A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Vol. 2: Commentary on Books 7-18

9. S-10. 13. Description of New Carthage. For similar insistence on Reographical details see iii. 36-38, v. 21. 3-9; they are equally important for the general, cf. ix. 13. 8. Inn. 4, correcting the figure of 40 •tades given as the perimeter of the city, P. say that he has seen it himself. If he accompanied Scipio to Spain in 151 (cf. Vol. I, p. 4 n. w) he may have visited it then; he certainly need not have wnited until 133, when some scholars believe he was at the siege 205

SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND

X. 9. S

\

Jf. Con ..'
Jf.

,)"til Fl

~

:;::

hiH of S~\turn

~hill

of Aktc~

S

P
(~

9 ::,:rr: Hll;;lJ r•;HJ in the: J[;ddle Ages 10 p,,;fH. rn'lrkcd h•· .i..:.Jla, j,J,\~m 1 l*/Jcnce E.H:rombrcJu.<; \l';'!n> [,:·

7·

!1kt:k thl! l"">OV

NEw CARTHAGE.

-·--- Sdpio's Disp. . r;;itknu Ti>e Site la Roman 'lim('S -

ace. to Sr.(3IlOYa.

- - - - ar:c~ to Strathan-Dav.idson ~

1\otnJnTown

--~ i)t.Jt/[u:: t'j'wodcrti !'Ulrl!

(Based on Scullard, Scip1:o African us in the Second Punic War, 29o)

of Numantia (Vol. I, p. 6 n. 3; below, IL 4 n.). But he probably composed his account of the capture of New Carthage before 151 (iii. 1~5 n., § 1), and it is not to be assumed that the whole description of the topography depends on P.'s autopsy. He does not claim that for more than the single point of the length of the walls; and it is relevant that his account of Hannibal's crossing of the Alps (iii. 49· 5-56. 4) depends on a literary source, despite a similar claim to have 'seen for himself' (iii. 48. a). The false orientation :first observed by Droysen (Rh. Mus. I8i5. 62 ff.) may be due to P. or may go back to his source ; for discussion of his suggested explanation see below, 10. 5 n. Without adequate maps errors of orientation are easily made; and despite his emphasis on directions (d. v. zr. 8) P. goes wrong 206

THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE

X.

10.

5

elsewhere (d. iii. 47· 2-5 n., on the RhOne). Modem scholars are not without fault here; cf. Vol. I, p. 530 for a map of Alipheira in which Leake's original orientation had to be corrected from Frazer. The particular topographical points are discussed in the relevant notes. For general discussion see Droysen, Rh. Mus. 1875, 62 ff.; StrachanDavidson, 6z9-41 (with map); Hubner, RE, 'Carthago nova', cols. 1(m-4 (unconvincing); Cuntz, 8-zo (with map); Kahrstedt, AA, ~<;12, 225-35; Geschichte der Karthager, iii. 509 n. 2; Brewitz, 47-53; R. Laqueur, Hermes, 19:21, 17o--8o (bused on his 'layers of composition' theory); M. F.-V. Canovas, Estudios geogrdficos-hist6ricos de Carlil~ena desde los tiempos prehistdricos hasta la expulsidn de los Arabes

(Cartagena, 1905; non vidi); Scullard, Scip. 289-99 (with map), probably the best account; S. Witkowski, Bull. Intern. A cad. Pol. Suppl. s. 19+7. 1-12; A. Beltran, Arch. esp. de arq. 1948, 191-224, 'Topografia di Carthago noua'. 10. l. EV KOA'II'~ v10uovn '~~'poe; liv£JLOV M~a.: P. correctly describes the at the head of which Cartagena lies as facing south-west, or more strictly south-south-west (Cuntz, 12); but his dimensions are too great. If the entrance is measured from Punta de Ia Podedera, the southern point of the peninsula of Fort las Galeras, to Punta de S. Ana, west of Fuerte San. Julian, it measures only 96o m.; and from this line northwards to the ancient coastline north of the present-day Arsenal Harbour comes to only z,soo m. (Cuntz. 12-13). StrachanDavidson, 316, measures from Punta de !a Podedera to Punta de (~ate, further south, to get a figure comparable with P.'s; but he admits that 'the inner line from Navidad Point .·north of Punta de Ia Podedera] straight across (3i stades = 670 m.) is more truly the mouth of the harbour'. From the line taken from Punta de Ia Navidad across to the innermost part of the gulf is about xz stades, from Punta de Gate about zo (Strachan-Davidson, ibid.). See, for most of these measurements, Baedeker, Spain and Portuga/4, Leipzig, 1913, map facing p. 319. :J. viluos E'll'l Tou O'TOfla.Tos ••• KE~Ta.~: the island of Escombrera (d. Strabo, iii. 159) lies at the entrance to the Gulf of Cartagena, at a JIOint at which the distance across is not 10 stades (z km.) but r8 •tades (3. 5 km.); and since it is only 450 m. long, it comes nowhere near closing the entrance (Strachan-Davidson, 316). StrachanDavidson, who believes P.'s account to be based on his own observations, has discovered a point just off the quay by the Town Hall, from which the island seems to block the entrance to the gulf ; but there is no reason to think P. was ever at this point in a boat. The errors are probably those of his source. I. wt:p&t:XOflEVTJV 9a.AaTT!I fltv 0.'11'' Ava.ToAwv Ka.l flEO'TJJL~p£a.c;: sea surrounded the peninsula on which the city stood to the south and west

1-(Ulf

X.

IO.

5

SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND

(not east and south, as P. states). Droysen (Rh. Mus. 1875, 62 ff.) suggested that P. sketched the site on the spot and later put in the compass bearings inaccurately from memory (making east north and so on); but Strachan-Davidson (839-41) points out that this hypothesis does not wholly explain P.'s account of the hills (below, §§ 7-n), which suggests that he has all his bearings 45° out in a clockwise direction, so that his north is the real north-east and so on (see Strachan-Davidson's map with the adjusted directions), an error not excessive, especially if he was calculating north from the polestar, which in his time was 12° east of true north. On this hypothesis, P. is here referring to the water of the harbour lying to the south and south-west (P.'s south), which came round further to the southeast (P.'s east) than it does now. However, Cuntz has some valid objections (1o ff.) to P.'s account, even accepting this hypothesis; and he may be right in suggesting that P. is following an earlier source. cnro S£ TWV SUaewv Alf1VTI: the lagoon 'to the west and extending to the north' will have occupied the site of the modern marshy plain of Almajar, to the north of the city. Its full extent can only be guessed at, but in the west it probably stopped short of Ramblar de Benipila, a waterway now running into the Canal de Algumeca, which drains the Almajar, and 'in the east it extended beyond the town proper and even beyond the line of the Castillo de los Moros (see Scullard's map, Scip. 290, correcting Strachan-Davidson). Here 'west' and 'north' can be corrected satisfactorily to 'north' and 'east'. 6. TOY Aonrov T01TOV ••• fltl 1TAEOV umipxew 11 Sueiv O'TaS(wv: the isthmus lay to the east of the town between the sea and the lagoon. It probably ran from a point east of Monte San. Jose to include the railway station on the north, and on the south along a line southwest from the modern barracks (see maps in Scullard or StrachanDavidson); and it included the Castillo de los Moros. The northern and southern limits of the isthmus are located further south by Kahrstedt (AA, 1912, 217-18); see, against this, Scullard, Scip. 297. P.'s width (approximately 2 stades = 400 yds.) is about correct. 7. tiS£ 1T0Al~ •.• f1EO'OKOLAO~ ean: it has hills all round (cf. §§ 7-II). KQTa Se Tt)v cnro

f1EO'TJf1~p(a~

1TAEupcl.v E1Tl1TESov

~xu

••• 1TpoaoSov:

the side between the cathedral and the Puerta de la Murcia, where the land now stretches considerably further west towards the Arsenal Harbour; there are no hills along this part of the coastline. This line (running in reality south-south-east to north-north-west, and facing west-south-west (not south), can be regarded as the 'south side', either on Strachan-Davidson's hypothesis or on Droysen's (cf. § 5 n.). 8. 0 .. ·J!EYLO'TO~ a1TO Toft~ civaToA-ft~: as Droysen saw (Rh. Mus. 1875· 208

THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE

X.

IO. IO

65), Monte Concepcion, the hill on the south side of the town lying between the cathedral and the military hospital, and crowned by the ruins of a medieval castle. It extends further from west to east than Strachan-Davidson's map shows (see Cuntz, I I n. r, and Scullard's map) and it is 2or ft. high. P.'s description of it as lying to the east fits Droysen's hypothesis a little better than StrachanDavidson's. v1w~ )\o-KATpnoG: probably Eshmoun (d. vii. 9· 2 n., discussing 'lolaus'), who is usually equated with Asclepios; cf. Gsell, iv. 315 n. 4; Winckler, i. 445; W. W. Baudissin, Orientatische Studien Theodor Notdeke ... zum 70-ten Geburtstag gewidmet (Giessen, 19o6), 729-55. 9. o lmo Tfi~ SUa£w~ avT(KElTal: the second of P.'s larger hills (§ 7, clpm•ot> KaL Tpaxwtv) will be Monte Molinete, 123ft. above sea-level. Against Kahrstedt's attempt (AA, 1912, 230-2) to identify it with Monte Sacco, which in fact lies opposite Monte Concepcion, to the north of the city, see Scullard, Scip. 296-7. P.'s location of this hill in the west can be reconciled with the true orientation on StrachanDavidson's hypothesis, but not on Droysen's, for if the hill containing the temple of Asclepios was on the east side, Monte Molinete should lie to the south, not the west; see Cuntz, ro. llovapxlKfi~ opeyoll£vov £~oua£a~: P. gives no hint of such an ambibition in Hasdrubal in ii. 13 and 36; it may derive from Fabius' account (cf. iii. 8. 2, l7TLf3a>..€a8at ..• ds f.LOvapxlav mc:ptO"Tijaat To wo>..lTEVf.La nvv KapxYJ8ovlwv) if Fabius is the source here. See further Meltzer, ii. 594 n. 58. 10. at .•. Aomat Tpei~ Twv •.. ~ouvwv: the three remaining hills from west to east are Monte Sacro, Monte San. Jose, and Castillo de Despefia Perros, and can be identified with the hills of Cronos, Aletes, and Hephaestus respectively. On the assumption of a 45° deviation, they can be said to lie in the north part of the city; in reality the first two are in the north and the Castillo de Despeiia Perros in the east. On the assumption of a goo deviation Monte Sacro is on the west side. Kahrstedt (AA, 1912, 230-2) identifies Monte San. Jose with Cronos, Castillo de Despefia Perros with Aletes, and for Hephaestus he argues in favour of a hill where the Plaza de Toros stands and the Roman amphitheatre stood, to the eastern end of Monte Concepcion; but Scullard (Scip. 295-6) argues cogently that the eminence in this area is merely part of the long Concepcion hill, the intervening depression (Calle de Gisbert) being either modern or deepened in modern times. Hence, although Kahrstedt's identifications remove many of the difficulties (since Monte Sacro, Kahrlltcdt's arx Hasdrubatis, lies to the north (P.'s west) and San. Jose, Castillo de Despefia Perros, and the site of the bull-ring all lie to the east (P.'s north)), his treatment of Monte Molinete, which is scarcely to be eliminated as a mons testaceus, and of the bull-ring area, which 814178

p

X.

IO. IO

SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND

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

THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE

X.

I I. I

sketch-map, Scip. 290). According to Canovas (Scullard, Scip. 294), the sea and lagoon were still linked in the sixteenth century, and a bridge at the Puerta de Murcia was repaired in r6oo-2. 13. yiq,upa. ~ea.no-~eeua.
Ka.1'u rijv tvTo~ t1n
X.

II. I

SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND

for the camp, as explained above. Of these, the position described in 9· 7 is the more convincing; but it is risky to try to assign named sources to the two versions. Livy, xxvi. 42. 6, 'frons natura tuta erat'; 42. 9 'non obiecit uallum ... seu fiduciam hosti superbe ostentans siue ut subeunti saepe ad moenia urbis recursus pateret', follows P.'s account faithfully. 2. To 8£ j.I.ETa.~u TouTwv 8laaTlJj.I.O.: the isthmus proper which, according to the source followed at this point, faces only part of the west side of Scipio's camp, and can therefore be described as KaTd p.iUlJv imapxov rqv avToiJ UTpaTo7TEDElav (a meaningless phrase on the assumptions of 9· 7). 4. b •.• 1tEp(~oAoc; TTJS 1toA£wc;: a circuit of 20 stades (3,700 m.) for the Punic town corresponds reasonably well with the limits determined by Strachan-Davidson (cf. Cuntz, 19). CIL, ii. 3426 (= ILS, 5333/4) mentions a Porta Popillia at New Carthage, and Cuntz (17-18) argues that the building of this, presumably by M. Popillius Laenas, who went out to Spain as consul in 139 and was proconsul of Citerior in 138 (cf. Volkmann, RE, 'Popillius (22}', cols. 6o--61), was part of the reduction in size mentioned here. This would imply that P.'s visit to New Carthage fell after 138. But there were many occasions between Scipio's capture and the middle of the second century when minor modifications in the fortifications could have taken place; and there seems no cogent argument here for modifying the view that P. visited New Carthage in 15I-15o. \Vhich authors made the circuit 40 stades is unknown. ou ••• E~ aKOTJS' ••• O.A.A.' O.UTOlTTO.l: Cuntz (16) and Klotz (Hermes, 1952, 336) argue that since P. visited New Carthage in 134/3. his autopsy applies only to the point for which he quotes it, the length of the walls. The text is vague, perhaps intentionally so (for ButtnerWobst's argument (Klio, 1905, 1o2), that in this case P. would have written TOVTOV a7Torfmtv6p.dJa, carries no weight). If P. visited New Carthage in 151/o, Cuntz's conclusion could still be possible; on the other hand, P. may have revised his account of New Carthage on his return from Spain before publication, and autopsy may have led him to modify his account of the city. But on the whole, the limited character of the context in which he mentions his visit, together with the error of orientation, favours the view that his account mainly follows a literary source (cf. 9· 8-1o. 13 n.). \Vhatever the extent of the changes introduced after 151, P. had probably already written an account before then, in which the present passage (as a minimum) is a later insertion (d. iii. 1-5 n., § 3 (c) (ii) in Vol. I, p. 296). j.I.ET' EtmnaaEwc;: with ath67TTat Y"yov6us-, 'from my own careful observation' (Paton), rather than with a7Toatv6p.€8a (Mauersberger, s.v. a'TT'ocpalvw). See Schweighaeuser, ad loc., correcting his own text and translation. 2!2

THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE

X.

12. 2

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

12. 1. Sous ~v ~1TLTpo1T~V rat'l:l: i.e. to c. Laelius. rijs 1ToXLopKfas: 'the assault'; cf. viii. 7. s, ix. 3· 2 n. l. Mcl.ywv 0 TETO.Yf.LEVOS E1Tl TfjS 1TOXEWS: cf. rs. 7. 18.

I. Nothing is known of him beyond this episode. Appian (Hisp. 19 ff.) confuses him with Hannibal's brother. See Ehrenberg, RE, 'Mago(1o)', coL so6. ~1Tl riis aKpo.s ••• E1Ti. TOU 1Tpos civaToAO.s M.f>ou: d. Livy, xxvi. 44· 2, 'quingentis militibus arcem insidit, quingentos tumulo urbis in orientem uerso imponit'. As Laqueur points out (Hermes, 1921, r6r-2), neither the citadel, Monte Molinete, nor the 'hill towards the east'

213

X.

12. 2

SCIPIO'S CH.\R.\CTER AKD

(in fact the south : it is Monte Concepcion; 10. 8 n.) is vital for the defence of the walls; but it does not follow that there is a contradiction between this passage and the statement in § 8 that the best men were later fighting at the isthmus, for, as Scullard (Scip. 83) rightly observes, Monte Concepcion and Monte Molinete may have been these men's normal barracks, and Mago may have stationed them there at the outset to counter any movement from the fleet. Later they can well have been moved to the isthmus (d. 12. 6, ri)> ... i.mKovpla>). Hence no evidence can be drawn from this passage to sustain Laqueur's complicated theories of successive layers of composition. 3. TWV S€ AOL1TWV TOUS eupwaTOTQTOU'i: since Mago had to improvise a source of arms for these 2,ooo, Livy has probably drawn the right conclusion when he writes 'oppidanorum duo milia ab ea parte qua castra Romana erant opponit' (Livy, xxvi. 44· 2). Ti)v 'II'UATJV TT)v .•• €1rl. Tov ia9!J-6v: this lay probably between the Castillo de Despeiia Perros and San. Jose (cf. Scullard, Scip. 297). Kahrstedt locates it further south to fit his identification of the hills (AA, 1912, 232-3; above, 10. 10-11 nn.). To'Ls Se AoL'II'ois 'll'a.pt]yyeLAE ~oTJ9e'Lv ICTA.: cf. Livy, xxvi. 44· 2, 'multitudinem aliam quo clamor, quo subita uocasset res intentam ad omnia occurrere iubet'. 6. axeSov am) Sueiv UTa. Stow: nearly a quarter of a mile, about the distance of the Castillo de los Moros from the Puerta de San. Jose; see Scullard, Scip. 89 n. 1. 7. ~11:wv E1TEUTTJUE ••• 1ra.p' auTT)v TT)v aTpa.To1TeSe(a.v: Livy, xxvi. 44· 3, exaggerates for effect: 'Romani duce ipso praecipiente parumper cessere, ut propiores subsidio in certamine ipso summittendis essent'. otov et aTO!J-a. Tou ••• 'II'At]9ous: 'so to speak the steel edge of the population' (Paton). arop.,a is the point or edge of a weapon (Ael. Tact. 13; Asci. Tact. 3· 5, also comparing file-leaders to such an edge, otov ri)> p.axalpa<; • •• ro arop.a); and in Xenophon (Anab. iii. 4· 42, 4· 43, v. 4· 22; Hell. iv. 3· 4) it refers to the front of the battle. Schweighaeuser compares the Homeric phrase 7TToMp.ow or VCifLLVT)S" arop.a (Hom. Jl. X. 8, XX. 359).

13. 1. ~~:a.Ta Suva1.uv O.acf;a.Aws: cf. 3· 7 n. Livy omits this, presumably as discreditable. 3. Tous iJ1TepSe~(ous TO'II'ous: Livy's source, evidently supplementing P. from elsewhere (perhaps directly from Silenus), adds the detail that this was 'the hill of Mercury' (Livy, xxvi. 44· 6)-evidently the Castillo de los Moros. There is good evidence for the identification of a Phoenician god with Hermes, but his Phoenician name is uncertain; see Gsell, iv. 330. 11. Tijs i}!J-epas 'll'po~a.woua'Tls: 'as the day was now advancing' (d. ii. p. 5 of the Trebia, where the action had also begun in the early

THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE

X. 15.5

morning). Livy (xxvi. 45· 8) has mediumferme diei, perhaps his own false deduction from this phrase in P., or perhaps derived by Coelius from a supplementary source. 8. 7 shows that P. believed it to be near evening (see next note). . TT)S - O.fl.ti'WTEWS , ' • 14• 2 • TOY KO.lflOV:

W h'lCh OCCUITed

, \ DHIITJV " ., '· 1·' O'I'WV

o1Tt

(8. 7l· 3. Ka.Ta ~v ALfl.VlJV: probably on the north side, near the modern Molino de Truchas, where a headland must have jutted into the water (Scullard, Scip. 298, following Canovas) ; from here there is a ridge across the lagoon. This would be less apparent to the men fighting on the walls and around the gate, as well as more spectacular when finally it was observed. But a route from the isthmus cannot be entirely excluded (see Scullard's map, Scip. 29o). vea.Xeis tron]oa.s Tous oTpa.TLWTa.s: 'massing fresh soldiers'. 8. Ta p.iv liKpa. TTjs ALfl.VTJS: 'the extremities of the lagoon' (cf. i. 42. 2) or 'the highest points of the lake-floor' (d. ii. IS. Io, etc.); the former is more probable, but in either case the edge of the lagoon is indicated. The meaning given in Mauersberger, s.v. aKpoc;, viz. 'the surface of the lagoon', cannot be right in the context of drriAeLrre ro VOWp KaTa {lpaxv. 11. lha Tou TEAfl.a.Tos &.f1aAAWf1EVwv: 'racing through the shallow water' (Paton). tuTO. TLVos 9eou trpovo(a.<;: recalling II. 8, as § I2 makes explicit. 13. Ka.Teoxov ••• To TEixos: the location of this point is clarified by Livy, xxviii. 36. 5 ff., where Mago later lands a force and leads it to the spot where the Romans had seized New Carthage. Hearing of this the Romans draw up their forces 'intra portam ad stagnum ac mare uersam' (Livy, xxviii. 36. 7). This will be the gate to the west, at the site of Puerta de Murcia, where the canal was bridged (above, Io. 12 n.); and presumably the wading party came ashore a little to the east of this point between Monte Molinete (the citadel) and Monte Sacco (the hill of Cronos; 10. Io-n nn.). T~v EopoSe(a.v: 'they marched along the top of the wall'; cf. viii. 37· 9· 2. trpos TTJV trUATJV: the eastern gate facing the Roman camp. SLeKotrTov Tous fl.OXAous: cf. vii. r6. 5 n. 3. Tov ••• Mov: Monte Concepcion. Its defenders (rove;
15. 1. EtretropeuoVTo Ka.Tfi

X. J5. 5

SCIPIO'S CHARACTER AND

account does not wholly hide his distaste; but he does not condemn the practice as going beyond what is permissible (d. von Scala, 3n). 10. Touo; ypoucpoJLO.xous: light-armed, ~~eWes; see vi. 21. 7 n.

16. 1. TWv woX~nKwv Kat Twv ipyaO'T~Kwv: the latter, the X£~poTt!xva.t. of 17. 6 and 17· 9, are taken by Lhry, xxvi. 47· 1, to be free men: 'liberorum capitum uirile secus ad decem milia capta'. But he may be wrong in this, as he is in limiting the captives to ~£irile secus (cf. 17. 6 n.). In 17. 6-12 P. distinguishes three categories of prisoners, citizens, xe~poT!xva.t, and 'the rest'. The last two categories lose their freedom for the duration of the war (r7. 9, 17. 14); but this in itself throws no light on their previous status. Kahrstedt (iii. sn) is probably right in describing the third group as a mixture of poor Carthaginians, Libyans, and Iberians, perhaps including slaves. But the X£LpoTt!xva~, though their enthusiasm at the hopes of eventual freedom (17. 15) might seem more appropriate to men at present unfree than to free men who are merely being promised the later restoration of the status of which they are being deprived, may nevertheless be free; for their fate was at any rate much better than that of being sold away. They were perhaps native Iberians, who were not citizens of the town; d. Aristotle, Pol. iii 5· 3, 1278 a 8, ~ o~ fJiATlaTT) 1ToAt> oo 1TOL~CT£4 fJd.va.vaov 1ToAlTT)V; Plato, Laws, viii. 848 A. Bickerman (A]P, 1952, 3 n.) also argues that the xt:tpo-rlxva.t are free, and compares the distinction between the Kvpwt Ka.px7J8av~o~ and ol Kapx7J8ovlwv V1TO.pxo' in viii. 9· 5; but the latter are probably Libyphoenicians and so afford no parallel (see notes ad loc.). -roio; U:Ho~<;; cnpa.T01T~bols: probably four in all, including the allies; for Scipio's forces at New Carthage see 9· 6 n.; cf. below, § 4· 16. 2-17. 5. Digression on the method of dividing booty in the Roman army. This is supplementary to P.'s account of the Roman army in vi. 19-42. l. EKcl<JTTj'i o'lJLata.s: Reiske's brilliant emendation of eKaaT7J> ~~-tipa.> (cf. vi. 34· 8 and vi. 40. I I for confusion between these words in the MSS.) ; Schweighaeuser comments : 'diuinum prorsus in hoc genere ingenium uiri elucere fatendum est'. 1TpOS TTjV 11'pii.~lV a1Top..EpitoVTa~! 'are told off for this duty'. 3. C.d 'lTPO!> TO &euc.vuE~v: Casaubon suggested OHKWf.tEVov, translating 'prout indicati periculi ratio postulauerit'; and Lipsius rendered the infinitive by 'ita ut semper tamen se ostendant', though it is doubtful if the active could have that meaning. The received text can hardly be right, and Casaubon's emendation is the most simple and satisfactory proposed; alternatively Wunderer (Phil. 1894, 68-69) readS 0'aKtll8VV€lJELll. 4. Suo oTpa.To1T€Ba. 'Pw11aXKci Kat SUo Twv O'UJLJLO.xwv: cf. Livy, xxxvii. ~16

THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE

X. 17.

II

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

l[

SCIPIO'S CHARACTER

A~D

sailors and marines; for this meaning of -rrA~pwfLa cf. i. 29. I, 29. ro, v. 94· 8, etc. See Schweighaeuser ad loc. 12. ~ll~ot..ious ••• i\ 1Tpoa0Ev: 'half as many again as before'; the reference is to sailors (ToJ)s- mivTas vati-ras). hence Scipio can man half as many ships again (35 +r8): § 13. Strachan-Davidson's explanation that the new sailors (not the total) amounted to one and a half times the original number contradicts P.'s specific reference to Tov,; m:fVTas vavTas-. ~aTe Taus KvSpo.s ••• ~pa.xu T~ A.d'tl"ew ToG SmA.o.a(ous elva.~: in addition to increasing his sailors by a half, Scipio chose enough men from among the slaves at ~ew Carthage to enable the total complement of each ship, including both sailors and troops, to be increased to nearly twofold its former size. 13. a.: 8' E~ C.pxils 'll'tV-n KO.l TpL6.tcoVTn: d. iii. 56. 5 n., 95· 5 n.; Thiel, n I, 120. In 2o8 Scipio has a fleet of 8o (Livy, xxvii. 22. 7); this involves, in addition to the 35 ships used this .rear and the r8 captured at New Carthage, a further 27 ships. According to Livy, xxvi. 19. II, Scipio had taken 30 quinqueremes to Spain; but if it is accepted that the 20 ships sent out to Spain in 217 (iii. 97· r~2) had relieved the Massaliote squadron operating with Cn. Scipio (d. iii. 95· 5 n.), there will already have been a fleet of 35 quinqueremes in Spanish waters. Thiel (ru) suggests plausibly that Scipio beached the 30 ships he had brought with him, incorporated the socii nauales in his land forces (as in 209(8; d. 35· 5) and fought with the 35· These 30 would bring his total up to 83, which might well be rounded off in Livy to 8o. Livy's statement that he increased his fleet by 8 (Livy, xxvi. 47· 3) is probably the result of an error in the text. 15. vpo9uJJ.£nv ••• To is xetpoTEXvn~s: cf. r6. 1 n.

18. 1. SUo ••• TWV etc T~S yepoualClS KTA.: the )'Epovala will be the select council of thirty, the cn/ytcA7)To> the larger body of several hundred (cf. i. 27. 6 n.). They were no doubt representatives of the home government attached to the Spanish front; cf. vii. 9· I n. for the position of Carthaginian representatives who shared in Hannibal's treaty with Philip V. 6. tcovous ~eo.l +EXA.~n: 'trinkets and bracelets'. pnf-Lcf.6.s: 'curved knives': Toup restored the correct form from Hesychius. 7. rijs Mo.v8ov£ou yuvo.~~eos, bs i'jv O.SeA.cf.os :A.v8o~6.A.ou: on Andobales see ix. n. 3 n. For the desertion of both brothers to Rome see 35· 6-8. On the llergetes see iii. 35· 2 n. E'ti"IO'Tpocf.l]v ••• TllS o.uTWv el!axTJJJ.OcrllvTJs: 'a care for their honour'. 13. TWV :A.v8o~6.A.ou Ouyo.TEpwv: d. ix. I I. 4· Ti}v Tils vepun6.aews i11cf.naw: 'the character of the danger to which they were exposed'.

THE CAPTURE OF NEW CARTHAGE

X.

20. f

19. 1. napt:8l8ou To'Ls TaflLaLo;: the plural is inaccurate, since Scipio would have only one quaestor; Livy, xxvi. 47· 8, gives his name as C. Flaminius, who was later consul in 187 (Livy, xxxviii. 42. 2). Livy gives a more detailed list of booty: 276 gold paterae, nearly all a pound in weight, r8,3oo pounds of silver and many silver vessels. He also mentions many catapults and military standards, 4oo,ooo modii of wheat, 27o,ooo modii of barley, and 6.3 merchant ships with their cargoes. The source of this circumstantial account is unknown, and the details will not necessarily be accurate (Livy, xxvi. 47· s-ro). 3. tj>LA0YU\11lV iiVTa TOY nonALOV: this trait may be referred to in Naevius, fg. 108 (Ribb. com.). l8LWTTJS: 'a private soldier'; cf. v. 6o. 3; Diod. xix. 4· J. aTpa.Tl)yos 8' lmO.pxwv: cf. 40. 5 n. O"TpaT"?yO> here is 'general'; Scipio's rank was pro consule (cf. z. I-zo. 8 n.). 6. cl> noT' Ci.v 'ITpoa(pTJTilL TWV noALTWV: in Livy (xxvi. so. I-Iz) the same anecdote is elaborated and romanticized to include a young man Allucius who is in love with and betrothed to the girl. Scipio hands the girl over to him along with a large sum of money given by her relatives. 8. l~~1TEfllftE ra.LoV TOV AalALOV ••• t:to; Tiiv 'PWflTJV: cf. Livy, xxvi. 51. 2 (where the :\-ISS. mention only one ship). According to Livy, xxvii. 7· 1, Laelius arrived in l{ome exitt' ann£ huius (i.e. 210/09 according to his chronology). Klotz (Hermes, 1952, 339) thinks Laelius went twice to Rome, once immediately after the fall of New Carthage, and again at the year-end; but more probably De Sanctis (iii. 2. 469 n.) is right in suggesting that Livy found the account of Laelius' arrival in Rome in the consulship of Q. Fabius Maximus and Q. Fulvius Flaccus, i.e. A.U.c. 545 209 B.C., and having dated the fall of New Carthage to the previous year compromised by putting Laelius' arrival at its end, when the consuls for 209 were already designate. 20. 2. €n~ TplaKoVTa aTa8lous: cf. Livy, xxvi. 51. 4, 'in armis quattuor milium spatio decurrerunt'. Tfi S' £~-iio; 6.vcmauea9aL Ka.t pq.9ufLe~v: Livy, xxvi. 51. 4, reverses the order, assigning the third day to sword and javelin practice, and the fourth to rest. Since this is more logical, with a day spent cleaning arms interposed between active running and fighting, there is much to be said for E. Schulze's proposal (Rh. Mus. r868, 431) to transpose 'J"ff o' ~tfi> . .. pa8vJLEfv so that it follows tl~eoVTl~ew in § 3· 3. eatalpwv: 'covered in leather and fitted with buttons'. ypoatj>ols: hastae uelitares; cf. vi. 22. 4 n. for this weapon. 4. Touo; XllLpOT~xvao;: the 2,ooo workmen who were to be public slaves for the duration of the war in Spain. On their organization cf. 17. ro (Ka.8a1T!ip 1rpoet?Tov). 219

X.

20.

SCIPIO'S CHARACTER

7

TOA~!lOU: cf. Xen. Ages. i. z6, dglav of. Kat l5A7JV ' 7TOI\LV '\ , :1. , ' \ ayopa ' ' f.LiiO'T7J' ,J: ~ ~ TTJII EV l/ ,J: 'I" 0' EaS' I£7TOtTJO'f:ll. 7J., Tli yap 'IV 1TaVTooa1TW~' 1eal 07TAWV Kat '£7T7TWV J.w{wv, o'£ T€ XUAK0Tti1TO~ ICO:t Ol TeiCTOVES' Kai o/
7. epya.aT'IlPLOV •••

8. Ta.is Twv Tuxwv Ka.Ta.aKEua.ls: 'by repairing the walls'. 21-24. Philopoemen reforms the Achaean cavalry This fragment, from the res Graeciae of Ol. 142, 3 zro/o9 B.c. (in fact 209) concerns Philopoemen's hipparchia, to which he was elected in autumn no, when Cycliadas became Achaean general (zz. 6: cf. Plut. Philop. 7. 2; Paus. viii. 49· 7; Livy, xxvii. 31. 10 for Cycliadas). By this date entry upon the strategia, and with it the hipparchia, was in autumn; cf. v. Io6. I n., xi. Io. 9·

21. 1. EopuAEc.>v: presumably the Achaean general for zufro; he is not mentioned elsewhere (Xiese, ii. 483 n. s), but may be the father of Xenophon of Aegium (cf. xviii. r. 4 n.). The approach to Sparta in the late spring of 210 (ix. 28-39 n.) had brought her into the war, and under l\lachanidas (41. 2) she threatened Achaea. For the loss of Aegina the same year see ix. 42. TTJY O.pxi)v Twv c.>v: on Philopoemen see ii. 40. :z n. Since Sellasia (ii. 67. 4 ff.) he had served as a mercenary in Crete (Plut. Philop. 1· I-2; Paus. viii. 49· 7) for about ten years; he will have returned to Achaea in 210. P. is here thinking of his official career and so neglects his achievements at Sellasia (on 1rpage,s cf. § 6 n.). TCtS El< liaTwv 0. yc.>yO.s Ka.l cj>uai!LS: 'their training and character' ; similarly the account of Scipio's rrpaf€•> is preceded by a discussion of his atpea~s Kat ,Puat:;, and dm; 1ro£as -/>va<w:; ~ -rpt{3ij;; opp.7J0c£s he accomplished them (2. I-2). P. also emphasizes the aywyry of Xanthippus (i. 32. I), the elder Tarquin (vi. II a 7), and Chaeron (xx:iv. 7· I); cf. Pedech, REG, 1951, 91. Kat 'II'Ept TOUTou 'l!'o~ijO'a.L TO 'l!'a.pa.TAt]awv: for an attempt to analyse P.'s procedure in terms of the schemata laid down in late rhetorical manuals see 0. Schissel, Rh. Mus. ry:z6, 84-97; it fails because it assumes P. to be writing an encomium of Philopoemen, despite the clear indication that this is what he is not doing (§ 8). 3. T .•• O.yc.>yns Ka.;. tt]A.ous: 'the education and tastes'.

PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ACHAEAN CAVALRY

X.

21.

5·

Ka.l. Ta.lha. ••• T~v SLa.cpopO.v: 'though such infonnation is more profitable' (Paton). 4. To~s EJLIJsuxous livSpa.~: Schweighaeuser's convincing emendation Of p e?J!Jnjxov<:; for the COntrast With a#xwv cf. Vi. 47• 10, {1Tpos) tva.vop&U>ow: for the didactic purpose see Vol. I, pp. 6 ff. S-8. Life of Philopoemen. When P. composed this is not recorded and has been the subject of much controversy. \Verner, 14, dated its composition to the period 18o-1p when, he argued, Lycortas' party was out of office (a dubious assumption). Lucas, 35 n. 2, assumed that P. composed it after 146 to defend the dead leader against Roman criticism (cf. xxxix. 3), a view that has been generally rejected, though not always for good reasons. Nitzsch, 137, for example, argued that if Lucas was right it was odd that the Philopoemen dealt only summarily with its subject's adult years; but in fact K€cpaAatwSwc; (§ 7) describes the general character of the encomium contrasted with the Histories, and does not imply that Philopoemen's adult years were given summary tre;).tment and his early youth developed at length (so Pedech, REG, 1951,82-88; contra Jacoby on FGH, 173). A stronger argument is that the Philopoemen was an elogium or encomium (§ 8), and that this was quite distinct in rhetorical theory from an apologia (Arist. Rhet. i. 3· 3· 1358 b; i. 9· 33· 1367 b; Pedech, REG, 1951, 89). Finally, it is certain that P. had written at least as far as xv {and probably xvi) by r46 (cf. iii. r-5 n.); therefore, since P. here(§ 6) says that the Philopoemen was an earlier work, to date it to 146 will involve the hypothesis that the account of Philopoemen in xis a later insertion, a view for which there is no evidence whatever. It is therefore unlikely that the encomium was written at the date and in the context assigned to it by Lucas. Recently Pedech (REG, 1951, 88-ro3), anticipated by Wunderer (i. 87), has argued that P. wrote his Philopoemen at Rome as an educational model for the young Scipio Aemilianus. But this view depends largely on the thesis that it was primarily concerned with Philopoemen's education and early years, a view not supported by the evidence (see below) ; and, as Ziegler observes (RE, 'Polybios (r)', cols. 1472-3 n.), Scipio's model and vade-mecum is known to have been Xenophon's Cyropaedia (Cic. T.D. ii. 62; ad Q. frat. i. 1. 23). Further, Philopoemen was hardly the figure to commend himself to the young Roman noble as a model ln view of his supposed hostility to Rome (d. Treu, Historia, 1954, 119 n. r). Altogether, then, the view that the Philopoemen was a youthful work written soon after its subject's death is the most convincing (Nissen, KU, 28o-r; Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (r)', col. 1472).

It is highly probable that Plutarch's Philopoemen is derived very largely from P.'s encomium (d. A. H. L. Heeren, De fontibus et auctoritate vit. parallel. Plut. commentationes quattttor (Gottingen,

X. 2r. 5

PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ACHAEAN CAVALRY

r82o), 86-88; M. Haug, Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Lebensbeschreibungen der Gracchen (Tubingen, 1854), 84-86; Nissen, KU, 28o-7; contra Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (1)', col. 1472). The Life includes many details not in P.'s Histories, but not inconsistent with them; whether Plutarch used P.' s Life directly is another question, not relevant here. Pedech (REG, 1951, 8z-88) has tried to establish the detailed contents of the Philopoemen, but unsuccessfully. He argues that the phrase Tds t1rupavwnhas 1Tpafe.t> (§ 6) means Philopoemen's achievements prior to his holding the hipparchy (cf. § 7, Tr7w ve.wTe.ptKwv '~.\wv), and therefore that of the three books of the encomium, book i dealt with Philopoemen's birth and education (cf. § 5, Tls ~v Kat T{VWV Kat TlaLV aywyafs txp~aaTO v€o<; WV), book ii With hiS Career down to 2ro/o9, and book iii with his nKfL~· But the t1Tt<pav€aTaTat 1Tpafets seem to be the deeds of Philopoemen's prime; cf. § r, €1ri T~l' apx~v TWV ..• 1Tpafe.wv, which implies that the 1Tpafm began with his official career, and neglects what was done earlier, for instance ai Sellasia. Moreover, if Plutarch's Life is any indication, where only seven chapters out of twenty-one deal Vvith the period before the hipparchy, it is unlikely that two-thirds of the encomium was concerned with these early years. Equally unconvincing is Treu's attempt (Historia, 1954, 22o-4) to expand the Philopoemen to contain an excursus on the early history of the Achaean confederation (Plut. Philop. 8), inserted between Philopoemen's early life and the account of his prime~an excursus which he thinks served P. as a source in the Histories. In reality, the detailed contents and disposition of the Philopoemen seem to be irrecoverable. 5. TtS iiv Kal T(vwv ••• vEos wv: on the triple scheme here outlined see Treu, Historia, 1954, 221, who observes that T{s originally included a man's character or tf>urns, and only later came to point only to his name. In the Euagoras !socrates has only the first two points: 1rpwTov fLEv oov 1Tiipt T~S tf>uae.ws Tfjs E?!ayopov Kat Tlvwv ?jl' a1Toyovos • •• DOKiii [LOL 1TpE1TiitV • .. Ot~;.\lhtv (Isoc. Evag. 12). The third, dywy~. is found, however, in Xenophon's Cyropaedia (i. 1. 6), Tls 1TOT • wv y~;v~Edv KaL1Tolav nvd tf>uatv EXWV Kat 1rolq. nv11Tat8w1Jds 1Tat8Elg, TOIJ'OVTOV Ot~VIiYKf.V ds TO apx€tV dv!Jpdmwv. The whole scheme appears later in Nicolaus of Damascus' biography of Augustus (FGH, 90 F 126). Pedech (REG, 1951, 83) argues that this part of Philopoemen's career was treated in detail, and adduces the use of 8taaatf>ovvTES; but 8watf>dv means only 'to explain' (cf. ii. 19. r3, where it refers back to the cursory mention of Sena in ii. 14. II and ii. 16. 5). 6. TTJV TE 1Tat8tK~V 6.ywy~v •• , KO.L TdS t1Ttcf>avEO'TCLTO.S 1Tprl~EtS: th(' former is taken up as Tfjs ... vEwre.ptKfjs dywy~s Kat Twv v~SwT~EptKWI' ~~Awv

(§ 7), the latter are the achievements of his adult career (§ 7, Tof,

... KaTd TfJV aKfL~V athou ... epyoLS). On the view that the tmm· €ararat 1Tpaf~Et> are the same as o[ v~Ewre.ptKo1 ~ij.\ot see above, §§5-8 IL 222

PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ACHAEAN CAVALRY X. 22.2

7.

~eo:rO.

p.Epos &.t¥EAELv: 'to abridge the details' (contrast 1Tpoa8Eivat KaTd. p.€po>, 'to add details'). Schweighaeuser quotes Reiske's view that KaT here means simply 'modo ... modo', 'on the ~ea~

one hand' and 'on the other' per compensationem; but this is already in p.iv • .• !5€. The account of Philopoemen's early youth and training is to be abridged, not because it has been described in greater detail in the monograph than have his later years, but because a detailed account of such matters is out of place in a general history. KftPa.Aa.I.WSws EKEL OEOTJAwp.€vo~s: summarily compared with the requirements of a history; but an encomium, P. adds (§ 8), a1r7lnt Tdv KerpaAaun87} .•• a1ToAoyu7p.ov.

TO 1rpt1rov ~I< a. TEp~ Twv O'UvT6.€ewv: cf. ii. 40. J, KaTll T6 1rpE1rov Tfj yparpfj, where P. makes the same contrast between history and biography (or encomium). 8. Encomium and history. It is a mark of the y€vo> €yKwp.taaTtKov that it requires avf'r/at> (amplijicatio), a feature stressed by Gorgias, who laid it down (Plato, Phaedr. 267 A) that the orator's task was to make Ta ap.tKpd p.qcD..a Kal Ta p.€ycf>.a ap.tKpa rpalv£:a8m. There was a clear line between history and encomium (also called €m8€tKTLKov undTTav'r}yvptKov; cf. Kroll, RE, 'Rhetorik', SuppL-E. vii, cols. u28~9) on the question of truth (cf. xii. 28 a 1). The distinction is developed in Lucian, Hist. conscr. 7; see Avenarius, IJ~I6, 159-60, also discussing the present pas..<;age. ~toLV6s l:Jv E1Ta.(vou Ka.t lJH)you: this is essential to the moral and didactic purpose of history (cf. Vol. I, pp. 6 ff.), and must therefore be firmly based on reasons (p.€7' a1To8dfEw>); see viii. 8. 7 n. Elsewhere Jl. criticizes Phylarchus (ii. 61. 6) and Timaeus (xii. 15. 9) for omitting l1rawo> in the proper place; and in i. 14. 5 he insists that personal friendship or hostility must not affect the historian's duty to apply praise and blame (cf. vi. rr. 10, xviii. 41. 1). Avenarius, 157-62, stresses the development of this by Ephorus and Theopompus. 'I'OV p.ET' a1T00eL~EWS KO.L TWV •.• O'UAAoyLO'p.wv: sc. a1ToAoytap.ov; 'an account supported by reasoning and the considerations accompanyIng each action'. This seems the most likely rendering, since, if av>.>.oytap.wv is translated 'calculation of results', 1rapmop.lvwv has no obvious sense.

::12. 1. e€ O.vSpwv TWV E1TLtPO.VE0'1'a1'wv: d. Plut. Philop. KpaiJytv, av8pa 1TcfVTwJJ EJJ€Ka Aap.1Tpov; Paus. viii. 49·

I. I,

1TaTlpa

2.

61ro KA.Ea.vSpov TOV Ma.v1'LVEa.: cf. Plut. Philop. 1. 1--2; Paus. viii. 49· :z, which however add nothing. Cleander was exiled from Mantinea about 273, which can be established as approximately the date of Philopoemen's birth. When Craugis died Philopoemen was 1rai:; ll!f1Tw> (Paus. viii. 49· :z). ::1. ,.,A.wT"I!s 'E~<Sitp.ou ~ea.t ATJp.ot¥6.vous: cf. Plut. A rat. 5· I; Philop.

X.

22. 2

PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ACHAEAN CAVALRY

3-4; Paus. viii. 49· 2. In the Philopoemen Plutarch gives the names as Ecdemus and Megalophanes (some .MSS. Demophanes), in the Aratus only the former is mentioned, in the form Ecdelus; Pausanias has Ecdelus and Megalophanes. Ecdemus is unparalleled as a Greek name, and could be a corruption influenced by Demophanes; the variant M:egalophanes might then be due to confusion with Megalopolis, the city of the two men. But certainty is impossible. See Beloch, iv. r. 614 n. 4; Ziegler, Rh. Mus. 1934, 228-33 (Ecdelus and Demophanes) ; W. Capelle, RE, '.Megalophanes', col. 143 (Ecdemus and Megalophanes). 4»Euyov1'E<; 'Tolls 1'upuvvou<;: probably Aristodemus the Good, who seized the tyranny at Megalopolis at the time of the Chremonidean War (Paus. viii. 27. u). :A.pKEa£Aq. 1'~ 4»lAoao+'l:l: Arcesilaus of Pitane in Aeolia succeeded Crates as head of the Academy in c. 268-5 (Diog. Laert. iv. 32), and founded the sceptical middle Academy; he held this position until his death in 24r fo. au
1.

-rwv Ka-ra T~ll Tr
Magas' widow Apama brought in Demetrius the Fair, a son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, but he was murdered at the instigation of her daughter Berenice (v. 36. r n.). Some Cyrenaic federal coins overstruck on issues of Magas carry the monogram .6HM, suggesting that the organization of Cyrene as a koi1wn was the work of Demetrius. If so, the Megalopolitans were perhaps called in by Demetrius, who had been, like them, a student of Arcesilaus at Athens (though whether at the same time is not known); cf. Diog. Lacrt. iv. 41; Jones, CERP, 359, and Beloch, iv. I. 616 (who abandoned this view in iv. 2. under the false impression that the Ptolemaic l5td.ypa!J-!-I-a found at Cyrene (SEG, ix. r), and outlining an oligarchic constitution, belonged to this period; it belongs in fact to the fourth century; cl. Rostovtzeff, CAH, vii. I2i)· Alternatively they were summoned by the anti-Egyptian party after Demetrius' murder (d. Tarn, CAH, vii. 7u); this would better fit the references to disorder, but would leave the Liberators less to organize. On the whole the former view is more likely, but the evidence is indecisive. Jones (CERP, 359--6o} suggests that the creation of the federal Pentapolis (Pliny, Nat. hist. v. 3r) dates to the reorganization carried out by the Megalo polita.ns; on the Penta polis see Larsen, CP, 1952, 8.

PHILOPOEMEI'< REFOR}1S ACHAEAN CAVALRY X. 23. z

4. lhi,t:pE ••• TWv Ko.9' a.uTbv: 'he came to excel his contemporaries'. S. Ka.-r<'a. -rTjv 1rEpLKo1T"ftv: cf. vi. 53· 6 n. (where read Tr<EptKoTr~v). 6. Ka.-ra.O"Ta.IMs ••• twwupxT)s: for :uofo9; d. 21-24 n., 21. 2 n.; Aymard, ACA, 96 n. 1. The Achaean hipparch (cf. ii. 37· xo n. (e); Aymard, ACA, 323) was nominally concerned mainly with the cavalry; but Philopoemen was exceptional in treating these duties seriously (§§ 8-<)). 7. tftAov E1rL1't:UKTLKov: 'an enthusiasm which could not fail to bring success'. 9. Tftc,;; O'Tpa.TT)y'o.c,;; bpEyO!£t:voL: the hipparchy was normally merely a step in the Achaean cm·sus honorum. t~EpL9euov-ra.L -roue,;; vious: 'they canvass the soldiers'; cf. Arist. Pol. vii (v). 3· 9· IJ03 a 15, €~ atperwv yap J.TrolTjcrav KATjpw'Tds, on iJPoVJI'TO 1'0V> €pL8€uopivous (of offices at Heraea). For viot, 'soldiers', cf.

v. 26. 8 n. ds -rb fltAAov: the cavalry, being naturally taken from the wealthy, would be influential in the elections (cf. Plut. Philop. 7· 3), whether these were in the hands of a full citizen assembly (as in the third century) or in those of the Council (as seems to be the case in the second century; cf. Larsen, 7s-ror, and especially 98). Aymard (ACA, 2ro-n) argues that £ls r.l p.iX\ov envisages political support to be given by what are now young men when eventually they reach the voting age of 30 (Techeance ... lointaine'); but P. is thinking of the support a hipparch can expect when he stands for the cn-pa'TTJyla, which might be quite soon, as in Philopoemen's case. Some cavalry at least would be of voting age, and it is of these that P. and his hipparchs are here thinking (despite viot, 'soldiers': see last note). 10. To -rwv KmvQv &wEXEa9a.L: on corruption in Greek public life cf. Vi. 56. 1J. lhC.. -r..;v Ka.KotT)Awa(a.v: Suidas read KaKo{TJA{aJ•. Either will give the same sense, and what that is P. makes clear in xi. 8. 4~7, where in connexion with Philopoemen's reforms as general P. reverts to his criticism of the other Achaean slralegoi. KaKo{")AwO'la., 'affectation, bad taste', seems to be the equivalent here of 'i]A.os ovK dm'X~> arising EK ri'js 'TWII a:V.wv cL\a,ovt:lar Kat ri'js aKatplas, i.e. an excessive and inappropriate dandyism and affectation detrimental to military discipline. The effect of this on the cavalry is worse than on the infantry, probably because the former being richer are more likely to be infected.

23. 1-8. Specific cavalr:y manauvres. ;I, K~WELc.;; £'' TtVlC.V KO.t , •• ewt 86pu: 'facing round to left and to right'; the individual horseman turned through 90°; d. Asclep. ro. 2, I(AKrtS p.i':v oOv l.crnv ~ Kar' av8pa. Klli")Ut!>, br1 8&pv fLEV ~ I.Trl 0£~Lct, 8U17S

225

X. 23.

2.

PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ACHAEAN CAVALRY

i1T' d(J'1Tloa 8~ ~ E1T. dptr.rrf.pci., E1Ti 0~ nvv t1T1TO'TUJV lrfo' ~v[av; Arr. Tact. 21 ; Ael. Tact. 28. I. For an example of the use of KAlcns by infantry cf. iii. 115. g-IO (Libyans at Cannae); vi. 40. !2 (Roman marching column). &vauTpo!fn1 ~eat I.I.ETa~o!.T): cf. iii. us. 3 (where, however, these terms are used vaguely). Here p.e7n{3oA~ means turning through r8o0 , and dvar.rrporfo~ a return to the original position; cf. Asclep. IO. 3. ~ o€ ois i1Tl 'Td avnl ytvop.lll"f) KAlaL<; Ka'Td. VWTOV Ta<; TWV &rrAtTWV o'fins fLETar.Oeiaa Kal..£i'Tat fLETaf3oA~; JO. 6, d~·ar.rrporfo~ lU EaTLV d1ToKaTcfr.rraaL<; 'Tfj<; emcrrporfofjs .. Oil 1TpOKa'TEtXE 7d ~ in relation to a whole body of troops; but just as ema7potf>~ (see below) can be used of an individual (cf. Plut. Philop. 1· s), so presumably can &.vaa7poif;~. Schweighaeuser, ad loc., took avaaTpoM to mean a return to the original position after the KAlats itj>' ~vtav or E1Tt oopv. But iii. IIS. 3 shows it to go closely with p.eraf3oA~. and the meaning will be 'facing about and returning to the original position', with hysteron prateron to avoid hiatus. 3. Ku.T' ouAU.tJ-OV 8' hrLuTpoq,T) KU.L 'I!'EpLa1Taup.O~: d. i. 76. 2--9 n .• xii. r8. 3· The tactical •vriters (Asclep. ro. 4-5; Arr. Tact. 21. 3; Ael. Tact. 25. 5) define imaTpo~ as a movement by which a whole body of troops swings round, pivoted on the left or right file leader, so as to finish at go 0 to its former position and further forward, e.g.

z,

b; right file leader First position Second position Third position

K

a b c d (a) b ( c)(d) [a] b [c) !dl

(cf. Asclep. 10. 7; Arr. Tact. 2I. 4; Ael. Tact. 25. 8) represents the same movement continued through a further 90°, so that the body now faces the direction opposite to its original one. 4. ETl 8' EK'II'Ej>LU1Tau~6s: cf. Asclep. ro. 8; Arr. Tact. 21. 5; AeL Tact. 25. 9· This movement represents yet a further 90° turn by the same body, so that the troops now face a direction to the left of their original position. A fourth turn through 90° would bring the troops back to this position, and such a turn was called imKaTci.aTaats. i~a.ywyat ~eaTd Xoxous Kat 81Xoxlas: 'dashing out in files or double files'. For Aoxos in this sense (rather than 'company'} see Asclep. z; Arr. Tact. S· 4; Ael. Tact. 4· 1-3, 5· 1-2; and for SL~oxla, 'double-file', Asclep. 2. 8; Arr. Tact. 10. 1; Ael Tact. 9· 1-4 a. LSJ rnistranslates 'double-company' (the sense in Arr. Tact. 15. 3), and Paton is also

'TI'E:pw·rraap.os

226

PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ACHAEAN CAVALRY

X. 23.7

Wrong with 'in single or double companies' (duplicated four lines earlier as 'in sections and double sections'). C'UVQ.ywy(l,t ••• !'-ET' ~1Toxf\s: 'reining in to return ... '; El> t/..as is Scaliger's emendation of the MS. 0111111lAas. Eight {,\at are said to make one imrapxla {Asclep. 7· II; Arr. Tact. 18. 2-3; Ael. Tact. 20. 2), and an i,\71 to contain 64, a iTmapxla 512 horsemen (though variants are found). av:\ap.os is not used by these v.Titers, but is equivalent in P. to an £/..71; cf. 21. 3, xviii. 19. 9 (of Aetolians). Hence there is much to be said for Schweighaeuser's suggestion that 0111El/..as is a gloss (= O€s 111r/..lls) giving a technical equivalent for ov:\ap.ovs which has crept into the text. If that is SO, Ei> OVAU.j.I.OV>, ElS imrapx{a.> Will be 'to return to their squadrons and brigades'. But P. may have written 111ls tAils, indicating a general sense, 'they returned to their formations'. For a discussion of l!..llt and :."11'1Tilpxlllt in Alexander's army see P. A. Brunt, ]HS, 1963, 27-45 and G. T. Griffith, ibid. 68-74.

5. lKT6.€ElS ~ Tfj> "'l'a.pa Tovs ovpayous). This sense of "'l'apllyw'YI) (Scaliger's emendation of the MS. "'l'apa/..oyijs) can be illustrated from Xen. Lac. pol. II. 6-8, where the Spartan Jvwp.oTlat are advancing in column, one behind the other, and meet an enemy phalanx; whereupon Ttj} lvc,Jp.oTapxcp 1rapryyviiTat a.Aay~ iva.VTm KaTa.O'T'fi. This advance of each unit, by an oblique march forward,

so that it can take up position in line with the first unit, involves marching along the backs of the troops in front, since those furthest to the rear march furthest to reach their new positions in the front; and this is what P. means here by "'I'CJ.pa TOV') ovpayous. (In the tactical writers "'l'o.paywy~ has another meaning, tl1at of a phalanx advancing in line, rather than in column, like Alexander's at Issus (xii. 20. 1), cf. Arr. Tact. 28. 3; Asclep. II. 1; Ael. Tact. 36.) 6. TO.s ••• K(l.TO. 1TEp(KAa.ow: sc. EKTagn.,; cf. xi. 23. 2 ; 'deployment by wheeling round'. In this rnanceuvre troops advancing in column limply wheel at a given point and proceed at right angles to their former direction. This would be a simple method of converting an extended line into marching order ("11'opE£as .•• 8£Ci.8eatv) or vice versa. 7. TO.s (1TQ.ywy6.s: 'advances in column'; cf. Arr. Tact. 28. 2, Ka~ ~"'l'a.­ yw'Yl} 11-/.v E(}'TLV, brlli~Oav ntyli-a Tayp.an E"'l'' .:vfJv €"11'1]TaL. Cf. xi. rs. 7' xviii. 31. 12 (of a phalanx charge).

X. 23. 7 PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ACHAEAN CAVALRY

autuyouvTnS Knt auaTo~xoOVTns: 'keeping in line and in column'. 'vyEiv, 'to stand in rank', and CFTotxeiv, 'to stand in file', are used by the tactical writers (cf. Asclep. 7· 4, of cavalry squadrons). 9. To is T£ '1I'OAAois Knt Tois &.'11'oTEAdo,s: 'to the troops and to the local commanders'. For ol ?Tol.l..ol in this sense see i. 33· 4, etc. (Paton has 'the people', wrongly); for ol ~'ITDTI!.eto' cf. xvi. 36. 3; IG, v. 2. 293 (i\1antinea); Bean, ]HS, 1948, 44~48, 11. 39--40, d?To-rll..t:,os wv Kat a7TOO'TaA£ls- E1T1. TWV ll€aVlUKWV (Araxa). An d?To-rE'>..ews was evidently

a minor local magistrate with military duties; in the Mantinean inscription he commands infantry, and Toup suggested that in Suidas, a'/TonfA€W'' ol KO.Til '/T!lA€tS ~Y€/.1-0VES' TWV 'IouSaiwv, the last word is an error for }ixattiJv induced by the reference to Jews in the previous article. Aymard (ACA, 1oz n. 1) observes that as hipparch Philopoemen had no access to a political assembly and so toured the towns making contact with the local cavalry contingents and their officers, and later (aoOts) paid a second visit to make sure all was going welL OL KtlTa '11'0AELS llpxovTES: the a?TO-ri'A£WI. and other officers. 10. Twv ~YEJLovwv: the word ~Yf/.1-dw frequently denotes a highranking infantry officer in the armies of this period, including Achaea (cf. Itm. Delos, 442 B, L 68; Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 3 (with Robert's additional bibliography); but here cavalry are involved, and fJYE/.1-0l!ES' must therefore be 'officers' in the general sense, as in 24. z and elsewhere (cf. Launey, i. 24-25).

24. 3. Tl yO.p ••• £ma!Jla.AEO'TEpov KTA.: cf. 3· 7 n. 4. aTpnTLWTLKTJS E:~oua{nc.;: 'the qualifications of an ordinary rank and file soldier'. Paton renders 'a display of his military rank', but this error is already noted by Schweighaeuser. On the contrast between CFTpanwn~nXTJpEus: the simile is perhaps from Demetrius' l)rpaT'7Y'Ka, a work in two books (Diog. Laert. v. 8o); so Ostermann, De Demetrii Phaleri uita, rebus gestis et scriptorum reliquiis, Progr. Hersfeld, 1847, and Fulda, 1857, fg. xxxix; Wehrli, Demetrios, fg. 123; von Scala, 154; Jacoby on FGH, 2z8 F 27; Martini, RE, 'Demetrios (85)', col. 2832 ; Wunderer has no good grounds for rejecting this view. Von Scala observes that Demetrius' comparison with building goes back to Socrates ; cf. X en. M em. iii. 1. 7, 1rol..v yd.p Star/>E'pH CFTp&.rw~.~-a -rero.yj.~.lvov d:raKTOv,

Wa1rep MOo,

TE Kat

?T>..lv8ot

~tal. ~vl.a ~tal. ~tlpaj.i.os

chrLK7'WS p€v EPP'!.I-1.1-lva ovS€v xf"latj.l.a lanll, E7TEtadv Kcll

i1Tt7ToAfjs nl. j.I.~Tii'.

c:Jrj7TOj.i.€Va

1.1-'47'£

T'I')KDj.i.€J!a,

8£

TaxBfl~taTw ~.~-£v

or T€ MOot

Kat

& Klpaj.i.OS',

PHILOPOEMEN REFORMS ..-\CHAEAN CAVALRY X. 25. t p.ea~.p S€ a£ TE. 7TAlv8oL Kal Td gt!>.a., wawE.p otKOOop.lq. uVVTtfiE.TaL, T(JT£ ylyvETaL wo.Uov tigwv KTijp.a, olKla. iws Myou: i.e. if not by practical ; there is an implied

Jv

criticism of Demetrius' theoretical approach to such a subject as tactics. Compare Cicero's criticism of the older Stoics in de leg. iii. 14, 'nam ueteres uerbo tenus acute illi quidem, sed non ad hunc usum popularem atque ciuilem de re publica disserebant'; Plut . •Wor. 1033 B, lv >..&yo~s-; von Scala, I 55· •Av .•. To 1rapa.n8€v: 'if one sets down a brick at a time and the construction receives due attention in each separate course'. Biittner\Vobst accepts Casaubon's TTAlvOov 8fis- for wA.f]Oov fiErs- F, or 7TATJVflov8Eis- or -'ITAlvOovfh£s- SE, and Schweighaeuser's 7TapaTEBev for wapappaylv Sand 1rapan8ev Parisinus B.N. Gr. 165I in app. There is some compression; expanded the full sense is: 'just as in building, if one sets down the bricks [carefully] one by one and each separate course of the construction receives due attention, [a firm structure results], so in an army the careful training of each man and each file makes the whole force strong'. >.&xos- gives a better point if taken as 'file' rather than 'company', since the file is to the individual what the course is to the separate brick.

25. 1-5. Fragment of a speech This fragment is probably from a speech delivered at Aegium in 209; see above, p. I 5· In spring 209 the Achaeans had appealed for help to Philip (Livy, xxvii. 29. 9), who had defeated an Aetolian force at Lamia, and then returned to Phalara to meet neutral ambassadors from Rhodes, Chios, Athens, Egypt, and Athamania. (Ferro, 7 n. 6, refers App. Afac. 3· 1-2, to this occasion; but see xi. 4· 1-6. Ion.} Philip agreed to a thirty days' truce, continued into Achaea, celebrated the Argive Herea towards the end of June (Livy, xxvii. 30. 3-9), and then proceeded to a conference which had been called to Aegium. Since the object was to coax the Aetolians out of the war, the Macedonians stressed that Pergamum and Rome were gathering all its fruits. This will be the context of this fragment. The conference proved abortive, since half-way through news came that a Roman fleet was at Naupactus and Attalus had reached Aegina; whereupon the Aetolians put forward unacceptable demands and Philip broke off negotiations (Livy, xxvii. 30, Io-15; Walbank, Philip, 89-90).

25. 2. Tel. 1Tpa.KTLKwTa.Ta. T7]s Suvn}LEWS: 'the most agile part of the force'. -rftv s· imypa.cJ>T]v: 'the credit' ; cf. i. 31· 4. ii. 2. 9 n.

FRAGMENT OF A SPEECH

X. 25.6

25. 6. Fragment of a speech This sentence in oratio obliqua probably comes from a speech delivered at the same conference as 2s. I-S; unless it is from a defence by Philip of his behaviour at Argos. The latter is rather unlikely. See p. IS on the position of the fragment. 6. OTJiJ.OKpa.Tu
26. Philip's behaviour at Argos After the breakdown of negotiations at Aegium (25. I-S n.), Philip hoped to make contact with a Punic fleet commanded by Bomilcar, and said to be on its way to Greece; but Bomilcar never passed Corcyra, and Philip returned to Argos to celebrate the Kemea in July (2o9); cf. Livy, xxvii. 30. IS-I7; Walbank, Philip, 91.

26. 1. j.I.ETd TO iKTEA~aa.t TOV ••• aywvo.: with the introductory words this is probably the excerptor's interpolation. From Argos Philip was called to repel a landing by P. Sulpicius between Sicyon and Corinth, and having done this he returned to Argos to complete the festival (Livy, xxvii. 31. I-J). a.OO~s ELS "'pyos t'ITa.viJAee: from repelling Sulpicius (see last note), though in its present context it suggests that Philip had held the Nemea elsewhere. At this time the Kemean festival took place at Argos, not at Nemea. 2. i€oua(a.v ••• iJ.Eltw Ka.t iJ.OVo.px~KwT£po.v: 'the greater and more monarch-like was the licence he displayed; for this sense of Jeova{a cf. § s. xxxii. 2. 1· 3. oll yAp lfn Tas xiJpa.s i'ITe(po. KTA.: for a typical incident cf. Plut. Mor. 760 A-B; see also Livy, xxvii. 31. s-8, xxxii. 21. 24. All this is characteristic of the tyrant (cf. vi. 7. 7' avavnppl)Tovs Bi KfJ.t7Tapd. TWJJ ~ p:r1 7rpOG7JKOVTwv Tas Twv a'l'poota~wv XPetas Kat avvova~as , an d contrasts with Philip's democratic bearing and costume. There is probably a hostile tradition behind this, exaggerating the extent of Philip's debauchery. 4. TWV 1.1.~v Tous u~Eis, Twv 8~ To us llv8po.s: Livy, xxvii. 31. 7, 'periculosumque et uiris et parentibus erat' ; but the variant does not warrant tampering with P.'s text. \

T

\

-

,).

I

I

'

I

)

PHILIP'S BEHAVIOUR AT ARGOS ~1Tl

X.

2]. I

1TpocjlaC7EOW aAoyolS OlEO'ElE: cf. iii. IS. 9; 'he terrified them on

groundless pretexts'.

5. XPWf1EVOS TTI KctTa TTJV 1TctpemOTJf1LC1V

E~OUO'Lc;_l ••• avEOTJV: Jfova{q.

Valesius for P Jfovmav. Biittner-Wobst assumes a lacuna to explain the hiatus and suggests 81)ptwOw> Kat dviOYJv (cf. xv. 20. 3), which may well be right. The adverb (or adverbs) must be taken with XPWJLEVO> (not with EAV7rE£, as Mauersberger, s.v. aJJEOYJV). Translate: 'through his display of excessive licence during his stay in the country'. 6. Ta 1rapa cjluow: whether P. means what is outrageous (d. xv. 36. 4) or what it is contrary to nature to endure is not clear owing to the break in the text.

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

26. 8. Ka.9cmep ev(ols ••• Twv 11r1rwv: a comparison perhaps derived from personal experience (cf. von Scala, 23 n. 8).

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

27. 1-31. 15. Antiochus' expedition against Arsaces Two contiguous, but not continuous, fragments-there is a break in F after 27-are from the res Asiae of 01. I42, 3 = 21o(o9; see above, p. IS· The Parthians had recently conquered western 231

X.

z]. 1

ANTIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES

Hyrcania, Comisene, and Choarene to the south of the Caspian; and further east Euthydemus of Magnesia had seized Aria (cf. Holleaux, CAH, viii. I4o = Etudes, v. 322). In autumn 2Io (probably; cf. ix. 43 n.) Antiochus had sailed down the Euphrates; in the spring of 209 he was in Ecbatana, in Media, preparing his expedition. There is no evidence that the Parthians had seized Media. P.'s sources for the whole of Antiochus' eastern expedition are obscure; against von Scala's argument (262) that he followed Zeno of Rhodes, who had information from Polyxenidas (29. 6 n.), see Ullrich, 3I-32. But either directly or indirectly P. seems to draw in part on an eyewitness (cf. 28. 3 n.), who took part in Antiochus' anabasis and subsequently published an account of it; he may be the 'mercenary source' detected earlier (cf. v. 40. 4-57. 8 n.). By this expedition Antiochus thoroughly re-established his position in Media, where recently-found inscriptions from Nehavend attest the position of the Seleucids there in I93 (Robert, Hellenica, 7, 1949, 5-22; 8, 1949, 73-75; Bull. ipig. I95o, no. 2I7; cf. Clairmont, Mus. Helv. I949. 2I8-26; A. G. Roos, Mnem. 1950, 54-63; I951, 70-72; Aymard, REA, I949, 327-45; Edson, CP, I954. II2-I8). 27. 1. ~ M1JS[a: see v. 44· 4-II on its character and extent; see now also Schmitt, Antiochos, 5o-6r. Tl7w KaTa TlJY ~a[av SuvaaTELWv: 'the principalities of Asia'. Historically Media had been a separate kingdom, though now it was a Seleucid province. TWV r1T1TWV: cf. v. 44· l n. for the N esaean horses of Media, and the location there of the royal herds. 2. Ta ~aaLALKa auanjllaTa Twv ivrroTpo~LWV: 'the royal herds for breeding'; cf. v. 44· I, Ta ••. imrorfo6p{3ta. The phrase is awkward; but £1T1TOTporfola is commonly used in the plural, and Casaubon's l-rrrroTporfoeiwv, 'stables', is no improvement. (SLQ. Tljv TWV Tovwv) eu~utav: so, convincingly, Biittner-Wobst, comparing ii. 68. 5, iii. 92. II, iv. 38. II, x. 40. II. 3. rrEplOLKELTCLL St voAeaLY 'EAATJVLUL: these, like the 1roAm· d[toAoyot, which Alexander founded among the Cossaei (Diod. xvii. III. 6; on the Cossaei see above, v. 44· 7 n.), will be military settlements, not full cities (d. Tarn, Bactr£a, 8-9; for P.'s loose use of 1r<:IAts- cf. i. 72. 2, iii. I8. In., iii. 6o. 9. vii. 9· 5, xxv. r). They were needed to secure what was to be the central province of the Seleucid realm (cf. E. Meyer, ElUte, I9 n. 2) and the usual headquarters of the GovernorGeneral of the Upper Satrapies (Bengtson, Strat. ii. 78 ff., and especially 86 n. 2). There were, of course, full Greek cities in Media, including Heracleia (Strabo, xi. 5I4; Ptol. vi. 2. r6; Amm. Marc. xxiii. 6. 39), Apamea Rhagiane (Strabo, xi. 524; Pliny, Nat. kist. vi. 43), which according to Isidore of Charax was in Choarene, east

ANTIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES X. 27. 7

of the Caspian Gates (Stath. Parth. 8), Laodiceia (Strabo, xi. 524; Steph. Byz. s.v.), now identified as Nehavend (see above, 27. I-JI. 15 n.) and Charax (Isid. Char. Stath. Parth. 7; Amm. Marc. xxiii. 6. 43) ; and the two native towns Ecbatana and Rhagae were refounded as Greek cities named Epiphaneia (Steph. Byz. s.v . .ityfJa-rava; i.e. a foundation of Antiochus IV) and Europus (Strabo, xi. 514; Ptol. vi. 2. 17; Amm. Marc. xxiii. 6. 39) respectively. But it is neither proved nor probable that any of these is earlier than Seleucus I, the attested founder of many. See Tscherikower, 99-ror; and, on Seleucus I's foundations, App. !3yr. 51· 1TA~v 'EK~a.-ravwv: the capital of Media, modern Ramadan; cf. Herod. i. 98 ff. on its foundation. Pliny's attribution to a Seleucus (Nat. hist. vi. 43) must be rejected in the light of the present passage; but Antiochus IV founded Epiphaneia here (see last note). Herodotus (loc. cit.) describes a sevenfold fortification, each ring a different colour (perhaps with astrological significance; How and Wells, Commentary, ad lac., quoting Rawlinson,}RGS, ro, r841, 127, for a parallel from the poet Nizami). Diodorus (xvii. no. 7) makes the circuit of the city 250 stades, an exaggeration. There has been no excavation. On its wealth see, besides Herodotus, Ps.-Aristotle, de mundo, 6. 398 A. Pedech, Methode, 568-7o, argues that P. drew his description of the city from Callisthenes. 4. iv liE 1'ois vpos 1'ns tipKTovs ~€pEaL: Hamad an lies on the main Baghdad-Teheran road, on the slopes of the Elvend range, which forms part of the ancient Mt. Zagros (cf. v. 44· 4-II n.); cf. § 6 n. Toil) vEpt ...,v Ma.u7!Ttv ~<:a.l1'ov Eil~ewov ~€peaL: true only in reference to P.'s distorted geographical picture of northern Media. See above, v. 44· 4, where the Elymaeans, Aniaracae, Cadusii, and l\iatiani are placed in the north of the province, i.mlpKELTaL o€ Twv avva'IT'T6VTwv 1Tpd> Ti)v Matumv Tov ll&vrou p.£pwv; cf. Schmitt, A ntiochos, 6o; Pedech, Methode, 568-9. 6. (11To ...~" 1Ta.pwpe~a.v T~v 1Ta.pn 1'ov 'Op6VTT)v: for the Orantes (mod. Elvend) cf. Diad. ii. 13. 7 Ctesias, FGH, 688 F I (rJ. 7)); Ptol. vi. 2. 4· Ammianus (xxiii. 6. 39) calls it Iasonius mons, but Ptolemy (loc. cit.) distinguishes between this and the Orontes. Pliny (Nat. hist. v. 98) calls it Oroandes, which Kiessling (RE, 'Hyrkania', col. 461) connects with the Iranian Arvant. 8a.u~a.crlw!; vpO!; oxvpOTt)1'0. KO.TEO'KEVO.O'~Evt}V: this casts doubt on Aelian's story (Var. hi st. vii. 8) that Alexander had the citadel and its wall dismantled as an expression of grief after Hephaestion's death. 7. To ~t\ynv Ka.TC. JlEpos: 'to say something' (not 'to go into details', as Paton) ; see ii. 40. 6 n. lxn 1'tv' 0.1Top1a.v: P.'s embarrassment is due to the fact that such -roTToypa.rf>iaL are part of the stock-in-trade of the rhetorical historian, who uses them to work up his material (e!£pya{eu8at) in an exciting 2 33

X. 27. 7 ANTIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES

way (cf. xxix. I2. 4; Avenarius, I47-8). \Vhere such accounts further the understanding of historical events, they form a valuable adjunct to the narrative (cf. i. 41. 7, iii. 36. I-S. v. 21. 6-7, x. 9· 8); but here their only justification lies in the details of§ IJ. 8. TUS EK1TA']KTlKUS TWV s~TJYTJUEWV: cf. XV. 36. I, where sensational accounts are also associated with ailf7Jat>; ii. 61. I, f-LET, avf~a<w> Kat StaiNa<w> (of Phylarchus)-hence Schweighaeuser's convincing correction of the MS. i5wf3aaEw> here (Lex. Polyb. s.v. i5ta8wt>; in text and commentary, following Ernestus, he had read owTaa<w>). See above, VoL I, pp. 8-g; ii. s6. II-12 n.; Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (I)', cols. 1So4-6. M. Hadas, Hellenistic Culture (New York, 1959), 168, instances the elaborate description of the palace at Ecbatana with which the book of Judith opens. To is s· EuAa.~ws 1Tpocr1TOpEUOJJ-EVO~S KTA.: i.e. himself. 9. axt:OOV ~1TTO. aTa.O(wv: nearly 6! furlongs. Twv Ka.Ta JJ-Epos Ka.Ta.crKeua.crJJ-aTwv: 'of the separate buildings'; the palace was probably a complex of structures. TTJV Twv E~ &.pxijc; Ka.Ta.~a.AAoJJ-evwv euKa.~p(a.v: 'the wealth of its original founders'. 10. Ta 4>a.TvwJJ-a.Ta.: 'the compartments of the ceiling' (Paton); cf. Callixenus, FGH, 627 F 2 (= Athen. v. 2s); IGR, iv. ss6. From the resemblance in shape the word is derived from ,PaTv7J, 'manger' (which also has this meaning; see references in LSJ). Ae1T£u~ 1TEjnE~AiJ4>8a.l: 'plated'. KEpa.JJ-(Sa.s: 'roof-tiles'. 11. Ka.Ta TTJV 1-.At:~O.vSpou Ka.l. Ma.KEOOvwv ~4>oSov: Alexander entered Ecbatana in 330 in pursuit of Darius after Gaugamela, and lodged the Persian treasure in its citadel (Arr. Anab. iii. I9. s-8). This Strabo (xv. 731) makes 18o,ooo, and Iustinus (xii. 1. 3) 19o,ooo talents; it was not, however, all from Ecbatana, though it may have included the metals mentioned here. Ka.Ta TTJV 1-.vnyovou Ka.i IeAeuKou Tou N~Kavopos Suva.oTE~a.v:

Seleucus I and Antiochus I (in reverse order to avoid hiatus; cf. ii. 2. 2 n.). The title Nicanor is found elsewhere (cf. Euseb. Chron. i. 249 Schoene, 'Seleukus autem aduersum barbaros profectus uicit, et rex declarabatur; atque inde Nikanor uocatus est, id est uictor'; the same reading is found in the Armenian version, 117 Karst); but it seems to be a manuscript error for the cult title Nicator (cf. Stahelin, RE, 'Seleukos (2)', coL I233), the usual form and the one known from inscriptions and papyri (e.g. OGIS, 233, L 2 from Antioch in Persis; Dura Parchments, 2s, 1. I9 from Dura; OGIS, 24s, 1. Io, from Seleucia-in-Pieria; cf. OGIS, 263, I. 4, 413; CIG, iv. 6856). The sanctuary around Seleucus' tomb was called the NtKaT6p<wv (App. Syr. 63), and apparently Seleucus was deified by Antiochus I (Tarn, Hell. Civ. so). On Seleucid cult see Bikerman, 236 ff.; for the meaning l34

ANTIOCHUS' EXPEDITIOX AGAINST ARSACES X. 28.

1

of the title, which obviously indicates a conqueror, cf. App. 5::;'1'. 57; Amm. Marc. xiv. 8. s. xxiii. 6. 3; Euseb. loc. cit. Paton has, inaccurately, 'Seleucus the son of Nicanor'. ll. o ... vo.os ••• Tfis Arvl]s: Anahita, the Persian goddess of the fertilizing waters, who was perhaps originally Babylonian, and whose cult was widely spread throughout the territories once under Persia. Her name was usually hellenized as :4.va.la. or :4.vai.'n>; cf. e.g. Plut. Artax. 27; Strabo xvi. 738. See Cumont, RE, 'Anaitis', cols. 2030-1; ERE, 'Anahita', 414-r5; S. \Vikander, Feuerpriester in Kleinast'en und Iran (Lund, 1946), 69, who suggests emending AtV'I)> to :4.vat,-,So, (contra Festugiere, Coniectanea neotestamentica, 12 (Lund, 1948), 48-49, who both here and in Strabo, xvi. 738, would read the goddess's name as Nava[a, found on inscriptions and in papyri). auvETt6EwTo: 'had been assembled' ; aw,-tOTJfi-' often means 'to put together in a construction', but this meaning, implying that they were therefore still in place, hardly fits here, where lv a.irrij; suggests rather that the silver tiles were being stored in the temple. 13. TO xa.pa.x8iv E~S TO ~a.cn'-~1<:0\1 T)8poUr8'1] VOJL~O'l«t: 'sufficient was collected to coin royal money amounting to .. :. The phrasing is awkward, and it is not wholly clear whether vofi-Ulfi-a. goes with xa.pax0€v (so LSJ, s.v. xapauaw) or with To{la.atAtKOV (Mauersberger, s.v. fla.u,Au.:6s); but the latter seems more probable (literally, 'from all the above-mentioned objects was collected the (metal) stamped to form royal money'). Most translations render f3a.atJ.,~<6v 'stamped with the king's effigy', and this was probably true of these coins; but {JaatAtKo;; does not have that meaning. Babelon, Rois de Syrie, lxxxi, tries to identify a gold issue of Antiochus with these coins, but hardly convincingly. The down-to-earth economic facts with which P. ends his account of the temple furnish him with some justification for the details of its magnificence, a subject which had aroused his qualms in § 8.

l8. I. ilws ••• TouTwv Twv Torrwv: the area east of the Caspian Gates, since the great desert (,-~v ... lpYJfi-ov) begins here and skirts the southern flank of Mt. Elburz (Alburz). relieved only by scattered OaSeS ; cf. V. 44· 4, Ta Ka.'Td. 7'~V ~P7Jfi-OV 7TEO{a T~V fi-ETaeu K£tfi-EVTJV TijS' Ilepaioo> Kal rij> IlapBuala> (with note). P. does not mention Rhagae and the Caspian Gates (the defiles of Sialek and Sardar, 7o km. south-east of Rhagae; cf. A. von Stahl, Geogr. ]ourn. 64, 1924, 318-20) again, presumably, because Antiochus has already passed them since leaving Ecbatana. See Pedech, REA, r958, 73-74. On the town of Calliope, mentioned just before this point, see JL 15 n. )l.pa6.KT}s: Arsaces II succeeded his father Arsaces I in 2IIj1o and ruled until 191; Arsaces I seized power in c. 238 and took the royal title in 231. See Justin. xli. 5· 7; Arrian, Parth. in FGH, rs6 F so and 235

X.

28. I

ANTIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES

31 (where Tiridates, Arsaces I's supposed brother and Arsaces II's supposed father, is to be dismissed as non-existent). Cf. J. Wolski, Historia, 1959, 222 ff.; 1962, IJS ff.; K.-H. Ziegler, Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom u. dem Partherreich (Wiesbaden, 1964), 13-14; Niese, ii. 398. SuvO.p.EL 'I'TIALica.oTTI: according to Iustin. xli. 5· 7 he had 1oo,ooo foot and 2o,ooo horse, almost certainly an exaggeration (Debevoise, 17 n. &) ; Pedech, REA, 1958, 73 n. I). 2. l:nroVOj.lOL •• , q,pt;Cl'!'(as rxov'I'~<S: 'underground channels linked with wells'. The underground channel, in Persian kanat, is still essential to the oases of Iran; some are so km. long (R. Blanchard, Giographie universetle, ed. Vidal de la Blache and Gallois, viii (Paris, 1929), I6I; cf. Pedech, REA, 1958, 74 n. 2}, and some seventy converge on the town of Yezd from the south-west. 3. &.1--TJ&T)s .•. Myos OLa 'I'WV eyxwp(wv: from P.'s source, either an eye-witness, or derived from an eye-witness in Antiochus' army. 4. 1'ou T aupou: here Mt. Elburz. P. is following the post-Alexandrian picture of the Taurus as a 'broad mountain-spine running due east, the Taurus-Elburz-Hindu Kush-Himalaya' (Thomson, 134; Eratosthenes' map of the East on p. 135}. This was the famous diaphragma of Dicaearchus, and various parts had various names, including 'Taurus'. For details see Ruge, RE, 'Tauros (5)', cols. 39-50, especially 44·

l~< p.a~<pou Ka.'l'aaKEua~ov'I'ES 'l'ous u1tovo1-1ous: cf. § 2 n. 6. '!'ous 1tEpl N~Kop.T)oytv: a mercenary captain from Cos (29. 6) ; on Coan mercenaries see Launey, i. 239-40. 7. 1tpos 'I'Tjv 'E~
236

ANTIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES X. zB. 7

KAVlR 8. ANTIOCHUS' ROUTE ACROSS MT. ELBURZ (Based on War Office Map of Asia, Sheets N-]. 40) Wien, 1o2, 1882, 223-4, following A. H. Schindler, ZGE, x8n, 217;

JRAS, 1877. 425-7; Pedech, REA, 1958, 74-5). This would fit the account of Alexander's march of 330, when he rested his men some days at Hecatompylus (Diod. xvii. 75· 1) before crossing into Hyr~ cania by two routes; he himself took the shorter, probably via Chehardeh and the Dorudbar. The remarkable spring (J.:n{Jol'T'Y]>, Diod. xvii. 75· 2; Ziobetis, Curt. vi. 4· 4), 150 stades from Hecatompylus, was identified by Marquart (51 ff.} with the Fountain of Ali (Chesmehi-Ali), which lies on this route (ct. Weissbach, RE, J.:n{Jot-rTJS', col. 2484); though A. F. von Stahl (Geogr. Journ. 64, 1924, 324) would identify the River Ziobetis with the modern River Dorudbar, which runs north-west fromMt. Shah-kuh, through the gorgeofShamshirkur. The bulk of Alexander's army and his chariots and baggage were sent under Erigyius by the longer and easier route, probably that over the Chalchanlyan Pass (29. 3 n.), which Antiochus now took. 237

X. 28. 7

A!-TTIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES

Tarn (Bactria, 13-14) has argued plausibly that 'Hecatompylus', like the names of several other Greek towns in Iran, was a nickname, taken from Homer's Thebes and signifying that it had 'more gates than the stereotyped four of Hellenistic tmvn-planning'. For the view (rejected here) that Hecatompylus stood at Shahrud see A. D. Mordtmann, 5.-B. Munchen, r86<), 497-536; Kiessling, 'Hekatompylos', cols. 279o-7; Tarn, Alexander, i. 56 n. ('more probable ... but there is no certainty'). A. F. von Stahl (Geogr. ]ourn. 64, 1924, 323-5) suggested a site west of Damghan, on some hills lying to the south of Gusheh; but he had not investigated this site, and it may in fact contain no ancient remains. f:v ll-E:an Tft napeu,vfl: d. Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. ll3; this implies that Choarene and Comisene, the regions as far west as the Caspian Gates, were now in Parthian hands. Twv 8~68wv ••. auli"'""rrTouawv: this has been used as an argument for identifying Hecatompylus with Shahrud; but Damghan, with the passes leading north over the Elburz to Astrabad and Sari, west to the Caspian Gates and east to Aria and Bactria, could easily fit this description. 29. 1. ofh' av ~1nT1)8E~OTE:pous TO'IrOUS ~t,;TE:~: for fighting a pitched battle the bare plains south of the Elburz would be preferable to the richly wooded valleys to its north. 2. Ets TfJV 'Yp~
A~TIOCHUS'

EXPEDITION AGAI:.<ST ARSACES X. 29.6

A. Conolly ,journey to the North of India, i {London, 1834), 212-16, who in 1829 rode over it on his way from Astrabad to Shahrud, in preference to the shorter Quzluq route, which was infested by Turkman brigands. Conolly's route is indeed the natural one for anyone travelling direct from Astrabad to Damghan via the Dorudbar and the valley of Chesmeh-i-Ali; and it gave him the impression that he was ascending 'a very steep Kotui over the main ridge of the Elburz', and clearly struck him more forcibly than the 'one steep but short hill' which must be the Pass of Chalchanlyan. If one calculates the beginning of Antiochus' 3oo-stade ascent from Shahrud or nearby (3o. 2 n.), the Pass of Labus will be either the Quzluq or Conolly's pass; which, cannot be determined with certainty. Kiessling (RE, 'Hyrkania', coL sor) agrees in making Labus a pass leading directly down to the coastal plain, but he is surely wrong to make Antiochus reach it so far west as Sari (cf. Pedech, REA, 1958, 79-Bo). TO 'ITAi}Sos ,.Wv ~ap~6.pwv: perhaps the Tapyri of v. 44· 5 (cf. Kiessling, RE, 'Hyrkania', col. sor). Tam (Bactria, 20) suggests that they were mercenaries in the Parthian army, but their admission into Sirynx (31. 2-3, 6) does not impose this assumption, which seems on the whole less likely. s,Md'I'THV TO ••• '1TAT}9os: 'to break up his light-armed troops into several bodies' (Paton). 5. TftV 1TPWTTJV ~8wKE T6.~w: 'he assigned the first position .. :. ALoyEvE~: the governor of Susa in 222/r (v. 46. 7, cf. 48. 14), later left to control ~ledia (v. 54· 12). Ta~w f.LEv ovK EVEJ.LOV: 'held no regular station (in battle)' ; Paton omits to translate. 6. Kpi}Ta.S aa1n8LwTa.<;: cf. v. 3· I n. noXusEV(8a.s 'Po8lOS: the fan10US Polyxenides, later Antioch us' navarch against Rome (193/r); d. Livy, xxxvi. 4r. s. xxxvii. 8-IJ, 29-30; App. Syr. 17, 22-27. He had been exiled from Rhodes, for reasons unknown (Livy, xxxvii. ro. I; App. Syr. 21, 24). See Lenschau, RE, 'Polyxenidas', cols. 185o-I; Launey, i. 243. &wpa.K(Tas Kat 9upEo~opous: like the Cretan da-m8twmt they are lightam1ed troops. For 8wpaK'i1'at in Achaean armies see iv. 12. 3 (neither light-armed proper nor phaJangites), Xi. II. 4-5, J4. I, 15. 5 (fighting beside lllyrians); cf. Plut. PMlop. 9· 1 ft.; Polyaen. vi. 4· 3; Paus. viii. so. I. Griffith (Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. I84. I9S6-'j' s-6) takes these 8wpatOpot cf. v. 53· 8 (where MSS. have 8vpeacf>6pot) ; and for the Ovpd,, cf. ii. 30. 3 n., iii. TI4. 2, •-1. 23. 2 (scutum). On 8vpw.cf>6pot in third-century Boeotia see Feyel, 47, 193. 209-10. 239

X. 29.6 ANTIOCH US' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES Nu
30. 2. To ••• &A.ov llilteoo; •.• 11'Epl. Tpta.teou(ous UTa.8i.ous: perhaps calculated from near Shahrud, where the forces began to ascend to the col, and not from Tagae. Pedech (REA, 1958, 77-78) quotes a Russian traveller, G. V. Melgunof, Das sudliche Ujer des Kaspischen Meeres oder die Nordprovinzen Persiens (Leipzig, r868), 132-45, for the distance of 10 farsakhs 52·5 km. from Shahrud to the Quzluq Pass, and thls is confirmed by the India Survey map. On the other hand, this journey does not form a single ascent, but from the Chalchanlyan Pass there is a drop of over 3,ooo ft. into the upper valley of Chasman-Sawer and a further ascent from there to the Quzluq Pass, a feature omitted from Pedech's map (REA, 1958, facing p. 74). This map also puts Tash only about 12 km. from Shahrud, whereas both Conolly (above, 29. 3 n.) and the India Survey map agree in putting it about zz miles away. According to Conolly the road from the Chalchanlyan Pass to Shahrud 'was level', i.e. it does not match the rough and narrow gorge here described. One may, however, suppose that the higher part of the route provided so many obstacles as to give the impression of being -ro 71'i\ ••• T!ls 'IT'op<(a.<;;: if the 300 stades are reckoned from Shahrud this is not true (see last note); but this may nevertheless have been the honest impression of the eye-witness from whom P.'s account ultimately derives, and who will have shared in the fighting in the higher reaches. 5. Ta ,.a.po.tedlleva. Twv opwv ••• 11'pou~o.AEi:v: 'to ascend the mountain slopes'; for this sense of 71'poaf3&.MHv (missed by Paton) cf. 39· I, iii. 94· r, and Schweighaeuser's note in Lex. Polyb. s.v. 'TI'poafM.A.i\etv. lh' o.lm'iiv Twv AEuteo'IT'ETpwv: 'over the bare rocks'; cf. iii. 53· s for a similar feature on Hannibal's ascent of the Alps. 6. aAAOWTEpa.v EAn~~a.vE 8u18EO'LV: despite Bothius' defence of the MS. reading (Polybiana (Leipzig, 1844), 63), a subject seems needed. Schweighaeuser reads ro 'TI'pii:yp,a. or -r
A~TIOCHL'S'

EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES X. 31. 8

engagement by ascending on the enemy's flank'. 'To postpone battle' seems a more appropriate meaning for {mlf.pTl8Ea8at here than 'to advance further' (cf. Paton, 'making a further flank movement up hill'); cf. iv. 30. 2, 87. I2; Schweighaeuser, Lex.Polyb. s.v. wlf.pTi8w8at. 9. TWV (o') ciam8u•.lTWV e<jleopEUOVT!IlV: 'with the Cretan shieldbearers as a covering force' ; for this sense of J4>"Spd€tv cf. iii. 53· s. and passim.

31. l. 1rpos Tas KaTa Tov Aa~ov u1repoxas: the wEp{3oA~ of 30. 9· The pass cannot be identified: see above, 29. 3 n.; but whether it is Quzluq or the pass (used by Conolly) above Ziarut, Antiochus' struggle against the barbarians will have occurred as he left the valley of Chasman-Sawer to push north. The discussion in Pedech, REA, I958, 78-jg, is hard to follow, since many places he mentions are not shown on his sketch-map, and he writes as though the valley of Chasman-Sawer lay immediately above the descent to Tambrax and Astrabad, whereas in fact it is divided from these places by the massif pierced by the Quzluq Pass, and that above Ziarut. 5. e1rt Tal-l~Pa.Ka: Marquart {62) sites this near Sari, I40 km. west of Astrabad, and suggests (63) emending TaJ.a.f3p6~<7J to TaJLf3paKa. in Strabo, xi. so8. Pedech (REA, I958, 79-8o) rightly rejects as improbable such a westward advance into Mazanderan, and suggests that Tambrax was the summer residence of the people of Sirynx (hence anlxtaTOV, § 6). It WOUld lie On the Upper Slopes Of the hills coming down from the Pass of Labus towards Astrabad. K«TEaK~vwae: 'encamped' (cf. xiv. 2. 8, xxi. I3. 7, xxxv. 2. 4), not necessarily in tents. On KaTaaKTJvoiJv see Welles, p. 344 and no. 30 l. 4· 6. rr)v 1rpoaayopeuo11EVTJV l:LpuyKa 1roAw: also located near Sari by Marquart (62). E. E. Herzfeld (Archiiologische Mitteilungen aus Iran (Berlin), i {I929), 109-Io; iv {I932}, 38, 62) seeks it at Sarakhs (Sirok) on the Tejend (Arius or Ochus), near the frontiers of Apavarticene and Margiana {cf. 49· I). The former is too far west, the latter too far east (Tarn, Bactria, I6 n. I), and perhaps the most likely view is that of B. Dorn ('Caspia', Memoires de l'Academie impiriale des sciences de Saint-Pitersbourg7, 23, I875, IJ4) who locates Sirynx on a hill near Astrabad. According to Arab itineraries (Dorn, ibid. 6o n. 3), lead, sulphur, and coal-mines are found hereabouts, which might explain the nickname 'Sirynx' (= Syrinx?) for a town whose real name is now lost (Tarn, Bactria, I3 n. 6). See Pedech, REA, 1958, 8o-8I.

8. EV Tais xwaTplal XEAWVO.LS: cf. ix. 41. I n. Tn<jlpoL .•• TPLTTat: a formidable fortification, parallel to that at Euryalus above Syracuse (cf. A. W. Lawrence, JHS, I946, IOJ-S; F. E. Winter, AJA, I963, 386; on the principles, Philo Mech. 84.47 ft.), and evidently built by Greek engineers for the Parthians to stand 814173

R

X. JI. S ANTIOCHUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARSACES

up to a Seleucid siege-train (Tarn, Bactria, 2o-2r). The ditches are 45 ft. wide and 22 ft. 6 in. deep. xnpnKWiJ.C1Ta. OL'II'Aa: 'a double palisade'; cf. ix. 3· 2. Biittner-Wobst transposed ~7TiKe:£To from after C£7TAii to avoid hiatus. 11. Tous ••• "EAAT}va.s KaTa.a+O.~a.vTES: Greek settlers living in the Parthian town, but probably too few either to keep out the troops or let in Antiochus--if they so wished (Tarn, Bactria, 2o). 12. 'Y11'Epj30.aav: otherwise unknown. The MSS. give V7TEpf3d.aav FD and tnrEpf3a.a
32. 1-33.7. The death of }.1arcellus This fragment from F forms part of the res Italiae of Ol. 142, 4 = 209/8 B.C. The consuls for 2o8 were M. Claudius Marcellus (already consul in 222, 215, 214, and 210; cf. ii. .34· Iff., viii. r. 7, .37· 2, fg. 9) and T. Quinctius L.f. L.n. Crispin us (H. Gundel, RE, 'Quinctius (38)', cols. ro3s-8}, who had served as praetor at Capua the previous year (Livy, xxvli. 7· ro). Crispinus first undertook the siege of Locri (Livy, xxvii. :a6. u), but soon left it to join Marcellus at Venusia, where Hannibal faced him (Livy, xxvii. 26. 12-I4). The ambushing of the consuls is described in Livy, xxvii. 26. 1-27. I I and, dependent on him (Kahrstedt, iii. 304; contra, Klotz, Rh. Mus. 19.34, 314 ff.), Plut. Marc. 29; Eutrop. iii. r6. 4; Oros. iv. r8. 6, 18. 8; Val. Max. i. 6. 9; Sil. xv . .34.3 ff. Livy (xxvii. 27. 12-14) mentions three versions of the event recorded in Coelius, one given in the laudatio delivered by his son, another his own version and a third the traditional one (trad£ium Jama). Appian, Hann. so, has an independent account. See also, for passing references, Cic. Tusc. i. 89; Nep. Hann. 5· 3; Pliny, Nat. hi st.

THE DEATH OF MARCELLUS

X. 32.6

xi. r89; Plut. F ab. 19. 5; Flam. 1. 4; comp. Pel. et Marc. 3 ; au ct. de uir. ill. 45· 7; Zon. ix. 9· See also DeSanctis, iii. 2. 474 n. 49· 32. 1. ot

u-rra.To~:

Marcellus and Crispinus (see above). AO~ou: Hannibal was facing the combined camp at some point between Venusia and Bantia (Livy, xxvii. 25. IJ, 'inter Venusiam Bantiamque minus trium milium passuum interuallo consules binis castris consederant'). Between the Roman and Punic camps lay a tumulus siluestris, which neither side had occupied, Hannibal having preferred to use it for an ambush (Livy, xxvii. 26. 7). tAo.~ SUo: according to Livy (xxvii. 26. u; followed by Plut. Marc. 29. s-{)) there were 220 cavalry, of whom 40 were from Fregellae, the rest Etruscans. In Appian's divergent account (Hann. so) there are 300 cavalry. ypoCT~Oflaxous .•• Els Tp~aKoYTa.: 'about thirty uelites together with their lictors'; each consul would have twelve lictors. Schweighaeuser, who includes the lictors in the thirty, probably wrongly, suggests emending to Tpw.t, since so few as thirty are not worth mentioning; but they will have formed an immediate bodyguard for the consuls. No other source mentions the uelites, but Livy reports the capture of four lictors (see§ s n.). KO.TO.CTKE\jloflEYo~ Tous To-rrous: cf. Livy, xxvii. 27. 14, 'ita fama uariat ut tamen plerique loci speculandi causa castris egressum ... tradant'; but according to Appian (Hann. so) Marcellus rode out to intercept some Numidian plunderers. 4. Tou CTKo-rrou KTA.: cf. Livy, xxvii. 27. J, 'speculator ... signum dat ut ... exorerentur'. Ka.T' aKpOY TOY ~OUYOY: in Livy (xxvii. 27. s) the consuls are trapped in a valley. 5. TOY ~~~Y KAa.uo~oy EU0€ws ••• KO.TE~a.AoY: according to Livy, xxvii. 27. s-7. the consuls could have extricated themselves, had not the Etruscans fled. The Fregellani fought on until both consuls were wounded, and then made their escape carrying Crispinus and Marcellus' son, who was also wounded, but leaving Marcellus 'transfixum lancea prolabentem ex equo moribundum'. K
243

X. 32.6

THE DEATH OF MARCELLUS

Marcellus, military tribune this year (Livy, xxvii. z6. I2) and consul in Ig6 (cf. xviii. 42. I); see Munzer, RE, 'Claudius (zzz)', cols. 2755-8. 7. aKO.KWTEpov: 'more like a simpleton' {Paton). 8. 1t'oAAaK~S ••• 1Tt:pt Twv Toloi'!Twv: cf. 7 and the passages there quoted on the importance of discretion a general. 9. Twv KaT&. 1-l-~poc; Kw51'1vwv: in contrast to the battle when all is at stake; there the general must be prepared for disaster and, if it comes, to perish rather than live on in disgrace (xi. z. 4-I I). 11. tv Ka.pt Tttv 1TE'ipa.v: a proverb {cf. Eur. Cyc. 654; Plato, E uthyd. 285 B; Laches, I87 B, with scholia) derived from the use of Carians as mercenaries or, less probably, as slaves. See the explanations in Corpus paroem. graec. i. 70-71, ii. 404-5 with references; von Scala, 283; \Vunderer, i. 25, III; and, for the early equivalence of 'Carian' and 'mercenary' (d. Archilochus, fg. 24 Bergk), Launey, i. 451 and Griffith, 236. 12. 'oliK Civ ~Ot-L-TJv' KTA.: cf. Polyaen. iii. 9· u, 'Iif>tKpaTTW inrol.a{Iwv l¢'1 TO "Tls av 7}A'II'tat' TOiJT' ;at'a8at" ; 9· I 7' ov aTpa.T']ytKdV Td "OVK ~p:qv" ; there seems to be some dependence on P. here (d. Wunderer, i. 84--85). See also Cic. off. i. 81. 33. 4. KaV '!TOTE 71'E011 TO. oAa.: 'in the event of complete defeat'. Here and in the next section TVX'1 is little more than a figure of speech (see Vol. I, p. I6}. 5. 1 ath-ov Elaij>.Be Sui:TTvpo> l8E'i:v MdpKe>J.ov vEKp6v, and Hultsch and BiittnerWobst suggest that this comes from a passage in P. omitted between 32. 6 and 32. 7· However, Livy follows his verdict on Marcellus' rashness (Livy, xxvii. 27. n) by the burial of his body by Hannibal,

HA~NIBAL'S

ATTACK ON SALAFIA

X. 34·

2

and then by an account of the use of the ring to seal the false message to Salapia; this order of events suggests that the fragment from Suidas, if it is Polybian, falls between 33· i and 33· 8. 8. Ka.Ta.ppatcTa!) ••• &.V111Lil£vou!): cf. Livy, xxvii. z8. ro, 'earn (sc. cataractam) partim uectibus leuant, partim funibus subducunt, in tan tum altitudinis ut subire recti possent'. The sense of 6Atyov €tarrlpw is not clear, unless the top of the portcullis rose above the gate. Mauersberger s.v. Jew-rl.pw renders 'etwas auberhalb sc. -rofJ Tdxaus' and compares Trpo -roiJ rdxovs (which seems irrelevant); and Paton's version, 'which they had raised somewhat higher by mechanical means', contradicts Livy, who suggests that the gate was not raised to its full extent. 34-40. Consolidation in Spain: the battle of Baecula (2o8) This fragment, from F, is from the res Hispaniae for Ol. I42, 4 209/8 B.C.; see above, p. IS· An account of the same events in Lhry, xxvii. 17-20 is close to P., but has some details, especially for the battle of Baecula {cf. I8. 2 f., the introductory skirmish; 18. 6 ff., Hasdrubal's dispositions; I8, ro, posting of the Roman cohorts; 18. 20, number of Carthaginian dead), not to be found in P. The picture is similar to that for the capture of :\ew Carthage (above, 2. r2o. 8 n.), and probably P. had access to the same sources, viz. Silenus, Laelius, Scipio (if his account included more than the capture of New Carthage), and perhaps Fabius. Livy will derive from P., probably via Coelius, who may also have utilized other sources, to which the additional material in Livy (where it is not mere rhetorical elaboration) will go back; that these sources included those of P. himself, e.g. Silenus, is not to be excluded. See De Sanctis, iii. 2. 479 n. 59, 638-9; F. Friedersdorff, Livius et Polybius Scipionis rerum scriptores (Gottingen, 1869), 20; Kahrstedt, iii. 200; Scullard, Scip. Ioo-I n. I; Klotz, Livius, r8o--I. The coincidence between 34· I and . Livy, xxvii. 17. 1 suggests that the present fragment opens at the beginning of the res Hispaniae for 2o8. 34. 1. tca9a11'Ep ••• 5£5TJAWKa.jLEV: cf. 2o. 8, where Scipio approaches Tarraco; the passage recording his wintering there (2o9j8) is lost. 2. Aa~wv cruvaywvr.cn~v €~e ,.a.,hotLO.Tou: 'by chance gaining the help'; this phrase seems to be behind Livy's odd remark about Edeco (Livy, xxvii. q. 2): 'sed praeter earn causam (sc. the Roman capture of his family) etiam uelut fortuita inclinatio animorum quae Hispaniam omnem auerterat ad Romanum a Punico imperio traxit eum.' •E8Etcwva. Tov 'E810Ta.vwv 8uv0.0'1'1'Jv: cf. 40. 3· The Edetani appear here only as Schweighaeuser's emendation of F, -rov 8war6v 8vvticrrqv; 245

X. 34·

2

CONSOLIDATION IN SPAIN

this finds no support in Livy, xxvii. q. I, 'Edesco ad eum clams inter duces Hispanos uenit', but may none the less be right (d. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 406 n. z), for the MS. reading is unconvincing and avvaaT'l]S" asks for Some local qualification (cf. V. 4· 3, 34· 7, go. I, X. 35· 6, xxi. II. 2 and other examples in Mauersberger s.v. ovvaaT'l]S"). The Edetani (d. Livy, xxviii. 31. 7, Sedetani) lived on the east coast of Spain northwards from the Bastetani and the Oretani (cf. iii. 33· 9 n.), between the Sucro and the Ebro (Strabo, iii. 156, I62-3; perhaps Mela, ii. 92 (d. Pliny, Nat. kist. iii. 2o); Ptol. ii. 6. IS; CIL, ii. 3786. See Hubner, RE, 'Edetani', cols. I938-g. Tijs: a.uTijs: opJlijS:: there is much to be said for Schweighaeuser's emendation TijS" allTWV opp.:ijs-. 4. S1a.~EtJ1EVWV Et'i TTJV 1TO.pO.XEIJ10.17LQV: these winter quarters were not necessarily elsewhere than at Tarraco. 35. 3. TOu<; evTo<; "IPTJpos: 1ToTaJ1oO: cf. 7· 3 n.; 'north of the Ebro'. 5. ouS€v nVTL1TQAOV ••• KO.Ta 90.Aa.TTQV: on Scipio's naval superiority see q. I3 n. The Carthaginians had no fleet in Spanish waters and at New Carthage Scipio acquired materials intended for the construction of one (Livy, xxvi. 47· 9). See Thiel, I2o. e1ri n1.s: 17TJJ10.La<; EJ1Ep1ae: thus increasing his army by perhaps 3,ooo4,ooo men (Kahrstedt, iii. 517 n. I). 6. J\vSoPnAT)'i s~ KQL MavSovlO'i: see ix. I I. 3 n., X. I8. 7-IS (the womenfolk of these two princes in Scipio's hands). Livy, xxvii. q. 3, also relates their defection, but more briefly. Ka.8a1rep •.. ESTJAwaaJ1EV: in ix. 1 r. 4, where, however, only An do bales is mentioned and only the daughters are mentioned as hostages; see note there. 36. 1. w<; 1TAeovaKl'i ~11iv etpT)Tal: cf., for example, iii. 4· 5 on the exploitation of success. 3. To VlKijaa.l ••• Tas: 'Pwlla(wv Suvci11uo;: in 211 ; cf. viii. 38 n. TOl'i KO.Ta TTJV xwpav: the native population; cf. i. 72. J n. 5. of Sla.J1E[vavTEo; e1rl Twv auTwv 1rpoa1p€aewv: at first sight this clear statement of P.'s view on how hegemony should be maintained seems to rule out the view of Gelzer (Kl. Schr. ii. 64 ff.) that Diodorus is following and echoing P. when he writes (Diod. xxxii. z) on OL Tas ~y.op...l~ovmL o~ ,P6{3tp Ka~ KamTrl.-l}gn (cf. Diod. xxxii. 4). The examples

Diodorus quotes and his use of the verb da,Pa>.i~ovrat leave no doubt that he (or his source) approves the dictum. In fact there is no inconsistency, for the present passage is concerned with those whom one is governing, whereas the doctrine envisaged in Diodorus is of the sudden violent elimination of some state and all its population 246

THE BATTLE OF BAECULA

X. 38.3

as a punishment and an example to others. That P. was prepared to approve of this seems probable: see further on xxxvi. 9· 3-4. For the thesis expounded here cf. Sall. Cat. 2. 4, 'nam imperium facile is a.rtibus retinetur qui bus initio pa.rturn est'. 7. KaKws 'ITo~w(n ••• TWv U'ITOTETayJ1€vwv: as imperial states frequently, but misguidedly do; cf. 6. J, 7· 3·

37. 2. T1)v avn:rrapaywy1)v ••• 'l!'po<; (ToO;) QAAOU') O"TpO.TTJYOU<;: cf. ix.

(quarrel before the fall of New Carthage). P.'s account of Hasdrubal's plan has been dismissed as pure surmise derived from pro-Scipionic traditions. Kromayer-Veith (AS, iv. 514-15) argue that Hasdrubal had to try to get through to Italy, victor or no; and De Sanctis (iii. 2. 479 n. 59) sees a contradiction between Hasdrubal's recorded decision to fight (§ 4) and the defensive position he took up (38. 8). P.'s source is unknown; but his account is not unreasonable, for Hasdrubal may well have intended to invade Italy in any event, but to make the timing of his invasion tum on the result of the battle; success would reverse the process of Spanish disaffection and give a breathing-space for consolidation, whereas defeat must involve an immediate departure (cf. Kahrstedt, iii. 517). DeSanctis's objection is also unsubstantial. As Scullard (Scip. ros n. r) observes, 'Hasdrubal wanted a fight, not a fiasco'. There was nothing inconsistent in adopting a strong defensive position in the face of superior numbers (Kahrstedt, iii. srg, estimates Scipio's numbers at Js,ooo4o,ooo men compared with 25,000 in Hasdrubal's army) and hoping that Scipio would accept the challenge. In view of P.'s reference to the estrangement of the other two generals, DeSanctis's suggestion that Hasdrubal was awaiting their arrival seems improbable. 4. Kliv •.• ~ TUX'!) Sii) To v~Kiiv: a purely verbal use of TVX1J; cf. Hercod, 101; above, Vol. I, p. 16. 6. 'l!'poaSE~Of1EVO<; r awv TCIV AaO..~ov: cf. 19. 8 n. for Laelius' journey to Rome; he now returns to Spain in spring 208. 7. 'I!'QAQt ••• O~E'I!'E}l'I!'OVTO 'l!'pos TOV no'I!'ALOV: cf. 35· 7 for his desertion of Hasdru bal. Tch xpe£as Kat 71)v OATJV 'ITlO"TW: now a vail a blc to the Romans as they bad been to the Carthaginians (§ 10).

3.

II. r-2

i'll'( TWa<; hoy~af'oO<; ••• Tow•hou<;:

38. 3. 'l!'poo-tflwVtJunVTwv ~au~A.ea.: Edeco had already done the same (4o. J). On the significance of the salutation see 40. 2-9 n. ('l!'avrwv) is added by Biittner-Wobst to avoid hiatus. ol11iv 'l!'apovns t'I!'EO'TJJltlvavTo (To) pTJ9£v: 'those present applauded their words'; cf. iii. III. 3, 'TTavrwv • •• TO p1JfN:v ('TTWTJfl-'lJvap..!vwv (which is against taking l'TTtert}J1-aivEu8a~ here as 'to take note of', with Schweigbaeuser). Since To p'rJ8€v refers chiefly to the salutation as king 247

X. 38.3

THE BATTLE OF BAECULA

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

THE BATTLE OF BAECULA

x. J8. 7-8

Site of '1 Ca•tulo ':'

9·

THE BATTLE OF BAECULA

(From Scullard, Scipio Africanus in the Second Punic War, no) modify P. (cf. DeSanctis, iii. 2. 479 n. 59). It seems more likely, however, that Livy has access (probably through Coelius) to a good source-perhaps P.'s owu-and that his account merits consideration (above, 34-40 n.). If that is so, the site which best fits the terrain described in P. and Livy is that proposed by Scullard, Scip. 3oo-3, with sketch-map on p. no indicating his own proposed position and Veith's; for the latter see also Kromayer-Veith, Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abt., 8. r, and for the district generally AS, iv. 502 (where, however, Castulo should lie on the north side of the Guadalquivir). According to this view, Hasdrubal had his camp on a plateau to the east of Bailen, lying between the Arroyo de Canada Baeza and the Arroyo de la Muela, a more substantial stream adequate as a watersupply (photograph in Scullard, Scip. frontispiece); and Scipio's camp will have lain south-east of this across the R. Guadiel, perhaps in the neighbourhood of Tobaruela, which has a satisfactory watersupply. Tobaruelais just over 3 km. south-west of Linares. KromayerVeith's position is a little to the west of this, with Hasdrubal just below the height of ] arosa between the Arroyo de Canada Baeza 249

X. 38. 7-8

THE BATTLE OF BAECL'LA

and the Arroyo del Matadero, and Scipio a little north of Jabalquinto, south of the R. Guadiel. 8. 1TU96jJt:vos ••• IJ-f:TEaTpaTom\SEucrE: according to Livy, xxvii. 18. 1-3, after an attack on Hasdrubal's cavalry outposts, which ended in a victory for the Roman light-armed, who advanced almost to the gates of the Punic camp. This incident seems credible, but even without it Hasdrubal would have assumed his defensive position (Scullard, Scip. ros n. r). f:K jJEV TWV oma9Ev 1TOTO.jJOV O.crcpaA:T): not, as Kahrstedt (iii. sr8) supposes, the Baetis, but the R. del Rumblar, which runs into the Baetis west of Baih~n. The R. del Rumblar lies about 8 km. west of Hasdrubal's position. 10. S1aywvuiaas 1-'TJ ••• 1TEp~crTwaLV: not necessarily with good reason; and De Sanctis (iii. 2. 478) lacks grounds for his assertion that Hasdrubal was deliberately postponing a battle until the arrival of Mago and Hasdrubal son of Gisgo (cf. 37· 2, 37· 3 n.). Paton omits the words 'Hasdrubal, son of'. 39. 1. Tous SE ypocrcpol-'6-xous ••• €~a.cp~(s: cf. Livy, xxvii. 18. ro, 'ipse expeditos ... ad leuem armaturam infimo stantem supercilia ducit'; but it is clear from P. (§ 3) that Scipio did not take part in the battle until a later stage. According to Livy (xxvii. 18. 10) he had already dispatched two cohorts with instructions 'alteram tenere fauces uallis per quam deferretur amnis ... , alteram uiam insidere quae ab urbe per tumuli obliqua in agros ferret'. The river can hardly be the Rumblar (so Veith, AS, iv. 512; contra Kromayer, ibid. n. 2), but the Guadiel--probably about the point where the road from Bailen to Malaga now crosses it (Scullard, Scip. 106). The other detachment probably ascended the Guadiel valley to intercept the road which ran off east from Bailen in the Linares direction; but the exact line of this road is not known. 3. Tous ••• t:utwvous a1ravTas i1racpijKt:: the novel feature in Scipio's tactics at Baecula is his placing of the light-armed in the centre, and the use of the legionaries in two bodies to deliver the main attack on the flank, an adaptation of Hannibal's tactics which failed to achieve complete success because Hasdrubal was not sufficiently involved all along the line to be unable to extricate himself (cf. Scullard, Scip. 108-I2; Veith, AS, iii. 2. 685). TOUS jJEV ,jJLO't:IS auTOS ~xwv, ••• TOUS S' TJjJlO't:LS Aa.LM~ Sous: cf. Livy, xxvii. 18. 15, 'ceteras copias cum Laelio diuidit'. Scipio, advancing against the enemy's left, will have followed the Arroyo de la Muela, Laelius, advancing against their right, the Arroyo de Canada Baeza. Livy makes Scipio advance parte dextra and Laelius ab laeua, thus reversing the commands, an error which might arise from 'a careless reading of a Carthaginian source, from whose point 250

THE BATTLE OF BAECULA

X. 39· 8

of view ... Scipio would be on the left and Laelius on the right' (Scullard, Scip. roo n. r), but more probably springs from a careless reading of P. by Livy or an intermediary who interpreted Kant To Aatov TwP v-rrf.Pa;v,..[wv as 'to the left of the enemy' and lrrl ;a Segt.d fi.lp7J -rwv -rro.\f.fJ.lwv as 'against the sections of the enemy to the right', i.e. from the Roman standpoint. According to Livy the division of the forces was effected on the field, and this may be correct (Scullard, Scip. ro7 n. r). 6. Tous p.Ev a.im';'w 'll'poa'!f('lf-rovTa.s EK 1r"a.y£wv EcJloveuov: this, the MS. reading, is defended by Schweighaeuser, who translates, 'alios, a latere in ipsos impetum facientes, obtruncant'. But the situation demands that it shall be the Carthaginians who are attacked on the flank, since they are advancing to meet the Roman centre when Scipio and Laelius catch them from the wings; cf. Livy, xxv:ii. r8. rs, 'ipse (sc. Scipio) ab laeua ... in transuersos hastes incurrit'. Clearly (as Schweighaeuser sees) b< 71'.\aylwv must be taken with 1TpoiJ'1Tl'TT1"onaS' and not with ir$6vwov; cf. i. z2. 8, sr. 6. Hence the argument is overwhelmingly in favour of Scaliger's emendation 7Tpo1J'1Tl-rrr01rns (which both Paton and Shuckburgh translate, though Paton prints 1Tpocml71'rovraS'). The accusative may have crept in under the influence of 1Tap€fi.{3wVwnaS'. 7. ICO.'f'a TOUS E~ O.pxils s~a.Aoy~ap.ous: cf. 37· 5· 8. Aa.!)wv ••• -rO. Te xpt}p.a.Ta. Ka.l TO. 9TJp£a.: cf. Livy, xxvii. 19. r, 'Hasdrubal iam ante quam dimicaret pecunia rapta elephantisque praemissis, quam plurimos poterat de fuga excipiens praeter Tagum ad Pyrenaeum tendit'. This statement is not inconsistent with P. and may derive from his original source; for clearly Hasdrubal had envisaged the possibility of defeat (37· 5), and to send the cash and elephants ahead in case he had to set off at once for Gaul would be merely prudent. If this is so, Livy's reference to elephants in the battle (Livy, xxvii. I8. r8-zo), which does not appear in P., is probably from another, less reliable source (Veith, AS, iv. 513)-unless, which is less likely, some of the elephants had been sent north and some retained for the battle. 1ra.pG. Tov TO.yov noTa.p.ov: Hasdrubal evidently retreated north by the Pass of Valdepeiias to reach the Tagus Valley a little south of Madrid (cf. iii. 14. r n. for Hannibal's use of this route in reverse in zzo). ws t'll't TG.s nupt}vT)s V'II'Ep!)oAO.s: presumably he crossed over from the upper Tagus to the valleys first of the Douro, then of the upper Ebro, and so through Navarra to the western end of the Pyrenees, if one can trust App. Hisp. z8: -rrapil r6v {3ope,ov eDKEavdv r~v llup~VIJV €S' raAdTas V1T€pl{3ru.Y€V. This implies the coastal route via !run or, if {mep€{3awu is pressed, a pass slightly inland such as the Puerto de Otsondo or the Puerto de Roncesvalles. The Gauls will be north of the mountains.

X. 39· 9

THE BATTLE OF BAECULA

9. To ~v ••• E"'I'E0'9a.L ••. oux YJyEiTo <7U~~~pEw: P. does not discuss the merits of Scipio's decision, which has been much debated by modern historians (d. Brewitz, 64 f.; Kahrstedt, iii. 519; Veith, AS, iv. 515-16; Scullard, Scip. II4-19); it was already an issue in Scipio's own time, if we may accept the arguments of the critical speech recorded in Livy, xxviii. 4o-42, especially 42. 14-15). That Hasdrubal got away was clearly a strategic defeat for Scipio; but once it had happened, it is hard to see any practical alternative to what he did (Hallward, CAH, viii. 87--88). T~ 8ElhEva.L Twv liXXwv <7Tpa.Tlwwv (Tl}v) li~o8ov: cf. 38. 10. 40. 1. Number of prisoners. P.'s figure of 12,000 (cf. Livy, xxvii. 19. z) is probably exaggerated, if Hasdrubal's army was about 25,ooo (Kahrstedt, iii. 519; Veith, AS, iv. 514); unless it included the population of Baecula (so De Sanctis, iii. 2. 480 n.). Liv}r (xxvii. 18. 2o) also mentions 8,ooo Carthaginian dead; this could be plausible only as a combined figure for dead and prisoners from a Punic source such as Silenus (Scullard, Scip. 108). 2. K«Tc Tovo; "'l'poELP"l~vouo; T6"11'ouo;: presumably the area where the battle took place; those Spaniards north of the Ebro (35· 3) and most others besides (35· 8) had already joined Scipio before the battle. f:yxELpl~ovns .•• do; T~v ••• "'l't<7nv: cf. iii. I 5. 5 n. On deditio see A. Piganiol, RIDA, 5, 1950, 339-47, who argues convincingly that down to the end of the third century it carried no suggestion of dishonour for those offering it. 2-9. Salutation of Scipio as king: d. 38. 3; Livy, xxvii. 19. 3-6. This incident has been frequently discussed, most recently by A. Aymard (Revue du Nord, 1954, 121-8), who points out that the salutation may have had a different significance for the Spaniards, for Scipio, and for P. Regarding the Spaniards and Scipio one is reduced to surmise; but very probably the Spaniards either thought of Scipio as a Roman king or recognized his paramount status in Spain by the use of this word, while Scipio (as Livy adds from another but reliable source) was embarrassed by a title so hated at Rome, and likely to harm him in political life ('regium nomen alibi magnum, Romae intolerabile esse'). It seems clear that P., who interprets the incident against the background of Scipio's later career (§§ 7-9), took the salutation to mean not 'king of Rome' or even 'king of the Spaniards', but simply 'king' in the Hellenistic sense of a man with military, moral, and intellectual qualities of a kingly character; and he contrasts this d~Jop.aala. (§ 6) with the real kingdom which Scipio might have seized, but did not, in some other part of the world (§§ 7-9). This interpretation would commend itself to the hellenized circle of Aemilianus (Aymard, op. cit. 125); it was not necessarily that of the aged Laelius who may have been Scipio's informant {Haywood, 38). 25:2

THE BATTLE OF BAECULA

X. 40.7

3. 'TOTE ••• civEmi7'Ta1"ws aihov 1T«pEOpa.f'E ,.b pf19€v: cf. 38. 3 n.; P. means that Scipio had not paid much attention to the significance of the salutation (through he had been moved, €vrpa:rrElr;, by the expression of regard). 4. Ets E1TLI7'Ta.aav ~ya.yE ••• TO yavoi'EVov: 'the incident led Scipio to give some thought to it'; cf. ix. 22. 7, xiv. r a 1. 5. pa.alALKOS ••• AEyEa9a.L 1Ta.p0. 1TilaL: to Livy even this would give offence: d. Livy, xxvii. 19. 5, 'regalem animum in se esse, si id in hominis ingenio amplissimum ducerent, taciti iudicarent: uocis usurpatione abstinerent'. Cf. Aymard, Revue du Nord, 1954, 123-4. 'l!'a.f>'llyyELAE aTpa.TTJYOV a.~Tbv '11'poatflwvEiv: cf. Livy, xxvi. rg. 4, 'sibi maximum nomen imperatoris esse dixit quo se milites sui appellassent'. This is per haps the earliest known exam pie ofthe acclaiming of a general as imperator by his troops (the next being CIL, ii. 5041 (c. rgo B.c.), in which L. Aemilius Paullus calls himself inpeirator); cf. Mommsen, St.-R. i. r24 n. 5· P., it is true, says only that Scipio was called arparYJyck, 'general' (cf. rg. 4); but he was not always awake to Roman distinctions and in fact nowhere employs the later Greek equivalent of imperator, ain-oKparwp, in that sense. Hence there seems no reason to reject Livy's testimony here (cf. Aymard, Revue du Nord, 1954, 124). 6. TtlS TUXfiS o.u-r~ auveKOpa.f'OUCMJS: cf. § 9: here P. contradicts his usual thesis that Scipio's achievements were the result of prudence and foresight (cf. 5· 8; Vol. I, p. 22 n. 4). i'!l'( TE TGUT'JV •.• T~V OLaATJo/lV KO.l ~v ovo .... aa&av: 'to form this estimate of him and give him this name'. OPf'TJV Ka.t tflav-raata.v: 'this popular impulse and this show of dignity' (Shuck burgh). 7. Tll 1TAeiaTa ••• ...,EpTJ -rijs ALPuTJs ••• t)yayE: rhetorical exaggeration. Scipio's victory at Zama crushed Carthage, but did not subject North Africa directly to Rome. Aymard (Revue dH Nord, 1954, 126) argues that such 'ante-dating of the establishment of Roman power in North Africa and Asia' is only possible after 146 or even 133, and suggests that P. composed this passage after the earlier or even the later of these dates. But P. was a political realist, and can well have recognized that the wars against Hannibal and Antiochus made Rome the political arbiter in Africa and Asia. Hence no conclusions are to be drawn on the date of composition of this passage. Twv ~LAa.Lvou ~w ....wv ••• 'Hpa.~
X. 4o. 7

THE BATTLE OF BAECULA

CP, 1958, 153-70). Africanus was legatus to his brother Lucius for this campaign, but he was in effect its diplomatic and military director, and only illness prevented his being present at Magnesia (Livy, xxvii. I. 9-10, 37· 6-8). To KaAALaTov Ka.t flEYLaTov flEpo~ Ttl~ otKOUflEVT)~: viz. Africa and Asia. Suva.aTELa.v ~a.aLALKTJV: in contrast to the mere name (§ 6). As Scullard (Pol. 86) aptly observes, 'P. was a Greek, to whom the supreme political temptation was tyranny, and matters may have appeared slightly different in Roman eyes'. 9. ToaoGTov ~mepe9ETo flEya.AOIIIUXLCf: the tradition of his moderatio is well established; cf. Sen. epist. 86. 1, egregiam moderationem pietatemque. Tilv Ta.uTT)~ u(anv: 'his duty towards her'. 10. TOU~ "I~T)pa.~ ... &.ueAuae xwpt~ AUTpwv: cf. Livy, xxvii. 19. 2, 'Hispanos sine pretio omnes domum dimisit, Afros uendere quaestorem iussit'. 11. 8La T,V TWV T TWV Ilvp1)VULWV op€wv being merely P.'s formulation of the order as it was actually carried out. Scipio probably guessed that Hasdrubal was making for Gaul: what he could not know was by which pass. In these circumstances his instructions may well have been: 'Follow Hasdrubal as far as the Pyrenees, keep a close watch on him and block his way if possible.' P. has recorded the first part of the instructions, Livy's source emphasizes the second; but the hope of blocking 254

THE BATTLE OF BAECULA

X. 4r. 3

the way into Gaul with a detachment of this kind was always slight. Hallward (CAH, viii. 88) speaks of 'detaching troops from the Roman strongholds north of the Ebro' to block the eastern passes; this is not in the sources. 12. &.vexwpT)aE ..• et~ T a.ppcl.tcwva.: according to Livy (xxvii. 20. 3) he returned to Tarraco 'paucis post proelium factum ad Baeculam diebus'. DeSanctis (iii. 2. 48o n. 6o) prefers Livy's version. But some consolidation in the south was essential if the full advantages of the victory were to be secured, and to return at once to Tarraco would give small encouragement to the southern tribes. A firm decision as between P. and Livy is perhaps not possible; but in favour of a stay of some time is Scipio's adoption of Hasdrubal's camp (§ II) for greater security and amenity. 41-47. Philip V gives aid to his allies: fire-signalling

In autumn 209 Philip had returned to Macedonia to repel Illyrian and Dardanian attacks (Livy, xxvii. 32. 9-33. 3). Attalus, having crossed over to Greece (Livy, xxvii. 30. rr), had wintered on Aegina with P. Sulpicius (Livy, xxvii. 33· 4-5; Walbank, Philip, 92). From Livy, xxviii. S· I-4, based on the passage of P. immediately preceding the present fragment, it appears that in spring 208 Sulpicius and At talus sailed over to Lemnos with a joint fleet of twenty-five Roman and thirty-five Pergamene quinqueremes, and Philip came by sea to Demetrias and fixed a day for the Macedonian army to assemble at Larissa. Embassies from the various allies thronged to Demetrias. See also Justin. xxix. 4· 7-Io. ~11'€tceLvTo Ka.Ta yilv: cf. Livy, xxviii. 5· 4, 'finitimosque depopulabantur'. See Feyel, qr n. 2, against exaggeration by Flaceliere (3oi) of the extent of the Aetolian attack. l. Tov Ma.xa.v£8a.v: cf. Livy, xxviii. S· 5· Machanidas probably gained power as ward of Lycurgus' infant son Pelops (d. Diod. xxvii. r; Livy, xxxiv. 32. I; Wolters, Ath. Mitt. I897, I44 f.) after Lycurgus' death, which was some time before winter 2II/Io (above, ix. 28-39 n. ad fin.). His usurpation of the throne, though perhaps no different in essence from Antigonus Doson's assumption of the Macedonian kingship, caused him to be dubbed 'tyrant' (cf. xi. I3. 3, etc.; Plut. Philop. Io. I; Paus. viii. so. 2). For a dedication by him to Eleusia found in Sparta cf. Syll. 551. See Ehrenberg, RE, 'Machanidas', cols. I42-3. 3. T)~£ouv <~xELv) TLva 11'povOLa.v Twv 11'0AEf1Lwv: so Bothius, Polybiana, 65; Hultsch, with Schweighaeuser, accepts Reiske's TTottEI:a8at after TToAtEfL{wv. The sense is the same: 'they urged him to take precautions against the enemy'.

41. 1. 11'CiaLV

X. ·41'· 4

PHILIP V GIVES AID TO HIS ALLIES

4. Kal 1ro.p' 'H1rc;:~pw-rwv: implying that the Epirotes feared attack, not that an attack had necessarily been made already. For the theory that Epirus was covered by an agreement making her a de facto neutral in this war see ix. 38. 5 n.; any such agreement was perhaps negotiated after this date. l:K€plh.ho.t5o.v Kat n>.Eupo:rov: Pleuratus is Scerdilaidas' son (Livy. xxxi. 28. 1) and first appears beside his father in the Roman-Aetolian treaty of 211 {Livy, xxvi. 24. 9, d. xxvii. 30, 13; above, ix. 28-39 n.). Scerdilaidas probably made him joint ruler after Pinnes' death; but App. Ill. 8 is chronologically so confused on the date of Demetrius' death that it cannot be used as evidence that Pinnes survived him (so Lenschau, RE, 'Pleuratos (2)', cols. 237--8). The dates of both Pinnes' death and Pleuratus' elevation thus remain uncertain; but the latter was probably not long before 2n. TOU9 ••• ep~Ka.s, KO.t J.'aA~aTO. TOU9 Mo.LSous: cf. Livy, xxviii. 5· 7· According to Strabo (vii. 331, fg. 36), the Maedi inhabited the Strymon valley; but they probably stretched westward to include the Bregalnitza too (cf. Lenk, RE, 'Thrake', col. 434; 'Maidoi', col. 541 ). Immediately after the Roman-Aetolian treaty the Romans had attacked them (Livy, xxvi. 25. 6 ff.) and taken their main town Iamphorynna (d. ix. 45· J n.). 5. 1rpoKo.TEAafl~o.vov ••• ,.a, mpl9£pfLom}.ho.s anvO. •.. AhwAol: cf. Livy, xxviii. 5· 8. On this fortification see Bequignon, 47-48. Philip soon afterwards expelled the Aetolians and drove them into Heraclea (Livy, xxviii. 7. 3). 6. Ko.TO. ,.a.s ( TE +ux~~l.vTav: cf. Livy, xxviii. 5· ll, 'Polyphantam cum modica manu in Boeotiam ... mittit'. As Feyel has seen (152 n. 3, 171), only the Boeotians appealed to Philip as clearly independent allies. Phocis he already controlled (cf. v. 26. r n.), and § 7 suggests that Polyphantas (like Alexander in v. 96. 4) was th(' Macedonian officer in charge of Phocis, and that he was instructed to help Boeotia if necessary; cf. Bengtson, Strat. ii. 364-5. On Euboea see § 7 n. On his return to Macedonia in autumn 209 (Livy, xxvii. 256

PHILIP GIVES ATD TO HIS ALLIES

X. •P· i

32. 9~33. 3) Philip had left z,soo men 'cum l'vlenippo et Polyphanta

ducibus ad praesidium sociorum' in the Peloponnese. ct~ s~ Xo.AKtOo. I nZw Al-rwAwv), and the secretary of the council (ypa.p.p.o.TEV> -rwv avvl8pwv; cf. IG, ix 2 • I. 69; Flaceliere, 43 n. 2; Aymard, Melanges Iorga, 71-ro8; Larsen, TAPA, 1952, u n. 19), besides seven Tap..ia.l. See xxi. 32. ron.; Busolt-Swoboda, ii. I5Z4-JI. 'Hp
s

257

X. 42.4

PHILIP V GIVES AID TO HIS ALLIES

slopes of Oeta (Livy, xxxvi. 22. s-Io, 25. 2); on its situation see Bequignon, 243-54. TTJV uuvo8ov O.UTWV: the meeting of the apxovrE<;: see Larsen, 78 n. 20; TAPA, I952, I9. 5. Tov Atvuiva. KoA:rrov: cf. Steph. Byz. 51. I3 (s. v. Alvta), AlvtaKaaELS: 'to afford an open view'.

Philip's remaining campaigns of 208. These are described in Livy, xxviii. 5· r8-8. 14 from P. They included the loss and recovery of Oreus (cf. xi. 5· 8 n.), and a sudden attack on Attalus at Opus from which he barely escaped whole (xi. 7· I, which should follow x. 47). 258

FIRE-SIGNALLING

X. 44· 2

Philip then campaigned against Aetolian possessions and allies around Doris, and perhaps gained possession of all Epicnemidian Locris (§ 7 n.). After the Olympic games he helped the Achaeans by raids on Aetolia across the Corinthian Gulf; the rest of the season was occupied against the Dardanians. Sulpicius probably took Dyme this year (Livy, xxxii. 21. 28, 22. IO; Paus. vii. 17. s). See in general Walbank, Philip, 94-98.

43. 1. O.vepyuo-Tou 'ITj>OTEpov .:nrO.pxovTos: either 'which was formerly undeveloped' (Paton, Mauersberger), or 'which has never before been clearly expounded' (Schweighaeuser, Shuckburgh, LSJ). Both meanings are satisfactory, but 45· 6, -rvxwv S£ Tfi> ifepyaatas S£ ~p.wv, favours the former. 2. 0 JCa.,pos ••• IJ.EYUAf]V EX£' JLEp(Sa.: cf. ix. rs. r n. 3. ApT' XPfi rroil.topKovp./.vov;; av·Tixw' {the :\iS. Alil.t&vov is an evident error for Alve[ov). Internal evidence suggests that Aeneas \\
44. 1.

century before 36o, but his personal history is unknown: he may, as Casaubon thought, be the Aeneas of Stymphalus who was general of the Arcadian Confederation and expelled Euphron, the tyrant of Sicyon, in 367 (Xen. Hell. vii. 3· r). The .}IS. title may also be incorrect, for Aeneas mentions several of his own works under shorter titles; these, referred to here as -ra rrf'p1 Twv O"Tpanlyt~
To Ka.Ta TTJV E1T1vo,a.v: 'his invective'. l. Tp,wv 1Tl)XWV: 'three cubits', i.e. about 4! ft. 259

X. 44· 3

PHILIP V GIVES AID TO HIS ALLIES

3. cp~>AAou5: 'corks'. ic:ra. JlfPT! Tptli6.KTu:\a.: 'equal parts two and a quarter inches wide'. The cubit was divided into 24 80.Kn/>.o~. 1r£jnypa.cpijv £ilC71]JlOV: 'a clear dividing line'. 6. Tn 116.:\tc:rT' li.v ••• wpovo(a.s Tuyx6.vovTa. KTA.: 'the chief contingencies of which at present there is a reasonable probability in time of war'. 7. Tous a.uMc:rKous: 'the outflow pipes'. 9. KO.Ta T«)v X£LPLc:rJlOV: 'by experiment' (Paton). 10. ol c:ruvTETa.yllevot: 'those who have been ordered'. 45. 1. ~pa.xu JlEV TL ••• €;1\:\:\a.x~ov: 'is a slight advance on' (Paton). 4. uuv9ec:r9a.t wpo Tou: 'to make a previous arrangement'. 6. litO. KAeo;€vou Ka.t .t\T\IlOKAE,Tou: beyond a reference in Suidas (derived from P.) nothing is known of these writers. Hultsch, RE, 'Demokleitos', col. 132, plausibly suggests that their date will not much precede P.'s, and so dates them to the early second century. 8t' "f\11wv: when P. contributed to this technique is not known; but Schulten's connexion of it with the siege of Numantia (App. Hisp. 90; CAH, viii. 322) would imply that this passage was a late insertion, and of this there is no evidence. (w6.VTT\ w6.vTws) ••• wptc:rJlEVos: for Biittner-Wobst's convincing suggestion cf. iv. 40. 5· Ka.Ta ••• Tov xnptuJlov: cf. 44· 9 n. Here 'in practice'. 7. To Twv c:rTOtXE~wv wA1]6os: 'the alphabet'. 8. wAa.ni:a. •.• wevn: 'five tablets' (cf. vi. 34· 8). yp6.\jla.t Twv JlEpwv £s1]5 KTA.: 'write one of the sections on each tablet in turn'. The grouping will be: Tablets

r

Place :2. on 3· tablet 4· 5·

I

2

(1,

t

fJ y

4

5

>.

TT

~

'II

jL

p

X

(J

v

u

!{;

7'

w

s €

3

g

I(

0

v

46. 1. 8tow-rpa.v ••• M' a.uMc:rKous ixouc:ra.v: 'a telescope v:ith two tubes'. This concentrated the vision on the desired point, without of course magnifying. On the s~61TTpa see ix. r9. 9 n. wa.pa.w£cpp6.x8a.l: 'screened off'. 47. 1. litTTns .•• Tns wupc:r£la.5: 'a double signal', i.e. one on the left followed by a second on the right. 3. -rous X£~pt~ovTa.s: 'the operators'. 260

FIRE-SIGNALLING

6. TO YLVO!J.EVOV ivl. Tll~ ava.yvwcrew~: for the adducing of reading as an analogy in argument cf. Plato, Rep. ii. 368 D, iii. 402 A-B (use of large and small letters); Dion. Hal. de comp. uerb. zs; de Dem. ui in dicendo, 52. 8. Ta~ oljlns ... Ta~ SuvaJ.lEL~: 'the visual impression ... the sound value' of each letter. Tas vpos aAATJAa. CFUJ.l1TAOKas: 'their combinations with each other'' i.e. either the combination of sound value and visual appearance of each letter, or the combination of different letters. 9. U1TO TTjv ava.1TVoTjv .•. auveipov: 'reeling off five or seven lines in a single breath'. 10. TTjv um1KpLcrLv Ka.l. Tas liLa.Lp~crELs: 'delivery and proper spacing of words'. Sa.cruTTJTas Kal. lj!LAOTTJTa.s: 'the presence or absence of aspiration'. 11. 1rpocra.KT~ov Se Tijv lf~Lv: for P .'s confidence in the virtues of practice (€g,.,) cf. Diog. Laert. vi. 71 giving the view of the cynic Diogenes : ov<'Uv YE f.L'?" D•.:ye T6 1Tap6:rrav lv To/ {3{cp xwp~s auK~UEWS' KaTop8ouu8m, SvvaTi,v S€ TaiJT!Jv 1riiv EKVLKijaat. See von Scala, 5 n. 12, Ka.Ta Tijv i~ apxfls £1TayyEALa.v: i.e. ix. 2. s. where P. writes Ef.L1T.:tp{at Kat TE'X"a' in place of 8.:wp~f.LaTa. P. refers here to the beginning of this Olympiad, not (as Paton) to the beginning of his work. [xi. 7· r, on Attalus' escape from Philip, should be placed here; see commentary ad loc.J

48. The River Oxus As part of the res Asiae for 01. r42, 4 = 209/8 (above, p. 16) this account of the Oxus must refer to Antiochus III's campaigns. The fighting in Hyrcania (31. 5-13) apparently ended in Antiochus' victory and an alliance with Arsaces; cf. Iustin. xli. 5· 7, 'Arsaces ... mira uirtute pugnauit; ad postremum in societatem eius (sc. Antiochi) adsumptus est'. Antioch us then marched east towards Bactria, and P. evidently prefaced his account of his campaigns there with a description of some of the peoples and geographical features of the lands east of Hyrcania. It is to this that 48 belongs. P.'s source is unknown; but some of the traditions behind it can be identified. 48. 1. ot ... )\1TacrLaKal: probably identical with the Paesicae (Mela, iii. 42) or Pascae (Ptol. vi. 12. 4), a Scythian people living on the north shore of the lower Oxus, where it met the Caspian (see below). They were probably Sacas; Tomaschek (5.-B. Wien, 102, 1882, 218; RE, 'Apasiakai', col. 267o) suggests that their name was Apa--;aka, 'Water-sacas'; cf. Tarn, Bactria, 91 n. 2. According to Step. Byz.

THE RIVER OXUS

s.v . .M?TaO',c{Ka,, P. said they were an eBvo<; of the Massagetae. Strabo (xi. 513) records that Arsaces I of Parthia, who had seized Hyrcania during the War of the Brothers, was at first expelled and found refuge ·.vith the Apasiacae; this was in z28/7 (Tarn, CAH, vii. 722). But he soon asserted his possession of both Parthia and Hyrcania (Iustin. xli. 4· 6-IO). avO. jlEO'OV "Osou Kat T nva~6os: these rivers are best discussed separately. (a) Oxus: the Amu-darya, which today flows into the Aral Sea. A strong ancient tradition brings at least one branch into the Caspian. Of this the source of Strabo, xi. 512 f. (probably Hecataeus; d. A. Herrmann, Gott. Abh. 1914, 4, 14 ff.; RE, 'Oxos', cols. 2007-8, note) will be the earliest example, if indeed the Araxes here mentioned is the Oxus; one mouth is said to reach the Hyrcanian sea, i.e. the Caspian. Herodotus (i. :w8·-rr) also mentions an Araxes flowing into the Caspian, but he seems to confuse the Armenian Araxes with the Oxus; Aristotle's Araxes (Meteor. i. 13. 350 a) is probably the Oxus, though he does not say what it ran into. Probably according to Aristobulus (Arr. iii. zg. 2), the Oxus flowed ts T~v !Leyai\-'lv 8d).aTmv rT]v Ka.B· 'YpKa.vlav; and Strabo (xi. 509) says that he records, on the authority of Patrocles, Seleucus Nicator's admiral, who sailed the shores of the Caspian, that there was a regular trade route from India via the Oxus, the Hyrcanian Sea, and Albania to the Euxine. Both Ptolemy (vi. u-12) and Mela (iii. 42) bring the Oxus into the Caspian. The earliest writer to describe it as flowing solely into the Aral Sea (Oxia palus) is Ammianus (xxiii. 6. 59) ; though Hecataeus (Strabo, xi. 512 f.), Herodotus, and Aristotle all describe other branches of the Araxes which appear not to flow into the Caspian. The truth of this tradition bringing waters of the Oxus into the Caspian has been much debated; but recent investigation of the geography by W. Obrutschev (summarized in Peterm. Mitt. 1914, I. 87-88) and Feodorovitch, who led the Karakum Expedition in 192Bfg--conveniently summarized by A. Herrmann, RE, 'Oxos', cols. zoro-13, with map-suggests that in classical times a branch ran from the dried-up bed of the Kalif-Uzboi along the Ungus depression north-west to join the Sarg Kamish depression, and thence flowed westward along the Uzboi, to meet the Caspian at Balkan Bay, just south of Krasnovodsk. Tarn (Bactria, 488-93) attacks this theory, assuming that Patrocles confused the Oxus and the Atrek, which does run into the Caspian (and ignoring the references to the Araxes); he has since (Alex. ii. 5-15) suggested that in Alexander's time the Sea of Aral was known and that Polycleitus, a minor historian accompanying Alexander, who argued for the identity of the Caspian and the .Maeotid Lake (Strabo, xi. sog-1o), was in fact calling the Sea of Aral the Caspian. This argument is far from convincing; 26z

THE HIVER OX US

X. 48.4

for some pertinent criticisms see L. C. Pearson, CQ, 1951, 8o-84. But Tarn is right when he says that the question whether the Oxus (or a branch of it) once ran into the Caspian is one to be settled only by science. On present evidence probability seems strongly to favour the view that it did. For various suggestions see Thomson, 127-9· In any case, P. follows the normal ancient view. (b) Ta·nais: normally the Don, which was reckoned as the boundary between Europe and Asia (iii. 37· z-8 n.; xxxiv. i· 10). If this were so here, the Apasiacae would live around the northern shores of the Caspian through Kazakhstan to the Don. But in Alexander's time the Jaxartes (Syr-darya) was confused with the Tanais (quite independently of Strabo's assertion, xi. sog-ro, that flatterers deliberately promoted the confusion so as to suggest that Alexander had reached the north-east botmdaries of Europe), and this confusion has probably played a part here, despite the fact that P. makes his Tanais issue in the Maeotis and not (as Strabo, xi. sro, sr8, and Arrian, iii. 30. 7~8, vii. r6. 3) in the Caspian. See Herrmann, RE, 'Iaxartes', cols. II83-4· i~e6:n:poL ... '!I'Aw·mi: today the Oxus is navigable as far as the mountains at Patta-hissar, 90 km. above Kalif. In ancient times, when perhaps more water fed it, the same was apparently true of the branch running into the Caspian. This is confirmed by the reference to a trade-route from India mentioned on the authority of Aristobulus, Eratosthenes and ultimately Patrocles by Strabo (ii. 73, xi. 509); cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. 52 (based on Varro). The Don, w-ith which P. confuses the Iaxartes, is navigable into its lower stretches. 3. Mo MyoL: their source is unknown, but the first (about the waterfall} recalls one told {nra E-1!8&eov (of Cnidus) Kai .L\.\wv (Strabo, xi. 510; cf. Mela, iii. 5· 40): in Hyrcania rivers flow over cliffs into the sea w-ith such violence that they leave an area on the shore where armies can pass, or natives bask at their ease, enjoying the sea, the waterfall and the shore. P. knows of Eudoxus (d. xxxiv. I. 3), who may be his source here {cf. 523) ; but there is no certainty about this and Pectech, Methode, s68-7o, suggests that here (and in v. 44· 3-u, ix. 43 and x. 27. 4-13) the source is Callisthenes. 4. EK TOU Ka.uK6.aou: d. Arr. iii. zg. z, lK Tov tfpov~ TofJ KaVJcacrov; Ptolemy (vi. 18. r) puts the source in the Paropamisus, Aristotle (Meteor. i. 13. 350 A) in Parnassus, but these must all be variants for the Pamir or Hindu Kush. The Pyandzh, the upper stream of the Oxus, in fact rises in the Pamir. For the extension of the meaning of Caucasus to include the Hindu Kush and western Himalayas cf. xi. 34· I I ; Arr. v. 3· z f.; Curt. vii. 3· 19, viii. 9· 3; Strabo, xi. 505 f., sn, xv. 688 f.; Justin. xii. 5· 9; Diod. xvii. 83. I; Herrmann, RE, 'KavKaao~ (3)', cols. 6o-6r. e'll't 'll'oAU 8' a.u€'1J9Et~ ev Tfi Ba.~eTpLavft: true as far downstream as 263

X. f8. 4

THE RIVER OXUS

Kalif, where the river enters the Turanian plain; below, there are no more tributaries (Herrmann, RE, 'Oxos', col. 2010 ). Bactria is the area around the Oxus, including southern Sogdiana on its left bank (cf. Tomaschek, RE, 'Baktriane', col. 28o5). For the form BaKrpufvTJ cf. 49· IS; Tarn, Bactria, 444-5, apparently overlooks this when he asserts that Bactriane is a mistake made by 'writers of the Roman empire' for Badria. It constitutes a further argument against his theory about eparchies (cf. v. 46. 7 n.}. 5. E1T( TLVaS 1TETpas a1Toppwyas: this, if anywhere, would be in the depression of Ungus and Uzboi rather than in the present bed of the Oxus; and Obrutschev discovered two dry waterfalls in the Sary Kamish and Uzboi channels, one at lgdy 3 to 5 metres high. But this is obviously too small for P.'s waterfall; and in any case P. regards the story as improbable (§ 3. 7Tapci.So~os, ov p,1}v d.Svvaros). See Tarn, Bactria, 491; Herrmann, RE, 'Oxos', cols. 2014-15. e€w9E~ TO pEUJJ-a ••• TWV U1TEpKElJJ-EVWV T01TWV E1TL TOO'OUTOV: 'it projects its stream ... so far from the point above'. WaTE ••• TTJV KaTacflopO.v auTou: 'that in its fall it takes a leap of more than a stade away from the rock at the lower level'. 7. Tou U1TOKELJJ-EVou To1rou: 'the spot at the foot (of the waterfall)'. 1TAaTaJJ-wvas: this word can mean a fiat area, a fiat reef or a rock ledge. Here the sense is most likely 'a fiat ledge of rock', since fiat ground would be washed away, whereas the point is that the river channels a way down under the rocks, which thus serve as a natural bridge. l11ro yi]v cflepEa9aL: sc. rov 7Tin-a11-ov. EtT' O.vacflalvEa9aL 1raALV: for similar examples see Strabo, vi. 27 5; Diod. xvii. 75· 1-2 (the Stiboetes: d. 28. 7 n.). 8. e1rt Twv t1r1Twv: 'on horseback', not merely 'with their horses' (Paton). 49. Ant£ochus in Bactria The date will be 2o8 (cf. 48 n.}. Bactria, earlier a Seleucid satrapy, was now an independent kingdom. 49. 1. Eu9USTJJJ-OV: Euthydemus, a Greek of Magnesia (probably the city underSipylus: cf. xi. 34· In.), had seized the Bactrian throne from Diodotus II, the second of the dynasty which originally revolted from the Seleucids in about 239 (Schmitt, Antiochus, 64 f.). Diodotus II's overthrow and the accession of Euthydemus I cannot be accurately dated, but may fall shortly after 230; lustin. xli. 4· 9 affords no evidence that Diodotus II was still on the throne in 228-7, as argued by Tarn, Bactria, 74 n. 2. For a portrait-bust of Euthydemus see R. Delbrueck, A n-tike Portriits (Bonn, 1912), pl. 29; ;!64

A::.-!TIOCHUS IN BACTRIA

X. 49· I5

see also Tarn, Bactria, plate, coins r and 2; ~arain, pl. I, coin 4· His origins are uncertain; he was perhaps one of Diodotus II's satraps. On his organization of Bactria see Tarn, Bactria, 7I-r28, a brilliant if somewhat imaginative study. TI'Epl Ta.TI'oup(a.v: Tayovplav, FS. Gutschmid (Geschichte Irans, Tiibingen, r888, 37 n. 4) emends to Ttl Fovpla.va., which is preferable to Reiske: Ta7rovplav. Kiessling (RE, 'Guriane', cols. 1945--D; 'Hyrkania', cols. 484, 493 f.) identifies Ttl Fovplava with Ghurian on the Hari-rud (Arius) west of Herat, cf. Wolski, Bull. Intern. Acad. Pol. Supp!. 5· 1947, 56. Tam (ap. Holleaux, CAH, viii, 141 n. and PBA, 1930, rzs--D), while accepting Gutschmid's emendation, identifies Ta Fovplava with the Guriane of PtoL vi. ro. 4 and, emphasizing that this is in Margiane, puts it much further north on the main road from Palestine into f3actria (leading to Merv rather than Herat). Tov~plov: the Hari-rud or Tedzhen, as it is called in its lower reaches; it probably formed the boundary of Bactria at this time. TlJV TI'OAlopK£a.v aTI'o)'Vous: the name of the town Antiochus was be· sieging, to the west of the Arius, has not survived. 4. oln< eAa.TTov eTKocn aTa.S£wv: about 2 ~ miles. 7. To us Tl'ept a.uTov ete~a""ivous ~ew8uveue~v: perhaps, but not certainly, the flaa£)wc~ LA1J (cf. v. 84. I n.). 11. TWV 1TAduTwY hTTI'EWY E.cnTO.YflEVwY 118TJ: 'when most of the cavalry were now in position' (omitted by Paton). Oa.va.(TwAos: cf. v. 6r. s. 62. 2; he was one of the mercenaries who deserted Ptolemy for Antiochus. 14. Tov ••. l1T1TOV: sc. f3aut.Mws; the epitomator has omitted some words. 15. ets 1TOA~v Za.puia1Ta.v: usually called Bactra (d. Eratosthenes ap. Strabo, xi. 514, ~ls Bat
BOOK XI 1 a. On the use of 7rpoypa¢at and 7rpoEKlMaEt<;

This discussion forms part of the 7rpolKfhat<; to 01. •43· 7rpoypaal or epitomes of books xii and xlvii of Theopompus' Philippica. Examples survive in Diodorus. ci}.}.Q. Ka.lvpou:OEO'US: on 7rpo£KfNan<; see above. Kat will be 'simply' (cf. J. Denniston, The Greek Particles 1 (Oxford, 1954), 320, quoting Herod. ix. 2i. 5; Lys. xxv. 13). 266

THE USE OF IIPOrPA
2. Eis

itr(O'Ta.O'LV

liyeL kTh.: cf. xiv.

