Frank W. Walbank a Historical Commentary on Polybius, Vol. 1 Commentary on Books 1-6 1957

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

I

2.

Polybius' Views on History

6

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

4·

SITUATIO~ OF CARTHAGE

138

5·

THE BATTLE OF SELLAS IA

276

6.

THE BATTLE OF THE TREBIA

398

7· THE BATTLE OF TRASIMENE

416

8. CALLICULA

428

9·

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•~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'archiolog£e 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 S£ience. 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. Clermont·Ganneau, Rec. arch. or. C. S. Clermont·Ganneau, 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 belles·lettres. 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 Tpo7To> Tij> iaTop{a., ; cf. iii. 109. 6 where 6 Tij> 7TapaKA~a£w> Tpo7TO> = o TTapaKATJTLKD> Tpo7To> Tij> Alf£w>. 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. 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 TJ•che, 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 ax£fv 'Tfi~ 'TWV o>.wv €mf1o'Afis, v. 104. 3 (Agelaus at Naupactus), xv. 9· 2-5 (Zama)). Thus the vTTofLv~fLaTa,

1

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• KTA.: viz. the historical process, 1TW') Kai T{vL y€vlf:L r.o.\mdas (cf. I. 5, viii. z. 3). Tyclze has worked her purpose with Rome; cf. 4· 3, 1ron Ka~ 1ro8Ev ri.lpp.~OTJ Kai r.ws €ax• T~v auVTl.\Ewv (see above, p. 25 n. 8). On the comparable roles of Tyche

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.vTa.AK£8ou 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.

2

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' }1I•TaAKl3ou Y£VOJ.M!I•a.ous KCli j1Ey0.Xas: the reference is to booty, pure and simple: d. ii. 29. 9· imo TOV AVO"LT€AOVS t:l:rr{oos ayop.EvaL, 3I. 4 (also from Fabius). 3. J\.1T1TLOv KXa.u8Lov: Ap. Claudius C.f. Ap.n. Caudex, cos. A.U.c. 490 = 264/3 B.C. (his colleague was M. Fulvius Flaccus). Neither his family connexions (he was too young to be the brotl1er of Caecus, as auct. de uir. 1:/l. ,n. 1) nor the origins of his cognomen are known. Munzer, RE. 'Claudius (1o2)', cols. 26•)2-4; 'Fulvius (ss)', col. 239. 4. Tov j1~V Twv KapxTJ8ov£wv 1npa.TT]Yov •.. €s€~a.Xov: his name was Hanno (Zon. viii. 9; above, 9· 8 n.). "Whereas P. attributes his 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.

4

ITALY AND SICILY UP TO

for placing the city in his hands' (for this meaning of the imperfect see the examples quoted at iii. 21. I n.); having described this decision P. then passes on to the Carthaginians and Syracusans, and finally comes back to relate Appius' arrival in § 9· 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 u£r. £ll. 37; on the date, above 5· I-5 n. 7rapa{36Aws 'at great risk' or perhaps (cf. 23. 7) 'in a remarkable fashion'. 11. SLE1l'p(O"~E0ETO 11'p0S a~OTEpous: d. Diad. xxiii. I. 4 (the envoys conveyed friendly messages to Hierc, who replied justifying his attack on the Mamertini, and accusing the Romans of concealing their ambitions under a false cloak of fides). In Diodorus Appius sent envoys to both Hiero and the Carthaginians from Rhegium, before crossing the straits ; and the Carthaginians sent a return embassy to Rhegium (Diad. xxiii. 2. I). An embassy from Rhegium was also implied in Philinus' account, vvhich made Appius attack 62

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

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

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 Kailawv 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 1TpO£K9"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 Kat 'T11xa> dva¢ipovcn 'TOS a.iT{a.: 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~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~vTiting in Greek, probably used stades (cf. Dion. Hal. i. 79· 4). Topography. Agrigentum lay about z! miles from the coast, on a height sloping steeply to the north and east, and gradually to the west. Its natural defences were strengthened by the rivers Hypsas (F. Drago) to the west and Acragas (F. S. Biagio) to the east, which almost surround the town and meet just below it. Cf. Hiilsen, RE, 'Akragas', cols. II87 ff. (with sketch-map); Holm, Gesch. Sic. iii. 345-6; De Sanctis, iii. r. rzo n. 49· Below, ix. 27. I-{). There is a convenient sketch-map in J. B. Bury, History of Greece3 (London, I95I), 636. 9. &.tcJ.La~ouo-11~ ••• TTl~ Toll crtTou cruvaywyfj~: i.e. the month was June. Since the consuls proceeded with haste (§ 8: cfo€pwres} they could easily begin the siege within six weeks of entering office on r .May. Beloch (iv. 2. 287) argues that the siege of Agrigentum began in June z6r (cf. Heuss, HZ, 169, 1949-_o;o, 490 n.); but it seems improbable that z62 passed without any significant action, and P.'s chronology offers no difficulties on the assumption that the calendar was running roughly equinlent to the Julian: DeSanctis, iii. r. 254. 11. ij Twv MhcrJ.LwV lhacpopO.: 'the excellence of their institutions': cf. vi. 56. 6 o~acpopdv ... rrp6;; T(j f3l>..nov. These reflections are paralleled in vi. 37· u-r2, and arc probably P.'s own, not from Fabius (so De Sanctis, iii. 1. 225). In such cases as P. here mentions, death was inflicted by tvAo~ 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.v£nu. aft, {t1ytot amidships, and 8a.Aap.tol fore; but this view has been successfully challenged by J. A. Morrison, who argues for oarsmen at three levels, thranites rowing over an outrigger, zygii over the gunwale, and thalamii through oar-ports. The controversy can be followed in Tarn, CR, 1906, 75: Mariner's Mirror, 1933, 52-74, 457-6o; CR, 1941, 89-90; 73

I.

