Polybius, Histories
Layout
Translation

Bibliography

(0)
No bibliography content available

Archaeology

Places

Book 3 - Chapter 2

1
<w lemma="tina%5C">τινὰ</w> <w lemma="poihso%2Fmeqa">ποιησόμεθα</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Ffodon">ἔφοδον</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="e%29chgh%2Fsews">ἐξηγήσεως</w>. <w lemma="u%28podei%2Fcantes">ὑποδείξαντες</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="ai%29ti%2Fas">αἰτίας</w>, <w lemma="di%27">δι᾽</w> <w lemma="a%28%5Cs">ἃς</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="prodedhlwme%2Fnos">προδεδηλωμένος</w> <w lemma="sune%2Fsth">συνέστη</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdoni%2Fois">Καρχηδονίοις</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%2Fois">Ῥωμαίοις</w> <w lemma="po%2Flemos">πόλεμος</w>, <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="prosagoreuqei%5Cs">προσαγορευθεὶς</w> <w lemma="%2A%29annibiako%2Fs">Ἀννιβιακός</w>,
2
<w lemma="e%29rou%3Dmen">ἐροῦμεν</w> <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="%2A%29itali%2Fan">Ἰταλίαν</w> <w lemma="e%29mbalo%2Fntes">ἐμβαλόντες</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdo%2Fnioi">Καρχηδόνιοι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="katalu%2Fsantes">καταλύσαντες</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%2Fwn">Ῥωμαίων</w> <w lemma="dunastei%2Fan">δυναστείαν</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="me%2Fgan">μέγαν</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="fo%2Fbon">φόβον</w> <w lemma="e%29kei%2Fnous">ἐκείνους</w> <w lemma="h%29%2Fgagon">ἤγαγον</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="sfw%3Dn">σφῶν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="patri%2Fdos">πατρίδος</w> <w lemma="e%29da%2Ffous">ἐδάφους</w>, <w lemma="mega%2Flas">μεγάλας</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fsxon">ἔσχον</w> <w lemma="au%29toi%5C">αὐτοὶ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="parado%2Fcous">παραδόξους</w> <w lemma="e%29lpi%2Fdas">ἐλπίδας</w>, <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rw%2Fmhs">Ῥώμης</w> <w lemma="au%29th%3Ds">αὐτῆς</w> <w lemma="e%29c">ἐξ</w> <w lemma="e%29fo%2Fdou">ἐφόδου</w> <w lemma="krath%2Fsontes">κρατήσοντες</w>.
3
<w lemma="e%28ch%3Ds">ἑξῆς</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftois">τούτοις</w> <w lemma="peiraso%2Fmeqa">πειρασόμεθα</w> <w lemma="diasafei%3Dn">διασαφεῖν</w> <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="au%29tou%5Cs">αὐτοὺς</w> <w lemma="kairou%5Cs">καιροὺς</w> <w lemma="%2Afi%2Flippos">Φίλιππος</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="%2Amakedw%5Cn">Μακεδὼν</w> <w lemma="diapolemh%2Fsas">διαπολεμήσας</w> <w lemma="%2Aai%29twloi%3Ds">Αἰτωλοῖς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="meta%5C">μετὰ</w> <w lemma="tau%3Dta">ταῦτα</w> <w lemma="susthsa%2Fmenos">συστησάμενος</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="%2A%28%2Fellhnas">Ἕλληνας</w> <w lemma="e%29peba%2Fleto">ἐπεβάλετο</w> <w lemma="koinwnei%3Dn">κοινωνεῖν</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdoni%2Fois">Καρχηδονίοις</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3Dn">αὐτῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29lpi%2Fdwn">ἐλπίδων</w>,
4
<w lemma="%2A%29anti%2Foxos">Ἀντίοχος</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Aptolemai%3Dos">Πτολεμαῖος</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="%2Afilopa%2Ftwr">Φιλοπάτωρ</w> <w lemma="h%29mfisbh%2Ftoun">ἠμφισβήτουν</w>, <w lemma="te%2Flos">τέλος</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29pole%2Fmhsan">ἐπολέμησαν</w> <w lemma="u%28pe%5Cr">ὑπὲρ</w> <w lemma="%2Akoi%2Flhs">Κοίλης</w> <w lemma="%2Asuri%2Fas">Συρίας</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="a%29llh%2Flous">ἀλλήλους</w>,
5
<w lemma="%2A%28ro%2Fdioi">Ῥόδιοι</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Aprousi%2Fas">Προυσίας</w> <w lemma="a%29nalabo%2Fntes">ἀναλαβόντες</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="%2Abuzanti%2Fous">Βυζαντίους</w> <w lemma="po%2Flemon">πόλεμον</w> <w lemma="h%29na%2Fgkasan">ἠνάγκασαν</w> <w lemma="au%29tou%5Cs">αὐτοὺς</w> <w lemma="a%29posth%3Dnai">ἀποστῆναι</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="paragwgia%2Fzein">παραγωγιάζειν</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="ple%2Fontas">πλέοντας</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2Apo%2Fnton">Πόντον</w>.
