Polybius, Histories

Translation

Book 6 - Chapter 8

<w lemma="du%2Fnasqai">δύνασθαι</w> <w lemma="fe%2Frein">φέρειν</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29festw%2Ftwn">ἐφεστώτων</w> <w lemma="u%28%2Fbreis">ὕβρεις</w>. <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="plh%2Fqous">πλήθους</w>, <w lemma="o%28%2Fte">ὅτε</w> <w lemma="la%2Fboi">λάβοι</w> <w lemma="prosta%2Ftas">προστάτας</w>, <w lemma="sunepisxu%2Fontos">συνεπισχύοντος</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="h%28goume%2Fnwn">ἡγουμένων</w> <w lemma="dia%5C">διὰ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="proeirhme%2Fnas">προειρημένας</w> <w lemma="ai%29ti%2Fas">αἰτίας</w>, <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="basilei%2Fas">βασιλείας</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="monarxi%2Fas">μοναρχίας</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Ddos">εἶδος</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Frdhn">ἄρδην</w> <w lemma="a%29nh%7Crei%3Dto">ἀνῃρεῖτο</w>, <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="a%29ristokrati%2Fas">ἀριστοκρατίας</w> <w lemma="au%29%3Dqis">αὖθις</w> <w lemma="a%29rxh%5Cn">ἀρχὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29la%2Fmbane">ἐλάμβανε</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ge%2Fnesin">γένεσιν</w>.

<w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="katalu%2Fsasi">καταλύσασι</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="mona%2Frxous">μονάρχους</w> <w lemma="oi%28%3Don">οἷον</w> <w lemma="ei%29">εἰ</w> <w lemma="xa%2Frin">χάριν</w> <w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="xeiro%5Cs">χειρὸς</w> <w lemma="a%29podido%2Fntes">ἀποδιδόντες</w> <w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="polloi%5C">πολλοὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftois">τούτοις</w> <w lemma="e%29xrw%3Dnto">ἐχρῶντο</w> <w lemma="prosta%2Ftais">προστάταις</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftois">τούτοις</w> <w lemma="e%29pe%2Ftrepon">ἐπέτρεπον</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="sfw%3Dn">σφῶν</w>.

<w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="prw%3Dton">πρῶτον</w> <w lemma="a%29smeni%2Fzontes">ἀσμενίζοντες</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29pitroph%5Cn">ἐπιτροπὴν</w> <w lemma="ou%29de%5Cn">οὐδὲν</w> <w lemma="prourgiai%2Fteron">προυργιαίτερον</w> <w lemma="e%29poiou%3Dnto">ἐποιοῦντο</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="koinh%3D%7C">κοινῇ</w> <w lemma="sumfe%2Frontos">συμφέροντος</w>, <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="khdemonikw%3Ds">κηδεμονικῶς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="fulaktikw%3Ds">φυλακτικῶς</w> <w lemma="e%28%2Fkasta">ἕκαστα</w> <w lemma="xeiri%2Fzontes">χειρίζοντες</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="kat%27">κατ᾽</w> <w lemma="i%29di%2Fan">ἰδίαν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="koina%5C">κοινὰ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="plh%2Fqous">πλήθους</w>.

<w lemma="o%28%2Fte">ὅτε</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="diade%2Fcainto">διαδέξαιντο</w> <w lemma="pa%2Flin">πάλιν</w> <w lemma="pai%3Ddes">παῖδες</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="pate%2Frwn">πατέρων</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="toiau%2Fthn">τοιαύτην</w> <w lemma="e%29cousi%2Fan">ἐξουσίαν</w>, <w lemma="a%29%2Fpeiroi">ἄπειροι</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="o%29%2Fntes">ὄντες</w> <w lemma="kakw%3Dn">κακῶν</w>, <w lemma="a%29%2Fpeiroi">ἄπειροι</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kaqo%2Flou">καθόλου</w> <w lemma="politikh%3Ds">πολιτικῆς</w> <w lemma="i%29so%2Fthtos">ἰσότητος</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="parrhsi%2Fas">παρρησίας</w>, <w lemma="teqramme%2Fnoi">τεθραμμένοι</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29c">ἐξ</w> <w lemma="a%29rxh%3Ds">ἀρχῆς</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="tai%3Ds">ταῖς</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="pate%2Frwn">πατέρων</w> <w lemma="e%29cousi%2Fais">ἐξουσίαις</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="proagwgai%3Ds">προαγωγαῖς</w>,

<w lemma="o%28rmh%2Fsantes">ὁρμήσαντες</w> <w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="pleoneci%2Fan">πλεονεξίαν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="filarguri%2Fan">φιλαργυρίαν</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fdikon">ἄδικον</w>, <w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="me%2Fqas">μέθας</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="a%28%2Fma">ἅμα</w> <w lemma="tau%2Ftais">ταύταις</w> <w lemma="a%29plh%2Fstous">ἀπλήστους</w> <w lemma="eu%29wxi%2Fas">εὐωχίας</w>, <w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="gunaikw%3Dn">γυναικῶν</w> <w lemma="u%28%2Fbreis">ὕβρεις</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pai%2Fdwn">παίδων</w> <w lemma="a%28rpaga%2Fs">ἁρπαγάς</w>, <w lemma="mete%2Fsthsan">μετέστησαν</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29ristokrati%2Fan">ἀριστοκρατίαν</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="o%29ligarxi%2Fan">ὀλιγαρχίαν</w>,

<w lemma="taxu%5C">ταχὺ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kateskeu%2Fasan">κατεσκεύασαν</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="plh%2Fqesi">πλήθεσι</w> <w lemma="pa%2Flin">πάλιν</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="paraplh%2Fsia">παραπλήσια</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Frti">ἄρτι</w> <w lemma="r%28hqei%3Dsi:">ῥηθεῖσι·</w> <w lemma="dio%5C">διὸ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="paraplh%2Fsion">παραπλήσιον</w> <w lemma="sune%2Fbaine">συνέβαινε</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="te%2Flos">τέλος</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3Dn">αὐτῶν</w> <w lemma="gi%2Fnesqai">γίνεσθαι</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="katastrofh%3Ds">καταστροφῆς</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="tura%2Fnnous">τυράννους</w> <w lemma="a%29tuxh%2F">ἀτυχή</w>

The people now having got leaders, would combined with them against the ruling powers for the reasons I stated above; kingship and monarchy would be utterly abolished, and in their place aristocracy would begin to grow.

For the commons, as if bound to pay at once their debt of gratitude to the abolishers of monarchy, would make them their leaders and entrust their destinies to them.

At first these chiefs gladly assumed this charge and regarded nothing as of greater importance than the common interest, administering the private and public affairs of the people with paternal solicitude.

But here again when children inherited this position of authority from their fathers, having no experience of misfortune and none at all of civil equality and liberty of speech, and having been brought up from the cradle amid the evidences of the power and high position of their fathers, they abandoned themselves some to greed of gain and unscrupulous money-making, others to indulgence in wine and the convivial excess which accompanies it, and others again to the violation of women and the rape of boys; and thus converting the aristocracy into an oligarchy aroused in the people feelings similar to those of which I just spoke, and in consequence met with the same disastrous end as the tyrant.

Walbank Commentary

Overview

6.4.7 - 6.9.14

(a) The Anacyclosis. In this section P. outlines a schematic sequence of political development, by which the various constitutional forms follow each other in a cyclical succession through a process which P. analyses in detail from 5. 4 onwards. The theory of this is specifically not claimed as original (5. 1 ff.). Recently Ryffel (189 ff.) has traced two separate traditions culminating in P.'s anacyclosis, (a) a theory about the origins of culture which goes back to the sophists and especially to Protagoras, (b) a theory about the causes of corruption in states, which are in general the same for each successive constitutional form (see 7–9 nn.). The details of Ryffel's analysis are given in the separate notes. The concept of metabole in states is old; its germs exist in Solon's theory that anomia leads to tyranny, and it was to counteract such a metabole that the idea of a mixed constitution first arose. But the first man to set out an 'order of states' was Plato. In the Republic (viii. 544 C) the 'best form' (aristocracy or basileia, iv. 445 D) is followed by the Cretan or Laconian state (= timocracy), oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny, with the implication that they develop one into another; cf. Rep. v. 449 A, <w lang="el-GR">ἐγὼ μὲν ᾖα τὰς ἐφεξῆς ἐρῶν, ὥς μοι ἐφαίνοντο ἕκασται ἐξ ἀλλή?λων μεταβαίνειν</w>. In the course of a long critique of this passage (Pol. vii (v). 12. 1316 a 1 ff.) Aristotle complains that Plato has failed to explain how the changes come about, and that he has asserted one path of development, whereas in reality almost any change of any constitution into any other is possible (a criticism equally applicable to Aristotle's own succession of constitutions, basileia–aristocracy (politeia)–oligarchy–tyranny–democracy, in Pol. iii. 15. 1286 b 8 ff.; cf. Barker, op. cit., 143 n. 2). But in addition Aristotle points to the absence of any indication of what happens after tyranny, observing (as a reductio ad absurdum) that the logic of Plato's argument would require tyranny to change back into the first, ideal constitution; <w lang="el-GR">οὕτω γὰρ ἂν ἐγίγνετο ουνεχὲς καὶ κύκλος</w> . Plato does not in fact close the circle, either here or in his further development of the theory of constitutional change in Laws, iii. 677 A ff., iv. 709 A ff.; Ep. vii. 326 B ff.; and Polit. 291 D, E (for though in Laws, iv. 710 D the development of the best state from tyranny is envisaged, the order of thought is somewhat different); but clearly his theories come very close to this step. Similarly, the discussion of constitutional forms by Aristotle in Eth. Nic. viii. 1160 b 10 ff. (basileia–tyranny; aristocracy–oligarchy; timocracy–democracy), though also not yet a 'cycle', comes close to one. It has been suggested that this passage in the Ethics may have been a close forerunner of the Polybian anacyclosis (cf. Ryffel, 172–3; and already Shute apud Newman, ii, introduction xiv); but it is doubtful whether (despite iii. 4. 11) P. was acquainted with the Ethics, and any influence is likely to be indirect. It is indeed only with the combination of the two theories of cultural <milestone unit="page" n="643">[643]</milestone> ascent and constitutional corruption that the full circle is possible; and this is found in no surviving work before P. In the form in which he presents it, the cycle has so many traditional elements that the immediate source is probably past recovery. As to this many suggestions have been made. It has been widely assumed that P. followed Panaetius of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rhodes&groupId=931&placeId=1665">Rhodes</a> (for references see CQ, 1943, 85); and the two men are known to have been fellow-members of the Scipionic circle (Cic. de re pub. i. 34; Vell. Pat. i. 13. 3; Plut. Mor. 814 C–D; Suidas, s.v. <w lang="el-GR">Πολύβιος)</w>. There are, however, chronological difficulties; it is not known whether Panaetius had come to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> before P. returned to Greece (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 103 n. 3). Furthermore, it is an equally arguable hypothesis that if there was any influence it was in the other direction, with the experienced statesman inspiring the young philosopher (cf. Reitzenstein, Gött. Nachr., 1917. 406 ff.; Pohlenz, RE, 'Panaitios (5)', col. 423). P.'s account of the anacyclosis reveals traces of Stoic terminology (see notes), but this would not be very conclusive at a period of considerable eclecticism; <note type="footnote" id="note1">Mioni (62) draws attention to the presence in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> in 155 of Diogenes of Seleuceia, Panaetius' teacher and author of a work of a political character (Ath. xii. 526 D; Cic. de leg. iii. 13). P. certainly heard him lecture (xxxiii. 2. 10); but he did not need to wait until then to become acquainted with Stoic doctrines.</note> and in one important particular, the origin of social life, P. adopts a different explanation from the Stoics (5. 7 n.). Another possible milieu with which the anacyclosis may have links is that represented by the second-century works of Hippodamus and 'Ocellus Lucanus' (cf. Ryffel, 203 ff.; von Scala, 237 ff.). 'Ocellus Lucanus' was the author of a schematizing work in which the principles of <w lang="el-GR">γένεσις, ἀκμή</w>, and <w lang="el-GR">τελευτή</w> were developed on various levels to comprise a picture of the universe. The background of this work is disputed. R. Harder (Neue philolog. Untersuchungen, i (Berlin, 1926), Ocellus Lucanus, Text und Kommentar, 30) regards it 'als popularphilosophischen hellenistischen Traktat'. But W. Theiler (Gnomon, 1925, 151; 1926, 151–3, 590 ff.; Hermes, 1953, 300) argues that 'Ocellus' represents a 'ziemlich geschlossenes System'; and he would link the biological cycle in 'Ocellus' with the circle of Critolaus, in view of parallels between 'Ocellus' (14–16) and Philo (aet. mund. 108–12, cf. 57 ff.ultimately from Critolaus). This connexion was already noted by von Scala (243), but Theiler has reinforced it with new passages. Now, according to 'Ocellus', things 'at the highest level' move <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ τόπον</w> only; everything else is subjected to the biological law of <w lang="el-GR">γένεσις ἀκμή</w>, and <w lang="el-GR">τελευτή</w>. Thus at the second level the four elements move <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ μεταβολήν</w> in a Heracleitean flux, described as <w lang="el-GR">ἀντιπερίστασις</w>; at the third level plants move in a cycle of seed, fruit, seed, called <w lang="el-GR">ἐπανάκαμψις</w>; and at the fourth level men and other living creatures <milestone unit="page" n="644">[644]</milestone> pass through a succession of ages. Each of these levels thus reveals a special application of the primary biological law in a form appropriate to its context. The theory of the anacyclosis, Ryffel suggests, may well have arisen in such a milieu; if so, it would represent the specific form in which the biological law expresses itself at the level of political institutions. This milieu, according to Harder, was that of the second-century Peripatos, with a Pythagorean admixture (cf. Ps.-Hippodamus in Stobaeus, iv. 34. 71 = W–H, v. 846); the extent to which it also contained Stoic elements is a matter of dispute between Harder and Theiler. Now, in fact, there is no definite proof that 'Ocellus' and his milieu are directly related to P. at all; and the importance of 'Ocellus' lies in the fact that it provides evidence for a contemporary example, probably of popular philosophizing, which, like P., tries with only partial success to combine the two schemes of growth–acme–decline and of cyclical movementschemes which are to be found united in nature, where the succession of birth, growth, decay, and death in the individual secures the permanence of the species. But to define P.'s source for the anacyclosis more closely seems at present impossible; and no agreement has been reached among recent writers. To Ryffel (201 n. 360) P.'s source is 'mainly Platonizing, but also open to Peripatetic influences'; he does not risk a name; Mioni (66 ff.) derives the doctrine primarily, though not exclusively, from Plato (cf. 5. 1); Regenbogen, RE, Suppl.-B. vii, col. 1519, suggests Theophrastus; and Erbse (Rh. Mus., 1951, 160 n. 1) thinks that Dicaearchus may have been P.'s source for both anacyclosis and mixed constitution. Wilamowitz (Lesebuch, ii. 1. 119), described the anacyclosis as 'eine rationalistische Verwsserung der Platonischen Darstellung, die er gar nicht unmittelbar vor Augen hat'; with its suggestion of Platonic origins and the dilution through a popular intermediary this statement still goes as far as one can go with safety. (b) The anacyclosis and the biological theory. Reference has already been made to the biological theory that all things have their birth, acme, and decline. In its general form this can be traced back to Anaximander (Diels, FVS, i. 12, B 1): <w lang="el-GR">ἐξ ὧν δὲ ἡ γένεσίς ἐστι τοῖς οὖσι, καὶ τὴν φθορὰν εἰς ταῦτα γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὸ χρεών</w> . By Thucydides' time it was a commonplace (cf. Thuc. ii. 64. 3, <w lang="el-GR">πάντα γὰρ πέφυκε καὶ ἐλασσοῦσθαι)</w>; and by the Hellenistic period it was identified with the Stoic <w lang="el-GR">εἱμαρμένη</w> (cf. Phot. Bibl. cod. 249, 1584 B. (perhaps Agatharchides), <w lang="el-GR">τὸ? ἐκ παιδὸς εἰς μειράκιον ἐλθεῖν καὶ τὰς καθ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἑξῆς ἡλικίας οἰκείως διελθεῖν</w>an example of <w lang="el-GR">εἱμαρμένη)</w>. In several passages (4. 11–13. 9. 11–14, 43. 2, 51. 4–8, 57) P. applies such 'organic' or 'biological' terms to his discussion of the development of the state, e.g. <w lang="el-GR">ἀρχή</w> or <w lang="el-GR">σύστασις, αὔξησις, ἀκμή, φθορά, μεταβολή</w>. This sequence implies that all states (even the mikte) must eventually decline <milestone unit="page" n="645">[645]</milestone> <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσιν</w>(cf. 9. 12–14). What is the connexion of ideas between this biological theory and that of the anacyclosis with which it appears in close conjunction? Whether this conjunction was already in existence before P. is uncertain. Theiler (Hermes, 1953, 298; Gnomon, 1926, 590 ff.) argues that it was in Critolaus (cf. Philo, aet. mund. 58 ff., 71); but Critolaus' acquaintance with the anacyclosis has yet to be proved. In any case the relationship between the two concepts in P. requires close analysis. The problem was first raised by Cuntz (40–41) and De Sanctis (iii. 1. 206); and Zancan (Rend. Ist. Lomb., 1936, 508) provided a partial answer by pointing to the concept of <w lang="el-GR">φύσις</w> which P. insists is proper to both the biological development and the anacyclosis (cf. 4. 7 <w lang="el-GR">φυσικῶς</w>, 4. 9 <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσιν</w>, 4. 11, 4. 13, 5. 8 <w lang="el-GR">φύσεως ἔργον</w>, and 9. 10 <w lang="el-GR">φύσεως οἰκονομία</w> (both of the anacyclosis), 9. 13, 9. 14, 51. 4 <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσιν</w>, 57. 1 <w lang="el-GR">ἡ τῆς φύσεως ἀνάγκη)</w>. Particularly in 4. 11–13 the two concepts are brought into the closest relationship; yet they cannot be made wholly to coincide, since the biological theory requires an <w lang="el-GR">ἀκμή</w>, and it is only at the cost of some violence that this can be introduced into the anacyclosis. The difficulty is discussed by Ryffel (216 ff.; see also Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 110 ff., 113–15). There are, he observes, three forms which such an <w lang="el-GR">ἀκμή</w> might take. (a) If one considers the whole curve of the anacyclosis, it might well be argued that the <w lang="el-GR">ἀκμή</w> is <w lang="el-GR">βασιλεία</w>, since clearly the <w lang="el-GR">ἀρχή</w> lies in primitive society (cf. 5. 4), and the development through the <w lang="el-GR">μοναρχία</w> to the <w lang="el-GR">βασιλεία</w> is a form of <w lang="el-GR">αὔξησις</w>, and the decline into <w lang="el-GR">τυραννίς</w> represents a <w lang="el-GR">μεταβολή</w>. But, despite the fact that P. devotes all 5–7 to this stage of the cycle, such an identification neglects the further stages, and is therefore unsatisfactory. (b) Inside the single state (e.g. of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>) P. tends to treat aristocracy as the <w lang="el-GR">ἀκμή</w> (e.g. in 51. 5–6, 57. 8), thus indulging his personal prejudices (cf. 56. 11). But when he is describing the detailed working of the mikte (11–18), he seems rather to exaggerate the real power of the people by putting to their credit the role of the tribunes (16. 4) and the economic activity of the equites (17. 3 ff.), in the interest of his schematic balance. This is against our assuming that the mikte is to be regarded as in some sense weighted towards aristocracy; and in fact 51. 6 merely states that in a mixed constitution at its prime deliberation is part of the function of the aristocratic element (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 117–18). (c) One may apply the biological concept to a single constitutional form; and Ryffel (217) sees some evidence that P. intends this in his use of the doctrine of the <w lang="el-GR">σύμφυτον κακόν</w> inherent in each good form (cf. 4. 8 n., 10. 1 f.). Up to a point this is sound, and is partly supported by such passages as 7. 1 and 8. 1, where it is clear that each phase of the anacyclosis has its own <w lang="el-GR">ἀρχὴ καὶ γένεσις</w> and in turn <milestone unit="page" n="646">[646]</milestone> its destruction. If this is pressed, the problem of an <w lang="el-GR">ἀκμή</w> disappears, each phase having its own <w lang="el-GR">ἀκμή</w>; but if P. meant this, surely he would have said so more clearly. Indeed, the problem of the <w lang="el-GR">ἀκμή</w> is not fully solved until the idea of the mixed constitution has been combined with that of the anacyclosis. It is to this combination that we now turn. (c) The anacyclosis and the mixed constitution. In four passages (10. 7, 10. 11, 10. 14, 11. 1) P. speaks of the mixed constitution in terms implying that it will not last for ever; eventually it must decline <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ? φύσιν</w>, like other states including the ideal state of Plato: cf. Plato, Rep. viii. 546 A, <w lang="el-GR">χαλεπὸν μὲν κινηθῆναι πόλιν οὕτω συστᾶσαν. ἀλλ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἐπεὶ γενομένῳ πάντι φθορά ἐστιν, οὐδ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἡ τοιαύτη σύστασις τὸν ἅπαντα μενεῖ χρόνον ἀλλὰ λυθήσεται</w>. Consequently there is no fundamental contradiction between the theory of the mixed constitution and that of the organic series, birth, growth, acme, decline (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 107, 112). Indeed, historically the theory of the mixed state arose as the answer to the problem of constitutional change and decay (cf. 3. 7 n., 4. 6 n.); and the ultimate lack of permanence in the mikte made it possible to combine it with the anacyclosis in this book. The existence of any mixed constitution at an historical period ('Lycurgan' <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sparta&groupId=660&placeId=1208">Sparta</a>, third- and second-century <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>) explicitly raised the question of its growth, and by implication at least that of its decay. P. wrote book vi as part of his general didactic purpose. His specific reasons are repeatedly stated (iii. 2. 6, 118. 9 f., v. 111. 10, vi. 2. 3, cf. xxxix. 8. 7); they are, briefly, to account for Roman success and world-empire by analysing the form of constitution under which she achieved it. Zancan (Rend. Ist. Lomb., 1936, 499 f.) assumed that P. was also concerned to explain certain contemporary signs of decadence; but this is an object he never mentions, and can only have been incidental. To explain Roman success P. had to analyse the mixed constitution; this meant analysing its growth; and here he found the theory of the anacyclosis invaluable, since the early course of Roman history corresponded to the demands of that theory (cf. 11 a n.). But the anacyclosis also implied eventual decay; and it is this fact which has led to the view (cf. CQ, 1943, 73–89) that its acceptance by P. must be part of the revised plan of his history, adopted after 146 (cf. iii. 1–5 n.), and that this revision sounded a critical note, and put <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> up at the bar of justice to answer for her method of exercising her rulewith an end to it all in <w lang="el-GR">ταραχὴ καὶ κίνησις</w> (iii. 4. 12 n.). But in fact P. must have been confronted with the issue of Roman decay before 150–146 (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 105–7). Already in i. 64 he had criticized the inability of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> as mistress of the world to put to sea such fleets as she had marshalled during the First Punic War; and he must have <milestone unit="page" n="647">[647]</milestone> been familiar with the statue set up to Cato after his censorship of 184 and have read the inscription which Plutarch (Cat. mai. 19. 3) translates: <w lang="el-GR">τὴν Ῥωμαίων πολιτείαν ἐγκεκλιμένην καὶ ῥέπουσαν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον . . . εἰς ὀρθὸν αὖθις ἀποκατέστησε</w>. Nor was Cato alone. Already in 166 the young Scipio Aemilianus was a contrast to the rest of the Roman youths, who had been corrupted by the great wealth and power of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> since the fall of Macedon (xxxi. 25–29; the <w lang="el-GR">ἀδήριτος ἐξουσία</w> of xxxi. 25. 6 recalls the <w lang="el-GR">δυναστεία ἀδήριτος</w> of vi. 57. 5); on this see Pöschl, 64–65. Hence the theory of the anacyclosis, which P. saw illustrated in the rise of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, and which he probably regarded as the specific form of the general theory of biological change (above § (b)), could perhaps already find a further justification (if an incidental one) in the signs that even as early as P.'s arrival in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> 'things were not what they had been'. It is therefore unnecessary (and misleading) to postulate that (as was argued in CQ, 1943, 82–84) the anacyclosis was part of the revised scheme; indeed the difficulties of such a view render it untenable (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 109 ff.). The mikte is therefore to be regarded as the constitution to which the Romans worked by way of the early stages of the anacyclosis; and in so far as she achieved the mikte <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> succeeded in temporarily placing herself outside the influence of the forces normally making for change. To that extent the Roman constitution is a breach of the anacyclosis pattern, which was <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσιν</w>. Yet from another point of view the achievement of the mikte gave <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> something which, as we saw, was lacking to the anacyclosis as it normally operated an acme; and this brought it (despite the zigzags in its pattern) into relation with the biological concept of origin, growth, acme, and decline. Hence it could (from that point of view) be said to have had a growth that was essentially <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσιν</w> (cf. 9. 13–14). This is the explanation of the apparent paradox that P. describes as having had, <w lang="el-GR">εἰ . . . τινα καὶ ἑτέραν πολιτείαν</w> (9. 13), a development <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ φύσιν</w>, the one state which has evidently succeeded in making a breach in the 'natural' development of the anacyclosis. There is a contradiction herebut one which lies within P.'s rather complicated theorizing in a realm in which he was not a real master; and it is this contradiction which enables him to treat the anacyclosis as the specific form in which the biological law finds expression within the realm of political theory.

6.5.4 - 6.9.9

Detailed exposition of the anacyclosis.

6.8.0 - 6.9.0

The proverb is from Hesiod (Op. 40: <w lang="el-GR">νήπιοι, οὐδὲ ἴσασιν ὄσῳ πλέον ἥμιου παντός)</w>, and is quoted by Plato (Rep. v. 466 c and Laws, iii. 690 E), in the latter instance in reference to moderation in kings; whence von Scala (113) suggests that the king here meant is Tullus Hostilius (cf. Cic. de re pub. ii. 31). Nissen (Rh. Mus., 1871, 254) thinks Romulus is meant; but there is no proof that § 9, a passage of very general application, which follows § 8 in the margin of the codex Urbinas (fol. 65 <emph rend="superscript">v</emph> ), necessarily concerns Numa (so Nissen, ibid.). For <w lang="el-GR">ὑπόθυψις</w> 'incitement', cf. v. 42. 3, <w lang="el-GR">ὑποθύψας τὴν διαβολήν</w>.

6.8.0 - 6.8.0

Nissen (loc. cit.) refers this sententia to Tarquinius Superbus; it would suit him well enough.

6.8.11 - 6.8.11

Unidentifiable.

6.8.12 - 6.8.12

(Steph. Byz. s.v. <w lang="el-GR">Ὄλκιον</w>.) Olkion is Volci, the Etruscan city lying about 65 miles north-west of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, and 10 miles from the coast. No other authority associates it with the Roman regal period or early republic, and it is not certain that P. mentioned it in the archaeologia.

6.8.11 - 6.8.18

The Roman Constitution at its prime. Having traced the growth of the mikte P. now examines it in its working form. His plan for these chapters is carefully balanced and symmetrical: <table cols="3" rows="4"> <row> <cell /> <cell>11. General remarks</cell> <cell /> </row> <row> <cell>12. Powers of Consuls</cell> <cell>13. Powers of Senate</cell> <cell>14. Powers of People</cell> </row> <row> <cell>15. Checks on Consuls</cell> <cell>16. Checks on Senate</cell> <cell>17. Checks on People</cell> </row> <row> <cell /> <cell>18. Summary</cell> <cell /> </row> </table>

6.8.1 - 6.8.9

Apology to Roman readers for possible omissions. On P.'s Roman readers (cf. xxxi. 22. 8) see von Scala (289–90). Leo (326 n. 1) <milestone unit="page" n="673">[673]</milestone> suggests that here, and again in ix. 1. 2, P. is writing in a second edition in reply to criticisms already received; but this hypothesis is not supported by any traces of a revised edition elsewhere in vi.

6.8.0 - 6.8.0

On the relativity of judgements. Probably part of the same apologia. Critics are to bear in mind that P. is speaking of the period of the Hannibalic War. Since then there may have been (and may in future be) changes in constitutional detail (cf. 12. 10), though as yet such changes are still slight (11. 13); but as a result judgements may no longer seem appropriate. P. is aware of changes between 216 <milestone unit="page" n="674">[674]</milestone> and c. 150, but does not regard them as significant enough to upset his general argument (cf. Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 105–7). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">μεταπεσόντος δὲ τούτου</w>:</emph> sc. <w lang="el-GR">καιροῦ</w>; 'when the situation changes'. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πρὸς τὰς ἄλλας περιστάσεις συγκρινόμενον</w>:</emph> 'confronted with a set of new circumstances'.

6.8.11 - 6.8.13

Introductory remarks on the division of power at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>.

6.8.12 - 6.8.12

Powers of the Consuls: see Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 1. 74–140; Greenidge, 196–202. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πασῶν εἰσι κύριοι τῶν δημοσίων πράξεων</w>:</emph> true, with the exception of civil jurisdiction, which fell to the praetor after 366, and finance, including assessment for tributum, which after 443 was normally administered by the censors (Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 1. 101, 108). The words <w lang="el-GR">πρὸ τοῦ μὲν ἐξάγειν τὰ στρατόπεδα</w> mean 'while exercising imperium domi' (on which see Mommsen, St.-R. i. 61 ff.). At the time of which P. is writing it was customary for the consuls to leave <milestone unit="page" n="675">[675]</milestone> <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> for military duties shortly after entering on their year of office.

6.8.13 - 6.8.13

Powers of the Senate: cf. Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 2. 835 ff.; Greenidge, 261–88 De Sanctis, iv. 1. 515 ff.; O'Brien-Moore, RE, Suppl.-B. vi, 'Senatus', cols. 660 ff.

6.8.4 - 6.8.5

The Senate's intervention in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Italy&groupId=656&placeId=1199">Italy</a>. P. distinguishes (a) concern with criminal jurisdiction in allied states (§ 4), (b) administrative intervention (§ 5). For discussion see Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 2. 1194 ff.; Willems, ii. 687 f.; McDonald, JRS, 1944, 13 ff.; von Fritz, Constitution, 172–4. The Italian socii were nominally, and originally in fact, independent states, and the Senate's competence to intervene arose out of its role in foreign affairs. The first two offences P. mentions are <w lang="el-GR">προδοσία</w> treachery,i.e. disaffection, proditio) and <w lang="el-GR">συνωμοσία</w>(coniuratio). The Senate's claim to intervene here sprang out of its duty to secure the confederation, and, possessing no jurisdiction of its own, it normally acted by directing magistrates. Many cases occurred, during the Second Punic War, of the destruction of cities, the execution of leading citizens, and restriction of autonomy, for the crime of <w lang="el-GR">προδοσία</w> (e.g. Campania, <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Etruria&groupId=582&placeId=1089">Etruria</a>, Tarentum, Locri, Bruttium), and of the arrest and execution of those guilty of conspiracy to revolt, followed by the exaction of hostages and the introduction of garrisons (e.g. Tarentum, Thurii, Arretium). A mere suspicion of disloyalty might be dealt with by milder administrative action, the summoning of envoys and the pronouncing of formal censure, <w lang="el-GR">ἐπιτίμησις</w> (mistranslated by Paton, 'claims damages'); examples are the reproof administered to the Tiburtines in c. 159. (CIL, i <emph rend="superscript">2</emph> . 2. 586), and various incidents in the Hannibalic War and later (Livy, xxvii. 38. 3–5, xxix. 15. 1–15, xxxvi. 3. 4–6). In general, public safety was a local responsibility; but when offences seemed likely to have extensive repercussions, and especially when extraordinary measures proved necessary within districts under Roman jurisdiction, the Romans often required the socii to take similar action through their own magistrates. It is in this context that P. mentions mass poisoning <w lang="el-GR">(φαρμακεία)</w> and assassination <w lang="el-GR">(δολοφονία)</w>. The former offence (cf. Kaufman, CP, 1932, 156–67) is a constant concern of the quaestiones ueneficii from 184 onwards, following the suppression of the Bacchanalia (see below); cf. Livy, xxxix. 38. 3, 41. 5, xl. 37. 4–7, 43. 2, 44. 6, xlv. 16. 4, ep. 48. The number of those condemnedwhether justly or notran into thousands, and though Livy mentions only action in Roman territory, it will have been followed up in the allied cities. Likewise for brigandage (i.e. <w lang="el-GR">δολοφονία)</w>: cf. Livy, xxxix. 29. 9, 41. 6; Cic. Brut. 85 (in the Sila). The idea of conspiracy inherent in both these offences helped to justify senatorial intervention. A particularly notable example, and <milestone unit="page" n="679">[679]</milestone> one which P. or his source has probably in mind, is the suppression of the cult of Bacchus in 186 (Livy, xxxix. 8. 1 ff.; Riccobono, Fontes, i, no. 30; recent discussion in McDonald, JRS, 1944, 26 ff. with bibliography), a measure in which the Senate acted autonomously within Roman territory and through the Latin and Italian authorities in allied land. The extensive action taken reveals a wide expansion in the Senate's claim to enforce public security throughout <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Italy&groupId=656&placeId=1199">Italy</a>. As part of its general concern for the peaceful development of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Italy&groupId=656&placeId=1199">Italy</a> the Senate also arbitrated in the case of disputes between cities <w lang="el-GR">(διάλυσις)</w>; commissions were appointed, frequently including patrons of the cities in question; cf. Livy, xlv. 13. 10–11 (<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Pisa&groupId=904&placeId=1625">Pisa</a> and Luna), and, for the appointment of patrons, Dion. Hal. ii. 11. 1 (further references in McDonald, JRS, 1944, 14 n. 20). How far the Senate lent an ear to <w lang="el-GR">ἰδιῶται</w> is less clear; allied citizens had in general no automatic right of access to the Senate (Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 2. 1149), but occasionally, out of favour or interest, the Senate may have been prepared to listen to private individuals appealing on behalf of themselves or their city. Examples of responses to appeals for help <w lang="el-GR">(βοήθεια)</w> are the rebuilding of the walls of Genua (Livy, xxx. 1. 10), and that of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Placentia&groupId=907&placeId=1630">Placentia</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cremona&groupId=502&placeId=945">Cremona</a> (Livy, xxxiv. 22. 3), and the sending of Cn. Sicinius cum imperio to deal with a plague of locusts in Apulia (Livy, xlii. 10. 8). The sending of a garrison on request <w lang="el-GR">(φυλακή)</w> is attested for <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Nola&groupId=796&placeId=1439">Nola</a>, Neapolis, <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Placentia&groupId=907&placeId=1630">Placentia</a>, and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cremona&groupId=502&placeId=945">Cremona</a> during the Second Punic War (Livy, xxiii. 14. 10, 15. 2, xxviii. 11. 10–11), and for Aquileia in 171 (Livy, xliii. 1. 5–6, cf. 17. 1). The position of the Senate, as P. here sketches it, was attained as the result of a process which began in the late third century, but was scarcely completed before the second quarter of the second century; hence P. is here giving his experience of the Senate after 168 rather than a picture of its role in 216. On the extent to which Roman law was imposed on the Italian allies see W. V. Harris, Historia, 1972, 639–45.

6.8.6 - 6.8.6

The Senate's duty in dispatching embassies: cf. Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 1. 675–701; von Premerstein, RE, 'legatus', cols. 1133 ff.; O'BrienMoore, RE, Suppl.-B. vi, 'Senatus', col. 732. Originally the concern of the college of fetiales, by the middle of the third century relations with foreign states had fallen into the hands of the Senate, which acted through legati. From the time of the Second Punic War onwards the sending of legati was authorized by a senatus consultum, which specified their number (usually three, occasionally two, four, five, or ten); the choice of individuals was the task of the chief magistrate (cf. Livy, xxix. 20. 4, 'consules decem legatos quos iis underetur ex senatu legere'), but on their return the legati reported to the Senate. The use of legati to carry a conditional declaration of war, i.e. to submit a rerum repetitio and, if the reply was unfavourable, to convey the denuntiatio belli, can be traced from 238/7 onwards (see McDonald and Walbank, JRS, 1937, 192–7; <milestone unit="page" n="680">[680]</milestone> Walbank, JRS, 1941, 82–93; CP, 1949, 15–19), and it is to this P. refers in the phrase <w lang="el-GR">πόλεμον ὲπαγγέλλουσαν</w> (on it see Welles, 334). The other duties mentioned can all be illustrated from second-century practice: cf. Livy, xxxix. 24. 13 ff., conference at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Tempe&groupId=1015&placeId=1786">Tempe</a> in 185, at which three Roman legati settle disputes between Philip V of Macedon and certain Thessalian cities <w lang="el-GR">(διαλύσουσάν τινας)</w>; P. xxii. 10. 2, Q. Caecilius Metellus exhorts the Achaeans to correct their policy towards <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sparta&groupId=660&placeId=1208">Sparta</a> <w lang="el-GR">(παρέκαλει . . . διορθώσασθαι τὴν . . . ἄγνοιαν)</w>; xxix. 27. 1, C. Popillius Laenas' famous ultimatum to Antiochus Epiphanes at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Pelusium&groupId=863&placeId=1555">Pelusium</a> (when, however, Antiochus agrees that he will <w lang="el-GR">ποιήσειν πᾶν τὸ παρακαλούμενον: παρακαλεῖν</w> and <w lang="el-GR">ἐπιτάττειν</w> shade off one into the other); xviii. 48. 1, P. Lentulus takes over and liberates Bargylia, and L. Stertinius <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Hephaestia&groupId=623&placeId=1146">Hephaestia</a>, <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Thasos&groupId=1020&placeId=1794">Thasos</a>, and the Thracian cities; Strabo, xiv. 646, in 132 the Senate send five legati to take over the inherited kingdom of Asia. The extension of these functions came in the second century, especially with the growth of the senatorial practice of appointing a commission of ten legati to assist a victorious general to organize the peace after a war. The first clear examples are after the Hannibalic and Second Macedonian Wars (Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 1. 692); on the First Punic War see i. 63. 1 n. Thus here again P. appears to be describing second-century conditions.

Specifics

6.8.1 - 6.8.1

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὅτι ἀπὸ τῆς Ξερξου ιαβάσεως κτλ</w>.:</emph> despite a corrupt text it seems clear that P. is here saying (a) that the Roman constitution from the time of Xerxes' crossing (480), and from a date x+thirty years later, has consistently improved, (b) that it was at its peak during the Hannibalic War. Ed. Meyer (Rh. Mus., 1882, 622–3) first saw that there was a reference to the period of the Decemvirate and read 〈<w lang="el-GR">τέτταρσι</w>〉 or 〈<w lang="el-GR">πέντε</w>〉 <w lang="el-GR">καὶ τριάκοντα</w>; but De Sanctis (ii. 41 n. 1) proposed 〈<w lang="el-GR">δύο</w>〉, which with inclusive reckoning brings one to 449, when the consuls L. Valerius Potitus and M. Horatius took over from the Decemviri. This seems likely. Xerxes' crossing is a convenient date for the orientation of Greek readers (cf. iii. 22. 2). Thus this first paragraph is transitional from the archaeologia to P.'s account of the constitution at the time of the Second Punic War. Since it is in connexion with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Cannae&groupId=430&placeId=797">Cannae</a> that book vi is introduced such a reference is quite in place here (cf. 2. 4 f.), and there seems no good reason for assuming that this passage represents part of a later draft (cf. Svoboda, Phil., 1913, 474–5; De Sanctis, iii. 1. 207). Cicero (de re pub. ii. 1–37) follows P. in ending his account of early Roman history with the Decemvirate (cf. Taeger, 100; Brink and Walbank, CQ, 1954, 113–14). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀπὸ τούτων . . . προδιευκρινουμένων</w>:</emph> 'after the details <w lang="el-GR">(τῶν κατὰ μέρος)</w> of the Roman political order had, from this time onwards, and prior to the Hannibalic War <w lang="el-GR">(προ</w>-), continued to be ever more well arranged' (so von Fritz, Constitution, 366, 468–9, quoting Xen. Oec. 8. 6 for <w lang="el-GR">διενκρινεῖν</w>, 'to arrange well'). This is preferable to taking <w lang="el-GR">τῶν . . . προδιενκρινουμένων</w> with <w lang="el-GR">ἦν</w>, 'one of those receiving particular elucidation'. (*p. 646.) Against von Fritz's translation, adopted here, see K. Bchner, Studien zur römischen Literatur, ii: Cicero (Wiesbaden, 1962), 196 f., who argues that it would require an aorist participle in place of <w lang="el-GR">προδιευκρινουμένων</w>, and that it implies two high pointsthe year of the Decemvirate and the Hannibalic War. For other suggestions see K. F. Eisen, Polybiosinterpretationen, 79–83. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἡμεῖς . . . ἐποιησάμεθα</w>:</emph> cf. v. 111. 9–10.

6.8.2 - 6.8.2

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς συστάσεως αὐτοῦ λόγον</w>:</emph> 'an account of its origin'; cf. 4. 13, 9. 12, 57. 10, where, however, P. adds a reference to <w lang="el-GR">αὒξησις</w>.

6.8.8 - 6.8.8

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">εἰδέναι . . . δι</w></emph> <w lang="el-GR">᾽</w> <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἄλνοιαν</w>:</emph> a non sequitur. It does not follow that, because what is included is partly inaccurate, therefore what is omitted is omitted from ignorance. But probably all P. means to say is that a writer who is proved to be scrupulous deserves the reader's confidence in both his knowledge and judgement, and therefore it should be assumed that omissions are based on these qualities.

6.8.11 - 6.8.11

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἦν μὲν δή τρία μέρη κτλ</w>.:</emph> 'the elements controlling the constitution were three in number, all of which I have mentioned before'; cf. 3. 5. The three debased forms (4. 6) are irrelevant here. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">οὕτως δὲ πάντα κατὰ μέρος κτλ</w>.:</emph> 'all aspects of the administration were, taken separately, so fairly and so suitably ordered and regulated through the agency of these three elements . . .' . <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πότερ᾽ ἀριστοκρατικὸν . . . μοναρχικόν</w>:</emph> it is a mark of success in the mikte that one cannot be sure what to call it; cf. Arist. Pol. vi (iv). 9. 1294 b 13 ff., <w lang="el-GR">ὁ μὲν οὖν τρόπος τῆς μίξεως οὗτος, τοῦ ᾽ εὖ μεμῖχθαι ημοκρτί?αν καὶ ὀλιαρχίαν ὅρος, ὅταν ἐνδέχηται λέγειν τὴν αὐτὴν πολι- τείαν δημοκρατίαν καὶ ὀλιγαρχίαν . . . ὅπερ συμβαίνει περὶ τὴν Λακε δαιμονίων πολιτείαν</w>. Cf. also Plato, Laws, iv. 712 D; Isoc. Areop. 61; Ryffel, 164. Sinclair (251) suggests that this <w lang="el-GR">τόπος</w> was in Dicaearchus; but there is no reason to assume that P. drew on Dicaearchus in this book (3. 7 n.). Here <w lang="el-GR">μοναρχικὸν</w> (cf. § 12, 12. 9) has not the pejorative sense which it bears in the account of the anacyclosis (3. 9 ff.).

6.8.12 - 6.8.12

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">μοναρχικὸν . . . καὶ βασιλκόν</w>:</emph> cf. Cic. de re pub. ii. 56, 'tenuit . . . hoc in statu senatus rem publicam . . . uti consules potestatem haberent tempore dumtaxat annuam, genere ipso ac iure regiam'; Dion. Hal. vi. 65, <w lang="el-GR">(οἱ ὕπατοι) βασιλικὸν ἔχουσι τὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς κράτος, οὐ δηοτικόν</w>. Roman tradition stresses this continuity with the monarchy, modified only by the existence of prouocatio; cf. Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 1. 93 n. 3.

6.8.13 - 6.8.13

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">καὶ νῦν ἔτι πλὴν ὀλίγων τινῶν</w>:</emph> cf. § 10. The phrase serves as a transition from the imperfect tenses of this chapter to the presents which follow. In fact the subsequent account in many ways reflects the conditions of 167–150 rather than those of 216; cf. McDonald, CHJ, 6, 1939, 136; JRS, 1944, 13 n. 11. Relevant details are mentioned in the separate notes.

6.8.2 - 6.8.2

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πλὴν τῶν δημάρχων</w>:</emph> the tribune was the exception to the rule that the consular potestas was superior to and could therefore override that of any other magistrate. The tribunate was specifically intended to challenge the consul's imperium (cf. Cic. de re pub. ii. 58, 'contra consulare imperium tribuni plebis . . . constituti'); and a motion proposed in the Senate by a tribune might not be vetoed by a consul (Mommsen, St.-R. i. 282). The tribunician right of veto was reinforced by the power of coercitio, which could be exercised against the consul; and the tribune's ius agendi cum plebe also brought a further infringement of the rights of patrician magistrates, since it invested him with the power to summon away a large portion of the populus from the consuls (cf. Greenidge, 96). Eventually the tribunes' 'power of coercion and jurisdiction widened into a judicial control of the magistracy; they were the prosecutors of faulty officials, and, up to the time of the development of the quaestiones, represented the chief means which the state possessed of enforcing criminal responsibility upon its executive' (ibid. 234, cf. 182–3); see below 14. 6 n. For a list of occasions from all periods of republican history when the tribunes took judicial proceedings against consuls and other senior officials see Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 1. 320 ff.; cf. Brecht, RE, 'perduellio', cols. 626–34. On the tribune's right of jurisdiction see Bleicken, 106 ff. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">εἴς τε τὴν σύγκλητον. . . τὰς πρεσβείας ἄγουσι</w>:</emph> embassies were heard early in the consular year, before the consul left for his province (Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 2. 1155); cf. 13. 7. In stressing this aspect of the consul's duties P. is clearly thinking of second-century conditions, when the appearance of large numbers of eastern embassies became an annual event at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, as a result of her dominant position in the eastern Mediterranean.

6.8.3 - 6.8.3

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὰ κατεπείγοντα τῶν διαβουλίων ἀναδιδόασιν</w>:</emph> 'they refer urgent business (to the Senate) for discussion'. The ius referendi was possessed not only by the consuls but also by interrex, dictator, praetor, military tribune with consular power, and magister equitum (cf. Cic. de leg. iii. 10); but normally the consuls convened the Senate in conjunction, and if a praetor did so his action was liable to consular intercessio (Mommsen, St.-R. i. 209–10, ii. 1. 129–30). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὸν . . . χειρισμὸν τῶν δογμάτων ἐπιτελοῦσι</w>:</emph> 'they see to the execution of senatus consulta'.

6.8.4 - 6.8.4

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">συνάγειν τὰς ἐκκλησίας</w>:</emph> 'summon assemblies'. Such officers as had the power to summon the Senate (§ 3 n.) had also the power to convene the popular assemblies: in practice the ius agendi cum populo was exercised by the highest magistrate present at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> at the time (Mommsen, St.-R. i. 193 n.). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">εἰσφέρειν τὰ δόγματα</w>:</emph> 'introduce measures, leges rogare'. The <milestone unit="page" n="676">[676]</milestone> magistrate brought a proposal before the comitia, and if the answer was one of acceptance, the rogatio became a lex (Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 1. 303 f.). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">βραβεύειν τὰ δοκοῦντα τοῖς πλείοσι</w>:</emph> 'carry out the decrees of the people'. P. here refers in general terms to the executive powers of the consul, who carries out the terms of a decree passed in one of the assemblies. The consuls enjoyed full competence for all branches of the administration for which specific provisions were not made (cf. Kbler, RE, 'consul', cols. 1122–3).

6.8.6 - 6.8.6

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐπιτάττειν τοῖς συμμαχικοῖς τὸ δοκοῦν</w>:</emph> the precise obligations of each allied state were laid down in its foedus, and it was required to keep a register of its effective strength. Normally demands, whether for men or (as in the case of the south Italian Greeks) for ships, would be made ex formulathough in cases of necessity unlimited extraordinary levies might be made, whatever the provisions of the treaty. On the normal working of the levy see 21. 4. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοὺς χιλιάρχους καθιστάναι</w>:</emph> cf. 19. 1, <w lang="el-GR">ἐπειδὰν ἀποδείξωσι τοὺς ὑπάτους</w>, <w lang="el-GR">μετὰ ταῦτα χιλιάρχους καθιστᾶσι</w>. There were six military tribunes to each legion, and the twenty-four serving in the four legiones urbanae were elected in the tribal assembly and ranked as magistrates (Livy, xxvii. 36. 14; Sall. Iug. 63. 4). The tribunes for the remaining legions were, however, nominated by the consuls, and were known (after 105) as tribuni militum Rufuli (Livy, vii. 5. 9; Paulus ep. Festi, p. 317 Lindsay) in contrast to tribuni militum a populo. The distinction persisted down to the Empire, when inscriptions distinguish tribuni militum a populo and tribuni militum Augusti. It is to the Rufuli P. here refers. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">διαγράφειν τοὺς στρατιώτας</w>:</emph> see 19. 5 ff. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">διαλέγειν τοὺς ἐπιτηδείους</w>:</emph> on the method see 20. 1–7.

6.8.7 - 6.8.7

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ζημιῶσαι . . . ὃν ἂν βουληθῶσι</w>:</emph> the citizen's right of prouocatio does not apply <w lang="el-GR">ἐν τοῖς ὑπαίθροις</w>, militiae; cf. Livy, iii. 20. 7, 'neque enim prouocationem esse longius ab urbe mille passuum'. From Livy, xxiv. 9. 2, it appears that a consul's imperium was free from prouocatio between the first milestone and the pomerium; and Mommsen (St.-R. i. 68–70) suggests that within that area prouocatio (and intercessio) was valid except against the actions of a general with imperium who had taken the auspices on the Capitol before formally leaving the city. In practice camp discipline was under the control of the military tribunes; cf. 37–39.

6.8.8 - 6.8.8

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">δαπανᾶν . . . ὅσα προθεῖντο</w>:</emph> 'to spend as much as they think fit', cf. 13. 2. These passages show that in P.'s time the consul was still empowered, through the agency of the quaestor urbanus assigned to him, to withdraw moneys at will for his needs out of the aerarium, without the normal senatus consultum (a power perhaps not possessed by the dictator; Zon. vii. 13); the need to act through the quaestors <milestone unit="page" n="677">[677]</milestone> was no doubt originally a limitation on the autonomous powers of the consuls (Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 1. 132), but in practice the quaestors are under the orders of the consuls. In fact, there is no recorded instance of a consul drawing money on his own initiative; indeed, on occasion he would remain embarrassed by the refusal of the Senate's authorization (cf. Livy, xxviii. 45. 14, xxxvi. 36. 1; O'BrienMoore, RE, Suppl.-B. vi, 'Senatus', col. 741). Whether Caesar's request that the consuls should come to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> and open up the aerarium in 49 (Cic. Att. vii. 21. 2) was based on this ancient tradition or not is uncertain; probably not. Once the consul had gone on active service, he depended on the Senate's goodwill for further supplies (15. 4) over and above what he himself obtained as spoils from the enemy (cf. xxiii. 14. 6–11). The consuls' right to spend money without a senatus consultum is restricted by Larsen (CP, 1957, 36 f.) to imperium militiae, when it will not concern the aerarium; Gelzer, Kl. Schr. iii. 214, also thinks this an error of P.

6.8.1 - 6.8.1

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὴν τοῦ ταμιείου κυρίαν</w>:</emph> control of the aerarium and of all revenue and expenditure lay within the Senate's competence. The former will have included the levying of tributum (regarded as a compulsory loan, Dion. Hal. v. 47. 1) until its abolition in 167 (Cic. off. ii. 76), as well as the income from the provinces, the basis of which the Senate determined in each instance in its ratification of the lex prouinciae; in addition it controlled ager publicus and its occupation or alienation, and accepted or rejected gifts and bequests to the state. P. deals in greater detail with the Senate's outlays. See in general Cic. Vat. 36, 'eripueras senatui . . . aerarii dispensationem, quae numquam populus ab summi consilii gubernatione auferre conatus est'. Cf. Mommsen, St.-R. iii. 2. 1125–6; Greenidge, 286–7; De Sanctis, iv. 1. 515 f.; O'Brien-Moore, RE, Suppl.-B. vi, 'Senatus', cols. 736 ff. For the exception (§ 2, <w lang="el-GR">πλήν τὴν εἰς τοὺς ὑπάτους</w>,, cf. 12. 8 n. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">εἰς τὰς ἐπισκευὰς καὶ κατασκευὰς τῶν δημοσίων</w>:</emph> 'for the repair and construction of public buildings' (cf. 17. 2). For the distinction here drawn cf. Livy, xlv. 15. 9, 'ad sarta tecta exigenda et ad opera, quae locassent, probanda'; the full formula for repairing buildings occurs in Cic. fam. xiii. 11. 1, 'sarta tecta aedium sacrarum locorumque communium tueri'. It was part of the censors' duties to make and repair opera publica (cf. Cic. de leg. iii. 7, templa, uias, aquas . . . tuento), and this work was leased out to contractors, who were invited to submit low estimates (cf. Livy, xxxix. 44. 7, 'ultro tributa (technical term for such contract work) infimis (sc. pretiis) locauerunt'). But the financing was done by means of a credit <w lang="el-GR">(συγχώμα)</w> granted by the Senate, up to the limits of which the censors were authorized to draw money on the aerarium through the <milestone unit="page" n="678">[678]</milestone> quaestors; cf. Livy, xliv. 16. 9, 'ad opera publica facienda cum eis (= censoribus) dimidium ex uectigalibus eius anni attributum ex senatus consulto a quaestoribus esset'; xl. 46. 16, 'censoribus deinde postulantibus ut pecuniae summa sibi, qua in opera publica uterentur, attribueretur, uectigal annuum decretum est'. Cf. Mommsen, St.-R. ii. 1. 443 ff.; Greenidge, 232; De Sanctis, iv. 1. 518.

Polybius, Histories

Bibliography

Archaeology

Places

Walbank Commentary

Commentary