20.

9

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR

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.). tuop..:&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«!; ••• oTn«yfLevos £,.\ 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 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~); 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 1rAo£wv Ka.TUc::rKeu-rl: in 21. 1, 22. 3 (and elsewhere) ~ TwJJ 1rAolwv KaTaaKt:v~ is 'the construction of ships'. Here Schweighaeuser argues that, as in ii. 23. IO (where MSS. vary between trapaij 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..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 o·n the brutality of the mercenaries. The soul can have diseases comparable to ulcers and tumours (Twv •.• Du\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~ 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. ~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. EU9two{{Jtp f-Lvfif-L' avH17)KE Towlt 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 dedit£o to Rome. P. here translates fides by 1rlcrn,).{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.>.upt8os 1TA~v b>.(:ywv Tlnrwv: according to Appian, Ill. 7, the Romans permitted Pinnes T'i]v a'M:'lv i4ypwvos dpx~v ;X"'v, and Teuta accepted these terms. Probably this means that Teuta agreed to surrender the regency (to Demetrius) and withdraw to a 8vva.a-rda. (as P. here implies). Cf. Dio, fg. 49· 7, 'ITaVTeAws Ka-r€SEuJE Jcal T~v tipx~v &.fjKI£JJ. Badian (BSA, 1952, 8o) suggests plausibly that her ouvaaTda was around Rhizon. (3) .,.1) trA£uaELV 1TAEov f) 8ual. AE.,.~o~s ~sw Toil 1\iaaou: cf. iii. 16. 3· Lissus, modern Lesh or Alessio (cf. Fluss, RE, 'Lissos (2)', cols. 731-3; J. M. F. May, ]RS, 1946, 54) lay on a fortified hill near the mouth of the Drilo (Drin). It is generally assumed that Illyrian land forces were required to respect the same frontier (cf. Holleaux, Rome, 105 n. 4); but this is not certain, as Badian (BSA, 1952, 79; cf. Oost, 12) shows-though with the Parthini and Atintanes both included in the Roman protectorate, Illyrian access to lands south of the Genusus must have been very restricted. This clause secured the freedom of the Ionian Sea for Italian and Greek shipping. P. mentions the latter especially in the general 'philhellenic' context of the sending of envoys to the Greek states(§§ 4-8); it will have been stressed by Fabius, and in any case most of the Italian traders were Greeks from southern Italy. 4-8. Roman embassies to Greece. The results and importance of these have been exaggerated by both ancient and modern historians. 165

II.

12.

4

THE FIRST ILLYRIAN WAR

Zonaras (viii. r9) records how at Athens 77oAtTdas atf>wv Twv ,.., p,vanJPlwv JhET~axov. De Sanctis (iii. z. 438 n. 98) would reduce this to a grant of 77potevla; but it should probably be rejected outright (d. Niese, ii. 285 n. 4; Taubler, i. zr6; Ferguson, 21o n. 3, 256 n. 2; Holleaux, Rome, II7 n. r). There is no reason to regard these 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, 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 '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. 18l8p{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..{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£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.L£vwv: '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 K«Tn j.Llpos tuwvla.s KTA.: 'the cheapness of each separate article of food'. 5. otJ uuj.L+wvouvn~; 11'epl. Twv tX£ypa.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.

