Polybius, Histories

Translation

Book 29 - Chapter 27

<w lemma="%2A%28%2Foti">Ὅτι</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="%2A%29antio%2Fxou">Ἀντιόχου</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="%2Aptolemai%3Don">Πτολεμαῖον</w> <w lemma="e%28%2Fneken">ἕνεκεν</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="%2Aphlou%2Fsion">Πηλούσιον</w> <w lemma="katasxei%3Dn">κατασχεῖν</w> <w lemma="a%29fikome%2Fnou">ἀφικομένου</w>,

<w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="%2Apopi%2Flios">Ποπίλιος</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%2Fwn">Ῥωμαίων</w> <w lemma="strathgo%2Fs">στρατηγός</w>, <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="basile%2Fws">βασιλέως</w> <w lemma="po%2Frrwqen">πόρρωθεν</w> <w lemma="a%29spazome%2Fnou">ἀσπαζομένου</w> <w lemma="dia%5C">διὰ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="fwnh%3Ds">φωνῆς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="decia%5Cn">δεξιὰν</w> <w lemma="protei%2Fnontos">προτείνοντος</w>, <w lemma="pro%2Fxeiron">πρόχειρον</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fxwn">ἔχων</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="delta%2Frion">δελτάριον</w>, <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="w%28%3D%7C">ᾧ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="sugklh%2Ftou">συγκλήτου</w> <w lemma="do%2Fgma">δόγμα</w> <w lemma="katete%2Ftakto">κατετέτακτο</w>, <w lemma="prou%2Fteinen">προύτεινεν</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3D%7C">αὐτῷ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%3Dt%27">τοῦτ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29ke%2Fleuse">ἐκέλευσε</w> <w lemma="prw%3Dton">πρῶτον</w> <w lemma="a%29nagnw%3Dnai">ἀναγνῶναι</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29anti%2Foxon">Ἀντίοχον</w>,

<w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="e%29moi%5C">ἐμοὶ</w> <w lemma="dokei%3D">δοκεῖ</w>, <w lemma="mh%5C">μὴ</w> <w lemma="pro%2Fteron">πρότερον</w> <w lemma="a%29ciw%2Fsas">ἀξιώσας</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="fili%2Fas">φιλίας</w> <w lemma="su%2Fnqhma">σύνθημα</w> <w lemma="poiei%3Dn">ποιεῖν</w> <w lemma="pri%5Cn">πρὶν</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="proai%2Fresin">προαίρεσιν</w> <w lemma="e%29pignw%3Dnai">ἐπιγνῶναι</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="decioume%2Fnou">δεξιουμένου</w>, <w lemma="po%2Ftera">πότερα</w> <w lemma="fi%2Flios">φίλιος</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="pole%2Fmio%2Fs">πολέμιός</w> <w lemma="e%29stin">ἐστιν</w>.

<w lemma="e%29pei%5C">ἐπεὶ</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="basileu%5Cs">βασιλεὺς</w> <w lemma="a%29nagnou%5Cs">ἀναγνοὺς</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Ffh">ἔφη</w> <w lemma="bou%2Flesqai">βούλεσθαι</w> <w lemma="metadou%3Dnai">μεταδοῦναι</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="fi%2Flois">φίλοις</w> <w lemma="u%28pe%5Cr">ὑπὲρ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="prospeptwko%2Ftwn">προσπεπτωκότων</w>, <w lemma="a%29kou%2Fsas">ἀκούσας</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="%2Apopi%2Flios">Ποπίλιος</w> <w lemma="e%29poi%2Fhse">ἐποίησε</w> <w lemma="pra%3Dgma">πρᾶγμα</w> <w lemma="baru%5C">βαρὺ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="dokou%3Dn">δοκοῦν</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dnai">εἶναι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tele%2Fws">τελέως</w> <w lemma="u%28perh%2Ffanon:">ὑπερήφανον·</w>

<w lemma="e%29%2Fxwn">ἔχων</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="pro%2Fxeiron">πρόχειρον</w> <w lemma="a%29mpeli%2Fnhn">ἀμπελίνην</w> <w lemma="bakthri%2Fan">βακτηρίαν</w> <w lemma="perie%2Fgrafe">περιέγραφε</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="klh%2Fmati">κλήματι</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29anti%2Foxon">Ἀντίοχον</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftw%7C">τούτῳ</w> <w lemma="te">τε</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="gu%2Frw%7C">γύρῳ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29po%2Ffasin">ἀπόφασιν</w> <w lemma="e%29ke%2Fleuse">ἐκέλευσε</w> <w lemma="dou%3Dnai">δοῦναι</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="gegramme%2Fnwn:">γεγραμμένων·</w>

<w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="basileu%5Cs">βασιλεὺς</w> <w lemma="cenisqei%5Cs">ξενισθεὶς</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="gino%2Fmenon">γινόμενον</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="u%28peroxh%2Fn">ὑπεροχήν</w>, <w lemma="braxu%5Cn">βραχὺν</w> <w lemma="xro%2Fnon">χρόνον</w> <w lemma="e%29naporh%2Fsas">ἐναπορήσας</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Ffh">ἔφη</w> <w lemma="poih%2Fsein">ποιήσειν</w> <w lemma="pa%3Dn">πᾶν</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="parakalou%2Fmenon">παρακαλούμενον</w> <w lemma="u%28po%5C">ὑπὸ</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%2Fwn">Ῥωμαίων</w>. <w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2Apopi%2Flion">Ποπίλιον</w> <w lemma="to%2Fte">τότε</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="decia%5Cn">δεξιὰν</w> <w lemma="au%29tou%3D">αὐτοῦ</w> <w lemma="lamba%2Fnontes">λαμβάνοντες</w> <w lemma="a%28%2Fma">ἅμα</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fntes">πάντες</w> <w lemma="h%29spa%2Fzonto">ἠσπάζοντο</w> <w lemma="filofro%2Fnws">φιλοφρόνως</w>.

<w lemma="h%29%3Dn">ἦν</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="gegramme%2Fna">γεγραμμένα</w> <w lemma="lu%2Fein">λύειν</w> <w lemma="e%29c">ἐξ</w> <w lemma="au%29th%3Ds">αὐτῆς</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="%2Aptolemai%3Don">Πτολεμαῖον</w> <w lemma="po%2Flemon">πόλεμον</w>.

