Bibliographical Note.—The evidence is set out by Holleaux in REG xxxiv, 1921, 400 f.—an article in which he subjects Täubler's views (Imperium Romanum 1, 219 f. ; cf. also 432 f.) to detailed criticism ; important contributions also by Aymard (Les premiers Rapports …, 261 f.) and Horn (Foederati, 31 f.). There seems to be no discussion in English except Larsen's short but valuable note (an appendix to his article in CP xxx, 1935, 193 f.). These works are cited below simply by the authors' names.

¹ Pol. 18, 42, 6 f.

² Pol. 23, 4, 12.

³ Holleaux (415, n. 3), quoting and following Niese, puts the alliance with the Epirots in 196 and also hints at other such treaties (422). But for the latter there is no evidence whatever, and the Epirot treaty is not attested before the war with Perseus (Pol. 27, 15, 12). Livy 36, 35, 8 f. (quoted by Holleaux) mentions only amicitia and implies, for what it is worth, that the treaty was not in existence in 191. The Achaean treaty is the only permanent Roman treaty in Greece for which evidence can be found before the foedus iniquum with the Aetolians.

⁴ κατὰ, πόλειѕ as Appian has just said.

⁵ p. 422. On the actual evidence, see n. 3, p. 76.

⁶ pp. 436 f.

⁷ Livy 34, 24, 6.

⁸ pp. 265 f.

⁹ Livy 34, 57 f; cf. Täubler (221) and Holleaux (402).

¹⁰ Livy 35, 13, 3; 25, 3 f. The ‘foedus Romanum’ of 13, 3 is the tyrant's treaty with Rome (cf. 22, 2). The provision which he had infringed is given in 34, 35, 10.

¹¹ Livy 35. 25, 2.

¹² ibid., 48 f.

¹³ Holleaux, 406 f. He himself stresses the second of these points; Aymard stresses and develops the first.

¹⁴ For the latter, see Livy 35, 31, 7 f.

¹⁵ ibid., 49 fin.

¹⁶ ibid., 50, 2.

¹⁷ Livy 38, 32, 8.

¹⁸ p. 417.

¹⁹ ibid., n. 3 (418): ‘ce traité ne saurait être désigné ici, sans plus d'explication, par le seul mot foedus.’ Why not? This treaty (for which see Livy 39, 37, 16 and 21) is very relevant; and Polybius may have been explicit.

²⁰ Holleaux also calls the passage ‘un peu enchevêtrée’ and mistranslates it, in a mistaken attempt to show what Livy ought to have said.

²¹ Livy 39, 37, 9 f.

²² e.g.: ‘si non uana ilia uox praeconis fuit, qua liberos esse omnium primos Achaeos iussistis.’

²³ cf. also Larsen's acute comment (214) that at the time of the Messenian trouble (in 183) the treaty does not appear to be very recent. We may ignore Paus. 7, 9, 4, despite Horn, whose defence of it Aymard rightly calls ‘une cause perdue d'avance‘ (269, n. 9).

²⁴ pp. 418 f.

²⁵ cf. Aymard, 303.

²⁶ Livy 38, 32, 9—though the facts seem to belie the statement.

²⁷ Livy 36, 31–2.

²⁸ cf. Aymard, 365.

²⁹ Livy 39, 37, 10.

³⁰ 24, 12 f.

³¹ Plut. Philop. 17; Paus. 8, 51, 4. This date, though opposed by Aymard (362, n. 23), has the authority of De Sanctis. And even Aymard admits —and this is all the present suggestion requires— that this meeting probably provided the first occasion on which Philopoemen, ‘appliquant sa politique …, résista à une requête romaine,’ i.e. on which Philopoemen urged that the Romans should be accorded precisely ὅσα εἴη … ἀκόλουθα τοῖς νόμοις καὶ τῇ συμμαχία and no more. (For a discussion of the evidence see Aymard, I.c.)

³² It must not be objected that the Spartan troubles early in 191 (Plut. Philop. 16; Paus. 8, 51) are already evidence of tension between Rome and the Achaeans and leave no time for the conclusion of the treaty after November 192. Without stressing the possibility that the treaty may already have been concluded by the time these troubles began (we do not know the exact chronology), we must observe that in fact the affair provides evidence of the two powers' acting in perfect harmony: Philopoemen's illegal action is an insult as much to the Achaean strategus Diophanes as to Flamininus, who is co-operating with him.

³³ cf. Aymard, 369–70.

³⁴ Pol. 21, 32, 2; cf. Livy 38, 11, 2.