1

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.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 ta.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, : 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£a7TT{';;, a Soldier's Upper garment (cf. XXX. 25. 10). 11. rslOv ••• Kal. lla.u!lO.O'TOV: cf. 29. I t€vryv Ka.l. 7TUp'I')MayfLEV'Y]V, zg. 7 eK7T>..'I'}KTtK~. The stress on the sensational in P.'s narrative may be imported from Fabius; cf. CQ, 1945, 12; above i. r. 4 n. 29. 1. Ti)v XPE£a.v ••• Tou o-uVTETa.yJLevou: 'the movements of the forces marshalled against each other' (Paton). 8. p.a.vuiKa.L.~v Otatfoopav [ifxovaL 'PwJLalw;;, OLa TO TOVTWV JLiV TOV 8vpEOV oAov TO (JWJLU aKE1TEtV, Tov 8€ Ta>.aTLKov {JpaxvTEpov Elvat, Kai Dta TO T~v 'PwJLatK~v JLEV (Kal T~v JLEV 'PwJLULK~V Hultsch) J.Ldxatpav Kal TO KlVTIJJLU 8uJ4>Dpov KaL Kamrf>opdv N; dJL,Po£v Toi:v JLEpofv {Jlawv] lxnv, KTA. For the substance of this see 33· 5, iii. 114. 2 ff., vi. 23. 7, fg. 179. J.Lq6.X1Jv is to be taken with fna.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 t1T1T£ilaw ••• 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.a£oto;: by deditio; how far miv 7TOt1Ja€LI' vmaxvovp./vwv (34• 1) had fallen Short of readineSS to Carry this out is not clear. But obviously both consuls and the war-party were bent on a military demonstration. 2-10. The importance of the Gallic wars. P. underlines the lesson for the benefit of Greek readers (§ 9). It is (a) that in such incidents Fortune and the unexpected play a large part (§§ s. 8). cf. 4· s. (b) that a policy based on courage and reason will outmatch one based on passion (§§ 3, 8). Such digressions are a regular feature of P.'s method; d. i. 65. 5-9 (lessons of the Mercenary War), 84. 6----9 (lessons of Hamilcar's success), iii. 21. 9-10 (reasons for surveying the Romano-Carthaginian treaties in full) ; these examples could be multiplied. 2. TWV .•. lmoAXufL£vwv tca.L 11'a.paTa.TTOfL£vwv: hysteron proteron to avoid hiatus; cf. 2. 2 n. oliSEvos Ka.Ta.SE£aTEpos TWV ~aTOPTJfL£vwv: this is a common To7To:> of ancient historians; cf. Thuc. i. 1. 2, 21. 2 (the Peloponnesian vVar the greatest and most memorable). P. uses it repeatedly; cf. i. 63. 4 f. (comparison with the Persian and Peloponnesian wars), 88. 7 (the Mercenary War the cruellest ever fought), iii. 1. ro (the period of fifty-three years, 22o-167, more packed with serious events than any other); on its usual character see v. 33· I. Lorenz (99 n. 228) quotes examples from later historians. 3. 9ufL~ fLO.AAov ~ AoytafL~ ~pa.~E..)Ea9a.t: cf. 30. 4, V7ro ToiJ 8vp.oiJ Kal ri}> .i.\oytaT{as-, 35· 8. The sentiment is very typical of P. For the metaphor of the umpire in {Jpa{J€!Jw8at cf. i. 58. 1. 4. a.uTous .•• €€wa6£vTa.'i: Cisalpine Gaul was pacified in the two decades following the peace of 201; but details are not contained in the surviving parts of P. The Boii were defeated in 191 (Livy, xxxvi. 38. s-7). and Strabo (v. 213, 216) records their expulsion to the Danube area; but according to Livy (xxxvi. 39· 3) they merely had to cede Bononia and half their land, and Strabo's story may be a false deduction from the presence of Boii in Bohemia. Strabo (ibid.) also records the annihilation of the Senones and Gaesatae; but the Insubres (who were defeated in 197, Livy, xxxii. 30-31) continued, he says, to inhabit their own lands. Pacification was assisted by colonization. In 190 the Latin colonies at Cremona and Placentia (iii. 40) were reinforced (Livy, xxxvii. 46. 9-47. 2), a Latin colony was sent to Bononia in 189 (Livy, xxxvii. 57· 7-8), and two citizen 211

11. 35· 4

ROME AND THE GAULS

colonies were established at Mutina and Panna in r83 {Livy, xxxix. 55· 7-8). Roads too were built, the Via Flaminia from Arretium to Bononia, and the Via Aemilia from A.riminum to Placentia, both in 187. P., like Strabo, has, however, exaggerated the extent to which the Gauls were physically expelled. When Strabo (v. 247) says that the Samnites £g£Trmov from Pompeii, he is apparently referring to their ejection from political control; and J. Whatmough would save F.'s credit with the argument (Harv. Stud., 1944, 8z-8s) that £gwa8l!'r«s has a similar meaning here. But when P. writes avv8w;p1}aavus .•. lgwafl£vms, there can be little doubt what he means. He is, however, incorrect. Hundreds of tombstones with Celtic names dating mainly from imperial times are only the most striking of the evidence proving that the Gauls were not expelled, but romanized; cf. Chilver, 71-8.), and on the settlement in general, De Sanctis, iv. r. 41o-17; T. Frank, CAH, viii. 326 ff. 1TA-i]v b'Alywv T61Twv ••• ICELfl~vwv: P. will be thinking especially of the tribes at the head of the Po valley, the Salassi (xxxiv. ro. r8), who were only partially subdued in 143, and perhaps the Taurini (r5. 8 n.); see DeSanctis, iv. r. 417· TTJV -~ cipxfts i~oSov ••• nis J.lETci TauTu 1Tpa~ELS ••• '~'TJ" TEAEuTutuv t~uvuaTuow: three interpretations are possible: (a) the invasion of 387, the intervening events, the final tumultus of 225 (giving 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~axp'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 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 Thearidapd 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.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 in vi.

Tupawls

7· 6-8. XPW!LEvou

oe Ka.~ T¥ voAE!L.ws: cf. Plut. Arat. 35· 6, T~ K.Aeof.dJJf.t 8pauos EXOJJTt Kat 7Tapa{36'Awr; aveaJJOf.LEVcp (Aratus' words in a letter to Lydiades). 7Tapaf36'Aws here is 'with great daring' (Paton) or 'in a remarkable way' (cf. i. 58. I); Schweighaeuser turns it 'acriter', and Porter, commenting on the passage in Plutarch, renders 'in a dangerous manner', i.e. to the enemy. In fact the word has all these nuances. P. refers to Cleomenes' capture of 1\lethydrium, and his victory at Pallantium, where Aratus persuaded the general Aristomachus to decline battle (Plut. Arat. 35· 7 ; Cleom. 4) in n8, and his victories at Mt. Lycaeum (Plut. Arat. 36. I; Cleom. 5· 1) and Ladoceia (51. 3; Plut. Arat. 36. 4-37. 5; Cleom. 6) in 227. 5. Tous OE ~a.aLA€i 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, 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 tAtr£Sa.s; an echo of Aratus' Memoirs; for what was the invitation to Antigonus but a failure of self-reliance? O.~a. T~ TOV ;6.pL0'1'0T€AYJ 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~o5€vou 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.54·3