<w lemma="dio%5C">διὸ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="doqeisw%3Dn">δοθεισῶν</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3D%7C">αὐτῷ</w> <w lemma="taktw%3Dn">τακτῶν</w> <w lemma="h%28merw%3Dn">ἡμερῶν</w>, <w lemma="ou%28%3Dtos">οὗτος</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="a%29ph%3Dge">ἀπῆγε</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="duna%2Fmeis">δυνάμεις</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2Asuri%2Fan">Συρίαν</w>, <w lemma="baruno%2Fmenos">βαρυνόμενος</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ste%2Fnwn">στένων</w>, <w lemma="ei%29%2Fkwn">εἴκων</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="kairoi%3Ds">καιροῖς</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="paro%2Fn:">παρόν·</w>

<w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2Apopi%2Flion">Ποπίλιον</w> <w lemma="katasthsa%2Fmenoi">καταστησάμενοι</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29aleca%2Fndreian">Ἀλεξάνδρειαν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="parakale%2Fsantes">παρακαλέσαντες</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="basilei%3Ds">βασιλεῖς</w> <w lemma="o%28monoei%3Dn">ὁμονοεῖν</w>, <w lemma="a%28%2Fma">ἅμα</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="prosta%2Fcantes">προστάξαντες</w> <w lemma="au%29toi%3Ds">αὐτοῖς</w> <w lemma="%2Apolua%2Fraton">Πολυάρατον</w> <w lemma="a%29nape%2Fmpein">ἀναπέμπειν</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rw%2Fmhn">Ῥώμην</w>, <w lemma="a%29ne%2Fpleusan">ἀνέπλευσαν</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="%2Aku%2Fprou">Κύπρου</w>, <w lemma="boulo%2Fmenoi">βουλόμενοι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="e%29kei%3D">ἐκεῖ</w> <w lemma="kaquparxou%2Fsas">καθυπαρχούσας</w> <w lemma="duna%2Fmeis">δυνάμεις</w> <w lemma="e%29kbalei%3Dn">ἐκβαλεῖν</w> <w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="nh%2Fsou">νήσου</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="spoudh%2Fn">σπουδήν</w>.

<w lemma="a%29fiko%2Fmenoi">ἀφικόμενοι</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="katalabo%2Fntes">καταλαβόντες</w> <w lemma="h%28tthme%2Fnous">ἡττημένους</w> <w lemma="ma%2Fxh%7C">μάχῃ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="%2Aptolemai%2Fou">Πτολεμαίου</w> <w lemma="strathgou%5Cs">στρατηγοὺς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="kaqo%2Flou">καθόλου</w> <w lemma="fero%2Fmena">φερόμενα</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2Aku%2Fpron">Κύπρον</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fnw">ἄνω</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ka%2Ftw">κάτω</w> <w lemma="taxe%2Fws">ταχέως</w> <w lemma="a%29ne%2Fsthsan">ἀνέστησαν</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="strato%2Fpedon">στρατόπεδον</w> <w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="xw%2Fras">χώρας</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="parh%2Fdreusan">παρήδρευσαν</w>, <w lemma="e%28%2Fws">ἕως</w> <w lemma="a%29pe%2Fpleusan">ἀπέπλευσαν</w> <w lemma="ai%28">αἱ</w> <w lemma="duna%2Fmeis">δυνάμεις</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Asuri%2Fas">Συρίας</w>.

<w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%3Doi">Ῥωμαῖοι</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Fson">ὅσον</w> <w lemma="ou%29%2Fpw">οὔπω</w> <w lemma="katapeponhme%2Fnhn">καταπεπονημένην</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2Aptolemai%2Fou">Πτολεμαίου</w> <w lemma="basilei%2Fan">βασιλείαν</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftw%7C">τούτῳ</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="tro%2Fpw%7C">τρόπῳ</w> <w lemma="die%2Fswsan">διέσωσαν</w>,

<w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="tu%2Fxhs">τύχης</w> <w lemma="ou%28%2Ftw">οὕτω</w> <w lemma="brabeuou%2Fshs">βραβευούσης</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2Aperse%2Fa">Περσέα</w> <w lemma="pra%2Fgmata">πράγματα</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="%2Amakedo%2Fnas">Μακεδόνας</w> <w lemma="w%28%2Fste">ὥστε</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fsxaton">ἔσχατον</w> <w lemma="kairo%5Cn">καιρὸν</w> <w lemma="e%29lqo%2Fnta">ἐλθόντα</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29aleca%2Fndreian">Ἀλεξάνδρειαν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Flhn">ὅλην</w> <w lemma="%2Aai%29%2Fgupton">Αἴγυπτον</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="tou%3Dto">τοῦτο</w> <w lemma="pa%2Flin">πάλιν</w> <w lemma="o%29rqwqh%3Dnai">ὀρθωθῆναι</w>, <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="fqa%2Fsai">φθάσαι</w> <w lemma="kriqe%2Fnta">κριθέντα</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2Aperse%2Fa">Περσέα</w> <w lemma="pra%2Fgmata:">πράγματα·</w>

<w lemma="mh%5C">μὴ</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="genome%2Fnou">γενομένου</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftou">τούτου</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pisteuqe%2Fntos">πιστευθέντος</w>, <w lemma="ou%29k">οὐκ</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fn">ἄν</w> <w lemma="moi">μοι</w> <w lemma="dokei%3D">δοκεῖ</w> <w lemma="peiqarxh%3Dsai">πειθαρχῆσαι</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="e%29pitattome%2Fnois">ἐπιταττομένοις</w> <w lemma="%2A%29anti%2Foxos">Ἀντίοχος</w>.

At the time when Antiochus approached Ptolemy and meant to occupy <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Pelusium&groupId=863&placeId=1555">Pelusium</a>, Caius Popilius Laenas, the Roman commander, on Antiochus greeting him from a distance and then holding out his hand, handed to the king, as he had it by him, the copy of the senatus-consultum, and told him to read it first, not thinking it proper, as it seems to me, to make the conventional sign of friendship before he knew if the intentions of him who was greeting him were friendly or hostile.

