Polybius, Histories
Layout
Translation

Bibliography

(0)
No bibliography content available

Archaeology

Places

Book 23 - Chapter 12

1
<head lang="la">III. Res Graeciae</head><w lemma="%2Apolu%2Fbios">Πολύβιος</w>. <w lemma="%2A%28o">Ὁ</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29canasta%5Cs">ἐξαναστὰς</w> <w lemma="proh%3Dge">προῆγε</w>, <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="u%28po%5C">ὑπὸ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="a%29rrwsti%2Fas">ἀρρωστίας</w>, <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="u%28po%5C">ὑπὸ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="h%28liki%2Fas">ἡλικίας</w> <w lemma="baruno%2Fmenos:">βαρυνόμενος·</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dxe">εἶχε</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="e%28bdomhkosto%5Cn">ἑβδομηκοστὸν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Ftos">ἔτος</w>.
2
<w lemma="%2Apolu%2Fbios:">Πολύβιος·</w> <w lemma="diabiasa%2Fmenos">διαβιασάμενος</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29sqe%2Fneian">ἀσθένειαν</w> <w lemma="th%3D%7C">τῇ</w> <w lemma="sunhqei%2Fa%7C">συνηθείᾳ</w> <w lemma="th%3D%7C">τῇ</w> <w lemma="pro%5C">πρὸ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="parh%3Dn">παρῆν</w> <w lemma="e%29c">ἐξ</w> <w lemma="%2A%29%2Fargous">Ἄργους</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="%2Amega%2Flhn">Μεγάλην</w> <w lemma="po%2Flin">πόλιν</w> <w lemma="au%29qhmero%2Fn">αὐθημερόν</w>. —
3
<w lemma=""></w> <w lemma="%2A%28%2Foti">Ὅτι</w> <w lemma="%2Afilopoi%2Fmhn">Φιλοποίμην</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29axaiw%3Dn">Ἀχαιῶν</w> <w lemma="strathgo%5Cs">στρατηγὸς</w> <w lemma="sullhfqei%5Cs">συλληφθεὶς</w> <w lemma="u%28po%5C">ὑπὸ</w> <w lemma="%2Amesshni%2Fwn">Μεσσηνίων</w> <w lemma="a%29nh%7Cre%2Fqh">ἀνῃρέθη</w> <w lemma="farma%2Fkw%7C">φαρμάκῳ</w>, <w lemma="a%29nh%5Cr">ἀνὴρ</w> <w lemma="geno%2Fmenos">γενόμενος</w> <w lemma="ou%29deno%5Cs">οὐδενὸς</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="pro%5C">πρὸ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="kat%27">κατ᾽</w> <w lemma="a%29reth%5Cn">ἀρετὴν</w> <w lemma="deu%2Fteros">δεύτερος</w>, <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="tu%2Fxhs">τύχης</w> <w lemma="me%2Fntoi">μέντοι</w> <w lemma="g%27">γ᾽</w> <w lemma="h%28%2Fttwn">ἥττων</w>, <w lemma="kai%2Ftoi">καίτοι</w> <w lemma="do%2Fcas">δόξας</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="panti%5C">παντὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="pro%5C">πρὸ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="bi%2Fw%7C">βίῳ</w> <w lemma="sunergo%5Cn">συνεργὸν</w> <w lemma="e%29sxhke%2Fnai">ἐσχηκέναι</w> <w lemma="tau%2Fthn:">ταύτην·</w>
4
<w lemma="a%29lla%2F">ἀλλά</w> <w lemma="moi">μοι</w> <w lemma="dokei%3D">δοκεῖ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="koinh%5Cn">κοινὴν</w> <w lemma="paroimi%2Fan">παροιμίαν</w> <w lemma="eu%29tuxh%3Dsai">εὐτυχῆσαι</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fnqrwpon">ἄνθρωπον</w> <w lemma="o%29%2Fnta">ὄντα</w> <w lemma="dunato%2Fn">δυνατόν</w>, <w lemma="dieutuxh%3Dsai%2F">διευτυχῆσαί</w> <w lemma="ge">γε</w> <w lemma="mh%5Cn">μὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29du%2Fnaton:">ἀδύνατον·</w>
5
<w lemma="dio%5C">διὸ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="makariste%2Fon">μακαριστέον</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="progegono%2Ftwn">προγεγονότων</w> <w lemma="ou%29x">οὐχ</w> <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="dieutuxhko%2Ftas">διευτυχηκότας</w> <w lemma="tina%2Fs:">τινάς·</w> <w lemma="ti%2Fs">τίς</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="a%29na%2Fgkh">ἀνάγκη</w> <w lemma="yeudei%3D">ψευδεῖ</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgw%7C">λόγῳ</w> <w lemma="xrwme%2Fnois">χρωμένοις</w> <w lemma="matai%2Fws">ματαίως</w> <w lemma="proskunei%3Dn">προσκυνεῖν</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="tu%2Fxhn">τύχην</w>;
6
<w lemma="a%29lla%5C">ἀλλὰ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="plei%3Dston">πλεῖστον</w> <w lemma="xro%2Fnon">χρόνον</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="zh%3Dn">ζῆν</w> <w lemma="i%28%2Flewn">ἵλεων</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fxontas">ἔχοντας</w> <w lemma="tau%2Fthn">ταύτην</w>, <w lemma="ka%29%2Fn">κἄν</w> <w lemma="pote">ποτε</w> <w lemma="metanoh%3D%7C">μετανοῇ</w>, <w lemma="metri%2Fais">μετρίαις</w> <w lemma="peripeso%2Fntas">περιπεσόντας</w> <w lemma="sumforai%3Ds">συμφοραῖς</w>. — <w lemma="%2Amet">Μετ</w>.
