Polybius, Histories
Layout
Translation

Bibliography

(1)
Author: Baronowski, Donald Walter
Year: 1990Winter
Title: Sub Umbra Foederis Aequi
Source type: Journal Article
View

Archaeology

Places

Book 21 - Chapter 32b

1
<w lemma="%2A%28o">Ὁ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="%2Afolou%2Fios">Φολούιος</w> <w lemma="pracikoph%2Fsas">πραξικοπήσας</w> <w lemma="nukto%5Cs">νυκτὸς</w> <w lemma="kate%2Flabe">κατέλαβε</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="me%2Fros">μέρος</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="a%29kropo%2Flews">ἀκροπόλεως</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%2Fous">Ῥωμαίους</w> <w lemma="ei%29sh%2Fgage">εἰσήγαγε</w>. —
<head>Capture of Same in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cephallenia&groupId=450&placeId=838">Cephallenia</a> by Fulvius</head>Fulvius by a secret understanding occupied part of the acropolis by night and introduced the Romans.

Walbank Commentary

Overview
21.29.1 - 21.32.15
<p rend="Plain Text">Peace with Aetolia (189)</p> <p rend="Plain Text">This passage is still part of the res Graeciae of Ol. 147, 3 = 190/89, though it moves over to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> to describe the settlement (31. 3– 32. 15); cf. Livy, xxxviii. 9. 3–11. 9; above, p. 6.</p>
21.32.1 - 21.32.14
<p rend="Plain Text">the Aetolian treaty; cf. Livy, xxxviii. 11. 1–9. 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; Tubler, 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).</p>
21.32.3 - 21.32.3
<p rend="Plain Text"> 〈 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πολεμίους</w></emph> 〉 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">μὴ διιέτω κτλ</w>.:</emph> cf. Livy, xxxviii. 11. 2, 'ne quem exercitum, qui aduersus socios amicosque eorum ducetur, per suos fines transire sinito, neue ulla ope iuuato.' Reiske added <w lang="el-GR">πολεμίους</w>; cf. 43. 2. Since allowing forces of a third party to cross one's territory was not a hostile act, such clauses were often inserted into treaties; cf. IG, xii. 2. 510 ll. 1–7 (<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Methymna&groupId=766&placeId=1388">Methymna</a>, 129); IG, xii. 3. 173 ll. 29–32 (= Sherk, 16: Astypalaea, 105); IG, xii. 2. 35 ll. 2–6 (= Sherk, 26 d: Mytilene); below, 43. 2 (Antiochus III, 188). See also Thuc. v. 47. 5 (cf. Tod, 72); Aristoph. Birds, 189; OGIS, 437 ll. 68, 71; IGR, iv. 1028; above, iv. 5. 7, 7. 4; Tubler, 49–54. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">μηδὲ χορηγείτω μηδὲν δημοσίᾳ βουλῇ</w>:</emph> cf. 43. 2; and in many of the treaties listed in the previous note such clauses are made more specific with such phrases as <w lang="el-GR">μήτε ὅπλοις μήτε χρήμασι μήτε ναυσίν</w> or<w lang="el-GR">σῖτος ὅπλα ἀ?ργύριον πλοῖα</w> etc. <milestone unit="page" n="132">[132]</milestone> </p>
21.32.4 - 21.32.4
<p rend="Plain Text">lacuna: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 11. 3, 'hostis eosdem habeto quos populus Romanus'; see the app. crit. in Bttner-Wobst for suggested restorations. Examples of clauses implying a defensive alliance, i.e. mutual help against an attack from a third party, are: OGIS, 762 (Cibyra, c. 188); IG, xii. 2. 510 (<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Methymna&groupId=766&placeId=1388">Methymna</a>, 129); IG, xii. 3. 173 (Sherk, 16: Astypalaea, 105); IG, xii. 2. 35 (Sherk, 26 d: Mytilene). But here the Aetolians are subordinated, and must accept <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>'s friends and enemies; cf. 4. 13; for the formula see Cic. fam. 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).</p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">καὶ ἐὰν πολεμῶσιν . . . ὁ δῆμος ὁ τῶν Αἰτωλῶν</w> :</emph> cf. Livy, xxxviii. 11. 3, 'armaque in eos ferto, bellumque pariter gerito.' </p>
21.32.6 - 21.32.6
<p rend="Plain Text"> 〈 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐν</w></emph> 〉 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἡμέραις ἐκατὸν . . . τῷ ἄρχοντι τῷ ἐν Κερκύρᾳ</w> :</emph> cf. Livy, xxxviii. 11. 5, 'aliorum qui comparebunt intra dies centum Corcyraeorum magistratibus 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. Tubler, 82. The 'archon in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Corcyra&groupId=491&placeId=923">Corcyra</a>' 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. 1. 302 n. 97; Holleaux, <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, 109 n. 2; Badian, Studies, 28 n. 35 = BSR, 1952, 80 n. 35. </p>
