A HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON
POL YBIUS BY
F. W. WALBANK EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF ANCIENT HISTORY AND CLASSICAL ARCliAEOLOGY IN TliE UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOl.
VOLUME III COMMENTARY ON BOOKS XIX-XL
OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1979
ISBN-10: 0198140118 ISBN-13: 978-0198140115
CONTENTS LIST OF MAPS AND PLANS
ix
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SHORT TITLES
xi
INTRODUCTION: THE FRAGMENTS I. Book xix 2. Book xx 3· Book xxi 4· Book xxii 5· Book xxiii 6. Book xxiv 7· Book xxv 8. Book xxvi g. Book xxvii IO. Book xxviii II. Book xxix 12. Book xxx I3. Book xxxi 14· Book xxxii rs. Book xxxiii r6. Book xxxiv 17. Book XXXV 18. Book xxxvi rg. Book xxxvii 20. Book xxxviii 2!. Book xxxix 22. Book xl
ASSIGNMENT OF THE I
3 7 13 r6 rg 22 22 25 27
30 34 37 40 43 43 44 46 47 49
so
TABLE OF FRAGMENTS: BOOKS VII-XXXIX COMMENTARY Book xix Book xx Book xxi Book xxii Book xxiii Book xxiv
51
63 64
88 176 214 254
vii
CONTENTS
Bool< xxv Bool( xxvi Hoole x x vii Book xxviii Book xxix Appendix ou the Ach;tcan Assemhlk•s
270
284 290
Rook xxx Book xxxi Book xxxii Book xxxili Book xxxiv Book xxxv Book xxxvi Book xxxvii Book xxxviii Book xxxix Book xl
321 361 406 415 463 518 542 563 640 651 684 685 726 744
Fragments
745
ADDENDA AND CORH.IGENDA TO VOLUME I
757
ADDENDA AND COl\ JUG E Nl)A TO VOLUME II
777
ADDENDA TO VOLlJME Ifi
793
INDEXES r. Gcurral 2.. Authors anti pa.~.m~e.~ 3· luscrifJtions, Papyri, and Ostrar.a 4· Gree/1
viii
LIST OF MAPS AND PLANS I. ALEXANDRIA::
2. AMBRACIA IN
189
97 124
3·
CN. MANLIUS VULSO'S ROUTE AGAI::.
141
4·
THE OLYMPUS AREA
382
5·
PYD::.
385
6.
THE REGION OF THE GREAT SLOPE (PTOLEMY VIII'S CAMPAIGN, 162)
487
7·
THE FAMILIES AFRICAN US
8.
POLYBIUS' CALCULATIONS OF THE DISTANCES FROM THE PILLARS TO MALEA
594
9·
THE RELATIVE LENGTH OF EUROPE AND ASIA COMPARED WITH AFRICA
597
OF
AEMILIUS
PAULLUS
AND SCIPIO
10. VITRUVIUS' TYMPANUM: VERTICAL SECTION
751
ix
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SHORT TITLES (ADDITIONAL TO THOSE IN VOLUMES I
AND II)
Abh. Sachs. Ges. = Abhandlungen der Koniglichen Siichsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften: phil.-hist. Klasse. Accame, Dominio = S. Accame, Il dominio romano in Grecia dalla guerra acaica ad Augusto. Rome, I946. Actes IX• Congr~s Bude = Actes du IX• Congrt.s de l'association Guillaume Budi, Rome, IJ-I8 avril, I973· 2 vols. Paris, I975· A]N =American journal of Numismatics. Altheim, Weltgeschichte = F. Altheim, Die Weltgeschichte Asiens imgriechischen Zeitalter. 2 vols. Halle, I948. Anal. Stud. =Anatolian Studies. Ancient Macedonia= Ancient Macedonia: First International Symposium. Thessalonica, I970. Ancient Macedonia I I = Ancient 1\Iacedonia I I: Second International Symposium. Thessalonica, I977· Ancient Society = Ancient Society and Institutions: Studies Presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th birthday. Oxford, I967. Annales = Annales: Economies, Societtis, Civilisations. Annali di Pisa = Annali della scuola normale superiore di Pisa, lettere, storia e filosofia. ANSMN =American Numismatic Society: Museum Notes. Arch. Rel. = Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft. Asheri = D. Asheri, Leggi greche sul problema dei debiti. Pisa, 1969. A. Soc.= Ancient Society (Louvain). Astin = A. E. Astin, Scipio Aemilianus. Oxford, I967. Astin, Lex annalis = A. E. Astin, The Lex annalis before Sulla. Collection Latomus, 32. Brussels, I958. AttiAcc. Palermo= Atti della R. Accademia di Scienze, Lettere e Arti di Palermo. Aufstieg und Niedergang = Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt. Ed. H. Temporini. Berlin-New York, 1972Aymard, Etudes= A. Aymard, Etudes d'histoire ancienne. Paris, 1967. Badian, Flamininus = E. Badian, Titus Quinctius Flamininus: Philhellenism and Realpolitik. Louise Taft Semple lectures, 1970. Cincinnati, 1970. Badian, Publicans = E. Badian, Publicans and Sinners. Dunedin, 1972. Bagnall= R. S. Bagnall, The Administration of Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt. Columbia Studies in the Classical tradition, vol. 4· Leiden, 1976.
Bar-Kochva, Seleucid Army= B. Bar-Kochva, The Seleucid Army: Organization and Tactics in the Great Campaigns. Cambridge, 1976. Bengtson8 = H. Bengtson, Griechische Geschichte von den Anfangen bis in die romische Kaiserzeit. Ed. 3· Munich, 1969.
xi
AIIIIUHVIATIONS AND RIHLTOC.RAPHY 11111'11"~"· l<.'mlo~•/ll~tt~• ~
I r. Jlnrr,nr, I Ji~
~~"gmf>ltisr.hen
Fragmente des Eratos-
111~~~~•- l.nlp~ll(, 1 HHu.
H•n•h"11\l ll~'ll"H'II•Ilr
,,,.,,
U. ll.. ruluml!, lmf>t'rium und El"utheria: die romische Politik oll'tt Jr'i-n S/ll.J/m dl'-< gn8chlschen Ostens. Diss. Hamburg,
Btll"vo, Di~ Tyrannis bei den Griechen. 2 vols. Munich, l•jr•7· Bkkorml\n, Chronology = E. J. Bicketman, Chronology of the ancient world. London, 1968. Bilz = K. Bilz, Die Politik des P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus. Diss. Wiirzburg, 1935· B.M.C. Lydia= B. V. Head, Catalogue of the Greek coins of Lydia in the British Museum. London, 1902. Bomer = F. BOmer, Rom und Troia: Untersuchungen zur Friihgeschichte Roms. Baden-Baden, 1951. Bomer, Fasten= F. Bomer, P. Ovidius Naso: Die Fasten. 2 vols. Heidelberg,
lk>rvf', /"ymn'lli.t - II.
1957-8.
Bowra Essays= Essays presented to C. M. Bowra. Alden Press for \Vadham College Junior and Middle Common Rooms [Oxford], 1970. Briant, Antigone = P. Briant, Antigone le Borgne: les debuts de sa carriere et les problemes de l' assemblee mactidonienne. Paris, 1973. Briscoe, Commentary = J. Briscoe, A commentary on Livy, books xxxi-xxxiii. Oxford, 1973. Biittner-Wobst, Beitrage = Th. Biittner-Wobst, Beitriige zu Polybios. Jahresbericht der Kreuzschule zu Dresden, 190r.
Bull. Mus. Impero Romano= Bullettino del Museo dell'Impero Romano (published with Bull. Comm. Rom.). Bull. Ryl. Lib.= Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Manchester. Burck = E. Burck, Die Erzithlungskunst des T. Livius. Berlin, 1934· Calderone = S. Calderone, IILETLE-Fides: ricerche di storia e diritto internazionale nell'antichita. Messina, n.d. [1964]. Caplan Studies = The Classical Tradition: Literary and Historical Studies in Honor of Harry Caplan. Ed. L. Wallach. Ithaca, 1966. Carcopino, Etapes = ] . Carcopino, Les Etapes de l'imperiaUsme YDmain. Paris, 1961. Carcopino, Gracques = ]. Carcopino, Autour des Gracques. Ed. 2. Paris, 1967. Carcopino, Points de vue = ] . Carcopino, Points de vue sur l'imperialisme romain. Paris, 1934· Cary and Haarhoff = M. Cary and T. J. Haa.rho:ff, Life and Thought in the Greek and Roman World. London, 1940. Cary and Warmington= M. Cary and E. H. Warmington, The Ancient Explorers. London, 1929. Casson, Macedonia= S. Casson, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria. Oxford, 1926. Casson, Ships= L. Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Princeton, 1971. Ceka, Questions = Hasan Ceka, Questions de numismatique illyrienne. Tirana, 1972-
Charles-Picard, Daily Life= G. and C. Charles-Picard, Daily Life at Carthage at the Time of Hannibal. London-New York, 1961.
xii
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
CIJ = Corpus inscriptionum judaicarum. Clara Rhodos Clara Rhodos, Studi e materiali pubblicati a cura dell'Istituto storico-archeologico di Rodi, i-x, rgz8-r940. Cloch~. Thebes P. Cloch~. Thebes de Bt!otie des origines ala conqudte romaine. Paris, n.d. Conference Econ. Hist. Aix Secmtd International Conference on Economic History, Aix-en-Provence I96z. VoL I: Trade and politics in the ancient world. Paris, I965. Cont. I st. Fil. Class. = Contributi dell'Istituto di Filologia Classica, Sezione di storia. antica (Milan, 1963- ). Cook, Ionia J. M. Cook. The Greeks in Ionia and the East. London, 1963. Corbett P. A. Corbett, The Roman Law of Marriage. Oxford, 1930. Crampa, Labraunda inscriptions J. Crampa, Labraunda: Swedish Excavations and Researches, viii. I: The Greek Inscriptions, Part I: I-12 (period of Olympichus). Skrifter utgivna av Svenska. Institutet i Athen, 4°, V, iii, I. Lund, I 969. Crawford, RRC M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage. 2 vols. Cambridge, I975· Crawford, RRCH M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coin Hoards. London, I969.
CSCA California Studies in Classical Antiquity. Dahlheim W. Dahlheim, Struktur und Entwi.cklzmg des rlimischen Volke,rechts im 3· und a. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Vestigia, vol. 8. Munich, 1968. Danov = Christo M. Danov, Altthrakien. Berlin-New York, 1976. Daux, Chronologie delphique FD, III. Epigraphic, fascicule hors st!fie. Paris, I943· Davies 0. Davies, Roman Mines in Europe. Oxford, I935· Deininger = J. Deininger, Der politische Widersland gegen Rom in Griechenland, 217-86 v. Chr. Berlin-New York, 1971. DO\\"'ley, Antioch= G. Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest. Princeton. I96I. Dugand, Aegitna J.-E. Dugand, De l'Aegitna de Polybe au trophk de Ia Brague. Publ. Fac. des lettres et sciences humaines de Nice. (Collection Mediterranoo antique et moderne, II.) Paris, 1970. Earl, M01'al and Political Tradition = D. C. Earl, The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome. London, 1967. Earl, Tiberius Gracchus D. C. Earl, Tiberius Gracchus: a St·:tdy in Politics. Collection Latomus, 6I. Brussels, 1963. EGF G. Kinkel, Epicorum graecorum fragmenta, i. Leipzig, 1877. Elsen K. F. Eisen, Polybiosinterpretationen: Beobachtungen zu Prinzipien griechischer und romischer Historiographic bei Polybios. Heidelberg, 1966. Entretiens sur Polybe Polybe. Entretiens sur l'Antiquite classique, 20. Ed. 0. Reverdin. Vandreuvres-Geneva, 1974. Epigraphica Epigraphica: Rivista italiana di epigrafia (Milan). Ergon arch. et. TO "Epyov rijs }ipxa
'E-ratp..las (Athens). Errington = R. M. Errington, Philopomwn. Oxford, 1969. Errington, Dawn R. M. Errington, The Dawn of Empire: Rome's Rise to world power. London, 1971.
xiii
A II IIJ{EVl ATTONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY l~tlnnnn ILIId
l. Eurknu --II.('. Ftwl"•n, l'ro/Jitml' drr Vorgcschichte des zweiten punischen lil'ltf:"· Iii~•. l'mihur..:, II}I>H. J.''·'t"':/irijt :lllhrim llritrllge zur altet• Geschichte und deren Nachleben: 1•11~1~• lrrilt. f!ir Franz Althcim zum 6. 10. 68. Ed. Ruth Stiehl and H. E. St i...-. l vol~. Herlin, t•}hl). J•~.,t\1./irift 1/ir.":ltfeld ~~ Festschrift zu Otto Hirschfelds 6o. Geburtstage. Berlin, 11}0,\.
Vahlen = Festschrift Johannes Vahlen zum siebenzigsten Geburtstag von seinen Schulern. Berlin, 1900. Fll A iv ~~ Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae, fasc. iv: Las guerras de I54-72 a. de ]. C.; edici6n y comentario por Adolfo Schulten. Barcelona, 1937. Finley, Problemes de Ia terre = M. Finley, ed. Problemes de Ia terre en Grece ancienne. Paris, 1973. Flurl = W. Flurl, Deditio in fidem: Untersuchungen zu Livius und Polybios. Diss. Munich, 1969. Foucault = J. A. Foucault, Recherches sur Ia langue et le style de Polybe. Paris, 1972. Fraccaro, Opuscula = P. Fraccaro, Opuscula. 3 vols. in 4 parts. Pavia, Fr.~tschrift
~:ewidmet
1956-7.
Franke, Munzen
=
P.R. Franke, Die antiken Munzen von Epirus. Wiesbaden,
1961.
Fraser, Alex.= P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols. Oxford, 1973. Fraser, Samothrace = P.M. Fraser, Samothrace, II, Part i: The Inscriptions on Stone. New York, 1960. Galinsky = G. K. Galinsky, Aeneas, Sicily and Rome. Princeton, 1969. Gauthier = Ph. Gauthier, Symbola: les etrangers et Ia justice dans les cites grecques. Nancy, 1972. Gelzer, Nobility= M. Gelzer, The Roman Nobility, tr. R. J. Seager. Oxford, 1969.
Gillischewski = H. Gillischewski, De Aetolorum praetoribus intra annos 22I et r68 a. Chr. n. munere junctis. Diss. Berlin, 181)6. Giovannini, Untersuchungen = A. Giovannini, Untersuchungen uber die Natur und die Anfiinge der bundesstaatlichen Sympolitie in Griechenland. Hypomnemata, 33· Giittingen, 1971. GRBS = Greek, Roman and Byzantine studies. Grenier, Manuel= A. Grenier, Archeologie galla-romaine in Manuel d'archiologie prihistorique, celtique et galla-romaine, ed. J. Dechelette, vols. v and vi. Paris, 1931-4. GVI = W. Peek, Griechische Vers-Inschrijten, i: Grab-Epigramme. Berlin, 1955·
Haarhoff = T. J. Haarhoff, The Stranger at the Gate. Oxford, 1948. Habicht = C. Habicht, Gotlmenschentum und griecllische Stiidte. Zetemata, 14. Ed. 2. Munich, 1970. Hammond, Epirus = N. G. L. Hammond, Epirus: the Geography, the Ancient Remains, the History and the Topography of Epirus and Adjacent Areas. Oxford, 1967.
xiv
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Hammond, Macedonia N. G. L. Hammond, A History of Macedonia. Vol. L Oxford, 1972. Hansen 2 E. V. Hansen, The Attalids of Pergamum. Ed. 2. Ithaca and London, 1971. Hatzfeld J. Hatzfeld, Les Trafiquants italiens dans /'Orient helltnique. Paris, 1919. Haussoullier, Etudes = B. Haussoullier, Etudes sur l' histoire de Milet et du Didymaeon. Paris, 1902. Heiland P. Heiland, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Konigs Perseus von Makedonien (I79-x68). Diss. Jena, 1913. Heinze, Geist R. Heinze, Vom Geist des Romertums. Leipzig-Berlin, 1938. Helly, Gonnoi B. Helly, Gonnoi. 2 vols. (i. La Cite et son territoire. ii. Les Inscriptions.) Amsterdam, 1973. Heurgon, Rise of Rome= J. Heurgon, The Rise of Rome to 264 B.C., tr. J. Willis. London, 1973. Heuzey-Daumet = L. Heuzey and H. Daumet, Mission archeologique de Macedoine. Paris, 1876. Hist. Filos. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. = Det K. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab: Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser. Historiographia Antiqua Historiographia Antiqua: Commentationes Lovanienses in honorem W. Peremans septuagenarii editae. Lou vain, 1977. Hommages Preaux = Le Monde grec: penste, litterature, histoire, documents: Hommages a Claire Pdau:t:. Ed. J. Bingen, O. Cambier, G. Nachtergael. Brussels, 1975. Horn = H. Horn, Foederati. Diss. Frankfurt, 1930. Howald-Meyer, Schweiz = E. Howald and Ernst Meyer, Die romische Schweiz: Texte und Inschrijten mit Obersetzung. Ziirich, 1940. Hultsch, EZ (1891), (1892). or (1893) F. Hultsch, 'Die erzahlenden Zeitformen bei Polybios'. Abh. Sru;hs. Ges. 13 (1891), 1-210; 13 (1892), 34767; 14 (1893), I-IOO. Huss, Untersuchungen W. Huss, Untersuchungen .zur Auj3enpolitik Ptolemaios' IV. Munich, 1976. Hyde, Routes= \V. \V. Hyde, Roman Alpine routes. (Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society, I I.) Philadelphia, 1935. IGLS Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, ed. L. Jalabert and R. Mouterde. Paris, 1929ILLRP Inscriptiones latinae liberae rei publicae. Vol. i 2 (r965), vol. ii (1963), ed. A. Degrassi. Florence. IM Mitteilungen des Deutschen A rchiiologischen I nstituts (A bt. Istanbul). Insc. Lind. C. Blinkenberg and K. F. Kinch, Lindos, fouilles et recherches, 1902-1914. II. Inscriptions, i-ii. Copenhagen-Berlin, 1941. Jal, Tite-Live, xli-xlii = P. Jal, Tite-Live, Histoire romaine, tome 31, livres xli-xlii. Bude ed. Paris, 1971. J AOS = ] ournal of the American Oriental Society. J. Aymard, Chasses J. Aymard, Les Chasses romaines des origines la fin du siecle des Antonins. Paris, 1951. Johnson Studies Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of Allan C. Johnson. Ed. P. R. Coleman-Norton. Princeton, 1951. Jones, CERFZ = A. H. M. Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Ed. 2. Oxford, 197 I.
a
XV'
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Kirchner, l'A = J. Kirchner, Prosopographia Attica. 2 vols. Berlin, I901-3. 1\lttint:r l'auly = Der Kleine Pauly: Lexikon der Antike. Auf der Grundlage van l'auly's Realencyclopiidie. Ed. K. Ziegler and W. Sontheimer, 19641\ilrtc, (;ordian = G. and A. Korte, Gordian, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabung im Jahre r900. J DAI, Erganzungsheft 5· Berlin, 1904. Koperhcrg = S. Koperberg, Polybii historiarum liber xxx. Diss. Amsterdam, I9I<). Lanckoronski, Stiidte Pamphyliens = Karl Graf Lanckoronski, Stadte l'amphyliens und Pisidiens. 2 vols. Vienna, 189o-2. Larsen, GFS = J. A. 0. Larsen, Greek Federal States: their Institutions and History. Oxford, 1968. Le Bas P. Le Bas-vV. H. vVaddington, Inscriptions grecques et latines recueillies en Grece et en Asie Mineure. V•partie, AsieMineure, nos. 1-1826. Paris, I 87o. Lehmann G. A. Lehmann, Untersuchungen zur historischen Glaubwiirdigkeit des Polybios. Miinster, 1967. Leip. Stud. Leipziger Studien zur classischen Philologie. Levick, Colonies Barbara Levick, Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor. Oxford, 1967. Long A. A. Long, Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics. London, I974· Maass, Comm. At-at. E. Maass, Comme1ttariorum in Aratum t-eliquiae. Berlin, 1898. Ma.cKendrick, Mute Stones= P. L. MacKcnrlric.k, The Mute Stones speak: the Stot-y of Archaeology in Italy. London, H)(>:l. McShane R. B. McShane, The Foreign Policy (lf the Attalids of Pergamum. (Urbana. Studies in the Social Sciences, 53·) Urbana, Ill., I'J64. Maier, Mauerbauinschrijten F. G. Maier, Griecllische Mauerbauinschrijten, i. Texte und Kommentare. Vestigia.. J. Heidelberg, I'l5'l· MaK€1lovtKd. L'1rouMiv.
MaK€1lovtKd.: avyypa,.,.a 7T€pto0LKOV .. ~, 'Emtp
Malcovati, ORFS Oratorum romanorttm jragmenta, tertiis curis edidit H. Ma.lcovati. i. Textus. Turin, I953· Manni, Fasti E. Manni, Fasti ellenistici e ronUI.ni (323-31 a. C.). Supplement to Kokalos, i. Palermo, I96L Mason= H. J. Mason, Greek Terms jar Roman Institutions: a Lexicon and Analysis. (American studies in papyrt>logy, 13.) Toronto, I974· Meiggs-Lewis R. and D. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the of the Fifth Crntury B.C. Oxford, 1969. Meiggs, Ostia = R. Roman Ostia. Ed. z. Oxford, I973· Meister, Kritik = Klaus Meister, Historische 1\ritik bei l'olybios. Pa.lingenesia., 9. Wiesbaden, I975· Mekler, Acad. phil. index Here. S. Melder, Academicorum philosophorum index Ilerculanensis. Berlin, 1902. Melanges Charles Picard Melanges d'a,·chtologie et d'histoire afferts Charles Picard a /'occasion de son 65• anniversait-e. 2 vols. (Published a.s part of Rev. arch.) Paris, 1948.
a
Melanges Daux =Melanges helleniqttes offerts
xvi
a Georges Daux. Paris, 1975·
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
a
Melanges Desrousseaux = Atelanges offerts A .-Af. Dcsrousseaux par ses amis et ses eleves en l'kotmeur de sa cinquantieme annee d'enseignement superieur (z887-I937). Paris, 1937. Melanges Gregoire IIArKAPIIEIA: Melanges Henri Gregoire. (Annuaire de l'Institut de philologie et d'histoire orientales, vols. 9-12.) Brussels, 19491953· Melanges Levy Melanges Isidore Levy. (Annuaire de l'Institut de philologie et d'histoire orientales, vol. 13.) Brussels, I955· Melanges Piganiol =Melanges d'archeologie et d'histoire offerts a Andre Piganiol, ed. R. Chevallier. 3 vols. Paris, 1966. Melanges Thomas= lvUlanges Paul Thomas, Recueil de memoires concernant la philologie classique dedie a Paul Thomas. Bruges, 1930. Mette H. J. Mette, Pytheas von }vfassalia. Berlin, 1952. Meyer, Pontos = Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des I{onigreichs Pontos. Leipzig, 1879. Michels A. K. Michels, The Calendar of the Roman Republic. Princeton, 1967. Miller, Itineraria K. Miller, Itineraria Romana: Romische Reisewege an der Hand der Tabula Peutingeriana dargestellt. Stuttgart, I9I6. MJ'vfAP Memorias de los Museos Arqueol6gicos Provinciales. M0rkholm Otto Morkholm, Antioch us IV of Syria. (Class. et Med. Dissertationes, viii.) Copenhagen, 1966. A. Momigliano, Terzo contributo alta storia degli Momigliano, Contributo 3 studi classici e del mondo antico. 2 vols. Rome, 1966. Momigliano, Contributo' A. Momigliano, Quarto contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico. Rome, 1969. Momigliano, Filippo = A. Momigliano, Filippo il Macedone. Florence, 1934· Mommsen, RMW = Th. Mommsen, Geschichte des romiscken Munzwesens. Berlin, 186o. Mon. Ant. = Monumenti antichi pubblicati per cura della R. Accademia dei Lincei. Mooren L. Mooren, The Aulic Titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt, Introduction and Prosopography. Brussels, 1975· Moretti L. Moretti, Iscrizioni storiche ellenisticke. i. Attica, Peloponneso, Beozia. Florence, 1967. D. Musti, Lo stato dei Seleucidi. Extract from Studi classici Musti, Seleucidi e orientali, I 966, 59-201. Muttelsee = M. Muttelsee, Zur Verfassungsgesckichte Kretas im Zeitalter des Hellenismus. Diss. Hamburg, 1925. Nenci, Saggi = G. Nenci, Introduzione alle guerre persiane e altri saggi di storia antica. Pisa, 1958. Nock, Essays= A. D. Nock, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World. Ed. Z. Stewart. 2 vols. Oxford, 1972. Oliver, Civilizing Power = J. H. Oliver, The Civilizing Power. A study of the Panathenaic discourse of Aelius Aristides against the background of literature and cultural conflict, with text, translation and commentary. (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. s8. I.) Philadelphia, 1968. Oliver, Marcus = J. H. Oliver, 1'1.1arcus Aurelius. Aspects of civic and cultural policy in the east. Hesperia Suppl. 13. Princeton, 1970.
xvii
1\lllli<EVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
I IllY"'· Uuiii!JII'uwrr J. II. IIIIYt'l', Tl1t1 N11ling /'ower. A study of the Roma.ns In I hi' Ntl< owl '"nlury ufl11r Chri~l lhrough lho Roman oration of A eli us 1\ llolldo•• (TioUINII< t ionH of llu• Anwrican Philosophical Society, vol. 43· 4.)
l'hil,uJ,.Ipld!!.,
1•1.~.\·
I h lt~luloK, Ali{•l1~ira -
A. IC Orlandos, 'H
}1p~ra.8'"~
IDt ..pa. ""l Ttt P.VI/P.II'itl.
T!J~· Alh
= W. Otto and H. Bengtson, Zur Geschichte drs Niederganges des Ptolemtlerreiches: ein Beitrag _zur Geschichte des 8, und des 9· Ptolemiiers. Abh. Bay. Ak. IQJS. Otto, 6. Ptolemiier W. Otto, Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemiiers. Abh. Bay. Ak. I934· Parker and Dubberstein = R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, 6:z6 B.C.-A.D. 75· Providence, 1956. P. Cair. Zen. C. C. Edgar, Zenon Papyri. 4 vols. Catalogue general des antiquites egyptiennes du Musee du Caire, 79- Cairo, I925-I93I. P. Col. inv. Columbia University papyrus, inventory number. Peremans, Vreemdelingen = \V. Peremans, Vreemdelingen en Egyptenaaren im Vroeg-Ptolemaeisch Egypte. Louvain, I937· Petzold, Studien ~ K.-E. Petzold, Studien zur M elhode des Polybios und zu ihrer historischen Attswertung. Vestigia, 9. Munich, 1969. P. Giess. Griechische Papyri im .'tiuseum des oberhessischtm Geschiehtsvereins zu Giessen, Bd. I, Hefte 1-3, ed. 0. Eger, E. Kornemann, P. M. Meyer. Leipzig-Berlin, rgro--IQI2. P. Grenj. 2 = B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt, New Classical Fragments and Other Greek and Lat}n Papyri. Oxford, 1897. Philippson, Landschajten = A. Philippson and E. Kirsten, Die griechischen Landschaften. Vols. 1-4. Frankfurt, IQ.)o--rgy). Phillipson, International Law= Coleman Phillipson, The Internati(mal Law and Custom of Ancient Greece and Rome. 2 vols. London, I9II. Ph-il. Quaf't. Philological Quarterly: a. journal d<>votcd to scholarly investigation in the classical and modern languages and literatures. Iowa, I922- • Picard, Trophies = G. Charles-Picard, Les Trof>hles romains: contribution a l'histoire de Ia religion et de l'art lriomf,hal de Uome. Paris, I957· P. Kroll L. Koenen, Eine Ptolemitischr 1\iinigsurkunde (P. Kroll). Klassischphilologische Studien, rg. Wiesbaden, Iuium: Studies in Honour of Edward Togo Salmon, ed. J. A. S. Evans. Toronto, I974· Preaux =C. Preaux, L'Economie royalr de.< l.a{lides. nrusscls, I939· Preuner, Hestia-Vesta A. Prcuncr, llcstia-Vcsta: ein Cyclus religionsgeschichtlicher Forschungen. Tiibingeu, 1 flt.4. P. Rev. = B. P. Grenfell, Revenue Laws of l'tolcmy l'hiladetphus. Oxford, Ollu 1U1d Jltmgtson, Niedergang
r8g6.
Pritchett, Battlefields = W. K. l'dtdwtt, Studies in Aneient Greek Topography: Part II (Battlefields). Berkeley, 19&9.
xviii
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Pritchett, Greek State at War W. K. Pritchett, The Gteek State at War: Parts I and II. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, 1971-4. (Vol. r was first issued under the title: Ancient Greek Militayy Practices, Part I.) Proc. Afr. Class. Ass. The Proceedings of the Afyican Classical Associations. PYoc. Am. Phil. Soc. Pyoceedings of the American Philosophical Society. Proctor D. Proctor, Hannibal's Maych in Histoty. Oxford, 1971. Ramsay, Epistle W. M. Ramsay, Histo'l'ical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1899. Ramsay, Social basis W. M. Ramsay, The Social Basis of Raman Power in Asia Minor. Aberdeen, 1941. Ramsay Studies Anatolian Studies Presented to Sit< William Mitchell Ramsay. Edd. W. H. Buckler and W. M. Calder. Manchester, 1923. ROA V Rozpravy Oeskoslovenske Akademie Veil. Rend. Pontif. Ace. Rom. Arch. = Atti della pontificia accademia romana di archeologia: Rendiconti. Revue de l'histoi'l'e des religions. Rev. kist. rel. Reynolds and Ward Perkins=]. M. Reynolds and J. B. Ward Perkins, The Inscriptions of Roman TriPolitania. Rome-London, 1952. Riv. stor. dell'antichittl = Rivista storica dell'antichita (Bologna.). Robert, Carie = L. and ] . Robert, La Carie, ii. Paris, 1954· Robert, Glad·iateurs = L. Robert, Les Gladiateurs dans l'Orient grec. Limoges, 1940.
Robert, Noms indigenes= L. Robert, Noms indigenes dans I'Asie Mineure greco-romaine. Partie 1. Paris, 1963. Robert, OAfS= L. Robert, Opera minora sekcta. 5 vols. Amsterdam, 1969- • Roesch, Thespies = P. Roesch, Thespies et la confederation btlotienne. Paris, 1965.
Roscher's Lexikon = \V. H. Roscher, Ausjukrliches Lexikon der grieckischen und romischen Mythologie. Leipzig, r884-1937· Roussel, Delos = P. Roussel, Delos, colonie atktlnienne. Paris, 1916. Roveri = A. Roveri, Studi su Polibio. Studi pubblica.ti dall'Istituto di Filologia. Cla.ssica, I 7· Bologna, 1964. Salmon, Colonization = E. T. Salmon, Roman Colonization under the Republic. London, 1969. Samuel = A. E. Samuel, Ptolemaic Chronology. Miincbener Beitrage, 43· .Munich, 1962. Sarikakis = Th. Ch. Sarikakis, PQMA/01 APXONTEJ: THJ: EllAPXIAJ: MAKEJONIAJ:. Mlpos A'. J1?TJ Tijs lSpva~w~ Tij~ lrra.pxla.~ p.{XJl< Twv XPOI'<J)v Toii A,jyoJaTov (q8-271r. X.). Thessalonica, 1971. Saumagne = C. Saumagne. La Numidie et Rome: i\1asinissa et Jugurtha. Paris, 1966. S.-B. Frankfurt= Sitzungsberichte der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Ut~iversitlll, Frankfurt am Main. Schulten, Geograjta A. Schulten, Geografia y etnografla antiguas de Ia Peninsula Iberica. 2 vols. Madrid, 1959-1963. Schulten, Numantia, i and ii = A. Schulten, Numantia: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen, I905-I2. i. Die Keltiberer und ihre Kriege mit Rom. Munich, 1914. ii. Die Lager des Scipio. Munich, 19z7.
xix
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Schluzc, Excerpta = E. H. F. Schulze, De excerptis Constantinianis quaestiones criticae. !Jiss. Hunn, 1lloC.. Scltw.,rtkg<:r 'T. Schwerlkger, Dcr acltiiische LJund von I46 bis 27 v. Chr. Vestigia, I'J. Munich, 1<J74· Scullarcl, /:'trtw:a·/1 Citic.> H. I L Seullard, Tlw h'truscan Cities and Rome. London, I<JI•7· Scullard, .'>'1:ipio Soldier " I L I L Scullard, .'>'cipio Africanu.~. Soldier and Politician. London, I<J70. Scullanl, Tile Elephant = I£. I{. Scullard, Th8 Elephant in the Greek and Roman WoYld. London, 1974· Sethc, UYkunden ii = K. Sethc, Urkundetl des aegyptischen Altertums, ii (Hieroglyphische Urkunden der griechisch-rJmischen Zeit, i). Leipzig, 1904. Shatzman = Israel Shatzman, Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics. Collection Latomus, 142. Brussels, 1975. Sherk= R. K. Sherk, Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus. Baltimore, 1969. Shimron, Late Sparta = B. Shimron, Late Sparta: the Spartan Revolution, 243-I46 B.C. (Arethusa Monographs, 3·) Buffalo, 1972. Simon = H. Simon, Roms Kriege in Spanien, I54-I33 v. Chr. Frankfurt, 1962. Skeat = T. C. Skeat, The Reigns of the Ptolemies. Miinchener Beitrage, 39. Munich, I954· Smith, Army= R. E. Smith, Service in the Post-Marian Roman Army. Manchester, 1958. Spratt, Tmvels = T. A. B. Spratt, Travels and Researches in Crete. 2 vols. London, 1865. Strasburger, Wesensbestimmung = H. Strasburger, ])ie Wesensbestimmung der Geschichte durch die antike Geschichtsschreibung. Wicsha
J.
Toynbee, Hannibal's Legacy.
2
vols. London, 1965.
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY P. Treves, ll mito di Alessandro e la Roma d'Augusto. Treves, Alessandro Milan, 1953· van der Mijnsbrugge M. van der Mijnsbrugge, The Cretan Koinon. New York, 1931. van Ooteghem J. van Ooteghem, L. 1kfarcius Philippus et sa famille. Brussels, 1961. van Stra.a.ten 1962.
M. van Straaten, Panaetii Rhodii fragmenta. Ed. 3· Leiden,
Versnel H. S. Versnel, Triumphus: an Inquiry into the Origin, Development and ;\feaning of the Roman Triumph. Leiden, 1970. Volkmann, Massenversklavungen = H. Volkmann, Die Massenversklavungen der Einwohner eroberler Stiidte in der hellenistisch-rihnischen Zeit. (Abhandlungen der Akadcmie der 'Vissenschaften und der Literatur, Gcistes- und sozia.lwissenschaftliche Klasse, 1961, 3.) Wiesba.den, 1961.
von Fritz, Geschithtsschreibung = K. von Fritz, Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung, i. z vols. Berlin, 1967. Walbank, Polybius F. W. Walbank, Polybius. Berkeley-Los AngelesLondon, 1972. Walbank, Speeches = F. W. Walbank, Speeches in Greek Historians. Third
J. L. Myres Memorial Lecture. Oxford, [1965). Warmington B. H. Warmington, Carthage. Ed. 2. Ha.rmondsworth, 1964. Watson, Obligations= A. Watson, The Law of Obligations in the Later Roman Republic. Oxford, 1965. Watson, Persons = A. Watson, The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Repzlblic. Oxford, 1967. Wehrli, Dikaiarchos = F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles: Heft I: Dikaiarchos. Ed. 2. Basel, 1967. Wehrli, Hieronymos = F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles: Heft ro: Hieronymos von Rhodos, Kritolaos und seine SchUler. Basel-Stuttgart, 1959. Welwei = K.-W. Welwei, Konige und Konigtum im Urteil des Polybios. Diss. Cologne, 1963. Wescher = C. Wescher, La Poliorcetique des Grecs. Paris, 1867. Westermann, Slave Systems = \V. L. Westermann, The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiqtlity. Philadelphia, 1955. Wiener Eranos = Wiener Eranos. Zur 50. Versammlung deutscher Philologen in Graz, 1909. Vienna, 1909. Wilhelm, Neue Beitrilge iv =A. Wilhelm, Neue Beit'Jiage .rur griechischen Inschriftenkunde, iv. In 5.-B. Wien, 179 (1915), 6. Vienna, 1915. Wilkes, Dalmatia= J. J. Wilkes, Dalmatia. London, £969. Will= E. Will, Histoire politique du monde hellenistique (323-30 av. ].-C.). 2 vols. Nancy, 1966-7. Wilson, Emigration= A. J. Wilson, Emigration from Italy in the Republican Age of Rome. lYfanchester, 1966. Winkler, Aegypten =H. Winkler, Rom und Aegypten im 2. ]hdt. v. Chr. Diss. Leipzig, 1933. ZA S = Zeitschrift fur agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde. Za.ncan = P. Zancan, ll monarcato ellenistico nei suoi elementi federativi. Padua, 1934. Z. Pap. Ep. = Zeitschrijt filr Papyrologie und Epigra.phik. XXI
INTRODUCTION THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE FRAGMENTS 1. BOOK XIX The absence from the Constantinian excerpts and Suidas of any fragments from this book suggests that, like xvii, xxvi, and xxxvii, it was already lost by the tenth century (cf. Moore, GRBS, 1971, 430–31). Since xx contained Ol. 147, 1 (see below), xix must have dealt with the whole of Ol. 146 (196–192). Passages based on P. in Livy xxxiv and xxxv are: xxxiv. 22. 4–41. 7 (195), the war with Nabis, from res Graeciae of Ol. 146, 1 = 196/5; xxxiv. 48. 2–52. 12 (194), Greek events from res Graeciae of Ol. 146, 2 = 195/4; xxxiv. 57. 1–61. 16 (193), events in Italy and Carthage from res Italiae and res Africae of Ol. 146, 3 = 194/3; xxxv. 12. 1–19. 7 (193), 25. 1–39. 8 (192), events from res Graeciae and res Asiae of Ol. 146, 4 = 193/2; xxxv. 42. 1–51. 10, Antiochus' crossing and subsequent events. This last passage seems to refer to Ol. 147, 1 = 192/1, hence the corresponding passage in P. probably came in book xx; Livy will have included it under A.U.C. 562 = 192 so as to end the book (and the pentad) with a striking event (cf. Nissen, Rh. Mus. 1871, 261, modifying his views in KU, 174–6). Only two 'fragments' survive. 1, from Plut. Cato mai. 10. 3, will be from the res Hispaniae of Ol. 146, 1 = 196/5 (cf. Livy, xxxiv. 8. 4–21. 8). 2 is a sentence from Livy, xxxiv. 50. 5–6, which draws on res Graeciae from Ol. 146, 2 (194). 2. BOOK XX These extracts are from the Constantinian excerpts: de legat. gent.: 2 (Antiochus and Boeotia: exc. 5); 3. 1–7 (embassies to Antiochus: exc. 6); 9. 1–11. 10 (negotiations with Aetolians: exc. 7); de uirt. et uit.: 4. 1–7. 5 (condition of Boeotia: exc. 71 and 72); de sent.: 12. 1–7 (Philopoemen at Sparta: exc. 97); 12. 8 (value of oral evidence: exc. 98). In de uirt. et uit. xx. 7. 5 is followed by xxi. 7. 5–6, and has a marginal note: τέλοσ τοῦ κ λόγου τῆς πολυβ\?\ ϊστορίασ. Since xxi. 7. 5–6 corresponds to Livy, xxxvii. 12. 8–9 (substitution of Eudamus for Pausistratus), which refers to 190, book xx evidently contained only the events of Ol. 147, 1 = 192/1, leaving the three remaining years of the olympiad to be dealt with in xxi. It has been argued above that Livy, xxxv. 42. 1–51. 10 corresponds to part of the res Graeciae of Ol. 147, 1 = 192/1; 1 (from Suidas) and 2 (from de legat. gent.) correspond to Livy, xxxv. 45. 9–46. 1 [1]
and 50. 5, and so fall here. Livy, xxxvi. 5. 1–35. 11, relates the Greek campaigns of 191, including Thermopylae, and clearly corresponds to the rest of P.'s res Graeciae for Ol. 147, 1 = 192/1; as we saw (p. 1), Antiochus' arrival in Greece had been described in Livy xxxv for reasons of composition. 3. 1–7 (from de legat. gent.) and 7. 3–5 (from de uirt. et uit.) correspond to Livy, xxxvi. 5 and 6; and 7. 3–5 is preceded in de uirt. et uit. by 4. 1–7. 2, on conditions in Boeotia, a digression clearly belonging here, though omitted by Livy (cf. 7. 4, διὰ τὰς προειρηµένας αἰτίας). Fragments of 4. 1–7. 2 also appear in Athenaeus, x. 418 (6. 6) and Suidas (6. 12). 8. 1–5 (from Athen. x. 439), on Antiochus' wedding, corresponds to Livy, xxxvi. 11. 1, and mentions book xx; 8. 6 is a quotation from Livy, xxxvi. 19. 11, on the battle of Thermopylae. 9. 1–11. 10 (from de legat. gent.) corresponds to Livy, xxxvi. 27–29, and the references to Corax (11. 11) and Aperantia (11. 12) from Stephanus, who says they are from book xx, match Livy, xxxvi. 30. 4 and 33. 7 respectively. If fg. 82 refers to Philip's siege of Lamia (see there), it should stand before 9. 1. This leaves only 12. 1–7 and 12. 8 from de sententiis. The former concerns a Spartan gift to Philopoemen, offered (according to Paus. viii. 51. 2) after an incident in which Philopoemen had closed the gates of Sparta against Flamininus and the Achaean general Diophanes, and settled affairs there himself. Plutarch (Philop. 15) dates the offer of the gift before Diophanes was made general for 192/1; but, despite inaccuracies in Pausanias, his date seems preferable (Aymard, PR, 337–8 n. 25). Errington, III, following Plutarch, dates the offer of the gift to 192; but the absence of other fragments from book xix suggests that it was already lost when the Constantinian excerpts were made, and this is strongly against Errington's view (see p. 1). True, to press this as excluding the Plutarchean date entirely would be to argue in a circle; but the incident seems more properly to be placed in 191 (and book xx) than in 192 (and book xix). According to Plutarch (Philop. 16) Philopoemen's intervention at Sparta preceded Thermopylae (late April, 191). Against this it could be argued that a considerable time may have elapsed between the Spartan incident and the offer of the gift; but if, as seems likely (see below), the Spartan embassy to Rome asking for the restoration of hostages was sent and returned in summer 191, there must have been time for the anti-Achaean party to gain power. Hence there is a good case for bringing this fragment (12. 1–7) forward; and since the events in it precede Thermopylae, it should stand between 8. 5 and 8. 6 (rather than immediately before 9, as Aymard, loc. cit., suggests). The context of 12. 8, on the importance of eyewitness evidence, is unknown. Pédech (Méthode, 359–60) suggests that it is from a passage [2]
in the prologue of xxi, in which P. explained that from this point onwards he was an eyewitness of the events he described. This seems improbable since (a) the passage is a communis locus (cf. xii. 27. 1 n.); (b) the assertion, emphasized by such a position, would tend to detract from the authority of what P. had recorded in his earlier books; (c) if P. was born around 200 (cf. Vol. I, p. 1 n. 1), he would not be a very effective eyewitness for events from 191 (but Pédech puts P.'s birth in 208: LEC, 1961, 145–50). It seems more prudent to leave it an open question whether 12. 8 belongs to xx or xxi, and what its context was. xxi. 1. 1–4, recounting the return of Spartan envoys from Rome, follows xx. 11. 10 in de legat. gent. Aymard (PR, 356 n. 1), following the older editors, restores it to book xx. This must be right; and in its support is the argument (which he does not mention) that since it describes the return of the embassy, it is more likely to be from res Graeciae than from res Italiae, and since the next passage in de legat. gent. is from res Italiae of Ol. 147, 2 = 191/0, xxi. 1. 1–4 will be part of res Graeciae of Ol. 147, 1 = 192/1. Since the dispatch of the embassy suggests that a party hostile to Achaea is in power, the passage will go after 12. 1–7. No fragments survive from res Asiae, but Livy, xxxvi. 41. 1– 45. 8, based on P., corresponds to part of them, including the Roman naval victory off Corycus. 3. BOOK XXI These extracts are from the Constantinian excerpts: de legat. gent.: 1. 1–4 (return of Spartan envoys from Rome: exc. 8); 2. 1–6 (supplicatio after Corycus: Aetolian embassy: exc. 9); 3. 1–4 (embassy from Philip: exc. 10); 3 b 1–2 (Eumenes' embassy to Achaea: exc. 11); 4. 1–5. 13 (negotiations with the Aetolians: exc. 12); 6. 2–6 (Phocaean embassy to Seleucus: exc. 13); 8. 1–3 (Scipios inform L. Aemilius and Eumenes of Aetolian truce: exc. 14); 10. 1–14 (Antiochus negotiates: exc. 15); 13. 1–15. 13 (Antiochus' further proposals: exc. 16); 16. 1–17. 12 (conditions imposed after Magnesia: exc. 17); 18. 1–24. 17 (embassies at Rome: exc. 18); 25. 1–11 (western Greece: exc. 19); 26. 1–19 (further events in western Greece: exc. 20); 29. 1–32. 15 (peace with Aetolia: exc. 21); 33. 1 (Manlius and the Galatian war: exc. 22); 34. 3– 13 (treatment of Moagetes: exc. 23); 35. 1–5 (Termessus: exc. 24); 36. 1–4 (Sagalassus: exc. 25); 39. 1–14 (Tectosages: exc. 26); 41. 1–44. 3 (peace terms for Antiochus: exc. 27); 46. 1–12 (Asian settlement: exc. 28); de legat. Rom.: 11. 1–13 (Antiochus approaches Prusias: exc. 16); 37. 1–3 (Manlius and [3]
Eposognatus: exc. 17); 37. 8–9 (more on Galatians: exc. 17 cont.); de sent.: 32 c 1–4 (Philopoemen's wisdom: exc. 99); 40 (on Ariarathes: exc. 100); 47 (Roman march through Thrace: exc. 101); de uirt. et uit.: 7. 5–6 (Rhodian admirals: exc. 73); 9. 1–3 (character of Diophanes: exc. 74); 34. 1–2 (Moagetes: exc. 75); de strategematis (T): 27. 2–6 (Ambracia: Wescher, 328). Book xxi contained Ol. 147, 2 = 191/0, 147, 3 = 190/89 and 147, 4 = 189/8. In addition to the fragments there are these passages of Polybian provenance in Livy (square brackets indicate where this provenance is in doubt): [xxxvii. 1. 1–6 (A.U.C. 564 = 190): res Italiae of Ol. 147, 2 = 191/0. Reception of Aetolian embassy at Rome. Nissen (KU, 188) makes this Polybian, comparing xxi. 2; but doubts subsist.] xxxvii. 4. 6–45. 21 (A.U.C. 564 = 190): res Graeciae and res Asiae of Ol. 147, 2 = 191/0. [xxxvii. 49. 1–8 (A.U.C. 564 = 190): despite Nissen (KU, 197–8), who compares Diod. xxix. 9, this account of an Aetolian embassy to Rome may be annalistic.] xxxvii. 52. 7–56. 10 (A.U.C. 564 = 190): embassies at Rome; Nissen (KU, 198–200) makes this Polybian. [xxxvii. 60. 1–7 (A.U.C. 564 = 190): Cretan affairs. Nissen (KU, 200–1) makes this Polybian; but its position before the Aetolian fighting is odd, if it is from P.'s res Graeciae and it may be annalistic.] If this and the two previous passages are Polybian they will be from the res Italiae and res Graeciae of Ol. 147, 3 = 190/89. xxxviii. 1. 1–27. 9 (A.U.C. 565 = 189): Cephallenia and Galatians; from the res Graeciae and res Asiae of Ol. 147, 3 = 190/89. xxxviii. 28. 5–34. 9 (A.U.C. 565 = 189): on Achaea; res Graeciae of Ol. 147, 4 = 189/8. xxxviii. 37. 1–41. 11 (A.U.C. 566 = 188): Asian settlement; res Asiae of Ol. 147, 4 = 189/8. For the argument that 1. 1–4 should stand in book xx see above, p. 3. Since the naval victory of Corycus (2. 1) was in late autumn, 191 (see Livy, xxxvi, 44. 1–45. 8, especially 45. 8, 'cum iam hiems appeteret'), the Aetolian embassy mentioned in this same fragment of de legat. gent. will also fall in winter 191/0 (cf. Livy, xxxvii. 1). The position of 3. 1–4 in the same collection dates Philip's embassy also to 191/0; this fragment is followed in de legat. gent. by 3 b, evidently from the res Graeciae of Ol. 147, 2 = 191/0. Livy, who devotes only xxxvii. 4. 6–7. 7 to res Graeciae before hastening on to Asia, omits this detail concerning Eumenes' approach to Achaea, but the troops are mentioned in Livy, xxxvii. 20. 1. 4. 1–5. 13 from the same collection deals with Athenian intervention to secure a truce in the [4]
Aetolian War; the corresponding passage in Livy, xxxvii. 6. 4–7. 7, shows that it is still part of res Graeciae of 190. 6. 2–6 (also from de legat. gent.) refers to Phocaea and is rightly preceded by a passage from Suidas; this, 6. 1, corresponds to Livy, xxxvii. 9. 1, and the mention of two priests of Cybele in 6. 7, also from Suidas, corresponds to Livy, xxxvii. 9. 9 (which thus locates the incident at Abydus). But Livy has omitted the dispatch of envoys to Seleucus mentioned in 6. 2–6, and it is possible that these events were described by P. at a point in his narrative corresponding to Livy, xxxvii. 11. 15, where the betrayal of Phocaea to Seleucus is mentioned. In that case 6. 2–6 would stand after 7. 1–4, a passage from Suidas describing Pausistratus' fire-machine, which corresponds to Livy, xxxvii. 11. 13. All three passages are from the res Asiae of Ol. 147, 2 = 191/0. 7. 5–7 is a combination of a passage from de uirt. et uit. and several extracts from Suidas; 'Pamphilidas' is an error for Eudamus, and the passage corresponds to Livy, xxxvii. 12. 7–9, which is still drawing on the res Asiae of Ol. 147, 2 = 191/0. If fg. 142 corresponds to Livy, xxxvii. 11. 7, it will stand before 7. 1–4 (see 7. 1–7 n.); and fg. 154, which seems to correspond to Livy, xxxvii. 14. 5, will stand between 7. 7 and 8. 1. 8. 1–3, from de legat. gent., refers to the same summer; there is no corresponding item in Livy, but Livy, xxxvii. 14. 3 mentions the arrival of L. Aemilius Regillus and Eumenes in Samos. 9. 1–3 on Diophanes' character is from de uirt. et uit. and 10. 1–14 on Antiochus' negotiations from de legat. gent.; the first links with Diophanes' arrival, described in Livy, xxxvii. 20. 1 ff., and the second with Livy, xxxvii. 18. 10 ff. The order of these two fragments should therefore be reversed (cf. Steigemann, 32; Büttner-Wobst, Phil. 1900, 572–3; Aymard, PR, 374 n. 12); fg. 228 (cf. Livy, xxxvii. 18. 8) will stand between 8. 3 and 10. 1; 11. 1–13, from de legat. Rom., dealing with Antiochus' approach to Prusias, corresponds to Livy, xxxvii. 25. 4–14; and its position in res Asiae of Ol. 147, 2 = 191/0 is further confirmed by the marginal note: λ\?\ κά i.e. book xxi. The flight of the pirates in 12 (from Suidas) corresponds to Livy, xxxvii. 27. 5. Antiochus' further attempt to negotiate, described in 13. 1–15. 13 (from de legat. gent.) corresponds to Livy, xxxvii. 34. 1–36. 9; and 16. 1–17. 12, which follows in the same collection, and relates the terms imposed after Magnesia, corresponds to Livy, xxxvii. 45. 3– 21. Livy's continuous narrative demonstrates that P.'s account of the Asian events of Ol. 147, 2 = 191/0 went down as far as the battle of Magnesia and its immediate sequel, even though this involved considerably overrunning the olympiad year. 18. 1–24. 17, from de legat. gent. describes the embassies sent to Rome in winter 190/89; the corresponding passage is Livy, xxxvii. 52. 7–56. 10 (which however ceases to transcribe P. at 24. 15). Although Livy has included these details under A.U.C. 564 = 190, they [5]
must have formed part of the res Italiae of Ol. 147, 3 = 190/89, and in fact 189, in P. The res Graeciae of that year begin at 25. 1–11, also from de legat. gent. This, and the next fragment, also from the same collection, 26. 1–19, both recount events of western Greece of 189 and correspond to Livy, xxxviii. 3. 1–8 and 3. 9–11 (Livy omits the adventure of the Aetolians described in 26. 6–19). Three passages from Anon. de obsid. tol. (ed. van der Berg), 169–74, 97–99, and 178– 95, are transcribed from P. and represent 27. 1–6, 27. 7–9, and 28. 1–17; all three deal with the siege of Ambracia, and that they form part of P.'s account can be seen from a comparison with Livy, xxxviii. 5. 1–5, 5. 6–9, 7. 4–8. 1. This assures their position. The first (27. 1–6) also overlaps de strateg. (T) for 27. 2–6 (this MS. is headed ΑΜΒΡ ΑΚΙΑΣ ΠΟΛΙΟΡΚΙΑ ΠΟΛΥΒΙΟΥ Β\\?\ ΚΑ); the third passage, 28. 1–17, is also in T, which continues a sentence further (28. 18). 29. 1–32. 15, from de legat. gent., deals with the Aetolian peace and corresponds to Livy, xxxviii. 9. 3–11. 9; it is thus still part of the events of Ol. 147, 3 = 190/89 (i.e. 189), and although it includes the hearing of envoys and ratification of peace at Rome, it seems to form part of the res Graeciae of that olympiad year (as the corresponding passage in Livy confirms). 32 b from Suidas on the capture of Same corresponds to Livy, xxxviii. 29. 10, and 32 c from de sent. refers to the restoration of Spartan exiles described in Livy, xxxviii. 34. 1–5; though Livy has these events under A.U.C. 565 = 189, both passages clearly belong to res Graeciae of Ol. 147, 4 = 189/8 (cf. Livy, xxxviii. 33. 1, ueris initio). 32 c 4 is difficult and, towards the end of the passage, impossible to decipher, but it appears to refer to steps taken the same year to prevent the restoration of the Spartan monarchy. Since however 32 b and 32 c belong to Ol. 147, 4 = 189/8, whereas 33–39 is still part of Ol. 147, 3 = 190/89, the two passages must be postponed to a place between 39 and 40. 33–39 consists of a group of fragments set in order by reference to the Polybian account of Manlius Vulso's Galatian campaign in Livy; they are: 33. 1 (de legat. gent.: Livy, xxxviii. 12. 1); 33. 2 (Suidas: Livy, xxxviii. 12. 7); 34. 1–2 (de uirt. et uit.: Livy, xxxviii. 14. 3); 34. 3– 13 (de legat. gent.: Livy, xxxviii. 14. 4–14); 35. 1–5 (de legat. gent.: Livy, xxxviii. 15. 3–6); 36. 1–4 (de legat. gent.: Livy, xxxviii. 15. 7–11); 37. 1–3 (de legat. Rom.: Livy, xxxviii. 18. 1– 3); 37. 4–7 (Suidas: Livy, xxxviii. 18. 7–9); 37. 8–9 (de legat. Rom.: Livy, xxxviii. 18. 10–15); 38. 1–7 (Plut. Mor. 258 c: Livy, xxxviii. 24. 2–11); 39. 1–14 (de legat. gent.: Livy, xxxviii. 25. 1–11). They clearly belong to res Asiae of Ol. 147, 3 = 190/89 (i.e. 189). 40 (from de sent.) is a fragmentary passage about Ariarathes, which in M follows 32 c 4 without any mark of separation. Hultsch (ad loc.) suggests that it belongs at 41. 4–5, where he suspects com[6]
pression in our extract. In any case it must, in view of its position, refer to Ol. 147, 4 = 189/8. Comparison with Livy, xxxviii. 37. 1– 39. 2, shows that 41. 1–44. 3 (from de legat. gent.), dealing with negotiations with Manlius and the peace with Antiochus, forms part of res Asiae of Ol. 147, 4 = 189/8. As we saw (above p. 6), 32 b and 32 c fall between 39 and 40 (or, if Hultsch's hypothesis concerning 40 is accepted, between 39. 14 and 41. 1). 45, from Suidas, also concerns Ariarathes: comparison with Livy, xxxviii. 39. 6 assures its position. 46. 1–12 (from de legat. gent.), on the final Asian settlement, corresponds to Livy, xxxviii. 39. 7–40. 1, and is therefore in place. 47, a fragmentary passage from de sent., deals with the Roman return through Thrace; see Livy, xxxviii. 40–41 (188), which indicates that, although recounting events in Europe, P. described Manlius' return here rather than under the res Graeciae of Ol. 148, 1 = 188/7, as a strict interpretation of his scheme might have suggested. (The alternative—to make the march through Thrace a pendant to the res Graeciae of Ol. 147, 4 = 189/8—would have involved describing it before the settlement in Asia.) 4. BOOK XXII 1 and 2 list topics from P. which were to be included in de legat. gent. and de legat. Rom.; the former (excc. 29–30) follow directly after xxi. 46. 1–2, the latter (exc. 18) after xxi. 37. 3. Büttner-Wobst introduces them as 'ex Polybii libro xxii excerpenda' but there is no reference to book xxii in the MSS., and Steigemann, 35, correctly observes that there is no absolute proof that that book contained all Ol. 148. However, these lists occurring at this point strengthen that hypothesis. They omit passages which figure in the excerpts (xxii. 3–5, 12. 5–10 are omitted from 1, xxii. 15 is omitted from 2) and mention others which do not (xxii. 1. 2–4 and xxii. 2. 1 have nothing corresponding in the text of the excerpts); nor are the topics invariably mentioned in their proper order. Thus the words ἡ γενοµένη σφαγὴ . . . τὰ προσταχθέντα διὰ τού των in xxii. 1. 5 occur between references to the negotiations at Tempe and Thessalonica on the one hand and those between Q. Metellus and the Achaeans on the other; yet it is clear that they refer to Ap. Claudius' embassy (xxii. 13–14), which took place the year after that of Q. Metellus (cf. Aymard, études, 18–19). Hence the lists are useful mainly as an indication that the events included probably occurred in Ol. 148. The following extracts are from the Constantinian excerpts: de legat. gent.: 3. 1–9 (Philopoemen sends Nicodemus to Rome; the Achaeans renew their alliance with Ptolemy V: exc. 31); 4. 1–17 (trouble in Boeotia: exc. 32); 5. 1–10 (dispute between Rhodes and Lycia: exc. 33); 6. 1–6 (reports at Rome; Q. Metellus sent to interview Philip: exc. 34); 7. 1– 10. 15 (embassies from kings to Achaea: [7]
Q. Metellus in Peloponnese: exc. 35); 11. 1–12. 10 (Q. Metellus reports to Rome; other envoys there: exc. 36); 14. 7–12 (Philip decides to send Demetrius to Rome: exc. 37); de legat. Rom.: 13. 1–14. 8 (Philip's massacre at Maronea: exc. 19); 15. 1–6 (affairs in Crete: exc. 20); de uirt. et uit.: 17. 1–7 (Ptolemy breaks his word to the rebels: exc. 76); 20. 1–8 (Apollonis, Attalus' wife: exc. 77); 21. 1–4 (Ortiagon's ambitions: exc. 78); 22. 1–5 (Aristonicus the eunuch: exc. 79); de sent.: 16. 1–4 (Philip II and Ptolemy V compared: exc. 102); 18. 1–11 (Philip V's responsibility for the Third Macedonian War: exc. 103); 19. 1–4 (dispute between Philopoemen and Archon: exc. 104). No fragment is attributed to any particular year of the olympiad, and only at 18. 1 is the olympiad mentioned in the text. Some help is forthcoming from Livy. In xxiii. 9 P. records under Ol. 149, 2 = 183/2 the arrival at Rome of several embassies and of Q. Marcius Philippus, who had been in Greece and Macedonia; Livy, xl. 2. 6 has the same event under A.U.C. 572 = 182. Marcius' departure is recounted in xxiii. 4. 16, which appears to be dealing with Ol. 149, 1 = 184/3, and this fits Livy, xxxix. 48. 5, who makes it A.U.C. 571 = 183. Marcius, then, probably left in spring 183. If we work back through the Polybian parts of Livy from this point, we get this result: Livy xxxviii. 1–11 (A.U.C. 565 = 189): res Graeciae of Ol. 147, 3 = 190/89 (see above, p. 4). xxxviii. 12–27 (A.U.C. 565 = 189): res Asiae of Ol. 147, 3 = 190/89 (see above, p. 4). xxxviii. 28. 5–34. 9 (A.U.C. 565 = 189): res Graeciae of Ol. 147, 4 = 189/8 (see above, p. 4). xxxviii. 37. 1–41. 11 (A.U.C. 566 = 188): res Asiae of Ol. 147, 4 = 189/8, in effect 188 (see above, p. 4). Livy takes nothing from P. in A.U.C. 567 = 187 or A.U.C. 568 = 186. xxxix. 23. 5–29. 2 (A.U.C. 569 = 185): res Macedoniae of Ol. 148, 3 = 186/5, in effect 185. xxxix. 33. 1–37. 21 (A.U.C. 570 = 184): res Macedoniae et Graeciae of Ol. 148, 4 = 185/4, in effect 184. xxxix. 46. 6–50. 11, 53 (A.U.C. 571 = 183): res Italiae, res Macedoniae, res Graeciae of Ol. 149, 1 = 184/3; see below, p. 16, on Philopoemen's death. The correspondence is clear and facilitates the assigning of the Polybian fragments to the various years of Ol. 148. 6. 1–6, a compressed fragment from de legat. gent., corresponds to Livy, xxxix. 24, where it falls in the middle of an account of Philip's war-preparations. This might suggest that although it concerns the arrival of embassies at Rome, it formed part of res Macedoniae of [8]
Ol. 148, 3 = 186/5; and so Nissen (KU, 332) assumes. However, the pluperfect tenses in Livy, xxxix. 24. 6–12 show that he is referring to earlier events belonging to the previous winter (186/5), before the sending of the envoys gives him a lead into the conference at Tempe (185) in Livy, xxxix. 24. 13–14. P., however, has plain aorists in 6. 1–6, and he probably reported the embassies at Rome under res Italiae in the normal way. Livy will have incorporated their reception in the Macedonian section for compositional reasons, the insertion beginning at § 5, rediere deinde causae. This hypothesis is confirmed by the order in which the events are listed in 1. 1–3. A short passage from Suidas, 6. 7, seems to be dealing with conditions in Aenus before Philip seized it; but since it may have formed part of some (now lost) explanation of the background of Philip's action—even coming somewhere within the compressed passage, 6. 1–6—one is scarcely justified in moving it to precede 6. 1 (see further ad loc.). The three preceding excerpts in de legat. gent. (3. 1–9, 4. 1–17, 5. 1–10) refer, the first two to Greek, the third to Asian affairs, and apparently belong to res Graeciae and res Asiae of Ol. 148, 1 = 188/7 or Ol. 148, 2 = 187/6—though they could fall in different olympiad years provided that 5 is not earlier than 3 and 4. Which year they do belong to has been a matter of debate. 3. 1–4 is much compressed. It mentions the massacre of Compasium, recorded in Livy, xxxviii. 33, which (see above, p. 8) relates the events of 189/8 (in fact 188: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 33. 1, ueris initio); next it refers to the dispatch of Spartan envoys to Rome, where they procured a letter from M. Lepidus, when he was consul (A.U.C. 567 = 187), and finally describes how, while the Spartans were still at Rome, Philopoemen sent Nicodemus of Elis to represent him there. Aymard (études, 18–30) has argued that Philopoemen must have acted as general, that this is his strategia of 187/6, and consequently that Nicodemus was sent to Rome in autumn, 187 (i.e. in Ol. 148, 2 = 187/6); having been delayed at Rome for some time, he reported back in the strategia of Aristaenus (186/5), cf. 7. 5. This implies that 3 and 4 are from res Graeciae of 187/6 and 5 from res Asiae of the same year. This chronology and assignment of the fragments has been challenged by Büttner-Wobst (Beiträge, 3–13) and, more recently, by Errington, 255–62. Büttner-Wobst assumes that Livy's Greek dates are all two years out, so that events of (e.g.) 188/7 are dated by him to 186/5; hence he puts Philopoemen's strategia of 3. 2–3 back to 189/8. Errington also makes this strategia that of 189/8, but since he accepts the accuracy of Livy's chronology, he has to assume that 7–10 contains a conflation of events belonging to 187 and 185, the break coming between 9. 14 and 10. 1. However, he proffers no explanation of such a major dislocation and contamination. Against the hypotheses of Büttner-Wobst and Errington see 3. 1–4 nn.; despite some [9]
difficulties, mentioned there, Aymard's chronology seems the most plausible. But on either view the order of the fragments remains unaffected. 3. 5–9 records a Ptolemaic embassy to Achaea. 6. 1–6 corresponds to Livy, xxxix. 24. 6–14 (see above, p. 8); but Livy, xxxix. 23. 5 is clearly a drastically compressed précis of the fragment of the de sent. now printed as 18. 1– 11, in which P. argues that Philip, not Perseus, planned the Third Macedonian War.1 Livy sums up its argument in one sentence, but gives an account of Philip's grievances clearly taken from a passage in P., no longer extant. De Sanctis (iv. 1. 250 n. 24) therefore argued that (assuming Livy's order to be also P.'s) 18. 1–11 should stand before 6. 1–6. This calls for two comments. First, as we have seen (pp. 8–9), 6. 1–6 probably forms part of res Italiae of Ol. 148, 3 = 186/5, the position of the corresponding passage in Livy, xxxix. 24. 6–12 among res Macedoniae being due merely to Livy's compositional technique; in which case 18. 1–11 need not precede 6. 1–6. But there is a more serious difficulty. In the excerpts de sent. 18. 1– 11 is preceded by 16. 1–4, a passage hard to decipher, but clearly contrasting Philip II's clemency after Chaeronea and Ptolemy V's breach of faith to the Egyptian rebels. 17. 1–7, from the de uirt. et uit., has one sentence in common with 16. 4 (at 17. 5), and the two extracts form part of a single passage belonging to the res Aegypti. But if 18. 1–11 belongs to res Macedoniae of Ol. 148, 3 = 186/5, then the comparison of Philip II and Ptolemy V should belong to res Aegypti of Ol. 148, 2 = 187/6, and so stand after 5. 10.2 But, according to 17. 5, Ptolemy V was 25 at the time of the action against the rebels; and since he was born on 30 Mesore 210 (9 October 210)—cf. xviii. 53. 4 n.; Volkmann, RE, 'Ptolemaios (23)', col. 1691; some scholars have made the year 209—his twenty-fifth birthday was on 30 Mesore (2 October) 185. This is an obstacle (and perhaps an insuperable one) to assigning 16–17 to Ol. 148, 2 = 187/6, as one is led to do if 18. 1–11 belongs to Ol. 148, 3 = 186/5. On the other hand, if 16–17 is from res Aegypti [10]
1
Livy also makes the point about Philip's responsibility for the war with Perseus at the end of the same Polybian passage, viz. at Livy, xxxix. 29. 3; and it could be argued that 18. 1–11 came at a point in P. corresponding to this rather than at a point corresponding to Livy, xxxix. 23. 5. This would not affect the order of the fragments (beyond excluding the possibility that 18. 1–11 preceded 6. 1–6); but the account of Philip's grievances (Livy, xxxix. 23. 6–13) is so closely linked with the statement in Livy, xxxix. 23. 5 that this seems likely to be derived from 18. 1–11, and Livy, xxxix. 29. 3 to be merely a repetition of the opening passage, designed to round off the section. 2 Steigemann, 40, argued that, because 18. 1 begins with the words ὅτι φησὶν ὁ Πολύβιος ἐν τῷ εἰκοστῷ δευτέρῳ, this fragment must be the first extract from that book in the de sent., hence that 16 must belong to Ol. 147, 4 = 189/8, which would bring it forward into book xxi. But 16 and 17 cannot be separated, and the reference to Ptolemy's age excludes Ol. 147, 4 as a date for the events mentioned. See further, p. 12.
of Ol. 148, 3 = 186/5, then 18. 1–11 must go into Ol. 148, 4 = 185/4, and the statement in Livy, xxxix. 23. 5, about Philip's responsibility for the Third Macedonian War must be assumed to have been brought forward from a later passage in P. This is difficult to believe, for two reasons. First, it does not match Livy's normal practice, which is to keep close to the Polybian text (the incorporation of Livy, xxxix. 24. 6–12 from the res Italiae (see above, pp. 8–9) is a rather different matter, and can be paralleled in Livy, xxxix. 33. 1–8, which describes the decisions at Rome as a lead in to the embassy of Ap. Claudius of 184); and second, it is not easy to fit such a passage as 18. 1–11 into the Polybian narrative of Ol. 148, 4 = 185/4, as an examination of the remaining Greek fragments will show. 7. 1–10. 15 relates discussion in Achaea and at 10. 1 mentions Q. Metellus' arrival from Macedonia. 6. 6 and Livy, xxxix. 24. 13 ff. show that Metellus was in Macedonia and Greece in 185; consequently 7. 1–10. 15 forms part of res Graeciae of Ol. 148, 3 = 186/5, in fact 185.1 (Livy, having omitted to recount Metellus' visit to the Peloponnese after xxxix. 29. 1–2, mentions it in parenthesis in xxxix. 35. 5–8, when introducing Ap. Claudius' embassy in 184.) The fragment 7. 1–10. 15 is followed in the excerpts de legat. gent. by 11. 1–12. 10, describing Metellus' report at Rome and the various embassies. Clearly this belongs to the next res Italiae, of Ol. 148, 4 = 185/4. This in turn is followed, in the same excerpts, by 14. 7– 12, which overlaps with 13. 1–14. 8 from the de legat. Rom. Comparison with Livy, xxxix. 34–35, which gives his version of the Macedonian events of 184 from P., confirms that 13. 1–14. 12 is from res Macedoniae of Ol. 148, 4 = 185/4. But if 18. 1–11 is also part of the res Macedoniae of Ol. 148, 4 = 185/4 (as seems to follow from putting 16–17 in Ol. 148, 3 = 186/5), what will be its relationship to 13. 1–14. 12? Comparison with Livy, xxxix. 33. 1–35. 4 shows that it is very difficult to find any place for the discussion of the causes of the Third Macedonian War in this context, for Livy, xxxix. 33. 1–8 gives the preliminaries at Rome and 34. 1–35. 4 gives Philip's actions at Maronea, the interview with Ap. Claudius, Philip's reaction, and his decision to send Demetrius to Rome, in a form which corresponds exactly with P.'s account in 13–14. The departure of the Roman envoys to the Peloponnese in Livy, xxxix. 35. 5 follows immediately on the passage corresponding to 14. 12, and it is clear that there was no place here for a discussion of the remote causes of the war. On the contrary, 14. 8 clearly implies Philip's warlike plans and suggests that P. has already discussed them elsewhere. It therefore looks as if De Sanctis was right in bringing 18. 1–11 forward into Ol. 148, 3 = 186/5 (though not in placing it before [11]
1
For Errington's hypothesis of a break between 7. 1–9. 14 (188/7) an 10. 1–15 (186/5) see above, pp. 9–10.
6. 1–6: see above, p. 10). But in that case, what is to be done with 16–17, which should precede 18 because of the order in the de sent.? There seem to be two alternatives. (a) It is possible that this is a rare example of the excerpts' appearing in the wrong order, and that the copyist of M (de sent.) omitted 18. 1–11 and then, after copying 16. 1–4, returned to it. On this hypothesis 18. 1–11 could belong to Ol. 148, 3 = 186/5 and 16–17 to the res Aegypti of the same year. One fact at least might seem to favour this theory. 18. 1–11 begins with the words ὅτι φησὶν ὁ Πολύβιος ἐν τῷ εἰκοστῷ δευτέρῳ. If in the original manuscript of the de sent. 18. 1–11 was the first extract from book xxii, the copyist of M (or some earlier intermediary) may have accidentally omitted it and, having discovered his error while copying the passage comparing Philip II and Ptolemy V (16. 1–4), have inserted it one place late, but retaining the introductory words. Against this is the fact that such dislocations are very rare; and further, the poor condition and fragmentary character of M prevents our knowing the usual practice of the original scribe of the de sent. or the copyist of M in indicating changes of book. In other of the Constantinian collections, references to books, normally in the margin, usually (but not invariably: cf. xxviii. 18. 1) indicate the beginning of a new book; see for example xx. 4. 1, xxvii. 12. 1, xxxi. 6. 1. Since however to assume such a dislocation here would both account for the book reference at 18. 1 (which had already led Steigemann to an untenable theory: see p. 10 n. 2), and produce an order of fragments consistent with the indications in Livy and the evidence for the age of Ptolemy V, it has much in its favour. (b) Alternatively, 16–17 must be from the res Aegypti of Ol. 148, 2 = 187/6. Against this is the reference in 17. 7 to Ptolemy V as being 25 years old (see above, p. 10). But it could be argued that P. or the excerptor (often careless at the beginning and end of an extract) has not clearly differentiated between being 25 and being in his twenty-fifth year (this error is in fact to be found in n. 76 of Dittenberger's commentary on OGIS 90, discussing this very passage; and see xxiii. 12. 1 n.); or the excerptor could have omitted some word such as σχεδόν. As between these two alternatives the first seems, on balance, preferable; in which case 16–17 will stand between 10. 15 and 11. 1 as res Aegypti of Ol. 148, 3 = 186/5 (and 18 will stand after 6. 7).1 [12]
1
Büttner-Wobst (Beiträge, 8) mentions with approval the suggestion of Schweighaeuser (vii. 516) that the mercenaries raised by Aristonicus in Greece (17. 6) were enrolled by virtue of the renewed alliance between Ptolemy and Achaea (3. 5–6); this is quite feasible with 16–17 as part of the res Aegypti of Ol. 148, 3 = 186/5, but of course the mercenaries may have nothing to do with Achaea.
We must assume that the events leading to the surrender of the rebels at Sais took place late in 185, when Ptolemy was already 25 years old. They will have been discouraged by the final collapse in 186 of the long-standing rebellion in Upper Egypt. See Addenda, p. 793. In the excerpts de legat. Rom. 13. 1–14. 8 (which overlaps with 14. 7–12 in de legat. gent.) is followed by 15. 1–6, dealing with Cretan affairs; the reference to Ap. Claudius shows that this belongs to res Graeciae of Ol. 148, 4 = 185/4, in fact 184. 19. 1–4 is from the excerpts de sent., where it follows 18. 1–11. It refers to a strategia of Archon, held during Philopoemen's lifetime, but the incident described need not be in its correct chronological place, but may have been introduced in some other context. On that assumption the passage is merely pinned down to the area between Ol. 148. 3 = 186/5 (the date of 18. 1–11 or possibly 16. 1–7: see above p. 12) and Ol. 149, 2 = 183/2 (xxiii. 10. 3, the next passage in M). But it is on the whole more likely that P. related the story in its proper place, in which case Archon must have been general after 186/5 and consequently (since this is the only vacant year before Philopoemen's death) in 184/3; see Aymard, études, 31. In that case (as De Sanctis, iv. 1. 242 n. 14, saw), this fragment is from book xxiii (since it refers to Ol. 149, 1 = 184/3) and stands before or after xxiii. 6 (see below, p. 15). Three fragments, 20, 21, and 22, are from the excerpts de uirt. et uit., where they follow 17. 7. Since the next passage in P is xxiii. 5. 4–14, which must be from the res Italiae of Ol. 149, 1 = 184/3— see below, p. 15—these three fragments must belong to res Asiae and res Aegypti in Ol. 148, i.e. to 185/4 at the latest; and since 17. 7 is from the res Aegypti of 186/5 (see above, p. 12), the year in each case must be 185/4. 20 concerns Apollonis, Attalus' wife, and the visit paid by two of her sons to Cyzicus; but it must be mentioned out of place, since it occurred later than the peace between Eumenes and Prusias (20. 8) which was itself after Flamininus' embassy of 183 (xxiii. 5. 1), and so in Ol. 149, 1 = 184/3. Apollonis may have been mentioned in relation to Cyzicus, which was allied to Eumenes against Prusias. Ortiagon (21) may also be mentioned in the context of this war, in which he supported Prusias (iii. 3. 6 n. and references quoted there). 22. 1–5 on the eunuch Aristonicus (already mentioned at 17. 6) will fall under res Aegypti. All these three passages will therefore remain in their present position. There is a further and perhaps decisive argument in favour of dating the surrender of the rebels at Sais to autumn 185. According to the second Philae decree (see xxii. 16. 1–17. 7 n.) the success of Eumenus (?) — who is probably Comanus (Peremans–van 't Dack, Prosopographica: Studia Hellenistica, 9 (Louvain, 1953), 27–28; cf. xxviii. 19. 1 n.)—was reported to the synod held at Alexandria on 6 September 186 by Aristonicus. This can scarcely be reconciled with the statement (17. 6) that after the surrender of the rebels at Sais Epiphanes went on to meet and take over mercenaries from Aristonicus at Naucratis, if these events took place late in 186, when Epiphanes was in his twenty-fifth year. But to date the events at Sais earlier than the Alexandrian synod is ruled out by the reference to Epiphanes' age. The most natural assumption is therefore that Aristonicus left for his recruiting visit to Greece after the synod of 186 and returned to Egypt in autumn 185. 5. BOOK XXIII The next firm point comes in book xxvii, where manuscripts of de legat. gent. (Y) and of
de legat. Rom. (U and V in the margins) [13]
record that xxvii. 1and 3 are from λόγος κζ, and the manuscript of de uirt. et uit. (P) also has λο κζ at xxvii. 12. On the likely assumption (see above, p. 7) that book xxii contained Ol. 148, it thus appears that olympiads 149, 150, and 151 were covered in books xxiii, xxiv, xxv, and xxvi. The Constantinian excerpts (and Suidas, which derived from them) contain no fragments from Ol. 151; and this is most easily explained if Ol. 151 was covered in a single book which was lost early. There is however one difficulty. Athenaeus (x. 439) attributes to book xxvi a passage on Antiochus Epiphanes which links closely with Athen. v. 193–4 and can be shown, by a comparison with Livy, xli. 20, to refer to Ol. 151, 1 = 176/5 (in fact 175); but Athen. x. 445 contains a passage, which is also attributed to book xxvi, but can be shown owing to an overlap with other excerpts to belong to Ol. 150, 2 = 179/8. If both attributions are true, book xxvi covered two olympiads, and this both Schweighaeuser (iv. 333–56) and Steigemann, 34, believed. But P. is very unlikely to have covered the events of 180–172 in a single book, and since that assumption leaves the absence of fragments from Ol. 151 (but not Ol. 150) unexplained, it seems more likely that the book reference in Athen. x. 445 is erroneous, and that Ol. 151 was covered in book xxvi. This leaves two olympiads, 149 and 150, for three books, xxiii, xxiv, and xxv. There is no quite conclusive evidence showing what the division was; for an apparent dearth of events may merely mirror the excerptors' choice or the extent to which Livy has drawn on P. Moreover the lacunae in our text of Livy xli make this a poor guide in any case. Nevertheless, the material that has survived favours the hypothesis that Ol. 149, 1–2 was dealt with in xxiii, Ol. 149, 3–4 in xxiv and Ol. 150 in xxv, which is how Büttner-Wobst arranges his text. Nissen (Rh. Mus. 1871, 266–7) assigned Ol. 149, 1 to xxiii, and Ol. 149. 2–4 to xxiv, because he believed Ol. 149, 1 = 184/3 to be crowded with events, including the deaths of Scipio, Hannibal, and Philopoemen; but that is improbable (see below, p. 16). We may now turn to the fragments of Ol. 149, 1–2. These extracts are from the Constantinian excerpts: de legat. gent.: 1. 1–4. 16 (Greek embassies at Rome: exc. 38); 5. 1–3 (Deinocrates: exc. 39); 5. 14–18 (more on Deinocrates: exc. 39 cont.)—these two passages are continuous in the excerpts; 6. 1–3 (envoys from Spartan exiles murdered: exc. 40); 7. 1–7 (Demetrius' return to Macedon: exc. 41); 9. 1–15 (Greek envoys at Rome: Marcius' report: exc. 42); 16. 1–13 (Messenians capitulate: exc. 43); 17. 1–18. 5 (envoys to Rome: Sparta readmitted into the Achaean federation: exc. 44); de legat. Rom.: 8. 1–7 (Q. Marcius in Macedonia: Philip's Thracian campaign: exc. 21); de uirt. et uit.: 5. 4–14 (Deinocrates: exc. 80); 10. 1–15 (Philip's [14]
crimes and disasters: exc. 81); 12. 3, 7 (Philopoemen's merits: exc. 82); 12. 8–9 (ambition and frankness of Philopoemen: exc. 83); 13. 2 (Hannibal's merits: exc. 84); 14. 1–4 (Scipio's ambitions: exc. 85); de sent.: 10. 3 (Philip's conscience: exc. 105); 10. 15–16 (Philip imprisons his enemies' children: Fortune avenges this: exc. 106); 11. 1–8 (Philip's speech to his sons: exc. 107); 12. 3–6 (Philopoemen's character: exc. 108); 14. 5–12 (Scipio and money: exc. 109); 15. 1–3 (on destroying trees and the like in war: exc. 110). Again Livy is helpful. The parts where he has drawn on P. are: Livy, xxxix. 46. 6–50. 11 (A.U.C. 571 = 183); see p. 8. Livy, xxxix. 53. 1–16 (A.U.C. 571 = 183); see p. 8. Livy, xl. 3. 1–16. 3 (A.U.C. 572 = 182): res Macedoniae. 1. 1–4. 16 corresponds to Livy, xxxix. 46, and describes the arrival of Greek embassies at Rome; it must belong to res Italiae of Ol. 149. 1 = 184/3. 5. 1–18 is made up from de legat. gent., de uirt. et uit., and two passages from Suidas (5. 5 and 5. 9), with an overlap at 5. 14. It concerns Deinocrates' behaviour at Rome, where he found Flamininus appointed envoy to the east. The year is unchanged, as a comparison of 6. 1–3 (res Graeciae) and 7. 1–7 (res Macedoniae), which follow on in de legat. gent., with Livy, xxxix. 53 makes clear. Marcius' arrival in Macedonia and Philip's Thracian campaign (8. 1–7: from de legat. Rom.) are both in 183 (see Livy, ibid.). It has been argued above (p. 13) that xxii. 19. 1–4 probably belongs to the res Graeciae of Ol. 149. 1 = 184/3; but whether it preceded or followed 6 is uncertain. 9. 1–15, describing the arrival of Greek envoys at Rome, and Marcius' report, forms part of res Italiae of Ol. 149, 2 = 183/2, as comparison with Livy, xl. 2. 6, shows. 10. 1–16, on Philip's disasters, is combined from de uirt. et uit., de sent., and several passages from Suidas, and corresponds to Livy, xl. 3. 3 f.; it is from the res Macedoniae of the same year, of which another fragment is the reference to the sacrifice to Xanthus in 10. 17 (cf. Livy, xl. 6. 1–3). 11. 1–8, from Philip's speech to his sons, corresponds to part of Livy, xl. 8. 7–20 (expecially 10–14), and is also from res Macedoniae of Ol. 149, 2 = 183/2 (in fact 182). 12. 1–9 is made up from de sent., de uirt. et uit., and Suidas, and concerns the death and character of Philopoemen; it must be from res Graeciae of Ol. 149, 2 = 183/2, which in this instance followed res Macedoniae. (12. 3–7 from de uirt. et uit. is excessively abbreviated but contains a sentence about Lycortas missing from de sent.) 13 on Hannibal (from Suidas and de uirt. et uit.) and 14 on Scipio (from de sent., de uirt. et uit., and Suidas) clearly link with Philopoemen's death. P. must have put all three deaths in the same year. Next follow three passages evidently from res Graeciae of this same [15]
year. 15. 1–3 (de sent.) condemning the destruction of trees and agricultural installations seems to be a criticism of Lycortas' ravaging of Messenia (cf. xxiv. 2. 3; Plut. Philop. 21. 1); 16. 1–13 (de legat. gent.) is on the capitulation of Messenia; and 17. 1–18. 5 (de legat. gent.) recounts the Roman reply to Achaean envoys and the Achaean readmission of Sparta. P.'s sequence is straightforward and consistent. A difficulty arises only because Livy, xxxix. 49–50, describes Philopoemen's death under A.U.C. 571 = 183, whereas P. puts it in Ol. 149, 2 = 183/2. The explanation is that Livy, who singled out the one most sensational incident from the war (cf. Livy, xxxix. 48. 6–49. 1), brought it forward into the previous consular year (183), so that it preceded the res Macedoniae of Ol. 149, 1 = 184/3 (Livy, xxxix. 53), whereas the corresponding passage in P. (7. 1–7) comes before Philopoemen's death. For detailed discussion of the chronology of the deaths of Philopoemen, Scipio, and Hannibal see the commentary on 12. 1– 14. 12. If Steph. Byz. s.v. Γαλάδραι should be emended to give a reference to book xxiii (Schweighaeuser, v. 59, would read Ι\?\ or Κ\?\ for \?\), this may come in the res Macedoniae of either Ol. 149, 1 or Ol. 149, 2 (see Büttner-Wobst, iv. 152 in app. crit.). Schweighaeuser (v. 54) attributes fg. 112 to res Asiae of Ol. 149, 2; it could refer to Pharnaces. 6. BOOK XXIV This probably contained the events of Ol. 149, 3 = 182/1 and Ol. 149, 4 = 181/0; see above, pp. 13–14. These extracts are from the Constantinian excerpts: de legat. gent.: 1. 1–7 (embassies at Rome: exc. 44—continuous with xxiii. 18. 5 and not distinguished from it in the manuscripts); 2. 1–5 (Peloponnesian affairs: exc. 45); 5. 1–8 (Eumenes' brothers in Rome: exc. 46); 6. 1–7 (Achaea and Ptolemy V: his death: exc. 47); 8. 1–10. 10 (the Achaeans and Rome: Callicrates: exc. 48); 10. 11–15 (same context: exc. 49); de legat. Rom.: 14. 1–15. 9 (war between Eumenes and Pharnaces: exc. 22); 15. 10–13 (same context: exc. 23); de uirt. et uit.: 7. 1–8 (Chaeron at Sparta: exc. 86); 11. 1–8 (comparison of Aristaenus and Philopoemen: exc. 87); de sent.: 3 (troubles in Crete: exc. 111); 12. 1– 13. 10 (comparison of Aristaenus and Philopoemen: exc. 112). The only relevant Polybian section of Livy is xl. 20. 1–24. 8 (A.U.C. 573 = 181), recording embassies to Rome, Philip's Thracian expedition and the murder of Demetrius. Livy has no Polybian section for A.U.C. 574 = 180. 1. 1–7 from de legat. gent. recounts the arrival in Rome and audience before the Senate of envoys from the Spartan exiles, Achaea, Eumenes, Ariarathes, and Pharnaces; Livy, xl. 20. 1– 4 [16]
describes the same occasion, mentioning Macedonian representatives as well. The context is clearly res Italiae of Ol. 149, 3 = 182/1 and the date winter 182/1. 2. 1–5, describing Achaean decisions following the return of envoys from Rome, must be from the res Graeciae of the same olympiad year (in fact 181). 3 (de sent.), on troubles in Crete, precedes a passage comparing Aristaenus and Philopoemen, which clearly arises out of a discussion of Achaean policy; and since Cretan affairs normally follow Achaean in any given olympiad year, this passage on Crete must be part of res Graeciae of at least the year before that of the Achaean discussions. Since these probably belong to Ol. 149, 4 = 181/0 (see below, pp. 18–19), 3 is likely to be from res Graeciae of Ol. 149, 3 = 182/1; but if 11–13 were to be postponed into book xxv, 3 might logically fall in Ol. 149, 4 = 181/0. 4, from Strabo (vii. 5. 1, C. 313), refers to Philip's ascent of Mt. Haemus in 181 (Livy, xl. 21. 2, 22. 5); but since Livy has no res Graeciae for this year, we lack even that indication whether P.'s res Macedoniae preceded or followed his res Graeciae for Ol. 149, 3 = 182/1, and so whether 4 should stand before or after 2. See xxiv. 1. 6 n. (If, as seems most likely, the Cretan chapters represented by 3 belong to this year, they will follow the Achaean (2), wherever the Macedonian go; Hultsch's order, putting 4 between 2 and 3, is unacceptable.) 5. 1–8, from de legat. gent., describing Eumenes' actions after a truce with Pharnaces and his brothers' reception at Rome, must be from res Italiae of Ol. 149, 4 = 181/0; their arrival back in Pergamum in spring 180 is recounted in 14. 4 (see p. 19). See BüttnerWobst, Beiträge, 14–15. 6. 1–7, from the same collection, describes Ptolemy V's offer of pentecontors to Achaea, the decision to send an embassy, and the news of his death. The latest Egyptian dating by Ptolemy Epiphanes (Tait, Greek Ostraca, Bodleian no. 96) is Pharmouthi 16 of year 25 = 20 May 180, and comes from Hermonthis (cf. Skeat, 32 n. 9); and Samuel, 139, calculates that, allowing three months for news of Epiphanes' death to get from Alexandria to Hermonthis in upper Egypt, this dating shows Epiphanes to have been still alive on, say, 20 February 180. Since the Canon gives him a reign of 24 years, thus putting his death in the course of his twentyfifth Egyptian year, he must have died between 20 February and 6 October 180 (the year end). So far no document warrants a closer dating. But the evidence seems to confirm that 6. 1–7 is from the res Graeciae of Ol. 149, 4 = 181/0, and refers to 180. 7. 1–8, from de uirt. et uit. and Suidas, concerns the demagogy of the Spartan Chaeron, who had been on an embassy to Rome the previous year (7. 1). If that embassy was the one in xxiii. 18. 4, 7. 1–8 is clearly part of res Graeciae of Ol. 149, 4 = 181/0. But in xxiii. 18. 4 Χαίρωνα was Schweighaeuser's emendation (following [17]
Reiske) of χάρωνα (Y); and P. Derow, Bowra Essays, 15 n. 1, would keep the manuscript reading, thus making the embassy mentioned here that of 184/3 (cf. xxiii. 4. 5), with the result that 7. 1–8 goes into the res Graeciae of 183/2. This is possible; but the emendation is a simple one and may well stand, Charon being otherwise unknown. The placing of this fragment will however be uncertain. 8. 1–10. 15, from de legat. gent., first describes Achaean deliberations on a letter brought back from Rome by the Spartan exiles. Aymard (études, 43–4) argues that this is the letter mentioned in 2. 1 and ignored after discussion in spring 181 (2. 5); but this need not be so, for Callicrates, speaking in Rome (9. 14), says: νῦν δὲ πάλιν ἐκ πλείονος χρόνου γραφόντων αὐτῶν ὑπὲρ τῆς καθόδου τῶν ἐκ Λακεδαίµονος φυγάδων, which suggests more than one communication. Hyperbatus is now general (8. 1) and Aymard (ibid.) argues that his strategia was in 181/0 and that, being pro-Roman, he will have raised the question of the letter immediately after entering office in autumn 181, only six months after the earlier discussion. Against this is the fact that the matter comes up in de legat. gent. after the account of the cancellation of the embassy to Ptolemy, following his death in 180 (6. 7); and though P. frequently has to revert to an earlier time within the olympiad year in passing from one theatre to another, this does not happen within the affairs of one area such as Achaea. Further, Errington has shown (263–4) that since Aratus was to have gone to Egypt (6. 6) and did go to Rome (8. 8), the second embassy must have been arranged after the first was cancelled. It follows that the discussion of the Roman letter under Hyperbatus took place, not in autumn 181, but after the news of Epiphanes' death in 180. This being so, a possible interpretation of the material is that Hyperbatus was general for 180/79 (not 181/0), that the letter was discussed as soon as he entered office and that the embassy went to Rome in autumn 180 and was heard at the usual time in winter 180/79; 8. 1–10. 15 would in that case form part of res Italiae of Ol. 150, 1 = 180/79. The order of the fragments would allow this, since the next excerpt in de legat. gent. is xxv. 2. 1–15 from the res Asiae of Ol. 150, 1 = 180/79; and the central feature of 8. 1–10. 15 is Callicrates' speech at Rome. This reconstruction (accepted by Nissen, Rh. Mus. 1871, 249; Niese, iii. 59 n. 1) implies putting Hyperbatus' strategia in 180/79, and that of Callicrates in 179/8 (10. 14); the general for 181/0 would be unknown. It is possible; but on balance it seems more likely that 8. 1–10. 15 forms part of res Graeciae of Ol. 149, 4 = 181/0, since 10. 14–15 seems to imply that Callicrates was made general soon after his return to Rome. Elsewhere embassies to Rome figure in res Graeciae: cf. xxi. 31. 3–32. 15; xxix. 10–11, in both of which passages the assignment to res Graeciae is confirmed by comparison with Livy. (In this P. retained a degree of [18]
flexibility; in xxx. 5. 2 ff. affairs of Rhodes and Caria are included in res Italiae.) The chronology will thus be as follows. Hyperbatus, as general for 181/0, raised the matter of the Spartan exiles in early summer 180, on the receipt of yet another letter from Rome; this was after news of Ptolemy's death had caused the cancellation of the mission to Egypt (6. 7). He either summoned a syncletos (xxiv. 8. 7 n.)—or possibly raised the matter at a regular synodos (cf. Errington, 264 n. 2)—and Callicrates, Lydiades, and Aratus were appointed envoys to Rome and left at once. There they were given an immediate hearing; this was unusual, but not unprecedented (cf. xxxii. 1. 4), and they had of course come in response to a Roman letter. They returned home the same autumn in time for Callicrates to be elected general for 180/79 (10. 14). One reason why P. dealt with this embassy under res Graeciae may have been that it fell in the middle of a consular year; for a parallel see xxi. 1 n. (One should, however, note that if new evidence from Egypt were to show that Epiphanes' death was so short a time before 6 October 180 as to leave no room for Callicrates' embassy to Rome before the Achaean elections in autumn 180, it would be necessary to revert to the theory that 8. 1–10. 15 is from the res Italiae of Ol. 150, 1 = 180/79, and falls in book xxv.) 11–13 (from de uirt. et uit., de sent., and Suidas) is a comparison between the policies of Philopoemen and Aristaenus; it does not indicate in what context P. introduced it. Since Philopoemen's death was in 182, that cannot have afforded the occasion; and Aristaenus' death (its date is unknown) seems an unlikely peg on which to hang it. It is perhaps most likely to have been introduced in relation to a discussion of Callicrates' methods; hence it stands in res Graeciae of Ol. 149, 4 = 181/0 (though if evidence from Egypt led to the postponement of 8. 1–10. 15 until book xxv (see above), 11–13 would also have to go into that book, probably as res Graeciae of Ol. 150, 1 = 180/79). 14. 1–15. 13 (from de legat. Rom.) describes the reopening of the war against Eumenes by Pharnaces in spring 180 before Eumenes' brothers returned from Rome (14. 4); soon afterwards the Roman envoys promised in 5. 8 arrive (14. 10, 15. 1). Clearly then 14. 1– 15. 13 is from res Asiae of Ol. 149, 4 = 181/0 (cf. Büttner-Wobst, Beiträge, 16–17; Steigemann, 43). 7. BOOK XXV For the likelihood that book xxv contained the history of Ol. 150 = 180/76 see above, pp. 13–14. These extracts are from the Constantinian excerpts: de legat. gent.: 2. 1–15 (end of war between Pharnaces and Eumenes: exc. 50); 4. 1–10 (Lycian embassy at Rome: [19]
exc. 51); 5. 1–5 (Rhodian decision to send an embassy to Rome about Lycia: exc. 52); 6. 1–6 (Rhodian and Dardanian envoys at Rome: exc. 53); de uirt. et uit.: 3. 1–8 (Perseus' new policy: exc. 88); 3. 9–10 (Philip's character: exc. 89). 2. 1–15, giving the terms of the settlement between Eumenes and Pharnaces and of the general peace in the area, follows xxiv. 8. 1– 10. 15 in de legat. gent. If, as seems likely (above, pp. 18–19), the latter passage is part of res Graeciae of Ol. 149, 4 = 181/0, its position in the excerpts would allow 2. 1–15 to form part of res Asiae of Ol. 149, 4 = 181/0, or Ol. 150, 1 = 180/79, or Ol. 150, 2 = 179/8, since the next passage in de legat. gent. (4. 1–10) is firmly placed in Ol. 150, 3 = 178/7 (see below, pp. 21–2). It seems likely that the general peace mentioned in 2. 1–15 was followed at no great interval by the treaty between Pharnaces and Chersonese recorded in IPE i2. 402, and dated by the oath sworn in the month Daisios of year 157 καθὼς βασιλεὺς Φαρνάκ[ης] ἄγει (11. 29–31). By the time of Pharnaces' son, Mithridates V Euergetes, Pontus was using an era dating from 296 (cf. Diehl, RE, 'Pharnakes (1)', col. 1850); whereas that used in IPE i2. 402 must be calculated from the accession of Mithridates II to the throne of Cius, which according to Diod. xvi. 90. 2 took place in the Attic year 337/6. R. C. Loeper (cf. Diehl, RE, 'Pharnakes (1)', col. 1850) dated this era from October 337, and if Daisios is May, Pharnaces' oath would be May 180 (if year 1 is 337/6, year 157 will be 181/0, not 180/79 as Rostovtzeff, CAH, ix. 217 f. states; so too Magie, ii. 1090 n. 45, and Latyschev, IPE i2. 402, 'annum 157 cadere . . . in annum 179 a. Chr.'). A date for this treaty in May 180 would perhaps allow 2. 1–15 to stand in Ol. 149, 4 = 181/0. But we cannot be certain from which month of the Attic year 337/6 the Pontic era began, and if it began late in that year, the treaty of IPE i2. 402 may indeed belong to 179. In favour of this (and the placing of 2. 1–15 in Ol. 150, 1 = 180/79) is the fact that after the breakdown of the talks in 180 (xxiv. 15. 12), the Roman envoys left Pergamum and Eumenes prepared to continue the war (xxiv. 15. 12). It seems unlikely that the consequent Pergamene attack can have developed enough to induce Pharnaces to be ready to make peace at any price (2. 1) before the next olympiad year (Ol. 150, 1 = 180/79). Hence, it seems preferable to leave 2. 1–15 where it stands (with a caveat). In view of the date of IPE i2. 402, it can hardly belong to Ol. 150, 2 = 179/8. Niese (iii. 78 n. 1) leaves 2. 1–15 in book xxv, and assumes that the peace was in autumn 180 (so too Diehl, RE, 'Pharnakes (1)', col. 1849); this is possible. See further Büttner-Wobst, Beiträge, 17; Steigemann, 43. 1. 1–2 (Strabo, iii. 4. 13, C. 163), recording Ti. Gracchus' exaggerated description of Spanish forts as cities, refers to events of Ol. 150, 1 = 180/79, since Livy, xl. 47. 1 shows Gracchus to have been propraetor [20]
in Spain in A.U.C. 575 = 179. As Diod. xxix. 26 is probably following P. in praising Gracchus' vigour, it is likely that P. recorded his campaigns under res Hispaniae of this year. However, Schulten (Hermes, 1911, 573) has shown convincingly that Strabo mentioned P. here in the context of Poseidonius' polemic, and that whether he took the Polybian reference from Poseidonius, who, since he opened his History with the year 144, can only have handled events of 179 in a geographical excursus (which in fact will have drawn on P.'s book xxxiv), or had it direct from P. (whom in book iii he quotes only from book xxxiv and not from the Histories generally), in either case, the implication is that 1. 1–2 belongs to book xxxiv, where P. discusses the towns of Celtiberia (cf. xxxiv. 9. 13).1 It is clear from the Polybian section of Livy, xl. 54. 1–58. 9, that Philip V died in 179 and that P. must have described his death under Ol. 150, 1 = 180/79. Livy (cf. Walbank, Philip, 295–9) suggests that it occurred late in 179 (though the words Demetriade hibernabat, Livy, xl. 54. 2, refer to winter 180/79, and have no relevance to the time of his death, as De Sanctis, iv. 1. 254 n. 28 imagined). Consequently, the account of Perseus' new policy in 3. 1–8 (from de uirt. et uit. with Suidas at 3. 1–2 and Athen. x. 445 at 3. 6–8: for the false attribution to book xxvi see above, p. 14) must come under res Macedoniae of Ol. 150, 2 = 179/8. Winter 179/8 would be appropriate for the renewal of friendship with Rome (3. 1). 3. 9–10 on Philip's character is the next excerpt in de uirt. et uit. and probably belongs to a comparison with his successor Perseus. 4. 1–10, 5. 1–5, and 6. 1–6 follow in succession in de legat. gent. The first describes the arrival of Lycian envoys at Rome and their hearing ἤδη τῆς θερείας ληγούσης (4. 2), the second the arrival of Roman envoys at Rhodes, to convey the Senate's decision following the Lycian embassy, and the third the arrival at Rome of the Rhodian embassy decided upon in 5. 4. These three excerpts must come from res Italiae, res Asiae, and res Italiae respectively, and a reference to the consuls of A.U.C. 577 = 177 (4. 1) seems to establish these as being the res Italiae of 178/7 (4. 1–10), the res Asiae of the same year (5. 1–5), and the res Italiae of 177/6 (6. 1–6). There is however a difficulty, since this implies that the late summer of 4. 2 ('after the expedition of the consuls . . . against the Istrians and Agrians') is summer 177; and this leaves insufficient time for the sending of an embassy to Rhodes, its hearing and the dispatch of Lycophron to Rome, where he has audience in Ol. 150, 4 = 177/6, i.e. probably at the beginning of the consular year 176. It has, therefore, been cogently argued by P. Derow (Phoenix, 1973, 350 ff.) that the names of the consuls of 177 have been incorrectly inserted by the excerptor at 4. 1, and that the Lycian envoys were in fact heard at the end of [21]
1
On Strabo's debt to P. in book iii see Pédech, Méthode, 579 n. 362.
summer 178 (cf. Livy, xli. 6. 8–12, who dates their audience before the consular elections for 177; Nissen, KU, 239–40, rejects Livy's details as annalistic and improbable, but thinks the date may well be right); see ad loc. for full discussion. In any event, the assignment of the three fragments is unaltered. The arrival of the Rhodian and Dardanian envoys (6. 1–6), described under res Italiae of Ol. 150, 4 = 177/6), will be at the end of 177; see Meloni, Perseo, 81. 8. BOOK XXVI This book, which was lost before 950, contained Ol. 151 = 176/2; see above, pp. 13–14. Athen. x. 445 is incorrectly attributed to book xxvi (see p. 14); but Athen. x. 439 and v. 193 both belong there and come from a discussion of the character of Antiochus IV, on which Diodorus (xxix. 32) and Livy (xli. 20) also draw. Since this section of Livy is under A.U.C. 579 = 175, and since Diodorus, loc. cit. relates his account to Antiochus' accession, which was in 175 (see 1 a 1 n.), both fragments will be from res Asiae of Ol. 151, 1 = 176/5, the first year covered in the book. 9. BOOK XXVII Three excerpts, 1. 1 (de legat. gent.), 3. 1 (de legat. Rom.), and 12. 1 (de uirt. et uit.) contain statements in the manuscripts that they are from book xxvii; and a comparison of the first and second of these with Livy, xlii. 43. 4 and xlii. 45. 1–2 (A.U.C. 583 = 171), and of the third with Livy, xlii. 67. 3 (part of the same Polybian narrative), shows that book xxvii contained Ol. 152, 1 = 172/1 (see above, pp. 13–14). Athen. x. 440 attributes to book xxix statements about Genthius which Livy, xliv. 30. 2 (following P.) places in A.U.C. 586 = 168. This gives the following arrangement: Ol. 152, 1 = 172/1 Ol. 152, 2 = 171/0 Ol. 152, 3 = 170/69 Ol. 152, 4 = 169/8
Book xxvii
Book xxix
This leaves uncertain whether xxvii contained Ol. 152, 1 and Ol. 152, 2 and xxviii Ol. 152, 3, or whether xxvii contained only Ol. 152, 1 and xxviii Ol. 152, 2 and Ol. 152, 3. BüttnerWobst has assumed the first alternative to be the right one; and it may seem more likely that as the war with Perseus developed events expanded to fill more space,1 and even that the arrangement 2:1:1 is more probable than 1:2:1 (though as Ol. 144 has 1:1:2 and Ol. 147 has 1:3, this is not to be pressed). However, probability is not proof, and we do not [22]
1
This seems to exclude the possibility that there was one year each in xxvii and xxviii, and Ol. 152, 3 and 4 in xxix.
know whether the events in 14. 1–20. 3 were in fact in xxvii or xxviii. In the state of uncertainty, they are perhaps best left as BüttnerWobst has them. These extracts are from the Constantinian excerpts: de legat. gent.: 1. 1–2. 12 (events in Boeotia: exc. 54); 4. 1–10 (Perseus and Rhodes: exc. 55); 5. 1–8 (Perseus and Boeotia: exc. 56); 6. 1–4 (same topic: exc. 57); 8. 1–15 (Perseus asks for peace: exc. 58); 14. 1–3 (Perseus' envoy in Rhodes: exc. 59); 19. 1–2 (war between Antiochus and Ptolemy: exc. 60); de legat. Rom.: 3. 1–5 (Rhodian support for Rome: exc. 24); 7. 1–16 (attitudes at Rhodes: exc. 25); de uirt. et uit.: 12. 1–3 (on Cotys: exc. 90); 13. 1–4 (Ptolemy, the Egyptian commander in Cyprus: exc. 91); 15. 1–16 (Cephalus of Epirus driven to join Perseus: exc. 92); 16. 1–6 (attempt to seize the consul, A. Hostilius: exc. 93); 17 (Pharnaces: exc. 94); 18. 1–3 (Attalus' approach to the Achaeans: exc. 95); de sent.: 9. 1–10. 5 (Perseus' position in Greece: exc. 113); 20. 1–2 (remarks about war: exc. 114); 20. 3 (difficulty in attaining to τὰ καλά: exc. 115). Livy, xlii. 29–30 and xliii. 37–67 seem to derive from parts of P. falling within Ol. 152, 1 = 171; but owing to the fragmentary nature of the text of Livy, no sections of it derived from P. have survived for the year 170. 1. 1–2. 12 follows xxv. 6. 6 in de legat. gent. (where it is attributed to xxvii: see p. 22) and corresponds to a section of Livy xlii. 43–44, a passage dealing with the relations between Rome and Boeotia and dated to 171. Two chapters later Livy (xlii. 45. 1) records the visit of Roman envoys to Rhodes, and this corresponds to 3. 1–5, from de legat. Rom.; but in xlii. 46 Livy returns to events of the same year in Greece, which means that 1. 1–2. 12 cannot be res Graeciae and 3. 1–5 res Asiae of Ol. 152, 1 = 172/1. Either P. treated the war with Perseus as a single whole (so Büttner-Wobst, who classifies all these fragments under 'Bellum Persicum') or, more probably, he here reckons the affairs of Rhodes as res Graeciae (and draws no clear distinction between res Graeciae and res Macedoniae). The following fragments fall into place when compared with Livy, viz.: 4. 1–10, cf. Livy, xlii. 46. 1–6; 5. 1– 8, cf. Livy, xlii. 46. 7–10; 6. 1–4, cf. Livy, xlii. 48. 1–4 (followed by fg. 234; cf. Livy, xlii. 49. 2); 7. 1–16, cf. Livy, xlii. 48. 9–10 (or 56. 1); 8. 1–15, cf. Livy, xlii. 62. 3–15; 9. 1–10. 5 (also in Suidas), cf. Livy, xlii. 63. 1–2 (omitting most of the Polybian original); 11. 1–7 (from Suidas), cf. Livy, xlii. 65. 9. (For the collections from which these fragments come see above.) 12. 1–3 (from de uirt. et uit.) follows xxv. 3. 9–10 in that collection, and is said in the margin to be from book xxvii. It is usually placed after 11. 1–7, by comparison with Livy, xlii. 67. 3; but Livy says nothing there on Cotys' character, and such remarks will have come more appropriately earlier, either in a section corresponding to Livy, xlii. 29. 12 where, under A.U.C. 583 = 171, Cotys' support of Perseus [23]
is mentioned (so Reiske), or, more probably, in one corresponding to Livy, xlii. 51. 10, 'uenerat eodem [sc. to Citium] Cotys, Seuthis filius, rex gentis Odrysarum, cum mille delectis equitibus, pari ferme peditum numero'; this is Cotys' first appearance, and judging by Livy, he received a full introduction. In that case 12. 1–3 is from the passage describing the gathering of the Macedonian army at Citium which preceded the account of the sending of the letter to Rhodes (7. 1–16), since that corresponds to Livy, xlii. 56. 1 (see below, xxvii. 7. 1–16 n.); it will stand between 6. 4 and 7. 1. 13. 1–4 (which follows 12. 1–3 in de uirt. et uit.) concerns the Egyptian commander in Cyprus, and, as it precedes 15. 1–16 (see below), it must be from res Aegypti of Ol. 152, 1 = 172/1. 14. 1–2 follows 8. 15 and precedes 19. 1–2 (on the war between Ptolemy and Antiochus) in the excerpts de legat. gent. The cessation of activity against the Romans mentioned in 14. 1 will be a reference to Perseus' retirement to Macedonia at the end of the campaigning season of 171. BüttnerWobst puts it early in the res Graeciae et Macedoniae (he says bellum Persicum) of Ol. 152, 2 = 171/0; in that case it may well, though it need not necessarily, precede the account of the events leading up to the attack on the consul A. Hostilius in Epirus (15. 1–16. 6). But it could be a pendant to events in the same theatre in Ol. 152, 1 = 172/1, in which case it would stand after 11. 7. As indicated above (p. 22), the fragments relating to Ol. 152, 2 = 171/0 may belong to book xxviii. 15. 1–16 and 16. 1–6 follow 13. 4 (in that order) in de uirt. et uit.; and 15. 6 is also in Suidas. As they concern the war with Perseus and as the next passage in this collection concerns Pharnaces and is therefore from res Asiae (17) they must be part of the res Graeciae et Macedoniae of Ol. 152, 2 = 171/0; A. Hostilius (16. 2) is the consul for A.U.C. 584 = 170. 17, as already noted, is from res Asiae (of Ol. 152, 2 = 171/0) and precedes (in de uirt. et uit.) 18. 1–3, which mentions an approach to some Achaeans by Attalus, and xxviii. 14. 1–4, a passage on Crete, which can be assigned to Ol. 152, 3 = 170/69 (see below, p. 26), in that order. Attalus was operating from Elatea, and there is no reason to put 18. 1–3 under res Asiae (as Büttner-Wobst does); and since Attalus and Eumenes returned to Pergamum in autumn 171 and wintered there 171/0 (Livy, xlii. 67. 8), the winter mentioned here (18. 1) must be that of 170/69. In that case, 18. 1–3 will stand early among the res Graeciae et Macedoniae of Ol. 152, 3 = 170/69, between xxviii. 2. 8 and xxviii. 3. 1. 19. 1–2, on the sending of Meleager to Rome by Antiochus, follows 14. 1–3 and precedes xxviii. 1. 1–9 (describing the arrival of these and other envoys at Rome) in the excerpts de legat. gent. The likelihood is that xxviii. 1. 1–9 is from res Italiae of Ol. 152, 3 = 170/69, and 19. 1–2 part of res Asiae of Ol. 152, 2 = 171/0 (as Büttner-Wobst [24]
places them); Meleager's embassy is then in winter 170/69. But if 14. 1–3 was a pendant to res Macedoniae of Ol. 152, 1 = 172/1 (above, p. 24), then 19. 1–2 could be from res Asiae of that year (with this order of fragments: 11. 7, 14. 1–3, 19. 1–2, 13. 1–4), and xxviii. 1. 1–9 could be from res Italiae of Ol. 152, 2 = 171/0, standing between 13. 4 and 15. 1 of book xxvii. For this dating see E. Bikerman, Chron. d' égypte, 1952, 398 n. 1. Though consistent with the position of the fragments, it has to be discarded for two reasons: (a) It would imply that a war that was being prepared in 171 and (cf. xxviii. 1. 1) had already broken out by the late winter of 171/0 left no trace of any action before 169; which is absurd. (b) The senate's statement to Meleager that they would send instructions about writing to Ptolemy to Q. Marcius Philippus (xxviii. 1. 9) suggests that he was, or was soon to be, in the east; and this could only (at that time) be as legatus in 171 (cf. Livy, xlii. 47. 9). This would imply that the embassies were heard in early autumn 171 in time for a letter to go to Marcius before his return to Italy (since there is no evidence that he stayed on in Greece into 170). If Meleager's embassy was in winter 170/69, Marcius could receive the instructions (perhaps before leaving Rome) as consul fro 169. 20. 1–2 and 20. 3 follow 10. 5 (Ol. 152, 1 = 172/1) and precede xxviii. 10. 1–2 (from res Graeciae et Macedoniae of Ol. 152, 3 = 170/69) in de sent. They have been placed where they stand as belonging to the war between Antiochus and Ptolemy; but the very general sententious reflections contained in them could come from almost any context, including the war against Perseus. Their proper place must therefore remain uncertain; nor can we say whether they belong to book xxvii or book xxviii. 10. BOOK XXVIII Whether this book contained the events of Ol. 152, 2 and 3, or merely those of Ol. 152, 3 is uncertain (see pp. 22–23); but the latter assumption (which is Büttner-Wobst's) is slightly more probable, and therefore it may be made as a working hypothesis. These extracts are from the Constantinian excerpts: de legat. gent.: 1. 1–9 (embassies from Antiochus and Ptolemy: exc. 61); 2. 1–8 (envoys from Rhodes: exc. 62); 5. 1–6 (debate in Acarnania: exc. 63); 8. 1–11 (Perseus and Genthius: exc. 64); 9. 1–8 (same topic: exc. 65); 12. 1–13. 14 (Polybius sent to the consul: exc. 66); 15. 1–3 (Cydonia and Eumenes: exc. 67); 16. 1–17. 15 (Rhodian affairs: exc. 68); 19. 1–7 (envoys to Antiochus: exc. 69); 20. 1–13 (same topic: exc. 70); 22. 1–3 (Syrian envoys to Rome: exc. 71); 23. 1–5 (Rhodian envoys to Antiochus: exc. 72); de legat. Rom.: 3. 1–4. 13 (Romans in Achaea and Aetolia: exc. 26); 6. 1–7. 15 (Achaean policy towards [25]
Rome, Perseus, and Eumenes: exc. 26 cont.); de uirt. et uit.: 14. 1–4 (Cydoniate treachery towards Apollonia: exc. 96); 18. 1 (remark on Antiochus: exc. 97; said in the margin of P to be from book xxviii); de sent.: 10. 1–2 (Perseus blames his general: exc. 116); 13. 9–10 (P. as envoy: exc. 117); 21. 1–5 (Eulaeus persuades Ptolemy to flee: exc. 118). Livy, xliii. 17–23 and xliv. 1–13 are from P. and, placed by Livy under 169, seem to represent the Polybian account of the war with Perseus in Ol. 152, 3 = 170/69. 8. 1–11 and 9. 1–8 (from de legat. gent.) correspond to Livy, xliii. 19. 13–20. 4 and 23. 8 (though Livy omits most of the contents of 9. 1–8); hence the three previous excerpts in de legat. gent. will go: (a) 1. 1–9 and 2. 1–8 in res Italiae of Ol. 152, 3 = 170/69; (b) 5. 1–6, which corresponds to Livy, xliii. 17. 7–9, in an earlier part of the section on the war with Perseus (as before—see p. 23—P. continues to run res Graeciae and res Macedoniae together). Since 3. 1–4. 13 (from de legat. Rom.) corresponds to Livy, xliii. 17. 2–6, it must immediately precede 5. 1–6. For the argument that xxvii. 18. 1–3 on Attalus' approach to the Achaeans in winter 170/69 belongs before 3 see p. 24. Livy also enables the following passages to be set in order: 10. 1–2 (de sent.) = Livy, xliv. 7. 8–9; 11. 1–2 (Suidas) = Livy, xliv. 9. 8–9 (on the testudo); 11. 3 (Suidas) from the same context (cf. Livy, xliv. 9. 3 and 6)—but the Livian version suggests that it more properly precedes 11. 1–2. If fg. 66 corresponds to Livy, xliv. 10. 10, it will stand here. 6. 1–7. 15, on Achaean policy, has no corresponding passage in Livy; however, it mentions Archon's entry into office as general for 170/69 (6. 9), and clearly precedes the next passage dealing with Achaea (12. 1–13. 14, from de legat. gent. with an overlap in de sent.), and its position seems assured since (a) the first sentence (6. 1) seems to refer to the Roman embassy, whose movements are recorded in 3–5; (b) in the de legat. Rom. it forms a continuous passage with 3. 1– 4. 13, except that at 6. 1 there is a jumbled sentence containing a reference to Acarnania, which clearly has to do with the section 5. 1–6, omitted from this selection. 12. 1–13. 14 (on P.'s embassy to the consul) is part of res Graeciae et Macedoniae, but P. has dealt with it towards the end of his account of the season's events. 14. 1–4 and 15. 1–3 both concern Cydonia in Crete; the former follows xxvii, 18. 1–3 (from res Asiae of Ol. 152, 2 = 171/0) in de uirt. et uit. Since Cretan affairs come before res Asiae in any year, 14. 1–4 must belong to xxviii, despite the fact that the next excerpt (18. 1) has a marginal note λο κη, which might suggest that it was the first passage taken from book xxviii. 15. 1–3 precedes 16. 1–17. 15 in de legat. gent. and is probably rightly placed after rather than before 14. 1–4, since the attack on Apollonia is less likely [26]
to have happened once Cydonia was in the hands of the Pergamene general Leon (15. 3). 16. 1–17. 15, on Rhodian affairs, follows 15. 1–3 in de legat. gent.; as in 12. 1–13. 14 the reference to Q. Marcius Philippus (cos. 169) confirms the passage as belonging to Ol. 152, 3 = 170/69. It describes the departure from Rhodes of the envoys (16. 5) whose audience at Rome had already been described (cf. 2. 1–2); but although it records the interview given by the consul to Rhodian envoys in Macedon, the passage mainly concerns Rhodes. In this instance Rhodian affairs seem to be treated as res Graeciae (which are not clearly separated from res Macedoniae during the war with Perseus); but the mention of an embassy to Alexandria in 17. 15 marks a transition to the war between Antiochus and Ptolemy. 19. 1–7, 20. 1–13, 22. 1–3, and 23. 1–5 are from de legat. gent. (in that order) and all concern that war; since the next passage in that collection, xxix. 3. 1–4. 10, belongs to res Graeciae et Macedoniae of Ol. 152, 4 = 168 (cf. Livy, xliv. 23), all four must be from book xxviii, since they are from res Asiae or res Aegypti (however events of this war are classed). 18. 1, from de uirt. et uit. (with the marginal note assigning it to book xxviii: above, p. 26), concerns Antiochus' character, and corresponds to Diod. xxx. 18. 1 (from the same excerpts); the obscure reference to Pelusium is clarified in Diod. xxx. 18. 2 (from de sent.), which shows that the fragment of P. under consideration stands correctly before 19. 1–7. 21. 1–5 (from de sent.), criticizing Eulaeus for persuading Ptolemy to abandon Egypt, corresponds to Diod. xxx. 17; and since Diod. xxx. 17 and 18. 1, based on P. (cf. Schwartz, RE, 'Diodoros', cols. 689–90), stand in that order in the excerpts de uirt. et uit., it is reasonable to conclude that the corresponding passages in P. were in the same order, and so that 21. 1–5 preceded 18 (cf. Mørkholm, 75 n. 45).1 This is more satisfactory than BüttnerWobst's arrangement, which involves putting the account of Eulaeus' advice (21. 1–5) after the council led by the new advisers Comanus and Cineas has resolved to approach Antiochus for terms 9. 1–7). 11. BOOK XXIX This book contained Ol. 152, 4 = 169/8 (see above, p. 22). These extracts are from the Constantinian excerpts: de legat. gent.: 3. 1– 4. 10 (Genthius joins Perseus: exc. 73); 10. 1–7 (Rhodian decision to mediate: exc. 74); 11. 1–6 (Genthius' envoys at Rhodes: exc. 75); 19. 1– 11 (Rhodian envoys at Rome: exc. 76); 23. 1–24. 16 [27]
1
It is true that Diod. xxxi. 1 and 12 (both from de sent.) correspond to xxix. 26 and 22 (from the same excerpts) respectively; but different areas appear to be involved, and Diodorus has evidently rearranged his material.
