Polybius, Histories

Translation

Book 28 - Chapter 1

<head lang="la">Olymp. 152, 3. I. Res Italiae</head><w lemma="%2A%28%2Foti">Ὅτι</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="pole%2Fmou">πολέμου</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Akoi%2Flhs">Κοίλης</w> <w lemma="%2Asuri%2Fas">Συρίας</w> <w lemma="h%29%2Fdh">ἤδη</w> <w lemma="katarxh%5Cn">καταρχὴν</w> <w lemma="labo%2Fntos">λαβόντος</w> <w lemma="%2A%29antio%2Fxw%7C">Ἀντιόχῳ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Aptolemai%2Fw%7C">Πτολεμαίῳ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="basileu%3Dsin">βασιλεῦσιν</w>, <w lemma="h%28%3Dkon">ἧκον</w> <w lemma="pre%2Fsbeis">πρέσβεις</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rw%2Fmhn">Ῥώμην</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29antio%2Fxou">Ἀντιόχου</w> <w lemma="%2Amele%2Fagros">Μελέαγρος</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Aswsifa%2Fnhs">Σωσιφάνης</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2A%28hraklei%2Fdhs">Ἡρακλείδης</w>, <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="%2Aptolemai%2Fou">Πτολεμαίου</w> <w lemma="%2Atimo%2Fqeos">Τιμόθεος</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Ada%2Fmwn">Δάμων</w>.

<w lemma="sune%2Fbaine">συνέβαινε</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kratei%3Dn">κρατεῖν</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29anti%2Foxon">Ἀντίοχον</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="%2Akoi%2Flhn">Κοίλην</w> <w lemma="%2Asuri%2Fan">Συρίαν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Afoini%2Fkhn">Φοινίκην</w> <w lemma="pragma%2Ftwn">πραγμάτων</w>.

<w lemma="e%29c">ἐξ</w> <w lemma="ou%28%3D">οὗ</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="%2A%29anti%2Foxos">Ἀντίοχος</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="path%5Cr">πατὴρ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="nu%3Dn">νῦν</w> <w lemma="legome%2Fnou">λεγομένου</w> <w lemma="basile%2Fws">βασιλέως</w> <w lemma="e%29ni%2Fkhse">ἐνίκησε</w> <w lemma="th%3D%7C">τῇ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="%2Apa%2Fnion">Πάνιον</w> <w lemma="ma%2Fxh%7C">μάχῃ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="%2Aptolemai%2Fou">Πτολεμαίου</w> <w lemma="strathgou%2Fs">στρατηγούς</w>, <w lemma="a%29p%27">ἀπ᾽</w> <w lemma="e%29kei%2Fnwn">ἐκείνων</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="xro%2Fnwn">χρόνων</w> <w lemma="e%29pei%2Fqonto">ἐπείθοντο</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fntes">πάντες</w> <w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="proeirhme%2Fnoi">προειρημένοι</w> <w lemma="to%2Fpoi">τόποι</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="%2Asuri%2Fa%7C">Συρίᾳ</w> <w lemma="basileu%3Dsin">βασιλεῦσιν</w>.

<w lemma="dio%2Fper">διόπερ</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29anti%2Foxos">Ἀντίοχος</w> <w lemma="h%28gou%2Fmenos">ἡγούμενος</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="po%2Flemon">πόλεμον</w> <w lemma="i%29sxurota%2Fthn">ἰσχυροτάτην</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="kalli%2Fsthn">καλλίστην</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dnai">εἶναι</w> <w lemma="kth%3Dsin">κτῆσιν</w>, <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="u%28pe%5Cr">ὑπὲρ</w> <w lemma="i%29di%2Fwn">ἰδίων</w> <w lemma="e%29poiei%3Dto">ἐποιεῖτο</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="spoudh%2Fn:">σπουδήν·</w>

