Polybius, Histories
Layout
Translation

Bibliography

(0)
No bibliography content available

Archaeology

Places

Book 3 - Chapter 3

1
<w lemma="meta%5C">μετὰ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tau%3Dta">ταῦτα</w> <w lemma="sugkefalaiwsa%2Fmenoi">συγκεφαλαιωσάμενοι</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29ibhri%2Fa%7C">Ἰβηρίᾳ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Alibu%2Fh%7C">Λιβύῃ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Asikeli%2Fa%7C">Σικελίᾳ</w> <w lemma="pra%2Fceis">πράξεις</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%2Fwn">Ῥωμαίων</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdoni%2Fwn">Καρχηδονίων</w> <w lemma="metabiba%2Fsomen">μεταβιβάσομεν</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="dih%2Fghsin">διήγησιν</w> <w lemma="o%28losxerw%3Ds">ὁλοσχερῶς</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28ella%2Fda">Ἑλλάδα</w> <w lemma="to%2Fpous">τόπους</w> <w lemma="a%28%2Fma">ἅμα</w> <w lemma="tai%3Ds">ταῖς</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="pragma%2Ftwn">πραγμάτων</w> <w lemma="metabolai%3Ds">μεταβολαῖς</w>.
2
<w lemma="e%29chghsa%2Fmenoi">ἐξηγησάμενοι</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="%2A%29atta%2Flou">Ἀττάλου</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rodi%2Fwn">Ῥοδίων</w> <w lemma="naumaxi%2Fas">ναυμαχίας</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="%2Afi%2Flippon">Φίλιππον</w>, <w lemma="e%29%2Fti">ἔτι</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%2Fwn">Ῥωμαίων</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Afili%2Fppou">Φιλίππου</w> <w lemma="po%2Flemon">πόλεμον</w>, <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="e%29pra%2Fxqh">ἐπράχθη</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="dia%5C">διὰ</w> <w lemma="ti%2Fnwn">τίνων</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ti%2F">τί</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="te%2Flos">τέλος</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fsxen">ἔσχεν</w>,
3
<w lemma="tou%2Ftw%7C">τούτῳ</w> <w lemma="suna%2Fptontes">συνάπτοντες</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="sunexe%5Cs">συνεχὲς</w> <w lemma="mnhsqhso%2Fmeqa">μνησθησόμεθα</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="%2Aai%29twlw%3Dn">Αἰτωλῶν</w> <w lemma="o%29rgh%3Ds">ὀργῆς</w>, <w lemma="kaq%27">καθ᾽</w> <w lemma="h%28%5Cn">ἣν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29anti%2Foxon">Ἀντίοχον</w> <w lemma="e%29pispasa%2Fmenoi">ἐπισπασάμενοι</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="a%29po%5C">ἀπὸ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="%2A%29asi%2Fas">Ἀσίας</w> <w lemma="%2A%29axaioi%3Ds">Ἀχαιοῖς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%2Fois">Ῥωμαίοις</w> <w lemma="e%29ce%2Fkausan">ἐξέκαυσαν</w> <w lemma="po%2Flemon">πόλεμον</w>.
4
<w lemma="ou%28%3D">οὗ</w> <w lemma="dhlw%2Fsantes">δηλώσαντες</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="ai%29ti%2Fas">αἰτίας</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29antio%2Fxou">Ἀντιόχου</w> <w lemma="dia%2Fbasin">διάβασιν</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2Aeu%29rw%2Fphn">Εὐρώπην</w> <w lemma="diasafh%2Fsomen">διασαφήσομεν</w> <w lemma="prw%3Dton">πρῶτον</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="ti%2Fna">τίνα</w> <w lemma="tro%2Fpon">τρόπον</w> <w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="%2A%28ella%2Fdos">Ἑλλάδος</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Ffugen">ἔφυγεν</w>, <w lemma="deu%2Fteron">δεύτερον</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="pw%3Ds">πῶς</w> <w lemma="h%28tthqei%5Cs">ἡττηθεὶς</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%2Fde">τάδε</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="%2Atau%2Frou">Ταύρου</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fshs">πάσης</w> <w lemma="e%29cexw%2Frhse">ἐξεχώρησε</w>,
5
<w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tri%2Fton">τρίτον</w> <w lemma="ti%2Fna">τίνα</w> <w lemma="tro%2Fpon">τρόπον</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%3Doi">Ῥωμαῖοι</w> <w lemma="katalu%2Fsantes">καταλύσαντες</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2Agalatw%3Dn">Γαλατῶν</w> <w lemma="u%28%2Fbrin">ὕβριν</w> <w lemma="a%29dh%2Friton">ἀδήριτον</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="sfi%2Fsi">σφίσι</w> <w lemma="pareskeu%2Fasan">παρεσκεύασαν</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="%2A%29asi%2Fas">Ἀσίας</w> <w lemma="a%29rxh%2Fn">ἀρχήν</w>, <w lemma="a%29pe%2Flusan">ἀπέλυσαν</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%2Fde">τάδε</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="%2Atau%2Frou">Ταύρου</w> <w lemma="katoikou%3Dntas">κατοικοῦντας</w> <w lemma="barbarikw%3Dn">βαρβαρικῶν</w> <w lemma="fo%2Fbwn">φόβων</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="%2Agalatw%3Dn">Γαλατῶν</w> <w lemma="paranomi%2Fas">παρανομίας</w>.
6
