ>; either this is an error or P. has compressed the
events of his source so as to omit one day. Certainly a little over
24 hours is short enough time for a 25-mile march, a river crossing,
and the rest preparatory to a further 20 miles with a battle at the
end; and Livy (xxi. :j. 6) records that 'exercitus (i.e. Hannonis) ...
fessus quiete unius diei refidtur ... postero die profecti .. .'.
378

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

III. 45 6

3. t~ u'!repSe~(ou Kat 1rapd. TO f!eulla.: 'upstream and directly aga.inst

the current.
4. Tois O.ywyeucnv . ola.K~tov-ros: cf. Livy, xxi. 27. g, 'equorum pars
magna nantes loris a puppibus trahebantur'. Livy adds that several
were carried across on the ships with saddles and reins, ready for
immediate action.
8. lK'ITAT}KnKOV Kai 1rapa.aTO.TtKOV aywv(as: cf. XViii. 25. I for a
parallel description, involving two armies and spectators (at Cynoscephalae). In both cases (as also in v. 48. 5 ff.) there is conscious
writing up; and, as in i. 44 5, P. may be influenced by Thucydides'
description of the battle in Syracuse harbour. Such passages deviate
from the austere standard demanded (e.g. in ix. r), and make concessions to the more sensational form of composition which P.
derides (e.g. ii. 56. IQ-13, etc.). On the words 1TO.paoogws (g), 7Tapa.\6yov ( 10), and 7Tapdbo~ov ( 12) cf. CQ, 1945, 8--9.

44. 5. -rous ~aatAlO'Kous -rous 'ITepi MaytAov: cf. Livy, xxi. 29. 6,
'Boiorum legatorum regulique Magali aduentus'. Livy puts the
arrival and speech of the Gauls after the cavalry skirmish with
Scipio's men had been reported to Hannibal; in P. this news reaches
him only in 45 This divergence, and Livy's reference to the Boii,
shows him to be following not P. but probably Silenus via Coelius
(cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 183).
10-12. Hannibal's speech. This bears little resemblance to the highly
coloured version in Livy (xxi. .30. 2-n), which is designed to encourage an army depressed by the news of the cavalry defeat. The
parallel between To p.t!ytO'Tov 7]vvaTat nov pywv ( n) and 'postquam
multo maiorem partem itineris emensam cernant' (Livy, xxi. 30. 5)
may be coincidental; and it remains uncertain whether P.'s speech
is wholy fictitious.
however, above, p. 14.
12. uvOpas aya6ous y(vea6at Kat . , Q.~(ous: cf. II6. II, XVi. 9 2,
avl]p .. dya8os yev6p.evo<; Kal . fhvrlfh'I')S' ~to<;, etc. For the phraseology. borrowed from chancellery jargon, cf. Schulte, 49
45. 2. Losses itt the skirmish; d. Livy, xxi. zg. 3, 'uictores ad centum
sexaginta (quadragintaGrott.) nee omnes Romani, sed pars Gallorum.
uicti amplius ducenti ceciderunt'.
6. T) s~aiCOlltST] TWV &']piwv: cf. Livy, xxi. z8. s-r2, who also retails
the version found in Frontinus (Strat. i. 7 2). The problem interested
P. as a student of tactics. Whether boats could have successfully
towed a raft of elephants across the Rhone, which in its lower
reaches flows at the rate of 25 metres a second, is questionable. But
the reconstruction of J. Philipp (Klio, rgn, 343-54), favourably
mentioned by Klotz (Livius, r28), according to which the boats were
anchored at intervals across the river, and the raft forced across from
379

III. 45 6

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

one set of guide-ropes to another by the current, though it does

credit to his technical ingenuity, can be reconciled with the authorities
only by a wholly arbitrary contamination of Livy and P., and by
the utmost violence to both texts. Philipp contends that both
accounts go back ultimately to Silenus, but that P. followed him
slavishly into error, an improbable view.
46. I. K.o.Ta T~v li~~o.ow Toil 'ITOTo.~ou: 'at the point of entrance into
the river', i.e. the point where the raft entered it The first two rafts
thus appear to have been wholly on land. For their width cf. Livy,
xxi. 28. 7, quinquaginta (pedes) latam. Thus a platform of this width,
and several rafts long, projected into the river at right-angles to the
bank; the upper (northern) side of this platform, 200ft. long, was
fastened to trees on the bank ( s).
4. To 'IT8.v ~t"uy~a. Tijs 'ITpo~oM]s: 'the whole projecting pier'. For its
length cf. Livy, xxi. 28. 7, ducentos longam pedes. P.'s phrase suggests
that the two rafts on land( r) are excluded from the zoo ft.
S{Jo 'ITI<1l't'JYOLO.S axeS(o.s S~a.cJ>epovTWS: 'two extremely well-constructed
rafts' (for they have to stand up to the crossing); a further point is
added in TTpa> a.U-ra;; . OCuopiva;;. Philipp (Klio, rgii, 348) renders
'peczJ-liarly constructed', to suit his theory; but fna.~Ep6vTw;; never
means this in P.
5. pu~ou~K.ouvT~<S: cf. i. 27. 9, 28. 2, for the towing of the horsetransports at Ecnomus. Philipp (ibid.) states that the boats were in
mid-stream before the platform was covered with earth; neither
P. nor Livy says anything like this.
47. 1. 'l!'pofjye TOUTOlS 6.'1!'oupa.ywv: though aTTovpa.yEij,! elsewhere
takes a dative of advantage (d. 49 IJ, v. 7 II, vi. 40. 7), TOVTots here
seems to be instrumental; 'he advanced with these as his rear-guard'
(Paton). TOvTot;; refers to both cavalry and elephants, without any
indication which came last. Jullian (i. 472) w-rites: 'les fantassins
d'abord, puis les cavaliers, et, a l'arriere-garde, Hannibal et les
elephants'; but 45 s-6 may suggest that the cavalry came at the
rear.
'ITa. pel. Tov 'IToTa.~ov KT>-..: clearly the Rhone; d. Livy, xxi. 3r. 2,
'postero die profectus aduersa ripa Rhodani mediterranea Galliae
petit'. Livy adds that Hannibal did this in order to avoid a clash
with the Romans before he reached Italy. P. makes Scipio allege the
same (64. 7), but without committing himself to the theory (as
Kahrstedt thinks, iii. 182). Probably the detour was planned from
the outset with the Allobroges, who will hardly have improvised the
provisioning of Hannibal's army overnight (49 ro-rz; d. Viedebantt, Hermes, I9I9, J62). On the topography see 49 s-s6. 4 n.
2-5. Direction of the Rhone. Viedebantt (Hermes, 19r9, 346 ff.) argues
380

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

III. 47 6

ws

that the phrase

J.rrl. 7"~11 lw ( r) comes from a tradition which
made Hannibal ascend the Durance, and that P. has erroneously
transferred its direction to the Rhone; and this he regards as at the
root of P.'s schematic picture of the river and the Alps, as found in
ii. 14-16 (the passage referred to in 4). But Viedebantt's Durance
theory is unconvincing (cf. 49
4 n. (r)), and it is more probable
that the schematization accounts
the directions given here. Since
toP. the Alps run east and west (ii. 14. 6-7), the Rhone, which flows
parallel with and north of the range ( 3), might be expected to flow
in a westerly direction. In zit is said to have its source beyond the
recess of the Adriatic, 1Tpos T~v ~cl1Tepav veuovaas: this Paton translates
'north-west of the head of the Adriatic' (cf. Cardona), but vEvnv
1Tpo;; means 'to face towards'. This phrase, taken with the reference
to the ai\,\a)v of 3, which clearly runs east and west, suggests that
the Rhone flowed in a westerly direction; but this is modified in 2,
pEi St 1TpOs [ nh-] ovans- XE~p.epwd.s. In this the article has been omitted
since Hultsch (Quaestiones Polybianae (Zwickauer Programm, r859),
r8) pointed out that P. does not normally employ it with secondary
compass directions. However, it is not easy to see why it should
have crept in; and there is much to be said for the hypothesis of
Cuntz (62; cf. Viedebantt, Hermes, 1919, 347) that P. inserted the
word XELf.LEptvas later (or perhaps added it in the margin) on the
basis of fresh information, when he learnt (not necessarily as a result
of his own crossing of the Alps) that the course of the Rhone was
not due east and west.
3. )\p8ues K~::XTot: not otherwise knov;rt. The Celtic word ardu means
'high', and emendation to bring in a reference to the Aedui is uncalled for.
47. 6-48. 12. Earlier accounts of Hannibal's crossing of the Alps.
Which of the Hannibal-historians P. is here attacking is uncertain;
but they were clearly writers in the sensational fashion which he condemns in Timaeus and Phylarchus (cf. ii. r6. I4, s6. IO-I3; CQ, 1945.
8 .). Wunderer (ii. u) thinks ofChaereasandSosylus (cf. 20.5 n.), and
both .Meyer (Kl. Sckr. ii. 374) and Hesselbarth (36) agree; others (e.g.
Arnold, Oorzaak, 23; Cornelius, 81-82; Taubler, Jlcrgesck. 84 n. r49)
see a reference to Silenus of Caleacte (i. 3 2 n., iii. r3. s-r4. 8 n.),
who was a source for Coelius and retailed the famous story of
Hannibal's dream (Cic. de diu. i. 49; cf. .Meyer, Kl. Sckr. ii. 368 ff.).
All three authors may be in P.'s mind. On the date of this digression
see 48. r2 n.
47. 6. Suo Tel '!l"6.0""1S taTopla.s aAAoTpU~TO.TO.; for P.'s stress on truth
see the passages quoted in i. 14 5 n. ; for consistency see viii. 9
(criticism of Theopompus on this score). For 1TapEtaaynv ( 7) cf.
20.3 n.

III. 47 8

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

8. Ka.Ta.aTpoTftv: an end; but also the denouement of a dramatic

plot, cf. 48. 8.
9. &eo~ i] TL~ fipw~: cf. 48. 9 ijpw> corresponds to (JdiJv 7TatDa> in 8.
See further, 48. 8 n.

48. 6. Ka.9ciwep TJIJ-EL~ . HIT!Awo-a.IJ-EV: d. ii. 2I. 5, 22. I ff.

8. 9eou Ka.l. 1-'-T!Xa.vfj~: a deus ex machina, by hendiadys. N. S. de
Witt argues plausibly that this god was Heracles (TAP A, I94I,
6o-6I); part of the propaganda promoted on the Punic side, and in
Greek (and suppressed by the Romans), associated Hannibal's march
with that of Heracles (d. Livy, xxi. 21. 9, 37 2). 1Tfimv is of course an
exaggeration. For the expression nis 1rpwTas 1maeluet> iflwoel:s d.
i. IS. 9 (on Philinus).
12. Twv wa.pa.TETeuxoTwv To'l~ Ka.Lpoi<;: unidentifiable; they may have
been either Greeks or Carthaginians (d. ix. 25. 2), whom P. met in
Greece before the war with Perseus, or in Italy later on.
Tfl oul. TWV 1\A1TEWV O.UTOl KEXpfio-9a.L 1TOpEL~: Cuntz (s8-S9) believes
that as an internee P. would not be allowed to leave Italy before
I 50; and he dates P.'s crossing of the Alps in I32, on his return from
attending Scipio's headquarters at Numantia. It is not, however,
established that P. was present at Numantia; and indeed it is highly
improbable that he undertook a journey across the Alps at the age
of about 70. There is evidence that P. was not restricted to Latium
during his internment; and he most likely made his Alpine journey
in connexion with a visit to Spain with Scipio in ISI, when he was
legatus to the consul L. Licinius Lucullus (d. xxxv. 4-8; Livy, ep.
48; Oros. iv. 21. I ; Val. Max. iii. 2. 6), perhaps on the return journey
in ISO; d. Nissen, Rh. Mus., I87I, 27I (outward journey); DeSanctis,
iii. 1. 2II-I2. If so, P. may have added this sentence, or indeed the
whole digression, just before the publication of this part of his
history about ISO; see above 21. 9-Io n. (on the Punic treaties). On
the other hand, the similar digression 57-59 appears to have been
written after I46 (d. 59 4 n.), and this too may be an insertion
designed for a later edition (cf. DeSanctis, iii. I. 2r2); Ziegler (RE,
'Polybios (I)', col. I486) regards it as late, but he bases his view on
Cuntz's theory of P.'s restriction to Latium during his internment.

49. 1-4. P. Scipio returns to Italy: cf. Livy, xxi. 32. r-s. His brother
( 4) was Cn. Cornelius L.f. Ln. Scipio Calvus, the consul of 222
(cf. ii. 34 I). On &Bwia ( 2) see ii. 32. 8 n.; 'unruly character' (Paton)
is too mild a translation.
49. 5-56. 4. Hannibal's crossing of the Alps.
1. Bibliography. See the works listed in CAH, viii. 725, which
contain references to earlier literature. Add: R. L. Dunbabin, CR,
I93I, 52-57, IZI-6 (Col du Clapier); J. Knofl.ach, Klio, I932, 403-2I
382

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

111.495

(Col du Clapier); A. Klotz, Rh. Mus., 1933. 10-12 (Silius' version);

W. W. Hyde, Roman Alpine Routes (Philadelphia, 1935), 197-210
(Little St. Bernard); A. Berthelot, REA, 1935, 185-204; 1936, 35-38
with map (Col du Clapier); J. van Ooteghem, LEC, 1936, 35-6o
(survey of recent work); cf. AIPhO, 1949 (=Melanges Gregoire, i),
583--92 (new theory on the Rhone); A. Bourgery, Rev. Phil., 1938,
12o-32 (undecided); Klotz, Livius, 105, 130 (Little St. Bernard);
Vallejo, lxxx-ciii (undecided); M. Cary, GB, 248 n. 2 (perhaps Col
du Clapier); G. de Beer, Alps and Elephants (London, 1955) (Col de
la Traversette).
As several scholars have observed, the problem of Hannibal's
route across the Alps is primarily one of source criticism. Discussion
here will be restricted as far as possible to P.'s text and what it
either states or allows to be reasonably inferred; but unfortunately
this involves considering the salient features of Livy's account, and
its relation to that in P.
2. Livy. Livy believes that Hannibal came down among the
Taurini (xxi. 38. 5), cum id inter omnes constet; he criticizes both
Coelius Antipater (xxi. 38. 6) for the view that Hannibal crossed
per Cremonis iugum (i.e. the Little St. Bernard; see further Hyde,
op. cit. 79-8o), and the vulgar belief that he crossed ad Poeninum
(xxi. 38. 8), i.e. by the Great St. Bernard. But Livy's own account
contaminates two different sources. After bringing Hannibal to the
so-called 'Island' between the Rhone and the Isere (see below), and
after letting him there settle the problem of the two brothers (whom
he specifically calls Allobroges, xxi. 31. 5 ff.)-so far following the
same tradition as P.-Livy goes on (xxi. 31. 9 ff.):
'(9) sedatis Hannibal certaminibus Allobrogum cum iam Alpes
peteret, non recta regione iter instituit, sed ad laeuam in Tricastinos
flexit; inde per extremam oram Vocontiorum agri tendit in Trigorios,
haud usquam impedita uia, priusquam ad Druentiam flumen peruenit . . .' (10-12, description of the Druentia, 'amnis Galliae
fluminum difficillimus transitu'; 32. 1-5 account of Scipio's action =
P. iii. 49 1-4) (32. 6) 'Hannibal ab Druentia campestri maxime itinere
ad Alpes cum bona pace incolentium ea loca Gallorum peruenit' (cf.
P. iii. so. z).
It has been widely (and correctly) recognized that Livy has here
turned to a second source; further, that he has taken up this source
at an earlier point than that at which he leaves the tradition common toP. The phrase ad laeuam will thus refer to Hannibal's direction immediately after crossing the Rhone (or, according to those
who put the crossing at Beaucaire, and believe the original direction
to have been east along the Durance, at some point such as Cavaillon,
where Hannibal suddenly turned north across that river and up the
Rhone; but a Rhone crossing at Beaucaire is unlikely). Livy's route
JSJ

Ill. 49 5

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

can only be identified if the location of the three tribes he mentions

can be determined within the block of high land between the Durance,
the Rhone, the Isere, and the Alps; and clearly there can have been
changes in the territories of all or any of these peoples between 218
and the date when Strabo describes them. Livy makes Hannibal
enter their territory by turning ad laeuam, after leaving the 'Island';
and the most convincing explanation of this is that he has transferred
to this point in his narrative a description of a part of Hannibal's
march which followed immediately on the Rhone crossing, when
Hannibal turned ad laeuam, and passed through the territories of
these three tribes going from south to north; whereas now they lie
on a march from north-west to south-east, beginning near Pont de
l'Isere and ending on the upper Durance. For discussion see De
Sanctis, iii. 2. 72-73; Viedebantt, Hermes, 1919, 355-8.
The reference to the Druentia is the main evidence for supposing
that Hannibal returned from the 'Island' to the :Mt. Genevre pass.
The account in Livy, xxi. 32. 6, however, scarcely fits the upper
Durance valley; nor can the torrent of Livy, xxi. 31. ro-12 be reconciled with the river in its upper reaches. Finally, it was unnecessary
for Hannibal to cross the Durance to reach the Mt. Genevre pass,
if he crossed either the Col de Bayard or the Col du Lautaret from
the Isere. The first difficulty vanishes once one observes that at
32. 6 Livy has reverted to his original source; the campestre iter is
that along the valley of P. so. 1-2, and from this point on there is
once again close correspondence between the two authorities. As for
the two remaining difficulties, two solutions offer themselves. Livy
may have adapted to the upper Durance a crossing which in his
original source applied to a point much farther west, e.g. at Cavaillon,
if the Rhone crossing was at Beaucaire (so Viedebantt and Dunbabin); but as we saw, the Rhone was probably crossed above the
conjunction with the Durance (42. r n.). Alternatively, one may
assume that Druentia in Livy here refers to some other river (so
Osiander, Der Hmtnibalweg (Berlin, rgoo), 73 f., Druentia
Drac;
others would make it the Drome (Druna)). This is not easy; and an
amendation of the text is excluded by the form Druentia in Silius
(iii. 468) and Ammianus (xv. 10. rr), both following the same tradition.
On either assumption Hannibal did not approach the upper Durance
valley near Briam;on.
Some scholars, including De Sanctis, admit the existence of two
traditions in Livy, but attempt to combine them with P. to obtain
a consistent account. Hannibal ascends the Isere, and then marches
either up the Drac and over the Col de Bayard, or more directly
from Grenoble to Brian<;on over the Col du Lautaret, to complete
the crossing by the Mt. Genevre. But this hypothesis involves two
Alpine crossings, which are quite without reference in our sources
384

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

Ill. 49 5

(and the Col du Lautaret is II5 m. higher than the Mt. Genevre).
It seems more likely that the two traditions are irreconcilable,
that the Druentia is in fact the Durance, and that, whatever the
point at which it was crossed in Livy's source, its appearance here
is designed to bring Hannibal into Italy by the Mt. Genevre.
Livy evidently realized that his main source was taking Hannibal
over what he believed to be the wrong pass; so at 31. 9 he turned to
a fresh source, which, either as it stood or with a little adaptation,
brought Hannibal into the upper Durance valley (31. 9-12,32. 6). This
done he could revert without hesitation (32. 7 ff.} to the main source
for a description of the details of the march, which now applied to what
he believed to be the genuine route over the Mt. Genevre. This main
source was probably Coelius (cf. Kahrstedt, iii. rso); and Coelius is
known to have brought Hannibal over the Little St. Bernard (above).
Livy, however, knew (id cum inter omnes constet) that Hannibal
descended among the Taurini; and so he turned to another source
(which also appears in Silius Italicus (iii. 466 ff.) and Ammianus
Marcellinus (xv. ro. n)), and used it to bring Hannibal via the
Tricastini, Vocontii, and Trigorii to the Durance and (by implication) the .Mt. Genevre, before reverting to Coelius. 1
3 Polybius. Livy's main tradition was also P.'s; and probably
both go back, P. directly and Livy via Coelius, to Silenus. What is
P.'s relation to the Little St. Bernard hypothesis, represented by
Coelius? It is not easy to decide. In his narrative in this book P.
mentions only the Allobroges and the Insubres (56. 3), both of whom
fit the theory of an advance up the Isere to Bourg-Saint-Maurice and
the crossing of the Little St. Bernard to the Val d'Aosta. P.'s words
are KaTfip ro>.p:Y]pWS' l!> rtt m:p~ rov fl&oov 1TOla KaL 'TO 'TWV >lvu&p.fJpwv
1Jvo> (56. 3). On the other hand, P. elsewhere (xxxiv. ro. r8, Strabo)
stated that Hannibal crossed a pass S,a Tavplvwv; and though the
reference to Hannibal is not in all MSS. of Strabo, and has been
impugned as non-Polybian, there seems no good reason to reject it
(DeSanctis, iii. 2. 65). It is quite possible that in iii. 56. 3 P. is merely
indicating a general direction; if Hannibal had already contacts with
the Insubres, their territory may well have been his first important
goal. According to Livy (quoted above, 44. 5 n.), his guides were
Boii, but they may have included Insubres, since Boii and Insubres
were at this time (d. 40. 8), as on several former occasions (cf. ii.
22 ff.), working closely together against the Romans. Moreover,
Coelius' pass was not necessarily Silenus'; he may well have supplemented Silenus from other sources. On the other hand, the reference
to the Insubres in P., taken together with Coelius' known support
for the Little St. Bernard, and Livy's switch from a source of
1 Klotr. (Livius, 130) suggests that the confusion goes back to Coelius himself,
who contaminated Silenus and Fabius; but this seems less likely.

cc

III. 49 5

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

Polybian colour, in order to bring Hannibal over the Mt. Genevre

into the Taurini, creates a strong case for anyone who cares to
interpret P.'s account as one of a march through the Little St.
Bernard; and this pass is adopted by Klotz (Livius, 105, IJo),
who thinks that Coelius took the reference to the Cremonis iugum
from Silenus, but also had the inconsistent mention of the Taurini
(from Fabius).
Summarizing, one may say that P.'s narrative of the approach
to and crossing of the Alps can be reconciled with either this pass
or one of the group debouching on the valley of Susa and Turin.
It is, however, illegitimate to combine this version with Livy in the
hope of gaining further details, since Livy has contaminated two
traditions.
4 The Pass. Any final decision will depend on the relative weight
assigned to the evidence quoted above. Despite P.'s reference to the
Insubres in iii. 56. 3, Hannibal's first action in the Po valley was
apparently the taking of the chief town of the Taurini (6o. 9), which
Appian (Hann. s) calls Taurasia, and which is likely to have stood
on the site of Turin (De Sanctis, iii. 2. 68); and Livy has recorded
the strong consensus of opinion in favour of the view that Hannibal
came down among the Taurini. Arguing against Viedebantt, Ed.
Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 4rr n. r) has shown how unlikely it is that
Hannibal, having come down the Dora Baltea, should then have
lost time marching west to Turin, with Scipio at Placentia. Thus it
seems very likely (though not certain) that Hannibal reached the
Po valley via the Vaile di Susa, and so that he crossed by either the
Mt. Genevre (or one of the passes from the Durance valley a little
to its south) or the Mt. Cenis (Great or Little, or the subsidiary Col
du Clapier).
Those who accept Livy's reference to the Druentia as true and
important evidence must choose the former. But if one neglects
his secondary source (above (z)), then the details of Hannibal's
march to the 'Island', and subsequently through the territory of the
Allobroges (i.e. up the Isere valley), make it probable that his pass
was one in the Mt. Cenis group, approached by way of the Isere and
the Maurienne (the valley of the Arc). As has been pointed out, the
Mt. Genevre can be reached from the junction of the Rhone and the
I sere only by passing over two cols ; and the only reason for making
Hannibal take so difficult a route is Livy's reference to the Druentia.
The argument that the Mt. Cenis passes were not used in antiquity
has been adequately refuted, most recently by Knoflach (Klio, 1932,
405-6) who emphasizes the effects of a built road over the Mt.
Genevre in concentrating traffic through the western Alps. Thus, on
balance, the evidence seems to favour one of this group of passes.
However, a detailed identification of the various points of Hannibal's
386

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

III. 49 7

march, asP. describes it, is not very feasible, for P., though drawing
on a good source, is influenced to some extent by his schematic
picture of an advance up a river Rhone which runs east to west,
parallel to the Alps (cf. 47 2-s. so. r). Such identifications have
frequently been attempted but no two agree.
This discussion is not intended to be exhaustive, but merely to
indicate the general view of the sources on which the commentary
is based; and detailed problems are reserved for treatment there.
49. 5. 1rpbs Tijv KaAou!LEV'IlV N1]aov: cf. Livy, xxi. 3r. 4, quartis
castris ad Insulam peruenit. Presumably the Gaulish name had this
meaning (d. de Beer, 23). In 6 P. reads -rj 8tjaKapas-; and Livy (xxi.
3r. 4) has ibi (s)arar. Editors generally emend to read fi 8' 'la&.pas and
ibi [sara, perhaps without good reason (cf. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 413
n. r); but undoubtedly, whatever name stood in the original source
common toP. and Livy, the river indicated is the Isere. The Saone
(Arar) lies far beyond Hannibal's likely line of march; and though
it is sometimes argued that Liv'}''s reading is confirmed by the
reference to the Arar in Silius Italicus (iii. 452), Silius is in fact not
describing Hannibal's march to the 'Island', but giving a general
account of the Rhone; and since Silius took his geographical embroideries from separate sources (cf. J. Nicol, The Historical and
Geographical Sources used by Silius Italicus (Oxford, 1936), 129 ff.),
and a reference to the Arar, its main tributary, was part of the
regular description of the Rhone (cf. SiL It. xv. SOI), Silius may be
left out of the discussion. In any case, the Saone would not correspond
to the distance from the Rhone crossing. Comparison of 39 9 (1,400
stades from the Rhone crossing 7rpos 'T~v &.vaf3oil~v nv .tli\7Tewv) with
so. I (8oo stades from the 'Island' to ~ Twv .tlAm;wv d.vaf3o,\1)) shows
the 'Island' to have been about 6oo stades from the crossing (probably P. obtained his 1,400 stades by adding an attested 6oo stades
up the Rhone valley to the 8oo calculated at the rate of 8o a day for
the stretch from the Isere to the 'foot of the pass': cf. so. I n.). Six
hundred stades (just under 70 miles) from Pont de l'Isere brings one
to a point between Orange and Avignon, which seems likely enough
for the crossing (cf. 42 1 n.). This figure of 6oo stades is fatal to de
Beer's identification (14-24, cf. 26) of the aKapas with the Aygues,
which is only 39 miles north of his proposed crossing at Arles. Various
other suggested identifications of the aKapa>, ranging from the
Durance to the Saone, and including Wilkinson's Sorgue, accepted
by Conway (see the app. crit. to the Oxford Livy ad loc.), cannot
be dealt with here. For discussion see Viedebantt, Hermes, 1919,
353 n. I; DeSanctis, iii. z. 70; Jullian, i. 474 n. 3 Viedebantt (ibid.)
suggests that P. has inserted the words 7Toilvoxllov Kat mT6<f>opov by
deduction from the fact that Hannibal refitted here ( II-12).
7. Comparison with the Nile Delta. Jullian (i. 474 n. 3) considers this
387

III. 49 7

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

forced comparison (in which the rivers and an approximately triangular axfi!'-a form the only common feature) the work of one of
the Hannibal-historians; but it may well be P.'s own contribution.
The comparison Tcf 1'-"y.fBH is obviously absurd. The mountainsSva7Tpoao8a Kal 8va.ip.f3o>.a Kat axo;oov ws t1TEtV &npocnm-will be
the Grande-Chartreuse. The inconsistency between this description
and the comments in 47 9 (d. Reid, JRS, 1913, 195) is only apparent,
for there P. was criticizing accounts which made the Alps as a
whole inaccessible, but here he is speaking only of a single range.
The phrase TI]v 1'-[av 7TAo:vpav . i7Tt~o:V,vvat reads oddly, and Schweighaeuser may well be right in suspecting that opt~"' has dropped out
after 1rAwpav (d. ii. 14. 4, 14. 6).
8. SU' cHiA4>ous OTO.o~O.tovTO.S: Allobroges in Livy {xxi. 31. s-6)
who calls the elder Braneus. P. appears {so. z) to distinguish oi KaTa
ftEpos ~Y"ftoV> nvv L4>.Aof3plywv from the f3apf3apm who accompanied
Hannibal from the 'Island' ; whereas to Livy the attacking chiefs
are simply Galli. Nevertheless, P.'s account is not inconsistent with
an assumption that the two brothers in the 'Island' were Allobroges,
and the attackers dissident chieftains of a people in a state of aTd.atsperhaps supporters of the younger brother. Livy may have substituted Galli, because he has meanwhile inserted 31. 9-12, taking
Hannibal across country to the Durance (cf. 49 5-56. 4 n. (z)). Livy
represents Hannibal's aid as an act of solicited arbitration, P. as an
alliance with one side. On P.'s statement that Hannibal's attackers
were Allobroges Jullian's comment (i. 48o n. 3) is: 'il doit s'agir
de Ia tribu ligure qui occupait Ia Basse Maurienne et dont Ia capitale
(castellum ... caput regionis, T.-L. xxi. 33 n) etait non loin de Ia.'
This is a good example of the fatal method of choosing a location
and then forcing the sources into their Procrustean bed.
11. Twv ovAwv Tn va.Aa.~a. Ka.i Tli vvOVTJK4ha.: but an extensive
replacement with Gallic weapons would raise many problems (cf.
Jullian, i. 475 n. 5), and probably it was a question merely of spears
and javelins. Cf. Livy, xxi. 31. 8, 'ob id meritum commeatu copiaque
rerum omnium, maxime uestis, est adiutus, quam infames frigoribus
Alpes praeparari cogebant'.

50. 1. va.pci. Tov voTO.J.LOV: which river? To P. clearly the Rhone;

cf. 39 9 a7TO 0~ ri]> 8ta{3&.ao:ws TOV 'Po'f5avoii 7TOpEVOftlVots 7Tap' ath-ov
TOV 7TOTaftOV ws l7T1 TaS 7T1)yas lws 7Tpos T~V avaf3o>.~v KT>.. But the reason
is his false picture of the Rhone's direction and relation to the Alps
(cf. 47 2-5 n.), which would make Hannibal follow its bank up to
the point when he turns right and begins the ascent of the Alps. In
reality Hannibal must have left the 'Island' up the valley of the
Isere (cf. 49 s-56. 4n. (4)).
is oKTa.Kooious oTa.Sious: this figure, about 92 miles, would bring
388

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

III. 5:1:. 3

Hannibal from Pont de l'Isere to Montmelian, at the confluence of the

!sere and the Arc, and so to the bounds of Allobrogian territory
(Jullian, i. 477). But P.'s source appears to record the days spent on
the stages from the Rhone to the Po valley, but (from the 'Island'
at least) to calculate the distances on the basis of 8o stades a day
(cf. 39 n.). Here for instance ro days are spent on Soo stades; yet the
distance over the Alps from here to the Po, which is 1,200 stades
(39. Io), only occupied 15 days (56. 3). That Hannibal's daily average
was the same in the Alps and in the Isere valley is manifestly absurd;
and the distances for the stages from the 'Island' onwards are not
to be taken at face value. See C. Torr, r-2.
2. v Tois '1Tmfio~s: cf. Livy, xxi. 32. 6, 'Hannibal ab Druentia
[sic] campestri maxime itinere ad Alpes cum bona pace incolentium
ea loca Gallorum peruenit' (on the 'Druentia' cf. 49 5-56. 4 n. {2);
on the Galli cf. 49 8 n.).
5. Ka.Ta.aTpa.To'll'iS.:uaa.s E'II'E!-LEVE: cf. Livy, xxi. 32. 9, 'Hannibal
consistere signa iussit'. Jullian's attempted localization at the mouth
of the Maurienne (i. 48o) depends on the doubtful assumptions (a)
that Livy's precision of detail is not mere rhetorical elaboration,
and (b) that P.'s distances here are trustworthy.
6. TWV Ka.&TJYOUtUVWV a.C.Toi:!; r a.Aa.TWV: i.e. the Boii under Magilus
(44. 5). Kahrstedt (iii. r8z) argues that they are here used as scouts
because of their familiarity with the Alps; but that local men have
been used as guides( 2), not the Boii, because Hannibal has taken
a route different from that he originally intended. This is a non
sequitur. P. never says that Magilus' services were dispensed with.
The f3&.pf3a.pot from the 'Island' were protectors (49 13), not guides
(along the river-bank) ; and it was natural enough to use local guides
for the hardest part (52. 7}, to supplement the limited knowledge of
Boii from the Po valley. In short, there is no reason to doubt that
Hannibal followed the route intended from the first (cf. 47 1 n.).
7. et11 nva. 'll'a.pa.Kta.UvTJv 11'6Aw: a castellum in Livy, xxi. 33 n.
Jullian (i. 48r) suggests 'Saint-Georges?'.

52. 2. TETa.pTa.ios wv Ets tuvSUvous 'I!'O.f>YEVTO luyO.Aous: these

are the events mentioned in 8, not the immediate meeting with the
natives ( 3) ; and TTa.pTatos is reckoned from leaving the 7ToA~s of
51. 10.
3. 9a.A~oos Ka.t aTcpavou!l: 8o)).o{ are often olive-branches, but
hardly here in an Alpine valley (cf. Ju11ian, i. 483 n. 2). The custom
is paralleled by the branches borne by the Roman fetiales {cf. Livy,
i. 24. 6) and by suppliants generally (cf. Cic. V err. ii. 4 no). For the
Greek ICI)p6Knov or 'rod of truce' see Herod. ix. roo. I ; Thuc. i. 53 I ;
Dem. li. 13. A scholiast to Thucydides describes it as fJ.\ov dp96v
<
>
8
"..J.
\
EXOll 1<UTpW II 01.!0 O'l'tS 1Tpt1T1TI\E/'fiVOVS l<a.t Ul'7~7TpOO'W7TOtJS 1rpos
W

'>I

'

III. 52. 3

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

&.\A~.\ovs

t<et,.dvovs. It was used for communications between belligerents, and eventually became a general symbol for peace; but to
call it aJvftrJp.a cpiAtas is loose writing. When it reached Rome, as the
caduceus, is uncertain. See further R. Boetzkes, RE, 'Kerykeion',
cols. 33o-42.
6. rrpoB~Aous ~gu rroAE!l(ous: cf. Livy, xxi. 34 4, 'ne repudiati aperte
hostes fierent'. Livy here adds a few details not in P. (e.g. the envoys
were principes castellorum) and omits others.
53. 4. Tous 8' iK XE~pos TtmTovns: 'striking down others at dose
quarters'. For iK xetp6s, comminus (missed by Paton), see i. 76. 8, etc.
5. m;p( n AEiuK6rrnpov bxup6v: 'near a certain bare rock forming a
strong point'. Jullian (i. 484 n. 3) mentions the white gypsum rocks
of the Maurienne; but his attempt to identify the one referred to
here is not very convincing.
Ta0Ta 1-16A~S ~gEJLTJpUao.To: 'these extricated themselves with difficulty' or (d. 51. z) 'Hannibal extricated these' (cf. fig. 132). See
Schweighaeuser, ad loc.

54. 1. Sui TO auvO.rrTU\1 -n;v TTJS n).u6.8os 86a~v: cf. Livy, xxi. 35 6,
'niuis etiam casus, occidente iam sidere Vergiliarum, ingentem terrorem adiecit'. The 'morning-setting' (cf. i. 37. 5 n.) of the Pleiades is
calculated as 7 November or 9 November (d. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 79;
Strachan-Davidson, zo-ZI). But from the time of Hesiod (Op. 383 ff.),
the setting of the Pleiades was an indication of the approach of winter
(cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. ii. 125, 'Vergiliarum occasus hiemem incohat');
and the fact that new snow had just fallen suggests that Hannibal
was on the summit about the third week in September (cf. Jullian,
i. 7 n. 3; DeSanctis, iii. 2. 79), not late in October (as Kahrstedt,
iii. 370 n. 2, 375 n. z; Dunbabin, CR, 193I, 122; de Beer, too-3). In
1947 the tirst snow was reported from Switzerland (2ft. on the Furka
Pass, 7,990 ft.) on 24 September.
2. T~v TTJS 'ho.Mas Ev6.pyEiLO.v: d. Livy, xxi. 35 8, where Hannibal
advances in promunturio quodam. This story of the view of Italy
(and the situation of Rome!) will be rhetorical embellishment (De
Sanctis, iii. 2. 76), though it has been used to confirm or discredit
various identifications of Hannibal's pass. Views of the plain are in
fact to be had from the Mt. Cenis and Col du Clapier (De Sanctis,
iii. 2. 77; Jullian, i. 488 n.; Knofiach, Klio, 1932, 411~13; Dunbabin,
CR, 1931, 56-57), as also from the Col de la Traversette (de Beer,
68-D9). The striking comparison of the Alps to fortress walls was
originally in Cato; cf. Servius ad Aen. x. 13 (= HRR, Cato,
85),
'Alpes ... quae secundum Catonem et Liuium muri uice tuebantur
Italiam'. Cf. Herodian, ii. II. 8, Jv TElxovs ux:IJftaT rr~;plKEtTat Kat
7Tpof3'f3A7JTa 'haA.{as; Isid. Etym. xiv. 8. xS, 'Italiae murorum exhibent (sc. Alpes) uicem'.
390

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

III. s6. 3

7. T01Tov, Sv oCITE .. SuvaT~IV ~v 1rapeX8e'iv: for the following incident cf. Livy (xxi. 36. 1-37. 6) who, however, follows a version
which has misunderstood P. or his source in several places (e.g.
36. 2, 'natura locus iam ante praeceps recenti lapsu terrae in pedum
mille admodum altitudinem abruptus erat' is a confused version of
what P. describes in 54 7) and contains such rhetorical elaboration
as the use of fire and vinegar to break the rock (cf. De Sanctis,
iii. 2. 77-78, deriving Livy's account from Coelius; Jullian, i. 489
n. 2). The spot is no longer identifiable, though many attempts have
been made.
55. 1. rs~ov Kat 1Tap,AAayp.evov: for this pointer to the sensational cf. ii. 28. n n.
56. 3-4. Statistics of the march. On the probable date of Hannibal's
departure from New Carthage and arrival in the Po valley see
34 6 n. and 54 1 n. The figure of five months is also in Livy, xxi.
38. I, 'quinto mense a Carthagine Noua, ut quidam auctores sunt';
cf. Appian, Hann. 4, lKTitJ p.oAtr; . f:LYJ"l; Tzetzes, Hist. i. 27, L 748
(quoting Diodorus and Dio). How P. calculates the fifteen days
spent on the crossing is not wholly clear. From the time Hannibal
leaves the river his time-table appears to be as follows:

Day.

1. Hannibal encamps 7Tp6> mi> (J7Tp{3o:\at> (so. 5).

On the basis of fresh information (so. 7) he moves nearer the
enemy. (F.'s account might be taken to mean that this was still
the first day (so De Sanctis, iii. 2. 82); but then one is a day
short at the ninth day (q.v.). Further this is the second day in
Livy, xxi. 32. 9 and ro.)
3 Battle and capture of 7TOAt> (51. 10); camp there (52. r).
4 Hannibal spends one day there (52. I).
s. 6, and 7 (Three) days' safe advance (52. 2). On days 6 and 7 he
had barbarian guides (52. 7-8).
8. On the fourth day after leaving the 7TOA"i (52. 2, TTapTaior;)
Hannibal, in danger, encamped 7Tp{ n AwK07TTpov (53 s).
9 Next day he regained his vanguard and reached the summit
(53 6), where lvaTai:o<; . Stavt!aa<; he encamped (53 9). Clearly
this is the ninth day since Hannibal left the river, not (like
TTapTaio>, 52. 2) since he left the 7TOAt<; (so Dunbabin, CR, 1931,
122); and DeSanctis's argument (iii. 2. 82) that the reunion with
the vanguard and the arrival at the summit occurred on separate
days is contradicted by 53 6.
ro and II. Two days spent on the summit (53 9). It is not impossible that one of these is the day of Hannibal's arrival (so De
Sanctis, loc. cit.); but the advance from the previous camp was
not unopposed (53 6-8) and probably occupied most of the day.
2.

391

III. 56.3
12.

HAN'NIBAL'S

~lARCH

TO ITALY

Hannibal descended to the paxts (54 4, 55 6).

13, 14, and 15. In one day Hannibal got his cavalry over the chasm

(55 7) ; in three days he got his elephants across too (55 8).
These three days very likely include the one day in which the
horse crossed, though P. does not make this clear.
r6, l7, and r8. TP'Tai:os dml Twv wpoHpTjplvwv KPTJfl-YwY Hannibal
reached the plain (56. r); but TPLTafos might indicate day 17, if
Hannibal marched down a little after getting his elephants
over on day rs.
This calculation allows three days more than the fifteen of 56. 3,
two more if Hannibal reached the plain on day I7, one more if the
two days on the summit include that on which Hannibal arrived.
De Sanctis (iii. 2. 82-83) has similar calculations (his reckoning of
days I and 2 as a single day, and his expansion of day 9 into two
{with Livy) have been mentioned above) ; and by accepting both
the above assumptions he brings Hannibal to the plain 'sulla mattina
del sedicesimo ... avendo impiegato nella marcia quindici giorni',
thus reconciling P.'s total and his separate data. A possible alternative explanation is that P. had his total from the Lacinian inscription
( 4) and his detailed account from a written source. In either case
the discrepancy is small (though Dunbabin (CR, 1931,
manages
to expand it by a curious form of calculation which extends the
crossing to twenty-one days, and explains P.'s fifteen days as 'made
up of the fifteen days' marching and fighting', excluding restswhich is not what P. says).
Livy's account is very similar (xxi. 32. 9-37. 6). His total adds up
to eighteen days; the castellum (w6AS) falls on the third day (Livy,
xxi. 33 n), as in P., but Livy omits the day spent here (52. r), hence
when he describes Hannibal's advance after encamping without his
cavalry (Livy, xxi. 35 r = P. 53 6) he is still at the eighth day, and
one must assume a night between this incident and the arrival on
the summit. In fact this eighth night's camp is not mentioned by
Livy, for it did not exist. Beyond doubt P. is here more reliable,
and Hannibal spent a day after taking the w6ALs, and then reached
the top on the (ninth) day on which he left the AevK67reTpov.
3. ets ... To Twv 'lva6JLPpwv l!8vos: on their location cf. ii. I7. 4 n.
This passage seems to favour the view that Hannibal crossed the
Little St. Bernard Pass and descended the Dora Baltea valley to
Ivrea (cf. Hesselbarth, 29). But since his first action was to take
Turin {6o. g), P. is probably giving only the general direction and
goal (cf. 49 5-s6. 4 n. {4)).
4. Hannibal's numbers: see 35 r n., and, for the Lacinian inscription,
33 r8.
5. n6'!T~~05 . ICC.'TE'!T~EUaE Els nac.s: cf. 49 4 For Scipio's
arrival at Pisa cf. Livy, xxi. 39 3 (32. s, 'cum admodum exiguis
392

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

III. 57

copiis Genuam repetit' (cf. Amm. Marc. xv. 10. 10) is not really a
contradiction since the route would go via Genua; cf. Klotz, Phil.,
1933. 48 n. 18). From Massilia to Pisa is about 300 nautical miles,
and Scipio will have left :\lassilia about seven days after Hannibal
crossed the Rhone; from Pisa his route was probably via Pistoria,
Bononia, and Placentia (De Sanctis, iii. z. 84), though Dunbabin
(CR, 1931, 123) thinks he went via Florence and estimates the distance Pisa-Florence-Bononia-Placentia at nz milia passuum (or 266
m.p. via Faventia). On the whole it is likely that he spent rather less
time than P. suggests on the sea voyage, and more on the march.
Despite the words pe,.' d>.lywv, Scipio brought back at least 30 of
his 65 men-of-war from Massilia to Italy; for (a) the total fleet in
Spain twice appears as 35 ships (95 5, x. 17. 13), (b) although 50 of
Sempronius' fleet of r6o (41. 2) were left at Lilybaeum (Livy, xxi.
51. 7), thus making only no available for north Italy, we hear of
the sending of 120 {96. ro) and 2o (97 2) ships from this fleet simultaneously. See Thiel, 39 ff.
6. TB 1ro.pl Twv E~o.1reX~KEwv uTpaTlmeSa.: two (cf. 40. 14 n.) under
the praetors L. Manlius and C. Atilius.

57-59. The place of geographical information in a history. This digression is clearly composed after P.'s journeys in Africa, Spain, and Gaul
(59 7-8) ; but the date of these is controversial. That through Spain
and Gaul has been dated with some probability to 150, when P.
returned from accompanying Scipio Aemilianus, who was serving
under L. Licinius Lucullus (d. ii. 14. 4-17. 12 n.; iii. 48. 12 n.; cf.
Nissen, Rk. J.1f.us., 1871, 271, who, however, puts it on the outward
journey in 151), and it is likely that he visited Africa from Spain
with Scipio (xxxiv. 16. 2, xxxvi. r6. 12) in ISI, to meet Masinissa
(ix. 25. 4), who died in 149 or early 148 (cf. De Sanctis, iii. I. 2II)though Ziegler (RE, 'Polybios (r)', col. 1454) argues that P. first
visited Africa in 149. The voyage of exploration mentioned by Pliny
(Nat. kist. v. 9 = P. xxxiv. 15. 7), outside the Pillars, down the
African coast, perhaps to the R Lixus, and some distance up the
coast of Spain, is dated by Cuntz (53) to 148 and by Ziegler (op. cit.
1455) to 147; but Cuntz's argument against P.'s having left during
the siege is cogent, and the voyage is probably to be dated to 146,
after the fall of Carthage and before he went back to Achaea (cf.
Class. et med., 1948, 16o; ]HS, 1954, 185) On the whole, then, these
dates support the view that this digression is a later insertion (cf.
Ziegler, op. cit. 1486); and this is confirmed by the reference to
Greeks as free from the burden of military and political careers
(59 4), which must refer to the period after 146-for Thommen
(Hermes, r885, 215) can scarcely be right in associating it with the
internment of the Achaeans between 167 and 150. These chapters
393

III. 57

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

must therefore be regarded as written for the second edition of the

work (d. 1-5 n., 3 c) ; cf. Susemihl, ii. 86 n. 24 b; De Sanctis, iii.
I. 212.

57. 3. oL a-uyypa.4>eis &.f.upLa-J3"1TouvTES: cf. 37. II, 38. 3 Who are

these historians with controversial accounts of the Pillars, the Ocean,
the tin-mines of Britain (here mentioned for the first time: cf.
Collingwood in Frank, ES, iii. 46), and the Spanish gold- and silvermines? Almost certainly Dicaearchus, Eratosthenes, and Pytheas;
cf. xxxiv. 5 1-2. Pytheas' account of the Cornish tin-mines survives,
via Timaeus, in Diodorus (v. 22); see Miillenhoff, i. 469 ff. The present
passage suggests that Poseidonius' famous account of the Spanish
mines (Diod. v. 35 ff.; Strabo, iii. 147) was based on earlier, extravagant stories; cf. Strabo (loc. cit.), ou yap a'/T~<YTE'fV Tip p:uOtp cp7]al
(sc. Poseidonius). For different views on how the tin was mined see
Strabo, ibid.
5. ~ea.T' t8a.v Ka.i. Tcnrov Ka.i Ka.Lpov &.,.ovE~fla.vns: cf. 37 n; a reference
forward to book xxxiv.
7. Tots Alxvols Twv oemv"lTWV: 'gourmands at a supper-party'
(Paton). For the simile cf. Plato, Rep. ii. 354 B, aAA' WU1Tp 0~ Alxvot
TOV ad 1TapacpEpOj1.vou a'ITOYEUOVT<lt &.pm:f,ovn:s' 7Tpiv TOV 1Tporpov
p.rp{ws a'/ToAaOaa.L, KaL iyw fl.OL SoKW OVTW KTA. Both passages are

concerned with being diverted from the main point of a discussion

or narrative (though there are many differences between them, and
a direct echo of Plato cannot be proved); P.'s contrast between
present pleasure and future profit is exceedingly forced.
9. TTJ'i 1Ta.pa.uTlKa. OLO.YWYTJ'i: cf. v. 75 6, av!.I'ITO.VUEWS' ap.a Kai s~ayw
y7js lt< rijs L<TToplas (which, as here, accompany practical benefits).
58. 8. ,.1 1rAeov: probably 'closely', to be taken with aurcmr7JV
yvlcrOa.,; but Strachan-Davidson follows Casaubon, in plerisqt~e

diffi cile est.

9. ~a.uTou x6.pw: this, the MS. reading, is taken by Shuck burgh and
Strachan-Davidson with uparelas, 'for the sake of self-glorification',
and Reiske (iv. 230) proposed iaurijs, 'truth for its om sake'. However, Hultsch W. p. lxi} successfully argued that since laurijs would
be naturally taken to apply to 1Tapaooto>..oylas Kat npaTdas, P. wrote
iauTofJ with the same meaning, as if To ri}v aA7J0tda.v Myf'Lv had preceded. Translate, therefore, 'truth for its own sake'.

59. 3. axe8ov ci'll'aVTWV 'ITAWTWV KO.l 'II'OpEUTWV YfiYOVOTWV: cf. iv. 40, 2.
4. cl'ITOAEAUf1EVWV , , , TllS , , , 4>~AOTLf1La.s: for the date of composition
implied in this phrase see 57-59 n.
6. To us Tfi <PLAo'ITeUaTovvTa.s ~ouAfJ1YOf1E9a. auvfim!YT.Jlo-cu KTA.:
'it will be my aim to instruct those who are curious about such
things.'
394

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

III. 6I. 5

7. P.'s voyages and journeys: cf. 57-59 n. For P.'s pride in these cf.
xii. z8. I. 8oKet Sl /LO~ Ka.i TO Ti)S' tO'Top{a.s npO<lx:rJILO. 'TOtoiYrov avl3pa.
~1JTeiv. For references to journeys cf. 48. IZ (Alps), ix. 25. 4 (l\lasinissa), x. II, 4 (New Carthage).
TfJ\1 ~sw9ev T!lUTO.LS TO.~S XWPo.LS <JUYKUpOVO'!lV 9Q.~aTTO.\I: 'the sea COntigUOUS to these lands on the further side'. <JV}'KvpoiJ<Jav in this sense
is derived by Welles (364) from <JvyKvpw, by LSJ from <JV}'Kvplw.
That P. made a separate voyage into the Bay of Biscay in IJJ (so
Cuntz, 57 ff.) is unlikely (cf. Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (r)', col. I46o).

60-75. Hannibal in the Po Valley: Battle of the Trebia

60. 1. TO 1T~Tj9os ~s, 8e8TJAWK!ljlEV: s6. 4
2. KaTaaTpaTo1Tr8euaas tr1T' a.-.h.fJv TTJ" 1TapwpeLa.v: in the Dora
Riparia valley (if his pass was the Mt. Cenis). Jullian (i. 489) locates
the camp 'a Novalese', De Sanctis (iii. z. 24) 'presso Susa'; but any
attempt at a detailed identification is futile. On the exhaustion of
the troops cf. Livy, xxi. 39 I-2.
5. Hannibal's losses: cf. ii. 24. I7, iii. 35 I n. It is scarcely credible
that after the inquiries of 48. IO-IZ Hannibal nevertheless lost over
zo,ooo men in the Alps, and the earlier figures are probably exaggerated. For variants in the tradition see Livy, xxi. 38. 5 P. nowhere
above (Ka0cl1Tep iml.vw 1rpoei1Tov) states that Hannibal lost half his
force ; but he stresses his losses at 56. 2 and gives his numbers on
reaching Italy at 56. 4
8. TWV T a.uptvwv: cf. ii. rs. 8 n.; and, for the extension of Insubrian
power at this time, ii. 17. 4 n. P.'s use of the word a"raaw~6VTwv is
not, however, evidence for an Insubrian hegemony over the Taurini
(cf. Philipp, RE, 'Insubres', col. I59o), since elsewhere (ii. 19. 3) the
word is used of Gauls quarrelling without such implication.
9. TTJV [3apvTaTTJV 1TOAw: cf. Livy, xxi. 39 4, unam urbem, caput eius
gentis. Appian (Hann. 5) calls it Taurasia; and despite Pais (Ricerche,
492), who would put it on the site of Roman Industria (Monteu da
Po), it is more likely to be the forerunner of Augusta Taurinorum
(Turin). Cf. DeSanctis, iii. :2. 79; Nissen, It. La1zd. ii. I64-S The word
n6A~s should not be pressed; cf. Pais, Stud. it., I897, 285.
61. 5. TO 8~ 1Tapa1TAtlO'LO\I O'U\IE~!lt\IE TTO.axew KO.L T0\1 no1TALOV: the
typical parallelism (cf. i. sr. 8, 6r. 4) foreshadows the parallel
speeches of 62-64, and is part of the dramatization of the two leaders,
reflecting for Scipio the influence of Laelius and the circle of Aemilianus; for in fact (cf. DeSanctis, iii. 2. qo-I), though Hannibal's
arrival may have surprised Scipio, it is improbable that Hannibal
either knew or cared about the name of the commander with whom
he had crossed swords at the Rhone, and he would have had cause
for amazement had he not encountered legions on Rome's northern
395

III. 6t. .5

HANNIBAL IN THE PO VALLEY

frontiers. Scipio's surprise that Hannibal should have crossed the

Alps contradicts 49 4 where Scipio naturally assumes Hannibal to
be making for the Po, and forms part of the rhetorical elaboration;
so too the reference to Taurasia as -nvds 7To.:\ns- Jv 'haAtq. ( 6).
8. lipT~ yap ri}s TEAEuTaCa.s cl>tltJ.TJS KaTa.AT)youCTT]s: but Hannibal was
already reported across the Ebro {40. z). Probably the exaggeration
is simply part of the working up of the surprise at Hannibal's
arrival; it is less likely that P. is here thinking of Saguntum as north
of the Ebro (cf. ii. 13. 7 n. (e); iii. 30. 3 n.). Laqueur's suggestion (uz)
that </>~P-71 is here 'rumour' is not to the point.
9. 11'pos Tov T e~ep,ov E~r:miOTEAAov: this must have been sent
upon the receipt of news from Scipio; to have waited for Hannibal's
arrival in Cisalpine Gaul would have been folly and implies an impossible chronology (De Sanctis, iii. 2. 85; Hallward, CAH, viii.
40 n. 2; Dunbabin, CR, 1931, 124-5).
10. TOV 'II'Aouv ws ~'If otiCou: i.e. to Italy (not to Rome). De Sanctis
(iii. 2. 85) calculates the date, with probability, to the middle of
September. According to Livy (xxi. 51. 6-7: cf. App. H ann. 6),
Sempronius sent the army by sea to Ariminum, dispatched Sex.
Pomponius with twenty-five warships to guard the ager Vibonensis
and the Italian coast, and made up the fleet of the praetor M.
Aemilius to fifty ships. After settling affairs in Sicily he himself
coasted to Ariminum with ten ships. In
however, he sends the
troops by land, on oath to reassemble in forty days at Ariminum
(68. 14), and himself goes by land via Rome (68. 12). That the army
went by land seems more likely, in view of the hazards of a seavoyage in late September, but Livy may well be right in sending the
consul by sea (he is following a Roman source); cf. 68. r2-13 n.,
72. 3 n. See De Sanctis, iii. z. 86. The administering of the oath to
the troops is an adaptation of the procedure used in enrolling them;
cf. vi. zr. 6. Despite 68. 14, it is unlikely that they will have been dismissed at Lilybaeum in provincial territory; and De Sanctis {iii.
2. 85) argues that the forty days {68. 14} were for the march from
Rhegium to Ariminum. If this is so, the march from Lilybaeum to
Ariminum will have consumed sixty days, and the arrival there will
have been about the middle of November.
11. Situation of A riminum: d. ii. 19. 13 where Sena, so m.p. to the
south, is described with the same phrase. Cuntz (27-34} has argued
plausibly that the present passage and 86. 2 were vnitten after the
shifting of the Italian frontier northward to the Rubicon-a shift
which Mommsen attributed to Sulla (RG, ii. 355 n.), but which was
already known to P. (d. xxxiv. u. 8, where the boundary is Sena
(MS. lX/..av), but the measurements apply to the Rubicon frontier),
and must be assumed in GIL, i 2 z. 719, which shows the Gracchan
111 uiri agris dandis adsignandis iudicandis of 132 active near Fanum
396

BATTLE OF THE TREBIA

and Pisaurum in the ager Gallicus. The shift of the frontier to the
Rubicon in fact brought Ariminum within Italy (for it lay I2
m.p. south of the river) ; but P. may well have associated it with
the new frontier which bounded its territory on the north. See
Philipp, RE, 'Rubico', cols. 1165--6. Ariminum was founded as a
Latin colony in 268, after the defeat of the Senones (Vell. Pat. i. I4;
Eutrop. ii. I6; Livy, ep. IS).
62-64. Hannibal and Scipio address their troops: cf. Livy, xxi. 40-44,
frequently echoing the version in P.; on the difference in treatment
seeR. Ullmann, Symb. Osl., I932, 57--60. In both authors the speeches
are based on commonplaces about the strength of forces and the
chances of battle (cf. Kahrstedt, iii. I65-6). Since Scipio did not
expect a major battle at this stage, his speech is clearly unhistorical,
and included partly to balance Hannibal's, partly to inflate Scipio
into a figure comparable with his opponent (d. 61. 5 n.); DeSanctis,
iii. 2. I7I. This treatment may go back to P.'s source, perhaps Fabius
(Klotz, Livius, I3I).
62. 2-11. The duel of the prisoners: cf. Livy, xxi. 42. I-4 (several
pairs fight); Zon. viii. 23. The story, probably apocryphal, interests
P. for the moral Hannibal drew from it (63. 2).
63. 3. Ti]v TUXTJV a.exa.1TpOTE0ELKEVa.L: cf. Livy, xxi. 43 5.fortuna
... praemia ... proponit. For Fortune as a power handing out prizes
for valour cf. xv. 9 4, IO. 5, xxxii. 4 3 (n)v dOavaa{av); von Scala,
172; Siegfried, 8I f. But often, as here, the phrase is purely formal
and 'Fortune' a mere figure of speech. See above, p. I6.
64. 1. n61TAlOS TOV na.oov ~OT) 1TE1TEpa.LWflEVOS: cf. 6I. I. The
site is uncertain, but probability points to Placentia, for Scipio left
no garrison for the bridge, as at the Ticinus (Livy, xxi. 45 I}, and
he returned to Placentia (Kromayer, AS, iii. I. 58 n. I}; this seems
preferable to the view that the bridge crossed between the confluence
with the Trebia and that with the Ticinus (K. Lehmann, HZ, n6,
19I6, Io9). On the Ticinus (modern Ticino}, the largest tributary of
the Po, which flows from Lago Maggiore to a confluence near Pavia,
see Nissen (It. Land. ii. I73l
5. 116vov ou TOAflWaL Ka.Ta 1Tp0aw1Tov tSEiv t111iis: Reiske, Schweighaeuser, and B-W2 keep this reading and render either 'they do not
even dare to look us in the face' (but no parallels are given for 11-ovov
ov = ovoi), or 'they do not dare to look at even our mere faces' (but
this is a very strained order even for P., and 11-ovov ov are hard to
separate). H ultsch 2 reads fl-EVHv ov roAfl-Wa Kard. 7rpoaw7Tov iSovr~ ~11-a>
(following an earlier suggestion of Bi.ittner-Wobst to read 11-vovns
ov for fl-OVOV ov). But perhaps the simplest correction is to omit fl-OVOV
with Bekker.
0

397

-~OMANJ'

0 ~ !

6,

THE BATTLE OF THE TREBIA.

Based on DeSanctis.

4 Km.

BATTLE OF THE TREBIA

UL 66

7. 1Tapc1 -rt1v a.{m7"" 1rpoa.lpeow ICEXpiJu9a.l Ttl '!Tope(~: the

tradition that Hannibal changed his original route is in Livy (xxi.
31. 2) and Zonaras (viii. 23), but is probably to be rejected (cf. 47
I n.). P.'s phraseology here suggests that Hannibal had originally
proposed to follow the Ligurian coast route.
10. d lltl ~~:a.l 1\la.v t~e Twv Ka.TQ, 1\oyov ~wpa.: 'had he not seen it to be
most evident'.
65. Tlte battle of Ticinus: d. Livy, xxi. 46. 3-7, 9-ro (Polybian
tradition); Zon. viii. 23; App. Hann. 5 In x. 3 3 P. calls it TI]v
lTnrop.axlav 1rept Tov Ilaoov K.aAovp.evov mm~p.&v. The skirmish
probably occurred near modern Lomello, north of the Po between
the Tic! no and the Sesia; for P. mentions no second river after the
Ticinus, yet Scipio advanced westward cautiously for one day (65. r)
and part of another (65. 2). Livy (xxi. 45 3) puts it near Victumulae;
this is either an annalistic invention or Victumulae is not Biella (a
mining town east of Ivrea) but some unknown village west of the
Ticinus (De Sanctis, iii. 2. 91-92). Nepos' statement (Hann. 4 r)
that the battle was fought Clastidii apud Padum is sheer confusion;
both Valerius Maximus (v. 4 2) and Florus (i. 22. 12) speak of the
battle of the Ticinus. P.'s source appears still to be the pro-Carthaginian Greek writer whom he used for Hannibal's crossing of the
Alps, and who is distinguished for his exact indications of timeprobably Silenus. Cf. DeSanctis, iii. 2. 172; Beloch, HZ, rJ4, 1915, Iff.
5. wpo8E!1Evos Tous O.~~:oVTlO'TQ,; ~~:a.l. l1Twe'i:s: cf. Livy, xxi. 46. 5,
'iaculatores et Gallos equites in fronte locat'.
To us S!l 1\o~wous ev 11nwm~ Ka.Ta.O'T~ua.;: cf. Livy, ibid., 'Romanos
sociorumque quod roboris fuit in subsidiis'. But in subsidiis is a misunderstanding of Livy or his source (Coelius), for tv p.mlJ1T4J means
here 'in jne facing the front' (d. i. 26. 13 n., v. 82. ro), not 'behind'
(Paton).
7. 1~mo TQ,S '!Tap' auTwv 'lJ\.a.s: 'behind (not "between" (Paton)) their
own cavalry squadrons'.

66-74. Events leading up to the battle of the Trebia: the battle. P.'s
account of the battle best fits a site on the left bank of the Trebia,
but Livy locates the battle clearly on the right bank. The problem is
conveniently summarized by B. L. Hallward (CAH, viii. 709, with
bibliography, 726, supplementing Kromayer, AS, iii. r. 47 ff.).
Kromayer's discussion (AS, iii. 1. 47-103) forms the basis for all
detailed consideration of the battle, and his account is in essentials
convincing; cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 92-99. Livy's evidence and points
of controversy are discussed in the notes. There are useful maps in
Kromayer, AS, iii. r, Karte 3; Kromayer-Veith, Schlachtenatlas,
Rom. Abt. i, Blatt 3; and De Sanctis, iii. z (at end).
399

III. 66.

HANNIBAL IN THE PO VALLEY

66. 1. ivl TTjv Toll n&.Sou yq,upa.v: i.e. that by which he had crossed
(64. r).
avo8wv q,Maa.l Sla.~l~aaa.s Ta <TTpa.TovSa.: 'hastening to get his
legions over with all speed'. ,P8acn:u in P. is 'to do something quickly';
cf. 65. 7; Hesselbarth, 15.
2. uvo Tou Tpa.u~La.Tos: first mentioned here; cf. x. 3 4 n. for the
story of Scipio's wound, and how the later Africanus saved his
father's life (Coelius gave the credit to a Ligurian slave: Livy, xxi.46.
ro). For discussion see DeSanctis, iii. 2. 25 n. 39, listing other references to the incident. (B-W2conjectures, but does not print, lhro Tov.)
3. ltws IL" Toll vpwTou voTa.~Loli: the obvious meaning is 'the first
he came to' (cf. 68. s. 1rpwTovs >..o,Povs), viz. the Ticinus and its bridge
(cf. 64. r), not the Po bridge (so Klotz, Livius, 132). Livy (xxi. 47.
2-3), who follows the same tradition, has been misled into imagining
that Hannibal was checked at the Po, and omits any reference here
to the Ticinus. Livy also mentions the capture of the 6oo Romans;
but they are taken segniter ratem soluentes, for the Po bridge was a
bridge of boats (whereas P.'s is made of planks; cf. 4, Tas 11Ada-ras
niJv aavLSwv w.:ll1Taafdvas (as in ii. 5 5); Livy, xxi. 45 r (on the
Ticinus bridge)). Not to have destroyed the Ticinus bridge would
have been sheer folly (cf. Kromayer, AS, iii. 1. 58 n. z).
5. ~LTa.~a.M~LVos a.o8ls Ets Tuva.vTa. KTA.: viz. Hannibal wheeled
round and for two days ( 6) marched westward up the left bank of
the Po, looking for a convenient place to cross. Kromayer (loc. cit.)
locates his crossing just below the confluence with the Tanaro; but
this is necessarily hypothetical. Livy (xxi. 47 s-6) rejects Coelius'
story that Hannibal forded the river with the elephants on his right
to break the current in favour of the version of potiores auctores,
which coincides with that of P. (cf. Klotz, Livius, Ios).
6. iA.a5pou~q,: cf. 93 4, ol11 nvv >..u;ovpy,wv T.:Tayp)vos, the officer in
command of the service corps, mentioned elsewhere (ro2. 6, n4. 7,
u6. 6; Livy, xxii. 46. 7); cf. Lenschau, RE, 'Hasdrubal (8)', cols.
:2473-4 (inaccurate on this passage).
tXPT)I!ant Tois vpo-~uTa.is: cf. Livy, xxi. 47 7, legationibus
Gallomm audiendis moratus. Livy adds that Mago and the cavalry
pressed straight on down stream, after crossing, and in a single day
Placentiam ad hastes contendunt. For XPTJf.4aTt~nv, 'give audience to',
d. P. Petr. iii. clxiv (the Gurob papyrus), col. iv, l. 24 (cf. Holleaux,
Etudes, iii. 290).
9. O'Tpa.T01TE8t:UO'O.S vt:plvoAlV n>.o.KEVTlO.V: cf. Livy, xxi. 47 3 'prius
Placentiam peruenere, quam satis sciret Hannibal ab Ticino profectos'. The site of this camp, Scipio's first after the cavalry skirmish,
is a crucial point in the controversy about the subsequent battle. In
the manceuvres which now followed, the Roman army twice crossed
the Trebia, once in retirement after Gallic desertions (68. 4-5), and

BATTLE OF THE TREBIA

III. 66.

I I

again just before the battle (72. 4-5); hence the battle-site and this
camp were on the same side of the Trebia, If Scipio's camp (and so
by implication Hannibal's) was on the right bank (so Livy), it follows
that after the Gallic desertions Scipio marched west across the
Trebia and away from his base at Placentia-a highly improbable
move, which would put the Trebia between himself and the approaching troops of Sempronius; cf. Kromayer, AS, iii. I. so ff. The
likelihood is that Scipio camped west of the Trebia, and retired east
to await Sempronius in the shelter of Placentia; which would imply
that the battle was fought on the left bank. Kromayer (AS, iii. I.
59) identifies Scipio's camp with Stradella, a point 30 km. west
of Placentia, where the spurs of the Apennines descend to within
3 km. of the Po, and possessing strategic advantages already noted
by Napoleon I (Commentaires, i (Paris, x867), 126, quoted by
Kromayer, AS, iii. I. 6o n. I). But Stradella lies nearer to Clastidium,
and can hardly be described as 1r1:pl. 1r6Aw IIAa.KevTlav. Moreover, a
retreat to the Trebia from Stradella in the face of Hannibal's cavalry
superiority presents 'certain difficulties' (Hallward, C AH, viii. 709).
It therefore seems safer to assume (cf. Kahrstedt, iii. 390 n. 2; Lehmann, HZ, n6, 1916, 107) that Scipio's camp was not far west of
the Trebia, in some place such as Rottofreno, behind the R. Loggia
and the rather larger R. Tidone.
An ingenious hypothesis, which would remove most of the difficulties, is T. Frank's suggestion (]RS, 1919, 202-7; cf. U. Ewins,
BSR, 1952, 55) that before its destruction in 2oo and refounding in
190 Placentia was situated at Stradella; Scipio's camp 1repl 1roAtv
IIAa.KeVTlav would be there, and the contradictions in Livy and P.
would be reconciled. But on this assumption there are no good
grounds for Scipio's retreat to the right bank of the Trebia away
from Placentia, after the Gallic desertion (68. 4) ; cf. Hallward, C AH,
viii. 709. See further the arguments of R. Hanslik (RE, 'Placentia',
cols. 18g8-9) on the relationship of the historical Placentia to the
earlier Celtic road system. Hence without archaeological evidence
Frank's hypothesis must be rejected. On the founding of Placentia.
cf. 40. 5 n.
10-ll. va.po.yv6ru;:vos 8EuTEpo.'ios TU Tphn va.p~Ta.~E KTX.: cf.
Livy, xxi. 47 8, 'paucis post diebus sex milia a Placentia castra
communiuit et postero die in conspectu hostium acie derecta potestatem pugnae fecit'. P. makes Hannibal encamp after Scipio rejects
his challenge, Livy before-perhaps because he or his source attributed to Hannibal the Roman custom of encamping each night.
P. ( n) puts Hannibal's camp about so stades from the Roman,
Livy (loc. cit.) 6 m.p. from Placentia. The distances tally, but Livy
has WIOngly assumed Scipio's camp to be close to the city, whereas
in fact it was some distance west of it.
Dd

HANNIBAL IN THE PO VALLEY

III. 67. I

67. 1-3. The Gallic desertion- cf. Livy, xxi. 48. 1-2 (less detailed).
Livy gives the same figures, but minimizes the caedes.
6. Tm)s Tpei:s O.vopas: cf. 40. 9, for these I I Iuiri coloniae deducendae.
On the Boian hostages with the Romans ( 7) cf. 40. 6 n., 40. 7,
40. Io.

8. hr~ T4i yeyovcm rrapaarrov8'1]..-a.TL: the Gallic massacre and desertion, as well as the Boian action.
9. ~myevo..-EVTJS Tfls vuKT6s: 'when night came on', evidently the
next night, for the Gauls did not desert until the morning watch
( 2); cf. Livy, xxi. 48. 4, quarta uigilia noctis insequentis projectus.
(Paton, 'that same night', is misleading.)
ws errt TOV Tpe~(av 1TOTO....OV KTA.: cf. Uvy, xxi. 48. 4. 'ad Trebiam
fluuium iam in loca altiora collesque impeditiores equiti castra
mouet'. On the hypothesis adopted (66. 9) Scipio retired south-east
across the Trebia to the protection of the hills on the east bank, and
of Placentia. Kromayer (AS, iii. I. 6z) calculates the time required
for both sides to reach the Trebia, assuming Scipio's camp to have
been at Stradella; but such calculations depend on many imponderables. Certainly a march of 25 km. to the Trebia (if Scipio
kept to the foothills) would have been extremely hazardous in view
of Hannibal's cavalry superiority; for even setting out before dawn
Scipio had little start of Hannibal's Numidians. If Scipio's camp was
nearer the Trebia, the risk was proportionately less. Beloch (HZ,
II4, 1915, 3) regards the retreat to the Trebia as a doublet of that
after the Ticinus skirmish, based on an annalistic account which attributed it to Gallic treachery rather than to Scipio's defeat; for a
valid criticism of this radical treatment of the sources see Lehmann,
HZ, II6, I9I6,
I

101

ff.

)
f
'
"'
""'
"""
oxupOTTJT~ KO.L TOl'i rrapOtKOUCI"l TWV aup.~
p.6.xwv: Livy (loc. cit.) omits the second factor. The Gauls who con-

1T~O"Tfi.UWV

1
Ttl..., TE TWV T01TWV
r<

trolled the A pennine passes towards Genua were the friendly

Anares (ii. !7 7, 32. I, 34 5).
68. 1-4. Hannibal's pursuit: cf. Livy, xxi. 48. s-6.
5. rrEpl To us rrpWTOU'i Mcjlous: Kromayer (AS, iii. I. 63 ff. and Karte
J d) locates this second camp of Scipio on the edge of the hills, east
of the Trebia near Pieve-Dugliara, about IJ km. south of Piacenza.
This position, accepted by De Sanctis, seems very probable.
7. rrEpl. TETTa.paKOVT(l O"Ta8(ous a1TOc:T)(WV KTA.: i.e. about 5 miles.
Kromayer (op. cit. 63 and Karte 3d) puts Hannibal's camp on the
west side of the Trebia (and the east side of the Luretta) somewhat
south of Campremoldo di sopra.
12-13. Sunpronius' journey to Ariminum: cf. 61. ron. Livy's account
of Sempronius' sea-journey is accepted by De Sanctis {iii. 2. 86),
who attaches weight to Livy's statement (xxi. 57 4) that Sempronius

BATTLE OF THE TREBIA

III. 70

returned from Placentia to hold the elections, which he might (on

P.'s version) have held on his way through Rome. Beloch (HZ,
n4, 1915, 13) prefers to follow P. and reject Livy's story of Sempronius' return. But P.'s account as it stands offers many difficulties,
despite the fact that both Livy and P. go back, most probably, to
Roman sources. In 12 Sempronius marches through Rome with his
army, whereas the arrival of the troops at Ariminum ( 13) clearly
links with the oath of 61. ro, which implies that the men make their
own way there (Laqueur, ro6). Klotz (Appians Darstellung, 31 n. r)
asserts that "8ta7Top.:vot-dvwv ota Tfj> 'Pwf.LTJ> refers only to the troops';
but, despite the singular auvao.jJaVTO<;, agreeing with T{Jt:plov, the
words Tt:{1Eplov Kat Twv f.LET' iKt:!vov tJTpaTo7Tlowv all go with 3ta7Topwof.LEVwv. In fact a consul with his army might not march through
Rome; whence Schweighaeuser's unconvincing translation per agrum
Romanum or (with Reiske) praeter urbem, i.e. sub moenibus Romae
(for which ii. 68. 8 offers no parallel). If the account of Sempronius'
march through Rome is untrue, these inconsistencies are merely a
sign of carelessness in P. and his source (cf. Kahrstedt, iii. 167).
14. Ka:raaTpaT01TE0Euaac; 1rap' UTOL<;); thUS forming a double Camp;
cf. vi. 32. 6-8. On the march cf. 61. ron.; the forty days are probably
to be calculated from Rhegium, which is over 1,roo km. from Ariminum. From Lilybaeum to Messana is a further 400 km. Cf. Dunbabin,
CR, 1931, 126, 'no historian seems to have noticed that, if this (i.e.
the march from Lilybaeum to Ariminum in 40 days) really happened,
it was one of the greatest marches in history, for it is ... about 832
English miles'. Dunbabin's own chronology is unacceptable.

a<

69. 1. 1rpa~lKo1r1]aac; KA.aaT(Olov: cf. Livy, xxi. 48. 9-10, who

calls the Brundisian traitor Dasius, and gives the bribe as nummi
aurei quadringenti.
3. 0ELyJ1a tK<jlEpElV TTJS acjlETepac; 1TpOalpeaEW'); 'to provide an
example of his policy'; cf. iv. 24. 9, xxxix. 5 r, KaAov odyf.La Tij>
pwf.Lalwv 7rpoatp.!at:ws. (Paton, 'make a display of leniency', is inaccurate.)
4. ETLJl"lae J1EyaA.etws: 'he rewarded ... generously'; d. Xen. Cyrop.
iii. 3 6 for this sense of rtf.LB.v (and P. iii. 99 6). Despite Livy, xxi.
48. 9, nee sane magno pretio, both honour and rewards are involved.
5-14. Sempronius assists the Gauls against Hannibal: cf. Livy, xxi. 52.
On Livy's treatment of the incident cf. Sontheimer, Klio, 1934, 103 ff.
10. TaL'> ~cjleope(alS: 'with reserves', rather than 'from the garrison
post' (Schweighaeuser).
70. Motives and objects of Sempronius, P. Scipio, and Hannibal: cf.
Livy, xxi. 53, where similar considerations are worked up by the
author (Sontheimer, Klio, 1934, 105-6).

HANNIBAL IN THE PO VALLEY

2. vpoaXa~ea9cu Ka.l TTJV ToO auv6.pxovTo~ yv&>iJ.TJV: 'to gain his

colleague's consent as well'.
4. TTJV Twv Klii'ATwv 6.9eaa.v: 'the treacherous Gauls' ; cf. ii. 32. 8 n.
5. &.XYJ&~v.qv va.psEa8a\ xpdnv: on Scipio's wound cf. 66. 2. But this
'hope' is not historical, for Scipio must also have known that the
new consuls would soon be there to relieve both himself and Sempronius ( 7); cf. Beloch, HZ, II4, 1915, ro. P., however, following
a pro-Scipionic tradition, makes Sempronius by contrast ambitious,
full of false confidence, and jealous of both his colleague and his
successors. This prejudice must be disallowed.
7. To us evLKn8taTal'vous aTpaTTJyoos: 'the consuls designate'
without any indication whether they were already elected or not
(difficulties arise only if one accepts the emendation bnKafJ~;arapi.vov~
of Kondos, BCH, 1877, 63 f.). In fact, Sempronius probably returned
to Rome after the battle to hold elections (for the battle was in late
December, 72. 3); cf. 68. 12-13 n.; Livy, xxi. 57 3-4.
71-74. The battle of the Trebia: cf. Livy, xxi. 54-56. 8. P. depends in
the main on his pro-Carthaginian Greek source (probably Silenus);
Livy is very close toP., and the likelihood is that he foiiows Silen us via
Coelius (the detail of the elephants in s6. I may be from that source:
it is not in P. ; cf. Kahrstedt, iii. r68). De Sanctis (iii. 2. 172, 177)
argues that Livy's account goes 'Qack indirectly to P. himself, and
that divergences have been introduced by an intermediate source.
For a stylistic discussion of the two accounts see Sontheimer, Klio,
1934, 106 ff.
71. l. eyveTo vpos T/il O'Tf>llTTJYEiv: 'he set himself to outmanreuvre'.
The comments on ambushes in 2-4 read like P.'s own.
4. nl. . evaTJiJ.O. Twv ovXwv: 'the blazoned shields'.
5. TOlS auv8po's: cf. 20. 8 n.
8. 8Ka EKnaTov E'!T'LAEsal'evov: cf. Uvy, xxi. 54 3, 'singuli uobis
nouenos ex turmis manipulisque uestri similes eligite'. Livy is the
more correct, for P. gives the total( 9) as r,ooo foot and r,ooo horse.
9. Ets TftV eve8pav: as the possible site of Mago's ambush Kromayer
(AS, iii. r. 67-69) suggests the bed of the Rio Colomba or Rio
Gerosa, small streams to the west of the Trebia, running north into
that river: Delbri.ick (i. 303) and Beloch (HZ, n4, 1915, 9) reject the
story of the ambush as Roman propaganda designed to mitigate the
defeat; but P. was a serious judge of such matters, and is to be
followed here.

72. 2. eis saKwxLXlous: for the numbers on both sides see Kromayer,
AS, iii. r. 94-98; DeSanctis, iii. 2. 88-<:Jo;
Hermes, 1935, 275-7.
(a) Carthaginian: Hannibal's total force is given ( 8) as 20,000
infantry (Spaniards, Gauls, and Africans), over ro,ooo cavalry,
404

BATTLE OF THE TREBIA

III.

72. 2

and 8,ooo "Aoyxo~opovi: Kat Ba"Ata.pE1:. Livy (xxi. 55 2) gives the same
figures for cavalry and light-armed, but includes none for the infantry. Taken literally P.'s figures should exclude Mago's I,ooo foot
and 1,ooo horse (p. g), and the ::-.lumidian cavalry already sent
ahead (71. 10). But the latter at least are probably included, since
at Cannae the cavalry were c. :to,ooo (II4. 5); moreover, P.'s source
probably had the total number of Numidians, but is less likely to
have known the number sent ahead (which is not given). Mago's
numbers are known however, and added to the rest bring the total
to 4o,ooo, which looks suspiciously like an estimate. If it is, then so
presumably are the figures for foot, horse, and light-armed. But
even as an estimate the total may still be approximately correct;
if so, Hannibal's army had been swelled by 14,ooo Gauls (d. 56.4 for the
26,ooo troops with which he entered Italy). That this is not greatly
exaggerated is clear from the fact that the Gauls constituted Hannibal's centre and suffered the heaviest losses (Kromayer, AS, iii. r.
96 n. 2; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 90) ; hence Hannibal's total was perhaps
slightly under, or around, 4o,ooo.
(b) Roman: these are given ( n) as 16,ooo foot, 2o,ooo allied foot,
and4,ooo cavalry. Livy (xxi. 55 4) omits to mention the cavalry, adds
auxilia Cenomanorwm, and erroneously makes the foot 18,ooo--a
discrepancy which may go back to Coelius, but in any case is of no
significance. According to Livy (xxi. 17. 5 ff.) the total number of
troops assigned to Sempronius and Scipio in 218 was 42,ooo foot and
4,ooo horse; and both Scipio's original legions had been transferred
to the Po valley (4o. 14 n.). These figures tally with those for the
Trebia, if one reckons the 6,ooo 11'E,aKOVTta7'a.i mentioned here ( 2)
as additional to the forces listed in u. Because P. states ( 12)
that the Roman forces drawn up amounted to the usual strength
of a double consular army, Gelzer (Hermes, 1935, 276 n. 1) assumes
that the figures in n include these 6,ooo 11'E,aKollTLC17'al, and hence
that there is no correlation between P.'s figures and those of Livy.
But it seems more likely that P.'s figures for the Trebia, i.e. 46,ooo
adding in the 6,ooo 7TE,aKovTLC17'a.l, represent the total of the two
consular armies present; that is why they coincide with those given
by Livy. But the real number at the Trebia could only be arrived
at by subtracting something for the heavy casualties beforehand
(e.g. 40. 12), and adding a few for the troops brought by P. Scipio
from his Spanish-bound legions (56. 5, p,7 o"Alywv; cf. Livy, xxi.
32. 5), and for the loyal Cenomani who fought with the Romans
(Livy, xxi. 55 4)-despite Kromayer's scepticism (AS, iii. 1. 98 n. 4,
'nur erfunden, urn jemand zu haben, der zuerst vor den Elefanten
fliehen konnte'). These figures are irrecoverable; but the Roman
total was probably well below 46,ooo. DeSanctis (iii. 2. 89) estimates
it at 4o,ooo; but his calculations are hard to follow, and in any case
405

III.

72. 2

HAXNIBAL IN THE PO VALLEY

the words J1TatpoJ1-<:Vo> Tip . 11A~OH ( z) imply that the Romans had
a numerical superiority, even though the Carthaginians had the
advantage in horse. The fact that the phrase is used in a passage
prejudiced against Sempronius (cf. 68. 12) does not invalidate it as
evidence for the Roman numbers.
'ITEtaKoVTI.O'Tao;: i.e. uetites: elsewhere translated ypourfooJl.O.xot.
3. TrEpi. XELJ.lEp~vO.o; Tpomio;: i.e. December. If Hannibal was on the
top of the pass in late September (34. 6 n., 54 I n.), the Ticinus
skirmish fell at the end of that month. But Sempronius could have
received orders to leave Sicily by mid-September, if the message
was dispatched on Scipio's arrival at Pisa at the end of August (cf.
61. 9 n.). Forty days from Rhegium (not Lilybaeum; cf. 6I. ron.,
68. I4 n.) to Ariminum implies two months for the journey from
Lilybaeum. Hence Sempronius' army will have reassembled at
Ariminum about IS November and reached Placentia about the end
of that month. How long was spent in the camp beside the Trebia
is not known; but these calculations put the battle in December.
Dunbabin (CR, 1931, I22 5) has a chronology which puts the battle
into January 217; but this is based on what has been argued is the
erroneous view that Hannibal was on the pass in mid-October (d.
54 In.). See further Miltner, Hermes, 1943, 3 (c. IS December).
8. 1Tpoayaywv ws OKTW cnalha: Beloch (HZ, 1!4, I915, ro) detects a
mille passus); but see i. 17. 8 n.
Roman source (8 stades
9. 8~' clJ.l<POT~pWV 1TpOE~clhETO: 'placed them as COVer all along both
wings'. For this use of Sui cf. ii. 68. 8. \Vhere were the elephants?
In front of the wings of the phalanx or in front of the wings proper,
the cavalry? Livy (xxi. 55 2) says 'in cornibus circumfudit decem
milia equitum, et ab cornibus in utramque partem diuersos (diuisos
Aldus Edd., but Conway compares Caes. BC, i. 40. 5) elephantos
statuit'. In fact diuersam in the corresponding passage in Caesar
refers to troops on either side of a hill, fadng in opposite directions,
which is no parallel to the Punic line at Trebia; and diuisos should
probably be preferred. Since the elephants later (Livy, xxi. 55 7)
converge ab extremis cornibus they are apparently imagined as being
on the outside of the cavalry. In Appian (Hann. 7) they are in front
of the cavalry (Tot)s 0~ Zmrlas EKeAwcrev ti1Tlcrw nov JAerfoO.vrwv aTpJ1.tV).
But P.'s meaning is surely 'in front of the wings of the phalanx';
cf. 74 2 (with 73 7, if;tAwOlvrwv Twv Tfjs a>..o.yyos KepdTwv), where the
elephants attack what are clearly the legionaries KaT<i 11pocrWTTov.
Livy's account of the role of the elephants at the Trebia is full of
impossibilities {cf. Kromayer, AS, iii. I. 71 n. 2), partly due to confusion and partly designed to exaggerate the uirtus of the opposing
Romans (Sontheimer, Klio, 1934, n2 ff.).
U. KnTd TOS LB~ap.~va.s Trap' aoTois Ta~e~s: viz. in the three lines of
the manipular army, hastati, principes, and triarii, from front to
406

BATTLE OF THE TREBIA

III. 74 8

rear; cf. vi. 21. 7 ff.; E. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 199 ff. The information
on strength which follows { 12) is especially meant for Greek
readers.
73. 1. auveyyus 5vTWY aAA~>..oLs: Kromayer (AS, iii. I. 69) makes
the Romans cross the Trebia a little north of (modern) 1.\lolinazzo,
and puts the actual battle-ground in an area about 4 km. long,
immediately west of the villages of Casaliggio and Tuna. The lightarmed are Hannibal's Aoyxofopot Kat Bb.A.tapds (72. 7) and Sempronius' TT~aKovnaTa[ (72. 2).
3. Sla TTJY auv.Exela.v Tijs voT(Sos: cf. Livy, xxxvii. 41. 4 (battle of
Magnesia), 'umor arcus fundasque et iaculorum amenta emollierat'.
5. u1rijpxe Tava.vTia. TouTwv: for the schematization cf. i. 51. 8, 61. 4
6. Sla T<7w Sla.aTT)iJ.tJ.Twv: cf. 65. 7. The phrase ETTt p.iav dlle'iav used of
the infantry (72. 8) is contrasted with the three Roman lines and
does not exclude gaps between the units.
7. u1repa.povTe<; To us 1TpoTETO.YiJ.EYous T(;w tSiwv: the light-armed
seize the moment when the Punic cavalry has routed the Roman to
issue out on either side of their infantry and attack the Roman
infantry on the flank. Livy (xxi. 55 5) lets these light-armed first
attack the Roman cavalry; but this is designed to make the defeat
of the latter less ignominious by increasing the odds against them
(Kromayer, AS, iii. 1. 72 n. r; Sontheimer, Klio, 1934, 112-13).

74. 1. TWY EIC TijS eveSpa.s No .... o:l.Swv: cf. Livy, xxi. 55 9 M ago
Numidaeque. There were of course r,ooo foot as well as cavalry; but
Holzapfel's emendation Aoyaowv is unlikely in view of Livy.
2. 1rpos Tov U1To~<e11evov 1ToTa.iJ.ov: i.e. the Trebia. The KEpaTa which
flee are the wings of the infantry (cf. 73 7), not the cavalry which
formed the wings of the whole line.
4. oi Se 1TEpl. Ta<; 1TpWTO.S xwpa.s: i.e. the hastati and principes.
6. !lET' aacjla.Aeta.s C11TEXWPTJGO.Y ELS nxa.KEYTLO.Y: it is reasonable to
assume a bridge over the Trebia near its confluence with the Po,
over which these 1o,ooo survivors could have fled. On the hypothesis
that the battle was fought on the right bank, or if Placentia was at
Stradella (d. 66. 9 n.), there was no river to cross; but a march
of 20-25 km. to Stradella with Hannibal's cavalry abroad seems
improbable. Livy's account (xxi. 56. 3 ff.) assumes the battle to be
on the right bank; but this is probably a misunderstanding of the
tradition more correctly recorded in P. Cf. Hallward, CAH, viii. 709.
7. U1To TE TWY 9T)p(wv Ka.l. TWY l1mewv: i.e. the Punic cavalry had
returned from pursuing the Roman in time to help wipe out the
remnants of the Roman infantry.
8. ot . Sla.cjluyovTEs Twv 1re~wv Ka.i To 1TAE~O"Tov iJ.Epos Twv i1r1Tewv KTA.:
Kromayer (AS, iii. r. 74 n. r) takes ot owfvyovns to mean such

47

IlL 74 8

HANNIBAL IN THE PO VALLEY

remnants as were left behind in Scipio's camp; but they are clearly
a subdivision Twv Aomwv, who are those left when the 1o,ooo have
escaped from the battle, and they survived by making their way,
like the bulk of the cavalry, across the Trebia. Joined no doubt by
any men from Scipio's camp (though P. does not mention these),
they v.rill have fallen in with the 1o,ooo (TJ 7Tponp1Jp.ivov avanJp.a.)
near Placentia.
10. -rou~; 8 uAEiou~; O.uoAwA~vcu Twv KEATCJv: for Hannibal had put
them in the centre, where the Romans broke through (72. 8, 74 4).
The subsequent deaths from rain and snow( u} are after the battle
(cf. Miltner, Hermes, 1943, 1o-u}; according to Livy (xxi 56. 6)
elephanti prope omnes perished at the Trebia, seven more in the course
of the winter (xxi. 58. u), leaving one (as here} on which Hannibal
crossed the marshes of the Arno (xxii. z. 10).
75. Reactions at Rome. From a clearly Roman source (De Sanctis,
iii. 2. 172; Kahrstedt, iii. 169).
1. -r~v vlJC'IlV a.u-rwv o XEtJ.Udv 0.4>ElAE-ro: it has been suggested that this
false report lies behind Livy's account of a further battle between
Hannibal and Sempronius (Livy, x:xi. 59); cf. Sieglin, Rh. Mus.,
1883, 363 ff. ; Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 337 n. ; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 99-102.
Livy (xxi. 57 s-59 1o) contains a record of widespread activity by
Hannibal, including an unsuccessful attempt to cross the Apennines,
which has been treated, since Seeck (Hermes, 1874, 152 ff.), as apocryphal. Miltner (Hermes, 1943, 1 ff.) has demonstrated that these
incidents are possible chronologically; but the case for regarding
them as in the main annalistic invention remains strong.
3. Ets -rns u6AELS: Placentia and Cremona, as Livy (xxi. s6. 9)
explicitly states.
4. ds Ia.p86va. JCa.l ILKEAta.v: cf. App. H ann. 8, ToVs p.tv ls 'lf31Jpla.v
lm:p7TDV, TDVS s ls .Ea.pDova. KaKelv'Y/V 7ToAep.ovp.lV1JV, TDVS o' ls .EKt.Ala.v.
In 216 there were two legions in Sicily (Livy, xxiii. 25. 1o), and in
215 one in Sardinia (Livy, xxiii. 34 12}, evidently those sent in winter
218/17. Cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. u8; Klotz, Phil., 1933. 55; against
Gelzer, Hermes, 1935, 278--9 (unconvincing). In the table facing p. 104
in CAH, viii, these legions are incorrectly shovrn as being sent out

after Trasimene.
Ets Tapa.v-ra. upo4>vAa.JCas KTh.: not mentioned elsewhere; their num~
ber is uncertain. Klotz (Phil., I933 ss} reckons them one legion strong,
bringing the total at the beginning of 217 to twelve (four under the
consuls, two in Spain, two in Sicily, two at Rome, and one in Sardinia). Appian (Hann. 8) gives a total of thirteen; but if this figure
is based on calculations which included the two supplementary
legions raised after Trasimene {Livy, xxii. n. 3), it does not allow
for a full legion here.
408

BATTLE OF THE TREBIA

III. 76. 5

va.us E~~KovTa. 'ITEVTTJPE~S: evidently replacements of old vessels,

faults in which had become apparent in the course of 218; cf. Thiel, 48.
5. r vcuos IEpou(A~os Ka.l r a.~os .PA.a.!LLVLOS: Cn. Servilius P.f. Q.n.
Geminus and C. Flaminius C.f. Ln., the consuls of A.u.c. 537 = 217
B.c. Servilius (d. Munzer, RE, 'Servilius (61)', cols. 1794-5) was
probably son of the consul of 252 (i. 39 8 n.); on Flaminius cf. ii. 21.
8 n.; 32. Iff. This was Flaminius' second consulship, and his election

represents a popular reaction against the nobility in view of the

setbacks of 218 (d. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 33; Scullard, Pol. 44). Sempronius will have returned to Rome to hold the elections after the
battle (cf. 68. 12-13 n.; Livy, xxi. 57 4; Miltner, Hermes, I943 8-9).
That P. is here referring to the activity of Servilius and Flaminius
as consuls designate before their entry into office (Miltner, Hermes,
I943 14 n. 3) is not clearly indicated by the Greek words v1raTo~ n>n
Ka0EaTaJLEVm.

7. '1TEATo~6pous: in Xenophon (Cyrop. vii. 1. 24) 1TATo,P6po! are

peltasts. In third-century Boeotia, after the adoption of Macedonian
equipment, they form the essential element in the army (d. Feyel,
202) and, like the Macedonian peltasts (ii. 65. 2 n.), may well be
heavy-armed (cf. CR, 1946, 42). But these 1TATo,P6po' are no doubt
the mille sagittarii ac funditores, whom Hiero sent as part of a valuable
convoy of men and materials early in 216 (Livy, xxii. 37 8).
76. Cn. Scipio in Spain (2IB)
Although this chapter contains elements designed to glorify Scipio,
like the capture of the d7ToaKEmJ, its main source is uncertain. Cf.
Livy, xxi. 6o. 1-61. 4 (s-n is a doublet, perhaps due to Coelius); De
Sanctis, iii. 2. 172-3, 241 n.
76. 1. o Ka.Ta.Au~8El:s aTpa.T'I'Jyos: cf. 49 4, where, however, the
fleet is not mentioned; for Emporiae see 39 7.
5. 'ITEpi 'ITOALV Kaaa.v: near Tarraco, according to Hubner
{Hermes, 1866, 77 ff., 337 ff.; RE, 'Cessetani', col. 1995), who suggests
Cissa (Livy: Cissis) was the main town of the regia Cessetania (Pliny,
Nat. hist. iii. 21). For the coins see Mon. ling. iber. 21; those with
Iberian legends only are inscribed Cese, and Vallejo (xlviii ff.), who
adduces the parallel of Arse-Saguntum (cf. 15 n.), plausibly suggests
that Cese was the Iberian name for Tarraco. Frontinus (Strat. ii.
3 I} gives some details of the battle of Cissa; and Livy (xxi. 6o. 7)
puts the Carthaginian losses at the unlikely figure of 6,ooo killed and
2,ooo prisoners.
a'ITnaT]s TTJS n'IToaKeufjs n'IToAEAEL!L!livTJS: cf. 35 5 The d1roaKw~
included persons (i. 66. 7) who would have been a hindrance in the
Alps, and left in Spain served as a guarantee of loyalty. DeSanctis
409

III. 76. 5

CN. SCIPIO IN SPAIN

(iii. 2. 172, 240) calls this account afavola romana; but drroaKwa.l not
infrequently remained at base. Cf. i. 66. 7 f.; Diod. xx. 47 4, where
soldiers taken prisoner by Demetrius Poliorcetes desert at the first
opportunity to the Ptolemaic governor of Cyprus oul ro ras d.rroaKwds v Alyti7T7'4J KO.Ta.AEAoomfva' -rra.pd IhoAep.a.41 (Holleaux, Etudes,
iii. 22 n. 1).
6. Tous tvToS "I~1Jpos: i.e. north of the Ebro (suggesting a Roman
source in contrast to II, 14. 9, iv. 28. I; cf. x. 7. 3, 35 3).
7. ~voo~C..A1JV: Latin I ndibilis. He was {1a.aoAEv;; rwv '1Aepy7Jrwv (x.
18. 7; cf. Livy, xxii. 21. 2, xxix. I. 19; Dio, fg. 57. 42); cf. 35 2 n.
Elsewhere he has close relations with the Lacetani (Livy, xxviii.
24. 4) and Suessetani (xxv. 34 6), which confirms P.'s description
of him here. When he was released is not recorded; but in 217 he is
again fighting on the Punic side (Livy, xxii. 21. 2).
10. <LTrTrds 8~ Tr~pl x~A(ous): added by Reiske from Livy, xxi. 61. 1,
mille equitum.
12. Ka.n1. Tous Trap' al.To'ls i9LuJ.I.o~s: probably execution by fustuarium; but this case is not exactly paralleled by any mentioned in
vi. 37-38.
77-94. The Campaign of zr7 in Italy; Trasimene

77-79. Hannibal crosses the Apennines. The main source is Carthaginian, and probably that used for the crossing of the Alps (Silenus).
The worthless anecdote in 78. 1-4 may be either Greek or Roman
(cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 168, 173); it appears also in Zon. viii. 24.
77. 1. Dispositions of Flaminius and Servitius. According to Livy,
xxi. 63. 15, Flaminius had four legions in 217; but Kahrstedt (iii.
404~5) has shown that such numbers cannot be fitted into the terrain
at Trasimene, and it can be assumed that Flaminius had two legions
only. Livy, xxii. 27. Io, shows Fabius in command of four legions
after Trasimene, of which two had belonged to Servilius (cf. Livy,
xxii. II. 2-3). Because Servilius had 4,ooo horse in 217 (86. 3) Kahrstedt argues that he was in command of four legions; but this again
seems unlikely (see notes ad Joe.). Certainly 107. 9-1o suggests no
doubling of consular armies untiln6. If each consul commanded two
legions, what was their origin? P. here suggests that they were newly
enrolled (cf. too Cic. de diu. i. n '(Flaminius) qui exerdtu lustrato
cum Arretium uersus castra mouisset et contra Hannibalem legiones
HRR, Coelius Antipater, fg. 2o) ; but this does not
duceret .. .'
explain what happened to the experienced troops wintering in the
Po valley. Livy (xxi. 63. 15) makes Flaminius enter on his consulship
at Ariminum, and march with four legions from there to Arretium;
but this is suspect as part of the noble tradition which is critical of
the behaviour of the popular leader. That Flaminius took over the
410

THE CAMPAIGN OF 217 IN ITALY; TRASDfENE

Ill. 77

remnants of Sempronius' two legions quae Placentiae hibernabant

may, however, be correct (Livy, xxi. 63. 1), for it fits Appian's statement (Hann. 8) that Servilius took over those of Scipio. An additional
complication is Livy, xxi. 59 10, Sempronius Lucam contendit.
Flaminius could have instructed Sempronius to march from
Placentia to Luca (Livy, xxi. 56. 9) ; but the journey would be as
difficult as Hannibal's, and it would contradict Livy, xxi. 63. I.
Miltner, who accepts the credibility of Livy, xxi. 57 5-59. 1o, believes (Hermes, 1943, 13 ff.) that Sempronius marched to Luca to
counter a supposed march of Hannibal into Liguria, with consequent
threat from the coast road into Etruria; but if this section of Livy
is rejected (75 1 n., cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. r86), Luca is probably best
left out of the picture (Klotz, Rh. Mus., 1936, 107).
Various attempts have been made to reconcile P. and Livy. Thus
Miltner (Hermes, 1943, r ff.) argues that Sempronius marched his
army from Cremona to Luca; the praetor Atilius took Scipio's
men from Placentia to Ariminum; then, when Hannibal marched
back from Liguria into Cisalpine Gaul [sic], Sempronius shifted his
forces from Luca to Arretium; Sempronius crossed the Apennines to
Ariminum to hand over his troops (still at Arretium !) to Flaminius;
Flaminius, upon the arrival of Servilius with his new troops at
Ariminum, then marched, with the troops which he had taken over
from Atilius, back to Arretium. Against any account so complicated
as this Kahrstedt (iii. 403) argues for the improbability of bringing
the Po legions into Etruria, while new recruits were taken from
Rome to Ariminum; and his argument seems to have influenced
Hallward, who writes (C AH, viii. 44): 'The defeated army of the
Po, strengthened to two legions, was taken over at Ariminum, to
which it had retired, by the new consul Cn. Servilius, while Flaminius
with two newly raised legions marched to Arretium in Etruria' (in
the table facing p. II4, however, following De Sanctis, he gives
Sempronius' legions to Flaminius).
Kahrstedt, however, does not allow for the possibility of a policy
of dividing the Po veterans between the two armies, as a stiffening
for raw recruits. This would appear reasonable, and would explain
the tradition that Flaminius received Sempronius' remnants, and
Servilius Scipio's (see above); it would also explain how Flaminius
came to be at Ariminum. But because the armies of 217, though
nominally the legions of Trebia, were in fact mainly new levies, P.
has chosen to stress this aspect; hence his account here. See
further below, 84. 7, 88. 7; for discussion DeSanctis, iii. 2. n6-r7;
Kahrstedt, iii. 403 ff.; Klotz, Phil., 1933, 51 ff.; Rh. Mus., 1936,
104 ff.; Gelzer, Hermes, 1935, 278 ff.; Banti, Atene e Roma, 1932,
98-120; Miltner, Hermes, 1943. 1-21; Vallejo, 129-32.
On the situation of Arretium see ii. r6. 2 n., of Ariminum, ii.

III. 77

THE CAMPAIGN OF 217 IN ITALY; TRASIMENE

14. n n., iii. 6r. n n. For a sound appraisal of the Roman defensive
plan see Hallward, CAH, viii. 44-45.
7. TrOAEow 1] ALJLEow l]Aa.TTwa9a.( n: 'quos portus Gallis ademerint
Romani, difficile dictu fuerit'; so Schweighaeuser, who proposes
Anf-twatv for Atf-tatv. But the sense is 'who had suffered damage to
their cities or harbours'; and the lesson was directed not just to the
Gauls, but to all the inhabitants of Italy, especially in the south.
78. 1. <l>owLKLK~ !npa.TT)YTJJLO.TL: for the proverbial Punica fides see
Sall. lug. Io8. 3; Livy, xxi. 4 9, xxii. 6. r2, xlii. 47 7; Cic. off. i. 38;
leg. agr. ii. 95; Hor. Odes, iv. 4 49; Virg. A en. i. 66I; and later
authors. Wunderer (i. 114) argues that the proverb was also Greek,
quoting Homer, Od. xiv. 288; but the tllotvtKtK6v Tt (ifJt::v8o>) of Plato
(Rep. iii. 4I4 c) merely recalls the legend of Cadmus (cf. Laws, ii.
663 E, -rd Tov I:t8wv{ov f-tV6o>..6yryf-l,a); and the tllowtKtK6v >/Jt::u8o> of
Eustathius (ad Od. xiv. 289 (p. 1757 59)) may reflect Roman influence,
like P. here. For the attribution of perjidia to other enemies of Rome
in Roman tradition see Heinze, V e:rgils epische Technikz (Leipzig,
I9o8), IOn. 2.
2. TTJV a9EOia.v TWV KEATwv: cf. ii. J2. 8 n. On Hannibal's disguises
see Livy, xxii. 1. 2-4; Zon. viii. 24. Miltner (Hermes, I943, I6) argues
that the Gallic hostility towards Hannibal (cf. 5) was due to his
return into their territory from Liguria (Livy, xxi. 59 ro); but this
depends on accepting the annalistic account of the events of winter
2I8/I7 (75 In.).
6. UflO. T~ TTJV wpa.v flETa.~ci.AAELV: this phrase suggests early April,
which would make the battle of Trasimene May (for Hannibal moved
fairly rapidly); and many scholars accept this dating (e.g. Cornelius,
s-<5. who makes the battle c. I May; Miltner, Hermes, I943. 3 ff.). It
gets some support from the dates of Fabius' dictatorship, which
he surrendered before 'autumn' was over (Livy, xxii. 32. I), exacto
iam prope semenstri imperio (Livy, xxii. 31. 7). On the other hand,
this last phrase is loose, and does not rule out the possibility that
Fabius entered his dictatorship in June and resigned it in November.
Moreover,
(a) it is unlikely that Hannibal left camp before the snow had
cleared from the passes and the crops were sufficiently advanced to afford foraging for his cavalry;
(b) Ovid (Fasti, vi. 767-8) dates the battle to 2I June:
tempora si ueteris quaeris temeraria damni,
quintus ab extremo mense bis ille dies.

(quartus in two inferior MSS. may be ignored.)

(c) The news of the battle reached Philip Vat Argos at the time
of the Nemea (v. 101. 6), which fell in July.

THE CAMPAIGN OF 217 IN ITALY; TRASIMENE

III. BI.

li

It may therefore be assumed that Ovid's date is reliable, that the

calendar was at this time running approximately true, and that

Hannibal left his winter quarters in May. See De Sanctis, iii. 2.
II9-21.
1'fJV . s~a. TWV ~Awv Ets TuppT)vla.v tPEpouua.v: both Kromayer (AS,
iii. 1. Io4-47) and DeSanctis {iii. 2. 104--9) agree that the most probable pass is that v-ia Bologna-Porretta-Pistoia (the Pass of Collina,
3,o4o ft.). Those farther west would have brought Hannibal to the
coast, which is excluded by 87. 4, or to the marshes of the lower Arno,
which must have been virtually impassable for an army, while that
farther east via Forli would expose Hannibal to an attack from
Arretium, and does not touch on any marshland. The marshes
through which Hannibal passed are those of the middle Arno between Pistoia and Fiesole (8o. In.); cf. Livy, xxii. 2. 2, 'per
paludes ... qua fluuius Am us per eos dies soli to magis inundauerat'.
(Beloch, HZ, 114, 1915, 15 accepts Strabo's statement (v. 217) that
they were in the Po valley; but cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 107-8.) On
Hannibal's order of march see Livy, xxii. 2. 3-4.
79. 8. TJf:lEpa.s TE1'1'a.pa.s Kat TpEi:s vuKTa.s: cf. Livy, xxii. 2. 7, 'maximeque omnium uigiliae conficiebant per quadriduum iam et tres nodes
toleratae'. From Pistoia to Florence is only 35 km.; hence there is
either exaggeration or misunderstanding. Perhaps the four days and
three nights represent the time taken by the whole army (Kromayer,
AS, iii. r. 13o-2); or they may originally have covered a longer
section of the march. Certainly it is physically impossible for an
army to maintain an unbroken march for 84 hours. See DeSanctis,
iii. 2. 107.
~Aeu~ Ka.TeaTpa.ToTI'EOEuae: this does not imply that
the marsh was in close proximity to Arretium, for Hannibal may
have learnt indirectly of Flaminius' whereabouts (Livy, xxii. 3 I, says
per praemissos exploratores). In fact 82. I makes it clear that the camp
was near Faesulae.
3. oxAoKOTI'OV Ka.l OT)f:lywyov; on the hostility shown by P.
and his source towards Flaminius cf. ii. 21. 8 n.

80. L Trpos Tois

81. 1. &.yvoei Ka.l. TETu4>wTa.L: originally medical terms, TiJt/>o> and

Tv</>6w are used metaphorically by Plato and especially Demosthenes
(ix. 20, xviii. n); later they became a Cynic-Stoic catchword meaning 'false dogmatism' (as here) or 'false pride' (cf. 9, xvi. 22. 4). See
Wunderer, i. 89; Tarn, AG, 240-1 n. 70; Alex. ii. 123 n. r.
2. Ka.T' liv8pa. Ka.l ~uy6v: cf. i. 45 9 n.
11. Ka.8u1rep yO.p ve.s KTA.: for the metaphor cf. vi. 44 3, x. 33 S
413

III.&:

THE CAMPAIGN OF 217 IN ITALY; TRASIMENE

82. Flaminius indted to seek battle. He was moved by fear of popular

opinion when Hannibal ravaged the land axoov ~ws 1'1'pd;; a?rrTjv TTJV
'Pwp.TJv ( 6). De Sanctis (iii. z. 37-38) questions this interpretation.
Hannibal is described ( 9) as marching ws 7rpos T~j) 'Pwp.TJ" ..
Tfjs- TuppTJvlas-; but in fact the road to Rome from Cortona led west
of Trasimcne via Clusium (cf. the Gallic route in ii. 25. z), consequently when Hannibal branched off to the north of Trasimene, he
was clearly not making for Rome (and his movements after the battle
confirm this). Had Flaminius really intended a battle, he would
have caught Hannibal emerging from the marshes; but in fact the
consuls had arranged that he should keep in touch with Hannibal
while Servilius hastened down the Via Flaminia to protect Rome
or, if he outstripped Hannibal, return north through Perusia and
Cortona to join his colleague. P.'s account of Flaminius is admittedly
from a hostile tradition; but his clear statement that Flaminius
sought the battle is not to be so lightly dismissed, for his plan of
campaign must have been known and reported at Rome by survivors.
Moreover, the reference to Rome is 6 is not to be dismissed (as De
Sanctis dismisses it) because of Hannibal's ultimate direction; for no
doubts are likely to have arisen about this in Flaminius' mind until
Hannibal turned cast along the north shore of Trasimene. Nor is the
reference to Rome in 9 as wholly wrong as has been supposed ; for
Hannibal cannot have had Cortona on his left and Trasimene on his
right simultaneously, and this phrase probably compresses two stages
in his advance, one in which Cortona was left behind (and Rome was
still apparently Hannibal's goal) and a second when he switched
east along the north shore of the lake (cf. Caspari, EHR, 19ro, 420
n. ro). The area devastated at this point (cf. Livy, xxii. 4 r, 'quod
agri est inter Cortonam urbem Trasumennumque lacum') is probably
the plain of the Chiana (cf. Krornayer, AS, iii. I. 135 n. r). When
Hannibal turned east he apparently placed himself between the two
consular armies (Hallward, C AH, viii. 46); and Flaminius does not
seem to have been the sort of man to forgo such easy prey.
1. JLLKpov l11rep6.pa.s T~v Twv 'PwJ.Lo.twv C1TpaTo1Te8e1o.v : Hannibal
marched south leaving Flaminius on his left at Arretium (probably
to attract an attack: Zon. viii. zs; Hallward, C AH, viii. 46); d.
Livy, xxii. 3 6, 'laeua relicto hoste Faesulas petcns (praeteriens
Conway) mcdio Etruriae agro praedatum profectus . . .'. Livy's
Facsulas petens may be a distorted referencetotheoriginalofP.'sdm)
Twv twTa TTJil tf>ata6Aav T67rwv, but is nonsense as it stands; nor is Con
way's emendation much better, since Faesulaewas so miles in the rear
when Hannibal passed Flaminius. Dunbabin (CR, 1931, 125-6) proposed Cortonam petens; but the error probably goes behind Livy's text.
8, &..MO'eLS ~<aL 1r8a.s: for the prisoners-an ironical detail, showing
the tempting of Tyche. Cf. ii. 2. 9 ff.

a,a

414

THE CAMPAIGN OF 217 IN ITALY; TRASIMENE

III. 83

9. Kup-rwvLov: Cortona lay 28 km. south of Arretium.

-rl-Jv T npaLJ.L~""Tl" KnAoUtJ-EVTjV XLJ.Lvt'jv: Hannibal's route from
Faesulae to the Val di Chiana and the Lago di Trasimeno is not
recorded; for the topography see Kromayer, AS, iii. L rso ff. and
Karten 4 and 5; maps of the battle area in De Sanctis, iii. 2 and
CAH, viii, facing p. 45

83-85. 6. The battle of Trasimene: cf. Livy, xxii. 4 2-7. 4; App.

Hann. 9-ro; Zon. viii. 25. Site and tactics are discussed by De
Sanctis, iii. 2. ro9-I6; Kromaycr,
iii. r. rso--93; Caspari, EHR,
1910, 417-29; Hallward, C A 1!, viii. 7IO; and the main hypotheses
are illustrated in Kromayer, AS, iii. I, Karte 5 and Kromayer-Veith,
Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abt. i, Blatt 4 The site depends essentially
on the identification of the av>..<tv of 83. I ; and on this there are four
main views:
(a) Between Borghetto and M ontigeto: adopted by Pareti, Riv. fil.,
rgr2, 385-401 ; DeSanctis, iii. 2. 109; Hallward, C AH, viii. 709;
Scullard, l!ist. 459 (ed. 2, 428).
(b) Between Montigeto and Montecolognola: Henderson, ]P, r897,
rr2-3o; r8gg, 203-23; Kromayer, AS, iii. I. rso ff.; Kahrstedt,
iii. 404 n. r; Oehler, RE, 'Trasimenischer See', col. 2224.
(c) Between Borghetto and Tuoro: Grundy, JP, 1896, ro2-r8; r897,
273--89; Reuss, Klio, 1906,
; Ashby, JP, r9ro, n7-22
(hesitant).
(d) As (c), but with Hannibal's camp at Sanguineto, instead of at
Tuoro: SadEk, Klio, 1909. 48-68; K. Lehmann, Jahresberichte
d. phil. Ver. Berlin, I915, 81-97; Caspari,
19Io, 417-29.

(i) The avA<tv (83. r). P. uses the word in iii. 47. 3 for the upper
Rhone valley, and in xi. 32. r for a valley lying between two hostile
camps. In v. 45 8 (cf. v. 46. 2) the av>..wv Mapcruas is a defile between
two mountain ranges; and in vii. 6. 2 an av.:\wv brlTTecw; (like that at
Trasimene) runs through the middle of Leontini, TOV 8' avAwe'O!> 1Tap'
Ka.TI.pav rryv 1TAupdv 1Tap~KEL >..6<f>os:. In each case the av>.<tv is a valley
between hills; the presumption is that the
is the same here.
This avAwv has in fact a range of high hills on
side, 1rapa p.v
' ELS
, fLTJKOS
\
' KUTpas:;
'
'
(1TUpa' OE
~' TV..S'
' ELS
' 1TIIaTOS'
\' )
TUS
1TIIUpas;
1't S S hOr t
are filled by a steep hill in front and the lake behind; and the lake
allows only a narrow access to the avAwv
the range of hills
(1rapa ri}v 1Taplkpetav). This is a clear and consistent picture of a valley
running at right angles (more or less) to the lake, with a steep hill
at the far end. The difficulty only arises when one turns to Hannibal's
movements; OteMJwv TOV av.\wva 1Tapd T~V Alp.VYJV, Ta JJ.fV KaTd. 1Tpocrw1TOV
Tijs: 7ropElas A6<f>ov mhos KanAct~ETo (83. 2). The M~os is clearly that
in r; otherwise there is no sense in mentioning the latter. But what

4I5

zn

{';)

Dt.Utitore

~ /sol11

l. A I< E

Poslt!c/1 in amtJt)sl>

=}

Battle pcsitioa

'L

Maggiore

THASIMEIVE

HannJoil

- Komnns

km,
1000

m.
~3---~

THE BATTLE OF TRASIMENE.

Based on Kromayer.

THE CAMPAIGN OF 217 IN ITALY; TRASIMENE

III. 83

of the phrase 8u),Odiv 'Tbv a.ti>.wva. 71'a.pd. T~v Mp.v'fJv? De Sanctis (iii.
2. nr) argues that though the a.ti>.wv is described as from the end by
the lake, Hannibal crossed it parallel to the lake; thus 'non permette
il testo di P. d'identificare il colle di rimpetto (Ka.-ra.VTKpv) all' osservatore che volga le spalle allago con quello di fronte alia strada
che segue la sponda'. But De Sanctis's observer, with his back to
the lake (Hallward, CAH, viii. 710, puts him in a boat), corresponds
on this hypothesis to neither the Carthaginian nor the Roman view
of the battle, and is wholly otiose; P. further mentions in one half
of the sentence a M7>os which never appears again, and in the second
half -r6v . >.64>ov which is apparently quite distinct from it; finally,
he describes Hannibal's troop dispositions on the right and left
( 3-4), when in fact he has allowed him only a right, because the
lake is on the left. Clearly S,t::>.Od!v -rov a.v>.wva. 71'a.pd. -r~v >.lp.VTJv must
mean something else; and the easiest explanation is that it is a compressed phrase (cf. 82 n.) meaning 'along the lake side and through
the valley' (as Paton takes it). In 7 Flaminius marches 71'apd. -r~v
Alp.VTJV t::ls 'TOll . av>.wva. P.'s failure to make a sharp distinction
between the av>.wv proper and the approach along the lake side is
evident in his account of the troop dispositions ( 2).
(ii) Hannibal's troop dispositions. Hannibal occupied the A64>o>
with his Iberians and Libyans, and encamped there ( 2) ; his slingers
and pikemen he brought round from the vanguard and concealed
them behind the hills to the right of the av>.wv, extending his line;
his cavalry and Celts he brought round behind the hills on the left
in a continuous line (uuvt::xt::fs). Right and left would perhaps most
naturally be from Hannibal's standpoint in the battle; but the last
of the cavalry are said to be at the entrance to the defile between the
hillside and the lake ( 4), and since the Romans were approaching
along the lake in a clockwise direction, the entrance to the defile is
clearly west of the av>.wv; hence it follows that right and left refer
to Hannibal's original direction of march. Nor is this odd, since the
manreuvres were executed from march order (cf. 3, Ka-ra ,.~v
71'pw-ro71'opt::lav) ; nor would the troops ambushed in the hills march
to the far end of the av>.wv before being sent to their place of concealment (cf. Kromayer, AS, iii. r. 157 n. 2). Thus, cavalry and Gauls
lay to the left of the av>.wv, as one ascended from the lake; and on
the right were the slingers. Once the Romans had entered the defile
they were attacked from the front, the rear, and the flanks (84. 3,
J.K -rwv 71'Aaylwv). Distinct, however, from these troops already in the
defile (84. 7, 71't::uov Ka.-ra -r6v a.v>.wva) are those who were caught
on the march (Ka-rd. 71'opdav) between lake and hills, in the narrows
(84. 8, ~~~ -rof> unvof>), and met a more pitiable fate, being driven
into the lake and either cut down or drowned (84. 9-10). This implies
that the u-rt::H:I. were included in the ambush as well as the av>.wv

III. 83

THE CAMPAIGN OF 217 IN ITALY; TRASIMENE

proper, and helps to explain why P. does not everywhere distinguish

between the two so clearly as he does in his account of the actual
fighting. Finally (84. II), P. returns, from the approaches, to the
avA.wv to describe how about 6,000 found their way forward to the
high ground, only to be surrounded and forced to surrender.
This account, with its clear distinction between the fighting in the
avA.wv and that beside the lake, fits the rest of P.'s picture; so an
attempt may now be made to relate it to the topography of Lake
Trasimene.
(iii) The site of the battle. Of the views listed above, (c) and (d) do
not allow sufficient room for manceuvring, nor for Flaminius' numbers (see below); and the arguments against (a) have already been
stated under (i). There remains (b), the view of Henderson and
Kromayer. Against it is the smallness of the valley between Torricella
and Montecolognola. But if in fact the ambush stretched beyond this
avA.wv, and along the shore of the lake from Torricella as far west as
Montigeto, so that fighting occurred along the whole of this route,
most of DeSanctis's objections are answered; and in fact this view
is supported by the fact that one side of the at)A.wv was covered by
a mere 8,ooo slingers, while the other (including, we must suppose,
the extension along the lake) contained perhaps 3o,ooo Gallic in~
fantry and cavalry of all kinds (on the numbers, which depend on
those at II4. 5, see Kromayer, AS, iii. 1. 210-II); see further, 83.
3-4 n. The importance P. attributes to the fighting in the avA.wv
proper would be explained if one of his main sources (e.g. Silenus)
was an eyewitness in Hannibal's camp (cf. Kromayer, AS, iii. I.
I72 n. 3; De Sanctis, iii. :z. IJJ). The follm'<ing notes therefore presuppose the correctness of Kromayer's site for the battle.
83. 1. aoAwvos lm1rt8ou: the valley running south-east from Torricella in the direction of Magione; photographs in Kromayer, AS,
iii. I. 152-3 The avA.wv brl17"8o<; at Leontini (vii. 6. 2) also has a
considerable gradient (d. Kromayer, ibid. I74 n. I; map, 175).
~ouvous u\fT..,Aous Kat O'VVE:XE:LS: including Montecolognola on the
south of the valley.
aTE:v~v 1r6.po8ov ~s E:ts Tov aoAwva: in the narrow sense, the defile
between C. Piscino and the lake; but later( 8) P. includes the whole
5 km. defile between Montigeto and Torricella.
2. 8LE:Aawv Tov aoAwva1TapO. '~'fJ" ALI-LVTJ": see 83-85. 6 n. (i). It is clear
that in 84. I either P. is failing to distinguish between the avA.wv
proper and the approach along the lake, or else (less probably) that
he has an exaggerated view of the size of the former; cf. 84. 7,
Tov 1-1-kv M.Pov: the hill at the head of the avA.wv, not named on
Kromayer's map.
3. Tous 8 BaALapei:s Kat Aoyxocpopous Ktt'l'a .,...," 1TpW1'o'ITopeLav: 'the
418

THE CAMPAIGN OF 217 IN ITALY; TRASIMENE

III. 84. 7

Baleares and spearsmen from the vanguard'; cf. Livy, xxii. 4. 3,

Baleares ceteramque leuem annaturam.
inro Touc; l3ouvouc; O"'l'~o-TnAE: 'he stationed them in conceal~
ment behind the hills'; cf. xi. 21. 2.
3-4. E"'l't 11'0Au "'l'a.pa.TE&va.c; . 11'apeETE&VE o-uvexe'Lc;: arguing against
Kromayer's position for the battle De Sanctis (iii. 2. rr5) observes
that the S,ooo Baleares and light troops, spread over a mere Soo
metres, would in fact be closely ordered, whereas the Gauls, whom
Kromayer reckons at 2o,ooo, had to cover 5 km., and were therefore
extended. It is, however, dubious whether J.rr' 1To:l.v 1Tap6.TE,va;; implies
deployment in a less compact line than does 1rapeg./.retv uvvEXEt;;;
the former may simply mean 'deploying them over a \\ide area'
(including depth as well as length), and the latter 'he extended them
in a continuous line', i.e. such that they did not lose contact, an
important point in such an extended position. On the position of the
cavalry (between Montigeto and Passignano) cf. Livy, xxii. 4 3,
'equites ad ipsas fauces saltus tumulis apte tegentibus locat, ut,
ubi intrassent Romani, obiecto equitatu clausa omnia lacu ac mantibus essent'; and more specifically Zon. viii. 25, Toii J.LEV 1re,oil To
1TAdov Ka.Ta Ta DP7J i\oxav iTa.~E, TO a l7NrtKC>V cnJj.tTTaY tgw TWV un:vwv
&.rf>avw;; irf>Eop~vnv iKei\<::vuE. Kromayer, AS, iii. 1. 159 n. I.
4. TTJV e'lao5ov: the unvq mipooo;; of I.
7. KaTo-TpaTO"'I'E5EuKwc; '!!'poe; a.
TTI A1-wn: probably east of
Mte Gualandro, between its slopes and the R. Sanguineto; on De
Sanctis's theory this camp lies west of the mountain, since he puts
the entrance to the avi\wv at the defile of Borghetto.
"'l'apa TTJV At~J.V'lv Etc; Tov a.~Awva.: past Montigeto and Passignano
to Torricella; the rearguard would be well behind.

om

84. 1. 0.1-1-a. T~ To 11'ALCM'ov IJ-~poc; 11'poaoga.a9a.L: cf. 83. 2 n. The

avi\wv in the strict sense, from Torricella inland, could not have
contained the greater part of Flaminius' army.

O&a'll'jJ.\jiQ.iJ.EVoc; 1Tp6<;; Touc; tv Tais Ev~Spa.Ls: easily organized, since

the Gauls and cavalry were all in touch (uvvxti';;).
3. ot s EK TWV 11'Aayuv: strictly true only for those already beyond
Torricella; the rest in the uTvd. were attacked only on the left.
4. U"'I'O Tfjc; TOU 11'p0CM'WTO<; aKp~ala.c;: a favourite phrase; cf. v. I06. 8;
vii. 5 3 The death of Flaminius ( 6) is attributed by Livy (xxii.
6. 3) and Silius (v. 645) to Ducarius, an Insubrian who recognized
his national enemy.
7. E11'mov o-xe5bv E:s !J-up(ou<;; Ka.t 11'VTaKLaxtXouc;: probably the
total figure for the Roman dead, including those who fell in the un:vd.,
and for whom P. gives no separate figure; cf. Livy, xxii. 7 2, 'quindecim milia Romanorum in acie caesa' (Fabius); Plut. Fab. 3 P.
(85. 1) gives a further 15,ooo prisoners (cf. Plut. loc. cit.); and Fabius
P9

III.84.7

THE CAMPAIGN OF 217 IN ITALY; TRASIMENE

(Livy, xxii. 7 z) 1o,ooo survivors. Fabius mentions no prisoners, and

it seems likely that his figure of w,ooo preserves the number of those
who actually got away, including released allies (85. 3); this implies
a total of 25,ooo and is to be followed in preference toP. who will go
back to a Punic source (De Sanctis, iii. 2. 117-18). Livy (xxi. 17. 5)
gives Sempronius' forces in the Po valley in 218 as 24,ooo foot and
2,400 horse; there is no reason why Flaminius' two legions should
not have come to 25,ooo in all; cf. Kromayer, AS, iii. 1. 213.
8. ot Se K<ml. vope(a.v KTA.: those still between Passignano and
Torricella.
10. nves Se va.pa.Ka.AEO'UVTES a.lhous Sle~Oc:i.ptjO'UV: 'steeled themselves to self-destruction'; cf. Livy, xxii. 6. 6, sese immergunt. With
this text Paton translates 'they were dispatched ... by begging their
comrades to do them this service' (perhaps misled by Schweighaeuser's rendering of a different reading).
11. e~a.KLU):IALOL Tous Ka.Tu vpouwvov VLKTJO'UVTES: Kromayer
(AS, iii. 1. 164) assumes that this break-through took place against
the light troops on Hannibal's left wing (despite the words Tovs KaTa
7Tpoaw7Tov); and this is perhaps confirmed by their expectation that
they would meet further opponents( 12), which would not have been
likely had they broken through the heavy infantry. The high ground
which they reached ( 13) will be the hills behind Montecolognola.
14. Tou uTpa.TT)you . Ma.O.p~a.: often mentioned by Livy (xxi.
12. 1, 45 z, etc.); cf. Ehrenberg, RE, 'Maharbal (2)', cols. 523-4.
Livy (xxii. 6. n) puts him in charge of cavalry for this pursuit, an
impossibility in this terrain; cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 42 n. 62.
ws TEu~oJ.LEVoL TllS uWTTJp(a.s: their lives were to be spared (but they
were not, as Livy, xxii. 6. n and App. H ann. 10 state, to go free).
85. 1. i>VTaS v.heCous TWV J.LUplwv Ka.i 1TEV'TUKU.7XLAiwv: cf. 84. 7 n.
4. Tov a.6Tov Myov: cf. 77. 3-7.
5. eis XLAious Ka.t vevTa.Koulous: Klotz (Livius, 138) would read
(ow)xtMovs, comparing Livy, xxii. 7 3, duo milia quingenti; but

the discrepancy can be otherwise explained.

7-10. The news reaches Rome: cf. Livy, xxii. 7 6--q, where the
praetor who announces the defeatisM. Pomponius Matho. P.'s prosenatorial narrative probably derives from Fabius; cf. Gelzer,
Hermes, 1933, 153; Klotz, Livius, 139. The gfLf3o>.m are the rostra;
cf. vi. 53 1.
86. 1-7. Defeat of C. Centenius: news received at Rome: cf. Livy,
xxii. 8. 1-4; App. Hann. 9-11; Nepos, Hann. 4 3; Zon. viii. 25.
Appian's account is wholly at variance with P. and Livy; and though
Klotz (Phil., 1933. s6), following]. ]ung (Wien. Stud., I896, 99-115),
distinguishes two separate actions under two separate men called

THE CAMPAIGN OF 217 IN ITALY; TRASIMENE

IIL86.9

Centenius, it seems probable that Appian's account contains a

doublet from the battle of M. Centenius in Lucania in zrz (Li'vy,
xxv. 19); cf. Pareti, Riv. jil., 1912, 402-10; Hallward, CAH, viii. 47
Kromayer (AS, iii. 1. r93-9) rejects Appian, but accepts his location
of Centenius' defeat near Lake Plestia, which is to be identified
with a marshy lake near the Pass of Colfiorito in the Apennines east
of Foligno, leading into Picenum. However, from Passignano to
Plestia is 90 km., and it is unlikely that Maharbal could advance so
far and yet that news of his victory could reach Rome three days
after that of Trasimene ( 6). De Sanctis (iii. z. rz:z-4) therefore
locates the defeat near the Lacus Umber at the junction of the
Chiascio and Topino, near Assisi, and suggests that an annalist took
the name Umber in a general sense and added a false specification.
The exact site of the battle remains uncertain.
1. rva.~os IepouOuos: cf. 15 5 n., and for his forces, 77. I n. On the
situation of Ariminum cf. 61. I I n.; on the mouths of the Po cf. ii.
r6. 7 n.

3.

ra.~ov Kev-n)vLo\1: Livy (xxii. 8. I) calls him propraetore; on the

propriety of such a title doubts are thrown by Mommsen, who suggests that he may possibly have been so designated by the praetor
urbcmus (St.-R. i. 68r n. 4). In Zonaras (viii. 25) he is aTpaT7]y6s.
TETpa.KIUXLAlous t'IMTets: cf. Livy, loc. cit., quattuor milia equitum.
Appian (Hann. 9-n) makes Centenius a priuatus, dispatched
from Rome with a force of 8,ooo men, not specifically cavalry.
Kahrstedt (iii. 405) argues that 4,ooo cavalry imply an army of four
legions; and Appian (Hann. 1o) assigns 4o,ooo men to Servilius
{perhaps going back to a Greek source which, like P. apud Livy
xxxvii. 39 7, equates a legion plus its auxiliaries with two 0'7'por6'1Te<5a; cf. x. r6. 4; DeSanctis, iii. 2. u6). Whether P.'s source l:tere is
Carthaginian (De Sanctis, iii. z. n7) or Roman {Gelzer, Hermes,
1935, 283 n. 3), Kahrstedt's assumption is not essential; and it is
contradicted by ro7. 9-10; see further 77. I n.
6. Tov '!T0.8ous . . i!:la-a.vet ~AEyj.La.lvovTos: for the metaphor cf.
Plato, Rep. ii. 372 E, 'lToAts ,PI.eyp.alvovaa.
7. a.uTotcpchopos aTpa.nwou: a dictator; cf. Livy, xxii. 8. 5
86. 8-87. 5. Hannibal's advance to the Adriatic. Probably from a
Carthaginian source; De Sanctis, iii. 2. I73 Cf. Livy, xxii. 9 1-4.
It is in fact improbable that Hannibal ever proposed marching
directly on Rome (though Flaminius could not know that) ; his plan
was to raise all Italy against her. Cf. Hallward, CAH, viii. 47
86. 9. i]Kev 5etca.Tai.'os 'ITpos Taos tca.Tn Tov ;A.Spla.v TO'ITovs: probably
calculated from a date four or five days after Trasimene. Since the
latter was about 21 June (78. 6 n.), he will have reached the coast
about 5 July; DeSanctis, iii. 2. rzr. The attack on Spoletium mentioned by Livy (xxii. 9 r) and Zonaras (viii. 25) may be an annalistic

421

III.86.9

THE CAMPAIGN OF 217 IN ITALY; TRASIMENE

forgery (Kahrstedt, iii. 4I3 n. 4; contra Klotz, Livius, I39); it would

involve an improbable deviation, is hard to fit into the time-table of
ten days, and seems to belong to a version in which Hannibal is
diverted from Rome by a successful resistance and the destruction
of the bridge over theNar.

87. 2. A~ll61fwpos: 'scurvy'; dVTJXHtj;la, 'lack of oil-massage', is also

a technical medical term.
6. KowTov .Pa(3~ov: Q. Fabius Q.f. Q.n. Maximus Verrucosus, consul
in 233 and 228, censor in 230, and dictator already between 22I and
2I9 (probably in 22I: see Broughton, i. 235). F.'s explanation of the
cognomen ~~Iaximus is incorrect, for this goes back to Q. Fabius
Maximus Rullianus, the consul of 322 (cf. Flut. Fab. I. I; Livy, ix.
46. IS; xxx. 26. 8); cf. Dessau, Hermes, I9I6, 363 n. 2; Bung, 6o n. I.
In Servilius' absence, the comitia centuriata elected Fabius dictator,
and Minucius magister equitum (instead of leaving the nomination
to this post to the dictator); Livy, xxii. 8. 6; Flut. Fab. 4-5; App.
Hann. n; Dio, fg. 57 8; Zon. viii. 25. The unusual procedure is
probably behind the juristic conjectures which lead Livy (xxii. 3I.
8-n) to call Fabius pro dictatore (cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 46 n. 67),
and Mommsen to insist (St.-R. ii. I47 n. 4) that Fabius must have
been appointed by a praetor. Cf. Munzer, RE, 'Fabius (n6)', cols.
I8I4 ff.

7-8. 'Tl'EAEKHS d~<:oa~ Ka.L TeTTapes: cf. Dion. Hal. x. 24; Flut. Fab.
4; App. BC, i. Ioo; Dio, liv. I. According to Cicero (de leg. iii. 9) this
signified power equal to that of both consuls combined. Cf. Mommsen,
St.-R. i. 383, ii. ISS. who suggests that before the time of Sulla (cf.
Livy, ep. 89) the use of 24 lictors (with axes and fasces) was limited
to outside the pomerium.
8. 'T!'apaxpfjjla s~aMeaOa~ . 'T!'claas TclS O.pxO.s: F.'s statement is
untrue; but his error, which escaped correction owing to the desuetude into which the office had fallen in the second century, reappears
in App. Hann. I2; Plut. Cam. 5 I; Anton. 8. 5; Mor. :283 B; Dion.
Hal. v. 70. I, 72. 3, 77 I f., xi. 20. 3 In fact the current officers,
including the consuls (and not merely the tribunes) continued in
office under the orders of the dictator; cf. Mommsen, St.-R. ii.
ISS n. 4; Liebenam, RE, 'dictator', cols. 382-3; H. Last, JRS, I947,
I59 F.'s later treatment of this subject has not survived. For discussion see von Fritz, Constitution, 469-70.
9. Map~eov Mwo~eLov: M. Minucius C. f. C.n. Rufus, consul in 22I; cf.
Munzer, RE, 'Minucius (52)', cols. I957--62.
88. 3. TTJV npa.tTETTLO.V~v: this form, with -TT-, restored by Schweighaeuser from Stephanus, is confirmed by inscriptions, e.g. CIL, ix.
so66. The ager Praetuttianus Hadrianus included southern Ficenum
around Interamnia, Hadria, and the rivers Batinus (Tordino) and
422

THE CAMPAIGN OF 217 IN ITALY; TRASIMENE

III. 88,8

Vomanus (Vomano); the inhabitants were of Sabine stock and were

taken over by M.' Curius in 290, probably as ciues sine sujjragio (d.
Beloch, RG, 554, 598, 6o3; Nissen, It. Land. ii. 428 ff.).
TT)v Ma.ppouKLVYJV Kal ~pEVTavT)v xwpa.v: cf. ii. 24. 12 n. Livy (xxii.
9 5) also mentions the Marsi and Paeligni; but it is unlikely that
Hannibal ventured so far inland out of his line of march.
et-; TT)v 'la.'lt'uyla.v: cf. ii. 24. II n. ; there P. distinguishes Iapygia from
Messapia. Here it seems to include both Apulia and Calabria. P.'s
division here is that of Nicander (in Antoninus Liberalis, 1l,fythographi Graeci, ii. I. III, ed. Martini, Leipzig, 1896), who includes
Daunii, Peucetii, and Messapii under the generic title of Iapygians.
Daunia is the district from Mons Garganus southward, including the
towns of Luceria, Vibonium, Arpi, and (v. 108. 9) Gerunium. The
Peucetii lived behind Bari, and the Messapii in the hinterland of
Brundisium and Tarentum.
5. AouKa.pla.s: Luceria (modern Lucera) supported Rome in the
Samnite Wars. It was surrendered to Samnium after the Caudine
Forks disaster, recovered, and settled with 2,5oo colonists iuris
Latini in 314 (Livy, ix. 26. 5) or 3I5 (Diad. xix. 72. 8---9)
6. m(3wvLOV TT)v :A.pyupL1t'1TQV~V: Vibinum (modern Bovino) lay
on a hill commanding the upper stream of the Cerbalus (Cervaro);
Arpi (Arpe) lay on the Aquila (Celone) between Luceria and Sipontum on the coast (its coins have Ap1ravov or Aprra).
88.7-94. 10. Duel between Fabius and Hannibal: cf. Livy, xxii. 9 718. 4 P. seems to be using both Roman and Carthaginian (Greek)
sources; thus the account of religious measures at Rome, reported
so much more fully in Livy, will go back to Fabius (cf. Cic. de diu.
ii. 71 for Fabius Maximus' role as augur; Gelzer, Hermes, 1933. 154),
whereas the account of Hannibal's trick with the oxen suggests a
source in his camp. Cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 173-4.
88. 7. lluaa.-; Tois lleois: the details, which P. can hardly have
viewed other than cynically, appear in Livy, xxii. 9-10, and include
consulting the Sibylline books, the decision to offer magni ludi to
Iuppiter and temples to Venus Erycina and Mens, the holding of a
lectisternium, and the decree to have a uer sacrum in the event of
success.
TWv TTTapwv aTpa.To1T~8wv: cf. 77. r n. Fabius' total army was of four
legions (Livy, xxii. 27. 1o), of which two had been Servilius' (cf.
9; Livy, xxii. n. 3). Hence it is probable that P. is here confusing
the number of legions Fabius brought from Rome with his ultimate
total-unless aTpa:rom:oov is used in the sense in which a legion
together with its auxiliaries is reckoned as two 07paTom:oa (cf. 86.
3 n.). Cf. Klotz, Phil., 1933, 57; Rh. Mus., 1936, ro3 n.; Gelzer,
Hermes, 1935, 28o; DeSanctis, iii. 2. n6.
8. 1t'Epl TT)v Na.pvlav: the MSS. Llawlav was corrected by Seeck,
423

III. 88.8

THE CAMPAIGN OF 217 IN ITALY; TRASIMENE

Hermes, 1877, 509-10; see also Klotz, Rh. Mus., 1936, 103n. Livy
(xxii. II. 3) gives the place of assembly for the army as Tibur, and
the point of juncture with Servilius' forces as circa Ocriculum ( 5).
Ocriculum and Narnia lie about 8 miles apatt on the Via Flaminia
about 40-50 miles north of Rome; hence Seeck's emendation seems
probable. Livy (xxii. n. 7) records that Servilius was sent to Ostia.
9. 1TEpt Tas A'l~~:o.s: Livy, xxii. rz. 3, haud proc1tl Arpis. Aecae
(modem Troja) lies about zo miles up the Aquila from Arpi. Gelzer
(Hermes, 1935, z8o) takes P.'s AKat as a variant for Arpi, but this
seems unlikely. Fifty stades is a little under 6 miles. The subsequent
appreciation of 'Fabian' tactics no doubt goes back to Fabius Pictor
(Gelzer, Hermes, 1933. 153-4; Klotz, Livius, 141).
89. 6. SLs Sll 'Pw1-1o.wus KTA.: at Trebia and Trasimene, omitting
Ticinus; cf. 90. 13, 108. 8--9; contrast III. 7, where Hannibal speaks.

90. 1. avT~1TO.pfjyEv TOLS 1TOAEj.1tOlS: 'he moved parallel to the enemy' ;

the same tactics are employed by Autaritus and Spendius in the
Mercenary War (i. n. z).
8. T~v Ou~;voavTav.f)v: Beneventum (Benevento), originally a town
of the Hirpini (Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 105), lay in an enclosed plain between the Apennines and the Mons Taburnus in south Samnium;
according to Pliny (Joe. cit.), its original name of Maleventum was
transformed boni ominis gratia when in z68 it received a colony of
citizens iuris Latini (cf. Livy, ep. 15; Vell. Pat. i. 14; Eutrop. ii. r6).
m)Aw Ouevoucr[av: an unfortified Venusia in Samnium is unknown,
and Livy, xxii. 13. 1 reads Telesiam urbem cepit. But, as Nissen
points out (It. Land. ii. 8or), an attack on the mountain-town of
Telesia would be both dangerous and useless, and therefore improbable; and he assumes an error in Livy or his source, which
could not identify Venusia. Nissen himself suggests it lay on the site
of the village Castel Venere, 3 miles north-east of Telesia (which lies
about 5 miles north-east of the junction of the Volturnus and the
Calor); cf. Philipp, RE, 'Telesia', cols. 382-3 (confused, but approving
Nissen's suggestion), Klotz, Rh. Mus., 1936, 103 n. (accepting Livy).
10. TIJV <l>aAEpvov To1rov: the ager Falernus, covering in its
broadest sense the whole plain included within the southern course
of the Volturno, Mte Massico and Rocca Monfina in the north-west,
and the hilly land around Pietramelara and Caiazzo in the northeast; see Kromayer,
iii. r, Karten 6 and 7; Beloch, RG, 536-7.
It was ceded by Capua to Rome in 340 (Livy, viii. 11. 13), and in
318 the Roman citizens settled there were enrolled in the tribus
Falerna (Diod. xix. ro. 2; Livy, ix. zo. 6). On Hannibal's route cf.
92. r n.

THE CAMPAIGN OF 217 IN ITALY; TRASIMENE

III. 91. 5

91. 2. Ta. '. 1TE8la. Ta ICO.Ta Ka.1TIJT)V: on its fertility cf. ii. I7. I;
XXXlV. II.

I-7

4. The coastal towns. Sinuessa (modern Mondragone) closed the pass

between Mons Massicus and the sea at the north end of the plain;
it was reckoned sometimes as part of Latium, sometimes as in
Campania (Nissen, It. Land. ii. 553), but was originally a town of the
Aurunci. A citizen colony was founded here in 296. Cumae, at this
time Oscan, had had ciuitas sine suffragio since 338 (Livy, viii. I4. II),
and ranked as a municipi~tm (Sherwin-\Vhite, 38). Dicaearchia, like
Cumae, was originally a Greek colony, but fell to the Oscan tribes
and became known as Puteoli (Pozzuoli); it was subsequently the
most important harbour in Campania. Neapolis (Naples} was a fifthcentury foundation from Cumae, which later received Campanian
elements; after 3.26 it enjoyed the protection of a foedus aequum.
Nuceria (Kocera de' Pagani) is not on the coast, but lies I2 miles east
of Pompeii on the Via Popillia, the main southern road from Capua;
it was a town of the Alfaterni, and after its capture in 308 it entered
the Roman alliance (Livy, ix. 41. 3; cf. Diod. xix. 65. 7).
5. Tlte cities of the interior. Cales and Teanum lie to the north-east of
the ager Falernus; Cales (Calvi) was a tOVI'Tl of the Aurund, and
received a Latin colony of 2,500 men in 334 (Livy, viii. I6. IJ-I4);
Teanum (Teano), 5 miles to the north, belonged to the Oscan
Sidicini, and received ciuitas sine suffragio the same year (Nissen,
It. Land. ii. 6<)2). Nola was now an Oscan town, the main one in
southern Campania, and situated on the Via Popillia directly east
of Mt. Vesuvius; it joined the Roman alliance in 3I3 (Livy, ix. 28. 5;
Diod. xix. roi, 3). The Da~mii create a difficulty, and since Gronovius
doubts have been cast on the reading; Schaefer suggested Ka.Aa.Ti:vot
(Phil., 1863, 176), but in the main Holstein's Kav8lvot has been accepted. Caudium was normally reckoned part of Samnium, but as a
municipium it was enrolled in the tribus Falerna (Pliny, Nat. hist.
iii. I05; Ptol. Geog. iii. I. 58; GIL, ix, p. I98), and this has been held to
justify the emendation. But P. is speaking of cities ( 3) within the
Campanian plain; and, as Caudium cannot be forced into this category, it is possible that the reading of P. should be left unchanged.
Coins from Campania inscribed Hyria, Uria, or Orina (Head, 37)
are of a type showing close relations with those of Nola; and it is
generally assumed that Hyria is the older name of that town (cf.
Nissen, It. Land. ii. 757; J. Friedlander, Oskische Miinzen (Leipzig,
185o), 37; Philipp, RE, 'Nola', col. 8rz). Whether this identification
is accepted, or one prefers to follow the rather fine-spun argument
of Pais (Italia antica, ii (Bologna, I922), 277-93), making Hyria a
near Nuceria, it is clear
separate town in the valley of the
that the name Hyria connects with Iapygia, and so with the Daunii
(cf. Strabo, vi. 284; Pliny, Nat. kist. iii. 103; Pais, op. cit. 286 n. 1).
42 5

IlL gr. 5

THE CAMPAIGN OF 217 IK ITALY; TRASIMEKE

Moreover, the general assault on Cumae in 524 was carried out by

Etruscans, Umbrians, and Daunians (Dion. Hal. vii. 3). In view of
this evidence linking the Daunians with Campania, it seems safer
to retain the MS. reading (contra De Sanctis, iii. 2. 126; less certain
in Riv. fil., 1935, 297), while admitting uncertainty as to which city
is meant.
6. KcnruTJv: Cato (HRR, fg. 69) made it a fifth-century Etrurian
foundation, but its earliest known inhabitants are Samnites and
speak Oscan; cf. Nissen, It. Land. ii. 696 ff. After 338 the Campanians
had ci,uitas sine suifragio (Livy, viii. I4. 10) ; on their status see
Sherwin-White, 38-39.
7. <I>Xeypa.'i:a.: cf. ii. 17. I n. The original Phlegraean plain was that
of Pallene in Chalcidice, the site of the battle between the gods and
the giants; cf. Herod. vii. I23; Aristoph. Av. 824; Pindar, Nem.
i. 67; Isth. 6. 33, etc. The original fire (</>Myw) was of heavenly
origin (Dion. Per. 327 = GGM, ii. I21), and Pallene was not volcanic;
but later the name was transferred to other districts such as Thessaly
(Serv. ad Aen. iii. 578), the region round Cumae and Puteoli (Prop.
i. 20. 9, iii. II. 37 (Naples); Pliny, Nat. kist. iii. 6r), or the Campanian
plain as a whole (as here). The Gigantomachia was also located in
Arcadia, which like Campania shows signs of volcanic activity. See
Weser, RE, SuppL-E. iii, 'Giganten', cols. 66I-6; Oberhummer, RE,
'Phlegra', col. 265.
8. oxupa .. KO.l SuO'Efl~OAa.: an exaggeration. The hills round the
Campanian plain provide at least eight approaches (Kromayer, AS,
iii. I. 221 ff.), and the identification of P.'s three passes is hindered by
the lacuna in the text. Following Nissen (It. Land. ii. 68I-2, 687 n. 3}
De Sanctis (iii. 2. I26) argues that P. is thinking only of the ager
Falernus and not the whole Campanian plain, and identifies the
passes as (a) from Teanum down the Savo valley, (b) from Teanum
via Cales, (c) from Beneventum down the Volturno; he argues that
from the point of view of the ager Falernus and the strategical
problem confronting Fabius, the routes via the Savo and via Cales
were quite distinct lines of escape for Hannibal. Against this view
there are, however, serious objections. First, the lacuna, which
Nissen (It. Land. ii. 687 n. 3) fills: <Su~ -rijs TWV r~aVtTWV xdJpas,
DEv-r.fpa 8~ Ka-rd -rdv 'Ept{3tavdv Kat -rovs KaA7Jvm5s); against this, which
De Sanctis accepts, is the fact that, even though C reads OEv-r.f.pa o~
~ dm~ roD lpt{3dvov (with hiatus!), the use of KaAovfLEVov in 92. I is
against any reference to 'Ept{3tav6s here. Indeed, since (a) and (c) are
defined by the districts from which they proceed Btittner-Wobst's
<Sw-r.f.pa 8' dm) -rij> Aa-rl"'Y}>) seems the most probable supplement.
But this merely serves to emphasize a weakness of Nissen's theory,
namely that Teanum, which lies within Campania, is common to
both (a) and (b), so that the routes via the Savo and via Cales both
426

THE CAMPAIGN OF 217 IN ITALY; TRASIMENE

III. gz. r

lead ultimately to either Latium or Samnium, and cannot therefore

be distinguished by references to their ultimate origin (or goal).
Further, as Kromayer observes (AS, iii. r. 222 n.), the route down the
Volturnus from Beneventum can hardly be described as a?To Twv
KaTa ToVs 'lp?Tlvovs T61rwv (cf. Livy, xxii. IJ. r). It therefore seems
preferable to regard P.'s passes as the main strategic routes into the
Campanian plain as a whole, viz. (a) the Via Appia coming down the
Caudine Pass from Beneventum (dm) Tfjs I:avvtTtl5os), (b) the Via
Latina from Venafrum, debouching in the plain via Teanum and
Cales (<a?To Tfjs AaTllnJs-)), (c) the route from Abellinum to Nuceria
(a1ro T<vv KaTa ToVs- 'lp7Tivovs- T67Twv).

92. 1. Hannibal's route from Samnium into Campania. From ro it

is clear that Hannibal entered and left the north Campanian plain
by the same route; and since he comes from Samnium one would
expect his general approach to be some variant of the first route
mentioned in 91. 9 (where, however, P. is giving only general approaches). According to Livy, xxii. 13, a guide who misunderstood
his pronunciation led Hannibal to Casilinum in mistake for Casinum,
a worthless and confused anecdote; but the route there recorded is
helpful ( 6), 'per Allifanum, Calatinumque et Calenum agrum in
campum Stellatern'. Calat-inum is evidently wrong, since Calatia lay
south of Capua and the Volturnus; Hallward (CAH, viii. 49 n. 1)
accepts Conway's Caiatinum, which still implies a detour, DeSanctis
(iii. 2. 125) quotes Madvig's Callijanum, but tentatively suggests
Teanense ('rna sarebbe alterare non correggere il testo'). Evidently
Hannibal descended the R. Calor from Beneuentum, turned up the
Volturnus into the territory of Allifae, then west over the hills
towards Cales; the campus Stellas lay between Cales and the lower
waters of the Voltumus (Nissen, It. Land. ii. 689). P.'s 'Ept{3tavosKaAovp.Evos- >..6fos- is apparently the mons Callicttla of Livy, xxii. 15. 3,
r6. 5; neither name occurs elsewhere. (Pais-Bayet, 285 n. 105, suggest a connexion with Mte Ebano, north of Allifae; but this is impossible as the scene of Hannibal's break-out.) Kromayer (AS, iii.
r. 226, with Karten 6 and 7) identifies the pass of the break-through as
that of Borgo S. Antonio, and Callicula-'Ept{3tav6s- with the mountain
behind Pietravairano, west of that pass. De Sanctis (iii. 2. 127) who
accepts the position proposed by Nissen-a view already subjected
to criticism by Kromayer (AS, iii. r. 224)-urges against the latter
the fact that Hannibal had an easier escape west of the hill of
Pietravairano, if he merely passed between it and the Rocca Monfina,
along the route of the Via Latina. But Kromayer points out that if
Fabius was stationed at Marzanello, at the south-west end of the
hill he identifies with Callicula, he would have covered the Via
Latina; and the further slopes of Rocca Monfina may well have been
427

Hannibal

ID:J - Fabius
1.
2.

Posi~ion according

8.

to Krom01yer
Nissen

CALLICULA.

Based on Kromayer.

:z.

THE CAMPAIGN OF 217 IN ITALY; TRASIMENE

III. 93 5

wooded. Against Nissen's location is the fact that his supposed pass
between Cales and Teanum does not lead out of Campania at alL
Kromayer's hypothesis is therefore the most probable.
1ra.pn Tov 1>.9upvov 1ToTnl-lov: this must clearly be the Volturnus, the
only river which cuts the Campanian plain in two; d. Livy, xxii.
14. r, 'postquam ad Volturnum fiumen castra sunt posita'; 15. 4,
'Casilinum ... quae urbs Volturno fiumine dirempta Falernum a
Campano agro diuidit'. Teuffel's attempt (Rh. Mus., r8so, 471 ff.)
to identify the Athyrnus with a brook, the Turno, near Cerreto in
Samnium, is wildly wrong.
5. Ecr1TEuBE Ka.l cruvu'II'EKp(vETo: 'made a pretence of showing the same
eagerness'; d. Livy, x:xii. 14. 2.
11. Fabius' position. Livy records that Fabius early garrisoned
Callicula ( In.) and the Voltumus crossing at Casilinum (Livy,
xxii. rs. 3} and sent Minucius to cover the pass above Tarracina,
which might have given Hannibal access to districts nearer Rome
(Livy, xxii. rs. n}. In taking up his main position Fabius was now
joined by Minucius, who presumably left a force behind at Tarracina.
The most likely view of Fabius' position is that of Kromayer (AS,
iii. r. 225 ff.}; his camp lay at the south-west end of the hill of Vairano
overlooking, on the west, a gap of 23 km. containing the Via Latina,
and facing the slopes of Rocca Mon:fina. The 4,ooo men ( w) were
placed holding the pass to the east of the hill, that of Borgo S.
Antonio. In this way Fabius covered both ways through into the
Volturnus valley.

93. 1. Hannibal's position: d. Livy, xxii. 15. 12, duo inde milia
hastes aberant. On Kromayer's thesis Hannibal lay under the hill
of S. Felice directly opposite Borgo S. Antonio and Pietravairano.
93. 3-94. 6. The stratagem of the oxen: d. Livy, xxii. r6-18; Sil. It.
vii. 272 ff.; Plut. Fab. 6-7; App. Hann. 14-15; Zon. viii. 26; Nepos,
I!ann. 5 2; Frontin. Strat. i. 5 28; Polyaen. exc. 46. ro. The story,
though fantastic, appears to be true; a similar ruse was employed
during the war of 1914-18 when a herd of buffaloes was used to force
a mined position on the Halo-Austrian front (De Sanctis, iii. 2.
so n. 79). The source appears to be from the Carthaginian side (De
Sanctis, iii. 2. 173}. On Hasdrubal ( 4} cf. 66. 6 n.
93. 5. il'II'EpJ3oXT]v nva tJ-Em~u K~l1Ev'I}V crnvwv: the depression
adjoining Pietravairano, on Kromayer's hypothesis (AS, iii. x. 228 ff.,
with photographs}. DeSanctis (iii. 2. 127), who recognizes the faults
in Nissen's reconstruction at this point, himself suggests that the
demonstration with the oxen was made on the far (i.e. north} side
of his assumed pass between Cales and Teanum, towards Visciano;
but this cannot be described as between Hannibal's camp and the
pass, however far the former is moved 'a nord-est (DeSanctis \vrites
429

III. 93 5

THE CAMPAIGN OF 217 IN ITALY; TRASIMENE

"nord-ovest") di quel che non sia collocato sulla carta del Kromayer'.
7. all-a. Se T~ KAiva.~ To TplTov llEpo~ Tfj~ vu~<To~: about 3 a.m.

94. 4. Ka.Tcl. Tov vo~TJTTJV: Homer, Od. x. 232, 258; the quotation adds
absolutely nothing to the passage, and looks like a piece of mere
ornament; cf. Wunderer, ii. 27-28. Cf. v. 38. Io, xii. 27. Io-u, xv.
I2. 9, I6. 3, xxxiv. I4- 8, fg. 208.
7-10. Fabius returns to Rome; Hannibal thinks of winter quarters.
Hannibal had reached the Adriatic about 5 July (86. 9 n.), and his
stay in Daunia probably took him to the end of the month. On this
reckoning he could be in the ager F alernus by 7 August, but will
hardly have stayed long in this dangerous situation. Livy's statement (xxii. IS- 2), that Fabius 'aestatis reliquum extraxit, ut Hannibal destitutus ab spe summa ope petiti certaminis iam hibernis locum
circumspectaret', need not imply a date later than the second half
of August; and Hannibal can easily have been back in Daunia
(Ioo. I f.) by the beginning of September. See DeSanctis, iii. 2. I2I;
below Ioo. 6 n.
9. iv[ nva.~ 9ucr(a.~ et~ TTJV 'Pwi.LTJV: cf. Livy, xxii. I8. 8; Plut.
Fab. 8. I; App. Hann. I2; Zon. viii. 26; Sil. It. vii. 38I ff. Fabius'
recall was probably a reflection of a growing popular feeling against
his policy (cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 5I). Livy records that Hannibal
retired gradually through the country of the Paeligni into Apulia,
and was at Gereonium (Gerunium), withFabiusencamped inLarinate
agro near by, when the latter was recalled. See Ioo. I-2.
95-99. The Events of 2I7 in Spain and at Sea; the Ebro
Naval Battle
Cf. Livy, xxii. I9-2o. 2; Frontin. Strat. iv. 7 9; Zon. ix. I; also a
fragment of Sosylus (FGH, 176 F I). P.'s source is uncertain; but
as Livy contains both Polybian and non-Polybian material, he is
probably following Coelius, who in turn diew on the same source as
P. (cf. Klotz, Livius, I43; Hoffmann, 29)-perhaps Silenus. Livy, P.,
and Sosylus are not contradictory, and their accounts may be combined; Sosylus' reference to a SdK'TTAovs suggests, however, that the
Ebro battle was more protracted and harder fought than P. implies
(96. z, 96. 6, it iif>6Sov). The details in Frontinus and Dio (Zonaras)
are suspect, however. See De Sanctis, iii. 2. 24I ff.; Thiel, 49 ff. The
date of the Ebro battle is April or May (DeSanctis, iii. 2. 242 n. 6I).
95. 2. Tcl.s TPLclKOVTO. vails: cf. 33 I4 for thirty-two quinqueremes
manned in 218; P. here gives round figures (cf. Livy, xxii. I9. 2).
By manning ten more Hasdrubal could outnumber the thirty-five
Roman ships ( 5).
430

THE EBRO NAVAL BATTLE

liL97Z

:A.~.~-tXKav:

both Klotz (Livius, 143) and Thiel (49) prefer Livy's form
(xxii. 19. 3, Himilco); for confusion between the two names cf. viii.
I. 8 with Livy, xxiv. 35 3 Lenschau (RE, 'Hamilkar', col. 2297)
remarks on the common confusion, but accepts 'Hamilcar' here
(ibid., col. 2308).
5. TI'EV1'E Kat 'l'pul.KOVTa vaGs: cf. s6. 5 n. This figure probably includes
the Massaliote squadron implied in 6-7 ; and if the twenty ships
sent from Rome later this year (97 1-2) still left the Spanish fleet
at thirty-five (x. 17. 13). this is probably because they replaced a
Massaliote squadron of that size; cf. Thiel, 40-42.
' TOVS
' 1Tt:p~' TOV
' "lr:l
' T01TOUS:
'
.. 19. 5, 'd ecem
E~S
Cf . L'IVy, XXll.
1. o'!Jpa 1TOTaJLOV
milia passuum distantem ab ostio Hiberi amnis'; this is P.'s 8o
stades.
7. e:uyevws KEKOivwv,Kaa~ 'PwJLa(oL<; 11'pay1.1-a1'Wv Kat Ma.aaaAiw1'al:
Sosylus attributes the Roman victory to the success of the Massaliote
squadron in paralysing the Punic manceuvre of o~i~~:w.\ov> by forming
a second line to receive such ships as got through. But Jacoby {on
FGH, q6 F r) thinks it unlikely that P. would have so radically
changed Sosylus' tradition, had he known it, and therefore questions
whether the battle in Sosylus is that of the Ebro.
96. 4-6. Ptmic losses: cf. Livy, xxii. 19. 12-20. z {asP.). There is no
evidence that the twenty-five captured ships were incorporated in
the Roman fleet. Thiel (so) suggests that they were presented to the
Massaliotes, 'a method of acknowledging the services of faithful
allies which was not unusual with the Romans'; but this is hypotheticaL The figures in Sosylus depend on restorations and are safer
neglected.
8-10. Pu1tic expedition in Italian waters. According to Livy (xxii.
n. 6) it successfully intercepted a fleet of unprotected transports
bound for Spain, near Cosa. On Servilius' command cf. 88. 8.
12. A~Xv~a<t~ 1rpoaeax: having sailed via Corsica and Sardinia
(Livy, xxii. 31. r). Livy also mentions a raid on Africa itself, and the
plundering of Meninx (Djerba) before the events at Cercina; but he
omits any reference to Cossyra.
TftV Twv KpKWF)Twv vt]aov: Cercina (modern Kerkinah) and the
smaller island of Cercinitis (modern Djezirat el-Gharbia) lie in the
Lesser Syrtes (Gulf of Gabes) about 40 km. from Sfax. Livy (xxii.
31. 2) gives the ransom paid by the inhabitants as ten talents of silver.
13. Koaal.pov: Coss)Ta, modern Pantelleria. It was under Rome for
a short time during the First Punic War (i. 36. ron.), and was later
included in the province of Sicily.
97. 2. KaT( orf)v l; &.pxi]s1Tp68Eatv: cf. 40.2 n. According to Livy, xxii.
22. I, P. Scipio had thirty (two inferior MSS. have xx) warships and
8,ooo men; this implies a considerable fleet of transports (Thiel, 54).
431

IIL 97 6

EVENTS OF 217 IN SPAIN AND AT SEA

6. 'II'Epl TO Tfls J\4>poSLTTJS U:pov xa.TEaTpa.To'!l't8Euaa.v: the scanty

remains of this temple, a building 15 by 12 m. in size, lie on a cape
of the original coastline, but now about z km. from the sea, at a
point some 9 km. north of Saguntum; it was probably built by the
Phocaeans. The harbour used on this occasion by the Scipios is still
to be detected in a lagoon below the temple. The camp of the Scipios
has been identified near-by, about 1 km. inland from the temple,
and z km. from Almenara, in a situation overlooking Saguntum and
the coastal plain from Castellon to Valencia. The measurements of
the camp, which stands on a hill with a crescent-shaped depression,
and has the form of a trapezoid, are c. zoo m. on the north, c. 300 m.
on the south, and the other two sides c. soo m.; the walls are reinforced with about sixteen towers. For a report and photograph
see A. Schulten,JDAI, 1927,232-5.
98-99. )\~Au~: the story of the hostages is also in Livy, xxii. zz. 6-21
and Zon. ix. I ; the ultimate source is uncertain, but it seems to be
one common to all three, despite smaU variants (e.g. the Spaniard
is ':Aj1Ao:,; in Zonaras); Kahrstedt, iii. 204. The importance of the
incident is greatly exaggerated (De Sanctis, iii. z. 174, 244 n. 45),
even if it is not (as Beloch, Hermes, 1915, 361, plausibly suggested)
a duplication of P. Scipio's capture of the hostages at New Carthage
(x. r8. 3 fL).
99. 6. ETl!lTJaa.v , Sul4>EpovTws: cf. 69. 4 n.