7
<w lemma=""></w> <gap extent="8" /><w lemma="%2Aluko%2Frtan">Λυκόρταν</w>, <w lemma="o%28%5Cs">ὃς</w> <w lemma="h%29%3Dn">ἦν</w> <w lemma="ou%29de%5Cn">οὐδὲν</w> <w lemma="h%28%2Fttwn">ἥττων</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftou">τούτου</w>. —
8
<w lemma=""></w> <w lemma="%2A%28%2Foti">Ὅτι</w> <w lemma="%2Afilopoi%2Fmhn">Φιλοποίμην</w> <w lemma="tettara%2Fkont%27">τετταράκοντ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fth">ἔτη</w> <w lemma="sunexw%3Ds">συνεχῶς</w> <w lemma="filodoch%2Fsas">φιλοδοξήσας</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="dhmokratikw%3D%7C">δημοκρατικῷ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="polueidei%3D">πολυειδεῖ</w> <w lemma="politeu%2Fmati">πολιτεύματι</w>, <w lemma="pa%2Fnth%7C">πάντῃ</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fntws">πάντως</w> <w lemma="die%2Ffuge">διέφυγε</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="pollw%3Dn">πολλῶν</w> <w lemma="fqo%2Fnon">φθόνον</w>,
9
<w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="plei%3Don">πλεῖον</w> <w lemma="ou%29">οὐ</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="xa%2Frin">χάριν</w>, <w lemma="a%29lla%5C">ἀλλὰ</w> <w lemma="meta%5C">μετὰ</w> <w lemma="parrhsi%2Fas">παρρησίας</w> <w lemma="politeuo%2Fmenos:">πολιτευόμενος·</w> <w lemma="o%28%5C">ὃ</w> <w lemma="spani%2Fws">σπανίως</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="eu%28%2Froi">εὕροι</w> <w lemma="tis">τις</w> <w lemma="gegono%2Fs">γεγονός</w>. —
<head>V. Affairs of Greece</head><head>Philopoemen</head>Philopoemen arose and advanced although bowed down by sickness and the weight of years, being now in his seventieth year . . .
but on getting over his ailment he recovered his former activity and reached <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Megalopolis&groupId=745&placeId=1360">Megalopolis</a> from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Argos&groupId=361&placeId=689">Argos</a> in one day.
Philopoemen, the strategus of the Achaeans, was captured by the Messenians and put to death by poison. He was a man second to none of his predecessors in virtue, but succumbed to Fortune, although he was thought in all his previous life to have always been favoured by her.
But my opinion is that, as the vulgar proverb says, it is possible for a human being to be fortunate, but impossible for him to be constantly so.
Therefore we should regard some of our predecessors as blessed, not because they enjoyed constant good fortune — for what need is there by stating what is false to pay foolish worship to Fortune?
But they are blessed to whom Fortune was kind for the greater part of their lives,
and who, when she deserted them, only met with moderate misfortunes.
Philopoemen spent forty successive years in the pursue of glory in a democratic state composed of various elements,
and he avoided incurring the ill-will of the people in any way or on any occasion, although in his conduct of affairs he usually did not court favour but spoke his mind: a thing we seldom find.