TVYXctVDl'TCl.S' Ka1 Std.

To

rr).7j£Jos Kat

I

8ta

a

£1> Jrr[u7a0'£V &yovut TOV> fLiyeOoS' TWV yeyov6Twv.

I,

To

lv-

3. bf.,ywpo~JJ.Evov ~ea.t cJ!8ElpoJ1evov: 'they are held in little account and get destroyed'. This is a general characteristic of rrpoypwpa.l, and not something which has recently come about, as Paton's translation implies: 'as I saw that ... prologues were now neglected and had degenerated in style'. KaO' JKaUT7JV oAvfLmci8a to books i-vL i and ii were introductorv, vi was an account of the constitution, army, etc,, and iii-v dealt exceptionally with a single Olympiad. iii could have had a rrpo£Kfl<:ats to 01. 140, but instead P. chose to prefix an introduction to the whole work (cf. iii. I. s n.), just as he had included a rrpotKBEat> of the 7TpoKaTaaK€V~ in i. 13. r-s. The 1rpoypa.pa/., now lost, were a substitute, giving the contents of the first six books (cf. r a n.).

t

1-3. 6. Hasdrubal in Italy: the Metaunts This fragment is from the res Italiae of Ol. 143, I 207 B.C. After escaping from Baecula (x. 39· 8, 40. ro) Hasdrubal wintered in Gaul (2o8/7), crossing the Alps in the early spring. Livy (xxvii. 39· 7) and Appian (Hawn. 52) implytllat he used Hannibal's pass, but Varro (ap. Serv. A en. x. 13) denies it (see DeSanctis, iii. 2. 561~z). For the events between then and the battle of the "Y1etaurus see Livy, xxvii. 39· 1-49; Zon. ix. 9; Appian, Maced. 52-53; with Val. .Max. vii. 4· 4; Frontin, Strat. i. I. g, z. 9, iv. 7· rs; F!or. i. 22. so; Eutrop. iii. 18. :2; Oros. iv. 18. 9-15; Ampel. r8. n, 36. 3, 46. 6; auct. de uir. ill. 48. 2; Suet. Tib. 2, I; Hor. Od. iv. 4· 37-39; Sil. It. xv. 543 ff. Livy, the main source other than P., is closely related to P., but his version incorporates annalistic material, which occasionally contradicts P.; in the main his narrative may be accepted. To prevent the hrothers joining forces the Romans sent one consul, C. Claudius Nero, to watch Hannibal in the south, and the other, M. Livius Salinator, to oppose Hasdrubal in the north (Livy, xxvii. 40. 1). Hannibal moved north to Grumentum to make contact with Claudius; 'here and again at Venusia skirmishes took place which Roman tradition magnified into victories' (Scullard) (cf. Livy, xxvii. 41--42). Next Hannibal advanced to Canusium to await a message from Hasdrubal (Livy, xxvii. 42. I6); but Hasdrubal's envoys, four Gauls and two Numidians, were intercepted by the propraetor Q. Claudius, and so revealed to the Romans that Hasdrubal proposed to meet Hannibal in Umbria (Livy, xxvii. 43· 1~8). By now :M. Livius

XI. I-J. 6

HASDRUBAL IN ITALY: THE 1\IETAURUS

was encamped ad Senam about half a mile from Hasdrubal, who had followed the Via Aemilia down from Placentia (Livy, xxvii. 46. 4). Xero, taking 6,ooo picked infantry and r,ooo horse, meanwhile left a covering force against Hannibal and pressed north by forced marches to join Livius (Livy, xxvii. 46. 4; cf. so. I). Hasdrubal, learning from the double signal that both consuls were facing him and uncertain what had happened to Hannibal, attempted to retire by night, but missed the way and was eventually overtaken some distance up the river Metaurus, which he had failed to ford, his two guides having escaped. Here the battle took place. The battle-site and those of the Roman and Punic camps have been much discussed, but no theory fits all the evidence and avoids all the difficulties. It is clear that the Punic camp and the battlefield were both on the same side of the Metaurus. In favour of the right bank is the association of the camps in many of our sources with Sena, which lies about 10 miles south of the l\ietaurus (cf. Livy, xxvii. 46. 4, ad Senam; Eutrop. iii. 18. 2; and au ct. de uir. ill. 48. 2, apud Senam; App. Harm. 52, 1TEpi 1TOA
HASDRUBAL IN ITALY: THE METAURUS

XL 1-3.6

army including elephants would easily outweigh such difficulties of terrain (d. De Sanctis, iii. z. 564-5). These considerations seem to favour the view that the rival armies were encamped near Fanum, and perhaps (though not necessarily) one on either side of the Metaurus (if the flumen 1t.nde aqtt-abantur {Livy. xxvii. 4 7. z) is that river). But Hasdrubal's withdrawal creates difficulties on any hypothesis. Our sources are not agreed on its purpose. According to Appian, Hamt. 52, OU1TW J.LfLXEuBat l<€1
TaAG.-ras ava.xwpfiam Kai EKfL

TU

rre.p~

TOV

aD£Atfoov aKpt~c./;aacrOat;

but a retreat to the Po valley would be excessively timorous for a Barcid. Livy (xxvii. 47) does not refer to Hasdrubal's purpose at all. General considerations then seem to favour Appian's view, which implies a meeting with Hannibal in Umbria; but clearly the evidence hete is not decisive. More difficult is the detailed account of the withdrawal, when according to Livy (xxvii. 47· n) Hasdrubal was in search of a ford over the Metaurus. If his camp lay south of the river, he had already crossed it and it is not clear why he found it so hard to go back the way he had come, even if the ford lay some way upstream to avoid the marshes mentioned by Appian (Hann. 52). But if his camp was north of the Metaurus, it becomes impossible to reconcile the long march per tortuosi amnis sinus flexusque described by Livy (xxvii. 47· ro-n) and Appian (Hann. 52) with an advance up the left bank, where the Via Flaminia must have facilitated a night march, and where one may assume a bridge at Calmazzo. Kahrstedt's assertion (iii. 310 that the whole of Hasdrubal's nightmarch is an annalistic invention (cf. I. z n.) may appear drastic; but if Hasdrubal's camp stood on the left bank of the Metaurus, Livy's account is at least considerably embellished and worked over by annalists. The theme is typical of Hellenistic e~
XI. 1-3.6

HASDRUBAL IN ITALY: THE .METAt:RUS

several inaccuracies, may well be unreliable on the night march. :\loreover, if Hasdrubal proposed to meet Hannibal in Umbria, an advance as far as Sena is hard to accept. Hence on balance, it seems more likely that his camp lay north of the Metaurus. But the evidence is finely balanced and certainty not possible. Hence it seems futile to attempt to locate the exact site of the battle. The main sites proposed have been (a) north of the :Metaurus, moving westward: La Lucrezia, Borgaccio, l\L Sterpette, Calmazzo, and San Silvestro; (b) south of the Metaurus: San Angelo, Cerasa, :Monte Maggiore, Montebello, Tombacchia, and Vago Colle. Bibliography: Kromayer, AS, iii. I. 424-6 (full discussion, pp. 426-94), with Karten 4 and ro;; iv. 625; Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abt., 7· 8 with commentary); Hallward, CAH, viii. 727; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 562-7. The folloV~-ing studies have been published locally in Italy (non vid£) : A. Bianchini, La battaglia del 111etauro (Pesaro, 1934) ; G. Bonarelli, La battaglia di Metaura, i. (Ancona, 1942); G. Boroni, Dissertazione sulla battaglia del1tf etauro (Fano, 1940); Le diverse tesi sulla battaglia del },fetaura (Urbania, 1953; cf. M. Fievez, Latamus, 1954, 494) ; N. Alfieri, Tapogra.fia della battaglia dellv[ etalHO (Fabriano, 1941; Rend. I st. Afarch. Sci. Lett. Arti, 15-16, 1939~40, publ. 1941, pp. 91-136; cf. Rend. Ace. Sci. I st. Balogna4, 5, 1942, cn-1o4); G. Rossi, La battaglia del lv[etauro, ricostruita sui luoga col testa di T. Livia (Fano, 1928); La battaglia del MeJauro combattuta jra i Romani e i Cartaginesi nell'anno 207 a.C. ricastruita sulluogo col testa di Tito Livia, xxvii. 43-51 (Pesaro, r939); Teatra della battaglia del Metauro ricostruito . .. col testa di Tito Livia e documentato da iscrizioni .. . , da moltc tambe ramane . .. e da carcami di elejanti ecc. (Fano, 1939). pa.O~ECM'epa.v Ka.t auvTOiJ.WTepa.v: cf. Livy, xxvii. 39· 6, 'Hasdrubali et sua et aliorum spe celeriora atque expeditiora fuere'. Paton translates 'much easier and more rapid than Hannibal's had been'; but the Livian parallel suggests 'easier and more rapid than was expected'. The reasons given by Livy are that the inhabitants proved more friendly than when Hannibal crossed, some even joinHasdrubal's army. Appian (Ham:. sz) says the crossing took two months. De Sanctis (iii. 2. 574-5) argues convincingly that Hasdrubal reached the Po valley in May, and that the battle of Metaurus took place at the end of June or early in July (allowing for the siege of Placentia (Livy, xxvii. 39· rr) and a march of just over 3oo miles from Turin to Fanum). Ovid, Fasti, vi. 770, refers to 22 June an occasion when cecidit telis Hasdrubal ipse suis. DeSanctis (loc. cit.) refers this to the defeat of Hasdrubal, son of Gisgo, at the battle of the Great Plains, but his arguments are unconvincing; and though it may seem difficult to apply these words of Ovid to

1. 1. 1ToM

HASDRt.;BAL I:\ ITALY: THE METAURL"S

XI. r. 4

Hasdrubal's death at the Metaurus, P. certainly uses this as a peg on which to hang what is really a sermon on the permissibility of suicide in certain circumstances. Moreover, if the calendar was running true to the sun in 207 (which we do not know), the date would fit general probabilities. For discussion of Ovid, Fasti, vi. no, see Scullard, Scip. 324-5. op91) KQ.l rrEptcpo~o~: cf. Livy, xxvii. 40. I ff. for tension at Rome on Hasdrubal's approach. 2. TOlJT(Il\1 flEV i)pEO'KEV ouSev: what displeased Hasdrubal is not clear. Kahrstedt's :1ssumption (iii. 3ro) that it is his realization that the enemy were reinforced is designed to support his theory that Hasdrubal's night march (Livy, xxvii. 47· 8-II; App. Hann. 52) is sheer annalistic invention. DeSanctis (iii. z. 562-3) suggests more plausibly that Hasdrubal was displeased at the drunkenness among the Celts (cf. 3· r). But ToVTwv . .• ov!5Ev implies more than one factor; and another may be the general disorder in which his troops now found themselves (cf. Livy, xxvii. 47· 9. 'fessique aliquot somno ac uigiliis sternunt corpora passim atque infrequentia relinquunt signa'). Hesselbarth (549) suggests that fg. 40 refers to the drunkenness of the Celts and should be inserted between 1. r and 1. 2 (cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 563). EKTETG.YflEVOU~ Ka.l. rrpoucl.yovTa.~: cf. Livy, xxvii. 48. 3, 'aduenit Liuius peditum omnibus copiis non itineris modo sed ad conserendum extemplo proelium instructis armatisque'. According to Livy (xxvii. 48. 2 and.=;) Hasdrubal was trying to fortify a camp in tumulo super fluminis ripam, but was forced to ab:mdon this on the Roman attack. TOU~ "I ~T}pa.~ KQ.LTOU ~ flET. a.lhou YEYOVOTG.<; r a.A.cl. TQ.~ :according to Livy (xxvii. 48. s-6) Hasdrubal put his Gauls on the left facing Nero, and himself took up station on the right (see below, § 3 n.) against Livius. 3. Ta 91)pla. ••• SiKa.: cf. Livy, xxvii. 48. s, 'in prima acie ante signa elephantos conlocat'. Livy places Ligurians in the centre, and the elephants in front of these, whereas according to P. there is only a deep-massed Punic right led by Hasdrubal, with the elephants in front, and the Gauls on the left. Livy thus fails to make clear the desperate character of Hasdrubal's formation (vtKav 1) BlnjaKnv), which was designed to stake all on the right ; cf. Kromayer, AS, iii. 1. 465

n.

r.

Ka.Ta TT)v Twv 91)plwv rrpouTa.uia.v: 'at the point where the elephants

formed the front'. 4. o ... N~lO~: M. Livius M.f. M.n. Salinator, consul for 207 and, previously, 219; cf. Munzer, RE, 'Livius (Salinator) (33)', cols. 89r-g. Livius had been out of politics since his condemnation for misuse of the booty in the Second Illyrian War (cf. iii. 19. 12 n.; Livy, xxvii. 34· 4). On the background of his election now see Scullard, Pol. 72-73. O.vTmTIEl To'L~ rroAEflLOl~ oo~a.pw~: cf. iii. 72. 13 (Sempronius at 2jl

XI.

I . .j.

HASDRUBAL Il': ITALY: THE METAURUS

Trebia), xv. 12. 17 (the phalanxes at Zama), xviii. 23. 7 (Flamininus at Cynoscephalae). 5. o S€ KA.a.uOLos: C. Claudius Ti.f. Ti.n. Nero, the other consul; cf. Munzer, RE, 'Claudius (296)', cols. 2774-6. By a slip Paton refers to him both here and in § 10 as Marcellus. 11'€pLK€pciv ... OUK eSUva.TO: i.e. advance into the gap between Hasdrubal's Gallic left and his advancing right, and strike the latter on its left flank. 7. Ka.Ta TCIV oma8€v T011'0V TtlS J.LC..XTJS: 'in the rear of the field'; P. probably means that Nero took men from the rear of the right wing, to hide his intentions from the enemy. Thus not all the right took part in this manceuvre. Kromayer, AS, iii. I. 471, translates: 'deshalb zog er seine Soldaten vom rechten Fliigel hinter der Schlachtreihe herum' : this is not easily extracted from 1rapaoEtawvo<; •.. KaTa Tov oma8Ev T61TOV Tij<; f.LUX1)'>·

To Aa.Lov urrEpapa.s TtlS tS(a.s 1Ta.p€J.L~oA.t1s: 'passing round the Roman battle-line to the left'. Claudius took men from the inactive right wing, assembled them in the rear and led them round (to the left of) the Roman left, which was now engaging Hasdrubal's main forces. Paton renders 1TapEf.Lf3oAij<> as 'camp', which is nonsense. Ka.Ta K€pa.s ... E1TL Ta a, pta.: i.e. he struck the front of the Punic line on its right flank; cf. Livy, xxvii. 48. 13-14, 'cohortes aliquot subductas e dextro cornu ... post aciem circumducit, et non hostibus modo sed etiam suis inopinantibus in sinistrum <euectus in dextrum) hostium latus incurrit' (where euectus in dextrum is Conway's addition, but the sense is clear, since the advancing troops subsequently reach the Gauls who are on Hasdrubal's left). 8. KoLvT)v ciJ.Lcpo'Lv 1Ta.p€CxovTo TTJV XP€La.v ev Tft J.Laxn: 'they contributed to the fighting an element which affected both sides equally'; XPE{a here is 'fighting' rather than 'use', for they were a disadvantage to both lines. 10. &J.La. S€ T~ ... 1Tp00'1f€0'€LV Ka.T' oupav: in § 7 they are attacking Hasdrubal's flank, now they have got round to his rear; cf. Livy, xxvii. 48. 14, 'tantaque celeritas fuit ut cum ostendissent se ab latere mox in terga iam pugnarent'. There is much to be said for Schweighaeuser's
3. 1foAA.a.'Ls S€ Ka.t 1fOLKLAa.L~ 11'€pLaTaa€aL 1fa.Aa.(aa.s: 'in his struggle against many embarrassing difficulties'. 272

HASDRUBAL lX ITALY: THE METAURUS

XI. 3· 2-3

SLa Tb ••• To us i1fa.1foan:AAollevous: Buttner-Wobst plausibly sug-

gests s~a. TO O"Ta(na~t:~l! 1Tpo<; a.Vrov<; U£t. On the hostility between Hasdrubal, son of Gisgo, Hasdrubal, son of Hamilcar, and Mago, the latter Hasdrubal's brother, see ix. II. I, x. 7· 3; Livy, xxvi. 41. 20. 4-11. The lessons of Hasdrubal's death; circumstances in which suicide is praiseworthy (cf. §ron.). 4. a~LOS E1fL Ttvos a1ropov Ka.l d{~iov fU!Ta>.a.xwv); Aiist. Eth. Nic. v. Ir. 3· n38 a. Approval of it is typical of Stoic doctrine (cf. Cic. fin. iii. 6o; Plut. Cleom. 3l (see above, ii. 69. Ion.); Hirzel, 3oo ff., 857-60; von Scala, 2I2-I3 n. 4); but others also accepted it and this passage is not evidence that P. was a Stoic (cf. Hercod, 90; Pedech, Methode, 419 n. 68). 11. cj>LAotwoGvn:<> 1ra.pa Tb Seov: cf. xxx. 7. 8, Tov 1ra.pa To Ka.BijKov 1/Jt>.o,wetv.

3. 2-3. Casualties. The consular armies of 207 had been reinforced to full strength or over strength (Livy, xxvii. 38. 9), and they probably had their full contingent of allies. Hence Livius' army can be put at 2o,ooo-2s,ooo men. He also had with him the forces of Porcius Licinus (Livy, xxvii. 46. s). described as imtalidus exercitus (Livy, xxvii. 39· z), and perhaps amounting to ro,ooo men. Hasdrubal was prepared to meet Livius and Porcius, but retired when they were reinforced by the 7,ooo men of Claudius Nero (Livy, xxvii. 43· n), which suggests that Hasdrubal's army was roughly equal to the forces of Livius and Porcius, i.e. 3o,ooo-3s,ooo. According to P. his casualties included ro,ooo dead. The prisoners (§ z, ~v >.om~v Twv a.lxJ.La.>.dnwv >.da.v) brought in 300 talents. In Achaea in 194 Romans were ransomed at soo dr. each (Livy, xxxiv. so. 6, quoting P.), perhaps a normal market price. Kromayer (AS, iii. L 492) estimates that the rate after Metaurus was perhaps a third of this, but admits that this may be a little high; it would imply about ro,ooo prisoners, or more. In addition some of Hasdrubal's army escaped, or never reached the battlefield (cf. Livy, xxvii. 48. 16, 49· 9). Though this gives no basis for detailed calculation, it does not exclude the possibility that Hasdrubal had 3o,ooo-3s,ooo men in all. Other sources give impossible figures. Livy (xxvii. 49· 6) has 56,ooo (or according to some MSS. 57 ,ooo : accepted by Conway in the Oxford text as being closer to the s8,ooo mentioned by Orosius, iv. I8. I4) dead and 5,400 814173

T

XI. 3· z

HASDRUBAL 1:::\ lTALY: THE METAURUS

prisoners; and Appian (Hamt. 52) puts Hasdrubal's total force at 48,ooo foot and 8,ooo horse s6,ooo in all, which perhaps supports 56,ooo casualties in the text of Livy). These are all far too high; with such an army Hasdrubal need have had no hesitation in facing even the reinforced Roman legions at Metaurus. Livy (xxvii. 49- 7) puts the casualties Romanorum sociorumque at 8,ooo, which does not necessarily clash with P.'s figure of 2,ooo Romans. For discussion see Kromayer, AS, iii. 1. 475-94; DeSanctis, iii. 2. 571-4. 3. o~ 8i Aonrot Ka.TE:t90.pt'Jaa.v: i.e. of the leading Carthaginians. 4. ~~ ... t~I-Lt'J~ &.t,Ko!lM-J~: cf. Livy. xxvii. so. 6, 'fama incerta primo accidit duos Narnienses equites in castra quae in faucibus Vmbriae opposita erant uenisse ex proelio nuntiantes caesos hostes'. 5. ti·rm8Tj 8i Ka.i. 'll'hdous 1jKov: cf. Livy, xxvii. so. 8, 'litterae deinde ab L. Manlio Acidino ex castris adferuntur de Narniensium equitum aduentu'. This was read out in the Senate and to the people. Soon afterwards legati arrived from the victorious army to confirm the news (Livy, xxvii. 51. I -6). 'II'EAavwv Ka.l 9up.O.Twv: 'sacrificial cakes and victims'. According to Livy (xxvii. 51. 8), 'senatus ... supplicationem in triduum decreuit'. 6. 1-1118' iv 'ITa.ALtt vo11t~Ew 1ra.pEI:va.~: cf. Livy, xxvii. sr. 10, 'statum quoque ciuitatis ea uictoria mouit, ut iam inde hand secus quam in pace inter se contrahere uendendo, emendo, mutuum dando argentum creditumque soluendo auderent'.

3. 7. Fragment concerning a speech This may belong to the same occasion as 4· r-6. ro; see p. r6.

4.

1~.

10. Speech of Thrasycrates of Rhodes

This speech belongs to the Greek events of 207 and implies a gathering of neutrals at an Aetolian congress; on the month, which is uncertain, see 6. I n. This neutral approach to the Aetolians has been convincingly identified with one mentioned in App. Mac. 3· 1-2, where the participants were Egypt, Chios, Mytilene, and Amynander of Athamania (cf . .Meloni, Valore storico, 9-24). Schmitt (Rom und Rhodos, 205; cf. Ferro, 7 n. 63, 139 ff.) argues that it is rather to be identified with a second neutral intervention mentioned in App. Mac. 3· 3-4, because the reference to Amynander in Appian's first intervention dates it before that king's desertion to Philip (Livy, xxxvi. 31. I I : his desertion preceded Philip's invasion of Aetolia; see below, 7· 2-3); but this argument has little weight, since Appian implies that the same powers took part in both interventions, and his association of the second gathering with the separate peace between Philip and Aetolia favours dating it to winter 207/6 and the

274

SPEECH OF THRASYCRATES OF RHODES

XI. 4· 5

peace to zo6 (cf. \Valbank, Philip, 305). Appian has nothing reliable to add. The name of the speaker is given in the margin (F 2 ) as Thrasycrates, and Schweighaeuser's suggestion (vol. viii. 7) that he was a Rhodian may be right, though it is not supported by very sound arguments. La Roche (6o) and Ullrich (34) defend the genuineness of the speech; and indeed the panhellenic note and the accusations against the Aetolians can have come from a Rhodian as easily as from P. himself (contra, Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 202}. But P.'s source is unknown; it may go back to a published version (which is unlikely) or to a version in some earlier historian such as Zeno. Moreover, general conformity to the original would not exclude some working over of detail; for a possible example see 6. I n. See further P£-dech, Methode, 268--9.

4. 1. nToAE .... o.ios 0 13o.atAEUS: Ptolemy I v. He had already tried to mediate between Aetolia and Philip in 209 (Livy, xxvii. 30. 4-10; cf. above, x. 25. I-5 n.) and 2o8 (Livy, xxviii. 7· IJ-·I5)· 1) Twv 'Pooiwv voA~s: the emphasis on Rhodes would support the identification of the speaker as from that city (Schmitt, Ram und Rhodos, 199). Tns 1'1...-ETEpas ••. 8to.AUaEtS: 'your ceasing hostilities'. 2. ou ••• vGv vpw1"ov ou8E O€u1"€pov: Thrasycrates speaks for the neutrals as a body. There had been interventions in 209 {by Ptolemy, Rhodes, Athens, Chios, and Amynander) and in 208 (by Ptolemy and Rhodes) ; see § I n. vpoaE8pd,ovTES Kai. nD.vTa Katpov 9EpanEuovTEs: 'looking out for and seizing every opportunity'. 3. T1\!l UJ'ETEpas •.• aToxatoJJ-EVOL ~ a1T6AAV11L shows. lS. ei.El~uawJ'Evos: 'constantly renewed and blown into a blaze'.

XI. 4· 6

SPEECH OF THRASYCRATES OF RHODES

6. TOO'S VT)atMTaS ••• Kat TOUS TTtV :A.aLaV KaTO~KOUVTaS "EAATJvas: cf. v. 105. 6, which shows the phraseology here to be P.'s. The V7la.Wnu are primarily the inhabitants of the large islands off the Asian coast, i.e. Rhodes, Lesbos, and Chios, which share in the negotiations; the sense is the same in v. 105. 6. Cf. Holleaux, 235 n. 2. 8. f1Eycl.AT)S ••• ~maTaaews: 'deep consideration'.

5. 2. a.l auv9i]Km •.• at wpos 'Pw!La.wus: d. ix. 28-39 n., 38. 5 n., 39· 3 n., xviii. 38. 9 n. 4. aUjLfLcl.xwv owa.pxovTwv: the 'majority of the Peloponnesians' are, of course, the Achaean Confederacy, since Sparta, Elis, and Messenia were allied with Aetolia (cf. ix. 30. 6 n.). On the position of Epirus in this war see ix. 38. 5 n., where that of Thessaly and Boeotia is also discussed. Phocis was at this time a Macedonian protectorate (cf. v. 26. 1 n., x. 42. 2 n.). For help sent by Philip to Euboea, cf. Livy, xxvii. 30. xxviii. 7· 2; to OpuntianLocris, d. Livy, xxviii. 7· 5-9; on the status of Opuntian Locris see ii. 54· 4 n. The list here is not complete, for example, the Acarnanians are omitted. 5. ~cp' ~ TO. jLEV awjLa.Ta. KTA.: cf. ix. 39· 3 n. 7. Kw 'fipELTWV Kal ••• Al.ywTJTwv: Oreus in northern Eu boca, the ancient Histiaea (which remained the official name; cf. Geyer, RE, Suppl.-B. iv, 'Histiaia', cols. 749-50), had been seized by the forces of the Roman general Sulpicius through the treachery of Plator, Philip's commander (Livy, xxviii. 5· 18-6. 7; cf. x. 42. 2 n.), in June 2o8, soon after Philip set up his system of fire-signals (x. 42. 7-8); Philip recovered it a little later (Livy, xxviii. 8. 13), perhaps in August (Walbank, Philip, 304-5). The plunder from Oreus seems to have gone to the Romans (cf. Livy, xxviii. 7· 4: 'Oreum ... ab Romano milite, expertibus regiis, direptum fuerat'), and it is not clear how its fate concerned the Aetolians, except inasmuch as it revealed the character of Roman warfare. Aegina was taken by Sulpicius in 210; see ix. 42. s~8 n., xxii. 8. 9-IO (where raAalTTwpo~ is again used). TllS TUXTJ'> •.• ETI'L TT)v l~WaTpa.v &.va.~L~a.tou~s TT]v ••• ayvOLO.V: see Vol. I, p. 21 n. 6 for Tyche envisaged as a producer of plays; to the passages there quoted add xxiii. Io. 16 (Philip V's tragedy). Similar phraseology occurs in Diod. xi. 24. 1 (Ephorus or Timaeus), xx. 70. 2 (Duris or Timaeus), rij~ rJx"'~ wcnr£p i7Tl77]8's: im8nKVVJ.LEV7]S: ~v l8lav ovvap.Lv iTTt TWV aTT7]A7TLUfdvwv; here it seems to reflect P.'s vocabulary rather than Thrasycrates' own words. 9. Ka.Ki;lv O.pxt)v f1£y0./..wv ••• To is "EAAT)O'W: cf. xviii. 39· 1. Apparently an echo of Herod. v. 97· 3, where the sending of twenty 276

SPEECH OF THRASYCRATES OF RHODES

XI. 7·

I

ships from Athens to the Ionians is characterized as &.px.iJ Ka.Kwv •• • -r£ Kat {Ja.p{Jd.potm. But perhaps the phrase had become proverbial.

"EXArwt

6. 1. uuytw
This fragment, from Suidas, should stand immediately after x. 47· In 2o8, warned of the fall of Oreus by fire-signals (cf. 5· 8 n.), Philip forced Thermopylae and reached Elatea, a 6o-miles march, the same day (Livy, xxviii. 7· 1-3; Dio, xvii. 57· 57). Attalus was busy at Cynus, the port of Opus, over the plunder granted him by Sulpicius (Livy, xxviii. 7· 4-6): 'adeoque improuisa res fuit ut, nisi Cretensium qui dam forte pabulatum ab urbe longius progressi agmen hostium procul conspexissent, opprimi potuerit'. Philip came up as Attalus got to sea: 'inde Opuntem rediit, deos hominesqne 277

XI. 7·

I

PHILIP AT CY!\t:S (2o8)

accusans quod tantae rei fortunam ex oculis prope raptam amisissef (Livy, xxviii. 7· 8), corresponding to this fragment. 7. 2-3. Philip's invasion of Aetolia

According to Livy (xxxvi. 31. u), Philip gave Zacynthus to Amynander of Athamania, 'ut per Athamaniam ducere exercitum in superiorem partem Aetoliae licerct, qua expcditione fractis animis Aetolos compulit ad petendam pacem'. Is this the expedition referred to here? A difficulty is the length of time between an invasion in 207 and the swearing of the peace which Livy (xxix. 1:2. 3) suggests was in 205. Accordingly several scholars have assumed two invasions (cf. Oberhummer, Akarnanien, 170; Niese, ii. 495, 500; Geyer, RE, 'Makedonia', coL i49; 'Philippos (10)', coL 23Io; Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 2II n. 1) and Walek-Czernecki (Rev. Phil. 1928, 2o) assumes three (see below,§ 2 n.). The gap can be bridged without this assumption. The invasion of Aetolia was in 207 (in dating it to 206 Oost, CP, I95i, 3, 13 n. 13, neglects its position in P.). Disheartened, the Aetolians continued to appeal to Rome but waited to see what help would arrive the next summer (cf. Livy, xxxii. 21. 17); when none came they made peace that autumn. Sempronius did not reach Greece until 205, but Livy's statement (xxix. 12. 3) that news of his arrival reached Philip uixdum pace facta may well be annalistic exaggeration. Balsdon'sview(]RS, 1954, 31) that Sempronius arrived in Illyria in 206 is hard to accept in view of Livy's statement (xxix. 12. r) that affairs in Greece were neglected for two years; it also involves (a) the assumption that Sempronius was appointed to Sulpicius' province after the elections of 2o7 (for 2o6), in which case his delay in going out is odd; and (b) too long a gap before the Peace of Phoenice, which was sworn in the latter half of 205 at the earliest. The chronology here accepted was proposed by De Sanctis (iii. 2. 430 n. 87, 444) and approved by Holleaux (253 n. 4) and Flaceliere (304) ; for a refutation of the objections raised against it by WalekCzernecki see \Valbank, Ph£lip, 305-6. 2. 1'1'op€u9ds f:1'1'l TTtY T p1xwvl8a. Mrt""l": 'marching towards Lake Trichonis'; if Philip came by Athamania (Oost, CP, 1957, 3-4, suggests that he entered it by the pass from Gomphi), he will ha\·e descended the Inachus to the Achelous, and the present passage suggests that he turned east along Lake Trichonis, as in 2r8 (cf. VoL I. p. 542 for map). Woodhouse, 26r, reasonably suggests that he again followed the easier southern shore of Lake Trichonis, a view supported by the mention of Ellopium and Phytaeum (§§ 4-5). The likelihood is that these towns were mentioned before Philip's arrival at Ther· mum and that the opening words of this fragment are due to compression by the excerptor. 278

PHILIP'S INVASION OF AETOLIA

XI. 8.

I

cls TOv G£pfLOv: cf. v. 8. 3 n. for the Aetolian federal centre and the temple of Apollo Thermios. aaa 1TpOT£pov a1TEAnn: 'TW\1 O.vaOt)fLaTWV: viz. in 2I8; cf. v. 9· I-I2. 4· Walek-Czernecki (Rev. phil. 1928, 20) bases his theory that there were three invasions of Aetolia (above, 7· 2-3 n.) on the mistaken belief that P. here refers to an invasion in 208. 3. TO yG.p ••• opy~tOfL£\10\1 ••. aa£{31!~\1: 'for to be guilty of impiety towards the gods because one is angry with men .. .' (Paton). For P.'s views on the inviolability of temples cf. iv. 62. 3 n. 4. 'Eft.AOmov: 'Woodhouse, 26r f., suggests that the ruins of Ellopium lie at Mesovouni, south-east of Morosklavon, at the eastern end of Lake Trichonis. 5. 4>uTatov: on the site of Phytacum at Palaiochori see v. 7· 7-8. 4 n.

8-18. The Achaean reforms of Philopoemen: the death of Mach.anidas This section still forms part of the res Graeciae of OL 143, I 208/7 B.c. (in fact 207). 8 deals with the faults of Philopoemen's predecessors in the Achaean aTpa:rryyta. Philopoemen certainly held his first aTpaT'T)yla in 208/7, for according to ro. 9 the battle of Man tinea, described by P. under 01. 143, r, was eight months after Philopoemen began his training of the troops; hence he entered office in autumn 208. This is confirmed by Plut. Philop. rr. r, which mentions the Nemean games held during his second aTpa77JYla, and speaks of him then as vt:vLK'T)KOTa p.€v ov rrdAat T~v Ev MaVTtvElff p.ax'1Jv; this must be in 205, as the Nemean games fell in 'odd' years {Julian) (cf. ii. 65-69 n., 70. 4 n., v. ror. 5), and consequently, since re-election was permitted only e\·ery other year (Piut. Arat. 24. 5, quoted at ii. 43· 7 n.), the first aTpaTryyta mnst fall in 2o8/7. See Niese, ii. 498; Nicolini, 286 n. 2; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 443-4; Holleaux, 254 n. I; CAH, viii. 133 (=Etudes, v. 3r4); Busolt~Swoboda, ii. 1571; Aymard, Assemblies, 95·

8. 1-2. Method of acquiring the general's art: compare the three methods here listed with the three mentioned in ix. q. 1-5 (see ix. 14. r n.). Systematic instruction from experts (§ 2, Tau p.~8oSvmiJ Ka~ Tijs- rrapa Twv £p.rrclpwv d1,Spwv 7Ta.pa8oat:ws) corresponds to £p.7Ttitpta 1!f8o~aK~, routine practice (§ 2, ToO 8,d Tfjs £7T' a&rwv Twv 7Tpayp.aTwv l[Ews ~
XI. 8.

I

ACQUIRING THE GENERAL'S ART

correspondence; xxiii. 2. s. memoranda), there is no reason so to restrict it here (with Paton, 'military memoirs'). 2. '~'il'> ••• 1ra.pa.S0uEws: P. seems here to envisage personal instruction by experts rather than the systematic study of expert treatisrs (so Shuckburgh, 'the use of scientific treatises composed by speci~ alists') ; cf. Schweighaeuser, 'per praecepta uirorum artis illius torum'. It is clear from ix. 14. 5 ff. that P. takes a very broad view of the subject-matter of such instruction. 4. bilXo;; ouK EUTuxt]s: cf. x. n. ron. on KaKo~-ql.wata; the d,\a{ov~da and aKatp{a, a SnObbish passion for extravagant Jiving, infected their troops, especially the cavalry. Twv O.II.Xwv: 'others'; presumably other leading citizens in Achaea. or perhaps other generals, each stri,·ing to outdo his predecessors. 5. Ka.AAW1TL<TI16;;: 'dandyism'; cf. 9· 7· 7. €pya. ••• 1rapepya: 'real achievements ... the unessential charac~ teristics'. ~K8Ea.Tp(bauut: cf. xxx. 9· r9 for the metaphor. Both Shuckburgh and Paton omit to translate p.€ra {Jl\d.fJrr;, 'to their detriment'. 9. 1-8. Philopoemen's speech. This was delivered in a {jovllwn/pto~· (9. 8), and afterwards his hearers dispersed to their cities (Io. 7). The site is uncertain, but probably Aegium; in that case dyopd (9. 8) will be simply 'public place' or 'the assembly' (cf. xxviii. 7· 3; xxix. 24. 5), and not 'the market-place', since the sanctuary of Zeus Homarios at Aegium lay outside the town (Aymard, Assemblies, 99 n. z, zn ff.). It is not clear whether Philopoemen addressed a primary assembly or a representative council, for the reference to {JovAwT~ptov is not decisive on this point (cf. Larsen, The precise date of the speech is also uncertain. 230 n. 2, argues that it was delivered at the
PHILOPOEMEN'S SPEECH

XI. 9· 5

with this view, since they must have begun as soon as Philopoemen entered office. 1. TfJV EK TTJS hno-K£uils O.p11oy~v: what is the meaning of imakEznl? There are two possibilities: (a) that tK Tfjs lmaKwfjs means (as Casaubon and Reiske supposed) 'as a result of accurate workmanship'; but imaKetn) should be 'repair' rather than 'construction' (cf. Lex. Polyb. s.v.); (b) Schweighaeuser suggests a meaning derived from lmaKwa~£w, 'harness a baggage animal', so that lmaK«:v~ would mean 'the putting on of arms' and the whole phrase 'and that arms should fit well when put on is of great help in battle (aw<'py<'iv • •• tds 'T~V xpda.v)'. Despite the absence of any clear parallel, the latter sense seems the more likely. In either case there is a parallel with apapvfat T<' Kai aT/Af3ovaat (§ 4). Paton's version, 'that arms should be so constructed as to be adapted to the purpose they were to serve', is banal and misunderstands £ls T~v XP£[av. Mauersberger renders J·muK£u~ by 'Herrichtung, Anfertigung'. 4. TUS KVTJ.U8a.ii: cf. Plut. Philop. 9· 2, o t1>£Ao-rrolfL'YJV • •• E1T£1m:v a!JTDVS dv'T~ fLtV Ovpwv Kat o6paTOS' darrioa Aa{3<:tv Ka£ qapmuv, KpavwL

8£ Kal Owpag, Kai 1T£ptKV'Y)fLiu• rr£payfL€vovs fL6vtpov Ka! avTt OpOfLI.Kfjs Kai 1T£ATaanl
f3~:{37]KVLav

opoiJv'TO.S' yap fLtt<pa oopdTta Kai lmfLTJK<'aTipa orr Aa Kani Toils K€ATLKovs 8vpwvs ~ ra yippa n:l Il€pawv, €rr"'a" OwpaKas TE lvovwOa.~. Kal ~1TL'TLOw0aG KV'Y)/LiOas, rrp6s o€ O.umatv J1pyoAtKa.is- xpfiaOat Kat o6paat fL"ya.Aots-. The substitution of heavier armour and the corresponding I'

phalanx tactics after the :Macedonian fashion will have been mentioned by P. in the lacuna between 8 and 9; see 9· r-7 n. In thus reforming the Achaean army Philopoemen was following a practice widely adopted in the third century; cf. ii. 65. 3 n., iv. 69. 4-5, v. 91. 7 for Megalopolis; Plut. Cleom. I x. 3, 23. 1; Poly b. ii. 69. 7 for Cleomenean Sparta; Feyel, I93 ff., 213-1 s. for Boeotia, where an armament based on the Macedonian peltasts' was substituted for the former type in 245; in general, Launey, i. 361-2. !5. ciO"T!'£Sn ••• Oti!pO.ICQ ••• ~epO.vos: the aarris- is a convex, circular, bronze shield about 20 inches in diameter, which took the place of the long oval Ovpd>s; cf. Plut. Philop. 9· I, lxpwvro fL~V ydp OvpEots fL~V £?11TETEGt ota AE1T'T6'TTJ'TO. Kat U7'€VWT€pots 'TDV 1T£poaTlAAW T
28!

XI. 9· 5

PHILOPOEMEN'S SPEECH

being worn by phalangites. See further G. T. Griffith, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. r84, Kpdvo<; is a general term for a helmet, and does not necessarily indicate a Macedonian Kwvos (on which see Launey, i. 356-8); it is mentioned in Plut. Philop. 9· 2 (quoted in § 4 n.), and appears to ha,~e plumes (Plut. Philop. 9· 5). 6. ,.a. 'IT pbs em~6.ve~a.v ••• TWV '~~'POS TTJV xp~:(uv: 'what is for show ... what is for use' ; but as so often xpf'la also implies battle. 8. eu'ITop~:u6fLEVOL TO ~ou"-euTfJpLov: 'on issuing from the councilchamber'; cf. 9· r-7 n. 10. 3. &.tfu;:AT]s Ka.t ALTOS: 'plain and frugal'; cf. x. 22. 5· Tas evn:useL<;: 'in meeting people, in approaches to him'. Should we read Kai (Ka'Ta> -.ds ;l,Tet5gEt, (d. xxii. 2r. 3, 22. 4)? £l,,.epUco'ITTos ~ea.i &.vm~9ovos: 'unpretentious and not given to standing on ceremony'. 7. TOTE auvTeAea9€vros Tou ~ha.~ou"-tou: 'when the discussion was over'. No account of any debate survives in the fragments, but there may have been some reference to this in the lost part where P. described the summoning of the ; d. Aymard, Assemblies, 97, 394-6, who suggests that Philopoemen's speech of exhortation followed the normal business and voting. ,.Q.v,.~:s E'ITa.vfjyov £,.j, Tus 'ITOAELS: a phrase equally applicable to a representative gathering or a primary assembly. 8. e'ITmop~:uero TO.s 'ITOAeL<;;: cf. Plut. Philop. 7. 4, for a similar policy during his year as hipparch. 9. ou8' oAous OICTW fLtlVO.S XPYJ0'6.[.LEVOS Tfi ••• j.I.EAETtJ: calculated from his entry into office in autumn 208, since his reforms will have begun at once. Eight months take us from November 208 to June 207; cf. DeSanctis, iii. 2. 443·4.

11. 1-18.10. The battle of Mantinea. (a) Sources. P. can be supplemented from Plut. Philop. ro, which is based on F.'s Life of Philopoemen (d. x. 21. s-8); as Nissen, KU, 283, points out, Plutarch's real interest was in the duel with M:achanidas, which is treated in greater detail than in F.'s Histories, and his account of previous events is rather careless. Paus. viii. so. r-2 is derived from Plutarch. \Vhere P. got his account from is unknown. (b) Numbers. The 4,ooo Lacedaemonian casualties (17. 10} are our only figure, but an estimate is possible. In r68 the Achaean League could raise Jo,ooo-4o,ooo men from the whole Peloponnese (xxix. 24. 8); in 207 it can hardly have raised above 1s,ooo-2o,ooo, and perhaps u.ooo-r4,ooo citizen troops fought at Mantinea. Thus with perhaps c. 8,ooo mercenaries (cf. v. 91. 6) the whole force will not have exceeded c. 2o,ooo. Under Cleomenes tbe Spartan army was less than 2o.ooo (d. ii. 6~. ron.), nnd under Nabis 18,ooo (Livy

THE BATTLE OF

l\1ANTI~EA

XL r L 5

xxxiv. 27. r, 29. 14). Since .Machanidas had more mercenaries than the Achaeans (13. 3 n.), his army was probably much the ;;;ame, and one can assume that the two forces were roughly equal ir. size. See Kromayer, AS, i. z89-9r; De Sanctis, iii. ::. 428 n. 79· (c) General. The fullest treatment is in Kromayer, AS, i. :z81-314; see also the criticisms of Roloff, u6-39; H. Delbriick, Geschichte der Kriegskunst, il (Berlin, r92o), 252-6; Griffith, 104; earlier bibliography in CAH, viii. 746. For Kromayer's reply to Roloff see BPW, 1904, 994-6; cf. 1310-12 (Roloff's answer). P.'s account does not justify as definite a reconstruction of the battle as Kromayer claims; in many respects it seeks to give a more favourable picture of Philopoemen's tactics than they deserve; see the notes. The site of the battle can be identified with certainty; but see 11. 5-7 n.

11. 1. Ma.xa.vl8a.s: cf. x. 41. z n. <:ruv1)1lpol<:rJLEvo~

••• Ets TTJV MavT(VE\a.V: the presence of catapults in Machanidas' army shows that he intended besieging Man tinea; and Philopoemen's position(§§ 5-7 n.) indicates that he wanted to prevent this (Kromayer, AS, i. 292}. But the fact that Machanidas left Tegea only when he heard that the confederate anny was assembled at Mantinea shows that he was seeking a battle first. His plan was clearly to defeat the Achaean levy and then march on Mantinea with his artillery, prepared for a siege if the town did not capitulate. 2. iv TEyEq.: the status of Tegea between the resumption of the 'lfd-.pws 1ToAt-.da in 222 (ii. 70. 4 n.) and 20j is not recorded; but if the coins inscribed l1xa<wv TEytHITiiv (Head, 418) and the decrees IG, v. 2. r6-r7, date to this period, she was a member of the Achaean confederation (cf. v. 17. In.). Hiller von Gaestrigen (RE, 'Tegea', col. u6) dates Machanidas' acquisition of Tegea to 210, but this is unlikely. Since Philip never tried to help the Achaeans recover it, they will hardly have lost it before summer zo8; cf. Kromayer, AS, i. 291 n. 4; De Sanctis, iii. z. 427 n. 75· 3. E; h:a.TEpou Tou f.LEpous: thus protecting the citizen troops. 'II'Aij9os opyavwv Ka.t J3~:hwv ••• KUTQ'ITEAnKWV: 'a large number of siege engines and ammunition for catapults'; opyava is a general term and may include ball£stae as well as catapults. oi. E;l}yEv EK TTJS MavTwe(a.s: Philopoemen's three columns left by three separate gates. These have been identified; see Fougeres, 13o-61 and pl. viii, where they are designated G, Tegea Gate ("~'iJv b.: 1'ov Iloanowvo> lf:poiJ ¢1povaa.v); H, 'Manthyrea' Gate (n}v lffjs ws wp6s TaS' o~a££>); l, Pallantium Gate (KaTa n}v tlxof-LEV'TJV). From the first of these a road led south to Tegea and Sparta; it is the A~:w
XL

r1.

4

THE BATTLE OF MANTINEA

third a road led south-west to Pallantium and Megalopolis, corresponding to the modern highway to Tripolis; cf. Paus. viii. I I. 5 ff. ; Kromayer, A.S, i, map z; Bolte, RE, 'Man tinea', cols. IJ02-J. The second Fougeres calls the Manthyrea gate, and assumes that it was

ACHAEANS

10. THE BATTLE OF MANTINEA, 207 B.C.

the beginning of a road lying between the other two, and of only local significance. Both Leake (Morea, iii. 98) and Kromayer (AS, i. 54· n. 1) take the same view; but, if it went far, such a road would lead straight into a swamp, and as it is never mentioned in Pausanias or elsewhere it is likely that the middle gate (H) and road leading through it were built to serve military purposes, such as that for which they were used now (cf. Bolte, RE, 'Mantinea', cols. IJ06, IJI4)• 284

THE BATTLE OF MANTINEA

XI.

II.

5

TOU noO'ElS(;Jvos lepoG: cf. ix. 8. II n. Tous 'll..l..upLous KaL 8wpa.~
by iv. 12. J, they were neither normal light-armed nor phalangites; and they evidently kept their distinctive name even after the Bwpag had become part of the normal Achaean equipment (9. 5 n.). P. regards them as distinct from the mercenaries (cf. 14. 1), and Griffith suggests that -rovs 'I>Jwp{ou;; ~eal 8wpa~el-ra;; may mean 'the cuirassed Illyrians' (cf. v. 36. J, 53· 3); the two occur together at 14. I and 15. 5, but § 5 is against this interpretation. Paton translates Bwpa~e£-ra;; as 'heavy armed cavalry' here and in § 5; this is impossible. TO SIEVLKOV (iorav KQ.L TOUS eutwvous: Griffith, 104, suggests that 'possibly his original phrase ... is loose writing for "the mercenary light infantry" ' (d. the last note). Plut. J>hilop. 10. 2 speaks of d~eov-rta-rat. But there seems no reason why some country districts of Arcadia should not have furnished eJ,wvot as part of the levy. O.va.Te£vwv lKavlw: 'rising to a considerable height' (cf. xviii. 22. 9, of Cynoscephalae). Tt\v :::ev£Sa: perhaps so called because it was the main route leading to non-Mantinean territory; there is a similar fEvl;; at Delphi (Syll. 636 1. 24). 5-7. Achaean dispositions. P. does not indicate clearly how far the phalanx stretched to the east, and so where the mercenaries and other troops stood on the left wing. Kromayer (AS, i. 295-7 and map) assumes that the ditch running across the valley stopped short well to the west of the temple of Poseidon, and that this marks the eastern limit of the phalanx; he places the bulk of the mercenaries, etc., in the plain between that point and the temple of Poseidon, only the light-armed (w,wvot) being stationed on the lower slopes of Alesion somewhat behind the main line. Roloff, n9, would put the Ev,wvot further up the slope, reaching to the summit of .'\lesion, and the rest of the lightarmed to the east of the temple of Poseidon. Concerning the eastern end of the ditch P. is ambiguous. -r~v -ra.) (ii. 54· 12) actually reached those places. Kromayer argues that the lie of the land is such that a drainage ditch need not come as far east as the temple; but if the ditch was to serve military ends (and this may easily have been intended), there would be good reason to carry it so far. P.'s statement (§ 6) that the phalanX lay irri Tijv EV810iav '.'.':Jth the 8wpa.KiTaL and the 285

XI.

II.

5

THE BATTLE OF MANTINEA

lllyrians does not imply that the latter were necessarily on the same level as the phalanx (cf. Kromayer, AS, i. 294 n. 3. 'auf gleicher Hohe'), and so does not exclude Roloff's view that they were stationed on the lower, gentle slopes of Alesion; and that this was the case seems indicated by 15. 3. where Philopoemen, having transferred part of his phalanx to the position vacated by the mercenaries, who have fled, {nu:pUgw;; €yey6vEL -rofi -rwv 1roAep.tWl• Kipa-ro!: (see note ad loc.). On the whole the evidence seems slightly to favour Roloff's interpretation. 5. Tiw Mcpov Tov 1rpo T1]S m)A~<ws: the hill A lesion (mod. Alog6vrachos), which rises to its first peak at 750 m. to the south-east of Man tinea. The Tegea road (Xenis) runs along its base, and the tempk of Poseidon lies beside this (cf. § 4 n., ix. 8. II n.). E1TL TTJV jL£<1TJJL~p(a.v: the 8wpaKC-ra~ are in contact with the eil,wYoL (avv&.mwv), but face south; this implies that the EV,wllot were not facing south, and if they were extended up the hill towards the summit, they would in fact be facing south-east. 6. E1Tl ~v a.uT-fJv f:ME'Lav: 'in the same straight line'; see 5-7 n. KO.TU T€ATJ (11T£~p1'}8ov iv s~a<JTl}jLO.CJW E'ITEO'TT}O"£: 'he stationed them in battalions \\ith inten·als between the companies'; according to the tactical writers a -r£Ao, consists of 2,048 men (cf. Asclep. 2. 10; Arr. Tact. 10. 5; Ad. 9· 7). The a7Toipa of 256 men was the tactical unit in Macedonian armies and had been adopted by Philopoemen (d. v. 4· 9 n.; Walbank, Philip, 293). In making his phalanx a more flexible unit, and not the usual Hellenistic monolithic block (cf. Kromayer-Veith, Hecrwesen, 136), Philopoemen was perhaps learning from the Romans, as Pyrrhus had done when he alternated phalangites and Italians in a1TEtpa• (d. xviii. z8. ron.; KromayerVeith, Heerwesen, 136). cruv6.1TTouo-a.v To'ls &pt;cr~: the mountains to the west of the plain, the edge of Maenalus, a range about goo m. high. The ditch may have connected with the katavothra of Milia, which lies at the foot of these hills about due west of the temple of Poseidon (d. Fougeres, ro6; Kromayer, AS, i. 293 n. 3). Shuckburgh's translation here suggests that the mountains are in the direction of the temple. Til TWV 'EX~o-cpa.o-LWV xwp~: a bronze coin with the legend [EAI}~ l:¢A!InN AX[AinN] (Gardner, BMC Peloponnesus, p. q) confirms the name. P.'s reference to -ro -rwv MaJ~TLvlwv m!ow11 suggests that thr territory of the Elisphasii stretched to the west of the mountains here mentioned. Though Bolte (RE, 'Man tinea', coL 1312) conjecture;; that the Elisphasii were one of the five original demes out of which Mantinea was synoecized (Strabo, viii. 337). there is no evidencr~ for this, nor that they formed part of Mantinea at all. Fougeres, 128, suggested that they were perhaps a community in Maenalus (located, he thinks, on the site of Capsia), who were incorporated in 286

THE BATTLE OF

MA~TIKEA

XI. 12. 3

Megalopolis in 371 and then established by Philopoemen as an autonomous member of the Achaean League. For the setting-up of such independent communities see Plut. Philop. 13. 5; though the date referred to is c. 190 (cf. Hiller von Gaetringen, RE, 'Arkadia', col. II35; W. Hoffmann, RE, 'Philopoemen', col. 88; R. Weil, ZN, 1882, 222 ff.; Dittenberger ad Syll. 6z3), this does not rule out such an explanation of P.'s reference to Elisphasian territory here, for he may be referring to the conditions of his own time. Plutarch (loc. cit.) records a tradition that Philopoemen acted from hostility towards Megalopolis, but he may have sought to strengthen Arcadian representation in the Achaean confederation (cf. Freeman, JJFG, 489; Niese, iii. 37). 7. :A.plaTO.liiETo<; ••• hufla.'los: since the MSS. read l4pw·raiveros where Aristaenus is meant at xviii. 1. 4, 13. 8 and xxiv. II. 4 (Suidas) (a confusion also to be found in Plut. Philop. 13. 4, q. 3), Aristaenus is probably indicated here (cf. Niccolini, Studi storichi peJ' l'antichitd. classica, 6,I9IJ, I94 f.). Plut. Philop. q. 4 and Paus. viii. 51. 4 attribute Aristaenus to Megalopolis, but Dyme is confirmed by the dedica.tion to Aristaenus quoted in the note to Syll. 702 (ct Aymard, PR, 68 n. 93). See, however, J. Deininger, Historia, I966, 376-8o. TO SEVlKOII a1TO.II: cf. § 4· Whether Philopoemen commanded the Illyrians and OwpaKi'Ta£ too is not clear. The apparent repetition arises because having mentioned the commander on the right P. reverts to the left wing to add that the mercenaries there were under Philopoemen's personal command. Paton translates 'the mercenary cavalry'; but arrav rules this out. iv ~1Ta.AA:rV,ol<; n1.gEal: 'in ranks close one behind another'. From I4. I it appear~ that the lllyrianS and ewpal
XI.

I2.

3

THE BATTLE 0 F :VI A!\ T I::\" E.\.

(ii. I25) with the invasion following Machanidas' defeat (I8. 8-Io) and attributed by him to Alcaeus of Messene. 4. we; ••• trpOUf.LtSWV trpoc; 'TO Ses~ov 'TWV troAEf.LtWV: this implies that Machanidas left the road from T egea, which came up the eastern side of the plain to pass the temple of Poseidon, and crossed over to the Pallantium road. His purpose (cf. Kromayer, AS, i. 3oo) was to get clear of the Pelagos oak-forest, which surrounded the Tegea road as far north as the temple, but only touched the Pallantium road at one point (Paus. viii. II. I, II. 5). trEpLeKAa ••• ktrl. Sopu: 'he wheeled his force round to the right'; cf. x. 23. 6 n., xi. 23. 2. trapeKn(vac;: 'extending his line'. From the course of the battle it becomes clear (cf. § 7 n.) that in deploying from a line of march to a line of battle Machanidas must have sent his mercenaries (cf. II. 3) forward to constitute the right wing facing the mercenaries on Philopoemen's left. Tm:Oc; ••• Ka'Ta.treATa.c; trpo 1T(lUTJ'> ktrEU'TTJueic; Xf>Eta.v: 'this would not exclude the land on the lowest slope of Alesion, immediately east of the temple of Poseidon (cf. II. s-7 n.), and does not necessarily imply that the fighting was west of it (as Kromayer supposes). 7. Touc; trap' a.u'Tou T a.pa.vT£vouc;: evidently stationed on his right (§ 4 n.). 13. 1. a.uTwv 'Tou'Twv: sc. and no others. 1Tf>OOTyLVOilEVWV ••• 'TWV eutwvwv: on both sides. The Achaean w~wvm were stationed on the upper slopes of Alesion, and would come down on the Spartan Tarentines from the flank; where precisely

288

THE B,\TTLE OF

MA~Tl:c\EA

XI. I4. 3

l\lachanidas' !v,wvo• were stationed is not recorded, but it may be assumed that they were behind his Tarentines. (To) Tra.p' iKa.Tipl.l)v sevU
14. 1. Tous EcpE8peuovTil<; To'Cs

814.175

u

XI. 14· 3

THE BATTLE OF :\IA:;\ T I X E.\

(sc. Philopoemen) retained control of his men, so that at the critical moment, when Machanidas had pursued far enough and his own centre and right were victorious, he could stand his ground and force the enemy mercenaries to fight between two converging lines'. This theory ignores the fact that Philopoemen was no longer in charge once the left had fled ; he side-stepped and took over the phalanx (rs. 2). Further, there is no evidence for two converging lines: the routed troops took no further part in the battle. Finally, Griffith's theory runs directly counter to everything P. says; and if the rout was a controlled retreat, it is odd that P. with his decided interest in defending Philopoemen, and with his excellent Achaean sources of information, had never heard of it. 4. 1TO.pn TTJV O.liTiaV nyx(votO.V: the papyrus ShOWS a gap Which \Vilcken restores TTapd -r~v -rwv TTpo€a-rw-rwv (or ~youJ-L€vwv) dyxtvowv; but he rightly prefers the MS. since -rovs 8' itself refers to those in command. 6. Kai 1Ta.pa.A€Auf1evou Tou Aa.toli KEpw~: including the Illyrians, lig!Jtarmed and BwpaKt'TUt (cf. rs. s). acpEf.LEVO~ TOU f.LEVELV E1Tl TWV U1TOKHf1EVWV: 'instead of keeping to his original intention'; cf. i. 40, s. EJ-LEVev JTT~ -rijs imoKHJ-LEVYJ> yvwJ-LYJ>· Paton misses the sense, translating 'instead of remaining on the field'. Tou~ f.LEV Ka.Ta KEpa.~ u1repa.£pew: 'to outflank the enemy on one side'. TOL~ Se ••• a1Ta.VTnV: 'to charge their front on the other'; dTTav-ra~· is Biittner-Wobst'splausible suggestion for the MS. ayELv (cf. iii. 65. 6, xviii. 3· 3). -rovs J-L~v • •. -rois 8€ refer to the Achaean troops; this Shuck burgh misses, translating ' ... with some of his troops, ... with others'.

15. 2. u'ITo To the phalanx'.

Tfj~

cpO.A.a.yyos Kepa~: 'under the shelter of the wing of

To'Ls 'ITPWTOLS TeAeaL Twv cpa.AayyLTwv: cf. rr. 6, Ka-rd -r€AYJ. Philo-

poemen detached several of the battalions on the extreme left of the phalanx, and marched them left into the place of the routed mercenaries and light-armed, not in the usual way, wheeling them round by sections, but giving the order 'left turn' and then having them advance; thus the files of the phalanx became ranks for the purpose of the advance. lTT'dcmioa KAiv
THE BATTLE OF MANTINEA

XL I6. 4

4· g, X. 30. 7, tl1repUg~o~ Twv rroAeJLlwv EylvoVTo. This implies that the Achaean left was originally on higher ground than the phalanx and so to the east of the Temple of Poseidon (cf. II. 5-7 n.). Unfortunately Schweighaeuser followed Casaubon in his translation, and has in turn been followed by Paton, who renders 'outflanked the Spartan •ving', and by Kromayer (AS, i. 312). According to Plutarch, Philop. 10. 4, Philopoemen initiated the next stage of the battle by a flank attack on the Spartan phalanx, with what troops we are not told; he does not mention the ditch at this point, and his account, which is much compressed, clearly misunderstands what he read in P.'s Life of Philopoemen, and cannot stand against the version here. 4. Taus f1EV 4>a.f..a:yyiTa.s: i.e. the main body; it is clear from the fact that the detachment was put under the orders of Polyaenus that Philopoemen must have returned at once to take charge of the phalanx now that the moment to charge was approaching (Kromayer, AS, i. 307 n. z). 'll'OI.E~aOa.t TTJY E'll'a.ywyYjv aVa.fl£~: 'to charge and engage hand to hand' (cf. 13. r). How imminent that order was we cannot tell, since Machanidas' phalanx anticipated it by advancing sua sponte across the ditch; Kromayer (AS, i. 307) outstrips the evidence when he assumes that Philopoemen was on the point of charging, for although he could not afford to wait very long with Machanidas liable soon to return, the ditch was still a considerable obstacle to whiche\•er side tried to cross it (cf. Roloff, r36-7). 5. nof..ua.tvlf ••• T4> MEya.A011'0Ahn: F(S) reads llo?..vfJlCf, which must be wrong, since P. had never heard of any other previous bearer of his name (xxxvi. I2. s). Lucht had suggested 'Poly bus'; but BiittnerWobst observes that since in I8. 2 Polyaenus (but not Sirnias) has his place of origin added, this must be to distinguish him from another Polyacnus recently mentioned, and so he reads llo)\vat.u.p here. This is a very plausible, though clearly not a certain, conjecture. Tous lha.KEKAu«l'l'a.s TTjv 4>uyljv: 'who had evaded the rout'. Twv eK Stwyf1<1Tos O.va.xwpovvTwv: Machanidas' men. 7. Su1 To TTjv Ka.T~~a.aLY ~XElY ~K 'll'OAAou: 'because the descent into it was gentle'. Ka.Ta TO TEAos: unparalleled in the sense 'at all', which is usually £lc; TlAos.. Casau bon's ~~:anl To (}.!.poe; is attractive. 6.yp£a.v u~TJV: 'scrub'. 16. :2. £v Tfi TTjs ni4>pou Ka.nL(j3aau 11'nAw ~va.)f3a.£vovTES: thi:s conjecture, a combination of suggestions by Reiske, Schweighaeuser, and Hultsch, may be abandoned since the Berlin papyrus reads iv Tfi T~> Tarj>pov Ka7'af36.a;;~ 7rpoa{JalvovTES' KTA. 4. oOK a.OTOf16.Tw!; ooS' h: TOU K
XI. I6. 4

THE BATTLE OF MANTINEA

was it even due to an improvization on Philopoemen's part. It was the culmination of a carefully thought-out plan (cf. Siegfried, 52-53). This plan P. indicates in §§ and Kromayer (AS, i. 297-9) discusses it; P. in fact does not consider what Philopoemen would have done had Machanidas attacked only his left wing, but Kromayer argues that in this case too Philopoemen had good hopes of success. But he assumes an Achaean preponderance of mercenaries, which is untrue (13. 3 n.). In fact, had Machanidas wheeled left after routing the Achaean left, and co-ordinated a :flank attack on the phalanx with a frontal attack by his own phalanx over the ditch, it seems likely that the Achaeans would have been decisively defeated. To this extent F.'s defence of Philopoemen's strategy is unconvincing. P. is inclined to interpret Philopoemen's successes as the reward of merit, and his ultimate downfall as the work of Tyche (xxiii. I2. 3); here writes the Achaean. For ~K Toil Ka.Lpoii cf. xviii. 24. 7. 5. ou <j>uyo~J-a.xwv, C!r;; nver;; ~nreA6.~J-13a.vov: P. echoes criticism that must clearly have been made of Philopoemen's defensive strategy at Man tinea; Pedech, liUthade, 347 n. 67, thinks it may have been found in the work of Aristocrates the Spartiate (FGH, 591). ou 1rpoi:86~evor;; TTJV Ta<j>pov: 'without reckoning with the ditch'; r.pol8w0aL does not here imply that Machanidas would not see the ditch, but merely that he would not be deterred by it; cf. Schweighaeuser, 'nil cauens fossam, non ueritus fossam' and his notes on i. 49· ro and on App. Samn. 5 (p. 52 of his edition). au~J-13l]ana.l 1ra.8eiv auT0 ... Tfjr;; a.x,ee£a.r;;: 'the phalanx would suffer the fate which I have just described, and which on that occasion it did suffer in reality'. The article To, added by Casaubon before r.poELp7Jpivov, is now confirmed by the Berlin papyrus (which also reads yevop.Evov for ym)p.evov three words later). 6. TTJV tiuaxpTJaTtav: so Ursin us for FS T~v 8Uaxp7JaTov; preference must now go to Td 8JJaxp7JaTov, conjectured by Casaubon and confirmed by the Berlin papyrus. l!~e 1ra.pa.TeTa.yfJ-evwv &.1roAuael: 'if after having drawn up his line of battle he were to retire'; &.r.o/..vO~aeTaL would be more usual, but the active can perhaps be justified in this intransitive sense: see Schweighaeuser, Lex. Palyb. s.v. cir.o/..JJew, for discussion. Ka.t ~a.~epO.v a.uTov l!v 1rope£~ tiltiova.L fJ-EAAn: 'and if he were to expose himself in a long marching column'; cf. § 8. F(S) reads Kal J.LO.Kpav m1T6v lp.r.opda liLa{M.MEL, and both EV r.opdq. and the suggested interpretation derive from Schweighaeuser's interesting note, in which he compares iv. 12. II and v. 22. 7 (he reads lp.r.eLp{as in his text, a reading usually ascribed to Casaubon, but, according to Schweighaeuser, 'habet eamdem scripturam etiam Hervagiana editio, cum qua consentit Mediceus'). The Berlin papyrus reads Kat p.a.Kpav a.unlv E/k TTopElaL &a.f3a./..Et, which confirms Schweighaeuser's EV r.opelr:, but 292

THE BATTLE OF MANTI::\EA

XI. r8. 4

shows that the corruption arose early. Madvig, Adv. cr£t. i. 483, reads Sta{3a.luo:i:, but Biittner-Wobst's suggestion remains the most acceptable. lhon ... Trep..Ecrra.~: after av>.>.oytudf.Levo> in § 5. 9. cruf1(3a.£vEL: the sentence is incomplete; an infinitive (e.g. Reiske's u.ea8at or {3M.TTTW8at, or Gronovius' &.f.LapTdvetv) is required.

<

17. 3. KO.Ta TfJV) TOU s~WYflO.TO~ Trapo:!fTUl<J'~V: 'in the excitement of his pursuit'; cf. iii. IIS. I I n. 4. 4>euyouaav: with T~v ••. SJvaf.LLV. TrpoTrETI'TWICE: 'had advanced too far' ; missed by Paton who renders 'that he had blundered'. auaTpa4>eC~: 'making them close up'. 6. TfJV €1rt T.j]~ Td.4>pou ye4>upav: presumably carrying the Tegea road. Kromayer (AS, i. 295 n. r), since he believes that the ditch did not extend to the Temple of Poseidon, has to assume that this bridge is on the Pallantium road to the west; but it would be natural for Machanidas to press back along the Tegea road towards Sparta, rather than to diverge to the west. Whether the Pallantium road had a bridge over the ditch is unknown; P.'s expression does not imply that there was only one bridge over it, for he means 'the bridge Machanidas was making for'.

18. 1. J\va~L8a.11ov: unknown. He is hardly the Anaxidamus mentioned in xxx. 30. I, 32. 1-12, xxxiii. 3· r, but may be a relative. By an oversight Paton calls him Alexidamus. TfJV 8Co8ov: i.e. by the bridge. TOUS auvau~OVTO.S a.tel TCtS EV Tij ITrdopTn Tupa.vv(8a.s: the use of mercenaries by Spartan kings began on a considerable scale with Leonidas II (Plut. Agis, 16. 3. 19. 3). By 226 Cleomenes was using 'Tarentines' and Cretans (Plut. Cleom. 6. 3. 21. 3) and he employed mercenaries for his coup d'etat (Plut. Cleom. 7· 3 ff.); for those at Sellasia see ii. 65. ro, 69. 3· Lycurgus' mercenaries are important: iv. 36. 4, So. 4, So. 6; and for those of N abis cf. xiii. 6. 3 xvi. 37. 3; Livy, xxxii. 40. 4, xxxiv. 27. 2, 28. 8, 29. I4, 35· 8, xxxv. 27. IS, 29. Iff.; perhaps IG, v. I. 724. For details see Griffith, 93-98. 2. noxua~V0\1 TOY Ku1T tPLAo1TOLfLEVL TTapijaav fLaXOJLEV

, has much to commend it (cf. § 5). TfJV aVTL1TO.paywyf)v: cf. iX. 3· IO ll. 4:. n)v LTI'TI'OV ETrayc:w teal 8La.m;p0.v: according to Plutarch (Philop. 293

THE BATTLE OF MANTll';'EA

XL rS. 4

10. 6}, the horse caught the edge of the ditch with its chest, and was trying to get out when Philopoemen and his attendants rode up. 1tpoa£vtyK~lV •.. EK ~ha.A~Ijiews: 'dealing him a second blow with a thrust of the spike at the butt end'; cf. ii. 33· 6 n., xvi. 33· 3, and, on the aavpwn}p, vi. 25. 6, 25. 9· According to Plutarch (Philop. 10. 7), a bronze statue erected by the Achaeans at Delphi depicted Philopoemen thrusting his spear (not the butt end) into Machanidas (the source may not be P.'s Life); cf. Daux, BCH, 1966, 283-9. 8. rijs l'ev T£yea.s ••• Kuptot Ka.TeaTTJaa.v: cf. u. 2 n. 10. ouK eAanous Twv Tupa.KtaxtALwv: on numbers in the battle see II. I-I8. IOn.

19 a. The importance of explaining causes

This fragment could belong equally well to the res Graeciae, the res ltaliae, or the res Hispan£ae of this year; see above, p. 17· Its theme, the study of causes if the reader is to derive benefit from history, is common throughout the work (cf. iii. 7· 4-7, vi. 2. 8). 19 a 1. e~a.v8pa1to5tap.ous KO.l1TOAtopKlO.S: 'the storming of cities and the enslavement of their inhabitants'; for the hysteron proteron to avoid hiatus cf. ii. 2. 2 n., viii. 14. 6 n., x. 23. 2, 27. II, xiv. 10. 9· 2. o/uxa.ywy£1: ... wcj>eAouat: for examples of this common antithesis see Vol. I, p. 7 n. 12. at 5e 1tpoa9ev Sta.A~o/ns TWV em~a.AAop.evwv: 'the previous decisions of those responsible'; Paton misses the sense and translates 'anticipation of what is to follow'. For P.'s concept of alTiaL as the events leading the individual to take certain decisions (here (naA-r]fw,;) see iii. 6. 3 n. e~uatop.€VO.l SeoVTWS: 'when adequately investigated'. Shuckburgh, less convincingly, takes 8E6vrw> with wEAovat; but an adverb would weaken the contrast with !JlvxaywyEi:. TOUS cj>lAop.a.OouVTa.S: 'students'; cf. ii. 56. II-12 n. for the contrast with TOV> aKOVOVTas; vii. 7· 8 n. 3. 0 KO."Tdo jlEpos X£lplap.os tKaC"TWV em5nKvup.evos: 'an exposition of the detailed management of each particular question'; cf. 4· 7, 35· 3· 19. Hannibal's generalship

This sketch seems prompted by the crisis in Hannibal's fortunes following Metaurus, and seems concerned with the specific question: why did Hannibal's attack on Rome fail (d. §§ 6-7)? This is in accordance with P.'s declared principle (x. 26. 9) of discussing the characteristics of those he is writing on as suitable occasions present themselves. Another such occasion is Hannibal's death (cf. xxiii. 294

HANNIBAL'S GENERALSHIP

XI. 19. 7

IJ. 1-2); see also ix. :22. 7-26. n for a fuller discussion of his character. Livy (xxviii. 12. I-<J) has a similar discussion of Hannibal at the corresponding point in his narrative (2o6).

19. l. TLS ouK Civ

~1TWTJf1t)VatTo:

cf. ix. 9· 5; and, on €ma7]pJJ.ivot.taL,

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

XL

Z0-24- 9

THE BATTLE OF ILIPA

20-24. 9. The battle of Ilipa After Baecula (x. 38. 7-40. 12) the Carthaginians sent Hanno to Spain to recruit new forces, but M. Silanus defeated and captured him in 207; Hasdrubal, son of Gisgo, retreated to Gades and evaded battle, while L. Scipio captured the rich city of Orongis. P. Scipio wintered 207/6 at Tarraco (Livy, xxviii. 1·-4}. The present extract deals with the early season of zo6; for the thesis, here rejected, that llipa was in 207 see above, pp. q-18. The sources for the campaign of Ilipa and its sequel are, besides P., Livy, xxviii. 12. J0-16. rs and App. H£sp. 25-27 (unreliable and irreconcilable with P. and Livy). It is clear that P. aud Livy draw on common material, and Kahrstedt, iii. 316-18, has argued that here, as in the account of the taking of New Carthagt- (x. 2. 1-20. 8 n.), Livy has drawn on P. but has supplemented his account from other sources; whereas Klotz, Livius, r85-7, thinks that the similarities are due to the use of a common source, Fabius who comes down to Livy through Coelius. It is less easy than in the case of the description of the taking of New Carthage to decide between these two theses; but the analogy of that narrative would suggest that Kahrstedt's theory is the more likely and that the relationship between P. and Livy is the same as for New Carthage and Baecula (cf. x. 34-40 n.). As in his account of the taking of N'ew Carthage, P. probably drew on several sources; but we cannot be certain either that Fabius' history went down to 206, or that Silenus dealt with Ilipa, so that P.'s sources must remain obscure. See also De Sanctis, iii. 2. 643~4 (valuable despite his belief that Livy, xxviii. r-4 and 12. ro-17. r are doublets). (a) Site of the battle. Hasdrubal's camp was not far from Ilipa (so Schweighaeuser convincingly for MS. l.\iyyas F (~Atyyas- S)). Ilipa is the same word as Livy's Silpia (Livy, xxviii. 17. 14; cf. Schweighaeuser and Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 4o6--7) for parallels for the 'S'); it can be located in the neighbourhood of Alcala del Rio, a village on the Guadalquivir 14 km. due north of Seville {cf. CIL, ii. roSs, rogr; Schulten, RE, 'Ilipa', col. ro66). From Livy, xxviii. r6. 3. it appears that Hasdrubal was able to retreat to the Atlantic without crossing the Baetis (Guadalquivir); hence the battle was on the right bank. The evolutions described by P. (22. 9-23. 7) limit the battle to the fairlj• level ground near the river, and Scullard (JRS, 1936, 19-23) proposes a plausible site lying from 6 to ro! km. north-east of Alcala del Rio, with the Roman camp on a hill 79 m. high called Pelagatos, 6 km. east of Burguillos, and that of Hasdrubal on an unnamed hill which rises from the plain 5 km. south-west of Pelagos. This site has been approved by Schulten (A A, r94o, II4 ff.; 1943, 51 ff.) and fits P.'s description of the battle. (b) Numbers. P. gives the Punic forces as 7o,ooo foot, 4,ooo horse, 296

THE BATTLE OF ILIPA

XI. zo. 3

and 32 elephants (2o. 2), whereas Livy gives so,ooo foot and 4,500 horse (Livy, xxviii. 12. q). adding (Livy, xxviii. rz. 14) that 'peditum ~eptuaginta milia quidam adducta ad Silpiam urbem scribunt'. Whether or no P. got his higher figures from an oral source (so Kahrstedt, iii. 318), they seem designed to save Scipio's reputation, and if nccepted make the course of the battle hard to follow. For a discussion of Carthaginian numbers in Spain at this date see Kahrstedt, iii. 531-2; it is inconclusive. For Jlipa the smaller number is to be accepted; it may go back through Coelius to Silenus (Scullard, Scipio, 125 n. r). App. 25 gives 7o,ooo foot (like P.) 5,ooo cavalry, and 36 elephants. Li,·y, xxviii. 12. I4, says that 'de equestribus copiis fcnne inter auctores conuenit'; it is indeed possible that his 4,5oo l1orse have been rounded off to 5.ooo by Appian's source and to 4,ooo by P.'s. Scipio, reinforced by J,ooo foot and 500 horse from the Spanish prince Colichas (2o. 3), had an army of 45,ooo foot and 3,ooo horse; Livy (xxviii. IJ. s) makes the whole force including cavalry 45,ooo, perhaps by an oversight. To Appian Scipio's force is less than a third the size of his opponents' (Hisp. 25), clearly a late annalistic version (Scullard, Scip. rz6 n. r). Here P.'s figures are acceptable; they give the Carthaginians a slight but not very substantial advantage. (c) Bz:bliography. DeSanctis, iii. z. 49B-9; Veith, AS, iii. 2. 685; iv. 517-26; Heem•esen, 295; Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abt. 8. 2; Scullard, Scipio, r2o-38; ]RS, 1936, 19-23; Shuckburgh, The Ht'stories of Polybius, ii. 565-7 (giving Warre's views); Brewitz, 71 ff.; F. Taeger, Klio, I93l, 339-47; A. Neumann, Klio, I93Z. 255-6. 20. 1. ot p.£v oov -rrEpt Tov »..a8pou~o.v: Hasdrubal, son of Gisgo; cf. ix. rr. 3 n., x. 7· 5· I-ivy, xxviiL 12. IJ, calls him 'maximus clarissimusque eo bello secundum Barcinos dux'. lv o.ts ~-rro1ouvTo Tijv '11'apo.x£lp.aa£o.v: according to Livy (xxviii. 2. r6), Hasdrubal 'exercitum omnem in ciuitates diuisit' after the defeat of Hanno in 207 ; this was near Gades. /uro '~'tlS 'II'OAEws ..• 'IALtras: on the MS. reading see above, 20-24. 9 n. (a). According to App. Hisp. 25, the Punic army assembled Js Kap£wv1Jv 1ro.\w (cf. id. 27, Kap{Jwv']v), which Schweighaeuser emends to Carmona (cf. Livy, xxxiii. 2r. 7-9. Carmo); Carmona (the name persists) lay on the left bank of the on the road between Hispalis and Astigi, and Appian here seems to go back to a reliable tradition. wpbs To.'is u'll'wpeio.~s: 'close to the foothills', for the site suggested by Scullard see 20-24. 9 n.(a). wpo9ill£VOI -rre8£o.: 'with plains in front'. 2. wAi19os 8£ ••• eixov: see above, 20-24. 9 n. (b). 3. MapKov .•. 'louv1ov: .M. Junius Silanus had accompanied Scipio 297

XI. cao. 3

THE BATTLE OF ILIP A

to Spain (cf. x. 6. 7 n.), and his command had been extended each year since 210; in 207 he had defeated and taken Hanna (cf. Livy, xxviii. 1. 4-2. 14). '~~"PO'> Ko~£xa.vTa.: cf. Livy, xxdii. 13. J, 'praemisso Silano ad Cuicham, duodetriginta oppidis regnantem', thus adding a detail not in P. Culchas appears again in 197 in revolt against Rome (Livy, xxxiii. 21. 7), perhaps because his tmvns have been reduced from 28 to 17 (cf. Schulten, CAH, viii. 308). 5. T~ Ka.a-ra.~wvL 1ov;: on the low hill Pelagatos, if Scullard is right (20-24. 9 n. (a)). 21. 1. Mciywv: cf. ix. 22. 2 n. He was helping Hasdrubal; cf. Livy, xxviii. 12. 13, adiuuante M agone Hamilcaris .filio. MaaavvO.aa.v: cf. ix. 25.4 n.; Livy, xxviii. r3. 6, 'castra ponentes eos Mago et Masinissa cum omni equitatu adgressi sunt'. 2. u1r6 -rwa ~ovvov u1TEO"Ta~Ket To us i1T1Teis: cf. iii. 8.3. 3· According to Scullard (]RS, 1936, 2o-2r), the hill Pelagatos has a low spur, which sweeps round to the west to merge with the plain; this he suggests is the fJotm}, and the cavalry attack could have come either from behind one of the two saddles on the southerly part of the slope, or from behind the lower spur of this slope on the south-west side of the summit, probably the latter, although it affords less cover. 3. lmi11Teaov: the reading is quite dear in the MS.; but it is hard to bclieYe that surprise would cause Numidian horsemen to fall from their horses in such numbers as to make the fact worth mentioning. Hultsch's dmlppEov (cf. 17. 6) is attractive, 'they began to make off' (so Shuckburgh). tll6.xovTo yevvcdw;: Livy, xxviii. 13. 9, brings up the light-armed and eventually the legionaries, before the Punic cavalry eventually tum tail: but this may well be Livian elaboration to create suspense (contra, Kahrstedt, iii. 532). "'' 1TO.p0.\ TWY ~ fl ' • ' \ JUiV \ 4 • Tn~ OE tea.TO.t-O.LVOYTW\1 • • , COVXEtpt'l-: Cf . Vl.. 25. 4, 7TpD!> TO Ka.TafJa.lvELII ~~:a.l Ta.xiw> dvaTT1)0iiv l1rl TOO> t1T7TOV> eTolp.(tJ> OtEKEWTO Kai 7rpa.KnKws (though this refers to the period before the Romans adopted breast-plates). Brewitz, 70, suggests that the Romans dismounted in order to disable the enemy's horses. It is at any rate 298

THE BATTLE OF ILIP A

XI. 22. IG-2J. 9

likely that P. is referring to the horsemen themselves and not, as Reiske thought, to uelites carried behind them as at Capua (Livy, xxvi. 4· 4-8). rs. U1TO TTtV a.~hwv 1TO.f>EJ.L~OATJY: 'to the shelter of their own camp' ; on the preposition see Lex. Polyb. s.v. vmi. 7. aLa Twv L1T1Tewv Ka.i oLa Twv eu~wvwv: cf. Livy, xxviii. 13. 1o, 'nunquam per aliquot insequentes dies ab excursionibus equitum leuisque armaturae cessatum est'.

ll. 2. Til J.LEV wp'!- 1Tpoaa.va.Te(veLv: 'to delay his march out until a later hour'; for earlier misunderstanding of this phrase see Schweighaeuser, ad Joe. 4. O.J.La. yO.p T~ TWTL: Livy (xxviii. 14. 7) has the message com•eyed by tessera the previous evening, perhaps, as Kahrstedt (iii. 317-I8) suggests, a correction to comply with normal procedure (cf. W. Fischer, /)as romische Lager insbesondere nach Livius (Leipzig, I9IJ), u8). Brewitz, q, followed half-heartedly by Scullard, Scip. 129-30 n. 2, takes at-tn -r0 wTi with i~ayHv, so reconciling P. with Livy; but, as Scullard admits, this is forced, and at-tn -r0 cf><JJTi clearly means 'as soon as it began to be light', since the troops were already taking up position at sunrise (§ 6); hence there was adequate time for the order to be carried out. To give it the night before was to risk a 'leakage', for there must have been spies among the Spanish allies. 6. €va.vTLwS ii 1rp6a8ev: by reversing his order and putting his legionaries on the wings, Scipio scored two advantages: he made Spanish desertions less likely, since the Spanish auxiliaries were not in contact with their fellow countrymen nor were they to play an important part in the battle, and at the same time he prevented Hasdrubal from making the best use of his African troops, who were destined to be rolled up from the flank (Scullard, Scip. 13o). 8. ~TL VTJO'TELS ••• TOUS avopa.s: like the Romans at Trebia (iii. 72· J), though in very different weather. 1roA.u T"ls 1rapwpela.s: cf. 2o. 1.

ou

ll. 10-23. 9. Scipio's advance. The manceuvre carried out on the Roman wings (the second of the two stratagems mentioned in 22. 1) has been much misunderstood, but unnecessarily. Divided into stages it runs: 1. The skirmishers were arranged behind the infantry on the vtings so that from front to back of the line we find infantry, light-armed, and cavalry in that order (22. 1o). 2. The whole line advanced to within 4 stades of the enemy (z2. II n.). 3· The centre consisting of Spaniards continued to advance forward; the infantry and cavalry on the right wing wheeled to the right 299

XI.

22.10-23.

9

THE BATTLE OF fLlPA

by maniples and squadrons (and those on the left wing wheeled to the left) (zz. n). 4· On the right wing the cavalry (with light-armed in front) and infantry, led by three units of each (23. r), after advancing a little to the right no·w wheeled round to the left and marched towards the enemy line in column; those on the left wing did the same in reverse, i.e. advanced to the left and wheeled round to the right (23. 1-3). 5· On the right wing, the cavalry (and light-armed), who were now in column at right angles to both lines of battle, simultaneously turned half-right by squadrons and by an advance at 45° from their present direction gained a position in line parallel with the enemy, but in reverse order to that in which they started out, the squadron originally on the extreme right being now on the extreme left of the wing. 6. Simultaneously the legionaries (by cohorts) turned half-left and also advanced at 45° to form a line parallel to the enemy. Their order was thus identical with that in their original position (23. 5). On the left wing, once again, the infantry and cavalry both carried out the same manceuvre in reverse. The details are clearly shown in the plans in Scullard, Scip. 135, and Kromayer, Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abt. 8. 2. For details see below. 10. €v Ta.i:s CTTJ!La.lnLs: 'between the maniples': cf. i. 33· 9 n. and passim; Livy, xxviii. q. IJ, 'patefactisque ordinibus equitatum omnem leuemque armaturam in medium acceptam diuisamque in partes duas in subsidiis post cornua locat'. EvL~0.AA411 TOU'i 11T'IT£LS: the MS. has £m{3aA~:i:v after d.pxds, and the present reading is due to Schweighaeuser, who did not, however, adopt it. 11. v£pt ( TETP"')aTC18Lov: cf. Livy, xxviii. 14· IJ, 'ubi iam haud plus quingentos passus acies inter se aberant'. Hence the emendation of P.'s rrEpt O"Tctbwv (though in Livy it is now that the light-armed are withdrawn, whereas in P. this occurs earlier and the whole line advances to this point before the outflanking movement begins). TTJV ErrnywyiJv ••• va.pt]yyEIAE: Hultsch fills the gap convincingly with (JK€/..wae, Tofs- 8J tdpa.cn). TUS O'TJ!Lt:lla.') KO.t TUS rxa.., EVLCTTpE<j!ELV trrt SOpu: this corresponds to the third movement listed in 22. 10-23. 9 n. The infantry, light-armed, and cavalry could gain the correct position for marching to the right either by wheeling in units, or by each individual's executing a right turn (Iaeger, Klio, I9JI, 342); but since P. specifically mentions the awLafa.t and lAa.t, he is probably indicating not merely that both infantry and cavalry were concerned, but that these units carried out the turn. O"r)fLa.ta.L are maniples (cf. § ro) and lft.a, are turmae (vi. 25. 1}. each of 30 horse. 300

THE BATTLl;"_ OF ILIPA

XI. 23.

I

l3. 1. AEuKtos ••. MapKI.OS: L. Marcius Septimus, a legatus; d. 33· 8. See also Livy, xxviii. q. 15-r6, 17· u, zr. r, 22.1-35· 2; App. Hisp. 26, .11-.34; Cic. Balb. 34, 39· As military tribune in :zn he had done much to rally the Roman forces after the deaths of the two Scipios. See M[inzer, RE, 'Marcius (Septimus)', cols. r59r-s. On M. lunius Silanus see zo. 3 n. TPELS iXas hTrr(111v Tas Tjyou11Eva,s: evidently the cavalry had been originally in a line three lurmae deep, and since the right wheel they were in a column three turmae wide. Scipio on the right (and the two other commanders on the left) now wheeled with these three turmae through an angle of 90° to the left (and in the case of the left wing to the right) to advance against the enemy. K(d 'ITpo TOUT111v ypoa~o11lixous Tovs £i.9LaJ.Livous: 'and in front of these the usual uelites'. Biittner-Wobst and Hultsch punctuate misleadingly, either put a comma after £Wwp.€vovs or omit that after ~yov!Ltva.s, since 1rpo -rothwv refers only to ypoa
0 ~ O~ ,Pj~

(a) Sculla:rc.l and Veith

lnfantrv 0 Ve!ites

D

LJ 0--------··-CJ D -• -

D

C.:::1 CJ-- ./ }

-

• ./"

Cal'alry !:oiiil Gil :;Ill COil IA -----------:A fA Giil iA !;iii-~

301

XI. 23.

I

THE BATTLE OF ILIPA

Tp~::i:s

CT'II'Etpa.s: d. Livy, xxviii. q. 17, 'cum ternis peditum cohortibus ternisque equitum turmis'. Similarly many modern scholars (cf. Veith, AS, iv. 523; Taeger, Klio, 1931, 340 n. 3) here assume that P.'s parenthetical remark that the Romans call •oiiTo To avVTa.yp.a a cohort refers to the individual a1Tfiipa, and that Scipio (and his two colleagues) led three cohorts, i.e. nine maniples. This was Reiske's view and Schweighaeuser rightly resists it. True, a1T€tpa is used in iv. 523) ; but in imperial inscriptions to translate cohors (Veith, P. (l1Tdpa is equivalent to a71p.aia and means maniple (see, for example, vi. 24. s. :14. 8, xv. 9· 7; Lex. Polyb. s.v. a1rEipa). The evidence for this is quite clear and runs contrary both to Veith's vie·w (AS, iv. 522--3) that Cl7)p.afa is 'maniple' and a1u.tpa. 'cohort', and that of Brewitz (74 n. 1) that am;ipa is 'maniple' and a1)p.afa. 'cohort'. The original infantry line would be in its usual triple order of hastati, principes, and triarii. On wheeling right it would be led by three maniples, one from each line, and it is these three which Scipio now wheels round to the left to advance against the enemy. As a tactical unit the cohort is a feature of the Marian army; but the present passage shows that probably by the late third century and certainly by P.'s time the word cohors was being used for the combination of three maniples, one from each line, standing one behind the other (cf. Delbriick, HZ, 51, r883, z6o; Meyer, /(l. Schr. ii. nz; H. Last, CAH. ix. 146 n. 4). There is no reason to treat Toiho 8~ ~ea.AetTat ••• Koopns as a non-Polybian interpolation (so A. von Domaszewski, Die Fa!men im riimischen Heere (Vienna, r885), 19-20; cf. Klotz, Livius, 187); for P.'s use of Ko6pns cf. 33· 1. For a plausible theory that the cohort was developed during the third and second centuries to meet the conditions of warfare in Spain seeM. J. V. Bell, Fhstr:rria, 1965, 404-19.

l.

o( p.€v E1T' a(J"'I't0a. 1T€pLKAaCTO.VTES TOUTOU'): 'wheeling them round in the one case to the left' ; as Schweighaeuser observes, o~ p./.v is Scipio and the plural to be explained in terms of the common periphrasis o~ 1T€pt .E~et1Tlwva.. Septimus and Silanus (ol 8l) wheel their left wing to the right. For 1T
THE BATTLE OF 1LIPA

XL 23. 9

wheeling round and approaching; he was banking on throwing the Spaniards on the Punic wing into confusion. P. here implies that Scipio actually attacked the wing while still in column formation; if so, the next movement (s in zz. 1o-2.3. 9 n.) must have followed immediately upon the impact, and indeed have formed part of it, the infantry and cavalry wheeling out and forward to align themHelves parallel to the enemy. 6p91cns Taio; ••. 8uva~J.e· 4. hn1ra.pep.(30.XXovTas (i1rl) TTJV aOTTjv e:o9e'Lav: 'falling into the same straight line'; cf. iii. us. 9-10 n.; xii. 19. 6. ol. ~yovp.evo4 are the three maniples and the three turmae which have led the columns, and now face the enemy. •va.vTlav ..• 8La9Eaw O.XXfJAaLs: P. correctly points out that the right and left wings did everything in opposite directions, and that the cavalry and infantry acted in opposite ways, inasmuch as the cavalry turned half right to advance into line, and the infantry half left (on the right ·wing). 5. CK 80pa.Tos: 'from the right' ; this refers to the side to which the cavalry turn before advancing into line, and not to the direction in which they will look to dress line once they are roughly in position (aS in iii. II$. 10); indeed in the thick Of the fight there Will have been no opportunity for such niceties. Scullard, Scip. 133. observes that the formation into line must have been effected by the wheeling of the separate units, and not by the whole column wheeling and advancing parallel to the enemy; certainly such a movement, exposing the flank of the units when they were already in contact with the enemy must have been unthinkable-nor would it have brought 11bout the reversal of order mentioned in§ 7· 6'11'~rpK£pav ..• Tou., lTOAEttlous: as they could hope to do if the attack of the right column was directed against Hasdrubal's extreme left. ol 8i lTE~ol ••• E€ aCT1Tt8os: 'while the infantry formed line coming up on the left', thus closing the gap between the wing and the centre. 6. ot p.ev iv TcUS a1T£tpa.~'>: 'those in the maniples', i.e. the infantry; but here too there may be an implication of advancing in maniples (d. 22. II n.). '1. iy£yovt:~ ••• To 8EsLov euwvu1-1ov: see 22. 10-23. 9 n. (5), and the plan in Scullard, Scip. 135. where this is clearly illustrated. o~ IJ.LKpov Myov 9£ttEvoo;: as \Varre observes (in Shuck burgh, ii. 565), 11nch an inversion of troops would be a 'clumsy mistake' on the parade ground, but P. with a soldier's realism sees that Scipio rightly ignored this point in battle, in view of the advantage if he rnuld outflank the enemy (Toil Ka·nl 'Ti]v VTToK~pacrw). 9. Ta'i:s 1rpos Tov Ka.~pov O.pp.o~o~aats Kw~aeaw: Neumann (Klio,

XI. 23. 9

THE B.\ TTLE OF ILl l' ,\

1932, 256) inquires why Scipio could not have obtained the same effect by marching his infantry forward after a half-left turn, and then when they had opened out into a single line advancing straight forward. This needs qualification: a march half-left would have taken the infantry in front of the centre unless it had advanced some distance to the right. But perhaps the real advantage of Scipio's formation was the advance in column, which exposed fewer men and horses to the enemy's long-distance missiles (e.g. the Balearic slingers mentioned in Livy, xxviii. IS. I) until they opened out at close quarters. Scullard (Scip. I34~6) discusses two further criticisms of Scipio's tactics: (a) WhatweretheCarthaginian caz,airydoing? He suggests plausibly that they were thrown into confusion by the retreat of the elephants (24. r). (b) Why did the Punic cmtre m;w charge? Here, Scu11ard argues. Scipio took a real risk, for his own centre was unreliable. But Hasdrubal, he thinks, hesitated to expose his wings still more b\ advancing when thej· were in trouble; lte thus lost any chance ol turning defeat into victory, but (24. 7-<J} he managed to withdraw them without catastrophic losses.

24. 1. TO. 9T)p1a.: the elephants were normally placed in front of the wings (22. :z), and Schweighaeuser suggests that Mago may have sought to counter Scipio's attempt to outflank by moving them out to the extremity of the wings. Veith, in his plan (Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abt. 8. 2), places them forw·ard and beyond the two Punic wings from the beginning of the battle, but this is less likely. In either case, when they ,\·ere routed they may well have thrown the Punic cavalry into confusion (see last note). 2. To ••. f:A.Eaov: P. explains why the centre could not go to the rescue of the ~ings (lest it leave the way open for Scipio's centre), nor yet make contact with the enemy so long as they stayed where they were. On the third alternative, a vigorous charge against Scipio's Spaniards, see above, 23. 9 n. 7. Ka.n11!'60a. ••. .,.,v O.va.xwp11aw €1TOLouVTo: for discussion and other examples of such a controlled withdrawal (Xen. A nab. vii. 8. 8-19; App. Syr. 35; Caesar, BG, i. 26. 2) see Kromayer, AS, iii. I. 371-2. Livy, xxviii. IS. 10, describes an attempt to rally and face the Romans on the slope of the hill before the Punic camp. 8, el , .• (J.i} 9eos aUTOLS ns O'UVE1!'EAa~ETO TTJS O'v.lTT)pLa.S! a storm of unusual magnitude comes in the category of phenomena which may properly be referred €1r' -rov fh:ov • .• Kai T1JV Tl;Xl'lv {xxxvi. 17. 2); they include heavy and persistent rain or snow, the destruction of crop,; by drought or frost, or an outbreak of plague, in short 'acts of God'. See VoL I, p. q.

CAPTURE OF ILOURGEIA AXD ASTAPA

XI. :;q a 1-3

24. 10-11. Roman capture of Ilourgeia and Astapa After Ilipa Scipio visited north Africa to secure Syphax's allegiance (cf. 24 a 1-4 n.); and on his return he attacked Ilourgeia, the population of which had gone over to Carthage after the disaster of the Scipios and had massacred Romans fleeing from the battle. The town was razed and its population destroyed (Livy, xxviii. 19. 1-20. 7; App. Hisp. 32). Meanwhile L. Marcius took Astapa, where the Romans were thwarted by a population which made a holocaust of the town in a scene of fire and slaughter (Livy, xxviii. 22. 1-23. 5; App. Hisp. 33). On the placing of 24. 10-11, which should follow 24 a 1-4, see p. 18.

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

24 a 1-3. Scipio after Ilipa On. the placing of this fragment see p. 18. It corresponds to Livy, xxviii. 17. 2-3, 'et cum ceteri laetitia gloriaque ingenti earn rem uolgo suna

X

XI. 24 a 1-3

SCIPIO

A~D

SYPHAX

ferrent, unus qui gesserat, inexplcbilis uirtutis ueraeque laudis, paruum instar eorum quae spe ac magnitudine animi concepisset recepta.s Hispanias ducebat. iam Africam magnamque Carthaginem et in suum decus nomenque ueiut consummatam eius belli gloriam spectabat.'

24 a 4. Scipio and Syphax Scipio crossed to Africa and was at Syphax's court at the same time as Hasdrubal, and the two men shared a couch at dinner; d. Livy, xxviii. q. Io-r8. 12 (especially 18. 6--8); App. Hisp. 30. 4. T~ Io
MUTINY IN SCIPIO'S ARMY

XI. 26. 6

Schulten, RE, 'Sucro (z)', col. 561. As Kahrstedt (iii. 322 n. 2) notes, a mutiny north of the Ebro would have been dealt with from Tarraco rather than New Carthage (cf. Livy, xxviii. 26. Iff.); hence it looks as if the mutiny was at Sucro, but Livy has got its location wrong (cf. Scullard, Scip. 147 n. r). Our text of P. does not name Sucro, but the full text probably did, since the words on ... 'Pwp.a~Kcp look like a compressed phrase of the epitomator (see Biittner-Wobst ad loc.) to cover the details given in Livy, xxviii. 24. 5-25. 7· l. lf.ufla.Ta. ICtU VOCl'OU~: 'ulcerS and illneSSeS'; for the Comparison between bodily diseases and disorders in the community, whether political or as here in an army, see i. 8r. s-n n. 4. -rois €lf.~a-r6.voua~: 'for those who are alert'. 8. IC0.9n1TEp i~ apXTJS Ef'ITOV; cf. X. 3· I. -rous x~Junpxous: Livy, xxviii. 25. 3-7, shows that this refers to seven military tribunes who had been sent by Scipio to the camp at Sucro and had brought back the report. 9. &.vaSk~a.aea~ ••• TTJV TWV o+wv1wv imoSoow: 'give a firm pledge to pay the wages owing'; for d.va3ixea8m cf. v. r6. 8 n.; for 14t.!Jvm cf. i. 66. 3 n. Cf. Livy, xxviii. 25. 6, 'uolgo stipendium non datum ad diem iactabatur'. 10. -rO.s a~Ta.pxlas: 'their pay'; cf. 28. 3, i. 66. 3 n. 26. 1. eylvovTo 1Tepl Ti)v TWV XP'I'UJ.clTWV ~'1Tlf1EAELQV: 'they applied themselves to the collection of the money' ; the military tribunes collected it from the cities (cf. 25. 9). 2. -rO. S~:SoytJ.iva: there is clearly a lacuna after §I, in which P. described the decision of the army to come in a body to Kew Carthage to collect their pay; cf. Livy, xxviii. 25. Ij, 'ilia dubitatio erat singulaene cohortes an uniuersi ad stipendium petcndum irent, inclinauit sententia, quod tutius censebant, uniuersos ire' (cf. above, zs. ro). T~ auveSp£1tl: his council of war; on its composition see xiv. 2. I In. 5. Tois 1TpEa~o.dumat: 'who had been on the mission to them', i.e. the seven tribunes mentioned above (25. 8 n.), who were to be responsible each for five of the thirty-five ringleaders. }>aton's version, 'who had been deputed to him', makes no sense. Kat To~a.UT1JV auvoua{av: 'and similar entertainment'; Paton's version, 'and carouse afterwards' is too specific, though it may be implied; Livy, xxYiii. 26. 6, sopitosque uino, makes it explicit. 6. -r~ ••• ~J-E9' auTou aTpaT01TEO~t>: 'the army he had with him ; not 'the legion' (so Paton), for there were clearly more than one (§ 7); on this general sense of aTpaTt:Yrr<Sov see viii. L 4 n. t:ls ~,.i Tov :Av8o~O..A11v: cf. 29. 3 n. AuTwv flETa M6.p~
XI.

27. 2

MUTINY IN SCIPIO'S ARMY

27. 2. TOLS eml.pxoLS: praefecti sociorum (d. vi. 26. 5 n.). EKTTopwo11€voLs ..• flETa Toiho: €K71'opwofdvots J.Lera To 71'pwTas fL€v a71'oaKwas F. The sense is perhaps recoverable from Livy, xxviii. 26. 11: 'sub lucem signa mota, et ad portam retentum agmen custodesque circa omnes portas missi ne quis urbe egrederetur'. Hence Biittner-Wobst suggests for the lacuna OTaV €K71'0pWOfLEVOLS <71'p6 Tij> 71'6A<ws avJ.Lf3a£vn 71'apay{vw8at), fLETa TovTo KTA.

rva. 11TJ8el.s EK1TopEUT)TO.L: of the mutineers, who have meanwhile entered New Carthage. 4. lm' auTov Tov KaLpov: to be taken either with €pp~8YJ, 'at the same time (sc. that instructions were being given) they were told .. .', or with av>..>..aj3
28-30. Scipio's address to the mutineers: compare the rhetorical version in Livy, xxviii. 27. 2-29. 8, which contains a much more subtle appeal to loyalty than does P.'s threatening oration; but this perhaps throws more light on Livy than on Scipio. P.'s source is not known; but there is no good reason to regard the speech as his invention (so Pedech, Methode, 274-5). See the comments of R. S. Conway quoted in Scullard, Scip. 149.

28. 5. ou 8Lop9oiho: 'are not paid'; for this meaning of

8wp8ova8at

cf. Welles, p. 328. :A.v8o~6.An Kal. MavSovL't': cf. ix. 11. 3 n., x. 18. 7-rs, 35· 6-38. 3, 40. ro. Andobales was king of the Ilergetes (x. r8. 7), who lived between Saragossa and Lerida (iii. 35· 2 n.); it is by an oversight that Livy (xxviii. 24. 4) makes them Lacetani (cf. Kahrstedt, iii. 322). They had revolted from Rome on the false news of Scipio's

29. 3. 1rap'

death, which was a major factor in causing the Roman mutiny (Livy, xxviii. 24. 3-4; App. Hisp. 37; Zon. ix. ro). 6. TWV vOv 1TpoxeLpLa9€VTwv ~ye11ovwv: according to Livy, xxviii. 24. 13-14, the mutineers after expelling their officers gave th(' 308

MUTINY IN SCIPIO'S ARMY

XI. 31-33

imperium to two gregarii, C. Albius from Cales and C. Atrius, an Umbrian, 'qui nequaquam tribuniciis contenti ornamentis, insignia etiam summi imperii, fasces securesque, attractare ausi'. Kahrstedt (iii. 321) argues that the names are invented, and the provenance of the men an attempt to exculpate the Romans. Scullard (Scip. 148 n. r) also thinks that the 'coincidence of White and Black' weighs against these being real names, but admits that if one was called Albius, the other may have been nicknamed Atrius. Possibly; but such coincidences do occur, and the names may be genuine. 9. 1rns lixAos e{l1ra.pa.Aoy~o-To<; ~ea.t ••• el!cl.ywyos: for this sentiment, as natural to a Roman noble as to an Achaean landowner, see vi. 56. I I n. ; cf. vi. 44, xxi. 31. 9 ff. ; von Scala, 43 n. 4· To us oxAous K:a.l TTJV 9cl.Aa.TTa.v: cf. Livy, xxviii. 27. II ; this simile is developed and commented on for its aptness in a speech delivered before the Senate in defence of the Aetolians by Leon, son of Cichesias, after the war with Antiochus (xxi. 31. 6-rs). But this does not exclude its use by Scipio seventeen years earlier, for it is a rhetorical gambit of old standing. It first appears in Solon, fg. 12 Bergk,

ie aJJEJLWV 8€ BcL\aaaa TapaaaETat.

~IJ

01 ns ath¥

JL~ KWfj, 7rQIJ'TW11 EU'Tt 0tKaWTcL'T'1) 1

and it is used in Artabanus' speech to Xerxes in Herod. vii. •6 a; Livy, xxxviii. ro. 5 rightly calls it a uutgata similit1.,do.

30.1. yu11vol •.• oi.: Biittner-Wobst suspects a lacuna on account of the hiatus; and Li vy, xxviii. 29. ro, certainly has more detail: 'praeconis audita uox citantis nomina damnatorum in consilio ; nudi in medium protrahebantur et simul omnis apparatus supplicii expromebatur'. The reference to the praeco was probably not in P. since the condemned men are brought in as the shields are beaten (ap..a o£ TOJrots), but there may have been a reference to the apparatus supplicii after yvp..vol; but this too may have been added by Livy for effect, and Benseler's yvp..vol B' may be all that is needed. l. TWV jl~V jlO.O"TLYOUfLEVWV, TWV s~ 1TEAEICL~ojll!vwv: not alternatives; those now being flogged would be beheaded afterwards. The Latin phrase is uirgis laesi et securi percussi (Lhy, xxviii. 29. n). 3. a.t~eLa9l:vTEs : 'outraged'. 4. w11vuov: Livy (xxviii. 29. 12) adds that at the same time they received the money owing to them. 31-33. Defeat of A ndobales Also from the Spanish events of 2o6; see above, p. r8; Livy, xxviii. s-34; App. Hisp. 37; Zon. ix. IO; above, 29. 3 n. If P. followed the same order of events as that in Livy, between the last fragment

JI~

309

XL 31-33

DEFEAT OF ANDOBALES

12. BATTLE OF THE EBRO

(From Scullard, Scipio Africanus in the Second Punic War,

152)

and this one he recounted the unsuccessful attempt of Laelius and Marcius to take Gadcs (cf. Livy, xxviii. 30. r 31. 4).

31. 2. Twv 1TpoELPTJilEvwv 8uva.trrwv: clearly both Andobales and Mandonius have been mentioned in a lost passage corresponding to Livy, xxviii. 31. 5-7. 7. o1-1ovoe'iv 1Ta.pf1vn Ka.~ 9a.ppouVTa.s: cf. Livy, xxviii. 32. 4, 'laeto et erecto animo'. The reference to the mutiny hinted at in of.Lovo
DEFEAT OF ANDOBALES

XI. 33· 7

Tfl TETaPT!l Jl-ETU Ta.uTTJV: with rrprHJWTpaTorr,oonJaE. wpoO'EaTpa.Towk8EuO'E To~s uveva.vTLOLS: according to Livy, xxviii. 31.

s-i. Andobales and Mandonius had retired into their own territory on hearing of the mutiny; but when they heard of Scipio's severity towards the leaders, they reassembled their troops and marched into the land of the Edetani, Edeco's people (x. 34· 2 n.), with 2o,ooo foot and z.soo horse. The site of the battle cannot be fixed. The territory of the Edetani la:~• south of the Ebro (x. 34· 2 n.), but both P. and Livy (xxviii. 33· 1) are agreed that Scipio crossed the Ebro; hence it looks as though the chieftains had retired north of the river when they heard of Scipio's approach (cf. Scullard, Scip. 152-3}. Aa.f3wv a.uA.Gwa Ttva.: 'leaving a valley .. .'; on the meaning of at!Awv cf. iii. 83~85. 6 n. (i}. :2. Twv 'ITa.pevo~vwv T4_) O'Tpa.To'IT€8ce: not 'pecora rapta ... ex ipsorum hostium agris' (Livy, xxviii. 33· z); these would have been taken into safety (Scullard, Scip. I 54 n. I; Kahrstedt, iii. 323). Twv rrapErro1drwv is masculine plural (cf. iii. 82. 8) rather than neuter (so Paton). ,.~ r a.tte: Le. C. Laelius. 6. TO.UT1J XPtl0'0.0'90.L Tfj va.pEJl-f3oAfj: 'to take Up this position'. 7. Tils E~ b11oA6you Ka.l. O'uaTaliTJv 11-axa.s: c£. fg. I44. 33. l. Tous EV T'fi va.pwpe£~ TETa.y11ivous: 'those drawn up on the hill', in contrast to those who had come down into the valley. AvTETa.TTE: the object is missing; Schweighaeuser plausibly suggests rot!s ypoacpofLaxous or Tas- TW~' ypoacpof
XI. 33· 8

DEFEAT OF

A~DOBALES

8. To Is 1repi Tov 'loovLOv ~ea.i Map~eLov: i.e. M. Iunius Silanus and L. Marcius Septimus (cf. 23. In.), if Casaubon's correction of the MS. 'lmlvLOv Kal MapKov is accepted. But according to Livy, xxviii. 38. I, Spain was taken over by L. Lentulus and L. Manlius Acidinus as propraetors (in xxix. I3. 7 Livy calls them proconsuls), and his subsequent account of their activities supports this (Livy, xxix. 2. I ff.). P.'s epitomator may have misunderstood or incorrectly recorded the text, or Scipio may have handed over the command to Silanus and Septimus pending the arrival of Lentulus and Acidinus; their command can easily have fallen out of an annalistic account based largely on the official appointments made at Rome. ami1TAEUaE ... ets TfJV 'PWj-LTJV: cf. Livy, xxviii. 38. I, 'decem nauibus Romam rediit'. Twv aXXwv 4>tXwv: on the general's amici see xviii. 34· 3 n.

34. Antiochus in Bactria, India, Arachosia, Drangiana, and Carmania This fragment from F belongs to 01. I43. 2 = 207/6, i.e. 206. Presumably the siege of Zariaspa-Bactra had continued since 208 (d. x. 49· IS), which explains its popularity as a literary theme (xxix. I2. 8). Reiske remarks that this fragment must have been preceded by some such sentence as: 'Antiochus ad Euthydemum pacis conciliatorem miserat Teleam, Magnesia oriundum, qui amicus quondam fuisset Euthydemi, et eadem qua ille patria uteretur.' 34. 1. ~ea.i yap auTos ~v ... Mayv'l]s: i.e. like Teleas. From which Magnesia they came is not certain. Macdonald (CHI, i. 440) and E. T. Newell, The Coinage of the Western Seleucid Mints (New York, I94I). 274, argue from similarities between the coins of Euthydemus and those of certain cities near Magnesia-under-Sipylus; this may be right though, as Tarn observes, Mayv'f}> without further qualification suggests the better-known Magnesia-on-Maeander (xvi. 24. 6), which had a strong record of Seleucid colonization (Strabo, xii. 577, Antioch towards Pisidia; OGIS, 233, Antioch in Persis; Tarn, Bactria, 6, 74-75)1Tpos ov a1TEAOYL~ETO: the relative refers back to Teleas, mentioned in the sentence now lost (the words Kal yap ... Mayv'f}> being paren-

thetical). 2. hepwv tl.1TOaTaVTWV E1TO.VEAOj-LEVOS TOUS EICELVWV e~eyovous: cf. x. 4-9· In. The rebel was Diodotus I, the son whom Euthydemus had destroyed was Diodotus II; on Diodotus l's revolt about 239 cf. Iustin. xli. 4· 5, 'eodem tempore (sc. (probably) as the War of the Brothers) etiam Theodotus (sic), mille urbium Bactrianarum praefectus, de fecit reg em que se appellari iussit'. Diodotus II will have 3I 2

ANTIOCHUS IN THE EAST

XI. 34·

II

been overthrown shortly after 230; see x. 49· In. Tarn (Bactria, 74) suggests that Euthydemus' revolt had popular support and was allegedly in the Seleucid interest, because of Diodotus II's alliance with the Parthians (Iustin. xli. 4· 9, '(Arsaces) morte Diodoti metu liberatus cum filio eius, et ipso Diodoto, foedus ac pacem fecit') ; but the arguments here produced for Teleas are not necessarily true, and he may have acted solely from ambition (cf. Narain, I9-2o). On the Bactrian revolt see Schmitt, Antiochos, 64 ff. 3. TllS ovolla.ala.s ••• TtlS Tou ~aa~X€ws (~~:at) 1rpoO'Taa£as: 'his royal name and state'. !5. TWv Nof.La8wv: i.e. the Iranian peoples of the Steppes collectively known as Sacas, and including in particular the Massagetae, the Dahae, and the Sacaraucae (some of whom were only semi-nomadic) : see Tarn, Bactria, 79-81. The appeal to unity in the face of the barbarian danger recalls Agelaus' speech in 217 (v. 104). Tarn (Bactria, • 17) argues that the words biv f.Kdvov> TrpoaSixwvTat contain a clear threat to use the barbarians, 'as Nicomedes and Hierax had used the <;alatae', but Trpoa-six~;a-8at here means only 'to be attacked by' (cf. ii. 68. 8, iii. 42. 5); cf. Pedech, },Ifcthodc, 271 n. 82. S. Mazzarino, The End of the Ancient World (London, 1966), 24-25, sees here a prophecy ex eventu of the invasion of the Yueh-chi in 135-I3o, but unnecessarily. 8. AT)fl~Tp~ov Tbv uLov: now about 19 or 20 years old (d. § 9, vmviaKo>, which implies that age: Tarn, Bactria, 73 n. 7). See the coins featuring him wearing an elephant-scalp in Tarn, Bactria, plate, coin 3. and Narain, plate i, coins 5 and 6. Strabo, xi. 516, has been quoted as evidence that Demetrius invaded India; he does not say so, and the Demetrius, a contemporary of Eucratides, whom Iustin. xli. 6. 4 calls rex I ndorum, is not necessarily Euthydemus' son. Tarn (Bactria, 129-82) has reconstructed the history of this supposed invasion with great brilliance, but Narain, 23-45, has shown that he was misled concerning the Indian and Tibetan evidence, which gives his thesis no support. 9. KaTtt niv lfvTeu~LV (Kat) 1TpoO"Ta.a£av: 'in his dignified bearing and conversation'; but Schweighaeuser's emendation is attractive: Kat 1'~v KaTtt T~v €vT~;ugw TrpoaTaalav 'and in his dignified behaviour at interviews'. 1-1-£a.v TWv Ea.uTou Ouyan\pwv: whether this marriage took place is not known, Tarn (Bactria, 201 n. 1) thinks not; but see Schmitt, Antiochos, 23 n. 3· 10. aUflfla.xlav €vopKov: whether Euthydemus acknowledged Seleucid suzerainty, 'the thing that mattered' (Tarn, Bactria, 82), is not known. Tarn thinks that as the initiative came from Euthydemus (§ 3), and he gave up his elephants, he probably did, 'though it soon became a dead letter'. 11. ~1ro~aXwv 8£ Tbv KauKa.aov ••• ELS TTJV 'lvo~Kt1v: i.e. he crossed JIJ

XI. 34·

II

AXTIOCHt:'S IX BACTRIA, L.XDIA

the Hindu Kush into the Kabul valley (Holleaux, C AH, viii. 142 fitudes, v. 323-4). Ti]v ••• q~Lt..iav • , • 1rpo<; Tov Iocpayaaf)vov: Sophagasenus, here called nlv fJamMa -rwv 'Iv6wv, •will have been the ruler of one of the splinter kingdoms in north-west India, into which the Mauryan empire of Candragupta {321-297) and Asoka (269-232) had broken up. Gandhara was ruled by a descendant of Asoka named Virasena (d. A. Schiefner, T aranathas Geschichte des B~tddhismus in I ndien, St. Petersburg, 1869 ,so-sz); and it has been suggested that Sophagasenns (Subhagasena) was his successor (cf. V. A. Smith, Early History of India• (Oxford, 192-1-), 237 n. r; F. W. Thomas, CHI, i. 512; H. C. Raychaudhuri, Political History of Ancient 1ndia6 (Calcutta, 1953) 350 : Narain, 9), though there seems no evidence to support the view of Lassen and Bouche-Leclercq (Silmcides, i. 164) identifying him with Asoka's son Jalauka (cf. Geyer, RE, 'Sophagasenos', col. roo8). The rpJda. now renewed was that formed with Candragupta by Seleucus I through the embassy of Megasthenes (Strabo, xv. 724; FGH, 715 T z); it indicates that here Antiochus made no attempt to reassert but ·what it implied juriSeleucid suzerainty (Tam, Bactria, dically is hard to determine. 12. ~v8pocr&evTJv ••• TOV Ku~LKTJVOV: otherwise unknown. 13. ffJV ~paxwcriav: the province lying south and west of the Hindu Kush, around the valley of the R. Arachotus (modern Arghandab). According to Ptol. vi. 20, its neighbours were Drangiana to the west, Paropamisadae to the north, Gedrosia to the south, and the Indus plain to the east. See Tomaschek, RE, 'Arachosia', cols. 368---9. \Vhether Arachosia, Drangiana, and Carrnania (see below) had remained loyal is uncertain (cf. Schmitt, Antiochos, 82); but at least Antiochus had no fighting to do here. TOv 'Epuflav9ov 1ToTafloV: cL Arr. iv. 6. 6, 'E-rv-rt-tav6pos; Curt. viii. 9· ro, Ethymantus; Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. 92, Hermandus or Erymandus. The spelling in Arrian is nearest to the original, for this is the modern R. Helmand, a name derived through Pahlavi from the form haetuma1it of the Avesta. F.'s spelling seems influenced by the familiar Peloponnesian river-name. The Helmand flows south-west from the Paropamisadae through Arachosia into Drangiana, then westward into the depression of Hamun-i Helmand, to be largely spent in irrigation; cf. Kiessling, RE, 'Etymandros', cols. 8o6-7. 8L0. Ti}<; Apa YYTJVTJ r; els TTJV Kapflavtav: Drangiana is the basin of the Hamun-i Helmand, modern Seistan; Carmania is the province in southern Iran along the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, today Kirman with part of Luristan and Moghostan (cf. v. 79· .3 n.). Antiochus' route was probably via Kabul, Ghazni, and Kandahar, that taken by Alexander in winter 330-29 in reverse (Strabo, xv. 724-5). and then along the route followed by Craterus on Alexander's return

ARACHOSIA, DRANGlANA, AND CARMANIA

XI. 34· 14

from India, down the Helmand and from Seistan south-west to the R. Halil-Rud and the Strait of Hormuz (Strabo, xv. 721; Arr. vi. ts. 4). '"'v vo.po.x~ Ta.is l.avTofJ ao.Tparrda.ts Kat avvopoiJVTO.S' 8vvd.r:nus Tw~· (3ap{3d.pwv) to prevent their furnishing any potential rebels with help (v. 55· 1); the first of these wasArtabazanes of :.V1edia Atropatene. Similarly, an inscription from Nehavend in Media from 193, containing two documents, refers to Menedemus 0 fTfL TWV avw ao.Tpa.nw'i:w, who is clearly a royal governor (Robert, Hellenica, 7, 1949, 5-22; 8, 1949, 73). If 'satrap' was no longer commonly used of a provincial governor in the Seleucid realm (so Bengtson), P. may nevertheless have so used it here, perhaps as a 'back-formation' from the usual phrase ai avw aaTpO.TfELaL (cf. 'Will, REG, 1962, 109-IO). These passages show clearly that although Ot avw T6rroL may be used loosely for 'the interior' (cf. v. 40. s n., 46. s, 55· 3, 55· 4, xi. 34· I4 (this sentence)), ·whether inside or outside the empire, by 'the upper satrapies' P. means those of the Euphrates and Tigris valleys (d. v. 48. 12), together with Media, Susianc, and Persis. One need not assume (with Will, REG, r962, I09-n) that he refers to satrapies further east (e.g. Margiane, Aria, Drangiana, or Gedrosia) which had been restored to Antiochus by Euthydemus. P. is in fact taking up "the point made in v. 55· r, where Antiochus first envisages an eastern expedition with the object of intimidating outsiders and so

XI. 34· 14

ANTIOCHUS IN THE EAST

reducing the danger of any further revolt. His expedition had two results: it had made the upper satraps--whoever they might be (and satrap-revolts were almost regular events from about 250 onwards (Bengtson, Strat. ii. s6-s7))-loyal servants (u1f1JK!lous .•. -rfjs iliias &pxi]s), because they were deprived of the materials of revolt from the kingdoms beyond, and it had confirmed his control even west ol Taurus. In short it had consolidated his prestige throughout tlw kingdom (§§ I5-I6). It seems therefore unnecessary to take o[ a••w aa-rpa:rrat in any but its normal sense. Tas £m0a.Xa.TT1ous 1roXE''i Ka.t To us ... Suv6.GTa.s: the former are such Greek cities in Asia Minor as were recovered by Antiochus afte1 Achaeus' defeat, and the dynasts are those of Asia Minor, such a;.; the donors of gifts to Rhodes in 227 (v. go. I n.). Dynasts in Asia Minor under the Seleucids are attested by OGIS, 229, in whicl1 Seleucus I I \\Tites Trpo> -roV> f3amAEi:s Kai mvs 8vvdr.r-ra> Ka1 Tro.\ec,· requesting dau>.ta from Smyrna (d. ix. I. 4 n.); and the dynast Lysias had fought for Seleucus III against Attalus (OGIS, 272, 277; d. iv. 48. 6 n.). That such dynasts, whose numbers probably multiplied after the War of the Brothers, continued to exist in the second centur:y. is clear from the references to Moagetes of Cibyra (xxi. 34· 1 ff.) and Philomelus, Lysias' son (xxi. 35· z). Many must br completely unknown, such as the Moagetes of Bubon known onh from an inscription of Araxa in Lycia (Bean, ]HS, 1948, 46-56)-unless he is Moagetes of Cibyra (cf. Larsen, CP, 1956, I65). From Hierax' revolt down to Achaeus' recovery of Asia Minor in 223-220 the Seleucid position here was weak (d. v. 34· 7), and Achaeus' defection had carried Asia Minor with it. What dispositions Antiochus made here during his 'anabasis' is not known; but it is reasonable to suppose that it was his victorious return that finally consolidated his position in Asia Minor (d. Walbank, ]HS, 1942, 9-10, where, however, the account of Olyrnpichus of Alinda is now superseded as a result of the new documents mentioned in v. 90. I n.; see also below, Addenda, p. 64,:;). It is not clear why Bengtson (Strat. ii. 6o) takes the 'dynasts this side Taurus' to be a reference primarily to Achacus, for, as he himself goes on to say, Achaeus had been executed before the 'anabasis' began. 16. li~LOS ... Tijs ~a.aLAda.s: it was probably on his return that he took the title piya!>; see iv. 2. 7 n., and below, Addenda, pp. 638-9.

BOOK XII In devoting this book to criticism of Timaeus P. digresses from his theme, but justifies this as preferable to several short digressions {II. 6-7). Since the account of the lotus (z) was v.Titten after P. had visited Africa (2. r n.), the composition of at least this part of the book was later than 151, and so probably later than r¢; and the reference to a historian who emulates Odysseus (z8. I n.) also suggests composition after 146. Pedech (Methode, 571-z) may therefore be right in putting the composition of xii as a whole after 146; but this is not certain, for an original draft can have had extensive revision. In any case, the book is not necessarily an afterthought; it can have been planned ab initio but written later. Lorenz (66 ff.) argues that in making xii a digression P. is continuing the hexadic arrangement of books already marked by the account of the Roman constitution tmd army in vi. But if the history as a. whole shows traces of such a hexadic arrangement, this is not pressed and is of no significance; and there are other reasons why xii should take its special form. As Schweighaeuser saw, the attack on Timaeus develops out of criticism of hi.-; mis-statements about Africa, which now comes to the fore as the scene of Scipio's forthcoming campaigns; it was part of his province for 205 (Livy, xxviii. 38. 12, 40-45; Plut. Fab. 25; App. Hann. 55; Lib. 7; Sil. It. xvi. 692-7oo) and he crossed over in 204 (cf. xiv. r; Livy, xxix. 24-36). True, Scipio's capture of Locri and subsequent troubles there (Livy, xxix. 6-9, r6-22) may have led P. to consider Timaeus' false statements about this town, where P. ha.d personal connexions (5. r n.); so Reiske (and cf. Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (r)', col. 1548). But Africa, not Locri, stands at the beginning of the book, and seems to have furnished the occasion for P.'s polemic. 1. Towns in Africa {from Steph. Byz.)

I. 1. Buto.KtSo. x
XII. r. r

TOWKS IN AFRICA

for the circuitus. On the fertility of this area, which may have inspired F.'s criticisms of Timaeus (3), see Pliny, N,vith Hippo Regiussee Gsell, iii. 207; Scullanl. Scip. r69 n. r. See in general Dessau, RE, 'Hippo Regius', cols. 2627-8. 3. Ilyyn: probably an error or \'ariant for Siga, Syphax's capital among the Masaesyli (cf. iii. 33· 15 n.), where Scipio met Sypha\ during his visit from Spain (xi. 24 a 4 n.); cf. Strabo, xvii. 82q Pliny, Nat. hist. v. 19. Alternatively it may be Sicca (probably Kef in Tunisia; cf. i. 66. 6 n.; though J. Juillet, Bull. de Ia soc. nat. des antiquaires de France, r948-9, 20_3-r3, proposes a site near Zaghouan, and identifies El Kef with Cirta; cf. Poocch, 58). Pedech. loc. cit., prefers the equation with Sicca on the grounds that P. j._, basing his comments on his own observations, which will have been limited to Tunisia; but the evidence is inconclusive. 4. TO.~pnKn: so Bochart and Pinedo for the MS. Taf1a.8pa. Tabraca was a coashll town, ea..'>t of Hippo Regius, on the R. Tusca, which separated ZPugitana from Numidia (Pliny, Nat. hist. v. 22; Mela, i. 33; Treidler, RE, 'Thabraca', cols. 1 r 78-<)). It is the modern Tabarca at the mouth of the Wadi El Kcbir, between Bizerta and La Calk (cf. Hannezo, Rev. Tunisiemu, 23, r916, 239-65, 365-92; 24, r917, 12-29, 123-3i; Pedech, ad loc. 5. Xa.>.~~:el:n KTA.: the reference to 'Demosthenes' is probably from Alexander Polyhistor, since Stephanus' reference to the latter is precise but to 'Demosthenes' vague; in that case F.'s criticism wa.~ probably recorded by Polyhistor (Jacoby, FGH. 273 F 46, 699 F q). who is the first-century freedman of Sulla, who had reached Ronw as a prisoner of war (d. FGH, 273 commentary) ; his Libyca contained three books. The reading 'Demosthenes' is dubious. He could lw Demosthenes of Bithynia (if indeed he was a third-century writer. and not from Roman imperial times, as is usually thought: JacobY, FGH, 699; Schwartz, RE, 'Demosthcnes (9)', cols. 188-<)); but Demu sthenes is an epic poet who is not kno>vn to have \'VTitten about Libya. and an improbable target for P.'s criticism.Various corrections ar" proposed: Ka.,\/..w8tJ'7}r:: \Vestermann, ~7]J..toxd.pTJ> L. Mueller, TLJ..to f)"O,£v71r:;Geier (cf. Gisinger, RE, 'Timosthenes (3)', cots. r32r-2; accepk•l by Pcdech, ad loc.). The last is very plausible, for Timosthen;·, was Ptolemy Philadelphus' admiral who wrote on the geography ol 3!8

TOWNS IN AFRICA

XII.

2

Africa (Strabo, ii. 92, ix. 421, tor his ll
2. The Lotus This passage from Athenacus (xiv. 65r n) will also come from a discussion of Africa, related to Timaeus' mis-statements: see above, p. 19. According to Theophrastus (liP, iv. 3· 2), Ophellas' army, marching to join Agathocles in 308, was reduced to eating lotus fruit. This incident may have been related by Timaeus and be the occasion uf P.'s criticism, especially if Timaeus, like Theophrastus at this point, made the lotus a olvopov •• . eiJp.lyurnal de Physique, q88, 287-99. Herodotus, iv. rn, has this account of the plant (which in ii. 96 he calls Kvp7]Vafoc; Aw·n/c;): 0 OE 'TOV AWTov !<:apmlc; lr:rn p.lya8o<; oaov Tl1 ri)c; UXLFOV (te. mastich)' yAv~<:th'T/'!'Cl. S£ TOV cpotv,Ko<; Tip Kaprr<{J rrpoaet~<:
a•

XII.

2

THE LOTUS

traits as they possess are merely due to their being concerned with the same plant. The suggestion made above (v. 45· 10 n.), that P. and Theophrastus both used Diodes of Carystus, is therefore to be discarded. See Stein, RE, 'lotos (2)', cols. 1526-3o, who quotes modern authorities for the continued use of the lotus as food by the inhabitants of north Africa; Walbank, Miscellanea Rostagni, 2o8-n. (For information about the lotus I am grateful to Professor V. H. Heywood and to Dr. G. Taylor.) 2. 1. .,.a. "'l'a.pa:rrA'I]o-~a. "To~s "'I'Epl. "Tov 'Hp68o.,.ov: Athenaeus is referring, not to Herodotus' passage on the lotus, quoted above (2 n.), but to his account (Herod. i. 193. 4) of date-palms in Babylon, which he has just cited, and which resembles P.'s account of the lotus only in as far as the dates are used to provide rnTia Kai olvov Ka11-d.At. This is Athenaeus' reference, not P.'s. a.u"To"'I'"TTJS yevol'evos: either in 151, when he visited Africa with Scipio (ix. 25. 4 n.), or when he was there during the Third Punic War (xxxviii. 19-22). Athenaeus evidently draws on a statement by P. contained in an introductory passage, and despite the doubts expressed above (Vol. I, p. 297) there is no reason to question its truth (cf. Pedech, REG, 1958, 442). Hence this passage, if not the whok book (above, p. 317), must have been written after 146. 2. ou flEya.: perhaps contradicting Timaeus, if he confused the lotus with Celtis australis like Theophrastus, who calls the former 8.!v8pm' £VflEYe8e;;; see above, 2 n. 0.Ka.v9w8es : Z izyphus lotus has thorns on the stem. ~uAAov xAwpov "'l'a.pa."'I'A'I]o-lov .,.ft paf'V':;l: 'a pale green leaf similar to that of the rhamnus'. Rhamnus is a name given to several prickly shrubs. Here P. probably means the box-thorn (Lycium europaeum) or stone-buckthorn (Rhamnus graeca). ~a.9unpov Ka.l. "'I'Aa."Tunpov: probably 'longer and broader'; cf. Theophr. HP, iii. 16. 2 for {3a8v~. 'long' of leaves. Schweighaeuser takes {3a86npov as 'deeper in hue', but, without a specific mention of colour, this seems less likely. Moreover, Zizyphus lotus has a light-green leaf. 3. "Ta.'Ls AwKa.i:s J-LUP"TLO'l: 'white myrtle berries', the berries of the murtus albus (Cato, de agricult. 133. 2) on which see Dios. i. 112. It is Myrtus communis uar. leucocarpa and grows widely in Italy and Greece. See Steier, RE, 'Myrtos', col. n76. 4. cflo~vlKous: 'red'; cf. M. de Lamarck, Encyclopidie mithodiqu,e: Botanique (Paris-Liege, q89), iii. 317. 'les fruits sont des drupes presque ronds, rousseatres dans leur maturite, de la grosseur des prunelles, et qui offrent, sous une chair pulpeuse, d'une saveur agreable, un noyau globuleux, osseux et biloculaire'. m'Ls yoyyuAa.lS EAa.Lals: i.e. the small round olives of Greece rather than the larger oval ones. 320

THE LOTUS To~s otK£Tals ... Tois EAEu9ipoLS: d. Xen. A nab. ii. J. IS (on dates). 0~ ai f36.Am•oL TWV .f;ou·lKWV •.. Tots OLKf7'U£<; amfKEWTO' ai o€ TOtS

mhat

a1ToJadfLI'YO.t ~aav am:JAE.KTOt. xovl>pov tu}lj!a.vTES: 'pounding it up with groats'; cf. Nepos, Exempla, fg. 30 Malcovati (=Pliny, Nat. hist. xiii. ro6), 'bacasque

8Ea1TOTO.LS

j.t.ETO.

concisas cum alica ad cibos doliis condi'. x6vopos (alica) is groats, prepared by pounding grain in a mortar; see L. A. Moritz, Grainmills and Flour in Antiquity (Oxford, I9S8), I4i-9· The stored mixture of groats and crushed lotus-fruit could be made into a kind of contains some natural subporridge, as required. Perhaps the stance that would counter the tendency of such a mixture to go mouldy or become contaminated by weevils. Paton translates xovapos 'salt'; but it is unlikely that salt would be added during the pounding, for its purpose would be as a preservative (in small quantities). This Paton realizes, for he translates 'pack it with salt in jars'; but fUTil xovopou goes with /(Q~JO.VTt£<;, not aaTTOUiJ'W. In any case, as Professor Moritz points out to me, it is unlikely that xovopo> without any qualifying word (such as mt<pos in Anth. Pal. vii. iJ6 1. 8) can mean salt; it is 'a lump' of salt, or later of anything else, especially grain. Mungo Park, Travels in the interior of Africa (London, Ii99). entry for r4 February 1796, records the conversion of the berries of Rhamnus lotus (= Zizyphus lotus) 'into a sort of bread' with the flavour of ginger-bread; but he refers to the mixing in of millet only to form a kind of gruel. The accuracy of Park's account is queried by J. L. M. Poiret in his Supplbnent to the Encyclopidie methodique: Botanique (Paris, r8r3), iii. 191-2; but it seems quite circumstantial and likely to be correct. 6. To ~pwjLa.: the comparison with figs or dates suggests that P. is referring to the lotus in its natural state rather than to the mixture of lotus and groats. 7. yivETO.l ••• KO.L otvos KTA.: cf. Herod. iv. l n (quoted in 2 n.) and Ps.Scyl. Peript. no; Xepos, Exempla, fg. 30 Malcovati, 'uinum quoque exprimitur illi simile mulso, quod ultra denos dies negat durare idem Nepos bacasque etc. (quoted in§ 4 n.)'. olvofLE.At is a mixture of xxxiii. 6. 9 distinguishes wine and honey, Latin mulsum (though olv6fl.eA~ as sweeter). It was made by mixing preferably old wine with honey which had been boiled; various proportions are found from one-third to one-eleventh honey. See A. Hug, RE, 'mulsum', cols. 513-14; Park (op. cit. in§ 4 n.): 'it furnishes the natives ... with a sweet liquor, which is much relished by them'.

3-4. Some errors of

TimaeJ~s

on the fauna of Africa and Corsica

From the excerpta antiqua (F). On Timaeus see i. S· r-s n.; to references there add T. S. Brown, Timaeus of Tauromenium (Berkeley814173

y

321

XII. 3-4

SOME ERRORS OF TIMAEUS ON THE

Los Angeles, 1958); \Valbank, ]RS, 1962, 1-12. P.'s remarks on Africa suggest personal knowledge of the country; and this would make the composition of these chapters later than q6 (see above, p. Jij). 3. L 't~V Tf\s xwpa.s lipET'f\V: clearly Africa (Libya). 2. 'lTmSa.pLwSTJ: cf. Anon. 1rep~ vt/>ot•s:, 4 ( FGH, 566 T 23), t\ml ()~ i!.pwTos -rov glvas vo~aEtS' d.l!'' KtV'f\!l0.1S nK!l~V Ev8E8f.!l~VOV: commenting 011 this passage (FGH, 566 F 8r) Jacoby suggests that P. has in mind Timaeus' reference to the proverb Jp1Jp.on.pa Tijs Atf3vTJs: in Timoleon's speecl1 (26 a 2). But in that passage Timaeus makes Timoleon speak of Africa as amiO"Y)S O'VV<'XWS olKoUp.Et''Y)> Kat r.)o.rJfJvoua'Y)S dvOpC:mwv, thu:'> rebutting P.'s allegation here (cf. Brown, 23-24). \Vhose is the 'ancient report' is not clear, for both Hecataeus (FGH I F 335) and Herodotu;, (iv. r63 ff.) wrote of agriculture and pastoralism in Africa, and Herodotus divided the zones as olKovp.lv'l'/ or rrapaOa.>..aaawt (Herod ii. 32. 4, iv. r81. r), OTJptwo'YJs (Herod. ii. 32. 4, iv. r8r. r), otppv'YJ lj>ap.p.'YJ,. (Herod. iv. r8r. r), and £p~p.1J (Herod. ii. 32. 4, iv. r8r. 2, rSs. 3). Possibh

then, in some part of his work (Jacoby that dealing witl1 Agathodes) Timaeus may have the desert character of the country. \\'hether he gave an overall account of Libya (as tlw phrase afLtJ.WOOVS' TTclG'TJ'i • •• -rfjs Atf3UTJS' suggests) is unknown. JacOb) thinks there was one in his rrpoKaTaaKw~. but Brown (2-i) does not· and Pedech, ad loc., suggests that Timaeus drew on the Tvp{wv imop.v;)f.'a.Ta. (28 a 3), which may have described Africa as barren before the Tyrians arrived (Diod. xiii. 8r. s). However, P. may well have exaggerated Timaeus' inaccuracy by applying his remark to the whole of Africa. 5. ~ou~O.Xwv: antelopes (not buffaloes: Paton, Shuck burgh). On the fauna of north Africa in classical times see Gsell, i. IoRz8, zr6-34; on the lions see J. Ayrnard, Essai sur les chasses romaines (Paris. 195r), 395-6; on elephants, ibid. 42r-3o. Tl<; oox iCTT6pTJCTEV: 'who has not read of ... ?'; cf. i. 63. 7 n. 6. oo8€v tCTTop~aas: 'has made no inquiries about this', 7. T~v ••• Kupvov: P.'s account may suggest that he had visited Corsica (so Pedech), but he does not say so and we cannot be sure: see also 4· 5 n. 8. ~v Tij s~wTep~ ~uJ3X~t~: of his main work (the exact title of which is not known : it was perhaps L'tKeAtKd or l:tKEAtKa.1 [fJToplat : cf. Jacoby on FGH, 566, iii b, p. 539). Book ii formed part of the introductory group, which P. (26 d 4) calls -rd. rrpwTa {mop.v~p.a-ra, and Which COntained Ta> a1TOtK[a)' KaL KTlaEL'i Ka~ O'VfiEVEtO.S (26 d 2 11.); Jacoby (FGH, iii b, pp. 542-3, commenting on 566} argues that this J22

FAUNA OF AFRICA AND CORSICA

XII. 4· 9

TTpoKaTaaKEtnJ included what was virtually a geographical description of the western Mediterranean. The present fragment is FGH, 566 F 3·

Timaeus' account of Corsica is represented by Diod. v. 13~14 (= FGH, s66 F 164, c. IJ/T4), where, however, the excerpt has little on the fauna and must represent the original most inadequately. a.tya.s aypia.s: Nymphodorus of Syracuse (FGH, 572 F Io} mentions long-haired goats in Sardinia, probably the musmones or ophiones of Strabo (v. 225) and I)liny (Nat. hist. viii. 199· xxviii. rsr, XXX. 146), and perhaps identical with the animals mentioned by Timaeus in Corsica; see Pedech, ad loc. 4. 4. Ka.Kws Ka.t 1ra.pipyws w1'opt)f1a.s: 'after careless and perfunctory inquiries' (Shuckburgh). laxEoia.cre: 'he made this random statement', i.e. that the animals were wild. Brown (roo) finds the point of P.'s criticism obscure; but it is not clear why he imagines that Timaeus 'had spoken of herds responding to the shepherd flute and that P. believes this is too commonplace to be worth recording in a history', for there is no evidence that Timaeus said anything about a flute; and indeed Diod. \". 14. I refers to Td. ••• 1Tp6f3aTa 1.TfJ!-L€Lotc; om:\1)/-1./-I.EVU, which Kav 1-LTJOEL> c}v:\aTTrJ a(gera• To[s KEKTTJ!-L~vot,. On the wild animals of Corsica in Timaeus' time see F. Ruehl, Rh. J.fus. 1907, 309. 5. olJK ian !la.up.6mov: Brown (roo) claims that 'P. would not have argued from the behaviour of Italian herdsmen, had he ever visited Corcyra (sic: read 'Corsica')'. This does not follow: P. may be simply quoting a similar practice falling within his knowledge. 8. ~hll ... TTJV 1ro?..uxnp£a.v: 'owing to the large labouring population' (Paton); cf. viii. 3· 3. 34· u, x. 30. 8. On the large population of north Italy cf. ii. rs. 7· Ka.t ~6.?..1aTa. [TTJV 1ra.Xa.&a.v] : so F, T~v 1TapaMav Schweighaeuser; T~v TTAaT<:i."av (i.e. the flat area of Lombardy and Tuscany) Wunderer. Neither is satisfactory. Biittner-Wobst, with Wachsmuth, omits T~JI TTaAalav as a corruption of TTJV 'lTilAlav repeated; alternatively one may read Tryv rllAaT{a.v and omit 1rapd. .•• FilAaTats as a gloss with PCdech (REG, 1954, 394-5. and in his edition), who points out that P. does not use TvppYJv~Ko> substantivally. T~v u[a.v ToK6.8a. x~A[ous E~
XII. 4· 9

SOME ERRORS OF TIMAEC'S

the pigs were weaned, which normally took place by tv,·o months after birth, they were separated from the sows (Varro, RR, ii. 4· 13); thus K<mi yevTJ will be 'according to breed' and KaB' ~A
4 a-4 d. More errors of Timaet~s That this follows the account of Timaeus' errors about Africa is clear from 4 c 2; see above, p. H). The points here criticized seem to be chosen arbitrarily bv P., but, as Pedech obsen·es, each chapter is devoted to a distin~t f~ult or faults, viz.: 4a, cavilling and fault-finding (1'6 •,\mlnp.ov Ko.t •Ai)'KATJp.ov, §6), 4 b and 4 c, and peda.ntic irrelevance (dtf;tp.aBla, 4 c r), 4 d, inaccuracy (t/JwSoltoy{o., § 4). 4 a 1. 8n Stom:.pa.s ••• 4>1JO"t: the epitomator's words. T~ 11'poa<J>uo(liV'f Tois aXXo~s: \vho severely criticizes others', lit. 'who clings to, adheres to .. .'. 11'o.pwvux(a.s: 'trifles' : lit. 'whitlows' ; cf. Plut. 1v!or. 43 B; Cic. Rose. Am. 128. 2. 9Eo1T
MORE ERRORS OF TBIAEUS

XII. 4a 3

surrendered the citadel of Syracuse to him within fifty days of his arri~ val ; according to Diod. xvi. 7o. r the surrender was in late summer .143 (see Beloch. iii. 2. 380-3; Westlake, Timoleon, 24). Theopompus' statement (FGH, rr s T 341) that Dionysius was sent in a single mer('hant ship to Corinth is also in Diod. X\"i. 70. 3, J yap ffx_wv -rerpaKoa:la-: Tpt~pw; fi.ET' 6.\[;·ov lv p.tKpo/ a-rpoyyvA

opou 8~ viH.. wliyvoLuv Ka.TuljrEuSETUL: so Biittner-Wobst forM 1TctA
MORE ERRORS OF TIMAEUS

but Jacoby (Marmor Parium, 184) had already pointed out that this hypothesis would also involve adjusting €LKoaL rpu'i:w to ELKOUL rrh>re. vVe know that Timaeus believed Dionysius to have been 25 when he seized power (Cicero, TD, v. 57, quoted above); but it is improbable that the copyist of Ephorus made two errors, and there are no grounds for thinking that Ephorus also accepted zs as Dionysius' age when he seized the tyranny. Clearly P. is right in detecting a fault in Ephorus' figures, whether this was due to a copyist's slip or to Ephorus himself (a possibility not to be excluded, despite P.'s scorn). Jacoby (Marmor Parium, 184) has made a con vincing suggestion as to where it lies. If Dionysius died in 368/7 at the age of 63, and seized power at the age of 23, this event was in 408/7, which is the date assigned to it by the Parian marble (A 6::: and A 74); hence it is likely that the words !Cat Svo have crept in~ correctly into Ephorus' figures, and it may be assumed that he assigned Dionysius' birth to 431/o, his seizure of the tyranny to 4o8/7 and his death to 368/7. The Marmor Parium will follow Ephorus (Schwartz, Hermes, 1899,486 n. 2). Timaeus, as we have seen, agreed in making him die at 63, but put his seizure of power at 25, hence probably in 4o6/5, the date to be found in Diod. xiii. 96. z (archonship of Callias) and Dion. Hal. vii. 1. 5; and if his death was in 368/7, this fits the generally accepted figure of 38 years for his tyranny (Diod. xiii. 96. 4, xv. 73· 5; Cic. T D, v. 57; ND, iii. 81; Val. Max. ix. 13 ext. 4; Helladius ap. Phot. Bibl. 279, p. 530 a 30 Bekker). The date 406/5 for the seizure of the tyranny probably goes back to Philistus (Jacoby, Marmor Parium, I84: Stroheker, I98 n. s6). In Plut. Afor. 7!7 c (= FGH, s66 F 105) Dionysius' seizure of power is synchronized with Euripides' death, which was in fact in 407/6; but here Timaeus seems to have forced the chronology for the sake of the synchronism (Jacoby ad loc. )-unless indeed this refers not to the year, but to the day (Stroheker, I98 n. s6). Thus the essential difference between Timaeus' chronology and Ephorus' lies in the date assigned to the seizure of the tyranny by Dionysius. This, however, does not justify Brown's assertion (77) that this was the only objection raised by Timaeus, and that P. has not understood what the criticism was really about; for the arithmetical error is real, and there is no reason to doubt that Timaeus dealt with it. Jacoby's more recent suggestion (commenting on FGH 566 F 109~12) that Timaeus may have counted only complete years, and so have begun his thirty-eight years with 405/4 and come down to 367/6 for Dionysius' death, seems unnecessarily hypercritical. For discussion see Jacoby, i1Iarmor Parium, 184, commentary on FGH, 70 F 218 and 566 F IIO; Beloch, ii. 2. zsB f.; iii. 2. 374-S; Stroheker, 196 n. Z9, 198 n. s6, 237 n. 83; Niese, Hermes, 1904, 99 n. 1; Ed. Meyer, v. 65, 78; Kahrstedt, Forsch. x6s ff. -r..:r-ra.paKovra;

326

MORE ERRORS OF TIMAEUS

XII. 4b r

4. Tou S~ ypa.4>~<»s bfoAoyoutt~v<»s: not necessarily true last note). In xxxiv. 3· n-1:2 P. similarly explains a difficulty in Homer as a textual error. 5. Tov K6poL~ov tca.l. Tov Ma.py(T'Ilv: proverbial names for fools; cf. ::15. 8 for Margites. Coroebus was a Phrygian, a suitor of Cassandra, who perished at the hands of Neoptolemus or Diomedes (Paus. x. 27. 1), or according to Virgil (Acn. ii. 425) at those of Peneleus. Servius remarks on Ae1t. ii. 341 : 'tunc autem Coroebum stultum inducit Euphorion' and Eustathius (ad Od. p. r66g. 46) says Coroebus came too late to help Priam. For the phrase Kopolftou ry)u8ufrrepo<: see Lucian, Arrwr. 53 (where, as in Aelian, Var. hist. xiii. 15, he is associated \Vith Melitides); and in general Lentsch, Corpus paroem. f!.Yaec. i. ro1, 58; Worterb1tch der griechischen Eigen~ namen, s.v.: \Vunderer, i. 98-99. Margites is the hero of the comic epic of that name, traditionally attributed to Homer; cf. Radermacher, RE, , cols. 17os-8; Rh. M1ts. 1908, 445 ff. (on lists of fools). 4 b 1. E\1 TOLS v~pl nuppou: that Timaeus treated Pyrrhus separately from his main history is attested by Cicero (ad Jam. v. 12. z} and Dionysius (i. 6. r} FGH, 566 T 9}; but in how many books is not known (cf. Jacoby, FGH, 566, commentary pp. 545-0). TOUS 'Pw ....a.(ous •.• K0.1'o::l.I
XII. 4b r

i\10RE ERRORS OF TIMAEUS

Plutarch (Oxford, 1924). zo8, regards the October horse as originally a spirit of the grain, and this gains some support from the alternative explanation in Festus s.v. 'Panibus' (p. 246, 2I Lindsay) · 'id sacrificium fiebat ob frugum euentum' (d. H. M. Hubbell, Yale Stud. 1928, 179-92). Timaeus here shows himself acquainted 'Nith the legend deriving the Romans from Troy and with a detail of Roman topography, the Campus .Martius. 8u1 T~v 'i'lr'lrov ••. Tov 8ouptov: on the tradition of the wooden horse seeR. G. Austin, J RS, 1959, r6-25. Timaeus' use of religious tradition as evidence for his belit>f in the descent of the Romans from the Trojans can be paralleled by his reference to the 'Penates' of iron and bronze and Trojan pottery preserved at Lavinium (FGII, F 59 = Dion. Hal. i. 67. 4). 2. ml.vTas Tous ~a.p~apous: not including the Romans, whom P. never calls barbarians except in reported speeches (d. ix. 37· 6 n.). 3. L'lr'li'OV ... acpaynitovTcu: Z7T1np M, L7T7TOl'Geel, alii. Pedech, ad loc., successfully defends the instrumental dative by adducing parallels, also the intransitive use of 1Tpo8vw0at, on the meaning of which see L. Ziehen, Rh. At'tts. 1904, 391 -4o6. Horse-sacrifices are widely attested from Scythia (Herod. h·. z), Persia (Herod. vii. 113; Ovid, Fasti, i. 385), Parthia (Tac. Ann. vi. 37), Massagetae (Herod. i. 216. 4), India, Germany, etc. (cf. Schrader, Reallcx. 2 , ii. 173 f.; Stier, RE, 'Pferd', col. 1443; Frazer's commentary on Ovid, Fast£, i. Dumezil, Rituds, 73-85 (with bibliography on p. 86, nn. 2-3). O'T)J.LELoup.Evm ••• tK TTJS ••• nndaEws: not elsewhere attested.