100-105. Events in Apulia; !vfinucius and Fabit's

On the events around Gerunium see the exaggerated account in
Livy, xxii. I8. 5-Io, 23 9-29. 6; also App. Hann. I5-I6. For discussion see De Sanctis, iii. z. 128-31; Kromayer, AS, iii. r. 248-77,
especially z66-!), where Kromayer underlines the importance of these
chapters as our sole evidence for Hannibal's methods in positional
warfare, dominated by the intention to force a battle under the
most favourable tactical conditions.
100. 1. Aouxa.p~a.v r Epouv~ov: for Luceria d. 88. 5 n. Gerunium,
also in Apulia (Livy, xxii. 18. 7, 39 16), was zoo stades, i.e. about
35'5 krn., from Luceria ( 3) and, according to the Tabula Peutingeriana, 8 milia passuum from a cross-roads near Teanum where the
coastal route meets the route to Bovianum; it therefore lay between
Dragonara and Casalnuovo Monterotaro (cf. Kromayer, AS, iii. I,
Karte 6). Various suggestions have been made for its position; see
De Sanctis, iii. 2. 129, for criticism of Raimondi (Gerunium
l\fte
Gerione, 8 km. south-west of Larino). Kromayer (AS, iii. 1. 248 ff.)
makes out a case for the Colle d' Armi, on the right bank of the R.
Fortore (photographs opposite p. 264) ; but the site is not certain.
432

EVENTS IN APULIA; MINUCIUS AND FABIUS

III.

IOI.

2. 'lia.pO. To A(~upvov Spos: unknown and probably corrupt. Schweighaeuser thought of Mons Taburnus near Caud.ium in Samnium,
Nissen (It. Land. ii. 786 n. 2) reads Tt{Jupvov, understanding Mons
Tijernus (modern Matese). The latter must be right. Hannibal prob
ably marched north of this massif, and then via Bovianum (Bojano)
and Campobasso. Kromayer (AS, iii. I. 252 ff.) takes Hannibal northwards towards Sulmo and Corfmium, then back through Bovianum
(Pietrabbondante), in order to combine P. with Livy, xxii. 18. 6;
but such a detour with the cattle from Campania seems highly
unlikely and Livy's account is in other respects less probable,
e.g. he postpones Fabius' return to Rome until the arrival of the
Roman army in Apulia (xxii. 18. 8; on the greater likelihood of P.'s
version of an immediate return to Rome see De Sanctis, iii. 2. 128).
6. E'lit ,;v ouoAoy(a.v: cf. 94 7-10 n.; Livy, xxii. 23. 10. Hannibal
will not have reached Apulia before early September, when the corn
would not normally have been still unharvested. Both here, and in
Livy, xxii. 32. 2 (where jrumentatum exeunti refers to autumn), the
reference may therefore be to com from granaries or possibly to
forage for the horses (d. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 12r). But Sallust, Hist.
fg. iii. g8 M. 'et tum mat(ura in agri)s erant autu(mni frume)nta',
seems clearly to refer to standing com in autumn. It is possible,
therefore, that in 217 war conditions had held up the reaping.
1TpouT6.~a.s T!lUTTJV: 'ordering each didsion (KaUTov sc. p.lpo>} for
the use of its own men to bring in daily a specified amount, namely
the quota for the detachment, to those in command of its commissariat'. Td.yp.a is the same as p./.pos (i.e. a third of the army) and
goes with l1n{Jo1l~v; Tois l8{ots is to be taken closely with fiKactTov as
a datiuu,s commodi; and Tot's 1TpOKXttptap.lvot> is indirect object after
dvalpEtv. Reiske's interpretation (adopted by B-Wz app. crit.) makes
Tols lStots indirect object after dvalpnv, and Tois 1TpOKXttptctp.lvot>
dative after Jm{JoA~v, as if it were E1Tt{1{JA'fJp.lvov, viz. 'the quota
enjoined (by Hannibal) upon those in command of the commissariat
in each detachment'; but so forced a meaning of 1r~{Jo>..~ with a
dative is hardly tolerable. To take Tofs 1TpOKXtptap.lvot> in apposition to Tofs l8lots, both after dvalpHv, is possible but very forced;
and it is even harder to make Toi:s 1TpoKXtpu:rp.lvots dative of the
agent after TO.KT6v. For discussion see Schweighaeuser and B-Wz.

101. 3. KaA~V1]: Kromayer (AS, iii. I. 261) thinks of Mte Calvo on

the left bank of the R. Fortore; but this is uncertain. The earlier identification with Casacalenda near Larino is undoubtedly to be rejected.
4. ~Kka.L8EKa <TTa8rous: cf.
xxii. 24. 5, duo jerme a Gereonio
milia. Both here and in IOJ. 8 's figures suggest a translation of
Roman miles on the basis of 8 stades to a mile, which seems to suggest
a Roman annalistic source (De
iii. 2. 173; Kahrstedt, iii.
Ff

433

III.

101.

EVENTS IN APULIA; MINUCIUS AND FABIUS

2o6). The relationship between Livy's account and P.'s is obscure,

though they are clearly connected. DeSanctis (iii. 2. 190) sees direct

or indirect use of P. by Livy; the latter seems more probable in

view of Livy's general practice in these books.
~:rr( Twoc; ~ouvou: Kromayer puts this second camp of Hannibal on
the hill of Casalnuovo near Casa Purgatorio (AS, iii. r, Karte 7);
but neither this hill, nor that which Hannibal occupied during the
night( s-across the river, according to Kromayer) can be identified
with certainty. That Hannibal deliberately put the river between
his outpost and his camp seems unlikely (De Sanctis, iii. 2. IJo).
103. 4. a.uToKpaTopa KaKeivov KaTEO"TTJaav: cf. Livy, xxii. 25--6;
Plut. Fab. 8; App. Hann. 12; Dio, fg. 56. r6; Zon. viii. 26; Val.
Max. iii. 8. 2, v. 2. 4; auct. de uir. ill. 43 3 DeSanctis (iii. 2. 53 n. 84)
regards the details of this aequatum imperium as largely apocryphal;
but the broad outline of the tradition seems confirmed by the
subsequent disappearance of the dictatorship as an ofiice of importance until the first century (M. Iunius Pera in 216 is the last military
dictator in the middle republic). Cf. Mommsen, St.-R. ii. r48, 169.
Livy (xxii. 25. 10), however, speaks of 'rogationem ... de aequando
magistri equitum et dictatoris iure' ; and Minucius' dedication to
Hercules while dictator (CIL, i2 2. 6o7) may refer to an earlier
dictatorship, e.g. comitiorum habendorum causa in 220 (so T. A.
Dorey, ]RS, 1955, 92---96, adducing Plut. Marc. S 4). Hence Livy
may be right, and P. wrong: Minucius may have had an aequatum
imperium without a duplication of the ofiice of dictator. P.'s words
hardly imply that contemporaneous dictators, appointed for separate
Trpagn,, were not unprecedented (so De Sanctis, iii. 2. 122); such an
implication would be incorrect, for a collegiate dictatorship is contrary to the whole purpose of the office, and no earlier examples are
known. See Munzer, RE, 'Minucius (52)', col. rg6o; Dorey, loc. cit.
5. rijc; vapd. TOU 8TjjLOU 8e8ojLEVTjs apxi]s: according to Livy (xxii. 25.
17) Minucius' new authority was conferred by plebiscitum.
8. ws 8w8eKa aTa8(ous: about I'5 Roman miles; cf. roL 4 n. Minucius probably occupied the camp taken from Hannibal (ro2. 9), and
Fabius the hill between the two armies which Minucius had previously captured from Hannibal's pike-men (ror. 7); cf. De Sanctis,
iii. 2. 130; Kromayer, AS, iii. 1. 263 and Karte 7 (though the identifications here cannot be confidently accepted).
104. 4. vavTo8avd.s vep~KAaae~s Kat KOLAOTTJTO.S: the general
nature of the terrain in this district can be appreciated from Kromayer's photographs (AS, iii. r. 264).
105. 9. Ti s~a<t>epeL O'TPO.TTJYLKTJ vpoVOLO. KTA.: for the didactic
note cf. i. 84. 6, ix. 14. 1-4, drawing the same distinction between the
reasoning power of the general and the qualities of the mere soldier.
434

THE CAMPAIGN OF 218 IN ITALY; CANNAE

III.

107

106-118. The Campaign of 2IJ in Italy; Cannae

106. 1-2. Aul<l0V Ai .... LAIOV teal r .hov T EptVTIOV: the consuls for
A.U.c. 538
2r6 B.c. were L. Aemilius M.f. M.n. Paullus (16. 7 n.)
and C. Terentius C.f. M.n. Varro (cf. Munzer, RE, 'Terentius (83)',
cols. 68o-9o). It is improbable that Fabius and Minucius retained
office until the elections. Livy (xxii. 31. 7, 32. 1-3) records their
resignation exacto iam prope semestri imperio {perhaps in November,
78. 6 n.), and the resumption of consular duties by Servilius (75 5 n.)
and the suffectus, M. Atilius M.f. M.n. Regulus (son of the famous
Regulus (i. 26. n) and previously consul in 227). who took over the
armies of Minucius and Fabius respectively. P.'s statement that the
consuls of 217 were appointed proconsuls when the dictators laid
down their office implies a date after r5 March 2r6, and a dictatorship of nine months; further he makes no distinction between the
election and entry into office, and Livy's version is to be preferred. According to Livy the elections were postponed and held
under an interrex, P. Cornelius Asina; Varro's appointment, a victory
for the plebs, followed an electoral campaign of great violence (Livy,
xxii. 33-35); cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. r2r-2; Scullard, Pol. 49 ff.; Bull.
Inst. Class. Stud., 1955, 19-zo; E. S. Staveley, Historia, I954/5.
205-7
6. AEUICIOV . nocm)tJ.tOV: L. Postumius Albin us, consul in 229,
(ii. II. r n.). His C1'Tp(mhr.:Sov is not a legion (Kahrstedt, iii. 434, 444),
but, as often in P., an army (cf. Gelzer, Hermes, 1935, 283); cf. Livy,
xxiii. 24. 8, legiones duas. On the destruction of this army see n8. 6.
7. TOu 'll'flP<LXEifLBtovToS ~v T<'e A~Au~a(<f oToAou: d. 96. IJ-I4. Servilius had already gone to relieve Fabius in Apulia ( 1-2), but his
ships did not return from Lilybaeum till winter; a squadron of fifty
ships under Otacilius, a praetor (Liv-y, xxii. 31. 6-7), remained at
Lilybaeum (Thiel, 53).

107-17. The campaign of Cannae. Cannae possesses a literature

which can be touched on here only in so far as it concerns the interpretation of what P. says. To the bibliography in CAH, viii. 726-7
add Kromayer, AS, iv (r93r), 6xo-25; K. Lehmann, Klio, 1931,
70~9; Rh. Mus., 1931, 321-41; Scullard, Hist. 460 (ed. ::1: 428-9,
summary of views); F. Cornelius, Cannae (r932); A. Klotz, Geist.
Arb., 1938, no. 12, rr-12; M. Gervasio, I apigia, 1938, 390-491;
D. Ludovico, Topografia della baUaglia di Canne {Florence, 1954).
(a) Topography. The best discussion remains Kromayer, AS, iii.
r. 278-307; iv. 6ro-25; see also De Sanctis, iii. 2. 137-43. For maps of
the site see Kromayer, AS, iii. r, Karte 8; Schlachtenatlas, Rom.
Abt. i, Blatt 6; DeSanctis, iii. 2, no. 3; Strachan-Davidson (at end).
The battle was fought on level ground beside the Aufidus (Ofanto)
near Cannae (modern Monte eli Canne), with the Roman right next
435

III. 107

THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANNAE

to the river (n3. 3); the site has been variously placed:
(i} on the left bank (De Sanctis, J udeich, Hallward, Scullard} ;
(ii) on the right bank upstream from the fortress of Cannae
(Arnold, Hesselbarth, Lehmann) ;
(iii) on the right bank downstream from Cannae (Kromayer,
Kahrstedt, Cornelius).
Of these (ii) has little to commend it, for no ground south-west of
Cannae meets the requirements of the battle (cf. Kromayer, AS,
iii. r. 293 ff.), unless, with Reusch, one shifts the river-bed to the
north; but between (i) and (iii) a decision is difficult. I
P. states that the Roman army, with its right flank against the
river, faced south (n3. 2-3), and the Carthaginians north (n4. 8);
hence 'neither side was inconvenienced by the rising sun'. If the battle
was in August ( (b)), the sun rose a little north of east, and presumably P. means what he says-the lines faced north and south.
But the remark about the sun may be his own deduction, introduced
to combat a Roman version which suggested that the Romans were
at a disadvantage because of the sun; if so, it is not independent
evidence for the site and orientation. Moreover, though its general
course is from south-west to north-east, the Aufidus here twists and
turns so much that it is possible to arrange lines at right-angles to
it which face in almost any direction. De Sanctis (iii. 2. 139) argues
that because in ii. 14 P. has described Italy schematically as a
triangle based on the Alps, with its apex at C. Cocynthus, and
bisected lengthwise by the Apennines, it therefore follows that he
believed the Aufidus to flow in a south-easterly direction, just as the
rivers running into the Tyrrhenian Sea flow in a south-westerly
direction. This is a twtt seqztitur. The triangulation of Italy carries no
implications for the direction of its rivers (Judeich, HZ, 136, 1927,
15 n.); and a likelier hypothesis is that P. gained his impression of
the direction of the Aufidus on a journey from Brundisium to Romea journey which he will have regarded as in essence from east to
west (cf. Cornelius, 66 n. 2}. Such a journey P. must have made, and
it may well have given him the impression of a river flowing from
south to north; and whether for this reason or not, this does in fact
appear to be P.'s view of the course of the Aufidus (cf. StrachanDavidson, 35-36), as his account of the Roman advance to the
battlefield makes clear.
From the point where the new consuls joined the army (ro8. 2 n.)
I Bones found in a cemetery in the contrada Fontanella, 400 m. south-west of
Cannae (Gervasio, loc. cit.) have been variously dated to the Lombard period
and the Middle Ages; Ludovico (op. cit.) uses them to support a reconstruction
of the battle, which locates the final clash between the hills of Cannae and
Fontanella. This view was published too late for detailed consideration here; it
seems unlikely.

436

THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANNAE

III. ro7

to the river was a three days' march. At the end of the second day
they encamped about 6 miles (so stades) from Hannibal (no. 1),
in a flat and treeless country, suited to cavalry, and Aemilius wished
to advance into the hills; but Varro, who commanded the third day,
continued towards the enemy, and was involved with them. On the
fourth day (ds -r~v l7Tavpwv) Aemilius, judging it inadvisable to
fight and dangerous to withdraw, encamped on the bank of the
Aufidus (no. 8}; -rip 8~ -rpt-rr.p 7TI.pav, dm:l O~af3aaEWS 7Tpds nl.s ava-roA&.s,
lj3d).ETO xap:um, about 10 stades from his main camp (no. xo). The
natural sense of this is that the Romans carne east or south-east
towards the Aufidus, encamped on its left bank and sent a third
of their forces over to make a smaller camp east of the ford, on the
right bank. If P. pictured the Aufidus flowing north, there is no
difficulty; and the battle will have been fought on the right bank
(n3. z}.
Against this De Sanctis (iii. z. 137) urges these objections:
(i} The Romans will not have marched straight across the plain
of Tavoliere to the Aufidus, but must have followed the hillier route
via Aecae and Herdonia; for it was only when they were so stades
from Hannibal that they reached flat country. In fact no. 1-2
warrants the opposite conclusion. P. here describes -rovs 7TEpg
-r67Tovs as flat and treeless; this does not, however, imply that the
Romans had now for the first time reached the plain, but simply
that on coming in sight of Hannibal Aernilius realized that this was
no country in which to meet him. He therefore proposed advancing
into the hills. In a detailed analysis of the gradients and terrain
Kromayer shows (AS, iv. 6rs} that the route through Luceria, Aecae,
Herdonia, and Canusium is not safer than that via Arpi; nor were
the Romans seeking to evade battle, rather they were seeking it
(108. 1). Moreover, if the Romans came via Canusium, it was evidently near that town that they caught sight of Hannibal; but the
area between Canusiurn and Cannae is hillier than that between Herdonea and Canusium, and there is no plain in that part of the Aufidus valley corresponding to that in which Hannibal attacked Varro,
(ii} In no. 10 the smaller Roman camp is 'east of the ford'; this
implies that the Romans were advancing along the river eastwards,
and that the Carthaginians were nearer the sea. De Sanctis believes
the little camp to have been on the left bank; hence, when Hannibal
moves his camp over to the same side as the larger Roman camp
(ru. n}, he is moving from the left bank to the right. in order to
unite all his forces near Cannae. But P. clearly regards his move,
following a battle speech to his troops, as aggressive. Moreover, this
interpretation depends on the faulty view that P. believed the
Aufidus to flow to the south-east (see above) ; whereas if it flowed
north, 'east of the ford' clearly means 'on the right bank'.
437

III.

107

THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANNAE

(iii) Various secondary sources refer to the effects of the Volturnus

wind blowing in the faces of the Romans during the battle (Livy,
xxii. 46. g; App. Hann. 2o; Zan. ix. r); and this was the south-east
or east-south-east wind (Eurus) or scirocco (Sen.Qu.aest. nat. v. I6. 4;
Pliny, Nat. Mst. ii. ug). P., however, has no reference to this wind,
and it may well be an invention of Roman propaganda, like the story
of the sun which P. rejects (II4. 8). Even if it is true, it still remains
possible for troops facing south-south-west to be troubled by a
south-east wind.
Thus De Sanctis's objections prove to be unsubstantial. To place
the battle on the left bank is to reject P.'s statement that the
Romans faced south; it also involves assuming that Hannibal
offered battle on the right bank above Cannae, on ground singularly
ill-adapted to cavalry, only to have it rejected by Aemilius (nz. I-2:
3vaapE(]Tov,..evos .. Toi:s- Twot:;), and that the next day Varro deliberately crossed over to fight on the plain. So foolish he can scarcely
have been. It has therefore been assumed below that the battle took
place on the right bank, with the Romans drawn up with their
backs to the sea.
(b) Chronology. Claudius Quadrigarius is our authority for the
fact that Cannae was fought a.d. iv non. sext., i.e. 2 August (Gell.
v. 17. 5; Macrob. Sat. i. r6. z6). Since the calendar appears to have
been running true in 217 (78. 6 n.) there is a probability that the
same was true in 216, and that Cannae was fought in August; but
De Sanctis's arguments (iii. 2. 136) fall short of proof. Hannibal left
his winter quarters near Gerunium when the corn harvest was ripe
(ro7. I), and so in June; he then marched 6o miles to Cannae to take
it. News had to reach the consuls of 217, who in turn sent repeated
(aw.-xws, 107. 6) messages to Rome asking for counsel. The senate
resolved to send the new consuls, who joined their forces at an unnamed point, whence it was possible to come within so stades of
Hannibal in two days (no. I). After haranguing the troops, Varro
and Aemilius at once set out for Cannae. De Sanctis (iii. 2. r36)
argues that this will have brought the year to August; possibly, but
his argument is partly invalidated by his interpretation of 108. 2 as
una concione al popolo held before the consuls left Rome, and his
assumption of a lacuna at no. r ; the 1roMol of 109. 13 are of course
the army. A further argument from a Greek synchronism is also
indecisive. In 216 Philip V assembled his troops in Macedonia d.pxo,_.IVTJ> 8te.pdas (v. 109. 4), trained them as rowers and sailed round
Malea for Illyria; leaving Cassandreia in late April or early May he
will have covered the 1,200 km. from there to Sasona in anything
from two to four weeks. Here he turned back suddenly, though 'now
was the time to seize Illyria 3ta 7"0 rov;; 'Pw,..a.lovs m:f.aa.~s 7"0.LS E7T~l'O{a,,.
,
.....
,
,
);l
'a
, '
, K,O.VVO.V f.40.X1Jll
,
, eat ,
K.a.L 7TO.pa.aKEVO.L<; 1TEp~ 7"0V .t:ll'V~/"'a.v KO. 'TrJV 7Tp1
ywEa

THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANNAE

III.

107

(v. no. 10). Unfortunately this does not make clear whether Cannae
had yet been fought or not; and DeSanctis's argument that it had
not is not well based. However, this does not mean that the August
date for Cannae is to be rejected, and the argument for a calendar
several months in advance, and Cannae fought in June (Cornelius,
2 ff.) accepted. Probability still favours the later date.
(c) Forces; see especially De Sanctis, iii. 2. 131-5; Kromayer, AS,
iii. I, 341-6; Klotz, Phil., 1933. 57-66; Gelzer, Hermes, 1935, 281-3;
Cornelius, 20-24.
Hannibal had over 4o,ooo infantry and about ro,ooo cavalry (n4.
s), a figure which probably includes the forces left to garrison the
camp (cf. u3. 5, where this principle is followed for the Roman
figures). Since he had reached the Po with 26,ooo men (56. 4), a large
proportion of his army must have consisted of Celtic recruits. His
casualties are 5,700 in all, mostly Gauls (Iq. 6); Livy (xxii. 52. 6)
makes them about 8,ooo.
The Roman figures create more difficulties. In 109. 4 Aemilius says
they outnumber the Carthaginians by more than two to one (cf. Plut.
Fab. IS, ovo' ~fLLGV p..!.por; QM'ES, referring to the Carthaginians); and
P. says (ro7. 9) there were eight legions, each of 5,ooo Romans and
s.ooo socii (cf. u3. s. 8o,ooo foot), and supported by 3oo Roman
and an unstated number of allied cavalry (107. 9-u). 107. 12 says
that normally the allied cavalry were three times the Roman, but
not that this was true at Cannae; and from I IJ. 5 it appears that the
total cavalry were something over 6,ooo, which would make the
allied contingent over 3,6oo, i.e. over 450 per legion. The total force
is thus given as 86,ooo, of whom all but 1o,ooo (117. 8) took part in
the battle. Livy (xxii. 36. 3) makes a total of 8poo, but records
(xxii. 36. 2) an alternative tradition that the Romans put only four
legions in the field, but supplemented them with an extra ro,ooo
men, giving a total of some 5o,ooo-s5,ooo; he also mentions the
Polybian eight legions.
DeSanctis (loc. cit.) accepts the lower figures, and for rejecting P.
gives these reasons:

(i) the smaller of two figures is a priori the more probable;

(ii) it is hard to see how eight legions could be reduced to four
in the tradition, whereas a-rpa.-rorrEOov might easily be used
of a Roman legion without its socii (cf. 86. 3 n.);
(iii) 6,ooo cavalry are not enough for eight legions, for in 219 the
Romans raised !,200 per legion {Livy, xxi. I7 s).
But it cannot be a universal rule always to accept the lower figure;
each case must be judged on its merits. Further, if U7'pa:r6rrEDov
could be used in Greek for a legion without its socii (and for the
socii without the legion), equally it could be used of a consular army
439

III. ro7

THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANNAE

of two legions (viii. 1. 4, xi. 26. 6; De Sanctis himself, iii. 2. 320);

hence a Greek source might describe eight legions as four 0'7'pa'T01TOa.
Lastly, the proportion of cavalry is not to be confused with the
absolute number. The Romans may well have enrolled as many as
they could in 216; because they could not raise more was not a reason
for reducing the number of foot. It therefore seems inadvisable to
reject P.'s precise statement (Io7. 9) that eight legions-took the field
at Cannae.
According to P. (u7. z) the survivors were 70 Roman and 300
allied cavalry, and 3,ooo infantry; in addition Io,ooo infantry
prisoners were taken. The remainder, 7o,ooo, perished. These figures
are from a Carthaginian source, and the number killed is clearly
obtained by subtracting the number of prisoners from the legionary
total (excluding horse) and neglecting survivors. Livy (xxii. 49 I3I8, so. 11, 52. 4, 54- I-4, 6o. g, 6o. 19; d. Kromayer, AS, iii. I. 344)
gives, from a Roman source, 48,2oo dead, 19,300 prisoners, and
I4,5oo who escaped; total8z,ooo. De Sanctis (iii. 2. I35) observes that
for survivors only the Roman source is reliable, for prisoners only
the Punic. The relevant figures are 14,500 and Io,ooo respectively;
and the casualties can be reached by taking this figure from the
full Roman contingent, which De Sanctis reckons at 5o,ooo, but
which, on P.'s figures, here accepted, comes to 86,ooo. This total less
24,500 gives 6I,5oo casualties. But P.'s fLvp[o~ of captured infantry
looks like a round number, and it is doubly suspicious when after
losing z,ooo casualties (117. n), they are brought up to strength by
the inclusion of a further z,ooo cavalry prisoners (117. 12). Thus any
estimate of casualties is likely to be unreliable.
The tradition of the so-called 'legions of Cannae' in the later books
of Livy is analysed by Cornelius (51--{)3). He minimizes the discrepancy between Livy and P. on the number of survivors, and seeks
to discredit Livy's figure of 14,500; but if this is reliable, there are
still sufficient troops for these legions without accepting Kromayer's
unlikely hypothesis (AS, iii. I. 318) of a large-scale successful break
through the Punic centre.
(d) Sources: cf. DeSanctis, iii. 2. I74; Cornelius, 63--{)8; Kahrstedt,
iii. 2I2; Klotz, Livius, I45-5o. P. has clearly combined Roman and
Carthaginian sources; thus the differences between Aemilius and
Varro suggest a Roman authority (perhaps Fabius), whereas the
cavalry movements during the battle are described from the Punic
side. But the material has been welded into a single narrative which
cannot be analysed with confidence, but is in the main of Carthaginian origin. Livy (xxii. 40. 5-49. I4) has an account which combines
the Polybian tradition with other material; the military events
during the battle proper (45 1-47. m) are Polybian. There is little
in Livy which appears to go beyond P. to his original source (though
440

THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANNAE

III. ro8.

Livy, xxii. 47 z may be an exception); hence it is not easy to determine the

origin of the Polybian material in Livy, though the
precedent of earlier passages suggests a common source rather than
use by Livy of a source dra\\ing directly on P. Other evidence is
found in App. Hattn. 19-25; Plut. Fab. I5-I6; Dio, fg. 56. 23-29;
Zon. ix. r; Nepos, Hann. 4 4; Polyaen. vi. 38. 3-4; Frontin. Strat.
ii. z. 7' 3 7' 5 27 I iv. 5 5-7; Flor. i. 22. I5-I8: Eutrop. iii. IO; Oros.
iv. r6. r-5; Val. Max. iii. 2. rr, v. 6. 4, vii. 4 ext. 2; but none gives
substantial, reliable information not in P., and it is to him that any
reconstruction of the battle must go back; cf. De Sanctis, iii. z.
64 n. 95; Kromayer, AS, iii. I, 383-8.

107. 1. -!18YJ 8 1TO.po.8L86v..,.os xopYJ-ylo.v: the corn-harvest, rather

than hay (Judeich, HZ, r36, 1927, in.), making the date early June.
2. Ka:vv'Y(s: modern Monte di Canne, on the right bank of the R.
Ofanto (Aufidus) in Apulia, about 5 miles from its mouth, as the
crow flies, and about 6 miles north-east of the important tovvn of
Canusium. Cannae was about 6o miles south of the R. Fortore and
Hannibal's previous position.
8. Tov 1rpos 'IAAupwus 1TtlhEJ.lov: cf. r9. r3 for P.'s favourable attitude
towards Aemilius Paullus.
9. aTpo.To1T~8ols oKTW ~ho.Kw8uvElJEW: d. I07-Ii n. (c). That something happened 'for the first time in Roman history' is a theme
found in ii. 21. 8; Diod. xiv. rr3. 8; Livy, xxii. 8. 6, and ascribed by
Gelzer (Hermes, 1935, 282 n. r) both there and here to a senatorial
source; but in all these other passages the comment is on a change
for the worse, and consequently they offer no parallel to the present
example. The source nevertheless is probably Roman. The legionary
figures here given are confirmed at i. r6. 2 ( ro, Ka8a 1rov Ka.t 1rp6n;pov
dP'llKalt~) and vi. 20. 8--9.
12. TPL1TA<i.aLov: P. is describing the general practice (cf. vi. 26. 7 n.,
30. 2 n.); but on the present occasion Livy records (xxii. 36. 3) a
plan 'ut ... socii duplicem numerum equitum darent'.
15. oKTW aTpo.To,.~8ots pwfla.L'Ko'is: i.e. not counting the socii; this
stress on 'Pwp.,af~<o'i-; is against De Sanctis's interpretation of
arpar61T0a. (ro7-17 n. (c)).
108. 2. ,.o.po.-yEvoflEVOt ,.pbs .,.a_., 8uv6.J1E'S: at Gerunium, according
to Livy (xxii. 40. 5 ff.); but this is more than a three days' march
from the Aufidus (Io7-q n. (a)), and, on the view of the manreuvres
preceding the battle which is here adopted, the juncture is likely
to have been effected near Arpi, about 35 miles north of the Aufidus
and 25 miles from Gerunium. See Kromayer, AS, iii. r, Karte 8 (b);
DeSanctis, iii. 2. 140.
auva9po[ao.vTES Ta ,.A1J9YJ: 'assembling the soldiers'; d. 109. 13, roils
441

III.w8.2

THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANSAE

Aemilius' speech and that of Hannibal (ur. 2-n) are full

of commonplaces and it is unlikely that they go back to a genuine
record; cf. La-Roche, 65; Susemihl, ii. II4 n. IIJ. They may well
come from Fabius (Klotz, Livius, 145; La nouvelle Clio, 1953, 238}.
8. 1'ft vpo1'Epa.~ va.pa.yvYJ9EV1'ES: rhetorical exaggeration. Here again
(cf. 8g. 6 n.) the Ticinus battle is omitted.

1roA>.ovs.

109.1. 1'ou<; tK 1'ou vponpov ~1'ous iipxov1'a.<;: d. u4. 6, u6. II.

According to Livy (xxii. 40. 6), Varro sent M. Atilius, aetatem excusantem, back to Rome, and kept Servilius with the army; but
M. Minucius, the previous year's magister equitum, was also in the
army and perished (Livy, xxii. 49 16) along with Servilius. It seems
likely that P.'s source has confused M. Atilius with M. Minucius. For
an alternative explanation see Klotz, La nouvelle Clio, I953. 242.
3. et~<os .. tKjjTja~;alh:u: for the typical turn cf. i. 61. 2.
4. vAe(ous liYTa.s f) lhv.ha.aCous: patent exaggeration if Hannibal had
5o,ooo men (u4. 5); see 107-17 n. (c).

110. 1. vept 1TEV1'Tji<OV1'a. a1'a.8(ous d1Toaxov1'e<;: if the Romans advanced east or south-east from Arpi (cf. ro7-17 n. (a)) this position,
about 6 miles from Hannibal, lies near Trinitapoli or Salapia in the
coastal plain north-west of the lower reaches of the Ofanto; d.
Kromayer, AS, iii. I, Karte 8 (b). The flat and treeless plain ( 2, cf.
III. 2) lies between Salapia and the river mouth.
2. ~ma1Taaaa.~ Ka.L 1rpo6.yew: i.e. into hilly country, presumably south
towards S. Ferdinando, where the terrain was favourable to infantry.
3. 8 1rav1'wv la1'l a4>a.AepW,.a.,.ov: a typical, didactic triviality.
8. ou1'e . Q.,-c\.yew lla4>a,.hws 1'~v a1'pa.nciv: d. I I 1. 4 Any attempt
to retire from the Aufidus to Salapia or to reach the hills must now
expose Aemilius to a flank attack from Hannibal's cavalry; d.
Kromayer, AS, iii. I. 303 n. 2. His camp by the river was probably
in the vicinity of Au:fidena.
9. 1'as 1TTJYUS ~xew Ev 1'o'ls 1rpos 1'0 T uppYJVlKtw KA,!la.a~: the
Aufidus rises in the mountains between Samnium and Lucania
(Nissen, It. Land. i. 337), a bare 15 miles from the coast at Salerno.
10. dm) 8~a.f36.aEWS 1rpos 1'aS dVa.1'oAas: 'to the east of the ford', i.e.
on the right bank (cf. 107-17 n. (a)). This smaller camp was evidently
on the edge of the plateau north-east of Cannae towards the river
mouth. The two camps were a little over a mile apart (10 stades
I-2 miles) and that on the right bank was a little farther than this
(p.tt<p{i; ?TAetov) from Hannibal's camp, which lay on the same bank,
probably south-west of Cannae; cf. Kromayer, AS, iii. I, Karte 8.
111. 5. 1'0 8e 1Ta.pa.tca.AiV oMa.!lWS Ka.9~KEtv: for the T01TOS' d.
109 5

THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANNAE

III.

IIJ. 2

7. Tptal. 1-'-0.xa\S: Hannibal includes Ticinus; d. 89. 6 n.

11. Trapa TTJV aun)v TrAEupav TWV UTI'EvavTLwv: Hannibal crosses
to the left bank and encamps on the same side as the larger camp
of the Romans, an offensive move (as the whole speech suggests)
which would help to counter any depression after the previous day's
setback( r), and would facilitate harassing the Romans. Livy, xxii.
44 4, omits to mention the crossing of the river.

TU 0' tfijs
is therefore the sixth, and so Aemilius' day to command. Hannibal's
troops, drawn up 1rapa Tov 7TOTaJ.L6v, are on the left bank.
2. 5\a Tcw TroptajloV Twv mTT)liewv: cf. App. Hann. r7, 6 Xwlj3as- ..
rijs a7roplas; a~ov lvoxA.oU0'7jS tTaaa G'VVEX<~k ES J.L&.)(flv. It might be
supposed that the problem of supplies would be as urgent for the
Romans as for the Carthaginians. There certainly seems little ground
for Kromayer's theory (AS, iii. I. 3or ff.) that the Romans were
provisioned by sea from the Aufidus mouth (d. De Sanctis, iii. 2.
141-2); and for an army of that size provisions must have been a
matter of grave concern. On the other hand, we do not know how
much com the Romans had brought with them, and Aemilius'
motives in declining battle are perhaps not to be pressed; they may
represent a guess by P. or his source.
3. Toos NojlO.lia!> ETracjlfJKE: i.e. across the river to the right bank;
cf. Livy, xxii. 45 2: 'Numidas ad inuadendos ex minoribus castris
Romanorum aquatores trans flumen mittit'.
5. (ha.v 5' a,.,.a.~ tcp\9ii; 'when once the decision has been taken',
rather than Paton and Strachan-Davidson 'when the issue has once
been decided' (which suggests that the battle is over, or its result
now clear).
8-9. Superstitious demonstrations at Rome. These arouse a slightly
contemptuous surprise in the Greek rationalist (J.L")3v d7Tpm.,; 11:'1f/
&.y.. vvis); but in vi. 56. 6~rz he could admire a statesmanship which
(he believed) exploited and encouraged such superstition for reasons
of state. In neither instance does he reveal any real sympathy with
the character of Roman religion. B<.wv li<<TTJPlat are supplicationes.
9. ~ea.l Beous e~\Aaoa.a9cu tcatO.v9pwTrous: d. xxvii. 8. 4: Perseus' counsellors advise him to offer terms; if the Romans rejected these, they
would incur divine wrath, and the king by his moderation would
have as avvaywvtO'Tas Tovs BEoVs ~<:al ToV. O.vOpdrrrous. It is perhaps
a similar combination of piety and sound propaganda that P. has
in mind here. Cf. Wunderer, i. 76.
112, J, TU 5' txOjllVU: the fifth day from leaving Camp;

113. 1. Til KaTO. ,.,.otias ~jlp~: the seventh day. Varro crosses to the
right bank below Cannae ( z).
2. TT]v ,.,.\q,avna.v T~v ,.,.pbs jlEO"TJ!l~plav: cf. Io7-I7 n. (a).

443

IlL IIJ. 3

THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANNAE

3. 'ITUKVoT~pa.s . Toil .,.ETwvou: in order to burst through the

weaker enemy centre by sheer weight and so decide the issue before
the Carthaginian superiority in cavalry told, Varro reduced the
gaps between the maniples (TTvKvo-rlpas Ka8tOTdvwv), and inside
each maniple reduced the number of files and increased the number
of ranks (Veith, Heerwesen, 29I; Cornelius, 37 n. I). Of the depth
of the Roman infantry in this formation various calculations have
been made. Kromayer assumes (AS, iii. r. 323 ff.) that the hastati
and principes of these maniples carne to 146 men, and that the depth
was double, and the front consequently half the normal one. If, as
he believes (AS, iii. I. 356 n.), the normal maniple was r2 files wide,
it was now reduced to 6; and the depth running through hastati,
principes, and triarii, and including uelites, he works out as 82 men.
But the maniple may well have normally had zo files (Meyer, Kl.
Schr. ii. :219 n. z), and it is doubtful if the uelites should be included.
DeSanctis (iii. z. I57-8), basing his conclusions on a total of 4legions,
not 8, concludes that the Roman line was perhaps 30 men deep (with
a maniple 20 files wide). The uncertainties are too many for anything
more than a controlled guess; but TToMaTTAamov at least implies that
the depth of each maniple is greater than its width, which allows
hardly less than so men for the total depth of the 3 lines.
6. Ka.Tu SLnoos To,.ous: at two separate fords; cf. v. 52. r.
8. ~,.t .,_a.v Et)lki:a.v: Hannibal first draws up all his forces in a single
line, viz. (from left to right) the Spanish and Gallic horse, half the
Libyan heavy infantry, the Spanish and Gallic infantry (in the
centre), the rest of the Libyans, the Numidian horse.
TU .,.Eaa. TWV 'l~~pwv Ka.l KEATwv Tay.,.a.Ta.: i.e. not all. K. Lehmann
(Rh. Mzts., I9JI, 321-41), translates 'the centre, which consisted of
Iberians and Celts' ; but -rt:L\Aa makes this unlikely, for the following
phrase means 'and placed the remainder (of the Iberians and Celts)
in rank beside him'. 'uydv is 'to form a rank', and TTa.pla-rav 'vyoOJJTa.
is tautologous; cf. Kromayer, AS, iii. I. 335 n. I.
tK Tou Ka.Ttl. Myov: the root meaning of this phrase is 'conforming to
someone's intentions' or 'conforming to reason'; where there is a
comparative idea in the sentence, as in vi. 28. 5 (p.el,oat) or ix. zo. 3
(a.i!getv 7) p.noiiv), the phrase comes to mean 'proportionately'. But
that cannot be the sense here (as Kromayer, AS, iii. r. JI4 n. 1,
335 n. I , d. Cornelius, 38, in entsprechendem Verhiiltnis-to what?),
where there is no comparative. It must be 'to suit his plan', which
is defined in the next few words. See StrachanDavidson ad loc.,
Casaubon's note printed in Schweighaeuser's Lex. Polyb . .:\6yos, and
Schweighaeuser's note: 'pro ea ratione, quam requirebat conuexitas
lunata quam efficere UOluif; this corrects his translation Where eK
-roO Ka'T'd A6yov is taken with Am-ruvwv to mean 'pro portione', This,
he adds, ad sententiam parum refert.

THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANNAE

III. II4. 5

f-L'1VoE~8s

rrmwv To KupTwf-La.: 'producing a crescent-shaped bulge'.

'Una marcia per linee curve, checche dica P., non si fa', says De
Sanctis (iii. 2. 162). But as a military man P. will scarcely have
written nonsense (cf. Cornelius, 38 f.). \-Vhatever the movement was,
us. I I suggests that Hannibal planned it, and this is decisive against
De Sanctis's suggestion that the centre merely got a little ahead
of the wings. Kromayer (AS, iii. 1. 314-15) thinks P. is really
describing a formation in echelon: the centre advanced 150 metres
and the rest progressively shorter distances as one reached the wings.
But there is no reference to this in P. and the phrase KaTa Aoyov,
mistranslated by Kromayer (see above), contains no such idea. The
'thinning of the line' (.\mnlvwv To ToVr-wv mhwv crx_fjpa) Kromayer
refers to the weakening at the points where the different companies
in echelon make contact ; but AeiTTVO'fLOS is specifically a thinning of
the line (Ael. Tact. 38. 3) and P. states quite unequivocally (us. 6}
that the centre was l1r~ A;;:1TTov lKnTayplvwv.
9. {cpe8pEta.s f-LEV Ta~w a.uTwv exe~v: this use of Libyans as a
reserve, to come into action when the Romans were driving into the
centre, is one of the most important features of Hannibal's masterly
tactics in this battle. Despite its separation from l<foe8pdas, aOTwv
is probably to be taken with it, 'a reserve to support them', i.e. the
Spaniards and Celts. Reiske's suggestion avT<f, approved by Schweighaeuser,. breaks P.'s rule of avoiding hiatus; and Cornelius' suggestion of dittography from the line above (38 n. 3) is unnecessarily
drastic.

114. I. b Ka.ilorrA~O}LOS 'PwtJ.a.'LKOS: d. 87. 3

2. o f-LEV ilopEos .jljv rra.pa.rrATJO'LOS: cf. ii. 30. 3 on the Gallic 8vp~6s;
also CR, 1946, 42.
3. Spanish and Gallic swords: cf. ii. 30. 8, vi. 23. 7 As StrachanDavidson (ad loc.) observes, KaTa<foopd is here contrasted with the
concrete KlvT7JfLa, 'point', and must mean 'cutting edge' (which gives
a better sense also in ii. 30. 8, vi. 23. 7, and fg. Ii9 LSJ gives only
the meaning 'cutting stroke', the sense more appropriate in the
phrase T-Y]vlK KaTa<foopiis}. Translate: 'the point of the Spanish sword
was no less effective for wounding than the edge, whereas the Gallic
sword was useful only for slashing, and required a wide sweep for
that.' The Romans had swords of a type very similar to the Spanish
at least as early as the Gallic war of 225-223 (d. ii. 30. 8, 33 3-6}. See
Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 200 n. 1, and works quoted in vi. 23. 6 n.
4. yuf-LvWV: cf. ii. 28, 8 for the custom of the Transalpine Gauls of
fighting naked.
Awois 1TEp~rropcpupolS x~TWVLO'ICO~~: 'short linen tunics bordered with
purple'. KtlTa.1T,\1)KTtK~V is 'terrifying'.
5. Punic mtmbers: cf. I07-I7 n. (c). Inconclusive attempts to estimate
445

III. n4. 5

THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANNAE

the numbers of the different bodies of troops are made by Kromayer

(AS, iii. r. 342) and De Sanctis (iii. 2. r63~4).
6-7. Roman and Carthaginian command. The consuls commanded
the wings, and the centre was under 'Marcus' and Gnaeus (Servilius); cf. ro9. r for P.'s probable confusion between M. Atilius and
M. Minucius. Hannibal was in the centre, for it was on this that the
result of the battle depended (n4. 7); at the outset he advanced
with the Gauls and Spaniards (IIJ. 8), but was subsequently with
the Libyans (rr6. 4), having no doubt extricated himself from the
former before their expected retreat.
8. &.J'>.a.J'ij T~v Ka.Ta Tov {iAlOV civa.ToAt]v: cf. 107-17 n. (a) for the
suggestion that this is polemic against a Roman version which
pleaded the sun in mitigation of defeat. Though not inconsistent
with autopsy, as P.'s orientation of New Carthage and the Alps
shows, this passage cannot be regarded as proof that P. visited the
battlefield (so Cornelius, 66).

115. 3. i~ civa.cnpo<I>T\~> Ko1 J-LETa.~oM}c;: cf. i. 76. 5 O.vaa7po4>~ means

wheeling round to recover a former position after an Jma7po4>~, a
turn through ninety degrees; J.Leraf3o'A7} is a right about turn (cf.
Ael. Tact. 24). But here P. means nothing more than 'the normal
wheeling evolutions' (Paton) of which these two (coupled together
in x. 23. 2) are taken as examples.
5. KAvovTec; u'l!'exwpouv Ei.s Tou'1!'uw: Kromayer (AS, iii. r. 318 n. z)
argues that if the Gauls and Spaniards in fact turned tail at the very
outset of their withdrawal and were then driven back by the
Romans as far as the level of the Libyans, such a flight would have
spelt complete disaster; and he assumes a controlled withdrawal
until the Romans were in a line with the Libyans, and then the
turning-tail of the Gauls and Spaniards and the Roman breakthrough. De Sanctis (iii. z. 164-6) also admits a controlled retreat;
but he translateS the WOrds OttfKo!fav rryv 'TWV VrT<oiJaVT{wv T~W ( 6)
'compelled them to yield
. In 74 4, however, in parallel conditions, the same phrase is used of a break-through. There is force in
Kromayer's argument; and indeed it is likely that the line of Gauls
and Spaniards would give ground before breaking. The phrase KaTcl
rryv J1vvlf3ov ?Tp6vo,av ( rr) will refer to this first stage of controlled
withdrawal; the moment when the centre turned round (KMvovn:s)
and fled-a risk Hannibal had to run-fortunately came at the
right moment. To that extent the mano;uvre worked according to
plan.
6. a.vTol. 8E 'II'E'II'UKVWKOT!> KTA.: the crescent-formation had brought
the Roman centre into action before the wings were in contact >vith
the enemy ( 7); and this formation, gradually retiring, held
long enough to draw the Romans on the wings towards the fighting.
446

THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANNAE

III. n6.

II

This concentration prevented the maniples from ever coming properly into action, for the Roman line, already concentrated, was
compressed into a solid body which began to pour into the Punic
centre.
9-10. M anreuvre of the Libyans. Those on the right wing turned left
(KMvaVTS br' acnr8a), SO that the file on the left became the front
rank; and in this position they dressed ranks from the right, which
was nearest the original battle line (T~v ~f-Lf3ol..~v EK 86paTos 1Tmotif-L110t). Those on the left did the opposite. The technical term bn1Tapef-Lf3J.>.Aetv, 'to fall into straight line with the rest, to dress ranks',
is here paraphrased. For the technical expressions ~7T1 86pv and E7T'
aU1Tloa cf. vi. 40. 12; the corresponding terms for cavalry are J1rl
o&pu and Jrf>' ~vlav (x. 23. 2). Schweighaeuser (ad loc.) seems to imply
some kind of wheeling manceuvre; but this would be impossible in
the melee, and KMvew is used of an individual facing. On the above
interpretation two orders, 'Right (left) turn! Dress ranks on the left
(right)!', were enough to bring the Libyans into a position to attack
the Romans on the flank. The effect of the flank attack is described
in 12. It completely broke the maniple formation (KaT' G.v8pa Ka~
KaTd cnrdpas), and so destroyed the Roman advantage of superior
numbers. 'Vereinzelt ist ein 1\Ianipel gegen eine Phalanx verloren'
(Cornelius, 41). The fate of the fleeing Gauls and Spaniards is not
recorded; but presumably with the Libyan attack and the checking
of the Roman pursuit they recovered to share in the final encirclement.
11. Ka.Tii TTJV ~1Tt To us KEATous 1Ta.p6.1TTWaLv: 'owing to their excessive
ardour in pursuit of the Gauls'. For 1Tapd7TTwats cf. xi. 11 3, Ka.T<i T~v
To!J 8tdJyf-La.Tos 7Tapa1TTwaw ; it corresponds to 1Tapa1T{1TTEw in such
passages as iv. 8o. 9 (LSJ gives it a more neutral sense, translating
'as they were pursuing'.)
116. 5, 1TEpL0'1TWVTES; 'distracting them' ; cf. ix.

22,

5, Jf(.rr)\7/TT

Kai

1Tf.pdU1Ta 'Pw[-Lalovs.

7. 1Tpa.y(.UlnKi>V SoKEi: 1Todjaa.L lt\a8pouJ3a.c;: clearly from a Carthaginian source. But the role of Hasdrubal's cavalry in the final
encirclement may well have been part of Hannibal's original plan
rather than an improvisation. The immense advantage of cavalry
superiority comes out repeatedly; cf. no. 2, 111. 2, II7. 4-5.
9. 1TclvTa. Ta SLKcua TU1Ta.Tp(S, 1To,,aa.s: for the formula, common
in Hellenistic inscriptions (cf. Schulte, 52) see ii. 10. 5 (on Margus).
10. Ka.Ta Tas ~1TL4>a.vea.<;; aTpE4>of1EVot: 'turning and presenting a
front'.
11. MapKOS KO.l rvaLOS: cf. I09 I n. M. Atilius in fact lived to be
triumuir mensarius in 216 (Livy, xxiii. 21. 6) and censor in 214 (Livy,
xxiv. II. 6). For the formula avSpES .iyaOol Ka tigw, YHO[-Lf.VO' cf.
447

III. n6.

II

THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANNAE

44 12, iv. 62. 4, viii. 26. 7, xi. 2. I, xv. 10. 2, xvi. 9 2, xxi. 9 3; it is
also common in the language of the Hellenistic inscriptions; cf.
Schulte, 49-50.
12. TouTwv: the Romans in general, not merely Marcus and Gnaeus.
13. Ouevoua[a.v: the Latin colony of Venusia in Apulia, which lay
30 miles south-west of the battlefield.
O.vT)p a.taxpnv !J.EV Ti]v IJtuxi]v KTA.: this judgement on Varro is that
of the Roman senatorial source, probably Fabius. In fact he maintained his popularity and continued to hold important military posts;
he was proconsul in Picenum in 215-2I3 (Livy, xxiii. 25. n, 32. 19,
xxiv. 10. 3 II. 3 44 5}. and held imperium pro praetore in Etruria in
2o8(7 (Livy, xxvii. 24. 1---9, 35 2, 36. 13, xxviii. 10. II).
117. 2-3. Survivors: cf. 107-17 n. (c).
Stax~>..wus TWV bnrewv: these cavalry are not mentioned elsewhere, but can hardly be identified with the 2,ooo prisoners which
Livy (xxii. 49 13} records as having been taken at Cannae (so
Judeich, HZ, I36, 1927, 8 n.). Added to the survivors of the Io,ooo
infantry prisoners (n7. 3, 117. n) they restore the total to Io,ooo;
but the statement in 117. 3 remains inaccurate.

12.

118. 2. Ti]s AoL1Ti]S va.pa.>..ta.s: De Sanctis (iii. 2. 2u} prefers the

marginal reading of the Augustan us (D) and Regius (E), 'lraJ.La;;;
but 1TapaAla;; is well defended by Schweighaeuser, ad loc., and by
Costanzi (Riv. fil., 1920, 346--8); cf. x. I. 4, Twv 'E>J..TJv{f.wv 1TOAwv
'P~ywv KTA . .. TUVTTJI' bd.xov<J~ r~v 7Tapa,\iav; Livy, xxii. 61. II f.,
'defecere autem ad Poenos ... et Graecorum omnis ferme ora'. De
Sanctis (ibid.} also proposes L'a.\a7Ti:vm for Tapavrivo~ since Tarentum
did not revolt till 2I3 (viii. 24-34}, and Salapia, a town on the
Apulian coast a few miles north of the Aufidus, was in Roman hands
before 214 (Livy, xxiv. 20. 15}; on the other hand, Livy (xxii. 61. 12}
lists the Tarentini among those revolting, and there is independent
evidence for chronological compression in this chapter ( 6 n.}.
6. wavep EV~!J.E"TpOUO'T)S Ka.~ auveva.ywv~~O!J.EVT)S "Ti]S TUXT)S: 'as if
Fortune in addition to what had happened were giving them overmeasure and joining in to stir up new contests against them'.
TOV E~S Ti]v r a.Aa.TLO.V aTpO."TT)YOV O.voa"Ta.AEVTa.: L. Postumius Albinus;
cf. ro6. 6; Livy, xxiii. 24. 6 ff.; Frontin. Strat. i. 6. 4; Zon. ix. 3 Livy
and Zonaras state that Postumius was killed while consul designate
for 215, while the Fast. Cap. give him as one of the consuls for 2I5,
adding that 'in praetura in Gall. occis. est quod antequam ciretur ... '.
De Sanctis (iii. 2. 327---9) has suggested that Postumius was in fact
consul suffect~{S for Aemilius Paullus in 2I6, but that his death caused
some confusion in the tradition so that both he and 1\L Claudius
Marcellus (consul suffectus after him) were attached to 2I5 by error.
448

THE CAMPAIGN OF 216 IN ITALY; CANNAE

III. n8.n

But there was no need to elect a suffectus in Aemilius' place, even

after the expiry of the dictatorship of M. Iunius Pera (d. Mommsen,
St.R. i. 29 n. 3; Broughton, i. 257); further, Livy's account is
reasonable and consistent, and the reference to Postumius' death
in praetura (in the Fasti) is against the hypothesis that he was
consul sujfectus. It therefore looks as if Postumius' death was, as
Livy says, shortly before his entry into office, at the end of winter
zt6/I5, and not a few days after Cannae (cf. Scullard, Pol. 275-6).
P. has brought it forward in order to complete the picture of unmitigated disaster which book iii was to give; and it is perhaps for
the same reason that this book omits to record the compensating
successes of the Scipios in Spain during :n6 (Uvy, :xxiii. 26. 1-29. 17);
cf. Klotz,Livius, I 55 Two legions perished with Postumius (106. 6 n.),
whose head was lodged, embossed with gold, in a temple of the Boii,
where it served as a goblet for the priests (Livy, xxiii. 24. 12). That
fg. 102 refers to Postumius is no more than a possibility.
7. 11 YE ouyKAt)TO'i 'n'apEtt11AE~ ' ' TOU'i 'n'OAAOU'i: the formulation
suggests the use of Fabius.
9. Roman -recovery. In thus ending on the keynote of his history,
P. leads up to the discussion in book vi (after the account of Greek
and eastern Mediterranean affairs in iv and v) of the Roman constitution (-rii -rov '7TOAt-rEVJ.to.-ros lotr1T1)n) and Roman morale (T<P
f3ovJIEvro8a., KaAws).
11. wpo9p.evol: 'by way of introduction'.
"'lAws ... 'n'OLt)O"O!lEBa >.6yov : 'I shall give a separate account'. The
purpose of this account is in part to assist -rots r/JMo~-ta8oucrt Ka.'
rrpay~-ta.nKots; on the distinction cf. 21. 9 n., and for P.'s didactic
purpose, vii. u. 2, 14. 6, ix. 9 9

449

BOOK IV
1-2. Introduction; Reasons for Beginning at Ol. r4o
1. 4. Tijs Ka.Ta.aKeuijs 1repl. Twv 'E).),TJv~Kwv: i.e. ii. 37-70. Here, as
in i. I3. 5, KaTaaKw~ is 'introductory sketch'; in ii. 37. 5 it is the main
narrative, contrasted with the introduction. LSJ gives neither sense.
5-8. Achaean events: Tisamenus and Ogygus, ii. 41. 4; democratic
constitution, ii. 38. 6, 41. 5; dissolution by the Macedonian kings, ii.
41. 9; League reformed, ii. 41. 11-12; principles and scheme for
Peloponnesian unity, ii. 42. 3-7; survey, ii. 43-44; Cleomenean War,
ii. 45-70.
9. auyKecf>a.Xa.uAJaaJ-Levo~: 'rounding off', cf. iii. 3 I n.; on the synchronism see ii. 71.
2. 1. TTJV :A..paTou auvTa.~LV: cf. i. 3 2, for P. as Aratus' continuator.
2. Tous 1TL1TTOVTa.s C11ro TTJV .;IJlETepa.v taTop(a.v: cf. ii. I4. 7 n. on this
phrase. The Greek conception of history is traditionally one covering
a period for which oral communications or personal experiences are
available; cf. R. G. Collingwood, The Idea of History (Oxford, I946),
24, who contrasts the Roman tradition of a history ab urbe condita.
3. TO &.vwTepw 1TpoaAa..... ~O.veLV Tois xpovo~s: 'to go farther back
chronologically as well'; cf. 1TpoaavaTp~xHv, i. 5 4, I2. 8. This use of
1TpoaAaJLf3avf;tv is not in LS J.
OUTE Tas s~a.A-/jljle~s OUTE Tas &.1Tocf>O.ae~s: 'neither in my judgements
nor in my assertions'.
4. KEKa.~vo1TO~TJKeva.~ 1ravTa. KTA.: for Tyche as a force favouring
novelty cf. i. 4 s. 86. 7, ii. 37. 6, xxix. 21. 5 (Demetrius of Phalerum) ;
CQ, I945, 6. The outward sign of Tyche's intentions is the synchronism
in the change of rulers; cf. ii. 41. I n.
5. 4lLAL1T1TOS . b dTIJlTJTPLOU Ka.Ta cf>uaLV utos: cf. 25. 6. See ii. 70. 8,
and for the phrase KaTa 4>vatv, i. 64. 6 n. He was 17; cf. 5 3, 24. r.
6. :A..xa.~os: on the relationship of Achaeus, son of Andromachus, to
Seleucus III Soter and Antiochus III see 48. 5 n.; for the events
leading up to his assumption of the royal title west of Taurus see
48. 3-13, V. 40. 4 ff.
7. Meya.s :A..vT(oxos: cf. ii. 71. 4, for Antiochus' accession, on the
death of Seleucus III, in 223. Born in 242 or 241, he was 22 in 220
(cf. xx. 8. I, he was so in the early part of 191). The title M~ya> is
confirmed epigraphically for Antiochus (cf. OGIS, 230 (from Soli;
dedication by Ptolemy, son of Thraseas; cf. v. 65. 3 n.), OGIS,
746 = TAM, ii. 266 (dedication by Antiochus over one of the gates
ofXanthus), OGIS, 237 (decree of Iasus in Antiochus' honour), OGIS,

450

INTRODUCTION; REASONS FOR BEGINNING AT OL. 140 IV. 3

240 (dedication from Pergamum, restored), IG, xi. 4 rnr (dedication to Antiochus by Menippus at Delos, restored), Welles, 64
(inscription from Nysa on the Maeander mentioning [J1vnJ6xou -roil
p.eyc\.ou)). The likelihood is that he took it in imitation of the Achaemenidae (Bevan, ]HS, 1902, 241 :ff.) on his return in 205 from his
eastern expedition against Euthydemus of Bactria, when he crossed
the Hindu Kush into the Kabul valley, and came back through
Arachosia, Drangiana, and Carmania (d. xi. 34; App. Syr. r, cb6
-rouSe KA7J8er;); cf. Holleaux,Ebttdes, iii. 159-63 ( = BCH, 1908, 266-7o).
The edict of Eriza, which, by its omission of the title p.l.ya> despite
its supposed dating to 204, led Holleaux (EttJdes, iii. r6s-8r
BCH,
1930, 245-62) in his republication of it to date Antiochus' assumption
of the title to c. 2oo after Panium, has now, since the discovery of the
Nehavend copy (Robert, Hellenica, 7, 1949, 5-22; cf. Clairmont,
M~tJs. H elv., 1949, 218-26; A. G. Roos, lrfnem., r9so, 54-63; 1951,
70-72; Aymard, REA, 1949, 327-45), been dated with certainty to
193, and Bikerman's insistence (Seleucides, 193 n. 3) that no chronological conclusions concerning Antiochus' assumption of the title
can be drawn from its omission from letters seems confirmed. Of the
inscriptions with the title, listed above, those from Nysa and Pergamum are of uncertain date and the rest later than 205.
8. )\pLa.p6.91)'i: Ariarathes IV Eusebes inherited the throne of Cappadacia from his father in c. 220; cf. Diad. xxxi. 19. 6, V7J7TLI.f> 7Ta~-re.\wr;
ovn ~v ~AtKtav; Justin. xxix. r. 4 He married Antiochus' daughter
and reigned until c. 163.
4>LAov6.'1'wp: on his accession see ii. 65-69 n. (a).
9. AuKoupyoo;;: for his accession, winter 22ojr9, see 35 14 n.
)\vvf3a.v: cf. ii. 36. 3 for his appointment in 221.
10. 8 ... auv~J3'l yEvea&a.L: P.
the contents of i. 3 r-2. On
the occasional use of the phrase Jixatot . Kal. IP.\t1T1Tos to describe the
Symmachy (cf. 55 I, v. ros. 3) by the Achaean historian see Feyel,
142 n. S

3-37. Origins ofihe Social War; its Course till Spring

2I9

3-6. Preliminaries. P. assigns the responsibility for the war to the

Aetolian love of plunder; and for a state with an economy such as
that of Aetolia this must have been a motive of some weight. But
equally important was the new political constellation, since the
Symmachy created by Doson hemmed in the Aetolians on all sides
(ii. 54 4 n.), and the Achaeans were trying to win over Messenia
(Fine, A}P. 1940, rso ff.; Walbank, Philip, 24). Dorimachus' object
in provoking trouble in Messenia was probably to create an incident
which might be exploited to justify Aetolian intervention ; cf.
Roebuck, 72 n. 26. For P.'s strictures on Aetolian character (3. r)
451

IV. 3

ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR

cf. ii. 43 9, 45 I, 45 3-4; and for his treatment of Aetolia generally

cf. Brandstaeter, 257 ff.
3. 3. ~ea.Ta To 1Ta.Aa.tov ~9o~: for the early prevalence of piracy see
Thuc. i. S
a.UToi~ :.\xa.toi~: 'the Achaeans now that they were alone'.
5. uto~ Nl~eoaTpaTou KTA.: cf. ix. 34 II, for the violation of the
Pamboeotian truce; the plundering of the temple of Athena ltonia
(25. 2) is part of the same incident, which evidently occurred when
Boeotia was at peace with Aetolia, yet not protected by the Macedanian alliance of 224 (cf. xx. 6. 8), i.e. between 229 and 224 (Feyel,
137-8). Flaceliere (289) and Klaffenbach (IG, ix. i2 xxv, 11. 6s ff.;
DLZ, 1948, 98) date it to 220, but less probably. The Pamboeotia
was held at the temple of Athena ltonia at Coronea (Strabo, ix. 4II;
Paus. ix. 34 I), near the modern village of Mamoura. The temple
possessed asylia (Plut. Ages. 19. 2). What little is known of this
festival A. Plassart has assembled in BCH, 1926, 397-8; cf. Feyel,
Epig. 58 ff. ; Flaceliere, 289 n. 2.
EL~ TTJV Twv ~tya.Hwv 1TOAw: Phigaleia (modern Pavlitsa) lay in the
western Peloponnese, north of Messene, 1rl JLE-rewpov Kai d1ro-roJLov
(Paus. viii. 39 s); impressively situated above the gorge of the Neda
(Meyer, RE, 'Phigaleia', cols. 2o67 ff.), it afforded an excellent stronghold for raids into Messenia. Phigaleia had been an Aetolian ally
since c. 244, when the Aetolians appeared as allies of the Phigaleans
in an agreement of lu01roAm:la between Phigaleia and Messenia (Syll.
472 = IG, v. 2. 419; cf. ]HS, 1936, 68 n. 30); this inscription records
provisions for regulating frontier disputes with Messenia. On the
expression UVJL1ToAt-rEVoJLivq, which probably here means no more
than luo1roAt-reta, see ii. 46. 2 n.
8. TTJV ~eow~v t:tp~VTJV auvTEAEa9E(aa.v: i.e. the general peace
established after the war with Cleomenes. Kotvq lf117v7J is not to be
taken in a technical sense, as including all Greek states, among them
Aetolia (Bickermann, Rev. phil., I93S 70-71); it simply indicates a
general state of peace in Greece, so that the Aetolians could not find
belligerents against whom to practise the custom described in xviii.
S I-3 tLVUL 'TOLS' Al-rwAOLS' avEV KOtVOU SOyJLa'TOS' .. TI]v xwpav ayw
ri]v dJLrpOTipwv. See Larsen, CP, 1937, 27 n. 34
9. +t).wv ovTwv ~ea.l au11.W.xwv: cf. 6. II, IS. 10. How far the alliance
still existed de facto is uncertain, since it was based on an antiSpartan interest which the Aetolians had abandoned some time ago.
In IS IO P. speaks as if it still existed after Caphyae (II-I2). See
Fine, AJP, 1940, IS4

4. 1. To Xupwvo~ Ka.AoOJlEvov E1Ta.UAlov: 'the farmstead known as

Chyron's'; on 1ravAtov see Welles, p. 334
2. EL~ Tn~ auva.px(a.s: 'magistrates' council'; the word designates a

ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219

IV. 59

college of magistrates exercising certain functions in common, and

is found in several states, both in Achaea (cf. xxvii. 2. u, xxxviii.
13. 4) and elsewhere; cf. Aymard, ACA, I7J n. I, 322. In Messenia
at this date it probably indicates the board of ephors (d. 31. 2).
9. s~ a.UTO ToilTo etKa.UaE TOV TOXEJ.10V: the responsibility for the
war is to be attributed neither to so small a group as Dorimachus and
his colleagues, nor to an incident so trivial as this insult; these are
clearly excuses for a policy already decided. See Fine, A] P, 1940, I 57-8.
5. 1. aTpa.TIJyo~ .. ~p(O"Twv: the chief annual magistrate of the
Confederation, elected at an assembly held at Thermum each autumn
(cf. Busolt-Swoboda, ii. 152o-1). Ariston was general for 22I/o; his
relationship to Dorimachus and Scopas is unknown. On Scopas see
Dumrese, RE, Suppl.-B. vii, 'Skopas (6)', cols. I2II-q.
5. To 8 auvxov Ti'j~ AhwXlKi'j~ 1rpoTpoTij~: 'the chief argument in
his typically Aetolian exhortation'; cf. 3 s. v. 81. I, xviii. 4 I, for
this use of the adjective.
7. oOK epEiv EyKAtJI..la.Ta. Toi~ ci.J.Luvo...,Evols: 'they would not (reasonably) lay complaints against them if they defended themselves'; the
dative is similar to that found after lyKATJp.a. Aa.yxavm, (cf. Dem.
xxxiv. 16), and lpetv though unparalleled in this phrase is probably
to be retained. Dorimachus' arguments are probably of Polybian
invention, for P. is unlikely to have had reliable information on what
Dorimachus told Scopas.
8. ~xa.loi;- Ka~ Ma.KE86ow rijs au...,._.,a.x(a.~: 'promising the
Achaeans and Macedonians to join the alliance'. How far this had
gone is uncertain; Fine (A}P, 1940, 156) exaggerates it, assuming
that the Messenians had fought at Sellasia (Paus. iv. 29. 9; P. is
silent). Perhaps there had been a definite move, which had foundered
on the possession of Cyparissia and Pylos by Achaea (cf. 25. 4, xviii.
42. 7, Pylos; v. 92. s. xi. 18. 2, Cyparissia; Niese, ii. 4II n. I).
9. oGn I(Olvi}v TWV AhwXwv 1rpoa8EQ....EV0l auvo&ov: 'without waiting
for a general assembly of the Aetolians'. The Aetolians had two
annual assemblies of the people, the Thermica held each autumn at
Thermum, at which the annual elections took place (cf. v. 8. 5), and
the Panaetolica, held at different towns each year, in late winter or
early spring; these names apply strictly to festivals with which the
assemblies were associated, but are conveniently used of the latter
:as well. In addition special assemblies could be called (d. IS 8).
Recently, Kahrstedt has argued (RE, Evvlf>p,ov, I339-44) that the
Aetolians possessed no primary assembly, and M. Mitsos (Hesp.,
1947. :256--61} that they had more than two (and that of these none
was called Thermica or Panaetolica) ; for a refutation of both these
views see Larsen, TAPA, I952, 1~33, who also discusses the names
applied to the assembly, and its powers and functioning (the latter
453

IV. 5 9

ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR

vigorous, the former wide). See further Holleaux, fitudes, i. 219-27

(= BCH, 1905, 362-72), 229-30
Klio, 1907, 294-5); Swoboda,
Klio, 19II, 456; Busolt-Swoboda,
1521-2. In the present passage
P. is speaking quite generally of any assembly, regular or irregular.
ollTE TOLS a'II"OKAl]To~s <1UJ.Lf.LET0.80VTES: 'o:r communicating their plan
to the special council'. The d1TOKArJ7o were a committee of the
Synedrion, a council of the League on which the cities had representation proportionate to their populations; on the apocleti d.
xx. r; Livy, xxxv. 34 2, 'ita uocant sanctius consilium; ex delectis
constat uiris', 35 s, xxxvi. 28. 8. They were evidently more than
thirty in number and the strategos acted as their president; they
were left with great authority in most fields, though vital issues of
foreign policy were decided by the assembly (Larsen, TAP A, 1952,
23-33). See further Busolt-Swoboda, ii. 1526 (with bibliography).
10. Meaa11vto~s Mo.tcE86a~: d. 6. I (Macedon), 6. 2 (Epirus and
Acarnania), 6. 3 (Achaea), 6. II (Messenia).

6. 1. To us vo.utcAl]pous: evidently 'ships' officers'; though often

it means 'shipowner', va.VKA7Jpos can also be the skipper, and it is
unnecessary to accept Capes's suggestion that the ship was privately
owned, but engaged in transporting produce of royal lands or mines
(which would not make it {3a.aLALKov).
2. To.is Twv Ke<J!o.A.A.fJvwv vo.uav: Cephallenia had entered into isopolity with Aetolia since the death of Demetrius II, and probably
c. 226; cf. Beloch, iv. I. 719 n. 3; Klaffenbach, IG, ix. r 2 , introduction,
xxiii; Flaceliere, 258, 284. On Cephallenia cf. v. 3 9
9up~ov: cf. 25. 3, xviii. Io. ro, xxv:iii. 5 r (with variant spellings). The
town lay about 3 miles from the Ambracian Gulf, on the site of
modern Hagios Vasilios. Cf. Bursian, i. 112; Fiehn, RE, 'Thyrrheion',
cols. 744-7; Klaffenbach, S.-B. Berlin, 1954, 22 ff.
3. To tco.Aouf.Levov 6xupwf.Lo. KM.p~ov: site unknown; probably between Phigaleia and Megalopolis.
4. T ~f.L6~evos 1ro.po.Ao.~wv T o.up(wvo.: 'Tim oxenus ... with Taurion
as ally'. Timoxenus was the Achaean general for 221/2o. Taurion's
position (here he is called Tbv 1ri Twv lv Il<Ao1Tollln}ac.p {3a.r:nAtKwv
1rpa.yf.La:rwv Ka.TaA<ALf.Lf.Llvov, in 87. 8 1Tl Twv Ka.Td. IleAom)W7Juov)
has been compared to that of the aTpa.T7Jyds 6 t51T6 Twv {3a.ut'M.wv 1rl Tf'js
otvf'js </>vAaKf'js Ka.TaAeAHf.Lf.Llvos at the time of the League of Demetrius Poliorcetes (IG, iv2 68, I. 68/9; Bengtson, Strategie, i. 154 ff.):
d. Treves, Athen., 1935. 54 But whereas that official was responsible
for Greek affairs generally, Taurion's competence was limited to
the Peloponnese, though his official residence like his predecessor's
was Corinth (Bengtson, Strategie, i. r6s ff.; ii. 357-6o); presumably he
was concerned >Vitll Macedonian possessions and foreign relations in
the Peloponnese, but had no special position relative to the Symmachy.
454

ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219

IV. 7

5. KopLvOov 'Opxo1uvov: for Macedonian possession of Corinth

d. ii. 54 I; of Orchomenus, ii. 54 Io; Plut. Cleom. 23. I; A rat. 45 1.
Philip also held Heraea; d. ii. 54 I2; Livy, xxviii. 8. 6.
7. :a..pa.Tos liE ~ea.O(aTa.To KTA.: i.e. Aratus was general-designate for
22oji9. The date of the Achaean elections at this time cannot be
closely determined; the general entered office 'at the beginning of
the good season' (v. 30. 7), or 'towards the rising of the Pleiades',
viz. 22 May (37 2 n.), but the election could be held at either the
last or the penultimate synodos of the year, and so between
February and May inclusive. See the discussion in Aymard, ACA,
233-76.

8. 1ra.vliTIJ.Ld: probably exaggeration by P. or his source, intended to

condone the Achaean defeat; Aetolia will not have been left undefended.
9. liLa Ti')S na.Tp~wv Ka.l. cl>a.pa.LEWV Ka.L T pLTa.L~WV xwpa.s: on the site
of these towns see ii. 41. 7-8 n. In 7 z and 25. 4 Tritaea is inadvertently omitted (my note, Aratus, 115 n. I, following Ferrabino, I25
n. 2, is incorrect); but the absence of complaints from Psophis,
Telphusa, and Heraea shows that the Aetolians passed west of
Mt Erymanthus and so through the allied territory of Elis, not via
the Erymanthus and Ladon valleys.
11. Tf)s u1ra.pxouOT)s 4nX(a.s ~ea.l. auJ.LJ.La.xta.s: 3 9 n.
TWV Ka.Tn KOLVOV wpLUJ.L~VWV liLKO.LWV: i.e. they had not declared war
(d. I6. 4). In xiii. 3 2-5 P. deplores the deterioration of international

morality; nowadays only the Romans declare war. For discussion of

P.'s attitude towards the declaration of war, and his attempt to
formulate a code of right and wrong in international relations, see
ii. 58. 6 n.
7-13. Achaean decisions: the battle ojCaphyae. There is some evidence
for the suggestion of Ferrabino (126 ff.) that P. has used a Megalopolitan source in these chapters (though much of Ferrabino's reconstruction is extremely hazardous and unconvincing). The critical
tone adopted towards Aratus (d. I9. 12) reflects the violent feelings
inspired by his failure at Caphyae (n. I, I4. I-6); and from I3. 1 one
may deduce that the Megalopolitans had been attacked for arriving
late at the battlefield (the detail a11o adAmyyo> emphasizing the speed
with which they responded). The criticism of Sparta in 9 6 is not,
however, specifically 'Megalopolitan' but could have come from any
Achaean source.
7. 1. K0.8T)KOUUT)S auvoliou: on the aUVODOS' see ii. 37 Io-II n. (e).
Since it virtually coincides with the taking over of office by Aratus,
this will be the av.-oDOS' of mid-May 220; and the Aetolian raid will
have begun about mid-April (d. Aymard, ACA, 253 n. 6). The
reference to assembling in the iKKATJaia is noteworthy; it is clear
455

IV. 7

ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR

evidence that a ativo8o;; at this date included a meeting of the

primary assembly.
4. uuyxwp~ua.YTos . l.l.fJ8Evoc; Ti]v 8Co8ov: such leave of passage
might have been granted without breach of neutrality; cf. IJ. 5 n.
for the Aetolian passage through Boeotia.
1rapa Tas uuv!hlKas: cf. rs. 2; evidently the treaty of 239 (ii. 44 I n.),
still technically in force (cf. 3 9 n.).
5. ~lJrrl~luavTo ~ofJ8Eiv Toic; MEu<YfJvCo~s: P. does not specifically mention making an alliance with Messenia; but later in the summer one
existed (d. IS. g, ri};; Twv MEaCFYJvLwv cropf14xla.;;), and in any case an
alliance is implied in the Achaean policy (cf. 9 5 (demand for hostages), 9 7, 15. 2-3). If such an alliance was merely defensive and
restricted the Achaean obligation to sending help in the case of an
invasion of Messenia (d. 15. 3), it would not necessarily involve the
Achaeans in war against Aetolia. There is no basis for Ferrabino's
theory (12g--3o) that Aratus abandoned the Messenian alliance. But
whether it was ratified at this synodos or at the subsequent army
levy (Totk :4xru.ov;; t.v -rot;; o1TAots; 9 r) depends on the constitutional
issue discussed in the next note. See Fine, A]P, 1940, 16o n. 141 ;
Roebuck, 75 n. 34
uuvayELV To(Js 1-.xa.LOVS ~v TOLS 011' AOLS: on the function of the
armed levy as an assembly, and on its relationship on this occasion
to the preceding aJvooo;; see Beloch, iv. 2. 234; Aymard, ACA, 222-5.
The issue turns on the competence of the utlvo3o;;. If this included a
primary assembly competent to declare war and make alliances (so
Aymard), the meeting of the army, equivalent to an irregular
assembly or syncletos, was to determine the precise methods of
implementing its decision. But if the utlvooo;; was a council (so
Beloch), the whole question had to be treated de integra. In fact,
the decision of the levy (9. 5) was specific, since it determined the
form and conditions of help, whereas that of the synodos (7. 5) was
in general terms. Only in that sense was the issue discussed afresh.
There can be no doubt about the full competence of the synodos
(above, 1), and any ambiguity in its resolution-to help the Messenians but to leave to the levy the decision on what should be
done-may well represent a compromise by which the final word was
postponed into Aratus' year of office. See Roebuck, 75 n. 34; and
especially Larsen, 7g--8o.
7. To is npoyEyovocn noAEtJ.OLS: viz. the wars with Demetrius II and
Cleomenes.
8. npouna.pxoo<YfJs aoTois aAAoTpLOT'I')ToS: takes up the theme of the
Aetolian threat as a reason for calling in Doson against Cleomenes
(ii. 45-46 n.).
8. 4. ivo.pyfJ
456

8~

TotoOTwv KTA.: 'Of this there are many dear proofs,

ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219

IV.g.S

but the most conspicuous examples are afforded if one considers in

detail ... .' Cf. vi. 44 2. Paton prints Hultsch's conjecture rrAUo 11-lv
f.tcrpa.~ofj 'O"Tt -rot's l.rrropT)t<l:$c", but translates Buttner-\Vobst's text. For
Aratus' seizure of Sicyon (251) cf. ii. 43 3; of Mantinea (227), ii. 57 2;
of Acrocorinth (243), ii. 43 4; and for his expulsion of the Aetolians
from Pellene (241), Plut. Arat. 31. 3
5-6. vw9po~ ~~v aToAp.o~ 8 . : cf. Plut. Arat. 29. 7-8, probably
derived from some collection of anecdotes. One need not assume that
P. is following Phylarchus (Susemihl, i. 632 n. s6o) for what was
traditional. The rest of the chapter contains P.'s own reflections;
the ostensible purpose for the didactic interlude appears in 12.
8. Toi:s ~ouAoJdvol~ auv4>~-aTQvc;w sc. Ja.UTous, 'those willing to pay
attention'; cf. vi. 32. 2.
IJ. ~ Ta.'Ls KuVT)y(a.ls: P., a keen huntsman (xxxi. 29. 8), draws on
his own experience.
10. AlTwAol Se TOLIT<~JV Tava.vT(a.: cf. rr. 8, where the present characterization of Aetolian and Achaean tactics is brought out in relation
to Aratus' mismanagement of the battle of Caphyae.
11. Axcnot Se KTA.: yet Aratus, the starting-point of the digression,
is exactly described by the phrases here applied to the Cretans.
12. tiav 'l!'ou wavT(a~ &.'1To+aan~ 'll'Oll:,l.u;8a: for a similar recogni
tion of changes in men's character at various times cf. xvi. 28. r-6.
9. 2. Tijs Kolvij~ aup.~axCa~ p.t!Ta.axEiv: i.e. to join Doson's Symmachy; on its membership see 4 and ii. 54 4 n.
3. o[ 'l!'poeaTwTE:~ Twv Axa.lwv: i.e. the general and the damiurgi;
but the main influence was exercised by Aratus ( 7).
5. eAv O!J-T)pa. Swaw: this demand (which was evidently conceded)
reveals Aratus' distrust of the Messenians. It was justified; cf. JI.
I ff.; Roebuck, 74 n. JI. The choice of Sparta to hold the hostages
was intended to strengthen its doubtful friendship with Achaea,
and was not anti-Megalopolitan (so Ferrabino, 127, who indeed believes
(IJI) that the hostages were never deposited).
6. uTA T1]v au~p.a.x(a.v: i.e. with Achaea. Since the Symmachy took
no decisions until after Caphyae (13. 6--']}, only obligations towards
Achaea could at this stage compel a Spartan mobilization. Taurion's
help (6. 4) had been separately negotiated. Hence this passage is not
evidence for the status of Sparta relative to the Symmachy (as
Reuss, Stadt und Herrscher, 30), though indeed 24. 4 suggests that
Reuss is right in thinking that Sparta was a member by now (not
simply allied to it, Walbank, Philip, x6 n. 3).
7. 'll'pos Tou~ AtTwAoo<;: i.e. to Scopas and Dorimachus (cf. 8).
8. T8~;a9al Tot:<; 'l!'apayy~;AAop.(vo's: the sense 'yield to the demands'
is hard to extract from this reading, and Ursinus's emendation
'li'El8Eu8a.t seems both easy and satisfactory.
457

IV. 9 9

ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR

9. Ers TE KuJ\A:fJVTJv: this port on the west coast of Elis has not been
satisfactorily identified; but it is now generally thought that it lay
somewhere near Kounoupeli, rather than at Cape Glarentza farther
south; for the evidence see Bolte, RE, ix, Nachtrage, 'Hyrmine',
col. II7o; cf. Pieske, RE, 'Kyllene (3)', col. 2457. Ariston had crossed
over from Aetolia to Elis.
Tijs 'HJ\E(a.s ELS TTJV cl>naSa. .. vfiO"ov: cf. Strabo, viii. 342-3. Phea
was the ancient port of Olympia, and lay at the foot of the promontory of Ichthys (Katikolo), on the seaward side; it was protected by the island P. mentions, and its remains form the foundation
of the medieval fortress of Pondik6kastro. See Leake, Morea, i. 21;
ii. I9I; Bolte, RE, 'Phea', cols. I909-I3 (who reads tP&0a here: MS.
if>l.uioa). Why P. gives the name Phea to the island rather than to
the port is not clear; but vijuos cannot mean 'Kiistenplatz' (so
Bursian, ii. 30I n. I).
10. 2. Achaean numbers: 3,ooo foot and 300 horse are the numbers of
the Achaean brl/..o(rot at Sellasia (ii. 65. 3 n.); they appear again
at v. 91. 6. Hence it seems likely that Aratus had dismissed the
ordinary levy, and that the forces here mentioned are the briAeKrot;
that some were later placed under an officer who was probably a
mercenary captain (n. 6 n.) is not evidence for dilution of the force
with mercenary troops (on this see Griffith, 106 n. 5).
11'poijyE TTJV i'II'L naTpa.s: evidently down the Alpheius valley to
Heraea, and thence north through Psophis. Why he marched east
to Cleitor ( 6, II. 2) is not apparent.
4. 1rpos To 'P(ov: the low-lying Achaean promontory 5 miles northeast of Patrae; cf. xii. I2 a I-3 for the crossing of the Heraclidae by
this route.
The thought-sequence is complex. Dorimachus is actuated by two
motiVeS, Tct p.Jv ~laywvuaVTS' , , , Tct 0 U7TOVoa~OVTS' ( 3) ; and these are
then taken up in the account of his own actions ( 5. avrol}, the first
(his fear) by ro p.~v np&rov J>-qopvov, the second (his desire to provoke
the Achaeans) by Jl-Tct oJ raiiTa 1Tpofjyov KTA. Fine (AJP, I940, I6I
n. I44) misses this, when he summarizes: 'Dorimachus, fearing lest
the Achaeans should attack him while embarking, sent off his booty
and then marched into Arcadia' ; once the booty was aboard, Dorimachus' fear was over, and henceforward he is actuated by quite
different motives.
5. 1rpoijyov .. ws i'll'' '0AUf..L11'la.s: P. appears to misinterpret the
Aetolian plan. Presumably he had some authority for stating ( 4)
that the Aetolian fleet had been ordered to pick up Dorimachus at
Rhium; hence we may reasonably assume that Dorimachus originally proposed to march through Achaea to Rhium, plundering and
provoking war ( 3). But the thoughts attributed to Dorimachus in
458

ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219

IV. ro.

IO

7-9 are Polybian hypothesis, to be judged from their inherent

plausibility and what the Aetolians actually did.
(a) Dorimachus did in fact retire from Achaea via the Isthmus,
not via Rhium, i.e. he changed his plans.
(b) P. says ( 6) that the knowledge that Taurion was at Cleitor
caused this change of plan. This is plausible. Taurion is mentioned
because the Aetolians were especially afraid of the Macedonians (cf.
19. 6). Had Dorimachus originally intended to march to Rhium
through Psophis and Leontium, news that Taurion was at Cleitor
would be an indication that he was likely to be cut off; hence the
change of route.
(c) Dorimachus' change of route took him east through the
Langadia-Vytina gap (cf. Meyer, Pel. Wand. 31-47; Leake, Morea,
iii. 125) to Methydrium. This suggests that he had now substituted
the Isthmus for Rhium as his goal; if so, he hoped to avoid an encounter with Taurion.
(d) In 7-8 he is said to have planned to encounter Aratus. But
Arates was with Taurion at Cleitor (ro. 2, n. 2), and Dorimachus had
no reason to suppose that they would separate. Moreover, it was
Aratus who attacked Dorimachus, not the reverse (rr. 5 ff.). Hence
it would appear that Dorimachus was not seeking an encounter. His
original plan was to plunder and return through Rhium; when faced
with the risk of an encounter, he substituted a highland route
through Methydrium, Orchomenus, and perhaps Phlius, Nemea, and
the Isthmus (the diversion to Pellene, I3. s. was perhaps an afterthought after the victory at Caphyae}.
(e) Three further conclusions emerge. First: the reference to
Rhium in ro, 8 is to be ignored; for once Dorimachus learnt that the
Achaean forces \\ith Aratus and Taurion were still at Cleitor, Rhium
was no longer a feasible plan. Second: the Aetolian force at Caphyae
was not very large, since it shunned battle with Aratus' depleted
force . .Either P. has exaggerated the original numbers (6. 8 n.) or
the bulk of the men had embarked at Phea (10. 4). Third: P.'s distinction between Taurion's forces (which Dorimachus feared} and
Aratus' forces (which he wished to encounter) is confused and misleading. From ro. 2 and II. 2 it appears that Aratus and Taurion
were together during the march from Megalopolis to Cleitor. That
they subsequently separated is not stated; but it is possible, for
Caphyae is always spoken of as a purely Achaean disaster. It does
not seem profitable to discuss Ferrabino's reconstruction (r.v ff.) of
these events, since it involves a complete departure from P. 's account.
6. T a.upwva. j.LETd Tou .. 1TAlj9ous: cf. 6. 4, Io. 2.
8. 1Tpo~ta.TilaOpllvns: 'ravaging the country ahead, far and wide';
Paton takes the prefix in a temporal sense.
10. 1TEpt MdoSplov Tfjs MEya.Ao1ToAnSoc;: Methydrium lay about
459

IV.

IO. 10

ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR

3 miles south of modern Vytfna on the river of that name; its ruins,
Palatia, stand a little to the north of the village of Nemnitsa. See
Meyer, RE, 'Methydrion (I)', cols. I387-9I; Pel. Wand. 3I ff. (for
the surrounding district).
11. 1. ol 6E TWll :.\xa~wll iJYEllOllt:S: in effect, Aratus.
2. allaOTpel(taliTES . ~K Ti}s K>.t:,Topas: on the advance north from
Megalopolis by Aratus and Taurion see Io. z n., Io. 5 n. (e).
'ITEpl Kacpvas: cf. ii. 52. 2. Caphyae lay at the north-west end of the
northern plain of Orchomenus, near modern Kotussa; cf. von
Geisau, RE, 'Kaphy(i)a(i)', cols. 1896-7. Aratus' route 'led down the
narrow valley of the Aroanius to Tara [Dara], thence ... over Mt
Kastania to Khotussa' (Leake, Morea, iii. I25). The Aetolians evidently came via the modern village of Bezeniko into the upper
plain of Orchomenus, leaving Orchomenus itself well to the right.
3. TOll lh' a1hou (XoliTO. 'II'OTalloll: not easily identifiable. The western
end of this plain was artificially drained (d. Paus. viii. 23. z; cf. 4,
-racfopm Ka.i -rrAElovs 8vafJa.<oL; Leake, Morea, iii. I28), and F.'s river
may be an artificial watercourse draining into the R. Tragus (the
river of Dara), and ultimately into the Ladon.
4. ICO.Tcl ri]v E~ apxfls '11'po8Eaw: cf. IO. 5 n. (d).
5. ~'ll'i TclS U'ITEpj3o>.as e'll'l TOll 'OMyupTOY: this is the hill north-east
of the plain of Caphyae, modern Mt Skipieza; cf. 70. I, which shows
that it lay between Caphyae and Stymphalus, which was presumably Dorimachus' immediate goal. The pass is that leading
north-east past modern Kandyla (between Mt Skipieza and H.
Konstantinos), and then north between Mt Skipieza and the ancient
Apelauron (d. 6g. I n.) along the gorge called Lykorrhevma; cf.
E. Meyer, RE, 'Oligyrtos', cols. 2477-9; Frazer, Pausanias, iv. 229-30.
6. Tit~ 'll'poaa.yopEUOllEY(f:l npo'!l'o!iL: Leake (Morea, iii. 129) identifies
this with a hill near the entrance to the valley where Kandyla lies,
and which leads to the Pass of Lykorrhevma; cf. Frazer, loc. cit.
'E'II'tOTpa.Tov emOT~aa.liTES Toll :.\~ea.pviiva: probably a mercenary
captain ; see ro. 2 n.
8. 6l6. TE T0'\1 tca.8o'!I'Ati7!10Y tca.i T~ll OATj'\1 17UliTO.~l'\l: cf. xviii. 22, 5' and,
for the comment in general, 8. ro-II (on Thessalians and Cretans).
What was specifically noteworthy in the Aetolian KaBo'fTAtap.&s we do
not know. In ii. 3 4 they have the normal branches of an army;
and the distinction in IG, ix2 I. 3, ll. 39-40, between those with
-rra.vo'fTAta or ~p.dJwpaKwv, and ,PLA.ol, is quite usual (Launey, i. 200 n. 2).
12. 3. ewpa.tcTO.\;: 'cuirassed troops' ; evidently distinct from lightarmed ( I and 6, v,wvo~, ,PLA.ol) and heavy-armed ( ro and Iz,
a fJa.pla <wv 0-n->..wv, if>a>.a.yyf;a,; cf. x. 29. 6) and probably something
460

ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219

IV.

14. I

between. At the battle of Mantinea they are classed with the Illyrian
mercenaries (xi. II. 4).
bt ~<ipa.~ KAlva.vn~: 'turning to one wing'. The implication is a rightangled tum, either of individuals, or of a whole column wheeling;
here the men are in line and the effect is therefore to form them into
column.
9. ('!l'nroAa.aTLKW'> Ka.i Ka.Ta.~e.6pws: 'insolent and excessive', metaphors
from medicine and eating, respectively; cf. Wunderer, i. 89, iii. 14.
13. 1. &.'ll'b a6.Amyyos '!l'a.v8-rnui. ~otJ9ouvTE'>: cf. 7-13 n. The Megalopolitan levy is of the whole people, an emergency measure. It does
not follow that Megalopolitan reinforcements were part of the original
Achaean strategy, nor yet that Aratus' 3,3oo troops (1o. 1-2) contained no Megalopolitans (despite the separate Megalopolitan contingent, over and above the brlAeK-rot, at Sellasia; ii. 65. 3 n.).
T'fi Ka.TO. m~Sa.~ f).,_Epq.: from Megalopolis to Caphyae, via Methydrium,
the route which must have been followed, is zs-JO miles.
2. !-'E9' tilv tQvTwv TETEAEUTfJK6Ta.<;;: the elaborate contrasts, as a
way to underline the ironical reversal of fortune, are worth attention;
J.te8' wv . Kn-bvveva~w : Tol1-rovs 8cf'!I'Tew; {wnwv : TTAVT7)K6-ra.>;
ifil.nwav : ~vayK&.{ono; np/;s TOVS vnevanlovs : imo TWV q8pwv.
5. Tf\S nEAAt]viwv 11'6AEW<;: cf. ii. 41. 7-8 for the site. From Pellene

and Sicyon the Aetolians evidently withdrew, keeping south of

Acrocorinth, and crossing the Isthmus; they will hardly have forced
the walls between Corinth and Lechaeum. At this time Megara was
part of Boeotia (ii. 52. 7 n., xx. 6. 8}; and the Boeotians apparently
gave the Aetolians free passage, for there are no Boeotian complaints,
and Boeotia remains neutral in the forthcoming war (Feyel, 145 n. 4}.
6. 0 aup.p.a.XLKOS 11'6AE!-'OS: the so-called Social vVar, i.e. the war of
the members of Doson's Symmachy against the Aetolians; but from
those members must be excluded Boeotia and (probably) Phocis;
cf. Feyel, 142 ff.
a.hLO.V KO.l , Ocjlop!-'t,V , , , OPXftV! 'CaUSe and pretext ... beginning' ; cf.
iii. 6. 3 n. for the distinction. ahlat are such events as lead someone
to take a decision, here the various acts of Aetolian aggression,
which lead to the decision of the allied states to pass the warmeasure. The passing of this constitutes the d.px1 of the war. d.cfoopJ.t/j
appears to be equivalent here to 'TTpo</>ams (cf. ii. 52. 3 d.cfoopJ.t~ Kat
npo</>aats dlil.oyo;;; ii. 59 g, &.</>opJ.tfi Ta.Jry Ka.tnpo</>&.cm XP'/IT&.J.tevos), and
denotes the official pretext with which the war is justified (whether
true or false). For the war-measure (Tofi SOyJ.taTos} cf. 25. 6 ff.
14, 1. ds TTJV Ka.9tlKouaav auvo8ov: this synodOS, held a few days
after Caphyae, was the third of that year (the electoral assembly and
401

IV.

14. I

ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR

that of 7 I had preceded it), and( 9 n.) it coincided with the end of
the Olympiad year, and so fell about August or late July 220. See
Aymard, ACA, 263 ff.; Larsen, 8o.
"'l'ltcpw<; SI.EtcElTO "'l'pbi "l'Ov 'Apa.Tov: this chapter, v.t:ith its marked
hostility towards Aratus may well reflect a Megalopolitan source
(cf. 7-13 n.); but when he goes farther, and tiies to attribute complaints one and three to a pacifist, and complaints two and four to
a Megalopolitan source, Ferrabino (137 f.) seems to enter the realm
of fantasv.
9. Chron~logical note. In 15 P. proceeds to enumerate the resolutions
passed at this synodos. Can he mean that the Olympiad year came
to an end in the middle of the synodos? It seems improbable, and if
true of no significance, to warrant this odd and pedantic interruption.
On the whole 9 looks like an insertion by some reader anxious to
indicate the point where the synchronism with book iii begins. Cf.
Aymard, ACA, 263 n. 6.

15. 1. "~~'P'"'~EuEw tc"l'~: these are the members of the Symmachy;

cf. ii. 54 4 n.
2. 8i.s Eta~EJ3AfJKOTE<;: 25. 4 shows that the two invasions were the
seizure of Clarium (6. 3) and the advance through the territory of
Patrae, Pharae, and Tritaea (6. g). Neither here nor at 25. 4 is the
Caphyae affair mentioned, probably because having adopted selfhelp (though disastiously) Aratus felt this expedition was honours
even; in any case, it was a business better forgotten, since the attack
on Pellene (I3. 5) had probably been beaten off, and Aratus was in
a strong position for ignoring the misfortunes of Sicyon (13. 5).
Ferrabino's hypothesis (133) that the Achaeans attacked the
Aetolians while embarking in Elis is unconvincing (10. 5 n.). On the
CJV~~lJfj~eaL violated by the Aetolians cf. 7. 4 n.
Ka.Td Td<; OJlOAoy~a.<;: according to the terms of the Symmachy. The
two proposals of the Achaeans-assistance to Messenia and their
admission into the Symmachy-would have to go before the Synedrion of the Symmachy (25. r); but any decisions there taken had
subsequently to be ratified by the various members. For the Messenian request cf. 9 2.
6. Forces from Sparta and Messenia. The total, together with the
League forces, of 1o,ooo foot and 1 ,ooo horse, is smalL Either Aratus
was relying on Philip; or he could not raise a larger force-perhaps
through internal disaffection such as appears in Cynaetha (17. 4 ff.).
8. "'l'(l.pa.yEYOJliVfJ'i , , , Til'> IC0.9lJKOU"'fJS ~KICATjata.<;: since this meeting
is in summer, and not long before the regular autumn meeting of the
Aetolian League (27. r), it must, despite the wording, be a special
meeting called to consider the Achaean decision; cf. M. Klatt,
Beitriige, 28; Holleaux, Etudes, i. 22o n. 2
BCH, 1905, 363 n. z;
462

ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219

IV. 16.9

Larsen, TAPA, 1952, 5 n. ro. Translate. 'when the appropriate

assembly met'.
8-9. ELPtlV'IlV ayELv KTA.: i.e. the Aetolians sought to limit the war
to a conflict between Aetolia and Achaea, and in particular to detach
Messenia and Sparta. The decision to make peace with Achaea depend
on the abandonment of the Messenian alliance reveals the Aetolian
fear lest Messenia should be absorbed into the Achaean Confederation
(Walbank, Philip, 27). On the Aetolian 'alliance' with Achaea cf.
3 9 n.
10. d 8' ~x9pa.v EAoLVTo: sophistry; ;xflpa is not the only alternative
to CTVfLfLaxta.
16. 1. ets Tfjv auJ.LJ.LC.XlV '1'1'poaEAa.J3ov: 'were for receiving the Messenians into the Syrnrnachy'. Presumably the other states concurred,
for Messenia was admitted to membership of the Symrnachy. Despite
the immediate decision to remain at peace with Aetolia, the admission of Messenia was a clear warning to the Aetolians of the consequences of further attacks upon her. But the omission of any reference
to past acts of aggression must have offered encouraging evidence of
the element of weakness in the counsels of the Symmachy (Walbank,
Philip, 28}. From the reference to the Epirotes Holleaux (141 n. 4}
deduces that Philip was at this time (summer 220) in Epirus; this
is a dubious conclusion, and no foundation for hypotheses on supposed concern with the affairs of Rome and Illyria (cf. Fine, ]RS,
l9J6, 38-39)
4. 'I'I'OAEJ.LOUS nVE'I'I'a.yyEATous: cf. 6. I I n.
5. t}AEu9EpwJ.LvoL: cf. ii. 70. r, iv. 22. 4, v. 9 9 To the Achaeans
Cleomenes was a tyrant; but to many Spartans 'liberation' obviously
had a different look. The move towards Aetolia signifies a resurgence
of the Cleomenean party (d. v. 35 z), though rfot.Alav Kai CTVfLfLaxtav
(even s~ a1Topp~Tlvv) seems an exaggeration at this date. See 22. 3 ff.
for the internal struggle at Sparta.
6. vEa.vLuKwv: the word signifies 'men of military age'; cf. i. 36. rzn.
On the date cf. 19. 1 n.
l:KEp8LAa.t8as KO.l A'IJ.LtlTPLo;: cf. ii. 5 6 n., ro. 8 n.; and iii. r6.
2-3 nn. for an earlier reference to Demetrius' breach of the treaty
made with Teuta (ii. 12. 3).
7. TU nuA<tJ 'l'l'pOO'J.LL~Q.VTf:S: Pylos on the l\fessenian coast was at this
date Achaean, 5 8 n. This suggests that the expedition was not
instigated by Philip (so Holleaux, 141); the agreement between
Taurion and Demetrius carne later (cf. Fine, ]RS, 1936, 31).
9. :.\11uv<z. ..,.~ j)uuLAEi Twv :.\9uJ.L<i.vwv: generally taken to be a shorter
form of the name Arnynander, subsequently well known as the king
of Athamania; but as there is no earlier reference, this may well be
his predecessor. Schweighaeuser takes Kr)St:un}s- to be 'son-in-law'
463

IV. r6. 9

ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR

(cf. ii. 1. 9, xv. 22. I), and this would favour the view that Amynas
was a younger man, and so perhaps make the identification more
likely; but the matter is uncertain. Amynander later is married to
Apama of Megalopolis (Livy, xxxv. 47 5 ff.). The Athamanians
were akin to the Epirotes, and inhabited the district between the
Arachthus and the western slope of Pindus.
10. !A.yf:Aciou: Agelaus of Naupactus, famous for his speech at
Naupactus in 217 (v. 3 I, Io3. 9-105. r).
11. TtlS Twv Kuva.L9Ewv 11'0AWS: Cynaetha was an Arcadian city on
the site of modern Kalavryta; see E. Meyer, Pel. Wand. I07---<), for
a description.

17.4-5. Class-conflicts in Cynaetha. It is clear from 5 that the split

was connected with Cleomenes' reforms, and the appeal these made
throughout the Peloponnese. Confiscation of property and redivision
of land were part of the revolutionary programme, and the installation of an Achaean garrison and a military governor recalls the steps
taken in similar circumstances at Mantinea (ii. 58. I ff.) in 227.
Clearly the Aetolians were exploiting revolutionary sentiments, and
this matches the Spartan moves (r6. 5). The indiscriminate massacre
inside the town is not an argument against such a policy, for it
may have been the work of an undisciplined rank and file. Cf.
Ferrabino, 142-4; Walbank, Philip, 29-30. If the Delphian dedication
published by P. Amandry (BCH, I94o-I, 70-75, no. 5), which shows
an Aetolian, Simos, settling Achaean refugees in Sciritis in north
Laconia (the inscription reads [L']~tpov), is to be dated at this time,
it throws light on the class-aspect of the Achaeo-Aetolian conflict
and the links between Aetolia and Sparta. For earlier GTaat> at
Cynaetha cf. ix. q.
12. TouToLs ~11'pa.TTov TTJV 'II'OALV: 'they were for betraying the city
to them'.
18. 7. TWV aSLKWV ~pywv EV SLKa.LOTa.Tov: cf. 19. I3, XV. 26 a I,
which indicates that the phrase is proverbial; perhaps, as Co bet
suggested, it comes from a metrical source (cf. Wunderer, i. 6. I8,
47; von Scala, 75; Bergk, PLG, iii 4 69I, fg. adesp. 11 B, -rofh-o 7TOL~aa> I
-rwv d.lilKwv lpywv 2v

-ro lltKato-ra-rov).

8. SLci<Jlopov 1i Ka.Ta.aKuciaj.La.Ta.: 'money or plate'.

9-10. 11'pot1yov ws E'II'L Aouawv: Lusi lay in the valley of Sudena
between Cynaetha and Cleitor; its site on the north-west slopes of
the hill H. Ilias was confirmed by Austrian excavations in I898---9.
The temple of Artemis (cf. ix. 34 9 for its plundering by Timaeus,
probably in 24o) lay about a quarter of an hour's walk east of the
town. The games associated with it, -ra 'HfLpaata, are known to us
from several inscriptions, and its inviolability (aav.\ov ... vf:vofLLGTat)
464

ITS COURSE TJLL SPRJNG 219

IV.

20

was probably guaranteed by grants of asylia. For the Aetolian grant

see IG, ix 2 I. 135 (cf. F. Poulsen-K. Rhomaios,J. vorliiufiger Bericht
uber die diinisch-griechischen A usgrabungen von Kalydon (Danske
Videnskabernes Selskab, xiv, 1927, 3 45)). There is no evidence for
the continued existence of Lusi after about 200 B.c., and its territory
was ultimately absorbed by Cleitor. For a map, and full discussion
of the site, temple, and history see F. Bolte, RE, 'Lusoi', cols. 189<>-9
10. Ta 8pi~~a.Ta. Ti]s 8eoG: sacred herds; they are often mentioned in
connexion with sanctuaries, e.g. Syll. 407 (fifty oxen given by the
coastal Lacedaemonian village of Tyrus to Delphi in 275), 636
(Delphic decree on sacred cattle in 178), 826 G {Amphictyonic decree
on revenue therefrom in 117).
12. 1rpoaeo-rpa.T011'E8euaa.v Tfi Twv KXe~Toplwv 1roAe~: having gone via
the Aroanios valley, turning west near the site of Maseika, or else
west of H. Ilias and down the valley of the Karnesi (see BOlte's
map, RE, 'Lusoi', cols. 1893-4).
19. 1. tca.TO. . To us tca.~pous TOOTous: here Aratus is said to be collecting the Achaean levy, whereas in 16. 6 the levy is already enrolled before Scerdilai:das' outbreak, the attack on Pylos, and the
arrangement with the Aetolians. Clearly the synchronism cannot be
pressed to date the Aetolian invasion to August, as the present
passage, and the same details in 15. 6, suggest.
5. Eup~1rL8a.v: frequently figures as an Aetolian leader; cf. 59, 6o. 3,
68. 1-69. 2; etc.
8. s~t.. TOY TWV 'Po8lwv E1r' O.UTOV O.ve11'AOuv: since both Macedon and
Egypt had abandoned their control of the Aegean, its policing had
fallen to Rhodes; cf. 46. 2 n., Costanzi, Klio, 1911, 282-3; Tam,
CAH, vii. 718, 752; Holleaux, CAH, viii. 143.
9. u1rep~a8~Laa.s: cf. v. 101. 4 Ships could be taken over the isthmus
by means of the 8lo)ucos, a system of rollers for getting them across
the 40 stades (5 miles) separating the two seas; cf. Strabo, viii. 335
11. 1roA~T~KWTEpov ft o-rpO.TTJYlKWTepov: contrast xxii. 10. 4 of Diophanes, iivBpwTros crrpa.T1]ytK<iJ7epos ~ TToAt:nKt!J-repo>. By his action at
Caphyae Aratus had weakened the Achaean position and the force
of their complaints; now he was determined to have Aetolian provocation accepted as an act of war by the whole Symmachy (cf. 26.
4), and so made no move during this invasion (Ferrabino, 143-4;
Walbank, Aratos, 122).
13. tlTUXTJKEva.~ 8Ltca.L6Ta.Ta.: for the oxymoron cf. 18. 7 n.
20-21. Music and Arcadia. P. here follows the theory which makes
man's material environment primarily responsible for his character.
First propounded by Hippocrates (On climates, waters, and places),
it appeats frequently in later writers; cf. Ps.-Arist. Problem. 14. 1.
4866

Hh

465

V. zo

ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR

909 a, for the effects of excessive heat and cold on the temperament
An important part is played in the development of this milieutheory by Poseidonius who (cf. Cic. nat. de&r. ii. 42) also stressed the
cultural effects of racial ~<pam> in the Mediterranean area, whereas
the purer and more primitive races lived on the fringes of the
oecumene. P. may owe his knowledge of the theory to the Stoics, but
this has not been conclusively demonstrated. Hirzel (ii. 891 ff.) points
out that Cicero (de Jato, 7) attributes it to Chrysippus; and in de
diu. ii. 96 f. he attributes it to Panaetius (cf. Norden, Urgesch. 6z).
But Hirzel also admits that it was familiar to Hippocrates, Plato,
and Aristotle. von Scala (zo4-5) argues that avYeofWwOa8at (21. r) is
Stoic jargon; this is true, but the word is also found in Theophrastus,
and in xxxi. 18. 4 P. uses it without any Stoic implications. See
further R. Pohlmann, Hellenische Anschauungen iiber den Zusammetr,hang zwischen Natur und Geschichte (Leipzig, 1879), 12 ff.; K.
Triidinger, Studien zur Geschichte der griechisck-romischen Ethnographie (Diss. Basel, 1918); Walbank, Class. et med., 1948, 179-81.
20. 3. cflua~KW5 auvTE8E(I)P'IIleva.: 'studied in their relation to natural
conditions' (C'..apes).
4. Tt\v y' 6.ATJ8ws jlOUO"~Kt}v: 'significat, puto, se Musicae nomen nunc
propria ac uulgari notione accipere ; non ilia latiore et augustiore,
. . . qua humaniorum omnium literarum disciplina atque cultura
eodem nomine designabatur' (Schweighaeuser); but F. Wehrli
(Eumusia: Festgabe fiir Ernst Howald (ZUrich, 1947), 63 n. I) argues
that poetry was also included. Stress on the effects of music is
traditionaL Thus the valour of the Spartans was associated with
their use of the Dorian mode; cf. Plato, Rep. iii. 398-9; Laches,
r88 D; Arist. Pol. v (viii}. 7 8. IJ42 a, d. 5 24 I340 b, cpavpov on
SvYaTat 1rou>v Tt To T-ij> 1/Jvx-ii> ~8o> ~ p.ovaiJ(~ 1rapaaKwa''"" The theory
may go back ultimately to the sophist Damon (d. Plato, Rep. iv.
424 c; von Jan, RE, 'Damon (I7)', cols. 2072-4).
5. ~5 "E,opos fl'law .. pi"'a.s: Ephorus of Cyme in Aeolis was the
foremost fourth-century Greek historian. His main work, the
luTop[at, in thirty books, went down to the year 356/5 Of his personal life little is knmvn, but tradition made him a pupil of !socrates
(d. Cic. de or. ii. 94). P. expresses considerable regard for his work
as the first attempt at a universal history (v. 33 2), and quotes him
(ix. r. 4, xii. 2i. i) ; though elsewhere he criticizes him for misunderstanding the Cretan constitution (vi. 45 I, cf. 45-4i 6 n.), and for
having no conception of a land battle (xii. zs f 1). He several times
defends him against Timaeus' criticism, and his geographical book
(xxxiv) seems copied from the example of Ephorus, who devoted
books iv and v to geography (cf. xxxiv. 1. 1-2). See in general
Schwartz, RE, 'Ephoros', cols. I-I6; Laqueur, Hermes, 19II, r6r f.,
J2I f.; G. Barber, The Historian Ephorus (Cambridge, 1935); frag466

ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219

IV.:o~.o.

ments in Jacoby, FGH, 70; commentary in vol. ii c. Each book of

Ephorus had a separate introduction, and there was a preface to
the work as a whole; cf. Barber, 68-74, who emphasizes the role of
the preface as a vehicle of errtp.erpoiJv-rEs Myot (cf. xii. zB. Io).
l'lf' a'!f6.11) tca.l. YO'lTE{C2- 'lfpEtaijx9a.l TOLS &.v9pW'If0lS: 'introduced
among (or by) men merely for the purpose of beguiling and bewitching'. Ephorus was probably contrasting p,ovaKrl and lo-ropla.,
the former, like tragedy, designed to thrill (cf. ii. s6. u), the latter
to point a moral and instruct (dm1T7J : ci>,Pe>.da) ; d. Wunderer, ii. 14
P. on the contrary rejects a non-utilitarian view of music. Paton's
translation 'for the purpose of deception and delusion' is not quite
adequate; see Schweighaeuser's excellent note in Lex. Polyb. drrdT7J.
and his translation 'non ad solam oblectationem et ad incantandos
animos esse inuentam'.
6. a.uMv tca.l pu81-1ov: 'movement in time to the flute'. Cf. Herodian,
iv. z. 9. rrvpp,x.l<tJ op6p.<tJ Kat lwOp.ij>; Plato, Laws, ii. 665 A, -rfi 8~ -rfjs
KL~O'EWS ..,a,gH pvOp.os ovop.a. Thucydides (v. jo) describes the advance
of the Spartans at the battle of Mantinea to the sound of many fluteplayers tva &p.a'Ac;Js p.E-rd pv8p.ov {Jalvovm; rrpoal>.OotV Ka~ p.~ ou1
r:J1Taa6d17 aV-rot:s ~ TJ.g,,, and later sources (Ps.-Arist. apud Aul. Gell.
i. u. I7-I8; Cic. Tusc. ii. 37; Val. Max. ii. 6. 2; Plut. Lye. ;n) agree in
making it a Spartan custom. But two proto-Corinthian vases of c.
65o-64o, the Chigi vase (Payne, Protokorinthische F asenmalerci (Berlin,
1933), pls. 28-29) and an aryballos represented in BSA, 1947,93, fig. 7,
in an article by H. L. Lorimer on the hoplite phalanx (see aLso ibid.
82), show that the flute-player was also a Corinthian institution.
On the Greek av>.os see now K. Schlesinger, The Greek A ulos (London,
1939). The ad.Amyg was primarily an instrument for giving signals
like our bugle, and unsuited for marching in step. P.'s point is
illustrated in a famous passage of Milton (Paradise Lost, i. 549).
8. tca.Td. vol'ous: ex legibus, Casaubon and Schweighaeuser in his
translation, e.~ artis (musicae) legibus, Schweighaeuser in Lex. Polyb.
vop.os. Subsequent commentators and translators have chosen
one or the other. In view of i. 32. 7 (where the phrase means 'in
accordance with military rules') and the usage in 9, the second is
the more likely; cf. Paton, 'in measure'.
9. ~LAo~c\vou Ka.1 T L!-lo9ou: Philoxenus of Cythera, the dithyrambic
poet (435-38o), flourished under Dionysius the younger of Syracuse
(Diod. xiv. 46. 6); the story of his being thrown into the quarries for
his outspokenness is often told (Diod. xv. 6. 3 ff.; Cic. ad A.tt. iv.
6. 2). Timotheus of Miletus, his contemporary (c. 450-36o), was
famous for adding four new strings to the seven-stringed lyre. He
was encouraged by Euripides who, Satyrus says (Vit. Eur., fg. 39,
col. zz
P. Ox. ix, no. u76, p. r67), perhaps correctly, wrote the
prologue to the Persae, the famous dithyrambic poem, which was
467

IV.

20.9

ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR

discovered on a fourth-century papyrus (P. Berol. 9875, our oldest

extant papyrus, edited by Wilamowitz, Timotheos, die Perser
(Berlin, r9o3)) in 1902. Timotheus' authoritative position as a classic
model for dithyramb and citharoedic composition, along with Philoxenus and Polyidon, is confirmed by a Teian inscription of about
2oo (Schwyzer, 190). See P. Maas, RE, 'Timotlieos (9)', cols. 1331-7
(who, however, inexplicably attributes this passage to Ephorus; it
is dearly personal reminiscence).
xopeuouaL TO iS l.LOVUO'LaKOf:S a.lJA'!jTiS . clywvas; 'they institute choral contests to the accompaniment of professional fluteplayers'. The .dwvvataKoi a?JATJTal are professional TexvL-rat organized
in guilds (cf. vi. 47 8, xvi. 21. 8, xxx. 22. 2); see Poland, RE (v A, 2,
Nachtrage), 'Technitai', cols. 2473-558; Daux, 356-p. For the dative
Reiske compares the phrase TpaycpSot~ Katvot~ in the spurious indictment in Dem. xviii. 54 For epigraphic evidence of these activities
in Arcadia cf. Syll. 703, a Delphic inscription of c. n8 honouring two
men of Pheneus who set poems to music and produced them with
a boys' choir.
10. Tas &.ywyas 11'oLouvTaL: 'they divert themselves'. dywyas
appears here only for Staywyck
~1TEL0'0.KTWV clKpOC1j!0.Twv: 'hired musicians'. This sense of aKp6afLa,
normal in P., passed into Latin; cf. Cic .. Sest. n6; Arch. 20.
&.vel j!Epos (J.Sew AAA'I]AoLs 1TpoaT0.TTovTES: 'calling for a song from
each in tum'. Athenaeus (xiv. 29) cites Philochorus for the Spartan
custom, at supper, of singing one of Tyrtaeus' hymns in tum as
a solo, the polemarch giving a prize of meat to the best. Something
similar may be implied here; or P. may refer to the custom of singing
alternate verses in an amoebean contest, as in Virgil (Eel. 1 4),
'ambo florentes aetatibus, Arcades ambo I et can tare
et responto the
dere parati' (together with Eel. Io our earliest
literary 'Arcadia'). T. Keightley, ad loc., attributes the invention to
Virgil's acquaintance with P., a conjecture independently developed
by B. Snell, Die Entdeckung des Geistes, ed. 2 (Hamburg, 1948), 268 ff.
12. Ejl~T'I]pLjlET' a.uAou Ka.i. TO.~ews claKouvTES: 'practising marching
strains on the flute while on parade'. i~tf3aT~pta (sc. 4afLaTa or ~tt!AYJ)
are v6~tot r.oAefLtKol, the rhythms to which soldiers march into battle;
cf. Thuc. v. 70 (quoted in 20. 6 n.); Schweighaeuser quotes a scholiast
to Hermogenes: AaKeOat~t6vwt r.po~ TOV i~tf3a~ptov TOV avAoO pvOfLoV
KaTa r.o>te~tlwv Jxc.!Jpovv; Polyaen. i. ro; see further the note of I. A.
Fabricius to Sex. Empiricus, adv. math. vi. 357 But Capes and
Strachan-Davidson prefer to take i~tf3a~pta as 'marches', and it is
possible that the sense 'marching to music' has developed out of
'music for marching'. This would certainly give a better contrast
with dp~aets; and the absence of parallel examples is not a serious
objection. If this meaning is accepted, JfLf3aT~pta and opx~aEtS Will
468

ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219

IV,

22.

be the objects of lmodKvuvra, as well as the accompanying participles; otherwise bn&lKvuvra is used absolutely, 'they make a display, show off'.
21. 1. TT)v .. a.uToupya.v: cf. Thuc. i. 141. 3, aVTovpyol T ycip
la llcAoTToVll'fJato.

2. KO.Ta TaS

~6V~KaS

Ka.l TaS OAOOXEPELS 8La.aTci.O'ELS: cf. XXXii. 4 2,

Tas lfJvKas aUaTclO'S' Kat TGS o>..oaxcpci:S' 0a~opas- TijS' olKOVfLEV!JS'

Translate 'in accordance with our nationality and the distance we

are separated from each other'; Strachan-Davidson renders ' ... or
according to yet wider diversities' ; but ociaTaats- suggests a spatial
interval (cf. i. r8. 4, xxxvi. 16. 8, lv omaTclm), and geographical
separation played a part in the milieu-theory (2o--21 n.).
3. To Ti}s cpoaws a.~6a.8es Ka.t aKAT)pov: 'the stubbornness and harshness of nature or of their natures' (cf. 4, T6 T1j> vxfls aTepa.fLvov).
8. TT)v !lEyaAT)V acpa.yf)v 'l!'oLt1aa.VTES: between the entry of Cynaetha
into the Achaean Confederation c. 241/o (]HS, 1936, 71) and the
events of 220 nothing is known of the internal history of the town
beyond the remarks in 17 4 The 'great massacre' is evidently one
of those there referred to, and must have brought the pro-Spartan
party into power; and since it is unlikely that this party would have
been allowed to send envoys openly to Sparta through the cities of
eastern Arcadia, once these were part of the Confederation, it is
probable that the incident is to be dated between 241jo and the
accession of Mantinea and Orchomenus to the Confederation (which
was between 235 and 229: cf. ii. 46. 2 n.). The revulsion against the
Cynaethans may have been partly political; but it also expressed
the still powerful feelings about blood-guilt (d. 9, KafJapfUSv).
Purification from this involved a sacrifice ; cf. Eurip. Suppl. n96,
GV <[> OE TEfLVEW a<f>d.yw XP1J a', aKoVE fLOU. For the purification of a
whole community by human sacrifice cf. Herod. vii. 197. See Hamburg, RE, KafJapw)s, cols. 2513-19.
11. av 'II'OT' a.uTOtS 0 6eos eiS 8~: a proverbial expression, quoted by
Aristotle (Nic. Eth. ix. 9 I. II69 b) from Eurip. Or. 667, lhav o' 0
oalfLWV 0 00tp, Tl Oei<f>l>..wv;
22. 4. 01ToAa.!l~C..vovTEs taov a.&Tois llneiva.L Tijs 'II'OALTELa.s: P.'s picture of the troubles at Sparta as the growing pains of a people unused
to freedom is disingenuous and inadequate; the existence of a strong
pro-Cleomenean faction was the real issue, as is evident from the
fact that three ofthe five ephors chose theAetolianside (cf. q. 4-5 n.).
8. TO Tijs Xa.XK~oLKou TE!lvos: the temple of Athena TToAaxos of the
Brazen House (through a slip Paton says 'Artemis') was built by
Gitiadas (Paus. iii. 17. z) about the middle of the sixth century (cf.
Dickins, BSA, 1906/7, I3i ff.). Its remains were discovered by
excavators from the British School in 1907 to the north of the
469

IV.

22.

ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR

acropolis, just above the theatre. It was famous for the starving to
death of Pausanias (Thuc. i. 134 ff.) and for the asylum and betrayal
of Agis (Plut. Agis, 16 ff.). Ferrabino (148 n. :i) argues that the
Spartan mobilization preceded the Aetolian departure from the
Peloponnese; but P. makes it clear that the object was not to
collaborate with the Aetolians, but to carry out an internal coup.
11. TauT civaKpouol:levou: 'beginning to speak in this fashion'.
23. 1. 5laT'lpei:v . rrcivTa Ta 5iKala Kal ~L)u'Jv8pwrra: the phraseology
is that of the Hellenistic chancelleries; cf. Syll. 705 B, l. 49, O'I.IVT7)pfjuat
Td lK 1TaAaLCUJJ xp6vwv 8?iopha Tlp.ta Kat ,Ptl.av8pw1Ta. Similarly in 2'
for the wording aup.p.ltaww; . Ot~:Alx87Jaav aKoAovOws Tats lvToAai:;;
(cf. ii. 48. 8, iv. 64. 2) there are parallels in OGIS, 751, 11. 2 ff.; Insch.
Mag. 18, I. 12. Cf. Schulte, 70-71.
2. rrepi. TO nap8evlOV 5pos: :Mt. Parthenium lay between Tegea and
Argos (modern H. Elias) ; Philip evidently came via Argos and Hysiae.
5. To Tou ~aalhews auv5pLov: the King's Council consisted of his
Friends, </>{>.ot; cf. v. 2. I n., and for a sitting of the Council, v. 41.
6 ff. (in Syria). It went back to the Argead kingdom, but possessed
none but advisory powers. Sometimes it acted as a court in cases of
high treason (d. v. 16. 5-8; cf. Arrian, A nab. i. 25. 5; Diod. xix.
46. 4); and a recently found inscription shows the ,Pl>.ot acting as
judges in the distribution of booty (Roussel, Rev. arch. 3, 1934.
39 ff., col. iii). See Beloch, iv. 1. 383; Corradi, 318-43, especially 331 ;
Mornigliano, A then., 1933, 136-41 ; Walbank, Philip, 2-3; Bikerman,
Seleucides, 40 f.; Ferguson, Gnomon, 1935, 521. It is noteworthy that
on this occasion Aratus, an Achaean, took part in the proceedings
(24. 3l
8. ovrre;p :c\A.~av5pos expt}aaTO e'l~aloLs: cf. v. 10. 6, ix. 28. 8. In
335, on a rumour of Alexander's death, the Theban democrats assaulted the Cadrnea, and seemed likely to cause a revolt throughout
Greece. Marching in fourteen days from Peliurn on the Illyrian frontier Alexander defeated the Thebans and seized the city. By a
decision nominally of the League of Corinth the city was razed,
except for Pindar's house, and many of the population enslaved
(Arrian, A nab. i. 7--9; cf. Glotz-Cohen, iv. I. 48-49; Tarn, Alex. i. 6-8).
24. 1. Erri. rriiaLv: 'after all the rest'. Philip's age here is probably
a repetition of the statement in 5 3, where it referred to autumnwinter 221. Cf. 2. 5 n. and Philip, 295.
2. Ka.l. l:lciALaTa Twv 'l!'a.paKeLI:!Evwv: 'especially those very close to
him'. P.'s distinction suggests that he is following a source which
merely records Philip's decision, and that the attribution to Aratus
is P .' s surmise.
4. Twv aul:ltJ.cixwv: this implies that Sparta is a member of the
Syrnmachy; cf. 9 6 n.

470

ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219

IV. 25. 3

8. E1TLKUp6118Laf]s . Tfjs yvw(-LT]S: a loose expression, since the

Council could not ratify in any real sense, 23. 5 n. 'Aratus' motives
were to try to win Sparta by clemency; mild punishment would
drive her nearer to Aetolia, while annihilation, by altering the balance
within the Peloponnese, might create internal problems within the
Achaean League itself. There was always a potential rivalry between
Achaea proper and Arcadia, and the disappearance of Sparta would
have rendered Megalopolis less vulnerable and so more influential'
(Philip, 31). Ferrabino's theory (149) of a 'deal' with the proAetolian party at Sparta at the expense of Messenia (postulating
the return of the Ager Denthaliates to Sparta) is wholly fantasy.
nnpa.'Lov Tc;>V a.uTou cJ!(Xwv : cf. V. I 7. 6.
op1eous 1TpL <1U(-L(-LO.XLa.v: a natural precaution after the rising; one
need not suppose the alliance to have been put on a new footing
(Ferrabino, 149).

25. 1. auvtjSpu: cf. xviii. 45 7' avv~opw~:: fLTa TOVTWV Ka' s,~::M.J.Lf3av~::
?r~::p' Twv o.\wv (Flamininus and the senatorial commission). Here P.
refers to the Council of the Symmachy. The complaints against
Aetolia all refer to incidents before summer 220, and were therefore
available when the allies resolved to remain at peace with Aetolia
{r6. 3; cf. Ferrabino, 145); but this was the first conference at which
all the grievances could be aired, and the cumulative effect will have
been considerable. The congress thus registered a success for Aratus'
policy of war, and the allies were won over to a programme of
demands rather than mere complaints. Cf. Ferrabino, 144-7 (who
exaggerates the significance of the change in policy of the Symmachy); Walbank, Aratos, 123; Philip, 32.
2. To Tfjs :A.8f]viis Tfjs '1Twva.s Lpov: cf. 3 5 n.
aTpa.Teuaa.vTEs e1r' ~(-L~puaov ~ea.L Aa.uXLov : on the eastern slopes of
Parnassus; Daulium is more commonly called Daulis (d. Livy,
xxxii. r8. 6-8 on its strong position). This attack must have taken
place after the separation of Phocis from Aetolia, which Flaceliere
(248 n. 3, 286-7) dates to 225, and Feyel (112-15) more probably to
228. Feyel has also shown (124-6) that between the summer of 228
and the winter of 227/6 Phocis joined the Boeotians in an alliance
with Achaea (Syll. 519; cf. Treves, Athen., 1934, 407), and in 224 allied
herself with Macedon. Hence it is likely that the attacks on Ambrysus
and Daulis fell between 228 and 224, like that on the temple of
Itonian Athena. All this time the Aetolians continued to hold western
Phocis, including Drymaea, Tithronium, Tithorea, and Lilaea, in the
upper Cephisus valley (cf. Flaceliere, 287).
3-4. Epirote, Acarnanian, and Achaean complaints. For the two
former cf. 6. 2; for the Achaean injuries 6. 3 (Clarium), 6. 9 (Patrae
and Pharae), r8. 7-8 (Cynaetha), r8. ro-11, 19. 4 (Lusi), 19. 1-3
471

IV. 25. 3

ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR

(Cleitor), x6. 7 (Pylas). The earlier reference to Pylos says nothing

of the Aetolians, and P. dates the compact between them and
Scerdilaidas after the latter returned to Naupactus (16. Io); possibly
the Aetolians were being held responsible for the outrages committed
by their new ally. Despite some restoration of the text in 4, it seems
clear that the Aetolians were also accused of some enterprise against
Megalopolis in conjunction with the Illyrians. This can only refer
to the expedition against Cynaetha, for the attack on Pylas is clearly
distinguished as KaTa 9\aTTav; and since it did not get farther than
Cleitor (19. 3-4) there can be no question of a direct attack. However,
from v. 93 it appears that since its resettlement, after Cleomenes
took and destroyed it (ii. 55 2-7, 61--63 ; the refugees found shelter
in Messene), Megalopolis had been the prey of party faction; and it
is quite likely that here, as at Cynaetha, there had been a party
ready to collaborate with the Illyrians and Aetolians. In view of his
concern for the reputation of his native city (cf. ii. 55 8) it is not
surprising that P. omits details and treats the matter as an attempt
from outside; but it is not improbable that there was some kind of
attempted coup within. Such an hypothesis might help to explain the
excess of virtue with which P. reprehends the men of Cynaetha,
though a comparison of 17. 4 (Cynaetha) with v. 93 4 (Megalopolis)
is enlightening.
6. 1Tpo9f~Evo~ 1Ta.pa.Ka.n~6.XovTo lji,cjna~a.: P. probably saw a
copy of the decree, for the phraseology of 7 suggests the actual
text. For the definition of freedom cf. 84. 5, l>..w9,;pofJs dcf>povp{)Tovs
d.cf>opo>.oyryrovs, xpwp.lvovs To's lSlms 1TOAT<Evp.a.cn ('one long tautology',
Tam, Alex. ii. zos n. I, with a good discussion of a.i:rrovop.ta and
i>.w9,;pla.), xv. 24. z; OGIS, 223 ( = Welles, 15), 228 (freedom from
tribute); Diod. xix. 61. 3, Elva Tovs "EA>.11vas /1.1raVTas l>.,;v9lpovs
d.cf>povp{)Tovs a{JTov6p.ovs. Cf. Jones, Greek City, IOI ff.; below, 27.4-7 n.
6-7. Claim on Aetolia. It is not clear whether 6 and 7 refer to two
categories of territory or one. If the Symmachy is merely pledging
itself to recover the independence of cities and lands annexed by
Aetolia since 229, the scope of the resolution is small, and covers only:
(a) Epirus: Ambracia and Amphilochia (d. Flaceliere, 252 n. x,
'soit avant, soit peu apres la mort de Demetrios'); perhaps too the
town of Cassope (d. Insch. Mag. 32, 1. 51; for the date, Flaceliere,
ibid., against Busolt-Swoboda, ii. 1476 n. 5, who make it adhere to
Aetolia only in 206-202). See further, Beloch, iv. 2. 384-5.
(b) Thessaly: Phthiotic Achaea, annexed on Doson's accession,
and not recovered along with Phthiotis, Thessaliotis, and Hestiaeotis.
Cf. v. 97 5. 99 z (Melitaea and Phthiotic Thebes), ii. 45 2 n.; Fine,
TAPA, 1932, 133 ff.; Walbank, Philip, I I n. 3
In practice, however, the allies sought to recover territory annexed by Aetolia long before 229, and the second clause has an air
472

ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219

IV.

26. 2

of being designed to give them a free hand for almost any territorial
claims; for instance, the following territories might be regarded as
forcibly annexed:
(c) Acarnania: the areas west of the Achelous, where Aetolia held
Stratus (63. 10), Oeniadae (65. 5), Metropolis (64. 4), and Phoetiae
(63. 7) since her compact with Alexander of Epirus (on the date see
ii. 45 1 n.).
(d) Phocis: western Phocis was still largely in Aetolian hands,
perhaps since c. 258 (Flaceliere, 199); eastern Phocis had been seized
c. 234-230 (Feyel, ro6), but had recovered its independence, probably
in 228 ( 2 n.). The Aetolians had now lost Anticyra, Ambrysus, and
Daulis, along with everything east of Parnassus; but this decree
would encourage the allies to attack the towns still held.
(e) Eastern Locris: the district of Scarpheia and Thronium was
Aetolian since before 262 (Flaceliere, 198), and remained so after
Opuntian Locris detached itself c. 228 (Feyel, 125). Further, the
second clause ( 7) would serve as a slogan for the 'liberation' of any
states in the Aetolian Confederation which, unlike the territories
covered in 6, had no connexion with the members of the Symmachy.
8. auva.va.KOfUia9a.~ . To is 1>.f1ci>~KTuoaw ... Tous v611ous: throughout the third century from 290 or even 300 the Aetolians controlled
Delphi (which was probably bound to the League by isopoliteia;
Flaceliere, 369-70) and the Amphictyonic Council. The Council was
controlled by exercising the votes of states forming part of the
League, and though Macedon and Thessaly were not excluded they
declined to appear on a council dominated by Aetolia. Beloch (iv. 2.
385 ff.) has established that the Aetolian-controlled vote rose in
proportion to the territorial expansion of the Confederation (cf.
Treves, Athen., 1934, 397). The rest of Greece never acquiesced in
the Aetolian usurpation of the oracle, and the first text which
testifies clearly to it, the ithyphallos sung by the Athenians at the
Eleusinian festival of 291, describes Aetolia as a sphinx which has
seized not only Thebes but the whole of Hellas, T~V o' ovx~ f97]{3Wv,
ill' 6..\:i)s- ri]> 'E>.>.aoos- I ucf>tyya 7Tp,Kpa-rovuav . .. (d. A then. vi. 63 =
Duris of Samos, FGH, 76 F 13); Flaceliere, 65, 372. By the present
clause, the allies hoped to convert the war into a Sacred War for the
liberation of Delphi.

26. 2. tva. . . . ~Kci>pwa~ traVT!; . . . TOV atro Ttl!> xwpa.s tr6Af10V:

cf. 30. 2, xxxix. 3 8; 'that all might wage offensive war against the
Aetolians'. Schweighaeuser is uncertain whether to translate -rdv d7Td
Tfj> xwpas- 7TOAfLOV 'warfare with full forces' or 'offensive warfare'.
Strachan-Davidson prefers the former 'by public authority and with
all the forces of each community'. But in Xenophon (A nab. iii. 4 33)
lK xwpas- OpfLB.V is 'to take the initiative from one's own position',
473

IV. 26.

ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR

contrasted with fighting an attacking enemy while one is on the

march; and in general the sense 'offensive warfare' is to be preferred,
cf. Feyel, I39 n. 2. The war-motion required separate ratification by
each state.
3. ~'1Te111fe ... TOt9 AhwA.oi9 E'ITtaToA~v: that Philip still hoped to
prevent war (so Holleaux, 149 n. I) is unlikely, since the programme
framed at Corinth, especially in relation to the Amphictyonic
Council, was designed to strengthen the Macedonian hold on Greece ;
Walbank, Philip, 32. Perhaps the king hoped to postpone hostilities
until spring 219, or merely to put the responsibility for the breach
squarely on Aetolian shoulders. The contents of Philip's note may go
back to a sound source, but the phraseology is P.'sown (cf. 4 4, 17. 2).
6. 'IT PO Tfj9 . auvo8ou: the autumn meeting held at Thermum for
the elections; cf. 5 9 n., 27. I, 37. 2.
7. Et!; TI,v Ka.9T)Kouaa.v auvo8ov: the regular autumn Achaean assembly, evidently held towards the autumn equinox (Aymard, ACA,
264); cf. 8, 27. 9, 29. I; also 27. I, 37 2. See Larsen, 8r.
TO A.cl.cjlupov E'ITEK~pu~a.v Ka.Ta Twv AhwA.wv : cf. 36. 6, after achievements by Lycurgus the Spartans E1TEK~pv~av To lvufwpov against the
Achaeans, and Machatas 1Tapa7TA*na Alyo117'<; a1TEp Kat 1Tpo<; TOV<;
AaKEOatp.ovlovr;, persuaded the Eleans l~EvlyKHV Toir; 11xawt'r; Tov
?T6Aep.ov. Clearly the two things are parallel; the Spartans have
declared war. So, too, here the Achaeans 'declared war on the
Aetolians'. See Kahrstedt, RE, AtUpvpov, col. 772, 'der Terminus
technicus >.ricpvpov fUr solche Untemehmungen (i.e. privateering and
plundering by private individuals) hat dann im spaten III. Jhdt.
den Sprachgebrauch dahin beeinflusst, dass M.cpvpov = Krieg ist
(P. iv. 36. 6), und dass das kein gehassiger Ausdruck des P. ist,
zeigt iv. 26. 7, wo er von einer achaischen Kriegserklarung genau so
redet'. This is correct; cf. Strachan-Davidson, ad loc., '"declared
the property of the Aetolians to be good prize" -a corollary of the
recognition of a state of war' ; it is really an example of pars pro
toto. Kahrstedt is, however, wrong in saying that only the Aetolians
gave the right to win booty to private individuals. The Aetolians
were peculiar in granting letters of marque to their citizens to take
part in any war against anybody, even if Aetolia was neutral (cf.
xviii. 4 8 and especially 5 r f.). Private rights of plunder and reprisal
were common; cf. 53 2, xxii. 4 IJ, xxxii. 7 4, where the term used
is pvata. poata KaTayylAAEtV is quite distinct from 7T6AEp.ov lKcplpEw,
and often represents a stage in the growing tension between two
states which may ultimately end in war. But pvata KamyylA>.Hv is
to be clearly distinguished from To >.ricpvpov l?Tt~<''JPVTTELv; and the
passage Thuc. v. IIS 2, EK~pv~av ei Tt> {JovAeTat ?Tapd acpwv )i(J-'Ivalovr;
>.uCwOat, normally quoted (since Schweighaeuser) to illustrate the
present passage, is in fact relevant only to pvata.
474

ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219

IV. 27.4

8. npo~ T~v j3ouX~v iv Aly1f:l: cf. ii. 46. 6. Here the flov/..1) is the League
Council, which would normally be present on the occasion of a
utivo8os-; cf. Larsen, 81.
Ta npoiimi.pxovTa. cjnXO.v9pwna. aVEvEwaa.vTo: a reference to
Doson, Philip's only predecessor with whom friendly relations had
previously existed; but Trp6yovot is used of a single person in Syll.
434-5 (Ptolemy I) and OGIS, 222 (Seleucus I), cf. Tarn, Bactria,
450 n. 3; Welles, 8I-82. Ta TrpoiiTrapxoVTa tPtitd.v8puma will include the
renewal of the annual oath of loyalty to the king of Macedon (Livy,
xxxii. 5 4), the king's right to summon an Achaean assembly (85. 3,
v. 1. 6), and the law forbidding the proposal of any measure contrary
to the Macedonian alliance (Livy, xxxii. 22. 3).

27. 1. auvuljla.vTO~ TOU Tc7>V apxa.~pEaCII>v xpovou: cf. ii. 2. 8 n.; Strabo,
x. 463 (Ephorus). ;,v Blppms- rii> AlTwAlas-, mrov TaS' xatpwlasTf0Lt(J'8at Trihptov attTOt> l(J"Tlv. On Scopas cf. 5 I ff.
4-7. Parallels to the Aetolian behaviour from Spartan history. For the
seizure of the Cadmea in 382 see Xen. Hell. v. 2. 25 ff.; Diod. xv
20. Iff.; Plut. Pelop. 5; Nepos, Pelop. I. Phoebidas, the commander
of a Spartan force en route for Chalcidice, was approached by
Leontiadas, one of the Theban polemarchs, while encamped near
the town, and by his help was able to seize the citadel during the
siesta, at the time when this was occupied by a women's festival.
Leontiadas then proceeded to Sparta and persuaded the authorities
to recognize Phoebidas' action. According to one unreliable version
(here .referred to) Phoebidas was fined; but the Spartans continued
to maintain their garrison. On the Peace of Antalcidas (387/6) see
i. 6. 2 n., vi. 49 5 ; on the tautology of l/..w8pla and a?n-ovop.la see
Tarn, Alex. 203 ff. against Wilcken (5.-B. Berlin, I929, 292-3), who
would distinguish them as freedom from outside domination, and
the right to determine one's own constitution. The expulsion of the
Mantineans took place a year later, when Agesipolis, the son of
Pausanias, made a winter attack on the town, broke down the walls
with the aid of a diverted river, and compelled surrender; the leaders
of the democratic party were allowed to go into exile but the inhabitants were divided up among the original constituent villages,
and these were given oligarchic governments (Xen. Hell. v. 2. Iff.;
Diod. xv. 5; Plut. Pelop. 4; Paus. viii. 8. 7).
These two incidents, drawn from a period of four years in the
second decade of the fourth century, add nothing to the picture of
Aetolian behaviour, but fall easily into association with the antiSpartan propaganda of 3I-33 (cf. 31. 3-33. 12 n.); indeed, like those
chapters, they give the impression of a last-minute addition to his
text made by P. about ISO, when Sparta was stirring up Roman
feeling against Achaea. The verbal parallel between 4 and Diod,
475

ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR

~
,
\ p.V
\ A.
tP,
'T
xv. 20. 2,
aKol1.tf.WVOt
TOV
ovot,..,aav
fi'>TJP.'waav
XPTJp.a.a,,
T~V Ot ppovpd.v OfJK ifijyov eK T(OV 8TJfJwv, is sufficiently close to suggest

IV. 27. 4

o o

~A

a common source. It is generally agreed that Diodorus is here following Ephorus (cf. Schwartz, RE, 'Diodoros (37)', col. 679); and P.
may be doing the same. On the other hand, 33 points to the use of
Callisthenes, whose Helle1~ica began with the Peace of Antalcidas
(33 2 n.); and it seems established (Jacoby, RE, 'Kallisthenes (2)',
coL 1706) that this work was one of Ephorus' sources for the thirty
years 387/6-357/6. Hence there is a decided possibility that these
last-minute additions in 27 and 31-33 were associated with the
reading or re-reading of the appropriately anti-Spartan Hellenica of
Callisthenes.
7. E:av TL<; alm)s ~.'lfljlUn, jlTJSE TOU<; 'ITtAa.<; opiiv: this version of our
ostrich proverb is probably proverbial in Greek too; cf. Wunderer, i. 64.
9. 6.vte:u~E E:vt Ma.KE5ovla.s: it is immediately on Philip's return
to Macedon that one must date the dispatch of a letter to the people
of Larissa in Thessaly (Syll. 543), urging the recruitment of resident
aliens to the citizen body. This policy reflects his concern to protect
the approaches to southern Macedonia, and the date of the letter
(Hyperberetaeus 21 of year II) will be September 220 (assuming that,
as in Egypt, a king's first regnal year was reckoned from his accession
to the end of the next Hyperberetaeus (Walbank, Philip, 297-8)). It
may be noted that if, as Bickerman argues (Berytus, 1944, 73-76}, the
Macedonian regnal year was reckoned from the actual accession of each
king, Hyperberetaeus 21 ( September) 220 would still be in Philip's
second regnal year, but towards its beginning rather than at its end.
28. Independence hitherto of events in Italy, Greece, and Asia. These
observations appear to arise out of the synchronism in r ; but this
is in fact false, and a mere excuse for the digression (cf. iii. I7 n. :
the attack on Saguntum did not take place till spring 219). For stress
on the fact that it is only towards the end of the Olympiad (22o-216)
that events in various parts of the Mediterranean become interwoven see v. 31. 4 f., 105. 9-1o. P.'s wording here may (but does not
necessarily) imply the confused notion of Saguntum as lying north
of the Ebro (cf. ii. 13. 7 n. (e)).
3. auvE'ITAOKTJaav: cf. i. 3 4, crop.'1T'MKa8rn, v. 105. 9 It is to the former
passage P. refers back in 4
5. EYEVETO s "' O'Ujl'ITAo.al: elucidated in v. 105. 4 ff.; the decisive
events of 217 are Trasimene, Raphia, and the Conference of Naupactus. Henceforth all eyes are on Rome.
6. Euva.pctKohouBTJTOt; Ka.i KaTa'ITATJKTLK~: cf. viii. 2. 10, aapfj
Ka' 8avp.aaT&.. Despite his condemnation of the emotional and tragic
approach to history, P. likes to arouse the wonder of his readers; cf.
La-Roche, 54 f.; above, pp. 14 f.
476

ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219

IV. 31. z

29. 7. iJ-E9~;etv Tils teotvi}s O"UiJ-iJ-xa.s: Scerdilaidas thus became a

member of the Symmachy; cf. Holleaux, 131 n. 3 The subsidy of
twenty talents a year evidently came from Philip.
30. 3. 5ul. TO 1l'Eipa.v ~:tA'lcptva.t TWV 5uvOT<iTwv: viz. in the partitioning of Acarnania between Epirus and Aetolia (ii. 45 1 n.) and the
later Aetolian attack on Medion (ii. 2. 5 n.).
4. Toil ~ea9-rj~eoVTos: the Stoic technical term for 'duty' since the time
of Zeno (Diog. Laert. vii. 108). Its frequent occurrence in books vi
onwards and rarity in i-v has led von Scala (3z9 f.) to regard the present
passage and v. ro6. 8, where it occurs, as later insertions, showing
a Stoic influence which he associates with P.'s later development.
It is true that for the present passage and for 74 3, where the word
also occurs, Svoboda (Phil., 1913, 471 n. 2) reaches a late date on
quite other grounds (d. JI. 3-33. 12 n.); but there is no such evidence
for v. 1o6. 8, and the context of both passages in iv is such as naturally
to lead to a reference to duty. Moreover, ro ~eafHj~eov is by no means
exclusively used by the Stoics, and it would be hazardous to build
any theory of P.'s philosophical development on the incidence of
the phrase (cf. iii. 1-5 n. (3 b)).
5. outc OKV']Tiov . tcoLvwviiv 1rpa.y1-16.Twv: cf. JI. 3-33. 12 n.
6. 'HlTEtpwTa.L 5 ~K 1rapa.8'aews tcTA.: 'the Epirotes on the contrary',
a phrase which Feyel (140) has misunderstood to mean that the
Epirotes heard the Aetolians and the envoys from the Symmachy
in each other's presence (cf. CR, 1946, 42).
1rnMv Kat 41lhL11'1l'os i;evy~en: 'as soon as Philip ... took the
field' (Paton). Feyel (140) translates, 'chaque fois qu'il viendrait'.
But the point is that the Epirotes wished to avoid a clash with
Aetolia until Philip could help; no doubt they had been promised
the campaign of 219 (57 ff.). P.'s condemnation of Epirote policy
reflects Achaean hostility to a diversion of Macedonian resources to
the north-west. Here were the seeds of a cleavage of policy which
must grow with the intervention of Sparta, and the creation of a
situation which called for Philip's assistance in the Peloponnese
(64. 1-2).
8. 1Tpos j3aatAia nTOhEiJ-CI.tOV: Ptolemy IV Philopator. He had taken
no side in the conflict, but the experience of the Cleomenean War
(cf. ii. 63. r) indicated the wisdom of making sure of a king who was
harbouring Cleomenes (cf. v. 35 r ff.). The envoys are of course
those of the Symmachy, not of the Epirotes (Oost, rn n. 6o against
Niese, ii. 424).
31. 1. Tijs cl>tyaA.das Ta.TTOiJ-~S li1r' AtTwAous: cf. 3 5 n.
2. lcpopeuovTES: for the Messenian ephorate cf. 4 :2 n. Oenis and
Nicippus are not otherwise known.
477

IV. 31. 3

ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR

31. 3-33. 12. This is the second of two passages which seem designed
to advise the Greeks on current policy, and are best explained as
last-minute insertions in the manuscript before the publication of
this book about 150/49 The first is 30. s. one should willingly embrace
an Acarnanian alliance; the argument in the second passage is that
war is not the worst of evils, and that Arcadia and Messenia should
combine against Sparta. Svoboda (Phil., 1913, 469-71) points out the
appropriateness of this advice to a period when Sparta had broken
away from the Achaean League and was seeking help at Rome; cf.
DeSanctis, iii. I. 204. For Messenian disaffection towards Achaea at
this time see Livy, xlii. 37 8---9 (Messenian and Elean complaints).
Aymard (ACA, 307 n. 8) suggests that no Achaean assembly was
ever (to our knowledge) held in Messenia because of suspicions of its
disaffection. In fact the Messenians sent no help to Diaeus (cf.
xxxviii. I6. 3). For a similar passage see 73 6-74. 8 n.
31. 3-4. War not the worst of evils : cf. 8. The idea is not new: see
Thuc. i. So. I (d. I24. 2)-but Eurip. Troad. 400, quoted by von
Scala (3o6), is rather different. P.'s views on war are assembled by
von Scala (loc. cit.); peace is a recognized good ( 8, 32. 9, 74 3), war
terrible and unprofitable (xi. 4 7), every war being in some sense
a breach of the moral order (Diod. xxx. 18. 2, deriving from P.).
But in certain circumstances (as here) war may be the lesser evil.
On the date of composition of this passage see 31. 3-33. r 2 n.
4. t<nJyop(a.v Ka.i Tra.ppT)a(a.v Ka.l. To Tfj~ EAEu8Epa.~ ovol-la.: d. ii. 38. 6 for
a similar formulation, which suggests that here too P. is thinking
of Achaea rather than Messenia. The presence here of N1.Ev8Epla,
rather than of OTJp.oKpaTla, is further evidence for the approximation
of these two concepts in second-century Greek thought (d. ii. 38.
6 n.); thus A. H. M. Jones (Greek City, 170, 338 n. 27) has observed
that in the second-century bilingual inscription from the Lycian
League (CIL, iz. 2. 725 = IG, xiv. 986) Tijv 1rehpwv OTJp.oKpaT[av corresponds to restitutei in maiorum Ieibert[ atem Lucei.
5. ouSf: . eT)~O.LOU~ ETrO.LVOU!-lEV: one may contrast P.'s condemnation (less harsh in ix. 39 5) of Theban medism during Xerxes' invasion with his very different attitude towards the philippizing
Peloponnesian states of ISO years later (xviii. 13-15) ; there he writes
as an Achaean. Pindar here suffers an injustice. The fragment
(Bergk, 109 = Boeckh, 228) continues:
CJ'Taaw a?To 7rpaTT[oo-; JTT[KoTov avEAJ.v,
TTEvla-; 06nLpav, Jx8pav (3) KovpoTp6rf>ov

(cf. Stobaeus, A nth. iv. 16. 6 (W.-H. iv. 395)), and refers to concord
and peace within the state, not to neutrality in the Persian War (as
E. Meyer (ivz. I. 347 n. r) still assumes; he interprets fg. IIo Bergk
similarly. Cf. also Ehrenberg, Ost und West, no, with the criticism

478

ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219

IV. 33::

of Gomme, Essays, 14-15). The misunderstanding suggests that P.

was unfamiliar with the context, and perhaps took the extract from
an anthology (Wunderer, ii. 48-49, 86). Pindar's real feelings about
Theban medism can be seen from lsth. v. 48-53 and viii. 5-18, and
in his famous praise of Athens (cf. Bury, CAH, iv. 509-II).
7. a.laxaTTJv ~ea.l ~Aa.~epw-r6.-rT)v: cf. 27. 8. After Plataea Thebes
was invested, and compelled to surrender her medizing leaders, who
were put to death at Corinth; further, the Boeotian League was
apparently dissolved by the allies (Diod. xi. Sr. 1-2 ; Iustin. iii.
6. xo). P. may also be thinking of the branding of the Boeotians who
went over to Xerxes after Thermopylae (Herod. vii. 233 z).
8. elpiJvTJ !lETa ToO SLtca.ou tca.i 1T~1TOVTOS: cf. 74 3, 1-uml Toii
8tKalov Ka~ KafJ~KOVTO!:; Thuc. i. 124. 2, ~K 1roMp.ov p.ev yap eip~VTJ
p.aAAov f3ef3atofhah

&4' ~(J'vxla!: () p.~ 1TO}u:p.fjO'aL OOX op.o[ws aK[J'8vvov.

32. 8. 01TE!p f\S'I] 1TAE!OVatcLS auv~~T) xp6vo~~: viz. in the Messenian wars (which P. again refers to in 33), especially the second one
which ended, according to a tradition with which P. was familiar,
in a partial migration to Sicily and the enslaving of the remnants,
in the second half of the seventh century (Paus. iv. 15-23; cf.,
however, L. R. Shero, TAP A, 1938, 525-31, who puts this emigration
after a rising early in the fifth century; Plato, Laws, iii. 692 D,
6g8 D, E); one tradition (Paus. iv. 23. 6) made Alcidamidas migrate
to Rhegium after the first war, at the end of the eighth century.
After the Spartan reduction of Ithome in the third Messenian war
which broke out in 464, the Messenians were settled at Naupactus;
but after the downfall of Athens at Aegospotami they were again
expelled and took refuge in Sicily, Rhegium, and Euhesperidae in
Cyrenaica (Paus. iv. 25 I, z6. 2; Diod. xiv. 34 Z-3 78. 5-6). Paton's
translation 'has overtaken them' is misleading, since Messenia had
enjoyed tranquillity since Leuctra.
9. T'f)v vuv 01r6.pxouaa.v tca.-r6.a-ra.aw: clearly that existing before 149;
cf. 31. 3-33. 12 n.
10. Ka.-rO. 'Ti)v 'E1Ta.jlwi4v8ou yv<ilJ.lT)V: not recorded elsewhere. But
Epaminondas was responsible for both the founding of Megalopolis
(Paus. viii. z7. x f., ix. 14. 4) and the restoration of Messenia (Paus.
ix. 14. 5 f., cf. iv. .26. 3 f.) in 369; cf. Roebuck, 31 ff.
33. 2. 1ra.plt. Tov -roll A..05 -roll Aut<a.lou flwll-6v: on Mt. Lycaeum in
Arcadia, modern Diaphorti, cf. ii. 5I. 3 The Tip.Evos of Zeus (Paus.
viii. 38. 6) lay on a small plateau 6o m. wide on the south side of the
mountain, where the chapel of H. Elias today stands; on superstitions attached to it see xvi. u. 7 The excavations of Kourouniotis
are conveniently summarized by E. Meyer (RE, 'Lykaion', cols.
479

IV. 33

ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR

224o-I). The f3wp.os comprised the very summit of the hill, 20 m.

above the Tlp.EVOS; Pausanias (viii. J8. 7) describes it as a yfjS' xwp.a.
Excavations have revealed remains of sacrifices, vase fragments,
and tiles. The rites were secret and are said to have included human
sacrifice down to historical times ; those who partook of the human
flesh became werewolves (Plato, Rep. viii. 565 D; Paus. viii. 2. 3).
Pausanias (viii. 38. 7) mentions two pillars, surmounted by golden
eagles, which stood before the altar, and the bases of these have been
found to the east of the summit; in a line with them to the north
is a further construction, consisting of a large square block of
masonry and several smaller bases, which has been identified with
the dedication here mentioned. Pausanias (iv. 22. 7) also records it,
but describes it as lying Js Tb Tlp.t:voS' Toil AvKalov. See Ernst Meyer,
op. cit., cols. 2242-3.
v -rot~ tcaor' :.\plO'TOj1EV1'jV tcalpoi~: Aristomenes' date and even his
existence are subjects of controversy. Callisthenes (see the next
note), who is probably P.'s source for all this chapter, clearly made
Aristomenes the Messenian leader in the war in which Tyrtaeus took
part, three generations after the original subjugation of Messenia
(Tyrt. in Strabo, viii. 362) and so in the seventh century. This was
the fourth-century tradition followed by Callisthenes and Ephorus;
but in the third century Myron put Aristomenes back into the first
war in the eighth century (Paus. iv. 6. I-S) and Rhianus brought
him down to c. 490 (Jacoby, FGH, 265 F 38-46, commentary). Grote
argued that Messenian folk-lore was largely a fourth-century invention; and undoubtedly the romantic form which it assumed in
Ephorus, Theopompus, and the third-century writers, and which it
retains in Pausanias (iv. I4 7-24. 3), goes back to the restoration of
Messene, and in part to Boeotian sources. But it seems likely that
there was also a continuous tradition from early times, containing the figure of Aristomenes, who may well have been a real
person, not unlike the Klephts of the Greek War of Independence.
For recent discussion see J. Kroymann, Sparta und Messenien (Neue
philol. Untersuchungen, xi, I937), passim; E. Schwartz, Phil., I937,
I9-46; L. R. Shero, TAPA, I9J8, soo-JI; P. Treves, JHS, 1944,
Io2-6; F. Jacoby, FGH, 265 F 38-46, commentary on Rhianus of
Bene; Kroymann, Pausanias und Rhianos (Berlin, I943).
KaAAL0'9iv1'j~: Callisthenes of Olynthus (c. 37o-327) was Aristotle's
nephew. His most important works, in which he adopted a panhellenic point of view, were the Hellenica and the Deeds of Alexander.
The former in ten books covered the period from the King's Peace
(387/6) to Philomelus' seizure of Delphi in 357/6 (cf. Diod. xiv. n7. 7,
xvi. 14. 4). It seems likely that the summary of early Messenian
history in Diodorus (xv. 66. Iff.) goes back to Callisthenes through
Ephorus; it probably formed a digression inserted in connexion with
48o

ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219

IV. 33 6

Epaminondas' reconstruction of Messene, and it seems likely that

Callisthenes was the first man to write a history of the Messenian
wars. For P.'s criticism of Callisthenes both as a stylist and as a
military historian see xii. 12 b 2, 17-23; in general see Jacoby, FGH,
124 (ii B, 631-57, fragments; ii D, 4II-32, commentary) ; RE, 'Kallisthenes', cols. 1674-1707.
'f'O ypnJ.LJ.La. Toi:lTo: also in Paus. iv. 22. 7, reading M.:aa-rJll7J> in 1. 2;
cf. Preger, Insc. gr. metr. 63; Wilamowitz, Textgesch. 102, 2 (accepting
M.:aa1}ll7Js); Schwartz, Hermes, 1899, 448 (accepting Mwa-rJll7J). The
rhetorical character of such epigrams is stressed by Schwartz (Hermes,
rgoo, 122 f.) ; note here especially ll{KTJV &.Map and P1JLlllw> xetJ\errov.
In Pausanias' version the Arcadians set up the stone. About Aristocrates there are various traditions. According to Pausanias (viii. 5
12, 13. s) he was stoned to death at Orchomenus for violating the
priestess of Artemis Hyrnnia; and this was probably the original
account, for stoning is rare in Greece, and usually the punishment
for sacrilege (cf. Latte, RE, 'Steinigung', col. 2294; Kroymann,
Sparta und Messenien, 105). Kroymann suggests that there was a
story that in the Aristomenean War the Messenians were betrayed
by the Arcadians, that after Leuctra this was undesirable, and therefore the treachery was attributed to Aristocrates and the stoning
interpreted as his punishment for this. A 'doublet' of Aristocrates
was now made, the 'younger' man being transferred from Orchomenus to Trapezus near the Messenian border (cf. Wade-Gery, CAH,
iii. 531 n. 2). Callisthenes was probably responsible for associating
Aristocrates with the Aristomenean War, and for making theMessenians stone him; the stoning by the Arcadians, which would seem
more plausible, will be a later version (Schwartz is clearly mistaken
in supposing that P. quotes Callisthenes as evidence for this view
against that of Pausanias). Whether Callisthenes has rightly interpreted the epigram, which is (perhaps deliberately) obscure, is another matter. Indeed the reference to 'Arcadia' points to a date after
Leuctra, for the term would not have been used in such a context
earlier (Schwartz, Phil., 1937. 24). Certainly the epigram does not
date to the seventh century.
6. rt)v :A.purToKpaTous . 1rpoSoaa.v: cf. Paus. iv. 17. 2-9, zz. 1-7.
This story, which is evidently implied in the epigram, though it
mentions no name, is recorded by Pausanias. Aristocrates led his
Arcadians out of the battle for a bribe, and so caused the Messenian
defeat. The battle of the (Great) Trench (cf. Paus. iv. 6. 2, J1Tt Tfj
Td,Ppq; Tfj Ka.Aovpivn Mey&.>.n) was traditionally the last battle of the
Aristomenean \Var; that the word My&.A1J may have come in after
Callisthenes' time as a reminiscence of Xenophon (A nab. i. 7 rs; cf.
Cyrop. iii. 3 26) (so Schwartz, Hermes, 1899, 440) is not very probable.
There are references to the battle in Tyrtaeus (apud schol. ad Arist.
d

IV. 33 6

ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR

Nic. Eth. iii. 8. 5 III6 b) and Plutarch (Mor. 548 F, also mentioning
Aristocrates' treachery).
7. Ta TEAEuTa.'ia. yEyov6Ta. jLETd T~lV auvolKWjL6v: 'what finally
happened after the foundation' (cf. Schweighaeuser's commentary
ad loc.); rather than Paton, 'the circumstances that followed the
recent foundation' (following Schweighaeuser's translation).
8-9. The Peace Settlement of 362/r: cf. Diod. xv. 89. 1-2; Plut.
Ages. 35 3-4. This followed the battle of Mantinea (362). where
Epaminondas perished, so rendering the Theban victory ti!Ufoil>l]p,Toll
(cf. Xen. Hell. vii. 5 26--27). From Diodorus it is clear that it took
the form of a Ko'vTj Elpi}111J, with a avp,fuJ.xta among the parties to it;
and though the uvp,p,axla of 9 is that of the Arcadian allies of
Megalopolis, the statement that the Messenians v1ro TWII uvp,p,&.xwv
TTpouax8ijva.~ refers to the other participants in the peace, and so
confirms Diodorus. Similarities of phrasing (e.g. 8, dp,rp~ptTov
' ,
\ 11"(1]11:
'
D'10d aFY'a
' .. .J. f3 TJTOVJI-I!V'f/11 EXOVTI!'S T1}V VK1]V; 9,
XOVUTJS
7"rjV
AaKESa,p,ovtovs St p,6vov; ~KC17T6vaovs yEvla8a, Twv 'EU.1}vwv : Diod. ot Sc
AaKE0tup,6v'o' p,6vot TWII 'EM~vwv lnrijpxov eKCJ1TOvSo,) show that
Diodorus also goes back (through Ephorus) to Callisthenes' Hellenica
(cf. 33 2 n.; Treves, ]HS, 1944, 105). The existence of a avp,p,axla
in connexion with this peace has been questioned by De Sanctis
(Riv.fil., 1934, 147-55), who thinks P. uses uvp,p,cixwv here 'under the
influence of the previous passage with its reference to Arcadians
sharing in the Megalopolitan alliance', by Hampl (Staatsvertriige,
26 ff., 103 ff.), and by Accame (Lega ateniese, 171 ff.). The problem is
complicated by an inscription found at Argos, but now lost (SyU.
182 = Tod, 145), which records the reply of Greeks 'who share the
common peace' to an envoy sent by 'the Satraps' ; they state their
neutrality and intention to resist by force any attack by the Great
King on any of their number. This inscription has been variously
dated to 386, 366/5. 371/o, 344, and 338-334; but it probably belongs
to the peace of 362/1 (cf. Larsen, CP, 1939, 376 ff.; Taeger, Der
Friede von 362-r (Stuttgart, 1930), 3 ff.; Meloni, Riv. stor. it., 1951,
19 ff.). The use of Attic indicates the lead which Athens took in that
year; the Satraps speak in their own name, in revolt against the
king. See further Tod's commentary, ad loc. This inscription gives
some support to the theory of a avp,p,axla in 36zj1, thus confirming
what Diodorus says and P. implies.
10. Ta jLlkpif 'TI'pOTEpov 8<E8YJAWjLEva.: viz. the importance of close
relations between Messenia and Arcadia.
12. jL~TIE <f!o~ov v<f!opi!!p.~;vo~: 'neither in fear of the terrors of war';
for this extended use of 6(3o; see ii. x8. 9, 21. 7, etc.
I

'

34. 1. TEAos: Schweighaeuser takes this as equivalent to tl!i' Tl/.M,

omnino; but an equally good sense is the usual 'eventually', implying
482

ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219

IV. 35

some delay. The Spartans preferred not to commit themselves and

adopted a neutral policy; so too (though P. omits to mention this)
the Phocians and Boeotians {Feyel, 141 ff.).
3. KO.Ta.OTa.9eVTWV E~opwv aAAwv: in autumn 220; the ephors normally
entered office at the new moon following the autumn equinox (so
Unger, Phil., 188x, g1), though it seems likely that in the year
following the intercalation cycle, the ephor year (which formed the
official Lacedaemonian year) began with the first or second new
moon before the equinox (Pareti, Atti Ace. Torino, 1909-10, 8u;
Busolt-Swoboda, ii. 686 n. 5). These ephors were pro-lYiacedonian.
ot KLvfjaa.vTE~ O'~a.yii~ a.tnoL: the massacre of 22. u.
5, 1TpOO'J.lEL TO iS E~OpOL~ , , , olO!LEVOL! the lacuna clearly has SOme
reference to pressure from the revolutionary party, who form the
subject of ol6ftVot. It is their interpretation of rct1Td-rpta. as including
the kingship which is given here, for elsewhere P. describes the
constitution without the kings, and with the restored ephorate, as
TraTp,ov TroAlTEVf-1-a (cf. ii. 70. 1 n.). On the strength of monarchical
feeling centring round Cleomenes see 22. 4 n., 35 6-8.
7. auva.x9vTos . Toil 1TA1]9ous: the general assembly of all freeborn
Spartans of 30 andover (cf. Michell, Sparta (Cambridge, rg52), 14off.).
9. Tas Sui XnpL~evou Ka.t TL!La.(ou ~l..li~a.s: cf. ix. 34 9; Plut. Cleom.
18. 3 Following on the death of King Agis in 241 and the temporary
eclipse of the revolutionary movement, the Aetolians invaded the
Peloponnese, and from a base in allied Messenia ravaged Laconia,
led by Charixenus and Timaeus; the date was probably 240. Some
so,ooo slaves were carried off (Plut. loc. cit.), and the ravaging of
the sanctuary of Poseidon at Taenarum will be an incident of this
expedition (ix. 34 g). Charixenus is probably XaplfEvos Kv8plwvos
AlTwAOs, who dedicated an equestrian statue, the work of Sonicus,
at Delphi about this time (Syll. SIS B), and was several times general
of the League-once in the year of Polyeuctus' archonship at Athens
(probably between 246 and 240; cf. for a convenient summary of
this vexed chronological problem Klaffenbach, RE, 'Polyeuktos (6)',
cols. 1623--9), when the Aetolians reorganized the Soteria. He was
honoured by Athens (Flaceliere, BCH, 1g27, 34g-5z). See Klaffenbach,
IG, ix 2 i. 18, l. 18 (commentary); Flaceliere, 242 n.. 4, 267; and on the
invasion Beloch, iv. I. 628. Timaeus was also a prominent Aetolian
leader, one of the three envoys who negotiated the lYiessenian t'sopoliteia in c. 244 (3. 5 n.); in one of his generalships a treaty of asylia
was concluded with Miletus (H. Benecke, Die Seepolitik der A itoler
(Diss. Hamburg, rg34), 23 no. 5). It was probably in the course of
this invasion of the Peloponnese (240) that he plundered the temple
of Artemis at Lusi (ix. 34 g). See Flaceliere, BCH, 1g29, 486. The
exiles the Aetolians proposed restoring would be Agis' supporters.
35. 2. Cult of Athena Chalcioecus. This procession under arms is not
483

IV. 35

ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR

mentioned elsewhere, unless (Ziehen, RE, 'Sparta', col. 1455) it is

to be identified \'iith the XOavaw mentioned on an Athenian stele
listing the victories of Damonon (IG, v. r. 213); but this festival was
celebrated with chariot races, which are not mentioned here. On the
temple see 22. 8 n.
3-7. The Spartan rising. P. attributes this to devotion to Cleomenes,
and Beloch (iv. 1. 724) suggests that news of the rising led to Cleomenes' burst from prison. But there is no trace of this in P. (v.
38. 7 ff.), who treats Cleomenes' action as a forlorn hope (cf. v. 38. 8,
f40X87Jpas ti\7Tloas i!xwv imip ToiJ 14l:V.onos). Ferrabino's hypothesis
(rs:z), that news of Cleomenes' death precipitated a rising under the
new leader Lycurgus, is attractive (cf. Walbank, Philip, 36).
8. axE8ov ~811 TpEi:<,; ivLa.uToo<,;: on the relevance of this passage to
the controversy over the date of Sellasia see ii. 65--{)9 n.
9. tn:pi TYJ'> KXEofiEvou<,; TEAEVTl]S: cf. v. 35-39, where, however, there
is no closer indication of date.
10. lt\.y1]al11'oAw , ulbv 8~ rly1]aL11'0ALlio<,; TOU KAEOfi~poTou:
Cleombrotus, of a collateral branch of the Agiad house, married
Cleomenes' sister Chilonis, and occupied the throne during LeonidaS'
exile in 242/r; cf. Plut. Agis, u. 17; Paus. iii. 6. 7; Beloch, iv. 2. 161-2.
13. Eurypontid ho1tse. Archidamus was Agis' younger brother (for
his death, allegedly at Cleomenes' hands, see v. 37 r ff., viii. 35 5;
Phylarchus said Cleomenes opposed it, Plut. Cleom. 5 3). Agesilaus,
the father of Hippomedon, was iu a collateral branch of the Eurypontids, and his sister Agesistrata was the mother of King Agis,
for whose overthrow he was largely responsible (Plut. Agis, 6. 3 ff.).
Hippomedon appears as a Ptolemaic general in the Hellespontine
area; cf. Syll. 502; Roussel, BCH, 1939, 137 ff.; Bengtson, Strat. iii.
178-83.