Walbank Commentary

Overview
23.12.1 - 23.14.12
<p rend="Plain Text">Death of Philopoemen: the characters of Philopoemen, Hannibal, and Scipio Africanus</p> <p rend="Plain Text"> This section, a combination of extracts from de uirt. et uit., de sent., and Suidas, belongs to res Graeciae of Ol. 149, 2 = 183/2, and was the basis of Livy, xxxix. 49–50 (see p. 15). That Philopoemen, Hannibal, <milestone unit="page" n="235">[235]</milestone> and Scipio died in the same year is a fact widely recorded (cf. Livy, xxxix. 50. 10; Iustin. xxxii. 4. 9; Diod. xxix. 18–21, 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 Ol. 149, 2 (183/2), despite Livy, xxxix. 49–50, who puts Philopoemen's death in A.U.C. 571=183. It has been argued (cf. Niese, iii. 52 n. 4; Hoffmann, Hermes, 1938, 246; Fraccaro, 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, tudes, 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 disasters) is followed by 12. 3–7 and 12. 8–9 (on Philopoemen) and by 13. 2 (on Hannibal) and 14. 1–4 (on Scipio), and in the exc. de sent. 10. 3 (on Philip's conscience), 10. 15–16 (on his treatment of his enemies' children), and 11. 1–8 (his address to his sons) are followed by 12. 3–6 (on Philopoemen) and 14. 5–12 (on Scipio). Thus a displacement of fragments is excluded, and there can be no doubt that P. described the three deaths under Ol. 149, 2 (183/2). Consequently it must be Livy who has brought forward the account of Philopoemen's death; and indeed in xxxix. 48. 6 Livy explains that he proposes to neglect causas et ordinem of the Messenian war as irrelevant to Roman affairs: but one euentus memorabilis, Philopoemen's death, is given in chs. 49–50 because of its dramatic interest (cf. Aymard, tudes, 22). </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> 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. 50. 10), and this probably led him to consult Claudius (Nissen, KU, 340), for it was no doubt from him that he drew the information that P. Rutilius Rufusthe consul of 105, whom he nowhere else quotes (Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 387)had the same date for Scipio's death as had P. (Livy, xxxix. 52. 1). Such is the implication of the statement (Livy, xxxix. 50. 10) 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. 1, '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. 50. 11, 'adeo in aequo eum [sc. Philopoemenem] duarum potentissimarum gentium summis imperatoribus posuerunt') that he related this to Philopoemen's death. To what consulship Rutilius assigned this we <milestone unit="page" n="236">[236]</milestone> 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, Röm. Forsch. ii. 484, who regarded Rutilius' datehe assumes it to be 183as important independent evidence for that year). </p> <p rend="Plain Text">Livy was, however, aware that the synchronism raised problems, which is no doubt why he consulted Claudius. For earlier, following Valerius Antias (Livy, xxxviii. 50. 5) he had put Scipio's death in 187 (Livy, xxxviii. 53. 8), and added (Livy, xxxviii. 56. 1–2): '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. 14 n.), but he seems to have related its later stages in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Bithynia&groupId=402&placeId=748">Bithynia</a> 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 Italiae 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. 20. 2–3; App. Syr. 11; Paus. viii. 11. 11) was in P. (so De Sanctis, iv. 1. 259 n. 44; cf. Habicht, RE, 'Prusias (2)', col. 1103), he could have altered this.) Flamininus left <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> late in 183, reaching <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Achaea&groupId=272&placeId=533">Achaea</a> either just before or after Philopoemen entered on his generalship in autumn 183 (5. 15 n.); hence his arrival in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Bithynia&groupId=402&placeId=748">Bithynia</a> was at the earliest well into autumn 183, and Hannibal's death, whether then or in 182, would fall under Ol. 149, 2 = 183/2. Nepos, Hann. 13. 1 records that 'quibus consulibus interierit, non conuenit'; for Atticus put his death under M. Claudius Marcellus 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 (181). The last is clearly wrong; but although it is unlikely that P. specifically assigned Hannibal's death to a consulship, 182 would be the normal equivalent of Ol. 149, 2 = 183/2.