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. /1pa•o> St a;par'lyo> alpe0e1s tm' Mpyelwv (on this phrase see Aymard, ACA, II3-14, n. 2) l1retaEv aV.ov..'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-- 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~ ~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

T

2]3

II. 65.2

EVENTS IN GREECE

troops is also noteworthy for its smallness. For a general discussion of Macedonian armies at this time see Walbank, Philip, 289---94. 2. TrEATaa-r&s: the peltasts of the Antigonid armies were the 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 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.l£Vm 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.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, ~ TV 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 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; 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 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). 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' '0>,Kci8wv. o[ 8J '0.\KciOE> l8vo.fLanK~, Polyaenus .Ea>.fLarlr 1rp6crx1J/La 'ornament', cf. Herod. v. 28, Miletus is rijs 'lwvl1J> 1rp6ax1Jp.a. 5. s~EJLO.pTVpOVTO Za.Ka.v9a.lu.!v U'II'Exeaea.~ KTA.; 'the Romans called upon Hannibal to leave Saguntum alone' (not, with Paton, 'the Romans protested against his attacking Saguntum' ; the attack had not yet begun); cf. Livy, xxi. 6. 4, 'ut ab Saguntinis, sociis populi Romani, abstineret'. KEi0'9a.~ yup O.lhous ~v Til acjiETep~ 'II'LO'TEo: cf. 30. I' ii. II. s-12 n. The n(crT' relationship is that defined in Latin as 'in fidem populi Romani se permittere', and involving the act of deditio or unconditional surrender (cf. xx. 9· ro-rx. 9, xxxvi. 4); such an act could be followed by ajoedus (cf. § 8, Tjj •.. crup.p.axlq.) but it seems doubtful whether in fact the Saguntines had ever been dediticii. The present phrase gives no grounds for assuming (so Groag, 38, 53-55) that the alliance was recent and was being announced for the first time to the Carthaginians. KQ.~ TCIV "I~TJPO. 'II'OTO.jJ-OV t.t.iJ s,a.~a.£VElV KTA.: this clause is a difficulty' since it is not apparent why any reference to the Ebro treaty should have been made. Even if Hannibal meant to attack Saguntum, he v1ras still roo miles south of the R. Ebro. It has been suggested that the Saguntines had exaggerated Hannibal's military achievements, and the Romans thought it well to remind him of his obligations, inherited from Hasdrubal; though admittedly any reference to the Ebro treaty must have appeared tactless at a time when the Romans had recently violated its spirit by interfering in Saguntum (§ 7). Taken alone, the reference to the Ebro might be accepted as his~ torically accurate, provocative but not wholly unreasonable (cf. Gelzer, Hermes, I933· rs8). On the other hand, the linking together of the Ebro treaty and Saguntum is a mark of the later annalistic tradition, which saw in the taking of the latter a breach of the former (ii. 13. 7 n. (c)}. In the light of 30. 3, where the destruction of Saguntum is characterized as a breach of the Ebro treaty, it seems at least possible that here, too, P. is assuming that Saguntum lay to the north of the Ebro (cf. 30. 3 n.). If so, he was evidently fogged by the confused discussions carried out throughout two generations, and having accepted the Roman case for Carthaginian responsibility, was deceived into accepting the connexion between the treaty and the attack on Saguntum (cf. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 346; De Sanctis, iii. r. 429-30). It is, of course, unquestionable that elsewhere he is quite clear on the relative geographical positions of town and river; cf. 14. 9• 35· 2, 91· 6, 98.6-7, iv. 28. 1. 6. veo~ tJ.Ev wv, 'II'ATJpTJo; 5t 'II'OAEtJ.LKTJS optJ.iJ~: Hannibal was 9 when he went to Spain in 237 (n. 5 n.), and over 45 in 202 (xv. 19. 3); hence he was born in 247 and was now 27 years of age (cf. Zon. viii. 21 ; he was 26 on Hasdrubal's death). Hannibal's martial ardour is mentioned 4SCO