But when the king, after reading it, said he would like to communicate with his friends about this intelligence, Popilius acted in a manner which was thought to be offensive and exceedingly arrogant.

He was carrying a stick cut from a vine, and with this he drew a circle round Antiochus and told him he must remain inside this circle until he gave his decision about the contents of the letter.

The king was astonished at this authoritative proceeding, but, after a few moments' hesitation, said he would do all that the Romans demanded. Upon this Popilius and his suite all grasped him by the hand and greeted him warmly.

The letter ordered him to put an end at once to the war with Ptolemy.

So, as a fixed number of days were allowed to him, he led his army back to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Syria&groupId=995&placeId=502">Syria</a>, deeply hurt and complaining indeed, but yielding to circumstances for the present.

Popilius after arranging matters in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Alexandria&groupId=1063&placeId=1868">Alexandria</a> and exhorting the two kings there to act in common, ordering them also to send Polyaratus to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, sailed for <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cyprus&groupId=119&placeId=356">Cyprus</a>, wishing to lose no time in expelling the Syrian troops that were in the island.

When they arrived, finding that Ptolemy\'s generals had been defeated and that the affairs of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cyprus&groupId=119&placeId=356">Cyprus</a> were generally in a topsy-turvy state, they soon made the Syrian army retire from the country, and waited until the troops took ship for <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Syria&groupId=995&placeId=502">Syria</a>.

In this way the Romans saved the kingdom of Ptolemy, which had almost been crushed out of existence:

Fortune having so directed the matter of Perseus and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Macedonia&groupId=723&placeId=428">Macedonia</a> that when the position of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Alexandria&groupId=1063&placeId=1868">Alexandria</a> and the whole of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> was almost desperate, all was again set right simply owing to the fact that the fate of Perseus had been decided.

For had this not been so, and had not Antiochus been certain of it, he would never, I think, have obeyed the Roman behests.

Walbank Commentary

Overview

29.27.1 - 29.27.13

C. Popillius Laenas' meeting with Antiochus IV near Eleusis This excerpt from de legat. Rom. forms part of res Aegypti of Ol. 152, 4 = 169/8 (see p. 30) and corresponds to Livy, xlv. 12. 3–8; cf. Diod. xxxi. 2. Livy, xlv. 11. 9–11, following P., relates that Antiochus sent his fleet to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cyprus&groupId=119&placeId=356">Cyprus</a> and at the beginning of spring (168) advanced through <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Coele-Syria&groupId=484&placeId=908">Coele-Syria</a> to Rhinocoloura, where he presented Ptolemy's envoys with an ultimatum to cede <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cyprus&groupId=119&placeId=356">Cyprus</a> and the area round <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Pelusium&groupId=863&placeId=1555">Pelusium</a>. He granted a truce, and when it expired he marched south per deserta Arabiae to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Memphis&groupId=752&placeId=1371">Memphis</a>, and thence by easy stages towards <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Alexandria&groupId=1063&placeId=1868">Alexandria</a> (Livy, xlv. 12. 1–2). P. Teb. iii. 1. 781 mentions the destruction at this time of a temple of Amon at Moeris in the Fayum (cf. Otto, 6. Ptolemer, 57, 79 n. 3; Mrkholm, 92–93). Meanwhile news of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Pydna&groupId=919&placeId=1647">Pydna</a> reached C. Popillius at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Delos&groupId=533&placeId=1004">Delos</a>, and he at once left with his fellow-envoys for <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> (Livy, xlv. 10. 1–3); during a five days stay at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rhodes&groupId=931&placeId=1665">Rhodes</a> Popillius uttered a violent and alarming <milestone unit="page" n="403">[403]</milestone> denunciation of Rhodian policy, and his colleague C. Decimius urged the Rhodians to punish the 'guilty' (Livy, xlv. 10. 4–15). The meeting between Popillius and Antiochus thus took place in early July 168 (cf. Otto, 6. Ptolemer, 79 n. 4), or perhaps a week or so later, if the immobilization of the Macedonian fleet had to be ensured before the Roman envoys left <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Delos&groupId=533&placeId=1004">Delos</a> (so Mitford, Studi Calderini e Paribeni, ii. 170 n. 33). This date is confirmed by inscriptions on two ostraca from North Saqqra (J. D. Ray, The Archive of Hor (London, 1976), 14–29), one of which (Text 2) gives an alleged prophecy by one Hor of Sebennytus that Antiochus would leave <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> by sea before 'Year 2, Payni, final day' = 30 July 168, and the second of which (Text 3) contains Hor's assertion that Antiochus did leave <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Pelusium&groupId=863&placeId=1555">Pelusium</a> on that day, there described as 'Year 13 (i.e. of Philometor alone), Payni, final day'. The date on which Hor reported his prophecy to Hrynys (? Hellenius or Eirenaeus), the cavalry strategos, is given as 11 July 168 (Text 2, twice) or 1 July 168 (Text 3); the prophecy would be more impressive if Popillius' arrival (or knowledge of it where Hor and Hrynys were) was still in the future. The ultimatum given to Antiochus was famous. See Vell. i. 10. 1; Val. Max. vi. 4. 3; App. Syr. 66; Porphyry, FGH, 260 F 50 (= Hier. in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Dan&groupId=122&placeId=359">Dan</a>. xi. 30); Pliny, Nat. hist. xxxiv. 24 (confused); Iustin. xxxiv. 3. 1–4 (with embellishments); Plut. Mor. 202 F; it occurs as an exemplum in Cic. Phil. viii. 23. See further Niese, iii. 175; De Sanctis, iv. 1. 335–6; Mrkholm, 94–96; Volkmann, RE, 'Popillius (18)', col. 58.