21.32.8 - 21.32.8
<p rend="Plain Text"> Aetolian indemnity: cf. Livy, xxxviii. 11. 8, 'de pecuniae summa, quam penderent, pensionibusque eius nihil ex eo, quod cum consule conuenerant, mutatum; pro argento si aurum dare mallent, <milestone unit="page" n="133">[133]</milestone> conuenit, dum pro argenteis decem aureus unus ualeret.' For the arrangement with Fulvius see 30. 2; the 1,000 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 <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Agrinium&groupId=305&placeId=598">Agrinium</a> in 1959 of substantial numbers of Athenian 'new style' tetradrachms, which belong (on one view) to 190–169, indicates the use of Attic silver to pay the indemnity; cf. § 8, <w lang="el-GR">ἀργυρίου μὴ χείρονος Ἀττικοῦ</w>. See Thompson, New style Coinage; NC, 1962, 320–2; Agrinion Hoard, 80–82; L. A. Losada, Phoenix, 1965, 129–33. Losada suggests that by pressure on the Aetolians to use Athenian silver the Romans were both rewarding <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Athens&groupId=379&placeId=715">Athens</a> (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 <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Athens&groupId=379&placeId=715">Athens</a> 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. Lewis, NC, 1962, 275–300 (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, 325–34); in that case Losada's argument would be wholly undermined. The Euboic-Attic talent weighed 26.196 kg. (Vol. II, p. 630, corrigendum to i. 62. 9 n.). </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀντὶ τρίτου μέρους . . . χρυσίον . . . διδόντες</w> :</emph> 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 original 200 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, 131. </p>
21.32.0 - 21.32.0
<p rend="Plain Text">Fulvius' capture of Same in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cephallenia&groupId=450&placeId=838">Cephallenia</a></p> <p rend="Plain Text">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 <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cephallenia&groupId=450&placeId=838">Cephallenia</a>. Here all the towns made a deditio, but the people of Same changed their minds, closed their gates, and forced Fulvius to undertake a siege (Livy, xxxviii. 28. 1–11), which lasted four months (Livy, xxxviii. 29. 9). After the fall of Same, according to Livy, xxxviii. 30. 1, following P., Fulvius went on to the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Peloponnese&groupId=861&placeId=1552">Peloponnese</a>; and according to the annalistic account in Livy, xxxviii. 35. 1, he went from there to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> to hold the elections for 188. But a letter from C. Livius Salinator (cos. A.U.C. 566 = 188) to the Delphians (Syll. 611 = Sherk, 38) shows that Fulvius returned from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> to finish off the siege of Same. Hence the likely chronology is that the siege began in early October, 189, that Fulvius left shortly afterwards to reach <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> by the end of the month and hold the elections (as instructed: Livy, xxxviii. 50. 6), and returned to finish the siege in January, 188. If id. mart. A.U.C. 566 fell on 21 November 189 (Jul.), as Derow (Phoenix, 1973, 348–9) makes it, this would be a tight programme, but just possible. See Aymard, tudes, 11–14 (= REA, 1928, 15–19); Mlanges Glotz, 49–73; Cavaignac, Mlanges Thomas, 120–31; De Sanctis, iv. 1. 396 (he believes that Fulvius went from the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Peloponnese&groupId=861&placeId=1552">Peloponnese</a> to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>); Holleaux, tudes, v. 249–94.</p> <p rend="Plain Text">Livy, xxxviii. 29. 1–9 describes the siege and effectiveness of the Achaean slingers; at length, after many losses, 'Romani nocte per arcem, quam Cyneatidem uocantnam urbs in mare deuexa in occidentem uergitmuro 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. 