y

32I

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..£~ 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 op£nio (cf. Holleaux, 134 n. 4). But the perfect infinitives TrmAe:vK€va£ and 7Turop8TJKI.vat must refer to acts earlier than those signified by the present infinitives 7ropfJefv and Ka"Ta•npbpmf1at (§ 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>...rr£8a.s ev Tfi Ma.t .,.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 yEvop€var; avvii~Ka>); q. 3 (Scipio accuses the Carthaginians of enslaving the Saguntines Trapa Ta> uvv8~Ka>). Which treaty had been violated? The answer is rendered difficult by the Roman attempt to base their case on the attack on Saguntum rather than on the sounder ground of the crossing of the Ebro (d. 20. 6 n.); and as the two pretexts became increasingly confused in the polemics of the next seventy years, and falsifications were added (ii. 13. 7 n. (e)), a clear answer became increasingly hard to give. A similar ambiguity is found in the use of the same word in Hannibal's mouth in reference to Roman interference in Saguntum; see IS. 7 n. 9-10. Why P. proposes to survey all the treaties between Rome and Carthage. Since Mommsen (Rom. Chron. 320 ff.) it has been generally accepted that the Punic treaties came into prominence about I52 B.c., and were the object of lively discussion in the years before the Third Punic War (29. In.). P. admits that they had not been known long (26. 2), and Mommsen suggested that Cato drew attention to them and was indirectly responsible for P.'s knowledge of them. If so, they will have been translated and passed about in senatorial circles, and will have reached P. in this form; that they were 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.s El8~va.L KTA.: statesmen (elsewhere 1ToAtrwdfL"Vot, 1TpaKrLKo{, 1Tpayftar,Ko[) ; the other category are students (qnAofLa8ovvrEc;, cf. r. 6). (Strachan-Davidson, ad loc., wrongly takes the former group to be 'students and \\>Titers of history' and the latter 'the general public who are at the mercy of the historians'.) Both statesmen and students benefit from history; cf. uS. 12, vii. 7· 8 where q,,>.ofLa8ovVTE> to whom history is XPTf£1LfLWUpoc; are 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 8£wpTJruaSc; and the 1ToAmKoc; {3{oc; (cf. Nic. Eth. i. 5· 1095 b 19). In his references to debates P. is probably thinking of those of the Senate in the critical years before the outbreak of the Third Punic War; the historians whose ignorance may mislead students can be exemplified by Philinus (cf. 26). 10. lwc; Eis Touc; Ka.O' ,;...,as Ka.Lpous: in effect, down to 218 B.c. The treaty after Zama is dealt with in the body of the work. 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

z

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~' 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. np6T£pa. 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 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) n€pCTlKOV 11 TOV 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: 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..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, 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 mT6opov 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' cHi€A4>ous ••• OTO.o~O.tovTO.S: Allobroges in Livy {xxi. 31. s-6) who calls the elder Braneus. P. appears {so. z) to distinguish oi KaTa ftEpos ~Y"ftoV£> nvv L4>.Aof3plywv from the f3apf3apm who accompanied Hannibal from the 'Island' ; whereas to Livy the attacking chiefs are simply Galli. Nevertheless, P.'s account is not inconsistent with an assumption that the two brothers in the 'Island' were Allobroges, and the attackers dissident chieftains of a people in a state of aTd.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 v€vOVTJK4ha.: but an extensive replacement with Gallic weapons would raise many problems (cf. Jullian, i. 475 n. 5), and probably it was a question merely of spears and javelins. Cf. Livy, xxi. 31. 8, 'ob id meritum commeatu copiaque rerum omnium, maxime uestis, est adiutus, quam infames frigoribus Alpes praeparari cogebant'.

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 €'1Tm£fio~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>€YEV€TO luyO.Aous: these are the events mentioned in§ 8, not the immediate meeting with the natives (§ 3) ; and T£Ta.pTatos is reckoned from leaving the 7ToA~s of 51. 10. 3. 9a.A~oos ••• Ka.t aT€cpavou!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 £1I

I

\

'

1

\

III. 52. 3

HANNIBAL'S MARCH TO ITALY

&.\A~.\ovs

t (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, T€TapTaior;) Hannibal, in danger, encamped 7T€p{ n AwK07T€Tpov (53· s). 9· Next day he regained his vanguard and reached the summit (53· 6), where lvaTai:oeis &.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~..o,Povs), viz. the Ticinus and its bridge (cf. 64. r), not the Po bridge (so Klotz, Livius, 132). Livy (xxi. 47. 2-3), who follows the same tradition, has been misled into imagining that Hannibal was checked at the Po, and omits any reference here to the Ticinus. Livy also mentions the capture of the 6oo Romans; but they are taken segniter ratem soluentes, for the Po bridge was a bridge of boats (whereas P.'s is made of planks; cf. § 4, Tas 11Ada-ras niJv aavLSwv w.:ll1Taafdvas (as in ii. 5· 5); Livy, xxi. 45· r (on the Ticinus bridge)). Not to have destroyed the Ticinus bridge would have been sheer folly (cf. Kromayer, AS, iii. 1. 58 n. z). 5. ~L£Ta.~a.M~L£Vos a.o8ls Ets Tuva.vT£a. KTA.: viz. Hannibal wheeled round and for two days (§ 6) marched westward up the left bank of the Po, looking for a convenient place to cross. Kromayer (loc. cit.) locates his crossing just below the confluence with the Tanaro; but this is necessarily hypothetical. Livy (xxi. 47· s-6) rejects Coelius' story that Hannibal forded the river with the elephants on his right to break the current in favour of the version of potiores auctores, which coincides with that of P. (cf. Klotz, Livius, Ios). 6. iA.a5pou~q,: cf. 93· 4, ol11£ nvv >..u;ovpy,wv T.:Tayp)vos, the officer in command of the service corps, mentioned elsewhere (ro2. 6, n4. 7, u6. 6; Livy, xxii. 46. 7); cf. Lenschau, RE, 'Hasdrubal (8)', cols. :2473-4 (inaccurate on this passage). tXPT)I!ant£ Tois ••• vp£o-~£uTa.is: cf. Livy, xxi. 47· 7, legationibus Gallomm audiendis moratus. Livy adds that Mago and the cavalry pressed straight on down stream, after crossing, and in a single day Placentiam ad hastes contendunt. For XPTJf.4aTt~nv, 'give audience to', d. P. Petr. iii. clxiv (the Gurob papyrus), col. iv, l. 24 (cf. Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 290). 9. O'Tpa.T01TE8t:UO'O.S vt:plvoAlV n>.o.KEVTlO.V: cf. Livy, xxi. 47· 3· 'prius Placentiam peruenere, quam satis sciret Hannibal ab Ticino 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.y£v6ru;:vos 8EuTEpo.'ios ••• TU Tphn va.p~Ta.~E KTX.: cf. Livy, xxi. 47· 8, 'paucis post diebus sex milia a Placentia castra communiuit et postero die in conspectu hostium acie derecta 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 Darstellu·ng, 31 n. r) asserts that "8ta7Top.:vot-dvwv ota Tfj> 'Pwf.LTJ> refers only to the troops'; but, despite the singular auvao.jJaVTOo> and Tv6w 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 ax€oov ~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 ~avw;; irf>Eop~vnv iKei\ 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 1TpOK€X€tptap.lvot> in apposition to Tofs l8lots, both after dva¢lpHv, is possible but very forced; and it is even harder to make Toi:s 1TpoK€X€tpu: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 ~, 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. KA£vovTec; 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 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 (KMvaVT€S br' acnr£8a), 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-L€110t). 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.TV 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.ve£a.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 1TOA£wv 'P~ywv KTA . .•. TUVTTJI' bd.xova.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 KA7J8e£r;); 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. )\vv£f3a.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· €t£LVUL 'TOLS' Al-rwAOLS' avEV KOtVOU SOyJLa'TOS' ..• TI]v xwpav ay£w ri]v dJLrpOTipwv. See Larsen, CP, 1937, 27 n. 34· 9. +t).wv ovTwv ~ea.l au11.W.xwv: cf. 6. II, IS. 10. How far the alliance still existed de facto is uncertain, since it was based on an 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. 5·9