14. Aut<oupyov: his descent is not recorded; but he was evidently

a Eurypontid, though only remotely related to the direct line, and
his claim to be a Heraclid was evidently challenged. Presumably
Lycurgus was the man behind the rising.
15. ou 11'a.i8Es 11'a.Uiwv, alX a.ihol11'pWTO~ A11'f:TLCJ'Q.V: P. is referring
to their murder at the hands of Cheilon in winter 2I9/I8 (Sr. s).
For this conception of the iniquities of the fathers being visited upon
the children P. may be thinking of Plato, Rep. ii. 377 A, dN\a yap iv
:4oov olK7]11 OWO'Of411 JJv av iv8aor; d.8iK~UWf41ill, ~ aVTOt 7] 1Tato~s 1TI:Llowv
(though Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios', coL 1469 questions the connexion).
The introduction of the reflection
however, forced (though we
need not suppose with Wunderer (ii. 73) that P. 'seine Vorlage
gekiirzt und dadurch den losen Zusammenhang verursacht hat').
Cf. von Scala, g8. The phrase 7Ta.tor;s 7Talfiwv in the precise sense of
'grandchildren' or a7T6yovo' appears in vi. g. 5. xviii. 41. xo, and
xxxviii. r. 6; it is common in other writers.

ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219

IV. 37

36. 4. Tous <npa.TLWTa.o; KGL nva.o; Twv 1To}unKwv: 'the mercenaries

and some of the citizen troops', cf. v. 2o. 6, TOV> 1ua8ocp6pov> Kal nvas
Twv AaKt:8atp.ovlwv. (Paton is wrong here.) For aTpanWTYJ> = p.w86rpopo> d. Arist. Nic. Eth. iii. 8. 9 1116 b 15; it is frequent in the
inscriptions and papyri (Launey, i. 29 ff.). See also Xenophon, Hell.
v. 3 25 for Td 1roAmK6v, 'the citizen army'. For Hellenistic Sparta as
an employer of mercenaries see Griffith, 93-<J8.
5. Lycurgus' attack east of Parnon. The region here was always contested between Sparta and Argos. Argos probably received only the
northerly district of Thyreatis in 338, and it is uncertain when she
conquered the coast south to Zarax; Bolte (RE, 'Sparta', col. 1304)
suggests it was in 262, when the Peloponnesian League was dissolved
at the end of the Chremonidean War, Chrimes (Ancient Sparta
(Manchester, 1949), 21-22) puts the Spartan loss after Sellasia. On
the situation of these places see Bolte, RE, 'Sparta', cols. 1316-17
(with map cols. 13os-6). Polichna stood on the height called Vigla,
near the modern village of Poulethra, 7 km. south of Leonidi (d.
Wace and Hasluck, BSA, 1908/9. 176). Prasiae was at Plaka, overlooking the plain south of Leonidi. Leucae was on the north-east
slope of the plain of Leucae (Strabo, viii. 363) near Katav6thra (d.
v. 19. 8; Livy, xxxv. 27. 3, where Leucae is mentioned along with
Acriae on the east coast of the Laconian Gulf). Cyphanta lay near
K yparissi; Pausanias (iii. 24. 2} puts it KaT6v 1rov (}'7a8ta (Boblaye
for MS. it 1rov) north of Zarax (modern Ieraca), and 2oo stades south
of Prasiae by sea; see further Pieske, RE, 'K yphanta', col. 52.
Glympeis (d. v. 20. IIO) is located by Bolte (RE, 'Glympeis', col.
1476) near H. Vasilios, at the fort Tct Avp.1Tta, on the slopes above the
torrent of Leonidi near its source; but Wace and Hasluck (BSA,
19o8j9, 165) identify it with the Glyppia of Pausanias (iii. 22. 8) and
locate it at Kosmas, north of Mt. Mazaraki. On all this area see
Wace and Hasluck, op. cit.; Romaios, IlpaKnKa, 1911, 276 ff.
9. 1TGVTa.xo9ev 1TEpLel:xov a.uTous T~ 1TOAE(.l<tJ: on the Aetolian diplo~
matic successes of this winter, which had reproduced the situation at
the opening of the Cleomenean War, see Walbank, Philip, 36-37.
37. Spring :u9. Synchronisms for Achaea, Aetolia, Carthage (in
Spain), Rome, Syria, Egypt, Sparta, and Macedon.
(a) Achaea: as in 217 (v. 30. 7) there is no appreciable gap between
the election of the younger Aratus as general for 219/18 and his entry
into office about 22 May ( 2, 1Tpi, rTjv Tij> Jl..\w1.8o> lmToA-r/v). Beloch
(iv. 2. z3o) assumed a confusion between the two events; but Aymard
(ACA, 248-62) has shown (cf. 6. 7 n.) that the date for the electoral
assembly varied considerably, within a period of about three months,
from year to year. P. has, however, expressed himself loosely: see
37. 2 n. On the younger Aratus cf. ii. 51. 5 n.

IV. 37

ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR

(b) Aetolia: for Scopas' election in autumn 220, see 27. I.

(c) Hannibal and Saguntum: on the chronology see iii. I7 n. This
synchronism, unlike that in 28. I, is accurate.
(d) lllyrian War: on the sending of L. Aemilius Paullus against
Demetrius see iii. I6. 7 n.
(e) A ntiochus and Ptolemy: for the surrender of Tyre and Ptolemais
to Antiochus by Theodotus, the Ptolemaic governor of Coele-Syria
cf. v. 40. Iff., 6I. 3 f.; for Philopator's preparations cf. v. 63 ff.
(f) Sparta and A chaea: for Cleomenes' seizure of the Athenaeum
in 228 see ii. 46. 5 n. ; on the significance of Lycurgus' move, 59-6o n.
(g) Macedon: Philip's movements are described in 57 ft. His large
force is the result of his levies (29. 1).
2. :4xuLol. 8 TC>Tio KT".: in contrast to the time when P. is writing,
and the elections were in autumn. But the sense is loosely expressed,
for it was the entry into office which took place 7TEpt rfjv rijs ll>tmioos
bnroA~v (cf. v. I. I); on the elections see above.
8. KUTa Tous uuTous tcaLpous: a loose synchronism. The war between
Rhodes and Byzantium (see below) fell at any rate in part within
the Olympiad year 220/19, for it took place in 220 (cf. 48. 3: Achaeus
had recently assumed the royal title, and this was in summer 220
(v. 57 5)). From 53 1 it appears that peace was made before winter,
since the Rhodian ships sailed on to Crete; Niese, ii. 383 n. 5
38-52. Situation of Byzantium: War of Rhodes and Bithynia
against her
38. 1-45. 8. This study of the situation of Byzantium, its complete
control of the Pontus trade by sea, and its vulnerability by land,
consists of two topographical sections and sandwiched between
them (39 7-42. 8) a hydrographical section, which arises out of the
reference to the strong current through the Bosphorus (39 7), and
seeks to explain in detail the hydrography of the Pontus and
Maeotis. For this central section P. probably drew on Strato of
Lampsacus, tl tf>vu,Kos (cf. xii. 25 c 3 f.), Theophrastus' pupil, and
head of the Peripatetic school from 287 to 269, who in turn drew
on such Peripatetic teachings as are to be found in Arist. Meteor.
i. 14. J5I a 19ff., ii. I. 353 a 32 ff. See von Scala, I89-2oo (not always convincing); Capelle, RE, 'Straton (13)', cols. 3oo--I (evidence linking
P.'s account with that attributed by Strabo to Strato inadequate) ;
C. M. Danov, Polybios und seine Nachrichten iiber den Ostbalkan
(Sonderschrift des bulgarischen archaologischen Instituts, no. 2,
Sofia, I942), 61-64 (German summary); Walbank, Robinson Studies,
i. 470-4. That other accounts also existed, to which P. took exception, appears from 39 11-4o. I, 40. 3, 42. 7; the polemical note here is
typically Polybian, and not copied from Strato (so von Scala, I99-200).
486

SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM

IV. 38.6

The two 'geographical' sections (39 r--6 and 4.3 1-44. 1o) are of a
different character, and appear to draw on material derived from
'"*'Pt'">.o,, marine handbooks containing lists of coastal towns and
harbours, distances, names of capes and temples, and occasional
mythological and historical information. P. probably goes back to
this through some literary intermediary ; and though this might be
Diophantus or Demetrius of Callatis, both of whom wrote on the
Black Sea in the third century (Robinson Studies, i. 474 n. z6), there
is no evidence which enables us to attach a name to it. That P. had
himself visited Byzantium is assumed by Danov (op. cit. 6:z-63);
but he does not say so either in 38. II-IJ or in 40. r-J, where one
Inight reasonably have expected some such personal reference (cf.
Thommen, Hermes, 1885, zr8), and his narrative nowhere requires
such an assumption (for the suggestion of oral evidence in 40. 8 may
well come from Strato : see ad loc.). Nor is there any reason to assume
that this section was written later than the rest of iv {cf. 40. 2 n.).
For fuller discussion see Robinson Studies, i. 469-79.
38. 1. Etnca.tpcha.Tov TO'ITov: the splendid situation of Byzantium
on its promontory between the Golden Horn, the Bosphorus, and the
Propontis was recognized in the famous characterization of Calchedon as 'the city of the blind' (Herod. iv. r44; Strabo, vii. 320;
Tac. Ann. xii. 63). P. has the fullest discussion of its site; see also
Dio, lxxv. ro; Zosim. ii. 30. z; Procop. Aed. i. 5; and for modern
bibliography Oberhummer, RE, 'Byzantion (1)', cols. ur6-27; E.
Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter r7; H. Merle,
Die Geschichte der Stiidte Byzantion und Kalchedon, Diss. Kiel, 1916.
4. 9pip.p.a.Ta.: 'cattle'; this reading ofF is preferable to AR ~~pf-LaTa,
for it goes better with 'slaves' (Beloch, iv. I. 292 against Wunderer);
cf. 75 z. P. classes cattle and slaves equally as necessities, not as
luxuries (7rpwvala).
ot ICO.TG TOV no\IT0\1 . TO'ITOt: the cities of the Euxine and the kingdom of Bosporus. For two centuries the Aegean world had imported
Pontic fish, grain, honey, iron, flax, hides, hemp, wax, and slaves;
and though the shift of the economic centre to the new monarchies
had reduced the importance of the trade between Greece and the
Euxine, it remained considerable. P.'s statement that the Black
Sea now sometimes imported corn is confirmed by an early secondcentury inscription from Istrus'i(S. Lambrino, Dacia, 3-4, I927-32,
400 ff.), honouring a Carthaginian who imported grain and sold it
in the city, grain probably grown at Carthage. See Rostovtzeff,
SEHHW, sBs-6oz, I46z n. 20.
6. '!TOT~ p.Ev ra.l.cha.Ls ICTA.: see 45 Ioff. for the clash with Gauls
and Thracians. The latter did not become a danger until after the
period of which P. is here writing; cf. 46. 4

IV. 38.

10

SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM

10. EUEpyho.L TrnVTWY uTrnpxovTES KTA.: apparently echoing a Byzantine source, containing the sort of claims which may well have been
made by the embassies mentioned in 46. 5 But P. is also thinking
of later barbarian attacks {cf. xxii. q. I2; App. Mac. xi. 1. 5; Livy,
xlii. r3. 8).
39. 1. Circumference of the Pontus: 22,000 stades = 2,750 milia
passuum = 2,567 English miles. This is a fair guess. Strabo (ii. r25)
makes it 25,ooo stades; and modern estimates make the Black Sea
about 63o miles from east to west (Burghaz to St. Nikolai) and 330
miles from north to south (Odessa to Melen Su), with an area of
about 18o,ooo square miles (Black Sea Pilot 1 , 1920, 4).
O'TOt'Q.TO. . lhTTcl KO.Tcl s~a.t'ETpov . KdJlEVa.! viz. the Thracian
and Cimmerian Bosphori, which P. elsewhere reckons as soc milia
passuum apart (xxxiv. r5. 5
Pliny, Nat. hist. iv. 77), an exaggerated figure. P. does not imply that these two mouths lie on the
same meridian, but merely that they are at opposite ends of the sea
(cf. Class. et med., 1948, 175 n. r, against R. Uhden, Phil., 1933, 303 f.;
Thomson, 209).
Circumference of the M aeotic Lake: S,ooo stades = r,ooo milia
passuum = 933 English miles. Like all the ancients P. exaggerates
its size (d. Herod. iv. 86, almost as big as the Pontus; Strabo (ii. 125,
vii. 310) and Agathemerus (3. ro = GGM, ii. 474) make its circumference 9,ooo stades; and in Nat. hist. iv. 78 Pliny gives it 1,4o6 or
1,125 milia passuum). The length from the Egurcha mouth of the
Don to the Tonka of Arabat in the extreme south-west is in fact
c. 2oo miles (Black Sea Pilot', 1920, 5) and the total area 14,515 square
miles.
2. nl" JlE" Ma.wnv O.va.TrA1]pOVJ1Ev1]V l'mo -Tou-Twv: a loose expression,
for the Don is the only river of any size running into the Sea of
Azov, though it had indeed (cf. iii. 37 4) both a European and an
Asiatic shore. On the rivers of Scythia see Herod. iv. 47 ff.
3. The Cimmerian Bosphorus: 30 stades = c. 3'5 miles. In fact, at
its narrow point, between Cape Pavlovski and Tuzla Spit, the
channel is not more than three-quarters of a mile wide. The length
of the strait depends on the points selected for measuring. P.'s
figure of 6o stades is reasonable for the region around Kerch, but the
name Straits of Kerch is given to a channel 25 miles long and varying
from 8 miles to three-quarters of a mile in breadth. As regards its
depth, 'it is much encumbered with shallow banks, but a narrow
channel has been dredged through V~.>ith a least depth of 24 ft. A
depth of only 22ft. was reported in the Pavlovski channelin 1919' (when
no doubt dredging had been neglected) (Black Sea Pilot1 , 1920, 318).
4-6. The Thracian Bosphorus: 120 stades
14 miles. This is the
figure given by Herodotus (iv. 85) and Dionysius of Byzantium
488

SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM

IV. 39 7

(p. z. 10 ed. Glingerich). Arrian (Peripl. M. Eux. q, 37 = GGlYI,

i. 38o, 401) makes it 16o stades, adding in the section between the
Hieron, which P. ( 6) takes as the beginning of the strait, and the
Black Sea proper. Modern calculations make the length zBs km.
in a straight line, and along the actual water course 317 km. (Oberhummer, RE, 'Bosporos (1 )', cols. 742-3); the Black Sea Pilot7 , 3,
gives it as 17 miles, including windings. P. records the width at the
Hieron and at the Byzantium-Calchedon crossing. The latter he
reckons at 14 stades, but other authorities make it 7 (Dion. Byz.,
p. 3 4 Giingerich; Pliny, Nat. hist. v. 150, quingenti passus-though
it is mille passus in Nat. hist. ix. 51) or 12 (Schol. Dion. Per. 142);
straight across from Byzantium it is in fact zs km. (about 135
stades). The width at the Hieron was 7 stades according to Ps.Scylax, 67. Gillius (GGM, ii. 9 l. 15; 13, l. 7) assumes that Dionysius
(p. 2. II Giingerich) is referring to the Hieron, when he makes the
width at the narrowest point 4 stades; but it is more likely that
Dionysius here refers to the crossing at the Hermaeum (cf. 43 2).
P. makes the Hieron crossing 12 stades, but he may be giving the
actual distance between the two temples, as Gillius (GGM, ii. 9}
suggests. The width of the strait at this point is about I km. P.'s
higher figures may of course be due to the use of a different stade; but
his figure for the length of the Bosphorus is against this hypothesis.
6. 'l'o KQ.AOIJp.Evov 'IEpov: cf. Dion. Byz., pp. 27. 2o, 29. 31-30. 21
{= Gillius); Oberhummer, RE, 'Bosporos (1}', cols. 752-3. This
Hieron was dedicated to Zeus Oilpos (Arr. Peripl. M. Eux. zs. 4;
anon. Peripl. M. Eux. 90), and was traditionally built by Phrixus.
It stood on the Asiatic shore near Anadoly Kawaghy, about 7-'0 km.
from the mouth of the Pontus. Jason's sacrifice to the twelve gods
is mentioned by Apollonius Rhodius (ii. 532). who, however, places
it on the outward journey; a scholiast to Apollonius (ad loc.) associates it with this site. Diodorus (iv. 49 1-2), following Dionysius
Scytobrachion (cf. Diod. iii. 52. 3; Schwartz, RE, 'Diodoros (37)',
cols. 673 ff.), has the same version asP. The precise date of Dionysius
is uncertain, though it will be in the second century B.c., and P. may
have known his Argonautica; but more probably he took this information from his general source for this section. For similar mythological derivations cf. 43 6 (BoOs}, 59 5 (Tfxos); from these two
passages it seems clear that the implied subject of cpao-t here is ot
p.fi8ot, 'legend has it that .... '
To KQ.'I'Q.V'I'ttcpu KElp.evov IQ.pQ.'Il'tE~ov: today Rumeli Kawaghy; Oberhummer, RE, loc. cit., col. 751. For the two temples cf. Strabo,
vii. 319.
39.7-42. 8. The hydrography of the Pontus: see above, 38. I-45 8 n.,
on the probable source.

IV. 39 7

SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM

39. 7-10. Causes for the current from the Maeotic lake through the
Pontus. P. gives two: (1) the overflow of water entering from the
many rivers draining into these seas, (2) the overflow of water displaced by alluvial matter deposited by these rivers after heavy rains.
Of these arguments the first is already found in Aristotle (Meteor.
ii. I. 354 a 12 ff.), and something very like the second in Strato (cf.
Strabo, i. so), who also recognized that the large number of rivers
flowing into the Pontus and the Maeotis helped to account for the
current in the Bosphorus (Strabo, i. 49). Strato differs from P. in
that he combines the theory about silting-up with a curious error
for which Strabo censures him; because, he argues, as a result of
alluvial deposits the Pontus is shallower than the Propontis, there
is naturally a flow of water from the one into the other-as if, Strabo
comments, seas behaved like rivers. Berger (Die geographischen
Fragmente des Eratosthenes (Leipzig, x88o), 61 ff.) argues that Strato
cannot have committed this absurdity, and that he must have said,
like P., that the current was caused by displacement; but in fact
Strata's error is already in Aristotle, who describes the downward
slope of the sea-bed from the Maeotis by successive stages to the
Atlantic (Meteor. ii. I. 354 a 12 ff.), and like Strato attributes this
slope to silting at the upper levels. P. accepts the argument about
silting, but has nothing about the behaviour of seas running, like
rivers, in the direction of the lowest sea-floor--either because he
saw through it or because it was unnecessary in his own simplified
account. This omission is not a strong argument against the view
that Strata was P.'s source for this section. See, for fuller discussion,
Walbank, Robinson Studies, i. 470-4. Modern research confirms P.'s
thesis only in part. As a result of observations made by H.M.S.
Shearwater, Commander W. J. C. Wharton, R.N., in August and
October 1872, it was ascertained that the flow of water through the
Bosphorus and Hellespont was considerable, and that it was due
most probably to (r) the prevalence of north-east winds in the Black
Sea, (2) the excess of water received from the large rivers over the
amount lost by evaporation, and (3) the difference in specific gravity
between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean ; and that of these
the wind was the most important factor. Black Sea Pilot7 , 1920,
21-22 ..

7. t:ts vt:plypa.cpf]v O.yydwv ~ptO}LM.>v: 'into basins of limited circumference' (Paton). For dyyfov, 'sea-bed', cf. Plato, Cr#ias, III A.
u'D'a.pxouawv 8' i~epuat:wv: according to Eratosthenes, following
Strato (cf. Strabo, i. 49), the Pontus had originally no outlet, but
eventually the water piled up and forced a passage through at the
Bosphorus (for a Samothracian legend about this cf. Diod. v. 47 3-4);
similarly at the Pillars of Hercules. P. omits this part of Strata's
argument; but it was irrelevant to his point, and the omission (like
490

SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM

lV. 40.5

that of the argument about the sloping sea-bed: 7-ro n.) is not
evidence against his use of Strato.
11. oOK E~ Et1TOp~KWV s~TJYTJI'a.Tio)\1: P. is evidently attacking some
specific alternative version based on 'merchants' yarns' ; for his
prejudice against merchants and disbelief in their stories see 42. 7;
Class. et med., 1948, r6r-2, comparing P.'s attitude towards Pytheas.
See Robinson Studies, i. 470 n. 5
~K riJs KaTO. cpuow 6ewplas: 'from the principles of natural science';
Oewpla is used objectively to mean 'theory' elsewhere; cf. vi. 42. 6,
-!] 1rep/, 'Ta crrpan:7TeOa Oewpta, 'military science, military theory'.
40. 1. tLvo8E~KT~Kfi , li~TJYYJUI!~: cf. ii. 37 3 n.
2. rs~ov TWV vOv K<:up&v: cf. i. 4 I, LOLOV 'TWV Ka8' TJJ-LUS KatpwiJ
(unification of the world under Rome), ii. 37 4, i8t6v n avJ-LPePI.:fiaOa,
'TOl)> Ka8' ~J-Las Katpou> (viz. to make a universal history possible). P.
here refers to the same context of ideas; therefore despite the
parallel with iii. 59 3 (d.m:I.VTwv 1TAw'Twv Ka~ 7TOpEV'Twv yeyov6.,.wv), a
passage inserted after 146, there is no reason to suppose that the
present excursus is also late.
2. OOK ll.v ~T~ vprnov t:lTJ 1TO~T)TULS Ka.t tU6oypacpo~s xpfjaea.~: this
doctrine is at variance with P.'s own practice elsewhere; see especially his defence of Homer in xxxiv. 2 ff. against the scepticism of
Eratosthenes (xxxiv. 4 4), and xxxiv. II. 2o, .,.a f-Lu8woicrra'Tov 8ot<ovv

ou

t:l~cr8at 'To/ votrrrii

f-Ld17Jv r/>alvecrOat
d;\~Oetav, J.rav r/>fi 'TO.J-Lf.av 'TWV aVEJ-LWV 'TOV

'AexBlv, ill' aivttaJ-Llvou Tijv

Ato'Aov (Class. et med., I948,

17o-3). \Vunderer (ii. 44) suggests that the present statement reflects

P.'s sources at this point; on the other hand, the more sensational
type of myth has already been criticized in ii. r6. 13-14, and there
are similar criticisms of the Phaethon myths in the Stoic Strabo
(v. 215). Hence it is unsafe to base conclusions about P.'s source here
on his attitude towards poets and mythographers.
3. d1TLUTOUS al'ci>~o-13TJTOUf1EVI<)\I vapEXDtEVO~ (le(la.twTns: Schweighaeuser suggests that Heracleitus was referring to the ears, as in
xii. 27. I; cf. H. Diels, Herakleitos von Ephesosz (Berlin, 1909), fg.
A. 23. It is quite likely (Wunderer, ii. ~-7o) that P. has taken this
quotation from his source (contra von Scala, 88 f.), but there is no
reason to think this is Eratosthenes, as Wunderer suggests.
4. Silting up of the Pontus and Maeotis: cf. 9, 42. 2. The same argument is found in Aristotle (Meteor. i. 14. 353 a Iff., Maeotic lake) and
Strato (Strabo, i. so, l>oKEtV S Kav xwcrOfjvaL 'TOV Il6VTOV o>.ov El>
vcrrepov, ilv f-LI.vwcnv at lmppvcrEt!> 'TOtai!rat; cf. P. fLEVOV<J7!> ye- 0~ rij>
ailrij> .,.&gt:w~ 1repl 'ToOr; 'T07Tovs---'the existing local conditions' (Paton}
-Kat 'TWV al-rlwv rijs tyxcfJaEW!> eve-pyOVVTWV Ka'Ta 'TO cruvexls').
5. 0 ... xpovos &m~pos KT~.: cf. Arist.ltfeteor. i. 14.353 a 15, r/>avepov
'Tolvuv, Em:i 0 'TE. XJ'OVO!> otix I.17ToAebf;n Kai 'TO o>.ov ato,ov, o.,., oin-E 6
1

491

IV. 40. 5

SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM

Tdvais OW 0 N'iAos clt ppn, &>.>.' ..jv 1J'OT~ tYJpds 0 T01J'OS oBev piovaw.
Here Aristotle is concerned particularly ;vith infinite time in the
past; but, as his phrasing shows, he also regarded it as infinite in the
future too (d. Phys. iv. r3. 222 a 29 ff., viii. r. 25r b 10 ff.; Meteor.
i. r4. 352 b I7 ... J.LTJ p.b>ToL yivEaw Kal. ,PBopav, el1rep p.ivH -rd miv). von
Scala (r9z) suggests that Aristotle was in fact replying to Anaxagoras
who, according to Diog. Laert. ii. 3 ro, envisaged the possibility
of time stopping; but when Anaxagoras replied to the question
whether the mountains of Lampsacus would one day be sea with
the words Uv yE o XP6vos p.7] im>.l7171, he was perhaps speaking
ironically as of an dSJva-rov. The context in which P. uses this argument about time is so closely parallel to that in Aristotle as to confirm the view that his source is Peripatetic. His argument, like
Aristotle's, requires that not only time but also the material universe shall be infinite in duration; and though the Stoics admitted
the former (d. Stob. Anth. i. 8. 42 (W.-H. i. 105): Poseidonius said
that some things are a1rnpa, ws o aJp.1ras xpovos; Chrysippus said
that TOV xpovov m:fv-ra a1J'ELpov Elva~ J,P' Kanpa), they denied the latter
(d. Ps.-Philo, De aet. mundi, 23. 117 ff., recording arguments of
Theophrastus (Zeller, Hermes, n, 1876, 422--9) or Critolaus (Diels,
Dox. graec. 106 ff.), directed against those who denied the eternal
duration of the world, and are, as Zeller (loc. cit.) shows, to be
identified with the Stoics). To this extent P.'s argument is antiStoic. Strato, who is ex hypothesi P.'s source here, held different
views on the definition of time from Aristotle (d. Robinson Studies,
i. 472 n. r6), and von Scala (19off.) fails to show any detailedconnexion
between those views and the present passage; but there is nothing
in Strato to suggest that he did not accept Aristotle's views on the
duration of time, which is the only relevant point here.
Kliv To Tuxov d.a4>epT)Ta.~: 'even though the addition should be but
trifling'.
6. Completion of any process affecting a finite quantity in infinite time.
This is the basis of P. 's contention about the Pontus, and, as von Scala
shows (192 ff.), it is Peripatetic; cf. Ps.-Philo, loc. cit.; Arist. Phys.
iv. 13. 222 a-b; Eudemus, fg. 52 (FPhG, iii. zso), Jv 8 -rip XPOV~ m:fv-ra
ylvemt Kat ,PBetpe-rat; Ps.-Archytas in Simplic. in Arist. Categ. c. 9
(f. 89r; p. 352 Berlin), Phys. 'corollarium de tempore' (f. r86, p. 785
Berlin). Ct. 5 n.
O.vayKTJ n:AELw61jva.L Ka.Ta ritv lTpo6Eow: 'the hypothesis requires that
the process must be completed'.
8. Shallowness of the Afaeotis. This was widely known in ancient
times. Cf. Arist. Afeteor. i. 14. 353 a, &>.>.a p.~v Kat -ra TTpl ~v MatCmv
>./p.v7)v mSSwK -rfj 1rpoaxli>an -rwv TTo-rap.wv -roaov-rov, wa-rE TToAAtfl
>.0.TTw p.eyi.Bn TTAota vvv ElaTTAE'iv 1rpos -r7]v pyaaiav ~ -ros t7]Koa-rov.

P.'s calculations of an average depth of between 5 and 7 fathoms,

492

SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM

IV. 4L 3

i.e. 30-42 ft., are confirmed by modern soundings which make it

only 48 ft. in the deepest part. 'By observations, it is said that from
qo6 to the year r8o8 the depth of the gulf (of Taganrog) has diminished 3 ft. ; from the latter date to 1833 it has again diminished 3 ft. ;
so that it has lost 6ft. depth in 127 years, but there appears to be some
reason to doubt the accuracy of this decrease in depth. The sandbanks have also increased in extent and others have formed' (Black
Sea Pilot7, 1920, 6). Shifting sandbanks would explain both Aristotle's
statement and the soundings recorded (with such little confidence)
in the Pilot. Danov (op. cit. (in 38. I-45 8 n.), 63) suggests that P.'s
information here goes back to someone who had sailed through the
straits; but it may equally well come from Strata, who would be as
likely as Aristotle to quote evidence of this kind.
9. 86.Aa.TTa. a6ppou<; T~ no11T!f: the 'lTOJ\a.wl who held this view were
probably the Ionian natural philosophers (cf. Arist. Gael. ii. 13.
295 b 12, apxatoL = Anaximander; Eratosth. fg. iii A 2 Berger, TOV
apxa.tov yewypar{>,Kdv 'lTtva.Ka.; Agathemerus, i. 2, 3 (GGM, ii. 471-2),
using both dpxa.tot and Tra.Aaw{; von Scala, I 97). P. quotes the 'lTOJ\a.tol as
nearer in time to the circumstances attested, for throughout these
chapters he exaggerates the speed of the processes described (as does
Aristotle in the passage quoted in 40. 8 n.).
vuv lan AlftY'I'J yAuKEta: untrue. The Sea of Azov is less salty than
the Black Sea (cf. 42. 3 correctly), but it is not a freshwater lake.
According to Strabo (i. so), Strato said that yAvKVTaTTJII elvat T~ll
Iloll7'tK~v Od.Aa.TTa.v; he may have said the same of the Maeotis (cf.
42. 3). On the sweet water of the Maeotis ct. Polycleitus (FGH,
128 F 7
Strabo, xi. 509), who confused the Caspian with the
Maeotis (on this see Tarn, Alex. ii. s-rs; L Pearson, CQ, 1951, 8o-84)
and mentions that its water was th-royAvKv; cf. Curt. vi. 4 r8, there
are some who argue that the Maeotis empties into the Caspian, 'et
argumentum afferant aquam, quod dulcior sit quam cetera maria'.
See also Dion. Byz. p. z. 6--8 Giingerich.

41. I. TOU "laTpou "11'AEoa' aT6.,.aaw . daf36.AAOVTOS: the

mouths of the Danube were reckoned from the time of Herodotus
(iv. 47) as five in number, from the age of Augustus as seven.
auft~alvu .,-pbs To(hov KTA.: 'a bank has formed opposite the river,
about a thousand stades in length, and a day's journey out to sea'.
Schweighaeuser takes 'lTpOf -roih-ov to refer to the Pont us; it is more
probably 'with reference to (the river)'. Paton mistranslates ~p.epa.f
. yfj> 'reaching out to sea for a day's journey'.
2. Ka.Aoual 8' auTous In1911: they were mentioned by Strato (cf.
Strabo, i. so, 52) along with Salmydessus and the 'Scythian desert'
as already covered with shoal waters, and so evidence for the future
silting up of the whole sea.
493

IV. 41. 3

SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM

3-9. Why the silt does not accumulate near the shore. In i. 53 Strabo
asks why the alluvium does not reach the open sea; the answer is
that the refiuen t sea drives it back. He does not say that the question
and answer are from Strato; but Strato has been mentioned and it
is very probable. In that case, it may well be that Strato has concerned himself with the whole problem of the depositing of alluvial
silt, and why it should reach the point it does; of his argument P.
has reproduced one side, Strabo the other (cf. Robinson Studies, i. 473).
7. vpbs Aoyov . pEUJ.ul.Twv: 'the distance of each is proportionate
to the force with which the streams flow in'.
9. TOV TuxlwTa. xnJ.Lappouv: 'an insignificant winter-torrent'. On
XEp.appot d. Curtius, S.-B. Berlin, r888, rzr4-I5. Here it seems to be
the typical Greek beck, swollen in winter and dry in summer, contrasted with the rroTap.ol, awExws pl.ovrEs (42. r) of the Pontus area.
42. 3. rj Ma.LGJTLS yAuKUT,pa. KTA.: d. 40. 9 n. On the waters of the
Pont us cf. Sallust, Hi st. iii, fg. 65 M. ; Arrian, Peripl. M. Eux. ro; Black
Sea Pilot', 1920, 4: 'each square mile of its surface receives the
drainage of si square miles, which will account for the small degree
of saltness of its waters. The specific gravity of the surface compared
with that of fresh water is as IOI4 to xooo.' P.'s source is probably
Strato (cf. Strabo, i. so, quoted in 40. 9 n.).
4. ~s cilv 8i]"Aov KTA.: Schweighaeuser admitted that 'non satis expedio
totam bane loquendi rationem' and suggested that rrp(ls n)v XP6vov
is an intrusion. The sentence is certainly complicated by the placing
of rrpos Tov xp6vov between ov and its antecedent t\6yov; but the phrase
7rpOs TOv XP6vov is essential to the sense: 'from this it is clear that
when the time required to :fill the Palus Maeotis bears the same
relation to the time (then> that the size of its basin bears to (that
of> the basin (of the Pontus\ then the Pontus too will become, like
the Palus :Maeotis, a sha11ow freshwater lake.' In the phrase 7rpos
TOv xpovov the last word indicates the period of time up to (and
measured by) the moment indicated by 6-rav. If, for the sake of the
argument, we assume the basin of the Pontus to be three times the
size of that of the Maeotis, and that it takes a thousand years from
the beginning of the process to :fill the Maeotis, when that period of
a thousand years bears the same relation to the time then (which
will be three thousand years from the beginning of the process) that
the size of its basin (1) bears to that of the basin of the Pontus (3),
the Pontus will also become a freshwater marsh. Apart from the
clumsiness of P.'s formulation, it contains a slight illogicality in as
much as he does not distinguish between the complete :filling up of
the basin and its becoming a freshwater marsh, though clearly these
are successive stages and not the same stage in the process envisaged.
5. eaTToV 8i 'I"OUTOV U'II'OATJVTEOV: i.e. the process will be quicker than
494

SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM

IV. 43 3

the formula given in the previous sentence allows, in so far as there

are larger and more rivers flowing into the Pontus in addition to
those flowing into the Maeotis.
7. Ti\s T&iv TAo'itoj.tEvwv \(Je:u5oll.oya.s: 'the lies of merchants', not
'sea-farers' (Paton); cf. 39 II; and, for TAl>t,EaBa,, commercium maritimum exercere (Schweighaeuser), ii. 8. I, iv. 47 1, v. 88. 7, 89. 8,
xxx. 8. 5 This sense is missed by LSJ.
43-44. Advantages of the situation of Byzantium. With ~1nivLp.v (42. 8)
P. reverts to the argument of 39 6; 43 1 resumes the information
contained in 39 4-6.
43. 2. epj.La.iov: 11'poox~ is found nowhere else; Strabo uses aKpW7'1}P'&.'w in this sense. The point referred to is Roumeli Hissar, which
now bears the castle of Boghas Kessen, built by Mohammed II. Here
Mandrocles of Samos fixed a bridge for Darius (Herod. iv. 85-88).
The width is given as 4 stades by Herodotus (iv. 85, 87 f.), Strabo
(ii. us). and Dionysius of Byzantium (p. 2. II Giingerich, 'at the
narrowest point'; p. 24. 7 (Gillins); cf. 39 4-6 n.); but Strabo (vii.
319) and Mela (i. 101) agree with P. in making it 5 Dionysius of
Byzantium (p. 24. 3 Giingerich
Gillius)) calls the spot Ilvpplas
Kvwv. On Darius' crossing cf. i. 2. 2 n.
3-10. The current of the Bosphorus. See the comparable accounts in
P. Gillins, De Bosporo Thracio, i. 4 (GGM, ii. 14-16), with Dionysius
of Byzantium, p. 3 I f. Giingerich; Black Sea Pilot', 1920, 26-27;
A. Moller and L. Merz, Hydrographische Untersuchungen in Bosporus
und DardaneUen (Veroffentlichungen des Inst. fiir Meereskunde ...
an der Universitat Berlin, N.F. Geog.-naturwissenschaftliche Reihe,
Heft 18, 1928), 127 ff. The relevant passages are set out in tabular
form in Robinson Studies, i. 476-7. Authorities are agreed that the
current in fact rebounds twice before reaching the Hermaeum, once
from the European shore at Dicaea Petra (near Kire9 Burnu), and
once from the Asiatic coast, which it strikes at Glarium (Pa~a.
Bah9e) and follows as far as Kanlica. 'Tertius in Europam contra
Hermaeum promunturium' (Gillius); 'it there turns towards the
European coast, and runs along Roumeli Hissar' (i.e. Hermaeum)
(Black Sea Pilot). 'Quartus decursus fert in Asiae promunturium
uulgo nominatum Moletrinum' (Gillius) ; this is the Kandili point of
the Pilot and the Kandeli-Leuchtturm of Merz-Moller (which is mentioned next), and P.'s 'TOtS aV'Tl11'1ipa> rii> i!ala> 'T61I'OL> ( 4). 'Quintus
in Europam ad promunturium Hestias' (Gillins) ; 'the main stream
strikes the western shore at Arnaut point' (Pilot). From here,
according to Gillins, it is driven violently against the Asiatic shore,
and flows along it past the two promontories which enclose Chrysoceramum and promunturium dictum Bouem siue Damalim; 'from
Arnaut point the main current sets towards the Asiatic shore, along
495

IV. 43 3

SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM

which it runs as far as Leander tower' (Pilot). From here a seventh

recoil is made towards Byzantium; 'cuius mucrone discissus defluit
in duas partes, quarum rapidior praecipitat in fretum ad Propontidem versus, altera debilior exsilit in sinum Cornu appellatum'
(Gillius); cf. Dion. Byz. p. 3 S f. KaTd S' o~v p1Jyvup.vov rrepl airrr1v Toil
pevp.a'TOS 'TO fLEIJ 1TOAV Kat {3tawv w8et Ka'Td 'Tf}S' llpoTTOIJ'TiSOS', oaov Se
rrpati Kat 8~pas lx8vwv aywyov, {moSexe'Tat 'Tip KaAovp.evtp Kepa'TL; 'the

main current, passing Leander tower, sets strongly on to Old Seraglio

point, and divides into two branches; the southern and larger flows
into the Sea of Marmara, and the western into the Golden Horn'
(Pilot). Throughout Gillins has had P.'s account as well as that of
Dionysius before him; but he appends many details which confirm
his statement that he bases his own version on personal experience.
The Black Sea Pilot is summarizing the Russian Black Sea Pilot
but also gives modern details (e.g. that the current up the Golden
Horn is frequently lost before reaching the first bridge) and facts
about counter-currents contained in neither P. nor Gillius. Thus the
later evidence offers independent confirmation of P.'s accuracy, at
any rate for the part south of the Hermaeum. His statement that
between the Pontus and the Hermaeum the current is uniform ( 3)
shows an ignorance on the part of his source of what happened at
the northern end of the Straits, which is best explained by the
hypothesis that this source was more especially concerned with the
area around Byzantium, and indeed probably had access to information possessed by the fishermen of that city (cf. Robinson Studies,
i. 47S n. 30). von Scala (i. 196) suggests that P.'s source was concerned
with the tunny route from the Pontus (cf. Strabo, vii. 32o), and that
P. adapted it to his own purpose, the advantages of the situation of
Byzantium-a plausible suggestion (cf. xxxiv. 2. I4). P. shows no
knowledge of the reverse under-water current running towards
(though not in fact reaching) the Pontus; this is first mentioned by
Macrobius (Sat. vii. I2. 34-37) and Procopius (de bell. viii. 6. 27-28);
cf. Robinson Studies, i. 477-8.
5. Tn 1TEpl. Tn!; 'EaTLQ!; aKpa KQAOUiJ.EVa: cf. Dion. Byz., pp. 21. 823 8 (Giingerich). This corresponds to the modern Arnautk6i. Its
name is attested by Pliny (Nat. hist. v. ISo). Hesychius Illustris of
Miletus (FGH, 390 F I, 22) also records the name A.varrAovs for this
area; this is found in various authors (cf. Gi.ingerich, Dionysii
Byzantini Anaplous, p. xlvi). The strength of the current at this
point is mentioned by Gillins (GGM, ii. IS)
6. TiJv Boilv KaAouiJ.EVT)v: cf. Dion. Byz. p. 34 I-<) (Gi.ingerich). The
heaclland of Bous is usually associated with the grave of Boidion (or
Damalis), the mistress of the fourth-century Athenian general
Chares ; she died and was buried here while Chares was helping the
Byzantines against Philip II of Macedon in 340; cf. Hesychius of
496

SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM

IV. 44 3

Miletus (FGH, 390 F 1, 28-3o), and, for the epigram recording the
name Botowv, Anth. Pal. vii. 169. No other authority follows P. in
associating the name Bous with Io's crossing, but Arrian (Bithyn.
fg. 35 = FGH, 156 F 20 b) records the version that the cow is that
which led the Phrygians over the Bosphorus. The identity of the
headland is uncertain. It may be the west promontory of Scutari,
or even the small island off Scutari, which bears a tower erected by
Mohammed II (the Tower of Leander); and it is apparently identical
with the AwK~ -ns 1ri.Tpa of Strabo (vii. 320) and the saxum miri
candoris of Pliny (Nat. hist. ix. 51), from which the tunnies rebound
to the European shore and are carried to Byzantium and the Golden
Horn, missing Calchedon.
7. Tov ~<a.Aoufievov Kepa.s: the Golden Horn, the long inlet between
Stamboul and Galata, finds its earliest mention here. Strabo (vii.
32o) explains the name from the likeness of the inlet to a stag's horn
with many branches (cf. Strabo, vi. 282 for the same comparison
applied to the harbour of Brindisi) ; he makes its length 6o stades
( c. 7 miles). There is a detailed description in Dionysius of Byzantium (4. 2--9 Gungerich); see the summary in Oberhummer, RE,
'Keras', cols. 257--{)2 (with map).
To Se 11'Aeiov 'll'aAw lmoveuu: according to Strabo (loc. cit.) the whole
of the current (with the tunnies; cf. Dion. Byz. 3 5 ff. Gtingerich
87}pas lxOJwv dywyov) goes up the Horn; hence his reason why it does
not reach Calchedon is rather different from F.'s.
8. Ka.XxTJSwv: on the Asiatic shore at the southern entrance to the
Bosphorus, on a river of the same name. Traditionally Calchedon
was founded seventeen years before Byzantium (Herod. iv. 144), and
was therefore the 'city of the blind'. See Ruge, RE, 'Kalchedon',
cols. 1555-9
10. d1ToA'm:w TTJV 'II'OAw: 'missing Calchedon'.
44. 3-4. TftV ~<a.AoufieVTJV Xpuao'!l'oAw: cf.Xen. A nab. vi. 6. 38; Strabo,
xii. 563; Dion. Byz. 33 6-15 (Gtingerich). This Kt.f.Jp.7J lay on a promontory directly opposite Byzantium; today it is Scutari. Alcibiades
seized and fortified it in 410 after the Spartan naval defeat at Cyzicus.
The imposition of a 10 per cent. toll on merchant shipping was enforced by a squadron of thirty ships under Theramenes and Eumachus, and proved a substantial contribution to the costs of the
Peloponnesian War; cf. Xen. Hell. i. I. 19-22; Diod. xiii. 64. 2;
Beloch, ii. 1. 395; Ferguson, CAH, v. 345 Both Xenophon and
Diodorus agree that the toll was levied on ships sailing from the
Pontus, as one would expect; but the phrase Els IlovTov, used here,
in iii. 2. 5 and in 52. 5 (based ultimately on a documentary source),
suggests not that P. is merely writing carelessly, but that the toll
was exacted on goods tra veiling in either direction. On the economic
Kk

497

IV. 44 3

SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM

domination which Athens secured by her control of the straits see

Miltner, Klio, 1935, 10 ff.
4. To 8' ~~1rpoo-8n &.~LCiaL tca.TO. poGv: 'for the rest they entrust
themselves (or their ships) to the current'.
5. TO. tca.TO. Tov t1rlll6.n:pa. 1r'Aouv: 'the approaches on the other side',
i.e. to the south and west. Whether one is going up or do-wn the
Marmara, the European coast and route by Byzantium are the
easier. av TE ydp v6rOtS' corresponds to KaKUJ~v Bv~aVTLOII, av T.
l1ri lTTJalotr; to l1r~ Ttt Tijs llpo1roVTf.aos l:TJO'TOv, and the sentence
as a whole is cast in chiastic form. For the Etesian winds Schweighaeuser quotes Apoll. Rhod. ii. 525 and the scholiast on 528, omt.p'
,
,
'I;'- ,
,
\,
,
nOVTOV OVTS' Bopp<U
XOtJUt yap VaVTL0t OL .r.Jl jULaL TOLS ~L0'1TI\01JUL TOV
~

KaT' l~<.~:lvous Toils Tb1rovs (cf. ro). On the duration and character of

these north winds, the onset of which was a.<>Sociated with the morning rising of Sirius in the late summer, see Rehm, RE, 'Etesiai',
cols. 7I5-I7. They cooled the summer air, and Diodorus (xii. 58. 4)
makes their absence one of the causes of the famous plague at
Athens.
6. eu1Ta.pa.tc6~LaTo;: 'easy to steer'.
tca.T' ~~uSov tca.i. l1JaTOV: on their situation on the Hellespont see
xvi. 29. 3 ff.
7. lmo 5 Ka.'Ax1J56vos Tdva.vTia. TouToLs: coastal sailing would
involve a long detour round the gulf of Nicomedia, the gulf of Cius,
and the promontory of Cyzicus. On the latter see Strabo, xii. 575
t' \
'
\
)
<
(.1 ~
t
'
t th e f aC t
9 , oLO.
TO TOUS Q.V(~OUS EKO.T!iipOUS , , ('TTLt-'0/\0.S: OWing 0
that both (the north and south) winds are adverse to both attempts',
i.e. to sail from Byzantium to Calchedon, or from Calchedon direct
to Thrace.
f

45-46. Disadvantages of Byzantium by land: payment of danegeld

to the Gauls.
45, 3. -rpeis l'TTL~O.L\IOUO"L\1 t1Ti. fl)v TOUTc.l\1 xwpa.v: 'three others ...
invade his territory', TotiTwv = 'of the ruler and his people'; Paton's
translation 'their territory' suggests an invasion of Byzantine land.
6. Tl~wpia.v T a.VTaAELov, tca.TO. Tov 1TOI1JT~v: 'the poet' in P. is usually
Homer; and since he mentions Tantalus' sufferings in Od. xi. 582 ff.,
there is no reason to assume that Euripides is meant (so von Scala, 8z).
Later the phrase was proverbial, as indeed it is here; cf. Philo,
De concup. I; Lucian, Am. 53 Ta.VTaAEla> o{l(as il1To</>lpEtv. But this
is no reason for regarding the words ~<.a.nlc Tov 1TO,TJT~v as an insertion
(so Wunderer, i. 99).
10. 1Tp0t1(1TIYEVO~E\Ic.JV S r a.Aa.TW\1: cf. i. 6. 5 n. for a general outline
of the Gallic invasion of 279. A third detachment under Cerethrius
invaded Thrace (Paus. x. 19. 7) and fought the Getae and Triballi
(Iustin. xxv. r. 2); and this group, reinforced from the remnants of
498

SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM

IV. 46.3

Brennus' army, was defeated by Antigonus Gonatas at Lysimacheia

in 277 (Tarn, AG, 165). Its survivors, under Comontorius, then turned
inland to form a kingdom at Tylis (cf. Trog. prol. 25). P.'s source of
information about this kingdom is uncertain. van Gelder (g6) suggests Demetrius of Byzantium, who wrote thirteen books on tip!
Ta/..arwv [l,&fJacnv EvprlnrrJs Els J4alav; but there is no evidence that
Demetrius dealt with Tylis. Danov (op. cit. 63) also thinks of Demetrius, together with Nymphis of Heracleia (d. FGH, 162 (Demetrius),
432 (Nymphis)).
~ha.4>uyovTS
Tov 1TEpl 4EA4>ovs KlvSuvov, Ka.l Tov
'EA.A.'I]o-1TovTov: 'having escaped the disaster at Delphi reached the

46. 1.

Hellespont'. Comontorius' men had never for the most part been
members of Brenn us' force: they escaped the Delphic disaster by
being elsewhere. (Paton is misleading here.) But, as in i. 6. 5 P. is
following a tradition which identifies the campaign against Greece,
and the preservation of Greece, in autumn 279 with the small incident
at Delphi.
e.ls T~v )\crLa.v o(nc i1'1'Epa.~81Jcra.v: unlike the Tolistoagii, Tectosages,
and Trocmi, whom Leonnorius and Lutarius led across to Asia in
winter 278 (Livy, xxxviii. 16); cf. Launey, REA, 1944, 226-36.
2. TuA.w: Stephanus of Byzantium (s.v.) puts Tylis near Mt.
Haemus; Jiretceki and Tomaschek identified it with Tulowo in
Tulowsko-Pole on the upper Tonzos-Tundscha (cf. Lenk, RE,
'Thrake', coL 433). The Tylenian kingdom seems to have covered
the fonner Odrysian area ; but the coast remained in Seleucid hands
until, with the war of the Brothers, it fell to the Ptolemies (cf. v.
34 8; Niese, ii. 150 ff.). An inscription published by Balalakis and
Scranton (A]P, 1939, 4511-8) shows a Ptolemaic officer Epinicus
helping in the defences of the mainland possessions of Samothrace
against {Jdp{Japo, who may be either Thracians or the Gauls of Tylis,
at some date after 240 (cf. P. Roussel, BCH, 1939 (published 1941),
133 ff.; M. Rostovtzeff, A]P, 1940, 207; Chr. Danov, Bull. de l'nst.
arch. bulgar. xii, 1938, 216, 253; Bengtson, Strat. iii. 179).
3. iv -Ta.'ls i4>68oL<;: for l<f>o8os used in reference to the Gauls cf.
i. 6. 5 n.
nvn TPWXlMovo; . xpucroOs: the XPVGOUS is the gold stater (cf. Poll.
ix. 59), and several units existed, varying in weight between 81
and 86 g. Probably staters on an Attic standard of 86 g. (didrachms)
are indicated here, for these, minted by the Diadochi, had become
a world-currency since Alexander: each one was worth 20 Attic
silver drachmae. See Regling, RE, 'stater', col. 2I73; below, s6. 3
x.pvaot E1TUTTU.LO.
oy8o~KOVTO. TnAa.VTa.: i.e. silver talents. I talent = 6o minae = 6,000
drachmae; and since :zo Attic silver drachmae are equivalent to
499

IV. 46.3

SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM: WAR OF

I gold stater, this indemnity came to 24,000 gold staters per annum.
If the talent is worth 231 (cf. i. 6:z. 9 n.), the total comes to over
f!8,ooo.
4. Ka.ua.pov: Cavarus was contemporary with the Byzantine-Rhodian
war; cf. 52. r. On his fall cf. viii. 22 (c. 212).
5. 01To Twv tJlopwv me~oUJJ.EVOl: the extraordinary measures adopted
by the Byzantines to raise money, recorded in Ps.-Arist. Oec. ii. 2. 3
.1346 b, may refer to this period; they included sale of public land,
taxes on fishing, trade in salt, miracle-workers soothsayers and
apothecaries, a sales tax, bank-monopoly, sale of citizenship, and
(to metics) sale of the right to acquire land. But the date of the
Oeconomica is uncertain, and Rostovtzeff (SEHHW, 1287) may be
right in referring this passage to the fourth century. For how long
before :z:zo/19 the crisis had existed is not clear. The "EiiATJvfis; to whom
envoys were sent will have been the free states interested in the
Pontus trade, Rhodes, Cyzicus, Chios, Sinope, and perhaps Athens.
Cf. Niese, ii. 384 n. 4
6. vexetp11aa.v 1Ta.pa.ywyul.~eLV: P. clearly follows a Byzantine
source for this very sympathetic interpretation of this measure,
which places the responsibility on the other Greek states (cf. 38. 9-10).

47. 1. ou1 TO 1TpOEUTaVa.L TWV KI1Ta 80-Aa.na.v: on the Rhodian

naval pre-eminence at this time see Rostovtzeff (CAH, viii. 6:z4).
This pre-eminence was moral, for there was no longer a Kowov Twv
117JGtumn"' (cf. Fraser and Bean, 157-8); but from IG, xi. 4 596 (between 250 and 220) we know of a Rhodian va.vapxos- br1 Tfjs <Pv>..axTjs
T[wv v~awv Ka1] i1ri. awrt]plat 7'wv 'E>..>..~vwv. For Rhodian activity
against pirates see Strabo, xiv. 652, .,..a >..ua;~pta Ka.8fitAe KTA.; above,
19. 8 n.; Syll. 581. 51 ff., 79 ff. (treaty between Rhodes and Hierapytna) = IC, iii, Hierapytna, 3A. P. probably drew on a Rhodian
source as well as a Byzantine (perhaps, but not certainly, Zeno; cf.
Ullrich, 22); this source will have used the Rhodian record office, and
will have given details of Rhodian embassies sent at this time (e.g.
47 3 47 7, 5L 1).
5. 1TpoeaT'laa.v Tou 1TOA~TEUJJ.O.TOS: probably a;part]yol, of whom
two held office together (Polyaen. ii. 2. 7; GDI, 3059). The declaration
of war ( 6) would be passed by the assembly.
7. 1Tpos npouata.v: Prusias had succeeded his father Ziaelas in
Bithynia about 229 (Beloch, iv. 2. 213); his grievances against
Byzantium are outlined in 49
48.1. 'Ana.Aov: Attalus I was thegreat-nephewof Philetaerus, founder
of the Pergamene dynasty; he succeeded his father in 241, secured
a striking victory over the Galatians, and took the title of king. On
the successes scored against him by Achaeus see v. 77 2-5 nn.
500

RHODES AND BITHYNIA AGAINST HER

IV. 48.5

5. :Axa.uJs . :AvTtoxou <ruyyevt1s: this expression is frequent in a

purely honorific sense; but Corradi (:28r ff.) has argued that it could
correspond to a genuine relationship (as one might expect) and that
it did so here. The nature of this relationship is, however, controversial. Achaeus was the son of Andromachus, and according to
sr. 4 and viii. ::zo. I I Andromachus' sister Laodice was the wife of
Seleucus II, and so the mother of Antiochus III; this would make
Achaeus and Antiochus III cousins (so Tarn, CAH, vii. 723). However, Beloch (iv. 2. 20:2---{5) has shown that Andromachus must be
the son of an Achaeus, whose daughter Laodice (i.e. Andromachus'
sister) married, not Seleucus II, but his father Antiochus II. The
evidence for this marriage is in Euscbius (Chron. i. :251 Sch.), and
Corradi rejects it in view of Polyaenus' statement (viii. so), that the
Laodice married by Antiochus II was his OJW11'a'Tpwi dStiAcfnl (Atene
e Roma, 1927, 2r8 ff.; cf. Bouche-Leclercq, Sileucides, ii. 542 ff.), a
statement which he thinks confirmed by OGIS, 224 (=Welles, 36),
where the wife of an Antiochus is described as his d&A,P~ {jaaO.,aua.
However, it is now clear (cf. Holleaux-Robert, BCH, 1930, 245---{57)
that this inscription refers to Antiochus III and his vi'ife Laodice,
who was in fact his cousin; and it is thus further established that
'in the Seleucid kingdom, as in the Ptolemaic, queens bore the title
"sister" ' (Welles). This usage may well be behind Polyaenus, whose
testimony is thereby considerably weakened. The likelihood is that
P. has confused the two Laodices, and that it was Achaeus' sister,
not his aunt (the daughter of the elder Achaeus), who married
Seleucus II. If this is so, Achaeus was the maternal uncle of Antiochus III (so Tarn in the genealogical table iv in CAH, vii). In
addition Achaeus and Antiochus III may also have been brothersin-law, if in fact both married homonymous daughters of Mithridates of Pontus (cf. v. 43 r, viii. 20. u n.). The relevant part of the
genealogy, according to Beloch's hypothesis, is:
Seleucus I

~~--------~--L___ --- l
Antiochus I

Achaeus

,~--'--]

I
Antiochus II.
rn. Laodice I
~l

Seleucus II,
m. Laodice II

r-

Seleucus III

Antiochus

Hierax

Andromachus

Laodice I,
m. Antixhus II

~---~-

Laodice II,
m. Seleucus II

Achaeus,
m. Laodice B,
d. ofMithridates

Antiochus III,
m. Laodice A, d. of Mithridates

IV. 48. 5

SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM: WAR OF

For recent bibliography, and a defence of Corradi's view, see P.

Meloni, Rend. Line., 1949, 536-7 n. I.
6. auvuvepi~a.AE Tov TClupov: Seleucus III succeeded Seleucus II in
225 (Beloch, iv. 2. 193-6; Tam, CAH, vii. 722 prefers 226); but,
despite the words diS' Ofi:r-rov rraptA.a{Je -r~v {JafYtAf.lav, his expedition
was evidently in 223; for he had only reached Phrygia when he was
murdered (Porphyry, FGH, 26o F 32. 9, 44), and it is known that
Antiochus III succeeded in summer 223. Seleucus III's expedition
evidently followed on an unsuccessful one led by his generals, whose
defeat is recorded in OGIS, 277 (cf. 272); the dynast Lysias had
fought on the Seleucid side, and it seems probable that Egypt stood
behind Attalus (cf. 5r. 1, Achaeus' father Andromachus a prisoner
at Alexandria). Attains had gained Cistauric Asia Minor by defeating
Antioch us Hierax, Seleucus II's opponent in the War of the Brothers.
P.'s phrase l'lvat p.&.Ata-r& rrws wn TrpOupov -rwv vilv >..eyop.lvwv Ka,pci"JV
is difficult, since he is here concerned with 22o/19: but Vitucci,
38 n. I, suggests that he is reckoning back from the date of the
imposition of the duties, which may have occurred some time before
the outbreak of war. On Seleucus III's murder see Bouche-Leclercq,
Seleueides, i. 121-2: Meloni, Rend. Line., 1949, 535 Appian (Syr. 66)
has him poisoned by cptAot.
10. Tij!; TWV ox>.wv OpfLf}!; 17UVEPYOU171]!> KTA.: ol ox>..ot are the soldiers
(cf. i. 15. 4, 32. 7-8), not townsfolk (so Bouche-Leclercq, Seleueides,
i. 122 n. 2; Granier, x66); cf. Bikerman, Seleucides, 10 n. 3
12. Su.lSYJfLO. vEpl8EfLVO!> KO.l ~Clat.AEa. vpoaa.yopt:uaCl!;: it is clear from
v. 57 5 that Achaeus took this step at Laodiceia in Phrygia in autumn
220, while Antiochus was in Atropatene. Achaeus' revolt seems to
have been provoked by Ptolemy (d. Bouche-Leclercq, Lagides, i.
297~; Seleueides, i. 139; Niese, ii. 371; 386 n. 2; Holleaux, REA,
1916, 239
Etudes, iii. r31). In v. 42. 7 the grand vizier, Hermeias,
produces a letter, allegedly from Achaeus, setting forth an offer by
Ptolemy; P. calls it a forgery, but his source is hostile to Hermeias,
and it may have been genuine. Further, on Achaeus' revolting
Ptolemy released his father (cf. 51. 1-5); and in 219 Achaeus and
Ptolemy were working together openly (v. 66. 3, cf. v. 57 2), so that
in the negotiations of zr9/18 Ptolemy asked for Achaeus' inclusion
in the treaty (v. 67. 12-13 n.). For coins of Achaeus with the legend
BarnMws .Mxalov see Babelon, Les Rois de Syrie, d' Arminie et de
Commagene (Paris, r8go), lxxxvii f. and 6o f.; Head, 762; full references in Meloni, Rend. Line., 1949, sso nn. 1 and 2.
Twv i1Tt ,.a.sE Tou T a.opou ~a.alA~wv K<ll Suva.aTwv: on three of these,
Lysanias, Olympichus, and Limnaeus, see v. 90. I.
49. 3. els Tous '~'Tis :40TJvas O.ywva.!;: Athena was the patron deity of
Pergamum, and Attalus I had associated her with his Galatian
502

RHODES AND BITHYNIA AGAINST HER

IV. 49 3

victories (OGIS, 273-9. dated 226--2~3). The present passage suggests

that the Byzantines had recently accepted a Pergamene invitation
to send 8wpol to her festival; and Holleaux (REA, 1916, 170 =
Etudes, ii. 6x) took this to be the Nicephoria, the title having been
given to Athena on this occasion. Segre (in Robert's Hellmica, 5,
1948, 102-28) argued against this that the earliest application of the
title Nicephoros to Athena (OGIS, 283) dates to 201; and he reconstructed the history of the festival of Athena Nicephoros with the
following stages: (a) a local 1ravl]yvp~s with 8vala,, but no dywvE>,
first celebrated in 197 or 196, (b) a penteteric festival, not panhellenic, but attended by representatives of neighbouring cities (including Cos), held in 189 after Magnesia, and again in 185, (c) a
trieteric, panhellenic festival instituted in 181. This chronology was
proposed by Segre (op. cit. II4 ff.) on the basis of his restoration of
a Coan inscription recording a letter from Eumenes II to the city;
he suggested that the name Nicephoros was first given to Athena
after a postulated epiphany at the battle of Chios in 201. But this
implies that the use of the word N~K:I)r/;6ptov as the name of the sacred
enclosure ravaged by Philip in 201 before the battle of Chios (xvi.
I. 6, cf. xviii. 2. 2, 6. 4) is an anachronism-'celui qui devint fameux
plus tard, lorsque Eumene le reconstruisit' (Segre, op. cit. II9)-an
unlikely hypothesis. Segre's reconstruction has been challenged by
Klaffenbach (;.UDAl, 1950, 99-1o6), who offers alternative, and in
many cases more convincing, restorations to the Coan inscription;
and his article is criticized by L. Robert (Bull. ep., 1952, no. 127),
who promises a full treatment of the question in his forthcoming
Etudes pergameniennes ei attalides. It is established with certainty
that Athena received the title of 'Nicephoros' after 223 (when it
was not included in the dedications of the great trophy celebrating
Attalus I's Galatian victories); and equally the existence of the
Nicephorium in 201 dates it before the battle of Chios. On the other
hand, a cult of Athena Nicephoros is not the same as a festival, and
it is noteworthy that P. does not give Athena the title here. Hence,
though Klaffenbach (op. cit. 1o6) returns to the view of Holleaux,
it seems safer to conclude that P. is here referring to some different
festival of Athena, such as the Panathenaea, a local festival known
from OGIS, 267 ( Welles, 23), 1. 17 (a letter of Eumenes I to the
people of Pergamum). P. does not imply that a new festival has been
instituted. For earlier discussion of the Nicephoria see Kolbe,
Hermes, 1933, 445 f.; S.-B. Heidelberg, 1942{3, I, 8 ff.; L. Robert,
BCH, 1930, 332--6; Hansen, 99, 407-8.
'IwTl]p~a.: of the occasion for this festival, evidently instituted since
Prusias' accession in 229/8, nothing is known. His defeat of the Gauls
was later (v. III. 6-7); cf. Holleaux, REA, 1916, 171 n. 3 =Etudes,
ii. 62 n. 4.

IV. 49 4

SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM: WAR OF

4. Ka.Tn yi)v: i.e. on the Asiatic side where there were Byzantine
possessions (so. 2-4).
50. 1. .,.ov T~f3oLTTJV . E1Ta.ya.yovTS: Tiboetes (perhaps the same as
Zipoetas, a well-attested Bithynian royal name) was a son of Nicomedes I, and, as younger half-brother of Prusias' father Ziaelas, he
was Prusias' uncle ( 9). When on Nicomedes' death Ziaelas seized
the throne, Tiboetes was forced to flee the country. P. Treves (]HS,
1943, u8) has argued that his return from Macedon to Byzantium
was engineered by Philip V to embarrass Rhodes; and indeed
Rhodes is very soon afterwards intervening in the war in Crete on
the side of Cnossus and the Aetolians against Gortyn and the alliance
which enjoyed Macedonian and symmachic support (53 I, 55 Iff.).
There may, therefore, have been some tension between Rhodes and
Macedon now (see below, 53 1 n.). On the other hand, Philip's policy
towards Rhodes remained nominally friendly for a good many years
after this, like that of Doson before him (d. v. 89. 6-j); see Holleaux,
BCH, I90i, non. 2 =Etudes, iii. 69 n. I. Nor had he any reason to
detain Tiboetes in Macedon if he chose to leave. Hence Treves'
hypothesis must be regarded as unproved.
3. To .. 'l.;:pov: cf. 39 6 n. According to Dionysius of Byzantium
(p. 30. 3 Giingerich), the Byzantines bought this strong point from
Callimedes, Seleuci exercitus dux. Nothing further is known of this
man; but exercitus dux will be aTpaTTJyos, and Bengtson (Strat. ii. n8)
suggests he may have sold the Hieron to prevent its falling into
hostile hands, as Ptolemaic generals later sold Caunus to the
Rhodians (xxx. 31. 6). Which Seleucus is meant, and what date is to
be assigned to the transaction, is not, however, clear, for P.'Kpots
O.vwnpov xp6vots is an elastic phrase .
.,.a.s
a.o"Ti)s Ti)s 8a.>.cl..,.TTJs Epya.o-la.s: 'gain from the sea itself', i.e.
from fishing.
4. xwpa.v Ti)s Muo-la.s: it is clear from Strabo (xii. si6) that under
the Roman empire Byzantium possessed territory south of the Propontis, and west of Prusa, near the lake of Dascylium (which has not
been identified). But three Dorian inscriptions, two associated with
the worship of Zeus Brontaios, and the third (which is dated by a
hieromnemon) with that of Zeus Pratomysios, from the district of
Yalova on the Gulf of Izmid, and dating to the Empire, are evidence
that this area was associated with Mysia (as indeed may be deduced
from Strabo, xii. 566 and from Ps.-Scylax, 93 (GGM, i. 68)), and that
the name Mysia could be applied to the promontory between the
Gulf of Nicomedeia (Gulf of Izmid) and the Gulf of Cius ; and further
that this district belonged to Byzantium (d. 52. 4 n.). See the
publication and discussion by L. Robert, Hellenica, "], 1949, 3o-44;
as he points out (op. cit. 41 n. 2), it ~ill be this district near Y alova,

is

504

RHODES AND BITHYNIA AGAINST HER

IV. 52. 4

the coast of Arganthonios, which Prusia.'> now seized (cf. Ernst

Meyer, Grenzen, IIJ). When the Byzantines had acquired this
'Peraea' is not known; but wo.\.\o~s if~ xpovovs is contrasted with
p.tKpois O.vclrrEpov XPovots in 3 Niese (ii. 81) suggests that the acquisition of the territories in Mysia followed the peace between
Nicomedes of Bithynia (Byzantium was his ally) and Antiochus I
about 276; but this is purely hypothetical.
5. va.ua.pxov Eevoct>a.vrov: Xenophantus the son of Agestratus.
To commemorate his successful return to Rhodes from this voyage
a statue was set up to him by r6 'Epam8t:{wl Kowciv and his own son
VOO'TOV xapLv, according to the epigram beneath it (IG, xii. I. 40 =
Hiller von Gaertringen, Hist. gr. Epig. 101); the statue was the work
of Timocharis from Eleutherna in Crete.
9. oox fjTTov Tl~OL'f11 Ka.9t}Kew: this claim was based on the fact
that Nicomedes I had intended his children by Heptazeta (including
Tiboetes) to succeed him rather than Ziaelas, his son by his first
wife, Ditizele, and had made the people of Byzantium their joint
guardians along with Ptolemy II, Antigonus Gonatas, and the
peoples of Heracleia and Cius (Memnon, FGH, 434 F 14). But
Ziaelas had established himself by force of arms, and Tiboetes' supporters might argue that neither he nor his son Prusias had a proper
title to the throne. Cf. Arrian, Bithyn. 75
FGH, 156 F 29; Niese,
ii. 136; Geyer, RE, 'Nikomedes (3)', col. 494
51. 4. !.t\v8p6tuJ.XO'i yuva.lKO'i: cf. 48. 5 n. for the probability of
an error here and in viii. :zo. II; Seleucus II will have married the

sister of Achaeus, not of Andrornachus. How Andromachus carne to

be imprisoned in Egypt is not recorded. Beloch has suggested (iv.
r. 686 n. 3), with great plausibility, that Attalus took him in his war
with Seleucus III, and lodged him for safety at Alexandria; this
view is accepted by Tam (CAH, vii. 723) and Meloni (Rend. Line.,
1949, 543 n. :z). Andromachus' liberation after Achaeus' revolt is
some indication of the man<:euvres which had surrounded the figure
of Achaeus, and may have influenced the attitude of Herrneias
(48. 12 n., v. 42 7).
8. TOU<; epq.Ka.<; j.L~0'9wu6.j.LEVO'i: i.e. he paid them subsidies for their
help; cf. Launey, i. 378.

52. 1. OLEXOVTO<; TQ.S XE'ipa.s: 'spreading his hands between them',

i.e. to part the combatants.
3. !.t\pt8iKTJv: perhaps the Arideices, son of Eumoereas, the Platonist,
whose epitaph has survived (BCH, 1912, 230
Hiller von Gaertringen, Hist. gr. Epig. 102).
4. To 86pu tta.l. To KfJpUKeLov: cf. xxiv. 12. I for this proverbial

IV.

sz. 4

SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM: WAR OF

expression. Eustathius (ad Iliad. iii. 222 (p. 408. 4)) connects it with
the legend of the Gephyraei at Tanagra, and Wilamowitz (Hermes,
1886, 106) accepts the relevance of this account, attributing it to
the atthidographer Demon: 'Tanagras Gott ist Hermes, es liegt am
Berge KYJpVKEwv und verehrt Hermes als 1rp6p.axo,;. Offenbar liegt
also ein alter Tanagraeischer Ritus zu Grunde.' According to
Eustathius the Gephyraei marched Mvrt:s T(jJ 7TpoYJyovp.v<p 1CYJpuKtov ~>: E7Tl1TpEU{3lq. KG.t t:lp~V'JI Ka8o7TAluaVTES

ot

Kan5mv ToO>: vlous;

but this is at variance with his better elucidation of the proverb as

.
A
JI,auaa.vws, 1T Twv ap.a. 7Ta.pa.Kat\ouvrwv Kat G.1T1\ouvref ernng,
ws 't'TJ<Jt
Twv, and Demon's explanation looks like a pseudo-historical incident
invented to explain a fairly obvious image. See von Scala, 282 ;
Wunderer, i. 33-34. On the KYJPVKetov cf. iii. 52. 3 n.
Treaty of peace with Rhodes and Pmsias: probably autumn 220
(cf. 53 1-2). P. seems to follow a Byzantine source with access to the
documents, as the recording of the preamble shows; cf. too the
hiatus in 7 'TOV <Ilpou xwp(ov and 9 Kat oaa. See Ullrich, 24 ff. ;
Danov, op. cit. (in 38. I-45 8 n.) 62. von Scala (268) suggests use of
the Rhodian record office; but this would not contain the text of the
treaty between Prusias and Byzantium. The hieromnemon was the
eponymous magistrate at Byzantium; cf. [Dem.] xviii. 90 for an
apocryphal decree of Byzantium beginning 7T~ iF:pop.vdp.ovos Boarroptxw; G. Mendel, Catalogue sculpt. mus. Constantinople, iii (Constantinople, 1914), no. 838, l7T~ tepop.vap.ovos ..:ltos l:epamoos; Arif
Milfid, AA in ]DAI, 1933, 139 no. I, [l7rt] tepop.vdp.ovos ---Oo,; J48a.vtxwvTos 'TO [number]; unpublished stele, lpop.117'Jf-LDVOVTOS MTJTpooc!Jpov
Aa.atcv (cf. Robert, Hellenica, 7, 1949, 34); a series of stelae from
Rhegium, west of Byzantium, on which the hieromnemon always
features as the eponymous magistrate (cf. Robert, Hellenica, z,
1946, 154-5); and in general Robert, Hellenica, 7, 1949, 38-4o,
discussing the new inscriptions from Yalova (cf. so. 4 n.). One should
probably correct Kc!J8wvos to K68w110s; cf. Syll. 580, 1. 6, "Hp,s
K68wvos Butdvrws; ibid. n. 2; Robert, Rev. PM!., 1929, 127, improving the reading of CIG, 1936. The K68wv of Syll. 580 (c. 2oo) may
well be the same man. The treaties were based on the status quo
ante, which in the case of Prusias required detailed definition of the
reparations to be made. Why Prusias accepted such relatively disadvantageous terms is not known.
6. ls Tov ii1ra.vTa. xpovov: the first example of a treaty made in
perpetuum is that between Boeotia and Athens, 395/4 (Syll. 122 ;
Tod, 101). From the fourth century onwards it becomes common
(Busolt-Swoboda, ii. I251); cf. Syll. 588 (peace between Milesians
and Magnesians, 196), 11. 28-29, Elva fils d7TaVTa. ,.,.t:\[v xp]&vov t::lp~IITJV
Kat rfoAav MdyiiYJat Kat MtAYJalots. This inscription (I. ~) gives a
parallel for the handing over of prisoners [av]Eu Mrpov {cf. 7).
~

j06

'

--\

_,

'

RHODES AND BITHYNIA AGAINST HER

IV. 53

7. TOO'S l.a.oos Kal Ta 1TOAI'i!J.LI<Ct "~flctTa: the >.ao are probably serfs
tied to the soil (cf. Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, i. 591). For TToAEfLLKa
Wilhelm (Wiener Eranos (Vienna, 1909), 131; cf. Wien. Anz., 1922,
n defending his case against J. Tolkiehn, BPW, 1911, 995) suggests
1roAmK&; he compares Syll. 588, 11. 64 ff., and gives other epigraphic
evidence for what is a very plausible emendation. 7TOAEfLtKd. ati>p.a,Ta,
'slaves taken from the enemy' or 'enemy persons', is difficult; a contrast to Aaous is needed, and this 7ToA~nKa uwfLa:ra gives.
Ta ~ul.a l<ctl.TT]v ).~9a.v tca.hov t<pct!J.ov: 'timber, building-stones, and
tiles'; cf. 65. 4
9. To is yEwpyois: viz. the Byzantine owners or their tenants.
53-55. Events in Crete; Cnossian Hegemony and Destruction of
Lyttus
The events described in 53 1-2 are later than those in 53 s-55 4
(cf. Cardinali, Riv. jil., 1905, 522-5); for Eleutherna (53 2) is here
a member of the Cretan League, whereas in 55 4 she was still an
ally of Cnossus. It was the arrival of Macedonian and Achaean forces
which effected this change in allegiance (55 1-4), and both this and
a fortiori the war of Lyttus therefore preceded the events mentioned
in 53 1-2. It seems clear that P. was led to the transition to events
in Crete by the sending of Polemocles and his squadron in response
to the Cnossian appeal (53 1) ; and this suggests a Rhodian source,
perhaps Zenon. But whether Zeno dealt with the war of Lyttus, and
what P.'s sources for that war were, are equally unknown.
53. 1. Kv~a'o~: Cnossus lay 8 km. south of modern Candia, around
the site of the hamlet of Makrytichos; cf. Strabo, x. 476; Guarducci,
IC. i, pp. 45 ff.
TpLct 1Tpoat<a.Ta0'11'0.0'avTa'): 'launching in addition three undecked
vessels'. For Polemocles cf. 52. 2. In helping Cnossus, Rhodes was
alining herself indirectly against Macedon and Achaea, and alongside Aetolia (cf. so. In.). She may have taken this step following on
Demetrius of Pharos' recourse to the protection of Taurion (19. 7-8)
in autumn 220. Demetrius' compact with Philip perhaps led the
Rhodians to regard the latter as having inspired Demetrius' raid
in the Aegean (as indeed some scholars believe; cf. r6. 7 n.). But in
any case their long-established friendship with Cnossus (cf. van
Effenterre, 214) would dispose them to give assistance which, by
Greek custom, would not involve them in hostilities against the
allies of Cnossus' enemies.
'EAeu9epvatwv: Eleutherna lay on the north-west ridge of the range
of Mt. Ida, somewhat to the west of Cnossus, near modern Prines;
on its site see Guarducci, JC, ii, pp. 141 ff. It had previously made an
507

IV. 53

EVENTS IN CRETE

alliance with Antigonus Doson (IC, ii, Eleutherna, 2o) and will
perhaps have been especially responsive to Macedonian pressure.
2. p{Jcna. Ka.TtlYYELAa.v Tois 'PoSoLs: 'proclaimed reprisals against
the Rhodians' ; cf. 26. 7 n. on this phrase. 'Datiuus uero uidetur
indicare, Rhodiis eos denuntiasse se hoc facturos, nisi prompti satisfacerent', Schweighaeuser, Lex. Polyb., pvam.
3. ~pa.xu 1rpo To{JTwv Twv Ka.Lpwv: the \Var of Lyttus (53-54) was
probably 221/o, and the destruction of that town in spring 220 or,
at the earliest, the end of 22r. See Cardinali, Riv. fil., 1905, 519 ff.;
Pozzi, Mem. Ace. Torino, 1913, 386 n. 3; Klaffenbach, IG, ix. 12 ,
introduction, p. xxv; Scrinzi, Atti I st. Veneto, 1897-8, 1509 ff.; M.
van der Mijnsbrugge, The Cretan Koinon (New York, 1931), 6o ff.;
E. Kirsten, RE, Suppl.-B. vii, 'Dreros', cols. 143 ff.; 'Lyttos', cols.
433-4; van Effenterre, 158-6o, 185---91, 253 ff.
4. KvwO"LOL O'U!-LcJ!povt1aa.vTE<; r opTUVlOLS : Cnossus ( I) in the north,
and Gortyn in the south of central Crete, were the two most important cities in the island. Gortyn (modern Messara) lay in the valley
of the Lethaeus (modem Gerop6tamos), 90 stades (16! km.) from the
sea (Strabo, x. 478); on the site and remains see Biirchner, RE,
'Gortyn', cols. 1665-71; Guarducci, IC, iv. pp. 1-q. 'L'histoire de la
Crete hellenistique est surtout l'histoire de leur rivalite et de leurs
combats'; so van Effenterre, 150, who traces the growth of the
Cretan Koinon under the influence of Gortyn as an attempt at
a federal movement based on principles of equality, and in opposition
to the hegemony of Cnossus. The present alliance with Cnossus
marks a break with traditional Gortynian policy, and it leads to
(or springs from) civil war in Gortyn ( 7. 55 6). Van Effenterre
(159-60) associates this change in Gortynian policy with weakness
due to the ravages of an epidemic at this time. A letter from Gortyn
honours Hermias, a Coan doctor, who was practising for five years
at Gortyn (Laurenzi, Clara Rhodos, 1941, 25-38); cf. also JC, i,
Cnosos, 7 ( = Syll. 528), rrAdov<; EK TWV Tpavf-LaTWV apwarla" ov Tai<;
TVxovoms rrEpmEaEfv (referring to the same doctor).
5. o1TEp ll9os iaTi. KpTJav: for P.'s hostile judgement of the Cretans
cf. vi. 46. 3, 47 5, vii. n. 9, viii. r6. 4-7, 19. 5, xxiv. 3, xxviii. 14. 1-2,
xxxiii. 16. 5 See Wunderer, i. III; van Effenterre, 285 ff. The latter
suggests that P. is inclined to condemn the Cretans when they act
against Achaean policy; but his argument is weakened by the improbable notion that Aratus played an active part in Cretan affairs
(cf. vii. 14. 4), and that Aratus' Memoirs were P.'s source for the
war of Lyttus (van Effenterre, 148, 16o, 191, 224, 309-10).
6. Alliance against Cnossus. Polyrrhenia lay in west Crete, south of
the hill of Cisamus, near the modern village of Ano Palaeokastro;
Strabo (x. 479) makes it 30 stades (5t km.) from the sea (Guarducci,
IC, ii, pp. 237 ff.; Kirsten, RE, 'Polyrrhenia', cols. 2531-4, for the site
so8

CNOSSIAN HEGEMONY: DESTRUCTION OF LYTTUS Iv. 53 .s

and ruins). 'Cerea' ( ?) is known only from the demotic form. It too
probably lay in the west of the island, and Guarducci (/C, ii. 96)
suggests that it was the town remains of >vhich lie near Rokka, a
small village on the R. Kalenis, south of Nopfa. Lappa was an
inland town between Mt. Ida and the Leuka Ore, today Argyropolis,
8 km. from the north coast; IC, ii. 191 f. The Oreioi (there is no
rough breathing) are now known from their treaty of mutual defence
with Magas of Cyrene (/C, ii, Lisos, 1; ct. Guarducci, Riv. fil., 1938,
so-ss) ; their religious centre was the Diktynnaion of Lissus in west
Crete, and the confederacy must have occupied the area around
modern Sphakia. Cf. van Effenterre, 120-7. The Arcades were evidently a confederation of people dwelling in pagi around the hill
H. Elias in central Crete; the city-name Arcadia is much later. For
remains see Doro Levi, Annuario, ro-r2, 1931, 15 ff. 'Arcades';
Guarducci, /C, i, Arcades, pp. 6 ff. Both the Arcades and the Oreioi had
previously been allied to Gortyn, and none of these towns and peoples
was allied to Cnossus in 260 (Rehm, Delphinion, no. 140; IC, ii, Lisos,
1). Lyttus lay on a hill some distance east of Cnossus, near modern X ida
(IC, i. 179); AU,.Tos- ( Greek AvKTos-) is Cretan for 'high place' (cf. F.
Bechtel, Die griechischen Dialekte (Berlin, 1923), ii. 790). Its treaty
with Antiochus II Theos in 249 marks resistance to Cnossian imperialism (/C, i, Lyttos, 8; van Effenterre, 219); and its hostility to
Cnossus dates from the Cnossian capture of the town and its liberation
by Archidamus of Sparta in 343 (Diod. xvi. 62. 3-4).
7. 1'WV 8~ r op-ruv~wv .. 8~Ea1'a.aia.aC1V 1TpOS <i.AAT)Aous: the civil war
at Gortyn did not necessarily follow the revolt of the peoples named
in 6 from Cnossus (van Effenterre, 159, against Cardinali, Riv. fil.,
rgos, srg f.). van Effenterre, 165-72, has argued that the Young and
the Old disagreed on internal as well as foreign policy, and he quotes
Syll. 525 = IC, iv. 162, in which the JIEdTas- is associated with an
official third-century decree; he would regard P.'s vl.m as democrats.
There is one slight piece of evidence that Cnossus originally took the
lead in a democratic movement (Ephorus in Strabo, x. 481); but its
later development is obscure, and the alliance between the Old men
at Gortyn and the Cnossians is hard to reconcile with a democratic
Cnossus. Hence Willetts, r87-g1, argues that the Gortynian vEo<
were an association of the normal Hellenistic type, whose quarrel
with the older men had no reference to internal affairs.
8. XLAlou~ ~~ AlTwAta.~ O.v8pCl;: the date of this Cnossian crUf.Lf.La.x_la.
with Aetolia is unknown. But it fits the general anti-Macedonian
policy of third-century Cnossus, which goes back to the help given
to Rhodes in 305 against Demetrius Poliorcetes (Diod. xx. 88. g).
In connexion with the seizure of Gortyn by the Cnossians and
Aetolians ( g) a letter was sent to Cos, praising Hermias for his
help to the wounded ( 4 n.).

EVENTS IN CRETE

54. 6. AUTTO<; Aa.l<t!lia.Lp.ovwv p.~v O:ITOLI<O<; . apxa.LOTClT'I} 8 KTX.:

cf. Arist. Pol. ii. 10. 1271 b 24 ff., .. Ottt T~!l avyylvnav &rrotKo' yJp
ol AVKTtot nl\v AaKWvwv 'ljaav; Strabo, x. 481 (Ephorus); cf. too
Paus. iv. 19. 4 (anachronistic). Its name appears in Homer (Il. ii.
647, xvii. 6u) and Hesiod (Theog. 477); and though it shows no
traces of Mycenaean settlement (Kirsten, RE, SuppL-E. vii, 'Lyttos',
cols. 427-8 against Guarducci, JC, i, p. 179), its name appears on
tablets from Cnossus written in Linear B (Ventris and Chadwick,
]HS, 1953, 89). For other versions of its foundation see Plut. Mor.
247 c (kinship with Athens), 296 B.
55. ], 'ITlfJ-trOUO'L 1Tpeaj3ELS , , 'ITEpi j3o'l}0a.s KO.L O'UfJ-fJ-O.Xa.r:;: perhaps received at the conference held at Corinth in summer 220
(25 ff.). As elsewhere (2. II, v. zos. 3), the phrase TOv {3am.M.a KaZ
Tov<;; .11-xawv<> conceals a reference to the Symmachy; the Cretan cities
enter~~~ Kow~v aVfi-JJ-axLa.v ( 2). Polyrrhenian coins of this period show
a head of Philip idealized as Apollo (cf. Wroth, NC, 1884, 54; Hill,
Hist. Greel< Coins, no. 78).
2. 13o,lkLa.v ~a.'ITEO'Tt!LXa.v: these 400 Illyrians, 200 Achaeans, and 100
Phocians will probably be mercenaries (though Launey, i. 134,
thinks they are auxiliaries); cf. L. Robert, Hellenica, I, 1940, II9-20,
who shows that IC, ii, Phalasarna, 4, is the epitaph of a Phocian
mercenary from this time. 'Etant donne la proximite de Polyrrhen
et de Phalasarne, et Ia date que l'ecriture engage a adopter pour
!'inscription, nous pensons que ce soldat peut etre identifie comme
l'un des cent hommes envoyes en renfort en 220' (van Effenterre,
186 n. s). This passage is not relevant to the question whether the
Phocians were belligerents against Aetolia; help in Crete against a
third party would have no implications for this issue.
4. 'EXw8Epva.ous Kullc.JvLa Ta.s !1\trTEpa.lous: their accession
to the side of Polyrrhenia will have occurred in late summer 220
(cf. Cardinali, Riv. jil., 1905, 525 f.); an anti-Cnossian policy at
Eleutherna is implied in 53 1-2. Cydonia (which gave its name to
the quince) lay on the north coast of western Crete, on the site of
modern Canea, Aptera a little to the east of it (8o stades, i.e. 10
miles, according to Strabo, x. 479), beyond the headland of Cyamus
in what is now Suda Bay; it may back a little from the sea, on the
site of modern Palaeokastro (cf. Hirschfeld, RE, 'Aptera (x)', col.
287; Guarducci, IC, ii, pp. 9 ff. (Aptera), 104 ff. (Cydonia)).
5. 4>lAl'IT1Tct' 1<a.i. Toi~ )\xo.LOis trEvTa.KoO"ious KpfjTa.~: d. 1-2 n.
These troops are evidently dispatched after the clash between
Eleutherna and the Rhodians (mentioned in 53 I-2), which must
have followed the break Ytith Cnossus just described( 4). The troops
probably went to Greece in spring 219 (Cardinali, Riv. jil., 1905, 526).
for 300 of them appear at Ambrada that year (cf. 61. z); and in
SIO

CNOSSIAN HEGEMONY: DESTRUCTION OF LYTTUS IV. 56

218 they are at Larissa (67. 6) and in the Peloponnese (68. 3, 71. u).
See these passages for discussion of their numbers. The other 200
probably went to the Achaeans, and may be referred to in /G, iv.
729, a catalogue of west Cretan mercenaries at Hermione; cf.
Guarducci, Historia, 1935, 69 ff.; Robert, Heltenica, I, 1940, 154; van
Effenterre, 186 ff.
XLAlouc; Tote; AtTwAo'ls: perhaps at the end of 220, They appear in the
Aetolian army in 218 (v. 3 x, 14. 1-4), divided into two corps, of
Cretans and 'Neocretans'; these are distinct from the Cretan mercenaries of 8o. 6, who returned home. Those sent from Cnossus
appear also to have returned before the Peace of Naupactus, for
they are not mentioned again after 218. Cf. van Effenterre, 187.
6. Ka.nA6.f3ovTo TOY AL!lEVa. 'TWV ~a.LO"Tlwv: cf. Syll. 528 = IC, i,
Cnossos, 7 (letter from Cnossus to Cos honouring Hermias), ll. 15 f.,
?Tcl.\w Tl!i '}'VOJ.Lt!va> J.Uixa> 1Tt:p~ 4iaU'TOV ?T[o>..A]wv Tpavp.aniiv yt:vop.tfvwv
Ka~ wuath-w> 1ro>..A[wv KL]vOvvEvuaVTwv Jv Tal.'> dpwU'TlaL> (i.e. the
Gortynian epidemic; 53 4 n.). This refers to the seizure of Phaestus

by the 'young' Gortynians. Phaestus lay south-west of Gortyn on

a ridge between the plain of Messara and the coastal plain of Dibaki
(cf. Kirsten, RE, 'Phaistos', cols. 15-I6os; Guarducci, /C, i, p. 268);
its port of Matala lay about 8 km. to the south-west, and 8 km. north
of Cape Lithines (Creutzburg, RE, 'Matalia', col. 2179). The harbour
of Gortyn, Lebena, lay directly to the south, some 130 stades away
(Strabo, x. 478); the exiles had never been expelled from here. P.
does not record the further outcome of this struggle; but the war
seems soon to have gone in favour of the Polyrrhenian group and
so oftheGortynian 'Young men' (cf. vii. u. 9; Plut. Ar. 48. s. so. 7).

56. Mithridates of Po1ttus attacks Sinope; Rkodian Hetp

(probably 220)
Here, too (cf. 53-55 n.), a Rhodian source, perhaps Zeno, seems
likely (d. 2-3 n.). On Mithridates II of Pontus, who came to the
throne about 250, see v. 43 1~2 nn. His two daughters, both named
Laodice, married Antiochus III and Achaeus (v. 43, 74 5. viii.
20. u). P. records neither the cause nor the sequel of this attack;
and J. de Foucault has argued (Rev. phil., 1952, 47-52) that the
digression on the H.hodian earthquake (v. 88-9o n.) has been displaced from the present context, which is 'clearly mutilated'. His
argument is unconvincing. P.'s account of events at Sinope is certainly incomplete, like that of events in Crete; but this is probably
due to a deliberate policy of switching from one theatre to another
(see the statement of principles in xxxviii. s-6, especially 6. 3), and
the sequel may have appeared in the lost parts.

IV. 56.

MITHRIDATES OF PONT US ATTACKS SINOPE

56, 1. ofov apxft , , , ICQ.l 1Tpo<Jla.cns . Ti}S , aTUXLQ.S': 'this proved as

it were the beginning and alleged cause of the miserable state (cf.
21. 7, xxiii. 9 2) to which the Sinopeans were eventually brought.'
P. refers to the later seizure of Sinope by Pharnaces of Pontus in 183
(xxiii. 9 2; Livy, xl. 2. 6; Strabo, xii. 545). On dpx~ and rrporf>acM
cf. iii. 6. 3 n. Here P. means that the attack was in a sense (otov)
the first event in the ruin of Sinope, and also that it was alleged as
a reason for Pharnaces' later, successful, assault.
2-3. i8ose To~s 'Poi'Ho~s KTA.: P. clearly has knowledge of the
Rhodian decree, whether directly through access to the Rhodian
prytaneum (cf. xvi. 15. 8)-so Ullrich, 27, 59, 7J; Schulte,
indirectly through Zeno. On the Rhodian assistance see D. M.
Robinson, A] P, 19o6, 250; Rostovtzeff, C AH, viii. 625; SEHHW,
677, 1485 n. 92. Its magnitude is some measure of the prosperity of
Rhodes at this time; that she was so ready to respond to the appeal
shows, like her intervention against Byzantium, a growing interest
in the Pontus. The J,OOO gold staters (cf. 46. 3 n.) were probably
a loan, not a gift; earlier Rhodian state loans are known, to Priene
(Insch. Priene, 37, 11. 65 ff.; Syll. 363 and n. 4) in soc, for help against
a tyrant (accompanied as here by arms), and, at an uncertain date,
to Argos (W. Vollgraff,.Mnem., 1916, 219 ff.) a loan of x,ooo talents
for improving the fortifications and the cavalry. For private loans
by Rhodian citizens cf. Syll . .354 (to Ephesus. c. 3oo), 493 (to Histiaea,
c. 2.30-22o). R. Herzog (AA in JDAI, 1903, 198; cf. AM, 1905, 182)
reports a decree of Sinope found at Cos, which shows that Cos
played a prominent part in negotiating the Rhodian assistance (Cos
and Rhodes being closely alined at this time) ; but this inscription
is unpublished.
Spa.xf!-Wv OEKa.TETTa.pa.s f1up~uoa.s: silver drachmas and so worth
5 .390 (cf. 46. 3 n.).

3. o'ivou Kepcl.f1La. f1UpLa: in case of siege. The Kfpap.tov, strictly a large

wine-jar, was often given as the equivalent of the p.-rprJnjs of 8 choai,
and so equal to 2175 litres (Viedebantt, RE, tcfpdp.wv, coL 254).
Thus the Rhodian gift was equivalent to nearly 48,ooo gallons. On
the importance of Rhodian wine exports see Rostovtzeff, SEHHW,

6n

TPLXOS Etpyaaf1EV11S vEupwv ElpyaO'J.LEvWV: cf. v. 89. 9 for a gift of

hair from Seleucus to Rhodes after the earthquake. Human hair
and animals' sinews (except pigs') were the best material for torsion
catapults, and hair was sold regularly by women of the poorer
classes; cf. Tarn, HMN D, II4-15, quoting Hero, Bel. (ed. DielsSchramm, Abh. Berlin. Akad., 1918), p. no, c. 29; p. II2, c. 30.
Three hundred talents were nearly eight tons, and there were in
addition about two tons of prepared sinews. For vwpd, strand of
a torsion catapult, cf. IG, ii2 554. 1. IS; P. here uses vevpov in this sense.
512

RHODIAN HELP

IV. 58.9

va.vo'lfMa.s XLALa.s: a Rhodian panoply is represented on a firstcentury funeral monument illustrated in Rostovtzeff, SEI!HW,

plate

LXXVIII.
AL9o~opous -r~-r-ra.pa.s

Ka.i -roos A~-ra.s -roo-roLs: more commonly called

At8of36>.ot; cf. viii. S :z, ix. 41. 8, 'stone-throwers'. On the principle of

these torsion-catapults, invented at Syracuse about 400 (Diod. xiv.

42. 1), see Schramm in Kromayer-Veith, Heerwesen, zz7 ff.; Tarn,
I!MN D, 112 ff. The sending of dr/>emt is interesting evidence of the
specialized working of these machines.
5. Site of Sinope (modem Sinub): cf. Strabo (xii. 546) for the good
harbour facilities. It forms 'the safest anchorage between the
Bosphorus and Batum' (Black Sea Pilot 7, 432). P.'s description does
not imply personal acquaintance with the tov.n; Sva7Tpoa6pJLHTTov
applies only to the sea face of the promontory. See D. M. Robinson,
A] P, 1906, 125 f.; A] A, 1905, 294 ff.: Ruge, RE, 'Sinope', cols. 252-5.
8. Ti]S xeppovitO"ou TO VYJO'Ltov: 'the sea-washed part of the
promontory'.

57-87. The Social War: Events of ZI9 and the Following Winter
57. 1. A1f1..i'lfa.l-'ev O.p-r' Tov O"UI-'1-'a.XLKOv 'lfOAEI-'ov: cf. 37. 7-8; the
attack on Aegeira is thus dated to spring 219.
2. :AX~ga.vSpos . Ka.l Awp1-'a.xos: this Alexander is unknown;
for Dorimachus see 3 S
mo.v&eLa.v: modern Galaxidt on the Locrian coast, towards the
southern end of the Crisaean Gulf (Bay of Itea).
'lf).oOv i-r~pouv: cf. 6, i. 44 2 n.
5. Situation of A egeira: see ii. 41. 7--s n. The river ( 6) is the Garis,
which runs to the west of the town.
7. :Apx5a.....ov TOV na.v-ra.>.eoV'TO'ii: otherwise unknown. His father
may be identifiable with IIavmMovn Ti[J 'TTAeiaTov AlTwAwv SwafLivcp
(Plut. Ar. 33 1), who is probably Ila.VTaJ\Iwv IlenV,ov II>.evpwvtos,
five times general of the League between c. 242/r and 222/r, and
honoured by the Delphians (Syll. 621 ; cf. Flaceliere, 242 n. I, 274-5;
Klaffenbach, IG, ix. 1 2, p. l. On the Achaeo-Aetolian alliance arranged by Aratus and Pantaleon in 239 see ii. 44 r n.
8. S,a.Soc; 5L6. 'TLVO<; ~Spoppota.s! 'getting in through an aqueduct'.

58. 8. >.a.JjoVTES A~oPI-'TJV ~KM..,.a.-ros: 'taking encouragement from

their rout'; cf. i. 19. I I for ifyKAtp.a. Paton translates, 'who took
advantage of their higher position'; but in the sense of 'slope' P.
appears to use the plural TCL l.yKAtJLam (cf. v. 59 9, ix. 26 a 8).
9. :Apxsa...,.os: Casaubon corrected the MS. Llwplp.a;x.os, for Dorimachus appears frequently after this date.
C866

Ll

IV. 59

THE SOCIAL WAR

59-60. Euripidas and the Eleans attack western Achaea. Ferrabino

(157) argues that this attack, that of Lycurgus on the Athenaeum
(37 6), and the Aetolian attack on Aegeira (57-58) were all designed
to secure strong strategic points in case Philip invaded the Peloponnese. But they can equally well have been directed simply against
Achaea. Probably the Aetolian combination hoped to repeat the
successes of the Cleomenean War; and if this brought Philip into
the Peloponnese, at least it would divert him from attacking Aetolia.
For Euripidas d. 19. 5 n.
59. I. n\v t..u!la.(wv . ~a.pa.Llwv . T ptTG.LEWV xwpa.v: for the
topography see ii. 41. 7-B n.
2. U1TOO'TpnT'lYos wv: cf. v. 94 r, xxxviii. r8. 2; the scope and duties
of this office are obscure; nor is it clear whether there were several
or only one. See v. 92. 7 n.
4. T E'i:xos: on this fortress beside Cape Araxus (modern Kalogria),
on the Achaeo~Elean frontier, see Duhn, Al\.f, 1878, 76-77 ; Frazer,
Pausanias, iv. 112-13; E. Meyer, RE, 'Teichos', cols. 126-7. For the
aetiological explanation cf. 39 6, 43 6; Wunderer, ii. 44-45. Heracles'
attack on Elis followed on the refusal of Augeias, the king, to pay
him the promised reward for cleaning the Augean stables ; there are
several variants of the story; cf. Wernicke, RE, 'Augeias', cols.
2308-9. See 83. 3 n.
60. 1. 1rpos Tov aTpa.TTtyov: Aratus the younger: cf. 2, 37. 3
3. r 6pTuva.v TfjS T EA+oua!a.s : Reiske' s emendation for the incomprehensible yopyov of AR. An Arcadian Gortys is known (Paus.
v. 7 r and elsewhere); it lay 5 km. north of the junction between
the Gortynius and the Alpheius (Leake, Morea, ii. 24 ff.). But this
is far from Telphusa, and a more likely emendation is Bursian's
ETpaTov (ii. z6o); cf. 73- 2 n. Plassart (BCH, 1915, 6r) suggests
Topllvv<:ov rijs T~:Aovala.s; but this lay farther east (E. Meyer, RE,
'Torthyneion', col. 18o6). See Klaffenbach, IG, ix. 1 2, introduction,
p. xxvi; E. Meyer, RE, 'Thelphusa', col. r6r9.
6. 1TOV'lpiis E+Miou tca.t 1Tpo+no-Ews: 'a villainous plan and pretext'.
10. KO!ll8ils u1ra.pxo~O'T)'> A8la.1TTwTou: 'since they were certain of
recovering their outlay'. This implies that the federal laws allowed
for separate action by individual cities, with the right to recover
(perhaps a proportion of) their outlay from the federal treasury;
but not enough is known of Achaean finance to permit a proper
assessment of F.'s statement. See Freeman, HFG, 241-2. On the
role of the western cities as founders cf. ii. 41. 12.
61-66. Philip's western campaign (2I9); on Philip's motives see
E. Kirsten, Welt als Geschichte, 1942, 75-96; Walbank, Philip, 38-42.
He was probably concerned to open up a western route through the
friendly territories of Epirus, western Ambracia, and Acarnania, in

EVENTS OF 219 AND THE FOLLOWING WINTER IV.

61.2

order both to consolidate Macedonian influence here, and to make

it easier to reach Achaea from Macedon. Philip's slow advance may
have been partly due to his interest in the Roman expedition against
Illyria this summer (iii. I6. 7, I8-I9); but this motive has been
exaggerated (d. Tarn, CAH, vii. 765; Holleaux, Rome, I4o f.; a more
cautious but still unacceptable statement in Oost, 25).
Chronology: according to 63. I Philip began the siege of Ambracus on
hearing from Macedon of Scopas' raid; such seems to be the meaning of lrroAu)pKH, for hitherto (6I. 8) Philip merely ly[vero -rrEpi Tijv 7TapaUKiflnJV -rwv 7Tp6s Tijv 7ToAwpKlav. 62. I suggests that Scopas made his
raid while Philip was thus preparing to besiege Ambracus ; and it
is implied that it was directly due to this delay. It is, however,
unlikely that Philip spent so long preparing for the siege of Ambracus as to give time for Scopas to receive a message, march to
Dium and plunder it, and for news of this to come back to Ambracus;
and the likelihood is that Ka-ra -r6v Katp6v -rov-rov (62. I) is a loose
copula, that Scopas set out as soon as he heard that Philip had left
Larissa for Epirus (he was in Pieria before the harvest; d. 6z. I,
reading ui:-rov with Kirchhoff and Hultsch, for -ript-rov AB or -rpwv R),
and that P. or his source has distorted the sequence of events in
order to calumniate the Epirotes (61. 5, 63. I).
Source. P. clearly draws on a good source; and Woodhouse (257-8)
plausibly suggests the use of Nicander of Trichonium (d. xx. u,
xxi. 25), who was, like P., banished to Rome, where he died (xx.
II. w). In addition, however, P. appears to have had information
going back to Philip's army (d. Kirsten, RE, 'Paianion', col. 2365).
s~eAOwv TTJV eenaALaV: a detour perhaps connected with Philip's
interest in affairs at Larissa, and the instructions sent there the
previous autumn (27. 9 n.). From here his route would lie over the.
Zygos Pass and down the Arachthus to the Ambracian Gulf.
2. Tous e~ ~xatas o-cpevSovt}Tas: whether citizen forces or mercenaries is not clear (d. Griffith, 70 n. 3) ; but in view of the shortage
of men in Achaea (6o. 2, 64. I, appeals to Philip) the latter is more
likely. Separate mercenary troops are later enrolled by Mantinea
(probably in I92: IG, v. 2. 293 = Syll. 6oo; Griffith, 106; Aymard,
PR, 307 n. 5; Launey, 265). On the excellence of Achaean slingers
(said to surpass even those from the Balearic islands), on their triple
leather sling, and on their method of using it see the account (derived
from P.) in Livy, xxxviii. 29. 3-8.
Tous KpfjTas 1TEVTaKoo-(ous: this emendation by Schweighaeuser
of the MS. TptaKoulovs has been generally accepted, but wrongly,
since there are only 3oo the following winter (67. 6), and the original
500 probably includes zoo intended for the Achaean League (55 5 n.).
See van Effenterre, I87-8.

61.1.

IV. 6I. 3

THE SOCIAL WAR

3. Criticism of Philip's policy. P.'s observations seem unjust. The

Aetolians held Ambracia, Ambracus, and the Amphilochian coast
road-'les Thermopyles de la Grece occidentale' (Heuzey, z93);
without a fleet to land at Limnaea, as he did in 218 (v. 5 14), Philip
could have entered Aetolia only at heavy cost (cf. Philip, 38-39).
The siege of Ambracus was an essential part of his policy (6r-66 n.),
not an aberration induced by the Epirotes. P.'s criticism of Epirus
( s) seems to reflect an Achaean source which, in view of the new
attacks on Achaea, desired Philip's presence in the Peloponnese
(Philip, 41).
7. ~ .... ~paKo~: remains of this fortress have been found on the island
of Phidokastro in the Logaru lagoon, west of the mouth of the
Achelous; c. Leake, NG, i. 201 f., 214; Oberhummer, Akarnanien,
152, 162; N. G. L. Hammond, 'The Colonies of Elis in Cassopaea', in
.M.tj;dpwp.a ls rT]v "Hm::tpov l;; P.vrJIL'Y/v XpurrofJ I:ovATJ (Athens, 1954), 31.
62. Scopas' raid on Dium: on the chronology see 61--66 n. Feyel (145)
justly observes that this raid suggests that Scopas did not fear an
assault on his eastern flank from Boeotia and Phocis. But 1Tavo"11L"t
( 1) is not to be pressed too closely; forces were left at any rate to
protect the western approaches to Aetolia (63. 3, 63. 8}. Scopas'
detailed route cannot be determined, but he probably passed through
Tempe.
62. 1. n=piav . Aiov: Pieria was the district of Macedonia north~
east and east of Olympus, from the Peneius to the Haliacmon (Geyer,
RE, 'Makedonia', cols. 649-5o). Dium lay on the R. Baphyras
(modern Potoki), at the foot of Olympus, 4 km. from the coast, near
the modern Malathria; Strabo (vii, fg. 17) places it 7 stades from
the sea. See Leake, NG, iii. 409 ff., 419; Geyer, loc. cit., col. 662;
Philippson, RE, 'Dion', col. 833.
2. Tas aToas Td.~ 1'1'Epi. To TEjl-EVos: there was a temple of Zeus at
Dium, and Archelaus of Macedon had instituted aK7JVLKOVS aywvas
to Zeus and the Muses; for the sumptuous festival celebrated by
Alexander in 335 see Diod. xvii. 16. 3-4; Arrian, A nab. i. u. I. P.
refers here to this 1Tavr}yvpts. The remains of the theatre and stadium
(Leake, NG, iii. 409 ff.) were no longer visible to Heuzey (us). The
destruction of Dium was perhaps less complete than P. suggests;
at least Lysippus' statues set up to commemorate the Macedonian
ETatpo' who fell at the Granicus (Arr. A nab. i. 16. 4) survived to be
taken to Rome by Metellus (Vell. Pat. i. u. 3 f.; Pliny, Nat. hist.
xxxiv. 64), after his defeat of Andriscus; and in 169 Livy describes it,
after P., as 'urbem ... sicut non magnam, ita exornatam publicis
locis et multitudine statuarum munitamque egregie' (Livy, xliv. 7 3}.
It had evidently been comprehensively restored since 219.
3. K<tL TOii 8o~s 1'1'6AJ.LOV efVTJVOXWS: public opinion in Greece
sr6

EVENTS OF 219 AND THE FOLLOWING \VINTER IV. 64. z

normally secured the inviolability of temples, and P. elsewhere

condemns the Aetolians (67. 3-4, ix. 34 8), and equally Philip's
retaliation (v. II. r ff., vii. 14. 3, xi. 7. z). He also criticizes the
Phocians (ix. 33 4) and Prusias (xxxii. 15. 7) for the same fault; cf.
xxxii. rs. 13, E1To.vfjA8Ev El> T~JI olKdav, oti p.ovov TOt> dvBpw1TO<> d.Ua
~<a.i Tot> fJEo'i> 1TmoAEp.7JKW> For a similar expression cf. Isoc. Panegyr.
xs6, O.VTOV> ov p.ovov -ro, awp.acnv Tjp.wv rua KIJ.~ Tois ava.B~p.a.u
1ToA.:p.~aavTcU. See von Scala, 316, and, for the growing practice of sacrilege in the third and second centuries, Rostovtzeff, SEH H W, i. .:mo-r.

63.4-5. Crossing at Aclium. Charadra (cf. xxi. z6. 7, .:l> Xdpo.Spov)

lay on the north shore of the Ambracian Gulf, probably between the
lagoons Tsoukalia and Logaru, near modern Zalag6ra; d. perhaps
Ennius, Haduphag. 3 (ed. Vahlen 3 , p. 219). The sandy spit of land
at the entrance to the gulf on the Acarnanian side was famous for
the temple of Apollo AKTW> and its games; cf. Strabo (vii. 325), who
also makes the narrows just over 4 stades. For P.'s dimensions for
the gulf cf. Pliny, Nat. kist. iv. 4, 37 (or 39) by 15 milia passumn; but
these figures are too high. The length east from Actium is about
zoo stades; the width is less easily calculated for P.'s time o~ing to
silting from the Arachthus. Strabo's figure for the circumference
(3oo stades) is too small. See Hirschfeld, RE, :Ap.f3po.K<Ko> KaA'lTo>,
cols. x8o7-8. On the Sicilian Sea cf. i. 42 4 n.
7. <:>o~.Ttuc.;: probably the r.J>VTo. of Thucydides (iii. ro6. 2), and an
Acarnanian town, though held by the Aetolians (cf. ii. 45 1 n.). It
stood at the modern Palaikastro of the Panagia of Porta (H.
Georgios), and controlled the upper basin of the R. Anapus, an area
of great fertility; cf. Leake, NG, iii. sro; Heuzey, 359 fl., 363; E.
Kirsten, RE, 'Phoitiai', cols. 436--43, with a plan of the fortifications,
which apparently date to before Philip's attack. Since Philip returned to Macedon in July (66. 7 n.), the corn taken here ( 10) was
evidently stored from the previous year's harvest.
10. Tttv ITpa.T~e.t\v: for Stratus cf. Thuc. ii. roz. It lay on a slope to
the west of the R. Achelous, by the modern village of Sourovigli,
and was like Phoetiae originally Acarnanian. For its extant fortifications see Courby and Picard, Recherches arcMologiques a Stratos
d' Acarnanie (Paris, 1924), with plans and photographs; Zschietzschmann, RE, 'Stratos (3}', cols. 331-6.
64. 2. 04a(3AvTa ,.;, 'P(ov: 'crossing the Rhium'. This was the name
given to the straits at the entrance to the Corinthian Gulf, covered
by Rhium (T6 'Ptov T6 :Axo.iK6v, Thuc. ii. 86. 4} and Antirrhium (To
'Plov To Mo)u;KptK6v, Thuc. ii. 86. 2); today the former is the Castle
of the Morea. See Philipp, RE, 'Ftov (1), cols. 844-5, who, however,
emends the present passage unnecessarily to otaj3dVTa. (~<anl.> To
51 7

IV. 64.

THE SOCIAL WAR

'Plov (cf. xii. 12 a z); cf. Livy, xxvii. 29. g, 'fretum quod Naupactum
et Patras interfluit-Rhion incolae uocant'; xxviii. 7 18, 'ne .. inter
Rhium-fauces eae sunt Corinthii sinus--opprimerentur'. Philipp
regards these passages as evidence only for Roman usage; but in
both Livy follows P., and they therefore confirm the correctness of
the reading here, as Schweighaeuser saw.
3. wl: ~1rt M1]Tpo1ToAews KaL KwvW'IT'I]S: M etropalis was evidently on
the right bank of the Achelous, but its site is controversial. Leake
(NG, iii. sn, 576 f.) identified it with remains beneath the hill of
Lygovitzi, near the modern village of Skortous, a little to the west
of Lake Ozeros; and he was followed by Fiehn (RE, 'Metropolis (7)',
cols. 1496-7). Oberhummer (Akarnanien, 39} placed it farther south
at Rigani. But Kirsten (RE, 'Oiniadai', col. 2213; 'Paianion', cols.
2365-6 (with plan of Metropolis}; AA, 1941, 102-3) argues convincingly for placing it still farther south at Palaeomanina (d. Bursian,
i. 12o), the last site with ancient remains containing both aKpa
and ?ToAt> before one comes to Katochi, which was already in the
territory of Oeniadae. From Syll. 421 (c. 268 B.c.} it is clear that
the territories of Metropolis and Oeniadae were adjacent. Philip's
destruction of the town shows that it was regarded as thoroughly
Aetolianized, and it is uncertain whether it was, like Phoetiae,
restored to Acarnania (Flaceliere, BCH, 1935, 25-26). Canape lay
:zo stades east of the river near modern Angelokastro (on the
railway from :Mesolonghi to Agrinion) ; for remains of walls see
Kirsten, AA, 1941, 102. According to Strabo (x. 46o), Ptolemy II
changed its name to Arsinoe in honour of his 'h'ife, and made the
KWfLTJ into a 1roAt> (a statement questioned by Geiger, RE, 'Konope',
col. 1341, but accepted by Flaceliere, 7).
5. 1rpos Tt]v Tou 'ITOTO.flOU 8uxj3now: i.e. the ford of the Achelous.
For the same ford cf. v. 6. 6 and Strabo, x. 46o, Konope-Arsinoe
EV</>vw> t7TtK<tp.iVTJ 7TW> -rfj 7ov .iixe-Acf!ov 8ta{1acw. See Woodhouse,
209-10.

6. Mpoous KnTb. Tayfla. ouv'l]o'!Tuuhas: cf. ii. 69. 9 n. The formation

cnwacnrtaJI-6>, used here, allowed only one and a third feet per man.
Translate 'in close order with the shields of each company locked
together' (Capes). Philip's peltasts were a 'crack' corps of Macedonians, the equivalent of Alexander's hypaspists, and like them
used for special tasks. Their armour was not substantially lighter
than the phalangists', since at times they fought in the phalanx ; see
above, ii. 65. 2 n. For the use here cf. Arrian, Anab. i. 6. 6 (hypaspists).
8. To Tt7w AlTwAwv 4>p6vTJ!la.: 'the Aetolians, with all their
haughty spirit' (Paton).
9. Jewp(a.v: to be identified with the ruins on the hill of H. Elias
Q'Tats- Mvy8a.Atal>, south of Starnna (Leake, NG, iii. 544, 577), on the
left bank of the Achelous. See Woodhouse, r54 ff. (with photographs)
518

EVENTS OF 219 AND THE FOLLOWING WINTER IV. 65 . 4

and E. Kirsten, RE, 'Paianion', col. z367 (autopsy in 1939). It is

implied by Noack (AA in] DAI, 1916, no) that in view of the phrase
8u,>..8t1v 'Ta (]'7'Va (65. r) Ithoria must have lain at Palaeomanina to
the north of these (]'7'va (formed where the Achelous fio>l'S 'between
the western spurs of the Zygos and the forest-covered heights of
Manina' (Woodhouse, 154)); but the phrase is resumptive; cf.
Kirsten, RE, 'Paianion', col. 2365, 'jene Angabe (sc. in 65. r) besagt
nur einen Wechsel der Taktik nach Passieren der Engen, nicht eine
Lage von Ithoria nordlich davon, also vor ihnen, kann daher als
Zurlickgreifen in der Schilderung verstanden werden'. If Ithoria lay
north of the narrows, it can only have stood on the right bank (so
Lolling). for there is no suitable site on the left bank there; and this
assumption would be contrary to P.'s account.
ll. Tous Aonrous ,..Jpyous: Woodhouse (159-{)I; cf. Kirsten, RE,
'Paianion', col. 2366) identifies three of these with forts on the left
bank of the Achelous, (r) 2-3 miles north of Stamna at Dyekklesies,
(z) the Hellenik6 due west of H. Elias CM'"als Muyoa.Ata.ls, beside the
river, (3) a fort half an hour down the river towards Guria, roo
yards from the water (photographs in Woodhouse). Woodhouse describes them as clearly temporary refuges (wpyO) rather than strong
points.
65. 2. Oivul.8a.s: Aetolian since the partitioning of Acarnania (ii.
45 In.). Its extensive ruins lie on a small hill, Trikard6kastro, on
the south margin of the swamp of Lezina, upon a bay of which the
ancient harbour now opens. See B. Powell, A] A, 1904, 137-73;
E. Kirsten, RE, 'Oiniadai (r)', cols. 2204-28 (plans in cols. 2217-19).
On its strategic position see 8-Io n.; on its fortification, n n.
3. na.uivLov: Woodhouse's identification (I6I-2} with a hill bearing
ancient remains (cf. Leake, NG, iii. 553), midway between the
Achelous and the village of Mastru, on the left bank south of Ithoria
(H. Elias), is confirmed by E. Kirsten (RE, 'Paianion', cols. 2368-74,
with plan and full description based on autopsy and Noack's notes).
Kirsten makes the circumference c. soo m.; but P.'s 7 stades may
have included the lower town. The still partially surviving walls
are dated by Kirsten to after Philip's time, in view of 4, 76
'TL;'(Ol> KO.'TEUKrnpc 1TaV ds e8a.4>os. Nothing further is known of the
town; but Stergiopoulos's suggestion ('H dpx.ata. Al'TwAta (Athens,
1939), 104) that it contained a sanctuary of Apollo was anticipated
by Schweighaeuser. No coins or inscriptions survive.
4. ds axESas Ka.6ftp1'0~E ( KClt I.JUVEXWS Ka.rilyw a.uTcJ.s) Tc? '1TOTa.Jl4:i:
Schweighaeuser has a long note on this intractable passage. The
insertion of Biittner-Wobst solves many problems. But it remains
obscure how or why the KEpap.os, 'tiling', was used in the construction
of rafts; and such must be the meaning of 'Ta ~vAa. . ~ea87}pp.o~.
519

IV. 65. 4

THE SOCIAL WAR

Paton prints, but does not translate, Hultsch. For the floating of
timber on the Achelous hereabouts today cf. Bequignon, Guide bleu,
Grece (Paris, nm). 458.
5. O.a~!lAu:rn~J-EVOL TE1xaL KTA.: 'having secured themselves by means
of walls and other defences' (not 'feeling themselves safe', etc., as
Paton). The walls were built for the occasion.
6. "E.Aa.os: often placed in the marshland near the coast either at
Mesolonghi (Kiepert) or east of this on a hill near Sesti (Lolling).
But Woodhouse (144 f.), following Bazin, argues for a site on the
Zygos range (Aracynthus), at H. Elias, south of Kerasovon, on the
road from Pleuron (as shown on :Murray's map); \Voodhouse points
out that P. makes no reference to the intervening territory of
Pleuron, and suggests a typical detour to attack a fort in the more
important district farther east. The liberality of Attalus I of Pergamum is interesting as evidence for relations with Aetolia already
before 219; cf. Hansen, 46. The benefaction of a portico to Delphi
(under Aetolian control) dating from a little earlier (Syll. 523;
Flaceliere, 271) is less significant.
8-10. Position ofOeniadae. Usually the Corinthian Gulf was reckoned
as starting at Rhium; but Strabo (viii 335) makes it begin at the
R. Euenus in Aetolia and Cape Araxus, and knows of others who
(like P. here) would make it begin with the Achelous. P. exaggerates
the convenience of Oeniadae for crossing to the Peloponnese. It
faces the Ionian Sea rather than Elis, and lies 140 stades (not 100)
from Cape Araxus, and nearly 200 from Dyme. But it had the advantage over any shorter crossing farther east (such as Rhium, if Philip
could have held Antirrhium) in that it was equally adapted for
operations in either the Ambracian or the Corinthian Gulf. In short,
Philip was interested in the permanent development of the westcoast route, and not merely in a quick crossing into the Peloponnese;
cf. Philip, 41-42.
11. Fortification of Oeniadae: see Kirsten, RE, 'Oiniadai', cols.
222J-8.
I, Separate fortification of the dtadel. The IJ.Kpa was in the southeast part of the town, and had already been given some fortifications
by the Aetolians ( s) ; Philip completed these to make the citadel
a separate fortress. The remains include the foundations of walls
and five towers which probably belong to these works.
:2. Building of a cross-wall from the saddle containing the acropolis
to the harbour. This, P. says, was merely planned (.b"fXf{pEt); its
beginnings can be traced on the terrain and are marked 'a' on
Kirsten's plan (op. cit., cols. 22I7-18). \\'hen completed this wall
would have run, not directly from the citadel, but across the city
at its narrowest point (5oo m.). Kirsten (op. cit., col. 2226) argues
that its non-completion was due to a change of plan which led to

EVENTS OF 219 AND THE FOLLOWING WINTER IV. 66. 7

the fortification of the whole town with the surrounding wall which
can still be traced.
3 Harbour-fort and docks. On the north side of the town, facing
the Lezini swamp (formerly a branch of the sea) are the remains of
five ship-houses, 154 ft. by IJ4 ft., and 23 ft. high, hewn out of the
rock. Despite the arguments of Leake (NG, iii. 568), these are evidently to be identified with Philip's vd;pm; similarly the harbour
fortifications of which traces exist are probably those built by
Philip. Lehmann-Hartleben (So, uo n. 2, ns-18, diagrams on pp. n6
and II8) agrees that the ship-houses date to the third century, but
makes them earlier than Philip's fortification. This is possible but
not very likely. For two tiles inscribed 41 I A m~noY], which probably
date to this fortification by Philip, see Powell, A] A, 1904 170; for
plans and reconstructions, ibid. 227 ff. But the fullest and most
authoritative account is in Kirsten (loc. cit.), who argues that
Oeniadae presents a remarkable example of later fortification
which is precisely datable.
66. 4. va.pilv .6."11-LtlTPLOS b cl>apLos: cf. iii. 19. 8. Philip sent
Demetrius to Corinth, probably in order to secure his ship in a
Macedonian port, and also perhaps in order to avoid advertising
Demetrius' presence to the Romans, as he passed north through
Epirus. E. Kirsten has suggested (RE, 'Pleuron', cols. 242-3) that
the J7JfL~Tpto> AhwAu<o>, against whose ravages the town of Pleuron
was refounded and fortified (Strabo, x. 451), is a confused description
of this Demetrius, and that his attack on Pleuron occurred on his
voyage from the Gulf of Ambracia to Corinth. But it is unlikely that
a solitary fugitive in a lembos would have created an impression
sufficient to cause the removal of a town, and this is perhaps the
least convincing suggestion as to the identity ofA7JfL~Tpto> AlTWALK6s.
6. nEA!..a.v: the Macedonian capital (cf. xxix. 4 7, xxxiv. 12. 7),
much strengthened by Philip II and Alexander. It lay on the north
side of Lake Yenidja near H. Apostolos (Alaklisi). See
NG,
iii. 262 f.; and for an account of the ancient city, based on P., Livy,
xliv. 46. s-7
va.pa 0p~Kwv TLvwv a.oToj.L6Awv: probably mercenaries (cf. v. 7 n);
Griffith, 71 ; Launey (i. 378) is non-committal.
7. E-rri T~v Tfjs 6v6.lfHl.!; <TUYKOIJ.LOt1v: i.e. it was early July, the harvest
month in Macedonia (Kromayer, AS, ii. 21).
TO Aonrov fLrpo!; ~ 1\a.p(O'!JI:hfjye: cf. 27. 9 n., 61. In. The Aetolian
invasion had made still more compelling the need to strengthen the
southern approaches to Macedon, controlled by Larissa; cf. Philip,
40. For a further dispute between Heracleium and Gonnus settled
by Philip about this time d. Arvanitopoullos, :4px. lrJ>. 19r3, 43-46,
no. 173; cf. 46, no. 174; it is dated to Philip's third year, which began
521

IV. 66. 7

THE SOCIAL WAR

inDios (October) 220 (cf. Philip, 297 ff.: on p. 40 n. 4 'September 219'

should read 'September 22o') or, on Bickerman's hypothesis (cf.
27. 9 n.), in summer 219.
66. 8-67. 1. Synchronisms. For Aemilius Paullus' triumph see iii.
19. 12 n. The remaining events-the fall of Saguntum (late autumn;
cf. iii. 17 n.), Hannibal's winter quarters (iii. 33 5), the dispatch of
ambassadors to Carthage (iii. 20. 6 n.; March zr8), the election (or
entry into office) of the consuls for zr8 (iii. 40. 2), and the Aetolian
elections of autumn 219 (cf. iv. 37 2)-are so "Widely separated as to
be virtually worthless for chronological purposes (though the inclusion of the dispatch of the embassy to Carthage supports the
Roman version minimizing the delay). P. promised to synchronize
eastern and western events in i. 3
67. 1-4. Aetolian raid on Dodona (autumn 219). For P.'s views on
temple desecration cf. 62. 3 n. The ancient oracle of Zeus at Dodona
(cf. Herod. ii. 52) was located by C. Carapanos; see his Dodone et ses
ruines (Paris, 1878, two volumes). More recent excavation is reported
by D. Evangelides (Ilpo.K7LK&., I9JO, 52-58; I93I, 8J-i)I; I9J2, 47-52).
The temenos was entered through a door at the south-west corner,
and within the main building was the tpci olKia. (later converted into
a Christian church) ; in the ruins of this building were found many
bronze statuettes of Zeus, and bronze and lead tablets recording
queries and replies from the oracle; cf. Cook, ]HS, 1902, 5-28;
Krappe, Rev. arch. 36, 1932, 77-93; Nilsson, Geschichte der
griechischen Religion, i (Munich, 1941), 396-400. A Macedonian coin
depicting Zeus of Dodona may well commemorate Philip's restoration of the shrine after the war ; cf. Mamroth, ZN, 1935, 225 no. 4
On Dorimachus' route see Leake (NG, iv. r85), who suggests that he
followed the Achelous till he was past Ambracia, and then crossed
over into the Arachthus valley.
67. 5-80. 16. Philip's winter campaign (219/18). This was designed
to fulfil Philip's promise (66. z) and to bolster up Achaea, which had
suffered attacks from Aetolia, Sparta, and Elis during the summer.
Winter campaigning was unusual; cf. Heraclit. All. 9, a1ra.> yelp
cl.va:rra.verat 1T(JAfLO> lv XHplJvL, Ka.t 'T~V 1Tpos aA:\7}:\ovs Kt:XE>pla.v ayovaw,
ovO' <51TAa Swlir-EVOL fJacn&.~LV oih-E Ta> 1TOA~A-LKd> frrr.rypEaia.> ,PlpLV; but
Philip II had practised it; cf. Dem. ix. so, ClLW1TW Olpos Ka.~ xeLr-wva.,
~, ooSJv 8m,PlpL, otiS' uT~V ~a.lpTO> wpa. 'TLS ~v 0LO.AL1Tt:L. On Philip's

300 Cretans see 55 5 n. Like Doson in 224 (ii. 52. 8) Philip had to
come via Euboea to avoid Thermopylae. From Cynus his route
probably lay through Opus, Orchomenus, and Thespiae, and along
the road through the northern Megarid described by Hammond, BSA,
522

EVENTS OF 219 AND THE FOLLOWING

WI~nER

IV. 6g. 4

1954, ro3-zz. Whether Cynus, an Opuntian port, now belonged to

Boeotia or to Philip himself is uncertain; see Klaffenbach, Klio,
rgz6, 83; Beloch, iv. r. 63r; Tarn, CAH, vii. 744 (Boeotian); Feyel,
172 n. 2 (Macedonian). It does not follow from the fact that Boeotia
gave Philip right of passage that she was a belligerent (rJ. 5 n.).
67. 6. xa.XKoo'II"IDa.s: see above, ii. 65. 3 n.
8. Tov crrpa.Tl}y6v: the younger Aratus (37 r), probably at Aegiurn.
9. Tfjs 1ALa.ai:a.s 11"tpt To .i).LoaKOIJpwv: the ruins of Phlius lie on the
right bank of the Asopus, a little to the north-west of the village of
H. Georgios (cf. A. G. Russell, Liv. Ann., r924, 37 ff.; Ernst Meyer,
RE, 'Phleius', cols. 27r-9o). The cult of the Dioscuri is natural in
a Doric town ; the Dioscuriurn probably stood on a small hill to the
western end of the plain near Botsika, where there are said to be
foundations of an ancient building with Doric pillars (Meyer, op.
cit., col. 279).
68. 1. 'HX(wv 5Uo Mxous: the size of a Mxos- varies; for the 7TetpamLl,
Aetolian mercenaries, cf. 3 8 ff.; Launey, i. r84. Euripidas evidently
carne east into the upper Ladon valley, over the watershed between
Mts Dourdouvana and Saita into the valley of Pheneus, and thence
via the pass of Kastania (cf. Leake, Morea, iii. II4-I5) to Styrnphalus,
and over Mt. Apelaururn via the Psari valley to (modern Botsika
and) Phlius. This was the direct highland route from Psophis to
Sicyon. See Hiller von Gaertringen, AM, I9IS, 83 f.; BOlte, RE,
'Stymphalos', cols. 448 f.
5. SLEK~a.Xc!iv Tijv ITuJ.l+aX{a.v: 'passing through the territory of
Styrnphalus'. The 'rough country beyond' is the great mountain
ridge running south from Cyllene and the high land west of it. Bolte
(op. cit., cols. 448-9) suggests that Euripidas made up on to the hills
west of the Phlius valley during the night, and reached the valley
of Psari, hoping to cross Apelaururn (6g. r n.) before the Macedonians.
69. 1. T~v 011"Ep~oXTjv T~v '!I'Epl TO KaAOuJ.lEVOV ;6.11"Ehaupov: the hill
south-east of Stymphalus, modem Ft86t=v8pa, which separates the
Styrnphalus valley from the narrow valley of Psari, east of which,
over a farther ridge, lies the plain of Phlius. Bolte (loc. cit.) suggests
that the two forces clashed near Psari. Six inscriptions (IG, v. z.
351--6) refer to the ransoming of Elean prisoners taken in this battle
(Hiller von Gaertringen, AM, I9I5, 84 ff.). For Apelaururn d. Livy,
XX:Xiii. 14. IO.

4. ot xaAK<iO'TI'L8s: cf. 67. 6. On the Megalopolitan troops armed in

the Macedonian manner at Sellasia see ii. 65.3 n. The present passage,
in an Achaean historian, provides a significant commentary on the
military reputation of the Macedonians.

IV. 70.

THE SOCIAL WAR

70. 1. ~v Ti':l 1TEpl T~lV 'OMyupTov 01TEp!3oAl':l: cf. II. 5 n. Philip,

making for Caphyae, followed in reverse the route then adopted by
the Aetolians, and crossed the Pass of Lykorrhevma.
2. 1TpoijyE 8~a Tijs KAELTopa.':l w; 1Tl. Ww+i8o;: i.e. he descended the
valley of the R. Vytina to the Ladon, and advanced due west on
Psophis through the oak-forest of Soron, and Seirae. Sec Paus. viii.
23. 8 (he followed the same route); Frazer, Pausanias, iv. :z8o-r.
This part of the Ladon valley was evidently in the territory of
Cleitor; cf. E. Meyer, Pel. Wand. 73
3. Ww+Ls: on Psophis see Paus. viii. 24. r f. {with Frazer, Pausanias,
iv. 282-3); Leake, 1\forea, ii. 24r f. Its territory was coterminous
to the north-west with that of Leontium in Achaea; cf. ii. 4r. 8 n.
Psophis had been Elean probably since the break-up of the Arcadian
League, and Lydiades' seizure of the tyranny at Megalopolis; cf.
Beloch, iv. r. 6:zo; Walbank, ]HS, 1930, 67-68.
5. 1TEpt To us j3ouvou;: probably on the slopes above Lopesi, on
the left bank of the Erymanthus, due east of Psophis.
7. >.6.!3pos XELj.tnppous 1TOTCJLOS: Pausanias (viii. 24. 3) calls it the
Aroanius (not to be confused with the Aroanius near Lusi and
Cleitor; cf. Paus. viii. 21. z); today it is the river of Poretse or
Germoutsani.
8. Tov 'Epuj.ta.v9ov imEp oo 1roMs Myos: P. e1ridcntly refers to
the saga of Heracles and the Erymanthian boar, but the specific point
escapes us: cf. Wunderer, ii. 46. von Scala (74) thinks P. is referring
to Eratosthenes' poem on Hermes' wanderings (cf. xxxiv. 5 9}, but
with no justification. It is possible that (as in ii. r6. 6 on the Po) P.
is criticizing some historian who included mythical material of this
kind.
72, 4, j.tEVEW KO.Tn XWf>GV: 'tO remain where they were', i.e. in the
citadel.
5. auvayaywv To us 1Top6VTa.s TWV :4xa.Lwv: cf. 7 rY)v lKKATJalav. They
amounted to a little over 4,ooo (cf. 67. 6, 70. 2, 4,3oo in all; there were
probably losses at Psophis). This assembly was most likely a syncletos, an army assembly acting as a reunion of the people; cf. 7 5 n.;
Aymard, ACA, 234 n. 3
6. n1TEAoyaaTo T~v a.ipEaLv: 'he protested his affection'; cf.
xxi. 3 2, d7To.:\oyt~6p.EVDt T~V EVVOtav K<lL 1Tpo8vrdav, ~v 1Taplcry(T)Ta.L KTA.
7. l1rt A.a.atwvo;: Lasion, on the eastern border of Ells, lay on the
upper stream of the R. Ladon, a tributary of the Peneius. Philip
would cross the watershed from the Erymanthus valley about ro
miles below Psophis, where the course of the Erymanthus turns due
south. The ruins of Lasion still exist under the name of Kuti, near
the village of Kumani; see Frazer (Pausanias, iv. 98-roo) for a
description of the strong and picturesque position of the town in
:F4

EVENTS OF 219 AND THE FOLLOWING WINTER IV. 73 6

the fork of two ravines, not unlike that of Psophis; also for the
route, which Philip probably followed (73 2n.), between Lasion and
Olympia.
8. ot 8 11'EpL TOV Eupl1!'(8a.v a1!'ijA9ov Ets TOV KopLV8ov: no doubt the
safeconduct required him to leave Elis.
9. npoa~a.ov nu8ia.v: unknown.
73. 2. Tijv ITpchov: cf. 6o. 3 Stratus evidently lay near Telphusa,
which stood in the (Arcadian) Ladon valley, about I2 miles south
of Psophis; but it does not follow from P.'s text that as Philip came
south from Lasion he returned as far east as Telphusa, nor yet that
his main army touched Stratus, since the Eleans may well have
evacuated it at the same time as Lasion. On the district see Frazer,
Pausanias, iv. 286 f.; Meyer, Pel. Wand. 84 ff. Though previously
(RE, 'Thelphusa', col. I6I9) inclined to locate Stratus on the hills
west of Telphusa, between the villages of Rachaes and Stavri, Meyer
here (Pel. Wand. 85) states that despite various proposed sites the
ruins of the place are not to be found, and rejects the earlier identification as 'unsinnig'. It must have stood somewhere near Telphusa
in the direction of the Erymanthus, cf. Bolte, RE, 'Stratos (z)',
cols. 33(>-I.
3. 8uaa.s T(j) 8E(j): a political gesture. When Agis tried to sacrifice,
the Eleans prevented him (Xen. Hell. iii. 2. 22), Myov-rEs w> Kat TO
apxafov EL'Y} OVT(J) v6fLtfLOII, /l.~ XP'YJO"T'Ijpta{~:oOa.l TOVS' "EAA'Y}VaS' lq/
'EM~vwv TroAlfLtp' wO"TE d.8vTo<; d.Tr1)A8EV. Subsequently he returned and
sacrificed successfully (id. iii. z. z6). According to Diodorus (xiv. 17)
it was this war which ended Elean asylia (cf. 73 6-74. 8 n.).
4-5. To , :A.pTEJLtawv To l>.~oaKoopwv: the former is probably
the shrine of Artemis Alpheiaea near Letrini (probably H. Ioannes,
3 miles west of Pyrgos) on the coast road to Elis; Paus. vi. 22. 8; cf.
Frazer, Pausanias, iv. Ioo-I; Strabo, viii. 343 Philip would follow
the road through the plain owing to the greater plunder there; and
the shrine of the Dioscuri was probably on the road between here
and Elis.
73. 6-74. 8. Digression on the wealth and neutrality of Elis. P. would
urge a policy of neutrality upon Elis (74 8), reviving its ancient and
traditional asylia as a 'sacred land'. As Thommen saw (Hermes,
1885, ZI9) this appeal makes nonsense after 146, and so supports
the view that book iv was composed before the Achaean War (iii.
I-S n.). There is, however, reason to think that, like 30. sand 31. 333 u, this passage was inserted immediately before publication
about ISo, to influence policy. Between 31. 3-33. rz, where P. warns
Messenia of the dangers of excessive devotion to peace, and the present exhortation to the Eleans to consider the benefits of neutrality,

52 5

IV. 73 6

THE SOCIAL WAR

there is an apparent inconsistency. But the paradox disappears if

one considers the historical tradition of the two countries. In ISO
the danger was of Spartan action against Achaea; and Livy (xlii.
37 B-9; cf. P. xxxviii. r6. 3) shows both Elis and Messenia disaffected. But whereas the tradition of military action in Messenia
was anti-Spartan, for Elis that tradition was reversed; hence P.
urges Messene to (anti-Spartan) action, Elis to peace and neutrality.
This hypothesis finds confirmation in the tradition of the lprk
ptos ( g-ro). Tradition had it that after the expulsion of the Epeians
by the Aetolians, when the Heracleidae returned accompanied by
Oxylus, the Eleans were given a grant of immunity, which they
maintained until, after the usurpation by Pheidon of Argos, they
were helped by Sparta (who envied the prosperity which sprang
from peace) and made an end of this asylia; cf. Strabo, viii. 333, 358
(= Ephorus, FGH, 70 F us); Phlegon, FGH, 257 F I, 9 (quoting
a Pythian oracle). This was in Ephorus; but another version, also
in Ephorus, but derived from another source (Diod. xiv. 17), implied
that Elis was inviolate until the Spartan invasion of 402/r (Diod.
viii. I, which attributes the asylia to Spartan influence, is nonEphoran). Now P. here clearly dates the end of the asylia to the
fourth century, for the contest with Arcadia over Lasion and Pisa
belongs to that period (cf. Swoboda, RE, 'Elis', cols. 23<)8 :ff.), when
the Arcadians seized Olympia, held it for three years (365-363) and
reconstituted Pisa (Xen. Hell. vii. 4 28); during these years Ells
was supported by Sparta.
In fact, the asylia never existed. As Busolt (Forschungen zttr
griechischen Geschichte, i (Breslau, r88o), 2o :ff.) and Ed. Meyer (iii.
342 n.) have shown, the story arose as an anti-Spartan tradition in
the early fourth century (Meyer, Forschungen zur alten Geschichte,
i (Halle, 1892), 242 n. I, attributes it to Hippias of Ells); and it is in
an anti-Spartan sense that P. alludes to it here. In short, like the
appeal to Messenia (31. 3 :ff.), this passage owes its origin to trends in
Peloponnesian politics about rso; it also reflects P.'s study of
Ephorus.
On the wealth of Elis cf. Xen. Hell. iii. 2. 26 (Agis' invasion),
f17rtprroAAa (.LtV KT1}111J, vrreprroAAa lit avliparrolia ~AWICTO EK -rfjs xwpas
Kal. Jy,v-ro a.iJ77) ~ UTpa-rt!.la wurrEp JmutTtUf.LdS -rjj IlAorrovvf]aq>.
73. 6. O'WJJ.chwv Ka.l. Ka.TO.O'KEUT\!>: 'slaves and farm-stock' (Paton).
7. Ets aXiav: 'at the law-court'; so Meineke (Phil., r857, 371) for
AR ~Ala.v. Reiske, taking e1rL yoa> with lKavas, translated
'though they had sufficient goods to maintain themselves and two
successive generations'; but Casaubon must be right, 'though men
of sufficient substance, they have not gone ... for two or three
generations'. Keeping the MS. reading, Woodhouse (Solon the
Liberator, Oxford, I938, 2 n. 3) compares Peisistratus' local courts
526

EVENTS OF 219 AND THE FOLLOWING WINTER IV. 76

(Arist. A.P. 16. 5), which provide a good analogy for the policy here
described; but he does not explain 1],\~it:tv, for P. nowhere else uses
'Hllela of the town of Elis. Meineke's emendation contrasts the
central law-court at Elis with the local bench (,6 n UKawv azhots
bri r6nov ae~dy7]-ra). On Elean government d. Paus. iv. z8. 4,
EOvop.wrarat IIeAonoVV7]alwv.
9-10. s,o. 1'ov ~epov J1ov: cf. 73 6-74. 8 n. for this fourth-century
legend associated with the Olympic Games.
74. 1. 1'TJ'II !1\p~eO.Swv nJl+La~tlTfJClW TrEpt Aa.au';,vos Kal Tits n.a&n6os:
this digression, which ostensibly arises out of the reference to the
rich booty, in fact links up with Philip's restoration of Lasion to
Achaea. For the details of the conflict of Elis and Arcadia for Lasion
(and the other towns of the Acroreia), for Olympia (where Arcadia
usurped the games for three years), and for Triphylia, see Swoboda,
RE, 'Elis', cols. 2400 ff. Pisatis is the catchment area on the north
bank of the Alpheus .
.,.a.s 6.ywyC..s Twv J1!wv: 'their mode of life'; for this sense of aywy~ ct.
Welles, 79. no. I5 l. rs.
3. The ideal of peace. For p.erd. roil atKalov Kat KafNJKovro<; cf. 31. 8,
p.era Tofi fnKalov Kal. 1Tpl1rovros. But the criterion of what is 'just and
fitting' varies in accordance with the respective policies of Elis and
Messenia towards Sparta. For a similar paradox see xviii. 14. 6 compared with xviii. n. 4 and n. 6 (cf. CQ, 1943, 9 n. r), where the
dilemma concerns the proper attitude towards Macedonia. For P.'s
views on war and peace in general see von Scala, 3o6 ; and compare
Thucydides (iv. 6:z. z).
8. otov a.l6uy!6.1'wv E:JlJlEVOVTwv: cf. 35 7, xx. 5 4, for the metaphor.
The reference back is to 73 6, at the outset of the digression.
75. 2. 8a.M11a.s: cf. Xen. Hell. vii. 4 z6 (war of Elis and Arcadia,
315). From that and the present passage it appears that Thalamae
lay in Elis proper, towards the north. Leake (Morea, ii. 2o4) placed
it at the southern end of the Skollion range near modern Portais,
and Curtius (ii. 38 f.) sought it in the same locality; but the exact
site is not known. See E. Meyer, RE, 'Thalamai (z)', coL II93
nTrpa.y ....O.reuT0\1: 'proof against attack' ; Paton translates 'secluded',
Capes 'unfrequented', but cf. Diod. xvii. 40. 4. where Tyre is axEadv
anpa.yp.a'TEVTO~ OWing to itS distance from land.

76. Apelles' first moves against Achaea. On the clash of interests between the court party and Aratus see Philip, 44-45; the handing
over of conquests to Achaea evidently aroused the resentment of
the Macedonian landowners. The attempt to subordinate the
Achaeans militarily must, if successful, have led to their political
subordination.