10–11). It is to this that the present fragment, from Suidas, refers.</p> <p rend="Plain Text"> Same was at the head of the wide Gulf of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Samos&groupId=944&placeId=1680">Samos</a> on the east side of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cephallenia&groupId=450&placeId=838">Cephallenia</a>, 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, 226 m. high, now called <w lang="el-GR">Κοντός</w> or <milestone unit="page" n="136">[136]</milestone> Ag. Phanntes, was the one seized by the Romans; the higher acropolis, 275 m., on which the inhabitants took refuge, is called Ampelki or PalaecastroLivy's arx maior. Strabo, x. 2. 13, C. 455, describes the site as deserted, but it had some revival under the empire (cf. Kallipolitis, <w lang="el-GR">Ἀρχ. δελτ</w>. 1961–2, 1–31 (Roman baths); BCH, 1958, 728 f. for photographs). See Leake, NG, iii. 55–58; J. Partsch, Kephallenia und Ithaka (Gotha, 1890), 69 ff.; Brchner, RE, 'Kephallenia (1)', cols. 205–6. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πραξικοπήσας</w>:</emph> details are lost, since Livy (see above) is much compressed. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸ μέρος τῆς ἀκροπόλεως</w>?:</emph> Ag. Phanntes (see above); Livy's text is corrupt on its name: Cyatidem, Bamb.; Cyneatidem, Mog. </p>
21.32.1 - 21.32.4
<p rend="Plain Text">On the wisdom of Philopoemen</p> <p rend="Plain Text">This fragment from de sent., on the restoration of Spartan exiles and expulsion of Nabis' mercenaries from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sparta&groupId=660&placeId=1208">Sparta</a> (§ 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 = 189/8 (see p. 6). It therefore stands after 32 b.</p> <p rend="Plain Text"> Having taken Same (32 b n.) in January 188, Fulvius went to the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Peloponnese&groupId=861&placeId=1552">Peloponnese</a> and attended an Achaean meeting called to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Argos&groupId=361&placeId=689">Argos</a> by Philopoemen, strategos 189/8, to discuss whether synodoi should henceforth be held at other towns as well as Aegium; the damiurgi had called a meeting to Aegium, but Fulvius, seeing most people going to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Argos&groupId=361&placeId=689">Argos</a>, went there too and abandoned his support for the champions of Aegium (Livy, xxxviii. 30. 1–5). The two meetings, called to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Argos&groupId=361&placeId=689">Argos</a> and Aegium, have been regarded as syncletoi (Aymard, Mlanges Glotz, 49–73; ACA, 302–5; Walbank, Philip, 323) and, alternatively, as synodoi, in fact the first synodos of 188 (Holleaux, tudes, v. 287–92, hesitantly; Larsen, 174); and Badian and Errington (Historia, 1965, 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 announcing synodoi see below, pp. 412–13. <milestone unit="page" n="137">[137]</milestone> Fulvius next had the Achaeans call a syncletos to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Elis&groupId=560&placeId=1048">Elis</a> to deal with the Spartan problem (he probably had instructions from the Senate): the problem is outlined in Livy, xxxviii. 30. 6–32. 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 Philopoemen, 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 <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (Livy, xxxviii. 31. 5). </p> <p rend="Plain Text">The meeting at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Elis&groupId=560&placeId=1048">Elis</a> proved inconclusive and Fulvius told both sides to send envoys to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (Livy, xxxviii. 32. 3–10), where nothing was done. But in spring 188 Philopoemen, who was still general (cf. 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 tyrants' 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 <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Tegea&groupId=1011&placeId=1780">Tegea</a> 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 <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Megalopolis&groupId=745&placeId=1360">Megalopolis</a>. <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sparta&groupId=660&placeId=1208">Sparta</a> 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. 1. 4–5, proxeny-decrees containing the phrase <w lang="el-GR">ἔδοξε τῷ δάμῳ</w> and mentioning <w lang="el-GR">συναρχίαι</w> (but not Gerusia or Ephors) are usually dated to after 188 (cf. Swoboda, Volksbeschlsse, 108, 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.).</p>