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 ••• e€tKa.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€ auv€xov 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 1rpoa8E€Q....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 te~tlwv Jxc.!Jpovv; Polyaen. i. ro; see further the note of I. A. Fabricius to Sex. Empiricus, adv. math. vi. 357· But Capes and Strachan-Davidson prefer to take i~tf3a~pta as 'marches', and it is possible that the sense 'marching to music' has developed out of 'music for marching'. This would certainly give a better contrast with dp~aets; and the absence of parallel examples is not a serious objection. If this meaning is accepted, JfLf3aT~pta and opx~aEtS Will 468

ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219

IV,

22.

8

be the objects of lmodKvuvra£, as well as the accompanying participles; otherwise bn&lKvuvra£ is used absolutely, 'they make a display, show off'. 21. 1. TT)v ..• a.uToupy£a.v: cf. Thuc. i. 141. 3, aVTovpyol T£ ycip £la£ llcAoTToVll'fJato£.

2. KO.Ta TaS

~6V~KaS

Ka.l TaS OAOOXEPELS 8La.aTci.O'ELS: cf. XXXii. 4· 2,

Tas lfJv£Kas aUaTclO'€£S' Kat TGS o>..oaxcpci:S' 0£a~opas- TijS' olKOVfLEV!JS'·

Translate 'in accordance with our nationality and the distance we are separated from each other'; Strachan-Davidson renders ' ... or according to yet wider diversities' ; but o£ciaTaats- suggests a spatial interval (cf. i. r8. 4, xxxvi. 16. 8, lv omaTclm£), and geographical separation played a part in the milieu-theory (2o--21 n.). 3. To Ti}s cpoa£ws a.~6a.8es Ka.t aKAT)pov: 'the stubbornness and 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 ad.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 0£0tp, Tl Oei·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!l£vos: the temple of Athena TToA£axos 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.

8

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 auv£5pLov: 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. E1TLKUp6118£Laf]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 1T£pL ..w9,;pofJs dcf>povp{)Tovs d.cf>opo>.oyryrovs, xpwp.lvovs To's lSlms 1TOA£T.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.KOfU€ia9a.~ • .• 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 7T€p,Kpa-rovuav . .. (d. A then. vi. 63 = Duris of Samos, FGH, 76 F 13); Flaceliere, 65, 372. By the present clause, the allies hoped to convert the war into a Sacred War for the liberation of Delphi.

26. 2. tva. . . . ~Kci>€pwa~ traVT€!; . . . TOV atro Ttl!> xwpa.s tr6A€f10V: 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- 7TOA€fLOV '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.

2

ORIGINS OF THE SOCIAL WAR

contrasted with fighting an attacking enemy while one is on the march; and in general the sense 'offensive warfare' is to be preferred, cf. Feyel, I39 n. 2. The war-motion required separate ratification by each state. 3. ~'1Te111fe ... TOt9 AhwA.oi9 E'ITtaToA~v: that Philip still hoped to prevent war (so Holleaux, 149 n. I) is unlikely, since the programme framed at Corinth, especially in relation to the Amphictyonic Council, was designed to strengthen the Macedonian hold on Greece ; Walbank, Philip, 32. Perhaps the king hoped to postpone hostilities until spring 219, or merely to put the responsibility for the breach squarely on Aetolian shoulders. The contents of Philip's note may go back to a sound source, but the phraseology is P.'sown (cf. 4· 4, 17. 2). 6. 'IT PO Tfj9 •.• auvo8ou: the autumn meeting held at Thermum for the elections; cf. 5· 9 n., 27. I, 37. 2. 7. Et!; TI,v Ka.9T)Kouaa.v auvo8ov: the regular autumn Achaean 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'€.uCwOat, normally quoted (since Schweighaeuser) to illustrate the present passage, is in fact relevant only to pvata. 474