6
<w lemma="sth%2Fsantes">στήσαντες</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftwn">τούτων</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="dih%2Fghsin">διήγησιν</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="u%28pe%5Cr">ὑπὲρ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%2Fwn">Ῥωμαίων</w> <w lemma="politei%2Fas">πολιτείας</w> <w lemma="susthso%2Fmeqa">συστησόμεθα</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgon">λόγον</w>, <w lemma="w%28%3D%7C">ᾧ</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="sunexe%5Cs">συνεχὲς</w> <w lemma="u%28podei%2Fcomen">ὑποδείξομεν</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Fti">ὅτι</w> <w lemma="me%2Fgista">μέγιστα</w> <w lemma="suneba%2Flet%27">συνεβάλετ᾽</w> <w lemma="au%29toi%3Ds">αὐτοῖς</w> <w lemma="h%28">ἡ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="politeu%2Fmatos">πολιτεύματος</w> <w lemma="i%29dio%2Fths">ἰδιότης</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="mh%5C">μὴ</w> <w lemma="mo%2Fnon">μόνον</w> <w lemma="a%29nakth%2Fsasqai">ἀνακτήσασθαι</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29italiwtw%3Dn">Ἰταλιωτῶν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Asikeliwtw%3Dn">Σικελιωτῶν</w> <w lemma="dunastei%2Fan">δυναστείαν</w>, <w lemma="e%29%2Fti">ἔτι</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29ibh%2Frwn">Ἰβήρων</w> <w lemma="proslabei%3Dn">προσλαβεῖν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Akeltw%3Dn">Κελτῶν</w> <w lemma="a%29rxh%2Fn">ἀρχήν</w>, <w lemma="a%29lla%5C">ἀλλὰ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="teleutai%3Don">τελευταῖον</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="krath%2Fsantas">κρατήσαντας</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="pole%2Fmw%7C">πολέμῳ</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdoni%2Fwn">Καρχηδονίων</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fnnoian">ἔννοιαν</w> <w lemma="sxei%3Dn">σχεῖν</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Flwn">ὅλων</w> <w lemma="e%29pibolh%3Ds">ἐπιβολῆς</w>.
7
<w lemma="a%28%2Fma">ἅμα</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftois">τούτοις</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="pare%2Fkbasin">παρέκβασιν</w> <w lemma="dhlw%2Fsomen">δηλώσομεν</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="kata%2Flusin">κατάλυσιν</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="%2A%28ie%2Frwnos">Ἱέρωνος</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="%2Asurakosi%2Fou">Συρακοσίου</w> <w lemma="dunastei%2Fas">δυναστείας</w>.
8
<w lemma="oi%28%3Ds">οἷς</w> <w lemma="e%29pisuna%2Fyomen">ἐπισυνάψομεν</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2Aai%29%2Fgupton">Αἴγυπτον</w> <w lemma="taraxa%5Cs">ταραχὰς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ti%2Fna">τίνα</w> <w lemma="tro%2Fpon">τρόπον</w> <w lemma="%2Aptolemai%2Fou">Πτολεμαίου</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="basile%2Fws">βασιλέως</w> <w lemma="metalla%2Fcantos">μεταλλάξαντος</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="bi%2Fon">βίον</w> <w lemma="sumfronh%2Fsantes">συμφρονήσαντες</w> <w lemma="%2A%29anti%2Foxos">Ἀντίοχος</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Afi%2Flippos">Φίλιππος</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="diaire%2Fsei">διαιρέσει</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="kataleleimme%2Fnou">καταλελειμμένου</w> <w lemma="paido%5Cs">παιδὸς</w> <w lemma="a%29rxh%3Ds">ἀρχῆς</w> <w lemma="h%29%2Frcanto">ἤρξαντο</w> <w lemma="kakopragmonei%3Dn">κακοπραγμονεῖν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="xei%3Dras">χεῖρας</w> <w lemma="e%29piba%2Fllein">ἐπιβάλλειν</w> <w lemma="%2Afi%2Flippos">Φίλιππος</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="kat%27">κατ᾽</w> <w lemma="%2Aai%29%2Fgaion">Αἴγαιον</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Akari%2Fan">Καρίαν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Asa%2Fmon">Σάμον</w>, <w lemma="%2A%29anti%2Foxos">Ἀντίοχος</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="%2Akoi%2Flhn">Κοίλην</w> <w lemma="%2Asuri%2Fan">Συρίαν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Afoini%2Fkhn">Φοινίκην</w>.