21.32.4 - 21.32.4
<p rend="Plain Text"> 〈 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ώσεως αἴτια</w></emph> 〉 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὰ χρήματα</w>:</emph> so Bttner-Wobst. In fact the whole of <w lang="el-GR">ἐπανορθώσεως</w> is restored, and according to Boissevain the phrase is too long for the space available. Hultsch's suggestion <w lang="el-GR">ἐρείσματ᾿ ὄντα</w> (or <w lang="el-GR">ἐστί</w>, for <w lang="el-GR">ὄντα</w>Boissevain) is attractive. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">φύσει νουνεχὴς ὢν καὶ στρατηγικός</w>:</emph> cf. xi. 16. 5, <w lang="el-GR">λίαν ἀκριβῶς καὶ στρατηγικῶς ἕκαστα συλλογισάμενος</w>; for Philopoemen's character generally see x. 22. 4–5. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">κομιδὴ τῶν ἔξω</w></emph> 〈 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πορι</w></emph> 〉 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ζομένων χρημάτων</w>:</emph> the sense seems to be that Philopoemen prevented the use of certain moneys at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sparta&groupId=660&placeId=1208">Sparta</a>, lest they assist the restoration of the monarchy. This money will be that raised from the sale of the foreign mercenaries and ex-slaves, who had been made citizens a tyrannis; on their fate and the use made of the money raised by their sale see above 32 c 1–4 n. (Livy, xxxviii. 34. 6–7; Errington, 147, who rightly criticizes the Achaean failure to use this money more constructively in rehabilitating the exiles). <milestone unit="page" n="139">[139]</milestone> </p>
21.32.0 - 21.32.0
<p rend="Plain Text"> and <emph rend="bold">32 c</emph> should stand here, since they belong to res Graeciae of Ol. 147, 4 = 189/8; see above, ad locc. <milestone unit="page" n="152">[152]</milestone> </p>
Specifics
21.32.2 - 21.32.2
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ τὴν δυναστείαν κτλ</w>.:</emph> cf. Livy, xxxviii. 11. 2, <milestone unit="page" n="131">[131]</milestone> 'imperium maiestatemque populi Romani gens Aetolorum conseruato sine dolo malo.' The last three words suggest a lacuna in P.; see the app. crit. in Bttner-Wobst for suggestions for its filling, that of Bttner-Wobst himself being <w lang="el-GR">διατηρείτω χωρὶς δόλου καὶ ἀπάτης</w> (cf. Dion. Hal. viii. 9. 3). Tubler suggests <w lang="el-GR">διαφυλασσέτω ἄνευ δόλου πονηροῦ</w> (cf. IG, xii. 2. 510 l. 9; xii. 3. 173 d l. 40). Since Livy translates back into Latin from P. his phraseology is not necessarily that of the original (Badian, 85 n. 1). Larsen (GFS, 440 n. 2) thinks imperium was added to clarify maiestas; but P. likes the combination <w lang="el-GR">ἀρχὴ</w> (or <w lang="el-GR">ἡγεμονία) καὶ δυναστεία</w> (cf. i. 3. 10, 63. 9, iii. 33. 6, xv. 10. 2, xxi. 16. 8), and here the original may not have contained two nouns. Cic. pro Balbo, 35 has only maiestas, as has Dig. xlix. 15. 7. 1 (the jurist Proculus, first century A.D., who may be following Cicero, loc. cit.: cf. Kbler, RE, 'maiestas', col. 542). It is not even certain that the original Latin word was maiestas, though the addition of this clause, not contained in the preliminary draft (30. 1–5), suggests that it repeated a recognized formula. But there is no reliable contemporary evidence for the use of maiestas in a Roman treaty before the first century, and the treaty with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Gades&groupId=594&placeId=1105">Gades</a> in 78 (Cic. pro Balbo, 35). This passage of Cicero affords no evidence for a treaty in 206when the Gaditani seem to have made an act of deditio (Livy, xxviii. 37. 10; Dahlheim, 58)still less for a maiestas clause at that date (as is assumed by Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 664 n. 1 and by Kbler, RE, 'maiestas', col. 544). Its presence in two Greek documents (Sherk, 26 d l. 1: a treaty with Mytilene from the time of Caesar; and Tubler, 450–1, a treaty with Cnidos of the Caesarean or Augustan period) depends solely on restorations. See, for a discussion of the concept of maiestas at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, H. G. Gundel, Historia, 1963, 283–320, a study partly marred by the author's failure to observe that for the Aetolian treaty Livy is translating P., not recording second century official terminology. </p>