IV. 76.4

THE SOCIAL WAR

4. aTaBJLwv
tcaTaAuaus: 'billets . . . accommodation'. For
billeting cf. 18. 8, 72. I, xv. 24. 2, xxi. 6. r; Herod. v. 52. I, a-ra8p.ot
re ... Ka.~ Ka.ra)uJ(ne<; KcfAA,a-ra,, See Launey, ii. 695 ff.
8. OlLO'Taa9m: 'to express opposition': on the probable strengthening
of the meaning of this word from 'dispute' to 'resist' see Welles, 327.
77. 1-8. Philip's character. The favourable picture clearly reflects
his complacency towards Aratus and the Achaeans; on his later
deterioration cf. vii. n, IJ ff. 1rpfi~ts Kat r61tp.a. ( r and 3) are 'ability
and courage'.
77. 5-80. 6. The Triphylian campaign. Philip's route from Olympia
creates a problem, of which the crux lies in the words t1rl. <Pa.patal'
( 5). The absence of the article suggests that it is a town, and in
Philip (45), following Ferrabino (r76 n. r), I took it to be Pharae in
western Achaea. But this view fails to take account of Strabo (viii.
357), in a passage the relevance of which was already dear to
Schweighaeuser. Following Apollodorus (cf. Bolte, Rh. Jfus., 1934,
335), Strabo states that Harpina, one of the eight cities of Pisatis,
through the territory of which the R. Parthenias flows, was w-; els
<P7jpa.lav a)IL61'7"Wli, 'on the road leading up to Pheraea', and continues:
~ ot tf>rJpala. ta-rt Tfj<; .i!pKa.ola.s inrepKerra' ot Tfj<; .J vp.a.tas Kal. Bov7Tpaalov Ka! "Hltt-So<;' a:rrep ea-ri 7Tpbs apK:TO)I rfi Iltadmot. It seems clear

that this Pheraea is the Pharaea of P.; and Strabo locates it in

north-west Arcadia near .Mt. Erymanthus, which dominates the
three towns mentioned. As Bolte (RE, 'Pharaia (r)', cols. r8o9-ro)
observes, the route was evidently an important one; this excludes
the view of Partsch (Olympia, Text, i. 8) that Pharaea lay in the
valley of Divri (Prinophyton), a cul-de-sac leading up to Mt. Astras.
Bolte draws attention to a track (cf. Leake, Morea, ii. n6) running
from Ai Vlasi (Vlasia, the ancient Leontium; cf. ii. 41. 7-8) east of
Erymanthus to the upper valley of the Peneius, and thence along
the left side of this valley past the monastery of Fepp.oT,dV7j, and
across the plateau of Pholoe to Lala. This route, which would be the
most direct way from Olympia to Leontium, and so to either east
or west Achaea, was, Bolte suggests, the road 1rl. t!Ja.palall, and he
would seek Pharaea either in the upper Peneius valley, or (more
probably, since Pharaea is said to be in Arcadia) at the head of the
Aroanius valley, above Psophis, which is crossed as one goes northeast towards Vlasia. If this view is correct (and it seems plausible),
Strabo describes Harpina as ws el<; <PYJpo.Cav dliLoi'TWll because the
route north to Pholoe could be reached from Olympia either up the
Cladeus or up the river of Bakira'ika, west of Mouria, the ancient
R. Parthenias; and Harpina (cf. Paus. vi. 21. 8) lay west of both
this stream and that of Viliza (Harpinates), and so on the way for
.)28

EVENTS OF 219 AND THE FOLLOWING WINTER

IV. 77.8

anyone taking this route. See the map at the end of Meyer, Pel.
Wand. (Karte XII).
On this explanation it remains possible that Philip intended to
march into Achaea, but was deflected by Apelle.s and descended
through Telphusa to Heraea (cf. PMUp, 45); but it is more likely
that the start bri rl>apalav was a ruse to mislead the enemy, like
Cleomenes' march via Sellasia and Kryavrysi to take Megalopolis
in autumn 223 (Plut. Cleom. 23), and that the assault on Triphylia
was planned well in advance. On the site of Heraca see ii. 54 12.
77. 7, T a.pa.vTlvous: cf. xi. 12. 6, xvi. 18. 7; Livy, xxxvii. 40. 13.
These light cavalry are first heard of in 316; cf. A. Wilhelm, Wien.
Anz., 193I, 89; Feyel, zoo- I; Griffith, 246 ff.; Wuilleumier, 666-70;
Launey, i. 601-2 (epigraphical references). The name indicates a style
of fighting and perhaps of equipment ; the connexion with Tarentum
is no longer known. Occasionally, and more frequently in the second
century, Tarentines are the citizen militia; but more often (and
probably here) they were mercenaries.
8-9. Situation and name of Triphylia. Precise definitions of Triphylia
vary; but it is in general the district between the rivers Alpheius and
Neda as far east as Mt. Minthe; Xenophon (Hell. iii. 2. 30) includes
Epitalium and Phrixa, and though P. does not mention Epitalium
here, it occurs in So. 13. The eponymus hero Triphylus was probably
invented in the fourth century, when Triphylia entered the Arcadian
League (cf. Eustath. ad Dion. Pericg. 413 = GGM, ii. 292. 33) ; but
the name of the district is earlier, since it probabJy indicates three
peoples (Strabo, viii. 337, their identity uncertain). For all topographical problems ;;ec the excellent map of Graefinghoff in A~llf,
1913, Taf. IV.
The ruins of Samicum lie on Mt. Kaiapha, controlling the narrow
coast road, the Klidi pass (marked Arene on Graefinghoff's map);
cf. von Geisau, RE, 'Samos (5)', col. 2218; Baedeker, Greece 4 (Leipzig,
1909), 402. According to Pausanias (v. 6. 1) an Aetolian Polysperchon
used it as a bulwark against the Arcadians; and Bolte (RE, 'Makiston', cols. 776-8) associates this with the expansion of the Eleans
(with Aetolian help) into Triphylia. The fortification was probably
built shortly after 245 (Bolte, loc. cit.; Beloch, iv. I. 6I()-2o), and not
on the site of any previous town. Lepreum lay 100 stadcs from
Samicum, and 40 from the sea. Curtius (ii. 83) put it on a ridge to the
north of the valley of Strovitzi (d. Dorpfeld, AM, 1891, 259 f.;
Fiehn, RE, Suppl.-B. v, 'Lepreon', cols. 550 ff.); but Bolte (RE,
'Triphylia', col. 192) found almost no remains here in 1909. Strabo
(viii. 344) places Hypana and Typaneae in the north, and states that
Hypana was incorporated in Elis. Bolte (RE, 'Triphylia', col. 194)
identifies Typaneae v;1:th the fortress near Platiana, at the northeast end of the Kaiapha range (cf. Partsch, Olympia, Text, i. 9;
4886

Mm

529

100

200~:mls

~~~~~~-----------L--------~~

approx.

9 ALIPHEIRA. Based on Leake (Morea, ii. 72) with adjustment of compass-points in accordance with Frazer
(Pausanias, iv. 300).
~=':uAs-

(Leake:

1TpOMTtO!!)

B~aKpo.

C=suggested site of '11poo.aniov

530

rtj~ aKpas.

EVENTS OF 219 AND THE FOLLOWING WINTER

IV. 78.3

Leake, Morea, ii. 82-84; E. Meyer, RE, 'Typancai', cols. 1796-7 for
a description). The site of Hypana is not established, for the view
which places it near Mundrisa rests on a misunderstanding of Dodwell's account by Boblage; cf. Bolte, RE, 'Hypana', cols. ns8-9
(Nachtrage). In any case, however, it lay near Typaneae. No remains
have been found of Pyrgus, which lay on the coast near H. Elias,
between the Neda and the river of Strovitzi (cf. Bolte, RE, 'Triphylia',
col. 193}. Aepium, Bolax, and Stylangiunn all lay to the north of the
Kaiapha range, since they were taken after Samicum, as Philip
advanced north (So. 13). Xenophon (Hell. iii. 2. so) describes how the
Eleans bought Aepium. It was on the road from Samicum to Heraea,
and is variously identified-near Platiana (Hirschfeld, RE, 'Aipion',
col. 1044 : but these ruins are certainly Typaneae}, in the district of
Brumasi (BOlte, RE, 'Triphylia', col. 194), and near Masi farther to
the north-west (Graefinghoff). Bolax and Stylangium lay somewhere
between Mt. Kaiapha and the Alpheius; Graefinghoff puts Bolax
near Volantsa on the Alpheius, west of Olympia; but the sites are
still uncertain. Phrixa (d. Herod. iv. 148. 4; Xen. Hell. iii. 2. go)
stood on the heights of Palaeophanaro in the bend of the Alpheius
east of Olympia, opposite Mouria; cf. Frazer, Pausanias, iv. 94
10. Alipheira lay 9-10 km. due south of Heraea, on a hill (78. 2) on
the left bank of a tributary of the Alpheius; it was in the district of
western Arcadia known as Cynuria. Cf. Paus. viii. 26. 5 The ruins
are known as Tb KdaTpov rijs NEpofl,lT~a>; cf. Hirschfeld, RE, 'Aliphera', col. 1494; Frazer, Pausanias, iv. 297 f.; Leake, Morea, ii.
71 ff. For Orlandos' excavations, his identification of the temples of
Athena and Asclepius, and the discovery of iron arrowheads, probably from Philip's assault, see A A, 1933, 232; 1934. 156--7; 1935, 199;
1936, q6. The gift of Alipheira to Elis evidently dates to the break-up
of the Arcadian League, c. 244, and the TWE> Z'oat 1rpa!Hs are probably
Elean help accorded to Lydiades in seizing the tyranny at Megalopolis (cf. Beloch, iv. 1. 620; Walbank, ]HS, 1936, 67). Lydiades would
not concede territory to Elis once the Aetolians were in alliance with
his enemies in Achaea ; and this alliance followed the accession of
Demetrius II of Macedon. On Lydiades see ii. 44 5 n.
78. 3-5. xo.AKOOY !\8T(VQS av8pLtlVTO.: Pausanias (viii. z6. 6} records
that the people of Alipheira worship Athena beyond other gods, and
have an altar to Zeus Lecheatas, since it was here Athena was born;
he also mentions the image as the work of Hypatodorus, 8las ae0V
IJ.EylfJovs 7E EVEKa. Ka~ e<; T~V dxV'YJV P. makes it the work of Hecatodorus and Sostratus; but no sculptor with the former name is known,
and it should probably be emended to Hypatodorus. Pliny (Nat. hist.
xxxiv. so) records a Hypatodorus who flourished in the hundred and
second Olympiad (372-369}; and 372 is a terminus ante quem for this
531

THE SOCIAL WAR

IV. 78.3

statue, for in 371 Alipheira was absorbed in Megalopolis (Paus. viii.

26. s); cf. Robert, Hermes, 1890, 4I8 ff.; 1goo, 193 But a Hypatodorus
who worked with Aristogeiton is known from the middle of the
nfth century (Paus. X. 10. 3; cf. Pomtow, Klio, 19o8, 188 for another dedication made by the same pair) ; and since Sostratus,
who shared in the work, is probably the 'sixth in succession from
Aristocles of Sicyon' (Paus. vi. 9 3), and perhaps the nephew and
pupil of Pythagoras, who bore that name (Pliny, Nat. hist. xxxiv.
6o; cf. Lippold, RE, 'Sostratos (8)', col. 1201), and therefore to be
dated as active about 450, it seems likely that both Hypatodorus
and Sostratus must be of that century, and the statue of Athena
likewise. Leake (Morea, ii. So) bought from a Turk of Fanari an
intaglio on an onyx representing Athena 'armed with spear and
shield, and clothed in a short tunic hanging in graceful folds over a
XLTWV 1TOS~f]S from the inscription A rH : m 0 A I A: round the figure
he took this to represent the statue of Hypatodorus, but he does not
explain his reasons. The base of the statue has been discovered:
AA, 1935. 199
1

78. 9. Sui Twwv KpruJ.vwv ~Aa.9e: Alipheira is surrounded on the

south, east, and partially on the north by the river of Fanari, and
the main part of the lower town lay on the west side of the hill.
See the sketch-map in Leake, Morea, ii. 72-73. Leake suggests that
the general advance on the hill was from the west, and that Philip
with his picked troops came up on the east to the outer citadel.
This outer citadel Leake identifies with the 1Tpoacm;.iov ( n), and
the small enclosure still visible within its south-east comer as the
aKpa into Which the defenderS retreated. This iS, however, Unsatisfactory, for 12 makes it clear that the capture of the 1Tpoacrrdov
preceded the evacuation of the walls, and this the seizure of the walls
and miA.ts. Leake's identification makes no distinction between
1Tpoa<rrt:i:ov and m1A.ts. However, in v. 59 7 the 1Tpoacrrt:iov at Seleuceia
is a suburb beside the business quarter, Stat/>epov-rws nrTetxtaf.dvov,
and at the bottom of a slope; and it was this 1TpoacrrE'iov which was
the first to fall and, as at Alipheira, its fall led to the surrender of the
city. It therefore looks as if in Alipheira TO Tijs aKpaS 1Tpoa<rretov was
a SUburb immediately belOW the aKpa, between it and the river on
the east (Frazer says south-east) end of the hill, where Leake found
the traces of a gate. The defenders of the 7TOAts and of the 1TpaaaTeiov,
fearing ]est the aKpa Should be taken from that Side, retired intO it;
and the Macedonians therefore took the 7T6Ats and its walls.

79 2. ~KAnrwv Tns T u1ra.veas: the comments on the Aetolians here

betray P.'s prejudice. After the fall of Alipheira Phillidas' policy was
to concentrate his defences in south Triphylia; hence the immediate
surrender of the more easterly towns north of the Kaiapha range.
532

EVENTS OF 219 AND THE FOLLOWING WINTER

IV. So. 15

5. CiJLa.AE~S: cf. 3 5 f., 31. 1. P. is silent on the fate of Phigaleia.

Eventually it undoubtedly returned to Achaea (Paus. viii. 30. 5;
Head, 418, for Achaean coins); but as it is never spoken of as Macedonian between 218 and 199, even where, following P., Livy is distinguishing clearly between Triphylia and Alipheira (Livy, xxviii.
8. 6, xxxii. 5 4-5), it was perhaps restored to Achaea now. Against
this the only argument is F.'s silence concerning what must have
been a concession to Achaea; and this is perhaps odd. For discussion
see Aymard, PR, 58-59 n.
80. 3. T a.uplwva.: cf. 6. 4
4. Forces in Lepreum. The Aetolians have swelled from 6oo (77. 6)
to 1,ooo, since the accession of the freebooters from Phigaleia (79 7).
The r,ooo Eleans were at Lepreum from the outset (77 7, 78. r); but
the original soo mercenaries (77- 7) had been taken by Philip at
Alipheira (78. 13, where the dupdAEta will hardly have included permission to return to :fight for the Aetolians), hence these soo are
another body, probably the Cretan mercenaries sent by Sparta and
mentioned in 6. These mercenaries do not accompany the Lacedaemonian contingent; they abandon them and return home (Els
T~v olKdav}. van Effenterre (187) would link their decision with
Philip's diplomatic activity in Crete, but there is no evidence for
this; the Cretan mercenaries may well have based their action on
wholly personal considerations.
8. ci.Kouaa.s Tel. yEyovoTa.: evidently while on the way to Alipheira
(through either Typaneae or Hypana); Philip then turned east to
cut off Phillidas.
11. ouOEv 1fA-.}v XEpwv: 'nothing but their numbers' (Paton).
Ka.Ta.'lfA.a.yEvTEi T-.}v 'lfEpW-ra.aw: 'alarmed at the situation' or 'at
their danger': probably both ideas are present (cf. StrachanDavidson, 11-12).
lA.a.A.oGv: 'they began to treat'; cf. xxxi. 12. 13; not necessarily
secretly as in xxx. 1. 6.
13. Surrender of towns: cf. 77 8-9 n. All these lie in north Triphylia,
beyond the Kaiapha range, except Pyrgus in the south, which had
held out because the Macedonians did not advance past Lepreum;
but with the Aetolians back in Elis, and Phigaleia Macedonian, it
became untenable. On Epitalium cf. 77 8--9 n.; it lay near the site
of Agulenitsa, 3 km. above the mouth of the Alpheius, on a steep
hill. See Xenophon (Hell. iii. 2. 29) for its garrisoning by Agis; cf.
Strabo, viii. 343, 349; Leake, Morea, ii. 2oo.
15. lmp.eA.'I]T-.)v AQ.SLKov: perhaps a mercenary captain in Philip's
employment. For the 7ap.EA7JT~s as a military governor see Xen.
Hell. iii. 2. n; those appointed by the Aetolians at Delphi about
2oo probably possessed both military and civil functions (Flaceliere,

533

IV. So. 15

THE SOCIAL WAR

333 ff.). Demetrius of Phalerum was brtJ.u)I7JrrJS at Athens (Diod.

xviii. 74 3, xx. 45 z), and the word often seems equivalent to l1n~
UTrtT7}S (cf. v. 26. 5), and elsewhere occurs to describe a Macedonian
office. Hieronymus of Cardia was lm~-tEA1}T~s at Thebes under
Demetrius Poliorcetes (Plut. Demetr. 39), and Cassander put Megal~
polis under one (Diod. xix. 64. r). See Ferguson, 47 n. 3 The occupation of Triphylia marks a return to the traditional Macedonian
garrison system, already inherited from Doson at Corinth, Orcho~
menus, and Heraea (cf. Philip, I7 n. :z), and it represents the policy
of Apelles and the court group (ibid. 47). It also removed all Messenian
pretext for further hesitation.
16. ~ME p.E:c:rou Xt:~p.wvo~ d~ Mt:yaATjV 1roAw: i.e. midwinter 2r9/r8;
Aymard (ACA, :zsr) makes it the end of January. Philip will have
followed the Alpheius up from Heraea.
81. Cheilon's attempted coup at sparta. The argument that Philip
instigated it (Ferrabino, 179 ff.) is unconvincing. That Cheilon fled
to Achaea does not mean that he fled to Philip. Philip's failure to
exploit the incident is not surprising; he had just carried out one
winter campaign and was preparing for another around Dyme (83).
Cheilon's connexion with the Eurypontid house at Sparta is not
known, but he based his appeal on Cleomenes' revolutionary pro~
gramme (d. 35 6 ff.). Evidently Lycurgus, the ephors' man (35 9 ff.),
had fallen short of the general hope. On Cleomenes' social policy
and land reforms (cf. 2, Tfjs ~<A7Jpovxlas x:a.i Twv dvaoa.uJ.twv) see Plut.
Cleom. n. I f.; Walbank, Aratos, 86. P. makes no reference in book ii
to this fundamental aspect of Cleomenes' programme (cf. ii. 47 3 n.).
5. Tous ilf!opous St:L11VOuVTa.s . Ka.-rE:c:rlf!a.~t:: as did Cleomenes
(Plut. Cleom. 8) ; if they were caught at mess there was less chance
of one escaping. For T~V apJ.tO,ovuav . oll<1}v cf. 35 IS n.; the ephors
had accepted bribes to set Lycurgus on the throne. For Tyche as
the power which assigns a condign punishment cf. i. 84. ro n.
7. TTJV nEAATjvTjv: cf. xvi. 37 5; Strabo, viiL 386 (Td. fliAAa .. a);
Paus. iii. 21. 2. Together with two other unnamed towns the perioecic
town of Pellana is to be located in the Eurotas valley, north~west of
Sparta, where the road to Megalopolis strikes away from the river,
somewhere in the neighbourhood of Kal:Yvia (Giorgitsi); together
they formed the Laconian Tripolis (Livy, xxxv. 27. 9), an area well
to the south~east of the Arcadian frontier (cf. Bolte, RE, 'Sparta',
col. 1319). Though various proposals have been made for the location
of Pellana (cf. Loring, JHS, r8gs, 44 f.; Leake, Morea, iii. IJ; Frazer,
Pau,sanias, iii. 37o~I), its site remains undiscovered (Bolte, RE,
'Pellana (r)', cols. 351-2).
11. TO :49Tjva.~ov: cf. 6o. 3 ii. 46. 6 n.
12. Ka.AAltM'n 1roXm:y.: on the excellence of the Lycurgan 'mixed'
534

EVENTS OF 219 AND THE FOLLOWING WINTER

IV. 82.8

constitution cf. vi. 3 8, Io. I ff., 48. I-5; on the battle of Leuctra,
i. 6. I, ii. 39 8 n. Tyche is here pictured as acting capriciously against
Sparta; cf. xv. 20. 5, xvi. 32. 5, xxxii. 4 3; Walbank, CQ, 1945, 6 n. 3
Mioni (r4r n. 15) supposes that this is an example of condign punishment; but P. does not suggest that Sparta deserved defeat at
Leuctra or her subsequent disasters.
13. ws rijs N.i~~Sos Tupa.vvSos: on Nabis see xiii. 6. Sparta had been
the traditional opponent of tyranny, from the time of the expulsion
of the Peisistratids from Athens; and she had herself never suffered
a tyrant (cf. Isoc. Panath. 259).
14. Ta ~v o~v 'll'liAa.' Ki Ta 'II'Ac::Cw K1'A.: 'however, the ancient history
of Sparta, and still more (r~:l 'ITAelw) these (recent events) have been
recounted by many writers, who have stressed both aspects'; ,.a
'ITaAa.' is evidently contrasted with ,.a.&e. For P.'s Achaean interpretation of what Cleomenes represented as a return to the Lycurgan
constitution see ii. 47 3 n.
vuv S' u~ t]~wv P"l8iJac::T(I.\ I<TA.: 'and in fact I shall speak of it on
appropriate occasions', viz. in relation to the difficulties which arose
between Sparta and the Achaean League during the second century.
82. 1. Ka.T.i TE ff)v Ao~~v O.va.~YTpo~v: 'for his behaviour in general'.
3. To us 1rc::pi 1'0v Jl.pa.1'ov: here this clumsy periphrasis appears to
include both the father and the son.
'II'Epi TOUTous E'II'E~O.AETO yvEa8~: 'he planned to attack them' (a
meaning not in LSJ).
5. Ka.Ta TTJV lyypa.'TI'Tov au~~a.xv: i.e. the terms of the Symmachy
founded in 224, which regularized relations between Achaea and
Macedon, and will have superseded the arrangements entered into
during the Cleomenean War (ii. sr. 5 n.).
7. 'll'pos ,.a,, Twv :<\x~v O.pxl.flEa{a.s: allowing some time for
Apelles' manreuvres at Argos (confirmed by 82. r, where, however,
ro ltom6v p.lpos ,..oo xe,p.wvos is an exaggeration), the elections will be
approximately at the end of February. For these there was no fixed
date, though February was unusually late; cf. Aymard, ACA, 251,
26o, 'chaque assemblee electorate constitue un cas individuel qu'il
faut tenter de resoudre avec les seules donnees chronologiques qui
lui sont propres et qui ne peut ~tre enferme, en vertn de la conception
achaienne, que dans de larges limites'.
8. E~pa.1'ov llpa.&Ea.: despite his custom of standing for the
generalship every other year (successive offices being illegal, Plut.
A rat. 24. 5), Aratus this year put up a supporter Timoxenus, who
had previously held office in his place in 225/4 (Plut. Cleom. 15. I ;
Arat. 38. 2). The election of Eperatus suggests that Apelles had
gained the support of the cities of western Achaea, which had received no adequate support against Elis; he may also have won the
535

IV. 82.8

THE SOCIAL WAR

popular elements in Argos, a city which was cleft by class feeling

even in the fourth century (Diod. xv. 57 3-58. 4; Isoc. Phil. 52), and
in which Philip had spent much of the winter. See Ferrabino, I8I ff.;
Walbank, Philip, 47-48. On Philip's concern for western Achaea
see 83. 5 n.
83. 1. -ro ~poop,ov TEixos: cf. 59 4 n.
3. tju~a.AlO'j.LEVOV s,a.~Ep6v-rC&JS: cf. Frazer, Pausanias, iv. II3,
'The fortress seems to have had only one entrance, which faces the
sea, and is approached by a difficult and winding path. The summit
of the rocky hill, about Ioo yards long, is enclosed by a thick wall
faced with great, unhewn stones, put together without cement; the
core of the wall, between the facings, is composed of rubble and
mortar. On the side of the sea this wall is fifteen feet thick'.
5. e'll'a.vfjME ets -r.f]v .f.vtJo'lV: to this period must be assigned Syll.
529, which records a grant of Dymaean citizenship to various foreign
soldiers avp1ToAep:l]uaVTes 7'bp. m>A<pov, probably the mercenaries of
6o. 5 Feyel (295) has discussed this inscription in reference to other
evidence bearing on Philip's concern for the population problem in
Macedonian and allied territory (at Larissa, Pharsalus, andPhalanna).
84. l. !t\j.L~f8a.j.Lo~: cf. 75 6.
5. eAEu9f:pous 'll'olu-rEVtJoO.<n: cf. :25. 6 n.
85. 3. uuva.ya.ywv Tou~ !1\xa.lovs: cf. v. I. 6. It appears that either
at the time of the agreement with Doson, or subsequently on the
setting up of the Symmachy, the Achaeans had passed a law empowering the king of Macedon to call an assembly through the agency
of the magistrates. A similar right was later accorded to Rome. Cf.
Aymard, ACA, zoo f.; Walbank, Philip, I6 n. I.

86. 8. Tov tJoEV )\pa.Tov ~ea.-r,sou: clearly the Achaean version of

the incident; the next sentence shows that Aratus was only partially
reinstated. For an assessment of the situation see Philip, 49
87. 5. Tov e'll't TTJS' 9epa.'l!'ela.s TE'ra.yJJlvov )\]l.ea.v8pov: probably the
Alexander mentioned in ii. 66. 7. 68. I-2. 8!!p0.1Tla (cf. v. s6. 7. 6g. 6)
is the technical term for the Hellenistic court (d. Bikerman, Sileucides, 36 n. 3). But since the court included the f/ac:n:N.Ko17Taf8es, who
acted as a royal guard (cf. Corradi, :297-8), Alexander's post as
Chamberlain included the command of the Bodyguard (cf. Diod.
xviii. 27. I); and in v. 6g. 6 8tpa71Ela seems to mean 'bodyguard'. See
Beloch, iv. I. 387; Berve, i. 25.
8. ~v To is ~mTpovoL~: i.e. Apelles, Leontius, Megaleas, Taurion, and
Alexander. On Philip's peltasts cf. ii. 65. 2 n., iv. 64. 6 n. Megaleas,
536

EVENTS OF 219 AND THE FOLLOWING WI:NTER

IV. 87.13

~'";. ToiJ ypap.p.au.lov, was Secretary of State, with charge over the
chancellery (a post often known as that of ~rru:rroAoypac/los) cf. xxx.
25. 16 (Seleucid), xv. 27. 7, N~~ror:rrpaTcp ,.<? Trpos -rois yp&.p.p.aat TE-rayp.lvcp (Ptolemaic). He was responsible for all official correspondence,
though this was sent in the king's name. See Beloch, iv. 1. 386-7;
Bikennan, Seleucides, 196-7; Welles, xxxvii-xli.
13. TT)v 'lTttpaxELtJ.a.ala.v i1rolEl: i.e. the remainder of the winter; it
must by now have been late February or early March; cf. Aymard,
ACA, 251-2. On Philip's 0..ot see v. 2. 1 n.

537

BOOK V
1-30.7. The Social War: Events of n8
1.1. Achaean general year: cf. iv. 37 2. About this date, and at this
latitude, the Pleiades, or rather the principal star in the constellation, TJ Bull, rose on 22 May (F. K. Ginzel, Handbuck der mathematischen ur&d techniscken Chronologie, ii (Leipzig, 1911), 520; cf.
Beloch, iv. 2. 22o; Aymard, ACA, 252 n. 3); but, as Aymard observes, the change of office is dated only approximately, as occurring
round about that date. The change in date for the entry into office,
hinted at in TOre, cannot be dated with certainty. Philopoemen
entered his first tenure of office in autumn 2o8 (d. xi. 10. 9; Aymard,
ACA, 240 n.) and this was subsequently the normal date. See further
106. 1-3 n. On Eperatus of Pharae see iv. 82. 8.
2. awpt ....o.xos: elected in autumn 219; cf. iv. 67. I.
3. ::A_vv(~O.'l ~"rlPXETO Tij'l '!Topeo.g Tij'l E~S 'ITo.Alo.v: cf. iii.
34 6 n. Hannibal left New Carthage about the end of April; but the

words &.pxop,l.v7Js rfi> Oep<:{as are vague, and may refer either to
leaving New Carthage or to crossing the Ebro.
4. IE!lvpwv~ov Kopvt]~~": on the departure of the consuls cf.
iii. 40. 2, 41. 2 n. It was in August.
5. ::A.vTlOXO'l , , , KO.l nTo~E!LUiog , ~'lll)pxovTO '!TO~E!LElV aAA'I\AotS;
cf. 68.

I.

6. auvijyE To us ::A.xo.tous Ets tKK~l}a(o.v: i.e. to a syncletos, an

extraordinary meeting (Aymard, ACA, 3o8 f.). On the right of the
Macedonian king to summon an assembly cf. iv. 85. 3 n. Originally
syncletoi as well as synodoi met at Aegium; but this was not a legal
obligation. KaTtt Toi.ls v6p,ou> ( 7) is simply 'in accordance with
tradition' ; cf. Larsen, 168.
10-12. Financial agreement between Philip and Achaea. The phrase
els TI,v 'TI'pun;lv dva~Vf'liv may mean either pro prima expe4itione (i.e.
for the winter campaign of 219/18: iv. 67. 6 ff.)-so Schweighaeuser,
Paton, and Cardona-or (with Casaubon and Aymard, ACA, 252
n. 4) quo die primum castra rex moueret. Convinced by Aymard's
argument that the so talents, like the corn, must be for the future,
I took the sense (Philip, so n. 3) to be, 'the Achaeans resolved that
as soon as Philip struck camp {i.e. in 218) they would give him
immediately so talents to serve as three months' pay for his army,
and in addition would give him 1o,ooo medimni of corn', But equally
well the sense may be, 'the Achaeans resolved (a) to pay him so
talents immediately for his first campaign, (b) to support his troops
for three months, and (c) to
him in addition Io,ooo medimni of
538

THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218

V. z.6

corn'. The so talents would then be quite distinct from the future
undertaking, and Aymard's argument would have no weight. On
the other hand, Aratus' eagerness to divert Philip from the Peloponnese once the threat from Sparta and Elis had diminished (S 8),
would gain additional motivation if a Macedonian expedition in the
Peloponnese was to cost the Achaeans I7 talents a month at once.
Ferrabino (192 n. 1) argues that P. meant to say that the so talents
were for the future, but that they were in fact recompense for the
past ; but it seems safer to stick to what P. says, lacking in clarity
though this certainly is. For discussion of rates of pay see Launey,
ii. 760.
11. JLUpui8a.s ABE, Jlupu18a. CD: Hultsch and Buttner-Wobst read
~J-Vp/J.Bas and supply 'each month' ; but alTov ~J-Vpt&oac; would normally
mean 'tens of thousands of bushels of corn', indicating a vague but
large number. It seems preferable to read fJ-I.Iptd.Oa with Schweighaeuser, Ferrabino (192 n. 1), and Launey (ii. 729).
12. EW\l liv Trapwv crUJL'IfoAEJLTI: the first three months' subsidy
was unconditional, but after that it depended on Philip's presence
in the Peloponnese. For the clash between Achaean and Macedonian
policy concealed behind this agreement, and for Philip's naval policy,
see Walbank, Philip, so-51. Griffith (3o5-Q) shows that for an army of
7,200 (z. u), 17 talents a month represents an average daily wage
per man (without corn) of about J obols-with uiTo<; say about
r drachma.

2. 1. JLE1'c\ 1'WV +tAwv: cf. ii. 4 7, iv. 23. s n. As in the other Hellenistic
monarchies (there are four grades in the Seleucid court), the rf>IJ.o,
play an important part in the Antigonid hierarchy; on their military
associations see so. 9 n. Here they act as a royal council.
lK 1'fjc; Tra.pa.xEtJLa.crlas: from Macedon; iv. 87. 13.
4. 1'cl\l 1'E 1'wv l6.xa.twv vfja.c;: probably the five decked ships which had
survived the battle of Paxos (ii. 9 9. 10. 5) ; on the decadence of both
Achaean and Macedonian marines at this time see Holleaux, 1~8 n. 6.
5. ~e 'lfapa.1'n~Ews . tt 1'ou ~ea.tpou: 'in regular battle .. ~ when
occasion demands'. On the quality of the Macedonians cf. xvi. 22. s.
iv. 69. 6; in the price-lists for slaves recorded in manumissions from
Delphi and Naupactus Macedonians command the highest figure
(cf. Tarn, HC, Ios-Q).
6. o'i:ous 'Hcro8os . 1'o~s Ata~e8as: fg. 77 Rzach. Suidas, s.v.
SatTa<>, cites this passage without mentioning P. K. Sittl (Wien.
Stud., 1890, so f.) questions the authenticity of the verse since Hesiod
nowhere else uses ~67-.,; and Maximus Tyrius (3S 2) attributes it to
Homer. For discussion see Wunderer (ii. 39-41) who believes the
author to be an Alexandrian, 'perhaps Euphorion', and argues that
P. probably took the quotation directly from his source since 'P.
539

v.

2.6

THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218

hatte ja gar keine Veranlassung in dieser Weise die Makedonier zu

verherrlichen'.
8. ds Xa.AKlSa.: Chalcis in Euboea was a centre of the Macedonian
hegemony in Greece; cf. xviii. u. 5, Chalcis, Corinth, and Demetrias
the rr'8at 'EA>..7]vtKal. The inscription, IG, xii, Suppl. 644, is claimed
by S. B. Kougeas ('.EA/.7]vtKd., 1934, 177-208) as a record of Apelles'
activity as governor of Achaea; but it probably forms part of a
general army code (cf. Welles, A] A, 1938, 245-6o).
3. 1. :t\yAa.ov Ka.l lKova.v: cf. iv. 16. 10 for Agelaus, iv. 5 1 and
passim for Scopas.
ftETn NeoKp~Twv vevTa.KoaUaJv: probably half the thousand soldiers
sent by Cnossus (iv. 55 5). The sense of 'Neocretans' (cf. 65. 7,
79 ro; Livy, xxxvii. 40. 8, 40. IJ) is disputed. M. Guarducci (IC,
iv. 21) argues that they are mercenaries enfranchised by the Cretan
koinon; but the Noyo('TvVE.l77Js quoted in support (IC, iv. 481) dates
only to the sixth century of our era, and it seems more likely that
Tarn (apud Griffith, 144 n. 2) is right in interpreting the term to
refer to a special type of armament; cf. van Effenterre (179 f.), who
argues that Cretan mercenaries were normally archers, but that the
Neocretans were light-armed with small round p~ltai, such as that
worn by L1toOoTos fl{hpwvos Kp~s 'Yp-ra.Kivos, illustrated on a stele
from Sidon (Th. Macridy, Rev. bibt., 1904, 552, no. 4, and pl. I, 7;
L. Jalabert, Rev. arch. 4, 1904, ro-n, fig. J). Launey (i. 284) independently suggests the same explanation, and quotes the Kpfins
aam8tw-rm of x. 29. 6 (after Griffith). See also Willetts, 191 n.
KuAA~VTJv: cf. iv. 9 9 n.
2. Twv va.p' a.l:m~ Kp'JTwv: 300 in number (iv. 67. 6; cf. v. 7 n). On
the use of Cretan and Galatian mercenaries in the Hellenistic world
see Griffith, 245 f., 252 f. ; Launey, i. 248 ff., 490 ff.
TWV ~s "-xa.ta.s ~'lrf.hfKTW\1: cf. ii. 65. 3 n.
3. yeypa.,Ptils TOLS M~eaO")vlo~s KTA.: the states mentioned lie on the
west coast; hence there is no conclusion to be drawn on the policy
of Boeotia from its omission here (as by Feyel, 142).
KO.Tn npovvous: called llpwwot on the coins and llpwvrwos in Strabo
(x. 455). It lay towards the south-east corner of the island, on the
east coast below Mt. Aenus. Cf. Biirchner, RE, 'Kephallenia (r)',
cols. 209-10.
4. vpos TTJV TWV naAa.LWV vbALV! Palus lay lj km. north of modern
Lixuri, on the west shore of the Gulf of Livadi, which makes a long
bight into Cephallenia from its south coast (cf. Biirchner, ibid.,
cols. 210-u). Philip evidently sailed round the south of the island.
7. Ta.is Twv KE,Pa..>.AfJvwv va.ua: cf. iv. 6. 2 n.
9. E~S TO I~I<IEh\KOV ava.TEvouaa. vaa.yos: cf. 5 IJ. For P.'s definition
of the Sicilian Sea cf. i. 42. 4 n.
540

THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218

V. 5

IZ

4. 2. To 1rpos TTJV ZaKuv9ov aTpa.llll~ov: i.e. to the south of the town,

which lay on a small saddle 65o m. X 350 m. in extent.
3. 1TO~L8uvaaTa.'): 7TOAW ovvaaTaS" AR, TD7rovs- ovvaUTOS c. Though a
a7Ta~ AE)IOfM.VOV, Bekker's emendation is convincing.
5. Tfis . Twv <IJLa.~wv 1r6~"ws E~<upE9"~s: cf. iv. 79 5 f.
7. E1T~ SUo 1T~(9pa.: about zoo ft.
8. TO s~O"TU~W~vov: 'the part which had been underpinned' (cf.
roo. 4); on the technique of underpinning and burning the props
see Apollodorus, Poliorc. 145. 6 ff. ( = Schneider, Gott. Abh., r9o8,
, Oti'
~'
'
' TOtS"
- Ep)IO.!,Of.kEV03
~
r '
,..
pp. I4-I 6) 1 tVa
f.kTJ" Tn0"Vf.k7Tc:rn
TO' THXOS"
V7TO XEtpos,
t

'

aTv,\c/;p,aaw lpE8,a8w, 7TVKVofs p,B)).ov Kal AmTots-, Ka~ p,~ 7Taxlat Kal
&.pawts-. l7TaVltJ Kai KaTw aavloos n8p,lV7JS"' rva p,i] lwaK'!l 0 UTVAOS" Tfj
yfl, /Cal fjaa76.c:rn T6 TELXOS. D-Tav
UlJVTf:AW8fi TO o.\ov Kat dpvyE:v Kat
\
()'
I
f)W 'l'pvyava
-J._ I
"
>I
I
>
ot\
"'
f
O"TVI\W
Ev, 7TE:pt1CLU
Kat\ Or:JTf
EVKaVO"TOS
EO'TtV
Vl\'fJ
1 UXWO.K<=S
TE ~eal o{fOEs, ~eai 7TVpova8w TO 7Tiiv Kat oiYrw KO.TaKaJvrwv Twv
-fJ1ToaTvAwp,aTwv, KaTa7Twf:i:Ta o.\ov TO Ti:xo;;; cf. also Vegetius, iv. z4.
9. a1reLp11tiov Ta~a.s: the am:tpa, probably of 256 men, was the

oJ

tactical unit of Philip's army; cf. xi. II. 6, xviii. 28. ro. Philip, 293.
11. TwY Ka.Ta 11pos fJYE!lovwY: including speirarchs and tetrarchs
(commanding 256 and 64 men respectively): Philip, 293-4.
5. 1. AuKoupyos: evidently back at Sparta; cf. iv. Sr. I-II.
3. wv .,crwv crTacrw x6vTwv: cf. iv. 44 5 n.
4. r opyov TOY M"crcr~VLOY: cf. vii. IO. Z-5; Paus. v-i. 14 n. He was the
most prominent figure in Messenia at this time, pro-Achaean and
anti-Spartan in policy, and probably a moderate democrat compared
with the close oligarchs who made up the neutral party (iv. 32. 1) ;
cf. Walbank, Philip, 72 n. 3; Roebuck, 78.
8. ~UfoLEWYEuo!lWoL: 'with pernicious motives'. No doubt Leontius
and his colleagues hoped to see Philip concentrate on the reduction
of Sparta, and on the further subjugation of Achaea-which would
meanwhile subsidize the campaign (I. u). But P.'s Achaean source
exaggerates the malice in all this, as if it were directed against
Macedonian interests and the allied cause in general.
10. Ka.l EK ToO 1TEpl Tov 1r~oOY a.uTwv 8ta.~ou~lou: 'from his advice
that they should sail south'. Paton translates this text, which is
Kiessling's emendation (see the apparatus criticus in Hultsch), but
prints the MS. reading rrEpt Tdv Ila,\ofWra OLafjov,\{ov athwv.
12. Ta 1TEpl ToY luopuKTOY: this canal through the spit of land linking
Leucas with the mainland of Acarnania was dug by the Corinthians
shortly after the colonization of Leucas (c. 6so). It is mentioned by
Ps.-Scylax, 34; Dion. Hal. i. so; Pliny, Nat. hist. iv. Io; Strabo,
x. 452; but Thuc. iii. 8r. I and iv. 8. 2 suggest that the canal was not
in effective use at the time of the Peloponnesian War. See Biirchner,
RE, 'Leukas (1)', cols. 2234-5. The use of this channel confirms the
541

.Spolai~a

U'l

"'"

10 Km.

!.>

l'st:iop!,;rgros

Mel:Bp

= Sit'aralona (/faotJ'hovse)
or /(ato A/;l<rynu (Kirsten)

Pamphii1

~ Petrachori {Woodhousl!il}
or Sil:ara/ona ( Kirs!:er!)

Z"ap11ndie

Cono~e~

':4nghelo1'a.s-troJ.

~ AtonY

Pantoltt-a/;or

I ~s1mac
. h"''a
.

(AWrsf:ian<9-

M!l !f;ipsill
Panillgttlill

eKh.iln

.stamna

Ha;nt'e>sQ
Elt<IS

Aetoliko

Lagoon

7~

- --;alpr/

'wl( fyVIl of' K!rsj,~n ~-l~ ~

lP
~~"'-..,
()),......c. '\;.,..,;.,.
~
-o,.,o5::1~ \ .J'ol
8

~~!!.!, ~

~<-%.

('b

"'~
~ '1:>~().;., Il"f?-1;..
\

<
,.P

'<,~

.....

"'c

.,,.

..,

"\"

cerium~~a~ ..,~. _"'o a>--;.

.;.~"'"""'"b
(Pai.rochor~;Jl~
"'-o"'..;:,.

Acrae
(AnoBotinul I

Mount Zygos

IO. PHILIP's MARCH ON THERMUM.

""

. U''o

Ph

fr<toMok'Y"_)

"" 1- ',_.,
~-

Based on Woodhouse.

THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218

v.

77

impression that Philip had no large vessels, for it is shallow and

liable to silt up.
13. Ka.&a.1rep .. e'LpYJTa.t.: cf. iv. 63. 4-5 n.
14. 1rpos TTI ~ea.Aoup.evo Alp.va.~: according to Leake (NG, iv. 243 ff.)
and Heuzey (327) a town, to be identified with the ruins above
Karvassaras (which are, however, more probably those of Heracleia;
cf. Bursian, i. no f.; Oberhummer, RE, AtJLIala (3), col. 707). It
seems more likely, however, that Limnaea is the marshy valley
running south-east from Karvassaras, and containing Lake Ambracia {which is now much smaller than most maps show it). The
ethnikon AtJLvaio~ occurs (cf. GDI, 1379), and Thucydides (ii. 8o. 8,
d. iii. Io6. 2) mentions AtJ.llialav, KciJJL1)1i an:lx.Cf70V. See further Oberhumm~r. loc. cit.
6. 1. :A.puno+a.vTo;: otherwise unknown.
2. rij; Ma.KeliOvwv ~1ra.pKEta.s: 'the help of the Macedonians' (not
'arrival', as Paton).
5. W; kgTJKOVTO. aTn8La.: abOUt 7 miles.
6. JlETa.~u KwvW'!t'TJS teal ITpuTou: see iv. 63. ro n., 64. 3 n. for this
district.
7. 7-8. 4. Topography of Philip's march on Thermum; cf. 13. 1--9, and
see the map facing p. 239 of Woodhouse, Aetolia. Philip's general
line of advance is established. He crossed the Achelous south of
Stratus, and passed to the south of both lakes, of Anghelokastro
and Agrinion. Of the places P. mentions several are identified with
certainty, viz. Stratus and Conope (6. 6 n.), Agrinium, Thestia,
Trichonium, and Thermum (on inscriptional evidence). Agrinium
lay 3 km. north of modern Agrinion (Vrachori), above Zapandi;
traces of more than 2 km. of an ancient peripheral wall survive; cf.
Flaceliere, 6 n. I (with references).
Thestia (or Thestiae: on the form of the name of the place P. calls
Thestieis see Klaffenbach, S.-B. Berlin, 1936, 385) lay on the hill of
Vlochos, north of the Lake of Agrinion, at a site long identified with
Thermum; d. Soteriades, llpa.KnKa, r899, 63; Klaffenbach, S.-B.
Berlin, I9J6, J80 for an inscription from there mentioning ewTu:t~.
Trichonium (inscriptions Tptx.&vnov) has been located, after long
controversy, at raj3a'AofJ on the foothills of Zygos, due south of the
Lake of Agrinion, by Klaffenbach (IG, ix~. r. 125; S.-B. Berlin, 1935,
715; 1936, 387; RE, Trichonion', cols. 86-88, with sketch-map), who
found several tiles here. Thermum was identified by Woodhouse
{228-86, following Lolling) with the Palaiobazari of Kephalovryso;
on the excavations (Soteriades, r897-9, and Rhomaios, I9I2-I3).
which confirm P.'s account of the destruction, see 8. 3 n.
Lysimacheia, long sited at Papadates, south-east of the causeway
543

v.

7 7

THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218

between the lakes (cf. still Flaceliere, 7 n. I, following Plassart,

BCH, 1921, 62 n. 3), is now identified almost certainly with Murstianu, about 5 km. south-east of Conope (Anghelokastro); cf. Bolte,
RE, 'Hydra (6)', col. 51; 'Lysimacheia (x)', cols. 2552-4. An inscribed
tile found half an hour south of Dokimion on the north bank of the
Lake of Anghelokastro would suit territory belonging to a city here
rather than one at Papadates; and the impression given by Livy
(xxxvi. u. 7) that Lysimacheia lay on the route from Calydon (the
Kastro of Kourtaga on the right bank of the R. Phidaris; Woodhouse, 95) to Stratus (almost certainly through Kleisoura), which
would leave Papadates to the east, fits Murstianu well. Lolling
(Hellenische Landeskunde (Muller's Handbuch iii, Nordlingen, 1889),
139) found an ancient fortress there; and the Lake of Anghelokastro
was known in ancient times as the Lake of Lysimacheia (Apollodorus
in Strabo, x. 46o; the eastern lake, as P. explains, was Trichonis).
Klaffenbach (RE, 'Trichonion', coL 86) suggests that as there is
no room east of Trichonium for Phytaeum, before the aTva of 7 8
(which he takes to be the rrT<va between Burlesa and Kapsorachi),
P. has evidently reversed the order of Trichonium and Phytaeum;
and so he locates Phytaeum at Papadates. But from the list of
theorodokoi published by Plassart (BCH, 1921, 1-85), the Delphic
tkeoroi appear to have followed an itinerary which went, in order,
through Calydon, Phytaeum, Trichonium, and Stratus. This suggests a route up the Phidaris (Euenus) and east of the Zygos into the
lake basin; and this, like P., would imply that Phytaeum was east
of Trichonium (against Klaffenbach). Between Trichonium (Gavalu)
and Thermum (Kephalovryso) lay, from west to east, Phytaeum,
Metapa, IJ'Tva, Pamphia; and P. makes the stages Metapa-Pamphia
and Pamphia-Thermum as each 30 stades (c. 3! miles). If these
figures can be relied on at all, Metapa and the beginning of the
narrows cannot be farther west than the valley containing Kapsorachi (at the most); hence the narrows are not those between
Burlesa and Kapsorachi. However, allowance must here be made
for a confusion first detected in P. by Woodhouse (257 ff.). In 8. 2
the last 30 stades of Philip's march are described as an exceedingly
precipitous and dangerous ascent; but these last 30 stades, whether
from Petrochori or from a point farther east, follow a level and easy
plain, as is borne out by the account of the festival and the phrase
T6 TWJ1 eliipp.lwv 1TOlov (8. 4) Woodhouse plausibly suggests that the
description of these 30 stades between Pamphia and Thermum has
been transferred by P. or his source from the 30 stades between
Metapa and Pamphia-the IJ'Teva of 7 xo-12 (but his view that the
error arose through the contamination of accounts derived from
Nicander of Trichonium and from Aratus' M e:moirs needs modifying
inasmuch as the Memoirs did not extend into Philip's reign; cf.
544

THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218

V. 7

II

Walbank, Aratos, 6, n-12). The most recent discussion is in K.

Stergiopoulos, 'H dpxala Alrw>..{a (Athens, I939); Kirsten, ]ahrb.,
1940, 3I5; RE, 'Phytaion', cols. 1169-75 (an article which adopts a
different view in a corrigendum); RE, 'Pamphia', cols. 306-9; AA
(in]DAI), I941, 109 ff.
Kirsten identifies Phytaeum with Palaiochori, a fortress on the
eastern spur of the Zygos, overlooking the Mega Revma which flows
into Lake Agrinion at its most southerly point. This view (which is
that of Plassart, BCH, I92I, 62 n. 3; Flaceliere, 7 n. I; and Woodhouse, 235 ff.) fits the evidence of the theoric route (above), and is
to be accepted. Kirsten describes the site from autopsy.
On the location of M etapa and Pamphia, separated by 30 stades
of OTEVa, there is much disagreement. Woodhouse (237 ff.) locates
Metapa at Kato Morosklavon (Sitaralona), and Pamphia at Petrochari; Kirsten (with Klaffenbach, IG, ixz. 1. 105. 9, and K. A.
Rhomaios, 14px. s~>..T., I9I6, Trapapr. 45) thinks that Sitaralona is
Pamphia, and shifts Metapa west to Kato Makrynu. Against the
latter view is the fact that Sitaralona is 7 miles from Thermum, i.e.
6o stades, not 30. But it is arguable (though not by Kirsten who
rejects Woodhouse's hypothesis) that if P.'s account of the last
30 stades springs from confusion with the 30 stades from Metapa to
Pamphia, the distance may also be repeated, which would make
Pamphia 6o stades from Thermum. There are difficult lake-side
routes on either side of Kato Morosklavon (Sitaralona), both
identifiable as OT~va.; and it is of course possible that Philip left
Petrochori on the left, which would somewhat reduce the length
of the stage from Sitaralona to Kephalovryso (as Kirsten argues).
For other suggestions on the locality of Metapa see Oldfather, A] A,
I929, 405-6. Excavation may one day give a clear answer, as it has
done for Thermum and Trichonium.
Acrae is mentioned on the return journey (I3. 8). and as it had
been previously neglected, it probably lay off the direct route. It
lay west of Metapa (I3. 8), and Woodhouse's identification (258--9)
with a site at Ano Botinu, one hour west of Palaiochori, high up
on the slopes of Zygos, is accepted by Kirsten.
7. 9. 'll'pos TE n1v el:ao6ov Kal -riJv e~o6ov: 'to cover his entrance into
the pass and to secure his retreat' (Paton). Shuckburgh misunderstands and translates 'to secure both ends of the pass'.
10. 'II'QS 0 'll'apa TTJV ALflVTJV TO'II'OS opwos Kat -rpaxus: true only of
the section north and south of Morosklavo (Woodhouse, 257 ff.).
11. Order of march. Philip clearly intended to use mercenaries, Illyrians, Cretans, and Thracians, to protect his Macedonians; cf. I3. I for
a similar use of Acarnanians and mercenaries. Here 1rop~la = agmen.
Whether the Thracians were mercenaries (so Griffith, 7I) is uncertain; cf. Launey, i. 378. They were light infantry (Bp~[-Kwv Kal !frt).wv).
<1.866

Nn

545

v.

8. 3

THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218

8. 3. l1ri TO'II Gc!pJ.Io": the form Thermum is usually adopted in

English. That the Aetolian federal centre was not a city in the
normal sense is clear from 6. 6, ,-ov ~v Tois fNppms -r6Trov (cf. 7 2).
For its situation at the foot of the hill Agrielea, the Palaiobazari of
Kephalovryso, see 7. 7--8. 4 n. The name was derived from Apollo
Thermios, whose temple (cf. xi. 7 z) has been excavated (cf. .l1px.
oeA-r., 1915, 231 for plans). The enclosure was defended by thirdcentury walls; the temple, with an arrangement of 15:5 pillars, ran
north and south, and the building excavated was a much restored
version of one dating to c. 6zo, which appeared not to have been
rebuilt after its destruction by Philip. Rhomaios also found a temple
of Apollo Lyseios, and a temple of Artemis (within the sacred enclosure). The excavation and inscriptions were published by
Soteriades in :4px. ~cf.., 19oo, I70-2II; 1903, 7!"""96; 1905,55-100 {I-I7);
:4px. OEAT., 1915, 45-58 (18-35); and by Rhomaios in :4px. oeAT.,
1924-5 TrapapT. 4-6; two mention the temple of Apollo Thermios by
name. See further Fiehn, RE, 'Thermos', cols. 2423-44. Woodhouse
(281 f.) discusses the character of Thermum. The annual meeting was
accompanied by a fair and festival; but 'during the intervals between
the Assemblies the place would be practically deserted', and Woodhouse suggests that the olKlat ( 4) are storehouses, not dwellings.
Such inhabitants as there were lived in Trepto"doEs Kwp.a.t ( 4), and
the site was not defended. The Aetolians depended on the 'zones of
fortresses barring every approach along the shores of the lake'
{Woodhouse, 283). This is confirmed by Klaffenbach's recent discovery of fortifications running from Papadates to Lake Trichonis,
and on the north shore from N-rL1wv (west of Arabokephala and south
of Vlachos) to the lake; these appear to have been constructed after
the experience of Philip's two invasions {cf. Klaffenbach, RE,
'Trichonis', cols. 88"""9o).
5. 8.yop6.; TE Ka.l1Ta.v1}yupElS: this 'fair and festival' took place on
the occasion of the annual fiJepp.ucd, which was marked by the
autumn meeting of the Aetolian Confederacy, and the annual
elections {as P. adds), at Thermum. An Argive inscription, published by M. Mitsos (AM, 1940, 47-56; now SEG, xi. 338), shows that
the Thermica was recognized as a panhellenic festival. See further
Holleaux, BCH, 1905, 362-72 Etudes, i. 219-27; L. Robert, Bull.
epig., 1949 no. 85; J. A. o. Larsen, TAP A, 1952, 1-33
TO.s Twv &pxc:upcal~&~v ~ea.Ta.aT6.aElS: 'their regular elections'.
7. 1rEpl. To lEpov: the temple of Apollo; cf. 3 n.; Soteriades, itpx.
~cf.., 1900, I7I-2II; 1903, 71-96; Fiehn, RE, 'Thermos', cols. 2424-32.
~.

1. 1rw; xpf) Xtycw oOK ot8a.: a policy of 'frightfulness' might bring

Philip substantial financial gains, and the hope of depressing Aetolian morale; and that this policy did not in fact dose the way to
546

THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218

V. 9

IO

reconciliation is shown by Agelaus' speech in :ZI7 (104), and the peace

then concluded. See Philip, 55; and, for F.'s views on the 'laws of
war', iv. 62. 3 n.
2. TGw a. lt.t'l.' Kat AwMvn 'ITE1TpayJ1vwv: cf. iv. 62. 2 f. (Dium),
67. 3 (Dodona).
TO. >..omu Twv 6.vo.9'1Jlc1Twv: the arms (8. 9), though dedicated, were
evidently regarded as legitimate objects for destruction.
3. TOtJS 6.v8puivTo.s: probably mainly dedications of victors in the
games.
4. Tbv 1TEP+POJlEVov crr(xov: P. appears not to be aware that the
verse is an adaptation of Euripides' line (Suppl. 86o), dp9:s r6v cl.fJp6v,
oo fU>.os 8thrraro; Samus' parody secured the pun on Stov, 'divine' or
'of Dium'; and its popularity finds confirmation in a variant found
upon a 'dedicatory marble relief showing a child riding in a chariot
drawn by a pair of lions', now in the museum at Yannina, which
reads J:1pd rip..dti oo fJ>.o~s] Stl1TTar[at] (]HS, r946, 112).
I0.11ou: the son of Chrysogonus, one of Philip's 'Friends' (cf. I7 6,
97 3, vii. n. 6, ix. 23. 9), Samus is probably the poet of A nth. Pa.
vi. n4-16 (on a bull slain by Philip on Mt. Orbelus) ; Philip later
had him executed (xxiii. ro. 9; Plut. M or. 53 E). The title cn.Jvrpcx/>os
was applied to youths of good birth brought up, at a Hellenistic
court, along with the heir to the throne; cf. 82. 8, x.xxi. 13. 2 (Syria),
xxxii. 15. 10 (Pergamum), xxii. 22. 1 (Egypt-of a eunuch). Beloch
(iv. 1. 384 n. 3) suggested that all princes and princesses (cf. xv. 33 n
for Arsinoe's ?Tat.B{aKat cn.Jvrpo<f>ot) had SUCh auvrpo<f>o; but this is
improbable (d. Corradi, 27o-7, giving epigraphical and other nonPolybian evidence; Bikerman, Sileucides, 42-43).
6. JlEYLCTT'] 81) ~eo.l. 'll'apO.crro.aLs: 'a perverse conviction' (Paton).
'Sicut ex phrasibus 1rapaarijao.l rwt clpp.~v, <f>o{Jov, etc. natae sunt illae
uocabuli 1rapW:rraats notiones, animi ardor et impetus, animi per~
turbatio, etc., sic ex illis, 1rapaa-rfjaal rm 1rlarw, fidem alicui facere,
1TapaG7'ijaa{ TLVt Soeav Uel YVWfL7JV opt:n{onem, persuasionem alicui
adferre, etc. uidetur deriuari significatio uocabuli 'll'apduraatS, persuasio' (Schweighaeuser ad loc.).
8, >\vTlYOVOll , . iyKpo.TT)S tyEYETO KO.l ri]ll l:'11'6.pT']S! cf. ii. 70. I,
ix. 36. 3-5
10. euEpyET']S awn)p: cf. ix. 36. 5 The title 'benefactor' was
bestowed on citizens, especially princes, of foreign states, from the
early fifth century onwards, and was commonly combined in a
decree with the right of 1Tpolvla; see the instances assembled by
Oehler, RE, Evqryl77Js, cols. 978-81; cf. Skard, Euergetes-Concordia
(Oslo, 1932), 13-35. The title 'saviour' is applied primarily to gods,
but, from the fifth century, it was also applied to men, especially
rulers, as virtually equivalent to heroic honours. Thus Gelo of
Syracuse was hailed fJaatAiJs Kat aw~p after Himera (Diod. xi. 26. 6) ;
1

547

V. 9

IO

THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218

and the sausage-maker, with comic irony, is uwT~P in Aristophanes

(Eq. 149). Pelopidas and his companions were greeted as dlf:pyTa
Kat uwTijp> (Plut. Pel. 12), and Demosthenes (xviii. 43) records that
the Thessalians and The bans called Philip II ,PO..ov, t:vt:pyTTJV, uwrijpa.
The phrase became a commonplace in Hellenistic ruler cult, giving
a new tone to the old use of upyTTJ> On the granting of these and
other honours to Doson, both at Sparta and elsewhere (?Tapd. ?Tam
TOt!; E)t).TJUW) See ll. 70. 5 n.

10. 1. 11ALtnros vucTjaas :.\9lJva1ous: after Chaeronea Athens kept

her independence and foreign possessions, and received Oropus in
exchange for the Thracian Chersonese, which she had to surrender
to Philip. Demosthenes (xviii. 231) admitted Philip's generosity
(</>tAav8pw1Tla), but whereas to Aeschines it represented (Ctes. 159)
a1TpouObKTJTO> UWTT)pla, Demosthenes argued that only her vigorous
resistance had secured Athens the mild terms of the Peace of
Demades.
4. xwpis AuTpwv citroaTELAa.s TOUS a.tx~a.AwTous KTA.: cf. xxii. 16. 2 ;
Diod. xvi. 87. 3; Iustin. ix. 4 4
5. trpos trO.v ho1~ous auva.ywvLUTBS: Athens set up a statue to
Philip in the agora (Paus. i. 9 4) and granted him citizenship (Plut.
Dem. zz); and both Antipater and Alcimachus, who restored the
prisoners, received 1Tpoi;Evfa (Hyper. in Demad., fr. 77). But Athens
continued to resist Philip's policy, and Demosthenes to exercise
authority; the revolt of Thebes against Alexander (335) was engineered at Athens. Cf. Beloch, iii. 1. 6o8 ff., 618-19. P. thus exaggerates to make his point, and stresses the collaboration which
formally existed through the League of Corinth.
6-8. Alexander's treatment of the Thebans and Persians: cf. iv. 23.
8 n., ix. z8. 8 (Thebes). Alexander spared the shrines at Thebes, and
Pindar's house; and he exempted from enslavement priests and
priestesses, his own or Philip's friends, and 1Tp6i;t:vo of the Macedonians (Arrian, Anab. i. 9 9-1o). For the revenge motive as ?Tp6</>auL> for the war on Persia cf. iii. 6. 13 n.
10. auyyevT]s :.\A.E~cl.vSpou Ka.l. 1LALtrtrou: for Philips V's stress on
this pretended relationship see the evidence and references collected
in Philip, 258-9 and CQ, 1943, 5 n. 6; add Zon. ix. z8 (a pretender
called Alexander, son of Perseus) ; and the coins of Philip V are
clearly based on those of Philip II. For a discussion of some of the
polemic which accreted around this claim of Philip V see CQ, 1942,
134-45; 1943, 1-13; 1944, 87-88 (with the criticisms of C. Edson,
CP, 1948, n6 ff.). Whether the claim had a real basis in fact (as
Edson claims) is dubious.
11. TTJS eva.vTta.s ETUXE bO~l]S: on Philip's 'deterioration' see
548

THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218

v.

13. 3

vii. u. Iff.; there the intervention at Messene is singled out as

beginning his decline (vii. n. Io).
11.1. tca.tc!'t> Ka.Kov tw..,Evos: a proverbial phrase; cf. Suidas, s.v.
p.eL{ovt a{Naa.t. Cf. \Vunderer, i. 76.
2. tra.pcl. Tots l!.tcouaa.cn: 'among such as might hear of it' rather than
'among the very :JJeOple he was addressing' (Paton).
3-4. ot TOU troAf....ou vo..-oL: cf. Livy, xxxi. 30. 2-3 (based on P.),
'esse enim quaedam belli iura, quae ut facere, ita pati sit fas: sata
exuri, dirui tecta, praedas hominum pecorumque agi misera magis
quam indigna patienti esse'; above iv. 62. 3 n.; von Scala, IOI, Jio-n,
3I3-14. One is entitled to do (and should do) anything that will
harm an enemy, but not to commit wanton damage which does not
further the aims of the war (cf. xxiii. 15. 1-3 for a specific case).
von Scala argues, not very convincingly, that P. here echoes Plato
(Rep. v. 470 A, c); in fact Plato, like P. (xxiii. I5. I, els- ToVs- Jp.o<f>vlo.ovs-), distinguishes between Greeks and barbarians; but he advocates a much milder and more utopian code of war.
4. Tpotrou tca.l. au..-ou AUTTWVTOS ~pyov: moribus et ira furentis opus
(Schweighaeuser). Castiglioni (223-4) suggests reading (8Tfptwflov<>)
Tpl)7rov, but unnecessarily; rpll7Tos- signifies the permanent characteristic, 8vp.6<> the momentary passion.
5. oo ycl.p ~tr' AtrwAE~ KTA.: a rhetorically formed sentence to express
thoughts reminiscent of the sophistic movement. For the distinction
between guilty and guiltless among the enemy cf. Plato, Rep. v.
47I A (not necessarily echoed here); for the ow- compounds cf.
Eurip. l.A. 407, uvvaw<f>povdv aot {3ovlo.op.', dt\A' ov avvvoaev; Soph.
Ant. 52J, OUTOt avvex8ew, d;Ud avp.,Ptlo.iv ,Pvv.
6. Tup&.wou ~a.a~.lws: P. distinguishes tyranny and kingship
in vi. 3 5 f., where tyranny is the corruption of kingship, which is
based on justice; but the contrast is a traditional one, and so is the
characteristic of the tyrant, p.taoJp.evov Kal p.taoiJVTa ToVr; {moraTTo
p.~vov<;. It is in Plato, Rep. iii. 417 D, 3e(.J7T6rat p.tuoOV7e<; 8~ 3~ Ka.i.
p.taoJp.evot; and Cicero has it, de re pub. ii. 45, 'rex ille ... cum
metueret ipse poenam sceleris sui summam, metui se uolebat'. But
the locus could easily be paralleled in Aristotle and elsewhere ; d.
J. Endt, lVien. Stud., 1902, 1 fi.; Poschl, 68.
KaKcls- KaKw<>: KaK6v KaKcjJ

12. 5. Influence of Demetrius and Aratus. On their characters see

iii. I9. 9-n n. (Demetrius), iv. 8. I f. (Aratus); the Sefyp.a ( 7) is
their respective advice at Messene in :ns (vii. n. 12, 13. 2-14. 3).
13. 1. trpoJjllM....,vos ..-ev TTjv XEla.v KTA.: on the order of march cf.
7 n n.
3. ~AE~O.vSpou ToO T pLxwv,ws: perhaps the Alexander, son of Thoas,
549

V. IJ. 3

THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218

whose statue was found at Thermum (IG, ix2 I. 68); but this is
hypothetical.
5. utrEOTaAKE~ ,-ous 'IX>.upLous tc'TA.: for a similar use of Illyrians and
chalcaspides for an ambush in the battle of Sellasia see ii. 66. 5 n.,
66. Ion.
7-8. no.I-,\OV :I..Kpa.s: cf. 8. I (form llap.c/J(a), 7, 7-8. 4 n. {site Of
Acrae).
14. 1. Kpil'Ta.s s ets 1TEV'TO.KOa(ous: v>'ith the soo 'Neocretans' sent
to Elis {3. In.) these probably made up the I,ooo men sent by
Cnossus (iv. 55 5).
12. (8Lea+a.AJ-L~VOL -rrpo+a.vws): BUttner-Wobst's suggestion to fill the
lacuna of one line; the words a0vp.oiill7"fS p.~v inserted by a later hand
in the Vaticanus (A) and followed in later codices have no authority,
and do not provide the required twenty letters.
15. 2. ciKa.Lpla.s Ka.l troAutroO"(a.s: 'lack of restraint and excessive
drinking'; cf. J, p.l87Js ~<:al d>-.oytcrrlos.
aUI-1TEPL+pea8a.L: can mean 'to attend upon' a superior (cf. ii. 17.
12, iv. 35 7) or 'to accommodate oneself to' circumstances (examples
in LSJ, s.v.). Both ideas are in place here. Schweighaeuser translates
aliorum exernplum sequi, supplying Tots a..\AoLS, which is too definite;
Paton, 'to join in (the carousal)'; Cardona, 'costretti ad adattarsi'.
l~e8e<1,-pwa.v au,-ovs: 'they exposed themselves'; on the metaphor
cf. i. 4 5 n., iii. 9r. 10.
6. ( 'TO.UTTJS 'TtlS 0.8L)Kia.s: BUttner-Wobst's suggestion to fill the lacuna
of about twelve letters; but the letter after the lacuna is apparently
X not K, and perhaps (Tcbi TijS ayEpw)xlas is more probable. The
later hand in A has (rijs ~<:o.lcov)xtos.
7. Kptvwva.: not known outside the present context.
8. 'Tov I-La8ov m8waL: 'they paid him out'.
9ft. Megaleas and Crinon (cf. 16. 8, 26. 14, 27. I, 27. 4, 27. 7-8, 28.
6-7). P.'s account of this series of incidents is not very clear.
(a) Megaleas' offence lay in his refusal to obey Philip and in his
persisting in treating the dispute with Aratus as a private feud; he
thus challenged the law of Macedon and the king. This was serious
and was so regarded by Philip: but it was not an offence to warrant
the death penalty. P. writes as if malevolence towards Achaea was
part of the offence; and it is easy to appreciate that to the Achaeans
Megaleas must have appeared to be suffering for his assault on
Aratus rather than for his defiance of Philip.
(b) The twenty talents represent a fine summarily imposed by
Philip and confirmed by his Friends a day later (r6. 7); cf. Partsch,
Griechisches Burgschajtsrecht, i {Leipzig-Berlin, 1909), 376 ff.; Wilhelm, Griechische Konigsbriefe (Klio Beiheft 48, 1943), 4 ff. TrpO>
55

THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218

V. 1.5, 9

eCKoa' TrtAavra is 'failing payment of (the fine of) twenty talents' and
goes closely with els rpu'AaK~V a7Tayayefv; cf. xxxvili. II, IO, TOVS
a1Tt:t')iDfliVOUS' els </>uAaK~V 1TpbS '!"d XPEa; i. 72. 5 chra}'Ofl-evOUS' , 7TpbS
Td.s da<f>op&.s. Partsch (op. cit. 67 n. 2) argues that KaTeyyuav here

means 'arrest'; but more likely it carries its normal meaning in

Attic law 'require the provision of surety' (cf. Thalheim, RE,
KaTeyyuav, col. 25I2). Surety was not provided for Megaleas till
next day, and for Crinon not at all.
{c) The trial before the Friends. Philip's position was delicate. He
had acted autocratically in summarily fining Megaleas and Crinon.
To strengthen his position against Apelles' group (and against the
army who were clearly sympathetic to Leontius, especially the peltasts) he submitted the case for confirmation to his Friends. These
were Philip's own choice, not an inheritance from Doson (cf. Bikerman, Seleucides, 40 f.), though no doubt they included many of the
older generation; but for the general situation d. Diod. xxxiv. 3 1,
(Attalus III) Taw OE ?TaTp</Jwv <f>tAwv Tovs 3uvaTwTdTous {J1To1T'!"evaas ws
'.l;;c

' - '7" f"'DUIIEUCTilfl-EVDUS',

R \
'
"
to-"
I
(J at.
KO.T 'O.VTOU
eKp11
OE11
a?TilVT(l.S K1TO<JWII 7TD1jC1(1.(T

Philip could therefore anticipate a favourable verdict.

(d) The surety. By Attic law, and probably by the law of most
Greek states, a man condemned to a fine might provide surety for
its payment and so regain his freedom. If he defaulted, his surety
was himself responsible for the fine; see Partsch (op. cit. 193 ff.),
who concludes that in such cases of default the surety could most
likely be arrested summarily and without an action. In the present
instance Leontius went surety for Megaleas' fine, and upon Megaleas'
fleeing to Athens (27. r) KaTo.Amc1v Tbv Ae6VTov lv (lyy)Ju Tttw
EtKDO' TaMVTwv, Philip ordered his arrest 7Tpds T~v &.vaSoxr/v (
lyrV'lv). Whether by Macedonian law Leontius had the chance of
paying the 20 talents, or was in any case liable to imprisonment,
is not clear (Partsch, op. cit. 378); but the former seems more
probable. After the intervention of the peltasts (27. 5-7) and the
execution of Leontius (27. B)-apparently as an act of policy and not
as surety for the defaulting Megaleas--Alexander was sent to Thebes
to bring Megaleas brl. Tds apxas 7rpos TiJv .!yyV1jll (z8. 6). a step thwarted
by the latter's suicide. Partsch (op. cit. 377) finds difficulties in the
phrase 1rpds T~v JyyJ71v here; but Wilhelm (op. cit. 5} suggests that
since Leontius had died without paying the l~ of 2o talents,
the obligation to pay still rested on Megaleas. From Megaleas' point
of view the money was a fine; but it is understandable that having referred to it as eyyJ71 in connexion with Leontius, P. who always fought
shy of technical expressions, should have kept the same word here.
(e) The fate of the conspirators. These may be conveniently summarized, along with the legal aspect in each instance.
(i} Leontius: executed without trial after imprisonment 1rpds TiJv
551

v.

15.9

THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218

Jyy-6-qv of Megaleas (27. 8). Here Philip acted summarily and

for state reasons, fearing a mutiny.
(ii) M egaleas: no question of a trial for treason (d. 28. 4) arose
owing to his suicide.
(iii) Crinon: his fate is unknown.
(iv) Apelles: arrested with his son and his favourite (28. 5) on a
charge of treason; but P. does not state whether he was executed or committed suicide (28. 8, avvf11J .. fL"Ta..Qfam3v {!lov).
(v) Ptolemaeus was tried at Demetrias lv To'is MaKiSoatv (29. 6).
This should be the army assembly, but the army had pro.
ceeded direct from Corinth to Macedonia by land. Paton with
wise caution translates 'a Macedonian court'; and no doubt
Philip made sure of its loyalty, as when Megaleas was tried
before the Friends.
These details hardly support the view that Philip showed great
respect for the rights of the army at this time (so Aymard, Melanges
de Visscher, iii =Rev. int. droits d'ant., 1950, 78 n. 54).
9. 1Ta.pa.xpflf1a.: to be taken with KlAvau (Buttner-Wobst) rather
than with opyw8ds (Hultsch) ; Paton prints Hultsch's text but translates Biittner-Wobst's. Translate: 'ordered their imprisonment failing
the provision of surety for the payment of a fine of twenty talents'.

16. 1. TTJV no8Exo.UVTJV E1TIO'Tpo+~v TOU 1Tpayf10.TOS: 'give all possible

care to the matter'; cf. 93 9, xxiv. 9 10.
5. O.va.x9ds Ka.i 8tcl.pa.s: the voyage was by night (18. 8).
To~s E1TL TTJS Twv Aa.+upwv otKoYof1a.s TETO.Yf1EYoLs: the provisions
made for this function are described in the fragments of the Macedonian military code found at Am phi polis; cf. Roussel, Rev. arch.
3, 1934, 39-47; Feyel, ibid. 6, 1935, zg--68. Philip's haste reflects his
empty treasury.
6. TiJv ev 7o.pyEL o+a.y~Jv: after its revolt from Cleomenes in
summer 224, and Antigonus' departure for Arcadia (ii. 54 z); this
massacre is not mentioned elsewhere.
Tas 1rpos ;t..1TEAAfjv uuv9Tj~<a.s KTA.: d. iv. 76. 1 f. ; and for the obstruction at Palus, v. 4 10 f.
8. civE8e~a.To TWY XPTJflcl.Twv: 'undertook financial surety for Megaleas' fine'; avaoixm8at is the technical expression for this.
9. 1Ta.ALvTpo1Tov Aa.f1~avouua. TTJY 1rpo1Co~v: 'following quite a contrary course'.

17. 1. AuKoupyos
Ka.TEAa~ETo

~1Ta.vfjA9E:

d. 5

I.

TTJY Twv T EyEa.Twv 1r6AtY: a Tegean inscription

honouring Theocritus and Amphalces for their courage Twv 7ToAp.[uw
Jm{JavTwv l7Tt Ta Ttxia (IG, v. 2. 16) was plausibly connected with
this occasion by its original editor Berard (BCH, 1892, 543-4).

552

THE SOCIAL WAR:

EVE~TS

OF 218

V. 19.

3. ot S' ~K Ti]~ "H1uSos: probably including the Aetolian reinforcements; cf. 3 I ff. for these and the Galatian horse left by Philip.

The three Achaean prisoners (they are otherwise unknown) are

members of the two thousand 1T{).r;K:To~ stationed there (3. 2).
5 .dwp(f.l.a.xos Ka.96:rrEp e1r6.vw 1TpoEi1ToV: cf. 5 I. On Chrysogonus
and Petraeus ( 6) cf. 9 4 n., iv. 24. 8.
17. 8-24. 12. Philip's Lacont"an expedition: cf. Philip, 57-58. It was
directed against the heart of Laconia, the Spartiate lands (Bolte,
RE, 'Sparta', cols. I321 ff.). The chronology of Philip's journey from
Leucas to Sparta is discussed by Holleaux (157--8 n. 8); it ran:
Days I and 2, Leucas-I.echaeum; Day 3 at Corinth (despite x8.
I); Day 4, Corinth-Argos; Days. Argos-Tegea (cf. 18. I, ow-rropaos-);
Days 6 and 7 mountainous journey from Tegea to the Menelaeum
(cf. 18. 3, -rro-rap-ratos from Corinth; 18. 10, if38op.a'ios- from leaving
Leucas). His achievement can be judged from the fact that from
Corinth to Argos is 33 miles, and from Argos to Tegea 37 The distance covered the two following days cannot be recovered. The
direc troute is about 35 miles, and was reckoned an nji2-hour
journey before the days of motor transport (Baedeker, Greece4 (Leipzig, 1909), 361-2); but if one may judge by the route taken by the
Messenians on the strength of information received at Tegea (2o. 3),
Philip went east of Parnon, probably reaching the Eurotas valley
by the Pass of Platanaki (on which see Bolte, RE, 'Sparta', col. 1342).
The inscription IG, ivl, 590 A, set up in honour of Philip at Epidaurus, is associated with Philip's ".j_ctories in 218 by Hiller von
Gaertringen (Hist. gr. Epig. 103); but Aymard (Melanges de Vsscher
iii
Rev. int. droits d' ant., 1950, 74) criticizes this dating, probably
rightly, as too precise.
17. 8. Tl)v TWV 0Lav9Ewv xwpo.v: cf. iv. 57 2 n.
18. 2. Tolis t\9polatJ.Evou~ Twv :A.xa.twv: hardly a full citizen le\'Y at
SUCh notice, despite I7, 9, 7TJ.Il7'as. The march 1)~,1 rijs 6pE~V1jS will be
through the foothills of Parnon.
3. To MEvEA6.Lov: the temple of Helen and Menelaus stood on a hill
on the left bank of the Eurotas, to the south of Sparta (Paus. iii.
19. 9; Isoc. Hel. 63). Excavations by Wace and Thompson in 1909
and 1910 revealed a fifth-century temple, with geometrical and late
Mycenaean layers beneath (BSA, 1908-9, Io8 ff.; the frontispiece
gives an excellent view; 1909-Io, 4 ff.).
19. 2. :A.tJ.uKAclL: Amydae, traditionally an Achaean city taken by
the Dorians, lay some 2 ~ miles south of Sparta. The temenos of Apollo
Amyclaeus has been located by excavation on the hill of H. Kyriaki
about Tshaoushi, some ten minutes west of the Eurotas, and to the
east of the main south road from Sparta just before it reaches
553

II. LACONIA

554

THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218

v.

194

Slavoch6ri. The temenos contained no temple, and Pausanias mentions none. The site of the great throne of Bathycles, on which the
cult image of Apollo rested, has now been located under the chapel
of H. Kyriaki (removed during the excavations); Paus. iii. 19. 3
The township (Pausanias, ibid., calls it a KWp.'T}) probably lay to the
north-west of the sanctuary, rather than in the plain near Slavoch6ri,
where inscriptions are found built into the walls. See RE, 'Sparta',
cols. 1328--9 (Bolte), 1456-8 (Ziehen); and for a map Baedeker, Greece\
opposite p. 365.
4-8. Philip overruns Laconia. His route, south to the tip of Cape
Matapan (Taenarum), then north and east to overrun the eastern
peninsula almost to Cape Malea, is in its general Jines clear, and
many of the sites mentioned have been identified. Gythium (cf. Paus.
iii. 21. 6-22. 2; Frazer, Pausanias, iii. 376-8) lay a little to the north
of modern Gythium (Marathonisi) on a plain and low hills now
known as Palaeopolis (d. Forster, BSA, 1906-7, 22r ff.). The Camp
of Pyrrhus, Carnium, and Asine are less certain. As Bursian (ii.
148 n. 1) saw, the identification of Ilvppov xa~ with either the
castra Pyrrhi of Livy (xxxv. 27. 14), which lay north of Sparta, or
Pyrrichus (Paus. iii. 25. 1; near Kavalos) is impossible; it lay a not
very long day's march south of Amyclae, since Philip pillaged en
route, and is therefore to be sought somewhere in the Bardounochoria
district west of Levetsova (on the area see Ormerod, BSA, 1909-10,
66-7o). Carnium is probably to be identified with the temple of
Apollo Carneius on the hill Knakadion near Las (Paus. iii. 24. 8),
which itself stood on the hill of Passava beside a river which Pausanias (iii. 24. 9) calls the Smenus. Asine (cf. Strabo, viii. 363; Thuc.
iv. 54 4) was commonly taken to be Las, because Pausanias mentions
a defeat of Philip near Las and does not refer to Asine; but Forster
(BSA, 1906-7, 235 ff.; cf. CR, 1909, 221-2) locates it south of Cape
Pagania in the Bay of Scutari. On the area between Scutari and
Taenarum see A. M. Woodward, BSA, 19o6-7, 23&--59. Helus (cf.
Paus. iii. 22. 3; Frazer, Pausanias, iii. 380; Thuc. iv. 54 4) stood on
the site of the Kalyvia of Vezani, 8o stades east of Trinasus (so
Pausanias); see \Vace and Hasluck, BSA, r~, r6r ff.; its harbour
is now a marshy lagoon. Frazer describes its plain as 'light and sandy,
covered with corn-fields and dotted here and there with oaks and
olive trees'. Acriae, 30 stades from Helus (Paus. iii. 22. 4), has long
been identified with Kokkinhi near the north-east corner of the
Laconian Gulf, where sherds and tiles often turn up on a high bluff
to the south of the modem hamlet; cf. Wace and Hasluck, BSA,
1907-8, 162. On Leucae see iv. 36. 5 n.; and on the plain of Leucae,
south-east of Mt. Kourkoula around Molai, see Strabo, viii. 363
(Wace and Hasluck, loc. cit.). Boeae (Paus. iii. 22. n-13) stood at
the southern end of the Malea promontory in what is now the
555

V. rg. 4

THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218

Bay of Vatika ( BoanK<k), where its ruins were found during the
building of Neapolis (Frazer, Pau.sanias, iii. 384; Wace and Hasluck,
BSA, 1907-8, I68).

To this expedition of Philip one must probably refer the epigram

Anth. Pal. vii. 723,
:4. Trapo<; IJ.op:qros Kat &.vip.fla.-ro<;, JJ AaKEOaL'p.ov,
Ka'ti'Vdv br' EvpJ.mz, ol.pK(aL d!Mvwv
aaKLO<;' olwvo~ SJ Ka.Td. x8ov6<; olKla Oivre-;
p:6poV'Ta' p.~Awv 3' ovK dtouat AVKo.

So Bergk; others have connected it with the Achaean invasion of

'1.07 or the capture of Sparta in I88. But it does not mention the
capture of Sparta; nor is d!Mvwv (l. 2) to be linked with #.Q>.evo<;
in Achaea {cf. Bolte, RE, 'Olenos (4)', col. 244o).
5. To KfY11TLtcov vJ\a.yos: the sea lying north of Crete. Its limits are
uncertain; but Btirchner's suggestion (RE, 'Kretisches Meer', col.
1823) that the western limit was the island of Cythera cannot be
reconciled with this passage, which clearly includes the Laconian
Gulf as part of it.
6. "'I'E:pt (lilatcoala ~ea.l) TpL6.~eovTa. aTaOLa.: Strabo (viii. 363) makes
the distance from Sparta to Gythium 240 stades; hence Hultsch's
emendation seems likely, and preferable to treating -rp~&Kov-ra. as
corrupted from -rpw.Koma {so Muller, Dorians, ii. 457; Wunderer,
BPW, 18go, 593). The figure is given as 28 miles in Baedeker, Greece\
375

~s vpos .,.~pos 9E:wpou~vT): cf. 44 3 Capes, 'examined in detail'

(cf. Cardona, 'considerata nei suoi particolari'); Paton, 'taken as
a whole'. But '1Tp6s; pipa<; frequently means 'in proportion' in contexts

7.

implying dividing up; here it perhaps means 'considered relatively'

to the rest.

20. 3. ~Pl'-TJ"'av OLa TtlS )\pyE:ta.s: passing east of Parnon, through

the area which was still Argive as far as Glyrnpeis (cf. iv. 36. 5 for
this area and the site of Glyrnpeis) ; cf. Leake, Morea, i. 273.
6. Autcoupyos vpot1yE:: he probably crossed Parnon by the Pass
of Platanaki, which leads to Glympeis and Prasiae (I7. 8-24. IZ n.),
and had already previously been used by Philip in the opposite
direction; but Wace and Hasluck (BS A, I 9oS-!), 165) think Lycurgus
marched via Kosma, north of Mt. Mazaraki.

21. 1. OUIC lMTTOUS s,ax,XK.Jv: he left probably half his forces in the
city.
2. J3~.i"'l'ouaav Evl Tov Eu~Tav: Le. facing east; cf. 22. I ff.
3-9. Need for geographical precis1'on. P. repeats the principles
enunciated in iii. 36-38 (with some verbal echoes; 21. 4, cf. iii. 36. I

ss6

THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218

V. 23.8

36. 4), and adds that of proceeding from the known to the unknown
(21. 5). In iii. 36-38 he is of course concerned primarily with distant
lands, but here he is describing a Greek site (d. iii. 36. 3).
6. a.l TWV T01Twv 8ta.!J10pa~: cf. ix. 13. 8, oJB T6v TO'ITOV ~~~ fUKptp
8eTlov.
ot'lx OUTWS T6 yqovos ws TO 1TWS ~YEVETO: cf. ii. s6. iii. JI. I2, xii.
25 b r, and passim.
7. xwpa.Ls E1TWVOp.oLs: 'local place-names' or (Capes) 'places with dis-

tinctive epithets'.
8. Ta.is EK ToG 7TEpLEXOVTos 8La,;popa.is: 'different quarters of the
heavens'; the reference is to direction (not climate, as Paton thinks) ;
cf. iii. 36. 6, ~ ToiJ 7TepdxoVToS' 3tatpats- Kat T&,fts- (referred to in 21. 9,
Ko.O&rrep elp~Kafu;v).

22. 3. Tc'il 1rpos Ti]v 1ro~Lv Toll 1TOTa.p.ou 8La.arf)p.a.TL: 'the interval
between the river and the city'.
4. To miv 8LttCTT1'jp.a. TpLwv Tjp.taTa.Slwv: i.e. about 300 yards. The spot
was probably near the mill of Matalla; see the map in Baedeker,
Greece 4 , opposite p. 365. On the narrowness of the interval see Livy,
xxxiv. 28. z, 'Eurotam arnnem, sub ipsis prope fluentem moenibus',
xxxv. z9. 9; cf. Leake, M area, i. I 53 'In consequence of the difference
of level between the plateau of Sparta ... and the plain on the bank
of the Eurotas ... the hills of Sparta present a higher profile towards
the river than in any other direction.'
l:' T01TOV T'I)S '11'01\EWS KO.Lt TWV
~
r.l
~

the p la'ln On
6 E'ltLt TOY J.lETa.':>U
t'OUVWV:
I.e.
either side of the river; the hills are those on which the Menelaeum
stood. They are the )\(),Pot of 7.
7. 8ua1Ta.pa.~o118f)Tous Kal p.a.Kpous: 'in a long column to which aid
could be brought only with difficulty'.
9. Tous TE p.La&o+opous ~ea.l. Tovs 'II'EhTa.arO.s: a typical combination of
shock troops; d. the examples given in Philip, 292-3. The Illyrians
were probably sent by Scerdila'idas (Griffith, 7o-71 ; Launey, i.
t

'"

414-15)

23. 3. Tois 8' 'IXXupLois wEp6.pa.s: 'having outflanked (the enemy)

with his Illyrians' (cf. i. so. 6), or 'having brought his Illyrians
round (sc. his peltasts)' (d. iii. 73 7).
4. Ti]v TWv ~a.p.Ewv o1r~wv ~+oSov: i.e. of the peltasts, whose armour
was as hem)' as that of phalangites (mentioned in 8) ; d. Philip, 293.
6. Tous 8' eu~wvous: the mercenaries of 22. 9
8. v'lt' a.uTous Tous ~ouvous: the hills on the right bank on which
Sparta stood. Philip had crossed over from the left bank and subse~
quently ( ro) recrosses from the Spartan side, following the phalanx,
and probably by the ancient bridge just below the junction of the
Mousga with the Eurotas.
557

THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218

24. 3. T01TOl; a:lftxwv jlEVTTJS 1T0AEUil; KTA.: this site, about a quarter of
a mile from Sparta, must be the plateau east of Tsouni Pyrgos and
Morou, on the left bank of the Eurotas.
5. 8oKEiV !J.EV fv aO'TUAei O'TpaTO'II'E8EUEW: but the proximity of
Sparta would not explain the apparent security of the site, but the
contrary. Nor does the text give a contrast between ooKEi:v JLEV and
crrpaT07TElJEVEtV oi. Bekker suggested tmaa.Arit for W:ra.Afit; but it
seems more likely that a negative has fallen out after JLEV. Paton's
IL~ leaves hiatus; IL"lolv is therefore more probable.
8. TOt<; T01TOlS EV ots . O'uveO'TftO'aVTo Tov Kv8uvov: on the site of
the battle of Sellasia see ii. 65. 7 n.
25. 1. nToAE~J.aiov: a holder of some military post (cf. 26. 8), perhaps
commander of the agema (so Schweighaeuser).
TOUl; El( TOU ayt]...,a.Tos: cf. Livy, xlii. 51. 4. 'delecta deinde et
uiribus et robore aetatis ex omni caetratorum
peltasts; cf. Livy,
xxxi. 36. 1) numero duo milia erant: agema hanc ipsi legionem
uocabant'. Thus the agema was a picked body of 2,ooo of the peltasts,
corresponding to the agema of the hypaspists in Alexander's army
(d. Tarn, Alex. ii. 148 ff.), and it formed part of the full corps of
peltasts. For a similar body in the Boeotian army after its reorganization on Macedonian lines see Feyel, zo1-2; and for the Ptolemaic
agema, 65. 2.
2. Tus <wTeA&:(as): 'plunder' (not 'largesses', as Paton).
3. To(.,s vea.vwKous: 'soldiers' (not 'lads', as Paton; cf. Latin iuuenes).
26. 1. a.t iv T'fi <lwt<i&l '~~'POTavEiO'a.L vpO.sEtS: 'the opportunity which
had presented itself of carrying through a coup de main in Phocis'.
7Tpaglf.lf> (cf. 24. a) signifies especially treachery against a city with
help from within; see Schweighaeuser,Lex. Polyb. s.v. Feyel (148-5I)
believes that Philip was planning (but failed to effect) the seizure
of some town in Aetolian hands lying between Elatea and Thermopylae. But such a town would have been in Epicnemidian Locris,
not lv rfj <IJwKl?it. If, as seems likely, Philip was concerned with the
short route south (cf. Philip, 59-6o), it is likely that the 7Tpafetr;
were directed against Elatea and Phocis as a whole, as Accame suggests (Riv. jil., 1949, 227). For there is no evidence that Phocis had
joined in the war on Aetolia; its name is not mentioned in iv. 36. 7-<J
(not in itself conclusive), and it appears to have remained neutral
like Boeotia (Feyel, 144 ff.). On this occasion Philip's 7Tpa~Ets failed
(cf. 27. 1); but in 217 Phocis is under a Macedonian commander
(96. 4-8, x. 4.2, 2, 42. 7), and apparently a 'protectorate'. Accame
(Riv. jil., 1949, 225 ff.) adduces Pausanias (x. 34 3), cf>{)..,7T7Tos oE o
LlrtP.TJTplov TOll TE ~~~ 'E"AaTdq. ofjp.ov 7Tpds TO laxaTOV OEOVS' fjyayE, Ka~
~yayETO ap.a TOVS ovvaTWTipovs owpECf (cf. Passerini, Athen., r94B,
558

THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218

V. z6.

12

9I). If this text is reliable (its source is unknown), Philip used

methods of treachery to seize Elatea and Phocis within the next
few months; and Phocis remained in subjection until 196 (xviii.
46. 5).
2. EK "Til~ Xa>.KSo~: cf. z. 8.
5. ot ... imcna"Ta~ Kat XELP~C1'Ta(: these officials are in charge of the
separate towns of Macedonia and Thessaly (equated with Macedonia: cf. iv. 76. z). Epistatai are known from Amphi polis (Syll. z
832 = Michel, Recueil, IJ86), Thessalonica (Pelekides, 6, 11. 23-24),
'Greia' (Makaronas, llpx. Jcfo., I934-5, n7-I27 = Welles, A]A, I9J8,
246 f., II. 8-9; but Bengtson (Strat. ii. 325 n. s) doubts if this JmCTTaawv was at Greia). Others are probably Harpalus at Beroea
(Syll. 459) and, outside Macedon and Thessaly, Cassander at Maronea
(xxii. IJ. 4), Plator at Oreus (Livy, xxviii. 6. I); for epistatai in Carla
cf. Holleaux, BCH, 1904, 357-8 =Etudes, iv. 208-9. For cheiristai
cf. oi Sta -rwv olKovop.wv X*"pw-ral in the diagramma of Philip V from
Chalcis (Kougeas, 'EAA7Jv,Ka, I934, 177 ff.; Welles, A] A, I9J8, 252,
l. 9 = IG, xii, suppl. 644) and the Ptolemaic xnpl~ovr~s (34. 4). See
further Philip, 2 n. 6; and for the inner organization of Macedon in
general Bengtson, Strat. ii. JI7 ff. The cheiristai were inferior functionaries; on the epistatai see Holleaux, BCH, I933 z6 ff. =Etudes,
iii. 2I6 ff.; Reuss, Stadt und Herrscher, 29-35. See also 48. I2 n.
8. "Tous vious: 'the soldiers' (cf. i. 88. 6 n., v. 25. 3).
fJYE!l-OVES "Twv n 1TE>."TaO"Twv K'T>..: Leontius was captain of the peltasts; and Ptolemaeus may have been commander of the agema
(z5. In.). But Megaleas was br~ -rou ypap.p.a-rdov (iv. 87. 8), and it is
not clear how he ranks as ~yEp.dJv (unless he had since been appointed
to some unrecorded post). The words OX\wv -rwv lmcfoavECTTa-rwv
avCTT7Jp.a-rwv probably refer to the agema; cf. 25. In.
9. 'TilS da6Sou 'Tpa.y~KijS: 'entry in pomp'; cf. vi. s6. II, -rpay<pSla,
'pageantry'.
ijyEjlovwv Ka.t a"Tpa.'T~'TWV: 'officers and other ranks' ; see Launey
(i. 26) for the assembled epigraphic evidence for this phrase.
12-13. Reversal of fortune in the case of those attendant on kings. The
sentiment is trite and commonplace, especially in the poets; cf.
Eurip. fg. 420 (Nauck2 ) :
op{jS -rvpaWOV~ Olrt p.aKpWV 7]fJf7]p.vov~
W~ f.LtKprt Trt acpaAAoi!Ta, Kat p.f' ~f.LEpa
Ta p.O, Ka8LA~V Vif!o8zy, Ta 0' ljp' avw.

Hence there is no reason to think P. is echoing Demetrius of

Phalerum' s 11Ephvx7J~ (so von Scala, I6J). The simile ofthe counters on
the counting-board (there is no reference here to a game, as Wunderer (iii. z8) believes) is elsewhere attributed to Solon; cf. Diog.
Laert. i. 59, AEyE St (J .E6>.wv) TOv~ TTapd TOt> -rvpavvot> Svvap.~ov~
559

V.

26. I2

THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218

7Tapa7rA7Jalovs Elva. Tats t/1~</>ots Tats JTrt TWV 1\oytap.wv. Kat yd.p tKElvwv
(KalTT"fJv 1ro-r~ p.~v 7T'Alw a"f/p.alvw, 7TOT S ~TTW' Kat TovTwv ToVs
-rvpavVOVS 7TOTl p.~V KalTTOV p./.yav ayEW Kat 'J..ap.1rp0v, 7TOT~ /) fLTfi-OV

(repeated in Gnomolog. Vatic. (ed. Sternbach, Wien. Stud., 1889), 224).

Plutarch (Mor. 174 B) attributes a similar observation to Orontes,
Artaxerxes' son-in-law; and P.'s use of ovTws perhaps hints at this
borro.ving from a common stock.
In calculations on the abacus, when the number of units in the
first column reached the equivalent of a single unit in the second
column, the calculator (o tfrYJ<folCwv) moved one counter into the
latter, where it acquired a new value. A marble abacus found at
Salamis provides for calculations of sums between one talent and
one chalcous (l obol). On the use of the abacus see Hultsch, RE,
'abaCUS (g)', COJs. 5-10.
16. rr6.ALV Etc: Tou Aexulou: for the second time that year (cf. 2. n).
21. l. tc:TAL1Twv Tiw AE6vTLov iv <try)un Twv E'itc:oaL TuA6.VTwv:
cf. 16. 8. Megaleas was on bail to appear when required, and his

flight laid Leontius under the liability to meet the surety of 20

talents.
2. Twv 8' iv Tuis :.\fhlvlS aTpTT}ywv: inscriptions show that the
Athenians maintained a strong frontier guard to protect their
neutrality during this war (Ferguson, 249), and it is likely that
Megaleas was turned back at the frontier and continued north to
Thebes.
p.eTi)A8E 1TclALV ets -rO.s e~~us: 'then went on to Thebes'; cf. 70. 3
Tra/\w d7r01TAe.tv Els TJpov. For this sense of miAw see Schweighaeuser
on x. 9 I, '1ra.Aw non semper iterationem eiusdem facti significat,
sed etiam haud raro exordium uel susceptionem facti, antea non
tentati, sed quod contrarium sit superioris facti uel instituti (Reiske) '.
3. ~ Twv KuTO. K(ppuv Torrwv: Cirrha lay near modern Magoula at
the head of the Crisaean Gulf; on the confusion between Cirrha and
Crisa, which is to be sought near Chrys6 on a spur of Parnassus, see
Pieske, RE, 'Krisa', cols. 1887-9 At this time Cirrha, as the port
of Delphi, must like it have been in Aetolian hands. Philip probably
marched from Elatea through Daulis and Ambrysus, and then, like
Scopas and Dorimachus in Elis in 220 (iv. 9 9 f.), swung over into
enemy territory to make the demonstration of embarking at, or
near, Cirrha; cf. Flaceliere, 287 n. 2, 319.
11uO. Twv 6rru<TTI'LCTTwv: Philip's hypaspists were a small group of
individuals employed for special tasks like Alexander's JTaipot; cf.
Tarn, ]RS, 1941, 173; Alex. ii. 138. In Alexander's army the hapot
are distinct from the uwp.aTo</>vAaKr<S (Alexander's personal staff; cf.
Tarn, Alex. ii. 141); but under Philip V there is some evidence that
'hypaspists' and uwfLaTo</>vAaK> were identical (cf. Philip, 291). After

s6o

THE SOCIAL WAR: EVENTS OF 218

v. 30.

Cynoscephalae Philip sent a hypaspist to burn his state papers

(xviii. 33 1-7); in similar circumstances (Diod. xxx. II) Perseus sent
a awp.aircXfovl\a~ to burn his dockyards. For inscriptional evidence
relative to Philip's hypaspists see Philip, ibid.
4. a:tro.ycl.yetv 11po~ n)v cl.va.Sox'Yjv: 'to meet his surety', i.e. for
Megaleas.
5. p.T) xwpl; o.u-rGw: they claimed Leontius' right to a trial before
the army-assembly.
8. Ba-r-rov i] vpo~BETo: at what point Philip in fact resolved to
eliminate Leontius there is not the evidence to decide.

28. 1. of vpta~et;: d. 24. ro-n. On Rhium ( z) cf. iv. 10. 4

4. Tel. Ka.TO. Tov <I>(AL1T1Tov ~~w TEMw'i ta-r: 'Philip is "played out " ',
LSJ. But the expression is without parallel, and the passage seems
to be corrupt. Of several emendations that of Hultsch (vol. ii, ed. 2,
praef., p. ix) seems most plausible: .,.a Kcmi Tov lPO..t1T1Tov i~dJK<:.t.Aev
ciJs lvt p.aALaTa (cf. iv. 48. n), 'Philip's fortunes were going completely to ruin'.
5. ~o.1TeaTtAE d., -rov KopLVBov: Apelles, though sent on to
Corinth from Sicyon (27. 3), had evidently rejoined Philip at
Lechaeum.
6. :AA.e~o.v8pov: d. iv. 87. 5, Tov t1T1Tfj> Oepa1relas TTa')lp.ivov.
E1Ti Tct'i cl.pxu<.; 11po'i TTJV yyu11v: he was to charge Megaleas before the
The ban authorities for the unpaid fine: see 15. 9ft., n. d.
9. Tij; &.pp.otou<71]<.; TuxovTE<.; KO.To.aTpocpfi<.;: on Tyche as the power
bringing the fitting penalty cf. i. 84. ron., iv. 81. 5 The reference to
Aratus indicates the Achaean bias of P.'s source here; similarly in
the anti-Aetolian sentiments of 29. 2.
29. 6. KplVO.'i v TOL'i Ma.Ke80aw: cf. 15. 9ft., n. e.
7-9. Contemporary events. It was autumn 218. For Hannibal and
the Romans in the Po valley cf. iii. 56. 6; for Antiochus, who was
wintering in Ptolemais, cf. v. 7! 12. Lycurgus' flightis not mentioned
elsewhere; for its sequel see 91. 2.
30. 1. 'E1T1]p0.Tou: general, 218/17; cf. r. z.
2. nupp(a.;: otherwise unknown; evidently he succeeded Agelaus
and Scopas (3. r). These Aetolians are distinguished from the mercenaries, and may have been sent as allies. The mercenaries and
pirates employed by Euripidas in 219/18 (iv. 68. r) were apparently
Aetolians too.
4. TO no.va.xa:iKOV (;po;: modern Vo!dia, rising to 6,3ZO ft., and lying
east to south-east of Patras.
6. TEAo; 8teM811 To ~EvlK6v: i.e. federal mercenaries. The separate
force enrolled by the western cities (iv. 6o. 5) will scarcely have been
maintained after Philip's winter campaign of 219/18 .
..868

00

v.

30. 7

THE SOCIAL \VAR: EVENTS OF 218

7. aTpnTT)yov :A.pa,.ov Ka.TkaTTJaa.v: 'they appointed Aratus

general.' On the phrase see Aymard, ACA, 254 ff., who writes, 'il
est evident que Ka(haTtiVO.L designe ici tOUS leS acteS indispensableS
pour qu'un nouveau titulaire occupe cette magistrature, c'est-a-dire
ala fois I' election et I' entree en charge'. There was no fixed date for
the election (cf. iv. 82. 7 n.); this year it seems to have taken place
very shortly before Aratus' entry into office in mid-May (TI] 8;ptda;;
~va.pxop.ivTJ;;; cf. iv. 37 2, v. I. r).

30.8-57. 8. Revolts i"tl Egypt; Malon's rebellion against Antiochus

(222-220)

P. introduces his account of events in Asia and Egypt with a

digression on the construction of his history, containing polemic
against unnamed writers who would palm off epitomes as universal
history (3o. 8-33. 8).
31. 1. Tov 01rep Ko[AT)S :Iupns 1TOA!J-OV: cf. iii. 2. 4
2. nlpou}LEVOl 6e 'Ti)v TOLa.UTT)V 1raTa.aw KTA.: 'having chosen this
point to halt and make a division in my narrative' ; for this sense of
l:TTlO"Taat;; cf. X en. A nab. ii. 4 26. Schweighaeuser translates correctly
institionem; and this is preferable to the sense 'beginning, introduction' (cf. i. rz. 6, etc.) given for this passage in the Lex. Polyb.
5. Tns Ka.TnAAT)Aa. yEvo~va.s 1rp6.~LS: 'events occurring simultaneously'; cf. iii. 32. 5 n. Paton ('the events of each year in chronological order') misses the sense.
6. ~ea.86.1rep OEOT)AWK}LEV: at i. 4 2-3. For P.'s stress on clarity
cf. iv. 28. 4-6, xxxviii. 5 I ff. P. realized that by halting and changing
over to Syrian events at this point he laid himself open to the
criticism later made by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ep. ad Pomp.
ii. 237. to ff.) against Thucydides, viz. that he was daa</J~;; and
liv0'7TapaKo>.mJ8TJTo;; because he left topics half treated: ~fttTEAE f;; Ta.>
TTpdJTa> TTpagE> ICUTUAt7Tl~JV ETf.pwv a7TTETUt (cf. de Thucyd. 9) Diodorus
(xvi. r. r-2) treats the same point: ~ftTEAi> TTpd(<:t> ovK lxouaat
avvexh Tat> d.pxat> To TTepa>. This stress on O'a</J~veta and avvexeta is
characteristic of Hellenistic rhetorical theory; cf. E. Burck, Die
Erziihlungskunst des T. Livius (Berlin, 1934). 186.
8. O.px0.<> o}LoAoycu;}LEVa.<; Ka.t yvwpL~o~vn<;: cf. i. S 4, A7J7TTf.ov o~
Kai TOt;; Katpo'i:s- OftOAoyovttEVTJV Kai yvwpt~Oftfl'TJV J.px~v 7Tap' a'TTO.fJ!,

32. 1. TTJV 6.pxT)v -111-'Lau Tou 'IIUVT6<;: cf. vi. n a 8, quoting Hesiod,
op. 40, ~tot, oVIU taauw datp 'TTAeOV iftttUU 'TTO.l'TCJS'. The present proverb
is rather different. Iamblichus (VP, 162) records it as an apophthegm of Pythagoras in the form, dpx~ Of. Tot f}p.wv TTa.VTos-; cf. also
Plato, Laws, vi. 753 E, dpxfi yap >.iyeTat t-t~" 7itttav 7TaVTa.> Jv Tai;;
TTapotttlat> epyov, KU~ TO

YE

ICUAW> ap(aa8at

'TTUVTES' ly~ewp.ta~OftEV EKU-

v.

REVOLTS IK EGYPT (222-220)

\

UTOT' TO

~1o

)f

0'TV

T,

t'

.J..

W<; Ef-LO 't'O.VET!lt,

). I

7TI\l!OJ'

'f'\

fl

'~

33-5

'

TJ TO TJfLtUV, I(O.t OVO"> !lVTO

~<a.Aws ')'EVOf-LEvov yKEKWf-LlaKEv i.Kavws;

Arist. Eth. N ic. i. 7. 23. Iog8 b 7,

8oKei: o~v 7T-\ei:ov ~ Td 1lf-L0'!J TOU 7T!lVTtk t:lva. ~ apx~ Both the codex
Urbinas (F) and the Vaticanus (A) attribute this also to Hesiod; so
too Lucian (Herm. 3). But the phrase had wide rhetorical currency;
cf. von Scala, 73; Wunderer, ii. 41-42, 86, who suggests that P. is
drawing on a gnomic collection.

33. 2. "'Eq,opov: see iv. :zo. 5 n.; cf. ii. 37 4 n. \\'hom P. means when
he attacks the writers of epitomes of the Hannibalic War ( 3) is
unknown. Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 338 n.) thinks of Menodotus of Perin
thus (cf. Diod. xxvi. 4), but apparently only through horror uacui.
3. aEAi<nv: 'columns' on a papyrus roll.
4. '1TA1)v Tou 'ITEpt ILKEALa.v: the First Punic War; cf. i. IJ. 3, 1 3 Io.
ml.vTEs .fJva.yKlw91l!J-E": probably 'we in Greece' (so Paton).
5. T~w 1Tpa.yt-ta.Teuof.LE:vwv: 'composers of history'.
ot u1TOIJ-"1ltJ-a.TLbOf.LEVol 'lroALTLKws ELS To us TOlxous: who are these
writers on walls, and what do they write? A. Wilhelm (Beitrage
zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde (Vienna, xgog), 287 f.) saw a refer
ence to the setting up of official records; and Laqueur (RE, 'Lokalchronik', cols. 1o88-9) showed that 7TOATU<ws meant, not 'in a simple
fashion' (Schweighaeuser), nor yet 'political' in contrast to 'rhetori
cal', as in Aristotle (Poet. vi. 1450 b 7) (\Nilhelm), but 'on public
instructions and for the citizen body'; these &rof-LV~[-Lam were in
contrast to real histories. P., then, is referring to 'officially published
memoranda'; but their contents are still controversial. Laqucur
believes them to have contained material of a 'chronicle' type, and
suggests that 'IToAtnKa V7TOf-L~f-La:ra was the official term for public
chronicles in Greek cities, in contrast to fla.mA.td. &ro[-Lvqp..aTa. But
Jacoby (Atthis, Oxford, 1949, qq-8o, with notes) argues that these
{mof-L~f-LaTa were mainly official notices on such matters as enfran
chisements, proxeny-grants, and sales, 'matters, that
which are
published not because of an historical interest, but because the
citizens must be informed about them for practical reasons'; and
he compares the Roman acta diurna. The main obstacle to this in
other respects attractive view is the phrase v Tai:s xpovoyparpla.tc;, on
which Jacoby writes (op. cit. 356 n. 20), 'if P. did write the words,
he must mean that the reports are inscribed on the walls meant
for them regularly and annually'. The phrase is indeed difficult;
it is not found elsewhere in the extant parts of P. nor is it easily
translated. If it is retained, a preferable rendering to Jacoby's would
be 'those who on public authority set up memoranda of occasional
happenings in chronological sequence'-which would not necessarily imply an historical record after the manner of the Parian
Marble (so Meyer, /(l. Schr. ii. 338 n.). But this is a forced rendering,
563

V. 33 5

REVOLTS IN EGYPTj (222-220)

and the likelihood is that lv Tat> xpovoyprufoiats- should be extruded

as a gloss by someone who has failed to understand to what P. is
referring. In that case, Jacoby's view seems the most acceptable.
Paton completely misses the sense.
34. 1. nToAEI.la.l:os tPlAovci.Twp: his accession fell between 5 and
r6 February 221 (cf. ii. 65-ti9 n., 71. 3-ti, iv. z. 8).
Tbv G.SEX<j.bv Maya.v: .Magas was one of the four sons of Ptolemy III
Euergetes and Berenice, the daughter of .Magas of Cyrene; the precise date and circumstances of his murder are not known, but its
instigator was Sosibius (36. r, xv. zs. 2; Plut. Cleom. 33; Justin.
XXX. I. z; cf. Holleaux,Etudes, iii. sr, with n. 2 by Robert}, and Ps.Plutarch's statement (De prou. Alex. 13 Crusius) that he was stabbed
in a hot bath appears to be confirmed by P. Graec. Haun. 6, 11.28 ff.,
if M. Segre (Rend. Pontij. Ace. Rom. Arch., 1942-3, zf59~o) is right
in restoring [ttv(AV azl[7'01' oJ AlTwAOS' 16fio7'0S' Jv ,Ba.Aave[lw]-in
which case, as Segre notes, :1/.oyos- in the Plutarchean version should
probably be altered to eoi'io7'0S'. On Theodotus see 40, I-3 n.; and on
Cleomenes' attitude towards Magas' murder see 35-39 n. The phrase
ToDs- To &rep uuvepyovnas includes Berenice, the queen-mother (36. I).
:A.vnyovou !Cal IEAE(ncou f.!-ETTJAAa.xoTwv: Antigonus died about July
221 (ii. 70. 6 n.), Seleucus in late srunmer 223 (ii. p. 3-ti n.). Philip
was 17 on his accession (iv. 5 3), Antiochus about 19 (for he was
over so in 192 (cf. xx. 8. 1) and so born about 242).
3. 'II'O.VTJYIIPlKWTEpov OL~YE TQ ICO.TCl TTJV apxT)v ICTA,: 'he ruled somewhat ostentatiously.' From P. onwards, tradition is hostile to
Philopator; cf. 87. J, xiv. 12. 3; Plut. Cleom. 33 ff. On the source
problem see 45-49 n. ; and for some considerations on the other side
see Perdrizet, REA, 191o, 234 ff.; Holleaux, REA, 1912, 371 n. 5
Etudes, iii. 48 n. 5
4. Tol:s vEpt T~v a.uX~v: cf. 41. 3, so. 14; App. Syr. 45; Josephus, AI,
xii. zrs. On this term, which indicated the court dignitaries comprehensively, see Corradi, 26o; Bikerman, Seleucides, 36.
To is evt TWV E~W vpa.yl.laTWV OtO.TETO.YI.lEVOl$: cf. the apocryphal letter
of Philopator in 3 Mace. iii. I, Tots uTayf.Lilvo> i11 11payf.LaTwv:
OGIS, 231 1. 26
Welles, 31). This elastic phrase (Corradi, 266)
here includes the stratego1: and hipparchs of the provinces.
6. KoATJS l:upla.s ~ea.l Kuvpou ~eupLEuovTES: by Coele-Syria the
Greeks originally meant the long depression running south from
between the Lebanon and the Antilebanon, and marked in succession
by the valley of the Litani, the Jordan valley, the Dead Sea, and the
southward continuation to 'Aqaba and the Red Sea; but the term
was extended to cover vaguely, and in conjunction with the name
'Phoenicia', the whole area between Egypt and Cilicia. 'On peut
dire que dans l'usage general de l'epoque hellenistique Ies vocables
564

REVOLTS IN EGYPT (222-220)

v.

35

"Coele-Syrie" et "Coe1l~-Syriens" servent a distinguer les contnes

et les populations en Syrie pour lesquelles on ne trouve pas de noms
mieux appropries' (Bikerman, Rev. bibl., 1947, 259). See also W. Otto,
Beitrage zur Seleukidengeschichte (Abh. Bay. Ak., 1928), 37 n. I;
Corradi, 31-50. Ptolemy Soter seized southern Syria as far north as
the neighbourhood of Sidon just before the battle of Ipsus in 301
(Diod. xx. u3); on Seleucus' claim see 67. 6-ro n. Soter may also
have acquired the district of Galilee; but the Plain of Marsyas between
the Lebanon and the Antilebanon, which remained the northern
limit of Ptolemaic expansion (cf. 45 8, 46. 2), was more likely won
by Ptolemy Philadelphus in the Second Syrian War (Beloch, iv. 2.
322-3). Cyprus changed hands several times before Soter finally
recovered it in 295 (Plut. Demetr. 35; Beloch, iv. 2, 331-2).
7. va.peKEivTo St: Tois Ka.TQ. n)v ~ala.v Suvc.WTa.Ls:: 'their sphere of
control included .. .'. Among the dynasts of Asia were the Attalids
and also, perhaps, such rulers in south-west Asia Minor as are mentioned in 90 I (q.v.).
tca.L Ta'Ls v~aots: after the fall of Demetrius Poliorcetes in 285,
Ptolemy I acquired most of his fleet and control over the Aegean.
Philadelphus consolidated Egyptian power here, exercising it
through the nominally independent Island League, originally an
Antigonid creation ; for detailed discussion of particular islands see
Beloch (iv. 2. 347-9}. This power was broken in three naval battles
of uncertain date, Cos, Andros, and Ephesus, the first two Macedanian, the last a Rhodian victory. For bibliography and recent
discussion see Launey, ii. 935; A. Momigliano (with P. Fraser), CQ,
1950, ro7-18 (dating Cos 262, Andros c. 258, and Ephesus c. 256);
Treves, Euforione, 75-83, 124-8 (with notes). Ptolemaic decline in
this area seems to have begun at least thirty years before Philopater's accession.
7-8. Asia Minor. Ptolemaic possessions here included Lycia, Caria,
and parts of Ionia, especially Miletus, Samos, and Ephesus; see
Beloch, iv. 2. 333-46; Rostovtzeff, CAll, vii. 126 ff.; SEHlllV, i.
332 ff. Pamphylia (cf. 72 ff.) was never really controlled by either
Ptolemies or Seleucids; cf. Meyer, Grenzen, 131; Magie, ii. I I 56 n. I,
Thrace and Macedonia: cf. xviii. 51. 5; OGIS, 54 Aenus and
Maronea, the Thracian Chersonese with Lysimacheia and Sestus,
and Cypsela on the Hebrus fell to Ptolemy III between 245 and 241
(details in Beloch, iv. 2. 346-7; cf. Klaffenbach, Abh. Berlin. Akad.
1952, no. r, pp. 19-20}; but the 'effective watch over Thrace and
Macedon' is an exaggeration designed to denigrate Ptolemy IV.
~5-39.

The end of Cleomenes. P.'s account invites comparison with

Plutarch (Cleom. 33 ff.}; and Schulz (Quibus ex fontibus fluxerint Ag.
C:lmm. Arat. uitae Plutarcheae, Berlin, r886) has argued that the
565

V. 35

REVOLTS

I~

EGYPT (222-220)

source both of P.'s narrative and of the fuller account in Plutarch

was Phylarchus (ii. 55~63 n.). Previously Michaelis (Jahresbericht
d. phil. Ver., Berlin, r8n, 246 ff.) had suggested that Plutarch used
P., supplemented from some earlier author; and clearly the possibility that Plutarch used both P. and P.'s source cannot be excluded
(cf. Momigliano, Boll. jil. class., rgz8-g, 257). There is, however, a
marked discrepancy between P.'s account of why Nicagoras hated
Cleomenes and that in Plutarch; the former is much more hostile
to the Spartan king and implies that he had murdered Archidamus.
Now it is certain from Plutarch (Cleom. 5) that Phylarchus did not
attribute Archidamus' death to Cleomenes (cf. 37 In.); hence this
part of P. cannot derive from Phylarchus (cf. Ferrabino, 304). The
version attributing Archidamus' death to Clcomenes Ferrabino regards as part of a popular Spartan account of Cleomcnes' death,
used as propaganda during the revolution of spring 219 (iv. 35).
But how could such a version, assuming its existence, reach P.? If
via Phylarchus (as Fcrrabino seems inclined to admit), that historian
retailed two contradictory accounts. A separate source seems the
more likely explanation.
Again there is a discrepancy between P. and Plutarch on Cleomenes' attitude towards the murder of .Magas. In Plutarch (Cleom.
33 3 ff., evidently follo\1.ng Phylarchus) Cleomenes opposes the
murder, arguing that 1-Iagas' influence over the mercenaries need
cause no alarm, since he (Cleomenes) had only to nod to bring over
3,ooo of the Pcloponnesians to his aid (npo8vp.ws p.erd. Twv o?TAwv
7rapmop.lvovs)-a speech which won Cleomenes influence at the time,
though later it led the court to distrust him. According to P. (36. 3).
however, Cleomenes encouraged Sosibius in his project, advancing
his own influence over the mercenaries as a reason, and Sosibius
felt justified in going ahead. Here again P. follows a source more
discreditable to Cleomenes.
In several other places there are minor differences between the
two versions (cf. 36. 4-5 n., 38. 5 n., 39 3 n.), and frequently Plutarch
is fuller and more precise (though occasionally, as in 36. 4-5, the
reverse is true). These differences can be explained on the assumption
that both writers followed Phylarchus, that Plutarch also consulted
P., and that P. 'corrected' his Phylarchean version at various points
from some other source. A plausible suggestion as to the identity of
this other source is made by Momigliano (Boll. fil. class., I9Z8-'J,
2 57-8) following von Scala (263-4), viz. Ptolemy of Megalopolis, the son
of Agesarchus, who wrote 7rEpt Trlv rt>tAo?T<:i'Topa iCI'ToplaL (Athen. vi.
246 c) of a scandalous nature (FGH, r6r); cf. xviii. 55 6--'). A .Megalopolitan, even living abroad, might well be hostile to Cleornenes of
Sparta. The complicated character of P.'s sources at this point, where
a parallel narrative (in Plutarch) enables some control to be exercised,
566

REVOLTS IN EGYPT (222-220)

V.36.1

is a warning against rash hopes of identifying or even sepa,ating the

sources used for the parts for which no second narrative exists (e.g. the
war between Ptolemy and Antiochus, and the Raphia campaign).
35. 1. ~e:owwvla.v Twv 1tpa.y1-1-6.Twv ~e:a.l Tnt; 1taT1E~'i: on Cleomenes' subsidies from Ptolemy Euergetes, and their withdrawal, see ii. 51. 2 n.,
63. I ff. ; for Cleomenes' giving of hostages and fear of making a
separate peace with the Achaeans d. Plut. Cleom. 22. 4---9
2. KO~VWVOUVTWV 5f: TWV Aa.K!E5a.L!-LOVlWV AtTwAoit; Tll'i a1tiEX9iEa.t;:
cf. iv. I6. 5 n. The chronology of these rather vague general statements is not to be pressed.
7. ot 5f: 1T1Epl Tov Iwa~Lov: Sosibius, son of Dioscurides, the most important figure of Philopator's reign, is singled out for hostile comment (cf. xv. 25. I, 34 4, etc.). In a detailed discussion of his life
Holleaux (REA, I9I2, 370--6 =Etudes, iii. 47-54) confirms Beloch's
hypothesis that Sosibius had already a long career of service under
Euergetes. Several inscriptions refer to him (JG, xi. 4 649; vii. 507
( = OGIS, So), 3I66; OGIS, 79); but Callimachus' elegy on ZwaL{3lov
vlKTJ (Pfeiffer, fg. 384) probably honours his grandfather. Plutarch
(Cleom. 34 2) calls him 0 ... TtdV oAwv 1Tp0WT1JKWS Kat 1Tpo{3ouAUWP.
See further Geyer, RE, 'Sosibios (3)', cols. 1149-52.
10. TE9Ea....,Evot; ii1T' a.1iyO.,. a.uTwv Ta1tpa.y...,a.Ta.: cf. Plut. Cleom.
34 2, ri]s {3acnA!las vouOVUlJS O!aT~v Y!Y!V1Jt-Lvov. For the phrase cf.
x. 3 I' T!Owt-L!vwv U1T auya> aUTOV T~V cp-6uLV; it means 'to hold up to
the light and look at', and first appears in the tragedians (cf. Wunderer, i. 75, quoting Homer, Od. xi. 498, 619). The observation concerning Egypt recalls Plut. Arat. 15. 3 (Aratus has returned from
Alexandria um; UK~PlJP !wpaKWS' 1TCtVTa ra iK!i 1Tpayt-LO.Ta Tpaycpfllav
0

OVTa Kal UKlJPOypacp{av).

11. va.ut; iv Toit; ~e:a.Tn I0.1-1-ov: Samos was Ptolemaic throughout the
third century from about 28o; cf. Holleaux, REG, 1897, 26 =Etudes,
iii. 42; Robert,Et. epig. 113-18; Launey, i. 237-8.
<M'pa.nwTwv 1TAfj9ot; ~v To it; KaT' "EcpEaov: probably mercenaries, as
UTpartwTat often are in inscriptions (Launey, i. 29-30).
13. ou~e: ciacpa.A.f:t; ~'lta.uALv: cf. Plut. Cleom. 6, Kai 1ToAAwv 'l}v
aKOVHV A!yovrwv O'TL oJros 0 .A!wv lv TOVTotS' TOtS' 1Tpo{3aTOLS' avaUTpicp!TaL'. The common source is apparently Phylarchus (35-39 n.).

36. 1. Tt]v O.va.pEaLv Tou Maya. ~e:a.l Tfj'i BEpEVbcTJ'i: cf. 34 I n. Berenice
was mother of both Magas and Philopator, and wife of Euergetes;
she is celebrated in Callimachus' Lock of Berenice (cf. Pfeiffer, i. 320,
certa uestigia Comae desunt). Her TOAt-La was renowned since, as a girl,
she had her proposed husband Demetrius the Fair murdered for
his relationship with her mother Apama (Iustin. xxvi. 3 ('Arsinoe'
for 'Apama'); d. Cat. 66. 25 f., 'at te ego certe cognoram a parua
uirgine magnanimam').

v. 36.3

REVOLTS IN EGYPT (222-220)

~vous Ka1t.ua9oj>opous: 'the foreign mercenaries', cf. 53 3

Bikerman (Seleucides, 69) distinguishes the {'vot as troops enrolled
for one season and j.Lta0o<fo6pot as permanent troops ; but they are
probably one body (cf. ii. ~. 3 n.; Launey, i. 27-28).
4-5. oux opq,s KTA.: cf. Plut. Cleam. 33 4 P. says <JXEOOV lr; TptaxtAtovs and mentions I,ooo Cretans; Plutarch omits the Cretans but
writes 7TI.tdovs ~ TpwxtAtovs. But these variants are not sufficient to
require a separate source, for Plutarch may be compressing his
narrative (he also omits Cleomenes' ironical reference to Syrians and
Carians). Mercenaries dr.6 llAo1Tovv~aov are probably no more than
men recruited at Taenarum, a mart no doubt controlled by Sparta;
cf. Diod. xix. 6o. r; Launey, i. I04-5
5. TOUS a'ITO Iup(a.s tca.l Ka.pia.s aTpc:mwTa.S: probably Syrian and
Carian mercenaries in Alexandria. Several are known, and a cinerary
urn of one Syrian from the military cemetery at Hadra, east of
Alexandria, bears an epitaph (Launey, i. 456, 538). This seems to
make a better point than if one assumes (with Griffith, 127--8) that
Cleomenes refers to mercenaries on garrison duty in Syria (CoeleSyria ?) and Caria; but the garrisons abroad certainly enter the
picture (cf. 35 II, Tois KaT' NE<fowov) and Griffith's view is possible.
In either case the soldiers are mercenaries.

3. Tous

37. 1. :A.px&.&O.Ilou IJa.<nAEws: Archidamus, Agis' brother; cf. iv.

35 13, viii. 35 3-5. According to Plutarch (Cleam. 5 2-3) he had
previously fled to Messenia, and in 227 was recalled by Cleomenes,
and then murdered ; Phylarchus evidently made Cleomenes oppose
the murder (though knowing of it beforehand), and Plutarch clearly
regards him as privy to it (Camp. Ag. et Cleom. et Gracch. 5). This
implies that Archidamus fled at the time of Agis' murder (Plut.
Cleom. r. 1). But P. is certain that he fled through fear of Cleomenes
(37. 2; cf. viii. 35 3, V7TLS6p.Evor; -rTjv KAeop.Evovr; <fotl.apxlav), and was
murdered by Cleomenes-which he deserved for his folly in trusting
himself to him. Beloch (iv. 2. 552; cf. Walbank, Aratos, 193-4)
resolved the discrepancy by assuming two exiles; but in fact the
two accounts are essentially separate. As in the case of Magas'
murder, Phylarchus exculpates and Polybius implicates Cleomenes.
The credibility of the two versions (that ofP. perhaps from Ptolemy of
Megalopolis: 35-39 n.) will depend on the internal evidence. Plutarch
(Phylarchus) attributes Nicagoras' hostility towards Cleomenes to an
unpaid debt for an estate which he had sold Cleomenes. This is unconvincing; for where could such an estate have been situated? And would
Cleomenes then have greeted his creditor so warmly? (cf. Beloch, iv.2.
555). On the whole it seems likely that Phylarchus invented this reason
because he could not give the political background of Kicagoras' feud.
But it does not therefore follow that Cleomenes murdered Archidamus
.)68

REVOLTS IN EGYPT (222-220)

V.39.6

If Nicagoras had arranged Archidamus' safe conduct, this would be

sufficient reason for him to bear a grudge against the king who failed
to ensure that it was honoured. Equally clearly P. was concerned to
put the worst interpretation on the incident. The case against Cleomenes is therefore not proved.
8. T(l\1 navTea Kat . 'lvv(Ta\1: Plutarch (Cleom. 31 7) says Panteus
had been Cleomenes' lover; on Hippitas, who was lame, cf. Plut.
Cleom. 37 3 Both were evidently Spartiates.
11. TOTE youv evLyeM.aas KTA.: cf. Plut. Cleom. 35 z, Kat oNtKayopa<::
'TOT fLlV lfLEtO{aaev ~fLEpat<; Ol vaTEpov o/..{yat<; imofLvr'Jaa<; 'TOV xwplov
I
K.,IIEOfLEVTJV
,
- yovv
- EOEt'TO
~
t

"
'
' I
'TOV
VVV
'TTJV 'TtfLT)V a7Tolla/"EtV 1 W<;
OVK
av
VOXIITJUa<;,
el fL~ 7TEp' 'T~V nov </Jop'TLWV oui8eatv fLE'TpLw<; ,,TJfLWii"To. On Cleomenes'
A

'

'

'

(/

failure to pay, Nicagoras (as in P.) approaches Sosibius.

38. 5. eav i!TJ vou7wTaL TTJV e~avoaToXT)v KTA.: Plutarch (Cleom. 35 3)
says the opposite: el I..O.Pot Tpt~pt<:: Kat aTpanwTa<:: 7Tap' aVTov,
Kvp~VTJV KaTaaxefv. He also omits the part played by the slave;
Sosibius takes the letter to the king W<; ap'T{W<; aD'TcfJ OEOOfLEVTJV.
6. auyKAEiaaL Tov KXeoi!E"TJ": cf. 36. 8. Beloch's argument (iv. I.
725 n. I}, that the repetition of this phrase marks the beginning and
end of the non-Phylarchean version of the Nicagoras story, leaves
unexplained the marked parallels as well as the discrepancies between P.'s account and Plutarch's. P. has blended his sources more
cunningly than this.
10. i!TJ !-la\1 vu9ea8aL: Homer, Il. xxii. 304-5; d. iii. 94 4 n.
39. 1.

vapaTT)p~aas o3v e~oSov KTA.:

d. Plut. Cleom. 37. I, ~7TEt

ot

lliote Taiha Kal Ka'Ta TVXTJV

IhoAfLatos 1<:: Kavw{Jov ~twpfLTJaE,
7TpW'TOV fLlV odowKav 1..6yov ws 7TapaAVO'TO Tij<:: </JvAaKijs V1TO 'TOV {Jaatl..iw<;.
3. vapeKAELaav: 'they shut him up'; d. Plut. Cleom. 37 4, a1TEKTHvav.

Jacoby (FGH, ii D, p. 592) regards the Polybian text as corrupt;

C reads 7TapKAaaav and Hultsch conjectures (but does not print)
KaTE(J'(pagav. Biittner-Wobst prints with an asterisk. Certainly it is
hard to imagine how the Spartans found time to take a prisoner, and
despite other divergences between P. and Plutarch, it seems probable
that the reading is at fault. Alternatively P. has misunderstood the
common source.
TO. 8e 11"A~9T) KTA.: d. Plut. Cleom. 31 3. 1TapKaAovv 'TOV ox!..ov 7Tt 'T~V
il..w8epav. But in Plutarch this precedes the killing of Ptolemy the
governor.

5.

vpoa~veyKa\1 aUTo is Tas XEipas eolJiuxws 1Ta\lu Kat AaKW\ILKWS:

d. ii. 69. 8, Tijs Twv AaKwvwv dn/rox{a<::. P. thus summarizes the

elaborate detail from Phylarchus which Plutarch retails in Cleom.
37 5-7 (with the sequel in 38-39).
6. Cleomenes' character: d. i. 8. 3 (on Hiero), 7Tp6s o n yvo<:: ev</Jvfj
paatAtKijs Kat 7rpayfLa'TtKij<:: olKoVOfL{as.

V.

40. I

REVOLTS IN EGYPT (222-220)

40. 1-3. Conspiracy of Theodotus: cf. iv. 37 5 Theodotus was an

Aetolian from Calydon (FD, iii. I. 5I9, 8~:680Tos 1411TtfM:.\ov AlTw:.\oseK KaA.vSwvos). His career is treated in full in this book: 46. 3 ff.,
6r. 3 ff., 8I; cf. vii. I6. 2, IS. P. calls him urayp.f.vos E7Tl Kol>..T}s
Evplas; he will have been officially urpa'TT}yos in charge of the province
entitled, under the Ptolemies, Evpla Kai ~o,v{KTJ (cf. Bengtson,
Strat. ii. I59-6o; iii. I66-7I, with a short history of this provincial
command). On Theodotus as the probable murderer of Magas see
P. Graec. Haun. 6 l. 32 {above 34 In.). See also Benecke, Seepolitik,
35-38; Geyer, RE, 'Theodotos (n)', col. I955
40. 4-57. 8. Events in Syria, 22]-2zo, including the rebellion of
Molon and that of Achaeus; these events lead up to the Fourth
Syrian War (rov p.f.llo~~Tos Aiy~:a8a.t 7TOAp.ou); cf. i. 3 I. For these
events, as for the Syrian War, P.'s sources are past recovery (cf.
35-39 n.). One at least, immediate or ultimate, is well informed on
Antiochus and hostile to Hermeias; this same source may be the
one which stresses the morale inspired by the king's presence (4I. 7,
cf. 45 6, 52. 9. 54 I). P. has also access to good accounts of Media
(44. 4-n), Seleuceia-in-Pieria (59 s-n), and the Plain of Marsyas
{45 8 f.-retailing information which may well go back to Diodes
of Carystus: 45 Ion.). The information concerning Ptolemy's forces
(63-64) implies a source in touch with Egyptian headquarters; and
the stress on the role of mercenary captains, many of whom subsequently deserted to Antiochus, suggests that one important military
source is to be sought in their vicinity (such a source would account
for the details of Theodotus in 40. I-3 and elsewhere). But P. is also
well informed on Achaeus' army and the movements of Attalus. A
certain Neanthes wrote a history of Attalus (FGH, 84 F 4); and
Phylarchus' work rd Ka-r' 14~~Tloxov Kat rov ll~:pyap.TJvov Evp.Wr, (FGH,
8x T x) may deal with Antiochus III and Eumenes II (so Jacoby,
FGH, ii c, p. I34) rather than Antiochus II and Eumenes I. A
History of the Syrian Kings was also written by Mnesiptolemus at
Antiochus III's court (J.'GH, I64 T I-2). But to attach importance
to the few names which happen to have survived is an error of
method. Moreover, P. may have drawn widely on some secondary
source. Momigliano (Ae.gyptus, 1929, I89) suggests that Zeno of
Rhodes was P.'s source for Raphia; and it is quite possible (in view
of the important part played by Rhodes in P.) that he has used him
widely. Certainly Zeno wrote on more than Rhodes (cf. xvi. I4 ff.);
cf. FGll, 523. But P.'s use of Zeno is necessarily hypothetical.
40. 5. Succession of Seleucus III: cf. ii. 71. 3-6 n.; the date was 225.
1'0LS Cl.vw 1'01TO~S: the eastern provinces; cf. iii. 6. IO, at avw aarpa7Ttat,
below 1 rd. avw fJ.fPTJ 4!. L, etc.; Robert, Hellenica, ,, I949. 5-22
(cf. 8, 1949, 73) for an inscription which mentions Menedemus, Tov
E'/Tt 'TWV avw aa-rpo:lT'EtWV.
570

MOLON'S REBELLION AGAINST ANTIOCH US (222-220) V..p.6

6. Ka9cl1TEp kQ.L1TpO"tEpov Elp~ICQ.j1EV; iv. 48. 6 n.

7. 8uva<TTEav !6-.xa.L~: on Achaeus see iv. 48. 5 n., and for his 8vva.cnela., iv. 2. 6. It apparently involved supervision of the area, its
officials, and local dynasts, cities, and tribes included within it
(Meloni, Rend. Line., 1950, 544); Bikerman (St!leucides, 166) calls him
'un roi en miniature, qui gouverne, detegue par le souverain, sa
principaute'.
M6XwvL Ka.l !6..XE~cl.v8p~: little is known of Molon beyond P.'s
account; cf. Stahelin, RE, 'Molon (5)', cols. 1o-12. On the Seleucid
satrapies, developed from those of the Achaemenids, see Bikerman,
Seleucides, 201-2; Bengtson, Strat. ii. 12 ff. At this time it seems likely
that of the eastern satrapies only Media, Persia, and Susiane (cf.
OGIS, 54 11. 18 f.) still remained in Seleucid hands. Bengtson (Strat.
ii. 85 ff., iii. 2oo) argues plausibly that Molon held a general command
over the upper satrapies like Nicanor under Antigonus I (Diod.
xix. 100. 3), and Menedemus in 193 (40. 5 n.).
T~v fJALK(a.v: in 222 Antiochus III was about 20, since he
was born about 242 (cf. xx. 8. I; Diod. xxix. 2 (over so in 192);
Beloch, iv. 2. 201}.
'Epj1ELou Tou TOTE 1TpoEaTWTOi TWv oXwv 1Tpayj1&.Twv: Hermeias was
'grand vizier', officially i77'' rwv 7rpa.yttarwv. On this officer, who
was accompanied by a detachment of guards (2 Mace. iii. 24), see
Bikerman, S ileucides, 187 8 ; Corradi, 2 56-67. He sat in the uvvSptov
(42. I f.), set on foot state trials, surveyed the administration of
provinces, conducted business with foreign states, and concerned
himself with military supplies (49 7) and the paying of troops
(so. 2). The hostile and tendentious character of P.'s account of
Hermeias is analysed by W. Otto, RE, 'Hermeias (1)', cols. 726-30,
especially col. 727 n.
Molon's revolt must be dated 222 (Beloch, iv. 2. 193-5; Tarn,
CAH, v;i. 724; Meloni, Rend. Line., 1949, 539 n. 1); for after his
successes against Antiochus' generals Xenon and Theodotus (43 7,
45 2) he prepared to winter at Ctesiphon (45 4). This can scarcely
be for 221/o, in view of the many events which intervene before
Antiochus' arrival at Nisibis at the winter solstice (51. 1). Hence it
is for 222j1, and Molon's revolt cannot be later than summer 222,
For a consequent difficulty in connexion with P.'s account of
Antiochus' council (41. 6-42. 6) see 42 4 n.
2. T~v 1TLO'TLv vxetpCaa.VTos: 'who handed him this office of trust'.
T~v E1TL Tov (' A}TTaAov aTpaTEa.v: cf. iv. 48. 6 n.
4. 'E1TLyEvT}v: not the Teian Epigenes, who served in the wars of
Attalus I against the Galatians and Antiochus Hierax (OGIS, 28o;
IG, xi. 4 IIo9; Launey, i. 431).
6. Tou auvE8pou: on the synedrion see Corradi, 231-53; Bikerman,

41. 1. 8La

571

V. 41.6 MOLON'S REBELLION AGAINST ANTIOCHUS (222-220)

Sileucides, 188--9o. It contained the most important members of the

court, assembled not as a permanent body but as an ad hoc council
with advisory powers. Its procedure is well illustrated here.
7. uuv6.'!1'Tf:LV TO~S TO'!TOLS: 'proceed to the territory'. ol 'T01TOL (ct. 40. 5)
is the technical term for the territory of a Seleucid provincial
governor; cf. Welles, 36 1. 18, ev To4> v1rd aE (i.e. Anaximbrotus,
strategos of Caria) -ro1Tot>, i.e. 'in your province'. It is with the territory rather than with dynasts and cities in it that a governor is
primarily concerned. -ro1rot also figure in the Ptolemaic and Attalid
organization. See Bengtson, Strat. ii. 9-12.
9. O"UVp'!TaatlEVTO.S imo TllY OXAWV: 'seized by the SOldiers' (not
'populace', as Paton}; cf. i. 15. 4, 32. 8.

42. 3. u'!To9u!Jia.s T~v 8Ln~oi..~v: 'setting the slander a~smouldering'.

'ITLKp{a.v ~m4>-l)va.s: 'having made a show of ill-timed bad temper
rather than of real hatred'. P. evidently means that Hermeias gave
the impression of displaying bad temper; otherwise this phrase contradicts his whole narrative (as Otto assumes: RE, 'Hermeias (1 )', col.
728, 'auf das hi eraus sich ergebende interessantequellenkritische Problem kann ich hier leider nicht naher ein gehen'; clearly Otto imagines
P. to be showing traces of a source less ill-disposed towards Hermeias}.
4. Ka.Td.4>o~os wv TOV Klv8uvov: a cowardice quite irreconcilable with
a war-policy against Egypt (Otto, op. cit., col. 727). Tam (CAH,
vii. 724} suggests that Hermeias feared to let Antiochus leave Syria,
knowing that Sosibius was already trying to tempt Achaeus to
revolt (d. Holleaux, REA, 1916, 239 ff. =Etudes, iii. 131 ff.).
8Lc1 TTJV {3a.uLAEws p<:9uJ.La.v: clearly P. is thinking of Philopator
(d. Holleaux, Afilanges Nicole, 1905, 273--9 Etudes, iii. 31I-15), but
the Council with which he associates this reflection cannot have
taken place after the late summer of 222, since the sending of Xenon
and Theodotus here decided on ( 5) was prior to Molon's decision to
winter for 222/1 at Ctesiphon (41. In.). Tarn (CAH, vii. 724} is
therefore illogical in dating this Council to spring 221 ; but he is
probably right in assuming that P. 'has forgotten for the moment
that he is back in Euergetes' reign'. Euergetes died between 5 and
16 February 221 (ii. 65--69 n. (a)), and Philopator was on the throne
during the Coele-Syria campaign of 221 (45 7-46. 4) ; references to
his pq.evf'{a, which would have been in place in the arguments
Hermeias urged at 45 6 (spring 221), have been moved back by a
venial slip to 42. 4 Thus P.'s error is far less gross than it appeared
to be when Euergetes was thought to have survived until summer or
autumn 221 (see Tarn, C AH, vii. 726-7, cf. 864).
5. :evwva. Kl 9~;o80TOV TOV runoALOV: known only from P. Theodotus'
nickname may connote size ('one and a half, Schweighaeuser, comparing xxxvi. 15. I on Prusias, iff'tavs avr]p}, or may refer to some
572

MOLON'S REBELLION AGAINST ANTIOCHUS (222-220) V.43.2

piratical experience with a ~f-L'6>.m (Muller, FHG, iii. I67). The former
seems far more probable. See Otto, RE, 'Hemiolios', cols. 252-3;
Geyer, RE, 'Theodotos (Io}', cols. I954-5
7. E'TTlUToA-i)v 1rAaua.s: P.'s source, which claims to know Hermeias'
thoughts ( 6}, believes the letter to be forged. But it may well have
been genuine; for evidence of Achaeus' negotiations with Ptolemy
(at an unspecified date) cf. viii. IS Io. Cf. Niese, ii. 371; BoucheLeclercq, Lagides, i. 295 n. I, 297-8; Holleaux, REA, I9I6, 239 n. 3 =
Etudes, iii. I3I n. 3
8. TTJS 8' i1TLypa.~ijs a.liTI~ ~9ovouvTa.: 'grudging himself the glory';
cf. ii. 2. 9 n.
43. 1. IAUK1a.v T-i)v i1rl Tou ZUY!J-O.Tos: on this city, founded by
Seleucus Nicator, see Pliny, Nat. hist. v. 86, 'item Zeugrna, lxxii p. a
Sarnosatis, transitu Euphratis nobile'. It is modern Balqis; cf.
Dobias, Syria, I925, 253-68. P.'s name is the official one; cf. Jones,
CERP, 245.
Aa.o8iK11v T-i)v M18p186.Tou 9uya.Tpa.: Mithridates II of Pontus
(cf. iv. 56) had married a daughter of Seleucus II Callinicus (Iustin.
xxxviii. 5 3; Euseb. Chron. i. 25I Sch.) about 245 (Beloch, iv. 2. 2I6).
On his younger daughter's marriage with Achaeus see viii. 20. II.
2. 1'WV E'TTTU npuwv: the usurpation of Gaurnata, the Magus, under
the name of Smerdis, son of Cyrus and brother of Carnbyses, in 52I,
is known both from the Behistun inscription of Darius and from
Herodotus (iii. 65 ff.; further accounts in Ctesias and Iustinus, and
references in Aeschylus' Persae, Polyaenus, and Plutarch). He engineered a rising in Pasargadae, carrying Media, Persia, and other
provinces, but after Carnbyses' death fell to a conspiracy of Darius
and six other noble Persians, whose names are given in the Behistun
inscription as Intaphrenes the son of Veispares, Otanes the son of
Socris, Gobryas the son of Mardonius, Hydarnes the son of Megabignes, Megabyzus the son of Dadoes, and Ardomanes the son of
Basuces; Herodotus (iii. 7o) has the same list with Aspathines for
Ardomanes. Both the Cappadocian and the Pontic royal houses
claimed descent from one or other of these six; cf. Diod. xxxi. I9
for Cappadocia (substituting Anaphas for his father Otanes; cf.
Ctesias, p. 64 Didot). The Pontic royal house sprang from Mithridates I, a Persian noble who seized the kingdom in 302 (Diod. xx.
III. 4; Plut. Demetr. 4; App. Mith. 9; Strabo, xii. 562). The false
genealogy is found in Diod. xix. 40. 2; Flor. iii. 6. I; auct. de uir. ill.
76; cf. von Gutschrnid, Kl. Schr. (Leipzig, I892), iii. 493 ff. In Sallust,
Iustinus, Appian, and Tacitus it is taken back to Darius I ; cf. Ed..
Meyer, Geschichte des Konigreichs Pontos (Leipzig, I879), 3I ff.; Th.
Reinach, N umismatique ancienne : Trois royaumes del' Asie M ineun,
Cappadocie, Bithynie, Ponte (Paris, I888}, 5 ff., who disposes of the
573

V. 43

MOLOK'S REBELLION AGAIKST

A~TIOCHUS

(222-220)

fictitious Cappadocian and Pontic genealogies. (The title 'Pontus'

for this kingdom is not found until after the time of P.)
4. ds )\vnoxELa.v: the Syrian capital, on the Orontes.
5. IJ!EuOEtS E1TLO"ToA.O.s: the context hardly supports Bengtson's
suggestion (Strat. ii. 86 n. 3) that these were a 7Tapdyyt:Ap.a, a mo bilization order, though the ~yEp.dll~ will be officers.
6. Tous Tou ~a.o-LAEIIlS o-Tpa.T1Jyous: i.e. the loyal generals, viz. Xenon
and Theodotus, not a special group in close relation to the king, as
Bengtson argues (Strat. ii. 65), quoting 45 2 and so. 8.
8. Tijs )\1ToAA.wv~n8os xwpa.s: the former Sittacene, east of the
Tigris, and north-east of Babylonia, now named after the new
capital Apollonia {Strabo, xv. 732), probably a foundation of
Seleucus I {cf. App. Syr. 57).
44. 1. Tci . l1T7To~6p~La.: cf. x. 27. 1. The famous Nesaean horses of
Media, mentioned by Herodotus {iii. 106. z), were apparently the
ancestors of the large Parthian war-horses (cf. Strabo, xi. 525,
lJnop.oprfoot). They were fed on the Median lucerne or alfalfa. Tarn has
suggested (HMND, 77 ff.) that the Parthian horses came from
Nesaean mares crossed with Libyan stallions.
3. WS 1rpos J.1Epos 8EwpOUJ.1EV"l: cf. r9. 7 n.
4-11. Geography and limits of Media. P.'s source here is unknown,
but his account contains new features, in particular the recognition
of a broad mountain mass, Mt. Zagrus, separating Media from
Persia. P.'s boundaries of Media, to north, south, east, and west, are
somewhat distorted. The desert 'between Parthia and Persis', to the
east, is Carmania Deserta, the central desert area of Persia, including
the Great Kavir salt desert and the Dasht-i-Lut basin, which in fact
lie east and south-east of Media; cf. P. M. Sykes, A History of
Persia, i 3 (London, I930), I9-22, The Caspian Gates( s). the Pass of
Sirdarra, indicate the longitude at the north-east corner of the province; on their use as a mapping-point see Thomson, zo6-7. The
mountains of the Tapyri are the modern Mt. Albarz, the ancient
Parachoathras, and the Tapyri evidently lived north of the pass in
these mountains; they are probably the barbarians of x. 29. 3 The
Hyrcanian Sea is the Caspian (cf. Tam, Alex. ii. 5 ff.). On the south
P. makes Media march with Mesopotamia, the Apolloniatis, and
Persis, i.e. it reaches the middle Tigris, which must therefore be
pictured as running roughly from west to east. Mt. Zagrus, which
separates off Persis (here evidently including Susiana) is the range
running north-west to south-east along the ridge of the plateau
(Strabo, xi. 522). On the west lie the 'people of the Satrap' ( 8),
evidently the ruler of Media Atropatene, which was distinct from
Media Magna (Strabo, xi. 522-3), modern Irak-i-Ajami, from Alexander's time onwards, and had enjoyed a high degree of independence
574

MOLOX'S REBELLIOK AGAINST ANTIOCHUS (222-220) V.44.9

under Persian princes (Strabo, ibid.). P. is confused on the extent and

situation of Atropatene. In 55 7 the dpm~ separating it from Media
is the Zagros, which is thus apparently envisaged as coming round
in a north-west direction, as indeed it later does in the Ptolemaic
map; and P. here makes Atropatene extend to the west of Media
(where Armenia lies), since to the north Media is bounded by tribes
towards the Maeotis ( 9-1o). Nevertheless in 55 7 Atropatene
reaches the Caspian : and it did in fact include the shores from Baku
round to Hyrcania. For a full treatment of the geography of this
area see Kiessling, RE, 'Hyrkania', cols. 454-526 {especially 462-3
and 500-3)
7. O.v6.~a.ow ~XEt 'll'po; tKa.Tov aT6.8ta.: about u~ miles. Cardona,
'alto circa cento stadi'; but elsewhere in P. tivc1{3ams is the ascent,
not the height, and P.'s point is apparently the shortness of the
ascent (and so the narrowness of the range) and the number of tribes
it contains, thanks to the many folds and branch valleys.
8ta4op0.; 8( Ka.i uuy~el.EwE~'> . . Exov: 'containing many places
where the mountains open out or close in'. Schweighaeuser suggests
that the former produce avAwv;, 'wide plains', the latter Ko,,\d.St:s;
but P. is concerned, not with the distinction between wide and
narrow valleys, but between a single undifferentiated range and one
consisting of many separate branches. On a.v,\wvt:s see iii. 83--85.
6 n. (i).
Koaaa.'LoL: despite Strabo (xvi. 744; cf. xi. 524), who associates the
Cossaei with Persis, Paraetacene, and the Caspian Gates, it appears
from Diodorus (xix. 19. 2) that they lived in the mountains between
Media and Susiane, a situation which would fit P. A wild and savage
people, they served as mercenaries in the Persian armies, and drew
tribute from the king. Alexander subdued them in 324/3. Their
tongue and racial affinity are discussed by Weissbach, RE, Koo-uatot, cols. 1499-I5o3.
Kop~pTjva.L: unknown. Strabo (xvi. 745) knows Kop{:Ju:x.vq (MSS.
Kop{:Jlava, Kvp{3tavd., or Kop{3Lavd.), E7Tapx,lo. rijs 'E,\vt'at8os-; hence
Schweighaeuser conjectured Kop{3,fjvol here. The Kdpxo' are also
unknown.
8. Toi:-. Ia.Tpo.'II'EioLs: 'the people of the Satrap'. P. refers to Media
Atropatene. ]. Marquart (Gott. A.bh. 3 (x9o1), 3 xn) observes that
Armenian governors were normally known as Marzpan or Marzaban ;
but the Marzpan of Atrpatakan (Atropatene) was alone called sahap,
a word akin to 'satrap'. Thus the Ea-rpam:to' will be the people of the
ua-rpa1MJs Ka-r' J~ox~v, i.e. the ruler of Atropatene who, under the
Achaemenids, had enjoyed virtual independence, without bearing
the royal title. See Lehmann-Haupt, RE, 'Satrap', col. 176.
9. 'EA.ul'o.o~!; Ko.t To!:, i\v~o.paKo.L'>: these Elymaeans are distinct
from the people of Elam, and dwelt north of Media near the Tapyri
575

V. 44 9 MOLON'S REBELLION AGAINST ANTIOCHUS (222-220)

(cf. Ptol. Geog. vi. 2. 6). Noldeke's proposal (Gott. Nachr., 1874, 197)
Lk>..vfLai:ot ( cf. the medieval Delam) has not been accepted
by editors. Strabo (xi. 507-8, 514) mentions the Aniaracae in the
form AvaptaKat, i.e. 'non-Aryans'; but this is not sufficient reason
to follow Holstenius in changing P.'s text, for the Strabo MSS.
give several variants.
Ka.Souo-(o~s Ka.i Ma.na.vo's: cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. 48, 'Arsi, Gaeli
quos Graeci Cadusios appellauere, Matiani' ; Strabo, xi. 514, 523,
stressing the merits of Cadusian javelin-throwers. Matiane lay east
of Armenia, and south and west of Atropatene; and the Cadusii
were in the same neighbourhood, near the Caspian (Strabo, ibid.).
See Weiss bach, RE, 'Matiane', cols. 2197-1). On P.'s confusion concerning the placing of Atropatene, Media, and these tribes see
44 4-II n.

to read

45. 1. ~a.o-LA~K~v exouo-f)s vep,<YTa.o-LV: 'possessing all the wealth of

a kingdom'.
3. IeAetJKELa.v: on the Tigris. Seleuceia stood on a lake connecting
with the Tigris, and acting as a harbour; it dominated the trade of
Asia. See Tarn, Bactria, 6o-61; and for its topography, C. Hopkins,
Antiquity, 1939, 440 ff.; Reuther, ibid., 1929, 434; L. Waterman,
Preliminary Report upon the Excavations at Tel Umar (Ann Arbor,
1931), J--8.

4. uvo Zeu~LSos: Zeuxis, son of Cynagus, a Macedonian, known also

from an inscription of Amyzon, OGIS, 235 (see n. 2); cf. Wilhelm,
Wien. Stud., 1907. n-12; Launey, i. 312-13.
Kn'Jo-Lcpwvn: Ctesiphon lay across the Tigris from Seleuceia; at this
time it was a mere encampment, but later it became the site of the
Parthian capital (d. Altheim, Niedergang der alten Welt (Frankfurt,
1952), ii. 158-1)).
vpos TTJV va.pa.xeLfLa.o-fa.v: winter 222/1; cf. 41. 1 n.
6. TfJpwv T.... v . . . vpo8eo-Lv: presumably a second synedrion was
summoned by Antiochus; the date will then be spring 221 (d.
42. 4 n.).
=:evo(Ta.s: an Achaean mercenary captain, otherwise unknown.
7. ~'TTUfLELa.v ... Aa.oS(Kua.v: Apamea lay on the Orontes, south of
Seleuceia (at present in Ptolemy's hands, 58. 3 ff.); its site is occupied
by the village of Kalat-el-Mudik. Laodiceia is Laodiceia aKa{Hwua
on the Lebanon (cf. Honigmann, RE, 'Laodikeia (2)', cols. 718-2o),
not the homonymous coastal town; it is here mentioned for the first
time. Laodiceia by Libanus has been identified with the more ancient
Kadesh, to which name it reverted in Arab times; and Jones (CERP,
232) suggests that if the battle of Magdolus in Herodotus (ii. 159)
was the Megiddo of 2 Kings xxiii. 29 and 2 Chron. xxxv. 20-22, the
city of Cadytus which Neco took is probably Kadesh. Its site is at
576

MOLON'S REBELLION AGAINST ANTIOCHUS (222-220)

V. 45

Io

Tell Mand nebi (Dussaud, Rev. arch. 30, 1897, 355; Honigmann,
loc. cit.), which lies between the Orontes and a stream called
Mukadije; coins of Laodiceia represent these rivers as two water
urns flanking the Tvx'TJ of the city.
8. 8leA9wv TftV ~PTJIJ.OV , Ma.paoa.v: Antioch us marched through the
desert south of Ribla (on which see Robinson, ZDMG, 1853, 73).
Honigmann (RE, 'Syria', col. r6r6) suggests that it formed the
frontier area between Seleucid and Ptolemaic domains, deliberately
left uncultivated after its ravaging in the Syrian Wars. The avAwv
of Marsyas (d. Strabo, xvi. 753. 755-6; Theophrastus (HP, ix. 7 I)
calls it, like P., simply the avM!v: icrrtv 6v avAwva Ka>.oucrl m:i5{ov 1TOAiJ
Kai Ka.\6.-) is the modern plain of Biqii' between the Lebanon and the
Antilebanon, which stretches south as far as Chalcis (Gerrha) ; cf.
Strabo, xvi. 755. xwv nva Kal opetvd., ~v o[s ~ Xa>.Kls (cf. 46. 2 n.),
W0'1Tp d1<po1roAts Tov Ma.crcrtJou. Strabo's form Ma.crcrvas is shown to be
more accurate by the Zenon Papyri; cf. Wilcken, Arch. Pap., 1920,
451 n. I; Holscher, RE, 'Marsyas (5)', col. 1986.
10. 6 !J.Upt::ljfltcbs tcaAa.~J.os; this is Calamus odoratus which, according to Theophrastus (HP, ix. 7 I f.; d. Pliny, Nat. hist. xii. 104 f.),
grew between the Lebanon and a small hill on its eastern side, but
not (he adds) between the Lebanon and the Antilebanon, which are
far apart and separated by a wide plain. The KMa.p.os &.pwp.aTKo>
grows on the dried-up marshland beside a large lake (the Birket elJ ammune), and Droysen (iii. z. 3oo f.) identified this lake with P.'s
Atp.VTJ between Gerrha and Brochi. But P. is not here following
Theophrastus, who (HP, ix. 7 1, cf. iv. 8. 4) locates the calamus
in an a.v>.wvwKos (the Wadi en-nusur containing the Birket elJ ammune), which is specifically distinguished from the a.v.:\wv of
Marsyas. On the probable position of the latter see 46. 2 n. and the
map in RE, 'Libanos', cols. 5-6.
P.'s source here is clearly that attacked by Theophrastus (HP,
ix. 7 I, ws nvls c/Jam); and, as C. 0. Brink has pointed out to me,
this is probably Diodes of Carystus, whose 'Pt{oTop.t~<ov is to be
regarded as a source of Theophrastus, HP, ix (cf. M. Wellmann,
RE, 'Diokles (53)', col. 8u; Festgabe fiir Franz Susemihl (Leipzig,
1898), 2 ff., 23; Regenbogen, RE, Suppl.-B. vii, 'Theophrastos', col.
1458; Jaeger, Diokles von Karystos (Berlin, 1938), 181 ff.). (P.'s
account of the lotus in xii. 2. 2 f. was derived by von Scala (152-3) from
a source common to Theophrastus (HP, iv. 3 1), Nepos (Exempla,
fg. 2o Halm) and Pliny (Nat. hist. xili. 104, ro6); this too is probably
Diodes.)
The calamus is also described by Dioscorides and Pliny, but there
is some doubt whether the same plant is always indicated. Dioscorides
describes our calamus (sweet flag), which was used as a strewing
plant in the Middle Ages; it was introduced into Britain about the
l&\6

Pp

577

V. 45 10

MOLON'S REBELLION AGAINST ANTIOCHUS (222-220)

sixteenth century. But Pliny (like Galen and the Latin glossographers) confused it with the common iris (fleur-de-lis), Iris
pseudacorus.
46. I. Bp6xoL ... rEppa: R. Dussaud (Topographie, 44 n. 3, 402)
identifies Brochi, which lay on the lake (61. 8) with al-Baruk (cf.
Honigmann, ZDPV, 1924, 12 f. no. 275). A small marsh separates
this spot from Gerrha, the later Chalcis (45 8 n.), which Strabo
called the acropolis of the pass. It was later the secular capital of
the Ituraean kingdom (Jones, CERP, 234, 256), and under the Arabs
reverted to the name Gerrha, which still survives as An jar ( = 'Ain
Jarr, the name found in early Arabic geographers).
3. 6eMioTov TOV AiTWA6v: cf. 40. 1-3 n. Niese suggests (ii. 367 n. 2)
that the point fortified by Theodotus is referred to by Strabo (xvi.
756) as To Alyti'lT'T~oJI Tefxo~ 1repl- Ti]v A1Tap.iwv yfjv, near the source of
the Orontes, and this seems plausible.
6. Ka90.7TEp ~1T(lVW 1TpOE~1T(l: cf. 45 6.
7. luoyEVTJV nu8u18TJV: elsewhere (48. 14, cf. 54 !2) Diogenes is
called aTpa77Jyo~, not e1rapxo~; and there is no epigraphical evidence
for the use of e1rapxo~ and e1rapxia as official terms in Seleucid
dominions. Tarn (P BA, 1930, 126-35; Bactria, Iff., 442-5, 521) has
argued that the eparchy was a regular subdivision of the satrapy,
so that satrapy, eparchy, hyparchy correspond roughly to the
Ptolemaic nomos, topos, village; and he takes e1TapxM here to be
the official title, and C17'pa77Jy6~ a loose equivalent. According to
Strabo (xvi. 727) axeSdv Se TL Ka~ ~ ovai~ p.epo~ yeyEV7]'TU~ Ti]~ llepaLDM;
and Tarn takes the -7JV7J termination to be the mark of an eparchy
(PBA, 1930, 127). But elsewhere Susiane always appears to be an
independent province from Darius' time onwards (cf. Herod. iii. 91 ;
OGIS, 54 11. 17 ff.); and indeed an inscription from Susa dating to
before 140 (OGIS, 747) refers to a certain Arrheneides as C17'pa77Jyd~
(not 1rapxo~) Ti)~ ovawvi]~. Hence the view of Bengtson (Strat.
ii. 30--J8, 150 ff.} seems preferable, that Diogenes and Pythiades were
C17'paT7Jyo{, i.e. civil governors and commanders, in their respective
provinces; in 69. 5 they are given Diodes, the C17'pa77Jy6~ of Parapotamia, as colleague. The term E1Tapxla (e1Tapxo~) appears in literary
sources and later in inscriptions as the Greek equivalent of prouincia,
and governor of a prouincia; and here likewise 1rapxo~ appears to
have a general and not a technical sense (Bengtson, Strat. ii. 153 n. 2).
The 'territory of the Red Sea' (cf. 48. 13, 54 12) is the equivalent of
Mesene, towards the Persian Gulf and the mouths of the Euphrates
and Tigris (cf. Bengtson, Strat. ii. 192 n. 1).
47. 5. ~1TLO'TpaTo1TE8euaas: 'encamping opposite' (not 'attacked'
(Paton)).
578

MOLON'S REBELLION AGAINST ANTIOCHUS (222-220)

V. 48. 16

48. 7. Tftv 1Tap&.aTclow Ka.l T~v opl-1-1\v: cf. iii. 63. 14; but here the
sense is a little different, 11'apcf.G"Taut<; being 'madness' (so that they
lost grip on the real situation) and opp.1j the ;.mOvp.ta of the previous
line.
9. TpaytK~v Ka.l. 1Tap"l;\;\ayj.I.~'111'JV: 'melodramatic and extraordinary'.
12. Alo~8o\17a Tov E1TtaT6.T"lV: cf. Bikerman, Sileucides, 163, 'il
semble ... que l'epistate seleucide fUt l'homme de confiance du roi,
choisi parmi les citoyens de la colonie, et en quelque sort le "president" de la communaute'. It was his business to collaborate with the
magistrates in running the city; and Tarn (Bactria, ;~5) has suggested
that part of his duties under the Seleucids was to stand above the
various national communities of a Syrian city, backed by the
legitimate force of the sovereign. But in 5o. 10 it is not the epistates
of Apamea, but its acrophylax, who is in charge of troops. See further
Holleaux, BCH, 19,33. 25-31 (=Etudes, iii. 216-2o); Welles, Yale
St14d., 1935, u8 ff. ; Tam, Bactria, 24 ff. Other examples of epistatai
in the Seleucid empire are known only at Seleuceia-in-Pieria (SEG,
vii. 62), at Uruk-Orchi (a cuneiform inscription in which the 'citylord' Anuuballit, or Cephalon, is almost certainly an epistates: Hol]eaux, loc. cit., and Tarn, loc. cit.), at Laodiceia-on-Sea (Syria,
1942-3, 21-32), and at another Laodiceia in Iran, modern Nehavend,
with a Greek constitution (see the inscription published by L. Robert,
Hellenica, 7, 1949, 5-22). But they appear in Parthia and the
native kingdoms of Asia Minor at a later date, evidently copied from
the Seleucids. On epistatai in Antigonid Macedonia see 26. 5 n.
16. nap0.1TOTQj.l.lQV ~XP' . . . Eupc:mou KTA.: Europus is DuraEuropus on the right bank of the Euphrates; it was founded by
Nicanor, satrap of Seleucus I in Mesopotamia (Isid. Char. 1 = GGM,
i. 248; cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. n7; Bengtson, Strat. i. 184-5), and
not by a general of Antigonus Monophthalmus (so Tam, CAR,
vi. 430; Bactria, 7 n. 3; Tscherikower, 88 n. 346). See Rostovtzeff,
SEHHW, i. 482-9; iii. 1436-7 (notes), for a description and restoration of the city, which occupied a position of great natural strength
on a rocky plateau, flanked by two ravines and controlling communications between upper and lower Mesopotamia. Rostovtzeff's account
is based on twelve years' systematic excavation; summaries in RE,
Suppl.-B. v, cols. 183-6 (Kroll); vii, cols. 149-69 {Watzinger). p.f.xpt
implies 'up to and including' ; the absence of coins of Molon from
the finds can hardly be taken as evidence that Molon did not occupy
the town (so A. R. Bellinger, Excavations at Dura-Europus, Final
Report, vi, The Coins (Yale, 1949), 199 n. 16). Dura is the town on
the east bank of the Tigris (cf. 52. 2; Amm. Marc. xxv. 6. 9}, which
probably corresponds to Dur el-]Jarib in the Arabian geographers
and the modern village of Imam Dur, three hours to the south of
Tekrit.
579

V. 48. 16

MOLON'S REBELLION AGAINST ANTIOCHUS (222-220)

From Strabo (xvi. 753) and Isidore of Charax (r = GGM, i. 24i)

the term Parapotamia appears to have been used of an area west of
the Euphrates. But since Dura lies east of the Tigris, and so not in
Mesopotamia in the strict sense, Droysen (iii. 2. 309) suggested a
transposition of llapar.orap.lav and MEuJor.o-rap.lav in P., and this
suggestion was widely followed, e.g. by Beloch (iv. 2. 358), who quotes
Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. 131, 'proxima Tigri regio Parapotamia appellatur'; by Schachermeyr (RE, 'Mesopotamien', col. II43); and by
Honigmann (RE, 'Tigris', coL rors). However, this proposal must be
rejected, for it is now known that Dura-Europus was officially known
(in A.D. 86/7) as EiJpwr.os ~ iv rij~ flapar.o-rap.lru (Dura-Perg. 21 1. 3,
40 l. 2; Welles, Z. Sav.-Stijt. Rom. Abt. 1936, 99 ff.; RostovtzeffBellinger-Hopkins-Welles, Excavations at Dt~ra-Europos, VI Repart
(Yale, 1930), 420 n. 3; Rostovtzeff-Brown-Welles, id., VII and VIII
Report (1939), 427 ff.); see Tarn, CAH, vii. 724 and Rostovtzeff,
SEHHW, iii. 1437 n. 265. Since, therefore, Molon advanced up the
east bank of the Tigris (52. 2) to besiege Dura, which lay on that
bank, one must assume either that Mesopotamia at this time included land to the east of the Tigris, as it did at the time of Alexander (cf. Arrian, FGH, 156 F 9, 35; Diod. xviiL 39 6), or (less
probably) that P. has been confused by the existence of two Parapotamias, one west of the Euphrates and the other east of the Tigris,
and two towns called Dura, one (on some reckonings) in Mesopotamia (cf. Bengtson, Strat. ii. 285 n. 3).
17. ~s E1Tavw 1rpoei1rov: 46. 5
49. 6. eKupW81) To 8ta.Pou~tov: 'the plan was adopted' by the king,
who alone took decisions (Bikerman, Sileucides, 188--90; cf. 41. 6 n.).
Paton is misleading ('the council decided .. .').
50. L 01rep TWV . o+wvl:wv: cf. 2, TdS m-ra.pxlas; both terms are
here used in the same sense, the confusion springing from the practice of making a cash payment in lieu of rations (cf. i. 66. 6 n.;
Launey, ii. 733 n. 3).
2. a~a.AUaELV TBS O'tTa.pxa.s: as 0 E1rt TWV r.payp.a-rwv Hermeias controls military supplies and troops (Corradi, 264; Bikerrnan, Seltmcides,
I87-8); but the fact that he can make terms about paying suggests
that this was an advance out of his private funds (cf. Rostovtzeff,
SEHHW, ii. II56).
5. 1rP~EXOII-Evos . t<a.Ko'I)(Mas: 'hampered and preoccupied by
administrative duties and by constant watching and attention
thanks to the malice of Hermeias' ; but ol~<.ovop,[at may be malae
artes, as Schweighaeuser suggests, 'uariis artibus, astuta rerum
administratione'.
6. O.va.xwpTjaa.vTos Ets 11-aTtov: 'retiring into civil life'; cf. Plut.
s8o

MOLON'S REBELLION AGAINST ANTlOCHUS (222-220)

Cam. ro. r,
1'edire.