Specifics

29.27.1 - 29.27.1

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοῦ Ἀντιό?χου . . . ἀφικομένου</w>:</emph> the excerptor's words (Reiske), and as they stand nonsensical (Nissen, KU, 16); the context can be recovered from Livy, xlv. 12. 1, 'nauigantibus ostio Nili ad <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Pelusium&groupId=863&placeId=1555">Pelusium</a> 〈praefectis, ipse〉 per deserta Arabiae 〈est profectus receptusque et ab iis qui〉 ad Memphim incolebant, et ab ceteris Aegyptiis, partim uoluntate partim metu, ad Alexandream modicis itineribus descendit. ad Eleusinem transgresso flumen, qui locus quattuor milia ab Alexandrea abest, legati Romani occurrerunt.' Eleusis was a suburb of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Alexandria&groupId=1063&placeId=1868">Alexandria</a>, lying about 1,500 m. south-east of the Canopic Gate on the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Nile&groupId=794&placeId=449">Nile</a> canal, at the point where it bends slightly to the north before entering the city proper; it is almost exactly four Roman miles (5,920 m.) from the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Pharos&groupId=879&placeId=1586">Pharos</a>, and directly on the route of anyone arriving from upper and central <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a>. See the plan in Puchstein, RE, '<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Alexandria&groupId=1063&placeId=1868">Alexandria</a>', cols. 1379–80; Strabo, xvii. 1. 16, C. 800; Schiff, RE, 'Eleusis (4)', cols. 2339–42; Fraser, Alex. i. 200–1 (on the map facing p. 8 it is on the site of the zoological garden).

29.27.2 - 29.27.2

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὁ Ποπίλιος</w>:</emph> C. Popillius Laenas. On his dispatch from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> see 2. 1–4, and, for his movements after leaving <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Delos&groupId=533&placeId=1004">Delos</a>, 27. 1–13 n. He was a legatus: <w lang="el-GR">ὁ τῶν Ῥωμαί?ων στρατηγός</w> are the excerptor's words. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸ τῆς συγκλήτου δόγμα</w>:</emph> the senatus consultum was evidently <milestone unit="page" n="404">[404]</milestone> passed before Popillius left <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, but its delivery had been delayed until after <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Pydna&groupId=919&placeId=1647">Pydna</a> (Livy, xlv. 10. 2–3); for its contents see § 7.

29.27.3 - 29.27.3

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸ τῆς φιλίας σύνθημα</w>:</emph> 'the conventional sign of friendship', i.e. by taking his outstretched hand (cf. § 6).

29.27.4 - 29.27.4

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">μεταδοῦναι τοῖς φίλοις</w>:</emph> 'to confer with his Friends'; on the <w lang="el-GR">φίλοι</w> of the Seleucid court see v. 50. 9 n., viii. 21. 1 n.

29.27.5 - 29.27.5

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀμπελίνην βακτηρίαν</w>:</emph> carried either as a walking-stick, commonly used by travellers (so Mrkholm, 95), or more probably as a badge of his office as legatus (cf. de Waele, RE, 'Stab', col. 1901, where however Popillius is called a consul and unwarranted conclusions are consequently drawn about the carrying of staffs by consuls). Livy, xlv. 12. 5, renders 'uirga, quam in manu gerebat'. P. goes on to refer to it as <w lang="el-GR">κλῆμα</w>, which is the equivalent of the Latin uitis, the centurion's staff (cf. Plut. Galba, 26. 5), and this supports the second interpretation. The argument of A. Cameron (CR, 1928, 127; cf. W. R. Halliday, ibid. 172) that the encircling of Antiochus represented an eastern practice, originally with magic implications, by which a creditor compelled a reluctant debtor to pay his debt or give surety, seems very unconvincing.

29.27.6 - 29.27.6

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">οἱ . . . περὶ τὸν Ποπίλιον</w>:</emph> the addition of <w lang="el-GR">πάντες</w> shows this to be a genuine plural. For Popillius' companions see 2. 1–4 n.; they were C. Decimius and C. Hostilius.

29.27.8 - 29.27.8

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">δοθεισῶν αὐτῷ τακτῶν ἡμερῶν</w>:</emph> presumably this was stated in the senatus consultum.

29.27.9 - 29.27.9

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">Πολυάρατον ἀναπέμπειν εἰς Ῥώμην</w>:</emph> leader with Deinon of the anti-Roman group; cf. xxvii. 7. 4 n. He had evidently fled from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rhodes&groupId=931&placeId=1665">Rhodes</a> to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a>, probably before Popillius put in at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rhodes&groupId=931&placeId=1665">Rhodes</a> on his way to interview Antiochus (see 27. 1–13 n.); his position would in any case have been untenable after the speeches of Popillius and C. Decimius, who called upon the Rhodians, si sana mens populo foret, to visit their guilt on capita noxiorum, an invitation to carry out a purge which the Rhodians accepted with alacrity, those who did not commit suicide being condemned to death (Livy, xlv. 10. 6–14: Livy calls Decimius' speech moderatior). For P.'s own view of the conduct of Deinon and Polyaratus, and on Polyaratus' fate, see xxx. 8–9. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀνέπλευσαν ἐπὶ τῆς Κύπρου κτλ</w>.:</emph> it was probably still July. Antiochus had sent his fleet to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cyprus&groupId=119&placeId=356">Cyprus</a> in early spring (cf. Livy, xlv. 11. 9); the cession of that island was among the demands presented to Ptolemy VI (Livy, xlv. 11. 11) and Antiochus had already made sure of it. His fleet probably sailed there in April (cf. Otto, 6. Ptolemer, 78 n. 4) and it defeated the Egyptian navy (Livy, xlv. 12. 7, 'iam uicerat proelio Aegyptias naues'; see the next note). Against the argument of J. N. Svoronos, <w lang="el-GR">Τὰ νομίσματα τοῦ κράτους τῶν Πτολεμαίων</w> (<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Athens&groupId=379&placeId=715">Athens</a>, 1904) ii. 233, that two coins there listed <milestone unit="page" n="405">[405]</milestone> (nos. 1420–1) were coined in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cyprus&groupId=119&placeId=356">Cyprus</a> during Antiochus' brief occupation, see Mrkholm, ANSMN, 1964, 58 ff., who shows them to be from a Cilician mint (cf. Mrkholm, 95 n. 26).