21.32.5 - 21.32.5
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοὺς δὲ</w></emph> 〈 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">αὐτομόλους</w>, . . .</emph> 〉 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">κτλ</w>.:</emph> 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 cf. i. 16. 9 (Hiero), iii. 27. 6 (<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>, 241), xv. 18. 3 (<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>, 202), xviii. 1. 13 (Philip in Locris, 198), 44. 6 (Philip, 196), xxi. 30. 3 (preliminaries of this peace), 43. 10 (Antiochus, 188), xxv. 2. 8 (Pharnaces, 179); Livy, xxxiv. 35. 6 (Nabis, 195); App. Mith. 55 (Archelaus in the Mithridatic War). See Tubler, 81–83. </p>
21.32.7 - 21.32.7
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐὰν δὲ μὴ εὑρεθῶσιν κτλ</w>.:</emph> cf. Livy, xxxviii. 11. 5, '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. </p>
21.32.10 - 21.32.10
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὁμήρους . . . τετταράκοντα</w>:</emph> delivered <w lang="el-GR">εἰς ἔτη ἕξ</w> (a phrase omitted by Livy, xxxviii. 11. 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 <milestone unit="page" n="134">[134]</milestone> from Nabis (five: Livy, xxxiv. 35. 11) or Antiochus (twenty: 43. 22) but the Carthaginians had to give 100 (xv. 18. 8). On the giving of hostages see xv. 18. 8 n.; Aymard's articles, there mentioned, are reprinted in tudes, 436–60. For a similar correlation with payment of indemnity cf. Livy, xxxii. 2. 1–3; the two were not always linked. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">οὓς ὄν Ῥωμαῖοι προκρίνωσιν</w>:</emph> Livy, xxxviii. 11. 6 interprets as 'arbitratu consulis'. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">χωρὶς στρατηγοῦ κτλ</w>.:</emph> the exemption of public officersthe choice otherwise being Romanwas presumably to prevent disruption of government; similar provision is found in a treaty of 304 between <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rhodes&groupId=931&placeId=1665">Rhodes</a> and Antigonus I and Demetrius Poliorcetes (Diod. xx. 99. 3 = SV A, 442, <w lang="el-GR">πλὴν τῶν ἀρχὰς ἐχόντων)</w>. On the Aetolian magistrates see x. 42. 4 n. The second secretary (the secretary of the council) is now known to have been added by 207 (SEG, xii. 217 ll. 7–8); but the <w lang="el-GR">δημόσιος γραμματεύς</w> mentioned here is the original one. See Larsen, GFS, 208 n. 4. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῶν ῶμηρευκότων ἐν Ῥώμῃ</w>:</emph> since there is no record of any Aetolian having hitherto served as hostage at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, Tubler, 70–71, argues that the hostages would be changed at intervals (cf. 43. 22, xxxiii. 10. 12) and that it is to such replacements that this provision applies (cf. Aymard, tudes, 457 n. 2). But that is not what P. (or Livy following him) says; nor do six years leave much scope for exchanges. There had in fact been several occasions when hostages may have been exacted, though not mentioned in our sources: spring 191, when Acilius was asked for a truce (xx. 9–10); the truce granted by Acilius to Phaeneas in 191 (xx. 11. 11–12 n.); the six-month truce granted by the Scipios in 190 (5. 11 n.). Nor is there a contradiction between handing over the hostages to the consul and delivering them at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>; the former would be for his approval before they went on to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>. The assumption that the original hostages were handed to the consul and the substitutes sent to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (Tubler, 70–71) is not supported by the text; indeed, barring deaths (§ 11), any replacements seem improbable. See M. J. Moscovich, Polis and Imperium, 139–43. </p>