~~~ [fLaT{ots

V. 51. 4

'in civilian garb' ; and the Latin ad togam

7. Kuppt}aTwv: Cyrrhestice was the mountainous area of north Syria

between Mt. Amanus and the Euphrates, south of Commagene
(Strabo, xvi. 751 ; Ptol. Geog. v. 14. 10; Dussaud, Topographie, 467;
Honigmann, RE, Kvppw7'LK~, cols. rgr-8); Tarn (CAH, vii. 725)
suggests that it was Epigenes' own province. Many of the inhabitants
claimed Macedonian descent; cf. IG, xii. 5 8g1, a verse epitaph on
Andronicus of Cyrrhestice, an engineer: Kvppos 'EpfLtov TiJ<os
MaKrJOOVWV eoe8Aov. See Bikerman,Se'leucides, 8o; Launey, i. J48, 538-9.
9. q.J.ous . 5uv6.1-U'LS: for the association of these terms cf. OGJS,
219 1. 15; Antiochus I has recovered his ancestral domains fLaALCJ7a
fLv Sui 7'~v lolav &perqv, elTa Kai OLa T~v TWfL rplAwv Kai Twv ovvafLewv
dJvo,av (cf. 11. 24, 45); 'Welles, 6 1. 6; Insch. Mag. 86 l. 17 [l11l
awTl'JplaL] Tov 7' {JacnMws EilfLbovs . Kal Twv ,Pf.Awv KaL Twv 8vvafLewv.
This combination reflects the early military character of the ,PC\o,,
direct descendants of Seleucus I's emi:poL and rpf.Ao, (Plut. Demetr. 49:
Diod. xix. 56. 3) and Alexander's batpoL. See above 2. I n. for the

Antigonid court.
10. Tov liKpoq.uJ.a.~ea.: this commander of the garrison at Apamea is
quite distinct from the civil epistates (48. 12 n. ; Bikerman, Sileucides, 54).
51. l. )\vnoxeLa.v TTJV ~v Muy5ovl~: the former Nisibis, converted
into a Greek city by Seleucus Nicator (Strabo, xvi. 745; CIG, 68561. s,
~~~ eOLfL NLKaTwp); it lay due east of Apamea, half-way between the
R. Chaboras and the Tigris (cf. Sturm, RE, 'Nisibis (r)', cols. 714-57).
vept Tpovcis xn11epw6.s: v.r:inter 221 fo ; cf. 41. r n.
2. Al~~a.v: otherwise unknown, but perhaps to be identified with
Labbana (Ptol. Geog. v. q. 6), 28 miles east of Hatra, according to
the Tabula Peutingeriana (which gives Sabbin by error for Labbin).
M. Streck (ZA, 1907, 458) suggested an identification with Birtu sa
Labbanati on the Tigris (cf. Moritz, RE, 'Labbana', col. 243).
3. a'll'o5o9mos ... OLa.~ouAlou: 'having proposed as a subject for
diSCUSsion'; cf. 58. 2, aviOWK TOtS rp{Ao'> O'a{JovALOV, I02. 2, vii. 5 2.
dvaolowfL' is the usual verb in this phrase; but this does not justify
emending to dva8o8bros here (so Naber, Mne:m., 1857, 255).
4. Tov Au~eov 'll'oTa.Jlov Ka.l Tov K6.vpov: tributaries of the Tigris, on
its left bank, today the Greater Zab and Lesser Zii.b respectively;
the modern names are a reversion to the Assyrian form, still used
at the time of Xenophon (A nab. ii. 5 1, iii. 3 6, ZanaTa> = Lycus).
Bevan (Seleztcus, i. 3oi n. 2) objects that 'it is hard to see how they
(the Lycus and Caprus) could be a protection to an army on the
western bank'. Schweighaeuser's comment is worth repeating:
'poterit intelligi, hoc dici ab Hermea, si in occidentali ripa pergeret
581

V. 51. 4

MOLON'S REBELLION AGAINST ANTIOCHUS (222-220)

Antioch us cum exercitu, nullum esse ab insidiis hostium periculum;

non solum enim Tigrim interesse, sed et, priusquam ad alteram
Tigridis ripam (proximis certe diebus) occurrere Antiocho Molo
posset, Caprum etiam et Lycum fluuium esse ei traiciendum: nam
cis Tigrim per desertum ex Babylonia esse occursurum, nee probabile
erat ullo modo, nee periculosum Antiocho erat futurum, quoniam
insidiis dcsertum nullum praeberet locum.'
6. TTJV Bo.aL>..uc.fJv ~hwpuxa.: Pliny (Nat. hist. vi. r:zo) gives regium
jlumen as the translation of the Assyrian (i.e. Aramaic) Narmalcha,
and he places it near Babylon; but the Narrnalcha of Isidore of
Charax (1 = GGM, i. 249) seems to lie higher up country between
Neapolis on the Euphrates and Scleuceia on the Tigris, and Honigmann (RE, 'Tigris', col. ror6) suggests that it is to be identified with
the modern ar-Razwanije canal, and its eastern extension, leaving
the Euphrates near Sippar (Abii Habba) and Pirisabora (al-Anbar)
and entering the Tigris near Opis (Tell 'Umar). Despite the doubts
of Weissbach (RE, 'Euphrates', col. uw), it seems likely that it
is to this canal that P. here refers.
8. TWV tca.TA T.fJv )\"'I''AAWVUiTLV xwpa.v oxN.lv: 'the population of
Apolloniatis' (rather than 'troops'). On this area cf. 43 8 n.

52. 2. ws i1rl b.oupwv: Dura on the Tigris; cf. 48. 16 n.

3. To 'OpeLJ<ov: the Tigris pierces this range a little south of the
confluence with the Lesser Zab. It is the Arabic Barimma, and is
today known as Djebel Harnrin east of the Tigris, and Djebel Mak}:lfil
to the west; cf. Streck, RE, 'Dura (r)', col. r846; Honigmann, RE,
'Tigris', col. 1014.
5. TWV KupT(wv: the Cyrtii, nomads from the lands north of Media
and Persia, are recorded as furnishing stingers on other occasions,
to Antiochus in 189 (Livy, xxxvii. 40. 9) and to Eumenes during
the Third Macedonian War (Livy, xlii. 58. 13). Cf. Launey, i. 58r.
9. ws ma!f>o.>...fJs K-rA.: the plural 'TOV!; {3amAE:t!; indicates that this is
a general reflection on the position of rebels in relation to their
monarchs.
53. 2. 'TO US sua-ro!f>6pous hr1rel:s: cavalry armed with lances; cf.
Plut. Flam. 17. 5, p.~ BaufL&.~en ~v .i1vrwxou SuvafLtY >.oyxo<fo&povs
Ka1

~UG'TD</>opous

Ka1 7TE,E'Ta!pous aKOUOV'T(S' 7TaV'TES' yap oVTot Evpo'

Elaiv !m'Aaplots fna<fol.povus (Flamininus speaking).

~pSuv: cf. 6o. 4-8. In Livy (xxxiii. 19. 9) Ardys is confusedly made
into a son of Antiochus; see Holleaux (Hermes, 19I2, 481-9!
Etudes, iii. 183-93), who argues from his name that he was probably
a Lydian.
3. Tous aUJ.LIUlX~tcous KpijTa.s: perhaps sent by virtue of a treaty containing a recruitment clause, such as those between Demetrius II of
582

MOLON'S REBELLION AGAINST AKTIOCHUS (222-220)

V. 55 3

Macedon and Gortyn (IC, iv. 167; date 237; cf. Launey, i. 253 n. 7),
and between Antigonus Doson and Eleutherna (IC, ii, Eleutherna
20) and Hierapytna (IC, iii, Hierapytna r) about 227-224.
'PLyoO'a.yEs: i.e. Galatian mercenaries.
"Taus ~ll'o "TfjS 'E~~6.Sos ~~vous Ka.L ~-~.w&ocpopous: cf. 36. 3 n.
4. "To'is 'E"Ta.LpoLs 11'poO"a.yo pe:uo1-1.~vo~s: cf. xvi. 18. 7, xxx. 2 5. 7. Despite
Plutarch (Flam. 17. 5 quoted under 2 n.) they were probably
Macedonians (cf. Launey, i. 313 n. 9).
5. 'Tel 8' Eli'L"Tay!-La.'Ta.: 'the reinforcements'; cf. Plut. Pomp. 69. 2.
8. &upEa.cpopous l((lL r a.Aa'Ta.<;: on the oval Gallic and Galatian BupEOS
see ii. 30. 3 n.
10. "Tel 8 8pE11'<1VT)cpopa. 'TWV O.p~-~.O.n.Jv: scythed chariots were a Persian
weapon (d. Xen. A nab. i. 7 12, 8. ro; Diod. xvii. 53 2; Arrian,
Anab. iii. 8. 6) adopted in the Seleucid kingdom (cf. Livy, xxxvii.
41. 6 f.) ; see R. Till, Klio, 1944. 245.
54. 7. Ka.AAwv'Lnv: the district around Chala (Isid. Char. 3 = GGM,
i 25o), perhaps identical with modern J:Ioluan (cf. Streck, RE,
Suppl.-B. i, 'Chala', coL 281); this district lay to the east of Apolloniatis (43 8 n.), towards Mt. Zagms. The form Xa.\wvi'-ns is also
found (cf. Strabo, xi. 529, xvi. 736; Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. 122, IJI); and
Diodoms (xvii. no. 4) has Kl>.wvEs.
10. "Taus Ka.Aou~-~.~vous t~8e:Lyava.st: read fld,tyB.vas. Roussel (Syria,
1942-3, 31-32) has shown beyond doubt that this is the correct
form. Cf. Hesychius, lleAtyB.vES' ol lv?Jo,ot Tra.p0. 8( I:uploLS ol flovAwra.{; Strabo, vii, fg. 2, TrEALy6va.s yoiiv K"aAovutv JKErvot (sc. ol
Ma.Ke?JovEs) -rovs Jv -rlp.ats. Roussel (loc. cit.; cf. CRAI, 1941, 454 f.)
has published a decree from Laodiceia-on-Sea, where the m:A.tyB.vt:s
formed the city counciL Clearly there was a similar body in Seleuceiaon-the-Tigris. Both cities were foundations of Seleucus I, and will
have thus shown traces of their Macedonian origin.
12. luoyEVT)V ~11'oAA68wpov: on Diogenes see 46. 7 n. Cumont
(1\fem. miss. arch. perse, 1928, 8o-8r n. 2
SEG, vii. ro) suggests
that this Apollodorus may be the )hro>.Aoow[pos] Kpo.-rlpov who made
a dedication at Susa to the goddess Ma of Comana (cf. Launey,
i. 352 n. I ; ii. 994).
T oxwva. Tov &.pxlypa.I-L!-La.Ta.: this official evidently concerned
himself with pay, arms, etc., and was of importance (Bikerman,
Stfleucides, 92). In putting him in charge of the Red Sea provinces
Antiochus was ensuring that they were controlled by a man personally attached to himself (cf. Heuss, Gnomon, 1949, Jro-u).
55. 1. ~pTa.~a.t&.VTJv: the ruler of Atropatene: 44 8 n.
3. Hie:8LEL . 8,a 'TOV KlvSuvov: cf. 41. I n., 42 4 n. For the prejudice
cf. 4

V. 55 4

~tOLO.N'S

REBELLION AGAINST ANTIOCHUS (222-220)

4. uLov yEyov(va.' T~ ~a.<nAE'L; the younger Antiochus, born c. 220,

since Antiochus' marriage to Laodlce was in spring 22r (43 3).
Antiochus III associated this son with him on the throne from 209
(Aymard. Rev. phil., 1940, 89 n. 3; REA, 1949, 332 n. 4), but he died
in 193 (Livy, xxxv. 15. 2; Aymard, Rev. phil., 1940, 91-109).
6. EL~ T~V !\pTa.~a.tcivou xwpa.v: on the situation of Atropatene see
44 4-II n. Paton erroneously makes Mt. Zagrus a river.
9. 'll'a.popa.EidCITJ~ ... ev To'i:<; t<a.T' )\AE~a.vopov Ka.,po'i:<;: when the provinces were divided after Alexander's death, Atropates, a Persian
noble and Perdiccas' father-in-law (Arrian, A nab. vii. 4 s). obtained
north-west Media (Diod. xviii. 3 3; cf. Iustin. xiii. 4 13), and
subsequently he and his family maintained it as an independent
principality. See Kaerst, RE, 'Atropates', col. 2150; above, 44. 8 n.

56. 1. !\'ll'oAAo~civt]<; ~a.Tpo<;: presumably one of Antioch us' rfoO..o~.

comparable to Alexander's doctor, Philip of Acamania (Diod. xvii.
31. 6). He was a famous medical teacher (Caelius Aurelianus records
that he belonged to the school of the Erasistrateans), and Celsus,
Galen, Alexander of Tralles, and other medical writers mention him.
Apollophanes is probably the writer referred to by Pliny (Nat. hist.
xxii. 59) and the author of the 87Jpta.Ka mentioned by the scholiast
to Nicander, Theriaca, 491. Cf. Wellmann, Hermes, 1888, 561 n. 1;
Susemihl, i. 822,
2. Tot:<; Oj-lo(ol<; . O"UJ111'1'WJ1a.aw: cf. iv. 48. 6-8.
7. T~V ... EIEpO.'!!'E(a.v:the court; cf. iv. 87. sn. Corradi {297) thinks the
reference here is to the f3aatAtKol 1rat8E> especially, but this seems
improbable.
57. 1. d<; '!!'a.pa.XElJlO.O"la.v: winter no/19.
2. J3a.u,Xa. XP'lJla.TLtnv: 'to be styled king', cf. 5; on this expression
see Bickerman, Harv. Theol. Rev., 1949, 109 ff. XP7Jt-tari,Etv means 'to
take the name and so assume the legal qualification of-in this case,
a king. Cf. Bengtson, Strat. iii. :202. For the incident cf. iv. 48. 3
t<OtvO'!!'pa.ywv nToAEj-lO.tft>; see iv. 48. 1:2 n. and below, 66. 3
4. Kuppt]O"Ta.'i:<;: apparently the people of Cyrrhestice, perhaps
angered at the suppression of the mutiny of their troops (5o. 8).
5. Aa.ooKeu1v T~v ev cl>puy~: Laodiceia-on-the-Lycus, a foundation
of Antiochus II; Pliny (Nat. hist. v. 105) says its earlier name was
Rhoas and before that Diospolis. See Ramsay, Cities, i. 32-79; Ruge,
RE, 'Laodikeia (5)', cols. 722-4.
ypcicpeLv '!!'pO<; Ta<; '!!'OAElS: i.e. send out 1rpo177d:yp.ara to the cities, a
royal prerogative; cf. Bengtson, Strat. ii. 141; but Bikerman
(Selet~cides, 14r n. 6) thinks the phrase merely means to send news
of his assumption of the throne.
6. Tov . . . ~a.ulAEa.: for this loyalty of presumably Macedonian
584

1\IOLON'S REBELLION AGAINST ANTIOCHUS (222-220)

V. 58.

II

troops (cf. Griffith, 168 n. z), and its emphasis by P.'s source, cf.
40. 4-57. 8 n.

58-87. The Fourth Syrian War (219-217):

Contemporary Events in Asia A!inor
TfJV ~apwiJv ~pav: spring 219; cf. 57. I.
3. )\1ToAAocj>avYJS: cf. 56. I n.
4. l:EAEuKELav: Seleuceia-in-Pieria, north of the mouth of the Orontes,
was the port of Antioch, and a foundation of Seleucus I (though the
details are controversial: see Honigmann, RE, 'Seleukeia (z)', cols.
n85-6); until Seleucus' death it was reckoned his capital (dpxTJy.!nv ... Ka~ .. errrla.t .. rijs- athW1' ovva.uTeia.s). Taken by Ptolemy III
in the Third Syrian War (246-241), it had remained in Egyptian
hands till now ( Io-n). Niese (ii. 166-8), basing his argument on
Agatharchides (FGH, 86 F 20 = Iosephus, c. Apion. i. zo7), claimed
that Seleuceia was again Seleucid for a short period about 234; but
this source is not to be pressed against P. (ct. Beloch, iv. z. 330 n. 1).
Seleuceia is described by Chapot, BCH, 1902, 164 ff. ; Bull. de la soc.
nat. des antiquaires de France, I9o6, I49-226 (with a plan, I: 8,ooo
by Toselli); a shorter account and sketch-map are to be found in
Honigmann, RE, 'Seleukeia (2)', cols. n93-4 (plan), II97-1zoo.
11. Ta BEpEvtKTJS aUj.l.1TTWj.LaTa: Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II
Philadelphus, had married Antiochus II in 252; he had put aside
his former wife Laodice. On the deaths of Antiochus and Ptolemy in
246, civil war broke out between Laodice and Berenice. The garrison
of Seleuceia declared for Berenice (see the Gurob papyrus, P. Petr.
ii. 4S+iii. 144
Wilcken, Chrestomathie, no. I, pp. 4-7), and an
Egyptian naval force arrived to occupy the town. The report of the
commander of this naval expedition, whom some have taken to be
Ptolemy III himself (cf. Holleaux, BCH, 1906, 330-48 Etudes, iii.
297-310; Cary, /fist. 397-8), others his brother Lysimachus (Roos,
Mnem., 1923, z6z-78; Tarn, CAH, vii. 716) or a navarch {Beloch,
iv. I. 675), states that on arrival (at Antioch) .dalAeopev t:vOew[s-]
trpos T~v doeAtfo.ftv (i.e. Berenice). If the commander was not Ptolemy,
her murder and that of her son shortly afterwards were evidently
due to a false estimate of Laodice's strength; if he was Ptolemy, one
has to assume that Berenice was already dead (asP. suggests), but
that Ptolemy pretended she was still alive, for reasons of propaganda. The subsequent war, the 'Laodicean War', resulted in
Egyptian victories (exaggerated in OGIS, 54), which Seleucus soon
reversed; but peace in 241 left Ptolemy in possession of Seleuceia.
The war bristles with problems; see Tam, CAH, vii. 7rs-zo (with
bibliography); Cary, Hist. 395--9; bibliography appended by L.
Robert to Holleaux, E:tudes, iii. 309-ro.

58. 1. irrrb

V. 59

THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217)

59. 1. f.ooyvl]T'f: d. 43 I.
1rpouo-rpo.To'Tre8uu Ko.Ta TOv l1rmi8po~ov: if remains on the hillside, beyond the village El Magharagyq, are those of a hippodrome
(see Toselli's map; cf. 58.4 n.), Antiochus' camp lay to the south-east
of the town.
2. 9e:68oTov Tov l]~u)/.oov: cf. 42. 5 n.
Ta uTe:v&.: between the Lebanon and the Antilebanon: cf. 45 8-9.
3-11. Topography of Seleuceia (for maps see 58. 4 n.): P. does not
indicate his source for this description, which is somewhat ambiguous
in places. If it was based on personal observation, P. may have put
in here on his journey to Alexandria (xxxiv. I4); and if this journey
occurred about 145 (so Mioni, 15), this would imply that the present
description was a late insertion (so Thommen, Hermes, x885, 220;
see iii. 1-5 n.). But this is highly hypothetical, and P. may well have
taken his description from his literary source for the campaign.
4. opos Kopucpo.'lov: this hill, a southerly spur of Mt. Amanus,
rises to 87o m. ; it is part of the modern Djebel Miisi. Zeus Coryphaeus
was worshipped here (OGIS, 245 I. 4); on this cult see Cook, Zeus,
ii. 2 (Cambridge, 1925), 869.
6. 8ltuy~VT)v cpO.po.yyl ~eoCI.n ~eo.t 8uu~aT!f: 'divided into two' or
'divided from the mountain': the second seems more likely.
~eo.9l]~eouua.v ~eo.l 1rpucl.wj.JkvT)v ws t1rl 9&./.o.TTo.v: 'descends
towards the sea in an area of broken ground'.
7. Ta T' t~1rop'o. ~ea.l To 1rpo&.o-r"'ov: traces exist of the wall which
enclosed this area outside the main town and included the harbour;
also of a square paved market-place. The walls which now mark the
south-east of the town are perhaps later than Antiochus III, since
P.'s 1rpoaa'TtOJ1 seems to include the whole of the lower town (Honigmann, RE, 'Seleuceia (z)', cols. II99-12oo).
8. TO O"U~1ra.v TilS 1roAws KUTOS: 'the whole of the city proper', as
opposed to the 1rpodar<:tov.
9. 1rpoapo.ow . KA,~O.KWTfJV Ka.1 xapo'TrO(T)T0\1: 'an approach consb;ting of artificially constructed steps' ; this twisting path still
exists (Chapot, Bull. de la soc. nat. des antiquaires de France, 1906,
197)
10. oo ~a.Kp6.v: according to Strabo (xvi. 751) Seleuceia lay 40 stades
north of the estuary of the Orontes; the Tabula Peutingeriana made
it 5 milia passuum,
1l.~uKT)S m::8ov: this, the :4vTwx.!wv 1r<:Slov (Strabo, xvi. 751), is the
modern El-'Amq, the plain east of the Amanus, watered by the
Orontes and its tributary the Qarasu ; it contains the lake of
Antioch.
60. 1. Toos mUTaTa.s TllS 1roAWS: a general expression signifying
the Ptolemaic epistates and the garrison.
586

THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217)

v. 6I.

4. Tous Kami Tljv l1r' .vnoxE~o.v ct>epouO"o.v 'ITUAT}V To'ITous: this gate
was presumably on the east side of the city, but cannot be identified
with any of the three surviving gates at the south-east angle. The
most southerly, the Market Gate, is called the Bab An1akiye (Chapot,
Bull. de la soc. nat. des antiquaires de France, I<)o6, 1<)8; Honigmann,
RE, 'Seleuceia (z)', col. u98), but it would not fit P.'s reference( 7)
to steep cliffs. The Dioscurium cannot be located, either, and no
clear picture can therefore be formed of where the three columns
attacked the city.
9. /\e6vTlov Tov E'ITi Twv oAwv: the strategos in charge of the garrison.
61. 1. els e~o.Kwx~Mous: for the total free population this figure is

very small, and it may in fact represent free citizens or men of

military age; Beloch (iv. 1. 255 n. 2) assumes the meaning to be
'erwachsene Manner' and calculates the total population as about
JO,OOO.

3-5. Defection of Theodotus: cf. 40. 1-3. The trilingual stele from
Pithom (cf. 83-86. 6 n.) states that after Raphia Ptolemy made an
agreement with Antiochus two years and two months 'after the
treason of the generals' ; since this agreement dates to about
October 217, the 'treason' was about August 219.
5. nToAe!la.tSa.: Ptolemais was the Phoenician Ake, modern Acre
(Akka) ; it was probably refounded as a Ptolemaic city about 261
(coins, B.M.C. Phoen., p. lxxvii; Jones, CERP, 449). See Strabo,
xvi. 758; Diod. xv. 41. Ake had been the chief Persian port against
Egypt.
na.vO.LTWAou: clearly a fellow-Aetolian; d. 62. 2, X. 49 II-12.
7. TtL O"Tevn Tn Ka.TA rEppa.: cf. 45 8 n., 46. 2 n.; the Pass of Gerrha
is in the Biqa', between Gerrha and Brochi. See, for full discussion,
Honigmann, RE, 'Syria', cols. 1616-17.
8. N~KoAa.ov: another Aetolian (68. s). who also turns up later under
Antiochus (x. 29. 6); for the incentive to desert Ptolemy d. 70. Io.
Another deserter is Lagoras ( 9; d. vii. 15-18).
9. Aopu!lEY1)V: perhaps to be identified with the hipparch Dorymcnes
whose dedication in the names of Ptolemy and Berenice was found
near Qana (SEG, vii. 326). An Aetolian Dorymenes receives proxenia
at Orchomenus in Arcadia along with other Aetolians between 243
and 229 (BCH, 1914, 454 no. 2; 1915, 127); and a Dorymenes of
Hypata is mentioned in a Delphic inscription granting aav,\{a to
Antioch (Alabanda) (Holleaux, REG, 1899, 345 = Et~~des, iii. 141 ;
cf. Launey, L r86 n. 8). \v'hether either or both of these is the same
man, is unknov.'TI.
Ta O"Teva Tn 1repl B1)puT6v: identified by Niese (ii. 374 n. 5) with the
Nahr el-Kelb along the R. Lycus (ovaxwpla, 1TEpt T6v AtSKov, 68. 9 n.);
Beloch (iv. r. 692) writes simply 'den Kiistenpass bei Berytos'. But
587

v. 6I. 9

THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217)

Honigmann (RE, 'Syria', col. 1617) makes a good case for identifying
these u-rEva with the route now followed by train and motor-road
over the Lebanon via Zal.lle, the King's Road, Derb es-SuWinije.
The Tabula Peutingeriana makes this route 58 milia passuum from
Heliopolis (Baalbek) to Berytus.
62. 2. Tupov Kai. nTohEJ.Lai6a: Antiochus advanced down the coast
from Berytus, by-passing Sidon, which he left in Ptolemaic hands
(69. 1o). In iv. 37 5 P. seizes this moment for a general synchronism
(spring 219; but c. 6I. 3-5 n.: these events were in fact somewhat
later in the year).
3. TETpt}pous Tp~t}pns S(~epo-ra.: controversial expressions.
Tarn (Hlv!N D, u8 and Appendix IV) has argued that a oll<:po-ros
(or olKpo-rov) was a triakontor, a vessel smaller than a trireme, with
fifteen one-man oars on either side, the oarsmen being divided into
fore and aft squads. But more probably ollcpo-ros refers to a grouping
of oarsmen at two levels, one of each pair rowing his oar over the
gunwale, the other through an oar-port (Oa),afL'd) ; on this theory
(cf. Morrison, CQ, 1947, 122-35) a 8tKpo-ros is not necessarily identical
with a triakontor. On triremes and quadriremes see i. 20. 9 n.
4. ets ME~LV E~Eht)Aulleva.L: from Alexandria. The visit to Memphis
may have had both religious and military significance (cf. 63. 7).
nTJAOUO'LOV: modern Tell Farama, the frontier fortress in the marshland east of the Nile; see Kees, RE, 'Pelusion (1)', cols. 407-15. For
troops stationed there in 219 see P. Frankfort, 7, in Lewald, 5.-B.
Heidelberg, 1920, 36-47.
nl.s TE SLwpuxa.s <i.va.aToJ1oilv: the object of opening up the Nile
sluices was to flood the land and hinder the advance of a hostile army.
63. l. ol. vepl. Tov !b..ya.lloKAEa. ~ea.l. IwaJ)Lov: on Sosibius see 35 7 n.
On Agathocles, the son of Oenanthe {xiv. n. 1), see xv. 25 ff.; according to the Ravenna scholia to Aristophanes, Thesm. 1059 he wrote a
commentary to Philopator's tragedy Adonis.
6. s~a.vpeaJ3EUOJ1EVQL 'll"pOS &Jl4>oTEpous TOUS ~a.aLXeis: 'going backwards and forwards between the two kings' ; s,a7TpGf3!Jm8a, in the
sense 'go on an embassy' is rare, and given in neither Schweighaeuser's Lexicon Polybianum nor in LSJ.
8. Tous J1Lallo+6pous To us ~v To.is isw voXEaw : i.e. Ptolemaic possessions in Asia Minor and elsewhere ; cf. 34 6-8.
9. tEvoMyous: on the activities of such recruiting officers, who
frequently covered vast areas in the search for mercenaries, see
Griffith, 254-63; Launey, i. 30-32.
11. TTJV Twv <i.v6pwv EKAoyoqv ~ea~ Sta(peoLv: 'the choice of men and
their distribution'; the method of s,alpm's is described in 64. I.
Af ercenary captains. These men had been attracted from Antigonid
service by better prospects in Egypt. The three Thessalians and the
588

THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217)

V. 6 5 .1

Boeotian may have served in Antigonid armies as allies, and the

Cretan Cnopias may have gone to Greece under some such treaty as
those between Doson and Eleutherna and Hierapytna (ii. 66. 6 n.).
Mahaffy (Hermath., 1899, 147) makes an interesting comparison with
the exiled Napoleonic officers who organized the Egyptian army
which cleared the Peloponnese of Greeks and subsequently swept the
Turks from Syria on behalf of Ibrahim Pasha.
64. 2. Tas eK Twv vpoTEpov lnJ!wvLa.oJ.LWv Ka.Ta.ypa.~O.s: 'the former
pay-sheets'.
4. 1>.v8p61'a.xos noXu~epaTl"Js: Polycrates was active from this
time till Epiphanes' reign (d. xv. 29. 10, xviii. 55 6), during which
he governed Cyprus from 202 to 197. Several inscriptions testify to
his activity there: OGIS, 93 (Paphos; cf. Holleaux, REG, 1898,
25o-1 =Etudes, iii. 75-76); IG, xi. 4 II77 (from Delos; cf. Holleaux,
BCH, 1905, 234-5); T. B. Mitford, Mnem., 1938, n6 (Paphos); ibid.
104 ff. (statue in his honour, probably set up by his troops). For his
later career see xxii. 17. 3, I'l 7 Polycrates' wife and son are also
known from Cypriote inscriptions: JHS, 1888, 254 n. n8: Zwg6J
)!plarwvos KvpTJvala; Mitford, llfnem., 1938, n8 (his son Polycrates
is rwv 7Tpwrwv cf.O..wv rov f3am>..iws, i.e. Epiphanes). His grandson
Polycrates was an apxwwJ-LaTocf.v"Aag (J ullian, Rev. arch. 7' I886,
266 no. 1). Further, two catalogues of victors at the Panathenaea
(IG, ii~. 2313, 2314) of uncertain date, but probably from between
194 and 178 (cf. Ferguson, Klio, 1908, 350, 355), record victories in
various classes by Polycrates, his wife Zeuxo, and three daughters,
Zeuxo, Eucrateia, and Hermione. Polycrates' name and ancient
family ( 6) suggest kinship with Polycrateia of Argos, the wife first
of the younger Aratus and later of Philip V of Macedon (cf. Walbank,
Philip, 78-79, 261 n. 3), and mother of Perseus (as Beloch (iv. 2. 140)
saw). See further Mitford, loc. cit.; Launey, i. no-n; Meloni,
Perseo, 13 n. 2); Lenschau, RE, 'Polykrates (4)', cols. 1735-6 (outdated). Andromachus is known only from this book of P.
5. TO.~S eKaOT(I)V E'ITLVOLO.LS: 'their ideas on every detail, fertility of
invention' (Paton).
65. 1-10. Ptolemy's forces. These figures give substantially the
Egyptian forces at Raphia: for Antiochus' forces see 79 3 ff. Those
on Ptolemy's side are analysed by Griffith (n8) thus:
x. 3,ooo royal guards
2. 2,ooo peltasts
3 8,ooo Greek mercenaries
7oo Household cavalry)
4
- Libyan cavalry
Total J,ooo
\ - Egyptian cavalry

THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217)

cavalry from Greece }T0 tal 2 000

mercenary cavalry

65. 6
6. 3,000 Cretans (including 1,000 Neocretans)
65. 7
7 3,ooo Libyans in Macedonian arms
65. 8
8. 6,000 Gauls and Thracians (of whom 4,ooo were ~<a-rotKot
Ka~ l1rlyovot, and 2,ooo recruits) .
. 65. 10
Total: 25,000 foot and s,ooo horse (for 73 elephants see 79 2).
9 The phalanx. P. mentions both a phalanx of zs,ooo (65. 4) and
a native Egyptian force of 2o,ooo phalangites (65. 9); and in 79 2 he
gives the infantry total as 7o,ooo (viz. 25,ooo+25,ooo+2o,ooo). But
Raphia was a 1tative Egyptian victory (1o7. Iff.); and since P. omits
the Graeco-Macedonian phalanx from his order of battle (82. I-6)though the combined phalanx takes part in the action (83. 3, 85. 9,
86. 1)--it has been plausibly suggested that there was one phalanx
of 25,000 of whom zo,ooo were Egyptians. Indeed, a phalanx of
45,ooo must surely have broken Antiochus' phalanx of 20,000 (79 5)
at the first clash. For this view see Mahaffy, Hermath., 1899, qo ff.
(phalanx only 2o,ooo); Tarn, CAH, vii. 730; Cary, Hist. 405; Griffith,
122; Rostovtzeff, SEHHH', iii. 1397 (criticizing A. Segre, Bull. soc.
arch. Alex., 1934, 265 ff.). On this basis the total army amounted to
so,ooo foot and 5,ooo horse, which can be divided in to
(a) 'Graeco-Macedonian' settlers in Egypt: the phalanx (s,ooo), the
agema (3,ooo), perhaps the peltasts (2,000), the household
cavalry (7oo), and 4,000 Galatians and Thracians: total 14,7oo.
(b) Mercenaries: 8,ooo Gauls, 2,ooo cavalry, J,ooo Cretans (probably), 2,000 Galatians and Thracians: total 15,ooo.
(c) Native and Libyan troops: 2,3oo cavalry, 3,ooo Libyans, 2o,ooo
phalanx: total 25,300.
Certain of these categories require comment.
(i) 62. 5, the ayr;p.a: See abOVe 25. I n. for this picked force Of
infantry in Antigonid Macedon. In Egypt they represented the most
privileged section of the military settlers (KAYJpouxot), established on
plots of land of various sizes in return for military obligations. Since
KA:'Ipovxm were liable for military service, they generally left the
cultivation of their plots to tenants. These plots could not be sold,
mortgaged, or in theory bequeathed; but in practice a lot would
usually pass from father to son, and by the time of Raphia this right
had been recognized by the government (P. Lille, 4; Wilcken,
Chrestomaihie, no. 336, dated :n8/q). See further Rostovtzeff,
SEHHW, i. 284-7, ii. 727; Griffith, ns ff.; Lesquier, 290. The
KAYJpoiixot very soon came to include many 'barbarians' such as the
Galatians and Thracians of 65. 10 (see below).
(ii) 65. 2, the peltasis: whether these are cleruchs or mercenaries
(cf. x. 31. 12-13) is not clear; but it seems likely that, as in most
5 {

590

THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217')

V. 65. x

(cf. ii 65. z and 3 nn.) where P. speaks of peltasts, he means

a
select force closely connected with the phalanx, and equivalent to Alexander's hypaspists (in xv. 25. 3 he uses the term
'hypaspist' of the guard in Alexandria). If so, these peltasts are
probably cleruchs.
(iii) 65. 5, the i1T1Trts: ot m:pt -r~v a~A~v: there is no evidence elsewhere for household cavalry deruchs, but their mention along with
Libyan and Egyptian cavalry suggests they were regulars and not
mercenaries. As a crack corps they probably correspond to the
Seleucid ~-rai:pot imTrts: (x..x.x. 25. 7) or Alexander's 0..7] flaatA.ud; -rwv
~-ralpwv (cf. Tarn, Alex. ii. 139).
(iv) 65. 7, Nr6Kp7]TS:: see 3 I n.
(v) 65. Io, the Ka-rotKot Kat brlyovot: dearly these Galatians and
Thracians had come to Egypt originally as mercenaries ; but they
had settled down as cleruchs, perhaps receiving land during their
service, or on its completion. From the time of Philopator (z21203(?)) onwards the cleruchy system was extended to the native
p.&.x.tpm, and the former cleruchs were distinguished from these as
Kct-rotKot, the term P. uses here. On this development, and the whole
question of the cleruchies, see Lesquier, 202 ff.; Rostovtzeff,
Kolonat, 6 ff.; SEHHW, i. 284 ff., iii. 1384-5 (with bibliography);
Wilcken, Grundziige, z8o ff.; Launey, i. 44 ff. (with bibliography).
The ;.,{yovot, like those in Alexander's army (cf. Arrian, Anab.
vii. 6. I, 8. 2, 12. z; Diod. xvii. no. 3; Justin. xii. 4 5 ff.; Plut.
Alex. 47, 71), are probably the sons of Macedonian fathers, brought
up in Macedonian fashion, and given a military training; they figure
in Egyptian papyri (e.g. P. Petr. ii. 32. 2 (a) recto; and especially
P. Land. 23; P. Vat.
Mai, Class. auct. v. 352, cf. 356) and are
clearly a military formation (P. Land. 23) grouped in a7JfLEa.t. Distinct
from the e1Tlyovot, yet clearly connected with them, areoirijs:lmyovi)s:,
a category also found in the papyri, Greek and demotic. Lesquier
(5z-65), followed by Wilcken (UPZ, i. 14, pp. 163-4), suggests that
the latter are a group of civilians, born in Egypt, the sons of soldiers,
who have perhaps received military training in the corps of the
J..,tyovot, and will in some cases themselves inherit the land and
military duties of cleruchs. On this problem, which is hardly relevant
here, see Griffith, us; Lesquier and Wilcken, locc. citt.; Droysen,
RE, 'epigonoi', col. 68; Holleaux, ]HS, 1921, 189 n. 5 Etudes, iii.
392 n. I; Launey, i. 4&-49, 514 (where he appt"..ars to suggest that oi.
Tfjs: lmyovfjs is an older term for ol J1rtyovot, and the proper one at
the time of Philopator), ii. 859 n. 2. Galatian settlers are not hitherto
known from the papyri (whence Mahaffy's doubts (Hermath., 1899,
I5I) about P.'s statement); but they were perhaps few in number
(the majority of this company may have been Thracians) or con~
centrated at sites not yet discovered (Launey, i. 514). A Thracian,
591

v.

65 . r

THE FOURTH

SYRIA~

WAR (219-217)

Aristocrates, of the first hipparchy, domiciled at Autodice in the

Arsinoite nome, is known from P. Enteux. 48 to have taken part in
the war, and was probably one of the 4,ooo lrrtyovo here mentioned
(Launey, i. 376-7).
(vi) 65. 8-9. Libyan and Egyptian forces : the arming of Libyans
and of native J.ULXJ.LO in Macedonian arms, for the first time since
the days of Ptolemy I, represents a new policy in Ptolemaic Egypt,
and results in a greater influence of the native element on Egyptian
life; and its immediate effect is a civil war (cf. 107. 1-3; Rostovtzeff,
SEHHW, ii. 7oS fl.; Tarn, CAH, vii. 731).
3. 6 8' J6.xalos $o~8as: a Phthiotid Achaean, for he is the Phoxidas of 63. 12 (cf. J_auney, i. 131 against Heichelheim, Auswiirtige
Bevolkerung, 53 87).
nToAEp.al:os 0 9pautou: origin unknown. Later, having abandoned
Lagid service, he appears as strategos and archiereus of Coele-Syria,
and makes a dedication to Hermes, Heracles, and Antiochus Megas
in the gymnasium at Soli in Cilicia (OGIS, 23o); his dialect is northwest Greek. The )J:rroAAwvtos t9pacrlov (MSS. t9pacraov or 8apcrlov)
crTpar'l]yos KofATJS' Lvpias Kat tl>otvfKTJ> of 2 Mace. iii. 5 may be a
brother of this Ptolemy (d. Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 161 n. 6), but is
more probably the same man, with a confusion of proper names
(perhaps with Ptolemaeus' successor, Apollonius son of Menestheus:
2 Mace. iv. 4, iv. 21); see Bengtson, Strat. ii. r61-3.
7-10. Philo, and Ammonius from Barce in Cyrenaica, are both
otherwise unknown; the attempt of E. Revillout (Rev. arch., 5, 1905,
341-2) to identify the Thracian Dionysius with a homonymous
priest of Sarapis and Isis mentioned in a hieroglyphic inscription on
a statue at Rhodes is quite unconvincing (cf. Launey, ii. 986 n. r).
66. 1. TT)v -rroALV boupa: as Reiske saw, Llwpa should be read.
Dora was a small Israelitish town on a peninsula (Artemidorus and
Claudius Iullus in Steph. Byz. s.v. Llwpos-) jutting out into the sea
(n)v oxvpDTTJTU TOV T07TOV) below 1\lt. Carmel, 8 (Tabula Peutingeriana)
or 9 (Eusebius) miles north of Caesarea. At the time of the Persian
occupation it belonged to Sidon (C.I.Sem. i, no. 3 11. 18 f.). Its
remains are extant on the site of Tantura. See Benzinger, RE,
'Dora (z)', cols. 1549-so.
2. uuvcmTOVTO~ TOU XElflWVO~: i.e. winter 219/18.
3. O"UVEPYELV TOL~ 1TEpt TOV nToAEp.aiov: cf. iv. 48.12 n., v. 57 I-2.
67. 6-10. The possession of Code-Syria (cf. xxviii. 20. 6-7; Diod.
xxx. 2); on the meaning of 'Coele-Syria' see 34 6 n. Occupied by
Ptolemy I in 319 (Diod. xviii. 43; Marmor Parium ( = FGH, 239)
B 12), Syria was seized by Antigonus I in 315 (Diod. xix. 57 I, sB,
59), and apart from one short incursion by Ptolemy in 312 (Diod.
592

THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217)

v.

68.3

xix. 79-Bo) it remained in his hands until just before 301, when
Cassander, Lysimachus, and Seleucus united to destroy him at Ipsus
(Plut. Demetr. :z8-z9; Diod. xxi. x). Immediately before this battle
Ptolemy seized Syria south of Lebanon and Damascus, including
Palestine and Phoenicia south of the Eleutherus (except Tyre and
Sidon) (Diod. xx. IIJ; Tarn, CAH, vii. 7oo); but from the present
passage and xxviii. :zo. 6-7 it appears that the allies agreed to award
all Syria to Seleucus. However, when Ptolemy kept what he had
occupied, Seleucus did not press his claim (Diod. xxi. r. 5). On these
events, and the subsequent fluctuation in the frontier, see Beloch,
iv. 2. 321-3. In the present negotiations (and those of xxviii. 20. 6-7)
the Seleucid case rests (a) on the occupation by Antigonus I (-roil
'
'
' 01
' .._,vptlf
" ' f3 aatM<lV,
\ '
.. . 20. 7) , Wh'lCh Was
7TpW'TOV
Kll.Taax_OVTDS'
TTJV
XXVlll,
recognized as giving him the title to it, (b) on the rule of Seleucus I
over the area, for (it was argued) in occupying the southern part of
Syria Ptolemy I was acting not on his own behalf but on that of
Seleucus, (c) especially on the agreement between Cassander,
Lysirnachus, and Seleucus after Ipsus, awarding Syria to Seleucus.
The Egyptian reply (a) stressed Ptolemy I's occupation before Ipsus,
(b) denied that this was on conditions binding him to make over the
province to Seleucus-<:ln the contrary it was agreed that Coele~
Syria and Phoenicia should be his ovm, (c) ignored the compact
after Ipsus as ultra uires. Of these three points the second probably
rests on an agreement made before Ipsus when the coalition was
formed, but ignored after the battle since Ptolemy had taken no
part in it (Corradi, 27-55
Atti Ace. Torino, I9Io-II, 585 ff.; Tarn,
CAH, vii. 7oo).
12-13. Inclusion of Achauts. Ptolemy's contention clearly shows
that Achaeus was his ally, formally (Niese, ii. 376) or informally
(Bouche-Leclercq, Lagides, i. 299-300; Sileucides, i. 141); cf. iv. 48.
rz n. On the Hellenistic concept of 'inclusion' in a treaty (m;ptAap.f30.vetv, aup.7rep.Aap.f3avw) see Bickermann, Rev. Phil., 1935, 59 ff.

68. 1. auvi\1TT 8i Tel TtlS

~aplvijs

Glpa.s: cf. x. 5 for the date (spring

218).

2. et~ TOU'i' I(Q.TU ru~a.v TOvous: the old Philistine city near the
southern border of Palestine; on its people and its sack by Alexander
see xvi. 22 a. He later repeopled it: d. Arrian, A nab. ii. 27. 7, 'T~v St
7T6Aw ewoK{aas b< 'TWV 7Tf.pto{Kwv. After Ipsus Gaza had remained
Ptolemaic until now, and Ptolemy II and Ptolemy III both minted
there (B.M.C. Ptol. Kings of Egypt, 35, 49); it lies 3-4 km. from the
coast in a richly watered and fertile area.
3. 11Eplyvous TOV va.u6.pxou: otherwise unknown. This Perigenes is
not to be identified with the son of Leontiscus of Alexandria, who
was honoured with proxe-nia and a golden crown by the Siphnians
4800

Qq

593

V.68.3

THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217)

(IG, xii. 5 48I = OGIS, 73o); cf. Robert, BCH, 1936, I84 ff. Schoch
(RE, 'Perigenes (I)', col. 744) suggests that he may be his son.
6. Ta KQTa nxa.Tavov O"TEVa: d. 69 I. The Plane-tree Pass lay on
the coast between Berytus and Sidon, and north of Porphyreon,
which was itself about 12 miles north of Sidon. Clermont-Ganneau
(Rec. arch. or. vi. 65 ff.) identifies it as the 'Elman Pass; cf. Josephus,
AI, xvi. 36I, llAa-raV7J; BI, i. 539, where he refers to a KWfhTJ :E.Swvlaw
of that name, not far from Berytus (at the modern Bailan). But
Dussaud (To-pographie, 46) questions this identification. See Honigmann, ZDPV, I924, 32 no. 376; Spuler, RE, 'Platanos (3)', cols.
23JB--9

7. Mapa9ov: this north Phoenician town lay on the mainland

opposite Aradus, to which it belonged at the time of Alexander
(Arrian, Anab. ii. I3 8, I4 I, I5. 6). The present reference is its next
appearance in a literary authority. A summary of the extensive
remains existing about the two streams Nahr el-Quble and Nahr
'Amrit is given by Honigmann, RE, 'Marathos (2)', cols. I434-5
:A.pa.8wv: Aradus, also Phoenician, lay on a small island (Ruad)
about 3 km. from the mainland at a point Io km. north of the mouth
of the R. Eleutherus (Nahr el-Kebir); it was traditionally founded
by refugees from Sidon (Strabo, xvi. 753), and under the Persians
controlled a considerable mainland empire. It maintained some
degree of independence (at first under its kings), after its submission
to Alexander; the Aradian dynasty, however, ceased to rule in 259
(cf. Head, 789; Jones, CERP, 239). Some remains are extant.
Tous v TTI vtiact~ KTA.: the mainland Aradians probably inhabited
the l.1rlv~ov Tfjs )1pdSou (Strabo, xvi. 753), which later developed into
Antaradus.
8. TO 0eou 1rpoaw'lrov: the headland of Ras es-Saq'ii; the Greek
name translates the Phoenician P'ne-El (Penuel); cf. Bevan,
Seleucus, i. 315 n. 2.
B0Tpuv T plt)pfJ KaAa.!Lov: of these Phoenician towns Botrys
lay Iz miles north of Byblus on the coast (Tabula Peutingeriana),
and according to Menander (in Iosephus, AI, vili. 324) was founded
by Ithoba'al, king of Tyre, at the time of Nebuchadrezzar; but it
already appears in the Tel el-Amarna letters (Jones, CERP, 231,
245, quoting Knudtzon, Die el Amarna Tajeln (Leipzig, 1915}, n65,
nos. 78-79, etc.). Trieres lay about 15 km. north of Botrys (Strabo,
xvi. 754, puts it north of Theon Prosopon}, probably at Enfeh,
rather than at Heri (so Dussaud, Topographie, Sz); for the Itinerarium Hierosolymitatmm makes the mutatio Tridis (Trieris) Iz milia
passuum from Tripolis. See Honigmann, RE, 'Trieres (2)', cols. ug2o. Calamus is modern :B:almun, round the headland north of Trieres,
and about 10 km. south of Tripolis. For all three see Pliny, Nat.
hist. v. 78, and the map in RE, 'Libanos', cols. 5--.6. Evidently P. is
594

THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217)

v. 70.3

not personally acquainted with this district, and he appears to have

compressed and misrepresented his source ; for in fact Botrys lies
south, and Trieres and Calamus north of Ras es-Saq'a (Theon
Prosopon), a fact hardly reconcilable with P.'s order of reference.
9. TttS 8uaxwp(a.s 11'Ept Tov AuKov: the Lycus is the Nahr el-Kelb,
or Dog's river, the fluuius qui cognomnatur canis of the Crusaders
{William of Tyre, Historia rerum transmarinarum, x. 5) ; its mouth
is 12 km. north of Berytus, and immediately south of this a headland restricts the passage beside the sea for a distance of about 2
km. This headland is crossed by a narrow pass which carries the
Berytus-Byblus road. North of this pass the road follows the south
bank of the Lycus upstream for about .f km. (Caracalla improved the
road here; cf. GIL, iii. 1. :206, 'montibus imminentibus Lyco flumini
caesis uiam delatauit'.) It is to this section P. here refers; it was
clearly important, for the Lycus had been a frontier post from ancient
times (d. Weissbach, RE, 'Lykos (13)', cols. 2392-J). P. mentions the
occupation of the Lycus pass after Antiochus' arrival at Berytus;
but there is some confusion here, as Schweighaeuser saw, for since
the pass is north of Berytus, Nicarchus and Theodotus must have
been sent ahead earlier, probably from Marathus. Bevan (Seleucus,
i. 315) says 'from Calamus'; but P.'s credit cannot be saved thus, for
JwreiiBev ( 9) goes back beyond the p,v . S clause to B1JptrrOY. Here
again the explanation probably lies in a compressed source.
TTJV 8uva.11Lv r.iva.Aa~wv: 'with the (main) army' (d. 70. I, 70. J, etc.) or
'after resting his army' (d. iii. 6o. 2, 85. 5. v. So. :z n.).
Tov ..Aa.11oupa.v 1ToTa.116v: the Tamyras, modern N ahr Damur; cf.
Strabo, xvi. 756. It lay midway between Berytus and Sidon; cf. Dussaud, Topographie, 43, 47; Honigmann, RE, 'Tamyras', cols. 2152-3.
10. Tas 1TpoKa.TEXOI1Eva.s Suaxwp[as: the Plane-tree pass: d. 6,
69. 4. MEveSfJil~: of Alabanda in Caria (cf. 79 6, 82. n); whether
this is the same man who later in Antiochus' reign was l'"i rwv /J.yw
ua.'TpO.'ITHwv (4o. 5 n.) is uncertain. The name is not uncommon.
5. i1LOK~Ea. TOV <TTpa.TT]yov rijs na.pa1TOTa.J.lla.s: this will be the province along the Euphrates; d. Bengtson, Strat. ii. 17.
6. !lETa rijs 8Epa11'eta.s: '"''ith his bodyguard'; cf. iv. 87. 5 n.
10. 11't It8wvos: Sidon was the chief city of Phoenicia under the
Persians, but joined Alexander after Issus (Arrian, Anab. ii. 15. 6).
After I psus Sidon remained in Demetrius' hands, but later Ptolemy II
conquered it, probably about 275. Philocles, who died in c. :262{1,
was the last king of Sidon.

70. 3. 'TI'GAW a1T011'AE'i:V Els T upov: 'to sail on to Tyre'; d. 27. 2 n.

3-4. Philoteria and Scythopolis. Philoteria (cf. Syncellus, p. 559
Bonn) lay on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, and is probably the
595

V.70.3

THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217)

later Tiberias; Scythopolis was on the right bank of the Jordan

somewhat farther south. Philoteria may have been a Ptolemaic
colony (its name is taken from Philotera, Ptolemy II's sister), and
Scythopolis (Besan) was probably a Ptolemaic foundation, though
not necessarily a real colony. 'The name has a Ptolemaic ring: it
falls into the same class as the fanciful names given to the Egyptian
metropoleis, Gynaecopolis, Crocodilopolis, and so forth' (Jones,
CERP, 242). Beloch (iv. 2. 325--6), however, would ascribe it to
Antigonus I. Neubauer (La Geographie du Talmud (Paris, I868), I75)
records the hypothesis that its name has survived in that of the
near-by village of Succoth. From P.'s phrase ri]v v7rou.rayf-Llv7Jv
xwpav Tats m)Amt ratirats ( 5) Jones (CERP, 449) argues that both
towns were administrative district capitals rather than m$.:\ns with
territories attached.
6. :.\Ta.f3upLov: cf. Josephus, AI, v. 84, xiii. 396; Syncellus, p. 559:
Atabyrium, the :Mt. Tabor of the Old Testament, now Djebel-etT6r, stands at the north-east corner of the Plain of Esdrahelon,
562 m. above sea-level. For the town on the summit see Steph. Byz.,
s.v. )1Taf3vpov. As the supposed site of the transfiguration of Christ
the mountain later possessed many churches. The opt~ is the
high land between the Jordan and :Mt. Tabor.
10. KEpa.(a.s, Ets TWV . om:i.pxwv: in his commentary Schweighaeuser takes V7rapxwv as a participle ; but in the Lexicon he translates
it as a noun and this seems preferable. As governor of a Seleucid
v7rapxla, the word v7rapxos is attested (Welles, zo 1. s), but rare;
more commonly, as here, it signifies a subordinate commander in
a general sense (d. Welles, p. 37I, s.v.; Holleaux, REG, 1899, 29 n. 3 =
Etudes, iv. I55 n. 3; Bikerman, Sileucides, 129-30, 203; Bengtson,
Strat. ii. 2I-24. Ceraeas is a Pisidian name; cf. :Macridy, Rev. bibl.,
I904, 550 no. I; L. Robert, Et. anat. 366-7).
ll. 'lmr6Aoxos: cf. 71. n, 79 9; evidently a leader of mercenary
cavalry. See Otto, RE, 'Hippolochos', cols. I86z-3. On the importance
of Thessalians in the Ptolemaic army see Launey, i. 2I7 f.
12. llEAAa.v tca.t Ka.!lOUV tca.l r E<j>pouv: Pella, modern Fahl, lay on the
left bank of the Jordan about 20 miles below the Sea of Galilee; it
appears in Egyptian documents and was renamed Berenice under
the Ptolemies (Steph. Byz., s.u. BpviKat). Camoun is perhaps the
Kawiw of Judges x. 5 (but other readings are found); cf. Josephus,
AI, v. 254. Gephroun may be the Ephron of I Mace. v. 46; 2 Mace.
xii. 27; cf. Josephus, AI, xii. 346. Its position has been sought 8 miles
west by south of Jrbid (Arbela), where a watch-tower controls the
road, in the valley of Wad el-Ghafr; cf. Benzinger, RE, 'Ephron
(2)', col. 19. All three towns lie in the Decapolis, across Jordan.
71. 1. n)v .
596

:.\pa.~(a.v:

to the Greeks Arabia, the land of the Arabs,

THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217)

V. 72

included the Syrian desert and the north African desert east of the
Nile, as well as Arabia proper (Arabia Felix): see 4, 79 8 n.
2. KO.Ta.<Txtilv ds TTJV r a.M.nv: 'reaching Galatis' : an unusual sense
of Karlxw, which is normally used of 'putting in at port' by a ship.
Galatis or Galaad (or Galaaditis) (cf. Iosephus, AI, xii. 336, 345,
350) is the Old Testament Gilead, the district across Jordan; its
precise boundaries vary at different periods. Hultsch completes the
sense by reading ylver' eyKpan]s.
)\~t).wv: cf. xvi. 39 3; Iosephus, AI, xii. 136; Bl, ii. 252. Abila lay
in the Decapolis, 12 miles east of Gadara ( 3) (Eusebius); cf. CIG,
4501 (time of Hadrian). Its site is perhaps at Tell Abil, some 6 miles
east of Umm Qeis, where ruins and graves have been found (Benzinger, RE, 'Abila (4)', col. 98). This Abila is not to be confused with
that opposite Jericho in the Peraea (Josephus, AI, iv. 176, v. 4) or
Abila Lysaniae, the capital of Abilene, south-east of the Antilebanon.
N~tca.s <TuyyEvT)s MEvvou: both equally unknown; Menneas was
probably a local dynast (Niese, ii. 378).
3. fa.Stipwv: the famous city of the Decapolis, a little south of the
Hieramyces (Jannt14:), and 16 miles from Scythopolis (ltinerarium
Antoninianum); cf. Pliny, Nat. kist. v. 74 Gadara is modern Umm
Qeis, lying on a prominent hill about an hour south of the hot springs
in the J annuJ.c valley, and overlooking the Sea of Galilee. Benzinger
(RE, 'Gadara (1) and (z)', cols. 436-8) suggests that both here and
in xvi. 39 3 P. refers to the Gadara in the Peraea, since its capture
is mentioned between those of Pella and Rabbat Ammon. But P.
clearly designates Gadara as in the district of Abila, and in Gilead;
hence if this were the Gadara in Peraea (modern es-Salt), then the
Abila mentioned must be that opposite Jericho, an area hardly to
be included in Gilead. Both towns must be those in the Decapolis;
and in view of P.'s compression of his source (cf. 68. 8-g nn.) the
advance of about so miles to Rabbat Ammon creates no difficulty.
4. Tn 'Pa.~~a.TO.}la.va. Ti}s ~pa.~a.s: i.e. it lay in a different area from
the towns already mentioned. Rabbat Ammon is modern Amman, the
capital of Jordan; it figures in 2 Sam. xi. r, xii. 26, etc. Under the
Ptolernies it was renamed Philadelphia; but the Zenon correspondence refers to it under its old name (Jones, CERP, 449).
9. Tov u1TOVo}lov: cf. x. z8. 2, etc., 'underground passage'; probably
similar to the stairway leading to a secret cistern outside the walls
by which Mycenae secured its water-supply in case of siege (cf.
A. J. B. Wace, Mycenae (Princeton, 1949), 98 ff.).
lt. Tous ~~:a.TO. Ia.}LO.pE~a.v -ro'ITous: the district west of Jordan,
opposite Gilead.
72-77. l. Achaeus' activities in :2r8: see Bevan, Seleucus, ii. 3-4;
Meloni, Rend. Line., 1950, r6x-6.
597

V. 72.

EVEXTS IN ASIA MINOR (218)

72. 1. neSV1'J.)..LaO'El<; (mo IeAyewv: Selge. modern Serik, was a

Pisidian town, which stood 3,ooo ft. above the west bank of the
R. Eurymedon, in a fertile plain bearing wheat and olives (Strabo,
xii. 570 f. probably following Artemidorus). Its claim to a connexion
with Sparta (cf. 76. II; Strabo, ibid.; Dion. Per. 86o
GGM, ii. 157;
Steph. Byz. s.v.) is to be rejected (cf. Beloch, i. 2. 109; Meyer, ii. I.
548 f.), for early-fourth-century coins bear its name in the native
dialect. Selge had joined Alexander voluntarily (Arrian, A nab. i.
28. 1). See Magie, i. 264-5; ii. n37; Ruge, RE, 'Selge', col. 1257. On
Pednelissus, also in Pisidia, see Strabo, xii. 570, xiv. 667. Ruge (RE,
'Pednelissos', cols. 43-45) rejects Paribeni's identification (Annuario,
1916-2o, 73-78) with Hellenistic remains 10 km. east of Kyzyllyk,
near Kozan, north-west of Selge, and the site remains uncertain;
see Magie, ii. 1317.
4. Ta aTeva. Ta 1repi T!jv KA1-1a.tca.: this pass through the Climax is
not that along the east Lycian coast, famous for the passing of Alexander (Arrian, A nab. i. 26. 1-2; Plut. Alex. 11 8; Strabo, xiv. 666), but
one from the interior to the Pamphylian coast. Its identity is uncertain. H. Rott (Kleinasiatische Denkmaler aus Pisidien, Pamphylien,
Kappadokien und Lydien (Leipzig, 19o8), 23-27) sought it in the
defile of t;ubuk Bogaz, which leads through the hills to the small
plain beside Baden Aga<; (near Ariassus) ; cf. Lanckoronski, Stadte
Pamphyliens und Pisidiens, ii (Vienna, 1892), 123 f.
Ici1ropSa.: site uncertain. Radet (Rev. arch. 22, 1893, 193) identifies
it with modern Isbarta. Certainly it can hardly lie between Selge
and Pednelissus (so Ruge, RE, 'Saporda', col. 2356); but equally it
will not have lain north of the mountains at Isbarta (cf. Ramsay,
Cities, i. 325).
5. MLAu6.Sa. Kp11Twv mSALV: the district of M ilyas is differently
defined by Strabo (xiii. 631) and Ptolemy (Geog. v. 3 4); Pliny
(Nat. hist. v. 147) gives what is perhaps a confiation. To Strabo
Milyas is the high land extending from the pass from Termessus to
Isinda, as far north as Sagalassus and the territory of Apamea;
Ptolemy puts it in central and south Lycia. Ramsay (Cities, i.
317 n. 1) suggested that Ptolemy had confused the Milyae with the
Termilae (Lycians). Ernst Meyer (Grenzen, 4) would locate the district of Milyas between the R. Lysis (Gebrem t;ay) in the north-west
and the Baba Dag in the south; but Magie (ii. 761-2) thinks of a
more limited area, in the same neighbourhood. Cf. Jones, CERP,
4II.

Cretopolis (cf. Diod. xviii. 44 2, 47 4 (Antigonus' campaign against

Termessus); Ptol. Geog. v. 5 5), perhaps a settlement of Cretan
colonists (Niese, i. 231 n. 3) from cerea(?); cf. Ruge, RE, 'Keraeitae',
col. 252: coins of the first century B.c. bear the legend KPHMNEnN
K A I K E PAE IT n N, Cremna being a town in Pisidia (Head, 707) ;
598

EVENTS IN ASIA MINOR (218)

V.73.3

for Cretan Cerea( ?) cf. iv. 53 6 n. But the name may equally well
be an assimilation, and the connexion invented like that of Selge
with Sparta (Jones, CERP, I26). Kiepert (FOA, viii, text, p. Io)
placed Cretopolis at Incir Han on the east side of Lake Kestel; but
this is still uncertain (d. Ruge, RE, 'Kretopolis', col. I824; 'Kremna',
col. I7o8).
9. nEpy'lv: cf. xxi. 42. I. Perge was an old Greek settlement, lying
on a terrace about 5 miles from the west bank of the R. Cestrus
(AkSu) in the coastal plain of Pamphylia; the site is today Murtana.
Cf. Ps.-Scylax Ioo; Strabo, xiv. 667; Mela, i. 79; Lanckoronski, Stadte
Pamphyliens, i. 33 ff.; Ruge, RE, 'Perge', cols. 694-704; Magie, i.
:262-3, ii. II34 Perge was an important road and water junction
(the Cestrus, and the tributary which came past Perge, were navigable
up to the town: cf. Acts xiii. I3 f.); it was also a centre for the
worship of F&.vaaaa IlpEda
Ilepya[a, identified with Artemis. The
town surrendered to Alexander (Arrian, Anab. i. :26. I, 27. 5)
73. 3. 'ETevveis: this tribe is known for its silver coins minted from
the third century onwards (Head, 7o8) and also from inscriptions
(Launey, ii. I224); it lay inland from Side, but, if it possessed a
town Etenna, its position is uncertain. The Etenneis are identified
by Jones (CERP, 126-7 411) and Niese (ii. 385 n. 7) with the Catenneis
of Strabo (xii. 570, Ta 8' {mep TOVTWV (Aspendus and Side), 7)87] opHv&.,
KaTevvef:>, DJ.LopoL Ee'AyEiiat Kat 'OJ.Lova8eiiat), the variant being due,
Jones argues, to 'a guttural in Pisidian, which .. was not pronounced in some dialects'. In fact both names occur in the proceedings of church councils, and though Ramsay (Asia Minor, 4I8 f.)
believed that both were originally identical, the question is safer left
open; see Ruge, RE, 'Etenneis' cols. 706--7. The troops sent were
either local recruits or mercenaries employed by the Etenneis; their
relation to Achaeus was that of allies (Launey, i. 474).
J.\O''ITEv8~o~: Aspendus, the oldest of the three inland cities of the
Pamphylian coast, claimed an Argive foundation; cf. Ps.-Scylax,
IOI; Strabo, xiv. 667; Arrian, A nab. i. :27. I f.; Mela, i. 78. But in the
fifth century its coins bore the barbarous inscription Estvedys (GDI,
1259). Aspendus occupied a height overlooking the west bank of the
Eurymedon, which was navigable up to there (cf. Lanckoronski,
Stiidte Pamphyliens, i. 85 ff.); on its wealth derived from salt and
olives see Pliny, Nat. hist. xxxi. 73; cf. Strabo, xii. 570. The symbol
of the anchor (a favourite Seleucid device, cf. App. Syr. 56) which
appears on tetradrachms of Aspendus Phaselis, and Side has been
taken as evidence of a monetary convention between these cities
and the Seleucid realm (see Regling, ZN, I928, 99 125 f.; Bikerman,
Seleucides, 2I:2; Magie, ii. II34; contra Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, iii.
1480 n. 71); these coins are subsequent to the Peace of Apamea
I

599

V. 7J. 3

EVENTS IN ASIA MINOR (218)

(188). In zr8 the towns of Pamphylia seem to have been de facto

independent (Meyer, Grenzen, 137). For bibliography see Ruge, RE,
'Pamphylia', col. 390.
4. I~SijTCu: Side, modem Eski Antalya or Selimiye, lay on a low
peninsula towards the eastern end of the Pamphylian plain. Its
claim to descent from Aeolic Cyme is controverted by the curious
non-Greek dialect on its fourth-century coins (d. Ps.-Scylax, roi ;
Strabo, xiv. 667; Arrian, A nab. i. z6. 4; Head, 703). Arrian has a
strange story of its inhabitants' forgetting how to speak Greek and
speaking instead a 'barbarian speech' of their own invention; on this
see Ruge, RE, 'Pamphylia', col. 363; H. Th. Bossert, Turk tarih
kurumu, Belleten, 14 (1950), 1-4; d. Parola del Passato, 1950, 32-46,
for a new alphabet and characteristics of the language (summarized
by L. Robert, Bull. ep., 1951, zr8). See fg. 193 for an alliance between
Side and Rhodes (probably in 190). The remains of ancient Side are
extensive; see Lanckororiski, Stadte Pamphyliens, i. 125 f.; full
bibliography by Ruge, RE, 'Side (3)', cols. 2208-g; 'Pamphylia',
cols. 395-6. On the port see L. Robert, Hellenica, s. 1948, 69-76,
and for the Turkish excavations of 1947 see A.M. Mansel, E. Bosch,
J. Inan, Vorliiujiger Bericht uber die Ausgrabungen in Side im Jahre
I947 (Turk tarih kurumu yaytnlartndan, Publ. Turk. Hist. Soc., ser. v,
no. n, Ankara, 195r) in Turkish and German.
6. daE1rEj.l1TE: 'tried to introduce them'.
~1rt Sp!ftcTJS: Antiochus
Hierax was the younger son of Seleucus II Callinicus, who made him
independent king in Asia Minor north of Taurus at the time of the
Laodicean War, and failed to recover this area when the war was
over. Shortly afterwards, as ally of the Galatians against Attalus of
Pergamum, Hierax was defeated in three battles in Phrygia, Lydia,
and Carla; and having been expelled from Asia Minor he took refuge
in Armenia and Cappadoda in tum, and finally surrendered to
Ptolemy, who imprisoned him. He managed to escape, but his subsequent fate is obscure. According to Iustinus {xxvii. 3 8-u) he was
killed by brigands; but Eusebius (Chron. i. 253 Sch.) says he fled
to Thrace and there died. If one may use Tragus (Prol. 27) and Pliny
(Nat. hist. viii. 158), he perished at the hands of Gallic brigands
under a leader Centaretus; but the Antioch us of Pliny is not
definitely Hierax. See Bouche-Leclercq, Sileucides, II4-I8.
5. Aa.o8t<TJS TfjS lt\xa.~O y~tvop.ivTJs yuva.lKO'>: Laodice, the
daughter of Mithridates of Pontus; d. viii. zo. n n. {discussing
objections to this identification). \Vhat led Mithridates to hand over
his daughter as a pledge is not clear; but evidently she was a hostage to Hierax at some stage in his adventurous and obscure career,
and he in tum entrusted her to Logbasis of Selge. His position as

74. 4. >\vnoxou ToO IJ.ETo.AM.ga.vTos

6oo

ATTALUS' CAMPAIGN OF 218

V.nz.

'foster-father-in-law' to Achaeus would qualify Logbasis to act as

envoy to Garsyeris.
75.2-6. History and military blunders. That P. took seriously the
role of history in teaching the avoidance of such errors is clear from
ix. rz-2o, where he discusses tlle art of a general, and the mistakes
he should avoid; and he had of course written a book on Tactics
(ix. 20. 4). For the sentiment that man is incurably and culpably
simple-minded cf. xv. 2r. 5, xviii. 40. 4
6. ~-LET' Euax~l'ovo~ tiva.11'a.uaEw~ Ka.l 8lnywyfj~: though P. enjoys
contrasting the pleasurable and the useful in history (e.g. i. 4 n),
he does not regard them as exclusive (cf. iii. 57 9, xv. 36. 3).
~K Tfj~ tUTop~a.~ tcni. 11'o1w11'pa.yfloO'uVTJ~: 'from the study of history
and from inquiry'; for 7Toi\v7Tpa.yp.ocn5V7] cf. xii. 27. 6. It is an active
concern with other people's affairs, and so develops from the meaning
in the fifth and fourth centuries analysed by V. Ehrenberg UHS,
1947 46-67)

76. 2. To KEa(3e8wv: the coins of Selge show the thunderbolt of

Zeus as well as Heracles' club (B.M.C. Lycia, cxvii, 264 nos. 68 f.;
Cook, Zeus, ii. r. 492). On the citadel-sanctuary see Lanckoronski,
Stiidte Pamphyliens, ii. 176, 178.
4. Ta.i~ a.uAdots : 'by the front door'.
5, l(3oi)8ouv e11'L Tou~ Eutcnlpou~ Twv T011'WV: 'brought help at convenient points' (not, as Paton, 'to defend the exposed spots').
7. Twv Muo-Wv: from this Holleaux (Rev. des Univ. du Midi, 1897,
426 =Etudes, ii. 34) deduced convincingly that Achaeus had subjected to his authority in 218 a considerable part of Mysia; see 77. 2 ff.
11. T~v u11'apxouanv auyy~Etnv: cf. 72. I n.
77. 2-78. 6. Attaltt.s' campaign of 218. These chapters show that
before 220, while still acting as Antiochus' loyal governor, Achaeus
had deprived Attalus of the acquisitions he had made from Hierax
(77. 2) and had even annexed Aegae and Myrina, old Pergamene
possessions (77- 4-5). In :z:zo{r9 both Achaeus and Attalus are allied
with Byzantium against Rhodes (iv. 48. I f.), and so presumably
at peace with each other; this is subsequent to Achaeus' assumption
of the royal title (iv. 48. 3 v. 57 5). However, the Rhodians succeeded in detaching Achaeus from Byzantium by engineering
Ptolemy's support (iv. sr. r-s). Now, in zr8, Attalus seizes the
opportunity afforded by Achaeus' Pisidian expedition to recover
lost territory. See on these events G. Radet, Rev. des Univ. au Midi,
x8, 1-18, refuted by M. Holleaux, ibid., I897, 409-34
Etudes,
ii. 17-42; L. Robert, fit. anat. r85-98; Villes, 40 nn. 1-2; E. V.
Hansen, 41-42; Magie, ii. 742; Meloni, Rend. Line., 195o, r68-76.
6oi

I2. AREA OF ATTALUS' OPERATIONS IN 2I8

602

ATTALUS' CAMPAIGN OF 218

V.n.6

77. 2. Ai.youO. yas r aAaTaS: hitherto the Attalids had not used
Galatian mercenaries; pressure from Achaeus had driven Attalus to
this unwelcome step. The Aegosages, who travelled with all their
families (78. r}, may be from the Thracian kingdom of Cavarus at
Tylis (cf. 78. 5, iv. 46. 4}, which had broken up. See Launey, i. 509 n. r.
4. Ko~-1'1 Kal ti1-1upvat Kai. 41wKala: Wilcken's proposal (RE, 'Attalos
(9)'. col. 2162) to read Myrina for Smyrna (cf. 6} is supported by
the fact of a customs union between Cyme, Myrina, and Phocaea
as early as 261 (Macdonald, ]HS, 1907, 159). Cyme and Myrina were
Aeolian, Phocaea Ionian. Cyme, modern Nemrut Koy, was on a
small bay north of the peninsula of Phocaea (cf. Herod. i. 149;
Strabo, xiii. 582 and 621 f.; Ps.-Scylax, 98; other references in Magie,
ii. 906). Myrina, modern Kalabassi, lay on two small hills about
7 miles north of Cape Hydra, near the mouth of the Pythicus (Koc;a
<;ay) (cf. Strabo, xiii. 622; Ps.-Scylax, 98; Ramsay, JHS, r881, 277 f.;
Ruge, RE, Suppl.-B. vi, 'Myrina', cols. 615 f.; Magie, ii. 906).
Phocaea was at the end of a hilly peninsula east of the entrance into
the Gulf of Smyrna, and possessed an excellent harbour (cf. Strabo,
xiv. 647; Livy, xxxvii. 31. 8 f.; Ps.-Scylax, 98; Lehmann-Hartleben,
276; Magie, ii. 896).
AtyaU<LS Kal T TJ!-lVLTa,: Aegae (Nemrut Kalesi) lay higher up the
Pythicus, at an altitude of r,2oo ft. in the mountainous area between
the Caicus and the lower Hermus (cf. Strabo, xiii. 621; Ramsay,
JHS, 188r, 292 ff. (map on 274); Hansen, 263-5 (for elaborate building
under the Attalids}; Robert, Et. anat. 74 ff.; Villes, 89 n. 5; Magie,
i. 84). Temnus is the other Nemrut Kalesi above Giirece on the southeast slopes of the Dumanli Dag (Ramsay, ]HS, r881, 287 ff.; Asia
Minor, 109; Keil, RE, 'Temnos', col. 461; Robert, BCH, 1933,
497 f.; Et. anat. 90 ff.) a little north of the Hermus, and z! hours
north of the railway station of Emir Aalem (Ramsay) (cf. Strabo,
xiii. 621; Paus. v. 13. 7; Pliny, Nat. hist. v. 119-21). Temnus was
independent in the fourth century; in the third it had a treaty of
sympoliteia with Pergamum (Imch. Perg. 5 with supplement, p. ix;
OGIS, 265).
TTJ(wv Kai. Ko>..olj>wvlwv: of these Ionian cities, Teos lay on a neck of
land connecting a hilly peninsula with the mainland on the south
side of the peninsula of Erythrae; Colophon was inland, with a port
at Notion, some distance east of Teos. On the prosperity of Teos
in the Hellenistic period see Magie, i. 79-80. See, for T eos, Strabo,
xiv. 644; Livy, xxxvii. 27. 9; Lehmann-Hartleben, 283 f.; for Colophon, Strabo, xiv. 642; Ps.-Scylax, 98; Livy, xxxvii. 26. 5; Schuchhardt, AM, r886, 398 ff.
6. Tai:s avv9't]Kals a.ts Kat To 1TpOTpov: evidently these two cities had
been formerly in alliance with Attalus (probably after Hierax's
defeat; Hansen, 4I), but had been forced to join Achaeus.

V. 77-6

ATTALUS' CAMPAIGN OF 218

Organization of Aeolian and Ionian cities. The status of these towns

has been much discussed. Cardinali (85 ff.) took the view that all
six, together with Notium, paid tribute; and the payment of tribute
was assumed for Cyme, Phocaea, Teos, and Colophon by Meyer
(Grenzen, 105) and for Teos and Colophon by Holleaux (REA, 1923,
334 =Etudes, iv. 267) and Bikerman (REG, 1937, 221 n. r). Magie
(ii. 939-40), however, points out that Phocaea, Cyme, and Myrina
are hardly likely to have lost their freedom as the first towns to
join Attalus; and since Temnus, as well as Aegae, was apparently
independent after Apamea in the second century (Magie, ii. 958-9
shows against Bikerman, REG, 1937, 237, that neither xxxii. 15. 12
nor Welles, 48, implies that Temnus was subject to Pergamum), and
it was agreed at Apamea that Eumenes II should continue to receive
tribute from cities which had paid it to Attalus (xxi. 24. 8), it is
likely that both these cities were free from tribute. The giving of
hostages by Teos and Colophon does not necessarily imply subjection
or tribute later; they can have been merely a guarantee of good
faith. Nor is the occurrence of the phrase dTEA~> J>11 ~ 1r6.\,, im{J&.e~
in a Teian inscription of uncertain date (SEG, ii. sSo
Robert, Et.
anat. 39 f.) evidence that Teos had other taxes to pay to some outside
authority, but merely that an alien, honoured by the grant of
privileges at Teos, could naturally be excused only from the taxes
of that city (and not from any others to which he might be liable
(Magie, ii. 831--2, 94o-1)); and various inscriptions show that Teos
was free in 205/4, when its inviolability was widely recognized. It
therefore seems likely that Attalus left all these cities free and independent, though in alliance with him.
7-9. Topography of Attalus' route from the Lycus to the Megistus.
P. mentions the Mysian settlements, Carseae, Didymateiche, the
Plain of Apia, Mt. Pelecas, and the R. Megistus. The traditional
view (d. Kiepert, FOA, tab. ix; Wilcken, RE, 'Attalos (9)', cols.
:u62-3) is that Attalus ascended the Lycus valley into Mysia, forced
Carseae and Didymateiche (location unknown), overran the Plain
of Apia (placed north of the Temnon by Strabo, xiii. 616; cf. Leaf,
Troad, 344), crossed Mt. Pelecas, evidently a spur of the Temnon
massif, and encamped on the left bank of the Megistus (= Macestus).
Most scholars accept the equation Megistus-Macestus (though some
would make the Megistus the Rhyndacus, on the strength of a
scholiast to Apoll. Rhod. i. n6s). A theory put forward by Radet
(Rev. des Univ. du Midi, 1896, I-IS, 275--90), which sent Attalus
towards Pisidia, was refuted by Holleaux (ibid., 1897, 409-34 =
Etudes, ii. 17-42). But recently L. Robert has proposed a new interpretation (Et. anat. xSs-98) based in part on two identifications suggested by J. A. Cramer (Geographical and Historical Description of
Asia Minor, i (Oxford, r832) 3o), who connects Didymateiche with
604

ATTALUS' CAMPAIGN OF 218

V.JJ.S

the modern Dimotika near the right bank of the Granicus, and
Carseae (following Schweighaeuser) with the Caresene of Strabo
(xiii. 6o2-3), a mountainous area to the south of Dimotika (d. Leaf,
Troad, 203-4). According to Robert, Attalus went north from the
Lycus valley by the 1,6oo ft. pass near the head-waters of the
Gelenbe ~ay, which leads out of the plain of Kerkagay (containing
Stratonicaea). From here he turned north-west past the sites of
Kiresun, Ivrindi, and Balia Maden to the Granicus; then, having
taken Carseae and Didymateiche, he turned south-east to the
broken region of Balikesir (identified, in agreement with Strabo, xiii.
616, \\':ith the .lhrtas m;:3iov), where the city of Hadrianotherae was
later founded, and thence north-east over the Pass of Demirkapu
( = Mt. Pelecas, an outspur of Temnos) and along a tributary of the
Macestus, to reach the latter at the site of Susurluk. On this route
see also Magie, ii. 798 (with modern topographical details); Meloni,
Rend. Line., 1950, 166-76; it seems likely to win general acceptance.
7. s,a~cis TOV AuKOV 'II'OTa!J.OV: the river of Pliny, Nat. hist. v. us,
which runs past Thyatira to join the Hyllus; see Schweighaeuser,
vi. 250; Foucart, BCH, 1887, 1oo, no. 23 11. 16-q; Holleaux, Etudes,
ii. 20 n. 2; Robert, Et. anat. 187. On Attalus' route see 77 7-9 n. If
he crossed the Lycus (i.e. from south to north) he must have advanced well up the Hermus valley towards Sardes, which is quite
possible, since he was well informed on Achaeus' movements.
Meloni (Rend. Line., 1950, 169-70), because he judges such an action
improbable, prefers to accept Reiske's emendation of AvKov to
Kai:Kov; but this seems unnecessary.
Ttt5 Twv Muawv KnTo,Ktas: cf. ii. 32. 4, xxx. 28; Frankel, lnseh. Perg.
i. 174; Holleaux, Etudes, ii. 36-38; Robert, Et. anal. 191 ff. Holleaux
refutes Radet's view that these are Mysian military colonies outside
Mysia, and takes them to be Mysian defence posts, 'des campements
fixes devenus bourgades'. But, as Robert has shown, KaTo,Klat in
P. are simply villages, not military settlements; cf. Launey, i. 336,
'le mot designe simplement une agglomeration, un bourg, depourvu
des privileges de la polis'. See, too, Ed. Meyer, Hermes, 1898, 644 f.;
Oertel, RE, 'Katoikoi', cols. 7-8, giving a catalogue of civilian
KaTo,KI.a, (but Oertel reckons this an example of military colonists).
8. 9e~'O'TOK>teous , wapa80VT05: this man, probably governor Of
Mysia under Achaeus (on the technical use of ol T6?To' in Seleucid
administration see Bengtson, Strat. ii. 10 f.), may be the Themistocles
who figures in a fragmentary inscription (recording a letter of
Antiochus III to Tralles concerning tithes) of about 212jn, apparently as Seleucid governor of Carla (Welles, 41). See Holleaux,
REA, 1903, 209 n. 2; Meyer, Grenzen, 127 n. 2; Bengtson, Strat. ii.
n6, n9.
6os

V.J8.I

ATTALlJS' CAMPAIGN OF 218

78. 1. EKAeiljlews ueA~VTJ'i: on I September 218 (T. Oppolzer, Canon

der Finsternisse (Denkschrift der Wiener Akademie, 52, 1887, math.Nat. Klasse), 340 n. 152o). 1 Niese (ii. 779) records calculations by a
colleague, that at a point 30 east and 40 north it lasted from 16.39
to 20.19 hours (totality I75I to 19.17 hours); Stahelin (34-35 n. 8}
records different calculations varying from these by only a few
minutes. Thus the moon rose in eclipse.
flETB yuva.LKWv Ka.t TiKvwv: the whole tribe was in migration. But
even when this was not the case, such impediments handicapped
many Hellenistic armies (cf. i. 66 ff. for the Punic mercenaries), and
especially those of the Galatians (cf. Polyaen. iv. 6. 17 for Gonatas'
Galatian mercenaries). Plutarch (Cleom. 12. 4) rates it a virtue in
Cleomenes that of all the Hellenistic armies his contained no mimes,
conjurers, dancing girls, and musicians. See further Holleaux, REG,
1926, 355-fi6 =Etudes, iii. 15-26; Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, i. 145-6,
iii. 1344 n. 17; Launey, 785-90 Similar examples can be quoted from
medieval and modern Europe as late as the Napoleonic vVars.
2. UfJflELwuaflEVOl To yeyov6s: 'treating the event as an evil omen'
(cf. Strabo, ix. 404, for this sense of 0'7JfLE'toOa8at).
4. TTJV Ets TTJv ;6,.ua.v 8taJ3a.uLv: cf. 77. 2 n.
5. TO'II'ov Euq,vij 'll'poo; Ka.ToLK(a.v: i.e. they would form a military
settlement. As in the Seleucid realm (n 8 n.), so under the Attalids
'To'll'os and of mot have a technical sense of an administrative subdivision (cf. Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, i. 561; Bengtson, Strat. ii. n,
:2II-I2; contra Hansen, 172, who is here unnecessarily sceptical, in
view of parallels from the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms). Here,
however, 'To1Tos appears to be used in a non-technical sense.
6. Aa.flljla.KfJVois, ;6.Ae~a.v8peuuLv, 'IAlEum: on these three cities see
Magie, i. 81--82, ii. 903-4. Lampsacus (modern Lapsaki), on the north
coast of the Troad, almost at the northern end of the Hellespont,
gained considerable wealth from its good harbour and from trade.
It had remained independent during the third century. Cf. Strabo,
xiii. 589; Leaf, Troad, 9Z-<J7 Ilium was raised from a village to a
1ToAts by Alexander (Strabo, xiii. 593; but already Xenophon (Hell.
iii. I. 16) counts it among the Alo.\Uks m1AE'tS of the Troad; d. Syll.
188). Along with Lampsacus Ilium was one of the first towns of
Asia Minor to open relations with Rome (cf. xxii. 5 2-3}. See
Bruckner ap. Dorpfeld, Troja und Ilion (Athens, 1902}, 576--88;
Leaf, Troad, 158 f., 174 f. Alexandria Troas lay farther south beyond
Cape Sigeum and Tenedos; Antigonus I synoecized it out of the
communities of Scepsis, Cebren, Neandreia, Larisa, Colonae, and
Hamaxitus {Strabo, xiii. 593-4, 597, 6o4, 6o7). See Leaf, Troad, 23340; Lehmann-Hartleben, 2oo. The city was enlarged by Lysimachus
' Oppolzer in fact gives the date as I September 217, but he reckons in the
astronomical fashion with a year o.

6o6

THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217)

V.79.3

(Strabo, xiii. 593: but whether the 40-stade wall belongs to Ilium or,
less probably, Alexandria is disputed: cf. Leaf, Troad, 142 f.; Jones,
CERP, 385 nn. 22-23; Magie, ii. 923; below, 111. 2 n.); it was soon one
of the main trading cities of the Hellenistic world. For its action
against the Galatians see xn. 3 ff. All three cities were independent
but, like Smyrna (77- 6), had maintained friendly relations with
Pergamum; for an 'Attalis' tribe at Ilium see IGR, iv. 216 = CIG,
3616.
79-87. Antiochus' campaign of ZI7: the battle of Raphia.
79. 2. Ptolemy's numbers. Details have already been given in 65. 1-10,
The 7o,ooo foot recorded here is the sum of 25,000 (various) +25,000
(Macedonian phalanx}+2o,ooo (Egyptian phalanx); for the argument in favour of reducing it to 45,ooo see 65. 1-10 n. For the s,ooo
cavalry see 65. s-6. The 73 elephants are here mentioned for the
first time ; on them see further 84. 2-7 n.
3-13. Antiochus' forces. Griffith (143-4} analyses them thus:
1. s,ooo Dahae, Carmanians, and Cilicians: d5~wvo'
2. ro,ooo picked men from the whole kingdom, armed in
Macedonian style, the majority argyraspids .
3 2o,ooo, phalanx .
4 2,000 Agrianians and Persians, archers and slingers;
1,000 Thracians .
5 s,ooo Medes, Cissians, Cadusians, and Carmanians
6. Io,ooo Arabs
7. s,ooo mercenaries from Greece
8. 2,5oo Cretans
9 soc Lydian javelineers; 1,000 Cardaces
1o. 6,ooo cavalry

Total: 62,000 foot, 6,ooo horse, and 102 elephants.

79 3
79 4
79 5
79
79
79
79
79
79

7
8
9
IO

11

79 12

This is smaller than the army which P. attributes to Ptolemy, but

rather larger than the one there is reason to think he really put in
the field. P.'s source at this point is not known; but his figures are
important as one of the few detailed pictures which have survived
of the composition of a Seleucid army.
3. A6.a.L tca.l. Ko.p~6.vLoL: the Dahae were an Iranian people,
originally from the Jaxartes steppe, and later living in three tribes
on the shores of the Caspian north of Hyrcania; they had a great
repute in both Persian and Macedonian armies, as foot-soldiers and
more especially as horse-archers. It was one of these tribes, the
Parni, which gave rise to the Parthian empire. The presence of
Dahae in Antiochus' army (probably as mercenaries) suggests that
the Parthians had not yet annexed Hyrcania from the Seleucids (cf.
6o7

V.79.3

THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217)

Kiessling, RE, 'Hyrkania', col. 501; Tarn, CAH, ix. 576). The
Carmanians came from the north coast of the Persian Gulf and
Indian Ocean (modern Kirman) ; there is no reason to query the
reading (with Reiske), because another contingent of Carmanians
appears in 7 ; as Schweighaeuser observes, the two bodies are no
doubt differently armed.
KO..LKES: Cilicia was split between the Seleucids and Ptolemies; at
this time Egypt controlled the west (Tracheia), but the plain of
Cilicia remained in Antiochus' hands (Beloch, iv. 2. 333-4}.
BuTTaKo<;: otherwise unknown; for the inscription from Babylon
(OGIS, 254} mentioning a A7Jp.o~<pa-r7Js BvnaKov dates to the later
Parthian occupation of the city, as the formula (!Tpanryos Kal
Em(JTaTTJS shows (Holleaux, BCH, 1933, 29 n. 3 =Etudes, iii. 218
n. 3; Launey, i. 313; against Lehmann-Haupt, RE, 'Satrap', col. 173).
4. apyupamn8Es: cf. Livy, xxxvii. 40. 7 (on Magnesia, 190}, 'ab
eadem parte ... regia cohors erat; argyraspides a genere armorum
appellabantur'. 'Silver-shields' began to take the place, in the armies
of the Diadochi, of what under Alexander were called Hypaspists
(Tarn, Alexander, ii. 149-53). Their armour may be similar to that
of the 'peltasts' in the Antigonid annies (cf. ii. 65. 3 n., 66. 5 n.).
The procession of Antiochus Epiphanes at Daphne (xxx. 25. 5} contained both Brazen-shields and Silver-shields.
5. To TTjS +aXayyos 1TATj9os: the Macedonians were here, but undoubtedly mixed with orientals (cf. Launey, i. g6). Nicarchus and
Theodotus (Hemiolius) had already experienced joint commands
(68. 9. 71. 6 ff.).
6. ~ypL<iVES Kilt mpallL: cf. 53 9 On the Agrianians see ii. 6s. 2 n.
Their use was restricted in the main to Antigonid armies, and this
is our only record of them in any of the other Hellenistic forces
(though P. Petr. iii. 1011. 2-3 records a cavalryman settled at Crocodilopolis in Egypt in 235). In his account of the battle (82. 8 ff.) P.
omits to record their disposition; and Bikennan (Seleucides, 58,
'ainsi nommes d'apres ce peuple illyrien') apparently regards the
name as a pseudo-ethnic for troops using the weapons (bow and
javelin) of the Agrianians. Persians in the Seleucid armies are mainly
bowmen (Livy, xxxvii. 40. 9 (d. App. Syr. 32); Livy, xxxv. 48. 5;
Iustin. xxxvi. 1. 4); see Launey, i. 563 ff.
9p~KES: whether mercenaries recruited in Thrace (so Griffith, 144)
or the descendants of Thracians established in Asia Minor by
Alexander or the Seleucids (cf. Launey, i. 379), is uncertain. Menedemus commanded the Agrianians and Persians as well as the
Thracians.
7. Mt}Swv KilL KLO'O'lW\1 Kill Kll8oualwv Kill Ka.pflavwv: cf. Livy, XXXV.
48. 5; OGIS, 229 1. 105. On the use of Median troops (cf. 44 3 ff.) see
Launey, i. 567 ff. The Cissii inhabited Elam (Greek Elymais) around
6o8

THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217)

V.79. n

Susa (cf. Strabo, xv. 728, distinguishing Cissia and Susa from
Elymais proper); they were archers (Strabo, xvi. 744). On the
Cadusii see 44 9 n., and on the Carmanians 3 n. Launey (i. 567 n. 4)
queries the name Aspasianus for a Mede and suggests emending to
Brraulvov.

8. ~pa.~e<; Za.~8~!3-rl'-'1:1: cf. 71.

I n. for the submission which made

the Arabs of the Syrian desert available to Antiochus. Arab javelinthrowers are later used by Alexander Zabinas (Ioh. Antioch. =
FHG, iv. 56I; Bikerman, Seleucides, 59 n. x). Zabdibelus ~'ill be
a local sheik.
10. NeotcpTJTa.s: cf. 3 I n.
11. AuSot Kc1p8a.tcE<;: for Lydians at Magnesia cf. Livy, xxxvii.
40. II. Cardaces fought for Darius at Issus (Arrian, A nab. ii. 8. 6);
and a passage in Strabo (xv. 734), which has been rejected as a gloss,
suggests that they were Persians (cf. Eustath. ad Iliad. ii. 86g, p. 368
11. 38ft.; Hesych. s.v.; Magie, ii. Ioz6). An inscription (M. Segre,
Clara Rhodos, 1938, 190 ff.) refers to ol KaTotKoWrES' lv KapoaKwv
KWfLTJ near Telmessus in Lycia at a date (I81) when this area was
Attalid; but these Cardaces may well be Antiochus' mercenaries
settled here after I 97{6, when he took the area from Egypt (Holleaux,
CAH, viii. 178). Segre took them to be Galatians; and Launey
(i. 486, soB n. 5) supposed them to be identical with the KapoofJxo,,
devastating archers dwelling on the upper Tigris (Xen. Anab. iv.
2. 28; cf. ibid. iii. 5 IS, S I7, iv. 1 ft.), and possibly ancestors of the
modern Kurds.
Aucnt~-xou TOU r ~a, TOU : cf. Launey' i. so8, 'le nom est interessant
pour l'hellenisation de l'onomastique galate, et le grade pour leur
progres dans la hierarchie militaire hellenistique'; this hellenization
is well illustrated in Launey's prosopographicallist, ii. IZ29-30.
12. >'l.vTl1Ta.Tpos b Tou ~a.at.Aews &8e'-ota8ou<;: cf. 87. 1, 87. 4, xxi. I6. 4
(cf. Livy, xxxvii. 45 5, Antipater,Jratris regis filius), 24. I (d. Livy,
xxxvii. 55 3. 56. 8-Io). Probably the Antipater of xvi. 18. 7 In a full
study of this Antipater (REA, 1916, 166-9 =Etudes, iii. 195-8)
Holleaux shows that (despite Livy) he cannot have been a son of
Antiochus' brother, since his only brother, Seleucus III, left no
offspring, nor yet the son of a (necessarily elder) sister. For Antipater
was an experienced man in 218, hence his mother cannot have been
born later than c. 255. But Antiochus' father, Seleucus II, was born
about 265 (Beloch, iv. 2. zo1), and so cannot have had a daughter
ten years later. Hence .ll.VTl'Tra.TpoS' dSEAtjJJ>ofJ~; was most probably
a nephew of Seleucus II, i.e. his mother was a daughter of Antiochus II and Laodice. Holleaux suggests that he bore the name
rlSEAtjJ0ofJs as a kind of title and that this misled P. Cf. Stahelin, RE,
'Laodike (I3)', col. 702.
8Etf.l<I'WV: ct. 82. II ; otherwise unknown.

6og

V.So.z

THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217)

80. 2. "ll'poaa.va.A.a.~~v Toos Eq.EAKOIJ.Evous: 'having gathered up

the stragglers'; but in 4 1rpoaaJ)a>.af3dw T~J) OVJ)ap.LJ) may be 'having
assembled his army' (as here) or, more probably, 'having refreshed
his army' (cf. iii. 90. 4, ix. 8. 7); cf. 68. 9 n.
Tb Kcia~ov Kat Ta Bcipa.9pa. Ka.AOUIJ.Eva.: Casium was a sandy promontory on the coast near Pelusium (cf. Herod. ii. 6. r, r:;8. 4, iii. 5 2-3,
making it the boundary of Egypt and Syria). It lay beside the
Sirbonis lacus, the modern coastal lake Sebache Bardautl, and has
been identified by Cledat (CRAI, 190,'i, 6o2; 1909, 764; A nnales du
Service, 19ro, 209 f.; d. 1912, 145; 1916, 6) with modern Mehemdije
at the west end of the lake; cf. Steuernagel-Kees, RE, 'Kasion (2 )',
cols. 2263-4. The Barathra were marshes treacherously covered with
drifting sand by the driving sea-winds along this coast; cf. Diod. i.
30. 4, m:3la TEit.p.aTdJOTJ nl1rpoaayopev6p.em f3dpa8pa (with a description
of the phenomenon). The area was highly dangerous. See Diod. xvi. 46.
5 f. (andP. Cloche, Rev. egypt., 1919, 246) forOchus' disaster herein342.
For this area see the map facing p. n4 in Gardiner, ]EA, 1920,
99-n6; d. Kees, RE, 'J:,pf3wJ)ts /t.lp.J)TJ', cols. 286-7 for bibliography.
3. 'Pa.q.(a.s: Tell Rifal} on the frontier between Egypt and Israel.
Rhinocolura was a day's journey south of Raphia, and an important
centre for trade with the Arabs (Diod. i. 6o. 5 ff.; Strabo, xvi. 759);
it occurs several times in Iosephus, and was later famous as the
death-place of Baldwin I, king of Jerusalem; it is now called El'Arisch (cf. Beer, RE, 'Rinocolura', cols. 841-2).
81. 1. ee66oTOS: cf. 40. I-3 n. His enterprise against Ptolemy is also
described in 3 Mace. i. 2-3. where Ptolemy's escape is attributed
to Dositheus, the son of Drimylus, an apostate Jew. P. adds a typical
remark against an Aetolian (cf. ii. 43 9 n.), qualified, however, by
ovK a.J)a.J)op<p.
3. "II'O~K(A'I]V n]v Mva.IJ.LV: 'their army was mixed' (Paton, who,
however, prints JJ)8op.EJ,i{aJ), Dindorf's conjecture for EJ)O!!p.EJ,i{aJ), the
reading of C).
4. ~aToxa.a~J.evos Ti]S aK'I]vi]s: 'having conjectured the whereabouts of the tent'. In 5 XPTJP.aTLCJTLK~ CJKTJV'Ij is the 'official tent'.
6. !6.v6pea.v: a famous physician of the Herophilean school, author
of a work Narthex on herbs, a IlEpl OaKETWJ,i (on biting animals),
and several other works. The first two are widely quoted in antiquity,
but his reputation was assailed by Eratosthenes and Galen. Both
Celsus (M ed. vi. 6. r6 b) and Galen (xii. 765) mention his eye-salve, and
he invented a contraption for setting limbs (Celsus, M ed. viii. 20. 4;
Galen, xviii a 338 f., 747; Oribas. de mach. 4 f.). See Wellmann, RE,
'Andreas (n)', cols. 2136-7; Hermes, r888, 56I-2; Susemihl, i. 8I7-I8.

82. Battle order at Raphia: on the omission of Ptolemy's GraecoMacedonian phalanx see 65. r-ro n. See 65 and notes for the numbers
6ro

THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217)

V.S3

under each command in Ptolemy's army. In 4 1ra.p' a.thotis rotis

l7T7Tel:s refers to Polycrates' cavalry; Paton mistranslates.
8. 4>LAm7Tos o auvTpo~os o.uTou: the same Philip, J {AecpaVTapX1J>
(App. Syr. 33; cf. Livy, xxxvii. 41. I, magister elephantorum), shared
the command over the phalanx at Magnesia in 190. On the title
u6v-rpocpos -roiJ f3a.ut"Mws see 9 4 n., and, for other Seleucid examples,
Corradi, 270-7; Bikerman, Seleucides, 42-43.

9. tv tw~Ko.f.L1TL'l,l : 'at an angle', probably forward. For this phrase

Griffith (JHS, 1947, 77 n. 3) quotes Aelian, Tact. 31. 4, v7To-rcl.tts S
Ju-r,v, U.v ns rotis if;tA.otis v1ro -ra Kepam ii1To-rau071 E7TtKafL7Tlov -rdttv
xoVTas WO"T TO oAov uxiJfLa -rpmuAoe,SJs elvat (viz. the shape of a
three-piece gate). {mo-raft> is a later name for the defensive use of
the JmKafL7Ttav. Cf. i. 27. 4 n., where the fourth squadron inclines

forward from the line. No commander is mentioned for these 2,ooo

cavalry at an angle. Were they to be under Antiochus' direct command? See 84. 1 n.
10. tv t~ETt:m'l.l: 'in a line facing the front' ; cf. i. 26. 13, also contrasted with another unit (there naval) at an angle; iii. 65. 5 In fact,
if the slanting cavalry are on the extreme right, as seems likely,
the 2,ooo under Antipater immediately alongside the Cretans are
also facing the front; but P.'s phrase is justified to contrast the
Cretan line with that of the right-wing cavalry taken as a whole.
Twv els -rov Mo.KeSov~K(w -rpowov Ko.9wwA~af.LEVwv: Theodotus' Io,ooo
(cf. 79 4) and distinct from Byttacus' s,ooo (79 3). Paton mistranslates here.
13. -rcl. S Ka.-r6.Aomo. Twv 91]plwv: i.e. 102 (79 13) less 6o ( 8), and so 42.
MutaKov: otherwise unknown. The f3autAtKoi 1ral:&s (cf. iv. 87. 5 n.)
formed a corps of pages, who received military training; they existed
under Alexander for whom they formed quasi seminarium ducum
praejectorumque (Curt. viii. 6. 6). Antiochus IV had some 6oo (xxx.
25. I7, if these are not slaves). See further Corradi, 296-301; Bikerman, Seleucides, 38; A. Spendel, Untersuchungen zum Heerwesen der
Diadochen (Diss. Breslau, 1915). I5-I6; Launey, ii. 863 n. I.

83-86. 6. The battle of Raphia. A trilingual stele, found at Tell elMashkoutah (Pithom) in 1924, records a decree of the synod of
priests gathered at Memphis and is dated 15 November 217. This
decree, in honour of Philopator, gives valuable additional information on the Raphia campaign, and defines its chronology. Philopator
set out for Coele-Syria on 13 June, fought Raphia on 22 June (cf.
8o. 3, 7TEfL7TTatos; 82. I, 7TEv8' ~plpas), and subsequently visited various
temples in Coele-Syria and occupied a fortified place beyond its
boundaries, in Seleucid territory proper. From here he was drawn
out by some movement of the enemy, which he put down in twentyone days after plundering various cities. Finally, after making an
6II

THE BATTLE OF RAPHIA

'agreement' with Antiochus, two years and two months after the
desertion of the generals (cf. 61. 3 62. 2), he returned to Egypt on
12 October, four months after he set out. P.'s omission of any reference to these events (occupation of a fort in Seleucid territory, suppression of adversaries) has evoked much discussion. Momigliano has
argued that the 'agreement' of the stele is to be identified with the
cnroloa.l Evt.m.icrtot. of 87. 4, that it was granted only after long negotiations, and that the penetration of Seleucid territory preceded its
conclusion. The movement of the enemy he takes to be a revolt
in Coele-Syria, which compelled Ptolemy's withdrawal from his
strong place in Seleucid territory, and P.'s omission of all this he
attributes to his use of Zeno of Rhodes (cf. xvi. 14 ff.), his source
also for the Fifth Syrian War, and a pro-Egyptian writer who, after
Antiochus' recovery of Coele-Syria after Panium, deliberately
suppressed any reference to a revolt against Egypt in this area, lest
it should weaken the Egyptian claim in the case of an eventual
revanche.
This ingenious theory seems to me to fail on its identity of the
rnrovl!al with the 'agreement' of the stele. From P. it is clear that two
instruments must be distinguished, (a) the year's truce granted by
Ptolemy (87. 4), and (b) the final peace treaty, mentioned in xv. 25.
13, which had as its concomitant the establishment of if>t.Ala between
the two kings. P. mentions the following events in order :
(i) The sending of Antipater and Theodotus d10iws from Antioch
inrp elfY1iV1Js Kal St.a.Avaews, i.e. to negotiate peace (87. 1).
(ii) After a little expostulation Ptolemy grants a1rovSas tvw.va{ovs:
(87. 4).
(iii) Ptolemy sends Sosibius back to Antioch with the Syrian
ambassadors tmKvpd>aol"Ta T!tS ot.a.AuaEt.S, i.e. to ratify the peaceterms (87. s); for al Ot.aAVU1.5' = condiciones pacis see Schweighaeuser,
Lex. Polyb., s.v. ot&Avat.s.
(iv) Antiochus, ni 1Tpt nis a11'ov0ds ria<{>a.ll.t.aap.evos: 1rpos Tavl:wu{3t.ov,
turns his attention to the war with Achaeus (87. 8). Since the truce
had already been granted, this must refer to the peace, and will
mean 'having given assurances to Sosibius on the points laid down
in the truce'. In granting the truce Ptolemy will have made certain
points essential to the conclusion of peace. These Antiochus now
concedes; but there may well have been delays at this stage which
P., compressing his source, omits. He also omits the formal swearing
of the treaty, perhaps as being unimportant.
Since the stele mentions the 'agreement' as the conclusion of the
war, insists on its date (two years and two months after the desertion
of the generals), and places it after the later operations and immediately before Ptolemy's return to Egypt, it seems clear that it
cannot be identified with a truce granted by Ptolemy almost at
612

THE BATTLE OF RAPHIA

once (Et38ws) after Raphia; and Momigliano suggests no reason why

F.'s source should have represented such a truce as being made
Ei18w>, if in fact it was delayed for several months. The stele mentions one agreement only, the final peace--and naturally, since the
truce and negotiations can have had no interest for the synod.
We must therefore accept Otto's argument that Philopator advanced into Syrian territory despite the crrrovoat. Wlly he did so is
not known; there may have been some demonstration in the frontier
area, and Ptolemy may have seized the opportunity to exercise
pressure on the peace negotiations at Antioch. The stele may have
exaggerated what was perhaps a minor incident. There is no reason
to assume (with Momigliano) that its vague phrases conceal a revolt
in Coele-Syria proper (which would be hard to reconcile with 86. 7-8).
P. omitted these operations, perhaps because they were not in his
source (which Otto seems right in regarding as pro-Syrian: cf. 81. 1,
81. 7, 86. 9-1o, 87. 3, 87. 7, and the frequent criticism of Ptolemy),
or perhaps because they were insignificant, and he was compressing
his source. In concluding peace, Antiochus may have disowned the
rising; and indeed, once <foAla was established, it was in the interest
of both sides to say nothing of such an incident, for it may well, as
Otto argues, have led Ptolemy to make a somewhat pusillanimous
peace, yet it was militarily in no way to Antiochus' credit.
For bibliography on the stele of Pithom see: H. Gauthier, CRAI,
1923, 376 ff.; H. Gauthier and H. Sottas, Un dicret trilingue en
l'honneur de Ptolemee IV (Cairo, 1925); Spiegelberg, 5.-B. Munchen,
1925, Abh. :2. 30; H. Sottas, Rev. Egypt. anc., 1927, 230-42;
Spiegelberg-Otto, 5.-B. M unchen, I926, Abh. 2. 40; Otto, Abh.
Bay. Akad., 1928, I. 8~87; Spiegelberg, 5.-B. Miinchen, 1928, Abh.
2. 6-12; Momigliano, Acgyptus, 1929, 180--9; Roussel, REA, 1941,
153-7

83. 3. !1\.vopof!O.xou ~ea1 Iwo-l~iou teal . . . !l\.po-w611s: for the two

former see 35 7 and 64. 4 Arsinoe was Philopator's full sister, the
daughter of Euergetes and Berenice {36. 1 n.). She married Philopater between Raphia and the setting-up of the Pithom decree, on
which she figures as his wife. On her murder see xv. 25. 2. Sosibus
has replaced Ptolemaeus as leader of the phalanx (cf. 65. 4, 65. 9);
this, Tarn suggests (CAH, vii. 730 n. 1), may have caused the confusion which led to the reckoning of the Egyptian phalangites twice
over (65. I-Io n.).
84. 1. J.Lt:Ta Ti]S ~ao-lAnci]s iA11s: the 'royal squadron' is mentioned
elsewhere; cf. 85, 12; Polyaen. iv. 9 6; Livy, xxxvii. 40. n, regia ala
(at Magnesia, where it consisted of Syrians, Phrygians, and Lydians).
In App. Syr. 32 Livy's regia ala is described as ~v eKdAovv ;7T7Tm'
hatptK~v, cJ.m>.u.rJ.dV7jv KotX/>ws; and indeed one might have expected
613

THE BATTLE OF RAPHIA

the royal squadron to consist of Macedonians, and to be the same as

the Hetairoi of 53 4 Possibly the nationality of these troops varied
at different times. The size of this LA1) is uncertain. If they are equivalent to the 2,ooo 1Tf:P~ avrov f:Uhapivov> KtvSvvdHv of x. 49 7, there
may be good reason for assuming that P. has fallen into some
confusion here and that the f3aatALK~ LA1) is in fact the 2,ooo men of
82. 9 (lv lmKaf-L1Tltp), who were already in position; certainly Antiochus is merely accompanied by 'officers and friends' in 83. 1. But
such a squadron of 2,ooo can hardly have been deployed all along
the battle front. If, on the other hand, the LA1) is something quite
distinct from these 2,ooo, it must have been comparatively small,
for it is not separately mentioned (cf. 79 13).
2-7. The fight of the elephants. On this passage see Sir W. Gowers,
African Affairs, 1948, 173 ff., who quotes a striking parallel from
E. Lewis, Trader Horn (London, 1948), 132, and suggests that P.
may have witnessed elephant fights in the arena at Rome. Gowers
also confirms P.'s statement (repeated by Livy, xxxvii. 39 19) that
the Indian elephant is greater than the African, which many modern
scholars had rejected (e.g. Tarn, CQ, 1926, 98-roo; HMN D, 99;
Launey, i. 587; in the third edition of HC, 62 n. r Tarn appears
to accept Gowers's arguments). The Ptolemies will have obtained
their elephants from the Eritrean plateau (cf. Cary, GB, 206), and
these were of the 'forest' type (Loxodonta cyclotis), the male of which
averages 7 ft. 8l in. in height (reaching only very exceptionally to
9 ft.). This is considerably smaller than the Indian elephant.
7. To ciyr11. . a.: cf. 65. 2, 82. 4
8. ot 'ITept Tov :.\vToxov: the 2,ooo horse Jv lmKaf-L1TLtp, on the extreme
right (82. 9).
9. ot 'ITepi TTJV 4>c1Xa.yya. ... J.LLa8o4>6poL: the s,ooo Greek mercenaries
(79 9, 82. 10). Between these and the phalanx proper were first the
ro,ooo 'armed in the Macedonian manner' and the s,ooo Dahae,
Carmanians, and Cilicians led by Byttacus (79 3, 82. 1o); the latter
were dl~wvot. This passage suggests that these 15,ooo troops were
regarded as fighting in close co-operation with the phalanx. On
Ptolemy's peltasts see 65. 1-ro n.
10. tveKALVe 'ITciv: but P. has said nothing of the Cretans or the
Libyans armed in the Macedonian fashion, both on Ptolemy's left
(82. 4). The latter may have operated along with the phalanx, like
the similarly armed troops on Antiochus' side ( 9 n.).
85. 2. cl>o~(l)~: leading the 8,ooo Greek mercenaries to the right of
the phalanx (65. 4, 82. 6).
3. Tous u'!To Ta 8TJpa. TeTa.yJ.Levous: presumably the Gauls and
Thracians (82. 5) under Dionysius (65. 10). There were only 2,ooo
cavalry, under Themison, on Antiochus' left wing (82. u).

6q

THE BATTLE OF RAPHIA

v. 86.10

4. To'Ls ~pa.lJIL Ka.t To'Ls Mtj8oLs: cf. 82. 12; the Medes included the
Cissians and Carmanians (and Cadusians, 79 7).
10. ot ... iu(AKTOL Twv IupLa.Kwv: perhaps a special section of the
phalanx of 2o,ooo, commanded by Theodotus Hemiolius (79 5); but
it seems more likely that P. is referring to the ro,ooo EK milTT]s
eK>uoAt:ypivoL Tij> f3acn>.t:ias (79 4), commanded by Theodotus the
Aetolian (cf. 84. 9 n.).
86. 3. Tous ev To'Ls auaT'TjJ.La.aL ue4>euyoTa.s: 'those who had fled in
groups'.
5-6. Casualties. The only difficulty concerns the elephants. As Sir
William Gowers has pointed out to me in a letter, it seems absurd
to suppose that the greater number of Ptolemy's beasts were captured by the routed Syrian army, especially as the thirty-three on
his right appear never to have come into action (85. r), and the tendency of the African elephants to flee must have taken them in the
direction of home; the difficulty was already perceived by Mahaffy
(Hermath. ro, 1899, 145). But any emendation of iJpi8TJaav is arbitrary
and unsatisfactory; nor is a transposition of the clauses M<f>avres
lit rpd> ... d1rl8avov and rwv 8' >.e</>aVTwv .. ol1TAe{ovs (so Scullard
and Gowers, NC, 1950, 277 n. 2) easily explicable. Certainly the statement on the Pithom stele that 'the King (i.e. Ptolemy) took as a
prey much people and all the elephants' (a completely plausible
claim) indicates an error in P.; but the most probable explanation
is that he has misunderstood his source, and attributed these losses
to the wrong side-as could easily happen if his source used o
f-L~V olS~ .... In that case it is P. and not his text which requires
correction.
7-8. Ptolemy in Coele-Syria: truce between the kings. P.'s account can
be supplemented from 3 Mace. i. r f. (unreliable in detail, but perhaps to be followed in the statement that Ptolemy visited Jerusalem)
and the Pithom stele (83-86. 6 n.).
10. Tl\s uvo(a.s upoKa.81']youJ.Liv1']s upos Tous .. ~a.aLAe'Ls: 'since they
were already inspired with good-will towards the kings .. .'. There
seems no reason to question P.'s statement, which does not, however, imply a pro-Egyptian source (so Momigliano, Aegyptus, 1929,
185-6) ; nor does it exclude pro-Syrian feeling in many parts, as for
example among the Jews. The reference to oxAoL suggests a distinction between the masses and the aristocracy, and Tarn (HC, 212 f.)
argues that the latter were pro-Syrian, quoting, as one example of
upper-class opposition to the Ptolemies about 2oo, Ecclesiastes, the
expression of a hellenizing group around the High Priest who had
turned away from Egypt. Rostovtzeff, however (SEHHW, i. 350,
iii. 1403 n. 147), supposes that the rural population was opposed to
Egypt and the privileged city-dwellers (who would be P.'s oxAoL)
615

V.86. ro

THE FOURTH SYRIAN WAR (219-217)

pro-Ptolemaic ; the author of Ecclesiastes he regards as echoing the

feelings of the people (i.e. the rural inhabitants) 'though himself an
aristocrat' (or alternatively reflecting a 'temporary rift' between
Philopator and one group of the Jewish hellenized aristocracy).
Probably the alinement was less clear-cut than either Tarn or
Rostovtzeff makes it. But the 'crowns,
and altars' mentioned here certainly suggest the acts of
authorities.
87. 6. To~s Kam1 l:upta.v Ka.t 4olVtK11" T6-rrols: under the Ptolemies
the province was officially l:vpta ~eal rl>owlKTJ; cf. 40. 1-3 n. On
Andromachus see 64. 4, 83. 3
88-90. The Rhodian earthquake: Gifts to the City

The reference to Seleucus II Callinicus (89. 8), who died in 225

(ii. 7r. 4 n.). dates this earthquake to before that date; and the
Chronicon Paschale (i. 331 Bonn) puts it in 01. 138. 2
227. The
reason for P.'s sudden digression at this point, where it is chronologically out of place, is discussed by Holleaux (REG, 1923, 48CH)8 =
Etudes, i. 445-62), who gives the best commentary on these chapters.
P., he suggests, was inspired by some particularly miserly gift from
some contemporary king and by its fulsome acceptance; exempli
gratia he quotes that of Eumenes II and Attalus at Delphi (Syll.
671 and 672 = Daux, 682 ff.; 502 ff. for commentary). In 161, on an
appeal from Delphi, Eumenes II and Attalus gave 3! talents dscrnTwvlav and 3 talents Zs TaV TWV TTalBwv s.&acrKaAlav. When the
Delphians thereupon instituted the festivals of the Eumeneia and
Attaleia, and requested further funds
Ta<; Tlp.as- ~ea 8vcrlas-, they
elicited a further talent from Eumenes and half a talent from
Attalus-a good example of p.~epooocrta and p.~epoATJ!fila. It was some
similar incident, Holleaux supposes, that led P. to make his protest
by pointing to the behaviour of the Rhodians and their benefactors
on this occasion; its high standard was later to deteriorate and lead
to the criticism of Rhodes in xxxi. 31. On the implications of Holleaux's hypothesis for the composition and publication of the Histories see iii. 1-5 n., 2 (a); these are rejected by J. de Foucault
(Rev. Phil., 1952, 47-52), who
to think that these chapters
have been detached from those on the siege of Sinope (iv. 56) and
are now displaced. But such a dislocation is improbable in itself, nor
do the chapters on the earthquake really fit this new position better
than their present one. P.'s source is probably Zeno of Rhodes
(Valeton, 202; von Scala, 261; Holleaux,Etudes, i.456n. 2), who derives
his account ultimately from some epigraphical record. Rostovtzeff
points out (SEHHW, ii. 631) that the gifts of the great powers to
Rhodes on this occasion reveal a desire to keep on good terms with
616

THE RHODIAN EARTHQUAKE: GIFTS TO THE CITY V.88.5

the maritime power which 'had gradually become the mistress of the
Aegean'.

88. 1. KaTa Tous 1TpoeLpT)f1Evous KaLpous: a deliberately deceptive

phrase, intended to link up events of nearly ten years previous with
those of 218.
t1TELAT)f1f1EVOL TllS c:i~opflilS: 'seizing the occasion'.
Tov Te KoAoaaov Tov 11eyav: the famous Colossus of Rhodes was a
bronze statue 32 m. high, representing Helios, the work of Chares
of Lindus (Pliny, Nat. hist. xxxiv. 41; auct. ad Herenn. iv. 9). It was
erected, probably c. 293/2, to celebrate the city's historic resistance
to Demetrius Poliorcetes, having at that date been twelve years in
commission; it stood for sixty-six years (reading lxvi for lvi in Pliny).
The Colossus is celebrated in Anth. Pal. vi. 171, on which see CQ,
1942, 135. Its remnants were sold in A.D. 653 to a Jew of Emesa
(Const. Porph. de adm. imp. 21). For recent discussion of its construction and position see A. Gabriel, BCH, 1932, 331-59. The adjective f-LEya> is also used by Sopater of Paphos (Kaibel, CGF, i. 192,
fg. I, xaAK~Aarov f-LEyav KoAoaaov); and since in SEG, ix. 72 l. u6
(from Cyrene) KoAoaao> is used of a small human figure, it is possible
that this was the original meaning (cf. Wilamowitz, S.-B. Berlin,
1927, 169) and that the adjective is introduced in the light of this.
4. <TEflVWS Kat 1TpoaTanKws: cf. vi. 33 9; 'with dignity and seriousness'.
Tais evTEu~eaL Kat Tais Ka.Ta fl.Epos OfJ.LALaLs: 'at public audiences and
in private intercourse' (Paton, following Schweighaeuser and Casaubon). Holleaux (op. cit. 447 n. 2) suggests 'conferences on matters
of detail' form> ... of-LtAlat>, as opposed to general audiences, and
compares the phrase rd Kara f-LEpo>, on which see 103. 8 (d. Buckler,
]HS, 1935, 73 n. 3; Robert, Et. anat. 236-7); but this seems rather
a pointless distinction, and P. is more likely to be stressing the
different audiences who were impressed by the Rhodians, than the
different kinds of meeting in which they impressed the same public
men.
xapLV 1Tpoao~ELAELV ... TOUS lhSOvTas: cf. 8; 'the donors in addition
acknowledged a sense of gratitude to them'. For the sentiment cf.
Dem. iii. 31 (scornful!).
5. 'lepwv ... Kat reXwv: on Hiero see i. 8. 2-9 8; on his son Gelo,
i. 8. 3 n., and for his death about 216/15, viii. 8. 9 Though he predeceased Hiero, Gelo bore the title of king (attested by coins and
inscriptions: see De Sanctis, iii. 2. 264 n. 125; Stauffenberg, 88;
Niese, RE, 'Gelon (4) ', col. 1013.
e~l\OflTJKOVTa , .. XOpT)yLaV: the disproportionate size of SUCh a gift
for such a purpose was observed by Schweighaeuser; and Reiske' s
assumption of a lacuna is confirmed by Diod. xxvi. 8, which is based
on P. (Schwartz, RE, 'Diodoros (37)', col. 689) and reads: 'Upwv o
617

V.88. 5 THE RHODIAN EARTHQUAKE: GIFTS TO THE CITY

't'
'
w~
> OtKOOOfL7JV
>
<'
' TOV
- TELXOVS'
I
'
I
'\
4'-;VpaKOVUtOS'
EOWKEV
EtS'
apyvp~OV
t;: ' ( 'f ) TaAUVT(l
Ka''
'
I
\ 'R
..!
c
\
I
'
'
'
'
,,
apyvptOVS' 1\loi-'7JTaS' %tol\oyOVS' xwptS' TOV VOfLLUfLaTOS Ka aTEI\HaV TOtS'
utTTJYofs 1TAolots. This gives what (as Holleaux, op. cit. 447 n. 3,
A

observes) is missing from P.--a reference to money for rebuilding,

the prime need; and Reiske accordingly added after Jf18op.7}KoVTa
the words (Tdt\avra 1rpos dvotKoBop.~v TWV Tetxwv Kal vewplwv). However, the position of d.pyvplov is against this, and it seems more likely
that the missing words came after TaAav-ra, e.g. (1rpos ~v -roiJ Telxovs
olJ<o8op.~v J<a~).
Aef3'1'!Ttl~ O.pyupous:

from the time of Homer (e.g. It. ix. 122-3, 264-5;

xxiii. 259, 264, 268, 485, 702, 885) cauldrons are valuable objects,
obviously regarded as possessing a definite silver value, and represent
a primitive form of money. Similarly, on Cretan inscriptions of the
fifth and fourth centuries, from Gortyn and Cnossus (JC, i, Cnosos
5 b; iv. r, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, u, 14, :n), cauldrons figure as a form of currency; see, against Svoronos (BCH, r888, 405 f.), who thinks the
reference is to coins stamped with the representation of a cauldron,
Guarducci (Riv. jil., 1944-5, 171 ff.; IC, iv. 41-42). The gift of the
Syracusans is primarily a dedication in some temple, but one which
could be converted at need into coin, and is therefore included in
the hundred talents ( 6). See further Regling, RE, 'Geld', col. 972 ;
'Lebes (3)', col. I054
6. TT)v evuo~"latv TGiv voAtTGiv: 'for the enrichment of the citizens'
(rather than 'for the increasing of the citizen body' with Casaubon).
Holleaux (op. cit. 448 n. 2) quotes epigraphical evidence for this
sense of l1TUV,7JCM, IG, ix. 2. 520 ll. 7--& (Larisa); Robert adds IG,
xi. 4 1004 l. 33 (Lesbos); BCH, 1933, 516 (Rhodes) 11. 1-3 e1Ta~yy~:{
Aavro XP7Jp.a]Ta [8wp]edv els Tdv l1rav,7JaLV -roiJ 1TA~8Evs Twv rroAtTav. In
this sense E1rav~7Jcns is equivalent to the more usual l1rl8oats.
7. aTEhEttlV: cf. 89. 8. Remission of customs dues had been offered
to Rhodian merchants by Antigonus I, provided they did not put
in at Rhodes (Polyaen. iv. 6. r6). Probably Hiero and Seleucus
(89. 8, cf. xxi. 43 17) were hoping in this way to divert part of the
Rhodian trade from Egypt.
KUTu,.~ATas TPlmlXIrlS: 'three-cubit catapults', i.e. catapults designed
to fire arrows three cubits long (cf. IG, iP. 1487, l. 87}.
8. ev T~ 5Elyl'-un: the Deigma, an Exchange for the display of
goods, for business, and for banking, is found in several Greek cities,
e.g. Olbia (IPE, i 2 32 B, 49), Peiraeus (Polyaen. vi. 2. 2; Xen. Hell.
v. I. 2I; [Dem.] XXXV. 29) ; according to Pollux TOVVop.a a1To TOV
Belyp.aTa Twv dywylp.wv Toi:s cbV7JTLWUI Sl8ou8at. The one at Rhodes
is mentioned also by Diodorus (xix. 45 4), whose reference to flooding
shows that it was in the lower part of the city, and by Aelius
Aristides (Or. xliii, 'Po8aK6s, 553 (367), p. 818 Dind.). See Szanto,
RE, ..::ldyp.a, cols. 2383-4; Ehrenberg, Aristophanes, 143, ISS
6r8

THE RHODIAN EARTHQUAKE: GIFTS TO THE CITY V.89.3

aTE+a.vo.JJ.lEvov Tov &fll'ov KTA.: the two &fifLot are personified, and the
act of crowning will have been literally represented (though at this
time the word a-re{>av6w is often used in a weakened sense to mean
merely 'to honour' or 'to reward'; cf. xiii. 9 5; Welles, 363 s.v.). The
personification of a SijfLo>: is attested for Athens in the fourth century;
and a letter to Priene, dating from about the middle of the second
century (Welles, 63ll. 9-10) refers to a statue of the ofjfLo>: of Priene.
For the crowning of the ofjfLOS of one city by another see IG, xi. 2.
199 b I. 23 (cf. Rouse, Greek Votive Offerings (Cambridge, 1902),
266-9); [Dem.], XViii. 91, UTfiUa 0 Kat EiK6vas TpEtS iKKO.WEKfL7TcLXEtS
b -ro/ Boa770p<icp, UTE{>avoufL<VOV TOll sa,.,.ov -r6v )!Oavalwv inrJ TW safLW
-rw Bu~aVTlwv Kctt 1IEptv8iwv (on the Hellenistic date of this forgery

see P. Treves, LEC, 1940, 138-74). Such a personification might lead

to the establishment of a cult of the DfjfLo>:, such as is known for
Athens (together with the Xcfpm:s) from shortly after 229, and for
Rhodes itself from before 167 (BCH, 1934, 345-76; cf. Segre, Rend.
!st. Lomb., 1937, 83-89). See further von Schoeffer, RE, 'Demos (2)',
cols. 153-161; Bean-Fraser, 132-7.
89. 1. nToAEJ.la.ios: Euergetes at this date.
aTou J.lUp,O.&a.s dpTa.f3wv EKa.Tov: one million artabae of corn. The
Ptolemaic artabe was equivalent to 39'4 litres, or just over a bushel.
uA.a. va.u'ITTJYftalJ.la. :the Ptolemies had paid great attention to treeplanting in Egypt (Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, i. 298-3oo), but for largescale timber requirements, and for such a gift as this, they will have
drawn on the forests of their overseas possessions, such as Cyprus
and Lycia (Rostovtzeff, ibid. i. 381).
'ITEUKlvwv TETpa.ywvwv TETpa.KiaJ.lup(ous! in apposition to gJ.\a
vaV1T1J'Y~atfLa. Paton translates '4o,ooo cubits (good measure) of
squared deal planking' (following Gronovius, 'trabium quadratarum
e picea commodos cubitos ad xl millia'), and Holleaux (op. cit. 448}
follows fa~tte de mieux, 'des poutres de pin equarries formant un
total d'au moins 4,000 coudee.<;'. Despite Schweighaeuser's objection
to the reference to good measure ('quam sit frigida, nemo non
uidet !'), this seems the most likely interpretation of a difficult
phrase.
2. xa.AtcoO vol'(aJ.la.Tos TdAa.vTa. xlALa.: an unusual gift, for copper
coinage \\''aS very important to the monetary system of Ptolemaic
Egypt (Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, i. 398-404); for a similar offer to
Achaea by Ptolemy V see xxiii. 9 3 See H. Gaebler, ZN, 1924,
313-14.
aTU'IT'ITLou Tplax(A.,a.: '3,000 talents of tow'; on the Attic standard a
talent is a little under 6o lb.
b9ovwv laTous TpLaXlA(ous: '3,000 pieces of sail-cloth'.
3. ELS T1jv ToO tcoAoaaoO Ka.Ta.aKEuf]v TaAa.vTa. TpLuxlALa.: Holleaux

619

V.8g.g THE RHODIAN EARTHQUAKE: GIFTS TO THE CITY

(op. cit. 449) follows Reiske in assuming the omission of xaAKov after
the bronze is for the repair of the statue. According to
Strabo (xiv. 6sz) the Rhodians alleged the veto of some oracle and
did not attempt to repair the Colossus; cf. Gabriel, BCH, 1932, 340.
oi.KoSo1-4ous u1roupyous: for general work on the walls, shipyards,
etc., not merely on the Colossus (Schweighaeuser, ad Joe.). Their
wages work out at an average of 3-4 obolsaday. Tarn (The Hellenistic
Age (Cambridge, 1923), Izz) has analysed these figures, and calculating that higher rates for oiKol>op.or.. must have brought down those
of the {rrrovpyo{, concludes that the latter were receiving barely a
living wage. See also L. Robert, Et. anat. 86.
6. J\vTlyovos: i.e. Doson.
~uXo. 1-l-upLo.: 'ten thousand pieces of timber from eight to sixteen
cubits in length to be used as rafters' (Paton). But it is very unlikely
that these planks were meant to be used as rafters, though this is
one meaning of the word atp7]Klmwc; (cf. IG, P. 372 1. 81; ii'1 1668
1. 53); andaccordingto R. Vallois and G. Poulsen (Exploration archiologique de Delos, ii (complement), Paris, 1914, 39 n. z), the word is
also commonly used as a general term for squared timber, without
consideration of the use to which it is to be put. Here it seems
probable that the uif>7JK[aKot are intended for use in the construction
of ships' hulls, like the ~JTpwrijpEc; mentioned beneath; see Holleaux
(op. cit. 449 n. 4), who, however, follows Paton in the view that the
ai/>TJKfaKot were meant as rafters.
aTpW'TfJpa.s: 'cross beams'; also found in inscriptions (cf. IG, iiz.
1672 1. 63, ivz. I. 102 IL 179, 235). Holleaux (loc. cit.) quotes Vallois:
they are 'about 3! metres long, and represent weaker planks than
the uif>7JKlaKot; they are placed transversely over these, as sham
purlins (fausses pannes) or joists (on the use of these sham purlins
see Vallois, Expl. archiol. de Delos, vii. I (r923), 6o-61)'. In Theophrastus {Vert. 12) inability to count such O"TpwrijpEs is a sign of
drunkenness. Vallois concludes that these beams were destined for
the Rhodian arsenal to be used in the construction of ships' hulls.
aL&rjpou TaAa.VTo. TpLaxiXLn: for iron-mines in Macedonia cf. Livy,
xlv. 29. I I {based on P.).
1T(1'Tt'fS aAA'IJS Wj.lTJS: TTlTTTJ is solid pitch; TTlTT7J dJj.t~, reckoned
in liquid measure (for the fLerp7JT~> of nearly nine gallons cf. ii.
15. In.), is pix liquida, liquid tar. The method of obtaining pitch
and tar in Macedon by burning resinous wood in an enclosed oven,
similar to that used by charcoal burners, is described by Theophrastus (HP, ix. 3 1-2). Pitch and tar were essential to shipbuilding.
On the Macedonian trade in pitch see Glotz, REG, 1916, 289 ff.;
Rosto>izeff, SEHHW, iii. I3i5 n. 76; Tarn, Economica, 1930,
November, 315 ff.; Heichelheim, TYirtsch. Sckwank. 54 ff. For ancient
references see Geyer, RE, 'Makedonia', coL 68o. After Pydna the
-r&Aavra;

620

THE RHODIAN EARTHQUAKE: GIFTS TO THE CITY V.go.r

Romans forbade the exploitation of the Macedonian forests (Livy,

xlv. 29. 14).
cipyupou: Macedonia was rich in silver, which came especially from
Damastium in Illyria, Dysorum (Herod. v. 17. z}, Pangaeum (Herod.
vii. II2; Strabo, vii. JJI, fg. 34) and Scaptesyle. See Casson, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria (Oxford, I926), 57 ff.; 0. Davies, Roman
Mines in Europe (Oxford, I935), 226 ff.
7. XpuO"!]LS: Chryseis, also known as Phthia, was Doson's v.'ife and
the mother of Philip V; the name Chryseis was a nickname which
won popular currency and ousted the real name in most of the
written sources; see W. W. Tarn, Ferguson Studies, I94o, 483-soi.
8EKa. o+rou J.LUpui8a.s: sc. lu'.olp:vwv (d. Herod. iii. 9I and elsewhere). This corn, like that later amassed under Perseus (Livy, xlii.
12. 8; Plut. A em. Paul. 8. 8, 28. 2), may have come from the private
estates of the royal family (cf. Cic. leg. agr. ii. so). See Beloch, iv. I.
343; Walbank, Philip, 5 n. n.
Tpmx(Xla. 8E f'o.Mfj8ou TuAa.vTa.: lead is normally found in conjunction
with silver. Its existence in Macedon is specifically mentioned by
the Totius orbis descriptio (GGM, ii. 523), 51; and quite recently lead
was mined along with silver, gold, and copper at Stratoniki in
eastern Chalcidice.
8. IEAEuKos: Seleucus II Callinicus, who died in 225 (cf. iv. 48. 6 n.).
Seleucus could not vie with his fellow kings in contributions of
metal (Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, ii. 1256). For the grant of d-nfAELa to
merchants cf. 88. 7 n.
9. ~uXwv XlAlu8a.s: the MSS. all have p..vpt&oas- but, as Reiske
observes, a numeral would be necessary ; he therefore proposes
p.vpt&.Ba, which is supported by I. II, where both readings are found
in a similar context. The word order is strange: Seleucus gave Io,ooo
cubits of timber, and I,ooo talents each of resin and hair. The gift
of hair is paralleled in iv. 56. 3: see the note there for references.
90. 1. npoucr(a.s; Ka.l Mt9pt86.TTJS: Prusias of Bithynia (cf. iv. 47 7 n.)
and Mithridates II of Pontus (cf. iv. s6. I; v. 43 I-2 nn.).
Auaa.v(a.v 'OMI'mxov AlJ.LVa.l:ov: Olympichus was the ruler of Alinda
in Caria, known from various inscriptions as the tool and indeed the
epistates of Philip V of Macedonia; BMI, iii. 441 = GDI, iii. 375o;
cf. Holleaux, REG, I899, zo-37; REA, I903 223-8 = (combined)
Etudes, iv. I46--62; Laumonier, BCH, 1934, zgi-8; A. Vogliano, Acme,
I948, 389--<}0 (cf. Robert, Bull. ep., 1950, I82). For discussion of
Olympichus see Walbank, ]HS, 1942, 8-13; Bengtson, Strat. ii. 36770; Robert in Holleaux, EtHdes, iv. 162 n. r. The new document
partially published by Vogliano (with revisions by Robert), a letter
from the dynast probably to Mylasa, is dated to Philip's third year,
and involves dating the remaining documents to the early years of
62!

V. go.

THE

RHODIA~

EARTHQUAKE: GIFTS TO THE CITY

Philip's reign and not to the period c. 202, as had previously been
supposed. Lysanias and Limnaeus are not identified. Attempts have
been made to treat one or the other as a predecessor of Moagetes, the
dynast of Cibyra in Greater Phrygia in I89 (Niese, ii. I6o; Ruge (RE,
'Kibyra', col. 375) and Schoch ('Limnaios (2)', col. 7o8) are noncommittal). A. Wilhelm supposed that Lysanias was perhaps the
same as Lysias, father of the Philomelus mentioned as dynast in
Phrygia in xxi. 35 2 (5.-B. Wien, I9II, 54, 'Neue Beitrage zur
griechischen Inschriftenkunde: I, Kleinasiatische Dynasten'), and
Holleaux (Etudes, iii. 358) concurred. But both may have been minor
dynasts in Caria, with neighbourly reasons for their benefactions.
3. Ets Tov xpc"'o" Ka.t T~" lLpx ~", lLcj>' o~ ouv~t>Kio9a., : 'if one
considers the epoch at which the city of Rhodes began to be once
more habitable'. avvoKt,Hv is 'to repeople'; cf. ii. 55 7, iv. 25. 4,
xviii. 51. 7 (see Bikerman, REJ, Ioo, I935. 11 n. 2; Robert, Insc.
Froehner, 98-----99; Holleaux, Etudes, i. 450-I n. 5). Schweighaeuser is
correct; Paton and Waltz translate as if P. were referring to the
synoecism of Rhodes in 408.
5. Ta.uTa. j.lE\1 o~v etp~o9w KTA.: cf. iv. 33 11 for a similar ending to a
digression inserted after the text as a whole was complete; both
stress the didactic purpose.
T-ijs 'PoSwv ll'epL Ta Ko,vO. 11'pooTa.ola.s: 'the dignity with which the
Rhodians conduct their public finances'; cf. xxxi. 3I. I, Tijv Toil
7ToAtTlJf-LaTos rrpoaraa{av. For Td Kowa (sc. XP-rlf-LaTa) cf. xxiv. 7. 4, 7 5,
xxxi. JI. 3 (where Ti}v lrrt4>aaw ri}s af-LVC17TJTOS 'their claim to dignity'
corresponds to Tijs rrpoaraalas here, and P. censures a lapse from
the standard adumbrated).
Tijs T~J\1 vuv ~a.oLAEwv !J-LKpoSooia.s: see 8~o n., with examples of
such meanness.
Tijs j.lLKpoAYJijiia.s: 'ready acceptance of small presents', with an
implied meanness of spirit.
8. To Ka.T' Q.~(a.v f:Kci.oTo's TYJpeiv: 'to maintain the principle of estimating everything at its true value' (Paton); cf. iii. I7. Io, vi. 6. 11.
~ 'II'AELOT0\1 s,a.cj>EpOUOL\1 ICTA.: 'for it is in this quality of discernment
especially that the Greeks excel other men'.

91-105. 10. Campaigns of 2I7 in Greece: End of the Social War

In spring 2I7 the Aetolian general Agetas (probably the Hagetas
of GDI, 2049) had been in office for six months; for Aratus' election
for 2I7/I6 as Achaean general see 30. 7, from which point P. now
takes up the thread of Greek events.
91. 1. AuKoupyos ~~ AtTwAla.s: cf. 29. 8 for his flight.

3. nuppa.v: see 30.

622

2.

END OF THE SOCIAL WAR

V.92.7

4. ~s ~,.a.vw 1Tpot:'i:1Ta.: on Eperatus' incompetence see 30. I-'J.

5. ,.a.pa.Ka.AEo-a.s Tous 1\x(uous KTA.: 'encouraging the Achaeans';
the assembly at which the decree was passed was probably, if not
certainly, an extraordinary one (cf. Aymard, ACA, z66 n. z; Larsen,
169). P. may here have drawn on the Achaean records (Mioni, 123 n.
37); but his sources for the Achaean history of this period cannot
be distinguished. In 6 rrev-ratwulovc; is Perottus's correction of
rreVT!]Kov-ra; for EmAlKTovc;, 'picked men', see ii. 65. 3 n.
7. xa.X~e&nnSa.s: on these troops, with Macedonian armour, see ii.
65. 3 n., iv. 69. 4; here cavalry are included, with equipment presumably heavier than that of the foot (Plut. Phil. 6. 4).
8. 11'pt Tijv ~.tcTTjv: the east coast of the Argolid between Troezen
and Epidaurus (Strabo, viii. 389; Diod. xii 43 1). The Achaean ships
operating here and in the Corinthian Gulf are distinct from those
which had joined the Macedonians in spring 218 (z. 4 n.).
92. 4. TUS.,. Ka.Anjla.s: a KciJJL1J in Pausanias (iv. 3I. 3) and probably to
be identified with modern Giannitza (cf. IG, v. I. 1369-70; von
Geisau, RE, 'Kalamai', cols. 1531-2; Roebuck, 122-4). For secrecy
Lycurgus probably took one of the Taygetus routes (cf. Valmin, 55),
and that via Mistra and Giannitza is the shortest. 'Giannitza is an
acropolis of great natural strength, is strongly fortified, and its position
at the end of a pass is clearly of strategic importance' (Roebuck).
6. 1\vSa.v(a.v: Schweighaeuser corrected the MSS. 6-onav. Andania
lay in north Messenia on a route leading to Megalopolis (Livy,
xxxvi. 31. 7), and was famous for its mysteries (IG, v. I. 1390 = Syll.
736). Until Valmin's work on Messenian topography Andania was
usually sited at the acropolis of Helleniko, at the mouth of the Isari
gorge; but Valmin has made a good case for a site on the west side
of the plain, near the village of Polichne, where the mysteries in~
scription was found (Valmin, 92 ff.; summary in Roebuck, s-Io).
Valmin himself (ss-s6) prefers Ross's correction to JivOnav, and
locates this village near Kalamae.
7. Aratus' military organization. In this he apparently made use of
the subdivision of the Confederation known as a avv-rl).c:,a, which had
its'centre at Patrae (cf. 94 In., xxxviii. 16. 4, llaTpEtc; Kal. To J.LC:nl
Towwv avv-rA~Kov). That there were other uvv-rlAnat based on Argos
and Megalopolis is merely conjectural (though plausible). Such sub
divisions can perhaps be paralleled by the l:TpanKov TiAoc; (.t4.px. Jtf>.,
19o5, 58, no. 2) and the Aot<ptt<ov TeAos (GDI, ii. 2070, 2139) in the
Aetolian League (cf. Beloch, iv. I. 6o4 n. 1), if indeed these are used
as technical expressions; in Strabo (ix. 433) al fmo Tip f/JOu..YrtKip
,l,).n o/ {m' .t4.x~At KaTotKlat seems not to carry any such technical
sense. Since in 219 Miccus of Dyme commands the levies of Dyme,
Pharae, and Tritaea as fmoO'TpaTTJYD> (iv. 59 2), it is possible that
623

V. 92.7

CAMPAIGNS OF 217 IN GREECE

this subdivision already existed then (though it is not certain that

a V'1rouTpaT'I)yos was normally the officer in charge of a uvvTlALa).
Aratus concentrates his mercenaries and '1riAEKTot in the north-west,
having arranged for Taurion and the Messenians to supplement the
defences on the Laconian front. 'The usual composition of the
Achaean field army is ... crystallized into an army system' (Griffith,
ror-2). It has three arms: mercenaries on long-term contract, the
l.'1rCI.KTot (3,ooo foot and 300 horse, as at Sellasia (ii. 65. 3) and earlier
in this war (iv. ro. 2)), and if need arose a levy en masse (which was
rarely called out). The mercenaries' wages were virtually dependent
on plunder (d. 94 9). Ferrabino's theory (2r7 ff., 297-3or) of an
elaborate triple organization of Achaea rests in part on a misinterpretation of Insch. Mag. 38 = Syll. 559, and must be rejected; for
a full discussion see Aymard, ACA, 90 n. r, 92 n. I; below, 94 In.
93. l. K1Ta To Twv :A.xa.~wv SOyJ.la.: perhaps an addendum to the
decree mentioned in 91. 5 (Aymard, ACA, 342 n. I).
2. EK Ot:J.lEAiwv EO"q.aAJ.l~vous: 'overthrown to the very foundations';
evidently proverbial (d. Wunderer, i. 4o). On Cleomenes' destruction
of Megalopolis in autumn 223 see ii. 55 2-7.
6. t:ts T,\1 TWV1TpOO"Aa.J.lf311VOJ.lEVW\I ottc,Topwv a\1111TA~pWO"~\I: 'to make
up the number of those enrolled as additional citizens'; that they
had already been enrolled (Niese, ii. 349, 454) is not implied by P.
8. npv-rO.v~Sos: the Peripatetic philosopher, famous as Euphorion's
teacher (Suidas) and author of a Symposium (Plut. Mor. 612 n). See
Susemihl, i. rso. An Athenian inscription (Meritt, Hesp., I935 525 ff.)
from the archonship of Ergochares (probably 226) celebrates his
mission on behalf of Athens, evidently to Doson. See Dow and Edson,
Harv. Stud., 1937, I68 ff.; Fine, AJP, 1940, 143-4; Treves, Euforione,
28 n. 2 (for bibliography).
10. 1Tap0. Tov TTJS 'EO"Ttas f3wJ.loV iv 'OJ.lap~: at the federal centre
near Aegium (d. ii. 39 6 n.). As the symbolic hearth of the Confederation the altar of Hestia was especially appropriate to such a declaration. Capes (ad loc.) thinks of a Homarion at Megalopolis, but this
is an improbable and superfluous hypothesis.
94. 1. 1Tpos T,\1 TW\1 :A.xa~Wv O"UVoSov: the date is limited by 95 s-6;
it preceded the harvest (late May or early June in the Argolid).
TllS <TUVTt:AEtas Tfjs 1T11Tp~Kfjs: 1TMptKijs MSS., Hultsch, BiittnerWobst, IPapai:Kijs Naber, IlaTptKijs uel IlaTpa"iKijs W. Vischer. The
MSS. reading would imply 'of Pharae', Lycus' own town ; but 1TaTptKos
should mean 'ancestral, belonging to one's father or fathers', and
IPapai:Kijs is somewhat far from the MSS. A reference to either Pharae
or Patrae would be in place, and Vischer's solution seems the most
likely, the more as the ethnic IlaTptKos 'from Patrae' is now found in
Strabo (viii. 388, additional matter from Vat. gr. 2306; d. Aly,
624

END OF THE SOCIAL WAR

V.96.4

5.-B. Heidelberg, 1931, I. q). See E. Meyer, RE, 'Patrai', col. 22o6
(cf. ii. 41. 7-S n.); and, for a full discussion, Aymard, ACA, 90 n. I.
Had the lTFli."'Krot (92. 7 n.) been disbanded to attend the auvooo,?
See Aymard, op. cit. 88-95; Larsen, 169.
4. w~ ~1ri A6vnov: Euripidas (d. iv. 19. 5 and passim) was evidently
retreating through the Pass of Vlassia over Erymanthus, to escape
Lycus; on the position of Leontium cf. ii. 4I. 7-8 n. Aymard (ACA,
89 n. I) suggests that Lycus, who was evidently not stationed in his
auVT/..t::ta, had been left at Megalopolis with the mercenaries until
Taurion's assistance arrived; owing to Taurion's delay (95 5) western
Achaea was thus left denuded of troops.
7. eis MoAuKpta.v: the site is uncertain, but it probably lay at
Velvina, a little to the north-east of the promontory of Antirrhium
in Aetolia. The Aetolians first gained possession of it during the
Peloponnesian War (Thuc. iii. ro2. 2). See Orlandos, ltpx. oe-1.-r.,
1924-5, Trapap-r. 55-64; Flaceliere, 7.
8. X~AKELa.v: probably a variant fonn of Chalcis, a town lying at the
foot of Mt Chalcis near the Aetolian coast, a little to the east of the
mouth of the Euenus (modern Phidaris), and traditionally a colony
from Euboea; cf. Thuc. i. ro8. s. ii. 83. 3; Flaceliere, 7 n. 5
vept TO 'Pov AtTwAlKov: i.e. Antirrhium, across the straits from
Achaea. By an odd error Paton takes AlrwAtK6v with Ke/..rpa..
95. l-4. Scerdilaidas abandons the Macedonian alliance. For his
agreement with Philip see iv. 29. 7 n.; for help at Cephallenia, v. 4 3
5. TWV apTl P"16nuwv 1ToAewv: Megalopolis, Tegea, and Argos (92 8).
8. ca>ueLov: otherwise unknown.
12. KAeovucov Tov Na.u1Tnt<Tlov: cf. 102. 4 ft., and for his later career
ix. 37 4
96. 4. 4>a.voTeis: Panopeus or Phanoteus (the latter is the form
found on inscriptions, and despite Strabo (ix. 423) is probably the
older) lay in the Cephisus valley, in Phocis, about zt miles north of
Chaeronea; it is the modern H. Vlasios, and the site is fully
described by Kirsten (RE, 'Panopeus', cols. 640~7), who visited it
in 1939 and 194z (plan of the citadel, ibid., col. 644). There is an earlier
account by Leake (NG, ii. 109 ff.). Since the failure of the expedition
mentioned in 26. I Philip had acquired control of eastern Phocis
(cf. z6. In.) including Phanoteus.
:t\Ai~nv~pos A TETa.y11ivos ~vt Tfjs 4>wKi~os: no doubt the JTFl rij>
Be-paTTe-La, of iv. 87. 5 He was probably crrpaTrJy&s (for which P. often
uses o 7uayp.lvos; cf. 40. In.), that is, military governor of Phocis,
now treated as a Macedonian protectorate ; see Bengtson, Strat. ii.
338 n. 2, 363.
'JO.uovos: for his position in command of Phanoteus cf. x. 42. 7
(commanders in Phocis and Euboea).
4866

ss

v. 96.8

CAMPAIGNS OF 217 IN GREECE

8. o{JK &.vo~Ktd'!l 1rpayfla.TL 1TEpL1TE1TTwK6Js: on the anti-Aetolian bias

see Brandstaeter, 276.
97. l. BuAO.twpa.: probably near the site of modern Koprtilii (Veles)
on the Vardar; see Leake, NG, iii. 47o; Geyer, RE, 'Makedonia',
cols. 661-2. On the Dardani see ii. 6. 4 n.
3. Xpuu6yovov: cf. 9 4 n.
To(Js 5-vw Ma.KEOova.s: cf. Strabo, vii. 326, -ra 1TEp~ AryKov Ka~ llEAayov[av Ka~ 'Opw-ruioa Kal 'EAit-tnav T0v avw MaKEl'ioviav lKdAovv. It
comprised the western highlands.
4. Tfjs BoTT~a.s tca.i. TYJS ;.\fl~a.g~noos: Bottiaea lay between the
Haliacmon and the Axius, Amphaxitis on the left bank of the latter.
See Geyer, RE, 'Makedonia', cols. 648---9, 65o.
"E8Euua.v: cf. xxxiv. 12. 7 Formerly Aegae, the ancient Macedonian
capital, on the Lydias; the site is that of Vodena. See Leake, NG, iii.
272; and, for more modern references, Geyer, RE, 'Makedonia', col. 65 7.
~KTa.ios Ets /\apLua.v: via Beroea, over Mt. Bermius, across the Haliacmon and over the Volustana Pass to the upper Europus, the march
from Edessa would be about a hundred miles.
5. MEALTELa.v: Melitaea lay in Achaea Phthiotis, on the north slopes
of Mt. Othrys, near the modern village of Avaritsa and the monastery
of H. Triada. SUihlin (Hell. Thess. 162-4; RE, MdiTata, cols.
534-40) observes that the exceptional thickness of the walls, 38o m.,
suggests a considerable height, which would explain why Philip's
ladders were too short. In ix. 18. 5-9 P. has an account of the attack
which supplements (and contradicts) the present one in various
details (cf. Niese, ii. 457 n. 2) :
(a) Here Philip arrives lmo T0v iw8tv/jv; in ix. 18. 6, having planned
to arrive at midnight he leaves Larissa too soon and finds the
people not yet in bed.
(b) Here the Melitaeans are completely terrified, but the short
ladders prevent the exploitation of this advantage; in ix. 18. 8
there is a party within which cannot co-operate because of
the early hour.
(c) In ix. r8. 9 there are heavy Macedonian casualties.
Philip probably hoped to drive a wedge between Achaea Phthiotis
and the Aetolians and then to advance east and proceed systematically to the taking of Thebes. On failing at Melitaea he evidently
changed his plan and advanced directly on Thebes. See Walbank,
Philip, 63.
98. 9. TO(,S ~1Tl. 1Tpa.yf1GTWV TO.TTOflEVOUS: cf. iii. 12. 5, ~- 4, 'those in
authority'; 'commanders' (Paton) is perhaps too specific.
11. &.pf16tovTa. tca.Lpov tca.l. T01Tov: P. describes the way to calculate
the right height of ladders in ix. 19. 5-9
626

END OF THE SOCIAL WAR

V, 99

IO

99. 1. 'II'Ept Tov 'Evt'II'Ea. 'II'OTO.jlov: the Enipeus rose in Othrys and
passed within ro stades (r-7 km.) of Melitaea on the east (Strab:J,
ix. 432); it is the modern river of Neochori (Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 83).
2. TdS ca>e~.~mSa.s e~~a.s: Thebes lay on the spur of a hill overlooking the Crocian plain (plain of Halmyros) on the south; and Leaf
(NG, iv. 360 f.) identifies it with the ruins north of Akitsi, which lies
3'5 km. from Pyrasus (Neanchialos) and 53 km. (3oo stades) from
Larissa. On the plateau are four peaks, of which the most easterly
was the acropolis (99 ro), 'With the to,wn sloping down on its eastern
side. Arvanitopoulos (llpo.KnK&., r9o8, r68 f.) identifies the Heliotropion (99 8) as the hill to the west behind which the sun set for the
inhabitants on either the longest or shortest day; it is probably
Taburi, about 250m. west of the citadel. Skopion (ibid.) he takes to
be the eminence Karauli, about 6oo m. north-west of the citadel,
where an ordnance pillar now stands. The {m.,p,alp.ryov apo> (ibid.) is
the hill Kokkinos Vrachos, which stands across the Alchanorevma,
which runs along the base of the acropolis on the north and east.
See further, for a plan of the to~TI and acropolis, Stablin, HeO.
Thess. r7r-2; RE, 'Thebai (3) (Achaia)', cols. rs82-<)J.
4. dT)jlTJTPLELS 4>a.paa.Atous 1\a.pLO"a.wus: all cities controlled
by Philip. Demetrias and Larissa were old Macedonian possessions;
Pharsalus in Phthiotis had been annexed by the Aetolians on the
death of Demetrius II, but recovered along with Thessaliotis and
Hestiaeotis by Doson (see Fine, TAPA, 1932, 133 ff.; Walbank,
Philip, n n. 3 (against Beloch, iv. 2. 414-r7) for references). There are
no grounds for rejecting P. here (see Feyel, 294 n. I against Flaceliere,
294 n. I).
5. To 1>-jlupu<ov 'II'ESlov: this lay in Pelasgiotis, east of Larissa and
north of Lake Boebe, and through it ran the R. Amyrus, probably
the modern Deres. It is the modern plain of Karalar, and the town
of Amyrus is probably to be identified with the ruins of Kastri, with
Leake (NG, iv. 447); see Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 59
7. KO.Ta'II'EATwv 'II'ETpo~oAucidv bpyO.vwv: according to Hero the
former was a two-armed machine firing arrows; it is more or less the
Roman scorpio. The 1T-rp&{Jo'Aos (ballista) is more powerful and also
more expensive. At New Carthage (Livy, xxvi. 47 5-6) the catapultae and ballistae taken were 401 and 75 respectively, roughly the
same proportion, 6 : I, as here.
9. KTd'II'AE9pov: 'every hundred feet'.
10. ~p~aTo 11'poa6.yELv 11'pos TTJV iiKpa.v: i.e. to the north and west,
where the acropolis walls were on the outside; here, to the west, a
low saddle offers a convenient approach, with a gate in the wall, and
it was doubtless against this point that Philip brought up his
machines (Arvanitopoulos, llpa.KnK&., 19o8, 177, pl. 4; Stahlin, Hell.
Thess. qr-2).
627

v. 100,2

CAMPAIGNS OF 211 IN GREECE

100. 2. 'Twv bpuyJ.LnTtuv: 'Das ... Bergplateau ... ist wie dieser ganze
Gebirgsteil von Marmosen, Chloritschiefem und Phylliten gebildet,
die auf Gneis lagem. Die auf diesem Untergrund ruhenden Mauern
konnten unterwuhlt werden' (Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 171). P. emphasizes
the difficulties ( 3). For the method of underpinning ( 4) see 4 8 n.
7. E\1 Tfl 'ITEpt TOUS na.Aau'i's 1TOAloptcq.: cf. 3 5 ff.
8. ToO; u1T6.pxovTo.'> obn\Topo.;: 'the existing population' ; cf. 10. 6
(where Tovs olK~Topas are the population of Thebes enslaved by
Alexander), 93 6 (where Twv 7rpocrAaftf3avop.l.vwv olK1JT6pwv refers to
new citizens), iii. roo. 4 Tarn (JRS, 1941, 171, 173) renders 'the
(Aetolian) settlers who were there'; but P.'s normal usage is against
this forced translation.
cj)l).(1T1TOU Tfjv 11'oAw: cf. Diod. xxvi. 9; Steph. Byz., s.v. I'PO.tmroL.
The new name did not maintain itself.
9-10. Further attempt at mediation by neutrals: cf. 24. II for an appeal
by Chios and Rhodes; they are now joined by Byzantium and
Egypt. Holleaux (78 n. :a) argues that Egyptian intervention reflects
a new policy of Sosibius, to cultivate Macedonian friendship against
Antiochus (cf. Etudes, i. 82-83, u9-2o). Feyel (r65-6) points out that
mediation was in the immediate interest of Aetolia rather than of
.Macedon (for Sosibius could not know of Philip's sudden reason for
wanting peace), and argues that the present passage merely shows
Sosibius anxious for peace in Greece. However, Feyel admits that
such a peace would leave Philip free to be canvassed for help against
Syria; and ultimately the difference with Holleaux is only one of
emphasis.
10. 1TO.po.11'A'I'j0'ou!i a'IToKpLO'ELS: cf. 24. II.
11. TOU 8 11'pnTTEl\l Tl TW\1 E~ils a\ITELXETO: 'he applied himself to the
continued prosecution of his policy'.
101. 3. Tfl 'ITEpt T uppfjvo.v 116.xn: at Trasimene, in June 217; cf.
iii. 8r. 9 ff.
4. U11'Epl0'8J.LCaa.s: cf. iv. 19. 9 n.
5. ~11'L TfJV Twv Nejlktuv 1ro.vt1yupw: in July. On the synchronism of
Greek and Roman events here see iii. 78. 6 n.
7. L'1TJJ1"1TP~: on his role in Philip's counsels at this time see W albank,
Philip, 64-65.
102. 1. iJ JlclA~aT6. 11'tuS O.d Til'> Twv oAtuv EA1rl8os E,PLETo.L: this could
only refer to Antigonus I and Demetrius I, not to any of their
successors; cf. Edson, Harv. Stud., 1934, 222 n. I.
4. KAEovLl<ov 'TOY Na.u1Tcll<T~ov: cf. 95 12, ix. 37 4 No information
can be extracted on the date of the approaching Achaean o-Vvooos,
which was probably that of autumn 217 (Aymard, ACA, 267 n. 1).
EK Tfjs alxfLaAwala> is probably causal; Cleonicus was awaiting the
628

END OF THE SOCIAL WAR

V. IDS. 4

at5vo3os- which was to decide his fate (Aymard, ibid.). A temporal

sense is possible (so Paton), but leaves it obscure why he should
have been awaiting the assembly.
6. AaO'lwva: cf. iv. 72. 7 n.; the fortress tv Tots Ilepm7To> is unidentified.
9. na.voptJ-OV: the sandy bay IS stades (zs km.) east of Cape Rhium
(Paus. vii. 22. 1o), modern Tekke. See Thuc. ii. 86, 92. 1; Polyaen.
vi. 23; Pliny, Nat. hist. iv. 13; E. Meyer, RE, 'Panormos (8)', col. 658,
and the map in his Pel. Wand.
10. 'II'AuO'a<; ; ZaJCvv9ov 8l' auTou KanO'n\O'aTo KTA.: 'he personally
settled the affairs of the island', i.e. he took it over. Hitherto
Zacynthus was independent.
103. 4. Tci. KoiAa ri\s Nav7TaJCTtas: Naupactia was the district
around the town (cf. 95 u; Aesch. Suppl. 262; Thuc. iii. 102. 2;
Paus. ix. 38. 3) and the KofAa clearly lay 20 stades to the west. See
Woodhouse, 318; Trowbridge and Oldfather, RE, 'Kaupaktos (1)',
col. 1982.
9. :A.yEAaov ToO Nav7TaJCTtov: cf. iv. 16. 10, v. 3 r; he was evidently
leader of the peace party in Aetolia (d. 107. 5; Holleaux, 162 n. 4).
His speech is likely to be based on a contemporary record. De
Sanctis (Riv. fil., 1934, 1o8-9) compares Thucydides' version of the
speech delivered by Hermocrates of Syracuse at Gela in 424 (Thuc.
iv. 59-64); but any parallelism may spring from a similarity between
the occasions, and is not a reason for regarding P .'s speech as merely
a rhetorical composition. See further Walbank, Philip, 66.
104. 1. O'UtJ-7TAEKoVTES Tci.s XE~pas: 'an image universally known'
(Tarn, Alex. ii. 68 n. 1, discussing Diod. xvii. 55 5).
3. 5-ijA.ov elval Kat vuv: 'it was clear, and that already .. .';
on the Greek apprehension cf. 33 4
7. yEv6tJ-EVOS E'cpESpos: Philip was to wait and see, leaving action
for the future (aiJv Kapo/).
10. Ta 7TpocpawotJ-EVa vEcpYJ: the fignre became famous; cf. ix.
37 10; xxxviii. 16. 3 (used of a Roman fleet off Elis and Messene);
Justin. xxix. 3 (attributed to Philip). For the metaphor of a cloud
of war see Homer, Il. xvii. 243, 7ToAlp.oo v.1.os, and other passages
quoted by Bowra (CR, 1940, 127-9); on Archil. fg. 56 see also Sandbach (CR, 194.2, 63).
105. 3. k<lTa Tov Tphov EvLavTov ri\s . 6AVtJ-1n6.So;: an approximation only (Nissen, Rh. Mus., 1871, 246); for Trasimene and Raphia
were both towards the end of June, and the Peace of Naupactus
probably in August.
4-10. Events of Greece, Italy, and Africa linked together. In trying to
connect this 'universalizing' of events with the Peace of Naupactus
629

CAMPAIGNS OF 217 IN GREECE

V.IOj .j.

P. forces the evidence, for there is no record of an appeal to Rome by

the islanders and Greeks of Asia Minor for many years. The neutral
embassies sent from Egypt, Rhodes, Chlos, Mytilene, and Byzantium
did not approach the Romans, nor is any embassy to Carthage known
from the islanders or the Greek cities in Asia opposed to Attalus.
Further, no Roman embassy crossed the Aegean until 2oo. The
earliest link between any Asiatic states (other than Pergamum) and
Rome would be the inclusion of Ilium in the Peace of Phoenice
(Livy, xxix. 12, 14); but this reference is probably to be rejected
(Philip, 103-4; Petzold, 28-29; contra Magie, ii. 744 ff.). After that
would come the appeal of Rhodes (and Pergamum) to Rome in
autumn 201 (Philip, 3II), and the appeal of Lampsacus to be included in the treaty of 197 (Syll. 591). In fact 6-8 are to be taken
in the most general terms and as covering a long period.
9. KClTa TTjV t~ apXflS (,1TflCf)(EOW: Cf. i. 3 I ff., iv. 28. 2-6 (note 4,
I

'TrOT

Kat'

'TTWS'

Ka'\

(\

ot as atTI.a.S ,

106-7. Events of 2I7Jr6 in Greece, Egypt, Syria

106. 1. aTpaTTJyov ~AOI-Levot Tli-Lo~evov: probably for the year
216/15. The words w> 68.rrov are slightly against this interpretation,
but it is even more difficult to believe that the Achaeans changed
the date of entry into the strategia now, when such a reform would
have deprived Aratus of half a year of office (so De Sanctis, iii. 1.
221; Larsen, 93, 170). In 2o8 the strategia began in autumn (xi. Io. 9).
See Aymard (ACA, 240-7), who also reaches a non liquet.
4. KClTO. ye TO~g UVWTEpov xpovous: 'in former times at least'; P.
contrasts the period between r68 and 149 when he is '\\'Titing (cf.
iii. 1-5 n.); on the contemporary prosperity of the Peloponnese see
ii. 37 IQ-ll.
KaTil TOv Eupt1riSqv: fg. 998 Nauck 2 The passage is unidentified and
the reading uncertain. Trpaalp,ox6ot (AB, Hultsch, Btittner-Wobst)
makes no sense. Many emendations have been proposed, of which
Heimsoeth's 7Tt!pwa6p,ox6ot is the most likely (accepted by LSJ
and Strachan-Davidson, who suggests that Euripides may have
written 7re.ptaa6p,ox6ot KoiftrOT' ~avxot /3op( 'excessive in labour and
never resting with the spear').
5. iJYE!-LOV~Kot Ka.l. ,P!.AeAo<u9epot: the association of the ideas of love
of liberty and love of domination over others is essentially Greek,
though paradoxical to a modern reader. Cf. ]. de Romilly, Thucydide
et l'imperialisme athlnien (Paris, 1947), 73: 'La domination n'est
apen;:ue que comme l'achevement parfait de la liberte, interieure ou
exterieure, et comme une sorte de liberte au second degre'; the
author quotes Thucydides (viii. 68. 4) on the difficulty of overthrowing the constitution of Athens ov p,&vov p.~ tm~KOOY 5V7a, rua
630

EVENTS OF217Jl6 IN GREECE, EGYPT, SYRIA

V.Io7.1

Kat a.V7-6v WV.wv apxnv lw(J6Ta; also Thuc. iii. 45 6, lAu0plas

a.Mwv dpxi)s; Herod. i. 210; ~Xen.] Ath. Pol. i. 8, ~)..w9pos lvaL Ka.l
ap)(!W. Today, in contrast, 'on s'est aper~tu que la liberte devait

comporter celle des autres.... La revolution fran~se commence

par liberer ceux que les revolutions democratiques d'Athenes, dans
l'elan d'un mouvement tout individuel et spontane, se proposaient
de mieux asservir'. Cf. Aymard, REG, 1946-7, 474
7. E&puKAt:8~ Ka.i M~Kwvl: these two brothers from Cephisia were
prominent at Athens from about 242 onwards, and it was under
their influence that Athens recovered its freedom in 230/29. The
decision to have nothing to do with the Achaean League stirred up
much hostility {Plut. Arat. 41. 3), and this P. shares. Philip was later
accused of poisoning them (Paus. ii. 9 4). On Athenian policy under
their regime see Ferguson, 205 ff., 237 ff.; their domination of the
state was reconciled with the maintenance of full democratic powers.
too, Kirchner, RE, 'Eurykleides (z)', cols. 1328-9; Modrze, RE,
'Mikion (2}', cols. 1554-5
TWV 'EAAT}VlKWV 'll'ptl~EWV ouS' O'!l'ola.s: i.e. they took no share in
the Symmachy; cf. vii. 11. 8 with Holleaux's comments (164 n. 7).
Etr; rravTa.r; Tour; ~a.alAEis KTA.: in particular Attalus of Pergamum,
who sent bronze statues to Athens to celebrate his Gallic victory
(Ferguson, ZO<)-Io; Hansen, 282--S), and built the Lacydeum in
honour of Lacydes, the head of the Academy, some time before his
retirement (Diog. Laert. iv. 6o). P. is less likely to be thinking of
Antigonus Doson, with whom the Athenians probably enjoyed the
.pt>.ta. Ka.l lfl71111J which was renewed with Philip (IG, iP. 1304 = Syll.
547). But the main patron of Athens was Ptolemy. Euergetes was
made eponymous hero of a thirteenth, new, tribe, with a Z!pVS"
llTaA!p.alov Ev!pyeTav Ka.l BpvlK'1)S; and a Ptolemiaea festival was
instituted at Athens (Ferguson, 242). Later, in the second century,
Athens was the recipient of honours from many dynasts of Asia
Minor.
8. rrav YEvOS , , IJITJ4>la~TWV Kat KTJpuyp.6.TWV: e.g. the hOnOUrS paid
to Attalus in 2oo (xvi. 25. 5-9).
ToG KB9~Kovror;: contrast F.'s judgement on Acarnania (iv. 30. 4 n.).
There is no reason to regard the present passage as a late insertion;
it has no special relevance to the situation in Greece c. 150 (as von
Scala, 329 f., argues).
107. 1-3. Philopator's war with the Egyptian rebels. On the arming
of the Egyptian p.axp.o and training of them as part of the phalanx
before Raphia see 65. I-Io n. (especially (vi) 65. 8-()}; it is not to be
assumed, with Lesquier (6-7), that Philopator armed all Egyptians
indiscriminately. A later stage in the rebellion is summarized in xiv.
12. 4 For recent discussion of the scanty evidence, which suggests
631

V.IOJ.I

EVENTS OF 217/16 IN GREECE, EGYPT, SYRIA

a widespread, unsystematic outbreak of the oppressed classes all

over Egypt, see C. Preaux, Chron. d'tgypte, 1936, 526 ff. Rostovtzeff
(SEHHW, 709-10) suggests that the war was less of a national
and religious war against a foreign government than a rejection of
the burden laid on the peasants by the expenses of the war with
Antiochus, the bonus to the army, and the gifts bestowed on the
temples. Some of the temples suffered during the rising (OGIS,
90 1. 27)4. Antiochus prepares to attack Achaeus. The crossing of Taurus is
spring 216. The earliest event mentioned in the surviving fragments
is the capture of Sardes (vii. 15-18). See Leuze, Hermes, 1923, r88-9.
5-7. Aetolian discontent. There is evidence for Aetolians seeking service as mercenaries for Achaeus at this time (vii. 16. 7, with the commentary of Holleaux, REA, 1916, 233-47 = F-tudes, iii. 125-39). In
6 TTCfvras .. Tovs eE:V..TJvas is really a reference to the members of
the Symmachy.
108-11. Activities of Philip and Prusias in zrJfr6
108. 1. Ta vEpt T.qv AEuKa8a. vAoia.: cf. IOI. I.
TTJS nEAa.yovla.s nlO'O'IDOV: the Pelagones lived about the
Erigon and upper Axius, and Pissaeum probably lay in Lyncestis;
d. Zippel, 61; Oberhummer, RE, 'Pelagones (r)', cols. 243-4.
2. TTJS Aa.uua.pT]TLOOS voAELS: Dassaretia extended west of
the great lakes at least to the neighbourhood of Berat, where Antipatreia is to be located (Leake, NG, i. 361).
Tas !l-ev !J>o~ce. Tas 8' ~va.yyEAa.Ls: a palmary emendation of ifnf3wncas
AR (or <f.ot{3dnoas C) by Unger and Schenkel. Paton translates this,
but prints Tas f-LEV tPt{3wTI.Cas, which has no clear meaning.
8. avEKTTJO'O.TO KO.TEAa~ETO: 'recovered ... captured'. Like Livy
(xxvii. 32. 9, based on P.) P. here distinguishes Dassaretia from the
area around Lake Lychnidus. The Dassaretian town Gerous is probably the Gerunium taken by L. Apust:ius in late autumn 2oo (Livy,
xxxi. 27. 2); Livy there mentions an Orgessus, whence Bekker corrected opyuaaov (AR) or 6pyuaov (C) in this passage. Both evidently
lay near the Apsus, north of Berat. The location of the other towns
near Lake Lychnidus, and of the Caloecini, is not known.
9. Synchronism. For Hannibal's winter quarters 217/16 see iii. 1oo.
x ff.; for the election for 216, iii. 106. 1.
109. Philip's naval plans. It seems likely that Philip planned first
to attack the Illyrian coast, and later to cross over into Italy (Philip,
69). Badian (BSA, 1952, 89) has argued, however, that he may merely
have intended a naval attack on Scerdila'idas, and that his intentions
were later reinterpreted in the light of his attack on Apollonia in 214
632

ACTIVITIES OF PHILIP AND PRUSIAS

I~

217/16

V.

III.

10

(Philip, 75-76); this is possible but not susceptible of proof. Where

Philip built his lembi is not mentioned; his later shipyard (Livy,
xxviii. 8. 14) was Cassandreia.
5. -rov -rwv 'Pw!J-a.wv a-r6Aov: probably Otacilius' seventy-five ships
mentioned by Livy (xxii. 37 13); Servilius' squadron had already
returned to Rome (iii. 106. 7 n.). See Thiel, 57-58 (against Holleaux,
163 n. 4).

110. 2. vilo-ov, 11 Ka.Aei-ra.L . I:ao-wv: the island of Sasona at the

entrance to the bay of Valona. On the 'Iovws 7ropos see ii. 14. 4 n.
The 7ropBp.6s is the Sicilian Straits.
10. n)v 1repi Kavva.v JJ.ax11v: 'the situation connected with the battle
of Cannae'; the phrase furnishes no evidence on the date of the
battle (cf. iii. ro7-17 n. (b)).
111. 2. olls 5LE~~a.o-ev . :a.-r-ra.Aos: cf. 77 2 n., and for their settlement on the Hellespont, 78. 5
1TOALopKe'Lv -rous 'IALeis em~a.Ao~J-~vwv: Strabo (xiii. 593) records that
Ilium had had a city-wal14o stades long since Lysimachus (cf. Livy,
xxxvii. 37 2). Excavations have revealed such an early Hellenistic
wall, though somewhat short of 40 stades in length; cf. C. W. Blegen,
A] A, 1935, 26, 564; 1937, 594; Magie, ii. 923. Despite the contradictory statements in Strabo (xiii. 594) from other authors, that
Ilium was aTelxtUTOS in 278 (Hegesianax)' and a mere KWf:l-07/'0Ats in
190 (Demetrius of Scepsis), it is therefore unnecessary to follow
Grote, and Leaf (Troad, 142 f.), in so interpreting or emending the
text as to make it refer to Alexandria Troas.
5. :4.po-~a.v: Arisbe lay on the R. Selleis in the Troad (cf. Homer,
Il. ii. 836, vi. 13, xxi. 43; Virg. A en. ix. 264; Lucan, iii. 204). It was
a Milesian (Strabo, xiv. 635) or Mytilenaean (Steph. Byz.) colony.
Alexander's army encamped here after crossing the Hellespont
(Arrian, Anab. i. 12. 6). See Hirschfeld, RE, 'Arisbe (1)', col. 847.
8. ev -rois 1rpo -rou-rwv Se5t1A.w-ra.L: cf. iii. n8. 2 ff. for defections to
Carthage after Cannae.
10. -rils [iv -ra.u-rn -rfi ~u~A.'!l] 1TpoKa.-ra.o-Keuils: the bracketed words
are probably a gloss suggested by the previous iv rfj p.lmi TaiiTa
{3vfJA.ctJ. But the TTpo~<"aTaaKw~ elsewhere means the events down to
220, as dealt with in i and ii (cf. i. 3 ron.), whereas here, by exception, it would include those down to 216, for a recapitulation merely
of the events to 220 would be inappropriate at the outset of book vi.
Hence De Sanctis's plausible suggestion (iii. r. 217) that the gloss
conceals a lacuna, which he would fill: {3paxla TTpoaavap.~aavns Tfjs
(TE-better T'-~v TavTats Tais f3v{3Aots TTpayp.aTelas Ka~ Tfjs) TTpoKaTaO'Kwi]s. Laqueur's view (9, 224-5) that the phrase once ended book iii,
633

V.nr.to

ACTIVITIES OF PHILIP AND PRUSIAS IN 217Jl6

before P. had included iv and v in his History, is adequately refuted

by De Sanctis (iii. I. 217), who observes that, were this true, iv
TaVT'[J Tfj fl!JfJ>.I.f:l would refer to book iii, and not to i andii, asLaqueur's
argument demands. For two other false cross-references, which are
probably to be explained differently, see iii. 10. 1, 28. 4
Ka.TA T~v ev d:.pxa.'Ls u1r6axEaw: cf. i. 64. 2, iii. 2. 6, n8. n-12.

BOOK VI
Though is has survived only in fragmentary form, the generalshapeof
book vi is assured by the order of the fragments in the Codex Urbinas
(F). These, Nissen showed (Rh. Mus., r87r, 253 f.; cf. Buttner-Wobst,
ii. lxii-lxvi), follow the order of the original closely in i-v (the
one exception is in v, where fol. 54r gives 79 3-86. 7 and fol. 59"
75 2-6), and may therefore be presumed to do so in later books.
Nor does any substantial part of the book appear to have been lost
outright (cf. Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (x)', col. 1493 n. r). After an
introduction (2), omitted by F, the book opens with some general
remarks on the nature of constitutions, with special reference to the
Roman, designed to lead up to a discussion of the mixed constitution
and the early history of Rome ('l 3 n.). P. distinguishes three types
of constitution (3. 5), but adds the mixed type, as found in Lycurgan
Sparta (3. 6-8), and the three associated corruptions (3. 9-4 6). He
then outlines a process by which the three constitutional forms and
their three corruptions, preceded by a seventh type, primitive
monarchy, follow each other in a cyclical succession KaTO. cfot}(JLJI
(4. n); the order followed is monarchy, kingship, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and ochlocracy, and the process, outlined in 4 7-13, is developed at length in S I---(). 9 P. follows it with
the statements (a) that by observing where a state is situated in
this cycle one can predict its future (g. ro-n), (b) that this method
will especially facilitate understanding of the development of Rome
(g. 12-14). How P. in fact applies this anacyclosis (g. ro) to Rome
is discussed below (4. 7""""9 14 n.), where it is related further to the
'biological concept' that all things, including states, follow an organic pattern of beginning, growth, acme, and decline (d. 9 12-14,
51. 4-8, 57). After outlining the anacyclosis P. returns to Lycurgus,
who devised his mixed constitution to avoid the several corruptions
implicit in the single constitutional forms-of kingship into monarchy (ro. 4 n.), of aristocracy into oligarchy, and of democracy into
ochlocracy; and what Lycurgus achieved by reason, the Romans
have achieved by choosing the better course in a series of crises and
struggles, in the light of experience gained in disaster (ro). This
formulation leads naturally to a survey of early Roman history,
carried by P. down to the time of the Decemvirate (u. In.), and
regarded as the process by which Rome attained to the mixed constitution (nan.); and this survey is followed by an analysis of the
system of checks and balances operating within this mixed constitution, when at its prime (u~r8). Whether P. here included a detailed
description of the constitution, now lost (so Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios
635

VI.

INTRODUCTIO"N

(I)', col. I493 n. I), is uncertain; the reference in iii. 87.9 (=vi. I8. 9)
to a fuller discussion of a constitutional point elsewhere perhaps
points in this direction (d. too n an. at the end). There will, in any
case, have been a transitional passage to the detailed account of the
Roman military system (I9-42), which is included as clearly relevant
to the extension of Roman power, and of special interest to P.
personally. For a full appreciation of the merits of the Roman constitution P. felt it necessary to adopt the traditional device of the
mJyKpLaLs (d. Focke, Hermes, I923, 348 ff.), and to compare it with
certain other well-regarded constitutions, and in particular that of
Carthage (since the Hannibalic War offers the occasion for this
digression); this comparison is made in 43-56. Finally, in 57, P.
hazards some observations on the probable future development of
the Roman constitution, and rounds off the book (58) with an anecdote which serves as a transition back to the historical narrative of vii.
In CQ, I943 73-89 it was argued that those parts of vi which imply
the decay of Rome, and outline the scheme of the anacyclosis, belong
to a later strand, which was composed after the events of ISO-I46,
in response to the impact of political developments. This view is
superseded in a more recent study, written in conjunction with C. 0.
Brink (CQ, 1954, 97-122). There is no evidence that any part of vi
was composed substantially later than the book as a whole; and
there is nothing in it which points to a date later than ISO for its
composition. Indeed, its publication along with i-v about that date
remains the most likely hypothesis (d. iii. I-5 n.). Such problems
as book vi still offers on the 'unitary' hypothesis are considered in
the notes which follow. In recent works on book vi the unitary view
has been reasserted by E. Mioni, Polibio (Padua, I949), 49-78; H.
Ryffel, Meraf3o>..~ 1ToALTEt.Wv (Bern, I949), especially I8o-228; H. Erbse,
Rh. Mus., I95I, I57-79 For other recent discussion see G. B. Cardona,
Polibio, Storie, vol. ii (Naples, I949), introduction, i-xliii, who accepts
De Sanctis's 'separatist' position; K. Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (I)',
cols. I489-15oo, who believes in two strands of composition but a
single publication before ISO; and W. Theiler, Hermes, I953 296-302,
who argues for three layers of composition. Earlier bibliography in
Walbank, CQ, 1943, 73-89; Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 97-I22;
and Ziegler, op. cit., cols. I489---90.

1. The nine 'fragmenta' given by Buttner-Wobst e prooemio libri are

no more than testimonia, and are correctly so given by Hultsch;
Buttner-\Vobst here follows the precedent of Schweighaeuser. Apart
from the dubious instance of iii. 87. 9, there is a further reference back
to viatxviii. 28. 1, whichButtner-Wobstomitsfromhislist. Ch. 2 gives
genuine extracts from the introduction to the book, in which P. outlines his reasons for discussing the Roman constitution at this point.
636

INTRODUCTION

VI. 3

2. 1. nljltJ.AVO~ , , 8LT)y'r)at:<US: 'interrupting the COntinUOUS thread

of the narrative'.
2. KaL TouTo To J.AE.pos: i.e. as well as the narrative sections.
3. tv Tfi KaTa~oAfi KaL 'R"pOEK8t<rEL Tf\S UYTOptas: 'at the beginning
and in the introduction to my history', viz. in i. 1. 5 For the meaning
of 1rpob:.8eat;;, 'preliminary survey', see iii. 1. 5 n. Thommen (Hermes,
I885, 2o6) thinks that KaTaf3oA.f; signifies books i and ii, and 1rpoiKBwts
the introduction to book i, with an oblique reference to iii. I. 4, I. 8;
but this seems hypercritical.
Kd.AAL<rTov t.llj!EALJ.Ii!JTaTov: for this conjunction see i. 4 4 n. and
the examples there quoted.
4. ds E'fT(aTaaw t<al 8oKq.r.aa(av: 'for directing attention to what
I am about to say, and putting it to the test'.
5. outc ~~: Tijs ci-trepL<rTclTou p~aTi!JVT)S! cf. 44 8; 'not from periods of
unclouded tranquillity'; a poor analogy, for this description would
hardly fit any period between 216 and 168.
6. <iv8pos TEA(ou ~&.aavov: had P. his own catastrophe of r68/7 in
mind? So Leo, 317 n. 1.
7. Twv Ka9' t1J.AiiS auJ.I~<l<TT)s: 'no greater .. change in our time
than this which happened to the Romans'. The reading is insecure,
rfis ye 'Pwp.alots avp.f3daYJs being Heyse's suggestion for the MS. Tots
TE 'Pwp.alots avp.{Jdarts (Mai had already proposed ye forTE). But some
reference to the period of Cannae (cf. 5-6) seems needed, and
perhaps we should read rfis T6Te 'Pwp.alots avp.{JaaTJS (Poschl, 58 n. 32,
anticipated by Kampe (Phil., 1847, 345)).
8-10. This fragment links the study of causes with the analysis of
the constitution, which is the main factor making for success or
failure in politics. For this T61ros see Thuc. ii. 36. 4, p.e8' o(as 1roAtTelas
Kal. Tplmw)J Jg o(w)J p.eya.Aa Jyi)JETo; Herod. iii. 82. 5 (Persian monarchy),
v. 66. I, 78 (Athenian l<rrJyopl1f). Schmid (Lit. iii. 88) suggests that it
may derive from the epitaphios; see further Ryffel, 5, 84. P. here
uses the word alTla of the constitution, because it is this which
shapes and determines in advance the decisions which those living
under it come to (cf. iii. 6. 3 n.). The phrase TOV {3EATtovos e)J b\aaTOtS
aipatS anticipates IO. 14, _~ a.VrfjS a(l rfjs f.)J TaLS 1Tpt1TTI([atS e1Tt~
yvd.ia(ws a.lpovp.evot Tb {Jl"ATw)J (of the method by which the Romans
attain their mixed constitution).
8. +uxaywyouv 1<<1L TT)v wljltAE~<lV hrfljlt:pov: cf. 3 i. 4 II.
lL TO yap 0.8UvaTov cl!J.apTavouaw: the precise context of this
remark, which is in the margin of the Codex Urbinas, fol. 6Ir, is lost;
bnt there is a similar observation in xii. 21. 9
3-10. On various forms of states. For the analysis of these chapters
see above, introductory remarks to book vi.
3. 1. The rise and fall of Greek states: see Plato, Laws, iii. 676 B~,
637

VI. 3

THE THREE SIMPLE CONSTITUTIONS

Mwv ovv ov f.Lvp{a, p.iv i7Tl p.vp{a,s ~f.Ltv Y"r6vaut 7TOAtS KaT<1 'Tov
athov o 'TOV 7TA1]8ovs- .\6yov OVK iAaTTOVS' l.cf>8apf.Livat; 7T7TOA,TWf.Llvm
o' atl 7Tauas- 1TOAt'TE{as 7TOAAtllltS' JKacrraxoiJ; Kal 'TO'TE f.Lv
eAaTTovwv
f.LE{,ovs, TOT~ 8' fK f.LH,OVWV tAaTTOUS', Kal xe{pov<; fK {3EAnovwv yeyovaut
Kat {3EArlovs- iK XHpovwv;

es

'~'lis c;:ts Tciva.V'I'la. llE:Ta.j)oXi}s: P. employs this expression (cf. 9 14,

44 2) for the change following the acme of a state's development;
' ts are TJ, ,evavna
' fLE'Tapall'l]
P''(43 3)
' TOVp.7Ta..,w
" > f.LETapOII'IJ
P''
vanan
, 'I]':ts
(9 12, cf. vii. II. 1), ~ e1rl TO xeipov p.ETa{3o,\~ (xviii. 33 6), or simply
p.em{jo.\1] (4. II, 43 2, 57 r). Cf. Ryffel, 210, who points out that this
forms part of a biological conception of the state ; and indeed in
vii. II. I and xviii. 33 6 the expression is applied to a living person,
Philip V of Macedon.
3. Difficulty of understanding the sitttation at Rome. P. makes two
points: the present is hard to understand Std. T~v 1Tati{IAtav T?]s
1TaAtTda>, the future hard to foretell owing to ignorance concerning
the past (for clearly P. regards the work of previous writers on the
subject (i. 64. 3-4) as negligible). This passage has the character of
a programme. The 7TatKtAla, with its implied stability compared with
the ups and downs of the Greek states {3. r), is a reference to the
Roman mixed constitution, the subject of u-r8; but ignorance of
the past of Rome, with its contrast to the easily available information concerning the Greek states (3. 2) will be remedied in the
archaeologia (fragments in n a). The idea of foretelling the future
conforms to P.'s usual didactic purpose (cf. xii. 25 b 3), and implies
that the Roman constitution can be expected to change (57 4).
De Sanctis (iii. r. :zo8) has argued that this reference to prognostication stamps the present passage as a late addition; but quite apart
from its character as a programme (which suggests that it is part of
the original plan), the idea of prognostication is fundamental in
book vi; cf. 4 n-12, 4 13, 9 to-14, ro, 6, I c. 12, 57 4; see Brink and
Walbank (CQ, I954. I08-Io), who show the impossibility of separating
these passages without doing violence to P.'s fundamental objects
in writing his history. In fact the present passage is only one of
several in which prognostication is firmly intermingled with other
primary elements of book vi.
5. The three simple constitutions. Who are the 7TAdcrrot, who distinguish not more than three constitutions? Hardly Plato, who in
Politicus 291 D, 302 c, mentions the three forms, but immediately
adds their corruptions (though in Rep. i. 338 D only three forms,
tyranny, democracy, and aristocracy, are mentioned, five types of
state are assumed in Rep. iv. 445 C-D, viii. 543 D, ix. 58o B). Herodotus (iii. 8c ff.), in his supposed discussion at the Persian court,
is clearly acquainted with the three-constitution theory (cf. Herod.
iii. 82. I), but seems also to know of the corruptions (4. 6 n.). Ryffel

6J8

THE MIXED CONSTITUTION

VI. 3 7

(65-66) suggests that Herodotus may owe his theory of three constitutions, each best after its own fashion, to his fellow Thurian,
Protagoras (cf. too von Scala, 1o5). Certainly all theorizing involving
three constitutions must be later than the formulation of the distinction between democracy and aristocracy, and this is well after
the time of Cleisthenes {cf. J. A. 0. Larsen, Sabine Essays, 1-16;
CP, 1954, 1-.2; V. Ehrenberg, Historia, i, 195o, 515-48). Indeed the
origin of the doctrine would appear to be sophistic ; and it is signifi
cant that the tripartite division recalls Hippodamus of Miletus,
whose threefold division of things impressed Aristotle (d. Newman,
i. 381); he may have had it from Ion of Chios (d. Isoc. Antid. z68;
Harpocration, s.v. "Iwv) or Pythagorean circles (d. Arist. Cael. i. I.
z68 a ro). We do not, however, know that Hippodamus wrote of
three constitutions, though he divided his ideal state among three
classes. Among later exponents of the three-constitution theory von
Scala (1o5) quotes !socrates (Panath. ng, 132) and Aeschines (Tlm.
4; Ctes. 6); see further Valeton, 36. However, it does not follow that
P.'s 1TAetOTot include any of these names. He may well be thinking
of the many second-rate and popular writers on this topic, who lived
nearer his own time, and can now no longer be identified. It may be
noted here that in the theoretical discussion of this book P. maintains the traditional tripartite distinction between kingship, aristocracy, and democracy; whereas in other parts of his work (cf. iv.
31. 4 n.; Larsen, CP, 1945, 88 ff.) he is inclined to recognize only
monarchic and 'democratic' (i.e. 'free') states, a division which more
accurately reflects the real conditions of the Hellenistic world.
6. til., J:lDVO.'i 'IJ til., &.po-ra.'i: the query is answered chiastically.
These three are not the best, for that is the mixed constitution
(3. 7--8), nor are they the only forms, for (besides the mixed constitution) each has its appropriate corrupt form (3. g-4. 5). The close
character of this argument rules out the view of Kornemann (Phil.,
1931, r78) and Mesk (Phil. Woch., 1931, 7-8), that there is a break
in the structure at 3 9
7. Ti)v tK 1TUVTwv O'UVECJTWO'a.v: the idea of the mixed constitution,
like that of the three constitutions, goes back to the fifth century.
The earliest reference is Thuc. viii. 97. z, where Theramenes' constitution is praised as iJ-rrpla Js 'TOVS' &Alyovs Kd 'TOVS' 1ToAAovs
[vyKpacrts. Aristotle's description of the constitution of Hippodamus
of Miletus (Pol. ii. 8. 1267 b 22 ff.) may be interpreted as an effort
'though perhaps a crude one' in the direction of a mikte (Newman,
i. 384; see also, on Hippodamus, Ryffel, 26-27); and Aristotle records
(Pol. ii. 12. 1273 b 35 ff.) that lvw' interpreted Solon's constitution
as 'mixed', the Areopagus representing the oligarchic, the elected
officers the aristocratic, and the popular law courts the democratic
element. These people are almost certainly the conservatives of the
639

VI. 3 7

THE MIXED CONSTITUTION

early fourth century, who wished to modify the extreme democracy

(cf. Larsen, Sabine Essays, 13; Barker, The Politics of Aristotle
(Oxford, 1946), 88 n. 1); and Aristotle himself believes that Solon
merely added the law-courts to the other two elements. The first
theoretical defence of the mixed constitution had already appeared
in Plato's account of Sparta (Laws, iv. 712 D-E; cf. iii. 692 A, 693 D).
and Aristotle (Pol. ii. 6. 1265 b 33 f.) recalls this: lvw p.i!v ovv Myouow
ws Sd rryv d.plaT1JII 7To>-.tndav ;_g d7T:wwv Elva TWV 7To>-.nwuv f'EP.'YfLlV1JV,
D0 Kat T~V TWV AaK(.DCI.LjLOVUuV i!7TawoiJow (cf. Pol. vi (iv). 9 1294 a 30).
His own 'polity' (Pol. vi (iv). 8. 1293 b 33 ff.) is described as a mixture
of oligarchy and democracy; but it represents 'rather a combination
of social elements-virtue, wealth, free birth-than a combination of
constitutions' (Newman, i. 264-5; cf. Barker, op. cit. r8o n. 4). It
is possible that the background to this theorizing in both Plato
and Aristotle is to be sought in Pythagorean circles. Recently A.
Delatte (Constitution, 19 ff.) has directed attention to the doctrines
of Archytas of Tarentum who (if the fragments in Stobaeus (iv.
I. 132, 135-S, iv. 5 6r
\V.-H., iv. 79, 82, 218) are genuine) also wrote
on a mixed constitution, such as at Sparta, as the best practical
state; he regarded the Spartan kings as monarchic, the council as
aristocratic, the ephors as oligarchic, and the army as democratic
(Stob. iv. I. r38), and used the figure of the balance whicb P. employs
in ro. 7 ff. Minar (nr-13; cf. Delatte, Essai, ro9-ro) has argued that
this theory is reflected in the 'compromise' government set up by
Archytas at Tarentum c. 367. Thus he and other Pythagoreans may
have contributed to the theory as it was known to Plato and Aristotle.
The latter, one should note, regarded the setting up of a mixed constitution in practice as rare (cf. Pol. vi (iv). u. rz96 a 36 ff., where the
identity of the 'one man ... who allowed himself to be persuaded' to
set up such a government is still debated; see Barker, op. cit., 184 n.).
After Aristotle the mikte attained great favour in political
theorizing. Dicaearchus of Messana wrote a work TpL7To>-.~nd!i' (cf.
Cic. Att. xiii. 32. :z; Athen. iv. I4I A), which perhaps described the
ElDo!i' TToA,T{as LlKatapxua)v (Phot. Bibl. cod. 37 69 c; cf. Solmsen,
Phil., 1933, 338 ff.; Egermann, 5.-B. Wien, 1932, 55 ff.; but Wilamowitz (Hellen. Dicht. i. 64 n. r) read O~Kata.pXLKov, ubi regnat iustitia;
see, too, Poschl, zz n. 22); Wehrli (Dicaearchtts, 64 ff.) has recently
suggested its identity with a E7TC1pnaTwv 7To>-.tTEta. Since F. Osann
( Beitrlige zur griechischen und romischen Literaturgeschichte, ii (Leip
zig, 1839), 23 ff.) it has been widely held that Dicaearchus was P.'s
source for the mikte. Certainly P. was acquainted with Dicaearchusthough the references are to questions of geography (xxxiv. s-6;
cf. 9 4). On the other hand, Dicaearchus' work has not survived, and
many others besides him propounded the theory of the mikte. Thus
Stobaeus (ii. 7 26
W.-H., ii. rso) records a passage from Areius
640

THE MIXED COi'ISTITUTlON

VI. 3 8

Didymus,. Augustus' teacher, which reads: f3acn/..dav p.iv oJv Kal

dp~a-roKpa-r/.av 1cal D7Jp.aKpa-rl.av <f>l~a8at Toil dpBoO -rvpa.wloa OE Kai
OA~ya.pxlav Kai OXAOKpa.-rav 'TOU <f>a.uAou. y{vmBat O( 'Ttll!l Kat p.t~V f.11:
Twv JpOwv 7Tolt.tniav d.pta-r7Jv. fLTa{3J.Ait.E:tv 8t TdS 1r0Atn:lo.s rrolt.AaK~s
7Tpos TO ap.LI!OV Kal TO X*'tpov. Unfortunately the source of this passage,
with its significant use of the words Jx'AoKpa.Tla and p.t=~, both also

in P., is unknown. Some have attributed it to Theophrastus, but

without clear evidence. One can only say with certainty that it is
Peripatetic. However, the same doctrine is found among the Stoics;
cf. Diog. Laert. vii. IJI, 7TOAm:lav S' d.plaT7Jv TTJV p.tKT~v lK -re OTfp.oKpaTta> Kai f3arnAdas KoJ d.p~aToKpaTlos. \Vhether this goes back to
Panaetius (so Pohlenz, Die Stoa, ii (Gottingen, 1949), roz), or, as is
more probable, to Chrysippus (von Arnim, SVF, iii, fg. 7oo). is not
certain. Erbse (Rh. Mus., r9sr, r6r), following Pohlenz's attribution,
suggests that Panaetius 'durch P. angeregt wurde'. This is possible;
Panaetius may well have been impressed by P.'s application of the
theory to Rome. But he did not need the historian's help to introduce
him to a theory which by his time was \videly known and accepted;
and we know that he was well acquainted with the various schools (cf.
Cic.jin. iv. 79, ' ... Panaetius ... semper ... habuit in ore Platonem,
Aristotelem. Xenocraten, Theophrastum, Dicaearchum, ut ipsius
scripta declarant'). Indeed the mikte was adopted by P.'s time in most
ofthe philosophical schools (cf. Mioni, 73), and outside them too; thus
Cato applied it to Carthage (Serv. ad Aen. iv. 682), and he too may
have influenced P. (d. Schmekel. PhilosophiedermittlerenStoa (Berlin.
1892), 84; Kienast, uo-r6; and other authorities quoted in CQ, 1943,
85 n. 3). It therefore seems safer to treat the question of P.'s sources
for the mikte, both immediate and ultimate, as still open.
8. Autwupyou auaT..]crctvTOS 'ITDMTEU)la.: cf. iv. 8r. 12. For the
Lycurgan constitution as prototype of the mikte-~a view which
probably arose in philolaconian circles at Athens in the early fourth
century (cf. Ryffel, 123 n. z8s)~see Aristotle, Pol. ii. 6. 1265 b 33 ff.
(quoted in the last note), a passage recording two views: one,
that Sparta was a mixture of monarchy (kings), oligarchy (council),
and democracy (ephors), the other, that the ephorate represented
tyranny, and the common meals and way of life democracy. Plato's
views are not dissimilar. In Laws, iii. 691 c-693 1-: (cf. vi. 733 c-D;
Ep. viii. 354 B) he approves the Spartan mixture of the strong wine
of royalty with the sobriety of the senate and democratic principle
of the ephorate; and elsewhere (Laws, iv. 712 D) the Spartan Megillus
hesitates whether to term Sparta a tyranny on account of the
ephorate, or a democracy, or an aristocracy, or a kingship. lf\Vehrli
is right (see the last note) Dicaearchus may have dealt with Sparta.
in the TpmoAmKos; and Archytas' views on Sparta have also been
mentioned above. See further 10. 6-7 nn.
Tt

THE THREE CORRUPT CONSTITUTIONS

VI. 3 9

9. f.Lovapxucas Kal TupawLKas: clearly P. is thinking of the corruption

of kingship; and since F.'s usual word for 'tyranny' is J-Lovapxla (cf.
CQ, I943, 76 ff.}, the doublet may be without significance. On the
other hand, in his exposition of the anacyclosis in the passage 4 79 9 a distinction is made between J-Lovapxla, primitive monarchy, and
'Tvpawl>, the corruption of kingship, and the words Kai 'TvpawtKas
may have been added here to bring the terminology into line with
that of this passage (which probably reflects that of his source).
10. T~ Tfjs ~aaLAe(as ovoj.LaTL: e.g. Nabis who, though recognized
as king both at Sparta (inscriptions and coins: P. Wolters, AM,
I897, I39-47; IG, v. 1. 885; Head, 435) and abroad (Syll. 584; Livy,
xxxiv. 31. 13), was regarded by many, including P., as a tyrant
(Livy, ibid.; P. xiii. 6. I, etc.). P. likewise treats Cleomenes as a
tyrant (ii. 47 3). See further Aymard, PR, 33-34 n. 12.

4. 2. !J-OYT)\1 TTJY , KU~EpYWj.LEYT)Y: a traditional distinction; cf.

Xen. Mem. iv. 6. I2 (of Socrates), 'T~v J-Llv yd.p ~KoV'Twv n 'Twv dv8pw1Twv Kai Ka'Td. VOJ-LOV> 'TWV 1TOAEWV dpx~v {3aat/\Ef.av ~yEf'To, 'T~V 3 aKOV'TWV
'T Kai J-L~ Ka'Td. VOJ-LOV>, dM' 01TW> 0 apxwv {3ovAOt'TO, 'TVpawtoa. It appears
in Plato (Polit. 291 E) and in Aristotle (Pol. iii. I4. 1285 a 24-29).
For government by yvwJ-LYJ as the mark of the basileus see Herod.
iii. 82. 2. See further Taeger, 30; Ryffel, 186 n. 347
3. KaT' EKAoyi]v avSpwv: also a traditional distinction; cf.
Herod. iii. 8I. 3 dvopwv 'TWV apla-rwv mMtav'TE> OJ-LtAlT)V 'TOz!'TOWt
1TEpt8'wJ-LEV 'To Kpd'To>; see Plato, Rep. iii. 4I4 A, for the KAoy~ 'Twv
apx6V'TWII 'T Kai ,PvMxwv; Arist. Pol. ii. II. 1273 a 2I ff., where the
choice of officers at Carthage 1rAwrtvoYJv (as well as dpw'TtvoYJv) is a

deviation from aristocracy in the direction of oligarchy. See too

10. 9, 'Twv yEpOV'TWII ot Ka'T' KAoy~v d.ptU'TtVOYJV KEKptJ-Livot.
4. E\1 miv 1TArj9os 1Tp09T)TaL: ct. Plato, Rep. viii. 557 B, for the
state with tova[a v a!nfj 1TatEiv
n> {3o6Aerat. In such conditions

on

the traditional virtues enumerated in 4 5 are all overthrown; cf.

Rep. viii. s6o c, 562 E, Laws, iii. 701 B; Ryffel, I86 n. 347
6. Ta TOUTOLS aui-L~ufj: for the concept of a natural inborn corruption
see Io. 3 n. Applied to the three constitutional forms (3. 5 n.) it
naturally led to the formulation of the three corruptions proper to
them, with the mikte as an attempt to avoid these. These corruptions
are to be found in Plato (Politicus, 302 B ff.) and Aristotle (Pol.
iii. 7 1279 a 22 ff.; Eth. Nic. viii. 10. u6o a 3I ff.); for later examples
see Plut. Mor. 826 E ff., Ps.-Plut. uit. poes. Hom. 182 f.; cf. Theiler,
Hermes, I953, 3oo. But, as Ryffel (65 n. I96} points out, the sixconstitution theory seems to be already implicit in Herodotus (iii.
82.

I,

'Tptwv 1TpOKEtJ-LEVWV Kai 1TiLV'TWV 'Tcfl Aoyc;u aplarwv ov'Twv);

hence it would seem to spring from the same sophistic milieu as that
of the three simple forms.
642

THE ANACYCLOSIS

VL4 7

4. 7-9. 14. (a) The Anacyclosis. In this section P. outlines a schematic

sequence of political development, by which the various constitutional
forms follow each other in a cyclical succession through a process
which P. analyses in detail from 5 4 onwards. The theory of this is
specifically not claimed as original (5. I ff.). Recently Ryffel (189 ff.)
has traced two separate traditions culminating in P.'s anacycloss, (a)
a theory about the origins of culture which goes back to the sophists
and especially to Protagoras, (b) a theory about the causes of corruption in states, which are in general the same for each successive
constitutional form (see 7--9 nn.). The details of Ryffel's analysis
are given in the separate notes. The concept of metabole in states is
old; its germs exist in Solon's theory that anamia leads to tyranny,
and it was to counteract such a metabole that the idea of a mixed
constitution first arose. But the first man to set out an 'order of
states' was Plato. In the Republic (viii. 544 c) the 'best form' (aristo~
cracy or basileia, iv. 445 D) is followed by the Cretan or Laconian state
(= timocracy), oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny, with the implication that they develop one into another; cf. Rep. v. 449 A, lyw
fL~v a Tas irj>E{fjs lpwv, ws fLO' alvovro ;Kaa"Tat lt dX\~.\wv fLIETafJalwow. In the course of a long critique of this passage (Pol. vii (v). u.
1316 a Iff.) Aristotle complains that Plato has failed to explain how

the changes come about, and that he has asserted one path of
development, whereas in reality almost any change of any constitution into any other is possible (a criticism equally applicable to
Aristotle's own succession of constitutions, basileia-aristocracy
(politeia)--oligarchy-tyranny-democracy, in Pol. iii. rs. u86 b 8 ff.;
cf. Barker, op. cit., 143 n. 2). But in addition Aristotle points to
the absence of any indication of what happens after tyranny,
observing (as a redu-ctio ad absurdum) that the logic of Plato's
argument would require tyranny to change back into the first, ideal
constitution; OV'TW yap av ylyvero 01JVX<f> Kat KVKM>. Plato does not
in fact close the circle, either here or in his further development of
the theory of constitutional change in Laws, iii. 677 A ff., iv. 709 A ff.;
Ep. vii. 326 B ff.; and Polit. 291 D, E (for though in Laws, iv. 710 D the
development of the best state from t:yTanny is envisaged, the order
of thought is somewhat different) ; but clearly his theories come very
close to this step. Similarly, the discussion of constitutional forms by
Aristotle in Eth. Nic. viii. u6o b 10 ff. (basileia-tyranny; aristocracy-oligarchy; timocracy--democracy), though also not yet a
'cycle', comes close to one. It has been suggested that this passage
in the Ethics may have been a close forerunner of the Polybian
anacyclosis (cf. Ryffel, q2-3; and already Shute apud Newman, ii,
introduction xiv); but it is doubtful whether (despite iii. 4 u) P. was
acquainted with the Ethics, and any influence is likely to be indirectIt is indeed only with the combination of the two theories of cultural
643

VI. 4 7

THE ANACYCLOSIS

ascent and constitutional corruption that the full circle is possible:

and this is found in no surviving work before P. In the form in which
he presents it, the cycle has so many traditional elements that the
immediate source is probably past recovery.
As to this many suggestions have been made. It has been \\>i.dely
assumed that P. followed Panaetius of Rhodes (for references see
CQ, 1943, 85); and the two men are known to have been fellow-members of the Scipionic circle (Cic. de re pub. L 34; Vell. Pat. i. 13. 3;
Plut. Mor. 814 C-D; Suidas, s.v. JloM{JUJs). There are, however,
chronological difficulties; it is not known whether Panaetius had
come to Rome before P. returned to Greece (cf. Brink and Walbank,
CQ, 1954, 103 n. 3). Furthennore, it is an equally arguable hypothesis
that if there was any influence it was in the other direction, with the
experienced statesman inspiring the young philosopher (cf. Reitzenstein, Gott. Nachr., 1917, 4o6 ff.; Pohlenz, RE, 'Panaitios (5)', col.
423). P.'s account of the anacyclosis reveals traces of Stoic terminology (see notes), but this would not be very conclusive at a period of
considerable eclectidsm; 1 and in one important particular, the
origin of social life, P. adopts a different explanation from the
Stoics (5. 7 n.).
Another possible milieu with which the anacyclosis may have links
is that represented by the second-century works of Hippodamus and
'Ocellus Lucanus' (cf. Ryffel, 203 ff.; von Scala, 237 ff.). 'Ocellus
Lucanus' was the author of a schematizing work in which the principles of yev11ats, aKfLrl and nAEvn) were developed on various levels to
comprise a picture of the universe. The background of this work is
disputed. R. Harder (Neue philolog. Untersuchungen, i (Berlin, 1926),
Ocellus Lucanus, Text und Kommentar, 30) regards it 'als popularphilosophischen hellenistischen Traktat'. But W. Theiler (Gnomon,
1925, 151; 1926, 151-3, 590 ff.; Hermes, 1953, 3oo) argues that 'Ocellus'
represents a 'ziemlich geschlossenes System'; and he would link the
biological cycle in 'Ocellus' with the circle of Critolaus, in view of
parallels between 'Ocellus' (14-16) and Philo (aet. mund. 1o8-r2, cf.
57 ft.-ultimately from Critolaus). This connexion was already noted
by von Scala (243), but Theiler has reinforced it lith new passages.
Now, according to 'Ocellus', things 'at the highest level' move Ka-rd.
T61Tov only; everything else is subjected to the biological law of y!'vwts,
ax:fL-r/, and TAWT~. Thus at the second level the four elements move
Ka'Td fLETa{Jo.\r]v in a Heracleitean flux, described as dYTtn'epicnacns;
at the third level plants move in a cycle of seed, fruit, seed, called
JTTavaKafLiflts; and at the fourth level men and other living creatures
1 Mioni (62) draws attention to the presence in Rome in 155 of Diogenes of
Seleuceia, Panaetius' teacher and author of a work of a political character
(Ath. xii. 526 D j Cic. de leg. iii. 13) P. certainly heard him lecture (xxxiii. 2. Io);
but he did not need to wait until then to become acquainted with Stoic doctrines.

ANACYCLOSIS AND BIOLOGICAL THEOitY

VI47

pass through a succession of ages. Each of these levels thus reveals

a special application of the primary biological law in a form appropriate to its context. The theory of the anacyclosis, Ryffel suggests,
may well have arisen in such a milieu; if so, it would represent the
specific form in which the biological law expresses itself at the level
of political institutions. Tiris milieu, according to Harder, was that
of the second-century Peripatos, with a Pythagorean adnrixture (cf.
Ps.-Hippodamus in Stobaeus, iv. 34 71
W-H, v. 846); the extent
to which it also contained Stoic elements is a matter of dispute
between Harder and Theiler. Now, in fact, there is no definite proof
that 'Ocellus' and his milieu are directly related to P. at all; and the
importance of 'Ocellus' lies in the fact that it provides evidence for
a contemporary example, probably of popular philosophlzing, which,
like P., tries with only partial success to combine the two schemes of
growth-acme-decline and of cyclical movement-schemes which are
to be found united in nature, where the succession of birth, growth,
decay, and death in the individual secures the permanence of the
species.
But to define P.'s source for the anacyclosis more closely seems at
present impossible; and no agreement has been reached among
recent writers. ToRyffel (2oi n. 36o) P.'s source is 'mainly Platonizing,
but also open to Peripatetic influences'; he does not risk a name;
Mion:i (66 ff.) derives the doctrine primarily, though not exclusively,
from Plato (d. 5 I); Rcgenbogen, RE, Suppl.-D. vii, col. I5I9,
suggests Theophrastus; and Erbse (Rh. Afus., I95I, I6o n. I) thinks
that Dicaearchus may have been P. 's source for both anacyclosis and
mixed constitution. Wilamowitz (Lesebuch, ii. 1. u9), described the
anacyclosis as 'eine rationalistische Verwasserung der Platonischen
Darstellung, die er gar nicht unmittelbar vor Augen hat' ; with its suggestion of Platonic origins and the dilution through a popular intermediary this statement still goes as far as one can go with safety.
(b) The anacyclosis and the biological theory. Reference has already
been made to the biological theory that all things have their birth,
acme, and decline. In its general form this can be traced back to
Anaximander (Diels, FVS, i. u, B I): Jg JJv 8 ~ yl.vwfs ean Tots
oVa, Ka~ rryv cpiJopdv ~:ls Taiha ytv<m8at KaTa TO xpewv. By Thucydides'
time it was a commonplace (cf. Thuc. :ii. 64. J, mil!Ta yap r.lcpvlc Kal.
lil.aaaoua8aL) ; and by the Hellenistic period it was identified with
the Stoic eif.kapfLEVfJ (cf. Phot. Bibl. cod. 249, 1584 B. (perhaps
Agatharchides), To lK r.atbos 1Els f.kELpdKtov l>..8iv Kat Tas ;caB' fijs
Tj>..tl\ias olKE{ws OtEii.Ber)l'-an example of etfLapfLlVfJ). In several passages
(4. II-I3, 9 II-14, 43 2, sr. 4-8, 57) P. appl:ies such 'organic' or
'biological' terms to his discussion of the development of the state,
e.g. dpx'l} or mi<TTacns, aut'r/aLs, aKfL'lj, .8opa, fLETa{loA~. This sequence
implies that all states (even the mikte) must eventually decline K<ml
645 .

VI.47

ANACYCLOSIS AND BIOLOGICAL THEORY

cpvaw (cf. 9 I2-14). What is the connexion of ideas between this biological theory and that of the anacyclosis with which it appears in
close conjunction? Whether this con junction was already in existence
before P. is uncertain. Theiler (Hermes, I953. 298; Gnomon, 1926,
590 ff.) argues that it was in Critolaus {d. Philo, aet. mttnd. 58 ft., 71);
but Critolaus' acquaintance with the anacyclosis has yet to be proved.
In any case the relationship between the two concepts in P. requires
close analysis. The problem was first raised by Cuntz {4o-4r) and
De Sanctis (iii. 1. zo6) ; and Zancan (Rend. I st. Lomb., I936, soS) provided a partial answer by pointing to the concept of cpuats which
P. insists is proper to both the biological development and the
anacyclosis (cf. 4 7 cpvaLKws, 4 9 Kan:i cpuaLv, 4 n, 4 13, S 8 cpuaws
lpyov, and 9 Io cpvaws olKoiJop.la (both of the anacyclosis), 9 IJ,
9 I4, sr. 4 mnl. cpvaw, 57 I ~ Tijs cpvaw<; aYaYK1J). Particularly in
4 II-I3 the two concepts are brought into the closest relationship;
yet they cannot be made wholly to coincide, since the biological
theory requires an aKJL~, and it is o11ly at the cost of some violence
that this can be introduced into the anacyclosis. The difficulty is
discussed by Ryftel (zr6 ft.; see also Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954,
no ft., II3-IS) There are, he observes, three forms which such an
aKfL~ might take.
(a) If one considers the whole curve of the anacyclosis, it might
Well be argued that the aKfL~ iS {3aat/...da, Since clearly the apx~ lies
in primitive society (cf. 5 4), and the development through the
povapxf.a to the {3aml.da is a form of aift1)as, and the decline into
7vpaw{s represents a fLETa{3o/..~. But, despite the fact that P. devotes
all s--7 to this stage of the cycle, such an identification neglects the
further stages, and is therefore unsatisfactory.
(b) Inside the single state (e.g. of Rome) P. tends to treat aristocracy aS the aKfL~ (e.g. in 51. s-6, 57 8), thUS indulging his personal
prejudices (cf. s6. II). But when he is describing the detailed working
of the mikte (n-r8), he seems rather to exaggerate the real power
of the people by putting to their credit the role of the tribunes
(I6. 4) and the economic activity of the equites (17. 3ft.), in the
interest of his schematic balance. This is against our assuming that
the mikte is to be regarded as in some sense weighted towards aristocracy; and in fact 51. 6 merely states that in a mixed constitution
at its prime deliberation is part of the function of the aristocratic
element (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, I954. 117-I8).
(c) One may apply the biological concept to a single constitutional
form; and Ryftel (2r7) sees some evidence that P. intends this in
his USe of the doctrine Of the GVfLcpV'TOJJ KaK6JJ inherent in each good
form (cf. 4 8 n., ro. I f.). Up to a point this is sound, and is partly
supported by such passages as 7 1 and 8. r, where it is clear that
each phase of the anacyclosis has its own apx~ mt yevws and in turn
646

ANACYCLOSIS AND MIXED CONSTITUTION

VI. 4 7

its destruction. If this is pressed, the problem of an dKfi.~ disappears,

each phase having its own aKfi.~; but if P. meant this, surely he
would have said so more clearly.
Indeed, the problem of the aKfL~ is not fully solved until the idea
of the mixed constitution has been combined with that of the
anacyclosis. It is to this combination that we now turn.
(c) The anacyclosis and the mixed canstUution. In four passages
(1o. 7, ro. rr, 10. 14, II. 1) P. speaks of the mixed constitution in
terms implying that it will not last for ever; eventually it must
decline Ka.-ra rp.Ja4v, like other states including the ideal state of Plato:
cf. Plato, Rep. viii. 546 A, xa.A7Tov f1.v KWf}8ijva.t m)Atv oihw avaTiiaa.v.
lli' l7Tt 'jlf:I!Ofl-EI!Ifl m5.vn rp8op6. ~aTtV, ou8' ~ ToLa.JT., a.J<JTaats TOJ.!
a:rraVTa }l.JiiVf:f xp6vov cL\Aa Avll~af:Ta. Consequently there is no funda~
mental contradiction between the theory of the mixed constitution
and that of the organic series, birth, growth, acme, decline (cf.
Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, ro7, ru). Indeed, historically the
theory of the mixed state arose as the answer to the problem of
constitutional change and decay (cf. 3 7 n., 4 6 n.); and the ultimate
lack of permanence in the mikte made it possible to combine it with
the anacyclosis in this book.
The existence of any mixed constitution at an historical period
('Lycurgan' Sparta, third- and second-century Rome) explicitly
raised the question of its growth, and by implication at least that
of its decay. P. wrote book vi as part of his general didactic purpose.
His specific reasons are repeatedly stated (iii. 2. 6, u8. 9 f., v. III. Io,
vi. 2. 3, cf. xxxix. 8. 7); they are, briefly, to account for Roman
success and world-empire by analysing the form of constitution
under which she achieved it. Zancan (Rend. I st. Lomb., 1936, 499 f.)
assumed that P. was also concerned to explain certain contemporary
signs of decadence; but this is an object he never mentions, and can
only have been incidentaL To explain Roman success P. had to
analyse the mixed constitution; this meant analysing its growth.
and here he found the theory of the anacyclosis invaluable, since the
early course of Roman history corresponded to the demands of that
theory (cf. I I an.). But the anacyclosis also implied eventual decay;
and it is this fact which has led to the view (cf. CQ, r943, 7J-89) that
its acceptance by P. must be part of the revised plan of his history,
adopted after 146 (cf. iii. 1-5 n.), and that this revision sounded a
critical note, and put Rome up at the bar of justice to answer for
her method of exercising her rule-vvith an end to it all in Tapa.x~
Kal1cf:vr;ats (iii. 4 12 n.). But in fact P. must have been confronted
with the issue of Roman decay before 150-146 (cf. Brink and
\Valbank, CQ, 1954, 1o5-i} Already in i. 64 he had criticized the
ability of Rome as mistress of the world to put to sea such fleets as
she had marshalled during the First Punic War; and he must have
647

Vl.47

ANACYCLOSIS

A~D

MIXED CONSTITUTION

been familiar v.rith the statue set up to Cato after his censorship of
r84 and have read the inscription which Plutarch (Cat. mai. r9. 3)
translates: rl]v 'Pwf.Lalwv rro.A.tTI!lo.v y~<:Klu.f.Liv1}V Kai perrovuav bri TCJ
xdpov .. els 6p8ov av6ts U7TOH:aTGT1JUI!. Nor was Cato alone. Already
in 166 the young Scipio Aemilianus was a contrast to the rest of the
Roman youths, who had been corrupted by the great wealth and
power of Rome since the fall of Macedon (xxxi. z5~zg; the d8~ptTos
J~ouata Of XXXi. 25. 6 recalls the OVIJUGTI!la UO~ptTOS Of Vi. 57 5); on
this see P6schl, 64-ti5. Hence the theory of the anacyclosis, which
P. saw illustrated in the rise of Rome, and which he probably
regarded as the specific form of the general theory of biological
change (above (b)), could perhaps already find a further justification (if an incidental one) in the signs that even as early as P.'s
arrival in Rome 'things were not what they had been'. It is therefore
unnecessary (and misleading) to postulate that (as was argued in
CQ, 1943, 8z~84) the anacyclosis was part of the revised scheme;
indeed the difficulties of such a view render it untenable (d. Brink
and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 109 ff.).
The mikte is therefore to be regarded as the constitution to which
the Romans worked by way of the early stages of the anacyclosis;
and in so far as she achieved the mikte Rome succeeded in temporarily
placing herself outside the influence of the forces normally making
for change. To that extent the Roman constitution is a breach of the
anacyclosis pattern, which was ~<:aTa <fouaw. Yet from another point
of view the achievement of the mikte gave Rome something which,
as we saw, was lacking to the anacyclosis as it normally operatedan acme; and this brought it (despite the zigzags in its pattern) into
relation with the biological concept of origin, growth, acme, and
decline. Hence it could (from that point of view) be said to have
had a growth that was essentially ~<:o.Ta <fovav (d. 9 13-14). This is
the explanation of the apparent paradox that P. describes as having
had, el . . . nva Kai eTepav rro.A.tn:la.v (9. I3), a development KaTa
vow, the one state which has evidently succeeded in making
a breach in the 'natural' development of the anacyclosis. There is a
contradiction here-but one which lies \'vithin P.'s rather complicated theorizing in a realm in which he was not a real master; and
it is this contradiction which enables him to treat the anacyclosis
as the specific form in which the biological law finds expression
within the realm of political theory.
4. 7. rrpcii'M"J . auvtaTa:ra.t ~-tova.pxa.: monarcltia is here the primitive
monarchy of early society, which will later develop into kingship; in 6
it is the corruption of kingship, which in 8 is called TVpawls. In CQ,
1943,76-79, it was argued thatthisshiftinterminologyisto be explained
by the assumption that 4 7-g. 14 was a later insertion. This assumption
648

SKETCH OF THE ANACYCLOSIS

VL 4

II

is unnecessary (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, II5 n. 3). P.'s distinction between p.ol!apxla and TVpaw{s in this section, which is not to
be found elsewhere in the Histories, probably reflects the terminology
of the source from which he drew his account of the anacyclosis,
and is irrelevant to the problem of the construction of this book.
fl.E-rd. Ka.-ra.O"Keufjs: Ka.l1hop9wO"ews:: 'by the aid of art and the correction
of its defects' (Paton). ih&pOwcn;; is contrasted with ,PuatKw;;.
8. fJ.e-ra.~a.AAouO''l':l Se -ra.o'r'lc; elc; ,.a_ o-u11cl>u1J Ka.KO.: i.e. f1aa~>..eta
(Paton misleadingly translates it 'monarchy') changes into rvpawts.
The concept of 'innate evil' is Platonic; cf. Rep. x. 6o9 A aufi.rfovrov
iKaar4:1 KaKcw r" Kat vocr7Jp.a. Ryffel (248-9) traces it back to a sophistic
milieu, probably Antiphon, and ultimately to Empedocles, as its
earliest originators. See below, ro. I ff., and especially Io. 3 n.
10. a1TO'ITA'lpoiJ>ra.~ O'UV XPOVOLS 6x.f.oKpa.TLa.: 'in due course mob-rule
closes the series'. For the use of 6x>..oKpar[a in Areius Didymus, recording a peripatetic source, see 3 7 n.
11-13. Transition to the biological interpretation. On p.era{1o>..at see
3 r n. P. stresses that these changes (apxat Kai yevaet;; Kal p.era{1oAa[) occur Kanl ,Pumv (cf. 12 rfouerat). and that it is because of this
that the course of development can be traced; in particular, this is
true of Rome ( u lrrl Tfj;; 'Pwp.alwv 7TOAtrela;;, with a reference forward to the archaeofogia (I l a), Which OUtlineS the UUUTaatS Kat
.;J.U~1)at> of the Roman constitution until it acquired the mikte); for
this constitution has developed essentially Kard </Fucnv. The transition
howfrom 12 (general statement) to 13 (application to Rome)
ever, effected only by a slight shift in the application of the biological idea. In n-12 the words EKaarwv and Kaarov, coming
immediately after the outline of the various constitutional forms,
seem naturally to apply to them; and indeed these forms have
their beginnings and ends (7. 1, 8. r). Thus the biological idea is,
as it were, 'built into' the anacyclosis. But when in r2 P. comes to
apply his argument to the Roman 7ToA~TEto., it is no longer of the
separate constitutional forms that he is speaking, but of the 'constitution' which is in some sense continuous behind (and through)
the separate forms. The same ambiguity appears in g. u-r4, where
Ko.arov (q. n) seems to mean 'each constitutional form', but where
it is in reference to the constitutional history of Rome as a whole
that he speaks of formation, growth, perfection, and decline. In
this way the idea of growth and decadence proper to each part of
the anacydosis is transferred to the process as a whole, thus enabling
P. to make the kind of assessment which in sr allows him to assert
that Carthage is farther along the path of constitutional change
than Rone (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, rn-u); and it is of
course for its application in such specific instances, and as a tool of
prognostication, that P. is especially interested in political theory.
649

VI. 4

II

DETAILED EXPOSITION

P. is here interpreting the growth of the mikte at Rome as an

illustration of the cycle of constitutional forms outlined in the
anacyclosis, and consequently as the mark of a state developing
Kant rpvaw. In Io. 13-14 its growth is conceived in more rationalist
terms. But there is no fundamental contradiction (as Laqueur,
Hermes, 1930, 165, asserts). In the one case the contrast is with
Lycurgan Sparta, in the other P. is merely stressing that the growth
to the mikte conformed to the pattern of the anacyclosis. When in 9
rr-14 P. reverts to the argument of this passage, he adds an explicit
reference to decline (absent here) which is taken up in 57.
13. TouTov Tov Tpinrov Tfjs TJyiJaews: 'this sort of explanation'; on -rp6rros in P. see Strachan-Davidson, 1-2.

5. 1. 1rnpO. 0).6.Twv& Kat TLow ~TEpO&'i Twv tP&Aoa6tPwv: for Plato's

contribution to the theory in the Republic, Laws, Politicus, and
Seventh Epistle, see 4 7-9 14 n. But, as there indicated, it is unlikely
that P. went back directly to Plato; and the refined version of the
anacyclosis is probably to be attributed to some younger philosopher
of the third or second century, who is no longer identifiable. P.
stresses the fact that he is merely popularizing and shortening a
theory to be found elsewhere; for its attribution to 'Plato and certain
other philosophers' cf. 45 I, where views on Sparta are attributed
to several writers, of whom Ephorus alone seems to be relevant.
2. 1rpos TTjv 1rpayp.aTLKTjv Lo-ropa.v: 'serious history'; on this phrase
see i. 2. 7-8 n. and ix. 1-2.
TTjv J<owi)v E1TlliOLav: 'common intelligence of mankind' (Paton).
3. Ti]'i Ka9oALKi]s Ep.tj!O.aEws .. Twv Tis pTJ9TJO'OJl~Vwv: i.e. if the
general exposition of 4 7-Io leaves difficulties, these will be resolved
in the section 5 49 14 (i~fjs). The sense is missed by Taeger (6) and
by Poschl (7o), who believe that the gaps in the theoretical exposition
are to be filled in in the course of the archaeologia (u a).
5. 4-9. 9. Detailed exposition of the anacyclosis.
5. 5. tj!Oopa ToG Twv civ8pw1rwv yvous: cf. Plato, Laws, iii. 677 A
for the rra..\awi ,\6yot telling of -ro rro,\,\ds rlv8pdJ1Twv rj>8opas yeyovvat
KaTaKAvap.ot<; TE Kat v6aot:; Kat .:1,\,\oLS' ?To,\Aof:;, ~~~ of:; {3paxJ n TWV
dv8pc!mwv AE{Trea8at ytfvo:; ; he then goes on to discuss early society

after the Deluge. The theme is later a common one. See, for example,
'Ocellus', 21. 4 ff. rj>Bopal- Kat f.LTa{3o,\ai f3lawt y[voi!'TtlL 0-r~ p.~v
dvdxvc"' ..\ap.f3avoVa7J> TfjS' 8aM,aa"f}s Erl> ln:pov p.ipo<;, o-r~ 8t Kat aihfj>
-rfi> yfis EiJpvvop.tfVYJS ('swelling') Ka! Cma-rap.EV'YJ> V1T(_, 7TIIVp.tfTwv-tO

which Theiler (Gnomon, 1926, sS8) compares Ovid, Met. XV. 262 ff., 296
ff.; 'Ocellus', 2r. II, rro,\,\aKtS'yap Kai yiyovE" Kal a-rat f3apf3apos ~ 'EA.A.cfs,
OJ}X v7r' dv8pc!Jmnv p.6vov ytvop.iVYJ p.-ravdc-ra-ro<; d,\,\d Kal {m' ain7)> Tfi>
rpvcf.w<; (i.e. through earthquakes) ; Ps.-Hippodamus in Stob. Anth.
iv. 31. 7I (W.-H., iv. 847); Ovid, Met. xv. 420ft. (on the ruin of peoples);

650

OF THE ANACYCLOSIS

VI. 57

in general, Theiler (Gnomon, 1926, sSS-94), stressing the role of the

second-century Peripatos.
6. o Myos a.lp~t: 'reason shows'. Ryffel (214 n. 373) points out that
this is a Stoic technical expression (d. von Arnim,SVF, iv, p. 92, index
s.v. 6 alpwv .\6yos-: especially iii, p. 93. 27 ff.; p. 134, 3r f.) and claims
Stoic influence here; but the Stoic sense of the phrase was different
and meant 'the power of reason makes a convincing choice', where.as
there are (as Ryffel admits) parallels for P.'s usage in Herodotus
(ii. 33 2), Plato (Rep. x. 6o4 c), and elsewhere (d. LSJ, s.v. alplw).
The phrase may not therefore be adduced as evidence for a Stoic
source.
aUj!~a~~pOj!EVWV T~xv<7w: cf. Plato, Laws' iii. 677 c, OVK01J)J opya.va
7TaVTa a1ToAAva8m, Ka.i. Et n Tixvr~> iJv EXOJ-LEVOV U7TOVDalw> TJflPTJJ-Livov
nvos ~Tipas, mivTa lppnv TaiJTa v Tip T<he
XfKlV<tJ cP~UOj-LEV;
aotTJ&fi aov xp6v!f "'I"At)Oos O.vllpwrrwv: d. Plato, Laws, iii. 678 B,
"'l"poi:OJJTOS j-LlV TOV xp6vov, 1TAT)8r5ovTOS' S' ~j-LWIJ TOV ylvovs.
7. Ka.l. E"'l"t TOOTwv auva.&po~~Oj!Evwv: 'so too in the case of these, when
T

~ 7TOAtnKfjs ~ Kat aoplas

they gather together'.

s~a. ffJV Tf\S ~Oa~ws O.allEVE~a.v: contrast Cic. de re pub. i. 39. 'eius
autem prima causa coeundi est non tam imbecillitas quam naturalis
quaedam hominum quasi congregatio'. The 'naturalistic' view that
men united because of weakness occurs in Plato, Protag. 322 A-B,
OVTW &;, 1TapEUKEVaUJ-LEVOt KaT' d.pxas av8pw1TOt o/Kovv UlTOpaOT)V, 7TOAHS
'
,J:
,
t \'
't
'
' TWIJ
~
8TJPLWIJ
'
" ' TO' 1TaVTaXT/~ aVTWV
' ~
0~ OVK
,1aav alTWI\1\VIJTO
OVIJ
V1TO
ota

aa8EviaTEp0t f!vat , E'7]TOW /)~ alfpo{~w8ut KG.t ao/~w8a.t KT{,OIJTES

7TOAEts. Zeus then gave men Aidos and Dike, so that they could live
together in cities. Probably Plato had it from Democritus-ifheis the
source of Diodorus, i. 8. r~2, -rovs S g dpxfis y<YVT)Bivras Twv dv8pdl1Twv
paalv Jv a:raKT<tJ Kat 87jptwSEt p{cp Ko.BEUTWTO.S' tJ'1Topa07jv J7Tt Tls IJOj-LUS
gdva.t Kat1TOAf!J-LOVJ-LEVOVS' j-LEIJ tJ7T6 TWIJ 8T)pwv d.M.~AOtS po7J8etv vml
Toil UVJ-LpipovTos StoaaKOJ-Levovs, d.8pot,oJ-Livovs 8 Sul TOv </Jopov E1TtywwalcEw EK TOV KaTa jLtKpov TOVS' aM~Awv Tmrovs (cf. Reinhardt,
Hermes, 1912, 492 ff.; Norden, Agnostos Theos (Berlin, I9IJ), 399)-

and it goes back to general sophistic teaching (d. Taeger, r8 ft.).

The alternative view derives social unity from an innate 'political'
instinct, inasmuch as human beings cannot be self -sufficient; cf.
Plato, Rep. ii. 369 B, ylyvTat To{vvv 7TOALS, ws y<J>J-La.t, E7TEtO~
TvyxavEt ~JkWIJ eKaUTOS' OOK aOTapKTJS', ci.\.\d 7TOMWl' (wv) EVOE1JS; 369 c;
Arist. Pol. i. 2. 8 ff. 1252 b 27 ff.; iii. 6. 1278 b 17 ff. True, this is not
wholly irreconcilable with the weakness theory. Aristotle admits
that men first avvEpxoiJTat Kat To(J 'fjv lvEKH' aOTov, nor does the
passage from the de republica rule out imbeciUitas as a contributory
factor (non tam ... quam). In the de officiis, however, man's natural
sociability and the role of the household are stressed as being 'prin65I

VI. 5 7

DETAILED EXPOSITION

cipium urbis et quasi seminarium rei publicae' (off. i. 54); and since
this almost certainly goes back to Panaetius (Hirzel, ii. 721 ff.; Pohlenz, Antikes Fiihrertum, 87 n. 3), it appears that P.'s account at this
point is not that of the Stoics, who will rather have followed Aristotle
in deriving the state from the family: cf. Cic.jiJ~. iii. 62, 'natura fieri
ut liberi a parentibus amentur; a quo initio profectam communem
humani generis societatem persequimur'. The attempt of K. Sprey (De
M. Tulli Ciceronis politica doctrina (Diss. Amsterdam, 1928), 125-6) to
refute the view that P. is here expounding the 'weakness-theory'
of social origins is not convincing. See further on this passage von
Fritz, Constitution, 45 ft., with the comments in JRS, 1955, 151.
TC)\1 Tfi uwp.nn~e'fi pwfln ~eui Tfi lj!uxu<ii TOAJln O&n+po\IT(1: it has been
argued (e.g. by Taeger (I7 f.), Philippson (Phil. Woch., 1930, u8o),
and Pohlenz (Antilles Fuhrcrt1~m, 103 n. 1)), that this general characterization of the !1-lwapxos was applied later in the book to Romulus,
and is echoed in Cicero, de re pub. ii. 4, 'corporis uiribus et animi
feroci tate . . . praestitisse'. It is true that the parallel between
Romulus and the P-ovapxor: cannot be pressed too closely, for it is
uncertain how closely Cicero is following P., and in any case Romulus'
domination is not merely the result of fear (d. 6. II T~JJ ,SLav OEOWTES").
but he won willing obedience (cf. Posch!, 6H7). Further, the picture
in Cicero is the traditional one (cf. Livy, i. 4 9 (of the twins), robore
corporibus animisque sumpto); and if he did take it from P. it does
not follow that P. intended to stress it, for elsewhere (52. 10) he
uses the same words to characterize the Italian race in general.
Kevertheless, there is reason to think that P. saw a parallel between
early Roman history and the early stages of the anacyclosis, and
that in this parallelism Romulus was cast for the role of P-6vapxos-,
though pot fitting it in all particulars (cf. u an. ; Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, n4).
8. oJ)OS01TO~.fJTWV: 'unreasoning' ; this distinction between men and
animals is repeated at xviii. 15. 16. The comparison with animals to
justify the rule of the stronger goes back to the fifth-century sophists,
in particular Thrasymachus (cf. Plato, Gorg. 483 n). In the Laws
(iii. 68o E) primitive society develops l<aBd.TrEP opv18ec; in herds, based
originally on kinship groups with the father ruling-though a little
later (Laws, iii. &joB) Plato distinguishes between the rule of father
and mother over children and that of the stronger over the weaker,
which he describes as I<O.t TrAEtO'TTJV YE lv GVfLTraatv Tots- ~/Jots ooaav Ka~
l<aTa puatv, ws d 6'!7JfJaios crf>TJ TrOTt IJ[vcapor:; (cf. Gorg. 484B). Similarly
in the bee-state (Polit. JOI E) the 'king' is TO TE awp.a EVBu> Kal. TTJV
lf;vx~v 8tarf;ipwv (like P.'s monarch); in default of which the human
community must resort to laws. For the development of such parallels
in Greek sociological thought see Hirzel, Themis, Dike und Verwandtes (Leipzig, 1907) 219; A. .Menzel, S.-B. Wien, 1936, 31-34.
652

OF THE ANA CYCLOSIS

VI. 6. 4

9. opos iaxos: 'strength is the standard of his rule' (not 'sole

limit', as Paton and Shuck burgh); Schweighaeuser is right as usual:
robore metiuntur imperium; cf. Arist. Pol. vi (iv) 8. 1294 a ro, apurroKpaTlas [L~V yap C5pos dpen), oA~yapxlas 8~ 1TAoitros (a parallel I owe to
C. 0. Brink).
1-Lova.px'a.v: in making monarchy the primitive social form P. follows
Plato (e.g. Laws, iii. 68o D ff.) and Aristotle (Pol. i. 2. 1252 b zo); but
they both associate primitive monarchy with the regime of the family
(cf. 7 n.), as do the Stoics (if indeed Panaetius is Cicero's source in
de re pub. i. 54 (see too fin. iii. 62, quoted in 7 n.)), whereas P. links
up rather with the sophistic teaching on the role of the stronger,
by making the sociable virtues and ethical concepts a subsequent
development ( 10 ff.), the fruits not the cause of living in society.
10. pa.aLXeia.s: distinguished from monarchia by its ethical and social
basis, which has developed in the course of time by a natural process.
ivvo1a. Toll Ka.Aou Ka.i OLKa.iou: Stoic phraseology; cf. Cic. fin.
iii. 21, 'simul autem cepit intellegentiam uel notionem potius, quam
appellant v1'o~av illi (sc. eorum quae sunt secundum naturam), ...
multo earn pluris aestimauit quam omnia illa quae prima dilexerat'.
But the importance of this is not to be pressed (cf. 4 7--9 14 n. (b)),
for P.'s idea of concepts of right and wrong springing from the
experience of social life is found among the Epicureans (cf. Porph.
de abst. i. ro).
6. Analysis of the growth of ethical concepts. This leads to the transformation of p.,ovapxla into fJaa~Ada; on the extent to which this
involves a process akin to the Stoic idea of justice see u n.
2. 'll'pos Tns auvouaia.s: a traditional starting-point for sociological
discussion: cf. Cic. de re pub. i. 38, 'nee uero, inquit African us, ita
disseram ... ut ad illa elementa reuoluar, quibus uti docti homines
his in rebus solent, ut a prima congressione maris et feminae, deinde
a progenie et cognatione ordiar'. Following Panaetius he uses it in
de officiis (i. n): 'commune item animantium omnium est coniunctionis appetitus procreandi causa et cura quaedam eorum quae
procreata sint'. For the continuation of this passage see 4 n.
3. ouaa.pEO"TELV KO.L 'ITpoaKO'ITTEiY ELKOS TOUS O"UVOVTO.S: 'those who are
familiar are likely to be displeased and to take offence' ; cf. 6
(where SvaapEaT~ta8a~ is middle), vii. 5 7 (where both verbs are used
in the sense 'displease, give offence').
4. (-LOVOLS a.1hois (-LTeaTL vou Ka.i. XoyLo-(-Loll: similarly in Cicero, off.
i. 11-12, 'sed inter hominem et beluam hoc maxime interest, quod
haec tantum, quantum sensu mouetur, ad id solum, quod adest
quodque praesens est, se accommodat paulum admodum sentiens
praeteritum aut futurum; homo autem, quod rationis est particeps . . . facile totius uitae cursum uidet . . . eademque natura
653

VI. 6.4

DETAILED EXPOSITION

ui rationis hominem conciliat homini et . . . ad uitae societatem

ingeneratque in primis praecipuum quendam amorem in eos qui
procreati sunt' (the whole passage is worth comparing with P.);
cf. ibid. i. 107, 'omnes participes sumus rationis praestantiaeque
eius, qua antecellimus bestiis, a qua omne honestum decorumque
trahitur et ex qua ratio inueniendi officii exquiritur'; fin. ii. 45
These parallels are against the attempt of Taeger (28-29) to exclude
Stoic influence from P.'s exposition at this point; on the other hand,
the stress on reason as the mark of man is not exclusively Stoic (cf.
Epicurus, Sent. r6 = Diog. Laert. x. 144; Sinclair, 273), nor is P.'s
insistence on the utilitarian, selfish motives which lead to the formulation of ideas of right and wrong (cf. 5-6) comparable with the
treatment taken over by Cicero from Panaetius; see too 5 ron.
Here again the source does not have the appearance of being exclusively Stoic.
1ra.po.TP~XEW T~V Smq,opO.v: 'that the difference in behaviour
will escape them'.
5. 1rpoopwfLvous TO fLEAAov: Cicero offers a parallel for this: oft.
i. I I (quoted in 4), 'homo autem, quod rationis est particeps, per
quam consequentia cernit, causas rerum uidet earumque praegressus
et quasi antecessiones non ignorat, similitudines comparat rebusque
praesenti bus coniungit atque adnectit futuras'.
7. ~vvota. Tfis Tou tca.8T)tcovTOS Suvcl.fl-EWS Ko.t 8Ewpa.s: Schweighaeuser: jortasse 8Ewpta, plausibly since in 9 8Ewpla seems to be
equivalent to gvvom. Wilamowitz (Lesebuch, ii. r. rzo ad loc.) reads
8Ewpla, but argues that gwota is the dpx~ and 8Ewp{a the TEAos of
DLKawaJ111J. This view, rejected by I. Heinemann (Poseidonius' metaphysische Schrijten, i (Breslau, 1921), 21. z). seems forced. d.px~ Kat
TEAos is 'the be-ali and end-all', a proverbial tag (cf. i. r. 2, iii. 5 6;
Wunderer, i. 73-74), and elsewhere P. uses gvvota alone (5. ro, 7 r)
without any such nuance. On To Ka8f}Kov, a Stoic expression ( = officium), see iv. 30. 4 n.
8. TaS m<j10pas Twv t~wv: the theme of defence against wild
beasts as a feature of early society appears in Plato, Protag. 322 B
and Laws, iii. 681 A; but it is not there linked, as here, to the growth
of ethical concepts.
~1TlaTJfLO.CJ"to.s Euvo.:Kf)S Ko.t 1rpoaTO.TLKfjs: 'marks of favour and
honour' (Paton).
9. Ei:lXoyov 8Ewpo.v: stylistic variants on ~lK6s .. lvvotav.
Ola TO au..,.q,pov: the identity of utile and honestum is Stoic, and the
theme naturally occurred in Panaetius: cf. Cic. oft. iii. I2-13, 34
fgg. ror-2 van Straaten); but the Stoics would scarcely, like P.,
have made honestum merely a generalization based on what is utile.
11. Sla.VEfLTJTlKOS ToG Ko.T' a.ga.v EKnaTols: 'apportioning his
deserts to each'; cf. iii. I7. ro, v. 90. 8. This is a Stoic definition of
654

OF THE ANACYCLOSIS

justice (cf. von Amim, SVF, iii, fg. 262, E1TUYT~J.L1J cl.1ToVEJ.LTJnK'iJ rfj,;a~La>
lxar::rr<.p; M. Aurel. i. 16; Galen, xix. 384), but not exclusively Stoic.
For instance, Aristotle in the N icomachean Ethics discusses the 'dis
tributive' form of 'particular' justice: cf. Eth. Nic. v. 5 n3o b 31,
Tfj> 8~ KaTa j.tlpo> 8tKato<TVII7)> Kal ToiJ KaT' aVT~v 8tKalov v j.tlv Janv
cl8o<o TO v Tat,; 8taJ.'Oj.taL)' TLJ.Lfj> ~ XPTJJ.LaTWJ.' ~ TWJ.' aX\wv oaa J.LEptaTd.
TOt'> KotvwvoiJat Tfj'> 1roAtTEla,;; v. 6. I 131 a 24, lTt .?K ToO KaT' d~{av
TOUTO 8fj'Aov TO yap 8lKatOIJ .?v Tat:; 8tavoj.taL> op.oAoyoiJat miVTfS KaT'
a~lav Ttva 8dv clvm, ~IJ j.tlVTot d~lav otl T~J.' a~v Myovat 1TUJ.'TES'
imapxcw, dA'A' ol J.L~ 8YJJ.LOKpanKol .?AcvB<plav, ol 8' dAtyapxtKo~ 1rAoiJTov,
ol 8' t:tlylvaav, oi 8' aptr::rroKpaTtKOt apET~II. But Aristotle regards this

as only one form of justice. Already the basis of this definition is

implicit in Herodotus' story (i. g6. 2 ff.} of how Deioces attained to
tyranny among the Medes by a reputation for just decisions. For a
similar Pythagorean definition of justice see 10. 7 n.
1'fi Suva.a1'E(~: the role of the primitive, patriarchal, monarch is
described in Plato, Laws, iii. 68o B, DoKoual f.LOt 1TaVT> T~v v To1Yrt.p
TcfJ xp6vt.p 1TOAtTElav 8vvaau:lav KaActv. P. also uses the word 8vvaaTt:la
of oligarchy (9. 4).
7. Breakdown of the {Jaat'Ada into Tvpavvl:;;: this, like the breakdown

of aristocracy and democracy (8-9}. depends on human nature, and

the vices which arise naturally in the 'second generation' in power;
there is a good discussion of the process in Ryffel, 192 ff.
1. Ka.Aou Ka.L O~Ka.iou , , , KC.1'cl cpoaw Efvvo~a.: the growth of these
concepts as a result of self-interest has been outlined in 6: how they
become the foundation of {JamAda aAYJBw~ is explained in the next
sentence, which incidentally shows that P. regarded the hereditary
principle as an integral part of such a kingship. Such a principle first
appears in the tradition of the Roman kingship with the Tarquins,
and then de facto rather than de iure; this is against Taeger's view
that the scheme of social development in the archaeologia followed
the anacyclosis rigorously (Posch!, 67).
3. 1'clS aWf1C.1'LKas Ka.i. 8uf1~Kas Suv6.f1E~S: cf. 5 7.
4. 1'0'11'0US oxupOOf1!iVOL Ka.l. 1'ELX(~OV1'ES: the sophistic theme of the
early synoecism of cities and building of strongholds; cf. Plato,
Protag. 322 B (quoted in S 7 n.); Hipp. mai. 285 D, KaTotKlaewv, cfJ:;
TO apxatov .?wrlaBrwav al1TOAE>; Laws, iii. 68o E-681 A, Tetxiiw pJJJ.LG.Ta
TWV BTJplwv vcKa 1Toto0VTat.
KC.L xwpa.v KC.1'C.K1'WJ1EVOL: cf. Arist. Pol. iii. 14. 1285 b 7 (on heroic
monarchy}, Sui yap Td Tou,; 1TpwTov,; yt:vlaBat ToO 1TA~Bovs- <V<pylTas-

KaTa Tlxvas- 1i 1T6At:j.LOII, 1i Dta TO avvayayctv 1i 1Toplaat xwpav, JylyvovTO

{JaatAELS" lKOVTWV Kat Tots- 7lapaAaj.t{Jdvovat 1TaTptot; vii (v} IO. I3IO b 38,
1i KTlaaiJTES" ~ KTTJaap110 xwpav, W(J1TEp ol AaKEDatj.LOVlwv {JaatActS' Ka~
MaK86vwv Kat Mo.:\onwv.

DETAILED EXPOSITION

VI. 7 6

6.

~tret

8' etc

SlaSoxfj~ KTA.:

the second stage, contrasted with Tb

p.~v

oo~

7faAatOJl ( 4) Safety (Td 7Tpb> T &.a,Pal.dav) and luxury (7T/..dw

TWI' lKavwv .,.d 1rpo> rf]v Tpo,P~v) are the direct result of the original
king's efforts ( 4).

7. tcal tra.pO. Twv llTJ trpOcrTJtc6v.,-wv: 'even from those for whom such
things are quite improper'. oi 1rpo<n}Kovres- are not relatives but, on
the contrary, those who might properly satisfy the king's a,Ppootalwv
x.petat. For an example of the excesses here hinted at cf. x. z6. 3
(Philip V).
8. f.yvETO . e1<: Tfjs ~a.cr~Ada.s Tupavv(s: on the difference cf. v. II. 6.
8. Accession and decay of the aristocracy.
1. To j.LEV Tfjs ~acrlAe(a.s tca.t llova.px(a.s dSos: 'kingship and monarchy'; tyranny is the corruption of kingship, and P. treats both as
being overthrown together (cf. 4 8, T7j> TOJhwv Ka.TaAVcrews-). Despite
the danger of confusion between the Tupa.w{s- of 7 8 and the primitive
p.ovapxla of 5 9, P. here uses the term p.ovapxta as the equivalent of
'tyranny'. The reason is probably that, in describing the familiar
phenomenon of tyranny and its expulsion, P. has slipped into the
familiar terminology (cf. ii. 43 8) ; for in the rest of the Histories,
outside the description of the anacyclosis (4. 7--g. 14), his usual word
for a tyrant is p.6vapxo> (cf. 4 7 n.; Walbank, CQ, 1943, 76-79. where,
however, the conclusion concerning the date of composition is
invalid).
4. Tra.'i8es trapti TraTtpwv: for the 'law of the second generation' cf.

7 6.
ev Ta.'is (soucrLals tcat Trpoaywya.'i:s: 'amid the evidences of power

and high position' (Paton). On

1rpoaywy~.

'preferment', see Welles,

356; cf. XV. 34 5

5. jJ.nEO'TTJO"CI.V rqv apwTOKpa.Tiav ds

OA~ya.pxiav: Plato emphasizes the role played by greed in this process: Rep. viii. ssr A,
dVTt o~ 4>tl.ovl~<wv Ka.i 4>ti.OTf.p.wv dvopwv ,Ptl.oxp7JfL<l7'tfnat Kai ,Pt>.oxp+
J.La"Tot Te.ktJTWVT~s lylvoVTo (a view criticized by Aristotle, Pol. viii
(v) 12. 1316 a 40 ff.). In Pol. vii (v) II. 1314 b 23, Aristotle makes
lust and drunkenness causes of the overthrow of the tyrant; but, as
Ryffel observes (192 ff.), the mechanism of decay is identical for
kingship, aristocracy, and democracy, and the vices follow a traditional pattern, asP. admits ( 6).

9. 1-9. Institution and corruption of democracy: cf. Plato, Rep. viii.

562 A
analysing the corruption of democracy into tyranny. P.
uses the features of this process to describe the movement from
democracy through ochlocracy back to p.ovapxla. His description,
which is very schematic and abbreviated, does not clearly distinguish between xetpoKpa.Tla under the direction of a demagogue ( 8),
656

OF THE AN A CYCLOSIS

VI. 9 9

and the reversion to the rule of the J.Lovapxo> ( 9). It utilizes themes
already found in P. ; d. the description of the people of Cynaetha,
iv. I7. 4, 2o-2r.
3. TTJV SE Twv KOLvwv TrpovoLa.v Ka.i 'lTLanv . O.v~.Aa.~ov: 'they took
into their own hands on trust the care of the commonwealth'.
4. um;poxij,; l(a,l, Suva.o-TEL<lS: d. i. 2. i, v. 45 I; 'excessive power'.
P. refers to the dominion of the oligarchs.
TTJV tO'Tjyop(a.v Kat TTJV 'lTa.ppTJa(a.v: 'equality and freedom of speech',
the signs of democracy; cf. 5. ii. 38. 6 (of Achaea), l07Jyoplas; Kal
1TappYJalas Kat Ka86Aou OYJJ.LOKparla> UAYJOwry> aJaTYJf.LO. Kal 7rpoalpwtv,
42. 3, iv. 31. 4, Vii. IO. I.
5. 'lTa.Lat mdSwv: cf. iv. 35 15. vlot is 'of a new generation' (a sense for

which LSJ quotes only verse examples, and which is more commonly
expressed by v<:.WTEpot).
6, 8eAE0.~0VTES Ka.l /\ufJ.<lWOtJ.EVOL Ta TrA"rj9T]; cf. iv. 15. 8, tj>0E{pnv KaL
AuJ.LalvwOat rov> rwv iixatwv aUf.Lf.Ldxou> (of the Aetolians), xxvii. 2. 7,
Auf.L~VaaOat ~v rwv 1roAAwv evvotav 1rp6,; T~v MaKEOovwv olKlav (of Q.
Marcius' activities in Boeotia), 7. 4, l.uJ.Lalva0at r~v rwv 1roAAwv
1rpoa.lpmw (of Deinon and Polyaratus at Rhodes). P. uses Se>.dtew
more specifically of demagogic action tending towards ochlocracy ;
cf. xxxii. 6. z (of the people of Phoenice driven by Charops to institute a reign of terror), xxxviii. rr. I I (of the people in the Peloponnese
seduced by Critolaus)-two examples which illustrate P.'s meaning
here.
7. 8wpoS6t<ou<; t<t:I.L 8wpocf!ayou<;: owp6tj>ayo~;, inserted for the jingle,
is found elsewhere only in Hesiod (Op. 39, 221, 264).
8. O'UVEL9LO'f.1EVOV ea9(uv Ta aAMTpta.: d. Cicero, de re pub. i. 68,
for the demagogue 'populo gratificans et aliena et sua' ; but it is a
commonplace in the account of the decay of democracy, cf. Plato,
Rep. viii. 565 A, roil,; lxoVTO.S T~ll otiala.v acpatpouw:vot, ~haVEJ.LOVT> T{jJ
&r/J.Up.
Trpoanl.TT)V tJ.Eya.M<j>pova. I(O.L TOAtJ.T)p6v: cf. Plato, Rep. viii. s6s c,
Ofii<OW lva nvd. dd SfjJ.LOS' erwOEv ow.t/>epoVTw> 1TpotO'TaaOat EC1.1.170V, KaL
TOtrrOV TPEtPtV Te KaL augEW J.LEYO.JJ;
9. acf!a.yas, cf!uy6.s, yfls O.va.Sa.atJ.ous: cf. Plato, Rep. viii. 565 E (of
the demagogue in the saddle), . . . dvSpYJAarii Kai a1TOKTWVn KfJ.~
WOITYJf.Lalvn xp~wv T U1TOK01T<:l> Kat yij> dvaoa.aJ.L&v. At Syracuse

land-division was the demagogic programme of Hippo, the tool of

Heracleides (Plut. Dion, 37. s, "l1T1Twv6. rwa rwv 07Jfll;tywywv KaOlYJa'
1TpoKai.Ea0at Tov SfjJ.Lov l'IT/. yfj> dvaoaaJ.L&v) ; and it generally features in
a revolutionary policy; cf. iv. 17.4 (of Cynaetha), atJ>ayas Kaltj>vyds,
1TpO;; 0~ TOVTOL!; ap1Tayd.> imo.px6VTwv, ln 0~ yij,; dvaSaaJ.LoJ,;, 8r. 2
(Cheilon follows Cieomenes, thinking to win the populace d . . .
ii1ToSEtgat ~v li.1Tloa rfi> KAYJpovxlas; Kai rwv dvaSaaJ.Lwv). Cicero's condemnation of this policy at Sparta, and praise of Aratus for the
48M

uu

VI.g.g

PROGNOSTICATION AND THE ANACYCLOSIS

safeguarding of property (off. ii. 78-83, 'o uirum magnum dignumque,

qui in re publica nostra natus esset') is interesting as based on
material from Panaetius, who seems here to have followed Aratus'
Memoirs (cf. Plut. Arat. g. 4, r2. r, 13. 6--14. 3). On land-division as
a regular constituent of the revolutionary programme see Tarn, HC,
121-5; Pohlmann, i. 326-419.
a1foTE9t]p~wJ.lvov: i.e. there is a complete moral degeneration, so that
men behave like beasts (as at Cynaetha, iv. 21. 6: see the last note).
This reference to beast-like behaviour links the end of the anacyclosis
with its beginning; cf. 5 g, ~([J7JOov uvva8poL~opbwv.
10. 1TOA~TE~wv O.va.KOKAwu~s: the word anacyclosis is rare; d. Herodian (iv. 2. g), of the decursio of cavalry round the imperial pyre,
and Ptolemy (Tetr. 87), for the more usual dvaKvKA7JULS, which
Plutarch (Solon, 4 r) employs to describe the passing round of the
'tripod of Helen' from one to the other of the seven wise men, until
it ended up with Thales, from whom its journey began. Ryffel (199)
suggests that P.'s avaKvKAwuLs is connected with Plato's use of
avaKvKA7JULS (Polit. 26g E) to describe the motion of the universe.
But P. probably took it over directly from the eclectic, philosophical,
source of a popular character, which has been postulated for his
theory of cyclical change (4. 7-9. 14 n. (a)). Such a source may have
invented it as more distinctive than KVKAos, just as 'Ocellus' adopts
such technical terms as aVTL7TEpia-rauts and E7TavaKapif;t>.
cJ!ouEws oi.KovoJ.lta.: virtually 'law of nature', 'natural order of things',
P. repeats the claim that the anacyclosis is a natural process; cf.
4 7, 4 g, 6. 2, 7. r (stressing the natural character of its various parts
and aspects). The idea that a constitutional development is 'natural'
goes back to Plato (Laws, iii. 6gr B; cf. Poschl, 49 n. r6); but the
personification of nature here rather suggests Stoic influence (d. von
Scala, 214 n. 4, quoting Plutarch (Mor. 1050 A, D)). Whether much can
be deduced from the use of the word olKovopla, which Ryffel believes
to be Stoic (zoo n. 359, quoting von Arnim, SVF, ii, p. 209, 25 f.;
p. 269, 4 25 f.; p. 338, 5 g), is doubtful, for P. uses it repeatedly
in the most varied contexts.
J.lETa.~aAAE~ Ka.Ta.vT~: 'change, are transformed, and return to
their original form'; cf. 4 r2, 7Toii Ka-rav-r~aH 1TaAtv, where, however,
the reference is to the recurrence of the various stages; whereas
here P. is thinking of the process as a whole returning, via those
stages, to the point from which it started.
11-14. Prognostication based on the anacyclosis. P. repeats the point
made in 4 u-13, with the same hint forward to the archaeologia
(rr a) ; and, as in 4 rr-13, there is a slight ambiguity inasmuch as
EKaa-rov ( n) appears to refer to -rd Ka-rd -rds 7TOAL-r{as ( ro) and so
to mean 'each constitutional form', yet in 12-14 it is in reference
to the whole of the constitutional history of Rome, considered as a
658

LYCURGUS AND THE MIXED CONSTITUTION

VLxo.3

single process, that P. speaks of formation, growth, pedection, and

decline (cf. 4. u-13 n.). In this way P. gives the theoretical justification for the comparison with Carthage in 51.
11. xwpts bpyils 11 ~96vou: 'without animosity or jealousy': not
quite Tacitus' sine ira et studio. drroc/>am<; is 'judgement'.
12. Ko.Tn TO.VT11V Ti]v E'll'to-ro.mv: 'if we consider it in this way'.
~
>
"
~
>
~~~
f
TTjS' tO'S TOUJ111'0.1\W E0'0!-'EV'1S , J1ETO.f"'0/\'1S'! C 3 I n.
13. ws &.pT,WS EI'!Ta.: cf. 4 13
14. 8ul. T(;)v p.eTa Ta.UTa. P'18'1aop.~vwv: P. has in mind (a) the archaeologia {rr a), which describes the a.Ja-ra(!LS' and av~'TjatS" of Rome, (b) the
account of the constitution in its prime, aKJ-t~ (rr-18, together with
the account of the military system, 19-42), {c) the hints at eventual
decline {tte-ra{jo>.~) contained in 57 Nissen (Rh. Mus., r871, 253) refers
this sentence to the archaeologia, Poschl (so n. I7) to 57 alone, it
surely refers to the whole thesis set out in 12-r4 (cf. Brink and
Walbank, CQ, 1954, 12o).
I