29.27.10 - 29.27.10

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">καταλαβόντες ἡττημένους μάχῃ κτλ</w>.:</emph> Otto (6. Ptolemer, 78 n. 4) sees a reference to the naval defeat (see previous note); whereas Mitford (Studi Calderini e Paribeni, ii. 171 n. 35) takes the <w lang="el-GR">στρατηγοί</w> to be local officers of garrisons who held out after Ptolemy Macron, the governor (cf. xxvii. 13. 1 n.), capitulated. But <w lang="el-GR">ἡττημένους μάχῃ</w> is not a description of sporadic resistance by several garrisons, and more likely refers to a single land battle involving Macron and his various officers. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀνέστησαν τὸ στρατόπεδον</w>:</emph> 'they expelled the (Syrian) army.'

29.27.12 - 29.27.12

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῆς τύχης οὕτω βραβευούσης κτλ</w>.:</emph> for the intervention of Tyche to save <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> by destroying Perseus and inflicting almost equal humiliation on Antiochus see xv. 20. 8 nn. For P.'s use of <w lang="el-GR">βραβεύειν</w> (cf. <w lang="el-GR">βραβευτής)</w>, 'to arbitrate, decide, and so control', in relation to Tyche see i. 58. 1 n.; von Scala, 172. Siegfried, 73, rightly stresses the irrational and incalculable character of Tyche's action; but it is at the same time part of the retribution exacted from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Syria&groupId=995&placeId=502">Syria</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Macedonia&groupId=723&placeId=428">Macedonia</a> for the compact made by Philip V and Antiochus III against Ptolemy Vso inseparable are the nuances which P. attributes to this word. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">φθάσαι κριθέντα</w>:</emph> 'was decided first'. Livy, xlv. 12. 8, paraphrases: 'clara ea per gentis legatio fuit, quod haud dubie adempta Antiocho Aegyptus habenti iam redditumque patrium regnum stirpi Ptolomaei fuerat.' He then goes over to an annalistic source, indicating that P.'s account of res Aegypti for Ol. 152, 4 = 169/8 finished at this point. Appendix: the Achaean assemblies <emph rend="bold">I</emph> Since the Achaean meetings recorded in xxix. 23–25 are among the most important evidence for the character of the Achaean assemblies in the second century, this is an appropriate place to review recent work on this much-discussed problem. The basic studies are now A. Aymard, ACA, and Larsen, 165–88. Larsen challenged Aymard's view that the synodos was a primary assembly, arguing that, from a date towards the end of the third century, the Achaean assembly ceased to have regular meetings and only came together when, according to carefully defined rules, a special meeting of the primary assembly was called; the four annual synodoi were meetings of the Council (boule) together with the magistrates (cf. ii. 37. 10 n., pp. 219–20). Larsen reaffirmed this view in Class. Phil. 1972, 178–85, replying to A. Giovannini, who had argued (Mus. Helv. 1969, 1–17) <milestone unit="page" n="406">[406]</milestone> that the synodoi continued to be meetings of the primary assembly (along with the Council and magistrates) down to the dissolution of the Confederacy. In a reply to Giovannini (Mus. Helv. 1970, 129–43) I raised some objections and stated that Larsen's theory 'still seems to me the most convincing', though 'no theory yet put forward solves every difficulty to everyone's satisfaction' (op. cit. 129). Further concern with the problem, encouraged by discussion with G. T. Griffith, has since led me to a different conclusion, and one nearer to Giovannini's, though his account is, in my opinion, partly vitiated by his unwillingness to distinguish adequately between synodoi and syncletoi. Larsen's theory accounts for much of the evidence, but leaves some serious difficulties. (a) P.'s use of such expressions as <w lang="el-GR">ὄχλος, οἱ πολλοί, τὸ πλῆθος</w> of the people attending a synodos is anomalous if this was a meeting of the Council (cf. Giovannini, Mus. Helv. 1969, 8 nn. 44–48). This objection can be circumvented by the hypothesis that the new boule-synodoi were not substantially smaller than the earlier ecclesiasynodoi, with a depleted attendance (an explanation I accepted in Mus. Helv. 1970, 142). (b) Larsen argued that membership of the Achaean assembly was limited to men of thirty and over (a view resting on a common interpretation of xxix. 24. 6: see below, p. 409). But this assumption runs up against several passages which imply that the Achaean army, drawn from all adult citizens and in the nature of things containing a preponderance of young men, occasionally acted as the equivalent of an assembly. These are the relevant passages: (i) iv. 7. 5 (220), <w lang="el-GR">ἐψηφίσαντο . . . συνάγειν τὸν στρατηγὸν τοὺς Ἀχαιοὺς ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις</w> <emph rend="italics">\?\</emph> <w lang="el-GR">ὃ δ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἂν τοῖς συνελθοῦσι βουλομένοις δόξῃ, τοῦτ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">εἶναι κύριον</w>. Following Aymard (ACA, 220 f.) Larsen, 80, argued that the army was given special authority for this occasion. (ii) iv. 72. 5–7 (219/18): Philip calls the Achaean troops together to receive the gift of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Psophis&groupId=917&placeId=1646">Psophis</a>; Aymard, ACA, 234 f., argues convincingly that the army had some sort of authority to receive this gift. (iii) x. 22. 8–9 (before 210): if hipparchs before the year of Philopoemen's office canvassed <w lang="el-GR">τοὺς νέους</w> for their support in gaining the generalship, this most naturally suggests that they participated in elections (cf. Giovannini, Mus. Helv. 1969, 9). It is true that <w lang="el-GR">οἱ νέοι</w> often simply means 'soldiers' (cf. Walbank, Mus. Helv. 1970, 139); but that does not invalidate Giovannini's argument, since most of these men would in fact be under thirty. (iv) Livy, xxxviii. 33. 11 (Polybian) (188): the Achaean army exercises judicial functions and executes some Lacedaemonians. (v) Plut. Philop. 21. 1 (182): following Philopoemen's death <w lang="el-GR">οἱ</w> . . . <milestone unit="page" n="407">[407]</milestone> <w lang="el-GR">ἐν ἡλικίᾳ μετὰ τῶν προβούλων</w> gather at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Megalopolis&groupId=745&placeId=1360">Megalopolis</a> and elect a general. The source is probably P. and Casaubon and Schweighaeuser printed the passage as a Polybian fragment. <w lang="el-GR">οἱ . . . ἐν ἡλικίᾳ</w> might just possibly mean 'those of age to attend the assembly' (assuming an age limit of thirty), but the more natural sense (cf. Larsen, 178) is 'those of military age'. Larsen argued that the probouloi took the real decision (a view I accepted in Mus. Helv. 1970, 139 n. 55); but this really looks more like an army-meeting acting in a crisis as a substitute for an electoral assembly. Taken separately, each of these passages can be explained away: taken together they suggest that the Achaean primary assembly was open to all men of military age. (c) The meeting held at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Corinth&groupId=493&placeId=928">Corinth</a> in 146 (xxxviii. 