First I shall indicate the causes of the above war between <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>, known as the Hannibalic war, and tell how the Carthaginians invaded <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Italy&groupId=656&placeId=1199">Italy</a>,
broke up the dominion of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, and cast the Romans into great fear for their safety and even for their native soil, while great was their own hope, such as they had never dared to entertain, of capturing <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> itself.
Next I shall attempt to describe how at the same period Philip of Macedon, after finishing his war with the Aetolians and settling the affairs of Greece, conceived the project of an alliance with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>;
how Antiochus and Ptolemy Philopator first quarrelled and at length went to war with each other for the possession of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Coele-Syria&groupId=484&placeId=908">Coele-Syria</a>,
and how the Rhodians and Prusias, declaring war on the Byzantines, compelled them to stop levying toll on ships bound for the Euxine.
Interrupting my narrative at this point, I shall draw up my account of the Roman Constitution, as a sequel to which I shall point out how the peculiar qualities of the Constitution conduced very largely not only to their subjection of the Italians and Sicilians, and subsequently of the Spaniards and Celts, but finally to their victory over <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> and their conceiving the project of universal empire.
Simultaneously in a digression I shall narrate how the dominion of Hiero of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Syracuse&groupId=994&placeId=1753">Syracuse</a> fell
and after this I shall deal with the troubles in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a>, and tell how, on the death of Ptolemy, Antiochus and Philip, conspiring to partition the dominions of his son, a helpless infant, began to be guilty of acts of unjust aggression, Philip laying hands on the islands of the Aegean, and on Caria and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Samos&groupId=944&placeId=1680">Samos</a>, while Antiochus seized on <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Coele-Syria&groupId=484&placeId=908">Coele-Syria</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Phoenicia&groupId=894&placeId=464">Phoenicia</a>.

Walbank Commentary

Overview
3.0.0 - 3.5.0
<p>Introduction to the History proper</p> <p>Chapters 1–3 outline the work, according to the original plan, down to 168a period of fifty-three years (220–168); in 4–5 P. gives reasons for continuing his work to cover the years of Roman domination down to 146. (For a structural analysis see Lorenz, 50–61.) Although by 168 the growth and advance of Roman power was already complete (4. 2–3), a proper judgement on both conquerors and conquered is only possible from a study of their subsequent conduct (4. 4–5). Accordingly P. will deal with (a) the subsequent policy of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, (b) the reactions of the subject peoples, (c) prevailing currents and tendencies in public and private life (4. 6). This will facilitate the passing of judgement on <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>.</p> <p>These chapters raise several queries:</p> <p>When did P. conceive his revised plan, and what was its scope?</p> <p>How many books were already written, and how many published, when the plan was changed?</p> <p>To what extent did the new plan involve revision of earlier parts, whether published or merely written?</p> <p>When were the Histories, as we know them, published?</p> <p> 1. It is usually assumed that P. resolved to extend his history beyond 168 only after the double dbcle of 146. This cannot be proved, though Svoboda's attempt to disprove it (Phil., 1913, 465– 83) fails, and the Histories as we possess them show no trace of a pro- visional scheme of extension conceived prior to 146. Svoboda argued that there were two stages in revision, (a) an intention to extend the Histories down to an undetermined date, as outlined in 4. 1–11, (b) a later decision, taken long after the Achaean War, to finish at 146/5; to this second scheme belongs 4. 12–5. 6. Any passage which mentions <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> as still existing will have been composed before 146; since such passages include vi. 52. 1–3, 56. 1–3, xiv. 10. 5, xv. 30. 10, xxxi. 12. 12, 21. 3 (add i. 73. 4, ix. 9. 