10. Lycurgus' institution of the mixed constitution at Sparta; wherein

it differs from that of Rome. Against the view that 10 is earlier than
the preceding chapters is the fact that viiv 8' ( I) is contrasted with
ftT<i -raOra (9. 14), and that the words lKaO'Ta -rwv lTpotit(YTJfd.vwv .
dvayKalws Kat cf>vatKW> brt-rt;Aovwva refer to the stages of the anacyclosis; thus a theory of layers which separates 10 from 9 must
assume recasting of r-2. On the Lycurgan mikte see 3 8 n.
2. ~Kavoo; uuvvot\aa.s: P. anachronistically attributes to Lycurgus
knowledge of the anacyclosis.
Ka.Tn f!lo.v uuveo-r'1KOS 8Uva.p.w: 'formed on one principle' (Paton).
do; Ti]v otKda.v Ko.K,a.v: cf. Cic. de re pub. i. 44, 'nullum est enim
genus illarum rerum publicarum, quod non habeat iter ad finitimum
quoddam malum praeceps ac lubricum'; von Scala, 296.
3. Simile of the m5wpVTov KaKov. Plato uses this in proving the immortality of the soul; Rep. X. 6o8 E f. -rl 8i; KO.KOV EJ<rianp Tt Ka~
dyailav MyEL<;; o[ov 6cf>OaA.p.o'i~ orf>Oa>.ttlav Kai C!Uft7TUVTt T{/j acilttctTL v&aov,
alTf.tJ TE lpval{jT)v, 07j7TE86va TE ~OAotS", xaAK{/j 8~ Kai at8~p4J lov, Kal,
CmEp Myw, ax~:8ov 7TQ.(!L aup.rf>v-rov KaUT4J KllKOV TIE Kat VOO"TJJ-tll; But P.'s

account varies considerably in detail; he omits the corn and its rust,
and the bronze, and substitutes two types of woodworm for decay
as the avp.rf>v~:l:c; AOJ-tnt of wood. Ryffel (248-9) suggests the existence
of a common tradition, in which one link >vas probably the sophist
Antiphon (cf. Die1s, FVS, ii. 87 B 15, ~ U7j7TE8wv (-roil ~OAov) ... lp.f3<o<;
ylvot-ro) and another Empedocles {cf. FVS, i. 31 B 26. 7 and B 8r,
otvos d1Ta rpAoLOV mfAETClL (!ll7T~V lv 6f>.4' u8wp. B 95 B 121). This seems
more probable than that P. followed but modified Plato. Philo (aet.
mund. zo) uses the same simile in a context similar to 57 2: for all
things liable to decay there are al-rla~ 8trrai rijc; a1TWAElas, ~ JL~V

VI.

IO.

L YCURGUS AND

~vr6s, f) o lJ<:TOS 17poihroKHV'TaL. atST)pov yovv Ked. xaAKO!! KaL 'TUS 'TO~OV'TO
Tp01TOVS oval.as evpo~s dcpav~~op,vas Jf lavTWV p.lv, UTall ip1TT)Vcbbovs
vocrT,p,aTOS 'Tp0170V los ~mSpap,wv ?ltacfod'l% 17pos ?!e TWII JKTO) . . ; but

whether this implies use by Philo of P.'s source (so von Scala, rZI)
is doubtful. IJhilo may equally well have used Plato, who refers to
the rusting of bronze and iron.
4. o p.ova.pXLKOS -rpOiTOS: P. uses the terminology of 4 6; once
more fLOvapxla is the corruption of f3amJ.ela, not as in 4 7--<:). I4 the
primitive monarchy preceding it {cf. 4 7 n., 8. r n.).
5. 0 9TJpLW0TJS

ICO.L

XELpOKp<lTLKOS: cf. 9 7 f3lav Kal xetpoKpa'Tlav, 9 9

These are synonyms denoting the excess associated

with extreme democracy, which P. also terms oxAoKpaTta (4 6, 57 9)
ds otls
Ka.TO. TOV apTl >..oyov: each simple form has its perversion
engendered within it, and must eventually degenerate into that
debased form ; the last four words refer back to the anacyclosis.
6. oux cliTAT)v ouSt f.'O'IIOELOfj: cf. 3 7-s; cf. Cic. de re pub. i. 45.
'quartum quoddamgenus rei publicae maxime probandum esse sentio,
quod est ex his, quae prima dixi, moderatum et permixtum tribus',
ii. 4r, ' . . . statu esse optimo constitutam rem publicam, quae ex
tribus generibus illis, regali et optumati et populari. confusa modice
nee puniendo inritet animum immanem ac ferum ... .'
7. The balanced const-itution. P. draws no clear distinction in his tnikte
between a mixture and a balance of forces, unlike Aristotle, who
praises the mixed state (Pol. vi {iv). IZ. 1297 a 6 f. oacp S' av afLHVOV
~ 170A~ula 1-L~xBfi, Toaowcp fLOV~fLwTlpa; cf. Pol. vii (v). 7. r307 a 5 ff.)
as a safeguard against any a.vfTJm> 1rapa n) ava.\oyov (Pol. vii (v). 3
1302 b 33 ff. ylvovrat 13 Kat 8~' aufTJaW T~V 17apd. TO avdJ.oyov fLTaf3orl.al
Twv 17oAtre~wv; cf. Pol. vii (v). 8. r3o8 b ro ff.)-P.'s fear here (avgavo/-Lf:vov v17ep TO 13iov), but condemns as unstable constitutions in which
rich and populace are evenly balanced (Pol. vii (v). 4 r304 a 38 ff.,
1<woiJvra~ 13' al 17oAtrei'at Kat D-rav Tava.vr[a elvat OoKoiJVTa fLepTJ rijs
a170Tee.r,ptwp,ivov.
I

,,
' 'r 0.1\J\Tji\Ot),
'" ''
~
' '
~~
'
"''
1701\l'iWS'
~aa':>'[l
OLOV
OL' 171\0V<TWL
KaL' 0' OT)fLOS,
fLI'i<TOV
0~ :f.
/1 fLT)OfiiJ
1i fLtKpov 1TdfL1TO.V); cf. Ryffel, rsr, I63. Cicero, too (de re pub. ii. 42),

distinguishes the mixture and the balance, since even under the
kings the three elements, royal, aristocratic, and democratic, 'ita
mixta fuerunt ... ut temperata nullo fuerint modo', here clearly
diverging from P.'s own account of the early Roman constitution
(cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, r4).
QVTLaiTWJl~VTJS TTJS tKUaTou OuVaf.'EWS tm' tlAATJAWV: 'the power of
each element is counteracted by the others'; cf. r8. 7
f.'TJOaf.'oG vEun p.TJ8' tiwl. iTo AU Ka.TnppeiTn I-''1Sv au-rwv: 'no one of
them inclines or sinks greatly to either side'. The metaphor implied
is that of the balance.
K<l.Ta TOV Tfjs aVTLiTAoa.s >..oyov: for av;i17AOLa (not found elsewhere) no
satisfactory sense has been suggested. Hultsch comments: 'avriTT"Aota.
66o

THE MIXED CONSTITUTION

VI.

IO.

spectat ad statum aquulae in fistulis congruis planum horizontis constanter indicantem'; but there is no reason to thlnk that
avTt?TAota means a water-level. Recently Poschl (52-54 n. 21) has
attempted to explain di!'Tt?T,\ow as 'luffing~ to', i.e. sailing into the
wind to meet a sudden squall. But luffmg-to is only possible when
sailing close-hauled to windward, and it seems fairly certain that
Greek and Roman craft could not do this. The only example of the
phrase aii'TmAEtl' aVEf-tOS is in Ps.-Phocylidcs, I2I Hiller-Crusius, where
the context suggests an dSuva.Tov (~<ap(:j; AaTproEW f-'1J'T aii'Tt?TMnv
dvlttowt}. It is true that 1rAlw is used of progress by oars as well as
sails; but turning the prow of a rowing-boat into the wind is a less
comprehensible procedure, and makes little sense here. Various
emendations have been proposed--'T'i)s ai/'Tt1TaAtas, nivn?TaAou, and
rijs dvrt1TVola.s. But the most satisfactory explanation is Reiske's
dii'Tt1Ta8dar:; on the probable confusion of ANTinAOIA! for ANTInAeiA!, a variant on this, see Delatte, Constitr,tion, 9-10 n. 3
(quoting Birt, Kritik und l!ermeneutik (Munich, 1913}, 133 for the
confusion between EYnAOIA and EYnAeiA). The sense \\'ill then
be 'thanks to the principle of reciprocity or counter-action', a meaning fully explained in 8-ro. Whether, as Delatte holds (ibid. 17 ff.)
d.vn?TCi8E<a is to be linked with Td dvTmmov86s, which the Pytha~
goreans employed as a definition of justice, viz. the reciprocal
rendering of an equivalent amount of dissimilar things (cf. Arist.
Eth. Nic. v. 8. 1132 b 21; Eth. Meg. i. 34 II94 a z8; Pol. ii. z. 1261 a 30)
must be left open; F.'s sense here is somewhat different.
The idea that Lycurgus' constitution was the 'establishing of an
equilibrium' by the institution of gerontes or elders appears in Plutarch, Lye. 5 9, alwpovtttfV7J yap ~ ?TOAtTda Kat a1TOKldvouaa vuv tt~v

ws 'TOUS f3amAEfS .l?Tt 'TUpavvCSa, viiv s~ Ws Td 1Tl11]9o:; E?Tt S7Jf-tOKpaT{av.

olov Epf-ta 'T~V 'TWV YEPOV'TWV apx~v iv f-tEU!f! l1Ef-tEV7J Kai laoppomjaaaa 1"7jv
dmpaAEaTa1"1)V 'Ta~Lil laxE Kai Ka'Ta(J"Taaw, aEt 'TWV OK'TW Kal r::iKoa< yp6v
'T(J)V TOtS f-tflV f3amA1!iJa 1Tpoa'Tt8ti.f-tEI'WV oaov d.I!'Tt{Jijvm 1Tp6s S1Jf-tOKpaT{av,
aOIJts
r'.nrJp 'TOV !-'~ yfviaea. 'TVpaw{oa 'Tdl' Oijf-tOV d.vappwWVI/'TWV. (Here
Delatte takes lptta to be the moving weight on the arm of a balance;

but this misses the idea of veering to each side in turn. Surely the
metaphor is that of the ship of state, and f.ptta has its common sense
of 'ballast'.) Cicero (de re pub. ii. 57) also stresses the importance, for
stability, of an aequabilis ... in cittilate compensatio.
&.d: not inconsistent with i!1ri ?To.:\U, which should not be excised (so
Bekker): the state remains in equilibrium for along time by constantly
applying the principle of reciprocity (for this sense of aE{ cf. 10).
8. s~u TOV <i'ITO TOU 8TjjJ.OU 4>6~ov: cf. Arist. Pol. vii (v}. 8. 1308 a zs,
a</J~mrrat

a a.Z 1T0At'Tdat ov tt&vov a.a 'TO ?T6ppw dvat n7w Otarf.IJHp611'TwV'

d)..),' iv{on. Kat

-r~v 1ToATela.v;

s.a.

il.d. 'TO i!yyv,; rpof3ovwvo yelp

xnpwv lxouat p.MA.ov
and on the advantages of rf.6{3os in general see Xen.
66!

VI. w. 8

LYCURGAN SPARTA AND ROME

Oec. 7 25; Mem. iii. 5 5 Applied to a foreign enemy it is essentially

the motive behind Scipio Nasica's opposition to the destruction of
Carthage (cf. Plut. Cato mai. 27. 3 f.; Mor. 88 A; Sall. lug. 41;
Walbank, CQ, 1945, 87 n. 5; Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 104-s);
for P.'s rejection of Nasica's argument see 18 n.
9. tea.T' tte~oy~v dpW'1'(v5Tjv: the aristocratic principle (cf. 25. r for
its use in the Roman army in the choice of centurions) ; see also
4 3 n., and on the Spartan gerousia 45 3-5 n. (c).
T(l a~Ka.('l? '11'poovf.f1EW ia.uTous: the role of the gerontes recalls that of
the Kopo and Zmra:ypira in Archytas, 77pi. voJUJv (Stob. iv. 1.
138
W.-H., Ss-86), viz. to restore the balance in the state; cf.
Delatte, Essai, 153 f.; Oilier, i. 205, ii. 150.
10. T~v Twv (~a.TToufLf.vwv f1Ep8a.: 'the part that was at a disadvantage', i.e. the monarchy, which by the creation of the gerontes gained
strength against the populace. The word rall-np1 takes up this phrase,
thus indicating that ot.d To rofs ;(Jaw lfL,dvtv goes with iilll.rrovfLivwv,
not with what follows (so von Fritz, Constitution, 466--7).
11. 'II'~EiO'TOV . , , XPOVOV 5lE.:Pu~a.SE , , .'!'ijv t~Eufkp(a.v: in fact until they
tried to convert this freedom into domination over others, a procedure to which the Lycurgan constitution (unlike the Roman) was
unsuited (so. r-6). On i/t.wO,pla at Sparta see 45-47. 6 n., 48-5o n.
12-14. Contrast between Lyc1trgan Sparta and Rome. The Spartan
constitution was achieved by reason of Lycurgus' Aoyos-, whereas
the Romans attained the same result by a series of crises in which
they chose the best course; cf. Cic. de re pub. ii. 2 (Cato's view), 'ob
hanc causam praestare nostrae ciuitatis statum ceteris ciuitatibus,
quod in illis singuli fuissent fere, qui suam quisque rem publicam
constituissent legibus at que institutis suis, ut ... Lacedaemoniorum
Lycurgus ... , nostra autem res publica non unius esset ingenio sed
multorum, nee una hominis uita sed aliquot constituta saeculis et
aetatibus'. The two passages are, however, different in emphasis.
P. merely states the difference between Rome and Sparta: he does
not make it a sign of merit in Rome (as Taeger, r3-14, believes) that
her constitution has developed gradually and empirically-indeed
here he merely claims that the Roman constitution is as good as the
Spartan, reserving the feature in which it is superior till so. Indeed,
La Roche (25), with perhaps some exaggeration, remarks that 'des
Griechen Selbstgefi.ihl, der fUr seine Nation das aprioristische ota
,\t\you beansprucht, la{lt sich in dieser Unterscheidung nicht ver~
kennen', and Oilier (ii. rsr) argues that P. is implicitly criticizing
Cato's view. However, the phrase oti fL~V Sul. A6yov should not be
pressed, for Myos- obviously enters into the process of a.lpoJfLEVot rci
f3<1Artov, on which Roman success is based (cf. Poschl, 74 n. 53). The
real contrast is between the unified plan and an empirical development, and it is not to be assumed (with Leo, Miscelta Ciceroniana
662

THE ARCHAEOLOGIA

VI.

II

(Gottingen, 1892), 13-14) that P. excluded t\oyos- from the forces

contributing to Roman development (cf. Taeger, 49).
The reference to 1roN\wv dyu)vwv Kat 1TpayfLaTwv . alpovfLevot TO
{Jlt\nov serves to lead up to the archaeologia, which followed at this
point (Poschl, 65).
12. tT68ev ~Kaorc;1 Kat 1TWS 1ricl>u~ee CJ'Uf1f3a(vELV: cf. 2 EKa<rra. .
uvvvo1]uas avayKa.lws Kal<f>vutKWS' lmTEAOVfLEVa; here, too, the reference
is to the anacyclos-is.
14. i~ auTTjS TTJS tv Ta'Ls 1TEpmneiaLS E1TLyvwaews: 'in the light
of experience acquired in disasters'.
O.et atpouflEVOL To f3eAnov: cf. 2. 8-Io n.; had the Romans possessed
a history like that of P. it might have assisted them in this process.
TauTo Au~eoupy'l_) TEAos Twv ~ea9' TJflnS 1TOALTeu:iiv: 'the same
result as Lycurgus and the best of all existing constitutions'. Paton's
insertion 'that is to say' for 'and' is inaccurate, for Lycurgan Sparta
is no longer Twv Ka8' ~fLiis 1TOAtTuwv.
11 a. The 'archaeologia'. This convenient title (on which see E.
Norden, Urgesch-ichte, 46 n. 1; Agnostos Theos, 372ft.) may be retained, though it has no ancient authority for this section of P.'s
history. A survey of early Roman history is foreshadowed in 3 3
(8ta rryv ayvotav TWV 1TpoyeyovoTWV KTA.), where P. regards ignorance
of the past as one of the obstacles to an understanding of the Roman
state. There are hints at the account of the formation and growth
of the Roman constitution in 4 13 and 9 13-14, it is led up to in
10. 14, and there is a reference back to it in 57 10. These passages
show that the account of the early history of Rome was designed
to explain the process by which the mixed constitution came into
being. How far the archaeolog-ia can be recovered from Scipio's
speech in Cicero, de re pub. ii. 1--63, has been much discussed. Taeger
(who also sees P. as a source in the early books of Diodorus) argues
that Scipio's account follows P. closely both in subject-matter and
emphasis, and hence that P. treated early Roman history as a combination of the two themes of the mixed constitution and the anacyclosis, in which mixed monarchy, mixed basileia, and mixed
aristocracy follow each other and culminate in the truly balanced
constitution. One argument against this has been indicated in 10. 7 n. ;
and it has been adequately refuted by Poschl (42ft.), who shows that
Cicero used material from P. and other sources to build up his own
picture of the development of the Roman state, in which the emphasis is wholly his. It may be noted that in Cicero, de re pub. ii. 21,
Laelius describes Scipio's account as 'nona ad disputandum ratio,
quae nusquam est in Graecorum libris', and Scipio himself (ibid.
ii. 1) emphasizes his debt to Cato. If Cicero did in fact reproduce
P. very closely, Laelius' point can be evaded by assuming that P. vi
66]

VI.

II

THE ARCHAEOLOGIA

had not yet been published at the dramatic date of the dialogue
{viz. 129) (Philippson, Phil. Woch., 1930, u81-2); but this seems very
forced, apart from the improbability of the assumption of late
publication for this book (see introductory note, pp. 635-6). Comparison of the fragments with Cicero shows, however, that P. was
a substantial source for Scipio's speech; and like Cicero, P. ended
his sketch with the Decemv:irate (or immediately after), by which
time the mixed constitution was presumably established (u. 1 n.).
It has been frequently assumed (as by Taeger) that P. wrote the
archaeologia as an illustration of the anacyclosis. This is to reverse
the emphasis. The archaeologia was meant to trace the process by
which the mikte arose; and whether P. first adopted the a1tacyclosis
and then applied it to early Roman history, or whether he was
struck by the way in which early Roman history fell into the pattern
of the anacyclosis, is now perhaps past knowing. But certainly the
account of early Rome, which he had from annalistic sources,
{Gelzer suggests Fabius (Hermes, 1934, son.) or C. Acilius (Gnomon,
1956, 84)) fits the theory excellently, with Romulus as !Lovapxos, the
elder Tarquin and Servius Tullius asf3acnA;;;fs, Superbusas -n.Jpawos, the
early republic as aristocracy, and the decemvirate as oligarchy; not
every detail can be pressed, naturally (cf. 7 In.), and in dealing with
the detailed history of a real state P. must have modified the schematic
process of the abstract anacyclosis. But, with this proviso, one may
assume with assurance that the archaeologia describes the rise of the
mikte through the early stages of the anacyclosis, and the gradual
adjustment of the three elements in the state to form a stable
balance (or mixture); cf. 10. 7 n. It thus demonstrates that the
anacyclosis is indeed a 'natural' scheme of development for any state
not fortunate enough to plan, or hit upon, a mixed constitution.
The archaeologia is known only from fragments. P.'s account of
the pontifices (cf. xxi. 13. n) may have been included in it, or may
have come in a now lost section describing the constitution more
fully (perhaps after 18: see introductory note, pp. 635-6) ; such an
account would almost certainly have made reference to religious
institutions (d. 56. 6 ff.). P.'s criticism of Roman education (Cic. de
re pub. iv. 3) is also assumed by Mion:i (53 n. 5) to have been in the
archaeologia; but it can have been included almost anywhere in the
Histories, e.g. in connexion with the younger Scipio (d. xxxi. 22-30).
1. Etymology oj'Palatine' (Dion. Hal. i. 31. 3-32. 1): the derivation
of 'Palatinus' from Pallas was probably later than that from Pallantium in Arcadia (listed by Dionysius, and probably to be attributed
to Fabius Pictor who, according to Marius Victorinus (ars gram.
i, p. 23 Keil), described Evander's flight from Arcadia to Italy (HRR,
i, Q. Fabius Pictor, fg. 1)). Since Pallantium was derived aetiologically from Pallas, attempts were made to link a Pallas \Vith the

THE FOUNDATION OF ROME

VI. ua. z

Palatine, and P. is the earliest witness to this particular story of a

Pallas, son of Heracles and Launa ( = Lavinia), Evander'!:> daughter.
Dionysius reports his failure to fmd any traces of the cult of the
youth, which one might have expected to survive on the Palatine
in view of the survival of cults and altars to Evander. The same
version appears in Paulus (epit. Festi, p. 245 Lindsay), 'alii eundem
(sc. montem), quod Pallas ibi sepultus sit, aestimant appellari'; cf.
[Aur. Viet.] orig. gent. rom. 5 3, 'in eo monte, quem primum tum illi
a Pallante Pallanteum, postea nos Palatium diximus'. Virgil (Atm.
viii. 54) derives the name Pallantis proaui de nomine; but Servius
(ad A en. viii. 51) knows F.'s version, among many others which can
hardly be brought into any sort of order. See Ziegler, RE, 'Palatium',
cols. 16-2o, 'da wir ja nur Fetzen der ausgebreiteten pseudo-wissenschaftlichen Literatur besitzen, die sich mit diesen Fragen der italischen Urgeschichte beschaftigt hat'. It is noteworthy that Cicero
began his historical survey in de re publica ii 'vith Romulus, here at
least not following P. closely.
2. Date of the: foundation of Rome (Dion. Hal. i. 74 3). It was assumed
by Mommsen (Rom. Chron. 142), followed by Valeton( 51-5z) and
Peter (HRR, i. xli ff.), that Dionysius is here saying that P. gave
the Tdvalj of the pontifices as his authority for dating the foundation
of Rome to 01. 7. 2 (= 751/o). This is unlikely, for two reasons: (a)
Dionysius says the opposite, viz. 'I was determined not, like P., to
say merely "I am convinced that Rome was founded in Ol. 7, 2",
nor to accept the authority of the table of the pontifex maximus
alone without checking it' (Stuart Jones, CAH, vii. 321 n. 1; cf.
Leuze, ]ahrzahlung, 169). It might indeed be argued that Dionysius
is contrasting his own work, based on Eratosthenes and the synchronizing of Greek and Roman dates, \'l'ith a simple statement by
P., 'I am convinced that the date given in the pontifical table is
correct'. But in that case he expressed himself very clumsily. (b) The
pontifical 'T'![vae is the white board set up by the pontijex maximus
annually at the Regia (Cic. de or. ii. sz; Serv. ad A en. i. 373; Macrob.
Sat. iii. z. 17; Gell. ii. 28. 6 = HRR, i, Cato fg. 77), and not an early
edition of the atmales maximi, as Kornemann argued (Klio, 19II,
249, following Enmann, Rh. Mus., 1902, 517 ff.; see Crake, CP, 1940,
375~8). It is highly improbable that this tabula gave a foundation
date for Rome based on Olympiads (cf. Beloch, RG, 88 n. r, against
E. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 289 n. r). Hence it would seem that the date
01. 7, 2 is to be attributed to P. only, and that in mentioning the
7Tva.g Dionysius has turned to some other unspecified authority,
possibly Piso (d. Kornemann, Klio, 1911, 246). Gelzer's view (Hermes,
1934, 52-53) that Dionysius is referring to the Capitoline Fast (cf.
Hirschfeld, Kl. Schr. 343), since this is 'Gelehrsamkeit der augusteischen, nicht der pisonischen, Zeit', fails, now that it is known that
665

VI. II a.

THE DATE OF

the F asti were inscribed on the Arch of Augustus in the Forum, and
not on the walls of the Regia (cf. Broughton, i. xii).
It seems likely that P. is the source of the chronological data in
Cicero, de re p-ub. ii; cf. ibid. 27 ( = P. vi. I I a 5), 'sequamur enirn
potissimum P. nostrum, quo nemo fuit in exquirendis temporibus
diligentior'. Cicero (ibid. ii. I8), like P., gives the foundation date as
01. 7, 2: his remark, 'id quod Graecorum inuestigatur annalibus',
will refer toP.; cf. also ibid. ii. 29, 'neque hoc inter eos, qui diligentissime persecuti sunt temporum annales, ulla est umquam in dubitatione uersatum'. Now Cicero's figures for the reigns of the kings are:
Romulus 37 years (de re p-ub. ii. I7), Numa 39 years (ibid. ii. 27 = P.
vi. I I as). Tullus, no figure survives, Ancus 23 years (ibid. ii. 33),
Tarquinius Priscus 38 years (ibid. ii. 36), Servius Tullius and Tarquinius Superbus, no figure survives. Cicero's figures for Tullus, Servius,
and Superbus are, however, recoverable. In dere p-ub. ii. 28-29 he brings
Superbus to the throne in 01. 62, I = 532/r; and since Superbus was
expelled in 01. 68, I (P. iii. 22. r) it seems likely that P. (and Cicero)
made him reign 24 years. Further, Cicero (ibid. ii. 29) dates Pythagoras' arrival in Italy to the I4oth year after Numa's death, which
is the fourth year of Superbus (not the first, as Mommsen, Rom.
Chron. I33 n. 256); and his reference to students of chronology
(quoted above) makes it fairly certain that these are Polybian
figures. If one accepts the usual figures for the reigns of Tullus and
Servius, viz. 32 and 44 years (cf. Livy, i. 3I. 8, 48. 8), the sequence
from Numa's death to the fourth year of Superbus runs (32)+23+
38 +(44) +3 = I4o; and this suggests that, despite the fact that his
figures for some of the other kings (e.g. Numa and Ancus) do not
correspond to those of Livy (a point stressed by Leuze, J ahrziihl-ung,
ISI), Cicero agrees with him for Tullus and Servius; his qualification
of the number with the word Jere will be considered below.
If these figures are accepted as those of Cicero (and so probably
of P.) for Tullus, Servius, and Superbus, the full sequence for all
seven kings is 37+39+32+23+38+44+24 = 237. This total, however, presents a serious difficulty; for
(a) Cicero (de re p-ub. ii. 52) states that the total period of the

kings is 240 years 'paulo cum interregnis fere amplius';

(b) in iii. 22. I P. dates the foundation of the republic 28 years
before Xerxes' invasion of Greece (01. 75, I} and so to 01.
68, I = so8/7. But from 01. 7. 2 = 75I/o to 01. 68, I =so8/7
is not 240 but 243 (or reckoning inclusively 244) years.
These discrepancies have led to the hypothesis that in calculating
his total Cicero contaminated P.'s dates with those of Fabius.
Reckoned backwards from 01. 68, I = soS/7' 240 years bring one to
01. 8, r = 748/7, which is Fabius' date for the foundation of the city
666

THE FOUND A TIO~ OF ROME

VI.

II

a.

(Dion. Hal. i. 74 I; Solinus, i. 27 ff.); cf. Mommsen, Rom. Chron.

I38 n. 256. Taeger (41, 48) thinks rather of the use of Nepos' Chronica;
but, as Sprey (Tijd. ges., 1941, 55-56) rightly observes, all that we
know of this work is that it agreed with P. in dating the foundation
of Rome to 01. 7, 2 (Solin us, i. 27 ff.). Such contamination seems in
any case rather improbable, especially since there is some evidence
that Cicero, like P., knew the figure of 244 years for the regal period.
According to a fragment preserved in Nonius (Cic. de re pub. ii. 53)
the regal constitution continued uncorrupted for 220 years; if this
refers to the period down to the accession of Superbus, 1 the 24 years
of his reign make up the Polybian total of 244.
As Holzapfel (Ri:imische Chronologie, Leipzig, r885) and Matzat
(Romische Chronologie, Berlin, x883) already saw, the discrepancy is
more likely to be connected with the existence of interregna after all
the kings except Priscus and Servius; cf. Cic. de re pub. ii. 52, 'paulo
cum interregnis fere amplius', where the plural is significant. Recently
K. Sprey (Tijd. ges., 1941, 54-61) has proposed a scheme which would
reconcile the figures for the separate reigns with the totals given by
Cicero and calculated from P. His hypothesis assumes that P. worked
with a table of regnal years which ignored the year in which a king
died in counting the number of years he reigned; thus Romulus,
who reigned 37 years, will have died in the course of year 38 (Plutarch
gives both figures, cf. Rom. 29; Num. 2). The residual months were
added to any interregna! months to form an extra year; thus if
Ancus' last regnal year was 01. 40, 4, his death occurred in 01. 41, r,
and 01. 41, z was reckoned the first year of Tarquinius Priscus. In
the case of Numa's acces.c;ion, a tradition made the interregnum one
of soo days (cf. Livy, i. 17; Mommsen, Rom. Chron. 139-40 n. 259);
hence two years occur in P.'s supposed table between Romulus 37
and Numa r. There was no interregnum after Priscus and Servius
Tullius (cf. Liebenam, RE, 'Interregnum', col. 1713); but to allow
for the additional months of each P.'s table inserted an additional
year in calculating the end of Servius' reign. Such a system would be
somewhat rough and ready; but it would provide one method of
reconciling regnal years and interregna 'With a calendar based on
Olympiad years.
On this hypothesis, and using Sprey's data, the follo\\ing table
on p. 668, can be reconstructed.
According to this scheme there would be 144 years between Numa's
death in 0!. 26, 4
673/2 and the arrival of Pythagoras in Italy in
Superbus' fourth year, Ol. 62, 4 = 529/8, whereas Cicero makes the
' Mommsen's suggestion (Rom. Chron. 138 n. 256) that the figure of 220 years
'kann auf die ersten Ausschreitungen des Tar'lu in ius Superhus gehen', and so
includes some years of his reign, is unconvincing; this is not the kind of nuance
one would expect in chronology.

VI.ua.:z

THE DATE OF

difference only 140 years. Why? Because, Sprey replies (op. cit. 6r),
Cicero was using P.'s data, but making his own calculations (de re
pub. ii. 29, regiis annis dinumeratis) ; and, as we saw, the total of
regnal years involved came to 140. Knowing, however, that some
allowance must be made for interregna and additional regnal months,
Cicero qualified his figure with jere. A similar qualification occurs in
de re pub. ii. z8 and s:z, where '240 years and a little more' represents
a convenient approximation. Sprey's scheme seems to account for
the evidence, and on the whole seems preferable to assuming that
Cicero has contaminated P.'s figures with those of Fabius or Nepos;
on the other hand, it involves a considerable hypothetical element
and several separate assumptions, and the second alternative cannot
be wholly excluded.
Year of death,
Year of
accessian
Ol.

Ron11.1lus

37

Numa

T1.1J11.1s

39
32

Ancus

23

Prise us

38
44

Ser. Tul-

lius

7, z
7,
27,
35,
41,
so,
I

Lasl1'egnal
yea1'

Ol.
751/0 16, 2

26, 3
1 = 672/I 34. 4
2 = 639/8 40,4
2 = 615{4 so, 3 =
4 = 577/6 61,4 =
I

7IZ{I

including any
interregna

Ol.
/15/4

r6, J

674/3
641{0
6!7/6
578/7
533/Z

and 4
7I4/Z
26,4 = 673/2
35, I = 640/39
41, I = 6r6/5
so, 4 = 577/6
62, I = 532./1

No interregnum
No interregnum:
additional year included (see above)

The origin of P.'s figures is not knO\vn. Eratosthenes had dated

the fall of Troy to u84/3 (Euseb. Chron. i. 28r-:z Sch.); and when
Diodorus (vii. 5) dates the foundation of Rome 433 years after ni
Tpwu<a, and in 01. 7, 2, he is clearly following this tradition. Cato's
date, 01. 7, I
75z{r, 432 years after the fall of Troy (Dion. HaL
i. 74 z), is a slight variant on this; but according to Solinus (i. 27 ff.)
both Nepos and Lutatius Catulus accepted 01. 7, z on the basis of
Eratosthenes' computations for the Trojan War. Despite the one
year's discrepancy, Cato cannot be ruled out as P.'s possible source;
see, however, Leuze, ]ahrziihlung, Ifi9-p, arguing against this,
:Mornmsen (Rom. Chron. 137) suggests that the attribution of 240
years to the regal period goes back to calculations of seven generations of
or 34 years each, giving 233i or 238 years, rounded off
to 240. But, as we saw, the figure of 243 or 244 seems as well established in the early tradition as 240. If in fact the foundation was
fixed by calculations based on the fall of Troy, and the foundation
of the republic by the Jasti, discrepancies would naturally arise,
which could be adjusted only by chan&>ing the number of regnal
668

THE FOUNDATION OF ROME

VI.

II

a. 3

years. It may be noted that Ol. 7, 2 and Ol. 68, I, P.'s dates for the
foundation of the city and the republic, are separated by 243 years
on exclusive reckoning, and that this figure is that of the Capitoline
F asti (d. Mommsen, Rom. Chron. I42-4) and of the official chronology
of the Empire (though the Varronian figure allowed a total of 244
years). P.'s dates and chronology of the regal period represent an
early stage in the tradition, but one at which the foundation had
already been narrowed within close limits, and the length of the
various reigns had already been substantially fixed. Schachermeyr
(RE, 'Tarquinius', col. 23S4) argues that these detailed dates are
the creation of the annalists Gellius and Piso; but this view must be
rejected if Cicero took his dates from P. Somewhat earlier Timaeus
dated the foundation of Rome 38 years before 01. I, I, i.e. in 8I4/I3
(Dion. Hal. i. 74 I), clearly influenced by the synchronism with the
founding of Carthage and the story of Dido and Aeneas. A fragment
of Ennius (Soi-2 Vahlen) asserted that
septingenti sunt paulo plus aut minus anni,
augusto augurio postquam inclita condita Roma est.

If this means 7oo years before his own time, it will bring the foundation back to about goo; and Mommsen (Rom. Chron. IS2-3) thought
this perhaps referred to the foundation of Lavinium. But if the
fragment is from a speech by Camillus (cf. 0. Skutsch, The Annals
of Quintus Ennius (London, IgS3), I4-IS), the date goes back to
c. noo, which matches Ennius' belief that Romulus was Aeneas'
grandson. Cincius Alimentus' date of Ol. I2, 4 = 72g/8 (Dion. Hal.
i. 74 1; Solinus, i. 27 ff.) may assume a regal period of two no-year
saecula (cf. Mommsen, Rom. Chron. I3S)- But the later tradition
makes the regal period waver between 240 and 244 years. For the
foundation 753/2 acquired canonical value on the authority of
Atticus and Varro, though the Fasti preferred 7S2/r. All these dates
are of course unhistorical.
On the problem see Unger, Rh. Mus., I88o, 1-38; Mommsen, Rom.
Chron. 127 ff., I34-so; Valeton, 47-sg; De Sanctis, i. 2Io n. 4; 0.
Leuze, }ahrzlihlung, rso ff.; E. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 288--9; Beloch,
RG, 86 ff.; Gelzer, Hermes, rg34, so ff.; K. Sprey, Tijd. ges., 1941,
S4-6I. For the most recent discussion of the pontifical annals see
]. E. A. Crake, CP, 1g4o, 375-86 (with bibliography).
3. Olympiad chronology. (Eusebius, Chron. 194. Io Sch. = Cramer,
Anecd. Paris. ii. 141. 23 (Armen., p. go. 24 Karst); cf. Syncellus,
p. 370. 6 and 372 2 Bonn) Two traditions existed for the beginning
of the historical Olympic Games--an early 'mythical' period associated with Heracles, Pelops, etc., is not relevant here. One of these
traditions attributed the foundation and the Olympic truce to
Lycurgus of Sparta and Iphitus of Elis, the other dated the first
66g

VI.

II

a. 3

OLYMPIAD CHRONOLOGY

Olympiad from the victory of Coroebus in 776. The Lycurgan tradition, which Aristotle upheld (Plut. Lye. 1. 1), was supported by the
famous disk in the Heraeum, seen by Pausanias (Paus. v. 20. 1),
which bore an inscription reputedly giving the names of Iphitus and
Lycurgus. But the chronographers, from Eratosthenes onwards
(Clem. Al. Strom. i. 21. 402 P.), who based their calculations on the
lists of Spartan kings, put Lycurgus in 884, over a hundred years
before Coroebus' victory (cf. Apollodorus ap. Euseb. Chron. i. I9o
Sch.). This conflict of dates was resolved either by assuming the
existence of two men called Lycurgus (cf. Timaeus, FGH, 566 F
I27 = Plut. Lye. 1. 2; Cic. de re pub. ii. I8, 'prima ... Olympias (i.e.
of 776), quam quidam nominis errore ab eodem Lycurgo constitutam
putant'), or by postulating a period of twenty-seven 'unrecorded'
Olympiads between the foundation by Lycurgus and Iphitus, and
Coroebus' victory at the 'first' Olympiad in 776. This second thesis
goes back, apparently, to Callimachus (fg. 54I Pfeiffer), who, however, makes the number of unrecorded Olympiads thirteen rather
than twenty-seven-perhaps reckoning with a system of eight-year
Olympiads (so Muller, Dorians, ii. 512), or, more probably, dating
Iphitusand Lycurgus to824 (] acoby, ApollodorsChronik (Berlin, 1902),
I22 ff.; Pfeiffer, Callimaehus, on fg. 54I). This theory of a period of
unrecorded Olympiads was generally accepted; and it is given in this
extract from Eusebius as the view of Aristodemus of Elis and of P.
Cicero discusses Olympic chronology in connexion with the foundation of Rome (de re pub. ii. I8), and for this section his chronological
source appears to be P. (see 2 n.). But in accepting the theory of
an original foundation, at the hands of a homonymous Lycurgus,
in 776, and dismissing the view that the original Lycurgus founded
the games as springing nominis errore, Cicero is clearly dismissing
also the theory of unrecorded Olympiads; and if the P. of this fragment is the historian, Cicero is indicating him under the disguise of
quidam. This is of course possible; Cicero may have accepted P.'s
date for the First Olympiad (776) and his figure for the interval
between this date and the foundation of Rome, without necessarily
accepting also his view of the relationship between the Olympic
Games and Lycurgus. Moreover, Cicero's First Olympiad was 'centum et octo annis post quam Lycurgus leges scribere instituit', which
is equivalent to the twenty-seven Olympiads of the present fragment; this might well imply that Cicero accepted P.'s figure for the
gap, but preferred to bridge it differently.
On the other hand, H. Gelzer (Sextus Julius Africanus und die
byzantinische Chronographic, ii (Leipzig, 1885), 96 n. I) has argued
that the P. of this fragment is the ab studiis of the emperor Claudius;
and in this he is followed by Weniger (Klio, I905, 158 n. I) and
Jacoby (FGH, 254 F 2). Three passages, from Syncellus (p. 172.
670

DRINKING OF RAISIN WINE

VI.na . .f

zz Bonn), Eusebius (PE, x. xo. 4, p. 488 c). and Malalas (Chron. vi,
p. 157. 19 Bonn)--conveniently set out in FGH, 250 F r b, 6, and n quote a Polybius, along with Diodorus, Cephalion, Castor, Thallus,
and Phlegon, for the date of Cyms' rise to power, for Cyrus' victory
over Croesus, and for the duration of the Assyrian empire. It is very
unlikely that the historian can here be meant (cf. Biittner-Wobst,
iv. sx6 n.), for these are topics quite outside his field. Hence Gelzer's
attribution to the freedman has some degree of plausibility; and if
the latter wrote a chronographical work, it is not impossible that he
and not the historian is referred to here for the foundation of the
Olympic games. Whether the conjunction llo"Avf3w~ iaTopd is against
this hypothesis is hard to say; for {a7opd: is probably no more than
'records', and, even if it does suggest a history, we are ignorant of the
character of the work from which the above chronological material
was taken. No help can be got from Aristodemus of Elis, for his
exact date is not known (cf. Susemihl, ii. xs8), though a scholiast
to Pindar (Nem. 1 1) makes him a pupil of Aristarchus. The problem
must therefore be left without a solution ; but if Cicero has diverged
from P. and he is the author here referred to, book vi is where he
will have discussed the matter (and not, as Nissen (Rh. Mus., r871,
254) argued, in xii or xl [sic]). See further Weniger, Klio, 1905, r86 ff.;
Ziehen, Schedae Hermanno Usener oblatae (Bonn, r891), 138 ff.; RE,
'Olympia', cols. 2525 ff. (and especially 2526 n. r, where, however,
Ziehen does not observe the discrepancy between the views of Cicero
and the P. of this fragment).
4. Drin.king of raisin wine by women (Athen. x. 440 E; Eustath. ad
Iliad. xix. r6o, p. 1243). It is established that in early Rome women
were forbidden to drink wine; cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. xiv. 89, 'non
lice bat id (sc. uinum) feminis Romae bibere'; Plut. comp. Lye. et
Num. 3 5; Mor. 265 B; Val. l\lax. ii. r. s. vi. 3 9; Gell. x. 23. 1; Dion.
Hal. ii. 25. 6; Tert. Apol. 6. 4; Cic. de re pub. iv. 6, Serv. ad A en.
i. 737 Pliny (loc. cit.) records the clubbing to death of his wife by
Egnatius Maetennus for drinking 'kine, and his acquittal by Romulus,
the starving to death of a matron, who broke open the casket containing the keys of the wine-cellar, by her relatives (on the authority
of Fabius Pictor), and (Nat. kist. xiv. 90) Cato's assertion that
women were kissed by their male relatives in order to detect the
smell of temetum (wine). In one of his speeches (ORF, fg. 218) Cato
also referred to fining women for wine-drinking, and Pliny (loc. cit.)
quotes the example of a woman who, for this offence, was fined a sum
equivalent to her dowry by the judge Cn. Domitius. The alternative
drink, uinum passum, was a sweet raisin wine with quite a different
flavour (Pliny, Nat. kist. xiv. So, suo sapore. non uini). Pliny (ibid.
xiv. 81) describes its production, and it is frequently mentioned as
coming from Crete (Juv. 14. 27o-1, 'pingue antiquae de litore Cretae
671

VI.

II

a. 4

THE FOUNDATION OF OSTIA

passum'; Mart. xiii. Io6; Pliny, ibid.). Aegosthena, the Megarian

village in the bay of Porto Germano at the head of the Corinthian
Gulf, is not mentioned elsewhere as producing passum; but on its
vineyards see L. Robert, Rev. Phil., 1939, n6 n. 1. For passum made
in Italy see Pliny, Nat. hist. xiv. 81.
The obligation imposed on the Roman matron to kiss her relatives
and relatives by marriage ws J~avE.j.{wv, i.e. up to sobrini, of the
sixth degree, is discussed by Plutarch (Mor. 265 B), and Cato (in
Pliny, Nat. hist. xiv. go); cf. Gell. x. 23. I. On the ius osculi see also
Arnob. ii. 67; Plaut. Stich. 89, 91 ; Prop. ii. 6. 7; Cic. loc. cit.
This fragment on Roman mores illustrates P.'s intention (3. 3) to
expound ,.a, ... wpoyEyov:ha . lliLwp,a.Ta ~al. ~ovfi ~<ai ~<aT' lo{av.
5. Length of Numa's reign (Cic. de re pub. ii. 27). The figure is probably
from Fabius (cf. 2 n.).
6. Foundation of Ostia (Steph. Byz. '!Jcrr{a.). The port of Rome lay
16 miles down the Tiber, on its left bank, p,Emtu Toil woTap,ov ~<a~ Ti)s
Oa.Aa'TT'JS ay~wvt (Dion. Hal. iii. 44 4) A unanimous tradition assigned
its foundation to Ancus Marcius (d. Ennius, 144-5 Vahlen; Cic.
de re pub. ii. 5, 33; Livy, i. 33 9; Dion. Hal. iii. 44 4; Strabo, v. 232;
Festus, p. 214 Lindsay 'Ostiam'; the assertion of Calza (RE. 'Ostia',
coL 1655) that P. assigns the founding of Ostia to Numa seems to
rest on a misunderstanding of the fragmentary text). The origins of
this tradition are obscure. It may have arisen in connexion with the
late-fourth-century Roman defence against Etruria on the lower
Tiber, directed by C. Marcius Rutilus (so DeSanctis, i. 37o-r); and
Carcopino (Virgile et les origines d'Ostie (Paris, 1919); Ostie (Paris,
1929)) has postulated an early Latin cult of Vulcan centred at what
was later the military colony of Ostia. Alternatively, 'the war of
Ancus with Ficana and his foundation of Ostia may ... be regarded
as the traditional account of Rome's southward advance' during
the regal period (Last, CAH, vii. 378). Hitherto excavation has
revealed nothing earlier than the castrum of about 325, with walls of
tufa from Fidenae and an area of about ss acres; but an earlier
settlement, perhaps on a slightly different site, may still be discovered
as a basis for the tradition. See Calza, RE, 'Ostia', cols. r654 ff. ;
Carcopino's works mentioned above.
7. L. Tarquinius' arrival at Rome; how he obtained the throne. The
tradition about the Tarquins took shape in the third century and
first appears in Fabius; there is some evidence that an early tradition
of Tarquin' crystallized into the duplication of Priscus and Superbus, one good and the other bad. The oldest existing version is this
in P., which draws on Fabius and is in turn the basis of Cicero, de re
pub. ii. 34~35 (where, however, Priscus' character is carefully drawn
to bring out Roman virtues; cf. Taeger, 56-57).
1\EOKlOS o h"111apliTou: authorities vary between Lucumo (e.g. Livy,
5]2

TARQUINIUS PRISCUS

VI.

II. I

i. 34 I; Dion. Hal. iii. 47 r) and Lucius as the elder Tarquin's name.

The story of Demaratus (cf. Wissowa, RE, Suppl.-B. i, 'Demaratos
(3 a)', col. 340) as Tarquin's father appears widely (Livy, i. 34 2;
Dion. Hal. iii. 46. 3 ff.; VaL Max. iii. 4 2; Plut. Rom. r6. 8; Publ. I4. 1;
Macrob. Sat. i. 6. 8, iii. 4 8, etc.), and he is frequently regarded as a
bringer of Greek culture to Italy (cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. xxxv. 152;
Tac. Ann. xi. 14) ; but the name of Tarquin recalls the Etruscan hero
Tarchon (and the Asiatic god Tarku). and this story must be false.
Schachermeyr (RE, 'Tarquinius (6)', col. 2371) suggests that it connects with Greek influence in Etruria, and specifically with trade
contacts with Bacchiad Corinth. Demaratus is supposed to have been
a Bacchiad who migrated to Etruria at the time of Cypselus' tyranny
{c. 655-62s). See further A. Blakeway, ]RS, 1935. 129-49.
yuva.f:~<a. XP"la(p."lv ... auvepyov: probably Tanaquil, who is renowned
for her bold plans (Livy, i. 34 4 f.; Dion. Hal. iii. 47 4). But P. does
not mention her name; and one tradition gave Tarquin a wife named
Gaia Caecilia (perhaps first found in Varro: cf. Schachermeyr, RE,
'Tanaquil', cols. 2172-3; 'Tarquinius', col. 23j2).
8-9. The proverb is from Hesiod (Op. 40: V1}1TWL, ouS iaamv O<T'-!_J
1r .\Eiov i}p.tav 1ra.~>ro>), and is quoted by Plato (Rep. v. 466 c and Laws,
iii. 690 E), in the latter instance in reference to moderation in kings;
whence von Scala (n3) suggests that the king here meant is Tullus
Hostilius (cf. Cic. de re pub. ii. 31}. Nissen (Rh. 1'\Jus., 187I, 254)
thinks Romulus is meant; but there is no proof that 9, a passage
of very general application, which follows 8 in the margin of the
codex Urbinas (fol. 6s"). necessarily concerns Numa (so Nissen, ibid.).
For imrJ()vifns 'incitement', cf. v. 42. 3, l.moe&tpa.s -r~v Sta{:Jo.\~v.
10. Nissen (loc. cit.) refers this sententia to Tarquinius Superbus;
it would suit him well enough.
11. Unidentifiable.
1'2. (Steph. Byz. s.v. "0.\Kwv.) Olkion is Volci, the Etruscan city lying
about
miles north-west of Rome, and 10 miles from the coast. Ko
other authority associates it with the Roman
period or early
republic, and it is not certain that P. mentioned it the archaeologia.

11-18. The Roman Constitution at its prime. Having traced the

growth of the mikte P. now examines it in its working form. His plan
for these chapters is carefully balanced and symmetrical:
I I.

Powers of Consuls
15. Checks on Consuls

12.

General remarks

13. Powers of Senate

r6. Checks on Senate

r8. Summary

14. Powers of People

Ii. Checks on People

11. 1-9. Apology to Ro-man readers for possible omissions. On P.'s

Roman readers (cf. xxxi. 22. 8) see von Scala (289-go). Leo (326 n. I)
4866

XX

673

VI.

II. I

THE ROMAN CONSTITUTION

suggests that here, and again in ix. 1. 2, P. is writing in a second

edition in reply to criticisms already received; but this h_ypothesis
is not supported by any traces of a revised edition elsewhere in vi.
1. o-r~ &:rro Tfjs :=~:pgou ~ho.j30.aews KTA.: despite a corrupt text it
seems clear that P. is here saying (a) that the Roman constitution
from the time of Xerxes' crossing (4-So), and from a date x+thirty
years later, has consistently improved, (b) that it was at its peak
during the Hannibalic War. Ed. Meyer (Rh. Mus., 1882, 622-3) first
saw that there was a reference to the period of the Decemvirate
and read (TI.TmpaL) or (rr/.vn:) Kal Tpuf.KoVTa; but De Sanctis (ii.
41 n. 1) proposed (Suo), which with inclusive reckoning brings one
to 449, when the consuls L. Valerius Potitus and M. Horatius took
over from the Decemviri. This seems likely. Xerxes' crossing is a
convenient date for the orientation of Greek readers (cf. iii. 22. 2 ).
Thus this first paragraph is transitional from the archaeologia to
P.'s account of the constitution at the time of the Second Punic
War. Since it is in connexion with Cannae that book vi is introduced
such a reference is quite in place here (cf. 2. 4 f.). and there seems
no good reason for assuming that this passage represents part of
a later draft (d. Svoboda, Phil., 1913, 474-5; DeSanctis, iii. r. 207).
Cicero (de re pub. ii. 1-37) follows P. in ending his account of early
Roman history with the Decemvirate (cf. Taeger, 100; Brink and
Walbank, CQ, 1954, II3-14).
a1TO 'J'OUTWV 1Tpo8u:uKpWOUf1EVWV: 'after the details (-.wv KilT a
fLI.po>) of the Roman political order had, from this time onwards, and
prior to the Hannibalic War (1rpo-), continued to be ever more well
arranged' {so von Fritz, Constitution, 366, 468-9, quoting Xen. Oec.
8. 6 for DlvKpw~:rv, 'to arrange well'). This is preferable to taking
Twv . 7rpoDLVKpwovfL.Ivmv with 'ljv, 'one of those receiving particular
elucidation'.
a.~ ~ TJf1EtS E1TO~'IJ<r6.f1e9o.: d. v. 111. g--1o.
2. -rbv imep TTJS au<YT6.<TEws o.o-roO >.6yov: 'an account of its origin';
cf. 4 13, 9 12, 57 10, where, however, P. adds a reference to a~Jg7JaL>
8. etliE...tu lil' liyvowv: a non seq14itur. It does not follow that,
because what is included is partly inaccurate, therefore what is
omitted is omitted from ignorance. But probably all P. means to say
is that a writer who is proved to be scrupulous deserves the reader's
confidence in both his knowledge and judgement, and therefore it
should be assumed that omissions are based on these qualities.
10. On the relativity of judgements. Probably part of the same
apologia. Critics are to bear in mind that P. is speaking of the period
of the Hannibalic War. Since then there may have been (and may
in future be) changes in constitutional detail (cf. 12. 10), though as
yet such changes are still slight (u. 13); but as a result judgements
may no longer seem appropriate. P. is aware of changes between 216

674

AT ITS PRIME

VI. IZ.I

and c. 150, but does not regard them as significant enough to upset
his general argument (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, IOS-7).
!li!To."'I"Ealnnos 8e TouTou: sc. Katpoii; 'when the situation changes'.
'~~"pbs Tas Q.~~o.s "~~""P~<TT6.ats auyKpwo!li!Vov: 'confronted with a set
of new circumstances'.
11-13. Introductory remarks on the division of power at Rome.
11. ~v !lEv 81] Tplo, ~~PTJ KTA.: 'the elements controlling the constitution were three in number, all of which I have mentioned before'; cf.
3 5 The three debased forms (4. 6) are irrelevant here.
ollTws tie "1!"6.vu KaTii t-Lepos KTA.: 'all aspects of the administration
were, taken separately, so fairly and so suitably ordered and regulated
through the agency of these three elements .. .'.
"'I"OTI!p' dopt<TTOKpO.T~KOV , 1-Lovo,pXLKOV: it is a mark of SUCCeSS in the
mil?.te that one cannot be sure what to call it; cf. Arist. Pol. vi (iv).
9 1294 b 13 ff., o p.iv oiiv Tp6rros TIJ> p.UjWS oliTos, Tofi S' eo p.p.l:x8at

rry

071JJ.OKpa.Tlav I<O.L Oftyapxtav opos, &a.v lvi>lx7)'TO. A.!yWl

a~v 1TOftl
x.....
, KO., 01\tya.pxta.li
, , , O"'
I"Ep C1VJ.I.i"'O.VE
a ' 7TEpt\ 'T'T/li
' A O.KE'T0.V
'"IJ.I.OKpaTLO.li
Oatp.ovtaJv 7TOftt7ela.v. Cf. also Plato, Laws, iv. 712 D; Isoc. Areop. 6r;
Ryffel, r64. Sinclair (251) suggests that this T<hras was in Dicaearchus;
~o,

but there is no reason to assume that P. drew on Dicaearchus in this

book (3. 7 n.). Here p.ovapxt~<ov (cf. 12, 12. 9) has not the pejorative
sense which it bears in the account of the anacyclosis (3. 9 ff.).
12. t-LOVO,PXLKOV KO,l ~O,O'LALKOV: cf. Cic. de re pub. ii. s6. 'tenuit ...
hoc in statu senatus rem publicam . . . uti consules potestatem
haberent tempore dumtaxat annuam, genere ipso ac iure regiam';
Dion. Hal. vi. 6s, {of. trrrU'TOt) {latnfttKOli exovl:n TO Tijs dpxiJ> Kpd'TOS,
ov S'T/JJ.O'TtKov. Roman tradition stresses this continuity with the
monarchy, modified only by the existence of prouocatio; cf. Mommsen, St.-R. ii. r. 93 n. 3
13. KO,t vuv fTL "'I"A.fjv oMywv TLVwv: cf. IO. The phrase serves as a
transition from the imperfect tenses of this chapter to the presents
which follow. In fact the subsequent account in many ways reflects
the conditions of r67~rso rather than those of ::n6, cf. McDonald,
CH], 6, 1939, 136; J RS, 1944, 13 n. n. Relevant details are mentioned in the separate notes.
12. Powers of the Consuls: see :Mommsen, St.-R. ii. r. 74-140;
Greenidge, 196-202.
1. "'l"aawv etat KuptoL Twv 8TJflO<T~wv "~~"P6.ewv: true, with the exception
of civil jurisdiction, which fell to the praetor after 366, and finance,
including assessment for tributum, which after 443 was normally
administered by the censors (:Mommsen, St.-R. ii. r. ror, 1o8). The
words 7rp6 Toil p.f:v ;gdynv Ttl C1TpaTorreSa. mean 'while exercising imperium domi' (on which see Mommsen, St.-R. i. 6r ff.). At the time
of which P. is writing it was customary for the consuls to leave
675

VI.

IZ. I

POWERS OF THE CONSULS

Rome for military duties shortly after entering on their year of

office.
2. 1T'A1)v TWV STIILC.pxwv: the tribune was the exception to the rule
that the consular potestas was superior to and could therefore override that of any other magistrate. The tribunate was specifically
intended to challenge the consul's imperium (cf. Cic. de re pub.
ii. 58, 'contra consulare imperium tribuni plebis . . . constituti');
and a motion proposed in the Senate by a tribune might not be
vetoed by a consul (Mommsen, St.-R. i. 282). The tribunician right
of veto was reinforced by the power of coercitio, which could be
exercised against the consul; and the tribune's ius agendi cum plebe
also brought a further infringement of the rights of patrician magistrates, since it invested him with the power to summon away a
large portion of the populus from the consuls (d. Greenidge, 96).
Eventually the tribunes' 'power of coercion and jurisdiction widened
into a judicial control of the magistracy; they were the prosecutors
of faulty officials, and, up to the time of the development of the
quaestiones, represented the chief means which the state possessed
of enforcing criminal responsibility upon its executive' (ibid. 234,
cf. 182-3) ; see below 14. 6 n. For a list of occasions from all periods
of republican history when the tribunes took judicial proceedings
against consuls and other senior officials see Mommsen, St.-R. ii.
1. 320 ff.; cf. Brecht, RE, 'perduellio', cols. 626-34.
El'i; TE T1)V auyttAT!TOV , , , ni.s 1Tpl:a~lla.s ayOUO"L: embassies Were
heard early in the consular year, before the consul left for his province (Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 2. nss); cf. IJ. 7 In stressing this aspect
of the consul's duties P. is clearly thinking of second-century conditions, when the appearance of large numbers of eastern embassies
became an annual event at Rome, as a result of her dominant position in the eastern .Mediterranean.
3. ,.a, Ka.TE1T'~rtyov'l'a. TWV OLa.~ou/..(wv ll.va.SLSoa.aw: 'they refer urgent
business (to the Senate) for discussion'. The ius referendi was possessed not only by the consuls but also by interrex, dictator, praetor,
military tribune with consular power, and magister equitum (cf.
Cic. de leg. iii. 10); but normally the consuls convened the Senate
in conjunction, and if a praetor did so his action was liable to consular intercessio (~Iommsen, St.-R. i. 209-IO, ii. x. 129-30).
Tov XlpLO"jLOV 'l'wv SoyjLO.Twv ~1T'tTEAoilaL: 'they see to the execution
of senatus consulta'.
4. auvO.y~rw Tas tKKA'I'Jala.<;: 'summon assemblies'. Such officers as
had the power to summon the Senate ( 3 n.} had also the power to
convene the popular assemblies: in practice the ius agendi cum
populo was exercised by the highest magistrate present at Rome
at the time (Mommsen, St.-R. i. 193 n.).
ewcl>iptw ,.a, SoytLa.Ta.: 'introduce measures, leges rogare'. The
676

POWERS OF THE CONSULS

VL

12.8

magistrate brought a proposal before the comitia, and if the answer

was one of acceptance, the rogatio became a lex (Mommsen, St.-R.
iii. I. 303 f.).
ppa.pEuuv Ta OoKouvTa. Toi!; v.\doa~: 'carry out the decrees of the
people'. P. here refers in general terms to the executive powers of
the consul, who carries out the terms of a decree passed in one of the
assemblies. The consuls enjoyed full competence for all branches of
the administration for which specific provisions were not made (d.
Kubler, RE, 'consul', cols. n22-3).
6. E'lTml.TTELV To'Ls CTUJJ-JJ-aXLKois To SoKouv: the precise obligations of
each allied state were laid down in its foedus, and it was required to
keep a register of its effective strength. Normally demands, whether
for men or (as in the case of the south Italian Greeks) for ships,
would be made ex formula-though in cases of necessity unlimited
extraordinary levies might be made, whatever the provisions of the
treaty. On the normal working of the levy see 21. 4
TOUS x~ALapxous Ka.9~CTT6.vm: d. I g. I, E1TH0av a1To8dtwat TOVS V1TllTOVS,
/LETa rai!Ta X'.\ulpxovs Katharom. There were six military tribunes to
each legion, and the twenty-four serving in the four legiones urbanae
were elected in the tribal assembly and ranked as magistrates (Livy,
xxvii. 36. 14; Sall. I ug. 63. 4). The tribunes for the remaining legions
were, however, nominated by the consuls, and were known (after
105) as tribuni militum Rufuli (Livy, vii. 5 9; Paulus ep. Festi,
p. 317 Lindsay) in contrast to tribuni militum a populo. The distinction persisted down to the Empire, when inscriptions distinguish
tribuni militum a populo and tribuni militum Augusti. It is to the
Rufuli P. here refers.
SmypncpEw Tous aTpa.nwTa.s: see 19. 5 ff.
Sm.\iyE~v To us E'lTLTT)OEious: on the method see 20. r-7.
7. tTJJJ-~wam ov Ci.v PouAYJ9waL: the citizen's right of prouocatio
does not apply EV rof> v1Tal8pots, militiae; cf. Livy, iii. 20. j, 'neque
enim prouocationem esse longius ab urbe mille passuum'. From
Livy, xxiv. g. 2, it appears that a consul's imperium was free from
prouocatio between the first milestone and the pomerium ; and
Mommsen (St.-R. i. 68-7o) suggests that within that area prouocatio
(and intercessio) was valid except against the actions of a general
with imperium who had taken the auspices on the Capitol before
formally leaving the city. In practice camp discipline was under the
control of the military tribunes; cf. 37-39.
8. Oa.'!Ta.vciv oaa. 1Tpo9ELVTO: 'to spend as much as they think fit'.
cf. 13. 2. These passages show that in P.'s time the consul was still
empowered, through the agency of the quaestor urbanus assigned to
him, to withdraw moneys at will for his needs out of the acrarium,
without the normal senatus consultum (a power perhaps not possessed
by the dictator; Zon. vii. 13) ; the need to act through the quaestors
677

VI.

IZ.

POWERS OF THE SENATE

was no doubt originally a limitation on the autonomous powers of

the consuls (Mommsen, St.-R. ii. I. I32), but in practice the quaestors
are under the orders of the consuls. In fact, there is no recorded
instance of a consul drawing money on his own initiative; indeed,
on occasion he would remain embarrassed by the refusal of the
Senate's authorization (cf. Livy, xxviii. 45 I4, xxxvi. 36. 1; O'BrienMoore, RE, Suppl.-B. vi, 'Senatus', col. 74I). Whether Caesar's request that the consuls should come to Rome and open up the
aerarium in 49 (Cic. Att. vii. 21. 2) was based on this ancient tradition
or not is uncertain; probably not. Once the consul had gone on
active service, he depended on the Senate's goodwill for further
supplies (IS. 4) over and above what he himself obtained as spoils
from the enemy (d. xxiii. 14 6-u).
13. Powers of the Senate: cf. Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 2. 835 ff.; Greenidge,
26I-88; De Sanctis, iv. I. SIS ff.; O'Brien-Moore, RE, Suppl.-B. vi,
'Senatus', cols. 66o ff.
1. TTJV Tou Ta.,.wolou Kupla.v: control of the aerarium and of all
revenue and expenditure lay within the Senate's competence. The
former will have included the levying of tributum (regarded as a
compulsory loan, Dion. Hal. v. 47 I) until its abolition in I67 (Cic.
off. ii. 76), as well as the income from the provinces, the basis of
which the Senate determined in each instance in its ratification of
the lex prouinciae; in addition it controlled ager publicus and its
occupation or alienation, and accepted or rejected gifts and bequests
to the state. P. deals in greater detail with the Senate's outlays.
See in general Cic. Vat. 36, 'eripueras senatui ... aerarii dispensationem, quae numquam populus ab summi consilii gubernatione
auferre conatus est'. Cf. Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 2. u2s-6; Greenidge,
286-7; De Sanctis, iv. I. SIS f.; O'Brien-Moore, RE, Suppl.-B. vi,
'Senatus', cols. 736 ff. For the exception ( 2, 1ri\~v ~v ds Tovs:
rhraTovs;, d. I2. 8 n.
3. Ets Tas hnaKEuas Ka.l. Ka.Ta.aKEuas n7w or1Jloa1wv: 'for the repair
and construction of public buildings' (cf. q. 2). For the distinction
here drawn d. Livy, xlv. IS. 9, 'ad sarta tecta exigenda et ad opera,
quae locassent, probanda' ; the full formula for repairing buildings
occurs in Cic. jam. xiii. II. 1, 'sarta tecta aedium sacrarum locorumque communium tueri'. It was part of the censors' duties to make
and repair opera publica (cf. Cic. de leg. iii. 7, templa, uias, aquas ...
tuento), and this work was leased out to contractors, who were invited to submit low estimates (cf. Livy, xxxix. 44 7, 'ultro tributa
(technical term for such contract work) infimis (sc. pretiis) locauerunt'). But the financing was done by means of a credit (avyxwP"IJP.a) granted by the Senate, up to the limits of which the censors
were authorized to draw money on the aerarium through the
6]8

POWERS OF THE SENATE

VI. 13.4

quaestors; cf. Livy, xliv. r6. 9, 'ad opera publica facienda cum eis
( censoribus) dimidium ex uectigalibus eius anni attributum ex
senatus consul to a quaestoribus esset'; xi. 46. r6, 'censoribus deinde
postulantibus ut pecuniae summa sibi, qua in opera publica uterentur, attribueretur, uectigal annuum decretum est'. Cf. Mornrnsen,
St.-R. ii. I. 443 ff.; Greenidge, 232; De Sanctis, iv. I. sr8.
4-5. The Senate's intervention in Italy. P. distinguishes (a) concern
with criminal jurisdiction in allied states ( 4), (b) administrative
intervention ( 5). For discussion see Mornrnsen, St.-R. iii. 2. II94 ff.;
Willems, ii. 687 f.; McDonald, ]RS, 1944, 1.3 ff. ; von Fritz, Constit1ttion, rp-4.

The Italian socii were nominally, and originally in fact, independent states, and the Senate's competence to intervene arose out of
its role in foreign affairs. The first two offences P. mentions are
1Tpo8oala (treachery, i.e. disaffection, proditio) and avliwj.toala (coni~lratio). The Senate's claim to intervene here sprang out of its duty
to secure the confederation, and, possessing no jurisdiction of its
own, it normally acted by directing magistrates. Many cases
occurred, during the Second Punic War, of the destruction of cities,
the execution of leading citizens, and restriction of autonomy, for the
crime of 1Tpo'8oala {e.g. Campania, Etruria, Tarentum, Locri, Bruttium), and of the arrest and execution of those guilty of conspiracy
to revolt, followed by the exaction of hostages and the introduction
of garrisons (e.g. Tarentum, Thurii, Arretium). A mere suspicion of
disloyalty might be dealt with by milder administrative action, the
summoning of envoys and the pronouncing .of formal censure, imTlwr;ats (mistranslated by Paton, 'claims damages'), examples are the
reproof administered to the Tiburtines in c. I 59 (GIL, i2 s86. z), and
various incidents in the Hannibalic War and later (Livy, xxvii . .38.
3-5, xxix. rs. r-15, xxxvi. 3 4-6). In general, public safety was a local
responsibility; but when offences seemed likely to have extensive
repercussions, and especially when extraordinary measures proved
necessary within districts under Roman jurisdiction, the Romans
often required the socii to take similar action through their own
magistrates. It is in this context that P. mentions mass poisoning
(tf>apftaKeta) and assassination (8ol.ocfoovla). The former offence {cf. Kaufman, CP, 1932, 156-67) is a constant concern of the quaestiones uenejicii
from 184 onwards, following the suppression of the Bacchanalia (see
below); cf. Livy, xxxix. 38. 3, 41. 5, xl. 37 4-7, 43 2, 44 6, xlv. r6.4, ep.
48. The number of those condemned-whether justly or not-ran into
thousands, and though Livy mentions only action in Roman territory,
it will have been followed up in the allied cities. Likewise for brigandage (i.e. ooA.o,Polila): cf. Livy, xxxix. 29. g, 41.6; Cic. Brut. 85 (in Apulia).
The idea of conspiracy inherent in both these offences helped to justify
senatorial intervention. A particulary notable example, and one which
679

VI. 13. 4

POWERS OF THE SENATE

P. or his source has probably in mind, is the suppression of the cult of

Bacchus in 186 (Livy, xxxix. 8. Iff.; Riccobono, Fontes, i, no. 30; recent
discussion in McDonald, JRS, 1944, z6 ff. with bibliography), a measure
in which the Senate acted autonomously within Roman territory and
through the Latin and Italian authorities in allied land. The extensive
action taken reveals a wide expansion in the Senate's claim to enforce
public security throughout Italy.
As part of its general concern for the peaceful development of
Italy the Senate also arbitrated in the case of disputes between cities
(ot&AvuLs); commissions were appointed, frequently including patrons
of the cities in question; cf. Livy, xlv. 13. Io-n (Pisa and Luna), and,
for the appointment of patrons, Dion. HaL ii. II. I (further references in McDonald, JRS, 1944, 14 n. zo). How far the Senate lent an
ear to lotiirra.L is less dear; allied citizens had in general no automatic
right of access to the Senate {Mommsen, St.-R. iii. z. II49), but
occasionally, out of favour or interest, the Senate may have been
prepared to listen to private individuals appealing on behalf of themselves or their city. Examples of responses to appeals for help
({Jo~Om1) are the rebuilding of the walls of Genua (Livy, xxx. I. 10),
and that of Placentia and Cremona {Livy, xxxiv. 22. 3), and the
sending of Cn. Sicinius cum im.perio to deal with a plague of locusts
in Apulia (Livy, xlii. 10. 8). The sending of a garrison on request
(,Pvl.c.K1]) is attested for Kola, Neapolis, Placentia, and Cremona
during the Second Punic War (Livy, xxiii. 14. 10, 15. 2, xxviii. II.
IC-II), and for Aquileia in 171 (Livy, xliii. 1. s-6, cf. 17. 1).
The position of the Senate, as P. here sketches it, was attained
as the result of a process which began in the late third century, but
was scarcely completed before the second quarter of the second century; hence P. is here giving his experience of the Senate after 168
rather than a picture of its role in 216.
6. The Senate's duty in dispatching em.bassies: cf_ 11ommsen, St.-R.
ii. I. 675-701; von Premerstein, RE, 'legatus', cols. IIJ3 ff.; O'BrienMoore, RE, SuppL-E. vi, 'Senatus', col. 732.
Originally the concern of the college of fetiales, by the middle of
the third century relations with foreign states had fallen into the
hands of the Senate, which acted through legati. From the time of
the Second Punic vVar onwards the sending of legati was authorized
by a senatus consultum, which specified their number (usually three,
occasionally two, four, five, or ten) ; the choice of individuals was the
task of the chief magistrate {cf. Livy, xxix. 20. 4, 'consules decem
legatos quos iis uideretur ex senatu Iegere'), but on their return the
legati reported to the Senate. The use of legati to carry a conditional
declaration of war, Le. to submit a rerum repetitio and, if the reply
was unfavourable, to convey the demmtiatio belli, can be traced
from 2:f./1 onwards (see McDonald and Walbank, JRS, 1937, 192-7;
68o

POWERS OF THE SENATE

VI. I3.9

Walbank, }RS, I94I, 82-93; CP, 1949, I5-19), and it is to this P.

refers in the phrase 7T6AJLOV e7TayyiAAouaa.v (on it see Welles, 334).
The other duties mentioned can all be illustrated from second-century practice: d. Livy, xxxix. 24. I3 ff., conference at Tempe in I85,
at which three Roman legati settle disputes between Philip V of
:Macedon and certain Thessalian cities (8ta.AvO"Ouadv nJas); P. xxii.
Io. 2, Q. Caecilius Metellus exhorts the Achaeans to correct their
policy towards Sparta (1TapiKaAt ... OtopBwua.aOat T~V . ayvotav);
xxix. 27. I, C. Popillius Laenas' famous ultimatum to Antiochus
Epiphanes at Pelusium {when, however, Antiochus agrees that he
will 1rot~unv 1rav ro 7TapaKaJ.ovw:vov; 7Tapmcal.tv and e1Ttrarrtv shade
off one into the other); xviii. 48. I, P. Lentulus takes over and
liberates Bargylia, and L. Stertinius Hephaestia, Thasos, and the
Thracian cities; Strabo, xiv. 646, in IJ2 the Senate send five legati to
take over the inherited kingdom of Asia.
The extension of these functions came in the second century,
especially with the growth of the senatorial practice of appointing
a commission of ten legati to assist a victorious general to organize
the peace after a war. The first clear examples are after the Hannibatie and Second Macedonian Wars {Mommsen, St.-R. ii. I. 692);
on the First Punic War see i. 63. I n. Thus here again P. appears to
be describing second-century conditions.
7. Reception of embassies by the Senate: cf. Mommsen, St.-R. ii. I.
687, iii. 2. 959 ff. ; von Premerstein, RE, 'legatus', cols. u36-8;
O'Brien-Moore, RE, Suppl.-13. vi, 'Senatus', cols. j;~o ff.
Embassies could be sent from states at war with Rome only by
permission of the Roman general, and might not cross the pomerium.
They were lodged outside the city, usually in the camp~ts 11-fartius,
and if they were given a hearing it took place in the Temple of
Bellona or Apollo (d. xxxv. 2. 4); they might, however, be sent back
unheard, or told to leave Rome or Italy within a given period {xxvii.
6. 3; cf. xxxi. 20. 3). Friendly states had the right of access to the
Senate, a refusal to receive their legati being tantamount to a declaration of war (xxxi. 20. 3}; their legati were introduced into the
Curia by the consuls {I2. 2, cf. xxiii. r. 8). After a discussion, in which
individual senators might put questions (Livy, XXX. 22. 5), the legati
left the Senate and waited in the so-called Graecostasis near the
Curia Hostilia, until the Senate had decided on its answer. They
then returned to the Senate-house to receive it.
The large-scale reception of legati at Rome is a development of
the second century, but a regular interchange of legationes must
have been a feature of Roman history from early times.
9. 1TOAAoL Twv 'Ei..i..iJvwv, &fioiw<;~ 8~ KClL Twv j3<1cnMwv: i.e. in the
second century, when relations between Rome and the Greek states
and Hellenistic kings first became important.
681

VI. 14

POWERS OF THE PEOPLE

14. Powers of the People.

2. 'l"~s Ela6Sou ~eat TflS ~soliou: cf. 13. 1-2.
'l"wv Si aTpa.TTJy&>v ~souaia.v: cf. 12. 5
4. np.f1s . ~eat nf-U>!plo.s ~~:op~.as: the people control the election
of officers and the lawcourts. On the importance of this cf. Plato,
Laws, iii. 697 A-B, Myop.<v 1'olvw on 1TOAtV, tiJs otKEV, TTJV jd,Movaav
a</>~EaBal TE Kal Ei!Oatp.ovr/crEtll <ls Mvap.tv tivlipw1TlVYJV od Kal .lva.yKafov
np.&s

TE

Kat

O.np.la.s Ota.v.fp.wr opOw<;.

5. ov8ev .. TWV &4>aT(.hwv: 'none of the business in hand'.

6. Judicial competence of the People in cases brought against exmagistrates, involving a serious fine or the death penalty. Though he
does not mention the tribunes specifically, P. is clearly thinking of
their role as 'public prosecutors' of ex-magistrates; cf. 12. 2 n. ;
Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 1. 318 n. 3 Procedure in these cases is controversial. According to Mommsen (St.-R. iii. 1. 351 ff.). cases involving
a possible fine greater than the so-called multa suprema (fixed by the
Lex Julia Papiria of 430 at 3,020 libra} asses: cf. St.-R. i. 158) came
before a ittdicium populi (in this case the Tribal Assembly) as a
result of the defendant's invoking his right of prouocatio against the
sentence pronounced in a magisterial anquisitio (cf. Hardy, ]RS,
1913, 34); likewise for cases involving a capital charge, except that
such a case was reserved for the comitia centuriata (the comitiatus
maximus of the XII Tabulae) (St.-R. iii. 357). with the consequence
that the tribune, who lacked the it~s agendi cum populo, had to ask
a praetor to summon the assembly on his behalf (Livy, xliii. 16. 11:
169 n.c.). Recently, however, it has been forcibly argued by C. H.
Brecht (Perduellio (Munch. Beitriige, 29, 1938) passim; Z. Sav.-Stift.
(ROm. Abt.), 1939. 261 ff.) that the theory of a 'universal right of
prouocatio' was a legal construction of Cicero's time, and that the
anquisitio before a contio (a procedure to be sharply distinguished
from the magisterial quaestio) and the hearing before the iudicium
populi are part of the same legal action, throughout the whole of
which the tribune acts as prosecutor. Genuine prouocatio can be invoked only against a fully operative sentence, viz. one pronounced
after a quaestio by a magistrate possessing full imperit-tm (i.e. dictator,
consul, and with certain qualifications pontifex maxim us and duumuiri perduellionis) ; it is never mentioned in connexion with a tribunician prosecution. It is probably to this single procedure of
anquisitio and iudicium populi, without prouocatio, that P. here
refers.
7-8. Forestalling of the capital sentence by voluntary exsilium. From
the earliest times a Roman citizen had the right to go into exsilium
in order to avoid condemnation. Of this exsilium Cicero (pro A.
Caec. 100) writes: 'exsilium enim non supplicium est, sed perfugium
portusque supplicii ... confugiunt quasi ad aram in exsilium .
682

POWERS OF THE PEOPLE

VI. I..f. 7

non adimitur eis ciuitas, sed ab eis relinquitur atque deponitur'. In

Livy, xlii. 16. 15, exile is taken for granted, in the case of an adverse
decision. In effect the exile took up the citizenship of his new abode,
lost that of Rome, and so was removed from her jurisdiction. A
decree of aquae et ignis interdictio would then be passed, not as a
punishment, but to ensure that the exile remained permanently
outside Roman territory (Cic. dom. 78; Livy, xxv. 4 9). The modified procedure of the first century and later, by which exsilium
followed a decree of aquae et ignis interdictio, and itself developed
into a penalty, is not relevant here (cf. M. I. Henderson, ]RS, 1951,
71 ff.).
Place of exsilium. Originally the exile would choose some near-by
place in Latium such as Tibur, Praeneste, Lanuvium, Lavinium,
or Ardea (cf. Livy, ii. 2. ro, iii. 29. 6, 58. 10, v. 43 6, xliii. 2. 10), with
which there existed an alliance and mutual right of exsilium (cf.
Cic. de or. i. 177). Later we hear of this right at Nuceria (Cic. Balb.
28), Neapolis (here and Livy, xxix. 21. 1), and Tarquinii (Livy, xxvi.
3 12, which seems to establish the time at which Tarquinii received
this ius: cf. Sherwin-White, 119; Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 49 n. 3). Since
there is no point in specifying Naples, Praeneste, and Tibur if the
ius exsilii is common to all cities possessing a joedus, evidently the
phrase -rai:<; a.\Aat<;, 7rpos as lxovatv f!pKta means, not 'the other
ciuitates foederatae', but, with Schweighaeuser (cf. Shen"in-\Vhite,
n8 n. 5), 'aliis urbibus quibus hoc iure foedus intercedit cum
Romanis'.
7. '1l'av Ka.Ta.8LKa~wvTaL: 'when they are in process of being condemned', i.e. when the case is going against them, or even (P.
stresses this) when the result of the vote is being read out (not, with
Paton, 'when found guilty': exsilium can only be used to forestall
sentence). This l8os was made possible by the growing custom of
dispensing with arrest prior to and during the hearing; cf. E. Levy,
5.-B. Heidelberg, 1930-r, 5 rS f.
Kav ~TL ll(a. A.dm1Ta.L <JluA.T] .. chJnl<Jlo<JlopTJTOS: the reference is to the
comitia centuriata sitting as a iudicium populi. At some date after
the introduction of the last two tribes in 241 the organization of
the comitia centun'ata was reformed. The evidence is in Livy, i. 43 12
and Cicero, de re pub. ii. 39 (Dion. Hal. iv. 21. 3, p.Emf3'f3A7JKEv Els To
I57Jp.07LKdJTepov, probably does not refer to the same event). Details
are uncertain; but the change clearly involved some degree of coordination between centuries and tribes. Several passages, including
the present one (d. Cic. leg. agr. ii. 4; Sest. 109; Plane. 49; Livy,
xxix. 37 13; ep. 49; perhaps Lucan, v. 391-4), imply that the voting
units in the revised comitia centuriata were called tribes. Thus Cicero
contrasts his ov..n unanimous election to the consulate with that
of a man who only just gets home by the vote of extrema tribus
683

VI. 14 7

POWERS OF THE PEOPLE

suffragiorum. Normally the announcing of the result of voting (renuntiatio) ceased once the required number of candidates had obtained
a majority of the possible votes (De Sanctis, iii. 1. 365). This renuntiatio took place for each class separately after it had voted (see
below, p. 686 n. 1); and in the hypothetical instance to which Cicero
refers, voting continues to the last voting unit (extrema tribus
suffragiorum). which is regarded as being in the fifth class (for
rhetorical reasons Cicero ignores the capite censi: cf. Tibiletti, A then.,
1949, 238). Cicero's phraseology implies that the correlation of tribes
and centuries necessary, if tribal units were to vote in a centuriate
assembly, continued throughout all classes down to the fifth, and
was not confined to the first class (so Rosenberg, Untersuchungen
zur romischen Zenturiemerfassung (Berlin, rgu); cf. Fraccaro, Studi
in onore di P. Bonjante, i (Milan, 1929), 105 ff.) or to classes one and
two (so Staveley, AJP, 1953, r-33}; but how this correlation was
effected is not clear. According to Livy (i. 43 12), the reformed
organization 'qui nunc est post expletas quinque et triginta tribus,
duplicato earum numero centuriis iuniorum seniorumque, ad institutam ab Ser. Tullio summam non conuenire'. Written for readers
familiar with the later organization, this passage is somewhat obscure; thus it would seem to suggest that the division into seniores
and iuniores was a new feature of the reformed assembly, whereas in
fact it went back to Servius Tullius in some form or other (Tibiletti,
Athen., 1949, :zz8). Certainly Livy's statement does not necessarily
imply that there were seventy centuries (of smiores and iuniores
together) in each class, making 350 in all.
The monk Pantagathus (r494-156r) proposed a theory on those
lines, involving seventy tribus suffragiorum in each class. \Vith minor
adjustments to comply with the new information provided in Cicero's
de republica, ii. 39 (which was of course unknown to Pantagathus),
his system would involve one century of iuniores and one of seniores
for each tribe within each class, viz. 35 X 2 X 5 = 350, to which must
be added r8 centuries for the equites and sex suffragia, and 5 supernumerary centuries for the unarmed, making 373 in all (cf. De
Sanctis, iii. 1. 363 ff.). This scheme is still widely accepted. But it
seems clear from Cicero, de re pub. ii. 39, that the reorganized assembly contained the same number of centuries as the Servian. In
this passage Cicero is allegedly describing the comitia set up by Servius Tullius.' But since he allots 70, and not So {the original Servian
' Tibiletti (Athen., 1949, 226-7) thinks he is describing the revised assembly;
but when Cicero writes 'quae discriptio si esset ignota uobis, explicaretur a me;
nunc rationem uidetis esse talem, ut' etc., clearly nunc means 'as it is, i.e. since
the organization is not unknown to you' (see Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 1. 274 n. 4),
and not 'at the time when I, Scipio, am speaking', as Tibiletti apparently inter
prets it.