4 c 1. lnjnJ.La9la.v: Theophrastus' difnp.aO~, (Char. 2i) displays excessive zeal in inappropri
2. Ta 1T£pi. T~V At~UTJV: d. 3· r-
MORE ERRORS OE TIMAE'CS

XII. 4d 8

3. Til 1T£pi. Ta<; &va.to.ow EAKwv: 'emphasizes this at length'. 2. &.tcpl~W\l Ti]v aATj9u ~<:a.i. hpG.TJ T. it in to add ridicule to the story, is uncertain. On the Sicilian cf. L 42. 4 n. 8.lSv8ou TE 1TA~Bos &.va~M6ew: cL Strabo, v.i. zjo, Oo?..ofia8at a1Tb ;wv tv '0/..vjm(q. {3ov0vfnwv; Antig. Hist. mir. 140, ot3 KaOapdv elvat . .. d/..Act pE'i't! ovO(p.

+ul.ATJV xpuo-Tjv: cf. Strabo, vi. 270,

Ka!. y.lp r/>ufA1)1'

nva eKrre:aoDoav

XII. 4d 8

MORE ERRORS OF TIMAEUS

~:l;; TOV 1TOTUJLdV tVOJLmav OEvpo av<EvEx8fiva£ ed;; n}v Kp~t 1 1)t'; Antig. Hi st. mir. r4o, .fou1),T/V rroT' El;; Tov JL\,Pnov rroraJLOV lp..p.\1)8£iaav lv tKdvn

.foavfjva£.

8.v£iAovTo: 'they took it up' (Pedech) or 'they made of{ with if (Paton).

5-16. Timaeus' criticisms of Aristotle about Locri: his c1'itidsms of Callisthenes, Demochares, and Agathocles

P. now passes to a discussion of Timaeus' criticisms of his predecessors (cf. 23 . .S) and the polemic about Locri forms part of this section (cf. Pedech, p. xviii). On the view that Timn.eus' opinions about Locri furnished the occasion for P. to devote this book to criticism of him see the introductory note, above, p. 3I7. Aristotle's account of the origins of Epizephyrian Locri wa..<; probably contained in his Constitutions, which may well ha\·e dealt with foundations too, for Plutarch (Mor. 1093 c) refers to them as KT[a€tS Kat rroAtTEi'a' (cf. Sandys, Aristotle's Constitution of Athens 2 (London ,r9r2), xxix). In rr. 5 P. implies that Thcophrastus shared Aristotle's accountperhaps in his three books NoJJ,08ETwt• (Diog. Laert. v. 45), which seem to have touched on Zaleucus (d. Cic. de leg. ii. rs; ad Att. vi. 1. r8), or alternatively in his twenty-four books N,)wov Kant aTo<xdov (Dio~. Laert. v. 44; Cic. fin. v. n); and indeed in his treatise On Drunlumness Theophrastus mentioned Zaleucus' law punishing the drinking of wine without a doctor's prescription by death (Theophr. fg. 117 Wimmer Athen. x. 429). The reference is, however, merely to Tim:teus' rejection of Theophrastus and there is no positive evidence that P. was personally familiar with his account. All that P. quotes from Aristotle too (at least in surviving fragments) comes via Timaeus' criticism, and it is possible, despite 9· I, that P. merely took Aristotle's version from Timaeus and what he was told himself at Locri (d. von Scala, rz7; Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios {1)', col. r470; Brown, 127 n. 7, correctly observes, however, that this can be only a hypothesis). Timaeus' criticism of Aristotle was in his ninth book (FGH, 566 F n) and this digression arose either in connexion with Pythagoras or else out of his account of the history of Magna Graecia in the sixth century (so Jacoby, commentary on FGH, 566 F n-rz); Schwartz (Hermes, r899, argued that as the Locrhn laws were usually attr~buted to Zaleucus (r6. 4 n.), who was accounted a Pythagorean, Timaeus, who rejected Zaleucus' existence (FGH, 566 F r3o), rna~· well have passed from discussing this question in connexion with Zaleucus to a general account of early Locrian history, and this is possible (cf. Laqueur, RE, 'Timaios (2)', col. ro78). Aristotle's acceptance of the story that Italian Locri was founded by slaves from locris with whom free-born women had cohabited during their 33°

TIMAEUS'

CRITICIS~1S

OF ARISTOTLE

XII. 5· z

husbands' absence as allies of the Spartans during the Messenian War (cf. 6 b 5 n.) is rejected by Timaeus on eight grounds: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

(v) (vi) (vti) (viii)

the Locrians were not wont to have domestic slaves (6. 7-8); the inherited friendship of Locri with Sparta (6 a 2); the ravaging of Locri by the Athenians (6 b 3); the Spartans would hardly have stopped the Locrians of Greece from visiting their wives during the Messenian War (6 b sl; the existence of a treaty between Greek Locris and Italian Locri If.,;; J'OVEVO'L npos Tb::va. (g. 3) ' the existence of s;:mpolity between the two states (9. 4); the laws of Locri were those of a colony of free men (9. 5); the constitution of l.ocri and its cultural institutions are similar to those of Locris (n. 5).

P.'s answers to these arguments are partly but not wholly valid; they are discussed in the notes (see also Walbank, ]RS, 1962, I-tz). They fall in to two groups: those based on personal inguiry at Locri (s-6. 6), and those based on probability {6. 7-II. s). But as between the views of Aristotle and Timaeus, the latter seem to be the more convincing. The story of the slave origins of Locri parallels the similar story of the Partheniae at Tarentum (viii. 33· 9 n.); it seems to be implied in the version which made Locri also a Spartan foundation (Paus. iii. 3· 1). It probably arose in an attempt to explain the matrilineal customs of Locri (5. 6 n.) and may have been given additional prominence in democratic propaganda during the party atruggles at the time of Dionysius II (Arist. Pol. vii (v). 7· 1307 a 38, ~ AoKpwv no:\t) &nw:\ETO lK •fj;; npo;; L.lwvvawv KYfSeta;;), w·hich sought to bring the 'Hundred Houses' (5. 6) into disrepute (so Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', col. I,VS)· Timaeus' rejection of it would be explained if he drew some of his information about Locri from a Locrian emigre, Echecrates (to. 7 n.). Other points at issue between Aristotle and Timaeus are discussed in the notes. See in general Oldfather, RE, 'Lokris', cols. 1255--62; 'Lokroi', cols. 1314-15, 1345-6; Dunbabin, J6-37' I8J-s; Brown, 44-50; Berard, 201-6; Jacoby on FGH, s66 F r 1-12; Lerat, ii. 22-25; \Valbank, JRS, 1962, !-Iz. 6. 1. va.pa.~e~AlJK~Va.L ••• d<; T~v Twv /\oKpwv voALv: d. Vol. I, p. 4· If the Dalmatian campaign was that of xs6/5 {§ 2 n.), these visits took place while P. was technically an internee in Italy. 2. 1Tt1pa.Xu6Tjva.l ••• s,· ~Ill!: presumably through his influence with Aemilianus. Granted, Scipio had not in the 15o's the auctoritas he possessed after the fall of Carthage, but through him P. must have hnd- access to influential circles. The background and basis of his intervention escapes us; perhaps Locri, though it had indeed provided 33[

XII. 5·

2

Til\L\EUS' CIHTICISl\IS OF ARISTOTLE

two triremes against Perseus in qr (Livy, xlii. 7), was in a state of economic distress (so Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', col. 1341). Tijs ELS 'l~11plav uTpa.nia.s •.• Kai Tijs Eis AaAf4aTEic;: .:k\JLaTEiS', the reading ofF, is preferable, sir~t:e this was more common in P.'s time Pedech ad Joe.). The Iberian campaign will be the Spanish war which opened in 154 (App. Hisp. 56: Livy, ep. 47; Obseq. 17) against the Lusitanians, or that against the Celtiberians . r), which opened the next year, rather than the campaign of D. Junius Brutth in (Strabo, iii. 152), as Cuntz, 48-49, argues. P. may mention it first as the more important; the Dalmatian campaign need not he later (d. De Sanctis, iii. I. zro, Cuntz, 46-49; for ~"'"'"I"G~ where P. quotes events in reverse order see Aymard, 1937, 19 n. 7; Pedech, p. xi n. r). This Dalmatian campaign was almost certainly that of (cf. xxxii. 13, Livy, ep. 47; Flor. ii. 25; Zon. ix. 25; App. Ill. II ; Strabo, vii. 315; auct. de uir. ill. 44; Zippel. 130 ff.; De Sanctis, iii. 1. zro), not that against the Scordisci or Vardaei of IJS (Livy, ep. s6; App. Ill. ro). KaT a 9nAa.TTC.V •.• KO.Ta TUS auv9TjKa.S: Locri probably received it;; first Roman garrison in 282, with Rhegium (Beloch, iv. t. 545 f.); she deserted to Pyrrhus after Heraclea (z8o), returned to Rome while hP was in Sicily (Zon. ,·iii. 6), and again fell away on his return (when he plundered the temple of Persephone). Locri probably rejoined Rome in 275, and shortly afterwards issued a famous series of coins on which P!lMH was crowned with nJ:tTl:L. In the Hannibalic War Locri was in Punic hands from after Cannae until zos. The definitive joedus here mentioned may be from this date. On the obligation of thf' socii nauales to provide ships see i. 20. 14 n.; Badian, z8-3o, 292 ; and for the two triremes provided against Perseus see the last note but one. 3. rraulv ••. To'i:s Tlf41oLs Kai 4>LAav9ptimoLS: what these were is not known ; but the vocabulary is that of contemporary honorary decrees, where they refer to such things as grants of prox:eny, commemorative the vote of a crown, a place of honour at the theatre, etc. (see Pedech, ad loc.). (f. Syll. 564, 11. 12-q.; 669, L zr; 748, I. 46; Welles, 369-70. For Ta rfnAavOpwrra, 'favours' or 'privileges', d. iv. z6. 8; Syll. 502, L 20, 548, 1. 3 and commonly on inscriptions; \Yelles, 37 3· 4. f..l:yELV Kal ypaq.eLV: 'to affirm both in speech and writing' (Paton). The former must refer to some former occasion, and it is at least possible that P. means that he has written on this subject previously -unless he is thinking of an earlier statement above, now lost. TTJV u'll"' :AplaToTEAous •• , 1aTopia.v: cf. 8. 2. Aristotle's version (see above, s-·16 n.) is also in Dion. Per. 364-6 (GGll'f, ii. I2S): K€ t8n• 0' ~S {Joptf-ryv Z EtpVpOV 7Tapatpo.{JJI£TO.t lf.Kp'r'J Tfj o' imo AoKpo~ laatv, oao• TrpoT!/potr; iT'!iaatv l]Mov ~rr' Aoaovt1Jv, atpf.Tip!J> JL•xBivTEr; dvaaans. J32

TIMAEUS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

XII. 5· 6

See the scholia and Eustathius' commentary on this. P. has evidently discussed Aristotle's version and Timaeus' criticisms to some exter{t before our fragment opens. !§. auvot8a ••• OfJ-OAoyooalv: see n. for Oldfather's suggestion that Aristotle and P. were misled by a version encouraged by the democrats to discredit the Hundred Families (§ 6 n.), who had supported Dionysius. 6. l!'cl.vTa Tel ~hO. lrpoyovwv ~v8o~n ••• &.ll'o Twv yuvaLKwv: this is an argument alleged by the Locrians to P., not (as far as vve know) one raised by Aristotle. It derives matrilineal descent at Locri from the special circumstances of its foundation, and so permits no condusions about matrilineal descent in the mother city. Indeed, if true, it would weigh against the view that descent in metropolitan Locris (eastern or western) was matrilineal. See Lerat, ii. 13840 and DeSanctis, Storiografia siceliota, 59, against Oldfather, RE, 'Lokris', col. 1257· There is some slight independent evidence that women were highly regarded in Locri. Pindar may hint at it when he \\Tites of Znpvpla .•. AoKph· 1Tap8€11o; (P.yth. ii. r8 19); and in A nth. Pal. vi. 265 Nossis names her mother and grandmother (but not her grandfather). Bachofen, in his controversial account of 'matriarchy' (Das Mutterrecht, Stuttgart, 186r, xvii ff.), suggests that matriarchal societies show certain erotic and licentious traits, and Oldfather (RE, 'Lokroi', col. 1345-6, claims to find evidence of these at Locri. He mentions the erotic poetesses Theano and Nossis, the erotic poems of Mnaseas and the famous AoKptK1r ~afLaTa, Iustinus' story (lust. xxi. 3· :z) of the vow of the Locrians to prostitute their daughters, and an obscure hint at something similar by Clearchus (Athen. xii. sr6 A). It is doubtful if Bachofen's 'matriarchy' ever existed in the form he describes; and though matrilineal descent might reduce the importance of chastity, the evidence which Oldfather quotes from Locri seems trivial and all easily paralleled from normal societies no less productive of and salacious anecdotes. However, this docs not mean that matrilineal descent did not exist at Locri. If that were so, the foundation legend would be hard to account for. Moreover, there are parallel cases of matrilineal customs in Lycia (Herod. i. 173· 4; N'ic. Dam., FGH, go F ro3 (k); cf. Hom. fl. vi. r86) and elsewhere (cf. Toepffer, RE, 'Amazones', cols. q68 ff.; Oldfather, RE, 'Lokris', cols. 1255 ff.; Kornemann, RE, SuppL-E. vi, 'Mutterrecht', cols. 557-71). \Vhy it appears at Locri is, however, unknown. Berard, 202-3, suggests plausibly that it was taken over from the indigenous population (despite the scanty nrchaeological evidence for any overlap in occupation). Toepffer, Alt. Geneal. 195, derives it from the Leleges, ancestors of the Locrians; but. no evidence connects it with mainland Gre.cce. ,.Ou<; avo TWV tKaTOV olklWV AEYOfJ-EVOU<;: the Hundred Families at JJJ

XII. 5· 6

TIMAEUS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

Locri are derived by P., presumably still on the basis of local information, from the Hundred Families in metropolitan Locris, wherr they are the families from which the Locrian maidens were sent to Troy (d. § 7 n.). That they derived their pre-eminence from supplying the maidens is not stated; and Lerat (ii. 137 n. z) seems right in suggesting that the connexion between the Hundred Houses and the tribute is the reverse, and that it was because they already con~ stituted a nobility that the task was assigned to them. The tribute of the maidens appears to be already an established custom before the founding of Epizephyrian Locri. From which Locris Italian Low was colonized is a problem already debated in antiquity. Ephoru:; (FGH. 70 F 13R), followed by Ps.-Scymnus, ;pz-r6, favoured Opun tian Locris (so too Paus. iii. r9. IZ) ; and Roman v.Titers also associatr Locri with Naryca in east Locris (Virg. Georg. ii. 438; A en. iii. 39rJ with Servius' comments; Ovid, lt1et. xv. 704; Colum. x. 386), as d0 Solin. 2. 10 and the scholiast on Dion. Perieg. 366. Eustathius on th(' same passage, however, supports west Locris (confusedly), following Strabo, vi. 259. The name of the oecist, Euanthes, perhaps suggests a connexion with the west Locrian town of OeantheafEuantheo (though less certainly if Euanthes is an ancient name, since th1· older name of the town is Oeanthea: Lerat, ii. 23 n. 8). A join1 foundation is not impossible (Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', col. r3t3). but the weight of the evidence favours east Locris for two reasons· (a) West Locris is geographically the more likely, hence the per sistent tradition of an east Locrian origin must be taken seriously. (b) The association of the Hundred Families with those which furnished the Trojan tribute of maidens points clearly to east Locris, for this tribute links closely with the legend of Ajax (see below), whom incidentally the men of Italian Locri invoked in battle (Paus. iii. 19. 12). Although there is a little evidence for the cult of Ajax in west Locris (see the 'Maiden inscription' published by \\'ilhelm, ]ahresh. rgii, 163-256; Nikitsky's improved text in SchiN)'zec 366). the main centres of the worship were at Opus and Naryca (IG. iv. n36 ; scholiast to Pin d. Ol. ix. r66). Although P. nowhere, in survi\ring fragments, specif1cally indicates which Locris he is referring to (despite this being one of the complaints made against Timaeus in ro. r-3), the association witl• the Hundred Families suggests east Locris. The notion (Lerat, ii. 137) that some of the Hundred Families were situated in west Locris is not very convincing. Independent evidence for the Hundred Families in Greece is slight. But it has been held, perhaps rightly. that the roo hostages taken by Athens from the Opuntians after tlw battle of Oenophyta in 457 (Thuc. i. ro8. 3) were representatives ol the Hundred Houses (d. Oldfather, RE, 'Lokris', col. 1244); thn· were chosen as TOV<; 1rAovcnwT&rovs. The existence of a council ol 334

TLMAEUS' CRITICIS.:\IS OF ARISTOTLE

XII. 5· 7

a. Thousand at Locri and Opuntian Locris (d. 16. 10 n.) supports the same view; but there may have been such a council at west Locris too. See, besides Oldfather (locc. citt.), Busolt-Swoboda, ii. 1457; Berard, 199-202; De Sanctis, Storiograjia siceliota, 6z (favouring west Locris). 7. Tas a11'00'T
XII. 5· 7

TIMAEVS' CRlTICIS!\IS OF ARISTOTLE

custom is not, however, rele,·ant to P. and his discussion ol Timaeus. 8. i!lv TOUS a:rroyovous ••• EUYEVELS VOfLL~Eo-9aL: the circumstances would explain why nobility was in the first instance derived from the female side; the weakness of the argument propounded toP. by the Locrians is that it does not explain why nobility should continue to be so derived -why, for example, the sons of these women from the Hundred Families did not transmit their rank to their children. 9. Tf)s cj>La.A11cj>6pou ••• AEYOfLEV"lS: the cupbearer. This probably concerned with the cult of Persephone, the of Locri, whose sacred enclosure has been excavated in the of Mannella, to the north of the town; Diod. xxvii. 4· 2 calls it n; ir.upavopos with Loai; but nothing can be deduced from men· titles. 10. Ka.9' ov Kmpov Tous Iu<EAous EK~aAou;:v: d. Polyaen. vi. 22, Tov,· LtK€AOVS' avEtAov o( AoKpoi; below, 6. I-·s. The presence of Sicels in this area before the arrival of the Greeks is confirmed by Thuc. vi. 2. 4· They 'INere a people speaking a language with Illyrian affinities, and with a culture which showed Aegean elements. Though ancient tradition brought them from Italy to eastern (cf. Hellanicus, FGH, 4 F 79 b, making a distinction between and FGH, 556 Sicans which is not confirmed by archaeology; F 46) before the Trojan War, or (Thuc. vi. 2. 4) 300 years before the Greek colonies were founded, the Sicel sites among the Bruttii do not go back beyond the tenth century and suggest a movement from Sicily to Italy rather than the reverse (Dunbabin, 40-41). There are three prehellenic cemeteries on the site of Locri, probably associated with separate Sicel settlements; contain Greek geometric vases, but show no overlap with the occupation (Orsi, Not. d. scat•. 1902, 39 ff.; 1909, 319 ff.; suppl. 1912, 3 ff.; 'Appunti di protostoria e storia locrese' in Saggi di storia antica ... offerti a G. Beloch (Rome, 1910), rss ff.; Oldfather, 'Lokroi', col. r3ro). The Greek colonization is dated 'a little after that of Croton (7o8) and Syracuse (734)' by Strabo, vi. 259, and an association •vith the First Messenian \Var (whether the story of the slaves is true or not) would fit a date a little before 700 (cf. Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', cols. 13rr-12); but Eusebius makes it 673 (Armenian version) or (Jerome), and the archaeological evidence for the earliest Greek graves supports this date (so Dunbabin, 445, 4S2 ff.; but the matte1 remains controversial). 336

Til\IAEl.'S'

CRITICIS~lS

OF ARISTOTLE

XII. 6. 3

wJ\Elw Twv Iti
6. 1. auv9ijKat •.• wpos Toos 1
2. ItKEAOOS KQTEXOVTQS ..• Tt,v xwpav: cf. 5·

IO

n.

3. ol-'-oJ\oy(as ... TomuTas: the trick by which the settlers outwitted the native Sicels is also recorded (with slight variants) in Polyaen. vi. 22, and can be paralleled by the manner in which Leucippus, the founder of Metapontum, acquired his land from Tarentum (Strabo, vi. 265); Dion. Hal. xix. 3 (xvii. 4) attributes this story to the homonymous founder of Callipolis. A similar example is the cutting up of the ox-hide to enclose the Byrsa at Carthage (lustin. xviii. 5· 9; Virg. Aen. i. 367). Probably then we are dealing with an old folk-motif; the fact that the Locrians themselves related it is no evidence for its truth (as Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', col. 1315, is inclined to Greeks would admire a trick of this kind. 7. Purchased slaves: FGH, s66 F II. The passage of Timaeus (from his ninth book) which P. refuted, was clearly part of his attack on Aristotle and defence of the people of Locri; but the editors of P., by curtailing the extracts from Athenaeus, have obscured the argument by which, as Athenaeus tells us, P. attempted to refute Timaeus. Athenaeus vi. 264 c continues: ... TOLS" /loKpOtS", Of.LOLWS o€ avo€ cllt.t(KEvcnv oiJTE 8Epr1.1raivas- oiJn: oiKhas 1rA~v iyyvs- [iyyun I~umb] Twv xpovwv; he then goes on to say that the first Phocian woman to be 814173

z

337

XII. 6. 3

TIMAE US' CRITICIS:\lS OF ARISTOTLE

attended by two maidservants was the wife of Philomelus, and that Aristotle's friend Mnason, who had acquired I,ooo became obnoxious to the Phocians J;, Toao&rous- Twv 7ToAtTwv r~v dvo:y~ 7Tpwf3vT€pot>. Timaeus, then, countered Aristotle's allega-

tion that the colonists of Locri were sprung from slaves at Locris by asserting that the people of Locris (and Greek states generally, including Phocis) did not possess domestic slaves, hence the Locrian women could not have cohabited with them during their husbands' absence. The words 1rA~v lyyvs Twv xpovwv cannot be construed as they stand. With Lumb's reading lyyun the sense is 'except on a guarantee for an agreed time'; but the words may conceal something like lyylaTwv xp6vwv or Twv lyyvs XPovwv, meaning 'except in recent times', which links up with what follows. Phocis seems to have been brought into the picture by Timaeus so that he might make his damaging remark about Aristotle's friend Mnason. Timaeus' authority for his statement is the people of Locris, who are tl1c· subject of iJnwvm. The continuation of Athen. vi. 272 B makes dear the grounds on which P. attempted to refute Timaeus: ... 8ou.\ov' KTa(JOa,, cuhos d7Ti1V ••• on Mvaawv 0 (/)WKEV<; 7T.\dovs EKEI('T'T(T'O 8ouAovs Twv xtAtwv. P. then, ignoring the fact that Timaeus obviously attributed the Greek custom of having no domestic slaves only to earlier times (this follows from his argument, however 7TA~v i.yyvs Twv XPovwv is interpreted), quoted the case of Mnason (though he was a Phocian, not a Locrian) in the fourth century, whom Timaeus had himself mentioned, in order to refute him. Brown (49) thinks Athenaeus must have made a mistake; but Timaeus' statement that the Locrians had no domestic slaves could be countered only by denying its truth, and the fallacious argument (Athenaeus failed to see though it) is not inconceivable in P. See \Val bank, ]RS, 1962, 6. Timaeus' reference to dpyvpwV"'}ro' distinguishes bought slaves from captives and the descendants of captives; especially it ,.,.;n distinguish them from an enslaved subject population such as the Spartan helots or the Thessalian penestae, as in Theopompus, who (FGH, 115 F rzz AUten. vi. B-e) records that the Chians wert> the first Greeks to buy slaves in way, and Chios was an advanced state, economically and politically (cf. Finley, Historia, 1959, 163--4). On the absence of oidm~ from early Athens cf. Herod. vi. IJ7· J. The more backward states of central Greece, such as Phocis and locris, may well have been without chattel slavery to any extent until the fourth century. Lerat (ii. points out that west locrian manumission records t1rst begin in the third century (though this in itself is, of course, not decisive); the meaning of FO'K'ara.v in tht' fifth century 'colonial law' from Galaxidi (Tod, 24, 11. 43-45) is uncertain, but would not suffice to refute Timaeus, even if Hesychius' 33B

TIMAEUS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

XII. 6b 5

gloss oba~•7Js.. WV7]Tos oovt\os- is accepted, and even on the assumption that west Locris was the original mother state (cf. 5· 6 n.).

6 a 1. To auvex€s TouT<:J: \vhat follows this', i.e. the last-mentioned argument in Timaeus. Since there are gaps in our version, we cannot be sure what it was. Paton, 'what follows in the latter', is inaccurate if he is taking •ov•q; as masculine. 2. Twv AaKeSa~t.~.ov(o~s uuf1f1aX11uavTwv: presumably in the First Messenian War. There is no independent evidence for this and it seems to fall down along with the story of the relations between the slaves and their mistresses, which was probably invented to explain traces of matrilineal descent in Locri (5. 6 n.). 3. oTav euTuxfJawuL: i.e. when they gain their freedom, as the word d:rret\€v8<:pot (§ 4) makes clear. 'TWV KaTa uow avayKaiwv t.~.iiAAov: 'more than those actually connected by blood (do)' (Paton; so too Pedech) rather than 'even more than the ties of nature' (Shuckburgh). Ex-slaves regard their masters' connexions as more important than real relatives do because the latter do not need these as much as do the slaves--a..c; § 4 makes clear. De Sanctis, Storiograjia s£cetiota, 55, thinks P. may be thinking of some Roman plebeian families who seek to hide their descent from a freedman. 6 b 1. auvepyov TOV xpovov: cf. 6 a 3· OlaV ... xpl.wos lrnylV1)TlU (a phrase omitted from Paton's translation). TauT' £·mT118Euuv: 'maintain such practices'. TWV ••• eAaTTW~-LaTWV: 'defects' (Paton) or 'low condition' (Pedech). 3. TO TOUS )\011vaious 1TOp0ftua~ TTJV xwpav aUTWV: in autumn 426 Laches landed an Athenian force in Locrian territory and defeated some 300 Locrians under Proxenus, the son of Caparon (on the correct form of this name cf. Keil, Hermes, 1915, 635--6) near the River Caicinus {Thuc. iii. 103. 3, cL 99). Locri wa.c; consistently on the side of Sparta and Syracuse in the Peloponnesian War (cf. Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', cols. IJJI-J). 4. d Kat SeKaKLS .qaav oi.KiTaL: on the colloquial cf. \Vunderer, i. 6r. oux o\lTwc;) •.• T6 yevQ<; &c; TTJV '!l'poatpEuw: cf. § 3 n. !5. vTj Af aA.M.: 'but, it may be objected .. :. P. passes to a new point: surel)r the Locrians would have been allowed home by the Spartans from Messenia (and so have avoided the risk of intrigues between their wives and the slaves)? Paton's version, 'How again, I ask .. .', misses the sense: this is not P.'s query, but his imaginary opponent's. i~tmEuTEAAov ••• TOU<; aKI.I.tl~OVTilS .•• TEKVO'ITOtLa.s xupw: Strabo, vi. 2i9, following Ephorus, records how the Spartans, who had taken

<

339

XII. 6b 5

TIMAEUS' CRITICIS;\IS OF ARISTOTLE

an oath not to return home until they had defeated the Messenians {d. vi. 49· 2), in the tenth year of the war dispatched home the young men who had not shared in the oath, to beget children by all the unmarried women; according to this version the Partheniae who settled Tarentum were the children of these unions and not of thos<' with helots. besides Strabo, Diod. xv. 66. 3; Dion. Hal. xix. 1 (xvii. I); Polyaen. ii. q. z; Eustath. ad Dian. Per. 376; Iustin. iii. 4· I-··7. There were other versions going back to Antiochus of Syracuse (FGH, 555 F IJ = Strabo, vi. 278) and Theopompus (FGH, IlS F 171 Athen. vi. 27r c~D). 6. 1-uopnv: F.'s argument, not easily grasped from Paton's translation, is: the Spartans would not be likely to pre\·ent the Locrians from sending home men to beget children, but the Locrians (not the curious marriage customs of the Spartans) would be unlikely to adr>pt this course merely at the instigation of the Spartans. In fact, not being bound by any oath, they sent their men on leave at intervals, but because these were long, the Locrian women lapsed and had relations with the slaves. The argument is logical ; but it concerns legendary matters and does not really affect the issue. 8. Polyandry at Sparta. This is our only evidence for polyandry, whether of a general kind, or between brothers (fraternal polyandry), at ; but the custom is found in various parts of the world, where there is a shortage of women or where the men absent themselves for long periods (e.g. the fraternal polyandry in Tibet; d. Ridgeway, Early Age of Greece, ii (Cambridge, 193r), IO;i·-.6). The truth of F.'s statement has been contested; but it finds some confirmation from other evidence that the Spartans modified the customs usual in monogamy. According to Xenophon (Resp. Lac. i. 7~ro) a Spartan would often lend his wife to bear another man children, sue:) offspring having no claim on the estate of the foster-father; and Plutarch (Lycurg. IS) confirms the custom (d. also Nic. Dam., FGH 90 F ro3 z). There seems therefore reason to acrept P. 's statement; but the origin and real significance of such polyandry is less easy to determine. Nilsson (Klio, 1912, J.v-s} sees in it a sign of the primitive character of Spartan institutions, polyandry being four.d mainly in less-advanced communities; but he admits that economic causes may have contributed to the specifically fraternal form. Ridgeway (op. cit. 135~6) thinks it is an ancient survival (so too den Boer, Laconian Studies, Amsterdam, 1954. 216ft.); but Ziehen (Hermes, 1933, who regards it as a reflection of the independent position of Spartan women (attested in the critical mmments of Aristotle, Pol. ii. 9· 5· 1269 b n ft.), believes it to bf:• a result of a shortage of women which arose in the fifth century as a consequence of the great earthquake of 4G6, the results of whiclt would be felt especially among women and children (Plut. Cim. 34°

TIMAE"CS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

XII. 7· 3

16. 4-5; Diod. xi. 63, with exaggerated losses). To DeSanctis, Storiograjia siccliota, 55 ff., it indicates moral regression, the result of state intervention in family life and of economic pressures. Westermarck, History of Human Marriages, iii (London, 1921), 144, sets the Spartan evidence into a general sociological context but makes no attempt at further analysis. Michell (59-0o), who thinks a shortage of women improbable in settled times~hc discusses Ziehen's views but ignores the argument concerning the earthquake-suggests that Spartan polyandry may perhaps have been a legal fiction, the woman being the real wife of only the eldest brother, but the dowry being shared hy the other brothers in common; but this would hardly explain the cases of non-fraternal polyandry which P. envisages. The scanty evidence precludes certainty ; but even if specific conditions (shortage of women or economic dillkultics among the men) led to the custom, it can hardly be separated from the lax attitude towards monogamy indicated by the evidence for shared marriage. In that case, P.'s contrast behveen Locrian and Spartan mores is valid. iKSoo-9o.~ yuvo.i:Ka nvt -rwv lj>LAwv: this custom, not otherwise attested, is even closer to the 'shared mentioned by Xenophon and Jllutarch {see last note). The of Asia had a similar practice {Strabo, xi. srs, comparing giving of :Marcia to Hortensius Ka:rd '/Ta...\atOIJ 'PwfLa.{wv €8o;;)' cf. Michell, 55 n. 2. 9. -rfjs p.ev Ko.-rcl. -ro Kowov E€o.1roo--roM')s: 'the general dispatch of men home'; Paton has 'to their wives', but tradition assigned the young men a wider commission. Shuckburgh mistakenly renders 'had a fair pretext for not taking part in the common exp,cdition'. 10. ~ooo-o.v 6.va.cr-rpolj>~v -ro.i:s yuva.l~i . , . cruv118eo--repo.v ~ 1rpos -rous .•• li.vSpo.s: so Cobet for 01Jv~Oaav Ill (ilf11em. r86:z, r9, not l8i6, 256, as Buttner-Wobst) ; Hultsch avv1jOetav, fl-'>1· But the best reading is Bekker's (cf. Mauersberger, s.v. y{vofLat), a1MJ8eCFTI.pa;; 1}, for the sense must be: 'they gave their wives time to become more intimate with slaves than with their husbands.' Tfjs ~~o.vo.cr-rO.o-ews: the colonization of Locri.

7. 1. 8-ro.v ••. 11 ljieyEtv 11 ••. ~y~<wp.tO.tE.Lv -rwb. 1rpo8"1-ro.t: such censure or praise was a legitimate and indeed necessary part of historywriting (x. 21. 8 n.); it is Timaeus' lack of moderation that P. is criticizing. 2. -r(o-L 1rpoo-Exwv: 'relying on what authorities'; P. does not say what they were, in the surviving fragments, but 5· 5 suggests native Locrian traditions. 3. -roLavS;; nvb. .•. -r~v &.ml.vTTJO"LV: 'will meet more or less this reception'. P. envisages the possible defence a supporter of Timaeus may bring forward (§ 4}, viz. that both contestants, Timacus and Aristotle, base their argument on probability, but that although 341

XII. 7· 3

TIMAEUS' CIHTICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

Aristotle's version is the more plausible, in a case like this we cannot be sure. P.'s reply to this, after a short digression on Timaeus' abusiveness (7- s-8. 6), is to produce further arguments against Timaeus (9. Iff.). This seems more probable than Schweighaeuser's version, taken from Valesius and accepted by Shuckburgh and Pedech; 'occasionem hinc opportune nactus uideor, de tota Tima('i historia atque in uniuersum de Historici officio deinceps exponendi.' This rendering gives an unparalleled meaning to dmivT7Ja•s, and it fails to translate Tot6.v8o; nv6.. 4. &.A.,&ts j.lEVTm y£ Kal. Ka8cma~ ~iLaaTeiAm: 8taaTijvat MP, StaaTEiA'" Ernesti: 'but to assert absolutely what is the truth'. Pedech has a plausible alternative, StaaTijaat 'to sift out'. 5. EO'TW Tov Ttj.lawv etKoTa. AeyeLv j.laAAov: 'let us assume (for tlw sake of argument) that Timaeus' account is the more probable'. Tou<;; ••• ~nov etKoTa. A.f.yovTa.<;;: 'those whose version is (on this assumption) less probable', i.e. in this case Aristotle. The assumptio11 is of course purely hypotheticaL 6. €4>a.l-lev: for this distinction between deliberate and involuntan falsehood cf. 12. 4---{), xvi. I4. 7-8, 20. 8---9, xxix. 12. r2. It must haw been made already in some passage now lost (cf. xxix. I2. 12, 1TAwl'aKtS'). For an example of 8u)p8watS' EVf-tEVLK~ cf. xvi. :!0. s-7 (P.'s letter to Zeno).

8. 1. xapLTOS , KepSou<;; , ELa4>opas ~VEK€V: 'by partiality, corruption, or personal enmity' (Shuckburgh); alternatively x6.ptTos ••. EVEKEI' may be 'to curry favour'. mKpiq. ••• otq. KEXPllTa.L Tlj.ia.Los KaT' 1>.pLaToTeAou<;;: various reasons combine to explain Timaeus' dislike for Aristotle. His teacher Philiscus of Miletus (FGH, 566 T r) was said to have been a pupil of !socrates (Suid. s.v. 1J.AiaKoc;), and the Isocrateans were hostile to Aristotle. Aristotle had idealized the hated city of Carthage (Pol. ii. n. 1272 b 24 ff.)-though so for that matter had !socrates (d. vi. 43· I n.). But it was probably the attack on Locri that stirred him most. See Laqueur, RE, 'Timaios (3)', cols. II94-5; During, 386-;; De Sanctis, Storiografia siceliota, 57. 2, 8pa.O'UV EUXEPTJ> 1Tp01TETTJ: 'arrogant, Unprincipled and rash'. Ka.Ta.TETOAj.lllKEva.L: 'he had uttered an audacious slander against .. .'. 3. iva. T(;JV eaTpa.TllY1lK4hwv: 'one of (Alexander's) generals'. ev Ta.i<;; KLALKLaL'i 1ruAm<;;: at the battle of Issus; see 17. 2-22. 7 (Callisthenes' account of this battle). On the location of the Cilician Gates cf. Ij. 2 n.; Brown, 8, suggests that in calling the battle bv this title Timaeus 'reflects the confusion that would naturally prevail in Athens in the period not long after the battle and before the facts were properly known' (he believes that Timaeus was already in Athens by this date: see below, 25 dIn.); but the phrase is perhaps 1

34~

TIMAEUS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

XII. 8. 4

being used in a very general sense to include the whole narrow plain of Issus (cf. Arr. ii. 7· 3, T(l. &rrM)oropa; Plut. Alex. 20. 3; Janke, Klio, I9Io, 14r). The reference to Issus is perhaps a hint at the story that Aristotle was a failure as a military man (below, § 4 n.). 4, uo
TOL td8ws- Kat 'Errf.Kovpov. - • ra!h' £L1l'(JI'TU Tr<::pt avrofJ Ell rfj 1TEpt fTTLTTJOEvp.chwv bnarokfi OTt Karaif>aywv ra 7Tarp(j;a E7Ti arparetav ~ > / > > ' I ,.1. \ • ,J:\8 Wj)P,T)O'£, Kat OTi Ell TUVTTJ KUKW<; 7Tparrwv C7Tt TO ~,ap/LUK07TWI\HV 'II\ EV, flra dva7TmTafdvov roiJ llA.drwvos 7Tcpmarov, ~TJat, 1rapaf3a.Awv €avrov wpoaEKr.f.8taE rots A.oyots ovK d a.sogov 6Jpa.s ' • • ' I ' '.1 ' rTJ> ~ •\ ' \ • (S, ee b e1ow, Avrov tarpttou KatI ras ruxovaa:; O
H

wv

i. 93--94 (Epicurus, fg. 235 Usener), 'Epicurus Aristotclem uexarit contumeliosissime ... tota commenticia, uix digna lncubratione anicularum'. Epicurus' attack on Aristotle derives partly from his different concept of philosophy and 7TilLOe{(t, and partly from personal animosity towards the contemporary Peripatetic school; and it has been convincingly suggested that his picture of Aristotle as aawro> is a reply to Alexis' Xawro8L8aaKaAas which caricatured Epicurus' concept of pleasure (Bignone, L'Aristotelc perduto (Florence, r936), ii. 57-sS, ; During, 385-6). The sole basis for the story was the fact that Aristotle's father, Nicomachus of Stagira, was a doctor, and his family traced descent from a Messenian god of healing with that name (Diog. Laert. v. I; \Vilamowitz, Arist. u. A then., i. 3II-12); and that he inherited some wealth from his father. Ideler's view that the story derived partly from his discussion of chemistry in Meteor. iv. 3· a 3-4 see During, 385; Acta univ. Gothob. I944. :a, p. 9· The anti-Aristotelian tradition is also represented by Cephisodorus, a pupil of !socrates, who defended his master in four books Kanl. Xptarorl.:\ovs (A then. ii. 6o D-E, iii. 122 B; cf. Aristocles ap.' Euseb. Praep. eu. xv. 2; During, 379 T 63), and by those who hated his pro-Macedonian sympathies and friendship with Hermias 343

XII. 8. 4

TBIAEVS'

CRITICIS~IS

OF ARISTOTLE

(d. Worrnell, Yale Stud. 1935, 57---<)2), such as Theocritus of Chios

(see next note) or Eubulides of Megara (Diog. Laert. ii. ro8 ff.; Aristocles in Euseb. Praep. ett. xv. 2. 5; Themist. orat. 23, p. z85 c). The fragments are assembled and discussed by During, 371---95. and Pedech, 81, argues that it is to this strand in the tradition that Timaeus goes back. But the iaTp<~ov is to be associated with Epicurus' cpapfLaKoTTwAo'i:v, and since Timaeus' polemics need not date to Aristotle's lifetime (Aristotle died in 322), it seems more likely that he drew on Epicurus. ELS ;rO.crav auATjv Kat O'KT}YTJY £fL"TT£1TT}OT}K4JTa: Timaeus' reproach that Aristotle frequented courts (the reference is to the courts of Themison of Cyprus (Stob. 95· 21 = iv . .V a zr Hense), Hermia.•; of Atarneu:-: and Philip II of Macedonia) in order to indulge his gluttony follo\YS the taunts of Theocritus of Chios, who, in reply to Aristotle's poems on the death of Herrnias (Diog. Laert. v. 6) and his erection of a cenotaph at Delphi to the dead tyrant, composed these verses: 'EpfL[ov ovvouxou n Kai Ev{JovAou ToO< Sov>.ov o-iJ!-'-a Kpwv OijK o<; yaUTpo<; TtJLWV aJ•OJLOV cpuatv f'tA
(Diog. Laert. \". 11; Aristocles ap. Euseb. Praep. eu. xv. 2. 12; variant readings in Didym. ad Dem. Phil. p. 6. 4~; that Borboros was a river near Pella is the improbable assertion of Plutarch, Jlrf or. 6o3 c). See von Scala, l27; Laqueur, RE, 'Theokritos (2)', cols. 2025---6; Dilling, 272---83. By O"K1Jl'>/ Timaeus meant 'camp' or 'general's tent' (so correctly Shuckburgh; Paton's version 'on to every stage' is nonsense); during the age of the Diodochi court and camp will often have been synonymous. Aristotle is treated as the typical flattering courtier; cf. Menander, CAF, iii, p. 235, fg. 897 (Kock), av>.ac; (J.pa7T
TIMAEUS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

XII. ro. 3

was improbable that slaves would take over their masters' friendBhips (6 a z). or that the Athenians would have ravaged their land (6 b 3). or that the Spartans would not have prevented the men of Locris from sending their men home from :Messene (6 b s); avTOV refers back to 7. 4, 'the same test .. .'. /&}IX aXf]8tvws K-rX.: 'but actually visiting, etc'. 3. 'ITpos -rous £sa'ITEcr-raX!J-£vous: i.e. to the colonists in ~fagna Graecia. a.ts \moyEyp6.4>9al TTJV apxT]v TOlnVTf]V: Valesius' emendation Jmy€ypd.pOat, which Jacoby (FGH, 566 F u) accepts, is unnecessary; as Schweighaeuser notes, 1\eiskc quoted several passages from Demo:;thenes where i.rnoypapHv is eqni\·alent to rrpoyparf,£w: Dem. 23. 693. to \{nroypat/Jas A, avT6 ypd.t/Jar;; edd.); 37· 973· IS; epist. 3· T484. li; add P. Cair. Zm. I/3· ro (third century B.C.) where IWTd .,.a i.rrroy£ypaJ.LJ.L€va means 'as has been indicated (above)'. 'ws yov£ucrL 1rpos -reKva.': the dative following some such word as loo;e. This treaty may well have been a forgery, since the words
10. 3. ouSi:v •.. Stacraopet-raL -rou-rwv: Timaeus' failure to indicate whether he found the treaty among the eastern or western Locrians was careless, in view of the dispute as to which founded Locri (cf. 5· 6 n.). but he perhaps assumed that 'e\·cryone who had read 345

XII. ro. 3

TIMAEUS' CRITICIS::\.15 OF ARISTOTLE

Aristotle and Ephorus would know he meant East Locris' {Brown, 49). Pedech, on 5· 4, argues that if Timaeus admitted an alliance between Sparta and Locris during the Messenian War (d. 6 b s-ro) this must imply that the Locris in question was West Locris, the nearer state; this is not decisive. 4. tmi Ka.96Aou TftSi 'ITn Tfl<; lmoSoxi}s: there are various suggestions for the missing verb: nm1x•!K< or KaT'I/gtwTat Reiske, niTEVXE(v) Cobet, Pedech (cf. zs c r), dvn7Tot
TIMAEUS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

XII. rr. r

This embassy probably links with Dionysius' attempt to win over the south Italian cities where there was a Pythagorean opposition (von Fritz, 75 ff.); cf. Diod. xiv. 105. 4; Polyaen. v. 2. zz. See Stroheker, 229 n. 139, who dates this after Dionysius' capture of Rhegium in 386. Timaeus mentions this detail as evidence for the repute, and so reliability, of his informant. 9, 8TJI..I.Oa(as avaypatf>fjs , , , ll1TapaOou(fLOU O'T~ATJS: 'public record or commemorative monument'.

11. 1. Timaeus' chronological u·ork: d. 10. 4· :Magistrates, kings, and priests were used for dating both in official lists and by historians, and of these the Spartan eponymous ephor, the Athenian eponymous archon and the years of the priestess of Hera at Argos, were among the best known; cf. Thuc. ii. 2. I, -rtji o€ 7T.ffL1T"T(J_J KaL 8EKd-rcp ETEL, i1rl Xpva£8os lv ;lpypov e-n ovo [Tlaaapas Kruger) p.fjvas apxoVTOS 14B7Jva.lots .••. For Sparta regnal years offered an alternative to dating by ephors, and this was later more popular (cf. Gomme on Thuc. ii. z. r); nor will dating by ephors have preceded the growth in the importance of that office in the mid-sixth century (cf. Jacoby, Atthis, 305 n. 24). The Athenian archon list was published on stone c. 425 (Meritt, Hesp. 1939, 59 ff. Agora Inv. no. I4uo; Jacoby, Atthis, IF-4), and a little before 400 Hella.nicus used it as the chronological foundation of his Atthis (Jacoby, FGH, 323 a, commentary in FGH, iii b (Supplement), vol. I, I ff.). As Gomme observes (on Thuc. ii. 2. r), it may have been available earlier. For the disadvantages inherent in even a composite form of reckoning by magistrates and the like, see Thuc. v. 20. 2-3. Hellanicus also published a work entitled 'UpHm ri)s uHpas ai Jv .tlpyn, a universal chronicle using the Argive priestesses as a chronological basis (FGH, 4 F 74-84) 'in the same manner as later writers used the list of Olympic victors' (Jacoby, Atthis, 357 n. 24); Plutarch (Mor. 1IJ2 A) mentions an U7Toypa¢~ ~ tv LU..vfL7TwvtKm such as Aristotle (Diog. FGH, 241 F 7), Eratosthenes (FGH, 24r F Laert. v. I. 26, viii. 51 4-8), and Philochorus, who wrote 'O,\vl-'-md8Es (FGH, 328, comrnento.ry on§§ 4-5 in III b (Suppl.), vol. 1, pp. 35r-2). For general problems connected with the list of Olympionicae see Jacoby's commentary In FGH III b, § xviii, pp. :;!21 8, 233-6. Timaeus' precise contribution carmot be clearly ascertained owing to the ambiguity of the present 1entence, which can be variously punctuated, with commas (i) after 347

Xll.

ll

1

TIMAECS' CRITICfSMS OF ARISTOTLE

Ao.K€So.t,u.mn and 6/..u,u.mov{Kas, (ii} after J40ryvl)ao and 6/..v,u.rrLov[lw:;, (iii) after 71pyn and 6/..u,u.mov{Kas. The first punctuation is that usually adopted (d. Laqueur, R F. 'Timaios (r)', col. II9'); Paton, Shuckburgh, and Schweighaeuser\.

it implies that Timaeus drew up one table correlating the Sparta11 kings and ephors, and another correlating Athenian archons, Argiyr· priestesses, and Olympic victors. The second punctuation (cl Jacoby, FGH, 566 T ro; Atthis, 126) assumes that Timaeus' first tabJ.related the Spartan ephors to the Spartan kings and Athenian archons, and the second the Argive priestesses to the Olympir victors. The third assumes a single comprehensive chronological system in which all four lists, Spartan ephors, Spartan king~. Athenian archons, and Argive priestesses are correlated and com pared with the Olympionicae; the object of Tro.po.fl&J../..wv must theu be understood from what has preceded (cf. D. W. Prakken, Studies itt Greek Genealogical Chronology (Lancaster, Pa., 1943), 56 n. 21, eu visaging this interpretation). According to Suidas, Timaeus wrot. '0/..u,u.mov[Kas 7}ToL XpovLKa llpa~ofwipov by inclusive reckoning; some editors accept Kruger's T€arm pas. Timaeus will not have this passage in mind; but it well illustrat("; the kind of error he is thinking of. Pedech, ad loc., suggests that th·· reference is to local chronicles and chronological tables like th,· Parian Marble (FGH, 239) and the Lindian Chronicle (FGH, 532). if in such tables there was an error of three months in the recordin1' of some event, it might in consequence be placed under a differen1 epm.ym and so in a different year. 348

TIMAEUS' CRITICISUS OF ARISTOTLE

XII.

tr.

5

l.

TGS OTno-8oOO!LOUS O"TTJhO.S: omaOobojL{Ou<; Reiske, omaOoypaif>ov<;? Wilamowitz (Arist. u. Alhen, i. 306 n. 24), ·n1s (KaTd TOU<;> oma8o"t:ljLOll) aT~Aa; Diels (Hermes, rgoo, zoo). P. means 'inscriptions on the backs of buildings' or, more probably, 'inscriptions in the inner Cellae of temples', for omo86bOjLOS, e}se•Nhere found only as a noun, is the inner cella (often of the old temple of Athene at Athens, used ItS the Treasury) . • " TO.LS Ata.l:s TWV vewv: 'on the doorposts of temples'; cf. IG, xii . .l· IjO, L 24, TO oJ ifl&.cf>wJLa ••• dvaypd.,paL Js TCtV cf>,\ulv (from Astypalaea); ibid. xii. 7· 237, I. 50 (Amorgos). For the Attic form •·ewv cf. XV. 29. 8. TCtll ••• trposev~a.ll: of proxenia, the right to represent the 11tate making the in one's own state; such proxenoi were originally not citizens of the state they represented, but during the lldlenistic age grants of proxenia and honorary citizenship were made together (cf. C. Phillipson, The International Law and Custom of Ancient Greece and Rome (London, 191 I) i. 147 ff.; J. A. 0. Larsen, OCD, 'proxenos'). 3. ou6' wpov-ra. tra.pa.Anreiv: but Timaeus did claim to have found it, IUld he did mention it (cf. 9· 3); hence P.'s polemic and argument are irrational. Timaeus had merely failed to specify which Locris he vh;ited. +•uo-a.!LEV£tl: cf. w. 6 n. 4. TTLKpos ••. KCl~ atrapa.hTJTOii ETTlTLILTJT~<;: cf. 4 a I, 6. This charge against Timaeus is common and led to his nickname 'Epitimaeus', given him by lstros (FGH, 334 F 59 Athen. vi. zp B}; see Diod. v. I. 3 (FGH, s66 T II); Plut. Nic. [ (FGH, 566 T r8); ::\epos, Alcib. 11. r (FGH, 566 F 99), Strabo, xiv. 6-to, quoting the criticism of Artemidorus (FGH, s66 F I50 b). P. d~arly hints at the nickname here. GTTapa.tT~Tou ••• KO.TTJyopla.ll: cf. 7· 6. 5. IL(Ta.('O.Il itrt To us £v 'ITa.Ai~ AoKpous: d. 9· 5 n. ,.~v T( troAtn£a.v ~~:a.t Ta Aoma LA0.v8pwtra. KTA.: d. Syll. 502, 1. zo. The existence of a lacuna after dJLrf>on!.potr; and uncertainty about its length help to make the of these words doubtful. If the lncuna is filled by some such phrase as {nrd.pxli.w OjLOLa, TOIJ o' (Hultsch) or <e:vp-r;KevaL 1Ta.p6jLOta, Tdll o' (Biittner-Wobst), the meaning will be 'the wnstitution and general culture' (Paton) ; for Til rf>U..&.v8pw1Ta In the sense of cf>•Aa.v9pw1Tta, 'humane behaviour, civilized practices', cf. x. 38. 3· In this case P. is Timaeus' rebuttal of the u.ccusations made against the Italian Locrians in 9· 5· But 1roAtnlav may refer to the i-aorroAmda bet\veen Locri and its mother t:ll\il1try (cf. 9· 4, Kae' a 1TOt\tTe{av {nrapxeu· JKaT/.pot<; 1Tap' JKa,T[pot<;) wit~ dJLr/>oTlpot> taking up the sense of lKaT€poLs 1ra.p' JKaTlpw;; In that case Ta cf>tAavOpw1Ta are the of privileges and 349

XII.

II.

5

TDL>\E US' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

concessions granted between the two peoples (cf. 5· 3 n. for thic. sense, common in inscriptions). The lacuna could then be filled with {rrrdpxetv, Tov o', giving the sense: 'he says that common citizenship and similar mutual concessions exist between the two sets of Locrians, and that .. .'; but logically 1TpwTov fLI.v requires some corresponding phrase, and the lacuna may in fact be longer. Schweighacusr:1 favours the second meaning, but is surely wrong in interprctin~: J.pxpoTI.pots de 1
11. 1. €nt Twv Kavovwv: 'in the case of a carpenter's rule'. 1TAaT£L Tam;woT£po<.;: 'deficient in \Vidth'. Schweighaeuser takes it of thickness, stressing the meaning of Ta1THvos-; but for 'thickness' TcfJ f3a6n would be more usual. riJs 1rpbs TO.UTTJV otKE:tOTTJTOS: 'and all conformity to this', i.e. straightness. The verb lK1T€crn is Bi.ittner-Wobst's emendation for lyyt'TI (or Jyyl~<Et); though Pedech's criticism of its use with a plain genitive is not valid (cf. 14· 7), his own proposal, Jm8£v. is attractin· and is approved by Gelzer, Gnomon, r963, r6s. 2. )\£~LV • , , xe~plO'!-'Ov: 'style ... treatment'; cf. 28. 10. KaT' aAAo T~ ••• TWV 1.8(wv fUpwv: 'in any other detail'. civTEXTJTa~ 8~ TTjs ttrToptas: cf. Lucian, hist. conscr. 9 for the sam(· distinction ; A venarius, 27. 3. r]yel:a9aL 8E:i: ••. T~v AX,9£Lav: 'truth must play the main role iu works of this kind'. T~

TlMAEuS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

XII. ua I-3

a.uTos rrou KEXP"lP.at: L 14. G, with unessential variation in the word-

ing,

s.

•J.~-vuxou awl:la"''OS: cf. L 14. 6, 'c[>ou; Diod. XX. L TfJ yap Ti)S laToptas ylvos d1TAoOv lan Kat avp.
If this prologue of Diodorus derives from Ephorus (Laqueur, Hermes, l9II, zo6; Jacoby on FGH jO F III), P. mas· have taken the metaphor from him (Avenarius, 107 n. 10). 4. Mo •.• Tporrous •.• ljt£u5ou<;: for the distinction see i. 6 n. The repetition in §§ 6-7 suggests that in the original text there was a substantial passage between the two.

12 a-12 b. The exact position of these two fragments from M can be determined only approximately; see above, pp. 19-zo.

12 a 1-3. The proverb AoKpot Tas avvO~Kas. The position of this passage in the book suggests that it forms part of the polemic against Timaeus and therefore that he and Polybius held different views nbout the meaning of the proverb. The view given in the text, associating it with the invasion of the Heracleidae and the treachery of the west Locrians, would ftt Timacus' general concern to free the people of Italian Locri from the charges made against them; and it may therefore be Timaeus' view. The Corpus paroemiographorunt knows two explanations of this proverb. One (Corp. paroem. graec. i. 116) refers it to a law of Zaleucus in Locri, auyypa
oi

disowning of debts at Locri or the treachery shown by west Locrians towards the Peloponnesians. But, as Wunderer (Phil. r897, 173) points out, P. would not have mentioned the matter had he agreed with Timaeus; and the view that the explanation in the text is that of P. implies that for some quite unexplained reason he was concerned to give publicity to a legend discreditable not to Locri but to western Locris. The argument of Pedech (pp. xxi-"xxii), that P. was trying to show that the bad bella vi our of the Italian Locrians was natural since their forebears in Greece were treacherous, seems a farfetched way of countering Timaeus and improbable in view of the other version of the proverb associating it directly with Locri. Hence it seems reasonable to assume that in the words l1Tt rwv d6ET.fWTwv -rds Jp.oAoylas P. is giving his own view that the proverb refers to the consequences of the law of Zaleucus, the disowning of

XII. rz a r

TIMAEUS' CRITICIS:\IS OF ARISTOTLE

debt-agreements; and certainly he goes on later to comment furthc1 on Zaleucus' legislation (ch. 16), in which Timaeus disbelieved (FG!l, s66 F I30). J. F. Lucht (Phylarchi historiarum fragmenta, Leipzi~ r836, p. ix) conjectured that for Tt> in § r we should read Ttf.Law, This was accepted by Wunderer (i. 26 n. 2; Ph£!. r897, q2) and Oldfather (Phil. 1908, 447-8) and has much to commend it; the beginninr·. and end of extracts were, of course, especially liable to textual cor ruption (d. Brown, 125 n. 8, who is not, however, very explicit). It is just possible that the association of the proverb with Zaleucus· law on contracts (Strabo, vi. 26o = Ephorus, FGH, 70 F 139; Diod xii. 2r. 3) goes back to Aristotle (so Wunderer, Phil. 1897, 177); but such an association is probably unhistorical, since it proceeds froJI1 what looks like a primitive refusal to recognize written debt contract·· to a general debt repudiation (d. Oldfather, Phil. 1908, 448; Rl:. 'Lokroi', col. 1322). Wunderer also argues (Phd. r897, 174-6) tb" 1 Timaeus' source was the Atthidographer Demon; he bases his argu mcnt on the strung-out participles of this chapter. But Demon·. style is hardly likely to have survived into P.'s paraphrase of what will itself have been a paraphrase by Timaeus. Pedech, ad loc .. refers the version given here to Ephorus, but gives no reasons. 01(1 father suggested (Phil. 1908, 448-9) that the proverb arose in connexio11 with Locrian piracy in the fifth century and Athenian attempts 1' · suppress it (d. Plut. Peric. q). But all explanations are hypothetical

1. E11'L n7lll a9ETOUIITWII TQ~ OfLOAoyia~: 'to those who set agreemenh at naught'; see the preceding note. TOLJTO of. TL~ e;eupl]ICE\1: JturropYJK€V M can be construed without Biittner-\\'obst's emendation; nor is Hultsch's reading, roiho s; r{c; JturropYJKrov; (followed by a lacuna), convincing. But Lucht\ TtJ.Lawc; for rtc; (see 12 a r-3 n.) is attractive (d. Jacoby on FGH. 566 F r62); translate, with this reading, 'But Timaeus' researclw~ have produced this account, that both historians and everyone e]~,· are agreed that .. .'. Jturropro£v is 'to search out' or possibly 'to set forth' (d. P. Oxy. iii, 486 1. 12, second century A.D.). ~eat 11'apa TOL!> cruyypa«j>eucrL .•. OfLOAoyoufLEVov: so Timaeus alleges. P. himself does not accept this view. 2. KaTa TlJII TWII 'Hpa~eAeLOwv ~«j>ooov: Greek legend represented till' Dorian invasion as the return of the Heracleidae, viz. Temenu,.. Cresphontes, and Aristodemus' sons, Eurysthenes and Proch- .. Tradition made them build ships at Naupactus (hence its name) and cross over from there to the Peloponnese at Rhium, advised I>\ Oxylus, a grandson of Thoas (Paus. v. 3· s--6, viii. 5· 6, x. 38. w. Strabo, ix. 426-7 ; Apollod. Bibl. ii. 8. 2-3; Eustath. ad Iliad. p. 276. · · f.); but according to Ephorus (Strabo, ix. 426-7 = FGH, 70 F 121) till' Locrians built the ships for the Dorians beforehand, and this seeu, .

TIMAEUS' CRITICISMS OF ARISTOTLE

XII. rz b

2

to be the view adopted here. The historicity of these events has been much discussed (cf. Oldfather, RE, 'Lokris', cols. rr87-8; 'Naupaktos', cols. 1983-4). Twv A01
12 b 1-3. Timaeus' criticism of Callisthenes: Brown, 8-9, argues that Timaeus' criticism reflects the current democratic attitudes in Athens at the time of Callisthenes' death, and that it therefore supports an early date for Timaeus' migration to Athens (cf. 25 d I n.); this seems forced. 1. ae~aG(p.ov OLa)aupeLV: 8eia<; EVpeiv M. Herwerden's emendation (Mnem. 1874, 73), adopted by Biittner-\Vobst, is attractive, though, as Pedech observes, 8Hacrpo<; is not found again in P.: 'to ridicule the frenzy .. .'. Twv 6ve~pwTTovnuv Kat 5a~p.ovwvTwv: 'who dream dreams and write like men possessed' (Paton). Wunderer (iii. 47) adduces x. 2. 9, and emends to OetcrtOatpovovvTwv; but unnecessarily. Despite the fragmentary character of the MS. at this point, it seems certain that P. is saying that Timaeus properly criticizes sensational writing, but being in the same case himself has no right to make such criticisms. 1roAXl]v TTJS TOLO.UTfJS ~f11T€1I'O(fJVTO.L ~Aua.p£as: 'who have produced a great deal of such nonsense'. Cobet (Mnem. r862, 21) suggests lp7rerf>&p1JVTat, 'who have stuffed themselves up with .. .'. But the text stands quite welL l. KOAa.Ka. ••• Tov Ka.XX~aaivf)v: on Callisthenes see iv. 33· 2 n.; T. S. Brown, AJP, 1949, 242; Pearson, 22-49. Timaeus evidently supported his accusation that Callisthenes was a flatterer (cf. 23. 3-8) by referring to his account of Alexander's visit to the oracle of Ammon at Siwah (see next note), which was described so as to create the impression that Alexander was the son of Zeus (below, 23. 4; Jacoby on FGH, 124 T 20; Strabo, xvii. 814 FGH, 124 F 14; Tarn, Alex. ii. 350, 357-8). ~t6p5a.€t Te 1rpo<1exovTa.: Kopagl Te is Bekker's certain emendation; cf. Strabo, x\·ii. 814 (FGH, 124 F I4). 1rAavil>w:vov S' (sc. Alexander on the way to Siwah) {mb TOV KOVLOPTOV crw8fjvat yevop€vwv opf3pwv 1Cal3vei'v KopaKwv ~yrjcrapivwv T~v ooov, ~STJ TOVTwv KoAaKEVTLKWS' AEyoj'E~>wv

(sc. by Callisthenes). The same story is attributed to Callisthenes by Plut. Alex. 27. 3. and it appears in Arrian, iii. 3· 6, as given by Aristobulus, Ka~ o1rAdwv l\oyo<; raVTI/ KaTIX"' (= FGH, 139 F q), in Diod. xvii. 49· 6, following Cleitarchus, and in Curt. iv. 7· 15. According to Ptolemy (Arr. iii. 3· 5 = FGH, 138 F 8) it was two snakes who guided Alexander; and there were other variants (Arr. iii. 3· 6). 1ea.l Kopu~avnwGaLs yuvaL$1: according to Strabo (xiv. 645, xvii. 8r4) 8U17S

Aa

353

XII. ub

2

TIMAEUS' CRITICISM OF CALLISTHENES

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

TD.fAEUS' CRITICISM OF CALLISTHENES

XII.

I3. I

to a similar wish conveyed to the federal assemblies of Achaea and Aetolia. Its form can be reconstructed. Hyperides, Ep£taph. 8. 21 (d. G. Colin, REG, rg38, 387), seems to establish that the question was linked with the cult of Hephaestion, and that in requesting the setting up of this cult Alexander made clear, without a definite request, that he wished for deification himself (De Sanctis, Riv. jil. 1940, 6; C. Habicht, Gottmenschentum und griccltische Stiidte (Munich, 1956), 28-36, 222--9). The demand rested on a consciousness o{ merit (Habicht, op. cit. 35; C. F. Edson, OCD, 'Ruler-cult', 783; CP, 1958, 63-64) and was not related to any political purpose. Tarn (Alex. ii. 370 ff.) has argued that as a god Alexander would 'have a juridical standing in the cities which he could not other\\·ise have had', and he links the request with the demand that the exiles should be returned; but this demand was made at the Olympic games of 324 by Nicanor, whereas the question of divine honours did not arise until after Hephaestion's death in October 324 (Habicht, op. cit. 3_3). Further 'no Greek god had a juridical standing in the cities which would allow him ... to act outside the legal norms' (Bickerman, CP, 1950, 43)·

ntyt8G KGl. KEpauvov vEpdlivTa. 9vlJTU +ucrEL: i.e. Callisthenes had made Alexander a god; so too Philodemus, 7Tt£pl KoAaK. i. 2 4 FGH, 124 T :u, Jv . .. Tat<; !uTop{ats a7To8,ov T6v )1Mga,,Spov. Apelles painted Alexander with a thunderbolt in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus (Plut. Alex. 4· r; Pliny, Nat. hist. xxxv. 92). Tarn, Alex. ii. 362, argues that Callisthenes never did more than claim Alexander as a son of Zeus, \Vhich was not in itself equivalent to divinity. The confusion belongs to the Hellenistic age. See further T. S. Brown, 9; A]P, 1949, 242-5, arguing that Callisthcnes was preparing the way for posthumous deification. U11'o Tou 8cuf1ov(ou: the divine force of retribution, which also punishes the sacrilege of Antiochus Epiphanes (xxxi. 9· 4) and Prusias (xxxii. 15. 14); cf. VoL I, p. zr. Timaeus shared this belief (cf. FGH, 566 F so, ro2, ro6; Diod. xvi. i8-8r, based on Timaeus). 13. l. allflox6.pT)v: Demochares of Leuconoe (c. 350-before 27r/o}, the son of Demosthenes' sister, was a democratic statesman and orator, active at Athens from the expulsion of Cassander's agents in 307 ; he was exiled himself for an uncertain period, returning in the archonship of Diodes (:z88/7?; Meritt, 286/5). Later he had a decree passed honouring Demosthenes (archonship of Gorgias, 28o/79). Demochares was famous for his freedom of speech (Seneca, de ira, iii. 23. z, 'Parrhesiastes ... appellatus'); he left behind published speeches and Histories, perhaps mainly concerned \>v'ith Athens, and written 'non tam hbtorico quam oratorio genere' (Cic. Brut. :z86). See FGH 75 with Jacoby's commentary; Susemihl, i. 552-8; Swoboda, .3.'15

XIL

I3- 1

TIMAEUS' CRITICISM OF DE:\IOCHARES

RE, 'Demochares (6)', cols. 2863-7 ;Tarn, AG,93-94;Ferguson, qr-3; Beloch, iv. 2. 445-52; and for more recent bibliography and discussion of his parrhesia, Momigliano, Riv. star. it. 1959, 537-8. But ZJ. 8, where he is coupled with other writers (especially Ephorus) whom Timaeus had criticized, perhaps indicates that P. regarded Timaeus' attack as levelled against Demochares as a writer rather than as a statesman ; and Pooech, ad loc., argues that the personal invective was intended to discredit the claims of his history. ftTa.tpT)Keva.t KTA.: commenting on this passage (FGII, 75 T z; cf. 566 F 35) Jacoby suggests that Timaeus' hostility may arise from views expressed by Demochares in those parts of his history which concerned the west. Tlus is possible, since Suidas (s.v. Td l€p6v rrfJp £gwn vaijaat} records that this attack was included in the thirtyeighth (and last) book of Timaeus' Histories, the last five books of which concerned Agathocles; and Demochares is known to have discussed Agathocles (FGH, 75 F 5). It is, moreover, significant that P. passes directly from Timaeus' criticism of Demochares to the details of his attack on Agathocles (15). De Sanctis, Storiograjia siceliota, 47, relates the antipathy to Timaeus' general recollection of his life at Athens; he assumes (so also Brown, 9-1o) that Timaeus wrote his attack on Demochares after returning to Syracuse. See also ~Iomigliano, Riv. star. it. 1959, 542. According to Suidas (see above), who may dra\v on a fuller text of P., Timaeus quoted as an authority for his accusation a speech against Demochares by Democleides, who may be the same as Democles, Theophrastus' pupil, who defended the sons of Lycurgus (Ps.-Plut., Vii. X orat. 842 E); cf. Susemihl, i. 555 n. J73 (v,rith an over-fanciful reconstruction of the whole polemic). That Timaeus' abuse was to be taken metaphorically (so Wunderer, ii. 66) is unlikely; such outrageous accusations were not unparalleled in political polemic, for Duris (FGII, 76 F 8) records a similar taunt against Demosthenes. Tu BlAa.w(Sos: Botrys of Messana was mentioned by the Sicilian historian Alcimus as the inventor of rra.tyvm, ·which are evidently the same a.c; the obscene {molivru:J.a.m referred to by Timaeus (FGH, 56o F 1); cf. Knaack, RE, 'Boti)'S (3)', cols. 793-4. Jacoby suggests a date in the fifth centUI)'. Philaenis is the alleged author of a work rr~:pt UX7]/-LaTwv uvvovata:;; mentioned by Clearchus of Soli (Athen. X. 457 E), Chrysippus (Athen. viii. 335 B-E). Aeschrion of Samos, the writer of dithyrambs (Athen. \'iii. 335 B--e; Anth. Pal. vii. 345) and Dioscorides, the writer of epigrams (Anth. Pal. vii. 450) ; but Aeschrion claims that the real author was an Athenian named Polycrates. Philaenis' date is unknown and her home is given variously as Leucas (Athcn. v. 220 F) and Samos (Dioscorides in Anth. Pal. vii. 450). See also Lucian, Amor. 28. Pseudo!. 24; Clem. Alex. Protrept. iv. 6r. 2; Priap. 63. 17; Paul

TDIAE C"S' CR TTICIS:\1 OF DEl\IOCH.-\RES

XIL IJ. 8

Maas, RE, 'Philainis', coL 2122. Brown (ro), like Markhauser (78). misunderstands the passage, which he takes to mean that P. accuses Timaeus of outstripping the pornographers; there is no evidence that P. was personally acquainted with the works mentioned by Timaeus (cf. von Scala, 83 n. r), indeed Botrys had probably only local fame, since he is known only through references in two other Sicilians. ouS<E T(dV a:rro T~you~ ••• ouSf.£~: 'not even any of the inmates of a brothel'; the words a1T6 TOV awj.LaTO> look like a gloss, and Jacoby, on FGH, 75 T 2, excludes them. With Elpyaaf.Livwv one would expect rather l1ri. Tiyovs, which Valesius proposed and Schweighaeuser prints {though Suidas, s.vv. Lhwoxap'YJ> and Ef-L-farns, has a1ro). Perhaps the whole phrase a1T6 TOV C!Wj.LQTOS Elpyaaj-tivwv should be bracketed as a gloss (so Castiglioni, 227). 3. 1TpouKaTe1fl€uO'Tcu TavSpos: 'has also told lies about him, dragging in the evidence, etc.' The force of 1rpoa- seems to lie in the adducing of evidence of Archedicus, rather than in the making of an additional charge (as Paton: 'has made a further false charge'); the only charge was that mentioned in § r. KWj-LLKOV nva •.• avwVUj-LOV: cf. § 7' J4pxiouws. The meaning of aVwVVf.LOS here is 'of nO repute'. G.SoEA4>LSouv ••• A"l!-Lou9£vou~: cf. Ps.-Plut. Vit. X orat. 847 c (= FGH, 75 T r), dxE 8€ Kai aOEA,P~v (sc. 0 Ll'Y)j.LOCFfJiV'Y)s), Jg ~- Kai. Aax'YJTOS (MS. Aaxov) AEvKovoiws aOE'A,P,})oiJ<; avTip Ll'Y)f.LOxap'Y]S" iy.!vETO; Cic. Brut. :z86 ( = FGH, 75 T 3), 'Demochares ... qui fuit Demostheni sororis filius' ; de or. ii. 95. 6. uTpaTTJy(as ••• TJ~Lwu9aL wap' J\OTJva(OLs: perhaps during the years 306 and following, when he played an active part in the arming of Athens in her war with Cassander (Syll. 334); cf. Swoboda, RE, 'Demochares (6)', col. 2865; Beloch, iv. z. 450-r. However, the chronology of Demochares' career, which depends largely on the decree recorded in Ps.-Plut. Vit. X orat. 85r E, is controversial. TOlauTals ~i.Tux£aL~ waAa(ovn: 'had he had such acts of shame to combat'; for this sense of aTvxia cf. iv. 2I. 7' xviii. rs. 6; Schweighaeuser on v. 67. 4· See below, 14. 2, aTVX'YJf.La. 7. ApxiSLKO~ b KW\.I-1f:1SLoyp6.4>os: cf. § 3; a writer of the new comedy, tWO Of WhOSe titleS are knO\VIl, the Lltaj.LapTaVWV and the 6J'Y)aavpo>; cf. Kock, CAF, iii. 276-8; Susemihl, i. 262 n. 93· The new comedy contained occasional polemic against contemporary statesmen, for example Philippides' attack on Stratocles (Plut. Dem. 26. 3) or the attacks on Chabrias' son Ctesippus by Menander (fg. 363 Kock) and Diphilus (fg. 38 Kock) ; cf. Susemihl, i. 248 n. 5· 8. 'II"€1Tapp'flu(a<JTaL: cf. Sen. de ira, iii. 23. 2 (quoted above, § r n.); Momigliano, Riv. stor. it. 1959, 537--S. a.u'I'Dv AVTi1TaTpov: Alexander's general in Greece; cf. v. ro. 4, ix. 29. I ff., 30. 3· 357

Xll. 13. ;3

TL\IAEt:S' CRITiCISM OF DE:\lOCHARES

AT)J.l,;Tp&os b q.a.AT)peus: the Peripatetic pl1ilosopher, appointed ab-

solute governor at Athens by Cassander, and stratcgos there from 317 to .307, when Poliorcetes took Athens and expelled him. See Jacoby, l (cf. Diod. xx. 45· 5, €mar~aas), but Diod. xviii. 74· 3 and xx. 45· 2 record that he was l1TL/LEArrn)s and this title (punned upon by Duris, FGH, 76 F IO, l1TE/LEAetTO 8J Kat Tij<; otpEw<;) was apparently his official one relative to Cassander and the Mace donian power, as laid down in the agreement. It is certain that for many years both before and after 3r8 Demetrius was also a.paT'f"Jy6;; (d. JG, ii2 • 2971, Syll. 319); but the only date for which this is actually attested is 308/7 (Polyaen. iv. 7· 6). That from the point oi view of the Athenian people at the time of his legislation (317 fl• 3r6/5) he bore the title of vo/LoOirT)> is cogently argued by S. DmY and A. H. Travis (Hesperia, 19-J-3, 144-65), examining IG, ii~. 12ot Syll. 318, a decree of the deme of Aixone in Demetrius' honour. On Demetrius' government generally see Ferguson, 38--9-1-; Pedech, ad loc., that the phrase used here is an ironical coinagt· of Demochares. em TOuTo&o; o-ep.vuveo-Oa.t KTA.: clearly Demochares was referring to some statement by Demetrius of Phalerum himself, probabl\ contained in his work of self-justification, entitled llEpi Tijs OEKaE-r{a;; (Diog. Laert. v. 8r FGH, 228 T r), or llEpi -rfj<; 1roA~-rdas (Strabo, ix. 398 = FGH, 228 T 3}. From§ 12 it appears that in some later work Demetrius replied to Demochares, without however mentioning tht, kind of accusations levelled by Timaeus (cf. von Scala, 153 n. 2, whose attempt to date these ripostes, however, outstrips HtL· evidence). 10. 1ToAAti. Ka.l Xuo-tnAws 1TWAeio-9a.&: cheap food and (see below) entertainments, panis et are the hall-mark of Demetriu< government at Athens; hence the comment of Strabo, ix. 398, or; j.L61'ov ou ~/;E 1T€pt Tijs 1roAmdas raUTTJS lJ<Ei:vos. \V ehrli. op. cit. 73 {on fg. 132) points out that both aspects of Demetriuc.' policy depended on peace (cf. Plut. Lye. 23. r FGH, 228 F 21 }. 11. KoxXla.s a.vTopO.-rws ~a.o{twv KTA.: for a possible reconstruction of this device see A. Rehm, Phil. 1937, 317-30, who thinks the motiw 358

TD.LU:.FS' CRITICIS:\I OF DEJ\iOCHARES

XII. r 3

Tl

power came from a treadmill concealed vri.thin the giant shelL This use of machinery for a toy is not unparalleled. For other examples of mechanically mobile creatures seeR. G. Austin,JRS, 1959, r7~r8, who mentions a bronze stag with feet that moved, the work of the sixthcentury statuary Canachus (Pliny, Nat. hist. xxxiv. 75), Archytas of Tarentum's flying dm·e, of wood (Aul. Gell. x. rz. 9). and a bronze eagle at Olympia which could fly into the air; also the wooden Hermes in the comic poet Plato (Kock, CAF, i, p. 654. fg. rl-l8) who announces 'EpfkfjS fiywyli, Llcuod,\av rpwvryv exwv, biAuJOS jjaflttwv (!.i'n-Ofk(!.TOS (,\~,\vOa. P reads (!.tr:·o/,W.Toc; here, and this may be right. 'TTpoT}yEi:To Ttjs '!TOj.L'TTTlS o.lm~: this is the procession which he gave during his arcbonship (309}8) at the Dionysia; cf. Duris in A then. xii. 542 E (= FGH, 76 Fro), iv 8~ ·rfi 1TOfk1Tfi TwvLlwvvatwv, ~v E1Tt:fL
The date of Demetrius' archonship is given by the Marmor Parium and Diod. xx. 27; he held the office only once (Diog. Laert. v. 77; cf. Dion. Hal. de Din. Such processions as this are a great feature of the Hellenistic courts; cf. the great procession of Ptolemy II (Callixeinus, FGH, 627 F 2 = Athen. v. r96 A-2o3 B) at Alexandria, or that of Antiochus EpiphanPs (xxx. zs. 2-r9). O'UV SE TOUTOLS bVOL OLE'!Ttp.'!TOVTO s,a. TOV 8EaTpou: O:voi:' P, av8pw170t Valesius, ovo• Toup. Jacoby (FGH, 75 F 4} accepts Valesius' expansion, and assumes a lacuna after O
XIL 13·

12

THIAEUS' CRITICISM OF DE:\fOCHARES

but not those made by Timaeus. The words ouT' aMos ovods are exaggeration, for P. could not have covered the whole literature of the time. Pedech, 96-97, indeed argues with some cogency that P.'s silence about Dcmochares' later career, when he creditably opposed Demetrius Poliorcetes and was forced into exile, shows that (a) Timaeus did not speak of Demochares' career after 307, and (b) P. knew of Demochares only from Timaeus and from Demetrius of Phalerum (above,§ 9 n.). 14. 2. TOtoi:JTov aTIJX1']fl-O.: 'any SUCh disgrace'; cf. 13. 5, aTv;:{as. 3. ,.£ 'lfa.lle~v ti~toc;;: for a specific illustration see Scipio's reaction to the Carthaginian breach of the treaty in 202 (xv. 4. ro: the comparison is drawn by PCdech). Tolho fla.A.Xov: the lacuna requires a verb: either B<wpoucnv (Hultsch: accepted by Pedech) or iv v
TaS'

a,

7TEJJT€ fJlf111ovs TOV CT!!')I"fpa<{>lws TOVTOI!, Ka8' 71'Ep~etA'f}• llya.OoKAEOVS: 1Tpd.£w;, oihc al' ns s~~eaiws a7To8£gai'1'0 FGJI.

s66 F x2.; (d)).

TIMAEUS'

CRITICIS~I

OF AGATHOCLES

XII. 15.7

ttoAoLov, TpLopxTJv: 'a jackdaw, a buzzard'; both words are used of a lecherous person. 3. TTJV yuva.I:K6. .f>TJaL ••• o!ITws 9pTJvE'i:v: presumably Theoxene (the daughter or stepdaughter of Ptolemy I Soter), Agathocles' third wife, whom, however, he sent back to Egypt witb his two sons to secure their safety just before he died (Justin. xxiii. 2. 1; Beloch, iv. 2. 179). Pedech takes the sense to be '\Vhy did I not keep you? And why did you not keep me?'; but P.'s sense of outrage can hardly be accounted for by the hypothesis that Timaeus should not have sunk to mentioning an exhibition of feminine grief, and the whole context suggests a more lewd interpretation-'in what form of sensuality did we not indulge?'-reminiscent of the epitaph of Sardanapallus (viii. ro. 4 n.). The story is probably apocryphal. b • .f>Euywv Tov Tpoxov KTA.: repeated in xv. 35· 2. Agathocles came with his father Carcinas from Thermae to Syracuse under Timoleon (Diod. xix. 2. 8) and that he >vas only r8 is perhaps confirmed by the story of his relations with Damas (Diod. xix. 3· r ; Beloch, iv. 2. 250 n. I). Ht: was born in 36o/s9. since he died at the age of 72 in 289/8 (Diod. xxi. r6. s. following Timaeus (FGH, 566 F 123), Callias (FGH, 564 F 6), and Antander, Agathocles' brother (FGH, s6s F I)). and his arrival in Syracuse was therefore in 342/r. For the story of his early years and his coming to Syracuse see Diod. xix. 2 ; on his work as a potter cf. Diod. xx. 63. 4; Caecilius of Caleacte, FGH, r83 F 2. Beloch arbrues convincingly (iv. r. r2t n. I) that Agathocles' family was of the upper class and that his father probably owned a ceramic business; his brother Antander held office as general under the oligarchy (Berve, S.-B. Miinchen, 1952 (5), :z:z). 7. Kupws ••• 'TniO'T]s Iu<EALa.s: after 304 Agathodes became master of most of eastern Sicily (7T(l.trrJs exaggerates) ; there is evidence for his acquisition at an earlier date of ::\!organtine (Diod. xix. 6. 2), Centuripa (Diod. xix. IOJ. 2), Abacaenum (Diod. xix. 6j. 6, no. 4), Galaria (Diod. xix. 104), Enna and Erbessus (Diod. xx. JI. 5), Tauromenium (Diod. xix. 102. 6), Camarina and Catana (Diod. xix. no. 3). See Beloch, iv. 1. 184; Roussel, Hist. grecque, iv. x. 394; Berve, S.-B. Munchen, r952 (s). 6x ff. pa.atAEus 11'po
XII.rs.8

TIMAEUS' CRITICISM OF AGATHOCLES

8. op' OOIC d.vayKTJ ••• :for a similar criticism of Timaeus' treatment of Agathocles see Diod. xxi. I7. wo1..1\0.s ••• po1ras tea.i 8uvO.J-1-€~1l: 'endowed vvith great gifts and capacity'. 9. Ta 1rpos Elml.lvov i]KovTa.: cf. ii. 6r. 6, where he calls this To Tfi<: l11Top£as t8,ov. See the criticism of Theopompus in viii. ro-Il ; but for P.'s inconsistency cf. 14. 4 n. 11. m;pi. TOU<; n1. yE"'(ov6Ta. KTA.: Schweighaeuser detected the lacuna. The general sense is clear and various supplements have been proposed: Kpv7TTovTas ~ nep< Ta -rovs Td oil yeyovoTa (with hiatus). Schweighaeuser; qnt..a;r<:xBws l;rtKplmTofdvovs ~ Tovs TaP-~ yEyovoTa., Hultsch; ~~~ that of Timaeus with the sense 'the part of the history therefor<' which was added by him for the gratification of his personal spik, I have passed over' (Shuckburgh); in this case the tense of i'TI'tfLETpouv affords some difficulty. But if -r6 imfLerpouv is that of P., variou.~ renderings are possible: (a) 'I have refrained from accumulating more details to render him odious out of consideration for him'; (b) 'I have refrained from developing this subject further because it is so odious' (an improbable meaning for a'IT'x8wr) ; (c) 'while refraining, in order to spare him, from giving full expression to my hostility to Timaeus' (Paton); (d) 'I have avoided excessive criticism which would tend to get Timaeus hated' (Pedech): (e) 'I have refrained from my views further because of his odiousness' (Gelzer. Gnomon, 1963, who argues that the odiousness is that of Timaeus cf. 8. r). Schweighaeuser prefers (b); but Pedech's version is the least unsatisfactory since xaptv in P. normally means 'with a view to'. However, one cannot exclude the possibility that the epitomator\ carelessness has resulted in corruption. Ta 5' otKeia. •.• ou 1ra.peAe(ljla.J-1-€V: Btittner-Wobst otl~< c/-,~e1)f.LEV OELV 'ITCLpaAt'ITEtV (cf. ii. 35· 4) for the last tWO sine~· this form of the aorist does not elsewhere appear so early. The mean ing is 'I have not omitted what was germane to my purpose'. Pedecll reads ;rapaAEtif;ofLEl•. For mhwv referring to the first person see tlw examples quoted by Mauersberger, s.v. a.~Twv, viz. i. 3· 5, iii. 1. 1. r. J, r. 7, 5· 9,iv. r. 9· 16. A legal dispute at Locri This extract from F (excerpta antiqua) concerns an incident which was evidently adduced in connexion with polemical discussio1;. 362

A LEGAL DISPUTE AT LOCRI

XII. r6. ro

almost certainly of Timaeus, though Ephorus cannot be completely excluded (cf. I7· 1 n.); for his discussion of Zaleucus' legislation d. FGH, 70 F 139 = Strabo, vi. :z6o. However, Timaeus disbelieved in Zaleucus' existence (FGH, 566 F 130), and P. had already taken issue on this, in connexion with the proverb AoKpoi Tds (J'l)JJO~Kas (12 a r-3 n.); hence it is likely that Timaeus is being attacked here too. Schweighaeuser's assertion that P. records the incident in this chapter from some previous writer rests on the assumption that r/>1Jat (S) should be read in §§ 9 and r2; but F has rf>a.at, and the anecdote appears to depend on an oral source. Pedech, ad loc., quotes sympathetically Wunderer's hypothesis (Phil. r8g4, 436-41) that the chapter is in fact a quotation from Ephorus; but in that case he should read rf>rwt in§§ 9 and u. 2. 1\iJ-~pa.~s Sua' trpoT€floV: sc. before the case came to court. tis TOv O.yp6v: 'into the country', where the slave was working. JA8ovTa is to be taken with rov ••• €npov, not with rov SoiiAov (so Shuckburgh). 3. ;\a.~ovT': sc. Tov ooi!Aov. 4. 'll"ap' oo Tifv iiywy~v O'U!J-~a.(ve\ yiv10a8a\: 'from whom the removal [of the person or thing) took place'. 6. Ti(l KOO"}l-otr6;\llh: probably the chief magistrate at Locri. The same title is found elsewhere· e.g. IG, xii. 8. 386, 459 (Thasos}; CIG, 2583 = IC i, Lyttos, 55 (Lyttus); IGR, i\·. 908 (Cibyra}; Th. Wiegand, Jfilet i, 7, index (title of d.pxmpuravts at Miletus). Several of these instances are from the Roman period, e.g. one from Thasos and those from Cib:yra and Lyttus; they may derive from Locri, but the Cretan KDafho. are relevant (cf. Oehler, RE, 'Kosmoi', cols. 14958; Willetts, index s.v.). See further Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', cols. 1346-7.

8. 001< dva~ TQUT11V ttup£av: SC. ay<.{ryl'}V: 'that is not abduction within the meaning of the law'. 9. Ka.nl. Tov Za.Aeuttou v6!l-ov: the custom here described is also mentioned by Demosthenes, xxiv. 139 ff.; cf. also Hierocles ap. Stob. iii. 39· 36 Hense; Bekker, A need. i, 220 s.v. f3poxo>. Diod. xii. 17 attributes it to Charondas. On the laws of Zaleucus, most of which rest on the unreliable evidence of Diod. xii. 20-21, see Dunbabin, 68-p. 10. n'dv Xt;\twv: the council of the Thousand, known in other states in Greece, including Opuntian Locris (cf. Tod, 24, 1. 39). There may have been a smaller committee for effective business, but a larger assembly is unlikely. Aristotle. Pol. vii (v). 7· 1307 a 38, implies that Locri had an &.p
CALLISTHE:\ES' ACCOU :-; T OF

17-22. Callislhenes' lack of skill in describing military mattets This extract, from the excerpta antiqua (F}, forms part of a criticism of Callisthenes and Ephorus (cf. zz. 7}. However, in 23 P. returns to Tirnaeus, so his discussion of these historians is evidently a digression, perhaps partly led up to by Timaeus' comments on Callisthencs (rz b 2-3); but the exact context is lost. Schweighaeuser suggests that P. may have been making the point that Timaeus criticized where criticism was unjustified, but left real faults unnoticed, as in the case of Callisthenes' battle descriptions. There is no reason, however, to think that P. rejected the criticisms of Callisthenes by Timaeus which he retails in 12 b 2-3. Even when all allowance is made for possible errors in copying and the manuscript tradition, this criticism of Ca]isthenes shows .P. at his worst. His points are almost all trivial or fallacious; and his mathematical calculations are marred by egregious errors of logical reasoning (cf. rg. 9 n.) and gross carelessness (cf. 21. 7 n.). Callisthenes could in fact produc<' quite adequate battle descriptions, for instance of Eurymedon (.Plut. Cim. r2-13), Tegyra (Plut. Pelop. r6--q), and Gaugamela {Plut. Alex. 32-33). See Beloch, iv. z . .355; Jacoby, RE, 'Kallisthenes', coL J7oo.

17. 1. 1'W\I 1'TJAlK01hWv nvlipwv: probably Ephorus and Callisthenes; cf. zz. 7· Ka.Ta.StO'II'LCM't:'i:oOm: so Dindorf for Suidas' Ka:ra/;unrta'1'EV~;a8a.t. Th~ sense appears to be 'to claim credence for oneself at the expense of someone else'. 2. Tfjc; tv KLALKLq. y.:voJ.fkvTJs .•• 'll'pos A.a.pELov: the battle of Tssus, fought in November 333· The other sources are Arrian, ii. 6-rz, Diod. xvii. 3z. 4-37. r ; Curt. iii. 7-r r ; Plut. Alex. zo. r-s; Tustin. xi. 9· r-ro; Strabo, xiv. 676. See Judeich in Kromayer-Veith, AS. iv. 354-ir (with earlier bibliography, p. 354); Schlachtenatlas, Gr. Abt. 6, 5 with commentary; for the topography, Janke, s-74· As .Pedech, ns, observes, the apologetic character of Callisthencs' account is shown by his narrow measurements for the battlefield (r7. 4, 21. 4), his exaggeration of the difficulties of the terrain (q. 5. zo. 4) and his attributing to Darius a reluctance to face Alexander (zz. z). ~>.ega.v8pov

i]8f} 8La.'!I'E'II'op.:Go0m: Sw.Trop£liw8a.t (FS) should be kept. with Pedech, though all previous editions accept Schweighaeuser's emendation. Alexander was indeed through the pass when he heard of Darius' position (r9. 4); but the passes may have been traversed simultaneously or Callisthenes may have thought them to have been. ,.a, O"TEVU Kat At:yo}Leva.s iv Tfj KLAudq. miAas: cf. 8. 3· This i;; one name for the pass between the sea and the mountains a litth· north of Alexandretta, the modern Pass of Merkes Su, perhaps

,.a,,.

364

THE BATTLE OF ISSUS

XIL 17. z

13. THE :11ARCHING BE!.'ORE ISSUS

(Based on Kromayer-Veith, Schtachtenattas, Griech. Abt. 6, 5) including the Pillar of Jonah pass adjoining it to the south; cf. Xen. A nab. i. 4· 4, m)Aat rf]s KLAtKlas Kat rf'js 2'vplas; Artemidorus in Strabo, xiv. 67o, 676. Arrian (ii. 6. I) calls it the Assyrian Gates or (Arr. ii. 5· 1) 'the Gates dividing the Cilician and Assyrian territories' (cf. Janke, 21-28). The Pass of Merkes Su is quite distinct from the Cilician Gates leading over Taurus (mod. Gtilek Boghaz; Janke, 97-III}, through which Alexander had already advanced to reach the Cilician Plain at Tarsus (Arr. ii. 4· 3). See Ruge, RE, KtAlKtat mAat, cols. 389--90; Treidler, RE, 1TV'Aat KtMKta.£, Suppl.-B. ix, cols. 1363-4; illustration in Janke, I 7. Tfl 8t0. Twv )\f1nv£8wv AEyof1evwv nuAwv: the more northerly of the two passes between Cilicia and Syria mentioned by Cicero, Jam. xv. 4· 4, and probably modern Toprak Kalessi. This Darius will have reached from Sochi (where Alex<J.nder believed him still to be) via the Arslan Boghaz, which contains the railway line between Islahije u.nd,Osmanije (see Schlachtenatlas, Gr. Abt. 6, s); cf. Arrian, ii. 7· I, .dapdos 'TO Kara r.is m5Aas ras AfLavucds KaAOVfLEVa<; WS i1T~ 'Iaaov

XII. 17.

2

CALLISTHENES' ACCOUNT OF

Curt. iii. 8, IJ, Amanicas Pylas. Darius' retreat will have followed the same route (Janke, 41-42). Strabo, xiv. 676, uses the same name, :41-'av!.Of:> m)Aat, to describe the Pass of Kara Kapu to the south-west of Toprak Kalessi, and in xvi. 751, for the Pass of Bailan south-east of Alexandretta, leading over into Syria. See Benzinger, RE, :41-'avlof:> 1T!l..\a•, cols. 1723-4; illustration in Janke, 3i; cf. 37-44· ~<<mipa.~ ... et<;; KV.~K(a.v : according to Arrian (ii. 7. r) he desccnderl to Issus, where he mutilated and murdered the wounded left there by Alexander. 3. 'IT'po6.yfw -rov :c\).€5a.v8pov ~'ll ~'IT'l. Iup(a.v: according to Arrian (ii. 6. 1-2) Alexander had learnt when at Mallus that Darius was across Mt. Amanus at Sochi, two days beyond the 'Assyrian Gates', i.e. probably the Pass of Merkes Su \\':ith the Pillar of Jonah. He marched with speed, passed through the Gates in two days and because of a storm had camped near Myriandrus (near Alexandretta: exact site unknown) when he received the news that Darius was in his rear {Arr. iL 6. z, 7· z). Miltner (Jahresh. 1933, 69-78) has argued that Alexander had no intention of crossing the Bailan Pass to Sochi, but meant to go south to seize the Syrian coast; but th€' ancient tradition makes it his object to force Darius to a battle, and this remains the most likely explanation of his movements. auv£yy,cra.v-ru -roi.'<;; a-rn
'ITpofjyf:;

366

THE BATTLE OF ISSl:S

XII. 17. 6-7

being the Jlinarus. For full discussion see Janke, 53-74; Klio, zg1o, r37 ff.; Judeich in Kromayer, ilS, iv. 368-71; Kromayer, HZ, rrz, 1914, 351-3; Ruge, RE, 'Pinaros', cols. r4o7-8. '· ou 1r~u:tw Twv Ti:TTapwv Ka.i 8iKa. aTa.O(wv: an esti;nate, and too narrow for a site on either the Deli Chai or the Payas; see preceding note. Janke (54) points out that the effect of a high mountain range (the Amanus reaches 6,ooo ft.) would be to induce underestimation of the width of the plain immediately beneath. This is a common phenomenon and may lie behind Callisthenes' figure here. 5. q,ipea&a.l ••• ivtKapaLov: i.e. at right angles to the hills and the eea; cf. i. 22. s. vi. 29. r, 30. 6. 'Kf»lyf'a.Ta. Twv vAeupG:Iv: 'with gaps in its banks' ; the lxp~yfLaTa.. are npparently the deep and precipitous beds of tributary streams which enter it (cf. 20, 4, where they are equated with Ko,J.wfLa..Ta.). O'II'DTOf'OU~ ••• Ka.t 5ua~aTous Aoq,ou~: cf. 22. 4; Arr. ii. 10. I, Tai<; &x6at<;, 7TOAAaxi) fill! &:rrOKprJfLVOt<; ovaa.t<;. Mrf>ov<; is Casaubon's correction of Ao{Jov<; FS. Callisthenes exaggerates (cf. 18. 12); the Mrj,ot are merely the river banks (cf. 22. 4, nw drf,pvv). 6. E'II"Et auvEyy(~oLEV ••• uTrouTpoq,Tj~ ••• &.va.xwpouvT£'>: 'when Alexander faced about and, retracing his steps, was approaching .. .';Alexander returned north from near Myriandrus (cf. § 3 n.) to meet Darius. 6-7. Darius' dispositions: cf. Arr. ii. S. s-8; Curt. iii. 9· r-6; the former gives Ptolemy, the latter's source is uncertain. Arrian and Curtius agree in the main. From right to left Darius' front consisted of (r) 3o,ooo cavalry under Nabarzanes (in the preliminary stages these were sent across the river to cover Persian preparations, together with 2o,ooo light-armed; these latter may be the 2o,ooo troops which Darius stationed on a hillside to the extreme left and almost in the rear of the Macedonian right); (2) 3o,ooo Greek mercenaries under Thymondas; (3) according to Arrian (ii. 8. 6) 6o,ooo Cardaces lvB~:v Ka.1 €v8J interpretation of Arrian (ii. 8. 6) that the Cardaces were on either side of the mercenaries, leaving Darius and his bodyguard of ,3,ooo horse (Curt. iii. 9· 4) in the middle (cf. Tarn, Alex. ii. r8o; Fuller, 158, with plan). The remaining troops were stationed behind the Greek mercenaries and the Persian phalanx ; though Curtius (iii. 9· 5) speaks as if Hyrcanian and Median cavalry and that of other peoples was placed on the wing. There were 6,ooo javelin-throwers and stingers in front.

is

XII. I7. 6-7

CALLISTHEKES' ACCOCNT OF H~SI.\NS

MACEDO,..lANS

I

6 7

8 9

Agri.anians

a CavY under :\aharzanes b Cardaces

Ma.::n Archers Comp;;nion Cav~ ~aeon ian l r Hur ..e

c

Archers

d

Greek !\{(·rceflarirs

I dl1C<:"f~

I!

Darnh :tnd Bod\- guard

l iypaspi,to. Phabnx CoenthPhaiJllX Pt·r,lj, ,_J;. PhJ:Ian\ (

tc .. ](•s

10 l'halanx ll l'halJ:liX 12 f'halanx l] (reran :\n·hen

14- THE BATTLE OF ISSUS

(From Fuller, The

Gen~>ralship

of Alexander the Great, 158).

According to Callisthenes Darius' front contained three elements. (1) cavalry, (z) mercenaries, (3) peltasts. The first two clearly

corre~

spond to the troops mentioned by Arrian and Curtius, and the peltast ~ must be Arrian's Cardaces (and Curtius' pedites barbari), though Arrian calls the Cardaces hoplites. On Cardaces see v. 79· I I n.; those of An tiochus may be different from those at Issus. We never hear again ol Cardaces in the Persian army, and Tarn (Alex. ii. r8o-r) accepts til<' evidence of Strabo, xv. 734, and makes them Persian ephebes. If that is so, Callisthenes may be right when he calls them 'peltasts' (so Tarn. Alex. ii. r8r; Fuller, rss). But this links with the view (which P., r8. I, combats fiercely and with some justice) that they were distinct from the Persian phalanx, which was stationed behind. Therefore it seem" more likely that Arrian (Ptolemy) is to be followed. He (Arr. ii. 8. (,) specifically calls the Card aces hoplites, and regards them as the Persian phalanx (Arr. ii. 8. 8, roiJ E1TL tf>O.A.ayyos rEray11-€vou {Jap{Japt~
THE BATTLE OF ISSuS

XII. rS. 3

The size of Darius' army cannot be ascertained owing to the exaggerated figures passed down. Plutarch (Alex. r8. 4) and Arrian (ii. 8. 8) reckon it at 6oo,ooo (though Arrian's €Myno implies some doubt); other figures are 4oo,ooo or more foot and roo,ooo horse (Iustin. xi. 9· r and Diod. xvii. 31. z), 3oo,ooo foot and roo,ooo horse (Oros. iii. r6. 6), 25o,ooo foot and 62,200 horse (Curt. iii. 2. 4-9). Tarn (Alex. i. 26 n. r) argues that Darius' army was no larger or even smaller than Alexander's; but Curtius, iii. 3· 28 and 7· 9, refers only to Darius' effective numbers (in a narrow space) and Curt. iii. ro. 2 conveys nothing about numbers at all. Arrian (ii. 8. 5-7) and Curtius (iii. 9· r-s) detail at least 143,ooo specified troops (3o,ooo Greek mercenaries, 3o,ooo cavalry, 6o,ooo Cardaces, 2o,ooo light-armed, and 3,ooo cavalry around Darius): and numbers on this scale could find a place on the ground available at the Deli Chai (Judeich in Kromayer, AS, iv. 355 ff.). Equally, they can have been exaggerated to the glory of Alexander, jusi as the totals certainly were. 7. exof.LEYous TOihwv Taus rreATaaAayyos: assuming that Darius' phalanx, which had been drawn up in the camp (q. 6), was distinct from the troops enumerated. This assumption is improbable (see preceding note), but it was apparently made by Callisthenes and is not simply a misunderstanding by P. of what Callisthenes wrote, since the description of the Cardaces as peltasts ties up with it. 2. TpLcrf.LupLoL ••• lrrrreis ••• , TpLcrf.LupLoL Se f1Lcr9oopoL: so too Arrian (ii. 8. s-6) and, for the mercenaries, Curtius (iii. 9· 2). The correspondence shows that these were the official Macedonian figures, not that they were necessarily true. P. himself appears to accept them (d.§ 8). 3. 'II'AELO'T0\1 •.. ~0.9os err' OKTW: 'at the most eight deep'. 'll'pos aAT)9LYTJY xpdav: 'in a regular engagement' (Shuck burgh); not, as Paton, 'to be really useful'. taov .•• Tois f.LETwrroLs: £aov {mapxHv Schweighaeuser for avvv7rapxnv FS; 'a space in the line equal to the front of a troop in length'. Pedech, ad loc., keeps avvv7rapxnv and assumes P. to be referring to the distance between the tips of triangular squadrons, which would, of course, be equivalent to the length of the base. But there is no evidence that this triangular formation, attested for the Macedonian cavalry (Asclepiod. 7· 3; Arr. Tact. r6. 6), was also used by the Persians, and P. specifically says that the space between the squadrons was intended for wheeling and mano:uvring. This gap is not elsewher.e attested, but corresponds to that between the maniples of a Roman army: cf. Veith, Heerwesen, 359· 814173

Bb

XII. 18.3

CALLISTHE:-JES' ACCOUKT OF

Ta.'Ls E1TI.
•

.ls

370

THE BATTLE OF ISSUS

XII. rg. r-2

Judeich, AS, iv. 363 n. 2). Once his phalanx was deployed, Darius recalled the cavalry sent forward across the river (I7. 6-7 n.) and posted a few of these on his left; but finding them useless for lack of space, he sent them round the rear to join the cavalry on his right (Arr. ii. 8. Io-u). Dittberner has suggested that Darius called on the mercenaries stationed on his right to come in closer to make room for these additional cavalry. Here again P.'s criticism is trivial. a.uTov ~ea.Ta lliaTtv tm6.pxovTa Tljv Tasw: cf. Arr. ii. 8. II, L1a.p.;:tos- T6 ~-tlaov Tfj> '1Taa'Y)s- 'Taf,;:ws- JrrEi'X"• Ka.8a'1TEP v6f.LoS" 'Toi:;; Ihpawv {3a.atAEva~ T£Tax8a~. Arrian quotes Xen. Anab. i. 8. n for the arrangement. 11. Tous chro ToO Seslou t
19. 1-2. Alexander's numbers. Callisthenes' figures for Alexander's army when he crossed to Asia in 334 are high, at 4o,ooo foot and 4,5oo horse. Compare Anaximenes (FGH, 72 F 29: 43,ooo foot and s.soo horse), Ptolemy (FGH, 138 F 4: 3o,ooo foot and s,ooo horse), Aristobulus (FGH, I39 F 4: 3o,ooo foot and 4,ooo horse)-these are all from Plut. Mor. 327 n-and the figures in Justin. xi. 6. 2 (32,ooo foot and 4,5oo horse); Diodorus, xvii. q. 4, gives 3o,ooo foot and 4,5oo horse (though the total of the individual sections adds up to J2,000 foot and s,IOO horse). See also Livy, ix. Ig. 5 (30,000 foot and 4,ooo horse) ; Frontinus, Strat. iv. 2. 4 (4o,ooo in all) ; Plut. Alex. 15. r (estimates vary between 3o,ooo foot with 4,ooo horse and 43,ooo foot with s.ooo horse); Arr. i. II. 3 (a little over 3o,ooo foot and over s,ooo horse). The discrepancy of over Io,ooo in the infantry and of r,soo in the cavalry figures has been variously explained, but no explanation is wholly satisfactory; see discussion in Beloch, iii. 2. 322 ff., Judeich, Klio, rgo8, 376 n. 2; Jacoby on FGH, 72 F 29, 138 F 4; Dittberner, Issos, 57; P. A. Brunt, ]HS, 1963, and tables on p. 46. Arrian's figure, based on Ptolemy, has the best chance of being accurate. As regards the reinforcements (s,ooo foot and 8oo horse) Arrian, i. 29. 4, records the arrival at Gordium in spring 333 of 3,ooo Macedonian foot and 300 cavalry along with 2oo Thessalian and rso Elean horse-a total of 3,ooo foot and 65o horse, compared with s,ooo foot and..Soo horse in Callisthenes. The discrepancy may be due to some contingent having fallen out of Arrian's account (so Beloch, iii. 2. 37I

Xll. rg. r-2 33r-2)~unless

CALLISTHEKES' ACCOUNT OF

Callisthenes' figure includes the vo:oyapm who had been sent back to Macedon, and now returned with the reinforc<· ments (Arr. i. 24. 2, 29. 4), which is improbable; cf. Parke, 197-8. Brunt, ]HS, r963, 36-37. 3. ~~ ns &~U..o& KTA.: 3,ooo foot and 300 horse is quite inadequate to cover the losses and garrisons left behind up to the time of Issn~. Recorded losses are negligible (at Granicus 85 horse and 30 foot Arr. i. 16. 4; lower figures from Aristobulus in Plut. Alex. r6. 1, slightly higher in I us tin. xi. 6. 12), though there will, of course, haw been some wastage from deaths, including those murdered b\ Darius at Issus (Arr. ii. 7. 1). But Arrian (i. 23. 6) records 3,ooo mercenary infantry and 200 horse left behind in Caria after t]w capture of Halicarnassus and r,soo men left in Phrygia the ne:-.1 spring to guard Celaenae (Arr. i. 29. 3); and troops were also left a1 ' the Hellespont, in Lydia (Arr. i. 17. 7), Lycia, and Cilicia. Even n some of these later joined Alexander, they must have amounted io many more than P. assumes (cf. Beloch, iii. 2. 332 .. 3). E'iTL TO 1TAf:lOV 'iTOLWV TTJV a1Touaia.v KTA.: 'making a liberal allowa!lCP for losses incurred in previous operations'; rather than Paton, 'a liberal allowance for those absent on special service' (which ignon·" yey£VTj{LEva<;). For YEYEVY){Llva<; xpela<; cf. i. 67. 12, TctTpa.K&O"fLOptoL 8taxtXLo>, <mwTa.KtaxLJuot 8' t,.rr,its): the lacuna \Va' observed by Casaubon (who, however, printed equitmn quattuor milia) and by Reiske. 4o,ooo+s.ooo-3,ooo 42,ooo foot; 4,sao +8oo-soo s,ooo horse. These figures are too large and the real ones can only be guessed at. Starting from 3o,ooo foot and 65o horse, Ptolemy's figures (cf. § 1-z n.), adding J,ooo foot and 65o horse (from Arr. 1. 29. 4). and allowing for losses and garrisons, Tarn (Alex. i. 2li\ makes Alexander's army at Issus between 2o,ooo and 24,000 infantn and 5,ooo cavalry; and others reach different figures (e.g. Rtistow Kocllly, 27,6oo; Delbrtick, 3o,ooo-4o,ooo; York von \Vartenburg. 35,ooo-4o,ooo; d. Janke, 65). 4. ~KO.TOY 6.1TEXDYTO. aTa.S{ous a'IT' cuhou: IOO stades I8·s km. Ar~ cording to Arrian (ii. 6. 2, 7· 2) Alexander heard of Darius' arrival i11 Cilicia while delayed by a storm at l\Iyriandrus. The site of this towo is not knovm, but it was apparently somewhere near modern .1\lexandretta; and r8·5 km. reckoned from here brings one rather tn the .Payas (21 km.) than the Deli Chai (31 km.); cf. Janke, Kliu. 19ro, 142. That the roo stades are to be calculated from the Pa~,. of Merkes Su (IJ. 2 n.), as Janke (63) suggests, seems improbable. This would involve either rejecting Arrian' s statement that Alexand('r had reached ~lyriandrus (for clearly he turned the moment the new. reached him) or else treating the roo stades as a recorded figure in dependent of the context in which J'. mentions it, for instance assum ing it to be the distance of Alexander's last halt before the batil(" 372

THE BATTLE OF ISst·s

XII.

20.

z

(Arr. ii. R. 2) from the battlefield (Judeich, AS. iv. 364 n. 1), which F. has misunderstood or misrepresented. \Vith this kind of assumption one can, of course, make anything fit, and the only safe conclusion is that Callisthenes' figure is wrong. The Pinarus, where Darius lay, must be the Deli Chai (above, q. 3 n.). Ta aTeva: the Pass of Merkes Su (Sarisaki), the Cilician Gates. 6. aJ-1<1 ... T~ n-pwTOV ets Tas eupuxwp[as £Kn-eaeiv: cf. Arr. ii. 8. 2, W<; 8£ 8tEXWPH Is 1TAa:ro;, QVE1TTV(1(1€V ad TO KEpa<; J, ,Pa.Aayya, UAA:>JV Kat aAA7JV TWV J1TAtTWV TatLV ?Tapaywv, Tfj f-tEV JJ, E1Tt TO opo<:, EV dpwupfj ~£ .11Tt TIJV 80..\aaaav KTA. 'mn-apefl~aAeiv Tljv TaAayya: 'to form the phalanx' ; Alexander brings his men from marching to fighting order: cf. xi. 23. 4 n. This manceuvre was begun 40 stades (i·4 km.) from the enemy (2o. 1). If Darius was on the Deli Chai, Alexander began to open out his army just north of the Kurudere (17. 3 n.). The Rabat Chai, which lies north of the Kurudere, would be no further hindrance to troops thus extended (Janke, 64). On Alexander's manceuvre see Kromayer Heerwesen, II3 n. 3· 7-9. F.'s criticism of Callis/henes' acwunt of Alexander's advance: given his data, P.'s calculations are accurate, but he makes the plain too narrow (q. 3 u.) and Alexander's army too large(§§ 1-2 n.). If Alexander had, say, 32,ooo foot and s.ooo horse, this, according to the calculations here and those for cavalry in r8. 3-4, would require: 2o stades = 3'i km. for infantry, and 6·zs stades = r·156 km. for horse: total, z6·25 stades = 4·856 km. The plain north of the Kurudere is 7 km. wide, an adequate space; and the surface of the land would permit an advance in this formation (Kromayer, Heerwesen, n3 n. 3), despite P.'s doubts (2o. 2 n.). Again, the criticism is tridal; P. assumes Callisthcnes' account of the march to be at fault, whereas it is the numbers and dimensions that are inaccurate. 7. ~KaaTou ... £~ m)Sas E'ITexovTos: cf. Asclep. 4· r, m/xn<: Tiaaapa<: (=6ft.); see on this Steinwender, Hermes, 1909, I79-9i; KromayerVeith, Heerwesen, 135-6. 9. avayKa'i:ov ~v E'LK011~ 11Ta8twv lmapxew: if a Stade holds t,6oo men, 20 stades holds 32,ooo. But P. believes the plain to be only 14 stades wide (r7. 4, 21. 4); hence it is not clear why (unless for ease of calculation) he states his argument in this way instead of saying that 14 stades would hold 22,400 men, leaving all the cavalry and nearly 2o,ooo infantry over; for this is what his figures imply, since there if no evidence nor suggestion that the plain south of the Deli Chai was precisely 20 stades wide.

20.2. flEl~OV aMyl]J-1<1 Suaxepes E'tt'IVOijam: for the difficulty of finding flat ground cf. xviii. 31. 7; but F.'s experience was mainly based on Greece and on the heavier phalanx of his own time. His statement is 373

XII. zo.

2

CALLISTHENES' ACCOUNT OF

hardly proof that he had visited the battlefield of Issus (so Pedecb, M ithode, 561). Callisthenes' account (like that of Arrian, ii. 8. 2--1) does not imply that Alexander advanced for 40 stades = i'4 kw. in full line of battle; the change over from line of march to line ol battle was carried out in stages, as described-first 32, then r6, and finally 8 deep; cf. Janke, Klio, 19ro, 148-sr. 3. TomuTTJV Ta~w Ka.i XP£Lav: 'the employment of such a formation'. 4. ~Kp~yfla.Ta Ka.Ta To 1r£8tov: cf. 17. 5, where, however, the referenn· is to tributaries of the Pinarus, not to the plain further south. Thos<· in which the Persians were caught in flight would lie to the north ol the Deli Chai. 01a.4>ea.pfjva.t A.€youcn .•. ~v TOL5 TotouTotc; KmAwfla.crt: Callisthenc~

only recorded this as a report (Myovat); our other sources do not make this the main cause of Persian losses. Arrian (ii. rr. 3) speaks of the cavalry being crowded together Kara a-nvas- doovs-. 6. Ot£crTafl€VT}5: so F; 8u;arpappiv1)> S is probably preferable, giving the sense 'thrown into confusion' (cf. ii. 30. 4) rather than 'driven back in various directions' (so Sdurw~.t: cf. x. 3· 6). See Pedech, ad lor. TTJV a.UTTJV £M£1a.v ciya.yEi:v: = E7mrapa.A.ayylav 11 T£Tpa4>a.AayyLav: this 'double or quadruple pha lanx formation' presumably means marching 16 or 32 deep, i.e. €mf>..A7JAov (d. ii. 66. 9 n.), not 1rapaAA7JAov (as in vi. 40. u). Th\' ~1Ti

formation suggested is double or quadruple (but not triple) for con· venience in converting to the extended phalanx. 8. ouo€ TOU'i L1T1TEi:5 1Tpo€eno: i.e. according to Callisthenes. ~~ 'Laou ••. TOL5 1TE~ol5: 'in line with the infantry'; the tense of 7Totd is awkward, and Hultsch's 7TponEL does not give an appropriatt· sense. Pedech reads Jt£aov 7Tom ro'is- 7T<,ois-; this is ingenious, though 7Taut has not great force. One should perhaps read Jg taov '1roin (de· spite the change of tense after 7TpoEfhro). 21. 2. ~1ri nTTa.paKOVTa. aTa.oiouc;: i.e. double the 20 stades of 19. q. but these 20 stades are an arbitrary figure (see ad loc.). 3. £L 8' oAwc; auv~amaav KQ.Ta TOV 1TOlT}T~V: i.e. if they closed up Stl as to occupy only 3ft. per man, by avvaa-maf-1-6> (or 1TVKvwuts-, cf. xviii. 30. 3: P.'s usage is inconsistent, cf. ii. ~- 9 n.). This 3ft. interval was usual in the phalanx during action. P. is thinking of the passag•· in Homer, Il. xiii. 131-3 = xvi. 215-17; see the note to xviii. 29. 1, (where P. quotes it in full) for its irrelevance to the hoplite phalam. 4. AEL1Tuv Twv O£KanTTapwv aTa8Lwv: cf. 17. 4, where, however, lw says ov 1rAdw rwv T€TTapwv Kat S£Ka araSlwv. 5. Lacuna: the sense must be more or less as indicated by Schweig haeuser: 'ex eisdem quattuordecim stadiis fere tria etiam stadi;l occupasse equitatum, cuius pars altera (Kai rovrov f-1-Epos- f-LEV n) a 374

THE BATTLE OF TSSUS

XII.

21.

7

marl, altera pars a dextro 1atere (TOVS (o') ~p.la~as brt TOU s~etofJ) erant locati'. But there may well be some phrase omitted between Oli\d.TT'[I and TDus ~p.lat:a:;, as Hultsch suggests. For Alexander's arrangement, with cavalry to left and right of his phalanx, cf. Arr. ii. 8. g, 9· 1 ff. Tots 'll'oAEj.LCots ••. To'Ls tta.TExoua~ Tas wa.pwptda.s: d. Arr. ii. S. 7, t1TITae.. S£ (sc. Darius) Kai To/ op<.t To/ tV aptaT~pif a,Pwv KaTa TO }1.\£gavOpov 0€etov is owp.vp{ous· Kat TOUTWJJ ~anv oi IWTU vd>TOU lylvovTO Tfjs :4A~gJ.vSpov a;paTtas; Curt. iii. 8. 27, 9· Io. These z,ooo, Arrian adds, were able to utiliz:e the spurs of this range to get to the rear of Alexander's right wing. The exact position of these troops is disputed. Janke (6o ff.; cf. Kl£o, rgro, 165-9) places them on a ridge which comes out to within zso m. of the Deli Chai; cf. Kromayer, HZ, 112, 1914, 350 ff. Judeich (AS, iv. 371) rejects this site and suggests another (Schlachtenatlas, Griech. Abt. 6, 7) further to the south-east. 6. '~~'pbs TOuTous Emttci.,.'l!'tov: cf. i. 27.4 n., v. 8z. 9 n. for this military term; it indicates troops stationed at an angle to the main line, in this case an angle backwards, d. Arrian, ii. 9· :2, Tovs lJ~ :4ypdivas . •• Kat TWV L1T1Tiwv nvas Kat TWV TOgOTWV its lmKap.Tri)v 7Tpos TO t5pos TO Kr:tTa vdrrov £TatEv, W(J'T£ KaTa TO S<'gtdv aVT

ToV a,Pwv T
ws

(Gabiene). Taos .,.vp(ous 1TE~ous: evidently the hypothetical 1o,ooo 'left over' if the infantry line extended for 20 stades; they have no independent existence (cf. 19. 9 n.). 'II'AoEtous ovTa.s Tijs ittEivou 1rpo8taEw'>: 'more than his plan required' (taking EK
epitomator may have omitted something here.

7. £tt TOuTwv: on the basis of these calculations. lv8etta. aTa.8£ous ..• 6.'1ToAet'ITt:a9a.t: 'eleven stadcs at the most are

left for the length of the phalanx'. This implies that three of the fourteen stades (§ 4) are occupied by cavalry. But P. allows only 8oo cavalry to a stade (18. 3 n.), yet P. and Callisthenes are agreed in giving Alexander s,ooo horse (19. 3 n.), which should occupy over 6 stades. One must therefore assume no space left between the l/.a.L (cf. 18. 4-5 n.), so that 8oo cavalry occupy only half a stade. Toos Tp~a.,.uplous ~ea.~ 8uJxlMous t'll'l Tpul.ttovTa. To ~6.9os: these 32,ooo are Alexander's force of 42,ooo (19. 3) less the Io,ooo which P. is igno,ring (§ 6 n.). At intervals of 3ft. (avv17am~<:oms), and arranged ,1o deep, 32 .ooo men would require a width of 3,2oo ft. (~j:"" X 3). ,375

XIL

21.

7

THE BATTLE OF ISSGS

Since a stade is 6oo ft., on this calculation Alexander's infantry would require, not II, but st stades. As Schweighaeuser detecte(i. P. is at fault in his calculations and is apparently allowing 6ft. per man, despite his use of aw11a'1w<6ms (cf. ii. 69. 9 n.). That he in tended to do this, however, is scarcely credible, for it makes nonsens(· of his criticism of Callisthenes. 8. d~ oKTW Tnayp.Evwv: cf. 19. 6. 9. To yap O.MvaTov KTX.: d. vi. 2. 11, where P. remarks that the im possible is wholly false and admits of no defence. a(m)Oev Efxet TT,v 'TI"iunv: 'forthwith convinces us that it must be so·. i.e. impossible; the phrasing is awk\vard, but TT{a-n<; means 'proof ol error' as in 20. 3 (as Hultsch points out). 10. u'T!"o9wu': sc. writers; but he means Callisthenes. 22. 1. 'TI"QVTQ 'TI"X~v TEXews oXLywv: an illogical phrase combining tlw ideas 'to tell all' and 'to tell more than a Yery few'. 2. uO"Tepov S£ fLE-ravo110'a.t: Callisthenes accepts a version discredit able to Darius. 3. 'TI"WS 8' E'TI"EYVWO'QV aXXTjXous KTX.: 'but how each learnt where tlw other etc.'; not, with Paton, 'how they intimated to each other . .P.'s criticism is again petty, at least respecting Darius, for, as Arria11 (ii. 8. n) points out, it was \vell known since Xenophon (A nab. i. l)_ 21) that the Great King normally took up position in the centn'. Alexander in fact led his right as at Granicus (Arr. i. I4· r, ii. ro. 3), but Darius had perhaps not yet sufficient information to anticipat<· this. Alexander no doubt calculated on folding up the opposing lefi and then turning to attack Darius, who may indeed have relishr< I a direct encounter-he was no coward-lJUt not whr·n Alexander \Va·. advancing fresh from
TIMAEUS' CRITICISM OF OTHER WRITERS

XII. 23. 4

23. Timaeus' criticism of other writers This chapter rounds off the section of the book in which P. discusses Timaeus' treatment of other historians (cf. § 8). 23. 1. 11'Ad0'711Y ••• KaTaSpoflTJY: not unnaturally, for Ephorus was especially concerned with the west (FGII, 70 F 129~41), Sicily, Italy, Spain, and north Africa (cf. Pedech, ad loc.). 2. ots aihos evoxos €crn: cf. I2 b I. The charge against Timaeus is made in reference to his criticism of Ephorus, but supported by comparing his attack on Callisthenes for flattering Alexander (cf. 12 b 2) with his own glorification of Timoleon (§§ 4-6)-a theme which is in turn twisted to buttress up a little self-glorification by P. himself (§ 7). TOiauTas n1To!f>acrEtS: the precise nature of Timaeus' abuse of Ephorus is not known, but its character may be guessed from the kind of things he said against Callisthenes (rz b 2), Demochares (r3~r4), and Agathocles (rs). P.'s remarks suggest something more than the accusation of falsehood mentioned by loscphus (Ap. i. 16 = FGH, 70 T 30), •.. Ttva TP07TO~ "E
3. KaAAicr9i:v11v •.. EtKoTws KOAacr6eVTa J-LnaA.A.u~at: for corrupting the mind of Alexander and attempting to deify him (r2 b 2 n.). According to Arrian (iv. ro. 2), Callisthenes claimed that ToiJ O"{ov T~v fLETova{av )l>..,gav8p~ ovK

Jg c1iv

if;eu8eTaL avrJpTfja8at, di\i\' Jg.;veyKTJ €, av8pdmovs. Tarn

c1i~· iiv

'OAvfLmds !mf:p yEvEaEwS' auTov mhos {nr£p }!i\.;gav8pou gvyypr:lif;as

(Alex. ii. 358) suggests that by his flattery he hoped to persuade Alexander to rebuild Olynthus, his native city, which, according to Plut. Alex. 53· r (= FGII, 124 T 7), he alleged to be his aim. P. approves of Callisthenes' execution, but mainly to concede Timaeus' point (12 b 2, OLKalws- •• • TETwx.!vaL To.v~;O'T(nwv 8£wv: 1TotE i: is Valesi us' suggestion for 1rol P; but Suidas' 7TOLEtv (i.e. after JpouA.~87J) gives a good sense and is read by .PCdech. On Tirnoleon of Corinth see 4 a 2 n. Our sources for his career all derive from Tirnaeus' flattering version; cf. Stier, RE, 'Timoleon', col. 1277; Westlake, CQ, 1938, 68 and 72· Marcellinus (Vit. Thuc. 27 FGH, s66 T IJ) asserts that Tim==teus praised Timoleon immoderately because he had not overthrown the fLOvapx[a of his father Andromachus at Taurornenium; and certainly Andromachus had supported Timoleon and let him use Tauromenium as a base (Plut. Timol. ro. 4-5 = FGH, 566 T 3 b). According to Plutarch (Timol. 36. r) Timaeus stated that, apart from Timoleon's munler uf his brother Timophanes (an act of tyrannicide 377

XII. 23.4

TIMAEUS'

CRITICIS~1

OF OTHER WRITERS

perpetrated on principle), otioe'v ~unv tJj /L~ roD l:orpoKMov,; .. . Em;, rts rJL€por; TOVOt' gwr]if;o.ro;" His praise of Timoleon was famous: Cicero (jam. v. r2. 7) asks L. Lucceius to compose a monograph on his own deeds, in which case 'ingenium mihi ... suppeditatum fuerit tuum, sicut Timoleonti a Timaeo aut ab Herodoto Thernistocli'. Sintenis (Phil. r847, 291-2), followed independently by Castiglioni (228-9), proposed ~pdJuw for (h:wv (cf. § 7), and Naber (Mnem. 1857. 233) B<wv Tro.lilwv; but lmala.v'; against this is the change in sense of ypaJL/L~ from 'a board division' to 'a line'. On the other hand '"o8La.lav would give a better sense to rpo1rov Twa, since it would not be used literally (cf. 24. 6, zS a w). 11"pos To J.LEy~:8oo; TTJS otKoUJ.LEV"I"JS: the contrast is not, as Wunderer (iii. 29) suggests, with the covering of the vvorld on the gaming-board, but with the distance Alexander covered and incidentally (see next note) with the area covered in P.'s own history. P. manages to hint that the difference between Alexander and Timoleon is similar to that between himself and the stay-at-home Timacus. •LS :Iupo.KovO"a.s: cf. 4 a 2 n. ; the date was 344· 7. Ka.e.l.mp ~v b€u~n+~: 'as if in a saucer'; perhaps proverbial (cf. von Scala, 283). 378

TIMAElTS' CRITICIS),I OF OTHER 'WRITERS

XII. 24.

I

u-rr~p '1Ta.A.£as !J.OYOY Ka.l ItK£A(as: Suidas ends his excerpt of the present passage with the words €ypm/J< 1T iJ1rep Tfj> olKovi-Lb"1"J> ••• 1T<'1TOt7]j.LEl'Dt<; Tas <1rprtf;;u;. 8. -mpl ..• J\puno-r.tA.oos Ka.l0Eo<j>pao--roo Ka.t Ka.XA.to-9€vous: naturally linked together. See s-r6 n. (cf. II. 5 n.) for Aristotle and Thcophrastus; r 2 b r-3 for Callisthenes. 'E<j>opou Ka.l ATJtJ.oxapous: cf. 4 a 3-6 (Ephorus), r3-r4 (Demochares). -rous l!.<j>LAO'T~!J.WS rrErrHatJ..tYoos &.A.TJ9£uuv: 'those who believe him to be unprejudiced and truthful', despite the word order d.cptAoT{/1-w'> goes better with dA7]8<JJEtY (so Schweighaeuser, Shuck burgh, Mauersberger, alii) than ;v:ith <1TE1TE ('through lack of spirit', Reiske, Paton, Pedech).

24-28 a. Timaeus' methods and the

q~talities

of the historian

Despite repetition and overlapping both here and in relation to earlier sections, this part of the work shows three divisions: (a) Timaeus' errors and lies (24-25 c), (b) Timaeus' political and military inexperience (25 d-26 d), (c) the cause of Timaeus' faults and the qualities of the good historian (27-28 a).

See the analysis of Pedech, pp. xxiii-xxYii. 24. 1. m:pL -r~s a.tpeo-£ws T LtJ.a.(ou: 'on the character of Timaeus' ; cf. § 4· Timaeus is to be judged by the principles he propounds. 'To us 'ITOLTJTas Ka.i auyypa.<j>ea.,: d. 25. 4 n. For Timaeus' use and interpretation of poets as well as historians cf. FGJI, 566 F 141-3. The present passage is FGJJ, s66 F I52. In an interesting discussion Pedech, ad Joe., points out that the kind of analysis here attributed to "!'imaeus contains the germs of a fruitful development, and he compares the interest in 'character' and 'biography' which appears in the Hellenistic period, exemplified by the works of Theophrastus and Ariston of Ceos on the one hand and Aristoxenus and Phaeneas of Eresus on the other; he also compares Timaeus' approach with the similar analysis of poems of Anacreon and Pindar by Chamaeleon 379

TOL\EUS' :\IETHODS:

XIL 24- r

of Heraclea. There is some truth in this, even though Timaeus' approach is somewhat crude. 8ul. Twv O'II"Epavw 'II"Aeovacrf1WV: 'by excessive repetitions'. 2. Tov "'I"OlTJTl\v: Homer, as usually in P. (d. iv. 45· 6, ix. 2r. r3, etc.). et< ToO tho.lTpeuew ••• yo.crTp(f1«pyov 'l!"apEfl.tf.o.lveLv: for the sentiment cf. Hor. Epist. i. 19. 6, 'laudibus arguitur uini uinosus Homerus'. oo/o,pniovTa. ••• ev TOLS cruyyp6.f1f10.0'lV: 'by frequently describing rich food in his writings': d¢~ap-ru€tv is 'to season food'. oo/otf.6.yov ••• KO.L Xlxvov: d. Athen. viii. 342 c, TtfLaLOS ... llpwTO-r.O. 'Y) Tov rjn>..6aolj>ov otjJOij>ayov 'Y)al y•yovivm. Theocritus of Chios had alSO referred to his ya<:npOS, , • aVOfLOV lj>umv (cf. 8. 4 0.). 3. Lacuna: the exact wording is lost but Buttner-Wobst's supplement gives the probable sense: TOV av-rov rp01TOl' lmaivw8m r~v if>uaw\ roD Ll wvualou -roiJ 'TUpa·wou, k'AtvOICO(]fLOVV'TOS ~ea1 TUS 'TWV u,Paa!LaKO.t 1TOL1Ct>..las .J~epya'OfLEl'OU flUV€XiiJS. (d.M') anfy~e1j TrOLELaOat StM'Y).jlw (Tr€pt Tt!Laiou) Kal &vaap•crrda8at (-roV"T~ was, however,

i6tOTI)'T'US

1"WV

-r~v d~e6..\ou8ov

contradicted: d. Nepos, de reg. 2. 2, 'id, quod in tyranno non facile reperitur, minime libidinosus, non luxuriosus, non auarus'; Cic. TD, v. 57, 'de hoc homine a bonis auctoribus sic scriptum accepimus, summam fuisse eius in uictu temperantiam'; [Arist.] Oec. i. 6. 1344 b 34; Plut. .M or. r76 A, 782 c. 792 c; Theophr. fg. 128 Wimmer. This alternative tradition probably goes back to Philistus and Ephorus (Jacoby on FGH, 556 F 40). That the outward grandeur of Dionysius' robes and court practice deliberately emulated that of eastern absolutism as a piece of statecraft is argued by A. Alfoldi, 'Gewaltherrscher und Theaterkonig', in Late Classical attd lviediae;;al Studies in honour of A. M. Friend Jr. (Princeton, 1955), 15 ff.; d. Stroheker, I6o, q6. 5. ~vurrv(wv t
Kat

'

.f

UKOUOVTES

'l

OUK

)

I

aKOUOVO~.

25. 1-5. Phalaris' bull: on Phalaris, the tyrant of Acragas (Agrigentum}, see "Vii. 7· 2 n., ix. 27. 7 n. The bull, devised by Perilaus, in which Phalaris' enemies are said to have been roasted alive, was probably copied from the brazen bulls on the top of 1\ft. Atabyrum 380

PHA LARIS' BULL

XII. 25. I-5

in Rhodes, which lowed when disaster threatened the city (Timaeus in schol. on Pindar, Ol. vii. I6o c: <:lcrt 8£ IWL f36<s xaAKot lrrt Ttfl opH -rii> 'P6oov, ot 6-rav p.IAA'[J n -rfi 7TOAH ylv<:cr8at KaKov p.vKwv-rat = FGH, 566 F 39 (b) ; Dunbabin, 320; Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 34 n. 3) ; see above, ix. 27. 7 n. The history of Phalaris' bull is obscure and the evidence on what Timaeus said about it is contradictory. According FGH, 566 F 28 (c)), he stated to a scholiast on Pindar, Pyth. i. r85 that the people of Agrigentum sank it in the sea after Phalaris' death, and that a bull exhibited at Agrigentum in his o•vn time represented the River Gcla. Both P. (§ 3) and Diodorus (xiii. 90. 4) are agreed that a bull was taken from Agrigentum to Carthage, and Diodorus this was done by Himilco after he captured the town in 4o6/s; P. date is vaguer. P. believes this bull to have been that of l'halaris, since it had a door at the joint of its shoulder-blades, through which victims could be let down ; accordingly he attacks Timaeus (§§ 4-5) for asserting (a) that the bull at Carthage was not from Agrigentum, and (b) that there had not been such a bull at Agrigentum. But there is no reason to question the scholiast's statement that Timaeus said that Phalaris' bull was thrown into the sea, and if that is so, P.'s second accusation, as it stands, is false. Perhaps then P. misunderstood Timaeus, who really said that there had been no such bull (i.e. no bull of Phalaris) at Agrigentum at the time when Himilco was said to have removed it (Lenschau, RE, 'Phalaris', col. I6So). Such a statement would not, of course, exclude the existence at Agrigentum of a bull representing the River Gela. (Pedech has an alternative solution. He argues that in § 4 the words iv -rfi 1Tpo£
XII. 25.

I

5

TIMAEUS' METHODS:

P. realizes that this point has to be established, and seeks to establish it by the argument that the bull had a trapdoor in the shoulders. The present extract from P. contains no reference to Scipio's restoration of the bull; and in CR, I945. 39-42, I argued that this was because P. composed this book before I So, and so before the sack of Carthage disclosed the bulL I am now inclined to accept Jacoby's view (on FGH, 566 F 28) that P.'s confident description of the trapdoor must rest on autopsy, and so be later than I46. The absence of any reference to Scipio's generous gesture remains a difficulty; but perhaps it was mentioned in an extension of the fragment which has not survived. It will, of course, have been related also in its proper place in xxxviii. If this view is right, the discussion of the bull could be an insertion in a book written before ISO (or 146) (cf. iii. 1-5 n.) ; or more probably the bulk of xii was composed after that date (see above, p. 317). Whatever the original purpose and significance of Phalaris' bull, Timaeus' statement that it was thrown into the sea (above) appears acceptable. Whether the bull discovered by Scipio (with a trapdoor in its shoulders) was the bull sent to Carthage from Agrigentum by Himilco, it is impossible to say. Nor is it certain whether P., like Diodorus, dated the sending of this bull from Agrigentum to Carthage in 4o6/s; he says merely 'during the Carthaginian domination', and it would be consistent with this statement if the bull >Vhich Timaeus knew of in Agrigentum and believed to represent the River Gela was transferred to Carthage at some date before the First Punic War. On the other hand, the original capture of the city was the most likely date for the removal of such an antiquity to Carthage. The trapdoor seen by P. certainly suggests either Phalaris' bull or some· thing intended to be taken for it; and Freeman (History of Sicily, ii. 463) thinks that it had been manufactured by the Carthaginians to show to visitors. P.'s words (§ 3) may imply that someone in antiquity had made this allegation, perhaps Timaeus, who said that the bull at Carthage was not from Agrigentum (§ 4). It is not impossible; but after 146 at any rate Scipio's prestige (and by implication that of P.) was involved in maintaining the genuineness of the bull brought from Carthage, since it had been sent back with moral exhortations to Agrigentum. Neither P.'s argument nor that of Diodorus is logically impeccable (though P.'s is stronger), and Timaeus comes out of the attack with his reputation undamaged. See for discussion (besides Richard Bentley's famous Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris (London, 1699), sn-12), Freeman, History of Sicily, ii. ; Jacoby, commentary on FGH, 566 F z8. Walbank, CR, 1945, 39-42 (with bibliography) ; Brown, 54-57; PMech, ad loc. On the relationship of Diodl)rus' account to P.'s see \Valbank, art. cit.; I am not convinced 38l

PHALARIS' BULL

XII. 25. 6

by the argument of R. Lauritano, KQKAAOE, 1956, ro-n, that both go back to Silenus of Caleacte. 2. ~K Tou KaTaaKeuaufla.Tos: 'from the way it was made'. 3. Ka.Tci n;v ~1TLKpaTeLa.v Ka.pxTJoov1wv: this could include any date within the period from 4o6/s to the First Punic War; see above, §§ 1-5 n. SL' T]v tv Ka.pxTJOOVL KaTEuKeuO.uSTJ ToLoi:iTos Ta.upos: the implication is that someone, probably Timaeus, had said that the bull at Carthage--its existence was evidently well known-was a forgery; see above, §§ r-s n. 4, 'Ta<; a1TocjlaaH<; 'TWV 1TOLTJ'T(;w KaL auyypacjlewv: the grouping together of poets and historians is perhaps taken from Timaeus (as in 24. 1). Phalaris' bull was a popular theme in poetry and history alike: early references are Pindar, Pyth. i. 185, Heracleid. Pont., fg. 37 (FHG ii. 223) and Callimachus, fgs. 25, u9, and 149 Schn. = 45-47 Pf. Timaeus could, of course, only refute these stories by denying the existence of Phalaris' bull; clearly therefore P. believes him to have done this (cf. §§. 1-5 n.). fl,;T• dva.L ••• ~~ :A.Kpaya.vToc; fl,;Te yeyoveva.L: probably a slight misrepresentation of what Timaeus really said; see §§ 1-5 n. ~v Tfi 1TpoELPTJflEvU m)AeL: Agrigentum; against Pedech's view that Carthage is meant see §§ r-s n. 5. 1roAAous ••. 8La.Te9ELTa.L Aoyous: this long discussion in Timaeus was probably introduced in connexion with his account of the capture of Agrigentum by Himilco in 4o6/s. and so in book xv of his Histories (Diog. Laert. viii. 51 ; Diod. xiii. 83). Ka.Ta Tils TLfLa.1ou: sc. alpiu£w> (unless this should be inserted with Pedech). Evidently a good deal is missing, however, and it is not even certain that the present criticism links with the discussion of Phalaris' bull. TL ••• ovoj..La Kai pfjfLa.: 'what language'; cf. 7. 5, 7riiv pijp.a Kal 11auav tf>wv..Jv. Pedech 'quel nom et quel verbe' is perhaps too explicit. 'II'UVTa. ycip t'II'L8exea9a.L ••• To yevos: 'for to me it seems to merit the bitterest expressions of their kind'. The words nl y.fvos- seem to go more naturally with Ta mKp6raTa and are so taken by Paton and Mauersberger (s.v. y.fvos-); but Schweighaeuser and Shuckburgh make Td y.fvos the subject of 8oK£i:, translating 'Timaei ratio, institutum quo ille usus est' (sc. iKElvou) or 'a man of his kind'. Schweighaeuser evidently felt the harshness of this, for in his Lex. Polyb., s. v. y.fvos-, he inadvertently printed Ta 7rtKpoTaTa ov6p.a.Ta l!mSEx€T(U TOVTO 'Td Y£VOS". 6. acjlLMuo.J.oc; •.• Kal .•• cl.vaywyos: cf. xxxvi. IS. 5 (of Prusias): fTaL8das 8i Kat
XII. 25. 6

TIMAEUS

0~

TIMOLEON

example quoted suggests that he is thinking of practical knowledge, viz. theory of geography rather than anything normally included in philosophy. See VoL I, p. 2 n. 9· 7. ~v Tfj ILL~ Kat ElKocn"fi ~u~Atot: this would imply that Timaeus dealt with Timoleon's career (344/3-337 /6} in books xxi-xxii (cf. 26 a r). Against this is (a) the fact that Athen. vi. zso A-D ( = FGH, 566 F 32) assigns events of the younger Dionysius' reign to book x.xii, which can hardly have contained these if the account of Timoleon was in xxi; (b) the fact~stressed by Jacoby, FGH, iii b, p. 545~that two books is very little for Timoleon's career, especially if this means that books xxili-xxxiii were all devoted to the two decades from his retirement to the rise of Agathocles (337 /6-Jlj /r6). Moreover, according to Athen. xi. 47I F (FGH, 566 F 33), book xxviii was still concerned with Timoleon. Jacoby therefore suggests {and his view is generally shared) that the excerptor has made a mistake (De Sanctis, Storiografia siceliota, 51, suggests less convincingly that the error is P.'s) and that Timoleon's career occupied books xxiii-xxviii, leaving xxix-xxxiii for the period down to Agatlwcles. Admittedly this theory has to contend with 26 a 1, where it is stated that Timoleon's speech belongs to the same book as events attributed (in 25 k 3) to book xxi: hence one must assume a similar scribe's error in 25 k 3· Since, however, the reading in this passage (q.v.) must certainly be wrong for quit€ independent reasons, this seems no bar to Jacoby's theory, which is therefore to be accepted. KcJ.Ta n]v Tou T~!LoA€oVTos 1TapaKATJow: on Timoleon cf. 4 a 2 n., 23. 4 n. Diodorus records two speeches made to his troops, one before they marched out against the Carthaginians (Diod. xvi. 78. 2) and another a little later (Diod. xvi. 79· 2, cf. FGH, F n8}; if that here referred to is the one discussed in 26 a I, it is the second of the t\vo mentioned by Diodorus (cf. 26 a I n.). Tfjs yfis TTJS imo T4i ~rJ>, Kal -rii• Jl~V 11afa.:;, Tfjs S' EupW11'1JS' Ka.i\ovp..fvTJ> •.• In both passages Koap.o-; means 'the heavens' (d. ix. 15. 6, rs. 12}; but whereas for rhetorical purposes !socrates adopts the old division of the earth into two continents, Europe and Asia, Timaeus makes Timoleon follow th(• more familiar triple division (d. iii. 37. 2·8 n.). Since the content and form of expression are both quite normal (Paton's suggestion that P. took exception to the phrase Li7To 'Ttf Koap. is refuted by the lsocratean parallel), the point of P.'s criticism is obscure. Pedech follows Valesius in thinking that P. is criticizing Timaeus' division of the whole earth, not merely the oiKovp.lv1J, into three con· tinents; but if this is a loose way of writing it is common, and found in !socrates (above), Onesicritus (FGH, 134 F 6 Arr. bid. 3· 6), Pliny (Nat. kist. iii. 3, 'terrarurn orb is universus in tres diuiditur J84

TIMAEUS

0~

TIMOLEO!\

XII. 25 a 5

partes'), and other writers. Pedech argues that the use of d(.Ja.r}s 'ignorant' in § 9 would support this view; but this is not certain, since the sentence breaks off short and does not make clear wherein the ignorance consists. The missing words may have meant 'so ignorant ... as to imagine that a soldier addressing troops would use such an expression'; and indeed Laqueur, RE, 'Timaios', col. I08o, suggests very plausibly that P. is ridiculing the introduction of such a piece of pedantry into a military harangue, a view supported by the argument of 25 a-b and the criticism of other speeches in 25 k, 26, 26 a, and 26 b. 8. oux ofov Ti11mov: \Vho composed the speech. \Vunderer's proposal (i. 9B n. 2) to read Ttf.WMoVTa. was anticipated by Reiske, but is superfluous. On Margites cf. 4 a 5 n. 25 a 1. EK T(;'lV 'lra.pOLf1LI';)v: probably, as Wunderer (i. s) suggests, a marginal note that has crept into the text : with cf>aa{ it is superfluous and even untranslatable. O"Ta.Aa.y11ov £va. .•• t:LS To yvwvcu To '!riiv £yxu11a.: cf. Corpus paroem. graec. ii. 644. That this piece of popular observation conceals Stoic doctrine (so von Scala, 283) seem improbable. 3. Toos cjlLAoTLf1oupov OLa.KELf1EVous:: cf. ix. 37· I: 'those who are disposed to be captious'. Orelli's cf>t.Aonf:Laton:pov is ingenious but unnecessary. P. refers, of course, to over-zealous champions of Timaeus, but no particular person is singled out. Kat f1EAET11';: so Hultsch and Biittner-Wobst for Kat f:La.\1\ov M; but f:La.\1\ov can have the sense of f:La./..taTa in P. (cf. v. 55· 8, quoted by Schweighaeuser, s.v. f:LaAtiOv), and the MS. reading should be kept with Pedech. Tas s111111 yop1a.s Ka.l Tas 1l'a.pa.KATJO'ELc;, £n S€ Toos 11'pEO'~euTLKous A6youc;: cf. 25 i J, Ut!f:LfJouAEUTtKi:JV •.. 1TapaKAT)TtKf7JV ..• TrpwfJwnKWV; Diod. xx. r. 2, Ka{Tot 'YE Tovs JmoE{Kvua8at fJoullof:Ltlvous Aoyou oJvaf:LLV l~w·n KaT' io[av OT)f:LT)Yoplas Kai TrpwfJwnKovs Aoyous-, ETt SJ lyKdJf:Lta Kal o/Joyous- Kat Taillla Td Totaih-a awTaTTw8at. See also Cic. or. 66 ; Dion. Hal. ep. ad Pomp. 3· 20, 5· 6; Ant. vii. 66. 3· OT)f:LTJ'Yopla.t, which P. claims to record frequently (xxxvi. r. 3), include not only harangues before popular assemblies but also speeches before councils; TrapaKA~aEtS' are in the main exhortations by generals to soldiers; and ,\oyot 1rpwfJEUTtKo{ are the speeches of ambassadors. But the distinction

is rather rhetorical (for instance Critolaus' speech to the Achaeans in xxxviii. I2-I3 has many elements of a mxpcl.KIIT)u•s-), and the words Kai. uu/J..~fJOTJV miv n1 TotovTo ytlvos are perhaps an indication that it is not to be pressed. Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (I)', cols. 1525-7. analyses P.'s own speeches under these three headings; see also Avenarius, ISO·~

5. Tn P116£vTa. ••• ouS' ws 814173

~ppfJ&"l

KnT'

cc

&.A-TJ6€~a.v:

'what was said, nor

XlL 25 a 5

TIMAEUS' METHODS:

the real sense of what was said' (i.e. neither a transcript nor an accurate resume of the actual speech) rather than 'what was said, nor the form in which it was actually said' (so \Velzhofer, jahrb. 188o, 54r); cf. Walbank, JRS, 1963, 10. 1r6.vTas ••• To(Js pfJOevTas Myous: 'all these speeches', i.e. all the speeches according to the historian's version, not the real speeches, which P. insists were not recorded {ov ... Ta pTJ(Uv-ra y€yparp€v •.. ouK l~~'YTJOW TWV KaT' G.>..~6€Lav ElpTJfi-Evwv); P. does not express the distinction very clearly. Ta 'll'apE'Il'OfLeva Toi:s '11'payfLacnv: cf. 28 a g. For the same criticism applied to Phylarchus see ii. 56. 10 n. ; as in iii. 32. 6 'Ta 1Tapmofi-n'a are the 'concomitant details'. As in tragedy they are used to produce lvapyEta and an emotional effect in the reader; d. Dion. Hal. v. 56. 1 : xi. 1. 3-4; Scheller, 59: Avenarius, 133. ws liv et Tt<; ~v s~aTp~~n 1rpos U'l1'69eow emxupO~Tj: 'as if one were exeron a set theme in the schools'. A lacuna is generally assumed after lmxe!polTJ (Ghelen, <Mym), Biittner-\Vobst, ..oyovs')); but lmxEtp€'iv in the sense 'attempt to prove, argue dialectically', is found in Plato and Aristotle, and may be used absolutely here (cf. JmxE'P~fi-ara and lmxE'p~crH>, 'rhetorical exercises', 25 b 4, 25 k 8, 26. g). li'll'oOe~sw TftS ~auTov 5uv6.fLews: 'to show off his rhetorical powers'; this characteristic of historians is frequently criticized: d. Joseph. Ap. i. 24; Dion. Hal. i. r. 3; Diod. xx. r. 2; below, xxxvi. r. 7·

25 b 1. Tfj<,; taToplas tS'wfLa: 'the special function of history', particularly in relation to speeches. To '11'pa.x9w ~ pTj9ev: Pedech, ad Joe., observes that Thuc. i. 22. r-2 also puts Ta AExBlvTa and ni 11po.xBlvra on the same level. 2. \jluxa.ywyEi fLEV, wcjleAEL 8' ou8ev: for P.'s emphasis on TO xp~aLfi-01-' in contrast to 'TO 'TEp'!Tvr!w see Vol. I, pp. 7-8; it is a commonplace in the Histories. '11'poTe9
Tn

386

QUALITIES OF A GOOD HISTORIAN

XII. :zsc 3

viously'; when an action in the past has been successful we may imitate it and so go ahead confidently, but when it has miscarried we learn to be more careful (e:{!Aap7JOijvcu). Tois ~11"LTJJLa); but here it seems to mean simply a rhetorical exercise (cf. zs a 5 n.). On Greek rhetorical exercises see F. Blass, Die attische Beredsamkeit7. (Leipzig, I887}, L 6r-63; E. Rohde, Der griechisclu: Roman 3 (Leipzig, 1914), 317 n. z. 8LEgo5uc:ous Aoyous : 'detailed speeches'. To Tils taTopia.s tSLov: 'the peculiar virtue of history'.

