Polybius, Histories

Translation

Book 3 - Chapter 24

<w lemma="%2Ameta%5C">Μετὰ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="tau%2Ftas">ταύτας</w> <w lemma="e%28te%2Fras">ἑτέρας</w> <w lemma="poiou%3Dntai">ποιοῦνται</w> <w lemma="sunqh%2Fkas">συνθήκας</w>, <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="ai%28%3Ds">αἷς</w> <w lemma="prosperieilh%2Ffasi">προσπεριειλήφασι</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdo%2Fnioi">Καρχηδόνιοι</w> <w lemma="%2Aturi%2Fous">Τυρίους</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29itukai%2Fwn">Ἰτυκαίων</w> <w lemma="dh%3Dmon">δῆμον</w>.

<w lemma="pro%2Fskeitai">πρόσκειται</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="%2Akalw%3D%7C">Καλῷ</w> <w lemma="a%29krwthri%2Fw%7C">ἀκρωτηρίῳ</w> <w lemma="%2Amasti%2Fa">Μαστία</w> <w lemma="%2Atarsh%2Fion:">Ταρσήιον·</w> <w lemma="w%28%3Dn">ὧν</w> <w lemma="e%29kto%5Cs">ἐκτὸς</w> <w lemma="oi%29%2Fontai">οἴονται</w> <w lemma="dei%3Dn">δεῖν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%2Fous">Ῥωμαίους</w> <w lemma="mh%2Fte">μήτε</w> <w lemma="lh%2F%7Czesqai">λῄζεσθαι</w> <w lemma="mh%2Fte">μήτε</w> <w lemma="po%2Flin">πόλιν</w> <w lemma="kti%2Fzein">κτίζειν</w>.

<w lemma="ei%29si%5C">εἰσὶ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="toiaίde">τοιαίδε</w> <w lemma="tinέs:">τινές·</w> <w lemma="“e%29pi%5C">“ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Dsde">τοῖσδε</w> <w lemma="filίan">φιλίαν</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dnai">εἶναι</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmaίois">Ῥωμαίοις</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmaίwn">Ῥωμαίων</w> <w lemma="summάxois">συμμάχοις</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdonίwn">Καρχηδονίων</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Aturίwn">Τυρίων</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2A%29itukaίwn">Ἰτυκαίων</w> <w lemma="dήmw%7C">δήμῳ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="toύtwn">τούτων</w> <w lemma="summάxois">συμμάχοις</w>.

<w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="%2Akalou%3D">Καλοῦ</w> <w lemma="a%29krwthrίou">ἀκρωτηρίου</w>, <w lemma="%2Amastίas">Μαστίας</w> <w lemma="%2Atarshίou">Ταρσηίου</w>, <w lemma="mh%5C">μὴ</w> <w lemma="lh%2F%7Czesqai">λῄζεσθαι</w> <w lemma="e%29pέkeina">ἐπέκεινα</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmaίous">Ῥωμαίους</w> <w lemma="mhd’">μηδ’</w> <w lemma="e%29mporeύesqai">ἐμπορεύεσθαι</w> <w lemma="mhde%5C">μηδὲ</w> <w lemma="pόlin">πόλιν</w> <w lemma="ktίzein">κτίζειν</w>.

<w lemma="e%29a%5Cn">ἐὰν</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdόnioi">Καρχηδόνιοι</w> <w lemma="lάbwsin">λάβωσιν</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="th%3D%7C">τῇ</w> <w lemma="%2Alatίnh%7C">Λατίνῃ</w> <w lemma="pόlin">πόλιν</w> <w lemma="tina%5C">τινὰ</w> <w lemma="mh%5C">μὴ</w> <w lemma="ou%29%3Dsan">οὖσαν</w> <w lemma="u%28pήkoon">ὑπήκοον</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmaίois">Ῥωμαίοις</w>, <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="xrήmata">χρήματα</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Fndras">ἄνδρας</w> <w lemma="e%29xέtwsan">ἐχέτωσαν</w>, <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="pόlin">πόλιν</w> <w lemma="a%29podidόtwsan">ἀποδιδότωσαν</w>.

<w lemma="e%29a%5Cn">ἐὰν</w> <w lemma="dέ">δέ</w> <w lemma="tines">τινες</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdonίwn">Καρχηδονίων</w> <w lemma="lάbwsί">λάβωσί</w> <w lemma="tinas">τινας</w>, <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="ou%28%5Cs">οὓς</w> <w lemma="ei%29rήnh">εἰρήνη</w> <w lemma="mέn">μέν</w> <w lemma="e%29stin">ἐστιν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fggraptos">ἔγγραπτος</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmaίois">Ῥωμαίοις</w>, <w lemma="mh%5C">μὴ</w> <w lemma="u%28potάttontai">ὑποτάττονται</w> <w lemma="dέ">δέ</w> <w lemma="ti">τι</w> <w lemma="au%29toi%3Ds">αὐτοῖς</w>, <w lemma="mh%5C">μὴ</w> <w lemma="katagέtwsan">καταγέτωσαν</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmaίwn">Ῥωμαίων</w> <w lemma="limέnas:">λιμένας·</w> <w lemma="e%29a%5Cn">ἐὰν</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kataxqέntos">καταχθέντος</w> <w lemma="e%29pilάbhtai">ἐπιλάβηται</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%3Dos">Ῥωμαῖος</w>, <w lemma="a%29fiέsqw">ἀφιέσθω</w>.

<w lemma="w%28saύtws">ὡσαύτως</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="mhd’">μηδ’</w> <w lemma="oi%28">οἱ</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%3Doipoieίtwsan">Ῥωμαῖοιποιείτωσαν</w>.

<w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fk">ἔκ</w> <w lemma="tinos">τινος</w> <w lemma="xώras">χώρας</w>, <w lemma="h%28%3Ds">ἧς</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdόnioi">Καρχηδόνιοι</w> <w lemma="e%29pάrxousin">ἐπάρχουσιν</w>, <w lemma="u%28%2Fdwr">ὕδωρ</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="e%29fόdia">ἐφόδια</w> <w lemma="lάbh%7C">λάβῃ</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%3Dos">Ῥωμαῖος</w>, <w lemma="meta%5C">μετὰ</w> <w lemma="toύtwn">τούτων</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29fodίwn">ἐφοδίων</w> <w lemma="mh%5C">μὴ</w> <w lemma="a%29dikeίtw">ἀδικείτω</w> <w lemma="mhdέna">μηδένα</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="ou%28%5Cs">οὓς</w> <w lemma="ei%29rήnh">εἰρήνη</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="filίa">φιλία</w> <w lemma="e%29sti%5C">ἐστὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdonίois">Καρχηδονίοις</w>.

<w lemma="w%28saύtws">ὡσαύτως</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="mhd’">μηδ’</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w>> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdόnios">Καρχηδόνιος</w> <w lemma="poieίtw">ποιείτω</w>.

<w lemma="ei%29">εἰ</w> <w lemma="dέ">δέ</w>, <w lemma="mh%5C">μὴ</w> <w lemma="i%29dίa%7C">ἰδίᾳ</w> <w lemma="metaporeuέsqw:">μεταπορευέσθω·</w> <w lemma="e%29a%5Cn">ἐὰν</w> <w lemma="dέ">δέ</w> <w lemma="tis">τις</w> <w lemma="tou%3Dto">τοῦτο</w> <w lemma="poiήsh%7C">ποιήσῃ</w>, <w lemma="dhmόsion">δημόσιον</w> <w lemma="ginέsqw">γινέσθω</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="a%29dίkhma">ἀδίκημα</w>.

<w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="%2Asardόni">Σαρδόνι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Alibύh%7C">Λιβύῃ</w> <w lemma="mhdei%5Cs">μηδεὶς</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmaίwn">Ῥωμαίων</w> <w lemma="mήt’">μήτ’</w> <w lemma="e%29mporeuέsqw">ἐμπορευέσθω</w> <w lemma="mήte">μήτε</w> <w lemma="pόlin">πόλιν</w> <w lemma="ktizέtw">κτιζέτω</w>, . . . . <w lemma="ei%29">εἰ</w> <w lemma="mh%5C">μὴ</w> <w lemma="e%28%2Fws">ἕως</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="e%29fόdia">ἐφόδια</w> <w lemma="labei%3Dn">λαβεῖν</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="ploi%3Don">πλοῖον</w> <w lemma="e%29piskeuάsai">ἐπισκευάσαι</w>. <w lemma="e%29a%5Cn">ἐὰν</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="xeimw%5Cn">χειμὼν</w> <w lemma="katenέgkh%7C">κατενέγκῃ</w>, <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="pέnq’">πένθ’</w> <w lemma="h%28mέrais">ἡμέραις</w> <w lemma="a%29potrexέtw">ἀποτρεχέτω</w>.

<w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="%2Asikelίa%7C">Σικελίᾳ</w> <w lemma="h%28%3Ds">ἧς</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdόnioi">Καρχηδόνιοι</w> <w lemma="e%29pάrxousi">ἐπάρχουσι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdόni">Καρχηδόνι</w> <w lemma="pάnta">πάντα</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="poieίtw">ποιείτω</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pwleίtw">πωλείτω</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Fsa">ὅσα</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tw%3D%7C">τῷ</w> <w lemma="polίth%7C">πολίτῃ</w> <w lemma="e%29%2Fcestin">ἔξεστιν</w>.

<w lemma="w%28saύtws">ὡσαύτως</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdόnios">Καρχηδόνιος</w> <w lemma="poieίtw">ποιείτω</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rώmh%7C”">Ῥώμῃ”</w>.

<w lemma=""></w> <w lemma="%2Apa%2Flin">Πάλιν</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="tau%2Ftais">ταύταις</w> <w lemma="tai%3Ds">ταῖς</w> <w lemma="sunqh%2Fkais">συνθήκαις</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="kata%5C">κατὰ</w> <w lemma="%2Alibu%2Fhn">Λιβύην</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Asardo%2Fna">Σαρδόνα</w> <w lemma="prosepitei%2Fnousin">προσεπιτείνουσιν</w> <w lemma="e%29cidiazo%2Fmenoi">ἐξιδιαζόμενοι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="pa%2Fsas">πάσας</w> <w lemma="a%29fairou%2Fmenoi">ἀφαιρούμενοι</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="e%29piba%2Fqras">ἐπιβάθρας</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%2Fwn">Ῥωμαίων</w>,

<w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="%2Asikeli%2Fas">Σικελίας</w> <w lemma="ta%29nanti%2Fa">τἀναντία</w> <w lemma="prosdiasafou%3Dsi">προσδιασαφοῦσι</w>, <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="u%28p%27">ὑπ᾽</w> <w lemma="au%29tou%5Cs">αὐτοὺς</w> <w lemma="tattome%2Fnhs">ταττομένης</w>.

<w lemma="o%28moi%2Fws">ὁμοίως</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2A%28rwmai%3Doi">Ῥωμαῖοι</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="%2Alati%2Fnhs:">Λατίνης·</w> <w lemma="ou%29k">οὐκ</w> <w lemma="oi%29%2Fontai">οἴονται</w> <w lemma="dei%3Dn">δεῖν</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="%2Akarxhdoni%2Fous">Καρχηδονίους</w> <w lemma="a%29dikei%3Dn">ἀδικεῖν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29ardea%2Ftas">Ἀρδεάτας</w>, <w lemma="%2A%29antia%2Ftas">Ἀντιάτας</w>, <w lemma="%2Akirkaii%2Ftas">Κιρκαιίτας</w>, <w lemma="%2Atarrakini%2Ftas">Ταρρακινίτας</w>. <w lemma="au%28%3Dtai">αὗται</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="ei%29si%5Cn">εἰσὶν</w> <w lemma="ai%28">αἱ</w> <w lemma="po%2Fleis">πόλεις</w> <w lemma="ai%28">αἱ</w> <w lemma="perie%2Fxousai">περιέχουσαι</w> <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="qa%2Flattan">θάλατταν</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="%2Alati%2Fnhn">Λατίνην</w> <w lemma="xw%2Fran">χώραν</w>, <w lemma="u%28pe%5Cr">ὑπὲρ</w> <w lemma="h%28%3Ds">ἧς</w> <w lemma="poiou%3Dntai">ποιοῦνται</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="sunqh%2Fkas">συνθήκας</w>.

<head>Treaties Between <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> and Carthage</head>After this treaty there was a second, in which we find<note anchored="yes" place="marg" id="note43">Second treaty. B. C. 306 (?).</note>that the Carthaginians have included the Tyrians and the township of Utica in addition to their former territory; and to the Fair Promontory <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Mastia&groupId=741&placeId=1353">Mastia</a> and Tarseium are added, as the points east of which the Romans are not to make marauding expeditions or found a city. The treaty is as follows: "There shall be friendship between the Romans and their allies, and the Carthaginians, Tyrians, and township of Utica, on these terms: The Romans shall not maraud, nor traffic, nor found a city east of the Fair Promontory, <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Mastia&groupId=741&placeId=1353">Mastia</a>, Tarseium. If the Carthaginians take any city in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Latium&groupId=673&placeId=1231">Latium</a> which is not subject to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, they may keep the prisoners and the<pb n="187" />goods, but shall deliver up the town. If the Carthaginians take any folk, between whom and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> a peace has been made in writing, though they be not subject to them, they shall not bring them into any harbours of the Romans; if such an one be so brought ashore, and any Roman lay claim to him,<note anchored="yes" place="unspecified" id="note44"><foreign lang="greek">ἐπιλάβηται</foreign><foreign lang="la">injecerit manum,</foreign>the legal form of claiming a slave.</note>he shall be released. In like manner shall the Romans be bound towards the Carthaginians."If a Roman take water or provisions from any district within the jurisdiction of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>, he shall not injure, while so doing, any between whom and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> there is peace and friendship. Neither shall a Carthaginian in like case. If any one shall do so, he shall not be punished by private vengeance, but such action shall be a public misdemeanour."In <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sardinia&groupId=947&placeId=1685">Sardinia</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Libya&groupId=686&placeId=427">Libya</a> no Roman shall traffic nor found a city; he shall do no more than take in provisions and refit his ship. If a storm drive him upon-those coasts, he shall depart within five days."In the Carthaginian province of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a> and in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> he may transact business and sell whatsoever it is lawful for a citizen to do. In like manner also may a Carthaginian at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>."Once more in this treaty we may notice that the Carthaginians emphasise the fact of their entire possession of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Libya&groupId=686&placeId=427">Libya</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sardinia&groupId=947&placeId=1685">Sardinia</a>, and prohibit any attempt of the Romans to land in them at all; and on the other hand, in the case of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a>, they clearly distinguish their own province in it. So, too, the Romans, in regard to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Latium&groupId=673&placeId=1231">Latium</a>, stipulate that the Carthaginians shall do no wrong to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Ardea&groupId=357&placeId=683">Ardea</a>, Antium, Circeii, Tarracina, all of which are on the seaboard of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Latium&groupId=673&placeId=1231">Latium</a>, to which alone the treaty refers.

Walbank Commentary

Overview

3.6.1 - 3.33.4

Causes and Preliminaries of the Hannibalic War;the Second Illyrian War

3.21.0 - 3.25.0

The earlier treaties. Their chronology, authenticity of text, and historical context and significance have all been widely discussed. Only a bare sketch of the problems and a suggested interpretation can be given here. (a) Chronology. P. records three treaties prior to the First Punic War, and dates the first (P.I.: 22. 4–13) to the first year of the Republic, and the third (P.III: 25. 2–5) to Pyrrhus' crossing over to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Italy&groupId=656&placeId=1199">Italy</a>; the second (P.II: 24. 3–13) is not dated. Further, Diodorus mentions two treaties; the first he dates to 347, but puts it under the consuls for 348 Varr. (Diod. xvi. 69. 1, <w lang="el-GR">πρῶτον συνθῆκαι ἐγένοντο)</w>, the second he makes contemporary with the war with Pyrrhus (Diod. xxii. 7. 5). Livy (vii. 27. 2) records a treaty in 348, and (ix. 43. 26) states that in 306 a foedus was tertio renouatum; and somewhere in book xiii (ep. 13), under 279/8, he spoke of quarto foedus renouatum. Further, in ix. 19. 13 he speaks of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> being united, at the time of Alexander, foederibus uetustis, which suggests something more and something earlier than the treaty of 348; if he here understands a treaty in 509, it will have been tertio and quarto renouatum in 306 and 279/8. Since the time of Mommsen attempts have been made to correlate the treaties in P. and in Livy. Mommsen (Röm. Chron. 320 ff.) wished to reject P.'s date for P.I, and identify this with the Livian treaty of 348; P.II was then dated 306 and equated with that which Livy described as tertio renouatum. Against this, Nissen (Jahrb., 1867, 321–32) accepted P.'s date for P.I and 348 for P.II, and took Livy's renewal of 306 to be the original of P.III <milestone unit="page" n="337">[337]</milestone> without the conditions of 25. 3–5. Later scholars have in the main followed one or other of these views. P.I is dated to the first year of the republic by Ed. Meyer, Altheim, Gelzer, Gsell, Strachan-Davidson, Lenschau, Last, Scullard, Sherwin-White, Beaumont, Wickert, and Scevola, and to 348 by De Sanctis, Kornemann, Tubler, Rosenberg, Kahrstedt, Cary, Hasebroek, Schachermeyr, Meltzer, Unger, Soltau, Schur, and von Scala (bibliography below). To the writer P.'s date seems more likely to be right. For a defence of this view see H. Last, CAH, vii. 859–62. Attempts to find new and more decisive arguments by R. L. Beaumont (JRS, 1939, 74–86) and L. Wickert (Klio, 1938, 349–64) are to some extent contradictory and cannot be adjudged successful. Detailed criticism is reserved to the commentary. (b) Text of the treaties. On P.'s probable source cf. 21. 9–10 n. In a detailed examination of the diplomatic form of the treaties Tubler (254–76) has shown that P.'s immediate source cannot have been oral; and he argues that we have the text from a written source in a fairly complete form. However, it must be remembered that the originals were in Latin, and in the case of P.I, very old and difficult Latin. P. or his intermediary had to turn them into Greek and certain passages may well have been misunderstood; some parts P. only claims to summarize (e.g. 25. 2); the preliminaries are omitted; thus in 25. 6 ff. the oaths are retailed separately; in three places (23. 3, 23. 4, 24. 16) P.'s commentary implies something not included in his text. Consequently P.'s text may not be treated as anything like a verbatim record; yet it is much more than a summary (so Meltzer, i. 173 f., 520). For example, contrary to his usual practice (cf. Hultsch, Phil., 1859, 288–319; and works by Benseler, Brief, Bttner-Wobst, and Schlachter listed in Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (1)', cols. 1571–2), P. in these documents allows himself hiatus. (c) Context and significance of the treaties. For the historical background see the detailed commentary. The first two are general treaties defining a modus vivendi between two states, of which one was mainly interested in commerce, the other primarily in her political relationship with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Latium&groupId=673&placeId=1231">Latium</a>. See F. Altheim (Epochen, i. 99– 100) for the significance of this distinction for the historical character of the two states. The third treaty contains a specifically political agreement relative to a common enemy, Pyrrhus. All three correspond to the relationship existing between the two states at the time of the compact. (d) Bibliography. The most important works are listed in CAH, vii (1928), 914, § 6; F. Schachermeyr, Rh. Mus., 1930, 350 n. 1; and <milestone unit="page" n="338">[338]</milestone> F. Altheim, Epochen, i. 99 n. 17; add R. L. Beaumont and L. Wickert (quoted under (a) above); W. Hoffmann, Rom und die griechische Welt im 4. Jahrhundert (Phil. Suppl.-B. xxvii. 1, 1935), 1–17; T. Frank, ES, i. 6–8, 35–37; E. Rupprecht, Klio, 1939, 106–8; Maria Luisa Scevola, Athen., 1943, 122–4. The treaties are studied from the point of view of private law by M. David, Symbolae . . . van Oven dedicatae (Leiden, 1946), 231–50. Aymard, REA, 1957, 277–93, argues that II represents a mere set of amendments to I, despite the structural difference, and that hence arguments as to the date based on supposed differences in the relations between <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Latium&groupId=673&placeId=1231">Latium</a> in the two are invalid; since a long gap between I and II is improbable, I can hardly date to 509. He is inclined to date both I and II to the fourth century before <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> acquired Campania. This excludes identification of I and II with treaties referred to by Livy, since by 306 Campania would have to be mentioned. Hampl, Rh. Mus. 1958, 50–75, dates I to 509, the second Polybian treaty before 348 and Philinus' treaty to 306. See also Cassola, 84–88 who has the same dates; A. J. Toynbee, Hannibal's Legacy, i. 519–55, bibliography on 571–2; R. Werner, Der Beginn der röm. Republik, 297–368. Toynbee argues that P. I, P. II, and P. III are c. 509, 348, and 279/8, but, with Nissen, he identifies 'Philinus' treaty' with that of 306 (Livy, ix. 43. 26); it would have been impossible to make a treaty in 279/8 simply repeating the terms of that of 348 except for the stipulations mentioned in 25. 3–5. Werner dates P. I to just after 472–470, when he thinks the monarchy ended and the republic began. Some support is given to the early dating of P. I by the discovery at Pyrgi (Santa-Severa) of one Punic and two Etruscan inscriptions on gold sheets, which apparently date to around 500 B.C., and represent a dedication to Astarte, identified with Etruscan Uni, by Thefarie Velianas, king of Caere. See M. Pallottino and G. Garbini, Archeologia Classica, 1964, 69 f.; recent bibliography in J. M. Reynolds, JRS, 1966, 116–17, n. 3; J. Heurgon, ibid. 1–15 (also discussing a fourth, bronze, sheet with an inscription in Etruscan). On the chronology of the treaties P.I and P.II see Petzold, Aufstieg und Niedergang, i. 1. 364–411; he relates them to the foedus Cassianum, opting for an early date for P.I and a mid-fourth-century date for P.II (after the renewal of the foedus Cassianum). For other recent discussion of the treaties see the bibliography in Musti, Aufstieg und Niedergang, i. 2. 1136–40.

3.24.1 - 3.24.3

Introduction to the second treaty. If P.I dates to 509, then P.II (to which he assigns no date) is probably identical with Livy's <milestone unit="page" n="345">[345]</milestone> and Diodorus' first treaty (Livy, vii. 27. 2; Diod. xvi. 69. 1), and to be dated to 348. But if Mommsen is right in dating P.I to 348, P.II must be the foedus tertio renouatum of Livy, ix. 43. 26 (306). However, there can scarcely have been towns in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Latium&groupId=673&placeId=1231">Latium</a> not subject to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (24. 5) in 306 after the Samnite struggle and the Roman conquest of the coast from Caere to Campania (Meyer, Kl. Schr. ii. 296); nor is it likely that a treaty made in 306 would have contained no stipulations about the protection of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Etruria&groupId=582&placeId=1089">Etruria</a> and Campania, closely related to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> since 343 and 310 (Lake Vadimo) respectively. The construction of the Via Appia by 308 puts the seal on Roman control to the south; cf. Last, CAH, vii. 861. It has been argued that the Campanians are included in the <w lang="el-GR">σύμμαχοι</w> of § 3 (Schachermeyr, Rh. Mus., 1930, 377 ff.); but this would still leave unexplained the separate mention of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Latium&groupId=673&placeId=1231">Latium</a> in § 5. See Werner in Bengtson, SVA, ii. no. 326; C. Marek, Chiron, 1977, 1–7.

3.24.3 - 3.24.13

The second treaty. Set out by Tubler (255; comment, 260 ff.). Unlike P.I this is arranged item by item, with both parties mentioned in each. Tubler notes that §§ 8–10 form a <w lang="el-GR">σύμβολον περὶ τοῦ μὴ ἀδικεῖν</w>, such as were a feature of treaties drawn up between <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> and the Etrurian towns (Arist. Pol. iii. 9. 6–7, 1280 a 36 ff.). An example of this kind of contract, which probably originated at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Tyre&groupId=1053&placeId=1855">Tyre</a>, is the treaty between Assarhadon of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Assyria&groupId=375&placeId=707">Assyria</a> and his vassal Blu of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Tyre&groupId=1053&placeId=1855">Tyre</a>, 677 (Langdon, Rev. d'Ass., 1929, 189–94); see Laqueur (Hermes, 1936, 469–72), who compares Herodotus' account (ii. 115) of how Proteus of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Memphis&groupId=752&placeId=1371">Memphis</a>, who lived in a <w lang="el-GR">Τυρίων στρατόπεδον</w>, treated Alexander precisely as is provided for in Assarhadon's treaty. The scheme of the treaty is: (1) (a) Limits within which the Romans may not plunder, trade, or colonize. (b) (i) If the Carthaginians take any Latin town not subject to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> they may keep the men and goods, but must surrender the town to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>. (ii) The Carthaginians shall not bring prisoners taken from states allied with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> into Roman ports; the Romans to do likewise in regard to Punic ports. (2) (a) The Romans are not to abuse the right of provisioning to harm an ally of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>. (b) The Carthaginians are not to abuse the right of provisioning to harm an ally of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>. (3) Special conditions of intercourse. (a) For the Romans (i) in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sardinia&groupId=947&placeId=1685">Sardinia</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Libya&groupId=686&placeId=427">Libya</a>, (ii) in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a>. (b) For the Carthaginians at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>. This arrangement by categories, typical of Greek treaties (Schachermeyr, Rh. Mus., 1930, 362 ff.), suggests Carthaginian drafting. M. Sordi, I rapporti romano-ceriti e l'origine della 'civitas sine suffragio' (<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, 1960), 100–22, uses the evidence of this treaty to throw light on the early stages of civitas sine suffragio. <milestone unit="page" n="346">[346]</milestone>

3.24.5 - 3.24.5

Carthaginian attacks on <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Latium&groupId=673&placeId=1231">Latium</a>. The reference is to piracy, not war (cf. Meltzer, i. 339; Gsell, iii. 70); and, granted the date 348, the treaty will apply especially to Antium, against which tradition records Roman wars in 386 and 377 (Livy, vi. 6–8, 32), and a triumph <milestone unit="page" n="347">[347]</milestone> de Volscis Antiatibus in 346 (act. tr.; cf. Livy, vii. 27); it lost its independence in 341–338 (Livy, viii. 14. 8). See Gelzer, RE, '<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Latium&groupId=673&placeId=1231">Latium</a>', col. 961; Altheim, Epochen, i. 193. (*p. 636.) This clause is paralleled in the treaty between Aetolia and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (cf. ix. 39. 3 n.; Livy, xxvi. 24. 11), as Larsen, CP, 1958, 249, observes.

3.24.14 - 3.24.16

Commentary on the second treaty.

Specifics

3.24.3 - 3.24.3

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">Τυρίων καὶ Ἰτυκαίων δήμῳ</w>:</emph> the inclusion of Utica among the allies of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> marks an extension of her power since 509. On the privileged position of Utica (here more nominal than real) see Meltzer (ii. 76–77); it continued after the reduction of Utica in the Mercenary War (i. 88. 3–4; vii. 9. 5). The reference to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Tyre&groupId=1053&placeId=1855">Tyre</a> creates a problem, for an alliance with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> seems improbable if the Syrian city is meant (though in that case no argument can be drawn as to the date of the treaty, since despite Alexander's destruction in 332, <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Tyre&groupId=1053&placeId=1855">Tyre</a> was already sufficiently recovered in 310 to receive gifts from her daughter-city of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> (Diod. xx. 14. 1): see Gsell (iii. 70 n. 6)). However, this sense has been questioned. Hirschfeld (Rh. Mus., 1896, 475) emended <w lang="el-GR">Τυρίων</w> to <w lang="el-GR">κυρίων</w> (cf. vii. 9. 5); and Beloch (Klio, i. 284) would omit <w lang="el-GR">καί</w> (cf. Tubler, 257). But any such emendation is ruled out by § 1; and it seems more likely (cf. Kahrstedt, Gött. Nachr., 1923, 100) that the phrase conceals a misunderstanding of a Punic expression 'the Tyrians of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>', their official title (cf. Ehrenberg (Karthago, 25), who also suggests that the name <w lang="el-GR">Κύριοι Καρχηδόνιοι</w> (vii. 9. 5) was adopted after the destruction of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Tyre&groupId=1053&placeId=1855">Tyre</a>).

3.24.4 - 3.24.4

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">Μαστί?ας Ταρσηίου</w>:</emph> variously translated as '<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Mastia&groupId=741&placeId=1353">Mastia</a> in Tarsis', '<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Mastia&groupId=741&placeId=1353">Mastia</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Tarseum&groupId=1006&placeId=1770">Tarseum</a>' (so P. takes them in 24. 2), and '<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Tarseum&groupId=1006&placeId=1770">Tarseum</a> in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Mastia&groupId=741&placeId=1353">Mastia</a>'. <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Mastia&groupId=741&placeId=1353">Mastia</a> is usually assumed to connect with the <w lang="el-GR">Μαστιανοί</w> (33. 9; cf. Steph. Byz. <w lang="el-GR">Μαστιανοί, ἔθνος πρὸς ταῖς Ἡρακλείαις στήλαις Ἑκαταῖος Εὐρώπῃ. εἴρηται δὲ ἀπὸ Μαστίας πόλεως)</w>, and it has been suggested that it occupied the site of the later <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=New Carthage&groupId=791&placeId=1430">New Carthage</a>; cf. Avien. Or. mar. 451–2, 'sinuque in imo surgit altis moenibus urbs Massiena'; Schulten, RE, 'Massieni', col. 2153. However interpreted, <w lang="el-GR">Ταρσηίον</w> seems to be connected with Tarshish; and Meltzer (i. 520) proposed <w lang="el-GR">Μαστία Ταρσηίων</w>, '<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Mastia&groupId=741&placeId=1353">Mastia</a> of the Tartessians'. It has been plausibly suggested by L. Wickert (Klio, 1938, 354–6) that P. has misunderstood an archaic Latin genitive plural, Mastiam Tarseiom. It is significant that Avienus (Or. mar. 462), after mentioning the R. Tader (modern Segura), just north of Cartagena, adds 'hic terminus quondam stetit Tartessiorum'. That P. knew where '<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Mastia&groupId=741&placeId=1353">Mastia</a> of the Tartessians' lay is dubious; and Schweighaeuser may well be representing P.'s own belief in describing <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Mastia&groupId=741&placeId=1353">Mastia</a> as 'Africae (ut uidetur) oppidum, etc.', for P. appears to regard the town (or towns) as lying near the Fair Promontory. The effect of this clause was to exclude the Romans and their allies from any kind of naval enterprise in the western Mediterranean (though the formula would permit accidental landings subject presumably to the limitations laid down in § 11).

3.24.6 - 3.24.6

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πρὸς οὓς εἰρήνη μέν ἐστιν ἒγγραπτος Ῥωμαίοις</w>:</emph> primarily the Latin towns of Tibur and Praeneste, which had separate treaties as foederati (Livy, vi. 29. 7; Diod, xvi. 45. 8 (Praeneste); Oxyr. Chron. (Bilabel, 12), 4–7, under Ol. 106, 3 (Tibur)); Lanuvium, which was independent till 338, would probably come under § 5. See Gelzer, RE, '<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Latium&groupId=673&placeId=1231">Latium</a>', col. 960; Sherwin-White, 29. In addition, these independent towns probably include allied states such as <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Massilia&groupId=739&placeId=1351">Massilia</a>, Tarentum, Tarquinii, and Caere; for the treaty implies that some at least of these allies have sea communications with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>. See further Schachermeyr (Rh. Mus., 1930, 374). Tubler (275), who dates P.II to 306, explains the absence of any reference to the people of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Samnium&groupId=943&placeId=1678">Samnium</a> and Campania by the hypothesis that they are included partly among the <w lang="el-GR">ὑπήκοοι</w> (implied by § 5, <w lang="el-GR">μὴ οὖσα ὑπήκοος)</w> and partly here; but his date is unconvincing. On the possible international complications if slaves taken from allied states entered Roman ports see Schachermeyr (ibid. 375). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐὰν δὲ . . . ἐπιλάβηται ὁ Ῥωμαῖος</w>:</emph> if the treaty is of Carthaginian drafting, this evidently represents some Carthaginian practice; but it is clearly parallel to the Roman custom of manumission per uindictam, in which the assertor libertatis, usually a magistrate's lictor touched the slave with a rod and declared him free (cf. A. Duff, Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire (Oxford, 1928), 23), though the present ceremony is distinguished by the use of the hand and, apparently, the absence of any formula (cf. David, Symbolae . . . van Oven, 242–3). Paton (ad loc.) suggests that the Roman 'claims him as his slave'; but this would involve a subsequent legal fiction of manumission, and seems improbable.

3.24.10 - 3.24.10

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">εἰ δέ, μὴ ἰδίᾳ μεταπορευέσθω</w>:</emph> 'if Roman or Carthaginian break the <w lang="el-GR">σύμβολον περὶ τοῦ μὴ ἀδικεῖν</w> (cf. 24. 3–13 n.), the other party shall not take private vengeance'; cf. ii. 8. 10, <w lang="el-GR">τὰ κατ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἰδίαν ἀδικήματα κοινῇ μεταπορεύεσθαι</w>. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐὰν δέ τις τοῦτο ποιήσῃ, δημόσιον γενέσθω τὸ ἀδίκημα</w>:</emph> 'but if anyone does break the <w lang="el-GR">σύμβολον</w>, the wrong shall be a matter for state adjustment <w lang="el-GR">(δημόσιον)</w>'. Paton translates 'the aggrieved party shall not take private vengeance, and if he do, his wrong-doing shall be public' (whatever that may mean). But the clause surely gives in positive form the procedure in the case of a breach of the <w lang="el-GR">σύμβολον</w>, not the sanction to be applied to the man who has taken the law into his own hands. There is no real parallel between this clause and that in 22. 9.

3.24.11 - 3.24.11

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐν Σαρδόνι καὶ Λιβύῃ</w>:</emph> <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sardinia&groupId=947&placeId=1685">Sardinia</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Libya&groupId=686&placeId=427">Libya</a>, which were open to trade on certain conditions in P.I, are now completely closed to the <milestone unit="page" n="348">[348]</milestone> Romans; the lacuna after <w lang="el-GR">κτιζέτω</w> (first detected by Casaubon) must have contained words meaning something like 'nor to land for any other purpose', and there may also have been a reference to piracy (cf. § 4); cf. Wickert, Klio, 1938, 362 n. 3. The Punic province in <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sicily&groupId=973&placeId=1724">Sicily</a> is still open (§ 12); on <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a> itself see 23. 4 n.

3.24.14 - 3.24.14

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">προσεπιτείνουσιν ἐξιδιαζόμενοι</w>:</emph> 'they insist with great stringency on their claim' (Strachan-Davidson); cf. i. 63. 2. The <w lang="el-GR">ἐπιβάθραι</w>, 'approaches', which they deny to the Romans, are probably <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Libya&groupId=686&placeId=427">Libya</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sardinia&groupId=947&placeId=1685">Sardinia</a> themselves, regarded as approaches to the Punic sphere of influence; cf. xvi. 29. 1–2, <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Abydus&groupId=268&placeId=523">Abydus</a> and near-by towns are <w lang="el-GR">ἐπιβάθραι</w> to Asia. Paton and Shuckburgh take the <w lang="el-GR">ἐπιβάθραι</w> to be landingplaces on the islands.

3.24.16 - 3.24.16

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Ῥωμαῖοι περὶ τῆς Λατίνης</w>:</emph> 'similarly the Romans concern themselves with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Latium&groupId=673&placeId=1231">Latium</a>'; cf. 23. 6. In adducing the <w lang="el-GR">σύμβολον</w> of §§ 8–10 as if it referred to the coastal towns of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Latium&groupId=673&placeId=1231">Latium</a> P. appears to be erroneously quoting from the earlier treaty (22. 11); and this is possible, for he is here concerned with features he believes to be common to both documents. There is no good reason for treating the sentences <w lang="el-GR">οὐκ οἴονται . . . τὰς σύνθηκας</w> as a non-Polybian interpolation (so Rupprecht, Klio, 1939, 106–8), especially in view of P.'s other blunders in his commentary on the treaties. The phrase <w lang="el-GR">ὑπὲρ ἧς</w>, which Rupprecht finds awkward (op. cit. 107, 'die Römer schliessen die Vertrge nicht fr <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Latium&groupId=673&placeId=1231">Latium</a>, sondern fr sich und ihre Bundesgenossen') is a common Polybian synonym for <w lang="el-GR">περὶ ἧς</w>.

Addenda & corrigenda

3.22.0 - 3.25.0

<emph rend="bold">22–25.</emph> Chronology of the Carthaginian treaties. Aymard, REA, 1957, 277–93, argues that II represents a mere set of amendments to I, despite the structural difference, and that hence arguments as to the date based on supposed differences in the relations between <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Latium&groupId=673&placeId=1231">Latium</a> in the two are invalid; since a long gap between I and II is improbable, I can hardly date to 509. He is inclined to date both I and II to the fourth century before <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> acquired Campania. This excludes identification of I and II with treaties referred to by Livy, since by 306 Campania would have to be mentioned. Hampl, Rh. Mus. 1958, 50–75, dates I to 509, the second Polybian treaty before 348 and Philinus' treaty to 306. See also Cassola, 84–88 who has the same dates; A. J. Toynbee, Hannibal's Legacy, i. 519–55, bibliography on 571–2; R. Werner, Der Beginn der röm. Republik, 297–368. Toynbee argues that P. I, P. II, and P. III are c. 509, 348, and 279/8, but, with Nissen, he identifies 'Philinus' treaty' with that of 306 (Livy, ix. 43. 26); it would have been impossible to make a treaty in 279/8 simply repeating the terms of that of 348 except for the stipulations mentioned in 25. 3–5. Werner dates P. I to just after 472–470, when he thinks the monarchy ended and the republic began. Some support is given to the early dating of P. I by the discovery at Pyrgi (Santa-Severa) of one Punic and two Etruscan inscriptions on gold sheets, which apparently date to around 500 B.C., and represent a dedication to Astarte, identified with Etruscan Uni, by Thefarie Velianas, king of Caere. See M. Pallottino and G. Garbini, Archeologia Classica, 1964, 69 f.; recent bibliography in J. M. Reynolds, JRS, 1966, 116–17, n. 3; J. Heurgon, ibid. 1–15 (also discussing a fourth, bronze, sheet with an inscription in Etruscan).

3.24.3 - 3.24.13

M. Sordi, I rapporti romano-ceriti e l'origine della 'civitas sine suffragio' (<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, 1960), 100–22, uses the evidence of this treaty to throw light on the early stages of civitas sine suffragio.

3.24.3 - 3.24.3

p. 347, l. 5, for 'vii. 4. 5' read 'vii. 9. 5'.

3.24.5 - 3.24.5

this clause is paralleled in the treaty between Aetolia and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (cf. ix. 39. 3 n.; Livy, xxvi. 24. 11), as Larsen, CP, 1958, 249, observes.

3.22.0 - 3.25.0

on the chronology of the treaties P.I and P.II see Petzold, Aufstieg und Niedergang, i. 1. 364–411; he relates them to the foedus Cassianum, opting for an early date for P.I and a mid-fourth-century date for P.II (after the renewal of the foedus Cassianum). For other recent discussion of the treaties see the bibliography in Musti, Aufstieg und Niedergang, i. 2. 1136–40.

3.24.1 - 3.24.3

<emph rend="bold">24. 1–3.</emph> The second treaty between <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Carthage&groupId=441&placeId=820">Carthage</a>: see Werner in Bengtson, SVA, ii. no. 326; C. Marek, Chiron, 1977, 1–7.

Polybius, Histories

Bibliography

Archaeology

Places

Walbank Commentary

Commentary