POWERS OF THE PEOPLE

VI. 14 7

figure: Livy, i. 43 r), centuries to the first class, it seems clear that
he is in fact giving the first class the number of centuries it had under
the reformed system, and that the difference was not a significant
one from his point of view; and this is more likely if Mommsen
(St.-R. iii. r. 275 nn. r-2) is right in his assumption that the Servian
and reformed comitia contained the same total number of centuries.
As we saw, Livy (i. 43 r2) stated that the new body 'ad institutam
ab Ser. Tullio summam non conuenire'; but this discrepancy between the two would exist if there was an increase in the number of
voting units without there necessarily being an increase in the number of centuries too.
Attempts to satisfy these conditions were made by Cavaignac
(] ourn. Sav., I9II, 2jj) and Arangio-Ruiz (Scritti c. Arno (Pubblicaz.
Facolta Giurisprud. Modena, 30, 1928). 3 ff.; Storia dir. rom. 86 ff.),
who both propound schemes, which fail, the former because of the
very few centuries (ro each) allotted to classes three, four, and five,
the latter because it involves a fusion of voting between classes two,
three, and four (all the seniores, for example, of one tribe in classes
two, three, and four, voting in a single century) and an equally
improbable fusion in the fifth class, where both seniores and iuniores
of a tribe would vote in one century. But already Mommsen (St.-R.
iii. 1. 270 ff.; cf. Momigliano, Stztd. et doc. hist. et iur., 1938, 519) had
suggested that, whereas in the first class the 70 voting units were
allotted one century each, in the remaining 4 classes only roo centuries were available for 28o (viz. 4 X 7o) voting units, and therefore
that several units must have voted in a single century (the equites
and capite censi would continue to vote in their r8 and 5 centuries
as before the reform) ; unlike his successors, however, Mommsen
saw no necessity for a scheme involving a simple ratio between
voting units and centuries, but envisaged centuries containing unequal numbers of voting units within a single class. Vntil recently
this hypothesis was generally dismissed as improbable. But the discovery in 1947 of the now famous Tabztla Hebana (E. and J., 94a) has
given it a new plausibility. This inscription records a system of
voting for the destinatio of consuls and praetors under Augustus
and Tiberius, in which the senators and equites from 33 tribes vote
in ro (later rs) centuriae, which are ad hoc creations, representing
a group of voters from two (or three) tribes chosen by lot to vote in
a single urn on a single occasion. Such a device would render it easy
to correlate tribes and centuries in all five classes, and if (as seems
likely) the total remained at 193 (see above), it was probably used.
For example, if an equal number of centuries was assigned to each
of classes two, three, four, and five, giving 25 each, co-ordination
could be achieved by letting 6o of the 70 voting units in each class
vote three to a century, and the remaining ro two to a century

6Bs

VI. 14 7

POWERS OF THE PEOPLE

{6o~ 3 +10~2 = 25); but other distributions are equally possible. I

The purpose of the reform has been much debated. Its effect was
evidently to give a preponderant influence to the first class from the
thirty-one country tribes, and, by substituting a praerogatiua tribus
taken by lot from the first class (cf. Livy, xxiv. 7 12, 9 3, xxvi. 22. 4,
xxvii. 6. 3; Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 1. 274) for the equestrian centuries
and the sex suffragia, to reduce the possibility of equites and senate
(who voted in the sex suffragia; Cic. de re pub. iv. 2) influencing the
vote. Mommsen (St.-R. iii. 1. 28r) suggested that C. Flaminius was
the man behind the reform; and Sch6nbauer (Historia, 1953/4, 31 ff.)
develops this theory, making Flaminius the representative of an
agrarian-democratic movement. The Fasti, however, show no trace
of any break in the noble monopoly of office at this time; and if it
was on account of his electoral measures that Flaminius was especially hated by the nobiles, it is odd that P. never mentions this
among his criticisms of the popular leader (ii. 21, 32, 33, iii. So, 84).
In the present passage P. is thinking of the comitia acting as a
judicial body. In this case the voting was undoubtedly carried out
successively (cf. Livy, xliii. r6. 14, 'cum ex duodecim centuriis
equitum octo censorem condemnassent multaeque aliae primae
classis .. .'); and P.'s point is that right up to the moment when
only a single tribus suffragiorum has to register its vote (not necessarily in an urn reserved exclusively to it; cf. Tibiletti, A then., 1949,
238) in order to make a majority of the centuries for condemnation,
the accused may still avoid sentence by going into exile. Normally
this ,Pv>.fJ would be likely to be one of the voting units in the second
class.
The problems of the centuriate assembly have been widely discussed; many of them are not directly relevant here. See Mommsen,
St.-R, iii. r. 270 ff.; DeSanctis, iii. r. 353-Sr (with bibliography up
to 1916); G. Tibiletti, Athen., 1949, 223-40; F. Gallo, Stud. et doc.
kist. et iur., 1952, 127-57 (cf. G. Vitucci, Riv. fil., 1953 56 n. 2);
I Recently E. Schonbauer has argued (Ilistoria, 1953/4, 21-49) that the
reformed comitia contained only 89 centuries (viz. 70+18+1); but this view is
based on a violent distortion of Cicero, de re pub. ii. 39, and is in other respects
unacceptable. A single example will suffice. In Phil. ii. 82 Cicero is describing
election procedure. 'Ecce Dolabellae comitiorum dies. sortitio praerogatiuae; quiescit. renuntiatur: tacet. prima classis uocatur, renuntiatur; deinde ita ut adsolet
suffragia; tum secunda classis, quae omnia sunt citius facta quam dixi.' All
this Schon bauer would apply to the praerogatiua; but slfifragia must refer to
the sex suffragia and the equestrian centuries, and cannot mean merely 'the
voting (then took place)', for in that case the words tum secunda classis have
no force. Clearly Cicero is describing, first the voting of the praerogatiua and the
announcing of its decision, then that of the first class, the equestrian centuries,
and the second class in turn, with results announced after each century; there
are no grounds for deleting the second renuutiatur with Madvig (and Schonbauer).

686

POWERS OF THE PEOPLE

VI. 14. 9

E. S. Staveley, AJP, 1953, 1-33; Historia, 1956/7. 112-22; E. SchOnhauer, Historia, 1953/4. H-49
9-ll. Popular control of elections, approval and rejection of laws,
decisions concerning war and peace, alliances, termination of war, and
treaties. Popular control of the elections scarcely needs illustration.
Consuls, praetors, and censors were elected in the comitia centurata,
presided over by a consul, praetor, or dictator, plebeian aediles and
tribunes in the concilium plebis under the presidency of a tribune.
In practice the system gave wide scope to the influential noble
families to 'pull strings', and at the time P. was writing it was almost
unprecedented for a noutls homo to make progress in the struggle for
office. See further Scullard, Pol. 18-25 and passim.
That the people is the sole source of law is axiomatic (cf. Dion.
Hal. ii. 14); but its power is limited by the fact that in each instance
the initiative must proceed from the rogatio of a magistrate, on
which the people takes a decision (1\Iommsen, St.-R. iii. r. 303-4).
P. here ignores the lex data, which depended on the authority of the
magistrate who issued it; but leges datae mainly concerned matters
outside Rome, provincial administration and municipal statutes,
and will hardly have come within his ken. Together with the administration of justice and the holding of elections, legislation makes
up the whole of the popular activities distinguished by Roman constitutional theory; cf. Cic. de leg. iii. 33, 'uersabor in re difficili ac
multum et saepe quaesita, suffragia in magistratu mandando ac de
reo iudicando (sciscenda)que in lege aut rogatione clam an palam
ferri melius esset' (d. Mommsen, St.-R. iii. r. 326). Any decision of the
people, which is neither a verdict nor an election-result, is counted
as a lex. To be valid a lex rogata must be promulgated by a magistrate,
passed in one of the comitia (or, after the lex Hortensia of 287,
which gave plebiscita the validity of laws, in the concilium plebis),
and published.
In the middle republic the comitia curiata had no longer important
legislative duties apart from formally conferring imperiu,m on the
appropriate magistrates by a lex de imperio. The comitia centuriata
was the main legislative assembly, and remained so; but both the
comitia tributa and the concilium plebis were also increasingly employed to enact laws. The first three of these assemblies had to
obtain the patrum auctoritas before a law was valid; but in P.'s
time this was a pure formality, transacted in advance, and P. therefore ignores it.
Decisions on war and peace lay with the populus (Mommsen,
St.-R. iii. I. 343; Taubler, i. 3r); war could not begin, nor terms b~
accepted for its ending, Vlithout a decision of the sovereign people.
This decision was taken in the comitia centuriata after discussion in
a contio ({3ovl..fi6fi7m) ; but P. hardly indicates the limitations on
687

VI. I4. 9

DEPENDENCE OF THE CONSUL

discussion at a meeting where no one might speak except by permission of the presiding magistrate (Mommsen, St.-R. i. :zoo-I). In
the third and second centuries the normal procedure was for a resolution of the senate to he submitted to the cornitia centuriaia, and upon
its acceptance for senatoriallegati to he dispatched ad res repetendas,
with authority to deliver the denuntiato belli in default of a satisfactory reply (cf. IJ. 6 n.). In zoo the comitia centuriata rejected the
motion for war with Philip V (Livy, xxxi. 6. 3-4); for the events
preceding the First Punic War see i. 11. 1-3 nn. In making peace the
Senate's resolution was similarly submitted to the people (cf. xviii.
42. 3-4), in this case the Tribal Assembly (Livy, xxix. 12. r6, xxx.
43 2, xxxiii. 25. 6), and upon its acceptance the Senate dispatched
a commission of ten legati to help the general settle the details of
the peace (Mommsen, St.-R. ii. r. 692 n. 8 for further examples). On
the special case of the Commission sent out to Carthage after the
First Punic War see i. 63. I n.
11. 1TEp~ O'UjljlXLilS ~eal 5LaAlii:7EWS Kai. auv6'JKWV: 'in the case of an
alliance, the termination of hostilities, and a treaty'; cf. Livy, xxxii.
23. 2: the Achaeans seek societas with Rome; but 'quia iniussu populi
non poterat rata esse, in id tempus, quo Romam mitti legati possent,
dilata est'; cf. Sal!. lug. 39 3; Livy, xxxvii. 19. 2; Cic. Balb. 35;
Mommsen, St.-R. iii. r. 343 n. 5 The people claimed competence in
the whole field of international relations, in the sense that no decisions were valid until ratified in the appropriate popular assembly.

15. Dependence of the Cons1tl on Senate and People.

2. Ttjs trpoELfHlJlEVT}S e~oualas: i.e. their imperium (d. 12. 5 ff.).
4-5. Senate's control over supplies. Once the consul has left Rome.
he can no longer draw on the treasury (u. 8) without the Senate's
authority (13. 2); cf. Livy, xliv. t6. 1 4: the consul Q. Marcius
asks for ueslimenla militibus and Numidian horses: 'serratus consul tum, ut ea omnia ex li tteris consulis fierent, factum est'. See
Mommsen, St.-R. ii. r. 133 n. r, full references. iii. 2. 1097-9 and
especially 1098. For an example of such a request refused (in this
case from two propraetors) cf. Livy, xxiii. 2r. r-4.
6. Senate's power of prorogatio. As the word prorogatio makes clear,
the extension of a command beyond the period laid down by law
was originally effected by a popular resolution. The first recorded
example, the extension of the command of Q. Publilius Philo, consul
for 327, pro consule against Naples, is attributed to popular action;
Livy, viii. 23. u-12, 'actum cum tribunis est ad populum ferrent ut,
cum Q. Publilius Philo consulatu abisset, pro consule rem gereret
quoad de bella tum cum Graecis esset'. Subsequently prorogatio, either
for a year or until some definite action has been completed (as in
the example quoted), is voted either by the Senate (Livy, ix. 42. 2)
688

ON SENATE AND PEOPLE

VI. 15.9

or by the Senate and people together (e.g. Livy, x. 22. 9, 'ex senatus
consulto et sdto plebis'). But by the time of the Hannibalic War the
Senate had ceased to obtain popular ratification in cases of prorogatio for a single year, repeated if necessary (cf. Livy, xxiv. ro. 3,
XXX. 1. 7, I. Io, 2. 3 ff., 41. 3, XXXi. 8. IO, XXXV. 2:0. II, xl. r8. 6, Xli.
21. 2, etc.), and proroga#o remained in senatorial hands until the
end of the Republic. See Mommsen, St.-R. i. 641-4; iii. z. 1089-92;
G. H. Stevenson, Rom. Prov. Ad. 55 ff.
7-8. Se12ate's power to accord and finance triumphs. The right to
triumph sprang originally, not from the Senate, but from a general's
O\v'll imperium, and the triumphs held on the Capitol in defiance of
the Senate by L. Postumius Megellus in 2:94 (Livy, x. 37 r-12; Zon.
viii. 1), by C. Flaminius and P. Furius Philus in 223 (Plut. Marc.
4; Zon. viii. zo), and by Ap. Claudius Pulcher in 143 (Oros. v. 4 7;
Dio, xxii, fg. 74; Suet. Tib. 2; Cic. Gael. 34; etc.), were all duly
recorded in the Fasti (cf. Broughton, i. 179, 232:, 471). After 231 it
became a practice of generals refused a triumph by the Senate to
hold one on the Alban Hill (Livy, xxxiii. 23. 3, iure consularis potestatis, Livy, xlii. 21. 7. sine publica auctot'itate) and such triumphs
were listed in the triumphal Fasti. In the middle republic, however,
an application to triumph was normally submitted to the Senate;
and indeed in all cases (and these increased with the practice of
prorogatio) in which a general held his imperium pro consttle, the
Senate's collaboration and a senatus consuUum were necessary to
obtain the favour of an extension of imperium, since whenever this
depended on prorogatio it automatically lapsed with the crossing of
the pomerium (:Mommsen, St.-R. i. 128-g). The request for a triumph
and for the necessary funds are, however, quite separate matters;
thus in 143 Ap. Claudius applied for the funds while taking the
triumph for granted (Dio, x:xii, fg. i4 2). In view of the booty which
a triumphing general would normally control, it seems strange that
the withholding of funds should be mentioned as an important
weapon in the Senate's armoury (though failure to have funds
granted certainly brought a loss of prestige; d. Livy, xxxiii. 23. 8,
'is triumphus (an Alban triumph) ... quod sumptum non erogatum
ex aerario omnes sciebant, inhonoratior fuit'). P.'s account recognizes that the Senate had no absolute power to refuse a triumph.
See Mommsen, St.-R. i. 126-36, iii. 2. noS; Ehlers, RE, 'triumph us',
col. 499
9-10. The People's power of ratzjying peace-terms and treaties; ConSltls ans-werable to the People on laying down office. On the people's
power to ratify peace-terms and treaties see 14. 9-rr n. A consul
was not financially answerable to the people in the strict sense of
having to produce accounts; and though he was under an obligation
to use moneys assigned to him for the proper purpose, and certainly
-

YY

VL 15.9

DEPENDENCE OF THE SENATE

not to tum them to his own profit, there was no automatic sanction

if he failed to observe this rule. Since his dealings with the aerarium
were through his quaestor {cf. 12. 8 n.), who had to present his
accounts (Mommsen, St.-R. i. 7oo), such moneys as he disposed of
would thus be known. But moneys obtained as war~loot (manubiae)
were wholly at his disposal, and the consul need neither pay these
into the aerarium nor render accounts for them (cf. xxiii. 14. 7 ff.).
Hence P. can here have in mind only the tribunes' role in prosecuting
ex-consuls, and the fact that such cases will be heard before a iudicium populi (cf. 12. 2 n., 14. 6 n.). The first examples of such prosecutions for misuse of public moneys are that of M'. Acilius Glabrio
(189), which was withdrawn (Livy, xxxvii. 57 12), and that of L.
Scipio (probably 187: cf. Scullard, Pol. 290-30J), which Gellius (vi.
19. sl records as being nullo exemplo, i.e. without earlier precedent
(though within the tribune's competence). See Mommsen, St.-R. i.
70o--4, ii. I. 322 n. 2.
16. Dependence of the Senate on the People.
2. Inquiries into, and sentences in, cases p1mishable by death, subject
to the consent of the People. The Senate had no powers to act as a
court of law for capital offences; but in the middle republic a procedure developed by which situations involving an urgent threat
to the state were dealt with by the setting up of special commissions,
authorized by the Senate, presided over by a consul or praetor, and
free from prouocatio. In such cases senatorial action was supported
by a recommendation of the plebs, to whom the matter was referred
(Livy, xlii. 21-22 (172); Cic. fin. ii. 54 (141)). Examples of such
quaestiones are those set up to deal with mass poisoning, brigandage
in Apulia (involving ager Romanus), and the suppression of the
Bacchic cult in 186 (references IJ. 4-5 n.). In all these instances the
Senate took action in Roman territory and Italian territory alike,
alleging a state of emergency, which was held to justify the suspension of prouocatio where it existed. Prior to the Second Punic War
such emergencies were met by the appointing of a dictator; but once
the People had successfully asserted its control of the dictatorship,
it was allowed to fall into abeyance. The special magisterial commissions, free from prouocatio and appointed by the Senate, which
take its place (cf. O'Brien-Moore, RE, Suppl.-B. vi, 'Senatus', cols.
749, 755-7; McDonald, JRS, 1944, 16-17), were based constitutionally
on the Senate's claim to take emergency action in cases of 'conspiracy'-a claim which was later to lead to the controversial senatus
consuJtum ultimum (cf. O'Brien-Moore, op. cit. 749, 755 f.). Here P.
asserts the traditional principle that the Senate was not competent
to appoint such quaestiones ('11n1ans') without a decision of the
people.
6go

ON THE PEOPLE

3. Legislation detrimental to the Senate can be passed only by the

People. There is no trace of popular legislation directed against the
Senate between the early years of the Hannibalic War and the tribunate of Ti. Gracchus. In view of ii. 21. 1-s it seems clear that P.
is thinking of the career of C. Flaminius, whose law of 232 on the
distribution of the ager Gallicus directly challenged the Senate's
authority (ri)s- J~ovalas rfjs- v1TapxoV(T7j> . KaTd. roV<; 8urfLoV<;),
and who supported the lex Claudia of 218 'ne quis senator cuiue
senator pater fuisset maritimam nauem quae plus quam trecentarum
amphorarum esset haberet : id satis habitum ad fructus ex agris
uectandos' (Livy, xxi. 63. 3). Both these measures, passed through
the tribal assembly, may have been regarded as lAa.rTWfLaTa 7TEp~
rou<; f3lous-, for senators will have profited from both 'the lucrative
leaseholds on these public lands' (Frank, CAH, vii. 8o7) and the
beginnings of trade with Sicily and Sardinia. For Mommsen's view
that Flaminius was also behind the reform of the comitia centuriata
see 14. 7 n.
4-5. The tribunes' potestas impediendi et intercedendi; their obligation to carry out the People's will. Like any other magistrate enjoying
par maiorue potestas than the person introducing a resolution in the
Senate, the tribune could annul it by interposing his veto during the
voting, with the result that tht" resolution was registered, not as a
senatus consultum, but merely as a senatus auctoritas (Mommsen,
St.-R. i. z8I-J). The possibility of such intercessio was often envisaged
in the resolution; cf. Caelius ap. Cic. jam. viii. 8. 6, 'si quis huic s. c.
intercesserit, senatui placere auctoritatem perscribi et de ea re ad
senatum p. q. t. referri'. The earliest reference to the exercising of
this right against the magistrate carrying out the acts leading to
the passing of a senatus consultum dates to 445 (Livy, iv. 6. 6). Here,
however, P. also refers to the tribune's wider power to prevent a
meeting of the Senate (or any other body) altogether; and this power
he exercised as being possessed of maior potestas than the consul, and
of the power to enforce his veto by his right of coercitio--though the
latter was liable in its turn to a colleague's intercessio (Mommsen,
St.-R. i. 258-06, 288-9I). These two powers are not clearly separated
by P.; cf. Mommsen, op. cit. z8r n. I : 'dabei sind, wie auch nicht
anders erwartet werden kann, die impedimenta impedientia und dirimentia nicht von einander geschieden'.
P.'s picture of the tribune's powers is correct, as regards both
their exercising and the theory behind them; but his account of the
tribune's role as the obedient servant of the people has little relevance
to the real situation in the first half of the second century. Since the
plebeians had acquired political equality, the tribunes had become
increasingly the tools of the nobiles (cf. Livy, x. 37 II, mancipia
nobili,tm), who were, numerically, mostly plebeians; and as they
6gi

VI. r6. 4

DEPENDENCE OF THE PEOPLE

gained access to the Senate, they were treated more and more, de
facto (though never de iure), as magistrates. :Moreover, as the tribunate became a stage in the cursus honorum, held between quaestorship and praetorship by young men early in their careers, it could
carry little independent weight. Consequently, between the time of
C. Flaminius and Ti. Gracchus there is no recorded case of a tribune
occupying the role outlined here by P. Nevertheless, it need not be
assumed that r6. 3-5 is a late insertion dating from the Gracchan
period (cf. Last, CAH, ix. 27 (non-committal)). ii. 21. 8, which
probably stands with it, can be otherwise explained, and probably
here too P. is giving a view of the tribunate based partly on Flaminius' career, as he found it in Fabius (cf. ii. 21. 8 n.), and partly on
the traditional picture of the office as the weapon of the plebs (cf.
von Fritz, Constitution, 332-3). In this, however, he exaggerates not
only the theory of the tribunate, but even more what it had become
in practice. Never, even in their origins, were the tribunes the executive organ of the plebs, acting 'without a discretion of their own'
(cf. Last, op. cit. 28). P. both falsifies the tribune's role and exaggerates his powers (cf. iii. 87. 8 n.). It was, however, perhaps to be
expected that the character of this unique Roman institution, with
its curious history and repeated modification of function, should
have eluded P.'s Greek schematism.
5. 88u;: To us 1roAAous: an exaggeration of the position before the
Gracchi; but this view suits not merely the Fabian picture, based on
Flaminius' career (see last note) but also P.'s own formal picture of
the mixed constitution and its working.
17. Dependence of the People on the Senate ( r-8) and Consuls ( 9).
In this chapter P. identifies the 'people' with the publicani, and the
urban middle-class involved in their financial enterprises (cf. Livy,
xxiv. 18. 13, where the phrase 'haec inclinatio animorum plebis ad
sustinendam inopiam aerarii' refers to an offer of contractors to do
work on credit). His picture of a large-scale system of public contracts, administered by the Senate (through the censors; cf. 13. 3 n.),
and taken up by equestrian societates publicanorum, is only true of the
period just before r5o, and P. has written back these conditions into
his account of the Roman state at the time of Cannae. See in general
DeSanctis, iv. 1. 515 ff., 552-5; Frank, ES, i. 148-57; Warde Fowler,
Social Life, 6o-96; Scullard, Pol. 14-15; Hill, 45 ff.
2. Building contracts throughout Italy. During the Hannibalic War
building was reduced to a minimum, and that minimum appears
to have been done on credit (Livy, xxiv. 18. 13). For the next few
decades Livy records the work contracted out in various censorships,
e.g. xxxii. 7 3 xxxiv. 44 5 xxxix. 44 5-7. xl. 5I. 2-7. xli. 27. 5-12,
xliv. 16. 10. But not until the censorship of Fulvius and Postumius
6g2

ON THE SENATE

VI.

17.2

(174) did the censors organize contracting for building operations

outside Rome (Livy, xli. 27. 5-12), i.e. in citizen-colonies and municipia; work was contracted out cum magna gratia colonorum at
Pisaurum, Fundi, Potentia, and Sinuessa, but Postumius questioned
its propriety, and 'there is little evidence that the procedure continued for long' (Frank, ES, i. 152). After 174 'there is . . . some
indication that the Senate began to distrust the knights' companies.
It is quite possible that the quarrels between censors, Senate and
knights over contracts-reported by Livy in xliii. r6. 2, xliv. r6. 8resulted at times in the magistrates' taking direct charge of public
improvements' (ibid.). For an earlier example of this cf. Livy, xxxv.
ro. 12: the aediles of 193 undertook the building of an emporium on
the Tiber and two porticos. On the financing of these contracts out
of uectigal see Frank, op. cit. 152-4: and for a list of buildings put
up at Rome between 196 and 159, op. cit. r83-7
Farming of uectigalia. On the juridical aspect see Mommsen, St.-R.
ii. L 434-43. The right to exact harbour dues, tolls, etc., was derived
by the Romans from the ownership of the soil, and was therefore
parallel to the exaction of scriptura for pasturage; and in general
these rentals were collected by the publicani, who bought the right
at the censorial locationes. They collected tithes and scriptura on
ager publicus in Italy (x.wpa<:); Frank (ES, i. 150) calculates that their
profits on this would be small (it excluded the rich ager Campanus).
Gardens (KTJ7Tluw) form part of this cultivated land which remains
under state control: it was liable to a tax of 20 per cent. on crops
other than corn (App. B.C. i. 7). Cf. Varro, Rust. ii. r. r6-17; Festus,
'scripturarius', p. 446 Lindsay. Similarly the fishing rights in the
rivers (1TCYraJ.Luw) were leased out to publicani; cf. Digest, i. 8. 4 I,
'fiumina paene omnia et portus publica sunt'. Though P. omits
them here, the fishing rights in such lakes as Avernus and the
Lucrine lake came under the same category; cf. Serv. ad Georg.
ii. I6r. See Val. Max. ix. r. I. The port dues at Italian harbours
were 2t per cent.; Livy (xxxii. 7 3) records the letting of the portoria
at Capua, Puteoli, and Scolacium (199): cf. Livy, xl. 51. 8. They were
scarcely very lucrative at this time (Frank, op. cit. I5I). More important were the mines (ILe:Td.Mwv), especially those in Spain, which
were perhaps first let out on contract to the publicani in 179 (Livy,
xl. 51. 8; Frank, op. cit. 154) ; hitherto they seem to have been
directly controlled by the provincial governor (Livy, xxxiv. 21. 7;
cf. Livy, xxxix. 44 8). On the financial returns from the Spanish
mines see xxxiv. 9 8-II. In r67 the Senate closed the Macedonian
mines rather than strengthen the equites by putting them up for
contract; cf. Livy, xlv. r8. 4, 'neque sine publicano exerceri posse
et, ubi publicanus esset, ibi aut ius publicum uanum aut libertatem
sociis nullam esse'; cf. ibid. 29. n (Frank (op. cit. 156) thinks this
693

VI. 17. z

DEPENDENCE OF THE PEOPLE

may be an anachronism). The Macedonian mines were reopened in

rs8 (Cassiod. Chron. ad 158). There is evidence of mining in Etruria
for this period (Frank, op. cit. 179-Bo), but Pliny (Nat. hist. iii. 138,
xxxiii. 78, xxxvii. zo2) speaks of restrictions on the Italian mines
either by a senatus consultum or a lex censoria ; these restrictions may
have been imposed in the interests of the publicani who contracted
to work the Spanish mines. However, there is no evidence whether
this restriction was already in force in P.'s time. A further important
field, omitted by P., was that of the salt monopoly (cf. Livy, xxix.
37 .3-4), the modification of which gave M. Livius, one of the censors
of 204, his cognomen of Salinator. See Mommsen, St.-R. iii. z. nrs n. z.
3. TO.~S epyo.a(ats TCl~~ EK TOUT<.JV: 'the profits from them'; cf. iv. so. 3
3-4. Numbers involved in the contracts. From the number of slaves
employed in the Spanish mines (xxxiv. 9 8-n) Frank calculates
(ES, i. 155-6) a capital outlay of z6 million denarii, which implies
a large number of shareholders in the companies. But allowing for
all the managers, experts, overseers, and clerks, it is clear that the
words axe8ov . 1Tiivros Jvoeoiu8at Tat~ tbvar~ is an exaggeration
springing from the identification of 'the people' with one part of it.
The categories enumerated in 4 are: (a) manc1:pes, entrepreneurs
who negotiate directly with the censors to secure the contracts
(dyopa~Hv = emere) ; (b) socii, partners whose support would be
already assured by the manceps before he bid for the contract; but
there is evidence that the censors exercised some control over their
acceptance into the company (Livy, xliii. r6. z); (c) praedes, who
guaranteed the contractor; this was a business undertaking, in
which the guarantors pledged certain properties on oath as surety
for the manceps, and in the anticipated success of the enterprise
shared in the gains. Later, the manceps (and socii) are themselves
to be found standing surety with the formula idem praes; cf. Riccobono, Fontes, i, no. 24 lxv, L 68, praedes socii; (d) this fourth
category is probably that of the equivalent of the Greek {3E{3atwml,
who act in Egypt as secondary guarantors of the praedes. Thus in
P.Paris (6z. ii. 7 f.) the guarantors state in their cn.lp.f3o/..a (i.e.
guarantees) T{VeS o[l] {3e{3atw'T[a/. Kat oaa<; fKaa]'Tot EtS 'Tijv {3{3a{wcnv
vTro8~Kas [...] Be8<l!Kaaw. Translate, 'those who give their property
as security to the state on their behalf'. This is more likely than the
view of J. A. Deloume (Les maniettrs a' argent tl Rome~ (Paris, r893),
ng ff.) that they were participes, sleeping partners. On the whole
passage see U. Wilcken, Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien,
i (Leipzig-Berlin, I899), s48-ss; M. Rostovtzeff, Staatspacht, 372 n. 775-6. Senate's control of the equestrian contracts. Modifications of the
terms of public contracts came within the general scope of equity,
and were originally in the censors' competence; but by the second
century applications were normally brought before the Senate. Livy
694

ON THE SENATE

VLI77

{xxxix. 44 8; cf. Plut. Cat. mai. 19; Flam. 19) records an example
from Cato's censorship (1B4), when the Senate were induced to instruct the censors to re-auction the contracts. A perhaps betterkno'A-n case is that of the jmblicani who asked for the remission of
their Asiatic contracts in 61/o {Cic. ad Aft. i. I7; schoL Bob. p. 157
Stangl) ; the basis of their claim was a change in circumstances due
to enemy action and, asP. asserts here and Cicero (de prou. cons. 12)
confirms, 'si qui frui publico non potuit per hostem, hie tegitur ipsa
lege censoria', i.e. he can claim an automatic release from his contract. Furthermore, much of the business in question is continuous
and goes on from one lustrum to another, whereas the censor is in
office for only eighteen months. Between censorships similar matters
are dealt with by the consuls, and the jurisdiction which the Senate
exercises in connexion with this work is usually transmitted by them
to the consuls, who act with the aid of a consilium drawn from the
Senate (Mommsen, St.-R. ii. I. 108-<}). Despite P.'s account, it is true
that even in the second century the comitia occasionally intervened
in the matter of contracts; cf. Livy, xliii. 16. 6-7, for the tribunician
rogatio 'quae publica uectigalia aut ultro tributa C. Claudius et Ti.
Sempronius locassent, ea rata locatio ne esset: ab integro locarentur'
(in the stormy censorship of 169, after a vain appeal to the Senate).
See Mommsen, op. cit. ii. 1. 455-6, and (for the Senate's general control over public finances and their administration) iii. 2. III2-2J.
7. Appointment of judges from the Senate. Civil jurisdiction {which
included much that we should regard as falling under criminal law)
followed a procedure which divided a case into two halves, the hearing in iure, which ended with the definition of the parties and the
issue at law in a formula, and the appointment of unus iudex or
iudices, and the hearing n iudicio before the iudex or iudices, who
arrived at a verdict. Normally the praetor was the magistrate
acting in iure, who appointed the iudex (iudices) ; and prior to
the Gracchan revolution the list of iudices was the senatorial
rolL Traditionally this senatorial privilege went back to Servius
Tullius (Dion. Hal. iv. 36. 2); but the monopolizing of juries in civil
cases may well be in reality one aspect of the rise of the nobiles (d.
Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 2. 8g7 n. 2, where the reference of Plautus,
Rt,d. 713, to Roman conditions made in ii. I. 229 n. 3 is withdrawn),
and in any case it seems likely that where both parties were agreed,
the enrolling of a senatorial iudex (or iudices) might be dispensed
with (see below).
Here, however, P. has in mind more than ordinary civil disputes,
for he speaks of &ru.t6ow avva.\Aayt-tara. These are cases dealing
with what are really offences against the state. For those which
carne under the heading of criminal law the procedure was that of a
magistrate's cognitio followed (on prouocatio) by a hearing before a
695

VI. I??

CHECKS ON THE PEOPLE

iudicium populi (see 16. 2 n.); here the appeal was to the people,
and no question of iudices arose. But matters of administrative
jurisdiction involving the state as one party, though often in fact
concerned with offences against the state and its property, are in
certain specific instances dealt with under the procedure of civil law.
After a hearing in iure the praetor would appoint unus iudex or
rec11peratores, before whom the hearing in iudicio was to take place;
the uttus iudex must be a senator (before 122), and quite often, no
doubt, the recuperatores likewise; see Livy, xliii. 2. 3 (171), where
five recuperatores ex ordine senatorio are set up to inquire into cases
of extortion. The extortion trials provide an example of delicts
which came under administrative jurisdiction with the procedure
just outlined, and no doubt P. has them prominently in mind (cf.
Mommsen, St.-R. iii. I. 529 n. 3). It was, moreover, in connexion with
cases de repetundis that L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi introduced in the
tribal assembly in 149 a law setting up a permanent quaestio, which
combined the procedure of magisterial cognitio with the jury system
of civil law; and the iudices of this new quaestio were naturally
chosen from the Senate. Later, with various changes in the source
of the iudices, these quaestiones extended their scope to embrace
most criminal jurisdiction too; see further A. N. Sherwin-\\lnite,
BSR, 1949, 5 f.; M. 1. Henderson, ]RS, I95r, 71 ff. It is, however,
doubtful if P. is here referring to this development, since he had
probably written book vi before 149 (see introductory note). In
St.-R. iii. 2. 898 Mommsen suggests that he may also have in mind
the procedure used in many cases of administrative jurisdiction
where the methods of clvil law were inappropriate, e.g. the jurisdiction exercised by censors or consuls in what were really matters
falling within censorial competence (see J7. 5-<l n.), when a single
magistrate acted with the help of a senatorial co1tsilium. The senatorial commissions mentioned in r6. 2 n. investigated criminal cases
and are hardly in place here. See Mommsen, St.-R. i. r69-91, ii. r.
228 ff., iii. I. 527 ff., 2. 897 ff.; Strafrecht, 177 ff., 209 ff.
llaa. l.i.~YEOo~ lfxE~ Twv ty~eATIIJ.<lTwv: i.e. in civil suits of no great
magnitude the parties probably dispensed by agreement with the
enrolling of a senatorial iudex or iudices.
8. ets Ti]v Ta.UTTJS '!TlO'TW !lvSdiEIJ.Evo~: 'being bound to the Senate
by ties securing their protection'; 1rtcms fides, and implies the
relationship of client and patron.
oeou),.-E~ ,..(, TllS XPEtns uOT)Aov: 'uncertain and afraid that they may
need their help' (rather than Paton, 'looking forward with alarm to
the uncertainty of litigation' : xpr;[a in the sense 'legal conflict' would
be without parallel).
9. Consuls' control of everyone militiae: cf. 12. 7 for their unlimited
imperium in this sphere.
6<}6

THE ROMAN MIXED CONSTITUTION

VI. 19

18. Merits of the Roman mixed constitution both in time of danger

( 2---4) and in peace ( s-8). The emphasis in this chapter is on the
stability and success of the Roman constitution; but P. never
claims, nor does his argument require, that it should be permanent.
He is concerned with the mechanics, the system of checks and
balances by which, so long as it remains at its prime, it maintains
the status quo despite any tendency to excess in any constituent
element; but one day it too will decline KaTa <fovatv (d. CQ, 1943,
75 f.; 1954. 120). The thesis of 'danger from abroad' holding the state
together is not new nor is it unparalleled. In 167 Cato made a famous
speech defending the Rhodians, in which he attributed this argument
to Scipio Africanus, who (he said) had in 201 urged generous treatment for Carthage in order to keep Rome healthy and united (App.
Lib. 65: regarded as a reading back into the past of arguments of
c. ISO by Gsell and Saumagne; cf. CQ, 1943, 87 n. 6); and Valerius
Maximus (vii. 2. 3) attributed similar sentiments to Africanus' friend,
Q. Caecilius Metellus. In any case they go back to Greek commonplaces; cf. Plato, Laws, iii. 6g8 B ff. (fear of Persia creates unity at
Athens) and Arist. Pol. iv (vii). IS 3 1334 a 25 ff. (states grow rusty
in time of peace). The same theme figured in Scipio Nasica's famous
opposition to the destruction of Carthage before the Third Punic
War (cf. Plut. Cat. mai. 27. 3 f.; App. Lib. 69; Diod. xxxiv. 33 4-6;
see Gelzer, Phil., 1931, 261-gg). Here P. seems to be arguing against
this view with his claim that the mechanics of the mixed constitution
are sufficient to counteract excess in any direction ( 6, auTo Trap'
awov . . . TTJV f1m)8Hav); see Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954. 104-5
P.'s argument is substantially complete, but a transitional passage
has been lost, leading to the account of the military system; and
this may have been preceded by a section giving a detailed description of the constitution (cf. 9; introductory note; 11 an. at the end).
1. T,V apJ-Loy-.lv (I.UTWV: in contrast to their separate qualities.
1TO}..LTea.s auaTa.ow: 'form of constitution', d. 43 5, 47. I, 51. 5
5. 1Tpos u~pLv Ka.i 1Tpos U1TEpTJcpa.va.v: as after the victory over Perseus; cf. xxxi. 25. 3 ff.; Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 105-7
7. e~oLSouv: 'swelling-up', a medical metaphor; cf. Posch!, 58 n. 34
clVTLO''Inia9a.L Suva.J-LEVTJS Tfjs EKaO'TOU wpo9eo-ews uw' aAAlJAWV:
cf. 10. 7 n. (on Lycurgan Sparta).
8. Ta J-LEV KWAUOJ-Leva. Tfjs opJ-LfjS : 'being on the one hand hindered in

any aggressive impulse'.

Tn S' i~ cl.pxfis en-o-Ta.o-w: 'and on the other afraid from the out-

set of a check (or 'censure') from their neighbours'.

9. = iii. 87. 7-9: see 18 n. for the possibility that the reference
forward is to a passage originally occurring here.

19-42. The Roman military system. The account falls into two sections :
697

VI. Ig

THE ROMAN MILITARY SYSTEM

19-26 describes the organization of the army, 27-42 the Roman camp.
It appears to rest on F.'s own observation and inquiry.
19. 1. xtXul.pxous Ka.8uJT0.,n: cf. 12. 6. These are the twenty-four

tribunes of the four urban legions, the tribuni militum a populo ; the
five years' military service is not elsewhere attested.
2. Years of service. The text is corrupt. For the infantry MSS. vary
between g oil FS and g. o~> D 2 G. Cavaignac (Rev. Phil., 19I4, 76So) attempts a defence of ;g, ignoring ml; but when six campaigns
were accepted as the legitima stipendia in I40 (App. Hisp. 78), insubordination and disaffection had obviously created exceptional
circumstances. Most editors read lJEKalg with Casaubon or g Ka~
SiKa with Biittner-\Vobst; and sixteen years was certainly the figure
in Augustus' time (Dio, liv. 25. 6; subsequently raised to twenty,
Dio, lv. 23. I). Plutarch (C.Gracchus, 2. 5, TwvaAAwp lllKa <rrpaTwop.lvwv
Jv avayKats) suggests that ten years were normal in the Gracchan
period; but here, too, the reference is to Spain, where perhaps less
than the normal maximum was being demanded, as in I4o. See
Mommsen, St.-R. i. sos n. 3; Marquardt, ii. J8I n. 2; E. Meyer,
Kl. Schr. ii. 199 n. 3; Last, CAH, ix. I35 The years during which a
man might be called on for military service were from I7 (Gell. x. 28)
to 46 (Cic. de sen. 6o).
1rXTJv Twv tmo Tas TETpa.Kocrla.s Spa.xf1d.5 TETLf11'Jf1Evwv: in the middle
of the second century 400 drachmae was evidently the minimum
property census for admission into the fifth class. On the basis of
I drachma = I denarius = IO asses (cf. ii. 15. In.), this makes 4,000
'sextantal' asses, a considerable reduction on the 'Servian' requirement of n,ooo asses (Livy, i. 43 7), and an indication of some degree
of proletarianization of the army in the course of the second century
(d. Last, CAH, ix. I34; E. Gabba, A then., I949. I77 ff., I8I ff.;
Gabba's date for the reduction (2I4-212) is not convincing).
3. TouTous va.uTtKTJV XPEia.v: those below the fifth class are the
proletarii (or capite censi). Thiel (12; Hist. 73-78) argues that such
citizens served only in the marines, and the crews consisted of allies,
slaves, and libertini; but the more natural interpretation is of service
in the crew (d. Marquardt, ii. 38o n. ro; R. 0. Fink, A]P, I949. 2n).
4. 1ToALTLKTJV . O.pxfJv: the ten years correspond to the obligatory
ten years in cavalry service, the branch in which a young noble
would normally serve ; the limitation prevented a man standing for
office until he had completed his twenty-seventh year. See Mommsen,
St.-R. i. 505-7; Afzelius, Class. et med., 1946, 276.
19. 5-20. 9. Procedure of enrolment. F.'s account suggests that this
was an annual affair (19. 6); but it is clear from Livy that the details
and extent of the enrolment varied from year to year to suit the
city's needs (cf. Livy, xxii. II. 3, 38, 57, xxv. s. xxvii. 38, xxxi. II. I,
xxxiv. s6. 3 s6. I2, xli. IO. II, xlii. 27. s. 32; Veith, Heerwesen, 304),
6g8

ENROLMENT OF TROOPS

VI. I9. 7

that troops could be enrolled locally (e.g. Livy, xxiii.32. 19, Picenum),
and that not all citizens due for service proceeded on a given date
to Rome. Thus P.'s account is over-schematic, like his account of
the constitution. Enrolment was by tribes; whether in bringing forward the recruits four by four (2o. 3) account was taken of their
property class as well as of their age and physique is not kno>vn~
P. does not mention it. Under the Servian system the basis of enrolment seems to have been the century (cf. Dion. Hal. iv. 19); and
this is what one might expect after the setting up of the centuriate
organization, which in origin was primarily for military purposes
(cf. Last, ]RS, 1945, 42 ff.). Several passages (Livy, iv. 46. r (4r8) ;
VaL Max. vi. 3 4, cf. Varro ap. Non. p. 28 Lindsay; Livy, ep. 14
(275)) suggest that enrolment by tribes was practised from the fifth
century onwards, and one (Dion. Hal. iv. 14) even assigns it to
Servius. Hence Mommsen (St.-R. iii. r. 268) rejects Dion. Hal. iv. 19
and assumes tribal enrolment from very early times (cf. Liebenam,
RE, 'Dilectus', coL 5). But Dion. Hal. iv. 14 may well depend on
a late annalistic source, who imports a contemporary practice into
the regal period; and Livy, iv. 46. r, if reliable, perhaps refers to
the exceptional circumstances of a tumultus. Recently E. Gabba has
argued (AtJten., 1951, 251-5) that enrolment on the basis of tribes,
a method likely to produce a more effective use of man-power, was
introduced to meet the crisis of a tumultus, and became normal under
the vressure of the First Punic War, with its tremendous need for
men. His argument seems convincing, and the change would represent one more factor in that decline in importance in the centuria,
which is reflected in the political sphere by the reform of the comitia
centuriata (cf. 14. 7 n.). For discussion see also P. Fraccaro, Atti del
2 Congresso Nazionale di Studi Romani, 3 (Rome, 1931), 91-97;
Athen., 1934, 57-71; De Sanctis, Riv. fil., 1933, 289 ff.
19. 5. 'ITpo".iyouow ev Tii.> STJI.I.'l.l: i.e. in the assembly, probably the
comitia tributa. For the consuls' edict d. Livy, ii. 55 I, v. 19. 4, vii.
6. 12, xxvi. 35 2. Those JJJ Tafs ~>.udats are the iuniores; cf. ii. 23. 9 n.
6. ets To KcmETwAtov: d. Livy, xxvi. 31. II, 'ipse in Capitolium ad
dilectum discessit'; Varro, ap. Non., p. zB Lindsay. Several passages
(Livy, iii. 69. 6; Dio, fg. ro9. 5; Varro, Rt~st. iii. z) suggest that the
recruits assembled in the Campus :Martius. Perhaps they then ascended the Capitol tribe by tribe for enrolment; or alternatively
(Gabba, Athen., rgsr, 253 n. 2} the use of the Campus may be later
than the period of which P. is \';Titing.
7. Ka.9cnrep liv {nro Tov SfuJ.ou . 1] Twv (npa.TTJywv: 'according to
the order in which they have been appointed by the people or the
consuls' (misunderstood in the Loeb translation). Apparently P. is
describing the enrolment into the four legiones urbanae, the tribunes
of which were all appointed by the people (rz. 6 n.); but he implies
699

Vl. rg. 7

ENROLMENT OF CAVALRY

a similar process, if further legions had to be enrolled, and so adds

the words Twv mpa.n1ywv to cover the military tribunes of such
legions. There was presumably an order of nomination for tribunes
appointed by the consuls, as there was an order of election for the
twenty-four elected in the comitia tributa.
TTJV OAocrxpTj KO.t 11pWTtJV liLo.lpEOW: four legions, i.e. two consular
armies, formed a normal levy (cf. i. r6. 2}; but again P. is overschematic.
9. Twv ... 1rp11af3uTpwv: those with ten years' service ( r).
20. 2. TrpoaKaA.ouvTaL T,v uEi A.axouaav: from Valerius Maxim us
(vi. 3 4) it appears that at this stage there was a roll-call; cf. Livy,
vii. 4 2; Cic. de diu. i. ro2 (for the choice of a well-omened name to
begin 1t).
7. alel. KaTtL Myov oihws ~K 1Tpto5ou Tll!i eiCA.oyfJc; ywo~EVTJ\l: 'since
they continue thus to give the choice to each alike in succession';
for EK m:pa5iiov cf. ii. 43. r.
8. Size of legion; d. i. r6. 2; from 21. 9-ro it seems that r,zoo of the
4,zoo are light-armed (uelites).
9. Enrolment of cavalry. Since the war with Veii the original r,Soo
equites equo publico had been supplemented at need with a larger
number of supernumerary cavalry equis suis merentes; and the use
of these increased with the military pressure of the Punic Wars.
Equites equo publico were enrolled JK 'T'wv exovTwv To t-tlytaTov Tit-<11/-ta.
Kat KO.'T'a yvos J7Tt4>o.vwv (Dion. Hal. iv. r8), from those ce11su maximo
(Cic. de re pub. ii. 39), ex primoribus ciuitatis (Livy, i. 43 8); and they
are often spoken of as members of the first class (Dion. Hal. iv. r8,
vii. 59, x. 17). The new cavalry were chosen from those 'quibus
census equester erat, equi publici non erant adsignati' (Livy, v. 7 5);
according to Diony"'Sius (vi. 44} they were {lt.wv cdmop~aa.V'T'r:. 0 Such
a property qualification is first clearly attested for 76 (Cic. Rose.
Com. 42), but seems to be implied in the le~ Acilia of C. Gracchus
(Hill, nr}. Whether Livy's definition of this new cavalry implies
a definite census equester, distinct from and higher than that of the
first class, is doubtful. Mommsen (St.-R. iii. I. 258, 499) assumed that
this arose in the middle of the fourth century; and Gabba (Athen ..
195r, 255-6) has recently argued for its introduction at the time Of
the First Punic \Var. Both views seem hard to reconcile with the
present passage. The change in the order of the levy to which P.
here refers is most likely connected with the more widespread use
of cavalry equis suis merentes; and Hill (19; d. A]P, 1939, 357 f.}
argues cogently that this change 'implies that the cavall)' then
selected before the infantry was chosen from men who might, if
not put into the cavalry, be required for the infantry'. The existence
of a definite census equester would, however, exclude those falling
JOO

TAKING OF THE OATH

VI.

21.

within it from infantry service, and it would be unnecessary to alter

the tradition by which the infantry levy came first; for even if,
after that levy was based on the tribes, no account was taken of
property claSSeS (and this is not established: cf. 19. 5-20. 9 n.), it
would have been a simple matter to exclude from it those who had
reached the equestrian minimum, whatever that might have been.
On the other hand, the passages in Livy (v. 7 5. xxxiv. 31. q) which
seem to imply the existence of an equestrian property qualification
at this date can be adequately explained if equites were selected, as
P. says, from the richest members of the first class. It therefore looks
as if the introduction of a census equester was later than the change
in the order of the levy. When this change was made is unknown;
but Gabba (Joe. cit.) may well be right in associating it with the
change-over to a levy based on the tribes, since it arose from the
same need to make a fuller and better use of man-power. If so, it
will fall sometime in the middle or second half of the third century.
TplaKOO'LOUS els lfKaO'TOV aTpaT01TE00V: cf. i. 16. 2, ii. 24. 3
21. 1-3. Taking of the oath (sacramentum): cf. Marquardt, ii. 384-5;
Veith, Heerwesen, 305.
1. oi Trpoat}KoVTES Twv Xli..lapxwv: 'the tribunes on whom this duty
falls'.
2. ~ }l~v Trn9apxT)aElV KTi...: cf. Dion. Hal. x. r8, 'Tov CTTpanwnKov
opKoV, aKOAovO,/aELV TOtS vmi.TOLS, icf>' ovs Ul/ KO.AWVTO.< rroMp.ovs KO.l
ft~'TE

arroALtPEtl/ Ta CJTjftELO. P..~TE aMo rrpd.~tV p..rJfN.v vavTlov r{j! v6p.(fl,

xi. 43. 0 T ydp opKOS 6 arpanwnKOS, Sv dmfvTWI/ p.d.AtaTa ip..m:oovm

'Pwp..o.l:ot, 'TOLS aTpanryoi:s atwAov8Et:v KAWt TOVS' CTTPO.TVop..vovs, 01TOL
1TOT' .J.v aywow.
3. Toih' auTo OTji..oGvTE'i> KTA.: cf. Paulus, epit. F esti, p. 250 Lindsay,

'praeiurationes facere dicuntur hi qui ante alios conceptis uerbis

iurant: post quos in eadem uerba iurantcs tantummodo dicunt:
idem in me'; cf. Livy, ii. 45 14. Anyone breaking his oath became
sacer (Macrob. Sat. iii. 7 5), and could be killed with impunity.
4-5. Emolment and oath of socii. The apxwv and p..wOoooTYfS ( 5) arc
native officers (cf. 26. 5 n.).
6-10. Grouping of recruits.
7. ets Tou., ypo17cflo!l-1xou<>: cf. i. 33 9 n. The uelites opened the battle
in conjunction with the citizen cavalry; and, according to Livy
(xxvi. 4. 4 ff.), they came into action on the cavalry horses, behind
the riders. But this whole account is suspect, including the assertion
(Livy, xxvi. 4 ro) that the uelites were now (2u) first instituted.
The earlier light-armed were called rorarii, a name which persisted
till the end of the second century (cf. Lucilius, vii. 290, x. 393;
E. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. z6o); but Livy already mentions uelites in
xxi. 55 I I (Trebia}, xxiii. 29. 3 (battle
Hannibal), xxiv. 34 5
JOI

VI. zr. 7

GROUPI!ITG OF RECRUITS

(Syracuse), and even in xxvi. 4 4 he writes as though they were

familiar ('praefixa ferro quale hastis uelitaribus inest'), and in i.
33 9 P. mentions ypocu/>op..dxot in Regulus' army in the First Punic
War. Hence it seems unlikely that uelites were in fact a new invention
in 2II (so E. Gabba, A then., 1949, 182~3); they seem rather to be
a development of rorarii under a new name (cf. Fr. Frohlich, Die
Bedeutung des zweiten punischen Krie.ges fiir die Entwicklung des
romischen Hcerwesens (Leipzig, 1884), 37--43; Veith, Heerwesen, 309;
E. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 26o), and judging from Lucilius (above) this
new name only gradually imposed itself. See also i. 26. 6 n. where the
existence of uelites seems to be implied in the attribution of the title
triarii to the fourth naval squadron.
7-8. Ha;,tati, principes, triarii. Though first mentioned here, these
groups are undoubtedly older than P., as their names show. Varro
(Ling. v. 89) records that 'hastati dicti, qui primi hastis pugnabant,
pilani, qui pilis, principes, qui a principia gladiis: ea post commutata
re militari minus illustria sunt' (here pilani is another name for
triarii; cf. Ovid, Fasti, iii. 129). In any case the names suggest that
the principes were originally the front-line fighters, and bore some
weapon distinct from the hasta, from which the hastati took their
name. At some date nmv unknown the pilum was adopted by both
principes and hasfati, and the latter were brought forward into the
front line. The triarii used the hasta (23. 16), and the alternative
name pilani probably comes from pilae in the sense of 'files', despite
Varro's and Festus' connecting of the word with the pilum (cf.
Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 253-4; Schulten, RE, 'pilum', coL 1335); pilani
are troops formed in columns. On the pilum see 23. 8-u n. The
manipular army, with its three ranks of hastati, pri1tcipes, and triarii,
existed in essentials by the time of the war with Pyrrhus, but whereas
originaHy their tactical significance depended on distinction of
census, reflected in differences of equipment, by the time of the
Second Punic War, and even more when P. was writing, the distinction
at any rate between principes and hastati was one not of equipment,
but of seniority; cf. Livy, viii. 8.
where the hastati are flos
iuuenum pubescentium, the principes are robustior aetas, and the
triarii are ueteranus miles spectatae uirtutis, in a passage which projects back into the age of the Latin wars the conditions of the manipular army (Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 265). See furtr.er Marquardt, ii.
327-8, 358 ff.; Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 198 ff.; Veith, Heerwesen, 261ft.,
269-70, 308---9.
9-10. Number in the legion. For the normal figure of 4,2oo cf. ii.
24. 13; rounded off, iii. 107. Io, mopi n:rpaKwxi).lous; cf. vi. 32. L
Legions are mentioned of s,ooo (iii. 107. 10, vi. 20. 8; Livy, xxii. 36. 3,
etc.), 5,2oo (ii. 24. 3; cf. Livy, xi. 1. 5, r8. 5, 36. 8, xli. 9 2, xlii. 31. 2,
xliii. 12. Io, xliv. 21. 1o), and from the time of the Third Macedonian
702

EQUIPMENT OF RECRUITS

VI. 23.2

War 6,ooo (Livy, xlii. 31. 2, xliii. 12. 3. xliv. 21. 8} or 6,2oo (found
under the elder Scipio, Livy, xxix. 24. 14, xxxv. 2. 4; regular after
Marius). Calculation makes the number of uelt'tes r,2oo.
22. Equipment of the uelites: see Marquardt, ii. 343; Veith, Heerwesen, 326-7.
1. l'6.xa1pa.v Ka.i yphmpous Kat 1r6.Pl'TJV: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 21. 13,
'hie miles (i.e. one of the uelites) tripedalem parmam habet et in
dextera hastas, quibus eminus utitur; gladio Hispaniensi est cinctus';
id. xxvi. 4 4
3. ALT~ 1TEpLKe+a.Aa~: a helmet \o\ithout a crest (contrast 23. 12).
The AuKda, wolf's skin, marks out the galea or galerus from the cas sis;
cf. Prop. iv. ro. 20, 'et galea hirsuta compta lupina iuba'; Virg. A en.
vii. 688 f., 'fuluosque lupi de pelle galeros tegmen habent capiti'.
Tois KaTa l'epos ijye..,oaL: 'the subordinate commanders'.
4. The hasta uelitaris. To be distinguished from the long thrusting
lance of the triarii. Livy (xxiv. 34 5) also calls it 'telum ad remittendum inhabile imperitis' (Klotz, Livius, II3-I4, points out that there
is nothing equivalent to this in P. viii. 4 r, Livy's source, and suggests that the addition is from the present passage; but Livy did
not need a specific statement in P. to tell him what a hasta uelitaris
was like). Each man carried seven according to Livy (xxvi. 4. 4; cf.
Frontin. Strat. iv. 7 29; Val. Max. ii. 3 3}; Lucilius, vii. 290 Marx
is not evidence to the contrary (Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. :z6o). cro~Batttafov
is 'a span long'; the head was 'beaten out and sharpened to a fine
point'.
KOLv6v To ~e'-os: similarly, as Schweighaeuser observes, elephants,
because of their untrustworthiness, Ka'Aoikn Kotvov; 7ToAettlou; (App.
Hisp. 46).

23. Equipment of the hastati, principes, and triarii. This consists of

the scutum (&upeos), gladius (ttd.xaLpa), pila (~aaol}, crista galea
(11Tptvo; (rri,Pavo>), pectorale (KapbLo,Pv>..ag) or lorica (Bwpag); but the
triarii have hastae instead of pila. How far this description is valid
for the Second Punic War and how far for the date of composition
is uncertain; Veith (Heerwesen, 324} points out that there was a
gradual development, that P. writing towards the middle of the
second century stood at its end (greaves and hastae 'standen . . .
damals sicher schon auf dem Aussterbeetat'}, and consequently that
P. may be describing a situation partly based on the official regulations (but in practice obsolete} and partly true of the Second Punic
War.
2. 6upe6s: the scutum, worn by all three divisions of the manipular
army, is called a Sabine weapon in Plutarch (Rom. zr. z), but is
usually regarded as Sarnnite (cf. [ned. Vat.; Athen. vi. 273 L; Clem.
703

VL

23.2

EQ'GIPME:\T OF RECRTJITS

Al. Strom. i. 16. 362 P.; Euseb. Praep. ev. x. 6 [475 nj); the Samnite
scutum is described in Livy (ix. 40. 2); d. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. ::34 ff.
The scutum was four-cornered and with a shght cylindrical curve (rijs
l<VpTijS' bno/avelas), not very pronounced (d. Steinwender, I<.lio, 19ro,
446 ff.), despite Dio's description of it (xlix. 30) as awAryvonS~s, 'pipeshaped'. See the illustration in Veith, Heerwesen, fig. III. The use
of the metal rim at the top and bottom is confirmed by Plutarch
(Cam. 40. 4) and Polyaenus (viii. 7 2). The Koyxos- (umbo), an iron
boss in the middle of the shield, served also to protect the hand
holding the shield just behind it. See Fiebiger, RE, 'scutum', cols.
915-16; P. Couissin, 142 ff., 237 ff.; Marquardt, ii. 326; Veith, Heerwesen, 324-6.
To S' ~"'I'' '{ruos <ml.xos) En Ka.l "'l'a.Aa.~crna.'iov: so Biittner-\Vobst for
the MSS. 6 o~ f.d,ovs; ln (FDG, iaTl HL) Kal 1raAaurnatos. This makes
no sense, even reading /U{,wv with Hultsch and Schweighaeuscr.
Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 200 n. 2) despaired of the passage: 'die Korruptel ... scheint unheilbar; gemeint war wohl, daf3 die Lange auch
noch urn cine 1TaAawT~ (t Ful3) groiler sein konnte.' But Buttner\Vobst's emendation, if bold, makes good sense: some reference to
the thickness of the shield (which would taper towards the rim)
seems relevant to the description.
4. TasTE ~ea.Ta.popns Twv !lXa.tpwv: 'the cutting-strokes of swords' (cf.
ii. 30.8 n., iii. 114.3 n.).
6 . ..,.a.xa.tpa.: according to fg. 179, the Spanish sword was adopted in
Ta KaT' J1vvtj1av, i.e. during the Second Punic \Var; but it is clear
from ii. 30. 8 and 33 5 (d. iii. II4. 3 n.) that the sword used during
the Gallic tumultus of 225 was virtually the same cutting and thrusting weapon, and the Romans may have adopted it from Spanish
mercenaries fighting for the Carthaginians in the First Punic War,
as they did the pilum (Schulten, RE, 'pilum', coL 1344). On the
gtadius see Veith, Heerwesen, 325 (with fig. n8); Marquardt, ii. 338;
Couissin, 139 ff., 220 ff.; Meyer, Kt. Schr. ii. zoo n. 1 ; A. Schulten,
Numantia, i (Munich, I9I4), 209 ff. It was relatively short, a trifle
over 2 ft., and had two cutting edges.
7. K~VTTJfLO. 6uicpopov Ka.l Ka.Tacpopnv ... ~[mov: d. fg. 179, KEl'TYJfLa
7rp0.KTLKOIJ Kal Ka.Tao/opclv lfxn ovvap.EV7JV Jg dp.o/oiv Totv fLpotv. Here
Kamo/opd
'cutting edge'; contrast 4 df3~;AwKos is the blade.
8-11. The pilum (uaaos) was the throwing javelin of the hastati and
principes. The ancient view (Ined. Vat.) that the Romans took it
from the Samnites is accepted by Ed. Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 226-31,
248 n. I; cf. Reinach, DS, 'pilum', 481). But the pilum is not attested
as a Samnite weapon, and Schulten has made out a convincing case
for deriving it from Spain, like the glad1:us (Rh. 1vlus., 19II, 573 ff.;
1914, 477 f.; RE, 'pilum', cols. 1336 ff.); d. Athen, vi. 273, KaL <rapa
l:aw~TWV S lp.a.Bol' Bvp<OV xpfjmv, 1TO.pa OE 'lf3~pwv yalawv (for yataov

EQUIPMENT OF RECRUITS

VI. 23.

II

pilum see xvm. r8. 4). The existence of a Spanish weapon, the
phalarica, similar to the Roman pilum, is well known (d. especially
Livy, xxi. 8. 10). Since P. i. 40. 12 is our earliest authentic reference
to the use of the
as a Roman weapon, it was probably taken,
like the gladius, from Spanish mercenaries during the First Punic
War (Schulten, RE, 'pilum', col. 1344. modifying his earlier view
that it was adopted at the time of Hannibal-a view justly criticized
by Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. z n. 1). Schulten has a detailed discussion
of P.'s pilum, heavy and light, with diagrams (from Schramm) in
RE, 'pilum', cols. 1349-54. He shows that a heavy ptum \vith a
3-cubit shaft (14o metres) and 4 fingers (77 em.) wide, equipped
with an iron head of like length, ri fingers (z8 em.) wide where it
fits into the shaft, would weigh 85 kg. and be too heavy to throw.
Veith (H eerwesen, 326) thinks P. is describing some transitional,
experimental, weapon perhaps used by Scipio and given an undeserved immortality by P. 'aus Pietat'; this seems most improbable,
and a more likely explanation is that P.'s pilum, like the later one,
was thinner except where the shaft was fitted to the head (contra
Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. zso n. 5). Since half the iron head was let into the
shaft (23. n), the total length of the pilum was c. 21o m., and its
weight, allowing for tapering, 468 kg. (or in the case of a round
p1:t-um, 369 kg.). The lighter pilum, used against more distant targets,
and akin to the later Roman weapon, is calculated to weigh only
c. 2 kg. For contemporary pita found near ~umantia see Schulten,
RE, 'pilum', cols. 1354-7.
8. 'II'E:p~KE:<J>a.:\a.(a. xaJ.Kij Ka.~ '~~'POKVTJfLLS: cassis and ocrea. For the
bronze helmet see Veith, Heerwesen, fig. 120 (incorrectly called galea);
it was open and without a vizor. For the crest worn on it see 12;
contrast the galea (22. 3 n.). The use of the singular 7Tpo~<YYJp.is may
indicate the use of a single greave (Lammert, RE, 'ocreae', col. Ij78);
shortly afterwards greaves are no longer worn.
9. oitJ-EV cnpoyyu:\oL oE oe TTpaywvo~: i.e. some had a circular,
others a square cross-section.
at~uvloLs autJ-tJ-hpoLs: 'moderate-sized hunting-spears'; mfMYtoY
is an otherwise unknown diminutive of mf:luVTJ.
10. ~:\os ciyKLcrrpw1'ov: 'barbed head'; cf. Philo, Bel. 95 I. 45
Jp.f36Am ayl(tG"TPWTa (Diels-Schramm, Abh. Berlin. Akad., I9I9, no. I:Z,
p. 64)
11, rqv Ev0EOW KO.t rqv Xpt:tO.V , , , aa4>a.AttOVTO.L: 'they ensure ltS firm
attachment and its utility'.
~ws )l~O'WV TWV u:\wv evOLOEVTE:S: 'fastening it into the wooden haft
up to the middle point', so that the iron is enclosed inside the
wooden shaft up to a half of its length.
:\a.t3iaL 1((1T0.1TEpovwvn:s: 'bolting it with rivets'. Plutarch (Mar. zs)
calls such rivets 7Tep6Yat.

uaaos

zz

VI. 23. II

ORGANIZATION OF RECRUITS

tv

Ti{> r,u011E:vL tta.l. TTI auva.+ii: 'at the bottom where it joins .. .' .
14. ~~:a.pSloq,oA.a.~ea: a bronze sheet, a span (c. 9 in.) square, this was
of great antiquity. It formed part of the dress of the Salii, and
examples from the seventh and sLxth centuries ha. ve been found in
graves at Targuinii and on the Esquiline; cf. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 201.
15. ol ... urrip Tas fLUpCas TLfLWI1Vm 8pa.xl1aS: i.e. members of the
first (Servian) property class. If the drachmc< is equated with the
denarius (cf. ii. 15. In.), P. here makes the qualification for the first
classes too,ooo sextantal asses (ten of which made a denarius). This
is also Livy's figure (i. 43 r, centum milium aeris .. censum) and
Dionysius' (iv. r6); but Pliny (Nat. kist. xxxiii. 43) and Festus
('infra classem', p. Ioo Lindsay) give r2o,ooo. The lex Voconia (169)
laid impedimenta on testators possessing above a certain property;
and this limit, which has been reasonably identified with the firstclass census, is variously given as rzs,ooo aeris (Gellius), roo,ooo aeris
(Gaius), Ioo,ooo sestertii (Ps.-Asconius), and zs,ooo drachmae
25,ooo denarii ~ roo,ooo sestertii (Dio). Mattingly (]RS, 1937, 99 ff.)
argues for Gellius' figure ; but his argument rests on the improbable
view that P.'s draclmut is an Aeginetan drachma (cf. ii. 15. I n.). The
alternative, that the lex V oconia defined the figure as roo,ooo libral
asses =- Joo,ooo sestertii, is certainly unlikely; but Mommscn (St.-R.
iii. r. 249 f. n. 4) may well be right in thinking that asses (undefined,
but in fact sextantal) were taken to be libra! asses (i.e. sesterces) in
order to circumvent the provisions of the law (cf. Steinwenter, RE,
'Lex Voconia', cols. 2419-20). This would lend support to P.'s figure.
<iA.um8wTous Owpa.Ka.s: 'breastplates wrought in chain', the lorica
hamata. This and the Kapowtj>vAa~ were perhaps wom over a leather
jerkin; cf. Grosse, RE, 'lorica', cols. 1444-5. On both see Couissin,
I57 ft., 265 ff.
16. SOpaTa: the hasta, still used by the triarii, was the earlier
weapon of the whole army (as the name hastati indicates) and was
suited to the phalanx formation. With the gradual standardization
which culminated in the Marian reforms it gave way to the pilunt
in all lines.

24. Organization of recruits and appointment of officers.

1. T~~apxous: 'centurions'; P. assigns the appointment of centurions and (2 5 J) decuriones to the military tribunes, and that of
optiones to the centurions or (zs. 1) decurions, though normally the
appointment of officers was a prerogative of the consuls (Livy,
xlii. 33 6; Cic. Pis. 88). Later, according to Varro (Ling. v. 9r)
optiones and decurions were both appointed by the military tribunes.
Mommsen (St.~R. i. 120 n. 4) suggests that the consul possessed the
power de iure, but that for convenience the de facto appointments
were carried out by subordinates.
706

AND APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS

VI. 24.7

l!ETn 8i TouTous ETEpa.v EKAoy~v: these would form the thirty centuriones posteriores in contrast to the priores already chosen (cf.
Livy, xlii. 34 7 f.). Each prior, whether hastatus, princeps, or triarius,
was higher in rank than any posterior (cf. Veith, Heerwesen, 320);
on the relative positions of prior and posterior see further 1
2. wv 6 1rp6'>Tos a.Lpellds: the first man chosen will be the primus pilus
prior, the senior centurion of the first maniple of the triarii. Veith
(Heerwesen, 320-1) argues that the reference is to the first centurion
of the first maniple of each group, i.e. of hastati, principes, and
triarii; for at a later date these three maniples together made up the
first cohort, and their three senior centurions all served on the
military council (35 4 n.) as primi ordines (Caes. BG, v. 30. r, vi.
7. 8). This is possible; on the other hand, the antecedent of Jw is
romous d1Ta>-m>, and P. certainly appears to be referring to one man,
not three. Nor were the practices of the army based on the cohort
necessarily identical with those of the manipular army.
ollpa.yous: crptiones': the optio relieved the centurion of administrative duties; he may be compared to the quarter-master; cf. Veg.
ii. 7. 'optiones . . . uicarii solent uniuersa curare'; Paulus, epit.
Fest, p. 201 Lindsay, 'rerum priuatarum ministrum', Festus, p. 216
Lindsay, 'adiutor dabatur centurioni a tribuna militum'. Originally,
however, he was the centurion's representative; cf. Marquardt, ii.
545; Lammert, RE, 'optio (r)', coLs. 8o6-7.
4. Tou<; i1T~j36.!,XovTa.<; Ka.T<l To 1rMj8os: 'the appropriate number'.
5. Tuylla. Ka.t a1re.i'pa.v Ka.i O'TJl!O.ta.v: ordo, manipulus, and signum.
6. alllla.uujuipou<;: 'signiferi'. There was one signum for each maniple;
cf. Varro, Ling. v. 88, 'manipulos exercitus minimas partes, quae
unum secuntur signum'. See Marquardt, ii. 345 The second signifer
was evidently to act as a substitute should anything befall the first;
and this leads P. to discuss the appointment of two centurions,like\vise, to each maniple( 7). On the functions of the substitute signifer
see the indecisive and not very clear discussion of Kubitschek, RE,
'signifer', cols. 2350 ff.
7. 8uo . TJYEI.I-ova.<;: since each maniple contained two centuries,
it had two centurions; but the centurion of the right-hand century
always took precedence and commanded the whole maniple. He is
the centurio prior (TrpwTos atp8tis) and his colleague the centuria
posterior (cf. r n.). Each led his O\\lTI men into battle, but the prior
was in command. It was normal Roman practice for the leader of
a whole unit, even of the whole army, to command the right (Veith,
HeervJesen, 317-r8); 'die ausdriickliche Bestimmung des prior zum
FUhrer des rechteu Fliigels besagte fiir den antiken, in den militarischen Grundlagen seiner Zeit geschulten, Leser ohne weiteres,
daB er zugleich als Kommandant des Ganzen zu betrachten war.'
For each centurion to command his own century independently

VI. 24. 7

EQUIPMENT OF CAVALRY

would make havoc of the organization of the legion, since clearly

the question whether at any given moment the maniple or the
century was the tactical unit could not be allowed to depend on the
fate of one of the centurions. Moreover, other evidence strongly
supports the view that the smallest tactical unit was the maniple (3S
IZ; and for the cavalry analogy, 2s. 2; Livy, xxvi. S IS, 6. I, xlii. 34}.
9. (3a.9f.l:s .. Ta.'i:s o/uxa.l:s: 'of a sedate spirit' (Paton).
~ ciKf.pa.Cou: 'when the issue is undecided'.
25. Appointment and equipment of cavalry. They are divided into
ten turmae (lAat), each of which has three decmions (ll\dpxa) and
three optiones (ovpayol); cf. Varro, Ling. v. 91; Festus, p. 484 Lindsay; lsid. Etym. ix. 3 sr.
3. 9wpa.~<a.s: this may be the chain-mail breastplate worn by the
first class (23. IS). perhaps over a leather jerkin.
ev 1TEpL~WJla.ow: cf. ii. 9 J, and below, yv(Lvot. The most essential of
their light garments was the sztbligacuZ.um or campestre, and perhaps
also the trabea.
5. 1rpo Tou . 1rpouepf.l:um: 'before the iron tip became fixed in
anything'; 7rpoaepEwat is intransitive.
6. O.veu ua.upwnipwv: 'without spikes at the butt-end'. Such a spike
would serve as a second point for dealing a further blow (cf. 9),
should the tip break off (as happened (xi. 18. 4) when Philopoemen
killed Machanidas 7rpoaEvryJcwv 'TqJ aavpwTijpL 7rAYJy7Jv ai\1\TJv).
7. Sul. To t.J.TJ uniuLv exeLV: 'as they were not firm enough'.
10. 1Tpos TQS em(3oXas KO.L 1Tpos TGS em9EO'f.LS: 'against attack and
assault': but Reiske may be right in taking mf3ol\a{ to be attacks
by missiles thrown from a distance; the sense would then be eminus
et comminus. Paton's version 'in defence and attack' is incorrect.
11. Roman imitation of others: on this theme see i. 20. IS n.

26. 1-9. 1vlobilization.

2. ets ~v Wt.J.oaa.v: according to Cincius Alimentus {Gell. xvi. 4 3-4)
they swore to appear 'nisi harunce quae causa erit: funus familiare
feriaeue denicales (i.e. purification because of a corpse), quae non
eius rei causa in eum diem conlatae sint, quo is eo die minus ibi esset,
morbus sonticus (probably epilepsy), auspiciumue quod sine piaculo
praeterire non liceat, sacrificiumue anniuersarium quod recte fieri
non possit nisi ipsus eo die ibi sit, uis hostesue, status condictusue
dies cum hoste (i.e. a foreigner) ; si cui eorum harunce quae causa
erit, tum se postridie quam per eas causas licebit, eo die uenturum
adiuturumque eum qui eum pagum uicum oppidumue delegerit'.
P. summarizes these obstacles as dpvdhlas Kat Twv dovvdTwv ( 4).
According to Cincius failure to appear was punishable by branding
(infrequens notabatur).
708

MOBILIZATION

VI. 27

5. T1Jv
oiKovop.la.v ICO.L TOV xe~p~ap.6v: 'their organization and
management'.
1rpa.cpe1CTO~: 'praefecti socium'; twelve for four legions, and so three
for the allies assigned to each legion. Their duties resembled those
and, though P. does not say so, they
of the tribunes (34 4, 37
(cf. Livy, xxxiii. 36. 5, 'illustres
were chosen from Roman
uiri ... in illo ... proelio ceciderunt, inter quos praefecti socium T.
(Ti. ?) Sempronius Gracchus et M. Julius Silanus'). Of the six praefecti
available to a consular army, three would serve, with their troops,
on either wing ( g). These praefecti are quite distinct from the
native apxoVTES and fUa8o3&rat (:n. s). See Marquardt, ii. 396; Veith,
II eerwcsen, 276.
6-9. Number of extraordinarii. That the total allied infantry equalled
those in the legion (i.e. 8,400 for a normal consular army) and the
allied cavalry were three times as many (i.e. r,8oo compared with
the Roman 3oo) is confirmed at iii. 107. rz and vi. 30. 2. These figures
will be approximations. The four legions at Trebia (iii. 72. rr) contained r6,oco }{oman and 2o,ooo allied foot; but armies between
296 and r68 mainly show a preponderance of socii, including the
extraordinarii (cf. ii. 24. 4 n.; Liebenam, RE, 'extraordinarii', col.
r697), though in Livy, xl. 31. 3. 6oo cavalry, being extraordinarii and
a third of the allied contingent, are divided into two detachments,
the equitcs extraordinarii sinistrae and dextrae alae (each divided
into ten turmae of thirty men), which fits P.'s proportions here. The
extraordinarii have their own place in camp (3r. 2, 31. 4, 31. 6, 31. 8}
and in the order of march (4o. 4, 40. 8); but it is unlikely that they
were concerned with guarding the general (as Mommsen thought,
Hermes, r879, 25}, though some of them (3r. 2, 31. 6} were singled out
for special tasks of this kind. Marquardt (ii. 392, 398) discusses P.'s
figures but his conclusions do them some violence.
9. et~ Mo !J-p1'J: for a consular army the remaining r,zoo allied
cavalry (after the 6oo extraordinarii are subtracted) form four alae,
divided each into five double-t-urmae of 6o men each. Two alae
fought on either wing.
10-12. Introduction to the description of the camp.
11. !Ca.TO. Ttts 1ropelas tCa.l. aTpa.To1TeSdas ~eat 1ra.pa.Tase~s: 'on the
march, in camp, and in action'. P. describes the order of march in
40; his account of the army in action contained in this book has
evidently been lost (cf. 4:2. 6 n.).
27-42. The Roman camp. P.'s account of the construction of the
contemporary Roman
especially 27-32) has given rise to
an extensive literature.
problem is raised in 32. G-8, where P.
explains that when two consuls are camping together with their two
consular armies (i.e. four legions), their two camps, as described, are
709

lntenaiium

A7

, ... - )

pe di

eq ui
I

e:rl:ri>Or-

'

d/nar/i
I

pel( e'{Y.
I

B
IJ. Plan to illustrate Polybius' description of half a four
legion camp, based on Fabricius.

710

RO~[AN

THE

L>\MP

VL27

set back to back; but when the consuls camp separately, the forum,
quaestorium, and praetorium are placed p.luov TWV ovetv crrpaTOmf8wv. For an interesting account of the various interpretations of
this passage suggested by scholars from the fifteenth century onwards see E. Fabricius, JRS, 1932, 78~7. If the last word, crrpaTo71'E8wv, is translated 'camps' or 'armies', the sense is fantastic, and
cannot be healed by merely transposing op.ofJ and xwpfs in J2. 8 (so
Reiskc and Fischer). Nor can Fabricius' solution, to omit 32. 8 as
a foolish interpolation, be commended. If, however, uTpa701r8wv is
'legions', many scholars have been worried by what they have taken
to be a clear account of a camp for a single consular army of two
legions followed by the statement that this is in reality half the
camp of a double consular army, and that when a single consular
army is encamped, the pattern is different--despite 26. ro, lvds
at!roi:s 0Ewp7}p.aTos d71'1\ofi 71'EP~ nls 7rapEp.f3o>.as, (/)
7rpos 7!'avTa Katpov Kat Tonov.

lnrapxoVTOS" 7rap'
...

xpwv<at

The most satisfactory solution yet proposed (though it leaves

some difficulties unresolved; d. 27. r n.) is that of P. Fraccaro
(Atlum., 1934, 154--fir), who points out that P. evidently took his
account from a Roman vade-mecum containing a plan of the camp,
and that such a work will naturally give the typical form. But it is
clear that the 'typical' and traditional Roman army was one of
four legions; this is indicated, for example, in Livy, iii. 70. 1, 'in
exercitu Romano cum duo consules essent potestate pari, quod
saluberrimum in administratione magnarum rerum est .. :, and,
one might add, in P.'s own account of the mobilization (19 fL), which
presupposes a double army of four legions. Fraccaroquotes Mommsen
(St.-R. i. 47): 'aber auch in dem Heerwesen selbst ist die Collegialit!it
spaterhin freilich theils verdunkelt, theils geradezu bei Seite
geschoben worden; in denjenigen militarischen Institutionen inde3,
welche darauf Anspruch habcn als der ursprlinglichen Republik
angehorig zu gelten, herrscht sie entschieden.' Of the latter one is
clearly the consular command. Hence P. is assuming the four-legion
camp as normal: and it is for convenience alone that he describes
only one-half of it. The other half will be identical, but will be
plotted out independently, with merely the base line in common.
When -what was theoretically exceptional, but must in fact
have become by P.'s own time the usual practice--a single consular
army camped alone, the position of the praetorium, forum, and
quaestorium was altered so as to lie, not as before between the two
armies, but in a more protected position between the two legions
(32. 8). That this was in fact done is confirmed by the Spanish
camps, especially that of Q. Fulvius Nobilior of 153/2, near Numantia (d. A. Schulten, Numantia, iv. u6: the camp is 'Renieblas
III'), where large buildings, identified as praetorium, forum, and
7II

VI. 27

THE ROMAN CAMP

quaestorium, lie along the cross axis at right angles to the uia principalis.
Bibliography: earlier works are listed in Marquardt, ii. 405 n. I,
and the main later (and some early) accounts by Fabricius, JRS,
I9J2, 79 n. 2; add Stuart Jones, Companion, 22~; Veith, Heerwesen,
342-6; Fraccaro, Atlten., I934. I54-61. For examples of camps see
the works listed by I. A. Richmond, OCD, 'camps'.
27. l. TC)v E1nTTJSedlTaTov el.s O"uvOIJ!Lv KTAo.: a difficulty, on Fraccaro's
interpretation, is that if the 'normal' scheme was a double camp
designed for an army of four legions under two consuls, it would be
important to plan it so that both praetoria occupied commanding
positions. Fraccaro (op. cit. IS8) remarks that 'su un punto solo era
necessario prendere in tal caso degli accordi: una volta che il console
comandante di turno o i due consoli di comune consenso avevano
scelto la localita per il campo; cioe sul decorso della linea della to
posteriore di ciascun mezzo campo, lungo la quale linea i due campi
veni vano a saldarsi'. But the surveyors began, not from the rear
line, but from the centre of the praetorium, ~ Toil O"TpaTT]yofi aK1JV~
( 2). It must therefore be assumed that, where a double camp was
being constructed, a line at right angles to the common base was
taken to the centre of the second praetorium, which would be the
site for the groma of the other army's surveyors.
2. TeedO"TJS TTJS O"TJI-la(as: i.e. a flag indicating the centre of the
praetorium; it was white (41. 7).
a1T"0!-1ETPElTClL., , TETpaywvos T01T"OS: this square enclosure, with sides
of 2oo ft., recalls the templum inaugurated at the centre of a city.
On this aspect of castrametation, of which P. says nothing-it
would hardly have interested him-see H. Nissen, Das Templum
(Berlin, I869), 22-53.
3. E1rlTT)SELOTUTTJ 1rpOS TE Tits uSpe(as ~tat 1T"ClpClV0!-1US: P. knows
nothing of the tradition of orientation to fit the points of the compass;
cf. Hyg. grom. de lim. canst., p. I69, 'postea placuit omnem religionem
eo conuertere, ex qua parte caeli terra inluminatur. sic et limites in
oriente constituuntur'. Vegetius (i. 23) makes his camp face either the
east or the enemy. In practice orientation would clearly depend on immediate conditions (and in a double camp the decision would be infiuenced by the fact that half would face in the opposite direction). Scipio's
camp atXew Carthage faced west (x. 9 7, II. I; southonP.'sreckoning).
Ta 'Pw1-1a"it<a O"TpaTo1T"e~a: 'the Roman legions'; for the six tribunes
in each legion see I9. 8-zo. 1.
5. e1ri 1-1tav e&eeiav: i.e. in a straight line parallel to the front of the
praetorium, but so ft. in front of it; P. does not indicate whether the
tribunes' quarters overlap the praetorium, or whether the >vhole
area in front of it is left vacant.
7I2

THE ROMAN CAMP

VL

JO. 2

6. 'TOU npoEIPTJflEYOU axi)fla'TO~ et~ T0Uf11TUAW aTrEO'TPUf1f1EYal: 'with

their backs turned to the aforementioned figure', i.e. the square
of the praetorium.
TOU Tr(l\ITO~ axi)fla'TO~ KaTa TrpoawTrov: 'the front of the whole
figure', cf. 29. 7 The front ofthe camp is thus the direction in which
the tribunes' tents are facing.

28. 1. AoiTr0\1 aTro Ti]~ t:U9E'a~: 'next, starting from the line drawn
at this distance' (Paton). The 1oo-ft. way thus left clear is the uia
principalis or principia (Livy, x. 33 1; Hyg. de mun. castr. 14).
2. npo~ bp9a~ TTI ypaflflfi: 'at right angles to the (original) line'.
The point of intersection (aYJfLEtov) of these two lines at right angles
is called the groma (or grama) after the instrument set up by the
surveyors for castrametation; cf. H yg. de mun. castr. 12. From it
can be seen three of the four portae of the camp.
flEO'TJV Tou 81aaTT)f1aTo~: 'making the bisecting line (run along)
the middle of the interval'. TOfL~ is the line which bisected that
parallel to the tribunes' tents (~ op[~ovaa EVBEfa), the OULO'TY)fLa is the
so ft. The street thus formed between the cavalry is the uia praetoria.
3. To oA.ov axi]fla TETpaywvov: 'it is the complete figure of a
square both for the maniple and the squadron'.
4. Ta~ S1Miou~: 'roads running through', parallel to the uia praetoria
and, like it, at right angles to the uia principalis and the tribunes'
tents.
nA.t]v Twv auf1flaxwv: cf. 30. There is no need to omit these words
as an interpolation (with Fabricius, JRS, 1932, 86); the triarii form
another exception (29. 3).
29. 1. otov et puf1TJ~ TLvo~: pvfLYJ is a street or alley, as its use in this
chapter makes clear; cf. Aen. Tact. 2. 5, 3 4; LXX Isa. xv. 3. etc.
Cardona wrongly takes it to be the striga, or longitudinal block of
tents (on which see Marquardt, ii. 407-8).
Ttl\1 apTL pTJ6Eiaav eu8eiav: 28.

I.

3. KaT' ouAUflOV EKaO''TTJV O'TJflUlaV: 'each maniple behind a squadron

of horse'. On the number of triarii ( 4) cf. 21. 9
5. Ct\ILO'W\1 OVTW\1 TroAAat!:l') TW\1 avSpwv: the use of 7ToN\aKL!i suggests
a general application to all groups, not merely the triarii: accidental
inequalities of number are allowed for in depth, not length, of
encampment.
9. 1rpo~ ~v .. f:maTpifloVTE~: the last maniple in each row faces the
camp wall, and not the pVfLYJ separating it from the next line.
30. 2. AeL-rrov 'TOL~ imAiKTol<;: 'falling short in respect of the extraordinarii'; for the construction cf. i. 63. 5, fLLKpip A.elrrovaw r.TaKoa{mo;
aKa</>eO ... vavfLaxYJaav, 'they fought with 7,ooo craft, falling short

VL

30.2

THE ROMAN CAMP

by a little', i.e. with a little under 7 ,ooo craft. The number of allied
infantry equalled that of the legionaries (cf. 26. 6--9 n.). but a fifth
were detached to serve as cxtraordinarii. Liebenam (RE, 'extraordinarii', coL r697) interprets this passage as though the sense was
'not allowing for the extraordinar-ii'; but this would require Tov,;
emAEKTovs-. The words Ka 'TOVrwv (of the cavalry) merely mean that
they, as well as the infantry, provided a contingent of extraordinarii,
and do not imply that the proportion provided by the infantry was
also a third.
3. e;wouv To is T<7lV 'PwtJ.CI.LWV aTp11T01TE8o~s: 'to make the space
equal to that occupied by the Roman legions'. Paton takes rrrpaTO-rrSot> as 'camp'; but P. would hardly use it of a section of the camp
in this sense.
6. T}v KnAoual 1TEJ.l1TTT)v: the uia quintrma; cf. Livy, xli. 2. II, 'praetorio deiecto direptisque quae ibi fuerunt, ad quaestorium, forum
quintanamque hostes peruenerunt' (where the arrangement seems
to be that mentioned in 32. 8). In the camp of the imperial period
(d. Veith, Heerwesen, figs. 132-4) the quintana keeps its position,
but rearrangement of the blocks disguises its origin.
31. 1. Tfis Tou aTpnnJYLOu 1TEplaTnaws: 'the space around the
praetorium', cf. 41. 2. The two spaces arc used for the forum and the
qttaestorimn.
2. oi Twv E1TtAEKTwv l1T1TEWV n1ToAEKTot: 'cavalry picked out from the
extraordinarii'.
KIJ.i TlVES TWV e9eAOVTTJV aTPGTEUOJLEVWV TU TWV U1T(iTWV xnpLn: i.e.
euocati, veterans who re-enlisted on special terms; cf. Caes. BC, i. 3
2, 'multi undique ex ueteribus Pompeii exercitibus spe praemiorum
atque ordinum euocantur'. Flamininus took 3,ooo with him to
Macedon in 198 (Plut. Flam. 3 3). Together with picked men of the
equites extraordinarii sociorum they carry out special duties as bodyguard to the general ( 3).
1Tnp0. TclS EK TCIV 1TAnyiwv TOU xnpo.KOS E1TLcf>IJ.VELa.S: 'along the sides
of the camp'; d. iii. i4 2, J<a'Ta Ta,; tK Twv TTilaylwv t-rwfoavela~.
4. E1Ti TOV xnpaKIJ. ~AE1TOVTES: 'looking towards the palisade'.
5. 1TCI.pGTELVouaa TOU xit.paKOS: 'running alongside all the abovementioned parts of the camp', i.e. the forum, praetorium, quaestorium, and the quarters of the selected extraordinarii and evocaH.
7. Til 1TpOEtP'ri!EvTI 1TAGTEi~: the Slo8os ... TTilaTOS 7T08wv EKa'T6J! ( s).
8. TOUTOlS nvTiTu1Tot: 'opposite to them'.

32. 1. Kn9' EKGTEpnv TftV 1rp68eow: 'on either of the two assumptions';
for the figures cf. 20. 8, 21. 9-10 n.
2. To 'is ~ouAOtJ.EVOtS aovEcf>taTcl.VElV: cf. iv. 8. 8.
Si::e of the camp. P. does not give sufficient details to enable his
readers to calculate exactly the dimensions of the camp, but its
7!4

THE RO)IAK CA}fp

VI. 32.6

area and total perimeter can be deduced. Reckoned along the a...xis
of the u-ia principalis the measurements are: 200 (space, JL II) +4oo
(allies, see below)+ so (gap, JO. r) +2oo (hastati and principes, 28. 3) +
r,oso pedes;
so (gap, 29. 6)+rso (triarii and cavalry, 28. 3, 29. 4)
add r ,oso for the other half of the camp, and so for the uia praetoria
(28.
giving a total of 2,r5o. The space required for the allies is
calculated thus: for a legion of 4,2oo there will be 4,200 infantry
(26. 7) and 900 cavalry (ibid.); from these must be subtracted a fifth
and a third respectively for the extraordinarii (z6. 8), leaving 3,36o
allied infantry and 6oo allied cavalry. If the same space is allowed
for these as for the Roman foot and horse, which seems reasonable,
they will require ro rectangular emplacements 2oo ft. deep for the
infantry, and backing on these ro more 200ft. deep for the
making a total depth of 400 ft.; that the allied emplacements are
not squares is implied by 28. 4, 7TAYJV Twv aufLfLdxwv (cf. 30. 4).
Since the camp as a whole is a square (31. ro), the internal longitudinal dimension will also be 2,150 pedes. Reckoned along the axis
from the porta decumatta to the porta praetoria, the dimensions of
the various subdivisions are 2oo (space, JI. u) +soo (half legionary
tents, 28. 4) +50 (ua quintana, JO. 5) + 500 (remaining legionary
tents)+Ioo (uia principalis, 28. r)+so (tribunes' tents, 27. 5}+200
(praetorium, 27. 2) +roo (space, JI. 5) +250 (extraordinari)
(space, JI. n)
2,150 pedes. The 250 pedes assigned to the extraordinarii are calculated by subtraction from the total; this figure
cannot be checked, as P. does not record what proportions of the
8so infantry and 300 cavalry extraordinarii are allotted to the elite
corps which camps along with the euocati in line with the praetorium,
nor does he indicate how much of the space behind the praetorium
is reserved for foreign troops and allied chance arrivals (v.
In
addition P. does not indicate whether the udites camped along with
the legionaries, divided between hastati, principes, and triarii, or
whether they were quartered along the rampart; but the former
seems the more likely assumption (d. 35 5 n.).
There are convenient plans in .Marquardt, ii. 404 and Fabricius,
]RS, r932, 79; the one in Veith, Heerwesm, fig. 128, gives, not the
camp described by P., but the one the author assumes to ha\:e been
used for a single consular army (cf. 27-42 n., 32. B).
4. TO~'> 1ra.pA Tb aTpa.T~yLov T(nrous: the area on either side of the
praetorium.
6. EL'3 iva. xapa.Ka. O'uva.9poL0'9vT!JJV: d. iii. 68. I4 (at Trebia), IOS IO
(Fabius and Minucius); but in earlier times common operations were
usual (cf. Livy, iii. 8. n), and Livy gives many examples from the
period of the Hannibalic War and later (d. Livy, xxvii. 22. 2, xxxii.
28. 9, xxxiii. 25. ro, 37 3 (iunctis exercitibus), xxxiv. 43 J, xxxv. 20. z;
Mommsen, St.-R. i. 56 n. r.

VI. 32.6

THE

ROMA~

CAMP

SUo <npctncis: 'two armies'; for the encampment of the pedites

extraordinarii see 31. 8.
8. ~Tav 8 xwp~s, tcTA.: on this crux see 27-42 n. Twv O!JE"i:v crrpaTo1Tl&wv
are the two legions of a single consular army.
33. Discipline in camp; guard duty.
1. Ti>V optc~<Yf40V: cf. X. r6. 7. Cincius Alimen tus in the fifth book
of his de re militari (Gell. xvi. 4 z) gives a formula of this oath, but
appears to confuse it with the oath of zi. 2; it reads: 'C. Laclii C. fili
consulis, L. Cornelii P. fili consulis in exercitu, clecemque milia
passuum prope. furtum non facies dolo malo solus neque cum pluribus pluris nummi argentei in dies singulos; extraque has tam, hastile,
ligna, poma, pabulum, utrem, follem, faculam si quid ibi inueneris
sustulerisue quod tuum non erit, quod pluris nummi argentci erit,
uti tu ad C. Laelium C. filium consulem Luciumue Cornclium P.
filium siue quem ad uter eorum iusserit proferes, aut profiteberc in
triduo proximo quidquid inucneris sustulerisue dolo malo, aut
domino suo, cuium id censebis esse, reddes, uti quod rectum factum
esse uoles'.
3. TOu To1Tou ToG 1Tpb Twv XLAuipxwv: the uia principatis, Ioo pedes
wide. This area before the praetorium was the centre of camp life;
together with the praetorium it constituted the principia, where
tribunes administered justice (Livy, xxv:iii. 24. 10) or heard complaints (Digest, xlix. 16. 12, 2), where the general sacrificed (Val.
Max. i. 6. 4) or harangued the troops standing in the forum (Hygin.
de mun. castr. u), and where soldiers were punished (Val. :Max.
i:i. 7 g, d. Polyaen. viii. 24. 3, etc.). See Marquardt, ii. 4II-I2.
4. patVTJTm I<ClL ~<nAMvTJT<lL: 'besprinkled and swept clean'.
5. tcaTa TTJV Gj>T~ pTJ9Eioav lho.[pE<rLv: cf. 24. 3
7. cf.uAa~<f!i:a.: distinguished as excubiae and uigiliae; d. lsid. Etym.
ix. 3 42, 'excubia.e autem diurnae sunt, uigiliae nocturnac'. Here P.
is speaking primarily of excubiae. A guard of four men is elsewhere
attested for night-watches (Act. a.post. xii. 4; Ev. Io. xix. 23); d.
Veg. iii. 8, 'de singulis centuriis qua.terni ... excubitum noctibus
faciunt. et quia impossibile uidebatur in speculis uigilantes singulos
permanere. ideo in quatuor partes ad clepsydram sunt diuisae uigilia.e,
ut non amp!ius quam tribus horis nocturnis necesse sit uigilare'.
On nighHvatches see further 35 r ff.; Marquardt, ii. 420.
8. xwpt<s ypoa+o1.u1xwv: not strictly relevant to a description of
the duties of hastati and principes, but not on that account to be
excised as an interpolation (so Fabricius, JRS, 1932, 86).
9. 1Tapu TETclflTTJV Tj~pav: e,ery third day', inclusive reckoning.
TO Ti]S <::IJXPTJOT~C.S avo.yKniov: 'what is essential for his use'.
To <YEf4vov 1<nl. '~~'poaTantc6v : cf. ,. . 88. 4 ; 'the seriousness and
dignity of the office'.
716

THE ROMAN CAMP

VI. 35 4

11. ~Acl1TTWVTa~ TrpOS xpe(a.v: 'be damaged for service'.

34. 1-6. Fortification of the camp.

1. ~m(3aA.A.ova' Tois avp.p.axoLs: 'fall to the lot of the allies'. They
take the sides parallel to the uia praetoria. For a fuller description
of the fortification of the camp see Hyg. de mun. castr. 48 ff.
3. Tijs ~Kp.l}vov TTjv 8(p.TJvov: 'two months out of six'; on the principle
of collegiality here adopted sec the discussion in Mommsen, St.-R.
i. 47 n. r (with reference to Livy, xi. 41. 8).
4. Twv TrpauJuiKTwv Trepl. Tous aup.JLaxous: on the praefecti socium cf.
z6. 5 n. Though P. omits to say so, they probably had their tents in
a line with the tribunes (27. s).
5. ol&' [TrTreis: probably the Roman equites, not all the allied cavalry
too. Paton's translation 'the cavalry officers' is inexact.
7-12. Method of giving the watchword (tessera, avvOruw.).
8. Ka9' eKaO"Tov yEvos: i.e. triarii, hastati, principes, equites Romani,
equites socorum; it was presumably conveyed in like fashion to the
extraordinarii, etc., though P. mentions only those troops camped
in front of the uia principalis.
EK Ti]s OeKnTTJS . Kat TEAeuTaias: that nearest the agger, and
farthest from the tribunes' tents (cf. 1o).
ets av,;p KaT' EKAoyiJv: the tesserarius (cf. Tac. Hist. i. 25. 1);
he is free from the normal duties, i.e. an immu.nis.
TrAaTE~ov: cf. x. 45 8; it is a tablet of wood (d. 9, gv:\~cpwv).
9. T/il T~s EXop.EvTJS UT]f.Lalas ~YEf.Lovt: for the method, adapted to
use in an emergency, cf. Livy, xliv. 33 7
35. 1-36.9. Organization and inspection of night-watches. P.'s account
is full and circumstantial, but it does not make clear what method
was adopted to ensure continued scrupulousness during watches
two to four at a statio from which the tessera had been collected in,
for example, the first watch. Perhaps in practice a post might be
visited more than once in a night: but this would involve some
adaptation of the tessera-system described here.
35. 2. oi OLO.TETayp.evol KO.Tcl TOV apn Myov: 33 6 ff.
4. Trap' EKaaTov Twv Trpea~EuTwv Kat auf.Lf3ooA.wv: 'for each of the
legati and members of the consilium'. These legati P. refers to as -rovs
elarf>Epop..fvov<; urr(.. nov lmrtTW'I-' rrpEa~wnfs .. OU<; lOE! TTOpEuwBat P,ETd.
-roO a-rpa.-rr;yoiJ (xxxv. 4 5). The first example of senatorial legati
attached to the consul in an advisory capacity occurs during the
war with Philip (Livy, xxxii. 28. 12; cf. xxxvi. r. 8, war with Antiochus), and shortly afterwards they are regularly appointed (see
Mommsen, St.-R. ii. L 696). Varro (Ling. v. 87) describes these officials: 'legati lecti publice, quorum opera consilioquc uteretur peregre
magistra tus'. The number of tfovAaKat assigned to them suggests
7I7

VI. 35 4

THE ROMAN CAMP

that their rank lay between that of quaestor and that of military
tribune; sec further von Premerstein, RE, 'legatus', cols. u41 ff.
Such legati would be important members of the general's consilium,
hence the title 11'pwf3w-ri;s Ked uvpflov/..or;, which also appears in DioExc. Vales. p. 6o7); see also App. Hisp.
dorus (xxxiv-xxxv. 38
78; Pun. 32, etc. (avfLf3ovAm). The council also included any consulars present, and the primus pilus of each legion (24. 2). See
Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 1. 6g8 n. z.
5. o[ ypoocpop.axo~ 1TAT)pouo~: 'the uelites man .. .'. Schweighaeuser
suggested (but did not adopt) r'lpofiut (for which d. Tlmc. ii. r3. 7,
'To ~w6Ev (sc. TEixos) E'TrypEt'To), and this is read by von Domaszewski
(RE, 'castra', col. 1763}. But 11'A7]pofia, which is amplified by 11'apaKotTofii"TES', need not imply that the uelites encamped along the agger.
As General \V. Hoy (The Military Antiquities of the Romans in
Hrtain (London, 1793), 43) argued, the ttelites were most probably
quartered along with the maniples of the triarii, principes, and
hastati (cf. 32. 2 n.; f<abricius, JRS, I9JZ, 78-79). Marquardt (ii. 409
n. 2} quotesCato in Festus, p. 298 Lindsay, 'procubitores dicunturfere
uelites, qui noctu custodiae causa ante castra excubant, cum castra
hostium in propinquo sunt, ut M. Cato in eo, quem de re militari
scripsit' ; and from this he argues that the uelites camped outside
the fortifications, 'wo sie sich wahrscheinlich besonders verschanzten'. Against this are these points: (a) The whole of the uelites
cannot have been on watch-duty at night, and it would seem improbable for a body of 2,400 Roman and 2,4oo allied uelites to be
exposed unnecessarily to danger against which they had to be protected by 'special fortification' (which P. nowhere mentions). Cato's
remark must mean only that those uelites who were on night-duty
outside the camp were called procubitores. (b) Camping outside the
castra is a special punishment (d. 38. 3, fw KAEJJ"' 'ToiJ xdpaKos Kal
'TryS aurpaAlas: 11'W:.[a0at 7~1/ rrapcfLf3oA~v), often mentioned; d. Livy,
x. 4 4; Val. Max. ii. 7 IS; Tac. Ann. xiii. 36 . .5 (cf. Frontin. Strat.
iv. 1. r8, 1. 19, r. 21); and it was clearly regarded as dangerous as
well as disgraceful. Special guards were placed outside the camp
(cf. Sal!. lz~g. roo. 4; Caes. BC, i. 21. 3; Tac. Ann. ii. IJ. 4); but these
were men on duty, not sleeping. It therefore seems likely that although the t,:ruards for the agger were assigned daily (Ka6' iwipo.v)
from the uclites, and the uelites provided the forty guards on the
gates each night, the body of these troops were encamped inside the
fortifications, and probably with the legionaries; for it would be
quite an arbitrary assumption that they camped in the open space
round the inside of the agger, thus defeating the purposes mentioned
in 31. I I ff.
t<o.9' i}p.epa.v: 'every day'; Schweighaeuscr's comment is worth reproducing: 'id est, uelites non per uiccs has excubias agunt cum alio

THE ROMAN CAMP

VI. 37 8

genere militum: sed quottis dt'e, id est semper, (nempe die nocteque)
this guard
uelites sunt, quibus hoc ministerium incumbit.' That
is always provided by the uelites; but not, of course, by all the uelites,
all the time, as P. makes clear, when he speaks of the guards for
the gates.
ava bEKa. 1TOLOUVTa.L , Tas 1TpOKOLTa.s! 'they Stand guard, ten at
each'; this probably means ten at a time (at each gate), which
implies forty rf>vitaKda, involving I6o men, for all four gates for the
whole night (cf. 33 7).
8. Tov 1rpwTov tAltpx"lv Kn9' EKnaTov <7Tpa.To1TEOov: the first dewrio
(25. 2) of the first turma in each legion.
11. li1TO TWV oopa.ywv: in 8 a single optio makes the selection.
1roaou Ka.t 1roaas tjluAnKas : for the first word in this phrase the
MSS. vary between 7TDUT1JV (FS) and 1roaov (G); either is possible.
With 7TOcrT1JV sc. ,Pv/..aK~v. i.e. 'qua uigilia ct quas stationes'; with
7TOO"OV sc. XPOVOV: cf. Aristoph. Aclt. 8J, 7TOaOV aJ TOV 7TpWK7'0V xpovov
~w~yayH; Different posts are visited in different watches, according
to the instructions given (cf. 36. z, TaD> pryfJVTa<; To7Tovs); but in the
course of each night all posts \Viii be Yisited once.
12. Tou Ka.Ta tjluAaKTjv j3ouKnvav: 'the sounding of the bugle (at the
beginning of) eac.h watch (uigilia)'. The prim us pilus of each legion
in turn takes responsibility for this alternate days (cf. 36. 5); in a
double camp presumably the four primi pili took turns (for the
double signal which revealed the double consular army to Hasdrubal
before Metaurus (Livy, xx'llii. 47 5) was clearly exceptional). The
blowing is done by a bt(cinator (cf. Livy, vii. 35 r, xxvi. IS 6; Caes.
BC, ii. 35 6, Frontin. Strat. i. 5 17; Prop. iv. 4 63; Sil. Ital. vii. 154).

36. 1. auvlt"'a.vTos 1'ou Ka.tpou: 'when the appropriate time

comes' (misunderstood by Paton).

3. To Kaptjlos: 'the wooden slip', i.e. the tessera (35 7).

8. KQAtiL: sc. Q xMapx.os.
37. 1-39.11. Punishments and rewards. The fustuarium, here the
penalty for a lapse in sentry-duty, is often mentioned; d. Cic. Phil.
iii. r4; Livy, v. 6. q, ep. 57; VeiL ii. 78.3; Tac. Ann. iii. 21. 1. Military
punishments in general depend ultimately on the general's imperium,
and therefore differ from punishments inflicted on civilians by the
penal law; on the distinctions see Mommsen, Strafrecht, i. 29-34. A
list of military punishments occurs in the Digest (xlix. 16. 3, I),
'castigatio, pecuniaria multa, munerum indictio, militiae mutatio,
grad us deiectio, ignominiosa missio'.
37. 8. KOpLos ~J.n<71'Lywv: on the tribunes' jurisdiction in camp cf.
Livy, xxviii. 24. ro, 'tribunos ... iura reddere in principiis sinebant'
(of mutinous soldiers); Veg. ii. 7 The penalties mentioned by P. are
719

VI. 37 8

THE ROMAN CAMP

'inflicting fines, distraining, and punishing by flogging', and both

tribunes and praefecti socium exercise their right on behalf of the
general who mandates his coercitio to them. Fines could hardly be
on a major scale, and consisted mainly in withholding pay ; cf.
Paulus, epit. Festi, p. 6r Lindsay, 'dirutum acre militem dicebant
antiqui, cui stipendium ignominiae causa non erat datum, quod aes
diruebatur in fiscum, non in militis sacculum'; Nonius, p. 853
Lindsay; Livy, xl. 4I. II; Val. Max. ii. 7 rs; Frontin. Strat. iv. I. 46;
Cato ap. Gell. xi. r. 6; Mommsen, Strafrecht, 32 n. 5; Marquardt,
ii. 571 n. 13. In civil law the right to fine and to distrain on property
by pignoris capio usually go together, and proceed from the coercitio
exercised by consul, praetor, censor, aedile, tribune of the plebs,
curator aquarum, and duouiri; see the evidence assembled by Steinwenter, RE, 'pignoris capio', col. 1235. Pignoris capio involved distraining on and destroying (pignus caedere) some property of a
resisting citizen; unlike the fine, it was not subject to appeal. Its
use in military law is similar, but there is some doubt concerning the
circumstances in which it was invoked. 0. H. E. Schneider (De
censione hastaria vetermn Romanorum coniecturae (Berlin, r842), 9 ff.)
argued that its use militiae was not as a punishment for breaches
of discipline, but in the adjudicating of disputes of a private nature
between soldiers, and this is likely; cf. Marquardt, ii. 571 n. 9
Examples of flogging, even of officers-a punishment alien to ordinary
Roman penal law (Mommsen, Strafrecht, 32)-occur in Livy, xxix.
9 4; Val. Max. ii. 7 4, 7 8.
9. ~uAoK01TEi:Ta.~ 8( Ka.t (mis) oKAIjla.s KTA.: cf. 33 r-z n.
1Ta.pa.xpTJ17cljJ-EVOS . TctJ ali>lla.T~: cf. xiii. 4 5 The offence of stuprum
cum masculo (Digest, xlviii. 5 9 pr.) was punishable under early
republican law, as Val. Max. vi. r. 10 implies (for an example see
Val. Max. vi. r. 7). But in the former passage (Val. Max. vi. r. 10)
the accused alleges in defence that his partner was one who 'palam
atque aperte corpore quaestum factitasset', which suggests that such
a person, like a registered meretrix, was not guilty of any legal
offence. In the army, however, male prostitution was clearly an
intolerable breach of military discipline and so a capital offence.
Presumably the active partner was liable to the same penalty. Cf.
Mommsen, Strafrecht, 703-4.
10. ws ciOLKTJJla.Ta.: 'as crimes'; but the offences which follow appear
to have been no less severely punished; indeed death is the penalty
Tip 7Tp0Ef'-~Vtp n)v 767/'0V Kai </>try6vn . Jg e</>EOpElas (i. I7. II-I2). See
also Dion. Hal. xi. 43 2; Livy, ep. 55; Tac. Ann. xiii. 36.
12. 1TOAAa.1TAa.awv a.uTois EmyLVOflvwv: e.g. i. I7 12, 7To>J.a7l'Aaa{ovs
l5VTas ToVs 7/'0AEf'-lovs.

13. l!vLoL (K~a.Xovns 9upEtov KTA.: an example is Cato's son, who

at Pydna with difficulty recovered his sword (Plut. Cat. mai. 20. 9-n ).
720

THE ROMAN CAMP

VI. 39 6

38. 2. Decimation: cf. Livy, ii. 59 II; Dion. Hal. ix. so. 7 Its use
is recorded of Caesar (Dio, xli. 35 5), Domitius Calvinus (Dio,
xlviii. 42. 2), M. Antonius (Dio, xlix. 27. I; Frontin. Strat. iv. I. 37),
and Octavian (Dio, xlix. 38. 4; Suet. Aug. 24. 2). Cf. Marquardt,
ii. 573 n. 5
3. To'i:s 8i AOL'ITOLS KTA.: for the punishment of barley instead of
wheat see Frontin. Strat. iv. r. 25, r. 37; Veg. i. 13; Dio, xlix. 38. 4;
Suet. Aug. 24. For
outside the fortifications see the
passages quoted under 35 5 n.
4. To 8uva.Tov aup.'ITTw...-chwv: 'the best possible practice has been
adopted both to inspire terror and to repair the harm done'.

39. 3. ya.l:aov: cf. fg. 3. where, however, the word used is A.6yx17
The hasta (usually pura, i.e. without a tip: Serv. ad A en. vi. 76o) is
often mentioned as a decoration; cf. Festus, 'hastae', p. 90 Lindsay;
Cato ap. Fest. 'optionatus', p. 220 Lindsay; SaiL Jug. 85. 29; Dion.
HaL x. 37; Gell. ii. II. 2; Res
I4. 2; Dio, lv. I2. I; inscriptions
Marquardt, ii. 328 n. 4; Helbig,
of the imperial age, passim.
Gott. Abh., 19o8, no. 3; Ed. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 251.
~LaA11v .. lj>D.A.a.pa.: cf. SH A Frob. 5 I, 'publice in contione donatus
est hastis puris qnattuor . . .
sacrificali quinquelihri una' ;
Livy, xxx. 15. 11, 'Masinissam ... aurea corona aurea patera sella
picta et palmata tunica donat'. 0.
curuli et Scipione ebumeo
Jahn (Die Lauersforter Phalerae, Bonn, 186o, 2 f.) suggested that
these <Ptd.Ao.L were not goblets, but an ornament developed :from them
and worn on the breast (cf. Nonnus, Dionys. ix. 125, xlvi. 278, xlvii. 9,
where bacchants wear phialai on the breast). Steiner (Bonn. ]ahrb.,
19o6, 11) suggests that they were shields; and if they were indeed
small representations of shields worn by infantry, there will have
been little difference between phialai and the phalerae, which were
originally harness-medallions (xxx. 25. 6), but are here medallions
which the cavalry-man himself wears on the breast (cf. Livy, xxxix.
31. 17, 'pro contione . . . laudati donatique ... equites phaleris').
See Baumeister, Denkmiiler, iii, p. 2062; Lammert, RE, 'phalerae',
col. 166o; Marquardt, ii. 575-6 with notes.
5. xpuaouv aTiilj>a.vov: corona muralis; cf. Livy, x. 46. 3, xxvi.
48. 5; Sil. It. xv. 257; Gell. v. 6. r6, 'quasi muri pinnis decorata est'
(probably derived from Varro, who is most likely the ultimate
source for all information on coronae: cf. L. Mercklin, De Varrone
coronarttm Romanarwn militarium interprete praecipuo quaestiones,
Dorpat, r8sg). It is illustrated on a coin of M. Agrippa and on the
Ribchester helmet (Baumeister, Dcnkmiiler, iii, fig. 2290). See
Fiebiger, RE, 'corona', coL 1641.
6. T0\1 awaa.vTa. aTEcpa.vouv: if necessary the tribunes investigate the
incident (Kplvo.vre>). The corona ciuica of oak-leaves (Gell. v. 6. u)
3A

j2I

VI. 39 6

THE ROMAN CAMP

was awarded to anyone who saved a fellow-citizen (P. alone includes

allies); the recipient might wear the crown when he wished (Pliny,
Nat. hist. xvi. 7 ff.). See the passages quoted by Marquardt, ii. S76--?;
Mommsen, St.-R. i. 426; Fiebiger, RE, 'corona', cols. I639-40.
12-15. Pay and allowances. Translation into Roman coinage involves the usual difficulties; cf. ii. IS. I n. If the drachma stands for
the denarius, a footsoldier received ! denarius
3t sextantal asses,
a centurion i denarius = 6i asses, and an eques I denarius = IO
asses, daily. Mattingly (]RS, 1937, 102) considers the possibility (a)
that 2 obols represent 2 libral asses, i.e. 2 sestertii (if a denarius contains 4 sestertii or 10 sextantal asses); this would give an infantryman
5 asses, a centurion I denarius, and a cavalryman Ii denarii daily;
and (b) that :z obols represent 4 sextantal asses, as in ii. 15. 6 (d.
ii. IS 1 n.). But it is more probable (cf. Brunt, BSR, I95o, so-51)
that here, as in ii. IS and vi. 23. IS, P. is equating the drachma with
the denarius. This meant that in effect a cavalryman drew a denarius
a day, a centurion z denarii every three days, and a legionary a
denarius every three days; but this pay included a sum deducted
to cover food and equipment ( IS), which was greater for the eques,
who had his horse to feed.
The measures have to be converted from Attic medimni of 4036
litres into Roman modii of c. 8s8 litres (Viedebantt, RE, JLtOtp:vos,
coL 87); this gives approximately 4! modii to the medimnus. ! medimnus for a footsoldier = 3 modii; 7 medimni of barley (probably
a rounding off of 6) will represent 30 modii; 2 medimni of wheat =
9 modii. For the allies I! medimni of wheat = 6 modii; 5 medimni
of barley (probably a rounding off of 4!) ~ 21 modii. Veith (Heerwesen, 328) reckons 6 nwdii to the medimnus, but this is the larger
Sicilian medimnus which did not appear in Athens before the second
century after Christ. With 8s8 litres to the modius, the Roman
eques would draw about 6 bushels of barley and between 1 and 2 of
wheat a month. This is a fairly generous allowance, and may include
the food of a groom (cf. Veith, Heerwesen, 330). The allied cavalryman got about a bushel of wheat and between 3 and 4 bushels of
barley. Food and equipment were provided by Rome for the allies
Jv owpdj.; but the cost of this, like that of the allied pay (Livy, xxvii.
9 2; for the paymaster seeP. vi. 21. s), will have fallen on the allied
community, which must have made a gross payment to Rome to
cover the central provisioning and equipping of the allied troops.
See further Mattingly and Robinson, PBA, 1932, 226 n. I.
40-41. Breaking camp: order of march.
40. 8. 11'pocr8oada; 8' 000"11S K!l.Til T~V oupa.yl.av: 'when anything is
to be feared in the rear'.
10. O.va.'II'E'I!'Ta.JLivous TO'I!'ou;: cf. i. SI. s, 'open ground'.
722

THE ROMAN CAMP

VI. 42.6

11. TpLq,aA.ayy(av 1TapnAA11Aov TWV ncrTnTWV leTA.: i.e. the army advanced in three columns instead of one, with hastati, principes, and
triarii each in their own column, and the baggage of each maniple
preceding it; cf. Caesar, BG, i. 49 1, 'acieque triplici instructa ad
eum locum uenit' (the spot was 6oo passus from the enemy) ; 51. I,
'ipse triplici instructa acie usque ad castra hostium accessit'; BC,
i. 41. 2, 'omnibus copiis triplici instructa acie ad Ilerdam proficiscitur'; Marquardt, ii. 422. This was the normal method adopted when
there was a danger of sudden attack. Recently A. Boucher (REG,
1927, 189-96) has suggested a meaning 'in three lines', i.e. first the
baggage of the hastati followed by the ltastati, next that of the
principes with the principes following it, and finally the baggage of
the triarii, followed by the triarii themselves. This view (accepted
by Cardona, ii. 404-5) is untenable since (a) it assumes that the
words Tats 7rpc!JTat<; a7Jiwlats refer to the UTJJ.Lafa, of the hastati, and
so on; but if so, the phrase Kat KaT<l. ,\6yov ovTws ivaUd.g .. Tai"s
U7JJ.La{a"' has no meaning; and (b) the formation envisaged by
Boucher is called Tpvpa.\ayy{a braAA7JAos (xii. 18. 5) ; the same expression is found \Vith s,rpa.\ayyla in ii. 66. 9 69. 9 Hence the traditional interpretation is to be accepted.
12. 1TOTE ..,lv vap' aa1TLSa. . 1TOTE S' E1Tt SOpu :i.e. to the right or
to the left according to the direction from which the attack came.
13. EtlV l.l~ 1TOTE 1TpOuE~EAL~aL Sn TO(,S ncrTnTOUS: i.e. if the hastati
were in the right column, and the attack came from the left, the
forces would turn left and form three lines; but the hastati, who
would then be in the rear, would have to wheel round the rest in
order to reach the front line. P. does not indicate where the triarii
marched, but as they were half the numbers of the other two groups
they probably occupied the middle column. In that case, if the attack
came from the right, the principes would have to come in front of
the triarii.
41. 2. KaTO. TOV iipn A.6yov: cf. 27. I f.
42. Comparison of Roman and Greek camps.
2. TaLS . oxup6T"10"LV: cf. v. 62. 6.
EKKAlvovns TTJV TaAaL1Twpiav: 'shirking the labour'.
4. Tov KaT' Uliav Kat Tov KaTO. j.lEpos ~KncrT~ T01Tov: 'his own position
and the details of the camp'.
6. TTjS 1TEpt Tel uTpaT01TESa 9Ewpias: 'military science' (cf. iv. 39 n).
In his commentary Schweighaeuser changes his interpretation to
'their system of camps', and renders Tcts 7TapEJ.Lf3a.\as 'de ratione
metandorum castrorum' ; but this seems rather forced. A passage is
lost at this point, as the words Td j-tJv aJv . make clear; and the
likelihood is that P. here included a discussion of the army in action
(cf. 26. II, KaTa TaS . . 7TapaTagE,<;).
723

VI. 43

COMPARISON OF THE ROMAN"

43-56. Comparison of the Roman .State with Gtliers.

43. 1. Reputation of certain constitutions. On the Spartan (i.e. Lycurgan) constitution see 3 8 n. and the passages from Plato and
Aristotle there quoted. Crete, too, is mentioned for its traditional
rather than its contemporary constitution; it is clear from 45 2
(see note) what authors P. has in mind in regard to Crete . .Mantima:
the constitution described by Aristotle (Pol. viii (vi). 4 I3I8 b 2I ff.)
is probably to be identified with that set up by Nicodorus (very
likely between 425 and 423) under the influence of Diagoras of Melos,
who composed a Mavnvlwv yKwJ.Lwv (Philodemus, Piet. 85); cf.
Aelian, VH, ii. 23; Eustath. ad Od. xix. 172 (p. r86o. sz). The source
of this tradition is probably Aristoxenus, who, according to Philodemus, wrote a work Ta Mavnviwv (JfJTJ, and whose stay in Mantinea
is attested by Suidas. According to Aristotle, Mantinea was a democracy in which the whole citizen-body met for deliberation, but the
magistrates were elected by a smaller electoral body consisting of
nvJc: aipETo1 KaTa p.ipos K 1TaVTwv; further details in Bolte, RE,
'Mantinea', cols. I3I9-2o. P. omits further reference to .Mantinea in
his later discussion; he introduces it probably because it was one
of the cities with constitutions adduced in discussions of this kind
(cf. Jacoby on FGH, 70 F 54, a passage of Ephorus dealing with the
military reforms of Demeas, who is no doubt identical with Damonax
of Mantinea, who revised the constitution of Cyrene). Carthage is
praised for its constitution by !socrates (Nic. 24), and approved by
Aristotle (Pol. ii. II. I272 b 24 ff.), who remarks that aVTat . . . ai
1TOAtTtat Tpt<; d.\.\1].\ats T UVVE')'yVS' 1TW<; Elat Kat TWV a.\.\wv 1TOAV
'fmupipovaw, i] TE KpTJTLK~ Kat -f] AaKwVtK~ Kat TpiTTJ TovTwv -f] KapxTJ8oviwv. See, too, Eratosthenes ap. Strabo, i. 66, 'PwJ.Laiov> Kat
KapxYJDoviov;, ovTW fJavJ.LaaTws 1ToAtTEvop.ivov;;. Athens: from 44 2 it
is clear that P. is thinking of the fifth century, and identifying the
acme of the constitution with Athens' greatest expansion. ix. 23. 6
refers to the personal characters of Aristides and Pericles in contrast
to those of Cleon and Chares, rather than to constitutional excellence; but P. is no doubt recalling such eulogies as Thucydides'
Periclean Funeral Speech. Thebes is quoted as a successful expanding
state during the 'hegemony', when Epaminondas controlled affairs
( 5); at that time it was a democracy (d. Busolt-Swcboda, ii. 1424 f.).
2. Sd.. TO ~tl'TE ... a.ut]o-Et5 . aK~as ... ~Ta.l3oXO.s KTA.: Athens
and Thebes do not conform to the natural development of states
in accordance with the biological pattern which P. elsewhere attempts, without complete success, to bring into relationship with
the anacyclosis (cf. 4 7--9 14 n. (b)). Their growth is abnormal, not
KaTa .\oyol', their acme brief, and their decline (wTu.{3o.\a{, cf. 3 I n.)
not J.LETp{wc; (i.e. 'in due measure', cf. ix. zo. s). Cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, I954. 119.

72 4

WITH CERTAIN OTHER CONSTITUTIONS

VI. H 9

3. EK 1rpocrrraou Twos TVXTJS: 'by some sudden stroke of chance',

i.e. not KaTd ,\6;mv.
-ro Sf) Ayop.evov: with the following phrase as in iv. 52. 4, v. 93 :z, etc.
4. -rfj . &.yvoi<LL Ka1 T~ p.ian auvem9~p.Vo~: 'utilizing in their
attack the errors committed by the Spartans and the hatred felt
for them by their allies'.
evos Tj Kat 8euTepou: Epaminondas and Pelopidas, cf. 6.
5. Tj TUX'Y) ... rrciaLv E1TOl'Y)ae 8-ijXov: Tyche in her didactic role; cf.
Siegfried, 87. The personification is purely formal; see above,
pp. 24.25.
7. TfjS TOTE . lmtaveLas: the so-called The ban hegemony, which
lasted from the Spartan defeat at Leuctra (37.1) to Epaminondas'
death in the victorious battle of Mantinea (362); cf. iv. 33 8-9 n.
Pelopidas had already perished at Cynoscephalae (364) fighting
against Alexander of Pherae; cf. viii. 35 6-8.
44. 2. 1'fi 0p.LaTOKAeous &.pe1'fi auvavEh]aaaa: i.e. at the time of the
Persian expedition of 48o. Themistocles' period of supremacy began
after l\Iiltiades' death in 489, and it declined after 480 until his
ostracism in 470.
Sul TTJV avw ..af.(a.v TfjS tua<EWS : 'owing to the inconstancy of her
nature' (Paton). Poschl (51) refers this phrase to the failure of the
Athenian constitution to develop KaTd 4>van; but, as Theiler (Hermes,
1953, 298) rightly points out, the 4>vms is here that of the Athenian
people (though it is of course true that the 4>vats of the constitution
is inseparable from the 4>vat> of the or}p.-os, mentioned in the next
line, and it is the fact that the oijp.-os always resembles a ship without
a captain which prevents Athens from enjoying a constitutional
development KaTa 4>vatv, i.e. following the
of the anacyclosis).
P.'s hostility towards Athens appears elsewhere: cf. v. 106. 6-8,
xviii. 14. Io, xxx. 20. r-7. For his dislike of Thebes and Boeotia d.
iv . .)I. 5, XX. 5 I f., xxii. 4
3. Tois rtOEamhoLs aKrttecn: for the metaphor of the ungovernable
ship see iii. 81. n, x. 33 5 It is a stock comparison; cf. Theognis, 673
and Plato, Rep. vi. 488 A-E, where it is developed at length. There
is no need to assume a specific source for so commonplace an idea.
4. ylvETa.~ TO 8eov e~ a.\JT('dv: 'they do their duty'.
6. TWV 1-1-tlv EKr.rELOVTwv 1'ous KaAous: 'letting out the reefing ropes
(sheets)'.
TWV o' ~mAa.p.~O.\IO~VWV: others hindering'.
9. tv a.ts oxXos XllLpl~n Ta oXa.: in the case of Athens P. is evidently
thinking of the full democracy of the late fifth and fourth centuries,
for his words would hardly describe the government of the late
third and second centuries, which Ferguson (278 ff.) describes as
'tory democracy'.

VI. 44 9

THE CRETAN CONSTITUTION

b 11v bto..,.'ll1't . b Bi Jiie'f aufl'll'~t'll'a.\6euf1~vos: i.e. the Athenians

arc headstrong and spiteful, the Thebans reared in an atmosphere
of violence and passion (cf. xx. 6). P. is thinking of contemporary
Thebes.

45-47. 6. The Cretan constitution. Here P. sets out to controvert two

views of the Cretan constitution, (a) that it resembles that of Sparta,
(b) that it is praiseworthy (45 I); and these theses he associates
with the names of Ephorus, Xenophon, Callisthenes, and Platoomitting, significantly, Aristotle, whose discussion of the Cretan
constitution (Pol. ii. ro. 1271 b zo-r272 b 23) is fairly comprehensive
and makes the comparison with Sparta which P. here attacks:
7Td.peyyvs flill ian TO.UT'IJS', ;XH SJ Jlt!Cpd ,u~v ov xetpoll, n:l SJ 1TAEtov 1}'-r-rov
yA.acf>vpws. Plato's discussion of the Cretan constitution is mainly in
the Laws, where in at least eighteen places Sparta and Crete are
associated (Laws, i. 625 A, 634 D, 635 B, 636 B~D, 641 E, ii. 66o, 666 D,
673 B, 674 A, iii. 68o C, 683 A, 693 E, iv. 712 E, vi. 780 B, vii. 796 B,
viii. 836 B-e, 842, x. 886 B; d. van Effenterre, 69 n. 3); but see also
[Mhwsj, 3r8 D, and Rep. viii. 544 c, ~ fJ7TO -rwv 1roAAwv E1TawotJflEV7J, ~
KpTJnK-r} n Kat Aa.KwvtK~ airr1J (which is distinguished from oligarchy,
democracy, and tyranny). Clearly, then, Plato is drawing on an
already existing association of the two constitutions; and there is
disagreement on the credence to be given to his statements on Crete.
Kirsten (Die Insel Kreta im funften und vierten jahrhundert, Diss.
Leipzig, 1936, 67) and Oilier (i. 237 n. z) believe that Plato merely
adds 'and Crete' to information which really applies to Sparta;
but van Effenterre (69) thinks he had special information about
Cretan affairs, independent of the early-fourth-century writers who
wrote about Crete in discussing the Spartan constitution (see below).
and were among the sources of Ephorus.
\Vhat Ephorus has to say on Crete comes via Strabo (x. 476 f.,
479 f.) from his Evpw1T1J (cf. FGH, 70 F 33 I47-9. with Jacoby's
commentary). Here the common constitutions of Crete and Sparta
are the gift of Zeus to Rhadamanthus; the lawgiver regarded
es\w0pa as the highest good, and only to be secured through OJlOIIOta
and a11Spda, qualities which he established (a) by the friendship of
men and boys, and the common life in d"'Am and dvSpEfa, and (b) by
toughening exercises and training in arms. Ephorus then goes on to
prove by various arguments that the Spartans adopted these
institutions from Crete, which was visited by Lycurgus before he
eventually took his laws to Delphi and there had them approved
(P. x. z. 8 ff.). This is in essence the same account as that in Aristotle,
Pol. ii. ro. r271 b 20 ff.; both quote the use of the word dv8p.,ta to
describe the common meals in Crete and (originally) in Sparta (Pol.
ii. Io. 1272 a r-4; Strabo, x. 48r-z), and both stress the method of
726

THE CRETAN CONSTITUTION

VI. 45

sharing out produce (Pol. ii. Io. 1272 a I2 ff.; Strabo, x. 480, 482).
There can be little doubt that Aristotle is here drawing directly on
Ephorus (cf. Meyer, Forschungen, i. 218 n. I; Jacoby, FGH, commentary on 70 F I49) or on a common tradition existing among
early-fourth-century writers who compared Spartan and Cretan
customs and constitutions. That such a tradition existed even before
Plato is clear from Rep. viii. 544 c (quoted above) (cf. Schwartz, RE,
'Ephorus', col. IJ, who refers to 'die Tagesliteratur, die an dem
Beispiel Spartas und Kretas seit Kritias und den attischen Lakonisten des 5 Jahrhunderts das Problem der besten Verfassung diskutierte' ; van Effenterre, 77-84) ; and Herodotus (i. 65. 4) already
gave the Cretan origin of the Lycurgan constitution as a belief of
the Spartans themselves.
Since the arguments of Wachsmuth (GGA, I87o, I8I4 f.) it has
been clear that P. is here attacking Ephorus (cf. Meyer, Forschungen,
i. 2I9 n. 2). Plato's share in the tradition has been sketched above;
but where Xenophon and Callisthenes discussed the comparison of
Crete and Sparta is unknown. Indeed P. may well be citing inaccurately and from memory; for there is no other evidence that Callisthenes wrote on Crete, and in Resp. Lac. i. 2 Xenophon stresses the
originality of Spartan institutions-an inconsistency with P. which
is not to be resolved either by denying Xenophon's authorship of
the Resp. Lac. (so Chrimes, 492), or by emending E<vo,Pwv to E<vtwv
(cf. FGH, 46o) with Ziegler (RE, 'Polybios', col. 1494 n. 2; Hermes,
I954. 498-9); cf. Ollier, i. 4oo, ii. rs6-7. In fact, it is Ephorus whom P.
has chiefly in mind in 46. 6-Io, as E. Meyer (Forschungen, i. zzo) has
demonstrated in detail. In 46. Io P. accuses Ephorus of describing the
Spartan and Cretan constitutions in the same words. Comparison
between the Ephoran account of Crete in Strabo (x. 480-4 (see above))
and of Sparta in Diodorus (vii: 14. 3) shows a complete identity of
sentiment and even of vocabulary; both stress l.>..wO<p{a as the prize
for the ruler rather than the ruled, and to be achieved only by op.ovota
and avlip<ta; and these themes reappear in P. vi. 46. 7, 48. 3-5. (That
this repetition in Ephorus is not exceptional, but a common practice,
is demonstrated by Schwarz (RE, 'Ephorus', col. rs). who adduces
many examples. K. Chrimes (zu n. 5) suggests that Ephorus' use
of the word yipwrE<; to describe the Cretan f3ov>..7] (Strabo, x. 484)
may be another case in point.) It therefore seems likely that P.'s
criticism in 45 3-46. 5 is directed essentially against Ephorus, despite
the mention of the other three authors, rather as in 5 I the anacyclosis, which is probably the work of some unknown writer of the
third or second century, is said to have been set forth by 'Plato
and certain other philosophers'. On the validity of P.'s comments
see the discussion ad loc. Here it may be noted that Ephorus did
in fact admit deterioration in Cretan customs (Strabo, x. 4SI). and
72 7

VI. 45

THE SPARTAN CONSTITUTION

in this connexion P. does him an injustice. On the other hand, P.'s

own strictures on Crete and its constitution (46. 3-47. 6} take no
account of changes that may have occurred in the course of centuries;
as Ephorus had observed (Strabo, x. 481), olJTe . JK Twv viiv KaBwr-'1KoTwv Tct 1TGAatd TEKfLTJptoiiaOat oeiv. P. prefers to use his superficial
knowledge of contemporary Crete to rebut the arguments of Ephorus
(thinly disguised as a group of authors) without consulting Aristotle
or any of the special writers of KpTJnKa such as Xenion {see above),
Dosiadas, Sosicrates, or Laosthenidas (Diod. v. So. 4). The whole
passage is significant for his method of work.

45.3-5. rij~ ... AaKSO.~J.LOVU1lv 1To}uTLa~ 'lSlOv dva~: 'To produce

something t:owv was held to be the surest sign of a capacity and
training [sc. in a lawgiver]', Newman, ii. 382, stressing the Greek
interest in dp~fLaTa, and the fact that in any work or legislation the
t8ta are singled out. On Sparta P. makes these points: (a) all possess
equal lots of public land, (b) money-making is despised, (c) the kings
are hereditary and members of the Gerousia are elected for life. Comparison with 48. 3-5, where equality of lots and a simple life are
associated with the absence of civil strife and the inculcation of
courage (48. 3), with freedom as a final end (48. 5), shows that the
source is Ephorus (cf. 45-47. 6 n.); hence <f.aai in the present passage
is specifically a reference to the authors mentioned in 45 r (in effect,
Ephorus) and does not merely mean 'on dit'.
(a) The problem of Spartan land-tenure is one of the most vexed
in the obscure field of Spartan institutions. P. argues that all citizens
have the same share in 'TTOAtnK~ xwpa, with the implication that this
means complete equality in land; and Plutarch (Lye. 8. 2, avvi1Tna
(sc. Lycurgus) T~l' xwpav a'Traaav els fLEUOV 8lvTs J apxifs avaM.aaaOat,
Kat ~ijv fLET' UAA~Awv a7ra117as OfLtAis Ka~ laoKA~povs Tois plots yevofLivovs) has the same tradition, and like P. makes equal shares of

land a feature of the Lycurgan reform. Equal shares were known

to Plato (Laws, iii. 684 D, laOTTJTG avTois nva KGTaUKva~ovatv Ti}S
ovalas; cf. I soc. Archid. zo) and so probably to the late-fifth-century
writers on an idealized Sparta (cf. Pohlmann, i. Sr-84) ; but here the
system goes back beyond Lycurgus to the foundation of Sparta,
and it is likely that Ephorus was the first to associate it with the
lawgiver. Aristotle, on the other hand, knows nothing of a Sparta
with equal KAi}pot; basing his arguments, most likely, on the Sparta
he knows, he complains of the inequality of property (cf. Pol. ii. 9
1270 a r6 ff., Tots fLEV yap avTWV UVfL{3{37JK KEKTi}aBat 'TTOAA~v Alav ouaiav'
To is 0~ 1TUfL1TGV fLtKpav Ot01TP ds oAlyovs ijK1' TJ xwpa): and this inequality
he attributes to the system set up by ovofLoBiTTJ;, probably Lycurgus.
According to the later tradition found in Plutarch, Agis, 5 z (probably
from Phylarchus), inequalities of property arose only as a result of the
728

THE SPARTAN CONSTITUTION

VI. 45 3

law of Epitadeus, which legitimized the alienation by gift or bequest of

any estate. Thus two divergent explanations of the fact of Spartan inequality and its contrast with the traditional equality seem to be reflected in pro-Lycurgan (E phorus) and anti-L ycurgan (Aristotle) versions;
cf. Newman commenting on Aristotle, Pol. ii. 9 1270 a 19. Whether
Epitadeus ever existed is still a subject of controversy; cf. E. Meyer,
Rh. Mus., 1886, 589 (an 'aetiological anecdote'}; Michell, 215 ff.
According to Aristotle (Pol. ii. 9 1270 a 19 ff.), the lawgiver
clJveicr8aL .. ~ 1TWAEiv T'iJv {mapxouaav (sc. yi/v or ovufav) erro{TJGEV OV
KaA6v. This is expanded in an Aristotelian passage in Heracleides
Lembus, Pol. z. 7 ( = Rose, Arist. fg. 611. rz), 1TWAefv DE yi)v AaKeoatp.ovlotr:; alaxpov vev6p.urrm rijs S' apxalas p.oipas ovSE lfw-n. This
distinction between other land and the apxa{a p.ofpa also occurs in
[Plut.] Mor. 238 E, rijs s apxTJB& OtO.TETayp.lvqr:; p..o{pas; and it has
been suggested that this covers land lying in the Eurotas valley, but
not that acquired later in Messenia (Pareti, Storia di Sparta arcaica,
i (Florence, 1920), 197; Ehrenberg, Hermes, 1924, 45). Thus a distinction was made between a Spartiate's estates in general (which it was
disgraceful to sell) and his 'original lot' (which might not be alienated,
at least before Epitadeus' law); but the relationship between these
two types of land is quite obscure. 1 To carry the problem farther
one must consider the nature of the lots. Were they family property,
entailed and passed down from father to son; or were they state
property, assigned to Spartiates (who merely enjoyed their usufruct), and liable to be returned to the state on a man's death? In
the former case 1roAmK~ xwpa is the 'land divided among the 1ToAiTat',
in the latter it is ager publicus (cf. Pohlmann, i. 67). The second interpretation is supported by Plutarch, who states (Lye. 16. 1) that, once
a Spartiate child had been pronounced fit to rear, he was assigned
a lot by ol 1rpwf3vTaTot Tow cfov.\eTCw (the Gerousia ?). Guiraud (53-54)
thinks that the lot thus assigned was in fact that of the child's
father, to be owned in common, as befitted communally held family
property; but there is no trace of this in what Plutarch says, and if
it were true it would carry very involved implications, some of
which are discussed by Michell (207 ff.). In particular, if each
Spartiate received a separate, inalienable, lot, how could he fall into
indigence, losing his land completely (Plut. Agis, 5 4) or mortgaging
it (ibid. 13)? And when a Spartiatc died, what happened to his lot?
Was it added to the estate of his eldest son (or of all his sons), or
did it revert to the state? \.Vas the former in fact one way in which
large estates had been accumulated by the third century? Or had
' That the &pxarw p.ofpw represent the estates of an original aristocracy
within the Spartan body, and the other land that assigned to the rest of the
Spartiates (the op.ow<) in other parts of Laconia and Messenia (so Chrimes, 424 ff.)
seems improbable.
729

VI. 45 3

THE SPARTAN CONSTITUTION

the land reverted, and had the ephors been bribed to sell it to those
who had amassed wealth? Aristotle had no doubt that the estates
were hereditary, and that this was one cause of poverty; cf. Pol.
ii. 9 I2j0 b 4 ff., Ka{-rot tfavp6v art 1TOAAwv ytVOj.LfVWJJ, TfjS' Oe xwpaS'
oih-w 07JP1JfJ.fllrJS:, dvayKaiov 1TOAAot)> ylva8at mfVTjTas, i.e. a large family
had to share a father's lot and each son naturally got less. Moreover,
extremes of wealth and poverty had become apparent as early as
the Second Messenian War, as Tyrtaeus' poems showed (Arist. Pol.
vii (v). 7 1306 b 37-1307 a z); and Alcaeus (fg. ro1 Diehl) could put
the proverb XP~f.LaT' avrjp into a Spartan's mouth. This picture is
inconsistent with Plutarch's account of each Spartiate child inheriting one of the '9,000 lots'; but on the whole it is more convincing.
Was there then no basis for the persistent belief that Sparta had
originally possessed equal land lots, and had the name Of.LoLot no
significance? The Spartan KAfjpo> was essential to the social system.
Its produce, harvested by the helots attached to
served to maintain a Spartiate and his family and enabled him to pay his share
in the mess (syssitia). If he failed to do this, he lost his rights as a
full citizen (Arist. Pol. ii. ro. 1272 a r3 ff.). The research of Nilsson
(Klio, rgrz, 3o8-4o) has shown that the curious barrack-life and agegroups at Sparta, and their Cretan parallels. represent the deliberate
maintenance of a primitive social system, which can be paralleled
in many lands. Hence it seems likely that the economic support of
the Spartiatcs by a land allotment is also primitive. But the date
at which the land of Laconia was divided up as private property,
and the size (relative and absolute) of the original Ki\fjpot, are still
matters of speculation. A likely hypothesis is that immediately
after the conquest the Dorian invaders shared out the conquered
land in roughly equal lots, as was later done in colonies (so Ehrenberg, Hermes, r924, 42); and it may be the tradition of these KAfjpo~
which survived long after the reality had passed away (cf. BusoltSwoboda, ii. 633-4). But such equality can never have been absolute;
for instance, some soil would be better than that in other plots,
and the kings were perhaps not the only men to have a special allotment from the outset (cf. Xen. Resp. Lac. rs. 3. for an allotment
from perioecic land). Our earliest authorities, from Homer onwards
(Od. iv. 6ooft. speaks of horse-rearing, the sign of a privileged class),
are
in attributing differences of wealth to Sparta (see above);
and
first reference to primitive equality comes at the end of the
fifth century. Nor does the term op.owL in itself imply economic
equality, any more than English peers have all equal property.
In any case, the chances of inheritance must soon have accentuated
the inequalities mentioned by Aristotle. The conquest of Messenia
provided new land-lots for an expanding population, but subsequently concentration of estates and the natural tendency of any
730

THE SPARTAN CONSTITUTION

VI. 45 3

aristocracy to die out unless reinforced from below, combined to produce that decline in Spartiate numbers which was already apparent
in the fourth century. By the time of Aristotle inequality of land
is the most striking feature of the Spartan system; and in the third
century the old Lycurgan tradition of Ephorus is resuscitated by
Agis and Cleomenes to provide the ideology of a revolutionary
movement, which revived the seventh-century demand for debtcancellation and land-redistribution.
See Guiraud, 91 ff.; Pohlmann, passim; Fustel de Coulanges,
'Etude sur la propriete fonciere a Sparte' (in Nouvelles recherches
sur quelques prob!emes d'histoire, ed. Jullian, Paris, 1891); BusoltSwoboda, ii. 633 n. 6 (who rightly note that Grote's theory, that the
tradition of equal lots was a product of third-century propaganda,
ignores the fact that P. (as well as Iustin. iii. 3) goes back to Ephorus);
Michell, 205 32 (inconclusive and not wholly clear), with bibliography.
(b) Contempt for money-making. This tradition, which links with
the belief that Lycurgus banished all gold and silver money from
Sparta, is to be found in Plut. Lye. 9 It may connect with the law
passed in 404, when Lysander's introduction of his booty from
Athens threatened to ruin an economy which had already felt the
inroads of money; it was therefore decided (Plut. Lys. r6, 17) to
forbid the entry of gold and silver into Sparta. Though known to
Xenophon (Resp. Lac. i. 6 ; cf. Poseid. a p. A then. vi. 233 f.) this ban
was not maintained; and Plato (Ale. i. 122 E) repeats the opposite
(and exaggerated) tradition about the hoarding of gold and silver
at Sparta. The truth seems to be that Spartan economy continued
to depend in the main on the bartering of natural commodities to
a far later date than did that of most Greek states; money had
therefore a high purchasing power, and the Spartan abroad showed
himself especially vulnerable to corruption (cf. Meier, Staatsordnung,
6o). This was the other side to Spartan contempt for 'money-making'
by the pursuit of trade or manufacture. Evidence for the existence
of money at Sparta, even before Areus coined tetradrachms in 28o
(and quite apart from the famous iron spits), is to be found in the
fact that a Spartiate's monthly dues to his syssitia included ten
Aeginetan obols to buy meat (Plut. Lye. 12. 2; cf. Dicaearchus ap.
Athen. iv. 141 c).
(c) Position of Kings and Gerousia. At the time P. was writing the
kings had been abolished: nothing shows more clearly that it is the
'traditional' constitution which he is discussing. On the position of
the kings see Aristotle, Pol. ii. 9 1271 a 40, UTpanJyot d{i>tot; cf. iii. q.
1285 a j-I5, where, however, the phrase is elucidated as UTpaTqy{a
8u:L {3{ov. 1 The Gerousia was a body of thirty including the kings,
1
Newman, commenting on Pol. ii. 9 1271 a 40, suggests that in the present
passage P. distinguishes an diows: dpx>/ from one held lltoi {Jiov. This is incorrect.

731

VI. 45 3

THE CRETA!'< CONSTITUTION

the members of which were over 6o, and were elected by volume of
shouting in the assembly (Xen. Resp. Lac. ro. I, ro. 3; Plut. Lye. 26.
2-3), a procedure condemned by Aristotle (Pol. ii. 9 1271 a 9) as
7Tat'8aptclJS1J> Aristotle (Pol. ii. 9 1270 b 38 ff.) also considers it a
bad thing that members of the Gerot~sia were elected for life. On
the duties of the Gerousia see Michell, 135-40.
4. 1TEpt T-rlv Tou Sla~opou KT~aw: 'concerning the acquisition of money'.
5. citSlOV ... T-rlv apx~v: 'permanent office': not 'hereditary' (Paton),
though in fact it was hereditary.
46. 1-3. Cretan development of private property and love of gain. The
implication would be that in Crete there were very great differences
of private property; but on this there is no independent e;'idence.
The accusation of TTAwvEqla is repeated in 47. 4; it is a commonplace
in descriptions of Cretan character. Ephorus (ap. Strabo, x. 48o)
hints at 7TAeovqla Kai Tpv</>~; see, too, the passages quoted by van
Effenterre, 277-8. The statement in 46. 3 that the Cretans alone in
the world consider no gain disgraceful is contradicted at 56. 2, where
precisely the same accusation is levelled against the Carthaginians;
but P. is persistently hostile towards Crete (see the passages quoted
in iv. 53 5 n.).
4. Cretan magistrates annual and democratically elected. Government
in the cities of Crete was normally in the hands of a Board of Ten
Kosmoi and a Council (Boule) elected from ex-Kosmoi. From Aristotle, Pol. ii. ro. 1272 b 4, qeun '8 Kat [.Leraqil To!:s KDUf.Lots a7TH7TLv
T~V apx~v. it is clear that the Kosmos was not elected for life; but
whether, as in P.'s time, he was elected annually is not indicated.
The members of the Boule are elected for life (Pol. ii. ro. 1272 a 37)
like the Spartan Gerontes. Since Aristotle Cretan institutions had
evolved in the direction of democracy, a fact confirmed by the
appearance of the word '8a[.LoKpa-rta on inscriptions (e.g. IC, i, Cnosos
9, 11. 6-7; iii, Hierapytna 3 A, ll. 68; end of the third century). For
further evidence and discussion see van Effenterre, 163-4 (with the
criticism of \Villetts, Jii-lJI); as elsewhere, the sudden appearance of
large numbers of inscriptions towards the end of the third century
may indicate the setting up of democratic institutions. Perhaps,
therefore, in P.'s time life membership of the Gerousia no longer
existed.
6. ~v hn!J-ETP([l: 'into the bargain'.
7. Role of courage and concord in preserving the State. This formulation
(it is inconsistent with 57. 2, which takes up the argument of ro. 3-4)
goes back to Ephonts; see 45-47. 6 n.
10. Ta.'is Xe;ecn ... Tais a(,Ta.is: see 45-47. 6 n.
The contrast is not between Kings and Gerousia, but between Sparta and Crete,
where (46. 4) magistracies are annual and elective.

732

THE CRETAN CONSTITUTION

VL 47 8

47. 1-6. Condemnation of the Cretan constitution. P. argues syllogistically that the basis of any state is sound 87J Kai v6p.m: now
these are closely correlated with public and private behaviour, so
that one can argue from good or bad tf(JTJ Kat v6p.ot to good or bad
behaviour, and vice versa; but the behaviour of the Cretans, both
public and private, is notoriously bad: hence the Cretan constitution
is bad. Kornemann has argued (Pha., 1930, 175) that the reference
to BTJ Kat v6p.ot indicates a later insertion in a revision of book vi;
against this see CQ, 1943, 81-S:z. In fact, P. often uses this expression,
or some slight variant of it. Thus in iv. 67. 4 the Aetolians who burnt
the porticoes at Delphi violated the common go.,., Kai vop.tp.a of mankind; and three passages (vi. 56. I, XViii. 34 8, 35. 1) mention the
811 Kat vop.tp.a. of the Romans, that honesty which lasted until they
undertook wars overseas. In xxxi. 29. 12, however, 811 Kat vop.tp.a
apparently refers to the custom of winning fame by prosecuting,
a practice of which P. disapproves. In the present passage vop.ot is
rather more specific than vop.tp.a. von Scala (229) draws attention
to the division of ,\6yot, lmTaOEup.a-:-a 8wv and v6p.ot in Ps.-Hippodamus (Mullach, F.Ph.Gr. ii. 12
Stob. iv. I. 94 = W
iv. 31);
but the correspondence is neither close nor exact-indeed Aristotle
(Pol. ii. 5 1263 b 39-4o) is equally close when he refers to ;oi:s Bwt
Kat Tf} </nAoaocp[q. l<a1 TOtS' IIOfLOtS' in COnnexion with the institutions
of Sparta and Crete. It is therefore quite unjustifiable to see Stoic
influence in the phrase, or indeed in the extension of the comparison
between states to their general ethos.
1. nJ.s n 6uvcl.1.u:~s KaL Tas auar6.ans: probably 'the true quality
and form'; for TroAtnlas av(J"'Taat<; cf. r8. I n.
5. 1]91'] ... KpTJTalEWV: the conduct of Cretans was proverbially evil,
from the time of Homer (when they were pirates: Od. xiv. 199 f.)
onwards. See the passages assembled by van Effenterre (277 ff.)
Epimcnides; Homer, Hymn to Demeter, 123; Herod. i. 2. I ; Leonidas
of Tarentum (A nth. gr. vii. 654); Curt. iv. 8. 15; Plut. Mar. 296 D;
and add Cic. de re pub. iii. 15. For P.'s own views see iv. s:;. 5 n.
7-10. Plato's Republic is irrelevant to the comparison, as a purely
imaginary constitution.
8. Tous ye fLTJ vevEJL'I']fLEVous: the sense is 'those not enrolled' (i.e. for
the contest) or, more probably, 'those not registered' (i.e. in one
of the associations of Dionysiac TExvTat, such as those of Athens or
the Isthmus; cf. Poland, RE (Va, Nachtrage), 'Technitai', col. 2507;
Daux, 356 ff.; Riccobono, Fontes, i, no. 34); cf. Arist. A.P. 8. 3,
lK Tijs tfvAijc; Kd(J"'T1jS' vEvEp.TJp..fvat TptrrU<; Tpts. On the second
interpretation v11Ef1."YJp.l.vovc; applies to TEXII~Twv, amwp.acrKTJKb-;-c.c; to
d.BA"YJTWv (a point missed in LSJ s.v. vlp.w, where this phrase is translated 'unproved athletes'). In dO'Arrnuovs aywvas P. ignores the contests in which the "~"xvfTat will take part ; hence Meineke proposed
733

CRITICISM OF

VI. 47 8

(or OvjL(iAtKovs) ~ d8A7JnKm)s (better d8A7JnKoVs ~ aK7JVtx:oJJs

to avoid hiatus). But there seems no reason for the suggested
omission.
aK7JVtKovs

48-50. Criticism of the Spartan constitution. The Lycurgan regime is

admirable in securing concord and courage (48. 3), which guarantee
freedom (48. s) ;' it fails in respect of foreign policy, since it neither
renders the Spartans contented and willing to forgo expansion (48.
7-8), nor yet provides them with the means to implement an aggressive policy (49 8); in this the Roman state is superior (so. 3-4).
There can be little doubt that at any rate the praise of the Spartan
constitution in 48. 2-s draws on Ephorus (cf. 4S-47 6 n.). The
criticism may well reflect P.'s own prejudice; for it is significant
that whereas Sparta is at fault not merely in being unequal to expansion, but in pursuing an aggressive policy at all (48. 7~8), successful imperialism is a mark of merit in the more favoured Romans
(so. 3-4).
48. 2. 8ELOTEpa.v .. f) KO.T' av8pW1TOV: d. xxix. 2 r. 9 on Demetrius of
Phalerum's prophecy of the downfall of the Macedonian kingdom.
The phrase echoes the Delphic oracle quoted by Herodotus (i. 6s),
o{~w

d)..)..'

if

U(i

8(iOV jL<lVT(itJaojLat ~ av8pw1TOV'

jLCiAAov 8dJV ;rAnOjLUL, J, AvK6opy(i.

en KilL

and is a mere commonplace.

7. 1Tpo8Ecnv: 'established principle'.
8. qHAOTLfJ.OT6.Tous: cf. Plato, Rep. viii. S48 c,
nJLlat, in the corrupted state.

r/>tAovtKlat Kat r/>tAo-

49. l. MIH70'TJV0LS 1tOAEtJ.OV e;l]vEyKa.v: the First Messenian War.

On the Spartan oath see Paus. iv. S 8, trpOOjLVVovat opKOV jL~TE TOV
troA.?.JLov JLfjKos fL~n: T<.ls aVfLrf>opas rhroaTpbp(itv ar/>lis trplv ~
KT~aatvTO xciJpav T~V Mwa7Jv{av ooptaAWTOV. According to Tyrtaeus

(fg. 4 Diehl) the war lasted twenty years and Messene was taken
by King Theopompus: the date is probably the last third of the
eighth century.
5. T1)v e1t' J\vTO.AK0oU , , ElpTJVTJV: cf. i. 6. 2 ll., iv. 27. S n.
7. E1Ta.vo8ous KO.L 1ta.pa.KatJ.t06.s: 'returning home and conveying
supplies', i.e. returning to Laconia to revictual, or sending supplies
to the army. For this sense of 7TapaKOJLt8~ cf. x. 10. 13, where carts
1TOtda8at T~V trapaKOjLtO~v TWV EK TfjS xclJpas dvayKalwv. So Schweighaeuser, correctly, in his translation; but Paton, following the
' In ro. I I it is the mixed constitution which preserves freedom; but this
contradiction, which has already been noted (46. 7 n.), is due to P.'s use of
Ephorus in his discussion of the Spartan constitution.

734

THE SPARTAN CONSTITUTION

VI. 51.

changed view given in Schweighaeuser' s note, takes TTapaKOfLLOUs in

the sense it bears in iii. 43 J, translating 'quickly returned home
whether by land or sea'. It is clear from 8 that naval expeditions
are still a thing of the future. Hence Schweighaeuser's original
translation is to be followed.
8. Expeditions outside the Peloponnese and on shipboard. P. is probably thinking of Agesilaus' Asiatic campaigns rather than of Spartan
activity outside the Peloponnese during the fifth century; see the
reference to the peace of Antalcidas in 5
To VOtJ.LO"tJ.O. To aL&fJpouv: on the Spartan attitude and Spartan practice in regard to money see 45 3-5 n (b). For the supposed introduction of iron money by Lycurgus see Plut. Lye. 9; but in fact iron
money, such as the iron spits discovered in the Argive Heraeum
and the temple of Artemis Orthia at
was common at an
early date throughout Greece. (The attempt of Laum, Das Eisengeld
der Spartaner (Konigsberg, 1924), to connect this iron money with
the iron sickles found at Sparta is unconvincing; see Blinkenberg,
Gnomon, 1926, 102 ff.; Michell, 299-3oo). Its use persisted in Sparta
longer than elsewhere, but can hardly account for the decline in
Spartan art and culture (so Blakeway, CR, 1935, 185), for the
Spartans seem to have used non-Spartan currencies.
10. Spartan raising of money. Persian subsidies became available on
a large scale during the last years of the Peloponnesian \Var, as a
result of Lysander's agreement with Cyrus in 407 (Xen. Hell. i.
5 3 ff.). Diodorus (xiv. 10) puts the tribute from the subject empire
after Aegospotami at over I,ooo talents; but this must be exaggerated. There is further evidence of contributions el:; Td CTVfLfLa)(tKov in
Arist. A.P. 39 2; Isoc. Paneg. 132; Herodes, Pol. 24; Xen. Hell.
v. 2. 21. The cost of the occupation of the former Athenian cities fell
on themselves: Xen. Hell. ii. 3 13.
50. 5. ~KLVOUVEUO'O.V Ka.t 1TEpt TflS aq.ETEpO.S tXeu6epa.s! i.e. at the
time of the Theban hegemony.
6. rils EUvoplas Kat TtlS ETOLtJ.OTTJTOS TtlS KO.Tci. Tns xopfJyla.s: i.e. in
contrast with the Spartans (49 8) : this is not strictly speaking a
factor in the constitution of Rome, nor yet an example of her 87J
Kat VOfLOL.

51-56. Comparison between the Roman and Carthaginian constitutions

(ad mores).
51. 1. Ka.T<i YE Tns bXoaxEpEis &La.q.op<i.s: cf. iii. 78. 2 ; 'in its main

distinctive features'.
2. ~a.aLX~:is .. To y~:povTLov: for the sujetes see iii. 33 3 n.; for the
two councils, i. 21. 6 n.; which P. refers to here is uncertain, probably
the smaller body of thirty. Aristotle (Pol. ii. II. 1272 b 37) compares
735

VI.

sr. z

R0}1E AND CARTHAGE COMPARED

Carthage with Sparta: ToVs 8E {3aaLAEL<; Kat TTJV yrcpovaiav dvdAoyov

Tois EKEt {3aatAEvat Kai ylpovaL. He regards the Carthaginian constitution as very similar to that of Sparta and Crete; it contains an
element of democracy, but is more lasting (ii. n. 1272 b 30).
TO vA:ijOos : on the mass of poor in the Carthaginian ofjp.os see Arist.
Pol. vii (v). 12. 1316 b 5, where Carthage isevencalledowwKpaTovp.b"'7
(in ii. 11. 1273 b r8 it is oligarchic, and in vi (iv). 7 1293 b 14 ff.,
aristocratic); see, too, the account (from an earlier source) in Plut.
M or. 799 D ff.
3-6. Conditions at the time of the H annibalic War: cf. i. 13. 12:
evidently there had been some deterioration at Carthage between
264 and 218. Earlier Carthage had been an example of a mixed
constitution (To . . . dvlKaBEv, 1); for this cf. Cato ap. Serv. ad
Aen. iv. 682, 'et quidam hoc loco uolunt tres partes politiae comprehensas, populi, optimatium, regiae potestatis. Cato enim ait de
tribus istis partibus ordinatam fuisse Carthaginem'. But by 218 this
had begun to decline towards democracy ( 6). Thus at Carthage the
ofjp.os already possessed TTJV TTAdUT1JV ouvap.tv EJJ TOLs 8w{3ouA.iots,
whereas at Rome this was still in the hands of the Senate. This statement has given rise to extensive discussion. It has been taken as
evidence for a revised version of book vi, in which Carthage is already
seen travelling along the road which Rome must follow (cf. CQ,
1943, 82). But the existence of a mixed constitution does not exclude
decay; and Poschl (61) has argued convincingly that P. is here
describing not an aristocracy but a mixed constitution, two distinguishing features of which are (a) tha.t the aristocratic element holds
the balance (cf. 10. 8-u), and (b) that matters of deliberation are
reserved to the Council or Senate (cf. 12. 3, 13). Hence the shift of
the function of deliberation from Council to people indicates a breach
of the mixed constitution, not a change from an aristocratic to a
democratic form of government (see Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954,
u7-18). Ryffel (182 n. 343) accepts Poschl's general arguments, but
leans towards Taeger's conception of a 'mixed aristocracy'; but this
compromise is necessa1y neither here nor in Si 8. It seems probable
that the democratic and popular element to which P. refers is to be
identified with the ascendancy of the Barca family; for its reliance
on popular support cf. iii. 17. 7 n. Kahrstedt has shown that Hannibal
had in fact a united, if not wholly effective, government behind him
(cf. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 353) ; but the Roman exaggeration of the
independence of the Barca family would help the view P. here puts
forward.
8. 'ITTa.iuo.vn:s To'Ls oAoLs: i.e. at Cannae: P. here states a theme
which he will develop \vith a fully narrated example in 58.

52. Detailedcomparison.Erbse (Rh. Mus., 1951, IJz) treats the present

736

RO}fAN FUNERAL CUSTOMS

VI. 53 z

tenses here as a convention of the syncrisis (cf. Focke, Hermes,

1923, 339). But, as has been argued above (introductory note, notes
passim; cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 97-122), book vi was
written before 146, when Carthage still existed. For the relevance
of the comparison between the Roman and Punic fleets (denied by
Erbse) see Livy, ep. 48, which shows clearly that the Romans were
still haunted by their old fear of a strong naval opponent (Brink and
\Valbank, CQ, 1954, 99).

53-55. Illustration of the importance of -lf J-rr' aperfj </n}IL'l at Rome.