(Egyptian appeal to Achaea: exc. 77); 25. 1–7 (same topic: exc. 78); de legat. Rom.: 2. 1–4 (Senate sends C. Popillius to Antiochus: exc. 27); 27. 1–13 (Popillius meets Antiochus: exc. 28); de sent.: 1. 1–3 (speech of Aemilius Paullus: exc. 119); 5. 1–3 (Perseus and Eumenes: exc. 120); 6. 1–9. 13 (same topic: exc. 121); 12. 1–12 (on writing history: exc. 122); 17. 2 (unsuccessful devices: exc. 123); 20. 1–4 (Aemilius Paullus' speech on Perseus' defeat: exc. 124); 21. 1–9 (reflections on Perseus' fall; exc. 125); 22. 1–5 (Galatians attack Eumenes: exc. 126); 26. 1–2 (Antiochus prepares to attack Ptolemy: exc. 127). 13. 1–2 (from Athen. x. 440), on Genthius' crimes, mentions book xxix; 14. 1–3, 15. 1–3, and 18 are from Plut. Aem. 15, 16, and 19 respectively; and several extracts from Suidas can be shown to belong to this book. Livy, xliv. 23 (or 22)–46 and xlv. 3. 3–12. 8, covering events of A.U.C. 586 = 168, are based on P.'s account of Ol. 152, 4 = 169/8. Whether or no Livy, xliv. 22 is partly Polybian (so Nissen), 1. 1–3 (from de sent.) clearly corresponds in substance to Livy, xliv. 22. 8 ff. and so belongs to the res Italiae of Ol. 152, 4 = 169/8. 2. 1–4 (de legat. Rom.), on the dispatch of C. Popillius to Antiochus, is also from the same res Italiae; and since 2. 4 indicates a transition to another theatre (see ad loc.), 2. 1–4 must follow 1. 1–3. For the war with Perseus Livy, who uses P., provides a useful framework, which gives this order of fragments: 3. 1–4. 10 (de legat. gent.) = Livy, xliv. 23. 1–10; 5. 1–9. 13 (de sent.) = Livy, xliv. 24. 9–26. 2. 11. 1–6 (from de legat. gent.) corresponds to Livy, xliv. 29. 6–8; hence, although Livy has nothing corresponding to 10. 1–7, the order of the excerpts in de legat. gent. warrants placing that fragment where it now stands. (Ullrich, 65, adduces no good reason for reversing the order of 10 and 11.) Livy has omitted the Rhodian decision to offer mediation (10. 1–7) because he takes up Rhodian affairs only with the arrival at Rhodes of Macedonian and Illyrian envoys (Livy, xliv. 29. 6). 13. 1–2 (from Athen.) corresponds to Livy, xliv. 30. 2–5, and 14. 1–3 (from Plut. Aem. 15) to Livy, xliv. 35. 14 (though Livy gives less detail). Mueller may well be right in his suggestion that fg. 221 (Suidas) should stand between 13. 2 and 14. 1 (cf. Livy, xliv. 35. 2). Continuing, 14. 4 (Suidas) = Livy, xliv. 35. 19, and 16. 1–3 (Suidas), on the lunar eclipse, = Livy, xliv. 37. 9. Since 15. 1–3 (Plut. Aem. 16) precedes the eclipse (Plut. Aem. 17) in Plutarch, if it is to be treated as a fragment of P., it stands correctly where it is. 17. 1–4 and 18 concern the battle of Pydna; 17. 1, 17. 3, and 17. 4 are from Suidas, 17. 2 from de sent. and 18 from Plut. Aem. 19. 2. Of these 17. 3, 17. 4, and 18 seem to be from the same context (cf. οὐχ ὑπέµεινε τῇ ψυχῇ in 17. 3 and 17. 4, and ἀποδειλιᾶν in 17. 3 and 18), viz. Perseus' flight from the field. According to Plutarch this occurred at the beginning of the battle, though in the next chapter [28]
(Plut. Aem. 19), he quotes Poseidonius' divergent account; but when the Macedonian line broke, it was from Pydna that Perseus fled to Pella (Plut. Aem. 23. 1), as Livy (xliv. 42. 1–2) also records. It thus appears that P. recorded Perseus' withdrawal from the battle in a passage which Livy transcribed in that part of his narrative covered by the lacuna (Livy, xliv. 40. 10– 41. 1); and since 17. 2 corresponds to Livy, xliv. 41. 4, it follows that the order of the fragments should be: 17. 1, 17. 3, 17. 4, 18, 17. 2. 12. 1–12 stands between 9. 13 and 17. 2 in the excerpts de sent.; between 9. 13 and 12. 1 a page has been lost from M, but it is clear that 12. 1–12 represents a separate excerpt. The first words, πάλιν ἕτεροι περὶ τοῦ Συριακοῦ πολέµου, suggest that there has just been a reference to some other writers of monographs; and the position of the excerpt in the collection suggests that these were monographs on the war with Perseus. But the exact position of the fragment relative to the others dealing with this war cannot be determined. Hultsch, following Casaubon and Nissen (KU, 267), inserted after 18 a fragment from Suidas s.v. πρωτόπειρος, as being the equivalent of Livy, xliv. 44. 3 (cf. Diod. xxx. 22); Dindorf and Büttner-Wobst regard it as non-Polybian. Neither vocabulary nor diction seems inconsistent with P.'s style and its provenance should be left open. If it is Polybian, it comes between 17. 2 and 19. 1 (17. 2 being placed after 18: see above). 19. 1–11 (de legat. gent.) corresponds to Livy, xlv. 3. 3–8, and though it records the reception of Rhodian envoys at Rome it stands correctly where it has been placed, as part of the res Graeciae et Macedoniae (cf. Walbank, Yale Stud. 1975, 209); for though P. is willing to reverse the chronological order to maintain the separate 'theatres of action' (as when Rhodian envoys are heard at Rome in xxviii. 2 but do not leave Rhodes until xxviii. 16. 5–9), he could hardly have recounted the Rhodian interview in 168 before the battle on which its whole point depended. 20. 1–4 (de sent.) corresponds to Livy, xlv. 8. 6–7, which assures its position; and it should probably be preceded by fg. 74 (Suidas), mentioning the sending of a lictor to conduct Perseus to the consul (cf. Livy, xlv. 7. 4). 21. 1–9, which follows 20. 1–4 in de sent., was perhaps part of a general sketch of Macedonian history represented by Livy, xlv. 9. 2–7 (see further below, xxix. 21 n.). 22. 1–5 and 26. 1–2, on Eumenes' affairs and Antiochus' preparations for a renewal of the war respectively, come from the excerpts de sent. and must belong to res Asiae of Ol. 152, 4 = 169/8. Since Schweighaeuser, editors have inserted between them two fragments from de legat. gent., 23. 1–24. 16 and 25. 1–7, on an Egyptian appeal to Achaea for help against Antiochus; but the scene is Achaea, and it is more likely that they are from res Graeciae and therefore must come before 22. 1–5. Since they follow 19. 1–11 in de legat. gent., [29]
they cannot precede P.'s account of the war against Perseus, and should probably go after 21. 9. 27. 1–13 (de legat. Rom.) describes the famous episode when C. Popillius drew a circle round Antiochus; it corresponds to Livy xlv. 12. 3–8 and must stand here in res Aegypti. In the manuscripts it is followed by the phrase τέλος τοῦ λου λόγου, indicating not that this fragment belongs to book xxx (so Steigemann, 43–5), but that de legat. Rom. contains no fragments from that book. Büttner-Wobst adduces the parallel example at the end of book xxxviii, where the same excerpts have the phrase τέλος τῆς πολυβίου ἱστορίας (xxxviii. 13. 9). Further proof that 27. 1–13 is from book xxix is adduced by Koperberg, 94, who observes that Diod. xxxi. 2 (de sent.) corresponds to xxix. 27 and Diod. xxxi. 5. 2 (de sent.) to xxx. 4. 7 (note the reference to the swan-song); since, however, Diodorus is following P. and since the second passage is from res Italiae of Ol. 153, 1 = 168/7, the order of the fragments supports (without proving) the placing of xxix. 27 in Ol. 152, 4 = 169/8. 12. BOOK XXX xxxiii. 1. 1, from the excerpts de legat. gent., is attributed to that book in the margin of the manuscripts, and in xxxiii. 1. 5 A. Postumius Albinus is praetor; since his praetorship fell in the consulship of P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica and M. Claudius Marcellus (Cic. Acad. ii. 137), book xxxiii evidently contained Ol. 156, 1 = 156/5 (since this would be equated with the consulship of A.U.C. 599 = 155). It has already been established (above, p. 22) that book xxix contained Ol. 152, 4 = 169/8. Consequently, since P. nowhere in the main part of his Histories covers more than one olympiad in a single book, it seems likely that book xxx contained Ol. 153 = 168/4, book xxxi Ol. 154 = 164/0, and book xxxii Ol. 155 = 160/56. Analysis of the fragments confirms this hypothesis. These extracts are from the Constantinian excerpts: de legat. gent.: 1. 1–5. 16 (Attalus and Rhodians at Rome: exc. 79); 13. 1–11 (Greek embassies to the Romans in Macedonia: exc. 80); 16. 1–2 (the Ptolemies send an envoy to Rome: exc. 81); 17. 1–4 (Cotys' envoys at Rome: exc. 82); 18. 1–19. 17 (Prusias and Eumenes at Rome: exc. 83); 20. 1–7 (Athenian requests at Rome: exc. 84); 21. 1–5 (Rhodian and other envoys at Rome: exc. 85); 23. 1–4 (Cretan affairs: Rhodians send envoys to Rome: exc. 86); 27. 1–4 (Ti. Gracchus reaches Antiochus: exc. 87); 28 (Galatian audience at Rome: exc. 88); 29. 1 (dislike of Callicrates in Greece: exc. 89); 30. 1– 31. 20 (embassies at Rome: exc. 90); 32. 1–12 (Achaean embassy at Rome: exc. 91). (30. 7–8 stands after 32. 10 in the manuscripts; it was transposed by Schweighaeuser and subsequent editors have concurred (contra Koperberg, 85–86).) de uirt. et uit.: 6. 1–9. 21 (Greek [30]
opponents of Rome: exc. 98); 11. 1–6 (chaos in Aetolia: exc. 99); 12. 1–3 (also in Epirus: exc. 100); 29. 2–7 (Callicrates and his followers hated: exc. 101); de sent.: 4. 16–17 (part of the passage given in de legat. gent.: exc. 128); 5. 3 (the same: exc. 129); 10. 1–2 (an example of Tyche: exc. 130); 14 (a saying of Aemilius Paullus: exc. 131); 20. 8–9 (result for Athens of receiving Lemnos: exc. 132); 24. 1–2 (behaviour in Peraea on liberation: exc. 133). A framework is given by the excerpts de legat. gent., which contain sections from res Italiae of four separate years (since they are separated by events from other areas); these need not be, but in fact are, from four successive years. 1. 1–5. 16 (Attalus and Rhodians at Rome) corresponds to Livy, xlv. 19–25 (basically Polybian, but with annalistic or Livian versions of the Rhodian speeches); Livy's date, A.U.C. 587 = 167 points to Ol. 153, 1 = 168/7 for the fragment of P. Two passages (4. 16–17 and 5. 3) are also in de sent. where they follow xxix. 26. 2. 6. 1–9. 21, on the behaviour in adversity of three classes of antiRoman Greek statesmen, follows xxviii. 18 in the excerpts de uirt. et uit., and some scholars have wished to locate it in book xxix (Metzung, 7–8; van Gelder, Rhodier, 153 n. 1; Koperberg, 88). But its context is the behaviour of Deinon and Polyaratus of Rhodes after Perseus' defeat (6. 1, 7. 1), the war is over (7. 3), Polyaratus has had time to flee to Egypt (9. 2) and have other adventures (9. 2– 19). The fragment must therefore be retained in the res Graeciae of Ol. 153, 1 = 168/7. But Livy has no corresponding passage, and it remains uncertain whether it followed P.'s account of the reaction at Rhodes to news of the senatus consultum (5. 16), or the decision taken at Amphipolis about Aetolia, which led Livy (and so perhaps P.) to some general observations (Livy, xlv. 31). In the latter case, it would stand after 10 or even later; but the former is more likely and there is no cogent reason for displacing it from where it now stands. 10. 1–2 (de sent.) corresponds to Livy, xlv. 27. 7, and 10. 3–6 (four passages from Suidas) to Livy, xlv. 28. 2–5, on Aemilius Paullus' tour of Greece in 167; hence the position of 10 in res Graeciae of Ol. 153, 1 = 168/7 is assured. 11 and 12 have no passages corresponding to them in Livy, and since the next excerpt in de uirt. et uit. (29. 2–7) is from Ol. 153, 3 = 166/5 (see below, p. 33), they could (on the basis of their place in the excerpts) belong to either Ol. 153, 1 or Ol. 153, 2. However, as Schweighaeuser saw, the massacre mentioned in 11. 5 seems to be the one referred to in Livy, xlv. 28. 7 (A.U.C. 587 = 167), which confirms the placing of 11 and 12 in the res Graeciae of Ol. 153, 1 = 168/7. 13 (de legat. gent.), on congratulatory embassies sent to the Romans in Macedonia, corresponds to Livy, xlv. 31, and must follow 10 (and probably also 11 and 12). 14 (de sent.) corresponds to Livy, xlv. 32. 11, and 15, a reference to P. from Strabo, matches [31]
Livy, xlv. 34. 6, on the destruction of seventy Epirote cities; both clearly follow on in res Graeciae of Ol. 153, 1 = 168/7. 16. 1–2, which stands between 13. 11 and 17. 1–4 in de legat. gent. must be from res Aegypti of Ol. 153, 1 = 168/7. Livy, xlv. 42. 6 (A.U.C. 587 = 167) gives the annalistic version of the arrival of Cotys' envoys at Rome at the end of the consular year; 17. 1–4 (de legat. gent.) will therefore be from res Italiae of Ol. 153, 2 = 167/6. 18. 1–19. 17, on Prusias and Eumenes at Rome, and 20. 1–7, on the Athenian envoys, are closely linked in the excerpts de legat. gent. (cf. 19. 17); Livy, xlv. 44. 1–18, gives the annalistic version of the former section (with a reference to P. at 44. 19), but this is the last chapter in our manuscript of Livy, whose help is therefore lacking from now on. These passages, and 21. 1–5, which follows 20. 7 and precedes 23. 1–4 (on Crete) in de legat. gent., must all concern the same set of audiences in the res Italiae of Ol. 153, 2 = 167/6. 20. 8–9 from de sent. clearly links with 20. 7. 22. 1–12, from Athenaeus xiv. 615, describes games held to celebrate his victory by L. Anicius Gallus. His triumph was on the Quirinalia (of consular year 167, or Roman year 166) and this date (a.d. xii kal. mart.) is equivalent to 19 Nov. 167 (Jul.) or, if A.U.C. 587 = 167 was intercalary, 11 or 12 Dec. 167 (Jul.) (cf. Michels, 171–2; Derow, Phoenix, 1973, 355). But there is no evidence that Anicius' games immediately followed his triumph. Athenaeus assigns P.'s account to book xxx (22. 1); but this does not give us the year. Koperberg, 29, thinks that P. described the games under res Graeciae of 168/7, as a foil to those of Aemilius Paullus and a contrast to his ingenium (cf. Livy, xlv. 32. 10, 'prudentiam in dandis spectaculis, ad quae rudes tum Romani erant'); this chapter would then stand between 13 and 14. This is quite possible, but hypothetical. Accordingly it seems best to leave 22. 1–12 where it is generally placed, at the end of res Italiae of Ol. 153, 2 = 167/6, but to recognize that once it has been separated from Anicius' triumph (and if it is linked with that it will stand before 18. 1–19. 12, since Prusias' reception followed Anicius' triumph: Livy xlv. 43. 1–8, 44. 4–21), we cannot know in what context or indeed in which year P. introduced it. Since 23. 1–4, on Crete and Rhodes, stands at a point in de legat. gent. between 21. 5 (res Italiae) and 27. 1 (res Asiae)—which is in turn followed by 28 (res Italiae)—it is likely that 23. 1–4 is from the res Graeciae of Ol. 153, 2 = 167/6. Because it includes an embassy to Rome, which arrived in summer 166 (23. 3), Koperberg, 64–5, would include it under res Italiae of Ol. 153, 2 = 167/6; but the first part of the excerpt hardly fits res Italiae, whereas because of the unusual time of its arrival, the embassy may well have been mentioned en passant under res Graeciae. 24. 1–2 follows 20. 8–9 in de sent. and precedes xxxi. 6. 6, which belongs to res Asiae of Ol. 154, 1 = 164/3 [32]
(see below, p. 35); this would allow it to stand in res Asiae of Ol. 153, 2 = 167/6, Ol. 153, 3 = 166/5, Ol. 153, 4 = 165/4, or Ol. 154, 1 = 164/3 (see Fraser and Bean, 121–2). But since the reactions described are more likely to have been mentioned immediately after the liberation of the Peraea, the fragment may be left here. 25. 1–26. 9 (from Athen. v. 194, with overlap in Athen. x. 439 and Diod. xxxi. 16. 2–3) is attributed in Athen. x. 439 to book xxxi; but that attribution is unlikely to be correct. An extract mentioning a remark of Cato on the extravagance of Roman youths (xxxi. 25. 5–5a) is also attributed in Athen. vi. 274 to book xxxi; and, as will be demonstrated below (pp. 36– 7), it was probably included in the res Italiae of Ol. 154, 4 = 161/0. Consequently, if Athenaeus' attribution of the account of Antiochus' procession in 25. 1–26. 9 to book xxxi is correct, that book must have included both this and events of 161/0; but since Antiochus' games must have preceded his departure for the east (1 Macc. iii. 37), which was probably in May 165 (Mørkholm, 98 n. 37, 166), they are likely to have been described under the res Asiae of Ol. 153, 2 = 167/6. Hence book xxxi would have to begin with that olympiad year and continue to the end of Ol. 154, an arrangement unparalleled elsewhere. It must therefore be assumed that Athenaeus x. 439 is incorrect in attributing 25. 1–26. 9 to book xxxi. (Steigemann, 46–7, argues that book xxx contained Ol. 153, 1, book xxxi Ol. 153, 2–4, and book xxxii Ol. 154 and 155; and he therefore rejects Athenaeus' attribution of xxxi. 25. 5–5a to book xxxi, and puts the passage in book xxxii. This has no plausibility at all.) If this argument is accepted, 25. 1–26. 9 is from the res Asiae of Ol. 153, 2 = 167/6, and Antiochus' games are the sequel to those held by Aemilius Paullus at Amphipolis in 167 (Livy, xlv. 32. 8– 33. 1), as 25. 1 indicates. 27 (from de legat. gent.) clearly follows on the last passage (cf. Diod. xxxi. 17, with the same sequence from a different set of excerpts): it will be res Asiae, and Ti. Gracchus' legatio will belong to 166. His return was probably in 165 (cf. xxx. 30. 7 n.). 28, also from de legat. gent., is from res Italiae and therefore from a later year. Unless these excerpts contained nothing from Ol. 153, 3 = 166/5, it is to this year that 28 belongs; the Galatian envoys were evidently heard in the winter of 166/5. 29. 1, from the same excerpts, will be from res Graeciae of that olympiad year, since it is followed by 30. 1– 31. 20 belonging to the res Italiae of Ol. 153, 4 = 165/4 (see below). 29. 2–7 (from de uirt. et uit.) is clearly from the same context; it is followed in that collection by xxxi. 6. 1–5, which is preceded by the marginal comment λο\?\ λᾱ , which assigns that passage to book xxxi. Evidently there were no excerpts from Ol. 153, 4 = 165/4 in de uirt. et uit. 30. 1–31. 20 and 32. 1–12, both from de legat. gent., describe the [33]
arrival of a Rhodian and other embassies at Rome; this round of embassies seems distinct from those mentioned in xxxi. 1. 2–6, where Attalus and Athenaeus reply to the charges brought on the earlier occasion by Prusias and various Asian cities, and they are probably those heard at the beginning of A.U.C. 590 = 164. These excerpts will therefore be part of the res Italiae of Ol. 153, 4 = 165/4. This gets some confirmation from Livy, ep. 46, which puts the Rhodian embassy which secured the alliance of Rome and Prusias' complaints before the lustrum of 164 (cf. Koperberg, 80; Habicht, RE, 'Prusias (2)', col. 1114), though indeed the Livian periochae are often unreliable on the sequence of events. On the transposing of 30. 7–8 from its original place following 32. 10 see above, p. 30; and for the likelihood that xxxi. 1. 1 (from de legat. gent.) is from res Asiae of Ol. 153, 4 = 165/4 see below, p. 35. 13. BOOK XXXI For the argument that this book contained Ol. 154 = 164/0 see above, p. 30. These extracts are from the Constantinian excerpts: de legat. gent.: 1. 1 (Ti. Gracchus suppresses the Cammani: exc. 92); 1. 2–8 (embassy from Eumenes: exc. 92 cont.); 2. 1–14 (decisions concerning Syria, Macedonia, Asia Minor, and Egypt: exc. 93); 3. 1–5 (embassy from Ariarathes: exc. 94); 4. 1–4 (Rhodian embassy to Rome: exc. 95); 5. 1–5 (Calynda, Caunus, and Rhodes: exc. 96); 7. 1–4 (Ariarathes recovers his sister's and mother's bones: exc. 96 cont.); 10. 1–10 (Ptolemy VI's and his brother's envoys at Rome: exc. 97); 11. 1–15. 12 (Demetrius' escape from Italy: exc. 98); 17. 1– 18. 16 (struggle between the Ptolemies: exc. 98 cont.); 19. 1–4 (same topic: exc. 99); 20. 1–6 (Ptolemies' embassies at Rome: exc. 100); 21. 1–8 (embassies from Carthage and Masinissa at Rome: exc. 101); 32. 1–3 (Prusias, the Galatians, Eumenes, and Ariarathes send envoys to Rome: exc. 102); 33. 1–5 (Demetrius recognized: exc. 103); de legat. Rom.: 8. 1–8 (Roman envoys reach Cappadocia: exc. 29); de uirt. et uit.: 6. 1–5 (C. Sulpicius encourages accusations against Eumenes: exc. 102); 9. 1–4 (death of Antiochus IV: exc. 103); 22. 1– 30. 4 (Aemilius Paullus and Scipio Aemilianus: exc. 104); de sent.: 6. 6 (growth of Greek sympathy for Eumenes: exc. 134); 16. 1–2 (Ariarathes deters Artaxias from murder: exc. 135); 16. 3 (on beauty: exc. 136); 25. 5–5a (Cato's remark on the corrupt youth of Rome: exc. 137); 31. 1–3 (Rhodes accepts a subsidy from Eumenes: exc. 138). Antiochus IV's death was reported at Babylon between c. 20 Nov. and c. 18 Dec. 164 (see xxxi. 1. 8 n.); hence 9. 1–4 (from de uirt. et uit.) recording it stands correctly in res Asiae of Ol. 154, 1 = 164/3. (Part of this fragment is also in Suidas, s.v. δαιµονᾶν.) The previous excerpt in this collection, 6. 1–5 (recording the encouragement by [34]
C. Sulpicius of accusations against Eumenes), is probably the first from this book (see above, p. 33); 6. 6 (de sent.), commenting on this, goes naturally here. The sending of C. Sulpicius is mentioned in 1. 6 (from de legat. gent.); hence 1. 2–8 must be from res Italiae of the same year (Ol. 154, 1 = 164/3). 2. 1–14 and 3. 1–5 from the same excerpts also record embassies to Rome, apparently from the same winter. There could be a year's interval between 1. 2–8 and 2. 1–14; but this is unlikely, for in 3. 5 Ariarathes' envoys are said to have been well received because of Ti. Gracchus' report, and he had returned to Rome the previous olympiad year (xxx. 31. 19). Moreover, the return of these envoys to Cappadocia is recounted in 7. 1–4 (from de legat. gent.), and since in 8. 1–8 (from the de legat. Rom.) Cn. Octavius and Sp. Lucretius (whose dispatch from Rome was mentioned in 2. 9) arrive in Cappadocia, the order of all these interconnected excerpts within this olympiad year (Ol. 154, 1 = 164/3) seems assured; for the sequence of fragments in de legat. gent. determines the assignment of 4 and 5 to res Asiae (probably; though it is not always clear whether the affairs of Rhodes are included under Asia or Greece). On the suppression of the Cammani, mentioned in 1. 1 (de legat. gent.), see the commentary ad loc. Though included in one excerpt with 1. 2–8, it cannot form part of the res Italiae of Ol. 154, 1 = 164/3, but must be from res Asiae of Ol. 153, 4 = 165/4; it will refer to a date early in the olympiad year, since Gracchus returned from the east in late autumn or early winter 165 (cf. xxx. 30. 7 n.). Steigemann, 46, also puts 1. 1 after xxx. 32. 12 in book xxx, but assumes illogically that its date is 164. There is a slight uncertainty about the position of 9. 1–4 (de uirt. et uit.) relative to 7 and 8. Since the death of Antiochus IV (which it records) took place in autumn 164 (above, p. 34), 9. 1–4 could stand between 6. 1–6 and 7. 1–4, especially as the latter passage concerns events which were directly the result of Antiochus' death. But since P. may have dealt with Syrian affairs all together, this possibility does not warrant changing the established order. Two excerpts which follow each other in de legat. gent., 10. 1–10 (on the presence at Rome of Ptolemy VI's embassy and that of his younger brother, the future Euergetes II) and 11. 1–15. 12 (on Demetrius' escape to Syria), both mention the presence at Rome of Menyllus (10. 4, 12. 8), suggesting that both may refer to the same year. That this is in fact Ol. 154, 2 = 163/2 is clear from the reference to the murder of Cn. Octavius (11. 1), who had been sent out early in 163 (2. 9). Obsequens records the murder under the consuls of A.U.C. 592 = 162, which would equate with Ol. 154, 2 = 163/2. Eusebius, Chron. i. 253 Sch., makes Demetrius' first regnal year Ol. 154, 4 = 161/0, but since on arriving in Asia he quickly asserted his position, [35]
this must be corrected to Ol. 154, 3 = 162/1 to fit the death of the boy Antiochus V in 162 (cf. Niese, iii. 246 n. 1). Schweighaeuser, probably rightly, assigned a sentence from Suidas (15. 13) to the account of Demetrius' escape. As to whether it is from res Italiae or (more probably) res Asiae, see discussion ad loc.; in the latter case it could stand either before or after 16. 1–3 (on uncertainties about that passage see below). 17. 1–18. 16 (de legat. gent.) mentions the legati Cn. Merula (17. 8) and T. Torquatus (18. 1), whose dispatch to the east was recorded in 10. 9; it will therefore form part of the res Aegypti (BüttnerWobst less probably makes it res Africae because of the advance into Cyrenaica) of the same year, Ol. 154, 2 = 163/2. 19. 1–4, from the same excerpts, clearly follows directly after 17. 1–18. 16. Two short excerpts, 16. 1–2 and 16. 3, stand in de sent. between 6. 6 and 25. 5, which merely pins them down to a position between the res Asiae of Ol. 154, 1 = 164/3 and (see below) the res Italiae of Ol. 154, 4 = 161/0. 16. 1–2, on Ariarathes and Artaxias, corresponds to Diod. xxxi. 22, but the position of that passage in the excerpts de uirt. et uit. does not help to determine its date. Consequently the position of 16. 1–2 lies open as between Ol. 154, 2 = 163/2 (where Büttner-Wobst places it) and Ol. 154, 3 = 162/1; Ol. 154, 1 = 164/3 cannot be wholly excluded, but in that year Ariarathes was occupied with the Galatians and Syria (8. 1–8). 16. 3 is too brief and general for its context to be determined. 20. 1–6 (de legat. gent.) describes the arrival at Rome of Comanus and Ptolemy, whose dispatch is mentioned in 19. 2, and so must be from res Italiae of Ol. 154, 3 = 162/1. The next excerpt from de legat. gent., 32. 1–3, describes the sending of a gold crown by Ariarathes to Rome; its arrival is described in xxxii. 1. 1–7, which can be assigned to Ol. 155, 1 = 160/59 by comparison with Diod. xxxi. 28. 32. 1–3 must therefore be from res Asiae of Ol. 154, 4 = 161/0; and since 33. 1–5 also belongs (like xxxii. 1. 1–7) to de legat. gent., and concerns the sending of Cn. Octavius' murderer to Rome—his arrival is described in xxxii. 2. 1–3. 13—this passage too will stand in the same res Asiae. A fragment dealing with Masinissa and Carthage (21. 1–8) stands between 20. 1–6 (Ol. 154, 3 = 162/1) and 32. 1–3 (Ol. 154, 4 = 161/0); it could be from the res Africae of either year. The order of the two passages, 22. 1–30. 4 (from de uirt. et uit.) on Aemilius Paullus and Scipio Aemilianus, and 31. 1–3 (from de sent.) on Eumenes' subsidy to Rhodes, is assured by a short extract from the former (25. 5) in de sent. (22. 1–30. 4 is also duplicated by Suidas at 22. 3–4, 25. 7, 26. 3–8, 26. 3, 26. 4, 26. 6 and 26. 10, and by Athen. vi. 274 at 25. 5, mentioning book xxxi); they belong to res Italiae and res Graeciae respectively, but their position in the excerpts does not determine [36]
of which year. The digression on Scipio contained in 22. 1–30. 4 clearly arose on the death of Aemilius Paullus (cf. 22. 1–2). Livy, ep. 46 mentions this between Demetrius' return to Syria (162) and the draining of the Pomptine marshes by Cornelius Cethegus, cos. A.U.C. 594 = 160, thus leaving Ol. 154, 3 = 162/1 or Ol. 154, 4 = 161/0 open as the year of Aemilius' death. But internal evidence shows that the later year is the right one. The Greek detainees reached Rome in 167 (cf. xxxi. 24. 1 n.) and the friendship between P. and Aemilianus was established shortly afterwards. After devoting five years to gaining a reputation for moral strictness (xxxi. 25. 8 n.), Scipio set about gaining one for generosity. This involved three incidents, of which two linked with the death of Africanus' widow Aemilia (xxxi. 26. 1–27. 16) and the third, two years later (xxxi. 28. 1), with the death of Aemilius Paullus. Hence approximately seven years elapsed between the conversation of P. and Scipio and Aemilius' death; the conversation was therefore in 167 and Aemilius' death in 160, and 22. 1–30. 4 must be from the res Italiae of Ol. 154, 4 = 161/0. 31. 1–3 is from the same olympiad year, since the next passage in de sent. is from res Italiae of Ol. 155, 1 = 160/59 (xxxii. 3. 7–9: see below). It describes a subsidy from Eumenes to Rhodes, and could stand in either res Graeciae or res Asiae. 14. BOOK XXXII For the argument that this book contained Ol. 155 = 160/56 see above, p. 30. These extracts are from the Constantinian excerpts: de legat. gent.: 1. 1–7 (various embassies to Rome: exc. 104); 2. 1– 3. 13 (embassy from Demetrius: exc. 105); 3. 14–17 (embassy from Achaea: exc. 105 cont.); 7. 1–5 (embassy about Delos: exc. 106); 9. 1–5 (C. Fannius sent to Dalmatia: exc. 107); 10. 1–8 (various envoys at Rome: exc. 108); 14. 1–2 (envoys from Epirus: exc. 108 cont.); 16. 1–5 (Athenaeus sent to Rome to complain about Prusias: exc. 109); de legat. Rom.: 13. 1–9 (Roman decision to make war on Dalmatia: exc. 30); de uirt. et uit.: 5. 1–5 (Charops: exc. 105); 5. 6–6. 9 (the same: exc. 106); 8. 1–7 (Eumenes' character: exc. 107); 12 (Attalus restores Ariarathes: exc. 108); 15. 1–14 (Prusias' campaign against Attalus: exc. 109); de sent.: 3. 7–9 (overlap with fragment from de legat. gent.: exc. 139); 4. 1–2 (Aetolia after Lyciscus' death: exc. 140); 4. 3 (the same: exc. 141); 11. 1–7 (Orophernes, and Oropus: exc. 142); 11. 8–9 (remark on Orophernes: exc. 143). It has already been shown (above, p. 36) that 1. 1–7, mentioning the arrival of Ariarathes' envoys at Rome, and 2. 1–3. 13 are from res Italiae of Ol. 155, 1 = 160/59. Both are from de legat. gent. but there is an overlap with de sent. at 3. 7–9. 10. 1–8 (from de legat. gent.) recounts Ariarathes' arrival in Rome in summer 158; the date follows from the reference to the consuls of [37]
A.U.C. 597 = 157 in 10. 2, and the extract is clearly part of the res Italiae of Ol. 155, 3 = 158/7. 11. 3 shows that P. passed straight from Ariarathes' departure from Italy to the affairs of Cappadocia; hence 11. 1–7 and 11. 8–9, both from de sent., must be from res Asiae of the same olympiad year. 11. 10, from Athen. x. 440, is from the same context, but should probably precede 11. 1, since it comes from the account of Ariarathes' restoration. 11. 4 indicates that in this book, exceptionally, res Graeciae followed the section of res Asiae dealing with Ariarathes; but no fragments survive (unless xxxiii. 2 belongs here: see below, p. 40). 10. 1–8 is preceded in the excerpts de legat. gent. by 9. 1–5, which records the arrival of Issan (?) envoys at Rome and the dispatch to Dalmatia of C. Fannius. Before it in this collection comes 7. 1–5 on the arrival of Athenian and Achaean envoys at Rome to discuss Delos, and before that 3. 14–17, describing an Achaean embassy about the detainees. It seems likely that the latter, like 2. 1–3. 13, is from the res Italiae of Ol. 155, 1 = 160/59, and that 7. 1–5, with its new Achaean embassy, is from Ol. 155, 2 = 159/8, and from the res Italiae. 9. 1– 5 is also from res Italiae, but does it belong to the same year as 7. 1–5 (159/8) or 10. 1–8 (158/7)? The answer is in 13. 1–9, from de legat. Rom., which describes Fannius' return and the decision to make war on Dalmatia. It was now, P. observes (13. 7), ἔτος . . . δωδέκατον since the war against Perseus and the campaigns in Macedonia. Since P. described Pydna and the surrender of Perseus under Ol. 152, 4 = 169/8 (in book xxix), the twelfth year after would be Ol. 155, 4 = 157/6; hence 13. 1–9 will be from the res Italiae of that year, and 9. 1–5, recording C. Fannius' departure for Dalmatia, must fall in Ol. 155, 3 = 158/7, and immediately precede 10. 1–8. Two excerpts, 4. 1–2 and 4. 3, stand (in de sent.) between 3. 7–9 (res Italiae of Ol. 155, 1 = 160/59) and 11. 1–7 (res Asiae of Ol. 155, 3 = 158/7); they concern Lyciscus of Aetolia and belong to the res Graeciae of Ol. 155, 1 = 160/59 or Ol. 155, 2 = 159/8 (but not Ol. 155, 3 = 158/7, since in that year P. went directly from res Italiae to res Asiae (11. 3)). 5. 1–6. 9 consists of two passages which follow xxxi. 30. 4 in de uirt. et uit., and record the death of Charops of Epirus; the position of this section immediately after 4. 3 is confirmed by the reference to Lyciscus in 5. 1. It is clear from 6. 5 that Charops arrived in Rome before the death of Aemilius Paullus in 160 (see above, p. 37); hence, if his death at Brundisium (5. 4) occurred on his way home after his interview with the Senate (6. 3–9), this must have followed the entry into office of the consuls for A.U.C. 595 = 159, and his death the same year, i.e., in Ol. 155, 1 = 160/59. This confirms the placing of 4. 1–2, 4. 3, and 5. 1–6. 9 in the res Graeciae of Ol. 155, 1 = 160/59 (as in Büttner-Wobst). [38]
8. 1–7, which follows 5. 1–6. 9 in de uirt. et uit. (but is also largely in Suidas), is an obituary on Eumenes II; it immediately precedes (in that collection) 12, a statement that the first example of Attalus' principles was his restoration of Ariarathes, which occurred in Ol. 155, 3 = 158/7 (see above, pp. 37–8, discussing 11. 1–10), and is therefore not likely to have been much before. Diod. xxxi. 32 a makes Eumenes survive until after Ariarathes' expulsion; but Niese iii. 250 n. 5 plausibly emends 'Eumenes' to 'Attalus', and the easiest solution is that Eumenes died in 158, and that 8. 1–7 belongs to the res Asiae of Ol. 155, 2 = 159/8. 12 seems to be part of the account of Ariarathes' restoration and should therefore stand (with 11. 10) before 11. 1–7. 14. 1–2 follows 10. 8 in de legat. gent. and mentions the dispatch of envoys to Illyria 'with C. Marcius'. C. Marcius (Figulus) was consul A.U.C. 598 = 156, when he commanded the Roman forces in Dalmatia (Livy, ep. 47; App. Ill. 11. 1). 14. 1–2 could stand after 10. 1–8 in Ol. 155, 3 = 158/7; but it is unlikely that C. Marcius was sent out as a legatus in 157, since C. Fannius headed an Illyrian mission that year (9. 3, 13. 1). More probably then 14. 1–2 is from res Italiae of Ol. 155, 4 = 157/6, following 13. 1–9, since the mention of C. Marcius suggests that war had already been decided on. Either the envoys accompanied Marcius, who went out in command, or there has been some compression of the wording at the end of the extract. War between Prusias and Attalus is dealt with in 15. 1–14, from the excerpts de uirt. et uit. (where it precedes xxxiii. 4. 1–4)—with several passages from Suidas—and in 16. 1–5, which follows 14. 2 and precedes xxxiii. 1. 1–8 in de legat. gent.; it is also dealt with in xxxiii. 1. 1–2, 7. 1–4, 12. 1–13, and 13. 1–10. The traditional order for these fragments has to be corrected by comparison with Appian, Mithr. 3, a narrative deriving ultimately from P. (cf. Habicht, Hermes, 1956, 101–10). xxxiii. 1. 1–8 (from de legat. gent.) records the arrival of Athenaeus and P. Lentulus in Rome; a marginal note λογ. λγ΄ indicates that this is a new book in this collection, κατὰ χειµῶνα (xxxiii. 1. 1) suggests the usual winter hearing of embassies, and the year is Ol. 156, 1 = 156/5, since A. Postumius Albinus is praetor (xxxiii. 1. 5: this was in A.U.C. 599 = 155). This confirms the position of the preceding passage in de legat. gent., 16. 1–5, in the res Asiae of Ol. 155, 4 = 157/6. 15. 1–14 (from de uirt. et uit.) refers to Prusias' siege of Pergamum; and such a siege also occurs in xxxiii. 7. 1–4. Since it is clear from Appian that Prusias only besieged Pergamum once (cf. App. Mithr. 3, associating with the siege the ravaging of the Nicephorium (cf. 15. 3)), the excerpt 15. 1–14 should go in book xxxiii, following the sending of the three envoys (xxxiii. 1. 2); it forms part of res Asiae of Ol. 156, 1 = 156/5, standing after xxxiii. 3. 2. [39]
15. BOOK XXXIII Since 1. 1 is attributed in the margin of the manuscript to book xxxiii (see above, pp. 30 and 39), and it is known that book xxxiv was devoted to geography, it is virtually certain that xxxiii, like xxx, xxxi, and xxxii contained the events of one olympiad, Ol. 156 = 156/2. These extracts are from the Constantinian excerpts: de legat. gent.: 1. 1–8 (embassy sent to Prusias and Attalus: arrival of embassy from Achaea: exc. 110); 3. 1–2 (return of Achaean envoys: exc. 111); 8. 1–3 (Massiliote envoys report Ligurian attacks: exc. 112); 11. 1–7 (envoys from the Ptolemies; help sent to the younger: exc. 113); 14. 1 (Achaean envoys fail: exc. 114); 15. 1–2 (Heracleides brings Laodice and Alexander to Rome: exc. 115); 15. 3–4 (Astymedes reports on the Creto-Rhodian war: exc. 115 cont.); 16. 1–8 (Achaeans remain neutral in that war: exc. 116); 18. 1–14 (Attalus, Demetrius, and Alexander Balas at Rome: exc. 117); de legat. Rom.: 7. 1–4 (envoys report to Rome from Asia: new envoys sent to check on the war between Attalus and Prusias: exc. 31); 9. 1–10. 14 (Ligurians defeated: exc. 32); 12. 1–9 (Roman envoys to Prusias and Attalus: exc. 33); 13. 1–10 (war between Prusias and Attalus ended: exc. 33 cont.); de uirt. et uit.: 4. 1–4 (Aristocrates' failure as general: exc. 110); 5. 2–4 (Archias' suicide: exc. 111); 6. 1–9 (Priene refuses to give Orophernes' money to Ariarathes: exc. 112); de sent.: 17. 1–5 (Rhodian irrational behaviour: exc. 144); 20 (the behaviour of the masses: exc. 145); 21 (possible criticism of P.'s elaborate refutation of an obvious lie: exc. 146). 1. 1–8 belongs to the res Italiae of Ol. 156, 1 = 156/5 (see above, p. 39), and comes from de legat. gent. As ch. 2 Büttner-Wobst prints Aul. Gell. vi. 14. 8–10 on the Athenian philosophers' embassy to Rome, a passage which quotes P. Cicero (Acad. ii. 137) says they were heard by Postumius Albinus in the consulship of P. Scipio and M. Marcellus (155: see above, p. 30), so that chronologically the passage belongs here; but since P. recounted the trouble between Athens and Oropus in one piece in the res Graeciae of Ol. 155, 3 = 158/7 (xxxii. 11. 6), and the philosophers' visit to Rome was part of this, perhaps this passage should stand between xxxii. 11. 9 and xxxii. 13. 3. 1–2 (de legat. gent.) follows 1. 1–8 and describes the return of the Achaean envoys; it perhaps belongs more properly to res Graeciae than to res Italiae (where Büttner-Wobst assigns it). This does not affect the order of the fragments. The war between Prusias and Attalus lasted two years: it broke out in 156 (xxxii. 16. 1–5), Roman legati were sent in winter 156/5 to restrain Prusias (1. 1–2), and after being shut up in Pergamum by Prusias they reported back in 155 (7. 1–3); a new embassy (7. 3–4) arrived in the late winter of 155/4 (12. 1–2), and reported Prusias' [40]
intransigence at Rome (12. 8), and the war eventually ended in 154 (13. 5–10). The relevant excerpts are from de legat. Rom. and apparently are from res Italiae (7. 1–4) and res Asiae (12. 1–9 followed by 13. 1–10) of Ol. 156, 2 = 155/4; 3. 1–2 is followed by xxxii. 15. 1–14, describing Prusias' outrageous conduct (above, p. 39), which stands in the res Asiae of Ol. 156. 1 = 156/5. 9. 1–10. 14, which stands between 7. 1–4 and 12. 1–9 in de legat. Rom., describes a Massiliote embassy, a Roman embassy which met with rough treatment from the Ligurians, and the dispatch of Q. Opimius, cos. A.U.C. 600 = 154. This must be from the res Italiae of Ol. 156, 2 = 155/4 (P. has no separate section on Gaul), and so confirms the date of the excerpts relating to Prusias and Attalus. 8. 1–3 (from de legat. gent.) refers to the same Massiliote embassy, and therefore comes before 9. 1–10. 14; it is followed in the same excerpts by 11. 1–7, mentioning an embassy from the Ptolemies, and clearly part of the res Italiae of Ol. 156, 2 = 155/4, since it mentions the sending of Opimius to Liguria. This confirms Büttner-Wobst's arrangement of the fragments of res Italiae for this olympiad year. 4. 1–4 (de uirt. et uit.), on Aristocrates' failure, is related to the Rhodian war with Crete (cf. Diod. xxxi. 37), and Steigemann, 50–1, assigned it to Ol. 155, 4 = 157/6 (i.e. book xxxii); but as the preceding excerpt in that collection, xxxii. 15. 1–14, should stand in book xxxiii (see above, p. 39), 4. 1–4 must also stay in that book. Since P. normally deals with Rhodes at a point between res Graeciae and res Asiae (so that it sometimes seems to be reckoned as one and sometimes as the other), the fact that xxxii. 15. 1–14 forms part of the res Asiae of Ol. 156, 1 = 156/5 suggests that 4. 1–4 will stand in one of the three subsequent years of the olympiad. In the excerpts de uirt. et uit. 4. 1–4 is followed in succession by 5. 2–4 (on Archias' suicide after failing to betray Cyprus to Demetrius) and 6. 1–9 (on the refusal by Priene to surrender Orophernes' money to Ariarathes). 6. 1–9 is followed in the manuscript by a sentence which in fact belongs to book xxxiv (xxxiv. 6. 15), and is therefore likely to be the last excerpt from xxxiii in this collection. Thus, on the evidence of the manuscript, 5. 2–4 and 6. 1–9 might be from any of the last three years of Ol. 156. However, some help is available from Diodorus, from whom the excerpts de sent. give a section on the Celtiberian War (Diod. xxxi. 39–40) standing between two passages which correspond to 4. 1–4 (Diod. xxxi. 37) and 17. 1–5 (Diod. xxxi. 43)— P. being Diodorus' source at this point. If two passages on Rhodes were separated in P. by one from res Hispaniae, they were probably in separate olympiad years. But the evidence concerning the events at the outset of the Celtiberian War (see below, pp. 43–44) shows that the passage Diod. xxxi. 39–40 (corresponding to xxxv. 1) cannot be earlier than Ol. 156, 3 = 154/3. 17. 1–5 will be from the Rhodian [41]
events of the same year, and consequently 4. 1–4 must be from the Rhodian events of Ol. 156, 2 = 155/4. It would not necessarily follow that 5. 2–4 (from de uirt. et uit., supplemented by Suidas at 5. 1 and 5. 2a) on Archias' treachery, and 6. 1–9 on Orophernes and Priene were also from that year. But it is on the whole unlikely that Ariarathes waited until 153 or 152 to ask for the money, and this is in favour of putting 6. 1–9 (and so 5. 1–4 as well) in Ol. 156, 2 = 155/4. But in what order they stood relative to the chapters on the war between Attalus and Prusias is in doubt (and consequently whether 12. 1–13. 10 should stand before 5. 1–4, after 6. 1–9, or between the two passages).1 11. 1–7 (from the res Italiae of Ol. 156, 2 = 155/4: see above, p. 41) is followed in de legat. gent. by the following excerpts: 14 (Achaean embassy to Rome concerning the detainees); 15. 1–2 (arrival in Rome, while it is still summer, of Heracleides, bringing Laodice and Alexander Balas); 15. 3–4 (arrival of Astymedes of Rhodes at Rome); 16. 1–8 (Cretan and Rhodian attempt to get Achaean support); 18. 1–14 (senatorial audience for various embassies including Heracleides). Of these, 16. 1–8 is from res Graeciae and the rest from res Italiae; the reference to Heracleides shows that 16. 1–8 is from the year subsequent to 15. 1–2 and 15. 3– 4, and clearly 16. 1–8 must be from the res Graeciae of the same year as the two preceding passages. Since 11. 1–7, dealing with events after the dispatch of Q. Opimius to Gaul, probably refers to the second part of summer, 154 (see below, xxxiii. 11. 1–7 n.), the likelihood is that 14, 15. 1–2, and 15. 3–4 are all from the res Italiae of the next year, Ol. 156, 3 = 154/3. 16. 1–8 will be from res Graeciae of that year, and 18. 1–14 from res Italiae of Ol. 156, 4 = 153/2. For the argument that xxxv. 1. 1–6, on the outbreak of the Celtiberian War, should stand between 15. 4 and 16. 1 see below, p. 43. 17. 1–5 on Rhodian despondency follows xxxii. 11. 9 in de sent., and the evidence of Diod. xxxi. 43 (see above, p. 41) shows that it comes after 4. 1–4. Since it is unlikely to be more than a year after the Senate sent 'Quintus' to bring the war to an end (15. 4, dated to Ol. 156, 3 = 154/3: above), it probably belongs to the same olympiad year, and can stand after 16. 1–8, though the relationship of the two passages is uncertain. Four passages from Suidas quote extracts from 17. 1–5. 19, from Athen. x. 440, on Demetrius' addiction to drink, is assigned to this book; it could belong to Ol. 156, 4 = 153/2, when he was under attack, but could equally well be from the previous year. 20 and 21 follow 17. 5 in de sent., but since the next passage is [42]
1
The argument of Volkmann (RE, 'Ptolemaios (24)', col. 1714) that Archias' attempt is to be dated to 151/0 because of a large issue of gold in that year must be rejected, since 5. 1–4 must be from book xxxiii (Ol. 156).
xxxvi. 1. 1–7, they are not necessarily from book xxxiii. The former, on the behaviour of the masses, could come almost anywhere; the latter, polemical in tone, might well belong to book xxxiv, where P. attacks Pytheas, Eratosthenes, and Dicaearchus (cf. Schulze, Excerpta, 18 f.); xxxiv. 6. 15 is also from the Constantinian excerpts, evidence that that book was available to the excerptors. 16. BOOK XXXIV Four geographical fragments are attributed to book xxxiv, viz. 8. 1–2 (Athen. vii. 302), 8. 4–10 (Athen. viii. 330), 10. 1–4 (Athen. viii. 332), and 11. 4 (Steph. Byz. s.v. Αἰθάλη). 6. 15 (from de uirt. et uit.: exc. 113) follows xxxiii. 6. 9 in that collection, and clearly belongs to polemic against Eratosthenes. Schweighaeuser's conclusion (viii. 1. 105–7) that book xxxiv contained the geographical excursus promised in iii. 37. 11 and 57. 5 has been generally accepted, but the present arrangement of the fragments, essentially his, is rather arbitrary. Revision must depend, however, on an analysis of the purpose and likely content of the book and not on the chronological and historical considerations, and the economy of the collections of excerpts, which determine the order elsewhere. The problems of the organization of book xxxiv are therefore deferred to pp. 563 ff. 17. BOOK XXXV 2. 1–4. 14 follows xxxiii. 18. 14 in the de legat. gent. and since it refers to the consuls of A.U.C. 603 = 151 as having just entered upon their office (3. 7), it must be from the first year of Ol. 157, i.e. 152/1. The next passage in this collection, xxxvi. 3. 1–6. 6, has a marginal note which varies in different manuscripts: X has λς 'sed ς dubia', U has λγ, VOW have λα, and R has λς. Schweighaeuser (viii. 1. 132–3) had conjectured λς as the original reading and this must be right; the marginal note must indicate a new book. This passage refers to the landing of the consuls in Africa (6. 1), and these were those of A.U.C. 605 = 149 (cf. Livy, ep. 49). Hence this passage is from Ol. 157, 3 = 150/49, and book xxxv will contain Ol. 157, 1 = 152/1 and Ol. 157, 2 = 151/0. Only one extract is from the Constantinian excerpts: de legat. gent.: 2. 1–4. 14 (envoys from Spain: Scipio offers to accompany the consuls: exc. 118). As we saw, it forms part of res Italiae of Ol. 157, 1 = 152/1, a date confirmed by the references to M. Marcellus, the consul of 152, at 2. 1, 3. 1, and 4. 3. 1. 1–6 (from Suidas) is a general characterization of the Celtiberian War, which corresponds to Diod. xxxi. 39–40 (two excerpts from the de sent. of which the second closely echoes P.) ; see above, p. 41. The position of Diod. xxxi. 39–40 does not permit 1. 1–6 to be later than Ol. 156, 3 = 154/3; [43]
it must however have come immediately after the cancellation of the treaty, and this (cf. App. Hisp. 44–45) occurred just before the dispatch to Spain of Q. Fulvius Nobilior, cos. A.U.C. 601 = 153, who entered office on 1 Jan. (On the relationship of Appian to P. see 1. 1–6 n.) Hence 1. 1–6 must stand between xxxiii. 15. 4 and xxxiii. 16. 1, in the res Hispaniae of Ol. 156, 3 = 154/3. 5. 1 and 5. 2 (from Suidas) concern Scipio's deeds in Spain; they belong to Lucullus' campaign of 151 (cf. App. Hisp. 53; Livy, ep. 48) and so to res Hispaniae of Ol. 157, 1 = 152/1. Fg. 6 (from Suidas) may refer to Scipio's combat with a barbarian (Müller, Jahrb. 1870, 245 f.), and if so will follow 5. 2 under the same year. On whether fg. 18 (from Suidas) goes here see xxxv. 5. 2 n. 6. 1–4 is a passage from Plut. Cat. mai. 9, which quotes P. and concerns the release of the Achaean detainees, at a time when Scipio was in Rome and in the seventeenth year of their detention (Paus. vii. 10. 12). This points to 150, and the placing of the passage under res Italiae of Ol. 157, 2 = 151/0; but Ol. 157, 3 = 150/49 (which would take the passage into book xxxvi) cannot be wholly excluded (see ad loc.). 18. BOOK XXXVI These extracts are from the Constantinian excerpts: de legat. gent.: 3. 1–6. 6 (Punic deditio and surrender of hostages and arms: exc. 119); de uirt. et uit.: 15. 1–7 (Prusias' character: exc. 114); 16. 1–10 (Masinissa's character: exc. 115); de sent.: 1. 1–7 (on speeches: exc. 147); 2. 1–4 (Romans seek a pretext before making war: exc. 148); 9. 1–10. 7 (Greek views on the Third Punic War: the pseudoPhilip: exc. 149); 11. 1–4 (P. summoned to Lilybaeum: exc. 150); 12. 1–5 (P. speaks of himself in the third person: exc. 151); 13. 1–2 (on the fate of Callicrates' and Lycortas' statues: exc. 152); 13. 3 (on innovation: exc. 153); 14. 1– 5 (embassy sent to Attalus: exc. 154); 17. 1–16 (state of Greece and Macedonia: exc. 155). 3. 1–6. 6 is from res Africae of Ol. 157, 3 = 150/49 (above, p. 43). According to xxxviii. 1. 1, that book contained the downfall of Greece, which must have taken in Mummius' capture of Corinth; he was cos. A.U.C. 608 = 146, and book xxxviii therefore contained Ol. 158, 2 = 147/6. Since xxxv contained Ol. 157, 1 and 2 = 152/1 and 151/0, this leaves the three years Ol. 157, 3 = 150/49, Ol. 157, 4 = 149/8, and Ol. 158, 1 = 148/7 to be divided between two books; and since P. nowhere overruns an olympiad within a single book, xxxvi must contain Ol. 157, 3 and 4, and xxxvii Ol. 158, 1. 1. 1–7 and 2. 1–4 follow each other in de sent. and deal with speeches in history and the Roman emphasis on a just cause before declaring war. They clearly form part of P.'s introduction to the Third Punic War, and since 2. 1–4 has a corresponding passage in Diod. xxxii. 5, an excerpt from de uirt. et uit., in which collection it is preceded by [44]
a long discussion of Roman imperial policy (Diod. xxxii. 4; cf. 2), it is possible that P. had a fuller discussion than the surviving fragments indicate; but Diod. xxxii. 2 and 4 are not to be taken to represent P.'s own views (cf. Walbank, Entretiens sur Polybe, 18–20). Clearly then 1. 1–7 and 2. 1–4 precede 3. 1–6. 6, probably under res Italiae of Ol. 157, 3 = 150/49. Nissen, Rh. Mus. 1871, 275, suggests that fg. 99 on Roman policy (from Suidas) belongs here; if so, it will follow 2. 1–4. 6. 7, 7. 1–5, and 8. 1–8 are constructed from passages in Suidas, the position of which has been determined by comparison with Appian (and occasionally Diodorus). For 6. 7 cf. App. Lib. 80 and Diod. xxxii. 6. 2; Nissen, Rh. Mus. 1871, 276, would place fg. 192 after 6. 7, but this is doubtful. For 7. 1–2 cf. App. Lib. 91 (on the attitude at Carthage before the Roman decision was known). For 7. 3–5 cf. App. Lib. 91 (end) and 92. For 8. 1 (on Hamilcar- or HimilcoPhameas) cf. App. Lib. 100; his avoidance of a conflict with Scipio (8. 3) is mentioned at the end of the same chapter in Appian, and since the jealousy of Scipio is mentioned in App. Lib. 101, 8. 2 should probably follow and not precede 8. 3. 8. 4–5 corresponds to App. Lib. 103, but is so compressed as to misrepresent Scipio's reaction. 8. 6 (on reporting Scipio's remarks) was placed here by Schweighaeuser; this, because earlier, is perhaps more likely than, for example, after the Homeric quotation in xxxviii. 22. Fg. 67 may come in here. Cato's famous Homeric line about Scipio (8. 7) is in Diod. xxxii. 9 a 2; both there and in Livy, ep. 49, it is linked with Scipio's election to the consulship of A.U.C. 607 = 147, and Walton, in the Loeb edition of Diodorus, puts this fragment under 148 (its position in the de sent. allows this). However, it must go in 149, since Cato died in A.U.C. 605 = 149 (Vell. Pat. i. 12. 7; Plut. Cat. mai. 27. 5); Livy records his death before Galba's trial in that year (ep. 49). The quotation was probably mentioned parenthetically in res Africae. 8. 8 (which Büttner-Wobst repeats as fg. 232) mentions a ὁµολογία of Scipio, probably that made with Phameas (cf. Diod. xxxii. 17. 1; App. Lib. 108–9) shortly before Piso replaced Manilius as consul (for A.U.C. 606 = 148) and Scipio returned to Rome to stand for the consulship of 147. It therefore belongs to Ol. 157, 4 = 149/8, and follows 16. 12. Nissen, Rh. Mus. 1871, 276 would place fg. 47, on Scipio's deeds, between 16. 12 and 8. 8; but it is uncertain whether Aemilianus or Africanus is referred to (cf. xxxi. 30. 3 n.). Appian, Lib., contains a continuous narrative from the Punic declaration of war (Lib. 93) to Masinissa's death in 148 (Lib. 105), and gives no indication at what point P. halted his res Africae of Ol. 157, 3 = 150/49. Hence some of the incidents referred to in the above fragments may have been recorded under Ol. 157, 4 = 149/8. In the excerpts de sent. 2. 1–4 is followed by 9. 1–10. 7, discussing [45]
Greek views about Roman policy towards Carthage and about the pseudo-Philip; this passage precedes 11. 1–4 in this collection, a passage which mentions a letter from Manilius the consul of 149 summoning P. to Sicily, and P.'s return on reaching Corcyra, events which must form part of res Graeciae of Ol. 157, 3 = 150/49. 9. 1– 10. 7 must therefore be from the same res Graeciae. 12. 1–5 (also from de sent.) follows naturally after 11. 1–4. 14. 1–5 (de sent.) describes the sending of an embassy to Attalus II to restrain him from war against Prusias II. Appian (Mithr. 6) records that Attalus' envoys were heard and the Roman envoys dispatched under the chairmanship of a praetor urbanus, which would fit 149, when the two consuls were in Africa; and this date is confirmed by the fact that Cato was still alive. 14. 1–5 must be from the res Asiae of Ol. 157, 3 = 150/49 (its order in de sent. excludes the possibility of its being res Italiae); and 13. 1–2, on what happened to Lycortas' and Callicrates' statues, and 13. 3, on innovation, which stand between 12. 1–5 and 14. 1–5 in the excerpts de sent., must belong to the same olympiad year. 13. 1–2 will be from res Graeciae; 13. 3 is probably from res Graeciae, but it could be from res Asiae (perhaps referring to the rising against Prusias). 15. 1–7, a sketch of Prusias from de uirt. et uit., was probably inserted in connection with his death in 149 (Livy, Ox. ep., 50; Zon. ix. 28. 1); it will be from res Asiae of Ol. 157, 3 = 150/49, and 16. 1–10 on Masinissa, which follows in de uirt. et uit., will be from res Africae of Ol. 157, 4 = 149/8 (since res Africae precede res Asiae in any one olympiad year). 16. 1–8 is also in Suidas. 16. 11–12, from Plut. Mor. 791 F–792 A, is from the same context. In de sent. 14. 1–5 is followed by 17. 1–16 on the state of Greece and Macedonia; it mentions a Roman defeat at the hands of pseudoPhilip (17. 14), which is probably that of P. Iuventius Thalna, who perished in 148 (Livy, Ox. ep., 50). This passage is probably introduced as a digression in res Macedoniae of Ol. 157, 4 = 149/8 (cf. Steigemann, 52–53, against Nissen, Rh. Mus. 1871, 276, who includes it under res Graeciae). 19. BOOK XXXVII This book contained the events of Ol. 158, 1 = 148/7 (see above, p. 44); but no fragments survive from the Constantinian excerpts and almost certainly none from Suidas. xxxvii (like xix and xxvi: see pp. 1 and 22 above) was probably lost by the tenth century. Büttner-Wobst prints one possible fragment on a Museum in Macedonia, from Steph. Byz. (1); but the number of the book could be wrong. xxxviii. 19 (from Plut. Mor. 200 A) refers to fighting which followed Scipio's construction of a mole across the harbour mouth to furnish a footing on the χῶµα, which lay at the south–east extremity of the city on the sea side. This was in autumn, 147 [46]
(cf. App. Lib. 121–5, 126 χειµῶνος . . . ἀρχοµένου) and could have been described by P. in book xxxvii (Zon. ix. 29–30; Kahrstedt, iii. 658 n. 3); but since we do not know where P. broke off his account of the action of 147, and since fgs. 145 (on the fighting on the χῶµα) and 217 (on the bringing up of σαµβῦκαι) seem both to belong to this context, it is perhaps safer to leave xxxviii. 19 and these two fragments in book xxxviii (though this argument involves some risk of circularity in its assumption that there were probably no excerpts from xxxvii in Suidas.) 20. BOOK XXXVIII It is clear from xxxix. 8. 8 and the subscription to it in the manuscript of de sent. (M) that book xl was devoted to a résumé and some kind of contents list (see below, pp. 743–4); and 1. 1 assigns 'the downfall of the Greeks', which must include the events of Ol. 158, 2 = 147/6, to book xxxviii. It follows that the last three years of Ol. 158 were covered in the two books, xxxviii and xxxix, and though the division is not indicated, the amount of material involved would suggest that Ol. 158, 2 = 147/6 occupied xxxviii and the aftermath of the Achaean War xxxix. Whether the Histories included any other events of Ol. 158, 4 = 145/4, and how long P. remained in Rome (xxxix. 8. 1), are both unknown; nor is it clear where P. broke off Ol. 158, 2 = 147/6. Perhaps Mummius' capture of Corinth was in book xxxviii, and the destruction of the city (after the arrival of the ten legati) in xxxix; see below, p. 49. These extracts are from the Constantinian excerpts: de legat. Rom.: 9. 1–8 (Sex. Iulius Caesar sent to Achaea: exc. 34); 10. 1–13. 9 (events in Greece after his arrival: exc. 35); de uirt. et uit.: 7. 1–8. 15 (the Punic general Hasdrubal: exc. 116); 14. 1–2 (Pytheas, son of Cleomnastus: exc. 117); 15. 1–16. 10 (affairs under Diaeus: exc. 118); 17. 1–18. 12 (events at Corinth: exc. 119); de sent.: 1. 1–4. 9 (the ruin of Greece and earlier disasters : exc. 156); 5. 1–6. 7 (P.'s method of composition: exc. 157); 20. 1–11 (meeting with Hasdrubal: exc. 158); 21. 1–3 (Scipio's fears for Rome: exc. 159); 16. 11 (a surprise for someone unnamed: exc. 160); 16. 12 (someone unnamed compared with a man who dives before learning how to swim: exc. 161); 18. 5 (= de uirt. et uit. exc. 119: exc. 162); 18. 12 (the same: exc. 163). 1. 1–4. 9 (de sent.) appears to form part of an introductory section on the nature of the Achaean War (though book xxxviii does not open an olympiad), and it is followed in that collection by 5. 1–6. 7, a digression on P.'s method of composition, which involves breaking off his account of events in one area to pass to those of another (5. 2). This passage, which is in fact a description of P.'s normal practice (cf. 6. 3), of which the Third Punic War is merely an example (5. 2 λόγου χάριν), misled Büttner-Wobst into assuming that in this [47]
book there were two separate sections on Carthage (7. 1–8. 15 and 19 a–22. 3) divided by a section on Achaea (9. 1–18. 12). (Steigemann, 54, equally without good reason, took 5. 2 to be evidence that P. treated the Achaean events in book xxxviii in two separated sections.) In fact, as the placing of the excerpts clearly indicates, the res Africae of this book were dealt with in one block down to the sack of Carthage, which was in 146 (Livy, Ox. ep., 51), before the res Graeciae. In de sent. 5. 1–6. 7 is followed by two passages relating to events towards the end of the assault on Carthage; the first (20. 1–11 in Büttner-Wobst) describes Hasdrubal's surrender, the second (21. 1–3), which follows a long undecipherable passage, a remark of foreboding by Scipio. (The division between these two fragments is not clear and Boissevain and Büttner-Wobst differ slightly in their indication of this.) 7. 1–8. 15 (de uirt. et uit.) on Hasdrubal (a passage from which Suidas quotes at 7. 1–5, 8. 7, and 8. 10) must come before the two passages just mentioned; and they in turn will be followed by 22. 1–3 (= App. Lib. 132). 19 a (from Amm. Marc. xxiv. 2. 14–17) probably concerns an incident in the final stages of the storming of Carthage, and goes between 8. 15 and 20. 1 (see ad loc.). For the likelihood that 19 (= Plut. Mor. 200 A), together with fgs. 145 and 217 (?), belongs to this book (where they will stand before 7. 1 in the order fg. 217 (?), 19, fg. 145) see above, pp. 46–47. Finally, xxxvi. 8. 6 could equally well come in here after 22. 1–3. This order is supported by that of the parallel excerpts from de sent. in Diod. xxxii. 22–24, which treat successively Hasdrubal's conversation with Gulussa (cf. 7. 1–8. 15), his suppliant role before Scipio (cf. 20), and Scipio's reaction to the fall of Carthage (cf. 21). The Achaean events which follow are described more fully in Paus. vii. 14 ff., which serves as a check on the order. 9. 1–8 (de legat. Rom.) describes the return to Rome of L. Aurelius Orestes, sent as legatus in 147 (cf. Livy, Ox. ep., 51), and the dispatch of Sex. Iulius Caesar to Achaea (the passage is specifically attributed to book xxxviii). 10. 1–13. 9, from the same collection, describes the reception of Caesar, and subsequent events through winter 147/6 into 146; this is confirmed by Paus. vii. 14. 3–4, recording the sending of Thearidas to Rome (cf. 10. 11), and Critolaus' election as general for 147/6 in autumn 147. 14. 1–2 (which follows 8. 15 in the excerpts de uirt. et uit.) is about the Pytheas whom Paus. vii. 14. 6 mentions as Boeotarch. Niese (iii. 346 n. 2) assumes a lapse of time between 11 and 12, and suggests inserting 14. 1–2 here; but Pausanias mentions Pytheas after the meeting at Corinth (Paus. vii. 14. 5), described by P. in 12–13, and 14 should probably stay where it is. 14. 3 (= Oros. v. 3. 3) mentions the one battle, with Critolaus in command; it stands correctly here (cf. Paus. vii. 15. 3–4). 15. 1–16. 10, which [48]
follows 14. 2 in de uirt. et uit., gives a hostile account of Diaeus, who succeeded Critolaus as general for the remainder of 147/6. 16. 11 and 16. 12 follow 20. 1–21. 3 in de sent., where (BüttnerWobst reports) 16. 12 is followed continuo by the sentence beginning οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐπὶ τοῦ σκάµµατος, which is 18. 5 in the excerpt 17. 1–18. 12 included in de uirt. et uit., the difference being that there \ὁ προειρηµένος stands where exc. 162 in de sent. has ὁ ∆ίαιος ὁ στρατηγὸς τῶν Ἀχαιῶν. As a result, since Mai it has been assumed that 16. 12 (and 16. 11) refer to Diaeus. In fact 16. 12 and 18. 5 are from quite different contexts, and the fact that M runs them together merely indicates that the copyist may have thought both concerned Diaeus. Against the assumption that they did is (a) the absence of any occasion between the defeats in central Greece and the events described in 17. 1–18. 12 when Diaeus could have been surprised by the enemy and have considered making for home; (b) the unlikelihood of P.'s having levelled these criticisms against Diaeus in connection with the defeat at Chaeronea (cf. 14. 3 n.), when he can hardly have been surprised, and when Critolaus was the responsible general. Niese (iii. 347 n. 3) suggested that 16. 11–12 probably referred to Critolaus, and this has been cogently developed by Deininger (Phil., 1969, 287–91). If they are right, 16. 11 and 16. 12 will go between 14. 2 and 14. 3. As we have seen, 17. 1–18. 12 describes Diaeus' atrocities at Corinth; 18. 5 and 18. 12 also figure (after 16. 12) in the de sent. (see above, p. 47), so linking the two sets of excerpts. On the probable division between the Achaean events in books xxxviii and xxxix see p. 47. On xxxix. 1, which may belong to this book, see below, this page. 21. BOOK XXXIX These extracts are from the Constantinian excerpts: de uirt. et uit.: 1. 1–12 (on A. Postumius: exc. 120); 3. 4–11 (P.'s comments on Achaeus, Philopoemen, and Aratus: exc. 121); 4. 1–5. 6 (P. and the ten commissioners: exc. 122); 6. 1–5 (character of the Roman general: exc. 123); 7. 1–7 (obituary on Ptolemy Philometor: exc. 124); de sent.: 3. 1 (Philopoemen's statues left standing: exc. 164); 3. 2 (a proverb: exc. 165); 8. 1–8 (conclusion to the Histories: exc. 166). As already indicated (p. 47) P. probably ended book xxxviii with the capture of Corinth, leaving its destruction, which was carried out after consultation with the ten commissioners (cf. 2 n.), till book xxxix. 1. 1–12 (de uirt. et uit. and Suidas) discusses A. Postumius Albinus, who had been present at Scarpheia and was designated one of the ten commissioners. Its position after xxxviii. 18. 12 precludes [49]
its having been introduced in connection with the battle; but Postumius' later movements are obscure, and it is not known whether he returned in the meantime to Rome. Since P. did not name the commissioners (Cic. ad Att. xiii. 30. 2) the sketch is unlikely to have been introduced in that connection; and it must remain open whether 1. 1–12 belongs to book xxxviii or book xxxix. 2. 1–3 (from Strabo, viii. 6. 23, C. 381) quotes P. for the way works of art were treated by soldiers after the destruction of Corinth on the Senate's orders; the passage is probably from res Graeciae of Ol. 158, 3 = 146/5 (on the chronology of the capture and destruction see below, ad loc.). 3. 1 (de sent.), 3. 3 (Plut. Philop. 21. 5–6), and 3. 4–11 (de uirt. et uit.) concern Philopoemen's statues and are properly placed here. 3. 2, from de sent., is from somewhere between 3. 1 and the end of the book (cf. 8. 1–8); and if it refers to the thwarting of the 'certain Roman' mentioned in 3. 3, as is not unlikely, it will stand after 3. 3. 4. 1–5. 6 follows 3. 4–11 in de uirt. et uit. and mentions the return of the commissioners to Italy in spring 145; it is followed by 6. 1–5 on Mummius' tour round Greece. Both excerpts are rightly placed. The next excerpt in de uirt. et uit. is 7. 1–7, the obituary on Ptolemy VI, and this forms part of res Aegypti of Ol. 158, 3 = 146/5. The exact date of Ptolemy VI's death is not known, but the latest dating by him is 15 July 145 (cf. Skeat, 34 and below, 7. 1 n.). Schweighaeuser, ad loc., suggested that xxxiv. 14, belongs here; against this see the introduction to book xxxiv, below p. 568. 8. 1–8, which follows 3. 2 in the excerpts de sent., clearly comes at the very end of book xxxix. 8. 1 mentions P.'s journey to Rome, following the settlement of Greek affairs, but the chronology of this is uncertain. If it began late in 145 and covered winter 145/4, thus falling in Ol. 158, 4, it does not follow that P. discussed other events of that olympiad year. The visit to Rome may well have formed as it were an adjunct to the settlement, and a fitting conclusion to the Histories. 22. BOOK XL No fragments survive from this book; on its character see xxxix. 8. 8 n. [50]
TABLE OF FRAGMENTS: BOOKS VII-XXXIX VII
01. 141, I
216/5
Res Italiae Res Siciliae {two years}
I. I-3 1.4 2-5 6
]-8 Res Graeciae
9
fg. ro {see ad loc.) IO. 2-5 ro. r (or after 12 ?) II
VIII
01. 141, 2 = 215/4
Res Hispaniae Res Graeciae Res Asiae
01. 141, 3
Res Ualiae
214/3
Res Siciliae
Res Graedae
01. 141, 4
IX
Ol. J42, I
213/2
212/1
Res Asiae Res JtaJiae
12 13-14 I4 c (?) qd 15-!8 JB b I {?) 38 b 2 ( ?) 35-36 33. l-2 viL 14 b
iii. 19. 11} a 8-11 12 13-14 r4 b (or perhaps in 213j2) 15-21 24. I 24· 2 24. 3 24. 4-34· 13
Res Siciliae
37·
I
Res Asiae
37· 37· 37· 22. 22. 23
2-II 12 13 I-2 3
Prologue {11'po.!x:8E<:ns)
I-2
Res Jtaliae
3· I-9. 10 9· 1oa 9· II
5I
TABLE OF FRAGMENTS IX
01. 142, I
212/I
Res Siciliae Res Hispaniae
IO viii. 38
01. 142, 2
2I I/O
Res Italiae
a ( ?) 12-20 (or in Ol. 142, I: see Vol. II, p. Io) 21 ( ?) 22--26 26 a I-27. 9 27. ro(I) (or before 26 a 1) 27· 10(2) 27. I I 40·4 40. 5-6 45· l-2 45· 3(2) Phorounna 45· 3(1) Xynia 28-39 fO. I fO. 2-3 fl. 2-42·4 f2. s-8 (or before fl. z) 43 44· I 44· 2
II
Res Siciliae
Res Graeciae
Res Asiae Uncertain X
OJ. If2, 3
=
2I0/09
Res Italiae Res Hispaniae Res Graeciae
Res Asiae
01. I42, 4 = 209/8
Res Italiac Res Hispaniae Res Graeciae Res Asiae
XI
01. 143, I
=
208/7
I
2. I-20. 8 23-24 2_'i. I-5 26. l-6 26. 7-10 27. I-I3 3!. 15 28. 1-3I. 13 31. l4 32. I-33· 7 33· 8 34· 1-40. 12 41-47 xi. 7· 1 48 49
Prologue (17poiKll
I a
Res Italiae
I, I fg. 40 ( ?) 1.2-3. 6 3· 7 (uncertain: see Vol. II, p. 16) 4· I-6. IO 7· 2-3 7 • 4 } (or before 7· 2-3) 7· 5
Res Graeciae
52
II
TABLE OF FRAGMENTS
01. 143. 2 = 207/6
Res ltaliae Res Hispaniae
8. I-3 8. 4--6 8. 7 g. I-I8. IO xg a 1-3 (uncertain: see Vol. II, p. 17) 1g 20. 1-24. g 24 a 1-3 24 a 4 24· 10 24. I I 25-30
Res Asiae
XII
JI-33 34 I. l-5 2 3 4 a 1-4 d 8 5· I--6. 6 6. 7-8 6a-6 b (perhaps before 6. 7-8) 7· I-II. 7 II. 8 12. 1-3 12. 4-5 IZ.
f:t-7
12 a} (perhaps after I5 12 b or x6) 13-15 I6 17-22 (or after 23 or 25) 23 24 25. 1-5 25· 6-9 25 a 1-5 25 b 1-25 f 7 25 g 1-4 25 h I-26 a.4 26 b I-28 a IO
XIII
01. 143· 3
=
206/5
Res Italiae Res Graeciae Res Asiae
01. 143· 4
205/4
Res Graeciae
fg. r8o (?: see ad loc.) I. 1-3 1 a 1-3 2. I-5 g. I 9· 2-3 9· 4
9·5 3· 1-48 5· 2 5· I
53
TABLE OF FRAGMENTS XIII
OL 143, 4 = 205/4
Res Gyaeciae
Uncertain
XIV
XV
OJ. I4f, I = 204/3
01. I4f, 2
=
203/2
01. I4f, 3
=
202/I
6. I-7· II 8. I-7 (All these passages could equally well be in the Yes Gmeciae of 01. I43, 3: see Vol. II, pp. 2o22.) IO. I-II is a list of cities in Italy, Crete, Thrace, and Illyria, which could be in either 01. I43. 3 or 01. 143, 4: see Vol. II, pp. 422-3
Prologue ('trpobdha•>)
I a
Res Ajyicae Res Aegypti
I. I-10. II II. I II. 2-5 I2 (could precede II. I)
Res Ajricae I . I-16. 6 (rather than a I7. l-2 combination of 17. 3-19. 9 Yes I tatiae el A jricae, as Vol. II, p. 22 states, following ButtnerWobst) Res Graeciae 20
Res Asiae
21. I-2 21. 3-23. IO 24. I 24- 2 24- 3 24·4-6 25. 3-IO 25. I-2 25. ll-I9 24 a 26 a I-2 25. 2G-37 26. I-36. II 37
Res M acedoniae
2-9
Res Aegypti
XVI
5· 3 5· 4-6 (could precede 5· 2) 5· 7
10. I IO. 2-4 II
I2
54
TABLE OF FRAGMENTS Res GraeGiae
13 14· I-20. 9
Res Aegypti
21. I-22. IO
zz. Res Asiae
I l
22 a (as in book xv, res
Asiae follow Aegypti) 01. Iff, 4
201/0
Res Italiae Res M aGedoniae et GraeGiae
res
23 24. I-8 24- 9 25-26
27 28 29. I
29· 29. 35· 36· 38
XVII
OJ. 145,
2 3-34· 12 I-2
l-37· 7
Res Asiae
39· I 39· 2 39· 3-5
Uncertain
40. I-7 (na.mes from Steph. Byz. of which 40. 4 a.nd 40. 7 ma.y be from res Italiae: see Vol. II, p. 26)
No fragments
I-2 =
200/199 a.nd rgg/8
XVIII
01. 145, 3 = IgS/7
Res MaGedoniae et GraeGiae
1-12
13-15
I6 17. 1-5 17. 6
r8-33 34-39 40. 5
Res Asiae
a
I
41 a
2
4l
41. 1-IO
01. 145, 4
=
197/6
Res Italiae Res Graeciae
42 43· l-IZ 43· 13
40. 1-4
XIX
01. 01. 01. 01.
146, I l<J.6, z 146, 3 146, 4
= = = =-
196/5 195/4 194/3 I9J/2
Res Asiae
44-48 49· I 49· z-sz. 5
Res Aegypti
53-55
Res Hispaniae Res Graeciae
2
1
} No fragments
55
TABLE OF FRAGMENTS XX
01. 147• I = I92/I
Res Graeciae 2 3· I-7·5 8. 1-5 12. I-7 ( ?) 8. 6 fg. 82 ( ?) g. I-II. 10 II. II
I I. 12 xxi. I. 1-4 I2. 8 ( ?)
XXI
I9I/O
01. 147· 2
Res ltaliae Res Graeciae Res Asiae
I-6 3- 1-4 3 b l-2 4• 1-5. I3 6. I 6. 7 fg. 142 (?) 7• I-4 6. z-6 ( ?) 7· s-7 fg. I54 8. I-3 fg. 228 ( ?) IO. 1-14 g. I-3 II. I-!3 2.
12
01. I47. 3
=
rgoj8g
01. 147, 4 = r8gf8
Res Italiae Res Gracciae
Res Asiae Res Graeciae Res Asiae
XXII
01. r48, I Ol. I 48, 2
= =
r88/7 !87/6
Res Graeciae
01. q8, 3
=
r86/5
Res Asiae Res Italiae Res 1\faudmliae
56
13. I-rs. r6. 1-17. I8. I-24. 25. I-II z6. I-I9 27. I-6 27. 7-9 28. r-17 29. I-32. 33-39 32 b 32 c 40. I (?) 41. 1-44· 45 46. I-IZ 47
13 12 I7
IS
3
No fragments 3· I-9 4· I-17 5· I-IO 6. I-6 6. 7 18. l-U
TABLE OF FRAGMENTS Res Graeciae Res Aegypti Res Itatiae Res Macecloniae Res Graeciae Res Asiae Res Aegypti XXIII
01. 149,
I
=
184/3
Res Italiae
7· I-10. 15 I6. I-77· 7 II. I-12. IO IJ. 1-14. 12 15. 1-6 20 21 22
1-4 5
Res Graeciae
Res M acedoniae 01. 149, z
=
183/2
Res Italiae Res Ma,;edoni!UI
6 xxii.
19
)the relative order of these two passages is uncertain
7 8 9 ro II
Res Graeciae Res Asiae Uncertain
XXIV
01. 149. 3
01. 149, 4
18zjr
r8r/o
Res Itali.ae Res Graeciae Res 1\facedoniae Res Italiae Res Graeciae
12-18 (xxiv. 7 may belong here) fg. liZ ( ?) Steph. Byz. s.v. ra>.&i>pa• may go in the res 1lfacedoniae of I 84/3 or 183{2: see above, p. r6
2
3 4 (could precede z) 5 6
7 (could follow xxiii. r8: see above, pp. 17-18) 8-ro II-13 Res Asiae XXV
01. 150, 01. 150,
I 2
180/79 Res Asiae Res J.lii acedoniae 179/8
01. 150, 3
178!7
01. 150, 4
I
77/6
Res Italiae Res Asiae Res Italiae Uncertain
I{-15 2. 1-15
3· r-8 3· 9-IO 4· I-IO 5· 1-5 6. 1-6 r. r-2 probably belongs
in xxxiv. 9: see above, pp. 20--21 XXVI
01.
151, I
176/5
Res Asiae
ra I.
01.
151, 2
OL 151, 3 OJ. I5I, 4
175/4 174/3 I7J/2
1-14
} No fragments
57
TABLE OF FRAGMENTS XXVII
01. 15z, 1 = I72/I
01. 15z, z
=
171/o
Res Graeciae et Macedoniae
Res Aegypti Res Graeciae et Macedoniae
I. 1-Z. 12
3· I-5 4· I~6. 4 fg. 234 ( ?) I2. I-3 7· I-II. 7 I3. I-4 14. I-3 (could follow II. 7 in I 72/I : see above,
p. 24) I5.
I-16. 6
Res Asiae
I7
Uncertain
20.
Res Italiae
I. I-<}
19. 1-2
XXVIII
01.
I52,
3
=
170/69
I-3
2. I-8
Res Graeciae et Macedotliae
xxvii. r8. 1-3 3· 1-4. 13 5· I-6 6. 1-7. 15 8. I - I I g. I-8 IO. I-2 II.
3
I I. I-2
Res Asiae (uel Aegypti}
fg. 66 ( ?) I2. I-13. If (Achaea} I4. 1-4 (Crete} IS. 1-3 (Crete} 16. 1-I7. 15 (Rhodes} 21. 1-5 IS 19. 1-7 20. 1-13 22. 1-3
23. XXIX
01.
152,
4
=
x6gf8
Res Italiae
1-5
1-3 1-4 3· I-4· 10 5· I-9. 13 IO. 1-7 I.
2.
Res Graeciae el .Macedaniae
I I. I-6 12. I-2 13. 1-2
fg.
221
14. I-3 14·4 15. I-3 16. I-3 17. I
17. 3 17.4 z8
TABLE OF FRAGMENTS 17- 2
Suida.s s.v. 1Tp<JYr(nrc (?) 19. I-II
Res Asiae
fg. 74 ( ?) 20. 1-4 ZI. I-9 23. 1-24. I6 (Acltaea) 25. I-7 (Acha.ea) Z2. 1-4 26. I-2
XXX
01. 153, I = I68f7
Res Aegypti
27. 1-13
Res ltaliae Res Graeciae
I. 1-5. I6 6. 1-g. 21 (could stand after ro. 6 or even later in these res
Graeciae) IO, I-2
3 4 10. 5
IO.
10.
6 I I. I-6 IO.
Ol. 153.
2
= 167/6
Res Aegypti Res Italiae
Re.s Graeciae Res Asiae
OL I53. 3
=
166/5
01. 153, 4 = 165/4
Res ltaliae Res Graeciae
28 29. I 29. 2-7
Res Italiae
30. 1-31. 32. I-12 x.xxi. I, I
Res Asiae
XXXI
164/3
12. I-3 13. I - I I 14 15 16. I-2 17· I-4 r8. r-19. 17 20. I-7 20. 8-9 21. I-5 22. 1-12 (position uncertain) 23. 1-4 24. 1-2 (could be later; see above, pp. 32-33) 25. I-26. 9 n. 1-4
Res Italiae
I. 2-8 2.
Res Asiae
20
1-14
3· I-5 4· I -4 (Rhodes: could be res Graeciae) 5· 1-5 (Rhodes: could be res Gl'aeciae) 6. 1-5
59
TABLE OF FRAGMENTS XXXI
01. l5·h I = 164/3
01. 154. '2 = 163/2
Res Asiae
Res Italiae Res Asiae
Res Aegypti
XXXII
01. 154· 3
162/1
01. 154. 4
I6I/O
01. 155, I
160/59
Res Ilaliae Res Africae Res Italiae Res GYaeciae (uel Asiae) Res Asiae Res Ttaliae Res Graeciae
Ol. 155, 2 = 159/8 Ol. 155, 3
158/7
Res Italiae Res Asiae Res Ita/iae
6. 6 7· 1-4 8. 1-8 g, 1-4 (could stand between 6. 6 and 7· I) 10. I-IO I L 1-15. 12 I5. 1J (') (if from res Asiae this could stand after I6. r-3: see above, p. 36) 16. 1-2} (could follow 16. 3 ;~. ~) set> ahove, 17. 19. 20. 21. 2'2. 31.
3
1-18. 6 1-4 1-6 r-8 (or under I6I/o) I-30. 4 1-3 (Rhodes)
32. 1-3 33· 1-5 1-7 1-3. 13 14-17 1-2 3 I--{5. 9 7· 1-5 8. 1-7 9· IO. I.
2. 3· 4· 4· 5·
[Res Asiae]
n. , } 12 II. 1-7 1I. 8--9
Res Italiae
13. 1-9 14. 1-2 I6. 1-5
(.t!aim of Cappadocia treated as an extension of
res Italiae) Ol. 155, 4
157/6
Res Asiae XXXIII
OJ. 156,
I
01. 156, 2
156/5
Res Italiae
155/4
Res Asiae Res Italiae
Res Graeciae Res Asiae 6o
1. 1-8 2 (could be in res Graeciae of 158/7: see above, p. 40) 3· 1-2 (or in res Graeciae) xxxii. 15. 1-14 7· 1-4 8. I-3 9· 1-IO. I<j II. 1-7 4· 1-4 5· r
TABLE OF FRAGMENTS 5· 2 a 5- 2-4 6. I--9 I2. I-9 } (e:uct position I3. I-ro uncertain: see above, p. 42) 01. I56, 3
=
154/3
Res Italiae Res Hispaniae Res Graeciae
XXXV
XXXVI
01. 156, 4 = 153/2
Res Italiae Res Asiae Uncertain
OJ. I57, I = I52/I
Res Italiae Res Hispaniae
01. I57, 2
=
15I/o
Res Italiae
01. I57. 3
=
!50/49
Res Italiae Res Ajricae
Res Graeciae
Res Asiae 01. I57. 4
=
I49/8
Res Ajl"icae
Res Graeciae et Macedoniae
XXXVII
01. I58, I = I48/7
Res Macedoniae
14
15- I-2 15- 3-4 X-XXV. I. I-6 16 · l -8 } (Rhodes) I7. I-5 18. 1-14 I9 (or in I54/3) 20 (perhaps after I7. 5) 2I (perhaps in book xxxiv) 2. I-4- I4 5· I 5· 2 fg. 6 ( ?) 6. I-4 (probably this year) I. I-7 2. I-4 fg. 99 ( ?) 3- I-6. 6 6. 7 fg. I92 (very doubtful) 7· 1-2 7· 3-5 8. I 8. 3 8. 2 8. 4-5 8. 6 (or after xxxviii. 22) fg. 67 ( ?) (goes with 8. 6) 8. 7 9- I-IO. 7 II. 1-4 I2. I-5 I3. I-2 I3. 3 (or res Asiae) I4- I-5 I5- I-7 I6. I-IO r6. 11-12 fg. 47 ( ?) 8. 8 (= fg. 232) I7. I-I5
I
(
?)
61
TABLE OF FRAGMENTS XXXVIII OJ. 158,
2
!47/6
Introduction
1-4. 9
I.
5· I-6. 7 Res Africae
fr. 217 (?) 19
fg. 145 7• I-8. 15 19a 20, I-II
21. 1-3 22. I-3
Res Graeciae
9· I-8 IO. I-II. II I2. l-13.
14.
9
I-2
I6. II I6. 12
I4. 3 I5· I-I6. 10 17. I-I8. I2
XXXIX
01.
xss.
3
I46/5
Res Graeciae
r.
2.
3·
I-I2 (perhaps in book xxxviii: see above,
PP· 49-5°) I-3 I
3· 3 3· 2 (?) 3· 4-11
Res Aegypti 145{4
Epilogue
4· I-s. 6 6. 1-5 7· I-7 8. I-8
The foregoing table sets out the fragments of books vii·-xxxix (omitting book xxxiv) in the order defended on pp. 1-50). In the following commentary (as in Vols. I and II) the fragments are discussed in the order in which they a.ppear in Buttner-Wobst. A passage which on this system I believe to be incorrectly placed I have enclosed in square brackets, indicating what I think is its correct position by a cross-reference in angled brackets.
62
BOOK XIX 01. 146 = 196/2: no surviving fragments. See above, p.
I, for the Livian passages derived from P. Btittner-Wobst prints as fragments two passages which mention P.
1. l. noMj3,os p.~v y~ +TJC'L KTA.: Plut. Cato mai. IO. 3· This passage, from res Hispaniae (hardly res Italiae, as Biittner-Wobst) of 01. 146, I = 196/s. is from the Spanish campaign of M. Porcius M.f. Cato. The revolt of the Turdetani (197) spread to north Spain, where the proconsul C. Sempronius Tuditanus was defeated and died of wounds (Livy, xxxiii. 25. 8--9; Oros. iv. 20. ro). Cato was sent out as consul for 195; see Livy, xxxiv. 8. 4-::n. 8; App. Hisp. 39-41 (embroidered); Zon. ix. q. 5~7. Livy (xxxiv. 17. s-u) describes the disarming of the Spaniards and dismantling of city walls after the submission of the Bergistani. But this he relates twice, once before and once after the Turdetanian expedition (Livy, xxxiv. r6. 9-1o, 21, r--6). The later occasion is the more probable; cf. De Sanctis, iv. I. 453 n. I57· The towns to suffer stood near or north of the Ebro; cf. Livy, xxxiv. 17· 5, cis lliberum; App. Ilisp. 42, -rr£pl wlf3wa -rroTaplw; Zon. ix. 17; Frontin. i. r. 1; Polyaen. viii. 17; de uir. ill. 47· 2 puts them in Celtiberia. That they were eVTOS BaLTtoS 7TOTaJLOU must be \\'Tong (though Nissen, KU, 156, prefers it); it is either Plutarch's error (cf. Gelzer, RE, 'Porcius (7)', col. ns; De Sanctis, iv. 1. 454 n. 157)-he also mentions fighting around the Baetis in Mor. 199 c-or that of F.'s source (Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 199). Cato's achievement is probably exaggerated (some of the sources go back to him), but does not merit complete scepticism. See Addenda. 2. ingens numerus etc.:= Livy, xxxiv. so. s-6, derived from F.'s res Graeciae of 01. 146. 2 = 195/4· The Roman slaves, taken prisoner in the Hannibalic War, were ransomed in response to an appeal made by Flamininus at a meeting of Greek delegations summoned to Corinth in spring 194; cf. Diod. xxviii. 13; Plut. Flam. 13. 4--6. Livy's soo denarii stand for soc drachmae; Plutarch says 'five minae'. See Aymard, PR, 258.
BOOK XX 01. 147, I = 192/1; above, pp. I-J. All surviving fragments (except perhaps 12. 8) are from res Graeciae. The deterioration in relations between Rome and Antiochus since the conference of Lysimachia in 196 (xviii. 49-52) was reeounted in book xix in a narrative in part represented by the Greek sections of Livy, xxxiv-xxxv (see p. I for details). In 192 Flamininus and three colleagues \vere sent to Greece to canvass support (Livy, xxxv. 23. 4-5). They visited Achaea, Athens, and Chalcis, and at Demetrias secured the banishment of the Magnetarch, Eurylochus, who fled to Aetolia (Livy, xxxv. 31. 332. 2). At the spring meeting (192) at Naupactus, in the presence of Antiochus' envoy, Menippus, the Aetolians resolved to summon Antiochus 'to free Greece and arbitrate between themselves and Rome' (Livy, xxxv. 32. I-33· n). They then organized action against Demetrias (which they took), Chalcis (where they failed), and Sparta (where, upon Nabis' being murdered, Philopoemen quickly intervened) ; see Livy, xxxv. J4· I-38. 14. Flamininus, joined by Eumenes, garrisoned Chalcis but held off Demctrias (Livy, xxxv. 39· r-8). See Holleaux, C AH, viii. 199-206 Etudes, v. 386-~6) ; Badian, Studies, 112-39·
Res Graeciae must have opened with a section corresponding to Livy, xxxv. 42. r-5r. ro p. r), covering autumn 192. I and 2 are from that section. 1. TplliKoVT« TW\1 &.1!'oKATjTwv KTA.: Suidas; d. Livy, xxxv. 45· 946. I (Paton is incorrect). In autumn 192 Antiochus crossed to Pteleum with ro,ooo foot, 500 cavalry, and 6 elephants (Livy, x.xxv.
43· 3-D), and was escorted to Demetrias by Eurylochus and other Magnesian leaders. At a meeting at Lamia Phaeneas called for negotiations w·ith Rome, but Thoas' motion to press ahead with war was carried. 'Haec uicit sententia, imperatoremque regem appellandum censuerunt et triginta principes cum quibus, si qua uellet, consultaret delegerunt' (Livy, xxxv. 45· 9). On the apocleti see iv. 5· 9 n.; below, Io. n, ro. 13, xxi. 5· 2. Larsen, GFS, 200, rejects the view of W. Schwahn (Wiett. Stud. I9JO, 141---9; RE, 'l:vJ.L71'oAtTda', col. rno) that they were the highest apxoV'T<<; acting as a committee; see too Touloumakos, 34· auv~ye Tou~: cl'll'oKATjTou~: KTA.: d. Livy, xxxv. 46. r, 'ita dimisso at Lamia] multitudo omnis in suas ciuitates dilapsa est; concilio rex postero die cum apocletis eorum unde bellum ordiretur consultabat.' Livy (xxxv. 46. z-51. 10) goes on to record the failure to 64
EMBASSIES TO ANTIOCHUS
XX. 3· 6
win over Chalcis, hesitation in Boeotia (d. § 2), the alliance of Amynander (through the influence of his brother-in-law, Philip of Megalopolis, a pretender to the Macedonian throne), the Achaean declaration of war on Aetolia and Antiochus, and the first fighting between Roman and Syrian forces, when Menippus wiped out soo H.omans in the precincts of the temple of Apollo at Delium. This led to the Roman war decision (Livy, xxxvi. 1. r~z. 5). 2. 4>LMwwou wpEa~Euaa.vTos: as Reiske saw, 'Philip' is an excerptor's slip for' Antioch us'; cf. Livy, xxxv. so. 5, 'et ab Achaeis quidem cum tristi responso legatio ad regem rediit: Boeoti nihil certi responderunt: cum Antiochus in Boeotiam uenisset, tum quid sibi faciundum esset se deliberaturos esse.' The Boeotians soon afterwards joined Antiochus ; cf. 7. 3~5.
3. 1-7. Embassies to An.tiochus from Epirus and Elis (192/r) 3. 1. 1-.vTL6xou 8u'l.Tpl~ovTos ~v Tfl Xac!,K£8~: following the battle of Delium all Euboea joined Antiochus (Livy, xxxv. 51. 6-ro), who now made Chalcis his headquarters. A comparison with Livy, xxxvi. 5· r-8 (based on P.), shows that both the first sentence and what follows have been abridged by the excerptor of de legat. gent., who has omitted a passage on Epirote policy (d. Xissen, KU, r2-13). XELp.&wos Ka.Ta.pxop.evou: cf. xvi. 24. r n. on this phrase; it indicates roughly the weeks from 20 November to 20 December. wo.pEyevovTo ••• wp~:aJ3EuTo.l: cf. Livy, xxxvi. 5· r, adding {what our text of P. omits) that Antiochus 'ipse sollicitabat ciuitatium animos mitten dis legatis'. Tou Twv 'HwnpwTwv ~6vous: for €8vos, used of the Epirotes, despite the purely geographical connotation of their name, see Insch. Mag. 32 l. 42; Bull. ipig. r967, 335· On the confederacy see Larsen, GFS, 273-81 ; Hammond, Epirus, 648-57 (657-71 for social and economic development). ot wEpt XO.powa.: on Charops see xxvii. rs. 2 n. ol wEpt Ko.AA.laTpa.Tov : unknown ; Li vy, xxxvi. 5. 1, omits the names of both Charops and Callistratus. 4. 8~;8L()at Tov d.wb ·Pwp.a.£wv woA.ep.ov: Livy, xxxvi. 5· 6-7, adds (probably from P.) that the Epirotes hoped to keep their record clean with Home and yet gain Antiochus' goodwill, if he kept away from Epirus, or, should he come, to have grounds for asking Roman pardon for having yielded to force. See Oost, 59-6o (who however seems wrong in regarding these reflections as perhaps Livy's own or due to contamination with another source). 6. wp£aJ3EuTo.s ••• 8La.AEX91Jaop.evous: they appear not to have been sent; nor did the Romans in fact advance through Epirus (d. Larsen, GFS, 417). D
XX. 3· 7
EMBASSIES TO ANTIOCHUS
7. xtX(ous 1T~
4. l-7. 2. Conditions in Boeotia After hearing the Elean and Epirote envoys Antiochus went to Thebes; and Livy, xxxvi. 6. 2, shows that P. gave this accoant of Boeotian decadence (which Livy condenses into one sentence) in order to explain Boeotian hostility towards Rome. M. Feyel (especially 275 ff. and 285 ff.) argues that P. put the onset of this decadence too early and that it began only in 220 and as a result of Philip V's deliberate policy: he encouraged anarchy so as to win Boeotia for Macedon. Cloche, Thebes, 240 ff. accepts Feyel's date of 220, while preferring P.'s analysis of the causes; but Aymard, Rev. hist. 196, 1946, 310-16, demonstrates the fragility of many of Feyel's arguments, especially those pointing to Philip's interference in the internal affairs of Boeotia or indicating 220 as a decisive date. Many of the faults and weaknesses of Boeotian social and economic life are those of contemporary Greece generally (cf. xxxvi. 17· 5 ff.; Feyel, 274-5, admits it). It is true that P.'s account is coloured by Achaean prejudice against Boeotia (cf. Feyel, 3os), though this prejudice probably owes less to the Hoeotian annexation of Megara in 224 (6. 8) than Feyel (127 ff.) thinks. Aymard rightly emphasizes P.'s dislike of any threat to the established social order; Achaeans were not likely to forget the alliance between social revolution and Spartan imperialism. Lehmann, 333-40, defends the accuracy of P.'s account. See also D. Mendels, A. Soc. 1977, 161-5. ~v To"ls A~;uKTPLKots Katpo"ls: during the Theban hegemony under Epaminondas and Pelopidas, after the battle of Leuctra (371); cf. vi. 43· 7· o&K olS' o1rws ••• AJ3au)KptTov: KaTa To avv.=xl> means 'continuously with' something just mentioned, 'without interruption' and so often 'straight away'; hence the most natural translation here is 'in the period that followed (sc. the Theban hegemony) they proceeded to lose gradually .. .' But this hardly f1ts the phrase €xovn:s aTpaT1Jyov Zlf3at6KptTov. Consequently Schweighaeuser (in his note) translated: 'nescio quo pacto continuo insequentibus temporibus utramque imminuerunt praetore Amoeocrito [sic]'. But as Abaeocritus commanded the Boeotian troops in 245 (Schweighaeuser did not know this), KaTCt TC\ avvt=xl> cannot mean 'at once', but must mean
4. 2.
66
CONDITIONS IN BOEOTIA
XX.4.
2
'gradually' over the period following the hegemony; and that is how Athenaeus (x. 418) takes it (in his admittedly compressed rendering): IloAvf3ws . . . 'Jaw ws BotwroL 1.u:y£ar'7v So~av Aaf36vr.:s 1-urfi rli AwKTptKd (d. 4. 2) Karfi JL!t J.rr' EBwx{a,; Kat JL€8a,; Sd8€VTO (cf. 6. s). But in that case
one needs something like 'in the following period the Boeotians proceeded gradually to lose their glory and prosperity; and this was particularly so when Abaeocritus was their leader. From that time (i.e. from his generalship) their reputation was completely reversed and they wiped out even the memory of their former glory.' Abaeocritus' command is the dividing line between two periods indicated by Jv roi:s Jfijs XP6vots and dm~ rovrwv rwv Katpwv; and why this was so is explained in §§ 4-5. It is tempting to insert something like <J.Lr£\tara S') before €xovT€S; but the fault may be due to more considerable compression and so be beyond easy repair. ic\~<noKp~Tov: so Kumanudes for l'lJLatOKptrov (P). Abaeocritus of Thebes, son of Abaeodorus, is known as a naopoeus at Delphi in 273 (Syll. 238, col. ii, no. 8), who was granted Delphic proxenia in the archonship of Ameinias (Syll. 446, where the archon is incorrectly given as Amyntas; see Roussel, BCH, 1923, 41-42; Bourguet, BCH, 1925, 24 n. r; Flaceliere, 449). Flaceliere, loc. cit., dates Ameinias' archonship to 263/2 (?). Plut. Arat. r6. r (following Aratus' 1\femoirs) relates how in his first generalship (245/4; cf. Walbank, A.ratos, 168--9) Aratus arrived too late to help the Boeotians, with the result that 'Aboeocritus (sic) the Boeotarch and ro,ooo men' fell fighting the Aetolians at Chaeronea (d. §§ 4-5). Abaeocritus is called Boeotarch by Plutarch, but general in P. From some date in the third century a federal general commanded Boeotian troops in place of the Boeotarchs, who however still existed (xviii. 43· 3 n.; Livy, xxxiii. 27. 8); cf. 6. 2, xxii. 4· 12 (187/6); Livy, xxxiii. 1. 3, L 7 (r97), xlii. 43· 9 (qr); GDI, r872 (a Delphic manumission-record which mentions a Boeotian strategos, Eureas, in the Delphic archonship of Melission, which Daux, 191, dates to rn/6). Busolt-Swoboda (ii. I4J6n. 2) and Feyel (r98 n. 4) both prefer Plutarch; and Roesch, Thespies, II2-zr, in a not wholly successful analysis of the above-mentioned passages, dismisses GDI, r87z, as an error and concludes that P. and Livy use arpar']yos (praetor) in a general, non-technical sense. Hence, he argues, there is no proof of the existence of a Boeotian federal general in the second century. However, though P.'s text here is none too sure, there is no reason to think that the word rrrpa-r']yrk is not his own; and Larsen, GFS, r8o n. r observes that Abaeocritus is referred to by Plutarch 'so to speak, as a monarchical commander', and that a single federal general may well have been instituted about 250, following the Achaean change to a single general in zss/4 (d. ii. 43· z n.); and the 67
XX. 4·
2
CONDITIONS IN BOEOTIA
fact that Abaeocritus' command represents a critical point in Boeotian decline perhaps favours the view that P. means 'in the strategia of Abaeocritus' rather than 'under the leadership of Abaeocritus'. But the evidence falls short of being decisive. On Boeotarchs see Aymard, Re11. kist. 1946, 308-9; Roesch, Thespies, 103-8.