25 c L TOLCLOTTJS 1Tap' €vioLs li11"o5ox-fls ••• Kat wiaTEWS: P. himself gives further testimony to this reputation by the amount of space he has allotted to criticizing Timacus and by his own decision to begin his introductory books where Timaeus left off. After all his criticism P. admits his failure to account for Timaeus' reputation (z8. 6). 2. woAurrpayl-'oauvT)v ••• Kai vaLKb;;, applied to Strato; it recognizes his preponderant, though not exclusive, interest in physics-which includes psychology and physiology (d. Capelle, RE, 'Straton (r3)', cols. 284-5}. ~hav £yxupt]an ••• wc;u8owoLetv, Oau1-16.aLos eaTLv: von Scala, 189, assumes that P. is thinking of Strato's attack on Ephorus's llEpl fVP7JJLaTwv (d. Pliny, Nat. hist. vii, index: 'Stratonis qui contra Ephori dJp~JLaTa. scripsit'; Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 77· r). But the words & rf>vmK6<; perhaps suggest that it is of Strato's physical (including psychological) writings, in which he is also concerned with refuting his predecessors such as Plato (d. Capelle, RE, 'Straton (13)', cols. Jo8 ff.), that P. is thinking; his interest in one aspect of these is apparent from iv. 39· 7-42. 8. +aivc;TaL To'Ls E1TLaT~I-'oaLv ••. vwOpbTepos: this 'appeal to the experts' shows that P.'s criticism of Strato does not depend solely on his own opinion. How far he was capable of appreciating the subtleties of the points at issue between Strato and his predecessors is a moot point.

xn. ~sd

r

TUIAEUS AT

ATHE~S

25 d l. 6.1TOKa0laas ••. )\(l~VTJO'' axe6ov ETTJ 1TEV1'~KOVTQ: cf. 25 h 1 (without ax£S6v), 28. 6, FGH, 566 T 4· The dates of Timaeus' residence in Athens cannot be accurately determined, though the suggestion that he was already there when Agathocles banished him (Diod. xxi. J7. r) is not very probable plomigliano, Ri11. star. it. 1959. 531. against Bro'v\'TI, 2-3). Laqueur (RE, 'Timaios', cols. ron-8) suggested a date between 317 and 310 for the beginning of the exile, and] acoby (FGJI, ii b, pp. 53o-2) puts it a little before Agathocles' first campaign Messana in 316/rs, linking it with Agathocles' capture of Tauromenium (which Diod. xix. 65 omits to mention in its place). Whether Timaeus returned to Sicily is not recorded. Manni (KQKAAOE, r96o, 170 n. 7) suggests that he went back to Sicily in 266/s or 262. Brown (2-9), however, thinks he returned soon after Agathocles' death in 289, and that the fifty years fall within the period 339-278 (contra, Momigliano, Riv. star. it. 1959, 531). Not all Brown's arguments are equally cogent (cf. 8. 3 n., rz b r-3 n.), but Timaeus' lack of political and military experience (25 g r-3, 25 h r. 28. 6) and his inexperience in public speaking (Cic. de or. ii. 58) would match an early removal to Athens. On the other hand, the reference to fifty years presumably echoes Timaeus' own statement (25 h r), and it does not follow that he necessarily returned at the end of fifty (or 'nearly fifty') years. KaTa{3u..!Jaos {28. 6) may, if pressed, suggests that he lived out his life at Athens. 25 d 2-25 e 7. Comparison betzr:-een med£cine and history: for the schematic comparison with its triple arrangement cf. ix. 14. r-s. xi. 8. r-2, and the threefold constitution (Yi. 3· 5 ff.). The threefold division of medicine is traditional, but P's division differs from thai in Celsus, prooem. 9. 'in tres partes medicina diducta est, ut una esset quae uictu, altera quae medicamentis, tertia quae manu mederetur. primam 8tatT1JnK~v secundam ;/;apJ.LaKevnKf;v tertiam xctpovpylw· Graeci nominarunt'. P. compresses pharmaceutice and cheirourgia into one and adds the XoytKo{, who are to provide the parallel with Timaeus (cf. 25 e 4); but the division is not necessarily his own, and he may well be drawing on some handbook of medicine from th1· third or second century (d. Wunderer, iii. 104). The triple division recalls the empiricists' division of laTptK~ into three parts: U7Jf-L€t WHK6v p.tpOS, 8epau€l!TiKOII f-Ltpos {including XELpoupy{a, ;/;apf-LUKELa and sometimes Olatm) and Oytetvov f-Ltpos (d. IC Deichgraber, Die grieclr ische Empirikerschule (Berlin, I93o). 288-9r, and Galen, Sun .figuratio empirica, p. 53, ll. 13 ff. in the same work) ; of these the iirst corresponds to ,\oyt~eov, the second to xetpovpyLKov Kat ,Papf-La Ke-vTtdv and the third to otatT1JTLKav, if this means 'regime of life' (c f 25 d 3 n.). The two great names in Hellenistic medicine are those of Hero

sss

MEDICINE AND HISTORY

XII. 25d 3

philus of Ca!chedon (early third century), who discovered the rhythm of the pulse and developed the theory of humours as the cause of disease, and his contemporary, Erasistratus of Ceos, who contributed much to the study of anatomy and the nerves (cf. Jones, CAH, vii. 284-7). Because of their interest in the causes of disease they were regarded as Aoy•Ko{ and dogmatici, and they and still more their later followers were felt to be more interested in this aspect than in the curing of disease, cf. Galen, x. 184, ol 'll'epl Tov •Epaa{OTpa.T6v TE Kat 'Hpoaa 'TWV dpyavLKWV ;.an p.oplwv vom]p.a.Ta. Apollophanes belonged to this school. The empiricist

row

school, which held that medicine was concerned only with curing illness, and aligned itself with the Sceptics rather as the dogmatists did with the Stoics, began as a breakaway from the Herophileans by Herophilus' pupil, Philinus of Cos; cf. Galen, xiv. 68J, rijr; EJ.L'II'~rtptKij~

o

oi

(alpiaewr;} wpotaT7JK€ cP.Aivos Kijws, 1rpwTos at:h~v U1TO'TEJ.LPOJ.LEVOS UT/'0 TfjS AoyLKTjS alpiaHv<;, Tal) aopp.as J...apwv 'HpoO..ov, ali Kai ci.KOIJO'T~Ii" iyivEro. Cdsus (prooem. 10) makes Serapion of Alexandria (c. zoo) the founder of the lp.m.:tpLK~ dywY1/, but Galen treats him as Philinus'

successor. There is little doubt that when he praises pharmaceutice and clteirourgia as 'TI)V aA1)fhv~v wpoaEPOJ.LEVDV E~LV, P. is displaying his sympathy with the empiricists who developed these two branches; though the empiricists' tendency to reject research into the causes of illness (cf. Deichgraber, op. cit. 282; Beloch, iv. I. 475) may have caused him some embarrassment (d. iii. 7· s. ri yap o,Aor; larpoiJ Krip.vovaLV ayvooiivro<; rd.s alTla<;; 'T(VV 1TEpL rd awp.o.ra. a,aela£w11;). P. believed that one should study the causes of illness so far as this was necessary for the curing of it, but not for the salw of theoretical knowledge and mere display (cf. 25 d 4: ix. 20. 6). See further T. C. Allbutt, Greek }v!edicine in Rome (London, rgzr), IJI ff.; Deichgraber, op. cit. 253 ff.

25 d 3. 8w.LTT)1"1Kou: 'concerned with diet': the most famous representative of the school concentrating on this branch of healing was Asclepiades of Bithynia (first century B.c.). The empiricists regarded diet as one part of 8EparrEVTtK6v (see previous note) ; and Celsus regards the empiricists as a branch of that school quae uictu morbos curat, who, however, rejected rationalis discipHna (prooem. g-ro). It has been suggested by van Paassen (The Classical Tradition of Ceograph;• (Groningen, l957l. 294) that DLaLT1)rLKov here means 'concerning one's way of life' (cf. MaLTa in i. 59· 12, iv. r8. 2), in which case it would correspond to the empirical vymv&v (see previous note). yEvous ••• -roD E11'\Tl18Eu!J.o.-ros: Boissevain read KnL ToAp.a• Kat KaraI{IE&iwOat and Pedech proposes (as a pis-aUer) app.a.KeVTLKoiJ ' ,, - E '( IILOL<; ' ) ')'€V01JS, 01\0(l)(.f.pWS

,, .1. ·~ (} at TOIJ- €1TLTTjDEUJ.LU'TOS ' ~ ' 'TDIIJ.L?J KClL' KO.Ta't'€UoEa

XII. zsd 3

MEDICINE AND HISTORY

( av~-tf3alvn). roil lmrTJooJ~-taro;; will be the art of medicine, which is brought into contempt by some of its representatives in every branch. Against Wunderer's suggestion that P. here referred, in the lacuna, to Ota.LTTJTLK~ see below, § 7 n. 4. Tb 8€ Aoyuc.ov: the first aspect (taken up by Toii'To). n-o.pO. Twv 'HpotfaAe(wv Kat Ko.AALJLO.XE~wv: Herophilus' school were famous; Galen frequently mentions them. They included Andreas (v. 81. 6 n.), Baccheius of Tanagra (c. 25o), Demetrius of Apamea, perhaps a contemporary of Baccheius, Zenon (early second century), Mantias (c. 15o) and Callimachus (see below); cf. \Vellmann in Susemihl, i. 778, 8q--I8, Instead of the more usual reference to Erasistratus P. alone mentions the followers of Callimachus, a doctor of Herophilus' school who concerned himself with Hippocrates' writings and himself wrote 'de coronis •.. quae nocerent capiti' (Pliny, Nat. hist. xxi. 12); his date is uncertain. No conclusions can be drawn from P.'s reference to the names of the group as current in Alexandria (;K~ri 1TpoaayopEVoftlvwv) for we know neither P.'s source nor its date; see further Wellmann in Susemihl, i. 827. KaT a .. , T~v E'll"ltf>aow ~c.al Tf)v E'ITayyEAlav: 'in its ostentation and the claims it makes '; cf. ix. 20. 6 for a general rejection of knowledge for mere display. To~aUTTJV £tf>£AKeTill tf>avTaa(av: cf. xxii. 9· 12, xxiv. II. 5; themselves such an air of superiority'. 5. o~ JLTJS~v O.veyvw~c.ons ••• la.Tpl~c.bv u'11"6JLVTJJLa.: though they, the AoytKo{, lay so much weight on medical literature. 61n TYJV €v Aoy~ SuvaJ.lw: 'impressed by their rhetorical powers' (Paton); 'sur Ia foi de leur force dans le raisonnement' (Pedech). The latter suggests their published works; but the former fits better the reference to the speeches which they deliver (§ 6). On speeches made by doctors to attract custom see Xen . •vi em. iv. 2. 5· 6. TOt<; €K ~u~Mou teu~Epvwmv: Wunderer, i. 65, takes Kvj3.:pvwaw to mean 'governing a state', but the literal meaning gives the better simile. JUTQ cfla.vTaala.<;: 'with great eclat' (Shuck burgh); preferable to Pedech, 'environnes d'illusion'. ht.~Sa.v •.. €'11"' bvof'a.To<;: Hultsch, followed by Pedech, takes f.1r' ovowJ.ro> with what follows, and Pedech translates 'ils apostrophent par leur nom ceux qui ont donne .... la vraie preuve de leur valeur'; but f.rr' OVOftUTOS' goes awkwardly with ayovow. Various attempts have been made at correction, of which perhaps the most convincing is Biittner-Wobst's suggestion of a lacuna after oxAov-; (so Orelli for JI.IS. Myov-;), which he fills with
MEDICINE AND HISTORY

XIL

25

e

1

with Biittner-Wobst's reading, the phrase will go better with what follows: 'when they have collected a crowd, they reduce skilled doctors to confusion, virtually singling them out by name'. Taus .•• 8ESwtc6Tas avTwv: 'those who in actual practice have given proof of their skill' (Paton}; d. xviii. z8. 2. Shuckburgh misses the sense: 'they induce certain people to submit as a specimen to their practical treatment'. O refers to other doctors, not patients. 7. To S€ Tpi.Tov: 'the third branch of medicine', cf. § 3; P. refers to surgery and pharmaceutics. To T~v 6.A.YJ9LV~v 'lTpoaEpOJ.tEvov e~~v ~v €KaaTOIS Twv emTYJOEuJ.taTwv: a difficult phrase, which rna y have suffered from the epi-

tomator (so Paton). Shuckburgh renders: 'which involves genuine skill in the treatment of the several cases'; and though Ta ~rnT7Joe:u­ ltaTa normally means 'profession, branch of professional knowledge' (cf. ix. 20.6 n.), the best sense is given here if it has the meaning 'case', or 'treatment' (so too Pedech). Translate: 'the third branch, which is concerned with producing genuine skill in each professional treatment'. P. is still concerned with the three branches of medicine, as is clear from 25 e 1, but as he thinks of the first, 7'6 AoytKov, as the branch concerned with theory and dogma, so the third (surgery and pharmaceutics} is envisaged as concerned with practice and experience, and it is in P.'s opinion practice that produces skill (cf. X. 47. II, T~v €[til, fj mfvTa

nt

KaAd. y{vETat f1rJPa1'd. To is ri.vfJpcfmw;,

where efts is 'habit'). Wunderer, iii. 63, suggests that P. dealt with the second branch, dietetics, in the lacuna in § 3; but, as Pedech points out, oAoax<pok suggests a general observation, and in addition such a reference would be out of place, coming before the discussion of the AoytKov yivos in § 4·

25 e 1. Ti)S 'lTpayJ.tnnKi)~ laTopino;: 'political history'; cf. Vol. I. p. 8 n. 6; i. 2. 8 n., ix. 1. 4 n. TptJ.t£pous cf. 25 d 2; P. distinguishes (r} the study and collation of written sources, (2) autopsy, the visiting of sites and study of geographical features, and (3) political experience. The historian who (like Timaeus} concentrates on the first of these is comparable to the AoytKo{ (§4), who allow theory to divert them from the primary duty of healing; but how far the other two categories are paralleled from medicine is doubtful. Political experience may perhaps be compared with the practice of surgery and pharmaceutics {:zs d 3}; and Pedech, 130, mggests that as the dietetics of the second century tended to reject theories and controversies and to rely on observation, it can be compared with the historian's geographical investigations. But the parallel is forced and there is no evidence that P. \'V·as concerned to'press it beyond the equation of 'AoytKol and library-historians. hLt-u~vwv: 'harbours'; Paton mistranslates 'lakes' (cf. vii. 9· 2).

XII. 25e

I

THE HISTORIAN'S TASK

ToG -rrept Tas 1rpa~ELS Tas 1roAmK6.s: 'political activity', not, with

Paton, 'the review of political events'; that the historian should have personal political experience is a cardinal point for P. 2. E:4»L€vTaL fl€V TaUTTJS -rro~~o(: 'many aspire to write history' ; -ra.v-rTJS refers to 7Tpa.yfJ-a.nK~ la-rop{o., and Shuck burgh is wrong in referring it to 'political activity' in defiance of sense and grammar. Sui '~'TtV 1rpoyeyEVTJflEVTJV 1repl auTtlS SO~av: 'owing to the high opinion in which political history has been held'; not 'owing to their preconceived opinions on the subject' (Shuckburgh). S(KaL0\1 ouSev: 'nothing to justify themselves'; cf. xi. 29. 7· euxEpeLav Kal'I'O~flaV KT~.: cf. xv. 13. r, xxii. 3· 8, xxiii. 5· 6 (in all of which, however, it bears a complimentary sense): here it is 'irresponsibility and recklessness' (cf. xvi. r8. 3). pf!:Dwvpylo. is 'roguery' (cf. 9· s). 1rapa1r~~aLov 'I'OLS "'apflaK01TW~aLS So~OK01TOUVTES: 'courting favour like vendors of drugs'. These had a reputation as (jUacks; cf. Plut. Mor. So A; [Arist.] Oec. ii. 3· 1346 b 2-3; Horace, Sat. i. 2. I; and Sext. Emp. Af at h. ii. 4r relates them to doctors as demagogues to statesmen, here they stand to doctors as charlatans to historians. For the hostile allegation that Aristotle had been a druggist see s. 4 n. Further references and discussion in vV. Morel, RE, 'Pharmakopoles', coL r84o. 4. TWV SoKOUVTWV euMyws 1rpoaayeLV K'I'A.: 'those who appear to be justified in undertaking the composition of history' (as distinct from the quacks): it is in this category that P. places Timaeus. KaMrrep ot AoyLKOL 'I'WV l.a'l'pwv: cf. 25 d 4· ••• tJ.Epos: no supplement for the lacuna is wholly satisfactory ; Buttner-Wobst reads , Uf.L<.WOV 7T<-pt TWV fJ-<.AADVTWV f3ovAeva), not, of course, because the written sources do not cover these events (which is self-evident), but because the 39 2

THE HISTORIAN'S TASK

XII.zsfz

composition of more recent history demands the different technique of direct inspection and inquiry, and the understanding that comes from personal experience of politics. Ta Twv cipxa(wv twypa<Jlwv i!pya 8eacraJ:.Levos: a general reference. Wunderer, Phil. 1907,472, argued that 'wyparpo> here means 'animalpainter' and sees a reference to Nicias of Athens, who was especially famous for animal paintings (Pliny, Nat. kist. xxxv. 133; Paus. i. 2q. 15}. This is quite fanciful. P.'s point is that just as one can become a painter only by practical activity and not merely studying old masters, so the historian can master his craft only by active investigations and practical experience of politics. \Vunderer's argument, that the contrast between scholarship and practical experience is only relevant to an animal-painter, because painters of people, being concerned with the individual personality, can in any case paint only from real life (and not from old masters) whereas one animal is much like another, seems a piece of hair-splitting. See below, 25 h 2 n. P. is thinking of library research less as the investigation of sources than as an inadequatc- method of acquiring a necessary skill: hence the criticism made abm·e, Vol. I, p. 10 n. 2, is not wholly valid. 25 f. Ephorus' lack of experience of battles: P. discusses this to illustrate the point just made about Timaeus, that practical political and military experience is essential to the historian's craft (cf. § 6, mentioning Theopompus too). If P. quoted similar examples from Timaeus, now lost, they may have stood behveen 25 f and 25 g. l. 'TWV !J.(v I, eanv el1rei:v· "otlS.t, a.as-". 2. Tas 1repl. K{mpov vau!J.ax(as: the war between Evagoras, King of Cyprus, and the Persian satrap Tiribazus, which began in 39r/o (Diod. xiv. 98; cf. Xen. Hell. iv. 8. 24}, ended with the naval defeat of 'Evagoras oft Citium in 381 at the hands of the Persian admiral Glos (Diad. XV. 2-4, 8--t); Isoc. Paneg. 134-s. qo-r; Evag. sB-ii7; 393

XII. -:zsf

2

CRITICISM OF EPHORUS

Theopompus, FGH, nsF 103). Diodoms derives from Epborus (cf. Jacoby, FGH, ii C, p. 33) but his account of the battle is too short to give any impression of the original. See Cary, CAH, vi. 58-$9; Beloch, iii. 1. 97-98, 2. 226---7. Ka.L Tfi~ vepl. Kv(oov: the Spartan domination after the victory over Athens in the Peloponnesian War was shattered in the Aegean in 394, when a Persian fleet commanded by the Athenian Conon, and largely manned by Greek crews, destroyed the Spartan fleet under Peisander, the brother-in-la\\'Of King Agesilaus, off Cnidus (Xen. Hell. iv. 3· n-12; Diod. xiv. 83. 4-7 (based on Ephorus) ; cf. I us tin. vi. 3; Nepos, Cotton, 4· 4; Polyaen. i. 48. 5; Philochoms, FGH, 328 F 144-5 Did. in Demosth. 1· 39 ff.). See Cary, CAH, vi. 43-44; Beloch, jji, I, 76-n, 2. 211. voX X&. Twv XPflO"LjlWV ••• 'ITpos Tfi~ olloia.s 'ITEpLuTacrELs: cf. 2 5 e 6 n. Here too P. is thinking of the use of history to the practical man. 3. 1"~v vEpl AEUK1"pa. lla.x,v: the Spartan defeat at Epaminondas' hands in July 371 (d. i. 6. r n.); Xen. Hdl. vi. 4· 3-15; Diod. xv. ; Plut. Pelop. 20-23; Paus. ix. 13. 3-13; Polyaen. ii. 3· 8; cf. CAli, Yi. 8o-82; Reloch, iii. r. 167-8. 1"Yjv ~v Mo.vnvd~: Eparninondas' last victory of spring-summer 362; see above, ix. 8. r-r3 with notes. 1"&.~ EK1"aseL~ Ka.l jlE1"a.1"0.seLs: 'the battle formations and changes in these'. 4. b ... ~v 1"0LS AEUK1"pots KlVOUVOS a'!TAOUS yeyovws I<"!" A.: after a preliminary skirmish in which the Spartan horse was driven back, the Theban left, so ranks deep, charged and broke the Spartan contingent, which was drawn up rz ranks deep on the right. Success on this wing decided the battle; hence KafJ' €v n J.Llpos rii~ 8vvaf.L£W~ is 'in which only one part of the army was engaged' (Paton), rather than 'tout d'unc piece' (Pedech). In both halves of the sentence J ... Klvowos is really 'Ephorus' account of the battle', and the second half should mean: 'his battle of Mantinea, while giving an appearance (~JL<Parnv JL€v •• •) of recounted with much detail and technical virtuosity, is in fact (€an 8' • .. ) left hanging in the air and completely incomprehensible to the historian'. The difficulty here lies in the words r{jl aVJ'"IPa
CRITICIS~I

OF EPHORCS

XII. 25h

I

'without foundation', 'in the air' equally requires the sense 'Ephorus' battle of Mantinea'. ~1oreover (though in view of the fluctuations in the meaning of adjectives in --ro> this need not perhaps be serious) d6,avo1)To> does not elsewhere mean 'misunderstood'. The simplest solution is to delete the words T0 avyypa,Pef as a gloss; the sense is perfectly clear. But if To/ avyypa
a

25 2. TO SuvaJ1€VOV ~<Ju;Ae~v TJ!Lii;: for P.'s utilitarianism cf. ix. 20. 6 n., and for the usefulness of his history iii. 4· 8, 7· 4 ff., 3r. r2-r3, xii. 25 b x-4, and the passages quoted in Vol. I, p. 7 nn. r2-r3. The tautology of rl>,Pe>.eiv •.• d.vw,P£>.1> is clumsy. 3, OVT€S aTpt(3eis TTJS TOLO.UT11'i ~!LTreLp(a;: 'without ha\'ing any experience of this kind', i.e. knowledge of the locality (cf. iii. 90. I, iv. 57. 8, viii. 20. r) ; that P. is thinking of personal study rather than experience of writing monographs (so Pedech) is suggested by § 4, dopaa£av. n-oXXQ. J1EV •• ' OUIC a~iwv OV'TWV : a lack of proportion in dealing with material is also the charge P. makes against writers of monographs generally (cf. vii. 7· 6, xxix. rz. 6). 4. TTJV aopa.a(a.v: 'failure to make a personal inspection' (Shuck burgh). 25 h 1. ~v TU Tp~a~eoOTfi Ka.t TETaPTU ~uJ3A i f3ff3Aw; •.• KaO' a, 11'EptelA1)rP€ 'TOS L4.ya.OoKMov<; 11'pag€t<;, FGH, s66 T 8); these will have been books xxxiv-xxxviii. P. is hardly quoting literally for (a) he says 11'€V'T~KOV'Ta Ut!VEXW> e'T'l/ WhereaS in the polemiC Of 25 d I it IS merely oxe-Sov E'T1) 11'€11'f'l]KoVTa, (b) dp.o>.oyovplvw> hardly reads like Timaeus' own word, (c) l'/€vcTo is third person, and should probably remain despite )fai's emendation to Jy£v6p.1)v and the bracketing of it by Biittner-Wobst; see Jacoby on FGH, 566 F 34; Susemihl, i. 565 n. 237. C. Clasen, Timaios von Tauromenion (Kiel, 1883), n, suggested that the quotation ended at gevtTevwv; and Jacoby proposed (oOev) a11'aU'l/S (d.11'aU1)S is Boissevain's reading of the MS.: Kai m5.a1)> Heyse). There may, however, be some distortion by the epitotnator. 4n-£tpo; ..• ~ea.t Tll'> Twv T61!'wv 8€a;: Timaeus, who made a special 395

xu. -zsh

r

ART AND HISTORY

claim to have consulted records (ro. 4) and inscriptions (u. 2), can hardly have made this admission in such general terms, and P. may have twisted a reference to Timacus' long exile from his native Sicily (so Jacoby, FGH, iii b, commentary on 566 F 34). On the length of Timaeus' residence at Athens cf. 25 d r n.; the tense of otarpll/Jos cannot be pressed as evidencl.:: that when he said this Timaeus' exile was over (so Manni, K.QKAAOL, 196o, qo n. 7). 2. d; n Twv !l-llpwv TouTwv: matters of war or topography. To~; twypaljlo~;: for the comparison with the historian cf. 25 e 7; Lucian, hist. conscr. 5o-5 r says that the historian should emulate the good sculptor. This comparison shows that P. does not object to €vapycta in itself (cf. xx. 12. 8) pro\·ided it is based on airromf.BHa. Cf. Avenarius, IJ2-4. TO~; &:rro TWV ac;) will mean 'sketches'; a7Toypa,P~ does not have this sense (despite Wunderer's defence 4i2). P. refers to the use of stuffed dummies for the in Phil. artists' work. The real subject need not be an animal as Wunderer (ibid. and Po!.-Forsch. iii. sr n.) also argues, for ~0ov can include human beings; indeed the use of ~tjiov to denote any figure in a work of art, not only an animal (cf. Herod. iii. 88) and not necessarily even a living creature (cf. Herod. iv. 88-though this picture contained persons) suggests that in§ 3 P. is using it in quite a general sense for the living subject of a painting. \Vunderer (iii. 51 n.) conjectures aKuActKwv for 8vAaKwv, but this is improbable. IJvAaKo> is a bag, not a skin (as Shuckburgh translates, thus supporting his belief that animal-painters are referred to). W. W. Hyde, CJ, I93i· 431, compares the American slang expression 'stuffed shirts'; but the context is not 3. To ••• TflS ~.,.ljlO.aew; Ka.t TflS ~vepyda.;: 'vividness and animation'; on P.'s success in achieving lJL¢amc; see Pedech, Methode, 276-89. Twv aXT}eLVwv !;~wv: 'of real living creatures' (human or animal); the contrast is between the stuffed dummy and the living model. Wunderer (Phil. 1907. 473) would keep aAKlJLWV, read by Mai, Heyse, and Boissevain; but (i,\,a1w;;; can hardly mean 'living' (as lp.l/Juxo> in i. 4· i), and Bekker's correction seems right. 4. ~K TflS a.uTo1Ta.e11ia.;: 'from experience'; cf. 25 i 7, 28 a 6; VoL I, p. 10. oi t~.-rl s,· O.UTWV 'ITE"ITOpEU.,.EVOl TWV 1Tpa.y.,.aTWV: cf. § 6. Obviously P. is not claiming that no one can describe particular events unless he has personally experienced them-which would recoil on himself and render history writing virtually impossible. avTCw 'TWV rrpayJLtf.Twv must mean 'public life, political events', including those near in time and kind to what is being described. This is what § 5 implies and § 6 specifically asserts.

396

THE HISTORIAN'S MATERIAL

XI1.25i4

5. 1T€pi ~LwnKwv: 'private life' ; cf. ix. I7. 6. Ziegler (RE, 'Poly bios (r )', col. 1462) is probably right in concluding from this passage that P. was himself married with a family; he would hardly make demands on a historian which he was personally unable to fulfil. 6. TouTo To p.epo<; 1T€pL1T€1TOL1]fLEVOLS Tijs taTop(a.s: 'and have made this aspect of history their own', in the sense both of understanding it and of being able to treat of it; for this sense of 7Ttpmott!a8at cf. v. 75· 6. Twv .•• p.Ey(aTwv Ka.i KoLvoTaTwv: 'the most important and those of most frequent occurrence'. 25 i 1. b 1TOL1]Ttl'>: Homer, as usually; clearly P. applies his criterion to poets as well as historians. For the close bond between the two in ancient thought see \Valbank, Historia, r96o, u6 ff. 3. Twv aup.~ouA€UTLKwv Ka.i 1Ta.pa.KAT)nKwv •.• A.oywv: cf. 25 a 3 n. (presumably (TVILfJovAwnKOl A6yot are the crqp:'/yopiat of that passage). The three types are exemplified in the speeches criticized in 25 k-z6 a. 4--9. The proper use of speeches by the statesman, and how historians can help: P. here returns to the discussion of T.'s speeches as being artificial and the work of a man lacking in political experience; he has already criticized them for their falsity (25 a 3-25 b 4). The argument is not easy to follow owing to the way in which P. switches from the historian to the statesman without clear indication, and it has been frequently misunderstood, most recently by Gomme, Thucydidrs, iii. 522; it may be paraphrased thus: '4. Few occasions (in real life) allow the speaker to set out all possible arguments; the ones chosen depend on the speaker, where he and his audience lived and to what people they belonged (or belong). 5· A statesman must in fact be selecti\'e and not recite every possible argument (as Timaeus makes his speakers do): otherwise he may well fail in his object. 6. Since there is no fixed rule as regards which and how many of the possible arguments a statesman should employ, we (sc. the historians) must use quite a special degree of attention and clear principles (i.e. in reporting speeches) if we are to benefit and not harm our readers (i.e. the statesmen). 7· The right argument (i.e. for a statesman to use on a specific occasion) is a matter hard to convey by precept, but not impossible to ascertain if he reasons from practical experience (and this experience can be conveyed in the speeches included in histories). The matter can best be expressed thus: 8. if writers will indicate first the historical context, then what was actu.1lly said, and fmally why the speaker succeeded or failed, we (i.e. the statesmen who read the histories) shall be able to apply the lesson to other circumstances and cope successfully with whatever arises.' See further, Vol. I, p. 14 n. 2; iVliscellanea Rostagni, zu-r3. 4.~1TavTa.s ••• SLa.9ea9m Tous evovTa.<; A.oyous:: 'to set out all possible arguments'; as in§ 5 A6yot will be 'arguments', rather than 'speeches' 397

XII. 25i 4

THE HISTORIAX'S MATERIAL

(as in§ 3). This change is sense is quite in P.'s style, cf., for example, Ja{vl'Tat, which is clearly preferable to Heyse's ap..a. 1TOAAo'Ls a'!TOTU)(LO.S a.tnov ••• KO.L KBTa.ci'povi)aews: 'the cause of failure and contempt for many statesmen'. Shuckburgh says 'many writers', but P. is speaking of statesmen and merely quotes Timaeus' speeches as an example of what is to be avoided. TO Se 1'0US &.pflO~OVTO.S Ka.i. Ka.Lpious ael. Aa.f1(3avELV: sc. Aoyovs .This is the task of the statesman; that of the historian is to record what was said(§ 8). 6. a0'1'aTOU ••• )(pTJaT£ov: 'since there is no fixed rule aS to which and how many of the possible arguments should be used on a particular occasion', i.e. by the statesman. nAAOLOTEpou •.• tiJA.ou Ka.lrra.pa.yyEAflO.TOS: 'there is need of an unusual degree of attention and clarity of principle', i.e. on the part of the historian. P. switches at this point to the historian whose informed procedure is to help the reader including the statesman, who will turn to him for information on speeches previously delivered. 7. 6 KnLpbs ••• Suarra.payyeATos: 'what the situation demands is always something hard to formulate'. ~Lei .,.t;:w EK Tfjs a.1horra.8eia.s Ka.l. 1'pL(3fjs 9ewpTJfla1'wv: 'through precepts based upon personal experience and practice'. The precepts are given to the statesman by the historian whose works he reads: and these precepts are based on the historian's own experience and practice. 398

THE HISTORIAN'S FUNCTION

XII. 25k

2

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

25 k 1. Ko.i 1repl. 1'o.\ho.: evidently the point at issue here is Timaeus'

lack of political sense; d. § 8. P. refers to the first two subdivisions of this final part of the book: Timaeus' lies and errors (24-25 c) and his political incompetence (25 d~26 d). See above, 24~28 an. Twv ••• A.oywv: P. now criticizes from Timaeus of each of the three types of oration mentioned in 25 i 3: those of Hermocrates (auJ.Lf3ouA~UTtKoS'), of Timoleon (rrapaKA7[TtKos-), and of Pyrrhus (rrpHr/3wnKos-). The third is lost. 2. fl-E1'a r£A.wvo. Tov &.pxo.l:ov: d. 26 b 1-5. Gelo, the son of Deinomenes, made himself tyrant of Gela in c. 491 and of Syracuse c. 485. In concert with Theron of he defeated the Carthaginians at Himera, so destroying the great invasion of 480, and making himself virtually master of all Sicily; d. Hackforth, CAH, h·. 36g-8z. 'EpJ10Kp6.TY)V, TLfJ-0AEOV1'0., nuppov: on Timoleon see 4 a 2 n., 2J. 4 n. and below, 26 a; on Timaeus' work on Pyrrhus cf. 4 b 1 n. Hermocrates, son of Hem1on, the Syracusan statesman, first came into prominence at the time of the Congress of Gela in 424 B.C.; his speech urging Sicilian unity is recorded by Thucydides (iv. 59--64; other speeches in Thuc. vi. 33·-34, 76--8o}. He later played a prominent part in the defence of Syracuse against Athens, and his stratagem led to the final defeat of the Athenians (below, § II; Thuc. vii. 73· 3). Between 412 and .po he fought in the Aegean on the Spartan side; the loss of the Syracusan ships at Cyzicus in 410 led to his banishment, 399

xu.~:;k:z

lLLUSTRJ1.TlO:t\S FROM TIMAEUS

and he was refused entry into Syra..:use 011 his return to Sicily in 408, in spring 407 he fell in a street fight trying to force his way into Syracuse {Diod. xiii. 75· &-g). See in general Westlake, Bull. R.vl. Lib., 1958-g, 239-68. For F.'s statement that he fought at Aegospotami see§ u n. 3. tv Tfi J.LL!f Kat eiKocnfi fjui3/..~: this figure must be wrong, for A then. vi. 250 A (FGH, s66 F 32) assigns events of Dionysius the younger to book xxii (cf. 25. 7 n.). Jacoby (FGH, iii b, pp. 544 and therefore suggests that this fragment belonged to book xii, and that the Congress of Gela ended this. It is true that 26 a 1 puts Timoleon's speech 'in the same book', i.e. book xxi, and 25. 7 also dates Timoleon to that book. But it is difficult to believe that Timaeus dealt with such an event as the Congress of Gela only incidentally in connexion with Timoleon, omitting it in its proper place (like Diodorus); for the account of Hermocrates' speech shows that it was dealt with in detail. See Schwartz, Hermes, 1899, 489; Laqueur, RE, 'Timaios', col. 108o; De Sanctis, Storiografia s1'celiota, 51. Ka.8' ~v Ka.Lpov EupuJ.Leowv ••• 1TapeK6.AeL Ta<;; 1TOAeL<.>: in 424 the Athenian general Eurymedon arrived in Sicily to build up a coalition favourable to Athens (Thuc. iv. 48. 6), but the Sicilian Congress of Gela thwarted this plan. TOU<; r eA~ous •.• 0La1TIEJ.Lo/aa9a.L 1Tp0<;1'0US Ka.J.La.pLva(ou<.;: at this timP Dorian Camarina was allied with Athens and her coalition; for the truce now made cf. Thuc. iv. 58. 4. otnve~ ••• l3ou/..euaovTa~ 1repl. OLa.Aucrew~: cf. Thuc. iv. 58, ,£lnL Ka.I oi aAAoL E
ILLUSTRATIOXS FROM TBiAEUS

XII 25k

II

Suppl.. B. 31 (1938), 17-18) has argued that Timaeus based his speech on the famous otympiakos of Gorgias. His points are (r) that the speech recorded by P. is full of Gorgianic antitheses, and since one of these (26. 7) also occurs in Herodotus (i. 87.4), it is not Timaeus' invention; (z) the atmosphere of the speech is sophistic (d. 26. 7, Ka:ra rpu(nv); (3) the paradox of Heracles, the founder of the Olympian games and truce, is sophistic and especially appropriate to an Olympian speech; (4) the Homeric quotations (26. 3~4) are a mark of sophistic composition; cf. Plato, Protag. 338 E, 1T€pt ~1Ta)IJ 8~:w6v elva•. Nestle has successfully shown the sophistic character of Timaeus' composition, but he has not proved that Gorgias' Olympiakos was its model; nor since is it only two fragments of this survive (Diels, FVS, ii. 82. B likely that the proof could be made (despite the statement of Philostratus, uit. Soph. i. 9· 493 that Gorgias ITI'aat&.,ouaal' Tirv 'E:UaiSa &pi':)l• op.ovo{ac; tup.flou.\os airroL> Jyivt:To). Brown, 65-66, argues that 1'. gives a fair report of Timaeus' speech, and indeed there are no grounds for thinking that he attributed to it anything Timaeus did not say; but he is very selective, and it is easy to quote communes loci out of context and make them sound ridiculous (cf. Jacoby, FGH, iii b, p. 554). 7. E1TLXELPTJflO.Tn ,.payflaTLtta: 'practical proposals': an unusual meaning for Jmxdp7Jp.a, distinct from that in 25 b 4· Til.~ TotnuTa.~ 'YI'EpL1TETda.c;: so Heyse for MS. rrapa ••• ya> ; but his other suggestion rrap(aAAa)yc:l, seems preferable (cf. vi. 7· 5), and is read by Jacoby, FGH, 566 F 22. rrap
8. rijs 1TPO.YflO.TlKTl'> ••• a1TOAE(1!'£C19a.~ Ouvcl.f!EWS: 'deficient in political sense' (Paton) rather than 'fails to show the ability of a historian' (Shuckburgh); cf. xxxviii. 7· I, Jtlaopouf3a> • .• woAtl K<-xnpwp.ivo> -rfj> 'll'payp.anKfj> Kat rrrpaTrJY~Kfj> Bvvap.<.w> • ...Wv Ev Ta.is s,a.TpL~ni~ €m(XEtp~aEwv): cf. zs

a 5, Ern> Jv ISwTpt{lfj ... lmxEtpol7J. For the supplement cf. 7· 4, 26. 9· (outt bMyov) EAa.noOa9a.~: 'he falls well below the standard of'. 9. 'YJ'aVTE~ yt\p ..• : 'for everybody', not 'all these', i.e. in the SChoolS

of rhetoric (so Paton). ,.0 tta9EUpE
following lacuna is filled by Boissevain ( rrpJc; Td m )a-rw( ci) p.evov ~ -rJ ytvwaKop.el•ov 'with reference to what is common knowledge or belief-providing a chiasmus with TWV c:Lyvooup.ivwv Kat TWV c:LmaToUFor the sentiment Pedecb quotes Lucian, hist. conscr. 56-57. 10. ATJflflt1C1l KEXf>T}Ttll TolOUTolc;: 'he used such arguments' (Paton).

"'I!WV.

11 ~ Tov auvnywvLaaflEvov ••• -r~v lv Atyoc; 1ToTa.flo~~ va.u1-1a.x£a.v:

false. Hermocrates perished in 407 (§ 2 n.) whereas Aegospotami was 814173

Dd

401

XII. 25k

II

ILLUSTRATIO~S

FROM TIMAEUS

in 405 (i. I. 6 n.). Lenschau (RE, 'Hermokrates (I)', col. 886) suggests that the words T~v Ev Aiyd;; rroTaf-Lof;; vavf-Laxiav may be an intrusive gloss on an original phrase~~~ lv 'EAAYJarrr5vT!fJ f-LUXYJ~', referring to the battle of Cynossema. This would save P.'s credit, but is clearly not susceptible of proof. a.uTa.vopt o£ XE~pwanJ.LEvov .•• Ka.Ta ILKE.Xla.v: only indirectly, by means of the false message which led the Athenians to postpone their departure from Syracuse after the defeat in the harbour (Thuc. vii. 73· 3-74. 1). Timaeus has turned this to the glory of Hermocrates. 26. 1. TOV op9pov ••• a.t aO.AmyyES ... ol opv~9E-;: a proverbial antithesis; cf. Plut. Nic. 9· 5. ~S€w;; a~ f-LEf-LVYJf-L,fVOL (the Spartans and Athenians) TOV ELTrOVTO;> OTL ToV;; Ell ELpTJVTJ KafkvoovTa;; ov aa-\myy£;;, &.X\' a-\EKTpVOVE;>

a,Pvrrv(~OVUL.

2. Tov 'Hpa.KAEa. ••• Tov J.LEV '0AuJ.l1T(wv O.ywva. 9Eiva.L: although the first Olympiad was dated from the victory of Coroebus in 776 (cf. vi. rr a 3 n.) there were strong traditions for an earlier foundation of the festival in mythological times, and the earliest of these is found in Pindar (Olymp. 2. 3-4, 6. 67) who makes Theban Heracles the founder. Another tradition attributed the foundation to a Cretan Heracles (Paus. v. 7· 4ft.; cf. Diod. v. 64. 6, Strabo, viii. 355). This association \vith Heracles is probably of Dorian origin, and becomes increasingly popular (d. Lys. 33· I; Diod. iv. I4; Stat. Theb. vi. 5 ft.; Apollodor. ii. 7· 2). Timaeus could well have introduced it without drawing on Gorgias' Olympic speech (above, 25 k 5 n.). See further Ziehen, RE, 'Olympia', cols. 2520 ft.; Gruppe, RE, Suppl-E. iii, 'Herakles', cols. 9I6-q. iKoua(ws OE 1Ta.pa.LTLOV ouOEvl YEYOVEVO.~ KO.KOU: so Biittner-\Vobst for MS. KaKou ovoEvi. yEyov€vaL (Boissevain KaKillv ouoevi. yEyov.fvaL; Hultsch KaKou rrapalnov ovOEvi yEyov.fvm in app. crit.). For this tradition concerning Heracles cf. Plut. Nic. 25. I, Kai yd.p Tov 'HpaKMa 1TUVTWV KpaTEtV af-LVYOf-LEVOV Kat rrpoETrLXEtpODf-LEVOV. A reference to Heracles would be not inappropriate from Hermocrates, in view of his worship at Syracuse (cf. Gruppe, RE, Suppl.-B. iii, 'Herakles', col. 992). 3. EX9~aTos o£ flOL £aa~ KTA.: Homer, Iliad, v. 890. 4. &.cppt1Twp, a9Ef1~0'TOS KTA.: Homer, Iliad, ix. 63; Nestor speaks. 5. Etpt1va. j3a.9{11TAoun KTA.: from Euripides' Cresphontes (fr. 453, I-8, Nauck 2 ), also quoted by Stobaeus, 55· I = iv. I4. I Hense. Pedech asserts that this play was produced after 42I and Herrnocrates' speech delivered in 424; but this is not certain. 6. Tov J.I.Ev mSAEJ.LOV TU voai!_J: sophistic commonplaces. 7. To us 1TpEa~uTipous li1TO T~JV viwv 9a1TTEa9m KTA.: cf. Herod. i. S7. 4, where the same paradox is attributed to Croesus addressing Cyrus from the pyre. 402

ILLUSTRATIOXS FROM TIMAEUS

XII. z6a 4

8. 11118' O.xpL TWV TeLxwv: since missiles can penetrate the city. 9. apn yevb!lE\10\1 'ITEpt OLa.TpL~c:i.c;: 'who has just come to the schools'. Tac; ~K Twv .:mol1"1111c:i.Twv '1ToAu'11"pa.y11oauva.c;: 'the search after knowledge contained in treatises'. inrof-LV~f-LaTa is a very general word in P.; there is no reason to suppose (with Wunderer, ii. 35) that here it means collections of quotations arranged under headings. 'll"a.pa.yyeXIla.TLKWc; ••• 'ITOLe'i:a8a.L TTJ" ~mxe£pTjaLv: 'to make up an essay according to the rules containing everything consonant with the character of certain historic personages' ; for 7Tapa.yyeAf-LanKw~ cf. 25 i 9 n., 7Tapayye:Vav; Dion. Hal. de camp. uerb. n. 151. (oux h)ipOLc;, &.XXO. TouToLc;: if the supplement is correct, Hultsch is right in suspecting the hand of the epitomator, for the phrasing is infelicitous and DoKef requires an infinitive. 26 a 1. TL!lOAEwv ev Tfj a.uTfj ~u~X~: for Timoleon cf. 25 k 2 n. Laqueur argues that 25 a 1-26. 9 forms part of a later insertion, and that the words lv Ti] avTi) f:1vf1Ai.f refer back to 25. 7 (RE, 'Timaios', col. I08o); and Muller believes in two systems of calculating Timaeus' books, one excluding books i-viii, so that book xxi might sometimes be reckoned as book xiii. Neither provides a convincing explanation of a real difficulty; for whatever stood at 25 k 3 (and it can hardly have been 'book xxi': see note), Timoleon's speech will not have been recorded in the same book as Hermocrates' address at Gela. Perhaps the simplest solution is to assume a lacuna between z6 and 26 a, containing a mention of the book of Timaeus to which P. refers back (one of books xxiii -xxviii? see 25. 7 n.). On the identification of Timoleon's speech see 25. 7 n.; it is that described in Diod. xvi. 79· 2, where two themes are mentioned, the cowardice of the Carthaginians and the recollection of Gelon's victories. Of these only the first is referred to here. wpoc; TTJV &.va.vSp~a.v: d. Diod. xvi. 79· 2, o6)/o..8~; ••• T0v TWV !PowlKWV ava.v8pla.v. That Diodorus here follows Timaeus is clear from the account of the omen following the speech, which Plutarch specifically attributes to Timaeus (FGH, 566 F 118 = Plut. Mar. 676 D). 2. EpTj!loTepa. Tflc; AL~UTj'i: cf. Eurip. Hel. 404, 1211 for references to the proverbial deserts of Libya {on which cf. Herod. ii. 32. 4). Wunderer, i. 28, suggests that the explanation which Timaeus puts in Timoleon's mouth came from some collection of proverbs, such as Demon's. It hardly fits Timaeus' own picture of Libya: cf. 3· 3· 3. eVToc; TWv XLTwvwv exovToc;: the custom of orientals before their king; cf. Xen. Hell. ii. I. 8, Kfipo<; a1TEKTHVEV AvTo{3otaaK7JV Ka~ Mt'Tpaiov •.. OTt av-rtj'J U1TO.VTWVTE<; ov otlwaav Ota Tij<; KOP7J> Ta<;" XEipa<;, ~ ()€ KOP'YJ £aT~ f-LO.KpoTEpov ~ xetplS", Ell fj Tijv xnpa €xwv ovo€v av SvvatTO 7TOtijaat. 4. ~a.vepot yivwvTa.L To'i:c; U'II"Eva.vT~oLc;: Campe suggested that the

8 1TOWVUt {3aatAE'i f-LOVOV"

XII. -z6a 3

ILLUSTRATIONS FROM TIMAEUS

words avOpES OIITES had been omitted before rf>avcpol; but the omission was probably more considerable (so Biittner-Wobst). 26 b 1. rEXwvos ~Tra.yyeAAOJ.Levou KTA.: cf. 25 k 2. According to Herodotus (vii. IS3· r, IS7· r ff.) the request came from the Greeks, who sent envoys to Sicily; the version here, which must surely be that of Timaeus (not Ephorus, as Dunbabin, 421, says), is more favourable to the Sicilian, who offers the help through envoys sent to Corinth (Tofs Trapa Toil TlAwvos Trpm{JEvmts). Jacoby, commenting on FGH, 566 F 94, seems correct in treating this as an invention, since the pro-Sicilian version in Herodotus vii. r6s shows no trace of it. It is noteworthy that P. does not attempt to refute Timaeus' version by quoting Herodotus against him, just as in 25 k 5 he makes no reference to Thucydides. The numbers here, 2o,ooo foot and 200 warships, are those given by Herodotus (vii. 158. 4) who, however, adds 2,ooo horse, 2,ooo archers, 2,ooo slingers, and 2,ooo light horse. For the battle of Himera fought shortly afterwards against the Carthaginians Diodorus (xi. zr. r) gives Gelo's army as so,ooo foot and 5,ooo horse; these Jacoby (loc. cit.) takes to be from Ephorus, but their divergence from the numbers Gelo offered to the Greeks is without significance for there is no reason why they should be identical. On their historicity see P. A. Brunt, Historia, 1953, r6o. TO~S TrpoKa.&T)J.LEVous ~v Kop£v&ct>: the representatives of the allied Greek states who assembled in congress at the Isthmus in 481 (Herod. vii. 132, 145, 172. r). 2. T~v 5' ijyeJ.Lov(a.v C.vayKtJ ••• TrEpL9~o-ew To'Ls d.p£o-ToLs: in the Herodotean version it is made quite clear that Sparta is to be hegemon (Herod. vii. rsg-6z). 4. eKTElveL Xoyous: a technical expression for spinning out material into a long narrative (cf. Avenarius, go). T~v J.LEV ILKEALa.v J.LE:ya.AOJ.LEpeo-Tepa.v KTA.: if Diod. xi. 23 goes back to Timaeus, it provides an example of how he related the struggle of Gelo against the Carthaginians with the Persian War in Greece: cf. also Diod. xxi. 17. 3, Trap' oA7JV •.. T~v yparp~v ~YKWfLta~wv T~v Twv l:vpaKoalwv dvopdav; Cic. de rep. iii. 43, 'urbs ilia praeclara, quam ait Timaeus Graecarum max imam, omnium autem esse pulcherrimam'. 5. To'Ls J.LUpa.K(oLs Tots ~v Ta.l:s 5La.TpLI3a.is KTA.: cf. z6. g. The words Kai Tots ( TrEpt )rraTots are Buttner-\Vobst's conjecture for MS. Kat Toi> TdTrots. It was based on a hint from Campius and the comparison of Baton in Athen. iv. r63 B, Tovs Tov rppovtf-Lov ~7JTovVTas ~~~ Tofs rrEptTraTots Kai Tats i:haTpt{3ai:s wa7r

XII. 26 c z

ILLCSTRATION"S FROM TIMAEUS 'II'Ot~anev

iv Tpay.~vwv crret/JavovfLevov,

otlSds- av {JfLWV {JTr0fL€tVEt€V, OTL 4nJaiv ~ Owqpo> avavSpov aVTOV elvat Kal avKo~aVT7JV.

But encomia of Thersites, the demagogue, were written, more or less seriously; an example survives in the JyKWfLLOV BepalTov of Libanius (viii. 243-51 Forster). See too Aeneas, Ep. 15 (Epist. gr. 27, Hercher); Gell. xvii. 12. 1-2; Gebhard, RE, 'Thersites', col. 2467. Defamation of Penelope is more common; she is lewd and adulterous in Lycophron, 772; Duris, FGH, 76 F 2r, made her the mother of Pan by all the suitors; and other accounts convicted her of adultery with Amphinomus or Antinous (Apollod. epit. vii. 38-39) or had Odysseus drive her out for loose behaviour (Pausan. viii. 12. 6). Normally, however, she was the type of the true and chaste wife (references in Wiist, RE, 'Penelope', cols. 483-4) and Philodemus (de rhet. 4, cols. 35 a-36 a i. zq Sudhaus) protests against those who 'll'po~
lv Tai:s avfL{jA~aEatV Jl7jVEAOTr7JS' KAvTatfL~aTpav Kat TOV Jlaptv :4J..€tavSpov NEKTOpos d~avi,ovat TdS' ap€Tas TWV dyaOwv. See

further W. H. Roscher, Phil. 1894, 368-72, and, for the particular branch of encomium and vituperation known as 'adoxography', that is the paradoxical treatment of worthless or inappropriate topics (such as P. mentions here), A. S. Pease, CP, 1926, 27-42. il Twos ~TEpou Twv TOLOUTwv: e.g. Gorgias' encomia on Helen and Palamedes, !socrates' Helen and Busiris, Polycrates' Busiris, Libanius' vituperation of Achilles and Hector (cf. Pease, op. cit. (see previous note) 29, 37-38) or the encomium on Polyphemus by Zoilus of Amphipolis (FGH, 71 F 2), which forms part of his attack on Homer.

26 C l. Olll<: ets aUyKpLUL\1 1 tt)._A' Ets KO.TO.~WKYJUL\1: he exposes them 'not to serious comparison (i.e. with others), but to ridicule'. <1rpos) Tov 1TpoxeLpoTa.Tov Myov i)aKYJKOaL: so Biittner-Wobst for MS. Tov TrpoxnptaToTaTov J..oyov; Pedech omits
o

Sofa laT{v. wcrre el Twv auyKaTanOefL€vwv €uT1v ao~os, n'Ov Sotaa-rwv la'Tat 0 ao~os. ovxl Be ye TWV Botacrrwv lanv 0 ao
\

.,.

I

f1

)

'

W

XII. z6c

2

ILLvSTR.\ TlONS FRO::VI Tll\IAEtJS

aauyKara8£u'iv. TO 8~ &.auyKa:ra8£T£iV aiiSev lrEpov EO"TW ~ TO brlxnv·

i ra-rrap.evwv. It was Carneades who, having denied the possibility of knowledge, first accepted the existence of 'perceptions which carry conviction', mBa.v~ c/Javmaia (Sex. Emp. l~fath. vii. 184}; and under Carneades and Cleitomachus the Academy was much concerned with developing a theory of 'probabilities' (cf. Sex. Emp. Pyrrh. i. 227-9; V. Brochard, Les Sceptiques grecs 2 (Paris, 1923), 135 ff.}. Tous tv 'A81]va.ls ovTa.s oO"ti>pa.(ve0"8a.l •.• tv 'Eq,EO"eXeis Ka.t 1Ta.pa.Sb$ous EOpi!O'LXoyLa.s: 'useless and paradoxical verbiage'. 26 d 1. Su]. TTtV E1TL+O.O'lV Tijs nXYJ8woAoy£a.s: 'through the superficial appearance of veracity' (Paton). 4o6

ILLUSTRATIONS FROM Tll\IAEUS

TLVns 5~ ~..oyla. is a disparaging term ; cf. ii. 16. 14 ; dKptpo>..oyEiaEia.t, xxix. 5· r, xxxiii. zr. 1. KO.TEO'X£8,o.dvo.L TTJS olKoU~EvTJS: 'to ha,·e made random statements about the world'. iv ots voAAO. t-tEv Oytws AEY€TO.L: tbe antecedent of ol<; is EKaO'Tots, but ras ~v EKUCTTOLS tcrropla.s may be either 'stories in various fields' or 'the stories in the various parts of Timaeus' work'. The relative clause may therefore refer to the existence of both true and false elements in the stories which Timaeus appears to sift before incorporating them in his histories (in which case we are not told anything about the success of his sifting) or it may refer to the stories already incorporated in his histories, in which case P. is saying that Timaeus himself wrote 'll'OA.\d p.~v uyuns . .• rro>..Ad OE Ka.i rpwbws. The second is the interpretation of Shuckburgh and Jacoby (FGH, iii b, p. 527), the first, that of Paton and Pedech. Both are possible, but the first, which gives P.'s attitude towards Timaeus, is the more probable. 4. oTav .•• lmomanuawa,: 'when they have placed confidence in his altogether excessive claims'. t1Tt TWV AoKpwv: above, s-II, J6. 5. KO.L ax€8ov ••• TOUT' ll11'oof.€povTO.L TO AUO'LTt;A€s;: 'and that I might almost say is the only benefit which the most diligent students of his history get from their reading' (Shuckburgh). Paton misses the sarcasm. 6. 8tE~o8ut.ois Myots: 'verbose passages'; cf. xxxvi. I. 6 (of the actual speeches of politicians). · ~€tpo.Kt615ns Ka.t lha.Tplpuc:ol KTA.: cf. 25 i 5, 25 k 2.

'

XII. 27a

SUMMING-UP AGAINST TIMAEC'S

I

as distinct from the earlier sections dealing with colonies, foundations of cities and relationships (26 d 2). Timaeus' work contains various kinds of historical 'ATiting, in contrast to P.'s own history which is JLOVot£8.£> (ix. r. 2-3). 2. ouK EvSosos: 'improbable'; this seems more likely than 'discreditable'. Pedech rightly keeps the reading of M alvETa' in preference to Cobet's av<.fTat.. aJ..,a~vwTnTT) ••• TWV TL...(I,tOU KO.TTJYOPT)JlGTWV: 'the truest explanation of the accusations brought against Timaeus', not, with Paton, 'the truest accusation .. .'. 3. TTJV EJ11TE'P'K~v 'II'Epi EKM'To. Suva.ll'": 'a talent for detailed research'; Pedech, '!'esprit scientifique en chaque chose'. TTJV t'll'i Tils 1ToXu'll'pa.y!locr6v'ls ~SLV: 'a competence based on inquiry'. 4. Twv e'IT' oVOJlO.TO'i cruyypo.4>£wv: 'reputable historians'. 27. 1. WS Clv El TlVWV opyavwv: 'two instruments as it were'. aAT)9LVWTEpas •.• Tfj<; opacrEWS KO.Til TOV 'HpaKAEtTOV: cf. XX. I 2. 8. For the quotation from Heracleitus see Diels, FVS, i. 22 B 101 a. But Heracleitus also wrote (Sex. Emp. 1'1ath. vii. 126) KaKol fLaf>Tvpes dvepJrrrou:nv d<j>eaJ..JLol Kal dJTa {3apf3apovs fvxds ,}x6vTwv [Bernays {3op{36pov fvxds exovTES'], and since Herod. i. 8. 2 writes WTa yd.p Tvyxavtt a1!8pwr.ou:n EOVTa dmaTOT€pa 6<j>eaAJLWV, many scholars have assumed that 'HpaKAEtTov is an error for 'Hp6SoTov (d. von Scala, 88 n. 1). This view, which Ziegler (RE, 'Polybios (1)', col. 1468) regards favourably, is to be rejected, for P. quotes Heracleitus elsewhere (iv. 40. 3), but not Herodotus, of whom he betrays no certain knowledge. The saying embodies a piece of popular wisdom which Herodotus may have taken from Heracleitus or transcribed independently; d. Thuc. i. 73· 2, Ka~ Tlt JL€" "JTavv r.al.ata Tl Sd MyEw, djy aKoat p.a.A/..ov t..Oywv p.ap711p€S' ~ Otf'" TWV aKOVG:OJLEVWV ; Dio Chrys. xii. 7I, Tb I.Eyop.EVOV WS' la:-nv aKof1s 'JTLCJ'TOTEpa OfLJLUTa; Lucian:hist. conscr. 29, a stay-at-home historian nevertheless begins his work:

a

"Qm 6<j>8a>.p.wv dm.aT(STEpa. ypaw TOL~·wv fl dSov, o~x 1/Kova:a; Horace, A.P. r8r-z, 'segnius irritant animas demissa per aurem I

quam quae sunt oculis subiecta fidelibus et quae J ipse sibi tradit spectator'. The credibility of the eyes was paradoxically denied by !socrates, Panath. rso, d KaT(llJTULY'JV E:L<;' cAEyxov Kat .:\Oyov, Swry8cl7JV av JmSEr~a· 'JTaJJTa<; dv8pdm·ov<; TrAElov.:; lma:T~JLaS' lxoi!Ta<;;

bLa T'ijS' aKoijs ~ Ti)S' JrpEws, Kat JLd~ov<; TrpagHS' KaL Ka/../..[ov.:; ElboTaS', as t t t 'f' t \ r.ap cTEpwv aKr;Koamv, 1) KE:wa<;, at<; avTot r.apayEYEV7JfLEJJOL rvyxavova:w, d. Isoc. Panegyr. 30, where this thesis leads him to reckon ancient events as more credible than modern! It is against this rhetorical I

'

I

1\

J

I

,

•

and bookish concept of history-writing that P. is here protesting. It is unlikely that he had read Heracleitus himself; the quotations 408

OTHER WRITERS CITED

XII. 28.

1

here and at iv. 40. 3 will come from him at second-hand, probably through a florilegium (cf. Wunderer, ii. 69-70). 3. TOU f.LEV s~a. TWV UTrOflVT)j.L(hwv ••• : Buttner- w obst supplies pipovs rfo,}.,om5vws dvnlxmJ, Pedech ijo/a-ro (from Reiske's dv8~o/a-ro). Reading is a function of the ears rather than the eyes. TO 8£ TrEpt 'TaS ava.Kptaus: iv. 2. 2, xii 4 c 3; it is to the latter passage that P. here refers back. 4. J3tJ3A&o9tiKTJV vou yE&TV..Waa.v: there would not be much available at Athens concerning the west. Pedech, ad loc., mentions the return by Seleucus 'Nicator of Peisistratus' library (Gell. vii. 17. 1), and the rxistence of private libraries (Athen. i. 3 A); but there was nothing on the Alexandrian scale. 5. Ta<;: TW\1 vpoyeyov6nuv ••• ayvo[as: 'the mistakes of former historians'. H ultsch regarded dyvo{as with suspicion and Buttner-Wobst and Boissevain conjectured a:rrorfoaO'<£>; but cf. iii. 21. IO, Tats dyvolat> Kai

rfotAOTLfLLO.LS

TeL>!' O'Vyyparfo€wv ; 59· 8.

6. rroXAijs ..• Sa.traV'I]S: cf. xxxiv. 5· 7 on the expense of travel. No doubt his journey to Spain on Scipio's staff would be paid for out of public moneys, but P. came from a wealthy family in his own country; cf. von Scala, 14 n. 6. 7. "E4>opos 4>TJa&v: FGH, 70 F uo; d. iv. 20. 5 n. on Ephorus. Jacoby, ad Joe. (FGH, ii C, p. 64), compares Thuc. i. 22. 2. 8. 9e6trof.LTro<;:: FGH, 115 F 342; cf. viii. 9-n n. on Theopompus. Jacoby, ad loc. (FGH, ii BD, p. 397), suggests that this sentence comes from a speech rather than a prologue to one of his books. For the sentiment cf. 25 g 1. Pedech quotes Dion. Hal. ad Pomp. 6 (FGH, us T 20 (a)). where Theopompus' method is described in tem1s very similar to that recommended by P.: (r) considerable expense in assembling evidence (d. 27. 6, 28 a 3), (2) effort to be an eye-witness (d. z8 a 4). (3) history a full-time occupation, not a TTap
Tovs ~ew8uvovs ToVs O'vp.f3avTas ~11.'iv ~v7TAavv Tfj ~eaTd A~f361fv Ka1 KaT' 'Jf3TJp{av, ;Tt 0~ TaAaTiav Kai T~ll €~w0rv TaUTa£S -rais xdJpa~S crvyKvpoOO'av 8£\anav. On the date of these journeys see iii. 57-59 n. JPedech, REG, 1958, 439, argues that P. must have crossed the Alps before 151-o, since few witnesses of Hannibal's crossing could have

been alive then; but iii. 48. r2 does not imply that the questioning of! eye-witnesses necessarily took place on the route. P. can have made his inquiries rrap' av-rwv •.. TWI! 1TapaTETWX
XII. 28.

I

PLATO CITED

at Rome or elsewhere.) On P. the traveller see further Walbank, Class. et med. 1948, 171-3; ]RS, I962, Io-n; and cf. Paus. viii. 30. 8 for the inscription to P. at :\fegalopolis, ws E7T~ yijv Ka~ OaA.aaaav 7raaav 7TAaV7JOdry. 2. nMTWY ~T]ffL KTA.: P. adapts the saying about kings and philosophers from Rep. v. 473 c-E, lav JL~ ... ~ oi cpJ...oaocpo< {JaatAnfawatl' lv Tats 7ToAwtv ~ oi {3arrtAijs TE vvv AEyoJLEVO< Kat SvvarrTat cptAoaocp-ljawrrt yvYJalws TE Kat tKavws •.• oDK /!an KaKwv 7ravAa •.. Tais 7ToAEat, DDKl;> 8' ouS€ Tij> av0pw1T£Vi.p y€vn; but significantly he lays the stress on

practical experience, whereas Plato laid it on philosophical activity. The quotation was famous and P. may cite it from memory; cf. Arist. Rhet. ii. 23. 1398 b I8, who applied it to the Theban hegemony, Kat f9~{3Yjfftv aJ.ta oi 7rpoaTclTat cpJ...oaocpo< Jy€vovTo Kat EVOatf.tOVYJaEv ~ 7ToAts. Cf. \Vunderer, ii. 72-73. 4. }.I.TJ Ka.86.1rep vGv 1ra.ptpywc;: Pedech ad loc. suggests that P. is here

criticizing such writers as Cato who wrote as an old man (Plut. Cat. mai. 24. 8} or A. Postumius Albinus (xxxix. r. 4) who wrote as a hobby; cf. Dion. Hal. ad Pomp. 6. 3 (on Theopompus): ov yap Wff7T€p nv€s 7TclpEpyov TOV (3lov avaypacp~v Tfjs iaToplas E7Tot1]rraTo, /!pyov 8€ TO 7TUVTWV avayKatoTaTOV. &.1rep1rr1ra.rrTo~ .•. : Biittner-Wobst proposes
elsewhere. 6. Ka.Ta.~u;,cra.c; €v £vl. T61T~ ~ev~Teuwv: cf. 25 d I, 25 hI, with notes. KaTa(3uf>aas could imply that Timaeus died at Athens, since the word sometimes means 'live out one's life and die' (cf. Philost. Vit. soph. i. 9· 3) like KamyYJparrKw (cf. Treves, A}P, 1942, I49-53). TTJY EYEPYTJTLK~Y: With aVT07TlfOnav. EAKWY TTJY Tou O'uyypa.~£wc; 1TpOO'TaO'[a.v: 'as being capable of sustaining the role of a master in the art of writing': cf. viii. I9· 2, xii. 8. 6. 8. KQ.TU Til 1rpOOL}.I.~OY Tfjc; EKTTJ'i ~u~AOU: FGH, 566 F 7; Jacoby, ad loc. (FGH, iii b, commentary, p. 543), suggests that the theme here treated, including the comparison between epideictic and history, implies that books i-v of Timaeus' history contained the account of the foundations of the Greek cities (d. 26 d 2 n.) and the general geography of the west (cf. FGH, 566 F 62-90), and that book vi markecl the beginning of his narrative proper. If that is so, his glance backward at this point over his geographical work in books i-v (d. 28 a 3) is parallel to his remarks about his life and manner of writing recorded from book xxxiv, which opened the five devoted to Agathocles (25 h 1). 10. "E~opoc; ... 8a.u!.l.6.cr~oc; Ka.l Ka.Ta ••• TTJY £1r(vo~a.v Twv A'J}.I.}.I.aTwv:

wv

EPHORt:s PRAISE!l

XII. zS a 3

'Ephorus is admirable in his phraseology, treatment and the working out of his argument' (FGH, 70 T 23); d. Diod. v. I. 4 ( = FGH, 70 T u), ov pol•ov Kard r?Jv Mgw, dAAd Kat Kard. rry1• olKovo,.dav lrnTETliVI(li' Twv ydp {Jtf3>.wv J~
Elsewhere P. considers some of these qualities less important; d. xvi. 17· 9 n., xxix. 12. 1o, 8ELV01'a.Tos ••• ~v Ta.'i:s 1ra.p£K~cl0'£0'L KTX.: 'most eloquent in his digressions and the expression of his own personal refl.exions'. P. admits the value of digressions: cf. xxxviii. 6. I. n)v ~1TlfLETpoGVTa. Xoyov: 'enlarging on any subject'; d. vii. 7. 7 n. Such moralizing, with its stress on praise and blame, was a regular feature of the Isocratean school, including both Ephorus and Theopompus, and often took the form of a comparison, general or specific; see the passages in Diodorus (Diod. xi. II, 46---47. sB. 4 fL. 82, xiv. I, xv. 1, 33· 2-3, 52. 7, 79· 2) quoted by Jacoby on FGH, 70 T 23. For the idea behind it see !soc. Paneg. 9, a~ f-'EV ydp 1rpagas aZ rrpoyq"v"'ll-'.!vat Kotvat mioW7Jj.LLV KUTo:\
Hal. ad Pomp. 6; Schmitz-Kahlmann, 3 n. :z. But, as P. goes on to say, Ephorus was quite clear about the difference between history and epideictic oratory. 11. TTJ~ auyKpiO'EWS ••• Tfjs Twv {O'TopLoypO.<J>wv Ka.i. XoyoypO.cj>wv: following Laqueur, Hermes, r9u, :zo6, Jacoby (on FGH, jo F u) suggests that the passage in question is that used by Diodorus in the prologue to his book xx; but this is improbable, for whereas Ephorus was concerned V>'ith the distinction between history and epideictic in general, Diodorus is concerned with the position of speeches in~ side a history (cf. Avenarius, r6). Hirzel (ii. 897) seems to be splitting hairs when he qualifies P.'s commendation by drawing a distinction between E:VxapwTorara ~~:al 1Tt£lavwTaTa and, on the other hand, 'tme' {though this distinction is found in some contexts, e.g. ii. ;6. II). 28 a 1. ,.Q. Ka.T' &.>.~8ELa.v t\?Ko8ofLYJfLEv« KTX.: for the simile cf. Plut. Arat. 15. 2, quoted in v. 35· ro n. Twv • • • To1rwv ~
distinguished from representations of places, portray mythological situations; but such situations would scarcely form a suitable background for a play and something more general seems indicated. Elsewhere i3ui9w·tc; is the subject of a picture (Polemon in Athen. v. :no B); and the phrase may be a hendiadys, 'landscape-compositions'. In § 6 P. has only r61rwv. 3. auva.ya.yc:iv ,.a, 1ra.pa t Kupv£wv t u1TOfLVftfLO.Ta.: Boissevain reports 1tfl.pd Tuplwv as the reading of M (though Mai read 7Tapd Twwv and Heyse 11ap' d.arvpiwv}; it is preferable to Biittner-Wobst, ra TTapa 41I

Xli.28a3

CASE AGAIN'ST TIMAEUS CLOSED

Kvpviwv (Hultsch reads Trap' Jtaavplwv). The context in which Timaeus would consult such a source would be the founding of Carthage; but whether the account in FGH, 566 F 82 (=Anon. de mul. 6, p. zrs \Vest) is from the Tvplwv VTrop.v~rwra or some book on Carthage is unknown (cf. Jacoby, FGH, iii b, commentary, p. 574). Nor is it known what the Tvp{wv {!1Top.v-rjp.ara were. Iamblichus (Vit. Pyth. z6z) speaks of KpoTwvta.Twv V1TOfL~fLO.Ta, but Jacoby (FGH, iii b, commentary, p. 6o6) suggests that these were merely citations from records by Timaeus, and not a continuous chronicle; the Tvp{wv lnrop.v~p.aTa likewise he takes not to have been a chronicle (FGH, iii b, commentary, p. 549). But such a chronicle is mentioned by Servius ad Aen. i. 343 and by Ps.-Aristot. Mir. A usc. 134, and this would seem to be the most likely meaning here; so Pedech, ad loc. On the usual meaning of tnrop.v~p.am, 'official notices on matters of public interest' set up by officials, see v. 33· 5 n. (to the references there add Jacoby, FGH, iii b, Noten, p. 139 n. 19); but how Timaeus could have obtained access to such records in Athens is a mystery. Jacoby (FGH, iii b, commentary, p. 549) suggests records bought from Phoenician traders; but in what language, and what would traders be doing with such records? For avvayEtV (cf. § 2 avva.8poi:aaL, § 4) as a technical expression for collecting material see Avenarius, 7I n. 2 (\vith references and synonyms). 6. Ta KtJ.T' a),:r16!lul.v oi.1ll'ITOf.i.~vwv To'i:~ 'TI'payf.i.a.ow um)p.vlla~~: 'for the recollection of the concomitant details' leads on the narrative from point to point; cf. 25 a 5, ii. 56. IO, X. 21. 8, XVi. 6, 7, for this meaning. Paton, 'the suggestions of the person who follows the narrative', and Shuckburgh 'in the case of men who have had experience of real actions', both miss the sense. P. means that the narrator, without careful questioning by someone who understands what it is all about, will drift along at the mercy of a train of associations. 10. KO.v 'TI'a.pfi .•• (ou 1rnpEanv): cf. 24. 6 n. Pedech reads (otl
BOOK XIII 1-2. A etolian affairs On the date of this, probably 01. 143, 3

::w6fs, sec pp. 20-21.

1. 1. 5,0. T~v auvexeLa.v Twv rroAEfLwv: the Social War and the First Macedonian War; before that they were involved in the Demetrian War against Macedon, though they were neutral in the Chremonidean War. They had not in fact been as continuously at war as Achaea. 5,0. T~v rroAvTEAELa.v T<1lv ~(wv: cf. Agatharchides, FGH, 86 F 6 Athen. xii. 527 B, C, Alrw.\o~ roaovrt.p rwv Aot1TWV lrotfL6repov Exova£ 7Tp6> 8d.varov OU!.p1T€p Ka~ {i]v 7To.\vre.\ws- EKTEVI.t:J'Tepov 'Tj'TOiJUL 'TWV a.\.\wv. 2. otKeiw~ lha.KELfLEVol Tpos Ka.woTofL£a.v: a observation about Aetolian character. Shuckburgh, 'being naturally disposed to a change in their constitution', links it too closely with this immediate occasion. There is no evidence in fact that the Aetolian constitution had hitherto been unstable; see, on its development, Larsen, 69 ff.; TAP A, I952, I-33· vofLoyp6.,Pov<;: mentioned in the Aetolian decree of asylie for Teos (Syll. 563, l. r7 = IG, ix 2 • 1. I92), which belongs to the strategia of Alexander of Calydon. This falls between 205 and 2or, and appears to be contemporary with the Delphic archonship of Megartas (Syll. 564); but the exact year is not agreed, cf. xviii. 3· 12 n . .t.wptfLa.xov t
1 a 1. ~Aisa.v8pos b AlTwMs: the words 6 AlrwM.- are probably the excerptor's (in xviii. 36. 5 the context is different). This is probably Alexander 6 "law<; emKa.AOVfLEVO>", the richest man in Aetolia and naturally opposed to revolutionary measures (cf. xviii. 3· I, xxi. 25. II, 26. 9}. Toiho TO ,PuTOV: xp•Cw d1TOK01Tal or KO.LVO'TOfLta. Some headway had been made with debt-cancellation, if IG, ix 2 • r. 70, a decree of Pleuron in honour of Lycus of Calydon [xp<]oAvr~aavm belongs to this period; cf. Flaceb~re, 310 n. 2. Wunderer, i. ro7, thinks Alexander is quoting an Aetolian proverb: this is unlikely. 2. 1. tiKo'ITa.s Ahwi.wv crTpa.TT)y6~t: so Valesius following Suidas. P reads EK6Tra>" o Al-noAwv arpa.TT)y6-; and M E~<:&1Ta> o Alrwl.wv. See Pomtow, RE, 'Delphoi', cols. 2677-8 n.; Btittner-Wobst, Phil. 1903, 545 and in his edition vol. 5 index s.v. EK&1Tas-; Holleaux, 289 n. z. 4IJ

XIII.

AETOLIAN AFFAIRS

2. I

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

and Epist. ii.

2,

146-8:

si tibi nulla sitim finiret copia lymphae, narrares medicis: quod quanto plura parasti tanto plura cupis, nulline faterier audes?

See von Scala, 333-4. The comparison is evidently favoured in Cynic circles, but it was probably proverbial in F.'s time, as it is today in Tuscany, whence von Scala quotes the saying: Tavaro e come idropico: quanto piu beve, piu ha sete'. The difficulty, as Schweighaeuser observes, is in the fact that there is no medical basis for the belief that a victim of dropsy is especially subject to thirst; and he therefore interprets ~ rwv EfwOEv vypwv 1!'apd8wts to mean 'the accumulation of water under the surface of the skin'. This cannot be right, both because of the reference to thirst in the parallel examples and because unquenchable thirst is so clearly the right comparison for 414

AETOLIAN AFFAIRS

XIII. 3-5. 6

insatiable greed. \Vhy this popular belief in dropsical thirst should have mistakenly arisen is not clear: is there perhaps confusion \vith diabetes? For similar medical comparisons cf. i. 81. s-II, xi. 25. 2, fg. 41; on Scopas' greed cf. xviii. 55· I. 3. ets !A.Ae~avSpucw «i'AHa~ cf. ii. 1L 14, T~V EK Ti]> xif>pa,; wrf>l'AE,CLV, 'booty taken in the countryside'. Neither Paton, 'the profit he drew from the force in the field', nor Shuck burgh, 'his military pay', gives quite the right sense. c!lv ~v ••• ttup~os: 'over which he had personal control' ; the antecedent is wrpe'Aela.t>, not V11'al1Jpwv. 5La TO 1nO'TEUEu0aL 'II'EpL TWV oAwv: 'since he had been entrusted with the supreme command'. l>IJrwvLov , •• 8eKOfi.VCLLa~ov: 'pay of ten minae'; for d.jlwvtov cf. i. 66. 3 n. The mina of 100 drachmas was a gold coin in Ptolemaic Egypt at this time (cf. I<egling, RE, 'Mnaiaion', cols. 2245-6); it weighed a little over 430 gm. Scopas received quite exceptional pay. II j3acnAEus: probably Philopator, but one cannot be sure, since neither the date of Scopas' arrival in Egypt (probably winter zos/4: see above) nor those of Philopator's death and Epiphanes' accession are certain. See below, xiv. n-12 n. 5. To 11'VEUJlC1 1Tpoa€8l]KE T~ xpuu(~: cf. xxxii. I 1. r, TO nveil!La 11'poai8TjKav Tot,; XP~!Laa'; 'he delivered his soul over to money' (Paton). On Scopas' downfall cf. xviii. 53· I-SS· 2.

3-5. 6. Philip's treachery towards Rhodes The First Macedonian War, already dying out with the separate Aetolian peace of zo6 (cf. xi. 7. 2-3 n.), ended in the Peace of Phoenice in zos (Livy, xxix. rz. 13-15; App. Mac. 3; the Senate may not have ratified it until spring 204; cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 444) ; see below, xviii. 1. 14 n., 3· 12 n., 47· 12 n., for discussion of some of the clauses. Though proposed by the Romans, it represented a limited success for Philip, who now directed his ambitions towards the Aegean (cf. Walbank, Philip, 105 ff.). The Rhodians, •vho were general foes to piracy (cf. iv. 19. 8; Strabo, xiv. 652; Syll. s8r, ll. SI ff., 79 ff. (= JC, iii, Hierapytna, JA), a treaty between Hierapytnaand Rhodes c. ,rgg). made war on the Cretans (Diod. xxvii. 3), thus irritating Philip, who was 7TpocrraT'T/> over part of Crete (vii. 1 I. 9 n.)-probably 415

XIII. 3-5.6

PHILIP'S TREACHERY TOWARDS RHODES

including the anti-Rhodian cities now involved in this war. Philip's reply was to suborn an Aetolian, Dicaearchus, to plunder in the Aegean and help the Cretans (d. xviiL 54· 8-Iz), and to employ Heracleides against Rhodes directly, as described below. The date is either 205 or, more probably, 204 after the Peace of Phoenice; see above, pp. 20-21. 3. 1. Ka.Ko1Tpa.y~oa{nrqv: 'treacherous dealings' (Paton) ; the reference is probably to Philip's intrigues in Crete; cf. 5· I and the last note. 2. oi •.. O.pxo.iol: particularly Greeks, though perhaps not excluding Romans (see next note). 4. Convention on the use of weapons: cf. Livy, xlli. 47· s. 'non per insidias et nocturna proelia ... bella maio res gessisse: indicere prius quam gerere solitos bella, denuntiare etiam interdum, pugnam et locum finire, in quo dimicaturi essent' (probably deriving from a passage now lost in P. xxvii; cf. xxxvi. g. g). P.'s discussion is clearly linked with the reference to the Lelantine War in Strabo, x. 448: awE8€vro €¢>' ots avan)aovTat Tov dywva; Strabo quotes an inscription in the Amarynthium, a sanctuary of Artemis near Eretria, forbidding the use of Tr/AE{3o'Aa, and von Scala (3o8 n. 1 ; cf. Staatsvertrage, 16 no. 19) suggests that both Strabo and P. derive their information from this inscription via Ephorus (Strabo's immediate source being Apollodorus); for Ephorus' use of inscriptions cf. FGH, 70 F 199. This story of a convention fits the time, with its traditions of single combat (cf. Ephorus, FGH, 70 F II;'i Strabo, viii. 357, p,o11op,axtav ••. KaTa €8os Tt m1.Aatov Twv 'EM~11wv) and the attempts of the Amphictyonic League to ameliorate warfare (cf. Walbank, Phoenix, 1951, 53-54; Larsen, CP, 1949, 258-9), and is acceptable. It is confirmed by the remark in Herod. vii. 9 fJ 1, l.wiJom "E'A>.7Jll€;;, ws 7TvvfJ&vop,at, dfJovA6TaTa r.oMp,ov;; [aTaa8at VTto Tf dyvwp,oaVV7]S' Kal aKaLOT7JTos. €7TEav yap a>..:l.~:\o,m r.6'A€p,ov Ttpo€[Ttwa•, ;.g"Jpovus To KaA:\,O'Tov xwp{ov Ka~ A€WTaTOV, ls TOVrO KaTLOYTfS Jkaxovrat. This will represent democratic criticism of archaic procedure; cf. Jacoby, FGH, iii b (SuppL-E.), vol. ii, p. ,,54, no. 37· TT)v EK X€lpos Kat auo-TaSttv ••• ~«xttv: the passage of Strabo quoted in the previous note continues: o{ o' EvfJot:tS dyaiJoi r.po;; p,ci.X!Jll vm)p~av ri;v aTao{av, ~ Kai avCTTaO~v MyETa< Kai lK xt:tp/Js. The phrase may go

back to the common source (Ephorus ?) , though P. uses it elsewhere. O.A.tt9lvT)v ••. KpiaLv 1Tpa.yjJ.6.Twv: cf. Livy, xlii. 47· 8, 'sed eius demum

animum in perpetuum uinci, cui confessio expressa sit se neque arte neque casu, sed collatis comminus uiribus iusto ac pio esse bello superatum'. 5. Tooc; TroAe~ouc; .•• 1rpouA.eyov Kat Tas ~6.xa.s KTA.: cf. Liv)', xlii. 47· 5 (quoted in§ 4 n.). 6. +a.vA.ou ••• To 1rpo+o.vws n 1rpaTTEW Twv 1TOAEjJ.lKwv: cf. Livy. 416

PHILIP'S TREACHERY TOWARDS RHODES

XIII. 4·

2

xlii. 47. 8, 'interdum in praesens tempus plus profici dolo quam uirtute; sed eius demum ... (quoted in the last note but one)'. But war was still declared more frequently in Greece than P. here admits; d. iv. :26. 7 n., 36. 7' xvi. z6. 8; Livy, XXXV. sr. 2; Plut. Pyrrh. z6. If; Bengtson, Historia, I963, Ioo-4, discussing a second-century B.c. in~ scription from Apollonia on the Pontic coast of Thrace, which mentions a 1T6AEJ-WS al·mdyycXros (cf. iv. 16. 4) waged by Mesembria. 7. ~po.xu Se T~ Ad1Tt:Tm 1ro.pcl. 'Pwlla.ioL<; ixvo<;: in book xxvii (if Lh•y, xlii. 47, is a fair indication) the argument was placed in the mouths of 'ueteres et moris antiqui memores' that the Romans had lapsed from these principles in their dealings \vith Perseus; and probably, as in his account of Greek comments on the sack of Cetrthage in r46 (xxxvL 9), he expressed no opinion of his own. However, his praise of Scipio's burning of the camp in the war in Africa (xiv. 4-5) is not easily reconcilable with his comments here. i.~t XELpos ••• Ka.t ( au)c:ml.Sl)V: on the importance of the individual fighter in the Roman legion, compared with the mass weight of the phalangites, cf. xviii. 30. 6-8. P. neglects the role of the pilum; but he is, of course, trying to identify Roman practice with the conventions of the dpxa.ro~. 8. 1rt:pi Tou<; ""youJLevou<;: 'leading men', presumably Greek. 4. 1. 'Hpa.KA£iSn: Heracleides of Tarentum is perhaps the Heradeides mentioned in a letter of 209 (Syll. 552 = IG, ix. 78; cf. Schroeter, 79-8o, no. 32), in which Philip V granted &nAda. to Abae in Phocis, concluding: UfLiV f3ouAOfL"VOS xa.p{Cwfla.t yiypa[¢ja. TWt 'HpaKAEtO'fJ~ fL~ JvoxA
Ee

XIII. 4·

2

PHILIP'S TREACHERY TOWARDS RHODES

anti-Rhodian side was Hierapytna (cf. Syll. 581}. Heracleides' ruse is also described {after P.) in Polyaenus, v. 17. (2) (cf. Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 136 ff.). On this war see Riv. fil. 1907, 6 ff.; Holleaux. £tudes, iv. r63-77, r87 ff. ;Walbank, Philip, IIo ff.; Hiller \·on Gaertringen, RE, Suppl.-B. v, 'Rhodos', cols. 787-8. 3. T~v tmTa.ytiv: Welles, 336, points out that this word means an oral command, in contrast to written orders. 4-5. Character of Heracleides: P.'s source is unknown, but he may draw on some Macedonian informant who resented the influence the man had with Philip (cf. Livy, xxxii. 5· 7; Diod. xxviii. 9). Clearly the details are prejudiced and include many stock themes of abuse (cf. xxviii. 14. 1), which P. readily condemns in Timaeus (cf. xii. 13. r ff. on Demochares). Ullrich, 35, argues for the use of Zeno of Rhodes, but unconvincingly. 6. So~a.s Tov TC.pa.vTa. 1rpaTTEtv 'Pwlla.lo~s: see abm·e, 4. r n., for the possibility of earlier contacts with the Romans. Tfjs m)ATJS Tfjs t1rt TO }LEaoyatov +Epoua'l}s: probably the Temenid gate; cf. viii. 25. 7 n. 8. W
5. 1. ol1TpuTavELS: cf. xv. 23. 4, xvi. 15. 8, xxii. 5· 10, xxix. 10. 4; a committee of five (cf. Hiller von Gaertringen, RE, Suppl.-Rv, 'Rhodos', coL 767), appointed half-yearly (xxvii. 7· 2; Insch. Mag. 55; Syll. 644 (cf. Pugliese A1muario, rg.p, r6o n. r)) alongside the ypa.fLp.aTt:vs and {moypafLfL0.7Ev,;; they presented business to the Council and Assembly, and negotiated with ambassadors and allies. One of their number probably took the chair throughout their period of office (cf. xv. 23. 4). They occupied the Prytaneum (xv. z3. 3), which was also used as a record office (xYi. 15. 8). See van Gelder. Rhodier, 239-51; Hiller \'On Gaertringen, RE, Suppl.-B.v, 'Rhodos', col. 767. 8Ln T~v 1repl TQ. Kp'llnKn r
PHILIP'S TREACHERY TOWARDS RHODES

XIII. 6-8

beginning of the intervie·w. Heracleides says (Polyaen. ibid.) ildnr> Ot' vp.B.s, i1Tc:t0~ cJ:>tAm1TOV b:w>..vov TrOA€JUiv up.iv, rva 0€ KTA. (quoted in last note). 3. vO.v yAp ~ouA.TJOilva.L KTA.: d. Schweighaeuser ad loc.: 'ut Rhodiis persuaderet ueterator, se serio Philippa esse iratum, demonstrat illis, quiduis potius passurum Philippum, quiduis aequiore animo laturum, quam ut ipsius consilia cum Cretensibus eommunicata (quae !usee literis, quas Heracleides subripuisset, aperirentur) Rhodiorum ad notitiam peruenirent'. Polyaenus, Joe. cit., says 'P&owt Tats ima-

~AOov 1Tp01T7J!..aKtt6/LEVOS

ToAais maTEvaaVTES •HpaK,\el07JV vrrolUxovTat, tiJs 0VV7Ja6p.evov avToi"s wt/>eA.tJLOV KaTa c]:>,)..[mrov yivwOat. According to Polyaenus, the ageni

provocateur (whose methods resemble those of Sinon at Troy, even to the extent of displaying self-inflicted injuries) succeeded in setting fire to the Rhodian arsenal and destroying thirteen w:waotKot together with the triremes in them. Ka.L TllV 'Hpa.KAelOTJV cmEAUall.: the epitomator•s words, for in reality Heracleides is the subject of dmf/..va£. 4. T~V aA.Tj9ELO.V: on the importance P. attributes to truth in history see the passages listed in Vol. I, pp. Io-Ir. Here Truth is personified as a power active in human life, as when we say 'Truth wm out'; but despite the reference to p.eylaT7JV Oe6v, this is little more than a manner of speech. Nor is the personification of cf,vats to be taken seriously. 5. f1U'a TOU ~EUOOUS TCLTTOJ:lEVWV: a military metaphor. 6. ws <.Tvve~TJ yEve<.TOm 1repl Tov 'Hpa.KAElOTJV: this has led some scholars to doubt Polyaenus' story of the burning of the dockyards (Niese, ii. 572 n. 2; Fabricius, RE, 'Herakleides (63)', col. 498); but perhaps the Rhodians awoke to the truth in time to prevent the destruction of their fleet. The words rror€ 8€ Kai 1roAov XP6vov JmaKonafJc.faa, Te,\os aih~ 0~' iavrijs JmKparl'ii. KaL Ka'Taywv{tHa~ -ro t/Jf.voos imply some preliminary success (Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 136 n. 3).

n

5. 7. Damocles and Pythion 7. ACLf10KAfjs b f1ETcl nuO(wvos TI'Ef1,P8eLs: neither can be identified, nor is it certain who sent them (though it was probably Philip).

6-8. N ab:·s of Sparta Nabis succeeded Machanidas on the Spartan throne in 207 (cf. xi. 11. 1-18. 4; Paus. iv. 29. 10); he was the son of Damaratus (Syll. 584), and Homollc (BCH, 1896, 502ft.) suggests that he \Vas from a branch of the Eurypontid house, which sprang from the Damaratus who took refuge \v:ith Darius I (Herod. iv. 67-7o); the Damaratus praised by the Delians in Syll. 38r will be his great-grandfather. Since he 419

XIII. 6-8

NABIS OF SPARTA

had grown-up sons in 197 (Livy, xxxii. 38. 3) he will have been born at thP. latest c. 240. According to Diod. xxvii. I Nabis rid himself ol Pelops, son of Lycurgus, whose guardian Machanidas had beeu (x. 41. z n.); but P. does not mention this. Like Machanidas he is dubbed tyrant by the hostile tradition going back to P.; but he was oftkially King (IG, v. T. 885 (on bricks); Syll. 584; Livy. xxxiv. 31. 13; Head, 435; P. Wolters, AM, r897, 139 ff.), even though th(• double kingship had been abolished and his bodyguard and general behaviour suggested the tyrant. On the combination of social and imperialistic factors in N abis' policy see Aymard, PR, 33-36; and i11 general J. Mundt, Nabis, Konig von Sparta (Diss. Munster), Cologne, 1903 (over-favourable); V. Ehrenberg, RE, 'Nabis (r)', cols. 1471-82. P. mentions Nabis here in connexion with the v.rar 'A-.Jth Megalopoli~ (8. 7)· 6. 1. lhos ~&TJ TJ'LTov itxwv T~v ApxfJv: it is now 204, and Man tinea was fought in 207: see above, p. zr. TfJV u1ro Twv ~xrHwv ~TTa.v: tlte battle of Mantinea (xi. II. r-r8. 4). Paton by a slip 'A-Tites 'by the Aetolians'. 3. Tous lo.ol1Tous: 'the remnants'. Paton seems right in his suspicion that some defining phrase has dropped out and that the reference is to the royal house (perhaps meaning Pelops: cf. 6-8 n.). Schweighaeuser and Shuckburgh think of 'the Spartiates, the Spartan nobility' . but these are covered in the next clause, l.<{JvydSevae ••. '1Tpoyov~tavEaTaTOLS: 'the chief of those who were left'. 4. 1Tapa.axtaTaL, Xwrro66TaL: 'housebreakers, brigands'. This abuse of :Kabis' followers recalls P.'s severe criticism of Theopompus for a similar characterization of Philip II's hetairoi (Yiii. 9· 6-10. 10). iK Tijs otKOUJ.LEvTJS: the exaggeration defeats its own purpose; see further xvi. I3. 2. ~ 9p£lj!aaa: cf. iv. 17. 12. 5. [~ has not this meaning. On the whok Schweighaeuser's sense is best; it gives two ways of dealing witl1 the exiles, a third way being mentioned in the next sentence. 8. 9up£5wv: 'windows'. 10. Tous 1Tlo.E1aTous: more exaggeration.

7. 1. t
Xlil. 9

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

8. 2. Tois KpYJa(: cf. 6. 8 for use of Cretans as henchmen. For P.'s hostility towards Cretans cf. iv. 53· 5 n., viii. 16. 4 n. On the Cretan piracy encouraged by Philip at this time see 3-5. 6 n. Op}ll]TTJfliOV Kai Ka.Ta~uy~v: cf. xvi. IJ. 2, dvaoeLga, r~v Javrov oz5val"v o[ov aav.\ov iepoll.

3. €£vo1 Twv O.rro Tijo;; Bo1wT~a.s: 'strangers from Boeotia': Paton gives the more specialized sense 'foreign soldiers', i.e. mercenaries. 6. }lClpTupo}lE.vwv ••• hrav6.yuv: 'protesting that they should bring the men before the authorities'. 7. Ta npoa.yopou 9pE}l}lC1Ta.: he is unknown, but probably a Megalopolitan. Tou rroM:}lou: cf. 6-8 n. This war appears to have consisted of a series of frontier raids between Sparta and Megalopolis over a long period (xxi. 9· r), but not to have developed into a full \Var with Achaea even after Nabis' attack on Messene (xvi. IJ. r-3). when Philopoemen had to act alone since the Achaean general Lysippus refused his collaboration (Plut. Philop. 12. 5); cf. Aymard, PR, J8-43·

9. Antiochus and the Gerrhaeans Antiochus will have left Carmania, where he wintered in 2o6/s (xi. 34· 13), in spring 205; the events recorded here belong to that year (d. Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 178-9) and should precede chapter .3 (see p. 21). Antioch us will have crossed Persia, calling at Antioch-inPersis (OGIS, 231, 233; identified by Tarn (JEA, 1929, I I n. 4; Bactria, 418 n. 1) with Bushire on the coast of Iran), before taking to•the Persian Gulf to visit the Gerrhaeans. E. Will (REG, 1962, 104 n. 59) suggests that Persis at this time remained in revolt against 421

XIIL9

ANTIOCHUS A"XD THE GERRHAEANS

Antiochus (for we do not hear of the suppression of Molon's brothel Alexander: v. 40. 7, 43· 6, 54· 5); but the absence of any referenc<' to it here is probably due to the fragmentary nature of the narrativr. 9. 1. Aa~cu ••• Xa.TTT)Yla.s 1TOAtS: cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. 14 7, 'sinus Capeus, quem accolunt Gaulopes et Gattaei, sinus Gerraicus, op· pidum Gerra'. Neither Labae nor Sabae is identifiable, but Chattenia is a name for the country of the Gerrhaei, who lived in the southem part of the modem province of Hasa on the west shore of the Persian Gulf. They are mentioned by Strabo, xvi. 766, 776, 778 (using Eratosthenes and Artemidorus) ; Diod. iii. 42. 5 (Agatharchides; cf. GG11rf, i. I77); Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. I47 (quoted above), xxxi. 78; PtoL vi. 7· I6, viii. 22. Io. The capital Gerrha is mentioned by the Arab geographer Hamdan! (Gezi.ret, 137, 24M) under the name of el-Cer'a; it lay near the modern town of Hufuf, two days inland from the coast at Uqair, and it may be the Carrhae of Pliny, Nat. hist. xii. So. See Tkar, 'Gerrha (2)', cols. 1270-2. l. ~~~0. T~Y EOKa.tpla.v: 'through the wealth of the Gerrhaei' (cf. x. 27. 9) rather than 'for their convenience' (Paton). 3. TouTots ••• 1ra.pT)yyetAE <jlE(8E0"9a.t: probably the order is to hi:> troops (see § 4, where hiatus betrays the excerptor). 5. ~aTe<jlavwaa.v: 'they made him a gift of'. aTa.KTTJS: oil of myrrh; cf. Dioscor. i. 6o; LXX Gen. 37· 25. ~1ri T uXov T~Y vflaov: cf. Pliny, Nat. hi st. vi. I48, xii. 38, 40; the best account is in Theoph. HP, iv. 7· 7· and CP, ii. 5· s. who describes tbc and rich vegetation, including palms, mangroves, figs, fruit, and cotton. It is the island of Bahrain (Manama). See 0. Stein, RE, 'Tylos (2)', cols. I732-3. This passage probably implies the presence of a Seleucid fleet in these waters; cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. vi. I 52; Tarn, 240; Schmitt, Autiochos, 49 n. L TOY n1T01TAOUY i1Tt IEAEUKeta.<;: he probably wintered there in 205/4·

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

GEOGRAPHICAL

FRAGl\1E~TS

XIII.

IO. 11

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

BOOK XIV 1 a. On the -im.portance of Ol. 144

=

204-200

In this extract from the 7TpoiK8fw> to this Olympiad (cf. xi. 1 an.) P. sets out to catch the reader's interest by stressing the contents (von Scala, 29o-1); for further examples of P.'s endeavour to attract readers cf. iii. 32. r, vi. z. 3, z6. 12. The present book contains only one year's events (§ 5), 01. 144, r = 204/3. 1 a 1. at 1TpoEte9iuns: Twv 1Tpa~Ewv: 'the introductory surveys of events'. ElS: E1TL.1av teat At~UTJV 1TOAEfLOUS:: the plural is curious, for these are both aspects of the same war against Carthage. 1To1a. ns T) teaTauTpocJ>Tj teal. T( To n\>.os: 'what was the final outcome': there is no clear distinction between the two nouns; cf. vi. 8. 6, ro rEAo> mhwv . .. Tij> Karaarpocpijc;. 3. Ta ..• i!pya teal. Xoyous:: the two conventional parts of historywriting; cf. Thuc. i. 22; Plato, Tim. 19 c; Ephorus, FGH, 70 F 9; Dion. Hal. /mit. 3· 3; ad Pomp. 3· 20; Thuc. 25, 55; Quint. x. 1. 101. 4. Tcis: 1TpompE includes both character (cf. 12. s) and policy. 0. yap 1Tponpov EAEYETo 1TEpl. auTwv: 'what was hitherto only rumoured about them'. 5. ou Tcis: Ete TWV SuELV ETWV 1Tpa~us teTA.: cf. ix. I. I, Ell ova~ {1vf3/dw; .•. T~V Jt~YYJaW.

1-10. Scipio in Africa

Scipio returned from Spain in zo6 (xi. 33· 8) and was elected consul for 205 (Livy, xxviii. 38. 6) with Sicily as his province (Livy, xxviii. 38. 12), to which Africa was subsequently added (Livy, xxviii. 40-45). Scipio went to Sicily to prepare for the invasion of Africa (Livy, xxix. 1) and C. Laelius raided Africa (Livy, xxix. 1. 14, 3· 6-5. r). In 204, as proconsul (Livy, xxix. 13. 3), Scipio crossed to Africa and gained some successes; he also undertook the siege of Utica (Livy, xxix. 24-36; Val. Max. iii. 7· 1, viii. 3· 3; Frontin. Strat. i. 12. 1, ii. 7· 4; App. Lib. ro-q; Dio. fg. 57, 63--g; Zon. ix. rr-r2). The present fragment opens in the winter of 204~3. P.'s source or sources cannot be 424

XIV.

SCIPIO IN AFRICA

./

.

'-' !

Dra t"l

i'\'E"

'._'\.li•<<J],

'f,g!ln\.1,1llt'

~.lrr.'lg."trr,l, ~idi luu.')-.t'i

•

I. 2

I

~'

0

} ~I\ ( ,l

'

\ ( n l'fL1

Meinan 1.1 }..~:1

• \" ";", ,,, /.· ni:mr

IS. THE AFRICAK

CA~IPAICNI::-.!G

on Veith, Schlachtfelder, iii,

2,

AREA

Karte

II

a)

recovered with anv certainty; he draws on good information for Scipio but he is also well informed about the African side, and as De Sanctis (iii. 2. 649) points out, the distances of 30 and 7 stades in 8. 2 point to a Greek source, for they do not represent com'ersions from milia passuum. Whether Fabius' history extended down to the end of the war is uncertain (d. Walbank, JRS, 1959, 195; Hoffmann, Historia, r96o, 317 (after zoo)). 1. 1. ot JJ.EV oov urraTOL: this will refer to the res Italiae of 203, which would the res Africae; hence the consuls are those of A.u.c. 551 203 B.C., Cn. Servilius Cn.f. Cn.n. Caepio and C. Servilius C.f. P.n. Geminus (Livy, xxix. 38. 3). Caepio had received the surrender of several Bruttian towns (Livy, xxix. 38. r; above, xiii. ro. r-3 n.); Geminus was in Etruria, and advanced thence into Gaul to rescue his father and Lutatius Catulus from captivity (Livy, xxx. 19. 6-8). 2. ~v Tfl AL~un KaTe Titv rro.paXELJJ.ao-£av: for Scipio's winter quarters see 6. 7 ; the Castra Cornelia was placed towards the north end of the ridge, which runs south-west to north-east, a little to the east of Utica; at this period it projected into the sea at the site of Galaat e1 Andeliss, and the camp was probably on the highest point, at the base of the actual promontory, with the naval station on the 425

XIV. r.

2

SCIPIO IN AFRICA

west; cf. Livy, xxix. 35· 13-14; Caesar, BC, ii. 24. 2; Veith, AS, iii. 583-6; Gsell, iii. 220 n. 2; Scullard, Scip. n. 2. 1TUY9a.YOJJ.EVo<; £~apTUEW O'TOAov: cf. Livy, XXX. 3· 4, 'classem paratam instructamque ad commeatus intercipiendos habebant'. On the Punic failure to usc their fleet see Thiel, r6o. £yivno ••• 1repi Ta.UTTJV TTJV 1ra.pa.crK£u~v: 'he busied himself with similar preparations'; d. 2. r-2. Scipio's war-fleet at Carthage amounted to only forty ships (Livy, xxix. 25. ro, 26. 3; see Thiel, 2.

rs6 n. 422}. 1rept T~v TtlS 'ITuKT)S 1TOA~opK£a.v: cf. Livy, xxx. 3· 3, 'neque Scipio

ullo tempore hiemis belli opera remiserat ... Uticam obsidebat'. But P. probably means simply 'he was concerned v..ith the siege' ; cf. v. 36. r, ly{voVTo 1TEpt r~v dva.l.p<mv roO Maya. This is the meaning of the phrase in 7· r, where it occurs before he has marched out the following spring to besiege the city, cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 649. Clearly Scipio could not carry on the siege of Utica through the winter, shut up in his camp; elsewhere Livy (xxix. 35· 12) has the facts: 'ut Scipio, cum quadraginta ferme dies nequiquam omnia experiens obsedisset Uticam, abscederet inde irrito incepto.' See Gsell, iii. 221 n. 7 ; Scullard, Scip. 196 n. On Utica see i. 70. 9 n.; G. Ville, RE, Suppl.-B. ix, 'Utica', cols. r869-94 (with plan at cols. r871-2}. 3. Ttl'> Ka.Tti. TOV Ioq.aKa ••• eA1r£Sos: on Syphax, king of the Masaesyli, see xi. 2-l a 4, where Scipio visited him in Africa. SlE1TE!L1TETo OE crvvE)(ws: according to Appian (Lib. 17} and Dio (fg. 57· 72; d. Zon. ix. rz), Syphax the negotiations; and Valerius Antias {Livy, xxx. 3· 6} spoke of a visit of Syphax to the Roman camp. 4. TtlS 1ra~SraKTJ'>: cf. 7. 6; Sophonisba, the daughter of Hasdrubal, whom her father gave in to Syphax to win his support (Livy, xxix. 23. 4; Diod. xxYii. 7; Dio, fg. 57· 51; Zon. ix. II); the form of the name in the best Livian MSS. is Sophoniba (Livy, xxx. 12. u); but the Punic form is Saphanbaal (Gsell, iii. 197 n. 3; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 532 n. 137). The story of her suicide to avoid imprisonment is romanticized in the tradition, probably including P.; De Sanctis, loc. cit., attributes this to Ennius. V.+tKop(a.v: 'quickness to tire', and so 'fickleness'. 5. tiJv SE mrpt 1roAAO. KTA.: 'since his mind was much distracted'. Tov e~w K£vSuvov: 'a battle in the open country'. 7. TOU') !LEV E~ apxil<> 'those who tirst arrived'. Tou') S' £( m )cruva.yojLEvous: 'those who kept joining'. 8. T ~1TtJ3oMjs ••• l}s tmJ3aXXETa.~: 'the course he wished to see adopted' (Shuckburgh). 13. TWY 1rpa.y11anKwv ••• Ka.t aTpaT~WnKwv: cf. Livy, xxx. 4· 1, 'primos ordines spectatae uirtutis atque pmdentiae'; but P. seems

<

426

SCIPIO IN AFRIC.\

XIV. z-5

to mean 'men of tried experience' contrasted with 'men of military skill'. Paton translates 'expert observers' and 'certain of his officers'; the two categories are partially but not wholly exclusive. 14. Suo .•. CTTpa.To11'EOeia.~: not identifiable with certainty, but Veith's proposed site has great plausibility. Scipio was encamped for the winter at the so-called Castra Cornelia (6. 7 ; Livy, xxix. 35· IJ; Caesar, BC, ii. 24. 2) on a rocky peninsula about 3 km. east of Utica (above, 1. 2 n.). Veith (AS, iii. 2. sSIH} and map 13 a) places Hasdrubal's camp on the site of the village Douar Touha, which lies on the south-east side of the eminence Koudiat Touba, the southern end of the ridge running south-south-east from Castra Cornelia, and Syphax's camp on Koudiat el Mabtouka, which lies to the west of Douar Touba: the distance between the two camps as shown on Veith's map is 2i km., and this is considerably more than the ro stades (r! km.) mentioned by P. Scullard (Scip. 199 n. r) suggests that the camps were perhaps on Koudiat Touba and on the hill to the north-east (54 m.: not named on Veith's map), which are exactly Jo stades apart; Veith thinks P. gave the distance to the nearest Io stades. Either site fits the distance of 6o stades from Castra Cornelia (4. 1). At this time the Bagradas (Wadi Medjerda) flowed well to the south-east of Koudiat Touba (i. 75· 5 n.), not between this hill and Koudiat el Mabtouka, as at present. Against the position for the two camps suggested by Tissot, Glograpltie comparee de la province romaine d'Afrique, i. (Paris, 18R4), 554, on the south slope of Djebel Menzel Roul (Djebel .Mcn;:el-el~Ghoul), immediately southwest of Utica, see the arguments of Veith, AS, iii. 2. 588-1). Carthaginian numbers. P. here gi\·es Hasdrubal Jo,ooo foot and 3,ooo horse and Syphax so,ooo foot and 1o,ooo horse, a total of 93,ooo. According to Appian, Lib. 9, Hasdrubal at the beginning of the campaign had armed IJ,:zoo men (a more reliable figure than the 2j,ooo given in App. Lib. 13 from a different source; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 583; Scullard, Scip. 319-20). Clearly the figures given now for the two camps are too large : they are larger than any army Carthage ever assembled, and Hasdrubal can hardly have doubled his force since Scipio landed. It is likely that at some stage the figures have been inflated to the glory of Scipio, and De Sanctis (iii. 2. 584; cf. Scullard, Scip. 3zo) plausibly suggests 3o,ooo infantry plus J,ooos,ooo cavalry for the combined force.

2-5. The burning of the camps; Livy, xxx. 3-6, follows P.; Appian, Lib. Ij-23 mal<es the whole thing almost a spontaneous reaction to an attack by Syphax on Masinissa, which is also mentioned by Zon. ix. 12, who connects the burning of the camps with the battle of the Gteat Plains; see also Frontin. Stral. i. r. 3, 2. I, ii. 5· 29; auct. de uir. ill. 49· 13 ; Sil. It. xv'ii. 89 ff.

XIV.

2.

r

SCIPIO ll' AFRICA

2. I. Tfjs ea.pLvi]s wpa.s: spring 203 and probably March or April; cf. Scullard, Sdp. 326; De Sanctis, iii. z. 585; Pedech, Metlwde, 464, makes it between 5 and 15 March. 3. Tov UtrEp T~v troAw Kd~Evov Aocpov: evidently mentioned earlier; cf. Livy, xxi..x. 35· 7, 'ab imminente prope ipsis moenibus tumulo' (a passage relating to the previous autumn). Livy, xxix. 34· 3, puts it a Roman mile from the town, and Veith identiJies it with the hill commanding the walls where the amphitheatre later stood (66 m. at its highest point); it thus lay south-west of Utica (AS, iii. z. 579-80). Gsell (iii. zr9 n. r) suggests another hill slightly further to the south-west. But there is not enough evidence for certainty. According to Livy (xxx. 4· n), Scipio did not occupy this hill until he had denounced the truce; this statement may be due to excessive concern with Scipio's honour in this somewhat disreputable plan. Livy also puts its garrison at 2,ooo. 4. ecpESpEOELV TOL5 KQ.Tcl TOV ••• I Kard. rov •• • 1w.tp6v neuter. Schweighaeuser translates: 'ut ea quae per ipsum expeditionis tempus fieri possent observarent et rebus suis praesidia essent'. This gives € auveSp£~~;~: cf. 9· r; the members of his advisory council, which would normally include the military tribunes (cf. i. 49· 3, iii. 41. 8, v-iii. 7· 5. xi. 25. 8, xx. Io. ro) and the primus pilus prior (vi. 24. z n.). For other references to this council see xi. z6. z, xv. r. 6, xxvii. 8. 6. In the second century we hear of senatoriallegati attached to the consul in an advisory capacity, and these and any other consulars present would be members of the council; cf. vi. 35· 4 n. See Mommsen, Staatsrecht, i. 316. 13. xnpw 'TOU ~it SO€a.L tra.pa.atrovSE'iv: 'in order not to appear to be breaking the truce'. According to Livy, xxx. 4· 8, Syphax conveniently added new undefined but unacceptable clauses; this is part of the Livian treatment of the story, probably derived from his sources (cf. § 3 n.). 14. &.vetrlArprTov , •. TI)v trpoa.(pEow: 'his conduct would not be open to blame'. 3. 6. tca.TO. Tov Toil OEltrvou ~
SCIPIO iN AFRICA

XIV. 5· q.

practised by Corbulo under Nero was conui~tium bu.cina dimitti (Tac. Ann. xv. 30. r) ; but it is not clear whether P. has the beginning or the end of the meal in mind-probably the former. Perhaps the trumpet was sounded both at the beginning and at the end of supper. This note is intended for P.'s Greek readers; cf. von Scala, 289. 7. auvEKpwe Ka.l OLTtpeuva. Td A.eyo11eva.: 'he compared their accounts and questioned them'. XPW!lEvos hrucplTU KTA.: 'letting Masinissa decide' ; on Masinissa cf. ix. 25. 4 n. 4. 1. 'TTEpl .•• ~gtlKOVTa. aTa.8(ous: about rol km.; see r. 14 n. l. 1TEpl TP(Tllv cf>uA.a.~c:Tjv A.tiyouaa.v: on the division of the night into four ttigiliae see vi. 33· 7 n. r a.£<-t~ ••• Aa.LACeSpeta.s Tagw: not contradicting § 5, which is a general description of the simultaneous acts of Laelius and Masinissa. Laclius sent men forward to fire the camp (§ 6 oZ rrporrymJf-LEVO<) while he himself covered the operation; Masinissa surrounded the camp and covered the exits, and finally as soon as the fire began Laelius attacked. 5. 4. Tfjs 8f..11s 1rep~aTaaews: 'the disaster generally'. 7. ToTE yd.p 1rup KTA.: the sensationalism is worth noting in view of P.'s strictures at ii. s6. 7-IO; d. §§ I0--14; Siegfried, 29. 10. 11upui.8Es: rhetorical exaggeration. Livy (xxx. 6. 8) gives the number killed as 4o,ooo with over s,ooo prisoners; Appian (Lib. 23) gives nearly 3o,ooo dead and 2,400 prisoners. 'Livy's figure is only within the bounds of possibility, if P.'s absurd total of 93,ooo is accepted' (Scullard, Scip. 321). Perhaps P. gave figures of those killed, which the epitomator omitted at the end of this chapter; but Livy's seem to be from an annalist, perhaps Valerius Antias (De Sanctis, iii. 2. 528 n. 133). 14. ooS~ Ka.9' l'mep~oA.Tjv etKQO'O.L Suva.Tov KTA,: 'it is impossible for any man alive to give a true picture of what happened, no matter how he might exaggerate'; for o~OEvt ntiv ovTwv cf. ix. 29. 2, Paton talkes ol3tlEvi to be neuter and renders 'it is impossible to compare what happened with any other disaster', which is possible but less likely.

XIV. 5· I4

SCIPIO IN AFRICA

1!'aaa.s Tas 11'f>DE~PTJf.LEva.s 11'pa~ELS: 'all previously recorded exploits'; not merely recorded by P., the usual meaning of 7TpoHp7Jplvo<;. 15. KUAALO"Tov ••• Kat 1ra.pa.~oAwTa.Tov: von Scala, 37 n. 2, suggests

that this judgement may echo the enthusiasm of Masinissa, who was present (3. 7) and may have been an informant about it when P. met him (ix. 25. 4). It is hard to reconcile with P.'s remarks on dmiT7J in warfare in xiii. 3 ; cf. Ullrich, 34-35. 6. 2. TTI T~S 1!'0AEWS oxupOTTJTL: cf. Livy, XXX. 7· I, 'Hasdrubal ex fuga cum paucis Afrorum urbem proximam petierat, eoque omnes qui supererant uestigia ducis sequentes se contulerant; metu deinde ne dederetur Scipioni urbe excessit'. Appian (Lib. 24) says that Hasdrubal fled wounded, and accompanied by 500 cavalry, to Anda, where he proceeded to recruit on his own account, after hearing that he had been superseded by Hanno at Carthage. This town, Anda, has been frequently identified with the unnamed tmvn of P. and Livy (cf. Gsell, iii. 227-8; Veith, AS, iii. 2. 589), although Hasdrubal is said to have evacuated it. Saumagne (Rend. Line. r925, 648) rightly rejects this identification; but his own, following Tissot, that Anda is Abba, Syphax's rallying place (6. r2; Livy, xxx. 7· ro, calls it Obba) is unconvincing; on the identity of Abba see 6. r2 n. The town mentioned hew is likely to be quite distinct from Anda, which will lie inland near the Great Plains (Scullard, Scip. 209). It may have stood where Veith (AS, iii. 2. s8g, following Tissot, op. cit. (I. I4 n.) i. 556) puts Anda, that is at Henchir Merkeb en Nabi, on the Djebel Mergueb, a spur of the Djebel Amar, which lies south of the Medjerda, or alternatively (as Gsell, iii. 227 n. 4, suggests) at Henchir Bou Djaoua, slightly further south; both these sites are about r r km. from Douar Touba, where Veith set Hasdrubal's camp (d. r. 14 n.). But certainty is impossible. 3. t1!'1TELS ••• ou1< EAaTTous 1TEVTa.Koa£wv, 1TEtot 8e 1TEpt 8L<J)(LALous: Scullard (Scip. 32r) suggests that Hasdrubal will very soon have built up this nucleus to a force of about 2o,ooo men. 5. Mo ... 1roAELS: cf. Livy, xxx. 7· 2, 'duae subinde urbes captae direptaeque'. Their situation is unknov:n. TTJV £; apxfjs •.• 11'0.f>Efl~OATJV: Castra Cornelia (cf. § 7l· 8. Uf.LO. T~ KTA.: Ufta np goes with both tKxwp7jaat and 11poaboKiiv. 9. To auv€8pLov: whether the larger or the smaller Council is not clear (cf. i. 21. 6 n.). 12. Ets Tf]v l\~~a.v &.1ToKEXWPTJ~<Eva.L: cf. Livy, xxx. 7· ro, urbem nomine Obbam; but according to Livy envoys sent from Carthageinformed Syphax of the arrival of the Celtiberian mercenaries at Obba, whereas P. (7. sl makes these Spaniards meet Syphax at this town. Thus to Livy Obba is not necessarily the locus munitus (Livy, xxx. 7· 3) where Syphax first halted, as P.'s account would suggest 43°

SCIPIO IN AFRICA

XIV. 7· 6

hence the site of Abln is doubtful. If the variant account in Livy springs from rhetorical elaboration (7. 5 n.), we may, however, assume that Abba was the locus munitus, which Livy states to have been nearly 8 miles either from the town where Hasdrubal first halted (6. 2 n.) or (since Livy is ambiguous) from the two towns near it which fell to the Romans (6. 5). Veith (AS, iii. 2. 589), who links the Livian and Polybian accounts of the arrival of the Celtiberians with the battle of the Great Plains, would put Obba well up in the interior, five days' march from Utica (cf. 8. 2); so too DeSanctis, iii. 2. 529 n. 135. But Gsell (iii. 228 n. 5) seems justified in treating Livy's 8 miles as the distance between the unnamed halting place of Hasdrubal (he calls it Anda) and Abba, in which case Abba also lay in the lower l3agradas valley. Gsell suggests a site at Henchir Chouegui, northwest of Tebourba; but he quotes no evidence for his statement that a Roman town, Thubba, stood here, and altogether no certain identification is possible. A site somewhere near Henchir Bou Djaoua is, however, likely. TiA.os a.(h'l ••• £m:KpaT'la£v: Livy (xxx. 7. 7), following P. here, adds that 'haec sententia quia Hasdrubal praesens Barcinaeque omnes factionis bellum malebant uicit'. This is perhaps an annalistic addition, but more probably a Polybian detail omitted by the excerptor. 13. Tas n Suvafl£LS ~9poL~ov: not necessarily at Abba, but more likely in the interior on the upper Bagradas. 8L£1TEflljla.vTo 1rpos Tov I6<j>a.Ka.: this embassy is described in detail by Livy, xxx. 7· 8-12, who develops it as an interesting theme, thereby slightly distorting P.'s narrative (cf. 7· 5 n.).

7. 1. ey(v£To ••• 1r10pt TTJV Tijs 'ITuK'lS 1ToALOpK£a.v: 'he was occupied with preparations for the siege of Utica'; cf.

I. 2

n.

2-3. vd(J-a.s Twv A.a.<j>upwv KTA.: lacunae exist after Aacpvpwv, TOV> p.tv, and JgaTreantAe. The meaning is ambiguous. Scipio distributed

the booty and sent away the merchants who were buying it up for a song; or, alternatively, he sent away the merchants with an excellent profit. The latter is more likely. If the soldiers were satisfied, why should he alienate both them and the merchants by interfering? On the procedure see x. 16. 5 n. 5. Twv Se K£A.n~T)pwv a.uTol:s cma.vT'laavTwv: cf. 6. 12 n. According to Livy, xxx. 7· 10, it is the Punic legati on their way to Syphax who meet these Celtiberians near Abba, and announce the fact to Syphax as part of their argument to persuade him to collaborate again. This looks like Livian elaboration. WA€LOUS ovns TWV T£Tp0.KLO'XLALWV: cf. Livy, XXX. 7· 10, qttattuor milia Celtiberorum. 6. TijS 1TO.L8LO'K'1S: cf. I. 4 n. 431

XIV. 7· 8

SCIPIO IN AFRICA

8. xuSalou ~~:at 1T'O.YS~jLOU Ao.Mas: 'the vulgar gossip of the rabble' (Paton). 9. iv iJ~-t€pa~s TpL«i~toYTil: if the attack on the camps was in ~1arch 203 (d. 2. r) this will be in late April (Scullard, Scip. 326); DeSanctis (iii. 2. sss) put these events about a month later. rr~
SCIPIO IX AFRICA

XIV. 9.

II

'lfii.V EXWV EU~WVOV: 'in light marching order', i.e, with a minimum of baggage (cf. iii. 35· 7). 2. 1TEpt Tp~aKOVTa CTTa8£ous a'ITOQ'){WV: cf. Livy, XXX. 8. 3, 'quattuor

milia ferme distante ab castris regiis'. 3. (E:v) lo1rTa crTa8£oLS 1rapeve~aAe: the suggests a Greek source: see above, 1-10 n. The cavalry are to protect the infantry while they encamp. Livy (xxx. 8. 4) misses this second camp; and Shuck burgh argues that P. is not referring to a camp but to drawing up his troops. 4. 1TapeveflaAAov nl.s 8uvO.p.eLs: 'they drew up their forces for battle'; P. feels no embarrassment at using 7TapEp.{3&Xi.Hv in two different senses within four lines. Scipio's numbers are not recorded, but he probably had only a couple of legions, lea\·ing the rest at Utica; cf. Scullard, Scip. 209, 321. 5. ICaTa TO 1Tap' auToi:s £9os: on the division into hastati, principes, and triarii see iv. 21. 7-8 n.; cL xi. 23. I n., xv. 9· i· There \vill have been gaps between the ltastati and principes, and between principes and triart'i; cf. Veith, AS, iii. 2. 688 ff. On the normal Roman disposition see further xv. g. 6-9 n., xviii. 30. 5-I I n. 7. Tous p.€v KeAT[flT)pas ••• avT£ous Tais ••• cr'!fe(pcw;: this does not rule out the possibility that the Roman infantry also faced part of the Numidian and Punic forces: P. merely indicates that the Carthaginian centre was made up of the 4,ooo Celtiberians. !mdpa.t are maniples, d. xi. 23. I n. 8. E:ve~t)-uva.v -roos 'ITa.ALKous L'lf'ITEt>;;: 'they fled before the Italian horse'. 11. U'ITO Twv 1fPLYKt1fwv Kat TpLap£wv: the hastati were attacking in front. On Scipio's use of the principes and triarii as an aggressive reserve to outflank the enemy's centre, a new and significant tactical development, see Scullard, Scip. 212. 14. 1rept TouTouc; yevop.ev'l')s ~mCTTacrews: 'owing to their being halted by the Celtiberians' ; cf. viii. 28. 13 for this sense of bdcrra.crt'),

9. 1. TO auv€SpLov: cf. 2. II n. 2. Tas 1roAElS: the settlements in quite simple Libyan villages; see i. 72. 2 n., XXV. I. 5. olKeia. p.eTa.flo.AfJs: 'ready to revolt'. CI'UVEXWS :TE] ~KKE(p.Eva: 'having been COntinUOUSly eXposed tO.,,', 8. p.T)8ep.£a.v U'll'Ep~oAl)v 1TOL11aap.evous: 'without delay'. 11. yevop.evwv Sf: Kat 1TAELovwv Aoywv: 'after several speeches had been made', not (as Paton) 'there were several debates on these proposals'. vacras E:Kupwcrav fi.p.a. -ras yvwp.a.s: 'they adopted all these proposals together'. P. does not evidently include the proposal to consider peace among these; d. Scullard, Scip. 213 n. 1. 814173

Ff

433

XIV.

IO. I

SCIPIO IN AFRICA

10. 1. oi: ••. ~tls 'TTJY 'l.,.a.Mo.v jLEAAovTES rrXeiv: P. seems to imply that these envoys set out at once for Rome; but xv. I. 6 suggests that Carthaginian envoys visited the Roman camp at Tunis, asking for pardon and peace. According to Livy, xxx. 16.3-15, the visit to Tunis and Scipio's offer of terms are followed by a further embassy to Tunis to a truce while other envoys go on to Rome to ask for peace; and is difficult to believe (so Gigante, Aegyptus, 1950, So) that P. described the sending of envoys to Rome and to Scipio as completely enterprises. One must assume that the lost part of xiv contained an account of how these envoys proceeded first to Scipio's camp at Tunis, and then to Rome. 2. l
11-12. Affairs in Egypt: character of Ptolemy IV A note by the excerptor of P (on virtue and vice), inserted after Ot£.\'1].\~(Jaluv (12. 3), reads: '~'TEL. lvlAmre yap
AFFAIRS

I~

EGYPT

XIV.

II-I'Z

of Egyptian affairs after the war for Coele-Syria (described in v) in one piece (rz. r), and in particular to sketch the character of Philopator Elad:rrat orov El UWJLUTOI!~Oii (I2. 5)· In the preface (I a 4) he has already explained that in Ol. 144 204-200 the affairs of the east became interhvined with those of the west: the Syro-Macedonian pact is an important part of this process (xv. zo. I f.), hence Egyptian affairs had to be introduced in this Olympiad. The account of Epiphanes' accession occurs in xv (events of 203/z); but there must have been some event on which to tie the survey of Philopator's reign in xiv (cf. 12. 3, '1Tept oo vGv 6 .\6yos), and this was most likely Philopator's death. It will hardly have been the war mentioned in 12. 4, Which COntained 000El! ... /1-li~IJ."'JS a~£OV. The chronology of Philopator's death and Epiphanes' accession is, however, a vexed question, which can only be treated here in outline. The Egyptian records agree in making Epiphanes' second year begin on Thoth r = 13 October 204 (Jul.); this date, given by the Canon of the Kings, is confirmed by documents dated to Epiphanes' twentyfifth year, which ended with his death about May 18o (xxiv. 6. 7; the latest date (Tait, Greek Ostraca, i (London, 1930), 17, Bodleian no. 96) is Pharmouthi 16 of year 25 20 May r8o). The latest dating by Philopator is an ostracon from I)hiladelphia (BGU, 1555) of year 18, Hathyr 4 ''' December 205; and a Greek papyrus (vVilcken, UPZ, i. nz) shows (as Bikerman, Chron. d'Egypte, rg4o, 128--9, has demonstrated) that Epiphanes was known to be king. and documents concerning the farming of taxes were being dated by him, from a date sometime between 12 March and 8 September of some year (not necessarily 104, as Bikerman assumes), which, allowing two or three weeks for the preparation of the tax-documents, means that his accession cannot be later than mid-August (d. Schmitt, Antiochos, 19r). A further date is furnished by the Rosetta stone, which contains the record of a decree enacted on 4 Xandikos = r8 Mecheir of Epiphanes' ninth year, at a festival held to celebrate the day lv 7lapl>-.aflev T~ll {Ja(n>.dav 'Tt'O.pa TOU 7la-rp6:; (OGIS, 90, l. 47), which was on Phaophi I 7. Bikerman (op. cit. 126-7) has shown that these words, b fi ... TTa-rp6r;, clearly refer to a ceremony carried out at Memphis. For the years 205·-203 the Julian equivalent of Phaophi I7 is z8 November, and the ceremony so held must have come after the announcement of Epip)ftlnes' accession described in xv. 25. 2. The Rosetta decree (OG!S, go, 11. 44-45) refers to Epiphanes visiting Memphis '1Tp6r; Tel avVTe~ea8fi[vat a&rwt -raJ TTpoal]Kov-ra vo/1-tfLa -rfit '1Tapal.ljt{let -rfi;; flaaJ..Etas, evidently a ceremony held on the anniversary of his original TTap, and so on Phaophi 17 of his eighth year. On the usual dating of documents of Epiphanes this gives 27 November, 197, with the Rosetta decree enacted in March r96; and this is confirmed by the evidence of the moon (d. xviii. 53-55 n.). On the

n

435

XIV. n-tz

DATE OF PTOLEMY IV'S DEATH

relationship of this ceremony at Memphis to the Anacleteria of Epiphanes described in xviii. 55· J see xviii. 53-5 n.; since the dating of that passage depends on the dating of the Memphis ceremony, it has no independent value in establishing the latter. The problem is to reconcile an Egyptian tradition which dates the beginning of Epiphanes' second year to October 204 with F.'s chronology, which suggests that Philopators' death was mentioned in 204/3 and definitely places Epiphanes' proclamation as l{ing in 2o3j2. Two solutions are possible; both have their difficulties. (1) The theory of a concealed death. Both P. (xv. 25. 4, .iP8wpoAoy~­ aa.VTo) and Iustinus (xxx. 2. 6, 'sed mors eius, dum pecuniam regiam mulieres rapiunt et imperium inita cum perditissimis societate occupare conantur, diu occultata fuit') mention the concealment of Philopator's death. If he died in about September 204, this would give P. reason to discuss his character in xiv (OL 144, I 2o4/3); and if his death was then concealed until late in 203, P. could describe the events of his proclamation in xv (OL 144, 2 203/2). This concealment need not have lasted until September, for P. might for purposes of arrangement and literary effect have dealt with the events of the last seventeen years and Philopator's death and charac· ter in xiv and have postponed the beginning of the new reign to xv. even though it came in fact at the end of 01. 144, r. The obstacle to this theory lies in the dated documents. If it were true, dating b~ Philopator ought to have continued until summer 203, and his nine· teenth year; but so far the latest date we have is IS December 205. in his eighteenth. On the other hand, there arc documents mentioning all Epiphanes' years up to nine (with some doubt about year 1); cf. Nims, JEA, I938, 73-74. Hence if the theory sketched above is to succeed, one must assume that at some later date an adjustment was made back-dating Epiphanes' accession to the real time of Philopator's death before October 204. This can only have been done by dividing some Egyptian year of the way through, so that thr period from then to the next I Thoth was treated as a new ·with fresh eponymous priests (cf. Walbank, JEA, 1936, 32; ]EA., 1938, 74); and this would mean an apparent twelve months without documentary evidence. There are periods of over twelve months between Phaophi of year 5 and Choiak of year 6 and between Mecheir of year 7 and Pharmouthi of year 8 without recorded dates. consistent with such a manceuvre. But, of course, new documenb may at any time be discovered to dispose of this theory by leavin;.: less than twelve months unaccounted for. (z) The alternative is to assume that Philopator died in summe1 204, that his death was concealed for only a few days or weeks (until Arsinoe could be removed), and that the king's death was matk public before October 204 (indeed, in view of UPZ, i. 112, befm• 436

AND PTOLE:\lY V'S ACCESSIO?-l

XIV.

11. 1

111i, il aurait detruit cette unite de l'histoire de Philopator qu'il a creee dans le xive livre par !'abandon de !'ordonnance annalistique'). It is true that a deliberate postponement can be only partially paralleled by the deferment to book vii for compositional reasons of certain events (including the revolt of Capua) which fell within the campaigning season of 216, since these events were technically within 01. 141, 1 = 216/15. Similarly, the inclusion within books iv (d. iv. 14. 9) and v of events from the previous Olympiad is hardly parallel, since P. opened his main history with 01. 140. Nevertheless this alternative seems to be the more probable; and if in fact the downfall of Agathocles, described in xv. z6 a-33, fell in 203(2 (and the account of Tlepolemus' growing opposition in xv. 25. z6-37 is consistent with quite a long passage of time), P. may have chosen, for the reasons suggested by Bikerman, to postpone the account of Epiphanes' accession to book xv, where it could be incorporated in a continuous narrative going down to the end of Agathocles and his clique in 203(2. If the annual festival, which caused the Thesmophoreum, where Oenanthe took refuge (xv. 29. 8 n.). to be open, was the Thesmophoria (as seems likely), and if this fell at the usual time of the year, viz. October-November (Pyanepsion at Athens), the downfall of Agathodes took place in October-November 203. For further discussion see Walbank, ]E A, 1936, 20-34 (with earlier bibliography); modified by the date printed by Nims, JEA, 1938, 73-74; E. Bikerman, Chron. d'E.'gypte, 1940, 124-31; T. C. Skeat, The Reign of the Ptolemiesz (Munich, 1954), 12 and 32; Ferro, zs-z6; A. E. Samuel, Ptolemaic Chronology (Munich, 1962), 108-14; H. H. Schmitt, Antiochos, 189-237 (who argues that P., lacking any annalistic source for these events, erroneously recounted Epiphanes' accession under 203/2 because he thought it preceded the Syro-Macedonian pact (cf. xv. 20 n.) more closely than was in fact the case). 11.1. 1>.ya.9otcA£ous: d. V. 63. In.; below, XV. 25 ff.; lustin. XXX. 2, 2. He is probably the priest of Alexander of 216(15, J4yaiJoK>..ijs- J4yaOoKAEovs- (Wilcken, Arch. Pap. vii. 74; Beloch, iv. 1.689 n. 1), and according to the scholia on Aristoph. Thesm. 1062 he had been the ipwp.EPosof Ptolemy IV, which suggests that he was younger than the latter (cf. also xv. 25. 32). Beloch (op. cit.) would change Ptolemy IV to Ptolemy III, but unnecessarily, for he has no evidence for his view that Agathodes had been politically active in Euergetes' last years. 437

XIV. rt. r

AFFAIRS IN EGYPT

See Wile ken, RE, 'Agathokles (19)', cols. 757-8; Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 49 n. 4 =REA, I9I2, 372 n. J. Whether the Agathocles, whose son was Ptolemaic emard.TYJS of Libya c. 28J-279/8 (cf. vii. 2. 4 n.). was an ancestor of this Agathocles is not clear. otv6.v9t')s: d. Plut. Cleom. 33· 2. Oenanthe, Agathocles' mother, was a Sami<m who came to Alexandria under Ptolemy III (Plut. 111or. 753 n). whose mistress she probably became. See Bouche-Leclerg, Lagides, i. 331 ff.; Raubitschek, RE, 'Oeuantbe (6)', col. 2I89. $iA.wva.: d. xv. 33· z, for his share in the events leading to the murder of Agathocles and all his family. 2. KA.eLvous: according to Athenaeus (x. 425 E-F}, Ptolemy of .Megalopolis mentioned her in the third book of his Hr:story of Philopator (FGH, r6r F 3); P. probably draws on Ptolemy for the gossipy details mentioned here. See further, Vol. I, p. 30 n. 13, v. 35-39 n., and X'\', 34· r-36. rr (probably aimed at this writer). p.ovox1Twva.s: d. Arist. Ath. Pol. 25. 4 of Ephialtes as suppliant; the statues had no himation. puTov: a drinking-cup coming to a point. 4 .. a1ToSESE~yp.Evov K:al. Kowwv SELKTTJfH6.Swv: 'a vulgar, professional m1me'. 5. !t>.ya.9o~ovTES: P.'s normal annalistic method. Tas K:a.Ta.AA~Aous: parallel; i.e. all the parallel events in each year are described as they occur; cf. Ui. 32. 5 n. Paton, 'successive events', is incorrect. EK; 1TAelovos xpovou 1T£'11'm~ ....e9a. T~V E~~YTJOW: irregular but not unique ; cf. xxxii. n. 6 on the affairs of Oro pus, {;rrip oli Ta ji-EV avaSpaji-OVn£;;, rd S€ rrpo'Aaf36vus To£s xp&~·oLS auyKE¢>all.atwa6ji-€0a T~V ;;,\TJV 7rpiif,w, [va IL~ Ka.Ta ji-Epos aUTfjS' OUaTJS' ou.S' OAWS' lmcfoavolis lv Ot!Jp7]ji-lvms ;.:p6vots drrayyilloVTES EthEMj Ka' daacfoij TrOLWjLEV T¥ St+ iflJUU'.

3. nTOAEp.a'ios ••• 'II'Ept o3 \IU\1 b Myos: Ptolemy IV Philopator; it is probably his death within the period March-September :204 that leads P. to survey his reign and character (cf. rr-rz n.). On Philopator' s character see C. Preaux, Chron. d' Egypte, 1965, 364-7 5· p.nO. TO auvTEAEa9~va.L TOV 1repl. Ko(AYJV Iupla.v 1TOAEtLOV: cf. v. 87. r-7 (after Raphia, 217). otov &.pTlWS SLEAYJAUEia.p.ev: cf. II. 1-5. But P. had shown Phi1opator as aloof and indolent and debauched even before Raphia; cf. v. 34· 4, 35· 6, 3i· ro, 40.

438

1,

8j. 3, 87. 7·

CHARACTER OF PTOLEMY IV

XIV.

12. 5

4. Ets Tov vuv S~;.S"lAwJLf.vov 'lrOAEJLOV: the native revolt which may have begun in the Delta, but found its real centre in upper Egypt, which broke away from the control of the government from zo7{6 until 186; see above, v. Io7. 1-3 n. The evidence for this obscure war is collected by M. Alliot, Rev. belge de phil. et d'hist. I951, 421-43; cf. Volkmann, RE, 'Ptolemaios (2-z)', cols. 1687-8; 'Ptolemaios {23)', cols. r699-17oo. The attack on the temple of Edfu in 207/6 marked a cessation of Greek records in the Thebaid, the last for many years being Mesore 4 of year 16 = 12 September 206 (Tait, Greek Ostraca, Bodleian no. 41). P.'s account is lost; but the war seems to have fascinated him for the same reasons as the Carthaginian Mercenary War (d. i. 8r, 88. 7). Tf\s ... WJLDTtJTOS: for an example of the methods of fighting see BGU, I2I5. 5. otov Et awJLa.TOELOtl: 'as it were a unified picture'; cf. i. 3· 4 n. Paton, 'a life-like whole', is inaccurate. 'll'Ept a.OTijs: i.e. 7Ttpl •fj> Toil {3aaL'Mw> 7Tpoatpta€w>.

439

BOOK XV 1-16. Affairs in Africa (zo3-2): the battle of Zanw

The battle of the Great Plains (xiv. 8) was followed by the defeat and capture of Syphax by C. Laelius and Masinissa near Cirta (Livy, xxx. rr-rs, with the story of Sophonisba's marriage to Masinissa and suicide; App. Lib. 27-28, Zon. ix. rz; Diod. xxvii. 6-7)- The Carthaginians now asked for pe: has nothing to do with the disembarkation (DeSanctis, iii. 2. s86-7). DeSanctis, ibid., suggests plausibly that Livy has identified P.'s year 01. T44. r 204/3 with 440

AFFAIRS IN AFRICA (2o3-2)

XV.

I. 2

ssr and so has given the impression that Hannibal returned just before the end of that year, i.e. in February or March, 202; whereas in fact in Polybius, his source, the year 204/3 (and book xiv) will have ended \
A.C.C.

1. 1. Tas .f>opTYJyovs vfjas: the Roman transports driven ashore at Aegimurus and the mainland west of C. Bon (above 1-16 n.). Livy (xxx. 24. s-12) dates this under A.U.C. SSI = 203/2; it probably took place towards the end of that consular year, in the early months of 202. 2. TOVS opKous Kat TUS a-uva,;Kas: cf. 8. 7 n., I7. 3· In response to the Punic request for peace after the capture of Syphax (r-r6 n.) Scipio proposed terms to include surrender of all prisoners, deserters, and refugees, evacuation of Italy, Gaul, and all islands between Italy and Africa, abandonment of Spain, surrender of all but twenty ships and payment of an indemnity of s,ooo talents together with soo,ooo modii of wheat and 3oo,ooo of barley; so Livy, xxx. r6. 12, who says that some authors gave s,ooo pounds of silver instead of s,ooo talents. App. Lib. 32, adds that the Carthaginians were also to be debarred from recruiting mercenaries and were to be restricted within the 'Phoenician trenches', and that Masinissa was to have the Massyli and any other of Syphax's dominions he could take (which seems correct: cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 6r6). The Carthaginians were to keep thirty ships, according to Appian; see 8. 7· Plut. Mor. 196 D mentions the surrender of ships and elephants and the payment of an indemnity. According to Livy, xxx. 23. r-8, the Senate rejected the Punic offer on the motion of :VI. Valerius Laevinus. Dio, xvii. 74, states that the terms were accepted at Rome. Appian, Lib. 31-32, reports that the Senate authorized Scipio to conclude peace: his terms were accepted and the Punic envoys left for Rome to receive the oaths of the consuls while Roman envoys left for Carthage to receive the oaths of the Punic magistrates. But before the former could leave Rome ne\vs arrived of the attack on the Roman convoy, Scipio's protest and the attack on the Roman envoys, whereupon the Senate sent back the Punic envoys as enemies to Scipio, who restored them to their homes. Recently a further source for these negotiations has appeared in P. Ryl. iii, pp. II4 ff., no. 491, pl. v (ed. C. Roberts), a second-century B.c. papyrus containing an extract from an unknown but contemporary or all but contemporary writer on the Second Punic vVar. This is a brief account, apparently of the swearing of oaths and handing over of prisoners, probably by the Carthaginians, of the return of Roman and Carthaginian envoys to Scipio's camp and to 44I

XV.