12–13), which, as Aymard argued (ACA, 126–33) and Larsen conceded (187–8), has every appearance of being a synodos, was dominated by working men and a mob spirit, and voted for war with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sparta&groupId=660&placeId=1208">Sparta</a> (xxxviii. 13. 6), which points to a primary assembly. Larsen, 188, suggests that it was a boule-synodos and a syncletos combinedthe assembly having been summoned to meet concurrently with the boule. This is not impossible, but no such hypothesis is required if the meeting is a synodos of the primary assembly. Furthermore, P. says that the war-vote against <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sparta&groupId=660&placeId=1208">Sparta</a> was illegal (xxxviii. 13. 7), <w lang="el-GR">ἕτερον ψήφισμα παράνομον</w> giving absolute power to the <w lang="el-GR">στρατηγοί</w>, where the word <w lang="el-GR">ἕτερον</w> implies that the first illegal decree was the war-vote against <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sparta&groupId=660&placeId=1208">Sparta</a>, and this would be so if decisions on war were the prerogative of specially convened syncletoi. Whereas on Larsen's hypothesis the vote, having been taken at a syncletos, would not have been illegal. However, this point rests on a distinction between the competence of a synodos and that of a syncletos which will be discussed below (pp. 413–14). II The view that the second-century synodos was a meeting of the boule, and that membership of the primary assembly was restricted to men of thirty and over depends on a number of passages which refer to limitations on the competence of certain bodies or to circumstances limiting the occasions on which they might be summoned. (A) In 168 a synodos at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Corinth&groupId=493&placeId=928">Corinth</a> was prepared to vote for the sending of military aid to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> (xxix. 23. 8–9, 24. 5), but Callicrates prevented this, <w lang="el-GR">ὡς οὐκ οὔσης ἐξουσίας κατὰ τοὺς νόμους ἐν ἀγορᾷ βουλεύεσθαι περὶ βοηθείας</w>; since his view was accepted, it was clearly felt to have validityprobably because the sending of military aid, in the circumstances, might involve war (see below, p. 413; Larsen, <milestone unit="page" n="408">[408]</milestone> CP, 1972, 181 nn. 12–13). The meaning of <w lang="el-GR">ἀγορά</w> here has been disputed. Aymard (ACA, 77 n. 3; cf. Walbank, Mus. Helv. 1970, 137) quoted evidence to show that it frequently means 'primary assembly'; and here it clearly refers to the synodos actually taking place (cf. Larsen, 183; Giovannini, Mus. Helv. 1969, 5 n. 33). Giovannini (Mus. Helv. 1969, 6 n. 36) argued that it meant 'session', quoting xxviii. 7. 3, where Attalus' envoys to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Achaea&groupId=272&placeId=533">Achaea</a> arrive <w lang="el-GR">εἰς τὴν πρώτην ἀγοράν</w> (which he took to mean 'for the first session', though indeed it could equally well mean 'for the first synodos'); but even if this were so, and <w lang="el-GR">ἀγορά</w> was a technical term for a session of the Achaean synodos (which is quite possible), this would merely introduce a nuance, since the reference would still be to a synodos (cf. Larsen, CP, 1972, 181 n. 11). But does this imply that the synodos was a primary assembly? Larsen thought that it need not, but that when at some date between 217 and 200 the synodos became (as he believed) a meeting of the Council, the word continued in usea view I accepted in Mus. Helv. 1970, 137. Clearly, however, the use of <w lang="el-GR">ἀγορά</w> is more natural if the synodos was a primary assembly. Callicrates' points having been taken, the question of military aid for <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> was deferred. After some time a syncletos met at Sicyon <w lang="el-GR">ἐν ᾗ συνέβαινε μὴ μόνον συμπορεύεσθαι τὴν βουλὴν ἀλλὰ πάντας τοὺς ἀπὸ τριάκοντ᾿ ἐτῶν</w> (xxix. 24. 6). This sentence raises many problems – though one can be disposed of immediately. When P. says that the syncletos happened to have a particular composition, this is merely a stylistic periphrasis, without significance; a study of P.'s usage shows that <w lang="el-GR">συνέβαινε . . . συμπορεύεσθαι</w> is the equivalent of <w lang="el-GR">συνεπορεύετο</w> (cf. Foucault, 220). But why does P. mention the Council? And why the age of those taking part? Various answers have been proposed. Aymard (ACA, 73 ff.) argues that P. was merely indicating that the syncletos was better attended than the synodos at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Corinth&groupId=493&placeId=928">Corinth</a>; he does not explain why P. refers to the Council and he thinks the thirty years were mentioned because that was the legal minimum age for attending assembliesthough indeed in that case it is not clear why P. should have chosen this one occasion to refer to this minimum age. Larsen, 87–88, also believes the passage to imply an age of thirty for membership of the assembly; and from the statement that 'it happened that not only the Council but all over thirty took part' he deduces (a) that there could logically have been syncletoi, specially convened meetings, of the Council alone (and he quotes an example of one: xxviii. 3. 10), and (b) that the synodos held at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Corinth&groupId=493&placeId=928">Corinth</a> was a meeting (though not a specially convened meeting) of the Council. This is clearly more satisfactory than Aymard's view, and I followed it in Mus. Helv. 1970, 135–6. Against it, Giovannini (Mus. Helv. 1969, 5–6) supposes Callicrates' argument to have been, not that decisions involving the sending of military <milestone unit="page" n="409">[409]</milestone> assistance might not be taken in a synodos, but that 'deliberation on such a question was forbidden in a primary assembly, i.e. any primary assembly'; and he claimed that the real issue was the absence of any resolution from the Council at the synodos at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Corinth&groupId=493&placeId=928">Corinth</a>. He then went on to argue that the meeting at Sicyon was a syncletos with a special composition, a senatus amplior, so that decisions could be taken with a proper probouleuma. This view is not tenable. To translate <w lang="el-GR">βουλεύεσθαι</w> 'to debate (but not decide)' is very forced, and is not supported by P.'s usage elsewhere (see Mus. Helv. 1970, 136–7). Further, at one kind of primary assemblyand despite the agreement of Larsen and Giovannini that a syncletos need not invariably be a meeting of the primary assembly, the reference to a syncletos without qualification in Syll. 675, suggests that normally that is what it wasthere is no trace of probouleusis. True, if a synodos was a meeting of a primary assembly, the Council would in the normal Greek way have prepared the business for it; but there is no evidence of probouleusisunless the probouloi of Plut. Philop. 