</p> <p rend="Plain Text"> With Scipio Livy had more difficulties; and he therefore gave reasons for rejecting the dates of both P. (and Rutilius) and Valerius Antias (despite his earlier acceptance of his date in Livy, xxxviii. 53. 8). Valerius' date of 187 was ruled out because Scipio's accuser was M. Naevius, tribune in 184 (Livy, xxxix. 52. 3), 'aduersus quem oratio inscripta P. Africani est'. Against P. and Rutilius was the fact <milestone unit="page" n="237">[237]</milestone> that the censors M. Porcius Cato and L. Valerius Flaccus, who entered office in 184 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 Mommsen, Röm. 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 senatus in early 184 and having died before the 18 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 183. Scullard, Pol. 152 n. 1, assumes that it was in 183, and if he in fact died after August 183, his death would fall under Ol. 149, 2 = 183/2, which would fit P.'s synchronism. </p> <p rend="Plain Text">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. Mnzer, Hermes, 1905, 61 f.; Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 142–3). The dramatic date of the dialogue is 150, and Cato is made to say that Scipio 'cuius a morte tertius hic et tricesimus annus est . . . anno ante me censorem (184/3) mortuus est, nouem annis post meum consulatum (195)'. The thirtythird year before 150 is 183, the year before 184 is 185, and nine years after 195 bring one to 186. 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 183; 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 Ol. 148, 4 = 185/4. 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. 1–2 (L. Valerius princeps senatus), and that, as we have seen, is indecisive.</p> <p rend="Plain Text"> Summing up, it has been argued that P.'s synchronism referred to Ol. 149, 2 = 183/2, and that this is met by dating Scipio's death <milestone unit="page" n="238">[238]</milestone> before Oct. 183, Hannibal's late in 183 or early in 182, and Philopoemen's in May or June 182 (cf. Paus. iv. 29. 11, <w lang="el-GR">περὶ ἀκμὴν σίτου)</w>; 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 xxxix. 52. 1–2 an attempt is made to substitute 185 for Scipio's death. Both Mommsen (Röm. 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 with 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. </p> <p rend="Plain Text">See Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. ii. 482–7; Fraccaro, Opuscula, i. 385–92; Aymard, tudes, 22, 35–39; Hoffmann, Hermes, 1938, 244–8; Scullard, Pol. 152 n. 1; Scipio Soldier, 240 n. 179; Errington, 241–5.</p>
Specifics
23.12.1 - 23.12.1
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὁ δ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἐξαναστὰς προῆγε</w>:</emph> Plut. Philop. 18. 3, records that news reached Philopoemen that the Messenians were about to seize a place which he calls <w lang="el-GR">Κολωνίδα</w> (acc.) and Livy (xxxix. 49. 1) Corone (perhaps more likely; cf. Errington, 190 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 <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Argos&groupId=361&placeId=689">Argos</a>, hastened to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Megalopolis&groupId=745&placeId=1360">Megalopolis</a>, a distance of over 400 stades, in a day, taking his cavalry. <w lang="el-GR">ἐξαναστάς</w> (which Mauersberger translates 'aufbrechen') may therefore mean 'arising from his bed'. Plutarch represents Philopoemen's action as following immediately upon the Messenian revolt. But, as has been indicated (9. 8 n.), it is not clear what the Messenians did, whether before or after the Achaeans declared war on them in late summer, 183. Pausanias (iv. 29. 11–12, viii. 51. 5) records two Achaean expeditions sent to ravage <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Messenia&groupId=760&placeId=1380">Messenia</a>, the second under Lycortas being <w lang="el-GR">περὶ ἀκμὴν σίτου</w>; 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. 50. 7; Plut. Philop. 20. 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, 189–90). </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὑπὸ . . . ἀρρωστίας</w>:</emph> cf. Plut. Philop. 18. 7, <w lang="el-GR">διὰ τὴν ἀρρωστίαν τοῦ σώματος ἐνδεοῦς γεγονότος</w>. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">εἶχε γὰρ ἑβδομηκοστὸν ἔτος</w>:</emph> 'for he was now in his seventieth year'; cf. Plut. Philop. 