I. 2

AFFAIRS IN AFRICA (203-2)

Carthage, and finally of the rejection of the peace terms and breaking off of the truce by the Carthaginians. Roberts's suggestion (cf. Klotz, W ], 1946, 153-4) that the extract may be from P.'s account of events after Zama must certainly be rejected, for (a) the breaking off of the truce is neither recorded nor probable then, (b) despite some parallels in vocabulary, the scale of the narrative excludes P. as its author. There seems no doubt that the occasion is the truce of 203-2, and that the fragment gives a more pro-Carthaginian version than the others we possess. There is, for instance, no reference to the Punic attack on the Roman supplies, nor any place for one; but again the scale may have led to compression. Hoffmann's argument (Hermes, 1941, ; cf. Treu, Aegypttts, 1953, 46-56) that this extract from what is little more than an epitome (cf. v. 33· z) deserves preference to and that the attack on the supplies is to be dismissed as a pro-Roman distortion, is unconvincing. On this papyrus see further Gelzer, Vom romischen Staat, i. 69 ff.; M. Gigante, Aeg_vptus, T950, 77-92; M. Treu, ibid. 1953, 3o--56. 3. 1tpEcr~EuTar;: cf. Livy, xxx. 25. z; App. Lib. 34; Dio, x,·ii. iS: Zon. ix. 13. The nomina are given as £€pourov, £€{nov (or Elnov} and 1J&.f1wv (or Wa.tuov, \vithout accent, in N). The Livian :\'ISS. have L. (or M.) (Baebius), M. Servilius (L. Sergius in three fifteenth-century MSS.) and L. Fabius. Conway and Walters read 'L. Baebium L. Sergium L. Fabium'. Gronovius corrected £€pou~ov to £ipy,ov and Schweighaeuser read Ba.iflwv for £ suggest the Treaty of Catulus; in that case the Carthaginian:-.

AFFAIRS IN AFRICA (:2o3-2)

XV. z. 6

have changed their attitude towards this treaty since the opening of the war, when they argued that it had no relevance to Saguntum (iii. zi. 3-5}. But this is, of course, a Roman account of what took place. 8. Tij<; TUXTJ'> we~< a Twv 6.v9pw'II'WY: for this appeal to the vulnerability of all men in relatit>n to Tyche cf. ii. 4· 5 n., and below, 6. 8. 9. 6.9eTELV ••• TOUS opKOU<; KO.l Ta<; cruv9t]Ka<;: cf. § 2 n. 10. Tal:<; fJ.ETa TOuTou ••• Suv~flEcrL: it is clear that Hannibal was now back in Africa (7}Koucr• vilv); cf. 1-16 n. on the chronology of his return (probably late autumn 203). ll. s~HJTEpov ETOS ••• els TOU'i 'II'Epl Ao.KiVLOV TO'II'OU'i: according to Livy, xxviii. 46. 16, Hannibal spent the winter of zos propter Junonis Laciniae templmn (cf. App. II ann. 57, T~v 1r6An· (sc. Kppov iryoUJLEVos dva•, Kat TO.JLI€rov a!rr~v ~alJ'Tt.ji Kat opf.LTJrrJP•ov irri

nh aMas-

n8l.JLEvoc;). But P. seems to be thinking of the period after the defec· tion of the cities of the Bruttii in 204 (cf. Livy, xxix. 38. I, quoted above in xiii. 10. 1-3 n.). See DeSanctis, iii. 2. 539 n. 14j, 542 n. 152. On the inscription set up by Hannibal in the temple of Juno cf. iii. 33· T8 n. 12. 8ucrl flaxm<>: the battle of the Tower of Agathocles, to the southwest of Utica (204; cf. Livy, xxix. 34; App. Lib. 14: \'eith, AS, iii. z. 58o-3; Scullard, Scip. 191-4). and the battle of the Great Plains (above, xiv. 8). 14. 'll'apa 9Ewv: cf. 8. z n. 'II'OALTEUotJ-~vwv Kal. Twv 13ouAEuof-LEVwv: 'the chief politicians and members of the council': not exclusive categories. 4. To'i:s ••• rro!..!..o'is: the assembly (cf. 1. 5); not, as Schweighaeuser (s.v. 7ToAtr€Vm-'), oZ {JouA6JL€Vot, of whom he assumes there was a large number, in contrast to ol1ToAm:uoJL€Vo>. The contrast is between the decision of the assembly and the secret plot of some of the politicians (n.!lv noAtrwoJ.Livwv ole; l)v 7rpOK€lJLEvov .•• oi5Tot KTA.). According to Livy (xxx. 25. 3) the magistrates had difficulty in protecting the Roman envoys from violence; and App. Lib. 34 records that the populace wished to hold them until their envoys returned from Rome. 5. eLs TllV lS~av 'll'apEfl~o!..t]v: the Castra Cornelia. 6-15. Treacherous attack on the Roman envoys: this is in Livy (xxx. 25. 3-8); Appian, Lib. 34; Dio, xvii. 75; the story is dramatic, but not necessarily therefore untrue. Its omission from the brief account of the fragmentary P. Ryl. iii, no 491, is not a substantial argument against the truth of the other sources (so Treu, Aegyptus, 1953. so-51). 6. :.\cr8poul3av: the son of Gisgo (cf. Livy, xxx. :24. n). flll flaKpav Tfjs Twv 'Pwflalwv '!l'apef-1.13oi..Tjs: off C. Apollo, according to App. Lib. 34· Gsell (iii. :249) suggests a point off Rusucmon, southwest of the promontory (which is C. Farina, Ras Sidi Ali el Mekki, elsewhere called the Fair Promontory; d. iii. 22. 5 n.).

2. 2. Twv

443

XV. :z. 8

AFFAIRS IN AFRICA (203-:z)

8. Tov Ma.Kapa.v 'ITOTo.p.ov: cf. i. 75· 5 n.; it is the Bagradas. 12. e~ u'ITo~oA.f}s: 'from their place of hiding' (cf. v. Io4. 4, Io5. I) or 'in accordance with instructions' (cf. ix. 24. 3): the former seems more likely. 13. EK 1To.po.~oA.f}s: 'running alongside'. 15. oi: OE 1TpEa~EUTO.l ••• e~eali>9T)O'O.V: App. Lib. 34 records that Kat 'TWV 7rpia{3Ewv Ttl'€<; EK Totev[LaTWI' amiBavov. This seems like annalistic exaggeration: P. is quite explicit. 3. 2. auveloons a~(al Ta 1Te1Tpo.yp.ivo.: cf. v. n. 8, avvnooTas ••• avTois Ta mopt .d tov Kat .dwowv"l)v 7re7rpay[Ltfva. 4. To us KO.Ta TT)v 'I~T)p(o.v KTA.: an interesting comment, which implies that the issue of the war was not yet of interest outside the areas directly affected by it. Only the western Mediterranean has its eyes directed on the conflict (despite Agelaus' warning, v. Io4). 5. :.\vv(~o.s: evidently at Hadrumetum (d. 5· 3). According to Livy, xxx. 25. I2, he landed at Lepcis Minor and he can well have gone by land to Hadrumetum (cf. Livy, xxx. 29. I; iam Hadrumetum peruenerat). App. Lib. 33 brings him first to Carthage, and thence to Hadrumetum. Tuxo.i:ov: perhaps the prince of the Areacidae mentioned by App. Lib. 33· TOll ovvaCTT"I)V TWV No[LaOWV 'TWI' KaAOV[LEVWV ApmK~OWV ES c/>tAlav ur.~yETo. Cf. Scullard, Scip. 230.

4. 1. Ba.L~lov O.vnaTpaTT)yov: on Baebius see I. 3 n. Whether he was left in command of the camp or the fleet is not clear. Mommsen (St.-R. i. 68I n. 4) expresses doubts whether Baebius was officially pro praetore, or merely an acting second in command. But although P. uses avnCTTpaT"I)yos- to mean either the position of an ex-consul whose imperium is prorogued (iii. 106. 2), i.e. as the equivalent of dvBv7raTos (cf. xxviii. 3· I, 5· 6), or that of an ex-praetor in the same position (d. viii. 3· 1, where despite some change in phrasing by the epitomator there seems no reason to doubt that this word is Polybian), there are no cases of his using the word to mean legatus and it seems safer to assume that Baebius was appointed pro praetore by Sf.:ipio exercising his right to appoint a deputy. 3. OLe'ITEiJo'ITETo auvexws: 'he kept sending messages'; 1\hsinissa was evidently busy recovering territory (§ 4) and not very prompt in responding. 4. Ko.9a1Tep eipT)TO.l: in the part now lost; Masinissa will have left with the object of taking his kingdom back from Syphax as soon as the truce was made between Scipio and the Carthaginian envoys (cf. 1. 2 n. where the word avvBijKm is used); according to App. Lib. 32, Masinissa's claim to all he could get was specifically mentioned in the terms (1. 2 n.). 444

AFFAIRS IN AFRICA (203-2)

XV. 5· 3-I4. 9

6£Ka. O'lJfia.ia.s KTA.: 'ten companies of Roman horse and foot': awwia. is the equivalent of manipulus (but cf. i. 33· 9 n.) but here it

seems to have a more general significance, as applied to both infantry and cavalry (cf. iv. 64. 7). Perhaps ten cohartes equitatae are meant; but the Greek can equally well mean twenty companies in all, ten of foot and ten of horse: so Gsell, iii. Z43· 'll'pEa~EuTas: legati. The Roman officers and troops indicate that .Masinissa has full Roman support in his campaign (Scullard, Scip. 221). TfJY 'll'a:rp~a.v 6.pxi]v ••. Ti]v Tou Io.Pa.Ko<;: on the two kingdoms, of the .Massyli and .Masaesyli respectively, see iii. 33· IS n. 5. Tous (t< 'PwfilJS 'll'pEa~EuTas: presumably the fetiales sent to com·

plete the peace at Carthage, who accompanied the Punic envoys back to Africa. P. Ryl. iii, no. 491, 11. 12-18, also records the return of both sets of envoys together; but it has no knowledge of the detaining of the Carthaginians in the Roman camp, since it follows a version which omits the Carthaginian breach of the peace. Certainly Scipio already knew from dispatches that the treaty had been accepted at Rome before these envoys arrived (cf. 1. 4, ~KE ••• ypaJ.kfLa.Ta). Scullard, Scip. 229 n. 1, suggests that the fetiales brought the additional news of the ratification by the Senate, and there is no reason to assume (with Treu, Aegyptus, 1953, 48) a contradiction between the two passages. 7. T~v ..• ~a~~eLav: cf. 2. To attack envoys was against ·nilv Trap' iivBpdmwv clJpwfLlvwv oumlwv (ii. 8. u); cf. XX. IO. 10. 9. Ka.Aws •.• t
5. 3-14. 9. The batile of Zama. The problems connected with this 445

XV. 5· 3-q. 9

THE BATTLE OF ZAMA

battle are greater than those of any other battle in this war, and concern the sources, chronology, site, numbers, and tactics. (a) Sources: besides P. these are Livy, xxx. 29-35; Frontin. Strat. ii. 3· r6; Flor. i. 22. 6o; Eutrop. iii. 23; Oros. iv. 19. 3; App. Lib. 39-47; Zon. ix. I4; Sil. It. xvii. 385 ft. Livy (and the Livian tradition) relies mainly on P. with occasional glosses from annalistic sources (cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 653-5 ; Kahrstedt, iii. 353-4) ; Appian and Dio (via Zonaras) give an annalistic account ·with considerable interpolations (DeSanctis, iii. 2. 6or-4). P.'s sources are, as usual, not identifi· able. Clearly he owes a good deal to Scipionic traditions, and these may include both written and oral accounts (Veith, AS, iii. 2. 658); but he will probably have used other written sources on both sides as well. For the speeches see below 6. 3-8. 14 n. (b) Chronology: clearly Zama belongs to 202; but the exact month cannot be ascertained. The conclusion of peace took place in 201 (Livy, xxx. 40. r··4, 42. II-43· 13), which suggests a late month in 202 for the battle. October would fit, but the solar eclipse mentioned by Zon. ix. 14 is of little weight, for a partial eclipse on 19 October 202 was scarcely visible in North Africa, and Dio's source may be unreliable here (cf. DeSanctis, iii. 2. 599. quoting Ginzel, Kanon, r89). Livy (xxx. 36. 8) also records that Syphax's son Vermina was defeated Sat1~rnalibus primis, and this was soon after Zama; but this is not a detail to be pressed. The convoy under Lentulus which reached Utica after the battle (Livy, xxx. 36. cannot be used as an argument for putting the battle earlier (so Kahrstedt, iii. 569 n. r), for it was not necessarily the first to be sent that year (DeSanctis, iii. 2. 6oo). For further discussion see DeSanctis (iii. 2. 598-6o1), who rightly comes do"'n in favour of a date near October for the battle, while admitting the possibility that it was slightly earlier. Why the battle was so late is unknown. Scipio may have been waiting for Masinissa; and other possibilities exist (cf. Scullard Scip. 328). There is no reason to think that the Roman calendar was in disorder at this time. See for discussion De Sanctis, iii. 2. 598-6o1; Gsell, iii. 264-6 (264 n. 3 for bibliography); Scullard, Scip. 327-8; F. G. Moore, Livy, xxviii-xxx (Loeb edition, 1955), 551-4. (c) Site: according to ~epos (Hann. 6. 3; cf. SchoL Bob. on Cic. pro Sest. 142, using ~epos) the battle was apud Zamam, and this name has become traditionally attached to it. But it seems certain that Zama was not the site of the battle, but merely the spot where Hannibal camped and from which he sent out his spies (5. 3; cf. Livy, xxx. 29. 1-2). The site of Scipio's camp at this time is not given: but after Scipio had received a herald from Hannibal and had been joined by Masinissa with ro,ooo troops (5. 9-1_1), he broke camp and proceeded to a town called M&.pya.pov and encamped there. Hannibal now approached and encamped 'i\·ithin 30 stades of Scipio 446

THE BATTLE OF ZAMA

XV. 5· 3-14. 9

on a hill short of water (6. 2); and it was from these two positions, after the fruitless conversation (6. 4-8. 14), that the armies marched out to battle. The first problem is the name of the town which P. calls M argaron. Livy, xxx. 29. 9, reads 'Scipio haud procul Naraggara urbe cum ad cetera loco opportuno tum quod aquatio intra teli coniectum erat consedit'; this clearly derives from 5· 14. Margaron is otherwise unknown; Naraggara is known as a station on the route Sicca-NaraggaraGegetu-Thacora, and has been identified as the modern village of Sidi Youssef. There are three possibilities: (r) P. had il,fargaron but Livy changed it to the more familiar Naraggara; (2) ]v[ argaron is another form or alternative name for the town called in Latin Naraggara; (3) P. wrote Naraggara, Livy copied this accurately, but the epitomator or some earlier copier of P. corrupted it to }Jargaron. Against (r) is the fact that Naraggara was not a well-known name, and in any case such a correction by Livy seems highly improbable (despite Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 407 f.). The same argument ~tpplies to (2), since Livy is hardly likely to have known either that the Latin form of Afargaron was N araggara, or that this obscure place had two names. This leaves the third hypothesis, that Naraggara stood in the original text; and the view that P. is here corrupt is supported by the appearance in some inferior MSS. of Livy, not uf N araggara but of narcara, which is near enough to margaron to lend support to the view that M argaron is a corruption of Naraggara. It is perhaps also relevant that in the previous sentence the MSS. of P. read J{aKLUXLAlou~. and that this is corrected from Livy to TerpaKtaxtAf.ou~. If Naraggara is definitely Sidi Youssef, the battle was fought near that town; but homonyms are not unknown in Africa (see below on Zama), and Veith (AS, iii. 2. 636--8), followed by Kromayer (Schlach'enatlas, Rom. Abteilung, 8 and cols. 38-40; AS, iv. 626-33), suggests that some other ~araggara may be meant, and proposes a site for the battle in the plain of Draa el Meinan a little south of the road leading westwards from El Kef (Sicca Veneria) to Sidi Youssef (Naraggara). This site fits the general requirements and lies at a junction of roads leading either to Carthage via Sicca or to Hadrumetum via Seba Biar (see Veith, AS, iii. 2. 637, sketch-map 47 and Karte n a; iv. 6; Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abteilung, 8); and Scullard (Hist. 3 439-40), who has visited this site, finds it plausible. If Naraggara is Sidi Youssef, this site cannot be reconciled with 5· 14; if therefore it is to be accepted on other grounds, it follows that the Naraggara of Livy and (as argued above) of P. is some other town -perhaps, as Veith suggests, the ruined Henchir el Chemmarn to the north of the proposed Roman camp alongside the El Kef-Sidi Youssef road. Hannibal's previous camp was at Zama (5. 3). At least two Zamas 447

XV. 5· 3-I4. 9

THE BATTLE OF ZAMA

arc known in north Africa. An inscription found at J ama, a town i11 the Djebel Massouge, on the left bank of the Wadi Siliana (a tributary of the Medjerda) reads A ttg. Zama lvf. (GIL, viii. r6442, now lost) . and Ptolemy (iv. 3· 8) knows of a Zap.a M€l~wv. There was also ;, Zama about 45 km. to the east at Sidi Abd el Djedidi, a strong position so km. north-west of Kairouan, lying on a plateau; an in scription from here (GIL, viii. r2or8) mentions a magistrate of the colonia Zamenst's, and this name also appears in an ecclesiastical document of the fourth century A.D. (Scullard, Scip. 310). If th<' Xaraggara of the battle was not Sidi Youssef, either Zama appear!> to be a possibility for Hannibal's camp; but in fact the eastem Zama, Sidi Abd el Djedidi, which Kahrstedt (iii. 563 n. r) and other:-. (mentioned by Veith, AS, iii. 2. 613) have supported, seems ruled oul by the agreement of both Appian (Lib. 47) and Nepos (Hann. 6) th;1! after the battle Hannibal :lied and reached Hadrumetum insid" forty-eight hours. Appian the distance as 3,ooo stades (' 530 km.), Nepos as 3oom.p. 450 km.), both obviously exaggerating. But the agreement about time taken suggests that it is correc!. and Veith from experience reckons 200 to 240 km. as a maximun1 for this. However, Sidi Abd el Djedidi is only about roo km. frorn Hadrumetum, and an army in flight will hardly have spent fort\ eight hours covering such a distance; whereas from Hadrumetum (Sousse) to Sidi Youssef is 250 to 270 km., which would suit Yerv well a battlefield at Draa el Meinan, some 40 km. east of Sidi Youssd (Veith, AS, iii. z. 6oo~2). This would seem to exclude eastern Zama as the site of Hannibal's camp. A western Zama is known from the Tabula Peutingeriana, which indicates a route Assures-Zama Regia-Seggo~Avula-Autipsidam­ Usappa. Assures is Zanfour and Usappa is El Ksour, and Zama Regia is stated to be Io m.p. (= IS km.) from Zan four; it was probably Juba's capital (Bell. Afric. 9!. z). Now Sallust (jug. s6. I, 57· 1) also mentions a Zama, which Metellus approached after the battle of the Muthul, 'urbem magnam et in ea parte qua sita erai. arcem regni'. This town was not far from Sicca and lay in a plain : it was 'magis opere quam natura munitum'. The obstacle in the >vay of identifying this Zama with Zama Regia and the modern Jam a where the inscription was found, is the fact that J ama is a very strong natural position and Sallust's Zama is not. Veith (AS, iii. 2. 6Hl) following Toussaint (cf. Gsell. iii. 257) a site 13 km. east ol Assures (Zanfour), and at the south~west end of the Djebel Mas souge about 2o km. south-west of Jama, called Seba Biar, which would fit Sallust's site; this, he thinks, was the third century Zama. After its destruction in 41 B.C. (Dio, xlviii. 23; Strabo, xvii. 829) the town was refounded (perhaps under Hadrian) at the stronger positio11 at Jama. This is indeed more likely than the assumption that Janu 448

THE BATTLE OF ZAMA

was merely a strong point in til(;- territor~· of Zama (Zama Regia or Maior), which remained at Seba Biar (cL IJareti, At# Ace. Torino, 19rojii, .)OZ-zj), for, as }ferlin (journ. Sav. 1912, 507) points out, Seba Biar has no remains from imperial times. Bnt it remains possible that the name Zama Regia continued to be used of the ancient site of Juba's capital at Seba Biar despite the removal of the town to jama; and in fact Seba Biar fits the distances of the Tabula (ro m.p. from Assures and 20 m.p.-it is actually r6·5 m.p.-from Seggo, if this is Ksar el Hadid) better than Jam a. The claim of Seba Biar to be Zama Regia is fa\·oured by L. Deroche (Mllanges d'archiologie et d'histoire, 6o, 19.+8, ss~ro4), who rejects the arguments of Ch. Saumagne {Ret•. arch. zo, 1942-3, I 78-9) for placing Zama Regia 4~ miles east of Seba Biar at Ksar Toual Zouameul {cf. Scullard, Hist.J 439 n.). Seba Biar lies c. r4o km. from Carthage, which fits P.'s state~ ment (5. 3) that it lies five days' march away (cf. xiv. 8. 2, where a th·c days' march, or slightly less, corresponds to 125 km.; see xiv. 1· 9 n.). These considerations support Veith's site for the battle at Draa d Meinan; but other sites are possible---Veith himself suggested two alternatives south of Sidi Youssef at Djebel Lajbel and Djebel Harraba (AS, iii. 2. 6o7-r2 with Karte 14) before deciding on Draa cl Meinan-and if Naraggara is Sidi Youssef one of these may be preferable. Some doubt must attend any identification. See, for discussion, Veith, AS, iii. z. 599-638; iv. 626~33; Schlachtenatlas, Rom. Abteilung, 8, cols. 38-40; Gsell, iii. 255-64; Scullard, Scip. J10t7; Hist.> 439-40; F. G. Moore, Lt"vy, xxviii-xxx (Loeb edition), 1955. 54J-SI; Kahrstcdt, iii. s6J-4 n. I (sceptical). Two points remain to be made here. First, Appian's reference (Lib. 40. I) to a town Killa, near which Scipio anticipated Hannibal by a hill, is safer left out of consideration: Appian's account of the battle and events leading up to it is here unreliable, and Killa is not otherwise known; to emend to Sicca a dubious procedure. For hypotheses based upon this see Veith, AS, iii. 2. 633-6. Secondly, the preliminary strategy. The battle took place with Scipio in the west and Hannibal in the east; situation in the west is to be explained by his campaign against the 1ToAE"t> (4. z, 5· 1), and by his desire to make contact with Masinissa {5. r2). He may indeed have hoped to finish the campaign before Hannibal was ready to march out (cf. Veith, AS, iii. z. 642); but by his quick reaction (5. 3) Hannibal succeeded in getting between Scipio and his communications, thus scoring an immediate advantage, which, however, could only be exploited by a full-scale (Veith, AS, iii. 2. 643). (d) Numbers: these cannot be calculated with any certainty. P. gives the Punic losses as zo,ooo killed and nearly :zo,ooo prisoners 8Hl73

Gg

449

XV. 5·

3~

q. 9

THE BATTLE OF ZAMA

(14. 9); and since he says few escaped (14. 8), this \\'ould make tlw Punic army about 4o,ooo. App. Lib. 40 makes it so,ooo; but bot], figures are likely to be exaggerated. Of the sections of Hannibal\. army P. puts the mercenaries at 12,ooo (n. 1); if they were a third of the whole (so App. Lib. 40), this would give a total of 36,ooo fool. For Scipio's army App. Lib. 41 gives a total of 23,ooo foot and r,so:• cavalry, counting only Romans and Italians; this seems possibl<·. Add .Masinissa's ro,ooo (s. 12) and something for the troops brouglil by another native chieftain, Dacamas (App. Lib. 41 puts these a! 6oo cavalry), and one gets a total of over 35,ooo (cf. Scullard, Se1}. 3z3-4; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 597-8). But this is not easily reconcilabJ, with F.'s statement (14. 6) that Hannibal's veterans, r2,ooo on tlw above calculations, >vere about equal in number to the Romall legionaries, less those hastati who had fallen in the first phase of tlu battle. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that Scipio would h;n, risked an engagement with substantially inferior forces. No sun· estimate can be made of either cavalry; but it is certain that tbt· Romans were superior in this arm. See for discussion Veith, AS. iii. 2. 67o-81; De Sanctis, iii. z. 595-8; Scullard, Scip. 323~~4. (e) Tactics: these will be discussed in the commentary, on tlw assumption that J>.'s account of the battle is the most reliable, indeed our only reliable source. See for discussion Veith, AS, iii. 2. 645-tq (with criticism of earlier accounts), iv. 633-6; De Sanctis, iii. z. 549-55, 6o4-r6; Gsell, iii. 269-8o; Ed. Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. zn~13. Fraccaro, A then. 193I, 428-38; Passcrini, A then. 1936, 18r-9I; Scul lard, Scip. 229-49. 3. Tov :A.&puJLTJTO.: a Phoenician coastal town about r2o km. south o( Tunis, modern Sousse; see Dessau, RE, 'Hadrumetum', cols. 2r78-8o. KO.TE
THE BATTLE OF ZAMA

12.

~K€

XV. 6. 3-8. I.f

Ma.o-a.vvao-a.s KTA.: the MSS. give Masinissa's cavalry as

l~at
this was corrected to -rerpat
6. 2. :O..vv1j3a.s avt~EU~OO: De Sanctis (iii. 2. 594) argues that Hannibal advanced westward from Zama before Scipio sent the message, since his real object was to prevent Scipio from making contact with Masinissa; but, as Scullard (Scip. 233) observes, P. nowhere suggests that when Hannibal marched from Zama he knew that Masinissa had already joined Scipio. 1-LTJ TrAooi:ov .•• TpuiKovTa. aTo.8£wv: cf. Livy, xxx. 29. 10 a qHattuor milibus. Veith suggests as Hannibal's camp K•t Bougrine, a hill of 572 m., about 5} km. south-east of Kat el Behaima. This corresponds exactly to P.'s 30 stades. From Seba Biar Hannibal probably marched via Zanfour (Assures). Kat Bougrine lacks water, and so fits P.'s description. 6. 3-8. 14. Meeting of Scipio and Hannibal. This incident (recorded also in Livy, XXX. 30-31; App. Lib. 39; Zon. ix. q; Flor. i. 22. sS; Oros. iv. rg. 2) has been rejected by several scholars as deriving from Ennius (cf. 6. 8 n.); but it is not impossible nor even improbable in itself. Hannibal may have sought to avoid the battle; or he may have welcomed the opportunity to meet and assess his adversary (cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 594; Scullard, Scip. 234-5). Groag (99 n. 2) counts the reference to an interpreter against the veracity of the story since both Hannibal and Scipio spoke Greek, and Hannibal perhaps Latin too (Zon. viii. 24); but on such an occasion a Roman noble would naturally use Latin, and Hannibal could hardly follow suit without losing face. In any case, we do not know how good his Latin was, and one is ahvays at some disadvantage in a foreign tongue. P.'s source is uncertain. Pedech (REG, 1958, 440) thinks he drew on Laelius. Hoffmann (93 ff.), like La-Roche (66 f.), sees a solid kernel of truth in both speeches, Hannibal's the voice of the experienced statesman and general, Scipio's that of the Roman aristocrat, confident and victorious, echoing the mas maiormn. There was perhaps a Scipionic version of the meeting for P. to draw on; the reference 45I

XV. 6. 3-8. 14

THE BATTLE OF ZAMA

(Vol. I, p. 14) to 'a series of commonplaces' should have been restricted to the speeches immediately before the battle (ro-II); cf. Gelzer, Gnomon, 1957, 402. 6. {nrip Twv Ka.Ta I,K~;;Ma.v ..• Twv Ka.T' '1~1)p(a.v: 'on behalf of Sicily ... of Spain'; Hannibal means both that the wars were fought because of events there, i.e. Messana and Saguntum, and that they were fought for the possession of those lands. i.nro T~S TUX'lS oo1rw vou6noUtJ.IOVo': the lesson is, of course, tlw fickleness of fortune, and the certainty that prosperity cannot last (cf. i. 8); it is a lesson of which P. himself is quite sure, but this does not mean that Hannibal did not also share this typically Hellenistic attitude. See above, VoL I, p. 19, for similar passages; Tyche hert" is not necessarily Providence (so Mioni, 141 n. 13). 7. T~v EVEaTwaa.v t'AOTI.Jl(a.v: 'our present rivalry'. 8. (Eu)tJ.ETa6n6s ianv ~ TUXlJ KTA.: it has been suggested that this passage derives from Ennius (Ann. JIZ-13 Vahlen 2 ), 'mortalem summum fortuna repente reddidit e sumrno regno ut famul infimus esset',

and that consequently Ennius is the source for the whole of this meeting, which should therefore be dismissed as fabulous. As De Sanctis (iii. 2. 594-5) observes, the sentiments are common, the parallelism slight, and the Ennian context uncertain. 7. 1. !l'l8£1rw llEXP' yE Tou vuv Els T~v •.. 1TaA,ppull'lv: Hannibal may have said this; but it reads rather like a vaticiniutn ex eventu. 3. l:v TETTa.pllKovTo. aTa.Slols: cf. ix. 5· 9· The reference is to Hannibal's march on Rome in 211. 8. 1TclVTa ••• 'Pwlla.~v U'll'apx,Hv: Hannibal offers to surrender all Punic outside Africa. But this is considerably less than the tenns previously proposed by Scipio and accepted by the Senate {I. 2 n., 8. 7), but abandoned through the Carthaginian breach of lhe truce; to accept Hannibal's reduced offer would have dealt a blow to the prestige of Rome and of Scipio, and would moreover have left Africa (and Masinissa) open to Carthaginian ambitions.

8. 2. llapTupa.s ••• Tou<; 6eous: that the gods reward good faith by success and punish faithlessness by failure is implied also in the speech of the Roman envoys at Carthage (i. 14); both may well derive from the same source. 4. d !lEv •.• 1TpouTEMI.S TUS s,a.AuaE'i TO.UTQ,S: a pertinent remark. It is indeed odd that the Carthaginian government never seized their chance to negotiate at that point, while they could still offer tlJe evacuation of Italy as a bargaining point. Cf. Meyer, I\l. Schr. ii. 353 n. 2. 452

THE BATTLE OF ZA:\IA

X\'. 9· 5

7. auv9T)Ka.; f:yypu'ITTou;: cf. r. 2 n. The clauses here mentioned correspond to the account in Livy, xxx. 16. ro-rz, except that he qualifies the clause about warships-'naues longas praeter uiginti omnes tradant'-, adds a reference to corn and barley and omits to mention the hostages. But Scipio is not concerned with details, ~~specially any which appeared to mitigate the earlier terms. According to Dio, xvii. 74, the Carthaginians who came to Scipio at his camp did in fact hand over XP~fLa.Ta ... Kal Tovs a.lxtta.Ad!Tovs miwras a7Tl8wKaP; and this version also appears in P. Rytands, iii, no. 49I. ll. s-{), €8w[KaV Tojvs opKovs Kai [€Ava]aP ~O'YJ T~V alxfLtJ.AwataP. Cf. also Livy, xxx. 16. 15 (tendentiously twisted). This fact may be true despite P.'s failure to mention it. 9. E1rda&'l To auviopwv KTA.: cf. r. 2 n. 1Ta.pa.a1Tovol]aa.vTES TJfLO.;: the taunt of punica fides becomes a commonplace in Homan literature. See iii. 78. 1 n.; for further discussion see Gelzer, Vom romischen Staat, i. 65 ff. 10. T~Y EfL~V xwpa.v fLETO.AQ.~WV: 'put yourself in my place'. 13. ouo' ava.cf>opO.v EXI!L TO 0U1~0UALOV: 'it would be useless even to refer our discussion (to the people)'; Shuckburgh mistranslates: 'such a reference does not even admit of discussion'. 14. T~v E'ITLTpo'IT~V uflas SL86va.L 'ITEP~ acf>wv a.OTwv: Scipio counters Hannibal's proposals ·with a demand for deditio; cf. xx. 9· rz. See Taublcr, 198 n. 2. In the event ded£tio was not demanded, but a foedtlS was entered into (cf. 18. 2 n.). 9. 2. 'PwfLO.lOL ••. 'ITEpi Tfls TWV OAWV apxfjs l
•

45.3

XV. 9· 5

THE BATTLE OF

Z.\~IA

my own purview'; they are -rovs Ka.O' TJJ-LOS (xp6vous) in contrast to -ravs €gr]s (sc. Tofs 1Tpof!tp1)fLEVats), i.e. -rous Ka.-ra -rovs 1TaTipas ~J-LGk. See also Pedech, Methode, s6i n. 295.

6-9. Ro·man dispositions. The normal Roman battle order consisted of three lines, hastati, principes, and triarii (vi. 21. 7-8 n., xiv. 8. 5 n.). each divided into ten maniples of 120 men, or in the case of the triarii of 6o men (vi. 21. 9); between these maniples were gaps, 8taaT~fLaTa (9. 7; d. iii. 73· 6 (Trebia), xi. 22. ro (Ilipa), xviii. 24. 10 (Cynoscephalae)}, through which the uelites retired after the preliminary skirmishing (xviii. 24. w), and since the maniples of the hastati were placed behind the gaps in the front line, the whole formation took on a quincunx or chess-board appearance. Sources do not record the width of these gaps and this, as well as their role in battle, is much debated; but since they seem to have been used fm· bringing up the rear maniples as relief, they were probably the width of the maniples themselves. Against the argument of Delbruck (i 2 • 448) that such gaps in the Roman line would constitute a danger in the shock see Kromayer, AS, iii. 1. 358-9, and Veith, Hee:ru:esen, 359-6o, who show that by pressing into the gaps phalanx troops would expose themselves to greater peril than they could create for the I
THE BATTLE OF ZAMA

XV. 9·

IO

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

XV.

IO. 2

THE BATTLE OF ZAMA

10. 2. TTJS lihh1JS otKOUj.LEV1"JS T-,)v .,;yEj.Lovtav KTA.: d. 9· 2. \\'hether Scipio used this expression is uncertain, for the speech here recorded (whatever its source) contains little but commonplaces (d. La-Roche, 67); and there may be some anachronism. After Magnesia the phrase itself becomes a commonplace (cf. xxi. r6. 8 (Syrian envoys), 2,3. 4 (Rhodian envoys)). 5. Tfj~ ••• TiSXTJS ••• ~KTEBELKula~: cf. iii. 63. 3 (in a speech of Hannibal), T~l/ TDX7JV ••• 1Tapa1TA~ata. TOLS viJv dOI..a 1Tpon:Owdvat; similarly here the 'prize' is death or victory (here .ds lKdnpov TO p.Jpo:;) ; cf. von Scala, r72 n. 6. TWV aya.Bwv ••• TWV KQ.KWV: i.e. T0l' im€p rijs 7TdTptOos O&.va.TOV and aiaxtaToV Kal iAHwchanw TDV J1rlAomov f3lov (§ 3).

11.1-3. Punic dispositions. Hannibal had adopted the Roman system of three lines: the first consisted of mercenaries, r2,ooo in number~ Ligurians, Celts, Balearic islanders, and Moors~the second of nati\'e Libyans and Carthaginians, and the third line contained Tous 'haM.as ijKoVTas 11-"(}' airroiJ, i.e. the veterans of the Italian campaign. Kahrstedt (iii. 564) includes veterans in the second line and assumes the third line to consist of 'deserters and allied troops, mainly Bruttians and Lucanians' (cf. § 2 n.); but this can hardly be right, since in r6. 3 P. speaks of the middle line as the weakest element, and though he there mentions only the Carthaginians and not the Libyans, this cannot be pressed, since in referring to the second line he never anywhere mentions the Libyans again after the present passage. Clearly the third line contained Hannibal's real strength. The elephants may well have beP.n oYer eighty in number, asP. says, since they were intended to play a big part in the opening phase of the battle (r6. 2; Scullard, Sclp. 237 n. r), ~'..Specially if Hannibal dispensed with light-armed (see next note). The ca\•alry were on the wings, as usual; see further, r6. r-4. Livy (xxx. 26. 3, 42. 4-5) mentions 4,ooo Macedonian mercenaries under Sopater, stationed in the second line along with the Carthaginians (Livy, XXX . .33· s); Frontinus (Strat. ii. 3· I6) and Silins (xvii. 418 ff.) take them over from Livy. They are most likely an annalistic invention (Gsell, ii. 389 n. 6; Holleaux, Etudes, v. 340 n. r), since they are not in P. or even Appian. Balsdon (]RS, r945, 34) suggests that they were in Carthage, but not at Zama; in that case it is not clear why they fell into Roman hands. Livy is quite specific about where they fought in the battle, and if they are to be excluded from Zama, as I think they must, they should disappear altogether. I. A~yu
THE BATTLE OF ZAMA

XV.

II. 2

xxviii. 37. 9). The precise use of these troops is uncertain. The Baleares were, of course, normally slingers {cf. iii. 33· u) and were widely used by the Carthaginians; the Maurusii from Morocco (cf. iii. 33· rs n.) were also usually light-armed (cf. Livy, xxiii. :::6. II, iaculator). Appian, Lib. 40, mentions the Celts and Ligurians and continues: Tot'6Tat"' auTot;; dvafLqLixaTO 1Tai'T1J Kat aevoovijTat, Afavpovawt Kal rvfLv'ljatot (i.e. Baleares). Hence Lehmann (jahrb. Suppl.-B. 2I, r894, s8r f.) concluded that these mercenaries were light-armed troops. Veith (AS, iii. 2. 678--9) and DeSanctis (iii. 2. 6o7-S) rightly point out that P. describes their ad,·ance in terms appropriate to heavy-armed, fighting with swords (cf. 12. 7, 13. r n.), and they assume that Hannibal had trained them at Hadrumetum to use these weapons. This seems on the whole the most probable view (cf. Fraccaro, Athe;z. I9JI, 433}. But the possibility cannot be excluded (cf. De Sanctis, iii. 2. 6o8) that Appian is right (and not merely jumping to conclusions about the Balearic and l\Ioorish arms). was to make indifferent To tum Baleares and Moors into swordsmen out of first-class slingers; and the first line may have consisted of Ligurians and Celts (who could fight at close quarters) intermixed with slingers; the result would not be very substantial infantry, but P. makes it clear that Hannibal regarded his first line as largely expendable, and intended to weary the Romans and blunt their weapons before the real troops, the veterans, got to dose (1uarters (r6. 3). See Griffith, 227-9, on all these troops. 2. AiJ3ua.s Ka.i Ka.px1)Sov(ous: according to Appian, Lib. 36, Hannibal had taken these over from Hasdrubal's army. As in the First Punic War (i. 67. 7 n.) the status of the Libyans is uncertain; the evidence of Livy leaves it obscure whether they were a national levy or mercenaries, though here P. seems to distinguish them from the mercenaries of the f1rst line and so perhaps to support the former view. The Libyans formed the bulk of Carthaginian armies, and in vi. 52. 4 P. states that in contrast to the Romans the Carthaginians use f~v
XV.

II. 2

THE BATTLE OF ZAMA

second line during the battle P. mentions only Carthaginians; the Libyans are not mentioned again. TOU<; e; 'ho.Mas tlKO\ITO.<;: his veterans, described in 16. 4 as 7'00';) p..axLfW.rra'TOtJ<; Kai U'TUULfLW'Ta'TOV<; 7'WV av8p (Io. r). Hannibal'~ speech is also mainly commonplaces (cf. 10. 2 n.). 8. Tftv Te rrepl Tov T pe~ta.v ... p.aXTJV; cf. iii. 71-74. T~V ev Tupp'r)vlq. rrpos Aap.[v~ov p.axTJv: Trasimene; d. iii. 8J-8s. 6. T.,\1 1repi KO.vva.s yevotLEVTtV 1rp05 Alp.CJ.wv: d. iii. 107- I7. 9. KaTa 1TAf1eos Twv civSpwv: an exagg('ration: the numbers involved at Zama (cf. 5· 3-14. 9 (d) n.) are no more than at Trchia and Trasimene and considerably fewer than at Cannae. 10. ouOe rroAAocrTov p.epos: 'not even a small fraction·.

12. 1. TW\1 Nop.a.8tKwv •.. ii.Kpo~oAL~op.evwv: i.e. Masinissa's cavalry on the Roman right against the Numidian horse on the Carthaginia11 left (g. 3, II. 3). If the :Moors and Baleares had their normal arms. they could not use them at this stage because they were behind thl' elephants. 2 . ... Twv rrepl Tov Mauavva<:rav: the lacuna is clear: read either ou yevofLI.vov S.d. (Hultsch) or o•o1rep vm:i (Biittner-Wobst). 3. ev Tq, tLETO.SU xwpCIJ:l: the uelites had advanced ahead of the Romalt infantry line, leaving the gaps between the maniples of the hasfatl. as instructed (9. g). 4. s~a. TWV trr'ITEWV IYUV!lKOVn~6p.eva.: the Italian horse under Laeli li ' was on the Roman left and Carthaginb.n right (9. 8). 5-6. Flight of the Punic caz•alry. It was argued by Lehmann (Jaltrl•. Suppl.-B. 21, r8g-1-, 589 f.), and accepted by Veith (AS, iii. 2. r.) 4~8

THE B.\.TTLE OF ZAMA

and others, that this flight of cavalry on both wings was a manreuvre planned by Hannibal to draw off the Roman cavalry, which was superior in number, so that he could finish off the battle with his infantry before they returned; this is possible, but no more, for I lannibal's cavalry were probably inferior in number, nor is it likely that he would have deliberately abandoned all hopes of achieving success with this arm (Fraccaro, Atl:en. 1931, 432-3). 7. Jj0.8TJv .•• tca.t ao~a.pw<; 'n-TIEaa.v: cf. iii. 72. r3 (of the advance of tl1c heavy infantry at the Trebia). Clearly P. regards the Punic mercenaries as troops of the line (cf. rr. r~~3 n.). -n-AT)v Twv <etc) Tils 'ITa.Ala.s ••• 1rapa.yeyov6Tu1V: thus the gap between them and the second line was allowed to grow: see above, II. 2 n. 8. auva.Aa.Aa~a.vn<; tca.L O'ul-11jlo+~O'O.VT€S t
'K

13. 1. XElpO<; Ka.i ICa.T' uv8pa: this is the individual close fighting characteristic of the Romans, in contrast to the Hellenistic phalanx {cf. xviii. 26. 4, 30. 7). 8La To 1-lfJ 80pa.uL ••• To us 6.ywvL~o!-1Evous: rejected by BiittnerWobst and De Sanctis (iii. 2. 6o7); but the sentence may be behind the statement of Livy, xxx. 34· 3, that the Romans advanced umbonibtts pulsantes. A simple emendation is to read d,\,\0. tt¢>wt or eU/>em 3i (Hultsci); d. Scullard, n.; Fraccaro, Athen. 1931, 433; Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 2u n. 2. But even so the sentence is flat, and Strachan-Davidson may be right in suspecting a more extensive corruption; see also Lammert, BPW, 19r5. cols. ur6-q. «uxEpe1c:t t
XV. I3 5

T.HE BATTLE OF ZAMA

5. av8pw8ws a'IT'o9avetv: Veith (AS, iii. 2. 6sr n. I) sees a contradiction in this s\vitch from cowardice to courage; but this is the courage born of desperation (cf. ¥ayKaaE . .. 7Tapd. r~v atnwv 7Tpoalpemv • .• EKD'TUTLKa1<; Ka1 7TUpYJAftayp./vw<;).

7. f:rrecrTttcrav Ta<; (l~ITtdV Tn~ets: 'held firm their ranks', rather than 'brought up ... to assist' (Paton; cf. Sdl\veighaeuser; Scnllard, Scip. 245), a meaning for which P. shows no parallel (cf. Mauersbergcr, s.v. i,Pt.aTYJJL•; Passerini, Athen. 1936, 182 n. r). The centurions of the principes, who have hitherto kept close behind the hastati, now checl; their men lest they get im·olved in the confusion. Had they joined the hastati now, they must have been involved in the pursuit whicil followed, but Scipio recalls the hastati alone (14. 3). 8. Twv 8£ p.ta9o<jlopwv Ka.t ruv Ka.pxTJoov!wv: the first and second ranks of the Punic army respectively. Veith (AS, iii. 2. 647 n. 1) believes that the final infantry charge (J4. s--6) must have involved the second and third lines on Hannibal's side, for their numbers to equal Scipio's force less the casualties among his hastati; and lw therefore has to assume that only the mercenaries were now drivcu off the field, and so proposes to omit KaL this (r) the Ot p.ta8o6pot TWV Kapx:r;oovlwl•, though in place at IZ. 9 (contrasted with the Romans), is awkward here after they ha vc been called ol 1-aaOo,P6poL throughout the chapter (cf. §§I, 3, 5): (z) presumably too the Carthaginians suffered casualties, not merely the mercenaries. 9. To us ... <jleuyovT p.d)(1]S'; then he brouglil up the other t\vo lines, having made them close up on the \vinp .. and stationed them on either side of the hastati. He then attach• I The implications of all this are less simple. P. does not explain WI!\ 460

THE BATTLE OF ZAMA

XV. 14. 3

Scipio re-formed: he merely says that the encumbered field was an obstacle to men advancing in formation, but nevertheless Scipio recalled his hastati and ordered the other ranks to advance level \\-'i.th them 8td. Taw vEI<:pWJJ. The reason seems to be simply that Scipio could not risk letting his hastati, disordered and with casualties, involve themselves with Hannibal's untouched veterans before regaining some order and receiving the support of the second and third lines; alternatively, if the hastati's pursuit had carried them to the flanks (13. 10), he dared not let the principes and tn:arii become disordered as they advanced to attack over the encumbered field (cf. Fraccaro, Athen. 1931, 436-7). Veith, AS, iii. 2. 66z n. 1, assumes that Scipio hroke off the pursuit and called a halt in the fight at the sight of the veteran third line held back from the main conflict; but this turns on his assumption that Scipio was planning an outflanking movement and now realized that it was impracticable. This outflanking movement is neither mentioned nor implied in P. It seems unnecessary to assume with De Sanctis (iii. 2. 612-16) that P. is in error and that the principes and triarii had already taken up their new positions in the first stage of the battle (and now needed to pause only to re-form and rest) ; this is to jettison our only reliable source at a critical part of his account. But De Sanctis raises a serious question : why did not Hannibal use the pause to attack the hastati? The answer seems to be that if he involved his veterans with the hastati, he would have brought his last troops into action while the Romans still had their principes and triarii intact: the disastrous rout of the mercenaries and Carthaginians had turned the scale against him, and he would be exposed both to flank attacks by the Roman second and third lines and also by the cavalry when it returned (cL Scullard, Scip. 246-7). Whether Hannibal reorganized his line and, if so, how, is not known, and is not to be discovered by arguments based on probability. Veith thinks the operation was described by P. in a passage now lost, but originally standing at the end of 13; this is a gratuitous suggestion. Hannibal may have incorporated remnants of the mercenaries and the Carthaginians and Libyans in his flank (d. Scullard, Scip. 248); but there is much to be said for Fraccaro's vie\v (A then. 1931, 436; cf. Meyer, Kl. Sch1·. ii. 2r2-r3 n. 4) that these demoralized elements could only damage his chances, and that they were 'written off', once they had been driven to the flank (13. ro). In any case, we are not informed how long the pause lasted- probably quite a short time, and Hannibal may have needed the whole of this to get rid of the troops fleeing first towards the veterans and then to the wings. It seems safer to assume that in the last phases of the battle the Romans faced Hannibal's veterans alone. 3. Tous 8' ~'ITLbLI.;li
XV. q. 3

THE BATTLE OF ZAMA

who are stationed aihoiJ 1Tpo rijs: f1.dX7J' (d. Passerini, Athen. 193n. r83 n. r). That the hastati were pursuing the enemy has not previously been stated, but follows easily from IJ. 8; as already pointeo out (3-4 n.) there is no need to assume a lacuna in which this wa,_; specifically mentioned (so Veith, AS, iii. 2. 648). o.1hoG vpo TijS JlGXTJS ••• tvtO'TTJO'E: 'he stationed them in the very front of the field'; d. xi. rz. 4, -rovs ••• KaTa7TtA-ra;; 1Tpd r.dcrqs: Jr.tar'r}a< rijs: Swctf1.<Ws. The use of f1.clX7J to mean 'field of battle' can be paralleled in two interpolated passages of Xenophon's Anabasis, ii. 2. 6 and v. 5· 4· Passerini (Athen. 1936, r87) tries to dispose of these by trans lating f1.lXP• rijs f1.rlXTJ> as 'up to the time of the battle', but th•· sentence drro S€ rfjs f1.ttX7J' JMyovro dvat d, BafivAtJva urd.Sw< Jfr}Kovr
4. 1TUI' El the right; the altemative, for the triarii to go one way and t lw pr£ncipes the other would be slO\ver and hardly feasible owing 1•, the difference in the numbers of the two lines.

TH,E BATTLE OF ZA:MA

XV. 15. 6

tiul. Twv vEKpwv: 'over the corpses': this seems the obvious sense, rather than 'past the corpses' (so Biittner-Wobst, ]ahrb. 1889,145, fol· lowing Reiske); cf. Mauersberger, s. v. oui, col. 458, 'iiber ... hinweg', and vrnpf3aVT£S in § 5· 5. cruvf:~o.l\ov o.t ~0.1\o.yye~ al\1\f)l\cn~: from the fact that this occurred the moment the Roman line was ready it appears that Scipio took the initiative. De Sanctis (iii. :2. 616) that he advanced as soon as he saw or foresaw the return of cavalry; but the words al
15. 1. TJ , • , errf. rriicrL '(EVO~TJ J.LclXTJ: 'the final battle'; for this meaning of E7Tt rriiat cf. iii. 3· 8, xvi. JL 7, xxviii. zo. 9· Ta 3~a. KpivaO'a.: following Schweighaeuser, Shuckburgh translates: 'which assigned universal dominion to Rome'; and this could be defended from 9· 2 and 10. 2. But elsewhere (i. 3· 6, iii. 2. 6) P. makes dear that the victory o\-er Hannibal was either the first step towards world-dominion or alternatively the event which led the Romans to hope for this; and it \\'as not until the victory over Perseus that the Romans possessed universal dominion (xxxi. 25. 6), though after Magnesia Syrian and Hhodian envoys attribute it to them (xxi. 16. 8, 23. 4: perhaps commonplaces, cf. i. 2. 7-8 n.). It therefore seems probable that here we must translate 'decided the war'; d. iii. 70. 7 and, in a similar context, i. 59· II; d. Scullard, Pol. gr n. 1. 3. rroLOUJ.LEVO!; ri)v O.vaxwpTJO'LV f.t~ :AlipullTJTa.: on Hadrumetum cf. 5· 3 n. Appian (Lib. 47) and Nepos (Hann. 6) agree that Hannibal reached it inside forty-eight hours: see above, S· 3-14. 9 n. (c). ~. TOG npo.::LiiOTos Td Ka.TopOw!J-o.Ta.: 'one who foresees success' ; this is not really contradicted by what follows. Hannibal plans and expects to win, but he knows what fortune is and that no victory is assured until it is won. This, the reading ofF, is to be kept in preference to reading oll -rrpon86-ro<; with several inferior MSS. 4mO'TouvTos Tfj Tuxn: as a great man should; cf. Vol. I, p. 19 (where the first reference in n. 19 should read x. 40. 6). 6. rro.pa.rrATJcrL~t~ Ko.OonALO'Jl~ XPWJ.LEvov: 'with troops equipped as Hannibal's then were', i.e. with the mixed troops and mixed equipment he was obliged to use; for as Strachan-Davidson observes, only the veterans will have been armed in the I{oman fashion (d. 13. 9 n.). 463

X\'. I5. 7

7.

~iLO.

Ti]o; fLuio;

THE BATTLE OF ZA::'.1A EKTa~EWS:

'in a single formation'.


see x. 23. 3 n. If this is meant here, the maniples nearest to the source of danger wheel round together, each pivoting on th(· appropriate end file leader. But if the maniples are approximately as wide as they are deep, the same result will be achieved more quickly by everyone's carrying out the instruction 'Right (or left) turn!'; and this is the view of Kromayer, who uses this passage as one argument for the view that the maniple is a relatively deep unit. 8. TO tJ.~ye8os TOu llupeov: on the scut-um see vi. 2.3. 2 n. Tt)v Ti]o; fLuxa.tpo.o; u1Tof1ovt)v Twv 1TA1Jywv: 'the of the sword to snstain blows'; on the gladius see vi. 23. 6-7 nn. 16. 2. To ..• Twv EAe+avTwv 1TAi]8os ... 1TpoE~aAno: cf. rr. 1. 3. Tovs .•• fllaBo+opous ••• Ko.t Tous Ko.pxTJSovious: cL 11. 1-2; P. as usual makes no reference to the Libyans positioned along with the Cart h aginians. ava.yKa fL.f<J<JOV €Aa<JU€V, which fits the present context (;.daou<; oVTa>) ; cf. Aristotle, fg. 147 Rose. 4. TOu<; •.• fLO.X~fLWTnTous: the veterans from Italy, of all nation· alities, and by now a seasoned fighting force. For the different interpretation of Livy and Appian see II. z n. €v cmoo.at ?Tt:pt "Y,Uo, Toil 'HpaKAdoou Kai 'Exlpw Toil AlyEaTov (read TeyeaTov). Crusith (Phil. I889, q8-8o) argued that this quotation carne from a Hellenisii• epigram dealing with this topic; but others refer the sentiment to tlw killing of Eurypylns by Neoptolemns (see \Vunderer, i. r 7; von Scah. 76, . Bergk, iii 4 • 69o, fg. adesp. 8A, thinks Theognis was the autho1 464

BEHAVIOUR OF

Pr~IC

ENVOYS

XV. I7. 3

17. 1-2. Extravagtmt behaviour of the Punic ambassadors After Hannibal's camp Scipio marched to Castra Cornelia and, after a naval reconnaissance as far as Carthage, he brought his army to Tunis. Hither thirty Punic envoys were now sent to Scipio to ask for peace, and it is to these that this passage refers (d. Livy, xxx. 35· 10-36. g, especially 36. 9: 'et illi quidem multo miserabilius quam ante quo magis cogebat fortuna egerunt; sed aliquanto minore cum misericordia ab recenti memoria perfidiae auditi sunt'). 17. I. a.uTo'!Ta.9ws: 'from genuine feeling, spontaneously'; cf. vn1. 17. 7· iAEOV .•• 'l!'a.pu Tois opWO'L KO.L Tois lLKoOoua,: 'man glaubt cinen

Satz aus einer Theorie der Tragodie vor sich zu haben' (von Scala, 8o n. I; cf. \Vunderer, ii. 13); P. is concerned with actual eyents, not incidents on a stage, but the comparison is striking and illustrates further how far P.'s attitude towards history is liable to be affected by the tragic criteria which he so vigorously attacks (cf. Vol. I, pp. q.-15). Such incidents are part of the tragedy of real life; but the behaviour of the Punic envovs is of a different kind. 2. YOT)TELClS xnpLV Ka.i. Ka.9' U'II'OKp
Hh

X\'. 17. 3

THE

SETTLE~IE.:-JT

AFTER Z.A.MA

died fighting or committed suicide: the survivors became the booty of the soldiers. 0.9£T1]aa.vT£S , .. Oj.I.OAoy£a.s: by the attack on the Roman transports; cf. r-I6 n., I. 2 n., 8. 7 n. 6. 1] TUXTJ ••• S1a 1'~v a~n€pa.v O.S1K£av: for Tyche as the avenger of wrong-doing cf. Vol. I, pp. zo-21. The view is, of course, here attributed to Scipio. 18. 1-8. Scipio's peace terms: sec also Livy, xxx. 37. 1-6; App.Lib. 5-l-, Dio, xvii. 8z. All four sources give the terms laid down by Scipio, and accepted by the Carthaginians, not the final terms agreed by the Senate; these terms naturally included certain clauses relevant onh· to the preliminary armistice (e.g. IS. 6). For full discussion see B. Nissen, De pace anna 20I a. Chr. Carthaginiensibus data (Marburg, r87o); Taubler, I90-2o2; DeSanctis, iii. z. ; A. Aymard, PaUas, 1953, 44-63. Tiiubler argues that P. and Livy giYe the preliminary, and Appian the final terms; De Sanctis thinks that all three gin the final terms, but represent them for literary reasons as thos·· propounded by Scipio, where necessary (e.g. I8. sl adjusting the tense. It seems safer to assume that all the sources give what the:claim to give, the preliminary terms, especially since there was no change made by the Senate (Livy, xxx. 43· Io); divergences will br due in part to annalistic enterprise or arbitrary changes (e.g. by Livy, who follows P., but not always exactly). ):ioreover, P. claim~ to give only the principal points, ,a KE6pots xpfjaBa;. This would reaffirm the clause in the of 24I (cf. ii. 27. 4), and may well be authentic. (c) Appian, Lib. 54, 'PwfLatov<; dva.xwpt!fv €K At{Ju-qs 1TEvn/Kovm Ka; f.Ka;(w ~fLdpa<s. This is Ijo days from the final swearing of the treaty. it seems authentic. For discussion of the other clauses see the notes. ~xnv Ka.TO. ALf3u"lv KTA.: for this guarantee of Car~ thaginian possession of her 1!'6,\
18. 1. 1TOAELS

T¥ 8~ 7TOALV VfLUS EXWI KG.~ ;ryv xwpa.v OIITJV i.vTOS TWV puJI' .,tx"n JfLov 8ta17Ato11Tos

€s AtfJul!v· On the Phoenician Trenchc:,,

THE SETTLE:VIENT AFTER ZAMA

XV. I8.

2

which also appear, according to Appian, Lib. 32, in the proposed terms of 203 (above, 1. 1 n.), see Gsell, ii. roi-3; iii. 289-90; DeSanctis, iii. 1. 37 n. 104; z. 6zo; Scullard, Scip. 255 n. I; they are mentioned by Eumachus of Naples (FGH, Ii8 F 2) and so not merely an anachronistic reference to the trenches cut by Scipio Aemilianus (Pliny, Nat. hist. v. 25), as Hesselbarth (256-7) and Kahrstedt (iii. 358, 59I n. I) argue, in support of the view that this clause in Appian was a later forgery to justify Masinissa's encroachments (cf. P. G. Walsh, JRS, rg6j, n. 77). Where the trenches ran is unknown; hut they probably went from a point on the north coast somewhere near the R. Tucca (the later boundary of the Roman province) to the neighbourhood of the Minor. The geographical limitation s<:cms probable though omits it; outside the Phoenician Trenches the demarcation of Masinissa's territory was to be subsequently determined (§ 5 n.), and this demarcation seems to be implied in the later Punic claim (Livy. xxxiv. 62. g-10) that Emporia had been assigned to them. P. and Appian are also at variance over the date referred to. P. says 'before the war' of the cities and n~ rraAatov of the rest (a very \'agne : Appian, more probably, specif1es 'before Scipio crossed into Africa'. It is unlikely that {as Taubler argues} Scipio's terms said 'before the war' and the Senate altered this to a later date (Scullard, Scip. 254). 2. n1TO 8€ rijs l)Jdpo.s ~K€iVT]s KTA.: cf. Livy, XXX. 37· 2, 'populandique fin em eo die Roman us faceret'. The day in question would seem to be that on which Scipio put the terms to the Punic ambassadors; Aymard, Pallas, I953, 58 n. n, thinks the date indicated will be that on which the armistice will be agreed, but this date has not yet been mentioned. It is reasonable to think that Scipio suspended the ravaging as an act of grace while the ambassadors reported back to Carthage. 19€0'~ KO.l v6~to~s xpfja9o.~ KTA.: Nissen (op. cit. (in r8. I-8 n.) I4) rejects this clause on the grounds that Carthage was to be stipendiaria, a false argument which confuses war-tribute with the tax paid by a subject. Taubler rejects it on the ground that treaties presuppose the autonomy of the contracting parties and so never explicitly it. This argument is also fallacious, for such guarantees are relatively common in Greek treaties {cf. Syll. 142 = Tod, u8: treaty between Athens and Chios, 384 B.C.; IG, ii2• 44= Tod, 124: tre.at)· between Athens and Chalcis, 37i B.c.) and as DeSanctis (iii. 2. 6r8) obsen·es, its absence from the Roman treaties we possess is no proof that others, including this one, cannot have contained such a clause. On the phrase[()'!} Ka~ vopm d. vi. 4j. t-6 n.; for the general definition of autonomy cf. iv. 25- 7. 84. s. XV. 24. 2, xviii. 46. s. 46. rs. The guarantees contained in §§ r-2 resemble the declaration frequently made by the Romans as a sequel to deditio; and deditio seems to have been 467

XV. r8.

2

THE SETTLEMENT AFTER ZAMA

envisaged at some stage, for it is implied in Scipio's remark in 8. 14. For the formula in such declarations of freedom d. Livy, xlv. 29. 4 (Macedon in r68: follo\\'ing P.), 'omnium primum liberos esse iubere l'vlacedonas, habentes urbes easdem agrosque, utentes legibus suis'. But such declarations are found without any preceding act of deditio (e.g. the Isthmus declaration of : xviii. 46. 5), and there was no deditio on this occasion. See n.ubler, I98 n. 2; Reuss, Volk. Gmnd. 97· Hence there is no reason why such a guarantee cannot have been embodied in the treaty, and though we do not possess the text of this, it is probable that it was. 3. TOUS a.txf.'o.l-.wTOUS ••• xpovou: d. Livy, XXX. 37· J, 'perfugas fugitiuosque et captiuos omnes redderent Romanis'; App. Lib. 54, Kai. alxp..ct.-\WTa mivTa Kai ath-op..o.\ov>, Kai ouovs ltwlfla.s '!TaMas ifyayo'; Dio, xvii. 57· 82, Tovs alxp..aA
records the burning of the Punic ships; and Zon. ix. 14 says, following Dio, that most of the elephants were taken to Rome, but some were given to Masinissa. Some of the former appear at Cynoscephalae (xviii. 23. 7). 4. rroAEf!.oV f1'18Evt ••• 'Pwl"'(l.twv yvwf1'1S: d. Livy, xxx. 37· 4,'bellum neue in Africa neue extra Africam iniussu populi Romani gererent'; App. Lib. 54, p..~n Manuavaaar~ p.ftu a.Uo/ 'Pwp.alwv cpl.\cp 7ToA
THE

SETTLE~ENT

AFTER ZAMA

XV. rS. 5

23. 3-4, 'Carthaginienses foedere inligatos silere: prohiberi enim extra fines efferre arma; quamquam sciant in suis finibus, si inde Numidas pellerent, se gesturos bellum, illo baud ambiguo capite foederis deteneri, quo diserte uetentur cum sociis populi Romani bellum gerere'. Here Livy distinguishes between making war outside the Carthaginian fines, which is contrary to the treaty, and defensive war within the Jines, which is only forbidden if the opponent is a Roman ally {Masinissa) ; and in I49 the Romans declared war on Carthage (Livy, ep. 49) 'quod exercitus extra fines duxissent, quod socio populi Romani et amico Masinissae arma intulissent' (i.e. a breach of the treaty on both scores). Badian, 126, and Sculiard, Scip. 256, reject the clause forbidding all war against an ally of Rome as contrary to ius gentium (cf. Livy, xlii. 41. n); but it had its value to the Romans as going beyond the clause quoted by P., in which m)/..q..t.ov Jm<jJ£pnv refers specifically to offensive warfare (d. I7. 3) and does not cover action taken in defence against an attack by Masinissa. Hence its authenticity is probably to be accepted. Livy refers to carrying war extra fines, because the only easy way in which the Romans could decide whether the Carthaginians were waging otlcnsive warfare was to inquire whether they were inside their own territory or outside--if the latter, they were aggressors! The clause forbidding them to engage in warfare against a Homan ally would put them in the wrong even inside their own territory, and thus opened the door to continuous proYocation, ending ultimately in the Third Punic War. 5. ohc£a.s KO.L xwpa.v Ka.i 1TOAf:tS .•• Ma.aavvaa~: cf. Livy, XXX. 37. 4, 'Masinissae res redderent foedusque cum eo facerent'; Dio, xvii.

57· 82, Kal rip Maa
but there seems no reason to reject this sinister clause. But Livy's reference to a treaty between Carthage and Masinissa is to he rejected; it was unnecessary in view of the guarantees, and it was contrary to Roman practice to instigate separate alliances between her allies. (For a later treaty between Masinissa and Carthage d. App. Lib. 67.) P.'s reference to boundaries to be later assigned is appropriate to the preliminary agreement which he is summarizing; this boundary decision was probably carried out before the treaty was sworn (though it is not impossible that no clear line of demarcation was made, owing to the discordant character of the claims; d. \Valsh, JRS, I96s, rs6 n. 76). Carthage seems to have maintained possession of Emporia, beyond the Phoenician Trenches (cf. i. 82. 6 n.). which was later attacked by Masinissa, but claimed by Carthage in accordance with the treaty (Livy, xxxiv. 6z. g-ro, 'Cartbaginienses iure finium causam tutabantur, quod intra cos terminos esset, quibus 4°9

XV. 18. 5

THE

SETTLEME~T

AFTER ZAMA

P. Scipio agrurn qui iuris esset Carthaginiensium fmisset'). This interpretation (cf. Gsell, iii. 29cr-r) is contradicted by App. Lib. 54, lv 8' if~KoVTa rif:.Llpa~s • .• Tas poupds Vf:.LGS £fayd.yo~v~Klowv nl.pwv eKTO'!i elm, Kai oaa ath-wv lx
phoenician cities {d. ill. 33· 15 n.). The alternative is to reject Appian's clause entirely; d. Scullard, Scip. 257-8. 6. oUOj.LETpiiua.l TE TTJV Mva.j.Lw •.• Ka.TQ TtlS uuv8~Ka.<;: d. Livy, xxx. 37· 5, 'frumentum stipendiumque auxiliis donee ab Roma lcgati redissent praestarent'; App. Lib. 54. o<.!Jat!T€ 0~ is Oa1TaV"f]V rfi (JTpanfj. O:AA.a T(LAalJTa xD.ta, Kat ayopav. The limitation to auxiliaries in Livy is probably erroneous; and r ,ooo talents is a suspiciously large sum, for at ro denarii a month (cf. vi. 39· r:z-15 n.) r,ooo talents would pay :zoo,ooo infantry for three months. Taubler, 69-70, suggests that Appian's figure is a first instalment of the indemnity; but it would still be far too large, even with double pay (Hallward, CAH, \'iii. 103). The most likely explanation is an error in Appian (cf. Scullard, Scip. 254; Aymard, Pallas, 1953. 59 n. 16). 7. O.pyupLou TnAa.vTa. j.LUp~a. KTA.: cf. Livy, xxx. 37· 5, 'decem milia talentum argenti discripta pensionibus aequis in annos quinquaginta soluerent'; App. Lib. 54. Ka1 fS 'PWf:.L"f}V iKda-rov ETOUS aJ'at!pw EiJf:lo•~Ka TaAaVTa a~aKO(TLfl, e7T1 1T€vnJKOVTa iv~aVTOVS; omitted from Dio. The period of fifty years was intended to prolong the period of subjection and in 191 the 1\omans refused an offer to pay off several instalments in advance (Livy, xxxv:i. 4· 7-9, 'responsurn nullam ante diem accepturos'). On the value of the silnr Euboic-Attic talent see i. 62. 9 n.; xxi. 43· rg n. 8. bllt1Pou~ ••• EKa.T6v: d. Livy, xxx. 37· 6, 'obsides centum arbitratu Scipionis darent ne minores quattuordecim annis neu triginta maiores'; Dio, xvii. 57· 82, Of:.L~pous TE a)pa, 1T€VnJKOVTa KaL EK]if;ea8E Til (Jf:.LYJpa. For Appian

the hostages are a pledge of good faith until the treaty is concluded, for P. they guarantee the peace itself. Taubler (40. n. r), comparing the provisions made in the negotiations with Philip in rg8 (xviii. 39· s-6), suggests reading oil y
THE SETTLEJI.1E"i\T AFTER ZAJ\IA

XV. :zo

references in Liry (xxxii. :z. 3-4 (r99), xl. 34- 14 (r8r), xlv. 14. 5 (r68)) that these hostages were still at Rome in 168 and that their personnel was changed from time to time (so ~issen) ; it seems likely, though it cannot be proYed, that roo hostages continued to live in Italy until the tribute vYas all paid off (d. xxi. 32. 9-Io of Aetolian hostages). The limitation in age, like replacement, is a normal provision: cf. xxi. 32. 9-ro (Aetolians), 43· 22 (Antiochus); but its purpose is not clear, and a subject for speculation. See on these hostages, and on hostages generally, Aymard, Pallas, I953· 44--63; JRS, r96r, I36-42; De Sanctis, iii. z. 623; Taubler, rg6; Scullard, Scip. 254. 19. 2. Ka9'
XV. 20

SYRO-MACEDONIAN PACT AGAINST EGYPT

According to P. the terms provided that Philip should take Egypt itself, Caria, and Samos, while Antiochus took Coele-Syria and Phoenicia (iii. 2. 8); and there were guarantees of mutual assistance (xvi. r. 8-9). In iii. 2. 8 P.'s account has been obscured by the alteration of the words Ta KaT' Aryv1TTov to Ta KaT' Aryawv (Niebuhr's emendation) or Ta KaTa Kt6v (so Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 70 n. r; iv. r62 n. 3, who rightly points out that Ta KaT' Aryawv is not good Polybian Greek for the islands of the Aegean). Since P. firmly believed that an attack on Egypt was part of Philip's programme (xvi. ro. r), the MS. reading should be kept (d. Pedech, REG, 1954, 391-3; Ferro, 40 n. 25). However, P. may well have exaggerated the scope of this secret agreement, as does Appian's quite different account, according to which (App. Mac. 4· r) Philip was to help Antiochus against Egypt and Cyprus, and Antiochus to help Philip against Cyrene, the Cyclades, and Ionia. It is improbable that either king would have acquiesced in Egypt's falling into the hands of the other (McDonald, JRS, 1937, r83). But if P. has exaggerated the scope of the compact, this does not justify rejecting it completely as a Rhodian invention (so Magie, JRS, 1939, 32 ff.); this theory takes no account of the help given by Antiochus' governor Zeuxis to Philip KaTa Tas- avv8~Kas- (xvi. r. 8, 24. 6). Evidently a compact was made envisaging a division of Ptolemaic possessions abroad into spheres of Macedonian and Syrian interest; and judging by the subsequent actions of the two kings it is reasonable to suppose that, asP. indicates (iii. 2. 8), Philip was to take Caria and the Ptolemaic naval base at Samos, and Antiochus the Ptolemaic possessions in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia. The situation of the present fragment among the res Graeciae of 01. 144, 2 suggests that P. dated it to 203/2; and it is unlikely that the account of the making of the pact which will have preceded this passage was in xiv, since P. would hardly include it in a book earlier than that containing the account of the accession of Epiphanes which led to it (see above, p. 22). It might be argued that although P. recounted Epiphanes' accession under 2o3j2, since it probably occurred a year earlier, the real date of the pact may also have been in 204/3; but it can hardly be earlier than May 203, when Antiochus sent a letter to the city of Amyzon in Caria after annexing it from Ptolemy (Welles, no. 38, dated 24 May 203)-an annexation which would certainly have violated the agreement with Philip, had the pact already been made. It therefore seems likely that the pact was in 01. 144, 2 = 203/2 and was so dated by P. To date it more closely within that year is harder. Philip's first hostile mo,·e against Egypt was his seizure of Samos in 2or (d. xvi. 2. 4, 2. 9 n.); but Antiochus probably opened his assault on Coele-Syria in 202 (d. Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 319-20) and this is consistent with the making of the 472

SYRO-MACEDONIAN PACT AGAINST EGYPT

XV. 20.3

ngrcement in winter 203/2. But the pact may have been later. De Sanctis (iv. I. 4 n. ro) assumes that in view of the presence of Ptolemy son of Sosibius in ~1acedon (25. I3 n., xvi. 22. 3), it was not made before autumn 202; but if Epiphanes' accession was announced in August 204, Ptolemy can have left for Macedon shortly afterwards, and his presence there would be a useful cover until Philip was ready to attack Ptolemaic possessions. Hence Ptolemy's mission to Macedonia is no obstacle to dating the pact to winter 2o3J2. Despite§ z, it seems likely that the initiative for the pact came from Antiochus, who was more immediately concerned to attack Egypt (cf. 25. I3; Cary, Hist. 9J n. 3) though one cannot rule out the possibility of an approach by Philip following on Antiochus' moves in Caria, where Philip had long-standing interests maintained tltrough Olympichus of Alinda, since the time of Doson (cf. Robert, Bull. ep. I950, no. r82; ap. Holleaux, Etudes, iv. r62 n. r); in this case the renunciation of his claims in western Asia Minor and Thrace was perhaps the price Antiochus paid for Philip's neutrality in his approaching attack on Egypt in Coele-Syria (so Schmitt, Antiochos, 250-{)I).

See Holleaux, CAH, \'iii. 151 (=Etudes, v. 334); De Sanctis, iv. I. ro ft.; Magic, JRS, 1939, 32-44; ~fcDonald, JRS, 1937, , Walbank, Philip, rr3; Pcdech, REG, 1954,391-3; Stier, 9I-92; Ferro, 39-41; L. de Regibus, Aegyptus, 1952, 97-roo; Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 62 n. r; A ntiochos, 237-{)r. For the moral reflections (§§ 4-8) cf. the similar passage in Diod. xxviii. 3, which is imitated from it (Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 132). 20. 1. (llhos 0 nToAEI-£
XV. zo. 3

SYRO-MACEDO~L\::\

PACT AGAINST EGYPT

T6v XeyofJ-Evov Twv tx9uwv ~(ov: cf. Corp. paroem. graec. ii. 596 n. 79; and below xxxiv. 2. 14, 2. r6 for the phenomenon. Wunderer, i. q, compares the reference in xvi. 24.4 to Philip living the 'life of a wolf', and thinks both phrases go back to the same historian, whom P. used as a source. This need not be so. Whether P. is thinking of Hesiod's account of the order of Zeus~ tx8vu' p.€v Ka~ 81Jpui Kat olwvoZs- 7T€T€1JVOtS' €u8€w d..\..\~..\ovs-, E7T€L of.K1] EUTtV Ell aUTOtS'' av8pdJ7TOW' o' EOWKE 8lK1Jv, ~ 1To..\..\ov ap[UT'I'J yLyvETat (TVorlls and Days, 277-So)

ou

-we cannot say; Stier, 95, quotes the passage. T~ 1-lE(~ov~ Tpo4>TJv ••• Ka.i J3iov: \Vunderer, iii. iS. quotes the German proverb: 'des einen Tod ist dem andren sein Brot'. 5. etKoTws TtJ Tuxn fJ-EfJ-Ijlc'tfJ-evos: for her capricious behaviour; cf. \'ol. I, p. r8 n. 6. avnKaTaAAa.ye£,: 'became reconciled with her'; on this word see Welles, p. 313 s.v. Tov Twv ••. paa~Aewv 1Tapaouy~J-anafJ-ov: 'the exemplary chastisement she inflicted on these princes'. 6. ~maTT]aaaa 'Pw~J-a(ous: usually translated 'raising the Romans up against them'; but there is no parallel for this. Hence Passerini (Athen. 1936, 182 n. r) suggests with good reason that the sense is the more usual one of 'drawing the attention of the Romans' to them. 7. auyKAe~a9evTEs ets 4>opous: 'compelled to pay tribute'; cf. xxi. II. 9- P. refers to the settlements after the Second Macedonian War (d. xviii. 44- 2) and after Magnesia (cf. xxi. 43). 8. Tous fJ-EV apOT]V avaaTclTOUS ~1To(T]O'E: the overthrow and dethronement of Philip's successor Perseus after Pydna (cf. xxix. 2I for P.'s reflections on this). To us oe fJ-LKpoG oe~v •.. O'UfJ-1TTWfJ-aaL: for the humiliating of Antioch us Epiphanes cf. xxix. 27 (and especially §§ II-IJ, on the saving of Egypt and the expulsion of Antiochus at the hands of Tyche).

21-24. Philip and Cius: the enslavement of Thasos In 202 Philip opened his campaign in the Aegean area by forcing Lysimacheia and Calchedon to join the Macedonian alliance (23. 8-')), annexing Perinthus (xviii. 2. 4, 44- 4), which enjoyed sympolity with Byzantium (cf. DeSanctis, iv. 1. 7; Magie, ]RS, 1939, 36-37), and was otherwise independent (Holleaux, Etudes, iv. JI8 n. I}, and attacking Cius. These e\'ents ·will belong to the campaigning season of this year, but cannot be dated more closely. P. seems to draw 011 a Rhodian source, who may be Zeno (cf. Cllrich, 36). 474

PHILIP AND Cl US

XV.

22. 1

ll. 1. Mo!..vo.yopo.s: clearly one of the x.;lpun-ot mentioned in § 4· 'll'o.pn To~s K,(o.v)ois: Valesius restored the correct form; P reads Klots, Suidas KEiot>. Cius is a town in Bithynia, in the innermost recess of the Ktavos ~<6ATTos (Ps.-Scyl. 93; cf. Mela, i. roo; Strabo, xii. 563 f.}, modern Gemlik; see Ruge, RE, 'Kios (1)', cols. 486-8; Magie, 306, I 188-9. 2. TOU') E(,KO.Lj>OVVTO.S ••• U'II'O~aAAwv TOl') oxAOLS: 'putting the richer citizens in the power of the mob'; d. L 8.z. z, ro~s ... daaPnxBl~"Ta~ rhr1.{3ille rotS' 8ryplot>. "''PLE'II'oLT)ao.To f1ova.pxLK1)v ~~ouala.v: 'secured the position of a tyrant'; Suidas adds that dt'!/PE81J 7Tapd. nvaw (s.v. 8ryp.aywytK6s}. 3. 8Ln T~v a.\m'ilv lt~ouMo.v: hence they have only themselves to blame ; d. ii. 7. 2 ; Siegfried, 89. !5. o(J Suvo.vTa.L Xi}so.' Ti}s &.vo~a.s: cf. v. 75· z-{) n. and xviii. 40. 1-4 for the sentiment. 1Ca.9arrep ~vLo. TWv &.A.oywv ~t!>wv: in view of § 8 tJEMara ~<ara7Tt6VTwv, Wunderer (iii. 31) argues that P. is thinking primarily of fish. ~tfiov is used of the sword-fish (xxxiv. 3· J, 3· 8} and of such sea-beasts as dolphins and sharks (xxxiv. z. 14}; but UAEap, bait, is not used exclusively of catching fish, and P. uses the phrase KaraTTlvew ro &I.Aeap virtually as dead metaphor (cf. xx. rz. 7, xxii. 8. 4, xxix. 9· 7 (cf. 8. 3}). Moreover, apKvs is a hunting net rather than a fishing net. The {tfia then are probably any wild animals contrasted with man, not excluding but not particularly stressing fish. 7. T~ 1TpoELpf)f1EV!f Tj>01Tif: by letting such demagogues as Molpagoras impose upon them. 8. a.t TO~o.lho.L rroAm;.'i:o.L: 'such acts of policy'. ~eupLos yEVOf1Evos KTA.: apparently Prusias (and l'bilip} exploited the factions in Cius to get possession of it; and P.'s strictures on the people of Cius (zr. 3-8} suggest that their dissensions brought on this intervention. Which side the kings supported is unknown; but Philip, who had been moving away from the possessing classes for a \'ariety of reasons (Walbank, Philip, I6-t--sL cannot be assumed to have been necessarily opposed to the elements represented by Molpagoras. T~ KfJSEaTfj: 'his kinsman by marriage', Prusias I of Bithynia (23. ro}. Strabo (xii. 564} and Hermippus of Berytus, fg. 72 (FHG, iii. sr} state that Prusias I gave the name of Apamea to the town of Myrleia, which Philip captured and handed over to him at the same time as Cius, naming it after his wife. Niebuhr (Kl. Schr. i. 257} suggested that this Apama was Demetrius II's daughter, and the sister of Philip V (cf. Beloch, iv. 2. 137}. However, an inscription from Asia Minor found in Piraeus and published by Wilhelm (]ahresh. 1908, 75 ff.; d. IG, ii-iiiz. 3172} showed that the name of Prusias II's

l2. l. tPiAtrr1TOS

4iS

PHILIP A::.\D Cit'S

wife was Apama, and since Stephanus of Byzantium (s. v. Mvp.\ttai states that it was Nicomedes II Epiphanes who renamed the town after his mother, the wife of Prusias II, the inscription has been held to support his statement and to discredit those of Strabo and Hermippus. Prusias II indeed married a daughter of Philip V (Livy. xlii. 12. 3-4, 29. 3; App. Mith. 2), who may well have been called Apama; but he did so after Philip's death, and this marriage cannol explain why Prusias I is here called Philip's KTfO<(}T~>· The Piraeu" inscription is irrelevant to the question whether Stephanus should be preferred to Strabo and Hermippus on the origins of the name Apamea for )iyrleia. In their authority might be held to bt> higher; and since Prusia.s I renamed Cius Prusias (Strabo, xii. 563: Steph. Byz. s.v.llpouua), there seems good reason to think he also re named :\'lyrleia Apamea. If so, this may well have been after his wife, and if she was Philip's sister, as Niebuhr suggested, the term KTfDHm]<: is explained. Note that Demetrius II married Stratonice, the daughter of Antiochus I Soter (Iustin. xxviii. r. 2); and it would be most probably through her that the name Apmna came into the Antigonid dynasty from the Seleucids. There is no reason why Prusias I and Prusias II should not both have married Antigonid wives named Apama; indeed such a coincidence would explain Stephanus' error about Myrleia. See for the above view Vitucci, 48 n. 4; Tsherikower, 49; Magie, ii. u89; contra Holleaux, Rome. 207 n. r; Habicht, RE, 'Prusias (r)', cols. ro86-7, rogj-6. Tous aAAoTpt6.~ovTas: 'those who were opposed to him' (d. 25. 34) ; not, with Paton, 'the revolutionary party'. 3. T~v •.. .pfj~"lv l'11r~p 't'fls ••. w~o'"lTos: for the tradition of Philip's savagery as a murderer of his friends see the passages quoted in viii. 12. 2 n.; and the discussion in Walbank, CQ, r943, 4-5. £~ O.~opo'i'v: i.e. by acting unjustly (§ 2) and by acting savagely towards a Greek city; P. distinguishes the two quite separate crimes. TTjv €rr' d.aef3d~ 86$av: part of the tradition of Philip at this time; cf. xviii. 54· ro. 4. To'i's d.rro Twv rrpoetpl)fJ-EVwv rroAEwv rrpeaf3euTa'Ls: the passage in which they were mentioned is lost, but they included T
PHILIP AND CIUS

XV. 23. 8

the idea of 'justification' is found, and may be partly present here. Philip's ambassador had probably been sent to Rhodes in reply to those sent from Rhodes to him (zz. 4 n.). Kpt:milv f1o"l Tfj; m)XEw;: 'already master of the city'. l)(owa~ T~ l)tl!-1'¥ T~V xapw T0.0TT)V: 'he granted this faVOUr to the people', The favour is the general treatment implied in luyaAoifJVxla. The of!!LOS' is probably the Rhodian people (cf, § 6), whom the ambassador is addressing (so Schweighaeuser and Shuckburgh), but could possibly be the people of Cius, as Paton takes it. If the former, the insult to Rhodes is all the greater. .pa.vepO.v ••• Tfi 1TOAE~ Ka.Ta.O'TtlO'a.~ T~v ••• 1rpoa.ipeO"w: 'to reveal to the city his sentiments towards it'; here too the city is probably Rhodes, despite the fact that two lines earlier m.J,\.,ws- is Cius. 3. To 1rpuTa.ve:'Lov: see xiii. 5· I n. 4. b 1TpUTa.v~s: probably the chairman of the committee of five (cf. xiii. 5· In.). 1-LTJ ouva.cr&m 1T'crn00'a.': this incredulity is, as Schweighaeuser observes, a little hard to understand after the Rhodian experience with IIeracleides (xiii. 8. O.pn yap OLa.A£Xul-lE:vos KTX.: in the peace o[ 2o6 (cf. xiii. 7· 2-3 n.). This sentence contains two ambiguities, (a) the meaning of the genitive absolute
(a) Holleaux (Etudes, iv. 129 n. I; Rome, 29r n. 2\ following Casauhon and Schweighaeuser takes the sense to be: 'quum amicis ac sociis ... uteretur Aetolis, Lysimachensibus, Chalcedoniis et Cianis' ; but from xviii. 3· 12 and 5· 4, which he quotes in support of this interpretation, it is clear that l)hilip distinguished between his friendship with Aetolia and his alliance with Prusias (which took precedence over it). Peace with Aetolia did not make .Philip her ally; and the loose use of cplAm Kat avfllwxo~ in xviii. 5· z (cf. xv. 24. 4) does not justify treating aUJLflaxo~ here as a mere 'expletif' of cpf.>.m. The sense must be 'when (or although) the people of Lysimacheia, Calchcdon, and Cius were friends and allies of the Aetolians'. (b) The phrase flpax"t xp6vcp 1Tpchtpov stands awkwardly. Holleaux, loc. cit., again follows Casaubon and Schweighaeuser in taking it with cp[Awv • .• Ktavwv; so too Paton, who translates: 'when the Aetolians had at no distant date entered into friendship, etc.' This is just possible assuming a slight anacoluthon: P. writes fJpax•f xp6v4J 1tponpov as if yuofl.!vwt• preceded rather than {nra.pxovrwv. But this is difficult, and a case can be made for taking fJpax"f • •• 77poT<pov with what follows (witlwut necessarily accepting vVilamowitz's transposition of the phrase to follow 77pwTov 1d:t·; d. Klaffenbach, JC, ixz. r, p. xxxiii L 39; contra, Flaceliere, 312 n. 3): Shuckburgh takes it like this. On this view, however, the phrase applies only to 477

XV. 23.8

PHILIP AND CIUS

the taking of Lysimacheia and Calchedon, but not Cius; nor does it seem relevant that the taking of Lysimacheia was only a short time before, whereas the recent friendship with Aetolia is very much to the point. On the whole then the case for taking the phrase with vr.apxovrwv is the stronger. But the sentence would gain from its exclusion, and a case could be made for treating it as a gloss. The difference to the sense is negligible, since so vague a phrase cannot be used to date the acquisition of these towns by Aetolia (see below). In xviii. 3· n-12 P. makes Alexander the lsian describe the re· lationship between Aetolia and Lysimacheia and Cius as avp.,7ToArnf.a; but the link will rather haxe been one of alliance with iao1ToAL7·do.. which goes better with mJp.,p.,axot (cf. ii. 46. 2 n. for other context;; where P. fails to distinguish clearly between these two concepts). When these towns established close relations with Aetolia is uncertain. Niese (ii. 581) puts the alliance in 202 as a result of Dicaearchus' piracy; but the weakness of Aetolia then is against this supposition, and the alliance was more probably struck some tim,· during the First Macedonian War, when it was a natural reply t" the threatening compact between Philip and Prusias (d. De Sancti~. iv. 1. 6 n. q). On the previous alignment of these tovvns see below. Auo-~11axewv: Lysimacheia was founded by Lysimachus on the Thracian Chersonese (Gallipoli) in c. 309 (Diod. xx. 29. 1 ; Strabo. vii, fg. 51; Livy, xxxiii. 38. n; Pliny, X at. ltist. iv. 48). Certain ::\ISS. of Ptol. iii. n put it at Hexamilion (mod. Ortakoy) just south of the River Melas (Ka\·ok) at the entrance to the Chersonese; and this has been commonly accepted. Casson, 111acedonia, Thracc and lllyria (Oxford, 1926), 2n, sited it on the Melas Gulf near Cape Xeros (Bakla Burunu), where Cardia stood; but Appian (B.C. iL SS) makes Cardia and Lysimacheia protect the entrance to the Chersonese, wmTEp mJAat, which would suggest that one stood on or near either sea. There is therefore good reason to accept the site suggested by Daphne Hereward (Archaeology, 1958, 129) at Sukruler Tepe to\\·ards the Hellespont just south of Bolayir (Plagiari); anticipatf'• I in the discussion of L. Robert, Hellenica, s. 1948, 51-54: 10, 19.::;:;. 266-71 (publishing a monument dating from Philip's occupation nl the city, bearing the relief of a club and the inscription ~f3aarAiw \· lf>tAlTT1Tov, similar to those on some of l)hilip's coins). See also Meritt. \Vade-Gery, and McGregor, The Athenian Tribute Lists, i (Cambridw·. Mass., 1939), 564-5. Together with the rest of the Thracian Chersonr~·· Lysimacheia had fallen to Egypt between 2.J.5 and 2-J.I (see v. 3S· 7-8 n.). \Vhen it joined the Aetolian alliance (see previous note) an Aetolian rnpaT7JYD> was installed (xviii. 3· rr). Philip appears to ha \ ,. taken over Lysimacheia peaceably, alleging that his object was t'' protect it from the Thracians (xviii. 4· 6), to whom indeed it quickh fell in 198 after his withdrawal in 199-8 (Livy, xxxiii. 38. II). Au

l'HlLlP Az..
inscription containing fragments of the £mavv01}K1J to a treaty between Philip and Lysimacheia was published by Oikonomos, 'Emyparpa1 Tfjs MaK£3ovla>, r (Athens, 1915), 2-7, and conveniently reproduced by Bikerman, Rev. phil. 1939, 348-g (d. Heuss, Stadt und Herrscher, r8o; Robert, Hellenica, ro, 1955, 269-70); it contains mutual oaths and mentions the rf>u\la Kat av!L!Laxla existing between the city and the king. Ka.AxTJSov(wv: on the site see iv. 43· 8 n.; Magie, 304, u83-4· The status of Calchedon when it joined the Aetolian alliance is uncertain, but it was probably independent; cf. SEG, iv. 720, a decree of Phocaea and Tenedos (third century) granting a request to be recognized as lEpd Kat aavAo;. There are no grounds for the view that Philip handed it over to Prusias (so Ed. Meyer, RE, 'Bithynia', col. 5r8; Rostovtzeff, SEHHl"i', ii. 66z). KLa.vwv: cf. 21. r n. Its status before joining Aetolia is also unknown. 9. ~pa.xei xpov d. 'Welles, no. 70, l. 13 (avedaraO!Lov), pp. 313 and 335 (E-maraOw:Jw). The billeting of troops was one of the most resented features of occupation; see the evidence collected by Launey, ii. 695-715 (and especially 697 n. 5). 3. auyxwpeiv Tov ~aaLA£a KTA.: probably the oratio obliqua is to be explained (as Schweighaeuser suggests) as being the words of Metrodorus' answer. 44. Criticism of Philip: P. believes in Philip's imperialist ambition 4i9

XV. 24. 4--{)

PHILIP'S ENSLAVEMENT OF TIL\SOS

and his criticism is based on this belief. His point is that whereas all kings by exploiting the slogan of liberation and then enslaving those who trust them lose their reputation, but at least gain their ends, Philip by revealing his duplicity at the outset shows himself to be a pure madman. The absence of any moral criterion here is noteworthy. 4. Ktt6LKoJleVOL ••• Twv rrpa~Ewv: 'having gained their ends'. 5. Tou JlEV Ka.Aou ••• Tou OE rra.pa.uTa cruJlcp€povTos: cf. xxi. 32 c 2, TO TE Ka.\ov dyH -r~v rofi Trapo.trriKa .\vatn:Aovs vatv Kal: -r6 Auai-r€.\<s ~v rofi KaAofi.

6. rrEptAO.Jl~O.vovTa. Tal:<; iA'!I'Lo:FL T~v oiKOUf1EVT~V: this is P.'s picture of Philip and the Antigonids; cf. v. roz. 1 n. 'IT6.cra<; aKJlTJV aKEpa.LoU<; ••• TQ'ij E'ITt~OAa<;: 'his chances of success iu all his projects unimpaired' (Paton). ~v To'Ls tAa.x£<7TOL':i ~~:a.l. rrpwToL<; n7w urrom'!I'Tovnuv: toP. Philip's annexations of this year (which may have included Lemnos; cf. xviii. 44· 4- n. on Myrina) are the first step in a programme of unlimited expansion, and it is against this interpretation that he judges him; cf. xvi. Io. r, where he regards his failure to sail on Macedonia as a further proof of madness. 24 a-36. Affairs of Egypt: the accession of Ptolemy V Epiphanes and the downfall of Agathocles That P. used Ptolemy of Megalopolis as a source is possible but beyond proof; see xiv. 11. 2 n. [24 a. Chronology: see above, p. 23. :\bas (AIPhO, I949. 443-6) has demonstrated that this passage should follow 25. I9. For comments by P. elsewhere on his chronological system and deviations from it d. xiv. rz, xxxii. 11. z-4. For a reference back to the present passage and to zs. 19 see xxviii. r6. Io-u. im:i '!l'acra.s: ::\1aas, loc. cit., suggests brei (yap) rraao.s; on is, of course, from the excerptor of M. Ta<; KC1TaAA11Aa. rrpa~ELS: cf. xxviii. r6. I I, T
1-2. Character of Sosibius: on whom see v. 35· 7 n. The most probable place for this summary would be in connexion with tlw account of Sosibius' death (cf. Schweighaeuseradloc.). Maas (AIPhO, 1949, 446-i), in a study of Sosibius, suggests that P. recounted hi:-. death in a passage omitted by Q but standing originally somewbert· between 25. ro (burial of Philopator and Arsinoe) and zs. n (end ol mourning). Kiese (ii. 573 n. 3) assumed that his death preceded Epiphanes' accession, but this is clearly wrong (cf. § 5; 480

CHARACTER OF SOSIBI US

XV. 25.

2

Ptolemaic Dynasty, zsz f.; Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 49 n . .;). Holleaux, ibid., suggested that his death fell during the period covered by the part of the text, now lost, between 25 and z6 a; but Q made substantial omissions and .Maas's hypothesis is the most convincing. See further above, p. 23. L ljlw8m(Tpo1Tos: cf. § 5; the word comes from the epitomator, as it does in Pat 25. zo and in M. at 34· I, and Biittner-\Vobst indicates this in his text. :\laas (A I PhO, 1949, 443-4) suggests plausibly that it was a Polybian word which occurred in some lost passage dealing with Alexandrian affairs. aKEOos 6.yxivouv Ka.l. 1roXuxpov~ov: cf. xiii. 5· 7 for UKovov AuatJ.I.IiXIf: Ptolemy II Philadelphus was f1rst married to Arsinoe, daughter of Lysimachus of Thrace, who bore him three children, Ptolemy III Euergetes, Lysimachus, and Berenice. Lysimachus was probably born after z8o (Beloch, iv. 2. r8s). and his death seems to have preceded that of Magas below); Holleaux (Etu.des, iii. 52 = iii. 385) ar!';ued, against the common view placing the event soon after Philopator's accession (:\'iese, ii. 36I ; BoucheLeclercq, Lagides, i. 289), that Lysimachus ·was murdered during the reign of Ptolemy III, his brother. Nothing else is known of him beyond a reference in Schol. Theoc. xvii. 128 (p. 324, C. Wendel). Whether the demotic inscription from Thebes mentioning a 'Lysimachus, strategos, brother of the kings' (Insc. Cat. Cairo, Dernot. Denkmaler, i. 3''3i; cf. Krall, S.-B. Wien, ros, IS84, refers to him or not is still uncertain; cf. Holleaux, h'tHdes, 385 n. I ; Otto and Bengtson, Abh. Bay. Al~ad. 1938, q, 102 n. 5 (suggesting that it dates to the later Ptolemaic period). 'Ptolemy son of Lysimachus' known from many inscriptions (cf. Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 365-404, and especially 397-402; OGIS, 55; d. TAM, ii. 1) appears to be the son of Lysimachus of Thrace and to have nothing to do with Lysimachus the brother of Ptolemy III (d. Welles, i5-76, r61-2; M. Segre, Clara Rhodos, 1938. I8r-2o8; L. Robert, Bull. epig. 1939. nos. 38o-I; ap. Holleaux, f...'tudes, iii. 404); see further Roos, .\1nem. 1950, 54 ff.; Volkmann, RE, 'Ptolemaios (r3)', cols. 1596-'7. May~ Til! nToX~e:J.~.aiov KTA.: on the murder of Magas, son of Ptolemy liT, see v. 34· x n. BEpEViKn TU nToAE!la(ov: murdered along with her son Magas; cf. v. 34· I n., 36. 1 n. KX~::oJ.I.evu: on his death cf. \', 35·-39 ; Sosibius was hardly to blame here. 814173

I

i

XV. :05.

z

D.\ TE OF ACCESSION OF PTOLEMY V

&uyo.Tpi Bep~;vt~<'I'JS !A.pow6n: wife and full sister of Ptolemy IV Philo pator; cf. v. 8J. 3 n. The omission of Arsinoe's name from a prh·ate

dedication from Thebes 89) need not imply that the queen was kept in the background; but John Ant. fg. 54 (FHG, iv. 55?ll records her dismissal in favour of Agathocleia (cf. xiv. II. s). ·who murdered her after Philopator's death, apparently in some incident which involved the destruction of the palace: on flToAE!J.o.{ou (.:1ya8ot Otatp!Japelt:rrjs. TE I:upla:; paa•A (sic), Kat Tfjs MaK€i5ovlas ti>{ilm1To>, i'A1Tli5. TOfJ KpaT~(]EW rij> xwpa> aw npo!Jujllq, aTpaTEVO'U(ftv KTA. Miiller.

o

ad Joe., plausibly that the palace was partly burnt down. See further§ 3 n., §§ and 26 a 1-2; Walbank, JEA, 1936,29. But no official reason for her death was aunounced (§ 8).] 3. flETa S' TJJ.Llpas Tpe'Ls l\ T€na.pGS; perhaps, but not certainly, after the fire in the palace (§ 2 n.). Clearly some \'iolent event is postulatt·d as a cloak for the production of the ums allegedly containing t!H ashes of both the king and the queen. On the real date of the event~ described here see xiv. II-rz n. Egyptian records put Epiphanes' accession before 13 October 204, and probably between 12 March and 8 September 204. If this is correct P. has, probably deliberately, in eluded under 203/2 e\·ents which occurred the year; on that hypothesis the announcement described here was probabl\ made in early September 204. The date Phaophi r7 28 NovembeJ. lv 'ljt 1Tap.Iilap€v T~V (3acnil<{av 1rapO.. ToiJ 7raTpo> (OG!S, go, I. 47) refers to the subsef]uent enthronization at :Hemphis and not to the cere~ mouy carried out now at Alexandria (d. xiv. 11-12 n.); it is therefore irrelevant to the dating of this passage. ~v T(il J.LEY~aT~ 11'tipLrrTuA~ Tfj~ a.OM\~: the royal palace occupied the peninsula of Lochias on the east side of the harbour, and also ex· tended into the city proper (d. \', 39· 4, 7rpo> n/v aKpav; Athen. \'. 196 A; Caesar, BC, iii. II2); eYentually the palace occupied a quarter to a third of the city (Strabo, xvii. 793). O'UVEKaAEaa.v TOU') UTI'O.O''ITLO'Ta~ KO.~ TTJV e,pa.TI'E(a.v: the subject is proL~ ably Agathocles and Sosibius; for Agathocles cf. v. 63. I n., xi\'. II. In. The hypaspists are most likely the equivalent of Alexander'" personal staff, as they ·were in the Antigonid court, a small group ol individuals employed on S1)ecial tasks; cf. , .. z7. 3 n. There is liP evidence that a body of guards called hypaspists continued to exi~l under the Ptolemies as they did nnder the Selucids (cf. vii. r6. 2 11.). 8<pa:;re{a is probably the royal bodyguard rather than the cou1 t generally; cf. iv. 87. 5 n., v. (}(}. 6 n. Touo; ••• T]y~q.u)vo.os: these will be the officers of the 'Macedonian:--.'. foot and horse; d. z6. I n. 482

ACCESSIOX OF PTOLEMY V

XV. 25. rz

4. civOwJ.LoAoy-.lcravTo: suggests some previous concealment; cf. Justin. xxx. 2. 6 and above, xiv. II-I2 n. TO -rr£v9oc; civ£<j~T)vav tcTA.: 'they proclaimed the customary period of mourning for the people' (Shuckburgh). 5. civ£8t:L~av ~acrtA£a: 'they proclaimed him king'. ~nupo'TTouc;: on the guardianship of Hellenistic kings who are minors see the discussion and material assembled by W. Otto, Abh. Bay. Akad. II, 1934, 44-45; index under 'Vormundschaftsregierungen'; Bikennan, 21 ; Holleanx, Etudes, iii. 387 n. I. 7. 1TAtlPTJS ... 6.pwfl6.Twv: presumably because the body was not accessible: this would be explained if Arsinoe had perished in the palace fire, as John of Antioch suggests (cf. § 2 n.): but there are other possibilities, e.g. that she died away from Alexandria. 8. Tij<;; cill.fJOwij<;; <jJ-.lJ.LTJ'> 1Tpocr1TmTwtcu(a<;;: perhaps spread by Deinon (z6 a 1): so Schmitt, Antiochos, 204-5. 9. oUOt:i<;; oU9Eva Myov E1TOL£LTO: P. is hostile towards Philopator; cf. xiv. rz. 3·

[25. l-2. l:wcr(~IO'> b ljlw8mhpo1ros .•• :A.pcrwon: see ad loc. for the likelihood that the sketch of Sosibius' character came here in connexion with his death. The continued prestige of his sons (zs. r3, 32. 6) suggests that he died naturally of old age; cf. Maas, AIPhO, 1949, 447, against Schwcighaeuser's view that Agathocles murdered him.]

n. TOU<;; ~acrLALtcOUS OliCOUS: 'the royal vaults'; cf. Diod. i. SI. z (of the Egyptians), rovs ... -rc:Vv TETE.\EVTIJK6rwv rd.cpovs dt:oiovs otKovs '1TpoaayopEVOVCrtv, ws Ell '%1oov DtaTEAOVllTWIJ TOll a:rrE<pov aiwva. But the word is used of funerary monuments elsewhere; cf. J. Martha, BCH, 1878, 6ro-u, nos. 29. r, 30 (Cibyra); Cousin, ibid. r894, II, no. 6 (Magnesia on Maeander). Mauersberger, s.v. f3aat,\tK6s, thinks the palace is meant. cmo0Ecr9aL Tn <jlaLn: 'to put off mourning'; there is some compression here, for the mourning would not cease immediately after the burial when it had hardly begun. The original probably contained an account of Sosibius' death at this point (§§ r-2 n.). wljlwv1acrt:: 'he paid'; cf. i. 66. 3 n. on OVJ
XV. 25.

IZ

AGATHOCLES AS REGE':'-rT

elsewhere in this sense (though it is found as the name of an internal Ptolemaic functionary probably concerned with finance), is an official title is doubtful; see Lesquier, 72 n. 4; Bengtson, Aegyptus, 1952, 38r ; Strat. iii. 157-8 (suggesting that the title was perhaps simply =pa-rTJyos, known for Cyrenaica from SEG, ix. 55). otvciv9T)v Knl. :Aya96KAELnv: on Oenanthc, Agathocles' mother, see xiv. r r. r n.: for Agathoclcia, his sister, xiv. r r. 5 n. 13. neXorra ••• TOV neXorros: the father is known as the recipient of an honorary decree at Samos at the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphus i. 364 Schede, Ath. Mitt. rgig, 24, no. u); he is there described as the son of Alexander, friend of the king and an army commander (-rHayfLi~·os bri SwafLEw:;). His son, now sent as an ambassador to Antiochus, had already served as governor of Cyprus under Ptolemy IV (cf. ]liS, 1937, 30, no. 6; OGIS, 84, restored in the light of the previous text). He married Myrsine, whose sister Iarnneia 'Y7T€p{JaaaavTo:; is recorded as canephoros of Arsinoe Philadelphus in 243{2 (P. Hibeh, 171; PSI, 389). See further, A. Wilhelm, Wien. A1tz. 1920, xvii-xx\·ii, 53 f.; Launey, i. 308-9. OUVTt')flElV TTJV 4>lALGV KGL (.lfJ rrnpapaLVELV Tal) , , , ouv9fJKGS: the treaty is that made in 217 after Raphia, cf. v. 87. 8. If Epiphancs' accession described here) was in September 204 (see § 3 n.), the various ambassadors, including Pclops, may have been sent at once or indeed in the following spriug ; the time indications in P. are quite vague (cf. § 13, fLHCt 8€ Ta.Lim). Antioclms had already annexed Amyzon by May 203 (Welles, no. 38; cf. 2o n.), and the wording of Pelops' message suggests that this was not known at Alexandria when he was dispatched (cf. Ferro, 38 n. rs); on the other hand, the words 11-~ 1Tapaf1alv<:Lv • • • avv8~Ka:; could be a polite protest a breach already committed. nToAEf1GLOV ••• TOV Iwot~LOU: nothing is knovm of him outside P.'s pages; cf. xvi. 22. 3-n; Volkmann, RE, 'Ptolemaios (47)', col. Ji63. rrept Tijs

imya.(.l~ns: 'concerning the marriage-alliance'; probably a proposal, already mooted under Philopator, for a marriage (or betrothal) between Epiphanes and a daughter of Philip (who could also have been a child). For a defence of the 1\fS. reading against Svoronos' emendation imfLa.xtas see the conclusive arguments of Holleaux, Rome:, 79 n. 1, On Sosibius' policy of close relations between Egypt and Macedon against Syria see Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 48 n. 5; his son was a most appropriate envoy on this occasion. The date is uncertain, as it is for the sending of Pelops to Antiochus. oXooxep£oTepov ••. rrnpaorrovSE'i:v: 'a serious breach of his compact': the phrase need not imply that a breach had already occurred; d. v. 24. 12, 1Tp&.g<£t> 6/o.oax"PE=.fpas, 'important business'. 14. nToAE(.lGLOV TOV :Ay,c:rcipxou: Ptolemy of Megalopolis, who later

484

FOREIGN RELAT

lO~S

OF AGATHOCLES

XY. 25. 17

wrote scandalous histories of Philopator (cf. v. 35-39 n., xiv. u. z n. ; Jacoby on FGH, 161; above, 24 a-36 n., for the possible use of this work by P., below, 34-36 n., for possible criticism of him). In 197 Ptolemy succeeded Polycrates (v. 64. 4) as governor of Cyprus (xviii. 55· 6-9); his full style there is recorded on a Cypriote inscription, perhaps from Larnaca, reading: Eip~I'TJv IhoAqwiov -roO [a-rpa-rrr you] Kal apxvcplws JipTEJLLSas DE[a1ToiV1]'>] 8Eu1V Ka' TOU f3aatMws Kat -rrwv aM.wvJ 8Eivv, Jiv Td [Epa iSpv-rat EV Ti)[t v.-)awt. J (T. B. Mitford, Arch. Pap. xiii, 1939, 24 ff. no. r2); see further Volkmann, RE, 'Ptolemaios (43)', cols. 1762-3; Bengtson, Strat. iii. 141-2, who suggests that the apxtEpEtJS, WhO COntrolled all the templeS On the island of Cyprus, and was at the same time governor, was a creation of the energetic Aristomenes (d. 31. 6 n.). The identification of the historian with the later governor of Cyprus is rejected by Jacoby on FGH, 161. 1rpeu~eu1"~v 1rpo~ 'Pw!J-a(ou~: presumably to announce Epiphanes' accession and to ask for help, if necessary, against Antiochus (Holleaux, Rome, 70-73); but if its date was late 204 or early 203 (cf. § 13 n.), Rome was scarcely yet in a position to take any actionwhich may help to explain why Ptolemy was allowed to dally in Greece. Holleaux (Rome, 72 n. 2) argues that this embassy is identical with that mentioned by Appian (Syr. 2) as being sent by Philopator to complain of Antiochus' seizure of Syria and Cilicia; but this reference is too confused to support any conclusions. See further on this embassy Manni, Riv. fil. 1949, 96. 1"o'i:s EKe!: ciJO..oL~ K«l auyyevi.uLv: presumably at l\fegalopolis and in Achaea generally, where he will have been an important source of information on what had happened in Egypt. 16. IKo1rav ..• e1rt ~evoAoyiav: on Scopas' arrival in Alexandria see xiii. 2 with notes. The date will be either late 204 or spring 203: cf. § 13 n. On tEvoA6yot and their methods cf. Griffith, 26o--3. £t~ ni 1rpo8oJ.LMa: d. xxix. 8. 8; this is the normal expression for the payment of part of a mercenary's wages in advance, and is often found in the papyri: d. Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 138 n. I; Griffith, 85, 278, 292; Launey, i. 728. When Scopas went recruiting in Greece in rgg, he went magna cum pondere (Livy, xxxi. 43· 5), for the same purpose; d. Plaut. Mil. glor. 72-76, 948-so, for examples. 17. et~ 1"0V 1rpo~ :4-v,.(oxov 1TbAEJ.Lov: evidently imminent; cf. § 13 n. That Scopas used these mercenaries against Antioch us is clear; d. XVI. 39· i1TL ,.a. Ka1"a 1"~V xwpav ciJpoC,pla: the Egyptian xwpa is the countryside, organized separately from the towns. The peace-time army was stationed in camps, vTTatBpa, and in fortresses, rf>povpta, which varied in size and importance; see, for references, Lesquier, 71 n. 2; Bengtson, Strat. iii. 73· n. 2; and for the organization of the command 485

XV . .z5. 17

AGATHOCLE:J

.\~D

THE .-\R)I\"

Bengtson, ibid. iii. 24-29, 35-42. For similar roupm in Cyprus d. Diod. xx. 47· 3; in Greece proper, d. Diod. xx. 103. 7; IG, iv 2 • I. 68, ll. 14 f. Ta; KllTO~Kia;: in Ptolemaic Egypt KLA.i.,-'ITt..;l 8~a.~ooA(ou: 'before the discussion at Philip's court'. Clearly, under the res Graeciae of this book, P. must have dealt in some detail with the reception at Pella of Ptolem\. son of Sosibius; the sun·ival of this passage would perhaps ha \, thrown more light on the background of Philip's pact with Antioclm~. The hiatus after owfiovAlov indicates that the epitomator has omitted further detail referring to the earlier passage. O.A.A.' EKELvwv KTA,: sec 24 an. Comparison with xxviii. 16. ro-I 1. which clearly recalls the present passage, proves that Tfjs €$a11'oa-roArj,· should be followed by 24 a (probably reading ~1r~:i ... ) . so Maas, AIPhO, 1949, 44.1-r,, Ka.Ta T~v Tll~ lh'ly~aEw~ Ta~w: 'owing to the order of my narrative'. d. xxxii. rr. 2; above, p. r ; in this order the events of Greece and l\Iacedonia precede those of Egypt. Shuckburgh misunderstands tlw v;hole of this sentence, which he takes to refer to the intrigue between Philip and Antiochus. ~Ke(vwv ••• 'ITpoTepwv Aap.~a.vop.evwv: 'these being dealt with first'. Ta~ ineuseL~ ••• Twv 'ITpEcr~wTwv: cf. xxdii. 16. 10, 'the interviews and hearing of the ambassadors'; see, on ihrr_,vgts and XPYJfLU'TWfL(;,, Welles, 331, 375· Since Ptolemy, son of Sosibius, will hardly haw travelled to Pella alone, the plural 1rpwf3~:v'Twv need not impl)· thai P. also recorded the reception of other envoys, to Antiochus and to the Romans, in detail. Kilt TTJ~ Kll'TilO''TclaEW~: cf. XX\·jjj, 16. JO, -rfjc; Ka-raaT6.aEW<;, Without Kn:. Maas, AIPhO, 1949, 4~6 n. r, proposes to omit Kat here, and with good reason. [24 a. Emet (yap) 'IT6.aa.c; ••• 1'1'Ep1exovTo;: see ad Joe. for commenta1 \ on this passage which, as it is there argued, should start here. 26 a 1-2. on Ae(vwva ••• 'TOV ~LOV: Deinon's murder will also h:n ,. been recounted in the gap left by the excerptor of Q; it was one of the steps taken by Agathocles to strengthen his position. See ad Joe. for commentary.] q.86

TLEPOL!L\It;S A>:D THE ARMY

XV. 25. JI

25. 20. 1'0U'> E'lnqmvE0'1' TWV av6pwv: sending them a\vay or (as in Deinon's case) by murder. Tfj<; TOU '1TAT)9ou-. opyT}<;: here Td rrAfj8o<; means the troops. 21. Ta<; Twv cp£Awv xwpa.s: 'the vacant among the Friends'. As in other Hellenistic courts, the Friends also existed in Egypt; cf. xxx. 16. I and other references given by Corradi, 331-2 (but sec xviii. 53· I I n.). 23. oMiEf.LLa., ••• 9epa.'!Tda.s •.• 1Tpoaayof.LEV1')1i: 'since there was no help or remedy to hand'. 24. Ta ••. m;pl TTJV jja.aLAElav fiTuxt}f.La.Ta.: 'the disasters that had previously befallen the kingdom'. 25. 0.~L6Xp£wv To 1TpoaTTJu6f.Lt:Vov: 'strong enough to take the lead'. Tov TA'lmiAef.Lov: probably a member of a well-known family of Persian origin which had acquired Lycian connexions before emigraing to Egypt in the third century. The following members can be identified: (1) T>.:!JrroAEfLO> )lpTarraTov, priest of Alexander in 247-5 (P. Petrie, iii. 43 (z); P. Par. dan. 2438; Sammelbuch, no. 6759; P. Ross. Georg. ii. 2; and probably F D, iii. I. p. 269; Daux, 517; Pausan. v. 8. n). (z) )lpmmiTTJ'> ETaat8,fiw<;, honoured hy Xantlms (T AiH, ii. 261). (3) the present Tlcpolemus. (4} Perhaps the Tlepolemus sent as ambassador to Antiochus IV in 169 (xxviii. 19. 6). (5) Artapates, known as a general from late inscriptions of Preisigke~ Silsilis (A. H. Sayee, REG, 1891, 49 ff. no. iii, 1 and 2 Bilabel, Sammelbuch, 244 and 245; see Launey, i. 571 n. 2, and for full discussion A. \\'ilhelm, IlpaKnKd J1Kao. i18. 6, I9JI, 26. •YTPO.TT]YO'i 'l'lliALV eyevfJB'l TWV Kll.TU llT)AOV ii.vSpa.s: \'On 265, detects the pen of Ptolemy of l\Iegalopolis, one of them; but neither can this be proved nor is it known whether Ptolemy wrote on events later than Philopator's reign; see abo\-c, xiv. 1r. 2 n. 30. o-uvepyoVVTW\1 • , , 'ITpo<; TTJV TOLO.UT'lV U'I!'08EO'L\I: 'since both COntributed towards such a situation'; for this meaning of vrr68wt<; cf. Vlll. 35· 5· 31. ~YE!J.ova.<; ~<:at Ta.tLapxou<;: ~Y
XV. 2.5. 31

TLEPOLEMUS VERSUS AGATHOCLES

known from Philadelphia in the Arsinoite nome in 252/1 (PSI, 513. I. n); d. Launcy, i. 57z. P. is speaking quite generally here. 32. Tou 9pa.voypa.:pov: 'the writer on walls'. presumably of obscen('

graffiti. Tou Trl:n8a.p(ou KTA.: the alliterative repetition of 1r seems deliberate; for the insinuation that Agathocles had been Ptolemy IV's Jpwp.cl·a..;

cf. xiv, II. I n. 35. EK Ka.Ta.j3oM\c;: 'from the start' (in contrast to EK rwv uvp.f.au•· ovrwv rrap!i'KOE'Xop.n•os:); cf. i. 4i· 7 n. on this phrase. 37. NlKwv: d. 33· 7. Whether this post carried the title of v may howe\·er indicate, not the supreme admiral. but the commander of a squadron (d. Kiessling, RE, 'Nauarchos'. col. r896). The present passage suggests that Nicon was commander of the navy. Against Tarn's view that in the third century th(• navarcbate was combined with a command over the Aegean islands (.JHS, H)II, 2SI-9; 1933· 6I-68) see Strack, RE, 'Nauarchos', cols. r894-·5. Nicon's share in stimulating the popular movement led by Tlepolemus cannot be determined, since the fragment breaks of! here; but evidently Tlepolemns was able to gain control of the xwp(L and upper Egypt (cf. z6. II}. [26 a 1-2. lielvwva. Tov lieLvwvos: see abo\·e, p. 23; Maas has shown that this passage comes most appropriately in the gap left by the excerptor of Q between 25. 19 and 25. 20. It then leads up to the statement in zs. zo. Jacoby on FGII, 137 suggests that Deinon was a descendant of the historiall Cleitarclms (cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. x. 136; 'Dinon Clitarchi celebrati auctoris pater'), but this cannot be proved. Deinon may be the strategos of Cyprus under Philopator (I nsc. Lind. i. 139; d. Bengtson, Strat. iii. 231, no. 135). 1. TWV &.SlKwv ~pywv ..• 8tKa.uha.Tov: cf. iv. r8. 7 n. Twv ypa.1111aTwv ••• lmtp T1]c; &.va.tp~aEw<;;: since Deinon 's status is unknown, we cannot tell how he came to receive such dispatches. TOLS m:pl T0\1 4>tAa!1!1WVa.: cf. zs. 12 n.J 26. 1. uvva.9po(ua.s Touc; Ma.Ke8ova.s: sc. Agathocles. By 'Macedo nians' P. seems here to mean the guard (cf. 28. 4; they camped neat the palace). The Macedonians of Egypt constituted the most im portant part of the army; they occupied bnd and were probabh by no means all of Macedonian origin. See Lesquier, 2-4, u ff. and passim, Heichelheim, A ust.L·iirtige Bevolkerung, 38-43; Griffith, I II ff .. Launey, i. 308 ff. Grifiith suggests (IZ9} that the Macedonians men tioned here arc the survivors of the ayTJfLa of Raphia (see v. 65. I -Ion .. § (r), 6s. 2-·wbere 6z. 5 is a printer's error}, an elite possessing plots of roo arou.roi (d. Lesquier, 172 ff., especially q 5 (giving cvidenc(· 488

TLEPOLEl\IUS VERSUS AGATHOCLES

XV.

29.1

from papyri)). See further Granier, 140-44, who, however, exaggerates the political role of the 'Macedonians' in a state such as Ptolemaic Egypt. 3. To 1Ta.L81ov: the child Epiphanes. 7. KpLToAa.ov: othenvise unknown. 8. oux otov iJA.eouv a.uTov: i.e. Agathocles. 9. 1Tepi Ta AoL1Ta cruaTTJI-la.m: 'with the other regiments'; distinct from the Macedonians (cf. 29. 1). 10. EK Twv O.vw aTpa.To1Te8wv: 'from the troops of upper Egypt'; ('Vidently by now the xwpa was in Tlepolemus's hands (cf. §II}. ll. 1Ta.pw~uve TOIJS 1ToAAous : the troops in Alexandria. TO j.lEAAELv Ka.9' mhwv ean: 'that delay was to their disadvantage'. 27. 2. EK TOU TlJS a-ftl-lTJTpoc; iepou: Demeter was worshipped in Alexandria, 1.vhich possessed a suburb called Eleusis; see below, 29. 8, .B· 8, for the Thesmophoreum, also a temple of Demeter; OGIS, 83 for a dedication to Demeter, Kore, and Dikaiosyne; and the other evidence collected by E. Visser, Cotter und Kulte im ptolemiiischen Alexandrien (Amsterdam, 1938), 36--37, 81-82 (omitting this passage); Kern, RE, 'Demeter', col. 27-P· UKa.Ta.KaAu1TTov: 'unveiled', thus exposing her full shame. 6. MoLpa.yevous, Evos Twv aw!-la.To<j>uAnKwv: a member of the king's personal staff, like the younger Sosibius (32. 6); on the awftaTotj>vAa~<.-;s­ see viii. 20. 8 n. On M:oeragenes' race see the next note. )\oa."i:ov ••• Tov E1TL TlJS Bou~a.aTou ••• Ka.9eaTa.j.levov: a common Macedonian name: cf. 0. Hoffmann, Makedonen, 190 n. 102. Probably then Moeragenes was also Macedonian (Hoffmann, ill akedonen, 227-8; contra Launey, i. 316 n. z). Adaeus was governor of the nome of Boubastis (cf. Herod. ii. 166; Strabo, xvii. 8os). the chief town of which lay in the Delta on the easternmost arm of the Nile, a little below the point at which the Red Sea canal branched off. See Sethe, RE, 'Bubastis', cols. 931-2. 7. NLKOaTpan~ ..~ 1Tpos Toic; ypal-ll-la.crL ..e.. a.yflev~: otherwise unknown. He was Secretary of State; cf. iv. 87. 8 n. on this post. 8. E~ op9ijs civEKpLVETO: 'he wa..<; questioned directly, normally'; so Reiske, and this seems more likely than Casaubon, 'he was questioned standing on his feet'. 28. 2. 8La.TeTa.flevoL Ta$ flaanya.c;: 'with their whips stretched ready to strike'. 29. l. ..a.c; Twv Ma.Ke86vwv aKTJvac;: cf. 28. 4· Launey, ii. 695 n. 3, argues that aK1)va{ in this context will mean 'barracks', since the palace guard in Alexandria ·will hardly, at this date, have been stationed in tent<; or simple huts.

XV. zg.

1

TLEPOLEMUS VERSUS AGATHOCLES

..-O.s TWV aAAWV
P. draws no distinction between the sentiments of the army and tho,,,. of the civilians, using such phrases as o[ 7To"XAol (25. 4, 25. 24, 25 ..Y'· 26. II, 27. I, z8. 8, 3I· II, J2. 7L 0 oxilos (J2. 7L ol 15xilot (zs. 8, 32. ·!. 33· 3, 33· 9), To '11'1\fj/}os (25. 2o, 30. 9, 32. 6, 32. i. 32. rr), n1 '1Tilfrth1 (:zs. :z6, 25. J6, 25. 37. z6. 7. 33· s) to refer to either or both indi;, criminately. 5. avvl]pyT]a€ ••• Ka.t ..-a.u..-oy.a.Tov: 'chance played a part'; on tlw role of coincidence in eYents see Vol. I, pp. , Siegfried, 49, 57· Here it is the coincidence in the arriv:-tl of the letter and the spi•'" which causes Agathocles to lose his head and abandon any coun;c that might have saYed him. See below, 33· r n. 8. eis ..-o 0t:ay.o~opdov: identified 88, with a sanduarv in which statues of Cleopatra-Isis and Antonius-Osiris were found in the nineteenth century. It lay a little outside the city on the eastern side and to the west of modern Lake Hadra ; see the plan in The Thesmophori.l Puchstein, RE, 'Alexandreia (r)', cols. was a fertility ceremony in honour of Demeter known from many parts of the Greek world (cf. Arbesmann, RE, 'Thesmophoria', cols. 24-:z6), and a Thesmophoreum is also known at Arsinoe (\Vilcken, ZGE, r887, Sr). Normally, the Thesmophoria was held at the sowingtime in October-November (cf. Plut. Dem. 30. 4; Schol. Aristoph. Thesmoph. Bo and 834, mentioning Pyanepsion); and though exceptions are known from Thebes and Delos, it was probably held in autumn at Alexandria. Since the temple was open for an annual sacrifice, the date of these eYcnts would thus be October~No\'embcr. probably of zo3 (falling within 01. 144, z). See xiv. n-12 n. 10. a.t ••. nof.f.al Twv yuva.LKwv: who were probably taking part in the festival and so present in the temple. al ... TOU noAUKpaTOVS ouyyEYELS: on Polycrates, cf. \'. 64. 4 n. 13 . ..-a.i<; pa.~8ouxots: clearly the female attendants at the festival, n· sponsible for keeping order (d. Herod. viii. 59; Thuc. v. so. 4; Syf!_ 736, I. q8 (Andania); IG, ix. 2. II09, II. 23 f. (Magnesia); cf. Thalheilll. RE, 'Paf!Sorf,opot, pa{3oofixot, cols. r8-r9). 2'\iese (ii. 404 n. r), followt·d by LSJ, s.v. paf38ovxo~, wrongly supposes them to be Oenantht>'·, private bodyguard. 30. 3. ets ..-o a..-6.8Lov: in the south-west corner of the town at tl w foot of the hill on which the Sarapeum stood; cf. 32. z, 33· z, 33· "'. Athen. v. r97 c~n; it is also mentioned by Aphthonius, Progymn. v. See "'achsmuth, Bursian's Jahresherichte, 18i3. z, 1094; Puchstein. RE, 'Alexandreia (r)', col. ; Breccia, 104. 490

UPRISING AGAI:;:ST AGATHOCLES

XV. 3!.

2

tcauSuovTo: 'hid themselves', either through fear, or in order to make an unexpected sortie later. 4. Twv ••• EOpuxwpu;lv: the wide avenues around the palace. 'l"fj!l TrAaTE(a.~: sc. 68ov: 'the street'; cf. v. 39· 3. \.Vhere Paton also incorrectly translates 'square'. This is the main east-west street, which ran from the Necropolis in the west to the Canobic Gate in the east, probably following approximately the line of modern Rosetta Street (see Breccia, 71-75; A. M. de Zogheb, Etudes sur l'ancienne Alexandrie, Paris, r9o9, II; E. M. Forster, Alexandria: a history and gtddeJ (~ew York, r96r), ro~u); cf. Strabo, xvii. 793, 795; Diod. xvii. 52. 3· 'l"fj~ TrEpl T6 ll.lovvcr~a.Kov 9(a.Tpov TrflOO'Ta.crtas: 'the area before the theatre of Dionysus'; cf. Aeschines, 2. 105, rryv rrpoaraalav Ka8rudas. Paton, who belie,·es that the position of the clause prevents its being local (which it does not), translates 'including all the crowd of supernumerary performers in the theatre of Dionysus', but this meaning is unparalleled and improbable: who would all these supernumerary performers be, and why would P. (or his source) who does not e\·en distinguish soldiers from civilians bother to mention them? The theatre of Dionysus lay not far from the harbour (Caesar, BC, iii. nz; Strabo, xvii. 794) and was probably linked with a temple of Dionysus (A then. vii. 276 B; cf. Lumbroso, L'Egitto al tempo dei Greci e dei Romani (Rome, r882), ro7 ff.). It collapsed in A.D. 428; cf. Theophanes, 92. 33 de Boor. Breccia, 1}6, suggests that it stood below the hill containing the modern 'Native Hospital', where limestone walls and column shafts have been found. 5. TrATJv ¢1£>.wvo'): cf. xiv. II. I. 6. 'I"TJV aupLyya. Ti)v j.LETGSU TOU Ma.Llw8pou KO.t Tij~ Tra.Aa.LO'Tpa.~: the syrinx is a covered gallery, the .J1aeander perhaps a garden with a twisting ornamental waterway; for the use of such proper names to denote ornamental features d. Cic. de leg. ii. r. z, 'ductus ... aquarum, quos isti nilos et euripos uocant'. The site of these features cannot be identified. 7. O'Wj.La.TO.:PvAO.KWV: cf. 27. 6. 8. bLTTOi'> j.LOXAo~<;: one bar was usual; cf. vii. r6. 5 n. 9. ,.a. ~C.9pa.: 'steps'. 10. fv TE .,.ii Ka.pxTJoov(wv TroAe\: evidently written before 146 (contra Erbse, Rhein. Mus. 1951, 173; Phil. r957, 29o). Von Scala, :z66. assumes that this is P.'s own account based on personal experience; but there is no evidence, and no great likelihood, that P. had visited Alexandria before the fall of Carthage (cf. xxxiv. q. 6 and Vol. I, p. 5 n. ro).

31. L .,.c, Ka.AEiv T6v ~acrLAea.: 'the cry of "the king" '. 2. Tov XPTJj.LO.TLO'TIKOV TruAwvo.: 'the gate of audience'; d. v. 8r. ')(P1JP,a1'taTtK~ C1KlJVlJ. 491

s.

XV. JI. 3

DEATH OF AGATHOCLES

3. TdS •.• rrpwns •••

~~EI3a~ov 9opas:

d. v. 25, 3·

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

3l. 3 . .::ts TTJV ~a.c:nAu<~v 9tav: 'in the royal seat'. 4. xapd. tvAa~<Es haYe of conr~;· remained with the king(§ 1). On the younger Sosibius d. xd. 22. r··l 1 8. 1rpos TTJV O.::pa1rela.v eis TTJV Uilav oltcia.v: 'to his own house !o1 attention': so Schweiglmeuser and Shuck burgh, correctly. Pato11 translates 'to join his lwusehold at his own house'; but the housP is that of Sosibius and 'the court, or household' (one meaning of Bt:parrt:la) was in fact Agathocles and his circle. That a small boy would need attention in such circumstances is very natural. 10. Els TdS t8ta.s tca.Ta~ua.::L~: 'to their own homes'. 33. I. Tou ••• rroLEtv al!J.a. tca.l tf>6vov; but the para] hi is probably coincidental (\Vunderer, ii. 59). ttc TauTo!J.b.Tou l(a.Ta.px~: P.'s source here is fond of coincidences. cf. zg. 5· 2. tiAwv: cf. xiv. II. I, xv. 30. 5· 3. Twv 11x>.wv: here soldiers, as the reference to spears (§ .:t) mak". clear. 11. auvTpom cl v. 9· 4 n. T6v ct>L~b.ILILwva .•• d.rro Kup'l]vf}s: on his command there see 25. 1: 12. fivTi'll'aL8a. TTJV ~~udav ovTa.: d. xxvii. 15. 4; 'hardly more tlutn a mere boy'. 1t~ TTJV 1TAa.Te'La.v: perhaps, though not necessarily, the great stre
OTHER AUTHORS ON AGATHOCLES

XV. 34-36

34-36. Treatment of these events in other authors: who these are is uncertain, though one may \vell be Ptolemy of Megalopolis (z4 a36 n., zs. 14 n.); but whether in that case he is reckoned as one of those who attributed all to Tyche or those who rationalized everything (34· z) is obscure. Pedech, Afithode, 354, suggests Agatharchides of Cnidus (FGJI, 86; see especially Rubr. mar. i 17 = GGM i. II8) as one of the former group. P.'s argument in these chapters is not very satisfactory. He makes these points: (r) Many writers have worked over the story of Agathocles in a sensational way, either overstressing the role of Tyche, or explaining everything by rationalization (34· r-z). (z) Agathoclr:s, being devoid of any outstanding qualities, is unsuitable for such treatment (34· 3-6). (3) Digression: some development of the narrative, touching on the role of Tyche, and adding useful reflections, would be in order in the case of Agathocles of Syracuse, and Dionysius, because of their outstanding qualities (35· r-7). (4) P. has kept his own account of Agathocles (of Alexandria) concise for the reasons given (in (2) above) and also because sensational changes of fortune (JK'rrATJKTtKai -rnpmEuiat) are worth attention only at first and quickly cause disgust as well as being useless. ln short, the popular treatment of Agathocles is to be condemned as (a) disproportionate to its subject, (b) neither enjoyable nor useful (J6. 1-3)· (5) It is neither useful nor enjoyable because (a) no one seeks

to emulate ('TJAovv) changes of fortune which are irrational (1rap.i\oyo' 1T£pm£uiat) ; (b) no one gets pleasure from seeing or hearing things contrary to nature (1rapa 4>vaw) and the common experience of men (mtpd T~v Kotv~v €vvmav Twv dv8pr.!mwv). These things only arouse a momentary interest (d. {-t) above) {36. 4--6). (6) What neither deserves emulation nor gives pleasure is suited to tragedy rather than history (36. 7). (7) Writers who make the mistake of describing events that are neither natural nor such as generally happen do so because they are struck by what is sensational (though it may not be new); they thus deprive their readers of both benefit and pleasure (36. 8-w). This attempt at an aesthetic theory (d. Wunderer, ii. rz) breaks down for several reasons. First, it makes an unjustifiable identification between 1T£PL1T£T£tat which are JK1TA1JKT£Kai (36. z) and those which are 1rapa.\oyot (36. 4) ; the next step is to describe them as 1rapa q,vaw and 1rapa T~v Kowl}Y €vvota" Twv dv8pw1rwv (36. 4) as if these were necessarily the same, and then on the 1Jasis of a generalization that men find what is 1rapd q,vaw disgusting, to assert that JK1TATJKTtKa.i 1TEpmaniat can have no place in history-but only in tragedy! Is tragedy then concerned with what is neither pleasant 493

XV. 34-36

OTHER AUTHORS ON AGATHOCLES

nor profitable? This was not normal doctrine; cf., for example, Philodemus, 1TEpi 1TOtTJI.Ui.T. pap. 1425 fg. II, p. 7' 24 ff. oT[, Sei nlF ayaBo] v 1T01)nJ [v TEp1TetJlJJ.tEJl TOV aKov[ovTOS", w,PE ]AEtJl 8£ TOO<; , 'amplification of the narrative', see vii. 7· 7 n., xii. 28. ron. 2. TO Ta.01"YJ5 O.j3ej3mov Ka.i. liua<}oAa.KTov: P. admits these qualities in Tyche (cf. viii. 20. 10, xxx. ro. I); it is their exaggerated role to which he objects. tmo A.6yov O.yovTEs: 'giving a rational explanation of ... ; thesl' are two extremes, one to attribute everything to chance (nv~s p,£v .. . ). the other to try to bring everything within the scope of reason (ol S€ ... ). 'attempting to assign reasons and probable causes to every· thing'. Both P. condemns, for the place of To 1rapa8otov in histon· has to be conceded. 3. TO OTt~ ... 1"~ XELPLO"Jl~: 'this method', i.e. of writing at length, whether for the one reason or for the other. 4. j3aaLAEis EK j3aaLAEwv J.LETaXELPL~OJ.LEVOL: 'managing king aftt·r king' ; for the phrase cf. 24. r. 5. 1Tpoaywyi]s ••• 1rapalio~ou: 'a remarkable position'; cf. vi. 8. .J.

35. 1. T~ 8' :Aya.OoKAEi Kai

fuovuu(~ Tois ILKEALWTaLs: on Agathock-; see i. 7· 2 n., viii. 10. 12 n., ix. 23. 2 n., xii. 15. r-r2; on Dionysin"'. trrant of Syracuse, see xii. 4 a 3 n. (on the date of his tyranny and life), 24. 3 (Timaeus' attack on him). As elsewhere (d. vii. 9-11 11.. xii. 4 a 3 n.) P. seems to be led to mention Agathocles by the sinri larity of name; Dionysius then comes in as another tyrant ol Syracuse. 2. eK OYJJ.LOnKi]s Ka.i. Ta'ITnvils ti'ITo9euews opJ.LYJOe(s: d. Isoc. Phil. 65, rro.\.\oO'TOS" wv I:vpaKoalwv Tip YEV€L Kat Tfj oofn Kai TOL<; aMoLS a1TaaU' ; Plut. J.Vfor. 176 D; but there was disagreement on this; cf. Cic. Tusc.

494

OTHER AUTHORS OX AGATHOCLES

XV. 35· 7

v. 58, 'cum esset bonis parentilms atque honesto loco natus {etsi id fjUidem alius alio modo tradidit) .. :, one story made him the son of a donkey-driver (Helladius in Phot. &ibl. 530 a 30). See Stroheker, 37 n. 29. w~ 0 Ttf-'0.~0<.;. ' ' l'lal: cf. xii. Ij. 6 n. for this account. 4. ~O.O'~AEt<.; a:ITclO'llS IucEAta.<.; VOf-'~0'9EvTE~: inaccurate. Dionysius did not use the title of king ({3a,nAEVs), nor did he strike coins with his name and head; but after his victory over the Carthaginians he appears to have taken (or been accorded) the title E,KEAlas ; Beloch, iii. z. 200 ff.; P. de Francisci, Arcana imperii {Milan, 1948), ii. 484-5; Hiittl, ro8 n. 90; Stroheker, 85, 136 f., 172 ff., with n. zrs. Agathocles took the title of ,Ba.,nAEus following the example of the Diadochi, and on the completion of his African campaign (Diod. xx. 54· I; on the date d. Be loch, iv. 2. 252; it will have been in 3o5/4); it appears on his coins. See Berve, S.-B. ;\iiinchcn, 1952 (s), 63 f. Ko.( nvwv Ka\ TtlS 'haXCus f.'Epklv KVp!.Euaa.vTES: Dionysius took Rhegium in 387 {i. 6. 2 n.) and after making peace with Carthage, probably in 378, he captured Croton (Livy, xxiv. 3· 8; Dion. Hal. xx. 7) but failed to take Thurii (Aelian, Var. hist. xii. 6r ). Ancona was founded by refugees from his tyranny (Strabo, v. 241; Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. ur); but he took Adria at the mouth of the Po (Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 120; Plut. Dion, u). Agathocle.~ carried out several campaigns in southern Italy from about 325 onwards; he took Croton soon after 300 {Diod. xxi. 4), allying himself with the Peucetii (Diod. ibid.), and a little later he took Hipponium (Diod. xxi. 8) and despite a Bruttian revolt he succeeded in maintaining the southern half of the peninsula in his control. 5. n?w Tfjs A~~u11s &:mme(pa.aEv: Agathocles' Libyan expedition, directed against Carthage (3ro-3o7), ended in final disaster {cf. i. Bz. 8, vii. 2. 4 n.; Diod. xx. 3-.&J; Beloch, iv. I. 190-8; Berve, S.-B. Munchen, rgsz (s), sz ft.). 6. nonA~ov l:Kl'ITLI.I.IVO. KTA.: this remark of Scipio, probably known to P. through his Scipionic connexions, is hardly evidence that Scipio admired tyranny; he may have been thinking of Dionysius and Agathocles as note\vorthy fighters against Carthage (d. Scullard, Pol. 86 n. For Scipio's views on kingship see x. 40. z-9 n. 7. KO.l 1TOU Ka.t T1]t;; TUXllS ••. TWV nv9pw'ITf:LI.I.IV npa.yf.'cl.TWV: d. 34· 2 ; such references are in order where the subject is sufficiently great to merit them. Tbv ineKS~SaaKOVTa. 'A6yov: d. 34· r, ,.&v €mJU'T'povv'T'a Aoyov; 'some instructive reflections' (Paton). i1Tl lie T'WV npoE~J>'llf.'EVWV nvl>pwv: Agathocles of Alexandria and his associates. 495

XV. 36.

I

OTHER AUTHORS ON AGATHOCLES

36. I. Tov ~ET' a~~~oE trepL11'£nla.,: 'for who would wish to emulate (i.e. in his own experience) irrational changes of fortune?' For the loose logic which turns sensational into irrational (and soon unnatural) 7r€pmeni:at, see above, n. Twv tro.pO. c!>uoLv yEvo~vwv rnA.,: bnt events such as Agathocles' fa!\ are not really unnatur:ll or contrary to human experience (cf. 34-36 n.). 5. £iocmu~ ••• Kat trpwTov otrou8atottEV: cf. § 2, J-t{av €xnv anaalav r~v

7rpuxrr1v &.glav bniJ"Taaew<;. TOU yvwvo.L ••• 8L6n Suvo.TOV EO'TLV: this is P.'s explanation of

xapw

why the unnatural arouses even a momentary interest. ~ t11A.wTov •.. 'ii nptrv6v: 'excite emulation or cause pleasure'. Paton's 'excite admiration' is not quite right, for the stress of {T)Aw76v is on 'usefulness'. otKELOTEpov ..• TPO.YCfOlo.s: for F.'s view of tragedy cf. ii. s6. tT; but his present definition would refuse it any title to be called TEP7f'vJJ, (see above, 34-36 n.). 8. ,.a, Tfjs 4>ooews ••• ,.a, Ko.86A.ou ••. trpnyfLaTa.: cf. § 4, 'Twv 1rap,;

7.

vatv y£voJ-tivwv 7TpayJ-ta-rwv Ka.t rra.pa -r~•· Kow~v lwotav -rwv dvBpdJ7Twv. 10. jl~TE ~tawwv ovTwv: here P. slips in a new criticism.

37. Antiochus' character This must be from the res Asiae of 203/2; see p. 23. The conte'.:t cannot be reconstructed with any assurance; but if, as Hollean' suggests (Etudes, iii. 320), the first campaign in the Fifth Syrian \\'ar took place in 202 and was slow in its progrcss~Antioclms will ha. 1 ' taken a year to reach Gaza--then P. may here be contrasting hh lack of success with his swift ad\·ance through Asia. For other po,;st bilities see Schmitt, Antiochos, 235 n. z.

BOOK XVI Chronological note on Philip V's expedition of 201 In a detailed discussion of the events of 201 (Etudes, iv. 211-325) llolleaux distinguishes four 'principal events', the battles of Chios and Lade, Philip's invasion of Pergamum and his invasion of the Rhodian Peraea. It is important to establish their order. Holleaux has demonstrated that Chios and Lade occurred in that order for the following reasons, which are not all of equal weight but taken together are overwhelmingly convincing: (a) The eulogy on Theophiliscus, the Rhodian admiral (xvi. 9· 2-4) implies his success, and his share in a single battle (9. 2, KaTa Tov KlvSvvov ayaBos- YEVOjLEVO>); he died at Chios, a Rhodian victory. In Philip, 307, I argued that KlvSvvo> 'covers all the events of that critical year', and this view has been followed (cf. Ferro, 51 n. 82). It is wrong. K£vSvvo<; in P. means 'a battle'; see, for instance, 2. 8, and passim. (b) In xvi. 14· 5 P. writes as though Lade followed Chios (inconclusive taken alone). (c) In xvi. 15. 3 and 8 P. does not name the Rhodian navarch at Lade; this is unlikely had he been Theophiliscus (also inconclusive taken alone). (d) xvi. 15. 6 implies that the :Maccdl)nian admiral at Lade was Heracleides, as he was in 2oo and 199 (Livy, xxxi. 16. 2, 33· 2, 46. 8); whereas the Maccdonian admiral at Chios was Democrates, who perished in that battle (xYi. 3· 6). This supports, though it does not incontrovertibly confirm, the view that Chios came first. Against this DeSanctis (iv. 1. 10 n. 27) points out that after Lade TOv ;[TmAov p.r/ibrw avp.vEp.txivat; but At talus fought at Chios (xvi. 3· 1), hence Lade was first. The argument is fallacious; avp.p.tyvuvm can equally well mean 'to rejoin'; d. i. 19. 2, 19. 4· De Sanctis also argues that after his repulse at Chios Philip would hardly have dared to leave his fleet and mJ.Tch on Pergamum; and in Philip, 307, I suggested that the defeat at Chios so weakened Philip's fleet that e\·en a subsequent victory at Lade would not have sufficed to make the attack on Alexandria feasible. But Chios may well have been less disastrous than P., following Rhodian sources, makes it (cf. Tarn, JRS, 1941, 172), though on tbe other hand Philip must have sustained some losses to make the Rhodians ready to face him single-handed at Lade (Holleaux, CAH, Yiii. 153 n. 3, points out that with Lade the earlier b:J.ttle one must assume quite improbable courage in the Rhodians, who would be facing 53 cataphracts (2. 9) with about 30; 81U73

Kk

497

r6.

v's CAMPAIGNS (From Walbank, Philip V, ro6)

THE AREA OF PHILIP

IN ZOI

PHILIP V'S EXPEDITIOX OF

201

XVI

and the attempt of Miss Ferro (55) to surmount this difficulty by supposing that Philip did not add the Egyptian ships from Samos (2. 9) until after Lade is unconvincing). Holleaux's arguments thus seem to show decisively that Chios preceded Lade. Holleaux also argues that the invasion of Pergamum followed both battles. From xvi. 34· 5 and xviii. 6. 2 it appears that there was no effective answer to Philip's claim that the Rhodians and Attalus had taken the initiative in attacking him (Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 2I3-I4). The anger shown by Philip in this invasion is explicable only as springing from resentment; what he resented must be At talus' part in the battle of Chios. Theophiliscus was responsible for bringing Attalus into the war (9. 4). It therefore seems clear that the invasion of Pergamum followed Chios. That it also followed Lade is less certain. The argument that it did (Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 2I5 f.) depends on Io. I where Philip is criticized, after Lade, for not sailing on Alexandria but, instead, fLavuvSTJ y£vofL€Vov ... ToiiTo TTpa~at. The words TovTo TTpa~at Holleaux refers to the march on Pergamum, pointing out that in I. 2, where this is described, P. speaks of Philip's AVTTwv 8vfLo> and his dp-r). These phrases do indeed imply fLavla, a symptom of which, in P.'s opinion, is to make war on the gods by sacking shrines and temples. See on this v. II. 4, TpoTTov Kai 8vfLoii AVTTwVTos €pyov (with the whole discussion, v. 9· I-IZ. 8, of Philip's behaviour at Thermum); xxxii. 15. I-I4 (Prusias' behaviour at Pergamum). In the second of these instances P. refers back to his own description of Philip's similar behaviour as being that of a madman (xxxii. IS. 6); and Holleaux (Etudes, iv. 216 n. 2) assumes that the reference is to Philip's attack on the Pergamene temples and to the passage xvi. Io. I. It might, of course, be to Philip's behaviour at Thermum (v. I I. 4) ; but it is altogether more likely that P. is thinking of Pergamum, for this was also the scene of Prusias' ravages. However, this does not necessarily involve a reference to xvi. Io. r, and is not proof that that passage concerns the attack on Pergamum. Sacrilege is only one sign of madnes..<;. Another is to cherish vast plans and then to nullify them by completely irrational behaviour. In xv. 24. 6 Philip is criticized for aspiring to universal dominion and then, at the first opportunity, by his treacherous attack on Thasos, revealing to the world his fickleness and faithlessness, thus putting men on their guard against him; this shows him to be d.Aoyunov ... Ka1 fLaVtKov. Philip, then, may (in Io. I) have sho"'n his madness by his sacrilegious campaign against Pergamum; but he may equally well have shown it by neglecting the reasonable opportunity to sail on Alexandria in order to do something else quite impossible~oiiTo TTpii~at. \Vhat that was, we do not necessarily know. But if it was not the march on Pergamum, there is no argument against dating that event after Chios and before Lade, as 499

XVI

PHILIP V'S EXPEDITION OF :zor

)1agie does (ii. 748 n. 39). This order of events has much to be said in its favour. A raid in anger is more likely to have followed immediately on Attalus' defeat at Chios (6. 4-8), and would not involve the long and risky march north from Miletus to Pergamum and back, which is implied if the Pergamene campaign followed Lade. On the whole, then, the most likely order for these events is Chios, Pergamum, Lade, Caria. For discussion see Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 213-24; CAH, viii. 153 n. 3 (=Etudes, v. 337 n. 2); De Sanctis, iv. r. 10 n. 27; Walbank, Philip, 307-S (superseded by discussion above); Magie, ii. 748 n. 39; Stier, 98-99; Ferro, ; Pedech, Methode, rrr. [l. PhiUp's attach on Pergamum I. 1-9. Position in xvi: since Schweighaeuser (vii. 234) editors have placed this chapter at the beginning of xvi. See p. 2-1- for the argument that it should stand between 9 and 10. I. 1rapo.yevoi-Levos ets To llEpya.I-Lov: if the above arguments are accepted, this followed on Philip's defeat at Chios (z-g), in which he claimed, however, the victory over Attains (8. 2). Philip's route is unknown. Holleaux (Etudes, iv. 253), who sets the inYasion after Lade, assumes a land march north from Miletus (rs. 6 n.). But from the straits of Chios he more probably sailed to some convenient point near the mouth of the Caicus (cf. Magie, ii. 749 n. 39) ; his object was evidently to catch Attains before he reached home (cf. Diod. xxviii. 5, roih'ov ou KarlAape 1rcpt rovrov::; TOu<; r67rov>). Philip's invasion probably took place in the second half of June, since he counted on living off the land (§ 3); Attalus, howe\·er, had taken steps to pre,·ent this, presumably by hasty harvesting (Holleaux, Etudes, iv. z83). The harvest in ~orth-west Anatolia is in late June (Holleaux, Joe. cit. n. 5). For several arsenals to the north of tht• acropolis, suitable for the storage of provisions and ammunition. and showing marks of hasty construction, see E. Boehringer, Alt. 1'. Pet-g. X. 48-s6; Th. \Viegand, Bericht uber die Ausgrabunge1t in Pergamon. 1927 (Abh. Bertin. Akad. r928, no. 3), ro-rr; these belong tn Attalus' reign, but there is no positive argument for dating them to this crisis (as Hansen, 54, suggests). On the site of Pergamum (mod. Bergama), on a hill to the north of the Caicus, about 20 miles from the mouth, see Hansen, 3-<•. Zschietzschmann, RE, 'Pergamon (3)', cols. 12.41 ff.; above, VoL 1. fig. 12 on p. 6o2; E. Boehringer, Neue deutsche Ausgrabungen 1-111 .~fittelmeergebiet u11d im vorderen Orient (Berlin, 1959), 121-7T ; ct J. M. Cook, Arch. Rep. 1959-6o, 32. otov aim:ixelp ~T·nl.Aou yevEa9a.l: perhaps a reference to Chios; d. 6. 4 ff. Another possibility (cf, Philip, II9 n. r) is that Attalus had 500

PHILIP'S ATTACK ON PERGAl\IUM

XVI. r. 7

sent troops out to meet Philip, and these had been defeated. This would explain Attalus' failure to offer any real opposition during Philip's invasion (though he made a further appeal to Aetolia, perh;tps now, for help: Livy, xxxi. 46. 4). According to Diod. xxviii. 5 Philip vented his spite on the temples E7T£t roih-ov (Attalus) ov t.:ar€>..af1£ 7T£p1 rovrovs ro!Y; r67rovs; but this need not imply that Attalus was absent from Pergamum (so Magie, ii. i48 n. 39). 2. otov El AUTTWVTL T/j) euJLij}: cf. v. II. 4. 7TlJJS OUK UV€t1Tot 7'(!) Eivat rp67TOV Kat Bvf.LoiJ AvTTwvro<; €pyov; (of Philip's sacrilege at Thermum), xxxii. 15. 8 (of Prusias II at Pergamum). 3. otJOEV w<jiEAE~TO: Philip had been forestalled in his hopes of gathering in the har\'est. 4. Ta Twv 9Ewv ~811: 'seated statues of the gods'; often linked with temples and sanctuaries (cf. Isoc. Paneg. rss. ra TWV 8Ewv fD7J KG.~ TOUS J.IEWS' uvAiiv; Lycurg. £43, TOUS' J.l££ils Ka~ ra Ell7J Kal rd TEf1.EV7J)· For Philip's similar behaviour in Attica in zoo cf. Livy, xxxi. 26. 9-13. 5. TOO<.i A£9ous E9pa.ue: cf. Livy, xxxi. 26. rz, 'neque enim diruere modo ipsa templa ac simulacra euertere satis habuit, sed Iapides quoque, ne integri cumularent ruinas, frangi iussit'. 6. To Nu
XVI.