<w lemma="meta%5C">μετὰ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tau%3Dta">ταῦτα</w> <w lemma="qe%2Fntes">θέντες</w> <w lemma="u%28po%5C">ὑπὸ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="o%29%2Fyin">ὄψιν</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="%2Aai%29twlw%3Dn">Αἰτωλῶν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Akefallh%2Fnwn">Κεφαλλήνων</w> <w lemma="a%29tuxi%2Fas">ἀτυχίας</w> <w lemma="e%29pibalou%3Dmen">ἐπιβαλοῦμεν</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="%2Aeu%29me%2Fnei">Εὐμένει</w> <w lemma="susta%2Fntas">συστάντας</w> <w lemma="pro%2Fs">πρός</w> <w lemma="te">τε</w> <w lemma="%2Aprousi%2Fan">Προυσίαν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Agala%2Ftas">Γαλάτας</w> <w lemma="pole%2Fmous">πολέμους</w>, <w lemma="o%28moi%2Fws">ὁμοίως</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="met%27">μετ᾽</w> <w lemma="%2A%29ariara%2Fqou">Ἀριαράθου</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="%2Afarna%2Fkhn">Φαρνάκην</w>.
7
<w lemma="oi%28%3Ds">οἷς</w> <w lemma="e%28ch%3Ds">ἑξῆς</w> <w lemma="e%29pimnhsqe%2Fntes">ἐπιμνησθέντες</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="%2Apeloponnhsi%2Fwn">Πελοποννησίων</w> <w lemma="o%28monoi%2Fas">ὁμονοίας</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="katasta%2Fsews">καταστάσεως</w>, <w lemma="e%29%2Fti">ἔτι</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="au%29ch%2Fsews">αὐξήσεως</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rodi%2Fwn">Ῥοδίων</w> <w lemma="politeu%2Fmatos">πολιτεύματος</w>, <w lemma="sugkefalaiwso%2Fmeqa">συγκεφαλαιωσόμεθα</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Flhn">ὅλην</w> <w lemma="dih%2Fghsin">διήγησιν</w> <w lemma="a%28%2Fma">ἅμα</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="pra%2Fceis">πράξεις</w>,
8
<w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="pa%3Dsin">πᾶσιν</w> <w lemma="e%29chghsa%2Fmenoi">ἐξηγησάμενοι</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29antio%2Fxou">Ἀντιόχου</w> <w lemma="stratei%2Fan">στρατείαν</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="%2Aai%29%2Fgupton">Αἴγυπτον</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="klhqe%2Fntos">κληθέντος</w> <w lemma="%2A%29epifanou%3Ds">Ἐπιφανοῦς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2Apersiko%5Cn">Περσικὸν</w> <w lemma="po%2Flemon">πόλεμον</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="kata%2Flusin">κατάλυσιν</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="%2Amakedoni%2Fa%7C">Μακεδονίᾳ</w> <w lemma="basilei%2Fas">βασιλείας</w>.
9
<w lemma="di%27">δι᾽</w> <w lemma="w%28%3Dn">ὧν</w> <w lemma="a%28%2Fma">ἅμα</w> <w lemma="qewrhqh%2Fsetai">θεωρηθήσεται</w> <w lemma="pw%3Ds">πῶς</w> <w lemma="e%28%2Fkasta">ἕκαστα</w> <w lemma="xeiri%2Fsantes">χειρίσαντες</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%3Doi">Ῥωμαῖοι</w> <w lemma="pa%3Dsan">πᾶσαν</w> <w lemma="e%29poih%2Fsanto">ἐποιήσαντο</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="oi%29koume%2Fnhn">οἰκουμένην</w> <w lemma="u%28ph%2Fkoon">ὑπήκοον</w> <w lemma="au%28toi%3Ds">αὑτοῖς</w>.
Next, after summing up the doings of the Romans and Carthaginians in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a>, <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Africa&groupId=300&placeId=294">Africa</a>, and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a> I shall shift the scene of my story definitely, as the scene of action shifted, to Greece and its neighbourhood.
I shall describe the sea-battles in which Attalus and the Rhodians met Philip, and after this deal with the war between the Romans and Philip, its course, its reason, and its result.
Following on this I shall make mention of the angry spirit of the Aetolians yielding to which they invited Antiochus over, and thus set ablaze the war from Asia against the Achaeans and Romans.
After narrating the causes of this war, and how Antiochus crossed to Europe, I shall describe in the first place how he fled from Greece; secondly how on his defeat after this he abandoned all Asia up to the Taurus;
and thirdly, how the Romans, suppressing the insolence of the Galatian Gauls, established their undisputed supremacy in Asia and freed its inhabitants on this side of the Taurus from the fear of barbarians and the lawless violence of these Gauls.
Next I shall bring before the reader's eyes the misfortune that befel the Aetolians and Cephallenians, and then make mention of the war of Eumenes with Prusias and the Gauls and of that between Ariarathes and Pharnaces.
Subsequently, after some notice of the unification and pacification of the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Peloponnese&groupId=861&placeId=1552">Peloponnese</a> and of the growth of the Rhodian State, I shall bring the whole narrative of events to a conclusion,
narrating finally the expedition of Antiochus Epiphanes against <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a>, the war with Perseus, and the abolition of the Macedonian monarchy. All the above events will enable us to perceive how the Romans dealt with each contingency and thus subjected the whole world to their rule.