4. :A.xa.~wv ••• EK1ToAEf1wa6.vrwv: the background of the AetoloBoeotian clash is obscure. Beloch (iv. r. 6r8, 2. 402-3) argued that Boeotia incited Phocis to defect from Aetolia, thus precipitating the Aetolian attack; but Flaceliere, 2oo and z.o7 (d. Feyel, 79-Bo) argues from the Amphictyonic votes that Boeotia resented the recent Aetolian annexation of southern Phocis (Klaffenbach, Klio, 1939, 2oo, argues that all Phocis was now annexed), and after abstaining from Amphictyonic meetings from c. zs6 now made war on the Aetolian confederation. See further xviii. 47· 9 n. f1ETil Ta.uTa. !Ca.TO. To auvEXES E1TOAE ....ouv: 'after which they forthwith made war on the Aetolians'; Ka.Td. To avv€xls goes closely with f.I.€Td -raiha. (so Feyel, 8o n. 2) rather than with JrroA.ip.ovv (when it would mean 'they made continual war'). The date of the Achaean alliance is not knO\m, but it was shortly before the battle of Chaeronea (245). 5. TWv :A.xa.~wv ••• tJ-EAAOvTwv 1Ta.pa.~o119Ef:v: according to Plut. Arat. 16. I, Aratus had been raiding Locris and Calydon, but came with 1o,ooo men too late to help the Boeotians. This would imply a return from Locris, and a quite separate march across the Isthmus (Larsen, GFS, 206 n. I). But P. implies that the Achaeans did not set out, and Plutarch's version may be exaggerated, not least as regards numbers (cf. Feyel, 8o-8r n. 5). ouK £v5E~6. .... Evo~: an implied criticism of Abaeocritus. 6. o\h' aywvos ou5EVOS .......ETa ICO~VOU 86yf10.TOS: perhaps referring to the failure of Boeotia to play a full part in the Hellenic Symmachy (Feyel, I62), and ignoring the large Boeotian contingent at Sellasia (ii. 65. 4). !.£ETa Kowoii ooyfl.a.To;; means 'by common decree' of the Symmachy, not of the Boeotian confederacy: for it is lack of collaboration, not ineffectiveness of the federal organs of government, that P. is criticizing (cf. Feyel, IS n. 1). For o[ •E!J..7JVE> as 'members of the Symmachy' cf. v. Io6. 7 n., vii. II. 8. 5. 1. TU OE K£4>6.1\a.~a. rijs •.• ayvola.s: 'the crowning act of all their individual follies was brought about thus'; cf. xxxix. 8. I for Ta KEr/>aAaLa in this sense, which is preferable to that of Schweighaeuser, 'ut singula ab his imprudenter facta in unum conferam'. Shuck burgh wrongly refers the phrase to what has preceded: 'such were briefly the steps in the degeneracy of Boeotia.' 2. 1rpoaEVE~f1a.v AiTwAots To ;avos: probably with isopoliteia (d. ii. 46. 2 n.; Porter, 58, on Plut. Arat. I6. I). 68
CONDITIONS IN BOEOTIA
XX.5. 7
3. 1TOAEJJ.OV ••• 1Tp0~ aTj!J.'IjTptov: on the war of Achaea and Aetolia against Demetrius II, which broke out in 239/8, see ii. 44· 1 n. 1TO.pa.y£VO!J.EVOU aTJ!J.TJTplou ••• El~ T,V Bo~wT[av: in 237/6, according to Feyel, 83 ff., basing his argument on eighteen Megarian proxeny decrees, three of them mentioning a king Demetrius (IG, vii. 1-14, 3473; BSA, 1912/13,82 ff., nos. i-iii), which had hitherto been attributed to Demetrius I, but which he refers to Demetrius II. If he is right, Demetrius entered Boeotia in 237j6, detaching it from Aetolia, and annexed Megara (Achaean since 243/2: cf. ii. 43· 5 n.); but Feyel's argument that he shortly afterwards handed over Aegosthena to the Boeotians (Feyel, 3o-3J, 1oo-4; cf. Robert, Rev. phil. 1939, 97-122, discussing JG, vii. 188-9) has been refuted by Etienne and Knoepfler, 323 ff., who base their case on a re-examination of the Boeotian archon-list. Both Aegosthena and Pagae became Boeotian along with Megara in 224. Demetrius' route into B0eotia is not recorded. Beloch, iv. I. 631 (following Niese, ii. 2i4) assumed that he came from Chalcis; Larsen (Phoenix, 1965, 122) suggests that his army was shipped from north Euboea direct to a Boeotian or Locrian port; Feyel, 101, thinks he may have forced Thermopylae, coming by land. i11rha€a.v ucj>a~ athou~ ••• MaKESbut: though no longer dominated by Aetolia, they did not make a complete break, since there is evidence for Thebes and Acraephia approaching the Amphictyonic Council to obtain privileges for the Agrionia and Ptoia festivals (Feyel, 12o-1; id., Epig. 14o-7). 5. :A.uKwvSav Ka.i N£wva: the grandfather and father (§ 12) of Brachylles (cf. xviii. I. 2 n.). Neon, a Theban, figures in a list of proxeni and theorodoci at Epidaurus, c. 225 ():IPX· l,P. 1933, 14 l. 30 = SEG, xi. 414). 7. :A.vT£yovo~ ••• tmTpo1TEUua.~ cfltAL1T1TOu: Antigonus Doson succeeded in spring 229 as Philip's guardian, becoming king probably in 228/7 (cf. ii. 44· 2 n., 45· 2 n.). 1rA£wv €1r£ TlVa.~ 1rpn€u~: probably in 227 (§ n n.); on 7Tpdgets see v. 26. In. The manuscript reading is 7Tpos ·ni laxa-ra rijs Bownlas 7Tpos !laf3puvav. Following Valesius and Palmerius Schweighaeuser corrected !la{3puvav to !lapvp.vav, and Buttner-\Vobst printed nls £axanas to avoid hiatus. (On laxana see D. M. Lewis in Finley, Problemes de la terre, 210-12. In Attica it seems often to mean land near the hills or, perhaps, recently cultivated; but here -ra lfaxa-ra has the usual meaning of 'frontier area'.) 7rpos with the accusative should mean 'towards' or 'against'; and the sense is probably 'sailing with a military purpose towards the frontier district of Boeotia against Larymna'. So Schweighaeuser; and it was probably rumour of some hostile action that caused Neon to be in the vicinity (§ 8). Feyel (n7 n. s) rejects this, but makes no suggestion as to 6g
XX. 5· 7
CONDITIONS IN BOEOTIA
what the Trp&.~ns were. Something in Asia (§ u) seems excluded, since P. mentions the hostile action in close relation to Boeotia. However, the repeated Trpo;; is awkward, and Hultsch's reading is tempting: TTMwv . . . 7rp6s ni laxaTa Tfj;; BotwTlas, Trepl A&.pvfLvav TrapaSO~ov yevofLEV'YJ'> ap7TI.vTew;; KTA. The coup (or whatever is meant) would then be directed at the frontier area, but not at Larymna. In any case, the sentence contains an anacoluthon, and there may be some compression by the excerptor. AO.pu1-1-va.v: the most easterly town in eastern Locris. It was Locrian in 273/2 (Flaceliere, 440; cf. GDI, 2593), but shortly afterwards Locris became Boeotian; when, after Chaeronea (4. 2 n.) Locris probably joined the Aetolian Confederacy (Beloch, iv. 2. 432), Larymna remained Boeotian. It consisted of an upper town and a lower port; on the site see Paus. ix. 23. 7. The lower town, again named Larymna, lies on the bay into which the Cephisus flows, through a katavothra from the Copaic Lake. See Geiger, RE, 'Larymna (1)', cols. 88o-1. 1rapa80~ou ••• cltJ-1TWTEWS: Will, i. 334, suggests a connection with the Rhodian earthquake of 227 (v. 88-90 n.). No proof is possible, but an abnormal tide could derive from a seismic disturbance. 8. 1rpoa1TE1TTWKu£a.s +,1-LflS: hence Neon's presence nearby. The rumour indicates strained relations between Boeotia and Macedonia; but Neon's position as hipparch shows that the Macedonian party still had some power (Feyel, II7 ff.). See further, on the relations of Boeotia and Macedon, ii. 49· 6 n. (exaggerating the degree of support for Macedon prior to these events). l1r1rapxwv Ton: as in the fifth- and early fourth-century confederacy (Thuc. iv. 72. 4; Plut. Mor. 578 B) the Boeotian cavalry was commanded by a hipparch, an important federal officer; cf. IG, ix. 1. 270 l. s (but the one mentioned in IG, vii. 3087-8 is probably a local official). See Busolt-Swoboda, ii. 1419 n. 4, 1436-7; Feyel. n8, 197, 204, 277· xapLV TOU 1Tapa+uAnTTEW TTJV xwpa.v: in view of the rumour. This is against Feyel's assumption (2o4) that the federal cavalry was carry-
ing out a routine frontier patrol under the hipparch. 9. 5uvntJ-Evos tJ-EynAa. ~Aci.IJiaL: evidence of strained relations with Macedonia (contra Feyel, u8-r9); hence Neon's decision was Trapd. T~v
7rpoaOoK£av mhwv.
e,~
10. TOLS •••
70
CONDITIONS IN BOEOTIA
XX. 5·
IZ
1940, 143 ff., and Bengtson, S.-B. Munchen, r97I, 3, 22 ff., against Dow and Edson, Harv. Stud. 1937, r68 ff., who would connect the expedition with an Athenian decree of 226 honouring Prytanis of who had gone as ambassador to Doson). Its purpose is obscure. It used to be regarded as an anti-Ptolemaic move (Beloch iv. r. 683; 2. 548 ff.; Tarn, CAH, vii. 722, 752); but Caria had recently been an object of contention between Antioch us Hierax and At talus I (v. 74· 4 n.), and Will, i. 334-5 suggests that Doson was acting Attalus and the Seleucids, a view modified by Bengtson lv!iinchen, 1971, 3, 26 ff.), who envisages a compact with I, who was to expand eastward into Phrygia, while Doson subdued Caria, all at the expense of the enfeebled Seleucid realm. Treves (Athen. 1935, 37 f.) even envisaged some collaboration with Ptolemy III. It is unlikely that the battle of Andros (d. v. 34· 7 n.; Will, i. belongs to this campaign, and there is no evidence that Doson made any permanent acquisitions in Caria; against the view of W. Otto, RE, 'Hippomedon', cols. 1845 ff., based on an interpretation of Syll. 502 (d. iv. 35· 13 n.), that Doson at this time got possession of Samothrace, see Bengtson, Strat. iii. 179; Fraser, Samothrace, ii. I. But he established relations with Olympichus of Alinda which lasted into the reign of Philip V (cf. v. 90. r n., with addendum, Vol. II, p. 645; xv. 20 n.; Crampa, Labraunda inscriptions). An inscription, lnsch. Priene, 37 11. 136 ff., mentioning Antigonus' arbitration in a dispute with Samos, may link with this expedition, but does not justify Beloch's assertion (iv. 2. 55o) that Priene became Macedonian. This arbitration is not mentioned by G. Kleiner, RE, SuppL-E. ix, 'Priene', col. u88; but the reference to Tov y.d.as tl>t[Am?Tov, and an earlier reference (1. 134) to Tov Aao8iKetov 1T6A
7I
XX. 5·
I2
CONDITIONS IN BOEOTIA
temporary military occupation (Bengtson, Strat. ii. 325 n. 6; Feyel, 131 n. 5). By a slip Strachan-Davidson calls the town Thebes. 13. 1TavTa.s TjvayKa.aa.v f10.KE8ov£tEIV: an exaggeration if, as seems likely (Feyel, I36---63). Boeotia was neutral in the Social War.
6. 1. axE8bv ELKOO"I Kol 1TEVT' ~Twv: in xxii. 4· 2 the same figure, calculated from after the Roman peace with Antioch us, takes one back to c. 212 (Feyel, 274). Here the point of reckoning will be rgzfr, which takes one to c. 217, the end of the Social War. (The pluperfect 1Tapa.yt£yovt£t indicates a time prior to that with which P. is concerned, viz. 01. 147, I = rg2(r, not, despite the ft.Jv • •• 8i, a time prior to that implied in tAa{JE d.pX'fiv.) In general P. links the rise of the house of Neon and the KaX£gta in Boeotia, but the twenty-five years of disorder in the courts cannot be directly related chronologically either to Neon's service to Doson (227) or to Brachylles' appointment at Sparta (222). Feyel, 274, argues that since in the present passage P. is concerned to exaggerate the period of disorder, the calculation of 25 years from 187/6 (xxii. 4· 2) is the more reliable. But having written 'nearly 25 years' here P. may simply have repeated the figure in xxii. 4· 2, just as he describes Philip V as seventeen years old in iv. 24. r (autumn 22o), having said the same in iv. 5· 3 (autumnwinter 221), the earlier passage giving the correct figure (Walbank, Philip, 295). P.'s account of Boeotia may find confirmation in Heracleides Criticus (i. rs-r6 = GGM, i. IOJ), who describes the cessation of activity in the courts for 30 years, and a state of violence and disorder at Thebes (Feyel, 275---6). Unfortunately this satirical treatise cannot be firmly dated; a third-century date is likely (but the 8ou.\£i:a in i. 2 = GGM, i. 98 refers to the condition of ~EI•ot, and not to that of the Athenians before the liberation from Macedonia in 229: Ferguson, 464-7). Certainly, a third-century date of composition would bring forward the onset of judicial anarchy to an earlier date than P. assigns to it; but in any case Heracleides speaks only of Thebes, P. of Boeotia generally. (It may be noted that many attempts to date Heracleides use the conditions described in P. as a point of reference; hence the danger of circular argument; see on this Daebritz, RE, 'Herakleides (46)', coL 486; F. Pfister, S.-B. Wien, 227(2), 1952, 44 f.) The conditions described by P. are generally applicable to central Greece, and not peculiar to Boeotia (cf. Feyel, 276-7, quoting evidence for debt and court delays in Aetolia, Thessaly, and Delphi; see below, xxii. 4· 2 n. ; Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, ii. 6ro ff., iii. 146o-r). But the years following r8o seem to have been a time of economic crisis in Boeotia; for evidence of com shortage see Roesch, Rev. phil. 1¢5, 256-61; Etienne and Knoepfler, 209 n. 705, 244 n. 9o8 (bringing down the date somewhat}. See also D. Hennig, Chiron, 1977, 119-48.
72
CONDITIONS IN BOEOTIA
XX.6. 7
lSwnKWV O"UJLf3oXa.lwv ••• KOWWV eyKA'I}JLO.T!alV: 'private contracts ... public suits'; the phrases cover civil and criminal justice. 2. cf:.poupAs 1Ta.pa.yyiXXoVT~S ••• o-rpo.Tctla.s Kowas: P. implies that these guard duties and federal campaigns were a sham, put on to prevent the operation of the courts. If true, this would lead to a decline in army morale (Fcyel, 277-9). lvc.ot 5e Twv aTpO.TT)ywv ••• JLW9o5oa£o.s : on Boeotian cnpa7'1J'Yol see above 4· 2 n.; Feyel, z66 n. 2, argues that cnpaTTJYO{ here means magistrates in general, but this is unlikely: p.w0o8oa{a. is commonly used of soldiers' pay (d. L 69. 3), and this p.ta06s may represent wages for service during the mobilizations (which could indeed have been made with this end in mind). It is not entirely certain that the payments TOLS" d-rrdpo'S· T6JV avOpdnrwv were for military service; indeed they are often treated as pure donatives (d. Rostovtzeff, .'-iEHHW, ii. 612, 'a regular salary to all poor out of public funds'; Feyel, 279; Tarn, HC, no, 'Opheltas ... helped the poor out of state funds'), but p.taBos is usually payment for service. 4. 1TA~L'aTa. ••• 1Tpos Tt)v TOLO.VT'I}V ••• 'Ocf:.eXTo.s: some such word as Ka.Ta!J'Taaw has fallen out after Tota.~v. Opheltas is unknown; but the Opheltiadae are known at Chaeronca (Plut. Mor. 558 A). 15. ctts ~owxlo.s Ko.l. JLE9o.s 5t~Tt9EvTo: cf. 4· 7 ; 'they employed it in feasting and drinking' i.e. while still alive, not by endowing such festivities after their death (a point missed by Schweighaeuser and Paton (Loeb ed.): cf. Feyel, I7 n. 1). 6. nm;:JL[pttov TOLS O"liO"O"LTtolS TO 1TA£LOV JLEpos: contrast Achaea, where Philopoemen persuaded his fellow citizens to reform, when they were mipt OEVrrva. ,PtAoTtp.ovp.~vwv Ka.l Tpa.rrl~a.s (Plut. Philop. 9· 6-8; Feyel, 281 n. 4). Against the argument of Passerini (Stud. it. 1934, 52) that P. is here echoing a moralist's commtmis locus with little factual basis, see Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, iii. 1461 n. 14. 7. MEya.pEI:s ••• a.ons ci.1Tevctuao.v 1rpos To(Js :A.xa.wus: for relations between Megara and Achaea down to 237/6 seeS· 3 n. On Demetrius' death the Achaeans recovered Megara, and some time between 228 and 227/6 made alliances with Boeotia and Phocis, which deposited hostages (Syll. 519; ii. 49· 6 n.). In 224, with Cleomenes at the Isthmus, Megara joined the Boeotian Confederation, probably under pressure from Antigonus Doson, who wanted to conciliate Boeotia (d. Feyel, 127, 134; above, ii. 52. 7 n.); fi-ETil Tfjs Twv 11xa.twv yvwp.7Js (§ 8) need not imply Achaean enthusiasm, but does show the Confederation countenancing a secession which would normally have been tantamount to a revolt (cf. Swoboda, Klio, 1912, 20 n. 7). Megara. returned to Achaea in a stratcgia of Philopoemen (Plut. Philop. I2. 3 f.; Paus. viii. so. sl- In view of§ g, {Jpa.xv .•. rrpo 'TWl' vilv >.«yop.b<wv KaLpwv, this has been taken to be that of 193(2 (Beloch, iv. 2. 434; Feyel, 62 n. I; Lehmann, 334 n. 6). Niese, ii. 567 n. 2, argued
73
XX. 6. 7
BOEOTIANS WELCOME ANTIOCHliS
for 2orjo. But the most likely date is that indicated by the order of events in Plutarch, 2o6/5 (Aymard, PR, 14 n. 7; Walbank, Philip, r6s; Errington, 77 n. r). For further bibliography see Robert, Rev. phil. 1939, us n. 4 ( = 01'.15, ii. 1268 n. 4); Robert (ibid. 97-122 = OMS, ii. 125~-75) shows that Aegosthena continued to be Boeotian after Megara rejoined Achaea. 10. ot S€ Bous~Toi. ••• i~ijA9ov t'll'i. Tous Mqap£is: probably in 206/5 (see previous note); cf. Plut. Philop. 12. 3; Paus. viii. so. 5· 12, a'II'O~\L'II'()VT€5 , , , TaS K~.f~aKaS; SO lOW Was their morale.
7. 2. W0'11'€p E'II'LTTJSes avTa'!I'6Soaw"' TUXT) 'II'OLOuf!lv"l: d. xi. s. 8 for the phraseology; Vol. I, p. 20 for Tyche punishing wrong-doing. l:mtp ~v ••• 'II'OLT)0'0~£9a ~v~~T)V: see xxii. 4 ft. for trouble in Boeotia following the war with Antiochus. 7. 3-5. The Boeotians welcome Antiochus This passage, from the excerpts de uirt. et uit., corresponds to Livy, xxxvi. 6. 1-2, which immediately follows the passage corresponding to 3· 1-7, Livy having passed over P.'s digression on Boeotian decadence (4. 1-7. r). T~v t'll'ava1p£aw T~v BpaxuXXou: winter 197/6; d. xviii. 48. r2 n. T~v aTpan1av ••• t'll'i. Kopwv£Lav SLlL Tous ••• "'ovous: for the out-
7. 3.
burst of murders of Romans in Boeotia, the collective fine of soo talents imposed by Flamininus, and the punitive attacks on Acraephia (under Ap. Claudius) and Coronea (under Flamininus) see Livy, xxxiii. 29. 1-9. Many bodies were found in the Copaic Lake, and the total of dead was reported to be soo. 4. SdL Tas 'll'poupT)~~vas ah1as: Livy, xxxvi. 6. 2, having passed over these, has to summarize: 're uera per multa iam saecula [sic] publice priuatimque labante egregia quondam disciplina gentis et multorum eo statu, qui diuturnus esse sine mutatione rerum non posset'. 5. OL TWV BoLWTWV ap~aVTES: 'the Boeotian magistrates' will include Boeotarchs, hipparch, and strategos (on whom see 4· 2 n.). But Valesius interpreted Livy's paraphrase (Livy, xxxvi. 6. 3, 'obuiam effusis undique Boeotiae principibus The bas uenit') as evidence that he took ap~aVTES to mean 'those WhO had held office', hence 'leading citizens'. Paton also renders 'those who had held office' ; and the rareness of the perfect makes this use of the aorist participle conceivable, though not compelling. ~yov ••• ets Tas 01\~as: here Antioch us secured a Boeotian declaration of war on Rome before returning to Chalcis (Livy, xxxvi. 6. 3-5). At a council held shortly afterwards at Demetrias, it was midwinter (Livy, xxxvi. 6. 9), about December-January 192/r.
74
ANTIOCHUS' MARRIAGE
XX. 8.
I
8. l-5. Antiochus' marriage at Chalcis At Antiochus' council at Demetrias (7. 5 n.) Hannibal advocated winning over or else attacking Philip V, and urged a more active policy against Rome (Livy, x..xxvi. 7· 1-21); but this was rejected, and Philip soon made an agreement with M. Baebius, who had crossed wi.th perhaps 2ooo men to Apollonia (Livy, xxxvi. ro. ro; Walbank, Philip, 199~2or). Antiochus, helped by Amynander and the Aetolians, now advanced successfully into Thessaly (Livy, xxxvi. 9· r~ro. 6) but withdrew from Lamia to Demetrias on learning of Ap. Claudius' arrival (Livy, xxxvi. ro. 6-14). Despite Livy, xxxvi. 10. 12, hiemem instare, it was now probably the end of January; and Antiochus will have spent February and March 191 at Chalcis (Walbank, Philip, 201-2, 32R-""9). On Antiochus' wedding at Chalcis see also Livy, xxxvi. u. r-2 (cf. rs. I, I7· 7); Diod. xxix. 2; App. Syr. r6; Plut. Philop. I/. l; Flam. r6. r (d. Robert, Hellenica, 7, 1949, 25 n. r). Livy and Diodorus follow P., Diodorus in some respects giving a truer version of P. than the passage from Athenaeus (x. 429) printed as a fragment (d. Schmitt, Antiochos, 6 n. 2). Antiochus had previously married Laodice, a daughter of Mithridates II of Pontus (iv. 48. 5 n., v. 43· r-4, viii. 20. u n.), who bore him three sons and either four or five daughters (Schmitt, Antiochos, r3 ff.); for a summary of the evidence concerning this forceful princess see Robert, Bull. epig. r97I, no. 6:.n. A royal prostagma dating to Xandikos of year II9 s.E. March/ April 193, found at Nehavend in Media (cf. Robert, Hellenica, 7, 1949, 5-22; iv. 2. 7 n.) shows Laodice alive barely two years before the marriage at Chalcis, and, stranger still, an inscription from Susa, dating from year IJ6 S.E. = rn/6 (d. Robert, Ret'. phil. I9J6, 137-52, esp. 149 f. ONES, ii. IZr6-3r, esp. 1228 f.; Hellenica, 7, 1949, 28; rr-12, 196o, 86 n. 2; Schmitt, Antiochas, n-12) indicates that she outlived Antiochus. A:ymard (Etudes, 212-29) suggested that Laodicc was repudiated for some unknown reason in 193, but restored to favour sometime after early 190, when her son, the later Seleucus IV, who was in temporary eclipse between autumn 192 and early 190, again appears holding commands, until in r88 he is associated with his father on the throne (Aymard, Etudes, 221 n. 3 for the evidence). Laodice's repudiation seems likely (for no other bigamous marriage is attested in the Selcucid dynasty), but there is no evidence that she was rehabilitated before her son's succession (J. and t. Robert, Bull. epig. 1951, no. 234). 8.1. o f.I-EYGS E1nKGAouf.1-tt"os: on this title cf. iv. 2. 7 n. and Vol. II, pp. 638-9; add :P. Herrmann, A nadolu (A natalia), 9, 1965 (1967), 37, fg. D 11. n, 30 (an inscription from Teos dating to after 204/3);
75
XX.8.
I
ANTIOCHUS' MARRIAGE
Pugliese Carratelli, Annuario, 45--46, 1967-8 (1969), 445-53, no. 2 I and II (an inscription from Iasus dating c. 190: cf. J. and L. Robert, Bull ipig. 1971, no. 621, who suggest that the second of these may be part of OGI.$, 237). Here, however, the words J1.v-rloxor; ... lv Tfj £lKoa'Tfi may be those of A thenaeus. 11'EVT~KoVTa. iJ.Ev ~T'I') yeyovws : this would make his birth 242 or 241 (iv. 2. 7 n.); but Schmitt (Antiochos, 4-5) argues convincingly that since both Diodorus (xxix. z) and Appian (Syr. 16) make him over fifty years, the qualifying word is likely to have been omitted by Athenaeus. P. is the source of Diodorus and probably of Appian (cf. Gabba, Rend. Line. ser. 8, 12, 1957, 339-51), and their version would allow for Antiochus' birth in 243 or 242. ooo Tn j.LEyu,.Ta. ••• &cve..AfJ+ws: d. Livy, xxxvi. n. 2, 'quantas simul duas res suscepisset, bellum Romanum et Graeciam liberandam'; Diodorus and Appian omit the liberation of Greece. TTJV ••• ~Aeu6€pwow: cf. iii. 7. 3, TTporf>aatv S' ~yrrr.Eov 'T~v 7wv 'EJJ,.-r}l•wv €1\.wOepwaw; see note ad loc.; PCdech, Methode, 174 n. 377· To the Aetolians the Roman liberation had merely been a ,_u:Odpp.oat> SwTToTwv (xviii. 45· 6). 2. ipa.a&l.s ••• 1J'a.p6evou Xa.AK~OlKTl!l: ct. Diod. xxix . .2, TTapO€vov .•• £i'mpeTTovr; £paaflds; App. Syr. 16, €v8a Kbprw ErmpeTToi'i,; lpom &Aovs. Ei'mpm-?>, used (of boys) in xxxi. 25. sa, may have stood in P.'s text. olvo1I'OT1'JS i:lv Ka.t j4£9a.,s xa.(pwv: cf. Li vy, xxxvi. 11. 2, 'in conuiuiis et uinum sequentibus uoluptatibus'. This picture of a winter spent in debauchery is clearly false (Antiochus was only a short time in winter quarters: 7. 5 n.) and may be modelled on the legend of Hannibal's fatal stay in Capua; see especially Diod. xxix. 2. Anti-Seleudd propaganda is to be detected (d. Will, ii. 174). 3. KAeo11"TOAEj.l-OU ••• 9uy6.T'I')p: cf. Livy, xxxvi. II. 1; he is unknown. 4. ;e£To 8e ... ovoj.la. Eu~olnv: cf. App. Syr. zo (below,§ 5 n.). Tam, Fergttson Stttdies, 499 n. 3, compares Philip II, who, he suggests, called his wife Olympias to celebrate the coincidence of his Olympian victory and Alexander's birth (Plut. Alex. 3· 5). As a girl Olympias is said to have been called Myrtale, Polyxene, and Stratonice (Plut. ~1or. 401 A; Justin. ix. 7. 13) ; but the three names are suspicious, and Philip is not said to have renamed her. So Antiochus' action is not clearly paralleled: its political significance (and perhaps that of the marriage itself) is plain. 5. TJTT1'j6ei.; ••• ;+uyev els "Ecflnrov: cf. App. Syr. 20, dm] If 'EA.ania,; ls XiJJ\Kloa, Kai ;, "Erf>Eaov p.eT' EvfJola> rijs veoyap.ov (Toih-o yd.p at'n-~v dw&p.a~Ev) £TTl Twv vel~v lrpwyEv. A thenaeus has probably compressed the text to include Antiochus' flight after Therrnopylae.
(12. 1-7: this passage, on Philopoemen's rejection of a gift at Sparta, probably belongs here; sec above, p. z.) 76
THE BATTLE OF THERMOPYLAE
XX. g.
I
8. 6. Fragment from the account of the battle of TJwrmopylae (191) Livy, xxxvi. 5· I-JS· n, covering the Greek campaigns including Thermopylae (chs. rs-19), corresponds to P.'s res Graeciae of 01. 147, r 192/r (see above, p. 2); the fact that P. is mentioned here does not justify singling out this sentence from the rest. On Antiochus' forces see 1 n. 9. l-11. 10. Roman negotiations with the Aetolians (r9r) After his defeat at Thermopylae (8. 6) in late April 191 (d. Walbank, Philip, 329-31), Antiochus fled to Chalcis and thence to Ephesus (8. 5 n.; Livy, xxxvi. 19. 9, 21. r). The consul, M'. Acilius Glabrio, now began the siege of Heraclea, while Philip V, who had recently been active along the Pagasaean coast road, taking Alope, Larissa Cremaste, Antron, Pteleum and, perhaps, Halus and Phthiotic Thebes (cf. Walbank, Philip, ~04 n. 6), simultaneously blockaded Lamia, seven miles away. Persistent night and day attacks, ending in a midnight assault, brought about the fall of Heraclea; but Philip made no headway with his mines at Lamia, and had to withdraw (Livy, xxxvi. zz. r-zs. 8; Zon. ix. 19; Phleg. TraiL, FGH, 257 F J6, III. I; Plut. Flam. rs. 3; App. Syr. 2I; below, II. 3 n.).
(fg. 82 may stand here; it concerns Philip's attack on Lamia.)
9. 1.
77
XX. 9.
2
ROMAN NEGOTIATIONS
2. !1\pxeSO.J.I.OV ••• na.vTa.AEOVTQ. ••• XO.Xnrov: on Archedamus see xviii. 21. 5 n.; he was Aetolian general in rgrfo (GDI, 1985-6), rSS/7 (GDI, 2132), 182/1 (GDI, 2036-7, 2047), and I75/4 (GDI, 1795, 1843, rg87); cf. De Sanctis, iv. r. 4oo-z; Klaffenbach, IG, ix 2 • r. p. li. Hostile to Rome (xxviii. 4· 3) he later joined Perseus of Macedon and followed him after his defeat (Li'vy, xliii. 21. g-2z. II, xliv. 43· 6; Plut. Aem. 23. 3). For the possibility that 'Andronicus, Andronici filius, Aetolus', executed by the Romans after Pydna (Livy, xlv. 31. 15) is an error for 'Archedamus' see Pedech, Methode, 267 n. 57; De Sanctis, iv. I. 350 n. 298 has a different hypothesis. Pantaleon is probably grandson of the Pantaleon who arranged the AchaeoAetolian alliance in 239 (ii. 44· r) and son of Archidamus (for Archidamus and the elder Pantaleon see iv. 57· 7 n.); he was general in r86/s (GDI, 1844, 1949), in 18o/79 (cf. Klaffenbach, IG, ixz. r. p. li) and in 174/3 (GDI, r8s6); cf. De Sanctis, iv. r. 402; Treves, RE, 'Pantaleon (6)', cols. 691-2. See xxviii. 4· 8 f. for his opposition to Lyciscus' pro-Roman policy after Perseus' defeat, and Livy, xlii. 15. 8-ro, for his help to Eumenes when the latter was struck by stones at Delphi (his presence beside Eumenes need not imply that he was pro-Roman: so M.eloni, Perseo, r84 n. z). Chalepus (so Bergk for the manuscript x6.A71aav: Livy, xxxvi. 27. z omits the names) was a Locrian from Naupactus; see IG, ix. r. 357; BCH, 1932, 4 I. 73 (expropriated at Delphi}; Lerat, ii. 227 (prosopography). He was general in the year of the Delphic archon Hybrias (GDI, zop, 2II7; BCH, I9JO, 288 n. r), which must be shortly before 198/7 and may be 199/8; Daux, 97-9S, r87; Klaffenbach, IG, ix 2 • L p. I. See xxi. 25. n n. 4. Twv ~K TfJS 'Hpa.KAElO.S Xa.~.)pwv: d. Livy, xxxvi. 24. 7 (of the lower town, which was taken first), 'oppidum uictores permissu consulis diripiunt, non tam ab ira nee ab odio, sed ut miles, coercitus in tot receptis ex potestate hostium urbibus, aliquo tandem loco fructum uictoriae sentiret.' On the division and disposal of booty in the Roman camp see x. 16, 2-17. 5 n. ; Acilius' remark was no doubt intended to irritate the Aetolian envoys. 5. AeuK&ov; L. Valerius Flaccus, cos. 195. According to ro. ro he was military tribune, as was his colleague in the consulship, l\L Porcius Cato (cf. Cic. de sen. 32; Plut. Cat. mai. 12. r); Appian, Syr. r8, gives them both this rank. But Livy (xxxvi. IJ. 1, 19. r, 22. 7, 27. 3-8, 28. 8; cf. Zon. ix. 20; Phleg. Trall., FGII, 257 F 36, III. r) calls him legat1,s. Scullard, Pol. 124 n. 3, suggests that the Livian tradition gave them both this title to glorify Cato; but it is not unprecedented for a military tribune to hold the title of legatus when acting independently (cf. Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 695 n. I; xviii. 8. 6 n.). See Munzer, RE, 'Valerius (173)', cols. 16-2o. 6. els T~Y 'Yrn1Ta.v: the meeting-place of the Aetolian council which 78
WITH THE AETOLIANS (191)
XX. 9.
IO
had sent envoys to Antiochus (9. 1 n.). Hypata, the main town of the Aenianes, stood high above the Spercheius valley, on the slopes of Oeta, about 25 km directly north-west of Heraclea; see Leake, NG, ii. IJ ff.; Stahlin, HeU. Thess. 221-2; Bi:quignon, 308-·IZ, -.vith plan. It is the modern Hypati. 8. E'lTVTEfJ.WV a.u-rwv -rT]v opfJ.tJ": 'cut the flood of their eloquence short' (Paton). 9. TP~'!Tea9a., '!Tpos Tov O.~U»fJ.a.nKov 'i..Oyov: 'to adopt a tone of supplication' (Shuckburgh}; for this sense of &.g~wf.Lartl(o,; d. xxxi. 7· 3, xxxii. 3· r6. Ka.l. oeia9a.~ -roO aTpO.TT)yoO auyyvwfJ.TJS Tuxeiv: xxxvi. 27. 7 adds a sentence: 'et se suppliciter agentibus iis adfuturum et apud consulem et Romae in senatu'. P. has nothing of this and Livy may have added it in the light of ro. 10, where Valerius intercedes with Acilius; an addition from an annalistic source (Dahlhcim, 33-34 n. 23) seem less likely. Piganiol, RIDA, 5, 1950,339-40, thinks Valerius meant to be helpful, inasmuch as a bond existed with the Valerii since the Aetolian treaty made by :\1. Valerius Laevinus in :ZII (Livy, xxvi. 24. 8-14; Vol. II, pp. rr-13); d. Dahlheim, 42 n. 46.
tO. SOnes a.•hous ets ,.,., 'PwfJ.a.lwv 'll'laTw: cf. Livy, xxxvi. 27. 8, 'haec una uia omnibus ad salutem uisa est, ut in fidemse permitterent Romanorum.' As P. explains (§ rz; a fuller definition in xxxvi. 4· r-3} the phrase is merely another way to describe deditio, unconditional surrender (Td T~v imTporr~v Soiiva~ 7T€pt av'roil T(j! KpaToilvn). The examples of the Mamertines (Vol. II, p. 6zg, addendum to i. IO. I-2 n.}, the Illy·rian cities (ii. II. s-12), Saguntum (Vol. II, p. 6JI, addendum to ii. 13. 7 n.; Vol. II, p. 635, addendum to iii. 15. 5 n.; iii. 15. 7, Jo. r), and certain Spanish states (x. 40. z) demonstrate that deditio was not necessarily followed by a disagreeable or dishonourable status; a letter sent by the Scipios to Heraclea by Latmus (Syll. 618 Sherk, 35} shows that in 190 surrender €ls T~v ~f.L€7'Epa[p, 7TWr
XX. 9· IO
ROMA~
NEGOTIATIONS
'at ego recipio.' Before accepting, the Romans might impose conditions: cf. Caesar, BG, ii. 32. r, 'deditionis nullam esse condicionem nisi armis traditis'; Livy, xxix. 3· J, 'in deditionem ita accipi eos, si .Mandonium ceterosque belli concitores tradidissent uiuos'. But, as the present incident shows, the validity of the act of deditio seems not to depend on the readiness of the party surrendering to accept the conditions nor upon the Romans' formal acceptance of the deditio (10. 7). Acceptance, it was hoped, would induce the Romans to treat the dediti generously; cf. Livy, xxxiv. 40. 3-4, where Nabis' envoy hopes to persuade Flami:ninus to accept deditio, but has to be content with a tmce; clearly the former was preferable (Larsen, CP, 1935, 198). But this did not alter the Romans' legal rights: if they treated the dediti well, it was because of the moral obligations of fides, not through any legal claim that deditio conferred on the persons surrendering (cf. Piganiol, RI DA, 5, 1950, 339-4i; Badian, 5-6). The harsh treatment of the Aumnci (above), Acilius' action towards the Aetolians (ro. 7-ro), and the treatment of Carthage in 146 (xxxvi. 3· r ff.) represented no breach of any treaty or compact, since, as Reuss (Volk. Grund. 6o ff.) has demonstrated, deditio involved none (cf. xxxvi. 9· rz-q). Attempts have been made, in view of a confused terminology in some sources (e.g. Livy, xxxix. 54· 7, quoted below; Val. Max. vi. 5· r), to draw a distinction between deditio in dicionem and deditio in fidem; against this see Dahlheim, 29-30. Similarly Calderone, 33 f., distinguishes between deditio and receptio in fidem, so that the party on:enng deditio had to fulfil certain conditions, but having once been receptus in fidem he became entitled to the benefits implied in this moral concept; where dediti are reported to have been harshly treated, they will not have been recepti in fidem. This will not do since (a) it runs directly counter to what P. says, (b) there is no example of a people's having made deditio and then having been specifically non recepti in fidem and treated severely. True, Latin sources recording the harsh treatment of dediti tend, not unnaturally, to avoid reference to fides; and dediti, for their own advantage, would try either deliberately or, like the Aetolians, through confusion, to draw distinctions; cf. Livy, xxxix. 54· 7, where Gauls argue 'dedisse se prius in fidem quam in potestatem populi Romani'. As P. records, deditio and receptio in fidem are the same action viewed from the two sides, and the formula of deditio, as recorded in Livy, i. 38. z (see above), has no place for a deditio which is facta but in which subsequently those making it are not recepti. Calderone argues that the Aetolian misunderstanding sprang from the fact that to a Greek 1rlan<; was a bilateral concept and, in the giving and of oaths, conjured up the notion of a compact. So
WITH THE AETOLIANS (191)
XX.
I().
7
There is some truth in this; but even more the misunderstanding arose because the Aetolians assumed, from their past experience of Roman behaviour, that in fidem zumire would imply generous treatment, with room for discussion, whereas Acilius chose to interpret the situation in its full rigour, as had been done earlier in relation to Capua, Atella, Calatia, and the Sabatini (cf. Livy, xxvi. 14. 2, 14. 8-16. 10, 33· r2 ff., 34). For clearly an act of deditio could not purchase immunity from retribution in all circumstances. The original meaning of fides has been much discussed since E. Fraenkel (Rh. 1"'1-ftts. 1916, 187 ff.) argued that it meant 'guarantee' and carried no moral overtones, a view rejected by R. Heinze (Hermes, 1929, 140 ff. =Geist, 25 ff.) and later defended by G. Beseler (Z. Sav.-Stzft. (Rom. Abt.) 49, 1929, 415 ff.; Atti del Congresso lnternazionale di Diritto Romano (Rome, 1933) i. 140 ff.). Piganiol (RIDA, 5, 1950, 345-ti) saw in it the mana residing in a leader's right arm; and Calderone, 90-98, connects it with rpelSeaOat, 'to spare, to renounce the rights of war'. The problem is peripheral to that of the meaning of in fidem uenire at the time P. was writing. Bibliography: in addition to works mentioned (among which that of Piganiol is especially important) see J. Paoli in Aeqttilas et bona fides: Festgabe fur A. Simonius (Basel, 1955), Zi4-S; I. Calabi, Riv. fil. 1956, 395; Posch!, Grlmdwerte, 101; Heuss, Volk. Grund. 64-66; Dahlheim, s-ti7 especially 2 s-sz ; Lehmann, IOJ-4; M. Merten, Fides Romana bei Livius (Diss. Frankfort, 1965), 6--7; Flurl, 26-82. t
10. 4.
Twv 8E Ka.To.veuacl.vTwv: Livy, xxxvi. 28. 2, probably for vividness (rather than following an annalist), adds here: 'turn decretum Phaeneas, in quo id diserte scriptum erat, ostendit.' jlTJ8evo. 8to.~o.tYELY .•• eic.; -nlv ,...ala.v: p:r}u: 1
I.
81
XX.
IO.
8
ROMAN NEGOTIATIONS
8. 'KHuwa;;: .•• TTEp~9E~Va.L: not actually done (cf. xxi. 5· 3 n.). 9. EO'Ta.aav awvoL: cf. fg. 192; on the expression see Wunderer, i. 6r. 10. Twv ••• XL;\ul.pxwv: the military tribunes were members of Glabrio's advisory council (cf. xiv. 2. n n.); on L. Valerius Flaccus' status see 9· 5 n., and on his intervention 9· 9 n. 11. TOUS nTTOKA'fjTOUS: see I n. ,.,.poaS;;:Ia9a.L 5E ~
WITH THE AETOLIANS (191)
XX.
II. II
~n vEpt T~v 'HpaKAELav: d. 9· r-4. MaKeOOvas tL<J>EO'TWTaC) ••• avo Tll'i AaJJ-LO.C): d. 9· I-II.
11. 3. Tous 'Pw11-a£ous TOU'i
ron. Livy, xxxvi. 27. 1-3, puts the truce after Philip's withdrawal from Lamia; but it may have preceded and brought about the withdrawal (so De Sanctis, iv. 1. 166). The date will be July, 191 (d. Daux, 226; Aymard, Etudes, 7--9; Walbank, Philip, 205, 33r-2). On Philip's resentment at having to withdraw see Livy, xxxix. 23. 8---fj.
4. TC], ••• XPtJJJ-aT': evidently mentioned in a lost section before ch. 9; d. Livy, xxxvi. 26. 5, 'in praesentia pecuniam, quae ad usus belli necessaria erat, legatis dedit.' 5. iTL Tll'i O'UVOUO'LO.'i aKJJ-atOUO"T)'i: 'when the banquet was at its height' (Paton); these were occasions of much drinking and quick tempers (cf. Livy, xxxvii. 7· 12 (r9o)). 7. 'PwJJ-O.LOUC) evayayoLEV TOLC) "EAATJO'L: in the First Macedonian War; the accusation not unnaturally neglects Philip's own compact with Hannibal made four years before the Aetolo-Roman alliance of 21 r. m].ALV ;t\vT(oxov: in 192 (see introduction to this book). O'UVE1TEJJ-~O.lVELV TOLC) KaT' aAAT]Awv KaLpo'Ls: 'to take advantage of the situation to work against each other'. Philip had already foreseen a rapprochement with a weakened Aetolia, hostile as he was to the new confederations of Thessaly (d. Walbank, Philip, 206-7). 10. O.vaKATJ8El.s Ets 'PwJJ-TJV EKEL JJ-ETTJAAa~E Tov ~tov: his detention occurred early during the war with Perseus (xxvii. 15. r4; xxviii. 4· 6, 6. 7)-
11. 11-12. Two fragments concerning (a) the Roman march to Naupactus; (b) the areas gained by Philip V (191) When negotiations collapsed, the Aetolians gathered at Naupactus and Acilius, sending Ap. Claudius ahead with 4,ooo troops, marched over Mt. Corax from Mt. Oeta and set about the siege, which lasted two months (August-September). In the Peloponnese, with Flamininus' help, the Achaeans acquired Messenia; but Zacynthus, which they had bought from Antiochus' governor, Hierocles of Agrigentum, was detached from Achaea and became Roman. Meanwhile Philip seized many .Magnesian towns and advanced into Dolopia, Aperantia, and Perrhaebia; his campaign was cut short when Acilius made a further truce with Phaeneas. See Livy, xxxvi. Jo: I-JS· 14 (based on P.); cf. App. Syr. 21; Plut. Flam. 11· 4; Walbank, Philip, 207.
11. 11. Kopa~: Livy, xxxvi. 30. 4, describes the difficulties encountered by Acilius crossing Mt. Corax on hiswayto Naupactus; the 83
XX.
II. II
ROMAN MARCH TO NAUPACTUS
Aetolians had however omitted to garrison the pass (a mistake they avoided the next year: Livy, xxxvii. 4· 7, 5· 4). Corax lay in eastern Aetolia west of Parnassus (Strabo, ix. 3· I, C. 4Ii) and bordering on Oeta (Strabo, x. :z. 4, C. 45o) ; and it is now agreed that it is the modern Vardhousi (2405 m.) rather than Mt. Ghi6na (see Oldfather, RE, 'Korax', cols. I378-9). Aciliusapproached it from ML Oeta, where he had been sacrificing to Heracles 'in eo loco, quem Pyram ... appellant' (Livy, xxxvi . .30. 3); and the remains of the altar and a small Doric temple connected with the cult were discovered by Pappadakis (J4px. 8E'AT. I9I9 'ITapapT. 25-.3.3; BCH, 1922, 513) on the Xerovouni of Pavliani in the south-eastern part of the massif. It follows that Acilius will have descended Oeta on the southern side into the upper valley of the Mega (known as the Mornos in its middle and lower reaches), and that he approached Corax by way of Callipolis. This is confirmed by P.'s statement that Corax lay between Callipolis and Naupactus; its accuracy is attested by Livy's paraphrase (Livy, xxxvii . .30. 4), 'mons est altissimus inter Callipolim et Naupactum', and also by Appian, Syr. 21, which is also derived from P. indirectly. Appian says that Acilius J'ITI Ka.Mtm5AE'ws 8L
ROMAN MARCH TO NAUPACTUS
XX.
IZ. l
on a good source and requires Callipolis to stand to the east or northeast of Vardhousi. The site which best meets this requirement, as Woodhouse, 371, saw, is Kastri6tissa, which lies about half an hour's walk north-west of MavrolitMri in the upper valley of the Mega, and possesses substantial walls of Hellenic masonry (as I am informed by T. J. Cadoux, who visited it in 1974). Acilius will have crossed the upper streams of the Mega near Kastri6tissa and, instead of following the Mega downstream between Mt. Vardhousi and Mt. Ghi6na, traversed the ridge of Vardhousi west of Mousounitsa (now renamed Athanasios Diakos), and so past the site of Kostantsa and Granitsa into the K6kkinos valley, descending thence to the Mornos. At its highest point this pass reaches 21oo m. See further Murray, Handbook for Travellers in Greece, ed. 6 (London, 1896), 651-2; E. Kirsten in Philippson, Landschajten, i. 2 (1931), 369-70; ii. 2 (1958), 543; ]ahrb. 1940, JI6; AA, 1941, 108--9.
12. !A."TrEpavTE~a.: d. Livy, xxxvi. 33· 7, 'in de Dolopiam et Aperantiam et Perrhaebiae quasdam ciuitates recipit Philippus].' The exact boundaries of Aperantia are uncertain, but it comprised the area between the Asprop6tamos (Achelous) and the Megdova, and the valley below their confluence; to the north lay the Dolopes (cf. xviii. 47· 6 n.). Aperantia formed part of l7TtKTTJTOS Al-rwAla, and was probably returned to Aetolia after Pydna; for its temporary recovery by Aetolia in 189 see xxi. 25. 3-6. Steph. Byz. seems to be in error, since P. can hardly have called the town of Aperantia Thessalian (Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 147 n. 4). This town (not mentioned in Livy) was probably no more than a stronghold; its exact site is unknown. See Hirschfeld, RE, 'Aperantia', cols. 2647-8; Woodhouse, 79 ff., 291 ff.; Kirsten in Philippson, Landschaften, ii. 2. s8o. [12. 1-7. Phitopoemen rejects a gift at Sparta This fragment should stand between 8. 5 and 8. 6; see above, p. z. The incident recorded in it probably took place, as Paus. viii. 51. 2 states, after Philopoemen had defended Sparta and settled affairs there following his opposition to an attempt which Diophanes, the Achaean general for 192/1, and Flamininus made, at a date prior to the battle of Therrnopylae (Plut. Philop. 16. 1), to interfere in that city. Plutarch (Pkilop. IS. 4-6) dates the offer to 192, after Philopoemen had brought Sparta into the confederation. See Nissen, KU, z84 (on the confusion in Plutarch); Niese, ii. 716 n. 2 (191); Aymard, PR, 337-8 n. 25 (19r); Errington, III-I2 (192); Shimron, Late Sparta, 103, 143 (autumn or winter 191 ). 12. 1. TOY EpouVTa. wepi Tothc:uv: viz. the proposal, voted in the
ss
XX.
I2. I
PHILOPOEMEN REJECTS
Spartan assembly, to present Philopoemcn with the 120 talents raised from the sale of Nabis' house and property (Plut. Philop.
rs. 4). Q.}..A.' w~ TrpOEXEtp£uuvTo TL1"6Aa.ov: d. Plut. Philop. IS. 4, 7TpoE{3d.AoVTo TDv g€vov avToii Ttp.6"Aa.ov. Errington, IIO f., who dates these events to 192, that Timolaus was one of the aristoi at Sparta, whose support Philopoemen had won (Plut. Phitop. IS· 3). This could equally be true if the offer followed Philopoemen's intervention in r91, but Timolaus, who is otherwise unknown, may simply have been, as P. says, a xenos of Philopoemen (cf. Shimron, Late Sparta, 139 n. rr, who observes that in 192 everyone at Sparta probably supported Nabis until his death). Errington, 133, argues further that between Philopoemen's intervention and the Spartan embassy to Rome (xxi. r. I) Timolaus' party had been exiled: see XXI. I n. 8ls ets ~v Mey6.ATJV TrOALV: described in greater detail in Plut. Ph£lop. IS. s-6 (probably from P.'s Life). Errington, II2 n. I, suggests plausibly that the 'conventional three visits' are a product of the Philopocmen legend. 11-ucuv£uu!l ea.uTov: 'summoning up courage', lit. 'spurring himself on'. 5. KATJ9d!l Els TO uuv€8pLov: probably the gerousia (cf. Vol. I, pp. 731-2). Toil ..• 6.vou: the money from the sale of Nabis' house and possessions, amounting to 120 talents (r2. In.). (J"Teavos (cf. xxi. 30. Io, 34· s. 36. 4, xxiii. I. 7, xxviii. 23. 3 and elsewhere) often has the meaning of a gift of precious metal, coined or uncoined, presented as a mark of homage (Aymard, PR, 337 n. 25). Paus. viii. 51. 2 mentions only Nabis' house, worth over roo talents. 7. 1TDAU 8£ 1"8.1-.Aov Tots ex9pois: enemies of Sparta within Achaea, as the words aw'lyopE'i:v •.. dvaY'ca~wvn.t' show; d. Paus. viii. 5L 2,
86
A GIFT AT SPARTA
XX.
12,8
·TOV:; iv T{jl avM6y~ Twv )lxatw!) m8avotis 1TA..)8«'t (but adding the absurd suggestion that the words were directed against Timolaus). Plut. Philop. rs. 6, has Philopoemen advise buying over Tovs 1TOVTJpovs Kai T1Jv rro:>..w iv T{jl IJVV, i.e. the antiAchaean element in the Spartan gerousia. Errington, II2, prefers this version, which indicates that Philopoemen was 'working towards his goal of compromising differences between the Spartan factions in the Achaean interest'; but P.'s version must take precedence over the derived account in Plutarch. Lehmann, 268 n. 256, thinks that Philopoemen may have had Diophanes (xxi. 3 b 2 n.) in mind.l (xxi. 1. 1-4, on the return of a Spartan embassy from Rome, should probably stand here; see above, p. 3.)
12. 8. On the value of evidence based on tlze eyes This fragment may be from either book xx or book xxi. For its content cf. xii. 27. r n.; and, against the view of Pedech (Methode, 359-6o) that it is from the prologue to xxi, see pp. 2-3.
8. TJ KQ.TCL TTJV EvapyELO.V 1Ttans; 'certainty founded on the evidence of one's eyes' (Paton).
BOOK XXI 01. 147, 2-4 191/o, xgof8g, and 189/8; the fragments can be supplemented from Livy; above, pp. 3-7' with table, p. s6. [1. 1-4. Return of Spartan embassy from Rome (summer 191) Its position in the excerpts de legal. gent. would allow this passage to stand in either xx or xxi; but since, as is likely (above, p. 3), it is 192/r, and is best from res Graeciae, it must belong to 01. 147, 1 placed after xx. 12. 1-'7. Errington, who wishes to leave it here in book xxi, points out that embassies were normally heard at Rome in winter under the new consuls; but this rule is not invariable {cf. xxiv. 8-ro, xxxii. I. 4), and since P. mentions the Senate's reply in connection with the embassy's return, it is likely that he did not describe its reception in a general account of the hearing of embassies at Rome. Aymard (PR, 356-8 n. 1) correctly dates the embassy to summer 191; but his argument that after the Achaean assembly at Aegium in autumn 191 (Livy, xxxvi. 35· 7; Plut. Philop. 17. 4), at which Philopoemen resisted the demand of Acilius and Flamininus that the Spartan exiles should be restored, Philopoemen (as strategos, 191/o) would never have allowed the Spartans to send an embassy to Rome, is not cogent, since the Spartans may have acted without seeking Achaean authorization. Errington, 133, 286-7, moreover, argues convincingly that, as the Spartan demand for the restoration of the hostages ran counter to Achaean policy, there had evidently been a change of government at Sparta since the offer of the gift to Philopoemen (xx. 12. 1-7). besides Aymard and Errington, Nissen, KU, r85; Buttner-Wobst, Phil. 19oo, 564 ff.; Lehmann, 239 n. 193; Shimron, Late Sparta, 104 n. 8 (accepting Errington's date for the embassy). l. l. Ka.T(i T~lV Ka.~pbv To\hov: a loose transitional phrase referring to what preceded (now lost); the date is summer or early autumn 191 (see above). va.pa.yeveaOa.~: sc. at Sparta. 2. vept Twv Of.L'r)pwv Kat Twv Kwp.wv: under the peace terms of 195 N abis handed over five hostages, named by Flamininus, including his son Armenas (Livy, xxxiv. 35· II, 52. 9; below, 3· 4). The demand for their return implies a Spartan government well disposed towards Nabis and therefore a different one from that which offered Philopoemen a gift in 191 (xx. 12, 1-7; above 1 n.). The tdiJp.a~ will be the 88
RETURN OF SPARTAN EMBASSY FROM ROME
XXI. 1.4
Laconicae orae castella et uici, handed over in fidem Achaeorum tutdamque under the peace of 195 (Livy, xxxviii. 31. 2; d. Livy, xxxiv. 29. I for their seizure by Flarnininus); see Schweighaeuser, vii. 418-19; Aymard, PR, 331 n. 2. They had not been restored to Sparta when she joined the Achaean Confederation. On the Spartan perioecic communities cf. ii. 65. 9 n.; Bolte, RE, 'Sparta', cols. 1322-3.
3. Toi:s 1ra.p' O.l~m';lv &1roO"TeAAo.UvoLS' npea~euw: 'to the envoys sent by them'; the participle is timeless (cf. xiv. r. ro, 1. I4, where o[ d.troGTEAA6f1-EVot are 'the envoys'), cf. Schweighaeuser, vii. 417; Ayrnard, PR, 358 n. I. Thus a decision about the perioecic tO\vns was deferred, for there is no evidence that the question was raised at the Achaean synodos of autumn 191 (Livy, xxxvi. 35· 7; cf. Plut. Philop. 17. 4), as Schweighaeuser, Joe. cit., suggests. 1repi 8i TWV Ofl.fJpwv ••• 8eAELv: the hostages were returned the following winter (191/o); cf. 3· 4 n. Errington, 135. suggests that Flamininus influenced the decision. Their restoration would strengthen those at Sparta who opposed the return of those exiled under Nabis; cf. Holleaux, CAH, viii. 236; Etudes, v. 427. 4. 11'Ept ••• TWV ~uyci8wv TWV apxa.£wv: rlpxatwv is Schweighaeuser's emendation of rlxa"t'w (cf. xxii. I. 9, n. 7, xxiii. 4· 2, 5· r8, 17. ro, r8. 2). The reference to Sparta being now free shows that the 'old exiles' are those expelled by the 'tyrants', viz. Nabis (xiii. 6. 3; Paus. vii. 9· 2), and also Cleomenes, Lycurgus, and Machanidas; cf. Livy, xxxiv. 26. 12, 'exules permulti, tyrannorum iniuria pulsi, spe reciperandae patriae in castra Romana conuenerunt [i.e. against NabisJ. multi autem erant, iam per aliquot aetates, ex quo tyranni tenebant Lacedaemonem, alii ab aliis expulsi.' The phrase 'old exiles' implies that there were now 'new exiles'; and these were perhaps the leadersofthe pro-Achaean party, among them Tirnolaus, who had lost power between the offer of the gift to Philopoemen (xx. 12. 1-7) and the sending of this embassy to Rome (Errington, 134; contra Shimron, Late Sparta, 142-4). In the political climate Timolaus' party can hardly have been O\'erthrown without also being exiled. Shimron (CQ, 1964, 238 n. 4) would restrict the term 'old exiles' to Cleomenes' victims, but this seems an unlikely distinction; and the 'new exiles' can hardly be the hostages sent to Rome by Nabis {Shimron, Late sparta, I45 n. 2J). At the Achaean synodos of autumn 191 'de Eleis et exulibus Lacedaemoniorum restituendis actum est' {Livy, xxxvi. 35· 7); but nothing was done, beoause the Achaeans wanted to have the credit for restoring the exiles themselves.]
XXI.
2
AETOLIA}l" EMBASSY TO ROME (191/0)
2. 1-6. Aetolian embassy to Rome (191/o) For the date, winter r9r/o, see p. 4; d. Livy, xxxvii.
I.
1-6.
2. 1. TfjS KnTa TTJV vnu11nx£nv vLKTJS: fought off Corycus, a headland on the mainland opposite Chios, where a joint Roman and Pergamene fleet of ISS ships (ros decked) under C. Livius Salinator and Eumenes defeated a Syrian fleet of roo {7o decked) under Polyxenidas (cf. x. 29. 6 n.). The date is autumn 191, since soon afterwards the Roman ships were beached, cum iam hiems appeteret (Livy, xxxvi. 4S· 8; on X (LSJ assumes a noun JAwvEs) is not found elsewhere, but J,\u,Juv is common. Liv)', xxxvii. I. r records that 'nulla prius secundum religiones acta in senatu res est quam de Aetolis' by the consuls of A.U.C. s64 191/o; and if Derow, Phoenix, 1973, 348, is right, id. mart. A.u.c. s64 fell on 18 Nov. I9I. This does not allow much time at the end of the previous consul year for this supplicatio. Moreover, a nine days' supplicatio is unparalleled at this date, especially for a victory such as Corycus, which did not decide the war. Cynoscephalae (Livy, xxxii. 24. 3-4) and Pydna (Liv·y. xlv. 2. 8) merited each only a five-day supplicatio. Nevertheless P. was clearly conscious of recording somdhing unusual; the explanation shows that he had not mentioned a supplicatio previously. If a nine days' celebration is incredible, a five-day supplicatio for a victory which destroyed Antiochus' control of the sea would be both possible and memorable. The manuscripts of the de legat. gent. agree in reading fJ'; an error in the lost original, with fJ' (nine) for t/ (five), would account for the inflated number. But Livy's silence still remains strange. See, on the supplicatio, \Vissowa, 423 ff.; RE, 'Supplicationes', cols. 943-5; L Balkin, Les Supplications d'actions de graces chez les Romains (Bibl. fac. philos. Univ. Liege, vol. r28) (Paris,r9s3), pp. 27-28 for this passage (suggesting confusion with sacrum nouemdiale). 3. Tou; 1Tnp0. TWv AhwA.wv 1TpEuj3Et;: after besieging Naupactus for two months, Acilius, influenced by Flamininus' argument that the prolongation of the war in Aetolia was benefiting only Philip, granted the Aetolians a truce: 'indutiisque in diem certam datis, qua legatio renuntiari ab Roma posset, soluta obsidio est et exercitus in Phocidem missus' (Uvy, xxxvi. 34· r~35· 6, from P.). According to Livy, xxxvii. r. I, Flamininus also returned to Rome and gave the Aetolians his support. l).'s abbreviated text omits this. 4. yEvofl~vwv 5~ 1TAEtovwv 1Tnp' O.f14>oiv A6ywv: d. xxii. 6. 5 for the excerptor (1\issen, KU, 13); according similar compression to Livy (xxxvii. r. the Aetolians made a plea ad misericordiam, 90
AETOLIAN EMBASSY TO ROME {191{0}
XXL3b
and discussion went on per aliquot dies before a compromise was reached; Livy does not mention Acilius' envoys. SUo 1TflOTetvew yvwJJ.a.<;: either to make an act of deditio, or to make a foedus iniquum with Rome (paying an indemnity of Iooo talents); cf. Livy, xxxvii. I. 5; Diod. xxix. 4; Zon. ix. rg. 4· 5. €1rt TLCTL &e'L 8L86vaL Tt]v ~1TLTfl01T~v: the Aetolians were still confused about the real character of deditio; cf. 9· 10 n.; Heuss. Volk. Grund. 67 ; Dahlheim, 38 n. 31. ou 1Tpoa8ixeTaL T~v lhaaToA~v: '(the Senate) refused to define them' (Shuckburgh). The tense of rrpoaol.xeTa.t, like yliyove in § 6, probably betrays the excerptor. Hultsch, EZ (r893), 6z, suggested rrpoaeol.fa.To ••• .!yeyove..
3. 1-4. Embassy to Rome from Philip (r9r/o) Livy, xxxvi. 35· 12-r3 records this embassy as a pendant to his account of the previous autumn's events in Greece. After Acilius and Flamininus had visited the Achaean meeting at Aegium (Livy, xxxvi. 35· 7; above z. 3 n.), Epirotc envoys came to defend their state before the consul, who referred them to Rome (Livy, xxxvi. 35· 8-ro). This is all from P.; but the account of the hearing of Philip's envoys at Rome (following the Epirotes), is so different from that here, that Nissen (KU, r85) seems right in assigning to it an annalistic origin (Livy, xxxvi. 35· r2-r3). According to Livy, the Macedonian envoys were granted permission to dedicate centum pondo coronam auream on the Capitol. 3. 2. &1ToAoyL~OflEVOL Tijv euvoto.v KTA.: stereotyped chancellery phrases; cf. iv. 3· 2; Holleaux, F:tudes, iii. II9 n. 3· 3. ATJtJ.~Tplov &m~Xuae: d. xviii. 39· 5 n.; Walbank, Philip, 176. Demetrius, now about fifteen (Livy, xl. 6. 41), had been sent to Rome as a hostage under the agreement made in Tempe in I97, when Philip was permitted to send envoys to the Senate to sue for peace. The remaining hostages were also released now (II. 9). 5La4>uA.6.~avTo<; ••• Tijv 1TLCTTLv: especially, no doubt, by helping in the forthcoming Roman march through Macedon and Thrace. 10 ' TWV ~ A QKEQQ~jJ.OVIWV ' ,· ' '..~,.~ 4 • TOU<; OtJ.T)flOU<; Cl'i'TJI<E: Cf • I. 3 n. peTaAXa~a.L Tov (3lov: thus depriving the Senate of the advantages of retaining him. 3 b 1-2. Achaean alliance u•ith Eumenes (r9r/o) Eumenes' embassy was evidently later than his return home after Corycus (Livy, xxxvi. 45· 6), i.e. autumn 191; and Diophanes' strategia (autumn 192/autumn 191) had expired, since he was sent in command of the Achaean troops. Livy omits the embassy, but 91
XXI. 3b
ACHAEAN ALLIANCE WITH EUMENES (191/0)
(after P.) records the arrival of the troops at Elaea in spring I9o (Livy, xxxvii. 20. r); so the embassy was a little before then (cf. Biittner-Wobst, Phil. I9oo, 57o-2; Aymard, PR, 373-4 n. 8). For the theory that P. was among the Achaean contingent, first propounded by Mommsen (RG, ii. 449; Rom. Forsch. ii. 538 f.) see Pedech, 11Jethode, 359 n. 27; for an argument against it see above, Vol. I, p. I n. I; Aymard, PR, 374-5 n. I4. 3 b 1. tca.i tca.Ta T~v 'EXA6.8a.: Ka.l is probably added by the excerptor; cf. Biittner-Wobst, Phil. 19oo, 570. 61T€p O"UflflO.XLa.s: that Achaea already had an alliance (with Attalus) is suggested by Eumenes' sending ambassadors in 187 to renew TTJV (J1)p.Jl.a.xla.v TTJV Tra.TptK1)v (xxii. 7· 8); and Livy, xxxii. 23. I (198) confirms this, if one accepts the usual text 'societatem cum (Attalo) ac Rhodiis [MSS. read cum Romanis ac Rhodiis (B)-which must be wrong-or cum Rhodiis] decreto confirmarunt'. In that case, was this Eumenes' renewal? (He could have overlooked the matter until it became relevant: Aymard, PR, 374 n. 9.) Moreover. the word used here(§ 2) is not ava.vwvu8a.t, F.'s normal word for a renewal (d. Daux, Melanges Desrousseaux, II9-22), but JmKupovv 'ratify'. Errington, 28o-r, has therefore suggested that, assuming the renewal of 187 to be of a treaty sworn for ten years upon Eumenes' accession, the present embassy was concerned merely to recall its terms and to inquire tactfully whether the Achaeans were willing to honour it by sending troops they did). Against this, P. certainly seems to be recording something more formal: TTJV • • • uup.p.a.xla.v l.TrEKvpwua.v. Perhaps then Eumenes had not renewed the alliance with Attalus, and now, since he wanted help, found it less embarrassing to ignore it and ask for a new one; or, by presenting his proposal as one for a new alliance, he was able to have a special meeting called to consider it, whereas a mere renewal might have been postponed till a synodos (Larsen, 174)-and Eumenes wanted the troops. In 187, when only courtesies and a gift to Achaea were involved, it may have suited Eumenes to recall the earlier treaty, probably made in 198. Achaean meetings were not always clear about the previous history of treaties up for renewal; cf. xxii. 9· 5 ff. for Lycortas' confusion about an Egyptian alliance. If the above solution is accepted, UTr~P uup.p.a.xlM has its normal meaning, 'about an alliance'. 2. cl.9poLa9£vTES Ets tKkATJO"La.v ot 'II'OAAoL: a specially convened syncletos of the Achaean assembly to hear proposals (involving the sending of troops overseas) from a foreign ambassador; see Larsen, 174; Giovannini, Mus. Helv. 1969, 10; below, pp. 413-14 (appendix to book xxix). vt:a.vla~eous £€a.1TiaTELAa.v: Livy, xxxvii. 20.2 (following P.) calls them 92
ACHAEAN ALLIANCE WITH EUMENES (191/0)
XXI. 4
'ueterani omnes et periti belli'; and App. Syr. 26 (also going back to P.; cf. Aymard, PR, 374 n. n) uses lTTlA~KTot. vmvlaKot is in fact a general word for soldiers (cf. i. 36. I2 n.). These troops later give Eumenes effective help near Pergamum (Livy, xxxvii. 20. 2-21. 4), and they fought at Magnesia (Livy, xxxvii. 39· 9, 'Achaeorum caetratis immixtos auxiliares Eumenis'; App. Syr. 3I (confused over the numbers) ; Syll. 6o6 (a dedication at Pergamum to Athena Nicephoros on behalf of Attalus, Eumenes' brother, by .i:lxatwv ol Staf3avn<; KaTa aVJ-LJ-Laxlav 1rpo<; f3aatMa Evf-Liv1J, who fought beside Attalus T~v lv AvStat 1rapa Tov l!>pvywv 1TOTaJ-Lov f-Lct)(T)v)). 'll'£~ous 11£v XlALous l'll''ll'£is S' £Ka.Tov: cf. Livy, xxxvii. 20. 1. AlocpavT]s o M£ya.Ao'll'oALTT]S: son of Diaeus of Megalopolis (Paus. viii. 30. 5, 51. I; I nsch. Olymp. 46 l. 5); see 9· I for his experience under Philopoemen. His election as general in autumn I92 suggests that he was still a supporter of Philopoemen: cf. Errington, 112 f.; Lehmann, 266; contra De Sanctis, iv. 1. I69 (Philopoemen's adversary) and Aymard, PR, 323 f. (midway, politically, between Aristaenus and Philopoemen); but hostility soon arose between them. Philopoemen may have been critical of his policy by winter I92/I (Plut. Philop. 17. 1, if authentic) ; and a clash occurred in spring I9I, when Philopoemen excluded Diophanes and Flamininus from Sparta and settled the troubles himself (xx. I2. I-7 n.). In summer, under Roman pressure, Diophanes withdrew from Messene (Livy, xxxvi. 31. I-Io; Aymard, PR, 34I f.) and yielded to Flamininus' demand that Zacynthus should be surrendered (Livy, xxxvi. 31. Io32. 9; Errington, I27-8). Some time after his year of office he led an Achaean embassy to Acilius to request the return to Elatea of its citizens now in Stymphalus; cf. SEG, xi. II07; Moretti, no. 55; Klaffenbach, BCH, I968, 257-9, with important new readings. (On the expulsion of the Elateans see xviii. 43· I n. Passerini's view that it was the Aetolians who expelled them is defended by Larsen (CP, I969, 46; GFS, 4o6), by Lehmann, I2o--5 (whose arguments converted J. and L. Robert, Bull. epig. I968, no. 267; cf. I969, no. 265), and by Errington, I32 n. I; but Klaffenbach, loc. cit., and Briscoe (Latomus, I972, 34 n. 5; Commentary, on Livy, xxxii. 24. 7) both follow Accame's view that Flamininus was responsible.) There is also an inscription relating to Diophanes' strategia: IG. iv 2 • 1. 6o. See further Lehmann, 266-84; Deininger, RE, SuppL-E. xi, 'Diophanes', cols. 534-8. Errington, I36, suggests plausibly that he was sent to Pergamum to .~et him out of the way, through Philopoemen's influence.
4. 1-5. 13. The Aetolians obtain a further truce (I9o) The army of Scipio-L. Cornelius L.f. L.n. Scipio (Asiaticus), cos. A.u.c. 564 = I9o-marshalled at Brundisium on id. quinct. = I8 93
XXI. 4
THE AETOLIANS OBTAIN
.March (Jul.) (since the solar eclipse which occurred a.d. v id. quinct. was in fact on 14 .March (Jul.)); see Livy, xxxvii. 4· I-5; Derow, Phoenix, r973, 345-6. It will therefore have reached Amphissa (4. r) about the end of April, r90, and the six months' armistice granted to the Aetolians (5. u) \'lill have covered May-October, 190 (cf. Walbank, Philip, 332). (For an agreement between the Locrian cities of Myania and Hypnia probably dating to this period of Aetolian weakness see J. Bousquet, BCH, 1965, 665-81; Lerat, i. 36-38; ii. 88-89.) The present extract corresponds to Livy, xxxvii. 6. 4-7. 7, and forms part of the res Graeciae of OL 147,2 r9r/o (above, pp. 4-5). The immediately preceding passage in Livy (xxxvii. 4- 6-6. 3, also from P.) relates how the Aetolians, fearing for Naupactus, occupied the Corax passes (cf. xx. rr. I I n.), whereupon Acilius attacked and took Lamia, already shaken by Philip, and went on to invest Amphissa. The city wall was already breached at several points when news came of the consul's approach from Apollonia with 13,ooo foot and soo cavalry {Livy, xxxvii. 6. r-2). Having failed to take Hypata (cf. xx. 9· 6), Scipio marched on Amphissa, sending Africanus, who was his legatus, ahead. The townspeople took refuge in the citadel; Acilius was encamped six miles from the town (Livy, xxxvii. 6. 3-4).
4. 1. Twv :A.J.lqm.raiwv: Ampbissa, 'the largest and most famous city in Locris' (Paus. x. 38. 4), lay 6o stades north-west of Delphi (Aeschin. iii. 123; Pausanias, loc. cit., incorrectly makes it 120 stades), on a dominating site to the west of the road north from ftea and Delphi to the Cephisus valley; formerly Salona, it is now once again Amphissa. On the site and remains of fortifications (later obscured by a medieval fort) see A. Bon, BCH, 1937, 164~86; Lerat, i. 174-80 with fig. Io (see ibid. ix-x, for inscriptions). 'Ex€SYJJ.lOV: from a wealthy family of the deme Cydathenaion, influential for five or six generations from the late fourth century omvards; cf. Kirchner, RE, 'Echedemos (r)', cols. 1907-8, and PA, nos. 6r6r and 6r68 for a genealogical tree. He is probably the man who in Sosigenes' archonship dedicated a tower in the fortifications (IG. ii 2 • 2331), and acted as a subscriber under the archon Hermogenes (!G. ii 2 • 2332). He had been trained in the school of Eurycleides and .Midon (v. 1o6. 7 n.), which was at this time pro-Roman (cf. Ferguson, 282). The Echedemus of the inscriptions, the son of Menestheus, may also be the man who figures as second mintofficial on the Attic tetradrachms of the early second century, series r>. av-ExE, Thompson, New Style Coinage, 98 and nos. 287-314 (Ex~: is also third magistrate on nos. 335 band c). If ExE is 'Exe(oTJp.os) (so Kirchner), the identification depends on the dating of this coin series. Thompson makes this I96-87 (with rAav-ExE in 17o/69); but 94
A FURTHER TRUCE (190)
XXI. 6
D. M. Lewis, NC, 1962, 275-300 (cf. ibid. 301-33 for Thompson's reply) dates it from the r6os to the end of the Roman republic, which would put r>.av-Exc; in c. I34· See also H. B. Mattingly, NC, 1969, 325-34· 5. Kpa.Tilam rijs :t\a(a.s: the imperial note is P.'s own comment; P. interprets Roman policy as directed towards universal domination (cf. i. 3· 4 n., 6. 6 n., 20. r--2 n., 9 n., ii. 31. 8 n., iii. 32. 7 n., v. 104. 3· XV. 9· 2 n., IO. 2 n.; Walbank, ]RS, 1963, s). 7. To'i:s O.pxouo-l T~h1 AtTwAGw: cf. x. 42. 4 n.; they are the apocleti (5. z), as Flaceliere (45) and Touloumakos (34) assume, or possibly that board acting along >v'ith various magistrates (which is perhaps less likely). 9. EV e;~KOVTCJ. O'TO.bLOLS l!:rro 'l'llS ;t..(J-.plO'CTflS: d. Livy, xxxvii. 6. 4. 'sex milia fere passuum'. 12. 6ur'Lv ••• a.rpt:aLs: the same as the Senate had laid down; 2. 4· Apparently Lucius was present throughout and, as consul, stated the terms (which he was probably not authorized to alter: Scullard, Pol. 129).
5. 2. 'I'OLS a:rrOKA~TOLS: cf. iv. 5· 9 n.; above 4· 7 n. Echedemus evidently accompanied the Aetolian envoys. 3. 'ITOpU (J-LKpov ds Tijv aAuow EV~'ITEO"OV: cf. XX. IO. 8 n. 4. Tous 'ITOALTLKous 5.v6pa.s ~eat TUS yuva.iKa.s: d. Livy, xxxvii. 7. 2, 'aut permissionem extra ciuium corpora fieri iuberent'. The sense is 'to exclude citizens, male and female, from the deditio'; for this sense of 1roAtTt«os see iv. 52. 7 n. Schweighaeuser's belief (Lex. Pol. s.v.; he quotes x. r6. r) that P. means 'the richer sort', distinct from o{ epya<J'T~KDL, is improbable; and Paton, 'that their politicians and their women should be excluded', is absurd. ~iese. ii. 723 has 'eine Milderung ... zu Gunsten einzelner hervorragender lVHinner oder Frauen'. 5. To is 'IT'Epl '1'0'11 no'ITAlOV: again Lucius seems to be included; d. 4· 9. 4· 12 n. 7. ~e&v ~v ••• 'ITt:pt Tidv li~Loup.Evwv: 'if they gained their request, well and good' (Paton): with an ellipse. 11. rva. '11'p€a~€00"WUL '11'pos T~V aoyKAf]TOV: Damoteles was sent: zs. 9n. 13. ypo.pe1awv ••• Twv O(J-oAoy1wv: it also covered the Achaeans and Philip (cf. Niese, ii. 723 n. 2).
6. 1-7. Affairs in Phocaea: Roman fleet at Sestus 6. r, 6. and 6. 7 are from res Asiae of 01. 147, 2 191/o (above p. s). (),I and 6. 7 correspond to Livy, xxxvii. 9· 1 and 9· 9, but he 95
XXI. 6
AFFAIRS IN PHOCAEA
has omitted the embassy to Seleucus (6. r-z). For the possibility that 6. z-6 should follow 7· r-4 see above, p. 5·
6. 1. ot S€ ciJwKa.uois: on the position of Phocaea see v. 77. 4 n. Antiochus had occupied it, perhaps before the war (Hier. in Dan. xi. r8), and in 191 the allies seized it as im~Koos }1YTt6xov (App. Syr. 22); cf. Livy, xxxvi. 43· II, 45· r-8; Schmitt, Antiochos, 28J. E11'LaTa.9JLEUOtlf.VOL: a constant irritation; cf. xv. 24.2 n.; Livy, xxxvii. 9· 2, 'grauia hiberna nauium erant.' Tns i11'tTay6.s: Livy, X..'(Xvii. 9· z gives more details, 'graue tributum, quod togae quingentae imperatae erant cum quingentis tunicis, grauis ctiam inopia frumenti, propter quam naucs quoque et praesidium Romanum excessit'. 2. Stll T'l]v atToSda.v: see the last note for the effect of this in causing the withdrawal of the Roman ships and garrison. 1rpos IEAEUK0\1: the later Seleucus IV (cf. xviii. sr. 8; Schmitt, Antiochos, 2<>-zr), who was in charge of Aeolis; cf. Livy, xxxvii. 8. 5, 'filium Seleucum in Aeolide reliquerat cum exercitu ad maritimas continendas urbes, quas illinc a Pergamo Eumenes, hinc a Phocaea Erythrisque Romani sollicitabant' (before the Romans left Phocaea). 4. 1\p(aTa.pxos KTA.: all five men are otherwise unknown, and Rhodon and Gelias are emendations by Ursinus. 6. 1ra.pEts Tov XPTJJLa.naJLOV Kat T'l]v lvTEutLV: 'without replying or granting an audience'; cf. xv. zs. 19 n. on the terminology. At the spring equinox (19o) the Rhodians sent out Jlausistratus with 36 ships, and C. Livius (cf. 2. 1 n.) conducted a joint fleet of 30 Roman ships and 7 Pergamene quadriremes to seize and prepare the Hellespontine crossing. From porltts Achaeorum he went up to Ilium to sacrifice, and received the deditio of Elaeus, Dardanus, and Rhoeteum. Thence he sailed to the Hellespont, left 10 ships to blockade Abydus, and crossed over to attack Sestus: it was here the Galli met him (Livy, xxxviL 9· s-8). 7. r aAAol Suo: eunuch priests of Cy bele. JlETa T~1rwv Kat 1rpOaTTJ9L8(wv: cf. 35· 6; Dion. Hal. ii. 19. 4, nhrov> . .. r.epiKdfktvot Toi;; O'T¥1£,,:n; Cornutus, Theol. Graec. Comp., 6; SH A, Hel. 7· I (of Heliogabalus). TV7TOt seem to be the same as the aydAfkG.'Ta worn by Anacharsis (Herod. iv. 76); they may have been in the form of an aedicula containing an image of Attis. On the garb of the Galli see Gow, JHS, 196o, 89-91; Pl. viii. 1 there shows an Antonine relief of a Gallus from the Palazzo dei Conservatori in Rome, and on it the aedicula is very clear. But how the TV7TOL and pectorals (1rpoO'TTJOl?ha) are distinguished is not clear. For a supposed example of one of the latter from a tumulus at Gordium see G. and A. Korte, ]DAI, 1904, Erganzungsheft 'Gordian', 48 and 213. In general see Cumont, RE, 'Gallos (s)', cols. 674-82. 96
ROMAN FLEET AT SESTUS
XXI. 7
~'15ev l&v~K€a-rov: according to Li vy, xxxvii. 9· Io nemo eorum uiolatus est'. After the deditio of Sestus, the Romans returned to Abydus and prepared for an assault (Livy, xxxvii. 9· n).
7. 1-7. Naval matters Livy xxxvii. 4· 6-45. 2I is based on P.'s res Graeciae and res Asiae for 01. I47, 2 = I9I/o (seep. 4). 7· I-4 and 7· 5-7 are from Suidas and the de uirt. et uit. (p. s). and correspond to Livy, xxxvii. II. I3 and I2. 7---9 respectively. Livy (xxxvii. Io. I-II. n) describes how
FIG. I
(illustrating Pausistratus' firebasket) (from Schneider, BPW, 1907, 28-32)
ALEXANDRIAN DRAWING
Polyxenidas (2. In.), who was a Rhodian exile, tricked the Rhodian admiral Pausistratus into a state of unpreparedness and then, with the collaboration on land of Nicander, an archipirata, fell upon the Rhodians at Samos, and either sank or captured all their ships but five. These, along with two Coan, escaped through the fear engendered by their fire-baskets.
7. 1-4. Pausistratus'
E
97
XXI. 7
NAVAL MATTERS
identical, though clearly the drawing is of something similar. Schneider, loc. cit., argues that on the two occasions when Pausistratus' device was used, now and at Myonnesus, it succeeded only through the panic it inspired in the enemy; it was never used in ramming, and once it was known to be too dangerous to use, fear vanished and it was jettisoned. But Livy, xxxvii. 30. 5 (on Myonnesus), emphasizing the fear which the fire inspired, continues: 'ct si qua concurrerat, obruebatur infuso igni, magisque ad incendium quam ad proelium trepidabant.' Clearly the device was used; why it ceased to be used later is unknown. See further F. Graefe, Hermes, 1922, 433 ff.; Tarn, HMND, 147 n. 3· 1. 1rup~6po'>: that P. used the word as a noun is doubtful; cf. App. Syr. 24, -rrvptfopa TIE dyyera aL07]p8. effj-rrn KOV'TWV p.aKpwv, alwptEiaOat rd -rrvp es -rd -rrEAayos, tva -rwv p.~v lo{wv aKatfwv -rro>..v -rrpovxn. -rots 0~ -rroAEp.{ots -rrpoawvaLv ep.-rrf-rrTTJ. nauu~uTpa.TOS:: App. Syr. 23-4. calls him Pausimachus; but Livy
confirms the form found here. Pausistratus was in command of the Rhodian force which tried, without complete success, to expel the Macedonian garrisons from the Peraea in 197 (Livy, xxxiii. 18; Niese, ii. 636-7; Fraser and Bean, 74). In 191 he joined the Romans in a naval demonstration off Ephesus after the defeat of Polyxenidas (cf. Livy, xxxvi. 45· 5-6; see p. 3); and for the events of 190 see 7. 1-7 n. Polyaen. v. 27 records a war-device used by Pausistratus. For a Kotv6v of Dionysiac technitai at Rhodes, called llavaw-rpa-rtEiot, probably in his honour, see Annuario, 1916, 139 no. 10 l. 4 (mid second century, despite Poland, RE, 'Technitai', col. 2477, no. xv, who makes it third century); Blinkenberg, Insc. Lind. i. no. 264. 2. KTJ(.l6s:: from its various meanings (see LSJ) it appears to indicate a scoop or basket wider at the top than at the bottom; the one indicated in the Alexandrian drawing (fig. 1) shows such a scoop with tapering sides. &yKuAa.l SUo: ayKVATf is often a thong (e.g. for hurling a javelin: cf. Strabo, iv. 4· 3, C. r96) or a loop (e.g. Hero, Belop. 83). Here it is probably a leather loop attached to the inner side of the hull, into which each of the poles supporting the fire-basket could be fitted. Shuckburgh translates 'two staples'; but leather loops would be less rigid and would ensure more flexibility in the poles and basket when contact was made with the enemy ship, thus causing more burning material to be spilled. 1rapci TTJV ~vTo'> €m~nvE1av Twv To~xwv: 'along the inner side of the hull' ; in the Alexandrian drawing they are attached to a tower, which is not mentioned in the device P. describes. To~s: KEpa.uw: so Schweighaeuser for rois Kvp.acrtv: 'with their extremities'. 4. Ka.Ta Ta'> Ejl~oA.O.s: Kat 1ra.pa.~oll..6.s:: 'in charges, either prow-on g8
NAVAL MATTERS
XXI. 8.
I
or broadside'; TTapa{loAa> Schweighaeuser for manuscript TTapeJ.LfloMs (cf. Lex. Polyb. s. v. TTapeJ.Lflo.\~). tKTwcl.TTea&tu: Biittner-Wobst for manuscript lwrapaTTea6m, alii alia; 'was shaken out'. s~o. TTJV iyK>..unv: owing to the poles' not being vertical like a mast, but going out at an angle. The word would not fit the horizontal poles on the Alexandrian drawing. 7. 5-7. Pamphilidas (read 'Eudamus') compared with Pausistratt~s: cf. Livy, xxxvii. 12. 9, which shows that Suidas has written Pamphilidas (cf. 10. 5) for Eudamus. Pausistratus had perished in the battle of Samos (Livy, xxxvii. n. n). 5. tnntJ.!f>~M6nst o Twv 'Po6,wv vo.oa.pxos: on the error see van Gelder, Rhodier, 136 n. 3; Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 172 n. I; contra Lenschau, RE, 'Pamphilidas (1)', cols. 329-30 (the error Livy's). Eudamus continued to command the Rhodian fleet till the end of naval operations against Antiochus. He opposed C. Livius' plan to block the harbour of Ephesus (Livy, xxxvii. 22. :2-:24. 13) and played a large part at Myonnesus (Livy, xxxvii. 28. 4-30. w). For Syll. 673, in which he figures, see xvi. 9· I n. pa.9oTEpos ..• Ka.l aTa.aL..,WTEpos: 'steadfast and constant'; cf. vi. 24. 9 of the qualities desirable in a Roman centurion; xxvii. r2. 3 n.; Livy, xxxvii. r2. 9, 'Eudamo . . . quem aliis uirtutibus bellicis haudquaquam Pausistrato parem, cautiorem, quo minus animi erat, ducem futurum credebant'. 6. aya.9oi. yap KTA.: Shorey (CP, I920, 297-8) proposes elw6a.at for aya6o[, which he finds difficult when used of a 'negative' activity (like judging on the basis of how things turn out); but unnecessarily: cf. xxxix. 8. 2, dya.fJ~ if>Oovfjaat. 7. lila TTjv 'II'Eplvttna.v: the Rhodian disaster at Samos (7. I-7 n.). (F~. 154 corresponds to Livy xxxvii. 14· s. and comes from an account of a council held by L Aemilius Regillus at Samos immediately after taking over from C. Livius (8. In.); it refers to a proposal to blockade the harbour at Ephesus (cf. 7· 5 n.}, which was unanimously rejected. For its position here see p. 5.)
8. 1-3. News of the advance of the Scipios and the A etolian truce reaches Samos (Igo) since the Aetolian truce probably covered May-October (above, 4· I-5· 13 n.), this passage (from de legal. gent.) will date to :May or early June, 190.
8. 1. Toi<; ttEpi. TOV AEOKLov: L. Aemilius M.f. Regillus, praetor A.u.c. 564 = 190, C. Livius' successor, was met between Chios and Samos 99
XXI. 8.1
THE SCI PI OS AND THE AETOLIAN TRUCE
by Eumenes with two quinqueremes, and two Rhodian quadriremes which Livius had sent out to meet him (Livy, xxxvii. 14. 3-4). Having heard at Piraeus of the Rhodian disaster (7. 7), and having only two quinqueremes and four other ships (two from the Italian socii and two Rhodian triremes under Epicrates, on whom see Fraser and Bean, 16o n. r) he had crossed the Aegean with caution, but at Chios he had picked up two more Rhodian quadriremes under Timasicrates {Livy, xxxvii. 14. 1-3). On Regillus see Klebs, RE, 'Aemilius (127)', col. 582. 2. TWV &.voxwv: d. 4· 1-s. 13 n. 3. IEA.euKov: d. 6. 2 n. (9. 1-3. Diophanes of Megalopolis This extract from de uirt. et uit. should follow ro. 14; see p. 5· Shortly after the decision not to grant Antiochus a truce, described in 10. 1-14 (d. Livy, xxxvii. 18. 6-rg. 8), Livy records that 'Elaeam ex Achaia mille pedites cum centum equitibus, Diophane omnibus iis copiis praeposito, accesserunt' (Livy, xxxvii. 20. r). On Diophanes see 3 b 2 n.
9. 1. Too vpbs Na~Lv voAEJiou: a war of frontier raids, which probably began, soon after ~abis' accession (2o7), in 204 (d. xiii. 8. 7 n.). vavTa. auvexws TOV xp6vov &vo TOV Ci»LXovo£JIEVO. T£TO.YJIEVOS: for the desultory raids, leading up to ~abis' attack on Messene and Philopoemen's successful reply, first in zo2jr and then as strategos in 2o1jo see xvi. 13. 3 n., r6. 1-17. 7, 36. 1-37. 1· 2. Ka.Ta TTJV awJia.TLKTJV xpe£a.v: 'in physical prowess'.]
10. 1-14. Antiochus tries to negotiate (rgo) Livy, xxxvii. 8. 1-45. 21 gives a version of P.'s res Asiae for 01. = rgr/o (above, p. 4); and within this section 10. r-q. 10 recounts the naval warfare of 190, Regillus' arrival (8. r n.) to succeed Livius, and two abortive expeditions against Patara on behalf of Rhodes. In the absence of Eumenes (who had accompanied the Romans against Patara) Seleucus invaded the territory of Pergamum, attacking first Elaea, then Pergamum itself (Livy, xxxvii. 18. r-s). Antiochus now marched out from Apamea and encamped first at Sardes, then near Seleucus at the mouth (caput: d. Hansen 2 , 84 n. 36) of the Caicus, and ravaged Pergamene territory (Livy, xxxvii. r8. 6-7). Eumenes thereupon returned to Elaea, and then entered Pergamum; soon afterwards the joint Roman and Rhodian fleet came from Samos to Elaea to help him (Livy, xxxvii. 147. 2
100
ANTIOCHUS TRIES TO NEGOTIATE (190)
XXI.
10.5
18. 8-9). What follows (Livy, xxxvii. 18. ro-19. 8) corresponds to the present chapter.
(Fg. 228 seems to refer to Eumenes putting in at Elaea (Livy, xxxvii. 18. 8) and 'lrV:ill therefore stand between 8. 3 and 10. I (above, P· s).) 10. 1. lr\VTLOXOS ••• El5 TOV ntpya.... ov ~ ... ~aAwv: compression by the excerptor here renders the sequence of events incomprehensible (Nissen, KU, 13); translate 'Antiochus had invaded the territory of Pergamum' (he never entered the city). Tft" 1rapouaLa.v El...,.~vous: d. Livy, xxxvii. 18. 8, 'prima Eumenes auocatus domestico bello cum classe Elaeam petit ; inde cum praesto fuissent equites peditumque expediti, praesidia eorum tutus, priusquam hostes sentirent aut mouerentur, Pergamum contendit. ibi rursus leuia per excursiones proelia fieri coepta Eumene summae rei discrimen haud dubie detrectante.' tca.L 8ewpwv ••• hr' a.vTbv 'l!'a.pa.ywoll~"as: misleading; what Livy, xxxvii. 18. 9, says (following P.) is: 'paucos post dies Romana Rhodiaque classis, ut regi opem ferrent, Elaeam ab Sarno uenerunt.' Livy adds that Antiochus also learnt that the consul was in Macedonia and preparing to cross the Hellespont, and that this led him to sue for peace (Livy, xxxvii. 18. 10); this the excerptor has omitted. lrr' avT<)JI is 'against him (i.e. Antioch us)', not (as Paton) 'to the assistance of Eumenes'. 2. 'rftv 'EAa.La.v: the Attalid naval base and port of Pergamum; it lay 120 stades away from the latter and 12 stades south of the mouth of the Caicus (Strabo, xiii. 1. 67, C. 615, 3· 5, C. 622). Its scanty remains lie 3 km. south of Kilise Koy. See Alt. v. Perg. i. 1. III f. (with plan); Leaf, Troad, 333 f.; Blirchner, RE, 'Elaia (z)', cols. zzz2-3; Magie, ii. 734 n. 18. Inscriptions: OGIS, 335 I. 144; BCH, 188o, 38o no. 7; 1933, 492-8 no. 1 (but OGJS, 332 refers to Pergamum: Holleaux, Etudes, i. 3i3 no. 24)· Coins: B.M.C. Troas, Pl. XXV. s-8. Hella (xvi. 40 n.) may be a corruption of Elaea. 3. 'roue; 'II'Ept TOY 1\.e{nCLov: L. Aemilius Regillus (cf. 8. 1 n.); he was praetor (Livy, xxxvi. 45· 9); but G"TpaTTJy6s (§ 4) probably means simply 'the general' (cf. Mason, 155-8). 5. EllSa.JlOV Ka.t na.}lcfaMSa.v: see 7· 5 n. for Eudamus (there confused V~-ith h.mphilidas). On Pamphilidas see Lenschau, RE, 'Pamphilidas {I) and (3)', cols. 329-30. He was later sent with 13 ships to Caria (Uvy, xxxvii. 22. 3), and he commanded the central squadron successfully at Side (Livy, xxxvii. 23. 8). Lenschau suggests that he was the brother of Nicagoras, son of Pamphilidas, who made several dedications (IG, xii. I. IOJ6 Syll. 586 (from Carpathos) ; GDI, 4269 (from Cedreae); Insc. Lind. 151) and probably commanded IOI
XXI. Io. 5
ANTIOCHUS TRIES TO NEGOTIATE (190)
Rhodian troops in the Peraea in zoi-I97 (cf. Fraser and Bean, 99 n. I).
7. li.veu Tijs £~ee(vou yvwf1T]S: expanded in Livy, xxxvii. I9. 2, 'aut cui rata ista pax erit, quam sine consule, non ex auctoritate senatus, non iussu populi Romani pepigerimus ?' 8. OT)f1Eiov Of1oAoy(as: 'outline agreement' or 'preliminary agreement' (so Schweighaeuser, comparing 30. 6, V1T€TWTolJ7J). 10. 1repas E1rL9riLva' Tois 8AoLs: 'to put an end to the whole war'; Livy, xxxvii. I9. 5 adds 'ante hiemem', which is implied. 11. 1rpo ToG Tov 6.v9{11raTov £A9eiv: cf. Livy, xxxvii. I9. 6, 'ante consulis aduentum', i.e. L. Scipio (not P. Scipio, as Niese, ii. pi n. I); cf. § 7· Hence, Reiske's emendation to vTTaTov is desirable: see Holleaux, Etudes, v. 409 n. 2. On Publius' position on his brother's staff see Scullard, Pol. 284-5. 12-14. Movements of Antiochus and Seleucus. The text is compressed (Nissen, KU, IJ-14) but can be supplemented from Livy, xxxvii. Ig. 7-8: (I) after that of Elaea, the territory of Pergamum was ravaged, deinde Pergamenorum agris; (2) it was there (and not at Elaea) that Antioch us left Seleucus; (3) before marching on the plain of Thebe, Antiochus attacked Adramyttium; (4) Livy adds (from P.) that the plain of Thebe was carmine Homeri nobilitatum; (5) Livy has a sentence which the excerptor, having omitted any mention of Adramyttium, was also obliged to omit: 'eodem Adramytteum, ut urbi praesidia essent, nauibus circumuecti Aemilius et Eumenes uenerunt.' On Adramyttium and the plain of Thebe see xvi. 1. 7 n. Schweighaeuser recalls Valesius' criticism that Homer did not mention the plain of Thebe; but according to Strabo, xiii. 1. 63, C. 6I3, Kl>u\a taOl7J was there, and Chryse lay not far away (Il. i. 37-38), which is enough to link the plain with Homer (Nissen, KU, 14).
(9. 1-3 should stand here; see ad loc.)
11. 1-13 The Scipios persuade Prusias not to join Antiochus (I9o) This fragment (from de legat. Rom.) corresponds to Livy, xxxvii. 25. 4-26. 2; cf. App. Syr. 23. Previously, Livy described the arrival in Pergamum of the Achaean contingent, and two Achaean successes, which forced Seleucus to withdraw from Pergamene territory; activity of Antiochus and the allied fleets, including the sack by the latter of a sanctuary of Dionysus on an island off Phocaea; Eumenes' return to Pergamum to help prepare for the Roman crossing; the sea-battle of Side, where Eudamus defeated Hannibal, despite the latter's numerical superiority (Rhodes: 32 quadriremes, 4 triremes; Syria: 37 ships maioris Jormae, including 3 hepteres and 4 hexeres, 102
THE SCIPIOS AND PRUSIAS (190)
XXI.
IL
9
and 10 triremes); the arrival of the Rhodians to join the Romans (Livy, xxvii. zo. r-zs. 3}. All this took place in July-August, 190 (Holleaux, Etudes, v. 4II). 11. 1. t:ts Tas I6.p8t:LS: on Sardes see vii. rs. I n. &.,.n) fl1s ••• aTflO.Tt:lBS: cf. Livy, xxxvii. 21. 4, 'Antioch us postquam Romanos ad tuendum Adramytteum uenisse audiuit, ea quidem urbe abstinuit : depopulatus agros Peraeam in de, coloniam Mytilenaeorum, expugnauit. Cotton et Corylenus et Aphrodisias et Prinne primo impetu captae sunt. inde per Thyatiram Sardis rediit.' Livy has misunderstood Peraeam, which will be the mainland possessions of :Mytilene; for the names (Cotton and Prinne seem corrupt) see Weissenbom-Mtiller ad loc.; Niese, ii. 732 n. r. On Thyateira see xvi. I. 7 n. 81t:1'1"€f11'1"ETO ••• vpos npoUO'l€1V: according to Livy, xxxvii. 25. 4-7 besides envoys Antiochus sent a letter to Prusias, affirming that the Romans were coming to Asia to destroy kingdoms everywhere; he, Antiochus, was the next on the list after Philip and Nabis, but Prusias would follow, since Eumenes had embraced a voluntary slavery. This is perhaps a literary device designed to substitute an indirect for a direct comment (cf. Walsh, Rh. Mus. 1954, ros--6); d. § 2 mivv yd.p io~)){n Tov<; 'Pw[J.alou<;, f.4-it 11mwv'Tat 1'~V .t:upiiTOV: cf. 2I. 3, X. 41. 4 n.; for additions to his territories after the Second Macedonian War cf. xviii. 47. r2 n. ol Ka:rrl T~v •I"ltAvplSa Td1Tot is merely 'the region of Illyria' (d. x. I. 2, oi. Ka'Td. T~v 'E,\,\doa Tdrr01.). To1ToL has no technical sense (as in v. 4r. 7). 8. E~ iAa.+J>Wv ••• 8uva.aTwv ••• ~a.IJl.At:is: cf. 21.2 n. (of Masinissa). The claim that these men were raised from dynasts to true kings was probably accepted doctrine by P.'s time, but is exaggerated. It is untrue of Andobales, of Culchas too little is known, Masinissa certainly gained substantial territories, but Pleuratus merely had the advantages of any client king. 9. O'uy~e>.t:l
103
XXI.
II.
9
THE SCIPIOS PERSUADE PRUSIAS
of having to give hostages and pay tribute'; for the tribute cf. xviii. 44· 7 ; for the hostages, including Demetrius, xviii. 39· 5 (preliminaries). a1ToKa.8eaTa.K~va.~ ••• a.uT~ Tov utov KTA.: in response to Philip's help when the Roman army marched through Macedonia and Thrace to the Hellespont; he furnished provisions, bridged rivers, and provided an escort. See App. Syr. 23: remission of tribute in I9o (which, if the 19I instalment had been paid, left Philip with 250 talents to be remitted). P. mentions only the return of Demetrius in winter I9I/o (3. 3) ; perhaps the others were not sent back until the cancellation of the outstanding tribute in I9o (Taubler, 39 n. 5). voA.A.t..s 8€ Twv 1roAewv a1ro8e8wK~va.~: at a meeting in Dassaretia (winter I92/I) Baebius had agreed that Philip should keep whatever he took from the Aetolians and their allies (Livy, xxxvi. Io. Io). Either alone or with Roman assistance Philip took several Thessalian towns (Livy, xxxvi. I3. s-6, xxxix. 25. 3-4), and kept Malloea, Ericinium, Tricca, Phaloria, and Gomphi (Livy, xxxix. 25. 3, 25. I6; Philippopolis is Gomphi, d. Stahelin, 126) and probably others (Walbank, Philip, 204). He had also taken Alope, Larissa Cremaste, Antron, Pteleum, and (perhaps) Halus and Phthiotic Thebes (Livy, xlii. 42. I, s6. 7. 67. 9-IO; cf. DeSanctis, iv. I. I65 n. 89; Walbank, Philip, 204 n. 6, 207 n. 2); but the Aetolian truce had checked him. 10. NC..~w 8€ 8uVTt8evTES •.• e1ra.veAea8a.L: in the campaign of 195 (P.'s account is lost: above, p. I). On the settlement see Livy, xxxiv. 35· 2 ff.; Holleaux, CAH, viii. 188-9r; Etudes, v. 375-8. Ka.i1rep ovToS Tup6.vvou: cf. xiii. 6-8 n. For P.'s views on tyranny cf. ii. 59· 6 n., v. II. 6 n.; von Scala, 44-45 n. 1. 12. o11Tepi TOV r CI.LOV AL~LOV: c. Livius M.f.l'ti.n. Salinator, praetor in 202, later COS. A.U.C. 566 = I88, and in I9I praetor in charge of the fleet; for his victory at Corycus see 2. I n. (ct. Miinzer, RE, 'Livius (29)', cols. 888-9o). After handing over to Regillus (8. In.) he had fulfilled a mission to Lycia, and returned to Italy (Livy, xxxvii. I4. 4-I7. I). For this embassy to Prusias cf. Livy, xxxvii. 25. 13-14; the excerptor omits to mention (as Livy does) that he came from Rome (Nissen, KU, 14). 13 ...• ~e~a.(ws: Biittner-Wobst suggests 'TfctV'T'!I 'TfctvTw> d to fill the lacuna (cf. xxiv. IS. 9); the text is considerably compressed (cf. Livy, xxxvii. 26. I-2). lvfyonnesus and its sequel. For Antiochus' decision to provoke a naval battle by besieging Notium, the harbour of Colophon, for Aemilius' attack on Teos, which accepted his terms (see I2 n.), and for Polyxenidas' provocation followed by the battle of Myonnesus, where the Romans and Rhodians were victorious and destroyed 42 (out of 89) ships for the loss of only 3 (out of 8o)~Appian, Syr. 27 makes the totals 90 and 83 respectively~see Livy, xxxvii. 26. 1-30. Io
NOT TO JOIN ANTIOCHUS (190)
XXI. I3. 3
(based on P.). Antiochus thereupon abandoned Lysimacheia (with its supplies) and the defence of the Hellespont, and withdrew his army from Colophon. Regillus now sent half his fleet north, dismissing the Rhodians (who sailed to the Hellespont), and forced Phocaea to capitulate on terms (which were at once broken). The consul advanced to Lysimacheia and crossed with his forces to Asia (Livy, xxxvii. 3!. I-33· 7). See Niese, ii. 735-8; Holleaux, CAll, viii. :22r-2; Etudes, v. 412.
12. Fragment on pirates This is from the events preceding the battle of Myonnesus (see previous note). On his way to Teos, where there were reported to be supplies of corn and wine intended for Antiochus, Regillus fell in with 15 ships near Myonnesus 'quas primo ex classe regia praetor esse ratus institit sequi; apparuit deinde piraticas celoces et lembos esse' (Livy, xxxvii. 27. 4), which were returning laden with booty from the Chian shore. As P. records, the pirates fled; they took refuge behind the promontory of Myonnesus, and Regillus' ships dared not approach owing to overhanging cliffs (Livy, xxxvii. 27. 5-8). 13. 1-15. 13. Antiochus' attempt to make peace Cf. Livy, xxxvii. 34· 1-36. 9; Diod. xxix. 7-8; App. !:;,'yr. 29; Ius tin. xxxi. 7· 4 ff. It is likely that Scipio's religious tabu kept him stationary in Europe from a.d. vi kal. 1\Iart. to a.d. ix kal. Apr. of A.u.c. 565 = 189 (cf. De Sanctis, iv. 1. 39o-5); and if, as seems likely, A.u.c. 565 = 189 was not an intercalary year, the month in question will have been from 20 October to 17 November 190 (Jul.); see Derow, Phoenix, 1973, 348 (table); on intercalation, Michels, 145-72.
13. l. IL£Tu nlJv K
XXI. 13. 3
ANTIOCHUS' ATTEMPT TO MAKE PEACE
'll"a.pa.xwpei: cf. 14. 2, €Kxwpdv. Since Antiochus had never possessed
these cities, the sense is 'he renounced his claim to', as elsewhere in P. (cf. i. 62. 8, iii. 27. 8, xviii. I. 13, 9· 1); Mauersberger, Pol.-Lex. s.v. €Kxwpd:v, misses this. See Holleaux, Etudes, v. 2I3 ff.; Magie, ii. 949 n. 57· Aa.JJ-+a.t
ANTIOCHUS' ATTEMPT TO MAKE PEACE
XXI. 15. 3
6. Ta.uTa.s ••. Tfis tvToAtis: equivalent to what the Romans had demanded at Lysimacheia in 196; cf. xviii. 49· 5-9; Holleaux, CAH, viii. :z:z:z; Etudes, v. 413. 10. -ro uaALOv dva.~: P. Scipio was a member of one of the two sodalitates Saliorum, each of 12 members, whose duty was to worship Mars and Quirinus (the two were hardly distinguishable) with song and dance (Dion. Hal. ii. 70, iii. 32) and in March and October to move the sacred ancilia and hasta Martis; membership was open only to patricians. See Wissowa, 555-9; Geiger, RE, 'Salii (r)', cols. 1874-94· 11. Ka.Ga1TEp iJtJ.iv ••• E'rp11-ra.t: the passage has not survived; cf. vi. 1. 9· Twv Tptwv ~" O'UO'TTJj4n: Wissowa, 484 n. 6, suggests that the other two were the maiores jlam£nes (i.e. the flamen Dialis,jlamen M artialis andjlamen Qtdrinalis) and the Vestal Virgins; Cicero also links these three bodies together, de re pub. ii. 26, 'adiunxitque Numa praeterea ftamines salios uirginesque Vestales' (d. Livy, i. :zo. 2-4). Strachan~ Davidson, ad Joe., suggests the jlamines and Luperci, but offers no explanation for his choice. 12. Tpta.KovGt1!4EPOV !4TJ tJ.ETa.(la.ivEw: during the Roman March (not October, as Marquardt, iii. 437 n. 1; see DeSanctis, iv. 1. 392-3); on the Julian equivalent, October-November rgo, see above, 13-15 n. 14. 1. TO uuv€8pLOv: the consul's advisory council; cf. 16. 7, xiv. n. 2. tKxwpE'lv: cf. 13. 3 n. 4. tJ.tlTE TTJV TUXTJ" ••• ESEAEYXEtV: see Vol. I, p. 19 for other instances of this commonplace; for the phrase dv8pdJ'1Tovc; inrapxoVTa.s cf. ii. 4· 5 n. 8. '!TaO'T)s Tfjs t11'l Ta8E ToG T a.v pou Suva.aTEta.s ~KXwpli'v: here stated in general terms; for closer definition following Magnesia see 43· 6 n. 9. SLfi To 1roAO ••• ~'ITEpa.(puv: 'as these demands far exceeded his offer': Strachan-Davidson takes .,.-wv a.g,ovplvwv with 71'o-\6 and makes t'fTtTaya;; the object of inrEpatpEw, mistranslating 'the greater part of their demands exceeded the limits of his instructions'. 2. II
15. 3. ~" d.pxo.tc; ToG 11'0AEtJ.OU: the excerptor has omitted considerable detail here (Nissen, KU, 14); see Livy, xxxvii. 34· 4-6, 'is ubi et quandO' et quo casu captus sit, sicut pleraque alia, parum inter auctores constat. alii (probably P.) principia belli, a Chalcide Orcum petentem, circumuentum ab regiis nauibus tradunt; alii, postquam transitum in Asiam est, cum tunna Fregellana missum exploratum ad regia castra, effuso obuiam equitatu cum reciperet sese, in eo tumultu delapsum ex equo cum duobus equitibus oppressum, ita ad regem deductum esse.' For his capture at sea cf. Dio, xix. 62. 2. 107
XXI. 15.3
ANTIOCHUS' ATTEMPT TO MAKE PEACE
Africanus' son will be L. Cornelius Scipio, who held an undistinguished praetorship in 174 (Livy, xli. 27. 2; cf. Val. Max. iii. 5· I, iv. 5· 2, calling him Cn.). See Munzer, RE, 'Cornelius (325)', cols. 1431-3; Balsdon, Historia, 1972, 228. App. Syr. 29 confuses him \ovith Scipio Aemilianus. 6. ayvoELV O.liTClV: i.e. Heracleides; but no clear distinction is made between the envoy and Antiochus for whom he is speaking. 8. vpos Tov 'EX>..iJ(MJ'ovTov: distinct from Lysimacheia, since it went only as far east as Sestus and Abydus, by P.'s reckoning (xvi. 29. 7 n.). 9. ou J-LOVOV TOV xa.AlVllV, &.>..>..a. Ka.l TOV ava.l3nTTJV: cf. Plut. M or. 196 F. P. refers to the fable of the horse, driven from its pasture by a stag, which implores the aid of a man but, after their joint success, 'non equitem dorso, non frenum depulit ore' (Hor. epist. i. Io. 38). According to Aristotle (Rhet. ii. 20. 1393 b 9-23) Stesichorus told it to the people of Himera as a warning against Phalaris ; for the same story (with a boar instead of a stag) see Phaedrus, iv. 4· To use it to demonstrate P.'s special interest in horses (von Scala, 23-24, comparing x. 26. 8) seems absurd. Cf. Wunderer, i. 71; E. Pianezzola, Traduzione e ideologia: Livio interprete di Polibio (Bologna, 1969), 37-39·
11. eis vtiv uuyKa.Ta.13a.~velv: 'to consent to anything'; the meaning is different in iii. 10. I. · 13. oCISev liv 13a.puTEpov a.tmiJ yEvt\u9a.l KTA.: for Philip's similar conclusion at the Aous in 198 see Livy, xxxii. 10. 7~; cf. Will, ii. 18o.
16. 1-17. 12. Conditions imposed after the battle of Magnesia Upon the collapse of negotiations the consul was welcomed by several cities including Ilium and, after accepting supplies from Eumenes, marched south. P. Scipio fell ill and was sent to Elaea; Antiochus returned his son, and he again tried to prevent a battle. Probably about mid December (De Sanctis, iv. 1. 393; Derow, Phoenix, 1973, 34B"'J) the two sides met at Magnesia near Sipylus. Antiochus was defeated and fled to Sardes and then to Apamea (on the battle see Bengtsonl, 481 n. 1; Balsdon, Historia, 1972, 229-30). Sardes with Lydia, Tralles, Magnesia-on-Maeander, and Ephesus now joined Rome: 'Asiae ciuitates in fidem consulis dicionemque populi Romani sese tradebant' (Livy, xxxvii. 45· 3). At Sardes L. Scipio was rejoined by Publius. See Livy, xxxvii. 37· 1-45. 3 (from P.); cf. App. Syr. 3o-36; Diod. xxix. 8. 2; Holleaux, CAH, viii. 222-4; Etudes, v. 413-15. For the present fragment cf. Livy, xxxvii. 45· 3-21 (d. App. Syr. 38; Iustin. xxxi. 8. 8; Zon. ix. 20); it evidently brought the res Asiae of 01. 147, 2 = 191/o to an end (they were 108
CONDITIONS IMPOSED AFTER MAGNESIA XXI. 17.
2
prolonged well into Ol. 147, 3 by P. in order to end the year with Magnesia).
16. l. '11'a.pe~A.f11>oTES Ka.l T~s IO.p8E~s KTA.: cf. Livy, xxxvii. 44· 7, 'consensu oppidanorum et militum, qui in arce erant, legati ad consulem missi sunt.' Clearly P, is compressed (~issen, KU, 14). lipT~ ••• -ljKe Mouac:1~os: the lacuna, due to the excerptor of the de legat. gent., may have contained a reference to P. Scipio's arrival from Elaea (Mommsen, Rom. Forsch, ii. 519 n. r); cf. Livy, xxxvii. 45· 3, 'Sardibus iam consul erat; eo et P. Scipio ab Elaea, cum primum pati laborem uiae potuit, uenit.' On Musaeus see 4r. 3, 41· u. 4. ZEu~~s: d. v. 45· 4 n., xvi. I. 8 n.; VoL II, p. 649, addenda, for his career. P.'s use of uaTpaTT1]S has been queried by Bengtson (Strat. ii. I09-I s). In I nsch. Priene, 8z 1. I7 Wilhelm read 7rpds Zevgw 'TOV 'TOU {3arnt.l.[ws aTpaT1}y6v]; [ws uaTpaTT1}v] would give an unparalleled formula, nor are satraps attested for Asia Minor under Antioch us III. \Velles, p. 362 s.v. aaTpaTT1]S, suggests that Greek writers used the word colloquially; and Bengtson (loc. cit.) thinks that P. may have used it of Zeuxis since he was virtual viceroy of Asia, like Achaeus earlier. Zeuxis' official title is now known to have been o brt ni.w TTpayp,aTwv (v. 41. 1 n., of Hermeias); but when he received it is not known. At this time Zeuxis was in charge of western Asia Minor, with his headquarters at Sardes. See further L. Robert, Nouvelles inscriptions de Sardes, i (Paris, 1964) 9-zr, publishing one inscription and mentioning four others giving his title (and two his name), and noting his full career (pp. II-14); E. Olshausen, RE, 'Zeuxis (3)', cols. 381-5. ~VTt'll'a.Tpos a.s .. x+~Sous: cf. v. 79· 12 n. 7. KAf19EVTE<; S' Ets Tb auveSpLov: cf. 14. I n. ; the Romans took the decisions (contra McShane, 147, who thinks an allied council is meant). 8. Tftv Tijs oiKou~-t€Vl]s c:i.pxiJv 1
XXI. 17. 3
CONDITIONS IMPOSED AFTER
~K TE rl]s Ellpw'ITT}s EKXwpc:.iv Kat ( ri)s ~alas) Ti]s €n1 Ta8c:. Tou Taupou naaT)s: cf. Livy, xxxvii. 45· 14, 'Europa abstinete; Asia omni, quae cis Taurum montem est, dccedite.' This addition of -rfi> )1ala., (Ursinus) is unnecessary, for Livy may have inserted it for contrast and clarity; cf. iii. 3· 4, 8,aaa,P~aop.£v . . . m:i.ls- ~'TT'fJihi, -rfiS' E-d Tao€ Tov Taupov 7Ta07JS' i~Exwpr;a€. 4. Eo~o·tKa TaAQ.\IT' ••. p.up~a Kat 1FE\IT(liC~x£X~a; on the Euboic talent see 43· 19 n. 15,000 talents must represent the Roman estimate of the cost of the war (r4. 7). Antiochus had also to provide some
3.
com (41. 8) though tlils is not mentioned here (nor in Livy, xxxvii. 45· 14). For corn payments in the final treaty see 43· 19. 6. &.no8ou\laL .•• Ellp.noeL ••. ICQTa Tas npos T0\1 1f11TEpa auv8T]KUS: how Antiochus came to owe these 400 talents and this com is dis-
puted. That he still owed it from 216, when it could have been a stipulation in the agreement made with Attalus against Achaeus (v. 107. 4; Vol. II, p. 645). has been urged by Niese, ii. 392 n. 2 (cf. Habicht, Hermes, 1956, 93), but it is rather unlikely that he had left it so long unpaid (cf. Schmitt, Antiochos, 265 n. 3). The annalistic account of a Seleucid invasion of Pergamene territory in 198 (Livy, xxxii. 8. 1o) has been frequently rejected (cf. Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 331-5; De Sanctis, iv. r. r:zz n. 23; Passerini, Athen. 1932, n6 n. z; Walbank, Phitip, 321 f.; Magie, ii. 753 n. 48), but it is probably to be accepted (cf. Schmitt, Antiochas, z6cr-76; Will, ii. 154, who thinks the Syrian embassy mentioned in Livy, xxxiii. 20. 9, as returning from Rome in summer 197 had probably been negotiating about the invasion of 198), the Seleucid forces being under the command of one of Antiochus' generals (e.g. Zeuxis: r6. 4 n.). In that case, the 4oo talents and the corn may be outstanding from the agreement made then, as a result of Roman intervention. McShane, 104 n. 38, does not elucidate his suggestion that the debt dates from some agreement made with Attalus shortly before his death in 197. 7. ~vvi~uv .•. 8oavTa •.. Mvua(Xoxov •.• 4»£Xwvu Kal. Eu~ouXi.Suv: on Hannibal's flight to Antiochus d. iii. II. I; on his defeat at Side see n n. Thoas, son of Alexander of Trichonium (v. 13. 3 n.) and brother of Dicaearchus (xviii. 10. 9 n.), bore considerable responsibility for the war as Aetolian general for 194/3; cf. Livy, xxxv. 12. 4 ff., 32, 33· 7; App. Syr. rz. After the unsuccessful attack on Chalcis (Livy, xxxv. 37· 4-38. rz) he joined Antiochus in Syria (Livy, xxxvi. 26. r-6). He was later pardoned by the Romans, whom he supported during the Third Macedonian War (xxviii. 4· ro~rz). He was general at least four times; in zo3iz (cf. Klaffenbach, IG, ix2 • r. p. 32), in 194(3 (Livy, xxxv. 12. 4; GDI, 1978, I983, 2o68-9, zo8z, 2124-6; IG, ixz. 1. 187 L z = Syll. 598 D 2), in r8rjo (GDI, 2076), and in 173/z (GDI, 1730, 1853); cf. Klaffenbach, IG, ix2 • r. p. L. f.; Geyer, RE, 'Thoas (8)', cols. 300-I. Mnasilochus had tried to bring Acarnania no
THE BATTLE OF MAGNESIA
XXI. IS. 3
over to Antiochus in spring 191, betraying Medion but failing at Thyrrheum (Livy, xxxvi. u. 8-12. n); his later fate is unknown; d. 43· 11; Kroll, RE, 'Mnasilochos (2}', col. 2254. Of the Chalcidians Philon and EtdJulidas nothing further is known (43· II; Livy, xxxvii. 45· r7, xxxviii. 38. r8); Niese, ii. 695 n. 2, suggests that they helped betray Chalcis to Antioch us in 192 (Livy, xxxv. 51. 6). On the handing over of named persons see 43· u n. 8. 1rtanv S£ TOVTwv: i.e. for the terms generally, not merely for the paying of the indemnity (so Taubler, 338); cf. Livy, xxxiv. 35· I I (peace with Kabis). ollf)pous ELJ
18. 1. TT)s 9Epda.s EvLO'T«l!-Evl]S: early summer, perhaps May-June; cf. iv. 37· 3; Pedech, Methode, 461; Walbank, Polis and imperium, 62. 3. TCS Tc;JV SEVLWV 'll'a.poxns: 'the gifts provided for them'. etvm. (Latin munera or dona) can be gifts of food or provisions (cf. Plut. Ages. 36. 6; P. Petr. 2, p. 25; P. Grenf. 2. 14 b. 9}, but in Roman contexts it means the allowance made either daily or in a lump sum to cover the upkeep of public visitors while at Rome (cf. Livy, xxx. q. ro, 21. 5, xxxv. 23. 11, xlv. 13. 8; Joseph. Ant. Iud. xiv. ro. 3). rrapoxr1 may have its original sense of 'provision' here, though the context is coloured by its more technical sense as the equivalent of the Latin dautia~ lautia, viz. the equipment and furnishings of the apartment provided for public visitors (locus, T6rro>, Ka-rd.Avp.a.: xxxii. 13. z; cf. Livy, XXviii. 39· 19, XXX. 17. I4, XXXiii. 24. 5, XXXV. 23. II, xlii. z6. 5, xlv. 20. 6: in several of these passages loca lautia go closely Sherk, no. 22 (S.C. for together). See Riccobono, Fontes, no. 35 Asclepiades of Clazomenae, 78 B.c.), 11. 13 and 26 where loct+m lautiaque is rendered by -r&rrov rrapoxr1v n. Charisius, p. 34 Keil, 111
XXI. I8. 3
E:\fBASSIES AT ROME (189)
defines lautia as €vooJLevda, supellex; and in xxiv. 5· I P. distinguishes gt!vw Kat 1rapox_ds. See Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 2, n52 n. 2. 5. Tl'npa To 8Eov ••• '!Tepa TOO Ka91}KoVTos: verbal variants; cf. fg. 53 (in reverse order); Foucault, 47· 7. Twv •.• Trp.ou~uTepwv Tw6s: 'one of the older men', cf. § ro; so Gelzer, Kl. Schr. iii. r86. But 1rpeaf3unpo• can mean 'elders', mainly in Egypt (see LSJ s.v. 1rp€af3us), and P. could be using it to indicate 'one of the senators' (so Paton and Shuckburgh). 8. xpovou 8' iyywop.Evou: compressed; cf. Lh'Y, xxxvii. 52. 9, 'cum aliquamdiu hinc indulgentia hinc modestia inter permittentis in uicem non magis mutua quam inexplicabili facilitate certatum esset, Eumenes ex templo excessit.' 10. Etc:TEKA1}9TJ: cf. Livy, xxxvii. 53· I, 'reductus a praetore in templum'; the excerptor has probably omitted the praetor. 19. 1-21. 11. Eumenes' speech : against the view that both this and the Rhodians' speech (22. 5-23. 12) are invented by P. to interpret Pergamene and Rhodian policy (Bikerman, REG, I937· 232 f.; cf. McShane, I49) see Gelzer, Kl. Schr. iii. I86-9; on P.'s speeches in general see Walbank, Speeches, 7-I9. 19. 1. O.XM. J.LE~Va.L ••• : the lacuna has been variously filled; see the app. crit. in Buttner-Wobst, who suggests f3ef3alws E1TL Tfjs E.g apx.fjs OtaA:r'Jrpews; Livy, xxxvii. 53· I, '"perseuerassem" inquit "tacere etc."', is of no help. 9. TO •.• TlJS eAEu9Ep£as ()voi-La Kat TlJS auTovoj.L£a.s: similarly linked in xxv. 5· 3· That Eumcncs knew that tllis was to be the Rhodian demand (a declaration for Asia comparable to that made for the Greeks in Europe in 196) may indicate that the envoys had talked (Gelzer, Kl. Schr. iii. r88)-or that Eumenes had good intelligence. McShane, I49 n. 4, suggests that Eumenes and the Rhodians had already discussed the disposition of some cities such as Ephesus and Telmessus, but this distorts what P. says.