ITS COURSE TILL SPRING 219

IV. 27.4

8. npo~ T~v j3ouX~v iv Aly£1f:l: cf. ii. 46. 6. Here the flov/..1) is the League Council, which would normally be present on the occasion of a utivo8os-; cf. Larsen, 81. Ta npoiimi.pxovTa. cjnXO.v9pwna. • • • aVEvEwaa.vTo: a reference to Doson, Philip's only predecessor with whom friendly relations had previously existed; but Trp6yovot is used of a single person in Syll. 434-5 (Ptolemy I) and OGIS, 222 (Seleucus I), cf. Tarn, Bactria, 450 n. 3; Welles, 8I-82. Ta TrpoiiTrapxoVTa tPtitd.v8puma will include the renewal of the annual oath of loyalty to the king of Macedon (Livy, xxxii. 5· 4), the king's right to summon an Achaean assembly (85. 3, v. 1. 6), and the law forbidding the proposal of any measure contrary to the Macedonian alliance (Livy, xxxii. 22. 3).

27. 1. auvuljla.vTO~ TOU Tc7>V apxa.~pEaCII>v xpovou: cf. ii. 2. 8 n.; Strabo, x. 463 (Ephorus). ;,v Blppms- rii> AlTwAlas-, mrov TaS' ¥xatpw·lasTf0L£t(J'8at Trihptov attTOt> l(J"Tlv. On Scopas cf. 5· I ff. 4-7. Parallels to the Aetolian behaviour from Spartan history. For the seizure of the Cadmea in 382 see Xen. Hell. v. 2. 25 ff.; Diod. xv 20. Iff.; Plut. Pelop. 5; Nepos, Pelop. I. Phoebidas, the commander of a Spartan force en route for Chalcidice, was approached by Leontiadas, one of the Theban polemarchs, while encamped near the town, and by his help was able to seize the citadel during the siesta, at the time when this was occupied by a women's festival. Leontiadas then proceeded to Sparta and persuaded the authorities to recognize Phoebidas' action. According to one unreliable version (here .referred to) Phoebidas was fined; but the Spartans continued to maintain their garrison. On the Peace of Antalcidas (387/6) see i. 6. 2 n., vi. 49· 5 ; on the tautology of l/..w8£pla and a?n-ovop.la see Tarn, Alex. 203 ff. against Wilcken (5.-B. Berlin, I929, 292-3), who would distinguish them as freedom from outside domination, and the right to determine one's own constitution. The expulsion of the Mantineans took place a year later, when Agesipolis, the son of Pausanias, made a winter attack on the town, broke down the walls with the aid of a diverted river, and compelled surrender; the leaders of the democratic party were allowed to go into exile but the 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, aK£ol1.tf.WV£Ot ••• 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

j

j

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 TLtmioos 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 (7r€pwvala). 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 zB·s km. in a straight line, and along the actual water course 31·7 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 z·s km. (about 13·5 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 Oilp•os (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 (T£fxos); 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 dyy€fov, 'sea-bed', cf. Plato, Cr#ias, III A. u'D'a.pxouawv 8' i~epuat:wv: according to Eratosthenes, following Strato (cf. Strabo, i. 49), the Pontus had originally no outlet, but eventually the water piled up and forced a passage through at the Bosphorus (for a Samothracian legend about this cf. Diod. v. 47· 3-4); similarly at the Pillars of Hercules. P. omits this part of Strata's argument; but it was irrelevant to his point, and the omission (like 490

SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM

lV. 40.5

that of the argument about the sloping sea-bed: 7-ro n.) is not evidence against his use of Strato. 11. oOK E~ Et£1TOp~KWV ••• s~TJYTJI'a.Tio)\1: P. is evidently attacking some specific alternative version based on 'merchants' yarns' ; for his prejudice against merchants and disbelief in their stories see 42. 7; Class. et med., 1948, r6r-2, comparing P.'s attitude towards Pytheas. See Robinson Studies, i. 470 n. 5· ~K riJs KaTO. cpuow 6ewplas: 'from the principles of natural science'; Oewpla is used objectively to mean 'theory' elsewhere; cf. vi. 42. 6, -!] 1rep/, 'Ta crrpan:7TeOa Oewpta, 'military science, military theory'. 40. 1. tLvo8E~KT~Kfi , • • li~TJYYJUI!~: cf. ii. 37 • 3 n. 2. rs~ov ••• TWV vOv K (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 t£U6oypacpo~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~o-13TJTOUf1EVIoKEtV S€ Kav xwcrOfjvaL 'TOV Il6VTOV o>.ov El> vcrrepov, ilv f-LI.vwcnv at lmppvcrEt!> 'TOtai!rat; cf. P. fLEVOV ye- 0~ rij> ailrij> .,.>: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 cl€t €ppn, &>.>.' ..jv 1J'OT~ tYJpds 0 T01J'OS oBev piovaw. Here Aristotle is concerned particularly ;vith infinite time in the past; but, as his phrasing shows, he also regarded it as infinite in the future too (d. Phys. iv. r3. 222 a 29 ff., viii. r. 25r b 10 ff.; Meteor. i. r4. 352 b I7 ... J.LTJ p.b>ToL yivEaw Kal. ,PBopav, el1rep p.ivH -rd miv). von Scala (r9z) suggests that Aristotle was in fact replying to Anaxagoras who, according to Diog. Laert. ii. 3· ro, envisaged the possibility of time stopping; but when Anaxagoras replied to the question whether the mountains of Lampsacus would one day be sea with the words Uv yE o XP6vos p.7] im>.l7171, he was perhaps speaking ironically as of an dSJva-rov. The context in which P. uses this 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 TT£pl ~v MatCmv >./p.v7)v €mS€SwK£ -rfj 1rpoaxli>an -rwv TTo-rap.wv -roaov-rov, wa-rE TToAAtfl €>.0.TTw p.eyi.Bn TTAota vvv ElaTTAE'iv 1rpos -r7]v €pyaaiav ~ €-ros €t7]Koa-rov.