<w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="%2Aptolemai%3Dos">Πτολεμαῖος</w> <w lemma="a%29di%2Fkws">ἀδίκως</w> <w lemma="u%28polamba%2Fnwn">ὑπολαμβάνων</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="pro%2Fteron">πρότερον</w> <w lemma="%2A%29anti%2Foxon">Ἀντίοχον</w> <w lemma="sunepiqe%2Fmenon">συνεπιθέμενον</w> <w lemma="th%3D%7C">τῇ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="patro%5Cs">πατρὸς</w> <w lemma="o%29rfani%2Fa%7C">ὀρφανίᾳ</w> <w lemma="parh%7Crh%3Dsqai">παρῃρῆσθαι</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="%2Akoi%2Flhn">Κοίλην</w> <w lemma="%2Asuri%2Fan">Συρίαν</w> <w lemma="po%2Fleis">πόλεις</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3Dn">αὐτῶν</w>, <w lemma="ou%29x">οὐχ</w> <w lemma="oi%28%3Do%2Fs">οἷός</w> <w lemma="t%27">τ᾽</w> <w lemma="h%29%3Dn">ἦν</w> <w lemma="e%29kei%2Fnw%7C">ἐκείνῳ</w> <w lemma="paraxwrei%3Dn">παραχωρεῖν</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="to%2Fpwn">τόπων</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftwn">τούτων</w>. <w lemma="dio%2Fper">διόπερ</w> <w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2Amele%2Fagron">Μελέαγρον</w> <w lemma="h%28%3Dkon">ἧκον</w>,

<w lemma="e%29ntola%5Cs">ἐντολὰς</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fxontes">ἔχοντες</w> <w lemma="martu%2Fresqai">μαρτύρεσθαι</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="su%2Fgklhton">σύγκλητον</w> <w lemma="dio%2Fti">διότι</w> <w lemma="%2Aptolemai%3Dos">Πτολεμαῖος</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3D%7C">αὐτῷ</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fnta">πάντα</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="di%2Fkaia">δίκαια</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="xei%3Dras">χεῖρας</w> <w lemma="e%29piba%2Fllei">ἐπιβάλλει</w> <w lemma="pro%2Fteros">πρότερος</w>,

<w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2Atimo%2Fqeon">Τιμόθεον</w> <w lemma="peri%2F">περί</w> <w lemma="te">τε</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="filanqrw%2Fpwn">φιλανθρώπων</w> <w lemma="a%29nanew%2Fsews">ἀνανεώσεως</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="dialu%2Fein">διαλύειν</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="%2Aperse%2Fa">Περσέα</w> <w lemma="po%2Flemon">πόλεμον</w>, <w lemma="ma%2Flista">μάλιστα</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="parathrei%3Dn">παρατηρεῖν</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2Amele%2Fagron">Μελέαγρον</w> <w lemma="e%29nteu%2Fceis">ἐντεύξεις</w>.

<w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="ou%29%3Dn">οὖν</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="dialu%2Fsews">διαλύσεως</w> <w lemma="ou%29k">οὐκ</w> <w lemma="e%29qa%2Frrhsan">ἐθάρρησαν</w> <w lemma="ei%29pei%3Dn">εἰπεῖν</w>, <w lemma="%2Ama%2Frkou">Μάρκου</w> <w lemma="sumbouleu%2Fsantos">συμβουλεύσαντος</w> <w lemma="au%29toi%3Ds">αὐτοῖς</w> <w lemma="%2Aai%29mili%2Fou:">Αἰμιλίου·</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="filanqrw%2Fpwn">φιλανθρώπων</w> <w lemma="a%29nanewsa%2Fmenoi">ἀνανεωσάμενοι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="labo%2Fntes">λαβόντες</w> <w lemma="a%29pokri%2Fseis">ἀποκρίσεις</w> <w lemma="a%29kolou%2Fqous">ἀκολούθους</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="a%29cioume%2Fnois">ἀξιουμένοις</w> <w lemma="e%29panh%3Dlqon">ἐπανῆλθον</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29aleca%2Fndreian">Ἀλεξάνδρειαν</w>.

<w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2Amele%2Fagron">Μελέαγρον</w> <w lemma="h%28">ἡ</w> <w lemma="su%2Fgklhtos">σύγκλητος</w> <w lemma="a%29pekri%2Fqh">ἀπεκρίθη</w> <w lemma="dio%2Fti">διότι</w> <w lemma="%2Akoi+%2Fntw%7C">Κοΐντῳ</w> <w lemma="%2Amarki%2Fw%7C">Μαρκίῳ</w> <w lemma="dw%2Fsei">δώσει</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="e%29pitroph%5Cn">ἐπιτροπὴν</w> <w lemma="gra%2Fyai">γράψαι</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftwn">τούτων</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="%2Aptolemai%3Don">Πτολεμαῖον</w>, <w lemma="w%28s">ὡς</w> <w lemma="au%29tw%3D%7C">αὐτῷ</w> <w lemma="dokei%3D">δοκεῖ</w> <w lemma="sumfe%2Frein">συμφέρειν</w> <w lemma="e%29k">ἐκ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="i%29di%2Fas">ἰδίας</w> <w lemma="pi%2Fstews">πίστεως</w>. <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tau%3Dta">ταῦτα</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="ou%28%2Ftws">οὕτως</w> <w lemma="e%29xeiri%2Fsqh">ἐχειρίσθη</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="paro%2Fn">παρόν</w>. —