20. 2. Tov 'IT«TEpa: Attalus; this gives Eumenes an opportunity to expatiate on his family's services to Rome. 3. cjnX£as Kal. c:TUj.Lj.L«x£as: d. xv. 24. 4, xviii. S· 3; Petzold, 24 n. so. The ambiguous phrase corresponds to socii et amici; it may (d. Frank, RI, I46 f.) but need not indicate the absence of a joedus (cf. SyU. 591 l. 27, 694 11. 2I f., for •Ala Kai aVJLJLaxia of Massilia and an Asian town (Elaea or Pergamum?) respectively, both of which have hadjoedera with Rome); see for full discussion Dahlheim, III-274· Badian, 69 n. I, suggests that the term may originally have covered Italian amici who, in fighting alongside the Romans without a joedus, nevertheless became their socii; but, as he adds, we have no evidence. II2
EMBASSIES AT ROME (189}
XXI.
2I. 2
axe8ov ·miVTWV: the qualifying OXEOOV iS perhapS there becaUSe
Attalus' relations with Rome came after the Roman-Aetolian treaty (ix. 30. 6 n.); cf. Petzold, 26. It is not known whether Attalus or Eumenes ever had a joedus with Rome. 4. TravTwv ••• Twv Kcml. T~v 'EXXa8a 1ToAiJ1Wv: the First and Second Macedonian Wars. In the former Attalus probably sent troops at once (if OGIS, 281 is evidence that Pergamene troops shared in the capture of Aegina in 21o (ix. 42. 5-8) ; so Niese, ii. 484 n. 5, but Cardinali, q8 (following Frankel, Insch. Perg. 47) thinks the d1ra.px~ is from Attalus' revenues); he was present in Greece with his fleet from 209 to June 2o8, when an attack by Prusias drew him back to Asia. In the second war his fleet was involved from the outset and joined the Romans in seizing Andros and Oreus (Livy, xxxi. 45· 7-8, 46. 16) and attacking Cythnos (Livy, xxxi. 45· g). 5. €v a1ho'Ls To'Ls Epyms: cf. xviii. 41. 9; for his death, xviii. 17. 6 n. 7. T~v €K 1rupos ~aaavov: cf. xxxix. 3· 6, fg. 26; the metaphor is of testing coins in fire (cf. xxix. IJ. 2; xxxiii. 4· 3). See Wunderer, i. 36, iii. 36; von Scala, 285-6. 8. ~VTLOxou ••• a1Tou80.tovTos .•. 9uyaTepa 8ouvaL: cf. App. Syr. 5; the date of the offer is not recorded (d. Leuze, Hermes, 1923, 2II f. (192/1); Hansen, 76-77 (193)) nor is the girl's name known (Schmitt, Antiochos, 25-26). 8l8ovTos ••• Tas ••• a1TTJAAoTplWJ1Eva.s ••. 1TOAELS: this would exclude gains made in the invasion of 198 against Attalus (Livy, xxxii. 8. 10; above, q. 6n.). Those may have included the Mysian areas east of Pergamum, towns like Thyateira and Nacrasa along the road north from Sardes, and parts of Hellespontine Phrygia and the Troad, which Attalus had acquired during his war against Achaeus (cf. v. 776); so Schmitt, Antiochos, 273 ff. Antiochus was prepared to surrender only the towns taken from Eumenes himself in 197-194; they may have included Phocaea (d. 6. I n.), Scepsis (Strabo, xiii. I. 52-55. C. 6o7-10), Priapus (Strabo, xiii. I. 12, C. 587); see further Schmitt, A ntiochos, 278 ff.; Will, ii. 157--8. 9. TrAELaTaLs ••• 8uv0.J1EO'LV: cf. § 4 of Attalus. 10. auyKAELa9ivTES Ets ••• nipya11ov: cf. Livy, xxxvii. 18. 9 ff.; above, Io. I-I4 n.
21. 2. Maaavvciaav: cf. II. 7 n. The Scipios' arguments to Prusias were evidently known, and here aptly turned to his own advantage by Eumenes. tiTrap~avTa TrOAEJlLOV: he fought on the Punic side in Spain from 212 till 207 (Livy, xxviii. l6. u) or 206 (Livy, xxviii. 35). apart from a return to Africa in 2Io/og (Livy, xxvii. 5· n); and for his share in the destruction of P. Scipio cf. Livy, xxv. 34· I-I4. In Africa he joined African us in 204 with a mere 6o horse: so Livy, xxix. 33· 8, confirming II3
XXI.
2I. 2
EMBASSIES AT ROME (189)
P.; but there were other versions: 'haec animum inclinant ut cum modico potius quam cum magno praesidia equitum ad Scipionem postea uenisse Masinissam credam; quippe ilia regnanti multitude, haec paucitas exsulis fortunae conueniens est' (Lhry, xxix. 33· 10). He later played a big part in the burning of the camps, the battle of the Great Plains and Zama (cf. xiv. 4-5, 8. 6 f., xv. 12, 14. 7); see further Walsh, ]RS, 1965, jia.aLAEa. TWV TrAt:L
:u. 2.
~uanpouVTos S€ Twos KTA·: the inclusion of this trivial detail and P.'s suppression of the Smymiotes' speech indicates the fullness of his source for all this; cf. Gelzer, Kl. Schr. iii. 187-8; above, r8. r-24. 17 n. 4. o1JaTJs 8£ TTJS ••• SO~TJS 6J.LoAoyouf.LEVTJS: 'but since there are no two opinions about their having been .. .' (Shuckburgh). Paton refers it to the Senate's reaction: 'as they had the undisputed approbation of the hotLc;e', and Livy may have interpreted it thus (cf. Livy, xxxvii. 54· 2, 'collaudatis egregie Smyrnaeis, quod ultima pati quam se regi tradere maluissent'). But it is not the unanimous approval of the Senate so much as the fact that the world at large (including P.'s Greek readers) knows of the merits of the Smyrniotes that permits him to omit their speech.
22. 5-23. 12. The Rhodiatt speech: cf. Livy, xxxvii. 54· 3-28, containing a long disquisition on the Greekness of the Asian Greeks, and quoting examples of cities which supported Philip or Pyrrhus, but now enjoy freedom; much of this is probably Livian rhetoric rather than a rendering of P.'s text which the excerptor has compressed (cf. Nissen, KU, 27). 22. 5, Trt:pi. Twv Ka.T' l.Ma.v alj!LaLTrt:Trpa.yf.LEvwV ds 'PwJ.La.Lous: probably compressed; cf. Lhry, xxxvii. 54· 3. 'princeps legationis expositis initiis amicitiae cum populo Romano meritisque Rhodiorum Philippi prius, deinde Antiochi bello .. .'. 8. ljluat:L yO.p 1raaa.v flova.pxla.v KTA.: cf. xv. 24. 4-5 {kings exploit the word J>.,ufitpla); xxii. 8. 6-7 (interests of kings and democracies rq
EMBASSIES AT ROME (189)
XXI. z3. u
naturally opposed); cf. Welwei, 186. The Rhodians may well have voiced such ideas, likely to appeal to the Romans. U1TTJKOous dva.L at£cn Ka1 vu9a.pxeiv: cf. xv. 24. 4, ml uvp.p.axtKW'->, ci.Ud. OEU7TO'l'LKW'.> xpw~"Tat Toi"s 7Ttanvuaut. 11. Tov Ka.Aou K.a.i. ~
{cf. §IS)· clJv Twa p.€v
7rpo0'1'E01~a
KTA.
23. 4. '11'6.VTa Ta tca.TU. TTjv oitcouiltVTtv: cf. r6. 8 n. 9. T6 ••• ~ta.A6v KTA.: cf. 22. II n. Twv lyywTa TouTOL'.i 'II'E~utcoTwv b.v8pwv: a commonplace, recalling P.'s use of 8Ei:o'.> (cf. "t>i. 48. 2, x. 40. 8, xxii. r6. r, xxix. 21. 9); there is no hint at the Stoic wise man (so von Scala, :zzo). 11. Tw~ !ley(aTwv ••• o11iv !lETEO"XTJtcOTES: 'have taken an honest share in your gravest struggles and dangers'; cf. xxviii. IJ. 4· &.A7Jihvws is read by all manuscripts except U (Vaticanus Gr. 1418), including X, from which all the rest are derived (Moore, rsr). Oliver, Ruling Power, 936, quotes Ael. Arist. ad Rvmam, 77, TOV'i SJ Twv p.EylaTwv ~ea£ ci.A7J8wwv £pywv dywvtaTas-, and would follow U with ci.A7]8wwv. But Aelius' contrast between prize contests and real war is absent IIS
XXI. 23.
II
EMBASSIES AT ROME (189}
from P., where the Rhodians stress their genuine participation (not the genuineness of the struggle) ; nor can U carry independent weight against X. &.:\178tvws should therefore be kept. 12. 1rpE1rEw Ka1 autJ.
EMBASSIES AT ROME (189}
XXI. 24. 6
ambas.<;adors at Apamea; Thermus (whom he calls a tribune) was then sent to administer the oath to Antiochus. Will, ii. 187, calls this account 'la plus nette et la plus vraisemblable'; but although the treaty sworn in Rome ranked as a valid document (24. 13; cf. Larsen, CP, 1936, 347), it seems unlikely that the text was engraved and set up on the Capitol before it had been sworn to by Antiochus. Since Appian probably goes back indirectly to P., his statement could be a misunderstanding of the statement in Livy (and so perhaps originally in P.) that the oaths were sworn in Rome on the Capitol (Livy, xxxvii. 55· 3). Otherwise Appian's account seems correct. The procedure involved is not easy to interpret juridically, but reflects a situation in which supervision of detail fell to the men on the spot, and the king's personal oath was essential. See 41. 8 (spring 188), where the preliminary money payment and handing over of corn has to take place 1rpo ,.&w au1•fJT)KWV (though oaths had already been exchanged at Rome). See Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. ii. 525 f.; DeSanctis, iv. 1. zo6; Larsen, CP, 1936, 347· 6. 8ovTes 8.2 Ta.thas Tas 45.11"oKpiue~s: Nissen (KU, 199) sees compression: the Senate has given only one answer (§§ 4-5), that they will send ten legati. In Livy, xxxvii. 55· s-6, the Senate's general intentions were now conveyed to the envoys from the Asian states, whereas in P. (as we have him) they figure as instructions to the legati. But the plural a1TOKplun:; is easily explained, inasmuch as the Senate were answering several sets of envoys (d. xxiii. 9· 5 for a similar plural; Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. ii. 523 n. 9); and in fact Livy adds a second version of the instructions given to the Ten (Livy, xxxvii. 56. 2-6), which Nissen (KU, 199-2oo) and Holleaux (Etudes, iii. 365 n. z) believed to be Polybian, and omitted by the excerptor, but which is almost certainly annalistic (cf. Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. ii. 523; De Sanctis, iv. I. 225; Bikerman, REG, 1937• 223 n. 2; McDonald, ]RS, I967, z, 'Claudius Quadrigarius following Acilius'). This passage indicates in detail what was to be assigned to Eumenes and the Rhodians. The former was to have all Lycaonia, both Phrygias, and Mysiae regias siluas, Lydia and Ionia (but for towns free on the day of Magnesia), and specifically Magnesia near Sipylus, the part of Caria called Hydrela, the territory of Hydrela towards Phrygia, the castella uicique beside the Maeander, and such towns as had not been free before the war, Telmessus, and the castra Telmessium, along V
EMBASSIES AT ROME {189)
to the Asian envoys, so as to avoid appearing to give two sets of instructions to the Ten (Bikerman, REG, I937. 222-3). 7. TWV ~1rl. TnSE Tau T o.opou ICO.ToucouvTWv: cf. I4. 8, 43· 6 n. 1rA~v AuKlo.v Ko.l Ko.p£o.s Tn Jl~XP~ ToG Mo.~O.v8pou: cf. 46. 8 n. 8. Twv ••• 1roAEwv ••• oo-o.L ••• :A.TTnA~ 4>6pov f11TETiAouv: cf. 46. 2 n. 9. 1rpbS rvo.~ov: Cn. Manlius Cn.f. Ln. Vulso cos. A.U.C. s6s I89 with M. Fulvius !vi. f. Ser.n. Nobilior; he succeeded L. Scipio in Asia in spring I89 (Livy, xxxvii. so. 8, 6o. I; xxxv-iii. I2. 2). Paton has, incorrectly, 'proconsul' (though that is the meaning of arparr;y6s -&rraros in xviii. 46. 5). See Munzer, RE, 'Manlius (9I)', cols. I215-22; 'Fulvius (9I )', cols. z65-7. 10. 1:6;\wv Twv K~ALtclwv: cf. Livy, xxxvii. 56. 7-IO; a coastal town on the borders of Cilicia Tracheia and Cilicia Pedias (Strabo, xiv. 3· I, C. 664, 5· 8, C. 671), the birthplace of Chrysippus, Philemon, and Aratus, today Viran~ehir, west of Mersin (cf. Ruge, RE, 'Soloi (I)', cols. 935-8). Ptolemaic since its capture c. 246 (FGH, I6o F I, col. ii 1. 3; cf. Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 297 n. z), Antiochus recovered it in 197 (Liv-y, xxxiii. 20. 4). 11. 1\pyElwv a1Toltcous ••• IC0.9n1rEp Ko.l. 'PoS£ous: d. Strabo, xiv. 5· 8, C. 6p, .i1xaul>v Kai 'Po8£wv Krlaf-La •wv EK Alv8ov; it counted the seers Mopsus and Amphilochus among its founders (Beloch, i. I. 262). Though Doric (OGIS, 230), it thus claimed earlier, Achaean connections; cf. Mela, i. 71, 'olim a Rhodiis Argiuisque possessa'. Rhodes itself was traditionally colonized by Achaeans from the Argolid in the second millennium, but in Homer it is Dorian (fl. ii. 653-6). Cook, Ionia, 29, dates the Dorianization of Rhodes after 900. Here the Rhodians take up the earlier, pre-Dorian tradition. 16. :Itcmlwva Kat AEUKLov: L. Scipio and L. Aemilius Regillus (8. I); the naval battle was at Myonnesus (cf. II. I3 n., I3. In.). Paton incorrectly takes them to be P. and L. Scipio. 17. .fjyov Op~nJ.L~ous: 'celebrated their triumphs' (not 'triumph', as Paton). Aemilius' naval triumph was celebrated kal. feb. A.u.c. 566 = I88 (I7 September 189): for a description see Livy, xxxvii. 58. 3-4. Aemilius vowed 'aedem Larum permarinum in Campo', which was dedicated in 179 by the censor M. Aemilius Lepidus (Livy, xL 52. 4). L. Scipio celebrated his triumph mense intercalario pridie kal. mart. (6 November I89): see Livy, xxxvii. 59· z-6 for the description. For full references see Broughton, i. 362; for the Julian dates see Derow, Phoenix, I973• 348; De Sanctis, iv. r. 387 (where for '565' as the year of Scipio's triumph, read '566').
25. 1-11. Events in Aetolia and western Greece (I89)
Res Graeciae of 01. I47, 3 I9o/89; cf. Livy, xxxviii. 3· 1-8. For the earlier events of this section of P. (now lost) see Livy, xxxviii. I-Z, II8
EVENTS IN AETOLIA AND W. GREECE (189)
XXI. 25. 9
describing Amynander's recovery of Athamania, with Aetolian help, from Philip, and Philip's unsuccessful attempt to get it back (Walbank, Philip, 2IJ-I4)· These events belong to winter 190/89. 25. I. :A.~uva.v8pos ••. ~a.aLAEus: the excerptor's words. See xx. 1 n., 10. 5 n. Philip had seized Athamania, and Amynander had fled to Ambracia in spring 191 (Livy, xxxvi. 14. 7--9; Walbank, Philip, 20J-4).
n,v d.pxi]v d.vnATJcpeva.~ f3ef3a.lws: the arrogance of Philip's praefecti caused a movement in favour of Amynander (Livy, xxxviii. I. 2-3, following P.). The coup was carried out by concerted action from four points, supported by Am:y"'llander's arrival with 1,000 Aetolians. Ka.Ta n,v "E.f>eaov: shortly after Magnesia (Livy, xxxviii. 3· r), i.e. c. Jan. 189. 2. 1Tpoa811~a.cr9a., 1TnA1v ••• ets Ti]v au~~a.xla.v: as evidently happened, since soon afterwards he is interceding between the Ambraciotes and M. Fulvius (29. 2 f.). 3. :A.~q,,>..ox£a.v Ka.i ••• :A.1T£pa.vT(a.v d.va.~LAl1T'II"ou ••• : cf. Livy, xxxviii. 3· 5, 'postquam Amphilochos cum Aetolis esse fugamque ex Athamania Philippi et caedem praesidii eius accepere, et ipsi a Philippa ad Aetolos deficiunt.' These events were described at length in Livy, xxxviii. 2; the garrison was one of Iooo men, under Xenon, at Aethopia (xxviii. 2. 4, 2. 12-14). The text of P. has lost several words. 8. Tfjs ~a.Ta T~v :A.a£a.v 1-lcl.xTJs: Magnesia (cf. 16. z-17. 12 n.). 9. Aa.~OTEATJS: Damoteles, son of Telesarchus, of Physcus (or Physceis: Lerat, i. .;E) in Locris, figures on many late third- and early second-century inscriptions, as proxeny guarantor at Thennum (IG, ixl. 1. 29 L 14, and 31 L 55) and at Delphi (FD, iii. 2. 90 IG, ixz. 1. 201), as manumittor of a slave (F D, iii. 1. 565), as secretary of the Aetolian Confederation in Pyrrhias' generalship (IG, ixz. 1. 29 ll9
XXI. 25. 9
EVENTS
I~
AETOLIA AND W. GREECE (189)
1. 3), as boularchos of the Locrian telos (some kind of subdivision of the Aetolian Confederacy: Lerat, ii. 8o) in r8g/8 (GDI, 2o7o, 2139), and as Aetolian hieromnemon (cf. Flaceliere, App. i, nos. 32A and B). For his stemma and descendants see Daux, 470-1; Lerat, ii. 79 and 197. For his later activity see 26. r8 f., 28. r8 n., 29. 4 f., 29. ro-12, 30. 7, 30. 13. TTJV •.• MapKou Ka.l TWV 5uvcl.J.Lewv 5ui~a.ow: cf. Livy, xxxvii. so. 4, 'alteri consuli [sc. M. Fulvius Nobilior] exercitus, qui erat in Actolia, est decretus, et ut in supplementum scriberet permissum ciuium sociorumque eundem numerum, quem collega' (i.e. 4,ooo Roman foot, 200 Roman cavalry and 8,ooo foot and 400 cavalry from the allies and the nomen Latinum). The army in Aetolia had been brought over by A. Cornelius Mammula, who had been praetor among the Bruttii in 191 (Livy, xxxvii. 2. 7); it consisted of two legions and 2o,ooo allied foot and 8oo allied horse (Livy, xxxv. 41. 7, cf. Livy, xxxvi. 2. 7); but it seems to derive from Valerius Antias (Livy, xxxvii. 48. 5), and no other source, including P., knows anything about it (Nissen, KU, 189; Meyer, Rh. Mus. r88r, 121; Gelzer, Kl. Schr. iii. 253-4). Fulvius' army appears in fact to be a new one, though perhaps mustered from troops held in reserve in the Bruttii (Holleaux, Etudes, v. 416). 11. !A.Ae~a.v5pov Tov "lu~ov: cf. xviii. 3· r n.; against Stier's picture of him (8r f.) as a demagogue see Musti, Seleucidi, 171 n. 52. On the equivalence of "Haawt (Thuc. iii. 101. 2) and" Iawt see Lerat, i. 32-34, 212-13; it would put the Isians between Tolophon (mod. Vida vi: Lerat, i. 138-45) and Ocanthea (probably Vistrinitsa: Lerat, i. 205---9) and so at Eratini or at Chora (Lerat, i. 1n-12). Alternatively, if Oeanthea was at Glypha (Trizonia), a possibility (Lerat, i. 208---9), they would be at Vistrinitsa or Dovia (Lerat, i. 109). For these places see the map at the end of Lerat, i. ~a.~VEO.V: cf. xviii. I. 4 n., XX. 9· I n. Xcl.Aevov: cf. xx. 9· 2 n.; manuscripts xaA.mov, corr. Blittner-\
120
FULVIUS PLANS TO ATTACK AMBRACIA
XXI. z6. 7
26. l-19. Fulvius plans to attack Ambracia: the Epirotes capture the Aetolian envo_ys (189) Continuous with 25. r-II; cf. Livy, xxxviii. 3· 9 (omitting the adventures of the Aetolians). See p. 6. ~~ ('H11'Eipou): cf. Livy, xxxviii. 3· 9, 'cum Epirotarum principibus consultabat' (at Apollonia). Had they a foedus? See xxvii. rs. 12 n. 2. t11't Tijv ~t-t~pa.K(a.v: modern Arta, lying in a loop of the Arachthus (§ 4), c. rz miles above its mouth in the Ambracian Gulf. Formerly Pyrrhus' capital, it had been Aetolian since some date between 232 and 223/2 (d. IG, ix•. L 31 l. 83 for an Ambracian guarantor for a Tarentine receiving Aetolian proxenia in 223/2). See Leake, NG, i. 205 ff.; Oberhummer, A karnanien, 25~z6; Leveque, 2289; Hammond, Epirus, 140 ff. (with good sketch-map). 4. 11'pos TE Tel!; TOO O'Tpa.T01TE8ou xpeia.s: in providing water' since it was summer. Livy, xxxviii. 3· u, misunderstanding, writes: 'et Arethontem, nauigabilem amnem, opportunum ad comportanda, quae usui sint, praeter ipsa moenia fluere, et aestatem aptam rei gerendae adesse'. Hammond, Epirus, 144, uses Livy's remark as evidence that the river was then navigable at this time of the year; but see Holleaux, Etudes, v. 264 n. I. 5. 8Ln Tf}s 'H11'Eipou: via the Aous and Drynus valleys. 7. ot ••• 1TpEa~ELS: cf. 25. II. 0TrO IL~~PTOIJ TOU nETpa.£ou: so Gronovius for 1TETpd:rou (Y) ; Niese, ii. 764 n. 3, reads rrE~pa,.oiJ, but Sibyrtus does not act like a pirate. Hammond includes neither Sibyrtus nor Petraeus in his onomastikon (Epirus, 795-817). cts Xapa.8pov: cf. iv. 63. 4~5 n. Hammond, Epirus, 159-60, argues convincingly that Charadra cannot be Zalagora (Salaora), which he has visited, since Philip in marching from Ambracus to Preveza must have made a detour to avoid the lagoons. But his attempt to distinguish Charadra and Charadros (which he takes to be a river, mod. Louros) and his location of Charadra at Voulista, 40 km north of the gulf, are less cogent. He puts Charadra at Voulista because its name 'means "the gorge" and here the gorge proper begins'. But Philip will hardly have come so far north when marching from Ambra.:;_us to Preveza; the modern bridge over the Louros is at Filippias, and was at Pandanassa in 1912, points 18 and 15 km re"c;pectively south of Voulista (Hammond, Epirus, r6o). But the identification with Voulista is open to more serious objections. If the Louros was the Charadros, that name must surely connect with the name of the tuwn Charadra, which stands ex hypothesi on it. But the river would hardly be called Charadros because a town
26. 1.
I2I
XXI. 26. 7
EPIROTES CAPTURE AETOLIAN ENVOYS
40 km upstream was named Charadra after a gorge which began
there. Leake (NG, i. 258), who also thought that the Louros was called the Charadros (though not that P. refers to the river here), suggested more plausibly that the town was named after the river, which was so called because of its torrent-like character (cf. Hammond, Epirus, 148 n. 2). But the decisive argument lies in P.'s usage when speaking of rivers. In only two kinds of context does he name a river without either the word m:rra11-6s or a definite article. One is where two rivers are mentioned together (cf. iii. 37· 3. o u Tavai:s 'T/'OTafLOS Kai N£fAos; ii. 32. 2 is similar, but has 'TI'OTafLOV after the second name), or a river occurs along with other geographical features (cf. xvi. 16. 8, Td SE KaTd. 8a>..a11-as Kai r:Papd.s Kat lla11-wov, where the Pamisus has just been defined (16. 3) as Tov lld11-umv 'TI'oTafL6v). (iii. 49· 6, fJ fLEV yd.p o'PoSav6s, fJ S€ I axapas, probably came in this category, but the usual reading fJ S' 'Iudpas is an emendation.) The other is where P. is speaking of land between two rivers (or a river and some other feature); cf. iii. 37. 4, N££Aov fLEv oov Kai TavatSos fL£Tagv; 37. s. KefTat . •. fL..ov Kat CJ'TT}Awv 'HpaKApd.Tov Kai TtyptSos; X. 48. I, ava IL.faov "Ogov Kat Tavd.Sos. (xxxiv. 5· 6 and 12. 9 are from Strabo or his epitomator and are not evidence for P.'s usage.) It follows that P. cannot here be referring to a river Charadros. Charadros must be a town and is, in all likelihood, the Charadra of iv. 63. 4-5; such alternative forms would create no problem (cf. Buchetus or Buchetum, next note), the more since both words are used interchangeably as common nouns. In that case, however, Charadra (Charadros) must have been accessible from the sea; and the obvious claimant is the site at Rogous, c. 5 km south-west of Filippias (Leake, NG, i. 258--9). The Louros is navigable up to here, and in Byzantine times Rogous was the main port of call in the Ambracian Gulf; see Hammond, Epirus, 57-63 (with a detailed description). Hammond himself suggests that Rogous is Buchetus (see next note); but it fits Charadros (Charadra) better. For a useful map giving these sites see Hammond, Epirus, 136, map. 5· 8. ets BouxETov: Buchetus or Buche tum ; this Elean colony (also called Bucheta, Buchetium) was given to Alexander of Epirus by Philip II ([Dem.] vii. 32; Oberhummer, RE, 'Bucheta', col. 973). Strabo, vii. 7· 5, C. 324, describes it as 'TroAtxvmv Kaaaw'TI'a£wv, near Cichyrus and fLLKpov im€p ri)s !Ja>..d.T7'1)S, in contrast to Elatria, Pandosia, and Batiae, which are Jv 11-moyatq.. Since S. Dakaris (BCH, 1959. 665 ff.; cf. Hammond, Epirus, 478) has now found pottery which serves to identify Cichyrus (ancient Ephyra) at Xyl6kastro near Likouresi, towards the mouth of the Acheron, Buchetus cannot be far from here, and certainly not as far away as Rogous, where Hammond 122
EPIROTES CAPTURE AETOLIAN ENVOYS
XXI. 27.
2
(Epirus, 457, 475) locates it. Strabo's words fktKpov i'mtp Tijs 8aJ..ciTTIJS need not imply the presence of a navigable river (so Hammond, Epirus, 475), and it seems most likely that the KOA1ros reached by the territories of Buchetus and the inland towns (Strabo, loc. cit.) is the Glycys Limen at the mouth of the Acheron, since these will hardly have extended across the Louros to the Ambracian Gulf. The exact site of Buchetus, however, is still to be discovered. For a map see Hammond, Epirus, 47 map 3· 13. 8u;:yyu1)8EvTES: the payment was perhaps undenHitten by proxenoi. 15. vpos To 1TAeiov OPJ.ltl: 'desire to accumulate wealth'. 16. Ta.imSJ.la.Tov auvt]py1)aev: cf. Vol. I, p. 17; iii. 97. 5· 18. T~v a.uTou vepl1TETE~a.v: 'his strange experience', rather than 'his misfortune' (Paton); in § 16 Sui T~v 7Tept7Tin:tav is 'owing to the unexpected outcome'. Aa.J.10TEA1) .•. vci.ALV: d. 25. 9 n.
27. 1-28. 18. The siege of Ambracia (summer 189) On the fragments composing this section, and their relation to Livy, see p. 6. Livy, xxxviii. 4· 1-10, describes the position of Ambracia, Fulvius' two camps, and his castellum, the rally of Aetolian forces at Stratus under Nicander, the Epirote camp 'trans flumen loco plano', the penetration into the city by Aetolians under Eupolemus (cf. xviii. 19. n n.), Nicander's decision not to attack the Epirote camp, and the Aetolian decision to ravage Acarnania. On the siege and Livy's account see Leake, NG, i. 209-13; Hammond, Epirus, 14o-6, with map 6 (p. 141). Hammond's account must be treated with caution, since he believes Livy's narrative to contain additional reliable material from Ennius, Ann. xv; on Livy's source see Nissen, KU, 6-7. The siege was protracted (cf. 28. 18), lasting through the summer to just short of the autumn equinox (Holleaux, Etudes, v. 264 n. 3, 266 n. 4). 27. 1. AlTwAol ... aVTlva.pETcl~a.VTO: this sentence belongs to the author of de obsid. tol.; the version in T begins in § 2 with 6 8t MapKos KTA. Van den Berg (Anon. de obsid. tol. ad loc. § 169) notes the fondness of the Anonymous for introducing his actual quotation with yap (as here in § 2). 2. Tel tca.Tel Tel$ aTpa.T01TE8da.s: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 4· s. 'Fuluius bina a campo castra, modico inter se distantia interuallo, unum castellum loco edito contra arcem obiecit.' Hammond, Epirus, 145, locates these camps at the south-west corner of the town, one beside the river (see map 2, p. 158a). Both camps and the castellum were linked with a ditch and rampart, to preclude all movement into and out of the city (Livy, xxxviii. 4· 6). 123
XXI.
27. 2
THE SIEGE OF AMBRACIA (SUMMER 189)
PYRRHEUM road to Dodona
A B C D E
CD @ ® 4 5
Barracks ------Ancient Wall Monastery Phaneromene + + + + + t Suggested wall enclosing the Pyrrheum Venetian Fort . . . . . . u . . . . . . . . . . . line of Roman rampart Metropolis Church of the Paregoritissa Contours in metres above sea ieveJ Roman Camps 0 150 300 450 600 metres Roman base 'e regione Aeiiculapii" I I I I l t I Roman Castellum 0 200 400 600 yards Camp of the Epirotes
FIG. 2
AMBRACIA IN 1
Sg from N. G. L. Hammond, Epirus,
p.
141)
Tp(a. fLEV ipya. KO.Ttt TO nuppuov: probably a fortified palace erected in his capital by Pyrrhus; Hammond (Epirus, 145) takes it to be 'a fortified suburb'. Leake, NG, i. 21.3, put it at the site of the modern Metropolis, and supposed that the three engines stood in the gardens to the south-west of it; but Hammond (Epirus, 144-7) calculates that city-walls of over four miles will have enclosed these gardens, and locates the P.yrrheum in them. No help concerning the nature of the Pyrrheum is afforded by Livy, xxxviii. 9· IJ, where the regia 'palace' is a misunderstanding of f3aerll.oov in 30. 9 ('capital'); Hammond, Epirus, 148, believes, however, that regia means regia urbs and is a borrowing from Ennius (this can hardly be true). 124
THE SIEGE OF AMBRACIA (SUMMER 189)
XXl. 27.9
lilli TWV ivm·Hiwv: Torrwv, not in T, is superfluous; cf. Livy, xxxviii.
5·
2,
'faciliore aditu a campo'.
T£Ta.p-rov ••• Ka.Tii To ;6.o-KAlJ1TLEtov: located by Leake (NG, i. 213) at
the monastery of Phaneromene ; but this stands on a corner of the ancient wall (Hammond, Epirus, 142), and the siege-engines were outside the walls. Hammond (Epirus, 145 n. 3) puts it on the hill where the church of the prophet Elijah now stands, a commanding position against Mt. Perranthes, where Leake, NG, i. 213 sited Fulvius' castellum; and he assumes the attack from here to have been along the west side of Mt. Perranthes (Epirus, 147). 1T£tl1TTOV ••• Ka.Tii n)v aKp01TOAw: this Hammond (Epl:rus, 147) suggests was directed against the acropolis along contours 8o and go, on the east side of Mt. Perranthes in the direction of the point marked X (see Fig. 2). 4. TWv 8opu8peml.vwv: evidently curved implements on poles used to drag down the battlements. Strabo, iv. 4· r, C. 195 uses it of the devices employed by Caesar to cut the rigging of the Veneti; and in Plato, Laches, r83 nit is a kind of halberd also used in naval warfare. liLa KEpmwv: d. viii. 5. 8 for similar measures at Syracuse. 5. E1Tl TTJV £1ra.A~LV o-uvTpL~£VTos Tou 86pa.Tos: once the op~rravov had been pulled over the wall, the oopv holding it was smashed against the battlements; this put the device out of action and left the op{rravov in the defenders' hands. 6. Ka.t TPL~TJ" ive1roiouv TTI voALopKiq.: not in T. Van den Berg, Anon. de obsid. tol. ad loc. § 174, suggests that the Anonymous may have added these words from an adaptation of 28. r8, since he ended his own excerpt (§ 195) at z8. 17· 7-9: omitted by T and much compressed by Anon. de obsid. tol. (perhaps as not being strictly relevant to the siege); hence Livy, xxxviii. 5· 6-9 better represents what P. wrote (Nissen, KU, 7). 7. NLKnv8pou: d. 27. 1-28. r8 n.; he had gone off to ravage Acarnania in preference to attacking the Epirote camp (Livy, xxxviii. 4· ro), and now returned (Livy, xxxviii. 5· 6). v€tlo/a.VTOS ••• ELS TTJV voALv: d. Livy, xxxviii. 5· 6, 'spem nactus soluendae incepto forti obsidionis, Nicodamum quendam cum Aetolis quingentis Ambraciam intromittit.' 8 .... 1ra.pa.yye£A.a.s ••• Tou KLvliUvou: d. Livy, xxxvm. 5· 7, 'noctem certam tempusque etiam noctis constituit, quo et illi ab urbe opera hostium, quae aduersus Pyrrheum erant, adgrederentur, et ipse ad castra Romana terrorem faceret, posse ratus ancipiti tumultu et nocte augente pauorem memorabilem rem geri.' 9. a.uTwv !lev euo/uxws ••• ciywvLo-a.tl£vwv: the sally against the three Roman emplacements facing the Pyrrheum by Aetolian forces under Eupolemus and Nicodamus was beaten back by the Romans, Nicander failing to give support (Livy, xxxviii. 6. 1-7). 125
XXI. 27.9
THE SIEGE OF AMBRACIA (SUMMER 189)
NLKavlipou Ka9uunp1]uo.VTo~ KTh.: d. Livy, xxxviii. 5· 10, 'seu metu deterrito praetore Aetolorum, seu quia potius uisum est Amphilochis nuper receptis ferre opem, quos Perseus, Philippi filius, missus ad Dolopiam Amphilochosquc recipiendos summa ui oppugnabat'. Pedech, Methode, 36r n. 35, thinks that the uncertainty on Nicander's motives rules out his use as P.'s source here; but this implies a very unsophisticated use of oral sources. Nicander could well have alleged the second reason, but suggested the first by the \\ray he told the story. On Nicander as a possible source see Vol. I, p. 34 n.
Livy, xxxviii. 6. 8-7. 3, adds details from P. not in the fragments. Those besieged in Ambracia felt themselves deserted and showed less vigour. Perseus, upon Nicander's arrival, abandoned his siege of a town, which Niese, ii. 766, believes to be Amphilochian Argos, ravaged the fields and retired to Macedonia. On learning that a joint force of Achaeans and Pleuratus' Tllyrians was ravaging their coast, the Aetolians returned to Aetolia and sent r,ooo men against them. At this point (Livy, xxxviii. 7· 4) the fragments take up the narrative again. 28. 3. To f:lETa.AA.euew: Hammond, Epirus, 147, remarks that only in the area of the gardens south-west of the Pyrrheum (as he locates it) is there enough soil to allow for the digging of a tunnel. 4. uKE1Tauavn~ ••• Toi~ yfippot~: cf. viii. 3· 3 n. 1rpoef3aA.ovTo uToav: d. ix. 4r. 1 n. ; it was 2oo ft. (J7Ti 8-Jo 1TAE0pc.) long, not roo yds (as Paton). 8. xo.AKWf:111T(1 uuvex1j. hE1TTOTI1T(1 Tais KUTUO'KEUais: Aeneas (Tact. 37. 3-4) records the use of da7Tl8os xa.AKwfLa. placed 7rpos 'TD Sa1rE8ov on the interior perimeter of the rampart to detect the direction in which enemy mining is going on. This suggests that the X.MKWfL'.J.'TO. referred to here are bronze plates laid continuously along the side of the trench. following the instructions of Aeneas or some other military manual. However, after Ka'TaaKEvais the Anonymous (but not T) has the phrase olov A£Kdvas Kat €'T£pa OfLOta 'Toll"Tots- (sic), which cannot be P.'s words, as the hiatus indicates. In REG, 1940, 123-6, A. Dain published a memorandum on withstanding sieges which forms part of the Milan MS. Ambrosianus B-n9-Sup. (Gr. 139), and apparently shares a common source with the Anon. de obsid. tol. This memorandum tends to present historical incidents as generalized instructions, and here it is clearly referring to the same incident as the Anonymous and contains the phrase olov A£Kava£ Kai oaa 'TO&affra, thus indicating that this was in the common source. It may indeed have been in P., though omitted by the excerpts represented by T; or at some stage in the transmission-and Dain's memorandum is evidence for a good deal of copying of such material-the phrase may have crept in as an elucidation. That the matter was not 126
THE SIEGE OF AMBRACIA (SUMMER 189)
XXI. zB. 18
always understood emerges from Polyaen. Strat. vi. 17, who, describing the events at Ambracia, \\'lites: Ae1TTa xaA.KciJf£aTa dft:!;7}!> tlfJYJKav, cmws TWV 'Pwf£aiwv TOUTOtS" .?vrvyxa.voJJTWV t{;ofos ylfvotTO: evidently he thought the Romans were intended to bump into them. Bronze vessels would perhaps be more easily available than bronze plates, but they would be clumsy and less effective; and if Aeneas can be followed, shield-factories would perhaps furnish bronze sheets. So on the whole this sense seems preferable. Similar devices are recorded elsewhere. At the Persian siege of Barca a smith used a bronze shield to detect, not the sound of digging, but the hollow ground, which caused a different resonance when the shield was struck (Herod. iv. zoo); and the engineer Tryphon of Alexandria hung up uasa aenea to detect digging at the siege of Apollonia (Vitruv. x. 16. g-ro)-but which Apollonia and when, is unkno\vn (Riemann, RE, 'Tryphon (31)', cols. 745-6). Here Paton wrongly translates xaJ...Kc!Jp.a.Ta. as 'brass'; Livy, xxxviii. 7· 8 omits them entirely; cf. Zon. ix. 21' xaA.Kfiv acnrlBa. ••• 11'pos aUTO ETlBouv TO il&7T£~ov, Translate {probably), 'very thinly constructed bronze plates in a continuous line'. 9. &ul. TTJS 1Ta.9eto.s: 'through their reverberation'. 11. SW. TO 1Tpo~tiXXea9a.~ Oupeous Ka.l. y~ppa.: 'since both sides used shields and wattles to protect themselves'; Livy, xxxviii. 7· 10, confusing 8vpwi with 8upat, renders 'nunc ciliciis praetentis nunc fori bus obtentis'. 12. 1T~ov 1Tpo9eJ.Ltvous: the earthenware jar {probably a wine-jar) was to be pushed forward horizontally in the shaft. a.uMa~eov a~11poGv taov Tit> TEUXEL: 'an iron tube the length of the jar', 1TUpOS 1TO.VTEAws JlLKpov: 'quite a small amount of fire'. 'A few pieces of charcoal' (Paton) may be true, but is not what P. says. 14. 1TEpLa0.~a.vTa.s Ta xeLAl] TOU 1T'9ou: i.e. blocking up the space between the rim of the rrlBo> and the walls of the mine, so that no smoke would blow back into their own section. 15. ~1TnyoJ.L£vous ••• TOv a.l~Mv t~eTos: they were gradually to withdntw the pipe so that its mouth was always in conjunction with the part of the feathers that were on fire. Aen. Tact. 37. 3-4, also envisages the deliberate use of smoke to make a mine untenable {and also the introduction of bees and Wdsps). 18. 1TpEa~eouv ••• 1Tpos Tov O.TTJybv Twv 'PwJ.La.lwv: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 8. r, 'legati ab Aetolis Phaeneas ct Damoteles cum liberis mandatis decreta gentis ad consulem uenerunL' On Phaeneas see xviii. 1. 4 n.; on Damoteles, 25. 9 n. Livy, xxxviii. 8. r-ro (follov.ing P.) lists the reasons for the Aetolian decision, the plea to the consul and his reply: they were to hand over all arms and horses, pay an indemnity of 1,ooo silver talents, half at once, and make a treaty 127
XXI. z8. 18
THE SIEGE OF AMBRACIA (SUMMER 189)
by which they had the same friends and enemies as the Roman people. The envoys took these terms back, and were told to return to Ambracia and obtain peace at any price (Livy, xxxviii. 9· I-2). On the way back they were waylaid and taken to Thyrrheum by Acarnanians, with whom they were at war (Livy, xxxviii. 9· 2). 29. I-32. IS follows here.
29. 1-32. 15. Peace with Aetolia {I89) This passage is still part of the res Graeciae of 01. I47, 3 = I')0/89, though it moves over to Rome to describe the settlement (31. 332. IS); cf. Livy, xxxviii. 9· 3-II. 9; above, p. 6.
29. 1. €rrl To oTpo.TcmeSov: at Ambracia. 2. i\.fl{JYo.vopos: cf. 2s. I-2 nn. 3. Ko.Ta ~uyr1v: after his expulsion by Philip in I9I (zs. I n.). Shuckburgh oddly supposes Fulvius to have been exiled to Ambracia. 4. Tous rrepl bo.flOTEATJY: seized along with Phaeneas (28. I8 n.). 6. a~~ELY a~cis o.uTous ... : Hultsch noted the lacuna and suggested J-Lr/)~ rdv £.axarov (or m:p~ rwv o.\wv) KlvSvvov imDJ-L,VELV, Biittner-Wobst Kat f-L~ 7TOtEI:a8at 7Ttp~ TWV o.\wv rdv KlvSvvov. Livy is too abbreviated to be of help. 10. raLOY Ouo.AEpLov: c. Valerius M.f. P.n. Laevinus, later cos. suf'f. in A.u.c. S78 = 176. On the Romano-Aetolian treaty made by his father in 211 see ix. 28--39 n. The mother of M. Fulvius Nobilior had married M. Valerius Lacvinus (his father) as her second husband; cf. Volkmann, RE, 'Valerius (2o8)'. cols. 44-45. 12. To rrpoaTo.rijao.L TWY AhwXwv: because of his father's connection. This and the patronage of the Flaminii in Sicily (Livy, xxxiii. 42. 8) are the earliest examples of Roman noble patrocinium over foreign states (Badian, rs7-8). See further Vell. Pat. ii. 38. s; Florus, i. 2s. I-3; Ampel. 47· 3; Gelzer, Kl. Schr. ii. 78. 14. €rrhpeq,o.v Ta Ko.8' o.uTous T~ aTpo.TT)y~: i.e. deditio. The condition that the Aetolian garrison should be allowed to depart freely must have been negotiated first, since deditio in itself did not admit conditions (d. xx. 9· Ion.). Reuss, Volk. Grund. 69 points out that the Aetolian garrison was not involved directly in the deditio, comparing Livy, xxv. 28. 3 (Marcellus' negotiations with the army outside Syracuse in 212); see further Dahlheim, 7 n. 9· 30. 1-3. Original peace terms with Aetolia: 1. An indemnity of soo Euboic talents, 2oo at once and 300 in six annual instalments of so talents. 2. All prisoners and deserters to be handed over without ransom within six months.
PEACE WITH AETOLIA (189)
XXI. 30.9
3· No city to remain in the Aetolian confederacy or be hereafter incorporated in it, which had been captured by the Romans or had established relations of amicitia with them since the crossing of L. Cornelius Scipio. 4· Cephallenia to be excluded from the treaty. These terms are milder than those proposed by Acilius in 191 (xx. g-ro) and the Scipios in 190 {4. 12-14); no deditio was required, the territory to be surrendered was defined, and the indemnity was soo instead of z,ooo talents. Badian, 84-85, suggests that Fulvius acted on his own responsibility (presumably supported by his consil£um) and trusted to his faction at Rome to secure ratification (on this faetio cf. Scullard, Pol. 135 f.). For the final terms, as agreed by Senate and people see 32. 2-14. 2. s~a.KOO"LQ. ••• E~~oi:Kn TaAa.vTa.: see i. 62.9 n. (with Vol. II, p. 6,30, addendum) on the weight of the Euboic-Attic talent; below, 43· 19 n. 3. Tous). added by Ursin us; cf. Livy, xxxvili. 19. 9, 'captiuos perfugasque redderent Romanis'. Cf. xv. r8. 3 n. and passages quoted there. 4. }LETa T,;v A£utdou KopvT)Atou 8Lcl.~a.aw: cf. 4· I-s. 13 n. Livy, xxxviii. 9· ro gives the name wrongly as T. Quinctius (the same error occurs in Livy, xxxviii. II. 9: see below, 32. IJ n.). Hence Calderone, 36-37 n. J, suggests that L. Cornelius is a mistake for L. Quinctius (as in 32. 13), KOJNTJOY having been corrupted to KOPNHAIOY; but the different date is to be kept, for the one here (r9o) will be that mentioned in the original truce made with L. Scipio (5. II), modified in the final treaty to 192 (32. 13 n.). See Nissen, KU, 203 n. 2. 5. K~;cJ>a.AATjv£ous: cf. v. J. 9; the decision to annex the island had evidently already been taken. Together with Zacynthus (.3 b 2 n.) and Corcyra, it would enable the Romans to overlook Greece from the west and to control the sea-crossing to and from Italy ; cf. Will, ii. 183. 8. To'Ls }Ltv o~v 8Xo~s KTA.: 'on the whole people were satisfied'; perhaps the exact meaning has eluded Livy, xxxviii. 9· 12: 'ad unum omnes tamen accipi pacem iusserunt.' 9. Tous ••• AlTwAous iicJ>T)K£v: cf. 29. I4 n. Tn s· ci.yaA}LO.TQ. Ka.l TOUS ci.vSpLaVTO.S Ka.l Tns ypa.cJ>O.s: 'the dedicatory objects, statues, and paintings'. ay£\p,aTa is a more general word than ap/3ptaVT<ES'; the latter are statues of men, the former divine statues, tripods, pictures, etc. (see LSJ s.v.). Livy, xxxviii. 9· 13 renders inaccurately 'signa aenea marmoreaque et tabulae pictae . . . sublata omnia auectaque'. The works seized included a famous group with Heracles Musagetes, which M. Fulvius Nobilior dedicated in the temple of Hercules Musarum in the Circus F
XXI. 30.9
PEACE WITH AETOLIA (189)
Flaminius at Rome (Pliny, Nat. kist. xxxv. 66; Pan. lat. 9· 7), and which Q. Pomponius 1\Iusa, moneyer c. 6g-sB, perhaps reproduced on his coins (B.M.C. Rom. Rep. i. 441-6; Crawford, RRC, no. 410, r-rob; Leveque, 231 n. r). Sui. TO y£yov€va.l [la.aO..I!L0\1 nuppou: cf. Zon. ix. 2I; Livy' xxxviii. 9· 13 (mistranslating; see 27. z n.}. 10, i8o8f) , , , Ka.t aT€~a.YOS cbro Ta.A0.\ITWV ~Ka.TOV Ka.t 'II'E\IT~KO\ITa.l for the meaning of wrl¢avo,; cf. xx. 12. 5 n.; cf. Livy, xxxviii. 9· 13, 'coronam auream consuli centum et quinquaginta pondo dederunt', -apparently misunderstanding this sense of crrl¢a.vo> and changing talents to pounds to avoid complete nonsense (Larsen, GFS, 441 n. 3). 12. 1-.pyos ••• )\I'~..Aoxu<6v: traditionally founded by Amphilochus after the Trojan War (Thuc. ii. 68. 3; Strabo, vi. 2. 4, C. 271, quoting Hecataeus} or by Alcmaeon and his sons (Ephorus, FGH, 70 F 123 = Strabo, vii. 7· 7, C. :;zs-6); see Hammond, Epints, 447-8. It was on the Ambracian Gulf, but its site is controversial. Gomme, Thucydidcs, ii. 426-8, puts it at Karvassaras (on which see v. 5· I4 n.); but P. makes it r8o stades from Ambracia (Arta), translated by Livy, xxxviii. ro. r as 22 m.p. (in fact :21.6 m.p. at 8~ stades, or 22.5 m.p. at 8stades to the mille pas sus: cf. xxxiv. 12. 3-4). This distance is equivalent to 33.2 km, whereas that from Arta to Karvassaras is 44 km. Hence it seems more likely that Argos is to be sought at the large fortification north of the Botokos {ancient Inachus), which is between 35 and 36 km from Arta; cf. Leake, NG, iv. z:;S-43: Oberhummer, Akarnanien, z6-27; Hammond, Epirus, 246. For a sketch-map of the district see Hammond, BSA, 1936-7, rzg, or Epirus, 238 map ro. 15. q,a.w€a.v Ka.l. N£Ka.v8pov: cf. xviii. r. 4 n., xx. 10. 16 n. ; their dispatch must have been after the expiry of Nicander's strategia in autumn r8g; cf. Holleaux, Etudes, v. 266 n. 4.
31. 2. Twv ~£Xwv: his amici (cf. xviii. 34· 3 n.). 4. n,v !6.8a.p.a.v£uv Ka.t n,v AoA.owLa.v: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 10. 3, 'Dolo pas Amphilochosque et Athamaniam erepta sibi quaerens'. In fact Perseus seems to have recovered Dolopia (for the attack on Amphilochia in Livy, xxxviii. 5· xo, implies its possession); and it was Amynander, not the Aetolians, who had recovered Athamania. Holleaux (CAH, viii. 227 n. I; Etudes, v. 418 n. r) suggests that it was Aperantia and Amphilochia that Philip claimed now; but perhaps his envoys had left for Rome before Perseus' counter-attack (d. Walbank, Philip, zr6). See DeSanctis, iv. r. n6; Meloni, Perseo, z8-z9; Bengtson, Strat. ii. 365-7. 6. (p.eTa) Acl.p.wv• o KLxf)a£ou (A~)wv: so Buttner-Wobst for the manuscript odJ..U> o K~)(Tiaiwv; cf. Livy, xxxviii. ro. 4, 'Atheniensis legatus Leon Hicesiae (Bamberg. leoc£chensii) filius eloquentia etiam mouisse'. Damon was the Rhodian (cf. xxix. 10. 4 n.). The correctI30
PEACE WITH AETOLIA (189)
XXI. 32. z
ness of Livy's version is confirmed from other sources. Leon, son of Cichesias, of the deme Aixone, belongs to an Athenian family which has left records from the early third to the late second century. In 192 he opposed Apollodorus, who tried to draw Athens over to Antiochus (Livy, xxxv. so. 4); and a poem of Phaedimus (A nth. Pal. vi. 271) depicts him and his wife Themistodice making offerings to Artemis for the birth of a son, who is probably the Cichesias known from IG, ii 2 • g6o 11. 2-4 and 2452 1. 27, whose son Leon is mentioned at Delos (IG, xi. 4· 1056) and was an agonothete in 142 (IG, ii 2 • 2452 1. 27). Leon seems to be the leader of the pro-Roman party at Athens (Ferguson, 283 f.). See Deininger, RE, Suppl.-B. xi, 'Leon (z4a)', cols. 874-6; and for the family stemma Kirchner, P A, 9108 (d. 8445); Hermes, 1896, 261; Dinsmoor, Hesperia, 1954, 291 n. 18; Habicht, AM, 1961, 130 f. (revising and adding to Dinsmoor). Livy may have taken the fact that Leon was an Athenian from§ 16. 1Ta.pa.8E£y..,a.n ••• oLKE~: 'a simile aptly suited to the present situation'; cf. v. 105. 1. To use olK€ta rrapaS.;lyfLaTa was an important aspect of the orator's craft; cf. Isoc. orat. (ed. Benseler-Blass), ii. 275; but this simile was ancient. Scipio used it addressing the mutineers in Spain in 206 (xi. 29. 9 n. ; to the examples there quoted add Demosthenes, xix. 136, likening democracy to an ocean blown by the wind). See Walbank, Speeches, 14. 13. Goa.!> Ka.t .A~Ka.£a.pxo!>: see q. 7 n. (Thoas) and xviii. 10. 8 n. (for his brother Dicaearchus). In 193 the latter conveyed the Aetolian complaints against Rome to Antiochus, promising the support of Philip and Nabis (Livy, xxxv. 12. 6, 12. 15-18). The present passage suggests that, like Thoas later (Livy, xxxvi. z6. 1-6), he spent some time at Antiochus' court (Niese, ii. 68o). For the Roman demand for his surrender see xx. 10. 5 n. MEvEaTa!i Ka.t .Aa.j.LoKp~TO!i : on Menestas see xx. 10. 5 n. On Damocritus of Calydon see xviii. 10. 9 n. ; he was general in 200/199. when he eventually brought Aetolia into the war against Philip (Livy, xxxi. 32. 1-5. 40. 9-10). Sent to win Nabis in 193, he stirred him up to attack the coastal towns (Livy, xxxv. 12. 7).
32. 1-14: the Aetolian treaty; cf. Livy, xxxviii. 11. 1-g. This is the earliest treaty in which the Romans specifically debarred a Greek state from exercising an independent foreign policy; and it may be the first occasion when such a state was required to uphold the maiestas of the Roman people (though this is not entirely clear: see § 2 n.). See Niese, ii. 768-9; Badian, 26, 84 f.; Larsen in Frank, ES, iv. 282-4; GFS, 439-40; Taubler, 62 ff., 450 f. P's source is not known, but he seems to have had access to the Roman official version (cf. Vol. I, p. 32). 2. TfJv &.pxiJv Ka.t TfJv Suva.aTda.v KTA.: cf. Livy, xxxviii. n. z, 131
XXI. J:z. z
PEACE WITH AETOLJA (189)
'imperium maiestatemquepopuli Romani gens Aetolorum conseruato sine dolo malo.' The last three words suggest a lacuna in P. ; see the app. crit. in Btittner-Wobst for suggestions for its filling, that of Buttner-Wobst himself being Ota77Jp€d-rw xwpl.s 86.\ov KaL a1TIXTTJS (cf. Dion. Hal. viii. 9· 3). Taublcr suggests owifw>.aac:TI:rw avt:v o6.\ov 1ToV?Jpov (cf. IG, xii. 2. sro l. 9; xii. 3· I73 d l. 40). Since Livy translates back into Latin from P. his phraseology is not necessarily that of the original (Badian, 85 n. I). Larsen (Gf"'S, 440 n. z) thinks imperium was added to clarify maiestas; but P .likes the combination dpx~ (or ~y
PEACE WITH AETOLIA (189)
XXI. 32. 8
4. lacuna: cf. Livy, xxxviii. II. 3, 'hostis eosdem habeto quos populus Romanus'; see the app. crit. in Blittner-\Vobst for suggested restorations. Examples of clauses implying a defensive alliance, i.e. mutual help against an attack from a third party, are: OGIS, j62 (Cibyra, c. x88); IG, xii. 2. 510 (Methymna, 129); IG, xii. 3· 173 (Sherk, 16: Astypalaea, 105); IG, xii. z. 35 (Sherk, z6 d: Mytilene). But here the Aetolians are subordinated, and must accept Rome's friends and enemies; cf. 4· 13; for the formula see Cic. Jam. xii. 15. 2 '(iurauerant Rhodii) eosdem hostis se habituros quos senatus populusque Romanus' (in this case the allegation that the Rhodians had sworn this proved to be false). Ka.t tO.v woA.e11wow ••• b Sfi!los 6 Twv AhwAwv: cf. Livy, xxxviii. II. 3, 'armaque in eos fcrto, bellumque pariter gerito.' 5. Touc; 5~ (a.uTollbA.ouc;, ••• ) tcTA.: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 11. 4, 'perfugas fugitiuos captiuos reddito Romanis sociisque, praeterquam si qui capti, cum domos redissent, iterum capti sunt aut si qui eo tempore ex iis capti sunt, qui tum hostes erant Romanis, cum intra praesidia Romana Aetoli essent.' Gronovius filled the lacuna, following Livy. The first excepted category seems to rest on the premise that anyone captured twice deserves no consideration, but the second provides for the possibility that the Aetolians may still be holding Macedonians, Acarnanians, and Boeotians from the Second :Macedonian War, when they were Roman allies. For the main clause in other treaties d. i. r6. 9 (Hiero), iii. 27.6 (Carthage, 241), xv. 18.3 (Carthage, 202), xviii. I. 13 (Philip in Locris, rgS), 44· 6 (Philip, 196), xxi. 30. 3 (preliminaries of this peace), 43· ro (Antiochus, 188), xxv. 2. 8 (Pharnaces, 179); Livy, xxxiv. 35· 6 (Nabis, 195); App. Mith. 55 (Archelaus in the Mithridatic War). See Taubler, Sr-83. 6. > ttl-''pa.l; i.tca.Tov ••• T~ li.pxoVTL T~ tv Kt:ptcupq.: cf. Livy, xxxviii. u. 5, 'aliorum qui comparebunt intra dies centum Cor· cyraeorum magistra tibus sine dolo malo tradantur .' After the Hannibalic War the Carthaginians were granted only 30 days (App. Lib. 54) and in 197 Philip had till the Isthmian festival (xviii. 44· 6) ; cf. Taubler, 82. The 'archon in Corcyra' may be a Greek magistrate (so Livy, who however makes him plural) ; if he is a Roman, he must be some temporary commander there. See Zippel, 94; De Sanctis, iii. r. 302 n. 97; Holleaux, Rome, 109 n. z; Badian, Studies, 28 n. 35 BSR, 1952, Son. 35· 7. tO.v 5£ J.LTJ eupt:9wow ICTA.: cf. Uvy, xxxviii. II. s. 'qui non comparebunt, quando quisque eorum inuentus erit, reddatur.' Livy omits the clause denying such persons the right to return to Aetolia after peace is sworn. 8. Aetolian indemnity: cf. Livy, xxxviii. u. 8, 'de pecuniae summa, quam penderent, pensionibusque eius nihil ex eo, quod cum con· sule conucnerant, mutatum; pro argento si aurum dare mallent,
133
XXI. 32.8
PEACE WITH AETOLIA (189)
conuenit, dum pro argenteis decem aureus unus ualeret.' For the arrangement with Fulvius see 30. 2; the 1,ooo talents originally demanded (4. 13) has been halved, perhaps thanks to Athenian pleas (31. 16). Evidence from hoards indicates that during the second century down to 168 the Aetolians coined no silver but triobols of 2•62 grammes, and that Aetolian tetradrachms were issued only in small numbers and then for only a short period in the third century ending c. 225. It has therefore been suggested that the presence in a hoard found at Agrinium in 1959 of substantial numbers of Athenian 'new style' tetradrachms, which belong (on one view) to I9o-169, indicates the use of Attic silver to pay the indemnity; cf. § 8, dpyvpiov fL~ X,Elpovos )1rrtKov. See Thompson, New style Coinage; NC, 1962, 32o-2; Agrinion Hoard, 8o-82: L. A. I.osada, Phoenix, 1965, 129-"33· Losada suggests that by pressure on the Aetolians to use Athenian silver the Romans were both rewarding Athens (who would gain from the transaction) for her support, and securing Aetolia against Macedonian penetration. But the treaty with Antiochus also contains a stipulation about Athenian silver (43· 19}; neither treaty need imply economic help to Athens and indeed in the Aetolian treaty Attic coins are not specified. In the absence of evidence on how the Aetolians in fact paid their indemnity this speculation seems hazardous. Furthermore, Thompson's dating of the newstyle Athenian tetradrachms has been criticized by D. M. l-ewis, NC, 1962, 27 5-300 (reply by M. Thompson, ibid. 301-33) who would date the whole series thirty or thirty-five years later (see also H. B. Mattingly, NC, 1969, szs-34); in that case Losada's argument would be wholly undermined. The Euboic-Attic talent weighed 26·196 kg. (Vol. II, p. 63o, corrigendum to i. 62. 9 n.). lz.VTt Tp£Tou fl£pous , •. xpua£ov ••• blbOVTE!;: in the absence of other contemporary evidence we cannot judge the fairness of a 1:10 ratio. That it is restricted to a third of the original2oo talents may indicate, not that it gave the Aetolians a financial advantage, but merely that it was a concession intended to assist in the raising, at short notice, of what was for them a large sum of money; if they could not find it all in silver, for this one occasion they might substitute some gold (though it is not easy to see where they can have obtained it). Whether the gold carried in M. Fulvius' triumph (Livy, xxxix. 5· 14-15) included any from this source is not known. See further L. A. Losada, Phoenix, 1965, IJI. 10. Ofl~pous •.• TETTa.pci.KovTa.: delivered Els €77J ;g (a phrase omitted by Livy, xxxviii. II. 6-7), these are to guarantee the payment of the tribute, which was also to be made over six years. The minimum age for the hostages is set at 12 years; for the Carthaginians it was 14 (xv. 18. 8) and for Antiochus 18 (43· 22). The reason for these variations is not known, nor why more were demanded than IJof
PEACE WITH AETOLIA (189)
XXI. 32. 13
from Nabis (five: Livy, xxxiv. 35· n) or Antiochus (twenty: 43· 22) -but the Carthaginians had to give Ioo (xv. IS. 8). On the giving of hostages see xv. IS. 8 n. ; Aymard's articles, there mentioned, are reprinted in Etudes, 436-6o. For a similar correlation with payment of indemnity cf. U·vy, xxxii. 2. I-3; the two were not always linked. oos liv 'PwJ.I-aio~ Trpo~tpLvwcnv: Livy, xxxviii. II. 6 interprets as 'arbitratu consulis'. xwpls O'TpaT"'lYou KTA·: the exemption of public officers--the choice otherwise being Roman-was presumably to prevent disruption of government; similar provision is found in a treaty of 304 between Rhodes and Antigonus I and Demetrius Poliorcetes (Diod. xx. 99· 3 svA, 442, 7Tlo¥ TWV &.pxaf.)."'lvtas: cf. 30. 5 n. 13. (Trl AEUKlOU Ko't:vTlou tca.l rvatou AoJ.I-ET(ou: i.e. L. Quinctius Flamininus and Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, coss. A.u.c. 562 = 192. The outbreak of the war has taken the place of L. Scipio's crossing (190) mentioned in the preliminary terms (3o. 4 n.). Livy, xxxviii. II. 9 reads 'T. Quinctio', a manifest error. The earlier date deprived the Aetolians of Lamia and Heraclea, lost before the armistice of 190 (cf. Nissen, KU, 203); but in fact GDI, 1959 shows Heraclea once more in Aetolian hands by May-June, r84, whether because it was exempted from the ruling or because it was meanwhile restored to Aetolia (see Daux, 671-4). 135
XXI. 32. I4
PEACE WITH AETOLIA (189)
14. Twv OLvla.Swv: d. iv. 65. 8-Io n., n n. The Aetolians acquired it in 211 (ix. 39· 2 n.) and kept it in the peace of :2o6 (Holleaux, CAH, viii. IJ4; Etudes, v. 316). 15. TOlO.UTt}V • • • Tijv i'll'~ypa.q,,;v: so the manuscripts. Ursinus emended to €71't(T'Tpofljv, Reiske to Ka:ra(T'Tpof1jv; the word is probably the excerptor's (cf. Hultsch, EZ (1892) p. 368 n. I). If it is kept, it may be metaphorical: 'such was the seal set on the affairs of Aetolia and Greece in general' (Paton). Mauersberger takes it to mean 'schriftliche Fixierung' i.e. of the treaty. [32 b. Fulvius' capture of Same in Cephallenia As part of res Graeciae of Ol. 147, 4 = 189/8 this should follow 39· 14; see p. 6. Following the end of the Aetolian war M. Fulvius crossed to Cephallenia. Here all the towns made a deditio, but the people of Same changed the:ir minds, closed their gates, and forced Fulvins to undertake a (Livy, xxxviii. z8. r-n), which lasted four months (Livy, xxxviii. 29. 9}. After the fall of Same, according to Li-vyr, xxxviii. 30. I, following P., Fulvius went on to the Peloponnese; and according to the annalistic account in Livy, xxxviii. 35· 1, he went from there to Rome to hold the elections for 188. But a letter from c. Livius Salinator (cos. A.U.C. s66 = r88) to the Delphians (Syll. 6II Sherk, 38) shows that Fulvius returned from Rome to finish off the of Same. Hence the likely chronology is that the siege began in October, 189, that Fulvius left shortly afterwards to reach Rome by the end of the month and hold the elections (as instructed: Livy, xxxviii. so. 6), and returned to finish the siege in January, r88. If id. mart. A.U.C. s66 fell on 21 November I89 (Jul.), as Derow (Phoenix, 1973, 348-9) makes it, this would be a tight programme, but just possible. See Aymard, Etudes, II-I4 REA, 1928, 15-19); Melanges Glotz, 49-73; Cavaignac, Melanges Thomas, 120-31; De Sanctis, iv. I. 3¢ (he believes that Fulvius went from the Peloponnese to Rome); Holleaux, Etudes, v. 249-94. Livy, xxxviii. 29. I-<J describes the siege and effectiveness of the Achaean slingers; at length, after many losses, 'Romani nocte per arcem, quam tCyneatidem uocant-nam urbs in mare deuexa in occident em uergit rnuro superato in forum peruenerunt.' The Samaeans took refuge in maiorem ... arcem with their women and children, and next day surrendered and were all sold into slavery (Livy, xxxviii. 29. Io-n). It is to this that the present fragment, from Suidas, refers. Same was at the head of the wide Gulf of Samos on the east side of Cephallenia, sheltered by Ithaca ; the anchorage is good. There are remains of the walls, 3400 m. in circumference, and of two acropoleis, to the east and south. The latter, 226m. high, now called KoJI'To!; or 136
FUL VIUS' CAPTURE OF SAME
XXI. 32 c
Ag. Phanentes, was the one seized by the Romans; the higher acropolis, 275 m., on which the inhabitants took refuge, is called Ampelliki or Palae6castro--Livy's arx maior. Strabo, x. 2. 13, C. 455, describes the site as deserted, but it had some revival under the empire (cf. Kallipolitis, :4px. OEAT. 196r~z, 1~31 (Roman baths); BCH, 1958, 7z8 f. for photographs). See Leake, NG, iii. 55~58; J. Partsch, Kephallenia u1td Ithaka (Gotha, 189o), 69 ff.; BUrchner, RE, 'Kephallenia (1)', cols. zos-{). 'ITpa.~'KO'II',aa.s:
details are lost, since Lhry (see above) is much com-
pressed. TO jJ-Epos rijs a1Cp0'11'QAEI.US: Ag. Phanentes (see above); Livy's text is corrupt on its name: Cyatidem, Bamb.; Cyneatidem, Mog.]
[32 c 1-4. 01z the wisdom of Philopoemen
This fragment from de sent., on the restoration of Spartan exiles and expulsion of Nabis' mercenaries from Sparta (§ 3 n.), belongs to the section from which Livy, xxxviii. 30. 1-34. 9 is derived, and so to the res Graeciae of OL 147, 4 r&j/8 (see p. 6). It therefore stands after 32 b. Having taken Same (32 b n.} in January 188, Fulvius went to the Peloponnese and attended an Achaean meeting calJed to Argos by Philopoemen, strategos 189/8, to discuss whether synodoi should henceforth be held at other towns as well as Aegium; the damif~rgi had called a meeting to Aegium, but Fulvius, seeing most people going to Argos, went there too and abandoned his support for the champions of Aegium (Livy, xxxviii. 3o. 1-5). The two meetings, called to Argos and Aegium, have been regarded as syncletoi (Aymard, Melanges Glatz, 49-73; ACA, 302-5; Walbank, Philip, 323) and, altematively, as synodoi, in fact the first synodas of 188 (Holleaux, Etudes, v. 287-92, hesitantly; Larsen, 174); andBadianandErrington (HistOYia, r965, 13- 17) argue that the meeting called to Aegium was the spring synodos, that called by Philopoemen was a syncletos intended to precede it and settle the matter of the location of synodoi (contra Lehmann, 251 ff.; replying, Errington, 138 n. 1). This view must be wrong, not so much because it assumes that Livy has misrepresented P. (for which there are parallels) and has imported a conflict between Philopoemen and the damiurgi which was not in P. (it is hard to see why he should have done so), but because at this date a syncletos could not be called for the purpose indicated: see xxii. 12. 6 and the note at the end of book xxix, p. 412. Both meetings must be the first synodos of 188 ; and notices were sent out announcing two rival meeting-places. On the procedure for announ· cing synodoi see below, pp. 4I2-IJ. 137
XXI. 32 c
ON THE WISDOM OF PHILOPOEMEN
Fulvius next had the Achaeans call a syncletos to Elis to deal with the Spartan problem (he probably had instructions from the Senate) : the problem is outlined in Livy, xxxviii. 30. 6-Jz. 2, describing the events of the previous months. The Spartans had attacked the exiles in the coastal town of Las and been expelled; and after Ph.ilopoemen, on an appeal from the exiles, had demanded that the Spartans hand over those responsible for what was now termed 'the massacre at Las', the Spartans had killed thirty supporters of Philopoemen, seceded from the Achaean Confederacy, and sent an appeal to Fulvius, probably before he left for Rome (Livy, xxxviii. 3I. s). The meeting at Elis proved inconclusive and Fulvius told both sides to send envoys to Rome (Livy, xxxviii. 32. 3-10), where nothing was done. But in spring 188 Philopoemen, who was still general (d. Livy, xxxviii. 32. 10, 'Philopoemeni continuatur magistratus') marched into Spartan territory, and forced the surrender of those responsible for secession ; of them some were stoned on arrival in the Achaean camp, and the rest after a summary hearing were 'traditi ad supplicium' (Livy, xxxviii. 33· 1-11). The Spartans were compelled to destroy their walls, expel the t:yTants' mercenaries and any liberated slaves, abolish the Lycurgan constitution and resume membership of the Achaean Confederation. This was done, the exiles were restored, and after an Achaean meeting at Tegea the mercenaries and 'new citizens' (i.e. ex-slaves), who had been expelled, were rounded up and sold, the proceeds going to replace a portico destroyed by the Spartans at Megalopolis. Sparta thus returned to the Achaean fold, with some resentment at the loss of the Lycurgan constitution (Livy, xxxviii. 34· 1--9; Plut. Philop. 16. 3--6). The inscriptions IG, v. r. 4-5, proxeny-decrees containing the phrase €8oge T<~ M;.up and mentioning o·twapxiat (but not Gerusia or Ephors) are usually dated to after r88 (cf. Swoboda, VolksbeschlU.Sse, ro8, 136-42; Touloumakos, 14 f., 102; Michell, 331), but this dating is uncertain (cf. Chrimes, 48, who however seems in error in preferring Paus. viii. 51. 3 to Livy, xxxviii. 34· 3, and restricting the changes imposed to the abolition of the agoge). 32 c is P.'s comment on Philopoemen's actions (on which see Errington, 140 ff.).
3l c 1. ,.{, ~ea.Mv tca.t TO au1-14>€pov: cf. xxiv. rz. 2, Aristaenus calls these Mo ... aKorrow .•• rrd.a7JS' rro>unlas; the words (iii. 4· 10 n.) have a Stoic (but not exclusively Stoic) flavour (see von Scala, 218-!9)· 3. TO tca.Tayuv Tous a.lxlla.XwTous <j>uy6.8a.s: Livy does not mention the 'captive exiles', and it is not clear who they were. Philopoemen's special concern must have been for the exiles of the pro-Achaean party, who had recently lost power (xx. 12. 1-7, xxi. 1 n.); he had 138
ON THE WISDOM OF PHILOPOEMEN XXI. 32 c 4
hitherto opposed restoring the 'old exiles' (r n.; despite Livy, xxxviii. 31. I, 'Philopoemen ... iam inde ab initio exulum causae amicus'). Perhaps he was now ready to back the restoration of all exiles, in order to ensure the return of those favourable to Achaea, especially since after enforcing the surrender and execution of his most intransigent opponents (Livy, xxxviii. 33· 2-n) he could hope to set up a pro-Achaean government (Errington, I4I f.). If that is so, the exiles mentioned here are of Timolaus' party (xx. 12. z n.). But in what sense were they prisoners? Lehmann, 256 n. 234, thinks they had been seized by the Spartans at Las in autumn I89 (Livy, xxxviii. 30. 7-8) or perhaps on some other occasion; but they would have been unlikely to survive the winter's events in Spartan captivity, nor would Ka.ray€tv fit their situation. Errington, 141, suggests that 'at first some members at least of Timolaus' group had been taken prisoner by their opponents before escaping' ; but this would hardly justify calling the whole group a.lxp.a.Adrrovs <{>vydl>ar;. Perhaps Kai has dropped out between the two words, and Philopoemen in fact restored the exiles and such prisoners of war as the Achaeans had taken in the forays of winter I89/I88 (Livy, xxxviii. 32. z). To Ta.1TEtvwaa.~ Tt,v Twv Aa.~<:EOO.LJlOVLwv 1roAw: by the measures of spring 188: see 32 c n. ( Ka.Ta.;fovevua.VT )a. Too~ OEOopu4>opf1KOTa.s : Buttner-Wobst' s rest oration will not stand. Of the mercenaries of the tyrants Livy, xxxviii. 34· I records: 'imperatum . . . ut omnes externi auxiliares, qui mercede apud tyrannos militassent, terra Laconica excederent.' Read, with Pedech, Methode, 329 n. ISI, (€g€:\auavr)a.. Shimron, Late Sparta, I4I-z, thinks Nabis had enfranchised these mercenaries, and this may be implied in xiii. 6. 3 (cf. xvi. I3. z), though it is not stated. It would explain their status since 192, when otherwise their retention as a paid force could be expected to arouse Achaean opposition. 4. E1Ta.vop8(wuEws a.ina.) Tel XPtll'a.Ta.: so Biittner-Wobst. In fact the whole of lTra.vop8wu~;w> is restored, and according to Boissevain the phrase is too long for the space available. Hultsch's suggestion l.peluJ-La.r' oVTa (or lur{ for ovro., Boissevain) is attractive. +vuE\ vouvexT]s ~v ~ea.l UTpa.T'lY~Ioi:os: cf. xi. 16. s. Mav rixptf3w> ~ea1 UTpa7'f1ytKw> £KaUTa uv.Uoytudp.evo>; for Philopoemen's character generally see x. 22. 4-5. kOJ.tL8f) Twv €sw (vopl)to ....f.vwv XP'1J1
XXI. 33 MANLIUS' WAR AGAINST THE GALATIANS
33.1-39.14. Fragments from P.'s account ofCn. Manlius Vulso's war against the Galatians (189) On the relation of these fragments to the Polybian account in Livy, xxxviii. 12. I-27. 9 seep. 6. They belong to res Asiae of 01. 147, 3 = r9o/89 ; Manlius' campaign is in summer r89. For the view of ::\-lommsen and Beloch (d. Pedech, Methode, 36o, 5r9-2o} that P. served personally under Manlius see Vol. I, p. In. I; it depends on the assumption that he was born by 2o8. See against this Lehmann, 273 n. 269 and below, 38. 7 n. P.'s account is, however, ultimately derived from an eyewitness, and his source has a special interest in economic and religious detail; d. Livy, xxxviii. I3. I (oracle of Apollo at Riera Come), 13. 5-7 (the Maeander, origin of the people of Celaenae, the Marsyas river and story of Marsyas), I4. 2 (river Indus named after an Indian who fell from an elephant), r6. r-I5 (history of the Gallograeci), I8. 4 (name Axylon; use of dung for fuel), r8. 8 (Sangarius a source of fish), I8. n-r::z (Gordium as a trading centre). A possible source is Eratosthenes, the son of Agades (FGH, 745}, whose Galatika went down at least as far as I56, and who mentioned the Hyrcanian plain (cf. Livy, xxxvii. 38. r) and Hydrela (cf. Livy, xxxvii. 56. 3); but his date is unknown (cf. Knaack, RE, 'Eratosthenes (5)', cols. 388-9}. Hannibal's libri . .. de Cn. Manlii Vulsonis in Asia rebus gestis (Nepos, Hann. I3· 2 FGH, 18r) were probably a political brochure intended to win Rhodian support against Rome (Stahclin, 59 n. 6). See further Niese, ii. 751-7; Holleaux, CAH, viii. 228-9; Etudes, v. 419-20, for Manlius' campaign in general. 33. l. £v TU 'Pwlln ... at 'll'p!<1[3E'i:cu 8LE'II'paTTOVTO: cf. r8. I-24. rs, i.e. early summer r89. To TC>v AtTwAwv ~vo~; t'II'OAEJ.lEl:To: cf. 115. r-32. IS, i.e. winter r9o/89 to summer 189. See Livy, xxxviii. 12. r, 'eadem non aestatc solum, sed etiam iisdem prope diebus, quibus haec a.M. Fuluio consule in Aetolia gesta sunt, consul alter Cn. Manlius in Gallograecia bellum gessit, quod nunc ordiri pergam.' Livy omits the reference to the embassies (which he had dealt with in book xxxvii) and may have added the emphasis on the coincidence to within a day or two between the Galatian war and the Aetolian settlement. TOY •.• 'll'pos TOU!; r a.M.TilS '11'6AEJ.lOY : the consul Cn. Manlius Vulso {d. 24. 9 n.} reached Ephesus in spring r89, took over L. Scipio's troops and at once called on them to prosecute a new war against the Galatians, who had allegedly supported Antiochus (Livy, :xxxviii. 12. 3-5), and without whose defeat victory over Antiochus would be in vain (Livy, xxxviii. 12. 2-4). The Galatians had supplied mercenaries amounting to r,soo foot and 2,5oo horse (Livy, xxxvii. 40. 1o, 41. r3) at Magnesia, and had shared in the raid on Pergamum I.j.O
J>essinus Lysis
Ancient names
Blly~Bitir
Modern names Manlius' route
Bolii Bolvadin
20
'
40
'
60
r 60
l
80 English miles
' -,-----, 80 100 milia Romana
(Tut6iilii)
Af.bisar Bolli
LYCAONIA
... ...
.Aspendus
+-
FIG.
3
CN. MANLIUS VULSO'S ROUTE AGAINST THE GALATIANS
(I8g)
XXI. 33·
I
MANLIUS' WAR
in 190 (Livy, X.'OCvii. r8. 7; on the raid, above, 10 n.). But Manlius' real aim was plunder and glory-though the war gave him an excellent knowledge of Asia (Errington, Dawn, 179-8o). 2. T!i' vEa.vtaK'l;l: Attalus, younger brother of Eumenes of Pergamum who was at Rome. In his absence Manlius summoned Attalus from Pergamum 'hortatusque ad capessendum secum bellum pollicentem suam suorumque operam domum ad comparandum dimittit' (Livy, xxxviii. 12. 7). The later Attalus II was born in 220 (cf. xviii. 41. ron.) and so was 31 at this time (cf. Holleaux, Etudes, ii. 5 n. 5; Hansen 2 , 45 n. 94); he succeeded Eumenes, probably in 158 (seep. 39). On the four brothers and their mother, Apollonis, see xii. 20. The narrative linking§ 2 and 34· r is covered by Livy, xxxviii. 12. 8-14. 2. Attalus joined Manlius at Magnesia with r,ooo foot and soo cavalry, having ordered his younger brother Athenaeus to follow with further forces. They crossed the Maeander and advanced to Riera Come in Caria (Livy, xxxviii. 12. 8-ro; J. and L. Robert, Bull. ipig. 1940, no. I I (p. 205)). At the river Harpasus Manlius was joined by Athenaeus with a further 1,300 Pergamene troops, and helped the people of Alabanda to recover a castellum. At Antioch-on.Maeander he was joined by Seleucus, Antiochus' son, bringing corn, and from there advanced to a fort called Gordiuteichos (its location is uncertain; see T. Drew-Bear, BCH, 1972, 435-43, publishing an inscription from there), and thence to Tabae, some 2o miles southeast of Aphrodisias (Livy, xxxviii. 13. r-n; it is modern Kale; cf. Robert, Carie, ii. 8o-86). After some resistance its people were compelled to pay 25 talents of silver and ro,ooo medimni of wheat (Livy, xxxviii. IJ. rz--13). From Tabae .Manlius advanced to the river Casus, and took Eriza by storm. The Casus is probably the Ka~dV7J>, known from coins of Themisoi1_1um (mod. Karahiiyiik <::ay); and Eriza has usually been located at I~kian Pazar at the junction of the Karahiiyiik <::ay and the Horzum <::ay (.Magie, ii. 672). However Robert (Villes 2 , nz n. 4) finds this impossible, having seen the ruins, and suggests that Eriza lay further north near Karahiiyiik Pazar (see Robert, Villes 2 , pls. xviii and xix). Manlius now came south to the river Indus, expecting some reaction from .Moagetes, tyrant of Cibyra; on his route see Magie, ii. II57· 34. 1. Moa.ye'TT)s ... Tupa.vvos K~l3upa.s: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 14. 3, 'nee
legatio ulla a .Moagete, tyranno ciuitatis eius, homine ad omnia inftdo atque importuno, ueniebat.' Cibyra was the dominant city in the Cibyran tetrapolis, having two votes, while Bubon, Balbura, and Oenoanda had only one each (Strabo, xiii. 4· 17, C. 63r); but whether the tetrapolis already existed in r89 is not known. Cibyra lies at Golhisar on the left bank of the Horzum <::ay, which flows north to join the Karahiiyiik <::ay so forming the Dalaman <::ay, the ancient 142
AGAINST THE GALATIANS
XXI. 34·
II
Indus (Robert, Carie, ii. 154 n. 5). Its tyrant is apparently the Moagetes who appears as an enemy of Araxa on a decree of that city in honour of one Orthagoras (Bean, J liS, 1948, 40-58; Moretti, Riv. jil. 1950, sz6--so; J. and L. Robert, Bull. epig. 1950, no. 183; Larsen, CP, 1956, 151-69; now SEG, xviii. 570); its date has been disputed, but it was probably set up in c. 185-180, and refers to events of the two previous decades. Moagetes is there dynast of Bubon, but both he and this city respond to control by Cibyra (Orthagoras approaches Cibyra to secure the ending of hostilities). At the time of Manlius' expedition Moagetes is established at Cibyra (with the control of two small towns, Livy, xxxviii. 14. 10). The name Moagetes is characteristic of two regions, Cibyratis with Tabae, and Lydia (especially Maeonia) ; see Robert, Carie, ii. 77, and, for a further example, Bull. epig. 1958, no. 462. The tyTanny lasted at Cibyra until the first century, when the last tyrant, also a Moagetes, was expelled by Sulla's lieutenant, Murena (Strabo, xiii. 4· 17, C. 631); for a later tyrant, Pancrates, see xxx. 9· 14. The text of a treaty made between Cibyra and Rome, probably before 167 (OGIS, 762), makes no mention of the tyrant; d. Magie, ii. uz2-3. 3. Tou 'EXoulou 'II'EJ-1.f9£vTos: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 14. 4; C. Helvius, praetor 198 (Livy, xxxii. 9· 5, 26. 2--3) is mentioned subsequently during this campaign (Livy, xxxviii. 20. 9, 22. r). P. is much compressed, and Livy adds the fact (omitted by the excerptor) that Helvius took 4,ooo infantry and soo cavalry to approach Moagetes. 7. O.AM Ka.t Ka.Ta TiJv pwJ.I.T)V llAT)v KTA.: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 14. 7, 'et ipsum talem esse inter omnes constat, ut de poena eius magis quam de amicitia nobis cogitandum sit.' The text is corrupt, but the phrasing ov 11-ovov ••• dMci. Kal suggests that in the second half of the sentence there is a reference to something worse than being d.Mo,-ptwTaTOII ••• 'Pw11-alwv. The words £lS' Ka6alp£atv ri'js &.pxfi> could refer to the possible dethroning of Moagetes, but are more likely to describe his efforts to destroy Roman power. Some such word as a[tov seems needed with brw,-porpfjs .•• Kal Ko>.aa£w> (for this phrase cf. lrru:rrpo~v T£ rrot£Za0w. KoAd~nv in the Roman law on piracy found at Cnidus and published by Hassall, Crawford, and Reynolds, ]RS, 1974, 195-220, col. iv l. 35). In a private communication F. Piejko proposes KaTd. -r011 yvWfL7JV (for pWfL7JV} o>.1Jv, an attractive suggestion (cf. § 3), though it still leaves difficulties. 8. KO.TO.'II'hO.YEVT£$ Tft\1 E'll'lfO.OW rils opyi}s: 'alarmed at his angry outburst'. 10. Ta 'II'EVTEKa.HieKa. TaAa.wa.: Livy, xxxviii. 14. 10 and 12 twice has qttinque et m'ginti; but the article indicates that P. is referring to the sum mentioned in § 4· 11. IuAE(ou Ka.t T'ijs f:v 1\£1-'vn 'TTOhEWS: so Bi1ttner-Wobst following Casaubon and Tillmanns; manuscripts have avMiov and Jv-rtf/1-I!TJ; d. 143
XXI. 34·
II
MANLIUS' WAR
Livy, xxxviii. I4. Io, 'erant autem sub eo praeter Cibyram, Syleum et Allymne (or Allimnem) quae adpellatur.' Reiske's ~v TeJLEvE~ is closer to the manuscript but further from Livy, and Tillmanns's ~~~ All'-vTl is preferable. Ruge, RE, 'Sillyon (z)', col. 101, accepts the identification of Syleum with the ruins of Hisarardi, south-east of Golhisar (Ramsay, Cities, i. 266); and in RE, ·~ ~v TEJLEVH m).t\~s', col. 434, he suggests that (whatever its true name) the ruins of this other town are those on the eastern shore of GOlhisar (shown as Pa?.armahalli on the map in Bean, BSA, 1956, 137); but Bean, ibid. 144 n. 3 seeks it 'on the small island which gives Golhisar its name', though no remains survive to confirm this (except a Carian-type tomb and some dubious rock-cuttings on the summit). 13. '11'poun£9et tccmi fjpaxu Tt7JV XP'~'UJ.aTwv: 'kept adding to his offer little by little'. Livy (xxxviii. 14. 14) elaborates: 'paula tim illiberali adiectione nunc per cauillationem nunc precibus et simulatis lacrimis ad centum talanta est perductus. adiecta decem milia medimnum frumenti. haec omnia intra sex dies exacta'-the last sentence at least, and perhaps the rest having been omitted by P.'s excerptor. Livy xxxviii. IS. 1-3 bridges the gap to 35· I . From Cibyra .Manlius advanced through the territory of the Sindenses and crossed the river Caularis; next day his army passed the pal1~s Caralitis and stopped at }fadamprum (or -prus; a variant is Mandrupyum). They there plundered a town, whose ablative form is Laco, reached the sources of the Lysis and next day the river Corbulatus. The Caularis must be the (avd1r (:ay (which runs into the Horzum <;::ay from the south-east), Sinda, which Strabo (xii. 7· 2, C. 570; xiii. 4· rs, C. 63o) sets on the borders of Phrygia and Caria, could be Bay1r Koyfi (Baymd1r) or Dengere. The former, being west of the (:avd1r f;ay, fits Livy better; but neither provides a recognizable ancient site, and Btiyiik Alan to the north cannot be ruled out. The pah1s Caralitis (Cabalitis, Muller) must be Si:igiit Gi:ilii (cf. Robert, Rev. phil. 1939, rSo f.= OMS, ii. 1333 f.), and Bean (BSA, 1956, ISo) suggests that Madamprum (or -prus) was Osmankalfalar on its north shore. Lacus( ?) may be Lag be, known from inscriptions and coins, which lay to the north-east of Sogtit Golii (Ruge, RE, 'Lagbe', cols. 455-<>). The Lysis will be the Gebrem (or Eren) (:ay which is formed from several rivers flowing north from the mountains north of Sogiit Gotti, and runs into Burdur GOlti (Ruge, RE, 'Lysis', col. 64). See on this Magie, ii. II57 and Bean, BSA, 1956, 149-so; for maps see Bean, BSA, 19s6, 137; A nat. Stud. 1959. 6g; and Fig. 3. above, p. 141. 35. 1. rvtuos s~yJE\ T()V KoAofjaTOV ••• 'II'OTClf10V: Livy (see previous note) calls it the Corbulatus, and Ruge (RE, 'Kolobatos', col. no7) suggests that the correct name is Kalabatos, since the name Kala144
AGAINST THE GALATIANS
XXI. J6.
I
bantia is found in western Lycia (following Ramsay, Cities, i. 267). It is probably the Istanos r::ay, which later becomes, in its lower waters, the ancient Taurus. From a point a little north of Lagbe Manlius must have turned south-east to reach it. He then followed it down to Isinda (Magie, ii. ns7). ~K Ti]s 'lai.vST}s: Isinda has been located near Istanos at Ku~lar, south-east of the river Istanos, not very far from its head-waters; see Ruge, RE, 'Isinda (3}', col. 2083; Magie, i. 265, ii. I I 57. 2. Tous TEplJ-TJaaEi's: Termessus was a Hellenized Pisidian town, modern Gtilltik, situated on the western side of Mt. Solymus (Gtildere Dag) in a high narrow valley, almost impregnable (cf. Strabo, xiii. 4· I6, C. 63o f.; Arr. A nab. i. 27. 5 f.; Heberdey, RE, 'Termessos (3)', cols. 732-75 (plan, cols. 735-6); TAM, iii. 1. I; Magie, ii. 1136). 4'tAOlJ-TJAov: perhaps the tyrant of Philomelium (mod. Ak~ehir) on the borders of Phrygia and Lycaonia (d. ~1agie, i. 456). In that case he may be the Philomelus, son of Lysias, who made a dedication at Didyma in the second century (Haussoullier, Etudes, 208 no. 7) ; and his father Lysias could be identical with the Lysanias who made a gift to Rhodes after the earthquake (cf. v. go. In. and works there quoted; Meyer, Grenzen, I39}· This Philomelus may have been the founder of Philomelium; alternatively its founder may have been the Philomelus whose son Lysias, MaKE8wv, was proxenos at Delphi in 242/I (GDI, 2736; Flaceliere, 469; Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 357---63). For coins of Philomelium and later references to the town see Magie, ii. I3I3 n. I7. Philomelium is a considerable distance from Termessus. 4. vpos •.. TouTous auv€9ETo ~LAla.v: for later relations between Rome and Termessus see the Lex Antonia de Termessibus (CIL i 2 • 589 = ILS, 38 = Riccobono, Fontes, n), a plebiscitum probably of 68 (cf. L. R. Taylor, CP, I94I, IZI n. 32; Syme, JRS, I963, 57-58; for discussion see also Hough, AJP, 1930, I39 f.; Last, CAH, ix. 896; Beranger, Melanges Piganiol, ii. 723, arguing for 72). This measure renewed the leges, ious, and consuetudo which existed between Rome and the Termessians in 9I (col. ii, 11. I8 f.). See ~1agie, ii. 1176--7 n. 34· vpos :AC71TEvStous: on Aspendus see v. 73· 3 n. 5. T~v 1TpoEtpTJlJ-EVTJV SO~a.v: in a lost passage; and since Livy has omitted this--perhaps it showed Manlius in a favourable light-P.'s account cannot be reconstructed. nlJ-0. S€ ... TOUS 'latvSEi's E~EAOlJ-EVOS: probably before settling with Termessus, Aspendus, and the other cities (so Livy, xxxviii. rs. 6). P.'s text here is compressed, but does not exclude this (the natural) order of events.
36. 1. KuplJ-a.aa. 1ToAw "-a.~wv: cf. Livy, xxxviii. IS. 7 fi., a fuller and more accurate account than the compressed text of the excerpt (Nissen, KU, IS}· From_ Pamphylia Manlius returned to the river 145
XXI. 36.
I
MANLIUS' WAR
Taurus and pitched camp at Xyline Come; the town full of booty, which he captured, was not Cyrmasa, but a near-by urbs called Darsa. The Taurus is the Istanos <;ay, which flows north from near Korkuteli into the (now dry) lake at Kestel. Mommsen's view (Rom. Forsch. ii. 53o-1) that it was the Cestrus (Aksu <;ay), which flows south into the sea in Pamphylia, rests on the untenable view that there is a reference to that river in the Treaty of Apamea (Livy, xxxviii. 38. 4; below, 43· 5 n.). Cynnasa has now been identified by epigraphical finds with almost complete certainty as having stood near Egne~, on the west of the Lysis (Gebrem or Eren <;ay) and the modern motor road (see Bean, A nat. Stud. 1959. 91-93, map on p. 69; Levick, Colonies, 49 n. 4). Livy calls it Cormasa, the form found in the Peutinger table, v.'hich records it as a point on the PergamumPamphylia road. Evidently Manlius marched north from Isinda, either along the Taurus (Istanos <;ay) or further west through Andeda and Pogla to Comama (cf. Ramsay, A] A, r886, 128-31; Bean, A nat. Stud. 1959. II4-I5; for another suggested route, based on a false location of Curmasa near Lagbe, see Magie, ii. uJS, n58). The site of Xyline Come is unknown; it was probably near Comama (Bean, A nat. Stud. 1959, 115). Manlius will have marched \vest from there by the only available route. 'This goes one hour west from Orklitlli to HaCibekar, then turns north and climbs by the Samasbeli pass to the high ground about Aziziye and Bozlar, a rise of about r,ooo feet. From Aziziye an easy road runs west-north-west, descending into the Lysis valley between Kozluca and Elmae1k' (Bean, Anat. Stud. I959· ns-r6). From Urklitlti to Egne~ is a nine to ten hours' march. Livy does not mention the capture of Cyrmasa but records that Manlius 'ad Cormasa urbem peruenit. Darsa proxima urbs erat; earn metu incolarum desertam, plenam omnium rerum copia inuenit.' Darsa is unknown; Ram.c;ay's hypothesis (Social basis, 237-8) associating it with Dliver, about rz miles south-west of Burdur Golti, is fragile. Just conceivably Livy has omitted the seizure of Cyrmasa, and P.'s excerptor all reference to Darsa; but it is more likely that the latter has not only omitted Darsa but also attributed to Cyrmasa the plunder which in fact came from Darsa. Bean, Anat. Stud. 1959, n6, assumes 'that P. is more to be relied on'; but here we are dealing not with P. but with his excerptor. Consequently it is unsound to jettison Livy at this point. 2. '7!'a.p0. -rTJv M!'VTJV •.• 1Tp~a~£tS ~K Avaw6'}s: cf. Livy, X.'CXViii. 15. 8, 'progredienti praeter paludes legati ab Lysinoe dedentes ciuitatem uenerunt.' The identity of the lake depends on locating Cyrmasa and Lysinoe; and the latter, thanks to an imperial inscription, has been identified with the ruin on the headland of Uveyik Burnu, on the west shore of Burdur Golti, 3 km. north of Karakent. Its name 146
AGAINST THE GALATIANS
XXI. 36.3
(sometimes in the form Lysinia) connects with the river Lysis. See further Magie, ii. ns8. The lake must therefore be Burdur GOlu. Bean, A nat. Stud. 1959, u6 says that after leaving Cyrmasa, Manlius 'turning north ... marched into the Sagalassian territory around Diiver and Yaz1koy and was met by envoys from Lysinia'. But P. says clearly that JVIanlius was already marching along the lake (and so well beyond Diiver and Yaz1k6y) when the envoys reached him, and it was only after this that he entered Sagalassian territory (so too Livy). It follows that the territory of Sagalassus did not yet extend to the southern end of Burdur Golii, and the area around Diivcr and Yaz1k6y: for a map see Bean, Anat. Stud. 1959, 6g. 3. TfJv Twv Ia.ya..Aa.aa€wv yfjv: Sagalassus (modern Aglasun) lay about 30 km. east of the southern end of Burdur Genu; cf. Strabo, xii. 6. s. C. 569; Lanckoroflski, Stiidte Pamphyliens, ii. 127 f.; Ruge, RE, 'Sagalassos', cols. 1732-3. A spurious claim to Spartan origins is hinted at on coins of the second md third centuries A.D. with a warrior and the legend AaKEOaipwv (B.1vf.C. Lycia, 242 f., nos. 13 and 25); cf. v. 76. n for a similar claim by Selge. Livy, xxxviii. I5. 9, describes the territory of Sagalassus as 'uberem fertilemque omni genere frugum', a point omitted by the excerptor of P., who has compressed the account of the ravaging related in Livy, xxxviii. 15. 9-u. Livy, xxxviiL 15. 12-17. 20 continues the narrative of Manlius' expedition taken from P. From Sagalassus he advanced north-west round Burdur Golii to Metropolis (modern Tatarh: d. 1lJAl'lrf A, iv. pp. xii and 40 f.; Magie, ii. 791) and S:rnnada (Suhut; Magie, ii. Iooi-2), to Beudi, quod ·uetus appellant, to Anabura, to the Alandri fontes and Abbasium (Livy, xxxviii. 15. 12-I5). Both the correct form and location of the last two places are uncertain; Korte, AM, 1897, 7 reads Mandri fontes and puts these at Inbunar, north-west of Bolvadin, and Abbasium he puts near Gomek on the Bos Su, which runs north into the Sakarya (Sangarius); see Ruge, RE, 'Mandri fons', col. 1039; Anderson, ]HS, 1899, JII; Ramsay, REG, 1889, 22 f.; Jones, CERP 2 , 393 n. 64 (who suggests that Abbasium is the same as :ll.pf3ar:rav, JLTJTpo7roA£s rwv tPpvywv, Steph. Byz.). See the map in Korte, A2\1', r897, facing p. 232. Manlius had now reached the territory of the Tolistobogii (or Tolistoagii: see 37· 2), who occupied western Galatia, including Gordium and the area around Pessinus (Magie, ii. 732). Livy, xxxviii. r6. I-IS (following P.), gives a short history of the Galatians, their crossing into Asia under Lonorius and Lutarius, their assistance to Nicomedes in his war against his brother Zipoetas, and their levying of tribute from all Asia cis Taurum until Attalus' victory (d. iv. 48. I n.); on this see Memnon, FGH, 434 F II ; Strabo, xii. 5· I-J, c. s66-s ; Trog. prol. 25; Iustin. xxv. 2. 8; Paus. x. 'l3· 14; Magie, ii. 730 n. 10. P.'s source for this digression is unknmvn. Finally, Livy, xxxviii. 17. I-zo, reports 147
XXI. 36. 3
MANLIUS' WAR
Manlius' speech to his soldiers, almost certainly his ovvn composition, based on annalistic material (Nissen, KU, :204); that P. gave a speech to Manlius is improbable. 37. 1. rvalOS 0 O'Tpa.T'I}yos: the excerptor's phrase. 'EvoO'oyva.Tov: there is much compression and .,.6v Fa.)..
q8
AGAINST THE GALATIANS
XXI. 37· 5
xxxviii. 18. 3, Tectosagis, is clearly an error, since Eposognatus' envoys return with the news that the Galatian chieftains have fortified themselves on Olympus (Livy, xxxviii. x8. 14-15), and these are later described as Tolostobogii (Livy, xxxviii. r9. r); see Weissenborn, ad loc.; Anderson, ]HS, r899, 3II n. 5· Having accepted Eposognatus' proposal, Manlius advanced through a treeless area, the Axylon; then near a Galatian fort, Cuballum, he routed Galatian cavalry, which had attacked Roman outposts inflicting casualties, and continentibus itineribus he reached and bridged the Sangarius (Livy, xxxviii. x8. 4-7). G. Perrot and E. Guillaume, Explorat-ion archiologique de la Galatie et de la Bithynie (Paris, 186z), i. I49-5o, describe a treeless area west of Pessinus, and Magie, ii. 1307 n. 8, identifies this as Livy's Axylon; but if the jlumen Alander is the Bunarba91 Su (§ 2 n.), or indeed on a general consideration of Manlius' route after leaving Synnada, the distance is far too short for him to have spent a further five days getting to the Sangarius, and we must assume a detour-probably eastward, since the region between the Sangarius (Sakarya) and Ak~hir Golli in the west and Tuz Goli.i (Lake Tatta) in the east is treeless steppeland (cf. MAMA, i. pp. xv f.). But the detailed locations of Tyscos, Plitendum (sic), Alyatti, and Cuballum on Korte's map (A11J, r897, facing p. 232) are hypothetical. 4. rvcuos ... 5LEpXO~EVOS: the excerptor's wording (8t£PXOJ1-€VOS: lacks an object). tyt:q,opwaE Tov Ia.yyapLov vom~ov: cf. Livy, xxxviii. r8. 7, 'pontem, quia uado nusquam transitus erat, facere instituit'; cf. Korte, Gordion, 3r f. for suggestions as to the location of this bridge (about 30 km. south of Gordium). ~eo~Aov livTa. ~ea.l Ma~a.Tov: 'with deep banks and hard to cross' ; in Thuc. vii. 84. 4 a river is Koi/..os because the water is low, but here it is the steep banks that make the Sangarius hard to cross. (Despite i. 6o. 6, referring to the sea, Schweighaeuser, Lex. Pol. s.v. can hardly be right to render uorag£nibus plenum.) Livy, xxxviii. x8. 8, follov.ing P., here includes a brief description of the course of the river and its importance as providing fish for those who live beside it (cf. 33-39 n.); this the excerptor has omitted. 5. r aAAOL ... ~XOVTES vpOO'TTJ9~8ta. Kat TVTrOUS: cf. 6. 7 n. ; they met the Roman army praeter ripam euntibtes, and, after their prophecy, 'accipere se omen cum dixisset consul, castra eo ipso loco posuit' (Livy, xxxviii. r8. 9). It looks as if the excerptor has compressed the narrative so that Manlius has already encamped when the Galli arrive. va.p' ~Tn8os ~ea.~ Ba.TTUKou: both names arc familiar for priests of the temple of Cybele. For an Attis cf. OGIS, 3r5 Welles, nos. 55-61, a series of letters from Eumenes II and Attalus II to Attis, 149
XXI. 37· 5
MANLIUS' WAR
priest of the temple of Cybele at Pessinus, between I63 and ISS; that Attis is a Gaul and probably a successor to the one named here. In I02 a Battaces (sic) came to Rome to protest against an outrage (Diod. xxxvi. I3. I-3; Plut. Mar. I7. s....Q). The likelihood is that both are sacred, not personal, names (d. Korte, AM, I897, 17; Stahelin, 54 n. I; Magie, ii. 770 n. 7I). lEpEwv Tfjs MTJTpos Twv Oewv: Pessinus (modern Balhisar) possessed the chief temple of Cybele, the Magna Mater (Strabo, xii. 5· 3, C. 567-8; Ruge, RE, 'Pessinus', cols. II04-I3); it formed a temple domain, and its priests (Strabo, loc. cit.) were -n1 1TaAawv 8vvaa7at, kpwm5v'I'Jv Kap7Tm5!Levot ftEYaA7JV (on temple domains see Magie, ii. Ioi6 n. 62; Broughton, Johnson Studies, 236-5o). The letters of Eumenes II and Attalus II previous note) treat the priest as an independent ruler. It wa..s from here (directly, or indirectly through Pergamum: cf. Magie, ii. 770 n. 71) that the Romans brought the sacred stone of the Magna Mater (Livy, xxix. Io. 4-II. 8, I4. S-I4; Bomer, Fasten, on Ovid, Fasti, iv. 182 ff.). 8. TO vo}uallcinov ••• r op8£etov: a description, omitted by the excerptor, is given in Livy, xxxviii. I8. II-I3: it was equidistant from the Hellespont, Sinope, and the shore of Cilicia (which is roughly true), lay on the borders of several peoples and was an important market. On Gordium (or Gordieum) see Xen. Hell. i. 4· I; Arr. A nab. i. 29. s. ii. 3· I-8; Curt. iii. 1. II-I8; Strabo, xii. 5· 3, C. 568. For the ruins beside the Sakarya, just above its junction with the Porsuk see Korte, Gordion (on the excavations of 19oo); Ruge, RE, 'Gordion', col. 1590. The excavations of the University of Pennsylvania are described by Rodney S. Young, Gordion, a Guide to the Excavations and lvfusettm, Ankara, 1968; reports in A]A from I955 onwards; Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., 1963, 348--Q4. 9. ets To ••. 1:\pos "OXullvov: d. Livy, xxxviii. r8. I4··IS. This Galatian Olympus is three days' march from Ancyra (Livy, xxxviii. 24. I), and somewhere between Ancyra and Gordium (d. Stahelin, 55 n. 5), but its identification is uncertain. Germe~ dag, 25 km. northeast of Gordium, is c. 6o km. from Ancyra (cf. Korte, AM, I897, 18 n. r), and so a long three days' march for a heavily loaded army; for other suggestions for this mountain, which must be east of the Sangarius and between the Engliri-Su and the Ilica-Su, see Ruge, RE, 'Olympos (23)', col. 320. Appian, Syr. 42, confuses it with the Mysian Olympus. Livy, xxxviii. 19. I-23. 1 has the Polybian account of Manlius' attack on the Tolistobogii on Mt. Olympus and their overwhelming defeat. Three days' march brought him to Ancyra (cf. 39· I), about ten miles from the Tectosages, who were encamped on a mountain called Magaba (Livy, xxxviii. I9. I, 24. r). It was while Manlius was here that the incident described in 38 took place.
AGAINST THE GALATIANS
XXI. 38. 7
38. 1-7: this extract from Plut. M or. 258 c ff. has less claim to be classified as a fragment of P. than has Livy, xxxviii. 24. 2-11, which is at many points fuller. 1. x~of16.pa.v ... Ttiv 'OpnO.yovTOS: Ortiagon was the leader of the Tolistobogii; on his generosity, intelligence, and martial prowess see xxii. 21. He later led a Galatian rising as part of Prusias' war against Eumenes II in I86-3, and his name occurs on a Telmessian inscription; cf. iii. 3· 6 n. On Chiomara see § 7 n. a.txflnAWTOV ... flETQ TWV aAAWV yuva.ucwv: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 23. 3· 'tradita captiuorum custodia tribunis'; the women and children were in the camp on the mountain (Livy, xxxviii. I8. IS, 21. 14). 2. o Se Xa.~wv a.uTtiv Ta.~(a.pxos: she was not in fact part of his plunder, but he was in charge of her and the other prisoners (Livy, xxxviii. 24. 2, 'cui custodiae ... praeerat'). 3. XPUO"LOU auxvou s~Of10AOyT)8EVTOS: to prevent any of his colleagues knowing, the centurion allowed Chiomara to send a prisoner of her choice as go-between; she sent one of her own slaves (Livy, xxxviii. 24. 4--6). 4. o[ r a.AnTa.~: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 24. 7, 'duo necessarii mulieris'. TO xpua(ov: an Attic talent (Livy, xxxviii. 24. 8). a0"1Ta.tOf1EVOV a.uTtiv tca.t cfaAocf>poVOUf1EVOV: perhaps a sentimental addition by Plutarch; cf. Livy, xxxviii. 24. 8, 'centurionem pensantem aurum occiderent, imperauit.' 6. 1Tpos TOV av8pa.: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 24. 9· 'ad uirum Ortiagontem, qui ab Olympo domum refugerat'. tca.Aov ~ 1TLans tcTA.: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 24. Io, 'miranti ... cuiusnam id caput hominis aut quod id facinus haudquaquam muliebre esset, et iniuriam corporis et ultionem uiolatae per uim pudicitiae confessa uiro est.' 7. TO.UTTI ... s~a Mywv EV l:6.p8ea~ yeVOf1EVOS: when this happened is unknown; for the theory that P. served under Manlius and saw her then, see 33· I-39· I4 n. Pedech, Methode, SI8-I9, suggests that the meeting took place when the Galatian leaders came to make their submission, and passed through Sardes on their way to Ephesus or (the following year) to the Hellespont (cf. 41. I, 41. 7; Livy, xxxviii. 27. 9, 40. I). But even though Chiomara was not a hostage who had fled (so Strachan-Davidson, 643 n. I), it is purely hypothetical that she accompanied her husband. P.'s comment on her q,poVYJJ-La Kat • •• avvmt> (for a similar phrase about Attalus I's wife Apollonis cf. xxii. 20. 2)-Livy adds (from P.) that 'huius matronalis facinoris decus ad ultimum seruauit'-suggests a meeting when she was older, and affairs in Asia more settled, so that she could visit or reside in Sardes and there meet the eminent Achaean statesman (not the young officer of I89). Gelzer, Kl. Schr. iii. 202, follows Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (I)', col. I46I, in dating the encounter before I69; see also
I5I
XXI. 38.7 MANLIUS' WAR AGAINST THE GALATIANS
Habicht, Hermes, I956, 99 n. I (who accepts the view of van Gelder, 258, that she was interned in Sardes after Ortiagon's fall in I83}; Lehmann, 273 n. (after I69); Entretiens sur Polybe, I96 n. I (in I4o/39, when P. was, he assumes, a member of Scipio's embassy).
39. 1. 1rept T~Y :a.yKupa.v m)Xw: the chief settlement of the Tectosages, traditionally founded by Midas (Paus. i. 4· 5) ; for Alexander's visit see Arrian, A nab. ii. 4· I; Curt. iii. 1. 22. Livy, xxxviii. 24. I, calls it 'nobilem in illis locis urbem'; see also Strabo, iv. 1. I3, C. I87, xii. 5· 2, C. 567. It is the later provincial capital, and the capital of modern Turkey, Ankara. See Magie, ii. I311 n. I2; Jones, CERP 2 , II0-11, 117-I9.