1.

7

PHILIP'S ATTACK ON PERGAfv1UM

1887, 466 no. 32), and it was usually Seleucid down to the battle of

Magnesia, after which it became Pergamene. But at this time Attalus held it (Robert, l'illes 2 , 26o; cf. Schmitt, Antiochos, 273 n. 3). On Philip's probable route up the Caicus, over the pass of Necrasa (Keil-Premerstein, Bericht uber eine zweite Reise t·n Lyd£m (JJenhschr. Wien. Akad. iv. 2, rgn), into the valley of the Lycus, se<' Rolleaux, Etudes, iv. 248-g. thrl with the genitive need only implv direction, but EKEi:fhv in the next sentence implies that Philip actually reached Thyateira. TOITJareia', cols. qox-2; DeSanctis, iv. 1. 12 n. 30. Philip's long marches through Attalus' territory are directed to food and plunder, and in marching to Hiera Come he was on his wav south to rejoin his fleet. Rolleaux (Etudes, iv. 252-3) believes that he was on his way to Caria, whither he assumes him to be returning. but this reconstruction assumes that the expedition followed Lade. 11 it preceded Lade, as argued above (chronological note, pp. 497-soo), Philip may have been making for the coast somewhere near Ephesus, 502

PHILIP'S ATTACK ON PERGAMUM

XVI. 2-9

where his navy could meet him from Samos. The Hi era Come in Caria, a city which, according to Stephanus, was mentioned in P. xvi, is quite distinct from this one, and was probably referred to in the account of Philip's later Carian campaign. Zeu~w: see v. 45· 4 n. He played a large role in all Antioch us' campaigns; See V. 46. II, 47. 5, 48. IO, 48. 12, 5I. J• 53· 6, 54· I, 60. 4• But if joseph. A], xii. 3· 4, can be accepted (a letter from Antiochus to Zeuxis about a revolt in Lydia and Phrygia during his anabasis) Zeuxis was left in charge on the coast when Antiochus marched east (cf. Wilhelm, J:Vien. Stud. 1907, II-12). Zeuxis is mentioned on an inscription from the temple of Artemis at Amyzon; OGIS, 235; on this temple see Robert, Carie, 289, 300; CRAI, 1953, 403-L.f.- For Philip's later dealings with him see below, 24. 6. In the war with Rome he served as an ambassador (xxi. r6. 4, q. 9, 24. 1 ff.), and had a statue erected to him at Pergamum (OGIS, 236). See the Addenda. 9. KaTa Tas auv9~Kas: the secret compact between Philip and Antiochus (cf. xv. 20 n.). Zeuxis gives help, but half-heartedly, as he does later (24. 4-6). 17WJ.I.()u-rr-rrov: 'to strengthen Philip'.]

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

XVI. 2-9

THE BATTLE OF CHIOS

so roughly that at Lade most of their ran away'; but to Holleaux (Etudes, iv. 244) 'la verite est que la journee demeura indecise'. P.'s picture of a decisive Nlacedonian defeat is inconsistent with the details he quotes, though indeed if Holleaux's restoration of OGIS, 283, is correct (Etudes, ii. 43-49) Attalus made a dedication to Zeus and Athena Kicephoros from the spoils of the battle. See further Ullrich, 36-41. Against the view that P. used the Rhodian record office see Vol. I, p. 31 n. 8. 2. 1. Twv ••. Ka.TO. TTJY 1TOALopK1a.v &.vn1TL1T'TOV'Twv: this town will be Chios, as is now generally agreed (for earlier see Holleaux, Etztdes, iv. 226-7); it was in the immediate vicinity of the battle, and the order and position of the Macedonian and Rhodian fleets fits this assumption. Appian (l~fac. 4· r) writes l:ap.ov Kai Xtov EL\E, an error; Plut M or. 245 B-C has a probably apocryphal story that Philip promised the Chian slaves freedom and their masters' wives, if they deserted to him; and Frontinus, Strat. iii. 9· 8, may refer to this occasion. For links between Chios and I~hodes cf. Holleaux, 35, 87 n. 2, 91, against Beloch, iv. z. 345, and De Sanctis, iv. r. 12, who regard Chios as nominally Ptolemaic at this time. !:>ylt. 579, a Delphian decree in honour of Hermocles, a Chian hieromnemon, may refer to the events of this year when it speaks of Hermocles' efforts {nrJp Tac; Kotviic; EAEvB
THE BATTLE OF CHI OS

XVI.

2.

9

appropriate to the original march: cf. iii. 83-85. 6 n. (ii)). Attalus attacks the section nearer the coast, and Theophiliscus that nearer the island of Chios. See Ullrich, 8o; Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 228. 8. To"Ls E1TL ToG 8e€LOG: i.e. to those on his left, who would become his right once they had turned (see previous note). u1ro Tac; vT]aiSas cl.vaxwp~aas: probably the islands off C. Argennum (cf. 8. 2). 9-10. Number of ships in the battle: Philip had fifty-three decked ships (Ka-racppawroL), which included several very large ones (e.g. the flagship, a 8eK~pYJ>, under the admiral Democrates (3. 3-6, 7· I); one or more Jvv~peL<; (7.1); at least two oK-r~peL<; (3. 2, 3· 7-8); one or more £TTT~PEL<; (3. 7, 7· I; perhaps the same ship); one or more £t~pEL> (7. I)), but consisted mainly no doubt of quinqueremes and quadriremes (cf. 6. 4, 7· 2); he had alSO an Unknown number Of acppaKTa including ?jJLwA{m (6. 4) and -rpLYJJLLOA{aL (7. I) (probably not many, since he lost f(w) and about 150 AEJLf3oL and TTp{a-reL<; (cf. 4· 2, 4· 8, 4· ro, 5· 5, 6. 4, 6. 7, 7· I-2).

The allied fleet consisted of sixty-five Ka-racf>paK-roL, i.e. quinqueremes and quadriremes (the Rhodian admiral had only a quinquereme (5. r), and the size of Attalus' flagship (3. r, 6. ro, 7· 3, 8. 2) is not mentioned), twelve O.cf>paK-ra, i.e. three triremes (one of these is Rhodian, 7· 4) and nine trihemioliae (of which two are Pergamene, J. 4, 3· 14). Apparently they had no ships corresponding to Philip's lemhi; see Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 235-7. As well as the ships of Rhodes and Pergamum there was a Byzantine contingent (§ Io), and probably the Rhodians had ships from Cyzicus (d. 31.3; Livy, xxxi. I7. 6) and Cos (as later against Antioch us: Livy, xxxvii. II. I3, 22. 2); for allied ships in the Rhodian fleet cf. iv. so. 5· It seems likely that of the sixty-five cataphracts Attalus had about thirty-five, and Rhodes and her allies about thirty between them. 9. aq,paKTa: the omission of the number from our text was noted by Meibomius: see Buttner-Wobst, apparatus criticus. XEfJ-~OL ••• auv TaL<; 1TpLaTEaLv: on AEJLf3oL cf. i. 20. I3 n., v. I09. I ; Livy (xxiv. 40. 2) calls those he used in 2I4 biremes, i.e. they had two men to an oar (d. Tarn, JHS, I905, 208 n. 94). The TTp{anc; (cf. xviii. r. I; Livy, xxxv. 26. I, xliv. 28. 2) was named after the sword-fish, probably from its appearance (so N onius), which must have been beaked. Tac; ••. Ev TTI I all-~ vaGs KTA.: Philip had evidently seized Samos before the battle of Chios took place and probably at the beginning of 2oi (2-9 n.)-though no conclusions are to be based on App. Mac. 4· I, l:&.JLov Kat X{ov e[Ae. The ships mentioned will be the Ptolemaic squadron stationed here (cf. v. 35· II), which was partially dismantled; on Philip's use of some of the Egyptian crews see 7. 6 n. On Philip's capture of Samos as part of the plan attributed by P.

XVI. z. 9

THE BATTLE OF CIUOS

to the Syro-Macedonian pact see iii. 2. 8 (d. xv. 20 n.). Livy xxxi. 1

JI. 4, suggests that Philip used dolence against the inhabitants in

taking the town, and this is confirmed by an inscription in honour of a Samian doctor set up shortly after the restoration of the city to Ptolemy; this inscription shows clearly that the Macedonian garrison resisted expulsion, and there were casualties (see Ch. Habicht, Ath. Mitt. I957, 233~41 no. 64 ; part of this inscription was previously published by G. Klaffenbach, Ath. Mitt. r926 z8~33, and was thought to be concerned with Philip's annexation of Samos in zor) and makes it probable therefore that Philip took the town by force and not, as Holleaux had argued (Etttdes, iv. 233~4; d. v. 336 n. r, 448 (addendum by L Robert}}, with Egyptian consent. It is not clear why the evacuation of the island was not demanded in 198 (xviii. 2. z-6). unless indeed it was included in the general Roman demand recorded in xviii. 1. 14. Concerning the date of its recm.·ery we know only tbat in 197 it was once more reckoned among the ciuitates sociae Ptolemaei (Livy, xxxiii. 20. r1~12). 10. TPLTJtt.Loh(a.L: tbese are swift ships, used by the Rhodians for policing the seas, and probably invented by them. The ship first appears a little before 300 at the time of Demetrius' siege (d. Diocl. xx. 93· z~3) and later occurs in the navies of Athens (d. IG, ii 2 • 32I8, 3494 (restored}; Insc. de Delos, rso8; Hesperia, 1942, 292, no. 57) ancl Egypt (UPZ, ii, no. 151; Sammelbuch, iii. 626r 1. 2o; Athen. v. 203 n). Its relation to the hemiolia (6. 4) is discussed by L Casson( J H.'i. 1958, 14~r8). who has identified this craft on a black-figured cup (c. 540B.c.) in the British Museum (B436: pls. v~vi in Casson's article). A hemiolia, it appears, was a pirate craft with two banks of oars, so arranged that half of the top bank, abaft the mast, could be quickly removed so as to leave space for the bringing down of the sail and mast at the critical moment, after sail had been used in conjunction with oars to overtake a merchantman. The name will mean a '1!-fold ship', and Hesychius (s.v. ~p.mA.la) calls it StKpoTo>, which probablv implies two banks of oars (cf. v. 62. 3 n.). A triemiolia is a loose compound of TP~~P'rJ> and ~!LwMa; it is a swift form of trireme adapted in the same way as the hemiolia, i.e. with the top bank of oars, tlw thranite oars (cf. 3· 4 n.). removable abaft the mast. Such a vess1'l could overhaul and tackle a pirate hemiolia. It is a respectable ship. used as a standard naval unit, and especially for policing the seas. For discussion see (besides Casson, quoted above) Ch. Blinkenberg, Triemiolia, etude sur un type de navire rhodien (Det Kgl. Dansk(' Videnskabernes Selskab: Arch.-Kunsthist. l\feddelelser, ii. 3: Lin diaka, vii. 1938, 59 pp.). who claims to identify the prow of a tn emiolia on various Rhodian monuments, including the Victory "I Samothrace and the base of a dedication by the officers and crew;; of various victorious triemioliai; but it is unlikely that there was I

1

I

so6

THE BATTLE OF CHIOS

XVI. 4·

2

anything distinctive about the prow of such a ship; L Robert, Rev. Phil. 1944, r 1-17; REG, 1943, 336; H ellenica ii, 1946, 123-6 (not known to Casson). TpL,;pEL<;: on the trireme see i. 20. 9 n.

3. l. Ti}<; }\:naAou vEw<;: its size is unknO\vn (2. 9-ro n.). 2. l:u.:T,;pEL: probably a large decked ship with eight men to an oar (Tarn, HMND, 134 ff.).

3. 8EK,;f»1'>: a ship similar to an

oK-r~p'YJS',

but with ten men to an oar

(Tarn, HMN D, 134 ff.). 4. TPLl]fLLoAla.s: see 2. 10 n. tJ1ro Tov 9pa.v1Tl]V o-KO.AfLOV E8£811: 'she stuck fast under the top bench of oars'; the thranite oars would probably be rowed over an outrigger, and the Macedonian flagship became wedged in the smaller ship's side-timbers (Morrison, CQ, 1947, 130, against the view of Tarn, l:R, 1941, 89, that the thranite oarsmen were merely the stern squad uf rowers) ; cf. i. 20. 9 n. 6. 1TE\IT,pEL<;: cf. i. 20. 9 n. dTJfLOKpaTl]'> : otherwise unknown. 7. ALovuo-68wpo<; Ka.t AewoKpaTTJ'>: the former is Attallls' delegate at the conference with Philip and Flamininus in 198 (xviii. 1. 3, 2. 2); see also 6. II, 8. 4 f. va.ua.pxouvTEs: 'were admirals' ; on the navarchy in Hellenistic kingdomssee Kiessling, RE, 'nauarchos (nauarchie)', cols 1892 ff.; Robert, Rev. Phil. I9+f, 14 n. 4 (on the office at Athens and other cities). o 11~" ~1fT,; peL ••. , b 8' oKT,;peL: for E1TT~P'YJS, a galley with one bank of oars a side, seven men to an oar, d. i. 23. z-ro n. The reference to this hepteres engaged by Dionysodorus has slipped out of Paton's translation. 8. &.vo.o-TEipou ••• ouo-11s: 'being high in the prow'. ~1ro ,.a, ~£o.xo.: for the unknown word {3laxa various emendations have been proposed, none convincing; see apparatus criticus to BiittnerWobst, and Schweighaeuser's note ad Joe. The sense must be 'below the water-level' or 'low down in the hull'. 11. m1vTE<; ••• 8LEcp90.pl]o-a.v: presumably Attalus' men boarded; tp'l)fLOV a1TOAEL0~v will mean 'with none of her own crew left'. 12. ~11a.pn Tou Tpwo-a.L: he was attacking a hepteres (§ 7). 1'wv 1rupyouxwv: according to Pollux, i. 92, these are 1Tupyl8La Suo, lleeL6v Kal ;:uwvv11-ov, cJiv 11-icrov -ro Kan5.cr-rpwfLa. These towers must have projected to some extent beyond the line of the gunwale, to be carried away along ·with the right bank of oars.

4. 2. lhEcpEpov ••• Til> Twv Ka.Ta.cppaKTwv vEwv 1rx,;en: if Philip's two wings were about equal in number, Attalus faced approximately twenty-five cataphracts; his own fleet must therefore have exceeded

507

XVI. 4·

2

THE BATTLE OF CHIOS

this number considerably. In :zo8 his fleet in Greek waters amounted to thir1y-fin~ quinqueremes (Livy, xxviii. 5· r), probably his whok marine; and it therefore seems likely that he had thirty to thirty-five quinqucremes at Chios. See for these calculations Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 236--j. 3. 'II'Ept To 8E~lov Kepas: i.e. towards the mainland. 4. K0.66.11'Ep apT(W<,; Elrro.: evidently in a passage nOW lost and preceding 2. r; there is no statement between 2. 1 and 4· 4 that tlH· Rhodians were widely separated from the enemy, for in :z. 6 th!' sense is simply that they were sailing in loose order. Taxuvo.un'i:v: the Rhodian ships were faster than the Macedonian. 10. 8lEK'I!'AE:iv: cf. i. 51. 9 n. for this classic manreuvre; below, § q. aTpecf>eLv: to ram the disabled enemy from behind; d. § 14, EK1T£pt1T'AeoVT£<;. 11. ~'ll'otouv n TEXVLKov: 'they employed a certain artifice' (Paton) . cf. 6. 6. 12. E!l1Tpwppa. TO. a~£w. 5. 1. who i~ apparently distinct from the trierarch, and in charge of tlll' lm{36.rat or, as P. M. Fraser suggests, the material equipment of tL,· ship).

6. 4. Tf>El<,; 1\J.LLOA(o.s: cf.

2. IOn. TO. aKticf>Tt: to run aground his own flagship and the two quadrirernes (§ z).

tK~aAE'i:v

soB

THE BATTLE OF OliOS

XVI. 7

5. ei.<; "Tcis 'Epu9p6.s: Erythrae (cf. Strabo, xiv. 644) lay on the west

side of the Erythraean peninsula which faced Chios (site of modern lldir); cf. Biirchner, RE, 'Erythrai (1)', cols. 575-89; Magie, i. 79· 9. TOLS J:L~V oAo~s; l}XuTTWJ:LEVO<;: some exaggeration. Attalus clearly suffered a setback, and 4· 9-14 shows the Macedonians successful in hampering the Rhodian ramming tactics, and effectively fighting from the decks. In the end the Macedonians withdrew from the hattie with the Rhodians (§ I2-I3), who did not attempt to pursue, while Dionysodorus did the same in the Pergarnene sector (§ ro); d. Holleaux, .Etudes, iv. siege had proved unsuccessful (z. I). 13. ets Tl]v Xtov: where

7. Losses in the battle: that P.'s figures are incomplete appears from his own account; cf. Ullrich, 39; Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 238. (I) Macedonian ships sunk or captured by Attalus: one DEK~PYJ>, the flagship (sunk), cf. 3· ; one .-!vV!JpYJ~ (sunk); one oKn/p'7> (sunk), omitted here, but cf. ;;. 2; one d~<-r~pTJ> (captured), omitted here, but d. 3· j - I I ; one br-r~pTJ> (sunk); one €g~P71> (sunk) ; ten other mtaphracts (sunk), probably quinqueremes and quadriremes; three -rpL'JJktoAfa~ (sunk); twenty-five lembi (sunk). (2) Macedon ian ships sunk or captured by the Rhodians: ten cataphracts (sunk) ; two quadriremes (captured), see § 3 n.; about forty lembi (sunk) and seven lembi (captured). (3) Pergamene ships sunk or captured by Philip: two quinqueremcs (sunk), cf. 3· 14, 6. 2; the royal ship, probably a quinquereme (captured), along With tWO quadriremeS, cf. 6. 5-7, 6. IO, 8. 2; One triMtniolia (sunk), cf. 3· 4· (4) Rhodian ships sunk or captured by Philip: two quinquercmes (sunk); one trireme (sunk); none captured. Thus on balance Philip was left with twenty-eight cataphracts (including the three taken from Attalus), most of his undecked ships and about seventy-eight lembi; Attalus' larger ships were down to about thirty; and the Rhodians and their allies still had about thirty cataphracts (having taken two quadriremes from Philip). As Holleaux (Etudes, iv. 239) observes, it left the allies with a decided ltdvantage, but Philip with his large supply of lembi could outnumber either separately. And if the Rhodians and Attalus had reserves (24. r), so had Philip at Samos (2. 9). The allied losses are clearlj• too small (d. Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 244 n. ro). One Rhodian quinquereme sank with all on board (5. 2-3) and most of the marines on Theophiliscus' ship perished (5. s)clearly more than sixty men in all; and in the Pcrgamene fleet all the marines in Dionysodorus' ship were drowned (3. q). P. is following his Rhodian source; and this may be equally unreliable on the number of ships lost by the two sides. For instance, the reference

XVI. 7

THE BATTLE OF CHIOS

to prisoners taken from Attalus (xviii. 2. 2, 6. 1, 6. J, 8. 10) presupposr.-, ships taken (for Philip will hardly have picked up men from the water, cf. 8. 3 n.); but F.'s account implies that Philip took no ship~ y;ith their crews from Attalus. According to P. (§ s), following his Rhodian source, Philip losl J,ooo soldiers and 6,ooo sailors; the Macedonians took no prisoners, but themselves lost 2,ooo Macedonians and allies and 700 Egyptians (§ 6) ; on these figures see § 6 n. 3. ELS): this phrase was added by Meibomius (see Hultsch, apparatus criticus) in view of 6. 5; it will have dropped out by haplography, since the same phrase appears among Philip\. losses in§ 2. Holleaux (i.'tudes, iv. 238 n. 2) considers an alternatiw. viz. that the words Mo -rnpr}pH;; have been displaced from § 3 to § : (since there is no reference in the narrative to the Rhodian captur.· of two quadriremes from Philip), and notes that if that were so ther•· would be no evidence for the presence of quadriremes in Philip ,, fleet. But the explanation adopted in the text is perhaps simpler and more probable. 5. MaKeSOves fLEV •.• Twv Sf: 'ITATJf>WfLnTwv: the suggestion is that th• sailors were not Macedonians, and this is borne out by the distin• tion drawn between Macedonians and allies among those captun·d (§ 6). 6. hwv B' ~'ITevavTiwvt: -rwv 8' alyv'l'fT{wv FS. Schweighaeuser conjer tured -rwv 8' .lhm.\tKwv, but recent editors have printed this variation on Niebuhr's TWl' S' Jvav-rlwv. But, as Holleaux observes (Etude-', iv. 242), P. enumerates the losses first in ships, then in men; of tlll' ships lost he gives first those sunk, then those captured, for (a) Philip, (b) Attalus, (c) Rhodes, then reversing the order he gives men killed and captured for (a) Rhodes, (b) Attalus, (c) Philip. In his accounl of the conference of Ig8 P. reveals the existence of prisoners taken at Chios (above, 7 n.); but he is then followin;·, a different source, and his account of the battle has no room fo1 such prisoners. Therefore TWV o' {rrrr;vavTlwv and 7'WI' o' )hTaAtK<;,. are equally out of place; whereas the use of Eg~·ptian ships fro111 Samos (2. g) would be naturally paralleled by the use of Egypti:111 crews. The MS. reading should therefore be kept (d. Hollea11', Etudes, iv. :23<1 probably much exaggerated.

8. 2. f:yKpan1s Ttjs vE6!s; i.e. the flagship (cf. 6.

; Paton

mi~

translates 'ships'. To KaAoufLevov 'Apyewov: the south-western promontory of tlw Erythraean peninsula, 8 miles across from C. Poseidion on Chios sro

T!IE BATTLE OF CHIOS

XVI. Io.

I

(Strabo, xiv. 645); it is the .M.pyivov of Thucyd. viii. 34· I, modern Asprokavo. 3. Twv EtTLywwaKoJ.L€vwv: 'that were recognizable', i.e. as those of allies; he would not pick up enemy corpses. 5. aT~aa.vn:<; ev J.LET~nr~ Ta<; va.il11: 'stationing their ships in a line facing the front'; cf. i. 26. 13 n., v. 82. Ton. 9. 1. 9Eoci>~MaKoc; ••• Em~..Waa.s: on his wounds see S· 7. Tfi 1Ta.Tp(~t ypO.!Jta.s: this report is probably behind P.'s source. KAEwva.l:ov: d. Syll. 673, an inscription in honour oi a Nisyrian who served in the Rhodian navy under Cleonaeus and two of his successors in the navarchate, Acesimbrotus (cf. xviii. I. 4, 2. 3 f.) and Eudamus (xxi. 10. 5, fg. 193; see xxi. 7· 5 n.). 2. KO.Ta Tov Kivouvov O.ya.Oo<; y~vop.c;-vos: for the use of the phrase Sage for the relative chronology of the battle of Chios and Philip's invasion of Pergamum.

!Order of fragments: between g. 5 and To. 1 should stand I. 1--9, describing Philip's attack on Pergamum, which (cf. pp. 24, 497-soo) fell after the battle of Chios and (it has been argued) before Lade. 1. 1-9 will also have been followed by a description of the battle of Lade 15. 1-8) before the observations contained in ro.]

10. 1. Ph£hl; after Lade P.'s remarks are based on the assumption that Philip's plans included an attack on Egypt (cf. xv. 20 n.). 10. 1. T~V 'ITEpt Tf}v AO.OTJV VO.UJ.La.xla.V: cf. rs. I-8. At some time after the battle of Chios, and probably after ravaging the territory of l}ergamum (1. 1--9), Philip having rejoined his fleet at some point unknov.rn (but probably not far from Samos: I. 8 n.), sailed south and came up with the I
XVL

10. I

PHILIP AFTER LADE

Rhodians until late in the year (24. I-2); see Holleaux, Etudes, i\. 270-2.

T<)v ds T~v :.&.A.e~civ6p.;~av '!!'AoGv: in accordance with his supposed intention of seizing Egypt (xv. 20 n.) J.LnYtwSTJ ••• ToliTo '!l'piieaL: the reference is uncertain. Holleam: believes that TofiTo 1rpii$at refers to the march on Pergamum and that it is in his behaviour here that P. reveals his p.av{a; but (se<' p. 499) P. states clearly (€$ ov) that it is from the fact that he migh1 have sailed on Alexandria (but did not) that his madness can bl' deduced; in short,J he is p.avHv81'JS' because he acts irrationally (as in xv. 24. 6). Toiho 1rpii.$m. (which may be the epitomator's words) to Alexandria: what that refers to whatever he did instead of was we do not know.

10. 2-4. The role of the irrational in mm's hopes and in

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

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

PHILIP'S CAPTURE OF PRINASSUS

XYL

I2. J.

tlemonstrated by G. E. Bean and J. M. Cook (BSA, 1952, rjr~Hz, d. 1957, 85-87) that Cnidus was moved from a situation at Burgaz further east to Tekir on the tip of the peninsula. just east of C. Kri6. probably about 330 B.c. (though a slightly earlier date is possible). On the site see Bean and Cook, BSA, 1952, r8s-5; Btirchner, RE, 'Knidos (r)', cols. 914-21. 11, 1. TQ. 4>poupLa Kat TQ.S KaTQ. TTJV XWP siege probably derived from the same source asP. (Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 256). Polyaenus calls Prinassus 'Poo{wv 'ITbAw tv Tfi ll£patq., Stephan us 7ToALs- Kaplas-; its site is still unidentified, but it was probably in the subject Peraea, and not incorporated ns a Rhodian deme (cf. Fraser and Bean, 75; on the distinction between subject and incorporated Peraea, ibid. 53-54). yippa: 'wicker-work screens'; cf. viii. 3· 3 n., ix ..p. 3· 5. 'ITpos Suo 'ITAe9pa: about 2oo ft.; the 77.\!.0pov is roo 'IToO<s-.

12. I asus and certain superstitions concerning it After taking over the Rhodian Peraea on the Dorian Chersonese, of which operation the attack on Prinassus \Vas part (xviii. 2. 3, 6. 3, 8. 9, App. Ivfac. 4· I; Livy, xxxiii. r8. 1, 18. 2o), Philip marched north and is next found attacking Iasus; that he took this follows from the Rhodian claim to it in 198 (xviii. 2. 3· 8. 9). Whether it was now or earlier that Philip seized the north Carian towns of Euromus and Pedasa (xviii. 2. J, 44· 4). which belonged to Rhodes, and Stratonicaea (Livy, xxxiii. r8. 4-7, 18. 19-22, 30. n), which Rhodes only acquired later (xxx. 31. 6), is uncertain; see Holleaux, Etudes, iv. for the various alternatives; for Philip's occupation of Panamara in the north of the Peraea see Holleaux, Etttdes, iv. 204-10; Ferro, 69 n. Ii7. Iasus (cf. Strabo, xiv. 658) was an Ionic city lying on a rocky peninsula on the north shore of the inlet at the head of the Gulf of Bargylia (modern Gulf of Mandalya), now known as Asinkale; Strabo, xiv. 658, and Steph. Byz. s.v. call it an island; cf. Magie, i. ii. goG-7 (with bibliography); Btirchner, RE, 'Iasos (rs)', cols. ; G. E. Bean and J. ~L Cook, BSA, 1957. roo-6 (with plan); Laumonier, 591 ff. A forthcoming study is promised from L. Robert in La Carie, iv. 12. 1. EV Ti{} KOA'IT~ K-rA.: the Gulf of Mandalya; after 77paaayoptvopivcp some words have fallen out, ev·idcntly mentioning a name 'Gull of 8Hl73

Ll

XVI.

12.

r

lASUS AND SUPERSTITIONS CONCERNING IT

Iasus' (d. Hultsch, (Si ?Tap' mhoi<; p):v 'Iaa{c!:')· P. defines the gull by reference to the two flanking promontories. The archaic altai of Poseidon stood at the south-west corner of the Milesian peninsula, high up above the sea (d. Strabo, xiv. 633; Mayer, RE, 'Miletos', cols. r653-4; for the excavations see A. von Gerkan, Der Poseidonaltar bei Kap ll-1 onodendri in Milet, i. 4). The city of Myndus (d. IS. -t) stood at the western extremity of the H alicarnassian peninsula, abou! 12 miles west of Halicarnassus (d. Strabo, xiv. 658; Ps.-Scyl. 99), modern Giimii~liik; see G. E. Bean and J. M. Cook, BSA, 1955, ro8-I2 (with plan); Rlige, RE, 'Myndos (I)', cols. 1075---9; Laumonier, 6I4-20. auvwvu...,ws: Ta.ls: ••. m:lAEaw: Iasus and Bargylia, on which see 24. In. 2. :A.pyELW\1 a'ITOlKm ••• tJ-ETn OE Ta.iha. MlAT)O'lWV: our only evidence. For a suggestion that the name Iasus came from Argos d. Hicks. JHS, r887, 84. Later Milesian settlement rendered the town wholh Ionic; on the Milesian settlers see Bilabel, Die ionische Kolonisatiou (Ph£!. SuppL-E. xiv. 192o), 56, 144. NT)A£ws: ••• TOu tcTiaavTos: MiAT)TOv: the more usual fonn is Neileos or Neileus; in Herod. ix. 97, he is the younger son of Codrus of Athens, who after a conflict with his elder brother Medon for the throne, in which Delphi pronounced for Medon, led a migration to Ionia (Paus. vii. 2. I). But Strabo (xiv. 633), referring to the altar erected to Neleus lrrl To/ IIoat::~Oltp (the promontory carrying the altar 0f Poseidon, §In.), states that he came from Pylos (cf. Mimn. fg. ~~ Diehl) and this is probably the older version (cf. Ed. Meyer, iii. 399 40I). His grave was shown on the road from Miletus to Didyma (Pans. vii. 2. 6). A son Aepytus founded Priene (Strabo, xiv. 633; Paus. vii. 2. Io); but other sons are known, Phryius, Hegetor, and Hippocles. Which is meant here is unknown. See Hanslik, RE, 'Neileos', cob. 2I83-4; van der Kolf, RE, 'Neleus (2)', col. 228o (a curious duplica tion). To ••• t-Lf:yt:Oos: ••. of:Ka aTaOla: the fortification around the pen in sula of Asinkale, now dismantled and perhaps mainly post-classical. was about a mile and a half in circumference; Io stades would h•· a little under a mile and a quarter, and this would fit, if the tran·' of walling seen by Bean and Cook (BSA, 1957, IOI} within the mai11 perimeter belonged to the Hellenistic circuit. 3. To Tfjs Kwou6.oos: :A.pTEtJ-lOos:: the sanctuary of Artemis Cindy a·. lay in the plain beneath the site Stgtrtma~ Kalesi, about 7 milt-. due east of Bargylia. It was identified by Paton and Myres, J H'-, I8g6, I96; see also Laumonier, Rev. arch. I933 (z), 49· Stgtrtmt•, Kalesi is the ancient town of Cindya; d. Bean and Cook, BSA, 1957. 97---99 (with plan of Cindya). The cult of Artemis Cindyas continul'< I into Roman times (cf. Strabo, xiv. 658; inscriptions quoted by Magi<·, ii. 907 n. n8; for an epiphany of the goddess see JHS, 1896, 218 f., 514

IASUS AND SUPERSTITIO:;{S CONCERNING IT XVI. 13

no. 8 B (=Robert, Et. anat. 459; cf. Magie, ii. lOJ9)), after the town of Cindya had been abandoned (Bean and Cook, RSA, 1957, 97). Cf. Adler, RE, 'Kindyas', col. 472; Laumonier, 599-6o6; and for Artemis Cindyas on coins of Bargylia and of Antiochus III see H. Seyrig, Rev. num. 1964, 7-8. ouTE vlopeTa.l •.• oliTe ~p£xeTa.1: there was a similar belief about the altar of Paphian Aphrodite (Tac. Hist. ii. 3· 2; Pliny, Nat. kist. ii. ::no). For other parallels see also 0. Gruppc, Griechische 111ythologie, ii (Munich, 19o6), nz n. ro. 4. 'f'o Tfjs !l\anaSos: Artemis Astias was the chief goddess at Iasus; for the evidence on coins and inscriptions sec G. Jost,lasos itt Karien (Hamburg, 1935). 33 (especially REG, 1893· I59· TrpOiatOYJy•p..a!l' ri]~ r.oAew> ~p..wv; CIG, ii. 2671, i.ep6v; CIG, ii. 2683 Le Bas, 3oo (dedications); Ath. Mitt. r889, ro8 no. 62; for cults of Iasus d. Hicks, }HS, 1887, II4 f.; Laumonier, 591-9). 'f'tves ••. !Ca.~ Twv auyypa.opf:wv: not identifiable. 7. a1TTJAYTJKUta.s ••• ~uxfjs: cf. i. 35· 5; 'the sign of a blunted intelligence' (Paton). 8eo1Top.1Tos: cf. FGH, IIS T 20 {a),§ II (Dion. Hal. ad Pomp. 6. II) for criticism of Theopompus' introduction of childish and incredible anecdotes, such as the 'appearance of a Silenus in .:Vfacedonia, or the sea-monster that fought against a trireme'. For other criticism of Theopompus see viii. 9-11 n. and passages quoted there. TOU<; els TO TOU ALOS li~a.TOV €Jl~G.YTa<; •.. aaKLOU<; y(vEalla.L: the 'holy of holies' in Arcadia is the ·dp,evo> on Mt. Lycaeum; see iv. 33· 2 n. for details, and for another myth concerning this sanctuary vii. I.~· 7 n. On the shadowlessness of those entering the shrine see Paus. \iii. 38. 6; Schol. Callimach. hymn. 1. TJ; Plut. M or. 300 c. 9-ll. P.'s attitude tozmrds pious fictions: see Vol. I, pp. II-I2, where, however, the statement that P.'s concessions in this case hardly affects him as a historian must be modified to take account of P.'s treatment of Scipio Africanus; d. x. 2. 8-13 for the belief that Scipio exploited pious fictions for rational ends, and for P.'s attitude towards this see the discussion in X. 2. I-20. 8 n. See vi. s6. 6-12 n. for his approval of Swn8a.tp..ovla as an instrument for mass discipline. 9. €v£ov; Twv auyypaoptwv TEpaTEUOfltVOL<; ••• 1TEp\ Tel T01a.ilTa.: but neither the writers who make the absurd statements about Artemis Cindyas and Artt:mis Astias (§ 4), nor Theopompus (§ 7), are to be so excused. 10. Sua1ra.paypaopos tUTw t1 1roao'TT)s: 'it is difficult to draw the line'. 13. N abis' plan against lt.l essene This fragment forms part of the res Graetiae of 2o2/1 (see p. 24); on Nabis see xiii. 6-8 n.

XVI.

IJ. I

NABIS' PLAN AGAINST MESSENE

13. 1. -rj}\t;:u8£pwa£ 'l"ou<; SouAou<;: this accusation is not contained in the fragments surviving from xiii, where Nabis is said to have married the wives of the exiles to his chief supporters and mercenaries (xiii. 6. 3-4). 2. i]8potaE TTAY]Bo<; 6.v8pwvwv 6.voa(wv: cf. xiii. 6. 4, 8. 2. tv 'I"O'i<; vpo 'I"OU'I"WV: xiii. 6-8. 3. Ka.'l"li 'I"OU<; TTpoetp'ljlEvou<; Ka.lpou<;: 'at the time I have mentioned'; but it is not clear whether this refers to the time of Nabis' original institution of his policy of terrorism (§§ or behind that to the lost passage in which P. introduces Nabis in the context of 2or. Holleaux, 262, thinks the reference is to zos/4. but 2or seems more likely. GUJljlG.XO<; uml.pxwv AL'I"WAo'i<;, 'HA£LOl<;, M£GGf)VLOt<;: Sparta, Aetolia, Elis, and Messenia were all allies during the first Macedonian War (cf. ix. 28 ff., 30. 6, 31. 3), and the full alliance of that time seems tn have continued as a defensive alliance after Aetolia made peace >Vitll the Greek Symmachy (Livy, xxix. r2. r; cf. Livy, xxxvi. 31. rr) in 206. Whether Sparta, Elis, and Messenia were included in that peace is disputed. Livy does not mention them in that context, but his reference to the peace is brief (Livy, xxix. r2. r); moreo\·er in the similar context of the Peace of Naupactus (v. ror-s) P. makes no mention of Elis and Sparta, though it is clear that they were also covered by that treaty. It is at any rate fairly certain that the three Peloponnesian states did not continue as belligerents after the defection of Aetolia (cf. Holleaux, 26r f.). Livy (xxix. 12 .•H). howeYer, includes them in the Peace of Phoenice between Philip and the Romans, and Badian, 59, argues that though not actual parties to either treaty they were asm:pti in both. It is a little hard to see how Elis, Messenia, and Sparta can have allowed themselves to be ascriptl in the treaty between Aetolia and T'hilip without breaking their obligations to Rome (obligations probably defined in separate treaties: cf. Livy, xxxiv. 31. s, uetustissimum foedus (between Rom<' and Sparta: not denied by Flamininus, Livy, xxxiv. 32. r), 32. r6. Messene linked to Rome eodem iure foederis as Sparta: cf. Larse11, CP, 1935, 2rr; Badian, 59); that these obligations continued is cleaT from Livy, xxxiv. 32. r6, where Flamininus, addressing Nabis, refers to both Sparta and Messene as socii in 201. (Holleaux's argument. :263~4 n. 4, that Flamininus is here discussing a hypothetical situation -the conditions in which amicitia persists--the relevance of whi< I• to Nabis he denies, and that Livy has misunderstood P., is clearh a counsel of despair.) See also xviii. 42. 7 n. for Elis and Messenia as Roman allies in 197. It has been argued (cf. Walbank, Philip, ror n. ,3, ro3-4 n. 6) that Elis, :\fessenia, and Sparta were ignored at Phoenice, and that their presence in Livy's account of the treaty is due to an annalist; but 516

NABIS' PLAN AGAINST MESSENE

XVI.

I4,

z

Roman neglect of these states both in the Second Macedonian War and in the embassies preceding it is easily explicable on geographical grounds-they were of little importance in a war against Macedonia (cf. Larsen, CP, 1935, 210 f.). Thus the continuing relations with }{orne support the view that, as Livy says, these states were included in the Treaty of Phoenice. On the other hand, if they were abandoned by Aetolia in her separate peace of 2o6, they can hardly have been her allies in 202/r; and it is unsatisfactory to reject P.'s specific statement on the grounds of his hostility to Nabis (so Piraino, Riv. fil. 1955, 67). Hence, despite the difficulties mentioned above, perhaps the solution of Badian is the least unsatisfactory, that the Peloponnesian states were ascripti in both treaties (cf. Niese, ii. sor-z). The defensive alliance mentioned here may be simply a continuation of the former alliance, provided for in the original terms (cf. vii. 9· 15, a similar clause in the treaty between Philip and Hannibal) or it may have been sworn in or after zo6. vuv epoufl£V: P.'s account of this has not survived; but we have some comment on it in relation to Zcno and Antisthenes (I6. r-q. 7). See Livy, xxxiv. 32. I6, 35· 6; Plut. Philop. 12. 4-6; Paus. iv. 29. ro, viii. so. 5; Syll. 595, I. 3; and in general Aymard, PR, 40-41. It evidently took place in summer zor. 14-20. Criticism of Zeno and A ntisthenes 14. r makes it clear that this criticism is introduced in connexion with these historians' account of events in Greece and Asia Minor with which P. is himself concerned.

14. 1. Twv Tas Ka.Ta flEpos ypa.+ovnuv 1rpn~ELS: for criticism of writers of monographs cf. Vol. I, p. II, vii. 7· 6 n. Td. ••• Ka.Ta M~too'lvlous: cf. r6. r-I7. 7· Ta Ka.Tcl. Tas ••• VO.Uf-La.xla.s: Chios and Lade: cf. 2-g, IO. I. rs. 2. z,;vwv KO.~ ~VTL<78EVTfS: Zeno (FGH, 523) is mentioned briefly by

Diodorus (v. 56. 7) and Diogenes Laertius (vii. 35), but only as a Rhodian historian; clearly he belonged to the late third (14. 3) and early second (zo. 5) centuries. According to Timachidas (Lindian Chronicle: FGH, 532, §§ 35 and 40) his work was entitled Xpovtl{~ O'VVTag.,, and it seems to have included the early history of Rhodes as well as contemporary events (cf. l''GH, 523 F r); book ii dealt with Pyrrhus (FGH, 532, § 35) and there may have been fifteen books in all (if in Diog. Laert. vii. 35 tvda is to be emended, as Ullrich, IJ-I4, urges, to iv iE). That it continued to 164(3 (cf. Ullrich, 70-72) is hypothetical (cf. xxx. 23 n.). Zeno's treatment of the early myths inclined towards rationalism (cf. Diod. v. 55· 1, 56. 3) and his work had stylistic pretensions (cf. 17. 9), which P. criticizes. P.'s discussion

XVI. 14.2 CRITICISM OF ZENO AND ANTISTHENES

here shows that Zeno's book contained more than a strict historY of Rhodes (cf. r6. 1-q. 7, 18-19, zo. s); how far P. used it is uncertain. but the comparatively warm terms in which he speaks of him (cf. 14. 3) suggest that he was a source for Rhodian and other topics. See Vol. I, p. 30; notes on iv. I, sz-ss. s6, v. 40. 4-57· 8, 88-90, vii. IS-I8, xv. 21-24, xvi. 2-9. further Valeton, 202-3; Ullrich. IO-IS (and passim); Jacoby on s23. Antisthenes (FGH, so8) is also mentioned by Diogenes Laertiu~ (vi. 19) as 'Pootos- ns- laToptK6;;; and he too seems to have been a con temporary of late-third-century events (14. 3), though probably oldt·J than Zeno (Ullrich, w, I6-17). The scope of Antisthenes' history i~ not known. Jacoby suggests that it was continued by Zeno, and that P. does not quote him because of his anti-Roman attitude: but this depends on identifying him with Antisthenes the Peri patetic, quoted by Phlegon (FGH, 257 F 36, §iii. 1) for an anti-Roma1: anecdote, and both this identification and that with the author ol cfJLAaaouw ow.8oxal (cf. r'GH, 508 F J-6) are dubious; see Ullricli. 8-IO. Schwartz (RE, 'Antisthenes (9)', cols. 2537-8) suggested that P. knew Antisthenes only through Zeno; this is possible (cf. Vol. l. p. 30 n. r), though Schwartz supports it with some unacceptab!tassumptions, and 14. s and IS. r are perhaps against it. That P. goe~ on to criticize Zeno alone (16 ff.) is explicable if Antisthenes' histon did not deal with non-Rhodian affairs. Antisthenes may well beth· son of Archetimus, and priest of Helios, known from IG, xii. 1. r,_; (early second century}; other historians active in I\hodian political life were Poseidonius and Timachidas. See further Valeton, 202~-3; Ullrich, s-IO, I6-I7; Schwartz, Joe. cit.; Jacoby on FGH, soB. 3. n-En-oAlnuvTal: 'were active in politi~s'; d. Larsen, S~vm. Osl. 1957. 7, on the meanings of this word. OUI( wcp~;Ada<; xapw: i.e. they were amateurs, like P., \Vho expressco contempt for the man who has to live by his writing; d. xii. 25 e _;. below,§ 8. avSpaO'I TrOAITII(O~<;: for the obligations of the historian toward·. statesmen see Vol. I, p. i. 4. oti(EIOTaTa<; ••• 'PoiHoL<;: as an Arcadian P. is scnsiti,.:e here. 5. Tl-jv n-ept AO.S11v vauJ:laxiav I(TA.: the order in which the two batth~ are mentioned that Chios came first (cf. p. 497); on La(k cf. IO. I n. Tfj ••• Tou I(W8Uvou XPEL~ I(O.L O'uvn:A.d~ Kai ICa8oA.ou: 'in both tht· detailed action of the battle and its general outcome'. 6. pon-as s,SOvaL I(TA.: for P.'s insistence on a truthful presentatio11 of the facts cf. xxxviii. 3· rz-4. 8; but the concession to patriotisn1 is a dangerous qualification: see Vol. I, pp. 12-13; La-Roche, 43-.J~. 82. See further von ; Susemihl, ii. IIZ n. nr. 11te vie\v tl1a1 P. here echoes the famous passage in Arist. Eth. Nic. i. 6. 1, 1096 a 10 sr8

CRITICIS::\f OF ZE:'
XVI. 15.6

(so L. Schmidt, Die Ethik der alten Griechen (Berlin, r882), ii. 481 n. 17) is not convincing. 8. TWV n'ITO TOUTOU TOV ~(ov 'ITOpl~OJ-lEVwv: cf. § 3· 9. ooTws ol 'ITOAlTUcoi ICTA.: by allowing favour towards his own side to distort the truth, a historian renders his history unreliable (0.8oKlf.tou>) and so worthless. Similarly statesmen who let their likes and dislikes influence their decisions will go astray. Note that in both cases F.'s criterion is utility, and that his call for truth rests on this. For repetition of this commonplace (as it concerns historians) in later writers cf. Avenarius, 51-52; on the distinction between voluntary and involuntary error cf. xiii. 7· 6 n. 15. 1. OJ-LOAoyouvns: P. makes no distinction between the accounts in Zeno and Antisthenes, but this does not prove that he knew only Zcno at first-hand (cf. q. :2 n.). 2. E'!Ta.pa.J-LEVfl'il Tov 86Xwva.: 'raising its jury-mast'. The So>.wv was a small mast with a subsidiary sail which remained on board in hattie, when the usual mast and sail were left ashore; it was used for a quick get-away, and consequently 'to raise the jury-mast' was a nautical term for flight from battle. On the use of the dolon cf. Diod. xx. 61 8 (Punic), Livy, xxxvi. 44· J, 45· 1; xxxvii. 30. 7 (Roman); d. Assmann, RE, M>.wv, cols. 1288-9; Casson, The Ancient 1\:fariners (London, 1959), 97-()8. The ship's action on this occasion seems to have caused a panic in the Rhodian fleet; cf. Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 246. 3. Tov va.va.pxov: d. § 8: Philip's silence on his name suggests that he was not Theophiliscus, and so perhaps that Lade followed Chios (cf. p. 497). 4. Ets Ti)v Muv8[av: evidently the capacious harbour of :\1yndus, mod. Giimii~ltik (see above, 12. r n.) at the end of the Halicarnassian peninsula, about 40 miles away from Lade. U'!Toupwaa.vTa.s: 'driven by unfavourable winds' ; the word explains why the Rhodians stopped at Myndus instead of continuing home. Paton misses the sense. cts Kw: the island of Cos, with its new capital founded in 366/5 (Diod. xv. 2: modern Kos) lay immediately south-west of the Halicarnassian peninsula, and was at this time independent but under Rhodian influence (Fraser and Bean, 135; Burchner, 'Kos', cols. 1467-So). 5. Tac; 'ITEVT,pEts: cf. § 1 : evidently the only ships the Rhodians lost. hi Ti\ 1 KEtvwv crTpa,-o'ITE00€(4: its site is unknown, but it was probably near .Miletus. 6. Tovc; MlAfla(ous: cf. r::. 1-2; probably Philip entered the city, but this is not quite certain. Tov 'HpaKAE(S'lv: d. xiii. 4· r n., 4· 4-5; he was Philip's admiral in 519

XVI. I5. 6

CRITICISM OF ZE:\'0

A~D A:\'TISTHE~ES

200 and 199 (Livy, xxxi. 16. 2, 33· :z, 46. 8) and evidently succeeded Democrates, who perished at Chios (3. 6). See p. 497· s.a. TTJV ~~oSov: ambiguous. Against Valois's translation urbem ingressis see Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 229, who takes up Schweighaeuser'-. suggestion and renders 'on account of their attack' (i.e. at Ladc,i So too Paton, 'for his brilliant attack'; Shuckburgh has 'on hi" entrance to their territory'. Holleaux' rendering is certainly possible. but perhaps more likely is Reiske's n:rsion: 'through fear he might attack'; cf. xi. 24. 3, ovn ... AL1T6vn:; .,,;,. !Stoll -r61rov 1hd. ~t· n<:w 'Ifll}pwv €rfoooov, 'they would not leave their position for fear of attad by the Spaniards'. P. says they were Ka-rmrAa.yEvms -ro yEyovos. Se.Mauersberger, s.v. irfooBos. 8. T~S imoTo>.fis .•• iv ,.q, 1TpuTJvos; it was thus dosel }' associated with the prytaneis. See Hiller von Gaertringen, RE, Suppl.-B. v, 'Rhodos', col. 767 ; Fraser and Bean, 2 n. r.

16. 1. 1T€pl ,.oG Ka,.a. M€oo11vLous 1ro.pao1Tovo,;p.a,.os: in 201; d. 13 n. On this incident see further Plut. Pht'lop. 12. 4-5; Livy, xxxi,-. 32. r6, 35· 6; Paus. iv. 29. Io, viii. so. 5· Nabis failed to capture tlw citadel (so Pausanias) and was forced to withdraw by an Achaean force under Philopoemen, who led a body of volunteers to Messell(' when the general for 2o2jr, Lysippus, refused to act. See NiesP, ii. s66. 2. N abis' route to Sellasia: P. does not specifically criticize this part of Zcno's account (cf. Leake, Peloponnesiaca (London, r846), 35~ n. 2; contra, Bursian, ii. IIi n. 2), but the names given by Zeno arl' otherwise unknown, and may be corrupt. Sellasia is usually identified with the hill-fortress standing a little west of the Oenus (Kelephina), about 7 miles north of Sparta, modern Hag. Konstantinos (cf. Loring.

CRITICISM OF ZENO Al"D ANTISTHENES

XVI. r6. 8

JHS, 1895.71 ff. with plan; Bolte, RE, 'Sparta', col. 1;po); contra W. K. Pritchett, 59-70, who locates it on 1\H. Palaeogoulas (see Vol. I, pp. 276-j). The ancient road from Sparta to Tegea passed west of Scllasia (d. ii. 65. 7 n.) and it is probably to this route that Zeno referred. The Hoplites has been variously identified as a statue on the Eurotas bank (Leake, ibid.) or less probably as Apollo Pythaeus of Thornax (Curtius, ii. 321 n. 54); Bursian, Joe. cit., took it to be a brook. See Bolte, RE, 'Hoplites ( r )', col. 22g6. Poliasion and the narrow road near it are both unidentified; d. Bolte, RE, 'Poliasion', col. 1365. 3. i'II'L E>a./.c:l.floa.<;; E'II'L~a.AOvTa.: 'reaching Thalamae'. Thalamae lay above the Messenian Gulf, west of Taygetus; its remains have been identified at the village of Svina, about 16 km. north of Oetylus (Vitylos) and a little east of Kutiphari. See Forster, BSA, I90J-4, r6T-2; Dickins, ibid., 1904-s. 125-36. K~:ml. «OS TOV na. . . Laov 'II'OTO.floOV: there are two rivers of this name in l\1essenia (Strabo, viii. 344). One is the small stream near Thalamae (modern river of Milea), which was probably made the boundary between Messenia and Sparta at the time of Philip II (Strabo, Yiii. ,)6r), when the small town of Leuctmm was allotted to Messenia (cf. Bolte, RE, 'Pamisos (z)', cols. 293-6; Roebuck, n. 132), the other is the river which still bears that name, the largest in ~1essenia, draining the lower Messenian plain (Bolte, RE, 'Pamisos (r)', cols. z9o-3). The reference to Pharae shows that the latter is meant by Zeno. 4. EK KopLv9ou KTA.: most of the places P. mentions are well known, which demonstrates clearly the absurdity of what Zeno wrote. The Kontoporia (d. Athen. ii. 43 E) is a mountain road leading from Corinth via Tenea to Argos; it is the route used in X en. Hell. iv. 4· 19 and Ages. 2. q, and appears to run from Chiliomodi past the site of Tenea, then via Hagionori and Berbati and through Klisoura into the Argive plain. See Leake, Morea, iii. 328, Geiger, RE, 'Kontoporeia', cols. I343-4· Mu.djva.c;: Paton unfortunately translates 'Messene'. 7. 6.'11'o n4v '~~'POtlYOUI-I-Evwv: 'given these data'. 8. we; '11'p0<;; TtlS 9epwO.s 6.va.ToAO.s: 'north-east'; Paton has 'southcast'. In fact Sellasia is due north of Sparta, and the Eurotas flows from north-west to south-east of the city, leaving it on the west (Strachan-Davidson, 68); Pharae and Pamisus lie due west of Sparta and Thalamae alone is south-west. In his anxiety to represent these 521

XVI. r6 8

CRITICIS::\I OF

ZE~O

AND ANTISTHENES

two groups of places as diametrically opposite, P. has been les~ accurate than his criticism might lead a reader to expect. 9. oux otov hrl T~V I£AAUO'LUV I
polis lay between Messene and Tegea, it does not follow that a gat.at Messene could not be said to lead €1Ti Tt:ylav (Tegea existed Ion;: before Megalopolis) ; nor does it follow that because Zeno used thi~ phrase he must have believed Tegea to lie near Messene. I).'s criticisr11 is niggling and hardly valid: contrast his own claim to consideration in similar cases (xxix. 12. ro). 3. 1rUAT] T£yECins: probably the so-called Arcadian Gate, which i·, still an impressive monument (cf. Frazer, Pausani,ls, iii. 429 u'!T(Aa.j3E T~v T eyEa.v £tva.1 MEaa'lviwv: P. has not produced am proof of this. 5. 1T£pl AuKoa.v Tfjs :.\pt.(me).

8. 1rpocpa.alv ••• tca.t T~v

1ra.pah'la~v:

'some excuse and apology'.

Twv 1rpa.y!J-6.Twv ~~TTJaw: 'critical enquiry into the facts'. Tov xuplap.bv Tf)S li1!'o6Ea•;r.us: 'the organization of his material' 'T~v 'Tf\S AE~EWS Ka.Ta.at<Eu~v: 'stylistic elegance'; for P.'s conscioll'• disregard of this cf. xxix. 12. ro-though he counts it a merit in Ephorus that he is Oavp.aaw<; ... Ka.rd. T~v
9.

CRITICISM OF ZENO AND ANTISTHENES XVI. r8. 4

18. 2. T~V

T£

r U~T]')

1rOA~opKta.v KO.L TTjv ••• wa.paTa.~~v .•. wEpi. TO

na.v~ov:

the siege of Gaza and the battle of Panium are two events in the Fifth Syrian War, in which Antiochus III seized Coele-Syria. The war was expected in Egypt when Scopas was sent recruiting late in 204 or early in 203 (d. xv. 25. r6 n., 25. 17 n.); but it seems not to have begun until after the pact between Antiochus and Philip in 2o3j2. Antiochus probably opened his assault on Coele-Syria in 202 (xv. 20 n.). Of this campaign nothing is kno\vn. From 22 a it is clear that the siege of Gaza was in 201 (d. Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 320) and probably occupied much of that year (d. xxix. 12. 8). The battle of Panium is also attributed to xvi by Ioseph. Ant. Iud. xii. 135-6 (see below, 39· 3), and this is confirmed by the detailed criticism of Zeno's account made by P. in this book; but since Panium lies near the source of the Jordan (Ioseph. Ant. Iud. xii. 132; Hieron. in Dan. xi. r5-r6) and Gaza in south Palestine near the Egyptian border (cf. v. 68. 2 n.), there was clearly an Egyptian counter-attack between the two incidents (as Ioseph., Ant. Iud. xii. 135. confirms (see below 39· r); cf. Joseph. Ant. Iud. xii. 131; Hieron. in Dan. xi. 13-14) and after this Scopas returned to Egypt. Consequently the battle of Panium must fall in the season after Gaza, viz. 2oo. De Sanctis (iv. r. II8 n. 8) dates Panium in 198 after Scopas' levy in Aetolia in 199 (Li,·y, xxxi. 43· 5-7) and assumes that, in Iosephus, xvi is an error for xviii (d. Nissen, KU, 134 n. r; Bevan, Se!eucus, ii. 36-37; Bouche-Leclercq, Lagides, i. 36r). But Scopas had already obtained his troops (see above), and those assembled in 199 were no doubt to fill the gaps left by the defeat at Panium. Moreover, P.'s discussion of Zeno's account of Panium here also suggests that it fell in 2oo. See, for full discussion and a refutation of Nissen, Holleaux, !!:tudes, iii. 317-3I. See the Addenda. -ro Ilcivwv is the shrine of Pan near the grotto in which the Jordan has its source, at the foot of Mt. Hermon, and in the district known as Panias (mod. Biinjas). Pan must represent some earlier Semitic deity, but his identity is not known. On the site and later history of the shrine, which is first mentioned here, see Holscher, RE, 'Panias', cols. 594-6oo; Dussaud, 390-r. One cannot evaluate P.'s criticism of Zeno's account of Panium simply on the basis of what P. says; he may have read Zeno carelessly (e.g. on the two Antiochi (r8. 8, 19. 9) or what happened to Antiochus' light-armed, cavalry, and elephants before the phalanxes met (r8. ro)). IK6wa.v: d. xv. 25. r6 n. uwEpf3oA.Tjv TEpa.Te£a.rs: cf. ii. 56. ro for similar accusations against Phylarchus; on the antecedents of this kind of historical writing see Walbank, Historia, r96o, 216-34. 3. -r~v EUXEPE~a.v: 'recklessness'; cf. xii. 25 e 2. 4. Tl]S uwwpEta.s ~XE0"9a.~: 'rested its right wing on the hills' (Paton). 52 3

X\'T. r8. 5

CRITICISM OF ZE::;-O A)l'D

A~TISTHENES

5. Tov 1TpEa~IJTEpov utov )\vT(oxov: his mother was Laodice, and he was born in 22o; since 209 he had been co-regent with his father. Se•~ v. 55· 4 n. 6. Tov 1TOTaflOV Tov) flETa~u Twv aTpaTo1Teowv: not identifiable in the absence of further information on the site of the battle: it mav be one of the sources of the Jordan, either the Nahr Banias, which rises in the cave of Pan, or the stream rising at Tell el-Kady, west north-west of Paneas (Joseph. Ant. Ind. i. 177, ~ !T!pa Tov 'lopou~·o•' ••• 1T1Jy~), but there are at least two other streams in the basin ol el-Huleh, immediately south of Paneas, which might be meant (sl•,· E. Robinson, B£bl£cal researches in Palest£ne (London, 1841), iii.

<

352-3)TTtV KaTil.oppaKTov t1r1TOV: d. xxx. 25. 9; Heliodoms, Aethiop. ix. 15 H.

Mailed cavalry came from the nomads of central Asia, and r,ooo mailed Saca horse fought for Darius III at Gaugamela. Tam (liMN D, 76) suggests that Antiochus had met them in his invasiou of Parthia, and notes his (unsuccessful) use of them at Magnesi:t (Livy, xxxvii. 40. u); see his discussion of the development of tlw cataphract, ibid. 73-92; d. Ra.ttenbury, CR, 1942, 113-16. o vEwTEpos ;b..vT(oxos: the later king Antioclms IV. But he had an elder brother, the later Seleucus IV, whom he succeeded (xxxi. 2. 1-2), and at least one and probably two elder sisters (cf. xi. 34· 9, which implies that in 207{6 Antiochus III had at least two daughters aged 10 or over: cf. Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 187 n. 4). Hence he can hardh· have been born before 215, so that a command in 201, when he was 1 1 years old, must have been a formality, and P. seems to have good reason for saying that only one son Antioch us, the elder, was present at Panium (19. 9). 7. Tous flET' ;b..vn1TaTpou TapavT(vous: on Antipater see v. 79· 12 n .. on Tapavri:vot, iv. i7· 7 n. flETa Ti]s tTmptK1]s L1T1Tou: d. v. 53· 4 n. Kat Twv lJ1Ta
Seleucids ; see vii. r6. 2 n. 8. nToAEflalOV TOV :A.Ep01TOU: the name suggests a l\Iacedonian (ci Hoffmann, Makedonen, 13o-r), and this is perhaps the same Ptol•· maeus who appears as a priest of Alexander on l. 6 of the Pith om st,·l·· recording honours paid to Ptolemy IV in 217/16 (cf. v. 83-86. 6 11. for bibliography and references). See Volkmann, RE, 'Ptolemaio, (46)', col. 1763; Peremans-van't Dack, iii, no. 5239. To'Ls AtTwAo"Ls: d. xv. 25. 16 for Scopas' recruiting ,·isit. 19. 1. KaTa1TpoTEpouf1EV"lv ••• Tais EUXELp(aLS:: 'proving inferior 111 fortitude'; d. xi. 13. 3· But the MS. reads £Vx£p£iats, which shoul< I perhaps be kept (d. xxii. 3· 8, xxiii. 5· 6, etc.) in preference to Schweighaeuser's conjecture. 524

CRITICISM OF ZENO AND ANTISTHENES

XYI.

21.

5

7. To KnXXunov cruaTY)f.La. ••• Twv nf.~wv ~ has the same sense in § Io.

20. 2. Twv Tll'i lcrTopla.o; jjf.pwv: cf. xii. 3. TW\1 ••• TEXVW\1 Ka.l E'ITLTY)OEUJ.LilTW\1:

er.

and professions; d. vi.

5· 6. ~wv: '(in history} as in the other branches of writing'. 5. wept 8E Tf\'i TWV Ton!.Jv ciyvota.o; KTA.: i.e. the errors which are

4.

t~xcusable

(q. 8); P. did not write to Zeno on the more fundamental error of putting style before factual accuracy and an account that makes sense (18. 2-3), presumably because he could say nothing useful on this. wpos o.uTov ZT]vwvn: who must therefore be a contemporary (I4. 2 n.). P.'s action, as von Scala, 294, justly remarks, 'will hardly have had the effect of creating ... increased popularity for his own writings in contemporary professional circles'. For a more generous interpretation of P.'s action cf. Suscrnihl, ii. II/ n. rzr. 7. ti.Js ivL tJ.nALO'To.: 'extremely'. 8-9. ~e
21-22. The character and conduct of Tlepolemus This extract is from the res Aegypti of 2o2/1 ; see p. 24. 21. 1. b TX,woAEflO'i: on him see xv. 25. 25 n. He had evidently now

come to Alexandria from Pelusium, following Agathocles' downfall (xv. 29. 6), and taken control of the government; on his popularity cf. xv. 25. zg. ICGTG. TO cruvEXE!i ••• 8LeyEyovn lolETa cj>a.vTo.aio.s: 'he had constantly lived a life of ostentation'; 'a life in which he enjoyed high prestige' is also possible (cf. xxii. g. 12, xxiv. 7· 2, II. s. fg. 233), but the former is more likely (cf. xv. 25. 22). 4. E'TI"LaTaO"Ew5 ~TJAEv KTA.: Paton translates, 'he not only carne to 525

XVI.

21.

5

CHARACTER AND CONDUCT OF TLEPOLEMUS

grief, but diminished the power of the kingdom', and Shuckburgl1 'he caused his own fall'. Despite zz. I I (and xxviii. 19. 6: perhaps a different Tlepolemus ?) this must be the sense, for he is no longe1 in power in xviii. 53· Schweighaeuser, who rightly observes tha1 ;.aYJAE is active would take flaatAdav with both verbs; but to say 'b•· not only brought the kingdom to grief, but also weakened its re sources' is almost bathos. Despite the agreement of Suidas, the tex1 seems at fault: read perhaps JaVT6v f!aYJAEv (with Reiske) or ffaYJA• 1Titaas- Tcts- lotas- Jm,BoMs (uel aliud simile) with Hultsch. Buttner Wobst approves Schweighaeuser, but both sense and word-ord1·1 are against his view; in the Lex. Polyb. s.v. a,Pd.A.A.w Schweighaeus<'l adds 'si uera scriptura'. 6. TTJV TGw XPTJf.l-clTWII isouaLa.v: 'financial control'. a<jla.Lpof.l-a.xwv: 'boxing'; cf. Plato, Laws, viii. 830 B-831 A. !\ol 'games of ball' (so Bevan, Ptolemaic Dynasty, 256). 8. ivTEvSEL~: 'interviews, audiences'. To'Ls 'ITEPL Tov A.Liwuaov TEXViTa.L<;: cf. iv. 20. 9 n. These are profession;JI actors and musicians organized in guilds, who performed at th•· various Greek festivals ..Paton translates: 'the actors of the theatn· of Dionysus': tbis misses the point, for the title refers not to am specific theatre, but to the guild organization. For an Egyptia11 example from Ptolemais from the reign of Ptolemy 1II see ()(; /." so and 51. 9. ava.vEUELII: 'to say no', by throwing the head upward and bark ward (still the Greek gesture equivalent to the English shaking ol the head). 'ITav •.• TO <jla.vev: 'anything to hand'. 12. Ta<; ... imxuaE~S: 'drinking-toasts'; Schweighaeuser's emend.~ tion for the MS. JmAlaf.tS'. Tas imypa.<jlas: 'graffiti' praising him. lha Twv O.Kpoaf.l-aTwv: 'by musicians'; cf. iv. 2o. ron. Paton, 't" popular audiences', is quite wrong. Ta; SEVLKa<; Kal. O'TpUTLWTlKn<; xapLTU<;: 'gifts to foreigners and soldier<

22. 1. T~w ••. IwaL~Lov: the younger Sosibius; cf. xv. 32. 6-u. 2. as(a.v ••• Tij<; iyKEXELplO'~VTJ<; UUT~ '!T(O'TEW<;: 'worthy of t lw charge entrusted to him'. Trlan> is equivalent to the Latin fides, at~< I is often used of the commission of an ambassador (sometime . Roman) in his dealings with Hellenistic kings; see v. 41. 2, xni11 I. 9 11.; Schulte, s8; Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 227 n. 3. 228 n. I ; Heinz• ' Hermes, r929, I63 n. I; Otto, Abh. Bay. Akad. I9J4, 46 n. r. 1-l<·•• however, it is more specifically the charge of the young king, 3:; tlu next sentence shows. ~ a<jlpayt; Ka.!.To Tou ~a.atX~w; awf.l-a.: in xv. 32. 6 Sosibius is describe ol as a awpaTo,Pv>..ag. Corradi, 298, suggests that he had now been mw I· 520

CHARACTER AXD CONDUCT OF TLEPOLEMUS

XVI. zz a

I

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

22 a. The loyalty of the people of Gaza This fragment, from P, will be from the res Syriae for 202/r; see p. 24. The first sentence (from the excerptor) makes clear that it follows P.'s account of the siege of Gaza, which will therefore fall in 201 ; see r8. 2 n.

l2 a 1. TWV r a.ta.£wv: on the site of Gaza cf. v. 68. 2 n. ..,.~ TTJpE'i:v T..;v 'ITLO'TLV: P. rates this highly; cf. vi. s8, XV. 4· 9· 4. KO.TU ••• niv nEpawv ~cpoSov: according to Herodotus {iii. 19. 3) the Phoenicians surrendered to Cambyses, and this is confirmed by

3.

XVI.

22

a 4 LOYALTY OF THE PEOPLE OF GAZA

Herod. iii. 34· 4 (Cambyses 7rpoaEwrijaBat T~v BcL\aaaav) ; the unique resistance of Gaza is not mentioned elsewhere, but there is no reason to question it. P.'s source is unknown: von Scala, 262, thinks that ill view of 18. 2 P. is following Zeno, but the account here is not particularly rhetorical, and the source must remain unknown. 5. Ka.Ta 8€ TT)v ~A.e~avlipou 1rapouaia.v: in 332. After his victory al Issus (d. xii. q-22), Alexander marched south, received the surrender of Aradus and ~1arathus from Strato (Arr. ii. IJ. 7--8) and then Byblus and Sidon (Arr. ii. 15. 6). The famous siege of Tyre (Arr. ii. 16-24) lasted for the first seven months of 332, and from there Alexander marched south on Gaza. Tupiwv E~TJv8pa1TolilaJl€vwv: cf. Arr. ii. 24. s. who puts the number al JO,ooo, including foreigners present inTyre. Jl6vot ••• um\:aTTJaa.v: on the resistance of Gaza under the eunuch Batis see Diod. xvii. 48. 7; Ioseph. Ant. Iud. xi. 320-25; Strabo. xvi. 759; Plut. Alex. 25. 3-4; Mela, i. 64; Zon. iv. IO; and especialh Arr. ii. 26-27; Curt. iv. 6. 7-3o. The siege lasted two months, till October 322. On the legendary aspects of the story see Tarn, Alex. ii. z65-7o. As at Tyre the women and children were sold into slavery, Arrian (ii. 27. 7) confirms P.'s account of the bravery and united action of the men. 7. Ka96.1Tep .•• KaT' lSia.v E1TlO'TJJlO.WDJlE9a. KTA.: cf. ii. 61. 6, TO rij.; [a-roplas rowv ... Tov E'TTmvov Kat T~v €TT' ciyaB
8--g: in respect of Agathocles). Censure also has its place: but both, censure and praise, must be supported by evidence (x. 21. 8) and must be applied regardless of the historian's predilections (i. 14. s). See, further, Avenarius, 159-6o. EK 1ra.pa80aew~ •.• Kai 1Tpo9Eaew~: 'by tradition and principle'. 23. Scipio's return to Rome and his triumph From the res Italiae of zmfo. Livy (xxx. 45) puts his return at tlw end of A.u.c. 553 = 201, when he was proconsul. 23. l. o& 'li'OAU KaT01TlV TI7W 1TpoeLpTJJlEVWV KO.Lpwv: the point of rc ference is lost. 5. Tov 9p(a.!l~ov ela1he: 'de Hannibale et Poenis et Syphace' (LiV\', xxxviii. 46, Io, d. 51. 14). liLa Tij~ TWV elaa.yoJl£vwv ivepye(a.~: 'the spectacle of the prisoner~ who formed the procession'; Schweighaeuser and Paton both takt· Twv Elaayofdvwv as neuter, but in favour of treating it as masculitw (with Shuckburgh) is the reference to Syphax in§ 6. Moreover, per sons would be more likely to remind spectators of their perils than would mere spoils. 528

SCIPIO'S RETUR:\ A:-.: D TRIUMPH

XVL 24. r

6. b I6~a.s: cf. xi. 24 a 4 11., and xiv and xv passim. A different version is by Livy's source: cf. Livy, xxx. 45· 4 5, 'morte subtractus spectaculo magis hominum quam triumphantis gloriae ~yphax est, Tiburi haud ita multo ante mortuus, quo ab Alba traductus fuerat. conspecta tamen mors eius fuit quia publico funere est elatus. hunc regem in triumpho ductum Polybius, haudquaquam spcrnendus auctor, tradit'. 7. xopTjy6v •.• TfjY II(L1TLWYOS ILEya.AoiJ!uxiav: cf. Livy, XXX. 45. 3. 'argenti tulit in aerarium pondo centum uiginti tria milia. militibus ex praeda quadringenos aeris diuisit'.

24. l-9. Philip in Caria This fragment deals with autumn 201 (d.§ 1), falling within 01. 144, 4· After taking lasns (12 n.) Philip took Bargylia, also on the Gulf of lasus (mod. ~landalya). Bargylia stoocl on a hill about 750 m. broad, which projected into the lagoon of opening off tl1e southern side of the gulf; the modern name of the site is Asar. For a description of the surface remains (it is 1111excaYated) see Bean and Cook, BSA, 1957,96-97. That Iasus was taken first follows from 12. 1, where the detailed account of the Gulf of lasus must have been given in connexion with the first town to fall; so too the description (12. 3~4) of the statue of Artemis Cindyas and the Bargylian superstitions about it (d. Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 257). 24. 1. Tou xe~llwvos ilo'l KaTapxoll(vou: 'since it was now the beginning of winter'; by X<'tp.wv Ka:rapxop.Evo<; (cf. xx. 3· 1) P. means the period rougnly from 2o November to zo December; see Pedech, Methode, 462-3, who seems to have refuted the view of Holleaux and Aymard (quoted in ii. 54· 13 n.) that xap.wv for P. began about the autumn equinox. It began at the traditional date of the morning setting of the Pleiades (cf. iii. 54· 1 n.). ka8' ()y no1TALOS Io/mhc~os U1T<1TOS K<1TEO'Tnlhj: P. Sulpicius Ser.f. P.n. Galba Maximus, previously consul in 2II (ix. 6. 6), and experienced in Greece in the First Macedonian War (cf. viii. I. 6 n.), was elected to the consulship for A.U.C. 554 = 2oo B.C. along with C. Aurelius C.f. C.n. Cotta; see Livy, xxxi. 4· 4, 5· r. 'll'o~ouJlEYos Tijv lha.Tpt~T]v tv To~s BapyuA.ioLs: this suggests that P.'s capture of Bargylia was the last event of the 201 campaign (Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 258). 'If the water at tne head of the creek was deeper in ancient times, Bargylia will have had the advantage of a capacious sheltered harbour'; hence Philip's choice of it as a base. What the fleet had been doing since Lade is not recorded; for tions see Ferro, 67, One need not assume with Holleaux (loc. that he bronght his fleet in simply to help on the and was then trapped; P. does not say he was blockaded. 814178

Mffi

XVI. 24·

I

PHILIP

I~

CARlA

aAAa ten~ TrPOlTITATJpOUVTnS: vnus:: 'manning additional ships'. Hol leaux (Etudes, iv. 169-77; cf. 277-8) has argued that the Nisyrian who served under various navarchs from Cleonaeus onwards (IG, xii. 3· 103 = !-J)'ll. 6i3; cf. 9· r n.) was enrolled in the Rhodian navy at this time. On the history of Nisyros see Holleaux (Etudes, i\'. 169-77) and Fraser and Bean (147-52); the latter argue cogenth that Nisyros was an old Macedonian possession to which PhiliJ • gave its freedom, removing its garrison, sometime after 205 (IG, xi1 3· 91 = Syll. 572), and which promptly joined Rhodes (cf. Ferro. 6r-6S). 2. TrpoEwpO.To Tov tcnTn llaAnTTav ~e£vSuvov: 'foresaw with alarm ;r naval battle'; both Paton and Shuckburgh translate 'danger at sea·. missing the point. 3. Tas: E~nTrouTEAAop.Evns: .•• Trpeu~E1ns ets 'Pwp.l'Jv: probably en1 bassies sent to Rome by Rhodes and Pergamurn (Livy, xxxi. 2. 1. 'sub idem fere tempus (sc. as an embassy from Athens) et ab Att;1l" rege et Rhodiis legati uenerunt nuntiantes Asiae quoque ciuitatr· sollicitari'; App. Mac. 4· 2, the Rhodians reveal the Syro-Macedonia11 pact to the Romans). These embassies probably reached Rome in autumn, 201 (cf. \Valbank, Philip, JII). There is no reference here to any Aetolian embassy; Philip's 'fear of the Aetolians' mentioned in the previous sentence means that he feared an Aetolian attack whil·· absent in Asia, and there is no reason to think that the Aetolia'''· were mentioned in the lacuna after 'Pw!LTJV (so Nissen, KU, 123. contra Hol.leaux, Rome, 294 n.). That the Aetolians had appealed to Rome is indicated by Livy, who records the brusque rejection ol their embassy (Livy, xxxi. 29. 4; the annalistic passage, Livy, xxxi. r. 9, is irrelevant); and Appian 0\.fac. 4. 2) dates this appeal aftr·1 the arrival of the Pergamene and Rhodian embassies, which mu 1 be wrong, since these embassies led the Romans to decide quit•· suddenly on an active policy against Macedon, for which Aetoli;u1 help would be invaluable (Holleaux, loc. cit.; ::\'kDonald, JRS, rS.-t-- ·'. Badian,Latomus, 1958, 2o8). ThisAetolianembassyhas been variou"h dated between 205 (or even 2o6) and 201; for discussion of some ol these views see Walbank, Philip, 3ro-n. Ferro (46-47) and ~feloiH (Valore storico, 45 f.) both accept Appian's dating for the Aetoli;ul embassy (which they think is referred to here), ignoring the objecti"" already made by Holleaux (loc. cit.), that such a dating cannot J.,. reconciled with a rejection so bitter. Badian (Latomus, 1958, 208-1 1l argues that Livy's reference to the Aetolian embassy is of annali:-;11• origin, since Appian, had he found it in Polybius before the Rhodi:111 and Pergamene embassies, would hardly have shifted it to come afl•·1 them, and since the Roman speech in Li,·y, xxxi. 3r. 20, has 1"' reply to the Macedonian reference to an Aetolian rebuff at the po1111 where it might be expected to occur; and he is disposed to reject 11 530

PHILIP IN CARlA

XVI. 24.6

as an annalistic insertion (contra, Dorey, CR, 1960, g). It seems more probable, however, that Livy, xxxi. 29. 4 is Polybian (like the speech generally) and that the Aetolian appeal to Rome is genuine and occurred in 202, following Philip's seizure of Lysimacheia, Calchedon, and Cius (xv. 23.8-9 n.); but the present passage makes no reference to this. 3. s~o1fE:P ••• Tn Ka.Ta TTjv Al~OT)V: the war against Carthage. The extent of the lacuna is unknown, but it can hardly have included a reference to events which caused the end of this war. Hence I<eiske's emendation, accepted by Hultsch and Mauersberger, to 8ton (for oto1T€p) seems convincing. Both Shuckburgh and Paton translate as though Suin stood in the text (though Paton prints li
XVI. 24. 6

PHILIP IN CA RIA

(OGIS, 234); cf. Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 141-57; L. Robert, BCH, 1925, 228-9; note to Holleaux, loc. cit. 157; Laumonier, 434 n. I. M6.yvTITES: :\Iagnesia-on-Macander was an Ionian city which stood at this time not, as formerly, on the river, but at the foot of Mt. Thorax, 3 miles north of the river and about 17 miles north-east of the coast at Priene; see Strabo, xiv, 647; Magie, i. 78-79, ii. 894--5 n. ror. For its removal to the new site by the Spartan Thibron in 4oo/39'! see Diod. xiv. 36. 4· Following the epiphany of Artemis in 221/o tlw Magnesians from 207/6 onwards had solicited support for her new festival of the Leucophryena from various cities and monarcb (d. lnsch. Mag. r6, r8-64, 66, 78-8r; cf. Welles, 31-3+ f01 Antiochus III, his son, Ptolemy IV and Attains I); that Philip V also received such an invitation is implied by his letter to Cllalcis (mentioned in Syll. s6r). It is, however, noteworthy that there is no evidence that any of the kings, except probably Ptolemy IV (lnsch Mag. 23; Welles, 33), agreed to grant inviolability to the city ol Magnesia (d. Magie, ii. 942 n. 38). lio-a.wev ••. hrej3ouXeuev: the colouring here will derive from P.' :-. source (perhaps Zeno). From Bargylia, where his fleet lay, Philip will ha,·e made foraging expeditions inland and as far north a~ Magnesia. 7. errt T~V MuAa.O"EWV rr6Xw .•• 8La ~LAOICAEOUS: for the meaning ol rrpd.gEt;; see v. 26. r n.; it implies within. Philocles later appears as one of Philip's 7rpwrot
PHILIP

I~

CARL\

XVI. 25.

z

campaigns, when Philip marched north from Caria to Pergamum; but it is likely that Philip invaded Pergamum from much further north (d. r. 1 n.), and the wording suggests that this extract from Athenaeus is rightly linked with the events mentioned in§§ For unsuccessful Magnesian attempts to repatriate the Cretan mercenaries settled at Myus by Miletus see Insch. Mag. 65 a, b, 75, 76; IC i, Cnosos, 9; Launey, ii. 663-4. On Philip's return from Bargylia to ~1acedonia see n. 25-26. Attalus and the Rhodians at Athens The date of this fragment is probably April 2oo. According to Livy, xxxi. q. 6-ro (drawing on P.), Athens became embroiled with Philip owing to the execution of two Acarnanians who had been found guilty of trying to enter the temple at Eleusis, though uninitiated (probably at the Great Mysteries of autumn 201); Acarnania appealed to Philip, probably on his return to Macedon from Bargylia in early spring 2oo (on his escape by a ruse see Polyaen. iv. r8. 2), and he lent Macedon ian auxiliaries for a ravaging expedition into Attica. Further, the :,racedonian fleet seized four Athenian warships, but these were intercepted by the Rhodians, who returned them to Athens (26. 9, cf. Livy, xxxi. 15. 5). Attalus probably helped by patrolling the Attic coast. Some scholars date the Macedonian reprisals to autumn 201 (cf. Ferguson, 268; Petzold, 39 n. 45; Meloni, Valore stor-ico, 34-35; Ferro, 75 ff.); for the chronology here adopted see Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 287-92; CAll, viii. r6r; De Sanctis, i\·. 1. 23 n. 57; McDonald, ]RS, 1937, 187-9; Walbank, Philip, 129-30, 309, 314· 25. 1. 1Tp£aj3eun1s 1Tpbs 'A,.To.Aov: who was on Aegina (d. Livy, xxxi. 14. II). •uxo.pLaT~aovTo.s ~1Tl. Tots yeyovoaLv: 'to thank him for what had happened', that for his action along with the Rhodians against Philip's ships. Petzold n. -1-5) thinks that nl y!iyovora refers to the trapping of Philip at ; but this had failed. :\foreover, this thesis does not explain depyw{as in :26. 2. 2. 'Pw~o.£wv 1Tpeaj3euTfis ds Tbv nnpo.ui: they were c. Claudius Nero, M. Aemilius Lepidus, and P. Sempronius Tuditanus. According to Livy (xxxi. 2. 3-4) were sent to Ptolemy to announce the Roman victory over Carthage and solicit his continued support in the event of war with Philip (an improbable motivation): Appian (Mac. 4· 2) says they were to visit both Antiochus and Philip and warn them against aggression (d. Iustin. xxx. 3· 3); while 27. 5 suggests that part of their duty was to arrange a settlement between Egypt and Antiochus. Subsequent events indicate that the real purpose of the embassy was to secure Seleucid neutrality in the 533

XVI. 25.2

ATTALt:S AND THE RHODL\NS AT ATHENS

approaching war with Philip, if necessary at the expense of Egypt (cf. Holleaux, Rome, 320 f.; McDonald, }RS, 1937, 204-7; Walbank, Philip, 3r6-q). These legati had probably left Rome in the late winter of zor/o after the entry into office of the consuls in :\larch 200 (December-January by the Julian calendar; cf. De Sanctis, jy I. 368 ff.; Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 336-48), and had visited Epiru~. Athamania, Aetolia, and Achaea en route (27. 4 n.). ln his account ol these events Livy (xxxi. q. 6-rs. 8) omits all reference to the Roman embassy, probably because he had assigned it a quite different func tion (see above); see McDonald, ]RS, 1937, 190 n. 3. and for tlw many views concerning the function and movements of this em bassy, Balsdon, ]RS, 1954, 39-41. 4. Tfjs rrpoyeyEVTJJ.LEY11S Koworrpa.yla.s: in the recent war; cf. ix. 30. 7, x. 41. Iff., 42. r, 42. 7, xi. 7· I. The word Kotvorrpa.y{a. (cf. v. 95· ::. 107. 4, vii. 2. 2, etc.) is a fairly general word for military co~operation. and perhaps implies that there had been no joedt~s between Ronw and Attalus (cf. Badian, s8 n. 4; Petzold, r6 n. 24; Larsen, CP, I943. 59). The present relationship would be one of amicitia. vpos Tov ••• 'ITOAEJ.LOV eTolJ.Lous: it has been argued by McDonald and Walbank (]RS, 1937, 190 ff.; d. Walbank, Philip, 314-16) that tlw war decision \v·as not taken by the tribes at Rome until the end ol July (reckoning back from the arrival of Sulpicius in lllyria in mid September (Livy, xxxi. 22. 4, autumno ferme exacto, based on P.)); a1H • since Livy (xxxi. 6. 3) records the rejection of the war measure when it was first put, it seems clear that this embassy was despatclH'd without full authorization to deliver a declaration of war a poinl here concealed (cf. Petzold, 39). 6. rrpos Te 'PwJ.Lalous: this is against Holleaux's thesis (CAH, Yiii r6r n. 2; Etudes, v. 23) that the Romans were pushed into the back ground (cf. Balsdon, ]RS, r954, 4o). 7. Kina To .6.'rruXov: the principal gate of Athens, lying on the north west, and the natural point of entry for anyone ascending from th Peiraeus to the west of the Long Walls (now in ruins: Livy, xx.'.i. 26. 8). See Frazer, Pausanias, ii. 42-45 (with plan); W. Judeich, Tupn graphie von Athen 2 (Munich, r93r), 135-8, Abb. ro. 9. cpuX~v tm~VUJ.LOV trro£11aa.v ~TTaXtp: thus bringing the number nl tribes up to twelve. At the same time a deme was renamed Apolloni,·i,, after Attalus' wife Apollonis; cf. Steph. Byz. s.v.; Hesych. s. v . IG, ii2 • roo8, L ro7, 1009, col. 4, l. 98, 2065, ll. 131-2, 2130, I. 2oo, 233s, l. 75· The original ten tribes had been increased to twelve by tlw addition of Antigonis and Demetrias in 307/6, and to thirteen b)' Uw creation of Ptolemais, probably in 224/3. The date of the abolition"' the two 'Macedonian' tribes has been much discussed; but Pritchell (TAPA, 1954, r59-67) has discovered that the inscription giving ;t list of demes under eleYen tribes (IG, ii, 2362) was left unfinished, 534

ATTALlJS X:--JD THE RHODIAXS AT ATHENS XVI. 26.9

which suggests that only a short time separated their abolition from the creation of At tal is. The likelihood is that the 'Macedonian' tribes were abolished in spring 2oo, as a result of the Acarnanian attack, a few weeks before the events here described. On Attalis see W. K. Pritchett, T!te Five Tribes after Kleisthenes (Baltimore, 1943), 33-36. To us ~'lf
26. 2 . .paaKovTos dva.L .popTLKov: Livy, xxxi. 15. r, 'ex dignitate magis uisum scribere'.

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

XVI.z6.g

ATTALUS A::\0 THE

RHODIA~S

AT ATHENS

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

r6o n. r, r66 ff.

27-28. The demarche to Nicanor's: Philip's character 27. 1. Ka8' /jv xpovov KTA.: there is a gap between 26 and this fra~~ ment, though hardly one covering several months (Passerini, Atltrn 1931, 279£.; Ferro, ron). E'ITOLouvTo TTJV 8LaTpL~~v: 'were staying', d. 24. r. NLKavopos: perhaps Nicanor 'the elephant' (xviii. 24. 2; d. Liv\ . xxxiii. 8. 8). Livy omits this incident, having decided not to mentio11 5.36

T II E DfMA. RCH E TO XlC\:\OR

XVI. 27.

2

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

3. Tti.va.vTla. auve~a.KoAoulhjaeLv: a euphemistic but clear threat that war would follow, but not a declaration of war in itself (cf. Stier. 108 n. 243). 4. Ka.L 'IT'pbs 'H'IT~aLpwTa.S el'll'a.v KTA.: P. is describing visits made previously on the way to Athens (r.apa.r,/.ioVT€>); the legal£ had ·visited Phocnice, Athamania, Naupactus, and Aegium. On Amynandcr see above, iv. 16. 9 n., xi. 4· r-6. ro n., 7. 2-3 n. 5. ws :AvT(oxov KO.L n,.oAep.a.iov: on the purpose of the embassy see 25. 2 n. The envoys are next heard of in Rhodes (34· 2).

28. Philip's behaviour. This extract from F clearly belongs here; cf. LiYy, xxxi. r6. I, 'Philippus magis regio animo est usus', following on criticism of Attalus and Rhodes for allowing him to advanCi' through Thrace towards the Hellespont unhindered. 1. auva.Kp.aaa.L Ta.i:s opjlais KTA.: 'to maintain enthusiasm long enough to secure a considerable measure of success' (Shuckburgh). 2. TO '~'ils 1Tpo9up.la.s EAhL'II'~S: 'a deficiency in enthusiasm' (Shuckburgh). 3. TfJV .•• ;o.,.,.a.Xou Ka.l. 'Po8£wv oALyo'IT'ov£a.v: At talus had remained inactive on Aegina awaiting the return of the envoys he had sent to Aetolia, and he and the Rhodians had done nothing further to check Philip (Livy, xxxi. 15. 9-II). Their inactivity has been plausiblY explained as clue to suspicion and veiled hostility between the two allies, perhaps reinforced by the recent acquisition of the Cyc!arlc-; by the Rhodians (Starr, CP, 1938, 67-68; Thiel, 225-6); they may also ha\'e hoped to leave matters to the Romans (so Hansen, 58-59. Ferro, rii). On the help sent see 30. 7 n. 4. TfJV TOlO.UTT)V S~a.a'!'oht)v: i.e. that he is praising, not his charactn generally, but merely his vigour on this occasion. 5. ~v O.pxa.'Ls TllS 'll'pa.yjla.TE£a.s: i. 14. 7; here P. further elucidatt· ... the statement there made by explaining that it is changing circum in men's behaviour (cf. x. 26. 7-ro n.) stances that cause See also iv. 8. 12. 7. Ka.Ta ff)v t8ia.v <j>uaw: i.e. this does not change nor is it 'revealed by circumstances' (cf. ix. 28. ron.). 9. Ka.M'IT'Ep ol Ka.Kot TWY aTa.~h<Ewv: for the simile cf. Plato, Rep 6r3 c.

29. 1-35. 2. Philip's siege of Abydus. the Roman declaration of li'{/J Two fragments from Suidas go here (29. ; seep. 25. For Philip'" advance through Thrace cf. Livy, xxxi. 16.4-6; capture of Maronc;1, betrayal of Aenus, seizure of other forts, mainly Egyptian; s• ... \Valbank, Philip, 133. P. here two reasons for Philip's campaign. to obtain a slepping-stone for any future invasion of Asia, and !" deprive the Romans of bases for attacking Macedonia (Ferro, IJo) 538

THE SIEGE OF AB\'Dl:S

XVI. 29.8

Control of the Hellespont would also enable him to strike at the Athenian corn-supply and Rhodian trade (cf. iv. 47· r-z). 29. 1. £m~a9pa.s: 'approaches'; cf. iii. 24. r4 n. 3. Tfjs :A~u8ou t
is

LEG, I956, 7· 6. 'nKea.vou ..•

:ATAc.VT~Kou 1TEAayous: P. has various circumlocutions for the Atlantic Ocean: d. iii. 37· 9·-n, 57· 2, 59· 7· The earlier name seems to have been simply ~ ;gw Od>.a.aaa (cf. Herod. i. zo3). The Homeric word 'QKEal"Js is first applied to it in Pytheas' title Ilep/, WKt:avoiJ, and becomes normal at Rome. But the name Atlantis is also found as early as Herodotus (i. 203, ~ Egw a-r'Y)Mwv IJdAaaaa i] }h,\av-rt;; KaAw;.dvYJ)· For full details and other variants see Partsch, RE, 'Atlantis (r)', cols. 21og-u. 7. ds n;v npo1TOVTl8a.: in iv. 44· 6 P. describes the straits here as -rd rijs- Ilpo11'Dl11'l8o;; meva Ka-r' /!{ju8ov Kat EYJa-rcw, and the explanation may be that (like Ps.-Scylax, 67, 94) he regards the part of the Dardanelles north of Sestus as part of the Propontis (as earlier the Propontis had been regarded as part of the Hellespont: Bi.irchner, RE, 'Hellespontos', cols. ; Holleaux, Etudes, ii. 83 n. 9; iv. 130 nn. r and 4). 8. t:.!a1TEp ..• 1Tpo~ TWa. Aoyov TlJS TUXTJS KTA.: 'as if chance had exercised a certain proportion .. .' (Paton). The use of wam=p suggests that P. really means that what is in fact quite fortuitous appears

539

THE SIEGE OF ABYDl':C:

to be based on proportion (and the of Tyche); on Tyche sc• Vol. I, pp. 16-26. 9. i;~t)KovTa. O'TO.Olwv: P. puts the pilla.rs at the Straits of Gibraltru (xxxiv. 9· 4), 6o stades (n·r km.) is a slight underestimate for be tween Gibraltar and Ceuta the distance is about 14 km. l\larcianus. Peripl. mar. ext. i. 3, makes it 8o stades. See also ~fela, i. 5· 27, who. however, gives no measurement. 6 S£ Ka.Ta T~v '1-.~uSov Suii:v: a gross underestimate. The tradition a I width here was 7 stades (Herod. vii. 34; cf. Strabo, ii. 124, xiii. 591 . Pliny, Nat. hist. iv. 49) and Xenophon (Hell. iv. 8. 5) makes it 'nol more than 8 stades'. Pliny, Nat. kist. vi. 2, gives it in Roman measun as 875 passus 1,294 m. The actual width at Abydus (not tlw narrowest point, which is at Chanaq Kalessi) is 1,950 m. See BiirchnPI. RE, 'Hellespontos', col. rSs; Oberhummer, ibid., col. r89. ws O.v e'~ Ttvos TEK!la.~pollivou KTA.: 'as one might conjecture, thi~ was an account of .. .'; Paton has 'as if this distance had been dl' .. .'. but -rEKf1.alpo 1Lat in the sense 'ordain' is only Homeri• E). (or archaic as in Plato, La1rs, 11. ye<J>upmJJJ-evov Orro Twv rreteouv •.• rrpoa.~poullevwv: P. refers to the crossing of Xerxes into Europe (Herod. Yii. 33 ft.) ; Alexander ferried his troops across (Arr. L rr. 6). 12. O'mivLov ... T~v XPfiO'w Kat O'rra.vlms: 'used by few and rareh · (Paton). liLa T~v O.yvwO'(o.v TTJS EKTOS 9a.AO.O'O"TJS: cf. iii. 37· II n. In Vol. I p. 293 (commenting on iii. 1-5) it was that Cuntz's argn ment that this phrase could not have been written after P.'s voyagh in the Atlantic in 146 (d. xxxiv. 15. 7) was not decisive, since her,· P. is contrasting the Atlantic \Vith the waters beyond the Hellespont In view of iii. 59· 7, stressing P.'s voyages in the Atlantic, I am no1\ more iuclined to accept the view that xvi (with its account of Scipio'~ triumph, which rounded off the Hannibalic War) may have benr written before r46. But the c\'idence is not decisi,·e. 13. urro TWV Tfj<; EllpwrrYJS d.x:pOTYJp(wv: 'by two capes on the Euro pean shore'. By C. Nagam the Hellespont, which runs in frmn north-east to south-west, swings first west and then south, sn that the promontory on which Abydus stands is enc}osed by thu,_,,. of Sestus and Cyuossema (mod. Kilid Bahr): see Biirchner's map i11 RE, 'Hellespontos', cols. r83-4. It is to these J). refers. The harb(llll is the modern Nagar a Liman. 14. OLa T~v o~th'1Ta. Kat f3io.v Tou pou: according to Strabo, xiii. 5() 1. one could cross from Abydus to Sestus only by ascending the strait . for 8 stades in the direction o[ the Propontis, and then crossin;· diagonally; in the opposite direction the current ran from Seslu . to Abydus. The speed of the current at Nagara Point averages : knots, and a little further east at Kodjuk Burnu z! knots; in the;,•·

54°

THE SIEGE OF ABYDUS

XVI. 32.

I

narrow waters it occasionally reaches a maximum of 5 knots (Black ."lea Pilot 7 , 54-55). For more detailed calculations see A. Moller and L. Merz, Hydrographische Unters~tchungen in Bosporus und Dardanellen (Veroffentlichungen des Inst. fiir Meereskunde an der "Cniversitat Berlin, X. F. geogr. -naturwissenschaftliche Reihe, Heft r8, rgz8), 181)-92.

30. 1. a1TOO"Ta.upwaas .•. 1TEp~xa.pa.KWO"O.S: 'setting Up a palisade in one part, and a stockade in another': the latter will have consisted of piles driven in along the sea approaches; cf. i.. s6. 8, U1ToaravpovVTE<; Kut moptxapaKovVTe; nls: JK BaAaTTTJ> 1rpoaf3aaHs: (of the defences of ihe Sinopeans). 2. T) 8€ 1rpii~~'i auTT): 'this action', i.e. the siege. 3. yevvau)TT)TO. , •. Ka.t TTJY U1TEp~oA.Tjv Tij<; ElnjtUxiac;: cf. 1v. 58. rz for the combination. b. To J.ulv EKTos Tou Teixout;;: 'the outer wall'. 7. Tou<; 1rapa 'Po8iwv Ka.~ 1ra.p' :A.TTaAou: cf. JI. 3; P.'s lost account of the sending of these forces can be partially recovered from Livy, xxxi. r6. 7-8, 'Attalus trecentos tan tum milites, l\.hodii quadriremem Imam ex classe, cum ad Tenedum staret, miserunt. eodem postea, cum iam uix sustinerent obsidionem, et ipse Attalus cum traiecisset spem tantum auxilii ex propinquo ostendit, neque terra neque mari adiutis sociis'. 8. 1repl mlvTwv emTpe1rew: i.e. to surrender unconditionally. 31. 2. Tout; 8ouA.ou<; eXeu9epouv: an extreme course, but one for which there are many parallels in a military crisis; see the examples collected by L. Hobert, J~t. epig. rr8-zG, and the discussion of M. I. Finley, Historia, 1959, 157-8 (=Slavery in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge, Ig6o, 65-66). To Tij'i :A.pTell'So., {epov: the worship of Artemis at Abydus is attested from the coinage; cf. Imhoof-Blumer, 11Ionnaies grecqHes (ParisLeipzig, r883), z6r; B.IIJ.C. Troas, 4--s, pl. ii. 3. TTJY TETPTJPT) ( TTJY) TWV 'PoS~wv Ka.l TTJY TP~TJPT) TTJV TWY KuhLKT)YWv: on the l\.hodian vessel see 30. 7 n.; Livy omits the Cyzicene trireme, which was no doubt mentioned in the corresponding passage in P. 5. TO s,aTELXLO"jlCJ.: the inner wall (JO. 6). Ka.Ta Tns O.pa<;: 'in accordance with the curses', i.e. those invoked upon themselves if they failed to carry out their oath; Paton misunderstands this and translates 'with curses', adding a footnote 'curses, that is to say, on anyone who recovered it'. 7. Ka.Tapa.s •.• 'li'OLeia9aL ••• 1TEpl Twv 1rpoeLpT)~vwv: 'to utter imprecations to meet the situation I have described'.

32. 1. TTJV A.eyojlEYT)Y
a1rovo~av:

Pausanias, x. r. 3 ff., records 541

XVI. 32.

THE SIEGE OF ABYDUS

I

three actions in which the IJhocians expelled the Thessalians from their country; after the first of these, a battle in which they incapacitated the Thessalian horse by burying amphorae in the pass of Hyampolis, the Phocians murdered all the Thessalian officials and Phocian collaborators, whereupon the Thessa!ians executed their Phocian hostages and resolved to kill all the Phocians of military age and enslave their women and children. After 3oo Phocian scouts had been wiped out, the decision P. here mentions was taken at the instigation of Dai"phantus of Hyampolis; but a Phocian vk· tory rendered the desperate plan unnecessary. The seer, Tellias of Elis, served as one of the three Phocian commanders (Paus. x. 1. 8). and his statue was among those of the generals at Delphi (Pau~. x. 1. ro). The third battle was also in the Pass of Hyampolis (Paus. x. 1. u). The second incident mentioned here is not in Herodobh (viii. 27-30, which mentions the first of the battles); but beside,.. Pausanias, Plutarch (Mor. 244) and Polyaenus (viii. 65, based 011 Plutarch) record it; cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. C/Jw~~:lr;. All three incidenh belong to the decade between 491 and 481 ; cf. M. Sordi, La leg,r tessala fino ad Alessandro i\-fagno (Rome, 1958), 87 ff.; Larsen, Cl' 1960, 231-7 • T~v )\Ka.pvcl.vwv £61J!ux1a.v: cf. ix. 40. 4--6 nn. for this response to

clll

Aetolian invasion.

2. 1TEpL Twv O.va.yKa.£wv: 'concerning their relath·es';

Twv &.~·ayKai",.

will hardly be neuter (so Mauersberger, s.v.). Tov 1
Biittner-\Vobst

adds

('1TaniaaovTe;;

Ka1),

Hultsch excludes T•J•··

lm8opaT{at, 'the spear-points', as a gloss. 4. To UEflVOV Ka.i Sa.u~u~ov T-ils ••• 1rpoa.Lpttu~:ws: it is this ratlJ<·I

than the horror of the story that takes P.'s interest. Livy's adapt.1 tion concentrates on the motives and emotional background of tlw

THE SIEGE OF ABYDCS

XVI. 34· 4

Abydenes' action; see P. G. Walsh, Livy, his Historical Aims and Methods (Cambridge, 1961), 178--l), 193 ff. 34. 1. f:ts Tf:vf:Sov: cf. Livy, xxxi. r6. 8 (quoted above, 30. 7 n.). MapKos At11i.Xws o vf:wTaTos: M. Aemilius Lepidus, the youngest of the three legati (cf. 25. 2 n.); P. mentions Lepidus' youth as relevant to what follows(§ 6). Paton, 'the younger 1\f. Aemilius', is misleading. 2. 1rpos a.lm)v Tov 1Pi.AL11'1Tov .•. KaTa Tas €vToAas: cf. Livy, xxxi. 8. 3, 'consultique fetiales ab consule Sulpicio, bellum quod indiceretur Philippa utrum ipsi utique nuntiari iuberent, an sa tis esset in finibus regni quod proximum praesidium esset eo nuntiari'. The jetiales replied that either course would be in order, but 'consuli a patribus permissum, ut quem uideretur ex eis, qui extra senatum cssent, legatum mitteret ad bellum regi indicendum' (Livy, xxxi. 8. 4). Hence the sending of Lepidus, who was not yet a senator (V.'albank, ]RS, 1937, 196). It seems probable that a non-senator was sent as a compromise between religious scruples (since the ultimatum at Athens, delivered before the popular decision (27. 2-3 n.), had no real validity) and the dignity of the Senate in the face of Philip's continued aggression since the ultimatum delivered to Nicanor {Walbank, ]RS, 1937, 196-7). ''II'LaT~aaVTf:S TTJV 1rpos To us ~aaLAf:~S bp11Tjv: cf. z7. 5· 3. S£5oKTm TTI auyKA~Tit': this senatus consultum had also been ratified in the assembly; cf. Livy, xxxi. 8. r, 'in snffragium missi, uti rogaret, bellum iusserunt'. 3-4. Terms of the ultimatum: to the two clauses of the earlier demarche (to make war on none of the Greeks and to give satisfaction to Attalus: 27. z) have been added the demand not to attack Ptolemy's possessions, and to give satisfaction to the Wwdians. The latter probably reflects pressure exerted on the legati at Rhodes, the former arises out of the seizure of various Ptolemaic towns by Philip in his advance to the Hellespont (cf. Livy, xxxi. r6. 4 for Aenus). Neither Rhodes nor Egypt was allied to Rome; but amicitia between Egypt and Rome may have existed since Ptolemy IT's embassy after the war with Pyrrhus (see above, ix. I I an.). On Roman relations '-Vith Rhodes see xxx. 5· 6 n. (which shows that there was not yet ajoedus). But the Romans had now decided on war, and were using the defence of the Greeks as an instrument of propaganda, regardless of treaty obligations (cf. McDonald, ]RS, 1957, 204; Walbank, Philip, 134-5)· 3. TWv 'EXX~vwv: cf. 27. 2 n. TWV ••. aSLKTJ!laTWV: cf. 27. 2 n. 4. u1rap;uv Tov 1rpos 'Pw11a.i.ous 11'0Af:!lov: 'a state of war would exist with Rome' : tltis is more specific than 27. J, TavaVTia avv£~­ aKoAov8-,ja£n'. Follo\ving the war-decision of the people (d. Livy. xxxi. 8. r quoted above, § 3 n.), the envoys were now empowered 543

XVI. 34· 4

R.tHIE DECLARES WAR

to deliver a rerum repetitio followed immediately, in the case of it. rejection, by a declaration of war; this procedure by which tlw senatoriallegati went out furnished \vith a conditional declaration ol war can be traced in the ultimatum to in 238/7 (d. ii! ro. 1 n.) and again in that of 218 :zo. 6 n.). There is correspondeuc,· between the details of the ultimatums of zoo and :nS: in both til(' ultimatum proper, the rerum (iii. zo. 7, xvi. 34· is followed by an attempt to contest the Roman demands (iii. zo. ro f.; xvi. 34· s). but when the Roman answer makes clear that war is intended, th ultimatum is accepted (iii. 33· r-2; xd. 34· 5); cf. Walhank, JR.<..,, 1937> 197· 5. 'P68wL nis XEI:pa.s £m~O.A.ou:v a.LIT!{J: cf. xviii. 6.

o·n 2, when· Attalus is also included in this Perhaps one should read (JlTTaAos- Kat) 'P6cnot here with Tillmanns; cf. Lh·y, xxxi. r8. 2. 'ab Attalo et Rhodiis ultro se bello lacessitum'. nut the omission PI Att:1lus would not be signifiwnt, for M. Lcpidus ga,·e Philip n" time to finish his protest (;mroAa{3~aas). The Rhodians had cleclan·d war 011 Philip on hearing of the sack of Cius (xv. 23. tl), and Attalu~ had also been persuaded by Tlieophiliscus to take the offensive ~~~ Chios {9. 4) ; thus technically Philip had right on his side. TL Sa.L 11.9t]va.io~; KTA.: Lepidus quotes the most recent examples o! Philip's aggression; this passage has no bearing on the relation:. between these towns and Rome, though the reference to Athenc may lie behind Appian's statement (Mac. 4· z) that Athens w;l'o mentioned along \vith Rhodes and Attalus in the ultimatum. 6. v~oc; ••• Ka.L 'ITpayf,laTWV li'ITElpoc;: cf. § I n. <•uiAUTTO. 8' on 'Pwf!ruOc;): Reiske filled the lacuna from Lin' xxxi. 18. 3, 'aetas, inquit, et forma et super omnia Romanum nome·,, te ferociorem Licit'. 7. Ta'i O'uv9T]Kat;;: the treaty made at Pboenice. 11, KO.Ttt TTJV E~ apxfjs <7TaOW: 'aCCOrding to their Original resolve' . cf. x. 33· 6, where the :\IS. aTd.a<s-, if kept, must have a simih 1 sense {see ad loc.). 35. 2. (Twv) ~K Tfjc; 'Pwfll]'i 'ITpEC'~EuTwv: since they had not yet lt·ll Rhodes, this event cannot be long after the ultimatum delivered ;,I Abydus; the Roman request that the Rhodians shall not mak;· ·' separate peace avw 'Pwp..o.lwv conftrms be view (34· 4 n.) that siw•· the Abydus meeting Rome :mel been at war with Philip. The furilw1 movements of the Roman embassy are not recorded, but they will have gone on to visit Antioclms and Ptolemy's ministers, retuwil'" to Rome probably in 199 (Holleaux, Etudes, v. r59 nn. r-2). <1ToxO.tu:r9al Tfjt;; TOuTwv <(lt~(as: 'to have regard to their friendsbi' · (rather than 'to seek their friendship'); cf. Schmitt, Rom zmd RlwJu 6i n. 3 ; above xi. 4· 3 n. 544

PH I L 0 P 0 E :\1 E ~ ATTACKS :>:: :\ B IS

XVI. 31l

36. 1-37.7. Philopoemen's expedition against Nabis After Nabis' attack on Messene and Philopoemen's successful riposte (13. 3 n., r6. r-q. 7) the Achaean confederation seems at last to haYe accepted a policy of war with Nabis, and Philopoemen was elected ~eneral for 201 fo; the expedition here described will belong to the campaigning season of 2oo. See, in general, Aymard, PR, 44-47; Loring, ]HS, r895, 63.

36. 1. Knl. 1TOLnl SUvnvTm ••• 1Tnpayivea9nl: loosely expressed; the sense is 'from which of them troops would reach Tegea'. 3. TOL<; n1TOTE;>..EL0l<;: 'local commanders' ; cf. X. 23. 9 n. 37. 1. Twv (wT)nKouaTwv Kat KnTnaKo1Twv: the convincing addition is Ursinus's; cf. xxxi. 13. 1, wTaKovaT~aona Kao KaTo7TTEVaowa. l. Tous €m;>..€KTous: cf. ii. 65. 3 n. we pl. Ie;>..;>..aaiav: ro. 2 n. o~ j-l.la6o<jlopol: cf. xiii. 6. 3· Tov IKoTiTav: cf. § 4; an oak-forest extending on both sides of the

3.

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

38. Philip, the Achaeans, and Rome This fragment from Suidas, attributed by Valesius to P., could a priori belong to 199/8 (Livy, xxxii. 5) or autumn 198 (Livy, xxxii. l9); but, for the reason mentioned on p. 25, it seems preferable to leave it here as an extract from xvi. 8Hl73

Nn

545

XVI. 39

:\:\TIOCHL"S' CAMPAIG:\ (JF 200

39. Antioclms' campaign of 2oo

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

39. 1.

546

ANTIOCHUS' CAl\IPAIG:-.1 OF 200

XVI. 40

it as a KthJf-TJ and its inhabitants as native villagers; d. 2 :Mace. xiv. 37, 'Pa~ts BE ns: 'TW~ dn6 'ltipaaoAvfkwv. For the Jews the temple was the important feature, and that is stressed here; d. Orac. Sibyll. iii. 213. See Bickerman, ]ouru. Bib. Lit. 1944, 356; Syria, 1946-8, 84 n. 2. For its capitulation, perhaps not before late I99 or early 198, cf. xviii. 4t an. ~. 1repl Tij<; ytvoJLEVTJ'i 1TE:pt Tb [epbv ~mcpa.veia<;: 'concerning the splendour of the temple.' P. perhaps described Jerusalem in conncxion with either the dedication of the temple to Zeus or its pillage by Antiochus IV (cf. Pedcch, Jfithode, 562 n. 276).

40. Pla.ce.s nwttioned in xvi These places are all from Stephanus, who attributes them to this hook. Brabantium may hare been mentioned in connexion with the battle of Chios; it is otherwise unknown. Gitta will fit the context of Antiochus' campaign after Panium (39) and may be the Gath-bepber in Galilee (2 Kings xi\'. 25), where the prophet Jonah was buried, modern el Meschhcd, 6 km. north of Nazareth; but there are also other places with this name: (a) a KWJf-TJ in Samaria mentioned by Justin Martyr (apol. i. 26 n.), the modern ~arjet Dschit, west of Nablus; (b) a fortress in Idumaea (Ioseph. Ant. bul. xiv. 450; Bell. Iud. i. 326) perhaps identical with 'J;1asada on the Dead Sea (cf. Heminger, RE, 'Gitta', col. 1372; 'Gadda (I)', coL 438); and (c) the Gitta lying between Antipatris and Iamneia in J udaea (F:useb. Onom. •so. 7-n Larsow-Parthey), probably identicat with the Gittaim of :: Sam. iv. 3 and NelL xi. 33, and perhaps to be sought at or near Ramie (Abel, Gcog. ii. 338). Helta may be a corruption of Elaia in Aeo lis (d. xxi. ro. 2); so Biirclmer, RE, 'Hella'. coL 96. For the Insubres cf. ii. q. 4 n.; their attack on Placentia and Cremona in zoo, in company with the Cenomani and Boii, is mentioned by Livy, xxxi. Io. I ff. Candasa is not otherwise known; it will be mentioned with reference to Philip's im·asion of Caria (u-Iz, 24). On Carthaea see 26. ron . .\1antt~a lay in the territory of the Cenomani (PtoL iii. r. zj) and will hardly ha';e been a Roman community at this date (despite the prodigy recorded in Livy, xxiv. Io, 7): see Beloch, RG, 58o, 615; the words 1r6A~> 'PwJf-alwv are not necessarily P.'s. Mantua may well have been mentioned in a passage dealing with the action against the Cenomani (sec above).

547

BOOK XVII No fragments surviYe from this book; see pp. 25-26.

BOOK XVIII 1-12. The conference in Locris and its aftermath

The Roman campaigns against Philip between autumn 200 and tlw end of the campaigning season of 198 were described in xvii; P.'s account was followed by Livy, xxxi. 22. 4-47. 3 (200-199), xxxii. 4· 1-6. 4 (autumn 199-spring 198), 9· 6-25. 12 (spring-autumn 198), who thus subdivided P.'s narrative for 199/S so as to have thn•,sections corresponding to the commands of P. Sulpicius Galba (cos. 2oo), P. \'illius Tappulus (cos. 199), and T. Quinctius Flaminil11b (cos. 198); sec Nissen, KU, 133· By autumn 198 Philip had retired behind Tempe (Livy, xxxii. 15. 9) leaving Thessaly to the Romans, the Aetolians (allied to the Romans since September 199), and the Athamanians; he had lost most of Euboea, and much of Phocis and Locris, Epirus had half-defected and recently, in October 191'. the Achaeans had gone OYer to Rome. Philip therefore decided to treat and sent a caduceator to Flamininus requesting a conferenct· (Livy, xxxii. 32. 5) ; and seeing in such a conference a useful mancemTt' to gain time when the question of his own succession was being de bated at Rome, Flamininus granted Philip's request (Livy, xxxii. J2. 6-8). The conference took place in Kovember, as the following evidew,· makes clear : (a) The Aetolian general for 198/7, Phaeneas, has already assum{'d office (1. 4). (b) It is already the bad season, XELfLWV (g. 10). (c) Four events follow in close succession: Flamininus' captUJ ,. of Elatea (Livy, xxxii. 24. 1-7), the rising against Philip at Opu~ (Livy, xxxii. 32. r-2), Flamininus' arrival at Opus (Livy, xxxii. y. 3-4), the sending of Philip's caduceator (Livy, xxxii. 32. 5). About the same time that the siege of Elatea began, attempts were mad, at a meeting at Sicyon to \Vin over the Achaeans; and Aristaenu·. was still in office, i.e. it was not yet the autumn equinox of 198, fo1 548

THE CONFERENCE IN LOCRIS

XVIII. r. 3

Aristaenus was general in Achaea 199/8 (Aymard, RE.A, 1928, 3-4). These negotiations were successful and were followed, probably still during Aristaenus' generalship, by an attack on Corinth (Livy, xxxii. 19. I, 21. 14, 23. 3); the Roman and Pergamene fleets then went into winter quarters (Livy, xxxii. 23. r3), a procedure which usually occurred in mid-September, but could be later. These dates are somewhat elastic and lead Aymard (PR, 8o--8r n. 49) to date the meeting at Sicyon about the middle, and the fall of Elatea about the end, of October, Holleaux (Etudes, v. n--79) a fortnight earlier. In either case a week or two would have to be allowed before the conference met; and this would therefore be in November. See further De Sanctis, iv. I. 385; \Yalbank, Philip, :po-r. P.'s account of the conference probably derives from the report brought back by the Achaean representatives; and since Xenophon also went on to Rome (ro. n), he can also have brought back the story of Flamininus' intrigue (9. 5 n.). For secondary accounts cf. Livy, xxxii. J2. s-J6.ro; Plut. Flam. 5· 6, 1· I; App. Mac. 8; Iustin. xxx. 3· 8-ro, 4· 5; Zon. ix. r6. 4; all derive ultimately from P. (cf. Holleaux, Etudes, v. 29-30 n. 2). For recent discussion see Holleaux, f'tudes, v. 29-79; Aymard, PR, II4-27; F. M. Wood, TAPA, 1939, 93-103; ASP, 1941, 277-98 (defending Flarnininus); Walbank, Philip, 159-{j2; Scullard, Pol. ror-4; Stier, I28-Jo. 1. I. EK A'tlf.!.TITP><18o~: still in Philip's hands, cf. II. 4· >.iji~ou~ ... 'IT'pianv: d. i. 20. 13 n., xvi. :z. 9 n. The pristis is a small

boat, though Livy translates by nauis rostrata. 2. J\'!T'oAA68wpos Ko.l. A11p.oa-OevTJ~: cf. 8. 7, 3-1-· 4· BpaxuAATJS: son of Neon and grandson of Ascondas, who like him were warm supporters of Macedon ; he had been appointed JmaTCLTTJ'> of Sparta by Doson after Sellasia (xx. 5· 5; ii. 70. r n.). On his later murder by the pro-Roman party see 43· 1-13, xx. 7· J, xxii. 4· 7· KuK>.~Cr.Sa.s: cf. 34· 4· Cycliadas had led the pro-.Macedonian party in Achaea (Livy, xxxii. 19. 2), and had been elected general in autumn 200 (Livy, xxxi. 25. 3), but had resisted Philip's attempt to involve Achaea in the war (Livy, xxxi. zs. 8-c;). The swing·over to Rome in 199 caused his banishment (Livy, xxxii. 19. z}, which P. must have mentioned in xvii (TdS 7TpoT€pOl' • .. dprwJvas a.1Tlas-). Though Brachylles commanded the Boeotians serving with Philip (43· 3), both he and Cycliadas were here in a purely personal capacity, as a counter-weight, Aymard suggests (PR, u6-q), to the large array of Greeks which Philip rightly expected to see mustered against him. 3. Toll Thou: T. Quinctius T.f. Ln. Flamininus, the consul for A.u.c. 556 rg8 B.c.; cf. H. Gundel, RE, 'Quinctius (45)', cols. 1047-IIOO.

J\11uvav8pos: Amynander of Athamania (cf. iv. r6. 9 n., xi. 4· 1-{j, 549

XVIIL r. 3

THE

CO~FERE~CE 1~

LOCRIS

n., 7· 2-3 n., xvi. 27. 5 n.); he had gone over from Philip to tlw Romans in the winter of :zoo--199 (cf. LivT. xxxi. z8. I). Atovuo-Miwpos: At talus' admiral at Chios: cf. XYi. 3· 7. 4. 7\piaTo.wos t; cf. IG, ix 2 • I. 31, L zo); he is known from several i11 scriptions dating from this year (G Dl, zooo, zoor, 2073, 2Ci 1' Phaeneas later appears supporting a pro-Roman policy in Aetolu (cf. xx. 9· 1 n.). See W. Hoffmann, RE, 'Jlhaineas', cols. 1563-5· £npot Twv 1TOA~Teuo(l~vwv: i.e. in Aetolia; one is Alexander the Isi;J,, (3. r); but there were many others, probably those later sent '" Rome (ro. 9-ro). It was the large number of Aetolians present tl1;il aroused Philip's anxiety (§ 7: cf. Hollcaux, f::tudes, \'. 34 n. 3). 5. tI little value as evidence for Philip's religions beliefs (on these see Wai bank, Philip, 267 ff.). Stier, rz8 n. z8S (cf. Welt als Geschichte, 19..p, 5'). utters a warning against Hultsch's comparison of a similar remark •d Bismarck, '\Vir Deutschen fiirchten Gott, aber soust nichts in di,.,..,., \-'Velt'. Philip is mainly concerned to draw a hair-splitting distinction between fear and distrust. 12. (mAoOv ••• Ka.t <jla.~vo1-1evov: 'simple and clear'. 13. ix ... Tils 'EA..AO.Sos ~m6.0'11s £~exwpelv: cf. z. 6, 9· r; this dem;~nd had already been made at the conference on the Aous in June '". which preceded Philip's defeat and retreat into Thessaly (Livy, xxx11 IO. 3; Diod. xxviii. II, both from P.; Walbank, Philip, rsr-2). II represents an advance on the original ultimatum (xvi. 27. z, 34· which merely required Philip to cease making war on the Greek . 10

sso

THE CONFERE::\CE IX LOCRIS

XVIII. r. 14

On the new policy, hardly that of Flamininus alone, see Badian, 7o-71; it was the Senate that rejected Philip's embassy in the winter of 198/7 (II. 12-14). How much this policy owed to Hellenistic precedents (d. Taubler, 432-6; Sherwin-White, rso-r; Scullard, Pol. 1oo f.) is debatable; Badian, 73-i4, stresses the Roman antecedents in Sicily and Illyria, but Greek propaganda will itself have played a considerable part in shaping policy. lmoSovTa Taus atx~J.aAwTous KTA.: cf. Livy, xxxii. 33· 3, 'captiuos et transfugas sociis populi Romani reddendos'. EKriarot;; implies that Flamininus spoke for the allies as well, and there is no reason to reject this (so Holleaux, 36-3i n. 8) because Dionysodorus independently demands the return of Pcrgamene prisoners (2. z) or because Philip offers to return the prisoners 'to the Romans' (8. 1o). 14. Taus ... KaTn TTtV 'IAAupiSa TO"Irous lrapaoouvm: d. LiYy, xxxii. 33· 3, 'restituenda Romanis ea Illyrici loca, quae post pacem in Epiro factam occupasset'. That the words fLETa rds ell 'Hrrdp(p StaAvan;; mean 'in consequence of, and as a result of, the peace of Phoenice' (so Zippel, 73; Holleaux, 278 n. r; Etudes, v. 37 n. g) is hard to credit in the light of the parallel phrase fLErd roll ... 8avarov in § I4; see Badian, Studies, 33 n. ro2; Balsdon, CQ, 1953. r63-4. (Oost's recent defence of 1-Iolleaux's interpretation (CI>, 1959, rsS-64) based in part on a supposed distinction between the 8wAvan;; in Epirus and the ratification of the treaty at Rome (not supported by Polybian usage: d. i. 65. r), is unconvincing.) But where these Illyrian places are to be sought is uncertain. It is unlikely that they were among the l~arthini, as has been thought (d. 47· 12 n.); and the most probable view is that they represent acquisitions of areas not directly linked \\itb Rome, perhaps in 204 (d. xiii. ro. n). (1Tapa8o£illat is 'to hand over': it is Livy who introduces the idea of restoration with his 'restituenda'.) This would explain why there was no reference to encroachment in Illyria in the ultimatum of 2oo. Attempts have been made to see references to these Illyrian places in the annalistic tradition. Livy speaks of Philip's 'infidam aduersus Aetolos aliosque regionis eiusdem socios pacem' (Livy, xxxi. r. g), and tells how 'legati sociarum urbium ex Graecia questi essent uastatos agros ab regiis praesidiis' (Livy, xxx. 26. 2). Three Roman envoys are sent to protest to Philip (Livy, xxx. 26. 4) and Aurelius Cotta remains behind 'ne socii populi Romani fessi populationibus ui atque iniuria ad regem deficerent' (Livy, xxx. 42. s). It has been suggested that these socii are the Illyrians mentioned here (d. Badian, 61; for another suggestion as to their identity cf. 3· 12 n.) ; but the whole context of these exchanges is dubious, the location of the allies is suspiciously vague, and there is no evidence at all that Illyrians are meant (d. Ferro, r2). ct,v y£.yovE tcupLoS: 'which he had seized' rather than 'which he retained' (cf. Balsdon, CQ, £953. I6J n. s). 55 1

XVIII. r. 14

THE CONFERENCE IN LOCRIS

jLETa Tas tv 'H1relp~ 8to.Ma~>lS: the Peace of Phoenice, negotiated between Philip and P. Sempronius Tuditanus in 205, concluded tlw First Macedoni:w War. Its clauses were (a) that Philip should SUIrender to Rome the land of the Parthini, Dimale, and the unidentifit>d towns of Bargullum and Eugenium, (b) that subject to the Senatt:\ confirmation he was to hav-e Atintania (probably together with hi·. gains of 217 in Dassarctia (v. ro8) and those of 213 in Illy-ria (\·iii. 3i', Dassaretae; Livy, xxvii. 30. I.J, xxix. rz. 13, Atintania); see Lin. xxix. 12. 13-15; App. Jfac. 3). Livy lists, as foeder£ adscripti, Prusia:-,, the Achaeans, the Boeotians, the Thessalians, the Acamanians, tlw Epirotes, on Philip's side, and on the Roman side the people of Ilium. Attalus, Pleuratus, Nabis, the }:Jeans, the l\fessenians, and tlw Athenians. It is argued abO\·e (xvi. 13. 3 n.) that Elis, Messenia, and Sparta arc to be accepted; but many of the names look like annalistic additions. Ilium is improbable, for had she established close links with Rome by now, I.ampsacus would almost certainly have en listed her aid in her appeal to be included in the treaty with Philil' in 197, rather than that o£ distant Massilia (Syll. 591). Athens is li.keh to have been included incorrectly to support the account of th•· origins of the ·war in which she was made to play a major part. It hac; been suggested that the Phocians, Euboeans, and Epicnemidian Locrians were included in the treaty, but that their names wen· accidentally omitted by Livy or P., his source (cL Holleaux, 259 n. 2). but they were at this time directly under Philip's control, and so h;~d no share in the treaty (cf. Daux, 2367; Feyel, 152; above, v. 26. r n .. x. 42. 2 11.). There is a long bibliography on this peace· see Walbank. Philip, ro3-4 n. 6, and for later discussion, Petzold, II-30; Balsdo11, JRS, 1954, 33-34; Piraino, Riv. jil. 1955, 57-73; Badian, sS-s'>. Ferro, 20. nToAej!a.L

2. 2. Tas .•• vo.us ••• Tas ... o.lxfla,AwTous: according to xvi. 6.

s ;.

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

THE CONFERENCE 12' LOCRIS

XVIII.

2.

6

'la.uoO Ka.i Ba.pyu.Mwv: xvi. 12 n., 24. r-9 n. Tfjs EupwfLewv 1roAews: Euromus (or Eurome) lay about 8 miles north-west of Mylasa (cf. xvi. 24. 6 n.) in a gap in the hills east of the plain of Mandalya; cf. Magie, i. 86, ii. 908 n. 130; Laumonier, 164 ff.; Rev. arch. 1933, 2, 40 ff.; cf. L Robert, A] A, 1935, 337· For a possible

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

XVIII. 3·

I

THE CO::\FEREKCE

I~

LOCIUS

3. 1. :A.Xe~av&pos 0 ... WI enos: d. xiii. I a I n., xxi. 25. II The ethnic "law> appears on several inscriptions (GDI, 1949, 1993. 2orr), including a manumission decree from Buttus (E. Kachmanson, Ath . .Mitt., I90i, I9, no. 13, 1. I6), which suggests that Isus lay near Buttus north-east of Naupactus (Oldfather, RE, 'Isios', cols. 2083-4). Sec also Tlmc. iii. ror. 2, where 'Haa{ov> should perhaps be 'lalov> (cf. Lerat, BCH, I946, 329-36). Alexander was evidently known with his ethnic to distinguish him (his name being common) : hence 7Tpoaayopw6t-t~vo>. Clearly he is not the Alexander of Calydon mentioned on several inscriptions as general of the confederacy; cf. Woodhousl'. IOI n. I against Wilcken, RE, 'Alexandros (32)', cols. 1442-3. \Voouhouse puts Isus at :Malandrino, south-east of Lithoriki. 2. 1ro~eiv Ta Tou 1TOAEJJ.ouvTos tpya: 'behaved as if he were at vvar· (Paton). 4. 1TOAE~S 0'1Tavlws ava~pE~V Kal KaTa<j>Beipe~v: the complaint against Philip seems to be not the destruction of cities (which was permis sible: cf. v. II. 3 with note), but their wanton destruction merely to spite the victorious enemy (cL xxiii. I5. I--3)· See YOU Scala, 3!5· 5. 1rpos :A.vT(yovov lmep TllS: :A.a(as:: the war of Lysimachus, Seleucus. Ptolemy, and Cassander against Antigonus Monophthalmus, which culminated in Antigonus' defeat and death at Jpsus at the hands ol Lysimachus and Seleucus (3or). 8. TOV 1TOAEJJ.OV auTov KaTaAl1Te~v: cf. Livy, xxxii. 33· IJ, 'nihil sil>i praeter belltlm relinquere', i.e. to destroy the cities and leave himsl'll the war. This gi'l:cs a good contrast between avaLptELV and KaTa'AeJ.7TEII' (for normally one sought Tbv 7ro'A"t-tov avaLpEiv: cf. ix. II. :z). Bnt :1 possible sense is 'to abandon the war yet destroy the cities (for whiclt the war was being fought)'; cf. § 3 arpf.vra . •. TOV KU'rtl 7TpoaWmH d7TaVTQV TOL<; 7T'OAtEf-L{OL<;, rptEvyovra T(h rroAH<; it-tmf-L7Tpava.L KTA. ShucL burgh adopts this rendering: 'that a man should abandon war, a11< I yet destroy that for which the war was undertaken, seemed, etc.' Bul the first version is perhaps the more probable. 9. TOaauTa<; .•• s~e.p9apKEVa~ mSAH<; EV eeTTaAL~: according to Li \'\'' xxxii. IJ. s-9 (d. Plut. Flam. 5· 2), he pursued a 'scorched-earth' policy on his retreat through Thessaly from theAousin I98; Phacium. Peiresia (MS. Iresiae), and Euhydrium near the Enipeus, and th'·" Eretria and Palaepharsalus were all burnt, and the inhabitants fore<·• I to retire with Philip to Macedonia. Pherae escaped by shutting it·. gates. 'haec ctiam facicnti Philippa acerba erant, sed e terra m"\ futura hostium corpora saltern eripere sociorum uolebat' (Lin xxxii. 13. 8). See Walbank, Philip, I53· eK Twv ev 'H1Te(p'tJ aTEvwv: the pass on the Yiossa (Aous), near Ant' goneia, covering the route south-eastward up the Aous valley 'i .• the Klisoura gorge, which Philip had occupied in spring I98, and from which he was expelled by Flamininus, who turned the pa ..

THE CONFERE.!'CE IN LOCRIS

XVIII. 3·

I2

(Livy, xxxii. 10. I-IJ. 1 ; Plut. Flam. 3· 4-5. t). In ii. S· 6 and 6. 6 the phrase ,.a_ r,a.p' i-1VTty6vEwv a-re>'ct applies to the narrows on the Drynos, which runs into the Viossa, on the left bank, just south of Tepeleni. See further, for a plan and illustration, Walbank, Pltilip, 149·50 and plate facing 148 (with references), arguing against the view of De Sanctis, iv. 1. 6o n. IJi, who puts Philip's position at Tepeleni below the junction of the two rivers. ?~lore recently N. G. L. Hammond, JRS, 1966,39-54, has discussed Philip's battle-site and the topography of all this area, locating Antigoneia at Lekel on the Drynos (Drin), five miles south of Tepeleni. 11. AucnfLaxnav: d. xv. 23. 8 n. ll. K~a.vous: cf. xv. 21-24 n. The relationship of both Cius and I.ysimacheia to Aetolia will have been one of iuo1ToAo-rela rather than full uvp:rroA>-rela. (d. ii. 46. 2 n., xv. 23. 8 n.; Busolt-Swoboda, ii. I5II n. J). 'Exivov KTA. on Echinus see ix. 41. 1-42. 4 n., on Phthiotic Thebes, v. 99· 2 n.; Larissa Cremaste in Phthiotis lay on the south-east slopes of Mt. Othrys above the Malia.n Gulf; its ruins are a little abon the village of Gardiki (Leake, NG, iv. J.J.7 f.; Stahlin, Hell. Thess. r::\2-4 (with plan). The Romans had taken it (except the citadel) in 199 (Livy, xxxi. 46. 12), but evidently Philip had recovered it. Pharsalus lay on the site of the modern town; cL Stahlin, ibid. 135-41. On the Aetolian claim to these four Thessalian towns cf. 8. 9. 38. 3 ff., where the Aetolians demanded them Ka.-ra ,.~v ;.g dpxfi> aVJ.LJ.Lax{av (with Rome) and as former members of the confederation (rrp6-repov . •. uuf..LrroAL-rEVof..Liva,;). The basis of this claim is obscure; but clearly tl1ey had at some time belonged to Aetolia and had been taken by the Macedonians, Pharsalus probably by Doson in 229/8 along with Thessaliotis and Histiaeotis (d. Fine, TAPA, 1932, 148; Walba.nk, Philip, I I n. 3), since it was Macedon ian during the Social War (v. 99· 3 n.), while Philip took Thebes in zr7 (v. 99-roo) and Echinus and Larissa probably in 2ro (ix. 41-42 for Echinus; d. Walbank, Philip, 88). Evidently then the peace of 206 between Philip and Aetolia contained some clause which gave the Aetolians a claim to them. Stahlin (Phil. r92r, 199 ff.), followed by Hoileaux (225 n. r; cf. CAH, viii. 135 n. r), suggested that the four towns were promised to Aetolia by Philip in 2o6, but never handed over. Against this Klaffenbach (IG. ixz. r, introd. pp. xxxii ff.) and Flaceliere (307 n. 2, 316 n. 3, 375-6) point out that Aetolian hieromnemones at Delphi are attested for Phthiotic Thebes under the archons Megartas and Philaetolus (Syll. 564; OG IS, 234), whose dates fall between 206 and :zoo (Dinsmoor, Archons, 143-4, puts Philaetolus in 203-2, Megartas in 202-1; Manni, Fasti ellenistici e romam· (Palermo, r96r), 92, puts Megartas in 205/4 ( ?) and Philaetolus in 202/r (?) ; for Megartas Daux, Chronologie delphique (Paris, r943), 45, gives 'zo5/4 to 203/2 (?)',and 555

XVIII. 3·

12

THE COKFERENCE IN LOCRIS

Flaceliere, 310 n. 2, dates his archonship 'towards 204/.3'), and argue from this that Philip restored these towns but subsequently rc captured them in 202. This argument is not decisive, since it is not safe to argue from hieromnemones to the Aetolians' possession of towns or areas; by the use of exiles, they may well have maintained their title to possessions which they had lost but to which they had not relinquished their claim (cf. Stahlin, Phil. 1921, 204 ff.; Tarn. CAH, vii. 745), and they would have had all the more reason for such a procedure if Philip had promised them these towns but had not fulfilled his word. In support of Klaffenbach's thesis Ferro, rs, quotes Livy xxxi. 31. r-4, where the Roman legatus at Naupactus in spring 199, L. Furius Purpurio, includes Larissa in a list of citie" that have suffered at the hands of Philip; but this passage proves nothing, for Livy also mentions Messene, ravaged by Philip in zq, and the wrongs of Larissa may well date to the ::\facedonian capturl' in 210. Two inscriptions recording each a hieromnemon from Pharsalus (Syll. 545 = Flaceliere, App. i, no. 39, archon Polycleitus; Syll 539 A= Flaceliere, App. i, no. 43, archon unknown) are also too UJl certainly dated to be of help (cf. Ferro, rs-r8). On the other hand, it is hard to see why in 2o6 Philip, making peace quibus uoluit con dicionibus (Livy, xxix. 12. r), should have handed over important towns in Thessaly to the Aetolians; a promise which he had no i11 tention of keeping, and did not keep, would seem more likely. \>VheJJ (8. 9) Philip offered two of the towns only, he was evidently hopin;.; to strike a bargain. Note that the annalistic account of an appeal to Rome from sociae urbes in Greece, quoted above (i. 14 n.), can hardh refer to these Thessalian cities (so Ferro, 19), which were in no sen~,. allies of the Roman people. See Walbank, Philip, roo-r n. I, for di~ cussion and bibliography; add Piraino, Riv. jil. 1955, 71-72. 4. 1. AtTwAucov ••. Kal9£a.TplKOv: this may be a faithful version nl Philip's words, and not mere Polybian abuse; the force of AlTwAtK,;,. here seems to be 'violent and exaggerated'. 4. Ka.i TucpX~ IHjXov: a common colloquialism; cf. Plato, Rep. \'lll 550 D; Menander in Edmonds, FAC, iii. 2, fg. III CAF, iii, fg. ITt Wunderer, i. 82. 1\v yO.p £u9LKTD'> KTA.: Livy (xxxii. 34· 3) alters this comment COlt siderably: 'et erat dicacior natura, quam regem decet, et ne ink1 seria quid em risu sa tis temperans'. 6. TJJLWV ci1ra.ya.yovTwv TOU'i O'Tpa.TLWTa.'>: probably in winter 19(1/" when Philip was concentrating all his efforts against Rome (\Valbanl,. Philip, 148). On Lysimacheia see xv. 23. 8 n. On the Thracian pressu1 • at this time see Bengtson, Historia, 1962, 21-28, discussing an inscri1• tion from Istrus published by S. Lambrino in Rev. etudes roumainc·. s-6 (Paris, 196o), 180-217. 556

THE CONFERENCE IN LOCRIS

XVIII. 7·

l

Touc,; 1Ta.pa.cpuXaTTovTa.s: on the meaning of this word 'to protect', see ii. 5· 6 n. 7. OjlWV a.htwv yevop.evwv: Philip argues that he is merely following

Aetolian precedent, but this is a quibble to cloak a clear act of aggression. 8. ayew Xacpupov 6.m) Xa.cpupou: the meaning, obscure to Flamininus, is explained in 5· r-2. The Aetolians granted their citizens letters of marque to take part, as private individuals, in any war against any state, even though Aetolia was herself neutral (d. iv. z6. 7 n.); this, Philip argues, robs them of the right to complain of his actions at Cius, but it does not, of course, create a generally valid precedent in 'international law' (so Ferro, zr). The Aetolian practice was never accepted as legitimate by other states, as the present passage shows.

5. 3. jlTJTE cp1A(a.s opous •.• jlfJT' ~x9pa.s: 'no defined standards of friendship or hostility'. 8. AhwXGJv ouK e~crtv "EXAt]V£S ot 1TheLous: cf. Eur. Pkoen. IJ8, where they are called fLELtofld.pflapot; and to Thucydides (ii. 68. 5) most of the Amphilochians were barbarians. Amphilochia lay at the east end of the Ambracian Gulf, between Ambracia and Acarnania, and the Agraei lived south-east of this towards the Achelous in its upper reaches. See Oberhumner, Akarnanien, 4, 26 ff.; \Voodhouse, 8z. The Apodoti li\·ed to the south-east of Aetolia on the middle reaches of the R. Daphnus and separated by mountains from Ozolian Locris to the south; see Thuc. iii. 94-<)8, with the commentary of Gomme; Woodhouse, 57-59. In the fifth century neither the Amphilochians nor the Agraei were Aetolian; and \Voodhouse, 76-77, suggests that 'Philip, or P. for him, used the first names that came to his tonguehence the alliteration'. But Philip's accusation is not to be taken as seriously as it is by Brandstraeter, 26o ff. 6. 1. TtTou yeXaaa.vTos: clearly thus encouraging Philip (d. Holleaux, Etudes, v. 46 n. 7); cf. § S· :J. olh01 S' l)p.iv OjlOAoyouj.LE:vws: cf. xvi. 34· 5 n. 4. TTJS a.u5t1aews TWV ~KK01TEVTWV 8evSpwv: ironical; hence Flamininus' laughter. 15. Tfis ES :b.vT1y6vou: i.e. Antigonus Doson. 7. TO 1TEpl TTJS a1TOO'TaO'EWS +TJ<j>IO'jlG.: passed at Sicyon in autumn, 198; cf. Livy, xxxii. 20-23. 8. 1Tepi SE Tou Kop(v9ou ~ouheucrea9cu p.ETa Tou Thou: this proviso is Philip's reply to the ambiguity in the Achaean demand (above 2. 5 n.): he still hopes to keep the citadel at least. 7. t. 1Tpbs eKeivov ••• Ka.l1Tpbs 'Pwjlalous: i.e. he addresses Flamininus in person and as representative of the Roman government 557

XVIII. 7·

I

THE CONFERENCE lN LOCRIS

(which, to Philip, must mean the Senate; cf. Holleaux, fitudes, v. 57 n. 4). wv hriKT'lTcu 1TOA£wv Kat TomJJv: this alone went beyond the de mands made at Abydus (xvi. 34· 3 f.) and evidently Philip was hopin;·~ to compound on such an offer; so correctly Badian, 70. Already at the Aous meeting Philip had made this distinction, clearly important to him, between his inherited possessions and his own conquest<-. (Livy, xxxii. ro. 4, Io. 7; cf. Diod. XXYiii. rr), without gaining am hope of a concession from Flamininus. On the present occasio11 Flamininus' silence (§ 2) is intended to indicate, not the 1\.oman'c. resolve to let the allies speak on this topic (so Homo, Milangr' Cagnat (Paris, 1912), 42-43), but that Philip had reason for hop1· (Holleaux, Etudes, v. 41\ n. 3). 6. TOUS •.• c!>iA.ous .•. a1TWAEO'as a1TaVTaS: for the allegation thaI Philip murdered his friends see viii. I2. 2 n.; also Plut. Flam. 17· 2. J\.for. I97 A; Paus. vii. 7- 5; Diod. xxviii. 3· Holleaux (Etudes, v. _:;o: sees that this remark was meant to reassure the Greeks, but would hardly gi,·e Philip reason to revise his generally favourable view nl Flamininus' attitude towards him.

8. 5. Taus o-up.1rapovTas: probably the allies, though P. does no I specifically say so; but Flamininus could scarcely aYoid obtainin;: their concurrence. See on the difficulty Holleaux, Etudes, v. 52 n. : 6. 'A1T1Twv KA.auSLOv XLALapxov: cf. Livy, xxxii. 35· 7, 'cum AJ'· Claudio tribuno militum'. He is almost certainly the Ap. Claudiu·. Nero, whom Flamininus sent to Rome shortly after (Io. 8); he w;1·. praetor in 195 (cf. Livy, xxxiv. Io. r, 17. I). For a similar example ol a man referred to first as a military tribune, then as legatus, cf. Li\'\. xlii. 49· 9, 67. 9; at this time consulars and praetorians often sernd as military tribunes. Cf. M:ommsen, St.-R. ii. 695 n. I (where, hO\r e\·er, Ap. Claudius Nero is confused with the Ap. Claudius Pulch('t of Livy, xxxiv. so. Io; Broughton, MRR, i. 332). 8. Suax£pts d1r£'Lv: evidently Flamininus did not report this to tlw allies (despite Livy, xxxii. 35· 8, 'quae acta Philippus ad suos ret tulerit, minus compertum est'; cf. Nissen, KU, 29; Holleaux, .E'tudc'. v. 53 n. 4). Hence P.'s Achaean memorandum (d. r-r2 n.) could gi\ • him no help. 9. 0r1~as 8' auK a1ToOLOovaL: nor Echinus either most likely; P. seem. to be bargaining to give two and keep two. Cf. Holleaux, fitudc-.. v. 54 n. I; above, 3· r2 n. TTjS •.• n€pa(as 1TapaxwpELV; as already agreed (6. 3); the absence of any mention of the other towns whose evacuation Acesimbrot11·. had demanded (2. 3-4), apart from Iasus and Bargylia, suggest that Philip refused to surrender them (cf. Holleaux, fitudes, v. , ; n. 6).

sss

THE CQ);FERE:\CE I.:\ LOCRIS

XVIII. 9· 5

Tov K6p~v8ov: clearly the lower town only, since Philip's envoys at Rome had no authority to speak on the citadel (cf. II. r3 n.). See Holleaux, E:tudes, v. 54 n. 2; Aymard, PR, 125 n. 40. The ambiguity here may be due to P. or his Achaean source. If Flarnininus gave Philip to believe that he might be allowed to keep Acrocorinth, he wa..s running a great risk of failing to secure peace should he be superseded in the consulship (9. 5 n.); for the Romans could not afford to leave a Macedonian garrison there. 10. T«i KaT a TTJV 'IAAvptOa.: cf. I. I4 Il. «v Ta.l:s vau1-1-axlms: a slip of P. or his source; Attalus lost men and ships only in the battle of Chios (cf. z. z). since he did not take part in Lade.