9–10), P. must have composed down to xxxi. 22 when he was interrupted by the events of c. 150; and this implies that his narrative had already reached 160 (xxxi. 21. 3). Consequently the extension beyond 168 had begun before P. could know of the catastrophe of 146. De Sanctis (iii. 1. 202 f.) has, however, shown that xxxi. 21. 3 does not imply the existence of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>, and that xxxi. 12. 12 is part of a passage describing the escape of Demetrius of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Syria&groupId=995&placeId=502">Syria</a> from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> with P.'s help, which has every appearance of being based on an account <milestone unit="page" n="292">[292]</milestone> composed at the time, and only subsequently included in the extended history, cf. Thommen, Hermes, 1885, 229. If this is so, xv. 30. 10, dealing with events of 203, is the latest passage which conforms to Svoboda's thesis, and the theory of two stages in the revision collapses. </p> <p>H. Erbse (Rh. Mus., 1951, 170 ff.), who argues for the composition of the whole work after 144, tries to deal with the references to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> by adducing the existence of the 'achronistic present tense' used in a syncrisis. This theory would account for the references in vi. 52 and 53, but fails to explain the rest except by an arbitrary extension of the usage which in fact surrenders the whole case; in particular, his thesis breaks down on ix. 9. 9–10 (which he does not consider), and appears to ignore 4. 1, <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς πρόθεσιν</w> (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 99). See the discussion of Gelzer, Kl. Schr. iii. 208–9, who argues that the final publication took place in P.'s lifetime; see also xviii. 35 n. Erbse, Phil. 1957, 277 ff., has written further in support of his theory about the 'achronistic present'; on this see my discussion in Miscellanea Rostagni, 204–6 and ix. 9. 9–10 n. It may therefore be taken that P. conceived his revision after 146; and in addition to the reasons he gives he was no doubt prompted by the wish to record events in which he had himself played a considerable part.</p> <p>2. Can it, however, be shown that P. had written beyond book xv in 150–146? Aymard (REA, 1940, 12 n. 3) has argued that the reference to Aristaenus' preservation of the Achaean League by his agreement with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (xviii. 13. 8–9) must have been written before 146; but it might equally be urged that the reference to 'utter destruction' and 'safety in the crisis' was a hint at 146, and was written after that date. Further, if xviii was written before 146, xviii. 35. 9, with its reference to the fall of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>, must be a later insertion (Brink and Walbank, CQ, loc. cit.). Cuntz (34–35) urges that the phrase <w lang="el-GR">διὰ τὴν ἀγνωσίαν τῆς ἐκτὸς θαλάττης</w> (xvi. 29. 12) cannot have been written after P.'s voyages in the Atlantic in 146 (cf. xxxiv. 15. 7); but this is not decisive, for there is an implied contrast with the Euxine, compared with which the Atlantic was certainly unknown. Hence, despite Ziegler's assertion (RE, 'Polybios (1)', col. 1477) that by 150 P. had certainly brought his history nearly to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Pydna&groupId=919&placeId=1647">Pydna</a>, there is no clear positive evidence that he had composed beyond xv. 30. 10 by that date.</p> <p>How many books had been published before 150–146? Various arguments have been adduced.</p> <p> (a) Passages designed to affect policy about 150 B.C. These are iii. 21. 9 ff. on the Carthaginian treaties; perhaps iv. 27; iv. 30. 5, on the advantages of an Acarnanian alliance (a passage with which v. 106. 4 has been linked); iv. 31. 3–33. 12, Arcadia and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Messenia&groupId=760&placeId=1380">Messenia</a> should combine against <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sparta&groupId=660&placeId=1208">Sparta</a>; iv. 73. 6–74. 