18. 1, <w lang="el-GR">ἤδη δὲ γεγονὼς ἔτος ἑβδομηκοστόν, ὄγδοον δὲ τῶν</w> <milestone unit="page" n="239">[239]</milestone> <w lang="el-GR">Ἀχαιῶν στρατηγῶν</w>. The date of Philopoemen's birth is uncertain. In Plutarch (Philop. 5. 1), there is a reference to his being <w lang="el-GR">ἤδη . . . τριάκοντα ἔτη γεγονότος</w> during the autumn before <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sellasia&groupId=966&placeId=1714">Sellasia</a> (which was in 222; cf. ii. 65–69 n. (a)) and so in 223. This would put his birth within the period autumn 254autumn 253; but, taken literally, the present passage means that he was still 69 in May/June 182, 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 septuaginta annos iam natus, and Paus. viii. 51. 5 says <w lang="el-GR">πρόσω βεβιωκὼς ἑβδομήκοντα ἐτῶν</w>. 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 <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sellasia&groupId=966&placeId=1714">Sellasia</a>). See Errington, 246–7. </p> <p rend="Plain Text">In expressions with <w lang="el-GR">ἔχειν</w> denoting age P. uses ordinal numbers in only two other passages; these are x. 3. 4, <w lang="el-GR">ἑπτακαιδέκατον ἔτος</w>, and x. 6. 10, <w lang="el-GR">ἔτος . . . ἔβδομον ἔχων πρὸς τοῖς εἴκοσι</w>, and refer to Africanus' age at the battle of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ticinus&groupId=1038&placeId=1828">Ticinus</a> (218) and at the crossing of the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ebro&groupId=549&placeId=1031">Ebro</a> before he took <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a> (209). They are inconsistent with each other (cf. x. 3. 4 n.), whether taken literally as ordinals, making Scipio 16 and 26 respectively, or (as is more likely) as if they were equivalent to cardinals, making him 17 and 27 respectively. It is however noteworthy that of nine examples of the use of <w lang="el-GR">ἔχειν</w> with a cardinal number to express age (in the extant parts of P.) three are multiples of five or ten, viz. 20 (ii. 43. 3), 25 (xxii. 17. 7), and 90 (xxxvi. 16. 5), and three are 'more than' or 'not more than' such a multiple, viz. 'more than 45' (xv. 19. 3), 'not more than 30' (xviii. 12. 5), and 'more than 80' (xxx. 21. 2); the other three concern people under twenty years of age, viz. Philip V 'not more than 17' (iv. 5. 3, cf. 24. 1), Hannibal 9 (iii. 11. 5), Scipio Aemilianus, 'not more than 18' (xxxi. 24. 1). See also for 'round numbers' vii. 8. 7 (Hiero), 8. 9 (Gelo), xii. 16. 13 (cosmopolis at Locri), xx. 8. 1 (Antiochus). This may suggest that P. was not very interested in (or lacked information on) the exact age of people over twenty years of age, and was often content to record it to the nearest five years; in which case it is perhaps pointless to press a supposed distinction between 'seventy' and 'seventieth'. On age-rounding to five or ten years see R. P. Duncan-Jones, Chiron, 1977, 333–53.</p>
23.12.2 - 23.12.2
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐξ Ἄργους ἐς Μεγάλην πόλιν αὐθημερόν</w>:</emph> cf. § 1 n. From <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Megalopolis&groupId=745&placeId=1360">Megalopolis</a> Philopoemen rode south towards Corone, with a small cavalry troop raised from the most distinguished families: Plut. Philop. 18. 4. According to Paus. viii. 51. 6, they were 60 in number and accompanied by peltasts; Livy, xxxix. 49. 2, following P., mentions Thracian and Cretan mercenaries. The route took him near Messene. </p>
23.12.3 - 23.12.3
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">Φιλοποίμην . . . φαρμάκῳ</w>:</emph> the summary wording is that of the excerptor of de sent.; the text of the exc. de uirt. et uit. omits <milestone unit="page" n="240">[240]</milestone> <w lang="el-GR">συλληφθεὶς . . . φαρμάκῳ</w>. The ambush <w lang="el-GR">περὶ τὸν Εὐάνδρου λόφον</w> and Philopoemen's capture are described in Plutarch (Philop. 18. 4–8) and Livy (xxxix. 49. 1–6); the site is unknown and some scholars have emended <w lang="el-GR">Εὐάνδρου</w>, to <w lang="el-GR">Εὔαν</w>, 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. 50. 7–8; Plut. Philop. 20; Paus. viii. 51. 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, 192, suggests very plausibly that this represents 'a major 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. </p> <p rend="Plain Text">After Philopoemen's death P. seems to have related its sequel; cf. Livy, xxxix. 50. 9, 'non diuturnum mortis eius gaudium auctoribus crudelitatis fuit. uicta namque Messene bello exposcentibus Achaeis dedit noxios, ossaque reddita Philopoemenis sunt, et sepultus ab uniuerso Achaico est concilio, adeo omnibus humanis congestis honoribus ut ne diuinis quidem abstineretur.'</p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῆς τύχης . . . γ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἤττων</w>:</emph> cf. ix. 8. 13 on Epaminondas; Vol. I, p. 24; Diod. xxix. 18, <w lang="el-GR">ἀγνώμονι τύχῃ συγκεχρημένος</w>?. </p>