9. L '!TttvTwv ••• 8uaa.pECTToui-L(vwv: excluding Flamininus; for a distinction between his attitude and that of the allies cf. §§ 6-7. Holleaux, Etudes, v. 55 n. 2. TTI Ola.AU~YEL: 'at the peace-terms offered'; cf. xv. 8. 4· limiaTJs eKxwpeiv Tfjs 'EA.M.8os: d. I. l3· As the allies saw, Philip's silence on this point was tantamount to its rejection; it can hardly be doubted that the conYersation with Flamininus had encouraged him in withholding his agreement to this clause (Holleaux, Etudes, v. ss-s6). 3. 'ITpos Tov KaTa 0pov~ov aly~aA.Ov: on the site of Thronium see ix. 41. rr n. It was further east and so more com·enient for Philip, who will presumably have spent the intervening nights somewhere near by, such as Larissa Cremaste or Echinus (cf. 3· 12). 4. Twv Y" 8ti 'ITAdCTTwv ••• TJYJJ-Evwv: manifestly false. 5. 'ITpErr\3t:OO"EW li4>TJ 'ITpOs TlJV auyKATJTOV: the proposal was clearly inspired by Flarnininus at the previous day's meeting; cf. ro. 3; Holleaux, E:tudes, v. 57-58; Wood, TAPA, 1939, 95 n. 9· lt was unprecedented, for hitherto consultation with the Senate had followed a preliminary and provisional agreement with the Roman general in charge (d. Livy, xxix. 12. IJ-IS (First Macedonian War); above, xv. 8. 7--9; Livy, xxx. 38. 3-4,40. 1, 40. 6, 42. II f.; App. Lib. 3r, 54, 56 (Second Punic War)). Flamininus' motives have been variously interpreted; as a means of tricking Philip out of garrison posts in Phods and Locris (10. 4), since there was never any possibilit:r of Philip's terms being accepted (so Niese, ii. 622-3; De Sanctis, iv. 1. 71); or as a clever scheme to get the control of events out of the hands of the Greeks into those of the Romans, and to prevent Philip from combining with Antiochus (so \\'ood, TAPA, 1939, 9G--98: his first his only evidence for the point has validity, but Plut. Fl,un. 9· second, refers not to r98 but to what might have happened if the war with Philip had dragged on to 192). As Holleaux (Etudes, v. 63--77) has shown, the clue to Flamininus' moth:es lies in Livy, xxxii. 32. s-8, 559

XVIII. 9· 5

THE

CO!\FERE~CE

1:\' LOCRIS

'caduceator ab rege uenerat locum ac tempus petens colloquio. id grauate regi concessum est, non quin cuperet Quinctius per se partim armis, partim condicionibus confectum uideri bellum: necdum enim sciebat, utrum successor sibi alter ex nouis consulibus mitteretur an, quod summa ui ut tenderent amicis et propinquis mandauerat. imperium prorogaretur; aptum autem fore conloquium credebat, nt sibi liberum esset uel ad bellum manenti uel ad pacem decedenti rem inclinare.' Flamininus hoped to obtain a prorogatio of his command or failing that to be entrusted with making peace (so Plut. Flam. 7· r, cf. below, ro. 3, II. 2); in the one case he would have deceived Philip. in the other the Greeks; and clearly Roman interests were to take second place to the fostering of his own gloria (d. Plut. Flam. I. z. tAoaogoTUTo<; (.Uv). In these methods and valuc·s (cf. r2. J, mivu yd.p dyxlvous, el Kal '1'£S' £TEpos- 'Pwp.alwv) Flamininu, showed himself to be ahead of his times. See further Walbank, Philip. r62; Scullard, Pol. ro2-5, refuting the attempt of 'Wood (TAP .rl. r939, 96-99) to reject the Polybian tradition. 8. iKTrOltol:v £4>11 xo.p£tEcr9o.L: 'he said it was possible to grant it' cf. ii. 24. r7 n. for this use of €1mou''i~·. 9. ol!OEv , , • a'\IEU TijS 17UyK1.~TOU: disingenUOUS, for FJamininUS Wa;, perfectly at liberty to carry out his mandate by refusing to negotiat,· further unless Philip accepted the ultimatum to withdraw from Greece; d. Holleaux, Etudes, v. 59 n. 3· 10. ouoiv 1TpaTTEt\l Sui TOV X4::t~VO.: a valid point; a subsidiary ad vantage of the negotiations would be to immobilize Philip for th•· winter. 10. 1. cruyKo.To.9Eplvwv tL1TCivTwv: but obviously with rcluctanct>, since Flamininus was set on this course. 3, Ko.Ttt Tous €~ O.pxfjs Oto.AoyLcrflous: a clear statement that tlw embassy to Rome was contrived by l'lamininus: cf. 9· 5 n, 4. O.voxas OLfl~vous: from November to January; the conferenn· in Locris cannot be dated with complete accuracy, but took phu·•· some time in November (above, 1-rz n.). The delegates can hardll have left for Rome before the beginning of December (allowing tim• for the Greek states to appoint them), and the journey from, sa1. Athens to Rome took 20-25 days (see the calculations in Holleau \. Etudes, v. 69 n. 3, z6r n. 4). On the relationship of these dates to tJ,, Roman elections see below, n. r n. Ttts , , • 4>poupas •.. EK Tfjs cpwKiOos Ko.i. AoKplSos: the milil' rates Philip's loss more seriously. s6o

AFTERMATH OF THE CO:-.IFERE::s-C£ DT LOCRIS XVIII. xo. xo

6. OL' a.uTou To 1Tpot<ELjlt:vov

~1tETEht:L:

viz. his intrigue at Rome (see

9· 5 n.). 7. Evnywyov ••• t
and ready to follow the lead of Flamininus' friends, whether events led them to press for a settlement or a continuation of the war (£¢' !m6np' av aywrnv ath-&v); cf. Holieaux, Etudes, v. 70 n. 4, comparing Livy, xxxii. 32. 8 (quoted above, 9· 5 n.). For Flamininus' 'friends' cf. II. 2. Scullard (Pol. 97-105) suggests that he had reached the consulship by the support of a large body of senators including the Fabian group, but not the Claudii; he sees his opponents now as the Claudian, or more probably the Scipionic group. But the evidence is tenuous, and one of Flamininus' envoys was a Claudius (§ 8 n.); and regarding the friends of Flamininus involved in the intrigue (probably few in number, since the affair had to remain secret) we know only that the tribunes who intervened to prevent his supersession were a Q. Fulvius and L. Oppius Salina tor (praetor 191): Livy, Kl. Schr. i. 2o4), thinks their xxxii. 28. 3· Gelzer, Historia, 1950, 637 names mav be a later annalistic invention. +a.vTo.c:T(o.v- ••• Sul. ToT~<; ~a.c:TLh~:(o.<; ovo!lo.: Holleaux (Etudes, v. 70 n. 4) points out that he was the first king to visit Rome; later the Romans became more blase, though they continued to display an ambivalent attitude towards the title rex. 8. KowTov ••• ¢16.~LOv ••• KiHvTov .~~po.t<(<;!-: Thurium is Thyrrheum in Acarnania (iv. 6. 2 n.). A category of o[ 814173

00

XYIIl. ro. ro AFTERMATH OF THE

CO~

FERENCE IN LOCR IS

KUTO!KOV~'Tf;)

EV AhwAlif is known frum iliscriptions (Syll. 554. s6J, 62'}. IJ5 and I89; Michel, zs) and Busolt has shown that thcv are identical with a group elsewhere referred to as oi €v AiTw;\t'l 2 r.o.\tT€t;OVT€S' (cf.IG, ix • I. I69 ( = Syll. 522), I89 (=Michel zs), L90). But his view (BusoltSwoboda, r5r2 n. r) that they were citizen,; with civil but no political rights is to be rejected. Like the Syracusan~ living at Carthage (vii. 2. 4) they were resident aliens; see Larsen. Symb. Osl. 1957. 7-8. Theodotus of Pherae will fall into the sam<· category. ll. EEvo<jlwv AtytEU'i: cf. r. 4· Paton renders Alyw.k 'of Aegae'; it of course, 'of Aegium'. The sending of the relatively unimportant Xenophon, alone, and the failure to raise the question of a reguhlr alliance with Rome (see .p. 6 n.) were perhaps prompted by Flarni· ninus, who will not have wanted conflicting claims raised at thi, juncture; cf. Aymard, PR, rz8. )\A~savSpos: unknown; Dionysodorus, who had represented At tales at ~icaea (r. 3), was probably obliged to stay with the fleet as navarch (cf. Holleaux, £·tudes, v. 34 ·n. 4). o< -rrEpt KTJ<jlu:r6Swpov: the leading Athenian statesman after the deatl1s of Eurycleides and Micion (v. ro6. 7 n.), which were probably in the last decade of the third century, and a strong opponent ol ~racedonia. Pausanias (i. 36. s--6). probably drawing on the funerar; inscription on Cephisodorus' tomb, which lay on the road from Athens to Eleusis (Niese, ii. 590 n. r), records how he tlw alliance of Attalus, Ptolemy, the Aetolians, the Rhodians, and tlw Cretans, and when Attalus, Ptolemy, and the Cretans sent no hell'· and the Rhodian ships were useless against Macedonian hoplites. he went with others to Rome to beg protection. 'This embassy W
I.

1L. l. u-rrf:p TWY •.• ~ea9EUTa.p.ivwv umiTwv: the consuls appointed [.. , 197 were C. Cornelius L.f. M.n. Cethegus and Q. Minucius C. f. ( ." Rufus (Livy, xxxii. 27. 5). nJL<jlOT(pous ElS T~V r a.AaTtaV: a rising of Gauls and Ligurians b" been opposed by L. Furius Purpurio as praetor; the consul i 562

AFTERMATH OF THE CONFERENCE IN LOCRIS

XVIII.

12.

r

Aurelius Cotta succeeded him in command in 200 (Livy, xxxi. ro-IL 3, 21~zz. 3, 47. 4~49: details unreliable). The Insubres and Cenomani had taken Placentia either in this year or in 199 (Zon. ix. 15). In 199 the praetor Cn. Baebius Tamphilus was defeated by the Insubres (Livy, xxxii. 7· 5~7; Zon. ix. 15), and in 198 the consul Sex. Aelius Paetus made no headway (Livy, xxxii. z6. x-3). There was some alarm in Rome (§ z) and a case for sending the consuls to Gaul. See De Sanctis, iv. 1. 412-13. 2. f-LEVEw ••• df-L~OTepous K<m:l. TTJV 'ITo.Aiav: d. Livy, xxxii. z8. 8, 'patres consulibus ambobus Italiam prouinciam decreuerunt'. Not a contradiction with§ 1, ds r~v Ta.Aar[av, for the consuls were intended to operate in Cisalpine Gaul they did: Liv-y, xxxii. 29. s-3I. 6; Zon. ix. r6). Flamininus' friends had learnt of what was proposed before the actual decision was taken: cf. 12. 1; Holleaux, Etudes, v. 71 n. r). 1raVTES: i.e. the Greek representatives (d. § 12), but evidently prompted by Flamininus' supporters, who could now press for a continuation of the war. 4. TTJS XaAKioos Kat Toil Kopiveou Kat TTJS oAT)f-LTJTplaSos: cf. Diod. xix. 78. 2 on Chalcis: l:rttKatpos .•• lcrTt Tof;; f3ovAoiJ.Icvot:; lxnv DPf.LTiT~pwv ()ta7TOA€f.LEi:v 7r€pt TWV oAwv. Clearly the Acrocorinth is now in question as well as the lower town: see above, :z. 5 n. 5. 11"EOas 'EAATJVIKac;: cf. 45· 6. For the phrase cf. Strabo, ix. 428; App. l'.fac. 8, 7rloa;; Tfj>: 'EMdSo;;. When Philip used it is unknown. 8. 4>avTacrLav exeiV: 'a mere show of concession' (Paton). to. 1rp0TJTT11f-LEVWV ole; "1&,: in I99 when Sulpicius forced the pass south of modern Banitza and so penetrated into Eordaea (Livy, xxxi. 39· 6-9; Kromayer, AS, ii. 23 ff.; cf. Thuc. iv. r27~8) and in rqR, when Flamininus forced the Aous Pass (3. 9 n.). See 23. 3~4, where Flamininus mentions the same two battles in his exhortation before Cynoscephalae. Ko.-rO. y~v •.• xopTJyLwv tKOeOa'ITT)f.LEvwv: perhaps exaggerated; but Livy, xxxiii. 3· 2-4, is evidence for the effect of long wars on the population of Macedonia and especially on the supply of men of military age. 13. f.LT)OEf.L(o.v •.• mpt TOIJTwv €vToATjv: tbis extraordinary omission is scarcely explicable except on the assumption that Flamininus had led Philip to beliPYe that the evacuation of these garrisons would not be demanded, despite the Greek call for the complete eYacuation of Greece (d. 9· r). See Holleaux, Etudes, v. 73·

12. 1. Kaea1TEp E1Tavw vpoEL'ITa: cf. I I. 2 n. 6oucra. T
XVIIL

12.2

AFTERMATH OF THE CONFERENCE IN LOCRIS

2. Ta.uToJ.LO.Tou auvEpyTjaa.vTos: cf. x. 34· z, xv. 29. 5; Siegfried, 57 n. 93· P. makes the same qualification in discussing the achievements of Scipio Aemilianus (xxxi. 30. 3). He may have in mind here Flamininus' good fortune in not being superseded, a circumstance to which the efforts of his friends also contributed. 4. Tas Ka.T' UHa.v evn{,SE~s: 'his own private dealings', i.e. the subtk plan behind the sending of the embassies to Rome; d. 9· 5 n. 5. 1rAe£w ••• Twv Tp~nKovT' eTc;w ooK EtX£: prior to his consulship lw had held only the quaestorship (whence the tribunician opposition to his candidature): Livy, xxxii. 7· 8-9. He had also served "'' military tribune under Marcellus (Plut. Flam. I. 3), and at Tarentum pro praetore in 205 and 204 (Livy, xxix. 13. 6; Plut. Flam. I. 4), aud had served on two commissions (Xuir agr. ass. in Samnium awl Apulia in 201/o: Livy, xxi. 4. 1-3; llluir col. deduc. to supplement Venusia in zoo: Livy, xxxi. 49· 6). 13-15. A discussion mt treachery

Treachery was a constant hazard to be guarded against (d. viii. 31J). But the context of the present digression has been much discussed. since it is not clearly indicated in the surviving fragment, which falls between the end of the peace negotiations and Attalus' vi;;i 1 to Sicyon, following his conference with Nabis and Flamininns at Mycenae (see p. 26). There are two possibilities. Schweighaeus•·t (vii. 331) has been widely followed in the view that the digression was evoked by Aristaenus' success in persuading the Achaeans to abandon the Macedonian alliance and join Rome (d. 13. 8-ro nn.): and Nissen (KU, 326 n.) added that P. was specially concerned to rebut the accusations made by Philip on this score at the conference in Locris (6. 5-7). This view is adopted by E. Gabba, A then. 1957. 30 ff., who argues further that the reference to the statesmen accused of treachery by Demosthenes (14) is a hinted defence of Aratus, whom many Greeks had accused of treachery for calling in Antigo nus I II. This nuance seems improbable. The definition of a traitor (15. :c) as one who called in a foreign power and admitted a foreign garrison was (despite ii. 52. 3) too reminiscent of what Aratus had done fo1 his conduct to be justified merely by hints; once the possibility th;Jt Aratus came into this category had been envisaged, it would ha' ,. to be dispelled by specific arguments, and it seems more likely th;1l the parallel with Aratus did not cross P.'s mind when he was writin;·. these chapters. That the case of Aristaenus did emerges from r3. 8-1 c·, and there can be little doubt that the justification of Aristaenu:-; 1 • one purpose, and an important one, of this digression. But it ]J;,,, been pointed out by Aymard (REA, 1940, 9-19) that Aristaenu,: action had preceded the conference in Locris and was described 111 564

A DISCUSSION ON TREACHERY

xvii; there was no occasion to revert specifically to Aristaenus in the section where this digression falls. Hence Schweighaeuser's view is not inherently probable; nor is much to be said in favour of Waltz's theory (in his translation of P., Paris, I92l, iii. 324 n. I) that P. is also trying to present an apologia for his own pro-Roman policy (though Aymard, REA, 1940, 15 n. 7, is not to be followed in his belief that the present section was composed before 146, and therefore before P.'s close alignment with a group at Rome would be selfevident). Reiske (iv. 6o6) took a different view. The digression, he suggested, arose 'per occasionem narrationis de aliquo oppido, Philippa tradito'. This is certainly unconvincing. But it led Aymard (loc. cit.) to the hypothesis that these chapters, clearly inspired by some act of treachery, were introduced in connexion with Philip's surrender of to Nabis, described in Livy, xxxii. 38. I-6. The traitors, in P. opinion, were the Argive leaders who seceded from the Achaean confederation and let Macedonian troops into the city (d. IS. 3); they met with speedy retribution when Philip handed them over to the scant mercy of Nabis. This is the most satisfactory explanation yet proposed, and any difficulties in it seem to arise not from any inadequacy in Aymard's hypothesis, but from the ambiguities or blank spots in P.'s thought; see below, q. I n., 15. r n. On this passage see P. Cloche, AC, 1939, 361-70; A. Aymard, Rev. hist. I83, I938, 79; REA, I940, 9-19; P. Tre\·es, LEC, I940, 289 ff.; F. W. Walbank, CQ, 1943, 9 n. I; I. Calabi, Ricerche, 144-5; E. Gabba, A then. 1957, 30 ff.

13. 1. i'lft 'lfOAAOL!i ea.uJ-LO.tetv ••• TWV O.vepw'II'ELWV aJ-LCI.PTTJJ-LaTWV: 'to wonder at many of the mistakes men make'; cf. 15. 6, 15. I6 for his explanation (repeating fJa.VJLa,ELIJ, aJLa.p'TaV€LV). 2. ,.a, '~~'P~'IfOVTa. Tol:s Ka.tpol:s: 'appropriate to the occasion'; probably the betrayal of to Nabis (see above) though P. leaves this vague. 4. ES aKepa.(ou auvnBEJ-LEVOU!i ••• KOWwv(a.v '!rpa.yJ-LaTWV: 'who of their own free will engage in common action with certain kings and princes'; Paton translates certain kings', but 14 shows that this cannot be the sense. Here P. is thinking of the Peloponnesian statesmen who joined Philip II. For Kotvwvla.v 1Tpayru1.Twv cf. ii. 6r. I I n. (with addendum, below, 634). 5. Tous •.• J-LETa.nBevTa.s: as Aristaenus (§ 8). ~ea.TO. To 8' Ea'Ta.L o1]Aov '~ aOTWV 'TWIJ lvm'TW'TWIJ. 'TWV lvm'TW'TWIJ is contrasted with 1T6ppw8Ev, 'far-off times'; Aristaenus' action had occurred the 565

X\'IIL I3. 7

A

DISCtJSSIO~

0.:1 TREACHERY

previous autumn, and was described in xvii (cf. 1-12 n.); but between autumn and ·winter the gap is not so great as to be incompatible wit], the words -ra lv~u-rw-ra {cf. Aymard, REA, 1940, 14 11. 6). 8. Et yO.p !J.TJ •.• T<)TE !J.E-r£ppure: 'if Ia; had not at this time caused tlw Achaeans opportunely to abandon the alliance .. :. nh< tak~O' HJ' €f avTwv Twv evw-rw-rwv; but it furnishes no evidence as to wbl led P. to include this cf. xi. rr. i n. 9. vvv S(: 'as it was'; for tllis usagL' cf. Time. iii. u 3· 6. vvv is not temporal, and there is no contra,;t between it and TOTE in ~ tl r~... Aymard, REA, 1940, I4 n. 7). TTlS 1Ta.p' C.UTOV TOV Ka.Lpov aa.>.da.s: 'safety in the immediat•· crisis'; d. § R, ,Pav<.pws CJ.pSryv cbro,\w.\ft -rd :JOvos. Not, I think, 'tem porary safety' {so, incorrectly, Vol. I, p. 293). a.ug~11ews •.. a.inos HioKEL yeyoveva.L: ' ••• were regarded as having unquestionably brought about an increase in Achaean power'. A:mard docs not make out his case that this sentence must have been composed after the catastrophe of qrl (REA, 1940, 12 n. 3); tlw increase of Achaean power during the period following 19X was ~u~ undoubted fact, whate\·cr lw.ppened in qo, and the causes of tk later catastrophes had nothing to do with Aristaenus' policy J:v\\ 10. £uEpyeTTJV Ka.L crw-rfjpa.: like Antigonus Ill, with whom the Man donian policy had been initialed; cf. , .. 9· Ion., ix. f>. 5 n.; see ah> iv. 22. Io. For P.'s view of Aristaenus' policy see xxi\·. 13. 8-Io. 11. Scro' ••. TO. 1ra.pa.1TAitcr~a. -rouTOIS 1TOALTeuovTa.L: having mentimw. I the more immediate ;md rdenmt case, P. no\v passes to tl1e Pdoponnesian statesmen in the fourth century (cf. § i. rroppw(hv). 14. l. 8vnSos Toi:s E1TLa.vE.t]vwv: Demosthenr'-'' attack on the pro-:\lacedonian faction in Greece is to be found in the De Corona (xviii), 43. 48, and especially zgs, where all the names which P. mentions here occur. P.'s criticism of Demosthenes (like his definition of treachery) is based on the criterion of success; becaust· his policy was followed by war, he is condemned as responsible for his country's disasters (the specific case quoted by Aristotle. RJ~et. ii. 24. 8. qor b, to illustrate the logical fallacyofpostlwc,propter hoc). 'If success is the true and only test of statesmanship, P. was undoubtedly right. But if political liberty had prm·ed itself so preciot!!that without it the whole of life would have seemed to be lived 011 a lower plane, success was an altogether unworthy criterion by >vhich to judge the actions of those who were dominated by such a sentiment' (Pickard-Cambridge, 49o-r). Moreover, it is not clear that l'. has properly assessed the true interests of the Peloponnesian stah·" at this time, for since Leuctra Sparta was no longer the main dangel there (d. § 6 n.). 566

A DISCUSSION ON TREACHERY

XVIII. I4. 5

2. KEptnSO.v Ka.L 'IEpwvu..-.ov ~Jut. ).far. 1126 c, he was also a pupil of Plato; see also Dion. Hal.

R.het. 8. 6. 3. NEwva. KO.L 9pa.auAoxov: Theopompus (FGH, 115 F cJI) mentions the former. Though pro-Macedonian, they were evidently expelled from Messenia on Philip's death, since their restoration in 333, perhaps by Antipater, was criticized at Athens ( Dem.J xvii . ..J., 7) on the ground that they were tyrants. Ben·e (RE, 'Keon (3)', col. 2..J.2CJ) suggests that their career was finally ended with Alexander's decree abolishing tyrannies (Plut. Alex. 34· 1); hut the description of them as tyrants may be Athenian polemic (cf. Roebuck, 53). Mupnv ~
XVIII. q. 6

A DISCUSSIOX OX TREACHERY

6. im
cities see ix. 33· 12 n. 8. av9' c!iv ou '!!'OAE!lE~I! ~EtAov: 'in return for this it was not their business to make war, etc.', rather than Paton, 'with this in view .. :. 9. ~ cppoup(w ••• 8€xo!lEYOL Ta.is 1raTpiaw KTA.: as indeed happenell at Corinth (Plut. Arat. 23. 4), perhaps with the connivance of the Corinthians, Deinarchus and Demaretus (Dem. xviii. 295), on whom P. is silent. On the restoration of Neon and Thrasylochus in l\lessenP by Alexander (despite the guarantee of existing constitutions by the Hellenic Confederacy) see§ 3 n. At Pellene a pro-1\facedonian despot was installed, by name Chaeron ([Dem.] x\·ii. 10), perhaps in 332-1; and the democrats were expelled from Sicyon ([Dem.J x\·ii. r6). On the partisan character of P.'s argument here see Cloche, AC, 1939. 361 ff.; Pickard-Cambridge, 490 ff.; Treves, LEC, 1940, 290 ff. A comparison between the views expressed here and F.'s criticism of Thebes for placing her safety first in iv. 31. 5 is instructive. 13. To 1TE~pav Xa.~£1:1! Twv ••• au!l1TTW!laTwv: to P. Chaeronea is a proof of the error of Demosthenes' policy. 14. TTJV ToO ~aa~iws !1Eya.Ao~ux1o.v Ka~ cptXo8o~£av: on Philip II's generosity cf. v. ro. 1 n., ix. 33 (speech of Lyciscus). 15. Kowfi !lEv ••• Ka.T' toiav: 'in common ... separately', rather than 'public ... private' (so Paton). But the old rhetorical contrast has little meaning here, for there is really no substantial point to be made about the gains Arcadia and l\1essenia made together and those they enjoyed separately. 15. 1. TTJV oi!O!laa£av TaUTTJV: of traitor. P. has devoted 13-14 tn defining who are not traitors, in such ii way as to exculpate Ari,; taenus, the friend of Rome, and the fourth-century friends of Philip. He has now to find a definition which ·will cover the case front which this digression arose, and which is probably the betrayal of Argos to Philip V by the ArgiYe bourgeoisie (d. IZ-I.) n.). He offeh two definitions: 56s

A DISCUSS!Ol\

0~

TREACHERY

XVIII. 15.9

(a) § 2: those who in time of imminent danger purchase their safety or advantage or gratify a political grudge by handing OYer their cities to the enemy. (b) § 3: those who to further their own ambitions admit a foreign garrison and usc outside aid to submit their country to a superior power. Of these it is the second which ftts the action of the Argives (who are nowhere said to have acted for motives of personal advantage); on its weakness as a criterion of treachery see Aymard, REA, 1940, r8-r9, who points out that it would cover perfectly the action of Aratus, who handed over Acrocorinth to Antigonus Doson (a case P. can scarcely have had in mind: cf. IJ-IS n.), and that those who supported Rome secured her domination just as effectively as if they had handed over their citadels to Roman garrisons ; whereas the Argives remained faithful to the oaths and laws which the Achaeans were violating. 5. ot~ AuaLTEAES ..• ou8e1TOTE O"UVESTJKOAouOT]O"E: here, as in some other passages, P. seems to be holding the view that \\Tongdoing sooner or later meets with its appropriate chastisement. It corresponds to his view of Tyche as a purposeful and retributive power (cf. Vol. I, pp. 20--21). But this 'optimistic' philosophy is not the whole story; elsewhere, more realistically, P. admits that fortune is unstable and incalculable (cf. Vol. I, pp. r8-2o). and this is against any generalization about P.'s beliefs based on the present passage (as in Aymard, REA, 1940, 19 n. r). In fact his Achaean bias requires him to be able to brand the pro-Macedonian policy of Argos and all other such 'acts of treachery' as the outcome of human folly (§ r6, d,\oywTla) and for that purpose treachery must be shown never to pay (since the ultimate criterion of such action is success; cf. 14. I n.) ; hence the view (for this occasion) that wrongdoing will meet with inevitable punishment. 6. Oa.u11-6.~ew: taking up 13. r, 8avp.a~m· E7T€pxeTat. wpo~ Tov t~ apxfj~ A.Oyov: 'their original reasoning'. OpJI-WO"L 1rp0~ n)v TOLO.UTTJV ciTux(a.v: 'they rush headlong into such misfortune'. aTvx[a combines the idea of both 'wrong action, scelus' and 'misfortune, calamitas', as xxxviii. 1-4 makes clear. The idea of volition in opp.wat leads Aymard (REA, 1940, I7 n. r) to observe that P. is here adopting the view (Socratic, one may add) that wrongdoing springs from an error of judgement, since no one consciously seeks out aTvxla; and this seems to be the conclusion of § 16. 9. Ka.Ta TOv .6..TJJI-Oa0EvT]v: Dem. xviii. 47, E7TetOav Twv 7Tpayp.d.Twv €yKpa~s 0: ~YJTWV apxew KaTaarfj, Kai TWJJ TaiJT' a7To8op.€vwv 0Ea7TOTYJS EaT{, rf]v 8€ 7TOihJplav El8ws T6TE o~. TOTE Kai p.taEt Kai a7TtaTEt Kai. 7Tp07TTJ.\aKl~n. Demosthenes then mentions several of Philip's instruments who were later discarded: Lasthenes of Olynthus, Timolaus of sGg

XVIII. 15. 9·

A DISCUSSIOX 0:-< TREACHERY

Thebes, Eudicus and Simus of Larisa, Aristratus of Sicyon, and Perillus of Megara. 12. ~ Y"' rra.pa Toi:s Q.f..f..oLs ••. .P~flTJ: 'their evil reputation among other men'. For a specific example cf. x:xiii. ro, where the 'avenging spirits' conjured up by Tyche to torment Philip by night and day (as here, vv1cTwp Kai fLE(}' ~fLipm•) are connected with the curses and imprecations openly uttered against him (xxiii. ro. 7). In both cases P. is analysing the mechanism of conscience. 15. 1TOAuv lfxeL Myov TOU .pa.uAOTa.TOV uml.pxELV: 'gins good reason for being considered the most foolish'. 16. OUX ~TTOV /)uJ. TTJV af..oy LIJ'TLO. V , . , clflO.pTClVEL: 'goeS aStray 3 S much through want of thought as from physical appetite': dfLapTcfvEL here takes up the afLapT~fLaTa of IJ. I. Being unable to appreciate the firm link between wrongdoing and disaster implied in dTvxia (§ 6 n.), human beings are the victims of their d..\oywT{a. P. here uses to mean 'appetites' (d. § r6, mic; Tov awfLaTo<; €mevfLlaLo:;) in contrast to ..\6yoc;, 'reason'. 16. Attalus at Sicyon

On learning that his approach to the Senate had been rejected (u. r), Philip arranged to hand over Argos to Kabis on the condition that if Philip won the war it should be returned, but if not Nabis should keep it (Livy, xxxii. 38. r-9); and once master of the town, Nabi~ betrayed Philip by opening negotiations with Flamininus. (For the probability that Philip's surrender of Argos to Kabis pro,·oked P.'s digression on treachery see IJ-I5 n.) At a conference held at Mycen<1r~ plans were made for co-operation between Attalus, Flamininus, thP Achaean general for 198/7, Nicostratus, and Nabis, with a truce between Sparta and Achaea (Livy, xxxii. 39· 1-40. 4). See \Yalbank, Philip, r63-6. From l\1ycenac Attalus came ,·ia Argos to Sicyon, and the present passage corresponds to Livy, xxxii. 40. 8--9. The date of these events at Mycenae and Sicyon is probably Fcbruan·March 197; it was a little before the opening of the campaignin;~ season (cf. Niese, ii. 625 n. 3). 16. 1. ETLIJ.aTo ... Ka.l rrpoTEpov: evidently the previous year (r9S), when Attalus attended the meeting at Sicyon in October, at which the Achaeans resolved to join Rome. This is the first time Attain~ is known to have visited Sicyon, which was, of course, enemy terri ton during thP First Macedon ian War (cf. Li,·y, xxxii. 19. 5 f:f.). Livy'-., qtwndant (Livy, xxxii. 40. 8) is no obstacle to this view, for here he 1' paraphrasing P. TTJV tepav xwpa.v TOU J\rroAAWVOS EAuTpwaa.TO: this land had perhap~ been pledged to raise money in the hard times of the First Mao· 570

ATTALUS AT SICYON

XVIII. I7. 4

donian 'A7ar, when it will have been needed to pay troop:;; Apollo's land was a guarantee for the loan which the city obviously hoped in due course to repay. Ignorance of the Sicyonian legal system prevents our defining the exact nature of the legal transaction involved; but €..\vTpwaaTo suggests something like the Attic Trpam<; JTr1 ,\Jan, 'sale on condition of release' (on which see M. I. Finley, Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient Athens, 500-200 B.C.: the Horos-inscriptions (~ew Brunswick, I95I), 3I-37). This pledging of sacred land to surmount an emergency is paralleled by the use the Athenians made of money banked in the sacred treasuries during the Peloponnesian \Var, and the use they were even prepared to make of the gold on Athena's statue (Tlmcyd. ii. I3. 5). Two temples of Apollo are recorded at Sicyon, that of Apollo Lycius (Paus. ii. 9· 7) in the marketplace, and that of Apollo Carneius (Paus. ii. II. 2); to which temple the pledged land belonged cannot be ascertained. 2. TOV KOAOaaov . . . TOV 0EKcl1TT)XUV: G. Roux, REA, rgGo, 5-40, has argued that the original meaning of Ko..\oaaos- is a statue, usually of archaic appearance, whose legs were not separated; after the building of the famous colossus of Rhodes (cf. v. 88. In.), the word takes on its modern sense of 'huge statue'; and the refereno~ to its height shows P. to be using the word in that sense here. On the Pergarnene standard a cubit is o·495 m., which woulJ make the statue of Attalus about 5 m. high; but the measure used at Sicyon may ha,·e been slightly smaller. rra.pO. -rov J\rroAAwva.: 'besides the temple (or statue) of Apollo'; in favour of the meaning 'temple' is perhaps the fact that there was a temple of Apollo Lycius in the market-place at Sicyon (§ r n.). 3. OeKa. -raAa.v-ra. ... KCLL flup(ous f1E0Lf1vous rrupwv: Livy specifies 'decem talenta argenti' (Livy, xxxii. 40. g), and the word dpyvp{ov may have slipped out of our text. lf these are Attic medimni (of 40·36 litres), the gift amounted to about rr,1oo bushels of barley.

17. 1-5. The cruelty of Nabis' wife The parallel passage in Livy, xxxii. 40. ro-u, establishes the position of this fragment (see p. 26), which describes Nabis' actions after the conference at Mycenae, and appears to follow directly on 16 (d. Aymard, PR, 152 n. 66).

17. 1. TLf10KpclTT)V TOV neAAT)VECL: probably from Pellana in Laconia (d. iv. 8r. 7, xvi. 37. 5), not Pellene in Achaea; d. Launey, i. 135 n. r. Otherwise unknown. 2. -rT)v yuva.iKa.: Apega; d. xiii. 7· 2ft. 4. KCLTn auyyEVELCLV: 'by families'. 571

XVIII. IJ. 6

ATTALL'S' SPEECH AT THEBES

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

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

572

CYNOSCEPHALAE

XVIII.

I8. I 2

~~:epaias ~ Tpe~s:

'two or three forks'; m App. B.C. iv. 78 are the forked stakes themselves. Ka.i. TO.VT<~S ••• llxovTES XatLJ30.vovTa1 ••. oOK tvaA.M.~: BiittnerWobst proposes Ka.i Ta.vms as) ovK iva/../..ae, 'and those are taken which have offshoots at the head, not all round'; but Hultsch, ~~:alTa.vTas lxovTf!S AafLfJdvona. (~ J3paxei.as .•• yiveo-9cn: 'and all this because the stakes are not closely interlaced or interwoven with each other'; strictly, it is the loose intertwining of the stakes that makes it easy to pull them up; and this in turn creates a hole and the loosening of the stakes on either side. The words -rvats (like aTT&
~eepafa.t

573

XVIII r8.

12

CYKOSCEPHALAE

and stake was beneath the ground; and though the lacuna in § 7 prevents our getting a completely clear picture of the Roman stake, this would hardly seem to be P.'s meaning. Shuckburgh renders 'it is not easy to know to which of the stems fixed in the ground th1· branches belong, nor on which of these branches the smaller shoot:-; are growing'; but this implies three elements (stems, branches, and smaller shoots) whereas P. has only two, lKrPVun;; and K<=pai:at. 011 the whole Schweighaeuser's interpretation seems to involve fewec;l difficulties and to suit § 13 besL 13. 'ITUKv~w ouO"wv •.• Twv KEpa.Lwv: 'since the branches are closeh interlaced one with another, and moreo•'er carefully sharpened to a point'. KE:pa.£Wv must be the subject both of 'ITVKVWI' ovawv Kfli TrpOU1TL'/TTOVUWV avraf;; and of a'/TWgV/Ljl/vwv; and in that case t)w K<=pai:m are branches rather than the stakes themselves, for the stak,· would ha\'e only one end out of the ground, and to sharpen tha1 would afford small hindrance compared with the sharpening of tlt. interlacing branches. 14. '!Tacro.s Tas 'ITpocrfloM.s ••. Mvo.I-Lw ~xnv: 'all the portions ope11 to attack possess an almost impregnable power of resistance d<· rived from the ground'. 15. Tov p.la.v ~ma'!Twp.evov KEpalo.v: 'the man who pulls at a sing!·· branch'. 'ITOAAous avayKa~Ecrflo.L 'ITELlJOj..LEVOUS aj..LO. flo.a-TabEW: 'is obliged to Jj[f se,·eral stakes which all respond together'. 19. 1. 'ITpofJ:ye: from Phthiotic Thebes, in the ,·icinity of which tJ,,, stakes had been cut (d. Livy, xxxiii. 5· 1-4, 6. 1). a'IToa-xwv 8£ '!T£pl 'ITEV1'~KOVTO. crnl.lha. Tlj:S TWV ~Epo.£wv 'ITOAEWS: Li\'Y' xxxiii. 6. r, 'sex ferme milia a Pheris'. Pherae lay in I'elasgiotis al the site of modern Velestino; Strabo puts it 90 stades from Pagasa•· (Strabo, ix. 436), and it was not far from Phthiotic Thebes (cf. \'. 9'~· 3). For the ruins see Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 104~8; Y. Bequignon. Recherches arcMologiques a Pheres (Paris, 1937); E. Kirsten, RF. Suppl.-B. vii, 'Pherai', cols. 984-I026. Flamininus' camp, 6 miles to the south, will have stood in the small plain of Persufli, betwec11 two ridges, the former from Karadagh, the southerly the Tchiragioti• hills (Leake, NG, iv. 452; Kromayer, AS, ii. 6r). 3. '1Tuv9a.voi-L"vos .•• 'ITEpl Tas 8ft~a.s: mistranslated by Livy, xxxii1 6. 3, 'ccrtior iam factus Homanum ab Thebis Pheras mouisse'; in fa< 1 as P. shows, Philip's advance from Larissa was simultaneous wi11, that of Flamininus from Thebes. 'ITo~oup.Evoc; T~v 'ITopelo.v ~'ITt Tas Cl>epas: south-east along the erlt-:' of Karadagb follov:ing the route now used by the railway frnn: Larissa to Yolo. 4. a'!Tooxwv 5£ 'ITEf>~ Tf>lUKOVTa OTa5m: Livy, xxxiii. 6. 3. 'quattUOI

ws

574

CYNOSCEPHALAE

XVIII.

20. 2

milia fere a Pheris'. The Macedunian camp will have been somewhere near Teltiktschi to the north-west of Pherae (Kromayer, AS, ii. Cn n. 1; Kirsten, RE, Suppl.-B. vii, 'Pherai', col. 1019, puts it slightly to the east of Teltiktschi between that village and Risomylo). 5. TaS li'ITEP Tao;; ~Epas aKpoAo~LO.'i: this will be the ridge south of Pherae, where the road to Persufli and Phthiotic Thebes crosses it (so Kirsten, RE, Suppl.-B. vii, 'Pherai', col. 1019, against Kromayer, AS, ii. 62 n. 3, who puts it south-west of Pherae). Pherae took no part in these events, remaining neutral (it had closed its gates against Philip in 19S: Livy, xxxii. 13. 9); but this does not mean that Macedonian or Roman forces could not march past its walls. 6. 1TEp1 Tas \mEp~oAcio;;: at the point mentioned in the previous note. Kirsten (RE, Suppl. B. vii, 'Pherai', col. 1019) gives its distance as twenty-five minutes north of Persufli and thirty-five minutes south of Pherae. 7. \mo TTtV op~V"lV: 'in the darkness'; Paton's 'early dusk' is wrong. 8 .... £1ri Twv u1ToK£LfJ-Evwv ..1), which is itself the equivalent of turma; cf. vi. 25. r, 28. 3, 29. 2-3, 33· ro); thus about a fifth of the force was Aetolian. F.'s source gives these Aetolians full credit(§ n). 10. E1Tt TaOe TWV ~epwv wo; 1Tpoo; Aaplcra.v: TaO€ for Tel, Schweighaeuser, 'short of Pherae in the Larissa direction'. Kromayer (AS, ii. 62) puts this cavalry skirmish well to the north-west of Pherae; but Kirsten, RE, 'Pherai', col. 1019, points out the unsuitability of the broken land west of Pherae, around the hill of Maluka, for cavalry fighting, and he is to be followed in putting the skirmish due north of Pherae, in the plain (d. 20. r, drawing on the experience of this engagement). 11. Eu1ToAE!J-OV: cf. 21. 5; deported to Rome in qo as a leader of the anti-Roman faction in Aetolia (cf. xviii. 4· 6); Livy, xxxviii. 4· 8, xli. 25. 3 f.; Wissowa, RE, 'Eupolemos (Sa)', col. 28j8 (Nachtrag). Can he have been one of P.'s verbal sources for this battle (d. 21. 5 n.) and especially for those parts where the Aetolians appear in a very favourable light (cf. 22. 4)?

20. 1. 1rAY)puo; a.i!J-a.cru:;,v Ka.l K1]1Tiwv: 'full of walls and small gardens'; a.lp.acnal are walls, not thorn-hedges (so Mauersberger, s. v.) ; d. Theoc. i. 47, €' al.p.aa~aiat .•. :jp<EVOS'. l. ws £1r1 T.,;v IKoTouacra.v: Scotussa (d. x. 42. 3) was a town in

575

XVIII.

20. 2

CYNOSCEPHALAE

Pelasgiotis; its ruins lie about I km. west of the village of Supli, ou the \Vest slopes of Karadagh, and above and to the south of the Platanorevma, which flows west and then north to join L. Boebeis. See Leake, NG, iv. 454-6; Kromayer, AS, ii. 64 n. I; Stahlin, Hell. Thess. IOg-ro; RE, 1JK6ToVQ'O'a., cols. 6r3-I7· 2-8. The marches before the battle. The identification of these is bound up with the problem of locating the battlefield of Cynoscephalae. De Sanctis (iv. r. 85-86 n. r66), following in general Leake (NG, iv. 457 ff., 473 ff.), sites this between Supli and Duvlatan, Stahlin (HeU. Thess. IIr, r4r-2) a little further west, near Alkani. Kromayer (AS, ii. 63 ff.), however, argues for a site still further west, around Karademirdshi. Three days' marching is involved. On the first Flamininus reached Eretria and Philip the River Onchestus (§ 5); on the second Philip reached Melambium and Flamininus the Thetideum (§ 6) ; and on the third Flamininus remained at the Thetideum (21. r), but Philip advanced to a new camp a little beyond Melambium (§ 8). Of thest> four named sites, Eretria is identified with some certainty as the ruins near Tsangli on the north-west slope of the Tchiragiotic range towards the upper Enipeus valley (Leake, NG, iv. 466 f.; SUihlin, Hell. Thess. r74-5). The sites of the Thetideum and Melambium and the identification of the Onchestus are all uncertain. Leake, loc. cit., made Philip march north-west along the plain below Karadagh, reaching the neighbourhood of Ghereli the first night; for him tht· Onchestus was the stream on which Ghereli lies. The second night, according to Leake, Philip reached Dcdejani, 6 km. up this stream, and here he locates Melambium. On this assumption the battle occurred between Supli and Ghcremi, well to the east of Scotussa. Leake's view is followed with little variation by De Sanctis, ·who argues (Joe. cit.) that when, on the third Philip KaTal'VO'at G7T
'· ' .,

., '\ '\,

'·

Ghereli •

Kara Dagh

It)

'd

'ff\..L SIH {}{ lll\

"""'P,H A t"-f. E '

'

\

\ .,...,.,.. ......

· c;, ntussa

!}•' v

fkd<>jani•

/

Ill Hai:.ljlh<>y,._..,....

\

·-.-"-o ___ .,_...,_Gheremi Sup II

•

Alkani

ll<>kid~'

Du,Jatan '·, Ill •Thetideum( ?)• ' • ...:Qr.man M•goula ~,--lf---..~-----'-""....r-..,__,. , ....... ,_ - ll . ~ -----.Tsangh

.

.,, -·-

---~ Eretria·-•-·

.,

·"'.

.,... k'

.\ \'>

. ...-

t\'

\C

Tchirag'·ot

"' """

-- --•-!. Mact'doni•n route and camp · - · - ...... '-" _, ..__,

0 '

~ ~ .

1\.om.>n rotJteand camp 10 J

17. THE l\lANtEUVRES BEFORE CYNOSCEPHALAE

(Adapted from Kromaycr, Schlachtjelder, ii, Kartc 4)

rs kllometrc·~

...J

""'

4.;,

C'

XVIII.

20.

2-8

CYNOSCEPHALAE

night's camp must have been well to the east of Scotussan territory and Leake put Melambium at Dedejani (NG, iv. 473); but the words Tijs EKoTovaaalas are inserted here, not to indicate that the Onchestus was not in the territory of Scotussa, but to define an otherwise littleknown spot (there are no other references to it) and also to balance the phrase Tijs f!>apaaAtas, attached to the Thetideum (§ 6), which Flamininus reached the same night. Probability favours the view that Philip got as far as Scotussa by the first night, and pushed on a little further the next day, when, however, he would be mainly occupied gathering corn; this was still in the fields ~v Tfj EKoTovaaa{q. (§ 3). Melambium will therefore lie a little to the east of Hadjibey (though Kromayer, AS, ii. 72 n. 2, need not be followed in his identification of it with the tumulus known as Kukurialo, some twenty minutes south-east of that village) ; the small distance from Scotussa, a mere 8 km., can be explained if Philip was busy foraging in the cornlands west of Scotussa (not east of the town where tbe land is poor and mainly sand and stone; Kromayer, AS, ii. 67). The site of the Thetideum, which Flamininus reached simultaneously, is not agreed. DeSanctis (iv. i. 85-86 n. I66) seeks it on the Scotussa side of the ridge of Karadagh,between Supli and Duvlatan, where he sites the battle; but it is clear from P. that it was Tij> f!>apaaAlas (§6) and so to the south of the ridge. Kromayer (AS, ii. 73 n. I) accepts Heuzey's identification with the temple remains z km. south-west of Alkani, roughly between that village and Bekides; but it seems more likely that Leake (NG, iv. 472-3), followed by Stahlin (Hell. Thess. I4I; RE, 'Thetideion', cols. 205-6), is right in locating it in the Enipeus valley, and probably, as Stahlin argues, at the site of the church of H. Athanasios between the station Orman Magoula and the village of Bekides. This would fit Plutarch's reference to it (Pelop. 32. I) as the point to which Alexander of Pherae advanced on his way to Pharsalus in 364. Flamininus' second camp will have been hereabouts, perhaps a little to the north-west of the sanctuary, but not so far as Kromayer places it. Philip's third camp (§§ 8-9) was a little beyond the Melambium. Having foraged, he was now concerned to gain the level ground south of the hills and will have made west towards the gap through which the main Larissa-Pharsal us road now runs (21. 2); his camp can plausibly be placed between Karademirdshi and Hadjibey (Kromayer, AS, ii. 72). From the Thetideum Flam in in us sent a reconnoitring force forward (21. I, TTpoFUJ-Lf;vos), i.e. in the same north-westerly direction; his object will have been to head Philip off from the plain around Pharsalus, for he must have known that by now he had carried out his foraging. Consequently he also aimed at the gap in the hills. The battle will therefore have developed on the summits a little to the south-east of Karademirdshi, where Kromayer places it. It was

578

CYNOSCEPHALAE

XVIII.

20.6

in the territory of Scotussa: cf. Strabo, ix. 441, eaTL 8' ev rfi EKoTovaav xwpwv TL Kvvos Kecrf;a.Aal KaAovp,ecvov, 1Tepi 0 'Pwp,aiot • •• ev{KWV; Plut. Flam. 7. 3· 1Tcpi T~V EKOTovaa.v ... 8ta.Kw8vvevc.v ep,EAAov. See Fig. I7 J and for further details the separate notes. 2. Bu.:mlio~ xwpa.s): probably Tsangli (above, §§ 2-8 n.). The lacuna was plausibly filled by Schweighaeuser from Livy, xxxiii. 6. ro, 'ad Eretriam Phthiotici agri'. Phthiotis should mean the Tetras (cf. G. Kip, Thessalische Studien (Halle, I9IO), 7r); but here the phrase seems to be introduced to contrast Eretria with the Thetideum, which was Tf/S <Papaa./..las (§ 6). (Strabo, ix. 434, 447, merely reckons the town as part of the
XVIII. :zo. 6

CYNOSCEPHALAE

name was the Thestideion, and that Hellanicus omitted the > (cf. FGH, 4 F 136): but this is controverted by a phrase ev efnEl'r}s (from a hexameter), preserved in Etym. gmuin. (in Miller, Melanges, I5i; cf. Stahlin, RE, 'Thetideion', coL zo6). Strabo (ix. 431) sites the Thetideum near Pharsalus and Palaepharsalus. It is the scene of the action of Euripides' Andromache. 8. KaTav~acu <MT£u8wv f'IT~ To '!TpOK£(f1£Vov: i.e. to secure fiat ground suited to his forces (§ z}. Presumably he had by now revictualled from the crops west of Scotussa: see above, §§ z-8 n. 'ITpon~tL: so Reiske; 7T€pi "r'rJ F, 71€p~~"' S. Leake took 71uyov 1Tpos Tou<; liKpou<;: probably the ridge lying aboul 2 km. south of Karademirdshi and Hadjibey (cf. 20. 9).

22. 1. 8ul. Tas 1Tpo£tpt]f1Eva.o; a.hla.s: d?.. the bad weather conditiml:>

(zo. i-9). sSo

CYXOSCEPHALAE

XVIII 23. 7

r upTWVLOV .•. A£ovT« TOY ••. t,.TrapxTJV: not otherwise known. Launey, 2r9 n. I, reckons Heracleidcs a mercenary and suggests that he is the Heracleides mentioned in Philip's letter to Abae in zo9 (quoted in xiii. 4· I n.); but the latter is more probably Heracleides of Tarentum. P. distinguishes the Thessalian and Macedonian horse from the mercenaries (under Athenagoras) and it seems more likely that Heracleides was the commander of Thessalian horse contrib~ted from an area still under Philip's jurisdiction. Leon will be a Macedonian. Clearly P. here draws on a Macedonian informant, directly or indirectly. ,.Af)v Twv 9p~tc:wv: it is not known why the Thracian mercenaries, who were 2,ooo in number (Livy, xxxiii. 3· 4), were stationed away from the other mercenaries, who were under Athenagoras (otherwise unknown). Some accompanied Philip later in his flight (26. &). Apart from the Thracians Philip had 2,ooo Illyrian and 1,5oo other mercenaries (Livy, xxxiii. 4· 4-5). 4. f) T&lV AhwALKWV l1MTEWV .faAoTLJllll: cf. 19. II n. 5. tAALTrEL<; .• , T4i Ka0o1TAtaJ1iti K
23. 3-6. Flam£11inus' : commonplaces, like Hannibal's at Zama (xv. 11. 7-9). But to former victories are an obvious theme for such an occasion and were probably made by Flamininus, whatever P.'s source here. For a reference to the same two battles in Eordaea and on the Aous during the negotiations at Rome see II. IOn.

4. TaS aTr1JA,.to-tLevns f:v 'HTr€£p
XVIII. 23. 8

CY~OSCEPHALAE

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

CYXOSCEPHALAE

XVIII.

26. I

25. 1. EK'ITAT}KTLKOV Ka.t 'ITO.pa.aTO.'niCOV aywvia.s: the whole sentence echoes P.'s account of Hannibal's crossing oi the Rhone: cf. iii. 43· 8 n. 2. T~v €lJ>o8ov e~ u'ITep8e€tou 'lrOtO~f1Evov: they held the summit of the ridge to the east of the pass (24. 3), and were properly dra\m up in phalanx formation. 3. T..ayyo:; Kcm11Top€tav ov;wv).

Ta fi~v txbfiEVo. TI71V Kw8uveuovTwv: 'those next to the troops actually

fighting' . those left over from the right wing. Tn 8' t1rl Twv euwvul-lwv: under Nicanor (d. 24. 2). 4. ev 8f: TOLS 8e~to'i:s ••• Tns Hmt8o.s: 'and that his hopes of salvation

rested with the right wing'. alJ>op!-l~CI'O.'i

'!Tpos 1'0\JTOUS! 'he placed himself in COmmand there' (Paton); Flamininus had originally commanded the left (23. 7). 5. Twv 'lrOAEfiiwv KTA.: by the enemy P. here means Philip's left, consisting oi half the phalanx (S,ooo men: Livy, xxxiii. 4· 4), such cavalry as were not with Heracleides and Leo (22. z)~perhaps 6oo in all (Kromayer, AS. ii. 84 n. z)-2,ooo Thracians (22. 2 n.) and the remnants of his right (§ 3 n.). There may be a lacuna after TO£s S
26. I. ds- 8E Twv XtAtapxwv 1<-rA.: according to vi. 34· 3 the military tribunes, in took it in tum to have full administrative control of the legion for hvo months out of six, each perhaps taking full charge on alternate days (Marquardt, ii. 363). The present passage suggests that the military tribune here mentioned was the chief officer of the legion (as he often still was in the first century; d. Plut.

ss3

XVIII. 26.

I

CY!"OSCEPHALAE

Sulla, I6. 8; Cata mi1~. 9· I; App. Mithr. so); indeed, if he could draw off twenty of the thirty maniples, it implies that he controlled the whole legion (contra, Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. :n6 n. 3; Lengle, RE, 'tribunus militum', col. 2443). But his relations with Flamininus, who had taken control of the right wing (25. 4-5), remain a problem, for it is hard to believe that he acted without consulting the commander. Elsewhere military tribunes appear to act under the direct orders of the commanding officer (cf. ii. 26. 3, 27. 4, 33· r, xi. 22. 4). A solution may perhaps come from a consideration of the source of this passage. It is significant that, as in 21. 5, P. does not know the name of this remarkable tribune. The reason will be that his source, as there, is Aetolian; and being Aetolian it will be prejudiced against Flamininus. The emphasis given to the tribune's action 'on the spur of the moment' dearly detracts from Flamininus' credit; and it may well be either that he, and not the tribune, saw what was needed and did it or at least that the tribune acted with the concurrence of the supreme commander. O"YJIJ.a.(a.s ••• oo 'IT>..e£ous EiKoa~: probably the ten maniples of the principes and the ten of the triarii, who could most easily be detached (Kromayer, ii. 85 n. 1); Meyer {Kl. Schr. ii. 3r6 n. 3) suggests the lzastati and principes, but this would be to call in the hastati, whom one assumes to have been leading the pursuit; cf. the similar use of the principes and triarii at the Great Plains (xiv. 8. n). 4. O.SuvaTOU ••• ~K IJ.ETa.~oMjs Ka.t Ka.T' nv8pa. KWOUVEUEIV: cf. Livy, xliv. 41. 6, 'si carptim adgrediendo circumagere immobilem longitudine et grauitate hastam cogas, confusa strue implicantur; si uero aut ab latere aut ab aliquid tumultus increpuit, ruinae modo turbantur'. Contrast the Roman method, 3'-'· 7· 7. uuve9Ewpe~ Tfi l:i>..a.: 'he took a look at the whole scene'. 8. T(;)v 6pq.~~:<;IV: cf. 22, 2 n., 25. 5 n. 9. 0-pn Tois n~~:po~s E1Tl~a.!.>..ouaa.s KTX.: 'who were just now reaching the summit'; d. 25. 5 n. :1\!.e~O.vopou Ko.XoufLEvov 1Tupyov: unknown. It will have been somewhere in the plain of Pelasgiotis towards Larissa. rovvous: Gonni, at the western end of Tempe (cf. Livy, xxxvi. IO. II, xlii. 54· 7, 67. 6), has been identified with a site lying on three hills to the north of the Peneius, at modern Dereli: see Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 33 f. It controlled both the route through Tempe and tha! directly north past L. 4 . .fJp~a.vTo Ka.Ta.f1Ef1cpEa9a.~ To us AiTw>..ous: the beginning of th1· quarrel is thus attributed to the Romans; the source will be Aetoliau. 6. Numbers and losses: Livy, xxxiii. 4· 4-5, gives the Macedonian forces as r6,ooo phalanx, 2,ooopeltasts, 2,ooo Thracians, 2,ooo lllyrian:-.

27. 2. 'ITept Tov

584

CYNOSCEPHALAE· LEGION AND PHALANX XVIII. 28-32

about r,soo mixed mercenaries and 2,ooo cavalry, making a total of :zs.soo. The source will be P. The Roman forces were about the same total (Livy, xxxiii. 4· 6, 'Romanis fere par numerus erat, qui tum (so B, McDonald; earlier editors read eqwitum) copiis tantum, quod Aetoli accesserant, superabant'); according to Plutarch, Flam. 7· 2, also drawing on P., they had m·er z6,ooo including the cavalry. Kromayer (AS, ii. 102) therefore estimates their infantry at c. 24,ooo and their ca,·alry at about 2,4oo (including 400 Aetolian horse· Livy, xxxiii. 3· g). This total included soo Cretans from Gortyn, .300 Apolloniatae (probably from Illyria, not Crete. cf. Aymard, PR, 431 (addenda to p. 148 n. sz)), and 1,2oo Athamanians (Livy, xxxiii. 3· Io). In addition to their 400 horse the Aetolians sent infantry, which Plutarch (Flam. 7· z) gi,·es as 6,ooo but Livy (xxxiii. 3· 9) as only 6oo. Kromayer (AS, ii. Io2·J) accepts the lower figure, but the Aetolian boast that they had won the battle (Lh·y, xxxv. 12. 15) would be merely ludicrous if they contributed only I,ooo men in all (cf. De Sanctis, iv. r. 78-79 n, 159); and that the boast had some substance appears from Alcaeus' epigram quoted in Plut. Flam. 9· 2 (d. Anth. Pal. vii. 247), ALT(I),,WV 0JLrjfNvT€S v?T' J:lp€0<; ~Sol AaTlvwv, oil<; TtTo<; €upel1)s ~yay' a?T' 'J.raAiTJS (cf. Strabo, ix. 441). Thus over 8,ooo of Flamininus' troops were Greeks, leaving z8,ooo for the Roman army. According to Lh·y, xxxiii. I. z, Flamininus had 2,ooo hastati in his legions, compared with the normal figure of I,zoo (cf. vi. 21. 9) or 1,6oo, if one includes the assigned number of 400 uelitcs (Yi. 24. 4); however, z,ooo hastati implies z,ooo principes (vi. 21. 10), in both cases probably including soo uelites. Thus there were in each of the first two sections an additional4oo, giving a legion of s,ooo (or 5.Ioo if the triari£, who remained at 6oo, also had an increased assignment of uelites); see Kromayer, ii. IOI n. I. Two legions gh·e c. Io,ooo men, to which must be added about the same number of socii (vi. z6. 7; d. iii. IOj. r2): total about zo,ooo foot. But in addition to the 8,ooo Greeks Flamininus' total of c. 26,400 included 2,400 cavalrr. hence there can have been only I6,ooo Homan and allied infantry. This leads Kromayer (loc. cit.) to reject Plutarch's figures for the Aetolians; but the discrepancy disappears if Flamininus had left c. 4,ooo men on garrison duty (DeSanctis, iv. I. 79 n. 159). The excess in Macedonian losses is not surprising in view of the collapse of the Macedonian phalanx.

28-32. Discussion of the phalanx: the passage in vi where P. promised this comparison between legion and phalanx has not survived; but it is typical of P. to prefer to attach such a discussion to a specific occasion rather than to treat it in the abstract (cf. vii. 13. z, -roD ilv f?Tayy€t..lq. Kat
8t' QTJTWI'

iu)v ?Tpayp.cf-rwv T~v

XVIII. z8. r

LEGIO~

AXD PHALANX

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

29. 1-30. 4. The 1lfacedonian phalanx. 29. 1. T-.)v auTfjS iSuSTf)TO. KO.l OUVO.ILLV: cf. § 5· 2. iaTaTO.L cruv TOLS O'ti"AOLS ev Tplcri. 'ti"OO"L: i.e. when the phalanx is closed up for battle (Kant TUS' £vaywvlous- '1TUI
LEGIOX

~\:\D

PHAL.\XX

XVHI. 29. 6

d. Asclep. Tact. 5· r) Tarn, HMN D, rs~~16, argues that this may he il smaller Macedonian cubit, gidng a length of only about 13 ft., since Alexander used phalangites for forced marches and since the same satisae were used by cavalry; but an alternative explanation would be sarisae of different lengths {which the writers on tactics certainly assume: e.g. Asclep. Tact. 5· r). By the second century, as P. here indicates, sarisae were much longer and all of the same length, which came to 21 ft. (14 cubits). See further Kromayer-Veith, Heerwesen, 134 ff. ICO.TO. ••• T~V t~ O.pxfis urro9eaw ICT)..: P. means 'earlier' though he says 'originally'. Polyaenus (ii. 29. 2) records a sarisa of r6 cubits at the time of Cleonymus of Sparta (c. 3oo B.c.); see also Arr. Tact. 12. 7 (reading 7T~X"'s for 11o8as); Leo, Tact. 5· 3. 6. 39; Const. Porph. Tact. r. By the end of the third century the 14-cubit sarisa was normal. KaTO. SE TTJY O.p11oyT)v Ttl" rrpo<; TT)v 0.).~9elav: 'but as adapted to current practice': P. probably knew the r6-cubit sarisa only from tactical handbooks. By experiment F. Lammert (RE, 'sarisse', cols. 2517-19) demonstrated that a spear 6·5 metres long (r4 cubits, reckoning 46•2 em. to the cubit), of ash, required a diameter of 5 em. tapering to 3 em. to be rigid in the shock, and that such a spear would weigh about 6 kg. including the iron tip. 3. TO Ka'nSmv at1~<w11a Tfjs rrpol3oA~<;: 'the counter-weight behind to the projecting part'. There is no evidence for any metal tip at the back to help counter-balance the front (Lammert, RE, 'sarisse', col. 2519). 4. Setco. '~~'TJXELS rrporr(rrn~v 6.v6.yK'I'): ro cubits, i.e. about T5 ft. There is no reason to change 7T~xm· to '"68as with Rlistow and Kochly, Geschichte des griechischen Kriegswesens (Aarau, T852), 238, a hypothesis which long found acceptance. The same account as in P. is also to be found in Asclep. Tact., 5· r and Arrian, Tact. 12. j-II ; in Arrian, who reckons with a 16-cubit sarisa m)oas must be emended to ~xn>, to match the other evidence. Lammert (RE 'sarisse', cols. :z5r8-19) calculates that v•ith a distance of about 3 ft. between left and right hands a pressure of about 6 kg. would have to be exerted by the right hand to maintain the sarisa couched in position. 5. rrAeiov: i.e. more than those of the fifth rank. KaT' emaTO.TTJv Ko.t KaTa rro.po.aTaTTJV: 'as regards both depth and breadth': but only depth is really relevant here; d. 3o. 8. 6. w<;; ''O!!T)po<; urroliELtcvuaLv: Iliad, xiii. 131-~3 and xvi. 215-17; d. xii. 21. 3 n. for a hint at this passage. There was a tradition linking Philip ll's phalanx \\ith Homer: cf. Diod. xvi. 3· z, J.up.:qa&,Levos T6v iv Tpolf!- Twv rypwwv crwaamap.Dv; Livy, xxxiii. 8. 14. But the hoplite phalanx is quite unknown to Homer and these lines have no relevance to it. See Kromayer, Hermes, 19oo, zr8-41; H. L. Lorimer, B SA, 1947, II3-14· The argument that this quotation from Homer 587

XVIII. 29.6

LEGION A!':D PHALA:'{X

was a later insertion (so \Vunderer, ii. 24~6) is unconvincing, despite its inappropriateness and the repetition of phraseology in §§ r and 5· 7. 8uai rri}xEa~ ••• Ko:ra fLTjKos: 'each point being at a distance of 2 cubits from the next'. Lammert (RE, 'sarisse', cols. ::522ft.) rejects P.'s evidence here, and prefers to believe that the spears of the first fh·e ranks varied in length so as to confront the enemy with five points all together, and to assume that the epitomator has corrupted what P. wrote. But the text is perfectly clear and affords no gronncls for rejecting P. in favour of a quite different arrangement which is that described in schol. ad fl. xiii. 130 (codex Marcianus). That the sarisae of the first th·e ranks could not strike the enemy simultaneously is a theoretical rather than a practical objection. It might appear that, when the ranks closed up in the actual fighting (d. 30. 4), more than the points would project beyond the front line; but until this moment arrived, it 'vould be dangerous for the men below to have their sarisae lowered, and consequently, w·hen thr ranks did close up, the probability is that the sarisae of these ranks remained pointing upwards. At any rate, no ancient author mention;., more than the spears of fi,·t' ranks projecting.

30. 1. £"' ~KKa.tOEKa To ~0.9os ooaa.v: sixteen ranks was the normal depth for the Macedonian phalanx, but \'ariants were easily achiewd (cf. ii. 66. 9 n., 32 ranks at Sellasi<1; xii. rg. 6, 8 ranks at Issns; Ael. Tact. 4· 3; Asclep. Tact. 2. r). l. OO'OL rri(.L1TTOV ~uyov vrrepa.(poual: 'those further back than tlw fifth rank': the sarisae of the sixth rank reach only to the first rank, since they project r 5 ft. (1o cubits), <1nd each rank is 3 ft. (z cubits) deep. oiio( rrotouvTa.• KaT' avOpa '""v rrpo~oATjv: 'they do not }e,·el them man against man' do the first five ran h). 3. xupw TOU . ' . nucj)(I.ALtfw TijS EKTa;ews: 'in order to protect the formation from above'. 4. aoT~ •.. T~ Tou o-tilfLaTos ~apu •.. mEtouvns: cf. Ael. Tact. 14. 6, K:al oi Tiji £K-rrp f.cptrrrTJKfJT€<;, d Kat p,~ ail-ral:c; -rare; aaplaat<;, -riji 8J f3apu -rwv awp,&-rwv gwE77~p€tDm-·; Arr. Tact. 12. 10, wa-n £KaaTav Or.-ALT1)1' ~g uapl(TaL<; mrppaxOo.. Kal -rai:<; (so MSS.; ~g Roos; d. Ael. Tact. I-t. sl ouv&p,€aLIJ E1TEpE()!etv o-rro• lmf3pla€ta.Jl; Asclep. Tact. 5· 2. 30.5-11. Roman disposition. On the manipular arrangement d. X\ 9· n. The present passage is concerned with the space occupi,,d by the legionary and has aroused much discussion, mainly on tlw interpretation of§ 6 and§§ 8-----9. But P. is in fact merely saying thai the legionary, like the phalangite, needs 3 ft. in close formatir)JJ, shoulder to shoulder (§ 6), but since his special form of fighting 1 • ¥.-i.th the sword he needs a space of 3 ft. clear between himself and

sss

LEGION AND PHALANX

XVIII. 30. 5-rr

the next man (§ 8); hence when legion meets phalanx, each frontline legionary faces the spears of two files of phalangites. The 3 ft. of § 6 is the space the man himself needs, the 3 ft. of § 8 are needed to manceuvre in: the total required is 6 ft. There is no contradiction between § 6 and § 9 and no need for emendation of the text or for the untestified assumption that the phalangite's space was 1! ft. (so Delbriick: 29. 2 refutes it); nor is DeSanctis' theory (iii. 2. 144 ff.) acceptable, that the legionary had only 3 ft., but because of his movements he had to take account of two files of phalangites (while each file of phalangites had to take account of two legionaries) for this would make P.'s comment truly banal. The real problem is to fit P.'s statement into the context of a battle. }{oman tactics clearly varied between mass-advance and the shock of contact with the enemy's forces, and indi\·idual swordsmanship. For the former a close formation was essential, and it is presumably this that P. has in mind in his reference to 3 ft. in § 6. Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 209 n. r) argues that the shock method was used only as a final resource, when the hand-to-hand fighting of the hastati and principes had failed to achieve a decision, and no doubt the importance of the shock has been exaggerated by Krornayer (AS, iii. I. 346 ff.) and Veith (ibid. iii. 2. 694 f.). However, as often happened in the later era of the cohort (d. Caesar, BG, iii. 2. 4 and passim), the Romans must frequently have routed an inferior enemy prima impetu (cf. Veith, Heerwesen, 364-5), and it seems over-schematic to assume a tactic which only employed the mass charge in the final stage of the battle. How then did the army com·ert itself from the 3 ft. to the 6 ft. basis? The maniples were, of course, separated from each other by intervals, probably of the same width as the maniples themselves (d. xv. 9· 6---9 n.), and Meyer (Kl. Schr. ii. 206 ff.), following Delbriick and Steinwender, argues that, in order to achieve the looser formation, the maniples extended themselves by a voluntary sideways movement of the legionaries to fill up the inten·als between the maniples; note that such a movement would also have to occur in a frontwards and backwards direction, since there was a 6ft. interval in all directions in the looser formation. Alternatively, as Veith and Kromaycr argue, the gaps between the maniples remained intact, and the 6 ft. interval, which need only have applied to the first rank, could easily be achieved by each alternate man's dropping back a place and joining the remaining ranks behind (AS, iii. 1. 365; d. HZ, 95. HJOS, r6). Since it is not easy to see a function for the gaps and the quincunx arrangement (d. xv. 9· 6""9 n.). if it was to be abandoned in the hand-to-hand fighting, the second alternati\·e seems perhaps the more probable, the gaps remaining for the bringing up of principes and even, if need be, triarii to relieve the tired or wounded hastati, either as individuals or as whole maniples.

XVIII. 3o . .5

LEGION AKD PHALANX

Our sources give no clear indication of how this relief was carried out; but the gaps seem the obvious way. If on the contrary 'Meyer were right and the intervals were filled during battle by the sideways expansion of the maniples, it would be odd that we nowhere have any reference to this process nor is there any technical term to describe it. For further discussion see Kromayer, AS, iii. I. 347-82; Veith, AS, iii. 2. 688-·702; De Sanctis, iii. 2. 144-57; Delbri.ick, i3 • 349, 432-41, 457-{)o; Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 195-223; and the convenient summary by Veith, Heerwesel!, 356-73. See also works by Delbri.ick, Giesing. Kromayer, Lammert, Meyer, Steinwender, and Veith quoted ibid. 356 n. 3· 6. i:aTaVTa.L ..• ev TpLat '!Tout ••• Ka.t 'PwJ.La.l:oL: like the phalangite;; {29. z) the Romans require a minimum of 3 ft. from right shoulder to right shoulder, including their arms; and this will likewise bP true in the direction front to back. 7. T"ls J.LaXT}5 ••• TTjv KivT)aLv >.a.J.L~a.vouuT}S: 'but since in their mode of fighting each man moves separately' (Paton). T!j} ••• 9upt:!j}: the scutum; cf. vi. 23. z n. uUJ.Lj.1ETa.n9£f1Evou~; aiEl. 'ITpos Tov ••• Kalpov: 'constantly turning to meet the threatened blow'. EK Ka.Ta.q,opas Ka.l 6uup€u,ws: 'both for cutting and thrusting'. Ka7'at:foopd. is 'cutting-stroke' (d. ii. 33· 3, 33· 5, vi. 23. 4; elsewhere it can mean 'cutting-edge'; cf. iii. rq. 3 n.), and fhalpcm<: is 'a thrust' (d. fg. 202, p.axordvwv EK ou.upEO'EW<; Tafs- p.axalpa<S'), for which P. elsewhere uses the phrase £~< omA~t/Jcw> (ii. 33· 6, xi. r8. 4, of a spear~ butt). See Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 204 n. 3· 8. xaXa.a1u1 Ka.t 6~a0'7'a.aw: 'a looser order and an interval between them', rather than 'a relaxing and opening up', with the idea of motion, a meaning given to the phrase by Krornayer, Hermes, r9oo, 245-{) (but P. offers no parallels for this use of the two words). The minimum of 3 ft. represents a clear space between each man and the next and excludes the 3 ft. already mentioned in § 6. See above, 5-II n. KaT' E'ITlO'Tan1v Kat ~ea.TO. 1Ta.pa.uTaTTJv: cf. 29. 5· 9. TclV £va. 'PwJ.La.iov ••• Ka.Ta Suo ••• Twv cpa.Aa.yy~Twv: the phalangites occupying 3 ft. (29. 3) and the legionaries 6 (§§ 6 and 8). S£Ka. uapLcra.s: five projecting from each file (29. i)· 11. w~; ev &.pxa.t, E1'1Ta.: cf. 2 9. 1. 31. 2. ciopiaTous ••• Tous KO.lpous KO.L Tous Tt)1Tous: 'the times and places for action are unlimited'. ~va. Ka.Lpov ••• Ka.t Tcmwv €v y£vos: the one type of place is descriL, ., I in§ 5; by €va. ~
LEGION AND PHALANX

XVIII. 33·

z

4. ~KKA(v~w: 'to take evasive action'; or the object to be supplied is To auV'TayfLa in the next line. 5. ~1mr€8wv Ka.~ q,~:>..Gw: 'level and open', i.e. not woody. O'UYO.yKda.s, Ocj>pUS: 'depressions, ridges'; mwayKEtm are 'the meetingpoints of waters'; Paton mistranslates 'clumps of trees'. drf>puc; can be eminences or steep river banks. 7. ~1T~ cr1'a.Mous e'{Koa~ K1'A.: cf. xii. 19. 9, 21. 3, where P. argues (not always logically) that Alexander required at least 20 stades for his phalanx at Issus; xii. 20. 2 makes the same criticism made here. 8. 1'-/jv 1'Gw o-u11116.xwv: the allies of the power using the phalanx. 12. ~po.x£a. 8£ cpuyo11o.x~o-n: 'but withholds a little of his forces from the conflict'.

32. 2. 1Tomv ..• 1'ol:s aTpo.1'o1Tk8ots: with all their legions: contrast 3r. 12 where a'Tpan51Ttc8ov is 'army' . .,.a, 11£v €cj>e8pE~Et: i.e. the priHcipes and triarii, who are not engaged at once. 5. T61Tos, ov oOTo~ KO.Tetxov: 'the space which the phalanx occupied'. trAo.ylous •.• Ko.i Ka.TO. vwTou: 'in the flanks and rear'. 6. f!48~ov Bekker's emendation for cJTJ, which Pedech (cf. his note on xii. 25. z) would keep since P. uses the optative with O.v occasionally to express repetitive action in the past (ct x. 3· 7, where Dindorf emends the MS. /ha.v to th'); but here a causal sense is requireu, so perhaps the emendation is preferable. 9. 1TW\i ou ••• Twv 1TpoEtPT'I!l(vwv: 'Joes it not follow that in practice the difference between these two systems is enormous?' (Shuckburgh). 7. 1TO.po.80~ots tmcpo.vEta.ts 1TEpt1TEo-e'tv: 'meet with unexpected appearances of the enemy' (Shuckburgh). 9. Ka.1'a Tay11a.: 'in detachments'. 10. 1Tpos 1Taao.v E:mcj>6.v~~a.v: 'to meet every attack' (d. § 7} or 'to face in any direction' (cf. xv. 7, p.J.xwea.~ Trpos miaasT<:ls tn~rf>a.vtcla;;). II. T-/jv all1'1lv ~XEt 8ta0Eaw: equally well prepared'. 12. TTJ\i Ko."Ta 11kpos ellxpTiaT(o.s: 'the effective use of the parts'. 13. 1TOAAous Twv 'EXXi}vwv 8ta.Aa.!l~O.vnv KTA.: P.'s purpose is to instruct his fellow-countrymen; cf. ii. 35· g.

n:

33. 2. Ets 1'ofJV A6.ptao.v ••• "Twa. 1'WV u1Ta.a1TtcrTwv: on Philip's hypaspists see v. 27. 3 n. Philip had marched south from Larissa (19. 3), which evidently served as his base for the expedition, hence the royal records there. For Philip's own movements immediately after the battle see 27. r-2. 1rpay11a. ~aatA~Kov: ni ... 1To~
XVIIL 33· 3 AFTER:\IATII OF CYNOSCEPHALA.E:

3. Twv U'ITOf.l.VTJf.LCtTWv: Philip's ephemerides, or official records of public business, part of the nonnal apparatus of Hellenistic kings since Alexander, kept in diary form aml recording all that concerned the king; cf. Wilcken, Phil. r894, So ff.; Kaerst, RE, 'Ephemerides'. cols. 2749-53· They are often called lnrol-'-'"tJf-La.To., but must be distinguished from memoirs; cf. Polyaen. iv. 6. 2 (an Antigonus); Ps.Lucian, Encom. Dem. 26 (general reference to the ~facedonian house); and for Ptolemaic ephemerides cf. Aristeas, ep. ad Philoc. 298 Wendland; cf. Jacoby, FGII, commentary on voL ii BD, p. 639, 11. 22-35· 4-7. Philip's reaction to the disaster: P. discusses Philip's character and the changes in it at various points: it dearly fascinated him. For his early impulse br~ To 3€ov (which coincided \\i.th his support ol Achaea under the influence of Aratus) cf. iv. 77. r-4, 82. I, vii. n. 8; for his change for the worse cf. iv. 77· 4, v. g. r-12. 8, vii. n-q. viii. 8. 1· 4, I2. 1-8, iX. 2J. 9, X. 26, 7-10. 6. f.l.ET' &.,.o8t:[~t:ws t~'lY'l<7af.L€9a.: cf. iii. I. 3, x. 21. 3; see ii. 37. 3 n. 7. TTJV (.LETavoLa.v: 'change of mind, disposition' rather than 'repen tance' (Shuckburgl1). (.L~ with Reiske, 'altered by the disasters inflicted by Fortune', or aUf-Lf-LETaf:Jef-LEVa>, 'changing to suit the disasters, etc.' (d. ix. 23. 4, Tai> nvv 7TpO.yf-LaTwv f-LETa{1oAa.is aviLf-LETa.TlHwOa.~) ; Casaubon adopts the second translation without adapting the text. EOAoyLaT<JTnTn ••• KEXpfJa9nl: 'to haYe faced the crisis in his affairt' with great prudence'; Paton adds superfluously 'until his death'.

34. l-39. 7. Aftermath of Cynoscephalae There is a small lacuna between 3.3· 8 and 34· r, as can be seen from Livy, xxxiii. 2-7, from P.; it contained a description of the sending of a herald by Philip, ostensibly to ask for a truce to bury the dead. but in fact to ask for permission to send envoys. Flamininus granted both requests, adding the encouragement bono animo esse regem. Thi" led the Aetolians to complain of his changed manner since the victory, his failure to consult the allies and the withholding of their fai1 share of the spoils of victory; d. Pint. Flam. 9· 2. 5· For an analysis of this passage see Holleaux, E't1.,des, v. 86-IoJ.

34. 1. Tfj ••• 'ITAEovE~L\1- TWv Ahw?.wv: cf. Livy, xxxiii. II. 8, 'sed l'l suscensebat non immerito Aetolis ob insatia hilem auidita tern praecb · et arrogantiam eorum, uictoriae gloriam in se rapientium, qu;w uanitate sua omnium aures offendebat'. ¢1iAL'IT'ITov EK~af..wv EK TTj<; O..pxijs KTA.: Livy, xxxiii. II. 9, translat• ,, 'et Philippa sublato, fractisopibus Macedonici regni Aetolos habendo" 592

AFTET(:\[A TH OF CY:\OSCEPlL\L\E

XVTli. 3+· o

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

Qq

593

XVIII. 34· 7 AFTERMATH OF

CY~OSCEPH.\L\E

7. 8wpE:cw 'll'pclTT'Eiv: 'to do something gratis'. TOU xapaKTi}po~ ••• '!l'ap lfhJ Kat v6p.tp.a.

35. Examples of Roman integrity. The reference to the fall of Carthagt' in § 9 dates the composition of this chapter after 146; but this in itself does not mean that the chapter is a later insertion since there is no evidence that P. had composed beyond xv or xvi before that date. However, 1 is a reference forward to the account of Aemilins Paullus and the younger Scipio in xxxi. zz-so; cf. xxxi. 22. 4 and perhaps 23. r for references back to the present chapter. But thi,.; later digression, which is also much concerned with the question of Roman integrity (cf. xxxi. z2. I-Tr, 25. 9, etc.), contains a hint ol Scipio's death (xx.xi. 28. IJ), and though this could be a later insertinn, it ~:,>ives some support to the suggestion (Gelzer, Kl. Schr. iii. 2o7-f)) that xviiL 35 and xxxi. 22-30 were both written at the same time, after Scipio's death in r2g. This cannot be proved with certainty, and if true would not imply that P. changed his views on Rome in a more pessimistic direction in his later years, since the present criticism is couched in general terms, associating deterioration in Roman character with the date when they undertook overseas wars, which means from 200 onwards (§ I n.); see Brink and \Valbank,

CQ, I954. 105-i· 35. 1. ICClTQ ••• TOUS avwTipw xpovous: contrasted \Vith €v Ot TOts l!Vll Kcupo'Ls. Both phrases are vague, but the reference to Sta1TdVTtot ?T6A£p.o•, prior to which the Romans maintained their own gf)TJ Kat v6p.tp.a (cf. 34· 8) suggests that P. is thinking of the age of the eastern wars from 200 onwards. In i. 71. 8 the First Punic War is called DLa?Tovnos 1TdA£p.os; but this is in reference to Carthage, and in any case P. cannot be thinking of so early a date, for in vi. 56. I he speak:-: of Roman (ff)TJ Ko.t ~>6p.tp.a as still unimpaired, and though he uses the present tense the context of his remarks is the time he is nominally concerned with, that of Cannae. This association of moral deterioration with luxury following the eastern wars is also in the annalistic tradition in Livy; cf. Livy, xxxix. 6. 7 for the introduction of luxun to Rome as the aftermath of Manlius Vulso's Galatian expedition of 189; L. Piso, fg. 34 Peter Pliny, Nat. hist. xxxiv. r4. That this was a contemporary view and not one later imposed on the tradition appears from the events of Cato's censorship of r84, when a statLw set up in his honour in the temple of Salus had the inscription statin1: that 'when the Roman state was tottering to its fall, he was madt· 594

EXAMPLES OF

ROMA~

INTEGRITY

XVIII. 35· 6

censor and by helpful guidance, wise restraints and sound teachings restored it again' (Plut. Cat. mai. 19. 3). See Brink and Walbank, loc. cit. (in previous note). 2. Ko.T' tSlo.v: 'individually', as opposed to mtpl -rravTwv. 3. SU' bvofLO.To.: Reiske supplied the verb TTa.pa.O~aofLa.t or TTapl~ofLat. 4. AfHJKtos ••• AtfLIAtos: L Aemilius L.f. :M.n. Paull us was the son of the consul who perished at Ca.nnae (cf. iii. r6. 7 n., 106. I~z, n6. 9). As consul for the second time he conquered Perseus at Pydna in 168 (cf. xxix. I, 14 ; on his integrity cf. xxxi. zz. P.'s favourable picture of Aemilius connects v.i.th his own position in the household of Scipio Aemilianus (cf. Vol. I, pp. 3 ff.). Tijs Mo.K€Oovwv ~o.cnAeio.s: 'the Macedonian kingdom' (not, with Paton, 'the palace of the M:acedonian kings'). Tijs ••. KO.TO.O'K€UllS: 'booty'; cf. i. 19. rs, ii. 8. 4 (not specifically 'furniture' (Paton)). v>.eiepv1]v: her name is unknown. The Roman institution of dos, dowry, was designed to meet the onera matri'!1Wnii and so secure the husband's economic position relative to his wife in 595

XVIII. 35· 6 EXAMPLES OF ROMAN INTEGRITY

marriages invoking no transfer of manus and so no possession of the \.vife's whole property by the husband. Roman law distinguished between dos projecticia, a dowry by the bride's father, and dos adwmticia, that given by another, including the bride herself. If the wife predeceased the husband, dos profectZ:cia normally returned to her father, but dos aduenticia remained the property of the husband unless the wife was still in her father's potestas, in which case tht· dowry returned to him. However, the fate of the dowry in the cast' of the husband's prior death was frequently covered by pacta dotalia (dos recepticia) and some such agreement may have covered thr· dowry in the present instance, so that the two brothers had to retum it to their stepmother out of their father's estate. The word {3ovATJ (Nvr€> (§ 6) should not be taken to indicate a voluntary act of generosity for which there was no obligation. See Leonhard. RE, 'dos', cols. r586-9; P. E. Corbett, The Roman Lari! of ItJarriag<' (Oxford, 1930). 147-204, especially 182 ff. TTJV €vSouxiav: 'household goods'. Twv ~ .iiv-rioxos- certainly means 'Antiochus the Great' (see nob· ad loc.), and no parallelis quoted forthe use of p.€yas as the equivalent of maior, in both xxviii. 23. 4 and xxxi. rz. 8 the .!VIS. reads 1rpm{lvrl"' for the elder Ptolemy (following Reiske, editors read 1Tpmf3vr€pot<) and both that reading and p.
8.

596

EX.UIPLES OF ROMAl'\ I.:\TEGRITY

XVIII. J7·

2

wealth see Kahrstedt, iii. I~J4o; G. and C. Charles-Picard, Daily Lzfe in Carthage (New York, 1961), 59-rzS, I64-90. 10. p.~Tp~os wv ... ws 'Pwp.a.ios: 'only moderately well-off, for a Roman'; P. has in mind the contrast between the vast fortunes of the Roman nobiles and that of even a rich Greek. According to xxi. z6. 14 Alexander the Isian, who was the richest man in Greece (xxi. z6. 9), possessed a little over zoo talents, and this will have been quite exceptional. Wunderer, i. II3, takes the sense to be 'of only modest fortune, as Romans are', and suggests that Roman simplicity was proverbial; the error of this view had already been exposed by Schweighaeuser, ad loc. 12. C.va.f-1-.f.u,.~tiT'IlTov ••• n)v •.• So~a.v: cf. xxxi. 25. 9, 7TEpt T
36. 1. OLKEtu)npov ••• Kalpov: xxxi. :u-30; see especially xxxi. 22. 4 (and perhaps 23. r) for reference back to this chapter. as he had promised Philip's envoys, 34· 5· 2. ToG auv~<Sp£ou auva.x9enos il~ a..:nwv TouTwv: 'while the council was composed exclusively of them'; but there were other Romans present (37. lO ). 4. 'TTpovota.v a.uTov 1TOttiaa.otla.L 71'avTa.s KTA,: misrepresented by Livy, xxxiii. 12. 2, 'ita componendam pacem esse, ut Graecia etiam absentibus Homanis satis potens tuendae simul pads libertatisque esset'. 5. ;4.A~;~avSpos o AtTwAOs: probably Alexander •law>; cf. 3· I n. 7. rqv TTjS 1TO.Tp(5os 1Tpo9E.(JlV • , • t(At1T1TOY i~e~aAA£w it< Tfjs &.pxijs: which Flarnininus was not prepared to do (34· r). Ta.~O.f-1-Evos TjtJ.€pa.v:

37. l. ovn yap 'Pwp.a.[ous •.• E09€ws nva.O'TUTOUS 'TTOtEiY: cf. App. Mac. 9· According to Roman doctrine the iustum bellum was fought to right a \Hong, and this view P. approves; cf. v. II. s. ov yap J1r' tl?TwAdq. I3Ei: Kat d

TOt<;

ayvo~aaat 7TOAt:p.EtV TOU<; dyaBork

avSpa<;

ill' i?T/. 13top6w(u;.t Ka/. flE.Taf:Ma
XVIII. 37·

2

AFTERJI.L\ TH OF CYXOSCEPHAL.\E

T6 1rpwTov 1roAE!L~aavra<;

will have a special significance in relation

to Carthage.

5. TWY 1T€pl. TTj~ s~a.A.)CJ€w~ auAA6ywv: in Locris; cf. I-12. 6. 6.yvwJ.LoveaTa.Tov: cf. xxiii. 18. 2. The word implies both folly and lack of feeling; translate 'inconsiderate'. 7. 1ToA£J.LoOvm~ yap 8£i KTA.: cf. xxvii. 8. 8, where P. states this to be Roman policy. It is, of course, the doctrine enshrined in Yirgil's famous line 'parcere subiectis et debellare superbos' (Aen. vi. 853), and the claim to behave generously is implicit in much secondcentury publicity, as seen especially in contemporary Greek inscriptions; cf. Syll. 593 (Flamininus writing to Chyretiae c. 196/4), 6or (:M. Valerius Messalla writing to Teos in 193), 618 (letter of the Scipios to Heracleia on Latmos; cf. De Sanctis, Atti Ace. Torino, 1921j2, 242-9), 676 (Elean decree honouring L. Mummius). See further H. Volkmann, Hermes, 1954, 474 ff. (though his argument that P. is the source of a theme that the Romans were universal benefactors by virtue of ridding the world of Carthaginians, as if they were wild beasts-a theme attributed to a Roman speaker debating the fate of Carthage in 201 by Diod. xxvii. 18. 3-is not convincing). 9. TTjS 9p~KWV KO.L f a.Aa.TwV va.pa.VOJ.Lia.s: cf. ix. 34· I I n. for tJw traditional violence of the Gauls, and ix. 35· 3 n. for the argument that Macedonia forms a traditional bulwark for Greece against the barbarians. Cf. Holleaux, CAH, viii. 177 n. I, '(the argument) lost not a little of its force when it was advanced by the ally of the Iilyrians, the Thracians and the Dardanians'. 11.
598

AFTER!\1ATH OF CYNOSCEPHALAE

XVIII. 38.9

have formed an isolated piece of Aetolian territory (d. Flaceliere, 349 n. 3), it must be assumed that the Aetolians got Thebes. 5. eyy(cra.VTOS a.ihou: cf. r8~33 D.; Livy, XXXiii. 5· 1-3. 7, Ka.Ta T~V ES apxTjs O'U!J.p.a.xta.\1; cf. 47• 8, 48. 7; the alliance Of 2II (cf. ix. z8~39 n., 39· 3 n.). For the terms see also xi. 5· 5· iA611Twv (Biittner-Wobst and Paton) is a misprint for &.\6wrwv (see Hultsch). 8. Ka8' ov Ka.Lpov TdoS lha~ucrELS ~'II'OLTJO"avTo: in the separate peace made between Aetolia and her Greek enemies in autumn 2o6 (Livy, xxix. I 2. r, cf. Livy, xxxYi. 31. n ; above xi. 7. 2-3 n.). 9. Kop.(~ea9aL Ka.i. '11'apa~a.p.l3avew: 'recover and take over'; there is no substantial difference of meaning. OUK er TW£S eii£~0VTfJV aopas ••• evexelpLO'Il\1 KTA.: Flamininus asserts that even if the alliance of zrr still subsisted the Aetolians would be entitled only to such cities as had been taken by force, and not those which surrendered voluntarily. The implication is clearly that the treaty of 211 laid do-w11 those conditions, and it is difficult to see how Stier (27) can paraphrase: 'und wenn das Biindnis noch weiter dauere, so unter anderen Bcdingungen', and go on to describe the conditions mentioned by Flamininus not as part of the terms of 2u, but simply as the usual rules of war. Flamininus' statement creates problems. The first point, that the Thessalian cities do not appear to fall within the area with which, according to Livy, xxvi. 24. u, the treaty was concerned, is not substantial and has already been discussed: see ix. 39· 3 n. But more important is the fact that the newly discovered fragments of the Roman-Aetolian treaty include a clause not mentioned in our literary tradition which appears to cover precisely the case of the Thessalian towns which surrendered voluntarily. This reads I

5

f:l 0~ 'TtVUS' (sic) I
€-

Toii 8]arwv Twv 'Pw;wlwv [-roi:]s AlTwAois [d:; To ath-wv 1r]pAlTw,ua Tron'Aa1Lf3avnv [lteaTW • .•.•9 •••• ]ctt.'TtpV afrrOI'OfLWV c" rJ - - - - Ta JvTat; Toii dm) 'Ppwi-- c_ ;:r_----]at TaV
zo

r- -- - --

Klaffenbach (S.-B. Berlin, 1954, t, r3} argues that woOlrrraaBat implies surrender before fighting began, 1ronxwpe£v in the course of it (cf. i. 29. 3) ; but whether this distinction is well founded or not' it seems 1 R. Stiehl, 'f;Vissmschajl. Zeitschr. Le-ipzig, I9S:;J6, 29t-2, believes that the distinction between the two verbs lies in the tense, the present subjunctive 'JJ'OfJirrroJ•-rm indicating 'dal3 eine stadt fUr lange Zeit oder dauernd auf romischer oder aetolbcher Seite bleibt', and the aorist subjunctive ,.,...,xwp~uov.,., 'dal3 sie

599

XVIII. 38.9

AFTERMATH OF CYNOSCEPH.\LAE

clear that this clause is concerned with cities which surrender voluntarily, in contrast to those taken by force, which are provided for in 11. 4-15. The argument of R. Stiehl (seep. 599 n. r) that ll. 15-21 of the inscription do not concern towns surrendering voluntarily, takes no account of the context of this clause within the inscription; for if troO{a;a.vra.L and 1Tonxwp~aovn do not mean 'go over voluntarily', what do they mean? (It follows that Stiehl's reconstruction of the first surviving, but fragmentary, lines of the inscription to cover the case of voluntary surrender may be neglected.) However, if thl' treaty covered cities making voluntary surrender, why does Chlaenea" quote the clause referring to cities taken by force (§ 7), and why does he not make any retort to Flamininus' apparently incorrect interpretation of the treaty? Klaffenbach suggests (op. cit. 19) that th•· answer lies in a certain disingenuousness on the part of P. First tht~ sentence Ka.O' ~v !!SH ... Al.wAwv may be P.'s own elucidating addition: Chlaeneas referred to the treaty in general terms, P. in the light of Flamininus' retort has inserted this limiting and misleadingqualification. But in that case Chlaeneas must have retorted that Flamininus had quoted the wrong clause. Perhaps then P. has also suppressed this Aetolian reply (Klaffenbach, ibid.). This view, which implies dishonesty in both Flamininus and Polybius, is hardly convincing; and the most likely solution of the problem is that in the lost part of the inscription (11. 21 ff.) there was some further qualificacation concerning cities making voluntary surrender, such that Flamininus' distinction could be justified legally. A. H. :VIcDonald (]RS, 1956, 155-7) has proposed, exempli gratz'a, a possible reconstruction of these lines which would indicate that such towns as surrendered to Rome (by deditio) were to be autonomous and be accepted into the Roman amicitia; Aetolia would still be free to receive them (r.onAa.fLf5dvELv) into her confederation, but the decision would be theirs. On this hypothesis the Aetolian claim, even on the basis of the original treaty, could be rejected as pre~ mature; the first step would be the recognition of the autonomy of the three cities and their admission as Roman amici. But in fac1 since the original treaty was null and void, they were merely in th;· category of dediticii and the Romans were no longer committed t" granting them autonomy; they could be disposed of entirely a~ seemed good to Rome (d. xx. 9· r2). This hypothesis solves many ol the difficulties of reconciling P.'s account with the evidence of tiw treaty; but it is rather hard to believe that the treaty of ~11 made such elaborate provision for towns making deditio to Romt·, viz. guaranteed autonomy, specified acceptance as amici of Ronw, sich zu einem einmaligen oder kurz befristeten Akt verstehen muLl'. In that c:hc. whv the change of verb and not merdy of tense? But such a distinction seen"' highly improbable. 6oo

AFTER::O.L\TI-I OF CYNOSCEPHALAE

XVIII. 40.2

with later permission to join the Aetolian confederation. Like Klaffenbach's hypothesis, it also involves the assumption that the words Ka8' ~"' ... AlrwAwv are an insertion of P. and not part of Chlaeneas' speech.

39. 1. apXTJ KaKWV: d. Xi. 5· 9 n. 3. TOV !b..vTLOXOV a1TO Iup1as StaKoulov> is simply 'over 2oo'. ATJJLtJTpLOv Tov ul6v: Demetrius was Philip's second son (xxi. q. 9, Tbv vEwrarov viov, but the onl.Y e\·idence for a third son is the corrupt passage, Livy, xlii. 52. s. mentioning one Philip adopted by Perseus, who may have been Philip V's posthumous son, since he was born in q8: for he died at the age of about IS, two years after Perseus, and so, since Perseus lived five years after Aemilius Paull us' triumph in r67 (Euseb. i. 240 Sch.), in r6o). Who Demetrius' mother was is unkno\vn; but he was five years younger than his half-brother Perseus (Livy, xl. 6. 4) and so born about 2o8/7; for in r82 Perseus was 30 and Demetrius 25 (Livy, ibid.). At this time he was only ro or II years old. Twv cp1Xwv: d. iv. 23. 5 n. 40. 1-4. On being deceived

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

40. 2. p!fbLOupy1as: 'villainy', d. xii. 9· 5 ; on the above hypqthesis, the reference is to the treachery of the slave who gives away his master; d. Livy, xxxiii. 28. 14, 'aperit perlectisque litteris pauidus Thebas refugit et ad magistratns iudicium defert'. This act remains 6or

XVIII. 40.::

0.::-<

BEI~G

DECEIVED

villainous, even though carried out against those equally villainous, 1TTJrfJ -rij<; -rmaVTTJ> imapxEL KaKo1Tpayp.ou6vrys--villainous both as murderers and as men prepared cold-bloodedly to rid themselves of the slave who shares in the guilt. voXX6.1<1S lnro voA.Xwv Tj811 yeyovE: Aymard, Pallas, 1956, 36 n. recalls the similar incident which occurred in connexion with the Spartan regent Pausanias (Time. i. IJZ-J). TO va.p' 'Emxci.p~~ •.. etpTJ~Evov: the line (Kaibel, CGF, zso) is repeated xxxi. IJ. 14 as the last line of the verses which wrote for the prince Demetrius as a hint to fly. The Yerse was very common. Cicero, ad Att. i. r9. 8, quotes it as cantilena £lla; cf. Lucian, Hermoti-m. 47, de pet. eons. 39, "EmxapjLcwv illud teneto, neruos atque artus esse sapientiae, non temere credere'. One need not assume that P. was familiar with Epicharmus' works in generaL See Wunderer, ii. 5I.

1rap' o[:; ~

40. 5. Fragment on 1'yfedion On Median sec ii. z. 5 n. It may well have been mentioned in a description of L. Quinctius' operations against Acarnania, including the capture of Leucas (d. 47· 8 n.), which are related from P. in Livy, xxxiii. 16-17; the last sentence of q, 'audita proelio, quo ad Cynoscephalas pugnaturn erat, omnes Acarnaniae populi in dicionem legati ucnerunt', may represent a fuller narrative in P. 41 a. Antiochus' advance in Asia 1'v!inor

After his successful campaign against Ptolemy in zoo (cf. xvi. r8. z-19. rr, 22 a, 27. 5, ,39) Antiochus besieged Scopas in Sidon (Hieron. in Dan. xi. rs-r6) and forced him to capitulate, probably in 199; the complete subjection of Coele-Syria, including the taking of Jerusalern (Hieron. Joe. cit.) lasted into 198 (d. Livy, xxxiii. 19. 8; Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 326 -7). He then turned to Asia Minor and Thrace to take advantage of the Second Macedonian War and in spring 197 he sailed along the coast with roo warships and zoo lighter craft, while his generals led the army towards Sardes (Livy, xxxiii. HJ9-II). The Rhodians presented him with an ultimatum not to pass the Chelidonian Islands, but on the news of Cynoscephalae reaching them, they carne to terms with him, gaining various cities for themselves (Livy, xxxiii. :zo; Holleaux, CA H, q8-<)). On this campaigu d. 39· 3· Of his further advance up the coast the evidence is scattered. Iasus, and probably other towns (cf. Heuss, Stadt und Herrscher. 220, 230 n. r), were nominally freed (OGIS, 237); but Iasus later ha" a Syrian garrison (Livy, xxxvii. 17· 3). The two fragments here con cern this campaign, part of the res Asiae of 01. 145, 3 (198/7); on il see further Schmitt, A ntiochos, 2R5 ff.

.\.:.-TIOCHCS' AD\'AXCE I:\ AS!\

~II::-iOR

XYHI 4r. 7

41 a 1. Kw.Mnv 8E: Tov :ts.vTLoxov KTA.: the Rhodian ultimatum to Antiochus: cf. Livy, xxxiii. 20. 2-3, 'legatos ad regem miserunt, ne Chelidonias ... superaret: si eo fine non con tineret dassem co~ piasque suas, se obuiam ituros, non ab odio ullo, sed ne coniungi eum Philippo paterentur et impedimenta esse Romanis liberantibus Graeciam'. xxiii. rg. I I states that Antiochus' voyage was made 'simul Philippum-necdum enim debellatum erat-exercitu nauibusque adiuturus' ; but it would be unsafe to attribute this view toP., who may have given this as a suspicion, which Livy has converted into a fact. 2. wp£yno TTtS 'Ecf!£aou: he soon gained it (Hieron. in Dan. xi. rs) with Rhodian help (cf. Frontin. Strat. iii. 9· 10) and wintered there in 197/6 (Livy, xxxiii. 38. r; cf. below, xx. 8. s. 11. 2, xxL II. 13). Ephesus lay on a hill south of the Cayster, in the Gulf of Scala Nova in Ionia, about ro km. from the present mouth of the river (Strabo, xiv. 64o); by the early second century it was already largely silted up (Livy, xxxviL 14. 7; Pliny, Nat. hist. ii. 20I, 204; v. ns). On its site and history see Biirchner, RE, 'Ephesos', cols. 2773-2822; Magie, i. 74-76, ii. 885·8: for recent excavations since 1955 see J. M. Cook, Arch. Rep. r959-6o, 43·47 (reports in various volumes of the Austrian ]ahreshejte); in general, F. Miltner, Ephcsos (Vienna, 1958); J. Keil, Ephesos: ein Fiihrer durch die Rttinenstiitte (Vienna, 1957). 1'Wv €cf!' 'Ef..A1]0'1TOVTou 'll'OAEWV: the cities of the Troad: cf. 54· 2 n. 41. Death of Attalus After his stroke at Thebes (d. 17. 6 n.), Attalus was taken back to Pergamum and there died (Livy, xxxiii. zi. r-s based on P.). For Eumcnes' eulogy on him cf. xxi. 20. 2-5. 41. 1. Ka8&.'11't:p 'll'Ep~ Tti>v O.f..f..wv: for other 'obituaries' d. xxiii. r2 (Philopoemen), 13 (Hannibal), r4 (Scipio Africanus). 2. ou8€v €cf!o8tov ••• TWV EI with {Jaa~>.,da, 'to rule over those outside his own household'; this is surely wrong. 5. 00 ~-Lt:'itov 1\l
603

XVUL 4r. 7

Erythrac, and Cyzicus, despite a defeat at the hands of Antiochus 1 in 275; and sometime before 266 the Tectosages were given the area around Ancyra as a permanent home by the king of Pontus. On his succession as dynast at Pergamum in 241, .:\ttalus refused tribnte to the Tolistoagii, who were established in Aeolis and Ionia, defeated them decisively on the upper Caicus and drove them back from thP coast. Attalus then took the title of Icing and his victory was widely celebrated in Pergamene art, in dedications and in the growth of OGIS, 276), 43-45; Paus. i. 25. z legends (cf. lnsch. Perg. 20, 24 (see above, xvi. 26. 5 n.); Polyaen. iv. 20; Frontin. Strat. ii. 13. 1: Paus. X. 15. 2-3 for a prophetic oracle; Hansen, rrp&i'Tov a.1hov (8,n5~:: pa.o-t>.ia.: probably 'he first styled himself kinE:· (cf. § 8, -rvxtlw . . . Ttfi.ijs -ravTr}';) ; and cf. Strabo, xiii. 624, Kai UV7Jyopn5BYJ (3aatA<;US OOTOS 1TpWTO<;, J.'LK~O'aS raAd.-ras fUlXfl fl.EyfL\v. 8. pu~aa.~ ETt'( 8oo rrpo~ Tois ip8o!J-fp..: he was therefore born in 269 or 268, and succeeded Eumenes in 241; P.'s chronologv is preferable to thi\t of Strabo, xiii. 623 f., who gives Attalus a reign of only forty-three years. The text of P.'s forty-four years is confirmed by Liv:y, xxxiii. zr. r, 'cum quattuor et quadraginta anno;; regnasset'. Cf. Beloclt, iv. 2. 206-n ; Corradi, 6r. '1Tpo<; yuva.'l~~:a. Ka.i T(~~:va.: on his wife A pollonis sec xxii. 20; on hi:-. sons, § 9 n. 9. eva.rr(&a.vt: 8' ev a.•ho'i:s TOt~ Ko.li.Xio-To'i £pyots: cf. xxi. 20. :;. Ka-recnpeifie -rov {3lov ~v au-roi:s- -roi:s €pyo<<;. 10. TETTa.pa.~ u{oo~: Eumenes, Attalus, Philetaerus, and Athenaeus. Eumenes II. who succeeded his father in r97, must have been born before nr, since Attalus II, his younger brother, died in r38 at the age of 8:2 (Ps.-Lucian, M acrab. r2). Both Attalus II and Philetaerus are called l'€avlO'Ko~ in 181 (xxi\·, 5. 5), and so \Vill ha,·e been under 40 at that date (Holleaux, Etudes, ii. 5 n. 5; on the meaning of vea~·{aKo. cf. iv. r6. 6 n.}. Athenaeus, the youngest son, was e\·iclently born before 215, and was at least r8 in 197, when his father died (cf. Holleaux, Etudes, ii. 59, commenting on an inscription in his honom from New Colophon). All four brothers are mentioned in later parh of P. (Philetaerus only at xxxviii. q. 2). 'l'l'a.,o-t rra.(Swv: cf. iv. rs n. for this phrase in the sense pf grand-children. Tbe is to A ttalus II L, son of Eumenes I I (cf. xxx. 2. xxxm. r8. r ff.). who succeeded Attalus II on hh death in r38 (Strabo, xiiL 624; Ps.-Lucian, Macrob. r2), and suggesh that these words at least were written after that date.

42. Embassies to an.d from Rome This extract is from the res Itabiae of rg6; see pp. 27-28. Livy, xxxiii. 2.J. 2-7, zs. 4-7, gives a version of these events from an annalistic source. 604

EMBASSIES TO AND FROM ROME

XVIII. 42. 5

42. 1. Mo.pKEAXou KXo.u8(ou: M. Claudius M.f. M.n. Marcellus, consul = rg6 B.c., was the son of the famous Marcellus of for A.U.c. the Hannibalic War; cf. x. 32. 6 n. His colleague was L Furius Sp.L Sp.n. Purpurio. The consular year began on I 5 March, but the Roman year was anything from two to four months in advance of the seasons at this time (cf. De Sanctis, iv. r. 368 ff.; Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 336-48; v. 249-94); hence Marcellus probably entered office towards the end of 197 (Julian}. The exact wording of the first few \\·ords of this extract (with hiatus) probably derives from the epitomator. According to LhT, xxxiiL 24. 3-7, the envoys were heard and the Commission of Ten appointed before the end of the consular year A. u.c. 557, and Nissen (KU, 143) would emend lrri here to avdn (Niese, ii. 646 n. 2, corrects this to oJrrw); but the account of Marcellus' opposition occurs in Livy (xxxiii. 35· 5-6) after the new consuls have taken office, as in P., whereas Nissen's emendation would bring it back into the end of the previous year. It seems clear that Livy here follows an annalistic source, and our text of P. cannot be adjusted on that basis. 2. t:v TU auy~
XVIII. 42. 5

E!\IHASSIES TO

A~D

FRO!.£ ROME

P. Aelius Paetus, who visited Antiochus at Lysimacheia in either r96 or 195 (cf. so. z n.). There are no grounds for supposing (Homo, Re·v. hist. rzz, r9r6, 6; Passerini, A then. 193:2, no ff., 326 ff.) that the Ten were sent out to oppose Flamininus' policy; cf. Aymard, PR, I73 n. JI. 6. rrepl. Tij!> aulllla.xia!> olrra.pc\ Twv :A.xcuwv rrpicr~ELS: presumably on the S\\Tearing of a regular joedus. vYhen, in the autumn of 198, thr Achaeans ,,;ent over to the Roman side, 'societatem cum (Attalo) a(' Rhodiis praesenti decreto confirmarunt; cum Romanis, quia iniussu populi non poterat rata esse, in id tempus, quo Romam mitti legati possent, dilataest' (Livy, xxxii. 23. r-2). The issue was not apparently raised by the Achaean delegates who went to Rome after the con ference in Locris (cf. 10. II n.), and so first came up now. Aa11o5~;:vov Tov AtyLia.: Damoxenus of Aegium (not Aegae, as Paton) is not mentioned elsewhere; but d. 39· 4 n. Whether he was alone is not clear from P.'s formula. 7. y~;:vofLEvTJS 8' O.vnpp'iJaew<;: presumably by the representatives of Elis, Messene, and Aetolia (cf. Kromayer, AS, ii. I. II4 n. z). Aymanl (PR, 174 n. 34) points out that neither Elis nor Messenia had been involved in this war; but clearly the question of the Achaean treat\ (with implications for the territorial status quo) vvill have been kno\VJt to be likely to arise, and envoys would be sent with the specific object of making the claims here mentioned. 'HA.e£oos •.• urr€p Tij!> T pt.q>uAta.<;: seized by Philip from Elis durinf,; the Social War (iv. n 8-11. 79-8o; cf. v. 27. 4), its subsequent fate is recounted confusedly by Livy, who dates its cession to Achaea first in zo8 (Livy, xxviii. 8. 6) and then in 199 (Livy, xxxiii. S· 4); evidently in the first passage Livy has misrepresented a promise, noi fulfilled, but the second is to be accepted (cf. Livy, xxxii. r9. 7. lv[acedomf.tn benejiciis . .. recentibu.s). The Eleans certainly had a case, since Philip had transferred the territory to the Achaeans (\vho had never previously possessed it) during the war. But the Romans wen: eventually to confirm the Achaeans in its possession (47· 10; cf. Livy. xxxiii. 34· 9). The affair has been much discussed; see for a sound summary Aymard, PR, 59-60 n. 53· MecrcrT]VlOUS UlTEp :A.crt\IT]'i KC1L nuA.ou: A sine lay on the west coast of the Gulf of Messenia, east of Mt. Acritas (modern IIH. Tsarnaoura) . it was a Dryopian town (Herod. viii. 73· z; Strabo, viii. 359, 373) Most topographers have identified it with the modern town of Koroni. on the basis of the list of sites from north to south given by Pau~. iv. 34· 4-IZ, and this seems acceptable. True, a statue base with au inscription found at Koroni (M. N. Valmin, Bulletin de la Soci/1, Royale des Lettres de Lund, 1934-5. 44-46) seems to suggest that thi·. was the ancient Corone, which Pausanias places north of the saiH tuary of Apollo Corynthns, and which ought to correspond t< • 6o6

EMBASSIES TO AND FROM ROME

XVIII. 42 7

Petalidi; but to accept this identification would create chaos in Pausanias' list, which is apparently based on autopsy, and the best solution would seem to be that this stone was moved from Petalidi to Koroni for building purposes. See Roebuck, 18-22. Pylos, or Coryphasinm (d. iv. 16. 7, 25. 4, ix. 38. 8), is well known from the events recorded in Thucydides, and stood on the site of Palaiokastro at the north-west corner of Navarino Bay (cf. G. B. Grundy, JHS, 1896, 1-54; R. lYL Burrows, ibid. 55 76). The Achaeans must have seized Asine before entering the Second Macedonian War, when Messenia was allied to Rome (see below), and perhaps since zag, when the Aetolians demanded the return of Pylas alone (Livy, xxvii. 30. 13; d. Niese, ii. 646 n. 4); was in their hands by 220 (iv. 25. 4 n.; Niese, ii. 4rr n. 1). -ron 'PwJ.La.iwv u1Tltpxov-ra.c;;: referring to both Eleans and Messenians. For the latter there is independent evidence for a treaty with Rome, evidently sworn during the First Macedonian \Var (cf. Livy, xxxiv. 32. 16, quoted in xvi. 13. 3 n.). and, since Sparta also had a treaty (Liv;r, xxxiv. 31. .=;, also quoted in xvi. 13. 3 n.), Elis no doubt had one too. See Badian, 57-58. AtTwAous ••• 1Tcpt Ti}s 'Hpa.Lwv 1TOA~<wc;;: on the site of Heraea cf. ii. 5+ 12 n. It was promised to Achaea by Philip in 208 (Livy, xxviii. 8. 6, who says reddidit as he does for Triphylia: see above,§ 7 n.) and restored in 199 (Livy, xxxii. 5· 4), but there is no eYidence that it had ever belonged to Aetolia. An error in the text is excluded by the reference to Heraea in Livy, xxxiii. 34· 9 (see belmv, 47· ron.); and an error by P. himself (De Sanctis, iv. 1. 104 n. 207. suggests a confusion with Phigaleia) is improbable. Any explanation of the Aetolian claim is therefore conjectural, as well as the date the Macedonians acquired the town. Aymard (PR, 25-27 n. 5) suggests that the Aetolians took Heraea during the First Macedonian War, and that Philip recaptured it before 2o8 and failed to hand it over to Achaea; but there is no space in our records of 211-208 for such a capture and recapture to take place and go unmentioned, nor would so short an Aetolian tenure give much ground for the present claim (d. \Valbank, Philip, I7 n. 2 for fuller discussion). It seems on the whole more likely that Doson garrisoned and kept the town after its submission in 223 {ii. 54· r3 n.). P.'s failure to mention it along with Corinth and Orchomenus in iv. 6. 4-6 is not decisive against this hypothesis, as Aymard, loc. cit., argues. The Aetolian claim may have rested on a promise by Philip to hand over the town, made in the separate peace of 2o6, as he probably promised certain to\\-TIS in Thessaly (3. 12 n.); the Aetolians could hardly bring up a claim to it along with that to the Thessalian towns at the conference in Locris, since bv then it was in Achaean hands. The alternative is to assume that it. was Aetolian at some date in the third century before the Achaeans 6o7

XVIII. 4 z. 7

EMBASSIES TO

.\~D

FR0:.\1 H0:\1E

acquired it (under Dioetas, probably in 236/5: Polyaen. ii. 36; cf. Beloch, iv. 2. 224; Tarn, CAli, vii. 745); but in that case it is odd that the Aetolians laid no claim to Mantinea, Tegea, Orchomenus. and Phigaleia, which had been more recently in their possessio11 (Aymard, loc. cit.).

43.

Rest()Yat~·on

of Brachylles and plot against him

The events here recounted fall in \Vinter 197/6 and form part of there' Graeciae of 01. 145,4 (197/6): seep. 28 and cf. Livy, xxxiii. 27.5-29. u.

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

RESTORATION OF BRACHYLLES

XVIIL 44·

1

12. 1Tpoo-o£o-ovTas T; d. Eur. Or. 396; Menander, fg. 632 (Kock, CAF, iii); Herodian, iv. 7· 1; Wunderer, ii. 67. The context is clear from Livy, xxxiii. z8. 10, 'Zeuxippus ... nocte perfugit Tanagram, suam magis conscientiam quam indicium hominum nullius rei consciorum metuens'. [40. 1-4. should probably be inserted here: see ad loc.]

44-48. The Roman settlement in Greece and the Isthmus declaration These events of spring-summer 196 follow in Livy (xxxiii. 30. I-35· u) immediately after the account of the events in Boeotia. 44. 1. KaTO. Tcw Ka~pbv Toihov: i.e. at the time of the events following on Brachylles' murder and the Roman assassinations. TO Tfjs o-uyK~~Tou (86y11a): this senatus consultum contained seYeral clauses regulating the application of the peace treaty, which had already been sworn and ratified (42. 4); it substantiated the Roman claim to organize Greek affairs and to ensure Greek freedom, and it made Philip responsible to the Senate for the fulfilment even of those clauses which concerned the allies; cf. Larsen, CP, 1936, 345· P. only the principal clauses, ,.a. uvv£xoVTa; he omits any reference to lllyria (cf. I. 14), which was probably by now in Roman hands. Lysimacheia had been evacuated and was in Thracian occupation s. 51. 7); but the omission of any references to Aenus, Maronea, and the other Ptolemaic towns later freed by L. Stertinius (48. :z) suggests that P. has omitted a clause dealing with the cities formerly Ptolemy's (cf. I. 14). There is also, strangely, no mention of payment of reparations to Eumenes (cf. z. 2 ff.). Attalus' captured ships may be included in § 6 (cf. Larsen, CP, 1936, 346}, but on the whole it seems more likely that a clause is lost or omitted. There is also no reference to giving hostages. See Taublcr, i. 237; Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 320. See also Livy, xxxiii. 30. 6-u (with annalistic variants and additions; cf. Nissen, 145; DeSanctis, iv. I. 96 n. I85; Holleaux, Etudes, v. ro4-20; in KQKAAOl..', 1956, 3 ff. L. Bivona unsuccessfully defends the authenticity of the clause restricting Philip's army to s,ooo men and his right to make war without the Senate's permission; 814173

R

r

XVIII. 44· r

THE SETTLEME);T IN GREECE AND

see too Petzold, 92--93, II7, and Klotz, Livius, 97 ; Livy represents the clauses of the senatus consultum as the terms of the peace treaty) ; App. Mac. 9· 3; Plut. Flam. 9· 5, ro. r; Tustin. xxx. 4· 17; Zon. ix. 1&. The terms are well set out in Ti:iubler, i. , see for a general discussion, Holleaux, CAH, vii. r8o; Etudes, iv. v. 86-ro3; Klotz, Hermes, 1915, {&r ff.; Larsen, CP, 1936, ; Aymard, PR, 272-87 ; Badian, p-73. 2. TOUS J.L€V aXXous VEXXl]VO.S 'ITQVT!JS: i.e. all not under Philip (§ J). The inclusion of the Greeks in Asia was, of course, a direct warning to Antioch us and represents a new claim on the part of Rome; at Nicaea it is the Rhodians who speak for Asia 3-4). 3. 1Tpo T~S Twv 'la9Jdwv 1Ta.vl]yopEws: the Isthmian festival stood third in the order of the four great panhellenic gatherings (after the Olympian and Pythian games), and was held on the Isthmus ol Corinth near Schoenus (Strabo, viii. 38o) near the site of the modern village of Kalamaki at the eastern end of the canal, in June July of each alternate year, falling in 'even' years. See Schneider, RE, 'Isthmia', cols. 2248-55; Gardiner, Greek Athletic Sports and Festivals (London, r9Io), 64 L, 214 f. 4. EupwJ.Lov ••• n€p~v9ov, iXEu9€pas O.q,t~vat: as an exception to the general rule for cities under Philip (§ 3). On Euromus see 2. 3 n. Pedasa (probably omitted in error from z. 3} is a name found applying to several towns in Anatolia (the form Pidasa abo occurs), but this one appears to be the Pedasa which received .,.a imepttKpta of the territory ofMiletus from the Persians in 494 (Herod. d. 2o), and which made a treaty of sympoliteia with ::\-Iiletus in the second century, perhaps in q6/s (Milet, i. 3, no. 149: Rehm's date in S.-B. Miinchen, 1923, no. 8, pp. I I ff.). The site is unccrtaill ; but the sympoliteia inscription shows that it was not far from Miletus or Euromus, and since it also mentions the maintenance of a road from Pidasa to Ioniapolis on the Latmic Gulf, Pedasa evidently lay somewhere near Mt. Grion. G. Bean and J. M. Cook located Ioniapolis at Koca Orman on the south shore of the La tmic lake and suggest for Pedasa a site high on the ridge of .Mt. Grion (Arch. Rep. I959-6o, 49); it is the modern Cert Osman Kale, above Dani~ment overlooking tht' Euromus. L. Robert (Rev. phil. 1957, 9) preferred a site in the \'allev of the Euromus; and for earlier suggestions see Rehm, 1i1ilet, i. 3· 35-~; Meyer, Grenzen, 78 n. r. Bean and Cook (BSA, 1955. 149-sr) suggested that the Pedasa mentioned here be that near Halicarnassns (Herod. i. qs), which is to be sited at Gokc;:eler, about 5 km. north of that city, since Philip needed a site in the Halicarnassian peninsub to complete his control of the Iasian Gulf; but the words lAwOip<~> &.cpdvat are against this, for this Pedasa had long been incorporatt-d in Halicarnassus. See in general \\l. Ruge, RE, 'Pedasa', cols. 26-2•J; Magie, ii. 962; ATL, i. 535--S. 610

THE

ISTR~HJS

DECLARATION

XVIII. 44· 6

For Bargylia see 2. 3. xvi. 24. 1-9 n. On Iasus see 2. 3. xvi. r2 n.; its presence in this senatus consultum may seem odd, if Antiochus had already taken it (41 an.), but the Senate may have mentioned it with one eye on him (d. Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 309 n. 2); the same will be true of Ab_ydus, which was also in Antiochus' hands by spring r96 (Livy, xxxiii. 38. 4, 8; Holleaux,loc. cit.); on Abydus see xvi. 29. 3 n. For Thasos see xv. 24. r n. 1Hyr£na (wrongly identified in the index to Biittner-Wobst with a town in Aeolis; cf. v. 77· 4 n.) is a city on Lemnos (d. 48. 2); it is the modern Kastro and stood on a steep promontory 135 m. high, projecting into a useful bay on the west coast. How long Lemnos had been Macedonian is uncertain. In 2o8 Sulpicius and Attalus sailed there from Aegina (Livy, xxviii. 5· r), but this passage of Livy furnishes no evidence on the ownership of the island ; similarly a letter of Philip V to Hephaestia (Accame, Riv.fil. 1941, 179-93; Fraser and McDonald, ]RS, 1952, 81-83) cannot be firmly dated and need not imply Macedonian possession of Lemnos at the time Philip was initiated at the Cabirion. Philip may have seized the island in 202 when he took Thasos (cf. xv. 24. 6 n.; Accame, op. cit. r8r; Ferro, 47-48 n. ; but Lemnos is not mentioned among the places that have suffered violence from Philip in the Roman speech in Livy, xxxi. 31. 4, and it may have been in Macedonian hands since before Philip's accession (d. Beloch, iv. 2. 348; Holleaux, Etudes, iv. J:lo-r). For Perinthus see 2. 4 n. P. makes no mention of Scstus and Hephaestia (cf. 2. 4, 48. 2), or the Greek cities of Thrace (d. 48. 2); Stratonicaea is omitted, for it fell to Antiochus, who restored it to the Rhodians, in late 197 (Livy, xxxiii. 18. 22). Of the towns mentioned, Jasus had already been 'liberated' by Antiochus (see above) ; and since only Bargylia is mentioned as being set free by P. Lentulus (48. r), it is likely that Philip's general Deinocrates had lost the other Carian places (Livy, xxxiii. r8). Hence this clause of the senatus consultum is intended mainly as a warning to Antiochus. 5. 1rEpt ..• '~'tl~ TWV Kto.vwv EAEu9EpwaEws: on the seizure of Cius by Philip on Prusias' behalf cf. xv. 21-24 n. There is no evidence that the approach to the neutral Prusias had any effect, for the town is later known as llpovat£i> am:l 8a/..aaaTJS (CIL, vi. rso8 = IG, xiv. 1077; d. Memnon, FGH, 434 F r, § 28. 6; Magie, i. 306, ii. II88-9); cf. Vitucci, so-sr. P. continues to use the original name (cf. Holleaux, Etudes, iii. qg-5o n. 6). 6. Ta S' o.txl-'ahW'!'O. ICal. '!'OU~ QUTO!-'OAous ava.vTa.s: perhaps including allies as well as Romans; Larsen, CP, 1936, 346 thinks only Romans are meant. Tfi~ £~eKa.lSE~et\pou~: on such large ships as this see Tam, HMND, 132 ff.; a 'sixteen', he suggests, was a ship with oars grouped in pairs, eight men to an oar. This particular vessel was probably 6n

XVIII. 44· 6

THE SETTLEMENT IN GREECE AND

taken by Lysimachus from Demetrius (Plut. Dem. 43· 4; cf. 20. 4, where the plural may be an exaggeration) and is perhaps Ptolemy Ceraunus' flagship (called an 'eight' by Memnon, FGH, 434 F I,§ 8. 5, oKT~PTJ'> . .. ~ A.wvToif>6poc; KaAoVJLEVTJ). It remained in Macedonia till the war between Rome and Perseus, after which Aemilius Paullus brought it to Rome, sailing in it up the Tiber (Livy, xlv. 35· 3). At Rome a special dock had to be built to hold it (xxxvi. 5· 9). 45. 5. 'fipt:ov, .•• KopLv9ov: for Chalcis, Corinth, and Demetrias, cL II. 4-5; on the Achaean claim to Corinth see 2. 5 n. Euboea, lih Phocis, had probably been under direct Macedonian control since· the First Macedonian \Var; cf. x. 42. 7 n. Oreus had been taken b\· the allies in I99 (Livy, xxxi. 46. 6, 9-I6), Eretria (with Carystus) i11 I98 (Livy, xxxii. I6. 10). Their appearance here may be an error (Holleaux, Etudes, v. 42. n. 2); but it is more likely that they had not been garrisoned and that Philip had recovered them (Niesr·. ii. 6I5 n. I; Aymard, PR, 11 n. 24). See below, 46. 5 n., on Ev{3o€1:<;. 7. f:K TllS 'EA.a.n1a.s KTA.: cf. 43· I ; on Anticyra in Phocis cf. ix. 39· 2 n. 9. TTJV Twv 'EA.A.T)vwv t:uKAt:La.v: 'renown amDng the Greeks'; for P.', use of the genitive where a prepositional phrase might seem mon· natural cf. x. 37. Io, Tij> dvo{ac; Tij> J~<:dvwv, 40. 9, T~v TaVT1)> (sc. Tij> TTaTplooc;) TTlaTLv, and Schweighaeuser's note on x. 17. 14. 10. £1nTporrl]v •.. St:Sbcr9a.L OL1A.L1Trrov Ka.i Ma.Kt:Sova.s: cf. vii. 9· 1 n. for the formula. It is by virtue of their victory that the Romans acquire the right to determine the fate of those states subjected to Macedon. f:A.w9£pous, &.poupf)Tous, &.opoA.oyf)Tous KTA.: cf. iv. 25. 6 n. for tlw same formula used in the decree of the Symmachy preceding tlw Social War; this means, not that P.'s wording here is unreliablt', but that Flamininus had taken the trouble to get his terminolog\ right. See also iv. 84. 5, xv. 24. 2; Magie, ii. 828 n. 13. 612

THE ISTHMUS DECLARATION

XVIII. 46.

12

Kopw8(ous ... neppaLj3ous: cf. Livy, xxxiii. 32. 6, 'percensuerat omnis gentis, quae sub didone Philippi regis fuerant' (though in fact P. omits the Dolopes and the Orestae: 47· 6; Nissen, r48). For the declaration see also Plut. Flam. ro-rr; App. Mac. 9· z; Val. Max. iv. 8. 5· On Corinth see z. 5 n.; on Phocis, v. 26. r n.; on (Epicnemidian} Locris, x. 42. 7 n.; on Euboea, x. 42. 7 n., above, 45· 5 n. (P. says Evf3o•f>, not simply XMKt3Ef,;: the whole island is included}. Thessaly had been under Macedonian control since the time of Philip II; of the four peoples mentioned, the Phthiotic Achaeans, lost to Aetolia under Doson (cf. iv. 25. 6-7 n.} had been recovered by Philip in the Social War (v. 99-roo, Phthiotic Thebes) and the First Macedonian War (ix. 41. r-42. 4 n.; Walbank, Philip, 88). The Thessalians included the inhabitants of Thessaliotis, Phthiotis, and Hestiaeotis. Magnesia embraced Demetrias, which, like Acrocorinth and Chalcis, was thus included in the declaration. Perrhaebia lay to the north of Thessaly proper around the upper stream of the River Europus; on these two outlying districts of Thessaly see Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 5-39 (Perrhaebia), 39-78 (Magnesia), Kip, nr-25 (Perrhaebia), 87-IIo (Magnesia}. 6. ~ep6Tou ••. £~a~a(ou: for the anecdote that birds flying overhead fell dead see Plut. Flam. ro. 6 and Val. Max. iv. 8. 5; Coelius Antipater told the same story about the shouting of the soldiers when Scipio embarked for Africa (Livy, xxix. 25. 3--4; De Sanctis, iv. 1. roo n. 196). 9. Tois vuv lu) or more specifically to those talking to themselves: probably the former, a more effective rhetorical point. 12. awTfjpa rrpoa.J>wvfjaaL: the title implied divine honours (d. Plut. Dem. ro. 4; Diod. xx. 46. z, roo. 3; Paus. i. 8. 6; Syll. 390, 1. 27); cf. Cerfaux and Tondriau, 448. Its use in reference to Flamininus is attested epigraphically: Syll. 592 (from Gytheum) , seeS. B. Kougeas, 'EAA1]VtKci, L 7 ff. (cf. Annee epig. 1929, 24 f., no. 99; S. Eitrem, Symb. Osl. 10, 1932, 43) on the cult of Flamininus at Gytheum; Bouquet, BCH, rg64, 6o7 f. (Achaean dedication by Aristaenus) ; Daux, BCH, I964, s69 f. (Titeia at Argos, following the liberation from Nabis in 195); E. Mastrokostas, REA, r964, 309 f. (from Thessaly); see also Plut. Flam. 16. 3 f. for the cult at Chalcis and the paean ending cL TlTE awnp. When the Romans evacuated Acrocorinth, Flamininus was hailed seruatorem liberatoremque (Livy, xxxiv. so. g), that is awTfjpa Kai l,\w8€pwv, the cult-titles under which Zeus was worshipped at Athens and Plataea for help against Persia (cf. Jessen, RE, 'Eleutherios (r)', cols. 2348-so); and the connexion will be 613

XVIII. 46. rz

THE

SETTLEME~T

I:\ GREECE A::\D

deliberate, for Eleutheria games were now set up in Larissa in imitation of the famous Plataean festival (cf. Syll. 6I3 n. 48; Niese, iii. I9 n. 7). Flamininus thus appropriated the identification with Zeus favoured by Philip V; see, for discussion, Walbank, CQ, I942, I45 n. I; 1943. 8 n. 7; d. Gelzer, Kl. Schr. i. 133; and for the cult of Flamininus, H. Seyrig, Rev. arch. 1929, I, 94 f.; H. Gundel, RE, 'Quinctius (45)', COlS. IOj j--D.

15. To !LTJStv tK Ti]s TUXTJ'> O.vn1ra.'lua.l 1rpos TTJV em~oAi)v: i.e. there were no accidents to upset the plan. There is no real personification of Tyche here. Sla KTJpuy!La.Tos ho6s: for most of the Greeks of Europe and Asia freedom either already existed or came to them as a result of tlw treaty between Rome and Philip and the senatus consultum regulating its application (44. 2--7). But the picture was completed by this unilateral declaration concerning the states hitherto subject to Philip, and so F.'s statement is correct; the emphasis is on &rravraS". There is no reason to think that P. confuses the procedure adopted towards states already free and former subjects of Philip (so Sherwin White, rsz). 47. 1. EXPTJ!LO.nua.v Tots ••. 1Tpt:u~EuTa."is: sc. 'the commissioners'; 011 the members of the Seleucid embassy see§ 4 n. Livy, xxxiii. 34· 2-3. also mentions an embassy, consisting of the same members, to Rome. and this is evidently the embassy of I98/7, described by Livy, xxxiii. zo. 8--9 (based on P.); against the view that it was a second embass\ sent in 197/6, and that Hegesianax and Lysias had been referred b\ the Senate to the Ten see Holleaux, Etudes, v. Ij6--D3. Clearlv Hegesianax and Lysias had been sent direct to Flamininus (d. so. 3). In view of Livy's text, :\issen com·incingly suggests that there i" compression in our text of P. at this point (cf. Holleaux, loc. cit. r61). and this would explain the omission of the subject of lxp7Jv6.naav. Twv fLEV O.(,TOVOfLt.l\1 a1TEXt:u9a.l: two towns which had resisted Antiochu were Lampsacus in Aeolia and Smyrna in Ionia (d. Livy, xxxii1 38. 3; on Lampsacus see below, 49· 1); in the winter of 197/6 both appealed to Flamininus (App. Syr. z) and Lampsacus sent envoy, first to its kinsmen in Massalia (both were Phocaean foundatiml,,) and then with the Massaliotes to the Senate, appealing to thc11 mythical relationship with the Romans and asking to be included in the treaty (d. Syll. 529; new readings in Wilhelm, Arch. Pap. X\". I953· 8o-88; new edition promised by L. Robert in the Parium and Lampsacus volume of the Corpu.s; for discussion see Holleaux, Etudn. v. 141-55. with bibliography by L. Robert on p. 141 n. 3; E. Bick.. 1 mann, Phil. 1932, 277--99, who argues convincingly that Lampsacn·. was not included in the treaty with Philip). oua.s •.• 1TO.pt:(AT}~t: TWV U1TO nToAEfLO.l0\1 KO.~ ¢1LAl1T1TO\I TO.TTOfLEvWV

THE ISTHMt:S DECLARATIO:-l

cf. so. 5; Lh-y, xxxv. 16.

XVIII. 47· 4

for the two categories. See for the former Hieron. in Dm~. xi. rs-r6, 'et ceperit (sc. Antiochus) alias urbes, quae prius a Ptolomaei partibus tenebantur, Syriae et Ciliciae et Lyciae. eo enim tempore captae sunt Aphrodisias et Soloe et Zephyrium et Mallos et Anemurium et Selinus et Coracesium et Corycus ct Andriace et Limyra et Patara et Xanthus et ad extremum Ephesus' (probably based on P. via Porphyry: Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 325). On Ephesus cf. 41 a 2. According to Livy, xxxiii. 20. ro, the Rhodians succeeded in turning him aside from Caunus (cf. xxx. 31. 6), Myndus, Halicarnassus, and described as ciuitates sociae Ptolomaei (for an inscription of Halicarnassus testifying Ptolemaic control cf. Wilhelm, ]ahresh. 1908, 56 f.). The treaty between Miletus and Magnesia-on-the-Maeander, probably from r¢ (Syll. 588 =Milet, i. 3 no. 148), shows these two cities, Heradeia-in-Latmos, Priene, Samos, Myndus, Halicarnassus, and Cnidus as independent cities, which confirms the impression given by Hieronymus that Ptolemy and after him Antiochus had virtually no possessions between Patara and Ephesus; d. Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 325-6; for details, Schmitt, Antiochos, 279-82. The only towns left to Philip in Asia by I9i. after Rhodian operations in the Peraea (Livy, xxxiii. r8. r-22; the campaigns of Nicagoras mentioned in Syll. 586 (d. GDI, 4269; btsc. Lind. 151, 152) probably belong to 201-198; see Hiller von Gaertringen, RE, SuppL-E. v, 'Rhodos', col. 788; Fraser and Bean, 98-99; contra, Holleaux, Etttdes, iv. 308 n. 3), were lasus, Bargylia, Euromus, Pedasa, and Abydus. Antiochus will have taken Iasus, Euromus, and Pedasa in summer 197 for only Bargylia is mentioned at 48. I; on Iasus see 44· 4 n. Abydus, still in Philip's hands in 198 (cf. 2. 4), may have been garrisoned by him till Antiochus seized it in late 197 or spring 196 (44. 4 n.). 2. l·nl OLaj3a£veLv ds TTJV Eupw'IT'I]v: already in spring 196 Antiochus had crossed the Hellespont, seized Madytus, Sestus, and other towns in the Chersonese, including Lysimacheia, which he found deserted after destruction by the Thracians; this he had set about restoring (Livy, xxxiii. 38. 8-q; App. Syr. 1; cf. 49· 2 ff.). ou8£va •.• 'TWV 'Et.!.f)vwv ••• 1TOAEp.ei:cr9aL vuv KTA.: i.e. Greeks of Europe; this principle has been asserted unilaterally in the senatus consultum of 44· 2, where it applies to Greeks of Asia as •well as Europe. The same principle is behind the demand(§ r) that Antiochus respect the cities of Asia, whether previously autonomous, Ptolemaic, or Maccdonian. 3, ~~ au'TWV nvas • , • TJ~ELV 1Tpos 'TOV >\vT~OXOV: cf. 49· 3· 4. 'Hy1lcru1vatcTa Kai /\ucr(av: H egesianax, son of Diogenes, from Alexandria Troas, is well known as one o{ Antiochus III's if>Dw~ (Athen. iv. 155 An); in 193 he accompanied Menippus to Rome (Livy xxiv. 57· 6; App. Syr. 6 also mentions perhaps in error), and Io

6rs

XVIII. 47· 4

THE SETTLEMENT IN GREECE AND

it was probably then that he was named proxenos at Delphi (Syll. 585, no. r8; archonship of Peithagoras, 194/3). He was poet, historian, and grammarian; his works included a book on Democritus' style, one on poetic diction, an astronomical work, ci>atvot-tEva, and a Trojan history, this under the pseudonym of Cephalus of Gergithes (cf. Strabo, xiii. 594). See Stahelin and Jacoby, RE, 'Hegesianax (r)'. cols. z6o2-6; Susemihl, ii. 31-33. As a writer who had dealt with th<" foundation of Rome from Troy (FGH, 45 F 9 = Dion. Hal. i. 72. r), he was a suitable person to lead an emba.<;sy to the Romans. Lysia\· is mentioned by Appian (Syr. 6) as also taking part in the embassy of 193 (see above), but is not otherwise known, unless he is to be identified with the later minister of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and regent of Antiochus V Eupator, who was overthrown by Demetrius on his flight from Rome (cf. xxxi. 11. z n.). 5. Ta S6§a.vTa. T~ cruvESpi~: 'the decisions of the commissioners' (not 'of the Senate', as Reuss, Volk. Grund. 89); cf. 45· 7, 8, ro. Aymard, PR, 174 n. 32. 6. Tous 'Op€oTa.S: the Orestae inhabited the Haliacmon valley in ib upper waters, north of Ehmiotis and around the lake of Celetrum (mod. Kastoria); Strabo, vii. 323, 326, makes them Epirote; cf. also Thuc. ii. 8o. 6 (mentioned with Epirote tribes); Hecataeus, FGH, r F ro7 (Molossian). But by the fourth century they were incor· porated in Macedon, and together with the Lyncestae formed one of the six TCitHs at Gaugamela, under Pcrdiccas' command (Diod. xvii. 57· 2). For modern discussion see the references in Johann;t Schmidt, RE, 'Orestai', cols. 96o-5. When the Orestae joined Rom(' is not clear. In 199 Celetrum surrendered to Galba (Livy, xxxi. 40. r·-3), but this is not a reYolt; moreover in Livy, xxxix. z8. 2, Philip speaks of 'ciuitates Macedonum qui ... inter indutias dcfecerant' (cf. Livy, xxxix. 23. 6, in bello), and this suggests a revolt during the truce of 198/7 (d. Walbank, Philip, r63 n. z; De Sanctis, iv. r. 55; contra Nissen, KU, 222-3, who thinks per indutias in Livy is a loose translation of something other than a truce in P.). nEppa.t~ous: cf. 46. 5 n. They formed a KOtVOV; cf. IG, ix. I. 68'), mentioning a arpaTTJy6s; cf. Kip, ru-zs. Syll. 593 is a letter sent l)\· Flamininus between 196 and 194 to the magistrates of Chyretia(' (mod. Domeniko) in Perrhaebia, making over certain properties thr~11 in the possession of the Roman people and stressing Roman goodwill. rva 1-"'li)' lv TOJTots ifxwatv ~t-tfis KaTa.\aA€LJl ol O~K U1Til TDV {3€.\Tiarc>P tdw06ns avaaTptcpw9at (II. 6-8). A6A.ova.s: omitted, like the Orestae, from the declaration at tlw Isthmus (46. 5 n.). The Dolopes were a Thessalian tribe inhabiting t1w east slopes of Pindus to the south-west of Thessaliotis; cf. Kip. 126-8; Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 145-50; Flaceliere, 23. Despite Livy. xxxviii. 3· 4, the Dolo pes were members of the Aetolian confederation 616

THE ISTHMUS DECLARATION

XVIII. 47· 9

for much of the third century, perhaps from about 277 (d. Flaceliere, 185) ; but at some date Macedon reco\·ered part of Dolopia, since in 198 the Aetolians took the towns Ctimene and Angeia from Philip (Livy, xxxii. IJ. 15). Niese (ii. 484 n. r) would date this to 210 (cf. ix. 41. 1-42. 4 n.), but Flaceliere (304) suggests a date in 207 when Philip penetrated Aetolia from the north (cf. xi. 7· 2-3). The Dolopians were probably incorporated in the Aetolian confederation after their liberation, like the Phocians and Locrians (§ 9); cf. Flaceliere, 348 n. 5· MciyvT}-ra.s: cf. 46. 5· They too were organized as a Ko~v6v, and their chief magistrate was the Magnetarches (Livy, xxxv. 31. u), at least for a time; on the constitution of the ~<:o.v6v see Kip, 87-110. 7. -rovs :A.xcuovs -rous ~9lw-ra.s: cf. 46. 5 n. The Aetolians may have kept some western parts of Phthiotic Achaea, including Thaumaci (cf. Syll. 6o3 for an Aetolian hieromnemon from that city in 193/2), which is not mentioned among Antiochus' captures when Acilius took it in 191 (Livy, xxxvi. 14. r2-q). Probably Xyniae and Cyphaera were also Aetolian (Flaceliere, 349). &rl~a.s ••• Ka.i ~&p<:ra.Aov: on the Aetolian claim cf. 3· IZ n., 8. 9, 38. 3· Pharsalus was, of course, in Phthiotis (cf. v. 99· 3), not Phthiotic Achaea (Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 135 ff.), hence d
by the Aetolians on the basis of the 'original treaty'. 9. ~w1.wv; this is variously dated between 300 and z8r fo. Later the whole of Phocis was temporarily united with Aetolia, from about 262 to 258 (d. Beloch, iv. 2. 402) and again from 245 onwards; but Flaceliere, z86-i, does not believe that the Cephisus valley was acquired by Aetolia until about 235 (cf. F. Schober, RE, 'Phokis', coL 493). However, towards 225 Phocis defected from Aetolia, leaving her with only Delphi, and perhaps Tithorea and Anemoreia in the east, and Lilaea, Drymas, and Tithronium in the upper Cephisus valley (Livy, xxYiiL 7· r2-13; Paus. x. 33· 3; cf. Daux, 237 f.; Salvetti, Studi di sior. ant. ii. 1893, r21). On the later subjection of Phocis to Macedon see v. :z6. r n. Epicnemidian Locris had joined the Aetolian confederation probably by 262, and had been captured by Philip, 617

XVIII. 47· 9

THE SETTLEME.;.;T IN GREECE AND

probably in 2o8, and held by him until r98 (cf. x. 42. 7 n.; Livy, xxxii. 36. g). 10. KopLv9ov ••• T plcf!ul\La.v ••. (T.,v 'Hpa.uiw 'IToXLv ••• : Heraca (like Oreus) is restored in the lacuna from Livy, xxxiii. 34· 9· Se<' 42. 7 nn. on the claim to Heraea and Triphylia; on Corinth, 2. n. 'llpeov 8') ••• T~v 'EpnpLewv "'l"oAw: cf. 45· 5 n.; to have given towns, captured in conjunction with Attalus, to Eumenes would have been to confirm the Aetolian accusation that this was no liberation; hence Flamininus' opposition to the proposal. See Scullard. Pol. roB n. 2, who attributes the main opposition to Flamininus to tlw Claudian-Servilian group among the Ten, viz. Galba, Tappulus. Cn. Lentulus, and (perhaps) Caepio. 11. jLETa TLVQ xpovov ••• Sin Tfj<; auyKXTJTOU: the decision was referred back to Rome (as Livy, xxxiii. 34· xo, adds). aov TQVTO.LS KO.puaTO'i: cf. 45· 5 11.; like Eretria, taken with the help of Attalus and the Rhodians. Andros, however (d. Livy, xxxi. 45 3~7), seems to have remained under Pergamum (Larsen, CP, I957. I7 n. 7). 12. n>.euplm.:,J Auxvt8a. Ka.t n6.p9ov: Livy, xxxiii. 34· II, 'Lychnidu~ et Parthini', but Apollodorus knows IIap8os· 1roA•> '!MvptK~ (FGJl, 244 F so}, and it seems likely that both are towns . •1t!xvts will b<· Lychnidus, modern Ochrida, on the lake of that name (v. ro8. IIapOos could be the main town of the Parthini (cf. Livy, xliii. 23. 6. Caesar, BC, iii. 41. 1 for several towns), but it is odd that it should be mentioned separately from the tribe, which had been assigned to the Roman alliance at the Peace of Phoenice (Livy, xxix. 12. r3). It has been argued that both the Lychnis and the Parthus mentioned here are situated in north lllyria (Pliny, Nat. kist. iii. I43-5; Zippel, 77-78; cf. Gitti, Historia, 1935, zoo n. 42), but this seems improbable (Niese, iii. 15 n. 3; Fluss, RE, 'Lychnidus', col. zuz); and the likeli hood is that Parthus was a town situated somewhere near Lychnidu:::. and that the Romans handed them both over to Pleuratus as au enclave between Macedonia and Roman Illyria. According to !tin. Hieros. 6o7. 4 f., a distance of rz rn.p. separated Cledo (= Lychnidus) and an otherwise unknown Patras, also on the lake: can Patras lw Parthus? See Polaschek, RE, 'Parthini', cols. 2037-8. In any cast·. the words {mo @{}wrmov . •• TaTTop.i.vas suggest regular frontier are:t•, of Macedon and not recent acquisitions. It may therefore be assumt·• I that, despite Livy, there is no reference to the Parthini here. PbiliJ • could hardly have taken this tribe from the Romans between 20, and zoo without there being some reference to it in the ultimat uw of zoo; and the suggestion of Holleaux (278 n. r) that he reconquen
THE ISTHMUS DECLARATION

XVIII. 48. 3

Macedonian advances in IllyTia. Assuming Lychnis and Parthus to be towns near Lake Lyclmidus, we have no idea when Macedon acquired them; their omission from the places mentioned in v. ro8. 8 proves nothing, and it is hazardous to assume that the annalistic passage in Livy, xxx. 42. r-3, can have anything to do with fighting on this frontier (so Ferro, u-12). 13. ;b.~uvnvSf>
XVIII. 48. 3

THE

SETTLEME~T

11'\ GREECE

rva.~ov TOV Kopv~ALov: Cn. Cornelius Lf. Ln. Lentulus, cousin of P. Lentulus Caudinus (§ r n.), had fought at Cannae as military tribune, and had subsequently been quaestor in 212, curule aedile in zos and consul in 201, when he tried to supersede Scipio in Africa (Livy, xxx. 40. 7-15, 43· r, 44· 3; Scullard, Pal. 8r). 4. inrEp cruf1f1axias: probably implying a regular Joedus (cf. Reuss, Volk. Grund. 37; Aymard, PR, 219 n. 24); De Sanctis (iv. r. res n. 213) thinks of a loose arrangement by which Philip gave military aid, but P.'s wording suggests something firmer in the light of the danger from Antiochus. 5. ~rri '!"f)v -rwv f>£pf1tKWV cruvo8ov: the regular autumn assembly of the Aetolian confederation at Thermum (cf. ii. 2. 8 n., iv. 37· z); the name Tct (~hpf.LtiHi appears in an inscription from Magnesia-onMaeander (IG, ix 2 • I. r87 = Syll. 598 xxxiii. 35· 8 (cf. Livy, xxxi. 32. 3) by confusion with Thermopylae renders Pylaicum (Nissen, KU, 29). For the Aetolian assemblies, which were normally two each year, this and a spring meeting, the Panaetolica, see Holleaux, Etudes, i. 219-30; Larsen, TAPA, 1952, r-33. 7. flTJ KOLVWV£KWS xpfjcr6a~ TOLS EUTUXiJJ.laCTL: the Aetolians could fairly complain that the whole settlement had been carried out by the Romans. -rO.s £~ O.pxi}s cruv6T)kas : cf. 38. 7 n., 4 7. 8. 9. a ... ETrOL1}UaV: but obtained no satisfaction; cf. Livy, xxxiii . .t9· 8, 'legatos Pharsalum et Leucadem et quasdam alias ciuitates e-; primo foederc repetentes senatus ad T. Quinctium reiecit' (annalistic) , for the continued complaints of the Aetolians cf. Livy, xxxiv. 23. i (from P.).