<head>Antiochus and Ptolemy Appeal to Rome</head>WHEN the war between the kings Antiochus and Ptolemy<note anchored="yes" place="unspecified" id="note1">Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, B. C. 175-164; Ptolemy VI. Philometor,<note anchored="yes" place="marg">B. C. 169, Antiochus and Ptolemy both appeal to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> on the subject of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Coele-Syria&groupId=484&placeId=908">Coele-Syria</a>.</note>B. C. 181-146.</note>for the possession of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Coele-Syria&groupId=484&placeId=908">Coele-Syria</a> had just begun, Meleager, Sosiphanes, and Heracleides came as ambassadors from Antiochus, and Timotheos and Damon from Ptolemy. The one actually in possession of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Coele-Syria&groupId=484&placeId=908">Coele-Syria</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Phoenicia&groupId=894&placeId=464">Phoenicia</a> was Antiochus; for ever since his father's victory over the generals of Ptolemy at Panium<note anchored="yes" place="unspecified" id="note2">See<ref target="b16c18" targOrder="U">16, 18</ref>.</note>all those districts had been subject to the Syrian kings. Antiochus, accordingly, regarding the right of conquest as the strongest and most honourable of all claims, was now eager to defend these places as unquestionably belonging to himself: while Ptolemy, conceiving that the late king Antiochus had unjustly taken advantage of his father's orphan condition to wrest the cities in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Coele-Syria&groupId=484&placeId=908">Coele-Syria</a> from him, was resolved not to acquiesce in his possession of them. Therefore Meleager and his colleagues came to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> with instructions to protest before the Senate that Ptolemy had, in breach of all equity, attacked him first; while Timotheos and Damon came to renew their master's friendship with the Romans, and to offer their mediation for putting an end to the war with Perseus; but, above all, to watch the communications made by Meleager's embassy. As to putting an end to the war, by the advice of Marcus Aemilius they did not venture to speak of it; but after formally renewing the friendly relations between Ptolemy and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, and receiving a favourable answer, they returned to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Alexandria&groupId=1063&placeId=1868">Alexandria</a>. To Meleager and his colleagues the Senate answered that Quintus Marcius should be commissioned to write to<pb n="372" />Ptolemy on the subject, as he should think it most to the interest of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> and his own honour. Thus was the business settled for the time. . . .