8, <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Elis&groupId=560&placeId=1048">Elis</a> should resume her asylia. These passages point to publication about 150/49, and support the view that iii–iv and probably (in view of its close connexion with iv) v were published about then. On the details of this publication <milestone unit="page" n="293">[293]</milestone> Holleaux (tudes, i. 445 ff. = REG, 1923, 480 ff.) has some cogent observations. P.'s discussion of the Rhodian earthquake of 227 is so ill adapted to its context, at v. 88–90, and could so easily have fitted into iv, that it appears probable that iv was already published when P. decided to mention it. This implies (i) that iv and v appeared separately with an interval between (though it tells us nothing of the length of such an interval), (ii) that v. 88–90 was written after iv was published; since there is evidence for last-minute insertions in iv, this is presumably a last-minute insertion in v. Recently J. de Foucault (Rev. Phil., 1952, 47–52) has argued that v. 88–90 is in fact displaced from immediately after iv. 56; but his view is too hypo- thetical, and in fact, had P. originally placed the digression here, he must have introduced it rather differently. </p> <p>(b) Use of proverbs. On general grounds it appears likely that i and ii had already appeared before 146. That ii was written before then is clear from the references to the firmly established Achaean League in ii. 37. 8–40. 6, 62. 4; for the theory that these chapters were a late addition based on an earlier, separate work see ii. 37–70 n. Some support for the orthodox view is afforded by Wunderer's researches into P.'s use of proverbs. He shows (Polybios-Forschungen, i) that, although P. quotes proverbial phrases throughout his Histories, the first example of the phrase <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν</w> is at ix. 25. 3, after which it occurs frequently down to the end of the work; and he connects it with the use by P. of a collection of proverbs. It is noteworthy that the Achaean chapters of book ii, like the rest of i–v, and the surviving fragments of vi–ix. 25. 2, show no example of the phrase <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν</w>. For what it is worth this argumentum ex silentio is against the view that book ii contains late elements.</p> <p>(c) P.'s use of <w lang="el-GR">προγραφαί</w> and <w lang="el-GR">προεκθέσεις</w>. In xi. 1 a 5 P. states that to the first six books he wrote <w lang="el-GR">προγραφαί</w>, but <w lang="el-GR">προεκθέσεις</w> to the rest. In fact, we possess no <w lang="el-GR">προγραφαί</w> to books i–vi; and De Sanctis (iii. 1. 205, following Leo) supposes they were lost in a second edition. However, such <w lang="el-GR">προγραφαί</w> (contents lists attached to the outside of the scroll) may well have become detached at any stage in the transmission of the text (Laqueur (Hermes, 1911, 180–4) suggests the period when the work was transferred from scroll to codex); and the writing of <w lang="el-GR">προγραφαί</w> for the first six books can be explained from the internal economy of the work, which became more 'oecumenical' after vi, and so more suited to <w lang="el-GR">προεκθέσεις</w> (cf. xiv. 1 a 1). See also the considerations adduced by Laqueur (ibid.). We can only say that the disappearance of <w lang="el-GR">προγραφαί</w> is not inconsistent with the theory of a separate publication of books i–v (or vi), but does not make it necessary.</p> <p> (d) Again following Leo, De Sanctis (ibid.) suggests that the duties entrusted to P. in Greece in 145 (xxxix. 5) are more easily <milestone unit="page" n="294">[294]</milestone> understandable if his pro-Roman attitude had already been indicated by the publication of a substantial part of his Histories. This is a flimsy argument, for the Senate had easy ways of learning about a close friend of Scipio Aemilianus. </p> <p>(e) In xvi. 20. 5 f. P. relates how he had pointed out errors to Zeno, but too late for correction, as Zeno's book was already published; and he then asks readers to pardon any honest mistakes in his own work. From this K. J. Neumann (Hermes, 1896, 519 ff.) deduced that when P. resumed his work after 150–144 he had already published i–xv. Clearly, however, this does not follow from the context. P.'s appeal is in general terms, and applies to future generations as well (i.e. readers of his whole work), and it is inserted here merely because of the digression on Zeno.</p> <p>Unless further passages can be adduced from books later than iv and v which seem intended to influence some identifiable contemporary political situation, it remains uncertain that more than five books had appeared before 146. Perhaps, in view of the fact that both its subject-matter and place in the Histories as a whole link vi with i–v, this also appeared at the same time (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 100); but this is only a presumption, though one not contradicted by an analysis of vi (cf. vi introductory note, 4. 7– 9. 14 n.). Certainly neither evidence nor probability speaks for the hypothesis of Mioni (33–48) that P. not only wrote, but also published, the first fifteen books in the years between 151 and 147; see, in criticism, Brink and Walbank (CQ, 1954, 100, 101 n. 8).</p> <p>3. Revision of parts already composed or published. Many of the attempts to prove later insertions in i–xv, which were written before 146, break down.</p> <p> (a) Various attempts have been made to frame an account of P.'s views on Tyche which will enable a reader to assign relative dates to observations on this topic. Thus Cuntz (43 ff.) sees P.'s spiritual progress from an orthodox Hellenistic belief in the power of Tyche, reinforced by the writings of Demetrius of Phalerum, to a conviction that the world is governed by Stoic law and order; whereas von Scala (159 ff.) sees a development from a rationalist position, which seeks natural causes for all phenomena (in reaction against an earlier dependence on Demetrius), to an eventual return, after 167, to something nearer Demetrius' position. But all such attempts fail because at all periods P. tends to use the word Tyche in a variety of senses, and with varying intensity of 'belief'; see Walbank, CQ, 1945, 6–7; Mioni, 140–5 (a good analysis); Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (1)', cols. 1532–43. Thus many passages (e.g. i. 63. 9, ii. 38. 4 ff., x. 5. 8, xviii. 28. 5, xxxi. 30. 1–3) are to be interpreted in the light of P.'s loyalty to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Achaea&groupId=272&placeId=533">Achaea</a>, <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, or Scipio, rather than as an expression of a particular philosophical attitude. See above, pp. 22–26. <milestone unit="page" n="295">[295]</milestone> (b) It has been argued by Hirzel and von Scala that P. was a convert to Stoicism, largely through Panaetius' influence, and that any passages in the earlier books (for a list see Susemihl, ii. 110 n., adding iv. 40. 3 from n. 93) which betray Stoic thought are later insertions. P. was in fact influenced by Stoicism, both in his late years, and also earlier (cf. Class. et med., 1948, 170 ff.); but this is an aspect not to be overstressed in a writer who was not by temperament a philosopher. Nor can the influence on P. of Panaetius, a younger man, the date of whose arrival at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> is quite uncertain, be proved (cf. CQ, 1943, 86; Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 103 nn. 3–4). In fact Stoicism is a useless criterion for dating P.'s work. </p> <p>(c) Cuntz argued that most of P.'s journeys and voyages took place after 146, and so drew conclusions on the dating of passages referring to them. De Sanctis (iii. 1. 209 ff.) has argued cogently that P.'s journeys in the western Mediterranean were almost all before, or in, 146. Hence no important deductions on composition can be made on this basis. Two points, however, are worth noting:</p> <p>P.'s visits to Sardes (xxi. 38. 7) and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Alexandria&groupId=1063&placeId=1868">Alexandria</a>, under Physcon (xxxiv. 14. 6), were probably made after 146/5; even so they probably preceded the composition of the books in which they are mentioned.</p> <p>If P. visited <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a> in 151 (cf. 57–59 n., x. 11. 4), it still remains true that x. 11. 4 is probably an insertion in the original composition (cf. ii. 13. 2 n.).</p> <p>On the other hand, both i–v and also later books up to xv contain passages apparently composed after 146, which imply revision of an original draft or edition. One is the present passage (4–5); others (see relevant notes) are:</p> <p>iii. 32. 2, reference to forty books and the fall of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>.</p> <p rend="Body Text 2">iii. 37. 11, the part of Europe washed by the outer sea has recently come under our notice. Cuntz (34 ff.) argues convincingly that this refers to the campaigns of D. Iunius Brutus Callaicus in 138/7. Probably §§ 10–11, with the reference forward to xxxiv, were revised or inserted after that date.</p> <p>iii. 39. 2–12 (or at least 6–8) date to after 118, when the Via Domitia was constructed.</p> <p>iii. 59. 4: the reference to Greek politicians being free from war and politics implies a date after 146. In 59. 7 there is a reference to P.'s journeys (which are probably subsequent to the original composition of iii); hence it is likely that 57–59 is a later insertion.</p> <p>iii. 61. 11, 86. 2, probably composed after 133 since they imply the shifting of the Italian frontier from the Aesis to the Rubicon.</p> <p> xii. In the main this book was written before 146; cf. xii. 25, where <milestone unit="page" n="296">[296]</milestone> the discussion of Phalaris' bull omits to mention its recovery by Scipio in 146 (cf. CR, 1945, 40). But some passages are later. </p> <p>(?) xii. 2. 1, on the lotus. Athenaeus states that P. described this from personal observation, and this would imply composition after the Third Punic War, or 151 at the latest (cf. 57–59 n.). But in fact the passage has the appearance of coming from a literary source, such as Diocles of Carystus (cf. v. 45. 10 n.).</p> <p>xii. 3. 1–6, on the richness of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Africa&groupId=300&placeId=294">Africa</a>. If this is described from autopsy, it will be composed after 146 (or 151): see last note. We have no record of any visit to Corsica (xii. 3. 7–4. 4).</p> <p>xii. 27 ff., the stress on <w lang="el-GR">αὐτοπάθεια</w>, and reference to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Odysseus&groupId=801&placeId=1446">Odysseus</a>' wanderings, date this after 146 (Class. et med., 1948, 171 ff.).</p> <p>4. Final publication. Since xxxi. 28. 13 and xxxviii. 21. 3 suggest that Scipio is dead and were therefore written after 129, and since there is evidence of insertions as late as 120 (cf. iii. 39), it appears that P. went on working at his History until his death; and indeed the 'obituary' in xxxix. 5 shows that his work appeared posthumously. But whether between 150–146 and his death no further books were published we simply do not know; for there is nothing in x and xii (where alone insertions from after 146 are to be found) which is inconsistent with publication after, say, 140. It has been argued by A. Philippson (Phil. Woch., 1930, 1181–2) that Cicero, de re pub. ii, draws largely on Polybius vi, and that when in § 21 Laelius remarks that Scipio's argument is one 'quae nusquam est in Graecorum libris', he is meant to suggest that at the dramatic date of the dialogue (129 B.C.) Polybius vi was not yet published. But the ratio ad disputandum noua there mentioned is probably not one copied from P. at all (cf. Laqueur, Phil. Woch., 1924, 334), in which case Philippson's argument on the date of publication of vi collapses.</p> <p rend="Plain Text">In Entretiens sur Polybe, 186–200, Lehmann argues that P. brought a sketchy version of i–xv with him to Greece in 150/49, that he published i–vi for the first time soon after 145/4 (the composition of the passages with apparent contemporary implications in iv he dates after 146); P. went on working at the rest and it was published posthumously by a man who among other things wrote xxxix. 8. 3 f. (since P. left the end unfinished). The revised scope of the work (iii. 4–5) was conceived under the influence of the Gracchan movement, to which Lehmann sees references in xxxviii. 22; cf. xxix. 21. 4 f. This hypothesis does not seem to me convincing, though the last ten books may well have been put together, out of earlier material, after 129; cf. Walbank, 'Polybius' last ten books', Historiographia Antiqua, 139–62.</p>
Specifics
3.2.1 - 3.2.1
<p> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὰς αἰτίας</w>:</emph> discussed in 6–33. 4. Laqueur's objection (220) that only the Saguntine <w lang="el-GR">ἀρχή</w> came within the 140th Olympiad is true but irrelevant, since P. nowhere undertakes not to go back above 220. Hence his conclusions about an early stage of composition in which the Saguntine affair figured as an <w lang="el-GR">αἰτία</w> fall to the ground. </p>
3.2.3 - 3.2.3
<p> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">Φίλιππος . . . διαπολεμήσας Αἰτωλοῖς? κτλ</w>.:</emph> cf. ii. 71. 7–10 n. for the Social War. The settlement follows the Peace of Naupactus (v. 103–5) in 217. On Philip's project for an alliance with Hannibal cf. v. 101. 7–102. 1. </p>
3.2.4 - 3.2.4
<p> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">Ἀντίοχος . . . καὶ Πτολεμαῖος</w>:</emph> cf. ii. 71. 7–10 n. for the Fourth Syrian War. </p>
3.2.5 - 3.2.5
<p> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">Ῥόδιοι . . . καὶ Προυσίας . . . πρὸς Βυζαντίους</w>:</emph> cf. iv. 38–52. On the phrase <w lang="el-GR">εἰς τὸν Πόντον</w> cf. iv. 44. 3–4 n. </p>
3.2.6 - 3.2.6
<p> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς Ῥωμαίων πολιτείας . . . λόγον</w>:</emph> cf. i. 1. 5, 64. 2, 118. 11–12, vi. 2. 3, x. 16. 7, xxi. 13. 11, xxxix. 8. 7. This account is in vi. The reconquest <w lang="el-GR">(ἀνακτήσασθαι)</w> of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Italy&groupId=656&placeId=1199">Italy</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a> was described in vii–xiv; the acquisition <w lang="el-GR">(προσλαβεῖν)</w> of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a> was partially effected during the Hannibalic War (cf. viii. 38, ix. 11, x. 2–20, 34–40, xi. 20–33), and completed in the second century. P.'s account of the conquest of the Gauls, which had started after the Gallic Wars (ii. 18–35), but had to begin afresh after the defeat of Hannibal, has not survived. On the impetus given to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> by her defeat of Hannibal to advance to world dominion cf. i. 3. 6, iii. 32. 7 n., v. 104. 3, xv. 9. 2, 10. 2. </p>