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
3.3.1 - 3.3.1
<p> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">συγκεφαλαιωσάμενοι τὰς . . . πράξεις</w>:</emph> cf. § 7, iv. 1. 9; 'rounding off the affairs'. <w lang="el-GR">συγκεφαλαιοῦσθαι</w> is 'to round off, sum up', not (as Schweighaeuser) 'to summarize (in breuem summam contrahere)'. The account of the Second Punic War is rounded off in xv, though fighting had ceased earlier in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Spain&groupId=983&placeId=1735">Spain</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a>. </p> <p> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">μεταβιβάσομεν . . . εἰς τοὺς κατὰ τὴν Ἑλλάδα τόπους</w>:</emph> with Philip's campaigns in and around the Aegean, and the Second Macedonian War (xv onwards). Laqueur (5) sees a discrepancy between this statement and the stress on Greek affairs in ii, iv, and v. But P.'s point is simply that the main thread passes over to Greece after the Hannibalic War; and Philip's Aegean campaign is directly relevant to this in a way in which, for example, the war of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rhodes&groupId=931&placeId=1665">Rhodes</a> and Prusias against <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Byzantium&groupId=415&placeId=767">Byzantium</a> is not, since it led to the appeal to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> and her intervention. For P.'s account of the naval battles see xvi. 2–9 (<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Chios&groupId=462&placeId=863">Chios</a>), 10. 1, 14–15 (<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Lade&groupId=663&placeId=1213">Lade</a>). </p>
3.3.2 - 3.3.2
<p> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸν Ῥωμαίων καὶ Φιλίππου πόλεμον</w>:</emph> for the Second Macedonian War (200–197) see xvi. 34 (declaration), xviii. 1–12, 16–27, 33–39 (action), 42–48 (settlement). </p>
3.3.3 - 3.3.4
<p> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀσίας . . . πόλεμον</w>:</emph> cf. 7. 1–3 on the causes of the Syrian War (192–187). The <w lang="el-GR">αἰτία</w> was the anger of the Aetolians (cf. xviii. 45. 1 f., 48. 7), the <w lang="el-GR">ἀρχή</w> Antiochus' crossing into Europe (of which P.'s account has survived only in Livy's version). For the stress on Europe and Asia, and the contrasting of the two in the warpropaganda see CQ, 1942, 141–2. For Antiochus' evacuation of the districts west of Taurus see xxi. 17. 3; the account of his flight after Thermopylae survives in Livy. </p>
3.3.5 - 3.3.5
<p> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">καταλύσαντες τὴν Γαλατῶν ὕβριν</w>:</emph> on Cn. Manlius Vulso's expedition (189) see xxi. 33–39; and on the fear of the Gauls felt by the Mediterranean peoples cf. ii. 35. 9 n. </p> <p> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀδήριτον . . . τὴν τῆς Ἀσίας ἀρχήν</w>:</emph> here 'Asia' is Asia Minor; cf. Xen. Hell. iv. 8. 27. </p>
3.3.6 - 3.3.6
<p> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὰς Αἰτωλῶν καὶ Κεφαλλή?νων ἀτυχίας</w>:</emph> on the end of the Aetolian War (189) and the siege of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cephallenia&groupId=450&placeId=838">Cephallenia</a> (189/8) see xxi. 25–32 b. </p> <p> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοὺς Εὐμένει συστάντας πρός τε Προυσίαν καὶ Γαλάτας πολέμους</w>:</emph> <milestone unit="page" n="299">[299]</milestone> the lost account of the war of Prusias of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Bithynia&groupId=402&placeId=748">Bithynia</a> against Eumenes II of Pergamum (186–183) was evidently in xxii; cf. xxiii. 1. 4, 3. 1–3; Niese, iii. 71. From an inscription of Telmessus, published by M. Segre (Riv. fil., 1932, 446; cf. L. Robert, Rev. phil., 1934, 284 n. 1; t. anat. 73 n. 1), in which relief at Eumenes' victory finds expression, it is clear that the Galatian rising was part of Prusias' war <w lang="el-GR">(διαγωνισά- μενος πρός τε Προυσίαν [κα]ὶ Ὀρτιάγοντα καὶ τοὺς Γαλάτας καὶ τοὺς [συ]μμάχους αὐτῶν)</w>, as P. here suggests; cf. Trogus, prol. 32, 'in Asia bellum ab rege Eumene gestum aduersus Gallum Ortiagontem, Pharnacem Ponticum et Prusian, adiuuante Prusian Hannibale Poeno'. Following on his victory Eumenes received the title of Soter, henceforward attached to his name in decrees of cities within his kingdom; on the problem of the Nicephoria see iv. 49. 