Walbank Commentary

Overview

28.1.1 - 28.1.9

Seleucid and Ptolemaic embassies at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (170/69) This excerpt from de legat. gent. is taken from res Italiae of Ol. 152, 3 = 170/69; see p. 26. Since Meleager's dispatch was described under res Asiae of Ol. 152, 2 = 171/0 (xxvii. 19. 1–2), the hearing was in winter 170/69; any closer dating depends on several chronological considerations best considered together. The early stages of the Sixth Syrian War. According to xxvii. 19 (cf. Diod. xxx. 2, based on P.) war was imminent when Meleager left for <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>. The present passage says that it had begun when he (and the Ptolemaic envoys) arrived; but the account of the actual proceedings (1. 6–8) implies merely that it was imminent <w lang="el-GR">(ἐπιβάλλει</w> in § 6 means 'was takingnot had takenthe offensive'), hence that when both sets of envoys set out, hostilities had not yet opened (see below). The apparently contradictory account in § 1 may be due to the excerptor; but it is perhaps hazardous to assume (with De Sanctis, iv. 1. 309 n. 191) that the latter simply confused the arrival of the envoys with their hearing in the Senate, by which time the outbreak of war was known. True, that hearing may have been considerably later. It was the normal practice to hear overseas embassies at the beginning of the consular year, before the consuls left for their provinces (cf. Livy, xxxix. 46. 5, xliv. 19. 5); and in 169 the Roman calendar was 2–3 months ahead of the Julian year. See on this De Sanctis, iv. 1. 369–76; Derow, Phoenix, 1973, 348, who equates id. mart. 169 with 22 December 170 (Jul.). If this date is correct, there would be some subsequent delay before the consul Q. Marcius crossed the sea, and so perhaps in the hearing of envoys. But any theory that news of the outbreak of the war had reached <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> by the time this occured (January or even February?) must take account of the rest of the evidence. At an Achaean synodos held early in 169 (12. 1–9) it was decided to send P. and various colleagues to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Thessaly&groupId=1028&placeId=1816">Thessaly</a> to announce the dispatch of Achaean forces. They set off, presumably at once, and found that the Romans had already moved out of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Thessaly&groupId=1028&placeId=1816">Thessaly</a> into <milestone unit="page" n="321">[321]</milestone> <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Perrhaebia&groupId=870&placeId=1569">Perrhaebia</a>. Already then Q. Marcius (to whom they soon afterwards conveyed the substance of the Achaean decree: 13. 4) was active in his province; and even if he crossed earlier, this is hardly before March, 169. News reached the same Achaean synodos of the anacleteria of Ptolemy VI (12. 8–9) and it was decided to send congratulations. It seems clear that the outbreak of the war was not yet known in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Achaea&groupId=272&placeId=533">Achaea</a> by early March 169 (cf. Briscoe, CR, 1968, 84), still less news of the decisive battle. Will, ii. 268, following Niese, iii. 169, dates the anacleteria late in 170; but that is because he puts the Achaean congratulatory embassy (12. 9) at the very beginning of 169. That date is excluded by the correlation with Marcius' activity in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Thessaly&groupId=1028&placeId=1816">Thessaly</a>, and both the Achaean embassy and the anacleteria must fall early in 169 (cf. Otto, 6. Ptolemer, 21, 45). The Egyptian dates, however, produce complications. Ptolemy VI's twelfth year began on 1 Thoth = 5 October 170; and at least nine documents are dated by this year between 9 December 170 and 1 October 169 (cf. Skeat, JEA, 1961, 108). P.Ryl. 583, a vineyard lease from <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Philadelphia&groupId=1065&placeId=1872">Philadelphia</a> in the Fayum, is dated, however, to 9 Phaophi of year 1 of the joint reign of Ptolemy VI, Ptolemy the Brother (Ptolemy VIII), and Cleopatra the Sister (Cleopatra II); and since all other evidence equates year 12 of Ptolemy VI with year 1 of the three rulers, this should be dated 12 November 170 (cf. E. G. Turner, Bull. Ryl. Lib. 1948, 3–16; E. Bikerman, Chron. d'gypte, 1952, 398 n. 2). Moreover, a demotic papyrus, P. Brit. Mus. Eg. 10591, verso col. ii ll. 5–6, mentions temple rites in honour of the reigning sovereigns (plural) on 19 Mesore of year 11 of Ptolemy VI, which is 18 Sept. 170 (cf. Sir H. Thompson, A Family Archive from Siut from Papyri in the British Museum (Oxford, 1934), 51 n. 22). This suggests that the triple rule had been instituted by September 170, but that the incorporation of Ptolemy VIII and Cleopatra II in the numbering of the years began only on 1 Thoth = 5 October 170. The problem is to relate this apparently ephemeral institution of a triple rule to the celebration of Ptolemy VI's anacleteria and to the outbreak and early course of the war. The joint rule appears in our sources as a reponse to Antiochus' invasion of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> (cf. Euseb. Chron. i. 162 (Schoene); Syncellus, 538 (Dindorf)); hence the new papyrus led many scholars to date Antiochus' first invasion of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> to 170 (cf. Bengtson <emph rend="superscript">3</emph> , 489; Heichelheim, RE, Suppl.-B. vii, 'Komanos (1a)', cols. 332–4; Scullard, Pol. <emph rend="superscript">2</emph> 210 n. 2). But the tradition recorded in Eusebius may be a reflection of Ptolemaic propaganda (cf. Bikerman, Chron. d'gypte, 1952, 400–2); the triple rule may well have predated the onset of the war and have been due to causes at which we can only guess. Mrkholm, 69–70, suggests with some plausibility that 'in the light of subsequent developments it is tempting to explain the measure as <milestone unit="page" n="322">[322]</milestone> a concession by Eulaeus and Lenaeus'on whom cf. 20. 5 n.'to a rival group at the Ptolemaic court, which gathered around the younger brother'; such a group was equally in favour of the war (Mrkholm, 70; Class. et Med. 1961, 41). On that hypothesis, the holding of Philometor's anacleteria early in 169 is susceptible of two explanationseither as an assertion of that king's predominance over his brother and sister, and so as evidence for the strengthening of the power of Eulaeus and Lenaeus against the rival group (perhaps represented by Comanus and Cineas: 19. 1), or as a further move by that group to reduce the power of Eulaeus and Lenaeus by a declaration of the king's majority. In either case a furtherand perhaps primaryreason was as a gesture confirming the national purpose in the war. Why there are no further references to the joint rule in other documents of 169 is also matter for speculation. Perhaps it did not find general acceptance in upper <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a>; or, if the anacleteria was a victory for Eulaeus and Lenaeus, the joint rule may have been quietly forgotten. Skeat, JEA, 1961, 108–9, suggests that the triple rule was 'intended to signalize the prospective Ptolemaic domination of Asia', and was, after Antiochus' victory, for that reason 'abrogated forthwith, not only in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Alexandria&groupId=1063&placeId=1868">Alexandria</a> but throughout the country'. That such an aim was symbolized by trebling the number of rulers seems in itself improbable, however, and the abrogation which Skeat postulates is only possible if, with him, one dates Antiochus' decisive victory (see below) to November 170; but, as has been argued above, the war can hardly have broken out by then. Finally, though P. Ryl. 583 is dated by two scribes (and consequently all scholars have accepted its date without question), one must envisage the possibility of some original confusion about which year of Philometor was to be equated with year 1 of the three; since no dates are at present known from Ptolemy VI's thirteenth year, this cannot be tested (though it seems indeed unlikely). But the triple date in Nov. 170 is so anomalous that it must arouse reasonable suspicion. Though there is no evidence that the Egyptian government formally declared war, this is possible; see xiii. 3. 4 n. for P.'s statement that this was often neglected in contemporary Greece, together with examples, however, of such declarations. The hostile intentions of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Alexandria&groupId=1063&placeId=1868">Alexandria</a> had been known to Antiochus ever since he sent a representative to the <w lang="el-GR">πρωτοκλίσια</w> of Ptolemy VI (2 Macc. iv. 21), a festival which cannot have anything to do with Ptolemy VI's marriage to his sister Cleopatra, since this took place before 15 April 175 (cf. Shore and Smith, JEA, 1959, 52–60; Mrkholm , 68 n. 18) and so more than six months before Antiochus' accession in autumn 175; the <w lang="el-GR">πρωτοκλίσια</w> festival was certainly before the end of 172 (in view of the context in 2 Macc. iv), and the most recent discussion would <milestone unit="page" n="323">[323]</milestone> regard it as the first anniversary of Ptolemy VI's crowning in March/ April 175, and so date it to the same month of 174 (Bunge, Historia, 1974, 70–71)but this is hypothetical. Antiochus' representative was Apollonius, son of Menestheus, a Milesian (cf. xxxi. 13. 3 n.) and earlier governor of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Coele-Syria&groupId=484&placeId=908">Coele-Syria</a> (2 Macc. iv. 4; cf. Bengtson, Strat. ii. 163; Mrkholm, 47–48); Bunge (Historia, 1974, 61 n. 20) argues that he abandoned Antiochus IV when he ceased to act for Seleucus IV. Apollonius also went as Antiochus' ambassador to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> in 173 (Livy, xlii. 6. 6) but it is uncertain whether this was before or after his visit to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a>; certainly there is no evidence that he mentioned the Egyptian threat at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> on that occasion (see Mrkholm, 65 n. 5). However, from 172 (or perhaps earlier) onwards Antiochus will have kept himself informed about the Egyptian war preparations, and made his own to meet them. When the two embassies went to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> in autumn 170 (§ 1) the clash was imminent. The anacleteria will have been held in January 169; and perhaps in February or early March 169 the Egyptian army set out. Antiochus, well informed and well equipped (1 Macc. i. 17), anticipated its movements, crossed the frontier first and inflicted a crushing defeat on the Egyptians between <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Pelusium&groupId=863&placeId=1555">Pelusium</a> and Mt. Casius (Porphyry, FGH, 260 F 49a); he then granted a truce to Comanus and Cineas, who by this time had superseded Eulaeus and Lenaeus (19. 1). This chronology cannot be closely confirmed; but it fits the available evidence and gives a comprehensible sequence of events before and after the outbreak of war. Nor is it contradicted by a cuneiform inscription which records that in the month Ab of 143 S.E. (19 August–16 September 169) 'Antiochus the king marched victoriously among the cities of the land of Melua' (literally S. <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Arabia&groupId=349&placeId=671">Arabia</a>, but here probably referring to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a>), for this does not prove that the battle of Mt. Casius was in July (so Volkmann, RE, 'Ptolemaios (24)', col. 1707; for the inscription see T. G. Pinches, The Old Testament in the light of the historical records and legends <emph rend="superscript">2</emph> (London, 1903), 480; cf. Bikerman, Chron. d'gypte, 1952, 397 n. 3; Olmstead, J AOS, 1936, 247). In short, there seems no good reason for accepting the statement in § 1 that war had already broken out before the arrival of the envoys in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, in view of all the other evidence.

28.1.6 - 28.1.6

See further 18–23, for the surviving fragments relating to the 169 campaign; and in addition to the works already quoted see Otto, Ptolemaer, 1–66; Volkmann, RE, 'Ptolemaios (24)', cols. 1704–8; Skeat, 33; Samuel, 140–1; J. W. Swain, CP, 1944, 73–94; Will, ii. 263–70; Fraser, Alex. ii. 210–12.

Specifics

28.1.1 - 28.1.1

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοῦ πολέμου</w></emph> 〈 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοῦ</w></emph> 〉 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">περὶ Κοίλης Συρίας ἤδη καταρχὴν λαβόντος</w>:</emph> the Sixth Syrian War (see above); on <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Coele-Syria&groupId=484&placeId=908">Coele-Syria</a> see v. 34. 6 n., <milestone unit="page" n="324">[324]</milestone> 67. 6–10 n. The naming of the war (cf. § 5, xxvii. 19. 1) as 'for CoeleSyria' perhaps suggests Egyptian initiative; and both P. and the sources deriving from him indicate this; cf. 20. 5; Diod. xxx. 2, 15, 16; Porphyry, FGH, 260 F 49; Livy, xlii. 29. 5, 'tutores . . . bellum aduersus Antiochum parabant, quo uindicarent Coelen Syriam' (though his general survey also attributes blame to Antiochus). Both the Jewish tradition (1 Macc. i. 16; Ioseph. Ant. Iud. xii. 242) and the Roman (App. Syr. 66; Iustin. xxxiv. 2. 7 (confused); Zon. ix. 25. 1 (nonsensical)) make Antiochus responsible. A more aggressive policy at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Alexandria&groupId=1063&placeId=1868">Alexandria</a> seems to have set in after the death of Cleopatra, the queen-mother, in 176 (cf. 2 Macc. iv. 21; Otto, 6. Ptolemer, 34); but there is no evidence that the Romans encouraged it (so Otto, 6. Ptolemaumler, 37–38). On the date of the outbreak of war see §§ 1–9 n. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">Ἀντιόχῳ καὶ</w> P<w lang="el-GR">τολεμαίῳ</w>:</emph> Antiochus IV Epiphanes (cf. xxvi. 1 a 1 n.) and Ptolemy VI Philometor (cf. xvii. 13. 2 n.). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">Μελέαγρος καὶ Σωσιφάνης καὶ ῾Ηρακλείδης</w>:</emph> cf. xxvii. 19. 1. Meleager was probably the son of Apollonius, recently Antiochus' envoy to Alexendria and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (cf. §§ 1–9 n.; xxxi. 13. 2); cf. Geyer, RE, 'Meleagros (4)', cols. 479–80. Heracleides is probably the Milesian who was later Antiochus' financial secretary <w lang="el-GR">(διοικητής</w>:cf. Bengtson, Strat. ii. 127 n. 1); cf. App. Syr. 45, who mentions both him and his brother Timarchus (whom Antiochus made satrap of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Babylon&groupId=387&placeId=320">Babylon</a>) as having been Antiochus' favourites <w lang="el-GR">(παιδικά)</w>; on Timarchus see also Diod. xxxi. 27a. (There is no good reason to regard the pair as the sons of Heracleides of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Byzantium&groupId=415&placeId=767">Byzantium</a>, who served Antiochus III (cf. xxi. 13. 3 n.); so Otto, RE, 'Herakleides (32)', col. 465.) The two men dedicated a bouleuterion at Miletus in the king's name (Milet, ii. 95–99); they are described as masters of bribery, whence they won much support at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (Diod. xxxi. 27a). Demetrius I later dismissed Heracleides in 162, and he took part in a revolt organized by Timarchus, who perished; escaping, he appeared at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> in 153 to support the pretender Alexander Balas (xxxiii. 15. 1; cf. App. Syr. 47), and obtained a senatus consultum authorizing his return (xxxiii. 18. 6–14). His later fate is unknown. See Otto, RE, 'Herakleides (32)', cols. 465–8. Apart from his later mission to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (22. 2, again with Meleager and Heracleides), Sosiphanes is unknown; on him see Olshausen, RE, Suppl.-B. xiv, 'Sosiphanes (2)', cols. 741–3. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">Τιμόθεος καὶ Δάμων</w>:</emph> Timotheus may be the man who murdered his political opponents in 163 (Diod. xxxi. 20) and was himself subsequently assassinated (Diod. xxxi. 17c, which should follow Diod. xxxi. 20, as in the Loeb edition) during Ptolemy VI's brief exile; see Olshausen, RE, Suppl.-B. xiv, 'Timotheos (76)', cols. 797–8. Damon is unknown. <milestone unit="page" n="325">[325]</milestone>

28.1.2 - 28.1.2

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῶν κατὰ Κοίλην Συρί?αν καὶ Φοινίκην πραγμάτων</w>:</emph> cf. v. 34. 6 n. for the name of this area; Antiochus III had taken it by 198 in the Fifth Syrian War (cf. xvi. 18. 2 n. (with addenda), xviii. 41 a n.). It was organized under a strategos and was called <w lang="el-GR">Συρία καὶ Φοινίκη</w>; the governorship was successively held by Ptolemy, son of Thraseas (v. 65. 3), Apollonius, son of Menestheus (§§ 1–9 n.), Ptolemy, son of Dorymenes (1 Macc. iii. 38, 2 Macc. iv. 45–47, viii. 8) and Ptolemy Macron (xxvii. 13. 1 n.); see Bengtson, Strat. ii. 159–76; Mrkholm, 107–10.

28.1.3 - 28.1.3

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὁ πατήρ</w>:</emph> Antiochus III. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῇ περὶ τὸ Πάνιον μάχῃ</w>:</emph> cf. xvi. 18. 2 n. for the battle of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Panium&groupId=836&placeId=1512">Panium</a> (200).

28.1.4 - 28.1.4

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὴν . . . ἰσχυροτάτην καὶ καλλίστην . . . κτῆσιν</w>:</emph> 'regarding acquisition in war as giving the strongest and most honourable title to possession'; cf. 20. 6 n. for this claim; Bickermann, Hermes, 1932, 51. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὡς ὑπὲρ ἰδίων ἐποιεῖτο τὴν σπουδήν</w>:</emph> 'was giving it great attention as being his own property'. That attention was still in the realm of diplomacy and defence measures, since the war had not yet started.

28.1.5 - 28.1.5

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὰς . . . πόλεις αὐτῶν</w>:</emph> both Ptolemy V and his son.

28.1.6 - 28.1.6

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">παρὰ πάντα τὰ δίκαια . . . ἐπιβά?λλει πρότερος</w>:</emph> cf. xxvii. 19. 2; 'in defiance of all rights he was taking the initiative in attacking him.' The present tense need not imply that war had already broken out (so Otto, 6. Ptolemer, 22 n. 1); the Seleucid envoy refers to an attack that is imminent. Cf. Diod. xxx. 2 (based on P.), <w lang="el-GR">πολεμεῖν ἀδίκως ἐπιβάλλεται Πτολεμαῖος</w>. The point is missed by Olshausen, RE, Suppl.-B. xiv, 'Sosiphanes (2)', col. 742 (criticizing Mrkholm, 72 n. 32).