23.12.4 - 23.12.4
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">εὐτυχῆσαι . . . δυνατόν, κτλ</w>:</emph> a commonplace; cf. iii. 31. 3 n.; von Scala, 167 n. 1, who suggests an echo of Euripides or Menander (but his argument that <w lang="el-GR">διευτυχεῖν</w> is non-Polybian is invalid, since it occurs in fg. 12; for its use in Menander cf. CAF, iii. p. 155 no. 531 l. 3; cf. Wunderer, i. 22, who however thinks P. has used Chrysippus' <w lang="el-GR">παροιμίαι)</w>. </p>
23.12.5 - 23.12.5
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τίς γὰρ ἀνάγκη . . . προσκυνεῖν τὴν τύχην</w>;:</emph> cf. xviii. 28. 5 and, for limitations on the field which P. would leave open to Tyche, Vol. I, p. 22. </p>
23.12.7 - 23.12.7
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">Μετ . . . | Λυκόρταν</w>:</emph> Bttner-Wobst suggests <w lang="el-GR">μετὰ δ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">εἵλοντο Λυκόρταν</w> (following Kaelker but with <w lang="el-GR">δ</w>f in place of <w lang="el-GR">δέ)</w>; in that case the reference is to the choice of Lycortas as general to succeed Philopoemen; cf. Plut. Philop. 21. 1, <w lang="el-GR">οἱ δ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἐν ἡλικίᾳ μετὰ τῶν προβούλων συνελθόντες εἰς Μεγάλην πόλιν οὐδ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἡντινοῦν ἀναβολὴν ἐποιήσαντο τῆς τιμωρίας, ἀλλ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἑ?λόμενοι στρατηγὸν Λυκόρταν εἰς τὴν Μεσσηνίαν ἐνέβαλον</w>. Presumably Archon, as general for 184/3 (cf. xxii. 19. 1), took over until an election could be held (as the law required: xxxviii. 15. 1–2); cf. Aymard, ACA, 211. Larsen, 178, suggests that the probouloi 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. <milestone unit="page" n="241">[241]</milestone> </p>
23.12.8 - 23.12.8
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τετταράκοντ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἔτη συνεχῶς</w>:</emph> cf. Diod. xxix. 18; this is calculating from c. 222; and it was in autumn 223 that Philopoemen made his first recorded appearance, leading the survivors to safety in Messene after Cleomenes' attack on <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Megalopolis&groupId=745&placeId=1360">Megalopolis</a> (Plut. Philop. 5. 1–2; cf. ii. 55. 2–7 n.). Philopoemen was then 30 (above § 1 n.); he was thus 70 at the time of his death. See above, 12. 1–14. 12 n., 12. 1 n. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐν δημοκρατικῷ καὶ πολυειδεῖ πολιτεύματι</w>:</emph> on Achaean democracy see ii. 38. 6; Musti, Annali di <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Pisa&groupId=904&placeId=1625">Pisa</a>, 1967, 164. <w lang="el-GR">πολυειδής</w> here means 'composed of various elements', not specifically 'of various political forms' (Ernesti), which is the characteristic of the mikte, nor yet (as Schweighaeuser, Lex. Polyb. s.v.) 'res publica . . . uarias mutationes experta, uaria fortuna usa, uario in statu uersata'. Aymard, ACA, 336 n. 1, has no good reason to think the expression is pejorative. The contrast with Scipio <w lang="el-GR">φιλοδοξήσας ἐν ἀριστοκρατικῷ πολιτεύματι</w> (14. 1 n.) suggests that Hannibal exemplified a monarchic type of <w lang="el-GR">φιλοδοξία</w>; and though there is nothing to confirm this in the surviving fragments on Hannibal, it seems probable. </p> <p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸν τῶν πολλῶν φθόνον</w>:</emph> cf. xxxiii. 20; von Scala, 43–44 n. Diod. xxix. 18 has a rather longer passage on Philopoemen, based on P. and concluding with the honours paid him in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Achaea&groupId=272&placeId=533">Achaea</a> and especially in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Megalopolis&groupId=745&placeId=1360">Megalopolis</a> (see below, xxxix. 3. 1 n.). </p>

Commentary