3 n. and the works listed there. On Ortiagon, who perhaps fell in this war, see xxi. 38, xxii. 21. 1. P.'s account may have drawn on the personal reminiscences of Ortiagon's wife, Chiomara; xxi. 38. 7. A Delian epigram in honour of the Pergamene prince Philetaerus has been referred to this war; but the ascription is uncertain (cf. E. Loewy, Inschriften griechischer Bildhauer (Leipzig, 1885), 109 f., no. 147). Whether after their defeat the Galatians were left independent (Niese) or incorporated in Pergamum (Brandis; cf. Hansen, 96) is not clear; xxiv. 15. 6 merely proves <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Galatia&groupId=596&placeId=385">Galatia</a> to be non-Pontic, but not necessarily Pergamene, territory, and xxv. 2. 4 (Pharnaces not to invade <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Galatia&groupId=596&placeId=385">Galatia</a>; treaties made with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Galatia&groupId=596&placeId=385">Galatia</a> null and void) only shows, as one might expect, that <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Galatia&groupId=596&placeId=385">Galatia</a> assumed a relationship of clientship towards Pergamum, without necessarily losing its independence. </p> <p> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸν μετ᾽ Ἀριαράθου πρὸς Φαρνάκην</w>:</emph> for Pharnaces' attack on Ariarathes of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cappadocia&groupId=435&placeId=343">Cappadocia</a>, Eumenes' ally, and the subsequent war (183–180/79) see xxiii. 9. 1–3, xxiv. 1. 1–3, 5. 1, 14–15, xxv. 2. </p>
3.3.7 - 3.3.7
<p> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῆς παρὰ Πελοποννησίων ὁμονοίας καὶ καταστάσεως</w>:</emph> 'the unity and settled condition of the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Peloponnese&groupId=861&placeId=1552">Peloponnese</a>'. Paton translates 'the unification and pacification'; but <w lang="el-GR">ὁμόνοια</w> is a state, not a process. Cf. ii. 37. 8. The consolidation of Peloponnesian unity dates from the readmission of Messene and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sparta&groupId=660&placeId=1208">Sparta</a> into the Achaean League in 183 (xxiii. 17–18). </p> <p> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῆς αὐξήσεως τοῦ Ῥοδίων πολιτεύματος</w>:</emph> for Rhodian acquisitions in Asia Minor after the defeat of Antiochus see xxi. 24. 7, 46. 8 (<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Lycia&groupId=711&placeId=1304">Lycia</a> and Caria as far as the <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Maeander&groupId=725&placeId=1330">Maeander</a>, except Telmessus). </p> <p> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">συγκεφαλαιωσόμεθα τὴν ὅλην διήγησιν ἅμα καὶ τὰς πράξεις</w>:</emph> cf. § 1 n. 'I shall bring the whole narrative of events to a conclusion' (Paton). The rounding off is explained in the words <w lang="el-GR">ἐπὶ πᾶσιν . . . βασιλείας</w>. Schweighaeuser mistranslates 'uniuersam narrationem nostram et res ante positas in pauca uerba contrahemus'. For Antiochus IV Epiphanes' expedition against <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> (169/8) see xxvii. 19, xxviii. <milestone unit="page" n="300">[300]</milestone> 18–23, xxix. 2, 23 f., 27, for the Third Macedonian War (171–168) xxvii. 1–10, 14–16, xxviii. 3–13, xxix. 3–9, 14–21. </p>
3.3.9 - 3.3.9
<p> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πᾶσαν ἐποιήσαντο τὴν οἰκουμένην ὑπήκοον αὑτοῖς</w>:</emph> the summary ends on the keynote; cf. 1. 4, 1. 9. </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>
3.3.7 - 3.3.7
<p rend="Plain Text">on the last line of p. 300, for '168' read '169/8'.</p>

Commentary