53. 1. J-LETCt Tou AonroG I(OO'J-LOU: 'with every kind of honour'.
Toos ~J-L~oAous: the Rostra in the Forum.
E0'1'W<; ~vapy~c;: 'conspicuous in an upright position' (probably sitting
erect; cf. Herodian, iv. 2. 19). Instances are knmvn where a wax
image of the dead man was prepared and displayed in his stead,
the real body resting in the coffin below (cf. App. BC, ii. 147 for
Caesar's corpse; Dio, lvi. 34 r for Augustus; and see Tac. Ann.
iii. 5 6, 'ubi ilia ueterum instituta, propositam toro effigiem ... ?');
and Benndorf (Denkschr. Wien, 1878, 372; and already Schweighaeuser, ad loc.) argued that this was meant here, and that Tacitus'
effigies wears the mask referred to in 53 4-5. However, references
to the effigies are all from a later date, and P. here seems to be
speaking of the real corpse; and since the burial ceremonies lasted
seven days, and this was the climax (Serv. ad Aen. v. 64), it is
natural that it should be covered by a mask. See Vessberg, Act.
Inst. Rom,
1941, 99, ro1; A. Boethius, Act. arck., 1942, 23o--I,
who quotes the parallel of the relief from Amiternum (Huelsen, RM,
r89o, 72; Strong, JRS, 1914, 153-6; Boethius, Die Antike, 1941, 182).
Boethius (Act. arch., 1942, 232) also suggests that the 'warrior of
Capestrano' in the Terme museum at Rome may represent a dead
man propped upright, and wearing a mask.
2. AyL TO.s &.pETO.s Ked vpn~ELS: according to Dionysius
(v. 17. 3), the laudatio funebris, on which P. is our main authority,
was 'PwiLaiwv dpxaiov ,iJpE/-W.. It began as a gentile ceremony, at
which a son or agnatus of the deceased delivered a
originally
(Vollmer argues) at the funeral feast, but later, for a famous man,
at a contio in the Forum. This laudatio normally dealt with the
deceased's public achievements and family life, and included praise
of the gens, though so long as the speech itself was followed by a
formal account of the achievements of the dead man's ancestors
(54 1), these were presumably omitted, except in broad outline,
from the laudatio proper. The style of the laudatt:o tended towards
breuitas nuda et inornata (Cic. de orat. ii. 341) ; but its encomiastic
character made it a danger to historical truth, if its contents were
4868

737

VI. 53

ROMAN FUNERAL CUSTOMS

incorporated in other works (d. Livy, viii. 40. 4, xxvii. 27. I3; Cic.
Brut. 6z; Sen. Suas. 6. :n). See F. Vollmer, RE, 'laudatio (2),
funebris', cols. 992-4 (with D. R. Stuart, 209 ff., earlier bibliography).
4. TTJV t:tKava. Tau ~-LETa.AA6.sa.vTos: cf. I n.; Pliny, Nat. hist. xxxv. 6,
'apud maiores in atriis . . . expressi cera uultus
disponebantur armariis, ut essent imagines quae comitarentur gentilicia
funera'. For such imagines of Scipio Africanus and of the elder Cato,
preserved exceptionally in the temple of Iuppiter Capitolinus and
in the curia respectively, see Val. Max. viii. IS. I-2. These masks
derive from primitive Italic traditions and originally they probably
possessed magic significance ; in archaic times they can scarcely
have been truer to life than the two sixth-century terra-cotta masks
from Chiusi, now in the British Museum (Vessberg, Act. Inst. Rom.
Suec., I94I, 99 n. s), or the terra-cotta urn, also from Chiusi, with a
mask (illustrated in Boethius, Act. arch., I942, 232, fig. 2). The lifelike element, to which P. refers, is evidently a recent importation
from Hellenistic art, and an anticipation of the full wave of naturalism in Roman portraiture which came in about Ioo. There is no
reason to associate this 'veristic' character in the masks with the
taking of a death-mask from the features of the deceased, as is done
by A. Zadoks-Josephus Jitta, Ancestral Portraiture at Rome and the
Art of the Last Century of the Republic (Amsterdam, I932), 36; see
maiorum', cols. ro97further Schneider and Meyer, RE,
Io4; and especially 0. Vessberg, Act. Inst. Rom. Suec., I94I, 'Studien
zur Kunstgeschichte der romischen Republik', 97 ff., and A. Boethius,
Art. arch., I942, 226-35. The wax imagines (for which, about so B.c.,
small busts of wax, wood, terra-cotta, or marble were substituted)
were kept in the atrium or alae adjoining it (Iuv. 8. I9; Laus
Pisonis, 8 f.; Mart. ii. 90. 6; Vitruv. vi. 3 6; d. Mommsen, St.-R.
i. 444 n. 4) ; for the cupboards in which they were stored ([J.\wa
vatoLa) see Pliny, Nat. hist. xxxv. 6. These cupboards often resembled
small temples (cf. Petron. 29. 8, 'in cuius aedicula erant Lares') ; many
representations of such aediculae exist on stones from imperial times
(Benndorf, Denkschr. Wien, I878, 374; illustrations in Boethius, Act.
arch., I942, 227).
5. Ka.TtJ. TTJV ,...)..6.aw Ka.~ Ka.TtJ. TTJV UTraypa.cj>~v: 'both in its modelling
and complexion'. 7T>.ci.GLS suggests wax, as Pliny confirms (Nat. hist.
xxxv. 6, quoted in the previous note). {moyparfo~ may be the shading
and bringing out of the features (v7Toypacf>ew can be 'to sketch in
outline'; and V7Toypa~ means 'painting under (the
in Xen.
Cyr. i. 3 2); but it is more likely to be the painting of a complexion
(d. Iuv. 8. 2-3, 'pictos ostendere uultus maiorum') on the imagines
(contra Vessberg, Act. lnst. Rom. Suec., I94I, 40, who translates
'UmriB, Kontur').
738

ROMAN FUNERAL CUSTOMS

VI. 53 9

6. Tns El~<ova.s . O.votyovTES: a technical expression ; d. Cic. pro

Sulla, 88; Sen. Controv. vii. 21. 10; SHA, Tac. 19. 6, imagines aperire;
it refers to the opening of the vatow..
~<a.Tci TTJV 11'Epu<011''flv: 'in general appearance or bearing'.
7-8. Representation of the maiores: cf. Herodian, iv. 2. 19, apf-LCL'T/1.
'TE 7rEpdpXE'TaL, cppoV'Ta 'TOVS f!cpm'TW'Ta;;; ~J.Lr/>LI!<J'f-LEVOV;;; f-L(.V 'TdS 1TEpL7rOp<f,vpou;;; f!a{)~'Ta;;;, 7rpoaW7TELCL 0~ 7rEpLKELJ.LeVOUS l!lK.OVCLS ~)(OVTa oaoL
'Pwf-Lalwv lvootw;;; laTpaT~YTJaav 1} l{3aalAEuaa.v. To have thus represented at family funerals such ancestors of the family as had won
military or civil distinction was a tradition of the patrician, and later
also of the noble plebeian, gentes (e.g. Cato (Val. Max. viii. 15. 2),
Iunii and Cassii (Tac. Ann. iii. 76. s)). The first member of a family
to establish such a right would lay claim to the 'ius imaginis ad
memoriam posteritatemque prodendae' (Cic. 2 Verr. v. 36; cf. pro
Rab. Post. 16), and this ius is constantly identified with nobilitas
(d. Sall. lug. 85. 25; Cic. de leg. agr. ii. 1oo). What constituted nobilitas is a vexed topic; and Afzelius has recently argued that whereas
in the third and early second centuries nobilitas came to a family
through the holding of any curule office, by the first century, from
the time of Marius (and probably of the Gracchi) onwards, it was
restricted to those families which reached the consulship (Class. et
med., 1945, 18s-zoo). Whether the ius imaginis .. prodendae then
went to every holder of curule office is not quite certain, for the
evidence of Cicero (2 Verr. v. 36) is complicated by the fact that
although he speaks of sella curulis, it is fairly certain that his aedileship in 69 was not curule but plebeian (cf. L. R. Taylor, AJP, 1939,
2oo n. 25). In any case, however, it is difficult to accept Boethius's
view (Act. arch., 1942, 235) that the i~ts imaginum (to use the
common phrase, which has no ancient authority) was the right
acquired by curule magistrates to erect public statues to themselves
in public places (d. Vessberg, Act. lnst. Rom. Suec., 1951, 42); the
traditional view (Mommsen, St.-R. i. 442-7) seems preferable. P.
does not mention the fact that the dead man too was sometimes
represented in his own funeral procession by an actor (d. Diod.
xxxi. 25. 2 (Aemilius Paullus); Suet. Vesp. 19).
The various types of toga mentioned are the toga praetexta (for
consuls and praetors), the toga purpurea (for censors), and the toga
picta (for triumphators); d. Festus, p. 228 Lindsay, 'picta quae nunc
toga dicitur purpurea ante uocitata est eaque erat sine pictura'.
The purple (and toga picta) seem to be inherited from the insignia
of the kings. Whether the censor ever wore the purple in his lifetime
is uncertain; d. Zon. vii. 19, 'Ttf Twv fL<'tMvwv dpxwj) Koap.ifJ 7TA~j)
pa.{3oovxwv lxpwvro; Athen. xiv. 66o c.
9. ~<nAALov 8a.11o.: d. Sall. lug. 4 5, 'saepe ego audiui Q. Maxumum, P. Scipionem, praeterea ciuitatis nostrae praeclaros uiros
1

739

VI. 53 9

HORATIUS COCLES

solitos ita dicere, cum maiorum imagines intuerentur, uehementissume sibi animum ad uirtutem accendi'.
54. 5. Touc; i8touc; utouc; &.'lftKTtwo.v: examples occur in early
Roman legend: cf. Livy, ii. 5 (L. Iunius Brutus), iv. 29 (A. Postumius), viii. 7 (T. Manlius Torquatus).
55. 1-4. The story of Horatius Cocles. P. gives the earliest extant
version of this famous legend; for De Sanctis's thesis that Callimachus (Aetia, iv. 107 Pfeiffer
Llt1JY~(rus-, ed. ~orsa-Vitelli, 26ft.)
refers to Horatius under the name of the mysterious Gaius is unconvincing (Riv. jil., 1935, 294 ff.). In contrast to Livy (ii. ro. II,
'rem ausus plus famae habiturarn ad posteros quam fidei') P.
treats it as wholly historical. He does not here give the context;
but he probably placed the incident in the war with Porsenna,
like Cicero (paradox. tz) and Livy (who, however, makes Horatius
survive: ii. ro. rr, incolumis ad suos tranauit). The other later versions
also agree on Horatius' survival, but with a wound which left him
lame. The name Codes means 'one-eyed', and is used by Ennius as
an equivalent for 'Cyclops'; Horatius was said to have lost an eye
in some former conflict (e.g. Dion. Hal. v. 23. z, IloTTAw> o' 'Op&:no>
I
T7' \
,
...
'
\
'~.II
,\
,.
,
'
,
0 K{L/\OtJJLEVOS' .l~OK111JS' EK TOIJ KaT a T1JV O't'tll c/ UTTWJLUTOS' EKK011"ELS' EV
JLUX?J T6v npov ot/J8aAJLOV . ; auct. de uir. ill. II. r) or to have had
I'

--'

so flat a bridge to his nose that eyes and eyebrows coalesced (cf. Plut.
Publ. I 6. 7, Std. atJLDT1JTa Tfj> ptvbS' iv8e3vKv[aS', wGTE JL1JDkv elva~ To
Swpl,ov Ta OJlJLa.Ta Kat Ta> &puS' avyK<'XuuBm). It has been suggested
that Horatius is the hero of an aetiological myth designed to explain
an ancient statue at the Vulcanal (Verr. Flacc. ap. Gell. iv. 5 1),
which was attributed to Horatius Codes. If such a statue represented Vulcan, it may have shown a lame man (Pais, Storia critz'ca,
ii. 101 f.) or have been so clumsily carved as to seem to represent
a lame person (De Sanctis, i. 448); and it may have been carved
with one eye to represent Vulcan as a sun-god (De Sanctis, i. 274)
or in the manner described by Plutarch (sec above; De Sanctis,
Riv. jil., 1935, 295). In either case, the lameness and blindness were
later ascribed to Horatius, and the story of the defence of the Pons
Sublicius attached to his name. There is slight evidence for Vulcan
as a sun-god (cf. Serv. Dan. ad Ae11. iii. 35, 'nonnulli eundem Solem
et Vulcanum dicunt'; cf. Martian. i. 42), though De Sanctis in his
later treatment appears to have withdrawn this element of the
theory; and indeed, since we know nothing of the appearance of
the Vulcanal statue, it seems verv hazardous to use its features to
explain the legend. Recently G. Du~ezil (1'v!itra- Vanma 2 (Paris, 1948),
169 f.) has sought the origins of Horatius' single eye in 'Indo-European mythology', comparing his role and that of Mucius Scaevola

ROMAN USE OF RELIGION

v1. 5 6. 6

to those of the one-eyed Odin and the god TyT, who had his
hand bitten off by the wolf; already Pais had compared Odin and
Varuna. It is indeed possible that Horatius Codes has inherited some
divine or heroic features; but parallels with Norse or Indian mythology must remain arbitrary because of the gap in time and space.
Mommsen (RG, i. 465} saw the story as aetiologically connected with
the Pons Sublicius, but failed to explain the various features of the
legend.
56. 1-5. Carthaginian attitude towards money: cf. ix. II. z. As in the
case of Crete (47 1-6}, and in his discussion of the Roman love of
a reputation for apen], P. goes beyond the framework of the constitution to discuss lf17J Kai v6p..tp..a. Carthaginian 'love of money' ( 2)
echoes the accusation already made against the Cretans (46. 3). The
account of Roman integrity and refusal to take bribes ( 3} is subsequently modified (xviii. 35} ; since the Romans undertook overseas
wars their morality is impaired.
4. 96.va:ros ean ... 1rpoanf1ov: this penalty for ambittts was evidently
introduced by the lex Cornelia-Baebia, proposed by P. Cornelius
Cethegus and M. Baebius Tamphilus, the consuls of r8r (Livy, xl.
rg. rr, 'leges de ambitu consules ex auctoritate senatus ad populum
tulerunt'); this law was reinforced by a further measure in 159
(Livy, ep. 47, lex de ambitu lata). Nothing further is known of these
two laws (for the lex Cornelia de ambitu mentioned in Schol. Bob.,
p. 78 Stangl (ad Cic. pro Sulla, r7) was probably a Sullan law; cf.
Mommsen, Strafrecht, 867 n. 2). The need for such a law is evidence
for a growth of electoral corruption in the second century.
6-12. Roman use of religion. P. approves the use of religion and
superstition for disciplinary purposes; cf. xvi. 12. 9-u, 6aa p..v oJv
avvrtdvt 7Tpb<; Tb owao/~HII r-Tjv roii 7T.\.]8ov<; dJa.f{3EtaV 7Tpbs: rd 8Efov,
ooriov ari avyyvwp..7JV viot<; rwv avyypa<J>.fwv upauvop...fvots: Kal .\oyo7TDtovat 7Tpt Ta TOLaUra' Tb s fJ7Tpafpov
avyxwp7Jr.fov. But his inter-

ov

pretation of Roman religio is that of the Greek rationalist, not of

the native Roman. The idea of the divine origin of law and divine
sanction as a socially useful concept may originally go back to the
Pythagoreans (d. Delatte, Essai, 44-46, quoting Isoc. Busiris, 24-25;
Iambl. VP, r79; and Xen. Mem. i. 4, where Socrates stresses the
moral advantages of a belief in the gods); but the first example of
the rationalistic, atheistic, exploitation of this approach, which
would make religion a deliberate imposture devised for political
reasons by a cunning man, ,Pwod KaAJ,Pas: r~v d.\.]8nav A.6ycp, appears
in Critias (Diels-Kranz, FVS, ii. 88, B 25 from the Sisyphus); see
Farrington (88 ff.), who traces the part played by this concept
in the formulation of the Platonic doctrine of the Y"watov .p.,iii5os:.
P. here echoes a religious scepticism normal in his own Greece, and

VI. 56. 6

ROMAN USE OF RELIGION

in his case linked with a tendency towards Euhemerism, the doctrine

that the gods are in reality human beings, dead long ago but
honoured for their benefactions (cf. x. 10. 11, xxxiv. 2. s); this
scepticism was soon to make advances at Rome, until Cicero, an
augur, could express doubt as to whether the art of divination had
ever existed (de div. ii. 148) or had merely been lost (de leg. ii. 33),
certain only of one thing, that he did not possess it. For later expositions of the same political view of religion see Diod. xxxiv-xxxv.
2. 4 7' m1p.</>opov E(JTL Tip KOtll{j; f3lip ti;v b~: e~wll OEt<nDatp.ovtav 11'1"E7'7)KfVC1t
mrs Twv 1roAAwv 1/Jux.ais; Strabo, i. 19-20, an interesting passage

linking the educational use of myths for children with their deterrent
use for adults: ou yap ox:\ov ')IE ywatKWV Kat 1TUIITOS' xvoaiov 1TA~tlovs:
l1rayayiv l.oyip SvvaTov rf>l.oa6r/>itJ Kat TtpoKal.eaaatlm Ttpos Uae{3Etav
Kai Q(Jt(l'1"1J'I"U Kal 1TlfJ7"tV, d:\1.~ 81: Kat OuatOatp.ovlas TOV'I"O 8' OVK avev
p.vOorrodas Kai T<:paTElas; Plut. 1lf01'. no4 I>; Numa, 8. See now De
Sanctis, iv. 2. 369 n. 1o85.
7. TO 'IT!l.pd To is aAAOLS trvnlh~oj.1VOV: primarily the Greeks.
8. EKTnpa.yc{l8l]T!l.L Ka.L '!Ta.peLaijKT!l.L: for rrap~wdyw used of the introduction of a character or material into a narrative see iii. zo. 3, 4 7. 7,

v. 2. 6. P. here uses the terminology applicable to 'tragic history';

and just as he is prepared to adopt the 'tragic' approach (despite
his many criticisms of it; cf. ii. ss-63 n.). provided he can use the
Ttepmhnat which have befallen others to brace the reader against
the Yicissitudes of fortune (d. CQ, 1945. 8-ro), so here he justifies
the emphasis on sensational myths as being conducive to virtue.
Myths about Hades are among the ingredients both of tragedy
(Arist. Poet. 18. 2. 1456 a 3) and of 'political' religion (Arist. Metaph.
xii. 8. zo. 1074 b 4 ff.). Diodorus (i. 2. z), drawing on post-Polybian
material, links the moral effects of myth with the warnings of
history.
9. TOU 'ITA1}8ou<; xO.pLv: cf. Liv-y, i. 19. 4; Numa invents the story of
his meeting with Egeria, for 'omnium primum, rem ad multitudinem
imperitam et illis saeculis rudem efficacissimam, deorum metum
iniciendurn ratus est'.
10. aocJ.wv avopwv 'ITOALTCU!l!l.: is this a jibe at Platonic utopianism
(so Hirzel, ii. 879)? Cf. Livy, xxvi. zz. 14, 'si qua sit sapientium
ciuitas quam docti fingunt magis quam norunt'.
11. 'lfiiv '1TAT}8os . Aa.cjlpov KTX.: the vie\v that the masses are
'unstable, full of lawless desires, irra tiona! anger, and violent passion'
derives from Plato (cf. Rep. iv. 431
; it appears earlier in Pindar's
A6.f3pos rnpan)s (Pyth. 2. 87), and reflects the view of any oligarchy
towards its commons (cf. Herod. iii. 81. 1 f.: Megabyzus' defence of
oligarchy). See von Scala (23r) who quotes parallels from Ps.-Hippodamus, Dio Chrysostom, Dio Cassius, and :'daximus Tyrius.
13. avnypa.cjleis: an d.vrtyparf>cvs is a clerk who checks accounts; cf.
742

DISCUSSION ON THE ROMAN STATE

VI. 57

Dem. xxii. 70. As well as at Athens the post is found in Ephesus,

Mytilene, Ptolemaic Egypt, and elsewhere.
14. KaTa Te Tas 6.px0.s Ka~ 1Tpea~eas: magistrates and legati hardly
fall within the class for whose benefit P. imagines Roman religious
customs to have been primarily instituted. But disciplinary religion
is only one of the factors making for Roman integrity, and in any
case its effects may be held to have extended beyond the ranks of
the 1rAf}8o~, even though it was (in P.'s opinion) instituted on their
account.
To Ka9fJ~eov: on this phrase sec iv. 30. 4 n.; despite its Stoic flavour
it provides no firm evidence for conclusions about the date of composition of book vi (cf. iii. r-5 n. (3 b)).

57-58. Conclusion of the dismtssion on the Roman state. Having outlined H.omc's migin and growth in the archaeologia (n a), and its
constitution at its prime in the account of the mixed constitution
(u--18), together with its military system (rg-42), and having compared it with Carthage and other well-reputed states (4:;-56), it
remains only for P. to sketch the probable future development of
the Roman constitution (57). That the political philosophy of the
anacyclosis facilitates such prognostications is asserted at 9 rr-r4;
and it is, accordingly, with a general reference to the anacyclosis
(57. 3--4) that P. now introduces his forecast. Since, however, the
decline is one from the mixed constitution (which had supervened
at Rome after the fall of the oligarchs in the Decemvirate: rr. r n.),
and not from any single constitutional form, as described in the
anacyclosis
51. 3-6 n.), naturally the process of decline does not
correspond in detail with the course of the anacyclosis, even though
the discrepancy is partly cloaked by the fact that both the end of
the anacyclosis and the ultimate future of a state which enjoys uncontested sovereignty (P. tactfully avoids mentioning Rome by
name) is the same, viz. ochlocracy. Consequently, as in other places
(4. u-r3, 9 rz-r4) where he has to pass from the abstract theory to
the concrete example of Rome, P. prefers to draw on the vocabulary
of the general 'biological' theory (cf. 4 7-<i 14 n. (b)), in which the
mixed constitution is an advantage rather than an embarrassment,
since it provides the otherwise absent acme. The consequent contradictions between 57 and the account of the mixed constitution
are all to be explained as arising out of P.'s rather tortuous attempt
to reconcile theories not ultimately consistent and his treatment of
the anacyclosis as the form in which the general biological law finds
expression in a political context.
57. l. Universality of change. In general terms this is of course a
common~lace (d. Thuc. ii. 64. 3 (Pericles' defence), mi.Pm yap m!,PuKt:.
Kai iAa.crcrovcrBm); but in referring the notion of decadence to the ideal
743

VI. 57

CONCLUSION OF THE

state, with its mixed constitution, as well as to the simple forms,

P. follows Plato, Rep. viii. 546 A (quoted in 4 7-9 14 n. (c); for this
willingness to admit decay in the ideal state Plato was criticized
by Aristotle, Pol. vii (v). r2. 7 r3r6 a r). On the other hand, the
phrase <f>vaE"ws dvarK'l/
the Stoics; d. Ps.-Hippod. (ap. Stob.
A nth. iv. 34 71 (W.-H., v. 846); d. Harder, Ocellzts Lucanus, 59, 62),
ml.vra p.~v ovv Ta fJva.Ta St' dvd.yKav <f>vaw<; lv p.TafloAaf:s- KaAtvOiiif:Tm.
2. The two agencies of decay: cf. ro. 3 n. for the theory of the aVJL<f>uTov KaKoll, here apparently indicated in the words TOV o' lv mlTOLS
<f>vop.lvov. The passage of Plato (Rep. x. 6o8 E ff.) there quoted makes
a similar distinction between the lli6Tptov KaKOV and the rowv KUKOV
(ibid. 6ro B-e); and Aristotle (Pol. vii (v). 10. 36. 1312 b 38 ff.) gives
t\\'O causes for the fall of kingship: flaatA{a o' {nro p.iv TCVJ! E~WB11
1jKtaTa <f>OdpTat, llLo Kat 1TOAuxpovtOS laTLV' ~.~ avrij> o' al 1TAiaTaL
<f>8opa1 ovp.flalvouaw. But neither passage is sufficiently close to suggest direct borrowing.
S.OTa.Tov . 9ewpia.v: the outside source of decay proceeds according
to an 'indeterminate principle'; Ziegler's emendation aTaKTOV (RE,
'Polybios (r)', col. 1495) is unnecessary. The orderly process (TTayp.V?]v) by which the state decays from within is of course that of
the anacyclosis, referred to in 3
4. TaS O.pxcis Tij) Tf-Aet auva'IT'I'E~Y 1'fjS tYE<71'WaTJS U'!To6eaews: 'to connect the opening propositions of this inquiry with its conclusion'
(Paton). {J1To8aEws is the reading of P (F has ... ws), and this seems
preferable to \Vunderer's Dt7]yrJGE"ws or Poschl's KaTaaTaaEws or
auaTaaews (P6schl (6z) misunderstands the passage: it cannot mean
'die Anfange (sc. der neuen, schlechten Verfassung) mit dem Ende
der gegenwartigen Verfassung zu verkniipfen'). Nor does Su:tBiae(us,
read by Theiler (Hermes, 1953, zg6), carry the sense 'Vcrfassung', as
he takes it. A case can be made for tlmaTdaws (so llyffel, zr4 n. 373,
comparing 9 u); but {mofJlaEws gives a better sense. For the phrase
Tas dpxas TCf TlAEt awa1TTHv cf. Alcmaeon in Diels-Kranz, FVS, i. 24,

2, TOUS

dv8p(01I'OU<; Ota

np TEAH 1rpoadrf;at.

TOVTO

dr.oAAvaOat

on

ov otivm'TaL

rryJ! apxiJv

'ITpoe'i'ITnY U'ITEp Tov ll().).ovTos: cf. 3 3 n. Here P. implies that the

anacyclosis will follow its course; but he then proceeds to modify
this (d. 57-58 n.).
5-9. Analysis of the corrttpNon of the mixed consttution. P. does not
state that this process of disintegration has begun; on the contrary,
he assumes a considerable lapse of time between the attainment of
uncontested sovereignty ( 5) and the beginning of ~ e1rt To xdpov
p.Em{loA-1], which still lies in the future (ap~et). See Brink and \Valbank, CQ, 1954, 104-5. The ideas in this passage were, however, of
great influence on later writers, especially (through Poseidonius) on
Sallust; on this see Klingner, Hermes, 1928, 165 ff.; Gelzer, Vom

744

DISCUSSION ON THE ROMAN STATE

VI. 57

10

romischen Staat, i. 78 ff.

Phil., 1931, z61 ff. Posch! (63 ff.) has
shown how the elements in the process of decay are those already
analysed in the various stages of the schematic anacyclosis; they are
ducpa/..na (cf. 7. 6, kingship), 7Tepwvula (7. 7, kingship; 8. -h aristocracy), luxuria (7. 7, kingship; 8. 5, aristocracy), ambitio (9- 6, democracy), 7TAwvd}la (7. 7, kingship; 8. 5. aristocracy; 9 s. democracy}.
They are, of course, commonplace themes; cf. Plato, Rep. iv.
42 r D ff. ; all viii; Laws, v. 728 E ff. ; 736 c ff.; Arist. Pol. vi (iv). n. 4
1295 b I ff., iv (vii). 15. J 1334 a 25, vii (v}. 2. 1. IJ02 a r6 ff.; Stob.
A nth. iv. r. 8o (\V.-H., iv. z6): IluBay6pas d?Tev elodva~ els Td.s 7ToAHs
7rpWTOV -rpvcp-/jv, l-rrHTa Kopov, elTa v(3pw, J.i.f.Tct oi TUUTa bAEBpov; cf.
Thuc. iii. 82. 8. P. had already associated these ideas with Rome
long before 150; see 4 7--9 14 n. (c).
5. liuvn<TTe(a.v O.liijpLTov: cf. xxxi. 25. 6, do~ptTov . i~ouulr.n, referring
to the period just after 167: the whole passage is relevant to the
present argument, which up to the end of 5 is in general terms.
Future developments begin with 6 ap~et (d. 57 5-9 n.; correct in
Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (1)', col. 1496).
7. Aijo/nnL . TTjv e1nypa.<j>T)v b lifJp.os: cf. ii. z. 9; 'credit' is here
ironical. The mixed constitution had supervened on oligarchy; its
break-up will therefore involve a growth in the power of the 13ijp.os.
But whereas in the anacyclosis democracy would now appear as one
of the three good forms, only later to be perverted into ochlocracy,
the decline of the mixed constitution must be towards democracy
in its worse sense (cf. 9).
8. ouKEn 8eAl}aeL . Tois rrpoeaTwaLv: i.e. the 7rpow-rwTEs will have
either encouraged the people's resentment or flattered them ( 7),
in either case leading them to aspire to power. P. mentions two steps,
(a) the refusal of the populace to obey the 1rpoeu-rwTes, (b) their
refusal even to accept equality with them; but these steps are merely
part of the rhetorical climax ending in the words d.X\d miv Kat TO
1TA>EiOTov mhos. They are not to be identified '\.\'ith stages in the anacyclosis, which does not fit the details of the decaying mixed constitution.
9. EAEu8epiav KO.t OT}p.OKpaTa.v oxAoKpa.TW.v: in 9 J-7 these are
successive constitutional forms: but the present formulation (with
its ironical echo of Herod. iii. 8o. 6, 7TAfjBos SJ apxov .. ovvop.a m:!vrwv
Kd.MtUTov xH, iaovop.{-ryv) can be paralleled in Plato, Polit. 292 A,
where the distinction between democracy and ochlocracy is merely
verbal. \Vith ochlocracy P. reaches the same end as in 9 7, but by
a slightly different path.
10. Summary of the book. The avuTau~s and aiJg-ryms are described in
the arclzaeologia (cf. II. 2, Tijs avUTduews), the dKp.~ forms the central
part of the book with its account of the constitution (and military
system) at the time of Cannae (n-42), the comparison with other
745

VI. .'l7

IO

AN EXAMPLE OF ROMAN INTEGRITY

states is in 43-56 (d. 57-58 n.). P. now ends with an illustration of

Roma.n integrity taken from the time immediately after Cannae
(58), which, by recalling the context of iii. n8, serves as a transition
back to the narrative of book vii.
ci.~c:JlTjv ~c:a.t ... 8ul.9ecw: 'its prime and condition then' ; but P. does
not emphasize any difference from present conditions, since Rome
still enjoys a mixed constitution. Thus any lack of explicitness in
s~a&<nv is deliberate, and Theiler's proposed change to T~v <vvv)
s~&eww (Hermes, I953. 297) must be rejected.

58. An example of Roman integrity after Cannae. The story also

appears in Cic. off. iii. II3 ff. (following P.) and in Livy, xxii. s86I. ro (with two versions and much rhetorical elaboration). For the
8,ooo prisoners cf. iii. rrj. 8-rr: P.'s words here (Mlyp7Jaa> llTTana>)
do not wholly square with the account there, where 2,ooo of an
original ro,ooo are killed.
5. Tpe'Ls flvcl.s: cf. Livy, xxii. 52. 2, trecenis ttumtm:s quadrigatis, 58. 4,
59 r8. Three minae are 3oo drachmae: Livy therefore appears here
to be identifying the quadrigahts, a reduced didrachm of about
Ssgo gr. (ssr-s83 gm.). with the drachma (cf. Mattingly-Robinson,
PBA, I9.)2, 216). In 216 the denarius had not yet been introduced,
but from 197 we find Livy (xxxiv. 52. 6) calling a coin weighing a
third of an Attic tetradrachm (c. 226 gr. = rr24 gm.) a denarius.
Since the later denarius was equated with the drachma, Livy evidently applied the same equation to its predecessor, the quadrigatus
(cf. Mattingly, ]RS, 1937, ror-2).
7. 'll'a\IT(.<J\1 . . eaTEPTJflEVOL TOTE TW\1 auflp.O.xwv: the revolt after
Cannae embraced Arpi in Apulia, Salapia, Aecae, Herdonia, Compsa,
and, among the Samnite peoples, the Hirpini, Pentri, and Caudini.
Lucania and Bruttium revolted (except the Greek cities and Petelia
and Consentia); and before long Capua was to go over, taking the
minor Campanian towns vlith it. The revolt stopped short of Latium,
Umbria, and Etruria, however; hence P.'s qualification. See De
Sanctis, iii. 2. zn ff.; Hallward, CAH, viii. 55-56.
TOV 'II'EpL rijs '!l'a.Tp8os , .. KtvSuvov: cf. iii. II8. 5, oaov oiiTTw 1rpoa8oKWVT> ij~ELV O.UTdv Tdv )1w{{3a.v.

59. 'Puyxos 'll'ept ITpcl.Tov: Rhynchus is otherwise unknown; but as

both Schweighaeuser and Wilamowitz (ad Athen. iii. 95 D Kaibel)
noted, it is unlikely to have been mentioned in book vi. If the
number is corrupt, a likely emendation is xi, for that book contained
an account of Philip's invasion of Thermum in 207 (d. xi. 7).

IND
I.

XES

GENERAL

abacus, use of, 560.

Abellinum, 427.
Abila, 597
Abilyx, 432.
Abydus, 6 n., 306, 349, 498.
Academics, 145.
Acarnania, 154, 158, 166, 237, 239-40
(treaty with Aetolia: partitioning),
240 (treaty with Pyrrhus), 256
(Symmachy), 275. 28o~4, 454, 471,
473, 477-8, 515, 518-19, 541, 545,
631.
Achaea, Achaean confederation, 12,
13, 153-4, 157, 215, 217-89, 294,
457, 485; cities of, 230-4; off1cial
records, 32, 165, 623; finance, 514;
hegemon, 256; laws, 218; weights
and measures, 218; money, 218;
magistrates, 219, 235, 243, 253,
256, 452-3, 457, 514; council,
2I920; dicasts, 219-20; synodos,
219-20; syncletos, 219, 524, 538;
date of elections and entry into
office, 455, 486, 535, 538, 562, 63o;
democracy in, 221-2, 229-30, 450;
unity
of Peloponnese under,
218-20, 227, 234, 450; in P.'s
7rpOKaTaaKw~. 44, 215; mediation
in Magna Graecia, 223-5; in fourth
century, 230; arbitrates between
Sparta and Thebes, 226; dissolved
by Macodonian kings, 23z, 450; in
the wars of the Dia.dochi, 232-3;
reformed, 233, 450; relations with
Macedon, 4 75, 536, 538; with
Aetolia, 247, 251, 463; with Arcadia, 471; with Boeotia, 248-9,
4 71; with Phocis, 248-9,
; with
Athens, 251, 63r; with "u"'~"'"u.~,
451, 456, 463; with Sparta, 221-2,
300, 304, 478, 535; with Crete, 507,
5ro; Roman embassy to, 165-6,
alliance with Aetolia, 237-8, 456,
463, 513, 531; treaty with Orchomenus, 242; in Doson's Symmachy,
relations with Mantinea,
; at Sellasia, 274-5, 2813 ; policy in Social War, 4 77 ;
mercenaries, 515; Philip's winter
expedition (2r9j8) to help, 522;
Apelles' moves against, 527, 550-2;
Philip's treatment of, 528; relations with Phigaleia, 5323; flight
of Cheilon to, 532-3; relations
with Rome, 536, 688; financial

agreement with Philip (218), 5389; Aratus' military organization,

623-4; decay of navy, 539, 623;
Achaean \Var with Rome, 304, 393,
525; exiles in Italy, 393
Achaean war, 304, 393, 525.
Achaemcnidae, 451.
Achaeus, 19, 30 n. r5, 450, 486, 500-2,
505,511,570-3,593,597, 6o1,6o3,
6os, 632.
Acilius, C., 29, 333
M' . G!abrio (cos. 191), 690.
Acrae, 545, 550.
Acra Leuce, 152, 316.
Acriae, 485, 555
Acrocorinth, see Carin th.
Actc, 623.
Actium, 517.
Adranum, 68-6g.
Adriatic sea, 41, 173, 421, 430 (Hannibal reaches).
adultery, penalty for, 263.
Aecac, 424, 437, 746.
aediles, treasury of, 32, 353-4.
Aegac (1\chaea), 230.
(Asia Minor), 6or, 603-4.
- see Edcssa.
Aegates Islands, rag, 355; battle of,
122, 124-6, 234, 236, 285, 313, 375
Aegean, Philip V's policy in, 299
Aegeira, 232, 513-14.
Aegina, 239.
Aegium, 230-1, 233-5, 253, 523, 624.
Aegosages, 6o3.
Aegospotami, battle of, 47, 479, 735
Aegosthena, 672.
Aegytis, 247, 255.
Aelius, P., Paetus (cos. 201), 315.
Aemilius, L., Barbula (cos. 281), 49-

so.

M., Lepidus (cos. 232), 192.

M., Lepidus (praetor 218), 396.
L., Papus (cos. 225), 196, 203-4,
20].

Q., Papus (cos. 282), 190.

L., Paullus (cos. 219), 325, 327,
331, 333. 435. 437-43 448-9, 486,

Paulbs (cos. 168), 3 n. 5, 19,

130, 267.
M., Paullus (cos. 255), 95
Aenus, 565.
Aeolian islands, 6o.
Aepium, 531.
Aerenosii, 366.

747

INDEXES
Acschincs, 639.
Aesis, R., frontier of Italy, 175-6,
1<)2, 2<J6.

Aetolia,
Adolian
confederation,
r 53-8, 457-8, 48o; assemblies,
453 4, 546; apocleli, 454; magistrates, 453; date of elections, 154,
453, 522; official records, 32; P.
critidzes, 12, 66, 154, 237; Roman
embassy to, r6:;-6; helped by
Patrae against Gauls, 233; saves
Delphi, 51; controls Delphi, 473;
and Soleria, 473; raids Peloponnese,
237.
; alliance with Aehaea,
456, 463,513, 531; alleged
compact with Doson and Cleomenes, 239-40, 248; treaty of
isopoliteia with Acarnania, 239;
with Cephallenia, 454; partitions
Acarnania with Epirus, '.1.39. 473,
; erects statue at Delphi, 240;
parts of Thessaly, 241, 248,
Achaean appeal to, 247;
of, 249; tries to hinder
253; Mantint>a joins, 263;
war with, 298, 3'.1.6; war
299, 309; plunder and
A. economy, 451; and Phigaleia,
452 march through Boeotia, 456;
of ca\alrv, 457; in
expedition, 4bo; in Social
; ~<:aOo;;)uap:C,, 460;
464; and Sparta,
471; complaints against,
and Scerdila!das, 472;
504, 507, 509; and
Rhodes, 507; attacks Acgeira, 51314; attacks temples, 517, 522
(Dodona) ; and Pcrgamum, 520;
Philip invades, 542-50; and Phocis,
; mercenaries, 561 ; and ,Moly. at Melitaca, 626.
Africa, P.
,in, 4, 297; Punic
territory in, 59, 362, 372, 431;
boundary with Asia, 368; see also
Libya.
Agathocles of Alexandria, 588.
- of Syracuse, 46, 52, 85, 146.
Agdatls of Naupactus, 464, 540, 56r,
6zq.
Agesilaus,
oi Sparta, 307~8, 735
~uncle of
IV, 484.
Agesipolis I, 229, 475
-son of Cleombrotus, 484.
-Ill, 484.
Agesistrata, 484.
Agetas, 622.
Agiatis, 241, 255.
Agis Ill, 227, 230, 232.
- IV, 237, 245. 469, 483-4, 568, 731.
Agones, 177.
Agrianians, 274, 285, 607-8.

53, 6o, 65, 69-72, g8-99,

143. 158, 207.
Agrinium, 543
Agron,
325.
A laesa,
Alcibiades, 497
Alcidamas, 479
Alcimachus, 548.
Alexander the Great, 41, 230, z32,
JOU, 308, 347, 470, j2I, 548, 560,
580, 594-5, 598-g, 608, 6II,

5 ss.

- Troas,
633.
Alexon, mercenary leader, ro8.
Alfaterni, 425.
Alipheira, 238, 530-3.
Allia, R., battle of, 185, 195.
Allifae, 12 7.
Allobroges, 380, 383, 385~6, 388.
Alps, 174-5. 207, 382 (P.'s crossing),
436; Hannibal's crossing, chronology, 365; problem, 382-91.
Alsium, 120.
Ambracia, I.~6, 158, 472, 510, 515-16,
522Ambracus, 515-16.
Ambrysus, 471, 473,560.
Ameinias, I54
amicitia, 161-2.
Ammonius of Barce, 592.
Amphaxitis, 6.1.6.
Amphictyonic Council, 473-4 .
Amphidamus, 536.
Amphilochia, 158, 472, 516.
Amphipolis, 552, 559
Amyclae, 553, 555
Amynandcr of Athamania, 34, 463-4.
Amynas of Atharnania, 403--4.
Amyntas of Macedon, 229.
Amyrus, 627.
anacyclosis, 635-6, 642-60, 663,-4,
724 727, 743. 745
Anares, 174, 182-3, 207, 402.
Anaxagoras, 492.
Ancus Martius, 342.
Andarria, 623.
Andobales (Indibilis), 366, 410.
Andosini, 366.
Andreas, physician to Ptolemy IV,
6ro.
Andriscus, the ps<;;udo-Philip, 14 n. 6,
24, 304

GENERAL
Andromachus, father of Achaeus,
450, 501-2, sos.
of Aspendus, 589, 6r3, 6r6.
Andros, battle of, 129, 565.
Aniaracae, 576.
annales maximi, 32.
Annius, M. (liiuir zr8), 375
Antalcidas, peace of, z8, 46-48, 3o8,
475 6, 480, 735
Anticyra (Phocian), 473.
r\ntigoneia on the Aous, rs6, I63.
(Mantinea), z6o, 290.
(festival) 290
(Achaea), 290
(Histiaea).
Antigonus I l>Ionophthalmus, 232-3,
571, 592-3, 596, 6o6, 6r8, 628.
- I I Gonalas, 154, 157, 231-3,
236-7, 240, 288, 499, 505.
III Doson, r8, r3o, r66, r85, 216,
229, 238-4o, 241, 246-5r, 253,
255-7 267, 271-2, 274-5. 279-81,
284-7, 289, 290, 547-8 (honours
paid to him in Greece), 324, 326--7,
456, 504, soB, 522, 534, 536, 547,
551-2, 564, 583, 589, 02o-r, 624,
61.7, 63I.
Antioch (on the Orontcs), 574, 585,
587, 612-13.
in :\iygdonia, see Nisibis.
Antiochus l, .)OI, 505.
II Theus, 5or, 509, 570, 584.
- I l l , 19-20, 24, 32, 2<)I, 295-9,
306, 314, 450 (title Mlyas-), 451, 486,
sor-z, 511, 538, 56r, 564, 567,
570-2, 582, 586-8, bor, 6os, 6o7-9,
612-16, 6z8, 632, 717.
son of Antiochus III, 584.
IV Epiphanes, 25, 217, 300, 6o8,
611, 68r.
- Hierax, 501, 571, 6oo-r, 603.
Antipater, 227, 230, 232, 548.
-'the nephew', 6og-ro, 612.
'Etesias', 50-51.
Antipatreia, 632.
Antiphon, 649.
Antirrhium, 517, szo, 6zs.
Antisthenes of Rhodes, 30 n. r, 31, 44
Antium, 344 347
Anxur, see Tarracina.
Apama of .Megalopolis, 464.
-mother of Berenice, 567.
Apamea (on the Orontes),576,579,58r.
peace of, 599, 6o4.
Apaturius, 29I.
Apelles, 527, 534-6, 55I-2, 56L
Apennines, r75, 410, 413 (Hannibal's
route), 436.
Aphrodite Pyrenaea, temple of, 372.
- temple of, near Saguntum, 432.
Apia, Plain of, 604-5.
Apollo Thermios, temple of, 546.

Lyscios, temple of, at Thcrmum,

546.
Amyclaeus, temple of, 553, 555
Apollodorus, 583.
Apollonia (Illyria), 160, r61-2, 632.
(Sittacene). 574
Apolloniatis (Sittacene), 574, 582-3.
Apollonius, son of Menestheus, 592.
ApoUophanes, doctor to Antiochus
Ill, 584-5.
Aptera, sro.
Apulia, 423, 430, 432, 690.
Apustius, L. (praetor 196), 632.
Aqui!eia, 68o.
Aquillius, C., Florus (cos. 259), 8r.
Arabia, Arabs, 596-7, 6o7, 609, 615.
Aradus, 594
Aratus, 160, 215, 227, 234-42, 244-55,
257. 259-60, 263-7. 455. 457. 45962, 405, 'f]O-I, 508, 513, 527-8,
535-6, 539. 549, 550, 562, 622,
657-8; ll-1emoirs of, 27, 43, 227-8,
.<33, 239, 245-f>, 248, 250, 254. z64,
266, 270-3, 289, 450, soB, 544, 658.
the younger, 251, 485, 5!4, 523,
535. 589.
Arbocala, 317.
Arbona, r64.
Arcades (Crete), 509.
Arcadia, 12 (temple of Zeus), 221,
237, 251, 293, 420, 465, 478, 48I-2,
526-3I, 552.
archaeologia, 655. 658--9, 663-74. 743.
745
Archelaus of Macedon, 5 r6.
Archidamus III, 509.
. v, 27s. 48 4 , 566, 5689.
of Actolia, 5I3.
Archippus the Pythagorean, 224.
Archytas of Tarentum, 64o-r.
Ardea, 344, 683.
Ardiaci, 154, 163.
Ardyes, 38r.
Ardys, 582.
Areius Didymus, 64o-r, 649.
Arcus of Sparta, 233, 288, 731.
Argos, A.rgolid, 12, 241, 244, 252,
254-6, 27o-z, 289, 307, 331, 412,
47o, 485, 535-D, 552-3, 625.
argyraspids, 607-8.
Ariarathes IV Eus<'bes of Cappadacia, JOO, 303-4, 45l.
Aridices (Arideices), 505.
Ariminum, 175-6, 1912, 196, 396-7,
402-3, 406, 410-1 I.
Arisbe, 633.
Aristaenus, 12.
Aristarchus, 67I.
Aristippus, tyrant of Argos, 238, 242,
265-6.
Aristocles of Sicyon, 532.

749

INDEXES
aristocracy, 635, 638-43, 646, 655-6,
664.
Aristocrates, king in Arcadia, 481-2.
Aristodamus of Megalopolis, 243
Aristodemus of Cumae, r8z.
of Elis, 67o-r.
Aristomachus of Argos, 238, 244, 246,
255. 265-7
Aristomenean War, 481.
Aristomenes, 48o-1.
Ariston, 453. 458.
Aristotclcs of Argos, 254
Aristotle, 2, II, 261, 466, 639.
Aristoxenus, 223-4.
Armenia, 6oo.
army, Roman, organization of, 697709, 743; years of service, 6g8;
enrolment, 6g8-701 ; taking of
oath, 701 ; grouping of recruits,
701; uelites, 701-2; hastati, principes, triarii, 702, 723; adoption of
pilum, 702; number in legion,
702-3; equipment, 703-4; organization of recruits and appointment
of officers, 706-8 ; appointment and
equipment of cavalry, 708; mobilization, 708-9; number of ex/t'aordinarii, 709.
Arpi, 423-4, 437, 441-2, 746.
Arretium, 178, 410-rr, 413, 415, 679.
Arsinoe (wife of Ptolemy II), 518.
- (wife of Ptolemy IV), 613.
- (Conope), 518.
Artabazanes, 583-4.
Artaxerxes III Ochus, 610.
Artemidorus, 55
Artemis, temple of, at Lusi, 237,
464-5, 483; in Elis, 525, at Thermum, 546.
Artemis Cindyas, II.
Asia, 307; boundary with Europe,
368; boundary with Africa, 368.
-Minor, Ptolemaic possessions in,
s6s.
Asine (Laconia), 555
Aspasianus, 6og.
Aspendus, 599Aspis, see Clupea.
Assarhadon and Balu, treaty between, 346.
Astymedes of Rhodes, 3I.
Atabyrium (Mt. Tabor), 596.
Atax, R., 369.
Athamania, 249, 464; source on, 34
Athena Itonia, temple of, in Boeotia,
452, 4/L
of the Brazen House, temple of,
at Sparta, 469-70, 483.
festival of, at Pergamum, 503.
-worshipped at Alipheira, 531-2.
Athenaeum in Belbinatis, 241, 243,
255, 277, 486, 514, 534

750

Athens, 238-9, 251, 307-8, 479, soo,

551, 560, 624, 631; Roman embassy to, 166-7; valuation of 378
B.c., 268-9; after Cha.eronea, 548;
toll on Pontus shipping (4ro}, 497;
constitution, 724-6.
Athyrnus, R., 429.
Atilius, C., Balbus (cos. 245), I2I.
A., Caiatinus (cos. zs8), 8I, g8,
115.
C., Regulus (cos. 257), 82, ror.
C., Regulus (cos. 225), 196, 204.
M., Regulus (cos. 256), 7, 23, 86,
88-94. log, q6, 150, 435
M., Regulus (cos. 227), 435, 442,
446-7.
C., Serranus (? praetor 218), 375
7, 393, 4IL
Atintania, 157-8, r6r, r63, r65, 325-6.
Atlantic ocean, 370.
Atropatcne, 502, 574-6, 583-4Atropates, founder of Atropatene,
584.
Attalus I, soo, 502, sos, 520, 570-I,
6oo, 6o1-7 (campaign of 218), 63oI, 633
- I I , 303-4. 6r6 .
Aufidus, R., 4-35-7, 441-3.
Aulis, 307.
Aurelius, C., Cotta (cos. 252), roo-I,
119.

Aurnnci, 425.
Ausculum, battle of, 50, 349-50.
Ausetani, 366.
Autaritus, 143-4, 424.
Aymard, A., quoted, 218-r9, 535,
562.
Bacchanalia, suppression of, 679, 690.
Badian, E., quoted, 162, 325, 33I.
Baebius, Egerius, 344
- J'vl., Tamphilus (cos. r8r), 741.
- Q., Tamphilus, 320-r.
Bagradas, R. (Macaras), battle of,
140-3, I49
Baleares, 362-3, 405, 407, 418-rg.
Balsamem, 3r5.
Barathm, 6IO.
Barce, 592.
Ba.rguUum, 326, 330.
Bargusii, 366-7.
Bargylia, 68r.
Bathycles, 555
Baton of Sinope, 30, 45
Belbinatis (Belminatis), 241,243,247,
255. Z.67.
Beloch, K. J., quoted, r66.
Beneventum, 424, 426-7.
Berenice, wife of Ptolemv lil, 564,
'
567, 613.
- wife of Antiochus II, 585.
Beroca, 626.

GENERAL
Bervtus,
594-5
Dikerman,
quoted, 248, 564-5,
571, 6o8.
biological concept applied to states,
635, 645-B. 649-50, 659.
Bithynia, sao.
Bithys, 237.
Black Sea, see Pontus.
Pilot, quoted, 488, 493-<>, 51 3
Bodincus, see Po, R.
Boeae, 555
Boeotia, 66, 248-9, 253, 256 (Symmachy), 275, z8o-r, 307, 45>1, 456,
461, 471, 479, 483, 5r6, 523, 540,
558.
Boidion, 496-7.
Boii, IS, r8J, r8g-9o, 2II, 374, 377
J85, 389. 402, 449
Bolax, 531.
Bologna and Modena, treaty between
(A.D. u66), quoted, 343
Bononia, 2II, 393
Bosphorus,
35,
486-go,
495-6
(current).
-Cimmerian, 368, 488.
Bosporus, kingdom of, 487.
Bostar, 144.
Botrys, 594-5
Bottiaea, 6z6.
Bous (Bosphorus). 495-<>.
Bovianum, 432-3.
Brachylles of Boeotia, 288.
Brancus, 388.
Brennus, 51, 499
Britain, tin-mines, 394
Brochi, 577-8, 587.
Brundisium, 423, 436.
Bruttium, Bruttians, 52, 199, 679,
746.
building contracts in Italy, 612.
Bura, 231-4.
Bylazora, 626.
Byssatis (Byzacium), 345
Byttacus, 6o8, 6n, 6q.
Byzantium, 6 n., 35. 298-g, 486-8,
495-7, sao, 503, 504-5 (Peraea),
so6 (eponymous magistrate), 5I2,
6or, 628, 630.
Cadmea, Spartan seizure, 28, 475
Ca.dusii, 576, 607, 609, 6I5.
Caecilia, Gaia, 673
Caecilius, L., Metellus (cos. 251),
I00-2, 121.
- L., Mctellus Denter (cos. 284). r88.
- Q., Metellus (cos. 206), 681.
Caere, 346, 348.
Calabria, 423.
Calamae, 623.
Calamus, 594-5
Calarmts odoratus. where grown, 577-8.

Calchedon, 307, 487, 489, 497-8.

Calene, 433
Cales, 425-7, 429.
Calhoun, G. M., quoted, 264.
Callicratcs, 19.
Callicula, Mons, 427-30.
Callimcdes, 504.
Callisthcnes, 2 n. 11, 28, 476, 480-2,
726-7.
Callonitis, 58 3
Calpurnius, L., Piso Frugi (cos. 133),

696.
Calydon, 544
Camarina, 22 n. 8, 68, 69, 81, 96, II?,
12J.
Cambyses, 573
Camoun, 596.
camp, the Roman, 709-23: dimensions, 714-15; discipline in, 716;
guard duty, 716; fortification, 717;
organization of night-watches, 71718; giving of watchword, 7I7;
punishments and rewards, 719-22;
pay and allowances, 722; breaking
camp: marching order, 722-3;
compared with Greek, 723.
Campania, Campanians, 197-9, 202,
343 J46, 348, 425-7. 679
Cannac, battle of, J6, 87, 193, 303,
405, 435-49. 6JJ, 674 736, 745-6.
Canusium, 437, 441.
Caphyae, 242-3, 245, 252, 452, 455,
457. 459. 460-2, 465. 524.
Cappadocia, 29t, 303, 573-4 (royal
genealogy), 6oo.
Capua, 36, 424, 426, 693.
C'.archi, 57 5
Cardaces, 6o7, 609.
Caria, 246, 559, 565, 568, 571, ooo.
Carmanians, 6o7-8, 614-15.
Carnium, 555
Carpesii {Carpetani), 317-18, 329,
362, J67.
Carseae, 604-5.
Carthage, Carthaginians, 5, 354 487,
630; situation, 139; possessions,
59-60; in Spain, I 5 I ; in Africa,
372; governors used by, I 37; con
stitution, 64, 642, 649; compared
with Roman, 636, 724, 735-6, 743;
at the time of the Ha.nnibalic War,
736; councils at, 76, r48, 169-70,
JII, 334, 361; sufetes at, rro;
treaties with Rome, 7, 32, 57-59,
293, 315, 336-56; numbers of fleet:
(26o) 79, (257) 82, (256) 82-85,
(255) 95, (254) 97-98, (249} n6,
(24r) 125-6; numbers and losses in
First Punic \Var, r28; Mercenary
vVar, 130-50; Roman embassies at:
(zzo) 323-4. 332, (218) 328, 333-6,
522; attitude towards money, 741;

751

INDEXES
Carthage (cont.)
nicknames at, I 10; Marcin us'
picture of, 45; fall of, 292-3, 296,
303, 393CarthaJO, u&--r 8.
Cary, M., quoted, 317.
Casilinum, +~7 429.
Casinum, 427.
Casium, 6ro.
Caspian Sea, 493, 574-5, 6o7.
Gates, 574-5.
Cassander, 232-3, 289, 534, 593
~ Macedonian i'pistates, 559
Cassandreia, 154, 438, 6JJ.
Cassius, L., Hemina, 29, 305.
Cassopc, 472.
Catana, 68.
catapults, II7-18, 512-13, 6r8, 627.
Catulus, treaty of, 126-7, 146, 150,
322, 324, 336, 355-8.
Caudini, 425, 746.
Caudium, 433
Caulonia, 48, 53, 224-5.
Caunus, 504.
causality, P.'s view of, 305-6, 309
cavalry, Roman, 70o-L
Cavarus, 500, 603.
Celtiberia, 328, 370.
Celtibcrian War, Second, 303.
Ccnomani, 183, 195-7. 201, 2o8, 405.
censor, 675, 678-9, 694-5.
c<:nsus lists, Roman, 202.
Centenius, C. (? propraetor 217),
420-[.
- M., Paenula (prirnus pilus 212),
42I.
centurions, 706-8.
Ccnturipa, 56, 68, 69.
Cephallenia, 299, 454, 540, 625.
Cephaloedium, 99
Ccraeas, 596.
Cercidas of Megalopolis (4th cent.),
247
(3rd cent.), 247-8, 274-5.
Cercina, 43r.
Cerea (?), 509, 598.
Cerethrius, 498.
Ccryneia, 230-r, 233-4.
Chaereas, 9 n. I, 13, 28, 42, 305,
332-3, J8I.
Chaeron of Sparta, 145.
- of Pellene, 230, 232.
Chacronea, battle of, 548.
chalcaspids, 27 5, 523, 6o8, 623.
Chalceia (Chalcis), in Aetolia, 625.
Chalcidice, 426.
Chalcis, 540, 559
- see Gerrha.
Charadra, 517.
Chares of Athens, 496.
Charixcnus of Actolia, 483.
Charops, 657.

751.

Cheilon, 20, 147, 484, 53+

Chersonese, Thracian, 548, 565.
Chilonis, 484.
Chiomara, j, 300,
Chios, 500, 628, 630; battle of, 30,
87-88, II4, 299, 503.
Chlaeneas of Aetolia, 233.
Chremonidean War, 157, 239, 243,
288, 485.
Chryseis, see Phthia.
Chrysippus, 466, 492, 641.
Chrysogonus, 547, 553, 626.
Chrysopolis (Bosphorus). 497
Chyron's farmstead, 452.
Cibyra, 622.
Cilicians, 607-8, 61 4
Cincius, L., Alimentus, 29, 332-3,
366, 708, 716.
Circeii, 344
Cirrha, 560.
Cissa, 409.
Cissians, 607-9, 615.
Cius, 22 n. 8, 498, 505.
Clarium, 454, 462, 471.
Clastidium, 210, 401, 403.
Claudius, C. (mil. trib. 264), 61.
- Ap., Caudcx, 46, 58, 61, 66, 74,
IIJ.
M., Clineas, 312.
M., Marcellus
222), 210, 448.
- Ap., Pulcher
143), 689.
P., Pulcher (cos. 249), II3-I.').
Quadrigarius, 438.
Clearchus, 307.
Cleemporus of Issa, 159.
Cleitor, 5 n. 8 (honours to
259,
458-60, 464-5. 472, 524.
Cleombrotus, 484.
Cleomenean
War,
239-91,
245
(name),450,452,456,477485,535
Cleornenes III of Sparta, 18, 241-3,
245-6 (his coup), 247-55, 257-60,
270-2, 275, 277-8, z8o-r, z85-9,
360, 452, 456, 463-4. 469, 472,
477 483-+. 486, 529, 534-5. 552,
564--9, 731.
Cleonae, 238, 252, 266, 289.
Cleonicus of Naupactus, 625, 628.
Cleonymus of Phlius, 238.
Cleopater, 253
Climax Pass, 598.
Clupea, 88-89.
Clusium, 203-4. 414.
Cnopias of Allaria, 589.
Cnossus, 504, 507-1 I, 540, 550.
Cocynthus, C., 174. 436.
Coele-Syria, 29I, 486, 562, 564, 57?.,
592-3, 6II-l3.
Coelius, L., Antipatcr, 28 n. 14, 175,
zq, 3I6, 318, 362, 365, 381, 385,
400, 404-5, 409-10, 430.
Colophon, 603-4.

GENERAL

comitia centuriata, 68]-8, 699; reform

of, 683-7. 691.
- curiata, 687.
- tributa, 687, 699,
Comontorius, 499
Compsa, ]46.
concilium plebis, 687.
Concolitanus, 206.
Conope, 518, 543-4.
consuls, powers of, 075-8; checks on,
688-go; powers militiae, 6g6; date
of entrv into office, 210.
continents, division into, 368.
continuators, tradition of, 43
Corbrenae, 575
Corcyra, I6I2.
Black, 154.
Corinth, I66-7, zn, 234, 236, 24o-r,
249, 252, 455, 457, 461, 474 .')IO,
szr. 525,534. 540, 552-3,561,673.
Corinthian Gulf, yw.
-'War, 307,
Cornelius, F., quoted, 447
Cornelius, Cn., Blasio (cos. 270, 257),
53, 8z.
- P., Cethegus (cos. 181), 74L
- P., Dolabella (cos. 283), 189.
- L., Lentulus Caudinus (cos. 237),
Igz, 332, 334
P., Lentulus Caudinus, rg2.
- L., Scipio (cos. 259), 8r.
- L., Scipio (cos. 190), 690.
- P., Scipio (cos. 218), 374-7. 380,
386, 400-8, 431, 432 (camp near
Saguntum). 449
- P., Scipio, son of African us, 29 n. 5
- P., Scipio Aemilianus, z n. 2, 3, 5,
6, 19, 33, I]J, 221, 295, 297, 327,
382, 392-3. 395, 648, 663 (in
Cicero's de u pub.).
P., Scipio Africanus, 14, I], 19,
22, 31 (letter to Philip V), 221, 229,
260 (writers on), 306, 34-15, 400,
697, 712, 738 (imago of),
Cn., Scipio Asina (cos. z6o), 76-77,
98-99
- P., Scipio Asina (cos. zzr), 435
- L., Scipio Barbatus (cos. 298), 187.
- Cn., Scipio Calvus (cos. 222), zro,
327, 382, 409, 432 (camp near
Saguntum), 449, 538.
P., Scipio Na.sica Corculum (cos.
r6z). 31 (letter of), 662, 697.
Coroebas, 670.
Coronea, 452.
Corsica, 59, 297, 431.
Cortona, 414-15.
Coruncanii, C. and L., 158--6o, 322.
Coruncanius, Ti. (cos. z8o), 190.
Corupedium, battle of, 50, 229.
coru~ts, n-79
Cos, 503, 509; battle of, IZ9, s6s.
4866

3C

Cosa, 431.
Cossaei, 575
Cossyra, 60, 95, 99, 431.
Grantor, r 45
Cratippus, 43
Crernona,2o8,zrr, 374, 408,41I,68o.
Cremanis iugum, 383, 386.
Cretan Sea, 556.
Crete, Cretans, JO, z8o-x, 283, 457,
466, 486, 504, 507-11, 515, 5Z2,
533, 540, 545. 568, 582, 590, 6o7,
6og-ro, 614; constitution, 72.h
726-8; private property and love
of gain, ]]2, 741.
Cretopo!is, 598-9.
Crinon, 550-z.
Crisa, 560.
Critolaus (Achaean), 255, 657.
(Peripatetic), 492, 044, 646.
Croton, 53, 223-5.
Ctesiphon, 571-z, 576.
Cumae, 4z5-6.
Cunaxa, battle oi, 307.
Curius, M' ., Dentatns (cos. z9o),
r88-g, 423.
Cyclades, 325.
Cydonia, 5 ro.
Cyllene, 458, 540.
Cyme, boo, 603-4
Cynaetha, 145, 237, 325, 462, 464,
469. 4]12, 65]8.
Cynics, 413.
Cynoscephalae, battle oi, (363) 725;
(197) 209.
Cynuria, 531.
Cynus, 522-3.
Cyparissia, 453
Cyphanta., 485.
Cyprus, 564-5. 619.
Cypsela, in Thrace, 565.
Cypselus, 673.
Cyrene, Cyrenaica, 479, 592, 724.
Cyrrhestice, 581, 584.
Cyrtii, 582.
Cyrus, founder of Persian empire,
5]3. 67!.
- brother of Artaxerxes, 307, 735
Cyzicus, 498,500; battle of (410), 497
Dahae, 607, 614.
Damastiurn, 6zx.
Damon, 466.
Damonon, 484.
Damotelas, 285.
Dardanians, 157, r66, 213, 238, 241,
6z6.
Darius I, 573
- Codomannus, 306.
Dasius, 403.
Dassaretia, 632.
Daulis (Daulium), 471, 473, s6o.
Daunii, 423, 425, 426, 430.

753

INDEXES
Decapolill, 596-7.
Decemvirate, 635, 664, 674, 743
Decius, P., Mus (cos. 312), 188, 353
declaration of war, Roman, 63, 149,
159, 306, 334, 361, 365, 68o-r,
68]-8.

Deigma, in various cities, 618.

Deinon, 657.
Delius {Dias) of Ephesus, 308.
Delphi, 50-51, 290 (group of Philip V
and Doson), 473, 499, 513,560, 6r6.
Demades, peace of, 548.
Demaratus of Corinth, 672-3.
Demetrian war, 237-8.
Demetrias, 540, 552, 627.
Demetrius the Fair, 567.
-of Byzantium, 213, 499
-of Phalerum, 2, 19, 22-23, 39, 45,
q8, 155, 217, 228, 289, 295, 450,
534. 559
280,
-of Pharos, 156, 161, 163,
288, 324-7, 330-1, 463,
50],
521, 549, 628.
- I Poliorcetes, 129,
232-3, 241,
256, 410, 509, 534.
595. 628.
- I I of Macedon, 130, 153-4, 157,
163, 166,z36-41,248,290,454, 456,
531, 582.
- son of Philip V, 331.
- I Soter of Syria, 3, 292, 304.
- of Calla tis, 487.
democracy, meaning in P., 221-2,
229-30, 4]8, 635. 638-41, 655-7
Demon, atthidographer, 506.
Demos, personification of, 619.
Denthaliatis, 288, 471.
De Sanctis, G., quoted, 62, 105, 124,
149, zog, 322, 392, 417, 427, 42930, 445. 482.
Diaeus, 478.
Dicaearchia, 425.
Dicaearchus, 35, 223, 394, 640-1,
645. 675
dictatorship, character of, 422.
didactic view of history, 39, 45-46,
65, 92-94, 2II, 434, 442, 638, 647.
Didymateiche, 604.
Dimale, 325-6, 330.
Diocles of Carystus, 297, 570, 577
- Seleucid governor, 578, 595.
Dioetas, Achaean general, 257.
Diogenes, Seleucid governor, 578, 583.
of Seleuceia, 644 n. L
Diognetus, 586.
Diomedon, epistates of Seleuceia, 579
Dionysius I, 48, 225-6, 308.
II, 467.
-of Thrace, 592, 614.
Diophanes, 465.
Diophantus, 187.
Dioryctus, between Leucas and
Acarnania, 541-2.

754

Dioscuri, cult of, at Phlius, 523.

shrine of, in Elis, 525.
-temple of, at Seleuceia, 587.
Ditizele, 505.
Dium, 515-!6, 547
Dodona, 522, 547
Dog-star, see Sirius.
Dolopia, 249
Domitius, Cn., Ahenobarbus (cos.
122), 373
- Cn., Calvin us :l>laximus (cos. 283),
r8g.

Dora, 592.
Dorian invasion, 229.
mode, 466.
Doricus, 344
Dorimachus, 451, 453, 457-9, 513,
5 22, 5 3s, 5oo.
Doris, 240.
Dorymenes, 587.
Dositheus, 6ro.
drachma, value of, 176.
Drepana, 81, 99, ro4, rog; battle of,
II3-15, 284.
Druentia, R. (Durance), 381, 383-4.
386.
Drymaea, 4 7 r.
Ducarius, 419.
Duilius, C. {cos. z6o). 76-77.
Dunbabin, R. L., quoted, 392, 403.
Dura~Europus, 579-80.
Dura, on the Tigris, 579-80.
Duris of Samos, 229, 259.
Dyme, 230-1, 233, 250, 514, 534, 536,
623.
Dyrrhachium, see Epidamnus.
Ebro, R., 371-3, 396, 410; battle of,
43D-2.
-treaty, 167-72, rg6, 305,
316,
320-1, 324, 329, 334-6,
Ecbatana, 6n., g.
Echetla, 66-68.
Ecnomus, battle of, 84-88, 380.
Edessa, 626.
Edson, C., quoted, 12.
education and the civilizing of
manners, 145.
Egypt, Egyptians, 300, 465, 505,
562-70, 59o-2, 618, 628, 63o-r.
Elatea, 558-60.
Elaus, szo.
Elba, 59
Elea, 75, 226.
elephants, 92, 102-3, 405-6, 590, 607,
6ro, 614-15, 703.
Eleutherna,28r,5o5, 507-8,s83,589.
Elis, Eleans, 237-8, 290, 293, 455,
458. 462, 4]8, 514, 522-3, 525-7
(wealth and neutrality), 526 (traditional asylia), 529, 531, 533, 535.
539, 550, 553. 560.

GENERAL
Elizabeth I of England compared to
Euripida~. 465, 514, 523, 525, 561,
Teuta. 159.
625.
Elloporus, battle of, 48, 226.
Euripides, 467, 498.
Europ0, boundary with Asia, 368.
Elymaei, 575
embassies and the senate, 676, 68o-r.
Europus, see Dura-Europus.
Empedocles, 649.
Eurvcleides, 631.
Emporia, 145-6.
Euthydemus of Bactria, 451.
Euxine, see Pontus.
Emporiae, 371, 373, 409.
Enna, 8r-8z.
Evander, 664.
Ennius, Q., 29.
exiles at Rome, Achaean and other
Epaminondas, 18, 223-4, 278-9,
Greek, 3, 4 n. rr, 34, 304, 314.
481-2, ]25.
exsilium, 682-3.
Eperatus of Pharae, 535, 538, 56r,
eyewitnesses, P.'s questioning of, 33
623Ephesus, 565, 567; battle of, 129,
Fabius, Q. (aedilicius 266), 312.
M., Buteo (cos. 245), 121, 333
565.
Ephorus, 2, 9 n. 15, II, z8, 35 n. 6,
- N., Buteo (cos. 247). 121.
- JVL, Licinus (cos. 246), 121.
216, 263. 269. 368, 466-8, 475-6,
Q., lla.ximus Aemilianus, 3
48o, 482, 5~6. 563, 65o, 726-9,
- Q., Maximus Rullianus (cos. 322),
731-2, 734
epicurean concepts, 653.
188, 422.
Epiuamnus, 161 2, 326,
Q., Maximus Verrucosus (cos. 233),
Epidaurus, 236, 252, 254,
193. 332, 334 412, 422-3, 426,
Epigencs, 571, 581.
429-30, 435. 7'5
-of Teas, 571.
Q . Pictor, 27-28, 52, 58, 63-66,
Epinicus, Ptolemaic officer, 499
6 9 - 7 o, 72, 77. 81, 85-95, 103, 107,
Epirus, Epirotes, 22 n. 8, 41, 154,
109, II], 123-4, 126-], I3Z, 146,
156-7, 237, zs6 (Symmachy), 275,
rso. 152, 159, 165, 184, 189, 192-3,
28o-1, 283, 454, 463-4, 471-2, 477,
199, 204-5, 208, 214, 310-12,
515-16.
322-3, 325, 329, 332, 361, 3]6, 386,
Episuatus of Acarnania, 460.
397. 420, 423-4 440, 442, 448, 664,
Epitadeus, 728 g.
666, 6]2.
Epitalium, 529, 533
Fabricius, C., Luscinus (cos. 182), 52,
equites, 64 6.
190.
Eratosthenes, 35, 104, 368, 370, 394,
Faesulae, 414-15.
49o-1, 52 4, 66s, 668, 6 7o.
Fair Promontory, 341-2, 345 347
Erbessus, 69.
Faleria (Falisci). revolt of, 131.
Erbse, H., quoted, 641.
Falernus, ager, 424-6, 430.
Eridanus, R., SNJ Po, R.
Fasti, 665-6, 668-9.
Erkell, H., quoted, 25.
Ferentina, 345
Eryx, Mt., 81, II8-2o, 122, 143, 158,
fetiales, 68o.
Fine, j. V. A., quoted, 458.
344
Etenneis, 599
Flaceli<~re, R., quoted, 472.
Etesian winds, 498.
Flaminius, C. (cos. 223),
207-9,
Ethiopia, 370.
409-Il, 413-14, 41]-20,
68g,
Etruria, Etruscans, 49, I]B, 18r-2,
6gr.
188, 190-1, 195-6, 198, 200, 341,
Flavius, Cn. (aedile 304), 340-1.
Fraccaro, P., quoted, 712.
343, 346, 4II, 413, 426, 448, 673,
679, 694, 746; origins of, 181.
Frank, T., quoted, 72, 90, 193, 351,
Etruscan (Tyrrhenian) sea, 105, 174,
691, 693.
436.
Frazer, J. G., quoted, 536, 555.
Euboea, 253, 256 (Symmachy), 522,
Fregenae, 120.
540, 625Frentani, 197, 201, 423.
Eucleidas, king of Sparta, 278, 28o,
Fulvius, Cn., Centumalus (cos. 229),
283-5
161, 164-5.
Eugenium, 326, 330.
- M., F!accus (cos. 264). 6r.
Euhesperidae, 479
- Q., Flaccus (cos. 224). 207.
Eumachus of ~aples, 28, 42.
- Q., Flaccus (cos. 179), 692.
Eumenes I, 134, 503, 570.
- Q., Nobilior (cos. 153),
- I I , 22, 33, 130, 299, 300, 582, 6o4,
- Ser., Paetinus ::Sobilior
255),
615.
95
Euphorion, 539
Fundi, 693.

755

INDEXES
Furius, M., Camillus (diet. 390). 669.
C., Pacilius (cos. 251), roo-L
- P., Philus (cos. 223), 207, 209, 689.
justuarium, 410.
Gadara (Decapolis), 597
(Peraea), 597
Gaesatae (Gaesati), 194-5, 205, 2u,
363.
Galatians, Gauls, r8, 51, 213, 299,
300, 487, 498-<}, 502-3, 540, 553.
571, 583, 6oo, 603, 6o6, 6og, 633;
attack on Delphi, 49-51, 233.
Galatis, 596.
GaUicus, ager, 184, 189, 192, 196, 200,
397. 6gr.
Garsyeris, 60I.
Gaul, Gauls, 4, 6, ], 49, ]I, 102, Io8,
II9, 143, 156, 1]2-214, 590, 614,
704; Roman war against (225),
151, r67, 172, 214, 274. 285, 298,
311, 3Z4-6, 365, 375-7, 402-5, 408,
4I 2, 419, 444-6; siege of Rome, 48,
185; wars, chronology of, r85-7,
191 ; importance of, 21 L
-Cisalpine, 52, r89, 207, 2II-I2,
396, 4II; geography of, 172-84;
prices in, I76-7.
Gaulos, 6o.
Gaumata the Magus, 573
Gaza, 30, 593.
Gela, Congress of (424), 629.
Gelo, son of Deinomcnes, 547
- son of Jiiero II, 54, 617.
Gelzer, M., quoted, 356, 665.
Genthius, 24, 34
Genna, 68o.
Genucius, C., Clcpsina (cos. 270), 53
geographical information, place of,
393-5
Gephroun, 596.
Gephyraei, 506.
Gerrha, 577-8, 587.
Gerunium, 423, 430, 432, 438, 441.
Gerus (Gerunium), in Dassarctia, 632.
Getae, 498.
Gillius, P., account of Bosphorns
currents compared with F.'s, 495--6.
Gisgo, 132-3, 144.
Gitiades, 469.
gladius, 704.
Glympeis, 485, 556.
Golden Horn, 496-7.
Gonnus, 521.
Gorgias, 308.
Gorgus of Messcnia, 541.
Gortyn, 504, soB 9, 5II, 583.
Gori;ys (Arcadia}, 514.
Greia, 559
Griffith, G. T., quoted, 624.
Gsell, S., quoted, 141.
Gulusa, source of P., 33

Gythium, z87, 555-6.

Hallward, B. L., quoted, l ] I , 320,
4II.
Hamilcar, 8o, 82, 87, 108-.g.
Barca, ug-22, r24, rz6, 130, 132,
137, LjO, 142-4, 146-8, 150-2, 168,
3!0-13, 315-16, 323, 357
(Hasdrubal's admiral), 43
Hanell, K., quoted, 339
Hannibal, 14, I9, 32, 130, 143, q8,
151, 161, I6], 1]5, 214-15, 229,
298, 306, 3I0-24, 327-31, 350,
361-6, 371-4, 377-93. 395-421,
423-4,426-30,432-4,437-9,441-7,
451, 486, 522, 561, ]OI, ]36; forces
(in 219), 366, 395, statistics on
distance of his march, 37IA;
chronology of his march, 374,
391--2, 538; crosses Rhone, 3 ]8-Bo ; crosses Alps, 382-93 ; crosses
Apennines, 413.
son of Gisgo, 56--57. ]I, 8o-8r.
son of Hamilcar, 18, ro8, 146.
- 'the Rhodian', IIO.
Hannibal-historians, 9 n. I, 42, 132,
260, 305, 360, 381, 388.
Hannibalic \:Var, see Punic \Var,
Second.
Hanno, enemy of the Barcids, n8,
124, 133. 137 148--q, 151, 32J.
-Punic officer in Sardinia, 144.
-officer of Hannibal, 367.
- general of Hannihal, 378.
son of Hannibal, 62, ]I, 73, I25,
144
Harder, R., quoted, 644.
Harpalus, Macerlonian epistates, 559
Hasdrubal, son-in-law of Hamilcar,
151-2, I67-72, I9U, 214, JI0-12,
316, 335. 357
- son of Hanna, 89, 97-98.
-Hannibal's general. 447- brother of Hannibal, 362, 430, 719.
in Third Punic \\'ar, 19.
Hecatombaeum, 246, 250-1, 254
Hecatompylus (Hecatontapylus}, r r8,
134. 137
Hegesianax of Alexandria Troas, 44
Heircte, II9-2I.
heliacal rising, 96.
Helice, 230.
Hdlenic League of Philip and Alexander, 244, 24 7, 256, 548; of
Demetrius I, 256.
Hellespont, 306, 490, 499, 633.
Helmantice (Hermandica). 317.
Helus (Laconia), 555
Hemcroscopium, 316.
Hcphaestia, 681.
Heptazeta, 505.
Heraclea (inS. Italy), 226.

GENERAL
Heracleia (Bithynia), 505.
Heracleitus, 2, 491.
Heracleium, 521.
Heracks, 382, 514, 524.
Heraea, 257, 455, 458, 529, 531, 534
Herdonia, 437, 746.
He.nnaea, C., battle off, 95
Hcrmaeurn (Bosphorus), 489, 495-6.
Hermeias, 502, 505, 570-3. 580.
Hermias, Coan doctor, 508-g.
Hermione, 238--9, 241, 252.
Hermocrates of Syracuse, 6zg.
Hernicans, 202.
Herodotus, r2g, 638-9.
Hestia, altar of, Achaean, 624.
Hestiae (Bosphorus), 495-6.
Hestiaeotis, 241, 472, 627.
Reuss, A., quoted, ro8.
Heuzey, L. A., quoted, sr6.
Hierapytna, z8r, 583, 589.
Hiero II of Syracuse, 22, 27, 53-57,
62-63, 66 69, IZJ, 146, 355, 35],
3]], 409, 56g, 6IJ-I8.
Hieron (Bosphorus), 489, 504.
Hieronymus of Cardia, 534
of Syracuse, 183, 298; writers on,
z6o.

Hill, H., quoted, 700.

Himera, battle of, 344, 547
Hippana, 8r.
Hipparchus, 370.
Hippias, Macedonian, 34
of Elis, 526.
Hippitas, 569.
Hippocrates, 465-6.
Hippodamus of :\filetus, 639, 644.
Hippo Diarrhytus, Hippou Acra, 136,
139-40, 143-4. q6, 148.
Hippolochus, 596.
Hippornedon, Spartan in Ptolemaic
service, 484.
424, 740.
compared with tragedy, 8-9.
261-3Homarion, 226, z3o, 235, 624.
Horner, 498.
Horatius, M., Barbatus (cos. 449),
674.
Codes, 74o-r.
M., Pulvillus (cos. 509), 339-40.
Hostilius, Tullus, 666, 668, 673.
C., :\fancinus (cos. 137), 312.
- L., Mancinus (cos. 145), 45
Hultsch, F., quoted, 66o-r.
human society, beginnings of, 65 r~2.
hydrography of Pontus and Bosphorus, 35
Hypana, 529, 531, 533.
hypaspists, 274-5, 518, 558, 560-1,
591, 6oS.
Hypatodorus, sculptor, 531,
Hyperbatas, 250, 254

Hyrcania, 575, 6oJ.

Hyrcanian Sea (Caspian), 574
Hyria, 425.
Hysiae, 470.
hysteron proteton, 153. zo6, 2II, 230,
34
lamblichus, 223.
lapygians, 197, 201, 423, 425.
Iberia, 369-70.
Ilergetes, llurgetes, 363-4, 366, 410.
Ilium, 606-7, 630, 633.
Illyria, Illyrians, r8, z75, z8o-7, 325,
331, 438, 461, 472, 510, 545, 550,
557, 621, 632; towns join Rome,
I6T, 326.
Illyrian War, First, 64, rsr. 153-67,
238, 330; chronology, 153; peace
terms, r6s.
Second, 315, 324-7, 330-2, 486,

5 1 5
imagines, 738-g.
Indian ocean, 370.
lndibilis, see Andobales.
Insubres, r8z, 195, zo8, 374, 385-6,
395. 419internationallaw, 136, 264, 267, 455,
5IJ, 546-7, 549
Ion of Chios, 639.
Ionia,
Ionian
Iphitus of
Ipsus, battle
Iseas of
234
'Island', the, 372, 377. 383, 386-9.
!socrates, 307-8, 466, 639.
lssa, 154. 159, r6r, 330.
Issus, battle of, 595
Ister, R. (Danube), 493
!stria,
Italy,
description of, 173,
436; boundary of, 175-6; Roman
reconquest of, 298; Philip plans to
attack, 632; Senate's intervention
in, 679.
!thorne, 479
Ithoria, 5I8-I9Iulius, C., Caesar, 678; compared to
Harnilcar, 152.
-C., Polybius, 670-r.
Iunius, L., Brutus (cos. 509), 339
-D., Brutus Callaicus (cos. 138),
296,
- M.,
(cos. 245), 434 449
- L., Pullus (cos. 249). II3, II5, IZI,
123.
Iuppiter Capitolinus, temple of, 33940.
-lapis, oath by, 351-2.
- :\Iars, Quirinus, triad of, 353
Jacoby, F., quoted, 563.

757

INDEXES
Jason, Argonaut, 489.
Macedonian officer, 6:1:5.
of Pherae, zzg, 3o8.
Jews, 6r5.
Jones, A. H. M., quoted, 596.
H. Stuart, quoted, 48.
Jullian, C., quoted, zo8, 380, 388.
justice, definitions of, 654-5. 66I.
~

Kahrstedt, U., quoted, 474

kingship (basileia), 549, 635, 639,
6 4 2-3, 6 46, 6 4 8-g, 6 53-6.
Kirsten, E., quoted, 519.
Klotz, A., quoted, 403.
Kroma.yer, J., quoted, 271, 405.
Lacetani, 366, 410.
Lacinian promontory, 49; tablet on,
33. 362, 364, 367, 392.
Laconia, 553-8.
Lacydes, head of Academy, 631.
Lade, battle of, 30, 299
Ladicus, 533
Ladoceia, ::46, 250, 258.
Laelius, C., the elder, 31, 33, 395
C., the younger, 6.
Lagoras, 587.
Lai (Laevi), r8z.
Lampsacus, 492, 6o6-7, 63o.
Lanuvium. &83.
Laodice, wife of Antiochus II, 501,
585.
wife of Seleucus II, 501.
~ A, daughter of Mithridates, wife
of Antioch us III, 501, SII, 573,584.
B, daughter of Mithridates, wife
of Achaeus, 501, 5II, 573, 6ro.
Laodicean \Var, 585, 6oo.
Laodiceia, in Phrygia, 502, 584.
~on-sea, 579, 583.
uKa.{Jlwaa. on Lebanon, 576.
--in Iran, 579
Lappa, 509.
Laqueur, R., quoted, 46.
Larinas, ager, 430.
Larissa, 476, 5II, 515,521, 536,626-7.
La Roche, P., quoted, 66z.
Larsen, J. A. 0., quoted, 249.
Las, 555
Lasion, 524-7. 6zg.
Last, H., quoted, 672.
Latium, Latins, 48-49, 201, 341, 344
346-7, 349 382, 425, 427, {46.
laudalio funebris, 737-8.
La.uney, M., quoted, 274, 6og.
Laurentes (Lavinium), 344, 683.
Leake, W. M., quoted, 46o, 532, 557
Lechaeum, 461, 553. 561.
legio, in early Latin, 53
lembi, 74, 160.
Leonidas II, 241.
Leontiadas, 475

Leontini, 69, 4r5, 418.

Leontium, 230-2, 233, 459, 524, 528,
625.
Leontius, 536, 541, 551, 559-61.
~commander of Seleuceia, 587.
Lepcis (Leptis) minor, 59, r48.
Lepreum, 529, 533
Leptines, 55-56.
Lergetes, 363-4.
Leucae, 485, 555
Leucas, 240, 541, 553, 632.
Leuctra, battle of, 46-48, 226-7, 232,
479, 4 8 I, 535, 725.
- fortress near Megalopolis, 250, 255.
lex A cilia, 700; Claudia (218), 691;
Corntlia-Baebia, 741; Horte-nsia,
687; ll<lia-Papiria (430), 682;
Vownia (r69), 706.
Libba, s8r.
Libicii, r82.
Libya, Libyans, 341, 343-4, 346,
348 9, 363, 445-7, 590-2; see al.so
Africa..
Libyan \Var, see Mercenary War.
Libyphoenicians, 363.
Licinius, L., Lucullus (cos. 151), 382,
393
-C., Varus (cos. 236), 333
Ligurians, 177, 364, 411-12.
Lilaea, 4 71.
Lilybaeum, 60, 99, 109, I q, 377, 393,
396, 403, 406, 431, 435; siege of,
104-7; 146; perhaps visited by P.,
105.
Limnaea, 155, 543
Limnaeus, 502, 6z2.
Lingones, 183.
Lipara, 82, 102, 355
Lissus (Illyria), 164-5, 325-6.
(Crete), 509.
Livius, M., Salinator (cos. Zig), 325,
327, 331, 333
Lixus, R., 393
Locri, Epizephyrian, 4, 75, 679.
Locris, east, conference in, 13, 32.
- Opuntian, 256 (Symmachy), 473
Logbasis of Selge, 6oo-L
Longanus, battle of the, 54-56.
lotus, P. on, 297.
Luca, 411.
Lucania, 49, 52, 197, 201, 225-6, 442,
746.
Luceria, 49, 423, 437
Lucretius, Sp., Tricipitinus (cos. 509).
339
luiling~to,
impossible for ancient
craft, 66o-1.
Luna, 68o,
Lusi, 237, 464-5. 471, 483.
Lusitania, price> in, I 76.
Lutatius, C., Catulus (cos. 242). 120,
124-6, 37.5

GENERAL
Lutatius, C., Catulus (cos. :z.w), 375
Q., Cerco (cos. 241), 12.7, 131.
Lycaeum, Mt., 246, 250, 258, 263,
479-80.
Lycia, 565, 619.
Lycortas, 1, 19, 228, 268.
Lycosura, honours to P., .5 n. 8.
Lycurgus, lawgiver, 534, 659, 669-70,
726, 728, constitution of, 535, 635,
641, 650, 659-63 (comparison with
Roman), 697, 724, 734-5
-king of Sparta, 20, 451,474. 484-6,
51~ 534.541,552,556.561,622-3.
Lycus of Pharae, 624-5.
- R. (Nahr El Kelb), 595
- R. (tributary of R. Hyllus), 605.
Lydia, Lydians, 500, 607, 609, 613.
Lydiades, 221, 237-8, 247, 250, 524,
531.
Lysandridas, 258-g.
Lysanias, 502, 6zz.
Lysias, Athenian orator, 308.
Asiatic dvnast, 6zz.
Lysimacheia, 565; battle of (277),
499
(Aetolia), 543-4.
Lysimachus, 50-51, 229, 291, 593,
6o6.
- brother of Ptolemy III, 585.
Lysis, Pythagorean, 224.
Lyttus, 507-10.
Maccoei, 364.
Macedonia, empire in Europe, 41;
and the Adriatic, 162; relations
with Boeotia, 2.48-9; and the
Symmachy, z56; army, arms, 275,
281, 590; army assembly, 552;
military code, 552; Illyrian invasion, 287-8; conquest by Rome,
303; Aetolian outrages against,
454; and the Peloponnese, 454 ;
and the Aegean, 465; and Amphictyonic Council, 473; chronological
system, 4 76; and Tiboetas, 504 ;
and Rhodes, 504; and Crete, 507;
reputation of troops. 523; decay of
navy, 539; value of slaves, 539;
officials of,
; and Egypt, 565;
iron-mines,
; pitch and tar,
620; silver, 6-;u , lead, 6zr ; levies
raised, 626; mini'.s, 693-4.
Macedonian \'i'ar, Second, 58, 299,
681.
Third, 301.
Machanidas, 708.
Machatas, 4 74
Maeotic Lake, 368, 488, 490, 492-5,
of Cyrene, 509, 564.
son of Ptolemy III, 564, 566,

s68.

Magilus, 389.
Magna Graecia, 222-4.
:Magnesia, battle of, 503, 6ro.
r.1ago, 4oo, 404-5, 407.
Maharbat 42o-r.
Malchus, 344
Mamertini, 52-54, 56--58, 61, ro8,
127, 158, 322, 355
Mamilius, Q., Vitulus (cos. 262), 70.
}fanilius, M' ., summons P. to Lilybaeum, 5
Manlius, L., 312.
T., Torquatus (cos. 224), 207.
A., Torquatus Atticus (cos. 241),
I3I.
- Cn., Vulso (cos. 189), 299.
- L., Vulso (praetor 218). 375--'7
393
- L., Vulso Longus (cos. 256), 86-87,
101.
Mantinea, 237, 24Z-3, 250, 257,
:z6o-r, 263, 268-70 (value of booty),
457,464,469,475.515; constitution,
724; honours to P . 5 n. 8; battle
of (363), 484, 725; (Z5I), 238; (207),
461.
Marathus, 594
Marcius, Ancus, 666, 668, 67z.
Q., Philippus (cos. z8r), 50, 190.
Q, Philippus (cos. r86), 657, 688.
C., Rutilus (cos. 357), 672.
Margus of Ceryneia, r6o-1, 234, 447
Maronea, 559, 565.
:Marquardt, J., quoted, 718.
Marrucini, 197, zo1, 423
Marsi, 49, 197, zor, 4z3.
Marsyas, Plain of, 565, 570, 577
Masaesyli, 364.
Masinissa, 4, 33, 303, 364.
Massilia (Ma.ssalia). 58, 169. 207, 316,
320, 342, 348, 377. 393. 431; Lnhabitants questioned, 33
Massyli, 364.
Mastia, Mastiani, 167, 347, 362.
Mathos, 136, qo, 143-4.
Matiani, 576.
Maurusii, 364.
Media, Medes, 6 n., 57o-1, 573, 5747
(geography of), 582, 607-8, 615.
Mediolanum, 208, 210.
Median, r8-I9, I54-5. 477
Megaleas, 536, 550-z, 56o-r.
Megalopolis, }Iegalopolitans, 244,
z46-7, 249-50, 255, 258-9, 270-1,
Z74-5, 282, 454-5, 459, 461, 472,
479. 482, 523-4. 531, 534. 624-5:
joins Acha.ea., zzr, 237-8, 243;
taken by Cleomenes, zs8-<J, 529;
honours to P., 5 n. 8, ro n. 9, 302.
Megalopolitan source, perhaps used
by P., 247-8, Z72-3, 455, 462.
Megara, Megarid, 253, 46I, 522.

759

INDEXES
Megistonous, 255, 257
l\Iegistus, R. (Macestus), 604.
:Vleleager, king of Macedon, 50-51.
Melitaea, 472, 626.
Melite, 6o.
Memphis, 588.
Menedemus of Alabanda, 595, 6o8.
(the same?), 570-1.
Menelaeum, near Sparta, 553
Meninx, roo, 531.
Menippus, 315.
Menneas, 597.
Menodotus of Perinthus, 29 n. 1, 563.
Mens, 423.
Menyllus of Alabanda, 34
Mercenary 'War at Carthage, 130-50,
151: P.'s source for, IJO-I; reasons
for describing, IJI-2; other names,
136: brutality, 145; chronology of,
148-9, 150.
Mcrgane, 55
::\:l:esene, 578.
Mesopotamia, 574 579-80.
Messana, 52, 55-57, 6o, 68, 103, roB,
r r6, 322, 355, 403.
Messapians, 197, 201, 423.
Messenia, Messene, 28, 30, 222, 243-4,
258, 269 (economic conditions),
z88, 293, JOO, 331, 451-4, 456-7,
462-3, 471-2, 478-82, 525-6. 534.
540, 549. 624, 730, 734
Metagonium, 3(.13.
Metapa, 544-5
::\Ietapontum, 226.
Metaurus, battle of, 719.
Methana, 218.
Methydrium, 246, 459, 46I.
Metropolis, 240, 473. 518.
Meyer, Ed., quoted, JII, 323, 704.
Miccus of Dyme, 623.
Micion, 631.
Miletus, 483, 565.
Milyas, 598.
mines, 693-4.
Minucius, L., Myrtilus, 312.
- M., Rufus (cos. 221), 193, 422, 429,
434-5, 442, 446, 715.
Mithridates I of Pontus, 573
- 11, 501, 51 I, 573, 6oo, 621.
mixed constitution, 534-5, 635, 6]841, 646-8, 663-4, 675-97, 734 n. r,
736, 743. 745
Mnesiptolemus of Cyme, 44, 217, 570.
Moagetes, 622.
Modena and Bologna, treaty be
tween (A.D. rr66), quoteu, 343
Malon, 30, 570-85.
Molycria, 625.
Mommsen, Th., quoted, 667 n, 1,
6gr, 711.
monarchy, 635, 641-2, 646, 648-9,
652-3, 656, 66o.
]60

Montesquieu, division of the state

into legislative. executive, judicial,
219.
Motya, 344
Mucius, P., Scaevola, 32.
Miillenhoff, K. V., quoted, 368.
music, effects on character, 465-9.
Mutina, 212, 374'-5
Mycenae, 597
Mylae, battle of, 77, 79
Mylasa, 621.
1\fyrina, 6or, 603-4.
Myron, 480.
Myrsilus of Methymna, 144
Mysia, Mysians, 504-5, 6or, 6o4-5
(Mysian KaTO<Klcu).
1\Iytilene, 630.
J\;lytistratum, So, 82.
Nabis of Sparta, 12, 30, z65, 535, 642.
Napoleonic officers compared with
Greek mercenary leaders, 589.
Narbo, 369, 373: river, 369.
N armalcha, canal in Mesopotamia,
582.
Narnia, 423-4.
Naucratis, 342.
Naupactus, 464, 472, 476, 479, 629.
Neanthes, writer on Attalus, 570.
Neapolis (Naples), 425, 68o, 683, 688.
Nemausus, 369, 373
Nemea, 459
Nemean games, 252, 272, 289, 412,
6z8.
Neocretans, 540, 550, 590-r, 6og.
Neon of Boeotia, 2.48.
Nesean horses,
New Carthage,
zg6, 321, 36z,
371-2, 391, 432, 712.
Newman, W. L., quoted, 728.
Nicagoras, 566, 568-g.
Nicander of Trichonium, 34, 314, 515,
544
Nicanor, governor of Antigonus I,
571, 579
satrap of Seleucus I, 579
Nicarchus, 595, 6o8.
Nicephoria, at Pergamum, 300, 503.
Niccphorium, at Pergamum, 503.
Nicias, 597.
Nicippus, 477
nicknames at Carthage, r ro.
Nicocles, tyrant of Sicyon, 235.
Nicolaus, Aetolian, 587.
Nicomedes I of Bithyuia, 504-5.
Nicophanes of Megalopolis, 247-8.
Nicostratus, 452.
Nile, boundary of Asia and Africa,
368, 370.
-delta,
comparison
with
the
'Island', 387-8.
Nisibis, 571, 5lh.

GENERAL
Nissen, H., quoted, 282.

nabihtas, 739
Nola, 425, 68o.
Notium, 6o3-4.
Nuceria, 425, 427, 683.
Numa, see Pompilius.
Numantia, 6, 382, 71 r.
Numidia, Numidians, 363-4,405, 444
Nymphis of Heracleia, 499.
'Oc<>llus Lucanus', 644-5, 65R.
ochlocracy, 635, 649, 656-8, 66o.
Ocriculum, 424.
Oeanthea (Oeantheia), 513, 553
oecumene, geographical divisions of,
367-7!.
Oenanthe, 588.
Oeniadae, 240, 473, 518-21.
Oenis, 477
Ogygus, 229, 450.
Olcades, 316-17.
Olenus, 230-1.
oligarchy, 635, 641, 643, 664.
Olygyrtum, 524.
Olympia, 525, 527-8, 531.
olympiad year, P.'s use of, 35
- chronology, 669-71.
Olympichus of Alinda, 502, 61n-2.
Opimius, Q. (cos. 154), 373
optiones, 707.
Opus, 522.
Orchomenus (Arcadia), 237. 242-5,
257.271.455.45960,469. 481,534
-(Boeotia), 522.
Oreii, 509
Orgessus, 632.
Orissi, Oretes, Oretani, 152, 316, 327,
362.
Orophernes, 304.
Oropus, 548.
Ortiagon, 300.
Ostia, 342, 345, 424, 672.
Otacilius, ::'1-f'., Crassus (cos. 263), 6768, 12 I.
- T., Crassus (cos. 261), 73,
T., Crassus (praetor 217), 435,633.
Otto, \V., quoted, 572.
Pachynus, C., 85, 96, 104-5, II7.
Paeligni, 49, 202, 423, 430.
Paestum, 201.
Palatine, etymology of, 664-5.
Palinurus, C., shipwreck off, 100, 101,
123, !28.
Pa!lantium, 246, 266, 664; honours
toP., 5 n. 8.
Pallas, son of Heracles, 665.
Pallene, .p6.
Palus (Cephallenia), 540, 552, 628.
Pamboeotia, 452.
Pamphia, 544~5. 550.
Pamphylia, 565, 6oo.

Panaetius, 6 n. 2, 296, JOI, 466, 641,

644, 653, 658.
Panium, battle of, 30, 612.
Panormus, 6o, 81, 98-99, r:w, 344:
battle of, 101,
(Achaea), 629.
Pantaleon, Aeto!ian, 237, 513.
Pantauchus, 34
Panteus, 569.
Papirius, L., Praetextatus (censor
27z), 333
Paraetacene, 575
Parapotamia, 579-80.
Parma, 212.
Paropus, So.
Parthians, 607.
Parthini, 161, 163, 165, 325-6, 330.
Pasargadae, 573
Paseas, tyrant of Sicyon, 235.
Patrae, 230-1, 233, 455,458, 462,471.
Pausanias, Spartan regent, 155, 469.
Paxos, battle of, 153, r6o, r66, 539
Pednelissus, 598.
Peisistratus of Athens, 526-7.
Pelagonia, 632.
Pelasgiotis, 627.
pe.liganes, 583.
Pellum, 470.
Pella, 5z1.
- (on Jordan), 596.
Pellana, 534
Pellene, 232, 237, 252, 457, 459, 461.
Pelopidas, 548, 725.
Peloponncse, value of property in,
268.
Peloponnesian War, 541, 6z5, 735
Pclorias, C., 104-5.
peltasts, 274-s. z8o, 409, 5I8, 536,
557-9, 589-91, 6q.
Pelusium, 588, 68r.
Penteleium, 252.
Pentri. 746.
people, Roman, powers of, 68z-8;
checks on, 692-6; judicial competence of, 682; and peace-terms,
treaties, 689-90; and consuls,
689-90; ultimate judicial powers
of, 690; and legislation, 691 ; and
publicani, 692.
Pergamum, 58, 503, 604, 607, 630.
Perge, 599Perigenes, Egyptian navarch, 593
son of Leontiscus, 593
perioeci (Laconia), 278.
Peripatetics, Peripatetic views, 155,
486, 492, 641, 645. 649
Perseus of Macedon, 3, 19-20, zr n. 6,
24, 33, 45, 267, 275, 589, 621;
writers on, 3o, 36o-r.
Persia, Persis, Persians, 40-41, 213,
306, 308 (Greek 'crusade' against),
548, 571, 573-5, 582, 59Z, 607-8.
761

INDEXES
Persians, conspiracy of the seven, 57 3
Petraeus, 471, 553
Peucetii, 423.
Phaestus, 511.
Phaethon, myths of, 179-80, 491.
Phalanna, 536.
Phalaris, 85, 297.
Phalasarna, sro.
Phanoteus (Panopeus), 625.
Pharae, 231, 233, 455, 462, 471, 514,
528, 624.
Pharaea (Pheraea), 528.
Pharnaces of Pontus, 300, 512.
Pharos, 154, 163, 330-1.
Pharsalus, 536, 627.
Phaselis, 599
Phasis, 368.
Phea, 458-g.
Pheidon of Argos, 526.
Pheneus, 252, 523.
Phigaleia, 243, 452, 454, 477. 533,
54 I.
Philaenus, altars of, 59, 372.
Philetaerus, soo.
Philinus, 27, 57-58, 61-67, 69-70, 72,
75 77, 83, 87, 91-95, IOI, 103,
1og-ro, II5, r r 7, 124-7. 131, 285,
337. 350, 354-5
Philip II of Macedon, 244. 247, 308,
496. 521-2, 548.
V of Macedon, 7, 12, 13, 19, zo,
24, 31-32, 34, 130, 148, 151, 154,
156-7, 161, 166, 215, 241, 257, 274,
290, 298, 326-7, 331, 350, 363, 412,
438, 450, 463. 470, 474 476-7. 504,
507, jiO, 514-25, 527-9, 53I-4,
536, 538-6r, 564,s8g,62t, 626-30,
631-3, 638. 656, 681, 7I7, 746;
writers on, 30, 45. 36o-r.
of Acarnania, Alexander's doctor,
584.
auvTpo,Po;; of Antioch us III, 6II.
Philippopo!is (Phthiotic Thebes), 628.
Philistis, wife of Iliero II, 55
Phillidas, 532-3.
Philo of Cnossus, 592.
Philocles, king of Sidon, 595
Philomelus (Phocian), 480.
(Phrygian), 622.
Philopoemen, 2, 3, II, 221, 227-9,
258-g, 272, 283-6, 538, 708.
- son of Thearidas, 228.
Philoteria, 595-6.
Philoxenus of Cythera, 467-8.
Phintias, I I 7.
Phlegraean plains, r8r-2, 426.
Phlius, 238-40, 252, 271, 459, 523.
Phocaea, 603-4.
Phocis, Phocians, 248-g, 256 (Symma.chy), 307, 461, 471, 473, 483,
5ro, 5I6-I7, 558-g, 625.
Phoebidas, 475

J6'l

Phoenice, 156-7, 63o, 657.

Phoenicia, 593, 595
Phoetiae, 240, 473, 5I7-r8.
Phoxidas, 592, 614.
Phrixa, 529, 531.
Phrygia, Phrygians, 502, 6oo, 613,
622.
Phthia., wife of Demetrius II, 154,
157, 237, 24I, 2go, 6zi (named
Chryseis).
Phthiotic Achaea., 24I, 249, 472, 626.
Thebes, 626-8.
Phthiotis, 241, 472, 627.
Phyla.cia, battle of, 237.
Phylarchus, 2, 8, II, 13, 14, 44, 2I7,
246, 252, 257-8, 259-70 (criticized),
281, 285-7, zgo, 381, 728; source
of P., 27, 247-8, 260, 272-3, z8o,
28g, 457, 565-70.
Phyta.eum, 544-5
Phyxium, 6zs.
Picenum, 422, 448, 6gg.
Pieria, 516.
PillarsofHeracles,36g,371-2,394, 490.
pilum, 704-5.
Pindar and Theban medism, 478-g.
Pinnes, 156, 161, 164-5, 325.
Pisa (Italy), 177-8, 204, 377, 392, 406,
68o.
- (Elis), 526-7.
Pisaurum, 693.
Pisidia, 598, 60I, 604.
Pissaeum, 632.
Pithom stele, 587, 6II-I3, 615.
Placentia, zo8, 2II, 374, 386, 393,
397, 401-2, 406-8, 68o.
Plane tree Pass, 594
Plataea, 479
Plato, 2, 466, 638, 650, 726; A lc.ibiades maio:r, 2 n. II; Republic, 733
Pleiades, rising of, 97, 258,455.485-6,
s38.
setting
390.
Pleuratus,
Pleuron, 52I.
Po, R., I78-8o, 208, 365, 370-I,
375-7,386,389,391, 4oo,4Io, 524,

s6r.

Polemocles of Rhodes, 507.

Polichna, 485.
Polyaratus, 657.
Polybius, life and journeys, r-6,
393-4, 395; On lhe habitability of the
Equatorial Region, 6; Tactics, 2,
6oi; Life of Philopoemen, 2 n. 2,
II, 227, 273, 282-3; carries Philopoemen's ashes, 2; designated
ambassador to Egypt, 3; hipparch
of Achaean Confederation, 3:
exiled to Italy, 3; visits Epizephyrian Locri, 4; visits Cisalpine
Gaul, I 73; perhaps at Rhodes, 5;

GENERAL
Polybius (cont.)
visits New Carthage, 6, 167, 395;
death o(, 6; views on history, 6-16,
39, 45, 66, 92, 2I6, 259-70, 358-61,
562, 6or ; attitude towards Boeotia,
I 3; use of speeches, I 3-14, 42, 261.
6zg; attitude to Tvche, 16-26;
system of chronologj;, 35-37, 4647, 49-50, 103, 190, 233-4, 235;
criticizes Roman behaviour, 97,
130, 145, 192-3, 356, 647, 664;
comparison vdth Herodotus and
Thucydides, 129; views on inter~
national law, 136,264, 455; attacks
Academics, 145; on Roman education, I45, 664; on the qualities of
a general, 146-7. prejudice against
Aetolia, 12, 154, 237, 246, 45I~3.
532, 561, 6ro, 6z6; didacticism,
158, 2II; democracy in, 221-2;
views on tyrannicide, 263, 265-.6;
callousness of, 266; journeys in
west, 4, 5, I6J, I 73. 293. zg6, 393;
meets Masinissa, 4, 393. 395;
crosses Alps, 4, 382, 395; released
from internment, 4; with Scipio at
Carthage, 5, 302, 393 ; perhaps
visits Lilybaeum, 105; in Corinth,
5; mediates between Rome and
Achaea, 5, 294, 393; honours paid
to him in Greece, 5; visits Alexandria, 5, 586; visits Sardes, 5. 296;
use of proverbs, 294, 464; and
Seleuceia, 586 ; on the lotus, 297;
on the Roman constitution, 298,
635-6; utilitarian view of knowledge, 301-2; stress on autopsy,
302; view of causality, 305-.6, 309,
358-61, 46r; on Punic treaties,
336-56; on divisions of the oecumem?., 367-71 ; on the need for
geographical precision, 556-7; on
music, 465-9; prejudice against
Sparta, 4 7 5-6; on war and other
evils, 478; polemic against authors
of epitomes, 562-4; hostility towards Crete, 724, ]:~6-33; on
Roman religion, 741-2.
Histories, theme of, 40; organic
character of, 43, 45. 297; greatness
of theme, 21 I, 298; composition
and publication, 215-16, 217, 2927, 336, 358, 525-6, 635-.6, 674-5;
purpose of, 301-2; use of medical
metaphors, 309; place of geographical information in, 393-5;
continues Aratus' 1'r1 emoirs, 450;
insertions in, 475-6, 4]8, 525;
structure of book vi, 635-6.
sources usec1 by, 26-35, 64-65,
I30-r, 151-2, 153, 165, r67, 184,
214, 223, 239, 245, Z47, Z50, 254,

ZJO, 314, 316, 325, 327, 334, 376,

423, 429, 430, 433-4, 440-I, 455,
476. 480, 486-J, 488, 499. 500, 506,
507-8, 5II, 515, 516, 54I, 561,
565-g, 570, 574, 577, 612-13, 615r6, 623, 64o-1, 668.
see Iulius, C., Polybius.
Polycrateia of Argos, 589.
Polycrates of Argos, 589.
Polyenctus, Athenian archon, 483.
Polyidon, 468.
Polyrrhenia, 508, 51 o-n.
Polysperchon (Aetolian), 529.
Pompeii, 425.
Pompey, Trophies of, 373
Pompilius, Numa, 666-8, 672-3.
Pomponius, Sex. (legatus 218), 396.
- M., Matho (praetor 217), 420.
pontifex maximus, tabula of, 665-6.
pontifices, P.'s account of, 664.
Pontus, 35, 486-g6, 512, 573-4 (royal
genealogy).
Popillius, C., Laenas {cos. 172), z17,
68r.
Porcius, M., Cato, 4 152, IJI, 313,
333. 336. 375. 641, 648. 662-3, 668,
6]1, 697; Origines, 29, 3I, rso. 305,
332; speech on the Rhodians, 31;
imago of, 738.
1\L, Cato (praetor elect c. 152), 720.
Porphyreon, 594
Poseidon, sanctuary of, at Taenarum,
483.
Poseidonius of Apamea, 43, 51, 330,
394. 466, 492
- source for Macedonian affairs, 30,
361.
Postumius, A., Albinus (cos. 242), 12~.
-A .. Albinus (cos. 179), 692.
A., Albinus (cos. 151), 29, 305, 333
L., Albinus (cos. 229), 36, I6I,
164-5 435. 448, 449
- Sp., Albinus (cos. 321), 312.
- L., :.V!cgellus (cos. 305). 689.
- L., Megellus {cos. 262), 70.
Potentia, 693.
praefecti socium, 709.
Praeneste, 48, 348, 68).
praetor, controls civil jurisdiction,

675
Pra.Bttttlianus, Had~ianus, ager, 422-3.
Prasiae, 485, 556.
Praxo of Delphi, 34
prognostication, a feature of book vi,
63~. 649. 658-<).
Pronni, 540.
Propontis, 487, 490, 504.
Protagoras, 639, 643.
Proteus of Memphis, 346.
prouocatio, 675. 677, 682, 690.
proverbs, use by P., 294, 464, 469,
476, 505-.6, 549. 562, 624, 654 673

763

INDEXES
Prusias I, 298-3oo, 5oo, 505-6, 621.
II, ZI, 25, 145 303-4 517.
Prytanis, Peripatetic philosopher,
624.
Psophis, 455. 458-9, 523-5, 528.
Fteleum, 306.
Ptolemaeus, son of Thraseas, 450,
592, 613.
- Macedonian, 552, 558-g.
Ptolemais, 486, 561, 587-8.
Ptolemy I Soter, 51, 129, 229, 565,
592.
II Philadclphus, 245, 505, 518,
565. 593. 595
- III Euergctes, 229, 245, 250, 266,
270, 272, 291, 564-5. 567. 572, 585,
593, 613, 619, 631.
-IV Philopator, 30, 43, 291, 298-9,
451. 477 486, 502, 538, 5645, 567.
572, 584, 587. s89-92 (forces at
Raphia), 6o1, 607, 6ro-r6, 631.
V Epiphanes, 3, 20, 24, 299.
VI Philometor, 304.
VII Euergctes II (Physcon). 5
30 n. 13.
- Ceraunus, 223; date of death,
49-51, 229.
of Megalopolis, 9 n. 5, 30, 44, 260,
566, 568.
Publilius, Q., Philo (cos. 339), 688.
Punica fides, 412.
Punic \Var, First, 63-130, 158, 431,
563, 681, 699, 700, 704; causes,
57-58, 6o-6r; outbreak, 61-63;
importance, 64, I 27-9; n urn bers
engaged, 128.
Second, 58, 291, 298-9, 325, 636,
674, 679, 681, 691-2, 702-4, 715,
736; causes of, 132, 171, 215, zg8,
31o--14, 358; importance, 43-44:
writers on, 563.
Third, 304, 337
Puteoli, 425-6, 693.
Pydna, battle of, 217, 275, 304, 620-I.
Pylos, 453, 463, 465, 472.
Pyrenees, 371, 372 (Hannibal's route},
374
Pyrgus, 531, 533
Pyrrhias, Aetolian, 561, 622.
Pyrrhus of Epirus, 46, 49-54, 58, 75,
79. 156, 158, 233. 239, 240 (treaty
with Acarnania}, 265, 280, 338,
349-50, 702.
camp of (Laconia), 555
Pythagoras, 66fr--7.
Pythagoreans in South Italy, 27-28,
222-4
views, 640, 66r, 741.
Pytheas, 35, 370, 394, 491.
Pythiades, Seleucid governor, 578.

quaestiones, 679, 6go, 6<)6.

quaestores classici, 74
quaestors, 677-8.
Quinctius, T., Flamininus, 13, 22, 32,
714.
Rabbat Ammon, 597
raisin wine, drunk by women, 671-2.
Raphia, battle of, 476, 567, 570, 587,
589-92, 607 (Ptolemy's forces),
607-9 (Antiochus' forces), 6ro--15,
629, 63r.
religion, political exploitation of,
741-2.
Rhegium, 48, 52-55, 57, 6z, 75, ro8,
355. 396, 403, 406, 479
(near Byzantium), 506.
Rhianus, 480.
Rhinocolura, 6ro.
Rhium, 458-9, 517 (strait), 520, 561,
6zg.
Rhizon, 153, 164.
Rhodes, 21 n. 6, 30, 58, 294, 298-300,
465, 485. 500, 504, 506-7, 509,
5II-1z, 6or, 628, 697; earthquake
and gifts, 6r6-zz; colossus, 617,
619; documents in prytaneum, 31,
500, 506, 512; perhaps visited by
P., 5
Rhone, R., rn-s. 194. 371, 373.
377-81, 387-9, 415; site of Hannibal's crossing, 378.
Rhynchus, 746.
Rhypes, 230.
Roebuck, C. A., quoted, 623.
Rome, date of foundation, 665-9;
empire of, 40-42, 48-49; mistress
of oecumene, 41-42; imperialism,
43. 51-52, 72-]3, 129, 162, 191-2,
207, 298, 360-1, 636; support of
:Mamertini, 57-58, 6o-61; naval
policy, 72-75, 103, 123; numbers in
fleet: (260} 79, (257) 82, (256) 8285, (255) 95, (254) 98, (253) 99roo, (250) 101, 103, 107, (249)
rr4-I6, (242-I) 124-6; numbers
involved and losses in First Punic War, 128; forces in 225,
196-9; census lists, 202 ; fleet compared with Carthaginian, 736-7;
policy against Achaea, 4 75; and
Sparta, 4 78; and Ilium, 6o6; relations with the east, 629-30; oflicial
records, 32; criticized by P., 97,
130, 145; education criticized, 145;
institutions, 64, 70, 145; constitution, 635. 637, 649-50, 659, 673-97,
736, 7 43-5; compared with Spartan,
735-6; state compared 'With others,
724-43; division of powers, I 30;
P. on constitution, 298, 449; em
bassies to Greece, 165-6; to Hamilcar, 168; policy in Spain, 168; and

GENERAL
Rome (cont.)
the Gallic Wars, 190-1; policy in
Illyria, 326-7, 463, 515; moral
qualities, r28; wages only just
wars, 159; importance of reputation at Rome, 737-41; funeral
customs, 737-40; use of religion,
741-2; situation hard for Greeks
to grasp, 638; military system, 636,
697-723; early history, 635, 66373; problem of Roman deterioration, 647-8, 743-5; example of
integrity, 746.
Romilly, J. de, quoted, 630.
Romulus, 652, 664-5. 667-8, 673.
Rubicon, R., frontier of Italy, 176,
296, 396--7.
Rupprecht, E., quoted, 349
Sabines, 196, 198, 200, 703.
Saguntum, 216, 305-6, 310, 319-24,
327-9. 331-j, 336, 357. 358, 361-2,
365, 396, 409, 476, 486,522; Roman
alliance with, 168, 170-2, 319.
Salamis, battle of (48o), 340; (3o6),
129.

Salapia, 442, 448, 746.

Salassi, 212.
Sallust, 144.
Salmydessus, 493.
Samicum, 529, 531.
Samnium, Samnites, 49, 187-8, 197,
200 I, 348, 354, 423-7, 442, 703-4,
746.
Samos, 565, 567.
Samothracc, 499
Samus, 547
Saporda, 598.
Sarapieum (Bosphorus), 489.
Sardes, 6os, 632; P. visits, 5, 296.
Sardinia, 73, 8o-8r, 196, 334ii, 341,
343. 346, 348-g, 355-6, 358. 408,
431, 691; Punic possessions in, 59;
revolt of mercenaries, 144, 146;
Roman annexation, 132, 149-51,
313-14, 334
Sardinian Sea, 59, 105.
Sarsinates, 196-8, 200.
Sasona, 438, 633.
Satrap, people of the, see Atropatene.
Saturn, temple of, 353
'Saw', battle of the, 147, 149.
Scarpheia, 473
Sccrdilaidas, 156-7, 326, 331, 463,
465, 472, 477. 557. 625, 632.
Schulte, A., quoted, 32 n. 3
Sdiulten, A., quoted, r67.
Schwartz, E., quoted, 727
Schweighaeuser, J ., quoted, 313, 466,
508, 547, 560, 6Ig, 718-19.
Sciritis, 24 7.
Scolacium, 693.

Scopas, 453, 457, 48b, 515-16, 540,

s6o-x.
scutum, 703-4
Scythia, 488.
Scythopolis, 596-7.
Segesta, 69, 79
Segre, M., quoted, 303.
Scleuceia-in-Pieria, 532, 570, 57'l. 5il5,
j86.
-on-the-Bridge (Zeugma), 573
-on-the-Tigris, 576, 582-3.
Seleucus l, 50, 229, 501, 5<i5, 574,
583, sss, 593
- II Callinicus, 291, jOI-:.!, 505, 512,
573, 6oo, 616, 6r8, 621.
- III Soter, 229, 291, 450, 501 2,
505, 564, 570, 6og.
of Babylon, 370.
Selge, 598-9.
Sellasia, 529; lmttle of, 227, 254,256,
270, 272-87, 289, 326, 453, 458,
461, 484-5. 523, 550, sss. 624.
Sempronius, C., Blacsus (cos. 253), 99
- Ti., Gracchus (cos. 238), 149.
Ti., Gracchus (tribune 133). H)3,
6gr.
Ti., Longus (cos. :uS), 374, 377,
393, 396, 402-6, 409, 538.
Sena, 175-6, I 78, r 8g, 396.
Senate, powers of, 678-81; checks on,
6go-z ; intervention in Italy, 679 ;
controls supplies, 688; controls
prorogatio, 688 ; and triumphs,
689; and equestrian contracts,
694-5; appointment of judges
from, 695-6.
Senones, 183, r88-g, 194, 2II, 397
Sentinum, battle of, 188.
Servilius, Cn., Caepio (cos. 253), 99
C., Geminus (IIIuir 218). 375
- Cn., Geminus (cos. 217), 409-11,
421-4, 435. 442, 446-8, 033
P., Geminus (cos. 252), roo-1, II9,
409.
Sestus, 6 n., 306, 498, 565.
Shearwater, H.J'vl.S., observations
made by, 490.
Sherwin-White, A. N., quoted, 201.
Shorey, P., on P.'s view of Tyche, 26.
Sicca Veneria, 133, 141.
Sicilian Sea, 105, 173-4. 517, 540.
Sicily, 196, 199, 202, 298-9, 350, 355,
377, 408, 431, 479, 691; Punic
possessions in, 6o, 341, 344-6, 349;
geography of, 104-5
Sicyon, 234-6, 245, 252-3, 457.
461-2, 523, .)61.
Side, 599-6oo.
Sidicini, 425.
Sidon, 565, 588, 592-5.
Siegfried, \V., quoted, 216.
signijeYi, 707.

INDEXES
Sitenus, rs, zS, 42, 305, 314, 316, 318,
323, 327, 333, 365, 367, 372, 380-1,
385, 399, 404, 4ro, 430.
Sinope, 30, 500, sn-r3, 616.
Sinuessa, 425, 693.
Sirius, rising of, g6, 179, 498.
Smyrna, 603, 607.
Social war, 291, 298, 451-86, 461
(name), 513-62, 622-30.
societates publicanorum, 693-4.
socii nauales, 75
Solon, 643; his constitution, 639-40.
Soluntum, 99, 344
Sonicus, 483.
Sopater, author of 'E~<Aoya.l, 228.
Sosibius, 564, 566-7, 569, 572, 588,
612-13, 628.
Sostratus, sculptor,
Sosylus, 9 n. r, rJ,
42, 305, 314,
317, 332-3, 367, 381, 430.
Soteria (of Prusias), 503.
Spain, 444, 446, 704 ; Punic possessions
in, 59; Hamitcar in, 151-3; Roman
policy in, r68, 324; H.oman conquest of, 298-g; Hasdrubal in, 310;
Carthaginian success in, zq, 316;
Hannibal in, 316-24, 362; Scipio
in, 375-7; mines, 683.
Sparta, Spartans, 307-8, 455, 457,
469, 483, 486, 522, 535. 541, 556-8,
657; after the Peloponnesian War,
19, 41; seizure of Cadmea, z8;
defeat at Leuctra, 226; refer disputes to Achaean arbitration, 226;
frontier problems in 338, 244; relations with Achaean Confederation, 221-2, 300, 304, 478, sz6;
Cleomenes' coup, 245-6; at Sellasia,
278-86; taken by Doson, 288; and
Symmachy, 288, 4 70; and Aetolia,
463, 471, 477; courage of, 466
P.'s prejudice against, 475-6;
Argos, 485; and Lyttus, sro; invaded by Philip, 553; mercenaries,
568; and Selge, 598; Plato on constitution, 640; Aristotle on constitution, 640; constitution compared
with that of H.ome, 659-63, 724;
with that of Crete, 726-32; landtenure, 728-3r; money at, 735;
contempt for money-making, 731 ;
position of kings andgerousia, 73I2; constitution criticized, 734-5
Spendius, r8, 135-6, 139, 142, 144,
146, 424.
Spoletium, 421-2.
Stahlin, F., quoted, 628.
Stertinius, L., legatus, 68r.
Stoics, Stoic doctrine, 21, 121, 145,
155, 216, 220, 287, 295-6, 301-2,
309, 413, 466, 477. 491-2, 641,
644-5. 651-4, 658.

766

Strabo continues P., 43

Strachan-Davidson, J. L., quoted,
212-13, 343 474
Stratius of Tritaea, 35 n. 5
- doctor of Eumenes, 34
Strata of Lampsacus, 2, 486, 490-4.
source for Macedonian affairs, 30,
36I.
Stratonicaea, 6os.
Stratus, 240, 473. 517, 543-4, 746.
(Arcadia), 525.
Stylangium, 531.
Stymphalus, 259, 523.
Suessetani, 410.
Sulpicius, P., Galba Maximus (cos.
2II), 315.
C., Paterculus (cos. 258), 81.
Susiane, 571, 575, 578.
swords, Celtic, character of, 206, zog,
445 (compared with Spanish).
Sybaris, 224-5.
Symmachy of Antigonus Doson, 216,
256 (foundation), 274-5, 288, 291,
326, 451, 453-4. 457. 461-3, 465,
470-3, 477. 504, 510, 535-6, 63I.
synchronisms, 46, 229, 236, 291, 450,
476, 485, szz, 538, s83, 6z8,

syncriseis, 40, 293, 549, "636, 736-7.

Syphax, 364.
Syracuse, 52, 57, 6o, 62, 66, 69, II7,
zgS, 702.
Syrians, 613.
Syrian \Var, Second, 565.
Third, sss.
Fourth, 291, 298, 570, 585-97
- Fifth, 612.
-between H.ome and Antioch us,
299. 309.
Taenarum, 483, 555, 568.
Tagus, battle of the, 318.
Tanagra, 506.
Tanais, R., 368-g.
Tanaquil, 673.
Tapyri, 574--5.
Tarchon, Etruscan hero, 673.
Tarentines (cavalry), 529.
Tarentum, 36, 49-50, 52, 74-75, 196,
199, 202, 226, 348, 354, 408, 423,
448. 640, 679
Tarn, W. \V., quoted, 87-88, r6o, 472,
572Tarquinii, 348, 683, 706.
Tarquinius, L., Collatinus (cos. 509),
339
L., Priscus, 145, 340, 655. 664,
666-8, 672-3.
- L., Superbus, 664. 666-8, 672-3.
Tarracina, 344, +29Tarraco, 409.
Taurasia (Turin), 386, 392, 395-6.

GENERAL
Taurini (Taurisci), 177, 182, 212, 383,
385-6, 395
Taurion, 290, 326, 454, 457, 459--60,
463, 507, 533. 536, 624.
Tauromenium, 68-69.
Teanum, 425-7, 429, 432.
Tectosages, 51, 499
Tegea, 242-5, 252, 255, 257, 265, 271,
289, 470, 552-3, 625; honours to
P., 5 n. 8.
Teichos, on Achaeo-Elean border,
sq. 536.
Telamon, battle of, 204-6.
Telesia, 424.
Telmessus, 300, 6og.
Telphusa, 257, 455, 5!4, 525, 529.
Temnus, 6o3-4.
temples, inviolability of, 517, 546-7.
Ten Thousand, march ofthe, 306, 308.
Teos, 603-4.
Terentius, C., Varro (cos. 216), 193,
435. 437-8. 440, 442-4, 448.
Termessus, 598.
Tcuta, 156, 158-9, 163-5. 324-5. 463.
Thalamae, 527.
Thasos, 681.
Thearces, 259.
Thearidas, father of Lycortas, 228,
258-g.
brother of P., 228.
Thebes, 307, 470, 478-9, 548, 560-r,
724; constitution, 726; employs
Achaean arbitration, 226.
theft, penalty for, 263.
Theiler, W., quoted, 644.
Themison, 6o9, 614.
Themistocles of Athens, 725.
- Achaeus' general, 6os.
Theodotus Hemiolius,
574.
586, 595, 6o8, 6II-I2,
Theodotus, Ptolemaic governor, 486,
564, 570, 578, 587, 6ro.
Theophrastus, 39, 486, 492, 641.
Theopompus, 2, II, 28, 39, 41, 43,
260, 480.
Theramenes, 497
Thermae (of Himera), So, ror.
Thermopylae, 253, 299, 522.
Thermum, 154, 453, 474, 542--6, 746.
Thersitae, 362.
Therycion, 287.
Thespiae, 522.
Thessaliotis, 241, 472, 627.
Thessaly, Thessalians, 249, 256 (Symmachy), 426, 472-3, 596.
Thestia (Thestiae), 543
Thiel, J. H., quoted, 78, rq, 431.
Thrace, Thracian~. 487, 498-g, 505,
521, 545, 565, 59o-r, 6oo, 607-8,
614, 681.
Thrasymachus, 652.
Thronium, 473

Thucydides, 15, 129, 305 (idea of

causality). 379
Thurii, 49, 224-6, 679.
Thyreatis, 485.
Thyrrheum, 155. 454
Tiboetes, 504-5.
Tibur, 48, 348, 424, 683.
Ticinus, R., 397, 400, 402, 424, 442-3,
443; battle of, 399
tides in the Mediterranean, 100.
Tifernus, Mons, 433
Timaeus, 2, 10 n. 4. r 1, 13-14, 33,
43 46. 53-54 56. 144 179--82, 213,
223-4, 259-60, 332, 381, 394, 466,
669; source of P., 27-28, 46-48, 56,
144, 223; originates 'olympiad
year' chronology, 35, 46.
of Aetolia, 483.
Timagenes, sr, 175, 260.
Timocharis, 505.
timocracy, 643.
Timoleon, 46, 55
Timosthenes, 363.
Timotheus of Miletus, 467-8.
Timoxenus, 252, 254-6, 272, 454, 535,
630.
Tiribazus, 47
Tisamenus, 229, 450.
Tithorea, 471.
Tithronium, 471.
Tolistoagii, 51, 499
Torboletae, 323.
'tragic' history, 8 n. 9, q-r6, 40, 45,
65, 180, 183, 259-60, 262-3, 476,
742.
Tralles, 6os.
Trapezus, 307.
(Arcadia), 48r.
Trasimene, L., battle of, 193, 205,
208, 408, 412-13 (date), 414-21,
424, 476. 628-9.
treaties between Rome and Carthage,
7. 32, 57-59. 293. 3!5, 336-56Trebia, R., 397; battle of, 328, 399-408, 424, 701, 709, 715; numbers
engaged, 404-6.
Trench, battle of the (Great), 48r.
Treves, P., quoted, 204.
ttiarii, 85, 209, 702, 723.
Triballi, 498.
tribunes, military, 677, 698-701, 706,
712, 719.
of the plebs, 646, 676, 69o-2.
tribunician prosecutions, procedure
in, 682.
Tricastini, 383, 385.
Trichonium, 543-5.
Trieres, 594-5.
Trigorii, 383, 385.
Triphylia, 237, 527-33.
Tripolis, Punic possessions in, 59
triremes, 73-74, 129.

INDEXES
Tritaea, 231, 233, 455, 462, 5I4, 624.
Triteuta, 156, I6I, I64, 325.
Tritymallus, 258.
triumphs, 689.
Trocmi, 51, 499
236, 252, 623.
Troy,
of fall, 668.
truth in history, ro-I6.
Tullius, Servius, 664, 667-8.
Tunis,
134, 139, 143-4. 148.
tunnies,
the Bosphorus, 497
Turdctani, 152. 323.
Tusculum, 344
Tyche, 7 n. 4, 9, II n. 8, 14, 16-26,
43-45. 48, 04-65, 93. !21-2, 129,
147, 155, 190, ZII-I2, 217, 22I,
229, 289, 295, 36o, 397, 414, 448,
450, 534-5, s6r, 7z5.
Tychon, archigrammateus, 583.
Tylis, 499, 603.
Tvndaris, C., battle of, 82, 99
Typaneae, 529, 531-2.
tyranny, 549, 635, 638, 641-3, 646,
648-9, 655-6.
Tyre, 347, 486, 588, 593, 595
Tyrtaeus, 48o.

Venusia (in Apulia), 448.

(in Samniumf, 424.
Vestini, 197, 201.
Viae, Acmilia, 212; Appia, 346, 427;
nomitia, 371 ; Flaminia, ZI2, 414,
424; Lati-rm, 427, 429; Popillia,
425.
Vibellius, Decius, 53
Vibinum, 423.
Villius, P., Tappulus (cos. 199), 315.
Vocontii, 383, 385.
Volcae, 378.
Volci, 673.
Volsd, 244.
Volturnus, R., 427-9; wind, 438.
Vouksan, D., quoted, 164.

uectigalia, 693.
uetites, 9~. 7or-z, 718.

L'ruk-Orchi, 579
Utica, 59, 136, 139-43, 146, 148-9,
347

Xanthippus, mercenary captain, 22,

89, 91-94. 143
Xenion, 727.
Xenoetas, 576.
Xenon of Hermione, 238.
- Seleucid general, 571-2, 574
Xenophantus, 505.
Xenophon, 2 n. n, 43. 306-7, 726-7.
-Hannibal-historian, 28-29, 42.
Xerxes, 340, 478, 674.

Vaccaei, 303, 31 7
Vadimo, L., battle of, r8, 189-90, 346.
Valerius, P., Falto (cos. 238), 191.
- Q., Falto (cos. 239). 124.
- L., Flaccus (cos. 261), 73
- P., Flaccus (cos. 227),
- M'., Maximus Messana
263),
66-69.
- L., Potitus (cos. 449), 674.
-- P., Publicola (cos. 509), 339-40.
Vallois, R, quoted, 620.
van Effenterre, H., quoted, soB, 510.
Veii, 7oo.
Veith, G., quoted, 703, 705, 707.
Velia, see Elea.
Venafrum, 427.
Veneti, 183, 185, 195-7. 2or.
Venus Erycina, 423.

Zabdibelus, 6og.
Zacynthus, 319, 541, 629; source on,
34
Zagrus, Mt., 574-5
Zama, battle of, 3o6.
Zarax, 485.
Zeno of Rhodes, g, I r, 30-3 I
z6o,
295, 500,507, 511-12, 570,
6r6.
- the Stoic, 477
Zeus Coryphaeus, 586; Homarios,
shrine of, see Homarion; Lecheatas,
worshipped at Alipheira, 531;
worshipped at SeJge, 6or.
Zeuxis, son of Cynagus, 576.
Ziaelas, 500, 504-5
Ziegler, K., quoted, 4 n., 14, 32 n. 5,
105, 665.
Zippel, G., quoted, 330.

Ugernum, 371, 373

Umbrians, 178, 184, 196-8, 200, 426,
746.
universal history, 9, 43-44, 216, 315,
62()--JO.

war, P.'s views on, 478, 527, 549

Welles, C. B., quoted, 501.
Wilamowitz-:Nioellendorff, t:". von,
quoted, 506, 645
Wilmot, Chester, quoted, 26.
winter campaigning, 522.
Woodhouse, W. J., quoted, 519.
Wunderer, C., quoted, 484, 53940.

II. AUTHORS AND PASSAGES

The figures in larger type indicate the pages of this book
Aelian, Tact. 31. 4, 611.
Aeschines, Ctes. 6, 639.
Tim. 4, 639.
Agathemerus, 3 10, 488.
Alcmaeon, Diels, FVS, i. 24, B 2,
744.
Anaximander, Diels, FVS, i. 12,
B I, 645.
Andocides, de myst. g6-97, 263.
Anth. Pal. vi. I]I, 617; vii. r6g, 497;
]23, 556.
Antiphon, Diels, FVS, ii. 87, B 15,659.
Apollodorus, Poliorc. 145. 6 ff., 541.
Appian, Hisp. ], 356.
Ill. 8, 331.
Syr. 32, 613.
Arist., Ath. Pol. 8. 3, 733.
Eth. Meg. i. 4 ug4 a 28, 661.
Eth. Nic. i. 7 10g8 b ], 563; v. 5
II30 b 3I, 655; 6. II3I a 24,
655; 8. !132 b 21, 661; viii. IO.
n6o a 31 ff., 642; ro. n6o b 10
ff., 643.
:Meteor. i. 14. 351 a rg ff., 486; 14.
352 b I], 492; 14. 353 a I ff.,
491-2; ii. r. 353 a 32 ff., 486;
r. 354 a r 2 ff., 490.
Poet. 7 4 1450 b 35 ff., 45; g. r.
I451 a 37, 262.
Pol. i. 2. 8 ff. 1252 b 27 ff., 651,
653; ii. 2. 1261 a 30, 661; 6.
1265 b 33 f., 640-1; 8. 1267 b 22
ff., 639; g. 1270 a r6 ff., 728-9;
g. 12]0 b 4 730; 10. 12]1 b 2012]2 b 23, 510, 726; II. I2]2 b
24 ff., 724, 735; r r. 1273 a ~~- ff.,
642; 12. I273 b 35 ff., 639; m. 3
4-5. 1276 a, 220; 6. 1278 b 17 :ff.,
651; 7. I27g a 22 ff., 642; 14.
1285 a 24-29, 642; 14. I285 b 7.
655; I5. 1286 b 8 ff., 643; v
(viii). 5 24. 1340 b, 466; vi (iv).
8. 12g3 b 33 ff., 640; 8. 12g4 a 10,
653; g. 1294 b 13 ff., 675; II.
r2g6 a 36 ff., 640; 12. 12g7 a 6 f.,
660; 14. 2. ug8 a, 219; vii (v).
3. 1302 b 33 ff., 660; 4 1304 a
38 fl., 660; 7 1307 a 5 ff., 660;
8. 1308 a 25 ff., 661; 8. 1308 b
10 ff., 660; 10. 1310 b 38, 655;
IO. 1312 b 38 ff., 744; I I. 1314 b
23, 643; 12. IJI6 a I fl., 229,
643, 656.
[Arist.], Oecon. ii. 2. 3 1346 b, 500.
Problem. 14 r. gog a, 465-6; 26. I 3
g4I b, 97.

3D

Arrian, Bithyn. fg.

Peripl. M. Eux.
37. 489.
Athenaeus, vi. 63,
xiv. 2g, 468.
[Aurelius Victor],
3. 665.

35, 497.
I], 489; 25, 489;
473; x. 440, 671;

Orig. gent. rom. 5

Caesar, BC, i. 3 2, 714; 41. 2, 723;

iii. g2. s. 92.
BG, i. 4g. I, 723; 51. I, 723; vi. I2.
2 1 184; I]. 2, 208.
Callimachus, Aetia, iv. IO] Pfeiffer,
740.
fg. 384. 567; fg. 541, 670.
Catullus, 66, 567; g5, 180.
Celsus, de med. v. 28. 3, 145.
Chronicon Paschale, i. 331 Bonn, 616.
Cicero, de div. i. 77, 410.
de leg. iii. 7. 678; g, 422; 33, 687.
de or. ii. 36, 39; 52, 665.
de re pub. i. 33, 301; 34, 644; 38,
653; 3g. 651 ; 44 659; 45 660;
54 653; 68, 657; ii. I, 663; 2,
662;4,652;r],666;zr,297,663;
27, 666; 28-2g, 666, 668; 30,
129; 33. 666; 34-35. 549, 672;
J6, 666; 42, 660; 48, 265-6; 52,
666-8; 56, 675; 57. 661; s8,
676; iii. 53, 667; iv. 3, 145, 664;
6, 671.
fam. v. 12. 4, 43; viii. 8. 6 (Caelius),
691; xiii. II. I, 678.
fin. ii. 45, 654; iii. 21, 653; 62, 652,
653; iv. 7g, 641.
off. i. u-12, 653:-:4; 22, 301; ~~
651; 107, 654; n. 78-83, 658; m.
4, 31 n. 2; 12-13, 654; 32, 266;
34. 654.
Phil. ii. 82, 686 n.
pro A. Caec. roo, 682-3.
Vat. 36, 678.
2 Verr. v. 36, 739.
Critias, Diels, FVS, ii. 88, B 25, 741.
Curtius, vi. 4 r8, 493; viii. 6. 6, 611.
Demosthenes, ix. 23, 226; 50, 522;
xviii. I 8, 226; 43, 548; go, 506;
gr, 619.
Dio, fg. 48, 168; fg. 4g. 7 165.
Diodorus, i. 1-3, 39; 8. I-2, 651 ; 30.
4. 610; 4g. 5, 96; iv. 4g. I-2,
489; v. 47 3-4, 490; vii. 5, 668;
xi. 26. 6, 547; XV. 20. 2, 475-6;
8g. 1-2, 482; xvi. I. 1-2, 562;

]69

INDEXES
Diodorus (cont.)
xix. 6r. 3, 472; xxiii. 15. r-6,
93-94; 2I, 102; xxvi. 8, 617;
xxxiv-xxxv. 2. 47, 742; 3, 551.
Diogenes Laertius, i. 59, 559-60; vii.
I31, 641; X. J44, 654.
Dionysius of Byzantium (ed. Gungerich), p. 2. 6-8, 493; Io, 489;
II, 489; p. 3 4 489; 5 f., 496-7;
pp.2I.8-23.8,496;p. 30.3,504;
. p. 33 6-IS, 497: p. 34 I-g, 496.
Dwnysms of Ha1icarnassus, Ant.
Rom. i. 31. 3-32. 1, 664; 74 3,
665; ii. 2j. 6, 671; iii. 44 4. 672;
47 I, 673; v. 43 2, 740; vi. 65,
67 5; X. I 8, 701; xi. 43, 701.
Ep. ad Pomp. ii. 237. IO ff., 562.
de Thucyd. IO, 562.
Empedocles, Diels, FVS, i. 3I, B 26. 7,
659; B 8I, 659; B 95, 659; B
121, 659.
Ennius, A. I44-5, 672; 50I-z, 669.
Eudcmus, fg. 52, 492.
Euripides, Or. 667, 469.
Suppl. 86o, 547; II96, 469.
Troad. 400, 478.
fg. 420 Nauck, 559.
Eusebius, Chron. i. 25I Sch., 501.
Eustathius, ad Iliad. iii. 222 (p. 408.
4), 506; xix. I6o (p. I243), 671.
Festus, p. 228, 739; p. 298, 718.
Florus, i. I8. 3, 60.
Frontinus, Strat. i. 2. 7. 190; ii. r.
~21, 72; 3 I, 409; iii. 16. 3, 73;
IV. I. 19, 73; ] 9, 430.
Gellius, ii. 28. 6, 665; v. 6. I6, 721;
x. 23. I, 671; xvi. 4 2, 716; 4
3-4, 708; xviii. 2, 122.
Geminus, I6. I2, 6; I], 96.
Heracleides Lembus, Pol. 2. 7
( = Rose, Arist. fg. 6Ir. 12), 729.
Heraclit., All. 9, 522.
Herodian, ii. II. 8, 390; iv. 2. g, 467,
658; 2. I9, 739.
Herodotus, i. 65, 734; 96. 2, 655; ii.
179, 342; iii. So ff., 637-8, 642,
745; iv. 85, 488; v. 52. I, 528;
66. I, 637; ]8, 637.
Hesiod, Op. 40, 562, 673.
fg. 77 Rzach, 539.
Homer, Iliad, ii. 362, 155; xxii. 304-5
569.

Odyssey, x. 232, 258, 430; xi.

582 ff., 498.
Hyginus grom., de lim. canst., p. 169,
712.
Iamblichus, VP, I62, 562.

no

Ined. Vat. 4, 68.

Josephus, Ant. lud. viii. 56, 262; xii.
I36. 597; 336, 597; 345. 597;
350, 597.
Bell. lud. ii. 252, 597.
Isidore, Etym. ix. 3 42, 716; xiv. 8.
I8, 390.
!socrates, Antid. 268, 639.
Panath. IIg, 639; I32, 639.
Panegyr. I56, 517.
Iustinus, vi. 6. 5, 47; xxviii. 4 2, 285.
Judges, x. 5. 596.
Juvena1, 8. 2-3, 738; 14 270-I, 671.
Livy, praef. Io, 267; i. 4 9, 652; I9. 4,
742; 33 9. 672; 34 I, 672-3; 43
I2, 684; 11. IO. II, 740; iii. 20. ],
677; ]0. I, 711; viii. 23. II-IZ,
688; xxi. 2. 4. 329; 2. 5, 214;
2. ], 316; 5 3, 316; 5 8-I6,
318-19; 7 2, 319; 0. 8, 354;
I95 357; 25-9. 375;2]-9,379;
29-~ 379;31.2,380; 3I4 387;
31. s-6. 388: 31. 8, 388: 3 ~. 9 ff.,
383; 32. 5. 392; 32. 6, 389; 32. 9.
389; 33 II, 389; 34 4, 390; 35
6,390;j6.I-376,391;38.I,391;
38. 5. 383; 40-44. 397; 46. s.
399; 47 ]-8, 400-1; 48. 4 402;
51.6-7, 396; xxii. 2. 2, 413; 2. 7,
413; 3 6, 414; 4 I, 414; 4 3,
419; 7 2, 419; I3. 6, 427; I4. I,
429; I5. 2, 430; I5. I2, 429;
Ig. 5, 431; 22. 9-IO, 423; 25. 10,
434; 32. 2, 433; 36. 3. 441; 45 2,
443; 47 2, 441; 6I. I2, 448
xxiv. I8. 13, 692; xxvi. 4 4, 702;
22. 4, 742; 24. 8, 350; 31. II.
699; xxvii. 29. g, 518; xxviii. 7
I8, 518; xxix. 20. 4, 680; xxx.
15. II, 721; xxxi. 30. 2-3, 549;
xxxiii. 36. 5, 709; xxxiv. I3. 7,
356; 28. 2, 557; XXXV. 34
2, 454; xxxvii. 40. II, 613;
xxxix. 31. ], 721; 44 7 678; xi.
I g. II, 741; xli. 2. II, 714; xlii.
51. 4, 558; xliii. I6. 6-7, 695;
x!iv. 7 3. 516; xlv. I5. 9. 678;
I8. 8, 693; ep. q, 354; I6, 60.
I Mace. v. 46, 596.
2 Mace. iii. 5, 592; 24, 571; iv. 4, 592;
21, 592; xii. 27, 596.
3 Mace. i. I f., 615; 2-3, 610; vii. I,
564.
Macrobius, Sat. iii. 2. I], 665; vii. I2.
34-37. 496.
Naevi us, fg. 32 Mor., 68; fgg. 42-43
Mor., 94-95.

AUTHORS AND PASSAGES

[Ocellus Lucanus], zr. 4 ff., 650; :!I.

II, 650.
iv. 13. 7, 198 n.
Ovid,
vi. 767-8, 412.
Mot. xv. :z6:z, zg6 ff., 650; po ff.,
650.
Paul., epit. Fe.;ti, p. 61 L., 720; p. 8r,
352; p. 24.'> 665; p. 250, 701.
r;;.u~;<tuJ:a~, iv. 5- 8, 734; 6. z, 481; zz.
7,
. v. 20. 1, 670; vi. g. 3,
532; viii. z. 3, 480; 30. 8, 10;
38. 6, 47!}-80; x. 34- 3. 558.
Philo, ael. 111und. 20, 659--60; ro8-r:z,
644.
Philo Bybl., fg. :z. 5, 3H>.
Photius, Bibl. cod. 37, 69 c, 640; cod.
249. rs84 b, 644.
Pindar, fg. rog Bergk, 478.
Plato, Gorg. 4S3 D, 652; 484 IJ, 652.
llipp. mai. z85 D, 655.
Laws ii. 665 A, 467; iii. 676 B-e,
637-8; 677 .'..-C, 643, 650-l;
678 B, 651, (>80 B-68I .'.., 654-5;
684 D, 728; 690 B, 632; 691 B, 658;
691 c-693 E, 641; 692 A, 640; 692
D, 4 79; 693 D, 640; 697 A-B, 682;
698
479;70IB,642;iV.709
A ff.,
; 710 D, 643; 712 D-E,
640; V. 731 E, 66; vi. 733 C-D,
641; 753 E, 562.
Polit. 269
658; 291 D-E, 638,
642-3; 301 E, 652; 302 B ff.
638, 642.
322 A--B, 651, 654-5.
D, 638; ii. 354 B, 394;
369 B,
; 377 A, 484; iii. 414 A,
642; 417B, 549; iv. 44jC-D,
638, 643; ,-, 449 A, 643; 470 A-C,
549; 4 73 c--E, 10; viii. 543 D,
638; 544 C, 643, 726; 546 A, 647;
551 A, 656; 557 B, 642; 560 c,
642; 562 A, 656; 562 E, 642;
565 D, 480; 505 E, 657; ix. 580 B,
638; X. 608 E, 659; 609 A, 649.
Pliny, ep. v. 8. II, 39.
Pliny, Nat. hist. v. 78, 594; ro5, 584;
147, 598; vi. 48, 576; 120, 582;
131,580; 147 598. viii. rs8, 600;
ix. 51, 497; xiv. So, 671; 89, 671;
go, 671 ; xxii. 59, 584; xxxiv. 41,
617; XXXV. 6, 738.
Plutarch, Aratus, 9 6, 236; 1,5. 3, 567;
ZI. 2, 236; 24. 5, 236; 44- j, 255.
Cam. 10. I, 581.
Cat. mai. 19. 3, 648.
C. Gracch. 2. 5, 698.
Gleam. 6, 567; 12. 4, 606; 33 ff.,
565-9.
Dion, 37 5, 657.
Flam. 17. 5, 582.
Lye. I, 670; 5 9, 661; 8. 2, 728.
4866

Philop. 6, 282-3; 8, 218.

Pr<bl. r6. 7. 740.

Solon, 4, 658.
Ti. Gracch. 9 5. 42.
Camp.
et Num. 3 5, 671.
JJor.
E, 729; 265 B, 6il-2;
814
644; IOjO A, D, 658.
[Plutarch],
prou. Alex. 13, 564.
Polyaenus, ii. 2. 7, 500; viii. 50, 501.
Procopius, de bell. viii. 6. 27-28, 496.
Ptolemy, Alm. viii. 4, 96-97.
Geog. v. 3 4, 598; 5- 5, 598; 14. IO,
581; 17- 6, 581.
Tetr. 87, 658.

Res Gestae diui Aug1sti, r:::, 60.

Sallust, Hist. fg. iii. g8 :u. 433.
1 lg. 4- 5. 739-40.
Seneca, ep. 83. 5, 1:?2.
Servius, ad Aeu. i. 373, 665; iv. bz8,
59, 354.
64.1, 736; ,-iii. 51,
665; 6.p,
, X. I}, 3(}0; 179,
177.
SHA, Probus,
I, 721.
Silius Ita!icus,
452, 387.
Solon, 3 17 Diehl, 145.
Sosylus, FGH, 176 F I, 430-L
Stobaeus, i. 132, 640; 135--8, 640; ii.
7 26, 640; iv. r. I 38, 640, 662;
5 6r, 640; 31. 71, 650; 34- 71,
645, 744.
Strabo, i. 49, 4!)0; 50, 4!JO-l; 6o, 724;
ii. I08, 369; 125, 488; V. 2Ij,
491; 232, 672; 247. 212; 282,
497; vii. 310, 488 320, 497; 326,
t526; fg. 2, 583;
162; viii.
357, 528; 388
gr. 2306),
231, 624-5; ix. 433. 623 x. 463,
475; 481, 50\1, 728;
507-8.
514, 576: xii. 546, 513; 566, 504;
570, 598-9; 576, 504; xili. 593,
633; 631, 598; xiv. 652, 500,
620; 666, 598; xvi. 727, 578;
751, 5Sl, 5Su; 753. 577-8, 580;
755-6. 577~8.
Tacitus, Ann. iii. 5 6, 737; iY. 43 4,
288.
Germ. 7 3, 155.
Tertullian, Apol. 6. 4, 671.
Theocritus, ld. xv'i-xvii, 54.
Theophrastus, HP, ix. 7- 1, 577.
fg. 97 r fL Wimmer, 343.
Thucydides, i. 22. 4, 3~9; 8o. I, 4 78;
124. 2, 479; ii. 36. 4, 637;
I,
40; 64- 3. 645;
4. 205;
456, 631; iv.
629; v. 70,
467-8; I I j . 2,
; \'ii. 71,109;
viii. 68. 4, 630-1; 97- 2, 639.
Tragus, prol. 32, 300.

3D2

771

INDEXES
Val. Max. ii. r . .), 671; .-i. 3 g, 67l.
Varro, Ling. v. 87, 7l7; 88, 707; Sg,
702.
Vegetius, iii. 8, 716.
VeiL Pat. i, 13. 3, 644; ii. 15. 3, 200.
Virgil, A en. vii. 638 f., 703; viii. 54,
665; xi. 457, 180.
Eel. 7 IO, 468.
William of Tyrc, Hist. rer. transmarin. x. 5, 595.

772

Xenophon, A nab. iii. 4 33, 4 73.

Cyrop. viii. 1. 5-6, 87.
Hell. iii. 2. 22, 525; 2. 26, 526; vii.
.5 26-27, 482.
lYiem. iv. 6. 12, 642.
[Xenophon], Ath. Pol. i. 8, 63l.
Zeno, SVF, i. 262, 220.
Zonaras, vii. 19, 739; viii. 19, 163,
166; 25, 419; ix. I, 430.

III. INSCRIPTIONS AND PAPYRI

AA, 1933, 139, no. r, 506.
Acme, 1948, 38g-go, 621.
A]A, 1904, 170, 521; 1938, 246 f.,
II. 8---g, 559; 252, I. g, 559.
AJP, 1939, 452-8, 499.
Alii, r8g7, 139-47, 642; 1940, 47-56,
546.
llpx- J<f>., rgos, 58, no. 2, 623; rgr3,
43-46, nos. 173-4. 521; 1934-5,
II]-2J, 559.
BCH, 1892, 543-4. 552; 1905, 234-5.
589; rgr2, 230, 505: 1914, 454.
no. z, 587; rgrs .. 127, 587; r~3o,
245-{)2, 451; 1933, 516, 618;
1934, 291-8, 621; 1939, 133 f.,
499; 1940-r, 70-75. no. 5. 464;
rgso, 44, 290-l; 1954, 396, nos.
]-8, 231.
BAli, iii. 441, 621.
GIG, 1936, 506.
GIL,~- 2. 25, 76; 58~ 679; 5 88, 350;
60], 434; ]19, 396; ]Z5, 4 78; ii,
Snppl. lxxxiv, p. 967, 319; iii. r.
206, 595; vi. 2613, ISO; vii.
1002, 194; viii. 2]28, 194; x. Sog,
353; xiv. 4123, 340.
Clara Rhodos, 1938, rgo ff., 609; 1941,
25-38, 508.
CRAI, 1951, r6r-5, 373.
Dacia, 3-4, 1927-32, 400 ff., 487.
Daux, 692 ff., 615.
Dura-Perg. 2I I. 3, 580; 40 I. 2, 580.
E. and]., 94 a, 685.
'Ei\,\-qvtKa, 1934, I]] ff., 559.
FD, ii. 3 312, 240; iii. r. 519, 570;
iii. 2. 138, 50.
GDI, 1259, 599;2o4g,622;20]o, 623;
2139. 623; 3059. 500; 3750, 621.
Hellenica, 2, 1946, 154-5, 506; ],
1949, 5-ZZ, 451, 570, 579; 30-34,
504, 506.
Hesp., 1935, 525 ff., 624.
Holleaux, titudes, iii. 75-76, 589; 141,
587; iv. 14&-62, 621.
IC, i, Cnosos, 5 b, 618; ], 508, 5ll; 9,
732; Lyttos, 8, 509; ii, Eleutherna, 20, 281, 508, 583; Lisos,
1, 509; Phalasarna, 4 510; iii,
Hierapytna, r, 281, 583; 3 A,
500, 733; iv. I, 5-8, Io-II, J4,
618; 21, 540, 618; r62, 509; 167,
583; 481, 540.
IG, iv. 729, 511; IIII, 265; v. I. 213,
484; 88 5 , 642; I369-7o, 623;
1390, 623; 2. ro-15, 242; r6,
552; 293. 515; 299. 290; 344.
242; 345. iii, 218; 351-6, 523;

419, 452; vii. r88, 221; 507, 567;

3166, 567; ix. 2. 520, 618; xi. 4
596, ;jOO; 649, 567; ro64, 618;
rog~ 256; rrog, 571; rrrr, 451;
II7], 589; xii. I. 40, 505; 5 481,
594; 8gr, 581; 7 226, 45; suppl.
644, 540, 559; xiv. 951, 350;
986, 478.
i. 3]2, 620; ii. 554. 512; 68], 243;
774 265; 834. 238; 844 238;
1225, 239; 129~ 237; 130~ 631;
r6o4, 269; 1632, 74; 1668, 620;
!6]2, 620; 2313, 589; 2314. 589;
iv2 . 68, 454; 102, 620; 235, 620;
590 A, 553; ix2 I. 3, 239, 460,
r8, 483; 68, 550; 135, 465; r8o,
240.
TLS, 65, 76, 79; 2623, 194; 4913, 340.
Insch. llfag. 18, 470; 32, 472; 38,
624; 86, 581.
Insch. Perg. 5, 603.
Insch. Priene, 37 II. 65 ff., 512.
IPE, i. 32 B, 49, 618.
I-raq, 1954, 202, 50, 229.
JHS, r888, 254, no. II8, 589; 1946,
112, 547.
Loewy, Inschr. gr. Bildhauer, 109 f.,
no. 147. 300.
Mbn. miss. arch. perse, rg28, So-81,
no. 2, 583.
Mendel, Catalngue sculpt. mus. Constantinople, iii, no. 838, 506.
Michel, Recueil, 1386, 559.
Afnem., 1938, r r6, II8, 589.
OGIS, 54, 565, 578, 585; 79, 567; So,
567; go, 632; 93, 589; 219, 581;
222,475;223,472;224,501;228,
472; 229, 608; 230, 450, 592;
231, 564; 233. 291; 235. 576; 237.
450; 240, 451; 245. 586; 254.608;
z65, 603; 266, 134; 267, 503;
2]2, 502; 2]3, 503; 2]4. 503;
2]5,503; 2]6,503; 2]], 502-3;
278, 503; 279, 503; 280, 571;
283. 503; 730, 594; 746, 450;
747. 578; 751, 470.
Pelekides, 6, 559.
P. Enteux. 48, 592.
P. Graec. Haun. 6, ll. 28 ff., 564, 570.
P. Lille, 4, 590.
P. Lond. 23, 591.
P. Paris, 6z, ii, 7 f., 694.
P. Petr. ii. 32. 2 (a), 591; ii. 45 +iii.
144, 585; iii. IO, 608.
P. Val. = Mai, Class. auct. v. 352,
591.
REA, 1903, 223-8, 621.

773

INDEXES
REG, 18g8, 25o-1, 58!3; r8gg, 345,
587.
Rev. arch. 7 1886, 266, no. ; , 58!1;
4 1904, IO-II, 540; 3, 1934,
39 fL, 470, 552; 6, 1935, 29-68,
163, 552.
Rev. bibl., I904, 552, no. 4, 540.
Rev. phil., 1929, 127, :)06.
Riccobono, Fontes, i, no. 24, 694; no.
30, 680.
Riv. fil., 1932, 446, 300.
Robert, ii.t. anat., 39 f., 604.
s.-B. Heidelberg, 1920, 36~47 (P.
Frankfort, 7), 588.
Schwyzer, 631. 4 149.
SEG, ii. 580, 604; vii. IO, 583; 62,
5i9; 326, 587; ix. ]2, 617; xi.
338, 546.
Syll.Z, 832, 551!.
Syll. (= Syll.'), 122, 506; 18:z, 482;
260, 230; 354, 512; 363, .312;
390, 288; 398. 51; 40], 465;
133, 239, 518; 427, 57; 429.
:
434/5. 227, 288, 475: 459. 559;

774

472; 452: 485, 237; 490, 220,

242, 245; 493. 290, 512; 502,
484; 504, 238; 510, 265; jl 5 B,
483; 5I8, 256, 519, 248, 471;
523, 520; 525, 509; 528, 508,
511; 529, 536; 543. 476;
631; 559, 624; sBo, 506;
500: 584, 642 j88, .106--7: 591.

630; 6oo,
; 621, 513; 626,
259; 636, 465; 665, 221, 244,
247: 6]1, 615; 6]2, 615; 703,
468; 705 B, 470; 731, :!74; 736,
623; 826 G, 465.
Syria, 1942-3, 21-32, 5i9, 583.
TA}v!, ii. z66, 450.
Tod, IOI, 506; 145, 482.
UPZ, i. 16. 7, 132.
Welles, 6, 581; 15, 4i2; 20, J96; 23,
so:~. 31, 564; 36, 572; 41, 605;
48, 604; 63, 619; 64, 451; 8r,
475; 82, 475.
\Vile ken, Chrestomathie, no. r, 585;
no. 336, 590.

IV. GREEK
rl:ywuJ.,

()eparrwi, 536, 584, 595

IJupc&s, zo6, 445, 583.

dyopa{,
&,Ocala,

alTla, 298-9, 305--6, 461, 637.

&.vlp.ov ur&ats, II I ..
itvOpwrrot OVT<S, 155 358-9.

dvn1r&.8cta, 661 ..
T6, 661,
J.vT[l'TAota, 66o-r.
arrOOW<TtKTJ lUTop{a, 216, 297.
~rroiJ')pwii,alla<, 145, 658.
a,-;oaKUat, 133, 40<)- IO.
apx~, 298-9, 3056, 309, 315, 461, 512.
O:a.,.ovoos .,.6.\<flos, 131.
a..i,\wv, 4r5-r9, 575
aVTt'!T1TOVIioS',

(t~TOVofta, 472, 475~

avTorra8t::ta, IO.

'lvSol,

102.

luropE'iv, i(]Topta., 129, I75

KaiJijKoV, TO, 477, 654, 743

KQ.{itmav<n, 562.
Ka-rG. 8f.aw, 130.

Ka.,.&X\'1,\os, 36o.
fl{TDV 1 359-60,
K<IT<IGKli~ 1 136, 184, 209, 2I], 450.

K<ITd

Ka-rd

cf>Vcnv,

130.

K<J.Tif)'}'VaV, 55o-2.
Ka1'otKla.<, 6o4-5.
KclTO<Kot, 591.
KaXKT1)<;,

56.

">,"'p,oii~o:, 590-I

f3autALKOt rraiO<S, 536, 6II,

f3o~llapxos, I37
f3ovll<vTi)puw, 249-50.

KOLVTJ p']VTj,

452, 482.

Kopat, see coruus.

f3ovA~, 244, 475

fl<4l>.A'Iv;;, 134
1-'ova.pxla, w)~a.pxos, 642, 64&-9, 656, 66o,
SatflO"tov, nl, 17, 147
OatflovoJ3Acif3<w, 24.

675

ouifJcat<; 1 190.

QLf(pOTo<;, 588.
St</>allayyla. lmf),{\'1/lo:;, 28r.
Sdyp.a., 6o.

dp.6vota, 227, 234--5, 3o8.

~xA~,,

ol, 5o2,

6r5-16~

ofwvtov, 132,

lKKA']ala, 244
ll.wfkpta, 213, 236, 285, 472, 475, 478,

662.
lrrapxla, lrrapxos, 578.
br' dmr{oa, 447
.!myovfj:;, oi rijs, 591.
7r{yovot, 591-2.
irrtypa,P~,

154-5,

312,

l-rri 36pv, 447.

irrAocTol, 274, 458, 46J, 540, 553, 6r5,

624-5
lmp...\T)n}s, 533-4.
brtO"')flaalm, 96.
~ma7'aT1)>: 137, 534, 559, 579, 581, 586.
errta1'porp1), 142,
brwvviJ~KrJ, 149, 355
'EptJ3tav6s lt6>os, 426-7.
' Tjvlav, 447

i</>ooo>, 49-50, 499

JTap&Sotos, 14, 40.

JTapa.Aoyo>, 151.
rrapaarrov8<iv, 108.
r.a.p<yyuiiv, 143
rraTpws rroAtTela, 288-9, 483.
7Tplrrltot, 487
rrp<crrraaw6s, 142.
1TpLU7'0.ULS1

132,

7TTT<la, 147.
.,.{(]1'<<;, 161, J2I.

wAor~6pt:vot,

158.

rr6As, 137, 330, 395

rroAvrrpayl-'oav"' ro.
rrpayp.am, 'TU: ]3, }56, 267
'lTpayp.aTU<'I taTopw, 8 n. 6, 9-ro, 42,
3o5, 65o.
1Tpaywm><ot <1.v8pes, 7, 337
rrp<I}'flUTWV> 0 ~trl TiiJV, 571, 580,

775

INDEXES
1rp&ens, ss8.
1rpoalpws, rs8, 234, 3o8.
1rpoypat/>al, 294, zgS.
1TpOO<W~<:ptvetv,

674.

TrpoeKIUaeLS, 294 1 297, 637.

1TpoKa-raa~<w'>j, 44, r8r, 2IS-I7 1 36o,
633~4.

1rpov01a, 2I n. 8.
Trpotf>aats, 30S-{), 308---91 323, 461, SI2,
1rpu.rros </>lllos, reg.
1rVKvwaLs, 286--'].
porrd.s 1ho6va<, rz n.
pvata, 474. soB.

2.

at-rapxta, n6, 332, sSo.

atTO/L1'p{a, I32 1 I34-S
atTWVtOv 1 IJ2 1 !34
a1ripa, 541.
OTpa-r't)yla, a-rpa-r"'y&s, 6r, ro1, 137, 152.
aUy!<l\1)TOS 1 244.
avl'flol\ov 'ITEpl -roii IL~ dOLKeiv, 346--8.
avi'7To>.tu.Jw8at1 243.
avvapxla<, 452-3.
avvaaJTLa!Lo>, 286-7, Sr8.
avvooos, 219-zo, 226, 244-5, 248---9, 251,

2S3, 2SS-7 1 4SS-{), 46r-2, 474-S, S38,

624-S, 628.
a.Jnpotf>os, S47
adJILa-ra, 204, 507.
awl'a-rotf>vlla~<:es, s6o--I.
Talrr&p.a-rov, 17.
-rexvfTa<, 468.
T01TOL 1 o/, 572 1 6os-{).
-riit/>os, 413.

-run, see Tyche.

!mapxla, i!JTapxos, S96.
V7TO!LV'>ifLaTa, 39, 43, zz8, 563

tf>lllot, rs6, 470, so2, S37. 539, 547. 550,

ssz, 581,
q,.Jcns, 646, 658.
x~<wv,

Z51

xe{p, 168.
x<~pi~ones,

559

XetptaT'>jS 1 559
XP1Jita-rl~nv,

584.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, OXFORD
BY CHARLES BATEY1 PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY