¹ JRS 53 (1963), 1–13.

² Walbank, F. W., Polybius (1973), esp. ch. 6Google Scholar; see also ch. 1 of Polybe (Entretiens Hardt XX (1974)Google Scholar).

³ Primarily in Rome, la Grèce et les monarchies hellénistiques au III^e siècle avant J.-C. (1921).

⁴ op. cit. (n. i), 11.

⁵ ibid. 1.

⁶ ibid. 5.

⁷ Rome, la Grèce, chs. 7 and 8. See also his chapters in CAH VIII (for the original of which: ch. 14 of Etudes d'épigraphie et d'histoire grecques v (1957)Google Scholar).

⁸ In JRS (53) 1963, 6 Walbank argued that Pol. 1. 63. 9 indicated that the project was conceived in 241, but this position was abandoned (rightly) in Polybius, (161 and n. 38) under the influence of Petzold, K.-E., Studien zur Methode des Polybios und zu ihrer historischen Auswertung (1969), 175Google Scholar and n. 4. On the interpretation of Pol. 9. 10, see below, p. 3.

⁹ cf. 2. 20. 10: the first Punic war as a struggle . Such it became, according to Polybius, only with the Roman success at Agrigentum.

¹⁰ See JRS (53) 1963, 6, 9, and Walbank, , A Historical Commentary on Polybius II (1967)Google Scholar ad Pol. 9. 10. 11.

¹¹ The reference is, int. al., to 167 and the removal of treasures after the victory over Perseus: see Walbank, Commentary, ad 9. 10. 3.

¹² It may be noted that a different sort of problem does reside here. Along with Polybius' reference to the Roman decision to remove the statues etc. (9. 10. 2) and Livy's account of what Marcellus brought back (26. 21. 7 f.), there is the latter's report that a quaestor had been sent to take charge of pecunia regia (25. 31. 8); but in 210 there is no money in the treasury at Rome (Livy 26. 35. 2).

¹³ It is perhaps not without significance that Scipio has appeared in this connexion: cf. Pol. 21. 4. 5 (quoted below, p. 12).

¹⁴ Walbank, op. cit. (n. 1), 8.

¹⁵ It is the presence here of this element of obedience that distinguishes the present case from the otherwise not wholly dissimilar one (an ‘ally’ was involved) of Rome's dealings with and ultimatum to Carthage just before the second Punic war (compare, with Pol. 16. 27 and 34, particularly 3. 15, esp. § 5, and 3. 20. 6–8).

¹⁶ The expressions involved are varied, especially in the matter of orders and ordering. The words used most frequently in contexts involving Rome's eastern dealings are as follows: (1)ἐπιτάττω (with : cf. 18. 9. 5, 38. 2; 20. 10. 16; 21. 4. 14, 5. 3, 6. 1, 14. 9, 15. 13, 24. 13; 22. 11. 3, 14. 1; 24. 11. 7. 13. 2. 13. 3; 29. 27. 13; 30. 23. 3; 31. 1. 10; 32. 2. 7; 33. 9. 3. (2) : cf. 21. 33. 3; 24. 9. 1, 9. 10, 12. 4, 13. 6; 28. 13. 4; 32. 13. 8; 36. 4. 7, 5. 4, 5. 6, 6. 3, 6. 6, 9. 6. (3) προστἁττω (and : cf. 20. 10. 14; 21.15. 13; 22. 1. 5, 15. 3; 23.2. 6; 24. 11.4; 27. 8. 3; 29. 27. 9; 30. 31. 8; 33. 12. 4; 36. 5. 5, 9. 8. (4) πσρακαλέω (and παρακαλούμενον): cf. 16. 27. 2, 34. 3; 18. 9. 2, 9. 7, 37. 4; 20. 10. 6; 22. 4. 12, 10. 3; 24. 8. 3, n. 6, 15. 1; 29. 27. 6, 27.9. (5) κελεύω (and κελευόμενον): cf. 18. 1. 3; 22. 4. 9; 23. 5. 17; 24. 13. 4, 15. 9; 36. 6. 5. These all seem to be quite interchangeable (see esp. 24. 8–13 and 36. 4–6), and all are at sometime or another obeyed (along with, on occasion, γραφόμενα(cf. 24. 8. 4, 8. 6), λεγόμενα (cf. 22. 4. 10) and ἀποκρίσεις (cf. 30. 23. 2)). The chief expressions for obeying are πειθαρχεῖν and, less frequently, πείθεσθαι: cf. 16. 27. 3, 34. 3; 18. 9. 2; 22. 4. 10, 8. 4, 8. 6, 9. 1, 9. 9, 9. 14, 12. 14 29. 27. 3; 30. 13. 9, 23. 2, 30. 3, 31. 8; 32. 13. 8; 36. 5. 6, 9. 6, 9. 7, 11. 3; also, on occasion, ὑπακούω, συνυπακούω (cf. 24. 9. 9, 11. 7, 12. 4). The verbs are mostly followed by one of the aforementioned nouns. Not infrequently, obedience is signalled simply by some form of (cf. 18. 9. 7, 37. 4; 22. 4. 12; 24. 13. 6; 36. 6. 6, 9. 6), συνυπακούω (cf. 22. 4. 12; 29. 27- 6), or τὸ προσταχθέν (cf. 23. 2. 6, etc.). These lists, while not complete, will at least give a fair indication of the frequency with which these notions occur in Polybius' account of Rome's relations with the Hellenistic world from 200 B.C. onwards.

¹⁷ On Rome and Eumenes, see the letter of Attalus II to the priest Attis of about 156 B.C., Welles, C. B., Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period (1934), no. 61Google Scholar. It shows a very acute (and Polybian: see also 23. 17. 4) appreciation of Roman ‘foreign policy’ in general and of Rome's attitude towards Eumenes II in particular.

¹⁸ See esp. the reason stated in the Roman war proposal: ‘ob iniurias armaque illata sociis populi Romani’; cf. also the complaints against Philip lodged at Rome by the ‘legati sociarum urbium ex Graecia’ (in 203/2: Livy 30. 26. 2; cf. 30. 42. 8–10). The same notion seems to be present in 31. 1. 9, where the Romans are ‘infensos Philippo … ob infidam adversus Aetolos aliosque regionis eiusdem socios pacem’, but this section is most curious both for the mention of the Aetolians in this way, as well as for the statements in 1. 8 about the chronology and cause of the previous war with Philip which do not agree at all with Livy's account in the previous decade. On 31. 1 see Briscoe, J., A Commentary on Livy, Books 31–33 (1973). 52–5Google Scholar. Briscoe does not explain how Livy in 31. 1 came to connect the beginning of the war with the Aetolians, but it may be recalled that in a speech in Polybius the ἀρχὴ τοῦ πολέμου is associated with the treaty between Rome and the Aetolians (11. 5. 9); also that the Roman ambassador in Livy 31. 31. 18 (most likely a Polybian section) says to the Aetolians ‘nos pro vobis bellum suscepimus adversus Philippum’ (cf. 31. 29. 5 and Briscoe, Commentary, ad locc).

¹⁹ Particularly worth noting is Polybius' statement that the second war against Philip took its ἀφορμαι from the war against Hannibal (3. 32. 7). One might also compare Appian, Mac. 3. 2.

²⁰ The Aetolian appeal is referred to in what there is no reason to believe is not a Polybian section of Livy (31. 29. 4); for a select bibliography on it see Briscoe, Commentary, ad loc. Briscoe himself leaves the appeal in 201 (before the Rhodian and Pergamene embassies) but holds basically to Holleaux's interpretation of the Roman rejection.

²¹ And not, it seems, without reason: cf. Dio 17, Fr. 57. 59 (on 206): ; and Livy 31. 28. 6 (spring 199): ’ad Aetolos mittit (philippus) legatos, ne gens inquieta adventu Romanorum fidem mutaret’.

²² For anti-Roman sentiment during the first Macedonian war, see Pol. 9. 37–39; 10.25; 11. 4–6; for the prediction, 11. 6. 2–3.

²³ Badian, E., Foreign Clientelae (1958), 44.Google Scholar

²⁴ op. cit. (n. 1), 11. The same view is expressed by A. Momigliano, Alien Wisdom (1975), 28.

²⁵ Pol. 3. 9. 6–10. 6.

²⁶ This follows from the fact that the numbering reflects chronological order both here and in the Alexander example in 3. 6. 10–11; this seems to me to have been missed by Walbank, , Polybius, 158Google Scholar.

²⁷ Bearing this in mind, I cannot agree with the assertion of Momigliano, , Alien Wisdom, 28Google Scholar: ‘Even the arbitrary occupation of Sardinia by the Romans, though freely admitted to be unjust (3. 28. 2), is not directly connected with the origins of the second Punic war’.

²⁸ Pédech, P., La méthode historique de Polybe (1964), 37Google Scholar.

²⁹ Pédech treats of the αἱτίαι, προφάσεις and ἀρχή of the second Macedonian war at some length Méthode, 113–23), but without any foundation. He finds the ἀρχή in the crossing of the Roman consul P. Sulpicius Galba into Greece, but there is no reason to believe that this was the ἀρχή and not, say, one of Philip's attacks on Athens. More seriously, the beginning of his discussion reveals a basic misunderstanding of how Polybius' causal system worked. ‘Le problème des αἰτίαι se ramène, suivant la théorie, à la description des mobiles qui ont guidé l'action des belligérents’ (i.e., Romans, Rhodians, Attalus, and Philip; p. 113). As has been seen here, the αἰτίαι are what lead to the ἀρχή, the action of just one of the belligerents. On Pédech's misunderstanding, cf. Walbank, Polybius, 158 with n. 12.

³⁰ It may be noted that the numbering has not always been the same. In Floras there are two Macedonian wars, of which the second is the one against Perseus, the first comprising Rome's conflict(s) with Philip (1. 23, 28). Cf. E. Bickerman, CP 40 (1945), 137 n. 1.

³¹ This view of Polybius on the Aetolians is argued to good effect by Sacks, K. S., ‘Polybius' other view of Aetolia’, JHS 95 (1975), 92–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 93 for the specific point; it should, perhaps, be asked whether some criticism might be implicit in δόξαντες at 3. 7. 2). I do not, however, see the connexion between Sacks' main argument and the ‘dichotomy’, assented to by him (106), between Polybius the ‘reporter’ and Polybius the ‘editor’.

³² This question has been discussed often and at length, but it cannot be resolved, as the stone bearing the only surviving copy of the treaty is broken before the end of the text (for text, evidence and bibliography see Schmitt, H. H., Die Staatsverträge des Altertums 3 (1969), no. 536;Google Scholar for bibliography on the Polybian side especially, D. Musti, ANRW 1. 2, 1146 ff.). It is, of course, possible that the distinction adduced by Flamininus did form part of the treaty, but it is also worth noting that Livy's version of the agreement (26. 24. 9–13) contains no reference to such a provision; cf. Briscoe, Commentary, ad 33. 13. 9–12 (he rightly emphasizes Flamininus' failure to respond to Phaeneas' first point).

³³ On the Aetolians rejoining Rome there is only the following: (I) In spring 199 the Roman ambassadors say to the Aetolians ‘et vobis restituendi vos in amicitiam societatemque nostram fortuna oblata est’ (Livy 31.31. 20); (2) the Aetolians do not rejoin on the spot, but later in the year we learn that they have done so (Livy 31. 41. 1: ‘hae causae Damocritum Aetolosque restituerant Romanis’).

³⁴ Support for this must be seen in Polybius' statement that the war against Antiochus took its origins from the war against Philip (as that war did from the one against Hannibal): 3. 32. 7, a passage rightly stressed by Sacks, op. cit. (n. 31), 93.

³⁵ What is not stated is that ‘la vraie cause (αἰτία) de la guerre, c'est la pensée de Philippe’ (Pédech, Méthode, 125). Nor could it have been stated, for αἰτίαι in Polybius are not in any vague way what we think, but things that lead us to decide to act in a certain way (Pol. 3. 6. 7). Note also 22. 1. 5, where αἰτίαι are referred to in the plural.

³⁶ The argument here does not require that chs. 13–14 (overlapping excerpts from the Exc. de legationibus gentium and the Exc. de legationibus Romanorum) and ch. 18 (from the Exc. de sententiis) be put directly together in the text of Polybius; the relation between them is clear enough without having to do that. What is essential is that this relation between the section on Philip's actions at Maroneia (with the Roman intervention) and that on the αἰτίαι of the third Macedonian war be recognized and appreciated. The sequence is guaranteed by 22. 1. 5 (from the ‘table of contents’ to the book given in the excerpts de legationibus gentium): . This notice is sufficient to refute any suggestion on the basis of correspondence with Livy that ch. 18 should precede chs. 13–14 (with chs. 13-14 cf. Livy 39. 34. 1 ff., with ch. 18 cf. Livy 39. 23. 5 f.); in any event, while the correspondence between Livy 39. 34 and Pol. 22. 13–14 is quite direct, that between Livy 39. 23 and Pol. 22. 18 is by no means so. For my part, I believe the best answer is, in fact, the juxtaposition of chs. 13–14 and 18. This would involve placing ch. 18 after ch. 14 and before ch. 15, and all that this would require is transferring chs. 16–17 to the previous Olympiad year (from 185/4 B.C. to 186/5 B.C.). To this transference there is no obstacle whatever, and the earlier date accords at least as well with the mention of Ptolemy's age in 22. 17. 7.

³⁷ With 3. 30. 4 (cf. above, p. 10) compare especially 28. 14. 8: καθόλου μὲν οὐν .

³⁸ τοῖς πολλοῖς, which should perhaps be taken strictly as meaning ‘the many’ (at Rome). From this it would follow that handsome pretexts were sometimes required to convince the people of Rome of the justice and necessity of senatorial decisions. That many at Rome could indeed need such convincing emerges from, inter alia, the difficulty over the vote on the war against Philip in 200 (Livy 31. 6. 3 ff.).

³⁹ That Polybius is indeed generalizing about the Romans here is a point worth insisting upon, for he has been taken, on the basis of a passage in Book 31, as indicating that such behaviour was a new departure for the Romans in the 160's (see Walbank, , Polybius, 170Google Scholar and cf. Entretiens Hardt xx, 12). The passage is 31. 10. 7: . The beginning of the statement is at issue, and Walbank renders it ‘Many Roman decisions are now of this kind’ (cf. Paton in the Loeb translation: ‘For many decisions of die Romans are now of this kind’). This would indicate a departure, but it is not what Polybius is saying; for this use of ἥδη see Mauersberger, A., Polybios-Lexikon 1. 3 (1966)Google Scholar, col. 1108. Again, Schweighäuser's rendition is correct (‘Multum enim Romani hoc genere consiliorum utuntur’), and Shuckburgh also has it right with ‘Measures of this class are very frequent among the Romans’. Another firm indication that Polybius is speaking of the period before 168 as well as of that after is the presence of αὕξουσι: the αὕξησις of Roman domination was complete by 168 (Pol. 3. 4. 2).

⁴⁰ The text of the fragment as it stands has been reconstructed (see the notes in Büttner-Wobst, on his fr. 99, and in Hultsch, on his fr. 157) from four entries in the Suda, of which the relevant parts are as follows: For the rapprochement with 36. 2, cf. H. Nissen, Rhein. Mus. 26 (1871), 275.