2. 1ra.pa Twv TeKTocraywv: on Magaba (37· 9 n.). 4. crK~IjleLs nvas: Livy, xxxviii. 25. 4 adds the envoys' claim that 'religione obiecta uenire reges non posse', and distinguishes more clearly than our text of P. between the f3aat>..EI:> (§ 3) and the TrpwTot avSpe> (§ 4). 9. 1repa.v 'AXuos 1TOTO.J.LOU: c. so km. east of Ancyra (the modern KlZlhrmak). 13. Tous et9LcrJ.Levous ~<j>eSpeuew •.. t1r1rel:s: the excerptor, probably noting that the context was no longer relevant to foreign embassies, compressed the text before breaking off; it is not clear that P. is referring to a separate guard (cf. Livy, xxxviii. 25. Io, 'suam tamen alteram stationem propius castra sescentorum equitum posuerunt'). 14. a.liTOJ.LaTws: 'by chance' ; cf. ix. 6. 7 for a similar situation (when, as here, P. does not hint at any divine intervention: cf. ix. 6. 5 n.). Livy, xxxviii. 25. 8, gives a different (and typical) turn: 'et successisset fraudi, ni pro iure gentium, cuius uiolandi consilium initum erat, stetisset fortuna.' For the Galatian attack, the routing of the consul's force, the counter-attack of 6oo men and the foragers, and the defeat or destruction of the Galatians see Livy, xxxviii. 25. II-I6. Next, after P., Livy (xxxviii. 26. I-27. 9) narrates the subsequent battle, the defeat of the Tectosages and Trocmi, who were helped by Ariarathes of Cappadocia and the dynast Morzius of Gangra (cf. xxv. 2. 9 n.}, the rallying of the stragglers and the request for peace. Manlius ordered the Galatians to send envoys to Ephesus and-'iam enim medium autumni erat'-he marched back to the coast and went into winter quarters there. Since P. has no word for autumn (Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 286 n. 2), it is not clear what phrase Livy is here paraphrasing; but the date is autumn I89, and P. will have here concluded the res Asiae of Ol. I47, 3 = I9o/89. (32 b and 32 c should stand here, since they belong to res Graeciae of Ol. I47, 4 = I89/8; see above, ad locc.) !52
FRAGMENT ON ARIARATHES
XXI. 41. z
40. Fragment on Ariarathes On this fragment from de sent. see pp. 6-7 ; in Mit follows 32 c 4 without a break. Ariarathes IV of Cappadocia (d. iv. z. 8 n.) had assisted Antiochus (cf. 4I. 4) and the Galatians (39· 14 n.} and Hultsch suggested that this fragment belongs at 41. 4, where he assumed compression in our text. Livy, xxxviii. 37· 5, gives an abbreviated version of 41. 4-5 and 41. 7, which does not serve to confirm or refute Hultsch's hypothesis; and the text here is too faulty to allow confident restoration. The 'affair of Ariarathes' seems to refer to his position at the end of the war. ••• ets TTJV 1Ta.poL(.J.£a.v: d. xxxiii. 21. r, which lends support to Heyse: lJ.t7TEcrovU7J>; Ariarathes' conduct puts him in the position envisaged in some proverb--but precisely how is not clear. Von Scala, 284, suggested €xovn> yap lm(8diJ> XP1JJ.taTwv tmoxElpt)ot TOt> 7ToAt:j.tlot<; ly;vovTo; but it was not shortage of money that led Ariarathes to support Antiochus (or the Galatians), and that he got the 6oo talents originally demanded (41. 7} reduced to 300 (45} is no reason for thinking that he could not have paid the larger sum. See Wunderer, i. 30-31.
41. 1-45. More negotiations with Manlius,· peace with Antiochus; relations with Ariarathes (r8cr-r88}
This section corresponds to Livy, xxxviii. 37· r-39. 2, and is from the beginning of res Asiae of 01. 147,4 = 189/8 (cf. 41. 1}; it resumes the narrative as from Livy, xxxviii. :27. 9 (cf. 39· 14 n.}. See above, p. 7·
41. 1. 1Ta.pa.XELfLatovTos ev 'E<jlEa~: d. Livy, xxxviii. :27. 9· 2. a1TO~eMa9a.L ••• <jlopwv ••• <jlpoupii.s ••• ~a.O'L~LKWV 1TpOaTa.y(.J.aTWV: on these three indications of freedom from royal domination see Reuss, Stadt und Herrscher, r86-7 (tribute), r87-8 (garrisons}. 203-8 (royal injunctions}, the third being the most patent evidence of subjection. On 7TpocrTayJ.taTa in the Seleucid, Attalid, and Ptolemaic chancelleries see Holleaux, Etudes, iii. :205-rr (examples and discussion of 7TpocrTayJ.tara presented in l7TtcrTo/..at} ; for Egypt see M. Th. Lenger, Corpus des ordonnances des Ptotemees (Brussels, r¢4}; Melanges Daux, :215 ff. On the form of tribute cf. Bikerman, ro6 ff.; REJ, 1935/6, r8; Rostovtzeff, SEHJJW, i. 528; Bengtson, Strat. ii. 134-5. The reference is to cities hitherto under the Seleucids; they did not yet know how the Romans would dispose of them (cf. 46. 2-12). Paton renders 7TpocrTayJ.taTa inadequately as 'domination'. TOV ••• <jlo~ov a<jlupija9a.L: d. ii. 35· 9 n. Since Syll. 59 I does not 153
XXI. 41.
2
MORE NEGOTIATIONS WITH MANLIUS
refer to Galatian attacks on Lampsacus, there is no evidence of any act of violence committed against the Greek cities by the Galatians for many years before 189; the attack on Heraclea recorded by Memnon (FGH, 434 F 20) is imprecisely dated and its context unknown (see Holleaux, Etudes, v. I41'55; with Robert's note on recent bibliography, ibid. 141-2 n. 3). Moreover Manlius' alleged reason was help given to Antiochus, and his real reason probably desire for plunder (Livy, xxxviii. sr. ro, 6o. 2). Hence P.'s statement may be exaggerated, though indeed a long-standing fear and distrust of the Galatians, similar to that felt for the Gauls in the west (ii. 35· 9. iii. 3· 5), may have outlived their attacks. Ramsay, Epistle, 58, suggests that a recollection of Manlius' campaign was still alive among the jews in 161 (d. Stahelin, 58 n. 2); but the Jews were too far away to have shared in the Greek fears. 3. Mouaa.l:o~: cf. r6. I. 7. i~a.KoaLa. TnhaVTo.: d. Livy, x..xxviii. 37. 6; Paton inadvertently prints 'two hundred'. Silver is of course implied, if the excerptor has not omitted it (Livy, loc. cit., has 'argenti'). 8. f:1Tt TOU~ rijs no.f1~uhta<; opou;: up the Maeander and via Laodiceia to Apamea--Celaenae (Magie, i. 40, ii. 789-93).
Ta
n: OWXLhLa TnhaVTa Kat 1TE\ITaKOO"La , , , Kai. T0\1 O"LT0\1:
cf. I7. 4-5;
the corn is not mentioned there (except that due to Eumenes), so evidently P. omitted it (not the excerptor, since it is not in Livyr either). vpo Twv auvllrjKwv: the oath had still to be administered to Antiochus; see 24. 3 n. 9. Ko.9apf1o" ••• rijs Suvaf.LEws: cf. Livy, x..xxviii. 37· 8, lustrato exercitu. A routine purification of the army preceded an expedition or any emergency; it probably resembled that carried out by the censors, or the purification of the fleet described in Appian, B.C. v. 96. See Wissowa, .390; Boehm, RE, 'lustratio', cols. 2035---6; G. McDonald, Roman Wall in Scotland2 (Oxford, 1934), 363 f. ri\s !:>pas 1Ta.pao~SouCIT]s: a vague phrase; it was in fact early spring. Ets ~Vnf1€LC1\I oyooo.~os: Apamea Cibotus (Strabo, xii. 8. 13, C. 576; on the name see Habicht,JRS, 1975, 8r) was founded by Antiochus I and named after his mother Apame; it stood near the more ancient city of Celaenae, on the foothills east of the plain and at the sources of the rivers Maeander and Marsyas, and it occupied a position of great strategic importance. See Strabo, xii. 8. 15, C. 577 f.; Livy, xxxviii. 13. 5-7 (from P.); Pliny, Nat. hist. v. ro6; Curt. iii. r; Dio Chrys. Orat. 35· 13 f.; G. Hirschfeld, Abh. Berlin. Akad. 1875, r-26; RE, 'Apamcia Kibotos', cols. 2664~5; Magie, L 125, ii. 983 n. 18; Jones, CERP 2 , 6cr1o with notes; Briant, Antigone, 47~53 (especially 49 n. 8). It is the modern Dinar. From Ephesus to Apamea is about r8o m.p., which implies a high average of 22 m.p. per day. 1 54
MORE NEGOTIATIONS WITH MANLIUS
XXI. 42. 7
10. Tov
7. Aeutc\ov ••• Tov O.SeA.+ov: L. Manlius Vulso, praetor 195, was on his brother's staff as legatus; cf. Munzer, RE, 'Manlius (93)', col. 1223; below, 44· In. 1rpo.,; Tous 'Opoa.vSEio;: they had been sent away from Tyscon to find zoo talents (37· 2 n.) and later brought news of the Galatians on Olympus and Magaba (Uvy, xxxviii. 19. r); the manuscripts have 6pavaE;;;; or opavOEi;;. The identity of this people is uncertain. An l6vo;; of the name dwelt east of Lake Caralitis (Bey~ehir Golii), with two towns, Misthium and Pappa (Ptol. Geog. v. 4· 9: he calls them 'OpovOtKol); Pappa is at Yunuslar, between the lake and !conium (Konya) (d. IGR, iii. 1468-g, cf. 309), and Misthium (more correctly MtUTI.a) probably at Bey~ehir on the lake, with its citadel to the east at Kale Dag; see A. S. Hall, A nat. Stud. 1959, ng-24, map on p. 121. A town Oronda is unknown to P. and may be an invention of Livy (xxxviii. 37· n, 39· I, 45· g: Weissenborn-Mtiller read Oroanda) followed by Pliny (Nat. hist. v. 94); see Ruge, RE, 'Oroandeis', col. I 132. (Inscriptions have several variants, but Robert, BCH, 1946, 521 has sho>vn that 'Opoa~onv;; and 'Opoavv{;; must refer to a city in Ionia mentioned in a list of theorodoci from Delphi, published by Plassart, BCH, 192I, r-85, as 'Opocfwots (1. 13).) Ruge, RE, 'Oroandcis', cols. n3o-:z, is inclined to regard the people who approached Manlius as distinct from those who lived east of Bey~ehir, and to locate them on the upper Sangarius; and he dismisses 155
XXI. 42· 7
MORE NEGOTIATIONS WITH MANLIUS
the dedication to a goddess Yo71 'Opovolw found at Sarayonii, so km. north of Konya (cf. MAMA, i. n) on the ground that a cult-title is not evidence of territorial control. But, as he says, the heavy fine implies a wealthy people, and this is less probable near Galatia further north ; nor is there any evidence for these other Oroandeis. See further Stahelin, 42 n. I; Magie, ii. n73-4 n. 25 (both assume two separate peoples). Ta 1TpoO'olf>£~Aof1wa. Twv op.oAoyl)BivTwv XPTJf1aTwv : evidently the zoo talents (Livy, xxxviii. 18. 2) had been agreed and some part of it paid. Cf. Livy, xxxviii. 37· II, 39· I (following P.). 10. ~Sog£V ••• 8pKta. KTA.: 'it was resolved in the first place to complete the swearing of the treaty-oaths with Antioch us' ; see above 24. 2 n. for the procedure at Rome and here. Except in the clause relating to the indemnity (§ 19), where the change was not one of substance (and where the formula given here may have been incorporated in the treaty as sworn in Rome: Larsen, CP, 1936, 34i n. 9), no change was made. Taubler (ro2 n. 6) takes Kvpwam to mean 'to ensure that the special terms of the treaty sworn at Rome were carried out', and this may well be implied; but it does not exclude the swearing of further oaths (cf. 44. x}. £g a.(m;>v Twv eyypa'11'Twv: access to the official text, directly or indirectly, seems implied; but the words Totat!-nj ns (43· 1) suggest that P. is not quoting verbatim (Badian, 8o n. I). 43. 1-27. Terms of the treaty with Antiochus: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 38. 2-18; App. Syr. 39; Diod. xxix. ro; Memnon, FGH, 434 F r8. 9· That Appian used P. indirectly seems likely; but direct use seems ruled out. On the source-problem see Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. ii. su-45; E. Meyer, Rh. Mus. r8!h, r2o-6; Gabba, Rertd. Line. 1957, 339-5I; in general, Niese, ii. 757--8; Taublcr, passim; Meyer, Grenzen, passim; Reuss, v olk. Grund. 13 ff. ; Holleaux, Etudes v. 208-43; DeSanctis, iv. r. 2o6-g; Bikerman, REG, 1937. 217-39 (on the status oft he Greek cities afterwards) ; McDonald, JRS, r967, r-8; McDonald and Walbank, JRS, 1969, 30-39 (on the naval clauses). 1. lf>LAiav 01Tapx£LV !A.vTtOX~ • • • voLoovn Ta KaTe'!. Ta<,; O'uv8ft~~:a.c,;: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 38. 2, 'amicitia regi Antiocho cum populo Romano his legibus et condicionibus esto' (on which cf. Crawford and Reynolds, GRBS, 1974, 292-3). amicitia is thus dependent on the fulfilling of the terms of the treaty (supervised by the consul and the Ten); cf. i. 62. 8 (preliminary terms of 241), iii. 22. 4 (first Punic treaty), 24. 3 (second Punic treaty); Heuss, Volk. Grund. 17 against Tii.ubler, 49 (who considers the clause unusual). For a treaty "'ithout time-limit d. Tii.ubler, 44-49; JG, xii. 3· 173 (Astypalaea, xos: restored); r Mace. viii. 23 (Jews, r6r); for other examples see SVA, iii p. 441 s.v. ){POI'o~. I
156
THE TREATY WITH ANTIOCHUS , JlTJ' "oUEVO.L
XXI. 43· 5
A ~· " ' TTJ~ ~ ' - XWflO.~ ' ~ ' 1-"0.0"ti\EO. • , , OLO. O.UTWV , , , 1TOI\Ej1LOU~; Cf•
32.
3 n. for a similar clause in the Aetolian treaty. 1-1-TJSe xopT)ye'iv ••• JlTJSEv: cf. 32. 3 n. 3. J\vT£oxov Ka.l. Tou~ ••• li1ToTo.TTOJ1EVou~: cf. §§ 3, xo; not the official (and only) name for the Selcucid kingdom (as Bikennan, Seleucides, 4, argues). The subjects are mentioned only for clarity and to ensure that their activity is covered; see Edson, CP, 1958, 166. 4. 1-'TJ 1ToheJlflo-a.t ••• J\vT£oxov KTA.: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 38. 3, 'belli gerendi ius Antiocho ne esto cum iis, qui insulas colunt, neue in Europam transeundi.' 5. h:xwpELTw Se KTA.: Ursin us detected the lacuna; Livy, xxxviii. 38. 4 gives the general sense, but the uncertain text obscures the details. This reads: 'ex cedi to urbibus agris uicis cast ellis cis Taurum montem usque ad Tanaim amnem et ea ualle Tauri usque ad iuga qua in Lycaoniam uergit.' There is a sound tradition behind this, and emendations (including ad Halym for ad Tanaim) draw on late MSS. and Renaissance conjectures (McDonald, ]RS, I¢7, 3-4). The Halys occurs in a general reference to Roman boundaries after x88 in Strabo (vi. 4· 2, C. 287) and in a speech given to Sulla in App. Mithr. 62: J[eAdcrav-r<:> 3' a.li-rov (sc. Antiochus) ~~:al T6v .ft.\uv ~~:al Taiipov aunjl 8iJ.LEVOt TfjS d.pxfi:> lJpov. But whereas the Halys had a relevance after Manlius' Galatian expedition, it had none for Antiochus' boundaries and the Peace of Apamea (McDonald, ]RS, 1¢7. 7). The will be that Antiochus must cede all territory 'on the western side of the Taurus range as far as the river Tanais and along that valley of the Taurus as far as the heights where it (sc. the Taurus) faces towards Lycaonia'; cf. McDonald, ]RS, 1967, 7-8, who suggests that the Tanais (otherwise unknown) is the upper course of the Calycadnus (modern Goksu), which ran from north~ west to south-east along a line from its source at Gok Da (near Bozkir) past Artanada to Bucakki!?la. Here, to the north-west, is the Buzlu Dag, part of Taurus facing Laranda (mod. Karaman) in Lycaonia. This 'left the coastal demarcation between Cilicia and Pamphylia sufficiently equivocal to explain, at least, Antiochus' claim for access to Pamphylia' (McDonald, ]RS, 1967, 8). This seems the best explanation of this intractable passage yet advanced, and the one which does least violence to the text of Livy. The main difficulty which it leaves is the ambiguity of a coastal demarcation point which according to § 14 was at the Calycadnus and :J.H. Sarpedonium, but an inland line (along the 'Tanais') which would seem to concede Cilicia Tracheia to Antiochus; but Antiochus' claim to Pamphylia (46. n) shows that there was ambiguity here. For earlier discussion see Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. ii. 527 ff.; P. Viereck, Klio, 1909, 371-5; Cardinali, Klio, 1910, 24o-5r; 157
XXI. 43· 5
THE TREATY WITH ANTIOCHUS
Kahrstedt, Gott. Nachr., 1923,93---98; Holleaux, Etudes, v. 208-43,421 n. r; Ruge, RE, 'Tanais (4)', cols. 2169-71; Tauhler, 75 n. I; Magie, ii. 757-8 n. 55· It has been argued that £KxwpEl-rw here means 'cede, renounce all claim to'; cf. Holleaux, Etudes, v. 213-14 (quoting i. 62. 8, iii. 27. 8, xviii. I. IJ, 9· 1); Taubler, 72 n. 3· This is a meaning of £Kxwp«l:v and Antiochus was clearly intended to renounce his sovereignty beyond Taurus; but the withdrawal of all troops as well is certainly also implied {McDonald, JRS, 1967, 6-7 ). The treaty contains no indication of the future status of the ceded territories; for the time being they go to Rome (d. § 8, Jg JJv d.1wAa.p.{1avovaw oZ 'Pwp.a.i:ot); cf. Larsen, CP, 1936, 348. 6. 1.1.~ €ea.yeTw \.I.TJ8ev n-X~v orrXwv: cf. Liv'Y. xxxviii. 38. s. 'ne qua (praeter) arma efferto ex iis oppidis agris castellisque quibus excedat'; the repetition may have been in P. and have been omitted by the excerptor. 7. \.I.~TE O"Tpa.T!.WTa.s: cL Livy, xxxviii. 38. 6; probab:y Ka-rotKot, military settlers (d. Insch. Perg. i. 249 = OGIS, 338 11. 14-r5, -rwv a-rpomw-rwv TOtS Ka[-ro]uwilv-ra.; d. Robert, Villes, 39-40, who dates the founding of this colony to the end of Attalus I's and the beginning of Eumenes II's reign; Hansen 2 , I75l· Griffith, I78, thinks that Seleucid Kcl.-rotKot, now inhabiting l'ergamene territory, are meant; but the treaty makes no provision for transfer of territory to Eumenes (§ 8). Such KaTotKot would however be subsequently covered by this general clause. 8. To1hous ds Aw&.\.l.eu1v ltn-ot
,.,w
158
THE TREATY WITH ANTIOCHUS
XXI. 43· 13
Mac. II. 6); Polyaratus from Ptolemy VI (xxx. 9· 2). All those named here are from states other than Syria. See Taubler, 83-86. TWV AiTw"wv OO'OL KOWclS eiAf]+a.aw upxO.c;: not in the preliminary terms dictated by Scipio (17. 7). U. Touc; eA£+a.vTa.c; ••• 'l!'avTa.c;: cf. xv. r8. 3 n. for a similar clause in the treaty with Carthage after Zama; Livy, xxxviii. 38. 8. The elephants were not all handed over, and the Romans took steps to hamstring them only in 163/2 (xxxi. 2. n); cf. Scullard, The Elephant, 185-8. 13. The naval clause: the texts of both Livy and P. are faulty at this point, and both have been emended. Livy, xxxviii. 38. 8 (Bx): 'tradito et naues longas armarnentaque earum, neu plures quam decem naues nulla plus quam triginta remis agatur habeto, neue minore (B: -rem xl ea belli causa quod ipse illaturus erit.' (Carbach using a lost 9th-century manuscript, Mg, reads: 'decem naues actuarias, nulla quarum plus quam triginta remis agatur, habeto, neue minorem ex belli caussa.') P. reads: d1roOoTw o~ Ka£ Tas vails- Tds J.LaKpas Ka: Ta lK TOVTWIJ apJ.LEVa Kal Td. axev.,, Kat J.L"/KfTt dxlTw 1TA~v SlKa KaTarppaKTwv· J.L1j5t Tpw.KovT6Kw1Tov lxi.Tw J>..auvoJ.Lt:Vov, J.L~ If atml 7ro>..€J.Lo11 JvEKI:OV (o{i) atmk KaTdpx€,, J.L~ 0' aVTd Y (codd. omnes ue} complures): om. avTd 0: add. (o{i) Ursinus.
The Livian text shows nothing corresponding to P.'s cataphracts, and the actuariae of Carbach's text are against them; and though App. Syr. 39 says vavs 0~ KaTarppd.KTOIJS ~XELIJ OWOEKa (sic) J.LiiVaS", the mission sent to destroy Antiochus V's cataphracts along with his elephants in 163/2 (§ 12 n.) implies that he was not entitled to any. The problem has elicited many emendations of both P. and Livy. For full references and discussion see A. H. McDonald and F. W. Walbank, ]RS, 1969, 30-39, where it is argued that the weight of evidence for the text of both authors favours the easy emendation of 1rA~v oi.Ka KaTarppaK'TWIJ to 7TA~IJ OlKa drppaKTWV and the following readings are proposed: Lhry, xxxviii. 38. 8; 'neu plures quam decem naues actuarias, quarum nulla plus quam triginta remis agatur, habeto, neue rninores belli causa ... ' P. 43· 13: ~eal J.L1jKlT~ ixhw 1TA~v oi.Ka drppaKTwv, <0v) p.1j8~..aWOJ.L€11011, J.L~ o' aVTa '!ToMp.ou €v€KEV • •• Since this was put forward E. G. Turner (in a letter) has suggested that the second Jx~Tw is awkward and need not be kept from an excerpt which read J.L7IO~ as a conjunction and so required a different punctuation; this seems convincing and allows the lxhw to fall out from between Kw1Twv and i>..auvoJ.Lfvov. For arppaKTov, 'undecked ship', cf. IG, xii. I. 73, 74, 701. Appian's KaTarppd.KTouc; may indicate either that the corruption was in some texts of P. (though not in the one Livy used) by an early date, or that he got it from an annalist intermediary (on Appian's source see Gabba, Rend. Line. 1957, 339-51). Appian's text 159
XXI. 43· 13
THE TREATY WITH ANTJOCHUS
here is in any case quite absurd: he says Antiochus could have twelve decked ships with which to begin a war against his subjects, but he might have more if attacked first. See :McDonald and Walbank, JRS, 1¢9, 38 n. 40. The words Up.f3ov and p.ov~pTJ in Bilttner-Wobst's text are due to Mommsen and Tillmanns (misled by Gelenius' revision of Livy) respectively; both should go. 14. t1Tt TabE TOU Ka.AUKabvou euyovTa.s: d. Livy, xxxviii. 38. xo, 'milites mercede conducendi ex iis gentibus, quae sub dicione populi Romani sunt, Antiocho regi ius ne esto, ne uoluntarios
>
!60
THE TREATY WITH ANTIOCH US
XXI. 43·
20
quidem recipiendi.' Livy has misunderstood rfo;;vyov-ros: Appian (Syr. 39, p:r18iva o' €K rij> 'Pwp.alwv tEvoAoyd'v, p.TJOe rfovyaoas Jt a!l-rq, &rrooixEu8at) has it right. For the ban on recruiting cf. iii. 27. 4 (treaty with Carthage, 241); App. Lib. 54 (treaty with Carthage, 201: see above, xv. 18. 1--8 n.); see Taubler, 86; Launey, 35 n. u, 442 n. 6; below, xxx. 25. 4 n. 16. ;)ocn SE oLKlcn 'PoS£wv KTA.: this safeguards Rhodian and allied property rights in the territory left to Antiochus. 17. O.nATj Sc ••. Tn n'pos Tooo; 'PoStouo;: Seleucus II had exempted Rhodians from customs dues within his dominions (d. v. 89. 8 n.); for other concessions of chiA€ta to Rhodes see v. 88. 7 n. Cf. Toynbee, ii. 368. 18. iO.v SE TWE'!i llO"TEpov nn'OTp,XELV KTA.: omitted by Livy. 19. Indemnity: there is no mention of the 3,000 talents already paid {cf. 17. 5 n., 41. 8 n.) which brought the total to 15,000 talents; but this does not mean that the final treaty was not written at Rome (cf. 24. 2 n.). On Attic silver see 32. 8 n. See Livy, xxxviii. 38. 13; App. Syr. 38 adds that the instalments must be paid in Rome. 1-liJ EAa.T1'0V ••• TO TclAa.VTOV A'TPWV 'PwJ.la.iKWV oySoT)teOVT(l: on the weight of the Roman libra see Vol. II, p. 630 (add. to i. 62. 9 n.); Crawford, RRC, ii. 590-2. Since the talents are called Euboic in 17. 4, clearly Euboic and Attic talents are the same, i.e. 26·196 kg., with a mina of 436·6 grammes and a drachma of 4·366 grammes. Livy, xxxviii. 38. 13 renders apyvplov ••• :4rrLKOV . •. tlplO'TOV Tti.Aav-ra as argenti probi talenta Attica, and this seems implied (contra Mommsen, Ram. Forsch. ii. 536, who, however, rightly remarks that having given the weight in librae P. had to define the quality rather than name the talent). See Lehmann· Haupt, Klio, 1936, 278--86; RE, Suppi.-B. viii. 'Talent', cols. 8:zs-{); above, xv. r8. 7, xxi. 17. 6. tJ.oSious aiTou: the manuscripts read J<:at Toii alTov t[, Ka1 p., and Livy, xxxviii. 38. 13 has 'et tritici quingenta quadraginta milia modium', which supports Buttner·W obst : Ka~ p.ootov> alTov 7TEVTTJKovraKwp.uplcv> Ka~ TETpaKtup.vplov>. Though elsewhere P. uses medimni (cf. vi. 39· 12-15 n., addenda in VoL II, p. 648), the fact that both he and Livy (Bambergensis) here have identical numbers excludes Wilamowitz's proposal (in Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. ii. 537 n.) to read f£€Olp.vwv. The 54o,ooo modii o£ corn are not mentioned in the preliminary terms, but were certainly included, since a delivery had already been made; cf. I7· 4 n., 41. 8 n. 20. (SoTw s~ Eu'""El Tt;i j3a.o~AE'L TclAa.vTa. KTA.: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 38. 14, 'Eumeni regi talenta trecenta quinquaginta intra quinquennium dato, et pro frumento, quod aestimatione fit [Bs-: but B may read sit; aestimatttm est Weissenborn], talenta centum uiginti sept em.' The text of P. has been restored from Livy, and the manuscript TV8 corrected to Tv', the sign for Tpta.Kouta. 7T£VT~Kov-ra..
>
G
x6r
XXI. 43· zo
THE TREATY WITH ANTIOCHUS
On Antioch us' debt of 400 talents to Eumenes (so, it seems, have now been paid) see 17. 6 n. Tii_) Evt~a.AAO!J-Ev ••• ~ea.~pii_): the text is corrupt and no remedy has yet been found; but the sense (see Schweighaeuser and Wilamowitz in Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. ii. 537 n.) seems to be: 'at the same time as he makes his payments to the Romans', i.e. at the same time of the year {though of course for fewer years). Paton has 'at the same time that is fixed for his payments to the Romans'; but only annual payments are specified, not a date for payment. The point is that the Romans must be paid annually, and Eumenes at the same time. 21. ~ea.t Tou aLTou: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 38. 14 (quoted § 2o n.). This corn is mentioned in the preliminary terms {17. 6 n.), but P.'s account does not specify the quantity. Livy has rounded off the monetary equivalent, omitting drachmae. The manuscript TMall'T« pK~' corresponds to Livy's 'talenta centum uiginti septem'; for K«t 8pax!LaS xtAlas u' OKTli> Wilamowitz (in Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. ii. 537 n.) proposed xtAlas uos:', i.e. 1276, but this figure is no more rational than 1208. yO.ta.v t:llnP£0'TOufl€vtJv €a.uT~: 'as a sum of money acceptable to him'; for this meaning of ya~a cf. xi. 34· 12. Paton, 'as a satisfactory payment to his treasury' is misleading. 22. Ofl'f\pous S£ (t:itcoat): Schweighaeuser added the number from Livy, xxxviii. 38. 15; d. 17· 8, for the specifying of names (cf. App. Syr. 38, ~ av d UTpaT'Y}yos bnypalJrn). On the replacement and age of hostages see 32. ron., xxxiii. 10. 12. Paton makes the maximum age 40 instead of 45· It is clear from xxxi. 2. 5 that Demetrius did not conform to the requirement that he should be r8, when he was sent to Rome as a substitute (see ad loc.). 23. i:O.v S£ TL Sta.cjllllVYJan: Ota~wvfitv (lit. 'be discordant') is a technical term from banking, 'to fail to tally'. 24. ESEO'TW woA£f1E'Lv !tt.vTWX: he may wage defensive war, provided it results in no territorial expansion. The very general phrase fils ~.Alav 1rpouay.;a8at will imply incorporating states in the Seleucid av!L!Laxla (cf. on this, Bikerman, 157ft.; Musti, Seleucidi, 151 ft.). 26. vt:pi Sf. Twv 6.8LK1]!J-6.Twv • , • t:ts ttp£aLV vpotca.At:£a9waa.v: this clause defines procedure should either party allege a grievance; but P.'s wording docs not indicate the composition of the tribunal. See Livy, xx.xviii. 38. 17, 'controuersias inter se iure ac iudicio disceptanto', where \Veissenborn-M illler see a reference to the court of recuperatores. But the arbitration of a third party would be more likely than a purely Roman body. Livy has the implausible addition ' ... aut, si utrisque placebit, bello'. 27. ttoLv~ Soy!J-a.T~: 'by common decision'. 162
THE TREATY WITH ANTIOCHUS
XXI. 44· 3
44. 1. TtJ.TJ8£vTwv 8€ Twv bpK""v hrl. TOUTOLS: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 39· 1, 'consul in hoc foedus iurauit'; this will be the meaning, though P. is not explicit (cf. 24. 3 n., 42. 10 n.). Manlius was in fact proconsul {cf. Livy, xxxviii. 37· I, dein pro consule); but =pa.T1Jy6> has its common meaning of 'general' (cf. Mason, 156). K OWTOV • MLVUKLOV • eEf>tJ.OV · KCU' nf!UKLOV .. ' TOV ' QOEI\'f'OV; · " ~-'-' Q• M'lDUClUS · Thermus, cos, 193, was one of the ten legati (cf. 42. 6 n.); Appian, Syr. 39, wrongly describes him as x.Ala.pxo> {24. 3 n.). See Miinzer, RE, 'Minucius {65)', cols. 1967-71; on his death see 47 n. On L. Manlius see 42. 7 n.; he may be the Manlius who went to Lycaonia to receive grain and an instalment of I,ooo talents from Antiochus (Diod. xxix. 13). TO. xpT)p.aTa va.pO. TWV 'Opoa.vS£wv: cf. 42. 7 n. 3. KowTov ~u~Lov Tov tvt ToG vauTtKou aTpo.TT)yov: Q. Fabius Labeo, praetor 189, had replaced L. Aemilius Regillus as commander of the fleet in the Aegean; he made a not entirely successful visit to Crete, perhaps connected with Hannibal's sojourn in Gortyn (Plut. Flam. :zo. 2; Nepos, Hann. 9; lustin. xxxii. 4· 3 f.; Guarducci, Riv. jil. 1929, 82; van Effenterre, :z61 n. 6), and operated off Thrace (Livy, xxxvii. 6o. 2-7, probably Polybian with additions from Antias). For dedications by him, now and later, at Delos see Insc. de Delos, 442 B 1. 103 ILS, 8765), 1429 A l. 19 (in 183, as consul), 1441 A l. 104, 1450 A 1. 66; cf . .Miinzer, RE, 'Fabius (91)', cols. 1773-5· vuAw 'ITAELV ••• e:ls ncha.pa: 'to sail on to Patara' (on
1TIM£V see v. 27. 2 n.). Paton translates 'to sail back to Patara', but there is no reason to suppose he had been there. Patara, a coastal town east of the mouth of the river Xanthus, was the main city of the Lycian confederacy (Livy, xxxvii. 15. 6; TAM, ii. 421; IGR, iii. 664,704 II B); its fine harbour (Ps.-Scylax, roo; Strabo, xiv. 3· 6, C. 666; Livy, xxxvii. q. r-Io (Aemilius Regillus' abortive expedition); App. B.C. iv. 8r) was important during the wars of the Diadochi (Diod. xix. 64. s. xx. 93· 3), but is now marshland. See Magie, i. 520; ii. 1375 n. IS; Radke, RE, 'Patara', cols. zsss-6r (under 'Nachtrage'). va.pa>..a~ovTa ••• va.Gs Slo.vfriiaaL: as laid down in the treaty (§ 13 n.); but not all Antiochus' ships were destroyed (cf. xxxi. 2. rr). Val. Max. vii. 3· 4 has an absurd story that Fabius was to take only half the ships, but cut them all down the middle 'ut eum tota classe priuaret'. It is noteworthy that Rhodes did not get the ships (as Eumenes got the elephants: see below). Livy, xxxviii. 39· 4, records that from Lycia Fabius crossed to Piraeus and, having been joined by the rest of his ships from Ephesus, returned to rtaly; he then mentions Cn. Manlius' gift of Antiochus' elephants to Eumenes (but on these cf. xxxi. 2. n). There follows a passage corresponding to the next Polybian fragment.
XXI. 45
THE TREATY WITH ANTIOCHUS
45. Tp~aKOO'la TaAaVTa ••• wap' lt\pta.p&.9ov: see 40 n., 41. 7. Ariarathes had got the original 6oo talents halved, thanks to Eumenes, to whom he now betrothed his daughter Stratonice (Livy, xxxviii. 39· 6; Strabo, xiii. 4· 2, C. 6z4). +tAov , •• ~won1aa.To 'Pw!J4WV; d. Livy, xxxviii. .39· 6; Zon. ix. zo; Strabo, xii. 2. u, C. 540, who states that, exceptionally, the relationship was with both the king and the Cappadocian people. There is no evidence for a joedus ; for the renewal of amicitia by his successor see xxxi. 3· I. On the eve of the war with Perseus Ariarathes made a timely gesture by sending his son to be brought up at Rome (Livy, xlii. 19. 3-6). See Heuss, Volk. Grund. 47· 46. 1-12. The Settlement of Asia This passage corresponds to Livy, xxxviii. 39· 7-40. I and follows straight after 45 (see p. 7) ; it is still part of res Asiae of 01. I47, 4 = 189/8. For the general instructions given to the Ten see 24. 7-8; Livy, xxxvii. s6. z--6, giving more detailed instructions, is perhaps based on Claudius, following Acilius (cf. 24. 6 n.). P.'s source is uncertain; von Scala, z68 (following Valeton, 222) suggests a literary account drawing on Rhodian archives, whereas Bikerman, REG 1937, 230 (so also Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 97), emphasizes P.'s incompleteness on what does not concern Pergamum, and argues for an oral Pergamene source. I(Q.T(.. TllV Jt\wcl!'E~(1V: cf. 4I. 9 n. waVTwv Twv G1'1'TJVTT}KOTwv: some no doubt hoping to challenge the general decisions already taken (24. 7-8). One example is the embassy
46. 1.
of Pamphilus on behalf of Apollonia Salbace (modem Medet, about 15 km. north-east of Kale, ancient Tabae) mentioned in an inscription published in Robert, Carie, ii. 303-I7, no. 167. Apol!onia was assigned to Rhodes, and Pamphilus later made arrangements (11. 9-14, m.w87}Ka.s) with Rhodes. Cf. Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 85-87. Tols ••• Sta.+EPO~A-EVOl!l noAEl!l aneSwKa.V: where individual legati or others appointed for the purpose (no details are given) could pronounce decisions. The Rhodian decision in the ancient dispute between Samos and Priene (Syll. 599) has been assigned to this date (cf. Tod, International arbitration, 41 no.lxii), but it probably belongs to 196/z, since Manlius seems now to have given a ruling contrary to that of Rhodes, and itself to be reversed in a S.C. of 135 (Syll. 688 = Sherk, no. Io). Hiller von Gaertringen (Syll. 688 n. 5) suggested that Manlius was bribed (cf. 35· 4). T-ilv ••• nEpl Twv !iAwv ••• SLaAT}"'Lv ToLaOTT}v: P.'s account is incomplete and not very precise. He has no mention of Lampsacus and Alexandria Troas, both of which remained independent (on Lampsacus see Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 266-7 n. 3; Syll. 591; Livy, xliii. 6. 7-8 164
THE SETTLEMENT OF ASIA
XXI. 46. 2-3
is misleading; cf. Schmitt, Antiochas, 284; on Alexandria Troas see Schmitt, ibid. and for coins H. von Fritze, Nomisma, 6, I9II, 27) or of Ilium; yet Livy, xxxviii. 39.10, following an annalist (Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. ii. 538; Niese, ii. 76o n. 2) or perhaps giving a clause omitted by the excerptor of P. (Nissen, KU, 209), records that Ilium received Rhoeteum and Gergithum (or Gergis: cf. Magie, ii. 741-2), while Dardanus was freed (cf. Schmitt, ibid.). Further, P. does not say what was to happen to free cities which had supported Rome during the war; but Livy, xxxvii. 56. 2, reports that the Ten had instructions to assign to Eumenes Mysia, Lydia, and Ionia 'extra ea oppida quae libera fuissent quo die cum rege pugnatum est', which implies that their independence was confirmed (cf. 24. 6 n., on the annalistic origin of this passage, which is to be believed). P. also omits the fact that, apart from those in Caria, all cities which had supported Antiochus were to be subject to Eumenes, whether previously allies of Pergamum or Antiochus (cf. Livy, xxxvii. 45· I; below § ro for Ephesus; on Phocaea see § 7). Confusion arises from P.'s use of cn.1VTa.fts and cfx5pos with no apparent distinction (§§ 2-3); and his reference to autonomous cities that had paid tribute to Antiochus or Attalus has also given rise to controversy. 2-3. TWY a.vTOYOj1WY noAEWY: P. classifies the 'autonomous' cities (called 'EX\rp,[DE;; in 24. 8) in three groups: (a) those which formerly paid cpopos to Antiochus but had remained faithful to Rome: freed from tribute. (b) those which paid cnJVTa[ts to Attalus: to pay the same .fopos to Eumenes. (c) those which abandoned Roman cptl.ta. and joined Antiochus in the war: to pay to Eumenes the cp6pos they had paid to Antioch us. i. cpopoc; and o-uVT«~lc;. There is often a clear distinction between these two words. The Second Athenian Confederacy used the latter to avoid the associations of cp6pos with the Delian Confederacy (Syll. I47 l. :ZJ; Theopompus, FGH, Irs F g8); and at Priene (OGIS, I = Insch. Priene, 1) tribute proper is distinguished from a contribution assessed in ships or troops but commuted into money. Magie, ii. 829-31, argues that in general cpopos is a tax payable by the inhabitants of a land belonging to a ruler (cf. Syll. 344 Welles, no. 3 1. 83, ~ cpopo>.oyovp.£~V'T/ xwpa (union of Teos and Lebedus); OGIS, 751 = Welles, no. 54 (letter of Attalus II to ..t\mlada)), whereas croVTag,, is an ally's contribution to the expenses of a war (OGIS, 4 11. IO f., xfY'ip.ara Els Tdp. 7TO!.ep.ov demanded by Antipater; OGIS, 5 Welles, no. I 11. 44 f., Da7TaV1)p.am for a war; OGIS, 223 = Welles, no. 15 11. 27-28, contributions ds] 'I'd Ta!.aTtd by Erythrae); see further Badian, Ancient Society, 51 f. But in Hellenistic times this distinction was not clearly maintained (cf. Segre, Clara Rhodos, I938, 190 f., where in his reply to the Cardaces Eumenes II calls the 165
XXI. 46. 2-3
THE SETTLEMENT OF ASIA
poll-tax uVl>raet>). Here too P. does not differentiate between the words; cf. 24. 8 where oaaL .•• )l:rn;.Acp cfo6pov tim;nfl.ovv corresponds to oam inrt:-rl.Aouv ltvn&xcp cpopov here. See further Heuss, Stadt und Herrscher, w6, no f., 187; McShane, rsr-2 n. II (criticizing Magie). ii. ai'ITovo1.da and tribute. This passage clearly indicates that nominally autonomous cities in Asia Minor might pay tribute to Seleucid or Attalid kings. Much evidence alleged in support of this is admittedly inconclusive (Magie, ii. 829-32). But the flexible use of cpopo> to cover various money-payments (see above) and the granting of dcpopoAo'f'Jaia (cf. OGIS, 223 = Welles, no. r5 ll. 25-28, d.cpopo[AoyJ~Tov> t:fvat cn.rrxwpovJ.U.v Twv Tt: aMwv cb·avTwv 1] Ta Tal.an~, to Seleucids and Attalids ; cf. 41. 2, cbrol.t:Ava8aL nvJs 11-Jv cp6pwv. For discussion see the works listed in Magie, ii. 825. Magie himself (ii. 829-32) argues that there is no firm evidence for autonomous states' paying tribute; but he has to assume that either alm~vo11-m is used loosely here to describe, not free and autonomous cities, but subject cities with Hellenic civic institutions (e.g. Sardes, Tralles, and some Pergamene communities) or the (supposed) confusion derives from P. or his source, or is due to the Ten having received instructions which envisaged all possibilities and so provided for categories of autonomous tribute-payers just in case there were any. But this fundamental clause in the settlement will scarcely have been couched in terms quite unre.k'lted to the realities. Moreover, the distinction drawn in Livy, xxxiv. 57· ro (from P.) between cities that are liberae et immunes and those that are stipendiariae suggests the possibility of a city's being libera yet not immunis (cf. Jones, Greek City, 321 n. 45); and in Livy, xlv. 26. 13, certain Illyrian peoples are 'non solum liberos sed etiam immunes' (c£. Larsen, CP, 1952, 236). In r67 both Illyria and Macedonia were declared free, yet paid uectigal and tributum respectively (Livy, xlv. 18. I, 26. 12-14, 29. 4; Larsen loc. cit.). In 24. 8 the phrase rr&At:wv TWv 'EAA7Jvl8wv has no special significance (Bikerman, REG, r937, 218). 2. oaaL •.. 11"poTEpov U11"ETEAouv ~VTLOX'l:l tJ>6pov: the Greek cities of Aeolis and Ionia, which had asserted their independence towards the end of the third century (cf. Livy, xxxiii. 38. 3, libertatem usurpabam, of Smyrna and Lampsacus), had been recovered by Antiochus in 196-193 and had been forced to pay tribute. For lists of those now freed see Bikerman, REG, 1937, 236--<); Schmitt, Amiochos, 278-88 (primarily those taken by Antiochus after 197, but listing their later fortunes); with Bernhardt, 54 ff. (22 cities free before Antiochus' invasion). In the following list the references are to the liberation. 166
THE SETTLEMENT OF ASIA
XXI. 46.2
Pamphylia: Side (App. Lib. 123; below fg. I93 for her joining Rhodes), Aspendus, Termessus (35· 4). Pisidia: Antioch (Strabo, xii. 8. I4, C. 577). Caria: .Mylasa (Livy, xxxviii. 39· 8), Alabanda (cf. Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 87 n. I, on the inscription published by Holleaux, REG, I898, 258-66; L. Robert in Ho!leaux, Etudes, vi . .n). On Iasus (cf. xvi. I2 n., xviii. 2. 3, 44· 4 n.) at this time see J. and L. Robert, Bull. epig. I97I, no. 62I, who suggest that an inscription published by Pugliese Carratelli, Anttuario, 45-46, I969, 445-53, no. z is probably identical with OGIS, 237. For its occupation by Antiochus see Livy, xxxvii. I7. 3· Io·n,ia and Aeolis: Heradea by Latmus (SyU. 6I8 SEG, ii. 566 Sherk, 35: letter of Scipios), Miletus (§ 5). Magnesia-on-Maeander (Tac. Ann. iii. 62 ; Syll. 679 1. 54 ; a special concession from the Scipios), Colophon-on-the-sea (Notium) (§ 4; see there for Old Colophon; Livy, xxxviii. 39· 8), Erythrae (§ 6), Clazomenae (§ 5; its fortunes during the war are not clear), Smyrna (§ 6 n.), Phocaea (§ 7; Livy, xxxvii. 32. I4). Cyme (§ 4; Livy, xxxviii. 39· 8). Troas and the Straits: Ilium (Livy, xxxviii. 39· IO; cf. below xxii. 5· 3· Schmitt, Antiochos, 293, argues that Antiochus had taken Ilium by autumn 197; his letter to Ilium (Welles, no. 42) may belong here. For the assignment of Rhoeteum and Gergithum to Ilium see §In.), Dardanus (Livy, xxxviii. J9· ro), Parium (Strabo, xiii. r. I4, C. 588; cf. Magie, ii. 959). Not every city free in rSS had necessarily been under Antiochus and fulfilled the Roman requirement. Some, like Smyrna (§ 6 n.), Lampsacus, and Alexandria Troas (§ 1 n.), had never capitulated, others like Priene were free yet their fortunes during the war cannot be traced (Syll. 588); and Magnesia-on-Maeander was freed as a concession (see above). The fate of Aegae, Lebedus, and Iasus is unknown (Magie, ii. 958-9; Schmitt, Antiochos, 280, 282, 283). On Teos and Temnus see below, the next note but one. TOTE s~ SLE"'UAa.~a.v -Mjv 'll'pos 'Pwjla.LOUS 'll'l(.JTLV: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 39· 7· 8o-a.L S' ATTclACf! auv'Ta.~n, ~T~Aouv KTA.: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 39· 8; Diod. xxix. u (withEopivo in error for J1TT&Atp}. This clause, foreshadowed in the instructions to the Ten (24. 8}, does not correspond to what happened. v. 77. 4-6 and 78. 6 show Attalus coming into possession of eleven cities: Teos, Temnus, M_yTina, Lampsacus, Ilium, Alexandria Troas, Smyrna, Aegae, Cyme, Phocaea, and Colophon. All should have reverted to Eumenes. Bikerman, REG, 1937, 22I, claims that Teos and Temnus were assigned to Eumenes. But neither the letter of Eumenes II to the technitai of Dionysus, based on Teos (Welles, no. 53), nor yet the existence at Teos of cults of the king, his mother, and his wife (OGIS, 309; cf. Robert, Et. anat. 18 f.; l6J
XXI. 46.
2
THE SETTLEMENT OF ASIA
SEG, iv. 619; OGIS, 325) proves the dependence of Teos on the Attalids; in fact independent Miletus and Cos had similar cults (cf. Magie, ii. 958-9; Welles, no. 52; P. Herrmann, IM, 1965, 90-II7; Syll. 1028 1. 27; Hansen 2 , 458, 466-7}. In 167 Teos appears to be independent (IGR, iv. 1558 = SyU. 656; cf. Robert, BCH, 1935, 507 f. =OMS, i. 320 f.}. Similarly, Eumenes II's letter to the f1ov>..ij Kai [ofjp.os] of Temnus (Welles, no. 48) does not make the city subject to him; and a second-century decree conferring citizenship on a man from Sardes (J. Keil and A. von Premerstein, Denhschr. Wien, 1910, 96 no. :zo:z) could be evidence of independence. As regards Myrina, the Mvp•vatos, one of five theoroi sent by Eumenes II to Cos in 182 (Welles, no. so}, may be a personal representative of the king, not necessarily from a subject city (cf. Robert, BCH, 1930, 341 n. 4 = OMS, i. 16o n. 4). Since the other cities (except Aegae, which is uncertain) were all free after 188 (cf. Bikerman, REG, 1937, 236-9; Magie, ii. 958 n. 75; Schmitt, Antiochos, 281-5), it follows that this clause was not put into operation. Livy, xxxvii. 56. 2-6, however, has a different version of the instructions given to the Ten (cf. 24. 6 n.), according to which Eumenes' share and the areas assigned to Rhodes excluded such towns as were free on the day of the battle of Magnesia (cf. §I n., above, p. 165), or in the case of some of the oppida assigned to Eumenes 'nisi quae Iibera ante bellum fuissent' (but one may wonder whether this represents a real difference of date or a stylistic variant in Livy; Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 365 n. 3 thinks a date in 192 is indicated). Bikerman, REG, 1937, 222 ff., argues convincingly for giving this annalistic notice preference over P. both because it explains what actually happened to the cities and because it is in keeping with Roman policy, which normally took account of the status of any community at the moment when it entered into amicitia with the Roman people (cf. Syll. 674l. 21 (=Sherk, no. 9: S.C. on Narthacium, c. 140); Syll. 683; cf. Tac. Ann. iv. 43 (territorial dispute between Sparta and Messenia); Syll. 685 SEG, ii. 511, iii. 775; Munzer, RE, 'Fabius (1o9)', col. 1793 (arbitration between Hanus and Hierapytna) ; Sherk no. 24 (S.C. on Issa) ; other examples in Bikerman, REG, 1937, 225 nn. 2-4). That this criterion was invoked in Asia (not the position at the time Attalus was king) is clear from Syll. 6791. 54 (Magnesia), 785l. I7 (Chios); OGIS, 455 L 14 (=Sherk, 28B: S.C. de Aphrodisiensibus: 11. 13-14 (based on Sherard's notebooks and a newly discovered stone) read: &rws T£ ~ 7To.\e,nja. ol 1TOAEi:Ta.o oi ll.\apaaiwv Kat )lc{>poow:rdwv fLEB' Jiv aypwv 'TtYrrWV I olKoliofLlwv KWfLWV xwplwv D)(VPWJLUTWV dpwv 1Tpoaoowv 1TpfJS -r1}v c{>t>..lav 'To[v] &JfLov 'Toil 'PwfLalwv 1rpoaijA8ov KTA.; I owe these readings to
the kindness of Miss Joyce Reynolds); Syll. 688 1. 6 (=Sherk, 10}; cf. Bikerman, REG, 1937, 226-7 n. z. 168
THE SETTLEMENT OF ASIA
XXL 46.5
3. d SE Twc::s ••• )\vn6x~t~ ouYt:'II'OAEjlouv: this group of cities assigned to Eumenes included Tralles (and probably Nysa; d. Schmitt, Antiochos, 281), Ephesus and Telmessus (§ 1o), Magnesiaad-Sipylum (Livy, xxxvii. 56. 3), Thyateira {Livy, xxxvii. 44· 4; cf. Robert, Villes 2 , 252-6o), Scepsis (Strabo, xiii. 1. 54, C. 6<>9), Abydus (Strabo, xiii. I. 28, C. 595; cf. Niese, iii. 62 n. IO; Bengtson, Strat. ii. 242 n. s). Priapus (Strabo, xiii. I. I4, c. s88). Tenedos may have become Pergamene (Fiehn, RE, 'Tenedos', col. 498) but the evidence is inconclusive (cf. Schmitt, A ntiochos, 285). 4. wvCous) S£ TOOS TO H6T,ov ol~u:;fJrJToVJ-LEV1}S ~v MtA~0'£0£ J-L(V d?Tcxpatvo[vJaw t:lva£ Tfjs MlnJutas lErpav irrrapxovaav rofi J4miMwvos TaiJ I6g
THE SETTLEMENT OF ASIA
Top{Jw0€ws ~eTA. Since the Milesian claim to the land here in question rests on the assertion that it is part of the 'holy land of Apollo', Miletus must have had a firm title to that; this presumably rested on the Roman grant made now. The 'holy land' will have lain on the north slopes of Latmus near Myus (map in Milet, i. r). s~d. -roOt; 1rOAEtJ.OUt;: so Schweighaeuser for MS. 7TO.\€filovs. The wars will be those of Philip V (that in zor and the Second Macedonian War with Rome) and that with Magnesia (see last note) which ended in 196.
At this point Livy, xxxviii. 39· ro, has a clause not in P.: 'et Iliensibus Rhoeteum et Gergithum addiderunt, non tam ob recentia ulla merita quam originum memoria. eadem et Dardanum liberandi causa fuit.' See on this§ r n. 6. XLout; •.• Ka.t l:Jlupva.(ous, i-r~ 8' 'Epu6pa.lous: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 39· II. Chios had been an independent ally of Rome during the war, and a valuable base (Livy, xxxvii. 27. I: Holleaux, Etudes, iv. 331~2; Magie, i. 77; ii. 93o). On Smyrna see 13. 3 n., on Erythrae, 13. 4 n., xvi. 6. 5 n. Chios possessed a mainland Peraea; cf. Herod. i. r6o. 4; i107Jva, rgo8, r67 l. 26; L. Robert, BCH, 1933, 483 n. 6 = OMS, i. 471 n. 6. Bti:rchner, BPW, 1900, 163o, suggested that Atarneus (mentioned by Herodotus) was indicated here; but what territories these states received is in fact unknown. 7. 41wKa.LEua~ To -rr6.Tpwv -rroAlTEUJlO. Ka.i. Tf}v xtilpa.v: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 39· 12; on Phocaea see 6. r n., v. 77· 4 n. Following its defection to Antiochus, and its deditio in 190 (Livy, xxxvii. 31. 7-32. 14), Phocaea was sacked despite L. Aemilius Scaurus' promises. Its inhabitants then received 'urbem agrosque et suas leges'; cf. rr. 13 n. This grant is here confinned. 8. 'Po8lo~s ~XP'lJ16.TLaa.v KTA.: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 39· 13. This grant corresponds to 24. 7 (cf. Livy, xxxvii. 55· 5), with the addition of Telmessus as an exception; for more details of the award see xxii. 5· x-ro. Telmessus (which was assigned to Eumenes, § 10) lay on the Lycian coast, south of the Indus estuary, and had one of the best harbours in Asia Minor; see Strabo, xiv. 3· 4, C. 665; Magie, ii. 1371 n. 4· It is the modem Fethiye; see further Ruge, RE, 'Telmesses (2)', cols. 41o-rs. For a Telmessian inscription honouring Eumenes, his mother, and his brothers for their victory over Prusias, Ortiagon, and the Galatians see iii. 3· 6 n. (the date is NovemberDecember, 184). Telmessus was evidently occupied by Antiochus in 197 (Schmitt, Antiochos, 28o), though it is not mentioned in Hier, in Dan. xi. rs. On the Ptolemy of Telmessus see § IOn. In addition, Miletus {§ s), Heraclea by Latmus (§ 5 n.; Sherk, no. 35), Mylasa (§ 4), and Alabanda (uncertain: cf. Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 87 n. x) were probably excluded from the area assigned to Rhodes. It has further been argued that since Bargylia, Cnidus, 170
THE SETTLEMENT OF ASIA
XXI. 46.
IO
Euromus, and Pidasa were free earlier, they therefore remained free (Magie, ii. 952 n. 6I); but this is by no means certain (cf. Fraser and Bean, 93 n. 3, Io8 n. I) and in the case of Euromus unlikely (cf. xxx. 5· n-I6; Fraser and Bean, Io8 n. I, I09-1o). Myndus and Halicarnassus were independent but closely aligned with Rhodes {cf. Livy, xxxiii. 20. I2); and the treaty between Miletus and Heraclea by Latmus (§ 5 n.) mentions an alliance with Rhodes, thus suggesting that the Rhodians allied themselves with free Greek cities not included in the award (Fraser and Bean, Io8-9). On Caunus see xxx. 5· n, 31. 6 n. Two inscriptions from Hyllarima, north-east of Stratoniceia, confirm Rhodian control of the area (cf. Robert, Et. anat. 5I3 ff.; Laumonier, BCH, I934. 345-76; Segre, Rend. I st. Lomb. I937, 83 ff. ; Fraser and Bean, 108). An inscription from Araxa in Lycia (SEG, xviii. 570) records the diplomatic career of Orthagoras, who was sent as envoy 11po> Tov> 7rapa 'PwJ.Lalw~· 7rpwf1wTac; Tovc; 7T£pi. i17Tmov, Kai. m:L\.,v a7ToaTaA£i.s 7rpwf1wTI]> 7rpoc; Tov> 7Tapa 'PwfLalwv 7rpw{1EvTac; Tov> 7T£pi. llo7TAwv,
probably on this occasion; the reference may be to commissions of the Ten under the chairmanship of Ap. Claudius Nero and P. Cornelius Lentulus (or P. Aelius Tubero) (cf. 42. 6 n.). A part of the attempt to win Roman favour was the setting up at Araxa of a penteteric festival in honour of 8Ea 'Pc!Jwq'Errupa>-YJ> (probably before Apamea: Larsen, CP, I956, I55)· On this see J. and L. Robert, Bull. epig. I95o, no. I83; L. Moretti, Riv. fil. I95o, 326--5o; Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 89-90; Larsen, CP, I956, I51-69; GFS, 243--6; for the original publication cf. Bean, ]HS, I948, 46--56, no. 6I. There is no epigraphical evidence for Rhodian control in Lycia. See generally Fraser and Bean, 107 ff.; below, xxii. 5· I-ro; for Rhodian officials in the assigned areas see Magie, ii. 952 n. 62. 9. lv TE Ta.is vpos 1\VTtoxov auv9~Ka.~s: generally and especially in the clauses mentioned in 43· 7 (recruitment), 43· 2o--2r (indemnity). XEppov11aov Ka.t Aua~flclXE~a.v: cf. IS. 7, xv. 23. 8 n.; Livy, xxxviii. 39· 14·
10. ~puy(a.v KTA.: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 39· IS; the annalistic passage, Livy, xxxvii. 56. 2 reads: 'Lycaoniam omnem et Phrygiam utramque et Mysiae regias siluas [so McDonald, ]RS, 1967, 2: Mysias regias siluas Bx; M ysiam regias syluas Mg] et Lydiam Ioniamque extra ea oppida quae libera fuissent quo die cum rege Antiocho pugnatum est'. (A reference to Milyas there rests only on emendations by Madvig and Muller.) On Hellespontine and Greater Phrygia see 22. I4 n. Muaoos, otls (npoua(a.s) vpoTEpov a.uTou va.pEO"'raaa.To: 7rponpov mho> 7TapwKwaaaTO y; cf. Livy, xxxviii. 39· rs, 'et Mysiam, quam Prusia rex ademerat, ei restituerunt.' There is no reason either to emend this (Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. ii. 538, proposed pridem for I7I
XXI. 46.
IO
THE SETTLEMENT OF ASIA
Prusia) or to reject it as an autoschediasma (De Sanctis, iv. r. 225 n. 185); Livy gives the original sense and F.'s text is faulty. BiittnerWobst's reading is due to Schulze, Rh. Mus. 1868, 78; Livy is against Nissen, KU, 209: oiJs 7rpon;pov p.£v .11-TTa.\os- rrap<:o-K£vdo-a.ro, €rrnra /U Ilpovalas- 0.
THE SETTLEMENT OF ASIA
XXI. 46.
10
and Ephesus it surrendered after the battle of Magnesia (Livy, xxxvii. 45· I; above 16-17 n.); cf. Robert, Rev. phil. 1934, 279-91 OMS, ii. 1178-9o; Schmitt, Antiochos, 281; Welles, no. 4r (letter of Antiochus III to the city). Ephesus was taken by Antiochus in 197 (cf. xviii. 41 a 2, with note on the site) and surrendered to Rome after the battle of Magnesia (Livy, xxxvii. 45· 1); see Schmitt, Antiochos, 282. On Telmessus see § 8 n. According to Livy, xxxvii. 56. 3-5 Eumenes was to receive 'Telemessum . . . et castra Telmessium, praeter agrum, qui Ptolomaei Telmessii fuisset' and the Rhodians Lycia 'extra eundem Telmessum et castra Telmessium et agrum, qui Ptolomaei fuisset' ; and he continues: 'haec et ab Eumene et Rhodiis excepta.' It has been usually assumed (cf. Volkmann, RE, 'Ptolemaios (r4)', col. 1597; Ernst Meyer, Grenzen, 47) that 'the land that had belonged to Ptolemy of Telmessus' went to neither Rhodes nor Pergamum; but this creates difficulties with the last clause quoted. This Weissenborn-Milller take to mean: 'these are the territories that were withheld from Eumenes (i.e. Ptolemy's land) and the Rhodians (i.e. Telmessus, the forts and Ptolemy's land).' This would be an odd conclusion to a list of territories assigned to the two powers. Magie (ii. 762-3) points out that the other exceptions are introduced \'•lith extra, not praeter (which usually means 'as well as'), and that excipere more often means 'to receive' than 'to except'; consequently he takes the sense to be that Eumenes got Telmessus and the Telmessian camp as well as the land that belonged to the Ptolemy, and the final clause to mean: 'these are the territories received by Eumenes and the Rhodians.' It is indeed reasonable to suppose that since Eumenes receives 'Telmessum ... et castra .. . praeter agrum' and Rhodes Lycia 'extra ... Telmessum et castra .. . et agrum', the words italicized mean something different; hence Magie's view seems the best solution to the problem. Admittedly, in Livy, xlv. 29. 6, 'praeter Aenum et Maroneam et Abdera' seems to mean 'except ... '; cf. P. xxx. 3· 3 for the liberation of Aenus and Maronea; Livy, xliii. 4· u-12 for Abdera. The Ptolemy of Telmessus was probably the son of Lysimachus of Thrace by his marriage with Arsinoe II, daughter of Ptolemy I and later wife of Ptolemy II, her brother. After various adventures he received a domain near Telmessus from Ptolemy II, and his name appears on several inscriptions (cf. xv. 25. 2 n. for these). Ptolemy III seems to have entrusted Telmessus to him, and in TAM, ii. I = OGIS, 55 he is honoured there for generosity over taxes. His coins recall Lysimachus (cf. G. Hill, Ramsay Studies, 2n ff.; Klio, 1933, 229-3o). A letter of Eumenes (M. Segre, Clara Rhodos, 1938, 190; a better text, follo\\'ing Maier, Mauerbauinschrijten, i. 76, in SEG, xix. 867) shows another Ptolemy, perhaps I73
XXI. 46.
10
THE SETTLEMENT OF ASIA
but not certainly the grandson of the original one, selling some of his property in Lycia about 193. An inscription from Eriza (Welles, no. 36{37: the date is 193/2, cf. Robert, Hellenica, 7, 1949, 17-r8) shows Antiochus appointing Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy, son of Lysirnachus, as chief priestess of the cult of Queen Laodice within the Carian district administered by Ana:ximbrotus, to whom the king's letter is addressed; and it is perhaps the same Ptolemy, son of Lysimachus, who dedicated a t/mfAYJ to Delian Apollo (Insc. de Delos, no. 442 B Syll. sSS) 11. 94 f.; no. I44I A I, I. 28; cf. Holleaux, Etudes, iii. 379 n. 5, who dates it to 188 and suggests that Ptolemy was on his way to Rome; cf. 18. 1-2). Livy's words do not, however, imply that the Ptolemy mentioned was still alive, nor has the Ptolemy son of Lysimachus mentioned in the inscriptions from Eriza and Delos necessarily anything to do with Telmessus. See the works quoted in xv. 25. 2 n., and add Volkmann, RE, 'Ptolemaios (14)', col. I597· 11. Ta.uTa.s ••• iliwKa.v EoJ!lvet Tns liwpe&.s: according to Li vy, xxxvii. s6. z-3 (annalistic) he also received Magnesia-by-Sipylus, Caria quae Hydrela appellatur, the ager Hydrelitanus towards Phrygia, and the castella uicosque as far as the Maeander. Caria Hydrela and the ager Hydrelitanus seem to have been situated between the Maeander and its southern tributary, the Lycus; see Ramsay, Cities, i. 173; Btirchner, RE, 'Hydrela', cols. 77-78. On the territories received by Eumenes see Magie, ii. 758--64. trepl. ••• TTj'i na.JL~UALa.s: the Pamphylian towns had fallen to Achaeus in 218 (v. 77· r), but Antiochus evidently recovered them in zr6-z13, along with the interior; for the list of his seizures in 197 in Hieron. in Dan. xi. 15 jumps directly from Coracesium in western Cilicia to Corycus in Lycia (cf. Schmitt, Antiochos, 279). ttrl. TnliE Tou Ta.upou: Livy, xxxviii. 39· 17, renders incorrectly, 'quia pars eius citra pars ultra Taurum est, res integra ad senatum reicitur.' Holleaux (Etudes, v. 216-17) accepts the thesis of Viereck (Klio, 1909, 373) that E71't -r&i>E -rofJ Ta.vpov means the more western parts of the region of Asia Minor north of the Taurus range, and including Paphlagonia, Greater Phrygia, Lycaonia, Bithynia, Mysia, Phrygia Epictetus, the Troad, Hellespontine Phrygia, Aeolis, Ionia, Caria, Lycia, and Lydia. So precise a meaning cannot be proved (cf. Schmitt, Antiochos, I59 n. 4). In any case, if the treaty of Apamea fixed the line of the Gok Su (Tanais; Calycadnus further down) as the frontier, the coastal demarcation of the area from which Antiochus was debarred was left sufficiently fluid to lend colour to his present claim; see 43· 5 n. 12. Ka.Tn n]v w&.poliov: 'on the way'. According to Livy, xxxviii. 40. r-z, Manlius and the Ten proceeded with the Roman army to the Hellespont, where, 'euocatis eo regulis Gallorum, leges quibus pacem 1
74
THE SETTLEMENT OF ASIA
XXI. 47
cum Eumene seruarent dixit; denuntiauit ut morem uagandi cum armis finirent agrorumque suorum termi.nis se continerent.'
47. The disastrotts Roman march through Thrace This almost illegible extract from the excerpts de sententiis refers to the Roman return march through Thrace, described in Livy, xxxviii. 40. 3-41. IS (41. I2-I4 V'.'ill be from Claudius). It is still autumn 188, and this is a pendant to the res Asiae of OL 147, 4 = r8g/8; see p. 7. Livy describes the crossing from Elaea, and the march via Lysimacheia to Cypsela. The main Roman disaster was in a woody pass ten miles long which lay west of Cypsela, where the Astii, Caeni, Maduateni, and Coreli successfully waylaid the column and carried off much of the booty; in this battle Q. Minucius Thermus was killed (Livy, xxxviii. 41. 3; cf. above, 44· I n. on him). From here the Romans marched to the Hebrus and the territory of Aenus, and were involved in further fighting with the Thrausi near Tampyra, in which they were victorious. At a camp near Maronea they received corn, both locally and from the fleet, and from there advanced through Apollonia, the territory of Abdera and Neapolis, helped by the coastal Greeks, and so into Macedonia and via Thessaly to Apollonia on the Adriatic, where they wintered. See also App. Syr. 43, who has Manlius cross at once to Brundisium. (o)n Twv 'Pwj.ta.(wv ••• 'll'oAAO. 8ew6.: these read like the excerptor's words; the division between this fragment and the next in the de sententiis (xxii. 16) cannot be determined.
175
BOOK XXII 01. 148 r88/7-I8S/4· In the excerpts de legat. gent. and de legat. Rom., the extracts from this book are preceded by a list of topics from 01. q8 and, it would seem, from book xxii, which were to be transcribed by the amanuensis. On the relation of these lists to the contents of the book as they survive see p. 7 (and below); the discrepancies are not easily explained, but the lists (which were evidently included among the excerpts in error), suggest that book xxii covered 01. 148. The fact that such lists survive for no other book, but for this book in two sets of excerpts, indicates that the copying of the de legat. gent. must have been organized in close conjunction with that of the de legat. Rom. See Schweighaeuser, iv. 253-5; vii. 498·
1-2. Lists of contents l. l. 1Tpeaj3eL(;iv 'll'a.poua~l: evidently those mentioned in 6. 1-6, winter 186/5; see 6. 3 (Athamanians, Perrhaebians, and Thessalians, neighbours of Macedonia), 6. 4 (Philip's envoys), 6. S-'1 (the Senate's decisions). 2-3. SLa.<Jlopci 1Tpos 9eTTa.Aous KTA.: for the conference at Tempe held by Q. Caecilius .Metellus, who was sent out in 185 with M. Baebius Tamphilus and Ti. Sempronius Gracchus, to consider complaints against Philip see Livy, xxxix. 24. 13-~26. 14; it was not included in the de legat. gent. (or indeed in the de legat. Rom.). 4. Til pTJeEvTa. ••• ev 9ena.AovlK!J: Metellus' conference in Thessalonice, which followed that in Tempe (r8s), is recorded in Livy, xxxix. 27. 1-29. 3, but omitted by the excerpting amanuensis. 5. .ft yevOf.L~VTJ acJla.yij.,. ev Ma.pwve£/f: in 184; cf. 13. 1-7. 1Ta.pouaia. 1Tpeaj3euTwv eK 'Pwp.TJS: Ap. Claudius and his colleagues in r84; cf. 13. 8-14. 6. ahla.L SL' lis iyt!vETo ••• '11'6'-ellos: on the causes of this war cf. r8. r-n. As Schweighaeuser (iv. 255) saw, § 5 refers to a later passage than § 9 ; see p. 7. 6-7. Ka.TtL Tijv neA01TOVVT}O'OV 'll'pea{jeuTwv 'ITa.poua(a.: on the embassies of Ptolemy, Eumenes, and Seleucus to the Achaean synodos (r85) see 7· r-9. r4. 8. 'ITGpouala. KotvTou Ka.LKLMou KTA.: for his presence at the Nemean festival at Argos (r85) see ro. r-rs.
2. l. '1Ta.pouo-£G , •• 176
'll'pea~euTwv
'Pwp.a.(wv ets KAelTopG KTA.: for this
LISTS OF CONTENTS
XXII.3.2
meeting, omitted from the excerpts, see Livy, xxxix. 35· s-37· 2r; below, I4. I2 n. (at the end). Ta.uTa. KEcjla.Ac:uwSw~: perhaps instructions to the excerptor. 3. 1-4. Spartan and Achaean embassies to Rome This much compressed excerpt from the de legat. gem. belongs to the 2 187/6; no fragments survive from 01. 148, I = I88/7 (see pp. 9-1o). For the events leading up to the present situation see xxi. 32 c n., referring to I88.
res Graeciae of OL I48,
3. 1. !.I.ETcl TTJV ev T~ Ko~-t1Ta.s
favoured by Badian, 92 n.). The point is not that Philopoemen's action was regarded as a violation of some kind of Roman patronage over Sparta (or Greece), but that it derogated from the power and dignity of Rome generally. ~A96vTes ets 'Pwp.TJY: probably later in I88; see p. 9· 2. K:a.l TiAos e~E1Toplaa.vTo ypO.p.p.a.Ta ••• 1Ta.pC.. MO.pK:ou AE1T~Sou: on M. Aemilius M.f. M.n. Lepidus seexvi. 34· I-7; he was consul A.U.c. 567 I87. For inscribed milestones on the via Aemilia from this consulship see CIL i2 • r. nos. 6I7-2o. TEAos suggests delay, and it may have been late in I87 that the Spartans extracted their letter from Lepidus; they were probably still at Rome when Philopoemen sent Nicodemus to put the Achaean case (§ 4 n.; contra Aymard, Etudes, 23-24). TOU fLETa TO.UTO. YEY'I19~VTO~ apxlEp~s: elected in !So (Livy, xi. 42. I2; cf. Livy, xxxvii. 43· I, xli. 27. I; below, xxxii. 6. 5; Cic. de prov. cons. 20 (=Val. Max. iv. z. I); de domo, 136; Phil. xiii. 15; de sen. 6I; Val. Max. vi. 6. x; and later coins (Crawford, RRC, i. nos. 291, 4I9)). See Klebs, RE, 'Aemilius (68)', cols. 552-3. TOTE S€ -NJv u1Ta.Tov ll.pxiJv elAT)cpchos: 'and was at that time consul'; the phrase is contrasted with his later election as pontifex maximus, 177
XXII.3.2 SPARTAN AND ACHAEAN EMBASSIES TO ROME
and does not imply that he had just entered upon his consulship (cf. Aymard, Etudes, 23). 4. t:Miw!: 6 4>LXovolJ.LTJV ••• NLK6STJJ.LOV ••• E~i"'l't:J.L\jlt:v d!: 'PwJ.LTJV: in autumn 187, after Philopoemen's election as Achaean general for 187/6; see above, p. 9· The words iiiv 7Tpea{3etJI!wrwv, followed by ~MNws, are taken by Errington, 257, to indicate that Philopoemen sent Nicodemus immediately after the Spartans had left for Rome. He rightly stresses the tense of the participle; the meaning must be 'while they were on their embassy'. But dJfUws is hard to link with this tense ('immediately after they went on their embassy' would require an aorist) and given that this is the excerptor's ... "'"""'"""'~ version it seems reasonable to translate: 'while these men were on their embassy, Philopoemen straightway (sc. upon entering office) sent Nicodemus etc.' In 7. I the words ht tl.o7To{J.Levos aTpaT7)yoiJV7'os do not imply that Nicodemus left late in Philopoemen's (so Errington, 257); the eTt simply contrasts the strategia during which embassies were dispatched to Rome and Egypt with Aristaenus' strategia when the latter returned. Both embassies need not have left together, and the wording allows no deductions concerning the time within Philopoemen's strategia at which Nicodemus was sent; cf. De Sanctis, iv. I. 405; Aymard, Etudes, 23 n. 3· Nicodemus is not otherwise known. 3. 5-9. Ptolemy V and Achaea This forms a single extract v.rith §§ 1-4 in the de legat. gent. and belongs to 01. 148, 2 = 187/6. 3. 5. ATJJ.LTJTpLoc; :t\8TJva.ioc;: not further identified. va.pa nTOAf:jlQLOU: Ptolemy v Epiphanes; cf. XV. 20. 2 n. &.va.vt:wa6J.Lt:voc,; TtlV vpouml.pxouaa.v aUJ.LJ.Laxlav: for earlier relations between Ptolemy III and Achaea see ii. 47. 2 n., 51. 2 n.; when, after the Egyptian support for Cleomenes, these relations were restored is not kno'A-'!1. Ptolemy IV mediated as a neutral in the Social War (v. 100. 9 n.) and in the First Macedonian War (x. 25. 1-5 n., xi. 4· 1-6. 10 n.), but internal troubles probably debarred Ptolemy V from playing a role in Greece. Hence the aUJ.LJ.Laxla mentioned here is not easy to identify (nor was it for the Achaeans; cf. 9· 5-6). On the phrase dvaveoiJcriJa.t CFUJ.LJ.LG.xta.v see Daux, 304 n. 2, 'dvaveoiJcriJat (dont le latin renouare semble n'etre qu'un calque semantique) signifie presque toujours, daus cet emploi: <<donner une force nouvelle a un acte de caractere juridique (traite d'alliance, pacte d'amitie, decret, etc.) qui n'a pas ete abolie, mais que les circonstances ont emousse>>'; Melanges Desrousseaux, n9-22. The envoys were probably heard at a regular synodos ofthe Achaean Confederation (d. Larsen, 175). 178
PTOLEMY V AND ACHAEA
XXII. 4· z
6. AuKopms ••• Ka.t 9eoowp£oa.c.; ~ea.l 'PwaLTEA'lS: on Lycortas cf. ii. 40. 2 n. Theodoridas maintained his link with Egypt; cf. xxix. 23. 6; Launey, i. 108 n. 6. Rhositeles, also from Sicyon, is not mentioned elsewhere. On their return cf. 9· I ff. 7. 1r6.pepyov J.l~V taws, K€wv OE J.1VTIJ.1'1S: for such things have their Significance; cf. fg. 67, ot) j.L~V ov8e T6 7TapEpyoV IJ.gtOll ULW7Tijaat, Ka8a7TEp aya8oO TExvl-rov, 7TEpi. TOU EK£7Tlwvor; (which one?) Mywv d Ilo'Avf3wr;. (11TEp Twv :t>.xa.Lwv u1reo.E€a.To ••• o cfJLAo1TOLJ.1'1V: as general. Reiske proposed {J7T6 Twv ltxatwv •vith aWTEAEa8i)vat); but see BiittnerWobst, Beitriige, 5· Sihler, AJP, 1927, 39-40, suggests that P. was present; the possibility of this depends on when he was born (cf. VoL I, p. I n. I). But even if he was born in 2oo he may have heard the story from someone, perhaps Philopoemen, who was at the banquet. 8. t1TL~a.Xwv: 'interjecting'; cf. L So. In. The envoy's enthusiasm is hardly surprising. rils ••• euxepela.s Ka.t TOAJ.1'1S: cf. xii. 25 e 2 n. for parallels. 9. Ta.upov ••• O.cf t1r1rou J.lli:O'a.yKoA~t~: the p.EaayKvAov is a javelin thrown with the aid of a thong (dyK6A7)), which, by giving it a halfturn, helps it to maintain direction and increases its range and penetrating power (see E. N. Gardiner, Athletics of the Ancient World (Oxford, 1930), 171-6, with illustrations). Hunting was a royal sport in Ptolemaic Egypt; cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. xxxv. I38 (a picture of Ptolemy Soter hunting, by Antiphilus); Plut. Pyrrh. 4· 4 (Pyrrhus distinguished as a hunter while a hostage in Egypt). But there will hardly have been wild bulls there by this time, and it seems likely that they may have been taken alive in Ethiopia (Pliny, Nat. hist. viii. 74) and brought to the royal game preserves, or perhaps reared for the purpose. See Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, i. 296; J. Aymard, Chasses, 48-49. It was hardly coincidental that the envoy raised the subject of hunting at Philopoemen's table; cf. x. 22. 4 and Plut. Philop. 4· I for his skill in hunting.
4. 1-17. Troubles in Boeotia: friction between Rome and Achaea From the res Graeciae of 01. I48, 2
I87/6; see p. 9·
4. 1. To'is KtuvoTOJ.le'iv t1TL~a.AAoJ.1EVOLS: on the earlier confusion and popular measures see xx. 4-6. AAA11v &.pxTjv Ka.t oL6.8eaLv iM.J.i~a.vov: 'there was a radical change of character' (Paton). l. Ti\s OLKa.Loooala.s tAKOJ.lEVTIS KTA.: cf. xx. 6. In.; P. is probably here repeating the (rounded-off?) figure of 25 years from the earlier passage. €AKw8at is often found in reference to legal delays in Delphic inscriptions; cf. Daux, 476, quoting a recurrent phrase: Twv IJ9
XXII. 4·
2
TROUBLES IN BOEOTIA
lyKAT)J.ul:rwv elAKVaJ.L~vwv TTAdova xp6vov.
On such delays, common at Delphi and in north Greece generally, and not peculiar to Boeotia, see Daux, 471>--9; Robert, BCH, 1929, r6o-s =OMS, i. 135-40; Feyel, 276-7.
3. Toi~ Tfi j3E~T~u8' a.fpou~vol~: the propertied classes who supported Rome, the d;1ropot as opposed to the Kax~wrat, 'the politically disaffected' (not simply 'indigent', as Paton translates it); for the latter cf. xx. 7· 4· 4. Zeu~L1T1rov: cf. xviii. 43· 5-13 and esp. § 12 n., for his flight to Tanagra and Anthedon after murdering Brachylles; he had clearly worked closely with Flamininus, who played Pilate's role in the affair. uuvepyq, 1rpo~ 1ro~M.: what, besides Brachylles' murder, this help was, we do not know. 5. Tou~ K1-1-' a.lJTC'i' cf!uyovTa.~: most of his accomplices had been arrested and executed (Livy, xxxiii. 28. 15), but Stratonidas may have still been with him (Livy, xxxiii. 28. 10). 6. Tfi~ KpLO'EL~ , , • &~ ~ua.v 1rpoTepov a.1hoi~ ~1TlY£YPO.!-L!-L£VoL: SO Hultsch, following a suggestion of Schweighaeuser; but the manuscript ifn imoytOypaJ.LJ.dvot should be kept. imoypa~Hv can mean 'to lodge a charge' (cf. Them. Or. 26. 313 c, imoypa~w8at T~JI aVTW}-'Oaiav Ka-ra -rtvo>) and the middle seems to have the same meaning here. Kplat> is normally the trial or the verdict in the trial, the judgement, but here it is used slightly ambiguously as 'the charge' with imoypa~w8at and 'the verdict' with lmK7]p&n-Hv. Translate: 'being anxious to promulgate the sentence on the charges which they had already previously brought against him'. A lacuna follows ; the sense must, as Casaubon saw, be: 'having set up courts, they heard the charges against Zeuxippus'. TfJV Tou luo~ Tpn1T£ta.v: at which sanctuary is unknown; for cults of Zeus in Boeotia see Cook, Zeus, ii. 2. 1073 and 1252 (index); for Thebes, L. Ziehen, RE, 'Thebai (Boiotien)', cols. 1516-17. Sla Tov Bpa.xuA.A.ou cf!ovov: cf. xviii. 43· 12 n. 8. Ka.A.AlKplTov: pro-Roman; he and a certain Eversa were later sent to Rome to denounce Perseus (Livy, xlii. 13. 7) but perished in a shipwreck, as Perseus alleged (Livy, xlii. 41. 5), or, as the Romans said, murdered by him (Livy, xlii. 40. 7). 11. Ta 1rpo~ To•hou~ uuva.A.A.O.y!-1-a.Ta.: cases involving Boeotians and Achaeans. 12. UTpa.Tf]youvTo~ •11r1r£ou: cf. xx. 4· 2 n. on the change from Boeotarchs to strategoi as the chief magistracy in Boeotia. Feyel, 198 n. 4, puts it c. 2oo; but see, against this, xx. 4· 2, 6. 2. Roesch, Thespies, 117-18 (followed by Etienne and Knoepfler, 319-20) denies the existence of the strategos, but his argument that Hippias and Alcetas are mentioned merely as eponymous magistrates does not explain r8o
FRICTION BETWEEN ROME AND ACHAEA XXII. 5
P.'s use of the word VTpa:rr;yofJJJTo> of Hippias. Note too the following examples of Boeotian VTpa:rT}yol in Livy, drawing on P.: Livy, xxxiii. 1. 3, 'Boeotorum praetor Antiphilus' (r97: incorrectly dated 196 by Etienne and Knoepfler, 319-20); xlii. 43· 9, 'nouus ... praetor, Ismenias' (171); cf. GDI, 1872, Eureas (rn). Hippias' neglect of the Achaean request is easily explained: he was a committed supporter of Perseus (cf. xxvii. r. n, 2. 3). 13. civoTe8EL!-LEvou Ti)v cipx~v: it is not known in which month Boeotian generals entered office; Philopoemen's strategia of 187/6 (cf. 3· 4 n.) may have overlapped those of Hippias and Alcetas. a:T!'E8Wtc£ .•. TU pOaLa.: cf. iv. 26. 7 n., 53· 2 n., below 7· 4· In this case the grant of the right of reprisals was to certain Achaeans with a grievance who asked for it, not to all and sundry; presumably they were those whose lawsuits involving Boeotians were in abeyance. See in general Dareste, REG, r889, 307-21 (no mention of pJcna) ; Ormerod, 63 ff. (who does not distinguish between puu~a KaTayy£.UEtv and 1-.a ;xOpas, 'of what was no longer a civil dispute, but a hatred characteristic of real war'. Both states were brought to the brink of war. 17. ot -re Meya.pe'i:s ~viaxov -ra puaLa.: in the absence of a common frontier between Achaea and Boeotia, reprisals by land will have been through Megarian territory. At this date Megara was again part of the Achaean Confederacy (xx. 6. 7 n.), and, no doubt having still many ties with Boeotia, may simply have denied the use of her land to those taking reprisals; but it is possible that by her good offices Megara healed the breach (so Schweighaeuser). 8La'll'pt:a~£uaa.I-L€vwv ..• Toi's auva.AAO.y~J-aaw: Schweighaeuser suggested ota-'rrpeu{3euuafLEVOL rrp6> d.fLpoTI.pous;, Kal Twv BotwTWI! To [Kavov rrmo•r;~-LI.vwv) TOL> (}'l)va.l\i\ayftau•v; but perhaps it was only the Boeotians who sent envoys and asked for Megarian intervention (offering to resolve the judicial impasse).
<
5. 1-10. Dispute between Rhodes and Lycia This passage from de legat. gent. belongs to res Asiae of OL r48, 2 = 187/6 (seep. 9); but some of the earlier events in it go back to 188. P.'s source is uncertain; but Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 97, accepts the view of Ullrich (56 f.) that it is Rhodian, and since it accepts the Rhodian view of the award (§ 4), this seems likely. I8I
XXII. 5· z
DISPUTE BETWEEN RHODES AND LYCIA
5. 2. Ka.9' o~s Ka.Lpous ol BiKa. KTA.: in 188; cf. xxi. 46. Bea.£8TJTOS Ka.t ~~fl.64>pwv: Roman supporters (cf. xxvii. 14. 2, xxviii. 2. 3, 16. 3, xxix. II. 2) who were active on behalf of Rhodes during her estrangement from Rome after the Third Macedonian War (xxx. 4· I ff., 5· I ff.), Theaedetus dying, aged over So, while on an embassy to Rome (xxx. 21. 1). Theaedetus may be the father of another pro-Roman, Astymedes; see xxvii. 7· 3 n.; Blinkenberg, Insc. Lindos, IOIO. See W. Schwahn, RE, 'Theaidetos', cols. I3SO-I; P. Schoch, RE, 'Philophron (2)', col. 76, who suggests that Philophron was perhaps the son of the Philophron, son of Xenophanes, who obtained Delphic proxenia about 225 (GDI, 2649). AuKla.v Ka.l. Ka.pla.v: cf. xxi. 46. 8. 3. 1ra.pO. 8€ TWV 'IALEwv •.• "11T1Ta.pxos Ka.i. Ici.Tupos: Ilium (mod. Hisarhk) stood on the site of Troy and claimed to be its successor: Alexander made it a TroAt~ and enriched its famous temple of Athena Ilias (Strabo, xiii. I. 26, C. 593}. On the contradictory evidence about its wall see v. III. z n. The two men are not otherwise known. liLa TTJV 1rp6s a.1hous otKELl>TTJTa.: the legend of Rome's Trojan origins became politically important in the first decade of the second century, but goes back further since terracottas from Veii representing Aeneas carrying Anchises reveal a cult widespread in Etrnria by the first half of the fifth century (d. Giglioli, Bull. Mus. Impero Romano, r941 (r943), 3 ff.; Bomer, 14 ff.; Galinsky, 122 ff.); but there was not necessarily such a cult at Rome. The 'ancient letter' recording an agreement with 'King Seleucus' on condition that he exempted Ilium from tribute (Suet. Claud. 25. Io; Tac. Ann. xii. 58. I) was accepted by De Sanctis (iii. r. 277 ; 2. 416) and Beloch (iv. 1. 663), but is probably unauthentic (Niese, ii. I 53; Holleaux, 46 f.; CAH, vii. 823; Etudes, iv. 77), as is the alleged claim of Segesta to consideration on grounds of descent from Aeneas in 263 (L I7. 5 n.}. Nor is it credible (cf. Herodian, i. rr. 3} that the Romans, in acquiring the Black Stone of Pessinus, claimed kinship with the Phrygians. According to Strabo (v. 3· s. C. 232) an exchange with Demetrius Poliorcetes over piracy carried out from Antium ended in the return of the captured pirates to Rome 'because of their kinship with the Greeks'; but this story, if true, need not refer to the Trojans (cf. Kienast, Hermes, I965, 482 n. 3). The carmina Marciana, said to have foretold Cannae (Livy, xxv. I2. 2), called the Romans 'Troy-born'; but they were in hexameters and so evidently second-century productions; and if there were originals in some other metre (so Perret, 457), one cannot be sure that they mentioned Troy. On the insertion of 'Ilium' in the treaty of Phoenice see xviii. I. 14 n. The Lampsacenes certainly appealed to the Roman connection when asking for inclusion in the treaty with Philip (xviii. 47· 1 n.), 182
DISPUTE BETWEEN RHODES AND LYCIA
XXII. 5· ro
and Flamininus used the theme in his dedication to Apollo (Plut. Flam. I2. 7). About the same time Sibylline oracles were promising defeat of Macedonia to the descendants of the Trojans (Plut. Mor. 399 C-D), and by I90 it was a commonplace. C. Livius Salinator and L. Scipio both sacrificed to Athena Ilias (Livy, xxxvii. 9· 7, 37· I-3). Ilium reaped the reward of the relationship at this time (xxi. 46. I n. quoting Livy, xxxviii. 39· Io). See further Perret, 437 ff., especially 5oi-5; Bomer, passim; A. Alfoldi, Die trojanischen Urahnen der Romer, Basel, 1957, passim; J. Heurgon, Rome et la Miditerranee occidentale jusqu' aux guerres puniques (Paris, I969), 224--6 =Rise of Rome, I29-30; Galinsky, passim. Perret, 504, suggests that the Ilians may have cited the intervention of Sarpedon on Troy's behalf to support the Lycian case. Twv iu.La.pTTJflEvwv: Lycia had come into Antiochus' hands in I97 (cf. xviii. 47· In.; S. Jameson, RE, SuppL-E. xiii, 'Lykia', col. 276). Livy, xxxiii. 20. 6 (cf. 20. I3) breaks off short without recounting the conquest of Lycia. On the fall of Aracanda see Agatharchides, FGH, 86 F I6; Schmitt, A ntiochos, 286-7, who suggests some resistance. Antiochus dedicated Xanthus to 'Leto, Apollo, and Artemis' (TAM, ii. 266 = OGIS, 746) ; this need not be a 'compromise-victory' (so 0. Benndorf, Hirschfeld Festschrift, 77 f.; Magie, i. 524; Jameson, RE, SuppL-E. xiii, 'Lykia', col. 276), but can equally well have been a concession to Lycian feeling about the chief cult centre of the district (Schmitt, A ntiochos, 287). 4. 1TpoaivELfla.v tv SwpE~ ToOs AuK£ous: this the Lycians wanted least. Later (xxv. 4· 5) the Romans decided that the Ten had not given the Lycians to Rhodes Jv Swpdf., but wo; ~O.ot ~~:at aVJ.LJ.Laxot; for the Rhodian reaction to that see xxv. 4· 6-8. Fraser and Bean, II2-I3, suggest that P.'s statement here represents the Rhodian version, and that the later behaviour of the Ilian ambassadors (§ 6) shows that the Roman decision was ambiguously formulated, and, they argue, deliberately so. Certainly, when the Senate later so wished, they were able to interpret the award as implying alliance, not subjection (see above); and it is unlikely that they tried to be clear but failed (so Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 93). But there is no independent evidence for the decision of the Ten, apart from P. 10. Ets T~v tKKATJaLa.v: at Rhodes. llo9£wv b 1TpuTa.vLs: otherwise unknown. The reading is clear, but van Gelder, I43 n. I, suggests emending to llv6lwv, since elsewhere llo6lwv occurs only rarely and late. On the Rhodian prytaneis cf. xiii. 5· I n., where 'a committee of five' should read 'a board of five magistrates' (so too in xv. 23. 4 n.); cf. Livy, xlii. 45· 4, 'qui cum in summo magistratu esset-prytanin ipsi uocant .. .'; see Touloumakos, I33-4; van Gelder, 239-42. On their number, five not six, see the Rhodian dedications published by M. Segre, Bull. Alexandrie, 183
XXII. 5·
Io
DISPUTE BETWEEN RHODES AND L YCIA
1938, 3-7. Epigraphica II; cf.
J.
and L. Robert, Bull. epig. 1939,
no. 249. 1rpoaE1rE1'L~1')a£ 1'o'Ls AuKLOLS:
in the following lacuna (detected by Casaubon) there must have been an indication of Lycian disagreement, which is expanded in the last sentence of the extract.
6. 1-6. Thracian affairs discussed by the Senate This compressed excerpt from de legat. gent. belongs to res Italiae of 01. q8, 3 r86Js. Livy, xxxix. 24. 6-14, deriving from it, includes this hearing at Rome in the account of events in Macedonia in A.u.c. 569 r8s, based on P.'s res I'.facedoniae of OL q8, 3 r86/s; but it does not follow that P. did the same. Livy, xxxix. 23. 5-24. 4 recounts Philip's resentment after the Syrian war and his measures to strengthen Macedonia (see below, 18. I - I I n.); he then continues (Livy, xxxix. 24. 5): 'rediere deinde causae quae de integra iram mouerent in Romanos. Thessalorum et Perrhaeborum querellae de urbibus suis ab eo possessis, et legatorum Eumenis de Thraciis urbibus per uim occupatis traductaque in Macedoniam multitudine, ita auditae erant, ut eas non neglegi satis appareret.' That and what follows clearly correspond to the present fragment (but with more detail), and (cf. p. 9) the pluperfects probably indicate that Livy has inserted in his Macedonian narrative a section borrowed from P.'s res Italiae. The interview will be winter 186/S· 6. 1. 1ra.pn ... Eu~evous 1rp£a~£u1'a.£: Eumenes was playing the role that Attalus had played before the Second Macedonian War (d. xvi. 24. 3 n.). 1'WV E'lrL ep~KT)S 1rOAEWv: according to Livy (xxxix. 23· 13). following P., 'in Thracia quasdam urbes, nouae atque insuetae libertatis uitio seditionibus principum turbatas, partibus quae domestico certamine uincerentur adiungendo sese cepit', and he records the Senate's reaction to Eumenes' news (Livy, xxxix. 24. 7, omitted by P.'s excerptor): 'maxime mouerat senatum quod iam Aeni et Maroneae adfectari possessionem audierant; minus Thessalos curabant.' Despite a slight ambiguity in the present tense adjectari, the Thracian cities must be Aenus and Maronea, especially as the Maronean exiles reported (Livy, xxxix. 24. 9) that 'non Maroneam modo sed etiam Aenum in potestate ... esse Philippi'. Cf. Niese, iii. 21 ; Walbank, Philip, 223. 2. Kal. 1rapn Mapwv£L1'&w ot cpuyciS£s: cf. Livy, xxxix. 24. g, 'et Maronitarum exules uenerant, pulsi quia libertatis causam defendissent ab regis praesidio'-followed by the sentence on Philip's seizure of Aenus quoted in 6. I n. These were probably a faction which supported Eumenes (d. 13. 9 n.). 184
THRACIAN AFFAIRS DISCUSSED BY THE SENATE XXII.6.4
M aronea lay 2! miles south of the modern village of that name, on the coast about 20 miles west of Alexandroupolis. It was founded from Chios in the mid-seventh· century; see Ps.-Scymn. 676-8; Strabo, vii. fg. 46-47; Oberhummer, RE, 'Maroneia', cols. I9I2-I3· Maronea (and Aenus) had kept Syrian garrisons till spring 189, when Q. Fabius Labeo expelled them (xxi. 44· 3 n.; Livy, xxxvii. 6o. 7), and, by making an inland road the frontier, excluded Philip from both towns; cf. Livy, xxxix. 27. Io, 'derexisse finem Philippo ueterem uiam regiam, quae ad Thraciae Paroraeam subeat, nusquam ad mare declinantem'. 3. :A.ea..,.a.v~s, n~ppa.~~o£, e~TTa.Ao£: much abbreviated. If Livy's order represents that in the original text of P., the Athamanian envoys were mentioned before the reference to the Maronean exiles (see last note). Livy, xxxix. 24. 8 records their arrival at Rome 'non partis amissae, non finium iacturam querentes, sed totam Athamaniam sub ius iudiciumque regis uenisse'. Philip had lost Athamania after seizing it (d. xxi. 31. 4 n.), and Niese, iii. 20 n. 4, argues that Livy is in error. But according to Livy, xxxix. 25. 17, at the conference in Tempe, 'Athamanes libertatem repetebant et castella Athenaeum et Poetneum.' (The Athenaeum is the fortress which stands high above the gorge of the Portaikos, south-west of Porta Pazar and near H. Elias; see Leake, NG, iv. 525; Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 125 n. 3· Poetneum may be the fortress above Tyrna, some 15 km. further north up the same valley; cf. Rhomaios, )1PX· 8eAT. 1919, 123-4; Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 125 n. 8.) Since a seizure of all Athamania seems unlikely, the envoys perhaps alleged that Philip's possession of these fortresses controlling the Portaikos (a tributary of the Peneius) enabled him to dominate the whole country. But there may have been infiltration by troops, as in the Thracian cities, and this is more likely if Amynander was dead (he does not appear again). Similarly, the Thessalian and Perrhaebian envoys were probably mentioned by P. before those of Eumenes (6. I-6 n.). As a result of the Syrian war Philip had acquired Magnesia and Demetrias, and several towns on the Malian coast-Alope, Larisa Cremaste, Antron, and Pteleum (d. Livy, xxxix. 23. 12; Walbank, Philip, 204-5); further west he held towns in Perrhaebia and the western Thessalian plain, such as Tricca, Gomphi, Phaloria, and Malloea (cf. Livy, xxxvi. 13, 5-6, xxxix. 25. 3. 25. I6; Walbank, Philip, 202 n. 4; on the status of Aeginium see Walbank, ibid. 219 n. 2). 4. va.pci -rou CII~Mvvou vpea~e~s: fuller in Livy, xxxix. 24. Io-IZ (based on P.). Philip's envoys claimed that all had been done with the consent of Roman generals; the Thessalian, Perrhaebian, Magnesian, and (under Amynander) Athamanian towns had taken the Aetolian side, and the consul had sent Philip to recover themas he did-while he was occupied against Aetolia. But Livy may 185
XXIL6.4 THRACIAN AFFAIRS DISCUSSED BY THE SENATE
also be compressed, for the words yevoJL€vwv ..• 1TAewvwv Mywv (§ 5) perhaps suggest a fuller discussion (cf. xxi. 2. 4 n.}. 5. ~8o~t: ••• KUTa.aTfjua.L 'ITpEu~t:(a.v: cf. Livy, xxxix. 24. IJ, 'ne quid absente rege statueret', which shows a consideration for Philip which does not emerge from our text of P. (cf. the phrase 1Ta.p€~ovuav clacf>iL\ELav KT,\.).
6. K6,vTov KtnKlAtov • • • Map~
6. 7. Political factions in Aenus This fragment from Suidas may have stood before 6. I or within the passage of which both 6. 1-6 and Livy, xxxix. 24. 6-14, give abridged versions; see p. 9· A likely point is following Livy, xxxix. 24. 9, where envoys from Maronea report that Aenus too is now in Philip's hands; apparently he had worked through a faction within. Aenus (modern Enez) stood on a narrow ridge rising 130 ft above the southern (Turkish) bank of the Hebrus; nowadays it is about miles from the sea. It was an Aeolian foundation, from Alopeconnesus with later colonists from Lesbos and Cyme; cf. Ephorus, FGH, 70 F 39; Strabo, vii. 52. See F. W. Hasluck, BSA, 1908-<), 249 ff.; Casson, Mace.donia, 256-7; J. M. F. May, Ainos, its History and Coinage, 474-34-I B.C. (Oxford, I95o), 1-7 (with plans). Fg. 157, if indeed it is Polybian, might stand here; see BiittnerWobst, Beitrage u, however, for doubts.
(18. 1-11 should stand between 6. 7 and 7· 1, forming part of the res Macedoniae of 01. 148. 3 = 186/5; see pp. 1o-13.) I86
ACHAEAN AFFAIRS (185)
XXII. 1· 3
7. 1-10.15. Achaean affairs (r85): envoys from Eumenes and Ptolemy: visit from Q. Caecilius l'vfeteUus This excerpt from de legat. gent. belongs to the res Graeciae of OL q8, 3 I86/5 (cf. p. rr); Livy omitted its contents as of no interest to his readers. For Errington's hypothesis that 7· I-{). I4 refers to 188/7 and only Io. r-IS to x86/S see pp. 9-Io. 7. l. en ¢'LAovoit.t.evo<; aTpO.TTJYOUVTOS: in I87 /6; see 3· 4 n. tsa.veaTuAe TrpeaJ3euTas: the one sent to Rome about Sparta (not 'on behalf of Sparta', Paton) was Nicodemus of Elis (3. 4 n.). vpos ••• nToA.et.t.a.tov: cf. 3· 6 n. for the names of these envoys. 2. KQ.Ta OE TOV ~VEO"TWTO. xpovov: OL I48, 3 I86/5· )\puna.lvou aTpO.TTJYOUVTO'i: for r86/s. On Aristaenus see xi. II. 7 n., xviii. I. 4 n. (addendum in Vol. II, p. 65o}; Lehmann, 216-65, 391-2, rejecting Deininger's attempted differentiation betweenAristaenusof Megalopolis and Aristaenus of Dyme. TfJ<> auvMiou TWV !t\xa.L
XXII. 7· 3
ACHAEAN AFFAIRS (185)
that the whole point was to enable the less affluent to serve--a popular measure likely to provoke the opposition of the rich (as it did). Most scholars have assumed that the boule had not been paid (cf. Aymard, ACA, 331 ff.; Larsen, 95; GFS, 226 n. 2; Welwei, Historia, 1966, 286 n. 20; Errington, 6 n. 3); but Lehmann, 379 ff., rightly observes that the arguments used to oppose the offer (8. 1-13) provide no evidence one way or the other. G. T. Griffith has suggested to me that since emphasis generally comes at the beginning and end of a Greek sentence, fL~a8o8oT€fa8a.~. being in the middle, ought not to refer to something novel, hence the boule were probably already in receipt of pay (cL Tarn, HCJ, 74 ff.). This carries weight; but whether enough to be decisive (in an author like P.) I doubt. The issue is best left undecided until more evidence becomes available. On the arrival of Eumenes' envoys see I. 6. 4. napa IeAeu~eou: Seleucus IV Philopator (cf. xviii. 51. 8 n., xxi. 6. 2 n., 8. 3, 10. I2-14 n.) was made co-regent with his father, Antiochus III, in 189, and succeeded as sole ruler in 187, probably on 3 or 4 July; cf. Sachs-Wiseman, Iraq, I954, 202 ff.; Schmitt, Antiochos, I-2, 20-21; Aymard, Etudes, 268-9 (making it 4 June). See 1. 6; Diod. xxix. I7. TYJV TE 4nA£a.v O.vavewaof1EVOL: a move which betrays an element of rivalry with Eumenes (cf. Will, ii. 254-5). 5. ol. nept Nt~e681Jf10V: cf. 3· 4, above § I for his dispatch to Rome in autumn I87. There may have been good reasons, omitted by our sources, for his delay at Rome for a year; one possibility is the Bacchanalian scandal (Livy, xxxix. 8-19), which may well have disrupted normal procedures in 186 (Aymard, Etudes, 25). As in § r, Paton mistranslates v1r~p rij> ... 1T6)u;:w;; (which means 'about Sparta'). 6. TTI Twv Tetxwv auvTEAEO'EL: cf. Diod. xxix. I7 (where either he or the excerptor has shown great carelessness); although Diodorus has Roman envoys report the Senate's displeasure, in place of Nicodemus (cf. Aymard, ACA, I56 n. 4), the phrase TfjTwv rEtxwv Twv i.v Aa.Ke8a.lfLoV~ Ka.Oatpl.aH justifies Ursinus' proposal to read Ka.8aLpl.a._, here for the rare and inappropriate avVTeAlaEL, 'completion', of the manuscripts. ~eat TTI ~eaTaAUO'EL ••• : Casaubon detected the lacuna, and BiittnerWobst suggests, e.g. (Tfjs 1TDALT€la.s, Twv fL~v fL€Ta {3la.s €~ax81.VTwv), Twv (8') €v Tip KTA. A reference to the abolition of the 'ancestral constitution' (cf. xxiii. 4. 5; Livy, xxxix. 36. 4, 37· I) is in place here. On the massacre at Compasium cf. 3· r n. ou flTtV li~eupov TL note~v: the Senate was similarly reluctant to act positively in I88; cf. Livy, xxxviii. 32. 9, 'nouari tamen nihil de Lacedaemoniis place bat' (after envoys were sent to Rome; cf. xxi. 32 c n.). See Errington, 151-2; Larsen, GFS, 449· 8. TTtV , , • O'Uflf1ax£a.v •• , avavt:WO'O.VTO! if 1TO.TpLK~V has its full I88
ACHAEAN AFFAIRS (185)
XXII. 8. 9
sense, this refers to a treaty made with Attalus, Eumenes' father, not simply to that of I9I/o; see xxi. 3 bIn. Whether the renewal survived the ensuing debate on Eumenes' offer is not recorded. The Pergamene envoys, or Eumenes himself, may have judged it politic to ignore the hostile terms in which his offer of money was rejected. On dvavEofJa8at cf. 3· 5 n. n'Jv li1TEp Twv XPTJJlUTWV hra.yyEA~a.v: cf. § 3· Tois 'ITOAAois: P.'s use of this phrase here and elsewhere (xxix. 24. I, xxxiii. I6. 2, 16. 7) and of Tb 1rAij8os (cf. 9· Io, xxix. 23. 9) or oi :4.xawl (xxiii. I6. 12, xxxiii. I6. 6; cf. 9· 13 and Syll. 675 1. 12, loo~€ Tots :4.xawts-) is most easily explained if the synodos was a meeting which included the Achaean assembly; see below, appendix following book xxix, pp. 406-14.
8.1. :t\.'!ToAAwv(Sa.s o I~Kuwv~os: cf. u. 6-I2. 10, xxviii. 6. 6; he is not known outside P. 3. Twv ••• v6J1Wv KWAuovTwv ••• Swpa. AO.jJ-~O.vE~v: when this was passed is not recorded; but it was evidently since the time of Aratus, who received an annual subsidy of six talents from Ptolemy (Plut. Arat. 4I. 3); see Larsen, GFS, 235 n. 2. 'IT ot/Jwvta,w8at -n}v TWV :4.xatwv atfvooov ~sic]. ot/Jwvta,w8at suggests paying mercenary troops (cf. i. 66. 3 n.). (3ouAEuEa0a.t: 'to discuss public affairs'; the word can mean 'discuss and decide' (cf. 9· 14) but not here. 6. Twv SE '11'pa.yJ16.Twv 'va.vT{a.v cfluaw 'xovTwv: 'as the interests of democracies and kings are naturally opposed' (Paton). For P.'s critical attitude to kings cf. xv. 24. 4-5 (but xxi. 22. 7-8 is a Rhodian view) ; and for an analysis of his sometimes contradictory views on kingship see Welwei, especially 123-86. On Achaean democracy see ii. 38. 6 n. (where the argument requires modification, if the assembly was open to all men of military age and upwards and if the assembly continued to meet regularly down to I46: see below, appendix to book xxix, pp. 406-I4}; Lehmann, 377-85; Musti, Annali di Pisa, 1967' 155-207. 9. K6.aaa.vSpos Atyw-.lTTJS: otherwise unknm.vn; but, since Aegina had been Pergamene since 210 (x. 42. 5-8 n.), it is easier to see him as an exile in Achaea, still enjoying federal citizenship, than as a delegate to a council meeting; Aymard (ACA, 102-20) is right in seeing this passage as an argument in favour of regarding the synodos as a meeting involving a general assembly. The argument is not decisive, since if the Achaeans accepted the refugees from Delos as citizens (xxxii. 7· 3), one can the more easily see the I89
XXII. 8. 9
ACHAEA~
AFFAIRS (185}
receiving similar treatment and the right to representation on the Council. But Avmard's view is easier and fits what seems on other grounds to be p;obable (below, pp. 4o6-r4). On exiles see P. Achtung und V erbannung im griechischen Recht (Berlin, 1903), ; Busolt--Swoboda, i. 236; Larsen, i. q6 (who believes the synodos to be a council meeting). 8t0. To p.ETA Twv :t>.xa.Lwv o-up.woAlTEuEo-9a.L: Aegina probably joined the Confederacy after the liberation of Athens in 229 (cf. ii. 44· 6 n.). OTE notrAlO<; IoAtrli.TT
s~a.f3ouAlOv:
'the debate on Ptolemy'.
ACHAEAN AFFAIRS (185)
XXIL 9·
12
2. TWv ••• 1rpeapeuTwv: for the sending of Lycortas, Theodoridas, and Rhositeles see 3· 6 n. 3. &1rA.a. xa.X~ea 'IT'EATO.O'TLKrt: 'bronze sets of arms for peltasts'; o7TAov can mean a shield, but a hoplite's shield, which is inappropriate here. This valuable gift indicates Ptolemy's eagerness to gain Achaean support, and this may connect with the troubles in southern Egypt (xiv. 12. 4 n.), and his need for mercenaries (r7. 6; cf. Niese, iii. 87; Lehmann, 197 n. ror). Ptolemy seems to have ended this protracted revolt in autumn r86 (cf. pp. 10-13), but the mercenaries could have been recruited once the oaths were sworn in Achaea (3. 6)--if indeed the mercenaries (q. 6) were Achaean (cf. p. 12 n. 1). 5. 1\plO"Ta.wos: Achaean strategos for 186/5; cf. Aymard, Etudes, 29, 45·
6. To ~ouA.euT'IjpLov: 'the council-chamber'; Aymard, ACA, 65, suggests that this is the municipal council chamber of Megalopolis. The fact that the meeting was held here may be an indication of the members attending; but it does not imply that the meeting was of the boule (cf. ii. so. 10 n.; and Larsen's remark there cited). 7. "'I'AELovwv O'Uflfla.xLt7lv: see 3· 5 n. The report of the renewal, like the renewal of the alliances with Eumenes (7. 8) and Seleucus (§ 13), came to a synodos, despite rz. 6, which implies that alliances were a matter for a syncletos. See on this difficulty p. 414. 10. 1rpocpEpo!J-E:vou ••• Tns O'U!Jo!J-O.XLO.'i: 'where the general produced (or cited) all the alliances'; either sense is possible. The documents were evidently available in the record office at Aegium and Aristaenus either mastered the details there in preparation for his tour de force or brought the documents with him in order to confront his political opponents. The trick deserved the kudos it brought him (§ I2 ). 11. 8s E'IT'OL'IjaGTo ••• TftV ll.va.v.Ewaw: 3· 7. oliTE Twv 1rept Tc.v AutcOpTa.v: that P. does not conceal his father's
responsibility and humiliation has often been cited as evidence of his regard for the historical truth; cf. Casaubon in the preface to his edition of I6Io, quoted by Schweighaeuser (Oxford edition, 1823), i. xxxii~x:xxiii; Ge!z:er, Kl. Schr. iii. 182 n. a; Lehmann, 199 n. 107. 12. f.LEyaAT)V , , • cpo.VTO.O'£Gv! cf. xii. 25 d 4 n. olltc Eia.O"E tcupw9i)vGl To SLal3ouALov: cf. Livy, x:xxi. 25. 9. for another occasion when the general gives a ruling on a point of order (cf. Aymard, ACA, 358 n. 5); but in the debate at Sicyon in r<)S (Livy, xxxii. 22. 2-3) the damiurgi decide. Aymard (ACA, 36o--r) thinks that this is because on that occasion the general, by inten·ening in the debate, had shown his partisanship. But perhaps where the general appears to give the ruling, this simply means that his ruling was not challenged, or if it was, the damiurgi upheld it (Larsen, GFS, 231 n. r); this would be fairly natural since he presided. 191
XXII. 9. rz
ACHAEAN AFFAIRS (185)
els {rrr£p8eaw ~yaye: 'he got a decision postponed' ; presumably his object. But why is not dear. Larsen (GFS, 46o) thinks he wanted to clarify the issue of raising mercenaries, which no doubt figured in many of the treaties; but perhaps he was more interested in discrediting Philopoemen and Lycortas (Errington, 163-4). The treaty was renewed under Lycortas (xxiv. 6. 4), probably in 182(1 (see ad loc.). 13. ~Sose To1s :.\xa,ois: cf. 7. 8 n. TTJV •.• cjHALav &.vavelHra0'8a,: cf. 7. 4, also mentioning the offer of a squadron of ten ships; their rejection was to avoid a clear Achaean commitment-and perhaps it was felt to follow logically on the rejection of Eumenes' offer (cf. Errington, 162). 10. 1. TTJS lTO.VT)yupews: the Nemea of 185; cf. § 2, els Ti}v Twv :4nelwv ?ToAtv. The early lines of the chapter show evidence of compression. Ka.LKLALOS EK Ma.Ke8ov£a.s: on the appointment of Q. Caecilius .Metellus and two colleagues to investigate complaints against Philip see 6. 4 n. Livy, xxxix. 25. 1-26. 14 (from P.) describes the conference at Tempe, where Philip replied to charges re-stated by Thessalians, Perrhaebians, and Athamanians; the Romans decided that Philip should withdraw his garrisons from the towns under discussion, and Macedonia be limited antiquis . .. terminis, while machinery was to be set up to deal with any outstanding disputes (Livy, xxxix. 26. 14). Next the commission went on to Thessalonica and there heard complaints from Eumenes and the Maronean exiles about Philip's treatment of the Thracian cities, and Philip's reply. The matter was referred to the Senate, but meanwhile Philip was to withdraw his garrisons from Aenus and Maronea (cf. II. 3; Livy, xxxix. 27. 129. 2, with the envoys' decision at Livy, xxxix. 29. 1-2). After recounting this P. evidently turned to res Graeciae (cf. 01. 148, 3 = 186/5) and after 7· 1-9. 14 described Caecilius' arrival at Argos, at the time of the Nemean festival of 185. On the Nemea see ii. 70. 4 n., v. IOI. 3 n.; it fell in 'odd' years (Justian), cf. xi. 8-r8 n. For its date, r8 Panemos (early July) see A. Boethius, Der argivische Kalender (Upsala, I922), 51. l. :.\purTaLvou: general 186/5 (cf. 7· 2 n.). Tns cipxas: i.e. the damiurgi and the other magistrates mentioned in ii. 37. ron. §(e). Ayrnard, ACA, 370 n. I, suggests (in view of the eminence of the speakers (§§4, 8)) that-whether or no this was usual practice -on this occasion they included ex-generals. ~a.puTepov •.• Tots Aa.KeOa.Lj.LOVLo's: cf. 3· I n. for the affair at Compasium. 3. SfjA.os wv ... (h~ Ou
ACHAEAN AFFAIRS (185)
XXII.