49-52. Antiaclms and Lampsacus; negotiations at Lysimacheia During the winter of 197/6 Antiochus applied pressure to Lampsacn:.; (cf. 47· r n.), where he promised liberty in the future 'cum satis l't ipsis et omnibus aliis appareret ab rege impetratam eos libertatem. non per occasionem raptam habere' (Livy, xxxiii. 38. 6). The date is dear; the events of Livy, xxxiii. 38. 1--7 (despite§ r, 'cum hibernasscl Ephesi') are prior to Antiochus' campaign of spring 196 (§ 8, initio ueris) ; they form part of the res Asiue of OJ. 145, 4 = I9i /6. It is possible that 49· r represents a sentence from the Lampsacene replv. summarized by Lh'Y (xxxiii. 38. 7), 'nihil neque mirari neque suscensere Antiochum debere, si spem libertatis differri non satis aequn animo paterentur'. If that is so, the Lampsacenes are urging that severity may drive them to turn to Rome. This interpretation gailis some support from 52. 1, and by the appeal which Lampsacus had already sent to Rome to be included in the treaty with Philij> (47· In.). 620

ANTIOCHUS AND LAMPSACUS

XVIII. 50.4

49. 1. 1'pixwal TftV iaxa.,.,v: for the metaphor cf. i. 87. 3· Ka.,.ucJ~eu~ovTuL! the subject will be the Lampsacenes; the third person suggests reported speech ; cf. xxiii. 3· 3 and passim. 2. 11'poxwpouul1~ ••• Tfj~ E1T'L~oXTj~: Antiochus had crossed the Hellespont in spring 196 and Madytus, SeshL'>, and other towns in the Chersonese had surrendered to him (Livy, xxxiii. 38. 8-9); cf. 47· 2n. Ka.TerrXeuuuv ei.c; I T}Au~p(a.v of 1T'Ept AEu~eLov KopvtjX1ov: Selybria (modern Silivri) lay on the north shore of the Propontis between Perinthus and Byzantium (cf. Oberhummer, RE, 'Sely(m)bria', cols. 1324-7). L. Cornelius (App. Syr. 3 has H·dws incorrectly) is probably L. Cornelius L.f. L.n. Lentulus, consul 199 (d. Broughton, !vfRR, i. 339 n. 5), sent on the special errand here mentioned. 50. 1. Tepevnoc; Ka.t .•. Ou(AALOc,; EK ea.aou: they must have put in there en route, since the liberation of Thasos was the task of L. Stertinius (48. 2). 2. 1faVTE:li ••• ,;apotaa..,aa.v Eis 1'ftv AuaLf.I.UXELa.v: according to P., the Romans present were L. Cornelius Lentulus, P. Cornelius Lentulus Caudinus, P. Villius Tappulus, and L. Tarentius Massaliota. Livy, xxxiv. 59· 8 (referring to an embassy to be sent to Antiochus in 193) states: 'legatos mitti ad regem eosdem qui Lysimachiae apud eum fuerant placuit, P. Sulpicium, P. Villium, P. Aelium'; and Holleaux (Etudes, v. r66-75) has argued that P. Sulpicius and P. Aelius (cf. 42. 5 n.) were also present at this conference, having perhaps joined L. Cornelius; he rejects the view of several scholars that the reference is to a special conference held at Lysimacheia in 195, which they consider to be supported by Livy, xxxiv. 33· 12, 'adidebat (sc. Flamininus: in 195) et cum Antiocho infidam pacem Villium legatum redeuntem nuntiare'. It is perhaps less certain than Holleaux asserts that inde here means 'from those parts' (not yet mentioned) rather than 'from Antiochus'; hence a meeting with Antiochus at Lysimacheia in 195 is not to be excluded (cf. Broughton, MRR, i. 342 n. 4). Whether Sulpicius and Aelius were present in 196 must therefore be left open. On Lysimacheia cf. xv. z3. 8 n. 3.1T'pos TOv n,.ov u1!'oa1'a.A~VTES: cf.47. 1-4. They had perhaps delayed in Greece, making diplomatic contacts (cf. Badian, Studies, ng}. 4. auvEOpEla.s Kowijs: on the conference of Lysimacheia cf. Livy, xxxiii. 39· 1-41. 4; Diod. xxviii. 14, cf. 15. 2; App. Syr. 2-3. Its date will be early October 196; see Holleaux, Etudes, v. r63-4; with the criticisms of Leuze, Hermes, 1923, 203-4; Walbank, Philip, 325. The demands made by L. Cornelius, to retire from the cities in Asia previously held by Ptolemy or Philip, and to keep off the autonomous cities, are a repetition of those made at the Isthmus to Hegesianax and Lysias (47· r}; and the query why he had crossed into Europe corresponds to the warning of 47· 2. 6:n

XVIII.

so. 8

ANTIOCHUS AND LAMPSACUS

~iLa~aaLV: d. 49· 2 n. 9. 1TpoT1BeaBaL 'Pw!laLOLS eyxeLpelv auTov: 'that he was proposing to attack the Romans'; d. Livy, xxxiii. 39· 7, 'quantum a bello a pert(' Romanis indicto abesse?' Paton misunderstands construction and meaning: 'that he was trying to put himself in the way of tlw Romans'.

8. TTJV ets TTJV EupW1TT)V

51. 4. TTJV AuaLp.axou ~aaLXeiav •.• yeviaBaL IeXeuKou: on the sharing out of Alexander's empire, Lysimachus received Thrace: rl Arrian, FGH, rs6 F I, § 7. TWJJ SJ KaTd T~JJ EvpdnrYJV 8p4KYJS f-LJJJ KU; X€ppov~aov KaL oaa 8pq.t1 avvopa €8vY) EaT€ E-rr1 ~JJ 8.£\aaaav T~JJ E7T; £a>.pvDY)aaov rovEvt€LJJOV 1T<JJJTOV Ka8~KOJJ7a AvaLf-LclXltJ ~ dpx~ E'TT€7pcl'TTYJ'

d. Diod. xviii. 3· 2; Iustin. xiii. 4· r6; Curt. x. ro; Dexippus, FGII. rooF 8, § 3· He was defeated and killed at the battle of Corupedium, at the hands of Seleucus I Nicator, who perished seven months lat('J fighting against Ptolemy Ceraunus; the date of Corupedium is DO\\ fixed as c. February 28r (d. i. 6. 5 n.). Bickermann (Hermes, 1932, so-53) argues that in Greek thought (unlike Roman) mere occupation gave no accepted title to territory; only victory over the enem\ could do this. Hence Antiochus' claim would have been generally accepted. There is some truth in this, convenient though it was to Antioch us' purpose, and notwithstanding the casuistry of Antioch us' other answers to the Roman demands. Reuss (Stadt und Herrscher. 227-8 n. r) rightly stresses the political background, but does les~ than justice to Antiochus' juristic case. See also Magie, Buckler Studies, r68 n. r. 5. 1TpwTov 11£v llToXe11alov •.• a~ETepiaaaBaL: the Seleucid dominions in Thrace were lost to Ptolemy III Euergetes between 245 and 241 : d. v. 35· 7-8 n.; and for the Ptolemaic organization d. iv. 35· 13 n .. B. Lenk, RE, 'Thrake', cols. 433 ff.; Bengtson, Strat. iii. q8-83. SeuTEpov Se <1>1XL1T1TOV: in 2oo; d. xvi. 29. r-35. 2 n.; Livy, xxxi. r6. r r8. 8. In 2or the Egyptian government was still collecting taxes in Thrace in both money and kind (P. Teb. i. 8; Wilcken, Grundziigl', i. 2 no. 2; Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, i. 335-6). 7. KaTaywv Kai auvoLKL~wv: 'bringing them back and resettlin1: them'; for avvoLKl~av d. v. 90. 3 n. On the Thracian sack of Lysi macheia, probably in 199/8, d. 4· 6 n. 8. IeXeuK~t~ s· otKT)TtlPLOV ETOLflcl~ELV: the future Seleucus IV Philo pator, the second of the three sons of Antiochus and Laodice, bon1 soon after 220 (Bouche-Leclercq, Seleucides, 578 n.). Antiochn~ established him at L ysimacheia as governor of the European pos sessions; d. Livy, xxxiii. 4!. 4. XXXV. rs. s. xxxvi. 7· rs; App. Syr. 14. Bengtson, Strat. ii. 227 n. 4· 9. SLn TtlS a•hou xnpLTOS: cf. Livy, xxxiii. 28. 6 quoted above, 49 52 n. 622

)<EGOTIATIONS AT LYSIMACHEIA

XVIII. 53-55

10. O.va.y~<
52. 1. TOU'i Aa.p.1Jta.~<'IJVOU'i ~~
XVIII. 53-55 DOWNFALL OF SCOPAS AKD DICAEARCHUS

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

53. 2. tta.A.Mou<; ••• cl.rpopjlO.<; ••• KAEOjlEVou<;: on the rising of Spartan Cleomenes see v. 33-39. 4. XE'ipa. ~a.p£'ia.v: the 6,5oo Aetolians recruited in 199 (Livy, 43· s). 624

t ]1,·

XX.\L

DOWNFALL OF SCOPAS AND DICAEARCHUS

XVIII. 54· 8

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

54. I. noAoKpaTT}s: cf. v. 64. 4 n. 2. To is llpn pTJ9e"LaL: evidently in the part now lost. 4. £rrt Tns liLa.AUans: in the war between Antiochus and Egypt. The Aetolians may already have been interested in disentangling Antiochus from this conflict, in order to free him elsewhere. In view of the close relations here indicated between Aristomenes and Dorimachus, the latter may have been involved in the policy of a marriage alliance which came to fruition the next year (51. ron.). Awpif-La.xos: last mentioned as lawgiver in Aetolia along with Scopas himself (xiii. r. 2-3, r a 1), but he had remained in Aetolia when Scopas left for Alexandria. 5. liLa TTJV Twv 1rpa.yf.LaTwv ci.A.oyia.v: 'owing to the senseless nature of his proceedings' (Shuckburgh). 8. ALKa.la.pxos: cf.Diod.xxviii. r; DicaearchuswasanAetolian, whom Philip entrusted with 2o vessels and sent out, in 2o5 or, more probably, 204, to plunder the autonomous islands of the Aegean and give what help he could to the Cretans against Rhodes. (Philip thus followed the precedent of Antigonus Gonatas, who had used a Phocian pirate Ameinias in his capture of Cassandreia: Polyaen. iv. 6. 18.) For the Cretan war with Rhodes cf. xiii. 4· 2 n.; and for full discussion of Dicaearchus' expedition and its date, Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 124-45. It is not known when Dicaearclms entered Ptolemaic service, but presumably in one of the levies carried out by Scopas (cf. xv. 25. r6 n. (2o4 or 203); Livy, xxxi. 43· 5 (199)); a Fayum papyrus (198 or 197) shows him enjoying a special dorea, consisting of a r per cent. tax on all sales of slaves between SH173

ss

XVIII. 54· 8

DO\YKFALL OF SCOPAS \'(D

DICAE.~RCHUS

individuals, and later of r draduna on slaves sold by auction (d. \Y. l . Westermann, Upon Sla·cery in Ptolemaic Egypt (New York, rg2q). ll. 7 and 21 of text, pp. 22 ff. of commentary); see H. Benecke, f)l, SeepoNtik der Aitoler (Diss. Hamburg, 1934), 41-42; Launey, i. 191-2. -rO.s ~
55. 1. IKo'ITa. ••. ~ cp1Ao.pyupLa.: cf. xiii. z. z n., where Scopas' greed is compared to the thirst of a dropsical patient. 2. Xo.plflop-rou: known from a dedication hy one of his subordinates, Alexander, as O'TpO.T1JYDS rn~ T~V 8~po.v TUW lAc:,P&vrwv under Philopa tor (OGIS, 86) and also from Strabo, xvi. i74, who mentions O'TfjAm ~
3. Ava.KATJ1'~p~a.: the coming of age ceremony of the young king, carried out in Alexandria in the presence, no doubt, of the army; d. xxviii. 12. 8. Against the view that it is identical with ra 7TpwroKAlaw (mentioned in connexion with Ptolemy Philometor in z Mace. iv. 2r) see Otto, Abh. Bay. Akad. !934. II, rs. See also 53-55 n. o{JOE'ITW ••• TfjS ~AIKLO.S Ka.1'E'IT€lyouaT)s: how old a Ptolemy must be

ANACL!iTERlA OF PTOLE:\IY V

XVIII. 55· 9

to become officially of age is not known (cf. Otto, Ablt. Bay. Akad. II, 44); on Epiphanes' age in autumn 197 see 53· 4 n. ).~+E0'9a( nva. Ta Trpayf.laTa KaTaO'TaO'LV: 'the kingdom would achieve some degree of tranquillity'. 4. 6.~1ws Tou TllS ~aO'L).1!£as TrpoCYX~f.lO.Tos: 'in a manner worthy of the dignity of the realm' rather than ',vorthy of His Majesty's dignity' (Paton). no).vKpaTOUS: cf. v. 6-t. 4 n., XV. 29. IO. He was governor of Cyprus from 202 to 197; the times were hazardous o·wing to the threat from Antiochus and perhaps Philip. 6. TrM]Bos tKavov ••• XPTJf.LBTwv: mainly, no doubt, from the rich temples, for Polycrates was a-rpaTT)yos ~m1 dpxLEpEVS (cf. xv. 2.5. q n.; Bengtson, Strat. iii. 142 n. I}. n,.o).Ef.LO.tlf;l Ti!J M!!ya.).oTro).hn: the son of Agesarchus (d. X\". 25· 14; in§ 8 below Agesarchus is Sc!nveighaeuser's emendation of dyr]aavopou (FS) or ~Y'7aavOpou (P)) and the historian; cf. v. 35-39 n., xv. 25. 14 n. 9. o(,K OKV!]O'Of.LEV s~a.O'a<JIEI:v I
INDEXES I. GENERAL Abacaenum, 3111. Abae, •P7· Abba, Abila, Abyuus, 24, 25, r•>7, 538-44 (siege of), 553, 558, 597. 6u, 615, 62t>. Academy, !\Iiddle, 224. - N•;w, Scepticism in, 224, 405-6. Acanthus, 164. Acarnania, Acarnanians, 12, 13, 6o, I 73, 177, 78, 179, rSz. r88, 533. 542, 552, 557, 561, 6oz, 617, 63I. --speech of envoys at Sparta, 16282. Acerrae, JL Acesimbrotus, 5I I, sso, 558. Achaea, Achaeans, 15, I 7, 25, 53, 58, I z8, I+~. I66, I6•), 174, 177, 178, r86.

212, 22q,

259. 273, 276, 355.

5J4, 546. 548-g, 552. 553· 566. 570, 6or; chronology of early 633; 8wpal(t-rm, 239. 281, 287, 289, 290; revival, 277, 279-82; alliance with Actolia (240/ 39)' 143 ; cruvallM, z;)o; Philopoemen reforms cavalry (:zrojog), 220-9; cavalry, importance of, 22 5; military reforms of Philopoemen, 279-82; victory at Man tinea, 282-94; Eliphasii join Confeden.cy, 286-7; save Messene from ~allis, szo-z; join Rome, 85, 550, 564: fuedus with Rome, 6o6; strategz'a, date of entry on, no hipparchy, I

225;

drrorlAec.o(j

; avvapxlat,

r, 3, 4. 5 (date of death), 6, 63-65,93-98 (capture of), 316,640, 644 Acharnae, rSr. Achdous, R., 178, 278, 557· Achriane, 242. Acilius, M' Glabrio (cos. 191), 617. Acrae, 42, Acragas, god, r6o.

- R., r&r. Acrillae, 78. Acrocorinth, 173, 559, 563, 567, 569, 613, 633; se,· Corinth. Acrolyussus, go (identification). Acusilaus, r 16. Adaeus, 489.

Adra, 546. Adrarnyttium, soz. Adranodorus, 5, JI, 32, t,q, Adrene. 423. Adria (Po mouth). 495· Adriatic Sea, I9L Aecae,

Aegates battle of, 633. Aegean Sea, 416,472, 474-80 (Philip's campaign). Aegimarus island, 440, 441. Aegina, rr, 13, 14, 167, I69, 179, 1.29, 255, 276, 533, 538, 61 r; Achaean loss of, 178, 186, 220. Aegium, 15, 220, 229, 230, zSo, 538. Aegosages, 6•1-+ Aegospotami, battle of, 400, 401-2, 6~1l. I

72-3.

P .. Paetus (cos.

6o6, 621. SC'x., Paetus Catus rqR), 563 • .\ernilius, :\I., Lepidus 187), 533, .iH-4 (ultimatum to Philip V). - L, Paullus (cos. 219), .;;8, 595· (cos. r82), 253, 594, 595, 596. UOI, biZ. Aeneas Tacticus, work on signalling, 259Ae.niania, 128. Aenus, 538, 543, 0og. Aepium, 6.j.I. Aepytus, 514· Aeschines, r66. Aescrnia, 125. Aetolia, Aetolians, I q. II), 17, .n, 6;, 94, rr2, r6g, 172, 174, 178, 179, 186, 188, 229, 255, 259, 274, 275, Z76, 355. 479, 501, 516, 524, 530, 534, 542, 548, 550, 555. 562, 572, 575, sso, 584-5, 598, 6o6, 607, 613, 6r6-I7, 62•f, 628, 6:rr; constitutional arrangements. 257, 413, 620; social distress, 413-15; 'llomographos in, 413-14; granting of letters of marque, 557, resident aliens in, st>r-2; alliance with Achaea (240{39L 143; Roman agreement with, chronology of, I I IJ, 137, 162-3, 179-80, 256, 5996oo, 649; attack on Acarnania (211), r62, 182, r88, 542; Philip V's invasion of, 274, 277, 278, 279;

INDEXES Aetolia, Aetolians, (cont.) Philip's peace with (·~o6), 21, rnB, 477-8, 599; speech of envoys at Sparta (2Io), 162-82; raids on Greece, r 43, 173-4; fortify Thermopylae, 256; embassy to Rome, 530r; generals, chronology of, I2-13. Africa, 19, 134. 453. 619, 620; Timaeus on, r8; Scipio in, r8, 22, 317; Roman power in, 253, 254. Agatharchus, son of Agathocles of Syracuse, 3:l, 33· - Syracusan, 34· Agathodeia, 438, 482, 484. Agathocles, of Syracuse, r8, 20, 32, 33, 8o, 151-2, 319,356,360-2 (early career), 377. 384,388, 395,493·4,495· of Alexandria, 23, 41, 8o, 437, 438, 480, 482, 486, 487, 488, 489, ·190. 493-4. 495. 525· -son of Agathocles of Syracuse, 32. -Tower of, battle of, 443· Agathyrna, II, 161. Agelaus of Naupactus, I76, 313, 645. Agesan;hus, 484, 627. Agesilaus, I2fl, 129, I5z, 394· Agesipolis I of Sparta, 152. Agis IV, I ro. Agraei, 557· Agriania, 257. Agrigentum, 8, IO, II, 78, IjO, I55, 164, 381, 383; site and topography, 157-61; plan, 158: city walls, 159; temple of Lin dian Athena, 159; temple of Zeus Atabyrius (Polieus), 159-60; temple of 'Hercules· (A), r6o; temple of' Juno Lacinia' (D), r6o; temple of 'Concord' (F), 16o; temple of 'Dioscuri' (I), 160; temple of ·Demeter' (C), l(io; Asclepieum (H). I6o; Olympieum (B), 16o; Phalaris' bull at, 381-3; sacked by Carthaginians (405), roo; origin of name, 161. Ajax, sou of Oilcus, 334-5; cult of, 334; tomb of, 335 Alabanda, 531-cz. dlat, Phoenician, 43· Alba Fucens. trg, 1:.!3, 124. Albania (Caucasus), 262. Aibius, C., 309. Alcaeus of Messenc, 2R8. Alcithus of Aegium, 550. Alesion, Mt., 130, z86, z88. Aletes, 2 ro. Alenadae, 165. Alexamenus of Calydon, 6o8. Alexander the Great, 33, 53, 64. 72, 8o, 89, 97, 130, 15:::. 167, 173, 197, 227, 232, '233. 237. 238, 257. 3!4. 353, 364-76 (Issus), 455, 528, 567, 568, 586,591,622; and Callisthenes,

6s:z

354, 377; deification, 354-5; paint ing by Apelles, 355· of Pherae, I IO, Ill, 258, 578. II of Epirns, 35, I 73, 178. chamberlain to Philip V, 58, 256 satrap of Persis, 3£5, 422, 642. of Calydon, 413, 554· of Trichonium, 561. Attalus' envoy to Rome, 562. the Isian, 413, 478, 550, 554, 561. 593, 597. 5')8. Polyhistor, 318. Alexandria, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 71, 415, 438. 484-5. 489-90. 499. 512, 525. 626; Thesmophoreum at, 437, 489c 490; royal palace, site of, 482, stadium, 490; Sarapeum, 490, ;\fccropolis, 491; Canobic Gate, 491. theatre of Dionysus, 491. Troas, 615. Alipheira, 207, 553· Allaria, 59, 423. Allucius, 2H1. Alpheius, H., 329, 522. Alps, 54, 122, 197, 206, 240, 267, 637. Amanid Gates, Pass, 365~~. Ambracia, 75, 557, 561. Ambracus, 58. Ambrysus, 639. Arneinias, pirate, 40, 625. Amiternum, 124. Ammon, 47, 354· Amorgus, 167. Arnphictyonic Council, 165, 170, 171 Amphilochia, 557· Amphipolis, 82. 152. Amyclae. 642. Amynander of Athamania. :1.74, 275. 278, 538, 549-50, s6r, 61g. Amyntas, king of Macedonia, 163-4 Amyzon, 472, 484, 503, 649; tempk of Artemis, 503. atJacyctosis, 30 (Capua), 101 (Taren tum). Anahlta (Aene), 235, 502 Anares, 1)32. Anas, R., 202. Anaxidamus, Achaean, 293· Ancara, unknown town, II5. Anchiale, 83, 85. Ancona, 495· Ancyra, 604. Anda, 430. Anderson, J. G. C., quoted, 99· Andobales (Indibilis), 6, r6, 18, 13'·· 218, 246, 247, 307, 308, 309-1' (defeat of). Andreas, doctor, 390. Andromachus, father of Achacus, ql> -father of Timaeus, 377· Andros, 164, 503, 536, I>I8. Androsthenes of Cyzicus, 314-

I. GENERAL Anemoetas, 567. Anemoreia, 617. Anemurium, 6rs. 617. 233· Anio, R., I23, 124. I2]. annales maximi, 628. Antalcidas, Peace of, 152, 629. Antander, brother of Agathodes, 151, 36I. Anthedon, Anthemus, Anticyra, II, rz, 13, 162, 179 (site). 182, 11>3. 612. Antigoneia (Cha.onia), 630-1; pass near. (site), 630-r. Antigonus Monophthalmus. 33, 85, 361, 554· - I I Gonatas, 40, 96, 167-8, 173, 1]8. 335. 625. - I I I Dosun, r68, 170,173, 17.'i. 473. 549. 557. 564. 569, 586' (>07' 175· Antinum, 123, 234. Antioch-in-Persis, 421. -- of the Chrysaorians, 531. Antiochis, sister of Antiochus lll, 99, 100. Antiochus I, 33, 40, 70, 95, 234, 476, 604. - I I , 33· - I I I , r, 3. 6, 8, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23, 26, 27, 137, rso, r86, 187, 253, 368, 485, jOj, 532, 533, 538, oo8, 61o, 6rr, 619, 622, 640, 644, 645, 65o; character, 496; called 'the Great', 596, 638-9; marries Laodice, 643; and Hermeias, 481; 8wpaKfTat of, 281; route against Molon, 643; capture of Sardes, 63-66; capture of Achaeus, 94-98; and Xerxes of Arsamosata, 98100; against Arsaces, 231-42, 261; crosses ::Vlt. Elburz, 236-9; and the Oxus, 261-4; in Bactria, 264-5; siege of Bactra, 265; in far east, 312-16; takes title ,_dyas, 316; and Gerrhaeans. 421-2; takes Amyzon, 484; at Gaza and Panium, 523-5, 546; campaign of 200, 546-7; campaigns of 200-197, 6o2; advances into Asia ::-.finor (197), 6o2-3, 6qI5: and Lampsacus, 62o-1; pact with Philip V, 22, 424, 435, 47I-4, 503, 506, 523, 530; at Lysimacheia, 6o6, 621-3; treaty with Rome, 52. IV Epiphanes, 98, 233, 355, 359. 474· 487. 524, 547· 616. V Eupator, 6r6. -eldest son of Antiochus III, 524. Hierax, 96, 99, 313, 316, sor.

- of Syracuse, 400. Antipatec, Macedonian, 85, 167, r68, 357. 567- 'the nephew', 524. Antipatris, 5f7· Antiphilus, 167. Antisthenes, Rhodian historian, 24, 503, 5 r 7; criticized, 5 I 7-25. -Peripatetic, 518. Antium, 123. Aous, R., 3, 62, go, 581; con· ference on (198), 550, 597; pass of, 554-5, 563, 58r. Apama, wife of Magas, 224. -wife of Prusias I, 475-6. - wife of Prusias II, 4 75-6. Apamea {on the Orontcs), 70. - Rhagiane {Nehavend), 232-3. - (Mvrleia), 475·6. Apasiiwae (Paesicae or Pasiac), 261, z63. Apega, wife of :\abis, 421, 571. Apennines, 26R. .'l.phrodisias, (H.). Aphrodite. temples of, at Pcrgamum, sor; at Paphos, 515. Apodoti. 557· Apollo, in Punic-Mar.edonian treaty, 47. so; Temenites, at Syracuse, 104; Hyacinthus, at Tarentum and Amyclae, 104; Thermios, at Thermum, 279; Lycius and C..arneius at Sicyon, 571; Corynthus, on Gulf of ~Iessenia, 6o6-7; land of, at Sic yon,

s1o-1. Apollodorus of Cassandreia, 40. secretary of Philip V, 549· Apollonia (Chalcidice), 165. (IIlyria), 56, 62, 585. (Pontus), 41 7· (Arsouf in Palestine), 47· (near Tigris), f)43· Apollonis, wife of Attalus I, 534, 604. Apollophanes, 389, 644· Apulia, 29, roo, 127, 155, r8g, rgo, rgr, 564. Apustius, L., Fullo (praetor 196). 597· Arachosia, 312, 314. Arachotus, R, 3!4· Aradus, 49, 528, 644. Aral Sea, 262. Aramaeans, 50. Aratus, r, 5, 59, 61, 78-79, 87-89 (death), 143, r,;r-2, r68, r 73. 224, 564, 569, 645, early chronology of, 633; attack on Cynaet.ha, 142-4; chronology of generalships, 88-89, 143; MemoiYs of, 142, 168, 633. the younger, 87, 88. Araxa, 316. Araxes, R., 262. Arcades (Crete), 59

INDEXES Arcadia, Arcadians, 128, r 29, 130, 143, 172, 295, 393, 568, 6o8; League, 87, 143; Ten Thousand, !28; dances and parades, 149. 639. Arcesilaus of Pitane, 224, 405. Archagathus, son of Agathocles, Ptolemaic !ma'T'
by Epicurus and

Arius, R. 265. Armenia, 99, 186. Minor, roo. .\rmosata, see Arsamosata.

vie\v

Arpi, 29, roo. Arretium, 63r. Arsaces I, 23s-6, 262. - II, 8, rs, 23s--6, JIS; Antiochus' expedition against, 23I-42, 26r. Arsames, 99, roo. Arsamosata (Armosata), 6, g8-99 (location). Arsanias, R., 99· Arsinoe, town in Libya, q. -- (= Conope ?), r88, sso. - wife of Ptolemy II, 481. -wife of Ptolemy IV, 137, 438, 480. 482, 483. Arsippus, 47· Artabanus, 309. Artabazanes, of Media Atropatene. 3I).

Artabazus, I64. Artapates, 487. Artax:ias, 99. Artemis, festivals of, at Syracuse, 7 II2-IJ; cult of, at Abydus, 541. temples of, at Lusi, r 74, f>39; ;d Ephesus, 355; near Eretria (Am;, rynthium), 416; at Hiera Come. soz; at Amyzon, 503; Cindy8s temple of, near Bargvlia, sq-r.; 529; Astias, cult of, ai: lasus, 51_'; Leucophryene, cult of, at Magnesi;~ on-Maeandcr, 532. Artemisium, 258. Arycandeis, roo. Asclepiades of Bithynia, 389. Asclepias, 46, 47, 48, 89; temple of," 1 Kew Carthage, 209. Asclrpius of Myrleia, I I 6. Ascondas, 549· Asea, 128, 522. Ashurbanipal, 83. Asia, 254. 453· Minor, Seleucid position in, 3'''· 472, 602. Asine, 6o6-7. Asoka, 314. Assinarus, R., 146. Assyria, Assyrians, 83, 97· Astae, 423. Astapa, r8, 305. Astarte, 47, 48, 635. Atabyrium, Mt. (Sicily), I59-6o. Atabyrum. Mt. (Rhodes), r6o, 3So. Atella, 9, JI, 133, 154, I55· A tern us, R., I 24. Athamania, 229, 274, 278, S34. S' · 54s. 549, 572, sss. Athena, 504; Lindian, temple of .. .r Agrigentum, I 59; at Lindus, 1 ·" Areia, and Ares, shrine of, 1 Achamae, r8r; Nicephoros, t<"lllJ •· of, at Pergamum, sor, 504; s"" tuary of, at Academy, }\.thens, 5 ;

I. GENERAL

Athenaeus, son of Attains I, 604. Athenagoras. s8r. Athenais of Er3:thrae, 354· Athens, Athenians, 13, 25, 85, r II, rz8, 129, 130, 131, 145-6 (disaster in Sicily), 152, 164, 165, r67, 171, 177, r8r, 229, 275, 331, 339, 342, 357. 359. 388, 394. 399. 402, 409, 476. 533-6, 539. 544. 552, 567, 571, 034; character of people, 13, r82; method of dating at, 34 7-8; Stoa Poikile, r 30; Treasury, 3+9; Dipylon Gate, 534, 537; Long Walls, 534; Academy, 535, 537; Cephisodorus' tomb, 562; altars to Hybris and Anaideia, 626; Attalis tribe founded, 534; deme Apollonieis founded, 534; Attalus' benefactions, 535· athletes, criticism of, 57· Atilius, M., Regulus (cos. 25('). Atintania, Atintanes, 56, 90, 552, Atlantic Ocean, 539· Atrius, C., 309. Atropatene, see Media Atropatcne. Attalus I, 24, 25, 27, I37. r62, I69, I86, 229, 255, 261, 2]], 3ICJ, 497, 499, 500, 501, 502, 504, 50], 509, 5ro, .')II, 532, 533-6, 538, 541, 544,552, .')62, 564,570-1,572,6034 (death and character). 609, 6I I. 6rS, 644, 645; benefactions to Athens, 535· n. 6o 4. - I I [ , 604. - general of Phihp I I, 8 I. -of Rhodes, 141. Attica, r64, 532, 536. Audata, secondary wife of Philip II, 8r. Audoleon, king of Paeonia, 35· Aulon, Bay of, 62. Aurelius, C., Cotta (cos. 252), 629. -C., Cotta (cos. zoo), 529, 502-3, 629. - M., Cotta (legatus, 20I). 551. Ausculum, battle of, 586. Autonous, Syracusan, 35· Autolycus, 508. Axus, 59· Aymard, A., quoted, 225, 253. Baal Ben Dagon, 49, so. Baal Hadad, 49, so. 6+lJ· Baall!ammon, 47, 48, 2IO. Baal M-g-n-n, 48. Baal Samem, 46, 48, (,49· Ba'alu of T:y'Te, treaty with Esarhaddon, 51. Babylon, Babylonians, 50, 187, 3I5, 320. Baccheius of Tanagra, doctor, 390.

Bactra, 265, 312. Bactria, 8, 15, I6, 238, 264, 265, 312-!3, 642. Badian, E., quoted, 537. 629. Badiza (Baesidiae ?), 423. Baebius, L., Dives (praetor r8g). 442, 444· Cn., Tamphilus (cos. r8z), 563. Baecula, town, 248, 251, 298; battle of, I5-I6 (date), 247-55. 267, 296; site of, 248-9; map, 249. Baetis, R., 248, 250, 296, 305. Balearic Islands, Baleares, 254, 456, 458; slingers, 304, 457· Balkan peninsula, So. Bantia, 243· Bargullum, 552. Bargylia, 514, 529, 532, 533, 553. 558, 6JI, 6I5, 6I9; temple of Artemis Cindyas at, 514-15, 529; Gulf of, 51 3· Barmocar, 44. 45· Bastetani, 241,. Batania (Bashan). 546. Batis, 528. Baton of Sinopc, alluded to, 39, 40. Belbinatis, 172. Beneventum, roo, r I 8; battle of, 586. Berat, 93· Berenice, wife of Ptolemy III, 224, {8I.

-daughter of Ptolemy II. 481. Berger, H., quoted, IS]. berit, Hebrew, 43· Berytus, 49· Bessus, 97. Hickerman (Bikerman), E.]., quoted, 45. 52, 54. 5S. 95. 355. 437· Bien of Borysthenes, 527. Bismarck quoted, 550. Bithynia, Bithynians, 603. Boagrius, R., r85. Boebeis, L., 576. boeotarchs, 6o8. Boeotia, Boeotians, 58, 6o, I 71, I]], I]S, 239, 256, 276, 42I, 455, 549, 552, 6oS-9, 6I 7; Boeotian League, III, 608. Boii, 547. 631-2. Bolax, 64r. Bolis, 93, 94· Bomilcar, 7, 9, II2, II<), I33-·4, 230. booty, di\·ision of, in Roman army, 2T6-I7. Bostar, Botrys Jiessana, 356-7. Bottiaei, I64. Boubastis, 489. Braba.ntium, 26, 547· Brachylles, 27,549, 6o1, 6o8-g. Bradanus, R., 190. Branchidae, 354·

INDEXES Brennus, ro8-9, I 75· Brothers, War of the, ~(!:~. Brown, T. S., quoted, 323, 345· .346. Brundisium, 191. Bruttii, 21,:29, 33, roo, rr8, rrg, 155, I6I, 162, Igo, 336, 422, 425, 443, 457. 495· Bura, 633. Buttus, 554· Byblus, 528. Bylazora, 58. Byssatis (Byzacis), 317. Byttacus, 645. Byzantium, 82, 98,190, 504,553,621, 644· Cabyle, 423. Cadusii, 233. Caecilius, M., Metellus (praetor 206), 6os. - Q., .Metellus Macedonicus (cos. 14J), 53· - Q., Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica (cos. 52), coin of, 48. Caicinus, R., 339· Caicus, R., 500, 502, 604. Calabria, 190. Calacte, 161. Calatia, 31, 133, 154· Calaureia, 167. Calchedon, 474, 478, 479. 531, 553· Callias, friend of Philip V, 88, of Syracuse, historian, 151. Callimachus, doctor, 390. Calliope. town in Parthyene, 15, 235, 242. Callipolis, 337· Callisthenes, r8--2o, u7. 233, 263, 348,354 (death), 377.379,643,648; (death). 377, 379, 643. 648; criticized by Timaeus, 353-5; criticized by P .. 364-76. Callo, JI, 39. Calor, R., 123. Calpurnius, C., Piso (praetor 211), 126. Camarina, 361, 400, 631. Cambylus, 94, 95Cambyses, 527. Cami:ra, 16o. Campania, Campanians, 29, 31, roo, I I 8, 190, 635; fertility of, 29. Candasa, 26, 547· Candragupta, 314. Cannae, battle of, 29, 42, 78, 107, 133, 150, 2~6. 244· 295. 458, 594. 620, 6]8. Canusium, 267. Capena, 122. Caprus, R. (Lesser Zab), 643. Capua, 2, 9, I I, 29, 30 (treatment after Roman recovery), 31, roo,

IH:i-33 (Roman siege of), 137, I f•-. 154· 155· 242, 437· Cardaces, 367, 368, 370. Cardia, 478. Caria, Carians, 21, roo, 244, 372, 47:. 473, 533; Philip V's attack on, 50o. 502, 529-33. 547· Carmania, 312, 314, 42I, 642, 644. Carmona, 297. Carneades, 405, 406. Carpetani (Carpesii), 202. Carthaea, on Ceos, 26, 536, 547· Carthage, Carthaginians, 7. 9. 17, 3.-. 33, 35. 43, 44. 48, 53, 55. 67, go, 1 r '. l]I, 134, 136, J49, 150, I54, ·211<. 246, 253, 306, 33I, 424, 430, 4.H 450, 456. 457. 458. 461, 464. 4<·:. 469, 49 I, 495, 531, 533, S(>c . foundation legend, 337; councils al 45. 218, 430, 441; land system, 03•·. slaves and freedmen in, 53; tempi• of Apollo at, 47; temple of Asclcpi"·· (Eshmoun) at, 47, 48; 'Gad' "' Tyche of, 48; temple of Poseidon al, so; greed of, 136; Pha!aris' bu!Ltt. 381-3; capture and sack of, 417. 594, 596; mercenary war, 43". treaties with Rome, chronology "! 635; second treaty with Rome, 51 third treaty with Rome, 56. Carya.e, 545· Caryatis, 172. Carystus, 612, 618. Casilinum, 1oo, I24Casinum, rz3. Caspian Gates, 233, 235. 236, 238. Sea, 232, 238, 261-3. Cassander, 85, 166---7, 355, 357, 35·• 361, 554· ..._ epistates of Maronea, 88. Ca.s~andra. 335-6. Cassandreia, 625. Castra Cornelia, 425, 427, 430, 431 440. 443. 465. Castulo, 248, 249, 298, 305. Catana, 42, 361. catapults, at Syracuse, 74-77; .11 .Mantinea, 283, 287, 289. Catulus, Treaty of, 465. Caucasus, extended meaning, 263. Caudini, 29. Caulonia, 1oo, r6l, I<)O. Caunus, 61 5· cavalry manreuvrcs, 225-8; space ,. quired for, 370. Cavarus, 6, 7, 98, 644. Cayster, R., 603. Celaenae, 372. Celetrum, 616. Celtiberians, J3z, 43o-1, 433· Celts, see Gauls. Cenomani, 547, 563.

I. GENERAL centaurs, 8:z-83. Centuripa, 361. Ccos, 536. Cephisodorus of Marathon, 129, 130. - pupil of Isocrates, 343· -Athenian statesman, 562. Cephisus, R., 617, 641. Cercidas, 567. Cerea, 644. Chaeron (Pellcne), 568. - (Sparta), no. Chaeronea, battle of (338), 82, 166,

568. Chalceia, 318-19. Chalcetor, 553· Chalcidic federation, I63-5· Chalcis. 159. H'l4. 257, 536, 563, 6rz, 613. Chaldaean kings in Berossus, compared to account of Hieronymus, 40. Chamaeleon of Heradea, 379-80. Charax, 233. Chares, Athenian, 152. Charimortus, 6z6. Chariteles of Cyparissia, 88. Charixenus, I73· Charondas, 363. Chattenia, 422. Chelidonian Islands, 6oz. Chersonese, Dorian, 512, 513. - Thracian, 478, 615, 621. Chios, 229, 274, 275, 338, 476, 504; battle of, 23, 24 (chronology), 497soo (chronology), 503-II, 509-10 (losses), 517, 520, 544, 547, 550, 552, 640. Chlaeneas, Aetolian, 85, 163, !66, r68, 170, 172, 176, 6oo-r. Choarene, 232, 238. Chremonidean \Var, 224, 413. Chrysippus, 84, 8g, 151. Chrysogonus, 58, 152. Chyretiae, 598, 616. Cilicia, IOo, 366, 372, 485, Cilician Gates (Merkes Su), 366, 372, 373· (Taurus), 342, 365. Cimolus, I73· Cincius, 217, 647, 648. Cindya, 514-15. Cineas, 567. Cirta., 440. Citium, battle of, 393-4· Cius, 22, 474-9, 53I, 544, 553, 555, 6II.

Claudius, Q., (Flamen) (praetor 2o8), 267. - J\1., Marcellus (cos. 222), 2, 7, 8, 15, 68, 69-70, 72, 77, 1Ir, rrz, 134, 189, 242-4 (death), 417, 564, 632. - M., Marcellus (cos. 196), 27-28, 243-4. 6os. 8Hl73

- Ap., Nero (praetor 195), 558. -C., Nero (cos. 207), I6, 191, zoi, 267. 26~ 271, 272, 533· Ap., Pulcher (cos. 2 12), 3, 33, 34, 68, 69, 70, 77, II9, I20, I21, I 31. Ap., Pulcher (cos. I85), 558. Cleander of Mantinea, 123. Cleanthes, 89. Cleigenes of Acanthus, 164. Cleino, 438. Cleisthenes, 535· Cleitarchus, historian, 488. -of Euboea, 567. Cleitomachus, 406. Cleitor, I78. Cleombrotus I of Sparta, I 52. Cleomenean War, I6g. Cleomenes III of Sparta, 85, I 10, I r r, 152, I68, 175, 282, 481, 553, 624; attacks Megalopolis, 144, I 56, 522; military reforms of, 27I; use of mercenaries, 293. Cleon, Athenian, I52. Cleonac (Peloponnese), 167. {Phocis), 542. Clconaeus, 5II, 529, 550. Cleonicus, I 76. Cleonymus of Sparta, III, 587. Cleopatra, wife of Philip Il, 8r - daughter of Antiochus III, 623. Cleotimus, 567. Cleoxenus, 260. Cnemis, Mt., 185. Cnidus, 5I2-13, 615; battle of (394), 394· Cnossus, 59· Cocynthus, C., 189. Coele Syria, 95 (meaning), 97, 435, 438, 472, 473. 523, 602. Coelius, L., Antipater, roo, 107, IIg, I21, 122, 123, 124, 133. 193. 199. 20], 215, 242, 245- 249. 296-7, 310, 61 3, 628, 650. cohort, development of, 302. coins of Abydus, 541 ; of Agathocles, 361, 495; of Aradus, 541 ; of Bargylia, 515; of Berytus, 49; of Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio, 48; of Cyrene, 224; of Hadrumetum, 50; of Iasus, 5 I 5; of Locri, 332; of JI.-Ialaga, 2IO; of the Mamertini, 629; of Malon, 642; of Nabis, 420; of Ptolemaic Egypt, 414; Punic, minted in Sicily, 45; of Pyrrhus, 36 ; of Rome and Egypt compared. I 37; of Xerxes of Arsamosata, 99· Colchians, 62. Colo:phon, New, 503, 604. Com1scne, 232, 238, 242. comitia ctmturiata, reform of, 646. Compsa, 29, roo.

uu

1;-\DEXES Conii, 202. Conolly, Lieut. A., quoted, 239, 240. Conan, Athenian general, 394· Sam ian astronomer, 71. Conope, 189. Consentia, 29, IOo, 190. consuls, powers of, 646. Coracesium, 623. Corcyra, 50, 177, 178, 179, 230, 549· Corinth, 88, 10i), 164, diG, ~30, 3l4, 325, 521, 559, 503. 567, 568, 607, 612, 618; battle of (q6), s86; Isthmus of, n8, I 29, r8o, zs8; Greek congress at (481), 404; Roman declaration of freedom at (196), 258, 609-14, 617; Gulf of, 259; see also Acrocorinth. corn, price of, 138. Cornelius, C., Cethegus (cos. I97l, 5(•:z. - Cn., Lentulus (cos. 201], 605, t,r8, 620.

-

L., Lentulus (cos. I9Y). 31 z, bzr. P., Lentulus Caudinus (praetor 203), 446, 471, 6os, 611, 6rg, o2o,

6'21. P., Scipio (cos. 218), 6, 7. g, 68, 6q, u4, 136, 149, 150, r85, 191, 198 9, 200, 205, 301. P., Scipio Africanus (cos. 205), 8, 9, IO, 14, I6, I], !8, Ig, 22, 24, 89, 145, rs4. ISs. 320, 360, 5'ls. 603, (;rJ, urg, u2o; called 'the Great'(?), 596; character of, I9I-2lO; legend of, rg6, 197; letter sent to Philip V, 193, rg6, H17, 204, 245; image in temple of Juppiter, rcn; visits to temple of J uppiter, zoo-r; saved his father's life, rg8-9, elected to aedilcship, 199-200; takes New Carthage, 191-22o; consolidation in Spain. 245-6; Baecula (zo8), 245-55; saluted as king, 247--8, 252-3; hailed impe-rator by troops, 253; helped by fortune, 253; Ilipa (2o6). 296-304; visits Syphax (zo6), 305, 306; mutiny in army of, 306-9; campaign in _-\frica, 317, 424-34; capture of Locri, 317; burning of camps, 417, 427-30: battle of Great Plains, 432-3; proposes terms, 441, 453: campaigns of 20J-2, 440-G4; Zama, 445-63; meeting with Hannibal, 451-3; after Zama, 465-7I; peace terms to Carthage, 466-71; remark on Dionysius and Agathocles, 495; return to Rome aml triumph, 528-9; lfgatus to L. Scipio, 254. - P., Scipio Africanns Aemiliam1s (cos. 14 7), 9l>, r 5+. r S 5, zoo, 204, 221, 252, 331, 467, 594. 595. 596; visit to Spain (I5IL 205: recoYers

bull from Carthage•, 3S2; helped 1 fortune, r68, 563; and Xenophr>~1

Cyropaedia,

,

22 I.

L, Scipio Asiaticus (cos. 190), I<><> 200, 254. 296, 598. - Cn., Scipio Asina (cos. 26o), r 11 Cn., Scipio Calvus (cos, 22:!), l•, , 8 (date of birth), 9, 68, 69, I 14. 1 ;• · 149, IjO, 191, .W5, 218, JOl, L I' -· 1'.. Scipio :Nasica Corculum (1' 16.:), 204 (letter of). - L., Sulla Felix (cos. 88), 197. Coroebus, a fool, 327. - Olympic victor, 402. Carone, 6o6. Coronea, 82. Corsica, Tirnaeu;; on, I8, IC). Corupedium, battle of, 175, 501, (, · COrliU·S, 629-30. Corycu:>, C., 503. Cos, 26, 236, 505, 512, 519, 6Jr. Cossad, 232. Cothelas, king of Getae, Sr. Crannou, 167. Crarerus, 85, 314. Crates, I 39, 224. Cratesicleia, r I I. Crathis, R, 1<JO. Craugis, father of Philopoemen, 2 c _; Cremona, 547· Cresphontes, 352,

Crete, Cretans, 21, 52, 6o, 0r, 9+. ··, (character), 159, 23'J, 24I, 293, ·l ·' 423, 532, 533, 545. 562, 6L5; \1• ' part allied to Philip, 58-.w; Hl1" dian war on, 415-16, 423, 6~5 Critobulus of Torone, r6.~­ Critolaus, 489. Crocus Field, battle of, I65, I/ I. Croesus, 63, 402. Cronos, 46, .p, zro. Croton, 29, 30, roo, Ioi, 190, 33f1, I' 1, Ctimene. 617. Culchas, 298. Curius, M.', Dentatus (cos. ·zgo), i• i · Cyathus, R., q, r88. Cyclades, 26, 47 2, 503, 538. Cycliadas, 15, uo, 549, 593Cydonia, 59· Cyllene, 639. Cyme, 159, 393· Cynaetha, 142-4, 178. Cynctcs, 202. Cynoscephalae, battle oi, 285, +.B. 468, 563.· .,-,, . 6o2; nmrchiug before, 57<]-
L GESERAL Cyrene, 2;!4, 472; federal Penta1)olis, 224·

Cyrus, 63, 402c Cythnos, 536. Cyzicus, 505, 541, 604; battle of, 399· Dacamas. 450. Daemon of Carthage, 48. Dahae, 313, 644. Da1phantus of Hyampolis, 542. Dalmatia, 331. Damaratus, various Spartans socalled, 419. Damareta, daufihter of Hiero II, 41. Damas of Syracuse, 32. Damascus, 25, 546. Damasistratus, father of Thtopom· pus, 79 Damius of Colophon, 72. Damocles, 21, 419. Damocritus of Calydon, j!JI. Damouras, 49· -river in Syria (Nahr Damnr), 49· Damoxenus, 601, 6oo. Daochus, 567. Dardania, Dardanians, jH, r83, 255,

I, 177 ..py. Cod<\mannus. 53, 23+· )D4-76 (Issus). Dassarctia, Dassaretae, 6, go, 93, 552. dating, methods of, in Greece, 347· Daulium, 63~). Daunia, u7. Daunii (Campania), 127. - (Apulia), I')o, Iyi. dedi/ifl, 467-8, 62<), 631, 635· Deidamia 34, 35· Deinarchu~. 568. Deinocrates, 507, 532, 6IL Deinomenus, c01'poris custos of Hieronymus, 36. Dcinon, 23, 483, 487. 488. Delphi, 35· tso. I ] I , 174, 175, 198, 285 (f<•[;; at), 335 (and Locrian maidens), 542, 555· 615, 617, see a!sn Amphictyonic CounciL Demarctus, 567, 568. Demeter, temple of, in Alexandria, 489; at Eleusis, 533. Dcmetrian \\'ar, 174, 413. Demetrias, 255, 258, 549, 563, 612, 6IJ. Demetrius [ Poliorcctes, r67-·S, 224, 358, JDO, 612. -II, 475, 476, 633 4· - the F;nr, 224. -son of Philip V, 88. ()or. - [ Soter, 602, 6r6. son of Euthydemus, 31 3· - of Phalerum, 218-g, 358-Go, 378;

title,358; Strategica, 228; 'lr
351l-g. of Pharos, 44. 56, 6o, 78, 87, 88, I 52, I6g, I 78, 635· of Apamea, doctor, 390. Demochares of Leuconoe, r8, 20, 3556o, 377, 379· Democleidcs (Democles ?), 356. Democleitus, 260. Dernocrates, Philip V's admiral, 505, 507. Demophanes, 224. Demosthenes, Athenian general, 146. orator, r65, r66, 167,355,564,566. secretary of Philip V, 549, 593· of Bithynia, 318. Denthaliatis, I 73· Diadcs, enfiineer of Alexander, 72. Diadochi, historians of, Dicaearchus, pirate, 79, 418, 478, ()23-6. of Messana, 236. of Trichoniurn, 561. Didascalondas, 5·~5· Dido, 4S. Didyma, 514. Digeri, 423. Digitus, Sex., sodMs 11auaiis, 213. Dimale, 56, go, 55·2. Diodotus J, 3 I 2. II, 2f,4, 265, Jl2-lJ. Diogene>, Seleucid ofticial, 239. Dionvsius I of Syracuse, 36, 38, So, 346-7, 363, 494, 495; walls of, 71; chronology of, 325-6; tradition of extravagance, 380. II of Syracuse, 8o, 324-5,331, 346, 384, 400. leader of Antiochus Ill's hypaspists, 64, 65. Dionysodorus, 507, 509, sso, 551, 56z. Dium, 12, 162, 175, j72, 579· Dodona, I 75, 641. Dolopes, r83, 613, 6r6-r7. Domitius, Cn , .\hcnobarbus (cos. I 22), 636. Cn., Corbulo, 429. Don, H.. (Tanais), 263. Doriruachus, 12, 13, 14, n, 185, 413, ()J.j.

Doris, 171, 259. Dositheus, 71. Douro, R., 251. dowry (dos), at Home, 595-6. Drangiana. 312, 314, 315. Drin, R. (near Li:;sus). go. dropsy, associated with thirst, 414-15. Drymas, 617. Dunbabill, T J., quoted, ro8, 159, !Go.

INDEXES Duris of Samos, 276 ; criticizes Theopompus and Ephorus, So. Dussaud, R., quoted, 47· Dyme, 58, 259· Dyrrachium, go, 631. Earth, in Punic-M:acedonian treaty, ')0.

Ebro, R., 136. rgz, 199, 201, 202, 204, zo5,246, 251; treaty, 43, 465,631; battle off, 68; battle of, 309-1 z (map on 310). Ecbatana, 232, 233 (renamed Epiphaneia), 234, 235, 642; palace, 234· Ecdemus, 223-4. Echecra.tes of Phlius, 346. informant of Timaeus, 331, 346. Echinades Islands, 178. Echinus, 8, 13, 14, r83-5 (Philip's siege). 186, 553. 555. 558. 598. eclipse of moon !413), 145. Edeco, 245. 247. 3IL Edet.1.ni, 245-6. 31 I. Egypt. Egyptians, 32, 49, 59, 65, 8o, 229, 274· 434-9. 472-4. 478. 480, sn. 538, 546; relations with Rome, I37, 543; overseas possessions of, 642; ships at Samos, 499, 503, 505, 510; native re>"olt, 439· Elaia, 547· Elatea, 170, 277, 548, 549, 572, 579, 6o8, 6!2.

Elburz, l\£t .. 235, 236; topography of Antioch us' crossing, 236--9; map, 237· Elea, Gulf of, 504. elephants, at Haecula, 251; at Zama, 456, 464, 468; at Cynosc€-phalae,

sBr.

Eleusia, cult of, at Sparta, 255. Eleusis. 129, 562; temple of Demeter at, 533· Eleutherna, 59 Elimiotis, 81, or6. Eliphasii, 286-7. Elis, Eleans, 128, 142, 163, 169, 276, 371,j16,542,552.567,598,6o6,6o7. Ellopium, 278, 279. Elymaeans, 233· Emporia, 467, 469. encomium. contrasted with history. 22!-3. Enipeus, R., 183, 554, 578, 579, 580. Enna, 361. Ennius, 197, .p6, 431, 452. Eordaea, 563, 581. Epaminondas, IIo, III, 394; compared with Hannibal, 127-33. epa.rchies, in Seleucid empire, 264. Ephesus, 27, 65, 355, 406, 502, 503, 6o3, 6r5, 623.

66o

Ephorus, 20, II], 128, 152, 276, 351. 379, 387, 409, 416, 648; criticized by Duris, So; by Timaeus, 325-7. 377; by P., 364, 376, 393-5. praised, 4!0-Il, 522. Epichares, 567. Epicrates, Rhodian commander, 53'• - alleged victim of Philip V, 88. Epicurus, abuses Aristotle, 343· Epicydes, 32, 62, 70, IIJ. Epidarnnus, 56. Epimenidcs, 626. Epiphaneia (Ecbatana), 233. Epirus, Epirotes, 58. 182-J, I91, 25'· 534· 5{8, 551, 552, 6r6, 6J' Philip's expedition to (2r4), 57; i11 first l\lacedonian 'Var, 177, 27'•. passes in, 554-5. Epitalium, 641. Erasippus, Delphic archon, 4L Erasistratus of Ceos, 389, 390. Eratosthenes, 71, 263, 642-3. Erbessus, 78, 361. Eretria (Euboea). 164, 612, 6r8. ~ (Thessaly), 554, 57fi, 579· Eretum, 124. Erigon, R., 93· Erigyius, 237, 238. Erymanthus, R. (Helmand), 314· Erythra.e, 509. 604. Eryx, 630. Esarhaddon, treatv of. with Ba',Ji,, of Tyre, 51. Eshmoun, 47, 48, 49, 209. Ethiopia, r87. Etruria, Etruscans, 33, 425, 631. Euanthes, oecist of Locri, 334· Eu boea, Eubocans, 62, 128, 256, :;: .1. 258 (under Philip V), 276, 536, 5·1:' 552, 567, 6r2, 613, 641. Eucampidas of Maenalus, 567. Eudamus, 51I, 550. Eudicus, 567, 570. Eudoxus of Cnidus, 263. Eugenium, 552. Enhydrium, 554· Eumachus. 39· Eumenes I, 535· ~II, 603, 6o4, 609, 618. -of Cardia, 85. Euphranor, r29, 130. Euphrates, R., 8, 14, 95, 186-7, 21:. 315. Euphron, tyrant of Sicyon, 259· Eupolernus, 575. 580. Euromus, 513, 553, 610, 615. Europa, daughter of Philip II, 81. Europe, and Philip II, 8o; mea111n•: in Theopompus, 8o. Europus (Rhagae), 233· R., 6r3. Eurotas, R., 521. J

1. GENERAL Eurydeides of Athens, 88, 168, 562. Eurydice (Audata), secondary wife of Philip II, 81. -wife of Ptolemy I, 175. Euryleon, 15, 220, 550. Eurymedon, Athenian general, 145, 400. battle of, 364. Eurysthenes, 352. Euthydemus I of Ba.ctria, 232, 264-5, 312-13. Euthynus, 129. Euxitheus, 567. Evagoras of Cyprus, 393· Fabian tactics, 120. Fabius, L., 442. - Q., Buteo (praetor 196), 56I. Q., Maximus (cos. 213), roo. Q., l'viaximus (praetor r8r), 595· Q, l\Iaximus Aemilianus (cos. 145), 200, 595· - Q., Maxim us Verrucosus (cos. 233), 9, I 55, 189, I9I, 219, 3 II. Q., Pictor, 29, 40, IIg, 121, 123, 125, 193, 202, 204, 209, 245, 296, 425, 629, 636. Falerii, 63o. Fanum Fortunae, 268, 269, 270. Ferentina, 636. Feroniae, Iucus, 12 I, 124. Fevrier, J. G., quoted, so. fire-signalling, r6, 258-62. Flaminius, C. (cos. 223), 632, 646. -C. (cos. 187). 219. Flavus, Lucanian, I ro. Fonniae, 199. Fortune (Tyche). 96, 98, 125, r4·z, 168, 191., 194-5· 201, 244. 24 7. 253. 2 76, 304, 443. 452, 463, 466, 474· 476, 493-4. 542, 564, 569, 570, ss6, 614. Foruli, 124. Fregdlae, 243. friends, see ,PC\ot. Fucine Lake, 123. Fulvius, Q. (trib. pleb. 197), 561. - Cn., Centumalus IVIaximus (cos. cHI). 121, 125, 189. Q., Flaccus (cos. 237), I 19, 1zo, 125, I26, 127, 155, 189, 219,632. - Q., Flaccus (cos. sufi. r8o), 561. Furius, P., Philus (cos. 223), 632. - L., Purpurio (cos. 196), 556, 562,

6os.

Gadara, 546. Gades, 296, 310, 311. Gaesatae, 632. Gala, king of eastern ::--rumidia, 306. Galaesus, R., 1o8-g. Gala:da, 361.

Galatia, Galatians, 40, gS, 169, 174, 1]5. sor, 594. 598, 603-4· Galerius, Roman emperor, 89. Galilee, 546. Gallic Wars of Rome, chronology of, 631-2. Gandhara, 314. Garganus, Mt., rgr. Gaugamela, battle of, 234, 364, 455, 6I6. Gaul, Gauls, 174, 251, ·267, 295, 425, 456, 457, 466, 562-·3: Cisalpine, 54, 138, 562-3; see alsv Galatians and Gallic Wars of Rome. Gaza, 496, 527, 528, 546; battle of, in Zeno, 523. Gedrosia, 315. Gela, Geloans, 159, 399, 630; Congress of, 399, 400, 403. Gelo, son of Hiero II, 2, 3I. 33. 34, 35. 39, 41, 42 . . - son of Deinornenes, 399, 404. genius Carlhaginis, 48. Genusus, R., 63r. Germany, 328. Gerrha, Gcrrhaeans, 21, 421-2. Getae, 8r. Gisgo, envoy, 42. councillor, 4 7 I. Gitta, 26, 547· Glos, Persian admiral, 393· Gomphi, 6rg. Gonni, 584. Gordium, 371. Gorgias. Olympiakos of, 401, 402; encomia on Helen and Palamedes, 405. Gorgus of Messenia, 57· - son of Aristomt:-nes of :Messenia, 57. Gortyn. 572, s8s. Gracchi, 632, 646. Granicus, R .• battle of, 376. Great Plains, battle of, 270, 427, 4323, 440, 443· Greece, Greeks, 644; freedom of, 597, 6og-zo. Griffith, G. T., quoted, 457· Grumentum, 267. Gryllus, son of Xenophon, 130. Gsell, S., quoted, 47, 49· Guriana, 265. Hades, cult of, at Locri, 337· Hadrumetum, 50, 440, 44I, 444, 450, 457. 463. Hageladas, sculptor of cult-image of Zeus at I thorne, 6o. Hagesander, Antiochus' agent, 59· Halicarnassus, 372, 5!4, 519, 6ro, 615. Hallward, B. L., quoted, 255. Haruilcar Barca, father of Hannibal. 99. 633· 66r

IKDEXES Hamilicar,leader of Insubrian revolt, 26.

-Punic admiral at Ebro battle, 6q, 78 (called Himilco by Livy). · the 'Samnite', 154. Hampskora, 67. Hannibal, son of Hamilcar, I, z, 3, 6, II, 15, 21, 29, 30, 34, 36, 62, 99, 133, 136, I54, r89, 277, 422, 504, 583, 6o3, (>49; council of, I 53; campaign of 220, 251; crosses Rhone, 636-7; crosses Alps, 122, 197, 206, 240, 637; alliance with Philip V, I, 2, 42-56, go, 150, 218; march on Rome (2II), 8, g, ro, rr833, 137, 149; captures Tarentum, roo-9; at Caulonia, r6r, defeats and kills Marcellus [208), 242-4; attacks Salapia {2o8L ; during Metaurus campaign, leaves Italy {203), 44o--r, 443; up inscription in temple of Juno, 443: Zama campaign, 446-64, 58 I; meeting with Scipio, 451-3, as a general, ro, 294-5; compared with Epaminondas, !.17-3.3; character, 16, !7, IS0·-5: greed, I36, T5I, I.'i3; chi,·alry, 153; cruelty, I5I, !53· envoy to Syracuse, :12. 34· - ..... the 'Gladiator', 32, I5JHannibal-historians, 39Hanno, son of Bomikar, 30, roo. I r8. 430general in Sicily, rso. -general in Spain {207). 296, zg8. Harmonia, 35· Hasdrubal, son-in-law of Hamilcar. I 54, 20\1. -son of Gisgo, 6, I8, 13(,, IjO, 202, 273. 2()6, 297, zgtl, 2j0. 254. 299, ]0], 426, 427, 429, 432, 440. -brother of Hannibal, I6, IjO,

202,

247-52,

254,

(Metanrus). Punic commander in Sardinia, f;7, IJattusil, treaty of, with Ramcsses II, II6.

Hecatompylus, IS, 236-8, 142. Hegesianax. 6I4, 6rj-I6, 62r. Hegesileos, I 30; called Hegelochus in Diodorus, I 29. Helenus, son of Pyrrhus I, 35· Helixus, 567. Hella, 26, 54 7. Hellanicus, I 16. Hellenic League, see Symmachy of Philip IL Hellespont, 538, 539, 543· 603, 615, 62r, Helorus, 42, 78.

662

Hephaestia (Lcmnos), 6!1, 6r9. Hcphaestion, 233. 355· Hephaestus, :no; Spanish ~ 1" Hera, in Punic--:\Jaccdonian treal ·, 46-4 7; temple of, at Argos, 174 Heraclea, in S. Italy, ro8, II8, .1 battle of, 586. in Trachis, 256, 257, 579· -on Latmos, 598, G15. Heracleia, daughter of Hiero II. J · (Media), Heracleidae, of Pelopontt•···• by, 35I-3 Heracleidas, son of Ag;:,.thodc•s '.1 Syracuse, 32. Heracleides of Tarentum, 20, 21. , (invents sambuca), 103, 416, 417-- '" 476, 497, 5llJ-2o, sSr. - o f Gyrton, j8I, 583. Heracleitus, 40S. Heracles in Punic- l\Iacedonian tn·" 1 ' , 48, 49, founder of Olympic gan'''', 402.

Heraea, ft>stival at Argos, 22•1· -- (Arcadia). ·22:;, 553, 607, IIi. Heraeum, Argive, see Hera. Herdonea, 29. 155, r8g. Hermeias, 4lh, 492, 644. Hermes, H4Her:mias of Atarueus, 3-13--4· Hormocles, Chian, 504. Hermocrates of Syracm;e, r8, }'J'l· 4"; (speech in Timacus). Hermolaus, 354· Hermus, R., 63. Herophilus of Cakhedon, 388-90. Hestiaeotis, 555, 6IJ, Ilelairoi of Philip 11, 8z, Hi
so.,.

I. GE)IERAI. Hippocles, father of Pelopidas, rIO. Hippocrates, son of Svrac:usan exile, 3, 31) 62,

70,

7R,

150.

Hippodameia, .~·'· Hipponium, +'15 Hippo ReF:ius, 318. Hipposthenes, Syracusan, 34· Hippou .\cnt. 53, Ijo. Hirpini, zq, r89. Histiaea, see Oreus. Hittites, 52. Holleaux, '\1., quoted, 504, 529, 536, 598. H,>plites, hoJrse-saLCt!hc:cs, 328. hostages, IIl, 137· Hyacinth.us, Hyacinthia, 104. Hyampolis, Pass of, battle in, 5•}2, 641. Hypana. ri41. hyp:~spists, nnrlf'r Scleucids, 64, 482; Alexamkr' ..,;, 64,257; in Alexandria, 482, 625; under .\ntigonids, 482, 59 I. Hyperhasas, 242. Hypereid••s, :\thenian, rh]. Hypsas, R., 1.17. Hyrcania, Hyrcanians. 15, 232, 237, 238, 261, 2(lc, Z63, 367, 642, 644. Hyscana, (,, 93· Iamneia, 48, 547· canepluwosof Arsinoe Philadelphus. 484.

Iamphorynna, see Phorounna (Phorynna). Iapygia, Iapygians, rgo. Iap~'gian promontory. rf
zSg, :lgo, 534, 5.11-2 (Philip and towns in), 559, 581, 586, 598, 609, 6r8, 633+ Illyrian ·war, First, 56, Igi, 633-4. Second, 56,271. Ilourgeia, r8, 305. imagines, 648. impeo·ator, first example of hailing by troops, 253.

Inachus, H., India, 262, ; Antiochus in, 18,312; ;\Iauryans, 314· Indibilis, sec Andobales. Insubres, 26. 5+7• 563. international law, r 35, 175. r8o, 597·-8.

Iol, town and (') god, 49· Iolaus, 4S, 49· Ioma, Ionians, r8r, 472. Ionian League, 33· Sea, rSg. Ioniapolis; 6ro. Ipsus, battle of, 554· Iranians, 66, 99· lsmenias, 110. !socrates, So, 342, 567; school of, 3·P. 567. hsus, battle o{, 342-3, 3f•4-76 (plan on j68), s88, 591. Isthmia, 6ro, 617, h3I. Isthmus, see Corinth. Islron, )<J. 1stros, G4o. !sus, 554· Isyllus of Epidaurus, r66. Italv, 67, 68, 161, t8g, 190, revults in, after Cannae, 29; allies in, included in treaty with Philip, 43; Hannibal's stay in, 295. boundary of, 637; meaning of, 54· ltauus. 59· lthome, I, 2, 59· Iuba, 49· lulius, M,, Brutus (praetor 44). 244· D., Brutus (Cailaicus) (cos. 138), 3J2. -C., Hyginus, 197, zoo. - M., Silanus (praetor 212), r8, 201, 20~ 29~ 297-~ 301, 302, 307. 312. Jacoby, F., quoted, 347· Jason of Phcrae, I 1 I. Jerusalem, 546-7, 602. Jews, 97· J udaea, 546. Juno, temple of, on Lacinian promontory, 443· Juppiter Optimus Maxirnus, temple of, at Rome. 197. Kahrstedt, F., quoted, 68, 456. Kalavryta, 142. Kerynites, R., 143. Kharput, plain of, 99. Killa, 449· kings, treatment of, in history, 78-79; various views on, 252. Klotz. A., quoted, 195. Kontoporia, 521. Korris, 645.

663

INDEXES Kousor, 49, so, :no. Kromayer, J., quoted, 56. Labae, 4Z2. Labraunda, 645. Labus, Pass of, 238-9, 241. Lacedaemonians, see Spartans. Laches, Athenian, 339· Lacinian promontory, r8g. Laconia, Laconians, r66, 29.5. Lacydes, 535· Lade, battle of, 24, 502,511,512,517, 529; chronology, 24, 497-500; Zeno's account of. 519-20. Laelius, C. (cos. 190), 193, 194, 196, 197, rg8, 200, 204, zr 3, 219, 24.5, 247, 250, 251, 252, 310, 3II, 318, 4 24, 429, 440, 45 r, 455, 458; reliability as a source, 198. Laestrygones, 83. Lagoras, Cretan, 63, 65, 66, 94· Lamarck, l\t. de, quoted, 320. Lamia, r67, r88, 229, 257. Lamian \Var, r67-8. Lamius, 561. Lampeteia (Clampeteia). 423. Lampsacus, Lampsacenes, 28, 56, 552, 614, 62o-r, 623. Lanassa, daughter of Agathocles of Syracuse, 35· Landels, J. G., quoted, 73· Laodice, wife of Antiochus II, g6. -wife of Seleucus II, 96, roo, 640. daughter of Mithridatcs II, 96. two homonymous daughters of Mithridates V, g[,; one married to Antiochus III, 524, 622, 643. Lappa, 59· Larissa, 81, ru, 145, 165, 171, 255, 257. 567, 574, 575, 584, 591, 598; £[eutheria at, 6q. Cremaste, 553. 555-6. Larsen, J. A. 0., quoted, 631. Lasion, 58. Lasthenes, 567, 569. Latin colonies withold men and money, 189. Lato '11'por; KaJi.&.pg., 59· Lattabus, 174. Latus, 59· Laus, R., 190. Lebedos, 503. Ledon, 170. legion, compared with phalanx, 5851 .Pinr>rHlP \Var, 416. Lemnos, 255. 256, 48o, 6I I, 619; Cabirion on, 611. Leon, son of Cichesias, 309. - Macedonian, 58r, 583. Leonidas I, 177. II, 293.

664

Leonnatus, 167. Leonnorius, 6o3. Leontini, r, 2, 36-39 (description), 61, 62, 68, 83, 157; Syracusan 38; map, 37· Leosthenes, 167. Lepcis Minor, 440, 444· Lesh, see Lissus. Lencas, 27, 6oz. Leucippus, oecist of Callipolis, 337· - oecist of 1\Ietapontum, 337· Leuctra, battle of, 87, rs·z, 394, 566, .)68, 628. Leuctrum, 521. Libba, 643· Libya, Libyans, 49, 216, zz6, 403. 461, 464, 466, 531. 53, 150, 470. LH:till:liS, P., Crassus Dives (cos. 20)), 422. L., Lucullus (cos. 151), I 54· Liguria, Ligurians, 32, 54, 456, 457, 466. Li!aea, 617. Lilybaeum, 34, 68, 203. Limnaeus, 593· Lipara, I I r. Liris, R., 123. Lissus, r, s. 6; Philip V's capture of. 90-93· - R., near Leontini, 36, 37, 38, 39· Livius, C. (or M.), 102-3. - M., Salinator (cos. 207). 16, 267, 268, 271. Livy, sources used by, 3 r, 32, 39, 74, 100, 107, II9, 121, 122, 123, 124, l2j, 133· 193. 203, 214, 242, 245. 249, 251, 267, 269-70, 296, 3IO, 429, 446, 585, 6oz, 605, 620, 638. Locri, 21, 29, roo, II9, 133, 153, 154. 190,242, 417, 629; Timaeus on, 18, 19, 330-53 ; Aristotle on, 330-53; alleged foundation by slaves, 33053; matrilineal descent at, 333-4. Hundred Families at, 333-4, 346; treaty with 'Locris', 337, 345-6; class struggles in, 346; a legal dispute at, 362-3; Council of the Thousand, 363; chief magistrate called Cosmopolis, 363: Sicels at. 336; relations with Rome, 332; Scipio's capture of, 317; tempk of Persephone. 332, 336, 337; cult of Hades, 337· Locrian maidens, 334, 335-6, 649. Locris, east, 26, 171, 257, 334-47, 560, 617; conference in, 548-64, 60I, 6o6, 607. Epicnemidian, 185, 258, 259, 33447, 351-3, 552, 613, 617. - Opuntian, 180, 276,363. Ozolian, 557·

l. GENERAL Long-anus, R., battle of, 629. lotus, I9, 3I], 3l9-2L Lucania, 29, no, r89, 190, 422. Lucius, C.f., Roman in Ptolemy IV's service, 59· Lusi. 174, 639· Lusitania, 138. 202, 254, 332. Lutarius, 6o3. Lutatius, C., Catulus (cos. 220), 425. Lychnidus, L., 6r8-r9. Lychnis (Lychnidus), 618-rg. Lycia, roo, 333, 372, 615, 623. Lyciscus, 13, 53, 85, 163, r66, r]o, I 72, 175. I So, I Sr. 182, 568. Lycoas, 522. Lycophron, his Cassandreis perhaps based on Apollodorus' reign, 40. -of Pherae, I ] L Lycortas, z:zr. Lycurgus, Athenian, 354· Spartan king, 57, 163, e293, 420. Spartan lawgiver, 145. 192, 197-8 (origin of his constitution), 378, 648. of Calydon, 41 3· (Asia Minor), 501, 502. R. (Gt. 7.ii.b), 643. Lydia, Lydians, 63, 372, 503. Lydiades, 633· Lyncestis, Lynccstae, 93, 616. Lysias, dynast, 316. -envoy of Antiochus, 614, 615, 616, 6:zr. Lysimacheia, 28, 474, 478---9 (site), 531, 553, 555, 556, 6o6, 6og, br5, 621-3Lysimachus of Thrace, I]j, 36I, 478, 48I, 554, 6I2, 622. son of Ptolemy Il, 48r. Lysippus, Achaean general, 421, 520.

zss.

Macedonia, Macedonians, 25, 26, 43, 44• 46, 53, 62, ]8, 79, 85, 163, 1]1, r83, 204, 255. 256, 327, 472, 507-8, 563, 565, 581, 6o7, 612, ; as a bulwark for Greece, 174-5. 598; supporters of, in Greece under Philip II, 566-8; regarded as Greeks?, I 76; alleged presence of, at Zama, 456 · in Egypt, 488---g; declaration of (r68), 468; booty from, in 595· Macedonian ·war, 413,415, 476, 613. 478, 529, 5]0, 60], Second, 424, 474, 517, 532, 536, 6o2, 6o]. Maceris, 49· Machanidas, r6, I], 21, 163, 182, 22o, 255, 282-94 (\1antinea), 419, 420. Machatas, 163.

Madytus, 615, 6:zr. Maeander, R., 5II, 531,532. Maedi, :zs6. l\1aenalus, ~It., :z86. :\faeotis, 233, 262, 263, 387, Magas of Cyrene, 224. son of Ptolemy TIJ, 48r. r.Iagna Graccia, -rpvifnj in, 30. Magnesia, .Magnetes (Thessaly), I65, 256, 258, 6I3, 617. Magnesia-on-Maeander, 312, 532, 6I5. -ad-Sipylum, 52, 264, 312, 463; battle of, 99, 253. 254, 456, 474· soz, 586. Mago, son of Hamilcar, 29, 44. 136, 150, 153. 154 (nicknamed 'the Samnite'), 202, 213, 250, 254. 273, zg8, 304, 456, 466. -commander at )l'ew Carthage, 193, 194, 202, 2 I 3· - Carthaginian 44· Malis, Malians, 128, I6], -Gulf of. 257, 258, 555Mallus, 366, 615. Mamertini, 295, 629. Mandonius, brother of Andobales, 136, zr8, 246, ]o8, 310, 31 r. Manduria, r8g. rnanipular system, 588-go. :Manlius, L., Acidinus (praetor 212), Torquatus (cos. 235), 67, 632. - Cn., Vulso (cos. I8g), 594· Mantias, doctor, 390. Man tinea, r:z8, 129, 130, I3I, 152, 223. 283, 286, 6o8, battle of (362), 127, 128, 394-5. 455. 568 (207). 279-94, 420, 633; and military dances, 149; Xenis road at, 130, 285, 286; gymnasium, 130; Tegea Gate, 283; ::Vlanthyrea Gate, ·283, 284; Pallantium Gate, 284; temple of Poseidon, I 30, 285, z86, z88, 291,293: Mt. Alesion, 130, 286, 288; Pelagos oak-forest. z88. Mantua, 26, 547· Marathus, 528, 644. Marcius, L., Septimus (legatus 206), 18, 136,149,30I, 302, 305,]10,312. Margaron, 447, 451. Margiane, 265, 315. Margites, a fool, 327. Margus, 633. Marmoreae, ISS· Maronea, 538, 6og. Marrucini, 123, 1'24. :Vlarruuium, Marruuini, 123, 124. Marsden. E. W., quoted, 70, 75· Marsi, I2I, 123, 124. ::Vfasada, 54 7. Masaesyli, 306, 318, 426, 445· 66.~

INDEXES Masinissa, I36, 154, ·298, 3II, 429, 430, 440, 441, 444, 445, 4f6, 449, 450, 451, 452, 455. 4.58, 467, -t68,

469·

J\-lassagetae, 262, 313, 328. Massilia (Massalia), zr8, 552. 6q. Massyli, 3, 62, 154, 4fi, 445· Matiani, '233· matrilineal customs, 331, 333· Maurusii (Moors), 457, 458. Mauryan empire, 3I4. mechanically mobile creatures, 359· Meda, secondary wife of Philip II, 81. Media, :\Iedians, 8, 232, 233, 239, 315, 367, 642,643, 644; Xesaean horses, 2J2.

- Atropatene, 315, 642, 644. medicine, schools of, 388-91. Medion, 27. Megalopolis, 21, 85, 87, 110, 128, I]Z, 173. 224, zS4. 287, 410, 420, 42I, 485, j68; foundation of. I 10, 287, 567; attack by Cleomenes, 144, 522; war with Sparta, 4ZI; military reforms at, 281 , perimeter and size of, 156. l\Iegara, I86, 567, 6o8, G33. - Hyblaea, 42, 78. Megartas, 555· Megasthenes, 314· Melambium, 576, 578, 579· Melancomas, 65, 94· Meles, 155. Meliboea, r I I. Melitaea, attack by Philip V, I44-5,

q6. Mclitussa. 423. Melos, I73· Melqart, 48, 49· Memphis, 482, 624. Menedemus, 315. Menelaeum, near Sparta, 642. .Menippns, 257, 258, 6rs. Mesembria, 417. Mesopotamia, 99, 315, 643. Messana, 388, 4.'P· lVH'"~'
666

Metaurus, R., battle of, 16, 267-74, 277. 294, 422, 440; site, z68-7o; da.te, 270-I, 277. Metrodorus, 479· Metropolis, .'iR. Micion of Athens, 88, 168, 562. Midas, 83. :l
l\Inason of 338. ::>.Ioagetes of Bubon, 316. of Cibyra, 316. l\loeragenes, 489. Molon, 315, 642, 643. .Molossi, 6 I 6. Molpagoras. 23, 475· Mommsen, Th., quoted, 12.). Moon, in the Punic -:\Iacedonia11 treaty, so. ::>.iorga.ntine, see :\iurga.ntia.. :\iummius, L. (cos. 146), 598. :\lurgantia (Morgantine). I rz, 301. Mursil, treaty of, with an Asian prince, 52-53· ::VIuttines, 53, 150, 157; four sons of. 150. Mycale, battle of, 181. Mycenae, 26, s·zi, 564, 570. Myconos, 258. Mylasa, 53 I, 553. 645· Myndus, 514, 519, 615. Myrcan, 43. 44, 45· Myriandrus, 366, 367, 372. Myrina, 480, 6IL Myrleia, 475, 476 . Myrtis, 567. :rvfysia, 539· Mytilene, 152, 274· Myttonus, see Muttines. 1\[yus, 532. 533· ~abarzanes, 367. ~abis, 20, 2I, 24,

564. 565 •.)70, polis, 21: conduct nl. 419···.:ZI; 'iron maiden' of. 420-1 plan against Messene, 515-I7, s.w 2, 545; Philip V's compact with. 57 Philopoemen's expedition 545; cruelty of wife of, .5il . murdered, 6o8. 31, I33· queen of Ramesses II, 5z. :\'a.raggara. 447, 451.

I. GENERAL

Narnia, ·;:68 Naro (Neretva). R., 93· Naryca, 334, 335· Nasus, rr, 12, 13, rbz, 178. 1\;anpactus, r66, r·;6, zzg, 352, 538, 554, 556; Peace of, 516. Neaethu, R., 30. Neapolis, see Naples. Nearchus, 187. Necton, 42. Neleus (Neileus), 5t4. Nemea., 128; festival, rs, 175, 230, 279· Neon, Messenian, 567, 568. -battle of, 171. Neoptolemus, king of :\1olossians, 81. Neptune, alleged aid to Scipio, rg..:, 194--6, 213. N ereis of Epirus, 3 r, 34, 35. Nesaean horses, 23z. 1\;estus, R, r88. New Carthage, ro, 14, r8, 246, 296, 305, 306, 308; plan of, topography, zo:;-rr; Scipio's capture of, 191-220; distance from Ebro, 204; ebb in lagoon, 192-6; isthmus, 205; hill of Mercury, zq; hill of Cronos, 209- r o, 2 r 5 ; hill of Aletes, :zog-1o; hill of Hephaestus, 209-10: caual from lagoon, :no; Porta Popillia, 212 : ;.;«p=i;.;ro< at, 216-17, zrg. Nicaea (Locris), 257. 550, 562, 6os. Nicagoras, 615. Nicanor, general of Philip V, 25. 5367. 543. 582, 583. representative of Alexander, 355· Nicesipoli:>, secondary wife of Philip IT, 8r. Nicias, qs-6 (delay at Syracuse). rq8. Niwlans. mercenary capt<"in, 240, 'P5· :-.iicomachus, A•. carnanian, 561. Rhodian, 63, 6_;. 94, 95· father of Aristotle, 343· Nicomedes 1I Epiphanes of Bithynia, 47h. Nicomedes, mercenary captain, 236, 2f0. Nicon, Alexandrian, 488. -· Tarentiue, 102, Io4. Nicostratus, Achaean, 570. Alexandrian, 489. Rhodian, 508. Niese, B., quoted, 93· Nile, R., r 87 (identified with R. Euphrates). Ninus (Nineveh), 83, 85. !'l'issen, H., quoted, 28. Nisyros, 530, 5_10. Nola, 31. Nossis, poetess, 333·

Nuceria, 31, 133· Numantia, Roman siege of. 260. Numidia, Numidians, 15o, I5f, 267, 433· 458. Octavius, M. (trib. pleb. 133), 646. October horse, 327-8. Odysseus, If2, 409. Oeanthea (Euanthea), 334. 640. Oenanthe, 438, 484, 490. Oeniadae, II, !2, 13. sB. !62, I78. Oenus, R., 545· Oeta, Mt., Olympia, 42, 128. -·festival, rs, r6, 35, :159, 402, 610. Olympias, wife of Philip II, 81. daughter of Pyrrhus 1, 35· Olympichus of Alinda, 316, 473, 645. Olympionicae, list of, 347-8. Olynthns, 82, 152, 163-6, I]O, 377, 567; site of, 164. Onchestus, R., 576, 578. 579· Onesicritus, 384. Onesigenes, Syracusan, 34· Onomarchus, r65, 170, 171. Oost, S. I., quoted, 35· Ophellas, 319. Oppius, C., 197, 200. L, Salinator (praetor 191), s6r. Opus, r6, 258, 548, 64r. Orchomenus (Arcadia), 553, 607, 6o8. - (Boeotia), 8z. Ot·cicon, 643. Orestae, 613, 616. Oretani, 246, :.<)8. Oreus, 257, 258, 276, 277, 6u, 6r8. Oricus, 62 (situation), go. orientation, faults in, 206-S. Orongis, 296. Orontes, R., 95· -- Mt. (Elvend), 233· Oscans, rgo. Ostia, 646. Otacilius, T., Cmssus (praetor 217), 34· Oxus, R., 8, 15, 16, 261-4 (and the Caspian). Oxylus, 352. Pachynus, C., 134· Pactolus, R., 63. Paeligni, 121. Pagasae, 165, 574; Gulf of, 183. Palaepharsalus, 554, s8o. Palestine, 26, 265. Pallantium, 128, 284, 293· Pallene, r64. Pamboeotian festival, I74· Pamisus, R., 52I. Pamphylia, 623. Panaetius, 89, 3Go.

INDEXES Panaetolus, 265. Panama.ra, 513. Panium, battle of, 25, 26, 523-5, 546, 547; Zeno's account, 523-5. Panormus, 78. Paphos, 515: cult of Aphrodite, 515. Papiria, wife of L. Aemilius Paullus, 585. Parapotamia, 315. Park, Mungo, quoted, 32r. Parke, H. \V., quoted, r8o. Parnassus, Mt., 17r. Paropamisadae, 314. Paras, 503, 536. Partheniae, 108, 331, 340. Parthia, Parthians, rs. Ill?. 231-2, 238, 239. 241, 2(i2, 328, 642, 644. Parthini, 56, 90, 552, 6r8. Parthus (Illyria), 618-19. Parthyene, 238. Passala, port of Mylasa, 531. Patara, 615. Patrocles, admiral of Seleucus r, 262, 263. Pausanias, Spartan king, 1<)8. Spartan regent, 6oz. Pedasa, 513, 553, 6ro, 615. Peiraeus, 53·f· Peiresia, 554· Peisander, 3'l4· Peisistratus of Athens, 164, 40•). -murderer of Brachylles, 27, 6or, 608-<). Peithagoras, Delphic archon, 616. Pelasgiotis, 574, 576, 584. Pelion, Mt., Pella, 12. Pellana (Laconia), Jz8, 5{5, 571. Pellene, 143, 568. Pelopidas, no, II L Peloponncse, Peloponnesians, ;q, (meaning Achaeans), 85, uo, 172, 173Peloponnesian War, 170, 171, r8r, 258, 394- 57!. Pelops, Alexandrian, 484. - his son, 484. king of Sparta, r63, 255, 420. peltasts, in army of Philip V, 92, 257, z8r, 582 ·in army of Antiochus III, 242; in army at Issus, J(l870; at Mantinea (362), 455· Pelusium, 487, 525. Peneius, R., 584. Penelope, works defaming, 404-5. Pencstae, 93· Peparethos, 25, 256. Perdiccas H, king of Macedon, 164. general of Alexander, 85, 616. agent of Philip V, 58-59· Pergamum, Pergamenes, 24, 27, 229,

668

255· 504, 505. 512, 549. 603, 601, 6r8; Philip's attack on, chronology of, 497-500, 533; embassy to Rome, , Nkephoriurn, 501, 552; tempi<· Aphrodite, sor, 552. Pericles, Athenian, rsz. Perilaus, 380. Perillus, 567, 570. Perinthus, 474. 553, 6II, 621. Perrhaebi, 6r3, br6. Persephone, temple of, at Locri, 332, 336, 337; at Medma, 336. Perseus, son of Philip V, 93. 95, 135, 332,474, 595,60I,612, Persia, Persis, Persians. 152, 173, r8o. 234. 328, 421, 642· Persian Gulf, r87, 421, 422; provim·· 258. 30, 100. ...-ence•ui. 190, 495. Phacium, 554· Phacca, 6rg. Phaent>as of Eresus, 379· Actolian general, 548, 550. Phalaecus, 171. Phalanthus, 10!1. phalanx, at Issus, 373-6; compan·d with legion, s8s-9l Phalara, 229. Phalaris of Agrigentum, 40, r6o, 38o· 3; bull of, 380-3. Phanoteus, 641. Pharae, 521. Pharaea, 64 I. Pharnaccs, 100. Pharos, 56. Pharsalus, ·zs7. 553. 555, 578, 57G. 580, s8r. t>17; battle of (Pelopidas), I 10. Pharycus, 174. Phayllus, r7r. Pheidias, Syracusan astronomer, 7 r. Pherae (Peloponnese), 641. (Thessaly), 64r. Phigaleia, 58, 6o8. Phila, wife of Philip II, 81. Philaenis, 356-7. Philaenus, altars of, 253· Philaetolus, 555· Philammon, 483, 492. Phileas, Tarentine, roz. Philernenus, 102, 103, 105. 106. Philetacrus, son of Attalus I, 6o4. Philinna of Larissa, secondary wife of Philip Il, 8r. Philinus of Agrigentum, 635· of Cos, 389. Philip II, Ij2, 165. 166, I7I, 173. 344.')21, s5s, j68; privateering (340/39). 82; alliance with Chalcidians, 164; and Olynthus, 165; supporters in '1.,

I. GENERAL Greece, 566-8; hetairai of, 82, 85, 420; reputation in Greece, 85; invasion of Laconia and Peloponncse (338), 166, 172,568;setsupHcllenic confederacy. 171-2; and Europe, So, inclined to heavy drinking, 82; Theopompus' hostility towards, 8o. V, I, 2, J, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 25, 55, 57, 67, liZ, 137, 177, ns. 179, 18z, 229, 274-5. z8s, 527, 546, 570, 605, 6o6, 6og, 615, 6zo, 6z I, 641; family of, 6or; alleged murders, 558; of Aratus, 87-89; of Aratus the younger, 87, 88; of others, 88, r68; treacherv of, 20; moral deterioration of, 58:23 I ; and Messene, 56-61' ; devastates Messenia, 78; Oricus, 62 ; hums his fleet, 62, 78, 90; and Aratus, 79; takes Lissus, 90--93, r6z; attacks Illyria (nr). r62; Thracian expedition (zii), 162; alliance with Hannibal, r. 2, 42-56, 150, 218; takes Anticyra, 179; of Echinus {:no), 183-5; at "1'"~-----··- r68, 499, sor; conduct at Argos (209), 230; helps his allies (zo8), 255-61; takes Epicnemidian Locris (2o8), 617-18; gives Zacynthus to Amynander, 278; invasion of Aetolia (207). 278--9, 617; peace with (zo6), .H, 278, 477-8, 516; peace of Phoenice, 552; pact with Antiochus, 22, 4Z4· 435. 471-4, 486, 503, 506, 523, 530; allied to west Crete, 5859, 415, 423; proposed marriage alliance with Ptolemy IV, 484, 486; treachery towards Rhodes, 415-19, attacks in Aegean, 474-80; with Prusias r' 4 7s-8; expedition of 201, 497-500, 503I 1 ; attack on Pergamum, 500-3, sn; battle of Chios, 503-11; and Olvmpichus, 645; after Lade, srr12; in Caria, 529-33; and l\1ylasa, 531; appeal from Acarnania against Athens, 533; Roman declaration of war on (zoo), 534, 543-4; behaviour in zoo, 538; siege of Abydus, 53844; campaigns of 200-198, 54B; compact with ~abis, 57; Achaeans abandon, 85, 564; and Heraca, 607; conference Locris, 507, 54864; and towns in Illyria, 551-z; and towns in Thessaly, 555-6; at Cynoscephalae, 572-85; reaction to defeat, 592, letter from P. Sdpio, 193, 196, 197, 204; royal formula in treaty with Hannibal, 45; and Zeus, 614. -adopted ~on of Perseus, (jo1.

Philiscus of .Miletus, 342. Philodes, 537· Philocrates, of, 82, I 71. Philoctetes, reputed founder of Petelia, 30. Philodemus, 32. Philomelus, of Phocis, 170, 171, 338. dynast, son of Lysias, 316. Philon, 438. Philopoemen, 15, r6, 17, 25, 57. 88, 130, 421, 603; in 220; hipparch (210/09), 220, 225; reforms Achaean 220-9; military reforms stralegia (2o8{7). 279-82, speech of, :z8o-2; at battle of Mantinea, z82-94, 633; saves ~Iessene from Nabis, 520-2; expedition }l'abis (20o), 545; statue at Delphi, 294· Philostratus, Phintias, 630. Phlius, 152, 346. Phocaea, 479, 614. Phocis, Phocians, 6o, 128, 171, 179, 256, 276, ,p7, 560, 6o8, 612, 6r3, 617; officer in charge, 256, 257. 258; action against Thessaly, 5412; normal route across, 641 ; slavery in, 337-8. Phoebidas, I p. Phoenice, 538; peace of, 21, 93. 177, 178, 258, 415, 416, 516-17, 544, 551-2 (full discussion), 618. Phoenicia, 210, Phoenician 467, 469, 470. Phoet:iae, 58; postern gate at, ro4. Phorounna (Phorynna), I4. r88, 256Phrygia, 96, 372, 503. Phthiotic Achaea, 579, 613, 6I 7· Thebes, I83, 553. 555-6, ss8. 574· 598--9, 613, 617. Phthiot:is, 579, 613, 617. Phylarchus, 222, 523. Phytaeum, 278-9, 64r. Picenum, 63:<. Pickard-Cambridge, A. W., quoted, 566. Pillars of Hcracles, 253· pilum, 647. Pinarus, R. (Deli Chai), 36&--7, 373· Pinnes, 256. Piraeus, 1_52. pirates, 98. PlaC"cntia, :268, 270, 547, 563. Plataea, Plataeans, I 12, 146; battle of, r81; Greek oath before battle, r8o-z; Eleutheria at, 613-14. Plato, 346, 567. Plator, 257. 276.

INDEXES Pleiades, rising of, r 4-1-; morning setting of, 529, 634· Pleminius, Q. (legatus 205), 2I, 153, 417· Pleuratus, 162, 256, 552, 6r8. Po, R. (Padus), 138, 187, 270. Polemarchus, S(H. Poliasion, 521. Polyaenus of Cyparissia. 293. of Megalopolis, 291. polyandry, 340-1. Polyhius, Achaean hipparch 170{69, ; visits Spain (I 5 I), zos-{); 1\ew Carthage, 205·6, zr 2; visits Numantia (?), 205-6; visits Africa, 317, 3:20; services to Locri, 33I-2; naval experience, 393; voyage in Atlantic, 393, 6z8; wealth of, 4og;journcysof, 4og-ro,644; visits Alexandria, 491, 644; and Rome, 79. 597-9· - on universal history, 67, r88, 379; on types of history, 8, rr6--r8; on uses of history, s-'l; on the faults of monographs, 14, 379, 517; on moral nature of history, 223; on praise and blame in history. 528 ; on history and encomium, 79, l2o3; on truth in history, zo, ::r, 79, 419, 5 I 8 ; on prefaces, 201,-7; on types of speeches, 385, 3')7-9; on the use of the eyes and ears, 408 , on autopsy, 320; on the qualities of a historian, 386-7; on the historian's task, 329, 391 3; on limits of criticism allowed to the historian, 360; on voluntary and involuntary falsehood, 342; on tragic events and historv, 495; on sensationalism, 380, 429, 493·4; on concessions to patriotism in history, 518-rg; on importance of philosophy, 383-4; history compared with medicine, 388-93; empiricists supported in medidne, 389; history compared with art, 395-6. on the importance of moderation, g8, on immortality of the soul, 89, on factors modifying men's conduct, ISI; on Fortune, r68, Iqz, 1<14-5. .!OI, 244. 247, 586; on divine providence, 113; concept of character-development, 23 I ; on suicide, 2 73; on alleged or actual Stoic doctrines in, 77, 139, t4r-z, 145, rsr. 231, 591: on rationalism, 194-6, on the irrational, 512; on miracles, r 96; on pious fictions, 5I5. -on how men change their minds, 23; on importance of iriends, rsr; on treachery, 26.564-70; ongeneral-

67o

ship, 244, 279-So; on being deceived, 26, 27, 6or-2; on the importance of one outstanding man, 71, 77; on the inviolability of temples, 279; on astronomy, 139; on calculating hour from signs ol zodiac, 140-2; on importance of geometry, I45-8, 155; on makin~ ladders the right height, 145-8; on replanning camps, 148; on computing size of cities and camps. rss-7; on the art of the commander, 8, ro, r7, 138; on fire-signalling, 16. 258-62; on surprise attacks, I 38 -o, on cavalry practice, 8; on Grecl; and Roman stakes, .572-4; on kee11 allies, q. on the laws of war, 6I; on causf'h. 17, 294; on the magnitude of the Haunibalic War, ; on the lesson" of Achaeus' fall, ; on progress in arts and sciences, I r8; utilitarian attitude to knowledge, 149; didacti cism, 591; explanation for Gred, readers, 215; on Odysseus, r.p. 317; on the Euphrates, 186-7; "" hunting, 256; on the lotus. '" 3[9-Z I. on the manipulated Olympia< I I I6; on tht; Roman aim at world dominion, 67, 277, 453; on th• maintaining of hegemony, 246never c:1.1ls Romans barbarians, on Roman moral deterioration, 5')4 on division of bootv in Romau armv, 216-I7; on treatment ol kings in history, 78- .. 79; on am!H tions of Philip V, 4 7<)-80; conce•pt of races, 295; on Cretans, 94; '"' the Oxus and Taxartes, 261-4; <•II the Persian envoys to Athens and Sparta, ; on the fauna of i\frJc,, and 321-4; on Epaminon das, I 28 :on the A then ian charactc1 . 182; oti Athens' anti-Macedoni"" policy, 152. - prejudice against Thebes, .;r'' against Sparta, I3 I ; aga 1nc-1 Hcrmeias, 481 : agatnst Sosibiu~ 481; against Ptolemy IV, 4<'3. against Thebes, 568; polcnH• against Hannibal-historians. I9c against historians of Scipio's cal' ture of New Carthage, 19<; again .1 historians of events in Alexandri<>. 493-4, on Timaeus, 18-zo, 2 21. 321-62, 362-3, 377-88, 395-41.' on Baton of Sinope (?). 39; "" Theopompus, 78--87: on Ephoru·. rz8, 3z5-7, 363, 31'4• 371), 393-5; " 1' Phylarchns, 223; on Callisthen< r8-2o, 364-76; on Aeneas Tacticu· c

I GESERAL

259; on Zeno and Antisthenes, 51?on Aristotle, 330-53; on Gelo, and Hieronymus, 3942. - Histories, assignment of frag· ments, 1-28; chronological system, 628, 639; book xi!, origins of, 317; organization, I , avoidance of hiatus in, 234, 29-h 434; prologues in, 4, r6, So, 86, 116, 266-7, 424; use of topographical detail, 233-4, speeches in, 8, 163, 176, 385-6, Yn-9. 424, 451-2, 581; faults of orientation in, 206-8; chronology of composition, r, 131-2, 438, 491, 594. 59]-8, 631,633.634.636,642, 644; aid to statesmen, 132; inaccuracies in, 219, sources used in, 29, 40, 42, 59, b3, 68, 69, 93, roo, 101, IIO, ll9, 121, 122, 12j, 12], 133. 136, 142, 154. 163, 192, 193. 197, 199, 202, 204, 206, 21 I, 232, 233, 236, 245, 261, 263, 2].), 282, 292, 296, 308, 320, 330, 360, 418, 424-5. 430, 433. 438, 446, 451, 474. 480, 497. 503, 549. 558, 559. 575· 580, 581, 584, 601, 613, 643, 644, 645· 648. Life of Philopoemcn, 221-2, 282; Tactics, r38, 143, 14.). 148 (perhaps source Ior .Asdepiodotus); On the habitability of the equatorial regi&n, 6z8. Polydeitus of Cyrcne, 31. -of Larissa, 262. Polycrates. governor of Cyprus, 485, 490, 625, 627. Polycritus, Aetolian, T74· Polyperchon, 8 5· Polyphantas, 256, 257, 258. Polyphron of Pherac, I I 1. Polyrrhenia, 59· Polysperchon, Actolian, 143· Polyxenidas, ·2.32, 239· Pompeius, Cn., Magnus (cos. 70), 306. Pomponia, mother of P. Scipio Africanus, 200. Pontos, father of Poseidon, 49· Pontus, 387. Popillius, M., Laenas {cos. 139), 212. Porcius, M., Cato (cos. 195). 341, 407, 410, Grg, 636; censorship of (r 84), 594-5· - L., Licinus, 273. Porter, W. H., quoted, S8. Poseidon, in Punic-1\Iaccdonian treaty, 49. 649; temple of, on Calaureia, 167; on l\Iilesian peninsula, 5 T4; at Taena.rum, I 74; Soter, at Tarentum, 108; Hippias, temple of, at Mantinea, 130, 283,

zf,s • .:86, 288, lyi, 293; see also Neptune. Poseidonius, 148, 518. Postumius, A., Albinus (cos. 151), 4IO, Potidaea. 164, r6s. Priene, 514, 532, 6o3, 615. Prinassus, 23, 24, 5I'l-IJ. Proagoras, Megalopolitan, 4.2 1. Procles, 351. Propontis, 539, 6-zr. proxenia, grants of, 349· Proxenus, Locrian, 339. Prusias I, 98, 475, 476. 477, 478, 479, 552,611. II, 355. 499. SOL Psophis, 58, 143. Ptah, 210. Ptoeodorus, 567. Ptolemy I Soter, 33, Bs. 175, 361, 554· - 11 Philadelphus, 33. 175, 359. 481, 484. 543· III Euergetes, 42, III, 224, 437, 438, 481, 6n, 631. IV Philopator, 9. 32, 59, 63, 64, 93, 94, 13], 151, 275, 434-9, 473, 480, 482, 484, 487, 488, 53Z, 634, 640, 645; date of death, 435-7. 473, 552. - V Epiphanes, 22, 23, 95, 435-7, 471-4, 48o-g, 492, 503, 533. 538. 552, 562, 6oz, 6og, 6q~rs, 6:n, 623, 025; date of accession, 22, 435-7, 482, 624, Ins; anacleteria, 436, 623-4· 626-7. VI Philometor, 59, 625. -son of Aeropus, 524. - Ceraunus, 40, 175. 6rz. -son of Eumenes, 625. - son of Lysimn.chus, 481. - of Megalopolis, 438, 480, 484-5, 487. 493. 627. son of Sosibius, 473, 484, 486, 527. Pudu!)epa, queen of the Hittites, 52. Punic War, First, 457· Second, 136. Third, 471. Pydna, 82; battle of, 474, 582, 586, 595· Pylos, 169, 178, 514,607. Pyramid, Great, height calculated by Thales, 146. Pyrenees, 251. Pyrgi, Punic and Etruscan insctip· tions from, 635. Pyrgus, 641, Pyrrhias, 12. Pyrrhus I, 30, 34, 35, 36, 56, 96, IOI, 286, 327. 332, 399. 450, 543. 586, 6zg.

II, 34, 35· Pystilus, I 59· Pythagoras, 30, 330.

IX DE XES Pythagoreans, 330, 346, 347· Pytheas, 354· Pythian festival, 6ro. Pythion, 21, 419. Quinctius, T., Crispinus (cos. zo8), 242-3. L., Flamininus (cos. 19'2}, 27, 602, 612, 617. T., Flamininus (cos. rg8), 26, 88, 168, 170, I7f, 176, 272, 507, 54864, 570, 572, 574. 575. 576, 578-86, 592-3, 598, 6oo, 6o6, 6o8-g, 614, 616, 6r 8, 61 g, 62 r, 623, 649; helped by Fortune, r68; cult, 170, 613-If· quinquereme, character of, 71. Ramesses II, treaty of, with lj:attusil, sr. 52. ransom, cost of, 273. Raphia, battle of, 94, 95. 438, 484, 645· Heate, 124. Reiske, J. J., quoted, 1.7, 360, 565. Reshef, 47, so. Rhaecelus, r64. Rhagae, 233 (renamed Europus). 7.35· Rhaucus, 59· Rhegium, n8, 127, 131, 161, 189, 190, 332, 3·1-7· 495, 629. Rhium, 352-3. Rhodes, Rhodians, 21, 22, 24, 27, 42, 59, 63, 65, 94, 95, 98, 159, 164, 229, 239, 275, 316, 381, 463, 472, 477, 503, 504, 505, 506, 508, 509, 510, 5II, sr8, 519, 530, 536. 538. 539. 541, 544.562, 602-3, 6rr, 615, 644; Philip's treachery 618, towards, 415--19, 625; embassy to Rome, 530; at Athens, 533-6; Roman relations with, 543; constitutional anangements, 418; Prytaneum (record office}, 418, 504, 520; colossus, 571, 645; Peraea, Philip V's attack on, 497-500, 5I2I3. 552; evacuation Of, 558, 615. Rhone, R. (Rhodanus), 207, 583, 636-7. Roebuck, C. A., quoted, 6o. Rome, Romans, II, 1:2, r8, 21, z6, 67, 149, 170, 176, 177, r83, :204, 244, 247, 456, 549, 581, 624; Gallic capture of, 629; treaties with Carthage, chronology of, 635; second treaty with Carthage, 54; third treaty with Carthage, 56; and just wars, 597-8; imperialism, 135-6, 277. 453; modest wealth at, 597; enters Balkans, 424; alliance with Aetolia (211), chronology of, n-13, 137, 162, 176; terms of, 162-3, 179-80, zs6, 479. 599-600, 636. 649; dura-

6i2

tion of, r62; Hannibal's march on. 8, 9, ro, I r 8-33; in treaty between Philip and Hannibal, 43, 44; take" Oeniadae (21 r), 58; Macedonia11 speech against, 8; envoys treacher ously attacked, 443; peace oJ Phoenice, 552; embassy to Ptolemy IV, 9, 137-8, relations with Egypt, 137, 543; relation:-. with Rhodes, 543; envoys at A then-. (zoo), 533-4, 536-7; war-declam tion against Philip (zoo), 534; and Greek freedom, 597 · ten legati sent to Greece, 605-6 ; and setth: ment in Greece, oo9-2o; Isthrnu' declaration, 612-14; mistress of tht· world, 456, 463; political arbiter in Asia and Africa, 253; compared with Spartans, 127-33; example~ of integrity, 594-8; moral dt· terioration, 59+; called barbarian,, 176; admitted to Isthmia, 631. state of calendar. 605; imports <>I corn, 137; organization of legion. 302, 433, 454-5; division of boot\ in army, 216-17; camp, 248; rok of military tribunes, 583-4; atriufl! of Libertas at, I02; Tarpeian rock 102; t(·mplc at Porta Capena, IJ·+. temple of Hanas et Virtus, I 34 . trPaty with Antiochus III, 52. Romulus, rso. Rostovtzeff, M., quoted, 33· Rubicon, R., 637. Sabae, 422. Sabellia.ns, Sabines, 121,632. Sacaraucac, 313. Sacas, 263-4, 3 I 3· Sacred \Var, against Phocis, 171. Sagra, R., battle of, 29, 30. Saguntum, 205, 295, 452, 631, 63.5. 639· Salapia, 15, 29, 155, 244-5. Sallentini. I9I. Samaria, 546, 547· sambuca, siege-engine, see aafLPvK'1· Samicum, 64r. Samnium, Samnites, 29, 121, 12.1. I5j, 189, 190, 564. Samos, Samians, 472, 484, 503, 501. 505, 506, 509, 552, 615. Sapini, 632. Sardanapallus, 83·-84, 36I. Sardes, I, 2, 3, 63-66, 93, 94, 45"· 502, 6o'.!, 6p, 649; chronology ol Antiochus' siege, 3; situation, ;, ' theatre, 65; Persian gate, 65, u .. 'Saw·, 63, 66; sanctuary of Anaili: .. 502.

Sardinia, 619.

HJ,

49, 67, 137, 323, 31i',

I. GENERAL

Sardus, son of Maceris, 49· Sargon, 97· Saturnus, 2Io; promontory of, 2IO. Sceptics, 389. Scerdilaidas, go, 93, 162, I 76, 178, zs6. Schweighaeuser, ] ., quoted, 6, 68, 74• 81, 107, 216, 419. Sciathus, 25. Sciritis, 172. Scodra, 92, 93· Scopas, 12, I3, 20, 21, 25, ·~6. zB, 162, I85, 413-15, 485, 523, 546, 6oz, 623-{;. Scotitas oak-forest. 545· Scotussa, I I I , 257, 575-h, 578, 579,

399-400, 424, 440, 452, 551, 629; Athenian disaster, 145-6. Sicyon, 26, 89, 128, r86, 224, 230, 548, 549. 557· 564, 567, 568, 570, 5 633; Arateion, 89, land of Apollo at, 570-1; two temples of Apollo at, 57!. Sidicinum, 199. Sidon, 528, 546, 6oz. Siga, 306, 318. Silarus, R., 190. Silenus, roo, 119, I;
XX

673

INDEXES Sparta, Spartans, (cont.) Alexander, 354; Cleomenes' military reforms, z8r ; speeches at (~:ro), 8, 12, 13, 53; Roman approach to (210), I63, 220; treaty with Rome, 6o7 ; at battle of Mantinea (2o7), 282-94; war with Megalopolis, 421; compared with Romans, 127-33; use of mercenaries by, 293; perimeter and area of, 156; method of dating at, 347; Menelaeum at, 642; Temenid gate at {?), 104; cult of Eleusia, 255· Sphodrias, 152. Stagirus, 164. Stertinius. L., 609, 6Ig. Stiboetes. spring 237. z6,~. Stiehl, R., quoted, 599-600. Stier, H. E., quoted, 599· Stoicism, Stoics, alleged or actual views in P., 139, 141-2, 145. 23I, 273. 591; views on Odysseus, L42; on omens and superstitions, 145; on men's conduct. Iji; on suicide, alleged rationalism, 195-6; for dogmatists in medicine, opposed by New Academy, 405. Strachan- Davidson, J. L., quoted, 207, 210. Strato of Lampsacus, 387. Stratonicaea, 5I3, 6n. Stratonice, wife of Demetrius II, 475· Stuberra, 93· Stylangium, 641. Stymphalus, 6o8. Subbiluliuma, treaty of, with Tetti, 51. Sublaqueum, I25. Sucro, 306--7. R., 204-5, 246. Suessetuni, 136. suicide, views on, 273. Sulmo (Paclignian), I23, 124. {Volscian), 123. Sulpicius, P., Galba Maximus (cos. 2II}, I3 n., 14, 68, I2I, I25, 127, IJI, 183, 185, r86, 230, 255, 259, 276, 278, 534, 548, 563, 6os, 6n, 6r8, Sun, in the Punic-Macedonian treaty,

so.

Susa, 239· Susemihl, F., quoted, qr. Susiane, 315, 642. Sybaris, 30, 101. Sybrita, 59· Symaethus, R., in Sicily, 39· Syroe, Day of, 512. Symmachy of Philip II, 171-:z; of Antigonus Doson, 46, 58, I69, 17 5· I8, 306, 318, 426, 430, 431,

432, 440, 441, 442. 444. 445. 451' 455, sz8-g. Syracuse, Syracusans, 5, 6 . 7-8, g, 32. 6r, 62, rog, 112, 133, 134, 150,241. 336, 339· 361, 378, 399. 400, 40~ 417, 562; Athenian attack on, 145 6; Dionysius II relinquishes, 324-5. Roman siege of, 69-78; chronolof;' of, 7-8; spoils taken from, I34-(•. Epipolae, 6, 70, 71, III-14 (cap ture); Hexapyla (Scala Graeca), 7. 70, 71, r 12, Iq; Euryalus, 32, 241, Tripylon, 70; Acbradina, 70. Sho•· makers' Colonnade, 70; Great Hat bour, 146; Little Harbour, 7". Temenitis, 104; postern gate, ro~ . porlzts Trogilorum, r 12; Galeagr.• tower, I rz; Arethusa fountain 329; month Artemitios at, r r 3· Syracusia, giant ship of Hiero H, 4~ Syria, Syrians, 48,379,463,485,615. kings of (Seleucids), 253. ~ Coele, see Coele Syria. Syrian War, Fifth, 496, 523-5, 6oz. Tabraca, 3I8. Taenarum, 174. Tagae, 236, 238, 240. Tagus, R., 25t. Tambrax, 241. Tamese, 423. Tanais, R., 203. Tanit Pene Baal, 47, 48. Tapyri, 239, 341. Tarentum, Tarentines, I, 3, 4· 6, 7. c.. 9, 14, 30, 62, 72, Ioo-g, uS, IJ \. 134,149, I89-90,ZII,J37•340,4l/, 418, 564. 649; foundation of, ro:-< plan, 103; and Pyrrhus, IOI; situ:~ tion and importance, 189-90; ral' ture by Hannibal, 100-9; Temcnid gate, ro3 (site}, 105, ro6, 41:-> postern gate, 104; agora, 104 •· 109; :\Iuseum, 104; cemetery, l<>'> Deep Road, I05-6, 107, Ioq theatre, 105; harbours, 189, ~0 l canal, I07; Saviour Road, I07· ;.. sheep from, 143; Gulf of, • Tarentines' (mercenaries), 289, 293. 524. Tarn, W. W., quoted, 238, 355, .so.~ soB, 527. Tarquinius, L., Priscus, 220. Tarracina, 102. Tarraco, r8, 195, 203, 245. 246, 2')', 296. Tarsus, Taurion, 152. Tauriscus, pupil of Crates, l3SI· Tauromenium, 42, 329, 361, 377, \' Taurus mountains, 3. 236; (!\1t. l· I burz), 236.

r.

GENERAL

Tectosages, 603-4. Tegea, 128, 129, 130, 172, 283, 293, 294, 521. szz, 545. 568, 6o8. Tegyra, battle of, 364. Teichus (Teichos) on Achaeo-Elean border, 58, 640. Telamon, battle of, 632. Teleas of Magnesia, 312. Teledamus, Argive, 567. Telemachus, 64r. Telepylos, 83. Tellias of Elis, 542. Temenus, 352. Tempe, 12, r62, 54~. 584; conference of, 27, 6or. Tenea, 521. Tenedos, 479, 543· Teos, 59, 503, 598. Terentius, L., Massaliota (praetor 187), 605, 6rg, 62r. Terias, R., near Leontini, 36. Tetti, king of the Xa]Jai§;e, treaty of with ~ubbiluliuma, 51. Tbalamae, 521. Thales, and height of Great Pyramid, 146. Thasos, 23, 479, 499, 6IJ, 6rg. Thaumaci, r88, 617. Theano, poetess, 333· Thebe, plain of, 502. Thebes. The bans, 26, 82, rro, I I r, rz8, 152, 167, 181 j68, 6o3 ; Gre
Theron, 159, I6o, 399Thersites, encomia of, 404-5. Thesmophoria, at Alexandria, 437, 490; at Athens, 43 7· Thespiads, 49· Thespiae, rzg. Thessaliotis, 555, 613, 6I6. Thessalonica, 53· Thessaly, Thessalians, I IO, 128, I65, I66, 167, 170, I/I, 177, 178, 256, 276, 371, 548, 550, 552, 553, 554. 572, 579, j8I, 599-600, 607, 613, bi6, 617; Phocian action against, 541-2; harvest in July, 579. Thetideurn, near Cynoscephalae, 576, 578, 579. j8o. Thibron, 532. Thoas, Aetolian, s6r. Thorax, l\ilt., 532. Thrace, Thracians, 12, 2I, 98, I6], r8z. r83, 256, 423, 473, 478, 538, 556, s8r, 583, 584, 598, 6o2, 615, 619, 622, 640. Thraso, 3I, 39. Thrasycrates of Rhodes, I6; speech of, 274-7. Thrasydaeus, 567. Thrasylochus, Messenian, .567, 568. Thronium, I8j, 559· Thucydides, 635; continued by Theopompns, So, 87, on purpose of history, 386. Thurii, 102, 108, I09, liB, IS3. ISS. rgo, 495· Thyateira, sor, 502. Thyrnondas, 367. Thyreatis, 172. Thyrrheum, r62, 56L Tiber, R., 122, I23, 6I2. Tibur, 125. Tidnus, R., battle of, rg8-g, 637. Tifata. Mt., 119, 123. Tigris, R., I87, 315· Timachidas, SIB. Timaeus, Aetolian, 173-4. - of Tauromenium, IB-w, 85-86, II/. 2]6, 319, 4IO, 418, 495; P. on, 85, 222, 317, 321-62, 379-88, 399-412; on Agathocles, 86, I5I-2; on Africa and Corsica, 321-4; on Pyrrhus, 327; on the October horse, 327~8; on religious traditions, 328; on Sardinia, 328; on Locri, 330-53; criticizes Aristotle, 330-53; Theopompus and Ephorus, 324-7; Callisthenes, 353-5; Demochares, 3556o; other writers, 377-9; fails to give due praise, 528; chronological work, 347-9; on Zaleucus, 363; dreams in, 380 ; speeches in, 399405; copies Gorgias (?) , 401 ; nicknamed 'Epitimaeu's, 349; residence

I. GEK ElL\L I!\DEX Timaeus, (co11t.) at Athens, 388,396, 409; f1ve books on Agathocles, 395· Timocrates, 571. Timolaus, 567, 569. Timoleon, 322, 3~4-5, 361, 377, 378, ]84, 399, 4oo; speech in Timaeus, f03. Timophanes, brother of Timoleon, 3 77. Timosthenes, admiral of Ptolemy 11, 318--!9. Tiribazus, 393. Tiridates, alleged brother of Arsaces I, 2]6.

Tisaeum, Mt., 258. Tisia, 155. Tithronium, 617. Tlepolemus, lf, 487, 488, 489, 525-7· Tmolus, ~1t., 63. Tolistoagii, 603-4. Toronc, I 63, I 64. Tragiscus, IOf. Trasimene, L., battle of, I07, r·zo, 121,295,458, 504; site, 637-8. Treba, 125. Trcbellius, Q., centurion, 213. Trebia, R., battle of, 214. 295, 299, 454. 458, 459· tribunes of the plebs, 1>46-7. Trichonis, L., 2 78. Triphylia, 5.B· f>o6, 607, 618,641. Triton, in Punic .. :Vfacedonian treaty, 49. so, 649· Tritonis, L., 50. Troad, 603, 626. Trocmi, 603. Troy, 62, 258, 335· Tunis, 32, 434, 440, 465. Tychaeus, 444· Tyche, see Fortune. Tylis, 644. Tylus, 21, 422. Typaneae, 641. tyranny~ 254, 255· Tyre, 48, 53, 7~. 52R. Tyros, I72. Umbria, 268, 269, no. Uni, 635. Uscana, see Hyscana. Vt.,ns, R., 632. l:tica, 43. 54. 424, 425, 428, 431, 432, 433. 440, 443· Vadimo, L., battle of, 6JI. ValcriusAm:ias, II9,123, 125,429. M., Laevinus (cos. 2IO), tr, 12, IJ, 62, 68, 90, 150, 161, 162, I6<,), 176, 179, r83, r8j, 441. P., Laevinus (cos. 280), 450. ~::VI., }fessalla (cos. I 1:18), 598. van Proosdij, B. H., quoted, 97Venusia, 242, 243. 267, 564.

Vermina, son of Syphax, .146. Verres, C. (praetor 74). 134· Via Aemilia, 268; Appia, r 23. Domitia, 636; Flaminia, ::;68-q. Latina, 121, 123. 124; Saiaria, 1 "·I Valeria, UJ. Victumulae, 198. Villius, Tappulus (cos. 199), 54·~ 6os. 6rg, MI. Virasena, 314. Volturnus, R., 123, 124. von Scala, R., quoted, 6r, 465. Vulcan, ZIO. Vulci, r8g. war, declaration of, 416-17. watches, military, in Greece, If4· water, worshipofbySemiticpeopi<>~. 51 Waterloo, battle of, cavalry at, 455· weapons, convention on use of, 410. Woodhouse, W. J ., quoted, 557· Xanthippus, I50, 220. X.anthus, :1.44· Xenoctas, 315. Xenon, 642. Xenophanes, emissary of Philip, .f.'. f4, 45Xenophon of Aegium, no, 549. 5:i'' 562. of Athens. 315, 648. Xerxes of Arsamosa ta, 6, 9R-r oo, IS< • -Persian king, 177, 309, 450. Xynia(e), If, 183, r88, 572, 579, bt;·. Yam, 49. so, 049· Zacynthus, rz, 13, r6z, 179, 278,645. Zagrus, JUt., 233, 6+3· Zalcucus, .zo, 330, 351-2, 363. Zama, various towns called, 447-•J, Seba Biar, 450, 451; battle of, 2:.', 253. 445-63, 466, 58 I; chronu lo:,ry, ; site, 446-9. Zancle, I 59· Zariadris, 99· Zariaspa. 265, JI 2. Zeno, Rhodian historian, .14, 63, 13 ·. 275, 417, fH, 503, criticized, 517-25; on battle 519-20, on Gaza and Paniuru, 523-5. -- doctor, 390. Zephyrium, 6r 5· Zeus, in Punic-Carthaginian treat\. 46, 049; Attalus' dedication L• •. 504; Eleutherios, 6r 3; Atabyrit~>, 59-60; Carian, 531 ; I thomatas, uo. Lycaeus, 6r, .JI5; Scotitas, 545· Zeuxippus, 7.7, 6or, 608-9. Zeuxis, 4 72. 503, 53 I, 643, 649. Ziaelas, 96. zodiac, on calculating hour from si~t'" of, I4o-z. Zoippus, 31, 32.

II.

AUTHORS AND PASSAGES

The figures in larger type indicate the pages of this book. Aclian, Tact. I4. 6, 588. Aeschines, ii. I06, 491; iii. 231, 404-5. Aeschylus, A gam. I 570, 4.4. Agatharchidcs, FGH, 86 F n. 413. Akaeus of "-fessene, Anth. Pal. vii. 247. 585, 593. Anon. Bell. Afric. 6'). 4, 454--ii. - n.p1 i'll{;ov~. 4. 322. Antigonus, Hist. mir. I40, 329. Antisthenes, ap. Phlcgon, FGH, 2.57 F 36 (III. 1), 64. Apollodorus of Artemita. FGH, 779 F 5 (a), 236. Appian, iJ.C. iv. 88, 478. Hamz. 34, 109; 38, 122; 39, 127; 52. 268, 269; 57. 443. Hisp. 2I. 203; 24, 248; z8, 251. Lib. 33, 444; 34. 444; 40, 457; 54, 466, 468, 4 70. Mac. 4· I, 504, 505: 7, 612; 8, 563. Syr. I3, 561. Aratus, Phaen. 553-6, 140. Aristotle, 1Hund. 398 a 12, 87. Pol. iii. 5· 3, 1278 a 8, 216; vii (v). 3· 9, 1303 a 15,225; 1· 1307 a 38, 331. Rhet. ii. 23, 1398 b 18, 410. Arrian, Anab. ii. 7· 1, 3{i5; 7· 3, 343; 8. 2, 373; 8. 7· 375; 8. 8, 368; 8. II, 371; 9· 2, 375; IO. I, 367; iii. 3· 6, 353; 29. 2, 262, 263; iv. 7· 3-4, 97; 10. 2, 37i; vii. Ig. 3, 187. Tact. 12. ro, 588; 28. 2, 227. FGH., Ij6 F I, 622. Asclepiodotus, 10. 2, 225·6; Io. 3. 226; IO. 6, 226. Athenaeus, iv. 163 B, 404; vi. c, 337-8; :!7:! B, 338; viii. 336 A, 342 C, 380; x. 4:.11 B, 220; 527 B-C, 413; 542 E, 359. Augustinus, Qt~aest. in Heptat. vii. I6, 46, 47.

Sermo, 62. 6. Io, 48. [Aurelius Victor], de Hir. ill. 48.

2,

268.

Bcrgk, iii 4 • 690 fg. adesp. SA, 464. Bias, ap. Arist. Eth. ]l.'ic. v. i. 16, I 130 a 1, 151. Callisthenes, FGH, I24 F 34, 84. Celsus, prooem. 9, 388; ro, 389. Cicero, Acad. ii. z~. 406. Brut:1s. 73. 2{18; 286, 355, 357. de ltf.Z. iii. 14, 229. de •·~ pub. i. li, 134; iii. 43. 40t lnm. v. r ~- ], 3i8. ,\'D, i. 93-94, 342.

i. 38. 151; iii. 4. 204. v. 325, 380: 5 s, 494---5; IOI, 2

Verr. iv. 73,381; 121, 134, 135. de pet. cons. 39, 602. graec. i. r r4, 351 ; II6, xviii. 47, 569; xxiv.

57· 48, 254; xvii. 74, 453; 82, 466, 468, 469. Dio Chrysostom. xii. ]I, 408. Diodorus, i. 51. 2, 483; ii. 23. 3, 84; v. i. 4. 411: q. I, 323; xi. 3· J, 182; xv. 23. 5. 4!)5; xvi. 3· 2, 587; 70. 3, 325; 79 2, 403; xviii. 67, 197; xix. 78. 2, 563; xx. r. 2, 385; 1. 5. 351; 85. 4· 184; xxi. I6.j, 151-2; 17. I, 86; 1].3,360, 39[,, 404; xxii. 8. 5, 38; xxvii. 4· 336: xxviii. 5, 500, 501; Dio,

2, 246. Laertius, v. r r, 344; vi. 71, ; vii. 8g, 151. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, ad Potnp.

6.

410.

Periegetes, 364-6, 332. Duris of Samos, ap. A then. xii. 542 E, 359. Ennius, Ann. 3I2-IJ Vahlen 2 , 452. Epichaunus, CGF fg. 250 Kaibel, 602. Epicurus, fg. 171 Us., 343; fg. 235 Us., 343. Euripides, Ale. I I6I (et al.), 139. Oresph. fg. 453, 402. Or. 406, 492. Eusebius, Chron. i. 249, 234; 253, 315. P.raep. eu. xv. 2. 2, 343. Eustathius, p. 1910. Io, 82-83. Ev. Luc. vii. 38, 125. Ev. Matth. xiii. 13, 380. Festus, p. rgo, 11 Lindsay, 327; p. 246, zr Lindsay, 328. Florus, i. 13. 3. 106. Galen. x. I84, 389. de Hipp. ~~Plat. plac. v, p. 462, 151. C'TCnesis, xxxi. 42, 55. Epitaph. (Diels, FVS, ii. 285 6), 82. Hero, Belop. 74 \Vescher, 75. Herodotus, i. 8. 2, 408; 65. 4, 198; 84. 3, 63; IIIO. I, 186; 203, 539; 2r4. 4, 97; iv. I/7, 319; v. g7. 3, 2i6-7; vii. 9 f3 I, 416; I32 180.

677

IXDEXES Hesiod, Op. 474, 694, 140. Hieronymus, Dan. xi. IJ-14, 546; 15-16, 615. comm. Ezech. v. praef., 266. Homer, Iliad, iv. zqg-3oo, 464; xhi. 131-3, 5Si; xvi. 215-17, ()87. Odyssey, xix. 471, 149. Horace, A.P. 181--z, 408. Ep. i. 2. 17-18, 142; rg. 6, 380; ii. :z. 146-8, 414. Odes, ii. 2. I2-15, 414; 6. 10, 143. Iosephus, Ant. Iud. i. I77, 524; xii. 131, 546.

Ap. i. r6, 377. Isocrates, Euag. 2, 89; I 2, 222. ad Nic. 35, 392. Panath. 150, 408. Panegyr. g, 411, I 55· 501; I 79, 384. Phil. 65, 494; ro8, 176. Iustinus, viii. 4· 5. 165 · ix. 8. 3, 81; xi. 3· 2, 1656; xxiii. 3· 2, 35; 4· z. 6, 436; xli. 4· 5. 5-7.261.

8. 14, 32; 41 ; XXX. ; 4· g, 313;

John Antiochenus, FHG, iv. 557, 98; iv. 558, 482 2

Kings, xxiii. 5, 44.

Livy, vii.

IO. IO, 74; xxi. 4· g, VH; xxii. 6r. IT, 29; xxiv. 6. r, 31; 6. 4, 33; 6. 8, 34; 7- 3, :J9; 3L 6, 62; 33· 70; 34· I, il; 34· 7, 72; 3·1-· 9, ; 34· TO, 74; XXV, I. I, 102; 2. 6, 200; 8. 3. 101; 8. 4· 102; 8. 6, 102; 8. 8, 102; g. 4104; 9· IO, 104; 10. I, 107; IO. 4• 107; IO. 9, 107; II. I, 107; ll. 8, 108; Io. 25, llO, 17. I-3. 110; 2]. I, 7; 23. I2, 112, 23. I4, 113; 2]. 15, 113; 24. 6, }]4; 24. 9, 114; 26. I], 8; 36. 114; 40. 2, 134; 40. J, 134; 5· 3. ll9; 7· 4· 121; 7· 5. 121; 7· 6, 121; 9- 7. 125; IO. 3, 124• II. I-2, 124, 126; II. IO-II, ; 12. 2, 127; 16. 5, 9; 20. 7-II, 9, 134; 24. 7, 185; 24. Sq., 162, 177, 179; 2'). 8, 188; 2.). 182; 2.5· rs. 178;26.2,179; z,l83;z8.9, 183; 38. 1-3, 155; 40. I, 10; 40. 17, 161; !8, 161; 42. I, 204; 42. 6, 205, 212; 42. 9. 212; 43· 7. 213; 44· 2, 213, 214; 44· 3. 21-i; 45· 8, 203, 215; 45· 9. 193, 213; 46. 8, 214; 47· I, 2lf.l, 217; 47· 8, 219; 48. 5· 213; 48. I4, 213:49-4,204; 51.4, 219; xxvil. 4· IO, 137; 7· 219; IJ. 2, 245; I8. 5-6, 248; IO, 250; 18. 15,

678

250. 251; 19. 1. 251: rg. z, 254. !<). ]-6, 252, 253: 20. 2. 254. 20.3,255; zs. I3,243;27-J, 243, ·;q. s-7. 243; 27. s, 243; 27. rc· 243; L7· 14, 243; 28. IO. 24~ 30. IO, 15; 31. 7, 230; ]2. I" 25G-7; 39· !>, 270; 43· 8, 2G--< 46. 4, 268; 47· 2, 269: 47· 9, Nil!. 271; 47- Io-II, 2o!J; 4 8. J, 2/J 48. 5, 271; 48. I3-I{. 272; 50. 1 • 274; so. 3, 274; 51. 8, 274. 51. ro, 274; xxviii. 2. !6, 2!'17 5· 4, 2.'\5; 5· II, 256, 2!57; 5· I..? 257; 5· IJ, 257; 7· 4, 276, 277 7• 8, 277~8; 12. J, 295; Il. J; 297, 298; 12. q, 297; 13. ), 2!!1' 13. U, 298; IJ. 10, 299; 14. l_•, 300; 14. 17. 302; I]. z-3, 305-H r8. 1), 306; 18. 7-8, 306; ~3- ·I· 305;24·i,306;24- 13-14,308-P 25. 6, 307; 2_'i. IS, 207; 26. 6. 307 2b. II, 308; 28. J4, 201; 29. In 309; ]2. 4· 310; 32. 10, 3111 33· Il, 311; ]6. 7 , 2lii; JR. I, :Jl·' 38. 4, 311; 4(>. I(>, 443; x;.;" I2. 1, 556; I2. 3. 278; rz. il, II< 35- 7. 428; 35· I2. 428; 422-3; XXX. ]. J, 426; 3· 4, 4;_;1i 4· I, 426; 4· I Z, 428; 5· 2, 42~ 7- I, 430; 7· 2, 430; 7· 7, 431 7· 10, 430, 431; 8. J, 432. 43:~ g. ro, 434; 10. 5, 434; 16. J, 4·!:: 16. 4. 442; I6. IO-I2, 453; zfJ : 551; 2C). 9. 447; 32. 2, 453; 33· 1 455; 34· 3- 459; 35· 7- 464; 36 ... 465; 37· 2, 466, 467; 37· 3- 4fi~ 37· ... 468, 469: 37· s. 4i0; 37· •·. 4 70; 42. 5· 55] ; 45 3. 52!! 45· 4-5, 529; xxxi. I. 9, 551; 2. 1 530 ; 7. I I, 190 ; 8. I, 54 3 ; il. 3 I 543; 15. z~ 535; rs. 4 . .53.5; 1 ·' .~36; I6. I, 538; I6. 2, 16. 7-8, 541; r8. 2, 1;44; Iil. 544; 2J. 8, 536; 26. I2, 501 29. I5, 176; 46Ml7; XX'-t! IJ. 8, 554; 14. 3, 619; !<). 7, ()(II) 23. 1-2, 606; z8. 8, .563; 32. 5 .< 559-60; J2. 9, .550; 33· 3. 5Ji I 33· I3, 554;34·3,556;35·7,5(>S 35· 8, 558; 3 i s. 5()3; 40- 9, 571 xxxiii. 2. I, 572; 3· 5. 579; 3 :.. 579; 4• 6, 58,~; 5· (), 572• f>. I 574; 6. ], 574; 6. 6, 575: J;o 579; 8. I 3, 582; I I. 8, 5!J2; I I " .'i92-3; I2. 2, 597; I 7· 15, !HI~' I8. 20, 513; Iy. 9, 1()0; !C). I I 603; 20. 2-3. 603; 20. 10, ()J;, 20. I I-12, 506; 21. I, 604; 2-1 605; 25. 7, 605; 28. IO, li!l!l 28. I4, 601; 32. 6, 613; 31 1 621; 38. I, 620; j8. b, 620; JS 620; 39· 7, 622; 49· 8, 620; XX\!'

s.

II. AUTHORS 4·+· 134;Jr.s,516:3z.I-z, 163; 516; so. 9, 170, ol2; sg. s. , ')-IO,
rei{.

2. 2,

.fg.

380 .

JO, 321.

Q,·id, Pasli, ,.i. 769 -7o, ::70, 440. Panactius, fg. 68 van Straa.tcn, 14•3. Pausanias, iv. 35· 3, 34; vt. 14. r I, 57; viii. 30. 8, 410; so. r, 28L Petronius, Salvr. TI6, 30. Philo Bybl. il. 24 (FHG, iii. 569), 49. Philodemus, de rhel. 4, cols. 35a-36a, 405. 'll'<'pt KoAaK. x•. 4, 355. 7T)p.&:r. pap. 1425 fg. II P· 7, 494.

Philostratus, t•it. i. g. 403, 401. 40; ii. 18-rg, Pindar, Pyth. i. 333. Schol on Olymp. vii. 16oc, 3SL Plato, Laws, vii. 8r4 E, 149; ix. S73 c, 273. Phaedr. z67 A, 223. Phil. I5 c, 445. Pratag. 338 E, 401. Rep. v. 473 c-E, 410: viii. 565 o, 61. -com., CA F, i. fg. 188, 359. Pliny, Nat. hist. iii. 3, 384-5; vi. 147, 422; vii index, 387; x. IJ6, 488; xiii. Io6, 321; x:xi. rz, 390. Plutarch, Alex. g. 3, 81. A rat. r6. 3, 176; 50. 2, 60; 52. 3, 88; 52. 4, 88; 54· r. 87. Cato mai. rg. 3. 594·5, Demos. :z8. 2, 167. Flam. r. 2, 560; 7· 3, 579; g. 2, 585, 593. 20. Z, 95. r8. 2, 112. J'Vlor. 8o3 B, 393; 1033 D, 229; I 132 A, 347. Nic. I. 2, 328, 400; 25. r, 402. Philop. I. I-2, 223; I. 3, 224; g. I, 281; g. 2, 281; g. 3· 280; [Q. 7·

A:XD

PASSAGES

293; ti, I, 279; Phoc. 29. 3. 167.

II. 2,

287.

Timol. 13. 4, 325. iPlutareh], Vit . .t' oral. 847 c, 357. Polyaenus. iii.(). TI. 244; iv. r8. I, 513; v. J 7· 2, 418~19; vi. 22, 336. Quiutilian, x.

1.

74, 80.

Sallust, Cat. 2. 4. 247. jug. 56. r, 4<18. Seneea, de ira. iii. 23. 2, 355. cpist. 86. t, 234. Senius, ad Aen. ii. 341, 327. Sextus Empiricus, adv. gramm. i.

252,

116.

math. vii. 126, 408: rs6 ff., 405-6. Solon, fg. r 2 Bergk, 308. Sophocles, O.C. I(J54· 442. Stnbacus, ii. 148-9. Strabo, i. ::7, 38; 137, 202; iv. rg6, 143. vi. 266, 34; 270, 329-30; z86. 189; viii. 357, 4111; ix. 398, 358; 441, 579; X. 448, 416; xi. ro, 263; 514. 236; 515, 341; 624, 604; xiv. 672, 84; xvii. 8q, 353. Suidas, a'l!"C1}'WY
III. INSCRIPTIONS AND PAPYRI The figures in larger tvpc indicate the pages of this book.

Abh. Berlin. Akad. 1952,

I, nos. II, 12, 13, 630. A]A, I<JI\4, I78-9. 639. Annee eptg., 1957, 158, 629; 196o, 76, 636. 14px.l,P. rgro, 374 f., 605 Arch. Pap. vii. ]<}, 437; xiii. 24 ff., no. 2, 485; xv. So-88, 614. AJ!, r889, ro8 no. 62, 515; 1907, 19 no. I 3. 554; 1919, 24 no. r I. 484; 1926, 28-33, 506; 1957, 233-41 no. 64, 506. BCH, 1878, 610 11 nos. 29. I and 30, 483; r887, 10-1 no. 25, 502; 466 no. 32, 502; 1894, I r no. 6, 483: 1964. 569 f., 613. 607 f., 613. BGlJ, 1215, 43B; 1555. 435. Bull. Alcxandr. 41, 1956, 49-55, 33. Bull. epig. 1939. JSO and 381, 481; rg6r, 673, ti45. CIG, 2583, 363; 2671, 515; z683, 515; 68j6, 234. Cfl., i•, p. 48, xxvii (acta t~iumph. Capitol.). 46; i'. 2. 6ro, 629; ii. 3426, 212; 3786, 246; 5041, 253; iii. 993, 48; vi. 474, 134; viii. I20I8, 448; X. 3968, 3974, 3975· 3979. 3982, 29. C. I. Sent. i. 16, 23 ff .• 48; 89, 47; 3778. 48. Clara Rhodos, 1938, r8r-2o8, 481; 232-3. 508. Dura Parchment.<, 25, 234. FD, iii. I, 269. 487. GDI, 1949. ; 1950, 174; 1969. 561; H)9J, 554; 1994/5, 1)61; 2000, 550; 2001, 5iS0; 2002, 608; 20II, 554; 2041-5, 608; 2073· 550; 20].oj., 550; 2075, 561; 2II8-23, 561; 174;4z6g,615:sr6g7I, , 5176, 58; 5178-Ro, 58. Hellcnica, s. I9.oj.8, I.oj.8. 508: 7. 1949.522, 232 315; 8, 1949. 73·-75· 232, 315; 10, z66-7I. 478, 479. Hesperia, 419-28, 562; 1942, 292, no. 57. 506. Historia, Ioo-4, 417. Holleaux, ii. 59, 604; iii. 365404, 481. IC, i, Cnosos, q, 533; Dreros, I, 51; Lyttos, :~63; ii, Aptera, 6 F, 649; I", 423; iii, Hiorapytna, z A, 418; ltanos. 18, 59. JG, ii. 2362, 534: iii. JOO, 535; iv. 950. 166; IIJ6, 334; V. I. 724. 293; 885, 420; 1179, 378; z. ruand 17,

zn.

283; 130; 293.228; vii. 307.1. 608; 3088, 608; ix. I. 98, 608. 270, 608; 359. 561; 360, 561; 68<), 616; 2. 1109, 490; Xi. 2. 287 A 51. 65; xii. I. 63, 518; 85, 520; 3· 91. 530; !OJ, 530; 170, 349; 5· 872. 65; 7· 237. 349; 8. 386, 363; 45"· 363; Suppl. 629, 257: xiv. ]I<>. 378; 717, 378; ron. 611. i 2 • ]I, 56; ii>. 163; 44, 467; 112. 56; 2II, , 448, 167; 505, 167. 506, 167; 833. 535; 886, 535, 1002, 535; 1oo8, 534; 1oog, 53-1. 535; IZor, 358; 1457. 65; rs87. 180; 1672, 65; 2065, 534; 213n. 534; 2338, 534; 29]1, 358; 3I]2, 475; 3218, 506; 3494. 50fl' iv•.I. 68,117,486, ix•. 1. 4c, 414. 31, 414, 550, 56, 631; 69, 25/. 70, 413; 135, 562; 169, 562; 170. 617; 187, 620; 189, 562, rr)o, 562; 192, 413; 162, 179-Bn. 599-600; 583, 626. IGR, iv. 556, 234; 70. ILS, 3139, 134; 212; 8884, 41>.

Insc. Cat. CaifiJ, DtmkmtUe;. i. 31I37· 481. Insc. de Delos, 442 B, 228; 150~. 506.

Insc. Li1td. 139, 488; 151, 615; 15·'· 615; 303, 508; 42oa, 508.

InscJt. 1v1ag. 16, 23, 18-64, 532;

.~.'i-

418; 65, 533; 66, 68~-73. 532; 7, y6, 533; 78-8r, 532. Insch. Perg. 20, 24, 43, 45, 604. Israeli Exploration journal, 1966, 5·1 70, 649. ] ahresh. 1908, 56 ff., 615; 75 ff., 4it•. l(jli, 163-256, 334, 335. ]EA, 1938, 73-74, 436. ]HS, 1896, 218 f., no. 8 ll, 514-lf•. 1917, IIo, no. 502 · 19.'\;· 30, no. 6, 484; 2:'". 316. Le Bas-VI-'addington, 58; (.t>. 423; 70, 58; Milet, i. 3· 143 B, ; 146ll, 52; qs 5S8, 615; 149, 610; 221, no. '~"· 479. OGIS, so, 526; 51,526, 55. 481; /\1. 488; 84, 484; 86, 626; 8g, ~ 1':' go, 435, 473, 482, 546, 624, 6:>:. 134, 94; 213, 70; 222, 33; Z.' \ 33; 229, 52, 117, 316; 231, 4:ll 232, 421; 233. 234, 312; 235. r.o:t 236, 503; 237, 602; 239. H:ls 245, 234; 24B, 53fi; 255, 97; .ct·· 231; 2]2. 316, 276. 604,

lli.

IKSCRIPTIO~S

316; 283, 46, 504; 291-6, 492; 413, 234; 441, 117, J7I, 536. Oikonomos, 'E1Ttyparf;a1 Ti)s MaK
Opuscula Atheniensia, 1960, 99-104, 531, (}45. Otto and Spiegelberg, Die demotischen Papyri Loeb, iii f., 625. P. Cair. Zen. oo8, 121; 173, 345; 215, 121. P. En/eu>:. 48, 483. P. Fa:J,•Wn, 302, 161. P. Gurob, no. 12, 473, 625. P. Eiamb. i, no. 57, 483. P. Ilibeh, 171, 484. P. OxJ'· i. rz, li2; iii. 486, 352. P. Par. dem. 2438, 487. P. Petrie, iii. 43 (z), 487. P. Ross Georg. ii. 2, 487. P. Ryl. iii, no. 491,441-2,443,445,453. PSI, 389, 484; 513, 488. P. Teb. i. 8, 622. 5.-B. Berlin, 1954, no. r, 162. REA. 1964,309 f., 613. REG, 1891, 49 ff., no. iii. rand 2, 487; r893, 159, 515; 1946-7, rso-74, 608. Rev. arch. 1929, 107, 55. Hvv. etudes rm4maines, 5-6, rg6o, r8ozr7, 556, 6-!0. Rev. phil., 1939, 348-q, 479. Robert, Et. anat. 459, 515. La Carie, ii. 309, 638-9. --Nouvellednscriptionsde Sardes, rSrg, 639; 19-21, 649. Sammelbuch, 244 and 245, 487; 6261, 506; 67 59. 487. Schwyzer, 336, 334, 335. SEC, i. 364, 484: ii. 358, 89; iv. 720, 479; ix. r, 224; 8, 217; 55, 484;

A::\D PAPYRI xiii. 382, 162, 179-80, 599-600; xv. 254· 636.

Svlt. 128, 495; 135, 163; 142, 467; . 159. 495; 16],495;260, 171, 172; 2DI, 173;}!8,358;319,358;334, 357; 381, 419; 390, 613; 39.) 16, 41; 407, 172; 4~7. 3.5; 434, :!3; 453. 35: 50:Z, 332, 349; 518, 46; 522, 562; 527, 51; 529, 614; 539 A, 556; 545, 556; 546 A, 188; ssz,417:554,414,562;s6r,532; 563, 413, 562; 564, 332, 413; 568, 508;572,530:579,504;j81,4l5, 418;58z,536;ss3.536;s84,41~

420;58s,no. r8, 616;s8s,no.Jz, l50;s86,615;s88,532, 6lfi;59o, 117; 59 I, 52, 56, 535, 552; 592, 613; 593, 598, 616; 595. 517; 598 D, 620; 6or. 5!J8; 603, 617; 6ro,550;6r3, 117,614;618,598; 287;627, 52;6zg, 562;63~ ; 644· 418, 520; 665, 171, 173; 669, 332' 673. 5ll, 530, 550; 676, 598; 68o, 5:J; 702, 287; 736, 490; 748, 332; 760, 117. Tait, Greek Ostracn, Bodl. no. 41, 439; Bod!. no. 96, 435. TAM, ii. 1, 481. Tod, 24, 338-9, 363; ro8, 495; Ill, 163,164; II8, 467; II9,163; 124, 467; 133, 495; IJ6, 495; 144, 56; IS~164; I6~ 165; 17~171,172; 179. 173; 204, 181. UPZ, i. 112,435, 436; ii, no. 151,506. Welles, 33; 22, 476; 31-34, 532; 38. ; 45. 97; 70, 479; 75. 76, 481; 161, 481: !62, 481. \Vestcrmann, Upott Slavery iJt Ptolemaic Egypt, text, 626. \Vilcken, Grundz,·ige, i. 2, no. 2, 622.

IV. GREEK J.OcAcpol, 52. ~tpca~S', 5~· a.Kpwrr;pta,«v, 97· UVUO'Tpo¢~,

zz6. aVTL1TAo
fN.\o;;, 74· fJorylhtv, 55, Y
&, II6.

1lnml'iapxta.<, 165. 8EKaTct!uv, I8o-I.

l'ir;p.oKparla, 230. lit.\oxia, 226-7.

ii'1rOUK€Va[, 203.

dno-rlAEtOL 1

228.

apx.cwrc;; (Aetolia), 257. danls,

281.

•' ypap.p.al, 378. if/Jr; Kat v&p.ot (vop.
467, 594·

lOv"'', 54, rq. fKKaLD, 6II-I2.

64, 105, 1I.:f. fJ&..\avot, 64, 105.

fJai\a.vaypa,

EKn€pLa1taap,Ot;, 226.

iA£V8£pia, IOI, 612.

681

IV. GREEK INDEX €vapyeta, r32. €v Kapi TiJV TI'E;;pav, 244. l7taywy~, 227,

€myovfi;;, ol Tfi;, 644. lrrtKarciaTlHTlS, 226.

~mp.np~v A6yo>,

o, 41, 4II, 494, 495~·

~'1TtaK~V'IJ, 28L

lmarpo.fn/, 226, 370, 464. ~UyWJ.LU,

65.

~<;iov, 396, 475·

7TA~pwp.a,

218.

7ToAn;;, 54, 232. 7TOAt'Tnif), 231, 2W7. npooKIJw,s, 4, r6, 8o, 86, rr6, 266-7, 1 ,

424. 1TpoCJTaaia, Sr, 93· 1TP'1v, I2. 8<panopot, 8vp
O"aJ.Lf3VKTJ, 72-74, 417. 300, 302, 445, 455·

CJ1]JLO.fa, CJTr
93, 286, 302, 433, 455, 586.

aToa, r84.

'""~· 227, 300.

- {3aatiltK'4, :265. imrapxia, 227. iaorroiltnla, 4 j8, 555· Kapx~awv,

75-77 (with diagram).

KaTaaK"/VOVY1 241. Ktlrti

cfiVaw,

99~

KaTOtKOt 1 48(}, K<.ATla, 54· KMJ.La, 38. KMat;;, 225~. KOtVtJ ,

sec cohort.

C1T6p.a, 214.

aTpa:r"t)y6s, 219, 225, 253; used of pro-

consul, 13 n., r8s, 2oo. 67, 68, 59I, 638. <1Tpo<{>E tS, 64. aTporf>tyy<S, 64. CJTpaTf>7TEfWV,

CTUfLJ.lLYllrJJ,•ar-, 4~7-•

_3II.

awr~p,

i\oyoypapo<, 39· A,oKpol T~; av•·8~Ka>, 19-20, 3SI-31 363. .\oxo>, nt>. At!Ko> ([ &.vf!pamov, 6r.

r"q.\cf36Aa, 416. Tor.o<, 483. TPL"'JLLOAiaL, so6-7.

226. p,€-rp"'p,a, r6r.

!26, 307,

""lm•pv, 35, 428, 430, 527, 612, 6r6. ativrpocf>o<, 492. ax.aar"'pia, 76. awJ"aTor/>vAaK<', 95, 4&), 491, j26.

KVpwt Kapx.1186vtot 1 53·

JLeraf3o.\~,

120, 125,

'Tpvcf>~,

6r3 q.

30, IOI,J8o.

TV1To>, 136. Tvpiwv ~rrop.vf)p.ara, 4II-I2. vrrapx.o>, 53· tmoJLvfJp.a;a, 85, 27g-So, 4I2, 592.

Jp.o¢u.\os, o,Ptp.aOia,

cf>iAo<, 36, 1)6-97, 312, 487, 527, 532, 5'H·

6or, 6rs, 625, 647.

Oq,C.:wto'l;:~

cf>iAo< ml aVJLJ"axo<, 477, 479, 639.

1rapaywy'4, 227. 7T<.pLKilaat;;, 227. 7T
x«p.w•·, 634. X«J"Wv KtnapxoJL, 529. X<<poTix.va<, 216, 219. x•Auwat, 183-4, 241.