3.2.7 - 3.2.7
<p> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὴν κατάλυσιν τῆς Ἱέρωνος . . . δυναστείας</w>:</emph> for Hieronymus' fall and the capture of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Syracuse&groupId=994&placeId=1753">Syracuse</a> cf. vii. 2–8, viii. 3–7, 37. Why P. describes <milestone unit="page" n="298">[298]</milestone> this as occurring in a digression, <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ παρέκβασιν</w>, is not clear (Schweighaeuser). </p>
3.2.8 - 3.2.8
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὰς περὶ τὴν Αἴγυπτον ταραχάς</w>:</emph> Ptolemy IV's civil war in Upper <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> (xiv. 12. 4), the detailed account of which is lost. Errington, Athenaeum, 1971, 338–40, correctly points out that this passage lists the Egyptian possessions actually attacked by Philip and Antiochus, not simply the programme of the 'pact'; since Philip never in fact attacked <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a>, he rejects <w lang="el-GR">κατ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">Αἴγυπτον</w> and accepts Niebuhr's emendation (without discussing its acceptability as Greek for 'the Aegean islands': xv. 20 n.). Errington also entertains the possibility that P., influenced by his thinking of the terms of the pact, did in fact write <w lang="el-GR">τὰ κατ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">Αἴγυπτον</w>. </p> <p> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐπὶ διαιρέσει τῆς . . . ἀρχῆς</w>:</emph> the plot to dismember Ptolemy V's dominions is discussed at xv. 20. 1 f. The words <w lang="el-GR">κατ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">Αἴγαιον</w> are Niebuhr's emendation of the MSS. <w lang="el-GR">κατ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">Αἴγυπτον</w>, Holleaux (tudes, iii. 70 n. 1; iv. 162 n. 3 = BCH, 1907, 111 n. 2; REG, 1899, 37 n. 3) proposed <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ Κίον</w>; for a full discussion see xv. 20. 1 n. On the date of Philopator's death and Epiphanes' accession see xv. 25. 1–2. </p>
Addenda & corrigenda
3.1.0 - 3.5.0
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold">1–5.</emph> Date of composition. See the discussion of Gelzer, Kl. Schr. iii. 208–9, who argues that the final publication took place in P.'s lifetime; see also xviii. 35 n. Erbse, Phil. 1957, 277 ff., has written further in support of his theory about the 'achronistic present'; on this see my discussion in Miscellanea Rostagni, 204–6 and ix. 9. 9–10 n. </p> <p rend="Plain Text">On p. 294 section (c) line 1 for 'ix. 10. 5' read 'ix. 1 a 5'.</p>
3.1.0 - 3.5.0
<p rend="Plain Text"> <emph rend="bold">1–5.</emph> Date of composition and publication: in Entretiens sur Polybe, 186–200, Lehmann argues that P. brought a sketchy version of i–xv with him to Greece in 150/49, that he published i–vi for the first time soon after 145/4 (the composition of the passages with apparent contemporary implications in iv he dates after 146); P. went on working at the rest and it was published posthumously by a man who among other things wrote xxxix. 8. 3 f. (since P. left the end unfinished). The revised scope of the work (iii. 4–5) was conceived under the influence of the Gracchan movement, to which Lehmann sees references in xxxviii. 22; cf. xxix. 21. 4 f. This hypothesis does not seem to me convincing, though the last ten books may well have been put together, out of earlier material, after 129; cf. Walbank, 'Polybius' last ten books', Historiographia Antiqua, 139–62. </p>
3.2.8 - 3.2.8
<p rend="Plain Text">Errington, Athenaeum, 1971, 338–40, correctly points out that this passage lists the Egyptian possessions actually attacked by Philip and Antiochus, not simply the programme of the 'pact'; since Philip never in fact attacked <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a>, he rejects <w lang="el-GR">κατ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">Αἴγυπτον</w> and accepts Niebuhr's emendation (without discussing its acceptability as Greek for 'the Aegean islands': xv. 20 n.). Errington also entertains the possibility that P., influenced by his thinking of the terms of the pact, did in fact write <w lang="el-GR">τὰ κατ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">Αἴγυπτον</w>.</p>

Commentary