10.6
Errington, I66-7 (contra Lehmann, 263; Deininger, 21-22, accepting P.'s interpretation). 4. l1Locpnvf}s: cf. xxi. 3 b 2 n. He was 'more a soldier than a man of polish' (perhaps a better sense than 'more of a soldier than a politician', in which case iv. I9. I I n. where this passage is misquoted, provides no real parallel). '~'1Jv 1rpos 1'0V
193
XXII. Io. 8
ACHAEAN AFFAiRS (185)
8. auY (Se) TOUTOLS "pxc.wos: on Archon of Aegeira see 19. In. 10. TOU5 1roAAous ••• auYa.ya.yeiy ei.s EKKATJa£o.y: to a syncletos. 11. ot 6£ TWY ~xa.u'dY O.pxoYTes: as general Aristaenus is likely to have taken a lead in this action; echoing the propaganda of Philopoemen's friends P. seems to conceal and somewhat misrepresent Aristaenus' role at this meeting (cf. Errington, 17o-··r). Tel.<; EYToM.s, &s Etxe 1ra.pcl. Tf\s auyKAl}Tou: cf. u. 6 for the only circumstances in which, in the second century, a special meeting might be convened. Aymard (ACA, 203-4; PR, 270 n. 13) believed that P. misrepresented the real situation by pretending that a positive injunction to call a syncletos, whenever a written request from the Senate was produced, was in t..ct a negative injunction forbidding such a meeting to be called without such a written request; and he took the view that the original measure was carelessly worded so as to allow the second interpretation, while intending the first. It is certainly likely that the positive injunction existed, laying down that certain matters were reserved for syndetoi (even though in practice we find considerable flexibility: see 9· 7 n.); its purpose will have been to guard against rushed business and hasty decisions in circumstances which, since Rome became involved in Greek affairs, might prove (and later did prove) highly dangerous. But the negative injunction here recorded by P. must also have figured in the law, since (apart from its use in warding off unwelcome demands from Roman legati or generals, perhaps foreseen in its formulation) it served an important purpose in limiting the vexatious multiplication of occasions when special meetings might be summoned (cf. Larsen, 89-91, 215 n. ro; Lehmann, 234 n. 184; \Valbank, Mus. Helv. 197o, 134; below, p. 413). It as Aymard thought, the law was being stretched, it would have been easy for Diophanes or even Caecilius himself to expose the deception (Lehmann, 264 n. 247). Paus. vii. 9· r gives a distorted account of the incident. 13. aYa.11'oKpLTos a11'f\A9t:Y: since he had received an answer (§ II), P. must mean that he refused to accept it; see below, n. 6. 14. ot S' ~Xa.Lo£: the blanket term really indicates the supporters of Philopoernen and Lycortas (Errington, 171). Ttl'> • , • 1ra.pouaia.., ••• Ti]S M6.pKou ToO ~oAouLou: on the visit of M. Fulvius Nobilior to the Peloponnese in 188 see xxi. 32 c n. hr!. TOY ~piO'Ta.LYoY Ka.i. TOY .fuo+cl.YTJY: according to Livy, xxxviii. 30. I, it was especially Sparta and the people of Aegium (who were alarmed by the proposal to move the place of meeting from their city) who summoned Fulvius, and Lehmann, 252, suggests that Aristaenus supported their case. As regards Caecilius' visit, Errington, 171-2, suggests that Aristaenus as general invited Caecilius to visit the Nemea, and that this was construed as designed to secure his political intervention. Caecilius' lack of written instructions from 194
ACHAEAN AFFAIRS (18S)
XXII. n. 7
the Senate (§II n.) would favour the view that he had not been charged with the regulation of Peloponnesian affairs. 15. uvo+Ln Tl7lV 1TOAAWV: this may be partisan exaggeration. <16. 1-17. 7 should stand here, representing res Aegypti of 01. 148, 3 = 186/s: see ad loc. and pp. IO-IJ.)
11. 1-12. 10. Greek embassies given audimce by the Senate (185/4) This excerpt from de legat. gent., belonging to res Italiae of Ol. 148, 4 = 185/4 (seep. n) is the basis of Livy, xxxix. 33· 1-8. 11. l. Twv vEpl Tov Ka.uc:LA~ov: cf. 6. 6 n. on their names. EkT}yov: sc. the consuls (omitted by the excerptor); cf. Livy, xxxix. 33· r; they were P. Claudius (Ap.f. P.n. Pulcher) and L. Porcius 184. (L.f. M.n. Licinus), coss. A.U.c. 570 2. Twv ti€ Atvou Ka.t Ma.pwvda.~ 4»uy6.8wv: cf. 6. 2 n., 6. 7 n. aKoAou9w~ TOi:~ EV 9ETTa.AovLJ
uvEp Tou !Ltt Aa.I3Ei'v 6.v6KpLaLV: d. 10. 13 n. ; Caecilius had refused to accept the answer he got. 7. :6.pEus ~ea.~ :6.A~eLj3La&TJs: cf. I. 9; their names suggest royal connections, Areus with the Agiad house, Alcibiades with the Eurypontid, if the Athenian Alcibiades' affair with Agis II's wife (their son was Leotychidas: Plut. Ale. ZJ. 7) had made the name now acceptable l95
XXII. n. 7 GREEK EMBASSIES GIVEN AUDIENCE
in the Eurypontid house (cf. Niese, iii. 43 n.). Paus. vii. 9· 2 calls them -ra f.LdAtaTa lv Tfi .Errrlp1TJ, Ta o€ ir; flxatovs ov StKatot, and adds that Nabis had exiled them. TWV &.pxat(.!JV cpuyci8wv Twv ••. vEwO"Tl K«TTJYP.Evwv: cf. xxi. r. 4 for the 'old exiles'; Philopoemen had restored them after his action at Compasium (3. r n., xxi. 32 c n.). Probably Areus and Alcibiades did not speak for all the 'old exiles', but they seem to represent the city and are hardly just 'an extremist splinter group' (so Errington, 175). Evidently a change of government between r88 and r85 had brought them to power (Shimron, Late Sparta, ro8, r4o, 146). On the proliferation of Spartan factions see xxiii. 4· 8. trpo~ Tous ~epa.To0vTa~: 'those in power' (cf. xxxviii. 3· z) or 'the victors' (d. iii. 4· 6, xv. r. 13 etc.). SoKLJ.WL
12. I. ~tc auy~eaTa.9~aEw~: probably 'by agreement', i.e. of the Senate and the contending parties (d. ii. 58. rr, iv. I7· 8, xxi. z6. r6). Schweighaeuser, following Gronovius, translates 'in confrontation', 'quo pacto alias €~ chrrtKaTaantu;;:wr; P. noster dicit iv. 47· 4 de hominibus qui ambo simul coram iudice comparent et caussam suam alter in alterius praesentia disceptant'; but in fact iv. 47· 4 reads iK rijr; aVTLKO.TO.UT1W€Wr; rijr; YE'VOfLE"''S' K-r.\., which means 'from the terms in which the Byzantine magistrates replied', nor are there grounds for giving avyKamHJwts- the meaning Schweighaeuser proposes. Shuckburgh and Strachan-Davidson both follow Schweighaeuser. ;.\1!'oAAwvl8av: cf. 8. I. 2. ~~T)yp.Evou ToG 11'A'I]9ou~ fJETCl ~(as: those expelled were the tyrant's mercenaries and the free slaves (presumably helots); cf. xxi. 32 c n.; Livy xxxviii. 34· 1-2, cf. Livy, xxxix. 33· 6-7, 'abductam plebem in Achaiam et uenumdatam'. The freed slaves will have been in possession of citizenship for several years. Ev a.oToi~: 'among those remaining' i.e. in contrast to those expelled. 3. To is &El. tca9«nap.f:voLS &pxouaw: 'the (Achaean) magistrates appointed from time to time' (cf. Chrimes, 45); Gabba, A then. 1957, z6 n. 2 sees a reference 'ai governatori achei', but it is unlikely that the Achaeans sent governors to Sparta after r88 when it joined the confederacy. Paton also translates 'at the beck and call of any governors that might be appointed'. 4. ~'l!'l. TTJV (Ma.tcc8ov(av Kal. Ti]v) 'E.A.Aci8a: cf. Livy, xxxix. 33· 3. 'in Graeciam et Macedoniam'. The addition is Btittner-Wobst's; hereverses the order so as to explain the omission from the repeated T~v, but perhaps irrZ 77jv 'E>..AC:.8a Ka.i ~v MaKESovlav is more likely. Tous 1TEpt ~11'11'Lov KA.ao8Lov: if this is Ap. Claudius Ap.f. P.n. Pulcher, cos. r85 (cf. Munzer, RE, 'Claudius (294)', cols. 2847-8), he cannot have left until his consulship was over; but he may be Ap. Claudius Nero, praetor in Spain in 195 (Livy, xxxiv. ro. I, 17· r; Niese, iii. 25). 196
GREEK EMBASSIES GIVEN AUDIENCE
XXII. 13. 3
5. U1rEf> TWV apxoVTWV: the question of the refusal to call a syncletos (Io. 11 n.) is dealt with separately from the question of substance, Sparta. 6. v6}1ov ••• }1~ uuyKa.AE'Lv 'Tous voAAous: as the word avyKaA.,-iv (never used by P. of a synodos) indicates, this law referred to the summoning of a special meeting, a syncletos, normally though perhaps not invariably (cf. xxix. 24. 6 n.) consisting of the ecclesia (with the boule and magistrates), and not to the regular synodoi. Since the questions referred to are the prerogative of such special meetings (cf. Io. 11 n.), they could not normally be dealt with by a synodos (though some latitude is found; cf. 9· 7 n.). See further, appendix to book xxix, pp. 4I2-I3· vEpt aU}1f1a.x(a.s 1] voA~f1ou: 'regarding alliance or war' (not 'war or peace' as Paton, perhaps influenced by Livy xxxix. 33· 7 'nisi belli pacisue causa'). 7. j3ouAEuaa.u9a.L ••• uuyKa.AE'Lv: 'they had considered summoning' (not 'had desired to summon', Paton). 10. Ka.Ta.Sox~v 1r0LE'i:a9a.L 'TTJY ap}10~0UO'Q.V: the MS Ka'TaAoJn}v should be read, for it is frequent in inscriptions meaning 'respect, honour' ; cf. Schulte, 3I-33; Wilhelm,]ahresh. I90I, 79 n. 54; W ien. A nz. I924, r28-9; Robert, Insc. Froehner, I3o n. 3, no. 84 (from Agrigentum); Sherk, I7 1. 8, I81. 55, etc. (see index s.v.). Livy, xxxix. 33· 8, is more specific: 'ea ne postea excusatio esset, ostendit senatus curae iis esse debere, ut legatis Romanis semper adeundi concilium gentis potestas fieret, quem ad modum et illis, quotiens uellent, senatus daretur'; this disingenuous comparison between an audience v.."ith the Senate and the calling of a syncletos is probably Livy's elaboration of P.'s more prudent statement.
13. 1-14. 12. Jfassacre at lvfaronea: Philip sends Demetrius to Rome This excerpt, a combination of passages from de legat. gent. and de legat. Rom., is the basis for Livy, xxxix. 34-35, and belongs to res lvfacedoniae of Ol. I48, 4 = r8s/4, in fact (d. I3. I-2) I84; see pp. II-I3•
13. 1. SLa.1TE}1+a.f1EYwv , , • Twv tS(wv vpEaj3Eu'Twv: before the arrival of Ap. Claudius (r2. 4). alTO 'TWV ~1rL 9p4KTJS 1rOAEWV: for the Roman decision of the previous winter (I8S/4) concerning Aenus and Maronea see II. 4· 3. 'Ovo}1Q.O''TOV TOY ~vt epq.KTJS TE'TQ.Y}1EVOV: he was officially strategos; for the circumlocution cf. v. 40. I, 96. 4; Bengtson, Strat. ii. 338. His confidential role can be seen from his being one of the two seniores amici called in by Philip to hear the dispute between Perseus and Demetrius (Livy, xl. 8. 4). There is no reason to identify him 197
XXII. 13. 3
MASSACRE AT MARONEA
with the Onesimus who, according to Claudius Quadrigarius, abandoned Perseus before Pydna and received a house and estate near Tarentum (Livy, xliv. 16. 4-7); this possibility is envisaged by Pedech, Methode, 133 n. 173. EKowoAoyT)9"l Tolm-1:' 1TEpt TtlS 1rp6.~EWS: cf. Livy, xxxix. 34· 2, 'Onomasto ... mandat, ut partis aduersae principes interficeret.' P.'s vaguer language may be due to the excerptor (Nissen, KU, 15); alternatively Livy has sharpened the tone by being more specific. 4. KO.aaa.v~pov: perhaps epistates at Maronea (cf. v. 26.5 n.), where he usually resided ; the 1ro.\ns- are those of the Thracian coast (cf. II. 4). 7. [11'E1TELO'J.1EVo~ ••• Ola Tov +o~ov]: deleted, probably rightly, by S. A. Naber, Mnem. 1857, 122, since it coincides with a phrase in§ II, where the Livian paraphrase proves it to be in place. 8. 1Ta.pa.yEvof'Evwv Twv 1TEpi Tov ~1rmov: cf. 12. 4 n.; the date will be spring 184. f'Ef'+lt-J.OlpoovTwv i1rl. ToOTOlS: perhaps compressed; cf. Livy, xxxix. 34· 3. 'querentes tam crudeliter aduersus innoxios Maronitas, tam superbe aduersus populum Romanum factum, ut, quibus libertatem restituendam senatus censuisset, ii pro hostibus trucidarentur'. For the two points cf. 14. 6. 9. a.•hous iv a.•hois aTa.alO.toVTa.s: probably true. Eumenes was keenly interested in these cities (6. 1-2 nn.); for factions at Aenus see 6. 7· 11. 1TE1TElO'f'EVos l'"l~Eva. TOAt-J.T)auv: cf. Livy, xxxix. 34· 5, 'baud dubius, perculsis omnibus terrore tam recentis caedis, neminem hiscere aduersus se ausurum'. This suggests compression by the excerptor, and if § 7 is taken from here by dittography one should perhaps read p.7]&.fva ToAp.'ljunv KaT7)yop['lju]Eiv av·rov here; but more probably § 7 represents a first clumsy attempt at compression. 14. 1. 1TEf11TElv E1TETa.TTov KTA.: they had evidently decided on this overnight. [tva. 1T091lTa.l 1TEpl Twv yEyov•hwvJ: seems to anticipate § 2 and has no subject; probably a clumsy attempt at compression by the excerptor (cf. 13. 7). This finds some support in Livy, though he also compresses the original; cf. Livy, xxxix. 34· 6, 'si ab se culpam remouere uellet, Onomastum et Cassandrum, per quos acta res diceretur, mitteret Romam, ut eos senatus percunctari posset.' Livy gives the envoy phrases which P. attributes to Philip (and consequently has to rephrase Philip's reply), but his order confirms the view that the phrase tva 1rtl87Jmt ... ~ utlyKA7JToS' belongs to § 2 and is anticipated here. 4. 1roAAwv Epywv ••• KEKOWWV"lKWS TOlOOTwv: what these were we do not know; clearly P. follows a source hostile to Philip. 5. +a.pt-J.UK'-1:' ~lE+9upEV: for the many murders attributed to Philip Ig8
PHILIP SENDS DEMETRIUS TO ROME
XXII. 14.
12
see viii. 12. 2 n. Livy, xxxix. 34· ro is more cautious: 'ueneno creditur sublatus.' 6. Exwplc:r8TJO'a.v: without having secured the V~-ithdrawal of his garrisons (cf. xiii. r. 4; Livy, xxxix. 46. 9). 7. :.\TeAAft Ka.l. ~lAOKAE'L: both are important in Macedon from now on; Philocles was eventually executed by Philip, Apelles by Perseus (d. Walbank, Philip, 253 n. 1; Livy, xl. 54· t~ss. 8, xlii. 5· 4). Philocles may be the general active before and during the Second Macedonian War; cf. xvi. 24. 7 n., see P. Schoch, RE, 'Philokles (5)', cols. 2491-2; Wilcken, RE, 'Apelles (7)', col. 2688. Both were among Philip's 1rpwToL {;)g ~Tl ToM 1rpoj3Ej3TJKuta.v ••• Ti}v ••• 8~4>opcv: P. evidently had a Macedonian oral source (or sources) for this conversation; d. Walbank, ]HS, 1938, 64-65. 8. A11ova.cT8a.l Ka.l 11ETEA9Eiv a.oToos: 'to measures of self-defence and retaliation' (Shuckburgh). This implies that Philip was prepared to meet what he now believed to be an inevitable war, but not, as P. thought (d. rS. ro; Livy, xxxix. 23. s. 24. r, 29. J, based on P.), that he was planning to start a war of revenge; d. Walbank, Philip, 236; see also Gruen, GRBS, 1974. 232. 9. ATJI1TJTpwv: cf. xviii. 39· 5 n. He was now about 23 and had spent the years I97-I9I as hostage at Rome (cf. xxi. 3· 3, II. 9; below§ ro). e~ tta.t ns O.yvoLa ( 1roT') EyeyoveL: 'if he had inadvertently erred' (Paton). Tt'oT' is inserted gratuitously by Buttner-Wobst to avoid hiatus (perhaps introduced by the excerptor). 10. 5la TT]v U1rEpoxt)v ••• Tou VEa.vLO'ttou: ·owing to the high esteem which the young man had won'; cf. Livy, xxxix. 35· 3, 'quod Romae obses specimen indolis regiae dedisset' (which, despite Reiske's 'bene', seems to misunderstand P.'s point). 11. Twv ••• O'UVEga.'lrOO'TOATJO'O!lEvwv cl>i:'-wv: Apelles and Philocles (xxiii. I. 5); Paton misleadingly renders 'other friends'. 12. Toi:g Buta.vT(olS C,TtaxeTo j3oTJ9TJO'ElV: on the constant pressure from Thradans and Gauls in Thrace see iv. 45~46; this had continued till Cavarus' fall c. 212. In 192 Antiochus took Byzantium under his protection (App. Syr. 6, Bv,a.VTloL~ lxapl,£TO Tl'oMcl w~ lTI'{KaLpov lTI'~ TOV O'TOp.aTos- m>Aw ;xovaw; Niese, ii. 675 n. 3 suggests that Perinthus may have been again united with Byzantium at this time (cf. xviii. 2. 4 n.)). Since his defeat, Thracian pressure had again grown. According to Livy, xxxix. 35· 4, who gives more of P. than the excerptor, Philip now defeated the Thradans, and took prisoner their leader Amadocus (king of the Astae (cf. xiii. ro. ron.) or of the Caeni, who lived a little to the north-west of these (d. Niese, iii. 28 n. 4)). 199
XXII.
14. 12
PHILIP SENDS DEMETRIUS TO ROME
A.-J. Reinach, BCH, 1910, 266 n. I, thinks he was the father of the Teres who married one of Philip's daughters (Diod. xxxii. IS. 5) but without any real evidence. xapw Tf)S vpoKEtfLEVf)S im~o~fis: compressed; cf. Livy, xxxix. 35· 4. 'missis ad accolas Histri flurninis barbaros, ut in Italiam irrumperent, sollicitandos'. This alleged plan, accepted by Reinach, BCH, I9Io, 265, seems to be an exaggerated interpretation (reflecting Roman fears) of a bold scheme to annihilate the troublesome Dardani and to settle Bastarnae under Clondicus in their place (cf. Lhy, xi. 57· 5, referring to 179). Perhaps Philip also opened negotiations now with the Scordisci, and made the agreement recorded in Iustin. xxxii. 3· 5· See Walbank, ]HS, 1938, 66 n. 53; Philip, 237. Ap. Claudius in the Peloponnese (I84). It is clear (cf. Livy, xxxix. 35· s-37· :u) that P. next described affairs in Achaea before and at
the time of Ap. Claudius' arrival there from Macedonia. Livy (following P.; cf. 2. I n.) describes the summoning of a concilium (which looks like a synodos, though this is not quite certain: Larsen, I77; below, appendix to book xxix, p. 413 n. 1) by Lycortas, the general for 185/4, at which Areus and Alcibiades (d. II. 7 n.) were condemned to death, and the calling of a second meeting, certainly a syncletos, to Cleitor to hear Ap. Claudius. Here the Achaeans were intimidated by the presence in his party of the two Spartans, who had probably not returned to Sparta after appearing at Rome (u. 7; cf. Shimron, Late Sparta, 146-7) ; but P. recorded the speech of his father Lycortas which, Livy records, 'cum adsensu maximae partis est auditus' (Livy, xxxix. 37· 18). When Claudius advised the Achaeans to settle with Sparta while they were still able to do so of their own free will, the Achaeans asked the Romans to make such changes as they wished rather than compel them to break their oaths. The deathsentence on Areus and Alcibiades was thereupon cancelled, but no other d1ange is recorded; cf. Paus. vii. 9· 4 (Lycortas' speech). For discussion see Niese, iii. 48-49; De Sanctis,iv. I. 241; Errington, 176-8; Shirnron, Late sparta, I46-7. 15. 1-6. Ap. Claudius settles the quarrel of Gortyn and Cnossus (184) This fragment from exc. de legat. Rom. continues res Graeciae of 01. I48, 4 185/4, referring to summer 184; see p. 13. 15. l. KOO"fLOUVTOS ~v ropTliV'!.l Ku8a. TOU ~VTcl~ICOUS: kosmoi are at-
tested epigraphically as boards of magistrates in most Cretan cities from the fifth to the third century; Ephorus (FGH, 70 F 149 = Strabo, x. 4· 22, C. 484) makes them ten in number, but the recorded number varies from four to ten in different cities (e.g. at Gortyn it 200
QUARREL OF GORTYN AND CNOSSUS (184)
XXII. I5.
2
fluctuates between six and nine; cf. IC, iv. qr, 195 b-e, :z6o). They were chosen from certain y/Vf} (Aristotle, Pol. ii. xo. 10. 1272 a 33: he also gives their number as ten) and are part of the machinery of an aristocratic state (Willetts, 29). Dating was sometimes done by naming the whole college, sometimes only the chief kosmos (or protokosmos); for the Gortynian formula cf. GDI, soo7, 5015, sox8a, 5019, 5023, 5146 (= IC, iv. 233, 181, x86B, 165, 171, 195 a, 197). See Oehler, RE, 'Kosmoi', cols. 1495-8. Cydas is a common name in Gorty-n and this man need not be identified with his homonym in xxix. 6. 1, 7· 8 or in Livy, xxxiii. 3· 10 (the commander of soo Gortynians sent to join Flamininus before Cynoscephalae); cf. van Effenterre, 264 n. 3· tAO.TTOU~VOl ropTUVLO~ TOU!j KvwalOU!i: since 189, when Q. Fabius Labeo tried to end the fighting between Cydonia on the one hand and Gortyn and Cnossus on the other (Livy, xxxvii. 6o; see above, xxi. 44· 3 n.), the two large cities had resumed their normal hostility, which had been only briefly interrupted (for Cnossian complaints to the Magnesians about Gortynian aggression in r96{5 cf. Rehm, Milet, i. 3, 201; Guarducci, JC, i. Cnosos, 9; iv. 176). On Cnossus and Gortyn see also iv. 53· 4 n.; Guarducci, IC, iv. pp. 21~24. To ••• AuKaaTLov ••• 'Po.uK,ots, TO (I>~) ALa.T6vtov AuTTCots: Lycastus and Diatonium, towns on the northern slopes of the chain of Ida, had long ago been absorbed by Cnossus. Lycastus (cf. Homer, ll. ii. 647; Nonnus, xiii. 235) had been destroyed and its territory divided between Cnossus and Lyttus (Strabo, x. 4· 14, C. 479), hence P. here speaks only of the territory. Spratt, Travels, i. 90, identified it with Astritsi, on the upper stream of the Amnisus (mod. Karteros); but Bursian, ii. 561, locates it at Kanli Rastelli, about 10 km. further west, on a hill now crowned by a tenth-century fortress (Temenos). If that is correct, Astritsi is probably Diatonium, which must lie east of Lycastus, since it was assigned to Lyttus; so L. Mariani, Mon. ant. 6. r895, 235 ff.; Guarducci, IC, i. 46. See Blirchner, RE, 'AvKaaTos (1)', col. 2266; 'Diatonion', coL 352; van Effenterre, II7-I8. Rhaucus (cf. xxx. 23. 1 ; Ps.-Scylax, 47; Guarducci, JC, i. pp. 29o-3) lay south-west of Cnossus, on the eastern slopes of Mt. Ida, a little south of Ag. Myron; cf. Blirchner, RE, "PafiKos', col. 288; and for a grant of asylia to Teos about 201 see Guarducci, IC, i. Rhaucos r* (= Schwyzer, r88). On Lyttus see iv. 54· 6 n.; it had been restored since the destruction mentioned there. For all these places see the map in Guarducci, JC, i facing p. 356. l. n7lv v€pi Tov ?\:rnnov: despite ~K Tijs 'Pd.iJL7J> (perhaps inserted by the excerptor of de legat. Rom.) he will have come on to Crete from the Peloponnese (14. 12 n. at the end). P.'s usage leaves doubt whether he is referring to Claudius or the whole commission here and in the subsequent arbitration. The settlement may have led to the 201
XXII.
15.2
QUARREL OF GORTYN AND CNOSSUS (184)
situation in which Cnossus, Gortyn, and 28 other Cretan communities, including Rhaucus, made a treaty of tAla Kai uvp,t-taxia with Eumenes in 183 (Syll. 627 = IC, iv. 179). 3. [v£La9£vT£S] : to be deleted (with Schweighaeuser) as a doublet from§ 2. Ku8wvLaTa.Ls: on Cydonia see iv. 55· 4 n.; it had grown in importance during the second century. Cardinali (Riv. fil. 1907, 16 ff.) argued that since 189 the Cydonians had been trying to take Phalasarna, and that Cnossus and Gortyn had combined (§ 1 n.) to prevent that. Later Gortyn had acquiesced in the Cydonian occupation of Phalasarna, receiving Cydonian hostages in exchange; these Ap. Claudius now restored in return for the freeing of Phalasarna. This theory, accepted by Guarducci, IC, ii, p. 111 and pp. 219-20, is very hypothetical; cf. van Effenterre, 263 n. r. Xa.pJL(wva.: unknown; but on Cardinali's view, a Gortynian. •a.A6.aa.pva.v: in the extreme west of Crete, on the peninsula of Grammus, and west of Rastelli, mod. Kurti; cf. Ps.-Scylax, 47 ; Strabo, x. 4· 2, C. 474, 4· 13, C. 479; Kirsten, RE, 'Phalasarna', cols. 1653-6 (description). Mercenaries from there occur in the Third Macedonian War (Livy, xlii. 51. 7), but the place is not mentioned in any other historical context. 4. v£pl. B£ TWV ~ea.TO. ~eoLvoBl~ewv: so Boeckh for the manuscript KowoSlKatov, an unknown word; for KotvoSiKwv cf. IC, iii, Hierapytna, 4 l. 59 (a treaty between Hierapytna and Priansus); iv. 197• (a decree of the Cretan Koinon from Anaphe), where it seems to refer to a federal tribunal (d. Guarducci, Riv. fil. 1950, 148-54, against van Effenterre, 146 ff., who takes it to be a mixed tribunal not closely linked to the Koinon (d. Welles, p. 234 n. 18a; pp. 345-6 with n. 66a), a meaning it certainly has elsewhere (Insch. Perg. i. r63A, col. ii. 4·; Peremans Vreemdelingen, 194-5; Welles, p. 346}). Here van Effenterre, 147, would keep the manuscript reading, which he regards as quite distinct from KOtvoSlKwv, and takes to mean 'federal law' (so too Guarducci, Riv. fil. 1950, 154). This seems an unlikely meaning here, and since all the manuscripts of the exc. de legat. Rom. derive from a single (lost) original (cf. Moore, 152-6r), a corruption with KotvoSiKatov as a facilior lect£o introduced by a scribe unfamiliar with a word not found in any other extant literary source seems the likeliest explanation; van Effenterre's argument that KowoSlKwv cannot be a Cretan dialect form of KotvoSiKawv is thus quite irrelevant. The KotvoSlKwv will be the federal court of the Cretan League; cf. Guarducci, Epigraphica, 2, 1940, r62 ff. 6. To'Ls ~IC •a.Aa.aapvT)s cjluyaow: evidently at Cydonia; d. Kirsten, RE, 'Phalasarna', col. 1658. Tous vepl. M£votTLov: unknown; nor is it certain that he (or his group} was the victim of the Phalasarnian exiles. 202
PTOLEMY VENDS THE NATIVE REVOLT
XXII. r6. z
v' ends the native revolt and savagely ill-treats those who surrender (r85) These two chapters from the exc. de sent. (I6. I-4) and the exc. de uirt. et uit. (17. r-7) fonn part of the res Aegypti for 01. I48, 3 = I86fs, and should accordingly stand between 1o. IS and II. I; see pp. ro-13. The repetition of r6. 4 at I7· 5 shows that the excerptor of the de sent. has omitted material covered in 17. 1-5: the two passages are excerpts from one context. On the native revolts under Philopator and Epiphanes see v. 107. r-3, xiv. 12. 4 n. Resistance in the delta was temporarily suppressed in 197. but upper Egypt remained in revolt for a further ten years, and from 2o6 to I86, though the kings controlled the main centres, such as Thebes, Ombos, and Syene, the rebels held the countryside. Demotic papyri from that area (cf. Lacau, Etudes de papyrologie, 2, 1934, 242 n. r) show dating by (perhaps) Nubian kings calling themselves kings of Egypt; regnal years of Armakis up to 6 and of Ankhmakis up to 14 are recorded, and in the 'second Philae decree', passed by a synod of priests meeting at AJexandria on 3 :Mesore of year 19 of Epiphanes (6 Sept. r86) and engraved in year 21 (cf. Sethe, Urkunden, ii. 214-30; ZAS, 1917, 35-49; M. Alliot, Rev. belge de phil. et d'hist., 1951, 434-5), the defeat and capture of Ankhmakis by a general Eumenus ( ?) is reported by Aristonicus (cf. 17. 6 n.) and dated to 23 Epeiph of year 19 (27 Aug. r86). According to this decree the priests successfully pleaded for Ankhmakis' life (so Sethe, locc. citt.; Alliot, op. cit. 441). The victory and the birth of Ptolemy's son (Philometor) were celebrated shortly afterwards by an amnesty covering the cancellation of all debts (cf. L. Koenen, Arch. Pap. 196o, n-16). The surrender of the rebel leaders to Polycrates at Sais (q. 3) is a separate event and in a different part of Egypt, the delta. See also, on these revolts, J. Jouguet, Rev. belge de phil. et d'hist. 1923, 419-45; C. Preaux, Chron. d'Egypte, 1936,529-52; M. Alliot, REA, 1952, r8-26; Volkmann, RE, 'Ptolemaios (23)', cols. 1699 ff.; P. W. Pestman, Chron. d'Egypte, 1965, ISi-io; W. Peremans, Hommages Preaux, 393-402; Huss, 83-84 n. 364. The present extracts are from an account of Epiphanes' treatment of the rebel leaders contrasting his cruelty with Philip II's magnanimity after Chaeronea. [16. 1-17.7. Ptolemy
16. 1. These twelve lines are barely legible, but seem to refer to Epiphanes as a king who claimed to have divine blood in his veins and who ought therefore to have kept faith and suffered rather than to have inflicted injustice; but he had not done so. P. then compares him with Philip II. 2. Iilii orqv ••• p.£ya.Ao\jluxi.a.v: cf. v. ro. 1-3 nn., xviii. 14. 13-14 nn. for Philip's magnanimity. 203
XXII. 16.2
PTOLEMY VENDS THE NATIVE REVOLT
Tov~ ~Ev TdvewTa.s ••• li8a.o/E KTA.: cf. v. 10. 4 n. 3. Tothwv a.uTwv iv~aKa.: Paton translates 'to ·suppress these very sentiments'; but this was not why Epiphanes was fighting the rebels, and the words are probably those of the excerptor, who has missed out a long passage before r6. 4 which coincides with 17. 5·
17. 1. TfJV Au~<wv rroAw irroA~op~ 8vo, ~ JL€~· lv Trj> AuK01ToA{TTJ VOtJ.o/ Tfj;; Alyv1T'TOU, ~ oJ E'Ttpa 'TOU l:~£(3ewVTOU VOfLOU1Tapa8aAtlerrTLOS' (cf. Strabo, xvii. I. 19, C. 8o2, 1. 41, C. SrJ). The second is the
one mentioned here, since the inscription (OGIS, 90 1. 22), puts it in the Busirite nome; the demotic version calls it Skarn. Ptolemy surrounded the town with dykes, ditches, and substantial walls (OGIS, 90 ll. zr-26), and (in the demotic version: cf. Preaux, Citron. d'Egypte, 1936, 534) cut off the water supply; he also had a barrage built to prevent the heavy Nile flood breaking through into the canals and flooding the plain. A reference to the eighth year dates this flood to 197. The inscription describes the capture of the to\\>'11 and how Tovs iv auTij daE{3Ei:S m:h·ras 0£tr/;8ELpEv. For a possible reference to the siege cf. xvi. 39· z n. o{ SuvaaTa.L Twv AtyuTrT(wv: the rebel leaders; the inscription calls them 'TOVS ••• d¢>7Ji'7JUU.fJ.fVoU<; 'TWV a7Toa'TtlV'TWV E7T~ 'TOU EU.U'TOV 7TU.Tpb<; ' xwpav ' >r \ ' l ' ' U.U£K7JUG.V'TctS '!> ' (l:lh1'}opa t Or) Kai' 'T7JV Ei_VOXA7JUJU.V'TU.!> K(H' 'TU.' £Epa (OGIS, 901. 27), and does not mention their surrender. l. ots Ka.~ews ~xp{jaa.To: cL OGIS, 90 l. 28, 7Td~·ms iKoAaaEv Kaffr,KovTws (at Memphis). The execution of the 'impious rebels' is a preliminary to the Memphis ceremony of 27 November 197 (cf. xviii. 53-55 n.). On Epiphanes' cruelty cf. Diod. xxviii. 14. Els ~ewSUvous 'lro).).ous ~lrrEaEv: perhaps a reference to the continued revolts which followed the suppression of the rebels at Lycopolis; but the odd wording may betray the excerptor's pen. 3. ICQ.TQ TOUS KQ.I.pous, ~vl~ea. no).vKpanw ••• EX~<~pwaa.TO: in I85 (see § 7 on Ptolemy's age; above, pp. Io-13 with Addenda top. 13); on Polycrates see v. 64. 4 n. 4. A9£vw tca.t na.uaCpa.v KO.l X.Eaoucj>ov Ka.l ••• 'lpo~O.O'TOY: unknown. Lenschau (RE, 'Pausiras', col. 2423) emends Pausiras to the common Pausiris,like the son of the rebel Arn}Ttaeus in Herod. iii. 15. Eis T~v IO.w: Sais, the metropolis of the Saite nome, was important under Psammetichus and the rest of the sixteenth dynasty, and may once have been the capital of the lower kingdom (cf. Strabo, xvii. I. 18, C. 8o2); in Christian times it was a bishopric. Its remains are a short distance north of Sa el-Hagar on the Rosetta branch of the Nile; cf. Kees, RE, 'Sais', cols. 1758-9. 6. 1ra.pa.yEvo~£vos t:ls T~v Na.u~<pa.nv: the old Greek 'treaty port' on 204
PTOLEMY VENDS THE NATIVE REVOLT
XXII. 18.2
the Canopic branch of the Kile continued to have importance under the Ptolemies (d. Herod. ii. I78-9; Strabo, xvii. I. I8, C. 8o2); by then it had the organization of a regular Greek city (cf. Athen. iv. I49 D-Iso A). The Revenue Law of Ptolemy II includes it in the Saite nome (P. Rev. col. 6o. I8; but cf. Pliny, Nat. hist. v. 49 who lists a Naucratite nome). Its territory was probably administered by the central government (perhaps OGIS, 89, olKov6f.Lo> rwv Kara NavKpanv; Jones, CERP2 , JOI-2, 472) and much of its trade had passed to Alexandria; for a city decree under Philometor cf. OGIS, I2o. See Kees, RE, 'Naukratis', col. I964; below, xxviii. 20. Io. Tous £~~;voA.oyrJI.LEvous livSpa.s: not necessarily enrolled following the renewal of the alliance with Achaea (3. s--6); see p. I2 n. I. :&.purrov(Kou: cf. 22. I, for this man, a eunuch. He is Aristonicus, son of Aristonicus, mentioned in the second Philae decree (I6. I-I7· 7 n.) as cavalry leader on the occasion of his report of Eumenus' action to the synod held at Alexandria on 6 September I96, and may be the man mentioned in P. Giess. 2, II I. 11 (I6 Sept. 173). In Syll. 585 1. I4o (no. 58: I88/7) he is mentioned as a Delphic proxenos, an honour probably conferred during a visit to Greece. See Peremans-van 't Dack, no. 2I94 (cf. nos. I853, 2I52); Mooren, 146-9 no. OI9I. 7. Sul. TTJV noA.uKpaTOUS &.S~KoSo~{a.v: owing to Polycrates' machinations' ; he evidently tried to take the credit to himself. Ka.irrEp ~xwv ETTJrrEvTE Ka.l ElKoow: he was 25 on 30 Mesore (2 October) ISS (not I84, as Sethe, ZAS, I9l7, 48; see Walbank, JEA, I9J6, 2I-23; Volkmann, RE, 'Ptolemaios (23)', col. I69I). i
[18. 1-11. Perseus' war against Rome really planned by Philip This fragment from the exc. de sent., corresponding to Livy, xxxix. 23. s. should stand between 6. 7 and 7· I, as part of the res Macedoniae of 01. I48, 3 = I86/s; see pp. Io-I3. 18. 1. &.rro TouTwv Twv Ka.~pwv: 01. I48, 3 = r86/s; it is under this date that Livy, xxxix. 24. I ff., based on P., describes how Philip began building up his resources to meet the eventual war with Rome. KO.ICWV &.VTJKEuTwv &.pxt]: including perhaps the quarrel between Perseus and Demetrius, leading to the latter's execution (cf. xxiii. 3· s. Io. r ft.), but primarily the Third Macedonian War and the consequent destruction of the Antigonid monarchy. 2. TWES Twv uuyypa.+oVTwv KTA.: unidentifiable. Two historians of Perseus are known, Straton (FGH, r68; Diog. Laert. v. 6r) and Poseidonius (FGH, I89; Plut. Aem. Paul. I9. 3); see Vol. I, p. 3o; iii. 32. 8 n.; Pedech, lvfethode, 79 n. r2r; but P. may also be referring to Roman historians. 205
XXII. 18.
2
PERSEUS' WAR AGAINST ROME
T~v :A.~pou'!foAt.O~ i!tc'lfTwcrw: Abrupolis was king of the Sapaei, a Thracian people who lived on the left bank of the Nestus, some distance from the coast (cf. Strabo, xii. 3· 20, C. 549-50; Ptol. Geog. iii. II. 6, for a later period). The invasion of Macedonia, mentioned here, which resulted in his dethronement, was perhaps incited by Eumenes (so A. J. Reinach, BCH, 1910, 273 ff.); in it he got as far as Amphipolis (see Livy, xlii. I3. 5, 40. 5, 41. n ff.; App. Mac. II. 2, II. 6; Diod. xxix. 33; Paus. vii. Io. 6; Syll. 643 Sherk, 40). The sources agree that Abrupolis was socius et amicus of the Roman people, but what this signifies-had he for instance a foedus ?-is unclear; there is a lacuna at the vital point in Sherk, 40 (11. IS-IJ). Kor is it knoV~-'Il whether he had the title at the time of his attack on Perseus, or was granted it later. De iv. I. 273, and Geyer, RE, 'Perseus', col. IOoo, both assume that he was made socius et amicus in order to hem in the Macedonians; cf. Meloni, Perseo, 6I-65. One of the alleged offences included in the declaration of war on Perseus (qr) was that 'aduersus foedus cum patre Philippo ictum et secum post mortem eius renouatum sociis populi Romani arma intulisset' (Livy, xlii. 30. 10). See Tiiubler, 233. Tn vept TO na.yya.lOV jlETO.AAa.: the massif of Mt. Pangaeum lies east of the Strymon and Amphipolis; it is c. 25 km. from south-west to north-east and its highest point is I956 m. On its gold and silver mines see Strabo, vii. fg. 34, xiv. 5· 28, C. 68o; Herod. vii. n2; Pliny, Nat. hist. vii. 197; Davies, 234-7. It had been Macedonian since the time of Philip II. See generally Casson, Macedonia, 63 ff., 88 ff., pls. I8-2r; P. Collart, Philippes (Paris, 1937). 4855 (with I8o for a decree from the time of Philip V mentioning JJ}.ivyawv); Oberhummer, RE, 'Pangaion', cols. jlETn Tov Tou cplAlvvou 90.va.Tov: according to App. Mac. n. 6 the incident preceded Perseus' renewal of friendship with Rome (cf. De Sanctis, iv. I. 273 n. roo). 4. T~v el~ AoXovla.v etcr~oX~v: on Dolopia see xviii. 47· 6 n. Philip had seized it from Aetolia, along with Aperantia, in 19I (cf. xx. I I . I2 n., xxi. 25. 5 n.); Nicander recovered it in I89 (xxi. 25. 6), but the same year Perseus got it back, advancing into Amphilochia (cf. xxi. 31. 4 n.), and it was placed under a Macedonian general (cf. Bengtson, Strat. ii. 366, 419 no. 9). For its revolt and Perseus' campaign to suppress this, in early summer 174, see Livy, xli. 22. 4; cf. Livy, xli. 23. I3, xlii. 40. 7, 41. 13 ff.; App. Mac. II. 6. The Dolopians had appealed for Roman arbitration (Livy, xli. 22. 4, 23. 13) but Perseus' case seems irrefutable (Meloni, Perseo, IJI-3, 187 n. 3; contra Bikerman, REG, I953. 489-9o), and the reference to their reduction only a propaganda point, omitted from the war-motion (Livy, xlii. 30. ro; Tatibler, 235). Ka.l. T~v E~ AEA~oo~ va.poucrla.v: cf. Livy, xli. 2:2. 5 (I74, following the
206
PLANNED BY PHILIP
XXII. 18. 5
reduction of Dolopia), 'inde per Oetaeos montes transgressus (sc. Perseus), religionibus quibusdam animo obiectis, oraclum aditurus Delphos escendit ... triduum non plus Delphis moratus per Pthiotidem Achaiam Thessaliamque sine damno iniuriaque eorum per quorum (fines) iter fecit, in regnum rediit'; 23. 14; later his march through Thessaly and Malis was held to have broken the treaty with Philip (Livy, xlii. 40. 6; 42. 2). Livy, following P., reports the alarm caused by this journey, and later (xlii. 13. 8) at Rome Eumenes alleged that it was designed to win over the more :~;evolutionary elements, 'deterior pars', to Perseus' side. It coincided with the Pythian festival, Aug.-Sept. r84 (cf. Syll. 643 = Sherk, 40 ll. 7 ff.; the reading is uncertain, but not the reference to the Pythia), and Perseus evidently stayed with Praxias, the archon of 178/7, whose wife Praxo is called his hospita (Livy, xlii. r5. 3) ; Meloni, Perseo, 133-5. The Amphictyons probably voted the dedication of a statue to Perseus at this time; cf. xxx. 10. 2 n. 5. T~v Ka.T' El.p.~vous •.. ~1Tl~ouA~v yEvop.~VT)V ~v .deA.~ois: cf. xxvii. 6. 2; on ~1n{Jov/..~, 'murder plot', see Roussel, BCH, 1952, 27 n. 5 (on Syll. 6r3). Eumenes visited Rome in winter 173{2 and, after making allegations against Perseus before the Senate, returned to Greece. Early in March, while ascending from Cirrha to Delphi, accompanied by the Aetolian Pantaleon, he was struck unconscious by two rocks allegedly hurled on to him by four of Philip's henchmen, a Cretan mercenary captain Evander and three Macedonians, who had laid an ambush at a narrow and precipitous spot. Eumenes was taken to Aegina, where he recovered; but for a time he was reported dead. See Livy, xlii. 15. 3-!6. 9. xlv. 5· 5; App. Mac. II. 4: Syll. 643 =Sherk, 40 11. 29-30; Plut. Mor. r84B, 489 E-F; below xxx. 2. 6 n. (on the improbable story that Attalus seized the occasion to woo, marry, and even father a child, the future Attalus III, on the supposed widow Stratonice). Evander's death (by suicide or murdered by Perseus) in 168 prevented the incident from being cleared up, and Perseus' guilt (or innocence) from being established. Praxo (see the previous note) was sent to Rome by the Roman legatus, C. Valerius (Livy, xlii. 17. 2), but she was back in Delphi in spring 167 (cf. GDI, 1779). See Daux, 317-18; Meloni, Perseo, 162-6; Hansen2 , IIO (who follows E. Bourguet, Les Ruines de Delphes (Paris, 1914), 289, in locating the incident 'at a bend in the ancient road a short distance south-west of the Synedrion, now occupied by the church of H. Elias'). T~v TWV EK BolwT(a.s 1TpEcr~EuTwv E1Ta.va.(peaw: cf. Livy, xlii. 13. 7, 'Euersam et Callicritum Thebanos, principes ciuitatis, quia liberius aduersus eum in concilio Boeotorum locuti fuerant delaturosque ad uos [sc. Romanos] quae agerentur professi erant, tollendos curauit'; d. 40. 7, 41. 5 (where Perseus says they perished in a shipwreck). At an unspecified date, perhaps in 173, Perseus had made an alliance 207
XXII. 18.5
PERSEUS' WAR AGAINST ROME
with Boeotia (xxvii. 1. 8 n.; Livy, xlii. 12. 5, 40. 6, 43· 5), and the two Thebans (Thebes had not supported the alliance: Livy, xlii. 43· 6) were sent to Rome to speak against it, but died en rottte. ~vtot cpa.at:ns, a.hla, and dpx~; Pedech, Methode, 78-93, 123-40, with criticism by Petzold, Gnomon, 1973, 370 f. and 383 f.; and by Lehmann, Entretiens sur Po{ybe, 168. F.'s causal scheme applies primarily to wars. 7. 6.va.vewaa.a8a.t TOV a.lJTC)v Xoyov: the argument of iii. 6. 1-7. 7· 8. Ta 1-1£v ,.pwTa.: the expulsion of Abrupolis, Perseus' reduction of Dolopia and visit to Delphi. P. knew of other similar 1Tpo&.uns (cf. Pedech, Methode, 134-6): Perseus was accused of assassinating the IUyrian prince Arthetaurus, who had sent letters, embarrassing to Perseus, to Rome (Livy, xlii. 13. 6, 40. 5; App. },;Jac. II. 1, n. z), of making a disloyal alliance with Boeotia (above,§ 5 n.), of intervening in Thessaly, Perrhaebia, and Aetolia to promote civil war (Livy, xli. 25. 1-6, xlii. 5· 7-12, 13. 9, 40. 7; Diod. xxix. 33; above§ 4 n.), and of sending military aid to Byzantium against the Thracians (Livy, xlii. 13. 8, 40. 6). But here, where he is merely concerned to distinguish between r.poriuEt> and dpxal, it is enough to mention three of the more important. TooTots eTEpa. '!l'a.pa.,.X'Ijata. Twv Ka.TO. Toos a.iiTous Ka.Lpous yeyovoTwv:
besides the plot against Eumenes and the murder of the envoys P. probably refers here to the alleged plot to have Roman generals and envoys poisoned by Rammius (perhaps really Rennius: cf. GDI, 1339; Meloni, Perseo, I65 n. 5), a prominent citizen of Brundisium, who however laid information to the Senate (Livy, xlii. 17. 2-9,40. 9, 41. 4; App. Mac. II. 7); d. PCdech, 1v!ethode, 138, arguing that to P. these acts were tantamount to the opening of hostilities by Perseus, but in a characteristically mean and underhand fashion. V.TJlether all or any of these allegations were true is no longer ascertainable. 10, Ka.8&.1Tep •• , Ei1TOj.LEV: cf. iii. 6. 9-14 nn. 11. Tas a.tTla.s uaTepov •.• T~S TEAeUT1;s Too Kpiva.vTos KTA.: there is a fallacy, for unless he willed the war Perseus was not obliged to take over this 'inherited' plan from Philip. But in fact F.'s reasoning rests on a dubious thesis of aggressive planning and action by Philip and Perseus; see Walbank, 'The causes of the Third Macedonian War: recent views', Ancient Macedonia II, Br-94· According to Livy (xxxix. zJ. 6·29. 3) the res Macedoniae of 186/5 continued with a list of Philip's grievances (Livy, xxxix. 23. 6-13) and the steps he took to build up Macedonia (Livy, xxxix. 24. 1-4). But the account of the embassies sent to Rome in ¥linter r86/5 which Livy inserts here (Livy, xxxix. 24. had probably been related by P. in his res Italiae of this year (see pp. 8--9 and 6. 1-6 n.). The res Macedoniae 208
PLANNED BY PHILIP
XXII. 19.
I
continued with the dispatch of Q. Caecilius Metellus, M. Baebius Tamphilus, and Ti. Sempronius Gracchus to Greece and Macedonia in r85 (Livy, xxxix. 24. 13). On the conferences they held at Tempe and Thessalonica see ro. r n. P. then continued with the res Graeciae represented by 7· 1-IO. rs. See Addenda, p. 793·]
[19. 1-4. Philopoemen's
dispi~te
with Archon
If this passage from the exc. de sent. occurred at the place corresponding to the date of the incident described in it, i.e. in a generalship of Archon (§ r), it must belong to res Graeciae of 01. 149, r = 184{3 and so must precede or follow x:x:iii. 6; seep. 13.
19. 1. 'Apxwva Tov cnpaTT)y6v: Archon of Aegeira, the brother of Xenarchus (xxiii. 4· II, cf. Livy, xli. 24. r); he had answered Caecilius in 185 (ro. 8) and was probably general in r84/3 (see next note). In 174 Archon favoured reconciliation with Macedonia (Livy, xli. 24. r-r8), but in qzfr, when again general, he sent r,ooo men to the Romans at Chalcis (xxvii. 2. rr). He is often mentioned before and during his strategia of 170/69 (xxviii. 3· 7, 6. 9, 7. r, 12. r-3, 12. 7); he favoured sending aid to the Ptolernies, but had to be content with a mission to reconcile them with Antiochus IV (xxix. 23. 3-25. 6). Archon is mentioned as general in 17o(69 on a Delphic manumission record (GDI, 1774). See Habicht, RE, 'Xenarchos', col. 1421. Aoyot<; TLO'l. 6u;..,epcTo: P. does not say that the disagreement and Philopoemen's remarks were at a public meeting. If it was a private occasion (Errington, 255, speaks of 'an undated conversation'), P. could well have been present (§ 2), though under 20 (Vol. I, p. r n. I). The subject of disagreement is not recorded; but it was evidently on some matter of importance for P. to mention it, and conceivably it concerned the reply given to Flamininus at Naupactus in 183 (xxiii. 5· r6). If Philopoemen had advocated asking him whether he had ·written instructions from the Senate, Archon-in view of the trouble in r85 (ro. ro n.) and the exhortation mentioned in rz. ro-may have preferred to take advantage of a different law, which required the prior publication of any subject for discussion at a syncletos (cf. Larsen, 94-95), knowing that Flamininus had no authority to act in Achaea and gambling on the likelU10od that he would not dare send such a letter--as in fact he did not (d. xxiii. 5· r7). On this hypothesis, the conversation took place after Flamininus had failed to reply. But the dispute may well have been over something altogether different; and if the general mentioned in xxiii. 5· r6 is Philopoemen, and not Archon, the hypothesis falls to the ground. 209
XXII.
19. 1
PHILOPOEMEN'S DISPUTE WITH ARCHON
•niSoK"'o-a.s EK Toll Kmpou To'Ls Aeyo.UvOLs: 'suddenly agreeing with what he said' ; for the meaning of dSoK~aas- , .. -rots- AEyof1ivots- cf. xxviii 7· I4, xxix. 24. 9, fg. ISS· Paton translates: 'at the time his rejoinders were applauded', and Shuckburgh: 'in course of time however Philopoemen was convinced by Archon's arguments'; neither is possible, for Paton's version mistranslates EvtioKEiv -rois>.£yof.Llvots- and Shuckburgh's EK -roiJ KatpoiJ (which cannot mean 'in the course of time'). P. is clearly describing a single incident; and -ro pTJ8lv (§ 2) must refer to Philopoemen's praise of Archon ws€v-rpExws- Kal 1ravovpyws- -rtf! Katpijl KEXPTJf.Llvov. Since P. regards this praise as injuring Archon (KaKWS" af.La 1TOtdv), and goes on to draw a distinction between lv-rpEx~s- and KaKEVTPEx1/s- and between 1TpaYf.LUT£Kos- and KaKoJTpayf.Lwv, Philopoemen must have been using the words eVTpExws- and 1ravovpyws- ironically, implying that Archon's action was really KaKEv-rp;ox1)s- and KaKOJTpayf.Lwv. f.LE-rayvovs- means 'changing his mind', and praising Archon (ironically!) instead of attacking him; it does not mean 'regretting his words' (Paton), for the change is one of tactics only. P. is criticizing the use of irony, iJTawoiJv-ra -rwa KaKws- !f.f.La 1TotEiv, 'treating a man badly while (seemingly) praising him'. Pedech, Methode, 226, correctly speaks of 'eloges ironiques'. evTpexws Ka.t 1ra.voopyws: 'in a clever and adroit manner'; P. uses both words only in a favourable sense. 3. b 1rpa.y1-1-a.nKos O.viJp Toll Ka.Ko1rpciyi-Lovos: 'between practical ability and success secured by absence of scruples' (Shuckburgh) ; P. implies that Archon's action (whatever it was: cf. § 1 n.) fell under the second category. T~ KO.KEvTpexe'L 1rpos Tov Ev-rpex"l: 'between skill and low cunning'. Mauersberger, s.v. KUKEVTPEx1/s-, adds 'vgl. E7TU£voiJv-ra nva KUKWS" af.La JTotEiv'; but P. is not applying the word KaKEVTpEx1/s- to Philopoemen's behaviour towards Archon (he would hardly have used such an expression of his hero); he is saying that Philopoemen was implying that Archon's behaviour was KaK€VTp€x'1]s-, while calling it iv-rp€X'/s-.
4. s..a. TiJv vuv E1TnroAcl~OUO"O.V GKp~o-(a.v: 'owing to the now prevalent lack of judgement'; cf. xiii. 3· I, Std tijv viJv im7ToAa~ovaav KaKOJTpayf.Loatfv7Jv. Such phrases reveal P.'s pessimism about contemporary Greece; but their relevance to Philopoemen's remarks is not obvious, for he was clear enough about the difference, and his audience too, if his remark was to have any effect. (3pa.xE£a.s ••. Kowcl-rrjTa.s: 'some slight points in common'.]
210
APOLLONIS, WIFE OF ATTALUS
XXII. 20.3
20. 1-21. 4. Apollonis, wife of Attalus; Ortiagon That these two fragments (from the exc. de uirt. et uit. and from 185{4 seems assured Suidas) are from the res Asiae of 01. q8, 4 (see p. 13). 20. 1-8: Eulogy of Apollonis. In what context this appears is unknown, but her sons' visit to Cyzicus is mentioned in advance of the year when it occurred (cf. § 8 n.). Apollonis (the form Apollonias found in the manuscript P and Suidas can be corrected from inscrip· tions; the correct form is found in Strabo, xiii. 4· z, C. 624; Plut. Mor. 480 c, and A nth. Pal. iii. init.) was a private citizen of Cyzicus (§2 oru.~,6ns}; she was born not later than 238 (cf. Insch. Perg. i, p. 88). Her affectionate relations with her family were renowned and were celebrated by the erection of a temple in her honour featuring scenes of mother-love (Anth. Pal. iii); on this temple see Hansen 2 , 289 n. 142 and works there quoted. The same theme appears in an inscription from Hierapolis (OGIS, 3o8); and Judeich (Altert-iimer von Hierapolis (Berlin, 1898), 78-So no. 30) suggested that this or something like it may be behind P.'s remarks here. Apollonis received the cult title EfiaE/3~s while still alive (OGIS, 308 1. 3) and after her death she had a cult at Teos (OGIS, 309; cf. Robert, Et. anat. 18-19) as 8Ed. X?ToMwv1s E?u:rE/31js X?Tof3a77jpla. Other inscriptions referring to her are OGIS, 248ll. 31 and 44-45. 292, 307, 318; Syll. 6z9 l. rz, 641. The city of Apollonis, west of Thyateira, was named after her; cf. Robert, ViUesz, 24-27, z6o n. I; Habicht,]RS, 1975, 78. An Athenian deme of the tribe Attalis was called Apollonieis after her (Steph. Byz. s.v.); and a tribe at Bithynium was named Apollonis, after the war with Prusias (IGR, iii. 72 CIG, 38oz). The date of Apollonis' death is uncertain; it fell before 159 and after Eumenes took the title of Soter-which was at the latest in December r84 (cf. Segre, Riv. fil. 1932, 446 ff.; Habicht, Hermes, 1956, 99, for a decree of Telmessus celebrating Eumenes' victory over Prusias, Ortiagon, and the Galatians; cf. iii. 3· 6 n.). See generally Wilcken, RE, 'Apollonis (4)', cols. 163-4; Hansen 2 , 44-45, Ioo, 455--6; Vitucci, 57· 1. ~TT1AOaTopy[a.v: cf. OGIS, 308 ll. 7-9, ?TpoaEV7jvf.x6at 8E Ka! 'TOLS 'TEKVOts f.U'Td ?Tda-rjs Jf.l,ovo{a<; ')'VY]alws [ K]aMt'TE!'K~aaad n: fk€')":£\ou<; bralvous ?Tpos dJ&glav ~EA[ l'1T ]E!"To TdS 1rapct 'TWV 'TfKVWV t?TLrpavELS tKOf.l,lUUfJ,EV1) (sic) xap~'TlasJ; 307, J1.TTaAos f3aa0.Laaav X'1Ta>V\wvl8a T~f.l, f.I-7/TEpa rp~Aotrropyla> EVEKa riJ> 1Tpos aV7-6v. 2II
XXII.
20.
3
APOLLONIS, WIFE OF ATTALUS
xpovov OUK ohlyov U'IT'EP~II~O'C.O'C. Tav8p6s: Attalus' death was in 197 (cf. xviii. 4r n.); on that of Apollonis see§§ r-8n. 4. ot ye 'JT'epl Tbv71.na.Aov: 'Attalus and his brother', as the context makes clear; this is the later Attalus II. (Paton, 'the sons of Attalus' is impossible as a translation of ol 11'E:pL Tbv 2iTTaAov.) Whether the other brother was Philetaerus or Athenaeus is unknown: but had it been Eumenes, P. would have written o[ 1rept Tov EvfLlVYJ. Ev Tfl 1Ta.p~:vi8TJILI<;~-: it is assumed that Apollonis and her sons were visiting Cyzicus (Niese, iii. 72; Hansenz, roo; Habicht, Hermes, 1956, g8); but Apollonis could equally well have returned to live in Cyzicus and have been visited there by her sons (so Schweighaeuser, ad loc.). 6. Tou; v~:a.vlcr~eous: cf. xxiv. 5· 5· Attalus and his two younger brothers (not merely Attains and Philetaerus, as incorrectly stated in xviii. 41. ron.) are called veavlCTKot (in r8r); the meaning is 'men of military age' (cf. iv. r6. 6n.). On their ages see xviii. 4r. ron. 7. Twv 1rept Tov KMoj3w ~ea.l BlTwva.: the two Argive brothers who, in the absence of the usual oxen, themselves drew the carriage of their mother, the priestess of Hera, the 45 stades to the Heraeum (Cic. Tusc. i. 47). Their mother asked the goddess to grant them the greatest boon possible for mortals, and she caused them to die as they slept. Solon quoted them to Croesus as among the happiest of mortals (Herod. i. 31). For statues honouring them at Delphi cf. SEC, iii. 395, xiv. 423; cf. Toepffer, RE, 'Biton {r)', cols. 544-5. TO TflS 1rpo8ullia.s TTJS EKEivwv Aa.fLTrpOv ••• cruva.va.'IT'ATJpouvTES: 'if in any degree they fell short of the Argives' art of devotion, they were thought to have made up for this by their own exalted and regal station.' Paton has missed the sense; he translates: 'additional splendour falling on this act of devotion owing to the exalted and regal status of the two princes'. But CTvvava11'AYJpoOv means 'to compensate one thing by another' ; and €Keivwv must refer to Cleobis and Biton. 8. ETEA,0"8T) ••• fLETci T~V s,a.A.ucrLV TTJV 1Tpbs Opoucria.v: i.e. at a later period than is being dealt with in these res Asiae; the peace between Eumenes and Prusias followed Flamininus' embassy to Prusias in spring 183 (xxiii. 5· r ; cf. p. 13). See further, iii. 3· 6 n.; Habicht, Hermes, 1956, g6-1oo.
21. 1. 'OpnO.ywv 0 r a.AO.TT]S: cf. xxi. 38. I n. For his part in Prusias' war against Eumenes II see Trog. prol. 32; whether he survived that war is unknown. The relationship of Galatia to Pergamum after the war is aJso uncertain ; but on balance it seems likely that Galatia now came under Pergamene control {Stahelin, 61 n. 5; Will, ii. 241; the view expressed in iii. 3· 6 n. isprobablytoosceptical). 2. KC.l <jlucm KC.L Tplj3fl: cf. X. 2. 2 n. 212
THE EUNUCH ARISTONICUS
22. 1-5. The eunuch
XXII.
22.
4
Aristonim~s
Like 20 and zr, this passage, from the exc. de uirt. et uit. and from Suidas, forms part of the events of OL 148, 4 185/4; it is from res AegypH (cf. p. 13).
22. 1. ~pLaTovLKOS 6 ... Ellvouxos: cf. 17. 6n.; but it is not clear why this character-sketch should appear now rather than when he was mentioned earlier. aoVTpotl10s .,.~ ~aaLAEi: for the title see v. 9· 4 n. and the passages there mentioned. 4. Tov kowov vouv EtxEv: 'he possessed a civilized mind.' Schweighaeuser (Lex. Polyb. s.v. Kowds) has some interesting remarks on the link between Kol:vos Ka~ ¢t>.O.v8pwTToS and Abyos SlKaws Kat KOtvch· in Demosthenes, 'ubi Kmvos eandem fere uim habet ac KotvwvtKos' (i.e. 'sociable'); the concept of humanitas seems very close. 8 cm0.vL6v E<J1'L: sc. 'in a eunuch' (so Schweighaeuser), or just possibly 'in a man ¢uaEt fi'T'pa:nwTtK6s; P. will hardly be saying that humat
213
BOOK XXIII Probably 01. 149, 1-2 184/2; the fragments can be supplemented from the Polybian parts of Livy xxxix and xl (see pp. 15-16). Chs. r-8 (with xxii. 19) are from 01. 149, 1, cbs. 9-18 from OL I49, z.
1. 1-4. 16. Greek embassies at Rome (184/3) This extract from de legat. gent. is from res ItaHae of OL 149, I = 184/3; seep. I5. It is behind Livy, xxxix. 46. 6-48. 4 (abbreviated); cf. App. Mac. g. 6; Iustin. xxxii. 2. 3·
1. 1. 1rp~a~~u';lV 1r~:i)Oos a1ro TllS 'EA.X6.Sos: Livy, xxxix. 46. 6 adds that they were introduced into the Senate 'priusquam consules in prouincias proficiscerentur' (cf. § 8, o[ aTparf)yol). 2. ~ts TiJv Ka.Td. TO au11~oXov SLKa.,oSoaCa.v: cf. § rz, xxxii. 7· 3-4, fg. 31. A avp.f3oAov was a convention entered into by two states, regulating among other things procedure for trials of cases (BtKat d1r6 avfLf36/..wv: cf. Arist. Pol. iii. I. 4· 1275 a Io, 9· 6-7. n8o a 37-4o; Thuc. i. 77- I) brought by subjects of the states against each other, by individuals against the foreign state, or by one state against subjects of the other (cf. Philippson, International law, L I39, 198 n. z); cf. Harpocration, aVfLf3oAa· Tas avv8~Kas as T~ • • • aSEA!j>~: Attalus I's youngest son, now at least 31 (cf. xviii. 41. 10 n. The inscription from New Colophon there mentioned is probably to be dated a little before 16o; d. Habicht, Alt. v. Perg. viii. 3 (1969), discussing a new inscription in Athenaeus' honour;]. and L. Robert, Bull. ep. 1971, no. 538). vEp£ TE Twv e1rt 9p~KT)S 1r6X~wv: cf. Livy, xxxix. 46. 9, 'quod non 214
GREEK EMBASSIES AT ROME (184/3)
XXIII.
2.
4
deducerentur ex Thracia praesidia'. The cities are Aenus and Maronea (cf. xxii. 13. 1-14. 6). m;:pl. .Tfjs &.'1ToaTa.Ad1711s npoua£~ ~o'll6E(a.s: cf. Livy, XXXiX. 46. 9, 'simul quod in Bithyniam Prusiae bellum aduersus Eumenem gerenti auxilia missa forent'. The war between Prusias I and Eumenes II (d. iii. 3· 6 n.) probably arose out of Manlius' assignment of Phrygia Epictetus to Eumenes (xxi. 46. ro n.); it lasted until 183 (cf. xxii. 20. 8 n.). 5. Arn.I.TJTPlOS: cf. xxii. 14. 9-11. 1-.'ITEAAi]v Ka.l. c~»,.Ao~e.Ai]: 7rpwTo£
XXIII.
2.
4 GREEK EMBASSIES AT ROME (184/3)
1967, 440); for other meanings d. ii. 40. 4 n.; Welles, pp. 283-4, 372. Here it is a small notebook ({3uf1AlSwv p.iya) with notes on the
ou
various charges, familiar to Philip from Tempe and Thessalonica. That P. had access to it as a source is a fanciful idea of von Scala, 268. 6. 0 OE ••• e+aaK£V: 'Philip said .. .' i.e. in the memorandum. 9. oul. TOU O"TpGT11YOV: 'through the consul'; cf. I. 8 n. Paton translates 'praetor'.
3. 1. TijS ~OTJ6ELGS ••• T~ I. 4 nn. 3. ot 1rpEa~EUTGL: cf. 2. IO.
npoua(~
•.• KGL1np1 TWV ••• Tll1rwv: cf.
miaas -ras mSAEL'> EL'> TTJV EullEvous 1rla-rw EYKEXELpLatltva.,: hitherto the Senate had insisted on the liberation of Aenus and :\-1aronea (cf. xxii. I I . 4; below, 8. 1-2); and the meaning of 7TdaaS' is obscure. App. Mac. 9· 6, w<; 8~ Kal lv SlK'[J -rtvi 'Pwf-LaLot 7To.:Ua -rtnv
error. There had perhaps been a modification of Roman policy; but an error by P. is not impossible (cf. Meloni, Val ore storico, n7-r8; Gruen, GRBS, 1974. 233 n. 40). 5. -r~v tta86Aou riJ'> olKLa'> &,,.uxtav: cf. xxii. 18. r n. 7. 0 TE T£-ros •.. oi.uc oAI.ya auvej3aAETO ICTA.: T. Quinctius Flamininus (xviii. r. 3 n.); the allegation, which Benecke (CAH, viii. 252 f.) regards as derived from Philocles' tendentious report, fits Flamininus' ambitious and devious character (cf. Meloni, Perseo, 31 n. r; Walbank, Philip, 240; Briscoe, Latomus, 1972, 25; doubts in Gruen, GRBS, 1974, 235). 8. p.ETa Twv +£Awv ••• XPTJO"Lp.w-r6.Twv: perhaps Demetrius' following included others who had been hostages at Rome (d. xxi. n. the point is made by l\L J. Moscov:ich in his unpublished 'The role of hostages in Roman foreign policy' (McMaster, 1972), IIS-19). 10. f:v Tois ~sils: cf. 7. r-7, Io. 17, II. I-8; for a fuller version, based on P., see Livy, xl. S· r-16. J, 20. 3-24. 8. 4. 1. ol1rapa Twv AaKEOaLp.ov(wv 1rp£aj3ELS: according to Pausanias Ap. Claudius (cf. xxii. q. 12 n. at end) had invited the Spartans to send envoys to Rome when he was in the Peloponnese the previous summer (r84) ; cf. Paus. vii. 9· 4, 1:tnmo,- 8€ Kat oZ ai>v ain-ij! .•• AaK£Qatf-LOVlOLS' .•• a7TOaT€tAaL npia(3€tS' ~,PtB.atV Js 'PWf-L7JV; cf. Larsen, GFS, 452. But not all the groups now appearing are official representatives. Clearly Chaeron's group (§ s) are exiles, and almost certainly Serippus' group arc the official spokesmen (§ 4). But P. does not clarify the status of Lysis and of Areus and Alcibiades (§§ 216
GREEK EMBASSIES AT ROME (184/3)
XXIII. 4· 3
Errington (288) assumes that only Chaeron's group was now in exile, the rest having been restored by Philopoemen after Compasium (xxii. 3· I, II. 7; cf. xxi. 32 c n.). This would mean that the Spartans had ignored the death sentence passed by the Achaeans on Areus and Alcibiades (xxii. 14. 12 n. at end) ; and Shimron (Late Sparta, II4 n. 3, 149), on the ground that it would have been impossible for Lysis and for Areus and Alcibiades to state their dissident views at Rome and avoid exile, assumes that only Serippus' party was from the city. This cannot be assumed; the sending of any separate delegation from Sparta was at variance with Achaean law (Paus. vii. 9· 4), and Ap. Claudius may have asked for a full expression of views. Much turns on the meaning of the statement (5. r8) that, in summer r83, the 'old exiles' had been exiled 1rpoaarw~. In xxii. II. 8 the 'recent kindness' had occurred three years earlier; and Shimron, Late Sparta, 148 n. 27, takes 1rpoa<J>&:rws in 5· r8 to be a reference to r85, when he assumes Arcus and Alcibiades to have seized power and expelled their opponents. But it seems more natural to take 5· 18 as a reference to something that has happened since the last appearance of the 'old exiles'; and since this expression is elsewhere used of Arcus and Alcibiades (cf. xxii. rr. 7), it looks as if these men (and probably Lysis, § 2) were exiled on their return from Rome in this year (r83). 2. ot ••. 'IFEpL Auatv •.• <{nr~p TW\1 apxn£wv q,uy6.owv: on the 'old exiles', victims of Cleomenes, Lycurgus, Machanidas, and Nabis, see xxi. 1. 4 n. Philo poemen had restored them after Compasium (see the previous note) and in xxii. II. 7 they include Areus and Alcibiades. Lysis {so Schweighaeuser and Bekker for the manuscript .\timv) is otherwise unknown; but that is no reason to emend to IO.ijnv (as Biittner-Wobst conjectures, comparing 18. 5). See Errington, 179 n. 3· SE~v;ExEw •.• 1Taans Tas KT't]aElS KTA.: this need not imply (with €g dpxij~} that there had been a second exile (so Shimron's, Late Sparta, 148}, nor that they were exiled at this time (cf. 4· In.). The demand for restoration of property was normal when exiles got back (cf. OGIS, 2 (Mytilene); Syll. 3o6 (Tegea); GDI, 3585 (Calymna); Errington, 179 n. 3), but in the Spartan context it implied reversing the whole Cleomenean land reform (Shimron, Late Sparta, ns). 3. i\p(a Knl ••. i\AK~~La~hlv: against Errington's view (I7 s) that they were an extremist splinter group see xxii. n. 7 n.; Larsen (GFS, 451) calls them 'the most moderate group' and Shimron (Late Sparta, I 15) heirs to Cleomenes' policy. They evidently sought to revive Sparta along Cleomenean lines by restricting compensation and using the surplus to increase the citizen body (§ 3: Errington, 179) ; cf. Shimron, Late Sparta, 120, who observes that the fact that their demand is made in terms of money indicates that in the many upheavals
>
217
XXIII. 4· 3
GREEK EMBASSIES AT ROME (184/3)
since Cleomenes the traditional kleroi had disappeared beyond recall. To'Is ll.~loLs Ti\S 1ro).LTE1as: comparison with xxii. 12. 2 suggests that these would be the ex-citizens expelled by Philopoemen; the claim has thus an anti-Achaean aspect (cf. Errington, r8o). 4. I,pm1ros: cf. 9· II; the representative of the pro-Achaean group in power, according to Errington (r8o-I) since Compasium in spring I88 (xxii. 3· In.), but, if Arcus and Alcibiades represented Sparta in Rome in 185/4 (xxii. II. 7 n.), sincetheirsubsequentfall. Shimron (Late Sparta, II5-I6) regards Serippus as the representative of the adherents of Cleomenes who had made their peace with Nabis or a voided clashing ·with him. For epigraphical evidence for the Achaean type of government now existing at Sparta see xxi. 32 c n. at end. 1repl. Tou Jl-EVEW TTJV imot<ELJl-EVtJV KaTaCJTaaw KT).,: 'in favour of the continuation of the present conditions, which they had been enjoying during such time as they were members of the Achaean confederation'. rroTi is awkward, and should perhaps be emended to T6TE; on the common confusion in the manuscripts of P. between rroT€ and T6TE see Schweighaeuser on iv. 44· 4· Schweighaeuser, Paton, and Shuckburgh all translate the passage so as to imply that Sparta had formerly been a member of the Confederation, but was so no longer. Gabba (A then. I957, 27 n. z) thinks that Serippus 'sosteneva con l'esempio degli anni r9z-r88 a. C. la conciliabilita di una Sparta licurgica con l'appartenenza alia Lega Achea'; and Briscoe (]RS, I97o, 209) suggests textual corruption, and transferring the relative clause (~v • .. Axauvv) to the lacuna in § 5· But f.dvEtv .•• KaTauTamv must refer to the present and not an earlier state of affairs (cf. § 8): Sparta was of course a member of the Achaean Confederation at this time. 5. ll.m3 Se Twv TE9avaTWJl-EVWV KT)..: 'those condemned to death or exiled by decree of the Achaeans' ; these will be the faction representing the tyrants' party, routed at Compasium (xxii. 3· I; d. xxi. 32 c n.) in spring 188; from § 14 it appears that a formal decree of banishment or death had been inscribed on a pillar. Errington (I46 n., 149 n. I) argues that this decree followed judicial proceedings, in which the sentences were pronounced; no record of these has survived. rd:JavaTWJ.dvwv can hardly be 'put to death' (so Paton, here and in §§ 8 and 14, where he thinks their remains are being referred to). ol 1repl. Xalpwva: on Chaeron see r8. 4, and especially xxiv. 7. r-8; on the support enjoyed by his group at Rome see Errington, r8r. TTJV 1TO).LTEL
GREEK EMBASSIES AT ROME (184/3)
XXIII. 4·
12:
that which operated between the Spartan revolt of 189 (cf. xxi. J2 c n.) and the settlement following Compasium in r88; Briscoe (JRS, 1970, 209) would emend to provide a reference to an Achaean type of constitution (d. § 4 n., 7r£pt -roiJ p.~vHv KTA.)-but that is what Sparta possessed. 6. E1To~ouvTo 1Tpo~ Tous J\xcuous: the presence of Achaean envoys is mentioned in §II and by Paus. vii. 9· 5, &.v-rmpwf3Evaapivwv ll€ Kal )lxauvv Aa.KEOatp.ovlots- Kai >.6ywv {rry8€v-rwv {mo dp.rpo-r€pwv E'Trt rijsf3ovMjs- ••. ; but the wording is odd and suggests careless copying. 7. 8~EUKp~VELV • • , TttS ICO.Ta jdpos 8~a..1T1T~o~ KXa.u8Los): T. Quinctius Flamininus (cf. xviii. 1. 3 n.), Q. Caecilius Metellus (cf. xxii. 6. 6 n.: envoy to Greece in r85}, and Ap. Claudius Pulcher (probably: cf. xxii. 12. 4 n.: envoy to Greece in 184). The third name is omitted, but Paus. vii. 9· 5 reports (falsely) that the Senate sent Appius back to Greece, which suggests that he was the third man appointed to deal with the question at Rome (cf. Errington, 182 n. r; Larsen, GFS, 452 n. 3). According to Pausanias (vii. 9· 5), the settlement, which he erroneously locates in Greece, included the return of the exileswhether they had been driven out or condenmed after a voluntary withdrawal-(cf. § I4) and the setting up of foreign arbitration panels or provision for hearings within the Confederation; the walls of Sparta were also rebuilt. 9. To TaAa.vTov Ets ~K6.crTou~ ••• EtCA~~a.cr9a.~: as Areus and Alcibiades wanted(§ 3). Reiske detected the lacuna after lKM~aa8at, and Buttner-Wobst suggests exempli gratia p.fi>.Aov ~ miaa.s- lxHv. 10. ~yypa.1TTOV .:,11'~p Twv &J.LoAoyouJ.L~V(o)V: Buttner-Wobst suggests something like ylvw8aL 7rpoahaTTov to fill the lacuna. mivTES ••• Tas ••• cr
XXIII. 4·
12
GREEK EMBASSIES AT ROME (184/3)
Antiochus; this view is accepted by A. M. Castellani, Cont. I st. Fil. Class. I963, 84-86; Dahlheim, 26I f. and n. 8; Enington, 93 n. 2, us; and Schwertfeger, 3I-32 n. 30. 14. 1Ta.pa. Ta Twv ;b.xa.Lwv Soy(J-a.Ta.: cf. § s. 1To>..LTeuew fJ-ETa TWv ;b.xa.Lwv: cf. § 4; Livy, xxxix. 48. 4, 'Lacedaemonem manere in Achaico concilio'; Paus. vii. 9· s. represents the decision as a return to the Confederacy (d. § 7 n.). 15. ToO<; liv8pa.s: the Roman commission. 16. KowTov MapKLov: cf. Livy, xxxix. 48. S· Q. Marcius L.f. Q.n. Philippus was born in 229, praetor in I88 (Livy, xxxviii. 3S· 2) and consul with Sp. Postumius Albinus in I86, the year of the Bacchanal conspiracy (Livy, xxxix. 8-I9); later in I86 he suffered heavy losses in Liguria (Livy, xxxix. 2o). His choice as envoy now (and later in Perseus' reign: Livy, xlii. 37· I, cf. 38. 8) may connect with the paternum hospitittm between his family and the Macedonian royal house. Marcius played a prominent part in the war against Perseus, and held a second consulship in I69 (xxviii. 1. 9 n.), see Munzer, RE, 'Marcius (79)', cols. IS73--9·
5. 1-18. Deinocrates of Messenia This passage, composed out of overlapping excerpts from de legat. gent. and de uirt. et uit. (with two passages from Suidas) belongs to res Italiae of 01. I49, I = I84/3, but in§§ I4-I8 moves over to Greece; perhaps P. used Deinocrates' return to effect a neat transfer to res Graeciae, which this year were dealt with before res Macedoniae.
o Meaa~vLos: Deinocrates led the Messenian contingent against Nabis in I9S (s. 2), hence the concessions made to Messenia in the settlement (Livy, xxxiv. 3S· 6); see Seeliger, I8; Roebuck, 9I n. uo. Since the restoration of exiles effected by Flamininus in the settlement imposed on Messenia in I9I (xxii. Io. 6 n.) would perhaps have seemed like a breach of faith to his hospes Deinocrates, had he been in power then, Errington, IZS, argues that he was in exile from some date after I9S until I9I and that this was due to his support for Rome against Antiochus (hence Messenian support for the latter in I9I: Livy, xxxvi. 31. I); on that hypothesis he was restored in I9I. Subsequently (Errington, ISS n., dates this to his strategia of I89/8) Philopoemen intervened to alter the terms of Flamininus' settlement (xxii. Io. 6), and this may have damaged Deinocrates and may help to explain the hostility of the two men (Plut. Philop. I8. s). This view of Deinocrates' career, though hypothetical, is rather more plausible than the usual picture of him as leader of an oligarchic group at the time of Flamininus' settlement (d. Roebuck, 9S n. 126; Lehmann, I82-3), for that would
5. 1. AELvoKpaTT)S
220
D:EINOCRATES OF MESSENIA
XXlii.j.II
imply that the oligarchs favoured Antiochus and the democrats Rome, and that despite Flamininus' hostile action Deinocrates was closely attached to him. Paus. viii. 51. 7 speaks of Deinocrates Kat oao~ Twv MEaa1)vtwv ~aav DVVaTot XP~p.aat; but wealth, while clearly relevant to his pro-Roman policy, need not imply that Deinocrates was an oligarch. On him see further Lehmann, 179-94. 1TUpuyeYO~:LEYOS ••• 1Tpea~euT1]S: whatever the character of Philopoemen's intervention (xxii. ro. 6 n. and above, previous note), it had not substantially shaken Deinocrates' position. T(ToY 1Tpea~eUTTJY Ku9eaTUJ-L€YoY KTA.: on Flamininus' appointment to visit Prusias in order to protest against his war against Pergamum (1. 4 nn., 3· 1) see Livy, xxxix. 51. 1--12; Nep. Hann. 12. 2; Plut. Flam. 2o-21; App. Syr. 11; Iustin. xxxii. 4· 8-12; Zon. ix. 21. The embassy was famous through its connection with Hannibal's death (cf. 13. r-2), after he had found refuge with Prusias. Livy regards Hannibal's destruction as its main object, but Plutarch and Appian think Flamininus brought this about on his own account; they attribute a different purpose to the embassy and Iustinus specifically defines this as the ending of the Pergamene-Bithynian war (d. Habicht, Hermes, 1956, 97-98; Briscoe, Latomus, 1972, 23-24). Flamininus evidently left Rome in summer 183 (cf. § 14 n.) after helping to adjudicate on the Spartan problem. 1Tpos TE npoualUY Kul. TOY IeAeuKoY: there is no record of why he was to visit Seleucus; but it is probably too early for his visit to be concerned with the hostilities between Eumenes and Pharnaces of Pontus (g. 1-3 nn.). 2. ~euTn TOY AuKUJYLKOY m)Aei:LoY: against Nabis in rgs (Livy, xxxix. 24. 5-40. 4); above, 5· r n. 8Ln TTJY ,.pbs TOY ci>LA01TOlJ-LEYu 8La.cj>opnY: caused by Philopoemen' s intervention to modify the settlement at Messene (xxii. 10. 6 n., xxiii. 5· 1 n.), perhaps in r8g/8. KuTn TTJY uUTou 1Tpou(peaw: see below, § II n. 6. TTJV eux€pELUY KUl TTJY TOA~:LUY: 'his courage and daring' ; cf. xii. 25 e 2 n. To is KUT' t8lUY Kw8uYOLS: in x. 3· 7 this means 'personal risks'; here it is rather 'particular engagements' (in contrast to Jv Toi:s 7ToAep.tKo'Ls, 'in military affairs generally'). Paton, 'in single combat' is surely wrong. 9. Apxi)v ••• Ku~ewv: cf. xi. 5· gn., xviii. 39· r. TOLS uKpOnJ-LUO'L: 'musicians'' such as performed at banquets (cf. iv. 20. ron.), rather than 'scenic performers' (Paton). Deinocrates' relaxations are the traditional ones: wine, women, and song. 10. ~pa.xeiuY ••• T~\1 1TEpLaTnaews ~J-Lcf>uaw: 'to realize in some degree the real situation'. 11. iY J-LO.Kpo'Ls tJ-LUTlOL\1: cf. Plut. Flam. 17. 6, >..afJc1v lp.anov yvvatKe'Lov. 221
XXIII. 5·
II
DEINOCRATES OF MESSENIA
Ka.( TL 1TEp~ 1'fjS 1Ta.1'p(Sos n5LOUVTOS: Plut. Flam. 17 6 is more specific: OtetVOOVfliVcp T~V M €mKexetP1JKdJ;; 7Tpageaw. Paton and Shuckburgh translate 'such troubles' (cf. § 9); but in prospect at least they were not troubles to either Flamininus or Deinocrates. 13. O.vo(tcnov u1roeEow Tfjs ••• a.tpEaews tc:a.t .PuaEws: 'an unsuitable impression of his 0\\'11 character and nature'-unsuitable, that is, for his purpose. Paton's version, 'he had betrayed in an improper manner his true character and nature', commits P. to a view about what Deinocrates' true character was, which is not in the Greek; and Strachan-Davidson, following a version by Schweighaeuser which he had later discarded, renders: 'how little fitted to his character and nature was the business which he had launched'-which is hardly right. 14. 1ra.pfjv Ets T-iJv 'EX>.. Mia.: overlap between the manuscripts of de legat. gent. and de uirt. et u£t. excludes the possibility of an omission here; the scene shifts to Greece, with Flamininus active there on his way to Asia. Deinocrates, who arrived in Rome late in winter 184/3 (Flamininus' appointment was already kno\\'11: S· 1) spent some time there in pleasure (5. 9-13), and possibly arranging for arms shipments from Italy to :Messene (9. 12 n.). It is therefore likely that Flamininus and Deinocrates did not leave for Greece until well into 183. 15. ot S€ 1TEpt Tbv 4>LXo1TOtf1Eva.: if he is the general (§ r6}, as De Sanctis (iv. 1. 259) and Errington (245) believe, Flamininus must have reached Achaea after he took office in autumn 183. This is on the whole likely, though it makes Flamininus' arrival unusually late in the year; but it is not certain, and Aymard, !itttdes, 38 n. 5, thinks the general is someone else (holding office 184/3): 'Ce texte s'explique par la grande influence qu'ont alors dans Ia politique acheenne Philopoimen et ses partisans. N ous irons meme plus loin : si Philopoimen etait stratege, Polybe le dirait.' The question remains open. 1r~pl Twv 'EXXT)VLKwv ••• oUOef1(a.v evToX-iJv tc:TX.: since his instructions concerned Prusias and Seleucus (5. 1). 16. ~ypmre T(i) aTpO.TT)y(i) tc:o.l Tois Sa.j.~.Loupyois: probably Philopoem en or, if it is still the Achaean year r84/3. perhaps Archon (cf. xxii. 19, which should stand after this extract or after ch. 6: see ad loc.). On the Achaean damiurgi see ii. 37· Io--n n. (e) under /ipxoVT€S; there were ten, at any rate in 198 (Livy, xxxii. 22. 2). See further Livy, xxxviii. 30. 4 (in separate cit~itates); Plut. Arat. 43· I; perhaps SEC, xi. 1259 = GDI, 1615 (cf. Feyel, REG, 1943, u2-24) ; Orlandos, Alipheira, 134-9; perhaps Syll. 490 1. 6 (in place of aVVeDpot); J. and L. Robert, Bull. epig. I955. no. IIJ; Touloumakos, 15 n. 2, 28 n. I. See Larsen, GFS, 86, 221-2. 222
DEINOCRATES OF M.ESSEXIA
XXIII. 6.
t
ICEAEUWV uuvuyEw .•• Ets tKICATJu[o.v: to a specially convened assembly, a syncletos (cf. xxii. Io. 10, ro. II n.) 17. O.v ypu\fn 11Epi. T(vwv (3ouAETO.I KTA.: such a meeting could only be called at the behest of a Roman legatus if he presented written instructions from the Senate (xxii. 10. 12); but on this occasion the Achaean magistrates did not invoke that law, perhaps in view of the reproof conveyed by the Senate (xxii. 12. 10), but fell back on the requirement that the agenda for a syncletos must be published in advance (d. Livy, xxxi. 25. 9; Aymard, ACA, 321-2; Larsen, 94-95; CP, 1935, 208 n. 76; Errington, 184). The bluff succeeded, since Flamininus was known to have no instructions on Achaea. If the general is Archon and not Philopoemen, the dispute mentioned in xxii. 19 may have concerned this occasion (see ad loc.). al )lxa.Lol are the Achaeans in assembly. 18. TWV apxo.iwv ••• TuyuSwv: cf. 4· 2 n. It now appears that the 'old exiles' had again been exiled between the hearing of their representatives at Rome in late winter r84/3 and Flamininus' arrival in Achaea in late summer 183 (above, 4· 1 n.); this probably followed on the restoration of the group represented by Chaeron on the basis of the Roman decision (4. 5, 4· 8). Errington, 289, sees it as the work of this group in coalition with the pro-Achaean party in power, represented by Serippus (4. 4) ; but Shirnron, Late Sparta, 146-8, (who thinks that Areus and Alcibiades and Lysis' party were already exiles when they spoke at Rome in 1&~/3: cf. 4· In.) believes that ?TpoarpttTws looks back to 185 when (he thinks) Lysis' group was exiled by Areus and Alcibiades, who gained power then, but were themselves forced into exile once more after the embassy to Rome in 185/4 (xxii. n. 6). This seems to me less probable. The 'old exiles" hopes for restoration at Sparta have no connection with Deinocrates' hopes for detaching Messenia from the Achaean Confederation, except that both proposed to exert pressure on Flamininus.
(xxii. 19: see p. 13 for the argument that this passage belongs to res Graeciae of OJ. 149, I 184/3, and stands either here or after ch. 6.) 6. 1-3. Spartan envoys murdered on the way to Rome (r83)
This passage from the exc. de legat. gent. belongs to res Graeciae of 01. 149· I = I84/3: seep. 15. 6. 1. tco.Ta Tou~ o.u1'ou~ tco...pous: if it is not the excerptor's (cf. xxii. 6. r). the reference of this phrase is obscure; but since the exiles had representatives at Rome in winter 183/2 (9. 1), they were probably dispatched in autumn after Flamininus' visit proved useless (s. r8). 223
XXIII. 6.
(nro Twv
I
SPARTAN ENVOYS MURDERED
t~e Aa.~e£8a.LJ.tovo~ cJ!uy6.8wv:
the 'old exiles', once more ex-
pelled (5. r8 n.) ;t..p~eEa£A.a.os ~<:a.t ;t..y'l}a£woA.~s: Arcesilaus is unknown. Agesipolis, son of Agesipolis and grandson of Cleombrotus of the Agiad house, had been installed as king, while a minor, along with Lycurgus in spring 2I9 (iv. 35· 10 n.); expelled by Lycurgus he probably took refuge in Achaea shortly after Cleomenes' death (Livy, xxxiv. 26. 14; Niese, ii. 463 n. 2 thinks the Cleomenes there mentioned is his guardian, but Livy says 'qui primus tyrannus Lacedaemone fuit'). Agesipolis shared in the war on Nabis in 195 (Livy, loc. cit.), but was not restored afterwards; he was however presumably included in the restoration of the 'old exiles' by Philo poemen in r88 (xxii. rr. 7 n.). Since Areus and Alcibiades are not mentioned anywhere again, they may have perished when their group was again exiled (Errington, I88). 3. ot Sf. J.tETn TouTwv Ka.Ta.aTa.9€vTEs: cf. 9· r, where they are unnamed.
(xxii. 19: see p. 223 on the location of this fragment.)
7. 1-8. 7. Demetrius' ret~trn: Q. Marcius Philippus' visit toM acedon: Philip's Thracian campaign (I83) These two chapters, from de legat. gent. and de legat. Rom. respectively, belong to 01. 149, r 184/3 (res Macedoniae); they are much compressed (d. Livy, xxxix. 53· I ~r6; Nissen, Rh. Mus. r87r, 267; KU, :22<}-30). 7. 1 . .6.'1}j.t'I}TpLOU ••• EK Tf)S 'PWj.t'I}S: cf. 3· 4-9· xapLV Ka.lwLD'TlV: cf. 3· 6. 2. ot f1EV Ma.KESoves 6.m8£xovTo KTh.: compressed; cf. Li vy, xxxix. 53· 2, 'uulgus Macedonum, quos belli ab Romanis imminentis metus terruerat, Demetrium ut pacis auctorern cum ingenti fauore conspiciebant, simul et spe haud dubia regnum ei post mortem patris destina.bant.' The contrast between 'the Macedonians' and 'Philip and Perseus' (repeated in Livy, xxxix. 53· 5~) is tendentiously oversimplified by P.'s pro-Demetrian source (cf. Walbank, Philip, 241 n. 1; Meloni, Perseo, 32 n. I; Gruen, GRBS, 1974, 237). 3. s~d. Td.s TOU LAL11'1l'OU wa.pa.Tp~~a.s: 'owing to friction caused by Philip'. 5. KO.L TTI cJ!~au Ka.l TTI Ka.Ta.a~eeuft: 'both in natural ability and in acquired accomplishments' (Shuckburgh). 6. 8~d, TiJ.S wpoELp'l}j.tEvO.S a.{T(a.s: obscure in the excerptor's COmpressed version (Nissen, KU, 230); cf. Livy, xxxix. 53· 3, 'nam etsi minor aetate quam Perseus hunc iusta matre familiae, ilium
DEMETRIUS' RETURN'
XXIII. 8. 4
paelice ortum esse; illum ut ex uulgato corpore genitum nullam certi patris notam habere, hunc insignem Philippi similitudinem prae se ferre; ad hoc Romanos Demetrium in paterna solio locaturos, Persei nullam apud eos gratiam esse. haec uulgo loquebantur.' 7. Tous T£ cp£Aous t!cp&elfl£ Tovs TOU ll.-rlJ.l.TJTp(ou: the excerpt finishes abruptly; nor does Livy help, since after the passage quoted in the previous note he turns to the effect of this on Philip (Livy, xxxix. 53· 6 ff.). 8. l. Kow,.ov Tov MapKtov: Q. Marcius Philippus; cf. 4· 16 n. for his appointment as legatus to Macedonia and the Peloponnese. He will have reached Macedonia in spring or early summer r83; cf. Livy, xxxix. 53· ro (omitting his name). Q'II'E~TJ ••• a'II'O T<71V t'll't epq.KTJS 'EAATJVL8wv 11'0A£WV: cf. Livy, xxxix. 53· 10, 'cogebatur decedere Thracia praesidiaque deducere et alia aut ex decreto priorum legatorum aut ex noua constitutione senatus facere' ; the reference is to Aenus and Maronea and any other Thracian tow'Ils still occupied (cf. 3· 3. 1racras-). ' ~ · .,, ' ..1..' ' ' ' 2 , /\<1j.l.p<1V£W o <1VaaTpOTfJV 11'pOS T<1S • • • 11'<1p<1aK£U<1S: Cf • L'IVy, xxxix. 53· u, 'ne quam mouendi extemplo belli causam praeberet'. 3. TTJV 11'pOK£LJ.l.EVfJV U11'o9£aw: to avoid an early confrontation; the analysis rests on the assumption that Philip was planning eventually to attack Rome (d. xxii. 14. 8 n.). 4--7. Philip's Thracian expedition: cf. Livy, xxxix. 53· rz-r6 (with details omitted by the excerptor). Philip's route from Macedonia is not recorded: for the location of the tribes he encountered see below. 4. '08puaas: the Odrysae were the chief tribe in central Thrace, and their territory stretched throughout what is now Bulgaria to Odessus, where they touched the area occupied by the Bastarnae (Strabo vii, fg. 47; Steph. Byz. s.v.; Herod. iv. 92). Under Teres and Sitalces they built the first substantial state in Thrace, but had lost territory to the Gauls of Tylis in the third century (iv. 46. 2 n.); the kingdom of Tylis had fallen in about 212 (iv. 46. 4 n., viii. 22 n.). Philip wished to open up the middle Hebrus valley, which the Odrysae controlled. See Lenk, RE, 'Odrysai', cols. 19003; Walbank, Philip, 242; and on the earlier history of the Odrysac, Danov, 222-347. Biaaous: they were west of the Odrysae on the Hebrus, but the boundary is conjectural. Philippopolis (§ 5) was the capital of Bessica in Roman imperial but it was after defeating the Odrysae that Philip II founded it, and it was the Odrysae who expelled Philip V's garrison (§ 7). Danoff (Danov), RE, 'Philippopolis (r)', col. 2245, attributes the town to the Bessi, but A. J. Reinach, BCH, I9IO, 268, argues that the riYer Vjeca, a tributary of the Marica (Hebrus) entering it on the south side about 15 km. west of Plovdiv (Philippopolis) marked the boundary between the Bessi and the Odrysae. The I
225
XXIII. 8. 4
PHILIP'S THRACIAN CAMPAIGN (183)
Bessi occupied Rhodope, the upper Hebrus valley, and part of the slopes of Mt. Haemus (the Balkan range). CL Oberhummer, RE, 'Bessoi', cols. 329-31; Danov, ui-I3; Kleiner Pauly, 'Bessoi', cols. 827 ff . .dEvfi11A~Tous:
the Dentheleti occupied the upper Strymon valley to its source from around Pautalia (Kjustendil); see Lenk, RE, 'Thrake', coL 436; Strabo, vii. 5· r2, C. 318; cf. Oberhummer, RE, 'Danthaletai', cols. :noi·-2; Danov, 104-5; Kleiner Pauly, 'Danthaletai', col. 1381. 5. TTJV ••• ~tAhnrou 'll'OALV! founded by Philip II on the right bank of the Hebrus, it was Trimontium in Roman times, and is now Plovdiv (from the Thracian name Pulpudeva); it controlled the intersection of the main route north-west from the Bosphorus with the north-south route from Oescus on the Danube to the Aegean. See Chr. M. Danoff (Danov), RE, 'Philippopolis', cols. 2244--63, with a description of the site (cols. 2247-8} and a plan (cols. 2261-2). +uyovTWV TWV ~VOU<:OUVTWV Els TaS aKpwpdo.s: d. Livy, xxxix. 53· IJ, 'qui in proxima montium iuga cum familiis receperant sese'; the excerptor omits the families. 7. !lETa TLvo. xpovov b:'ll'EaEiv (11ro TWv 'OSpuawv: how soon after is not clear; but the breach was subsequently healed, and by qz Cotys, the Odrysian king, firmly supported Perseus (Livy, xlii. 29. 12; below, xxxvii. 12. r-3). Livy, xxxix. 53· 14-r6 describes how Philip went on into Paeonia, where he founded a city, Perseis, near the river Erigon, not far from Stobi. He evidently planned to control the Axius valley from here, as he hoped to control the Hebrus valley from Philippopolis; in the background was his hope of organizing the Bastarnae against the Dardani (Livy, xl. 57· 5, above, xxii. 14. 12 n.). Perseis lay in the district of Deuriopus (Livy, xxxix. 53· 14), which was north of Lyncestis, and Reinach (BCH, I9Io, 269) locates it at Prilep; d. Walbank, Philip, 243 n. I; Meloni, Perseo, 36-38.
9. 1-15. Greek embassies at Rome: Q. Marcius Philippus' report (183/2)
This excerpt from de legat. gent. belongs to res Italiae of 01. 149, z I83/2 and corresponds to Livy, xl. z. 6; seep. 15.
=
9. 1. vo.p' Eui-LEVOUS Ko.l ~a.pvai
GREEK EMBASSIES AT ROME (183/2)
XXIII. 9. 6
together in Livy (for they were concerned with the same matter), whereas the text of P. shows signs of drastic compression. Phamaces I ascended the Pontic throne c. 185; in xxvii. I7 Jl. calls him 1rapavop.drra'Tos. See E. Diehl, RE, 'Pharnakes (r)', cols. r849-51; he makes him the son of Mithridates III and brother of Mithridates IV Philopator Philadelphus (cf. OGIS, 375; Geyer, RE, 'Mithridates (9) and (ro)', col. 216r). 'l!'a.pa Twv EK Tils AaKt:SaLf.lovos EK'Ift:'lfTWK
227
XXIII. 9· 6
GREEK EMBASSIES AT ROME (183/2)
on P.), 'ita fecisse eum, quae senatui placuissent, fatebatur, ut facile appareret non diutius quam necesse esset facturum. neque obscurum erat rebellaturum, omniaque quae tunc ageret diceretque, eo spectare.' (Livy then passes straight to the reports at Rome concerning the res Maced01tiae of 182, omitting all mention of the Senate's reply to the Achaeans, probably because he has already anticipated the remaining events of the Achaeo-Messenian conflict by recounting Philopoemen's death in the previous book, Livy, xxxix. 49· 1-5o. II; see below, 12. 1-14. 12 n.). 8. 1TtlVTa lh' €a,uTwv 1TptlTn:w €m~a,AAo~vwv: they had declared war on l\Iessenia (xxiv. 9· 12). According to Livy, xxxix. 48. 5, Mcssenc had already revolted when Marcius was sent to Greece; but this account is compressed and a prelude to that of Philopoemen's death (taken from 182: see above§ 4 n.). In a speech before the Senate in 181/o (xxiv. 9· I2-IJ), Callicrates implies that Achaea took the initiative in declaring war (cf. Roebuck, 97 n. IJ7)· 9. Tax€ws T) AaK~tlia~~wv Tfi MeCTCT~vn CTUfJ.cppov~O'€~: 'Sparta would soon come to an understanding with Messene', i.e. against Achaea. Paton's rendering, 'would soon be reconciled', wrongly implies some recent difference between Sparta and Messenia. 10. tJ.m]. ~.,y&AT)s xci.p~Tos ~~"w: 'they would be only too glad to come.' 11. Toi<:> 1r~tpL IT)pm1rov: he was pro-Achaean (4. 4 n.). Why he had come we are not told. But since Sparta had not yet seceded (§ 13), it must have been to justify the expulsion of the 'old exiles' the previous summer (cf. 5· 18 n., 6. 1); this group had sent representatives to Rome (§ r). Further, if he was indeed in an uneasy coalition vvith Chaeron, who favoured secession (5. r8 n.), he may have wished to reassert the pro-Achaean position (so Errington, 290). 12. KClTa T~v O'Uf.l.~axlav: on the date of this cf. 4· 12n. iva f.!.T)Il€is .•• p.T)9' o1rXa. f.I.TJT*' CTiTov ••• daaynyn: evidently the treaty enjoined this action in the case of revolt from the federation (cf. Aymard, PR, z68-9; Horn, 32; Lehmann, 233 n. 182). There may be a reference to arms which Deinocrates was arranging to have exported to .:\-Iessenia (d. Errington, 184, assuming Flamininus' complicity); but bJockade-running would probably be organized commercially, and the Senate had a tradition of non-intervention (cf. Badian, 152 n. 6). See further Toynbee, ii. 363. 14. l;vEKEV 'PwtJ.a(wv: 'as far as the Romans were concerned', i.e. they would not interfere. Lehmann, s8 n. zs, claims that this meaning (missed by Mauersberger, s.v. eveKo) is a Latinism (cf. Klaffenbach, 5-B. Berlin, 1954, zo); but even though it is found in treaties (Syll. 646 Sherk, 2 I. 19; Syll. 664 Sherk, 5 1. 33; cf. SV A, iii. 5 11. 7, 13, 18), perhaps to represent such a phrase as per poputum Romanum, it is normal Greek from much earlier; see the 228
GREEK EMBASSIES AT ROME (183/2)
XXIII.ro.z
examples quoted in LSJ from Aristoph. Acharn. 386; Dem. xx. 14, J11-ov y' ev£Ka.; and Herod. i. 42, Tov fvAri.aaovm:; £iveKev. P.'s interpretation of the Senate's answer as an incitement to revolt seems fair (contra Errington, r86-7); but the secession may have occurred while Serippus was still away and so have been uninfluenced by what the Senate said (cf. I7. 6 n.). Tous rrp£u~EUTas rra.pa.K«TEixov: hardly to prevent publication of their answer (so Errington, r87), since, as he points out, it must have become well publicized as a result of the Senate's actions (JKIUP-•vot). The object seems rather to have been to keep up pressure on Achaea by detaining her envoys and perhaps to leave the way open for the Senate to modify their answer in the light of events (as they did, 17. 3; d. Briscoe, ]RS, 1964, 66--67). 10. 1-11. 8. The Macedonian disasters and the quarrel in the royal house (r8z) This passage, combined out of fragments from de uirt et uit., de sent., and Suidas, is from res kiacedoniae of Ol. 149, 2 = r83jz, and can be supplemented from Livy, xl. 3· r-r6. 3, where under A.u.c. 572 = I82, Livy has worked up the account of Philip's policy in Macedonia and the conflict between Perseus and Demetrius into a dramatic form-helped by the colouring already present in P.; cf. Walbank, ] HS, 1938, 55-68; Edson, H arv. Stud. I935, 191-202; Meloni, Perseo, 41-47· F.'s text here is both fragmentary and compressed; see Nissen, KU, 234. 10. l. SEwtj ns O.px~ Ka.KCw: cf. xxii. I8. I, where however, with the Third Macedonian War in mind, P. dates the dpx~ to I86fs. 2. TUX"l ••• Ton rra.p~uT"lO'E Twas £pwus KTA.: for this idea of the operation of conscience cf. xviii. 15. 12, 43. IJ. The dramatic imagery reinforces the moral lesson, vlith its suggestion of the material of tragedy (cf. von Scala, 8r-82 n. 2); but it is unlikely that P. has used tragedies or historical novels 'dealing with the ruin of the Macedanian royal house' as a source (so Benecke, C AH, viii. 254) ; the presentation is his own. The Furies recall Orestes and the curse of the house of Atreus. For madness inflicted, some said, as a divine punishment on Antiochus IV see xxxi. 9· 4· TWV auE~"l!-LUTWV Ka.t rra.pa.VOj.L"lj.LUTWV: e.g. his impiety at Thermum (v. 9· 2-I2. 8, xi. 7· 2-3), his brutality at Messene (vii. rr. r-11, I3. 6-7; Plut. Arat. 49-51), his treachery at Rhodes (xiii. 3· I-S· I), his cruelty at Cius (xv. 21.3-22. 5), his sacrilege at Pergamum (xvi. r. 4-6), and above all his compact with Antiochus to dismember Ptolemy Epiphanes' possessions, a deed which Tyche avenged both immediately, by drawing the whole matter to the attention of the zzg
XXIII.
10. 2
THE MACEDONIAN DISASTERS AND
Romans and causing both Philip and Antiochus to pay them tribute, and ultimately by re-establishing the Ptolemaic dynasty, while theirs sank to ruin (xv. zo. 1-8}. On P.'s idea of Tyche see VoL I, pp. 16-26. 3. 11an A(KTJS 6cp9a.AJ-L6s: cf. Corpus paroem. graec. ii. 366; von Scala, 284; Wunderer, i. IS-I7, for this proverbial expression, found also in a verse from a comedy, ffcnw LllK7Js dcfAJa).p.l,,., 8s 'Ta nav8' opfi (CAF, ii, p. 539; Philemon no. 246). This is usually attributed to Philemon or Diphilus; but in the light of parallels in Hesiod, Op. z67, Sophocles, fg. II, and especially Eurip. Electra, 771, Wunderer, i. 15-16, would assign it to Euripides. His suggestion that it reached P. from Chrysippus by way of Demetrius 1T
Tous ••• 'ITOAtnt
spired by Philip II: d. Iustin. viii. 5· 7, 'reuersus in regnum (sc. Philip II}, ut pecora pastores nunc in hibernos, nunc in aestiuossaltus traiciunt, sic ille populos et urbes, ut illi uel replenda uel derelinquenda quaequc lora uidebantur, ad libidincm suam transfert'; 6. I, 'alios populos in finibus ipsis hostibus opponit; alios in extremis regni terminis statuit; quosdam bello captos in supplementa urbium diuidit.' For the parallel see Zancan, 140. Philip's object was to Macedonize the Erigon and Axius valleys as a bulwark against the Dardanians, and to settle Thracian and other barbarian troops, directly responsible to himself, in parts of Macedonia where the people's loyalty was in doubt (cf. Walbank, Philip, 243). The use of Thracians as troops and colonists is attested for Alexander (Diod. xix. 27. s) and especially for the Ptolemies, but also for the Seleucids and Attalids (d. Launey, i. 393-4). The status of those brought in by Philip Vis not clear; they may have been mercenaries who later received allotments (Griffith, 73, 77~78}, for in 171 Perseus' army contained Thracian incolae (Livy, xlii. SI. s). and in I67 the third region of Macedonia contained 'incolas quoque permultos Gallas et Illyrios, impigros cultores' (Livy, xlv. 30. s), whose status may have been similar. See however Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, iii. 1471 n. 38; Meloni, Perseo, 86-87 n. z. Philip II also dealt with his political opponents in the manner described here (cf. Momigliano, Elippo, q8, 146 n. I); it is clear that those banished by Philip V were politically suspect, perhaps because his northern policy and truculence towards Rome were most unpopular in the Hellenized cities (Walbank, Philip, 244). 230
THE QUARREL IN THE ROYAL HOUSE (182)
XXIII. 10.9
Paeonia is the area west of the Strymon, covering the upper Ax.ius valley north of the narrows near Titov Veles, and including the upper Monastir plain around Prilep, and the towns of Bylazora and Stobi, together with the Brcgalnitsa and Strumitsa valleys; cf. Lenk, RE, 'Paiones', col. 2403; Hammond, 1~facedon£a, i. 78-84, 204. Emathia was the area between the Haliacmon and the Axius, including Beroea, Edessa, and Pella (cf. Oberhummer, RE, 'Emathia (1)', col. 248o; Hammond, Macedonia, i. 153-4, 167, 295), and there is no other evidence that it was called Paconia (unless, with Hammond, Afacedonia, i. 418 n. 2, one takes the statement of Strabo, vii, fg. 38, that the Paeonians were said once to have extended p.lxp• IlEAayovlas Kat IltEplas, to mean that they occupied the central plain as far as (but excluding) those districts). 6. 8op~aAwTov: sc. yijv (Mauersberger s.v. says 'sc. 7'1'apaAlav'). 7. O.XA yfl> Kat olKlas to Chrysogonus, Samus' father, calls him Xpua6yovos Ilvpplxnos, MaKEToilv [€]' 'E8laa-a<;; this suggests that Pyrrhichus was the name of Chrysogonus' eldest son (as well as his father's); see K. 1. Galles, Ancient Macedonia II, 33-43. A proxeny decree of Gonnus (.i1px. l¢. Hli4, 183 no. 242 = Helly, Gonnoi, ii. 12) concerns an Alexander, son of Admetus, whom Habicht, Ancient 1\cfacedonia, 270-3, identifies v..>ith the 231
XXIII.
IO.
9
THE MACEDONIAN DISASTERS AND
Alexander, 'son of Acmetus', who commanded the chalcaspides at Sellasia (ii. 66. s. with addendum, below, p. 763). The Alexander of the Gonnus inscription comes €~ llpKvvias; but if he held honorary citizenship at Larissa he could be the l1M~av8pos ll8/LaT€tos who figures on an inscription of Larissa alongside several prominent citizens including Philip V and Perseus (SEG, xiii. 393 II. 9-ro). and this man's son JUJjLaros J11\,~d.v8p<"ta>, who also appears there among the donors, could be the man referred to in the present passage. This hypothesis is the more plausible since Chrysogonus, Samus' father, had also received Larissan citizenship (see above). See further Habicht, loc. cit., promising further discussion of SEG, xiii. 393· The conspiracy in which these men were involved was recent, and unlikely to have anything to do with the execution of the five counsellors c. zos (Diod. xxviii. z), as Niese (ii. 570 n. 1) suggests. 10. vipnos o<; 'ITaTEpa. KTEiva.<; tcTA.: the verse, twice quoted by Aristotle (Riwt. i. rs. 1376 a 7; ii. 21. 1395 a rg), was attributed by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. vi. z. 19) to the epic poet Stasinus (EGF, Cypria, fg. zz); for the sentiment cf. Herod. i. 155. r; Eur. A ndr. 519-21. Its con tent was felt to be tyrannical and, though a feature of the Sullan proscriptions, it was never accepted at law until the notorious Lex quisquis was promulgated on 4 September 397 under Arcadius (CTh. 9- 14· 3 = C. 9· R. 5); this law, which exercised great influence hcreaftcr~Hobbes (Le'IJiathan, ch. z3) believed that the children of rebels should be pcnalized~laid harsh penalties on the offspring of those condemned for treason (cf. Kubler, RE, 'maicstas', cols. 554~8). P. may have this detail from the oral source to whom he seems to owe much of his account of the events at the Macedonian court (cf. Vol. I, p. 34 n. 5; ]HS, r938, 64-65). 11. 8ta Ta<; Twv 'ITa.Tipwv 'ITpoaywya<;: so \Vesseling for manuscript 'ITapaywyd.a; 'owing to their fathers' high distinction'. The excerptor has here omitted a story, related from P. in Livy, xl. 4· r-rs. of how Theoxena, whose husband and father had both perished at Philip's hands, hearing of the new decree, tried to sail with her children in a small boat from Aenea in Chalddice to Euboea, but was pursued by royal guards who killed her and all her children. 12. TptTOV 8' 1-J TOXTJ Spap.a. .•. TO ICQ.Ta TOU'i uloos: in Livy the story of Theoxena 'uelut fiamrnam regis inuidiae adiecit, ut uulgo ipsum liberosque exsecrarentur; quae dirac breui ab omnibus diis exauditae, ut saeuiret ipse in suum sanguinem, effecerunt' (Livy, xl. 5· r). These further curses, caused by concern for the fate of his victims' sons, thus turned Philip against his sons. This apt connection can hardly have been superimposed by Livy, but must have stood in the original Polybian text, though it has been obscured by the excerptor (cf. \Valbank,JHS, 1938,6z). The words rplTov .. . 8pfip. a may be the excerptor's but they reflect the tone of the narrative.
THE QUARREL IN THE ROYAL HOUSE (182)
13. TWV •••
v~
XXIII. ro. 17
Perseus and Demetrius.
VUKTWP Ka.l f.1.E9' TJf.I.Epa.v: d. § 3· 14. 9EWV TlVWV •., flfjV~v: cf. XXXi. 9· 4, XXXii. 15. 14, XXXVi.
I]. 15 for other examples of divine wrath; how far the expression is purely rhetorical is discussed in Vol. I, pp. 24-25. 15. 8fjA.ov €K TWV t~fjs pTJ9TJO"Of.1.EVwv: cf. xxxvi. I1· rs. where a similar reference to divine \\Tath is justified by a factual account (which, as here, is lost). P. is pointing to the development of the quarrel between Philip's sons, related in Livy, xl. 5· 1--6. 3· 15-16. This excerpt from de sent. (also partly in Suidas) covers the same context in a compressed form. 15. hra.vE~AEV: contrast § 8, .:l<; cpvAaKT]v a7TofNa8at. But probably both stood in the original text; cf. Livy, xl. 3· 7, 'postremo negare propalam coepit sa tis tutum sibi quicquam esse, nisi liberos eorum, quos interfecisset, comprehensos in custodia haberet et tempore alium alio tolleret.' The hexameter suggests their execution. ws cjla.aL: with Tllv aTlxov ... .:im»v; cf. § IO. 16. 8ui TCI.UTQ. Tfj<; -Jtuxfjs .•• AUTTWO"T}S: s,d Taffra can be explained from Livy, xl. 5· r (quoted in§ 12n.): the phrase must refer to the further curses, since it was these that maddened Philip and led him to execute Demetrius. TO KCI.Tcl TOUS uiouc; VEiKOS: cf. § 15 n. TfjS TUXTJ'> ••• cwa.~L~a.~OU
233
XXIII. Io. 17
THE MACEDONIAN DISASTERS AND
preceding a campaign (d. Nilsson, Griechische Feste, 405; Hellmann, Arch. Ret. 1931, 202-3; Granier, 22 ff.). Purification of an army by marching between the halves of a victim is known in the east, particularly among the Hittites (cf. Masson, Rev. hist. rel. rgso, ; the animal was often a dog (cf. Launey, ii. no4, v<1.ith addendum, ii. 922). On the god Xanthus see Usener, Arch. Rel. rgo4, 302-3, who thinks he is 'ein zum Heros abgesunkener Gott', and compares the fight of the Black Man and the Blond Man, Melanthus and Xanthus, in the Attic Apatouria; see Radke, RE, 'Xanthos (15) and (r6)', COlS. 1352-3. evay{,£tV lS appropriate to a herO, not a god. Ka9o.pf10V: the severed dog. auv t1T1TOlS c.:ml.laflkvols: Livy says nothing of horses, but implies that the whole army (which of course included the cavalry) passed between the halves of the piaculum.