21. 1 (see p. 408), who are probably Council members, are so called because of their probouleutic functionand none that the discussion of business without a probouleuma was illegal (cf. Walbank, Mus. Helv. 1970, 131; Larsen, CP, 1972, 181–2). Nor is it easy to see why the Achaeans should have tied themselves up with a complicated constitutional procedure making probouleusis compulsory, which was bound to result in the kind of difficulty postulated here, and then quickly cut the Gordian knot by summoning a special meeting (cf. Mus. Helv. 1970, 133). Read without presuppositions, xxix. 24. 6 can carry at least four possible meanings: (a) 'Not only the boule assembled (as on the previous occasion), but all citizens of thirty and over as well.' (b) 'Not only the boule assembled (as one might have expected), but all the citizens of thirty and over as well.' (c) 'Not only the boule (which consisted of men of thirty and over) assembled, but all citizens of thirty and over as well.' (d) 'Not only the boule assembled (as would be true if this had been the Roman syncletos, i.e. the Senate), but all citizens of thirty and over as well.' Of these, the last (proposed by Musti, Aufstieg und Niedergang, ii. 1. 1156) assumes, ingeniously, that the phraseology is for the benefit of Roman readers, who might not appreciate the difference between an Achaean syncletos and the Roman Senate (syncletos). But such a confusion seems improbable, and P. is generally more concerned with explaining Roman institutions to Greek readers than the reverse. Moreover, this implies that P. is describing a normal syn- <milestone unit="page" n="410">[410]</milestone> cletos; but if this was limited to men of thirty and over, it had a smaller potential composition than a synodos. This seems unlikely. Of the first three views, the first is Larsen's and implies that synodoi were at this time meetings of the Council. The second is hard to accept, since one would not have expected this special meeting to be of the Council. The third implies that the syncletos was exceptionally constituted, inasmuch as it consisted not only of the Council (who were men of thirty and over) but of all citizens of thirty and over (but not of all citizens of military age, as would have been normal in a primary assembly: so Giovannini, Mus. Helv. 1969, 6–7). <note type="footnote" id="note1">The procedure adopted at this syncletos corresponds exactly to that described by Livy, xxxii. 19–23 for the assembly (usually and rightly taken to be a syncletos) called to Sicyon in 198 to discuss whether <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Achaea&groupId=272&placeId=533">Achaea</a> should abandon Philip for <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (cf. Mus. Helv. 1970, 131). But it does not follow from this that the composition of the meeting of 168 was precisely the same: the procedure may have applied to syncletoi, whether of the whole people or (as here) of a more limited section of them (though not, of course, to synodoi, which had a different sort of agenda; on this, against Giovannini, Mus. Helv. 1969, 7 n. 40, see Walbank, Mus. Helv. 1970, 135).</note> On this third view, the boule is mentioned because its members were thirty and over. Admittedly, it is slightly odd that P. has chosen to emphasize that the syncletos was larger than a mere meeting of the Council, if in fact the unusual feature lay in its being smaller than the synodos preceding it. But this difficulty may be more apparent than real. For if we assume that when in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Achaea&groupId=272&placeId=533">Achaea</a> someone spoke of 'men of thirty and over' his listeners automatically thought of membership of the Council, then it is not unnatural for P. to say 'a special meeting was called for men of thirty and overnot just the boule, but everyone of that age.' The idea that a reader might take the mention of the boule to be referring back to the previous meeting would of course not cross his mind if the synodos was in fact a meeting of a primary assembly. <note type="footnote" id="note2">An alternative explanation is that the synodos was indeed a meeting of the Council by this date, but that this change in the character of the synodos and the restriction of membership of syncletoi to men of thirty and over was recent. This would get round the difficulties presented by the passages quoted above, in which the army functioned as an assembly, but it would leave the illegality of the decisions of the 146 meeting unexplained; see above, p. 408. Nor is it very likely that such a modification of the democratic machinery of the Confederacy occurred at the peak of P.'s public career without leaving any trace in our sources.</note> The unusual composition of this syncletos and the reason for this will be considered shortly (p. 413); that it had to be summoned at all was due to the fact that the laws did not allow decisions concerning the sending of aid to be taken at a synodos (agora). The point of such a limitation will have been to prevent snap decisions on delicate issues of vital importance; and this must be considered <milestone unit="page" n="411">[411]</milestone> in relation to other passages in P. which associate such issues with the summoning of a syncletos. (B) In 185/4 Achaean envoys to the Senate defended their magistrates for not having summoned an ecclesia at the request of Caecilius (xxii. 12. 6): <w lang="el-GR">νόμον γὰρ εἶναι παρὰ τοῖς Ἀχαιοῖς μὴ συγκαλεῖν τοὺς πολλούς, ἐὰν μὴ περὶ συμμαχίας ἢ πολέμου δέῃ γίνεσθαι διαβούλιον ἢ παρὰ</w> 〈<w lang="el-GR">τῆς</w>〉 <w lang="el-GR">συγκλήτου τις ἐνέγκῃ γράμματα</w> (cf. Livy, xxxix. 33. 7). This passage has been taken as evidence that in the second century a primary assembly could only be called for the purposes there mentioned, viz. to consider alliance or war, or to receive a (written) communication from the Senate (cf. Larsen, 89; accepted in Mus. Helv. 1970, 133–4). This is incorrect. The use of <w lang="el-GR">συγκαλεῖν</w> indicates clearly that the reference is not to any primary assembly, but specifically to a syncletos, in this context clearly identified as a specially convened meeting of the ecclesia <w lang="el-GR">(τοὺς πολλούς)</w>. <note type="footnote" id="note1">For the equivalence of and <w lang="el-GR">ῖ ὺ ύ</w> see Musti, Annali . . . di <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Pisa&groupId=904&placeId=1625">Pisa</a>, 1967, 197; Aufstieg und Niedergang, i. 2. 