P.'s calculations of an average depth of between 5 and 7 fathoms, 492

SITUATION OF BYZANTIUM

IV. 4L 3

i.e. 30-42 ft., are confirmed by modern soundings which make it only 48 ft. in the deepest part. 'By observations, it is said that from qo6 to the year r8o8 the depth of the gulf (of Taganrog) has 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 '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 XE•p.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.oy£a.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-, 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.yovT£S: 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.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.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. :Apx£sa...,.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 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 axES£as 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 TE1x£aL 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"f£Xf£{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 v£d;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, 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.!; yelp cl.va:rra.verat 1T(JA€fLO> lv XHplJvL, Ka.t 'T~V 1Tpos aA:\7}:\ovs £Kt:XE>pla.v ayovaw, ovO' 1TOA€~A-LKd> frrr.rypEaia.> ,Plp€LV; but Philip II had practised it; cf. Dem. ix. so, ClLW1TW Olpos Ka.~ xeLr-wva., ~, ooSJv 8m,Plp€L, otiS' €uT~V €~a.lp€TO> wpa. 'TLS ~v 0LO.A€L1Tt:L. On Philip's

300 Cretans see 55· 5 n. Like Doson in 224 (ii. 52. 8) Philip had to come via Euboea to avoid Thermopylae. From Cynus his route probably lay through Opus, Orchomenus, and Thespiae, and along the road through the northern Megarid described by Hammond, BSA, 522

EVENTS OF 219 AND THE FOLLOWING

WI~nER

IV. 6g. 4

1954, ro3-zz. Whether Cynus, an Opuntian port, now belonged to Boeotia or to Philip himself is uncertain; see Klaffenbach, Klio, rgz6, 83; Beloch, iv. r. 63r; Tarn, CAH, vii. 744 (Boeotian); Feyel, 172 n. 2 (Macedonian). It does not follow from the fact that Boeotia gave Philip right of passage that she was a belligerent (rJ. 5 n.). 67. 6. xa.XKoo'II"IDa.s: see above, ii. 65. 3 n. 8. Tov crrpa.Tl}y6v: the younger Aratus (37· r), probably at Aegiurn. 9. Tfjs ¢1ALa.ai:a.s 11"tpt To .i).LoaKOIJpwv: the ruins of Phlius lie on the right bank of the Asopus, a little to the north-west of the village of H. Georgios (cf. A. G. Russell, Liv. Ann., r924, 37 ff.; Ernst Meyer, RE, 'Phleius', cols. 27r-9o). The cult of the Dioscuri is natural in a Doric town ; the Dioscuriurn probably stood on a small hill to the western end of the plain near Botsika, where there are said to be foundations of an ancient building with Doric pillars (Meyer, op. cit., col. 279). 68. 1. 'HX£(wv 5Uo Mxous: the size of a Mxos- varies; for the 7TetpamLl, Aetolian mercenaries, cf. 3· 8 ff.; Launey, i. r84. Euripidas evidently carne east into the upper Ladon valley, over the watershed between Mts Dourdouvana and Saita into the valley of Pheneus, and thence via the pass of Kastania (cf. Leake, Morea, iii. II4-I5) to Styrnphalus, and over Mt. Apelaururn via the Psari valley to (modern Botsika and) Phlius. This was the direct highland route from Psophis to Sicyon. See Hiller von Gaertringen, AM, I9IS, 83 f.; BOlte, RE, 'Stymphalos', cols. 448 f. 5. SLEK~a.Xc!iv Tijv ITuJ.l+aX{a.v: 'passing through the territory of Styrnphalus'. The 'rough country beyond' is the great mountain ridge running south from Cyllene and the high land west of it. Bolte (op. cit., cols. 448-9) suggests that Euripidas made up on to the hills west of the Phlius valley during the night, and reached the valley of Psari, hoping to cross Apelaururn (6g. r n.) before the Macedonians. 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 xaAKGV: '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. n1TEAoy£aaTo ••• T~v a.ipEaLv: 'he protested his affection'; cf. xxi. 3· 2, d7To.:\oyt~6p.EVDt T~V EVVOtav K-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.~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 l€prk 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. 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 ~A€la.v. Reiske, taking e1rL ••• yo€a> 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 a•e~dy7]-ra£). On Elean government d. Paus. iv. z8. 4, EOvop.wrarat IIeAonoVV7]alwv. 9-10. s,o. 1'ov ••• ~epov J1£ov: 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