11. 1-8. Philip's speech: cf. Livy, xl. 8. j-19; of this §§ 7-ro are introductory and there is nothing corresponding in our excerpt; Livy, xl. 8. I I begins to correspond with the Polybian fragment, and is contracted. P. could have information about the incident from one of the MacedonianspresentwhomhemetinRome (d. Vol. I, p. 34; Pedech, Methode, ; von Scala, 269, who suggests Pantauchus); but Gruen, GRBS, 1974, 240-r argues that Philip's speech and those of Perseus and Demetrius (§ 8 n.) are pure rhetoric. For an interesting parallel cf. Herodi:w, iii. 13. 3. where Septimius Severus refers his sons, Caracalla and Gcta, to the lessons p.J&wv Te apxalwv Kat Dpap.d.Twv in order to lead them e;; &p.ovotav Kat avp.Slas ~ea' Tous f1U9ous ~eat Tas laToptas: all these were regarded as a source of moral instruction (cf. Walbank, Historia, 196o, z28 ff.); among apt tragedies might be those concerning the Seven against Thebes and the strife within the house of Atreus. Cf. xxx. 2. 9 n. .. apnWi > • f"GOV t:/' \ (§ 2 ) • 3 , WV Ert "'TOV : VlZ. Kat T£KVa Kat 710/\€1!; 4. E1Tl. TOUi €v TTI AaKeOat11ovt ~aatAELi: cf. Livy, xl. 8. rz, 'meliora quoque exempla parte alia posui : sociabilem consortionem inter binos Lacedaemoniorum rcges, salutarem per multa saecula ipsis patriaeque.' "'TEtGapxouvTEri wcrrrep yovdlal TOLi ~cpopOLi leTA.: it was the abolition of the ephorate and transformation of the dual kingship into a J.WVapxla that characterized Cleomenes' rule as a tyranny (cf. ii. 47· 3 n., iv. 81. 14; \Val bank, Ancient Society, 304). 1.wvapxla is contrasted with true {Jaat>. .. la (such as Philip's). 5. <Sla)cpwvl)ao.VTEi: so Btittner-\Vobst for the manuscript, which was variously read by Mai as oi <{>povftlaa.v-rEs and by Heyse as 8€ oveuiaa.v-re> (so Boissevain); Spengel KaTa<{>pov~aa.v-rf!s, I
234
1
\
1\
THE QUARREL IN THE ROYAL HOUSE (182)
XXIII.
IZ
Hultsch dtfopoVTta-djC!aVT£> (which is too long). tj>ovt:tfuavTE> is awkward used absolutely; but with (ota)t/>w!nJaaVTe> (a good meaning) one must assume haplography. 6. E:Sil~"TJ Kal. ••• 14-TTaAov: Eumenes II and his brother, the later Attalus II; cf. xviii. 41. ron.; xxxii. 8. 6. 7. TrapaAa~OYTES ••• !lLKpUY apxiJv Kat TTJV TVXOUO'ClV: cf. xxxii. 8. 3, (Eumenes) 1TapaJ..a{3wv Trapa Tov 1Ta-rp6s Tijv {3afli>.e{av uvv~;uTaA J.LlVTJv TEA.iws ei<; oA{ya I((LL AtTd. 'ITOALC!fLana. Attalus I is merely said to have kept dUTaalaaTov •• • T¥ f3aaJ.dav (xviii. 41. ro), not to have increased it (Cardinali, 84). It has been plausibly suggested that he lost territory to Antiochus' generals during 198 (Livy, xxxii. 8. 10; above, xxi. 17. 6n.); see Schmitt, Antiochos, 269-76; Will, ii. I54· It was probably then that Antiochus seized parts of Mysia east of the original Pergamene borders, and towns such as Thyateira and N acrasa on the road north from Sardes, together with Hellespontine Phrygia and the Troad (Schmitt, Antioclws, 273-4). !lTJOE!l~as ••• KaTaOeeaT.\pav: cf. Livy, xl. 8. 14, 'mihi Antiocho cuilibet regum huius aetatis'; this could be Livian elaboration. After mentioning the Attalids Li;,y, xl. 8. rs, continues: 'ne Romanis quidem exemplis abstinui .. .', and quotes T. and L. Quinctii Flaminini and P. and L. Cornelii Scipiones and the elder Scipios killed in Spain. Nissen, K U, 234, assumes these to be Roman exempla added by Livy for rhetorical purposes. Philip quotes a Roman exemplum in his letter to Larissa (Syll. 543 ll. 31 ff.), hence the possibility that this passage was in the original text and omitted by the excerptor cannot be entirely excluded (though .Nissen is more likely to be right). 8. o{Jx otov ets vovv iAa!lP6.vETE ~
12. 1-14. 12. Death of Philopoemen: the characters of Philopoemen, Hannibal, and Scipio Africanus This section, a combination of extracts from de uirt. et m't., de sent., and Suidas, belongs to res Graeciae of 01. 149, 2 = r83j2, and was the basis of Livy, xxxix. 49~5o (seep. 15). That Philopoemen, Hannibal,
235
XXIII. u
DEATH OF PHILOPOEMEN
and Scipio died in the same year is a fact widely recorded (cf. Livy, xxxix. so. ro; Justin. xxxii. 4· 9; Diod. xxix. r8.:_2I, by implication); that Livy and Diodorus mention the deaths in the same order as does P. shows that they drew on him. Clearly P. mentioned the Carthaginian and the Roman in the context of Philopoemen's death. The position of the fragments of P. shows the year in question to be 01. 149, z (183/2), despite Livy, xxxix. 49-50, who puts Philopoemen's death in A.u.c. 57I=r8J. It has been argued {cf. Niese, iii. 52 n. 4; Hoffmann, Hermes, 1938, 246; Opuscula, i. 389 n. 438) that this date must take precedence over that deduced from the order of the Polybian fragments, which could be out of place. But this argument ignores a decisive fact (cf. Aymard, Etudes, 36), that here the order is confirmed by the coincidence of two separate selections. In the exc. de uirt. et uit. 10. 1-15 (on Philip's crimes and disastns) is followed by 12. 3-7 and 12. (on Philopoemen) and by r3. 2 (on Hannibal) and <4. r 4 (on Scipio), and in the exc. de sent. 10. 3 (on Philip's conscience), ro. (on his treatment of his enemies' chil· dren), and u. r-8 (his to his sons) are followed by 12. 3-6 (on Philopoemen) and q. 5-12 (on Scipio). Thus a displacement of fragments is excluded, and there can be no doubt that P. described the three deaths under 01. 149, z (r8J/2). Consequently it must be Livy who has brought fonvard the account of Philopoemen's death; and indeed in xxxix. 48. 6 Livy that he proposes to neglect causas et ordinem of the Messenian war as irrelevant to Roman affairs: but one euentus memorabilis, Philopormen's death, is given in chs. 49-50 because of its dramatic interest (cf. Aymard, Etudes, zz). At the end of the section Livy found it recorded in P. that Hannibal and Scipio, as well as Philopoemen, died eo anno (Livy, xxxix. so. 1o), and this probably led him to consult Claudius (Nissen, KU, 34o), for it was no doubt from him that he drew the information that P. Rutilius Rufus-the consul of 1o5, whom he nowhere else quotes (Fraccaro, Opt.tswla, i. 387)~had the same date for Scipio's death as had P. (Livy, xxxix. sz. I). Such is the implication of the statement (Livy, xxxix. so. ro) that 'ab scriptoribus rerum Graecis Latinisque tantum huic uiro (sc. Philopoemeni) tribuitur ut a quibusdam eorum uelut ad insignem notam huius anni memoriae mandatum sit tres claros imperatores eo anno decessisse, Philopoemenem, Hannibalem, P. Scipionem'; cf. Livy, xxxix. 52. I, 'Scipionem et Polybius et Rutilius hoc anno mortuum scribunt.' Clearly the scriptores Latini are Rutilius; and Livy seems to imply, not only that, like P., he mentioned the deaths as occurring in the one year, but also (to judge from the following phrase: Livy, xxxix. so. u, 'adeo in aequo eum PhilopoemenemJ duarum potentissimarum gentium summis imperatoribus posuerunt') that he related this to Philopoemen's death. To what consulship Rutilius assigned this we 236
DEATH OF PHILOPOEMEN
XXIII. 12
do not know, for Livy's repeated references to 'this year' apply of course to the year in which he has put Philopoemen's death, viz. A.u.c. 571 183; but it is very likely that Rutilius was following P. (cf. Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 391--2, against Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. ii. 484, who regarded Rutilius' date-he assumes it to be important independent evidence for that year). Livy was, however, aware that the synchronism raised problems, which is no doubt why he consulted Claudius. For earlier, following Valerius Antias (Livy, xxxviii. so. 5) he had put Scipio's death in 187 (Livy, xxxviii. 53· 8), and added {Livy, xxxviii. 56. r-2): 'non de accusatore conuenit ... non de tempore quo dicta dies sit, non de anno, quo mortuus sit, non ubi mortuus aut elatus sit.' He could therefore be convicted of inconsistency if he followed P. in putting Scipio's death in the year of Philopoemen's without comment. Hannibal's death raised no problem; and Livy, xxxix. 51 probably follows P. (cf. Nissen, KU, 227 ff.) in his account of Flamininus' embassy to Prusias' court. P. had related the early stages of this embassy in connection with Deinocrates (5. r4n.), but he seems to have related its later stages in Bithynia in connection with Philopoemen's death instead of in its normal place in res Asiae; this fits the attested displacement of Hannibal's and Scipio's deaths from res Asiae and res ItaUae to that position. (Livy does not commit himself on the question whether Flamininus or the Senate had decided to hunt Hannibal down; if the attribution of responsibility to Flamininus (cf. Plut. Flam. zo. 2-3; App. Syr. II; Paus. viii. II. u) was in P. (so DeSanctis, iv. r. 259 n. 44; cf. Habicht, RE, 'Prusias (z)', col. noJ), he could have altered this.) Flamininus left Home late in r83, reaching Achaea either just before or after Philopoemen entered on his generalship in autumn r83 (5. rs n.); hence his arrival in Bithynia was at the earliest well into autumn r83, and Hannibal's death, 183/2. Nepos, whether then or in r82, would fall under 01. 149, 2 Ifann. 13. 1 records that 'quibus consulibus interierit, non conuenit'; for Atticus put his death under M. Claudius 1hrcellus and Q. Fabius Labeo (183), P. under L. Aemilius Paullus and Cn. Baebius Tamphilus (182) and an unknown Sulpicius Blitho under P. Cornelius Cethegus and :M. Baebius Tamphilus (r8r). The last is clearly wrong; but although it is unlikely that P. specifically assigned Hannibal's death to a consulship, r82 would be the normal equivalent of OL 149, 2 = I8J/2. With Scipio Livy had more difficulties; and he therefDre gave reasons for rejecting the dates of both P. (and Hutilius) and Valerius Antias (despite his earlier acceptance of his date in Livy, xxxviii. 53· 8). Valerius' date of r87 was ruled out because Scipio's accuser was :M. Naevius, tribune in r84 (Livy, xxxix. ,52. 3), 'aduersus quem oratio inscripta P. Africani est'. Against P. and Rutilius was the fact
237
XXIII.
12
DEATH OF PHILOPOEMEN
that the censors M. Porcius Cato and L. Valerius Flaccus, who entered office in r84 after the consuls of that year had left for their provinces (Livy, xxxix. 41. 5), and so about April, recorded L. Valerius as princeps senatus, though in the previous two lustra P. Scipio had held the position. Only a nota of disgrace could have caused P. Scipio's removal during his lifetime; and as none is recorded, there was none. Hence P. Scipio must have died before the censors took office. That a princeps senatus normally held that rank until he died, unless disgraced, has been confirmed by Willems, i. 245; cf. Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 387. But Mommscn, Rom. Forsch. ii. 488-9, points out that, although the senatorial list was normally made up at the beginning of a censorship, revision could continue until its end, and in the case of a death, would do so; thus Scipio could have been princeps se,nattts in early r84 and having died before the r8 months' censorship was over have been replaced in the final official list by L. Valerius. This enables his death to have taken place at any time between April 184 and October r83. Scullard, Pol. 152 n. r, assumes that it was in r83, and if he in fact died after August 183, his death would fall under OL 149, 2 r83j2, which would fit P.'s synchronism. A difficulty arises because of Cicero, de sen. 19, which contains some precise but confused chronological statements (almost certainly drawn from Atticus' Liber annalis; cf. Munzer, Hermes, 1905, 6r f.; Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 142-3). The dramatic date of the dialogue is rso, and Cato is made to say that Scipio 'cuius a morte tertius hie et tricesirnus annus est ... anno ante me censorem (184/3) mortuus est, nouern annis post meum consulatum (r95)'. The thirtythird year before 150 is 183, the year before 184 is 185, and nine years after 195 bring one to r8G. Cicero cannot have written such a jumble of nonsense, and it looks as if some of the figures have suffered textual corruption (so Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 388), though the manuscripts reveal no trace. The first date, 183, would fit Nepos' statement that Atticus put Hannibal's death in r83; but the only phrase in which corruption would be unlikely to occur is the statement that Scipio died anno ante me censorem (so Fraccaro, loc. cit.), which supports 185 or early 184 for his death: which brings us back into 01. 148, 4 = rBs/4· The discrepancy supports Livy's statement that there were discordant views current about the date of Scipio's death, but it does not invalidate the conclusion reached concerning the date assigned to this by P. For Cicero (or Atticus) could well have reached his date by some such argument as that set out in Livy, xxxix. 52. r-2 (L. Valerius princeps senatus), and that, as we have seen, is indecisive. Summing up, it has been argued that P.'s synchronism referred to 01. 149, 2 = 183/2, and that this is met by dating Scipio's death 238
DEATH OF PHILOPOEMEN
XXIII.
I2. I
before Oct. 183, Hannibal's late in 183 or early in 182, and Philopoemen's in May or June r82 (cf. Paus. iv. 29. II, TrEpi dKp.~v rrl-rov); that Livy in his references to 'this year' means the year of Philopoemen's death, which however, through his displacement of the chapters describing it, is A.u.c. 571 = 183 to him; but that in Livy xx:xix. 52. 1-2 an attempt is made to substitute r85 for Scipio's death. Both Mommsen (Rom. Forsch. ii. 391) and Hoffmann (Hermes, 1938, 246) argue that by 'a year' P. may mean 'a period of twelve months', and Errington, 245, envisages this. It is more likely that the year is the olympiad year in which Philopoemen died; but Fraccaro (Opuscula, i. 391-2) rightly observes that P.'s purpose in this synchronism is to raise Philopoemen's glory to a level comparable ""':ith that of Hannibal and Scipio, and that he is unlikely to have been over-scrupulous, if he needed to stretch his year a month or two --especially as his 'olympiad year' was in practice a somewhat flexible period. It is then at least possible that Scipio's death fell a little, though hardly much, before August, 183. See Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. ii. 482-7; Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 385-92; Aymard, Etudes, 22, 35-39; Hoffmann, Hermes, 1938, 244-8; Scullard, Pol. 152 n. I; Scipio Soldier, 240 n. 179; Errington, 241-5. 12. 1. o 6' ~fa.va.OTUS '1Tpoijy£: Plut. Philop. r8. 3, records that news reached Philopoemen that the Messenians were about to seize a place which he calls Ko>.wvt8a (ace.) and Livy (xxxix. 49· 1) Corone (perhaps more likely; cf. Errington, r9o n. 2) ; on Corone, modern Petalidi, on the western shore of the Gulf of Messene, see xviii. 42. 7 n. Philopoemen, who lay sick with a fever at Argos, hastened to Megalopolis, a distance of over 4oo stades, in a day, taking his cavalry. €tavaanzs (which Mauersberger translates 'aufbrechen') may therefore mean 'arising from his bed'. Plutarch represents Philopoemen's action as following immediately upon the Mcssenian revolt. But, as has been indicated (9. 8 n.), it is not clear what the )lessenians did, whether before or after the Achaeans declared war on them in late summer, r83. Pausanias (iv. 29. n-12, viii. 51. 5) records two Achaean expeditions sent to ravage Messenia, the second under Lycortas being 7tEpt dKp.~v rri-rov; and he explains that Philopoemen was intending to join him, an account which seems confirmed by Philopoemen's inquiry, when a captive, about Lycortas' safety (Livy, xxxix. so. 7; Plut. Philop. 2o. 2-3). It appears that all this happened in spring 182, and that Philopoemen left his sick-bed to join Lycortas upon hearing of the threat to Corone (Errington, r89-9o). (mb ••• appwaTta.s: cf. Plut. PM lop. 18. 7' Stet T~JJ dppwrn[av-rovadip.aTO<; ~voeovs
yeyov6-ro>.
dxe yap ~~Sop.'I'}KoaTov hos: 'for he was now in his seventieth year' ; cf. Plut. Philop. r8. 1, iJo'IJ 8£ yEyov
XXIII.
12. I
DEATH OF PHILOPOEMEN
J4xa.twv crrpaTTJywv. The date of Philopoemen's birth is uncertain. In Plutarch (Philop. 5· r), there is a reference to his being ~871 ... TptdKoVTa. eTT} y.:yovoTos- during the autumn before Sellasia (v•·hich was in 222; cf. ii. n. (a)) and so in 223. This would put his birth within the period autumn 253; but, taken literally, the present passage means that he was still 69 in ~lay/June r8z, and so was born later than May/June 252. But in fact ancient authors did not always distinguish between cardinal and ordinal numbers in reckoning age; and Livy xxxix. 49· 4 renders the present passage as septuaginia annos iam nat1-ts, and Paus. viii. 5r. 5 says 7rp6aw {J£{3tw~<w> ifJoofL~KovTa iTwv. If P. means 'aged seventy', Philopoemen's birth fell before :May/June, 252; and if it was in 253, this would fit the other figure (for Sellasia). See Errington, 246-7. In expressions with €x.:w denoting age P. uses ordinal numbers in only two other passages; these are x. 3· 4, i71'7'aKatoeKaTov eTo>, and x. 6. 10, eTo> .•. :IfJoop.ov exwvTrpo> Tot> EtKoLAowoi!lTJV ••• ~ap116.tc'll: the summary wording is that of the excerptor of de sent. ; the text of the exc. de t~irt. et 1~ii. omits 240
CHARACTER OF PHILOPOEME::S
XXIII.
12.
7
uvUTJrfofJd; •.• rfoapp..r:iK~.p. The ambush 1T€pl Tov EMvopov ,\6rfoov and Philopoemen's capture are described in Plutarch (Philop. 18. 4-8) and
Livy (xxxix. 49· r-6); the site is unknown and some scholars have emended EM.vopov to Euav, which would be Mt. Eva at Messene (cf. Paus. iv. 31. 4). Tradition unanimously attributes Philopoemen's death to poison administered at the instigation of Deinocrates (Livy, xxxix. so. 7-8; Plut. Phitop. 20; Paus. viii. sr. 7); but it is a tradition going back to P., who must have had his information from a Messenian source. The account in Livy and Plutarch is of more well-disposed masses overridden by leaders such as Deinocrates, and Errington, zgz, suggests very plausibly that this represents 'a rna j or attempt at political apologetics after Messene had capitulated', making Deinocrates the scapegoat. He also envisages the possibility that Philopoemen in reality died from exhaustion and injuries; but if so, the truth would have provided the best defence. After Philopoemen's death P. seems to have related its sequel; cf. Livy, xxxix. so. g, 'non diuturnum mortis eius gaudium auctoribus crudelitatis fuit. uicta namque :Ylessene bello exposcentibus Achaeis dedit noxios, ossaque reddita Philopoemenis sunt, et sepultus ab uniuerso Achaico est concilio, adeo omnibus humanis honoribus ut ne diuinis quidem abstineretur.' '"is TUX1)'> ••• y' iiTTwv: cf. ix. 8. 13 on Epaminondas; Vol. I, p. 24; Diod. xxix. I8, ayvwp..ov~ Tt;Xll uvyK€XPTJf.tEVO<;. 4. £CJTuxi]c::roL ••• liuvoTov, KT~.: a commonplace; cf. iii. 31. 3 n.; von Scala, I67 n. I, who suggests an echo of Euripides or Menander (but his argument that otwTvxt:tv is non-Polybian is invalid, since it occurs in fg. I2; for its use in Menandcr cf. CAF,iii. p. no. 531l. 3; cf. Wundcrer, i. 22, who however thinks P. has Chrysippus' rrapotp.W.t).
5. TLS ytJ.p avayK'I'] ••• 1TpOc::rKVVELV ~v 'TUX1)V;: d. xviii. 28. 5 and, for limitations on the field which P. would leave open to Tyche, Vol. I, p. 22. 7. MeT ••• I AuKop'Tov: Btittner-vVobst p..erii. o' ei'AoVTO AuKopnw (following Kaelker but with 8' in of M) ; in that case the reference is to the choice of Lycortas as general to succeed Philopoemen; cf. Plut. Philop. 21. I, ol 8' ;.v ~AtKiq. f.tC'TJ. rwv 1Tpo-
'' UVVEI\'IJ'Ol'T(;S e•S'•·r J.Ylf:yar.'T}V '' 17'01\!V '' OVO ·~·' 'T}VTWOUV ~, ava,801\'Y}ll '' €TrO!'T}Ua.VTO , ' f3OUI\WV
T'ijs np..wpias, &.,\,\' J,\6p...:vot urpaT7)yov AvKopTav t:ls Tt]v Meu~vlav
€vl{1a.Aov. Presumably Archon, as general for r84/3 (cf. xxii. 19. 1),
took over until an election could be held (as the law required: xxxviii. Ij. I-z); cf. Aymard, ACA, 2IL Larsen, 178, suggests that the proboutoi were theoretically responsible for the election, the army merely exerting pressure; but that is not what Plutarch says, and the army seems to have acted as the equivalent of an electoral assembly. For other examples of this see below, pp. 407-8.
XXIII. 12. 8
CHARACTER OF HANNIBAL
8. TET1'a.pclt
ANECDOTES CONCERNING P. SCIPIO
XXIII. 14·
2
other two men (d. I2. I-I4. I2 n.). The anecdotes are at I4. I-4, I4. s-6, and I4. 7-rr, and their source is uncertain. On Scipio P. used many sources-family tradition, C. Laelius (x. 3· 2, cf. x. 2. I-2o. 8 n.), perhaps the 'historia ... Graeca scripta dulcissime' (Cic. Brut. 77) of Africanus' son, and the unnamed sources mentioned in x. 2. 3· In addition there were already collections of stories (similar to those about Cato in Plut. Cato mai. 8---9) circulating and P. may have drawn on such a collection for these anecdotes (Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 27I-2). P. appears not to have dealt separately in his Histories with the trials of the Scipios (d. Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. ii. 42I; Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 268 n. I4). 1-4. First anecdote: Scipio's reply when standing trial. 1. no1T}uos <j>LAoSo~Tjaa.s EV cipLaTOKpO.TLK~ 1TOALTEU!-LO.TL: 'who pursued fame in an aristocratic state' (in contrast to Philopoemen, I2. 8 n.). This must be the sense, rather than Schweighaeuser, 'cum optima tum partes in republica esset amplexus'. 2. EV •.. T~ SY]I-L~ KpLVELV TLVOS emf3a.AO!-LEVOu: Gellius (iv. r8. 3--6), probably drawing on Nepos, as in Gell. vi. I9 (cf. Nissen, KU, 2I4) gives as his accuser the tribune M. Naevius, and states that Scipio was accused of receiving money from Antioch us in return for obtaining an easier peace settlement 'et quaedam item alia ... indigna tali uiro'. Scipio observed that it was the anniversary of Zama and invited the whole assemblage to accompany him to the Capitol to give thanks to Iuppiter. Gellius adds that Scipio's speech was extant (though believed by some to be a forgery). Livy, xxxviii. so. s-sr. I4, has a version derived from Valerius Antias, which makes the accusers two men, the Q. Petillii, and contains much falsification. See also Val. Max. iii. 7· I; App. Syr. 40; Dio, xix, fg. 63; Zon. ix. 20; Diod. xxix. 2I; Plut. Cato mai. IS; Mor. I96 F no. Io; de uir. ill. 49· q. The reality of this trial has been queried (as by De Sanctis, iv. r. 59I-8), and when accepted some scholars would date it to I87 and others to I84 (to fit Naevius' tribunate: Livy, xxxix. 52. 3-4). For discussion see Scullard, Pol. 298-303; Scipio Soldier, 2Io-24 (d. Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 393-4I5), who makes a good case for accepting the trial and putting it in I84; it will have been the climax of Cato's attack, launched a little before or a little after his election to the censorship of that year. The charge against Africanus is not easily disentangled from the sources. P. says 1roAAa KaTTJyop~aavTo> Ka~ mKpw>, Gellius (iv. r8. 3-6) bribery to obtain a more favourable peace for Antiochus, Appian (Syr. 40) owpoOoK{a<; Ka~ 7Tpoooa{a<;; others mention the bribes, Antiochus' return of his son, his autocratic behaviour, res repetundae. Scullard, Pol. 302, suggests that the formal charge was proditio, and 243
XXIII.
14. 2
ANECDOTES CONCERNING P. SCIPIO
that the case was heard in the comitia tributa (with a fine as the proposed sentence): but certainty is impossible .. 1ro?.?.O. KO.TTJYOPtlO'O.VTOS Kai mKpws: Diod. xxix. 2I paraphrases Karq·yopovp..cvos .. . V7T' atinvv Ocwcp Oavcinp (going beyond P.). 3. li:>..:>..o J.LEV oOOev £11TE 1rpoEMwv: this is decisive against the genuineness of the speech allegedly given on this occasion; cf. Gell. iv. r8. 6; Livy, xxxviii. 56. r. Livy asserts that the index of P. Scipio's speech had the name of M. Naevius (though the speech itself did not mention him by name); the likelihood is that the forger took it from the annalists (Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 273-8, 396-7; it is also mentioned in Val. Max. iii. 7. I) and that it is genuine. SL' 8v o.lm1v -riJv -rou A£y£w £~ouO"(av ~xouO'tV: i.e. by his victory at Zama; but the story that it happened to be the anniversary of the battle and that Scipio led the whole court to the Capitol is improbable. 'The annalists probably elaborated the reference to the" crowning mercy" of Zama implied in [Scipio's] words ... ; it would then be a short step to suggest that the accusation actually fell on the anniversary' (Scullard, Pol. 298-9). The Zama story is also in Val. Max. iii. 7· I and in Valerius Antias ap. Livy, xxxviii. sr. 7-I2; cf. Plut. M or. 196 F no. ro (by implication). 4. ot 1TOAAot ••• 8lEAU9TJO'O.V: obviously exaggerated; those behind the accusation will have been unimpressed, and Fraccaro (Opuscula, i. 271) suggests that in fact Scipio and his clientela, along with some of the crowd, simply left the comitia. The result was less favourable to Scipio than the anecdote suggests; for he at once withdrew to Liternum (Livy, xxxviii. 52. r), where he died soon after, probably in summer 183 (r2. I-14. r2 n.). 5-6. Second anecdote: Scipio says he will open the treasury. For this anecdote cf. Livy, xxxviii. 55· 13; Val. Max. iii. 7· r; Plut. Mor. I96 F no. 9; both Livy and Valerius Maximus quote it as an example of his fiducia sui or fiducia animi. The incident must belong to Scipio's second consulship (r95), for it is unthinkable that he would demand the keys from the quaestor while priuatus (so Val. Max. iii. 7· r); cf. Scullard, Scipio Soldier, I94; von Fritz, Constitutiott, 437 n. 15; Mommsen, St.-R. ii. IJ2 n. 2. 5. XP££as 1TOTE ••• Eis nvo. ••• oLKovofllo.v: other sources are equally vague; cf. Val. Max. iii. 7· I, 'cum ad necessarium rei publicae usum pecuniam ex aerario promi opus esset ... ' Tou 8£ To.f1£ou 8ui nvo. v611ov ou ~nO'Kov-ros KTA.: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 55· IJ, contra legem. Consuls might spend money from the aerarium 'being accompanied by a quaestor who faithfully executes their instructions' (vi. I2. 8); but there is no evidence of such a right being exercised without a senatus consultum, and P. may here be in error (cf. Gelzer, Kl. Schr. iii. 214; Larsen, CP, 1957, 36 f., quoted in Vol. II, p. 646 addenda). Plut. Mor. 196 J!' no. 9 mentions a senatorial authorization:
244
ANECDOTES CONCERNING P. SCIPIO
XXIII. !4· 7
X.P~J.taTa s~ 7'7jS" avyKA~TOV .\a{Jer~· athov iK 7'0V 7'UJJ.Udov if;T)cptO'a.fJ.lV1]S.
What la\\' prevented the quaestor from opening the treasury on a particular day is unknown. On the single quaestor in charge see Crawford, RRC, i. 313 no. 299. }.a.~wv T~S ~eAeis: according to Dio, xli. q. 2 (Caesar's demand that the aerarium be opened in 49) the consuls had the key; but he is probably wrong (Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 132 n. 2). 6. a.vTo<;; ycl.p a.tTws ••• ToG ~eAe(ea8a.L To Ta.fueiov: cf. Plut. M or. 196 F no. 9, Kal yap KAelwOa.t lit' atlrdv 1TA~O'avra XPTJJ.td.Twv TDO'OVTWV TO T«JJ.Lefov. There the sense is clearer-that it is the wealth brought in by Scipio (from Spain and Carthage} that has made it necessary to lock the doors. 7-ll. Third anecdote: Scipio tears up the accounts in the Senate. See also Gell. iv. r8. 7-r2; Diod. xxix. 27; Val. Max. iii. 7. I. The story belongs to the first episode in the campaign of the Scipios' enemies and probably dates to r87, since according to Gellius the demand came from the tribunes Petillii (who are mentioned by Valerius Antias ap. Livy, xxxviii. 50. 5, as leading the prosecution of Africanus, which Antias falsely dated to that year: above, r2. xI4· r2 n.), suborned by Cato. The likelihood is that the campaign was directed against L. Scipio, who as commander was legally responsible, but that Africanus intervened (Scullard, Pol. 292 ; Scipio Soldier, 216-r7); also that after Africanus' action the matter was dropped. According to Gell. iv. r8. 7, Scipio was required to render account 'pecuniae Antiochinae praedaeque in eo bello captae'; but it is unlikely (cf. Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 281-2; contra Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. ii. 426ft.) that the mention of booty is genuine, for a general was under no obligation to account for this. The real issue seems to have been whether the soo talents paid as a preliminary instalment by Antiochus (d. xxi. 17. 5) counted as public money or, as Scipio claimed, as praeda (d. 1Iommsen, Rom. Forsch. ii. 443; Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 367-8; Scullard, Pol. 292-3), and the phrase added in Gellius seems to derive from an annalist. At this stage the issue does not appear to have involved any charge of misuse of funds, but was one of definitions and procedure. 7. Aoyov a'II'O.L7'0Uv'l"(lS TWOS ~v -rQ O'UVE8pi'l;l: for the vagueness, probably due to his source, see 14. 2; cf. Gell. iv. r8. 7, 'Petillii quidam tribuni plebis a M., ut aiunt, Catone, inimico Scipionis, comparati in cum atque irnrrrissi desiderabant in scnatu instantissime, ut ... rationem redderet.' The tribunes >vere entitled to raise any issue of public concern, and this might lead on to an inquiry and possibly a prosecution before the people (Scullard, Pol. 292). -rwv XP'lf16.Twv Jw iAal3e "ll"a.p' lb..v-noxou KTA.: cf. Val. Max. iii. 7· I, 'cum a L. Scipione ex A.ntiochcnsi pecunia sestertii quadragies ratio in curia reposceretur'. Here the demand is correctly made of Lucius, 245
XXIII. 14. 7
ANECDOTES CONCERNING P. SCIPIO
not Publius; but 4,ooo,ooo sesterces should be the equivalent of 166.6 talents (if a drachma is equated with a denarius; cf. vi. 39· 12-15 n.) which does not match the sums in question. L. Scipio had received soo talents immediately, and it will be to this sum, incorrectly calculated, that Valerius refers; but the 4,ooo,ooo sesterces are also in Livy, xxxviii. 55· I2 (cf. Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. ii. 4223 n. r8). Later (§ 9) P. mentions 3,ooo talents, but this need not imply that the Senate had required L. Scipio to account for the whole of this sum: see ad loc. ~xew !-LEV ~TJ Tov Aoy~a .... ov: inaccurate, since L. Scipio was in command; Gell. iv. I8. 8, tries to explain his possession of the accounts by saying that he had been his brother's legatus, which was true but does not explain why he had them; he then distorts the incident by making Africanus say that he had brought them to read out and then deposit in the aerarium-'sed enim id iam non faciam'! Valerius Maximus rightly makes L. Scipio produce them. ou 8e'Lv ••• U1TOO"XELV ou8evt Myov: this was the issue : Scipio claimed that the payment counted as praeda (cf. 7-n n.). As far as is known, the issue had not previously arisen (d. Fraccaro, opuscula, i. 282-3), since hitherto no general had collected part of an indemnity and used it for his own (legitimate) purposes. 8. iJs'wO"E TOV a8eft.<j>bv ~vEyKELV: in reality he had it (see above). Ka.Ta.a1To.pasa.s: cf. Gcll. iv. r8. n, 'statim coram discidit suis manibus et concerpsit'; Val. Max. iii. 7· I, 'discerpsit, indignatus de ea re dubitari, quae sub ipso legato administrata fuerat.' 9. Twv !-LEV TpLO"XLAlwv Ta.AavTwv : this comprised the 5oo talents paid to L. Scipio (xxi. q. 5) and the 2,5oo collected by Cn. Manlius (xxi. 41. 8); hence, unless P. (or his source) has made a mistake, there must have been some discussion of Manlius' use of the money too (cf. Livy, xxxix. 6. 3-9, where the lateness of his triumph is ascribed to his fear of becoming entangled in the Scipionic disaster~perhaps a dubious assertion (Scullard, Pol. 144 n. 2), but one at least which shows that tradition knew him to be under suspicion). Twv 8e 1-Luplwv ••• ~~:a.t 1TEVTO.KLUX~Mwv: cf. xxi. !7· 4, 43· 19 (r2,ooo after the preliminary 3,ooo had been paid). 10. :.\ala.s •.• AL~UTJS ••• 'I~T]pla.s: i.e. the Second Punic War and the war with Antiochus ; but )lu{as- .•• Atf3VTJ> ••. KEKvptEVKaaw is a loose expression to describe the situation at this time; cf. Val. Max. iii. 7· I, 'cum Africam totam potestati uestrae subiecerim'. Africa could be said to have been mastered in so far as the Carthaginians had been defeated on their home ground; but it was no more a Roman possession than was Asia. See Gelzer, Kl. Schr. ii. 5· P. does not discuss the fmther attack on L. Scipio culminating in his trial; see for details Scullard, Pol. 293-8, arguing, with Fraccaro, opuscula, i. 376-7, for dating the trial of L. Scipio in I87. The whole 246
ANECDOTES CONCERNING P. SCIPIO
XXIII. I5.
I
question, including the details and outcome of the trial, is controversial. 12. Ti]s ••• Twv flETTJAAa.xM-wv O.vSpwv: i.e. Philopoemen, Hannibal, and P. Scipio. euKAda.s eveKev K«~ TtlS .•• 1TapopJltj
15. 1-3. Condemnation of those who destroy trees and agricultural installations This extract from de sent. seems to refer to the Achaean devastation of Messenia following Philopoemen's death (cf. r6. 1, xxiv. 2. 3, 9· 13; Plut. Philop. 21. r). P. is criticizing a policy carried out by his father Lycortas, who had been elected strategos in Philopoemen's place (12. 7 n.); cf. Lehmann, 199-200. For disagreement with Lycortas on a matter of policy see xxviii. 6. For discussion of what is permissible in war see also iv. 62. 3 (attacks on temples), v. II. 3-4 n. (condemning wanton damage which does not further the purpose of the war). 15. 1. oo KaAbv ••• Twv u1revo.vTlwv: apparently the excerptor's words, summarizing the excerpt. els Tous OJlo<}luAous: broader than 6JLoE0v-r}s: cf. xi. 19. 3 n. T(J. SivSpo. Ko.t Ta K«TO..lJLtDt Ka-racpOElpovTES ~J) x
XXIII.
rs. I
CONDEMNATION OF THOSE WHO DESTROY TREES
agricultural machinery of a large character, destruction of which might prove disastrous over a long time. 3. wvf)v &4>Lf:vcu: P.'s account is naturally biased towards the pro-Achaean party. 3. ol ..• 1rept Tov Ac:woKpaTTJV KTA.: cf. 5. r n. Here the sense seems to be 'Deinocrates and his supporters'. Btittner-Wobst suggests Tots Katpoi:s 1Tav'rax_o6ev for the lacuna after 1Tc:pd.x_Ea6at. 5. 'E1ra.£vt:Tos Ka.L ~1roAAoSwpos: otherwise unknown. It is interesting to find Boeotian envoys mediating between the Achaean Confederacy and a member in re,•olt. ot MeaaT)vLoL: awkward after ol1ToAAo[ and perhaps to be bracketed (as by Paton). 6. TOUS auvnpxona.s: probably 'the magistrates'' elsewhere called a.i avvapx{a~; cf. ii. 37· Ion. (e), and for a similar usage in the Epirote Confederation cf. lnsch. Mag. 32 I. 37, Kp{awva -rov O"rpa'ray6v Kat 'rOfJ<; aw&.px_oVTas (zo6). 7. TTJV aKpa.v: Mt. Ithome; cf. vii. 12. In. 8. EKSLMvo.L Ka.l auAAa.p.~nvc:w: 'to arrest and hand over'; h_ysteron proteron to avoid hiatus (d. ii. 2. 2 n.). 9. TO Se auvexov: 'above all', going closely with o(JK E)(OYTES' atpHnv. 11. ds TTJV 1TOALv: Messene. cittET«ttEATJTOV ••• TTJV 1TLO'TLV: 'they WOUld not regret having entrusted themselves to the Achaeans.' 12. vcl.Aw auvayeCT9a.L ••. t1Tl. Tfjv SeuTEpa.v auvo8ov: this, the second regular meeting of the year, was being held, like the first (cf. 7rdAw), 248
MESSENIA SURRENDERS TO THE ACHAEANS
XIII. 17.
2
at Megalopolis. The first meeting was probably that at which Lycortas was elected general following Philopoemen's death (r 2. 7 n.) ; cf. 178-9. On the phrase ol ltxawl and its relevance to the composition of the synodos see xxii. 7· 8 n. 13. Twv 8' €v Tn~s nhla.Ls: 'of those guilty', i.e. of the revolt; cf. xi. 27. 3· According to Plut. Philop. zi. z Deinocrates had already committed suicide, 'TWP :i' a..\Awv oaots p.Jv Jv£..\c-i:v loot£
) " ( Ot at ~ > < n Kat' f3 aaavwat, ' 'TOVTOVS > ) ) ati'TWV ati'TWV a'/T£'IJ V[JUKOV, OUOt) OE' E'IT alKlat;; d'!ToAovp..Ivov;; avv£Aa.p.{3av£v AvKbp'Tas. For similar by Callicrates d. xxiv. 9· 13. (St' avTwv may mean 'they committed
~ ) ot
A
)
H
)
o
suicide', despite Paus. viii. 51. 8, who says that only Deinocrates killed himself; with St' a~Twv the phrase may mean 'at the hands of the Messenians' (Ziegler) or, more probably, 'at the hands of the Achaeans' (Flacelicre).) The phrase oaot p.~v ••• suggests that P. had also a il€ clause, perhaps recounting the decision taken on those who had advocated torturing Philopoemen.
17. 1-18. 5. The Afessenian settlement and the Roman reaction: Sparta rejoins the Achaean Confederation (r8z) This excerpt from de legal. gent. clearly follows r6. more res Graeciae of 01. 149, z = 183/2 ; see p. 16.
I-IJ
and contains
17 • 1. T~V ES fipxl]s Ka.T6.0"TaCTLV TTJS O'UtJ-1TO,.LTelaS: 'their original position within the Confederacy' ; on avp.1ToAtT£la see Giovannini, Untersuchungen, zz-z4, with my criticisms in Scripta Classica Israelica, 1976/7. 27-35· T~v Au~eopTa Ka.i. Twv 1\xa~wv fleyaAo~uxtav: one-sided, as the next sentence shows (d. Errington, 195). 2. 1\~(a, Kat 9oupla ~eat c&Japal: all three towns lay on the eastern borders of Messenia. Abia was on the coast south-east of Kalamai; scanty ruins exist at Megale Mantinia and Palaeochora, and there are harbour remains (Lehmann-Hartleben, 240). For a description see Frazer, Pausanias, iii. 421; Valmin, 181 f. Thuria stood on a plateau west of the river Pamisus; for its ruins east of the villages of Antheia and Aipeia see Leake, Morea, i. 354ff.; Frazer, Pausanias, iii. 424 f.; Valmin, 56 ft.; Bolte, RE, 'Thuria', cols. 633-8. On Pharae see :xvi. 16. 3 n. (where the author of theRE article should be Bolte). Inscriptions provide information on the new constitution of Thuria, which apparently followed the Achaean pattern (d. Bolte, RE, 'Thuria', col. 636). The determination of the territories of Megalopolis and Messene took some time; cf. Insck. Olympia, no. 46 = IG, v. 2, p. xxvii, where Diophanes (l. 5), P. himself (1. 7), and Thearidas (probably his elder brother, 1. 6: below, xxxii. 7· 1 n.) are
249
XXIII. 17.
2
THE MESSENIAN SETTLEMENT
members of the commission. I nsch. Olympia, no. 46A concerns the delimitation of territories between Thuria artd Megalopolis, and it is likely that the decision on both disputes was taken at an Achaean synodos held at Sicyon (11. 56-57; below§ 5 n.). A Messenian inscription (Valmin, Inscriptions de la Messenie (Lund, 1929), no. 1 SEG, xi. 972), dealing with a delimitation dispute between Megalopolis and Thuria in which Patrae arbitrated, was assigned by the editor to these negotiations; against this see the valid criticisms of Roebuck. 103-4 n. r68. t8£q. (8.1) 8E!J.EVClL OTtlAT'Iv KTA.: 'and setting up each a separate inscription-pillar became members of the Confederation' ; misunderstood by Shuck burgh who translates 'and setting up a pillar engraved with a treaty of alliance between themselves, formed a separate league'. The pillars will have been erected at the Homarion near Aegium; see ii. 39· 6 n. Bingen's article there quoted gives reasons for locating this sanctuary north-west of Aegium where relevant inscriptions have been reported found. 3. ~eaT«i Myov KEXWflTIKtvaL TOLli 1\xaLoi:l;: 'had ended favourably to the Achaeans'. TfjS 1rpOTEpoV cmo4u.lo-ews: cf. 9· I3-·T4 for the earlier reply and P.'s interpretation of it. Tois auTD'is 1rpeo-~EuTais: detained at Rome (9. 14). t-Lti9' o1rAa f-LTJTE o-i:Tov: as requested by the Messenians (9. 12) ; the text is ambiguous; it could mean that the Romans had given those instructions when requested (despite 9- 13-14), or that they had done so more recently (perhaps upon hearing of the crushing of the revolt!). No doubt this ambiguity is in the original wording and was deliberate. 4. 8uo-xEpa(vouo-w t1rt Tee f-L1} 1fclVTWV ~v O.va~opav •• , y(vea9at: this new answer suggests some embarrassment in the Senate, and seems likely to have encouraged the Achaeans in an independent policy (cf. Gelzer, Kl. Schr. iii. 151; Briscoe, JRS, 1964, 67; Larsen, GFS, 455). Yet P. alleges that it was taken to indicate that the Senate wanted a finger in every pie. Perhaps then he assumed that in saying that they had taken steps (1rpovotav 1rmol7Jv-rat) to ensure that no arms or corn reached Messenia from Italy the Senate was implying that it was not \Vithout some responsibility for the Achaean success. Errington, r87, argues that later events showed that it was not 'now clear to all' that the Romans were displeased if everything was not referred to them; but what those events showed was that, wisely or foolishly, many Achaeans still did not regard pleasing the Romans as their highest priority. 5. KOf-LLtOVTWV T~V a1TOKp~C7lV: cf. 9· II, below § 7. o o-TpaTT'!yos: Lycortas; cf. r2. 7 n. His enthusiastic and successful (18. r) speech was perhaps re>varded with the statue which the 250
SPARTA REJOINS THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE
XXIII. 17.8
Spartans erected in his honour in the Asclepieum at Epidaurus (Syll. 6z6). auvilyE Tous 'n'oAAous ets T.qv T(;)v ILKuwv(wv 'n'OALv: a syncletos (cf. ii. 46. 6 n., xxxix. 24. s-6), since it was called at short notice to deal with a particular problem; cf. Aymard, ACA, zo6 n. 7; Larsen, I79· The readmission of Sparta was comparable to that of Messene, but the latter had been dealt with at the synodos because one happened to be due at the time (16. u). It follows that this is not the synodos mentioned in Insch. Olympia, no. 46 ll. sCr-57, at which the boundaries between Messene and Megalopolis were demarcated (above § :zn.; Aymard, ACA, 25 n. 4; Roebuck, 103n. r67; Larsen, rSr). 6. (Q.v)ES(Sou SLa.~ouAtov: 'he initiated a debate'; for the same phrase used concerning what was also probably a syncletos, see xxiv. 8. 1. See Larsen, r8o~r, 'it undoubtedly refers to the statement of the case made on the first of the three days of the meeting'; in fact, however, the phrase is common in other contexts (see Mauersberger, s.v.
XXIII. 17.8
SPARTA REJOINS THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE
counter-coup postulated for Serippus by Errington, 290. But the details cannot be recovered. 9. To us 8La.TETTJPTJicon1s TfJv vpos To Eevos vlo-rw: presumably Serippus and his group. If there had been a compromise with Chacron, as seems likely, Lycortas would naturally gloss over this. 10. TWV apxa.(wv +uyci8wv: the group represented by Arcus and Alcibiades (cf. xxi. 1. 4); though restored by the Achaeans after Compasium, they had intrigued against them by sending embassies to Rome (xxii. II. 8 n.), and at Lycortas' instigation Areus and Alcibiades had been condemned to death (I84) at the Achaean meeting (note following xxii. I4. 12 n.). Their group, now in exile, has new leaders (cf. 6. In.). hipwv a.uTous EKKEKAElKOTttJV: if Errington, 289, is right, a coalition of Serippus' and Chaeron's groups, now in power; cf. 5· 18 n. f.lETa TTJS TWV 8Ewv trpovo£a.s: 'god willing': little more than a verbal flourish (against any suggestion of Stoic ideas here see Hercod, 98). 12. ALo+civT]s: cf. xxi. 3 b 2 n., 9· I-J, xxii. Io. 4, 10. 14; he was at this time an opponent of Lycortas' party, though he served on the commission settling the boundaries between Mcssene and Megalopolis along with P. and Thearidas (cf. § 2 n.). 18. 1. o"r.qATJS trpoypa.+EiO"TJS: probably set up at the Homarion (I7. 2 n., xxiv. 2. 3). auvEvoALTEuETo f.lETa Twv Ji\xa.Lwv t1 IvcipTTJ: restoring the situation existing between I88 and the recent secession in I82. 2. f.1TJ8tv ••• liyvwf.lov: 'nothing lacking in gratitude'. The exiles were thus reduced to the few intransigents such as Areus' and Alcibiades' party (cf. Shimron, Late Sparta, no); this softening in the Achaean attitude may be the result of the disappearance of Philopoemen (Niese, iii. 56). How the property problem was solved is not recorded. 3. B£TI'T!'ov: cf. xxiv. r. 6, 2. 4; otherwise unknown. 4. TOUS TI'Ept Xa.(pwva.: xapwva y corr. Schweighaeuser, following Reiske; sec 4· 5 n. For Derow's defence of the manuscript reading see above, p. I8. Chaeron had represented the group restored by the Romans (4. 8); for the likelihood of his collaboration with Serippus, break with his group during Serippus' absence in Rome, and subsequent reconciliation see 5· I8 n., 17· 6 n. In view of his popularity at Rome he was an obvious choice as envoy; and Serippus would probably be reluctant to go himself leaving Chaeron at Sparta (Errington, 290-I). For his later career see xxiv. 7· r-8. 5. KXTjnv Ka.t ALa.KTopLov: unknown otherwise.
FRAGMENTS
XXIII. Fg.
2
Fragments
1. Steph. Byz. Ta>..Qjjpa~. "llo>..t)j3wc; OE lv rep y' (•y' uel Ky' Schweighaeuser, v. 59) ra>..aop~KOJI .PTJUL." Galadrae (cf. Lycophron, Alex. 1342, 1444) is a town in Macedonia; Leake, NG, iii. 317, located it in Pieria near the borders of Eordaea, but others identify it with Chalastra usually placed at Kulakia on the Axius: d. Geyer, RE, 'Makedonia', cols. 662, 663. If Galadrae appeared in book xxiii, it was in res Macedoniae; a possible context would be Philip's winter campaign of 183 (8. 4-7). But book xiii, from which there is a large number of isolated geographical references, is equally possible (cf. xiii. 10). 2. F~. 112, from Suidas, allotted to P. by Valesius, may refer to Pharnaces I of Pontus, who attacked Ariarathes before going on to attack Eumenes II ; see 9· 3 n. Tolh-o~c; might in that case refer to the Galatians; and the fragment would fall under res Asiae of 01. 149, 2 = 183/2. See below, p. 752, fg. II2 n.
253
BOOK XXIV 01. 149, 3-4 = 1S2j1 and 181/o (probably; see pp. IJ-I4, r6). r8z/r is dealt with in chS. 1-4, I8Ijo in chs. 5-15. 1. 1-7. Embassies at Rome (winter r8zfr)
This passage from de legat. gent. corresponds to Livy, xl. 20. 1-4, who goes straight on with events of rSI in Macedonia, which clearly draw on P.'s res ]l,facedoniae (from which no survive). 1. 1. vap6. TE TWV ( An~eeSa.!.JLOVLWV ~ea.l TWv) EK Aa.~e.e8aL!l-Ovos cf.uy0.8wv: for Gronovius' addition cf. § 4; and for the names of both sets of envoys see xxiii. rS. 4-5. va.pcl. Twv :4xa.Wv: cf. xxiii. IS. 3 for Bippus. Eu..,.Evous ••• :4pLapc18ou ••• cl>npvu~eou: for Pharnaces' attack on
Ariarathes see xxiii. 9· 3 n., note on fg. II2 at the end of book xxiii; and for Eumenes' alignment with Ariarathes see xxi. 45 n. 2. Twv vept Tov M6.pKov '11'pea[3EuTwv: envoys from Eumenes and Pharnaces had been in Rome in winter r83j2, following Pharnaces' seizure of Sinope in rSJ, and the Senate had sent legati to investigate (xxiii. 9· r ff.). The full name of their leader, Marcus, is not recorded; but there are no grounds for emending to McipK,ov (i.e. Q. Marcius Philippus) with Ursinus. lvt Tov Eli..,.EvEL Ka.l cl>a.pv6.~en auveaTT]KOTa. voAEp.ov: after Pharnaces' seizure of Sin ope; there is no evidence that Pharnaces was involved in the war between Eumenes and Prusias, which ended in ISJ (xxii. 2!. 8 n.), and in xxiii. 9· 3 P. speaks only of 'TWV 'Tois f3arn).Efirnv a!Lrfo'(J"f3"1J'TOVjLEVWV. The disagreement probably turned to war towards the end of 183, with Pharnaces' invasion of Galatia. A treaty between Eumenes and thirty Cretan cities, dating to the month Panemus of Eumenes' fourteenth regnal year (June 183) concerns the hiring of mercenaries [77p6]> 7oti,- avvu:rrajLivovs 7TOAijLovs, which may refer to the war with Prusias as well as to that with Pharnaces (Syll. 627 IC, iv. 179; cf. xxii. 15. 2 n. ; Hansen 2 , ror n. roo). On the war see 14. r-15. 13, xxv. 2. r-rs (conclusion); Meyer, Pontos, 75 ff.; Diehl, RE, 'Pharnakes (r)', cols. 1849-50. 3. 1r6.Xw vtf-L"'n ... E'II'LaKE"'Of'Evous: perhaps critical of 'Marcus" report, with its commitment toEumenes, who no longer enjoyed their favour; cf. Will, ii. 245. 4. Twv ••• cfJuycl.Swv: cf. xxiii. 18. 5; Livy, xl. 20. 2 (who omits to mention the envoys from Sparta itself). 6. TT}c; MEaaT]VLll>v &.1ToKnTa.aTaaEws: 'the restoration of order in Mes-
254
EMBASSIES AT ROME (WINTER 182/1}
XXIV. z. 5
senia'; cf. xxiii. q. 1. This was an incidental matter, since Bippus was sent primarily to report on Sparta (xxiii. 18. 3). Macedonian affairs: from Livy, xl. 20. 3-4, it is clear that P. next described the hearing of Philip's envoys, Philocles and Apelles, who had been sent to inquire into Demetrius' alleged conversations with Flamininus and others about the succession; though Philip thought them impartial, they were in fact partisans of Perseus. Since Livy passes directly from this to res AIacedoniae, describing Philip's activities in 181, it is possible that, as in Ol. 149, 2 (183/2; cf. xxiii. Io-n), Macedonian affairs were treated by P. before Greek, in which case ch. 4 should precede 2-3.
<4.
Mt. H aemus: on the position of this fragment see the previous note and p. 17: its relation to 2-3 is uncertain.)
2. 1-3. 1. Affairs in Achaea and Crete (181) On the placing of these two chapters in res Graeciae of this year see p. 17; their location is not entirely certain. eSo~E TOLS 1f.xa.\OL'): clearly at a meeting; and since Messenian affairs were also discussed, it was a synodos (a syncletos being confined to the topic it was summoned to discuss; d. Livy, xxxi. 25. 9; Aymard, ACA, 207 n. 2; Larsen, 179). 3. auv~IJEvTo Ti)v ••• an}Aflv: 'they drew up the inscription recording the Messenian agreement for engraving on the stone'; cf. xxiii. 18. 2, on the Spartan agreement. This would also no doubt be set up at the Homarion. On the return of Messenia to the federation (182) see xxiii. I6. Iz-q. I. TplWV ETWV aTEAEIO.V: 'three years' exemption from (federal) taxes'. i:JaTE ••• ~11S€v fjTTov ~Aa\jia.L Tou<; 1f.xa.Lous: cf. xxiii. IS. I-J n. 4. 8L0. TTJV Twv cjluyaowv cjlLAoTLttla.v: 'owing to the importunity of the exiles'; perhaps an exaggeration or a misrepresentation (so Errington, 199-2oo). But Bippus may have gained indirect information on the Senate's attitude. 5. £5o~IE TO'i:!> 1f.xa.Loi!>: it has been assumed (d. Aymard, ACA, 342 n. 3; Larsen, I79) that this was a fresh meeting, separately convened to hear Bippus' report; but such a meeting would be a syncletos, and hearing reports from envoys was not one of the reasons for which a syncletos might properly be summoned (cf. xxiL Io. 12 n., 12. 6). In fact P. does not say that the synodos had adjourned (for lnr£.p0.fa8at 'TO Sta{JovAwv (§ z) may mean simply 'to postpone the discussion' until a later point in the meeting). If Bippus was known to be close on the heels of Cletis and Diactorius, the exiles' representatives, it would be a natural decision to wait a day or two until he could be present.
2. 2.
255
XXIV. 3·
I
AFFAIRS IN ACHAEA AND CRETE (181)
3. 1. npx, 1rpay~J.aTWV , •• jUyaXwv: 'the beginning of great troubles'; cf. xi. 5· 9 n., xviii. 39· 1, xxiii. 5· 9 (\l.':ith KaKwv). For P.'s view of the Cretans see iv. 53· 5 n. The details are unknown; but in r 74 the Romans sent Q. Minucius with ten ships to pacify the island; six months later trouble flared up again (Livy, xli. 25. 7). To lio~eouv 1rapa.M~ws nai.v dpi1a9a.l: 'what some people regard as a paradoxical saying', viz. Tathov apx~ Kai •EAQS iarlv. Paton takes natv with dpija8w, 'a paradoxical utterance of some philosophers'; but this is a homely saying, not one of philosophical profundity (cf. Wunderer, i. 73-74). Shuckburgh, 'an incredible story', misses the point that it is proverbial.
4. M: ou-nt H aemus This fragment from Strabo, vii. 5· r, C. JIJ. corresponds to Livy, xl. 2r. 2 and 22. s. and comes from P.'s account of Philip's campaign in 181. On the position of 4 relative to 2-3 see the note following I. 6 n. According to Livy (xl. 20. s-6), res lvf acedoniae of this year (01. 149. 3 = 182/r) opened .,,,ith a reference to Demetrius' care to avoid all behaviour that might fan Philip's suspicions; they then recounted how Philip, to exercise his army and lull Roman suspicion, led his troops from Stobi in Paeonia through the territory of the Maedi and the desolate lands beyond, to reach in seven days the foot of Mt. Haemus, from the summit of which, rumour had it, the Black Sea, Adriatic, Danube, and Alps could all be seen-a view which would assist l'hilip in his plans for war. Livy (following P.) describes the ascent, partly through dense forest, and the mist at the summit, which precluded any view. After sacriftcing to Zeus and Helios, Philip descended and had to plunder the land of the Dentheleti for food; he returned through Maedica, where he took Petra before returning to Macedonia (Livy, xl. 21. x-zz. 15; Walbank,Philip, 248-9). Strabo's statement that P. said that the Adriatic and Pontus were both visible from the summit is not confirmed by Livy, who merely mentions this as a popular belief accepted by Philip (Livy, xl. 21. 2); moreover Strabo, vii. 5· 9. C. JI7 (= xxxiv. 12. x-2) implies that Theopompus told this story but was criticized by P. On Haemus see Oberhummer, RE, 'Haimos', cols. 2221-6; the mountain referred to here has been variously identified, v.ith Musala in the Rila mountains (::~,9Jo m.), Mt. Vden {2,2oo m.), or Mt. Yumruksal {2,,375 m.) in the Balkan range, north of Plovdiv, but the approach to Musala does not fit Livy and the latter two are too far away. It seems more likely that Haemus is here Mt. Vitosha (Cemi Vriih), 2,290 m., the ancient Scomius or Scombrus {Thuc. ii. 96. 3-5; Arist. Mete. i. IJ. 350 b 17 (ed. Fobes)), as Leake, NG, iii. 472-4, suggested. Philip probably went up the Bregalnitsa from Stobi into the middle zs6
MOlJNT HAEMUS
XXIV. 5· 5
Strymon (Struma) valley and north to where Sofia now stands, a little north of Vitosha; see Walbank, Philip, 250, v.rith sketch-map on p. 222; Meloni, Perseo, 47-50.
Murder of Demetrius. Livy, xl. 23-24, describes how Demetrius was sent back to Macedonia from Stobi accompanied by Didas, governor of Paeonia, a man in Perseus' pay. He reported to Philip that Demetrius was planning to fly to Rome; the king imprisoned Demetrius' friend Herodorus, and on the retum of Apelles and Philocles from Rome (d. r. 6 n.) with a sealed letter purporting to come from Flamininus, and after further pressure from Perseus, Philip-probably in r8o, since Livy seems to have included two years' events under A.u.c. 573 = r8r-had Demetrius executed. The surviving account is based on much gossip and rumour; see \Val bank, Philip, 251 ff.; Meloni, Perseo, 5o-55; and. on Flamininus' role, Briscoe, Latomus, 1972, 25-26. On his letter to Philip (Livy, xl. 23. 7, 24. r calls it a forgery) see Gruen, GRBS, 1974, 222, 243-4. 5. 1-8. Visit of Attalus and his brothers to Rome (r81jo) This excerpt from de legat. gent. belongs to res Italiae of 01. 149, 4 = r8rfo; its substance is also in Diod. xxix. 22 (also from de legal. gent.). Since Attalus returned to Pergamum in r8o (14. 4), the audience at Rome evidently took place at the normal time, viz. at the beginning of the consular year, i.e. winter r8r/o (the Ides of March, r8o, probably fell on 29 Nov. 181 (Jul.): Derow, Phoenix, 1973, 348). For an apparent difficulty see§ 8 n.
5. 1. yevo1-1ivwv auvlhJI<WV KTh.: since the war between Pharnaces and Eumenes continued till 179 (d. fg. 96), this can only have been a truce (d. § 3); the wording has evidently been distorted by the excerptor, as not infrequently happens at the beginning or end of an excerpt. The truce was probably a result of the sending of Roman envoys (r. 3). Attalus is the king's brother; d. xviii. 41. ron.; Eumenes probably sensed the cooling of Roman favour towards him (d. r. 3 n.) and therefore resolved to send him and his other brothers to Rome to counter it (d. § 5). 2. Tfjs cippwaT(a.s: evidently mentioned in a lost passage; on Eumenes' poor health see xxx. 2. 5 n., xxxii. 8. r. Tous Ous (hra.VTo.s: Attalus, Philetaerus, and Athenaeus (xviii. 41. ro). 3. 1rtpns ~mfh\aELV Tii.} .•. 1roAtfl~: proof that the 01!v0ijKm (§ r) were only a truce. 5. To us veo.v(aKous: d. xxii. 20. 6 n. EV To.'is 1repl. T~v )\a(o.v
257
XXIV. 5· 6
VISIT OF ATTALUS AND BROTHERS TO ROME
6. ~EvLa. ~ea.l 1Ta.pox6.s: munera lautiaque, gifts of money to pay for their sustenance at Rome, and the furnishing 'Of their apartment; cf. xxi. 18. 3 n. Tr. 'with rich gifts and luxurious accommodation'. 7. Tel 1TpOU1TcipxovTa. I}LA6.v9pW1Ta. ••• ~VEVEWO"O.VTO! cf. iv. :.26. 8, XXViii. 12. 9, xxix. 10. 6, 23. 8; on avavEOuu8at cf. xxii. 3· 5 n. 8. MuoVTa.s Tov 11'0AEjlOV: a more positive step than before (1. 3); cf. Diod. X."
This excerpt from de legat. gent. belongs to res Graeciae of 01. 149, 4 I8Ifo, and refers to spring 18o: seep. J7. 6. l. nToAEjla.ios: Ptolemy V Epiphanes; on his recent relations with Achaea see xxii. I. 6-7, 3· 5-9, 7· 1-:.2, 9· 1-1:.2 (r86/s). OEtca.va.ta.v ••• tVTEAi) 11'EVTTJKOVTTIPLtcWv ,.).olwv: 'a full squadron of ten pentekontors'; on these ships cf. i. :.20. 14n.; Casson, Ships, 124; Miltner, RE. 'Pentekontoros', cols. 529-31. Larsen, GFS, 461 n. 2 calls them 'fifty-oared lemboi'; Paton by some aberration translates 'quinqueremes'. Miltner would read 1T£V7'7}KovroptKwv. 2. ou 1ToAu AE(vEW TWV 6itca. Ta.AcivTwv: a Euboic or Attic talent weighed 26·r96 kg.; they were silver. See xxi. 43· 19 n. 3. ~pa.Tov, otov :.\p6.Too Tou IL~eowv£oo: cf. 8. 8; he was the son of the younger Aratus (ii. 51. 5 n.) and grandson of the great man (though P.'s wording might suggest that he was his son-as indeed Paton renders the sentence). Twv o1rAwv ••• ~ea.l Toll VOjlWjla.Tos: 6,ooo bronze panoplies for peltasts and 2oo talents' weight of coined bronze. Lycortas brought this gift back in 185 (xxii. 9· 3). The delay in sending ambassadors to convey formal thanks was due to the confusion caused by Aristaenus' intervention (xxii. 9· 5-12). 1rp6voLa.v ••• 1TEpl T'ijs 6.voK0!-1Loi)s a.uTGw: it is not clear whether the soo rowers and officers were to be sent to Egypt by the Achaeans or whether Egyptian crews would bring them over. 4. TOV Ka.lp6v, Ka.9' Sv E11'0LEiTo ••• 0 nToAE!-lO.LOS: the renewal had been rejected during Aristaenus' generalship of 186/5 (xxii. 9• 5-12): in which strategia of Lycortas was it renewed? He was general in 185/4, for the residual months of 183/2 after Philopoemen's death, and probably in r82j1. Aymard, Etudes, 41, thinks it unlikely that Lycortas brought it up again as early as 185/4, and since his suffect generalship was far too busy for such matters, Aymard puts the ratification in 182/1, which he therefore assigns to Lycortas. This 258
PTOLEMY AND ACHAEA
XXIV. 7· 3
seems probable, for although the argument against 185/4 is not compelling and it is by no means certain that Lycortas was general in 182/1 (Errington, 263), it is hard to imagine why, if the renewal was in 185/4, the Achaeans waited until I8o to thank Ptolemy for his gifts (see § 3 n.). 5. noMj3wv, VEWTepov ~VT(l T'l'i ••• tlA~t
7. s~o. TO llnO.AA6.€a.~ TOV nTOAEilaiov: at a date between c. 20 February and 6 October r8o; seep. 17 for the evidence. 7. 1-8. Chaeron of Sparta (r8o) This excerpt from de uirt. et uit. (and Suidas), like the previous chapter, belongs to res Graeciae of 01. 149, 4 I8Ifo, and refers to r8o; see pp. 17-18 for discussion of the date, which is not entirely certain.
7. t. Xa.Lpwv: cf. xxiii. I8. 4 for his dispatch to Rome in 181 ; for Derow's dating of that embassy to r84/3 (and consequent displacement of this fragment to book xxiii) see pp. I 7-18. TO.'ITELvos Ka.L liTJIJ.OTlKTJS &ywyijs TETEuxws: as a member of the tyrants' party (xxiii. 4· 7) he may have sprung from a recently enfranchised family. P. indicates his aristocratic contempt for the man. 3. TWV cj>uy6.8wv: the 'old exiles', expelled by Cleomenes, Lycurgus, Machanidas, or Nabis (cf. xxi. I. 4 n.), restored in r88 (x.xii. n. 7 n.), exiled again in 183 (xxiii. 5· IS n.), and in some cases restored once more in 18z (xxiii. r8. 2). Those guilty of 'ingratitude towards the 259
XXIV. 7· 3
CHAERON OF SPARTA
Achaean federation' (xxiii. 18. 2) were still in exile, and it was land belonging to their relatives that Chaeron now distributed among the poor. 4. To'Ls Kolvois: 'public finances'; cf. v. go. 5 n. 5. OoK1p.a.aT1jpes Twv Kowwv: 'auditors of public funds'; the word is a a1Tat "''Y·· but resembles OOKLp.aaT~S, 'a scrutineer' (cf. Lys. xxvi. 16; Plato, Laws, vii. 8o2 B). Chrimes, 48, would identify these auditors with the auvOtKO£ Kat Oap.oaLop.aaTat mentioned On two imperial inscriptions (IG, v. I. 47; 554); she compares the JLaaTpol of Camirus, Lindus, and Ialysus and of Delphi (Syll. 338-4o, 672 L 17) and Pellene (Harpocration, s.v. p.aarijpEs. 'Y1TEpElo'1}s lv 1rp6s IlayKaAov· EO,K€11 dpx~ TLS ElvaL a1T00€0Hyp..fv'1} E7TL TO ~'t}Tdv ni Komi TOV S~p.ou, dJs o{ ~'1}1''1}Tat Kat ot lv IleAA~Vfl p.aaTpol, ws :4.pmToTiA'1}S iv Tfi IleM't}v.fwv 1ToAmlq.) and the p.aaTfjpes of Amorgus (Syll. 963 l. 54). But the p.aaTpot in the Rhodian cities are the council there and not parallel to auditors. P. seems to suggest that the ooKLp.aarfjpEs were an occasional office, not one provided for in the constitution (which at this time was based on that of the Achaean cities; d. xxi. 32 c n. at the end; Niese, iii. 58 n. I; Shimron, Late Sparta, !22 n. 42); Niccolini, 259 n. 4, also regards them as an extraordinary magistracy, and not confined to Sparta. 7. o aTpa.T1Jy6s: perhaps Hyperbatus; see pp. I8-Ig.
8. 1-10. 15. Callicrates at Rome: his policy As argued above (pp. I8-Ig), it is likely, but not certain, that this excerpt from de legat. gent. belongs to res Graeciae of Ol. 149, 4 18rjo, despite the fact that it includes Callicrates' speech at Rome. It begins and ends in Achaea (8. r-8, ro. and apparently embraces the mission to Rome for reasons of composition (8. g-ro. 10). There is some compression in 10. ro-n, where P. included material which the excerptor felt to be irrelevant to his purpose.
8. 1. Ka.TA Tov Kmpov Toihov: the excerptor's phrase and without significance for chronology. G.va.oovTos 'Y'II'ep(36.Tou Toll aTpa.T1Jyou 01a.(3ouA1ov: 'when Hyperbatus ... introduced a discussion' (cf. xxiii. 11· 6). It is likely that as general for r8rfo Hyperbatus raised the matter some time during the summer of 180 p. 19 and below § 7). Hyperbatus was possibly a descendant, perhaps grandson, of Hyperbatas who was general in 226/5, and a supporter of Aratus (ii. 51. 3 n.; Plut. Cleom. 14. 1); cf. Sundwall, RE, 'Hyperbatas (2)', coL 252. For his support of Callicrates see also xxix. 23. 2. 01rEp Twv ypa.<jlop.tvwv KTA.: against the argument of Aymard, Etudes, 43-44, that this is the letter brought by the exiles in r8I (2. r) 260
CALLICRATES AT ROME: HIS POLICY
XXIV. 8. 9
and that Hyperbatus raised it in the autumn of that year as soon as he became general, seep. 18. The likelihood is that he is raising it in the light of a fresh communication from the Senate dispatched early in r8o, when it was learnt that the former letter had been ignored. If that is so, Hyperbatus was in order in summoning a syncletos to deal with it (d. xxii. u. 6) and was not 'stretching the law' (so Larsen, r8r). 2. TW\1 U1TOKE~!LE\IW\I: the decision of I8I (2. s). TO Ka.8TjKov: common in P. and not to be treated as a sign of Stoic influence (cf. iv. 30. 4 n.). 4. opKOUS ••. \IO!LOUS •.. aTY]Aa.s: clarified in 9· I4; since Callicrates and Lycortas are agreed about the administering of oaths, it must be true and represent an attempt by the Achaeans to tie their hands on the Spartan question. 6. KllAA~Kp6.TTJV: son of Theoxenus of Leontium (Syll. 634), perhaps the commander of the Achaean corps in the Rhodian Peraea in 197 (Livy, xxxiii. r8. s: Insc. de Delos, no. 442 B 1. 68, a 4>ui.A71 dpyvpa dedicated by ltxa.wl Ka.t o ~Y€fLWv 8£6g£vos); cf. Geyer, RE, 'Theoxenos (3)', col. 2259; Schoch, RE, Suppl.-B. iv, 'Kallikrates (7g)', cols. 859--62. 7. ~So~e Tots :A.xmo'Ls: this could be a synodos, but is more probably a syncletos (cf. xxiii. 17. 6n.); the matter under discussion was appropriate to the latter (see § r n.; xxii. ro. I I n.). Tous o~60.~ovT«S & AuK6pTa.s AEye~: in that case the choice of Callicrates to expound it is only to be explained as an attempt to win favour by sending a known friend of Rome (Lehmann, 286 n. 301, quoting Hertzberg, Geschichte Griechenlands unter der Herrschajt der Romer, i (Halle, r866), 174 n. 44a; Schoch, RE, Suppl.-B. iv, 'Kallikrates (7g)', cols. 86o-r). Pedech (LEG, 1969, 253 n. 8) suggests that in abandoning this brief Callicrates was perhaps following personal instructions from the general Hyperbatus, who was himself disposed to follow Roman requests (§ 6), and let the exiles return. AuSul.oa.v •.. ~pa.Tov: chosen for their names rather than their experience. Lydiades (cf. Schoch, RE, 'Lydiadas (2)', coL 2204) will be a descendant of Aratus' old rival, the former tyrant of Megalopolis (cf. ii. 44· 5 n., 51. 3, for his death at Leuctra in 227). For Aratus d. 6. 3 n., 6. 6; since he cannot have been appointed to this mission until the Egyptian embassy had been cancelled, the present meeting must follow the receipt of news of Epiphanes' death-at the earliest March, at the latest mid October r8o (the likelihood is that it was early in this period: seep. J7). 9. 1ra.pa.yevo~vwv els TT)v 'PwiL'l'J": probably in summer r8o; the envoys were evidently given an immediate hearing (d. xxxii. I. 4 for a parallel)-this was unusual but they came in response to a Roman letter (see p. 19). 261
XXIV. g.
2
CALLICRATES AT RO:\-fE: HIS POLICY
9. 2. iv 1Taaa.&s Ta.ts ~TJ~oKpa.TLKa.is 1TOALTEta.Ls: throughout Greece, not specifically in Achaea (so Deininger, I38 n. 12); for since all cities in Achaea were 'democratic', the adjective is superfluous in relation to them. After a general statement about Greece, Callicrates goes on to talk about Achaea; see further, against Deininger's view, Musti, Aujstieg und Niedergang, i. 2. u67 n. 74· ~~TE vo~ov ~~TE ox.Aots-. 8. 1rpos ~LAooos£a.v: on if>t.Aooo~la (d. iii. I04. I), 'the desire to win glory through great deeds', an ambition 'proper to great men, not little ones', see Welles, pp. 373-4. 10. E1TL
CALLICRATES AT ROME: HIS POLICY
XXIV. w. 14
'Achaean exiles', a fact not mentioned by P. Pausanias speaks of sending letters only to Athens and Aetolia, ~eo.rd.yEtV acf>Bs Mwar;vlov;; Ko.i JtxmoV> bri rd. olK~:ta. TI1is is evidently due to some confusion; the Achaean exiles are perhaps a misunderstanding of dpxa'io£ vydo~:s- (cf. Lehmann, 295-6 n. 317). The states receiving communications were perhaps those where Messenian exiles were living (Errington, 203). 8. p.oeyci>..wv ~ecucwv 6.px1Jyos: P.'s view reflects his own position and standpoint in the Confederacy; later judgements have ranged from the condemnation of Callicrates by Freeman (HFG, 513 f.), Niese (iii. 59), Steir (17off., 179ff.), Lehmann (294ff.), and Derow (Bowra Essays, 12-23) to the approval of him by Badian (Clientelae, 90e-91) and Errington {203-5); cf. Will, ii. 205-{}. Larsen (GFS, 459) points out that, apart from Callicrates' strategia (§ 14), there was no sudden change in the Achaean attitude and policy, nor in the Roman treatment of Achaea, in fact that P. has exaggerated the importance of this moment in Achaeo-Roman relations. 9. ~~~v ••• tao>..oy(av EXELv 1rpos 'Pwp.a.£ous: i.e. before Callicrates' speech. For laoAoyla cf. xxx. 31. r6 (Rhodes). ~; o~ ,.a, 'Pwp.a.[wv eiAoVTo: in autumn 198 (xviii. I. 2 n.; in 1. 5 of the note '199' is a misprint for 'I98'). 10-11. Laounae: Schweighaeuser argues convincingly that the excerptor here abridged P. to suit his immediate interest-embassies~ and that there are omissions after the words Kard f/JO..m'ITov 1 7rapd II~:A01Tovv1)alwv &,_.ovolas K~ Ka:racnaa(WS' (iii. 3· 7); cf. Lehmann, 292. Tfjs E1Tl To xoeipov ••• flETa.~o>..~s: cf. vi. 3· In. for the concept. 11. OVTES nv9pw1Tol: cf. ii. 4· 5 n. 1rnvTa.s ••• eAEoua& Too s E1TTalKoTas: cf. 8. 2 for a similar point made by Lycortas. 12. oTa.v flEVTol ye TLS u1TEJLVI]&.fv T&S KTA. 13. (TO.) Ka.TO. MEaC711vious KTA.: 'the affairs of Messenia, concerning which the Romans did not even raise any complaint'. The embassy to Rome was concerned with the Spartan exiles (8. r); Callicrates brought up Messcnia as a side-issue (9. r2ff.). For the Senate's reaction to the reduction of Messenia cf. r. 6-J. 14. s,a. TO flTjOEv etSevaL TWV 01r' O.UTOU ••• EtP1Jp.Evwv: why then did not Lydiades and Aratus tell them? Had Callicrates secured a private audience with the Senate? So Stier, I79· Lehmann, 297 n. 303, suggests that he perhaps spoke in Latin like Charops (xxvii. 15. 4); 263
XXIV. Io. 14 CALLICRATES AT HOME: HIS POLICY
but there is no evidence that he knew Latin, and if he did use that tongue, or if he spoke in camera, how did P.learn what he said? It is more probable that he managed to brow-beat and confuse the people about his speech: dearly Lydiades and .Aratus carried little weight. 'ITpWTov JlEv iJp~9ll ;cal cis Tall £~ O.pxiis J[oilcra11] ¢>t.>.[[a11 arroK ]aTaO"TaaaJJTa.
11. 1-13. 10. Comparison between Philopoemen and Aristaenus This syncrisis, made up of two extracts from exc. de uirt. et uit. (n. r-8) and exc. de sent. (12. r-13. ro), with two passages from Suidas, probably sprang out of discussion of Callicrates' policy (cf. Lehmann, 240-r, 249-50, z6s). That it was introduced in the context of Aristaenus' death (so Aymard, Etudes, 57 n. z, following Schweighaeuser, vii. 567 ; Pedech, 1'vfithode, 246, 418) is less likely, for had P. v.rished to raise it on anyone's death, he would surely have chosen Philopoemen's. The opposition of the two men is mentioned by Plutarch (Philop. 17. 3) and Pausanias (viii. sr. 4) in a context suggesting that it ftrst found expression at the time of the synodos of 191 (Livy, xxxvi. 35· 7); cf. De Sanctis, iv. I. qz; Badian, ]RS, 1952, So. Aymard, PR, 362--3 n. 23, has shown that the speeches (if such they are) reported by P. cannot have been delivered at that synodos before Acilius and Flamininus (nor does Badian suggest they were); more likely Plutarch (and Pausanias following him) drew on P.'s Life of Philopoemen and inserted the material at that point (cf. 13. 6 n.). Holleaux, Etudes, v. q6 ff., would put the speeches later. in
264
PHILOPOEMEN AND ARISTAENUS
XXIV.
11.
7
Aristaenus' last strategia (r86fs); but it is not so much two actual speeches that P. gives here, but rather (cast in a direct form in 12. I -2, IJ. 2-4 and 13. 6, for variety) the arguments used by the two men on various occasions to defend their policies; cf. I2. I, Towthots- d:rro>.oytaJ-tois ... lxpijTo. See Pedech, 417, 'deux discours fictifs, generaux, qui condensent leur pensee politique'-perhaps better 'two fictitious speeches condensing the arguments which they employed on several occasions'. On the passage see Gelzer, Kl. Schr. iii. 149-50; Errington, 2I8-2o; Pedech, Methode, 4I7-r8; Aymard, PR, 362-3 n. 23. Petzold, Studien, 43-44, thinks the passage reflects P.'s changed views on the importance of ethics for politics; but it seems to me more likely that the views here expressed are those actually put forward and debated in Achaea between I98 and r82. 11. 1. 41~Ao1ToL}lEva. Ka.t ~p(aTa.~vov Tous ~xa.~ous: the excerptor's words, perhaps as far as avv€{317. On Aristaenus see xxii. 7· z n. T~v <j>uow • • • T~v a.'lpeow Tfj<; 1TOAtTe£a.s: P. distinguishes their nature from their political convictions; but most of the comparison concerns the latter, which is not related to the former (d. Errington, 2I9)·
2. "1Tp0<; Tn 1TOAmKn TWV s~a.~ouALwv: 'in the field of political debate' (rather than, as Lehmann, 242, has it, 'ein fahiger Diplomat'). 3. Ka.Td. TE Tous 41tAL1TmKous Ka.i Touo;; Jtl.vnoxtKous Ka.Lpous: cf. Io. 9, 13. 9, xxxix. 3· 6 (there also in connection with Philopoemen's policy). 4. wopov 'Pw1-1-a.£o~s e~ ETOLI-I-Ou 1rote'Lv: cf. Plut. Philop. 17. 3, Tovs 8€ 'Pwf-talovs- al':t O.,pa7wJovTos- Kat Tovs- 11xawvs- f-t~ olo[-t€vov OEtV lvavnovaOat, JL1JOJ axapta'TELV lKElVOLS'; Paus. viii. 51. 4, l1ptaTalvov Tots- 11xawts- Tov 1\1.,yaA07roAlTov rrapatvofivTos- €rrawEI'v Ta 'Pw[-talots- ap€aKOVTa l7Tt rravTt f-t1JO~ dv0la-raa0a[ aqnmv 1m£p f-t1JO€v6s-. 5. SoKe'Lv ••• <j>a.vTa.aia.v: cf. I3. 8 n. for emphasis on Aristaenus' ambition to win the semblance, rather than the reality, of honourable behaviour. b1TOTE TOUTWV aVTL1TL1TTOL TLS ••• TOL<; ••. ypa.<j>o .... EVOL<;: the only attested occasion when Aristaenus broke the laws is in 198, when he led the Achaeans to join Rome before annulling their alliance with Philip. 6. aKoAou9a. TOLS VO!-LOLS Ka.l. Til cru ........O.XL«;!-: since P. is stressing the legality of Philopoemen's stance, the CJVf-tf-taxi.a must involve afoedus; on its date see xxiii. 4. I2 n. 7. 8e'Lv StKa.LoAoye'La9a.L KTA.: 'they should first argue their point of view, and after that go on (7T(u\tv) to put it as a request.' The sense, clear to Schweighaeuser, is missed by Paton ('the plea of illegality should be considered before the request was renewed'--wnsidered by whom?) and Shuckburgh ('he was wont first to demand an z6s
XXIV.
II.
7 PHILOPOEMEN AND ARISTAENUS
arbitration, and to repeat the demand a second time': there are no examples of this meaning of Su.ayeivOat). 8. oiov hr!fLa.pTupo..-.Evous: 'more or less under protest' (Paton) ; literally 'calling on (the gods) to witness'. 12.1. (To) Mpu Ka.t TO Kt]puKElov: ct. iv. 52. 4 n. Lacuna: the meaning seems to be: 'if we are in a position to resist the Romans, let us do so; but since even Philopoemen admits that in the last resort we must give way, let us do so with a good grace, and get the benefit of this' ; d. § 4· 2. To TE Ka.Aov ka.i. TO uu..-.~~pov: d. iii. 4· Io n.; for Philopoemen's ability to combine them see xxi. 32 c 1 n. 3. TOUS 41Tpo~cw(O'TWS o..-.o.AoyouvTa.s: so Heyse and Lucht for the manuscript TOVS dxa.ptVTWS dfUAovna<;. 13. 2. 4111 {3a.puTEpov: 'ever harder'. 3. Kliv EmTUTTWO'W •.. : for the lacuna Heyse suggested
~K'Tos
I
VOf.LWV 'TL.
Tous 3pKous •.. 1TWTw: cf. 8. 4 n.; 1T{crns is of course fuies. 4. IlKI..JlbivTa.s KT>...: takes up rhetorically Aristaenus' point against Philopoemen in 12. I. 6. ij~u 1TOTE ••• b Ka.lpbs oOTos: against the suggestion that P. emphasized Philopoemen's pessimism about the ultimate outcome of the relations between Rome and Achaea, so as to defend him against the charge of being anti-Roman (d. Niese, iii. 42 n. 2; Aymard, PR, 392, implied; Feyel, REG, 1943, 246) see Lehmann, 246 n. 208. C:,s TUXlO"T« .•. i1 ... C:,s ~pa.8uTa.Ta.: d. the riposte recorded by Plut. Philop. q. 3. TI.Aos 0~ {m' dpyfjs ovua.vaoxerovvra -rrpos 'TOV l!ptO'TIJ.IVOII elm:lv· ".Q av8pwrrt:, 'TL arr£voets T~v rrmpwf.LI.vrw rijs •EX\doos ~mSet'v; d. Paus. viii. 51. 4· Their more vivid version may be due to Plutarch's use of P.'s Life of Philopoemen, where the contrast "'-ith Aristaenus will have appeared in a briefer form {cf. Treu, Historia, I954· 225). Plutarch's use of the Life is queried by Errington, 236-7, who does not discuss this passage. 8. EK Twv 1TpOElprJJUVwv: 'from what I have said' (not 'from these speeches': so Paton and Shuckburgh). Ka.>..1]v ••• ~;uaxftJ.Lovo.: 'honourable ... plausible'; see Petzold, Studien, 45-46, who (comparing xxxvi. 2, 1) shows that Aristaenus
266
PHILOPOEMEN AND ARISTAENUS
XXIV. 14.6
was concerned with appearances (cf. n. 5, ooKEfv •• • tfoano.alo.v). He achieved To avp,4>1fpov but only a semblance of To ~
Eumenes' possession (d. iii. 3· 6 n., xxii. 21. In.). 2. Tfj!; Ea.pwf\~ wpa!j: probably March-April (Pedech, Methode, 464); cf. xiv. 2. In. ws Ep.~aAwv et5 T-i)v Ka.1T1Ta.5otc(a.v: Ariarathes was allied to Eumenes (cf. xxi. 45 n., xxiii. 9· 3 n. ). 3. To(,; Ti)S 1TLO'TEW!; opous: 'all the bounds of good faith'; the reference is to the previous year's truce (5. In.) but Paton's translation, 'was v-iolating all the terms of their treaty', is too specific. 4. tca.TE'!rAt:uaa.v ••• o{ 1T£pi Tov ~TT<:I.Aov: d. 5· r-S. 6. Ka.aa~yvaTou tcal ••• r a~a.Tt!ipLyos: Cassignatus (the manuscript Kapa~yv&Tov was corrected by Stahelin, 64 n. 6) is probably the commander of two alae of Eumenes' Galatian horse who was killed at Callicinus in qi (Livy, xlii. 57· 7, 57· 9) (cf. Munzer, RE, 'Cassignatus', col. 167o). Gaezatorix (the manuscript Fo.t~aT6pLos was corrected by Zeuss; d. SUihelin, 64 n. 6) has been identified with the Gaezatorix who gave his name to an area in Paphlagonia (Strabo, 267
XXIV. 14.6
PHARNACES AND EUMENES AT WAR
xii. 3· 4I, c. s62, ~ Tt·{aTOP£YD>). Unger (Phil. r8g6, 25I-2) doubts this, since the Galatian chieftain mentioned here is unlikely to have been a Paphlagonian dynast; but he could have seized the land in a raid and held it long enough to impress his name upon it. See Schoch, RE, Suppl.-B. iv, 'Kassignatos', cols. 878-9; Munzer, RE, 'Cassignatus', col. r67o. This passage shows that Pharnaces had previously used Galatian troops (cf. xxiii. 9· 3 n.). 7. lt'ITEL'!Til.!J.EVOL ••• 8L0. Ti]v ... aOiO'LClV: cf. ii. 32. 8 n.; but if Cassignatus was the man who fell at Callinicus, he must have made his peace with Eumenes. 8-9. Eume·nes' route against Pharnaces. This is uncertain. Kalpiton (or Kalpitos), the starting-point, is unknown, unless it is the Katpinon mentioned as near Sykeon in Vita S. Theod. 34 (in MvruJ.£ta aytoAoytKa, ed. Th. Ioannes, r884) (so Ruge, RE, 'Kalpiton' and 'Kalpinon', col. 1761); Sykeon has been located at Eski~ehir, a site about a mile north of Sanyar on the Aladag Su, just above its junction with the Sangarius (Sakarya). This, however, is over 150 miles and so rather more than 5 days' march (if that is the meaning of 1TEJ.L1Traiot) from the Halys, via Ancyra. On this see J. G. C. Anderson, JHS, r8gg, 65 with Plate IV, who (ibid. 107-9) identifies Parnassus with Parlassan, a village about 6 miles west of the Halys, between it and Lake Tatta (Tuz Golii) ; it is c. 82 miles south-east of Ancyr:.t on the ancient road to Caesarea-Mazaca. P. implies, but does not say, that Eumenes crossed the Halys; but if l~arnassus is at Parlassan (and this fits the itineraries), it looks as if having reached the Halys east of Anc}Ta Eumenes turned south to Parnassus to meet Ariarathes, evidently by arrangement. Since, however, Eumenes' route from his kingdom is unknown, and the evidence for the location of Kalpiton is tenuous, this spot may be nearer to the Halys than Sanyar, and he may have struck it at a point nearer to Parnassus; Ariarathes vv:ill have marched down the left bank of the Halys to meet him there. The next advance ElS' TYJl' MoJI.:tc:ra€wv xcfJpav rests on a conjecture: the manuscripts read KdfLTJIY7JV (Z), or KafLtutv (V:N). Mokisos is near the Halys, south-west of Caesarea-Mazaca, and Ramsay, Asia Minor, 75, 220 f., locates it at Kiqehir (d. Procop. de aed. v. 4· rs; Ruge, RE, 'Moki(s)sos', cols. 2514-15); but, whatever the source, P. or his excerptor is giving a condensed account, and it need not be supposed that Eumenes reached 'Kdp.7Ja"rlv' from Parnassus in a day. Palaeographically, the easiest correction is to Kap.tu1)v~v or KafLLO'TJVc;JV (de Boor). Camisene is the area round Camisa on the right bank of the upper Halys in Pontic Cappadocia (cf. Strabo, xii. 3· 12, C. 546, 3· 38, C. 56o), and if this is indicated, Eumenes and Ariarathes were well inside Pontic territory and naturally resented the Roman demand for withdrawal (rs. 4)· Hansen 2 I03 n. ros, rejects this interpretation because 268
PHAR~ACES A~D
EUMENES AT WAR
XXIV.
rs.
13
'Eumenes would choose the shortest route into Pontus' ; but we do not know where Pharnaces' forces were. 9. Ka.i <1ra.pe~a )i}AaoY KTA.: so Bii.ttner-Wobst; Castiglioni, 229, suggests
15. 4. ml.YTa. Ttt SuYa.Tci. ••• 1TOLt}aELY: a non-committal reply. Tf)Y aTpa.nttY a1Tayew EK Tfjc; xwpa.c;: perhaps implying that they were in Pontic territory (cf. 8---9 n.). 6. 1Tpofjyoy ws E1TL ra.Aa.TLO.S: this seems to imply that Galatia is now Pergamene cf. xxii. 21. I n. 8. Ka.l. 'Pwlla.LoLs: as well as to Eumenes and Ariarathes. 9. E1TL
(b) to send plenipotentiaries 'to the sea' is a vague and improbable phrase. 11. ou ycip otoc; T' ~Y KTA.: he was unwilling to make peace; for this sense see Schweighaeuser, Lex. Polyb. s.v. otos elp.t. 13. TWY 'Pol:)(wy ema1T0.0"0.!-1EYWY TOY Evi1EV1] KTA.: here the excerptor lost interest; the excerpt breaks off in the middle of a p.~ .•. 8' construction. Tci Ka.Ttt TOU'i AuK(ous: on the issue between Rhodes and the Lycians see xxii. 5· r-Io. Since I88 the Rhodians had pressed their interpretation of the Roman award; but they had failed to quell the Lycian 'revolt', and so called in Eumenes, who had a base in Telmessus (xxi. 46. ron.). The Lycians were crushed by 178 or I77 (d. xxv. 4· z), but revolted again (cf. xxx. 31. 4); see Fraser and Bean, II4-15. Shortly after this date (r8o), despite the help sent now, Rhodes successfully challenged Eumenes' proposal to blockade the Hellespont to prevent ships reaching Pharnaces (xxvii. 7. 5) ; freedom of the seas was always a prime consideration at Rhodes.
z6g
BOOK XXV Ol. 01. ch. see
I So = I8of76 (probably: see pp. I3-I4). Few fragments survive; ISO, I = I8o/79 is represented by ch. 2, 01. ISO, 2 = I79/8 by 3. 01. I So, 3 = 178/7 by chs. 4-s and 01. I So, 4 = I77 /6 by ch. 6; pp. I9-22.
[1. Tiberius Gracchus in Spain This fragment from Strabo (iii. 4· I3, C. I63) refers to Ti. Gracchus' propraetorship in Spain (179), when he won victories over the Celtiberians and made treaties which smoothed relations between Rome and the Spaniards (Livy, xi. 44· 4-s, 47. I-so. s; Diod. xxix. 26; Frontin. Strat. ii. 5· 3, 5· 14, iii. 5· 2, iv. 7· 33; Plut. Tib. Gracch. S· 3; App. Hisp. 43; Flor. i. 33· 9; de uir. ill. 51· 2; Oros. iv. 20. 32); but it probably belongs to book xxiv rather than here (see pp. 20-I). 1. 1. Tpta.Koola.s ••• voAets: 'he overthrew three hundred cities.' Pedech, M ithodc, 368 n. 88, translates 'he dissolved three hundred village communities', as part of a policy of concentrating the population in towns; but KamAvt to describe fortified villages in non-Greek areas see the discussion of Briant, Antigone, 86 n. S· £v Ta.is 9pmJ.l~LKa.i:s voJ.lva.is: in the first part of a Roman triumphal procession booty and captured wealth were often accompanied by pictures and models of captured cities, mountains, rivers etc.; d. Cic. in Pis. 6o, simulacra oppidorum; off. ii. 28, 'portari in triumpho Massiliam uidirnus'; other passages in W. Ehlers, RE, 'triumphus', cols. so2-3. Poseidonius suggests that the grandiloquent word m)AHs, like the models, is intended to glorify the victorious general.] 270
PEACE BETWEEN PHARNACES AND El:J}IENES
XXV.
2.
5
2. 1-15. Peace between Pharnaces and Eumenes and his allies (179) This excerpt from de legat. gent. probably belongs to Ol. 150, r = r8o/79; see p. zo. The breakdown in negotiations and the Romans' departure (xxiv. 15. n-12) were followed by a massing of forces against Pharnaces, and a sudden attack; but whether this was in autumn 18o (Niese, iii. 78 n. I; Diehl, RE, 'Phamakes (r)', coL 1849) or in spring 179, is not certain. ~~a.mva.£ou .•• Tfjo;; i4>Miou: this led Niese (iii. 78 n. 1) to date the events of this chapter to autumn r8o, soon after negotiations broke do\\'11 (xxiv. 15. n-u). Eu.U:vTJ ka.t "p~a.pO.Ih)v: this perhaps implies that the Roman envoys had gone. 2. 8La.MceLo;;: P. nowhere (in our text) suggests that the Romans undern'Tote or supervised this peace; but the treaty between Pharnaces and Chersonese, which followed shortly after (§ 13 n.), by its stress on Roman if>tAla leads to the suspicion that at some stage the treaty referred to here received Roman approval (cf. Will, ii. 244-5)· 3. npouctq.: Prusias II succeeded his father, Prusias I, in I82; his untypical alliance \Vith Eumenes did not last, but it may be reflected in IC, ii Aptera no. 4 A OGIS, 341, an inscription honouring Prusias on the same stone as an earlier decree for Attalus I (perhaps a tactless gesture unless the states were friendly). The dedications to Eumenes (Syll. 628) and Prusias (Syll. 632) by the Aetolians at Delphi are, however, probably not contemporaneous; cf. Daux, 2734; Habicht, RE, 'Prusias II (2)', col. uo8, Prusias may have joined Pergamum in r8I: Leocritus' seizure of Tieion (§ 7 n.) may be a cause or a result of this (Habicht, RE, 'Prusias II (2)', col. nog), if in fact this town belonged to Prusias. MLBplMT'}V: not the satrap of Armenia :Minor (§ I I n.), but probably Pharnaces' successor, the future Mithridates IV Philopator Philadelphus (Niese, iii. 78 n. z). E:Ls TOY 1TctVTO. xpovov: cf. xxi. 43· I n. 4. r a.Aa.Tla.s jlTj em~a.l.ve~v clla.pvak'}V: this show;; Galatia to be linked to Pergamum, at least in a client relationship, if not more directly (cf. iii. 3· 6 n., xxii. 21. I n.). 3aaL , , . auv61]Ka.t , , , 1rpoo;; f aAclTao;;, aKupous tJ1Tctpxuv: probably for the provision of military assistance by the Galatians (d. xxiv. 14. 6). 5. na.+>.a.yovLa.s: Paphlagonia lay west of Pontus and the lower Halys, and was bounded to the west by Bithynia and to the south by Galatia; in the Hellenistic period it formed a geographical rather than a political unit; cf. Strabo, xii. 3· I, C. 541, 3· 9, C. 544, 3· 41·-42, C. 562-3, 4· 1o, C. 566; Magie, i. 186--8, ii. ro81-2 nn. 28-30. It had
2. 1.
271
XXV.
2.
5
PEACE BETWEEN PHAnNACES AND EUMENES
been overrun by Pharnaces, who had seized the treasures of Morzius of Gangra (§ 9 n.). 6. ~pmp6.9n ••• TOVS ofliJpous: for Pharnaces' attack on Ariarathes cf. xxiii. 9· 3 n. and perhaps fg. n2. The hostages may have been given in connection with the truce mentioned in xxiv. 5· 1; but if so it is odd that only Ariarathes is mentioned as giving hostages. Perhaps they were given in connection with some other, unknown episode (for we know little about this war). 7. Tlov 1Ta.p y6.~1JS: Pharnaces is to the repayment out of the money and treasure: Shuckburgh renders 'in lieu of all the money and treasure', which is not what P. says (though it may be implied). 1ra.pO. Mop~(ou Kat ~p~a.p6.8ou: .Morzius, the dynast of Gangra in Paphlagonia, like Ariarathes had helped the Galatians against Manlius {but had escaped Roman reprisals) ; see Strabo, xii. 3· 41, C. 562; Livy, xxxviii. 26. 4· For the can·ying off of inhabitants by Pharnaces see § 5 ; on Ariarathes cf. § 6 n. €vaKocrm ,.6,1\a.vta: P. does not say '9oo each', but unless that is meant, the information is summary; Pharnaces had to kno·w how much -..vent to each. 10. Tpta.Kou~o.: perhaps he recci ved less because, although he carried the brunt of the war, his lands had not been ravaged. He had earlier received 350 ta:ents from Antiochus (xxi. 43· zo). 11. M~9p~80.f11: this ruler of (lesser) Armenia may be the nephew of Antiochus III {viii. 23. 3 n.), but this is not certain. What treaty 272
PEACE BETWEEN PHARNACES AND EUMENES
XXV. z. 13
governed his relations with Eumenes is unknown, unless he was included in the Treaty of Apamea as one of Antiochus' subjects. 12. 1TEp~X.fJ4>91laav ••• Ta'lo; auv91)KaLo;: for such inclusion cf. viii. 9· I2 n. with references. It is not known with which side these parties were aligned; and indeed a neutral state could be so included in a treaty. :tr..pTa~(ao;: according to Strabo (xi. J4. 5, C. 528, 14· IS, C. 531) Antiochus III turned Armenia over to Artaxias and Zariadris, as strategoi, and after Magnesia they became independent dynasts, Artaxias in eastern and Zariadris in western Armenia. Earlier, eastern Armenia appears to have been controlled by a dynast Orontes, while Xerxes (cf. viii. 23. I n.) governed the west (Schmitt, Antiochos, 38). Artaxias founded Artaxata (Diod. xxxi. 17 a; cf. Plut. Luc. 31. 3-4). Subsequently he was, for a time, subject to Antiochus IV (Porphyry, FGH, 26o F 38 and 56; App. Syr. 45-46, 66; Diod. xxxi. 17 a; Otto, 6. Ptolemaer, 86; Bengtson, Strat. ii. 6I n. 3; Will, ii. 296; M~rkholm, 166-7). For his relations with Ariarathes see xxxi . .16. I-2 n.; and for his alliance with the satrap Timarchus against Demetrius I Soter of SyTia cf. Diod. xxxi. 27 a (c. I6I). See Baumgartner, RE, 'Artaxias (I)', col. I326. It is not certain that Artaxias had joined in the war. :tr..Koua(Xoxos : unknown. 13. r a:raAoo;: Will, ii. 243, thinks Phamaces had used the Sarmatians to subjugate the Greek cities mentioned below; but since it was normally the policy of Chersonese to employ Sarmatians as allies against theScythians (d. Danoff, RE, Suppl.-B. ix, 'Pontos Euxeinos', col. III2), Gatalus may be included as a friend of Chersonese. On the appearance of the Sarmatians (the Sauromatae frequently mentioned in Herod. iv) and their importance as part of a new movement of the peoples of central Asia and Iran see Will, ii. 244; F. Altheim and A. Szabo, Welt als Geschichte, r936, 3r8 ff. TWV o' aUTOVOflOUflEVWV 'HpaKAEWTUL: Heraclea Pontica was a Megarian-Boeotian colony on the Bithynian coast, today Eregli (cf. Ruge, RE, 'Herakleia (I9)', cols. 433-4; Danoff, RE, Suppl.-B. ix, 'Pontos Euxeinos', cols. ro6s-6; and on the topography L Robert, Et. anat. 245-59). What part, if any, Heraclea had played in the war is unknown. MEI1TJfl~PLavo(: Mesambria (so coins and inscriptions) was a foundation of Calchedon (with some Megarians) on the west coast of the Euxine c. Sio (Herod. vi. 33); it is the modern Nesebar. For recent bibliography see Danoff, RE, Suppl.-B. ix, 'Pontos Euxeinos', cols. Io73-4; Nessebre i (Sofia, 1969), ed. T. Ivanov. Niese, iii. 75, assumes unjustifiably that Mesambria, Heraclea, Chersonese, and Gatalus had all fought on the side of Pharnaces. XeppovTJaLT
XXV.
2.13
PEACE BETWEEN PHARNACES AND EUMENES
'Pontos Euxeinos', cols. 1104-I6, dating its foundation to 422{1. It was founded by Heraclea Pontica on the west coast of the Tauric Peninsula (Crimea). An inscription from here (IPE, iZ. 402) records a tready with Pharnaces I of Pontus, stressing loyalty to Rome (on both sides) and committing Pharnaces to preserving democracy at Chersonese, abstaining from hostilities against the city and providing help against any barbarians who attacked it, if needed. This treaty suggests Roman pressure on Pharnaces, and seems like a sequel to the treaty recorded here; for the date, probably r8o or 179, see p. 2o. Under constant barbarian pressure, like the other Pontic west coast cities at this time (Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, ii. 674; Gnomott, 1934, 3 f.), Chersonese will have welcomed support from a more distant power, though this was itself a source of danger (Danoff, loc. cit.). KutucTJvo£: Cyzicus, a Milesian settlement, occupied the southern tip of a promontory on the south shore of the Propontis, linked with the mainland by a narrow isthmus; as the horne of Apollonis, Attalus I's wife (xxii. 20. 1), it maintained close relations with Eurnenes and probably carne into the treaty as an ally; cf. Ruge, RE, 'Kyzikos', cols. 225-33; Magie, i. 81, ii. got n. us (bibliography), n. II6 (trade and connections). 14. at ~UVGp.Els: the allied forces of Eurnenes and Ariarathes (§ I5). Pharnaces had tried to get Seleucus' help (probably offering 5oo talents: fg. g6), but he was not prepared to break the treaty with Rome by marching north of the Taurus (Diod. xxix. 24); cf. Niese, iii. 76 n. r. DeSanctis (iv. I. z6s f. and especially nn. 65 and 71) suggests that Perseus' accession may have influenced Seleucns; but it is on the whole unlikely that Philip's death in summer 179 was substantially earlier than the end of hostilities between Pharnaces and Eumenes (see pp. zo-21). Further, Diod. xxix. 24 describes Seleucus' change of Inind before the account of Demetrius' death and its sequel (Diod. xxix. 25: also from the exc.deuirt. duit.) ;cf. M¢rkholm, 34n. 57-
3. 1-10. Tke opening of Persetts' reign: his character (179/8) This passage, consisting of two excerpts from de uirt. et uit., with two quotations from Suidas and a passage from Athenaeus (x. 445 n) -the second excer-pt deals with Philip (§§ 9-ro)-belongs to res Macedoniae of 01. 150, 2 = qg/8 (seep. n). The last previous fragment on Macedonia was xxiv. 4; see there for the Polybian account in Livy of events down to Demetrius' execution in r8o. Philip's last year, from winter rSo/79, which he passed at Demetrias, to his death in summer 179, is described in Livy, xl. 54· g, which draws on P.'s res M acedoniae of 01. 150, r = r8of7g, of which no fragments survive. Livy recounts the success of Antigonus, the son of Echecrates (known from SEG, xiii. 393), in persuading Philip that Demetrius 274
THE OPENING OF PERSEUS' REIGN
XXV. J.
I
had been the victim of a plot, Philocles' arrest and Apelles' flight to Italy, and shortly afterwards Philip's death at Amphipolis, Perseus' peaceful accession and his execution of Antigonus. Philip had been busy with plans for the Bastarnians to attack and occupy the land of the Dardanians; these broke down upon his death, and the expedition split up into a series of futile actions, in the course of which many of the Bastarnians eventually perished; cf. 6. z n.; Walbank, Philip, zsz-4; Meloni, Perseo, 55-6o. 3. 1. O.va.vewutip.evos T!Jv cjnX£a.v: cf. Livy, xl. s8. 9, 'dum firmaret res, legatos Romam ad amicitiam patemam renouandam, peten~ dumque ut rex ab senatu appellaretur misit', xli. 24. 6, xlv. 9· 3; Diod. xxix. 30, qn.\lav; App. Afac. II. 5, rds uvvth)x:ay; Zon. ix. zz. z. On the significance of avavE~aa.u8a£ see Daux, 304 n. z (quoted in xxii. 3· 5 n.). The unanimity of P., Livy, and Diodorus that what Perseus renewed was amicitia rather than a foedus is significant. There is clear evidence in Polybian parts of Livy that Perseus and Philip before him had a treaty with Rome (Livy, xli. 19. 6, xlii. 40. 3-6 (the neuter assures the correctness of the restoration foedus), 41. 9-n, 46. 3· 6z. 5) ; but these passages could refer to the foedus made at the end of the Second Macedonian War (see E. Gruen, CSCA, 6, 1973, 123-36); see also the annalistic passages, Livy, xlii. zs. 4, zs. 10, 40. 4, xliv. 16. 5 (cf. App. Mac. n. s-6. n. 8; Syll. 643l. rz is restored}. It has generally been assumed that following the advice of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus in 196 (xviii. 48. 4 n.) Philip sought and obtained a treaty of alliance; but this is not stated by P. and if the only juridical bond with Rome at this time was the peace treaty, this would explain why Perseus should prefer to emphasize ..{a in seeking recognition. A tradition going back ultimately to P. regards Perseus' present action as carried out in bad faith; d. Meloni, Perseo, 68-73; it must be treated with suspicion. The embassy was evidently sent to Rome in 179, after Perseus had repelled Abrupolis' invasion (xxii. r8. z n.}. Livy, xli. 24. 6, a Polybian passage in which Archon, speaking in 174, says 'audimus legatos Romanos uenisse ad regem Persea et eos benigne acceptos', has been taken as evidence for a return embassy (sent presumably in 178); but this more probably refers to A. Postumius' embassy of 176 (cf. 6. 5 n.; Bikerman, REG, 1953. sos n. s; Meloni, Perseo, 72-73 n. 3 assumes the 178 date}. See further, Reuss, Volk. Grund. z6, 5o-51; Holleaux, Rome, 49· EX>.T)voKo'll'eiv: 'to court the Greeks' (a different sense in xx. ro. 7). Ka.Ta.Ka.M>v Els T1)v Ma.Ke8ovCa.v: this amnesty restored fugitive debtors and political exiles, and was designed both to heal internal wounds and (rejected by Giovannini, BCH, 1969, 855) to win popularity in Greece. The importance of debt is not clear; it may have
275
XXV. 3·
I
THE OPENING OF PERSEUS' REIGN
been increased by Philip's economic programme, designed to replenish the treasury by bigger taxes on crops and bigger harbour dues, and by mining and issuing new coins (Livy, xxxix. 24. 2; Walbank, Philip, 224 n. I; Meloni, Perseo, 74-76 with bibliography). Political disaffection had been caused partly through the feud between Perseus and Demetrius; cf. xxiii. Io nn.; Meloni, Perseo, 76-77. See in general Asheri, 62-64. Tous 'll'pos KaTa.O(tcas tK'ITE'ITTWK•ha.s: 'those banished by sentence of the courts'. TOUS €'ITt ~a.a~Auco'is eytcATifLO.O'l 'ITO.pa.KEXWPYJKOTO.S: 'those who had gone into exile as a result of charges of high treason' ; cf. § 3, J1rt fJaO'tAtKais airtat<;. 2. Af]Aov tcai AEAcJ>ous tca.i To Tf]s 'ITwv(a.s )\9YJvO.s iEpov: at the international centres. The cult of Athena Itonia spread from Thessaly to several other states including Athens and Amorgos. Its most famous shrine was at Coronca in Boeotia, where the Pambocotian festival was held (Paus. ix. 34· I; Adler, RE, 'Itonia', cols. 2374-6; above, iv. 3· 5 n.); but since Thessaly, through its proximity to Macedon, will have harboured many of the exiles, P. is more likely to be referring to the Thessalian temple, which was ncar Iton, about 10·8 km. from Halus, and between Phcrae and Larissa Crcmaste (Paus. i. I3. 2); sec SUihlin, Hell. Thess. 175-6; RE, 'Nlrwv', cols. 237I-3; see for recent excavations (by D. Thcocharis) A. Liankouras, )I_PX· 8£Ar. I9, I964, 244 ff.; Daux, BCH, I964, 78o; I965, 792; I967, 703-8; I968, 87o-I; Michaud, BCH, I97o, I049; Giovannini, BCH, I969, 855 n. 3·
Delos and Delphi: Perseus' move towards the Greeks naturally involved establishing good relations with these two shrines. Syll. 636 (dating to 178) shows Perseus as a member of the Amphictyonic Council \\o-:ith two hieromnemones. Syll. 6I3, a decree of I84 honouring Nicostratus of Larissa, which refers to 'autonomous peoples and democratic cities' has generally been taken as evidence that Philip was excluded from the Amphictyony (d. Daux, 282 f.; Walbank, Philip, 225 f.; Meloni, Perseo, 95; Will, ii. 2o6 f.); and though Giovannini (Ancient Macedonia, I47-54) argues that this inscription is merely asserting the difference in the Council before and after the war with Antiochus, in short that it is anti-Aetolian, not antiMacedonian, it is hard to believe that a Council at which Philip was present (whether technically entitled to be there or not) could have passed a decree phrased like Syll. 6I3, still less one like Syll. 63o, a decree of I82 honouring Eumenes, who is there contrasted with the kings 'who plot against the Greeks'-a dear reference to Philip (Giovannini, op. cit. I5J-4 n. 22). See further Walbank, Ancient Macedonia II, 86-94, discussing Giovannini's views on the origins of the Third Macedonian War. 276
PERSEUS' CHARACTER
XXV.4
~v EKQ.O'TOS icj>uyE: '(the restoration of) the property which each man had at the time he went into exile'; sec Schweighaeuser'snote, quoting Arr. A nab. iL 1. 4 (Mytilenaean agreement with the Persians), Totis 4>uy&.8as •.• ~<.anEvat ~1Tl Tots f]p..taeat nov
TWV \11Ta.px6vTWV ••• ucj>'
T&TE OVTWV ore €4>uyov. 3. i'ITt ~a.a~A~Ka.is a.h(a.~s: 'on charges of high treason'; cf. § r n. 5. Ka.Ta -rt'jv ev T~ AOL'IT~ ~(':;~ 'ITflOO"''a.a(a.v: 'in the outward ap-
pearance of his life generally'; cf. vii. ro. 3 n. on Gorgus (where the phrase Kard. rqv (m4>d.vetav is also used, cf. § 6). 6. 'ITflOS 'ITa.aw: 'in his demeanour' (whereas l1T~4>d.veta is 'physical appearance'). E'ITlaKuv1ov Ka.t nl.~~v: 'gravity and composure' (Paton); on this meaning of lma~<:l5vtov, which is literally the skin above the brows which \\Tinkles in a frown, see Wunderer, i. 90. 7, fi.lAoL: added from the paraphrase in A then. x. 445 D. On 4>/).o, at the Macedonian court d. iv. 23. 5 n., v. 2. r n. 9. on Se ••• TU Tfjs TUXT)S d.v-rt'ITVEUUE KTA.: ct. xviii. 33· 7' d!Aoyt(]'TaTa OOKEL KEX,Pf}a8at Tots Ka8' avnlv Katpois (after Cynoscephalae); cf. xvi. 8. 3-9 for Philip's firmness and vigour after the Roman ultimatum at Abydus. For the 'wind of Fortune' cf. xi. 19. 5· 10. ETI'E~pO.To .•. aw~J.a.TO'ITOLE'Lv -rt'jv ••• ~a.a~A.eia.v: on the measures he adopted after Cynoscephalae and again after the war between Rome and Antiochus see Walbank, Philip, 223-57.