1153–4; and for the syncletos as an extraordinary meeting see F. P. Rizzo, Kokalos, 1968–9, 365 ff., especially 368–70.</note> In describing the original incident when Caecilius' request was refused (xxii. 10. 10), and in recounting a similar refusal to call a special meeting for Flamininus in 183 (xxiii. 5. 16, though the circumstances here were not entirely comparable; see note ad loc.), P. uses the more general word <w lang="el-GR">συνάγειν</w>; but in neither instance was it essential for P. to use the technical expression, since the context showed that a special meeting was being requested, whereas in addressing the Senate the envoys were giving a general explanation which required them to define the kind of assembly to which they were referring. Hence in xxii. 12. 6, quoted above, he uses the official word <w lang="el-GR">συγκαλεῖν</w> (the noun <w lang="el-GR">σύγκλητος</w> would have been awkward, in view of the reference to the Senate as <w lang="el-GR">σύγκλητος</w>? in the next line; cf. Musti, Aufstieg und Niedergang, i. 2. 1154). To the argument that <w lang="el-GR">συγκαλεῖν τοὺς πολλούς</w> refers only to syncletoi the retort could be made that synodoi were also summoned. It is true that <w lang="el-GR">συνάγειν</w> is used of both kinds of meeting (though always in the passive for synodoi; on the distinction see Aymard, ACA, 122). But there is a big difference between a regular meeting (for which one merely needed to know the exact date) and a meeting specially convened to discuss one particular issue, and one would expect the summons to have taken a different form for the two kinds of meeting: in the one case something like: 'The first synodos will be held at e.g. Aegium as from such and such a date', and in the other 'The Council or all adult citizens or . . . (some other defined group) are hereby summoned to e.g. Sicyon on such and such a day to debate and vote on the motion . . .' It is to the second kind of <milestone unit="page" n="412">[412]</milestone> summons that the technical term <w lang="el-GR">συγκαλεῖν</w> (never used of a synodos) will apply; and in fact P. provides no instance of any specific person summoning a synodos (with an active verb). <note type="footnote" id="note1">In 184 (see note following xxii. 14. 12 n., p. 200) Livy, xxxix. 35. 5 (Polybian) reports that 'Lycortas . . . concilium indixit' referring to what was probably, but not certainly, a synodos (cf. Larsen, 177); but we do not know what Polybian wording this represents.</note> <emph rend="bold">III</emph> From the passages discussed above it appears that during the second century the conditions under which a syncletos could be convened were closely defined; such a meeting was to decide on alliance or war or to receive a communication from the Senate. This limitation will have been designed to prevent the irresponsible and vexatious summoning, perhaps to further political intrigue, of special meetings which must have had a disruptive effect on ordinary life and on the economy. But xxix. 24. 5 (p. 408) shows that questions of sending armed help might not be decided in a synodos. Armed help could lead to war. Hence it seems to follow that the Achaean laws laid down not only that special meetings could only be called to deal with these specific subjects, but that they must be called for those purposes, which did not fall within the competence of a synodos (but see below, p. 414). Why the syncletos called to Sicyon in 168 had its special composition P. does not inform us. As pointed out (xxix. 24. 6 n., p. 400), we do not know whether this composition was decided on at the previous synodos or by the magistrates; but presumably the decision was taken within a formula prescribed by the laws, though this may have been left fairly flexible to suit exceptional circumstances. That there were such circumstances in 168 seems indicated by the fact that P., quite unusually, chooses to say what the composition of the syncletos was. In saying that all men of thirty and over were present he is of course giving the terms in which the summons was sent out, not indicating that literally all of these (or even necessarily a large proportion of these) actually turned up. We can only guess why on this occasion the younger men were excluded. Despite my hesitation in Mus. Helv. 1970, 132, there is much to be said for Habicht's suggestion (quoted in Mus. Helv. 1969, 16 n. 90) that it had something to do with keeping the army ready in the uncertain situation just before <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Pydna&groupId=919&placeId=1647">Pydna</a>; but there may have been some other reason which we do not know. There remains a final point on the competence of synodoi and that of syncletoi, competences which Giovannini considers indistinguishable (Mus. Helv. 1969, 10–13). The fact that third-century synodoi are found transacting business which is later dealt with at a syncletos <milestone unit="page" n="413">[413]</milestone> confirms the view of Larsen, 92–93, and Aymard (ACA, 228 ff., 416) that it was only from a date after 217 that the special role of syncletoi in taking certain kinds of decision was defined. Furthermore, the application of the law may have remained somewhat flexible in the second century. In xxxiii. 16. 1–8 a synodos decides not to send armed help to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rhodes&groupId=931&placeId=1665">Rhodes</a>; but perhaps if the vote had looked like going the other way, the matter would have been deferred to a syncletos (see xxix. 24. 5 n., p. 399). There must indeed often have been genuine disagreement as to whether certain issues came within the scope of a synodos or should be referred to a special meeting (for some examples see Mus. Helv. 1970, 140–1); clearly not every formal renewal of a treaty will have required the summoning of a syncletos. To sum up: the Achaeans had a Council and a primary assembly which met at four annual synodoi right down to 146. From the time the Romans appeared on the scene, towards the end of the third century, certain delicate issues were removed from the competence of the regular synodoi and reserved for discussion and decision at a specially convened syncletos with a single item on the agenda; such syncletoi would normally consist of the Council and assembly, but (as in 168) exceptionally, following a decision either of the synodos or of the magistrates (we are not told which), could have a different composition. Membership of the assembly was open to all men of military age; membership of the Council was probably restricted to men of thirty and over. <milestone unit="page" n="414">[414]</milestone>

Polybius, Histories

Bibliography

Archaeology

Places

Walbank Commentary

Commentary