21.32.12 - 21.32.12
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">περὶ δὲ Κεφαλληνίας</w>:</emph> cf. 30. 5 n. </p>
21.32.13 - 21.32.13
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐπὶ Λευκίου Κοντίου καὶ Γναΐου Δομετίου</w>:</emph> 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 (30. 4 n.). Livy, xxxviii. 11. 9 reads 'T. Quinctio', a manifest error. The earlier date deprived the Aetolians of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Lamia&groupId=665&placeId=1217">Lamia</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Heraclea&groupId=624&placeId=1147">Heraclea</a>, lost before the armistice of 190 (cf. Nissen, KU, 203); but in fact GDI, 1959 shows <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Heraclea&groupId=624&placeId=1147">Heraclea</a> once more in Aetolian hands by May–June, 184, whether because it was exempted from the ruling or because it was meanwhile restored to Aetolia (see Daux, 671–4). <milestone unit="page" n="135">[135]</milestone> </p>
21.32.14 - 21.32.14
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῶν Οἰνιαδῶν</w>:</emph> cf. iv. 65. 8–10 n., 11 n. The Aetolians acquired it in 211 (ix. 39. 2 n.) and kept it in the peace of 206 (Holleaux, CAH, viii. 134; tudes, v. 316). </p>
21.32.15 - 21.32.15
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοιαύτην . . . τὴν ἐπιγραφήν</w>:</emph> so the manuscripts. Ursinus emended to <w lang="el-GR">ἐπιστροφήν</w>, Reiske to <w lang="el-GR">καταστροφήν</w>; the word is probably the excerptor's (cf. Hultsch, EZ (1892) p. 368 n. 1). 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. </p>
21.32.1 - 21.32.1
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸ καλὸν καὶ τὸ συμφέρον</w>:</emph> cf. xxiv. 12. 2, Aristaenus calls these <w lang="el-GR">δύο . . . σκοποὺς . . . πάσης πολιτείας</w>; the words (iii. 4. 10 n.) have a Stoic (but not exclusively Stoic) flavour (see von Scala, 218–19). </p>
21.32.3 - 21.32.3
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸ κατάγειν τοὺς αἰχμαλώτους φυγάδας</w>?:</emph> 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 <milestone unit="page" n="138">[138]</milestone> hitherto opposed restoring the 'old exiles' (1 n.; despite Livy, xxxviii. 31. 1, '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 <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Achaea&groupId=272&placeId=533">Achaea</a>, especially since after enforcing the surrender and execution of his most intransigent opponents (Livy, xxxviii. 33. 2–11) he could hope to set up a pro-Achaean government (Errington, 141 f.). If that is so, the exiles mentioned here are of Timolaus' party (xx. 12. 2 n.). But in what sense were they prisoners? Lehmann, 256 n. 234, thinks they had been seized by the Spartans at Las in autumn 189 (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 <w lang="el-GR">κατάγειν</w> 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 <w lang="el-GR">αἰχμαλώτους φυγάδας</w>?. Perhaps <w lang="el-GR">καὶ</w> 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 189/188 (Livy, xxxviii. 32. 2). </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸ ταπεινῶσαι τὴν τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων πόλιν</w> :</emph> by the measures of spring 188: see 32 c n. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> 〈 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">καταφονεύσαντ</w></emph> 〉 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">α τοὺς δεδορυφορηκότας</w>:</emph> Bttner-Wobst's restoration will not stand. Of the mercenaries of the tyrants Livy, xxxviii. 34. 1 records: 'imperatum . . . ut omnes externi auxiliares, qui mercede apud tyrannos militassent, terra Laconica excederent.' Read, with Pdech, Mthode, 329 n. 151, 〈 <w lang="el-GR">ἐξελάσαντ</w>〉a. <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Shimron&groupId=19&placeId=84">Shimron</a>, Late <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sparta&groupId=660&placeId=1208">Sparta</a>, 141–2, thinks Nabis had enfranchised these mercenaries, and this may be implied in xiii. 6. 3 (cf. xvi. 13. 2), 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. </p>

Commentary