4. 1-10. Lycian enVOJ'S at Rome This excerpt from de tegat. gent. belongs to res Italt'ae of 01. rso, 3 178/7; see pp. zr-22. On the dispute between Rhodes and the Lycians see xxii. 5· I-Io, xxiv. 15. 13 n. Lhry, xli. 6. 8-r2 describes this embassy from an annalistic source; P.'s source is probably Rhodian (d. Ullrich, 58). According to Livy the Lycians were heard before the election of the consuls for I77 (Livy, xli. 8. r), and this was preceded by the triumphs of Ti. Sempronius Gracchus and L. Postumius Albinus continui; these triumphs wer-e on a. d. III non. feb. and pr. non. feb. (Fast1: tr.) and on Derow's system (Ph.oenix, r973, 353) the Julian equivalent is rr and 12 October r78. Thus Livy's date for the hearing of these envoys is September 178 (Jul.), which would 277
XXV.4
L YCIAN ENVOYS AT ROME
match § 2 i/~'1/ ri]> (h.p(da<; A7jyoVU7J>, if it were not for the reference (§ I) to the consuls of 177. This reference has been assumed to date the excerpt to 178/7 and to make the summer that of 177 (Nissen,
KU, 239; Magie, ii. 953 n. 64). But the wording of § 1 is clearly the excerptor's; and there are other passages in the Constantinian excerpts where consuls' names have been inserted (cf. xviii. 42. I, xxi. 34· 3). In fact, the consuls of I77 did not undertake the common activity indicated here; but those of I78 were both active against the Istrians (though not jointly). If the Lycians were heard in September IJ7, this leaves little time for the dispatch of envoys to Rhodes the same autumn (5. r) and the sending of a Rhodian envoy (5. 4) to Rome for a hearing the next consular year (6. I); and this would involve the sending of legati at an unusual time and also an unusual prolongation of P.'s olympiad year 150, 3 = q8/7. For these reasons Derow (Phoenix:, I973, 350 ff.) argues cogently for regarding the consuls' names as incorrectly inserted by the excerptor, and § I as referring to the dispatch of the consuls of 178 to !stria. This hypothesis involves fewer difficulties than assuming that Livy dated the Lycian embassy a year too soon, and that P. is here referring to events at the very end of Ol. ISO, 3· i.e. September I7J.
4. 1. T~V a'l!'o.:rroAT)v: 'the expedition ... against the Istrians and Agrians' (see below). In xiv. 2, 3 a1TO<M'OA~ means 'the sending of envoys'; but here the words Trpo> "l<M'pov> KTA. justify the translation 'expedition' (cf. Thuc. viii. 8. I), as Mauersberger takes it. Tlilv ~'ll'nTwv TE~Ep(ou tca.l KAa.u5(ou: Ti. Sempronius P.f. Ti.n. Gracchus and C. Claudius Ap.f. P.n. Pulcher, coss. A.u.c. 577 I77; see Munzer, RE, 'Sempronius (53)', cols. I403-9; 'Claudius (3oo)', cols. 2855-6. But if Derow is right (cf. 4· I-Io n.), these names have been incorrectly inserted by the excerptor, who knew that the consuls of 177 held office for most of Ol. I So. 3 = I78/7. The consuls in fact indicated by P. v..ill in that case be M. Iunius M.f. L.n. Brutus and A. Manlius Cn.f. L.n. Vulso, coss. A.u.c. 576 178; cf. Munzer, RE, 'Iunius (48)', cols. 970-1; RE, 'Manlius (9o)', cols. I214-15; on the former see xxvii. 3· I n., xxxi. 8. I n. 'll'pOS "'l.:rrpous tea.~ )&.yp£ous: the Istrian war began in 178 when the consul A. Manlius Vulso invaded !stria on his own authority (Livy, xli. 1-5, 6. r-3, 7· 4-ro); it ended with the defeat of King Aepulo in 177 by the consul C. Claudius Pulcher (Livy, xli. 8. 5. 9· 3, 9· 8, Io. sI I. 9; Enn. Ann. 421 V; Flor. i. 26). Whichever are the consuls mentioned here, the Agrii present a problem. In I77 (Livy, xli. 9· 1, 9· 8, 12. 5-6) Sempronius fought the Ilienses and Balari in Sardinia; but no Agrii are known either there or in Illyricum (for the Agraei (xviii. 5· 8) do not come into the picture), and Derow (Phoenix:, 1973, 353 n. 24) thinks there is an error introduced either by the excerptor or 278
LYCIAN ENVOYS AT ROME
XXV. 4· 5
by a copyist; cf. Schweighaeuser, viii. I, index geog. s.v. 'Agrii', proposing I:&p8ous or I:a[Mt/Jov<;. l. Tt]s 8epe·~a.s AlJyouOT)s: probably September 178, despite the consuls' names; cf. 4· I-Io n. Pedech (Methode, 462) sees a reference to the UTTOUTOA~ TWV vmlTWV (of I77, who entered office on the Ides of March: Livy, xli. 8. 4); and he equates id. mart. A.u.c. 577 with the end of October q8 (Jul.). But if Derow is right (d. 4· I-Io n.) the 'end of the summer' has nothing to do with the entry into office of the consuls (whether of I78 or I77) and is probably a reference to about September 178. To hear envoys in late summer (rather than at the beginning of the consular year) is unusual, but not unparalleled; cf. xxviii. z. I-z n. for the hearing of Rhodians in late summer I69. 3. ot ..• :=a.ve~o~: Xanthus, one of a group of cities on the main route into Lycia from the sea, stood on an isolated hill on the left bank of the river Xanthus (Kocat;ay) about 8 miles from its mouth (cf. C. Fellows, Travels and Researches in Asia Minor (London, I85z), I67 f., JI3 f.; A. Philippson, Peterm. Mitt. Erganz.-Heft, I83 (I9I5), 94 f., I05; Magie, ii. I37Z n. 9; P. Demargne and H. Metzger, RE, 'Xan thos (33)', cols. I37 s- I4o8, covering their recent excavations, and with full bibliography). For the treatment of Xanthus by Antiochus see xxii. 5· 3 n. Livy, xli. 6. 8-Io, mentions a legatio Lyciorum, perhaps generalizing through carelessness (so Fraser and Bean, IZI). tca.8' ov tca.~pov ~!leAAov .•• EJ.LJ3a.1vtw: the delay between Nicostratus' dispatch and his arrival now (September 178: 4· I-Io n.) was due to his visiting Achaea en route. The war between Rhodes and Lycia had been going on for Io years (xxiv. IS. IJ n.); but Xanthus may not hitherto have been involved in what was very likely a series of guerrilla operations. Nicostratus is not otherwise known. 4. n8mes ••• T"fJv TE 'Poo£wv J3a.pOTlJTa. tcTA.: cf. Livy, xli. 6. 8-Io, 'crudelitatem Rhodiorum ... querebantur ... non publice tan tum se premi imperio, sed singulos i ustum pa ti serui ti urn. coniuges liberosque uexari; in corpus, in tergum saeuiri; farnam, quod indignum sit, maculari dehonestarique; et palam res odiosas fieri iuris etiam usurpandi causa, ne pro dubio habeant, nihil inter se et argento parata mancipia interesse.' Livy's account is from an annalist, and shows signs of elaboration. 5. w£11-va.~ 1TpeaJ3t:uTC..s els Ti]v 'Po8ov: Livy, xli. 6. n, from an annalist, reports that the Senate 'litteras Lyciis ad Rhodios dedit' to declare their policy; but P. is to be followed, for the arrival of the envoys is described in 5· I. TWV U'II'OJ.LVT]J.LO.T~O'~V ava.AlJ+8evTwv: on the dispositions of the Ten after the war with Antiochus see xxi. 46. I - I I with notes; Livy, xli. 6. 8, less probably, speaks of the Rhodians 'quibus ab L. Cornelio Scipione adtributi erant'. Aotc~oL ••• ouK iv 8wpe~, To 8€ wAe~ov ws +£Xo~ tca.~ aUJ.L!la.xo~: a 279
XXV 4· 5
LYCIA'N ENVOYS AT ROME
reversal of policy (cf. xxii. 5· 4); but 'since Rome tended to retain a ruling once made, the new policy was worded as a mere definition of the old' (Larsen, GFS, 247). The records were consulted, and these may not have contained the phrase dono dare, though the words i.v 8wpefi. had certainly been used, and taken by the Rhodians to mean outright possession. The form the 'interpretation' took is perhaps indicated more clearly in the annalistic version of Livy, xli. 6. JI, 'nee Lycios Rhodiis nee ullos cuiquam, qui nati liberi sint, in seruitutem dari placere; Lycios ita sub Rhodiorum simul imperio et tutela esse, ut in dicione populi Romani ciuitates sociae sint' a passage misunderstood by Weissenborn, who, taking ita ... ut to be consecutive, thought the Lycians were being called allies of the Roman people. Clearly ita ... ut is 'just as', and simul goes with imperio et tutela (d. Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, 104 5). The Lycians are in the same relationship to Rhodes as their socii are to the Romans; and if that is implied by 1'0 s~ 7rAd'ov WS
LYCIAN ENVOYS AT ROME
XXV. 6.
I
must have aroused deep suspicion at Rome (cf. Fraser and Bean, II5-I6).
9. ~paxel xpov~ 1rpoTEpov: but after the escorting of Laodice to Macedonia (§ 10). Avn1TE1TELp8.a9nL ••• a1T(10"L TOLS O"Knq,eaL: 'they had held naval mameuvres of all ships belonging to them with great splendour and elaborate equipment.' Paton misunderstands this. 10. ~uAwv 1rAfj8os: for Macedonian timber cf. v. 89. 6 n. <7TEAy18a xpuailv EKnO"T~ TWV Aq,pnKnTwv: so Biittner-Wobst for al/>paK-n}-rwv; the word does not appear elsewhere, but will mean 'sailor in an undecked ship'. A a-re>..yl-; (or a-rA£yyt-;) is a tiara overlaid with metal (here gold), sometimes offered as a prize (cf. Xen. A nab. i. 2. 10), or worn by a 8£wp6-; to a festival, etc. (cf. Theopompus, FGH, 115 F 248; Sosibius, FGH, 595 F 4, with Jacoby's commentary).
5. 1-5. Rotnan embassy to Rhodes: Rhodian reaction (177) This excerpt from de legat. gent. follows directly after ch. 4, and describes the arrival of the envoys promised in 4· 5; it forms part of res Asiae of 01. 150, 3 = q8/7 (seep. 2I), and probably falls in spring 177 (cf. 4· 1-10 n.).
5. 1. TU 8e8oyf.&iva TTI uuyKA,;T~: cf. 4· S· 2. apTL ••• KnAws TE9ei:a9nL TO. KaTO. AuKtous: cf. 4· 2, 7J3TJ Ka-ra7Te7TOA€J.t'TJI·dvwv TWV AvKfwv.
3. n-O.Xw tO"Taa1a~ov: thus, after one war lasting from 187 to q8, a fresh war now broke out (cf. xxx. 31. 4, Tpt-r-rov-; TToMp,ov-; dvayma8me-; TToA£p,e'iv: one was against the Carians). U1TEp T"ls O.UTOVOfAtas Kat Tils eAeu9ep(as: in Greek eyes l/>tAta Kal :>vp,p,axla (4. 5) was a relationship capable of being easily terminated. 4. E~'Yjn"QTfja8aL ••. un-o TWV AuK(wv: since the Rhodians assumed that their interpretation of the original award was correct.
6. 1-6. Embassies to the Senate from Rhodes, the Dardanians, and the Thessalians (177/6) This excerpt follows 5· 1-5 in de legat. gent.; it is from res Italiae of 01. 15o, 4 = 177i6 (see pp. 21-22).
6. 1. 8LaKouanaa Twv Xoywv: presumably at the outset of the consular year A.u.c. 578 = 176, at the normal time for hearing embassies; Derow, Phoenix, 1973, 348-g, equates id. mart. A.u.c. 578 with 3 December 177 (Jul.). un-epe8ETo T,;v n1ToKpLaLv: whether it was later sent, and if so what 28I
XXV. 6.
I
EMBASSIES TO THE SENATE (177/6)
form it took, is not recorded; but the delay denotes Roman dissatisfaction with the Rhodian case. 2. Twv AapSavtwv: on the Dardanians see ii. 6. 4 n. Before his death Philip had been negotiating a plan with the Bastarnians for their invasion and occupation of the Dardanians' territory (cf. 3· r-ro n.). Twv Bao-Tapvwv: a Balkan people who had moved from the upper Vistula to settle on the Dnieper, Prut, Bug, and Danube estuary around zoo; they were very primitive and ignorant of agriculture, cattle-rearing, and navigation (Plut. A em. rz. z). A Germanic people (cf. Strabo, vii. 3· q, C. 306; Pliny, Nat. hist. iv. roo; Tac. Germ. 46. r), they were often called Peucini by the Romans (cf. ILS, r7n, 'Nereus nat(ione) German(us) Peucennus'); but earlier authors, including P. and those deriving from him, regarded them as Celts ; see Walbank, Philip, z36 n. 5 (with references); Launey, i. 418 n. 7· On Philip's plan to have them attack and oust the Dardanians see also xxii. I4. IZ n.; 30,000 under Clondicus had penetrated Dardania (Livy, xi. 58. 8) and it was probably this group that was troubling the Dardanians. See further Ihm, RE, 'Bastarnae', cols. no-13; E. Petersen in H. Reinerth, V orgeschichte der tkzftschen Sfamme, iii (Leipzig, I94o), 867. 3. wepl. TTJS nepo-ews KOWO'II'payLas KO.LTWV ra.Aa.Twv: 'concerning the common action of Perseus and the Galatians' (not, as Paton, 'that Perseus and the Galatians were in league with this tribe'). P. is identifying the Bastarnians with the Galatians; cf. xxix. 9· 13; Diod. xxx. 19, €mMKTov'}; Ta.>..dTa.S' rrE:rrE:pa.rdva.' Tdv" laTpov; Plut. A em. 9· 4; Syll. 495 ll. 102, ro8; cf. Reinach, BCH, I9IO, zs6--6s. for the identification of the Galatians mentioned there as Bastarnians. 5. llSo~e ••• '~~'EiJ-o/al TLvO.s Tovs a1~mSwTas KTA.: this embassy was evidently sent in spring I76; its return is recorded in Livy, xli. I9. 4 (following P.): 'et legati, qui missi ad res uidendas in Macedoniam erant, iam reuerterant et ab rege Perseo oratores, qui purgarent nee accitos ab eo Bastarnas nee auctore eo quicquam facere', which seems to refer to early in A.u.c. 579 I75· Whether these Roman and Macedonian embassies are the two mentioned in App. 1tfac. II. r (where the Romans visit the Bastarnae, not Macedonia) has been much debated; cf. Reinach, BCH, I9Io, :291 n. I (distinct); Meloni, Valore storico, II9-29 (distinct and following a non-Polybian tradition); Gabba, Riv. stor. it. 1956, 1oo-r (identical; Polybian tradition); Bivona, KQKAAOE, 1957, 129-35 (distinct; Polybian). If Appian is describing these embassies, his account is much distorted. 6. AoXov nocrrOJiiOV: A. Postumius Albinus (Luscus), cos. I8o (cf. Miinzer, RE, 'Postumius (46)', cols. 925-9); Broughton, MRR, i. 403, puts his embassy in 175 (corrected in Supplement to MRR, sr), but he was probably dispatched in I76, and returned either then or in I75 (when Livy mentions this: see previous note). He is probably the 282
EMBASSIES TO THE SENATE (177/6)
XXV. 6. 6
Postumius known as duumuir aedi dedicandae from an inscription from the Largo Torre Argentina in Rome (ILLRP, 121; cf. F. Munzer, Br~ll. Comm. Rom. 1939, 27-30; DeSanctis iv. z. r. 305) and known also from ILS, 4019 CIL, i~. 8o4 = ILLRP, 281, a dedication to Verminus (which Munzer connects with the plague which broke out among cattle in 175; Livy, xli. 21. s. zr. 7). Kat ... nv
BOOK XXVI 01. 151 = q6fz; the book was lost before 950 (see pp. 14 and zz). The so-called fragments are extracts from Athenaeus, less faithful to P. than Diad. xxix. 32 (cf. Schmitt, Antiochos, 6 n. 2), and come from the res Asiae of OL rsr, 1 176/5 (cf. p. 22).
1 a 1. alm)v: Antiochus IV of S:yTia, younger son of Antiochus III, had been sent to Rome as a hostage after Apamea (xxi. 17. 8 n.) and remained there from 188 to 176/5, when Seleucus IV sent his son Demetrius in exchange (App. Syr. 45). He learnt of the murder of Seleucus by Heliodorus (on 3 Sept. 175; cf. App. Syr. 45; Sachs and Wiseman, Iraq, 1954, 202 ff., rev, 11. &9) while at Athens, and returned to Syria to seize the throne with Pergamene help (App. Syr. 45; OGIS, i. 248; Ms:1rkholm, 41). There has been much debate on the relationship to Antiochus IV of a boy-king Antiochus, known from the coinage. Bevan (Seleucus, ii. 126) makes him a son of Seleucus IV (perhaps the 'son of Seleucus' murdered by one Andronicus (Diad. xxx. 7· 2}, who may be the same man who murdered Onias, the Jewish high priest (2 Mace. iv. 34-38), and was later executed by Antiochus IV), and suggested that Antiochus associated him with himself on the throne, to consolidate his position. Cuneiform documents of 18 April f74, 7 June 174, and 14 August 173 confirm the existence of a co-regent named Antioch us, whom Aymard (Etudes, 24o-{)2) took to be Antioch us IV's own son; but later (Etudes, 269-72), when the cuneiform Babylonian king-list (Sachs and Wiseman, Iraq, 1954, 202 ff.) showed the co-regent Antiochus executed by Antiochus IV in July/August 17o, he suggested that its author had confused the natural death of Antiochus IV's own son (the co-regent) with the murder of Seleucus lV's son about the same time. But it seems more likely that the king-list called Antiochus lV's nephew his son, either in error (so Zambelli, Riv. jil. 196o, 363-89), or (since the same 'mistake' occurs in the cuneiform document of 14 Aug. 173: A. T. Clay, Babylonian Records in the Library of]. Pierpont Morgan (New York, 1913), ii, no. 38) by a formal usage found elsewhere (cf. W. Hinz, The Lost World of Elam (London, 1972), 134-5; J. G. Bunge, Historia, 1974, 58 n. 3), or because Antiochus IV in fact adopted him below). 0. M0rkholm, 38-so (cf. ANSMN, 1964, 63-76), has shown that the coins of the boy-king Antioch us must have been largely issued before the first of Antiochus IV, especially a gold octadrachm showing the jugate heads of the boy-king and a woman who must be his mother, Laodice, which can hardly have been issued once Antiochus IV 284
ANTIOCHUS IV EPIPHANES
XXVI.
t
a
I
was in control (M~rkholm, 36). The boy-king was Seleucus IV's son, but evidently as part of a compromise with the opposition party Antiochus IV adopted him-until he could be removed in 170; his name was Antiochus (cf. Bunge, Historia, 1974, 59). It is perhaps F HG, iv. a difficulty that the literary tradition (Joh. Ant. fg. 58 558; Diod. xxx. 7· 2) attributes the murder to Andronicus (see above), who was disowned and later executed (cf. Briscoe, CR, 1968, 84); but this may be the official version, whereas the king-list (its date of compilation is unknown) though official-looking, may have given what were later believed (no doubt rightly) to be the facts. If this explanation is correct, there may have been a longer gap between Seleucus IV's death on 3 Sept. 175 and Antiochus IV's effective accession, than the official date for that would allow (the king-list puts the beginning of the co-regency in OctoberfNovember, 175 (Sachs-Wiseman, Iraq, 1954, 2o8)). Will, ii. 256-7, has suggested that the exchange of hostages (Demetrius for Antiochus IV), the installing of Antiochus IV at Athens, the speed of his intervention in concert with Pergamum the moment Seleucus' murder was announced, and that murder itself, all indicate a carefully prepared plot between Rome and Pergamum, with Heliodorus as perhaps the unconscious agent or dupe. The theory, though beyond proof, is attractive. 'E-rn~a.vil Ka.L ouK 'E-rncjla.vil: cf. I. I, where as here the words are those of Athenaeus, though the substance is from P. According to App. Syr. 45· 7Tapd. 'TWV Ivpwv E7TWVtljJ.OV ~v 'E7Tt apxijs &.p7ra~Oji.EV7}S Vn-6 d.llOTpiwv {3a.tnA€V<; olKt:tos wANOYI on the second series of Antiochus IV's tetradrachms, and Ml?irkholm (48} dates these to 173(2, and regards their emission as a step differentiating him from his co-regent (see previous note); but Bunge (Historia, 1974, 6i ff.) dates the issue rather earlier and sees it as echoing the cult-title of Ptolemy V and as a reply to the 7rpw-roK'J..lcna of Ptolemy VI (xxviii. I. 1-9 n.), which he dates to spring 174 (leaving its exact definition undecided). It seems at any rate unlikely that in putting Epiphanes on his coinage Antiochus was initiating a new religious policy (see M~rkholm, 132-3). The titles Epiphanes and Nicephoros appear in only a few mints; outside his own kingdom Epiphanes appears without Theos and means little more than 'illustrious'; and (as M~rkholm, ibid., stresses) Antioch us was personally attracted to the doctrines of Epicurus (see the Herculaneum papyrus no. 1044: Cronert, 5.-B. Berlin, 19oo. 953, ll. 30-33); but see Bunge, Historia, 1974. 76-8J.
XXVI.
I
a
I
ANTIOCHUS IV EPIPHANES
1-2: the same account is given in a fuller form in ch. I; cf. Diod. xxix. 32, which often agrees verbally with Athenaeus, and may
preserve P.'s words more closely where they diverge. The city mentioned is Antioch ; but what conclusions on its organization this passage warrants is not at all clear. Antioch us stood as candidate for the office of ayopav6p.os or S~/1-apxos, and having (naturally) been elected, sat as judge. Bikerman, Institutions, 157-8, assumed that he introduced these posts into the administrative structure of Antioch (whatever that was); but Downey (Antioch, u6-r7) believes him to have been playing a game, pretending to be a Roman candidate, and he points to the reaction of respectable men (§ 7). But P. does not say whether they were surprised because he pretended to stand for a non-existent office or because, though a king, he stood for office like anyone else. The fact that he sat (like the Roman emperors) as a judge suggests more than play-acting or crazy nonsense. 1. 4. 11nt.. KEpa.T(ou tta.l. O"uf1t}wv£a.!i: 'with a fife and musicians' ; KEpaTlov (Athen. x. 439 A= I a 2, and Diod. xxix. 32) must take preference over KEpajl-lov (C) or KEpa/1-elov (A) in Athenaeus here. TOU!i 1roXXou!i ••• At}lO"Ta.fl€vou!; t}£uyew: cf. r a 2 ; but see Diod. - LOLW'TWV '"' - 'TOVS ' jl-t:V ' 'f'evy£tV, A. ' ' OE "'' OLU "' ' 'TOV ' 'f"-'1-'0V .1.1.1:) ~ 32, 'TWJ) 'TOVS: OLW1TUV, Apxa.lp£0'lG.~wv: 'like a candidate'; cf. Diod. xxix. 32, Ka8a1rep ~v
• XXlX.
5.
JwpaKUJS iv 'Pw/1-IJ 'TOVS jl-lf.'TU770pEVOjl-tfVovs 'TdS dpxds.
O.yopa.vo11o!i ••• St}fla.pxo!i: both offices are found in Greek cities (cf. Hampl, Gnomon, 1939, 62r), but here they seem to imply the
introduction at Antioch of an equivalent to the Roman aedileship and tribunate (both in a sense 'popular' offices); cf. r a I-2 n. For Antiochus' imitation of Roman institutions see also Diod. xxix. 32; Livy, xli. 20. 9 (cult of Iuppiter Capitolinus), 20. II-12 (gladiatorial games); below, xxx. 25. 3 (soldiers in Roman arms). This is variously interpreted~to instil Roman public spirit into the citizens of Antioch (M0rkholm, 4o) or to win Roman goodwill (Bunge, Historia, 1974, 67). 6. Tov eXEt}G.vnvov 8£t}pov: 'ivory curule chair'; cf. Gell. iii. r8. 3-4; Mommsen, St.-R. i. 399 f. 11na 1roUT)!i O"'l'ou8ij!i ~eal1rpo8ufl£a.!i: cf. Diod. xxix. 32, jl-t:Ta 1roAAijs > I .J.- \ I E7TLOTaat:WS KU.L\ 'f'£1\0'TLjl-LUS,
7. ot 11ev yap O.t}eXij .•• ot Se ~J.a.woflEvov: cf. Diod. xxix. 32, oi 11-~v
yd.p a<{llAnav, oi s~ &.Aoyla.v, 'TLV~S OE jl-avlav aU'TOU KaTeylvwaKoV; Livy, xli. 20. 4, 'quidamludere eumsimpliciter, quidam haud dubie insanire aiebant (inseanebant V)'. 8. aO'Tpa.yO.Xou!i 8op~ta.8££ou!i: 'knuckle-bones of antelopes', used like dice for gaming; cf. Livy, xli. zo. 3, 'quibusdam honoratis magnoque aestimantibus se puerilia, ut escae aut lusus, munera dare, alios nihil expectantes ditare.' Immediately before this Livy has: 'non a.dloqui amicos, uix notis familiariter arridere, munificentia
286
ANTIOCHUS IV EPIPHANES
XXVI.
1. I I
inaequali sese aliosque ludificari.' \Vhether Livy or Athenaeus has reversed the order in P. is uncertain, but Livy's seems more logical, and Swpeas &rrpoa8oK~'Tovs {§ 9) is here illustrated by § 8, which suggests that Livy gives the original order. 10. TO.L~ Trpo~ Ta.~ TrOAE~S 9ua[a.~~ ••• Ta.l:s Trpo~ TOUS 9EoU~ nf1-W~: d. Livy, xli. 20. s. 'in duabus tamen magnis honestisque rebus uere regius erat animus, in urbium donis et deorum cultu.' Since Livy then gives examples of Antiochus' munificence towards various cities, which are not sacrifices, Athenaeus' 9ualaLr; is suspect: evvolatr; or evepyealaLs is an obvious correction (on the concept see \Velwei, 162-7I, with other examples). Livy mentions his contribution of most of the cost of a city wall round Megalopolis, a marble theatre at Tegea, gold vessels for the prytaneum at Cyzicus, and many lesser gifts to Rhodes. For a full discussion of Antiochus' munificence towards the Greek cities see M0rkholm, 55-63 : examples, other than those mentioned above, are Miletus, Ilium (?),Byzantium, Calchedon, Athens, Olympia, and Achaea (d. xxix. 24. 13). See especially Syll. 644/5 honouring Eudemus of Seleuceia, one of his ministers. See too Bunge, Historia, 1974, 66-67. Within his own kingdom Antiochus added a quarter, Epiphania, to his capital, Antioch (Strabo, xvi. 2. 4, C. 750; Malalas, Chron. (Bonn ed.), 205; Downey, Antioch, 99-Ioo; M0rkholm, ns-34). At the festival held at Daphne (xxx. 25. 13-14) Antioch us honoured several deities, especially Apollo; for the festival coinage see xxx. 25. 1 n. Despite Amm. Marc. xxii. 13. I, the temple of Apollo at Daphne is earlier than Antiochus (d. Lacroix, BCH, 1949, 165 f.; Downey, Antioch, 595 f.), but he perhaps repaired and restored it (M0rkholm, u9-2o). He confirmed gifts of former kings to the Babylonian temples (cf. C. F. Lehmann, ZA, 1892, 330); and one tradition mentions a sacred marriage to Atargatis (probably of Hierapolis-Bambyce)-though as a trick to get possession of the temple's treasuries (Gran. Licin. 5· 3 Flemisch). For Olympian Zeus see the next note. 11. Tou Tra.p' :4.9T)va.[o~s 'OAUf'Tr~[ou: d. Livy, xli. 20. 8, 'magnificentiae uero in deos uel louis Olympii templum Athenis, unum in terris incohatum pro magnitudine dei potest (testis) esse'; Strabo, ix. 1. I7, C. 396. This temple in south-east Athens was begun under Peisistratus, but not finished until Hadrian. Antioch us used a Roman architect Cossutius on the project (Vitruv. vii praef. IS, I7; cf. E. Rawson, BSR, 1975, 36-38), a name twice found scratched on a secondcentury water-conduit at Antioch in the new quarter of Epiphania (cf. R. Stillwell, ed., A ntioch-on-the-Orontes, 2. The excavations (Princeton, 1938), 16o-1, no. 90 = IGLS, no. 825; cf. W. A. Campbell, A] A I938. 205-6)-hardly by Cossutius himself. Antiochus showed a special, but not exclusive, interest in Olympian Zeus (which I
287
XXV!.
I. 11
ANTIOCHUS IV EPIPHANES
Bunge, Historia, 1974, 76-83, interprets, not wholly convincingly, as a political gesture against Seleucus IV's legitimate heirs). The temple at Jerusalem was dedicated to that god (2 Mace. vi. 2-7; Porphyry, FGH, 26o F 51), and he presented a curtain of Syrian workmanship to the temple of Zeus at Olympia (Paus. v. 12. 4, associating it with the gift of a golden aegis with Medusa's head to Athens; this was set on the south wall of the acropolis above the theatre of Dionysus (Paus. i. 21. 3) and commemorated on a coinseries from Antioch; cf. M0rkholm, Hist. Filos. lrfedd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. 40 no. 3 (1963), 23 f.). But the temples of Olympian Zeus at Dura-Europus, Gerasa, and Scythopolis in Samaria cannot be firmly attributed to Antiochus IV (.M:s;Jrkholm, 122, against F. E. Brown, AJA, 1941, 94; C. H. Kraeling, Gerasa, city of the Decapolis (~ew Haven, 1938), 30 f.); nor do the coins depicting that god identify him with Antiochus (against Bevan, J HS, I goo, 26-30; Cerfaux and Tondriau, 241-5; see M0rkholm, Hist. Filos. lvledd. Dan. V£d. Selsk. 40 no. 3 (r963), 59--61; Bunge, Historia, 1974, 79-8o). The temple of Iuppiter Capitolinus at Antioch (Livy, xli. 20. g) is of course quite distinct from any temple to Olympian Zeus. ~ ' , A t ~ ll ' , ., ' f L'1\ry, X 1'l. 20. g, •Sed e t 1'WV 1TE;p4' TOV EV LJ.T}/\~ t'WflOV a.vopla.VTW'\1: C • Delum aris insignibus statuarumque copia exornauit.' These have not been found; but see OGIS, 249-50, for two statues of Antiochus erected as dedications to Apollo by Athenian citizens. According to Livy, xli. 20. 9-13, P.'s text here mentioned the dedication of a temple to Iuppiter Capitolinus (see previous note), his elaborate displays and performances, and his introduction of gladiatorial games, which became so popular that 'armorum studium plerisque iuuen urn accendit' ; the sole manuscript of Livy has a lacuna after§ 13. 12-14. ~Aooero KTA.: this anecdote was also related independently by Ptolemy VIII in his Memoirs (FGH, 234 F 3 Athen. x. 438). 13. Tfjs aTaKrijs Ka.AOUJ.LWT)S: cf. xiii. 9· 5 n. In Athenaeus the present extract is followed by the account of the procession at Daphne (cf. XXX. 25. I-26. 9).
Contents of Book :x:xvi I. 01. rsr, I = IJ6/5: the above 'fragments' are from res Asiae of this year. The preceding res Italiae and res M acedoniae can be partly reconstructed from livy and Orosins. Livy, xli. 19. 4--6 (based on P.) reports the return to Rome of the legati whose sending was described in xxv. 6. s--6, and the reception of envoys from Perseus disclaiming responsibility for the Bastarnian movement ; this is from res Jtaliae. Livy, xli. 19. 7-II (also from P.) describes the Dardanian attack on the Bastamians in winter (probably 176/s), and
288
CONTENTS
XXVI
their defeat, and the success of another group in seizing the Bastarnian camp; Livy here has a lacuna, but Orosius, iv. 20. 34-3s, recounts the destruction of the Bastarnians crossing the Danube (all from res llJacedoniae). 2. 01. 151, 2 175/4: the res Graeciae can be partly reconstructed from Li'11y, xli. 22. 4-2s. 7, which describes (i) Perseus' journey to Delphi (cf. xxii. 18. 4 n.); (ii) a debate in Achaea when Callicrates opposed and Archon supported the cancellation of the decree forbidding Macedonians to enter Achaean territory, the deferment of the question, and a fresh meeting at Megalopolis; (iii) civil war and massacre in Aetolia; (iv) civil war in Crete. Livy xli. 2.'). 8 (from P.) describes the Rhodian attack on the Lycians, but breaks off \\'ith the remark that 'externorum inter se bella, quo quaeque modo gesta sint, persequi non operae est satis superque oneris sustinenti res a populo Romano gestas scribere.' This represents res Asiae. 3· Ol. 151, 3 174/3: Livy, xlii . .'). 1-6. 3 (from P.; cf. Nissen, KU, 243-4) describes (i) Perseus' popularity in Greece relative to Eumenes -a popularity hard (i.e. for P.) to understand; (ii) civil broils, arising from debt, in Thessaly and Perrhaebia, and Ap. Claudius' settlement; (iii) M. Marcellus' activity at Delphi and in settling Aetolian troubles; (iv) his presence at Aegium. This is from the res Graeciae of this year. The reference to Eumenes' arrival in Rome (Livy, xlii. 6. 4) seems an anticipation of an event of the next olympiad year (cf. Livy, xlii. n. 1). 4· 01. 151, 4 173/2: P. here approaches the outbreak of the Third Macedonian \Var. Res Italiae are represented by Livy, xlii. II. 414· 1 (Eumenes' speech against Perseus before the Senate), 14. z-4 (hearing of Harpalus, Perseus' envoy), 14. 5-9 (speech of Rhodian envoy against Eumenes), 14. Io (favourable treatment and dispatch home of Eumenes: for Harpalus' reception and Eumenes' departure cf. Diod. xxix. 34, who however states that Harpalus was silent; App. Mac. n. 1-3). Livy, xlii. q. I-<J gives an account, from P., of the arrival at Rome of C. Valerius along with Praxo and L Rammius of Brundisium, who accused Perseus of trying to suborn him to poison his Roman guests. This, along with Livy, xlii. 18. 1-5, is assigned by Nissen, KU, 335. to this olympiad year (ISI, 4 I7J/z); but Livy xlli. 18. I-S (or at least 2-s) is not from P. (cf. Walbank, JRS, 194r, 8z-86), and Livy, xlii. I7. I-<J, since it must belong to res Italiae, can only be from those of 01. 152, 1 = I72/I.
289
BOOK XXVII Traditionally 01. 152, 1 and 2 = 172/1 and 171/o; but perhaps the book contained only 01. 152, I, in which case 14. 1-20. 3 would belong to xxviii; see pp. 22-23. No resltaliae survive from 01. 152, 1 172/1; but Livy, xlii. 17. 1--9 (or 17. 1-18. r} may be based on part of that section (seep. z8g). The fragments open with res Graeciae; but Livy, xlii. 29. 1-30. 7, from P., describing the general alignment of sympathies for or against Perseus throughout the Greek east, is probably also based on res Graeciae of 01. 152, I = 172/r.
1. 1-2. 12. Events in Boeotia: Roman envoys at Argos (172/I) This excerpt from de legat. gent. belongs to res Graeciae of 172/1 (see p. 23). A more comprehensive picture is given by Livy, xlii. 37· 167. 12 (from P.), which covers the events of the first year of the war from the arrival of a Roman embassy led by Q. Marcius Philippus, with a force of I,ooo men, at Corcyra in September 172, down to preparations for winter quarters in autunm 171. On reaching Corcyra the envoys separated; L. Decimius was sent to Genthius in Illyria, P. and Ser. Lcntulus to Cephallenia and the Peloponnese, Q. Marcius and A. Atilius to Epirus, Aetolia, Thessaly, Boeotia, and Euboea, and subsequently to meet the Lentuli in the Peloponnese (Livy, xlii. 37· 1-4). At the outset, when Perseus inquired why they had crossed to Greece and were occupying cities, they replied that they were acting praesidii causa ipsarum urbium (Livy, xlii. 37· s-6). The reference was clearly to the cities of Greece (cf. Livy, xlii. 40. 1; Walbank, JRS, 1941, 84). The exhortations of the Lentuli aroused hostility in Achaca (Livy. xlii. 37· 7--9). Marcius and Atilius attended an Epirote council at Gitana (d. 16. 5 n.), and sent 400 of their troops into Orestis to protect it from Perseus (Livy, xlii. 38. 1); in Actolia they ·witnessed the election of Lyciscus as general suffectus (Livy, xlii. 38. z); and in Thessaly they gave audience to Acarnanian envoys and representatives of a group of Boeotian exiles and held out to these the veiled threat to break up the Boeotian confederacy (Livy, xlii. 38. 3-5). The Thessalian meeting at Larissa basked in Roman approval {Livy, xlii. 38. 6-7). Livy, xlii. 38. 843· 3 describes how Q. Marcius Philippus granted Perseus a conference on the Peneins (4. I n.) and agreed to indutiae to allow him to send envoys to Rome (cf. 5· 7 n.) ; this postponement of hostilities (for war had not yet been openly declared) was advantageous to the Romans who 'nihil ... satis paratum ad bellum in praesentia 290
EVENTS IN BOEOTIA (172/1)
XXVII. r.
2
habebant' (Livy, xlii. 43· 3). From the Peneius the envoys went on to deal with Boeotia (Livy, xlii. 43· 4); and the extract concerns events from that point onward. The dating of the envoys' movements depends on Livy, xlii. 37· J, where the Lentuli are said to have wished to get round the west coast of the Peloponnese ante hiemem, and on z. 12, where A. Atilius, Q. Mardus, and P. Cornelius Lentulus return to Rome Ka.rd XHfLwva. (cf. Livy, xlii. 44· 8, principia hiemis). Ante hiemem (7Tpd rov XHfLwvos) is probably the period between the autumn equinox and the morning setting of the Pleiades in early November (Pedech, Methode, 462-3); Ka.rd XE~fLwva will be January or February. So probably they crossed in September/ October and returned January/February. See in general, Niese, iii. rrz-rs; Meloni, Perseo, r8r-gx; Walbank, ]RS, 1941, 82-93; Briscoe, ]RS, 1964, 66-77; Gruen, GRBS, I9i4. 237-8 (on Philip's meeting with Marcius).
1. 1. "'TO.pEyevoVTo 1TpeO'IJE~S: to Chalcis; on their way there from the Peneius the Roman legati met envoys from Chaeronea and Thebes, sent to dissociate those cities from the federal decision to join Perseus (see next note but one): 'quos ... Chalcidem se sequi iusserunt' (Livy, xlii. 43· s-6). "'TO.pG 11ev 9E0'1Ttkwv ot "'TEpl. Aa.. . . "'TOAE~S &,&ous ets T'Yjv • • • "'TLO'TW: cf. Lhy, xlii. 44· I, 'Ismenias gentem Boeotorum in fidem Romanorum
<
291
XXVII.
I. 2
EVENTS IN BOEOTIA (172/1)
permitti aecum censebat.' By deditio (cf. xx. 9· rz n.) on behalf of the confederacy Ismenias hoped to outbid the separatist cities. 3. To .•• lheA.e'lv TI:HJS Boua~Tous: 'to split up the Boeotian confederation into separate cities' (Paton, 'to keep the Boeotian cities apart', misses the point), cf. z. 7· Marcius and Atilius had indicated this intention when Theban exiles met them earlier in Thessaly (Livy, xlii. 38. 5, cf. 43· s). 6. inro Td. SL9upo. Twv 'Pwl-'a.lwv: cf. Livy, xlii. 44· 2, 'inde certamine orto, nisi in tribunal legatorum perfugisset, hand multum afuit quin ab exulibus fautoribusque eorum interfi.ceretur.' Td olOvpa implies something more elaborate than a seat on a platform, more like a box or podium in a theatre ; see Schweighaeuser ad loc. 8. ol Se Kopwveis ••• &.t
EVENTS IN BOEOTIA (172/1)
XXVII. 2. II
eis EKKAl]o-ia.v: the word used on inscriptions is 8iifios (cf. IG, vii. 28o l. 3, 283 1. I, 290 l. 3). Tft" o-v~p.a.x[a.v: viz. with the Romans. 13. KaTO.~ovTa.s To us ••• 4>uy6.Sa.s: the pro-Romans; cf. 2. 1.
2 . 1. ol 4>uyaSE:s ev Tft Xa.AKl8~: cf. I. 6. nop.1riS11v: otherwise unkno'l't'Tl (Bengtson, RE, 'Pompidas', col. 2J2I), unless he is the man mentioned as hipparch (federal or local) in IG, vii. 2426 (as Roesch, I77 n. I, suggests). 2. Ti]s O.yvo(a.s: 'their error'; the word often means a political mistake. 4. Ta.XE'lav ~KaO"TO. ••• €M.p.~avE: Tft\1 0.vTa1T6Soo-w: 'everything quickly moved in the opposite direction.' 6. KaT' HHav tK6.o-TOU'>: a deditio city by city, not for the whole confederation, as Ismenias proposed (1. 2 n.) 8. I£pou1ov: Ser. Cornelius Lentulus, praetor 169, one of the envoys accompanying Q. )farcius Philippus (1. r-2. 12 n.) ;cf. Munzer, RE, 'Cornelius (2o8a)', cols. I376-7. With P. Cornelius Lcntulus he had toured the Peloponnese (Li vy, xlii. 37. 7--9). KamAmoVTES e1rt Tfjs XaAK(8os: 'leaving him in charge of Chalcis'. N£wv ••• avExwpl"]o-EV: he was not under arrest. 10. E:tt
11. o( Bt mpl Tov AoAov Kal
293
XXVILui ROMAN ENVOYS AT ARGOS (172/1)
Volksbeschliisse, 136 f. ; Larsen, GFS, 222. Touloumakos, r2-r8, as~ sembles epigraphic material for the office in the separate cities; he agrees with Swoboda, Klio, 1912,44 (against Aymard, ACA, 173 n. r), that they derived it from the federal body. :A.px"wa. Tov O'Tpa.TTJyov: for 172/r; on Archon see xxii. 19. In. flEXP' TTJS 'Pwp.a.iwv SLaJ3aae:ws: for war was certain despite the indutiae granted to Perseus. P. refers to the crossing of the main forces the following campaigning season. According to Livy, xlii. 36. 8-9, Cn. Sicinius crossed over to Epirus with s,ooo infantry and 300 cavalry, with some of which force he secured Dassaretiorttm et Illyriorum castella; this was about the Ides of February, A. u .c. 583, which corresponds to 28 October 172 (Jul.); see De Sanctis iv. 1. 398; Derow, Phoenix, 1973, 348. Livy, xlii. 27. 5 (annalistic) him slightly different numbers of forces. But Li'I,'Y xlii. 36. 8-9 is also from an annalistic source; see Walbank, ]RS, 1941, 82-93· Jal, Tite-Live, xli-xlii, p. xli, thinks this passage is Polybian, but he has difficulties with Livy, xlii. 37· I, paucis post diebus, referring to the departure of the legati, who (he admits}, left Rome several weeks before Sicinius. Sicinius' force was already in Epirus, but P. does not refer to it here. 12. Ka.Ta XElp.wva.: January or February 171 (1. r-2. 12 n.) llo'II'Ai~: P. Cornelius Lentulus, cos. suff. r6z; see xxxii. I6. I, xxxiii. r. r; Mlinzer, RE, 'Cornelius (202)', cols. 1374-5·
3. 1-5. Roman envoys secure the sttpport of Rhodes Comparison with Livy, xlii. 45 (from P.) shows that this excerpt from de legat. Rom. directly follows 2. IZ and, though it refers to evCilts in Rhodes, forms a single sequence with that passage. The likeliest explanation is that P. is here treating Rhodian affairs under res Graeciae and, moreover, for the purposes of the war merging res Graeciae and res 1\facedoniae (see p. 23). Both here and later (4. 3-ro, 7· r-r6) P. has access to a Rhodian source, as the profusion of proper names makes clear; this may well be Zeno (cf. Ullrich, ss-66).
>:
3. 1. o[ TI'Epl TOV T E~EplOV KO.' noO'TOfllOV
ROMAN ENVOYS SECURE SUPPORT OF RHODES
XXVII. 3· 3
Rhodes, where sympathies were divided. The coincidence in the name of Ti. Claudius may suggest a tendentious doublet of the embassy mentioned here (see Scullard, Pol. 200 n. I; contra Deininger, I8S n. 4; Morkholm, 66 n. 6, accepts duplication but thinks 'the date is certainly 172'). Ti. Clauditts is either Ti. Claudius Kero, cos. 202 (Willems, ii. 496 no. 5; soi no. I6) or the praetor of I78 (De Sanctis, iv. 1. 277; cf. Munzer, RE, 'Claudius (25I)', col. 2777-who, however, in his RE articles on Postumius and Iunius (see below) and in Adelsparteien, :ns, reverts to Willems's view on the ground that legati required to act independently were likely to be consulares); a third possibility is Ti. Claudius Nero, praetor in I8I (Livy, xL I8. 2; Broughton, MRR, i. 4I5 n. s). Sp. Postumius (Albin us Paullulus) was consul in I74; cf. Munzer, RE, 'Postumius (49)', cols. 930-2. Paton, and Buttner-Wobst in his index, think A. Postumius Albinus Luscus, cos. I8o, is meant; Livy's text excludes this. M. Junius (Brutus) was consul in I78 (cf. xxv. 4· In.); this identification is preferable to that with M. Iunius Pennus (Willems, ii. 50I no. 16 leaves it open), who was in Spain. See Mtinzer, RE, 'Junius (48)', coL 970; below, xxxi. 8. I n. ~ea.Ta Tous a.uTous Kalpous: cf. Livy, xlii. 45· I, 'inde legatio sub idem tempus in Asiam <et) circum insulas missa'; hence these words are probably P.'s and not the excerptor's. In Livy the departure of the embassy to Asia is linked with the return of Marcius and Atilius to Rome; and though P. relates the reception of Perseus' envoys at Rhodes after describing that of the Roman legati, Perseus seems to have initiated his propaganda campaign in the Greek cities immediately after the Peneius conference (Livy, xlii. 46. I-2), and one must assume that the Macedonian embassy to Rhodes (4. 3} was in autumn 172, and the Roman embassy (3. I-S) early in I7I (cf. Deininger, I8S--6). The existence of a lacuna in§ I is clear from both the syntax and a comparison with Livy, xlii. 45· 2, 'ii circumeuntes hortabantur socios ad suscipiendum aduersus Persea <pro) Romanis bellum; et quo quaeque opulentior ciuitas erat, eo accuratius agebant, quia minores secuturae maiorum auctoritatem erant.' 3. }\yTJa{~. oxos .•• T6TE 1rpuTa.veuwv: the form found on Rhodian inscriptions is always J1Y'laD\oxos (Ullrich, 74-75); but Livy's Hagesilochus confirms that P. used a rough breathing. Hagesilochus went as envoy to Rome in I69 (xxviii. 2. I-6, I6. s--8), and was sent to Aemilius Paullus and Perseus in an attempt to mediate (xxix. 10. 4}. On the Rhodian prytaneis see xiii. S· In., xxii. 5· Ion. The two semesters of the Rhodian year began with Thesmophorios (October/ November) and Artamitios (April/May}; d. Hiller von Gaertringen, RE, Suppl.-B. v, 'Rhodos', cols. 743-6. Hagesilochus was prytanis 295
XXVII. 3· 3
ROMAN ENVOYS SECURE SUPPORT OF RHODES
for the semester October/November 172-MarchjApril I7I, after which Stratocles (7. 2) succeeded him. TaAAa TE 1TapaK£KATJK£~ KTA.: ambiguous through compression (d. Nissen, KU, IS); cf. Livy, xlii. 45· 4, 'multis orationibus peruicerat Rhodios, ut omissa, quam saepe uanam experti essent, regum fouendorum spe Romanam societatem, unam tum in terris uel uiribus uel fide stabilem, retinerent.' TETT«paKovTa vaOs ..• u1ro~wvvuew: {Jr.o~dJfLaTa were ropes or braces ('swifters') used to strengthen a ship's hull, normally four to a ship and fitted outside from stem to stern; at the stern they were evidently brought within the hull to allow for tightening. Their fitting (v1ro~wvv6nv) took place when a ship was being made ready for service; see J. S. Morrison and R. T. Williams, Greek Oared Ships, 900-322 B.c. (Cambridge, 1968), 294--8. Livy, xlii. 45· 6, says this was done to refute Eumenes' allegations of disloyalty to Rome; but in fact preparing 40 ships would in itself prove nothing. Livy, xlii. 45· 8, concludes the comparable passage (from P.) with the statement that 'Decimius unus' (i.e. of all the legati sent to Europe or Asia) 'sine ullo effectu, captarum etiam pecuniarum ab regibus lllyriorum suspicione infamis, Romam rediit.' L. Decimius was one of the four legati accompanying Q. Marcius (d. I. 1-2. I2 n.). Following the return of the legati to Rome Livy, xlii. 26. 9 records a Rhodian embassy sent 'ad purganda ea quae uolgo iactari de ciuitate sciebant', and granted audience after the consuls for I7I had entered office. This seems to be an annalistic anticipation of Hagesilochus' later embassy (§ 3 n.) and is to be rejected (cf. Schmitt, Rom und Rhodos, I44 n. r).
4. 1-10. Perseus and Rhodes This excerpt from de legat. gent. follows directly after the previous passage (cf. Livy, xlii. 45· 8-46. I), and refers to events towards the end of I72. 4. I. JJ-£Ttt Tov auA.A.oyov Tov 1rpos Touo;; 'PwJJ-a(ous: the conference with Q. Marcius Philippus on the Peneius, held in autumn I72 (see I. I-2. 12 n.). Twv 'EA.A.T)vwv: a considerable lacuna precedes these words; cf. Livy, xlii. 46. I (also a corrupt text), 'Perseus cum ab conloquio Romanorum in Macedoniam recepisset sese, legatos Romam de incohatis cum Marcio condicionibus pacis misit; et Byzantium et Rhodum et (ad alias ciuitates litteras scripsit et) legatis ferendas dedit.' P. must also have mentioned the sending of this letter; but what precisely he said cannot be reconstructed since Livy has 296
PERSEUS AND RHODES
XXVII. 5
rearranged the material, blurring P.'s distinction between the envoys sent to Rhodes and the letter-bearers sent elsewhere (§ 3). 1ravn TU StKa.la. KaTha.TTEV ds TTJV ~1TlaToA1jv: 'he included in the letter all questions of right'; this letter, sent to all the Greek states (§ 2, EKat:n'Wv), must (in view of the definite article), have been mentioned in the lacuna. Pedech, Methode, 269, suggests that P. found a copy in Perseus' library and used it for his account of the Peneius conference; for Livy, xlii. 40. r-42. 9, suggests that in this Perseus' case was set out much more fully than Marcius'. This is possible; but, as Pcdech says, P. could have dra>vn on information provided by one or other of Perseus' friends, who later joined Rome or went there (Vol. I, pp. 33-34), or by A. Atilius. 3. )\vnjvopa. Ka.t cfJi.Al1T1TOV: A ntenor, who again visited Rhodes a year later (14. 1-2) is perhaps the Macedonian admiral who, operating in the Aegean in 168, defeated Eumenes and protected the Cyclades until, after hearing the result of Pydna, he returned to Cassandrca and surrendered his fleet to the Romans (Livy, xliv. 28-29, xlv. ro. I, cf. xlv. 31. q). See Wilcken, RE, 'Antenor (6)', col. 2353; Schoch, RE, Suppl.-B. iv, 'Antenor (6)', cols. 31-32. Philip is not identifiable. 4. TOtS apxoual\1: the prytaneiS (3. 3 n.}, WhO received COrreSpondence and introduced business and envoys to the council and assembly (d. Touloumakos, 133). From this passage it appears that the Council (d. xvi. 15. 8 n.), like the Roman Senate, dealt with foreign relations (d. xxix. II. r; Touloumakos, 133; van Gelder, Rhodier, 241-5). 5. 1ra.pu Ttts auv9~Ka.s: that between Philip and Rome concluding the Second Macedonian vVar (cf. xviii. 42. 2, 42. 4n.). 7. ta'T]yopta.s Ka.l1Ta.pp'fJa(a.s ••• eAeu9epta.s: equality and freedom of speech (in Achaea) are linked 'With S7Jp.oKpa:da in ii. 38. 6, and with J>.wfkpla in iv. 31. 4· A state under foreign domination can enjoy neither, and the Rhodians had not only avoided all entangling restrictions (cf. xxx. 5· 8}, but had resisted Demetrius Poliorcetes' attempt to take their city. See l\1usti, A nnali di Pisa, 1967, 16o-1. 1rpoopO.a8a.l Ka.l tJ.uA6.TTe(T9a.l: 'to view with apprehension and guard against'; cf. xviii. 23. 5 n. 9. v~KwvTos a.•hoi:s Tou (jeAT(ovos: d. Livy, xlii. 46. 5, 'potentior esse partis melioris auctoritas coeperat', i.e. the pro-Roman group; cf. Deininger, r86. 10. TTJV ll~ a1tOKp~alV OUK eAa(jov ••. :something has dropped out, and BUttner-Wobst's suggestion (cf. xxviii. r. 8) is convincing. Livy, xlii. 46. 6-7 gives no help.
5. 1-8. PerSims and Boeotia This excerpt follows 4· 1-ro directly in the de legat. gent. (cf. Livy, xlii. 46. 7-ro). For reasons of composition (cf. Nissen, KU, 252), Livy 297
XXVII.
5
PERSEUS AND BOEOTIA
makes the envoys to Rhodes visit Boeotia on the way back; but in P. the missions are separate and an attempt to reconcile P. and Livy with the hypothesis that the envoys sent to Rhodes called in at the Boeotian cities on the way back and that as a result of their report Perseus sent Antigonus to Boeotia (so Heiland, 35; Geyer, RE, 'Perseus', col. ro09) is unconvincing. 1>.AE~nvSpou: Pomtow identifies him with Antigonus son of Alexander of Acarnania, a Delphian proxenos (Syll. 585 l. 34); the father, a supporter of Philip V, then of Antiochus III, perished of wounds at Thermopylae (Livy, xxxv. r8. r, xx..xvi. II. 6, 20. 5). But despite the approval of Oberhummer, Akarnan£en, 178 n. 2, both names are common, and there can be no certainty. The Antigonus, ex purpuratt's, whom Perseus later sent to negotiate with the Bastarnians in Maedica (xxix. 9· 13 n.; Livy, xliv .26. 8 f.) is probably the experienced man whom Philip had sent on the same mission (Livy, xl. 57· 3; cf. :\leloni, Perseo, 329 towards the end of his n. 3} ; but whether he is also the man mentioned here is unknown. 3. Kopwve~.av ~<:a.t 9laf3a.s, ~T~ S' )\A£a.PTov: cf. Livy, xlii. 46. 7, 'Thebas et Coroneam et Haliartum adierunt.' The manuscripts of P. agree in reading f9fJf3as here; the correction was made by Mommsen, Ephemeris epigraphica, r, r872, 290 Gesammelte Schrijten, viii (Berlin, r9r3), 274 ff.) in view of § 6, which is nonsensical if 8~f3as stands in § 3, and also in view of Syll. 646 Sherk, no. 2, giving a senatus consultum de Thisbensibus regulating the affairs of Thisbae after its seizure by the Romans (Livy, xlii. 63. r2, again reading Thebas for Thisbas). Evidently the lectio facitior 'Thebes' had already ousted the correct form in Livy's text of P. For a fragment of Sherk, no. 3) see L. Robert, Et. a S.C. on Coronea (SEG, xix. 3i4 epig. 287-92; it dates to I7I; cf. Livy, xliii. 4· II; Errington, Riv.jil. 1974, 79-86. Coronea and Haliartus lay about eight miles apart on the route from Thebes to Lebadea, but Thisbae (modern Kak6si) lay south of Mt. Helicon; all were within easy reach of Thebes. See Roesch, 53 (Thisbae), 63-64 (Coronea and Haliartus). 4. O.msrrAeuae: probably from Cynus on the Euripus, reached via the pass of Hyampolis; on this route see Larsen, Phoenix, r965, II6-z8. 6. 'f'OUS ynp e'IJ~O.LOUS ~a.pe~s I>VTa.s ~1T~I<Eia8a.~ KTX.: cf. Livy, xlii. 46. 9, 'quo se aduersus impotentem superbiam Thebanorum tueri possint'. Livy (xlii. 46. 8) seems to have tried to resolve the patent inconsistency by inserting: 'Thebani nihil moti sunt, quamquam et damnatis principibuset restitutis exulibus suscensebant Romanis', and by having ambassadors from only Coronea and Haliartus go to Macedonia. 7. lhci Tt..s &.voxns: the indutiae granted by Q. :Marcius at the Peneius conference (1. r-2. 12 n.; Livy, xlii. 43· 2}. It was for a fixed period
5. 1. 1>.vT£yovov ••• Tbv
298
PERSEUS AND BOEOTIA
XXVII. 6.
2
(cf. Livy, xlii. 47· 10, 'si indutiarum dies exisset'), but what this was is not recorded; perhaps for six months, which would have suited the Roman purpose (cf. Benecke, CAH, viii. z6o). There is some constitutional difficulty about this 'truce', granted by a legatus who had no z'mperium before war had been declared or hostilities opened; d. Jal, Tite-Lh:e, xli-xlii, zos. 6. 1-4. M acedonian envoys given an answer at Rome (171)
This excerpt from de legat. gent. is used by Livy, xlii. 48. 1-4; but the preceding chapter, Livy, xlii. 47, corresponds to a passage of P. now lost. In this Marcius and Atilius report on their mission on the Capitol. They boast of their success in preventing Perseus from using the winter to take up advantageous positions by the indutiae, and they report on their shattering of the Boeotian confederacy (arte distraxisse). Sections 4-9 of the chapter then record a discussion of the morality of what has been done; ueteres et moris antiqui memores condemn this in terms which recall P.'s remarks in xiii. 3· 1-8 (see notes there, quoting parts of this chapter of Livy), and give examples of Roman fides (cf. xxxvi. 9· 9), contrasting Punic treachery and Greek guile. (Diod. xxx. 7· r, correctly transposed to precede Diod. xxx. r in Walton's Loeb edition, paraphrases the same passage.) Finally that part of the Senate 'cui potior utilis quam honesti cura erat' approved the action of the legati, and the Senate sent three legati back to Greece with various instructionOY--Q. }farcius (with ships), A. Atilius (to occupy Larissa}, and P. Lentulus (to gain control of Boeotia from Thebes). The present chapter follows from there; d. Diod. xxx. I; App. Mac. II. S-9· Livy, xlii. 36. r-7, had already described the hearing of Perseus' envoys and the Roman announcement of the decision to go to war from an annalistic source, which differs in detail from the Polybian account of his ch. 48 (cf. Walbank, ]RS, 1941, 89-90 n. 56).
6. 1. Twv a'!To ri}s )\O'(c.c; . . . 'll'flEO'~EuTwv: cf. 3· 1. 2. IoXwvc. . .. 'hm£a.v: Solon, as commandant in Pydna, was persuaded to surrender it to the Romans after Perseus' defeat in 168 (Livy, xliv. 45· 6-7}. Hippias could be the Boeotian leader (r. I I n.), for onlv Ismenias and Dicetas had been driven to commit suicide (z. 9: si:tndwall, RE, 'Hippias (7)'. col. I705, is incorrect on this point); but Perseus will hardly have sent an anti-Roman Boeotian, whose colleagues had perished, on a delicate mission designed to conciliate the Senate. This will be another man; and we know of two--Perseus' princeps amicus, hostage at Perseus' interview with Q. Marcius in Ii2 (Livy, xlii. 39· 7) and later his go-between in negotiations with Genthius (xxviii. 9· 3, xxix. 3· r) and Hippias of Beroea, who 299
XXVII. 6.
2
MACEDONIAN ENVOYS AT ROME (171)
commanded his forces (xxviii. IO. I; Livy, xlii. sr. 4}. Probably the former is the man mentioned here. Btittner-Wobst and Paton, in their indexes, confuse the three; cf. Meloni, Perseo, 327 n. 2 (who, however, thinks the Boeotian is referred to in this passage). "''ijs ~'1TL(3ouMjs rijs Ka.rtt "''OV Eo11~VTJ: cf. xxii. r8. 5 n. ; App. J"fac. I I, 7 (on his version of this speech see ~1eloni, Valore storico, rso--64). 3. 'ITaAa.L ,.poSI.€tATJ+oTes t,,.C;p .... oG 'ITOAEJ.LE'Lv: but not, to P., therefore responsible for the war, which he regards as planned by Philip and inherited by Perseus (xxii. 18. I-n). P. and most of the nonPolybian tradition associate the final Roman decision with Eumenes' visit to Rome with a memorandum listing Perseus' warlike preparations (xxix. 9· II; Livy, xlii. 6. J, II. 4-14. r, based on P.; App. Mac. II. T-J; VaL Max. ii. 2. r; above, p. 289), followed by Perseus' alleged attempt to assassinate him at Delphi (see previous note); and this has been generally accepted (cf. Niese, iii. 107 f.; De Sanctis, iv. 1. 272 f.; Stier, r8s; Will, ii. 222-5) though some scholars have stressed the influence of individual senators or groups of senators who desired war for various reasons (cf. Scullard, Pol. 198-<J; Briscoe, JRS, 1964, 66-77; Historia, 1969, 6o ff.). Ofthe ancient sources, App. lrf ac. I 1. I, is exceptional in attributing the war to the Roman decision to destroy the 'virtuous, wise, and popular king' who was their ancestral enemy and looked like becoming a danger. Giovannini, BCH, 1969, SsJ-6I, emphasizes the Romans' hatred of Perseus, as expressed by M. )farcellus in a speech at Aegium in summer 173 (Livy, xlii. 6. ; but against his explanation of that hatred as the result of Perseus' campaign to win over the Greek states in r74 (Livy, xli. 23. xlii. 5· z, both from P.), which they thought might overthrow the order they had established in Greece, see Walbank, Ancient Macedonia II, 86-<J4· Roman suspicions had been maturing for much longer; but the final decision came in I72 (cf. Livy, xlii. r8. 2 (annalistic; cf. Walbank, JRS, 194I, Ss), 'belli adrninistratio ad nouos consules for I]I] reiecta est'). No conclusions are to be drawn from the annalistic passage, Livy xlii. Io. n-12, implying that the Senate had made its decision at the end of 173 but refused to allot Macedonia for internal reasons, for this could equally well be an explanation alleged by those who believed, wrongly, that the decision was already taken. TOLS ••• Ma.Jee&baw, oaol 'ITUpE'ITlSfJ!lOUV"''ES E'Tuxov: probably members of the Hellenic colony at Rome, on which see \Valbank, Potybius, 74-75· ~v Tpul.~eov9' i]j.LEpats EKXwpeiv: d. Livy, xlii. 48. 3; Diod. xxx. 1 ; in the annalistic version (Livy, xlii. 36. 7) the consul for qi, P. Licinius Crassus, was instructed to order them to leave Italy in I I days and to send a guard to see them safely on shipboard; cf. App . •'t! ac. I I. 9· According to the annalistic tradition the war decision had been taken 300
MACEDO::-l'IAN ENVOYS AT ROME (171)
XXv!I.7
much earlier, at the beginning of the consular year (Livy, xlii. 30. Io-n); this was id. mart. A.U.c. 583 27 Nov. 172 (Derow, Phoenix, 1973, 348). But this could well be a schematized account, for such a decision will have anticipated the return of Q. Marcius and his colleagues by over two months. It is not known when the decision was conveyed to Perseus. The sources are unanimous that his envoys were simply told to leave Italy. 4. ToO<;; I)TaTouo;; ••• TapWpJLWV ••• ILTJ ~ea8uaTepeiv: cf. Livy, xlii. 48. 4, 'P. Licinio deinde consuli, cui Macedonia prouincia obuenerat, denuntiatum, ut exercitui diem primam quamque diceret ad conueniendum' (from P.; the excerptor may have omitted Licinius' name in a clearly much compressed sentence).
(Fg. 234 seems to correspond to Livy, xlii. 49·
2 (from P.), mentioning P. Licinius' departure from l(ome: 'semper quidem ea res cum magna dignitate ac maiestate geritur; praecipue conuertit oculos animosque cum ad magnum nobilemque aut uirtute aut fortuna hostem euntem consulem prosecuntur.' It therefore stands here (p. 23 ).)
(12. 1-3. Cotys' character See pp. 23-24 for the argument for placing this passage here, where it corresponds to Livy, xlii. 51. Io.) 7. 1-16. Despite i·n,ternal opposition the Rhodians send naval help to C. Lucretius Following Livy, xlii. 48. 4 (cf. 6. 3 n.) there is an account of the departure from Rome of the praetor C. Lucretius, with 40 quinqueremes, his brother M. Lucretius having been sent ahead to collect a fleet from Rhegium, Locri, and Thurii (manuscript Vritibus, which is kept by Radke, RE, 'Uria', col. 1005, who sees a reference to Veretum); with these and other ships from Dyrrhachium, Issa, and King Genthius, :Marcus went on to Corcyra and Cephallenia, where he was joined by the praetor (Livy, xlii. 48. s-Io). Next follows an account of land operations on both sides (Livy, xlii. 49· I-55· IO). The consul reached the Nymphaeum in the territory of Apollonia (Livy, xlii. 49· I-Io). Perseus held a council at Pella and, having resolved to fight, assembled his forces at Citium (perhapsnearNaousa); these included Cotys, king of the Odrysae (cf. 12. 1-3 n.; this passage will belong here). After haranguing his troops and receiving embassies offering money and corn (Livy, xlii. 50. I-53· 4) he moved to Lake Begorritis (probably the marsh of Sarigol. just north of Kozani, rather than modern Lake Vegoritis (Ostrovo); see Leake, NG, iii. 288 f.; Meloni, 224 n. 2; contra Kromayer, AS, ii. 236-7 (who puts Citium at Edessa and Begorritis at Ostrovo) and Hammond, klacedonia, 57, I Io, 301
XXVII. 7
THE RHODIANS SEND NAVAL HELP
r66: why should Perseus have gone round the northern end of Mt. Bermios ?). Thence he went south across the Haliacm·on into the Europus valley, where Azorus, Pythous, Doliche, and another town (perhaps Malloea) surrendered to him (Livy, xlii. 53· 5-8). Chyretiae submitted, Mylae was stormed, Gyrton (with a Roman and Thessalian garrison) was bypassed, Elatia and Gonnus were taken, and Perseus occupied Sycurium on the slope of Ossa (Livy, xlii. 53· 9-54. II; see 8. 15 n.). Meanwhile the consul marched unopposed through Epirus and Athamania to Gomphi (on his probable route see Hammond, Epirus, 284) and thence to near where he was joined by Eumenes, who had crossed to Chalcis with two of his brothers, and by forces from many parts of Greece, including Apollonia, Aetolia, Thessaly, and Achaea (Li'vy, xlii. 55· See on all this Niese, iii. II8-23; De Sanctis, iv. r. 282--8; Meloni, Perseo, 2rr-3o; Kromayer, AS. ii. 236-9 with Karte 7· Livy (xlii. 56. I) here returns to c. Lucretius who, after sending his brother ahead round Malea to Chalcis, himself took a trireme up the Corinthian Gulf to oversee affairs in Boeotia. The present from de legat. gent. is a passage of P. which Livy has passed over, but must fall either in the part corresponding to Livy, xlii. 48. 9-ro, where C. Lucretius reaches Cephallenia, or in that corresponding to Livy, Xlii. 56. I, where he leaves the island. The word en (§ I) favours putting it after the account of the land operations.
7. l. fcuos: C. Lucretius Gallus, praetor qr, was assigned to the fleet (in view of his experience as I luir naualis in 181: Livy, xl. I8. 7-8, 26-28): see Livy, xlii. 28. 5, 3r. 9, and for his departure the previous note (an annalistic account in Livy, xlii. 35· 3). In Boeotia he plundered Haliartus (Livy, xlii. 63. I-II) and Thisbae (cf. 5· 3 n. for Syll. 646 Sherk, no. 2, which throws light on the sufferings after its capture; Livy, xlii. 63. 12). At Delos he received a golden crown (Insc. de Delos, 46o E l. 19); but in Ijo, after he had dedicated an aqueduct and picture gallery at Antium from his spoils (Livy, xliii. 4· 5-7), he was prosecuted by tribunes and heavily fined (Livy, xliii. 6. 2-3. 7· 5-II, 8. I-9)· See Munzer, RE, 'Lucretius (23)', cols. !684-6. a"-Elu1'n TLvt I~.~>KpaTEL: perhaps a gymnastics trainer. 2. I1'pa.1'oK"-eous upu1'a.veoov1'os TTJV SeuTepa.v ~l
TO C. LUCRETIUS
XXVII. 7· 5
Seleuceia-on-the-Calycadnus, a man in Antiochu.s IV's service; and of the two semesters of that priesthood, the first, in which Astymedes was prytanis, contained the month Dalios (a second reference to this month is erroneously carved as Daisios), and so began in spring, and the second, in which Iatrocles was prytanis, contained Badromios, and so began in autumn (on the Rhodian months see Bickerman, Chronology, 20; Hiller von Gaertringen, RE, Suppl.-B. v, 'Rhodos', col. 744); Damocles' priesthood must have fallen in 175/4 or I76/s and ran from spring to spring (Pugliese Carratelli, A nnuario, i-ii, I942, IS6-8 no. I8). Since P.'s reference to Stratocles as prytanis during TI,v owT,pav EKfL7Jvov contradicts the remaining evidence, Pugliese Carratelli (Annuario, 1942, I6o n. I) plausibly suggests that he is referring to the second semester from the point of view of the Achaean year, which at this time ran autumn to autumn-or what would be much the same, he is thinking of the second half of the olympiad year under discussion. The phrase T~v owTepav €KfL7Jvov does not reflect official Rhodian terminology, which speaks always of the XELfLEptv&. or the 8eptvd i~&.fL7Jvos. On the Rhodian six-monthly office see also Insch. Mag. 55 l. I8; it is found elsewhere, for instance at Cnidus, Stratoniceia, Tenos, Tarsus, and Antioch-in-Persis (cf. Jones, Greek City, 335 n. I4). TOU s~a.J3ou.Mou 1TpOTE9EVTOS: 'when the discussion was opened' (cf. xii. 25 k 5 n.) or perhaps, with Paton, 'when the resolution was proposed' (d. § 13, Tb .P~r/JtafLa). 3. :t>.ya.9a.yfJTOV Ka.l. 'PoSolj>wvTa. Ka.l. :t>.aTUf.L~ST)v: the two former were members of the pro-Roman party; d. xxviii. 2. 3; see xxx. 5· 4 for Rhodophon, whom Hagesander of Delphi (FHG, iv. 417 fg. 20 = Athen. x. 444 D-E) described as addicted to drink and gambling (cf. Stahelin, RE, "Pooor/Jwv', col. 957). Astymedes may be the son of Archocrates, twice mentioned as prytanis in Syll. 644/5 (cf. § 2 n.: so van Gelder, Rhodier, 477; Pugliese Carratelli, Annuario, i-ii, 1942, r6o n. I), but is more probably the son of Theaedetus, known from four inscriptions (Insc. Lind. 216-17 (priest of Helios in I54); IG, xii. r. 856+852), especially if the pro-Roman Theaedetus, often mentioned by I>. (cf. xxii. 5· 2 n.), was his father. On Astymedes' later activity see xxx. 4· I-5· 1, 2r. 4-5,30. I, 31. I-2o, xxxiii. IS. 3; Livy, xlv. zi-25; Diod. xxxi. 5; see too Blinkenberg, Insc. Lind. ii. p. IOio (but if Syll. 673 concerns the Cretan War of 204-1, as seems probable (cf. xxxiii. 4· I-4 n.), the priest of Helios there referred to as ~vl .Ma[ ... is not Astymedes, or at any rate not this one). 4. A££vwva. KO.L noAuapa.TOV: leaders of the anti-Roman party; d. 14. 2, XXViii. 2. 3, I7• I4, XXlX. II. 2, 27. 9, XXX. 6. I, 7• I0-9. 21. 5. Tou 1TOAEf.LOU Tou 1rpos «<>a.pv6.KTJV: on this see xxiii. 9· I-3, xxiv. I. 1-3, 5· I, 14. I-IS. I3. StEtcwAvaa.v 'PoS~oL: shortly after I8o, when the Rhodians were 3°3
XXVII. 7·5
THE RHODIANS SEND NAVAL HELP
courting Eumenes' favour in their hopes of suppressing theLycians (xxiv. 15. IJ n.; see the next note). 6. ~K 'TWV Autcta.ttwv: on the origins of the dispute between Rhodes and Lycia see xxii. 5· 1-ro. The Rhodians fought three wars against the Carians and Lycians (xxx. JL 4), of which the first two were probably against the latter (Fraser and Bean, 114); the first ended by 177 (cf. xxv. 4· 2), but the Roman decision in favour of the Lycians in that year provoked a fresh outbreak (xxv. 5· 3; Livy, xli. 25. 8), which, it is likely, but not certain, had by now been put down (Fraser and Bean, n6--r7 ). Eumenes apparently took advantage of that war to seize forts and territory in the eastern Peraea; details are not known. 12. otttdous: sc. Ti):; Toil IUpa£w<; rj>J..ia:;; 'eager for friendship with Perseus', just as olK£tov ••• Tfj<; •.• irravop8JJcwv<; is 'eager to better himself' (for this meaning of trrav6p8wat<; see i. 66. 12 n.). 14. 1TEV'TE •.. ~1Tt Xa.AttlSos: to join ~f. Lucretius (Livy' xlii. s6. I ; above, 7· r-16 n.). Tl!l-a.yopa.v ..• *Ttll-
TO C. LUCRETIUS
included under Tov-; as the Rhodians.
XXVII. 8.
~eaTa 8&.Aanav 1Tapaye:yov6Ta-; crvp.p.axovs,
2
as well
ou '11'po~Eia9a.~ ..• Tils Ka.Tn 96.Aa.TTa.v ~oT)IMa.s: yet they would
have been useful in maintaining naval contact with the army in Thessaly, even though the Macedonian fleet remained at Demetrias; cf. Thiel, 389-91; Kromayer, AS, ii. 252 ff. Perhaps Lucretius resented the small number sent by Rhodes, compared with the forty which Hagesilochus had suggested should be got ready (3. 3). See Thiel, loc. cit. ; Meloni, Perseo, 244.
8. 1-15. Perseus offers peace terms to the Romans (171) After the dismissal of the allied ships, the Polybian narrative in Livy describes the ravaging by Perseus' troops of the eastern Thessalian plain towards Pherae, their attempt over several days to tempt the consul Licinius from his camp at Tripolis Scaea on the right bank of the Peneius, a little west of Larissa (Livy, xlii. 55· 6; SUihlin, Hell. Thess. 99-100), and finally the battle at Callicinus, fought, after Perseus had advanced his camp from Sycurium to a point south of Larissa, on a terrain midway between the camps. In this encounter between cavalry and light infantry (d. Kromayer, AS, ii. 241) Perseus was victorious, but on the advice of the Cretan Evander did not seek a full-scale battle, but initiated negotiations. See Livy, xlii. s6. 8-.tir. II (Polybian); cf. App. Mac. I2; Zon. ix. 22. 5; Plut. Aem. 9· 2; Iustin. xxxiii. 1. 4; Eutrop. iv. 6. 3; Oros. iv. 20. 37; Kromayer, AS, ii. 239-48; Meloni, Perseo, 23o--5. For a contest held at Larissa, probably in honour of those who fought in this battle, see ]. an L. Robert, Bull. epig. 1964, no. 227 (comparing J:l.px. Se:ih. 196o Chronika, 185 and IG, ix. 2. 533). The present excerpt, from de legat. gent., follows here and corresponds to Livy, xlii. 62. 3-15; the date is about May 171 (Meloni, Perseo, 230).
8. 1.
T~v
vlKTJV: at Callicinus; see above.
auVE8piou ••• auva.x9ivTos: the royal council; cf. Corradi, 238. For
the Friends see v. 2. 1 n. Tov aTpa.TT)yov: P. Licinius C.f. P.n. Crassus, cos. 171 (cf. Munzer, RE, 'Ucinius (6o)', cols. 286-7}; cf. 6. 4 n. 2. lj>6pous ••• oaous ••• l'nriaxuo .•• Ta.Ti]p: that is, an indem· nity of I,aoo talents, half at once and the rest in ten annual instalments (xviii. 44· 7). App. Mac. 12 has an odd account, suggesting various motives for this embassy-including making fun of the consul-and stating that Perseus was prepared to concede more than Philip; on this see Meloni, Valore storico, 164-8.
XXVII. 8.
2
PERSEUS OFFERS PEACE TERMS
TO'ITWV EKXWfl'liO'u TWv al1Twv: Perseus held little that Philip had given up after Cynoscephalae, apart from Demetrias, Magnesia, Dolopia, and some to>Vns in Phthiotic Achaea (Walbank, Philip, 232); and of these towns Q. Marcius had already taken Alope and was blockading Larissa Cremaste (Livy, xlii. 56. 7). Perseus had also taken some towns during his advance into Thessaly (Livy, xlii. 53· s-54· II; see 7· 1-16 n.). 4. VE!J-EcnlO'Ew TO Sa.~IJ-OVLov: 'the gods would be roused to anger'; cf. Diod. xxiii. 15. z. P. does not share that view; he believed that the gods were moved neither by f-L€Tpu5rrj~ nor by arrogance (see VoL I, p. 2o). auva.ywvurrcl!.~ , •• Tov<; 8eov<; Ka1 Tou<; 6.v8pw'IToo<;: for the metaphor cf. i. 4· 5, iii. n8. 6, ix. 29. ro; von Scala, 172-3 (but his suggestion of Stoic influence may be neglected). 5. naVTa.uxo~ Ba.AnKpou ••• M£8wv Bepo~u<;: Pantauchus, one of Perseus' wp
9. ev ev(oL<; Ktupoi<;: P. does not develop the point; but perhaps he means that when the situation is hopeless (as it was for the Achaeans in 146) to be allJMI:aTaToL Kal {Japv-raTot is unrealistic. 10. emT~'ITELV • , • Tel Ka.8' a.•hav: to make deditio, as often; cf. ii. 35· I n.; Livy, xlii. 62. rz (from P.). 15. ~'ITt TO IuKuptov: see 7· r-r6 n.; Livy, xlii. 54· Io, 'Sycurium est sub radicibus Ossae montis.' Kromayer, AS, ii. 238 n. 2 follows Leake, NG, iii. 374 in locating Sycurium near modern Marmariani; but Stahlin, Hell. Thess. 90, remarks that with his forces at Marmariani Perseus could not control the road from Larissa to Tempe, and he identifies Sycurium with the ruins at Mikrokeserli (further north than modern Sykoution). See his fuller discussion and description in 306
PERSEUS OFFERS PEACE TERMS
XXVII. 9· 7
RE, '.EuKuptav', cols. 1032-5; A.rvanitopoullos, IlpaKnKti, 19II, 331 f.; Philippson, Landsckaften, i. I, 137; Meloni, Perseo, 228 n. 1.
9. l-10. 5. Perseus after Callicinus compared with the boxer Aristonicus This excerpt from de sent. follows immediately after 8. 15, as a comparison with Livy, xlii. 63. 1-2 shows; see p. 23. 9. 1. Tils ~ea.Td. T~Y twwop.a.x(a.Y TtJP.'lS: at Callicinus: cf. 8. I n. i] TWY woAAWY wpos TOY nEpa~a. 8ul.flEalS: on popular opposition to , Rome at this time see Livy, xlii. 30. I (from P.); Deiniger, 159 ff. 2. T~ aup.~a.£YoYTl 1rept Tous yup.YLKous C.ywYa.s: cf. Livy, xlii. 63. 2, 'in certaminibus ludicris'. Despite the general expression P. is clearly thinking Of boxing; cf. XXXiX. I. 8, waavd Tt!) €£!) TOtiS )'VfLV£KOfJs aywvas ei-rroypat/Jap,€VOS: 1T!J')'fL~V ~ rrayKpa:nov K'TA, (quoting Cato). See, for sporting similes in P., i. 57 n. 4. 1T!l.Aw cnraYTWV C.y?.w p.l!Cpbs yiYETaL: so BUttner- Wobst, keeping close to Mai; Heyse read the manuscript (M) as ,.,.&.Aw J for a considerable time after his defeat of 2I2; but the adjective need not be taken so literally.
XXVII. 9· 7
PERSEUS COMPARED WITH ARISTO:NICUS
n-roAEtJ.a.'i:ov ••• TOV ~aULA€ a: Ptolemy v E piphanes, according to Wunderer (Phil. 1898, 5); but, since he was a champion in 216, Ptolemy IV Philopator seems a more likely guess. l6.p1crTovucov Tov 1T'tiiCTf}V: unkno\vn; Pausanias omits this fight. Volkmann, RE, 'Ptolemaios IV Philopator (zz)', col. r688, dates it without argument to 212. 11. 1T'OLOUVn 'I'd S£i
10. 3. TWV yEyov6Twv El< ••• Ti\S Ma.1<E8ovwv ot1<£a.s Suo-KoAwv: the role of Macedon in Greece was controversial throughout the period covered in the Histories; see the Aetolian and Acarnanian speeches delivered at Sparta in spring zw (ix. z8. r-39. 7). P. was himself sympathetic to Philip II (xviii. IJ-rs nn.); but here, in a passage probably \vritten after r46 and from a point of view much closer to Rome than that which P. had held during his detention (cf. Walbank, Polybius, 172ft.; Entretiens sur Polybe, 9 ff.), he draws up a balance-sheet to the disadvantage of Macedon. There was in fact a strong case, in 171, for regarding the Romans as benefactors: they had expelled the Macedonians and Antiochus III, chastised the Aetolians, and allowed Achaea to take in the whole of the Peloponnese. 4. U
THE CESTROS OR CESTROSPHENDONE
XXVII.
II.
5
body of Roman troops, attacked a camp commanded by L. Pompei us, a military tribune, and unsuccessfully engaged the consul when he brought up his main forces. This excerpt from Suidas was identified as Polybian by Lipsius; it corresponds to Livy, xlii. 65. 9-xo, and describes a weapon with which the Macedonians caused great terror among the Romans under L. Pompeius, who had been surrounded. 11. 1. KEUTpos: in the Livian adaptation the word used is cestrosphendone, i.e. the sling from which the K€crrpo~ is hurled. Probably both words were used by P. ~ivov ~v Toiho TO eupTJfl-«: evidently a paraphiase; for the sense see Livy, xlii. 65. 9, 'hoc illo bello nouum genus teli inuentum est.' 2. TO o£ ~£Aos TO~oihov: on this see Masquelez, DS, s.v. 'cestrosphendone' ; A. Bertrand, Rev. arch. r874, 73-78 and pl. ii; Jennifer A. W. Warren, NC, I96I, s-8, who identifies it with the object portrayed on a copper coin of the Thessalian League (art. cit. pl. i, n-14). In that case the coin must have been 'a brief propaganda issue struck at Demetrias in 171, while Perseus controlled Dolopia, Demetrias, and a few near-by towns'. In fact, the Romans used a not dissimilar device against Pyrrhus at Ausculum (Dion. Hal. xx. I. 4; cf. Lammert, RE, 'Tplf3o>.o£', cols. 2414-15)· OnrciAa~O'TOV ~v. toov ixov TOV auAloKOV TU 1rpo~oAft: 'it was two palms long, with the tube the same length as the point.' Paton's 'two cubits' makes nonsense of the passage. Livy omits this detail. 3. TOUT~t~ €uAov ivllPl'OUTO: 'into this [sc. the av>.ta-Ko>] was fitted a wooden shaft.' Livy, xlii. 65. 9, has compressed P.'s description, changing the sense: 'bipalme spiculum hastili semicubitali infixum erat'; he has described the metal as inserted into the shaft (perhaps influenced by the Roman pilum: d. vi. 23. n), whereas it is clear from the Greek that the wooden shaft was inserted into the iron tip. evo6vT)s: 'the two strings of the sling being of unequal length'; cf. Livy, xlii. 65. xo, 'funda media duo scutalia imparia habebat.' The working of the device has been plausibly reconstructed by Bertrand (§ 2 n.) and I quote Warren'sclearsummary (NC, 1961, 7): 'Thefundamedia (corresponding to the pocket of a conventional sling) is a strip presumably of leather, which is shorter in length than the dart. It is placed beneath and parallel to the dart so as to extend briefly beyond its point, and 309
XXVII.
II.
5
THE CESTROS OR CESTROSPHENDONE
to this end of the strip the longer string is tied. The shorter string is threaded through the other end of the strip, that is, just behind the wings of the dart, and then tied back on itself some way up the string so as to leave a generous loop through which the dart can slip when the longer string is released. The lengths of the strings must be such that the dart when at rest is at 39° to the ground, the longer string being held between the slinger's thumb and first finger, and the shorter probably looped around the remaining three. The sling is swung anti-clockwise :sc. if the slinger is right-handed] and the longer string released when the point of the dart reaches the highest point of the circle it describes.' ds To p.iaov ..• euAUT
Perseus retired to Macedonia, leaving a garrison at Gonnus and some forces under Timotheus to try to win over the Magnesians. At Thessalonica he paid Cotys (12. 1 n.) his year's wages and released him. The consul failed to take Gonnus, but took Malloea, Tripolis, Perrhaebia, and after dismissing Eumenes and Attalus and all his Greek allies except the Achaeans seized Pteleum (which he destroyed), and Antron in Phthiotic Achaea, and Larissa; he then marched into Boeotia, where the men of Coronea were harassing the Thebans (Livy, xlii. 67. 1-12). If Livy is a guide, P. broke off his account of the war with Perseus for 01. 152, I = 172/1 at this point. [12. 1-3. Cotys' character This excerpt, duplicated in the de uirt. et uit. and in Suidas, should probably stand between ch. 6 and 7, since P. is likely to have described Cotys' character on his first appearance among Perseus' forces, at Citium earlier in 171; see pp. 23-24. Cf. Diod. xxx. 3, based on P. 12. 1. K•hus: son of Seuthes, king of the Odrysae (cf. xxiii. 8. 4 n.), and evidently a descendant of the Cotys, son of Seuthes, who was king in the early fourth century; but the name, which is that of a Thracian god, is common as a royal name in Thrace (d. Kahrstedt RE, 'Kotys (2)', cols. 1551-5; he lists 12 others). Cotys joined Perseus at Citium early in 171 (Livy, xlii. 51. 10), and commanded the left 310
COTYS' CHARACTER
XXVH. I3.
1
wing at Callicinus (Livy, xlii. 58. 6) ; his troops did much for the victory (Livy, xlii. 59· 2, 6o. 2). From Pella he accompanied Perseus to Thessalonica, but returned thence to his kingdom, where the district of Marene had been attacked by a Thracian prince named Autlesbis along with Eumenes' general, Corragus (Livy, xlii. 67. 3-5; Meloni, Perseo, 248). On his later visit to Rome see xxx. 17. 1-4. 2. Ktml. TfJ\1 IJ!ux~v '!1'6.VTO ~ii"-"-ov 11 ep~~: cf. xviii. 37· 9· The Thracians had a reputation among the Greeks for cruelty, treachery, brutality, and drunkenness; for evidence see G. L Kazarow, Beitriige zur Kulturgeschichte der Thraker (Sarajevo, 1916), 53-57, 101 ff.; Oberhummer, RE, 'Thrake', coL 402; Wunderer, i. no. 3. ~6.8os •.• E"-Eu8EpLov: 'steadiness of character which distinguishes a gentleman': cf. vi. 24. 9, xxi. 7· S· On the ethical sense of flaJlo:; see F. Zucker, Phil. 1938, 31--60; it implies firmness, the control of anger, altitudo an£mi, and grauitas, and is the mark of a free and civilized man. It is a Hellenistic concept, and when Salrnoxis learns 7}8Ea {laflll-rEpa ~ 1eard 19p~t~eas (Herod. iv. 95· 2), the reference is to cunning. Diod. xxx. 3 substitutes the phrase adxppwv ~~:aft {rrrEp{3ol.1)v.]
13. 1-4. The cottduct of Ptolemy, governor of Cyprus This excerpt from de uirt. et uit. belongs to res Aegypti of OL !52, I = 172/1; seep. 24. The context is unknown, since the corning of age of Philometor (§ 3), which was in r6g, must here be mentioned in anticipation. 13. 1. nTO,..Ej.lO.LoS 0 CTTPO.TT]YOS 0 kanl. Ku'TI'pov: distinct from Ptolemy, son of Agesarchus, who became governor of Cyprus in 197 (xviii. 55· 6--9; cf. xv. 25. 14 n.), since the man referred to here took over the post under Ptolemy VI Philometor (§ 2; von Scala, 59 n. 2). He is probably Ptolemy, son of Ptolemy, who figures on a Gortynian inscription honouring his homonymous brother as a proxenos (IC, iv. 2o8 A) and, if [llroA]e[p,]a.ios llrol.e[p}dou is a correct restoration, in OGIS, ro5 (the phrase is erased); if, further, he is Ptolemy o Ka.i\ovftEvos Ma~epwv, who later went over to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, became governor of Coele-Syria, and was forced to commit suicide in 164/3 (2 Mace. x. r2-14; Mj<jrkholm, xo8), the erasure of his name isexplicable. It seemslikelythat this Ptolemywas the son of Ptolemy Md.~~:pwvos, known together ·with his sons Cleoboutus, Ptolemy, and Andrytus, as a proxenos at Delphi in 188/7 (Syll. 585 L 139, no. 54). He is probably referred to in OGIS, II7, an Athenian inscription honouring Niceratus of Alexandria, TLftWftEVO> Un-o Iho[i\Efta{o]u -roO oi?Tt Ku?Tpov. For recent discussion see I. Levy, A!elanges Gregoire, ii. 1950, 688--99; W. Peremans and E. van 't Dack, Historia, 3, 1955,
3II
XXVII. 13.
1
PTOLEMY,
GOVER~OR
OF CYPRUS
33&-45; T. B. Mitford, Studi Calderini e Paribeni, ii. r63-87; P. M. Fraser, ]EA, r956, IIJ-I4 no. 43; 1958, u4~rs no. 45; J. and L. Robert, Bull. ip. 1959, no. 490 (reporting Mitford inaccurately); M0rkhohn, Class. etmed., 1961, 37; Antiochus IV, ro8; Volkmann, RE, 'Ptolemaios (48}', cols. q63-4; Mooren, r87-8 no. o35o; Bagnall, 256. ou8a.J1W~ Aiyu11'Tl0.KO~: cf. I2. 2 for the racial prejudice; on the Egyptian reputation for sloth d. xxxix. 7· 7, KalTt') olov rlawTla Kal pa.Ovp.la. As in 9· r2 the word need not imply Egyptian race. 2. ~n V'111'£ou TOU !3a.cnhtw~ lJVTo~: Ptolemy VI Philornetor, who succeeded his father Ptolemy V in r8o (p. 17), and was under the
guardianship of his mother Cleopatra until her death in q6, and then under that of Eulaeus and Lenaeus (cf. xxviii. 20. s. 2r. r f. for Eulaeus) until his corning-of-age ceremony early in r69 (xxviii. r2. 8-<)). He was probably born c. 184/3, since at the time of Antiochus IV's invasion of Egypt (r69) he was "!Tati:)laKos (xxx. 26. 9; d. Diod. xxx. r8, xxi. r, f.t€tpaKwv; Porphyry, FGH, 26o F 49 (a), puer); at least such a date would fit a coming of age early in r69 (there were special reasons for holding Ptolemy V's anacleteria at an earlier age; cf. xviii. 55· 3. ov/U"'Tw •.. Tfjs T]AtKlas KCI.7'€"1TE"Lj10VCTTJ')). See Otto, 6. Ptolemiier, 4-7, 44; Volkmann, RE, 'Ptolemaios (24)', cols. qo2-3; M0rkholm, Class. et med. 196r, 32. 11'Ept uuva.ywyi)v XP'lp.O.TWv: though taxes in provinces outside Egypt were nominally controlled by the dioecetes in Alexandria, the governors of Cyprus, with its wealthy copper-mines and forests, kept their hands on the island's revenues; cf. Preaux, 4r5, 423-4; see, however, Bagnall, 73-79, 224-5. TWV ~auLALtc:wv 8LoLK'lTWv: probably local dioecetae, responsible to the dioecetes in Alexandria; cf. Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, i. 269, for these officials. But the phrase could mean 'those who from time to time, while he was governor, held the post of dioecetes in Alexandria'; and Bengtson, Strat. iii, 175, thinks that the latter is meant and the plural used for the singular on stylistic grounds (which seems less likely). 3. Et~ T)Xudav 1ra.pa.yqovoTo~: in 169 (xxviii. 12. ~). 11'Afj6o~ ••. XP'lf.l&.Twv £€av£UTnh£v: for a similar action by a former governor of Cyprus, Polycrates, see xviii. 55· 6 n. (where the reference to temple treasures should have been expanded to include revenues, as here). 4. Tou~ vEpt TT)v a.uX~v: d. v. so. 14; Corradi, JI8. The ministers then in control at Alexandria were Eulaeus and Lenaeus (§ 2 n.), and the coming-of-age ceremony did not alter this. Ptolemy's sending of this money from Cyprus has therefore no relevance to them and must be seen as 'the attempt of a high civil servant to pursue his ov;n policy' (M¢rkholm, Class. et med. 1961, 36; Antiochus IV, 7o). 312
RHODES AND MACEDONIAN PRISONERS
XXVII. 15. z
14. 1-3. Rhodes agrees to ransom Macedonian priso·ners This excerpt from de leg at. gent. belongs to res Graeciae et M acedoniae for 01. 152, z I7Iio, and probably stands here (rather than after II. 7): seep. 24. The events in it are not recorded elsewhere. For discussion see Gruen, CQ, 1975, 7o. 14. 1. nepaEUS' EK TOU 1TO~~tJ.OU • • • G1TEA09TJ: this will refer to Perseus' retirement into Macedon for the winter I7r/o, not to any cessation of the war, as the phrasing (no doubt the excerptor's) suggests; see note following r I. 6 n. :.\vnivopos: d. 4· 4 n. 1TEp~ ( Tijs) Twv o.txtJ.a.~wTwv 8to.~uTpwaews: on the Rho dian seizure of Diophanes' crew at Tenedos see 7· 15 n. 2. ¢l~~6+pova. Ka.t 9Ea.£8TJTov: leaders of the pro-Roman faction; see xxii. 5· z n. An tenor's arrival was clearly an embarrassment; cf. van Gelder, 147-8. Ae&vwvo. l((ll no~ultpa.TOV: cf. 7. 4 n.
15. 1-16. Following Charops' machinations the Epirote Cephalus is compelled to join Perseus
This excerpt from de uirt. et uit. leads up to the attack on the consul in ch. 16; both chapters therefore fall correctly after 14, which concerns events of earlier that winter, and form part of the res Graeciae et Macedoniae of 01. 15:2, z 171/o. Ke+o.~os ~KEV E€ 'H1TE(pou: to l)erseus in Macedonia. Livy's account of the Macedonian events of this year (from P.) is lost; but Livy, xliii. 18. 2, mentions Cephalus' aid under A.U.c. 585 169. Cephalus was a Molosgian (xxx. 7· 2), and probably the man mentioned as a 1rpoO'Td7'TJs of that people (GDI, 135:2)-though the name is not uncommon (see Hammond, Epirus, 8o6, for the onomastikon). After Pydna he was besieged in Tecrnon by L. Anicius and perished there (Livy, xlv. z6. Io, reading Cephaliprincipis for the manuscript cephalonis principiis). For praise of his conduct see :xxx. 7· 2. Cf. Schoch, RE, SuppL~B. iv, 'Kephalos (3a)', cols. 892-3. 2. Xlipo"' •.• 'H1TnpwTTJc; :cf. xx. 3· I; Livy, xxxii. 6. r ff., II. I-I2. 10; Diod. xxx. 5 (for his help to Flamininus in turning the Aous pass in 1g8); according to Plut. Flam. 4. 3, he was the son of Machatas, which was also his son's name (§ 3). See Btittner-Wobst, RE, Suppl.-B. i, 'Charops (n)', cols. 284-5; also§ 3n. for anew inscription. ¢lthl11'11'0U Ttt KO.Td T1jv "H1TEtpov O'TEVa KO.TO.O)(OVTOS': in spring I9l\ Philip sent his general Athenagoras ahead to occupy the pass of
15. 1.
313
XXVII.
rs. 2
CEPHALUS IS COMPELLED TO JOIN PERSEUS
Antigonea on the Drin. (The discovery of voting disks inscribed ANTITOfNEQN at Jerme, west of Saraginishte, the largest site in the Drin valley (Hammond, Epirus, 209 f. with plan 18), led to its identification vvith Antigonea; see D. Budina, L'Illyrie: la ville illyrienne (Tirana, 1972), 269-378, 'Antigonee'. Consequently Hammond, JRS, 1971, II2-15, identified Lekel (cf. VoL II, p. 63o) with Hecatompedon. But H. Ceka, Monumentet, 5-6, 1973, points out that Jerme has revealed nothing later than the early second century B.C., whereas Antigonea was still a city in Ptol. Geog. iii. 14. He therefore locates Antigonea at Lekel.) Philip followed Athenagora..c; with his main army to take up a position on the Aous; it is to that position that P. here refers. See Livy, xxxii. 5· 9-13; on the site see Hammond, ]RS, 1¢6, 39-54 with map 5 on p. so. aJTI.OS tyivETO Tou ~i>mr11'ov ••• t1(11'£0"Eiv tK: T'ls 'H11'Eipou: on the arrival of Flamininus as consul, 198, Charops, who had already been in touch with P. Villius (Livy, xxxii. 6. 1), produced a shepherd who led a body of 4,ooo Romans round the hill to the north and, coordinating their attack >Vith that of the troops in front, dislodged Philip from his position astride the Aous and, in consequence, from Epirus (Livy, xxxii. n. 1-12. 10; Diod. xxx. 5 (both based on P.); Walbank, Philip, 152-3; Hammond, JRS, 1966, 52-53). Thov ••. KpcnfjO"cu Kat Twv Ma.KES0vwv: i.e. at the Aous battle. 3. oo Xcipo!f £y£vETO: his mother's name was Philotis (xxxii. 5· 13; cf. Diod. xxxi. 31); on his later career see xxx. 12. 3, 13. 4, 32. 12, xxxii. 5· s-6. 9; Biittner-Wobst, RE, SuppL-E. i, 'Charops (12)', coL 285. It has been argued that he was a Chaonian (cf. Scullard, JRS, 1945, 62; Deininger, 39 n. 3), and that tribal jealousies partly explain his opposition to the 1\Iolossian leaders; but if the Charops son of Machatas who made a dedication LhL Nrilf> Kal L.hwv<;;t Kai Lll-1 Bov>..d at Dodona was his grandfather, as seems likely, he was BnrrrpwroF; 'O?TaTos- (S. Dakaris, Ergon Arch. Et. x¢8 (1¢9), 51-53; cf. ]. and L. Robert, Bull. epig. 1969, no. 347). Habicht, Archeologia classica, 25-26 {1973-4), 313-17, argues convincingly that a dedication made by the city of Curium (Kouri on) in Cyprus on behalf of Ll7JJL~Tpwv v MaxriTov v Bw[?TpruT6v] (Mitford, The Inscriptions of Kourion (Philadelphia, 1971), no. 42, reading B.:cr[cra>..&v]) probably refers to a brother of the elder Charops who was Ptolemaic commander of Curium c. 209-193 under Ptolemy V; he gives a useful stemma of the family, including Alchemachus, son of the elder Charops, and victor in the stadium at the Athenian Panathenaea of 190/89 (IG 2 , ii. 2313 I. 24). 4. &.vT£1rm8a. Ka.Tb. t,;v iJX~t<:£a.v: 'hardly more than a boy' ; cf. xv. 33· 12 n. o~ 11'Ept TOY :4VTivouv: Antinous, mentioned as crTparo.yo0vTos:4.1TEtpWTiiv on a proxeny decree (GDI, 1339: his ethnic is K.>..a8mTo0),
7.
may be the grandson of the Antinous who is general on an earlier 3L1-
CEPHALUS IS COMPELLED TO JOIN PERSEUS
XXVII.
rs. :r4
decree (GDI, 1338). For his death see xx.x. 1· 2. Like Cephalus he was a Molossian. See Hammond, Epirus, 648--9. 12. Tu ttaTu Ti)v o-UiJ-1.1-axlav ttTA.: cf. xxiv. n. 6 (on Philopoemen). Oost, 125 n. no, thinks that as a translation of societas avp.p.a:xJa. may here indicate a loose relationship; but Hammond, Epirus, 621, argues that Epirus (and Acarnania: cf. Livy, xxxvi. 12. 2, 12. 8) probably had a formal defensive alliance committing the state to making no new alliance without Roman approval. The Romans were reluctant to make formal treaties in Greece at this time, preferring more flexible methods of control (cf. Badian, JRS, 1952, 76), but the phraseology used here (like that concerning Philopoemen and Achaea in xxiv. 11. 6) suggests that Cephalus worked strictly within his formal obligations, and so that a foedus existed. Its date is uncertain, however. Holleaux, Etudes, v. 134 n. 3, follows Niese, ii. 653-4, in dating it to 196; but it need not have preceded the common action in 192 (Livy, xxxv. 27. n), and the reference to amicitia in Livy, xxxvi. 35· 9, is slightly against its existence in 191. Non liquet. v€pa 5E TOUTou 1.1-tJT€ vpoo-Tp€xcav O.y!MIW~ ttTA.: 'not to run and fawn on them in a disgraceful fashion' (Paton 'neither to fall foul of the Romans' is incorrect); cf. xxiv. IJ. 4 (Philopoemen's advice). According to Livy, xlii. 30. r-7 (cf. Livy, xlv. 31. 4), following P., in their sympathies the principes in the free Greek states fell into three categories: those who, through admiration for Rome or selfinterest, gave the Romans unlimited support, those who on account of debt, personal problems, or a uentost~m ingentum, supported Perseus, and a third group, optuma eadem et pmdentissima, who in the last resort would support Rome but preferred to pursue neutrality, avoidance of war, and a balance of power. P. himself clearly favoured the third policy; and that attributed to Cephal us and his colleagues (and to Philopoemen : xxiv. u-13) was identical with this. It involved scrupulous correctness towards Rome (cf. Scullard, JRS, 1945, 6r). Later, as pressures developed, P. moved over to a position of fuller collaboration with Rome (d. xxviii. 6. 1--9). 14. 'hrv6Aoxov teat NCKav8pov teal. Aoxayov teTA.: of these moderate Aetolian leaders Hippolochus is unknown. On NicanderofTrichonium see xx. ro. 16 n., n. ron. Lochagus is the son of Hagetas, of Callipolis, and was Aetolian general in r8o(79 (GDI, 1917; on the date see Daux, 308 ff.), and hieromnemon from the Aenianians to Delphi in 178; he is also mentioned in GDI, r8s6 and 1529 ( =IG, ix. I. zz61L 12 f.), and he is probably the Lochagus who registered a manumission at Delphi in rso/49 (GDI, 2279)--in which case he had been released, perhaps at the same time as the Achaean detainees. See Deininger, RE, Suppl.-B. xi, 'Lochagos (:z )', coL 888. According to Livy, xlii. 6o. 8--9 (from P.), after the Roman defeat at Callidnus (8. I-rs n.), it was alleged in the consul's council that the panic and defeat were 315
XXVII. 15. 14
CEPHALUS IS COMPELLED TO JOIN PERSEUS
due to the Aetolians, whereupon 'quinque principes Aetolorum, qui primi terga uertentes conspecti dicebantur, Romam missi.' A fourth was Eupolemus (xxviii. 4· 6; on him see xviii. 19. 11 n., xxi. 27-28 n.) ; the fifth is unknown. a:rro Tf\S i1T1TOIJ-ClXLCl') O.Myws: Callicinus (see the previous note); dA.6yws- is confirmed by App. Mac. 12, where the consul AlTwAwv ... Kat iTlpwv 'EAA..fJvwv Kanifu;vaaTo ws- 7rpwTwv Tpa7rlvTwv. Kat Tothovsl,; 'Pwp.'rJv ;7r<Ep.if;•v. Both accounts reflect P.'s sympathy for men who shared his own attitude towards Rome (cf. Deininger, r68 n. r). TdS lha~oXcl.c; Tac; .Etc: Twv 1TEpt Au~e:(a~e:ov: Lyciscus of Stratus was a staunch pro-Roman, whom P. classes along with Charops and Callicrates (xxx. 13. rr); cf. Livy, xlii. 38.2 (from P.}, 'quem Romanorum fauere rebus satis compertum erat'. He was first general in 178/7 (GDI, 2051, 2135) and elected a second time (as su.ffectus) in autumn 172 in the presence of Q. Marcius (Livy, xlii. 38. 2). On the social disturbances of those years in Aetolia, exploited by Perseus (xxv. 3· r-8}, see Deininger, 146-51; they coincided with the election as generals of a line of anti-Roman politicians (Nicander, 177/6; Eupolemus, 176/5; Archedamus, 175/4; Pantaleon, I74/J). Lyciscus now secured a dominant position for the pro-Roman party. 16. 1rapd. Tdc; a(,Twv 1TpoaLpEaELS tc:TA.: P. thus provides an apologia for men of his own persuasion, who had subsequently gone over to the enemy of Rome.
16. 1-6. An Epirote plot to seize the consul A. Hostilius This excerpt from de uirt. et uit. follows rs. 1-r6 (seep. 24); cf. Diod. XXX. sa (an excerpt from de insidiis). 16. 1. 0EoSoTov teat 4>LAoaTpaTov: little more is known of these Molossians. For Theodotus' death after Perseus' defeat see xxx. 7. 2-3; and Philostratus is last seen dealing a blow at the inhabitants of Antigonea, operating against Ap. Claudius Centho, in 169 (Livy, xlii. 23. 3-5). See Geyer, RE, 'Theodotos (12)', cols. 1955-6; Fiehn, RE, 'Philostratos (3)', cols. 122-3; P. Schoch, RE, 'Philostratos (13)', col. 177 (RE here duplicates). This plot against the consul, whether successful or not, was bound (and must have been intended) to commit Epirus firmly on Perseus' side (cf. Hammond, Epirus, 627---S). 2. AoA.ov 'OaTLALov: A. Hostilius L.f. A.n. Mancinus, praetor in r8o, and consul A.u.c. 584 = qo; see xxviii. 3· 1 ff., 5· 6. 1rapay£vt:a8m: sc. in Epirus. 3. Twv ••• MoAoTTwv: despite their leaders' manceuvres, they had not yet joined Perseus; but cf. xxx. 7· 2. tcaTd TOV "-~ov 1TOTO.IJ-OV TTJV yi+upav tc:aTELA1l+oTwv: Perseus prob316
EPIROTE PLOT TO SEIZE CONSlTL A. HOSTILIUS
XXVII. I6. 6
ably came over the mountains from Kastoria to Konitsa in the upper Viossa (Aous) valley; see Hammond, Epirus, 275-6. A little west of Konitsa, before the confluence of the Aous and the Sarandoporos, the road crosses to the left bank of the Aous at Mesogefira. It was here, Hammond suggests (Epirus, z8o, d. 274), that the Molossians held Perseus up. 4. els Tous +avOTeis: this tribe lived near Phanote, which Hammond (Epirus, 676) plausibly locates at Raveni on the gorge of the Kalamas, en route from Gitana inland to Passaron. Hostilius evidently proposed taking the shortest route into Thessaly, by sea from Corcyra to Gitana on the Kalamas (modern Thyamis), up that river to Passaron (modem Radotovi), and over the Zygos Pass into the upper Peneius valley (Hammond, loc. cit.) N~<1Top1 Tit~ Kpw1TI'l.l: unknown~as is his tribal ethnic (this was normally given by Epirotes; cf. Hammond, Epirus, 653). TUX'l TIS ••• : though Fortune here seems to favour justice, it is simply the incalculable, with a merely verbal personification (d. VoL I, pp. r7 ff., 25). For flpaf3ru"w used of Tyche ct. i. In. 5. 8a1~ovlws 1TWS ••• T6 ~t).Xov OTTII:U<7a(J.EVOS: evidently one of the occasions where P. admits no rational explanation (cf. xxxvi. 17· 2 ff.). ets flTa,va,: Gitana lay on the right bank of the Kalamas at Goumani, about 10 km. from the mouth, and one and a half hours down the valley from Filiates. It has a circuit wall of 3,ooo m. and its acropolis stands soo ft. above the river. See Hammond, Epirus, 83-84 {description), plan ro, plates xix (b) and xxv (b); Livy, xlii. 38. r. It was visited by Q. Marcius and A..Milius in 171 (cf. I. 1--2, rz n.}. Gitana was the Thesprotian meeting-place and (probably in rotation with Dodona or Passaron, and Phoenice) that of the Epirote Confederation (Hammond, Epirus, 651-2). 6. 1TAtuaa,s els :t\vTi~tupa,v: modern Aspra Spitia; see ix. 39· 2 n. for this Phocian town. From here Hostilius probably went via Phanoteus, the Pass of Hyampolis, and Thermopylae; on this route cf. Larsen, CP, rg6o, 232-4; Phoe-nix, r965, n6-z8; GFS, non. r.
Other events in the war with Perseus, qo. The lacuna between Livy, xliii. 3· 7 and 4· I embraced the whole of the Polybian account of this year of the war. It included the consul's advance into Macedonia (via the Pass of Volustana and that of Petra: Livy, xliv. z. 6, 'per Cambunios montes, qua priore anno duxerat Hostilius consul') and, probably, an invasion of Thessaly by Perseus, which brought gains there and in Perrhaebia (Plut. Aem. 9· 2-3; Livy, xliii. II. 9 (annalistic), 'legati ex Macedonia ... quas res ea aestatc prospere gessisset rex Perseus, referebant, quantusque timor socios populi Romani cepisset tot urbibus in potestatem regis redactis' ; Meloni, 317
XXVII. 16. 6
EPIROTE PLOT TO SEIZE CONSUL A. HOSTILIUS
Perseo, 258-9). The Romans operating at sea failed to take the Thracian cities of Emathia, Amphipolis, Aen us, and .Maronea (the two last now once more :\facedonian) (Livy, xliii. 7. Io), but they took and sacked Abdera (Livy, xliii. 4- 8-n, annalistic); Diod. xxx. 6 (Polybian). Perseus also took an unknown town, Chalestrum, and treacherously slew those who escaped, after they had surrendered their arms on an assurance of safe-conduct (Diod. xxx. 4; Meloni, Perseo, 273 n. 2).
17. Pharnaces' contempt for the law On Pharnaces I of Pontus see iii. 3· 6, xxiii. 9· r-3, xxiv. I. 1-3, 5· r, 14-15, xxv. 2. This brief excerpt from de uirt. et uit. belongs to res Asiae of 01. 152, 2 = qr/o (see p. 24). Its context cannot be recovered. It cannot be from a passage commemorating Pharnaces' death in this olympiad year (so Meyer, Pontos, 8I; cf. Diehl, RE, 'Pharnakes (r)', cols. I848-sr; Will, ii. 392), since he and his newly married wife, Nysa (probably the daughter of Antiochus III; d. M0rkholm, 54), were the recipients of honours from Athens in the archonship of Tych.:'tndros; cf. OGIS, 771, where the archon's name can be confidently re..stored since the secretary is Sosigenes of .Marathon: cf. IG, ii 2 • 953· It is now agreed that Tychandros' archonship was in r6o/s9; d. S. Dow, Hesperia, 1935, 9I; W. S. Ferguson, Athenian tribal cycles (Cambridge, Mass., I932), I45: W. K. Pritchett and B. D. Meritt, The Chronology of Hellenistic Athens (Cambridge, Mass., I94o}, xxix. Hence Phamaces' death and the succession of his brother, :Mithridates IV, must fall between r6o/59 and rs6; cf. xxxiii. I2. I n.
[18. 1-3. Attalus' approach to Achaean leaders This excerpt from de uirt. et uit. should be transposed to a place between xxviii. 2. 8 and xxviii. 3· 1; see p. 24. It belongs to res Graeciae et ll-facedoniae of 01. 152, 3 = 17o/69.
18. 1. 'AT'I'o.Aos X11lf.u1twv ~v 'EXa.nl~: Eumenes II's eldest brother, later king of Pergamum as Attalus II (d. xvlii. 41. ro n.}. He had returned from Europe to Pergamum for the winter of 171/o (Livy, xliL 67. 8}, but must have come back to Greece in 170; hence the reference here is to winter qoj69. Tas tmto.vEaTO.To.s ••• TljULs 1t8eTi}a0o.l KTA.: this must have happened earlier than 172 (see, for Eumenes' speech that year, Livy, xlii. 12. 7; d. below, xxviii. 7· 3 ff. with notes; Lehmann, 297 n. 319}. TW\1 E\1 nEAOtrOVV'I}a~ s,lt KOl\IOU SoyJ.'O.TOS: by an Achaean federal decn~e; for the equivalence of the Peloponnese and Achaea cf. ii. 38. 1-4, iv. 1. 7. 318
ATTALUS' APPROACH TO ACHAEAN LEADERS
XXVII.
20. 1-2
2. trp6s Ttva.s Twv E-v lA.xa.tq.: to prepare the ground for the arrival of official envoys; one Achaean approached was Archon (xxviii. 7. 2), who had just become general for I 7oj69. Ta$ 6.va.8TJJ10.TLK0.s, .•. Tti.s lyypO.,.Tous nJlO.s: 'honours in the form both of statues and of inscriptions'. 3. TO 4>L/..a.&.:A.4>ov ~ta.l yEvva.iov KTA.: on the loyalty of his brothers to Eumenes see xxiii. n. 6 (Philip's speech), xxxii. 8. 6. There is also a reference here to Attalus' title Philadelphus (ps.-Scymn. Perieg. 46; Strabo, xiv. r. 24, C. 64I; [Lucian], lvfacrob. I2; Steph. Byz. s.v. Evp..!.vna; and inscriptions, e.g. OGIS, 303, 304, 3o8 L I4, 3I9 L IS, and frequently), though there is no evidence that he used it during Eumenes' lifetime; cf. Wilcken, RE, 'Attalos (IO)', col. 2I72; Hansen 2, 127 n. 188.]
19. 1-2. A ntiochus sends M eleager to Rome to protest against Ptolemy's imminent attack
This excerpt from de legat. gent. forms part of res Asiae of I7I/o (hardly of 172/I: see pp. 24-25). On the Sixth Syrian War (I7o-68) see xxviii. I, describing the arrival of Antiochus' and Ptolemy's envoys at Rome in winter 17o(69 (which suggests that this passage refers to autumn I7o).
19. l. lA.vT£oxos: Antiochus IV; see xxvi. I a I n. Tous Ka.Tci. -nlv lA./...:~av8p.:La.v: since the death of Cleopatra, the queenmother, in 176, government was effectively in the hands of Eulaeus and Lenaeus (I3. 2 n.). Me.hka.ypov: cf. xxviii. r. I n