28.1.7 - 28.1.7

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">περί τε τῆς</w></emph> 〈 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τῶν</w></emph> 〉 <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">φιλανθρώπων ἀνανεώσεως</w>:</emph> a common phrase; on <w lang="el-GR">ἀνανεοῦσθαι</w> cf. xxii. 3. 5 n.; for renewal of <w lang="el-GR">φιλάνθρωπα</w> see Otto, 6. Ptolemaer, 19–20; Heuss, Völk. Grund. 26. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοῦ διαλύειν τὸν πρὸς Περσέα πόλεμον</w>:</emph> cf. Diod. xxx. 2. Otto, 6. Ptolemer, 34 n. 3, comments on the significance of this as evidence of the generally unfavourable estimate of the Roman situation in the war at this time. Diodourus (xxx. 2) attributes to the Ptolemaic envoys a statement on the claim to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Coele-Syria&groupId=484&placeId=908">Coele-Syria</a>; but the wording shows it to be an adaptation of the general statement in § 5 of this chapter. There is no good evidence that the Ptolemaic mission mentioned the war with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Syria&groupId=995&placeId=502">Syria</a> (cf. Mrkholm, 71 n. 26). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">παρατηρεῖν τὰς τῶν περὶ τὸν Μελέαγρον ἐντεύξεις</w>:</emph> evidently Meleager's mission was known of in advance at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Alexandria&groupId=1063&placeId=1868">Alexandria</a>.

28.1.8 - 28.1.8

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">περὶ . . . τῆς διαλύσεως</w>:</emph> obviously in the war with Perseus (§ 7); Paton mistranslates, 'about terms of peace with Antiochus'. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">Μάρκου . . . Αἰμιλίου</w>:</emph> M. Aemilius Lepidus, cos. 187 (xxii. 3. 2 n.), who had an interest in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Egypt&groupId=556&placeId=368">Egypt</a> since 200, when he visited the Ptolemaic court as a legatus (xvi. 35. 2 n.)a connection celebrated on a <milestone unit="page" n="326">[326]</milestone> denarius issued by M. Aemilius Lepidus, the later triumvir (Crawford, RRC, no. 419/2) about 61. For later exaggeration of this connection and the reputed tutela over Ptolemy V see Otto, 6. Ptolemer, 27 ff.; H. Heinen, Aufstieg und Niedergang, i. 1. 647–50; Huss, 168–70 (rejecting Heinen's rather favourable view of the tradition).

28.1.9 - 28.1.9

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">κοῒντῳ Μαρκίῳ δώσει τὴν ἐπιροπὴν κτλ</w>.:</emph> Q. Marcius L. f. Q.n. Philippus, cos. 169 (and earlier cos. 186); cf. xxiii. 4. 16 n. Otto, 6. Ptolemer, 22, takes this passage to prove that Q. Marcius had already left for his province; this need not be so. Against Bikerman's view that this chapter is from res Italiae of 171/0, and therefore that reference here is to Marcius' legatio of 171, see pp. 24–25. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὡς αὐτῷ δοκεῖ συμφέρειν ἐκ τῆς ἰδίας πίστεως</w>:</emph> echoes the phrase <w lang="el-GR">οὓτω καθὼς ἂν αὐτῶι ἐκ τῶν δημοσίων</w> <emph rend="bold" /> <w lang="el-GR">πραγμάτων καὶ τῆς ἰδίας? πίστενς φαίνηται</w>, common in senatus consulta (see the examples quoted in Sherk, 379, index, s.v. <w lang="el-GR">οὓτως καθὼς ἄν)</w>; it corresponds to the Latin e fide sua. Translate: 'as seemed best to him in honour bound, or in all good faith'. See Otto, 6. Ptolemer, 46 n. 1 (where however the suggestion that P. implies that his fides to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> would prevent Marcius from showing fides to a foreign state is far-fetched, and the reference to the material collected by Holleaux, tudes, iii. 228 n. 1, is irrelevant to this meaning of ); Holleaux, <w lang="el-GR">Στρατηγὸς ὓπατος</w>, 69; R. Heinze, Geist, 55 n. 21 (who doubts if P.'s usage would have been comprehensible to a Greek ignorant of Latin; he is apparently unaware that it was an official rendering of e fide sua).

Polybius, Histories

Bibliography

Archaeology

Places

Walbank Commentary

Commentary